[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Y 5c, PPIP FRWW o A! IRMT, 4* om Vol 04 53 Tf N, I'Fm ZONE -44; Ak Or GB P EN,DJ rA'l 705 7`7 .G73 G74 1976 an @'Flow appendix V. I LAKE@s BASI j N F J@m@ K STU iNon. W/ Great Lakes Basin Framework Study Property of CSC Library APPENDIX 11 LEVELS AND FLOWS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413 GREAT LAKES BASIN COMMISSION Prepared by Levels and Flows Work Group Sponsored by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Central Division Published by the Public Information Office, Great Lakes Basin Commission, 3475 Plymouth Road, P.O. Box 999, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106. Printed in 1975. Cover photo by Kristine Moore Meves. This appendix to the Report of the Great Lakes Basin Framework Study was prepared at field level under the auspices of the Great Lakes Basin Commission to provide data for use in the conduct of the Study and preparation of the Report. The conclusions and recommendations herein are those of the group preparing the appendix and not necessarily those of the Basin Commission. The recommendations of the Great Lakes Basin Commission are included in the Report. The copyright material reproduced in this volume of the Great Lakes Basin Framework Study was printed with the kind consent of the copyright holders. Section 8, title 17, United States Code, provides: The publication or republication by the Government, either separately or in a public document, of any material in which copyright is subsisting shall not be taken to cause any abridgement or annulment of the copyright or to authorize any use or appropriation of such copyright material without the consent of the copyright proprietor. The Great Lakes Basin Commission requests that no copyrighted material in this volume be republished or reprinted without the permission of the author. OUTLINE Report Appendix 1: Alternative Frameworks Appendix 2: Surface Water Hydrology Appendix 3: Geology and Ground Water Appendix 4: Limnology of Lakes and Embayments Appendix 5: Mineral Resources Appendix 6: Water Supply-Municipal, Industrial, and Rural Appendix 7: Water Quality Appendix 8: Fish Appendix C9: Commercial Navigation Appendix R9: Recreational Boating Appendix 10: Power Appendix 11: Levels and Flows Appendix 12: Shore Use and Erosion Apoendix 13: Land Use and Management Appendix 14: Flood Plains Appendix 15: Irrigation Appendix 16: Drainage Appendix 17: Wildlife Appendix 18: Erosion and Sedimentation Appendix 19: Economic and Demographic Studies Appendix F20: Federal Laws, Policies, and Institutional Arrangements Appendix S20: State Laws, Policies, and Institutional Arrangements Appendix 21: Outdoor Recreation Appendix 22: Aesthetic and Cultural Resources Appendix 23: Health Aspects Environmental Impact Statement' SYNOPSIS This appendix describes the factors which cedures have improved and shoreline de- affect Great Lakes water levels and outflows. velopment intensified, it has become apparent It discusses the physiography, hydraulics, and that additional benefits might be achieved hydrology of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence through a more systematic approach to Great River system; diversions into, out of, and Lakes regulation. New regulation systems, for within the system; and lake regulation. In the example, on Lake Superior, would benefit discussion of regulation, the effects of lake Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Erie without det- level fluctuation on the various interests riment to the major interests on Lakes within the Basin are developed. Superior and Ontario. A regulation plan is a means of determining In October 1964 the governments of the the flow out of a lake or a system of lakes for a United States and Canada asked the Interna- given future period. It reroutes the historical tional Joint Commission to "determine supply of water through a lake to produce de- whether measures can be taken to regulate sired lake levels and outflows. There are two further the levels of the Great Lakes for the such plans in operation on the Great Lakes purpose of bringing about a more beneficial today. Both of these have been designed to range of stages for, and improvement in af- satisfy certain criteria specified in Orders of fected shore property, navigation and power Approval of the International Joint Commis- interests." The Commission appointed the In- sion. ternational Great Lakes Levels Board to con- Lake Superior has been regulated since 1921 duct the investigation. The Board submitted a by means of a gated dam across the St. Marys final report to the International Joint Com- River at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. The ob- mission late in 1973. jective of this control is to compensate for the Improved or further regulation of the Great effect of diverting water around the St. Marys Lakes system could consist of controlling the River rapids for power. Construction of the levels and outflows of all or various combina- gated dam was required by the International tions of the Lakes. Lakes Michigan and Huron Joint Commission as a condition to approval of are treated as a single lake since they react the water diversion. By operation of the gates hydraulically as one, and no control is present and changes in power diversions, flows at the Straits of Mackinac. Any combination specified by the regulation plan can be which included either Lake Erie or Lakes achieved. Michigan-Huron would require engineering Lake Ontario has been regulated since 1960 construction in their outlet'rivers, the Niag- by means of a control dam that spans the St. ara and the St. Clair-Detroit Rivers respec- Lawrence River near Iroquois, Ontario, and tively, since these are presently unregulated. by a powerhouse and dam at Barnhart Island, Need for changes in the existing control New York, near Cornwall, Ontario. Control of facilities in the St. Marys and St. Lawrence Lake Ontario was authorized by the Inter- Rivers would depend on whether such national Joint Commission as part of the St. changes were economically desirable. Lawrence Seaway and Power Project to meet This appendix considers in detail problems the criteria specified in the Orders of Approval related to the various artificial factors which of the International Joint Commission. The affect lake levels and outflows. These artificial present regulation plan being used to deter- factors include diversions, connecting channel mine the release of water through these struc- changes, increased consumptive loss of water, tures is known as "Lake Ontario Regulation and extension of the navigation season on the Plan 1958-D." Great Lakes. The latter will require detailed The present regulation of Lakes Superior hydraulic studies and close operational sur- and Ontario is governed by criteria that relate veillance of connecting channels. primarily to a specified area associated with Projected consumptive use of water within each Lake. In recent years, as regulation pro- the Basin could significantly affect the levels v vi Appendix 11 of the Great Lakes. 'Procedures will be re- long-term water level fluctuations. Further quired to reduce future consumptive use and investigation of these factors is essential for its effects. more effective management of lake levels. The relationships of many of the factors which affect the fluctuation of the lake levels It is expected that the intensive research are not completely understood. This situation efforts under way in the International Field could be improved by an active physical re- Year on the Great Lakes, a part of the Inter- search program extending the engineering national Hydrologic Decade, will be helpful in studies currently in progress for the Interna- providing a better understanding of Lake On- tional Joint Commission's study. tario and the other Great Lakes. The Great Precipitation on the Great Lakes and on Lakes Basin Commission's special Great their tributary land areas is the source of all Lakes study, Limnological Systems Analysis the water entering the Lakes. On the average, of the Great Lakes, will also provide invaluable more than half of this water is removed from insights into the complex interrelationship the Lakes by evaporation. Variations of these among the various subsystems which consti- two factors are largely responsible for the tute the lake environment. FOREWORD The North Central Division, U.S. Army Pipkin, Illinois Division of Waterways; and Corps of Engineers, was assigned the respon- Nicholas L. Barbarossa, Federal Water Re- sibility of coordinating the levels and flows sources Council, formerly with the New York study. The material here was furnished pri- State Department of Environmental Con- marily by the Department of the Army, Corps servation, added data for several planning of Engineers, Detroit District, Buffalo Dis- subarea writings. trict, and North Central Division, and the Others who participated in the work efforts Lake Survey Center, National Ocean Survey, of this appendix were Huson A. Amsterburg, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of tration, Department of Commerce. This appen- Agriculture, subsequently replaced by Ster- dix was compiled by the Levels and Flows ling E. Powell of that office in 1971, and Sum- Work Group, a panel appointed by the Great ner A. Dole, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Lakes Basin Commission to help prepare a Wildlife, U.S. Department of the Interior. comprehensive, coordinated, joint plan for use Assistance in updating levels and flows and development of water and related land data was provided by Frank A. Blust, Alan resources. W. Hodson and James S. Moore (retired) from The appendix was prepared under the Lake Survey Center, National Ocean Survey, supervision of Stewart H. Fonda, Jr., by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- Donald J. Leonard, Alternate Chairman; and tration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Joseph Raoul, Jr., all of North Central Divi- The Levels and Flows Work Group included sion, Corps of Engineers. Leonard T. Schutze, representatives from the following Federal Detroit District, Corps of Engineers, and agencies: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wild- Donald M. Liddell, Buffalo District, Corps of life, Department of the Interior; Federal Engineers, assisted in the preparation of a Power Commission; Soil Conservation Ser- number of writeups. In 1971 Salvatore Maiore vice, Department of Agriculture; Buffalo Dis- replaced Mr. Liddell as member from Buffalo trict, Corps of Engineers; and Detroit District, District office. Personnel of the Michigan De- Corps of Engineers. State agencies rep- partment of Natural Resources, represented resented included: Illinois Division of Water- by Dale Granger, Leon Cook, Herbert Miller, ways; Michigan Department of Natural Re- Mogens Nielsen and George Taack, assisted in sources; New York State Department of En- preparing a number of planning subarea vironmental Conservation; Ohio Department writeups. Colonel C.T. Foust (retired), Ohio of Natural Resources; and Wisconsin Depart- Department of Natural Resources; Murray ment of Natural Resources. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page OUTLINE ..................................................................... iii SYNOPSIS ................................................................... v FOREWORD ................................................................. vii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................ xvi LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................... xix INTRODUCTION ............................................................. xxiii Purpose .................................................................. xxiii Scope of Study ............................................................ xxiii 1 LAKE LEVELS-REGULATION OF THE GREAT LAKES .............. 1 1.1 General ............. :***"*****"***''*"********'**''**'***'*"**, 1 1.2 Great Lakes Regulation ........................................... 1 1.2.1 Joint Canada-United States Study ......................... 3 1.2.2 Framework Study Relationship ............................ 3 2 PHYSIOGRAPHY OF THE GREAT LAKES BASIN ..................... 5 2.1 General ............................................................. 5 2.1.1 Lakes and Land Areas ..................................... 5 2.1.2 Lake Volumes .............................................. 6 2.1.3 Outflow Rivers ............................................. 7 2.2 Lake Superior ...................................................... 8 2.3 Lake Huron ....................................................... 9 2.4 Lake Michigan .................................................... 9 2.5 Lake St. Clair ..................................................... 10 2.6 Lake Erie ......................................................... 10 2.7 Lake Ontario ...................................................... 11 2.8 St. Lawrence River ................................................ 11 3 HYDROLOGY OF THE GREAT LAKES ................................. 13 3.1 General ........................... 13 3.1.1 Relationship Lake Levels an4 Out&,;*s* .................... 13 3.1.2 Lake Outflows ............................................. 13 3.2 Reservoir Capacities ............................................... 14 3.2.1 Significance of Lake Regulation ............................ 14 3.2.2 Natural Regulation of the Great Lakes .................... 14 3.3 Great Lakes Water Supplies ....................................... 15 4 LAKE LEVELS .......................................................... 17 4.1 General ............................................................ 17 ix x Appendix 11 Page 4.2 Water Level Gage Records on the Outflow Rivers of the Great Lakes 20 4.2.1 Canadian Gages on Outflow Rivers ......................... 20 4.2.2 Niagara River Power Project Gages ........................ 20 4.2.3 St. Lawrence River Power Project Gages ................... 20 4.3 Reference Planes .................................................. 20 4.3.1 Historical Background ..................................... 21 4.3.2 International Great Lakes Datum (1955) ................... 22 4.3.3 Other Commonly Used Planes as Compared with IGLD (1955) 22 4.3.4 Sea Level Datum of 1929 ................................... 22 4.3.5 Chicago City Datum Plane ................................. 23 4.3.6 Detroit City Datum Plane .................................. 24 4.3.7 Cleveland City Datum Plane ............................... 24 4.3.8 Buffalo City Datum Plane .................................. 24 4.3.9 Milwaukee City Datum Plane .............................. 24 4.3.10 Low Water Datum ......................................... 24 4.4 Lake Level Variations ............................................. 24 4.4.1 Long-Period Variations .................................... 24 4.4.2 Seasonal Variations ........................................ 25 4.4.3 Short-Period Variations .................................... 25 4.4.4 Recorded Levels ........................................... 34 5 NATURAL FACTORS AFFECTING THE GREAT LAKES LEVELS ..... 35 5.1 General ............................................................ 35 5.2 Precipitation ...................................................... 35 5.2.1 Over-Water Precipitation .................................. 35 5.3 Runoff ............................................................. 37 5.3.1 Runoff Variations .......................................... 38 5.3.2 Lake Superior Basin Runoff ............................... 38 5.3.3 Lakes Michigan-Huron Basin Runoff ...................... 38 5.3.4 Lake Erie Basin Runoff .................................... 38 5.3.5 Lake Ontario Basin Runoff ................................ 38 5.3.6 Stream-Gaging Stations .................................... 38 5.4 Ground Water ..................................................... 39 5.5 Evaporation ....................................................... 39 5.6 Crustal Movement ................................................. 39 5.7 lee Retardation .. :,********,******''*'** ... ****--**--**- 41 5.7.1 Lake Superior .............................................. 41 5.7.2 Lakes Michigan-Huron ..................................... 42 5.7.3 Lake Erie .................................................. 42 5.7.4 Lake Ontario ............................................... 42 5.8 Other Natural Factors ............................................ 42 5.8.1 Transitory Variations ...................................... 42 5.8.2 Tides ........................................................ 43 6 HYDRAULICS OF THE GREAT LAKES-ARTIFICIAL FACTORS AF- FECTING LAKE LEVELS ............................................... 45 6.1 General ................ 45 6.1.1 Effects of Diversions on Lake Levels and Outflows ......... 45 6.1.1.1 Long Lake-Ogoki Diversions ...................... 47 6.1.1.2 Diversion out of Lake Michigan at Chicago ....... 51 6.1.1.3 Diversion through the Welland Canal ............. 51 6.1.1.4 New York State Barge Canal Diversion from the Niagara River .................................... 51 6.1.1.5 Erie Barge Canal Water Levels ................... 51 6.1.1.6 Water Commerce and Hydroelectric Power ....... 53 Table of Contents xi Page 6.1.1.7 Power Diversion at Niagara Falls ................ 53 6.2 Summary of Diversion Effects ..................................... 54 6.3 Dredging in the St. Clair-Detroit Rivers ........................... 55 6.4 Regulatory Works in the St. Marys River .......................... 56 6.5 Regulatory Works in the St. Lawrence River ...................... 61 6.6 Lake Ontario Regulation ...... ............. i ....... 61 6.7 Increased Water Level in Lake 6n,t*a,rio* t*t* r*ib' u*table to Gu Dam . 62 6.8 Effects of Factors on Ranges ...................................... 68 6.8.1 Other Factors .............................................. 69 6.8.2 Ice Retardation ............................................ 69 6.8.3 Lake Erie and the Niagara River .......................... 70 6.8.4 Consumptive Use of Water ................................. 70 7 HISTORY AND PRESENT STATUS OF REGULATION AND REGULA- TION STUDIES .......................................................... 71 7.1 General ............................................................ 71 7.1.1 Purposes ................................................... 71 7.2 Previous Studies .... * * 71 7.2.1 Feasibility Stu@ies**.******.*'***''**'****""******'.*****"." 71 7.2.2 Lake Superior Regulation .................................. 72 7.2.3 Lake Ontario Regulation ................................... 72 7.3 Lake Regulation ................................................... 72 7.3.1 Regulation from Outside the Basin ........................ 73 7.3.2 Regulation within the Basin ............................... 74 7.3.3 International Aspects ...................................... 75 7.3.3.1 Comprehensive International Study .............. 75 7.3.3.2 Possible Future Studies .......................... 76 7.4 Participation in Study ............................................. 76 7.4.1 Regulation ................................................. 76 7.4.2 Shore Property ............................................. 77 7.4.3 Navigation ................................................. 77 7.4.4 Power ...................................................... 77 7.4.5 Regulatory Works .......................................... 77 7.5 Implications of Benefits from Further Regulation of Great Lakes Levels and Flows .................................................. 78 7.5.1 Commercial Navigation Interests .......................... 78 7.5.2 Hydro-Power Interests ..................................... 78 7.5.3 Shore Property Interests ................................... 78 7.5.3.1 Flood Control ..................................... 79 7.5.3.2 Recreation ........................................ 79 7.5.3.3 Fisheries and Wildlife ............................ 79 7.5.3.4 Water Intakes and Sewer Outfalls ................ 79 7.6 Methods of Regulation Plan Design ............................... 80 7.7 Summary of Levels Board's Final Report .......................... 81 7.7.1 Findings ................................................... 81 7.7.1.1 Water Level Fluctuations ........................ 81 7.7.1.2 Mean Levels and Outflows ........................ 81 7.7.1.3 Further Lake Regulation ......................... 82 7.7.1.4 Hydrologic Forecasting ........................... 83 7.7.1.5 Minimizing Shore Property Damage .............. 83 7.7.2 Conclusions ................................................ 84 8 DEVELOPMENT OF DETAILED LAKE LEVEL EFFECTS ............. 85 8.1 Introduction ....................................................... 85 8.2 Wave Run-ups ..................................................... 85 xii Appendix 11 Page 8.3 Other Information ................................................. 94 8.4 Sample Computation of Ultimate Water Level ..................... 95 9 SHORELINE DELINEATION OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC RIGHTS ON THE GREAT LAKES .................................................... 97 9.1 General ............................................................ 97 9.2 Statutes or Legal Interpretations ................................. 97 9.2.1 Illinois (Lake Michigan) .................................... 97 9.2.2 Indiana (Lake Michigan) ................................... 97 9.2.3 Michigan (Lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan, St. Clair, and Superior) .................. I................................. 97 9.2.4 Minnesota (Lake Superior) ................................. 97 9.2.5 New York (Lakes Erie and Ontario) ........................ 97 9.2.6 Ohio (Lake Erie) ........................................... 98 9.2.7 Pennsylvania (Lake Erie) .................................. 98 9.2.8 Wisconsin (Lakes Michigan and Superior) .................. 98 9.3 Conclusion ......................................................... 98 10 GREAT LAKES BASIN-PROBLEMS AND NEEDS .................... 99 10.1 General ............................................................ 99 10.2 Climate and Meteorology .......................................... 99 10.3 Surface Water Hydrology .......................................... 99 10.4 Consumptive Losses of Water ..................................... 101 10.5 Shore Use and Erosion ............................................ 101 10.6 Water Level Disturbances ......................................... 103 10.6.1 Seiches ..................................................... 103 10.6.2 Harbor Resonance .......... :-********-*--*-**- 103 10.7 Diversion from Lake Michigan at Chicago ......................... 102 10.8 Policy Relating to Transferring Water ............................. 104 10.9 Ogoki-Long Lake Diversion ......................................... 104 11 LAKE SUPERIOR-PROBLEMS AND NEEDS .......................... 105 11.1 General ............................................................ 105 11.2 Fluctuations of Lake Superior ..... 105 11.2.1 Regulation of Lake Superior ............................... 105 11.3 Planning Subarea 1.1 .............................................. 108 11.3.1 General ..................................................... 108 11.3.2 Sedimentation and Tributary Erosion ...................... 108 11.4 Planning Subarea 1.2 ............................................... 109 11.4.1 General .......... ............................ 110 11.4.2 St. Marys River Discharge ................................. 110 11.4.3 Filling along St. Marys River .............................. 110 11.4.4 Winter Test of Control Structure ........................... 112 11.4.5 Legal Demarcation between St. Marys River and the Great 112 Lakes ...................................................... 112 11.5 Water Usage-Lake Superior Outflow ............................. 114 12 LAKE MICHIGAN-PROBLEMS AND NEEDS .......................... 115 12.1 General ............................................................ 115 12.2 Fluctuations of Lake Michigan .................................... 115 12.3 Compensation Works in Lakes Michigan-Huron Natural Outlet .... 115 12.4 Policy Relating to Transferring Water ............................. 115 Table of Contents xiii Page 12.5 Planning Subarea 2.1 .............................................. 115 12.5.1 General .................. 115 12.5.2 Regulation of Lake Winnebago ............................. 117 12.5.3 Upper Fox River ........................................... 117 12.5.4 Diversion Scheme for Wisconsin River to Fox River at Por- tage, Wisconsin ............................................ 117 12.6 Planning Subarea 2.2 .............................................. 119 12.6.1 General ..................................................... 119 12.6.2 Diversion from Lake Michigan at Chicago .................. 119 12.6.3 Chicago Metropolitan Area ................................. 123 12.6.4 Milwaukee River Basin Flood Control Proposal ............ 124 12.6.5 Fox and Des Plaines River Proposal ....................... 124 12.6.6 Little Calumet River Proposal ............................. 124 12.7 Planning Subarea 2.3 .............................................. 125 12.7.1 General ..................................................... 125 12.8 Planning Subarea 2.4 .............................................. 125 12.8.1 General .................................................... 128 13 LAKE HURON-PROBLEMS AND NEEDS ............................. 129 13.1 General ............................................................ 129 13.2 Fluctuations of Lake Huron ....................................... 129 13.2.1 Compensation Works in Lakes Michigan-Huron Natural Out- let ......................................................... 129 13.3 Planning Subarea 3.1 .............................................. 129 13.3.1 General .................................................... 129 13.3.2 Shoreline Filling ........................................... 129 13.4 Planning Subarea 3.2 .............................................. 132 13.4.1 General ..... .............................................. 132 13.4.2 Shoreline Filling ........................................... 134 14 LAKE ERIE AND LAKE ST. CLAIR-PROBLEMS AND NEEDS ....... 135 14.1 General ............................................................ 135 14.2 Fluctuations of Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair ...................... 135 14.2.1 Seiches ..................................................... 137 14.2.2 Harbor Resonance ......................................... 137 14.2.3 Diked Areas for Disposal of Dredged Material .............. 137 14.3 Planning Subarea 4.1 .............................................. 137 14.3.1 General .................................................... 137 14.4 St. Clair-Detroit Rivers and Their Problems ....................... 139 14.4.1 Current Velocities of Detroit and St. Clair Rivers .......... 140 14.4.2 Legal Demarcation between the St. Clair-Detroit Rivers and Great Lakes ................................................ 140 14.4.3 Fills on St. Clair-Detroit Rivers ............................ 140 14.4.4 Commercial Dredging in St. Clair River .................... 143 14.4.5 Proposed Compensation for Lower Levels of Lakes Michigan-Huron Due to Dredging .......................... 143 14.4.6 Proposed Trenton Channel Navigation Project ............. 143 14.4.7 Proposed Regulatory Works for Lakes Michigan-Huron .... 144 14.5 Planning Subarea 4.2 .............................................. 144 14.5.1 General .................................................... 144 14.6 Planning Subarea 4.3 .............................................. 146 14.6.1 General .................................................... 146 14.6.2 Harbor Resonance ......................................... 146 14.7 Planning Subarea 4.4 .............................................. 148 xiv Appendix 11 Page 14.7.1 General .................................................... 148 14.7.2 Niagara River ............................................. 148 14.7.2.1 Federal Navigation Project ....................... 148 14.7.2.2 The Treaty. of 1950 Concerning Niagara River .... 150 14.7.2.3 Power Projects ................................... 151 14.7.2.4 Chippawa-Grass Island Pool ...................... 151 14.7.2.5 Lake Erie-Niagara River lee Boom ............... 153 14.7.2.6 Land Fills and Marine Structure Development along Upper Niagara River ....................... 153 14.7.2.7 Niagara River Gorge Natural fee Bridge ......... 153 14.7.2.8 Niagara River below Niagara Falls ............... 154 14.7.3 Diversion from Lake Erie via Black Rock Navigation Canal 154 14.7.4 Welland Ship Canal, Ontario, Canada ...................... 155 14.7.5 Study of Preservation and Enhancement of the American Falls, Niagara River ....................................... 155 15 LAKE ONTARIO-PROBLEMS AND NEEDS ........................... 159 15.1 General.i. . * *y @ * * * * * *, *,,.* * * *, * * *, * * , * * - , * , * * * * * *, * * ............. 159 15.2 Fluctuat on 0 ake Ontario ....................................... 159 15.2.1 Flood Problems ............................................ 159 15.2.2 New York State Barge Canal .............................. 159 15.3 Planning Subarea 5.1 .............................................. 160 .15.3.1 General .................................................... 160 15.3.2 Rochester Harbor .......................................... 160 15.4 Planning Subarea 5.2 .............................................. 160 15.4.1 General .................................................... 160 15.4.2 Navigation Facilities ....................................... 164 15.4.3 Water Level Datums ....................................... 164 15.5 Planning Subarea 5.3 .............................................. 164 15.5.1 General .................................................... 164 15.5.2 IJC Order of Approval-Raisin River Diversion ............ 166 16 RESEARCH AND DATA NEEDS ........................................ 169 16.1 General ............................................................ 169 16.2 Progress on Needs ................................................. 169 16.2.1 Hydraulic Investigations ................................... 169 16.2.2 Hydrology Studies ......................................... 170 16.3 Long-Term Requirements ......................................... 170 16.3.1 Precipitation ............................................... 170 16.3.2 Wind ....................................................... 170 16.3.3 Runoff ...................................................... 171 16.3.4 Evaporation ............................................... 171 16.3.5 Great Lakes Ice ............................................ 171 16.3.6 Water Characteristics ...................................... 171 16.3.7 Water Level Forecasting ................................... 172 16.3.8 Conclusion ................................................. 172 17 MANAGEMENT AND FUTURE DEMANDS ............................. 173 17.1 General ............................................................ 173 17.2 IJC Boards ............... 173 17.2.1 International Lake *@u' p'e*rio*r'* B**o'a*r*d* 'of* *C*o*n't*r*o*l' 137 17.2.2 International Niagara Board of Control .................... 173 17.2.3 International St. Lawrence River Board of Control ........ 173 Table of Contents xv Page 17.2.4 International Great Lakes Levels Board ................... 175 17.2.5 American Falls International Board ....................... 175 17.3 Special Committees and Groups ................................... 175 17.3.1 International Niagara Committee ............. 177 17.3.2 Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes Basic H@jra* u**li*c* a*n**d* Hydrologic Data ........................................... 177 17.3.3 International Great Lakes Study Group .................... 178 17.4 Improved Regulation .............................................. 178 17.5 Extension of Great Lakes Navigation Season ...................... 178 18 PROJECTED NEEDS .................................................... 181 18.1 Additional Diversions into or out of the Basin ..................... 181 18.2 Value of Water for Power .......................................... 181 18.2.1 St. Marys River ............................................ 181 18.2.2 Niagara River ............................................. 181 18.2.3 St. Lawrence River ........................................ 183 18.3 Value of Water for Navigation ..................................... 183 18.4 Alternatives for Regulation of Great Lakes Levels and Flows ..... 183 18.4.1 Other Structural Alternatives Relating to Levels and Flows 183 18.4.2 Nonstructural Alternatives ................................ 184 18.5 Lake Stage Forecasts in Great Lakes Weather Forecasts .......... 185 18.5.1 Long-Range Weather Forecasting and Modification Techniques ................................................. 185 18.6 Great Lakes Hydraulic Modeling Efforts .......................... 185 18.6.1 Data Needs for Modeling Purposes ......................... 185 18.6.2 Model Needs ............................................... 186 18.7 Implications of Water Quality Considerations ..................... 186 18.8 Wastewater Management Programs ............................... 187 18.8.1 International Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement ...... 188 18.9 Great Lakes Connecting Channels and Harbors Study ............. 188 18.10 Design Wave Heights-Statistical Information .................... 189 GLOSSARY .................................................................. 191 LIST OF REFERENCES .............. ...................................... 193 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................ 197 ADDENDUM ................................................................. 199 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 11-1 Percent of Lake Basins Covered by Water ............................. 5 11-2 General Great Lakes Information ..................................... 7 11-3 Great Lakes Land and Water Areas ................................... 8 11-4 Outflows of the Great Lakes .......................................... 13 11-5 Relationship Between Storage Volume and Depth in the Lakes ....... 14 11-6 Great Lakes Water Level Gage Locations and Records ................ 18 11-7 Water-Level Gage Records ............................................ 20 11-8 Niagara River Power Project Gages ................................... 20 11-9 Canadian Gage Information ............................................ 21 11-10 St. Lawrence River Power Gages ...................................... 21 11-11 Conversion Factor for Various Locations on the Great Lakes-Difference in Elevations on IGLD (1955) and U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Datum 23 11-12 Elevations of Low Water Datum Reference Planes .................... 24 11-13 Lake Superior Water Level Data at Marquette, Michigan ............. 31 11-14 Lakes Michigan-Huron Water Level Data at Harbor Beach, Michigan 32 11-15 Lake St. Clair Water Level Data at Grosse Pointe, Michigan .......... 32 11-16 Lake Erie Water Level Data at Cleveland, Ohio ....................... 33 11-17 Lake Ontario Water Level Data at Oswego, New York ................ 33 11-18 Annual Precipitation on Great Lakes Basins .......................... 36 11-19 Average Monthly Precipitation on Great Lakes Basins 1900-1969 ..... 36 11-20 Maximum and Minimum Monthly Precipitation on the Great Lakes Ba- sins and Year of Occurrence 1900-1969 ................................ 36 11-21 Average Monthly Precipitation on Water Surface of Lakes 1935-1964 . 37 11-22 Average Monthly Runoff into the Lakes ............................... 37 11-23 Average Monthly Runoff on Lakes 1935-1964 ......................... 38 11-24 Percentage of Tributary Area with Gaged Stream Flows .............. 39 xvi List of Tables xvii Table Page 11-25 Differential Crustal Movement Rates ................................. 41 11-26 Estimated Retardation by Ice ......................................... 41 11-27 Approximate Present Net Total Effects on Lake Levels of all Artificial Factors ............................................................... 45 11-28 Ultimate Effects of Existing Diversion on Water Levels ............... 55 11-29 U.S. Diversions of the Great Lakes .................................... 56 11-30 Canadian Diversions of the Great Lakes .............................. 57 11-31 Future Planned or Proposed U.S. Diversions of the Great Lakes ...... 57 11-32 Summary of Effects of Gut Dam on Lake Ontario Water Levels ....... 68 11-33 Comparison, Recorded Ranges with Approximate Natural Range of Great Lakes Levels, 1860-1970 ......................................... 69 11-34 Ultimate Water Level Reaches-Selected Wind and Water Level Sta- tions .................................................................. 92 11-35 Undiked and Diked Representative Slopes ............................ 94 11-36 Equivalent Fetches ................................................... 95 11-37 Short-Period Fluctuation .............................................. 96 11-38 Effect of Consumptive Use on the Great Lakes for 1965 ............... 101 11-39 Consumptive Losses-Present and Projected .......................... 102 11-40 U.S. Power Consumptive Losses (Case 11) ............................. 102 11-41 U.S. Consumptive Losses-Present and Projected (Case 1) ............. 102 11-42 1970 Consumptive Losses-U.S. and Canada .......................... 103 11-43 Present and Projected Consumptive Losses-U.S. and Canada ........ 103 11-44 Effect of Consumptive Use on Great Lakes Levels .................... 103 11-45 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 1.1 .................................. 110 11-46 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 1.2 .................................. 112 11-47 Water Usage at Sault Ste. Marie ...................................... 114 11-48 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 2.1 .................................. 117 11-49 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 2.2 .................................. 121 11-50 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 2.3 .................................. 125 11-51 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 2.4 .................................. 125 xviii Appendix 11 Table Page 11-52 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 3.1 .................................. 132 11-53 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 3.2 .................................. 132 11-54 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 4.1 .................................. 139 11-55 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 4.2 .................................. 144 11-56 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 4.3 .................................. 146 11-57 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 4.4 .................................. 150 11-58 Niagara River Profile ................................................. 150 11-59 Power Generating Installations ....................................... 151 11-60 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 5.1 .................................. 160 11-61 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 5.2 .................................. 160 11-62 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 5.3 .................................. 