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

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

3 Ogdensburg Lake Superior Lake Michigan Lake Huron Lake Erie Lake Ontario MI NY PA IL WI IN CANADA OH Morristown Cape Vincent Sackets Harbor Port Ontario Oswego Little Sodus Bay Great Sodus Bay Irondequoit Bay Rochester Oak Orchard Olcott Wilson Little River Black Rock Lock/Tonawanda Buffalo Sturgeon Point Cattaraugus Dunkirk Barcelona Erie Geneva On-The-Lake Ashtabula Conneaut Fairport Cleveland Rocky River Lorain Vermilion Huron Sandusky West Harbor Port Clinton Toussaint River Cooley Canal Toledo Put-In-Bay Bolles Harbor Monroe Rouge River Detroit River Clinton River Belle River Pine River Lake St. Clair St. Clair River Black River Lexington Caseville Port Austin Bay Port Harbor Beach Port Sanilac Sebewaing Saginaw Point Lookout Tawas Bay Au Sable Harbor Harrisville Black River Harbor Alpena Hammond Bay Cheboygan Inland Route Mackinac City Mackinac Island St. James Cross Village Petoskey Charlevoix Channels in Straits of Mackinac Grays Reef Leland Greilickville Frankfort Arcadia Portage Lake Manistee Ludington Pentwater White Lake Muskegon Saugatuck Grand River Holland Grand Haven South Haven St. Joseph St. Joseph River New Buffalo Michigan City Burns Small Boat Harbor Burns Waterway Harbor Calumet Indiana Harbor Chicago River Chicago Harbor Waukegan Kenosha Milwaukee Port Washington Sheboygan Manitowoc Washington Island Green Bay Big Suamico Kewaunee Algoma Sturgeon Bay Two Rivers Pensaukee Oconto Menominee Cedar River Little Bay de noc Gladstone Manistique Detour Les Cheneaux Island Soo Locks St. Marys River Whitefish Point Harbor Little Lake Grand Marais Presque Isle Marquette Big Bay Grand Traverse Bay Lac La Belle Eagle Harbor Keweenaw Waterway Ontonagon Black River Saxon Ashland Chippewa Harbor Grand Marais Beaver Bay Two Harbors Knife River Duluth- Superior Bayfield La Pointe Cornucopia Port Wing Deep Draft Shallow Draft 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. Navigation Mission

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

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

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

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 7 Navigation Mission

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

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

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

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

“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 Water Level Forecasting 12 Mission: Flood Risk Management

WELLAND CANAL 7 CONSTANT LEVEL LAKE ERIE OUTFLOW TO ONTARIO OUTFLOW TO THE SEA LAKE ONTARIO RUNOFF FROM LAKE PRECIPITATION ON LAKE OUTFLOW EVAPORATION FROM LAKE 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. Superior 57% in is precipitation 39% in is runoff 4% in from diversions _________________ 40% out is evaporation 60% out is outflow Mich-Huron* 39% in is precipitation 32% in is runoff 29% in is inflow __________________ 31% out is evaporation 68% out is outflow 1% out thru Chi. Diversion Erie 79% in is inflow 11% in is precipitation 10% in is runoff _________________ 89% out is outflow 11% out is evaporation Ontario 80% in is inflow 13% in is runoff 7% in is precipitation __________________ 95% out is outflow 5% out is evaporation 5 NY STATE BARGE CANAL 1 13 Mission: Flood Risk Management

Stannard Rock 14

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

U.S. Staff Canadian Staff International Joint Commission International Lake Superior Board of Control International St. Lawrence River Board of Control International Air Quality BoardInternational Water Quality Board International Niagara Board of Control 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 16 Mission: International & Interagency Support

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 Lake Superior Outflow Regulation 17 Mission: International & Interagency Support

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 18 Mission: International & Interagency Support

International St. Lawrence River Board of Control 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 Emergency outflow structureMoses-Saunders Powerhouse (primary outflow control structure) 19 Mission: International and Inter-agency Support

Building Robust Regulation Plans 20 Need to consider: Wide range of water supplies Performance with climate variability Impact on more interests – environment and recreation Adaptive management Adapting to Change

21 Potential Water Level Variability Adapting to Change

Riparians Hydropower Recreation Navigation Environment 22 Adaptive Management: Why? 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 As we face climate change and increased climate variability, it will be important to build flexibility into our water management regimes Adapting to Change

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 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. 23 Zone A Zone B Zone C Adapting to Change

Summary – Path Forward 24 Summary 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