Black Lake Level Management
The shoreline damage that many of us experienced in the last decade has generated a great deal of interest in how the lake level is managed. The conventional wisdom around the lake is that nature is the only determinant of lake level, and this is certainly the biggest determinant. But research performed by the BLPS shows that the head pond level maintained in front of the Alverno dam is the primary (only?) human controlled variable that affects the rate of drainage of the lake.
The BLPS has set the goals of:
Reaching these goals will require a change to the conventional beliefs in our community and that will take time. The BLPS has, since 2017, advocated for changes for the operational rules at the Alverno Dam to improve compliance with the 1962 Circuit Court established lake levels of 610.5 feet above sea level in the winter and 610.2 feet above sea level in the summer. This protocol that remains in place presents continued risk of higher lake levels in the spring that will be sustained for elongated periods. This protocol is unacceptable and unfair. Property owners around Black Lake are subsidizing the Hydro-electric plant at the Alverno Dam, and this must not continue. However, the BLPS position is receiving more attention and understanding and we are close to agreement on a suitable protocol that will have lasting benefits to all property owners and users of the lake and the Lower Black River.
We obviously have more work to do and remain committed to improving this problem on behalf of our members. If you would like to join our efforts as a Lake Level Ambassador, the steps are to:
The shoreline damage that many of us experienced in the last decade has generated a great deal of interest in how the lake level is managed. The conventional wisdom around the lake is that nature is the only determinant of lake level, and this is certainly the biggest determinant. But research performed by the BLPS shows that the head pond level maintained in front of the Alverno dam is the primary (only?) human controlled variable that affects the rate of drainage of the lake.
The BLPS has set the goals of:
- achieve a low enough lake level prior to the spring runoff to provide an adequate buffer for the inevitable lake level rise during this period
- aggressively drain the lake during the spring runoff to minimize the peak lake level
- recover the lake to the prescribed summer level in a rapid but controlled manner
Reaching these goals will require a change to the conventional beliefs in our community and that will take time. The BLPS has, since 2017, advocated for changes for the operational rules at the Alverno Dam to improve compliance with the 1962 Circuit Court established lake levels of 610.5 feet above sea level in the winter and 610.2 feet above sea level in the summer. This protocol that remains in place presents continued risk of higher lake levels in the spring that will be sustained for elongated periods. This protocol is unacceptable and unfair. Property owners around Black Lake are subsidizing the Hydro-electric plant at the Alverno Dam, and this must not continue. However, the BLPS position is receiving more attention and understanding and we are close to agreement on a suitable protocol that will have lasting benefits to all property owners and users of the lake and the Lower Black River.
We obviously have more work to do and remain committed to improving this problem on behalf of our members. If you would like to join our efforts as a Lake Level Ambassador, the steps are to:
- Make your interest known to the BLPS leader of this program, Rick Scherer
- Learn the story of our lake level is controlled by natural and human controlled factors
- Assist with validating and recording lake and Alverno Dam head pond water levels for compliance checking
The Story Behind Our Lake Levels
A. USACOE Report and the Circuit Court Ordered Lake Level
In the early 1900’s there was a rock quarry operation and significant logging activity around Black Lake. A dam was built on the outflow about 10 miles down the Lower Black River to raise the lake level by about 5 feet. A pier was built at the southeast corner to allow railcar hauling of rock and logs to and from the lake. And a set of locks existed to open a channel all the way to Lake Huron.
Following the construction of the dam and the raising of the lake level, properties were built around the lake as summer camps. The high water that occurred each spring due to rapid melting and heavy rains rapidly moved the shoreline closer to these properties and created a great deal of damage.
In August of 1964, a circuit court determined that the lake shall be maintained by the dam to a level of 610.5 feet above sea level during the winter months to allow room for the rise in lake level. A level of 612.2 was to be maintained in the summer to create enough depth for boats to navigate over the shelf at the edge of the land submerged when the dam was built.
In 1965, the USACOE published a study of the hydrology of the Black Lake Watershed. The reason for their study was that the highly destructive flooding events were expected to continue, and the community was exploring the possibility of widening and deepening the river at its most narrow point (Smiths Rapids). The report determined that significant erosion and destruction of property occurs at a level of 613 feet above sea level. This destructive level was reached about 1 in 3 years.