166 11-63 Capacities of Niagara Power Plants ................................... 181 11-64 Mean Monthly Discharge of St. Clair River at Port Huron, Michigan.. 199 11-65 Monthly and Annual Flow of the Detroit River at Detroit, Michigan... 200 11-66 Monthly and Annual Flow of the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers ......... 201 11-67 Total Monthly Mean Diversion to Lake Superior Basin from Albany River Basin through Ogoki and Long Lake Projects ................... 203 11-68 Monthly Mean Diversion to Lake Superior Basin from Albany River Basin through Ogoki Project .......................................... 204 11-69 Monthly Mean Diversion to Lake Superior Basin from Albany River Basin through Long Lake Project ..................................... 205 11-70 Monthly and Annual Mean Outflow from Lake Michigan Basin through The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal ................................. 206 11-71 Annual Mean Outflow from Lake Michigan Basin through Illinois and Michigan Canal ........ s .............................................. 206 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 11-1 Great Lakes Basin Plan Areas 2 11-2 Profile of the Great Lakes System ..................................... 6 11-3 Water Level Gaging Stations on the Great Lakes ..................... 19 11-4 Hydrographs of Great Lakes Water Levels 1964-1967 ................. 26 11-5 Hydrographs of Great Lakes Water Levels 1964-1967 ................. 27 11-6 Effect of Precipitation and Net Total Water Supplies on Water Levels of Lakes Michigan-Huron ............................................. 28 11-7 Lake Superior at Marquette-Stage Duration Curve forJanuary-Decem- ber 1860-1968 ......................................................... 29 11-8 Lakes Michigan-Huron at Harbor Beach-Stage Duration Curve for January-December 1860-1968 ......................................... 29 11-9 Lake St. Clair at Grosse Pointe-Stage Duration Curve for January- December 1860-1968 ................................................... 30 11-10 Lake Erie at Cleveland-Stage Duration Curve for January-December 1860-1968 ............................................................. 30 11-11 Lake Ontario at Oswego-Stage Duration Curve for January-December 1860-1968 ............................................................. 31 11-12 Evaporation from the Great Lakes .................................... 40 11-13 Factors of Water Supply to the Lakes-Average Values for October 1950- September 1960 ....................................................... 46 11-14 Sketch Map of the Great Lakes-Location of Present Diversions ...... 48 11-15 Long Lake Diversion .................................................. 49 11-16 Ogoki Diversion Control Dams ........................................ 50 11-17 Welland Canal-DeCew Falls Power Plant .............................. 52 11-18 New York State Barge Canal System ................................. 53 11-19 Niagara Falls-Power Entity Intakes and Control Structure .......... 54 11-20 St. Clair River Compensation Works-Tentative Location of Sills ..... 58 11-21 Detroit River Compensation Works .................................... 59 xix xx Appendix 11 Figure Page 11-22 Lake Superior Control Structure-St. Marys River at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, Looking Upstream .......................................... 60 11-23 Distribution of Flow for the St. Marys River .......................... 60 11-24 Regulation of Lake Superior-Modified Rule of 1949 .................. 63 11-25 Lake Superior Rating Curves for Various Gate Openings .............. 64 11-26 Lake Superior Stage Duration for All Months 1900-1968 ............... 65 11-27 Lake Superior Stage Duration for April-November 1900-1968 ......... 65 11-28 Lake Ontario Regulatory Works ....................................... 66 11-29 Lake Ontario Outflows for All Months 1900-1968 ...................... 66 11-30 Lake Ontario Stage Duration for All Months 1900-1968 ............... 67 11-31 Lake Ontario Stage Duration for April-November 1900-1968 .......... 67 11-32 Lake Ontario with Inset of Gut Dam Site ............................. 68 11-33 Diagram of Storm Effects on Water Levels ............................ 86 11-34 Lake Ontario Location Map ........................................... 87 11-35 Lake Erie Location Map .............................................. 88 11-36 Lake Huron Location Map ............................................ 89 11-37 Lake Michigan Location Map ......................................... 90 11-38 Lake Superior Location Map .......................................... 91 11-39 Deep Water Wave Curves ............................................. 93 11-40 Great Lakes Region Planning Subareas ............................... 100 11-41 Plan Area 1 ........................................................... 106 11-42 Aerial View of Control Structure-Sault Ste. Marie ................... 107 11-43 Planning Subarea 1.1 ................................................. 109 11-44 Planning Subarea 1.2 ................................................. ill 11-45 St. Marys River-Location of Gages ................................... 113 11-46 State of Michigan Legal Demarcation-St. Marys River from the Great Lakes ........................................................... 113 11-47 Plan Area 2 ........................................................... 116 11-48 Planning Subarea 2.1 ................................................. 118 List of Figures xxi Figure Page 11-49 Planning Subarea 2.2 ................................................. 120 11-50 Channel and River Systems-Chicago Diversion ...................... 122 11-51 Planning Subarea 2.3 ....... .......................................... 126 11-52 Planning Subarea 2.4 ................................................. 127 11-53 Plan Area 3 ........................................................... 130 11-54 Planning Subarea 3.1 ................................................. 131 11-55 Planning Subarea 3.2 .................................................. 133 11-56 Plan Area 4 ........................................................... 136 11-57 Planning Subarea 4.1 ................................................. 138 11-58 State of Michigan Legal Demarcation-Detroit River from the Great Lakes ................................................................. 141 11-59 State of Michigan Legal Demarcation-St. Clair River from the Great Lakes ................................................................. 142 11-60 Planning Subarea 4.2 ................................................. 145 11-61 Planning Subarea 4.3 ................................................. 147 11-62 Planning Subarea 4.4 ................................................. 149 11-63 Niagara River Power Plants .......................................... 152 11-64 Niagara River Ice Boom .............................................. 154 11-65 American Falls Dewatered ............................................ 156 11-66 Plan Area 5 ........................................................... 161 11-67 Planning Subarea 5.1 ................................................. 162 11-68 Planning Subarea 5.2 ................................................. 163 11-69 Planning Subarea 5.3 ................................................. 165 11-70 International Boards of Control ....................................... 174 11-71 International Great Lakes Levels Board, Working Committee and Sub- committees ............................................................ 176 11-72 International Technical Board and Committee ........................ 177 11-73 International Group and Committee .................................. 177 11-74 Winter Navigation Board ............................................. 177 11-75 Value of Additional Flow for 1,000 Cubic Feet per Second Based on En- tire Year-Niagara River ............................................. 182 INTRODUCTION Purpose Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data, dated Appendix 11, Levels and Flows, describes June 1965 *This contains data on Lake Erie the Great Lakes system and the physiography outflows, diversion from Lake Erie into Wel- of its basins. It analyzes the natural and arti- land Canal and New York State Barge Canal ficial factors that affect the levels and flows of diversions. the Lakes, describes the extremes of levels and (2) Lake Ontario Outflows 1860-1954, by the their frequency, and provides general criteria Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes that should be considered in regulating the Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data, dated Lakes. This appendix also discusses the ef- June 1970. This contains data on Lake fects of fluctuating lake levels on land man- Ontario outflows and total diversion through agement, zoning, water use, and recreation. navigation and power canals. Low water level conditions as well as high Copies of these reports are available from water levels damage Great Lakes interests. the North Central Division office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in Chicago, Illinois. His- torical data on the outflows of the St. Clair and Scope of Study Detroit Rivers and diversions for the Ogoki- Long Lake Projects, Chicago Sanitary and In analyzing the problems and needs re- Ship Canal and Illinois-Michigan Canal are lated to the levels and flows of the Great included in the Addendum. Lakes, their connecting channels, and the St. Derived data on ultimate water levels for Lawrence River, this appendix emphasizes the reaches listed in Table 11-34 are available the need for more research and engineering at the North Central Division office. investigations. It suggests constraints deal- A publication prepared by Lake Survey ing with water withdrawals and uses of Great Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Lakes waters in addition to the Boundary Administration, entitled Great Lakes Water Waters Treaty of 1909. It also identifies the Levels, 1860-1970, contains Great Lakes water implications of diverting large supplies of level gage data,providing monthly and annu- water into or out of the Great Lakes as well as al levels for all current permanent gages in effects on pertinent interests such as power, Lake Survey Center's network for the period shore property, and navigation. of existence. The publication also contains (in In the ongoing study being conducted by the a separate table.) the average monthly mean International Joint Commission on Water levels and the highest and lowest monthly Levels of the Great Lakes, possible alterna- mean levels for the period of record, plus the tive regulation plans are being developed average monthly mean levels for the period based on several assessments. One assess- 1960 through 1970. This publication can be ment will be the benefit-cost ratio for provid- purchased from Lake Survey Center. ing the plan(s) for further regulation. Criteria When this appendix was prepared in Sep- to assess the ecological, sociological, and tember 1972, the International Great Lakes aesthetic aspects are being developed. The Levels Board's study was still under way. The findings of the Corps of Engineers, reported in Levels Board's Main Report was submitted to December, 1965, "Water Levels of the Great the International Joint Commission on De- Lakes, Report on Lake Regulation" supple- cember 15,1973, and made public on February ments available information from the current 26, 1974. To the extent possible, this appendix International Joint Commission study. has been updated accordingly. However, the Hydraulic and hydrologic data pertinent to data presented in the appendix have not been the Great Lakes are contained in the following extended beyond the period used im 1972. The published reports: impact of the record levels experienced on the (1) Lake Erie Outflow 1800-1964, by the downstream Lakes in 1973-1974 has not been Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes addressed in this appendix. xxiii Section 1 LAKE LEVELS-REGULATION OF THE GREAT LAKES 1.1 General 1.2 Great Lakes Regulation The Great Lakes cover approximately Lakes Superior and Ontario are currently 95,000 square miles and drain a land area ap- regulated in accordance with Orders of Ap- proximately twice as large. Figure 11-1 is a proval of the International Joint Commission map of the plan areas. The immense storage and under supervision of the Commission's In- capacity of the Lakes combined with their re- ternational Lake Superior Board of Control stricted outflow capacities make them a and International St. Lawrence River Board highly effective, naturally regulated water of Control. Regulation is carried out within system. the control limits of the regulation criteria by Natural regulation is the limited variation employing existing regulatory works. The in levels and outflows from summer to winter regulated levels of these Lakes follow closely and from extreme low to extreme high during the natural pattern of lake levels during nor- a period of record. On Lakes Superior, Michi- mal supply periods. Significant departures gan, and Huron the normal range in monthly from the natural pattern occur only during mean water levels from winter low to summer periods of high or low water supply, particu- high is only one foot; on Lake Erie, approxi- larly when these conditions are expected to mately one and one-quarter feet; and on Lake continue for many months. Ontario, one and one-half feet. During the 1964-65 period of extreme low Since 1860 the monthly levels of Lake levels, downstream conditions were eased Superior from extreme low to extreme high slightly by releasing additional water from have varied four feet; for Lakes Michigan, Hu- Lake Superior where supplies and storage ron, and Ontario the range has been six and conditions were more favorable. The time lag one-half feet; and for Lake Erie, five and one- in the system limited downstream beneficial quarter feet. effects of the extra water flow. During the Maximum flows of the outlet rivers are only 1964-65 period, additional water stored in two to three times their minimum. This ex- Lake Ontario improved the levels of the Lake treme stability is in marked contrast to the and subsequent discharges of the St. Law- wide range of flows of several other North renee River. American rivers. For example, the ratio of As to the regulation of Lakes Superior and maximum to minimum flow for the Mississippi Ontario, the governments of Canada and the River at St. Louis, Missouri is 30 to 1; for the United States have agreed upon the criteria Columbia River, 35 to 1; and for the Sas- contained in the International Joint Commis- katchewan River, nearly 60 to 1. sion's Orders of Approval. To regulate Lakes A regulation plan is an established proce- Michigan-Huron (hydraulically considered dure comprising predetermined rules and one lake) and Erie, different criteria are re- criteria for discretionary control on the lake quired. Extending the regulation of the Great outflows to accomplish pre-designed results. Lakes system by controlling outflows from Lake regulation implies the operation of one Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Erie presents or more structures at the outlet of a lake. serious, complex, and challenging engineering These structures control the outflow through and economic problems. gated works. The objectives of regulation are The International Joint Commission study to provide a range of lake levels acceptable to was directed, in part, to establishing criteria various interests, while maintaining satisfac- for the presently unregulated Lakes. Findings tory downstream level and now conditions. also include a review of existing criteria for 1 LEGEND Great Lakes Basin Drainage cl 0 ----------- Subbasins 4, ------- Subbiralin number MINNESOTA M LAKE SUPERIOR A 1611.1 rA. D ull 0 -1 STATUTE MljES Superior ONTARIO A @n So E, MICHIGAN 11, M.- R,i,, 50@ .0 IT, LAKE @URON N G een Bay 'C HIGAN LAICE OANN DA -1 5 r@ sTrAlEs 1, City U Rochester Sagin 0 Muskegon j FlUd Ra6n,, 0 Grand Rapids ansingil, St. Clot, R-, @qjSqq,SjN K noshajo -,,N@",i" YORK KLINOIS A@n A.E, Derta, I S" cl- 1 0 )ackson D, Erie" Ch,t, MICHIGAN IC I MD-1 A o z ILLINOIS Ha a, ol do Cl ... lvcl@,, 0 Tain n 0 '0 A k,'o' , i z &Z Fort Wayni 0 I N D I A N A L-0 0 H 10 z 0 30' Regulation of Lake Levels 3 Lakes Ontario and Superior. reduce occurrence of extreme levels. It has been suggested by interested inves- Variations in the levels and the outflows of tigators that the Lakes be maintained at con- the Great Lakes primarily affect shore prop- stant levels. This is not feasible. Consider, for erty, navigation interests, and hydroelectric example, the problem of stabilizing the levels power output. The study evaluates the effects of Lakes Michigan and Huron, most difficult of of the test regulation plans. It establishes all the Lakes to stabilize because of their large regulation criteria and evaluates improved combined water area. To keep such levels con- plans. The study has developed design con- stant, it would be necessary at times to greatly cepts for desirable regulatory works. The cost increase the supply of water to these Lakes, estimates will determine the economic i ustifi- and at other times to increase the St. Clair cation. River flow to nearly triple the river's present Present studies are formulating regulation maximum discharge capacity. plans and testing these plans on past se- Lakes Michigan-Huron have a storage area quences of water supplies to the Lakes. The of approximately 45,000 square miles and studies use d evising-and-te sting procedure to Lake Erie, immediately downstream, an area develop beneficial plans, such as a desired re- of only 10,000 square miles. If large amounts of duction in the extremes of lake stage. In rec- water were released quickly from Lakes ognizing that future supply sequences will not Michigan-Huron, Lake Erie levels would be duplicate those of the past, the studies have affected adversely by the rapid inflows. If developed a means of simulating a long period these releases were passed on down the sys- of supplies, the statistical characteristics of tem, Lake Ontario and theSt. Lawrence River which conform closely to those of the historic would also suffer from extreme high water supplies. conditions. While the maintenance of constant levels is not feasible, some reduction might be achieved in the range of water levels of the 1.2.2 Framework Study Relationship presently unregulated Great Lakes. Such regulation would still require comparatively Levels and flows studies for the Great Lakes large or small releases of water. If meteorolog- Basin Framework Study will consider factors ical conditions could be anticipated far enough affecting the levels and regulation of the in advance, the magnitude of the flow varia- Great Lakes, natural and artificial factors af- tions could be reduced by allowing sufficient fecting lake levels, and extreme levels and time to gradually discharge the potential their frequency. Analysis of the affected surplus volume of water without damaging areas will determine the need for lake regula- effects. Conversely, the supervising Board of tion. The nature, quality, and quantity of Control could gradually store water surpluses these needs will also depend upon the de- during periods of. average or high supplies to mands for water withdrawal and other uses of meet anticipated periods of low supplies. How- Great Lakes waters. ever, present techniques cannot provide In order to satisfy the needs of levels and weather forecasts far enough in advance. flows, alternative regulation plans are needed Therefore, any regulation plans developed for those Lakes presently unregulated, and must rely upon the analysis of past records plans for already regulated Lakes should be and upon tests of the effects of the plans on the improved. This could be achieved by adding various interests involved. new structures and improving existing struc- tures, or by further excavation of connecting channels. 1.2.1 Joint Canada-United States Study The data output of levels and flows studies will provide information required in studies Directed by the International Joint Com- dealing with shore use and erosion, water mission, the joint Canada-United States study supply, water quality, navigation, flood plains, is determining whether measures within the land use, irrigation, fish, wildlife, recreation, Great Lakes Basin can be taken to regulate and aesthetic and cultural aspects. The influ- further the levels of the Great Lakes, or any of ence of levels and flows on these studies will be them and their connecting channels, so as to discussed later. Section 2 PHYSIOGRAPHY OF THE GREAT LAKES BASIN 2.1 General lantic Ocean. Figure 11-2 is a profile, utilizing an exaggerated vertical scale, showing the The Great Lakes Basin consists of five indi- Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River system. vidually connected drainage basins and lies be- Measured along the Great Lakes sailing tween the latitudes of 40*30' and 50'30' north courses, the distance from the western end of and between the longitudes of approximately Lake Superior to the Atlantic Ocean is approx- 75*20' and 93'10' west. According to Executive imately 1700 miles. From the east end of Lake Order 11345 the GLBC area of influence also Ontario to the Atlantic is 600 miles. Lake includes tributaries discharging into the Michigan, like Superior, is connected only St. Lawrence River within the United States. with Lake Huron. Lakes Michigan and Huron The maximum dimensions of the Great Lakes have approximately the same water level, and Basin are approximately 740 miles measured the flow between them may be in either direc- north-south and 940 miles east-west. One tion, depending upon wind, weather, and Lake occupies each basin, except for the Erie barometric conditions. Net flow is out of Lake basin which contains Lakes Erie and St.Clair. Michigan. Length, breadth, and shoreline di- A remarkable feature of the Great Lakes mensions of each Lake are shown in Table drainage basin is that its water covers approx- 11-2. imately one-third of the total Basin. The water surface area ranges from 23 percent of the total basin area for Lake Ontario to 39 percent 2.L1 Lake and Land Areas for Lake Superior. Table 11-1 shows the per- centage of each Lake basin covered by water. The Great Lakes and their tributary land The Great Lakes system comprises a chain areas make up a major part of the St. Lawr- of Lakes with connecting channels. The out- ence River drainage basin. Water from the flow from each Lake, except Lake Ontario, is Great Lakes drainage basin flows through the discharged into the next Lake downstream. river to the Atlantic Ocean. Lakes Superior, Lakes Superior and Michigan discharge flows Michigan, Huron, Erie, Ontario, and St. Clair into Lake Huron, and in turn, into Lakes St. have a total water surface area of 95,000 Clair, Erie, and Ontario. The Lake Ontario square miles, including 235 square miles of St. discharge flows out of the Great Lakes Basi *n Lawrence River water surface terminating at through the St. Lawrence River into the At- the International Powerhouse near Massena, New York. The total land and water area of the Great Lakes Basin is approximately TABLE11-1 Percent of Lake Basins Covered 296,000 square miles. by Water Table 11-3 lists the land and water areas of Lake Basin Percent the individual Lake basins of the Great Lakes and Lake St. Clair. The tabulated data show Superior 39 that the land area tributary to Lake Superior is approximately 1.6 times the size of the Lake Michigan 33 area; the local land area tributary to Lakes Huron 31 Michigan and Huron is approximately 2.2 times the combined areas of the Lakes. Land Erie, including Lake tributary to Lake Erie is approximately 2.4 St. Clair 26 times the Lake area, while land tributary to Lake Ontario is approximately 3.4 times the Ontario 23 Lake area. Total basin areas do not necessar- All Lakes 32 ily equal the sum of their component parts because of rounding. 5 6 Appendix 11 LAKE ST. LAWRENCE LAKE ST. FRANCIS ST. MARYS RIVER ST. CLAIR RIVER NIAGARA EL. 152 LAKES FALLS MICHIGAN- HURON LAKE ST' LOUIS LAKE EL.69 EL. 600.4 EL. 578.7 573.0 570.4 ONTARIO L. ERIE LAKE SUP RIOR DETROIT 244.8 GULF OF RIVER ST, LAWRENCE 925 FT. LAKE @ 0 ST. CLAIR MICHIGAN ST. LAWRENCE RIVER 752 FT. HURON 212 FT. 804 FT. 1333 NIAGARA RI ER FT. 379 60 223 89 236 _1351-150,1,77 1281 52,1331 350 DISTANCES IN MILES ELEVATIONS ON THE LAKE SURFACES ARE AVERAGES EXPRESSED ON INTERNATIONAL GREAT LAKES DATUM (1955) AND ARE GIVEN TO THE NEAREST TENTH (1/10) FOOT. HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALES HAVE BEEN DISTORTED TO CONVEY VISUAL IMPRESSION. FIGURE 11-2 Profile of the Great Lakes System The St. Lawrence River drainage basin imately 18.5 billion acre-feet. Lake Superior above the International Powerhouse is 3,010 contains 54 percent of the water; Lake Michi- square miles in area, including 235 square gan, 22 percent; Lake Huron, 15 percent; Lake miles of river water surface. The Coordinating Erie, 2 percent; and Lake Ontario, 7 percent. - Committee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic The volume of Lake Erie varies from nearly and Hydrologic Data prepared the above data. 112 cubic miles to 122 cubic miles during the An additional 3,200 square miles includes the transition from record low water level to rec- drainage area to the International boundary ord high water level. The mean depth of the (GLBC area of influence also includes U.S. Lake changes from 59.7 feet to 64.5 feet. How- tributaries discharging into the St. Lawrence ever, the water surface area increases only 10 River) consisting of the Grass, Raquette, and square miles during the transition from low St. Regis tributary areas. water level to high water level. The increase in water surface area is greatest in the west ba- sin where the depth is shallowest. Volumes of 2.1.2 Lake Volumes the other Lakes are listed in Table 11-2. Measured from low water datum, the When the Great Lakes rise from their low greatest known and average natural depths water levels to their highest recorded, the respectively of the Great Lakes and Lake St. water volume increases only 1.3 percent, from Clair are: Lake Superior, 1,3@3 feet and 489 5,475 cubic -miles to 5,550 cubic miles. With the feet; Lake Michigan, 923 feet and 279 feet; lake levels at low water datum the total vol- Lake Huron, 750 feet and 195 feet; Lake St. ume of the water in all of the Lakes is approx- Clair, 23 feet and 10 feet; Lake Erie, 212 feet Physiography 7 TABLE 11-2 General Great Lakes Information Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Description *uperior Michigan Huron St. Clair Erie Ontario Total Low Water Datum (LWD) Elevation in feet IGLD (1955) 600.0 576.8 576.8 571.7 568.6 248.8 Dimensions in miles: Length 350 307 206 26 241 193 Breadth 160 118 183 24 57 53 Shoreline including islands 2,980 1,660 3,180 169 856 726 9,571 Areas in square miles:1 Drainage basin in U.S. 37,500 67,900 25,300 2,370 23,600 16,800 173,470 Drainage basin in Canada 43,500 0 49,500 4,150 9,880 15,300 122,330 Total drainage basin (land & water) 81,000 67,900 74,800 6,520 33,500 32,100 295,800 Water surface in U.S. 20,600 22,30D 9,100 162 4,980 3,460 60,602 Water surface in Canada 11,100 0 13,900 268 4,930 3,880 34,078 Total water surface 31,700 22,300 23,000 430 9,910 7,340 94,680 Volume of water in cubic miles:1 2,935 1,180 849 1 116 393 5,474 Depths of water in feet:l Average over lake 489 279 195 10 62 283 Maximum observed 1,333 923 750 212 210 802 Outlet river or channel St. Marys Str. of St. Clair Detroit Niagara St. Lawrence River Mackinac River River River River Length in miles 70 --- 27 32 37 502 Average flow in CFS (1860-1970) 75,000 52,000 187,300 190,000 201,900 239,200 Monthly Elevations in feet5 Average (1860-1970) 600.38 578.68 3 578.683 573.05 4 570.39 244.77 Maximum 602.06 581.94 581.94 575.70 572.76 248.06 Minimum 598.23 575.35 575.35 569.86 567.49 241.45 Average - winter low to summer high 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.6 1.5 1.8 Maximum - winter low to summer high 1.9 2.2 2.2 3.3 2.7 3.5 Minimum - winter low to summer high 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.5 0.7 Annual precipitation in inches (1900-1970) Average on basin (land & water) 30 31 31 ---- 34 34 Average on lake surface 30 30 31 ---- 33 33 1Lake level at Low Water Datum elevation. LWD is a reference elevation for nautical charts and projects. 2Maximum natural depth. 3The Straits of Mackinac between Lakes Michigan and Huron is so wide and deep that the difference in the monthly mean levels of the lakes is not measureable. 4Lake St. Clair elevations are available only for the period 1898 to date. 5Lake elevations are as recorded at Marquette (L. Superior), Harbor Beach (L. Michigan-Hurori), Grosse Pointe Shores (L. St. Clair), Cleveland (L. Erie),and Oswego (L. Ontario). Recorded elevations are affected by man-made changes such as: regulation of outflows from Lake Superior (1921) and Lake Ontario (1960); diversions of water from Hudson Bay basin into Lake Superior (1939) and frorm Lake Michigan basin into Mississippi basin at Chicago (before 1860); and regimen changes in the natural outlet channels from the lakes throughout the period of record. NOTE:Area data shown above were prepared by the Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data. Total basin areas do not necessarily equal the sum of their component parts due to rounding. and 64 feet; and Lake Ontario, 802 feet and 283 Marys River into Lake Huron. The fall in the feet. The average depth over the entire sur- St. Marys River (70 miles) from Lake Superior face of the Great Lakes is approximately 305 to Lake Huron is 22 feet. Most of the fall occurs feet. in the mile-long St. Marys Falls located near Sault Ste. Marie. The Straits of Mackinac provide a broad 2.1.3 Outflow Rivers and deep connection between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. More than three miles wide The Great Lakes system is a chain of Lakes at their narrowest location, the Straits vary in and connecting channels. Lake Superior dis- depth to more than 200 feet. charges from its eastern end through the St. The flow from Lake Michigan into Lake 8 Appendix 11 TABLE 11-3 Great Lakes Land and Water 92 feet. Development in the International Areas in Square Miles Rapids section includes Iroquois Dam in the Lake Water Land Total vicinity of Iroquois Point, a dam in the Long Basin Area Area Area Sault Rapids between Barnhart Island and the New York shore, and the International Superior 31,700 49,300 81,000 Powerhouse crossing the International Boun- Michigan 22,300 45,600 1 67,900 dAry from the downstream end of Barnhart Huron 23,000 51,800 2 74,800 Island to Canadian shores. St. Clair 430 6,090 3 6,520 The International Rapids section extends to Erie 9,910 23,600 33,500 the head of Lake St. Francis. Beyond this Ontario 7,340 24,700 32,100 point the St. Lawrence River flows entirely within the borders of Canada. In the next 72 Total 94,680 201,090 295,800 miles to Montreal Harbor, the St. Lawrence River falls another 132 feet. In the 340 miles Including St. Marys River fromMontreal Harborto Father Point, the fall 2Including St. Clair River is approximately 20 feet. 3Including Detroit River 4Including Niagara River 2.2 Lake Superior Lake Superior is the highest, largest, and deepest of the Great Lakes. Water surface is Huron averages 52,000 efs. The slope required 600 feet above sea level. Its maximum depth is for this movement of water is imperceptible. 1,333 feet. The lake depths extend 733 feet The average elevation of these two Lakes is below sea level. Lake Superior basin covers 27 about the same. Lakes Michigan and Huron, percent of the upper Great Lakes Basin. The for hydraulic purposes, are treated here as distance from its shore to the perimeter of its though they were one lake, with the St. Clair basin varies fr6m 2 to 75 miles, except near River its outlet. Lake Nipigon where the distance is 150 miles. The St. Clair River (27 miles long) extends An escarpment near the lakeshore rises 400 from the southern end of Lake Huron to Lake to 800 feet above the lake surface on all sides St. Clair, the outlet of which is the Detroit except the southeast. This escarpment and River (32 miles long) discharging into Lake the western lake bottom consist of very hard, Erie. From Lake Huron to Lake St. Clair the metamorphosed Precambrian age rock forma- fall is five feet; from Lake St. Clair to Lake tions that formed the highlands bordering a Erie, it is approximately three feet. The St. large trough or synclinal basin. Several Clair and Detroit Rivers do not have rapids or hundred million years of erosion have worn falls. down the rugged highlands until they are part Lake Erie discharges at its eastern end of the undulating plain. Rock formations through the Niagara River (37 miles in length) southeast of Lake Superior are of the early into Lake Ontario. The fall from the Lake Erie Paleozoic age. The southeastern lakeshore level to Lake Ontario is 326 feet, more than and lake bottom are largely underlain by one-half of which occurs at Niagara Falls. The sandstone and limestone. cascades immediately above the Falls and the The continental glaciers that swept across rapids downstream from the Falls account for Canada and the northern United States dur- nearly 150 feet of the remaining total fall. ing the ice ages rounded and smoothed the Lake Ontario discharges at the eastern end ridges of hard rock and gouged out the softer through the St. Lawrence River which is the rocks and sediments within the syncline or natural outlet for drainage from the Great preglacial Lake Superior basin. As they re- Lakes. Lake Ontario is 245 feet higher than treated, the glaciers and glacial lakes covered Father Point, Quebec. This marks the river's the land surface with a thin layer of drift. Ir- transition into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which regularities and deep canyons in the western is essentially at sea level. From Lake Ontario, part of the Lake basin are filled with sedi- downstream 68 miles through the Thousand ments, making the lake bottom smooth. In Islands section (to four miles east of Og- contrast, depressions in the eastern part of densburg, New York), the drop is approxi- the lake basin are not filled. The eastern lake mately one foot; in the next 47 miles through bottom has many irregular north-south sub- the International Rapids section, it is nearly marine ridges and canyons. Physiography 9 While the glacial-lake water levels were re- Lake from North Channel and Georgian Bay. ceding, waves carved ancient lake terraces, The third escarpment is a submerged but resembling gigantic stair steps, into the prominent ridge, roughly parallel to the Sau- shoreline. These wave-cut terraces show that geen Peninsula and Manitoulin Island, that the surface area of one of the ancient lakes in extends across the Lake from Alpena, Michi- the vicinity of these basins was very large. It gan to Kincardine, Ontario. The deepest wa- covered an area greater than the total com- ters of the Lake occur in irregular depressions bined area of Lakes Superior, Michigan, and north of this'ridge. South of this ridge the lake Huron.28 The wave-cut terrace of this ancient bottom is smoother. Saginaw Bay is southwest lake is now above present Lake Superior of the ridge. water levels. After the tremendous weight of Land and lake bottom topography south of continental glaciers was removed, isostatic the Canadian Shield features many ridges and rebound and tilting of the land surface ele- valleys with sedimentary rock formations and vated these terraces. modifications resulting from erosion. The out- Several channels have drained the Lake crop pattern of the formations resembles con- Superior basin at different times. During centric circles with their centers in the central periods when glacial ice filled most of the basin part of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. and closed the eastern outlets, meltwater sur- These formations dip gently toward central face was high and water flowed from the west Michigan, making a bowl-shaped structural end of the basin through the Brule and St. feature called the Michigan Basin. Croix River valleys into the Mississippi River. During the Ice Age, continental glaciers When the glaciers retreated and the eastern deepened preglacial lowlands, gouged out soft- outlets were opened, water was lowered al- er rock formations on the north and east sides most to present levels and flowed into Lakes of the Michigan Basin, and formed Lake Hu- Huron and Michigan through abandoned ron. The moving glaciers stripped soil from the river valleys across the Upper Peninsula of rock surfaces and exposed the Niagaran Es- Michigan or through the St. Marys River val- carpment that is prominent throughout the ley. Great Lakes area. Retreating glaciers filled Outcropping sandstone layers in the St. depressions with glacial drift and glacial lake Marys River form a natural weir that restricts deposits, and carved glacial-lake terraces into the outflow of Lake Superior. Man has control- the shoreline. led Lake Superior outflows since 1921 when The outflow from Lake Huron passes engineers constructed the Sault Ste. Marie through an outlet channel composed of the St. control works across the rapids. Clair and Detroit Rivers and Lake St. Clair. There are no artificial controls in the channel between Lakes Huron and Erie, but dredging 2.3 Lake Huron operations in this watercourse over the years have made a deeper channel, with a substan- Lake Huron is in the central portion of the tial lowering of the water levels of Lakes Great Lakes Basin, southeast of Lake Michigan and Huron. The St. Clair River car- Superior and east of Lake Michigan. It re- ries Lake Huron outflow 27 miles into Lake St. ceives outflow from Lake Superior through Clair with a fall of five feet. the St. Marys River, a channel 70 miles long. It also receives outflow from Lake Michigan through the Straits of Mackinac. Lake Hu- 2.4 Lake Michigan ron's water surface is 579 feet above sea level. Its maximum depth is 752 feet. Lake Michigan is in the west central portion Three predominant rock formations com- of the Great Lakes Basin, south of Lake mand the Lake Huron basin topography from Superior and west of Lake Huron. Lake north to south. Near the north shore, which is Michigan has a water surface 579 feet above the southern margin of the Canadian Shield, is sea level and has a maximum depth of 923 feet. a low, south-facing escarpment of Precam- It is connected to Lake Huron by the Straits of brian formations. The second escarpment is a Mackinac. ridge of Silurian age limestone and dolomite, Direction of currents in the Straits alter- called the Niagaran Escarpment, that forms nates from east to west depending upon Manitoulin Island and Saugeen Peninsula. barometric pressure and wind conditions. The This ridge parallels the north shore of Lake net flow, however, is eastward. Northern out- Huron and separates the main body of the flow goes into Lake Huron. A southern outflow 10 Appendix 11 of 3,200 cfs is diverted into the Mississippi Michigan lowland, and removed the overbur- River basin at Chicago. The physiography of den and softer rock formations, leaving ridges the Lake Michigan basin results from glacial of harder, more resistant rock. When the deposits. Bedrock exposures are not common. glaciers retreated they buried the rock out- Lake Michigan is bounded on the west and crops and filled many of the valleys and north by the Niagaran Escarpment, which troughs with glacial