insights on addressing water level variability

INSIGHTS ON ADDRESSING WATER LEVEL VARIABILITY

Presented by: Wendy Leger, Environment and Climate Change Canada Canadian Co-Chair, Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Adaptive Management (GLAM) Committee

Changing Great Lakes Water Levels and Local Impacts May 17, 2016

Outline 2

¨ Water level variability – why worry? ¨ Integrated assessment / integrated

solutions ¨ Adaptive Management - It’s not easy

Lake Michigan-Huron Water Levels from January, 1918 to April, 2016

174.5

175.0

175.5

176.0

176.5

177.0

177.5

178.0

Elevationab

oveInternationa

lGreatLa

kesD

atum

(1985)

inmetres

Month- Year

MeasuredWaterLevel

Long TermMonthlyAverage(1918-2015)

Lakes Michigan/Huron Water Levels (IGLD 1985)

1986

2011 1964

1974

Water Level Variability – Why Worry?

Lake Michigan-Huron Water Levels from January, 1918 to April, 2016

174.5

175.0

175.5

176.0

176.5

177.0

177.5

178.0

Elevationab

oveInternationa

lGreatLa

kesD

atum

(1985)

inmetres

Month- Year

MeasuredWaterLevel


4

ü Shorelinedevelopmentinthehazardzone

ü Situa2onofmarinasandboatlaunches

ü Designofshoreprotec2on

ü Infrastructuredecisions

ü Encroachment

ü Bigboats(moredredging)

ü Ecosystemimplica2ons

Baird


¨  Big storms ¨  Glacial isostatic adjustment

¨  Changing Ice conditions

¨  Natural changes in conveyance

¨  Erosion and deposition

¨  Changes in demographics ¨  Climate changes and uncertainty

5

Bing Maps


Water Level Variability – Why Worry? Lake Michigan-Huron Water Levels

174.8

175.0

175.2

175.4

175.6

175.8

176.0

176.2

176.4

176.6

176.8

177.0

Elevatio

nabo

veInternation

alGreatLakesDatum

(1985)

inmetres

Month- Year

MeasuredWaterLevel


Lake Michigan-Huron Water Levels

174.8

175.0

175.2

175.4

175.6

175.8

176.0

176.2

176.4

176.6

176.8

177.0

Elevatio

nabo

veInternation

alGreatLakesDatum

(1985)

inmetres

Month- Year

MeasuredWaterLevel


Monthly Average Water Level in meters IGLD85

June 2013 June 2015

176.05 m 176.68 m

577.6 ft. 579.7 ft. Boat launch with reduced access to the water April 2013

Extended Beach April 2013

June 2015 - Reduced Beach - Water Level Closer to Homes

June 2015

June 2015

June 2013

June 2013

June 2015 - Better Boat Launch Access

Picture from April 2013

Tiny Township, ON Georgian Bay

Differenceof63cm(~25in)in2Years

Integrated Assessment 7

•  Multiple objectives, multiple benefits, impacts and risks •  Need to assess benefits, impacts and risks as a region

SAGINAW BAY - LAKE HURON

Coastal Property Owners

Photo Credit- dlpic

Commercial Shipping

Recreational Boating

Municipal and Industrial Uses

Ecosystem

1.  Manage water levels and flows

8

2.  Manage response to the impacts of water levels and flows

Integrated Solutions: Two Ways to Address Extremes

RecentIJCStudiesfocussedonhowtomanagefluctua2nglakelevelsinthefaceofuncertaintyoverfuturewatersupplies

IntegratedAssessmentworkfocussesonthis

Integrated Solutions – Shared Vision Planning Approach

9

¨  Build a team and identify problems; ¨  Develop objectives and metrics for evaluation; ¨  Describe the baseline condition; ¨  Formulate alternatives to the baseline; ¨  Evaluate alternatives; ¨  Select and implement the preferred plan; and, ¨  Use, exercise, monitor and update the plan.

