Great Lakes Adaptation to Change

1. Great Lakes Adaptation to Change A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Perspective Deborah H. Lee, P.E., P.H., D.WRE 21 June 2011

2. Outline • Corps Missions in the Great Lakes • Navigation / Hydropower • Environmental Initiatives • Flood Risk Management • Interagency & International Services • Observations Supporting the Missions • Adaptation to Changes

3. Federal Harbors on the Great Lakes • A non-linear navigation system with 63 federal commercial harbors dependent on each other for the efficiency and health of the system • 24 of the Nation’s top 100 harbors linked in trade with each other in a complex pattern of interdependency. • Shallow-draft (recreational) harbors are critically important to the regional economy; not high administration priority. Chippewa Harbor Grand Marais Lake Superior Beaver Bay Eagle Harbor Two Harbors Lac La Belle Knife River Grand Traverse Bay Keweenaw Waterway Cornucopia La Pointe Duluth-Superior Bayfield Big Bay Port Wing Whitefish Point Harbor Little Lake Black River Ontonagon Presque Isle Grand Marais Soo Locks Ashland Saxon St. Marys River Marquette MI Channels in Straits of Mackinac Detour Manistique Les Cheneaux Island Grays Reef CANADA Gladstone Mackinac Island Little Bay de noc Mackinac City St. James Cheboygan Cross Village Hammond Bay Inland Route Washington Island Petoskey Cedar River Charlevoix Menominee WI Leland Lake Huron Ogdensburg Alpena Oconto Morristown Sturgeon Bay Pensaukee Black River Harbor Greilickville Algoma Big Suamico Harrisville Frankfort Kewaunee Arcadia Cape Vincent Green Bay Au Sable Harbor Portage Lake Sackets Harbor Tawas Bay Two Rivers Ontario Port Austin Point Lookout Manistee Manitowoc Port Ontario Lake Ludington Harbor Beach Bay Port Oswego Sheboygan Pentwater Saginaw Port Sanilac Caseville White Lake Sebewaing Port Washington MI Lexington Little Sodus Bay Lake Michigan Muskegon Oak Orchard Great Sodus Bay Irondequoit Bay Olcott Rochester Wilson Grand River Black River Little River Grand Haven Milwaukee Pine River St. Clair River Buffalo Black Rock Lock/Tonawanda Holland Belle River NY Clinton River Kenosha Saugatuck Sturgeon Point Lake St. Clair Cattaraugus Lake Erie South Haven Waukegan IL Dunkirk Rouge River St. Joseph Barcelona Detroit River Deep Draft St. Joseph River Erie Monroe Conneaut Chicago Harbor New Buffalo Bolles Harbor Put-In-Bay Ashtabula PA Geneva On-The-Lake Shallow Draft Michigan City Fairport Chicago River Toledo Indiana Harbor IN Cooley Canal Rocky River Burns Small Boat Harbor OH Cleveland Toussaint River Port Clinton Calumet West Harbor Burns Waterway Harbor Vermilion Lorain Huron Sandusky Navigation Mission

4. Great Lakes Dredging Funding $21M in GL dredging has a return on investment of $201M • Initiatives to optimize dredging efficiencies: • Dredge Sediment Traps • Reduce sediment load to harbors • Leverage GL Legacy Act and GLRI Navigation Mission

5. Great Lakes Tributary Models • Technical support to state and local agencies with watershed planning tools for prioritizing soil conservation and nonpoint pollution measures (Sec 516e, WRDA 96) • Twenty tributaries have models completed or under development • Web-based modeling tool being developed in cooperation with MSU St Joseph River Watershed Navigation Mission: Changes Ahead

6. Sugar Island Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario Edison Sault Electric Co. Great Lakes Power, Ltd. Fishery Remedial Works Canadian Lock Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan Soo Locks Compensating Works Mission: Navigation / Hydropower