till, outwash, and glacial- dips under the Lake toward its basin. The rel- lake sediments. A major outlet for the ancient atively smooth slope of the lake bottom from glacial lakes in the Lake Michigan basin was the shore to the depths on the west and north- near Chicago.' Water flowed south out of the west sides of the Lake is essentially a dip-slope basin through the Illinois River valley into the on the Niagara carbonate rocks.15 Mississippi River. This natural outlet no The lake bed has four regions: a smooth longer exists because of the lower postglacial basin to the south; a divide; a northern basin; levels of the Lake. Enormous quantities of and a submarine ridge and valley province to beach sand and sand dunes have accumulated the northeast. The smooth area has a along the shore at the south end of the Lake. maximum depth of 564 feet and resembles a huge bowl with gently sloping sides. The bot- tom materials consist of sand along the shore, 2.5 Lake St. Clair gravel between 50 and 100 feet depth, and mud below the deep water. These sediments fill de- The Michigan courts officially define Lake pressions and smooth the lake bottom. The St. Clair as a Great Lake. These courts assert divide is a large mid-lake 'area less than 400 the rights and interests of the State of Michi- feet deep. This shallow area of the lake bottom gan as proprietor and trustee of the water and consists of two limestone ridges overlain by submerged lands of Lake St. Clair. The lake coarse sediments. Thin beds of sand have been has a surface area of 430 square miles and a found on the east shoreline down to 120 feet natural maximum depth of 23 feet. It is 26 depth, and on the west shoreline to depths miles long, with marshy shores and a gently ranging from 50 to 300 feet. The northern sloping bottom. Situated in glacial deposits, basin contains ridges and valleys trending the lake has ridges 'of glacial ti.11 (moraines) northeast-southwest. The deepest point in the to the north and the south .28 Lake, 925 feet deep, is in this region. The sub- The St. Clair River from Lake Huron flows marine ridge and valley province are north- into Lake St. Clair from the north. A small east of the northern basin. In this area the delta marks the north central and northwest bottom has numerous deep troughs of 250 to areas of the lake. The Detroit River drains 500 feet, separated by ridges with only 25 to 50 Lake St. Clair and empties into Lake Erie, feet of water over them. Most of the valleys falling approximately three feet in 32 miles. and ridges have a north-south orientation with greater depths toward the south and southwest where this province merges with 2.6 Lake Erie the northern basin. At the basin's western end is Green Bay. Lake Erie, 570 feet above sea level, is south The Door Peninsula, formed by the Nigaran of Lake Huron and southwest of Lake Ontario. Escarpment, divides the embayment from the Surface area is 9,910 square miles, approxi- Lake. Water depths vary from an average of 75 mately one-thirteenth the area of Lake feet to a maximum of 160 feet. Mud deposits Superior. It is the only Lake in the system cover the deeper floors. Sandy deposits, bro- whose point of greatest depth is above sea ken by bedrock outcrops, cover the shoreline level. Average depth is 62 feet. From the shal- slopes that extend various distances under lows in the western end, the bottom slopes the water. eastward to a maximum of 212 feet. A relatively shallow shelf starts approxi- The Lake Erie basin is divided into three mately 45 miles west of the outlet of Lake areas. The western basin is relatively shallow Michigan and extends eastward through a and covered with fine sediments. The Detroit narrow canyon into Lake Huron. It is an an- River discharge produces a flow pattern that cient river valley that now forms the major penetrates far south into Lake Erie's western part of the Straits of Mackinac. A variety of basin, and is traceable ea;tward through the sediments covers the bottom of this area. Lake northern islands area into the central basin. Michigan was formed during the Ice Age when The western basin is underlain by hard lime- continental glaciers gouged out the Lake stone and dolomite that resist erosion. There Physiography 11 are many shallow areas, ridges, and islands. decreases as the escarpment stretches east- Most of the central and eastern basins were ward, parallel to the south shore of Lake On- excavated in soft easily-eroded shales of De- tario, until it becomes inconspicuous near vonian age. Part of this lake bottom is a resis- Rochester, New York, approximately 70 miles tant Devonian limestone.15 Although the rock from Niagara Falls. in the two basins was similar, glaciers exca- Lake Ontario has a long east-west axis. The vated the eastern basin deeper than the cen- lake bottom slopes gradually southward from tral. A submerged ridge of sand and gravel the north shore, across more than two-thirds separates the central basin from the eastern. of the Lake. The bottom formation then rises Nearly 6,300 square miles in area, the cen- abruptly to the south shores.15 During the ice tral basin of Lake Erie is the largest of the ages, continental glaciers crossed the area three basins. It has a smooth, flat bottom. The and gouged out beds of soft shale to form the eastern basin is a deepened extension of the lake depression. The depth of scour and shape central one. Glacial erosion deposits cover ad- of the depression were influenced by hard jacent shorelands and deeper lake bottom limestone formations along the north shore of areas. Occasional sand deposits are found the Lake, extending over the sloping lake bot- along the shores. tom nearly to the south shoreline. The retreat- The northern and western boundaries of the ing glaciers deposited sediments in the Lake Lake Erie drainage basin are transitional and and along its shoreline. poorly defined. The obvious southeastern The Lake Ontario outflow is discharged into boundary adjoins the Appalachian Plateau. the St. Lawrence River at its northeast end. Lake Erie discharges primarily at its east- ern end, through the 37-mile Niagara River into Lake Ontario. More than one-half of the 326-foot fall from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario 2.8 St. Lawrence River occurs at Niagara Falls, where the river cross- es the Niagaran Escarpment. Lake Erie The St. Lawrence River is the natural outlet water is also diverted into Lake Ontario for the Great Lakes. It flows from Lake On- through the Welland Canal. tario across the St. Lawrence Plain into the Gulf of St. Lawrence. This plain is a lowland between the Adirondack Mountains and the 2.7 Lake Ontario Canadian Shield. The broad, multiple-channel river head is broken into small land areas and Lake Ontario's water surface is approxi- is called the Thousand Islands Area. East of mately 245 feet above sea level. It is approxi- this area, the river channel narrows abruptly mately 804 feet deep at its deepest location, where it flows across a hard, resistant rock where the bottom is 561 feet below sea level, protrusion of the Canadian Shield. The river lower than the bottom of any of the other outlet is a long, horn-shaped passage which Lakes except Lake Superior. opens into the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The Lake Ontario basin is a lowland bor- Marine waters of the Atlantic Ocean en- dered on the north by an escarpment of the tered the ancient St. Lawrence River re- Canadian Shield, on the east by the Adiron- peatedly during the Ice Age, and entered the dack Mountains, on the south by the Appala- Ontario basin at least once. Unusually high chian Plateau, and on the west by the Niaga- Atlantic tides reach across the Gulf of St. ran Escarpment. The Niagaran Escarpment Lawrence and influence the St. Lawrence is 200 feet high at Niagara Falls, but its height River water depths many miles inland. Section 3 HYDROLOGY OF THE GREAT LAKES 3.1 General the discharge capacity of the outlet river cor- responding to that lake stage. The level of each of the Great Lakes depends Under natural outlet conditions, as the sup- upon the balance between the quantities of ply of water changes, the lake level and outflow water received and the quantities of water adjust continually to restore a balance be- removed. If these quantities are exactly the tween the net supply of water to the lake and same, the general lake level is stable. If the the- outflow from its natural outlet river. Out- quantities received are larger than the quan- flows artificially controlled by regulatory tities removed, the volume of water in the works are released according to a plan for reg- Lake increases and the lake level rises. ulating the lake's levels and outflows. Supplies of water to, and removal of water Man-made modifications affecting the from the Great Lakes are changing continu- natural levels and flows of the Great Lakes, ally with natural hydrologic variations. such as the regulation of Lakes Superior and The vast water surface areas of the Great Ontario and the diversions of water into and Lakes constitute a feature unique to the Great out of the Great Lakes Basin, are discussed in Lakes-St. Lawrence system. Small changes in Section 6, Artificial Factors Affecting Lake the levels of the Lakes account for enormous Levels. quantities of water. Large variations in supplies to the Lakes are absorbed and modulated to maintain out- 3.1.2 Lake Outflows flows which are remarkably steady in com- parison with the range of flows observed in Table 11-4 indicates in cubic feet per second other large rivers of the world. For example, a (cfs) the outflow of each of the Great Lakes large monthly net supply of water to Lakes through its natural outlet channel, including Michigan-Huron may be more than twice the average, maximum, and minimum monthly dicharge capability of the St. Clair River. Dur- outflows for the peroid of record. ing such a month, at least one-half of the net In general, ice retards winter river dis- supply would be added to water stored in the charges in the outlet channels, so winter out- two Lakes. The resulting rise in the water sur- flow rates are somewhat less than correspond- face during the month could be approximately ing open-water flows. The minimum monthly four inches, with a corresponding increase in flows given for the St. Clair and the Niagara the discharge through the St. Clair River of Rivers occurred under severe ice conditions. three percent. Monthly outflows are tabulated at the end of this appendix. 3.1.1 Relationship of Lake Levels and Outflows TABLE 11-4 Outflows of the Great Lakes in Except where regulatory works have been Cubic Feet per Second provided to artifically control the individual ____1Cv-ar-g- Mai'- Mini- lake levels, the level of a lake and its outflow Lake and Natural Outlet 1860-1970 Monthly Monthly bear a definite relationship to each other. Superior, St. Marys River 75,000 127,100 40,900 When the lake level is above average, depth of (Aug. 1943) (Sep. 1955) Michigan, Straits of Mackinac 52,000 ------- ------- water at its outlet is greater than average, Huron, St. Clair River 187,300 242,000 99,000 and therefore the capacity of the outlet river (June 1886) (Feb. 1942) to discharge must be above average. For any Erie, Niagara River 201,900 255,000 116,000 (June 1886) (Feb. 1936) stage of a lake whose outflows are not artifi- Ontario, St. Lawence River 239,200 314,000 154,000 cially controlled, outflow rate is determined by May 1870) (Feb. 1936) 13 14 Appendix 11 Water supplies to the Great Lakes consist TABLE 11-5 Relationship B-etween Storage principally of precipitation that falls on lake Volume and Depth in the Lakes surfaces and runoff from land areas of the Ba- Feet on Lake for CFS-Months for Relatiw sin. For each of the lower Lakes, the supply to Lake 1,000 cfs-wnths One Foot on Lake Reservoir Capacity the individual Lake's own basin is augmented Superior 0.00296 337,800 4.2 Michigan-Huron .00208 480,800 6.0 by inflow of water from the Lake above. Total Erie .00951 105,200 1.3 supply of any one of the Lakes is reduced by Ontario .01250 80,000 1.0 evaporation from that Lake's surface. months, or 10,000 cfs for eight months. Rela- 3.2 Reservoir Capacities tive reservoir capacity indicates that Lake Superior has 4.2 times the capacity of Lake The huge natural reservoirs that are called Ontario, the smallest of the Great Lakes. the Great Lakes act exactly the same as reser- voirs of any hydraulic system, but their size makes them unique. Lake levels at any time 3.2.1 Significance of Lake Regulation are a measure of the amounts of water stored at that time. Rises or recessions in lake levels The magnitude of the reservoir effect of from beginning to end-of any time interval are Lakes Superior and Michigan-Huron is much a measure of the quantity of water added or greater than that of Lakes Erie and Ontario removed during that interval. When the net because it involves lake outlet capacity as well supply to any one of the Lakes exceeds out- as lake storage capacity. The levels of Lakes flow, its level rises. When net supply is less Superior and Michigan-Huron respond to than outflow its level falls. This is true changes in outflow much more slowly than do whether the supplies and outflows are natural the levels of Lakes Erie and Ontario. On the or modified artificially. basis of difference in surface areas only, reg- To comprehend the causes of variations of ulation of the levels of Lakes Superior and lake levels, or to comprehend the limitations Michigan-Huron would require a greater and possibilities of regulating the levels, one range of flexibility in discretionary control of must understand the interrelationships and outflows than for Lakes Erie and Ontario to proportions of the supplies of water to the res- obtain a comparable degree of level stabiliza- ervoirs, their storage capacities, and the abil- tion. The occurrence of water supplies to the ity of their outlet rivers to discharge water. It Lakes, also a factor in this regard, is discussed is customary to consider these supplies and in Section 5. capacities in terms of some convenient time Lake regulation involves control of outflows interval such as a month or a week. For many to accomplish a desired reduction in the range purposes, such as studies of lake regulation, of stages experienced. Lake regulation studies monthly time intervals are convenient. require a knowledge of the reservoir effect of For example, one determines the net total the lakes in its application under various supply to a lake by adding the outflow to the sequences of supplies such as have occurred in change in storage. The volumetric units the past. This in turn requires reliable generally used for outflow data are cfs-months analysis of past effects on a month-by-month and for change in storage plus or minus feet of basis. The next section discusses net total lake surface. Before adding, one must express supplies which are used in such analyses. the terms in the same units. The relationship between the two units depends upon the number of seconds in the month considered, 3.2.2 Natural Regulation of the Great Lakes and the area of the lake involved. Regulation studies computations use an av- Natural regulation of a lake exists when its erage month of 30.4 days (365/ 12)for all months. outflows depend upon the lake levels and a The Lake area used is shown in Table 11-2. The stage-discharge relationship. In the Great equivalent feet on lake for 1,000 efs-months Lakes, outflows from Lakes Superior and On- and equivalent efs-months for a change in tario are fully controlled, and may vary widely storage of one foot are given in Table 11-5. at any water level. The values in the tabulation of Table 11-5 The outflow from Lakes Michigan-Huron are independent of time. Thus a one-foot into Lake Erie depends basically on the levels change in storage on Lake Ontario is 80,000 of the upstream and downstream Lakes. The cfs-months, which is obtained with a flow of major outflow from Lake Erie goes down the 80,000 efs for one month, 40,000 cfs for two Niagara River. The level of the upper Niagara Hydrology 15 River is controlled only to meet Niagara Falls cal Balance," applies with appropriate modifi- flow requirements, with the remainder di- cation to each of the Great Lakes. For Lake verted for power. The small flow in the Wel- Superior, the inflow term I is omitted since it is land Canal is fully controlled. Therefore, a the uppermost in the system, and has no lake major portion of Lakes Michigan-Huron out- inflow. The diversion terms D and Di may be flow depends on Lake Erie levels and a stage- omitted for a lake of the system in situations discharge relationship. Stage-discharge rela- where diversions are not pertinent. tionships for uncontrolled outflow channels From the definition and the relationship may be expressed in terms of lake level alone shown in Equation 1, two equations are avail- or lake level and slope in the river. able to determine the Total Water Supply One must consider several varying natural (TWS) as follows: conditions during certain periods in order for TWS =I +R +P +Di +Gi (2) the relationship to be true. Ice retardation TWS = AS +Q +E +Do +Go (3) during the winter season is the difference be- tween what the flow would have been under where TWS = Total Water Supply for the open-water conditions and the actual flow in period, and other terms are as used in Equa- the connecting rivers. It varie's somewhat tion 1. The total water supply is very seldom from year to year. In the past, severe ice- determined because R andP in Equation 2 and jamming has occasionally reduced the outflow E in Equation 3 are not readily available, and from Lakes Michigan-Huron, raising its Gi and Go are not known. levels, while at the same time reducing inflow One may measure a very useful supply to Lake Erie and lowering it. During the sum- quantity called the Net Total Supply (NTS) by mer weed retardation must be considered in subtracting the evaporation and seepage estimating the connecting river flows. losses from the Total Water Supply. Using the defining and derived equations for the Total Water Supply above, two equations for Net 3.3 Great Lakes Water Supplies Total Supply may be derived in terms of sup- ply and withdrawal as follows: Total water supply is made up of inflow from NTS = I + R + P + Di + Gi - E Go (4) the lake above, runoff from the drainage area and, surrounding the lake, direct precipitation over the lake surface, diversion into the lake NTS =AS + Q +Do (5) from outside the drainage basin, and where NTS is the Net Total Supply and the ground-water inflow. The total water with- other terms are the same as above. drawn from the lake includes the outflow The Net Total Supply includes water through the outlet channel, evaporation, di- supplied from outside the drainage basin of version into another drainage basin, and the lake. The portion of the Net Total Supply seepage. The interrelation of these various contributed by the lake basin and lost from the factors may be expressed in the form of an lake is known as the Net Basin Supply (NBS). equation as follows: The quantities included in the Net Basin Sup- AS = (I + R + P + Di + Gi ply are shown in a defining equation derived (Q + E + Do + Go) (1) from Equation 4 as follows: where: NBS = R + P + Gi - E - Go (6) AS= change in lake storage due to rise or The quantity of Net Basin Supply is deter- fall in level mined by an equation derived from Equation 5 I= inflow from lake above as follows: R= runoff from drainage basin of lake Di = diversion into lake from another basin NBS = AS + Q +Do -I - Di (7) Gi= ground water inflow Little is known of the quantity of ground P= precipitation on the lake water entering or leaving the Great Lakes. Q = outflow from lake The consensus of investigators using Equa- E= evaporation from lake tion 6 to estimate one or the other of the re- Do= diversion from lake into another basin maining factors is that the amount of water Go= seepage supplied through ground water is small when All terms of the equation are in the same units compared to runoff and precipitation, and the and for the same period of time. This equation, difference between inflow and- outflow sometimes called "The Equation of Hydrologi- through the bottom is negligible. With this as- 16 Appendix 11 sumption Equation 6 may be rewritten as: from the lake surfaces on an average monthly NBS=R+P-E (8) basis for various periods of record. Since dif- ferent periods of record were used in these Because numerous stations measure pre- studies, it is difficult to evaluate the various cipitation around the shores of the Great methods used by the investigators. Lakes, it is possible to make a relatively accu- Many other secondary hydrologic factors af- rate estimate of the monthly precipitation on fect the Net Basin Supply because of their the water surface of the Lakes. The Lake Sur- effect on one or more of the primary factors in vey Center has published these data for the Equation 6. These secondary factors include Lakes since 1900. Insufficient data are avail- such meteorological parameters as air tem- able to estimate reliably the other two hy- perature, wind speed, relative humidity, drological factors in Equation 8 to estimate water temperature, and amount of sunshine. monthly data. Net water supply values are used in routing Several investigators have determined the computations to determine the effects of runoff from the land areas and evaporation specific regulation plans. Section 4 LAKE LEVELS 4.1 General inlet of the water level gages are proportioned to damp out such short-period waves. Reliable records of the water levels for all of The Great Lakes are considered essentially the Great Lakes date from 1860. The Lake nontidal because fluctuations due to the Survey Center, National Ocean Survey, gravitational effect of the moon and sun are NOAA (formerly U.S. Army Engineer District, relatively small and for any diurnal period Lake Survey), maintains 50 permanent water other variations mask them. The gage records level gages on the Great Lakes and along their reflect the effect of lunar tides, however, as outflow rivers. has been shown by averaging the readings for Canadian agencies also maintain some wa- given stages in the passage of the moon over a ter level gages on the Great Lakes system. The time interval of several months. Canadian agency responsible for data is the Daily average (referred to as the daily Tides and Water Levels Division, Marine Sci- mean) and monthly average (monthly mean) ences Branch, Department of Environment. water levels are data that commonly help Data from both Canadian and United States solve problems involving levels of the Great gages are often required for adequate consid- Lakes. The daily mean level at a gage is ob- eration of Great Lakes problems, and the two tained by averaging the 24 hourly readings of countries exchange data freely. The water the day; the monthly mean level is the average level gages listed in Table 11-6 are float- of the daily means for the days of the month. actuated recording instruments continously The monthly mean lake level as recorded by a recording the water levels. Figure 11-3 shows representative gage for each Lake is pub- the locations of these gages on the Lakes. lished by Lake Survey Center (NOAA). Table 11-6 tabulates by gaging station the For certain purposes the mean level of a lake period of record available and extreme water is determined as a whole by averaging for a level data recorded at these sites. given period, such as a month, the levels of Water level records indicate that the entire several gages on the lake situated in a pattern surface of any one of the Great Lakes is seldom selected to provide a good approximation of if every completely at rest. From beginning to the whole lake level. Scientists have improved end of any period there may be an appreciable gage patterns in recent years, particularly for change in the average level of the whole sur- determinations of changes in lake storage. face of a Lake that corresponds to a change in There is now a well-spaced pattern of at least the volume of water in the Lake during that five gages for each Lake. The monthly level interval. change measured by a sufficient number of During any particular short time period, gages helps determine changes in amounts of such as a few hours, the average level at one water stored in each Lake. point on a Lake may be considerably above or Lake levels used in this appendix are in below the average level at another point some terms of the International Great Lakes distance from the first point. The differential Datum (1955), which gives elevations in feet would be caused by an external force, such as above the mean water level at Father Point, wind, acting on the lake surface. There are Quebec, a point on the St. Lawrence River usually wind-generated waves of some mag- near the river's transition to the Gulf of St. nitude at any point on the Lakes. The gravita- Lawrence. This level datum provides dynamic tional pull of the moon and sun, and water- elevations such that different points on the temperature differentials disturb the lake same Lake have the same elevation when the surfaces very little. Lake is level, and it provides a hydraulically Lake levels recorded at a particular gage true representation of the river slopes. station reflect the combined effect of all varia- Low water datum on each Lake is the water tions at that station except those due to level to which depths on navigation charts and wind-generated waves. The stilling well and ' of harbor and channel improvements on the 17 18 Appendix 11 TABLE 11-6 Great Lakes Water Level Gage Locations and Records Period of Gage Records Extremes of Instantaneous Lake Gaging Non- Water Level Elevations, IGLD (1955) Lake Station Recording Recording Maximum Date Minimum Date Superior Duluth 1860-1950 1901-1969 602.89 31 Aug 1951 598.59 10 Jan 1958 Grand Marais 1966-1969 602.59 28 Oct 1968 598.96 31 Mar 1967 Marquette 1860-1909 1902-1969 604.06 16 Jun 1939 597.47 17 Jul 1926 Michipicoten 1915-1969 604.28 16 Jun 1939 598.05 13 Apr 1926 Ontonagon 1959-1969 603.66 17 Apr 1965 598.69 13 Apr 1964 Point Iroquois 1930-1969 604.23. 31 Oct 1951 598.48 21 Apr 1964 Thunder Bay 1907-1969 603.17 21 Jul 1952 597.93 17 Mar 1926 Two Harbors 1911-1937 1904-1969 603.53 5 May 1950 598.61 11 Apr 1948 Michigan Calumet Harbor 1903-1969 583.19 25 Oct 1929 573.33 11 Nov 1940 Green Bay 1953-1969 582.18 27 Jul 1969 573.17 21 Nov 1964 Holland 1906-1908 1959-1969 580.65 28 Jul 1969 574.80 19 Dec 1964 Ludington 1 1950-1969 580.95 4 Aug 1953 574.76 17 Jan 1965 Mackinaw City 1899-1969 582.01 22 Jul 1952 574.45 5 Mar 1964 Milwaukee 1859-1903 1903-1969 581.89 22 Jul 1952 574.15 23 Jan 1926 Port Inland 1963-1969 581.07 26 Jun 1969 574.19 18 Jan 1965 Sturgeon Bay Canal 1905-1944 1945-1969 582.33 25 May 1953 574.10 14 Apr 1964 Huron Collingwood 1906-1969 582.12 25 Jun 1952 573.48 26 Jun 1964 De Tour 1944-1954 1954-1969 580.19 7 Aug 1969 574.26 5 Mar 1964 Essexville 1884-1935 1952-1969 581.75 24 Oct 1953 571.54 18 Mar 1965 Goderich 1910-1969 582.02 5 May 1952 574.26 28 Nov 1964 Harbor Beach 1874-1901 1901-1969 582.01 6 May 1952 574.17 25 Jan 1964 Harrisville 1963-1969 580.15 10 Aug 1969 574.36 9 Jan 1964 Lakeport 1956-1969 580.76 Oct 1960 573.82 28 Nov 1964 Little Current 1959-1969 580.48 7 Aug 1969 573.91 5 Mar 1964 Mackinaw Cityl 1899-1969 582.01 22 Jul 1952 574.45 5 Mar 1965 Parry Sound 1960-1969 580.44 8 Aug 1969 573.63 26 Mar 1964 Thessalon 1926-1969 581.68 23 Jul 1952 574.37 12 Feb 1965 Tobermory 1962-1969 580.84 26 Jun 1969 574.30 24 Jan 1965 St. Clair Grosse Pte. Shores 1894-1952 1955-1969 575.51 8 Jul 1969 569.58 26 Jun 1964 Erie Barcelona 1958 1960-1969 574.82 27 Oct 1967 565.08 10 Mar 1964 Buffalo 1819-1899 1889-1969 579.09 3 Nov 1955 564.17 10 Mar 1964 Cleveland 1838-1903 1903-1969 574.03 29 Jun 1952 565.71 4 Feb 1936 Erie 1859-1903 1957-1969 574.14 14 Dec 1968 566.00 10 Mar 1964 Erieau 1957-1969 573.02 4 Jul 1969 566.85 21 Nov 1964 Fermi 1962-1969 573.95 27 Apr 1966 563.03 16 Feb 1967 Kingsville 1961-1969 573.54 27 Jul 1969 564.13 21 Nov 1964 Marblehead 1959-1969 573.62 18 Apr 1969 564.54 21 Nov 1964 Port Colborne 1860-1911 1911-1969 577.69 1 Apr 1929 564.22 10 Mar 1964 Port Dover 1958-1969 575.80 27 Oct 1967 565.02 10 Mar 1964 Port Stanley 1908-1969 574.17 22 Mar 1955 566.58 17 Mar 1935 Sturgeon Point 1968-1969 575.18 9 May 1969 568.70 31 Dec 1969 Toledo 1911-1939 1940-1969 575.67 27 Apr 1966 561.47 2 Jan 1942 Ontario Cape Vincent 1936-1954 1914-1969 248.10 16 May 1929 240.93 2 Jan 1965 Cobourg 1956-1969 247.66 2 Jul 1956 241.26 25 Dec 1964 Hamilton 1960-1969 246.45 3 Jun 1969 241.04 3 Feb 1965 Kingston 1895-1910 1910-1969 248.55 6 Jun 1952 241.01 2 Jan 1965 Olcott 1935-1958 1967-1969 246.40 20 Jun 1969 243.26 19 Nov 1969 Oswego 1837-1932 1933-1969 248.96 6 Jun 1952 240.94 23 Dec 1934 Port Weller 1929-1969 247.85 30 May 1930 241.19 3 Feb 1965 Rochester 1846-1907 1952-1969 246.95 23 May 1956 241.38 23 Dec 1964 Toronto 1861-1916 1916-1969 248.34 8 Jun 1952 240.64 26 Dec 1964 1Common gage at Straits of Mackinac '00, ROSSI'Ok( PORT ARTHUR MINNESOTA IT --i /-,,_,,@GRAND MARAI S V p MICHIPICOTEN TWO RIVERS OF \ . . ONTARIO oq DULUTH SCALE OF MILES oq ONTONAGON GROS CAP 0 25 50 75 loo MARQUETTE PT. IROQUOIS THESSALON m PORT INLAN LITTLE CURRENT DETOUR MACKI AW CIT TOBERMORY'@ STURGEON BAY CANAL tA PARRY SOUND REEN BAY iG HARRISVILLE WISCONSIN LUDINGTON COLLINGWOOD KINGSTON HARB R dEA H m ESSEXVILLE GODERICH COBOURG CAPE MILWAUKEE TORONTO Ay- g-ONTAR10.1 . HOLLAND LAKEPORT HAMILTON OSWEGO PORT WELLER OTT MICHIGAN PORT COLBORN F ERIE GROCHESTER FIT STANLEY BUFFALO lo.) 90PORT GROSSE PTE. SHORES / ERIEAV,,,- DOV _ STURGEON POINT NEV CALUMET HRB BELLE RIVER 1-r LE e- E I OKINGSVIL BARCELONA "@-A @gP E L E E PTI /L--- \ TOL w- -.11 iw "ERIE \j BAR PT -i OCLIVELAND ILLINOIS INDIANA MARBLI lil @F) PENNSYLVANIA OHIO 20 Appendix 11 TABLE 11-7 Water-Level Gage Records gages and the records available are shown in Period Table 11-7. Gaging Station of Record St. Marys River 4.2.1 Canadian Gages on Outflow Rivers U.S. Slip* 1903-1971 The Canadian agency, Tides and Water SW Pier* 1867-1971 Levels Division, also maintains gages on the Great Lakes outflow rivers. Gage locations St. Clair River and other pertinent information are given in Algonac. 1952-1971 Table 11-9. St. Clair 1951-1971 Marysville 1953-1971 4.2.2 Niagara River Power Project Gages Dry Dock 1919-1971 Mouth Black River 1952-1971 The Hydro Electric Power Commission of Dunn Paper 1955-1971 Ontario operates five gages on the Canadian Fort Gratiot 1937-1971 side of the Niagara River in connection with the Niagara River Power Project. The location Detroit River of these gages and the records available are Gibraltar 1937-1971 shown in Table 11-8. Wyandotte 1946-1971 Fort Wayne 1905-1971 4.2.3 St. Lawrence River Power Project Gages Windmill Point 1897-1971 Niagara River The Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario and the Power Authority of the State Ashland Avenue 1957-1971 of New York operate 16 gages on the St. Law- American Falls 1955-1971 rence River in connection with the St. Law- Niagara Intake 1962-1971 rence River Power Project. The location or La Salle* 1965-1971 designation of 15 of these gages and the rec- Tonawanda Island* 1930-1971 ords available are provided in Table 11-10. Huntley Station* 1930-1971 Blakc Rock* 1932-1971 Peace Bridge* 1967-1971 4.3 Reference Planes St. Lawrence River .Reference planes on the Lakes and connect- ing rivers provide a basis for preparation of Ogdensburg 1934-1971 navigation charts and for dredging and con- Cape Vincent 1916-1971 struction. *Corps of Engineers., Detroit District Gages 4.3.1 Historical Background Great Lakes are referred. The elevations on The first plane of reference for each of the IGLD (1955) of the low water datum lake levels Great Lakes was known as the "High Water of are in Table 11-12 later in this section. For the outlet rivers, low water datum is the sloping surface of the rivers when the Lakes are at TABLE 11-8 Niagara River Power Project their low water datum elevations. Gages Gage Record Yrs. 4.2 Water Level Gage Records on the Outflow Fort Erie 1958-1971 Rivers of the Great Lakes Frenchman's Creek 1958-1971 The Lake Survey Center, NOAA,maintains Black Creek 1965-1971 permanent water level gages on the outflow Slaters Point 1919-1971 rivers of the Great Lakes. The location of these Material Dock 1921-1971 Lake Levels 21 TABLE 11-9 Canadian Gage Information Gage Period Extreme of Instantaneous Water Level Location of Record Maximum Date Minimum Date St. Marys River Gros Cap 1926-1971 602.58 22 Oct 1968 598.00 25 Jan 1968 Rossport 1967-1971 602.96 30 Jun 1968 598.75 31 Mar 1967 Sault St. Marie Lock Above 1908-1971 604.09 12 Nov 1942 596.48 23 May 1925 Sault St. Marie Lock Below 1908-1971 584.83 17 Dec 1951 575.78 23 Nov 1963 St. Clair River Point Edward 1927-1971 581.41 5 May 1952 573.06 28 Nov 1964 Point Lambton 1927-1971 577.51 29 Jan 1952 571.55 27 Nov 1964 Lake St. Clair Belle River 1961-1971 576.03 4 Jul 1969 569.34 5 Mar 1964 Detroit Tecumseh 1926-1971 575.97 1 Jul 1952 568.92 13 Jan 1936 La Salle 1925-1971 575.19 22 Mar 1952 568.24 28 Jun 1926 Amherstburg 1960-1971 573.37 6 Jul 1969 566.21 27 Jan 1965 Bar Point 1966-1971 573.37 18 Apr 1969 566.76 5 Dec 1968 Lake Erie Pelee Point 1964-1971 573.03 25 Jun 1968 565.07 21 Nov 1964 St. Lawrence River Long Sault 1962-1971 243.41 9 May 1964 235.31 15 Jan 1968 Prescott 1919-1971 243.12 12 May 1952 239.85 4 Dec 1964 Iroquois Lock Above 1959-1971 245-18 14 May 1963 237.49 2 Feb 1963 Iroquois Lock Below 1959-1971 243.35 4 May 1962 236.79 1 Feb 1963 1838." The original planes were satisfactory TABLE 11-10 St. Lawrence River Power for referencing water levels, but were too high Gages for construction and charting purposes. As a Gage Record Yrs result, engineers established a number of other reference planes for various purposes Chimney Point 1954-1971 throughout the years.311 H-24-CA 1954-1971 By 1930 it was obvious from the increasing D CA 1954-1971 differences in water surface elevations as re- Iroquois Dam Headwater 1958-1971 corded at the various harbors that a reevalua- Iroquois Dam Tailwater 1958-1971 tion of benchmark elevations was necessary. Waddington 1958-1971 In 1935 many additional water level gages were installed, thereby providing data for Morrisburg 1958-1971 water-level transfers to almost every U.S. Long Sault Dam Headwater 1958-1971 harbor on the Great Lakes. New level lines Moses Power Dam Headwater 1958-1971 had been run between the Lakes to determine Saunders C. Station the differences in elevation between them. Headwater 1958-1971 However, no new instrument level connection International Tailwater 1959-1971 to sea level had been made at that time. Exis- Moses Power Dam Tailwater 1958-1971 ting elevation on each Lake was based on the H-26-CA 1954-1971 1903 adjustment with respect to sea level at H-8-CA 1954-1971 New York and adopted as 1935 Datum. H-21-CA 1954-1971 In 1953, the U.S. Lake Survey Center and 22 Appendix 11 the Canadian Hydrographic Service began datum is established, it brings the elevations coordinating basic hydraulic and hydrologic of all benchmarks in the system into harmony; data on the Great Lakes. At this time Cana- that is, the assigned elevations measure their dian reference datums differed from those of respective places in direct relation (either the United States. They had different refer- above or below) to the new single benchmark. ence zeros, and as a result the lake levels as Because of crustal movement, which is dis- published by agencies of the two governments cussed in detail in Section 5, it becomes very were not identical. important to show the year in which the eleva- These differences in levels and other data tions were assigned. Internationally coordi- were considered insignificant until the advent nated plans are under way (1967-1973) to of the St. Lawrence Seaway and international reevaluate the elevations of all benchmarks power development on the St. Lawrence and a new adjustment may be made. Revised River. Then it became very important that elevations may be published in the future as basic hydraulic and hydrologic data pertain- International Great Lakes Datum (1970). ing to the Great Lakes system be the same in both countries. 4.3.3 Other Commonly Used Datum Planes as Compared with IGLD (1955) 4.3.2 International Great Lakes Datum (1955) Several other reference datum planes are In establishing this new international commonly used in the Great Lakes Basin. The datum, certain basic criteria had to be met: most common are described below. (1) The datum had to be acceptable to both governments. (2) It had to include an adjustment of all 4.3.4 Sea Level Datum of 1929 elevations to correct changes caused by crus- tal movement. The U.S. Geological Survey, in establishing (3) It had to correct any past errors in earlier vertical control for producing topographic surveys. maps, uses the national network of bench- (4) It had to provide elevation suitable for marks established by the U.S. Coast and use in resolving the many complex hydraulic Geodetic Survey (USC&GS), whose functions and hydrologic problems in the Great Lakes have been included under the National Ocean system. Survey. Elevations of the national network Father Point, Quebec, was chosen as the site are on Sea Level Datum of 1929 and have been of the new reference of zero elevation for the adjusted to account for the non-parallelism of following reasons: level surfaces related to the flattening of the (1) It is the outlet of the Great Lakes-St. earth at its poles. Because of the orthometric Lawrence River system. correction and other factors such as instabil- (2) The mean water level there is approxi- ity of the benchmarks, the differences be- mately equal to mean sea level. tween IGLD (1955) and Sea Level Datum of (3) The water level gage at Father Point has 1929 elevations vary from place to place. a long record. Because of the many variables, the two (4) Benchmarks at this site are connected to datums at a specific location must be com- the rest of the system by first-order levels.9 pared by instrumental levels. The Lake Sur- International Great Lakes Datum (1955) vey Center accomplished this by leveling to was established along the St. Lawrence River U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) or USC&GS by first-order levels from Father Point to benchmarks at various Great Lakes harbors Kingston, Ontario, at the eastern end of Lake and along the connecting rivers. Ontario. A parallel line which connected at Any local rise or settlement that might have several common points was completed along occurred in a particular benchmark during the United States side of the St. Lawrence the interval of time between the levels of the River. The new datum was extended to the USC&GS, Lake Survey Center, and the USGS upper Lakes by first-order level lines along would be included in the difference between the connecting rivers coupled with water-level the elevations shown. Therefore, one must transfers across the Lakes. More than 1,200 apply with caution a computed difference for miles of first-order levels and many gage rec- one benchmark to convert other marks from ords had to be used to determine elevations one datum to another so that each datum be- on the new international datum. When a new comes consistent. Lake Levels 23 TABLE 11-11 Conversion Factor for Various Locations on the Great Lakes Difference in Ele- vations on IGLD (1955) and U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Datum Lake or Lake or Location Factor Connecting River Location Factor Connecting River_ Michigan New York Monroe 1.46 Lake Erie Alexandria Bay 0.95 St. Lawrence River Gibraltar 1.43 Detroit River Clayton 1.09 St. Lawrence River Trenton 1.43 Detroit River Cape Vincent 1.10 St. Lawrence River Grosse Ile 1.45 Detroit River Oswego 1.22 Lake Ontario Wyandotte 1.40 Detroit River *Sodus Bay 1.31 Lake Ontario Ecorse 1.39 Detroit River *Rochester 1.22 Lake Ontario River Rouge 1.39 Detroit River Olcott 1.15 Lake Ontario Detroit 1.36 Detroit River Wilson 1.13 Lake Ontario *Port Huron 1.17 Lake Huron Fort Niagara 1.12 Lake Ontario *Port Austin 1.24 Lake Huron Stella Niagara 1.12 Niagara River *Bay City 1.46 Lake Huron Buffalo 1.29 Lake Erie *Saginaw 1.40 Lake Huron *Dunkirk 1.45 Lake Erie *Harrisville 1.48 Lake Huron Alpena 1.16 Lake Huron Wisconsin Mackinaw City 0.94 Straits of Mackinaw Milwaukee 1.30 Lake Michigan *Leland 1.24 Lake Michigan Green Bay 1.23 Lake Michigan *Muskegon 1.43 Lake Michigan Port Washington 1.22 Lake Michigan *St. Joseph 1.56 Lake Michigan *Algoma 1.20 Lake Michigan Escanaba 1.03 Lake Michigan *Ashland 1.26 Lake Superior Manistique 0.96 Lake Michigan *St. Ignace 0.95 Straits of Mackinaw Minnesota De Tour 0.84 Lake Huron Duluth 1.21 Lake Superior Stalwart 0.74 St. Marys River Barbeau 0.76 St. Marys River Indiana Sault Ste. Marie 0.71 St. Marys River Indiana Harbor 1.45 Lake Michigan Brimley 0.76 St. Marys River Pt. Iroquois 0.74 Lake Superior Pennsylvania Marquette 0.96 Lake Superior Erie 1.47 Lake Erie Houghton 1.21 Lake Superior Ohio New York Cleveland 1.57 Lake Erie Massena 0.75 St. Lawrence River *Vermilion 1.62 Lake Erie Waddington 0.78 St. Lawrence River Toledo 1.45 Lake Erie Ogdensburg 0.79 St. Lawrence River Morristown 0.83 St. Lawrence River Illinois Chippewa Bay 0.87 St. Lawrence River Chicago 1.30 Lake Michigan *Factor based on only one benchmark NOTE: In each case the figure in feet is subtracted from the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survery elevation to obtain the elevation on IGLD (1955). Table 11-11 provides a mean value differen- 4.3.5 Chicago City Datum Plane tial to convert an elevation referenced to Mean Sea Level of 19!