A heated debate between backward paddling snobs (rowers) and whitewater paddle enthusiats over the demolition of Argo Dam in Ann Arbor, Michigan has been raging for years now.
A resevoir exists for the rowing teams to practice on , but the dam is quickly dying as it's old and in desperate need for repair / demolition. As Michigan has little elevation to begin with, a whitewater paddle park would bring in people from nearby states resulting in eco-tourism.

Let's hear your views on the topic.

For disclosure purposes I am the parent of three rowers and took up rowing myself, along with my wife, two years ago. I have also kayaked and canoed along parts of the Huron and in many of the lakes in Michigan, but primarily I am a rower now.

A few items that you should be aware of regarding the Argo dam/pond issue:

The dam is not old, it was completely rebuilt in 1972 and is in fact the newest dam on the Huron river.

The maintenance issue is in regard to a mill race that flows to the side of the dam and allows kayakers and canoeists to get around the dam, the actual concrete dam is not in need of maintenance. Closing the mill race is the least expensive solution but leaves a difficult portage and is not supported by either side. Currently the MDEQ has ordered the city to close the mill race and this order is being contested by the city.

The mill race repair is estimated to cost approximately $300,000, the dam removal is estimated to cost $1.3 million. These numbers do not include future maintenance if the dam stays or re-landscaping, mitigation of a possible polluted silt behind the dam and the mitigation of river erosion though a very polluted piece of property if the dam is removed. The erosion issue is currently not a problem because the dam redirects the river flow.

The rowers on this body of water are made up of four groups, the U of M Mens club team (not funded by U of M), three public school varsity teams (Huron High School, Pioneer High School and Skyline High School) and the Ann Arbor Rowing Club. The majority of rowers are from the high school teams, all three high school teams are "no cut - everyone rows." The Huron and Pioneer crew teams are the largest varsity teams in either school (Skyline's team is much smaller as they just started rowing this fall, they have their first race this weekend in Wyandotte MI ) with approximately 70 to 80 kids on each team (coed). I believe Huron and Pioneer are still the largest high schools in Michigan. We are talking high participation kid sports here and the parents of these kids are the ones putting up the strongest argument to keep the dam, most parents are not rowers and these families span the diverse economic population that is Ann Arbor.

There is not a viable alternative for the high school teams to row if Argo dam is removed. Dam out supporters point to Gallup park and Barton pond, both on the Huron. Gallup park is full of islands and heavily used by other recreational boaters and Barton Pond has little access and no room for boat houses. Both of these "alternatives" are also too short and narrow for rowers to train and do not have the room for multiple teams to practice on at the same time. Argo can handle three teams at once so long as Pioneer and Huron are not on at the same time.

Because the Huron river will still be damed 3k up river and 2.5k down river from the current Argo dam location, it is estimated that the river flow will only be suitable for fast water paddling for approximately four to six weeks a year. The rowers currently use Argo pond from March through October six or seven days a week (all the crew teams are practicing through this week).

This body of water is currently used by many canoeists, kayakers and fishermen who enjoy the ability of entering and leaving from the same point. Many of these people have actively participated to keep the dam and have no connection to rowing. In fact there is every increasing and louder support outside of the rowing community in favor of keeping the dam.

I have copied the following statement from another thread regarding this topic at Annarbor.com, the poster is both a rower and a fast water kayaker. This was in response to another fast water paddler that wanted the dam removed.

"If you really want to have an amazing paddling venue, please gather your folks together, and let's all work on taking out the Peninsular dam in Ypsilanti . . . but I've yet to see the paddling local community unite around that possibility, even though the city of Ypsilanti is interested in the possibility, and the US Canoe/Kayak federation seems to have indicated that it could be the site of a quite serious and reliable white water venue.

So, please, keep paddling the Huron, but don't force the rest of us off it so you can. Unlike most paddlers, we're out there every day, six days a week, and it's not something we do alone or in a small group. We can't simply go to Lansing, Flint, Jackson, Detroit, Windsor, and even Toledo just to search for water to train by throwing our boats on top of our cars."

Thanks for bringing the topic up, I believe that there are solutions that would satisfy both fast and slow water interests on the Huron and not exclude anyone from pursuing their sport. These solutions would make the Huron a fast water paddling and slow water rowing destination (there is a regatta held on Argo pond every year with about 700 rowers participating, they come from all over the Midwest and Canada), something I think everyone can agree Michigan could use more of.

Michael Psarouthakis joined STRICTLY to promote rowing backwards in a shell

Michael has been a Playak member since Thursday, 29 October 2009 01:52
(he has no real interest in kayaking as you can clearly see )

People are willing to pay a premium for locations with high quality green & blue infrastructure i.e. recreational areas have significant impact on property values. High quality natural and environmental amenities attract commercial development , jobs, and people. They help support the quality of life of local residents and foster community attachment.

Talent and innovation are sources of new local and regional economic growth.
Talent tends to migrate to places with significant green & blue infrastructure;
jobs tend to follow people, who follow green infrastructure quality.

As part of a long-term strategy, green & blue infrastructure can be leveraged to enhance
local economic viability and sustainability at the same time.

Removal of the dam would allow a torrent of paddlers in canoe and kayaks to enjoy a resource that is selfishly monopolized by ONE particular select group of rowers who paddle backwards

Open the dam so ALL can enjoy the river !


Argo Dam is bad for the Huron River. It slows the natural flow of current, warms
the water, and reduces its oxygen content, which hurts fish, bugs, and the rest of the
river ecosystem. The pond behind the dam is also filling in with sediment and invasive
weeds, further degrading the river’s quality, hindering animal life and entangling boats,
paddles, fishing lines, and swimmers.

Removing Argo Dam will immediately and dramatically improve the Huron’s health.
Free-flowing water provides better habitat for fish and wildlife, restores native plants,
and helps keep invasive species out. Cooler, faster flowing water is not as hospitable
to invasive plants and animals. It will also reduce the impact of pollutants such as
phosphorus, which presents a significant threat to the Huron.

When the water level drops after the dam is removed, a full 30 acres of land will emerge.
The City already owns it. The result: a large river-front park on the northern gateway to the City. More green space within city limits. New running paths and fun paddling without the portage. Natural buffers to protect the river from pollution. A revitalized North Main corridor for Ann Arbor.

