1 Restoring Water Levels on Lakes Michigan-Huron: Impact Analysis IUGLS Study Board Meeting Windsor, ON Nov 30, 2010 Bryan Tolson 1 Masoud Asadzadeh Saman

1

Restoring Water Levels on Restoring Water Levels on Lakes Michigan-Huron: Lakes Michigan-Huron:

Impact AnalysisImpact Analysis IUGLS Study Board MeetingIUGLS Study Board Meeting

Windsor, ONWindsor, ONNov 30, 2010Nov 30, 2010

Bryan Tolson1

Masoud AsadzadehSaman Razavi

1. Assistant Professor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

2

IntroductionIntroduction• Purpose is to assess the impacts of “restoring” Lake MH levels

by 10 cm to 50 cm• x-cm restoration here is defined as a permanent structural

change to the St. Clair River that raises the long term average of Lake MH by x-cm

• The actual structural change is not specified and thus the actual hydraulic impacts are not assessed here

• Instead, we assume that reducing the conveyance of the St. Clair River as simulated in the co-ordinated routing model (CGLRRM) is roughly representative of system-wide restoration impacts of some actual structural change to reduce St. Clair River conveyance

3

QQSCSC = K = KSCSC((MH+SC)/2-((MH+SC)/2-ymymSCSC))aaSCSC (MH-SC) (MH-SC)bbSC SC -IW-IW

ymymSCSC: Mean Channel Bottom Elevation of St. Clair River: Mean Channel Bottom Elevation of St. Clair River

With the default value of 167.00 mWith the default value of 167.00 m

Base caseBase case: : ymymSCSC= 167.00 m= 167.00 m

Quantifying RestorationQuantifying Restoration• Equation below describes the conveyance of the St. Clair Equation below describes the conveyance of the St. Clair

River in CGLRRMRiver in CGLRRM• We simulate the system with the Equation coefficients set We simulate the system with the Equation coefficients set

to describe the current conveyance regime of the riverto describe the current conveyance regime of the river

• to simulate system under restoration, we manipulate a to simulate system under restoration, we manipulate a coefficient in Equation to reduce conveyance of the rivercoefficient in Equation to reduce conveyance of the river

• primarily, we consider primarily, we consider ymymSCSC

4

QQSCSC = K = KSCSC((MH+SC)/2-((MH+SC)/2-ymymSCSC))aaSCSC (MH-SC) (MH-SC)bbSC SC -IW-IW

Increase Increase ymymSCSC from 167.00 so that the from 167.00 so that the

long-term average MH lake level increases long-term average MH lake level increases by by 1010, 25, 40, and , 25, 40, and 5050 cm cm

Restoration average is calculated over the final 55 years of Restoration average is calculated over the final 55 years of the simulation ( ‘equilibrium’ is reached … MH stops filling)the simulation ( ‘equilibrium’ is reached … MH stops filling)

Quantifying RestorationQuantifying RestorationRestoration impacts are assessed with Restoration impacts are assessed with CGLRRM+1958DD CGLRRM+1958DD down to Montreal (Jetty1)down to Montreal (Jetty1) simulating 109 years of lake simulating 109 years of lake levels based on 1900-2008 (historical) residual NBSlevels based on 1900-2008 (historical) residual NBS

In a sensitivity analysis, we will repeat with KIn a sensitivity analysis, we will repeat with KSCSC (function of mean (function of mean

channel cross-section area and roughnesschannel cross-section area and roughness) rather than ymrather than ymSCSC

Outline of Restoration Scenarios• factors we will vary to define scenarios include:

– 10 cm, 25 cm, 40 cm, 50 cm restoration targets– static versus dynamic behaviour of Lake Superior– one-time (instantaneous) versus staged restoration– vary initial lake levels/NBS inflows to estimate

worst-case downstream restoration impacts (Lake Erie 1930s, 1960s)

– restoration via the ymSC versus the KSC coefficient

# levels

[4]

[2]

[2]

[3]

[2]