@9 datum (USC&GS) to The following relationship has been deter- an elevation on lGLD (1955). Unless otherwise mined: zero elevation Chicago City Datum noted, the conversion factor provided for each equals 578.18 feet IGLD (1955). Also, zero ele- location is based on known differences in two vation Chicago City Datum equals 579.48 feet or more benchmarks. USC&GS. 24 Appendix 11 4.3.6 Detroit City Datum Plane TABLE11-12 Elevations of Low Water Datum Reference Planes Zero elevation Detroit City Datum equals 1935 IGLD 478.45 feet IGLD (1955). Lake Datum (1955) 4.3.7 Cleveland City Datum Plane Superior 601.6 600.0 Michigan 578.5 576.8 Zero elevation Cleveland City Datum equals Huron 578.5 576.8 573.27 feet IGLD (1955). St. Clair 573.5 571.7 Erie 570.5 568.6 Ontario 244.0 242.8 4.3.8 Buffalo City Datum Plane Zero elevation Buffalo City Datum equals temporary and frequently rapid changes in 574.28 feet IGLD (1955). level in any one area of the Lake. These changes are local in nature and differ from place to place around the Lake. A hydrograph 4.3.9 Milwaukee City Datum Plane of monthly levels recorded at particular loca- tions on each of the Great Lakes since 1860 and Based on comparison of elevations of eight on Lake St. Clair since 1898 is available later benchmarks, the following relationship has in this section. This hydrograph illustrates been determined: zero elevation Milwaukee the seasonal and long-period variations, but City Datum equals 579.30 feet IGLD (1955). does not show short-period variations. 4.3.10 Low Water Datum 4.4.1 Long-Period Variations The 1935 datum plane was used prior to the Long-period variations of lake levels are as- establishment of International Great Lakes sociated with cumulative departures from Datum (1955) and was in use until 1961. The normal hydrologic factors, principally precipi- Low Water Datum planes of reference for the tation falling on the Lake basins. For periods Great Lakes, the planes to which navigation when there is a prolonged upward trend in improvement depths and Great Lakes naviga- Lake levels from near average level, the rain- tion chart depths are referred, were not physi- fall records show above normal precipitation cally changed at that time. However, as the amounts. When there is a prolonged down- reference benchmarks at all harbors on the ward trend from near average level, the rec- Great Lakes were assigned an elevation on ords show below normal precipitation. Fre- IGLD (1955), the elevation of the Low Water quently, but not always, high water periods or Datum on each Lake was changed also. Table low water periods occur on all of the Lakes 11-12 shows the 1935 Datum elevation and concurrently. Excess or deficiency of precipi- IGLD (1955) elevation for each Lake's Low tation over the basin of one of the Lakes may Water Datum plane of reference. differ materially from that over the other basins. Water supplies to the Great Lakes during 4.4 Lake Level Variations 1965-1967 were sufficient to remedy the low water conditions on the Lakes in 1964. Hy- For the purposes of this study, variations of drographs, Figures 11-4 and 11-5, show im- Great Lakes levels are classified as long- provements in lake levels from 1964 to 1967. period variations, those with general trends The levels-and-flows pattern in the Great upward or downward extending over several Lakes system is complicated. Seasonal fluctu- years; seasonal variations, representing an ations in annual weather patterns, when annually recurring cycle; and short-period superimposed on the 1964-1967 trend, depict variations, lasting from several minutes to a variations between below normal and above day or two. The first two classes relate to the normal precipitation. Figure 11-6 shows vari- changes in the volume of water in the Lake. ations for Lakes Michigan-Huron. The up- The third class consists of variations that permost line in the figure represents the ac- may occur at any lake stage, and that involve cumulated deviations of monthly precipita- Lake Levels 25 tion from average values. For periods when melt does not occur, evapotranspiration losses the line is rising, the precipitation is above are large, and evaporation from lake surfaces normal. When it is horizontal, the precipita- begins to increase. As a result, lake levels tion is normal. When it is falling, the precipi- begin to decline from their peak. tation is below normal. The solid middle line In the fall, evapotranspiration is less, and in the figure represents the accumulated runoff is again reduced, but surface evapora- monthly deviations of the net total supplies tion is at a maximum. The onset of freezing to the Lake. The solid line near the bottom of temperatures keeps runoff low. The Lakes the figure shows the monthly L akes Michigan- generally reach their lowest annual levels Huron water levels which occurred during the during the winter. These factors are described 1957 to 1965 period. The dashed line repre- in detail in Section 5. sents the long-term average monthly levels. Lake Superior often reaches its seasonal low The difference between the two bottom lines in March and its high in August or September. therefore represents the deviation from the Lakes Michigan-Huron often are at their low long-term levels. in February and their seasonal high in July. The similarity in pattern of the three solid Lake Erie attains its seasonal low in Februa:ry lines shows the effects of extended above or and its high in June. The low on Lake Ontario below normal precipitation. Net total supplies usually occurs in January, and the seasonal to the Lake are reflected in corresponding high occurs most frequently in June. Table large water-level deviations. However, other 11-2 lists the average rise from winter to factors also affect water levels. The effects of summer high level for each Lake and the other factors on lake levels are discussed in maximum and minimum intervals of rise in Sections 5 and 6. levels. A monthly water-level bulletin showing re- corded levels of the Great Lakes for previous years, current year to date, and probable 4.4.3 Short-Period Variations levels for the next six months is published by the Lake Survey Center. At any point on the Great Lakes there are The time intervals between successive daily and hourly fluctuations in levels from a high water periods, or between successive few inches to several feet. These fluctuations low water periods, are irregular. Rises and re- independent of the volume of water in a Lake, cessions may be gradual or abrupt. A number are caused by winds blowing over a Lake's of attempts have been made to find periodic surface or differences in atmospheric pressure cycles in long-term rise and fall of the lake on different areas. levels. When found, efforts will be made to cor- During such short-period disturbances, the relate them with cycles of such phenomena as level of one area of the Lake rises while the sunspots. Cycles as short as seven years, and level of another area drops. For example, the as long as 90 years have been suggested. wind in causing such a disturbance may drive Statistical analysis of the levels and planetary the surface water forward in greater volume movements do not support such theories. than that carried by the lower return cur- rents, thus raising water level at the shore toward which the wind is blowing and lower- 4.4.2 Seasonal Variations ing it at the opposite shore. Such effects are more pronounced in bays and the extremities An annual pattern of seasonal fluctuation of of the Lakes where converging shores concen- monthly mean levels between a high in the trate the water in a restricted space. summer and a low in the winter occurs on each Maximum short-period rises and falls that of the Great Lakes. Variations between highs have been recorded at various gage sites on and lows, as well as the months in which they the individual Lakes and their frequencies of occur, may differ considerably from year to occurrence are shown on Table 11-37 in Sec- year. Seasonal patterns in the natural hy- tion 8. drologic factors cause these fluctuations. Waves disturb the lake surfaces. During se- In the spring, runoff increases because of vere storms over the Great Lakes, waves in snowmelt and decreased evapotranspiration. deepwater areas may have heights greater Evaporation from lake surfaces is slight dur- than 20 feet from crest to trough. juch deep- ing the spring. As a result, the lake level be- water waves get much smaller as they move gins to rise. In the summer, runoff is less because snow- (Continued on page 34) 26 Appendix 11 LAKE SUPERIOR, t T 1 1-1 603 J+ t tmT 44 41 tt @ -1 t f t t -4 - ,4-t- t- I i 02 TIM Ti A J- 7 601 . I . . . . . . 410 $0 WW "TER -M WWI TER D.- LL W L-L 9 F t @.-T V @m T -::87q- T LLJ 598 9N t A-1 11-1-1 ia i -i g.:.i jj ii -.!;.i i 6 ga 1 1964 1965 1 1966 1967 LEGEND MEAN LEVELS 1900-1967 RECORDED LEVELS EXTREME LEVELS 1900-1967 LAKE MICHIGA -HURON 581 1- 4 F LPT fftttll A I- __6z 71 so J k@ -_ @_m H I :rr - - - - - - -TWE - __J - V_ iR 7 Lc) A ti _X t WE. FA 578 a) 5 LL -4 WW WATER MTUM 576.0 - WWWATERMTUM c am_= 575 i t -i a -i i 'z a i z 1964 1 1965 1966 1967 FIGURE 11-4 Hydrographs of Great Lakes Water Levels 1964-1967 Lake Levels 27 573 LAKE ERIE + 1. @4w-, 4- =7 572 -4- 14 571 _4 1570 C F.0 j- tL 569 u W* "TER MTUM - - - - - - - - -ER M c 5- LLJ 56T @ + 4= i Ri j Rj Ri 1964 1965 1966 967 LEGEND MEAN LEVELS 1900-1967 RECORDED LEVELS EXTREME LEVELS 1900-1967 LAKE ONT RI __FT. J- I- J- f- 4 1- 4 247- t: - . . . . . . . . . . . . U.) 246 0) -@6 245- 4 0- V HIM 44 >243 2 .9 L -t@R MTu LLJ 942 H: H 054 t 1964 1965 1966 1967 FIGURE 11-5 Hydrographs of Great Lakes Water Levels 1964-1967 28 Appendix 11 6500 (n 6000 z 0 U_ 5500 0 (n 0 5000 z (n ACCUMULATED DEVIATION OF PRECIPITATION ON SU PERIOR-MICH IGAN-HU RON BASIN FROM- 04500 LONG-TERM AVERAGE FOR EACH MONTH z Z 2500 0 1500- 1 v M ( )1000 L) ACCUMULATED DEVIATION OF NET TOTAL SUP____@@ < PLIES TO LAKE MICHIGAN-HURON FROM LONG- TERM AVERAGE FOR EACH MONTH. 500 01 LONG-TERM AVERAGE MONTHLY LEVELS 579 - A Z 578 2i < Lj LL A, 577 uj > RECORDED MONTHLY LEVELS uj _j uj 576 5751 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 FIGURE 11-6 Effect of Precipitation and Net Total Water Supplies on Water Levels of Lakes Michigan-Huron Lake Levels 29 603 602 602.06, 601 Uj LOW WATER. DATUM 600.0 Lu-J 600 z z 0 599 > 598.23 598 597 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 PERCENT OF TIME AT OR ABOVE INDICATED STAGE FIGURE 11-7 Lake Superior at Marquette-Stage Duration Curve for January- December 1860-1968 582 581.94 581 Ln 580 0) 0 1 579 LU LU U_ z 578 z 0 > Uj 577 --LOW WATER DATUM 576.8- 576 L 575.35 575 - - 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 PERCENT OF TIME AT OR ABOVE INDICATED STAGE FIGURE 11-8 Lakes Michigan-Huron at Harbor Beach-Stage Duration Curve for January-December 1860-1968 30 Appendix 11 576 575.70 575 LO 574 0) _j 0 1573 LU Uj LL 572 LOW WATER DATUM 571.7- > 0 Uj 571 _j 570 569.86 569 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 PERCENT OF TIME AT OR ABOVE INDICATED STAGE FIGURE 11-9 Lake St. Clair at Grosse Pointe-Stage Duration Curve for January-December 1860-1968 573 572 572.76 LO 2@1 0571 _j Uj Uj 570 U_ z z 0569 LOW WATER DATUM 568.6 _j Ld 568 567.49 567 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 PERCENT OF TIME AT OR ABOVE INDICATED STAGE FIGURE 11-10 Lake Erie at Cleveland-Stage Duration Curve for January- December 1860-1968 Lake Levels 31 248 248.06 247 246 245 Uw 244 U_ 243 LOW WATER DATUM 242.8 241.45 241 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 PERCENT OF TIME AT OR ABOVE INDICATED STAGE FIGURE 11-11 Lake Ontario at Oswego-Stage Duration Curve for January- December 1860-1968 TABLE 11-13 Lake Superior Water Level Data at Marquette, Michigan Stages (feet above -sea level) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1952 1952 1951 1951 1951 1950-51 1876 1876 1876 1951 1951 1951 High 601.28 601.04 600.91 601.14 601.53 601.64 6-01-.95 6_02-.06 6_01. 9 5 CO-1. 9 3 0 -1. 7 7 CO -1. 5 0 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1926 1864 1925 1925 Low 598.58 598.37 59_8.32 5-9-8.23 598.30 5-9-8.63 5-9-8.99 5_9_9.15 5_99.46 5_99.47 @9_9.17 5_98.94 Mean 600.112 599.916 599.809 599.856 600.192 600.483 600.693 600.799 600.833 600.778 600.628 600.379 Changes (in feet) Jan-Feb Feb-Mar Mar-Apr Apr-May May-Jun Jun-Jul Jul-Aug Aug-Sep Sep-Oct Oct-Nov Nov-Dec Dec-Jan Maximum 1867 1871 1869 1894 1880 1952 1911 1900 1941 1915 1864 1878-79 Rise 46-26 +:F__4_2 -w_5_8 4T 7-8 4- 8-0 4- 4-9 +@Y 4-7 +@ 5-2 4- 3-5 +@_ 1-0 +b---11 +0.03 Maximum 1871 1878 1879 1879 1867 1861 1878 1954 1952 1865a 1870 1868-69 Fall @'_ 6-0 T 7-7 b__ 3-9 T 3-6 -6-0-9 -6- 0-8 -6 1-2 -6-2-3 -6-4-7 T 4-8 -6-9-3 -0.52 Average -0.196 -0.107 +0.048 +0.335 +0.291 +0.210 +0.106 +0.034 -0.054 -0.150 -0.249 -0.254 Average 186G-1968: 600.374 feet above sea level Average 1900-1968: 600.518 feet above sea level aAlso occurred in 1952 32 Appendix 11 TABLE 11-14 Lakes Michigan-Huron Water Level Data at Harbor Beach, Michigan St:ge ' r (f at above sea level) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec High 1860 1860 1860 1886 1886 1886 -1876 1876 1876 1861 1876 1861 580.94 581.12 581.15 581.42 581.75 581.94 581.86 581.80 581.69 581.36 581.14 580.96 Low 1965 1964 1964 1964 1964 1964 1964 1964 1964 1964 1964 1964 575.39 575.44 575.35 575.36 575.79 575.90 575.96 575.97 575.94 575.77 575.57 575.40 ifean 578.245 578.222 578.292 578.521 578.828 579.061 579.196 579.144 578.967 578.750 578.537 578.349 Changes (in feet) Jan-Feb Feb-Mar Mar-Apr Apr-May May-Jun Jun-Jul Jul-Aug Aug-Sep Sep-Oct Oct-Nov Nov-Dec Dec-Jan Maximum 1881 1868 1929 1960 1943 1883 1869 1870 1881 1928 1934 1884-85 Rise +T39 +U 68 4:5 70 +@F 83 -F@' 68 +@ 48 +@U 26 +T 14 4@ 25 +:6 16 +@@ 23 +0.27 Maximum 1961 1869 1915 1946 1891 1886 1868 1871 1871 1865 1872 1943-44 -6-- - - -_ - - -6-- o- Fall 25 26 12 04 05 T 26 6 34 67 69 C56 66 -0.39 Average -0.026 +0.069 +0.229 +0.307 +0.233 +0.134 -0.052 -0.177 -0.217 -0.213 -0.189 -0.130 Average 1860-1968: 578.676 Average 1900-1968: 578.018 TABLE 11-15 Lake St. Clair Water Level Data at Grosse Pointe, Michigan Stages (feet above sea level) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec High 1952 1952 1952 1952 1952 1952 1952 1952 1952 1952 1954 1951 575.13 574.87 575-19 575.46 575.49 575.60 575.70 575.65 575.41 574.87 574.60 574.83 Low 1936 1926 1934 1901 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934 1925 569.86 569.88 570.41 571.09 571.64 571.74 571.88 571.60 571.36 571.13 570.83 571.05 Mean 572.339 572.014 572.487 573.110 573.419 573.608 573.681 573.566 573.341 573.065 572.766 572.768 Changes (in feet) Jan-Feb Feb-Mar Mar-Apr Apr-May May-Jun Jun-Jul Jul-Aug Aug-Sep Sep-Oct Oct-Nov Nov-Dec Dec-Jan Maximum 1939 1956 1913 1901 1901 1902 1915 1912 1954 1898 1914 1915-16 Rise 4:U 8-3 471-79 471-5-3 471--2-9 4T 8-1 4T__62 4@__2_2 +T 0-8 +U_ 2-8 +T__0_l +:U--6-3 +0.57 Maximum 1939 1932 1901 1925 1948 1919 1919-21 1913 1948 1924 1919 1955-56 Fall 1 6-8 -6-8-2 0-63 -6-05- -61-0 @_211 -T-3--2- -6-49- -F 5-6 T-6-5 T 4-8 -1.86 Average -0.326 +0.473 +0.624 +0.309 +0.188 +0.073 -0.115 -0.225 -0.277 -0.299 +0.002 -0.421 Average 1898-1968: 573.013 Lake Levels 33 TABLE 11-16 Lake Erie Water Level Data at Cleveland, Ohio Stag a 'Feet above rea-level) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dee 1886 1952 1952 1952 1952 1952 High 52 1862 a 186 a 1861 1861 1861 1885 571.62 572.06 572.28 572.67 572.76 572.73 572.51 572.22 572.04 571.81 571.79 571.60 Low 19M 1936 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934 56_7.62 576-7.49 5_67.65 @6_8.20 @6_8.43 5_68.46 5_68.46 @6_8.36 56_8.23 56_7.95 5_67.60 56_7.53 Mean 569.843 569.793 570.007 570,546 570.881 571.035 570.994 570.807 570.530 570.196 569.931 569.859 Changes (in feet) JM-Feb Feb-Mar Mar-Apr Apr-May May-Jun Jun-Jul Jul-Aug Aug-Sep Sep-Oct Oct-Nov-Nov-Dec Dec-Jan Maximum 1952 1887 1913 1947 1892 1902 1915 1926 1926 1917 1927 1949-50 Rise 4@K_677 4:6 7-8 -;1-5-7 4:6 9-5 +Z__7_6 4:6- 6-3 +Y 2-6 4:U 1-3 4T-2-8 i@_1_4 4:U-5-2 +0.78 Maximum 1886 1931 1891. 1891 1930 1890 1866 1937 1871 1924 1882 1917-18 Fall -0.73 -0.31 -0-13 -0.18 -0.21 -0.38 -0.52 -0.57 -0.67 -0.64 -0.51 -0.67 Average -0.050 +0.214 +0.540 +0.335 +0.154 -0.041 -0.187 -0.277 -0.329 -0.265 -0.072 -0.025 Average 1860-1968: 570.369 Average 1900-1968: 570.133 aAlso occurred in 1952 TABLE 11-17 Lake Ontario Water Level Data at Oswego, New York Stages (feet above sea level) Jan Feb May Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec High 1886 1886 1952 1952 1952 1952 1947 1947 1947 1861 1861 1861 i--- 2 W_ 2 2__ 27--- 2_7_ M-40 246-47 2_46777 2_47_60 47 95 48 06 2 7 74 -47-45 246 91 46 49 46 56 46 35 Low 1935 1936 1935 1935 1935 1935 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934 241-67 241.59 242.08 2-4-2.38 2 2.67 @-42.91 42.7 2@_2.26 2 1.94 41-72 41.4 2T1-48 Mean 244.122 244.188 244.454 245.072 245.454 245.612 245.539 245.217 244.804 244.438 244.203 244.124 Changes (in feet) Jan-Feb Feb-Mar Mar-Apr Apr-May May-Jun Jun-Jul Jul-Aug Aug-Sep Sep-Oct Oct-Nov Nov-Dec Dec-Jan Maximum 1887 1903 1873 1893 1947 1883 1915 1915 1945 1926 1927 1906-07 Rise +@_ 7-6 +ii-8-2 4-1--9-0 41- 1-4 +1-12 4U- 5-4 4T 3-0 +@ 0-3 4T-3-6 +b' 3-1 4@@ 8-0 +0.63 Maximum 1963-64 1885' 1915 1891 1891 1955 1960 1908 1862 1867 1867 1917-18 Fall 2F-51 -T. 2-9 -T. 2-3 -T. 2-3 -:@41 -:6-.-51 -@U. 6-9 - U-. 8-0 -T. 9-5 -:6-. 7-5 -:@7_7 -0.58 Average +0.066 +0.267 +0.617 +0.382 +0.158 -0.073 -0.322 -0.414 -0.366 -0.235 -0.078 -0.012 Average 1860-1968: 244.770 Average 1900-1968: 244.620 aAlso occurred in 1967 34 Appendix 11 shoreward. Shallow lake bottoms cause the 4.4.4 Recorded Levels waves to break and form again. Each reforma- tion diminishes the original height. Wind gen- Tables 11-13 through 11-17 show the mean, erated waves are of interest because the wave maximum, and minimum monthly level values run-up on the beach, or at a structure, contrib- for each Lake, and the years they have occur- utes to the maximum water level along the red. These tables also list similar values for shoreline. (See Section 8 for a discussion of monthly changes in elevation. These data wave run-up.) provide the range of changes in levels on a At any place on a Lake, the probable month-to-month basis and have been re- maximum water level would result from a corded since 1860. combination of high general average lake A stage-duration curve utilizing recorded level, plus a large temporary rise associated monthly levels is provided for each Lake in with the locality. The maximum level is of in- Figures 11-7 through 11-11. In using these terest at localities where high water levels figures note that man-made changes can af- have an adverse effect on shore property. fect recorded elevation. Significant changes Lake levels represent an integration of the are regulation of outflows from Lake Superior effects of variations in the supply factors and (1921) and Lake Ontario (1960); diversion of in the operation of the Great Lakes as a re- water from the Hudson Bay basin into Lake gional hydraulic system. Diversions of water Superior (1939); diversion from the Lake into or out of the Lakes modify the supplies. Michigan basin into the Mississippi River Regulation of the lake ouflows and changes in basin at Chicago (about 1848); and changes in the outlet channels may be considered as a the natural outlet channels from the Lakes modification of the system. throughout the period of record. Section 5 NATURAL FACTORS AFFECTING THE GREAT LAKES LEVELS 5.1 General average of one station for every 160 square miles in parts of the Lake Erie basin to one for Factors that affect seasonal and yearly flue- every 1,100 square miles in parts of the Lake tuations of the Great Lakes levels can be sepa- Superior basin. rated into categories, natural and artificial. Stations situated around lake peripheries Natural variations in lake levels include are used to determine the precipitation over changes in precipitation, runoff, evaporation, each Lake. Precipitation records of stations on varying ice conditions that retard outflows, islands in the northeastern part of Lake and transitory variations due to barometric Michigan, compared with concurrent records pressure changes and wind action. of precipitation stations at nearby shore sta- The changing levels of each of the Great tions, indicate that seasonal variations of Lakes depend on the balance between quan- over-lake precipitation differ from those of tities of water received by the Lake and the over-land precipitation. Over-lake precipita- quantities of water removed from it. The tion in the warm months of a 10-year period supplies of water to the Lakes and quantities was approximately nine percent less than pre- removed from them are changing continually cipitation at nearby land stations. For the cold due to natural hydrologic variations. Water months it was nearly nine percent greater supplies to the Great Lakes system consist than at the land stations. A conclusive as- principally of precipitation falling on the Lake sessment of the accuracy of measuring pre- and runoff from the land areas of the Basin. cipitation on the lake surface, as indicated by For each of the lower Lakes in the system, shore station records, is not yet possible. It is outflow from the Lake above augments the believed, however, that such variation be- supply to the Lake's own basin. Evaporation tween over-lake and over-land precipitation reduces the total supply reaching any one of is a fairly reliable representation on a long- the Lakes. term basis. Table 11-18 shows the average, maximum, and minimum annual precipitation on the 5.2 Precipitation Lake basins over the period 1900-1969. Table 11-19 shows the average monthly and annual Precipitation is the primary source of water values of precipitation for the period of record in the Great Lakes Basin. Precipitation on the on the Lake basins. Table 11-20 shows the water surfaces is a major factor. The average maximum and minimum amounts by months yearly precipitation over the Basin is approx- for each year of record. imately 31 inches. The normal precipitation pattern over the Great Lakes increases from 30 inches in the Lake Superior basin to 84 5.2.1 Over-Water Precipitation inches in the Lake Ontario basin. During the winter months, precipitation is normally less Precipitation on the water surface of the than in the May-September period. The Lake Great Lakes is a direct contribution to their Survey Center calculates monthly and annual water supply and affects lake levels im- precipitation on the drainage basin of each mediately. However, the water area of each Lake from records of the U.S. National Lake makes direct measurements of over- Weather Service and the Atmospheric Service water precipitation extremely difficult. The of the Department of Environment, Canada. Lake Survey Center, NOAA, prepares precipi- At present there is a network of approxi- tation estimates over lake surfaces using mately 500 precipitation stations in the Great perimeter stations as the most representative Lakes Basin. Of these, 300 are in the U.S. and measurements generally available. 200 in Canada. The distribution of stations Based on the computation of precipitation over the Great Lakes Basin varies from an on the water surface of the Lakes, Table 11-21 35 36 Appendix 11 TABLE 11-18 Annual Precipitation on Great TABLE 11-19 Average Monthly Precipitation Lakes Basins in Inches on Great Lakes Basins in Inches 1900-1969 Lake Basin Average Maximum Minimum Entire Superior Michigan Huron Erie Ontario Gre at Lakes Superior 29.56 37.96 (1968) 23.99 (1917) Jan 1.83 1.73 2.34 2.53 2.70 2.14 Michigan 31.16 37.82 (1959) 22.21 (1930) Feb 1.43 1.53 1.95 2.10 2.38 1.78 Huron 31.26 39.03 (1951) 25.83 (1914) Mar 1.66 2.05 2.10 2.70 2.62 2.12 Erie 33.79 42.63 (1950) 24.48 (1963) Apr 2.01 2.71 2.37 3.08 2.80 2.49 May 2.70 3.24 2.72 3.20 3.03 2.93 Ontario 34.18 43.06 (1945) 27.58 (1934) Jun 3.27 3.43 2.82 3.31 2.98 3.17 Jul 3.15 3.07 2.79 3.20 3.14 3.05 Total Aug 3.16 3.07 2.82 3.03 2.97 3.01 Great Lakes 31.46 --- --- Sep 3.45 3.41 2.79 2.92 2.96 3.24 Oct 2.58 2.65 2.75 2.66 2.94 2.72 No@ 2.42 2.43 3.20 2.60 2.92 2.61 Dec 1.90 1.84 2.83 2.46 2.74 2.20 Annual 29.56 31.16 31.26 33.79 34.18 31.46 TABLE11-20 Maximum and Minimum Monthly Precipitation on the Great Lakes Basins in Inches and Year of Occurrence 1900-1969 Lake Basin Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Max. 3.62 3.20 3.25 4.09 4.31 6.21 5.60 5.54 6.61 4.28 4.40 4.29 Superior Year 1935 1939 1951 1938 1927 1943 1952 1959 1941 1946 1926 1968 Min. 0.76 0.48 0.38 0.71 0.86 0.89 1.25 1.02 1.37 0.59 0.46 0.35 Year 1961 1912 1910 1949 1948 1910 1936 1930 1948 1947 1939 1913 Max. 3.33 3.31 3.40 5.32 5.45 6.59 6.00 6.14 7.08 5.98 5.13 3.41 Year 1950 1938 1948 1929 1912 1969 1952 1940 1952 1954 1937 1968 Michigan Min. 0.63 0.32 0.44 0.89 1.23 1.09 0.98 0.82 1.41 0.46 0.33 0.51 Year 1956 19K 1910 1901 1925 1910 1936 1969 1965 1924 1904 1913 Max. 3.74 3.77 4.01 4.61 5.10 5.12 4.46 4.52 5.41 6.04 5.45 4.05 Huron Year 1929 1908 1921 1929 1945 1967 1952 1959 1965 1954 1966 1920 Min. 1.06 0.81 0.61 1.13 0.91 1.22 1.00 0.90 1.10 0.63 0.94 0.61 Year 1956 1934 1915 1935 1920 1909 1916 1927 1948 1939 1939 1913 Max. 5.87 4.21 6.71 5.79 6.78 6.37 6.22 5.87 6.93 7.64 6.11 4.42 Year 1950 1908 1913 1929 1943 1902 1915 1956 1926 1954 1927 1900 Erie Min. 0.61 0.58 0.43 0.93 0.97 1.58 1.15 1.35 0.77 0.44 0.39 0.87 Year 1961 1969 1910 1946 1934 1952 1930 1930 1908 1924 1904 1923 Max. 4.61 4.17 5.33 4.99 5.64 5.55 6.15 5.27 6.13 7.99 6.61 4.82 Ontario Year 1937 1960 1936 1929 1943 1922 1902 1915 1945 1955 1927 1942 Min. 1.14 0.95 0.72 1.12 0.63 1.20 1.28 1.27 0.99 0.46 0.61 1.07 Year 1921 1969 1915 1915 1920 1912 1936 1907 1964 1963 1904 1943 Max. 3.98 3.15 3.81 4.18 4.62 4.76 4.72 4.70 5.32 5.15 4.22 3.75 Entire Year 1950 1908 1913 1929 1943 1943 1952 1959 1965 1954 1927 1968 Great Min. 0.90 0.62 0.60 1.12 1.32 1.43 1.28 1.13 1.60 0.77 0.71 0.66 Lakes Year 1961 1969 1910 1915 1934 1910 1936 1930 1948 1924 1904 1913 Natural Factors 37 TABLE 11-21 Average Monthly Precipitation shows the monthly values for the 1935-1964 on Water Surface of Lakes in Inches 1935-1964 period. Experts chose this period to coincide with the estimated runoff values provided in Superior Michigan Huron Er ie Ontario Tables 11-22 and 11-23. Jan 2.21 1.83 2.62 2.48 2.64 Feb 1.65 1.57 2.07 2.38 2.60 Mar 1.80 1.98 2.13 2.76 2.71 Apr 2.35 2.72 2.48 3.29 2.81 5.3 Runoff May 3.02 3.02 2.75 3.12 2.96 Jun 3.47 3.23 2.76 3.20 2.47 The land areas tributary to the Great Lakes Jul 2.82 2.90 2.64 2.94 2.89 are peripheral bands around the lakeshores Aug 3.37 3.11 2.84 3.14 2.83 Sep 3.35 3.30 3.28 2.80 2.75 which vary outward from the lakeshores from Oct 2.36 2.32 2.65 2.63 2.68 less than 10 miles to approximately 100 miles. Nov 2.73 2.42 2.90 2.69 2.74 The stream systems, collecting land drainage Dee 2.17 1.78 2.81 2.32 2.71 and discharging it into the Lakes, have many Annual 31.30 30.18 31.93 33.81 32.79 constant and some intermittent flowing streams. Although the annual amount of precipita- tion has a large bearing on the total runoff in the Great Lakes Basin, seasonal distribution of precipitation and the north-south tempera- ture gradient are equally important. For example, even though the Lake Erie basin re- TABLEII-22 Average Monthly Runoff into the Lakes in Cubic Feet per Second per Square Mile Month Ontario Erie St. Clair Huron Michigan Superior January 1.14 1.23 0.88 0.62 0.75 0.43 February 1.15 1.37 1.12 0.67 0.72 0.36 March 2.58 2.19 1.93 1.43 1.16 0.54 April 3.07 1.89 1.56 2.65 1.72 1.95 May 1.48 0.97 0.84 1.70 1.17 2.74 June 0.69 0.58 0.46 0.94 0.80 1.66 July 0.45 0.29 0.27 0.65 0.57 0.99 August 0.35 0.20 0.21 0.44 0.49 0.60 September 0.36 0.16 0.18 0.46 0.54 0.67 October 0.54 0.26 0.30 0.61 0.60 0.77 November 0.84 0.46 0.43 0.86 0.69 0.85 December 1.03 0.75 0.75 0.83 0.60 0.64 Average 1.14 0.86 0.74 0.99 0.82 1.02 Square Miles Tributary 1 2 3 4 Land Area 249700 23,600 6,090 51,800 45,600 49,300 Average cfs 28,100 20,000 4,500 51,300 37,400 50,300 Equivalent Inches on Lake 4.27 2.28 11-70 2.49 1.87 1.77 1Including Niagara River 3 Including St. Clair River 2Including Detroit River 4 including St. Marys River 38 Appendix 11 TABLE 11-23 Average Monthly Runoff in 5.3.2 Lake Superior Basin Runoff Inches on Lakes 1935-1964 Month Ontario Erie Huron Michigan Superior The main tributary to Lake Superior is the January 4.42 4.06- 1.61 1.77 0.77 Nipigon River in Ontario, with a total drain- February 4.06 4.20 1.58 1.54 0.59 age area of 20 percent of the total land area March 10.01 7.49 3.71 2.73 0.97 tributary to that Lake. The Ogoki Project di- April 11.53 6.17 6.63 3.92 3.38 May 5.74 3.29 4.41 2.76 4.91 version into Lake Nipigon augments the flow June 2.59 1.90 2.36 1.83 2.88 of the Nipigon River. Section 6 describes this July 1.75 1.02 1.69 1.34 1.78 August 1.36 0.70 1.14 1.16 1.08 project. The drainage areas of other September 1.35 0.54 1.16 1.23 1.16 tributaries to Lake Superior are much small- October 2.10 0.95 1.58 . 1.41 1.38 November 3.15 1.52 2.16 1.57 1.47 er. The largest of these is the Kamistikia December 4.00 2.63 2.16 1.41 1.15 River in Ontario, draining approximately Annual 52.06 34.47 30.19 22.67 21.52 seven percent of the basin. Based on Table 1, Runoff Characteristics in the Great Lakes Basin, R.L. Pentland, 1968 5.3.3 Lakes Michigan-Huron Basin Runoff The largest tributaries to Lake Michigan ceives 15 percent more precipitation than the are the Fox River in Wisconsin and the Grand Lake Superior basin, annual runoff into Lake River in Michigan, which drain 26 percent of Erie is 15 percent less. This is partly because the Lake's drainage area. Largest tributaries the Lake Erie basin receives less than 60 per- to Lake Huron are the Saginaw River in cent as much snowfall, and loses most of its Michigan and the French River in Ontario. snowpack through winter thaws. Snow ac- These account for 24 percent of the area cumulation is a highly efficient source of tributary to Lake Huron. runoff. High evapotranspiration losses during the growing season (May-August) help cause a 5.3.4 Lake Erie Basin Runoff rapid recession in runoff during the summer months throughout the Basin. A sharp drop in Streams discharging into the St. Clair- evapotranspiration in October and November Detroit River systern are considered contributes to increasing runoff during these tributaries to Lake Erie. The Thames River in months, even though precipitation amounts Ontario is the largest tributary draining into are normally decreasing. Lake St. Clair. The Maumee River in Ohio and The average spring runoff comes first on the Indiana, and the Grand River in Ontario are Lake Erie basin because of its southern loca- the largest tributaries to Lake Erie. These tion. The spring runoff from the basins of three rivers account for 39 percent of the Lakes Ontario, Michigan, and Huron normally tributary area of the Lake Erie basin. occurs a month later than that from the Lake Erie basin, and Lake Superior basin runoff 5.3.5 Lake Ontario Basin Runoff occurs two months later. The Oswego River in New York and the 5.3.1 Runoff Variations Trent River in Ontario are the largest tribu- taries to Lake Ontario. They account for 41 Climatic and physical characteristics of the per cent of the total tributary area to Lake tributary basins determine the variations in Ontario. runoff distribution. Appendix 2, Surface Water Hydrology, provides complete runoff analysis 5.3.6 Stream-Gaging Stations of major tributaries to each Lake and their characteristics. Characteristic values of an- Stream-gaging stations in the Great Lakes nual average runoff vary for the various Basin are operated by the U.S. Geological streams in the Great Lakes Basin from ap- Survey, Department of the Interior, and by proximately 0.5 efs to 2.0 efs per square mile of the Water Survey of Canada, Department of land. Table 11-22 shows estimated monthly Environment. The approximate percentages and annual runoff into the Lakes for the of tributary land areas in the United States period 1935-1964.33 Table 11-23 provides the and Canada covered by stream-gaging records same values in inches for each Lake. are shown in Table 11-24. Natural Factors 39 TABLE 11-24 Percentage of Tributary Area Evaporation is basically a cooling process. with Gaged Stream Flows Colder regions provide smaller evaporation opportunities, so evaporation from the Lake Lake Total United Superior basin, in the cooler part of the Great Basin Basin States Canada Lakes, is small compared to evaporation from Superior 53 53 53 the Lake Erie basin. Another important factor Michigan 69 69 affecting evaporation directly from the water surface of the Great Lakes is the Lakes' heat Huron 59 63 57 storage capacity, which depends on their Erie 66 75 45 depths. Deeper lakes warm up and cool down Ontario 60 69 48 more slowly, producing a delayed shift in the seasonal low and high evaporation losses. Recent investigations have determined av- erage annual amounts of evaporation for the 5.4 Ground Water individual Lakes as follows: Lake Superior, 21 inches; Lakes Michigan-Huron, 26 inches; No extensive investigations have been Lake Erie, 33 inches; and Lake Ontario, 28 made to show the direct contribution of inches. Seasonal variations in the average ground water to the Great Lakes. Some water monthly evaporation directly from the Great is known to be directly contributed to the Lakes, based on various studies," are shown Lakes by subterranean movement. This is in in smooth graphs (Figure 11-12). addition to ground water which seeps into The lowest average evaporation generally stream channels and is included in the runoff. occurs in the spring when the water tempera- The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated ture is close to or below the dew-point temper- that the direct ground-water contribution to ature of the air. This evaporation varies from the entire Great Lakes is nearly 2,000 cubic slight evaporation to some condensation. With feet per second. This is relatively small com- gradually increasing air temperatures, the pared with the amount the Lakes receive water temperature increases rapidly, and from precipitation on the water surface and evaporation increases accordingly. The from runoff from the land drainave area. largest amount of evaporation occurs in the A lake may derive some of its water from fall when the water temperature is considera- ground-water seepage, or lose water to the bly higher than the dew-point temperature of ground-water system through lakebed seep- the air. age. Studies are needed on the Great Lakes to locate areas of significant ground-water re- charge. Further discussions on this subject 5.6 Crustal Movement are included in Appendix 3, Geology and Ground Water. Another factor which affects the levels of the Great Lakes is what geologists term crus- tal movement. For thousands of years there 5.5 Evaporation has been a more or less continuous differential uplifting of the earth's crust in the Great Evaporation is the net water loss from the Lakes Basin. continuous process of vaporization. There is The weight of glacier ice piled on the earth's no direct method of measuring evaporation crust depressed it into the weak layers below. from bodies as large as the Great Lakes. Ac- The process of crustal rebound accompanied tual evaporation losses depend directly upon the surface unloading from glacial thinning climatologic and meteorologic factors. and retreat. Geologists have determined that Due to the important effect of evaporation an uplift of several hundred feet has occurred on the availability of water in the Lakes, on in some places on the Great Lakes shores since water quality, and on the heat budget of the the glacial ages.15 Shoreline features which Lakes, its determination is essential. Re- were level when first formed by glacial lakes searchers have tried several independent are now warped upward in a northeast direc- methods to determine evaporation from the tion. water surfaces: water budget, mass transfer, From the lake level records available, it ap- energy budget, and evaporation pan observa- pears that the land along the northern and tions. The water budget and mass transfer eastern shores of the Lakes is rising with re- methods have been used most often. spect to the southern and western shores, and 40 Appendix 11 NC W LIN STUDIES COVERING D THE PERIO 1926-1 64 6 K K 5 4 z z 3 0 < > NI SUPERIOR 2 IF MfCHfGAN-HURON ERIE ONTARIOl EVAPO DN 0 CONDENSATION JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC FIGURE 11-12 Evaporation from the Great Lakes Natural Factors 41 TABLE 11-25 Differential Crustal Movement Rates in Feet per 100 Years Distance Rate/ Lake SW Gage NE Gage (Miles)- Rate 100 Miles Superior Marquette Michipicoten 150 1.35 0.9 Michigan-Huron Milwaukee Thessalon 310 1.22 0.4 Erie Cleveland Port Colborne 160 0.37 0.2 Ontario Port Dalhousie Kingston 160 0.66 0.4 that the crustal movement is such that the TABLE 11-26 Estimated Retardation by lee land along most of the shores of each of the Average Average Percentage of Lakes is subsiding relative to the land at the Outflow Retardation Change in -lake outlets. A comprehensive study of differ- Outlet River in*cfs in cfs Present Outflow ential crustal movement in the Great Lakes St. Marys 74,500 3,000 4 area was made by the Coordinating Commit- St. Clair 187,000 19,000 10 tee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hy- Detroit 190,000 4,000 2 drologic Data. The Committee's findings are Niagara 202,000 4,000 2 St. Lawrence 239,000 7,000 3 set forth in eight interim reports, dated be- - tween May 1957 and April 1959.8 Table 11-25 is based on the Committee's Table 11-26. findings, and lists the differential crustal Ice retardation of flows causes the levels of movement between points on the shores of unregulated Lakes to be higher at the time of each Lake. Researchers and observers deter- spring breakup than under ice-free conditions. mined these rates from the records of pairs of This higher stage results in a larger outflow water-level gages, one on the southern shore following the breakup than would otherwise and the other on the northeastern shore in an occur. The additional flow gradually lessens as approximately northeast direction. the ice-induced rise in the lake level is reduced These data suggest that the direction of by larger outflow. Timing or severity of ice maximum relative movement may vary ap- conditions on the outlet rivers is not predict- preciably over the area. The differential able for any specific winter. movement per 100 years per 100 miles indi- *eates that the rate of such movement in- creases from the southern portions of the area 5.7.1 Lake Superior to the northern portions. One may readily see the effect on water The regulation of Lake Superior imposes an levels of differential crustal movement if one outflow limitation of 85,000 cfs because of ice visualizes the Lakes as basins which are being conditions in the St. Marys River from early tilted by a gradual raising of their northeast- December through April. The limit was im- ern rims. Water levels along southwestern posed largely as a result of adverse effects of shores are rising faster than water levels ice on river levels at Sault Ste. Marie, Michi- measured at the outlet. Conversely, water gan, below the rapids. Records show that prob- levels along the shores at localities north and lems occurred during the early winter of east of the outlet are receding with respect to 1916-1917 with a flow of 108,000 cfs. Later the the water level at the outlet. same winter, a flow of 86,000 efs was main- tained without trouble. This maximum limi- tation has been retained by the International 5.7 Ice Retardation Joint Commission as an operational procedure for the regulation of Lake Superior. During the winter ice affects the flows Since 1968 an investigation has been under through the natural outlet channels of the way to determine whether the St. Marys River Lakes. Compared with outflows from open- has a safe winter capacity greater than 85,000 water relationships between lake stage and efs, and whether it is technically feasible to lake outflow through these channels, the re- operate the gates at the control structures corded outflows indicate average reductions under ice conditions. Experiments are being in outflow for the three-month period January carried out at Sault Ste. Marie each winter to through March, approximately as shown in obtain answers to these questions. The results 42 Appendix 11 of these experiments are contained in the In- on the rivers. Section 6 provides pertinent ternational Great Lakes Levels Board report data on the effects of ice booms. which was submitted to the International Joint Commission in December 1973. 