(Source: International Upper Great Lakes Study Final Report, 2012)

IJC Studies Recommend Adaptive Management

¨  Uncertainties in science and models

¨  Uncertainty due to climate changes

¨  Two most recent IJC Studies recommended Adaptive Management and a planning approach that links drivers (water levels and flows) to outcomes (performance indicators)

Uncertainty in climate

Uncertainty in impact evaluation

Photo courtesy of Port of Montreal

10

The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Adaptive Management Committee ¨  On January 2015 the IJC established the bi-national Great Lakes-

St. Lawrence River Adaptive Management (GLAM) Committee for on-going review of lake regulation plans

GLAM reports to all three Great Lakes Boards of Control

11

Adaptive Management

Adaptive Management (AM) Is an idea almost universally supported in theory Ø  Make a decision based on best evidence

Ø  Monitor key outcomes from the decision Ø  Challenge the decision if the outcomes aren’t as expected

Ø  Make necessary adjustments

12

Adaptive Management – It’s Not Easy

Adaptive management

A great concept almost never used in practice

It doesn’t fit the traditional funding model n  Funding for a few years to support a decision analysis. n  After the decision, funding stops

It requires collaboration n  Many programs are managed

within silos

It requires working hypotheses - relating drivers to outcomes that can be tested and measured

n  Many decisions are not tied explicitly enough to outcomes to know whether decisions require revisiting.

13

Understand the Drivers

Drivers: Water levels and Flows Understanding the Hydroclimate system, expected extremes and how they may be changing

14 Lighthousefriends.com

Stannard Rock

15 Ecosystems

DifficultyinDecisionMakingLinking Drivers to Outcomes Outcomes: What are we most worried about?

Linking Outcomes to Decisions

Decisions: Based on evaluations and comparison of performance indicators

16

Institutional Arrangements

17

Legal Basis

Oversight Authority

Regional Sub-authorities

Working Committee

Agency and Stakeholder Members

(not all shown)

Adaptive Management

Realized

International Joint Commission

Boards of Control

Adaptive Management Committee

Institutional

Arrangements

Collaboration

Plan Act

Monitor

Evaluate Learn

Adjust

Work Plan (turns the AM wheel)

US CA USACE ECCC

NOAA/EPA DFO

NY/MI ON/QC

•  Adaptively manage the decisions based on outcomes

•  What provides the authority?

•  Who has oversight? •  Who is part of the

regional sub-authority? •  Who does the work? •  How is that linked back

to decisions?

Boundary Waters Treaty

¨  Engagement of stakeholders is critical to successful AM ¨  GLAM plans to build circles of influence covering all

interest categories

Montreal Port Authority

St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation

Cdn Ship owners Association Friends of the St.

Lawrence Valley

St. Lawrence River Institute of Environmental Sciences The Nature

Conservancy

Great Lakes Cities Initiative

Municipal water intake plants

Ontario Power Generation

New York Power Authority

Hydro-Quebec

Cloverland Electric Co-op

Brookfield Renewable Energy

International Water Levels Coalition

Various Great Lakes Tours and Cruise Companies

Various Yacht Clubs

Niagara Parks Commission

Municipalities

Coastal Zone Managers

Various Property Owner Associations

Communication, Outreach and Engagement

Commercial Navigation

Coastal

Recreational Boating

Hydropower Circles of Influence

GLAM

18

Implementing Adaptive Management

¨  Administration ¤ Short and long term plans, budgets and practical

implementation guidelines ¤ Menu and schedule of reporting and engagement ¤ Quality management efforts, including peer review ¤  Information Management

19

Conclusion

¨  Adaptive management makes sense for addressing an uncertain world

¨  AM Requires: ¤ A long-term commitment ¤ Collaboration ¤ A measurable relationship between drivers

and outcomes (performance indicators) ¤  Institutional arrangements o  Direct link from Outcomes to Decisions

o  Revisit decisions through an Adaptive Management process and adjust as necessary

20

Acknowledgements: Daniel Ferreira, ECCC David Fay, IJC Bill Werick Debbie Lee, NOAA-GLERL Kyle McCune, USACE Mike Shantz, ECCC GLAM Committee

http://ijc.org/en_/GLAM

21