The document discusses addressing water level variability in the Great Lakes through an adaptive management approach. It begins by outlining concerns about fluctuating water levels for shoreline development and infrastructure. It then advocates for integrated assessments of impacts across multiple sectors and outlines two integrated solutions: managing water levels and flows, and managing responses to extremes. The document recommends a shared vision planning process and notes that recent studies advise adaptive management due to climate and impact uncertainties. It describes the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Adaptive Management Committee and key challenges to operationalizing adaptive management. In conclusion, it argues adaptive management requires long-term commitment, collaboration, measurable relationships between drivers and outcomes, and institutional arrangements that link outcomes to decisions and allow revisiting decisions

1. 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

2. Outline
2
¨ Water level variability – why worry?
¨ Integrated assessment / integrated
solutions
¨ Adaptive Management - It’s not easy

3. 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
Elevation above International Great Lakes Datum (1985)
in metres
Month - Year
Lakes Michigan/Huron Water Levels (IGLD 1985)
1986
20111964
1974
Water Level Variability – Why Worry?
, 1918 to April, 2016
Measured Water
Level
Long Term Monthly
Average (1918-2015)

4. 4
ü Shoreline development in the hazard zone
ü Situa2on of marinas and boat launches
ü Design of shore protec2on
ü Infrastructure decisions
ü Encroachment
ü Big boats (more dredging)
ü Ecosystem implica2ons
Baird
Water Level Variability – Why Worry?

5. ¨ 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?

6. 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
Elevation above International Great Lakes Datum (1985)
in metres
Month - Year
Measured Water
Level
Long Term Monthly
Average (1918-2015)
ke Michigan-Huron Water Levels
Month - Year
Measured Water
Level
Long Term Monthly
Average (1918-2015)
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
Difference of 63 cm (~25 in)
in 2 Years

7. 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

8. 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
Recent IJC Studies focussed on how to
manage fluctua2ng lake levels in the face
of uncertainty over future water supplies
Integrated Assessment work focusses on this

9. Integrated Solutions –
Shared Vision Planning Approach9
¨ 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)

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Understand the Drivers
Drivers: Water levels and Flows
Understanding the Hydroclimate system, expected
extremes and how they may be changing
14 Lighthousefriends.com

15. 15
Ecosystems
Difficulty in Decision Making Linking Drivers to Outcomes
Outcomes: What are we most worried about?

16. Linking Outcomes to Decisions
Decisions: Based on evaluations and comparison of
performance indicators
16

17. Institutional
Arrangements17
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

18. ¨ 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
SciencesThe 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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_/GLAM21