The People’s Water Board is a coalition of labor, social justice, and environmental organizations based in Detroit. They work together to confront: 1) devastating lack of access to water faced by tens of thousands of low-income people who have had their water shut off; 2) water pollution due to aging wastewater infrastructure; and 3) the effort of corporate interests to gain control of Detroit’s water system. Listen to this panel discussion to learn about their struggles and victories.

1. Dam Remediation on the River Raisin A Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Project October 13, 2011

2. River Raisin Watershed and AOC

3. River Raisin Dam Remediation Project Raisin AOC presents a unique opportunity for potential delisting (and therefore attractive for potential Ph.2 funds) EPA dredging combined with this project, along with Sterling State Park and other habitat restoration work could lift habitat impairments Dam project will potentially be accomplished in two phases by 2013 and create fish and small boat access from Lake Erie to Dundee (~23 miles) MDEQ working on strategies for other impairment delistings, recognizing that Monroe will remain an important shipping port for the forseeable future Raisin AOC delisted 2015-2016?

4. Monroe Dams City’s six low head dams (2.5-ft to 3-ft high) constructed by the Works Progress Administration – early to mid-1930’s Used to carry sanitary sewer over the river’s unique limestone bedrock and “beautify” downtown Currently, only 4 dams carry active sanitary sewer Waterloo Dam (owned by City) and Grape Dam (privately owned) are 5-ft to 6-ft high

5. Phase 1 Project Area Dams 6, 1, 2, 3 (reconnect 3.5 Miles) Raisin River Lake Erie

6. Phase 2 Project Area Dams 4, 5, Waterloo, Grape(another 19.5 Miles) Raisin River Lake Erie

7. DAM 6 DAM 1 DAM 2 DAM 3

8. Ecological Survey Mussels Did not find large presence of mussels 184 individual mussels were collected (11 species) Low population is likely a result of impacted water quality and lack of suitable habitat One state listed species of concern – Elktoe Greatest occurrence upstream of Dam 6 and Dam 3 Most of the specimens were of larger size which suggests reproduction success is not great

9. Ecological Survey (cont.) Macroinvertebrates In general, macro density was low Samples are in the process of being identified Field biologists believe higher quality taxa were present downstream of Dams 2 & 3 (more favorable substrate) Aquatic Vegetation No rare, threatened, or endangered species Exotic/Invasive species present - Flowering rush & Purple loosestrife

10. Natural Channel Design for Dams Reconnecting Rivers by Luther Aadland, Minnesota DNR http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/streamhab/reconnecting_rivers.html

11. Benefits of Rock Arches Varying velocities and water depths Increased variety of habitat Deep pools of water for habitat Creates flow patterns that minimize capture of ice and woody debris

12. Nashville Dam, Michigan Rock Arches

13. Dimondale Dam, Michigan W-Weir

14. Proposed Structure – Dam 6

15. Proposed Structure – Dam 1

16. Section/Profile

17. Visualization of Rock Arch Rapids in Monroe BEFORE… AFTER…

18. Four Critical Issueswith Dam Remediation Projects Public perception Sediment Hydraulics Invasive species

19. Public Perception Has not been a major issue in City of Monroe Active groups River Raisin Public Advisory Council (PAC) River Raisin Institute (RRI) River Raisin Watershed Council (RRWC) Monroe Commission on the Environment (COTE) Ongoing communication Public meetings Updates to Monroe COTE Project Website: www.ci.monroe.mi.us/RRP_description.cfm

20. Sediment Has not been an issue in City of Monroe Little or no sediment behind the low-head dams Bedrock bottom “Numasepee” – River of Sturgeon

22. Perceived flooding concerns – existing vs. proposed

23. Dam 1 –HEC-RAS model shows 0.25-ft increase in 100-year water surface elevation (WSE)

24. Dam 6 – HEC-RAS model shows 0.01-ft increase in 100-year WSE

25. Modeling proposed conditions

26. Obstructions

27. Ineffective flow areas

29. Invasive Species Will this be an issue in City of Monroe? Risks vs. benefits Create passage for desired species Restore river to more natural condition Increase in species diversity Potential to allow passage of invasive species Ongoing research – so far, consensus that positives outweigh the negatives

30. Breakout Session – Critical Issues Public perception Sediment Hydraulics Invasive species How might these four critical issues apply to projects across the Great Lakes? Are there additional concerns not already mentioned that might be associated with these issues? What are some potential solutions?

31. Questions? Dan Stefanski Monroe County 734- 240-3101 dan_stefanski@monroemi.org Barry LaRoy, PE City of Monroe 734-384-9122 barry.laroy@monroemi.gov Richard Micka River Raisin PAC 734-242-0909 rgm@core.com Scott Dierks, PE Cardno JFNew 734-222-9690 scott.dierks@cardno.com Michelle LaRose, PE Cardno JFNew 734-222-9690 michelle.larose@cardno.com