• we do not evaluate impacts of all 4x2x2x3x2 = 96 combinations of factor levels

• we only evaluate impacts for some of these

Outline of Restoration Scenarios• Unless otherwise noted, you can assume the

following factor levels for all restoration results:– 10 cm, 25 cm, 40 cm or 50 cm restoration target (will

be specified in all results)– static behaviour of Lake Superior– one-time (instantaneous) restoration at start of year

1 in simulation (year 1900 initial lake levels) – restoration via the ymSC (bottom level) coefficient

7

Restoration ScenariosRestoration Scenarios• Static Plan 77A for Superior releases:

– Run 77A for the base case where ymSC = 167.00 m

– Take the outflow of lake Superior– Study the effect of adjusting ymSC on Midlakes by simulating only

Midlakes with static inflow to MH (outflow of Lake Superior constant at the base case)

• Dynamic 77A:– Study the effect of adjusting ymSC on Superior and Midlakes (Lake

Superior with plan 77A as well as Midlakes)– here Lake Superior levels (through Plan 77A) are allowed to respond

to restoration

• Static 77A deemed most representative of trying to restore Lake MH levels without changing/degrading Lake Superior levels

8

RESULTS for STATIC 77ARESULTS for STATIC 77A

• Upstream Effects of Restoration

• Downstream Effects of Restoration

9

Lakes Michigan Huron Response to Lakes Michigan Huron Response to 1-TIME Restoration1-TIME Restoration

10

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

(%) violating base case max-10cm res. 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

11






50 cm50 cm

Metric Rest. lev. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

MH violating long-term base case max(%)

10 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

25 1.8 2.8 5.5 6.4 7.3 7.3 4.6 4.6 2.8 0.9 1.8 1.8

40 6.4 9.2 9.2 11 11.9 10.1 8.3 6.4 2.8 1.8 1.8 3.7

50 9.2 14.7 13.8 15.6 15.6 16.5 14.7 15.6 9.2 4.6 3.7 6.4

Max Violation (cm)

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

40 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 40 39 39

50 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 50 49 49

12

1-Time MH Restoration – STATIC 77A 1-Time MH Restoration – STATIC 77A Long-Term Upstream EffectsLong-Term Upstream Effects

• more extreme flooding more frequently on Lake MH due to restoration

13

RESULTS for STATIC 77ARESULTS for STATIC 77A



14

St. Clair River Response toSt. Clair River Response to1-TIME Restoration1-TIME Restoration

15

Lake St. Clair Response toLake St. Clair Response to1-TIME Restoration1-TIME Restoration

16


(%) violating base case min-10cm res. 0 0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0(%) violating base case max-10cm res. 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0

17


(%) violating base case min-10cm res. 0 0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0(%) violating base case max-10cm res. 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0(%) violating base case min-50cm res. 0.9 0.9 1.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0.9(%) violating base case max-50cm res. 0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0

Long-term Impacts Downstream of Lake St. Clair

• Results again for Lake St. Clair

• All further downstream long term impacts look very much the same (0-2% increase in frequency for 50 cm restoration)

• focus attention on short-term impacts downstream


(%) violating base case min-10cm res. 0 0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0(%) violating base case max-10cm res. 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0(%) violating base case min-50cm res. 0.9 0.9 1.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0.9(%) violating base case max-50cm res. 0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0

19

Detroit River Response toDetroit River Response to1-TIME Restoration1-TIME Restoration

20

Lake Erie Response toLake Erie Response to1-TIME Restoration1-TIME Restoration

21

Niagara River + Welland Canal Niagara River + Welland Canal Response to 1-TIME RestorationResponse to 1-TIME Restoration

22

Lake Ontario (Plan 58DD*) Response Lake Ontario (Plan 58DD*) Response toto

1-TIME Restoration1-TIME Restoration

23

Lake Ontario Outflow Response to 1-Lake Ontario Outflow Response to 1-TIME RestorationTIME Restoration

24

Montreal Jetty1 Level Response toMontreal Jetty1 Level Response to1-TIME Restoration1-TIME Restoration

