River Restoration

1
Assessing Public Preferences Investigating the
Feasibility of Removing Ann Arbors Argo Dam
Wendy Adams, Meghan Cauzillo, Katie Chiang, Sara
Deuling, Ati Tislerics School of Natural
Resources and Environment, University of
Michigan Client Huron River Watershed Council
2
Outline

• Background on Argo site
• Assessing public preferences
• General public
• Stakeholders
• Recommendations to HRWC

3
Huron River Watershed

• 908 mi2
• 125 miles of main stem
• 540,000 residents
• 96 dams, 4 produce hydropower

4
Argo Dam Facts

• 18 feet high, 200 feet long
• 1940 feet long with earthen embankment
• 92 acre impoundment
• Owned by City of Ann Arbor
• Pond is bordered by city parks

5
Argo Dam History

• Dam built for flour mill in early 1820s
• Rebuilt in 1913 for hydropower by Detroit Edison
• Decommissioned in 1959
• Extensive repairs in 1971-72

Ann Arbor Milling Co., 1890s
Argo Dam, ca. 1910
6
Why Remove Argo Dam?

• 1995 MDNR Huron River Assessment
• No longer produces hydropower
• Potential to improve fisheries
• Water quality
• Army Corps of Engineers High downstream
  potential hazard rating
• High gradient
• Disruption of flow regimes downstream

7
Why Keep Argo Dam?

• Up-front costs of dam removal and restoration
• Only place to row in Ann Arbor
• Aesthetic value of lakes vs. rivers

City of Ann Arbor, 2003
8
A Political Decision

• Dam is owned by the city
• Numerous stakeholders
• Heavy recreational use
• Large up-front expense for removal and restoration

9
Assessing preferencesTwo-pronged approach

• General public
• Mail survey of 2000 residents
• Measure usage and attitudes
• Possible citywide referendum
• Stakeholders/decisionmakers
• Interviews
• Start with HRWC suggestions, snowball

10
Mail Survey Topics

• Usage of Argo Pond, the parks surrounding Argo
  Pond and other parks in and near Ann Arbor
• Attitudes towards Argo Dam, Argo Pond, and parks
  in Ann Arbor
• Attractiveness
• Importance
• Ecological health
• Recreational quality
• Historical significance
• Contingent valuation referendum question

11
Mail Survey Methods

• Background interviews
• Pretested in 2 small groups
• Review by experts
• Five contact survey protocol

12
Survey Findings Usage

• 22 of Ann Arbor residents have never been to the
  Argo area, and do not know anything about it
• 43 have been to the Argo area in the last 12
  months
• 38 walking, running, or bicycling
• 15 canoeing, rafting, tubing
• 5 fishing, kayaking, crew, cross-country
  skiing, sledding, ice skating, other

13
Survey Findings Usage

• People who live more than a mile away accounted
  for over 43 of the recreational incidents at
  Argo
• 95 of rowing, 64 of kayaking, 36 of canoeing
  done by residents of our study area is at Argo

14
Survey Findings Attitudes

• On average, 59 of respondents expressed opinions
  about the parks around Argo Pond 95 favorable
• 44 expressed opinions about the pond itself 73
  favorable
• Only 35 expressed opinions about the dam 49
  favorable

15
Dam Removal Questions

• I think Argo Dam should be removed
• 18.7 Agree
• 21.9 Disagree
• 59.4 Neutral, Dont know, or skipped
• I think Argo Dam should remain in place
• 22.5 Agree
• 17.5 Disagree
• 60.1 Neutral, Dont know, or skipped

16
Referendum on Dam Removal

• Background information
• Outline of tradeoffs involved
• Drawings of possible outcomes

Drawings by Chris Cox
17
Referendum Results

• 57.7 Yes
• 35.4 No
• 6.9 skipped
• When forced to choose, 66.8 of those who were
  previously neutral, didnt know, or skipped chose
  dam removal.

