June 10th, 2012 Dear Riverside Village Trustees, IDNR Director Juhl, and Army Corps Colonel Drummond:

The USGS presented the results of their review of the effects of removing the Hoffmann dam on Thursday, June 8th, 2012. Before proceeding to a discussion of the USGS results, we would first like to thank all the Trustees for calling for an independent study to investigate the claims made in our letter of April 20th, 2012. We thank Trustees Sells and Ballerine for asking hard questions about why the Village has been pursuing the dam removal project and whether it is in the Village's interest to continue to do so. We also thank Trustees Reynolds and Sacchi for supervising the USGS study, Riverside residents Dean Eastman, former head of the Argonne National Lab, and Tim Ozga, President of the Olmsted Society, for generously donating their time and expertise to both define the scope of and to provide guidance for the study, and village manager Peter Scalera for coordinating the effort. We also thank the IDNR and the Army Corps for commissioning the review. The results of the USGS, to the extent that the scope of their study allowed, confirm that the events we feared in our original letter will indeed come to pass if the dam is notched. Here is a summary. 1. Flow Statistics. We claimed that the flow the IDNR and ACE were using for the 80% exceedance at the dam, 582 cfs, was 2.4 times too large. We wrote, based on our analysis of the USGS flow data and on other IDNR calculations, that the correct number is about 245 cfs. The USGS' estimate is 246 cfs. 2. Salt Creek. We wrote that the flow from Salt Creek at the 80% exceedance flow must be much larger than the 3 cfs that had been claimed by the IDNR and ACE. The USGS finds that a reasonable estimate for the flow from Salt Creek is about 1/3 of the total (~80 cfs). The flow in the Des Plaines upstream from Salt Creek is therefore correspondingly smaller; in other words, for a given flow at the dam, there is less water flowing in the DesPlaines north of Salt Creek than the IDNR and Army Corp had previously indicated, which affects their projected post dam river widths. 3. River much narrower. We claimed that as a consequence of 1 and 2, the river far upstream of the dam, for example at Maplewood, would be far narrower than it is now at low flow, and far narrower than the projections made by the IDNR and ACE in all of their presentations to Village residents over a ten year period. The USGS study confirms this. To take a concrete example, consider the USGS generated cross-section 46.21, which runs right through the center of Maplewood Rd. Currently at the 80% exceedance flow the river at that cross-section is roughly 130' feet wide. If the dam is removed, it will be about 80' wide. About 18' of the 50' feet of newly exposed bank will be on the east side of the river, leaving a large expanse of unsightly mud extending from the seawall and patio of the residence (which, like all the seawalls and sitting areas have been constructed at great expense) at that location to the edge of the river. It is impossible for anyone to argue in good faith that the impact on this homeowner is small; yet the IDNR and ACE have repeatedly done so. We must emphasize again that in all presentations to Village residents over the ten year period prior to June 8th, 2012, the IDNR and ACE claimed there would be essentially no change at all in the river width at this cross-section at the 80% exceedance level. It was only because of this assurance, now known to be false, and known to be false in September of 2011 at the last ACE/IDNR presentation to the Village, that residents did not raise concerns earlier. It is particularly troubling to us, both from an ethical perspective and from the perspective of legal liability, that the IDNR and ACE were both aware,

in September 2011, when they made their final presentation to the Village, that the results they presented were not correct. 4. Mud flats. On account of the geometry of the river bed behind Maplewood, as indicated by the USGS river profiles, the newly exposed mudflats will in sections be wide and flat. As a consequence, they largely will not re-vegetate. This is in direct contradiction to vague and unsupported claims made by the IDNR and ACE that the new mudflats will quickly revegetate. The question of revegetation is outside the direct scope of the USGS study. However one can use the river profiles the USGS generated at various exceedances to deduce this. Looking again at cross-section 46.21, at 80% exceedance, the river would be about 80' wide if the dam is removed. On the other hand, the median flow during the time period the USGS took as the relevant data for calculating their statistics, the 2000's, is about 600 cfs which is very close to the old incorrect "annualized" 80% exceedance of 582 cfs. The river at this flow would be roughly 130' wide. The 50' of exposed mudflats between 80% exceedance and the median exceedance will be under water more than half the time. It seems very unlikely that plants will grow in mudbanks which are under water more than half the time. So for two or three months out of the year, residents will have to deal with bare, wide mudflats. 5. Smells and Mosquitoes. Although smells and mosquitoes are also outside the scope of the USGS study, wide periodically inundated mud flats with shallow pooling appear likely to result in unpleasant smells as the sun bakes the organic matter in the mud. These mudflats and small pools also are likely to provide breeding grounds for mosquitoes. Since writing the original letter, we have discovered there are additional equally worrisome consequences that homeowners who live along the river are likely to suffer if the dam is notched. 6. Seawalls. One of the homeowners on Maplewood who has wide experience with seawalls has recently called attention to another serious direct impact to the property owners along Maplewood, namely the deterioration of the sea walls, steps, and sitting areas that border the river, and damage to the foundations of the Boat House as the water recedes. These structures are designed to sit in water, water on one side, earth on the other. The water serves to help equalize the pressure on both sides of the wall. In addition, even on the coldest days of winter water flows under the ice maintaining a constant temperature above freezing for the foundations of these walls, patios, stairs, and boat house. If the dam is notched, the water will recede from these foundations, exposing them to the freeze thaw cycle which may over the course of time result in their collapse. Homeowners will incur large financial losses, as well as the loss of enjoyment of their property. 7. Longer term changes in river bottom. The USGS study is an engineering study. They assumed that the existing river bottom profiles will not change after the removal of the dam. We asked them to do an analysis of what will happen to the river bottoms once the dam is gone and the current becomes much faster, moving the feet of accumulated silt down stream. They said, correctly, that this was outside the scope of their work. It seems very likely however that what will happen is that all of the sediment that has built up for the last 150 years during which there has been a dam in one form or another will be scoured away down to bedrock. We don't know how deep this is. As the scouring occurs, the side banks of the main channel will collapse, putting further stress on the sea walls. This project is essentially a totally uncontrolled experiment, with minimal upside, and with very large downsides. 8. Unknown changes. Along the lines of point 7, there are likely be changes that no one has foreseen. For example, because the river would be shallower, will more debris like trees build up in the river bed? Will more garbage get trapped? Who will address these kinds of problems if they occur? Will