5.7.4 Lake Ontario 5.7.2 Lakes Michigan-Huron The regulation plan for Lake Ontario limits For Lakes Michigan-Huron an appreciable maximum flow during January to permit the portion of the ice-induced rise normally re- formation of an ice cover in critical reaches of mains until the start of the next ice season. It the St. Lawrence River during February and has been estimated that the level of Lakes March. Stable winter operating conditions Michigan-Huron is 0.4 foot higher than it must be maintained. The International St. would be without ice retardation .43 Lawrence River Board of Control, under its With regard to the winter outflows from discretionary authority, may also limit dis- Lakes Michigan-Huron through the St. Clair charge that assists in forming an ice cover. River, ice retardation of the flows in the De- troit River normally is much less than in the St. Clair River. Because the inflow to Lake St. 5.8 Other Natural Factors Clair is reduced more than its outflow, there is a sharp drop in the Lake St. Clair level almost Weeds or other aquatic growth create a cer- every winter. A sharp rise follows, once the ice tain retardation of the outflows of the outlet retardation is reduced or eliminated. The rivers. The Niagara River is known to be af- Lake St. Clair level may drop as much as one fected by weed growths from June to Sep- and one-half feet during a severe ice period, tember. Stage-discharge equations for Lake and the St. Clair River level above the ice jam Erie and the Niagara River are based upon may rise as much as three feet. open-water conditions with no aquatic growth. With these, engineers are studying the magnitude of such flow retardation. Pres- 5.7.3 Lake Erie ent estimates of retardation of Niagara River flows caused by aquatic growth range up to Ice conditions on the Niagara River have 20,000 cfs, which is approximately 10 percent materially restricted the Lake Erie outflow of the average flow of the river. for short periods. The Lake Erie ice field near the entrance to the Niagara River usually arches between the Canadian and United 5.8.1 Transitory Variations States shores and restricts movement of lake ice into the river. When the ice is forming, or Other factors may create quite large fluctu- when the Lake is under adverse conditions of ations of lake levels, but only over short wind and temperature, the arch and the ice periods lasting from minutes to several days. field behind it may break, allowing ice to enter A seiche or surge, for example, is an oscillation the Niagara River in quantities greater than of the lake water surface. Wind and baro- the river can accommodate. Such ice contrib- metric pressure are the two most common utes considerably to level and flow problems causes. Wind-produced seiches follow cess- on the river. ation or shift in direction after a time of rela- Each winter since 1964 the power entities tively steady wind from one direction. Atmos- PASNY and Ontario Hydro have installed an pheric pressure changes may also alter lake ice boom at the outlet of Lake Erie on a test levels. One such variation on Lake Superior basis. The ice boom has reduced shore prop- occurred on June 30, 1968, reportedly pro- erty damage and losses to power production. ducing a level variation of five to six feet above Ice booms in the Niagara and St. Lawrence normal at one locality. Rivers reduce flow retardation but do not Hunt 17 and Verber49 as well as others have eliminate it. described the seiche and oscillations in Lake Regardless of the effectiveness of ice booms, Erie. The entire shoreline of Lake Erie under- the anchor ice effect continues to be present goes these brief fluctuations at various times. Natural Factors 43 The impulses that begin in the various seiches 5.8.2 Tides appear to be due to wind variations. Investigations of surges on Lake Michigan True tides, both solar and lunar, occur on show the cause to be intense squall lines that the Great Lakes and were observed and move rapidly across the southern portion of studied for many years. The investigations of the Lake in a direction generally toward the the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey indicate southeaSt.23 The most prominent occurrence that the spring, or combined lunar and solar of a seiche in Lake Michigan produced a sud- tide is less than two inches. Consequently, the den and unexpected rise in lake level in Mon- Great Lakes are considered to be essentially trose Harbor in Chicago on June 26,1954, caus- non-tidal because the fluctuations due to the ing several drownings. For some places such gravitational pull of the moon and sun are as for the Chicago area, the National Weather relatively small for any diurnal period. Service has developed techniques to provide The lake level average gage records of many seiche warnings. These warnings help to pro- months indicate lunar tides. These smaller tect lives and property along the southern level changes are coincident with lunar shores of Lake Michigan. Further studies are movement. However, these minor level varia- needed to gather more specific data on water- tions are masked by the greater fluctuations level variations at other localities throughout of levels produced by wind and barometric the Great Lakes. pressure conditions. Section 6 HYDRAULICS OF THE GREAT LAKE S-ARTIFICIAL FACTORS AFFECTING LAKE LEVELS 6.1 General Lakes system and natural inflows and out- flows of the Lakes. These man-made factors Various artificial factors that modify are important because they ultimately cause supplies, outflows, and lake levels have an increase or decrease in the natural lake existed for many years. Their net effects are levels. sometimes superimposed on the levels and outflows. Artificial factors are diversions of water to and from the Lakes and changes in 6.1.1 Effects of Diversion on Lake Levels and outflows from natural outlets by channel Outflows changes and regulatory works. The significant artificial factors affecting A continuous diversion of water into or out the lake levels are listed in order from the of the Great Lakes Basin increases or de- farthest upstream to the farthest creases the supply to the Lakes downstream downstream: from the diversion. (1) Long Lake and Ogoki diversions into The change in supply ultimately changes the Lake Superior basin the outflows from the downstream Lakes (2) regulatory works on the St. Marys equal to the amount of the diversion. Changes River in outflow in turn affect the levels of the (3) diversions out of the Lake Michigan Lakes. Existing diversions minutely influence basin at Chicago the levels of Lakes Superior and Ontario be- (4) channel changes in the St. Clair-Detroit cause the rule curves by which the Lakes are River systems regulated have allowed for these diversions. (5) diversion out of Lake Erie via the Wel- The Long Lake and Ogoki diversions increase land Canal the levels of Lakes Michigan-Huron and Erie (6) channel changes in the St. Lawrence by a certain amount, partially compensated River for by a decrease caused by the diversion out of (7) regulatory works on the St. Lawrence the Basin at Chicago. River The diversion of water out of Lake Erie The regulation of Lake Superior outflow through the Welland Canal ultimately de- slightly modifies the levels of the other Lakes. The regulation of Lake Ontario outflow does TABLEII-27 Approximate Present Net Total not affect the levels of the other Lakes, but Effects on Lake Levels of All Artificial Factors does affect levels downstream on the St. Law- Lake Present Net Effect rence River. Artificial control effects are pre- Superior Levels are regulated in accordance with Orders dictable, and are quite small when compared of Approval of the International Joint C mission dated May 26-27, 1914. Presently to natural variations in lake levels. The pres- being regulated in accordance with the 1955 ent estimated net effects of artificial control Modified Rule of 1949. on the lake levels are summarized in Table Michigan and Huron Levels are lowered by 0.9 foot as a result of artificial factors . exc lusive of the 11-27. varying effect of the regulation of Lake Diversion implies a transfer or bypassing of Superior. Erie Levels are lowered 0.2 foot as a result a fixed amount of water from one point of a of artificial factors, exclusive of the varying effect of the regulation of Lake lake or connecting river to another point Superior. downstream, or from one lake to another lake Ontario Levels are regulated in accordance with Orders downstream through works constructed by of Approval of the International Joint Comission dated October 29, 1952 and July 2, man. Figure 11-13 shows the comparative 1956. Presently being regulated in accordance value of diversions into and out of the Great with Plan 1958-D. 45 eo@ Oil 0 0 z CONSTANT LEVEL cr Z e.f. 00 m b C z rZ 0 AP& 74 51 < CONSTANT LEVEL:) 0 0 , Z 50 78 @o r_ 0 0 c@ 07 CONSTANI LEVEL 5 e-0- m - 1@ 1 C)9 87 t < LO@G LAK E 26 26 .. K, LAKE SUPERIOR .'V, LAKE &11C, N HURON 0 411 90 187 205 .%,yo 78 OUTFLOW To ERIC r, 3 7 LAKE MICH-HURON LAKE ERIE 0 C _'t CHICAGO DIVERSIONS CONSTAN 0 19 IT 0 34 1 0 Notes: 205 Outflo-s,adjusted so that supplies to the lakes ecluaIw thdrawals, i.e., to condition of no WELLAND DIVERS! N change on lake storage. m 51 Figures on sketch are thousands of cfs. 7 1 LAK 0 ONTAR Artificial Factors 47 creases the outflow of the Niagara River by Kenogami to Hudson Bay. Figure 11-15 shows the amount of the diversion. However, the in- the Long Lake diversion. creased discharge capacities of the Niagara The Ogoki diversion sends the waters of a River and Welland Canal combined have low- part of the Ogoki River, which drains through ered the level of Lake Erie. The lower Lake the Albany River into Hudson Bay, into the Erie levels in turn lower Lakes Michigan- headwaters of the Little Jackfish River. This Huron levels because of the backwater effect stream flows into Lake Nipigon and then in the St. Clair-Detroit River connecting through the Nipigon River into Lake Superior channel. Both the Welland Canal and the 60 miles east of Thunder Bay, Ontario. Four Niagara River flow into Lake Ontario. Since control dams form the Ogoki Reservoir, shown there is no change in the total inflow to Lake in Figure 11-16. Its regulation is closely re- Ontario, there is no change to Lake Ontario lated to the supply of Lake Nipigon since the supplies. Figure 11-14 is a map of the Great diverted water forms part of the lake's supply. Lakes showing locations of present diversions. Lake Nipigon, which has approximately 1,740 square miles of water area, has a storage capacity of 1,022,400 acre-feet within its stor- 6.1.1.1 Long Lake-Ogoki Diversions age range of 846 to 855 feet elevation. It has a relatively small drainage area of 9,484 square Diversions of water from the Albany River miles. This is augmented by the addition of basin through the Long Lake and Ogoki Proj- 5,545 square miles from the Ogoki watershed. ects in Canada, beginning in 1939 and 1943 Lake Nipigon is regulated by a rule curve respectively, have increased Lake Superior's designed to maintain the maximum depend- natural supply. Notes dated October 14 and 31, able flow down the Nipigon River. The flow is and November 7, 1940 '12 exchanged between utilized by three generating stations of the the governments of the United States and Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario. Canada, govern waters diverted into the The maximum outflow is 20,000 cfs which natural drainage of the Great Lakes through keeps the lake at or below its maximum level of the existing Long Lake-Ogoki Works. Since 855 feet. The restriction on outflow is required 1945, the total diversion has been at an aver- because of the presence of railway and high- age rate of 5,000 efs. way crossings at Nipigon Village. Larger flows The Long Lake diversion channels the would cause excessive scouring of the ex- headwaters of the Kenogami River (which tremely high river banks with a possible fail- originally drained through the Kenogami and ure of the structures. Albany Rivers into Hudson Bay) into Long Normally all of the Ogoki water is diverted Lake and the Aguasabon River, which dis- into Lake Nipigon. There are times, during charges into Lake Superior near Jackfish, On- excess inflow to Nipigon, that the diversion is tario, 155 miles east of Thunder Bay, Ontario. partially or completely closed. The Nipigon The diversion works comprise two concrete rule curve calls for partial closure of the diver- dams and a channel five and one-half miles sion to 4,000 cfs when Lake Nipigon elevation long. The north, or control dam is on the reaches 854.0 feet and full closure at 854.5 feet. Kenogami River, 15 miles below the former Since 1943, following the Nipigon rule curve, outlet of Long Lake. The south or regulating the diversion has been closed or reduced in dam is five miles below the south end of Long flow approximately 20 times. The Ogoki Res- Lake. It connects to Long Lake by a channel ervoir is then permitted to rise to the built across the divide and through a chain of maximum level of 1073.67 feet and the excess small creeks and lakes. These two dams, 82 inflow spilled down the Ogoki River into the miles apart, control a storage area of 62.3 Hudson Bay watershed. square miles. These works divert the runoff The average inflow to the Ogoki Reservoir is from 1,630 square miles of the Hudson Bay 5,000 cfs. Approximately 4,000 cfs are diverted drainage basin into the Great Lakes. to Lake Superior and the remaining 1,000 cfs The diversion was first started to flush pulp spilled down the Ogoki River to Hudson Bay. logs through the Aguasabon River. In 1948, a The Ogoki Reservoir diverts on a monthly hydroelectric power plant was constructed on basis from 2,000 cfs to 16,000 efs. The latter the river to utilize the increased flow. Since flow actually occurred with the Ogoki Reser- 1940 the supply to Long Lake has averaged voir level slightly more than 1074.0 feet. approximately 1,700 cfs. Of this amount, 1,450 In addition to the 20 occasilons mentioned, in cfs has been diverted to Lake Superior. The 1951, 1952, and 1953 during the high water remainder, some 250 cfs, has spilled down the level on the Great Lakes, the U.S. Department 111 Albany Ri Basin It dGOKI PROJECT Web- ftpid@ '-DIVERSION DAM' P/ ONTROL DAM v Little Jackfish Ri@ h K*n*g,.i Ri-, L-4L.k. DIVERSIOR DAM HYDRO PLANTS I LONG LAKE PROJECT -ipigon Ri- CONTROL DAM Ag-b- Ri4, PORT ARTHUR HYDRO PLAV MINNESOTA \@- __, \ S upe DULUT P ONTARIO IT SCALE OF M 5 1 IT 25 0 25 50 7 SAULT STE. MARIE ST. MARYS RIVER m Straits ofmacki- I L 0 tA St. GREEN BAY C WISCONSIN MICHIGAN cz KINGSTON C A MILWAUKE@ MUSKEGON BAY CITY VI TOR T 0 Ni. ralti- *OSWE HAMILTO ais NIAGARA St. Cl.i, Ri-, D FALLS ROCHESTER D., Plain. Ri- W.1 n WILMETTE k. St. claw 'BUFFALO CHICAG -"k* S:T Chi-g. Sanitary & Ship Canal DETROIT Dq a ET Jo T LOCKPL.'R TOLE L-J \j Cal.-I Sag Channel LEVE@AND PENNSYLVANIA ILLI IN OIS Iflimis Water"Y ilk OHIO INDIANA Artificial Factors 49 0 10 KENOGAMI DAM LONGLAC LD GERA TON KEt4OGAMISIS C KAY LAKE LAKE WINTERING INSERT LAKE DIVERSION INTO LAKE SUPERIOR 'N'77-71 STEEL 0 LAKE DIVERSION CHANNEL 1z LO@4G LAKE CONTROL DAM OWL LAKE LAKE SUPERIOR J SCHREIBERIP -,'IJACKFISH AGUASABON GENERATOR STATION SCALE IN MILES LAKE SUPERIOR 0 5 10 15 FIGURE 11-15 Long Lake Diversion 50 Appendix 11 0goki River WABOOSE DAM MOJIKIT LAKE SUMMIT CONTROL DAM SNAKE CREEK DAM A;\ SCALE IN MILES 4 0 4 8 CHAPPAIS LAKE DAM INSERT OGOKI DIVERSION CONTROL DAMS 0 Cj Lake DAM Nip DAM Thunchr Say LAKE @Sll, SUPERIOR 0 LAKE NIPIGON FIGURE 11-16 Ogoki Diversion Control Dams Artificial Factors 51 of State requested the government of Canada the canal, some to Lake Ontario and some to consider terminating temporarily the di- through the Welland River to the Niagara versions through the Long Lake-Ogoki works. River. The summit level of the canal was ap- The Hydro Electric Power Commission of On- proximately eight feet above Lake Erie level. tario agreed, closing off the diversion entirely The Welland Canal underwent numerous in each of the three years for part of the year changes between 1828 and 1881. In 1881 the and operating at reduced capacity during canal summit level was lowered to the level of other parts of the year when Lake Superior Lake Erie. Diverted lake water was used to and other Great Lakes levels were critical. supplement that drawn from the Grand River. There is, therefore, precedent for an approach The present diversion of water from Lake Erie by the U.S. Department of State to the gov- is through the Welland Ship Canal. Construc- ernment of Canada to secure a reduction in tion of this canal started in 1913 and was com- amounts being diverted through these works pleted in 1932. It connects Lake Ontario at for the purpose of alleviating high water con- Port Weller, Ontario, with Lake Erie at Port ditions in the Great Lakes. Colborne, Ontario, 18 miles west of the source The Long Lake-Ogoki diversions have of the Niagara River. raised the level of Lakes Michigan-Huron 41/2 The Welland Canal diversion does not bring inches and of Lake Erie 23/4 inches. water into or take it out of the Great Lakes Basin. When engineers lowered the canal summit to the Lake Erie stage, an artificial 6.1.1.2 Diversion out of Lake Michigan at Lake Erie basin outflow was created. The ca- Chicago nal functions as an additional connecting channel to Lake Ontario. This diversion has Water has been diverted out of the Lake lowered Lake Erie 37/8 inches, and Lakes Michigan basin at Chicago and into the Mis- Michigan-Huron 11/4 inches. Figure 11-17 sissippi River drainage basin since 1848. Sub- shows the location of this diversion. section 12.7.2 describes this diversion. Since 1938, a United States Supreme Court decree 29 has limited the diversion to a 6.1.1.4 New York State Barge Canal Diversion maximum of 1,500 efs plus pumpage, which from the Niagara River until recently has averaged 1,600 efs, for a total of 3,100 cfs. Recently, a Special Master of The New York State Barge Canal diversion the United States Supreme Court recom- is the oldest of the five diversions currently mended limiting the diversion to a maximum affecting Great Lakes water levels and out- of 3,200 efs, including domestic pumpage. The flows. This diversion began supplying water to Supreme Court issued a decree to this effect on the old Erie Canal in 1825. Figure 11-18 is a June 12,1967 .411 This diversion has lowered the map of the New York State Barge Canal Sys- level of Lakes Michigan-Huron 23/4 inches and tem. The general average canal flow is esti- of Lake Erie 15/8 inches. mated at 700 cfs. During months of navigation through the canal, early April to early De- 6.1.1.3 Diversion through the Welland Canal cember, this diversion from the Niagara River is increased to 1,100 cfs. A control gate near In addition to Lake Erie outflow reaching Pendleton, New York permits the canal to be Lake Ontario through the Niagara River, dewatered during months of nonnavigation. some water is diverted through the Welland Canal. This water is principally used to oper- ate the navigation locks and to generate 6.1.1.5 Erie Barge Canal Water Levels power at the DeCew Falls hydroelectric plant, three miles west of the Canal and connected to Water diversion is made from the Niagara it by a water course. Since 1950 the Welland River at a level comparable to the level of diversion has averaged approximately 7,000 eastern Lake Erie. The present canal route efs. Monthly diversions are shown at the end uses part of Tonawanda Creek, then proceeds of this appendix. east to Lockport, New York and from there Water to feed the summit level of the origi- through the long-level lay to Rochester. From nal Welland Canal was diverted from the this point, the barge route continues east to Grand River in Ontario, a tributary to Lake Troy on the Hudson River. High water levels Erie. The diverted water was carried through of the canal are discharged into Lake Ontario 52 Appendix 11 LAKE ONTARIO YOUNGSTOWN NIAGARA-ON- THE-LAKE PORT WELLER a-: LEWISTON ST. CATHARINES B D c A NIAGARA FALLS NIAGARA FALLS E F- G WELLAND RIVER CH I PPAWA GRAND ISLAND ONTARIO WELLAND LEGEND LOCATION OF POWER PLANTS A-DECEW FALLS POWER PLANT B-SIR. ADAM BECK NIAGARA GENERATING STATION NO. 1 C-S R ADAM BECK NIAGARA 11 GENERATING STATION NO. 2 D-ROBERT MOSES NIAGARA POWER PLANT 7- E-ONTARIO POWER GENERATING STATION F-CANADIAN NIAGARA GENERATING STATION G-TORONTO POWER GENERATING STATION 7- FORT ERIE BUFFALO SCALE IN MILES 1 0 1 2 3 PORT COLBORNE LAKE ERIE FIGURE 11-17 Welland Canal-DeCew Falls Power Plant Artificial Factors 53 CANA@@_ u@4_1 FED-STATES LAKE CHAMPLAIN 0 N T A R 1 0 L A K E 0 N T A R 1 0 OSWEGO OSWEGO CANAL UT ERIE CA HAL ONEIDA LAKE ek TONA A ROCHESTER 50,CP, 9LA,ig ONONDAG LAKE SYR SE 41V41 4. CAYUGA & SENECA BUFFALO CANA, LAKE ERIE CA@UGA LAKE TROY SENECA LAKE IN E W Y 0 R K I 0 ITHACA o MONTOUR FALLS SCALE IN MILES 10 0 10 N 30 FIGURE 11-18 New York State Barge Canal System at various places. The main overflow is 6.1.1.7 Power Diversion at Niag ara Falls through the Oswego Canal. This short route links Oswego at a junction with the main The largest diversion of water in the Great stream approximately 30 miles south of that Lakes system is made from the upper Niagara city. New York City has had a direct water River for power purposes. Diverted water is route to the Great Lakes since 1918 through passed through the power plants and returned the Hudson River and the Barge Canal. to the lower Niagara River. Diversions to the high-head power plants range to almost 100,000 efs on the United States side and to 6.1.1.6 Water Commerce and Hydroelectric approximately 66,000 efs on the Canadian side, Power if sufficient water is available in the Niagara River. The Treaty of 1950 between the United The primary use of Lake Erie water diver- States and Canada requires that 100,000 cfs sion is for operation of an inland waterway for flow over the Niagara Falls during daylight shipping. Secondary uses are artifical lake hours in the tourist season and 50,000 cfs at all level control and inland water quality control. other times. Some of the diversion outflow is used to Although these diversions are very large, energize various hydroelectric power de- control works have been constructed in the velopments at locks or other breaks in the river to hold natural river levels and provide grade of the canal. The diversions made from maximum water available for power purposes the Niagara River and the natural outflow of while providing for Treaty flow requirements Lake Erie do not affect Lake Erie levels as to pass over the Falls. Figure 11-19 shows the much as they would if they were made directly relative location of the power diversions, the from the Lake. Lake level studies usually control structure, and Lake Erie. overlook the effects of these small diversions. The Power Authority of the State of New 54 Appendix 11 b 6-1 - :7 14 '7 "P FIGURE 11-19 Niagara Falls-Power Entity Intakes and Control Structure York diverts water through a pair of covered foot tolerance on a monthly mean hosis. Under concrete conduits from a point approximately these tolerances the effect of the Niagara two miles above the Falls to a point four miles River power diversions on Lake Erie levels is downstream from the Falls. The Hydro Elec- considered negligible. tric Power Commission of Ontario diverts water through a pair of tunnels and an open canal from a point 11/2 miles above the Falls to 6.2 Summary of Diversion Effects a point four miles downstream. Without com- pensating control works, these large diver- The ultimate effects of existing diversions sions would have lowered levels of the Niagara at the rates shown on water levels of the Great River approximately four feet in the vicinity Lakes are summarized in Table 11-28. of the intakes and would have significantly Changes in these rates will change the effects lowered the levels of the rest of the upper on water levels. river. Diversions affect the inflows and outflows of To compensate for the power diversion, a Lake Superior and Lake Ontario, but the control structure has been constructed levels are relatively unaffected because allow- downstream from the intakes. The structure ances are made for such diversions in rule is 2120 feet long and has 18 gates each 100 feet curves of the regulation plans. The diversion long and 10.5 feet high. The structure is oper- effects given in Table 11-28 are the ultimate ated to maintain approximately the same effects of diversion, that is, the magnitude of levels in the upper river as would have occur- the effects will not change if the diversion is to red naturally for a given river flow. raise the levels of Lake Michigan by one-half River levels are maintained to a t 0.5 foot inch, and to lower the levels of Lake Erie by tolerance on a daily mean basis and to.a _-t 0.3 23/4- inches. Artificial Factors 55 TABLE11-28 Ultimate Effects of Existing Diversion on Water Levels:(+) Diversion Raises Level or (-) Diversion Lowers Level Long Welland Net Diversion Lake-Ogoki Chicago Canal Effects Annual Rate 5,000 cfs 3,100 cfs 7,000 cfs Lake Michigan- +0.37 ft. or -0.23 ft. or -0.10 ft. or +0.04 ft. or Huron +4 1/2 in. -2 3/4 in. -1 1/4 in. +1/2 in. Lake Erie +0.23 ft. or -0.14 ft. or -0.32 ft. or -0.23 ft. or +2,3/4 in. -1 5/8 in. -3 7/8 in. -2 3/4 in. Diversion of water may be into, out of, or for the 25-foot navigation project in the 1930s within the Great Lakes Basin itself. "Out of" and for the 27-foot project completed in 1962. and "within the Basin" diversions deprive the It is noted that the material dredged in deep- Lake or Lakes and connecting river or rivers ening the channels for these projects was in of the diverted quantity of water that would large part deposited in the river in areas have increased the level or flow in that portion where it does not impede navigation. of the Great Lakes system. The United States has developed prelimi- Diversion of water into one of the Lakes nary plans to install submerged sills across from another drainage basin raises the levels the bed of the St. Clair River in its contracted and outflows of the Lake into which the water but deep reach near Port Huron, Michigan, to is diverted. One should not confuse a diversion provide compensation of Lakes Michigan- with a withdrawal whereby the amount of Huron levels for the lowering of the levels due water withdrawn from a Lake is necessarily to dredging for the 25-foot and 27-foot naviga- returned to the Lake or connecting river in tion projects. This would restore Lakes the same general vicinity (except for consump- Michigan-Huron levels to 1933 conditions. tive losses-that amount of water withdrawn Agreement in principle exists between the and not ieturned). two countries whereby the United States will Tables 11-29 and 11-30 list the diversions undertake, as an integral part of these dredg- presently in effect in the Great Lakes Basin. ing projects, the installation of compensatory These provide separate listings for United works to offset the effects of increased channel States and Canadian diversions. Additionally, depths. This compensatory part of the dredg- future U.S. diversions known to be in the ing projects has not yet been carried out be- planning stage are also provided in Table cause the extent of the effects remains to be 11-31. coordinated and agreed upon between Canada and the U.S.; the best method of compensa- tion remains to be agreed upon; and because 6.3 Dredging in the St. Clair-Detroit Rivers the matter merited a deferred decision in light of the comprehensive systems approach being The 1926 report of the Joint Board of En- developed by the International Joint Commis- gineers entitled "St. Lawrence Waterway" sion's present study. It would not be reason- attributes approximately 0.3 foot of the low- able to provide compensation without con- ering of Lakes Michigan-Huron levels to the sidering the overall context of probably future commercial dredging of gravel that occurred major international regulation projects. between 1908 and 1925 from the contracted Model studies by the Corps of Engineers reach of the St. Clair River in the vicinity of Waterways Experiment Station at Vicksburg, the Point Edward Docks. In the report the re- Mississippi, have determined the best location mainder of the total lowering discussed (0.6 and arrangement of submerged sills as a foot) is not definitely attributed to anything. method of compensation. Further negotia- The Corps of Engineers estimates the un- tions with Canada are required to reach compensated lowering of Lakes Michigan- agreement on a specific plan: Tentative loca- Huron levels to be 0.59 foot, due to dredging tion of these sills is shown on Figure 11-20. .56 Appendix 11 TABLE 11-29 U.S. Diversions of the Great Lakes Annual Period From To Description Average (cfs) Covered St. Marys River St. Marys River Edison Soo Electric Co. 27,100 1959-1968 U.S. Power Canal 2 12,580 1959-1968 U.S. Navigation Canals 755 1959-1968 Lake Michigan Basin Mississippi River Chicago Metro Sanitary 3 Basin District and Ship Canal 3,254 1959-1968 Niagara River Lake Ontario New York State Barge Canal 734 1959-1968 Niagara River Niagara River Robert Moses Niagara Powerhouse 72,100 1965-1968 Black Rock Canal 10 1965-1968 St. Lawrence River St. Lawrence River St. Lawrence Powerhouse (Combined International) 252,300 1965-1968 Long Sault Dam For emergency uses only. No anticipated flows. Massena Canal (Intake) 40 1960-1968 Wiley-Dondero Canal4 590 1960-1968 Lake Huron Lake Huron, Lake City of Detroit Water Intake5 1,250 St. Clair, and capacity Detroit River 1Contract Edison Soo Electric Company and Department of Army effective 30 June 1950 for 30 year period with payment of $100,000 annually for use of water. 2Projected 1985 estimate for combined Canadian and United States average for navigation purposes at Sault Ste. Marie is 1,000 cfs. 3Past Authority--The decree of the Supreme Court entered on 21 April 1930 required the reduction of the diversion then in effect and limited the diversion subsequent to 31 December 1938, to not more than an annual rate of 1,500 cfs, exclusive of domestic pumpage. Present Authority--No diverting of any of the waters of Lake Michigan or its watershed into the Illinois Waterway in excess of an average for all of them combined of 3,200 efs. (87 Supreme Court 1774 decided 12 June 1967, eff-ective 1 March 1970). 4Includes Eisenhower and Snell Locks. The 1985 estimated projection for the Snell Lock is 370 cfs plus 1180 cfs for the projected new major Cornwall Lock in 1985 (Canadian). Total estimate Cornwall and Wiley-Dondero Canal 1,550 cfs annual average. 5Returns of the unconsumed portion thereof to the Great Lakes system at Lake Huron (City of Flint), Lake St. Clair, and Detroit River (Zug Island). Dikes have been constructed in the Detroit 6.4 Regulatory Works in the St. Marys River River to control the river discharge capacity by an amount equal to the enlargements in Since completion of control works in the St. that river for the navigation channels and thus Marys River at Sault Ste. Marie in August compensate for the effect of the navigation 1921, outflows from Lake Superior have been improvements on lake levels. Compensating completely regulated in accordance with the works in the Detroit River are shown in Fig- Orders of Approval of the International Joint ure 11-21. In the St. Clair River the effect of Commission issued May 26 and 27, 1914.29 dredging has been partially offset by deposit- Requirements are that the works be oper- ing material excavated from the navigation ated to maintain the monthly mean levels of channels in other areas of the river. However, Lake Superior as nearly as possible between the levels of Lakes Michigan-Huron have been elevations 602.1 and 603.6 feet above mean lowered approximately seven inches by the tide at New York (the elevations referred to in work done in the St. Clair River for the 25- IGLD [1955] are 600.5 and 602.0 feet). Such foot and 27-foot navigation projects. operations must not hinder navigation. Artificial Factors 57 TABLE 11-30 Canadian Diversions of the Great Lakes Annual Average Period From- To Description (cfs) Covered Albany River- Hudson Bay Basin Lake Superior Basin Ogoki-Long Lake Projects 6,110 1959-1968 St. Marys River St. Marys River Great Lakes Power Canal 2 23,0005 1959-1968 (Power Diversion) 18,000 1970-present Canadian Navigation Canal 100 1959-1968 Lake Huron Thames River, Lake City of London, Ontario 30 cfs daily average St. Clair Basin Water Intake maximum capacity 85 cfs Lake Erie Lake Ontario Welland Canal and DeCew Falls Power Plant3 7,290 1959-1968 Niagara River Niagara River Sir Adam Beck Powerhouse 55,800 1965-1968 Canadian Niagara Powerhouse 200 1965-1968 Toronto Powerhouse 600 1965-1968 Ontario Powerhouse 1,000 1965-1968 St. Lawrence River St. Lawrence River St. Lawrence International (shown on U.S. diversion Powerhouse 4 list) Raisin River 25 cfs for 100 days/year 1Diversions of water from the Albany River basin, a part of the Hudson Bay watershed, through the Long Lake and Ogoki projects in Canada. 2Included approximately 5,000 cfs for Abitibi Paper Company for mechanical power purposes. 3Water from Lake Erie reaches Lake Ontario by way of the Welland Canal and the tailrace of DeCew Falls hydroelectric power plant, located three miles west of the Welland Canal. The DeCew Falls plant draws its water from the Welland Canal. 4Purpose is for "stock watering," recreation and for fish and wildlife in the summer. The Raisin River Conservation Authority is to reimburse Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario for loss of power revenue at Saunders Generating Powerhouse. 5Starting in May 1970 installation of an 8,000 hp electric motor eliminated the use of direct hydropowered grinders which for many years had served the same purpose; net result is a decrease in water requirements. Abitibi Paper Company canal was modified in May 1972 to restore former discharge capacity on an as-needed basis when level is high on Lake Superior. TABLE 11-31 Future Planned or Proposed U.S. Diversions of the Great Lakes Annual From To Description Average (cfs) Mississippi River Lake Michigan Basin Wisconsin River to Fox River 1 Little Calumet River, Indiana and Illinois2 Lake Erie Lake Ontario Lake Erie-Lake Ontario Canal 3 2,040 1 Channel connection exists and minimal quantities may be used to improve water quality conditions on Fox River during low flow periods. 2 Flood control dam and pump stations to re-divert to Lake Michigan this amount which is a part of the present Chicago diversion while maintaining by pumping continual flow throughout the year in the Little Calumet River. 3 Based on 4 locks each with an 80 foot lift. The diversion through the Welland Canal may be less in 1985 than it is at the present time. 58 Appendix 11 JW 8 SIG STAO R8. Flam ILAKE HURON Ewemc. marked *(571 'AN t@, p,ival, ends Dunn Paper Co TACK VHanc.-k St F R 6 & D Concr,ete Proolucts Ltd. Sarnia Wate-orks 4 P. P Canadian NatiQ'a a Rys.. V u C, Sarnia Yach I FG `@/ STA (561 .-lictoria Ave.. EIDEI lue W., Brid,e C .155 ft. ce M hi an =ve Dr, o A_ m_, P wl R Alexander A a1z r INT ED RD < L) I Canada Steamship Lines Ltd. Gmtiot Rge Lts 4@' Standard Oil Div o I O@Iscsot Foli. M d MT- S 0,@dga,'G- oena r-711 402 25 PARK Water ::1L -111011 Fil".1i. STACKAIF-1 Bart FF 3 Hospit ,,_ne, St. Exmouth St. r, ElevatorCo.Div. Ple L .1 MOIS Ltd. F---1 r PORT HURON Olt G@o,t. Dock & Warehouse 5 oov 11M. in Y. A. 0 Pom Hu" Nl.-.. Inc. o u \1 Hoist J .