The Grand River?! You mean GR has a River?

[Raildudes dad]

So it's shallow now - if dams went away - shallower, with exposed nasty river bed... how then did boats go up down in the mid 1800's? Or even logs? From my understanding, there were paddle wheels on the Grand all the time, and a very busy landing where the Northland Dr Bridge is. How much did man and his progress alter the river? Was the river a lot narrower when it was natural? Sounds like the river's greatest value to GR and surrounding communities is that of a wide sewer pipe.

The "rapids" in Grand rapids were (still are) in the vicinity of Fulton Street to Pearl Street. There was no water navigation past that point. The river paddle wheelers of those days were not large boats. There are channels in the river where the water might be waist deep in the late summer. I'm assuming the captains of those days would have to find those channels or cease operation during low water. During the spring and fall the river is deeper.

Some of the discussion in this thread concerns recreational boating in the downtown area. This activity occurs primarily during the summer. If the dams were removed, during the prime boating time, the river would be too shallow upstream and downstream for say a 19 - 25 foot boat and impossible at the rapids in downtown.

[Rizzo]

Has anyone also thought of what removal of the dam would do to the ecosystem it has created?

[tamias6]

I heard that altering the river's current state would have negative impacts on everything downstream due to the release of entrapped pollutants.

[Rizzo]

Not just down stream, but the habitats that only exist now upstream because of the dam. I'm assuming the water level now is much higher than it would be if there wasn't a dam. This higher and slowed water may have proved to provide a beneficial ecosystem for what is currently there. Removing the damn has other implications, but the most prominent one I can think of is changing the current ecological system it has created. As for the principal game fish that you would expect in a river environment, what about other species of animals existing there because of the current conditions? If you go up stream of the dam where water is pooled and slower moving panfish species are seen.

Implications:

The feeding and shelter opportunities the dam provides

Water levels upstream that already support vegetation and semi-aquatic life.

[RustTown]

Taking out the dam would actually improve the ecosystem and revert it back to its original state. I wouldn't be worried about killing what has developed. No one bothered to worry about what damming up rivers would do back when they did it, and it's been found they aren't healthy. Dams have a negative impace on an ecosystem, but we orginally put them in to power our cities and such.

I like the damns and fisher ladder up this way for aesthetic purposes, but I know I can't use fear of disrupting the ecosystem as a reason not to take them out. In fact, the ecosystem issue would push towards them being taken out.

Edited July 7, 2007 by Lmichigan

[Rizzo]

With due respect, I seriously doubt we can conclusively say that the dam should be removed and that if so it were to return to the state which it was previously. We can't underestimate what has occurred in this environment since the dam was built. As I see it there's more to this than removing a dam. How do we know that removing the dam will do the same if not more shock to the ecosystem than it did when it was built? My point is that there are many aspects to this then a simple act of removing a dam at once. This backup of water may have ruined an ecosystem, but with decades may have helped build off other ecosystems. We're not talking about a few hundred feet of flood wall, panfish or logs. We could be talking an entire riverfront from downtown to a mile or so up and down river.

I'm still skeptical of any major structural changes of a habitat even if it's man made. I don't see the dam now as ecologically detrimental nor beneficial. When you have a dam as old as this one where the ecosystem has adapted to man taking it away could have the same ramifications as when it was first built. This isn't simply pesticides or heavy metals where removing it will prove beneficial immediately. It is a part of the ecological system that has let other ecological systems build off each other. No matter how you look at it these ecological system are interlinked.

Bringing up this suggestion only leaves more questions than answers and these need to be addressed to come to a gainful conclusion for the environment. At the very least it will be a slow process to remove this dam. I don't care what the talk of the future of this dam is now, its not going to last forever. God forbid it were to fail its possible that it could disrupt what has coexisted there.

Edited July 8, 2007 by Rizzo

[RustTown]

EDIT: n/m

Edited July 8, 2007 by Lmichigan

[Rizzo]

EDIT: n/m

Edited July 8, 2007 by Rizzo

[mifunboy]

It is a fact that removing dams is good for ecosystems, there is not one exception.

[Rizzo]

There seems to be evidence that supports removing it -- here. I'll see if I can contact a DEQ official Monday and see if they have verdict on this dam and its impacts. I was always under the impression that there were other mitigating circumstances than didn't allow for this dam to be removed.

If there's this complete evidence that all dam removal is beneficial and outweights the costs then this dam should go. I still contend its probably going to involve a slow process (stages) not just a quick removal of the dam. The site cites the same concerns when removing a dam in stages for some rivers.

By removing the dam in stages, Freiburger said it will allow the 248-acre reservoir and associated sediment to stabilize, thereby reducing fish and wildlife impacts.

Edited July 8, 2007 by Rizzo

[RustTown]

I don't think anyone ever said one way or the other that it would be a slow or fast process. But, much like human's impact on global climate change, this issue has already been pretty much decided within the ranks of ecologists and environmentalist. The only thing that is really debatable is how much of a negative impact do dams have on their environments, not whether or not they do.

Edited July 8, 2007 by Lmichigan

[tamias6]

Granted I'm no hydrologist or engineer. So I'm shooting from the hip on this. But anyway. to recreate an artificial rapids would still require similar flow regulations provided by the dams. So the river upstream I would think would see little if any effects. Down stream might see some effects but most likely not to the extent to raises the environmental red flag because the rapids themselves would amount to being the fish latter just a larger scale. On that note, think how the fish that uses the existing fish latter would benefit since they would have the entire width of the river to move upstream instead of being squeezed into a space 10 to 15 ft wide.