Argo Dam is an expensive relic. No dam was ever meant to be permanent. Repairing
Argo Dam as the MDEQ demands will cost a whopping $300,000-$500,000.
Beyond that, every year the City must pay to maintain the dam and take care
of Argo Pond and pay insurance for the massive liability of a potential dam failure
— the total YEARLY annual cost to keep the dam: $60,000.

Beyond that, every decade or so, the City must replace the dam’s chains, gates, and other major components at around $250,000—a cost that will come due soon.
That’s a looming $550,000 - $750,000 hit on the City budget,
over and above the $60,000 in annual costs.

Financial aid exist for the one time cost of dam removal in federal stimulus package
and state parks funds —but none of it can be used for dam maintenance.

Rowers, who benefit the most from keeping Argo Dam and Pond,
pay none of these expenses.

Please see replies in italics below:

Michael Psarouthakis joined STRICTLY to promote rowing backwards in a shell
If I recall correctly kayakers also go backwards on occasion, you should get over which direction people are facing when they are in a boat.


Michael has been a Playak member since Thursday, 29 October 2009 01:52
(he has no real interest in kayaking as you can clearly see ).

I joined to reply to your post so members could see both sides of the issue, I clearly stated my interest at the beginning of the post, nothing to hide here. I would love to see a hybrid solution or the Ypsi dam removed and turned into a white water park and I would definitely give those facilities a try. I love being on the water.

People are willing to pay a premium for locations with high quality green & blue infrastructure i.e. recreational areas have significant impact on property values. High quality natural and environmental amenities attract commercial development , jobs, and people. They help support the quality of life of local residents and foster community attachment.

Talent and innovation are sources of new local and regional economic growth.
Talent tends to migrate to places with significant green & blue infrastructure;
jobs tend to follow people, who follow green infrastructure quality.

As part of a long-term strategy, green & blue infrastructure can be leveraged to enhance
local economic viability and sustainability at the same time.

Removal of the dam would allow a torrent of paddlers in canoe and kayaks to enjoy a resource that is selfishly monopolized by ONE particular select group of rowers who paddle backwards.

True, and it is why the rowing community pays to be in the location they are currently, yes we pay for the boat house space and the vast majority of rowers are city residents and pay a lot of taxes for our parks including Argo.

In addition jobs are dependent on rowing, coaches, and rowing currently generates revenues from membership dues, the MCI regatta etc.

The residents around Argo Park are overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the dam in place and consider it beautiful blue and green space now. Ann Arbor citizens pay a premium to live in Ann Arbor now.

There has been no concrete numbers on how many paddlers in canoes and kayaks would come, but is highly unlikely that the number would come close to the number of rowers, kayakers and canoeists that use Argo pond now.


Will, have you even paid the park a visit? The park is beautiful by all accounts..

Open the dam so ALL can enjoy the river !

All but the 600 rowers who currently use it and also maintain Argo pond at no cost to the city In fact the city's most profitable canoe livery is located on Argo pond, many renters don't go down stream, they park and paddle the pond and can then dock at the same location. The thousands of canoe and kayak paddlers that enjoy slow water would also be put out by dam removal for the exclusive part time interest of fast water paddlers.


Argo Dam is bad for the Huron River. It slows the natural flow of current, warms
the water, and reduces its oxygen content, which hurts fish, bugs, and the rest of the
river ecosystem. The pond behind the dam is also filling in with sediment and invasive
weeds, further degrading the river’s quality, hindering animal life and entangling boats,
paddles, fishing lines, and swimmers.

It has been clearly shown by studies of Argo pond that their is no sediment build up behind Argo dam, this is occuring behind Barton dam just up stream. Barton dam provides 80% of Ann Arbor's drinking water and as a result will not be removed.

In fact, current initial temperature measurements show that Argo pond is slightly cooler than upstream Barton pond. More precise measurements are expected shortly.

Calling this stretch of the Huron a free flowing river if Argo dam is removed is a major exaggeration. Just under two miles upstream is Barton Dam, and about the same distance down stream is Gallup dam. It has been documented that the flow from Barton dam during late summer drops to zero, meaning no flowing water through Argo park so no one will be able to recreate on the river..

Removing Argo Dam will immediately and dramatically improve the Huron’s health.
Free-flowing water provides better habitat for fish and wildlife, restores native plants,
and helps keep invasive species out. Cooler, faster flowing water is not as hospitable
to invasive plants and animals. It will also reduce the impact of pollutants such as
phosphorus, which presents a significant threat to the Huron.

As stated previously this will not be free flowing water if Argo dam is removed. If significant and expensive landscaping is not included in the plan to remove Argo dam, it will in fact be a breeding nirvana for shore based invasive species. Remove all the dams and you have a point about the phosphorus and pollutants, but in fact Argo pond is the only certified safe swimming water on the Huron in Ann Arbor.

When the water level drops after the dam is removed, a full 30 acres of land will emerge.
The City already owns it. The result: a large river-front park on the northern gateway to the City. More green space within city limits. New running paths and fun paddling without the portage. Natural buffers to protect the river from pollution. A revitalized North Main corridor for Ann Arbor.

There is a beautiful park their now, with running paths, a BMX bike park and literally thousands of users. Removing the dam will likely reduce the recreational usage of Argo. The costs to expand and relandscape the park to the newly exposed land will be very expensive and is not included in any cost analysis on dam removal.

Argo Dam is an expensive relic. No dam was ever meant to be permanent. Repairing
Argo Dam as the MDEQ demands will cost a whopping $300,000-$500,000.
Beyond that, every year the City must pay to maintain the dam and take care
of Argo Pond and pay insurance for the massive liability of a potential dam failure
— the total YEARLY annual cost to keep the dam: $60,000.

Beyond that, every decade or so, the City must replace the dam’s chains, gates, and other major components at around $250,000—a cost that will come due soon.
That’s a looming $550,000 - $750,000 hit on the City budget,
over and above the $60,000 in annual costs.

Financial aid exist for the one time cost of dam removal in federal stimulus package
and state parks funds —but none of it can be used for dam maintenance.

As stated previously the dam does not need repair, it is the mill race next to the dam that needs the $300,000 repair you are referring to.