The report stated that, at certain lake levels, the rapids and not the dam represented the hydraulic control over lake level. The report included a flow curve that showed the best available estimate of the capacity of Smith Rapids (and therefore, the dam) to discharge water from the lake. It was acknowledged that there will continue to be periods of flooding (even if the court ordered winter level was achieved) because the 350,000 acre watershed can deliver melting and stormwater much faster than the Lower Black River is capable of draining it. They suggested dredging the rapids to ease the problem. An approximate cost of river widening was determined. Ultimately, the community did not approve the expenditure based on the projected benefits.
The community became used to high and destructive lake levels each spring, and any sense of a pattern of increased frequency, duration or amount of destruction was purely anecdotal and largely accepted… until the spring of 2016.
Following the construction of the dam and the raising of the lake level, properties were built around the lake as summer camps. The high water that occurred each spring due to rapid melting and heavy rains rapidly moved the shoreline closer to these properties and created a great deal of damage.
In August of 1964, a circuit court determined that the lake shall be maintained by the dam to a level of 610.5 feet above sea level during the winter months to allow room for the rise in lake level. A level of 612.2 was to be maintained in the summer to create enough depth for boats to navigate over the shelf at the edge of the land submerged when the dam was built.
In 1965, the USACOE published a study of the hydrology of the Black Lake Watershed. The reason for their study was that the highly destructive flooding events were expected to continue, and the community was exploring the possibility of widening and deepening the river at its most narrow point (Smiths Rapids). The report determined that significant erosion and destruction of property occurs at a level of 613 feet above sea level. This destructive level was reached about 1 in 3 years.
The report stated that, at certain lake levels, the rapids and not the dam represented the hydraulic control over lake level. The report included a flow curve that showed the best available estimate of the capacity of Smith Rapids (and therefore, the dam) to discharge water from the lake. It was acknowledged that there will continue to be periods of flooding (even if the court ordered winter level was achieved) because the 350,000 acre watershed can deliver melting and stormwater much faster than the Lower Black River is capable of draining it. They suggested dredging the rapids to ease the problem. An approximate cost of river widening was determined. Ultimately, the community did not approve the expenditure based on the projected benefits.
The community became used to high and destructive lake levels each spring, and any sense of a pattern of increased frequency, duration or amount of destruction was purely anecdotal and largely accepted… until the spring of 2016.
B. Damages Incurred During The Spring of 2016
The storms in the spring of 2016 caused hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage to our shoreline. The Black Lake Preservation Society (BLPS) had recently been formed, and had a small and rapidly growing private Facebook group. For a time, all anyone wanted to talk about was shoreline destruction. Our other concern was that the number of seawalls being constructed in response was likely to institutionalize higher and more concentrated wave energy that would harm properties adjacent to seawalls. More recently, it has come to our attention that the higher lake levels raise the water table in some of our septic drain fields, reducing their nitrogen removal opportunity and adding to the risk of Harmful Algae Blooms.
C. Lack of Compliance and Enforcement During the Spring of 2016
The need for increased scrutiny over lake level regulation and enforcement became an urgent priority after the 2016 winter season. A few of us that had experienced very costly shoreline loss and restoration began reading the USACOE report along with data and info on the FERC website. We were astounded to learn that the FERC licensed winter level (gray line at 610.2 feet) was never in compliance at any point of that winter preceding the 2016 damage, even though it was a season of lower than normal precipitation. As is clear from the chart below, no genuine attempt was made to achieve the target lake level through the season. The head pond (blue line) was not even held below the target lake level for any period of time, making it virtually impossible to comply. In addition, the flows into the lake as indicated by the Kleber dam flow (yellow line) serves as a leading indicator of lake level rise, and this graph shows no pattern of proactive response to the indication that the lake was going to rise quickly from an already out-of-compliance level.
D. Operation of the Hydro Plant
The hydro power plant at the Alverno Dam was built and operated for a time by Consumer’s Power. They abandoned the operation for a period of time roughly from 1960 to 1980. A new owner picked up the operation in the 90s and later sold to the current owner of the dam, the Black River Limited Partnership (BRLP). The BRLP has operated the dam since the early 2000’s.
Our analysis showed a systematic difference in the level of compliance from years that the BRLP has operated the hydro plant and periods when the plant was not in operation. In the chart below, the red squares represent years since 2007 when the plant was in operation and the blue triangles are from years when the hydro plant was not in operation. The X axis represents the amount of precipitation reported that spring season by weather.com and the Y axis represents the number of days the lake was above the summer level between the time that the spring melt began and the time that the lake was initially stabilized at the summer level.