these kinds of things happen? We don't know, but we are not not interested in running the experiment to find out. In addition to the above points, there are several important additional considerations: 9. Flooding. Many Riverside residents are justifiably extremely concerned about flooding. We count ourselves in this group. All homeowners who live near the river, whether on Maplewood, Groveland, Lincoln, West, or any of the other areas in the flood plain, are concerned about the risk of floods. Many of us spent the weekend of the flood in 2008 sandbagging at our neighbors' houses on Maplewood who were affected by the flood, just as residents of other affected streets spent the weekend sandbagging. In addition, many of us are members of the Riverside Flood Prevention Group. Flooding is an issue which should unite everyone in Riverside - we all share a common interest - not divide us. If removing the dam were going to meaningfully reduce our common flood risk, everyone on Maplewood would almost certainly be on board with it, despite the serious negative implications we are otherwise going to face from this project. But we also need to base our decisions on what to do about flooding based on real data and hard analysis, not on our hopes and intuitions which are often misleading. It seems intuitively plausible that removing the dam will reduce the surface level of the water during a flood. After all, it reduces the surface level a lot - by several feet - at low flows (this is indeed the source of our concern). The reason for the reduction at low flows however is that the impoundment from the dam is lost. Perversely, at very high flood like flows, where you would hope for the biggest effect, you actually have the smallest. At high flows, there is so much water coming through - 50 to 100x the amount at very low flows, that the existence of the dam and the small comparatively small impoundment volume it creates becomes totally irrelevant. This is a point that has been made repeatedly by both the IDNR and by the ACE. This project is about ecosystem restoration, period. It is not a flood control project. At the 10 Y flood level (> 5832 cfs which happened in 1948,1950,1954,1982,1985, 1986,1987,1997,2001, Sept 2008, Dec 2008, 2010), and at the 100 Y flood level (> 8827 cfs; 1987, Sept 2008) the difference in flood levels with and without the dam is 13/16th of an inch. 13/16th of an inch isn't going to do anything to solve our common flooding problems. It is imperative that village leaders speak in a clear and unified voice that removing the dam will not solve the genuine flooding problems we all face and instead focus their efforts on finding real solutions to the problem. 10. Ecological Restoration. The sole official purpose of this project is ecological restoration. Like flood control, everyone is in favor of ecological restoration. Having more fish species upstream is clearly better than having fewer. At the same time it is impossible not to notice that the great majority of people who want the dam taken down want it down because they hope it will reduce flooding. With few exceptions (most notably John Mack, of the River Rats, whose dedication to the river we admire) people who are passionate are passionate because of their flooding relief hopes, not because they are passionate about having more fish species up river. This was clear from the comments at the Thursday meeting. But we need to be realistic about the ecological benefits. This isn't the Klamath River where removing dams would help restore an historically and culturally important salmon migration. This isn't a biological hot spot filled with rare and important species. The DesPlaines is a small, muddy, heavily urbanized and polluted midwestern river of no particular biological or ecological importance. It has been, and will remain, altered beyond all recognition from its natural state. Removing the dam won't change that picture. So even for committed environmentalists and conservationists the ecological benefits of restoring the river are objectively small, especially in light of the large sums of money being

spent on the project. 11. Olmsted and History. The Olmsted Society website has an excellent summary of the history of the dams, http://www.olmstedsociety.org/education/history-of-dams-in-riverside-il/ The first dam was built in 1827 to power a sawmill. Some time after the original dam was destroyed, a second dam was built in 1866 to power a grist mill. There has been a dam at this site continuously since 1866. Olmsted saw the 1866 dam when he visited the area in 1868 and recommended that the height of the 1866 dam be increased: It will probably be best to increase the height of the mill dam so as to enlarge the area of public water suitable for boating and skating, and so as to completely cover some low, flat ground now exposed in low stages of the river." It seems that the appearance of the river at low flow was also a concern of Olmsted's. In 1908, the beer brewer George Hoffmann (Hoffmann Beer), built a new larger dam on the site to complement his beer garden, fulfilling for a time part of Olmsted's vision for this area. In 1936 the WPA removed the rotting wooden top of Hofmann's dam, lowering the crest by several feet. To quote the Olmsted website, "The current dam was constructed by the State of Illinois in 1950 following much public concern over the [lower] crest level." Evidently, residents in the 1930s and 1940s did not like what they saw when the dam crest was lowered by several feet. 12. Historic Riverfront Properties. Just as the historic homes along Scottswood, Longcommon, Nutall and many other Riverside streets are not just private houses to be enjoyed by their owners, but are also part of the historic architectural fabric of the town, able to be enjoyed by every passerby, and contributing to the architectural distinction of the town, so too the riverfront houses along Maplewood, with their historic architectural seawalls, boat landings, terraces, sitting area and boat houses, are able to be enjoyed by everyone boating or canoeing down the river. Indeed, although Maplewood Rd was not part of Olmsted's original design, his plan for the riverfront behind the dam has been realized on Maplewood. Olmsted wrote that the riverfront should have valuable trees growing upon it, and there should be pretty boat landings, terraces, balconies overhanging the water, and pavilions at points desirable for observing regattas, mainly rustic in character and to be half overgrown with vines. This is a good description of what the riverfront behind Maplewood looks like today. To sacrifice all this would be a loss to the entire town, not just the homeowners along Maplewood. So that those who do not live on river can better appreciate our perspective, imagine the ACE brought in bulldozers and plowed wide sections along the edges of Scottswood Commons, and then periodically throughout the year came back and applied herbicides to the bulldozed areas so that they remained perpetual muddy eyesores. That is the one of the many unpleasant prospects that riverfront property owners now face if the notching is allowed to proceed. 13. Swan Pond. As there is no significant flooding benefits to this project and as the ecological benefits are also small, one must ask what exactly the Village is getting out of this project and why some Village officials have enthusiastically backed this project, at least until the present revelations. President Gorman lobbied extensively to have the dam removed (see http://www.rblandmark.com/print.asp?ArticleID=6495&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1 ). The reason appears to be that in exchange for cooperating with the IDNR to take the dam down the IDNR would regrade Swan Pond. Whatever the merits of this trade may have been when the changes upstream from the dam were believed to be minimal, the calculation changes greatly now that it is evident that the quality of life and property values of some residents will be adversely affected. To proceed with this deal, in light of what we have all learned over the last few months about the major changes on the river upstream from the dam at low flow, and how it will affect the property values and quality of life of residents who live on the river, would be tantamount to sacrificing the welfare of a group of residents for the benefit of regrading Swan Pond. Our view is that if Swan Pond is worth doing, and the IDNR