Removing the dam alone will cost $1.3 million. There is no federal or state funding for the removal of an urban damed river that will still have dams a short distance up and down stream of the dam being removed. This $1.3 million does not include the cost of relandscaping the park, the possible mitigation of polluted silt behind the dam from long ago historic uses, redirecting the river to avoid eroding the badly polluted Michcon property that is just beyond the dam or rebuilding a bridge to cross the river so land park users can access all parts of the park (Argo dam currently fills this purpose as well).

If you want to make a pure cash flow argument, keeping the dam, closing the mill race is the slam dunk winner. If you close the mill race estimated to cost about $50,000 to $150,000 much of the maintenance costs you refer to are reduced.

Rowers, who benefit the most from keeping Argo Dam and Pond,
pay none of these expenses.

This is completely false. All Ann Arbor citizens pay for all the parks and recreational facilities in Ann Arbor. The vast majority of rowers live, go to school or work in Ann Arbor. I pay through my taxes for the softball diamonds, hockey rinks and parks in Ann Arbor that I have never used. The costs are spread out to everyone making for a wonderful community and allowing for diverse opportunities for recreation. The same goes for Argo, except for the cost of leasing the land where the boat houses are located, which is fully paid for by rowers. If you are proposing that rowers pay for all the maintenance of Argo park or even the dam, following this model then baseball players must pay the full costs of their diamonds, hockey players for their rinks, golfers for the two city golf courses etc. I imagine many of these facilities would be closed as a result.

You are talking about major disruption and possibly the end of two mayor varsity high school teams for the part time increased use of primarily non Ann Arbor residents use. This is not justified especially when there is a viable community supported dam removal, fast water project just east of Ann Arbor in Ypsilanti.

FYI, The cost of relocating, if possible, of the crew teams has not been considered in any of the dam out proposals.

The people that actually pay for Argo Park and the maintenance of Argo dam, the citizens of Ann Arbor, have overwhelming shown their support to keep Argo dam in place. In fact Will you would not foot any of the costs since you don't live in Ann Arbor. Is the fast water Kayak community willing to pay for the costs of removing the dam and other issues mentioned, I would guess not.

If you really want fast water in Washtenaw county then lets all get behind removal of the Ypsilanti dam that no one is opposing. That way all of us rowers, kayakers and canoeists can use the Huron river together.

There are hundreds of dam removal sites across the country that show success stories of vital river renaissance with increased kayaking, canoeing, restaurants, river walks, etc.

Science has shown serious negative effects from dams because they interfere with the most basic process of a river - to flow. Dams impede a river's flushing function and prevent sediment and nutrients from flowing downstream. They block movement of fish and other species. They interfere with water oxygenation, and they effect water temperature, turbidity, and even salinity, without regard to the needs of fish, mussels, bugs, and plants that make up the ecology of the river system. Argo Dam spans almost 2,000 feet, sitting on what used to be high-gradient rapids.

The specific interests of one recreational user group seem seem far outweighed by the environmental benefits and other recreational benefits that will accrue from dam removal.

Ann Arbor Rowing Club only has about 100 active members at any given time.
It's not like everyone just runs out and buys a Vespoli or Peinert BUT tons of local
people do buy kayaks and canoes to paddle the local waters.

Why maintain a venue for a single interest group . ?
Invest in a river that can be an ecological and recreational asset .

I do paddle often in the Ann Arbor area as do 1,000's other local paddlers

One example of paddling the Huron in AnnArbor near Barton Pond
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4672914149930267547#

In fact I paddle quite a bit all around SouthEastern Michigan
So do 1,000's of other local paddlers who outnumber rowers 100 to 1

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4226364769075631037

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2888318540592134799

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2458628678620413248

www.youtube.com/user/WilliH2O

The Huron River is safe water, when it flows......
- Liz Elling swam 100 miles of the Huron River in 2007
arborwiki.org/city/Liz_Elling

Will
Ann Arbor Rowing Club actually has about 150 active rowers and the high school teams and UM Men's team bring that number up to 550 to 600 active rowers on Argo. There are also hundreds of canoeists and kayakers using Argo pond now as well. The Ann Arbor Community (not just rowers) has come out overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the dam.

In fact if you remove the dam it becomes an exclusive fast water (or no water depending on the time of year) venue dramatically decreasing the recreational use. So I can use your same argument, why displace a current very large local recreational community in the interests of fast water advocates. If there are so many places for paddlers to go as you have shown with your videos (very nice by the way), why take away the only place rowers can reasonably practice?

As I have said in both of my previous posts the river will remained dammed at Barton and Gallup. There will be no fish migration up river so long as the other 4 Huron River dams remain in place. The scientific evidence does not point to a significant improvement in river quality if Argo is removed. If Argo dam was so bad for this part of the river why is it the only certified swimable stretch of the Huron river in Ann Arbor? Remove all the dams in the Ann Arbor area and you have a valid point, removing one in the middle of the dam river system that only stretches 15 or 20 miles is not going to have a significant environmental impact.

You want to improve the Huron river, then get Allen Creek cleaned up, which dumps into the Huron just past Argo dam.

It seems to me that you are putting your specific interests regarding fast water paddling ahead of the current users, which includes not only rowers but other slow water paddlers that use Argo frequently and at the same time as the rowers.

Another item I have not previously mentioned. Under a federal mandate to have a back up electrical generation source Veterans Hospital in Ann Arbor is exploring the electrification of both Argo and Gallup dams. Argo at one time did generate electricity. While a conversion to a hydro electric dam is not practical to do if the city must fund the project, it becomes very attractive if federal funding makes this possible.

All of the benefits you mention are already in place around Argo pond/park/dam. Running and bike paths, a park on both sides of the river, a canoe livery. Taking out Argo will not change this and will not remove the industrial buildings along Main St. that are next to Argo park.

Just because Liz swam the river does not mean it was safe along her entire swim. Fact remains that Argo pond is the only certified section of the Huron river in the Ann Arbor area that is deemed safe for the public to swim in.

I'm not buying the INFLATED numbers of rowers
www.huronrowing.org/AARC/about.html
www.a2crew.com/
Both webapges only claim about 100 members - how many are current, about 50 I guess.
We all know each kid doesn't buy a personal racing shell, they cost big $$$$$

ALL those rowers you claim are not from Ann Arbor , lets try places like
-Wyandotte, Ecorse, Bay City, Orchard Lake area, Detroit, Lansing, Saginaw

Time marches on, things change, Ann Arbor needs a facelift

The rowing team had a nice 40 year run of monopolizing the resource
let others have a shot at for the next 4 decades.

