Great Lakes Water Levels Shoreline Dilemmas : Report on a Colloquium (1989) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
ISSUE PAPERS AND PROVOCATEURS' COMMENTS
ISSUE PAPERS AND PROVOCATEURS' COMMENTS
Pages 13-114
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 13... ...
A perspective on Lake Michigan lake levels over the 13
|
From page 14... ...
oa £ O
|
From page 15... ...
, indicates that over this period lake levels may have averaged much higher than at present, with three separate periods during which levels were 152 cm or more above the current long-term average. The Great Lakes water levels have been continuously gaged since 1860, providing one of the longest time series of continuously measured hydrologic data in North America.
|
From page 16... ...
Clair begins in 1898. TABLE 1-2 Seasonal Cycle (Monthly Mean Water Levels)
|
From page 17... ...
ANTHROPOGENIC LAKE LEVEL CHANGES Anthropogenic lake level changes are due primarily to diversions, modifications to the connecting channels, regulation, and consumptive use. Diversions have been a hydraulic feature of the Great Lakes since the early 1800s.
|
From page 18... ...
A second major source of anthropogenic lake level changes has been due to channel modifications in the St. Glair, Detroit, and Niagara rivers.
|
From page 19... ...
Lawrence rivers have no impact on lake levels due to the upstream regulatory control works. Regulation came to the Great Lakes with the completion of the Lake Superior compensating works in 1921.
|
From page 20... ...
GREAT LAKES WATER LEVEL MODELING AND SIMULATION Mathematical models are an integral part of understanding and simulating lake level fluctuations. The basic framework for water level simulation consists of a hydrologic response or routing model for the unregulated portion of the system (Quinn, 1978b)
|
From page 21... ...
Model outputs are end-of-month and monthly mean lake levels for each lake and monthly flow rates in the connecting channels. At the present time there are two routing models in general use that differ primarily in their solution techniques but yield similar results (Hartmann, 1987)
|
From page 22... ...
Two prediction techniques in use for predicting water supplies and lake levels are a trend and regression procedure (DeCooke and Megerian, 1967) and a conceptual model-based technique (Croley and Hartmann, 1987)
|
From page 23... ...
The wet and cool climatic conditions that led to the recent record lake levels may be more indicative of longer-term normals than the conditions occurring earlier this century. This could be offset by climate warming, which would have the opposite effect on lake levels.
|
From page 24... ...
1985. A stratigraphic study of beach features on the southwestern shore of Lake Michigan: new evidence of Holocene lake level fluctuations.
|
From page 25... ...
Average lake levels for both of these periods are both slightly lower than that shown here for 1900-1985. The IJC's answer didn't answer the question of why 1900 was chosen as the beginning of the historic record.
|
From page 26... ...
This is the long-term record of fluctuating lake levels. The highest level shown to the left is at 183 m (600 ft)
|
From page 27... ...
During the early 1970s and more recently in mid-1980s record high levels caused hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage and lost commerce. The cry went out to lower lake levels.
|
From page 28... ...
Much of what we know about lake level fluctuations and their effects has resulted from Canadian and United States government studies, and those government-sponsored studies coordinated by the International Joint Commission. Interestingly, all these studies have followed periods of extreme water levels on the lakes when basin residents have been acutely affected and have reacted with demands to alleviate the problem (Boyd, 1979)
|
From page 29... ...
The shipping, power production, and recreational boating interests were some of the first to advocate lake level regulation (i.e., control of lake level changes)
|
From page 30... ...
Damage to shore property occurs during inundation or from wave impact and is confined to low-lying areas and to the lower reaches of tributary streams that are affected by backwater from high lake levels (IGLLB 1973b; EC/OMNR, 1975)
|
From page 32... ...
. Erosion accelerates during high water and may continue for several years after lake levels retreat as bluff slopes come to equilibrium with the new condition.
|
From page 34... ...
The impairment experienced from extreme levels in the last 30 years could be alleviated in the future if new structures are designed to accommodate wider ranges. The issue will remain important as reliance on Great Lakes water grows.
|
From page 35... ...
The necessity to protect, preserve, and wisely use this invaluable resource prompts concern for the impacts of changing water levels. Our concern for the well-being of living resources stems from two main considerations: (1)
|
From page 38... ...
At the highest lake level examined, there was only 13 percent of the maximum wetlands and beaches available compared to the lowest lake level studied. Geis (undated)
|
From page 39... ...