and ACE evidently think it is because they are spending a lot of our state and federal tax dollars to do it, then it should be worth doing on its own merits, independently of the dam. This deal should not be done at the direct expense of riverfront homeowners. In light of the fact that the USGS study has reinforced our concerns that, rather than having negligible effects, notching the dam will have significant deleterious effects on the use and enjoyment of our properties, on our property values, on the physical infrastructure of historic homes, terraces, stairways, seawalls, and sitting areas along the river, on the architectural character of a historic street in a historic Village, and in light of the fact that notching the dam is irreversible, we call on the Village to ask for an immediate injunction to halt the notching for a period of time not less than six months. During those six months, options should be explored that will prevent property damage to riverfront homeowners or that will compensate them for their expected losses. We also call on the IDNR and the ACE to voluntarily halt the notching for this period until all the above concerns have been addressed. Failure to agree on adequate remedies or compensation to the riverfront homeowners for their expected losses, the notching should be halted permanently. If the Village, the IDNR, and the ACE take no action at this stage to halt the notching, after the USGS has confirmed, to the extent that the scope of their project permitted, our principal claims about river width and depths at low flow, it would be clear that the study was conducted in bad faith, with no intention of acting on its results, and merely to pacify residents with the appearance that their concerns were being addressed. Lani Anderson William Anderson Jeff Baron Gail Crossman Jack Cochran Therese Cochran Carol Conboy Peter Conboy Loriann Duffy PJ Duffy Paul Falk Roxanne Falk Charles Klingsporn Audrey Korslund Doug Korslund Lisa Lambros Nick Lambros Jacqueline Miller Jeff Miller Caryl Moon Dan Moon Anna Montes Francis Podbielski Ron Ritzler Tina Ritzler Lou Schauer Andy Urbanski Bozena Urbanski

June 11, 2012

Dear Riverside Riverfront Homeowners, The following is a reply to your June 10, 2012 letter addressed to the Riverside Village Trustees, Colonel Drummond of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and myself. For my reply I am using the same paragraph numbering scheme as in your original letter. 1. Flow Statistics. We claimed that the flow the IDNR and ACE were using for the 80% exceedance at the dam, 582 cfs, was 2.4 times too large. We wrote, based on our analysis of the USGS flow data and on other IDNR calculations, that the correct number is about 245 cfs. The USGS' estimate is 246 cfs. This issue has been resolved based on the independent technical review. 2. Salt Creek. We wrote that the flow from Salt Creek at the 80% exceedance flow must be much larger than the 3 cfs that had been claimed by the IDNR and ACE. The USGS finds that a reasonable estimate for the flow from Salt Creek is about 1/3 of the total (~80 cfs). The flow in the Des Plaines upstream from Salt Creek is therefore correspondingly smaller; in other words, for a given flow at the dam, there is less water flowing in the DesPlaines north of Salt Creek than the IDNR and Army Corp had previously indicated, which affects their projected post dam river widths. This issue has been resolved based on the independent technical review. 3. River much narrower. We claimed that as a consequence of 1 and 2, the river far upstream of the dam, for example at Maplewood, would be far narrower than it is now at low flow, and far narrower than the projections made by the IDNR and ACE in all of their presentations to Village residents over a ten year period. The USGS study confirms this. To take a concrete example, consider the USGS generated cross section 46.21, which runs right through the center of Maplewood Rd. Currently at the 80% exceedance flow the river at that cross-section is roughly 130' feet wide. If the dam is removed, it will be about 80' wide. About 18' of the 50' feet of newly exposed bank will be on the east side of the river, leaving a large expanse of unsightly mud extending from the seawall and patio of the residence (which, like all the seawalls and sitting areas have been constructed at great expense) at that location to the edge of the river. It is impossible for anyone to argue in good faith that the impact on this homeowner is small; yet the IDNR and ACE have repeatedly done so.