As the graph clearly shows, the level of non-compliance is doubled when the hydro plant is operating. The underlying data also shows that the number of days when the lake is above the level that the USACOE defines as destructive to private property (613 feet) is also doubled.
Our analysis showed a systematic difference in the level of compliance from years that the BRLP has operated the hydro plant and periods when the plant was not in operation. In the chart below, the red squares represent years since 2007 when the plant was in operation and the blue triangles are from years when the hydro plant was not in operation. The X axis represents the amount of precipitation reported that spring season by weather.com and the Y axis represents the number of days the lake was above the summer level between the time that the spring melt began and the time that the lake was initially stabilized at the summer level.
As the graph clearly shows, the level of non-compliance is doubled when the hydro plant is operating. The underlying data also shows that the number of days when the lake is above the level that the USACOE defines as destructive to private property (613 feet) is also doubled.
E. 2017/2018 Engagement With FERC
The BLPS hired a surveyor to certify the gauges and filed a complaint with FERC. The key point from our letter was that the data showed an increasing rate of drainage from the lake when there was a larger difference between the lake level and the head pond level (i.e. gradient). Lowering the head pond was the only human controlled variable available to control the rate of drainage of the lake and that this variable was impactful at all lake levels.
In response, the FERC demanded the creation of a stakeholder team made up of the two lake associations (BLA and BLPS), the DNR, EGLE, Cheboygan County Drain Commission, and Presque Isle County Drain Commission. They also demanded that the holding pond be maintained at a level of 609.5 for the winter period until the lake level was in compliance at the FERC license level of 610.2.
As you can see from the graph below, the low holding pond held at 609.5 was rapidly moving the lake level toward the goal. In late January, the BRLP claimed that the low level could not be maintained without harming their equipment. The BRLP requested that when a level of 610.8 was achieved that they could raise the pond level from 609.5 to 610.2. This request was amenable to the BLPS because we wanted flow data with a head pond of 610.2 to compare with the flow data at a pond level of 609.5.
As the graph below clearly shows, when the head pond (blue line) was raised in January, the rate of flow out of the lake (yellow line) immediately slowed and the lake level (red line) began to rise. This was during a time when the inflows to the lake as represented by the Kleber Dam flow on the Upper Black River, were stable. This left no doubt that the head pond level is a strong variable affecting the rate that water discharges from our lake.
The BLPS began to focus on the spring period as there was now clear proof that we could achieve the target winter level if we had the resolve to do so. As you can see from the graph, the head pond was raised in the spring, as allowed by the protocol approved by DNR, EGLE, and BLA and not supported or approved by the BLPS. The "spring transition period" from April 15 through May 15 allowed for the head pond to be raised even though lake was already above the target summer level. The spring protocol was designed to raise the lake level for the summer, but there is almost never a reason to raise the lake as nature takes care of that for us. The need is to control the lake rise and rapidly recover down to the summer level. There really is no justification for a winter to spring transition.
The spring transition protocol invites more erosion, more water in our septic drain fields, more lost vegetation, and more harm to private property.
In response, the FERC demanded the creation of a stakeholder team made up of the two lake associations (BLA and BLPS), the DNR, EGLE, Cheboygan County Drain Commission, and Presque Isle County Drain Commission. They also demanded that the holding pond be maintained at a level of 609.5 for the winter period until the lake level was in compliance at the FERC license level of 610.2.
As you can see from the graph below, the low holding pond held at 609.5 was rapidly moving the lake level toward the goal. In late January, the BRLP claimed that the low level could not be maintained without harming their equipment. The BRLP requested that when a level of 610.8 was achieved that they could raise the pond level from 609.5 to 610.2. This request was amenable to the BLPS because we wanted flow data with a head pond of 610.2 to compare with the flow data at a pond level of 609.5.
As the graph below clearly shows, when the head pond (blue line) was raised in January, the rate of flow out of the lake (yellow line) immediately slowed and the lake level (red line) began to rise. This was during a time when the inflows to the lake as represented by the Kleber Dam flow on the Upper Black River, were stable. This left no doubt that the head pond level is a strong variable affecting the rate that water discharges from our lake.
