understanding the impact of lake level controls on natural flow in the clinton river watershed

1

Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River

WatershedSTAKEHOLDER MEETING

June 6, 2012Oakland University

2

• Investigation• Clinton River Watershed• Current conditions and flow management• Stakeholder engagement and survey results• Environmental Impacts• Recreational Impacts• Hydrologic Modeling• Socio-economic Modeling• Summary

Agenda

3

Purpose of this Meeting• Provide you, the stakeholders, with background

information on watershed issues and this study• Brief you on project findings as a follow up from 2010

public forums• Assure you that no actions or decisions have been

made

4

Study Goals

1. Document environmental, social, and economic trends related to current conditions

2. Forecast river/lake conditions under alternative flow management scenarios

3. Solicit public comment (stakeholder engagement)4. Provide technical guidance on possible means of

implementing the various management alternatives

5

Key Project Participants

• NOAA – Michigan Sea Grant• Integrated Assessment

Program

6

Key Project Participants

• NOAA – Michigan Sea Grant• Integrated Assessment Program

• Lawrence Technological University• Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc• Veritas Economic Consulting, LLC• Oakland University• City of Auburn Hills

7

Technical Advisory Board

• Oakland County WRC • Oakland County PEDS• Michigan DNR• Michigan DEQ• Sylvan Lake Association• Oakland Lake Association• Clinton River Watershed Council• Trout Unlimited

• City of Auburn Hills• City of Rochester Hills• City of Rochester• Waterford Township• Outdoor Escorts LLC• Spalding DeDecker• Local Business Owners & Citizens

8

Watershed

9

A watershed is a region draining into a river, river system, or other body of

water.

10

Factors Impacting Flow• Precipitation• Direct runoff vs. infiltration• Drought or excessive dry weather (climate

change)• Human Impacts

• Runoff from increased urbanization• Wetland/floodplain alterations• Alteration of groundwater flows• Regulating impoundment discharges

11

11

12

12

13

Clinton River Watershed

14

• 760 square miles• 80 miles from headwaters to

the outlet at Lake St. Clair• Includes portions of Wayne,

Lapeer, Macomb, Oakland & St. Clair counties

• Includes 63 communities• 1.5 million people live within

the watershed• Most populated watershed in

Michigan

16

16

17

Current Conditions

18

Process for Establishing Lake Level Controls

• Part 307 of the Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act establishes “normal levels”

• Initiated by a riparian owners petition or a county board

• Requires an impact study• Set by the court

19

Factors Considered when Establishing a Lake Level

• Protection of public health, safety and welfare• Preservation of natural resources of the state

• Lake and stream habitat• Wetlands

• Preservation and protection of property values around the lake

• Interaction with surrounding lakes or watershed were not considered in 50s/60s

20

Factors Considered when Establishing a Lake Level

• 50 lakes/impoundments in the study area

• 21 with court ordered lake levels• 1960’s

• 8 structures actively managed by OCWRC office:• Cemetery-Dollar, Van Norman, Look, Watkins,

Orchard, Cass, Dawson Mill, Crystal

21

Operational Data

22

Consequences of Current Conditions

23

Issue – Interrupted Flow Regime

24

Interactive Map – Low Flow Pictures

Price DamWalter Moore Dam

Entrance to Underground Channel

Exit of Underground Channel

Channel at Paddock and Huron

Opdyke and AuburnRiverside Park

12

3

45

67

24

25

Price Dam

August 12, 2010

September 1, 2010

1

26

Entrance to Under Ground Channel

August 12, 2010September 1, 2010

3

27

Exit from Underground Channel Looking West

4

August 12, 2010 September 1, 2010

28

Exit from Underground Channel Looking East

4

September 1, 2010August 12, 2010

29

Pontiac WWTP Outfall

30

Opdyke Rd and Auburn Rd6

September 1, 2010

31

Riverside Park – Auburn Hills7

August 12, 2010Looking Downstream

September 1, 2010Looking Upstream

36

Median Flow - July 17, 2008

• No rainfall was recorded from July 15, 2008 to July 19, 2008

• The mean flow in the river over five days was 40 cfs (60 cfs in photo)