The USGS did not generate any cross sections for their analysis. The results of their study presented on June 7, 2012 were limited to impacts at 16 specific cross sections. The cross section at river mile 46.21 was obtained by the Corps of Engineers and does not correspond to the location of any of the 16 cross sections used in the USGS presentation. The numbers shown in the above analysis are incorrect; there was no discharge presented at which the impacts of removing the dam would be a reduction of 50 feet in the topwidth of the Des Plaines River in the vicinity of Maplewood Road . As presented at the September 2011 meeting the topwidth of the river at a discharge of 579 cfs would be 140 feet with the dam in place and the topwidth after the dam is removed would be 136 feet; this is a difference of 4 feet. These values were derived using the hydraulic model and hydrology data determined by Malone & MacBroom Incorporated (MMI). In April 2012 the Corps of Engineers presented revised data using a hydraulic model incorporating newer cross sections than the MMI model and the hydrology data developed by the Office of Water Resources (OWR). The Corps HEC-RAS model cross section that is closest to the MMI 46.21 section is 11137.49 (the Corps model is based on a stationing in feet instead of a river mile stationing). As presented at the April meeting, at a discharge of 245 cfs, the topwidth of the river with the dam in place would be 114 feet and the topwidth with the dam removed would be 89 feet; this is a difference of 25 feet. The USGS did not present data at section 11137.49; the closest section they presented data for was at section 11518.2. At this section for a discharge of 199 cfs (which incorporates the impacts of the Salt Creek to Des Plaines River diversion) the topwidth of the river with the dam in place is 122 feet and the topwidth with the dam removed would be 111 feet; this is a difference of 11 feet. For the same location but with a discharge of 149 cfs (which assumes no flow in the Salt Creek to Des Plaines River diversion) the topwidth of the river would be 121 feet with the dam in place and would be 107 feet with the dam removed; this is a difference of 14 feet. I have attached a comparison of the data that was presented at the September 2011 meeting, the April 2012 meeting and the June 2012 meeting for the 16 cross sections used by USGS at the June 2012 meeting. This comparison was available at the June 7, 2012 meeting as was stated during the meeting by Dr. Tim Straub of the USGS and Mr. Jeff Zuercher of the Corps of Engineers 4. Mud flats. On account of the geometry of the river bed behind Maplewood, as indicated by the USGS river profiles, the newly exposed mudflats will in sections be wide and flat. As a consequence, they largely will not re-vegetate. This is in direct contradiction to vague and unsupported claims made by the IDNR and ACE that the new mudflats will quickly revegetate. The question of revegetation is outside the direct scope of the USGS study. However one can use the river profiles the USGS generated at various exceedances to deduce this. Looking again at cross-section 46.21, at 80% exceedance, the river would be about 80' wide if the dam is removed. On the other hand, the median flow during the time period the USGS took as the relevant data for calculating their statistics, the 2000's, is about 600 cfs which is very close to

the old incorrect "annualized" 80% exceedance of 582 cfs. The river at this flow would be roughly 130' wide. The 50' of exposed mudflats between 80% exceedance and the median exceedance will be under water more than half the time. It seems very unlikely that plants will grow in mudbanks which are under water more than half the time. So for two or three months out of the year, residents will have to deal with bare, wide mudflats. Please refer to the response to Item 3 above. There was no discharge presented that would result in a 50 foot reduction in topwidth in the vicinity of Maplewood Road after the dam is removed. 5. Smells and Mosquitoes. Although smells and mosquitoes are also outside the scope of the USGS study, wide periodically inundated mud flats with shallow pooling appear likely to result in unpleasant smells as the sun bakes the organic matter in the mud. These mudflats and small pools also are likely to provide breeding grounds for mosquitoes. The pool created by Hofmann Dam can be considered a breeding ground for mosquitoes; the flowing water of the Des Plaines River after the dam is removed will provide fewer habitats for mosquito breeding. The reach of the river downstream of Hofmann Dam is a good example of what the river upstream of Hofmann Dam will be once the dam is removed. We have not been informed that the stretch of river downstream of Hofmann Dam produces any unpleasant smells during the fluctuations in water depth; we expect that there will not be unpleasant smells for the long term in the reach upstream of Hofmann Dam. We do acknowledge that there might be a period of time immediately after the dam is removed that the river bottom may produce unpleasant smells; this however will not be the long term condition of the river 6. Seawalls. One of the homeowners on Maplewood who has wide experience with seawalls has recently called attention to another serious direct impact to the property owners along Maplewood, namely the deterioration of the sea walls, steps, and sitting areas that border the river, and damage to the foundations of the Boat House as the water recedes. These structures are designed to sit in water, water on one side, earth on the other. The water serves to help equalize the pressure on both sides of the wall. In addition, even on the coldest days of winter water flows under the ice maintaining a constant temperature above freezing for the foundations of these walls, patios, stairs, and boat house. If the dam is notched, the water will recede from these foundations, exposing them to the freeze thaw cycle which may over the course of time result in their collapse. Homeowners will incur large financial losses, as well as the loss of enjoyment of their property. The seawalls have already been exposed to the stress of not having water against them in the time periods prior to the 1970s when the river would dry up. If properly designed the structures should have been constructed to withstand the earth loads without a counteracting water load since it was known that the river had previously dried up. No adverse impacts to the structure of these seawalls are expected. 7. Longer term changes in river bottom. The USGS study is an engineering study. They assumed that the existing river bottom profiles will not change after the removal of the dam.