Rowers are hardly left high and dry here , there ARE other
nearby venues available for the kids to row.
- bow out gracefully and let kayakers take the stage .

We kayakers have to travel all the way to EastRace in South Bend Indianna
sbpark.org/parks/erace.htm

Will - You are just looking at the Ann Arbor Rowing Club web sites, the high School Varsity teams and the U of M Mens club team are not part of the AARC.

Everyone of the high school rowers lives in Ann Arbor, and there are at least 180 - 200 high school rowers from the three schools, Huron Pioneer and Skyline.

Of course the kids don't buy their own shells, AARC, Huron and Pioneer separately have their own boats, owned by the club or teams not the individuals. I don't understand your point here. The boat house does hold some individual single and double shells, but for the most part there are primarily team boats.

This year AARC is loaning boats to Skyline since their team just started this fall. Again come down to Argo and see and count for your self instead of making unsupported accusations of exaggerated numbers.

AARC is probably down to 50 active rowers during the month of October as the weather gets colder. I can tell you for a fact there was 20 rowers, three coxswains and one coach on the water today (including myself), but from April through September we have 100 to 120 active rowers (row at least once or twice a week) and I only know one AARC member that belongs to another rowing club.

Come to Argo tomorrow from 4 to 6:30 to see the number of high school kids or the regatta in Wyandotte on Sunday and count the number of Ann Arbor rowers yourself. FYI tomorrow is the last day of practice for the fall season for AARC and the high schools, not sure about U of M. You might also want to go to Argo pond on a warmer day this fall and see how many non rowers are using the water.

All the other places you mentioned have their own clubs Wyandotte, Ecorse, Bay City, Orchard Lake area, Detroit, Lansing, Saginaw and have nothing to do with AARC other than competing against AARC in races. These rowers do not practice on Argo.

There are no nearby sites where the kids can row daily without serious additional costs and driving time to the kids and the city of Ann Arbor. In addition Argo dam removal would break up of the long standing community that is created by the four clubs/teams that currently practice at Argo pond The location of Argo allows many of the high school and U of M kids to bike or walk to practice.

Why not put your energy/passion for white water kayaking behind a dam removal the entire Washtenaw community can and will support, the Ypsilanti dam site? White water Kayakers would be very well served by this site, the Kayak Association is supportive of this idea and there will be support instead of massive resistance from the community to take the Ypsi dam out.

I appreciate the opportunity you have provided with this thread so both sides can make their cases. People will draw their own conclusions and take the actions they want in support of either point of view. My efforts to show the "dam in" point of view on this board is just a very small indication of the efforts Argo pond supporters will make.

I am afraid you will be very disappointed if you expect Argo pond supporters to be bowing out of this issue gracefully, this includes rowers and non rowers alike. Take away opportunities for kids and you will always get a major backlash from the parents, the dam out supporters did not take this into consideration when they took up this effort.

Good luck to you, contact me if you want support with efforts to take out the Ypsilanti dam.

I like this idea a whole lot better

www.hrwc.org/staff/laura/HRWC%20Argo%20R...ation%20-%20Rev2.pdf

[img
size=693]playak.com/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/images/Ann_Arbor.jpg[/img]

That does look nice, problem is it won't look like anything like that when there is no water flowing over Barton dam.

In addition, the drawing does not include the Allen creek drainage, which should be shown near the bend on the bottom right of the drawing, left shore line.

This drawing also does not show a structure to protect/redirect the river away from the polluted MichCon/DTE property (again near the bottom right left shore line I believe) which will be needed to avoid eroding the pollutants on that property into the river.

It has been claimed by others (I have not seen documentation of this) that the MichCon/DTE property is the most polluted site in Ann Arbor. Currently the dam redirects the river away from this property so it is not an issue.

The cost of landscaping, and mitigation of the MichCon/DTE property site is not included in any of the estimates with the dam out options. Oh and that foot bridge shown is also not included in any of the cost estimates presented in the dam out proposals. I have seen claims of $300,000 to over $1 million to build a foot bridge over the river, but have no idea what is accurate.

All of these issues at Argo dam and none of them at the Ypsi dam site.......

Everything that makes sense about ecology and nature
points to the dams being removed,
--all what stands in the way is a bunch of
stubborn rowers trying to hold back progress.

The Argo dam serves no purpose in 2009 , tear it down !

Let the Huron River run free.

Ann Arbor Environmental Commissioners already voted 8-4 to recommend
removal of the dam, primarily citing environmental benefits of a free-flowing Huron River.

All three school programs are off the water during the summer anyways.

Rowers move over to Ford Lake in Ypsilanti and all the dams come down,
- it's the right thing to do in the grand scheme of things.

I am sure you did not intentionally forget to mention that the Ann Arbor Parks and Recreation commission voted in favor of keeping Argo dam.

Yes rowers are stubborn, but we are not the only ones that want the dam to stay. The vast majority of Ann Arbor citizens interested in this matter have come out in favor of keeping the dam.

The Huron river running free, sure but you have to wait until the water gets past Barton dam and of course it runs into Gallup dam just down stream. Oh, I almost forgot, the river won't run at all during many weeks over the summer as the river stops flowing past Barton due to low water levels.

Sure displace the largest sports teams at Huron and Pioneer high shcools and make them commute 30 to 45 minutes to practice at Ford or Belville lakes. Oh wait I almost forgot, most high school kids can't drive and it has been clearly stated that neither lake will accept additional rowing teams. Unfortunately Gallup and Barton area solution don't work either so you are talking about eliminating the two largest sports teams in Ann Arbor, not to mention over a 100 year tradition of U of M rowing at this site.

Everything that makes sense about ecology and nature points to removing all the dams. Since that is not a possible then removing one dam in the middle of a four dam system makes no sense at all. It has been shown by environmentalists that disagree with HRWC's position that there will be minimal, if any, environmental benefits at best. These scientists were not paid by rowers or dam in advocates, they came forward on their own and have no connection to the rowing community.

Taking the dam out just to serve a much smaller community of fast water paddlers makes no sense at all. Especially when there is another very viable option to serve this recreational group at the Ypsilanti dam site mentioned previously.

Many of the kids are not off the water during the summer, AARC runs a summer kids rowing camp, that not only increases the use of this water but provides jobs for the coaches.