25

Monthly MetricRes. Lv. SC ER ON JET SCR DR NiR ONout

cm cm cms

Max decrease to base case

10 7 5 3 9 145 127 96 190

25 16 12 4 25 351 310 240 540

40 24 19 10 43 541 483 379 937

50 30 23 14 54 664 595 470 1157

Max decrease to base case min

10 1 1 0 0 39 34 8 5

25 3 1 0 1 91 80 19 5

40 4 2 1 0 136 120 29 15

50 5 2 2 1 164 145 36 15

Max increase to base case

10 1 1 2 9 32 32 16 223

25 3 2 6 9 77 74 39 233

40 5 3 18 9 116 113 59 223

50 5 3 28 9 140 136 71 223

Max increase to base case max

10 1 0 1 0 7 8 4 10

25 1 0 1 1 17 22 10 10

40 1 0 2 1 27 37 15 50

50 1 0 2 1 33 47 19 50

1-Time Restoration – STATIC 77A 1-Time Restoration – STATIC 77A Short-Term Downstream EffectsShort-Term Downstream Effects

How are most extreme base case levels exacerbated

Short-term impacts limited to ~10 yrs, max. impacts within year 1

Mitigating Short-term Downstream Impacts of Restoration

27

Staged vs 1-Time RestorationStaged vs 1-Time Restoration• Short-term downstream impacts of restoration can be

minimized by spreading them out (staging) over time• essentially this means filling Lake MH more slowly• We evaluate a staged 25 cm restoration case and

compare to 1-time restoration (same principle applies to any restoration scenario)

• Staged restoration scenario evaluated:– 5 stages of restoration– each restoring 5 cm to Lake MH– each spaced in time by 5 years– thus, 20 yrs between start and end of physical restoration

changes

28

Lakes Michigan Huron Response to 1-Lakes Michigan Huron Response to 1-Time vs. STAGED RestorationTime vs. STAGED Restoration

• Staged restoration accomplishes same thing as 1-time restoration in the long term

29

St. Clair River Response to St. Clair River Response to 1Time vs. STAGED Restoration1Time vs. STAGED Restoration

30

Lake St. Clair Response to Lake St. Clair Response to 1Time vs. STAGED Restoration1Time vs. STAGED Restoration

31

Detroit River Response to Detroit River Response to 1Time vs. STAGED Restoration1Time vs. STAGED Restoration

32

Lake Erie Response to STAGED Lake Erie Response to STAGED RestorationRestoration

33

Niagara River + Welland Canal Niagara River + Welland Canal Response to STAGED RestorationResponse to STAGED Restoration

34

Lake Ontario Response to STAGED Lake Ontario Response to STAGED RestorationRestoration

35

Lake Ontario Outflow Response to Lake Ontario Outflow Response to STAGED RestorationSTAGED Restoration

36

Jetty1 Response to STAGED Jetty1 Response to STAGED RestorationRestoration

Staged Restoration Summary Findings• 25 cm staged restoration can almost completely

mitigate the negative downstream impacts of a one-time restoration

• similar concept applies to any other selected level of restoration

• exact mitigation extent is of course dependent on being able to stage whatever structural channel changes are selected

• minimal downstream impact restoration (staging) takes longer (25 yrs instead of 10 yrs in this example)

37

38

Sensitivity of Short-term Sensitivity of Short-term Restoration Impacts to Initial Lake Restoration Impacts to Initial Lake

Levels/NBS variabilityLevels/NBS variability• Purpose here is assess worst case short-term

downstream impacts due to a poorly-timed project[Worst case impacts upstream are in the long-term and so timing a project to start during a high water period will not be worse - all we would show is that it would be better to start project during high water period]

• How are impacts exacerbated if physical restoration changes are completed just before period of very low Lake Erie levels?