The BLPS began to focus on the spring period as there was now clear proof that we could achieve the target winter level if we had the resolve to do so. As you can see from the graph, the head pond was raised in the spring, as allowed by the protocol approved by DNR, EGLE, and BLA and not supported or approved by the BLPS. The "spring transition period" from April 15 through May 15 allowed for the head pond to be raised even though lake was already above the target summer level. The spring protocol was designed to raise the lake level for the summer, but there is almost never a reason to raise the lake as nature takes care of that for us. The need is to control the lake rise and rapidly recover down to the summer level. There really is no justification for a winter to spring transition.
The spring transition protocol invites more erosion, more water in our septic drain fields, more lost vegetation, and more harm to private property.
F. Avoidable Problems In The Spring of 2019
For the 2018/2019 season, the BLPS asked for elimination of the spring transition or a change to the definition of when the spring melt was complete; signaling a shift to the transition and/or summer protocol. All of the other stakeholders went along with a relaxed protocol that allowed for the higher head pond level and no changes for the spring. The BLPS discussed the issues with FERC, and FERC invited the BLPS to utilize their Dispute Resolution Process. That process did not yield any benefits. The spring transition protocol remained in place. The BRLP was authorized to conduct tests of RAISING the head pond DURING HIGH WATER PERIODS. .
G. Conclusive Analysis in 2019/2020
The level of compliance during this period, and the dynamic among the lake level and pond level (what we termed “gradient”) was consistent with prior years as shown below; bad protocol, bad results:
During the 2019/2020 period, the BLPS shifted to address one of the major stumbling blocks. Our analyses could always be discounted because it was asserted that the measurements of flow through the dam (and out of the lake) were claimed to be inaccurate. Also, we didn't have measures of water discharged through the dam's spill gates; we only had data that went through the power plant. Our Project Leader, Rick Scherer devised a way of calculating the flow instead of deriving it from FERC reported data. He used measures of the volume of water from lake level change and the amount of water entering the lake from a multiple of the Kleber flow data that was deemed to be accurate. This calculation of flow was reviewed and approved by a broad group of engineers and stakeholders.
The USACOE performed detailed flow measures of flows through Smith Rapids and reported on the capacity for flow allowed by the rapids. Our analysis reported that the rate of drainage of the lake routinely fell well below the USACOE calculations for potential flow through the rapids. Furthermore, it showed that with the use of the spill gate, the rate of drainage could far exceed what the USACOE specified as the capacity for the rapids to pass.
The USACOE performed detailed flow measures of flows through Smith Rapids and reported on the capacity for flow allowed by the rapids. Our analysis reported that the rate of drainage of the lake routinely fell well below the USACOE calculations for potential flow through the rapids. Furthermore, it showed that with the use of the spill gate, the rate of drainage could far exceed what the USACOE specified as the capacity for the rapids to pass.
Furthermore, it showed that the actual flow exceeded the reported capacity when there was a high gradient (i.e. low head pond) and under performed the limits imposed by Smith Rapids when there was low gradient (i.e. high head pond)
This study has gained a lot of agreement that at all lake levels, a higher gradient (lower headpond) results in more rapid drainage from the lake.
With this knowledge, we can agree upon a protocol that reduces the period of time needed to respond to high water. This benefits lake property owners that experience erosion (and resulting cost of shoreline restoration/strengthening, weed growth, and HAB risk) during high water and river residents that experience barriers to boat navigation when we have to respond to high water with low headpond levels.
H. Outlook For Spring 2021
The prospect of a much improved protocol for 2021 is looking quite positive. This is due to the thoroughness of the BLPS analysis and patience with the process of changing 50 years of conventional wisdom that held that lake level was solely due to nature.
Assist With Compliance Checking
As you have noticed in our Facebook group, we have a number of BLPS members that visit the lake level gauges at the Upper Black River Cr crossing, the Rainy River bridge crossing, and the old marina as well as the head pond gauge at the Alverno Dam. This monitoring helps us to validate reported data, understand the affects of wind on lake levels, and to raise alerts for actions to recover to target levels. We value the contributions of time by those that help us, and they would value your assistance to spread the workload.
Thanks for going through all of this information. Your knowledge helps the BLPS raise the level of understanding in our community and that will allow us to make continuous improvements to the ways we control lake level on Black Lake. That, in turn, has benefits to erosion, navigability, weed growth, and HABs.
Thanks for going through all of this information. Your knowledge helps the BLPS raise the level of understanding in our community and that will allow us to make continuous improvements to the ways we control lake level on Black Lake. That, in turn, has benefits to erosion, navigability, weed growth, and HABs.