It is clearly the wrong thing to do if people look at all the costs and benefits. The city does not have the money to take on such a massive project, which will cost millions now. Dam in solutions do require maintenance but this cost is spread out over decades. Fixing the mill race is a $1 million less expensive than removing the dam, putting aside all of the projected costs that both sides are throwing at each other. Taking the dam out would displace over a thousand people (kayakers, canoeist and rowers and lake fishermen) that enjoy the slow water environment, taking the dam out provides minimal if any environmental benefits.

But most important to the politicians that will make this decision, the majority of citizens (voters) of Ann Arbor don't want the dam removed. Those City Council members that vote in favor of removing Argo dam will likely lose hundreds of votes in their upcoming reelection bids. Want support for this statement? Look at the last city council election, dam out advocates did not fair well. Everyone can make all the arguments they want, but parents vote, especially when it comes to matters related to their children.

Keeping one of the best, high participation healthy recreational areas in Ann Arbor, of for that matter the State of Michigan, is the right thing to do for the city, for the politicians and most importantly for our children and ourselves.

AnnArbor.Com ran a poll showing a majority of people want the dam OUT.
Stop the hemorrhaging of costs associated with keeping the dam.
Another $ 38,000 in fees for Legal Services Relative to MDEQ Dam Safety Order
from the Argo Dam Contract with Bodman, LLP is now due.

Removing the dam is good for Ann Arbor and the majority of citizens there.
Attempting to hold onto past traditions in light of future progress is just lame.

The Huron has plenty of water all year round for paddling.
There are 24 major tributaries flowing into it and it drains 908 square miles of watershed.
It is the only state-designated Country-Scenic Natural River in southeast Michigan.
This includes 28 miles mainstream, plus 11 miles from three large tributaries.

The area would look sooo much better without the dams

The problem with the AnnArbor.com poll is people that live outside of Ann Arbor could vote in that poll, FW paddlers like yourself, and people that have no connection to this community but believe all dams are bad and should be removed as just two examples.

What really matters and I think is more indicative are the most recent Ann Arbor elections, people that pay the taxes that will fund this decision no matter how it plays out. The election results clearly showed better results for dam in candidates.

At least the second drawing you posted shows Allen Creek and the bend where the MichCon/DTE property is. That drawing does not include the dam like structure that will be needed to prevent erosion of the Michcon/DTE property in to the river, preventing a major environmental issue, and of course does not show what this area will look like when flow over Barton dam stops during the summer. Not as pretty and more expense that has not been considered in any of the proposals...

I don't think that drawing looks that much better (obviously we are both very biased), Argo pond has been exceptionally beautiful this fall. As stated repeatedly there is no place in Ann Arbor for paddlers or rowers like Argo in Ann Arbor. From my perspective if you can come up with a 3,000+ meter stretch of slow water within the city, you completely change the discussion, unfortunately that is not a viable option from anything I have heard or read.

Your anti rowing bias and lack of respect for tradition is apparent from your posts in this thread. I have not seen one viable solution proposed from the dam out side for the Ann Arbor rowing community to keep rowing in Ann Arbor.

In contrast there is a very viable solution for FW paddlers, the removal of the Ypsilanti dam, and would satisfy the all dams are bad crowd .... at least temporarily.

Politicians flow like water, taking the path of least resistance. Given the costs of dam removal, the opportunity the Ypsi dam site provides for FW paddlers, the support to keep the dam displayed by the Ann Arbor community, I hope City Council members make the best decision for everyone, rowers, park users, kayakers, canoeists, fishermen as well as non park users who also help foot the bill on either decision.

When you look at this from all sides, the decision to keep the dam is a slam dunk easy one to make. The dam should stay.

If the City Council can't decide before this year is out, they should put the decision before the citizens who will foot the bill either way. That would be the only poll that matters and I would be supportive of resolving the issue with a vote if City Council won't/can't make the call.

Save the beautiful recreational wonderland that is Argo Pond!

Perhaps one of the better articles written about the dam

annarborchronicle.com/2009/10/19/finally...am-decision-on-argo/

Removing the dam has been attached historically to maintenance issues
associated with the earthen berm adjacent to the concrete and steel structure,


Ann Arbor BENEFITS from outsiders coming to it from other states enjoying its river.
Progress flows forward, as does time - eroding the old weathered decaying dam.

I'll start with your points I have issues with:

You wrote: "Ann Arbor BENEFITS from outsiders coming to it from other states enjoying its river."

I agree, but that happens now. You are just arguing for replacing one group with another which will also displace a large community of locals that are established and in place. Unfortunately the US has a long history of taking these types of actions, fortunately in this case I am hopeful that won't happen.

You also wrote: "Progress flows forward, as does time - eroding the old weathered decaying dam."

Argo dam is the newest dam on the Huron River, built in 1972, it is not weathered or decaying by any measurement including the MDEQ's. The dam concrete structure is estimated to have 20 to 30 years left, the earthen berm is the issue.

Something we can both finally agree upon, that is a good article. "Perhaps one of the better articles written about the dam"

You included a quote from the article "Removing the dam has been attached historically to maintenance issues associated with the earthen berm adjacent to the concrete and steel structure"

but you left out part of that paragraph, it reads completely as

"The possibility of removing the dam has been attached historically to maintenance issues associated with the earthen berm adjacent to the concrete and steel structure, both of which the MDEQ subsumes under the term “Argo Dam.” [For the sake of coherent discourse, it's worth maintaining a distinction between "earthen berm" and "concrete and steel structure" when only one of those is intended.

Now in support of much of what I have written on this thread the same article includes the following:

"If around $300,000 needed to be invested in the repair of toe drains in the earthen embankment, the thought was: Why not contemplate the removal of Argo Dam to avoid any future maintenance costs, plus reap environmental benefits? But that view was challenged. In addition to disputing the merits of the environmental arguments, local opposition also focused on the benefit of Argo Pond to the rowing community – high school and college teams, as well as individual rowers, use the pond heavily.

As Sunday’s night’s caucus demonstrated, however, opposition to the removal of Argo Dam is not limited to the rowing community. Mark Hodesh, owner of Downtown Home & Garden, also appeared at caucus to oppose the dam’s removal: “I really like that pond!” he said. Hodesh recalled that his parents took him to swim there in the ’40s and ’50s and that it served as a northern gateway to the city."