• Based on observed Lake Erie levels, there are two points in historical record to consider …

39

Simulated Lake Erie Level under Base Simulated Lake Erie Level under Base CaseCase

“1930s” start

“1960s” start

40

Starting the 10cm Restoration in Starting the 10cm Restoration in Dry Period of the 30’sDry Period of the 30’s

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

Starting the 10cm Restoration in Starting the 10cm Restoration in Dry Period in 60’sDry Period in 60’s

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

Restoration start year

Maximum monthly lake level decrease compared to base case (no-restoration)

Annual average decrease to the base case in the first year after restoration

cm cm

1900 5 3.5

1930 3 2.4

1931 2 0

1932 6 3.5

1933 6 5.2

1934 4 2.3

1961 4 2.3

1962 2 1.0

1963 2 0.3

1964 2 0.8

1965 4 3.0

1966 77 6.06.0

1967 5 4.3

Lake Erie Response to Various Starting Lake Erie Response to Various Starting Years of 1-TIME 10cm RestorationYears of 1-TIME 10cm Restoration

56


57

58

59


60

61

Restoration start year

Maximum monthly lake level decrease compared to base case (no-restoration)

Annual average decrease to the base case in the first year after restoration

cm cm

1900 11 8.4

1930 10 7.6

1933 11 9.8

1961 7 5.2

1966 1212 1111

62

Lake Erie Response to Various Starting Lake Erie Response to Various Starting Years of 1-TIME 25 cm RestorationYears of 1-TIME 25 cm Restoration

Summary of Sensitivity to Restoration Project Timing

• A worst-case poorly-timed 1-time 10 cm restoration might drop ‘record’ low Lake Erie levels by an additional 7 cm for ~1 year


• The above results require terrible timing and would be difficult to imagine in practice … just a few years difference can reduce impacts

• Nonetheless, staged restoration can guard against such worst-case impacts

64

RESULTS for RESULTS for DynamicDynamic 77A 77A

Allow Lake Superior to respond to restoration



65

Lake Superior Response to Lake Superior Response to 1-TIME Restoration1-TIME Restoration

66






16 cm16 cm

67

Monthly metricRes. Lv. SUP MH SM

cm cm cms


10 4 12 547

25 10 29 739

40 14 45 782

50 16 56 800


10 3 11 12

25 9 25 94

40 13 39 123

50 16 50 152


10 1 0 489

25 1 1 744

40 0 1 733

50 0 1 726


10 0 0 0

25 0 0 1

40 0 0 1

50 0 0 2

1-Time MH Restoration DYNAMIC 77A 1-Time MH Restoration DYNAMIC 77A Upstream EffectsUpstream Effects


68

RESULTS for RESULTS for DynamicDynamic 77A 77A



69


70


71


72


73


74

Lake Ontario ResponseLake Ontario Responseto 1-TIME Restorationto 1-TIME Restoration

75

Lake Ontario Outflow Response toLake Ontario Outflow Response to1-TIME Restoration1-TIME Restoration

76

Jetty1 Response toJetty1 Response to1-TIME Restoration1-TIME Restoration

77

Monthly metricRes. Lv. SC ER ON JET SCR DR NiR

cm cm cms


10 7-7 5-5 3-2 9-9 145-145 127-127 96-100

25 16-16 12-12 4-4 25-25 351-351 310-310 240-243

40 24-2524-25 19-19 10-11 43-43 541-542 483-483 379-383

50 30-3130-31 23-2423-24 14-1614-16 54-54 664-668 595-595 470-478


10 1-1 1-01-0 0-0 0-0 39-36 34-32 8-0

25 3-3 1-01-0 0-0 1-1 91-95 80-83 19-0

40 4-4 2-02-0 1-0 0-1 136-142 120-126 29-3

50 5-5 2-02-0 2-0 1-1 164-166 145-145 36-8


10 1-2 1-1 2-3 9-9 32-39 32-39 16-23

25 3-3 2-2 6-6 9-9 77-85 74-82 39-46

40 5-5 3-3 18-18 9-9 116-125 113-122 59-69

50 5-65-6 3-43-4 28-28 9-9 140-164 136-158 71-88


10 1-1 0-1 1-0 0-1 7-18 8-18 4-20

25 1-1 0-0 1-1 1-1 17-20 22-34 10-32

40 1-1 0-0 2-1 1-1 27-28 37-43 15-32

50 1-1 0-0 2-1 1-2 33-32 47-49 19-32

1-Time MH Restoration Short-Term 1-Time MH Restoration Short-Term Downstream Effects STATIC vs. DYNAMIC 77A Downstream Effects STATIC vs. DYNAMIC 77A