-j - I r -@F@F UNTAIN .I E[1111 UL--@ Bardis ,- )ster Builders V E-Clair -C..n@ty @J', SCALE IN FEET , F@g )L F- Court House Iya SPI jpPly Co ;o- -JL --1 n 1000 2 0 [email protected]; t-Y --c-ist - B I d It F I Ltd on - a on ue s, FRF o SPIR Sears Roe uc Cc o. c. 40 r Ave., GAS HOLDER STACK I 2,2 Se,age Treatment CUPOLA I ur Plant lilb FIGURE 11-20 St. Clair River Compensation Works Tentative Location of Sills Artificial Factors 59 the flows in the canals-are supervised di- rectly by the International Lake Superior Board of Control established by the Commis- GROSSELE DIKE sion in accordance with the terms of. its Order .29 STONY 1. -E IN 1- The control structure in the St. Marys River o GOG 2 0 -0 (above the rapids at Sault Ste. Marie) consists of 16 steel gates, each 51 feet long and built between concrete and masonry piers approx- imately eight feet wide (Figure 11-22). It was DIKE completed in 1916 except for a closure of flow between the southern end of the gated struc- ONTARIO MICHIGAN ture and other works situated in the river along the United States shore. The flow through this 250-foot section remained uncon- AMHERSTBURG trolled until the closure was completed in Au- gust 1921. A general plan of the regulatory BOIS BLANC works is shown in Figure 11-23 and includes distribution of flow (estimated diverted amount through the power and navigation canals) for September 1970. The plan first used in actual regulation of any of the Great Lakes was developed in 1916 for controlling the outflows of Lake Superior. This plan, sometimes referred to as the Sabin C= COMPENSATING Rule, provided a tentative basis for operating WORKS IN 1912. the regulating gates before closure of the sec- tion south of the structure, and its use was COMPENSATING WORKS IN @13@ 8,, continued after such closure until 1941. COMPENSATING The rule was used merely as a guide. A plan WORKS ADDED.I FOR 27-FOOT developed for the Board of Control by the U.S. PROJECT Lake Survey and designated Rule P-5 44 re- placed the Sabin Rule and was used until 1951. Rule P-5 increased minimum flows for power FIGURE 11-21 Detroit River Compensation to the greatest extent possible without detri- Works ment to navigation. A plan designated the Rule of 194944 was developed primarily in recognition of the in- The Orders further provide that the regula- creased supplies of water to Lake Superior tion plan shall cause no monthly mean eleva- coming from the Hudson Bay watershed tion greater than the maximum monthly through the Long Lake and Ogoki projects. mean actually experienced in any year of re- The Rule of 1949 has been used since 1951, but corded high water (greater than 602.0 IGLD, was modified in 1955 to improve results. [19551). Whenever the monthly mean level of The Rule of 1949, and since 1955, the Mod- the Lake is less than 600.5 IGLD (1955), the ified Rule of 1949 '44 have been followed closely. total discharge permitted shall be no greater The most extensive departure from the rule than that which it would have been at that low was in 1964 when Lake Superior had a favor- stage and under the discharge conditions able supply-storage, while the levels of Lakes which prevailed before 1887. Michigan-Huron were setting record lows. To guard against unduly high stages of Beginning in April 1964, releases of water water in the lower St. Marys River, the excess from Lake Superior were increased above discharge at any time over and above that those called for by the rule. Increased outflows which would have occurred at a like stage of were continued throughout the year, averag- Lake Superior prior to 1897 shall be restricted ing approximately 8,500 cfs larger, from April so that the elevation of the water surface im- through December 1964, than rule outflows. mediately below the locks shall be no greater The International Joint Commission was than 582.9 IGLD (1955). The operation of the kept informed of the situation and approved river control works and the power canals-i.e., the Control Board's recommendation of June 60 Appendix 11 ,T FIGURE 11-22 Lake Superior Control Structure-St. Marys River at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, Looking Upstream NOTE: INDICATED FLOWS ARE FOR SEPTEMBER 1970 SAULT STE. MARIE ONTARIO Qy,_4 7_4,qkeSP0 CO-CANAL 18,000 CFS- 100 CFS I GATE COD 5,500 CFS W 0 ST. MARYS FALLS 12,700 CFS U-S- POWER CANAL 1,500 CFS SOUTH CANAL 30,000 CFS----- ftsotv Ut r 4 SAULT STE. MA IE MICH 1000 500- SCALE IN FEE.T 0 1 @060 FIGURE 11-23 Distribution of Flow for the St. Marys River A,rtificial Factors 61 19, 1964, that increased releases of 10,000 cfs on project operations and, if necessary, can over the rule amounts be continued as long as control the outflow from Lake Ontario. the supplies to Lake Superior remained favor- able, and the large differential between the Lake Superior and Lakes Michigan-Huron 6.6 Lake Ontario Regulation levels continued. Rule outflows depending on levels of Lake Lake Ontario regulation follows the Inter- Superior under the Modified Rule of 1949 are national Joint Commission's Orders of Ap- shown in Figure 11-24. Rating curves for the proval dated October 29, 1952, and July 2, regulatory structure are in Figure 11-25. 1956,29 and the International St. Lawrence Stage-duration curves for all months and for River Board of Control directly supervises it. the open-water season are shown in Figures The Orders provide that the Lake is to be regu- 11-26 and 11-27 for the period 1900-1968. They lated within a range of monthly mean stages are adjusted to fixed diversion, outlet, and as nearly as possible during the navigation other conditions: season. On IGLD (1955) these stages are from (1) constant diversion of 5,000 cfs into Lake elevation 242.8 feet to elevation 246.8 feet. Superior from Long Lake and Ogoki projects The Orders provide that certain additional (2) Lake Superior regulated in accordance requirements are to be met. The Order of July with the September 1955 Modified Rule 2, 1956, lists eleven operating criteria which (3) constant diversion of 3,200 efs out of Lake are quoted below with elevations converted to Michigan at Chicago IGLD (1955): (4) 1933 preproject outlet conditions for Lake Huron Criterion (a): The regulated outflow from Lake On- (5) constant diversion of 7,000 efs through tario from April 1 to December 15 shall be such as not to reduce the minimum level of Montreal Harbor Welland Canal from Lake Erie to Lake On- below that which would have occurred in the past with tario the supplies to Lake Ontario since 1860 adjusted to a (6) 1953 outlet conditions for Lake Erie condition assuming a continuous diversion out of the (7) Lake Ontario regulated in accordance Great Lakes basin of.3,100 cubic feet per second at with Plan 1958-D Chicago and a continuous diversion into the Great Lakes basin of 5,000 cubic feet per second from the Albany River basin. Criterion (b): The regulated winter outflows from Lake Ontario from December 15 to March 31 shall be 6.5 Regulatory Works in the St. Lawrence as large as feasible and shall be maintained so that River the difficulties of winter operation are minimized. Criterion (c): The regulated outflow from Lake On- The regulation of Lake Ontario began in tario during the annual spring break-up in Montreal Harbor and in the river downstream shall not be April 1960 as part of the operation of the St. greater than would have occurred assuming supplies Lawrence Seaway and Power Project. Princi- of the past as adjusted. pal regulatory works are shown in Figure Criteriod (d): The regulated outflow from Lake On- tario during the annual flood discharge from the Ot- 11-28. tawa River shall not be greater than would have oc- The Robert Moses-Robert H. Saunders curred assuming supplies of the past as adjusted. Power Dam extends 3,300 feet across the St. Criterion-(e): Consistent with other requirements, Lawrence River from Barnhart Island, New the minimum regulated outflows from Lake Ontario shall be such as to secure the maximum dependable York to Cornwall, Ontario. Normally the full flow for power. discharge of the river flows through the power Criterion (g): Consistent with other requirements, dam. Upstream of the power dam, the river the levels of Lake Ontario shall be regulated for the formerly flowed in two channels. Now the benefit of property owners on the shores of Lake On- tario in the United States and Canada so as to reduce channel north of Barnhart Island is closed by the extremes of stage which have been experienced. the power dam. The channel south of the is- Criterion (h): The regulated monthly mean level of land is closed by the Long Sault Dam. This Lake Ontario shall not exceed elevation 246.77 with dam is a curved axis concrete structure 2,960 the supplies of the past as adjusted. feet long with thirty spillway gates. If re- Criterion (i): Under regulation, the frequency of oc- currence of monthly mean elevations of approxi- quired, the entire river flow could pass mately 245.77 and higher on Lake Ontario shall be less through the Long Sault gates. The power pool than would have occurred in the past with the extends 25 miles upstream from the Moses- supplies of the past as adjusted and with present Saunders power dam to Iroquois Dam, a con- channel conditions in the Galop Rapids Section of the St. Lawrence. crete structure 1,800 feet long at the upstream Criterion (j): The regulated level of Lake Ontario on end of what is known as Lake St. Lawrence. April 1 shall not be lower than elevation 242.77. The Iroquois Dam was built to provide flexibility regulated monthly mean level of the lake from April 1 62 Appendix 11 to November 30 shall be maintained at or above eleva- 6.7 Increased Water Level in Lake Ontario At- tion 242.77. tributable to Gut Dam Criterion (k): In the event of supplies in excess of the supplies of the past as adjusted, the works in the In- ternational Rapids Section shall be operated to pro- In 1903 the Canadian Government con- vide -all possible relief to the riparian owners up- structed the Gut Channel Dam. The works stream and downstream. In the event of supplies less crossed the International Boundary in the than the supplies of the past as adjusted, the works in upper reaches of the St. Lawrence River in the International Rapids Section shall be operated to provide all possible relief to navigation and power order to improve navigation conditions (Fig- interests. ure 11-32). U.S. approval for the dam de- pended upon Canada assuming responsibility Preliminary studies made for the Commis- for any damage to U.S. property caused by its sion developed a number of plans for regulat- construction or operation. As a result of the ing Lake Ontario. The results, evaluated by very high water levels occurring in the Great engineering consultants, became the basis for Lakes during the early 1950s, the Interna- establishing the range of stage for regulation tional Joint Commission was asked in 1952 to of the Lake and the operating criteria. The study the various factors affecting the fluctu- Corps of Engineers helped to develop these ation of water levels on Lake Ontario, includ- plans, documented in the International Lake ing the effects of the Gut Dam. Studies spon- Ontario Board of Engineers final report .22 sored by the Commission, including gage rela- The first plan used in the regulation of Lake tionships, backwater computations, and hy- Ontario, Plan 1958-A, was developed by the draulic model, determined that the Gut Dam International St. Lawrence River Board of did increase water levels in Lake Ontario be- Control on the basis of the approved range of tween four and five inches, depending upon stage and criteria. Plan 1958-A was used by the stage or discharge in the St. Lawrence the Board of Control from April 1960 until River.21 As the result of the 1951-52 high January 1962, when Plan 1958-C44 replaced it. water period on Lake Ontario, U.S. lakefront Plan 1958-C reduced the frequency of low property owners claimed damages resulting flows at Montreal, and the revised plan, Plan from the effects of the Gut DaM,40 which was 1958-D, became effective in October 1963. The removed in January 1953. Corps of Engineers participated in developing By applying the effects of the Gut Dam (Ta- these plans. The studies, one for each plan, are ble 11-32) to the 1951-52 hydrograph for Lake documented in Board of Control reports to the Ontario, the daily mean lake stage is increased International Joint Commission, dated May by 0.4 foot for stage occurrences up to eleva- 1958, October 1961, and July 1963, respective- tion 247.3 feet, and by amounts following a ly. straight-line variation between 0.4 and 0.33 Regulation Plan 1958-D44 is the current plan foot for changes in elevation between 6.1 and approved for the Board's use in consultation 8.1 feet respectively. The latter is the with the Power Authority of the State of New maximum daily mean stage in the 1951-52 York, the Hydro Electric Power Commission of period. The generalized evaluation proce- Ontario, and other interests concerned with dures presented are based on conditions dur- compliance with- the criteria and other re- ing the two-year period, 1951-52, when most of quirements of the Orders of Approval. The the claimed damages apparently occurred. most extensive departure from the plan was It is presumed that, had the Gut Dam not during the winter of 1964-65, when outflows been in existence, similar recorded levels from the Lake were reduced as much as 25,000 would have resulted, but with a mean eleva- efs below the plan minimum. This was to pre- tion from 0.4 to 0.33 foot lower throughout the vent lake levels from dropping excessively in period, according to the flow conditions de- winter and therefore to increase the amount scribed above. A 1965 agreement for final dis- of Lake Ontario storage available to benefit all position of U.S. lakefront property owners' water uses. claims against Canada provided for estab- An outflow duration curve for Lake Ontario lishment of a three-member international ar- under Regulation Plan 1958-D is shown in Fig- bitral tribunal. The Lake Ontario Claims Tri- ure 11-29. Stage-duration curves for all bunal of United States and Canada has dispo- months are shown in Figures 11-30 and 11-31. sition of claims under consideration. NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP MAXIMUM SUMMER OUTFLOW: 16 GATES MAXIMUM WINTER OUTFLOW: 85 -601.16- 601.09 - - 104 - - 103 601.05 - 601.0 601.00 - 600.99 - - 9 1 - Ln 103 91 -600.94-- - 600.90- _____=600.91 -@ 600 89@ - 8 1 __ 0 90 8.1 -600.84- _j -76- 600.78 =_600.81 - 600.80 - 70 81 100 -600.73- 70 600.70 - 600.7 1 600.69 600.70 _ -600.72 90 70 68 68 < --70- 76 600.6 2 600.62 600 61- 600.60 - - 600.60 600.53 98 600.53 - 68 600.5 :=600.51 600.50- -=600.51=- -600.49-- LLJ 70- LLJ 600.44- 89 LL _68- 70 __75 - =600.4 1_= 600.40 600.4 - z -600.33- - 600.34- -98-- 80 68 _j =-600.3 1 600.3 1= - 7 5 - 600.31 600.30 LLJ > 67 89 -600.27- LLJ 600.22- 75 -70-- -600.13- - 600.16 -- 600.15 0 __=600.11=_ _=_600.11--80 70 --67-- LU - 600.04- - 600.04- 2- 600.0 -67- 70--- - D cn -599.96- 70 599.92 599.89 - 599.86- 67 67 z 599.75- < 67 MINIMUM SUMMER OUTFLOW: 58 59930 - -599.6 _j z -599.5 0 MINIMUM WINTER OUTFLOW: 55 NOTE: GATES TO BE SET ON THE FIRST OF EACH MONTH, DE- - -PENDING ON THE MEAN STAGE OF THE PRECEDING_ MONTH. RULE OUTFLOWS ARE GIVEN IN THOUSANDS OF 599,92 61 CFS. FIGURE 11-24 Regulation of Lake Superior-Modified Rule of 1949 NUMBER OF GATES OPEN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I ]/I I I / I I I 1 1/1 1 1/1 1 1 1/1 1 1 11 1 Z I I/ IA ZI y 11 A I y Y X 7 1 1 10, 602 It I 1 11 A / I ( I/ 0or oo, I .1o / , " I/ /I "' Y Y L0 - - - In 0) 7 000, '0' 1 It I VI 601 /I y 11 Y < I I y I If VI A VI A I/ /I I LLJ V 0" '00 , Y 10, LLJ -- - - - - - - - LL Y A X LAJ 00, , , 0, 10" o 0" < U) y '0' 600 r / " Y A 1 '01 LLI IL ItI I I I ,'A,,' Y itI I 1 00, CAI A, / LLI 01 10, '00,10, "1 V NOTES OUTFLOW IS TOTAL DISCHARGE FROM LAK I f II f y FLOW THROUGH POWER AND NAVIGATION PASSING RAPIDS AT SAULT STE. MARIE, y 'r Y."// THROUGH GATED CONTROL STRUCTURE 599 J, /1 0, /YYY I RAPIDS. I I I I It A 11 V llvlelr 01 RATING CURVES BASED ON FLOWS THROU CHANNELS TOTALING 65,000 CFS. 77= =lm _j I -FIM, -77 1 LI I I I 1 1 70 80 90 100 110 120 OUTFLOW IN 1000'S OF CFS FIGURE 11-25 Lake Superior Rating Curves for Various Gate Openings V 'Z I I El A-1 Ll +H4+ Artificial Factors 65 603 +3 2E LU 602 +2 Uj (n Ln 0) 0 z 601 + _j 0 0 w 2 _j Uj 600 0M "i Uj 0 w (n > LU 599 0 Uj a NOTE: STAGES ARE THE RECORDED MONTHLY 598 LAKE LEVELS ADJUSTED TO FIXED DIVERSION- -2 AND OUTLET CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN (n G 597 PARA IRAPH 614 1-3 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 PERCENT OF TIME AT OR ABOVE INDICATED STAGE FIGURE 11-26 Lake Superior Stage Duration for All Months 1900-1968 603 +3 < +2 602 F- 0) 0 z 601 +1 _j 0 _j 0 x _j 0 Uj x @1 600 .0M Uj Uj x CL Uj 0 Z) L@ LU U) > Uj __j0 599 W 0 NOTE: STAGES ARE THE RECORDED MONTHLY 598 LAKE LEVELS ADJUSTED TO FIXED DIVERSION -2 AND OUTLET CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN U) PARAGRAPH 6.4 597 1 1 1 1 L __3 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 STAGE ABOVE OR BELOW LOW WATER DATUM FIGURE 11-27 Lake Superior Stage Duration for April-November 1900-1968 66 Appendix 11 SCALE IN MILFS LONG SAULT CORNWALL ONTARIO So"I ORRISSURG LAKE ,j@jffi. :@W@,Er4CE IROQUOIS MASSENA FOR MORE DETAIL IROQUOIS LOCK WADDINGTON NEW YORK SEE INSET BELOW IROQUOIS AM JOHNSTON ONTARIO LAKE ST. LAWRENCE z, ST. LAWRENCE PRESCOTT \,I 0- z BARNHART ISLAND POWER DAM CORNWALCL LONG SAULT "_CANADA T@A S, I LWAY T T OGDENSBURG SPILLWAY T 01 DAM CORNWALL ISLAND EISENHOWER LOCK WILEY DONDERO CANAL SNELL L SCALE IN FEET L 0 NEW YORK FIGURE 11-28 Lake Ontario Regulatory Works 340 - 0 _j 310 :D C) _j '0 280 U) 0 FO u) 250 < 0 0 220 190 NOTE: OUT -OWS ARE THE RECORDED -MONTHLY ST. LAWRENCE RIVER FLOWS- ADJUSTED TO FIXED DIVERSION AND OUTLET :@@z CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 6.4 160 1 1 1 1 1 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 PERCENT OF TIME AT OR ABOVE INDICATED STAGE FIGURE 11-29 Lake Ontario Outflows for All Months 1900-1968 Artificial Factors 67 248 247 +4.2 Uj < 246 +3.2 Uj U) LO Z: 245 +2.2 0 0 3: 0 0 _j 1 244 +1.2 LU LU 0 U_ 0 Uj w > @c 243 +0.2 0 < M j < NOTE: STAGES ARE THE RECORDED MONTHLY < 242 1 LAKE LEVELS ADJUSTED TO FIXED DIVERSION --0.8 AND OUTLET CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN F_ PARAGRAPH 6.4 241 - I I I I I __ -1.8 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 PERCENT OF TIME AT OR ABOVE INDICATED STAGE FIGURE 11-30 Lake Ontario Stage Duration for All Months 1900-1968 247 - +4.2 < +3.2 246 V) < >-2 3: Ln 245 +2.2 0 0 0 o 2 244 +1.2 z w 0 0 w > < 243 +0.2 _j NOTE: SIAGES ARE THE RECORDED MONTHLY < __LA Cn 242 KE LEVELS ADJUSTED TO FIXED DIVERSION- -0.8 AND OUTLET CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 6.4 241 1.8 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 PERCENT OF TIME AT OR ABOVE INDICATED STAGE FIGURE 11-31 Lake Ontario Stage Duration for April-November 1900-1968 68 Appendix 11 SCALE IN MILES SEE INSET OF 0 GALOP ISLAND OGDENSBURG ONTARIO SITE OF GUT-DAM GALOP 0 ISLAND KINGSTON 64 0 CAPEVINCENT PRINCE EDW D ISLAND SACKETS HARBOR Ell HENDERSON HARBOR STONY TORONTO LAKE CANADA ONTARIO POINT TATES MEXICO BAY SELKIRK SHORES NINE MILE POINT r- OSWEGO IRONDEOUOLT LITTLE SODUS BAY LCOTT OAK ORCHARD BAY SODUSBAY HAMILTON PULTNEYVII LE NIAGARA FALLS ROCHESTER BUFFALO NEW YORK LAKE ERIE SCALE IN MILES L 'T@ '77@ 0 10 20 30 40 50 FIGURE 11-32 Lake Ontario with Inset of Gut Dam Site TABLE 11-32 Summary of Effects of Gut Dam on Lake Ontario Water Levels River Discharge (cfs) 180,000 240,000 267,000 310,000 Lake Stage at Oswego, N.Y. (1935 Datum) +1.80 +4.48 +6.10 +8.10 Effect of Dam, in feet +0.40 +0.41 +0.40 +0.33 6.8 Effects of Factors on Ranges corded range of levels is increased by 0.2 foot to approximate the range that would have oc- The recorded high of Lake Superior in 1876 curred naturally. occurred prior to appreciable effect on the The recorded Lakes Michigan-Huron high levels by artificial factors. The recorded low of level of 1886 also occurred prior to appreciable the Lake occurred after the outflows were artificial influences on the levels. A review of fully regulated, but before diversion of water the recorded lows of February 1926, March into the Lake augmented supplies. The 1934, and March 1964, indicates that, with ad- minimum level was reached in 1926, and was justments for artificial factors, the low of approximately 0.2 foot higher than it would March 1964 is still the lowest level of record. have been with the natural outlet. The re- As of March 1964, the net effects of the Long Artificial Factors 69 Lake-Ogoki, Chicago, and Welland diversions applied to the recorded data which have been upon Lakes Michigan-Huron levels were prac- adjusted to constant diversion and outflow tically zero. At that time, the effect of Lake regimen conditions. Superior regulation on Lakes Michigan- Huron levels was also negligible. Engineers estimate the 1964 recorded low to be an all- time low because of rainfall shortages. Chan- TABLE 11-33 Comparison, Recorded Ranges nel changes in the St. Clair-Detroit Rivers with Approximate Natural Range of Great were not a factor. Lakes Levels, 1860-1970 (in feet) Based on the estimate given in the Joint Approximate Increase Board of Engineers' 1926 report,24 the total Recorded Range Natural Range in Range net effect on Lakes Michigan-Huron levels of channel changes in this river system prior to Superior 3.9 feet 4.1 feet -0.2 feet 1926 was a lowering of 0.6 foot. The Corps of Michigan 6.6 feet 5.6 feet 1.0 feet Huron 6.6 feet 5.6 feet 1.0 feet Engineers estimates the uncompensated ef- Erie 5.3 feet 4.9 feet 0.4 feet fect of dredging for the 25-foot and the 27-foot Ontario 6.6 feet 5.9 feet 0.7 feet navigation projects in the 1930s and 1960s was a lowering of 0.59 foot, making a total lowering effect to date of approximately one foot. The recorded Lakes Michigan-Huron low should 6.8.1 Other Factors be increased approximately one foot and the recorded range decreased by that amount in lee retardation and consumptive uses of order to approximate the range that would water are other factors to be considered. Al- have occurred naturally. though ice retardation is a natural occurrence, A comparison of the recorded levels of Lake current and future lake regulation plans Erie with the values adjusted for artificial fac- include flow limitations to alleviate ice effects. tors indicates that the adjusted maximum and These limitations result in a further artificial minimum levels would occur in the same factor affecting lake levels. Further details on months as the recorded high and low values. ice retardation have been provided in Section The adjustment made to the recorded high 5. of May 1952 to compensate for the net effect of artificial factors is estimated to be +0.1 foot; for the low of February 1936 it is estimated to 6.8.2 Ice Retardation be +0.5 foot. Therefore, one should decrease the recorded range of Lake Erie levels by 0.4 The only limitation imposed in the regula- foot in order to approximate the range that tion of Lake Superior is that lake outflow be would have occurred without the artificial limited to a maximum of 85,000 cfs, from early factors. December through April, because of ice condi- The International Lake Ontario Board of tions in the St. Marys River.44 Studies by the Engineers in its Final Report22 to the Interna- International St. Lawrence River Board of tional Joint Commission determined that arti- Control for the regulation of Lake Ontario im- ficial factors caused the June 1952 high on pose maximum flow in critical reaches of the Lake Ontario to be approximately 0.5 foot St. Lawrence River during February and higher than without these factors, and caused March to meet winter operating conditions. the November 1934 low to be approximately Ice booms are now installed each winter in 0.3 foot lower than without these factors. the Galop reach of the St. Lawrence River. However, with the adjustments applied the Data on ice conditions and winter flows are recorded level of May 1870 (247.74) would be- collected for each operating winter. These come the high. So far, the adjusted value for data are summarized in the April semiannual November 1934 would be the low of the past progress reports of the International St. century. The range given by the recorded Lawrence River Board of Control and the In- levels is therefore reduced by 0.7 foot in order ternational Joint Commission. Annual reports to approximate the range that would have oc- on winter operations are prepared jointly by curred naturally. the Hydro Electric Power Commission of On- A comparison of the recorded ranges with tario and the Power Authority of the State of the approximate ranges that would have oc- New York.34 Winter operations under the ap- eurred naturally appears in Table 11-33. The proved regulation plan have been successful term "basis of comparison" is frequently to date. 70 Appendix 11 6.8.3 Lake Erie and the Niagara River the Lakes, and could act as an artificial lake level control. lee conditions on the Niagara have mate- rially restricted the Lake Erie outflow for short periods. In connection with the use of Niagara River water for power, the Hydro 6.8.4 Consumptive Use of Water Electric Power Commission of Ontario and the Power Authority of the State of New York Waters of the Great Lakes are used along jointly determine methods to aid the passage the lakeshores and in the land drainage areas of ice at points where water is diverted from for many purposes, but the total effect on the river by the power entities. water quantities of the Lakes has been rela- Prior to the 1964-65 ice period,3 control en- tively small. The types of uses and amounts of gineers built a Commission-approved ice boom water completely withdrawn from the system in Lake Erie at the head of the Niagara River may be inferred from data in other appendix- to aid in the formation and maintenance of the es. An assessment of these uses is presented ice arch at the head of the river, and thus later in this appendix. Previously published reduce the adverse effects of ice on river levels estimates of consumptive losses of water were and flows. Experiences with ice booms are described in a report by the Regulation Sub- satisfactory.3 The retardation of flow from ice committee, International Great Lakes Levels jams is reduced considerably by the ice boom Working Committee." This report showed and the ice-escape channel near the power in- that 1965 consumptive water use within the takes. Great Lakes Basin totaled 2269 efs, and that In the long run, it is estimated that any low- 55 percent of it was consumed in the Lakes ering of Lake Erie levels will be slight. Long- Michigan-Huron basins and 30 percent in the term analysis of Lake Erie levels will be made Lake Erie basin. Based upon these consump- as data are assembled. tive rates, the levels of Lakes Michigan-Huron Water transportation interests want the and Lake Erie have been lowered more than navigation season lengthened. Use of ice- one inch. The levels of Lakes Superior and breakers, air bubblers, heating devices, or Ontario are maintained through regulation, other means of reducing ice formation for but this consumptive use has reduced the av- keeping channels open for the benefit of navi- erage outflow of Lake Ontario by nearly one gation could also affect outflows and levels of percent. Section 7 HISTORY AND PRESENT STATUS OF REGULATION AND REGULATION STUDIES 7.1 General tion plans must consider the effects of such regulation on many interests. In their unregulated state, variations in the levels and outflows of the Great Lakes are much smaller than they would be without the 7.1.1 Purposes large natural storage effects inherent in their vast surface area. During the last half- The basic purposes of this discussion are to century, however, many studies have consid- review the regulation studies of the past, to ered regulating the levels of one or more of evaluate the application of methods and plans the Lakes by controlling their outflows. with respect to regulation of Lake Superior Works constructed at their outlet rivers and Lake Ontario, and to bring out the inter- have controlled Lakes Superior and Ontario national nature of controlling the levels of the somewhat in this way. An international study Great Lakes. is in progress to determine whether further regulation of one or more of the Great Lakes is in the best interests of Canada and the United 7.2 Previous Studies States. Many of the earlier regulation studies were There have been about 30 studies relating to made during periods of low lake levels, and the the regulation of one or more of the Great primary objective was to improve depths for Lakes.27 This discussion specifically mentions navigation. In general, levels would have been 12. Six are investigations to demonstrate the raised by adoption of the suggested regulation feasibility of lake regulation; three are plans plans. A few of the earlier studies on Lakes already used in regulating Lake Superior; and Superior, Erie, and Ontario increased three are plans used in regulating Lake On- minimum outflow rates to improve depend- tario. able flows for hydropower. Except in certain studies on the regulation of Lakes Superior and Ontario, none has specifically planned a 7.2.1 Feasibility Studies reduction of high lake stages. The earlier lake regulation studies were A report on Regulation of Lake Superior based on considerably shorter lake level and dated December 30, 1911, by Noble and outflow records than those existing today, and Woodard, consulting engineers for the Michi- therefore did not include the broader objec- gan Lake Superior Power Company, devised a tives of contemporary investigations. The de- rule for regulation of the Lake with increased velopment of analysis techniques during the diversions of water for power operation pur- past decade, including application of automa- poses at Sault Ste. Marie. The study en- tic data processing and computer techniques, visioned a control structure differing from facilitates more thorough investigation. How- that finally constructed, and its regulation ever, earlier studies should not be overlooked. plan was never used. The tabulation of Lake Subsequent studies on the regulation of Lakes Superior "supply factors" presented in this Superior and Ontario, and the unilateral in- report is still used and extended monthly. vestigation completed by the U.S. Army Corps A report on Diversion of Water from the of Engineers in 1965 also provide valuable Great Lakes and Niagara River was transmit- contributions to evaluating the problem. ted to the Speaker of the House of Representa- Under present and prospective develop- tives on December 7,1920.'A discussion of lake ments in the Great Lakes area, lake regula- regulation as a means of restoring navigation 71 72 Appendix 11 depths on the Lakes refers to an earlier report gation. Further, they provide safeguards by the Deep Waterways Board,31 dated June against extremely high and low regulated lake 30,1900, which presented a plan for regulating levels, and high levels on the St. Marys River. Lake Erie. The International Lake Superior Board of In 1926 John R. Freeman 13 completed a re- Control, established by the Commission in ac- port for the Chicago Sanitary District on Reg- cordance with the terms of its Order, directly ulation of the Great Lakes and Effects of. Di- supervises the operation of the river control versions by Chicago Sanitary District. Among works and the amount of the diversions. De- other things, the report suggests the possibil- tails on the regulation plans used for Lake ity of lake regulation which would raise both Superior are found in Section 6. the high and low levels appreciably. Raising the high levels as suggested would be unac- cep table under present conditions. 7.2.3 Lake Ontario Regulation In March 1952, the Special Projects Branch of the Canadian Department of Transport Regulation of Lake Ontario began in April published a report5 on regulation of outflows 1960 in accordance with the International and levels of Lake Ontario. The plan is in the Joint Commission's Order Approval of October form of a rule curve and was designed to meet 29, 1952, and the Supplementary Order of eight specific requirements. Later revisions to July 2, 1956.29 It is now under the direct super- the basic data made this plan obsolete. vision of the Commission's International St. In March 1957 the International Lake On- Lawrence Board of Control. tario Board of Engineers submitted a report22 The Orders provide that the Lake is to be on regulation of Lake Ontario to the Interna- regulated during the navigation season tional Joint Commission. The report docu- within a certain range of levels, and that it ments regulation studies the Board had made. should meet certain additional requirements These studies also developed governing relating'to downstream interests, power criteria as a guide in the further development interests, and other Lake Ontario interests. of regulation plans for Lake Ontario. In December 1965 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a report entitled "Water 7.3 Lake Regulation Levels of the Great Lakes, Report on. Lake Regulation." It presented study plans de- The word regulate implies a capacity, veloped by the Corps of Engineers, and a through man-made adjustable works, for dis- summary of other pertinent information and cretionary control of outflows. Regulating the data. This report provided considerable dis- levels and flows of the Great Lakes and their cussion of the physical and economic aspects outlets involves applying prescribed rules to of the Lakes, knowledge necessary in defining the management of the available water sup- the present-day problem. Experience gained ply, modifying extremes of levels and flows, in operating plans or rules for the actual regu- and narrowing or extending the range be- lation of Lakes Superior and Ontario has also tween high and low. provided much invaluable information about Interests affected by variations in the levels lake regulation. and outflows of the Great Lakes are consid- ered in three general categories: shore prop- erty interests, navigation interests, and 7.2.2 Lake Superior Regulation power interests. Shore property interests are all public and Since completing the control works on the private lands and developments along the St. Marys River at Sault Ste. Marie in August shores. These involve large and small but im- 1921, the outflows from Lake Superior have portant types of water use. Swimming, boat- been subject to complete control. The Lake is ing, fishing, hunting, and all associated regulated, in accordance with the Orders of amenities of beach-resort life and recreation Approval of the International Joint Commis- form large and rapidly expanding interests. sion issued May 26 and 27, 1914,29 in reply to Domestic water supply and sanitation are applications for authorization of diversions of highly important. Port facilities adequate for water around the rapids for production of the transportation and refuge requirements power. The Orders provide that the works be of waterborne navigation are essential. Scien- so operated as to maintain lake levels within a tific methods of crop production are increasing specified range and not to interfere with navi- water demands. The heavy industrialization Regulation and Regulation Studies 73 in the Great Lakes Basin is increasing the within a classification frequently conflict. demands for fresh water for processing and Prescribed rules cannot achieve the cooling. maximum needs of one interest without in- Navigation interests are concerned about fringing on the existing values of other con- the water problems of commercial shipping flicting uses. However, rules applied to the through the Lakes and connecting channels. water supply that Lakes receive could con- The related problems of recreational boating ceivably provide levels and flows which would are also included in this category. Power in- bring about generally beneficial conditions terests involved are the hydroelectric power without significant detriment to any interest. development which utilize outflows from the Lakes. The growth of all these uses compounds the 7.3.1 Regulation from Outside the Basin need for measures to minimize the effects of droughts and floods. All the interests have Most interests suffer damaging effects from problems associated with the range of levels cycles of low levels and flows. The damage may and flows. Some of these difficulties are as- be reduced or eliminated by introducing ex- sociated with high water, some with low cess water from other watersheds into the sys- water. tem. Even though such new inflows would be High lake levels during the 1951-52 period under control and could be shut off during severely damaged shore property through in- periods of high natural supply in the Great undation and accelerated shore erosion. Dur- Lakes Basin, it should be recognized that the ing the low lake levels of 1964, many shore effects of such added supply would remain in installations such as marinas and water in- the lake system for years. This might contrib- takes became less convenient and sometimes ute to a period of damaging high levels unless unusable during this extreme low-water other measures provided compensatory out- period. However, certain recreational areas flow. Long-term weather forecasting where the sand beach is normally narrow had techniques cannot be depended upon in de- the advantages of wider foreshores during the termining safe rates of inflow. low-water period. At present there are limited diversions to The low lake levels of 1964 seriously impeded and from the Great Lakes system. The net commercial navigation and restricted to some effect of the Ogoki and Long Lake diversions extent the areas where recreational craft (more that 5,000 efs to Lake Superior from the could be used. During the 1964 navigation sea- northern slopes of Ontario, and the outflow of son, when the levels of Lakes Michigan and 3,200 efs from Lake Michigan drainage to the Huron were approximately one foot below Mississippi River) represents an increase of Low Water Datum and the available channel 2,000 efs to the system. This increase made a depths correspondingly lessened, the cargo- small and useful, though incidental, contribu- carrying capacity of the Great Lakes fleet was tion to easement of the low levels problem in materially reduced. There are many vessels of 1964, but, on the other hand, caused con- the fleet that can load to full draft only when cern during the high lake levels of the early the lake levels are at high stages. 