I was at the city council meeting the following day there was a total of 10 speakers, one was in favor of dam out (Laura Rubin of HRWC), seven were in favor of dam in (five from the rowing community or parents of rowers and two with no connection to the rowing community) The other two speakers addressed issues not related to Argo pond or dam. Slam dunk what the people of Ann Arbor want.

and finally this:

"Hiefjte, who began serving in 1998 on the board of directors of the Huron River Watershed Council, and is currently an alternate member of that body, is seen as at least a mild supporter of the dam-out option. At a recent meeting on the local economy, Hieftje took a third-person view of the situation, when he said that he did not think the Argo Dam would be removed. It reflects the difficulty of his political position. On the one hand, Hiefjte's affiliation with HRWC and his interest in staking out the pure environmental ground are an argument for him to support the dam-out option. On the other hand, there's a general consensus that public sentiment is greater for the dam-in option."

Last I looked majority still rules in this republic.

Wow, can anybody say desperate and scared....... !

The dam is going to disappear and some people will row at another location nearby,

Blue Infrastructure really is the new "green"
A massive amount of people will flock to Ann Arbor, more than they have seen.

Michigan paddlers in canoes and kayakers outnumber rowers 10 to 1 - majority will rule

Will,

Although it is claimed that the stretch of the water behind the Argo dam has the steepest gradient, I have not yet seen the actual profile of the original river bottom. Such being the situation, it is a just a hypothetical case that a premier whitewater paddling for the Midwest can be established in downtown Ann Arbor. It is also likely that any decent whitewater course (even if the natural gradient allows it), would be a bit too exciting for the current canoes and families with children that use the Argo ponds on weekends. In fact, all the canoe liveries now prohibit using the rental canoes and kayaks to traverse the upstream Delhi rapids, which I would have considered very tame for kayaks. For a whitewater park to become a reality, Ann Arbor would have to spend money building portages around the whitewater stretches, another expense item that has not been figured into the dam-out proposals.

I also took a look at the pictures of the South Bend water park that you provided. It does look like a challenging and exciting whitewater course that they have established over there. But on the other hand, since it is an artificial course, it doesn't look natural at all, with all the concrete and cultivated grass. I really do think that Argo has more natural beauty compared to what I see at the South Bend water park. I use the Argo surroundings for recreation, running, biking, and canoeing, and and I would really prefer that it remain a natural beauty place that it is now, rather than becoming a commercial development. Many residents in the neighborhood of the pond have expressed the opinion that they want the dam to stay for its natural surroundings, wildlife, and scenery that it currently provides. The same residents would oppose to development that would cost millions of dollars to make it look like the South Bend park.

It is most likely that any good whitewater runs in place of the current Argo dam would have to be artificial. This goes against the argument that dam should be removed to restore the river to its natural state. It does not make sense to argue to let the river take its natural state, while at the same time advocating commercial whitewater development. Unless there is some very unusual rock formations underlying in the Argo area there will be no natural first-class kayaking rapids. The combination of local geology and water flow prevents it, and this is also exactly the same reason why there are so few good natural whitewater locations throughout southeast Michigan.

When Argo Dam is removed, a third livery would serve the users
taking advantage of the portage-free trip

Total number of people in livery boats 2007 = 37,752
Those are people that paid $$ money to rent a boat
NOW add all those folks who own their boats and used the river ~ 75,000 +

Kayakers and Canoeists outnumber rowers by massive margins

Rowers = maybe 500 at best

Dams have egregious impacts on rivers as they alter
chemical, physical and biological processes
Argo Dam Height: 18 ft. x Width: 1940 ft. holds back a lot of water.

Rowers have options - they just want to be selfish, stubborn and block progress
The dam could easily be torn down, rowers have plenty of local venues nearby

Size of bodies of waters in the area
Ford = 975 acres
Barton = 265
Geddes = 146
Argo = 85
Superior = 85

Argo claims to have 3000 meters for training now
Barton offers about 3000 meters of water and was used in the 80's for rowing
-
Click on image with mouse

The Huron River in the Ann Arbor area
-
Click on image with mouse
-

Ford Lake with over 900 acres of rowing room
(remember Argo pond is only 85 acres)
-
Click on image with mouse
-

Your proposed "alternate" rowing venues have issues, and you have to be active in the Ann Arbor community to appreciate these.

Gallup park is not a suitable venue for lack of length and congestion. The park, because of its open spaces attracts a lot of families with very young children during practice hours. These families also rent canoes and kayaks there, but they do not necessarily have all the necessary paddling skills. To mix in rowing in such a situation poses a serious safety issue, since the shells move very fast and have enough inertia to do serious harm and injury to small canoes and kayaks and their occupants.

Barton pond has access problems to the waterfront. You have to pass through private property to get to the boat launch area on the river left side. There is also a safety issue since the boat launch area would have to be very close to the dam overflow and turbine intakes. In fact, access was one big issue when rowing had to stop there in the 1980s. On the river right, there is no access because of the railroad tracks that are in the way throughout the length of the pond.

Ford lake is out of the question for the high school teams because of the commuting distance. There is the time factor involved in the commuting. Kids have homework --- our rowing kids also have among the best GPA among all high school sports. There is also the matter of being environmentally friendly. Many kids currently take the bike or bus to practice. It is not "green" to have 200 kids and their parents commuting the distance to Ford lake.

Please also back up your claim that "Dams have egregious impacts" with specific studies on Argo pond traceable to the dam itself showing the the "egregious" negative effects that you claim. It is not enough to just state general and blanket statements which are not applicable to local situations. Ponds by itself don't necessarily do harm. As a kayaker, you know that southeast Michigan is flat, and has a lot of lakes and ponds. Local fauna and flora have adapted to the ecology of such ponds. The Argo dam is also a run-of-the-river control, meaning that there are no fluctuations in pond water level associated with dam. And the pond is not stagnant --- the pond is active and alive and flowing --- the rowing teams can cite training data from many years of practice that it is indeed a flowing body of water through its whole stretch.

It is easy to propose "solutions" if you don't have to worry about funding, don't have to plan ahead, don't have to follow up, and not have to worry about disturbing the local community. I don't understand why you would propose to displace and terminate a thriving local rowing community which has won high school and collegiate championships. Especially more so when you seem to imply that tens of thousands of canoeists from out of town descending into Ann Arbor are more important than the local population's wishes.