Summary of Dynamic vs Static Plan 77a

• Dynamic Plan 77a implies Lake MH restoration will permanently increase Lake Superior levels

• The ‘filling’ of both Superior and Lake MH shows very minimal downstream impacts in comparison with Static 77a

• We have assumed Static 77a represents most likely approach to restoration

• However, if Dynamic 77a (restoring Superior) was desired restoration goal then Dynamic 77a results should be repeated with more realisitic Dynamic 77a plan parameters … no plans to do this

79

Sensitivity of Restoration Impacts to Sensitivity of Restoration Impacts to Coefficient Adjusted in St. Clair River EqnCoefficient Adjusted in St. Clair River Eqn

80

QQSCSC = = KKSCSC((MH+SC)/2-((MH+SC)/2-ymymSCSC))aaSCSC (MH-SC) (MH-SC)bbSC SC -IW-IW

KKSCSC: St. Clair River outflow equation coefficient (default 186.90): St. Clair River outflow equation coefficient (default 186.90)

A function of mean channel cross-section area and roughnessA function of mean channel cross-section area and roughness

• mimic reducing channel width instead of increasing mimic reducing channel width instead of increasing bottom elevationbottom elevation

• Evaluate sensitivity with Static 77A, 10cm and 25 cm restoration


81

83

Rest. level

Monthly deviation between results of adjusting two different parameters

MH SC ER ON JET SCR DR NiR ONout

cm cms

10max. positive deviation 1 1 1 3 5 11 11 8 108

max. negative deviation 1 1 1 2 9 14 13 9 223

Average deviation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

25max. positive deviation 2 2 1 3 20 29 28 19 408

max. negative deviation 2 2 1 3 11 33 33 24 265

Average deviation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3


• except for Jetty1 at Montreal, pretty limited except for Jetty1 at Montreal, pretty limited downstream differences in findingsdownstream differences in findings

• at Jetty1 these are extreme deviationsat Jetty1 these are extreme deviations• Results/Impacts should generally be representative Results/Impacts should generally be representative

of a variety of physical changes to St. Clair riverof a variety of physical changes to St. Clair river

84

ConclusionsConclusions

85

Summary of Summary of UpstreamUpstream Impacts of Impacts of One-time Restoration One-time Restoration (Static 77a)(Static 77a)

• Full upstream impacts only realized after initial period of “filling” for Lake MH, which is roughly 10-15 yrs

• Restoration will result in more extreme flooding more frequently on Lake MH depending on restoration level:– for 10 cm restoration, base case extreme monthly levels will

be exceeded 1-3% of the time– for 50 cm restoration, base case extreme monthly levels will

be exceeded upwards of 15% of the time

• Increased flooding level corresponds to restoration amount (cm)

86

Summary of Summary of DownstreamDownstream Impacts Impacts of One-time Restoration of One-time Restoration (Static 77a)(Static 77a)

• Downstream impacts are short-term due to holding water back to “fill” Lake MH, roughly 10-15 yrs

• Short-term downstream impacts vary based on restoration level and impact location but they can be significant – in particular for larger restorations

• Short-term downstream impacts can be greatly reduced with staged restoration and advanced planning on Lake Ontario– for example 25 cm staged restoration can almost

completely mitigate the negative downstream impacts of a one-time restoration

Conclusions on Project Timing• A worst-case poorly-timed 1-time 10 cm restoration

might drop ‘record’ low Lake Erie levels by an additional 7 cm for ~1 year


• The above results require terrible timing and would be difficult to imagine in practice … just a few years difference can reduce impacts

• Nonetheless, staged restoration can guard against such worst-case impacts

88

Limitations of the AnalysisLimitations of the Analysis• The hydraulic behaviour of the eventual physical

structure/channel modifications to accomplish restoration is not simulated here

• This analysis assumes that an increase to the channel bottom elevation and the corresponding simulation with CGLRRM roughly approximates the overall system response to a structural change in the St Clair River

• Before any physical restoration work is initiated, more accurate impacts for the actual physical structure/channel modifications should be evaluated by hydraulic modelling

• Finalize this in report for the board ASAP

• THANKS … questions?