1950s and again in 1968-69 on Lakes Superior Reduced lake outflows also reduce produc- and Erie. The effect of stopping the Ogoki di- tion of hydroelectric power. For example, the version in 1951-52 was more psychological Niagara River flow available for power in 1964 than physical, because water discharged into was approximately two-thirds of the long- the system months before was still affecting term average amount. the lower Lakes. Generally, high lake levels best serve navi- The lack of accurate techniques for long- -gation. Minimum flows as large as feasible term forecasting of natural water supply, the best serve hydropower, particularly during wide ranges of intensity and duration within periods of high system loads. A reduction in which it is supplied, the limited outlet capacity stage ranges would best serve shore property of the connecting rivers relative to maximum interests since extremes of both high and low rates of supply, the wide differences in areas levels harm them. and storage capacities of the Lakes, and the Under the most favorable conditions, pre- consequential slow passage of supply through scribed regulation rules cannot ensure each the system multiply the dangers of introduc- particular water user optimum levels and ing new water to the Basin. Imported water in flows. Even optimum requirements of the the volumes required to cure a natural low different water uses and of individual users water condition can become a serious problem 74 Appendix 11 if conditions suddenly and unexpectedly in order to raise low levels. Use of such chan- switch from drought to flood. nel enlargements and control structures in an However, more sophisticated techniques of upper Lake may accelerate or compound the lake level regulation, involving the introduc- need for similar facilities in the outlets of the tion of new sources of water supply, envision downstream Lakes. new and improved outlets whereby the net With the large natural variations in water effects of the controlled additions and with- supplies to the Lakes, it is not feasible to regu- drawals suit the needs of the Lake. Inves- late any of them to a monthly mean level that tigators have suggested that excess water in would closely approximate a constant eleva- Canada could be added to the Great Lakes sys- tion. To do so by controlling the outflows tem and that diverting supplies from the would require that the lake outlet be enlarged Lakes could meet a market for fresh water to have a monthly discharge capacity equiva- south of the Lakes. lent to the largest monthly supply of water to Water diverted into the Basin would be the Lake; and further, that control works be carefully controlled from no inflow at all up to capable of reducing the outflow to a monthly some maximum rate, while water diverted out rate equivalent to the smallest monthly sup- of the Basin would be at an essentially con- ply of water. stant rate equal to approximately half the Reference to conditions in Lakes Mich- maximum inflow rate. When more water was gan-Huron demonstrates a part of the prob- desired, the inflow would be made greater lem. The range of monthly net supplies to than the outflow, and when less water was these Lakes goes from a maximum amount of needed, the inflow would be made less than more than 600,000 cfs to a minimum amount of the outflow. However, this plan should not minus 100,000 efs. A discharge rate of 600,000 obscure the basic problem which one encoun- cfs would require that the discharge capacity ters in dealing with lake levels: the assurance of the St. Clair-Detroit River system be en- that one can regulate the range of natural larged nearly three times, and during the supplies in the system so as to limit the dam- minimum supply month, the lake level would age which now occurs, and provide water recede 0.2 foot even with the St. Clair River users with a more beneficial regimen. Intro- flow reduced to zero. To achieve an additional duction of substantial supplies of imported lowering of one foot on Lakes Michigan- water to the system would greatly complicate Huron in a period of one month would require the study of the basic problem and should only an increased discharge capacity of two to be done with knowledge of whether such in-i- three times that of the existing St. Clair- ports are feasible or available, and whether Detroit River channel. the compensatory removal would be physi- Downstream interests benefit by the fact cally and economically acceptable under mod- that the waters of Lakes Michigan-Huron are ified hydrologic conditions. not stored or released one foot at a time. The An assessment of the possibilities of further full potential must be recognized and prepara- regulating the uncontrolled supplies of tions made to control the forces being redi- natural resources has been carried out in the rected. Water Levels of the Great Lakes study re- Mention was made in Section 5 of the devia- cently submitted to the International Joint tion from the adopted curve for operating the Commission. control works in the St. Marys River to provide additional releases of water to Lakes Michigan-Huron during extremely low levels 7.3.2 Regulation within the Basin in 1964. As a result of this temporary increase in the supply, the levels of the Lake at the end The control necessary to modify both the of the 9-month period were approximately high and the low stage extremes of the natural 1/4 foot higher than they would have been. The supply in the Basin would require two effect of such an increased supply on one of facilities in the outlet of the Lake to be regu- the smaller Lakes would have been much lated. First, the outlet channel must be en- greater. larged to increase its discharge capacity, so at The excavation and gated works or other times greater releases of water can be made structures that will permit the regulation will from the Lake than would occur without regu- vary in amount and cost with the goals of the lation, in order to reduce high levels. Second, regulation. Major changes in flow releases in gated control structures can be provided so an upper Lake will require extensive and ex- that at other times fewer releases can be made pensive works not only in its outlet river, but Regulation and Regulation Studies 75 in each outlet downstream. This would par- the low waters of the 1930s, the high waters of ticularly concern Lakes Michigan-Huron and the early 1950s, the extreme low waters cul- the major impact that changed outflows from minating in 1964, the high water levels in that large body of water could have on the 1968-69 on Lakes Superior and Erie, and the much smaller areas of Lakes Erie and Ontario. recent high levels of 1973-74 on all the Lakes, Possibilities for improved regulation exist particularly Lakes St. Clair, Erie, and On- on all of the Lakes, but the associated costs tario. Each had a devastating impact on the and the existing uses substantially limit the water economy and the water-user interests of adoption of methods involving radical changes the Great Lakes Basin. Despite such tempo- in levels and flows. In large measure, commer- rary setbacks, the use of the water for domes- cial and recreational water users have ad- tic, industrial, agricultural, navigational, justed to the natural range of levels and flows. power and above all, recreational purposes This suggests a limitation of regulated levels expanded steadily over this period. This con- to within a previously experienced range. tributed greatly to the outcry which arose In view of the proportions of the physical over the serious low waters of the past decade. factors involved, the possibilities and limita- An unprecedented climate for concerted ac- tions of regulating the levels and outflows of tion at all government levels in both countries the Great Lakes are such that a feasible regu- existed in 1964, and it became possible and lation would certainly not stabilize lake levels desirable to move from the important but uni- completely. The best method devised for defin- lateral regulation study which the U.S. Army ing the physical possibilities and limitations is Corps of Engineers was then completing into a to develop and test regulation plans based on broader and fully coordinated study under the past and likely future supplies. Technical lake aegis of the International Joint Commission, regulation studies are needed to determine ef- using technical data and disciplines of the two fects on the lake levels in order to evaluate countries. benefits that could accrue from regulating On October 7, 1964, the governments of the Lakes and to estimate the costs of pro- Canada and the United States requested the viding works required in the lake outlet. International Joint Commission to determine whether measures could be taken to regulate further the levels of some or all of the Great 7.3.3 International Aspects Lakes and their connecting waters to reduce the extremes of stage which had been experi- The effects of regulation of the levels and enced. The governments asked the Commis- outflows of the Great Lakes cannot be other sion to study the various factors which affect the fluctuations of these water levels and de- than international. Artificial control of the water supply which comes from both countries termine whether action should be taken to cannot be attempted without affecting the achieve more beneficial stage ranges and various water-use interests on each side of the more closely control water levels for domestic international boundary. Changes in outflows use, sanitation, navigation, power, industry, and levels will, in varying degrees, benefit or flood control, agriculture, fish and wildlife, harm the interests of both countries. recreation, and other beneficial public pur- The framers of the Boundary Waters Treaty poses. of 1909 foresaw and sought to alleviate the The governments requested further that if difficulties that could result from unilateral the Commission found that such changes changes. Thus, the Treaty provides that no would be practicable and in the public in- action be taken which affects the level or flow terest, it should indicate how the interests on of such waters, except under prescribed pro- both sides of the boundary would be benefited cedures for coordination and agreement be- or hurt. The Commission should estimate the tween Canada and the United States. cost of the necessary changes, measures, and remedial works, and appraise the value of these measures to both countries, jointly and separately. 7.3.3.1 Comprehensive International Study The breadth of requirements for this com- prehensive assessment should be recognized. Within the last several decades four cycles It involved colossal data assembly and of serious water level and flow conditions have analysis in various disciplines such as channel been experienced on the Great Lakes and and structure design, cost and benefit deter- their outflow rivers-the high waters of 1929, minations, allocation between conflicting in- 76 Appendix 11 terests, and value appraisals applicable to tober 1970. Subsequent developments ex- both countries involved. The services of en- tended that date by three years. The Board's gineers and other qualified personnel were of- report was submitted to the IJC in December fered by agencies of the two governments, as 1973. The lake regulation studies were or- was technical data available during the course ganized as five separate, but interrelated in- of the study. vestigations. Each will be discussed in sub- sequent subsections. 7.3.3.2 Possible Future Studies 7.4.1 Regulation The Commission's study is confined to de- termination of measures to be taken within Lake regulation studies consist primarily of the Great Lakes Basin. The governments devising regulation plans and testing the knew of proposals to ease the burden of low plans on past sequences of water supplies to levels through diverting substantial volumes the Lakes. Studies use this procedure to de- of water from other watersheds to the Great velop beneficial plans such as a desired reduc- Lakes. tion in the extremes of lake stage. The alternative studies are indicated as fol- Studies have developed a means of simulat- lows: the two governments have agreed that ing a long period of supplies whose statistical when the Commission's report is received, characteristics conform very closely to those they will consider whether any examination of of the historic supplies. However, because further measures which might alleviate the they cover a longer period, these simulated problem should be carried out, including ex- data provide sequences and hence a more se- tending the scope of the present reference. vere test of the regulation plans than does the Regarding such a possibility, Canadian gov- historic record. Other types of simulated data ernment agencies initiated unilateral studies were also developed and used for testing pur- to determine the availability of water poses. To compare the efficacy of regulation supplies, and the present and future needs of plans over the simulated period, studies simu- those supplies in their natural drainages. lated values reflecting the effect of ice retar- dation on the flows through the connecting channels used for routing the simulated 7.4 Participation in Study supplies through the Great Lakes-St. Law- rence system. The International Joint Commission ac- Pilot studies, completed in June 1966 on cepted the two governments' offers and ap- Lakes Superior and Ontario, developed pre- pointed a six-man Board authorized to recruit liminary regulation plans for the two Lakes a Working Committee and Subcommittees in using a new approach that emphasized the the various fields of water use and disciplines probable water supplies. The studies tested essential for conducting a comprehensive and these plans on both the historic and simulated successful regulation study. The Commission supply sequences. Since that time the prob- arranged meetings with representatives of abilistic approach has been used to develop Provincial and State governments and was preliminary plans for the entire system em- assured of the complete cooperation of their ploying different regulation techniques. Basic agencies in supplying data and personnel. All conditions of lake levels and outflows were useful data were sent to the Commission for adopted, against which lake levels and out- the active surveys as were field assessments flows derived from various regulation plans necessary to supplement the available data. were compared. A dynamic programming These arrangements functioned well and technique is being used to maximize tangible contributed to the comprehensive study which benefits of regulating various combinations of is now in its final stage. Moreover, throughout Lakes. The maximization process assumes 100 this period, liaison with the Commission's percent forecast reliability of water supplies Water Pollution Boards (superseded by Great for the period of record 1900-1967. Lakes Water Quality Board) has assured As part of the overall studies of water-level coordination and efficient utilization of avail- fluctuation, work on related subjects simul- able data and personnel. taneously sought a better understanding of The Lake Levels Board originally advised the hydrology of the Great Lakes Basin. The the Commission that it could make a com- studies included forecasting of water supplies, prehensive investigation and report by Oc- ice retardation in connecting channels, rates Regulation and Regulation Studies 77 of earth crustal movement, and the effect of United States and Canadian diversions re- tributary stream regulation on the Great quired for navigation purposes in 1985 for Lakes water supply. each navigation canal in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system. 7.4.2 Shore Property 7.4.4 Power The shore property investigation deter- mined how much lake level variations affect The power investigation pertains to hy- various shore property interests. It provided a droelectric power generated from outflows of means of evaluating the effects of reducing the Great Lakes. There are hydroelectric in- the past extremes of stage, using all related stallations on the St. Marys River using Lake data available in both the United States and Superior outflows, on the Niagara River and Canada. Specially organized task forces sur- Welland Canal using Lake Erie outflows, and veyed the total shoreline of the Great Lakes on the St. Lawrence River using Lake Ontario and their outflow rivers to Trois Rivibres, outflows. The investigations determined the Quebec, collecting extensive physical and effect that regulating levels and outflows has economic data. Methods were developed for on hydroelectric power and energy genera- evaluating the effects of water level changes. tion. Participating offices analyzed the assembled In general, the assessment of the effects of shore property inputs and applied them various regulation plans on power has been within the framework of the study to deter- based on a comparison, for regulated and un- mine the effects of the regimen of lake levels regulated conditions, of the dependable capac- and outflows produced by a preliminary regu- ity and energy output over a given period of lation plan. Studies of expected future record. The comparison power market condi- shoreline developments were made, including tions and system requirements expected to estimating future values and property use. occur in the year 1985 were used. The power entities participating in the study had to synthesize a program for generation de- 7.4.3 Navigation velopment additional to that now in existence from the present to the year 1985. To project The objective of the deep-draft navigation beyond that time was not feasible in the study. investigation was to develop a basis for Investigators developed power supply con- measuring the effect of lake regulation on ditions and projections of power requirements commercial shipping, by comparing the cost of for 1985 so as to establish capacity and energy Great Lakes water transportation under the values for use in evaluating regulation plans. existing regimen of levels with the cost under a regimen of further regulated lake levels. After a detailed analysis of past vessel move- 7.4.5 Regulatory Works ment patterns, studies have determined traf- fic volumes and future traffic patterns for The control of lake outflows in accordance principal commodity movements until the with any regulation plan that may be de- mid-project year 1995. Similarly, a study of the veloped in these studies would necessitate characteristics of representative lake and regulatory works in the outlet river of the ocean vessels in the present fleet formed a Lake to be regulated. These works could in- basis from which to project a 1995 fleet. A clude dredging to increase channel capacity methodology based on relative durations of and permit greater outflows at times of high lake stages was developed for determining lake supplies, and other compensatory works and evaluating the effects of regulated lake to maintain water-surface profiles satisfac- levels on commercial navigation and applied tory to navigation and riparian property in- to the developed plans. terests. The estimated cost of such works will The navigation study also investigated the be based on design studies involving river effect of lake level regulation on recreational hydraulics, site explorations and structural boating. Studies developed corresponding analyses. These studies began in November methodology and applied it to the anticipated 1967. future recreational boat fleet on the Great Initially the feasibility and approximate Lakes and St. Lawrence River. cost of alternative means of regulating struc- Studies have made monthly estimates of tures were considered for the St. Clair-Detroit 78 Appendix 11 River and the Niagara River, the outlets of the able, it is in their interest to have as high a two unregulated Lakes. Preliminary cost es- level as possible during the navigation season timates for regulatory works for St. Clair- and have the flow in the connecting channels Detroit River and Niagara River were con- kept as uniform as possible. Further details on sidered compatible with preliminary esti- this evaluation are in Appendix C9, Commer- mates of economic benefits, and detailed in- cial Navigation. vestigations were carried out. Additional work included studies of the possibility of in- creasing the flexibility in regulating Lakes 7.5.2 Hydro-Power Interest Superior and Ontario, and the changes in out- let conditions necessary to provide this flex- Studies are determining potential benefits ibility. of further regulation of Great Lakes levels with regard to the overall cost of producing the power needed to service expected loads in 7.5 Implications of Benefits from Further the Michigan, New York, Ontario, and Quebec Regulation of Great Lakes Levels and areas, as altered by the flows and levels which Flows could result under the various regulation plans. The International Joint Commission's The methods used for computing and Water Levels of the Great Lakes Study evaluating the effects of developed regulation evaluated monetary benefits from further plans provide load and power supply condi- regulation of Great Lakes levels and flows to tions estimated for 1985 on all existing Cana- all recognized aspects of water resources dian and U.S. hydro installations, including management. the St. Marys Falls installation at the outlet of Approaches used to evaluate the effects of Lake Superior, the Niagara Falls plant, the St. regulation plans on various interests are de- Lawrence project at Barnhart Island, and scribed in the following paragraphs. Beauharnois and Cedar Rapids installations Methodologies used in this study are consid- near Montreal. The existing hydro installa- ered by experienced investigators to be the tions involved in this study have a total install- best that can be developed or adopted from ed capacity of 8,070,700 kilowatts, with other studies. Economic, hydrologic, and en- 4,909,100 kilowatts (61 percent) in Canada. vironmental assessments are being made of The power output from the flows and levels the effects of developed regulation plans on under a regulation plan is compared to the the various user interests. power output from the basis-of-comparison flows and levels. The effects of regulation plans on hydro-power installations are gener- 7.5.1 Commercial Navigation Interests ally determined in two separate ways: the ef- fect on dependable capacity and energy out- The basis for determining benefits or losses put; and the monetary evaluation of any to deep-draft navigation is the difference in changes in these two components as measured the cost of transportation under existing by effects on electric system costs. These water level variations and under a regulation studies are based on evaluation of differences plan which alters the frequency or the range obtained with the hydro projects operating of existing stages. Benefits or losses are de- in the power systems of New York, Michigan, termined as a dollar value related to changes Ontario, and Quebec with and without further in frequency of lake stages from the base con- regulation. dition. Ships that can take advantage of deeper water will load to the maximum avail- able. Commercial navigation interests' objec- 7.5.3 Shore Property Interests tives center on this single concept. Therefore, in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system there Some other interests which are classified as is the following general navigational objec- shore property interests are primarily con- tive: regulation should produce levels not cerned with the relationship of the water lower than low water datum and average levels and shoreline. Both low water levels levels at least as high as the long-term aver- and high water levels can damage these pub- age. Since some vessels are designed to take lic, commercial, and private interests exten- advantage of deeper water than is now avail- sively. Regulation and Regulation Studies 79 7.5.3.1 Flood Control clubs and harbors, at owners' properties, and trailer-borne boats. Assumptions and Shore property damage from fluctuations in methodologies differ for the three segments water levels includes both that associated since water level variations affect each of with inundation or direct overland flooding these differently and require a different basis and that of wind-generated waves, or a combi- for monetary evaluation. nation of these. The intensity of the shore Effects on boats based at marinas, boat damage varies with the elevation of the still- clubs and harbors included the cost of dredg- water level, augmented by the temporary in- ing at low water periods, and property damage crease in that level at a specific location gen- during low and high water periods. Studies erated by wind or barometric pressure gra- assessed the effects on boats at individual dient; the magnitude of wind-generated properties and on trailer-borne boats on the waves; and the extent of wave runup on the basis of loss of boat use. The regulation objec- shore. The sum of the elevations of these four tive for recreational boating assumes that elements of a damaging event is called the regulation produces levels above a specified ultimate storm water level. minimum stage for each Lake during the Numerous other factors aggravate a summer recreation season. damaging event, such as the nature of shore materials, exposure to onshore winds, offshore and onshore slopes, berms, and 7.5.3.3 Fisheries and Wildlife backshore elevations and widths, which affect the ability of the shore to absorb the energy The existing fish and wildlife habitat along created by the waves. The effects of these the Great Lakes shoreline represents an age- factors are continuous although often only old ecological environment. This study is specific damaging events are dramatized. An primarily concerned with the effect of altered annual dollar damage value for erosion and in- water levels on shoreline marshes and es- undation was determined for each Great tuaries, and their value to wildlife and aquatic Lakes shore reach on the basis of the fre- fur-bearers. Shoreline wetlands are scarce quency of the ultimate storm water level. when compared with the abundant upland On some areas of shoreline, local protection habitat throughout the Great Lakes States. works are not presently justified, but will be Assessment of the effects on fisheries and during the life of the project. Studies compute wildlife required certain assumptions: that the effects of further regulation on future pro- ecologic change as demonstrated throughout tection to be constructed as the difference in the period of record will recur during the proj- cost of economically justified protection works ect period; that marginal marshes of the between regulated and base conditions ex- Great Lakes have benefited biologically from pressed in annual charges for such works. period fluctuations of lake levels; and that while extreme high water levels may result in shoreline damage to controlled marshes, other 7.5.3.2 Recreation types of uncontrolled shoreline habitat can benefit from protection by man-made struc- Great Lakes beaches benefit from the addi- tures. tion and improvement of beach area caused by Based upon estimated acres of shoreline reduced high levels. Varying monetary values habitat available, the average wetland ac- were assigned (average user-day value) to reage gained or lost by regulation provides an beaches of varying quality. A higher-rated indication of the impact of regulation plans. beach would receive a higher user-day value While studies to date indicate no measura- than a lower-rated one. June through Sep- ble effect upon fish and their environment due tember was considered as the recreational to water level fluctuations, they have investi- season. Less than specified elevations on a gated biological assessment of possible effects, Lake may produce adverse conditions, such as development of measurement procedures, and unwatering of materials such as mud or gravel improved evaluation methods. undesirable for beach usage. Therefore, a des- ignated elevation represents the lower limit on each Lake for optimum beach recreational 7.5.3.4 Water Intakes and Sewer Outfalls value. Evaluation of Great Lakes recreational Water and waste facilities have been de- boating involved boats based at marinas, boat signed to accommodate the average fluctua- 80 Appendix 11 tions of Great Lakes levels. However, when proach are a natural evolution of the rule- extreme levels occur, some municipalities and and-limitation type plan. This employs a fore- industries face significant problems. cast of future supplies, appropriately consid- This investigation dealt primarily with ex- ers water level conditions on other lakes of the treme low level conditions resulting in re- system, and provides an indication of the duced intake capacity and increased power probability of meeting the regulation criteria. costs for water pumping facilities. The studies Oper;@ting authorities determined the opera- investigated problems of increased operations tional water release from Lake Ontario during cost. While the quality of water being pumped the 1964 drought according to these criteria. is affected by extreme low levels, nosignifi- , The probabilistic regulation plan also em- cant monetary assessment could be found. An ploys the historical supply period for develop- upper elevation limit for each Lake was fixed ment but does not separate critical supply based upon a high level when sewer outfall sequences. It employs the entire supply period operation problems may offset pumping ben- available for development. The principal fea- efits. Benefit to water intake facilities, in the tures of this approach are: form of reduced pumping costs, can be derived (1) an indicator of current supply condi- from higher lake levels. An average electrical tions within the system power cost for pumping municipal and indus- (2) supply probability curves (developed trial Great Lakes water withdrawals was cal- from the historical water supply record) or a culated utilizing a monthly comparison be- method of forecasting future supplies tween the base condition and a regulation (3) outflow determination methods or op- plan for each Lake. erational rules for determining water releases (4) maximum, minimum, or target eleva- tion for a subsequent period or for a particular 7.6 Methods of Regulation Plan Design month (these levels may be exceeded) (5) maximum and minimum outflow limi- Generally speaking, one can classify all reg- tations related to some derived or pre- ulation plans in one of two ways-plans which regulation condition employ rigid rules in determining water re- (6) a procedure for utilizing accumulated leases from a lake and ignore possible future storage on the lake, within the system, or the lake or water supply conditions, or plans balancing of storage between lakes which employ forecasts and consider the un- In a regulation plan of this type, these fea- certain nature of a lake's water supply. tures fit into an operational procedure, and Regulation plans of the first type are more the regulated release for the coming regula- or less in operation on Lakes Superior and tion period is obtained in three steps: Ontario and were described in detail in Section (1) Water supplies and lake levels for a 6. This type of rule may be modified to preclude given period are forecast. tailoring the plans too closely to the historical (2) The resulting levels are compared with water supply sequence. These modified or al- the objectives and criteria for regulation on a ternative approaches are:10 given lake or for the system. (1) the strict rule-and-limitation approach (3) Adjustments are made to the outflow with rules and limitations developed over (employed in step 1 to determine the future the historical supply, but tested over a long levels) by using the accumulated storage period of simulated water supplies within the system or by balancing storage (2) the strict rule- and-limit ation approach within the system so as to best meet the objec- with outflow releases under extreme supply tives and criteria for regulation. conditions at the same rate as that which Development of the probabilistic plan is ac- would have occurred without regulation complished by testing tentative rules over a Both approaches were developed in the supply period. In this case the entire period is same fashion. However, they do provide a good used rather than selected critical sequences. indication of probable future operation re- After the initial test, the tentative rules are sults. There would be few deviations from the modified to refine techniques and improve the plan as designed during actual operation. The results in light of the objectives. alternative approaches do not provide op- Comparison of the two methods over a given timum paper results over any given test supply period indicates that the strict rule- period as does the strict rule-and-limitation and-limitation type plan provides the best type plan. numerical results. Regulation plans using the probabilistic ap- However, employing the two types of rules Regulation and Regulation Studies 81 over various periods of simulated supplies Superior to 6.6 feet on Lakes Michigan-Huron shows that the stochastic approach provides a and Lake Ontario. A century of record on the more realistic forecast of regulation results. Great Lakes does not reveal any regular, pre- This is because the second approach considers dictable cycle such as one might expect. The the fact that the sequence and magnitude of interval between high and low levels varies future supplies may be materially different widely and erratically. than that of the past. This plan also permits a Seasonal fluctuations result from the an- continual evaluation of the probable effect on nual hydrologic cycle. The winter snow and the lake level and the likelihood of meeting the the spring melt cause higher supplies in the objective or of violating the fixed criteria of a spring and early summer than during the rest specific regulation plan. of the year. Seasonal fluctuations average 1.1 The use of simulated water supply data pro- feet on Lake Superior and Lakes Michigan- vides a valuable tool in evaluating a regula- Huron, 1.5 feet on Lake Erie, and 1.9 feet on tion plan. The study by the International Lake Ontario. Great Lakes Levels Board of the Interna- Short-period fluctuations are caused by tional Join 't Commission has applied simu- meteorological disturbances and may last from lated water supply data. It is generally consid- a few hours to several days. Wind and differ- ered that any operational plan of either of ences in barometric pressure cause the lake the above two types should be evaluated in the surface to tilt. Although the lake surface ele- course of development over a long-term simu- vation at a particular location has changed as lated supply record, as well as over the com- much as eight feet from such causes, there was paratively short-term historical record. Such no change in the volume of water in the Lake. an evaluation would better indicate the re- Short-period fluctuations are superimposed sults of regulating a given Lake or the entire on the level resulting from long-term and sea- system. sonal fluctuations. Superimposed on all three types of fluctuations are wind-induced waves. From its study of systems hydrology and 7.7 Summary of Levels Board's Final Report hydraulics the Board found that the large storage capacities and restricted outflow The International Great Lakes Levels characteristics of the Great Lakes are highly Board, in its report entitled, "Regulation of effective in providing a naturally regulated Great Lakes Water Levels," dated December system. The net supply to the Lakes from pre- 7, 1973, listed 12 findings and five conclusions cipitation and evaporation may vary widely. as the result of its studies. This report was However, large variations in supply are'ab- released to the public by the IJC on February sorbed and modulated. Consequently, lake 26,1974. There are seven technical appendixes outflows vary by much smaller amounts than to this report which are expected to be avail- the flows of other large river systems, such as able by June 1974. The IJC has approved plans the Columbia, Missouri, Ohio and Mississippi. to hold public hearings on the Board's report in late summer 1974. The findings progress from some general concepts regarding Great 7.7.1.2 Mean Levels and Outflows Lakes hydrology and hydraulics to more specific assessments of various measures for Mean levels and outflows of all,the Lakes further regulating the Great Lakes. The con- will change progressively with time as a result clusions address the feasibility of the major of the steadily increasing consumptive use of alternatives for alleviating the problem of ex- water in the Basin and the nearly impercepti- treme levels and flows. ble movement of the earth's crust in the region of the Great Lakes Basin. The increasing consumptive use of water 7.7.1 Findings will gradually decrease the net supply to the Lakes. Based on projected increases in popu- 7.7.1.1 Water-Level Fluctuations lation, land use, industry, and power genera- tion, consumptive use could increase from a As its first finding the Board pointed out Basin total of 2,300 efs in 1965 to 6,000 cfs in that there are three categories of water-level 2000 and 13,000 efs by the year 2020. If the fluctuations on the Great Lakes: long-term, present growth trend in consumptive use con- seasonal, and short-period. The long-term tinues, this problem will require careful and range of levels varies from 3.8 feet on Lake serious study. 