7. Soo Locks Asset Renewal Long-Term Plan • Asset Renewal Plan will maximize reliability and reduce risk through 2035 • Full funding required $100 million over 6 years • $19.6 M funded to date through FY09 • new hydraulics, stop logs, utilities • $5.5M funded in FY10 - $2M funded E&W, $1.2M reprogrammed, $2.3M from St. Marys account • Crib Dam construction • Compressed Air System design • Mac Lock modernization design Navigation Mission

8. Coastal Health • Historically, 15-20 environmental infrastructure projects/year in Great Lakes • Challenge of declining funds and lack of Congressional “adds” • Reduce sewer overflows and pollution to Lakes Environmental Mission

9. Invasive Species Soo Lock • Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC) Fish Barriers • Sea Lamprey Traps & Barriers at the Soo • ANS Interbasin Transfer Study Environmental Mission

10. Fox River Chronologic Upstream Movement of Asian Carp Chicago Lock Des Plaines River Aquatic Nuisance Species Barrier TJ O’Brien Lock Photo: K. DeGrandchamp Lockport LD Brandon Road LD 2007 (RM 281.5) Dresden Island LD Photo: K. DeGrandchamp 2006 and 2008 Marseilles LD Starved Rock LD 2001 2000 Kankakee River Environmental Mission

11. USACE Strategy for Deterring Aquatic Invasive Species Migration FY13 FY10 Jan 2010 FY11 FY12 Continue Operation of Demo Barrier and Barrier IIA Barrier I Active (1 Volt/in, pulses 4 ms at 5 hz) Barrier IIA Active (2 Volt/in, pulses 6.5 ms at 15 hz) Barrier IIB Built IIB Testing Permanent Barrier I – Design/Build/Test Asian Carp Monitoring Additional eDNA Research/Efforts Efficacy Study Implement Study Solutions (Authorization & Funding Required) Construct Interim Solutions for Potential Bypasses Modified Structural Operations Complete Optimum Parameters Research Implement Solutions Interbasin Transfer Study (Chicago Area Waterways System) Interbasin Transfer Study Environmental Mission

12. Water Level Forecasting • “Monthly Bulletin of Lake Levels for the Great Lakes” – 5,000 subscribers • Semi-monthly Channel Depth forecasts • Weekly water level forecasts • Numerous public queries and media interviews • Frequent presentations basin-wide Mission: Flood Risk Management

13. CONSTANT LEVEL 51 74 CONSTANT LEVEL 50 87 CONSTANT LEVEL 109 LONG LAKE, 26 OGOKI 25 LAKE SUPERIOR DIVERSIONS 90 LAKE MICH-HURON 205 OUTFLOW TO ERIE LAKE SUPERIOR 78 OUTFLOW TO 187 MICH-HURON LAKES MICH-HURON LAKE ERIE CHICAGO DIVERSION 3 RUNOFF FROM LAKE PRECIPITATION ON LAKE OUTFLOW LAKE EVAPORATION FROM LAKE ONTARIO Hydrologic Components Flow from upstream lakes, evaporation and precipitation influence lake levels. This graph illustrates the relative influence of each of those factors on the Great Lakes system. Values are based on a monthly average and are represented as thousand cubic feet per second. Ontario80% in is inflow13% in is runoff7% in is precipitation__________________ 95% out is outflow5% out is evaporation 26 5 14 Superior57% in is precipitation39% in is runoff4% in from diversions_________________ 40% out is evaporation60% out is outflow Mich-Huron*39% in is precipitation32% in is runoff29% in is inflow__________________ 31% out is evaporation68% out is outflow1% out thru Chi. Diversion CONSTANT LEVEL WELLAND CANAL 19 Erie79% in is inflow11% in is precipitation10% in is runoff_________________ 89% out is outflow11% out is evaporation 7 34 LAKE LAKE ERIE ONTARIO OUTFLOW TO OUTFLOW ONTARIO TO THE SEA 205 251 NY STATE BARGE CANAL 1 Mission: Flood Risk Management

14. Stannard Rock

15. USACE SeaArk with ADCP Sault Ste. Marie (verify reported hydropower plants outflows) Lower Niagara River (verify flow over Niagara Falls)