• Most control structures were closed or minimally adjusted

• Lake levels ranged from at court ordered level to 3 inches above Avon Rd Bridge in Rochester Hills -

looking downstream (Moore 2008)

37

High Flow - May 23, 2004

• 20 year storm

• 2.72 inches of rain fell over 24 hours

• Mean flow in the river was 1000 cfs

• Most control structures were opened to maximum

• Before the storm lake levels started between 6” below and at court ordered level

• After the storm lake levels rose to above the court ordered level (approximately 2 ft)

Avon Rd Bridge in Rochester Hills – Upstream (Moore 2004)

38

Low Flow - July 6, 2010

• No Rainfall from July 4-8, 2010.

• Mean flow in the river was 18 cfs.

• All control structures were closed.

• Lake levels ranged from 2 inches below to 2 inches above their court ordered levels.

Avon Rd Bridge in Rochester Hills – looking downstream (Moore 2010)

39

Flow in Clinton River

Closed to maintain lake levels

Rainfall – remain closed

40

Frequency of ModificationYear Consecutive Days of Flow < 30 CFS Consecutive Days of Flow < 20 CFS

2001 37, July–August None

2002 19, July 51, July–September 9, September

23, August–September

2003 No data No data

2004 9, April 27, September–October

None

2005 25, August 23, August–September 9, October 9, October

None

2006 9, August 8, September

None

2007 11, June 37, June–August 10, August 9, September

18, September 9, October

None

2008 25, July–August 13, August–September

8, August 8, August–September

2009 None None

2010 16, June–July 41, August–September 10, September

7, July 35, August–September 9, September

2011 18, July None

Every other year 30 days < 30 cfs and 14 days < 20 cfs

41

Stakeholder Engagement

Stakeholder Engagement • Print Media (Fall of 2010)

– Oakland Lakefront Magazine, Detroit Free Press, West Oakland Spinal Column, Press Release

• Email List serves through Advisory Board contacts

• Stakeholder Survey– 16 questions designed to help project team understand how the

stakeholders interact, understand, and use the Clinton River and the connecting lakes (hard copy at forum and online version).

• Fall 2010 Public Forums:– Waterford Township (Nov 3), Auburn Hills (Nov 4), and Oakland

University (Nov 13)– Approximately 170 people attended three public meetings (89 surveys) – 59 surveys were completed online around the same time (138 total)

Stakeholder Engagement • OCWRC office correspondence:

– sent mailers in 2010 to Lake Improvement Boards to encourage citizen and community leaders to attend public forums.

– project information sheet with survey information was mailed to each lake improvement board member in spring 2011 (12 Boards and 93 members).

• Summer 2011 Events (100s of flyers distributed):– Clinton River Water Festival, Oakland University, Auburn Hills. – Auburn Hills Fishing Derby, Riverside Park, Auburn Hills. – CRWC River Fest Rochester Municipal Park, Rochester.

• Total of 10 online surveys were completed during 2011

Total of 148 Responses

44

Survey Results

Lake and River Region

45

Survey Results

Survey Responses from Each ZIP Code

46

I Live:

47

My Residence is:

48

I believe the lake levels are maintained properly:

49

Lake Level FluctuationPlease indicate your level of agreement with the following statement: "I would tolerate moderate fluctuation in lake levels if it meant an overall healthier watershed."

50

Lake Level FluctuationHow much fluctuation are you willing to tolerate on your lake for an overall healthier watershed:

51

Environmental Impacts

52

• Improve flow and water quality in the river• Reduced shoreline erosion• Improved aquatic and riparian vegetative

communities (native over invasive)

Environmental Impacts

53

• Increase in macro-invertabrate communities• Improved amphibian populations• Improved spawning habitat• Improved fishing in river & lakes• Improved wildlife viewing

Environmental Impacts

54

Environmental Impacts• Improve flow and water quality in the river• Reduced shoreline erosion• Improved aquatic and riparian vegetative

communities• Improved amphibian populations• Increase in macro-invertabrate communities• Improved spawning habitat• Improved fishing in river & lakes• Improved wildlife viewing

55

Recreational Impacts

56

Recreational Impacts• Fishing • Boating • Canoeing/kayaking• Park Visits

Paddlepalozza and Rental Operations

If flow < 50 cfs only 10 miles of 20 miles can be

paddled.