APPENDICES

91

Summary of Bottom Level Summary of Bottom Level Coefficient of St. Clair (ymCoefficient of St. Clair (ymSCSC) for ) for

Static 77AStatic 77A

Restoration on MH (cm) Bottom level of SC (m) Bottom level change in SC to the base case (cm)

0 (base case) 167.00 0.00

10 167.20 20

25 167.48 48

25 - staged 167.48 48

40 167.74 74

50 167.90 90

Monthly Metric 25 cm restoration Scenarios

SC ER ON Jet SCR DR NiR

cm cms


1-Time 16 12 4 25 351 310 240

Staged 3 2 4 19 106 92 46


1-Time 3 1 0 1 91 80 19

Staged 3 1 0 1 91 80 19


1-Time 3 2 6 9 77 74 39

Staged 3 9 5 10 77 74 39


1-Time 1 0 1 1 17 22 10

Staged 1 0 1 1 17 22 10

92

EDIT*** 1-Time vs. Staged EDIT*** 1-Time vs. Staged 25cm MH Restoration – STATIC 77A 25cm MH Restoration – STATIC 77A

Short-Term Downstream EffectsShort-Term Downstream Effects

Full Dynamic 77A Results

94

Lake Superior Response to Lake Superior Response to 1-TIME Restoration1-TIME Restoration

95






16 cm16 cm

96

St. Marys River Response to St. Marys River Response to 1-TIME Restoration1-TIME Restoration

97






98

Lakes Michigan Huron Response to Lakes Michigan Huron Response to 1-TIME Restoration1-TIME Restoration

99






50 cm50 cm

100

Monthly metricRes. Lv. SUP MH SM

cm cm cms


10 4 12 547

25 10 29 739

40 14 45 782

50 16 56 800


10 3 11 12

25 9 25 94

40 13 39 123

50 16 50 152


10 1 0 489

25 1 1 744

40 0 1 733

50 0 1 726


10 0 0 0

25 0 0 1

40 0 0 1

50 0 0 2

1-Time MH Restoration DYNAMIC 77A 1-Time MH Restoration DYNAMIC 77A Upstream EffectsUpstream Effects

101


102


103


104


105


106

Lake Ontario ResponseLake Ontario Responseto 1-TIME Restorationto 1-TIME Restoration

107

Lake Ontario Outflow Response toLake Ontario Outflow Response to1-TIME Restoration1-TIME Restoration

108

Jetty1 Response toJetty1 Response to1-TIME Restoration1-TIME Restoration

109

Monthly metricRes. Lv. SC ER ON JET SCR DR NiR

cm cm cms


10 7-7 5-5 3-2 9-9 145-145 127-127 96-100

25 16-16 12-12 4-4 25-25 351-351 310-310 240-243

40 24-25 19-19 10-11 43-43 541-542 483-483 379-383

50 30-31 23-24 14-16 54-54 664-668 595-595 470-478


10 1-1 1-0 0-0 0-0 39-36 34-32 8-0

25 3-3 1-0 0-0 1-1 91-95 80-83 19-0

40 4-4 2-0 1-0 0-1 136-142 120-126 29-3

50 5-5 2-0 2-0 1-1 164-166 145-145 36-8


10 1-2 1-1 2-3 9-9 32-39 32-39 16-23

25 3-3 2-2 6-6 9-9 77-85 74-82 39-46

40 5-5 3-3 18-18 9-9 116-125 113-122 59-69

50 5-6 3-4 28-28 9-9 140-164 136-158 71-88


10 1-1 0-1 1-0 0-1 7-18 8-18 4-20

25 1-1 0-0 1-1 1-1 17-20 22-34 10-32

40 1-1 0-0 2-1 1-1 27-28 37-43 15-32

50 1-1 0-0 2-1 1-2 33-32 47-49 19-32

1-Time MH Restoration Short-Term 1-Time MH Restoration Short-Term Downstream Effects STATIC vs. DYNAMIC 77A Downstream Effects STATIC vs. DYNAMIC 77A