We asked them to do an analysis of what will happen to the river bottoms once the dam is gone and the current becomes much faster, moving the feet of accumulated silt down stream. They said, correctly, that this was outside the scope of their work. It seems very likely however that what will happen is that all of the sediment that has built up for the last 150 years during which there has been a dam in one form or another will be scoured away down to bedrock. We don't know how deep this is. As the scouring occurs, the side banks of the main channel will collapse, putting further stress on the sea walls. This project is essentially a totally uncontrolled experiment, with minimal upside, and with very large downsides. The scope of work for the USGS was developed by the Village of Riverside and select citizens. There was no request by the Village or the residents for the USGS to do an analysis of what will happen to the river bottoms once the dam is gone. There is anecdotal evidence that large storms, on an order of magnitude of a 0.10 probability of recurrence, will transport much of the fine grained sediments that fall out of the water column in the pool of Hofmann dam; there is not a 150 year deposition of material that will be resuspended once the dam is removed 8. Unknown changes. Along the lines of point 7, there are likely be changes that no one has foreseen. For example, because the river would be shallower, will more debris like trees build up in the river bed? Will more garbage get trapped? Who will address these kinds of problems if they occur? Will these kinds of things happen? We don't know, but we are not not interested in running the experiment to find out. There does not appear to be a large accumulation of debris and garbage downstream of Hofmann dam; the same type of flow conditions will prevail upstream of Hofmann once the dam is removed. As with all rivers in Illinois the riparian landowners have the authority to remove any debris that might accumulate. 9. Flooding. Many Riverside residents are justifiably extremely concerned about flooding. We count ourselves in this group. All homeowners who live near the river, whether on Maplewood, Groveland, Lincoln, West, or any of the other areas in the flood plain, are concerned about the risk of floods. Many of us spent the weekend of the flood in 2008 sandbagging at our neighbors' houses on Maplewood who were affected by the flood, just as residents of other affected streets spent the weekend sandbagging. In addition, many of us are members of the Riverside Flood Prevention Group. Flooding is an issue which should unite everyone in Riverside - we all share a common interest not divide us. If removing the dam were going to meaningfully reduce our common flood risk, everyone on Maplewood would almost certainly be on board with it, despite the serious negative implications we are otherwise going to face from this project. We have repeatedly stated that flood control is not a significant outcome of the removal of Hofmann Dam. 10. Ecological Restoration. The sole official purpose of this project is ecological restoration. Like flood control, everyone is in favor of ecological restoration. Having more fish species upstream is clearly better than having fewer. At the same time it is impossible not to notice that

the great majority of people who want the dam taken down want it down because they hope it will reduce flooding. With few exceptions (most notably John Mack, of the River Rats, whose dedication to the river we admire) people who are passionate are passionate because of their flooding relief hopes, not because they are passionate about having more fish species up river. This was clear from the comments at the Thursday meeting. But we need to be realistic about the ecological benefits. This isn't the Klamath River where removing dams would help restore an historically and culturally important salmon migration. This isn't a biological hot spot filled with rare and important species. The DesPlaines is a small, muddy, heavily urbanized and polluted midwestern river of no particular biological or ecological importance. It has been, and will remain, altered beyond all recognition from its natural state. Removing the dam won't change that picture. So even for committed environmentalists and conservationists the ecological benefits of restoring the river are objectively small, especially in light of the large sums of money being spent on the project. We do not concur with your statement that The DesPlaines is a small, muddy, heavily urbanized and polluted midwestern river of no particular biological or ecological importance. As stated in the Environmental Assessment prepared by Parsons Engineering for this project Overall, the Des Plaines River ecosystem would benefit from this project and so would the environmental quality of the project area and downstream receiving waters. The ecosystem restoration would result in wildlife and fisheries habitat that are conducive to restoring the land to its historic conditions. Biodiversity in the area would increase with the introduction of aquatic species from below the dam. Water quality in the Des Plaines River would improve due to increased flow and higher levels of dissolved oxygen. The cost of removing Hofmann Dam may seem high when looked at in a small time frame but when the initial costs are spread out over numerous decades the cost is small. The benefits to be gained from the removal of Hofmann dam (ecosystem benefits, reduction in hazards at the dam that can cause death or serious injury and the elimination for the need for future maintenance/reconstruction of the dam) justify the costs of the dam removal. 11. Olmsted and History. The Olmsted Society website has an excellent summary of the history of the dams, http://www.olmstedsociety.org/education/history-of-dams-in-riverside-il/ The first dam was built in 1827 to power a sawmill. Some time after the original dam was destroyed, a second dam was built in 1866 to power a grist mill. There has been a dam at this site continuously since 1866. Olmsted saw the 1866 dam when he visited the area in 1868 and recommended that the height of the 1866 dam be increased: It will probably be best to increase the height of the mill dam so as to enlarge the area of public water suitable for boating and skating, and so as to completely cover some low, flat ground now exposed in low stages of the river." It seems that the appearance of the river at low flow was also a concern of Olmsted's. In 1908, the beer brewer George Hoffmann (Hoffmann Beer), built a new larger dam on the site to complement his beer garden, fulfilling for a time part of Olmsted's vision for this area. In 1936 the WPA removed the rotting wooden top of Hofmann's dam, lowering the crest by several feet. To quote the Olmsted website, "The current dam was constructed by the State of Illinois in 1950 following much public concern over the [lower] crest level." Evidently, residents in the 1930s and 1940s did not like what they saw when the dam crest was lowered by several feet.