A more conservative route may be to simply construct artificial rapids in front of one or more of the existing dams. The only effect that would have is braking down one giant step into many small steps.

Now as for dealing with the worry of releasing entrapped pollutants by the digging of the river bed, First let me show you a picture of this Storm Surge Barrier that protects the southwestern flanks of the Netherlands.

I watched an episode of Modern Marvels about this barrier. From that show I've learned that most of this storm surge barrier rests on a special liner laid on the bottom of the inlet. So what if a small version of this liner could be laid down on the river bed and the artificial rapids constructed on top of it?

[RustTown]

Has there been any serious talk about recreating rapids, or is it a dream of yours? I'm under the assumption that what is currently being debate is nothing more than rather to take the damn out or not, not a recreation of rapids.

[tamias6]

I believe the point of this topic is even though we got the river walks, the park in the north Monroe area and the Ford Museum grounds, more needs to be done to turn the downtown stretch of the Grand into an asset to help beautify the city and draw in people. Going by that, I threw in an idea of restoring the rapids as a replacement and/or augmentation to the existing dams.

[Raildudes dad]

Has there been any serious talk about recreating rapids, or is it a dream of yours? I'm under the assumption that what is currently being debate is nothing more than rather to take the damn out or not, not a recreation of rapids.

The bedrock that created the rapids is still there. Remove the dams and the rapids will reappear (except where the quarry is north of the post office).

[GRDadof3]

There is a section of the Grand River close to Lansing where they removed an old dam and built "weirs" to help protect erosion of the riverbed. It looks fantastic. Here are some before and after pictures and designs of the weir:

The Grand is not as wide in this area as it is in Grand Rapids, but it was about $500,000 to make the change, most of which was provided by a grant from the Michigan DNR (the other match was provided by the contractor themselves)

More details

Would be a great project for some of you guys to explore. I don't think the city has any money to do something like that, but state or federal grants may be available.

[wingbert]

Look on the bright side. If the dams were removed and the river narrowed, there'd be more more riverfront land created with more places to build tall buildings - because in Grand Rapids, you can't build a tall building except on the river.

[GRDadof3]

Speaking of riverfront improvements and the Gerald R Ford Musuem, has anyone noticed that they have been doing some other renovations around Ah Nab Awen Park? They've done a lot of tree branch and brush clearing around the public restrooms, and they tore out that obsolete information booth! (the one I asked why they didn't tear it out last Summer because it was not being used).

New perennial beds like this one:

New paint job on the bathrooms (and they were open and somewhat clean):

GRDadof3: for all your bathroom picture needs since 199*

I had a hard time remembering where the info booth was located, but I think I found it. Removal of it reveals this interesting "concrete gazebo" that matches the museum shape (who knew?!!):

More as I see it.

[tamias6]

^ Looking much better!

[GRDadof3]

^ Looking much better!

Yeah, I keep wondering if we are hosting a SuperBowl or something similar I hadn't heard about, with all the sidewalks being rebuilt, new trees, new landscaping, new building facades, plaza upgrades, new buildings, and everything else going on around downtown.

[joeDowntown]

I love this idea. I still think that the rapids could be re-created in a way that could serve tourism too by creating a kayaking route through downtown.

Joe

There is a section of the Grand River close to Lansing where they removed an old dam and built "weirs" to help protect erosion of the riverbed. It looks fantastic. Here are some before and after pictures and designs of the weir:

The Grand is not as wide in this area as it is in Grand Rapids, but it was about $500,000 to make the change, most of which was provided by a grant from the Michigan DNR (the other match was provided by the contractor themselves)

More details

Would be a great project for some of you guys to explore. I don't think the city has any money to do something like that, but state or federal grants may be available.

[GRDadof3]

I love this idea. I still think that the rapids could be re-created in a way that could serve tourism too by creating a kayaking route through downtown.

Joe

Yes, I believe you can now pass through that area on a canoe or kayak without taking out and putting back in again on the other side of the dam, like you had to do before. My folks still live not far from there and I've seen it in person. It's really beautiful now, where the old dam was a haven for trash and troublemakers. My Dad was also telling me that fisherman who use that area, not even a year later, detected an uptick in fish, and return of some that hadn't been there in a while.

[rivegauche]

I love this idea. I still think that the rapids could be re-created in a way that could serve tourism too by creating a kayaking route through downtown.

Joe

Or instead of spending all that money, draw tourists to the riverfront with something similar to what is done in Providence, RI: Wterfire.

It is spectacular and draws huge crowds!

waterfire

[Allison Slater]

One thing that I've though would really emphasise the riverfront would be a Monroe Center-like street along the side of the river.

The thing is though, the narrower you make the river, the deeper it gets. It's already very narrowed from what it originally was, and rapids are a feature of shallow rivers.

[Rizzo]

One thing that I've though would really emphasise the riverfront would be a Monroe Center-like street along the side of the river.

The thing is though, the narrower you make the river, the deeper it gets. It's already very narrowed from what it originally was, and rapids are a feature of shallow rivers.

It was planed for, but I couldn't follow the history far enough to find out why it never happened. I'm guessing it was the lack of funds and the economy. Now they're trying to remove the Lyon Dam. People working on the environmental quality of the river say that's the only dam that really needs to be removed. So far all others haven't ever been discussed, even inquiries into 6th St. removal baffles the folks.

With much attention maybe it would be beneficial for the city to create a "Grand River Plan" or committee to address the section of river downtown. If this natural resource is so valuable to the city it would be beneficial to treat it as an asset and work to protect it from future damage while enhancing it.