18
Contingent Valuation

• Regardless of their choice, respondents were
  asked two followup questions
• Willingness to pay at least 1 per year for the
  option chosen
• Willingness to pay 25 - 800 per year for the
  option chosen

19
Willingness to Pay

• Those who preferred to keep the dam had higher
  mean willingness to pay (161 vs. 135 per year)
• However, more respondents preferred dam removal
• Net willingness to pay 21.50 per adult per
  year in favor of dam removal over 2M per year
  citywide

20
Stakeholders
21
StakeholdersCity of Ann Arbor

• Budgetary constraints
• dam maintenance cost
• dam removal cost
• cost of restoring and maintaining exposed
  parkland
• Public recreational needs
• Environment
• Safety and liability

22
Stakeholders MI Dept. of Natural Resources

• 1995 Huron River Assessment
• Interested in reviving smallmouth bass fishery on
  Huron River
• Increased interest in dam removal
• Dam Removal Guidelines for Owners (April 2004)
  
• Facilitate funding, provide expert assistance

23
Stakeholders Recreational Users

• Rowers
• Four teams/clubs use Argo Pond
• Well organized, strongly opposed to removal
• Argo shortcomings
• Criteria for alternatives
• Paddlers
• Anglers
• Walkers, bikers, etc.

Ann Arbor Rowing Club, 2003
24
Stakeholders Environmental Groups

• HRWC
• Strongly in favor of removal for environmental
  benefits
• Strong reputation and organization
• Experience with Dexter Mill Dam
• Sierra Club
• The Ecology Center

25
Recommendations to HRWC
26
Recommendations to HRWC

• Cultivate working relationships with stakeholders
  and decisionmakers
• Identify acceptable alternate site(s) for rowing
• Identify sources of funding for dam removal and
  restoration
• Develop coalitions with other environmental and
  user groups

27
Recommendations

• Education
• Location, function(s) of Argo Dam
• Effects on the ecosystem of dam, dam removal
• Additional Research
• Legal/regulatory issues
• Condition of sediment
• Ecological effects on floodplain, flora and fauna
• Engineering options

28
Assessing Public Preferences Investigating the
Feasibility of Removing Ann Arbors Argo Dam
Wendy Adams, Meghan Cauzillo, Katie Chiang, Sara
Deuling, Ati Tislerics School of Natural
Resources and Environment, University of
Michigan Client Huron River Watershed Council
29
(No Transcript)
30
(No Transcript)
31
(No Transcript)
32
(No Transcript)
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
36
Location of Argo Dam
N
?
37
Steve Blumer, USGS, 2003
38
Stratification

• 1,000 survey recipients within one mile of Argo
  Pond
• 1,000 from the rest of Ann Arbor

39
Survey Protocol Five Contacts

• Introductory letter (Oct. 27, 2003)
• Cover letter and questionnaire (Nov. 1, 2003)
• Follow-up postcard (Nov. 7, 2003)
• Second questionnaire mailing to non-responders
  (Nov. 21, 2003)
• Telephone (Dec. 20, 2003 Jan. 6, 2004) or
  Priority Mail (Jan. 11, 2004)

40
Recommended Reading Survey Methods

• P. Salant and D. Dillman, How to Conduct Your Own
  Survey (1994)
• D. Dillman, Mail and Internet Surveys The
  Tailored Design Method (2000)
• E. Babbie, Survey Research Methods (1990)

41
Demographics of Respondents
42
Attitudes Aesthetics

• I think the parks around Argo Pond are visually
  attractive
• 61.4 Agree
• 6.4 Disagree
• 32.3 Neutral, Dont know or skipped
• I think Argo Pond is visually attractive
• 56.0 Agree
• 6.5 Disagree
• 37.5 Neutral, Dont know or skipped
• I think Argo Dam is visually attractive
• 17.8 Agree
• 31.6 Disagree
• 50.7 Neutral, Dont know or skipped

43
Attitudes Historical significance

• I think Argo Dam is an important historical
  landmark
• 17.3 Agree
• 18.5 Disagree
• 64.3 Neutral, Dont know, or skipped
• I think Argo Pond is an important historical
  landmark
• 27.7 Agree
• 11.6 Disagree
• 60.6 Neutral, Dont know or skipped

44
CV Referendum Format
45
Referendum Question

• If an election were held today, would you vote
  YES or NO on a local ballot proposal that would
  remove Argo Dam and create the conditions
  described in Alternative 2? Assume there would be
  no added cost to you and a NO vote would result
  in the conditions described in Alternative 1.

46
WTP Price Responsiveness
47
WTP of Dam Removal Supporters
Range of 133.10 - 136.37
All variables at alpha level of 0.10 or lower
48
WTP for Dam Maintenance Supporters
Range of 160.88 - 161.24
All variables at alpha level of 0.10 or lower