There are already many local kayakers and canoeists happily using Argo pond as it is. Many private boaters can just put-in and take-out at the same point in the pond without having to worry about the logistics of coordinating entry and exit. Fishermen in boats do the same. Many of the Argo pond users like the pond precisely because of this luxury.

The kids of Ann Arbor show their support of keeping the dam through their parents. The parents show the support through their respective city council members. It is instructive that in the hotly contested upcoming election for Ward 4, both competing candidates have openly supported keeping the Argo dam. annarborchronicle.com/2009/10/31/ward-4-...dy-answer-questions/

As the other poster stated, we should concentrate our energies on the issue of the Peninsular dam and making that into a whitewater kayak friendly system.

Will - KhaiM has done a fine job responding so I won't repeat his points.

You did write "When Argo Dam is removed, a third livery would serve the users
taking advantage of the portage-free trip "

One of the options City Council is considering is a proposal that would open up the mill race to the main river where a portage is now required. If this is done it would have a number of benefits, the primary one being that people could take the trip down the Huron from Argo without a portage so long as the water levels were high enough.

If this happens the city could build the new livery near Barton dam, as you suggested, with the same results.

In addition this would remove a lot of water pressure from the mill race and likely solve much of the toe drain issues.

And rowers would not be impacted and/or high school rowing programs ended.

Just a thought....

Say Hi to KhaiM folks -another ""Johnny come lately rower""
Member since Saturday, 31 October 2009 19:56 hiding all paddling info about himself !
WHY because he is NOT a kayak supporter , he is rower, going backwards all the time.

Rivers were meant to flow, NOT be made into a 100 little ponds.

So much for sharing and compromise- it's all or nothing for the rowers
""The park attracts a lot of families that get in our way ""
--Well it's supposed to -it's a PUBLIC park - that's just the point !

Argo Pond is a ‘no wake zone,’ yet the rowers have a motor boat they use.
If I choose to paddle in a zig zag taking pictures of the sky, rowers need to accommodate slower moving craft on the water, and compromise. It's a public resource !

With 13 powerboats , I would say that violates about any fair and open
use of a public resource as one could imagine. There comes a point in time, i.e. now,
when people are going to push back against the selfishness and arrogance.

"""serious safety issue, since the shells move very fast and have enough inertia
to do serious harm and injury to small canoes and kayaks""""
quoted KhaiM

Did I just get that in writing about the HIGH speed of shells AND the accompanying
powerboats which obviously must be creating a wake to keep up ?
Say it isn't so , we might just need the radar guns, video camera, and a news crew
to verify repeated daily unlawful use per R281.781.4 - Speed restriction.
I bet we clock the motorboats at 15 mph , NOT exactly a 2-3 mph trolling speed.
Hell, I can paddle my Epic Endurance kayak at almost 8 mph as a solo paddler.

It is a racing sport,.... - I'm sure the motorboats go fast to keep up with the rowers !


Kayakers and Canoeists outnumber rowers by massive margins, it's a fact.
This scares the hell out of the rowers who might have to adapt, compromise, and share

Nobody should get to monopolize a resource forever. Argo Dam is over, done, bye, bye

There is absolutely NO good reason the rowers can't compromise a bit for the
greater good of the 115,000 citizens and surrounding communities.
Alternate Training venues do exist, rowers can adapt, rowers must compromise a bit.

In the grand scheme of things , a few rowers don't stand a chance against the
steam roller of Blue Infrastructure and all it brings to Ann Arbor.

WilliH2O,

Your first post reads: "Let's hear your views on the topic." I don't read anything about excluding rowers or contrary opinions. I, and I assume KiaM, just accepted your invitation, which allowed me to get a different point of view, than yours, in front of this community.

Multiple compromise and viable solutions have been proposed by the dam in side, which the dam out advocates choose to completely ignore. I have responded to your posted solutions with the major issues those other venues have for the rowing community and lack of significant if any economic, recreational or environmental benefits. The only all or nothing being offered is by the dam out advocates, which is: Take the dam out and move rowing to other venues. Unfortunately these other venues do not work if you look at them from a rowing point of view.

Proposals offered by the dam in side:

1) Modify the mill race so paddlers can go down stream without a portage from Argo and also alleviates some if not all of the toe drain issues.

2) Take the Ypsilanti dam out to create a fast water park, which is supported by the entire community and eliminates a dam from the Huron River.

I assume KiaM's point in his previous post is that rowers do need power boats and do go fast which is exactly why Argo is a viable venue for rowing and Gallup is not. The city put rowing at Argo pond for a reason, length, space and traffic, but they should have known that rowing generates wakes. No wake zones and rowing are not compatible, and is another reason why rowing won't work at Gallup with all of the traffic currently taking place there. I believe the Argo area crew teams are exploring the purchase of no wake power boats for the coaches, but even then the reality is there is some wake generated when crews are rowing at full speed.

I have read that the river will flow for an estimated 10 to 12 more minutes before hitting Gallup dam/pond area if Argo dam is taken out. I don't believe that extra 10 - 12 minutes will make any difference in water quality. I would would also challenge dam out supporters to answer the issues regarding what happens to the water quality when it becomes stagnant at low levels when there is little or no flow over Barton dam? I don't know for certain but have to assume it is not good for the water quality, recreational uses or even the fish and other wildlife dependent on Argo pond. Keep in mind this is a unnatural eb and flow because of Barton dam upstream.

I believe any impartial person that looked at this situation logically would agree that the ecological benefits are minimal if any for dam removal in this particular situation.

The economic arguments for taking the dam out hold little water, spend $300,000 on repairing the toe drains or $400,000 on repairing the toe drains and opening the mill race to the river or spend $1.3 million on taking the dam out, all of these options also have additional costs that have been detailed on this thread so don't need to be repeated again (just read above for that information). There is no clear long term economic advantage to either side, but the cash flow short term for dam out is dramatically greater than fixing the toe drains and maintaining the dam, even if you include the $250k dam maintenance and $60k in annual maintenance you mentioned in previous posts.

Fact, there is no federal funding for the removal of urban short run dams, which is exactly what Argo dam is.

Fact, there is the possibility though not guaranteed, for federal or veterans affairs funding for the electrification of both Argo and Gallup dams.

The recreational argument for taking the dam out is weak, it will displace a long established large recreational group so another large recreational group can use it exclusively. Right now everyone can use Argo pond for their different recreational interests, which is not the case if the dam is removed.