In 1827 the dam constructed had a purpose which was to power a saw mill. In 1866 the dam constructed had a purpose which was to power a grist mill. In 1908 the dam that was constructed by George Hofmann had a purpose which was as an attraction to raise more revenue from his beer garden enterprise. In 1950 the dam that was built by the state of Illinois had a purpose which was to provide a pool of water that would cover up the raw sewage that was depositing on the bed of the river. The Hofmann dam of 2012 has no purpose other than as a historic artifact; it is a hindrance to ecosystem improvements and its existence poses serious safety concerns and potential liabilities. 12. Historic Riverfront Properties. Just as the historic homes along Scottswood, Longcommon, Nutall and many other Riverside streets are not just private houses to be enjoyed by their owners, but are also part of the historic architectural fabric of the town, able to be enjoyed by every passerby, and contributing to the architectural distinction of the town, so too the riverfront houses along Maplewood, with their historic architectural seawalls, boat landings, terraces, sitting area and boat houses, are able to be enjoyed by everyone boating or canoeing down the river. Indeed, although Maplewood Rd was not part of Olmsted's original design, his plan for the riverfront behind the dam has been realized on Maplewood. Olmsted wrote that the riverfront should have valuable trees growing upon it, and there should be pretty boat landings, terraces, balconies overhanging the water, and pavilions at points desirable for observing regattas, mainly rustic in character and to be half overgrown with vines. This is a good description of what the riverfront behind Maplewood looks like today. Riverfront planners recommend minimal disturbance of the natural river environment or to make efforts to return the river to a more natural environment. There are also rules and regulations for construction in the floodways of rivers that would prevent the construction of the boathouses that Mr. Olmstead envisioned. 13. Swan Pond. As there is no significant flooding benefits to this project and as the ecological benefits are also small, one must ask what exactly the Village is getting out of this project and why some Village officials have enthusiastically backed this project, at least until the present revelations. President Gorman lobbied extensively to have the dam removed (see http://www.rblandmark.com/print.asp?ArticleID=6495&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1 ). The reason appears to be that in exchange for cooperating with the IDNR to take the dam down the IDNR would regrade Swan Pond. Whatever the merits of this trade may have been when the changes upstream from the dam were believed to be minimal, the calculation changes greatly now that it is evident that the quality of life and property values of some residents will be adversely affected. To proceed with this deal, in light of what we have all learned over the last few months about the major changes on the river upstream from the dam at low flow, and how it will affect the property values and quality of life of residents who live on the river, would be tantamount to sacrificing the welfare of a group of residents for the benefit of regrading Swan Pond. Our view is that if Swan Pond is worth doing, and the IDNR and ACE evidently think it is because they are spending a lot of our state and federal tax dollars to do it, then it should be worth doing on its own merits, independently of the dam. This deal should not be done at the direct expense of riverfront homeowners.

The costs for the improvements to Swan Pond Park were justified as part of the entire ecosystem restoration project that included the removal of Armitage, Hofmann and Fairbanks dams. The benefits of improvements to Swan Pond Park include better postflood drainage and improved recreation. If the Village, the IDNR, and the ACE take no action at this stage to halt the notching, after the USGS has confirmed, to the extent that the scope of their project permitted, our principal claims about river width and depths at low flow, it would be clear that the study was conducted in bad faith, with no intention of acting on its results, and merely to pacify residents with the appearance that their concerns were being addressed. The USGS study has shown that the use of the HEC-RAS model produces accurate water surface elevations based on their synoptic measurements. Furthermore, the USGS analysis has shown that the changes in topwidths of the Des Plaines River resulting from removal of Hofmann Dam are in the same range as previously shown. The impacts to the topwidths of the river described by the USGS are not substantially different than the impacts presented when the Village Board voted to proceed with the project. We seek permission to continue this project. We believe that all impacts of the Hofmann Dam removal or changes in water conditions have been identified and mitigated. Any unidentified impacts that may surface later would be the responsibility of IDNR and the Corps of Engineers to mitigate. Thank you for the opportunity to explain the position of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources on this important project. Sincerely,

Arlan R. Juhl, P.E., Director Office of Water Resources ARJ:RAG:rag Enclosure

Comparison of Model Results using Various Hydrologic Data

Malone and MacBroom Hydrology
Created June 2002 Presented September 2011

OWR Hydrology
Created September 2011 Presented April 2012

USGS Hydrology/Hydraulics
Created May 2012 Presented June 2012

Section 16197.8

Section 16197.8

Cross section 16197 80% Exceedance

Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div Q (cfs) Top Width (ft) Depth (ft) At 16197 Existing Proposed Difference Existing Proposed Difference 512 125.68 121.31 -4.37 7.00 6.61 -0.39 216 174.65 174.19 -0.46 5.83 5.67 -0.16 149 169.60 167.53 -2.07 5.33 5.18 -0.15 149 165.48 162.06 -3.42 5.07 4.88 -0.19

Cross section 16197 7Q10

Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div Q (cfs) Top Width (ft) Depth (ft) At 16197 Existing Proposed Difference Existing Proposed Difference 122 105.96 92.74 -13.22 5.22 4.28 -0.94 122 167.08 162.71 -4.37 5.16 4.92 -0.24 47.3 157.36 148.81 -8.55 4.63 4.41 -0.22 47.3 140.80 123.46 -17.34 4.28 3.83 -0.45

Section 14792.6

Section 14792.6

Cross section 14792 80% Exceedance

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div 245 199 149 132.89 120.42 112.81 128.13 115.97 106.96 -4.76 -4.45 -5.85 6.05 5.59 5.32 5.86 5.32 5.11 -0.19 -0.27 -0.21 At 14792 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference Depth (ft) Existing Proposed Difference

Cross section 14792 7Q10

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div 138 101 47.3 115.71 102.09 92.39 108.36 96.88 85.42 -7.35 -5.21 -6.97 5.42 4.93 4.59 5.16 4.72 4.12 -0.26 -0.21 -0.47 At 14792 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference Depth (ft) Existing Proposed Difference

Section 13666.2

Section 13666.2

Cross section 13666 80% Exceedance

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div At 13666 245 199 149 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference 98.00 90.70 87.04 93.51 86.93 82.16 -4.49 -3.77 -4.88 Depth (ft) Existing Proposed Difference 3.55 3.10 2.88 3.28 2.87 2.58 -0.27 -0.23 -0.30

