1 Restoring Water Levels on Lakes Michigan-Huron: Impact Analysis IUGLS Study Board Meeting Windsor,...
-
Upload
katrina-dorsey -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 Restoring Water Levels on Lakes Michigan-Huron: Impact Analysis IUGLS Study Board Meeting Windsor,...
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
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
(%) violating base case max-25cm res. 1.8 2.8 5.5 6.4 7.3 7.3 4.6 4.6 2.8 0.9 1.8 1.8
(%) violating base case max-40cm res. 6.4 9.2 9.2 9.2 11.0 11.9 10.1 8.3 6.4 2.8 1.8 3.7
(%) violating base case max-50cm res. 9.2 14.7 13.8 15.6 15.6 16.5 14.7 15.6 9.2 4.6 3.7 6.4
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
• Upstream Effects of Restoration
• Downstream Effects of Restoration
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
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(%) 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
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(%) 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
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(%) 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
Starting the 25cm Restoration in Starting the 25cm Restoration in Dry Period in 30’sDry Period in 30’s
57
58
59
Starting the 25cm Restoration in Starting the 25cm Restoration in Dry Period in 60’sDry Period in 60’s
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
• A worst-case poorly-timed 1-time 25 cm restoration might drop ‘record’ low Lake Erie levels by an additional 12 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
• Upstream Effects of Restoration
• Downstream Effects of Restoration
65
Lake Superior Response to Lake Superior Response to 1-TIME Restoration1-TIME Restoration
66
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(%) violating base case max-10cm res. 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
(%) violating base case max-25cm res. 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 4.6 2.8 0.9 0.9
(%) violating base case max-40cm res. 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.8 2.8 4.6 9.2 4.6 1.8 0.9
(%) violating base case max-50cm res. 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 4.6 9.2 7.3 10.1 8.3 1.8 0.9
16 cm16 cm
67
Monthly metricRes. Lv. SUP MH SM
cm cm cms
Max increase to base case
10 4 12 547
25 10 29 739
40 14 45 782
50 16 56 800
Max increase to base case max
10 3 11 12
25 9 25 94
40 13 39 123
50 16 50 152
Max decrease to base case
10 1 0 489
25 1 1 744
40 0 1 733
50 0 1 726
Max decrease to base case min
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
How are most extreme base case levels exacerbated
68
RESULTS for RESULTS for DynamicDynamic 77A 77A
• Upstream Effects of Restoration
• Downstream Effects of Restoration
69
St. Clair River Response toSt. Clair River Response to1-TIME Restoration1-TIME Restoration
70
Lake St. Clair Response toLake St. Clair Response to1-TIME Restoration1-TIME Restoration
71
Detroit River Response toDetroit River Response to1-TIME Restoration1-TIME Restoration
72
Lake Erie Response toLake Erie Response to1-TIME Restoration1-TIME Restoration
73
Niagara River + Welland Canal Niagara River + Welland Canal Response to 1-TIME RestorationResponse to 1-TIME Restoration
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
Max decrease to base case
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
Max decrease to base case min
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
Max increase to base case
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
Max increase to base case max
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
How are most extreme base case levels exacerbated
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
Sensitivity of Restoration Impacts to Sensitivity of Restoration Impacts to Coefficient Adjusted in St. Clair River EqnCoefficient Adjusted in St. Clair River Eqn
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
Sensitivity of Restoration Impacts to Sensitivity of Restoration Impacts to Coefficient Adjusted in St. Clair River EqnCoefficient Adjusted in St. Clair River Eqn
• 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
• A worst-case poorly-timed 1-time 25 cm restoration might drop ‘record’ low Lake Erie levels by an additional 12 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
Max decrease to base case
1-Time 16 12 4 25 351 310 240
Staged 3 2 4 19 106 92 46
Max decrease to base case min
1-Time 3 1 0 1 91 80 19
Staged 3 1 0 1 91 80 19
Max increase to base case
1-Time 3 2 6 9 77 74 39
Staged 3 9 5 10 77 74 39
Max increase to base case max
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
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(%) violating base case max-10cm res. 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
(%) violating base case max-25cm res. 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 4.6 2.8 0.9 0.9
(%) violating base case max-40cm res. 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.8 2.8 4.6 9.2 4.6 1.8 0.9
(%) violating base case max-50cm res. 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 4.6 9.2 7.3 10.1 8.3 1.8 0.9
16 cm16 cm
96
St. Marys River Response to St. Marys River Response to 1-TIME Restoration1-TIME Restoration
97
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(%) violating base case max-10cm res. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
(%) violating base case max-25cm res. 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.9 4.6 0.9 0.9 3.7 3.7 0.9 0.0 0.0
(%) violating base case max-40cm res. 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.9 4.6 2.8 0.9 1.8 2.8 2.8 0.0 0.0
(%) violating base case max-50cm res. 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 1.8 0.9 3.7 2.8 3.7 0.0 0.0
98
Lakes Michigan Huron Response to Lakes Michigan Huron Response to 1-TIME Restoration1-TIME Restoration
99
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
(%) violating base case max-25cm res. 1.8 3.7 4.6 6.4 7.3 7.3 4.6 4.6 2.8 0.9 1.8 1.8
(%) violating base case max-40cm res. 6.4 9.2 9.2 9.2 11.0 11.0 11.0 10.1 6.4 1.8 1.8 3.7
(%) violating base case max-50cm res. 10.1 14.7 15.6 14.7 16.5 18.4 16.5 16.5 10.1 4.6 3.7 7.3
50 cm50 cm
100
Monthly metricRes. Lv. SUP MH SM
cm cm cms
Max increase to base case
10 4 12 547
25 10 29 739
40 14 45 782
50 16 56 800
Max increase to base case max
10 3 11 12
25 9 25 94
40 13 39 123
50 16 50 152
Max decrease to base case
10 1 0 489
25 1 1 744
40 0 1 733
50 0 1 726
Max decrease to base case min
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
St. Clair River Response toSt. Clair River Response to1-TIME Restoration1-TIME Restoration
102
Lake St. Clair Response toLake St. Clair Response to1-TIME Restoration1-TIME Restoration
103
Detroit River Response toDetroit River Response to1-TIME Restoration1-TIME Restoration
104
Lake Erie Response toLake Erie Response to1-TIME Restoration1-TIME Restoration
105
Niagara River + Welland Canal Niagara River + Welland Canal Response to 1-TIME RestorationResponse to 1-TIME Restoration
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
Max decrease to base case
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
Max decrease to base case min
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
Max increase to base case
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
Max increase to base case max
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
Max decrease to base case
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
Max decrease to base case min
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
Max increase to base case
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
Max increase to base case max
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
Max decrease to base case
1-Time 16 12 4 25 351 310 240
Staged 3 2 4 6 84 81 46
Max decrease to base case min
1-Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Staged 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Max increase to base case
1-Time 1 1 6 4 71 63 16
Staged 1 2 1 3 26 21 43
Max increase to base case max
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
Max decrease to base case
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
Max decrease to base case min
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
Max increase to base case
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
Max increase to base case max
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