WilliH20 your agenda on this thread is clear, at least to me, you want to end rowing in Ann Arbor, and I am guessing you expected to get an unchallenged response when you started this thread.

The economic, recreational and environmental arguments you and others have presented in favor of removing the dam and draining Argo pond have little if any basis in fact for this particular situation.

Yes, I obviously want to keep rowing at Argo pond, yes I joined this thread to respond to your post, and though my primary interest is rowing, as evidenced by my profile picture of my daughter and I in Thunder Bay Canada this past spring, my family and I also enjoy kayaking on occasion, though likely not the frequency or higher skill levels I assume you and most of the readers of this board have.

Obviously I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine. I just hope you are as enthusiastic if/when the Ypsilanti dam removal proposal is considered.

This just posted on Annarbor.com

Ann Arbor, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality reach Argo Dam compromise

The Ann Arbor city attorney's office announced this morning it has reached a partial compromise with the state Department of Environmental Quality over the Argo Dam.

The city has been in administrative hearings before a judge in Lansing to contest a DEQ order that addresses safety concerns with the dam. City officials said the DEQ agreed Friday to a 90-day stay of its order, with one exception: The city must comply with orders to stop the flow of water from the impoundment into the headrace, a 1,500-foot stretch of water that canoeists and kayakers use to bypass Argo Dam.


The city and MDEQ have reached a compromise concerning the Argo Dam.
DEQ officials think the headrace is exerting too much pressure on the earthen embankment that separates it from the Huron River and could cause dangerous flooding if it is breached.

Crews were expected to install a "stop log" this morning to stop the flow to the headrace. The stop log also will block water access for canoes and kayaks between the impoundment and the headrace, city officials said. The headrace water level is expected to drop about 3 feet over the next several days.

More article available if you follow this link: www.annarbor.com/news/ann-arbor-michigan...argo-dam-compromise/

Let's face it, rowers are sunshine, flatwater , hate to get wet, type folks.

True blue Kayakers and Canoeists are a different breed , wearing PFD lifevests, skirts,
pogies and gear prepared for the water and all it has to offer.

Thanks for fulling admitting the rowing team breaks the law daily with the
"no wake" ordinance. Anyone that has ever watched knows full well it happens,
it's hardly a secret.

Monopolizing a venue, breaking rules, strong arming and intimidating people,
seem to be what rowers do best. Hardly friendly, or environmentally conscious
not by a long shot.

It really doesn't appear that the rowers want anything to do with progress, environment,
or developing Blue Infrastructure to grow and expand water resources.
The small clique merely wants staus quo, convenience and kowtowing towards them.

Since I'm a nice guy, I'll clue the rowing community in on a secret.
Real Kayakers and canoeists use their legs and whole body also when they paddle.

Will,

Yes, I joined the forum just a few days back, if that makes any difference to my stated opinions. If you don't like diverse viewpoints on this bulletin board, please complain to the moderator. Rowing in shells and paddling in canoes and kayaks are not mutually exclusive. We can agree that both styles use oars of some sort. A person can enjoy both, and on the same stretch of water, at the same time. I have nothing against canoe and kayak people, and I admire their skills and expertise.

And I am not a rower at all, and I wouldn't know how to row in a shell. But I make it no secret that I support rowing on Argo pond for the diversity it brings to the community and the opportunities it gives to all our children. I have used canoes and kayaks on the Argo pond many times and just love it for that reason enough, and don't have a problem with rowers. I also use the park for running and use it in my biking route. And when I get the chance to see the kids rowing, I always stop. It is always a pleasure to watch them --- their intensity, their focus, their joy.

There are certainly a lot more people using canoes and kayaks --- on the other hand they have a lot more places where they can practice their sport, and they are not restricted to Argo. You talk about compromise, yet you are proposing to remove the only good rowing venue, and make disparaging remarks about our city's children and rowers.

You use unsupported environmental reasons to remove Argo dam, such as restoring the river to its natural state, etc. with the hidden agenda of killing the rowing program and turn it into a development that would turn it into a whitewater park. Yet you would drive 550 miles round trip to South Bend to support a dam bigger than Argo, and a concrete jungle of artificial whitewater. This is not exactly environmentally friendly. The rowers that I see on Argo pond use sound environmental practice. I have been with the kids when they clear the park of invasive species on a volunteer basis three or four times a year. I have seen boats come in with garbage collected from the river, no doubt thrown in by irresponsible boaters.

Although I am no expert whitewater kayaker like you, I also enjoy whitewater. My experiences include going down the Grand Canyon class 10 rapids in a wooden dory and in kayaks on the easier ones. I much prefer whitewater in natural settings. There is no natural whitewater in SE Michigan, I live with this fact, and enjoy the solitude a lazy river has to offer. Each to his own.

By the way, the dam has only 10 feet of head, although the structure might be 18 feet from riverbed to the catwalk. Highly unlikely that you can turn it into a natural whitewater course of any consequence.

Rowers better wake and smell the coffee pot burning - its pretty clear.
Catastrophic failure of the dam is an environmental disaster for everyone.

Significant structural concerns exist with embankment
Environmental Commission recommends removal of the dam
MDEQ orders the closure and dewatering of the headrace area.
MDEQ indicated they wanted a certain date for dam removal to occur.

The State of Michigan isn't going to dick around with stuff anymore - it's streamlining.
Environmental and resource funding has been reduced─driving a need for efficiencies.

With the Argo Dam being currently maintained by the "water funds" of Ann Arbor
it will definitely get interesting real, real fast as the DNR and DEQ merge.

The Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE) will be merged by a decree from Gov. Jennifer Granholm Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)

The Site Review Board process is being eliminated for greater efficiency in environmental proceedings. The Citizens Committee for Michigan State Parks and the Water Resources Conservation Advisory Council along with the Michigan Trailways Advisory Council are abolished their functions transferred to the Natural Resources Commission ( NRC )

A new seven-member Environmental Science Review Board composed of experts in biological sciences, chemistry, ecological science, engineering, geology, physics and related disciplines will advise the DNRE on environment and natural resource issues.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the bed and banks under all rivers, lakes, and streams that are navigable, for title purposes, are owned by the states.
The courts make no requirements that a river be uniformly deep, or flat, or that navigation be practical going upstream as well as downstream.
Rivers cannot legally be closed or partially closed to appease fishermen or other groups.