Download - Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed
![Page 1: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River
WatershedSTAKEHOLDER MEETING
June 6, 2012Oakland University
![Page 2: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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
![Page 3: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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
![Page 4: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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
![Page 5: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Key Project Participants
• NOAA – Michigan Sea Grant• Integrated Assessment
Program
![Page 6: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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
![Page 7: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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
![Page 8: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Watershed
![Page 9: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
A watershed is a region draining into a river, river system, or other body of
water.
![Page 10: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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
![Page 11: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
11
![Page 12: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
12
![Page 13: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Clinton River Watershed
![Page 14: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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
![Page 15: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
![Page 16: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
16
![Page 17: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Current Conditions
![Page 18: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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
![Page 19: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
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
![Page 20: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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
![Page 21: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Operational Data
![Page 22: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Consequences of Current Conditions
![Page 23: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Issue – Interrupted Flow Regime
![Page 24: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
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
![Page 25: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Price Dam
August 12, 2010
September 1, 2010
1
![Page 26: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
Entrance to Under Ground Channel
August 12, 2010September 1, 2010
3
![Page 27: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
Exit from Underground Channel Looking West
4
August 12, 2010 September 1, 2010
![Page 28: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Exit from Underground Channel Looking East
4
September 1, 2010August 12, 2010
![Page 29: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
Pontiac WWTP Outfall
![Page 30: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
Opdyke Rd and Auburn Rd6
September 1, 2010
![Page 31: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
Riverside Park – Auburn Hills7
August 12, 2010Looking Downstream
September 1, 2010Looking Upstream
![Page 32: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
![Page 33: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
![Page 34: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
![Page 35: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
![Page 36: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
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)
![Page 37: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
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)
![Page 38: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
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)
![Page 39: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
Flow in Clinton River
Closed to maintain lake levels
Rainfall – remain closed
![Page 40: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
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
![Page 41: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
41
Stakeholder Engagement
![Page 42: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
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)
![Page 43: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
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
![Page 44: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
44
Survey Results
Lake and River Region
![Page 45: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
45
Survey Results
Survey Responses from Each ZIP Code
![Page 46: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
46
I Live:
![Page 47: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
47
My Residence is:
![Page 48: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
48
I believe the lake levels are maintained properly:
![Page 49: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
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."
![Page 50: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
50
Lake Level FluctuationHow much fluctuation are you willing to tolerate on your lake for an overall healthier watershed:
![Page 51: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
51
Environmental Impacts
![Page 52: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
52
• Improve flow and water quality in the river• Reduced shoreline erosion• Improved aquatic and riparian vegetative
communities (native over invasive)
Environmental Impacts
![Page 53: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
53
• Increase in macro-invertabrate communities• Improved amphibian populations• Improved spawning habitat• Improved fishing in river & lakes• Improved wildlife viewing
Environmental Impacts
![Page 54: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
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
![Page 55: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
55
Recreational Impacts
![Page 56: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
56
Recreational Impacts• Fishing • Boating • Canoeing/kayaking• Park Visits
![Page 57: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
![Page 58: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Paddlepalozza and Rental Operations
If flow < 50 cfs only 10 miles of 20 miles can be
paddled.
![Page 59: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
59
Hydrologic Modeling
![Page 60: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
![Page 61: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
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
![Page 62: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
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.
![Page 63: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
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.
![Page 64: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
64
Water Release Results
![Page 65: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
65
Water Release Results
![Page 66: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
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
![Page 67: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
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
![Page 68: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
68
Socio-Economic Model
![Page 69: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
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
![Page 70: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
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)
![Page 71: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
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.
![Page 72: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
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
![Page 73: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
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)
![Page 74: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
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
![Page 75: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
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
![Page 76: Understanding the Impact of Lake Level Controls on Natural Flow in the Clinton River Watershed](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020106/568133ad550346895d9ab9c4/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
76
Project Website
http://www.ltu.edu/water/iaclintonrivershed.asp
• Project updates• Interactive map• Online survey• Project contact information• Photos