Cross section 13666 7Q10

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div At 13666 138 101 47.3 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference 88.92 81.27 75.60 82.95 74.82 63.43 -5.97 -6.45 -12.17 Depth (ft) Existing Proposed Difference 3.00 2.53 2.28 2.63 2.24 1.71 -0.37 -0.29 -0.57

Section 12492.2

Section 12492.2

Cross section 12492 80% Exceedance

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div At 12492 579 245 199 149 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference 146.74 128.10 119.33 114.95 139.58 103.62 93.85 86.00 -7.16 -24.48 -25.48 -28.95 5.27 2.91 2.44 2.33 Depth (ft) Existing Proposed Difference 4.65 2.06 1.64 1.35 -0.62 -0.85 -0.80 -0.98

Cross section 12492 7Q10

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div At 12492 138 138 101 47.3 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference 130.20 120.06 103.56 101.90 115.10 86.74 77.36 68.16 -15.10 -33.32 -26.20 -33.74 3.82 2.48 2.05 1.98 Depth (ft) Existing Proposed Difference 2.50 1.38 1.03 0.71 -1.32 -1.10 -1.02 -1.27

Section 11518.2

Section 11518.2

Cross section 11518 80% Exceedance

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div 245 199 149 125.39 121.65 120.91 116.76 110.95 107.37 -8.63 -10.70 -13.54 4.24 3.79 3.70 3.23 2.80 2.50 -1.01 -0.99 -1.20 At 11518 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference Depth (ft) Existing Proposed Difference

Cross section 11518 7Q10

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div 138 101 47.3 122.15 118.73 118.24 107.25 96.78 82.43 -14.90 -21.95 -35.81 3.85 3.43 3.37 2.49 2.07 1.56 -1.36 -1.36 -1.81 At 11518 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference Depth (ft) Existing Proposed Difference

Section 10592

Section 10592

Cross section 10591 80% Exceedance

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div 245 199 149 100.00 95.41 94.84 84.82 78.79 70.58 -15.18 -16.62 -24.26 4.23 3.79 3.74 2.86 2.43 2.18 -1.37 -1.36 -1.56 At 10591 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference Depth (ft) Existing Proposed Difference

Cross section 10591 7Q10

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div 138 101 47.3 96.47 91.75 91.06 69.34 64.17 59.33 -27.13 -27.58 -31.73 3.89 3.49 3.46 2.08 1.64 1.23 -1.81 -1.85 -2.23 At 10591 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference Depth (ft) Existing Proposed Difference

Section 9682.66

Section 9682.66

Cross section 9682 80% Exceedance

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div At 9682 579 245 199 149 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference 161.26 156.40 148.95 147.78 147.65 122.90 117.66 115.09 -13.61 -33.50 -31.29 -32.69 6.08 5.04 4.62 4.57 Depth (ft) Existing Proposed Difference 5.20 3.55 3.15 2.94 -0.88 -1.49 -1.47 -1.63

Cross section 9682 7Q10

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div At 9682 138 138 101 47.3 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference 142.58 151.98 141.35 140.68 103.43 113.34 108.29 103.55 -39.15 -38.64 -33.06 -37.13 4.88 4.73 4.34 4.31 Depth (ft) Existing Proposed Difference 2.69 2.80 2.38 2.03 -2.19 -1.93 -1.96 -2.28

Section 8907.66

Section 8907.66

Cross section 8907 80% Exceedance

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div At 8907 579 245 199 149 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference 113.84 102.04 98.48 98.17 109.97 89.91 87.51 86.26 -3.87 -12.13 -10.97 -11.91 7.45 6.66 6.24 6.21 Depth (ft) Existing Proposed Difference 6.52 5.10 4.73 4.53 -0.93 -1.56 -1.51 -1.68

Cross section 8907 7Q10

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div At 8907 138 138 101 47.3 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference 108.62 99.47 96.19 96.01 95.96 85.07 82.65 80.48 -12.66 -14.40 -13.54 -15.53 6.27 6.36 5.97 5.95 Depth (ft) Existing Proposed Difference 4.00 4.35 3.97 3.64 -2.27 -2.01 -2.00 -2.31

Section 7978.93

Cross section 7978 80% Exceedance

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div 245 199 149 145.95 139.56 138.65 113.92 104.90 100.59 -32.03 -34.66 -38.06 5.00 4.59 4.56 3.39 3.04 2.86 -1.61 -1.55 -1.70 At 7978 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Depth (ft) Section 7978.93 Difference Existing Proposed Difference

Cross section 7978 7Q10

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div 138 101 47.3 143.17 131.85 131.34 95.89 91.15 80.92 -47.28 -40.70 -50.42 4.71 4.33 4.31 2.66 2.31 2.00 -2.05 -2.02 -2.31 At 7978 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference Depth (ft) Existing Proposed Difference

Section 7387.06

Cross section 7387 80% Exceedance

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div At 7387 579 245 199 149 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference 324.57 144.14 115.59 114.75 200.09 85.38 80.81 79.19 -124.48 -58.76 -34.78 -35.56 Depth (ft) Section 7387.06 Existing Proposed Difference 6.47 4.73 4.33 4.31 5.47 2.91 2.61 2.49 -1.00 -1.82 -1.72 -1.82

Cross section 7387 7Q10

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div At 7387 138 138 101 47.3 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference 184.33 122.20 104.55 104.37 107.34 75.24 70.40 65.89 -76.99 -46.96 -34.15 -38.48 Depth (ft) Existing Proposed Difference 5.35 4.46 4.09 4.08 3.02 2.21 1.90 1.70 -2.33 -2.25 -2.19 -2.38