Barrier beaches were inadvertently destabilized by disturbances on the shore and eroded away, and the inner marshes became vulnerable to the open lake. Impacts on Water Quality At least three studies have concluded that changing water levels have little effect on water quality.
|
From page 40... ...
found that, in general, higher lake levels are an advantage to hydroelectric power production because of greater hydraulic heads. Lower levels are a disadvantage.
|
From page 41... ...
Several initiatives may assist us to become better prepared and may diminish the need for costly and marginally effective public works projects intended to regulate lake levels and eliminate extremes: 1. Engender a shore ethic that includes enlightened use of hazard-prone areas and nonstructural shoreline protection.
|
From page 42... ...
1981. Impact of Great Lakes water level fluctuation.
|
From page 43... ...
1973a. Regulation of Great Lakes Water Levels.
|
From page 44... ...
Transhipment, power, and recreational boating appeared to be the first vocal interests expressing concern with water level rise in the Great Lakes. Then the property owners entered the picture and became a little bit more organized.
|
From page 45... ...
The paper posed no answer to these questions. While the paper seemed to support a comprehensive approach involving all of the interests (e.g., transhipment, recreational boating, property owners, and wildlife and waterfowl groups)
|
From page 46... ...
By the early 1970s (period of first record high lake level for the century) the United States coastal population had grown to a point where 50 percent lived in a county bordering on the Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, or Great Lakes.
|
From page 47... ...
Urbanization creates demands for removal and dispersion of wastes, which all too often find their way into the dynamic coastal zone of the Great Lakes and subsequently to the rural shore downdrift. Physical descriptions of the Great Lakes coastlines tend to focus on terms such as high or low bluff, credible or nonerodible bluff, high or low sand dunes, erodible or nonerodible low plain, and wetlands (Hands, 1979; Great Lakes Basin Commission, 1975)
|
From page 48... ...
1. Great Lakes shorelines are not the "edge of a soup bowl." During periods of rising lake level, there is a popular misconception that falling lake levels will result in an exposure of beach equivalent to that which existed before lake level rise.
|
From page 49... ...
Another misconception concerning both shoreline retreat and engineering structure performance is that falling lake levels directly correlate with periods of shoreline and structural stability. The problem with this idea is that on Great Lakes coastlines where mean water level fluctuations are of the order of tens of centimeters to more than 1 m in just a few years, equilibrium beach profile conditions are difficult to achieve.
|
From page 50... ...
This concept of extreme local recession impact exceeding net lake level or "background" recession on the Great Lakes is important to strategies of development for urban versus rural shorelines. STRATEGIES FOR SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT In this attempt to identify strategies for the future development of Great Lakes shorelines, a clear distinction will be made between strategies for urban/industrialized and rural shorelines.
|
From page 51... ...
FIGURE 3-2 Burns/Portage Waterway entrance (a)
|
From page 52... ...
Transportation shreds coastal wetlands, real estate distorts and buries the shoreline, (and the buried shoreline accommodates industries that
|
From page 53... ...
Unfortunately, there were almost as many homes lying atop or scattered throughout coastal protection structures as standing behind them. Hopefully, this experience of two decades of high and rising lake levels has convinced landowners of the futility of trying to halt coastal recession or wall off the advancing lake.
|
From page 54... ...
Three major concepts presented earlier in this paper help to explain why this policy argument is incorrect. First, high lake levels are not the only period of shoreline impact.
|
From page 55... ...
That was great because that made me beh'eve that I could focus on other aspects about which I felt more knowledgeable. As I read the paper, six points stood out for me, particularly with regard to the idea of strategies for the future development of Great Lakes shorelines.
|
From page 56... ...
Secondly, I was interested that not very much was said in Bill's paper about the cost of alternative strategies. It seems to me that if we're talking about strategies for the future development on Great Lakes shorelines, it is important to know the cost and cost effectiveness of alternative strategies.
|
From page 57... ...
At the same time, it seems to me that we could take too much time in trying to design the perfect institutional structure because what we are really talking about is how to overcome "boundary" or "edge" effects. In other words, the reality is that we do have many legitimate participants and stakeholders and we have a lot of legitimate public agencies with an interest in shoreline development.
|
From page 58... ...
If the key is to consider the interrelationships of different aspects of shoreline development along the Great Lakes, we can do this in an integrated way without being comprehensive. If we talk, as was suggested last night, about a comprehensive approach, we almost overwhelm ourselves with the complexity with which we are dealing.
|
From page 59... ...