16. International Joint Commission U.S. Staff Canadian Staff International Niagara Board of Control International Lake Superior Board of Control International St. Lawrence River Board of Control International Air Quality Board International Water Quality Board 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty created IJC to prevent and resolve disputes; empowered to approve projects that impact water levels across the boundary US Army Corps of Engineers chairs U.S. Section of 3 Great Lakes Control Boards Mission: International & Interagency Support

17. Lake Superior Outflow Regulation • Determine monthly outflow allocations from Lake Superior based upon regulation plan computations • Support the International Joint Commission and the International Lake Superior Board of Control with technical analyses and communication with stakeholders • Testing timing of peak flows this summer to enhance efficiency of sea lamprey traps at all powerhouses Mission: International & Interagency Support

18. International Niagara Board of Control Board formed in 1953 to oversee operation of control structure above Niagara Falls, installation and removal of an ice boom at hear of the Niagara River, conduct studies and provide advice to IJC Mission: International & Interagency Support

19. International St. Lawrence River Board of Control Emergencyoutflow structure Moses-Saunders Powerhouse (primary outflow control structure) Board formed in 1952 to regulate Lake Ontario outflows weekly, oversee operation of control structures, provide advice to IJC Considers impacts to riparians, hydropower, navigation from Lake Ontario to Montreal Working with IJC to consider impacts of operations on the environment Extensive public information and outreach program Mission: International and Inter-agency Support

20. Building Robust Regulation Plans ALBANY RIVER BASIN Ogoki Diversion • Need to consider: • Wide range of water supplies • Performance with climate variability • Impact on more interests – environment and recreation • Adaptive management LONG LAKE Long Lac Diversion LAKE NIPIGON ONTARIO MINNESOTA THUNDER BAY Lake Superior Outflow -- IUGLS Study QUEBEC Superior Lake Ottawa DULUTH St. Marys River CORNWALL SAULT STE. MARIE MONTREAL WISCONSIN OTTAWA Lake Lake Ontario Outflow – LOSLR Study and Working Group Michigan GREEN BAY Huron TORONTO Lake Ontario OSWEGO Lake MICHIGAN BUFFALO CHICAGO DETROIT Lake Michigan Diversion at Chicago Lake Erie TOLEDO PENN. INDIANA NEW YORK OHIO Adapting to Change ILLINOIS

21. Potential Water Level Variability Adapting to Change

22. Adaptive Management: Why? Riparians Hydropower Recreation • Process to better manage uncertainty of impact on interests • Reduce uncertainty through long-term monitoring, modeling and assessment – adjust management as new information becomes available Navigation Environment • As we face climate change and increased climate variability, it will be important to build flexibility into our water management regimes Adapting to Change

23. Adaptive Management: Where? • Adaptive management approach is currently being developed for Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River system • IJC Study demonstrated that ‘fixed’ water levels over 50+ years have had negative impact on lakeshore environment • Plan would improve environmental outcomes, while making no other uses worse off • Monitoring required to determine if desired outcomes are being achieved over time • …and will be required for the upper Great Lakes • IJC moving toward increased flexibility in the regulation plan to respond to changes in water supplies • Study will call for program of monitoring water levels and evaporation Potential approach being developed: Defining Coping Zones Zone A Acceptable zone within an interest’s expectations and tolerances. Outside an interest’s expectations, yet they can cope under current management regimes. The impacts, both economic and environmental, are generally considered reversible. Persistent negative consequences; serious degradation of ecosystem functions. Hazard zone policies and major infrastructure would be compromised. The impacts are irreversible. Zone B Zone C Adapting to Change

24. Summary – Path Forward • Corps will continue to collaborate with other agencies, academia, NGOs in collecting, analyzing, displaying information needed by decision makers • Corps will examine utility of data collected by others, such as GLOS, to support Corps missions • Corps will continue to collaborate with others on studies and programs (GLRI, IWRSS, IJC, etc.) • The role of the Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data may expand • Adaptive management is data intensive, and central to future management Summary