Section 6042.23

Cross section 6042 80% Exceedance

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div 245 199 149 196.69 190.33 190.22 140.14 137.59 136.85 -56.55 -52.74 -53.37 5.18 4.79 4.79 3.21 2.97 2.90 -1.97 -1.82 -1.89 At 6042 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference Depth (ft) Section 6042.23 Existing Proposed Difference

Cross section 6042 7Q10

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div 138 101 47.3 192.62 187.84 187.80 132.71 129.79 128.61 -59.91 -58.05 -59.19 4.94 4.57 4.57 2.55 2.29 2.17 -2.39 -2.28 -2.40 At 6042 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference Depth (ft) Existing Proposed Difference

Section 5688.6

Cross section 5688 80% Exceedance

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div 245 199 149 162.09 159.61 159.59 134.65 127.52 126.43 -27.44 -32.09 -33.16 4.50 4.12 4.11 2.46 2.24 2.20 -2.04 -1.88 -1.91 At 5688 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference Depth (ft) Section 5688.6 Existing Proposed Difference

Cross section 5688 7Q10

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div 138 101 47.3 160.44 158.41 158.40 118.57 113.12 112.11 -41.87 -45.29 -46.29 4.27 3.90 3.89 1.81 1.57 1.48 -2.46 -2.33 -2.41 At 5688 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference Depth (ft) Existing Proposed Difference

Section 4804.44

Cross section 4804 80% Exceedance

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div 245 99.05 77.65 -21.40 4.74 2.51 -2.23 245 105.18 78.76 -26.42 5.12 2.68 -2.44 At 4804 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference

Section 4804.44 Depth (ft)

Existing Proposed Difference

Cross section 4804 7Q10

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div 131 95.97 72.41 -23.56 4.54 1.82 -2.72 139 101.82 73.81 -28.01 4.91 2.01 -2.90 At 4804 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference Depth (ft) Existing Proposed Difference

Section 3542.87

Cross section 3542 80% Exceedance

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div 245 94.22 57.53 -36.69 6.08 3.30 -2.78 245 99.35 58.75 -40.60 6.47 3.44 -3.03 At 3542 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference Depth (ft) Section 3542.87 Existing Proposed Difference

Cross section 3542 7Q10

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div 131 92.14 52.85 -39.29 5.93 2.72 -3.21 139 96.98 54.24 -42.74 6.29 2.87 -3.42 At 3542 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference Depth (ft) Existing Proposed Difference

Section 2691.22

Cross section 2691 80% Exceedance

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div 245 226.96 91.79 -135.17 6.65 2.77 -3.88 At 2691 582 245 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference 370.95 242.98 174.05 94.00 -196.90 -148.98 Depth (ft) Section 2691.22 Existing Proposed Difference 15.00 7.04 15.00 2.87 0.00 -4.17

Cross section 2691 7Q10

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div 131 217.97 79.90 -138.07 6.51 2.25 -4.26 At 2691 139 139 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference 333.11 236.77 35.81 82.71 -297.30 -154.06 Depth (ft) Existing Proposed Difference 8.39 6.87 2.37 2.37 -6.02 -4.50

Section 1682.04

Cross section 1682 80% Exceedance

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div 245 368.43 97.33 -271.10 7.86 1.42 -6.44 245 369.60 111.57 -258.03 8.25 1.95 -6.30 At 1682 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference Depth (ft) Section 1682.04 Existing Proposed Difference

Cross section 1682 7Q10

Q (cfs) Model MMI OWR USGS Div USGS No Div 131 367.55 76.04 -291.51 7.73 1.00 -6.73 139 369.12 97.81 -271.31 8.09 1.43 -6.66 At 1682 Top Width (ft) Existing Proposed Difference Depth (ft) Existing Proposed Difference

June 7, 2012

To the USACE, IDNR and the Village of Riverside, On April 22nd of this year I wrote to you on behalf of the Frederick Law Olmsted Society regarding our concerns that the presentation of inaccurate river depths and widths by USACE at the September 2011 public meeting may greatly underestimate the extent to which riverbank stabilization and restoration will be required upstream of the project work limits after the dam is notched. Since that date, I have had the pleasure of working with your respective representatives and project leaders who have acknowledged the discrepancies and have subsequently provided the corrected information regarding the Des Plaines River hydrology. I have had the opportunity to be involved with the selection of review criteria for the USGS survey, and our independent Hoffman Dam Committee has reviewed the scope of verification as well. I was impressed with the presentation made to the public on the evening of June 7th and felt that it thoroughly and accurately explained the projected river modeling. Following the public session, I had the opportunity to speak with Arlen Juhl from the IDNR regarding our original concern about riverbank restoration upstream of the notched dam. Specifically, we discussed what guarantees there would be for restoration of affected land/mudflats that fall outside the current work limits of the project now that the corrected model suggests the potential for wider exposed flats that may or may not naturally re-seed. Mr. Juhl assured me that the IDNR will be monitoring this situation and that if issues arise within the 3-year post project period they would be addressed with plantings/seedings as necessary. My suggestion is that this is something that should be put in writing for the benefit of the Village of Riverside, its residents and visitors to our NHL landscape. Again, the Frederick Law Olmsted Society believes this project will improve water quality and drainage in our landscape. It is to everyones advantage to ensure that the areas surrounding and affected by this project are restored as well. We appreciate the IDNRs recognition of this issue and look forward to its incorporation into the project plan. Sincerely,

Timothy M. Ozga President, Frederick Law Olmsted Society