Restoring a More Natural Flow Regime to the Clinton River Watershed MWEA 87 th Annual Conference June 26, 2012 Donald D. Carpenter, Ph.D., PE, LEED AP Lawrence Technological University Agenda Study Goals Clinton River Watershed Current conditions and flow management Stakeholder engagement and survey results Environmental Impacts Recreational Impacts Hydrologic Modeling Socio-economic Modeling Summary 1
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 3 Key Project Participants NOAA Michigan Sea Grant 4 2
Key Project Participants Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc Veritas Economic Consulting, LLC Oakland University City of Auburn Hills 5 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 6 3
Clinton River Watershed 7 760 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 8 4
10 1 5
Current Conditions 1 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 1 6
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 1 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 1 7
Operational Data 1 Consequences of Current Conditions 1 8
Issue Interrupted Flow Regime 1 Interactive Map Low Flow Pictures Channel at Paddock and Huron 3 Entrance to Underground Channel 4 5 Exit of Underground Channel 6 Opdyke and Auburn 7 Riverside Park 1 Price Dam 2 Walter Moore Dam 18 1 9
Price Dam 1 August 12, 2010 September 1, 2010 1 Entrance to Under Ground Channel 3 August 12, 2010 September 1, 2010 2 10
Exit from Underground Channel Looking West 4 August 12, 2010 September 1, 2010 2 Exit from Underground Channel Looking East 4 August 12, 2010 September 1, 2010 2 11
Pontiac WWTP Outfall 2 Opdyke Rd and Auburn Rd 6 September 1, 2010 2 12
Riverside Park Auburn Hills 7 August 12, 2010 Looking Downstream September 1, 2010 Looking Upstream 2 13
14
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) 3 15
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) 3 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) 3 16
Flow in Clinton River Closed to maintain lake levels Rainfall remain closed 3 Frequency of Modification Year 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 2003 No data No data 2004 9, April 27, September October 2005 25, August 23, August September 9, October 9, October 23, August September None None Every other year 30 days < 30 cfs and 2006 9, August None 8, September 2007 11, June 14 days < 20 None cfs 37, June August 10, August 9, September 18, September 9, October 2008 25, July August 13, August September 2009 None None 2010 16, June July 41, August September 10, September 2011 18, July None 8, August 8, August September 7, July 35, August September 9, September 3 17
Stakeholder Engagement 3 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) 18
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 Survey Results Lake and River Region 3 19
Survey Results Survey Responses from Each ZIP Code 3 I Live: 4 20
My Residence is: 4 I believe the lake levels are maintained properly: 4 21
Lake Level Fluctuation Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statement: "I would tolerate moderate fluctuation in lake levels if it meant an overall healthier watershed." 4 Lake Level Fluctuation How much fluctuation are you willing to tolerate on your lake for an overall healthier watershed: 4 22
Environmental Impacts 4 Environmental Impacts Improve flow and water quality in the river Reduced shoreline erosion Improved aquatic and riparian vegetative communities (native over invasive) 4 23
Environmental Impacts Increase in macro-invertabrate communities Improved amphibian populations Improved spawning habitat Improved fishing in river & lakes Improved wildlife viewing 4 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 4 24
Recreational Impacts 4 Recreational Impacts Fishing Boating Canoeing/kayaking Park Visits 5 25
Paddlepalozza and Rental Operations If flow < 50 cfs only 10 miles of 20 miles can be paddled. 26
Hydrologic Modeling 5 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 5 27
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. 5 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. 5 28
Water Release Results 5 Water Release Results 5 29
Water Release Results 2 week Release 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 Crystal - 27 Inches Orchard - 9 Inches Oakland - 6 Inches Cass - 3 inches 15 cfs 1.0 ft 49 cfs 1.4 ft Crystal - 27 Inches 8 cfs 0.9 ft 1 Depth at riverside Park includes 12 cfs from WWTP 5 Water Release Results 30 day Release 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 Crystal - 27 Inches Orchard - 9 Inches Oakland - 6 Inches Cass - 3 inches 7 cfs 0.9 ft 23 cfs 1.1 ft Crystal - 27 Inches 4 cfs 0.8 ft 1 Depth at riverside Park includes 12 cfs from WWTP 6 30
Socio-Economic Model 6 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 6 31
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) 6 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. 6 32
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 6 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) 6 33
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 6 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 6 34
Project Website http://www.ltu.edu/water/iaclintonrivershed.asp Project updates Interactive map Online survey Project contact information Photos 6 35