This difference in our perceptions of shoreline retreat on developed and undeveloped islands illustrates a very important principle. The principle states that shoreline erosion is entirely a man-made problem.
|
From page 60... ...
For example, along the Great Lakes, awareness of the shoreline erosion problem and public pressure for action to solve the problem come and go with the rise and fall of the lakes. Heated rhetoric aside, lake levels are basically due to precipitation
|
From page 61... ...
. Periods of high rainfall produce periods of high lake levels; periods of low rainfall produce periods of low lake levels.
|
From page 62... ...
The seawall, a form of hard stabilization, has resulted in fixing the shoreline in one place, which is most desirable from the standpoint of protection of the buildings hugging the shoreline. However, from the standpoint of preservation of the recreational shore, construction of a fixed wall is most undesirable, since walls ultimately destroy beaches in the long run.
|
From page 63... ...
The Sea Bright story is not without application to Great Lakes shorelines. For example, during the recent high lake levels, a number of property owners on every one of the lakes and on both sides of the U.S.-Canadian border found that the cost of stabilization structures adequate to provide long-term protection for their houses approached the cost of their homes.
|
From page 64... ...
Another interesting aspect of the hard stabilization approach is the abundance of entrepreneurial erosion "solutions." As a result of the high lake levels, a large number of "one-device" shoreline engineering companies have sprung up, which operate almost exclusively in the Great Lakes. These companies market a single approach or a single contraption for threatened shorelines.
|
From page 65... ...
The number of available devices and the conflicting claims about them can be very confusing to individuals or communities seeking relief from an erosion problem. Most of the structures are gravity structures; that is, they are sitting on the surface of the beach or on the nearshore submarine surface, and they do not extend below the sediment water interface.
|
From page 66... ...
Most companies can claim some success somewhere in stabilizing a shoreline, but these successes are frequently short term, such as for a single season or a single year. Other apparent successes may be due to the erosion control structures' settling into the sand under the force of their own weight, or due to lowered lake levels; both situations would show (in before-and-after photographs, for example)
|
From page 67... ...
A number of states with oceanic shorelines have declared this approach to be the preferred way to go. Advantages of soft stabilization: 1.
|
From page 68... ...
Judging from the experience on oceanic beach replenishment, Great Lakes beach replenishment projects should be viewed as experiments, at least the first time around. As stated in the draft report of a recent workshop on Great Lakes coastal erosion research needs, "The fundamental mechanisms of sediment transport have yet to be understood" (Michigan Sea Grant College Program and The University of Michigan, 1987)
|
From page 69... ...
The relocation alternative was perhaps an inconceivable approach to shoreline management a mere decade ago. However, recent warnings of an impending dramatic sea level rise (National Research Council, 1987; Devoy, 1987)
|
From page 70... ...
rationale behind this change is recognition of the cost-effectiveness of paying for loss prevention, as opposed to paying for actual loss claims, especially since loss claims are sometimes paid out repeatedly to a single structure as the structure is damaged and rebuilt, damaged and rebuilt. THE FEDERAL SPLIT PERSONALITY No mention of federal involvement in coastal zone policy would be complete without at least a quick glance at the other federal agencies or laws with some jurisdiction over coastal issues (Table 4-2)
|
From page 71... ...
Great Lakes problems with high lake levels could perhaps be alleviated by incorporation of Great Lakes barriers into the CBRA system or into a similar state system (as in Massachusetts)
|
From page 72... ...
Historical records of past lake levels and shore positions could provide a guide for the mapping of lake setbacks. A more difficult problem is that of existing development.
|
From page 73... ...
The most effective management tool for Texas has been the state's Open Beaches Act of 1959. Originally designed to ensure public access to the state's beaches, the act has become, in effect, a "rolling easement." Because the act prohibits construction seaward of the vegetation line or within 200 ft of the mean low water line, structures must migrate landward apace with the receding shoreline.
|
From page 74... ...
The cyclicity of high lake levels also offers unique opportunities unavailable to oceanfront shoreline managers. Because the Great Lakes problem is sporadic, attention to the problem is also sporadic.
|
From page 75... ...
1987. Living with the Lake Erie Shore.
|
From page 76... ...
We may have a consensus that the best way to adapt to fluctuating lake levels would be to preserve those natural shorelines where they exist. The problem is that in the Great Lakes we have 40 million people, the great majority of whom live in a number of large cities on the shorelines of the Great Lakes.
|
From page 77... ...