110

STATIC 77A vs. Dynamic 77ASTATIC 77A vs. Dynamic 77A

Restoration on MH (cm) Bottom level of SC (m) Bottom level change in SC to the base case (cm)

0 (base case) 167.00 0

10 167.20 20-20

25 167.48 48-48

40 167.74 74-74

50 167.90 90-90

Substitution for slides:21, 33, 72, 89

112

Monthly Metric15 years after rest.

Res. Lv. SC ER ON JET SCR DR NiR ONout

cm cm cms


10 7 5 2 9 145 127 96 190

25 16 12 4 25 351 310 240 540

40 24 19 10 43 541 483 379 937

50 30 23 14 54 664 595 470 1157


10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


10 1 1 2 4 31 27 7 85

25 1 1 6 4 71 63 16 108

40 2 1 18 4 116 94 24 98

50 3 1 28 5 128 113 30 100


10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1-Time MH Restoration – STATIC 77A Short-1-Time MH Restoration – STATIC 77A Short-Term Downstream EffectsTerm Downstream Effects

Monthly Metric 25 cm restoration Scenarios

SC ER ON Jet SCR DR NiR

cm cms


1-Time 16 12 4 25 351 310 240

Staged 3 2 4 6 84 81 46


1-Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Staged 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


1-Time 1 1 6 4 71 63 16

Staged 1 2 1 3 26 21 43


1-Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Staged 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

113

1-Time vs. Staged 1-Time vs. Staged 25cm MH Restoration – STATIC 77A 25cm MH Restoration – STATIC 77A

Short-Term Downstream EffectsShort-Term Downstream Effects

114

Metric ScenarioSC ER ON JET SCR DR NiR ONout

cm cms

Maximum monthly lake level decrease compared to base

case (no-restoration)

0 6 5 1 7 145 127 96 155

1 4 3 2 4 85 80 58 80

2 2 2 1 2 71 72 30 40

Annual average decrease to the base case in the first year

after restoration

0 5 4 0 4 114 112 72 81

1 3 2 0 2 65 64 52 46

2 2 1 0 0 43 43 14 5

115

1-Time MH Restoration Short-Term Downstream 1-Time MH Restoration Short-Term Downstream Effects STATIC vs. DYNAMIC 77A Effects STATIC vs. DYNAMIC 77A

Monthly Metric15 years after rest.

Res. Lv. SC ER ON JET SCR DR NiR ONout

cm cm cms


10 7-7 5-5 2-2 9-9 145-145 127-127 96-100 190-202

25 16-16 12-12 4-4 25-25 351-351 310-310 240-243 540-540

40 24-25 19-19 10-11 43-43 541-542 483-483 379-383 937-938

50 30-31 23-24 14-16 54-54 664-668 595-595 470-478 1157-1157


10 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0

25 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0

40 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0

50 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0


10 1-1 1-0 2-2 4-1 31-31 27-27 7-5 85-15

25 1-1 1-0 6-6 4-4 71-68 63-59 16-11 108-78

40 2-2 1-1 18-18 4-3 116-101 94-87 24-16 98-50

50 3-2 1-1 28-28 5-3 128-118 113-101 30-17 100-58


10 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0

25 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0

40 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0

50 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0

Documents

1 Restoring Water Levels on Lakes Michigan-Huron: Impact Analysis IUGLS Study Board Meeting Windsor, ON Nov 30, 2010 Bryan Tolson 1 Masoud Asadzadeh Saman