59

Hydrologic Modeling

61

Hydrologic Model

• 50 Lakes over a 69,520 acre watershed

• GIS was used to assign watershed properties

• Travel time of 32 hours from farthest upstream lake to outlet

62

Hydrologic Model• There were two basic types of scenarios modeled:

• Rainfall - The response of the watershed to rainfall events and hypothetical management strategies in response to those events

• Release - A release of water stored in lakes over a set period of time to supplement the Clinton River with flow during times of low water/drought.

63

Rainfall Results

• Rapid release of water from rainfall events creates high peak flows and flashiness in the river compared with natural flow.

• Delaying the release of rainfall events of 2” or less could reduce the peak flow in the Clinton River by 15% to 20%.

• Steadily releasing volume of rain over the watershed over a two week period could create a base flow for the river.

64

Water Release Results

65

Water Release Results

66

Water Release Results – 2 weekRelease Scenario Peak Flow (CFS) River Depth at

Riverside Park, Auburn Hills (ft)1

All lakes – 2 Inches 42 cfs 1.3 ft

Crystal, Cass, Orchard, and Oakland - 2 Inches

15 cfs 1.0 ft

Crystal - 27 Inches Orchard - 9 Inches Oakland - 6 Inches

Cass - 3 inches

49 cfs 1.4 ft

Crystal - 27 Inches 8 cfs 0.9 ft

1 Depth at riverside Park includes 12 cfs from WWTP

67

Water Release Results – 30 dayRelease Scenario Peak Flow (CFS) River Depth at

Riverside Park, Auburn Hills (ft)1

All lakes – 2 Inches 20 cfs 1.0 ft

Crystal, Cass, Orchard, and Oakland - 2 Inches

7 cfs 0.9 ft

Crystal - 27 Inches Orchard - 9 Inches Oakland - 6 Inches

Cass - 3 inches

23 cfs 1.1 ft

Crystal - 27 Inches 4 cfs 0.8 ft

1 Depth at riverside Park includes 12 cfs from WWTP

68

Socio-Economic Model

69

Socio-Economic Analysis• Management options change watershed interactions,

flow, temperature, and channel morphology• Clinton River watershed provides valuable services to

commercial interests and residents• Watershed management affects the economic and social

welfare of the region• Implication of stakeholder engagement was that flow

management strategies that led to large, widespread, and frequent fluctuations were deemed unacceptable

70

Socio-Economic Analysis

• Conducted with Spatial Site Choice Model– A travel cost-based behavioral modeling technique– Applied to a population of sites and people

• Change site usage with specific resource characteristic (ex: fishing, paddling)

71

Socio-Economic Analysis

• Usage:– Transportation Modeling– Natural Resources Damage Assessment– Regulatory Impact Analysis– Risk Assessment– Recreation Planning and Resource Management

• Boating, paddling, site visits to parks, fishing, etc.

72

Socio-Economic Findings• No significant adverse effects to lake

recreators or property owners from modification scenarios considered

• Increase in water flow provides more opportunities in Clinton River especially during extreme lows

• Millions of dollars of revenue in usage benefit associated with a more natural flow regime

73

Overall Project Findings• Court ordered lake levels are compromising watershed

health under current conditions• OCWRC office spends significant effort and resources

managing a very complex system• River flow can be influenced by lake level management

(both low flow and high flow)

74

Overall Project Findings• Stakeholders would accept moderate lake level

fluctuations for overall health of the lakes and river• Moderate lake level changes could improve flow in the

river and overall health of the lakes and river• Significant economic value associated with this resource• Quantification of the benefits would require further

investigation and data collection

75

Summarize• Research investigation funded by Michigan Sea

Grant to determine the effects of lake level controls on the Clinton River Watershed

• Details will be included in final report delivered to Michigan Sea Grant (July 2012) as posted on project website

• Further investigation and analysis before flow management strategies could be implemented by the OCWRC office

76

Project Website

http://www.ltu.edu/water/iaclintonrivershed.asp

• Project updates• Interactive map• Online survey• Project contact information• Photos