They address immediate situations, they are reacting after the fact, and their advance measures program is a short-term program with a maximum design life of 15 years. I don't believe that the general public, including those property owners that turn to the Corps of Engineers for help, understands the extent to which the Corps of Engineers uses a band-aid approach rather than a longterm approach.
|
From page 78... ...
Fluctuating levels are primarily a problem for those on Lakes Michigan, Ontario, and parts of Superior, but these first two areas include substantial portions of the population concentrated along the lakes, so substantial numbers of people are exposed to the adverse consequences of fluctuating lake levels. High levels erode the shore and flood urban areas, destroying private property and municipal infrastructures.
|
From page 79... ...
Lake levels reached the highest recorded levels in the Fall of 1986, and powerful storms in 1985-1987 caused substantial property damage along the shores. Previous high water levels on Lake Erie between 1972 and 1975 caused $110 million worth of property damage.5 The driest period on Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior since 1900 has provided immediate relief; levels fell 18 inches between November 1986 and June 1987.
|
From page 80... ...
For example, the wealthy Chicago suburb of Lake Forest spent $8.7 million to construct a chain of artificial islands to protect its Lake Michigan beaches. The second strategy, risk management through adaptation to the occurrence of natural hazards, is a truly radical strategy because it cuts against the grain of the institution of private property and supporting local regulation to try to deflect intensive uses that have historically clustered along the shore, away from the shore.
|
From page 81... ...
The 1986 IJC reference on fluctuating lake levels directs the commission to determine, to the maximum extent practicable, the socio-economic costs and benefits of alternative land use and shoreline management practices and compare these with the revised costs and benefits of lake regulation schemes. This paper examines the major institutions and regulatory jurisdictions that have a voice hi Great Lakes level regulation and shoreland use through the lens of these two policies to determine which institutions promote or impede the achievement of these policies.
|
From page 82... ...
Lake level stabilization, to the extent that it is possible, is pursued by binational cooperation and by the federal and state or provincial governments, of the United States and Canada. Hazard avoidance is primarily the function of local, state, or provincial governments, because this is where land use controls have been vested in both Canada and the United States, but the federal government of the United States has asserted a limited interest in shoreline management.
|
From page 83... ...
implementation of them express the core principle of stable, "natural" lake levels. The two nations cooperate on lake level stabilization through the IJC, but the potential for fluctuation stabilization is limited.18 There are only three major diversion points on the system that can be manipulated to influence lake levels.
|
From page 84... ...
The charter is a goodfaith effort to prevent large-scale diversions by consultation among the signatory states and provinces backed up by unilateral state and provincial conservation of the lakes and tributary waters. Largescale diversions are less a threat than many assume, but the concern against draining the lakes22 bears on the problem of responding to fluctuating lake levels.
|
From page 85... ...
One, perhaps unintended, consequence of the charter is that greater interstate and Canadian cooperation will be required for any large-scale lake level modification plan. FEDERAL RESPONSES The federal government can influence shoreland protection strategies in two basic ways.
|
From page 86... ...
At the present time, the Great Lakes and Pacific Ocean are excluded from this system. However, legislation has been introduced in Congress to extend the coastal barrier resources system to the Great Lakes.28 STATE AND LOCAL LAND USE CONTROLS The best response to fluctuating lake levels is to minimize exposure to their adverse effects.
|
From page 87... ...
For example, the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently prohibited the construction of a condominium near Lake Superior because the land would be covered with water were it not for an artificial barrier.30 Land beyond the high water mark may be used by the owner subject to state and local regulation. The public trust is a vague but important doctrine, which originated in a suit over a conveyance of the Chicago lake front by the state to a railroad, which restrains the use and conveyance of trust lands to protect public trust purposes.31 Historically, the trust has been used to promote navigation.
|
From page 88... ...
Setback and Hazard Area Regulations Setback regulations are the basic regulatory tool to prevent shoreline development in the zone of erosion risk. Setback regulations are one of the most basic zoning techniques, and they have been adapted to coastal development.
|
From page 89... ...
In practice, the availability of flood insurance has often hastened the pace of shoreland growth because flood plain maps have been inaccurate or have been gerrymandered. In 1982 Congress took a major set to eliminate subsidies that encourage shoreland growth by barring further federal flood insurance for barrier islands along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and eliminating other federal subsidies that encourage development.
|
From page 90... ...
International Joint Commission, Ottawa and Washington, D.C., p.
|
From page 91... ...
20. International Joint Commission.
|
From page 92... ...
Instead, lake levels seem to have moved from one long-term equilibrium state, fluctuating about a rather high mean in the nineteenth century, to fluctuating around a much lower mean in the middle part of this century. Apparently, the lake has shifted to a new higher equilibrium about which it is fluctuating now.
|
From page 93... ...
By 1978 we had extended the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement's concern with toxics to the entire lake basin, and to substances in the lakes. The Water Quality Board was created, including representatives of state, provincial, and federal governments.
|
From page 94... ...
We don't know yet, but we may well begin to see it if the public and urban leaders seriously want protection, and it has to be coordinated across the political structures of the region. We have seen at least one example, the experiment set in motion by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
|
From page 95... ...
In fact, inclusion of the private sector on this colloquium agenda is an astute and progressive initiative that is indicative of a growing emphasis within the profession of emergency management. The comments, inferences, concepts, tools, and approaches that this discussion is based upon are drawn from the more documented fields of emergency management, hazard mitigation, and my personal experiences with fluctuating lakes, disasters, and contributing roles of the private sector.
|
From page 96... ...
When the perspective of time is considered, financial incentive actions provide additional reasons that private sector interests become involved in hazard management activities. Commonly referred to as a "time-horizon," the duration of one's investment often dictates the level of response that those at risk undertake.
|
From page 97... ...
A subset to this field of liability provides yet another impetus for private sector involvement, and that is perceived, or real, inaction on behalf of the public sector. Public officials may claim that a particular problem is not within their realm of jurisdiction or responsibility, whether they are accurate or not.
|
From page 98... ...
Emergency management activities are categorized into four different arenas: preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. While there is some overlap of components, each functional area addresses a distinct set of problems.
|
From page 99... ...
If substantial or repetitive losses are suffered, adjustments are mandated. The Decision-Making Environment of the Great Lakes Private Sector I have frequently, and intentionally, used the concept of "acceptable risk." This concept, a combination of simple and sophisticated relationships, is at the heart of any decision to undertake any hazard-induced response, mitigative or not.
|
From page 100... ...
When? What is the range of expected impacts, for both high and low water levels?
|
From page 101... ...
Who is the Private Sector? Identifying the Stakeholders Having reviewed the fundamentals of emergency management to determine why and when hazard management activities are pursued, and having reviewed the uncertain environment within which risk must be reconciled with vulnerability, I have established the framework to move towards defining private sector roles and responses.
|
From page 102... ...
There is a growing trend toward the participation of special foundations. So the set of stakeholders, the private sector interests that are affected by the impact of fluctuating lake levels, is a much broader group than one might first anticipate.
|
From page 103... ...
The solution will lie in a shared public-private responsibility, and that is an area where the private sector can play a tremendous role, particularly if combined with the goals and objectives of economic development. Experience has demonstrated that hazard mitigation initiatives are more readily accepted by both private and public sectors when a multiobjective planning approach is considered.
|
From page 104... ...
Many communities now approach hazard management with preimpact and postimpact plans. They do what can realistically (technically, legally, politically, and economically)
|
From page 105... ...
WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD? When approximating private sector roles and responses to fluctuating lakes or any hazard, we can reasonably expect that the private sector will do what it does best: react in an economic decisionmaking fashion and seek whatever public financial assistance is available.
|
From page 106... ...
Regulation, as a response to fluctuating lakes, may be a typical recourse. When a risk becomes unacceptable to the public, regulation occurs.
|
From page 107... ...
Was there a distinct separation of impacts to private and public sectors? Is it more effective, at present, to allow Lake Shore Drive to be flooded once every few years, and simply close it and implement a standby traffic plan?
|
From page 108... ...
Second, I'd like to elaborate on what I feel are some of the interesting facets of the interplay between public and private responses as they relate to private interests affected by fluctuating lake levels. And third, I will conclude with a comment on program priorities.
|
From page 109... ...
I think these are points that deserve further research. As a starting point, I submit that landowners typically would like to solve their lake level problems on their own and not be hassled by other people.
|
From page 110... ...
The final observation that I would like to make is that there's a lot of discussion and development of programs under way relating to fluctuating Great Lakes water levels. An underlying assumption in these efforts seems to be that we need a coordinated, comprehensive policy to help us move forward in dealing with these problems.
|
From page 111... ...
Answers to questions such as these will help both public and private decision makers concerned with fluctuating Great Lakes water levels.
|
From page 113... ...
Panel Discussion: Global Climate Change
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.