82 Appendix 11 The tilting of the earth's crust in the region SO-901 would be $70,000, including amortizA- is gradually raising the northeastern limits of tion charges and surveillance of river ice con- the Basin relative to its southwestern limits. ditions. For example, the differential movement be- Under instructions from the IJC, the Inter- tween the northeast and southwest shores of national Lake Superior Board of Control has Lakes Michigan-Huron is about one foot per been using Plan SO-901 as a guide for the century. This relative movement is probably emergency regulation of Lake Superior dur- the rebounding of the earth's crust from the ing the year starting July 1, 1973. weight of ice-age glaciers. The net effect of the The Board found that two preliminary plans tilting is to increase gradually the mean water for the combined regulation of Lakes elevation of the unregulated Lakes. For regu- Superior, Erie, and Ontario exhibited favor- lated Lakes, the effect can be counteracted by able benefit-cost ratios. It tried three ap- adjustment of the regulation regime. proaches, all using the existing regulatory works for Lakes Superior and Ontario and preserving the existing criteria and other re- 7.7.1.3 Further Lake Regulation quirements of the IJC Orders of Approval for the regulation of Lake Ontario. A major finding of the Board concerned the The first approach considered regulation of potential benefits of further lake regulation. Lake Erie with channel enlargement and a To the extent that the Lakes already possess a control structure in the upper Niagara River. high degree of natural regulation and are arti- The $108-million cost of construction for this ficially regulated by works at the outlets of alternative resulted in a benefit-cost ratio of Lake Superior and Lake Ontario, only small less than one. improvements are practicable without costly The second approach was channel enlarge- additional regulatory works and remedial ment in the upper Niagara River and regula- measures. tion of Lakes Superior and Ontario in accord- A very limited reduction in the range of ance with Plan SO-901. In this approach only stage of a lake could be obtained by a redis- Lakes Superior and Ontario would be directly tribution of its outflows during the year. controlled. Lake Erie levels would fluctuate Further compression of the range could only naturally in a lower range. This plan, num- be achieved by increasing the flows of its bered SEO-901, has a very favorable benefit- outlet river. This in turn would increase the cost ratio. However, since it would perma- range of levels and outflows of the nently lower the level of Lake Erie, it would downstream Lakes. By regulating the cause irreversible environmental harm. downstream Lakes, adverse hydrologic and In the third approach the outflow from Lake economic effects could be minimized. But the Erie would be increased during periods of result would be to transfer these variations to above-average supply. This would be done by the St. Lawrence River, where significant building a diversion channel through Squaw physical constraints exist. Consequently, only Island from the Black Rock Canal to the Niag- minor reductions in the range of stage would ara River at an estimated cost of five million be possible without costly remedial measures dollars. This plan, numbered SEO-42P, would to avoid adverse effects downstream. increase Niagara River discharge by 8,000 The Board's final report incorporates the cubic feet per second during periods of above- full examination of Lake Superior regulation average water supply. The regulation plan for that was presented in the Interim Report to Lake Ontario would be modified to avoid det- the IJC dated March 15,1973. The Board reaf- riments to that Lake and downstream in- firmed its earlier finding that a new regula- terests. The benefit-cost ratio for Plan SEO- tion plan for Lake Superior, Plan SO-901, can 42P would be 17. be expected to yield small long-term average In the development of these Lake Erie annual net benefits to the system at a minimal plans, benefits tended to be limited by the cost. amount of water which would be discharged The rules for Plan SO-901 are based upon the into Lake Ontario and down the St. Lawrence levels of both Lake Superior and Lakes River within present constraints. Thus, the Michigan-Huron. They involve routine ultimate refinement of any Lake Erie plan de- changes in the gate settings during winter as pends on the results of further studies of the well as during the open-water season. Field regulation of Lake Ontario. Such studies tests during the study showed year-round op- should consider all the benefits on all the eration to be feasible. The annual cost of Plan Lakes which could be obtained through regu- Regulation and Regulation Studies 83 lation of Lake Erie and changes in the regula- meet all the regulation criteria and other re- tion of Lake Ontario. quirements of the IJC Orders of Approval for The Board found that regulation of Lakes Lake Ontario regulation. Recent studies of the Michigan-Huron by construction of control International St. Lawrence River Board of works and dredging of channels at their out- Control have confirmed this finding. let, combined with regulation of Lakes Another finding of the Board was that Superior and Ontario, would not provide ben- works in the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers to efits commensurate with costs. compensate hydraulically for the remaining Several alternative plans were developed, effect of the 25- and 27-foot navigation proj- and a trial plan was evaluated in detail. This ects would increase shoreline damage from representative plan would require regulatory higher lake levels. The navigation projects in works in the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers at a the St. Clair-Detroit River system were au- cost of $150 million and Detroit River channel thorized with provision for compensatory enlargement at a cost of approximately $50 works to prevent the ultimate lowering of million. The equivalent annual cost, including Lakes Michigan-Huron from the increased the additional costs for Lake Superior, would channel capacity of the rivers. During con- be $18 million. The estimated upper limit of struction some excavated material was placed annual benefits from this plan is only $3 mil- so that it would retard the river flow. How- lion. ever, full compensation has not been achieved. To insure a comprehensive consideration of The higher outflows have lowered the level of all alternatives, the Board studied plans for Lakes Michigan-Huron by 0.59 foot. This pro- the combined regulation of all five Lakes. It vides an average annual benefit to shore found that regulation of all five Lakes, em- property of $12 million, compared to an aver- ploying existing control works for Lakes Su- age annual loss of $1.3 million to navigation. perior and Ontario and newly constructed works for Lakes Michigan-Huron and Erie, would not provide benefits commensurate 7.7.1.4 Hydrologic Forecasting with costs. Several alternative plans were developed An important subject affecting Great Lakes and a trial plan was evaluated in detail. This regulation is hydrologic forecasting. The representative plan would require regulatory Board found that better and faster determi- works in the St. Clair, Detroit, and Niagara nation of Basin hydrologic response will allow Rivers at a cost of $266 million, and Detroit improvement in regulation. Studies indicate and Niagara River channel enlargements at a that accurate forecasts of water supplies four cost of $105 million. The equivalent annual months in the future could increase the ben- cost, including the additional cost of Lake efits of regulation by as much as one-third. Superior, would be $28 million. The estimated However, there is very little promise for fore- upper limit of annual benefits from this plan is casting precipitation more than a few weeks in only $15 million. advance. Improvement is possible in the The Board found that the physical dimen- forecast of runoff into the Lakes from precipi- sions of the St. Lawrence River are not tation which has already fallen on tributary adequate to accommodate the record supplies land areas. Such forecasts, based upon data to Lake Ontario received in 1972-73 and at the from a remote-access, hydro meteorological same time satisfy all the criteria and require- network, should allow partial prediction of ments of the IJC Orders of Approval for the supplies and hence improved regulation. regulation of Lake Ontario. When the Board addressed alternatives for Lake Ontario based upon the supplies received over the 7.7.1.5 Minimizing Shore Property Damage study period 1900-1967, it found that Plan 1958-D satisfied the criteria and other re- Finally, the Board found that the most quirements of the IJC Orders of Approval with promising measures for minimizing future only a few exceptions. The Board was then damage to shore property are strict land-use prepared to conclude that structural alterna- zoning and structural setback requirements. tives for Lake Ontario did not merit further The shoreline surveys and damage evalua- consideration. However, even with the recent tions for this study indieated that a significant extraordinary discretionary deviations from portion of the shore property damage is due to Plan 1958-D, it was not possible to accommo- flooding and wave attack on existing shore date the record high supplies of 1972-73 and structures. The surveys also indicated that 84 Appendix 11 shoreline development is proceeding at an ac- structures. The cost of constructing this many celerating rate. In the future, damages will works far exceeds any benefits to be expected continue in developed areas where existing from regulating Lakes Michigan-Huron out- structures are too close to the Lake. Loss of flows. unprotected shoreline through erosion will (3) Further study is needed of the alterna- also continue. However, future damage can be tives for regulating Lake Erie and improving reduced by land-use zoning to limit develop- the regulation of Lake Ontario, taking into ment and to require setback of structures account the full range of supplies received to from the Lake, where development is permit- date. The conditions that showed the need for ted. If such measures are not taken, future such further study came about at the development will continue to follow the gen- scheduled end of the Board's studies. They are eral trend, and total shoreline damage will still continuing. Therefore, the Board was not continue to increase. able to make a comprehensive study of all these aspects and include definitive findings and conclusions in its report. Further study should examine all constraints on regula- 7.7.2 Conclusions tion of these Lakes downstream to Trois Rivi6res on the St. Lawrence River and alter- Considering its entire study and in particu- native means by which such constraints may lar its 12 findings, the Board reached five con- be met or modified; benefits and costs of the clusions: alternatives; and other factors which could af- (1) Small net benefits to the Great Lakes fect the acceptability of the alternatives, in- system would be achieved by a new regulation cluding their environmental effects. plan for Lake Superior which takes into con- (4) The hydrologic monitoring network of sideration the levels of Lake Superior and of the Great Lakes Basin should be progres- Lakes Michigan-Huron. The new plan would sively improved. The responsible national employ the existing control works for Lake agencies of Canada and the United States Superior and Lake Ontario, incorporate the should cooperate in studying the benefits and existing plan for the regulation of Lake On- costs of specific alternatives for expanding tario, and satisfy the existing criteria and re- hydrologic monitoring, then adopt a step-by- quirements for Lake Ontario regulation to the step expansion program incorporating those same extent as Plan 1958-D. The shore prop- measures which are feasible and desirable. erty interests on Lakes Michigan, Huron, and (5) Appropriate authorities should act to Erie would be the main beneficiaries. Naviga- institute land-use zoning and structural set- tion and power interests would also benefit. back requirements to reduce future shoreline Shore property interests on Lake Superior damage. There should be a concerted program would incur a net loss. There would be no of zoning and setback requirements based significant adverse environmental effects. upon the realities of natural lakeshore proces- (2) Regulation of Lakes Michigan-Huron ses. The Great Lakes are a dynamic natural by the construction of works in the St. Clair system. Their water levels will fluctuate even and Detroit Rivers does not warrant further with regulation. In periods of high water, consideration. To regulate the outflow of storm-driven waves will flood and erode vul- Lakes Michigan-Huron and at the same time nerable shorelands. To live in harmony with maintain something similar to the natural his e'nvironment and avoid continual losses, profile of the 89-mile St. Clair-Detroit River man must keep development out of the danger system would require at least nine control zone. Section 8 DEVELOPMENT OF DETAILED LAKE LEVEL EFFECTS 8.1 Introduction recorded each month at the water level station as adjusted to constant diversion and outlet The term ultimate water level is used to des- conditions or basis-of-comparison conditions. ignate the extreme water-level elevation at a The conditions used to obtain basis-of- reach of the Great Lakes shoreline due to a comparison 36 stages and flows are constant storm on the lake. Strong winds tilt the water diversions of 5,000 cfs into Lake Superior, surface of the lake in the direction of the wind, 3,200 efs out of Lake Michigan, and 7,000 cfs lowering the water level along the upwind through Welland Canal from Lake Erie into shore and raising the levels at the downwind Lake Ontario. Fixed outlet regimens are Lake shore. The maximum elevation of the water Superior regulated under the September 1955 surface along the shore is termed the storm modified Rule of 1949, 1933 outlet conditions water level. The large waves generated during for Lake Huron, 1953 outlet conditions for the storm break as they arrive at the shore Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario regulated under and run up the beach. The maximum vertical Plan 1958-D. Section 6 has detailed descrip- distance above storm water level that the tions of these conditions. breaking wave reaches is called the wave The adjustment to be applied to the re- run-up. Thus the ultimate water level at a corded instantaneous maximum levels is the reach for a storm is the elevation of the storm same for a given month for all stations on a water level plus the wave run-up. The effects lake and is the difference between the basis- of wind and waves on the lake levels are dia- of-comparison stage and the monthly mean grammed in Figure 11-33. recorded levels at the following stations: Mar- Studies computed ultimate water levels on quette, Michigan on Lake Superior; Harbor IGLD (1955) to evaluate regulation plans for Beach, Michigan on Lakes Michigan-Huron; the December 1965 survey report of U.S. Army Cleveland, Ohio on Lake Erie; and Oswego, Corps of Engineers, North Central Division, New York on Lake Ontario. Appendix C.45 Similar data were developed for the IJC's Great Lakes Water Levels Study. The 36 reaches of the Great Lakes shores for 8.2 Wave Run-Ups which studies computed ultimate water levels are shown in Figures 11-34 through 11-38. As- Investigators have computed wave run-up signed numbers identify the reaches. The ul- used in this determination of ultimate water timate water levels calculated for these levels from the equation for a smooth and im- reaches for the period of data available are permeable structure given in Appendix C of tabulated at the end of this appendix. The ul- the December 1965 Army Engineer Report .45 timate water level for a reach allows only for Since the ultimate water levels were of a com- average reach conditions. Actual local levels parative nature, no reductions in the com- may vary. puted run-ups were considered necessary to Ultimate levels should be used carefully for account for the roughness and permeability of purposes other than comparing effects of reg- the beaches and structures in the different ulation or general planning uses. The 15 water reaches. The equation from Appendix C was level gaging stations and 16 weather stations rewritten in the form: used to determine storm water levels and cor- responding wind speeds and directions are R = 2.3mTHo-' (9) also identified in Figures 11-34 through 11-38. The water level and weather stations used for where R is the wave run-up; m is the rep- each reach are listed in Table 11-34. resentative slope of the beach or protective The storm water levels used for each reach structure; T is the wave period; and H is the are the maximum instantaneous elevations wave height. (Continued on page 94) 85 86 Appendix 11 WIND STORM WATER LEVEL UNDISTURBED (STILLWATER) LEVEL Ah LAKE PROFILE ALONG PATH OF WIND ULTIMATE WATER LEVEL WIND GENERATED WAVES R STORM WATER LEVEL Lh UNDISTURBED WATER LEVEL m SLOPE OF BEACH OR STRUCTURE R =WAVE RUN-UP Z@h = WIND SET-UP, OR WIND TIDE FIGURE 11-33 Diagram of Storm Effects on Water Levels 121 80* 79' 78' 77' 2001 REACH NO. 0 WATER LEVEL STN. C4 WEATHER STN. ol;- Cobourg It 0. 9 E 0 N T A R 0 Toronto A NATIONAL BOUNDARY 3 0 2001 v 2 Little Cn Port Wilson Olcolt Oak Orchard Sodus B He ton Sod.. Be, Rochester Niagara Falls 43* Q Port Buffalo Colborn. N E W y 0 R L A K E E R I E 79. 78' 77* 0 50 100 SCALE IN MILES 121 83' 8@' 80' L A KIE L A K E 1 0 0 N 7' A H U R 0 N Hamilton I ort W 13- Sarnia Port Hur St Clair 0 N T A R 1 0 Port Port Colbo 'k 8 Marine City !D Port Stanley Port Burwell -/Al@gonac mt.cl@menso @Z7nq Pt 6 LAKE S7* CLAIR Detroit Rondeau H r ),R,( Boreal ROUGE R :0 @Erm N E W Y M nroe 2 Ashtsbul Conneaut Fairport 0 oledo nor M Harbor Port Clinton tndusky Cleveland l,orain 3001 REACH NO. B ever Crook (D 0 H 1 0 83 Huron Ver m, lion812* 8 WATER LEVE WEATHER S 0 50 SCALE IN MILES 7Er -_I' Lake Level Effects 89 51 3 4 63, 92' 1WH/TCF/SH BAY 0 N T A R 1 0 M C H 1 G 4 N St. Joseph I. NO, tt) -c:s 46@ ls@X - A D@umrrtond I CV"V'Vr4 43 46* 0, 00 500 arn)i,o IZI AfA C C /Cockburn 1. ouli ,@194 0 sot 1ki heboyg A BURT L a 1. QDuck Islands 0 P Ilston Am4U LETT L 0 Pe oskey Presque Isle Charlev ix Stoneport 45' Alpena % Harris@ille -N- .6 ,Z m I C, H I G A N Oscoda EastTawas Port Point Lookout 44' 44' Harbor Beach C; Goderich Bay Cay Port 5001 REACH NO. Sanilac A, Saginaw WATER LEVEL STN. Lakeport WEATHER STN. ,3 -Port Huro n Sernis - 82* 0 50 M1 LES FIGURE 11-36 Lake Huron Location Map 90 Appendix 11 88* 87* 86* 85' 460 M I C H I G A N r@:A46' Man,st,q.e Gladstone Nahms '?port Inland 1001 LITTLE DAY DE NOC STR. OF MACKINAC Escan b 0 50 es@ 1. SCALE IN MILES 0j Pellsten A Fox I rids LITTLE TRAVERSE ashington 1. 1, Harbor Spring 8AV 91 h r evoix Petoskey 4b L CHARLEVOIX Menominee N Manitou I 45o S. Manitou 1.0Q 45- Oconto Sturge Bay Traverse City Frankfort (:@reen Bay .Pere Arco Idia ITT 7012 CID Port Iage Lake Two Rivers Monist a anitowoc 44' LAKE @--- 1 44* WINNEB IAGO Ludington Sheboygan Pentwater 0 P.rt W-hington Whit. Lake U) Muskegon 0 Milwaukee N 0 i 43* rand . Haven I- -43- Oak Creek Port Sheldon Racine Holland 0 0 0 Kenosha SA otuck I 'K I Waukegan South Haven z It St seph Benton Harbor 42o Chi ago 700 11 REACH NO. 420 t Indi'.n. Hlbr ich;gan City WATER LEVEL STN. ary Lockpo I AV WEATHER STN. I ,,, iii. "et' I N D I A N A C 88, 87' 86' 85, FIGURE 11-37 Lake Michigan Location Map 91. 90' 890 8 87. 86- O-A *A 0 + Slate I Islands CQ I r- It OD + Port Arth'. 40 r Fort vvill-,t!' I 0 N T 480 S U P At 0 Michipi Grand vais ov, Coops" q Manitou 1. Caribou 1. li64 q Stannard Rock Two Harbors POOP rA 4 7 1 17 LA 6 &:- Apostle IsI, nds Duluth 900*1 Bayfiel d, Ontonagon Bi@ Bay 9 Port Wing 9003 (9008 Superior Grand Marais Marquette shlond Saxon Hb. 0o unising VV I@l S C; 0 N S I N 46--920 91* 90' 8 W 87* 8,6.- 9001 REACH NO. WATER LEVEL STN. 0 50 100 WEATHER STN. SCALEIN M 92 Appendix 11 TABLE 11-34 Ultimate Water Level Reaches-Selected Wind and Water Level Stations Reach Weather Water Level Period Number Reach of Shore Station Gage of Record 2001 Niagara River to Hamlin Beach Rochester Rochester 1953-1964 2002 Hamlin Beach to Rochester Rochester Rochester 1953-1964 2003 Rochester to Port Ontario Oswego Oswego 1933-1953 2004 Port Ontario to Stony Creek Oswego Oswego 1933-1953 2005 Stony Creek to Tibbetts Point Watertown Oswego 1946-1964 3001 Pointe Mouillee to Toledo Toledo Toledo 1905-1964 1 3002 Toledo to Sandusky Toledo Toledo 1905-1964 1 3003 Sandusky to Erie Cleveland Cleveland 1904-1964 3004 Erie to 11 mi. south of Buffalo Buffalo Erie 1900-1964 5001 International Boundary to Straits of Mackinac Pellston Mackinaw City 1941-1964 5002 Straits of Mackinac to Presque Isle Pellston Mackinaw City 1941-1964 5003 Presque Isle to Point Lookout Alpena Harbor Beach 1904-1961 5004 Point Lookout to Essexville Saginaw Essexville 1953-1964 5005 Essexville to Pointe Aux Barques Saginaw Essexville 1953-1964 5006 Pointe Aux Barques to 2 Port Huron Saginaw Harbor Beach 1913-1964 7001 Straits of Mackinac to Point Detour Pellston Mackinaw City 1941-1964 7002 Point Detour to Manitowoc Green Bay Sturgeon Bay Canal 1950-1964 7003 Manitowoc to Milwaukee Milwaukee Milwaukee 1905-1964 7004 Milwaukee to Waukegan Milwaukee Milwaukee 1905-1964 7005 Waukegan to Gary Harbor Chicago Midway Calumet Harbor 1928-1968 7006 Gary Harbor to South Haven Chicago Midway Calumet Harbor 1928-1964 7007 South Haven to Big Sable Point Muskegon Ludington 1950-1964 7008 Big Sable Point to Empire Traverse City Ludington 1950-1964 7009 Empire to Straits of Mackinac Pellston Mackinaw City 1941-1964 7010 Point Detour to Escanaba Green Bay Sturgeon Bay Canal 1950-1964 7011 Escanaba to Green Bay Green Bay Sturgeon Bay Canal 1950-1964 7012 Green Bay, Wisconsin Green Bay Sturgeon Bay Canal 1950-1964 7013 Green Bay to Point Detour Green Bay Sturgeon Bay Canal 1950-1964 9001 International Boundary to Two Harbors Duluth Two Harbors 1950-1964 9002 Two Harbors to Point Detour Duluth Duluth 1951-1964 9003 Point Detour to Oronto Bay Marquette Marquette 1905-1964 9004 Oronto Bay to Copper Harbor Marquette Marquette 1905-1964 9005 Copper Harbor to Huron Bay Marquette Marquette 1905-1964 9006 Huron Bay to Au. Train Bay Marquette Marquette 1905-1964 9007 Au Train Bay to Whitefish Point Marquette Marquette 1905-1964 9008 Keweenaw Waterway NONE Marquette 1905-1964 127 years missing data 210 years missing data Fetch Length in Statute Miles 0-4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 60 70 80 100 150 200 300 400 500 10 95 90 N, 85 80 75 71* 7 65 7-1 N1, 0 6 N, 55 ft @x 50 11 0.. 42 40 -6c 38 70 36 34 32 S (n 30 28 ff@- 26 24 .4 22 20 k. Significant Ht. (ft) S N 8 Significant Period (sec. Min Duration (hrs) W T@ ft 71 If JA 14 ..4 121 . .......... 4_ 101 r f I 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 60 70 80 100 150 200 250 300 400 Fetch Length in Nautical Miles FORECASTING CURVES AS A FUNCTION OF WIND SPEED, FETCH LENGTH, AND WIND DURATION (for Fetches 1to 1,000 miles) 94 Appendix 11 Investigators have derived wave periods TABLE 11-35 Undiked and Diked Rep- and heights for Equation 9 from hourly wind resentative Slopes data and the equivalent fetch lengths as Representative Slope shown in Tables 11-35 and 11-36 by utilizing Reach No. Undiked Diked the significant deepwater wave curves shown in Figure 11-39. They took these curves from 2001 0.100 0.200 Technical Report No. 4, U.S. Army Coastal 2002 0.050 0.200 Engineering Research Center,39 and com- 2003 0.125 0.200 puted average wind speed and direction from 2004 0.058 0.200 hourly wind data at each weather station for 2005 0.111 0.200 periods of one to two hours before the time each maximum storm water level was re- corded. Wind speeds recorded were increased 3001 0.083 0.200 at the land stations by a factor of 1.2 to account 3002 0.071 0.200 for the reduced speed of the wind as it leaves 3003 0.125 0.300 the lake and blows over the land. By trial, 5001 0.062 0.200 adjusted average wind speeds were used to 5002 0.045 0.200 determine the maximum wave height and the corresponding wave period from the curves in 5003 0.020 0.200 Figure 11-39. 5004 0.026 0.200 The maximum height of a wave that can be 5005 0.042 0.200 sustained at the depth at which the deepwater wave breaks is given by the equation shown 5006 0.167 0.200 in Appendix C of the 1965 survey report4l as 7001 0.100 0.200 follows: B.D. 7002 0.091 0.200 Max. H = 1.28 (10) 7003 0.100 0.200 7004 0.083 0.200 where B.D. is the breaking depth or the differ- 7005 0.058 0.200 ence between the storm water level and the 7006 0.143 0.200 appropriate lake elevation on IGLD (1955): Lake Superior, 599.3 feet; Lake Michigan, 7007 0.200 0.200 576.5 feet; Lake Huron, 576.5 feet; Lake Erie, 7008 0.333 0.333 568.6 feet; Lake Ontario, 242.6 feet. The lesser of the two wave heights determined from 7009 0.200 0.200 curves in Figure 11-39, Equation 10, and the 7010 0.067 0.200 period from the curves were used to obtain the 7011 0.100 0.200 wave run-up in Equation 9. The ultimate water levels for reach com- 7012 0.111 0.200 puted from basis-of-comparison storm water 7013 0.125 0.200 levels for undiked or natural shore conditions 9001 0.250 0.250 are shown at the end of this appendix. Field 9002 0.333 0.333 observations of waves and wave run-up dur- 9003 0.33 0.333 ing storms on the Great Lakes are needed to improve the method of determining ultimate water levels. 9004 0.062 0.333 9005 0.143 0.333 9006 0.091 0.333 8.3 Other Information 9007 0.167 0.333 In addition to the sudden rises of water level producing the storm water levels described above, short-period rises called surges, caused fishing off a pier on the Chicago waterfront. by intense squall lines moving across the The amplitude of a short-period fluctuation Lakes, occur occasionally on all the Great depends on the configuration of the beach and Lakes. The southern basin of Lake Michigan shoreline, and varies from place to place. One has had numerous surges. One in June 1954 may obtain the approximate amplitude of caused a 10-foot rise and killed seven people short-period rises and falls at a water level Lake Level Effects 95 TABLE 11-36 Equivalent Fetches in Miles Montrose Harbor, experienced no significant Reach Wind Directions rise in levels. No. N NE E SE S SW W NW 2001 38 53 42 0 0 0 26 38 8.4 Sample Computation of Ultimate Water 2002 44 50 42 0 0 0 23 49 Level 2003 36 23 9 0 0 42 66 62 2004 14 0 0 0 11 44 59 36 The following provides a sample computa- 2005 0 0 0 18 37 47 26 6 tion of one ultimate water level elevation for 3001 0 0 35 30 20 0 0 0 Reach 3003 at Cleveland, Ohio. 3002 30 30 20 0 0 0 0 15 Xi = recorded monthly level at Cleveland 3003 50 100 0 0 0 0 60 55 X2 = recorded storm water level, maxi- 5001 0 0 52 80 51 25 21 0 mum instantaneous level at Cleve- 5002 31 42 59 50 0 0 17 25 land 5003 61 77 82 73 40 10 0 12 X3 = basis-of-comparison monthly Lake 5004 29 69 52 13 19 20 10 0 Erie level 5005 63 80 46 0 0 16 22 23 X4 = basis-of-comparison storm water 5006 93 69 36 31 26 0 0 39 level 7001 0 0 34 39 101 93 24 7 X5 = depth of water at breaking 7002 36 75 68 87 113 58 0 0 X6 = wave height at breaking 7003 79 86 73 74 72 19 0 0 X7 = deepwater wave height derived from 7004 103 93 62 50 35 0 0 20 hourly wind data recorded at Cleve- 7005 109 95 35 15 0 0 0 53 land during the 24 hours before time 7006 88 49 17 0 25 32 39 64 of maximum instantaneous level X8 = deepwater wave period correspond- 7007 72 0 0 0 51 70 72 73 ing to X7 (seconds) 7008 64 23 0 0 69 80 56 57 Xg = wave height used to compute run-up 7009 36 25 20 0 0 40 48 43 being the lesser of X6 and X7 7010 0 10 17 18 30 29 10 7 Xio = representative beach slope of reach 7011 23 28 23 13 19 20 0 0 Xii = run-up calculated from X8, X9, and 7012 29 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 X10 7013 23 32 0 0 13 23 18 14 X12 = ultimate water level being the 9001 0 45 84 84 67 50 25 0 basis-of-comparison storm water 9002 11 71 68 10 0 0 0 0 level plus the run-up 9003 69 106 91 27 13 0 0 0 The wave run-up is calculated on the basis of 9004 92 100 27 0 0 22 62 72 the following equation: 9005 0 98 111 62 23 16 0 0 X11= 2.3 (X10) (X8) (X9) 0.5 9006 99 113 62 1-5 0 0 0 70 9007 121 77 57 0 0 14 77 129 The maximum height at breaking is given by the equation: X6 = X5 + 1.28 (12) gaging site by comparing the maximum and where X5 = X4 - (lake elevation on IGLD minimum instantaneous levels recorded each [1955]) and month with its monthly mean level. Short- X4 =X3 +X2 -XI (13) period fluctuations thus determined at six Investigators got the following results for gaging stations are summarized in Table one reach of Lake Erie where the basic condi- 11-37. It should be noted that surges may be so tion was: X1 = 570.33; X2 = 573.10; X3 = 570.97; localized and relatively short that the nearest Xi = 570.33 X7 = 22.0 water level recording gage may not even de- X2 = 573.10 X8 = 10.0 tect sudden fluctuations. Such was the case X3 = 570.97 X9 = 4.02 during June 1954 at Montrose Harbor, Chi- X4 = 573.74 Xio = 0.125 cago, when the nearest water level recording X5 = 5.14 X11 = 5.74 station at Calumet Harbor, 22 miles south of X6 = 4.02 X12 = 579.48 96 Appendix 11 TABLE 11-37 Short-Period Fluctuations in Feet Rise for Fall for Recorded One-Year Recorded One-Year Maximum Recurrence Maximum Recurrence Gage Location and Period Rise Interval Fall Interval Lake Superior at Marquette 2.8 1.3 3.2 1.3 (1903-1968) Lake Michigan at Calumet Harbor 3.5 1.8 3.6 1.7 (1903-1968) Lake Huron at Harbor Beach 2.5 0.9 2.0 1.1 (1902-1968) Lake Erie at Toledo 5.3 3.1 7.5 4.6 (1940-1968) Lake Erie at Buffalo 8.2 4.9 4.7 2.4 (1900-1968) Lake Ontario at Oswego 2.2 0.9 1.7 0.9 (1933-1968) Section 9 SHORELINE DELINEATION OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC RIGHTS ON THE GREAT LAKES 9.1 General Lake Michigan as a line (Seaman vs. Smith, 24 Ill. 521)." Each of the States bordering the Great Lakes has title to the beds of these Lakes, extending to the international or adjacent 9.2.2 Indiana (Lake Michigan) State boundaries. Likewise, the riparian owner has certain rights to develop his lake No statute or common law decisions exist frontage, subject only to statute or common concerning shoreline separation between pri- law of each State. Appendix 12, Shore Use and vate and public rights. Generally, it assumes Erosion, deals with Great Lakes shoreland that the ordinary high water mark, as used in usage and erosion problem areas. Federal court cases, would control. In defining the shoreward limits of the Great Lakes, most States have certain rules or statutes differentiating private and public 9.2.3 Michigan (Lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan, rights. In some states the low water mark is St. Clair, and Superior) the boundary, while in others the ordinary high water mark controls. This separation is Act 247, P.A. 1955, as amended, cites the or- not too important for small riparian docks but dinary high water mark in feet IGLD (1955) becomes extremely important in attempting for each Lake as: Erie, 571.6; Michigan-Huron, to properly evaluate the effects of dredging or 579.8; St. Clair, 547.7; and Superior, 601.5. filling on the shoreline and adjacent waters. Michigan courts, in defining the rights and In Michigan, for example, the ordinary high interests of the State of Michigan as pro- water mark has been used in connection with prietor or trustee of the waters ana submerged its administration of the Great Lakes Sub- lands of Lake St. Clair, treat that lake as a merged Lands Act. Lakeward of this contour Great Lake. the State has authority over dredging and the The respective rights of the State and lit- placement of fills and commercial-industrial toral or riparian owners in the Lake are deter- structures. Landward of this contour the ripar- mined in accordance with the same principles, ian has absolute ownership and trespass con- precedents, and laws applicable to the remain- trol between it and the water's edge. Recently, ing Great Lakes. the Michigan legislature pegged the ordinary high water mark at an exact level based on International Great Lakes Datum for each of 9.2.4 Minnesota (Lake Superior) its Great Lakes. Their experience indicates that it is much easier to protect the shoreline Common law states that the riparian has from unlawful encroachments, especially in absolute title to ordinary high water mark marshy areas with valuable wildlife interests, with a qualified fee to low water mark. The by using a stated level or fixed elevation. State may make use of area between ordinary high water mark and ordinary low water mark for public purposes, or as an aid to navigation 9.2 Statutes or Legal Interpretations without compensation to the riparian. 9.2.1 Illinois (Lake Michigan) 9.2.5 New York (Lakes Erie, Ontario) Common law states that "the line at which the water usually stands when free from dis- According to common law the State owns the turbing causes, is the boundary of land . . . for bed of the Great Lakes up to mean low water 97 98 Appendix 11 line (Wood vs. Maitland, 169 Misc. 484; mod- 9.2.7 Pennsylvania (Lake Erie) ified, 259, App. Div. 796). The State has deter- mined mean low water level to be 245.0 feet Ch. 13, 55-362, 363, cites the low water mark (USGS) on Lake Ontario. Subtract 1.24 feet as the boundary. from USGS to obtain IGLD (1955) at Roches- ter, New York. Table 11-6 gives datum con- version factors at other sites. 9.2.8 Wisconsin (Lakes Michigan and Superior) 9.2.6 Ohio (Lake Erie) No specific statute exists for the legal.con- tour separating publicly owned lake bed from Sections 123.03 and 123.031, Ohio Revised privately owned upland on the Great Lakes. Code, state that, The court has indicated that a delineation the waters of Lake Erie, consisting of the territory based on the limits of terrestrial vegetation within the boundaries of the State, extending from be used. the southerly shore of Lake Erie to the international boundary line between the United States and Canada, together with the soil beneath and their contents, do now and have always, since the organization of the 9.3 Conclusion State of Ohio, belonged to the State as proprietor in trust for the people of the State. It is generally considered necessary to es- Territory means the waters and lands pres- tablish a permanent elevational boundary for ently underlying the waters of Lake Erie and the Great Lakes shoreline in order to protect it lands formerly underlying the waters of Lake against unlawful encroachments. The bound- Erie and now artificially filled, between the ary separation between private and public natural shoreline and the harbor line or line of rights, related to a specific lake level eleva- commercial navigation where no harbor line tion, assists in managing Great Lakes has been established. shoreline resources. Section 10 GREAT LAKES BASIN PROBLEMS AND NEEDS 10.1 General vide adequate data for correlation with the water-level data recorded there. General information dealing with levels and The only water-level gage sites where flows of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River meteorological data are taken are gages lo- system will be included in this section (Figure cated near U.S. Coast Guard Stations. Coast 11-40). Guard Stations usually do not record wind The International Joint Commission Study data continuously, but they observe and log on the Regulation of the Great Lakes Levels is visual readings when intense winds occur. The investigating the possibilities of regulating immediate recommendation would be to im- further the levels of the Great Lakes in the plement a program for continuous recording best public interest. Presently the IJC study is of wind data at all Coast Guard Stations to considering only the existing Great Lakes provide necessary data at Great Lakes shore- water supplies with no new diversions into the line locations. An optimal program for estab- Basin. An agency of the Canadian govern- lishing meteorological station networks along ment is investigating the possibilities of new Great Lakes shorelines should then consider diversions of water into the Great Lakes Basin the present gaps, problem areas of erosion, from Canadian sources. This agency will re- and areas of potential harbor development. port directly to the Canadian government. It Instrumentation should be easily adaptable to is Canada's prerogative to determine diver- computer processing. sion of Canada's surplus water. Only after The future of climate modification should be Canada has prepared facts concerning quan- considered. The impact of such long-term tities, delivery points, and costs can studies be trends on Great Lakes water supplies should made to establish alternatives for supple- also be considered. menting present Great Lakes water supplies from Canada. 10.3 Surface Water Hydrology 10.2 Climate and Meteorology There is a general concern in a number of planning subareas throughout the Basin that Most of the Great Lakes shoreline areas impoundment on streams of tributary basins need more meteorological stations to get more will affect lake levels. The continuation of exact data. These data are essential for such practice may affect base flow and possi- studies and design of shore protection, harbor bly increase maximum water temperature facilities, and flood plain and shore erosion ranges. This in turn will reduce or destroy a information. Wind, wave, and water current stream's coldwater fishing values. Increased data are essential for proper design. impoundments may also cause more evapora- In computing general ultimate water level tion losses. data as described in Section 8, much of the Planning for impoundments must consider wind data were recorded at meteorological the long-term effects on Great Lakes levels. stations some distance away from the Based on data provided in Appendix 14, Flood shoreline. For reaches with no established Plains, Appendix 6, Water Supply-Municipal, wind station, the nearest wind station was Industrial, and Rural, Appendix 21, Outdoor used. Recreation, and Appendix 18, Erosion and General recommendations at this time Sedimentation, the Plan Formulation Report would be to establish a minimum meteorologi- provides cumulative assessment of estimated cal station network coinciding with the pres- losses of water supply to the Great Lakes re- ent water-level gaging network. The meteo- sulting from each Lake's tributary storage rological station at the shoreline would pro- and related increased evaporation losses. 99 LEGEND Great Lakes Region Bound 0 Subregions ---- Planning Subareas 0 MINNESOTA FA Subregion number (D Planning Subarea number LAKE SUPERIOR 0 (Cities) Standard Metropo W pith STATUTE MIRES Superior ONTARIO 10 o 10 MICHIGAN M.", M. $01 WIS, 0 RA LAKE @URON r. Wl CON N G B LAKE ON Z Ir HIGAN ff"', C', R. h,ester n N...... 0 k1u;kegnn Fri- Buffal. . .... .. i; Flint ,an,0 ,P,I, S1.0... ffii- Racine n,,n, NEW YORK WISCONSIN Kenosha ", E@ I L.1, I_LLINCIS Kalamazoo Ann Art, ont 0." Jackson D" a NEW YOR Rr- F@ 0 I j,- Erne 1Z Chicago 0 MICHIGAN @M C INED-IANA CH 10 ILLINOIS Hammond CC, "Sopth Br,nd I.Ied. Cleveland OLorann P73 > C @ '. oAk,.n Z &Z Fort Wayn o Z I N I A N A Lima 0 0 H 1 0 Z 0 Great Lakes Basin-Problems and Needs 10.1 10.4 Consumptive Losses of Water erence source. These losses and the total loss- es on the U.S. portion are shown in Table Consumptive loss refers to that portion of 11-43. The effects of consumptive losses on water withdrawn from the Basin and not re- lake levels in 1970 are listed in Table 11-44. turned. Present estimates for consumptive The effect in 1970 on the Lake Ontario out- losses of water from the Great Lakes and pro- flow was estimated to reduce the average flow jected future losses have been identified in the of the St. Lawrence River by 3,328 efs. The Framework Study. Previously, the most re- estimated consumptive use values for 1970 cent (1965) estimates of consumptive losses were approximately 40 percent greater than were in a report by the Regulation Subcom- for 1965 as determined by the International mittee, International Great Lakes Levels Great Lakes Levels Working Committee. Working Committee. Estimated consumptive Consumptive use of water reduces a lake's losses from Lakes Michigan-Huron were 1,249 water levels and levels of all lakes cfs. These losses lower Lakes Michigan-Huron downstream. Regulation of Lakes Superior by approximately 0.1 foot. Table 11-38 pre- and Ontario is conducted within given stage sents the reported effects of the United States limits, so the effects are indeterminate. To and Canada consumptive use estimates for maintain these limits with a reduced water 1965 on Great Lakes water levels. supply because of consumptive use requires The effect in 1965 on Lake Ontario outflow reducing outflow from each of these Lakes. was a reduction in the average flow of the St. Lawrence River of 2,269 efs. The Regulation Subcommittee's report further states that total U.S. consumptive loss 10.5 Shore Use and Erosion for all Lakes was 1,872 cfs in 1965. This is pro- jected to increase to 10,900 cfs by 2020. Cana- For planning purposes those intending to dian consumptive loss for all the Lakes was build along the Great Lakes shoreline must estimated at 398 cfs in 1965 and is projected to know the full range of lake level fluctuation to increase to 2,600 efs by 2020. which that segment of shoreline may be sub- Table 11-39 portrays the estimated present jected. Studies have developed ultimate storm and projected future losses due to water sup- water level data on a general reach basis for ply, power, irrigation, and mineral resources the International Joint Commission's study from the United States portion of the Great and adapted them to suit the shorelines of the Lakes. These figures have been estimated for Great Lakes. This appendix provides these each Lake individually and do not include the data for United States reaches. Such general lowering effect of one Lake on Lakes lower in storm level data should be applied with cau- the Great Lakes system. tion, because no field verification has been The values in Table 11-39 for 1970 under the performed. Users of these data must be U.S. irrigation heading were extrapolated alerted to this limitation. The method for com- from consumptive losses derived by using 75 puting ultimate water level data is described percent of projected irrigation water needs for in Section 8. crops and golf courses. The losses listed for U.S. power are based on the assumption of flow-through cooling (Case 1) except for known supplemental cooling TABLE 11-38 Effect of Consumptive Use on (Case 11) systems. Consumptive losses for the Great Lakes for 1965 power assuming all supplemental-cooling ex- cept for known flow-through systems are also Ultimate shown in Appendix 10, Power. These latter Consumptive Use (cfs) Effect losses are also shown in Table 11-40. Lake By Basin Cumulative (feet) The losses summarized in Table 11-41 are based on the Case I U.S. power losses listed in Superior 38 38 --- Table 11-39. Except for 1970 values, Table Michigan-Huron 1249 1287 -0.1 11-41 values would all be larger were the Case II power losses used. Erie 682 1969 -0.1 Adjusted data for Canada are shown in 1 Table 11-42. Total consumptive losses on the Ontario 300 2269 --- Canadian portion of the Basin for the pro- 1 jected years were derived using the same ref- Indeterminate--Lake is regulated 102 Appendix 11 TABLE 11-39 Consumptive Losses-Present and Projected in Cubic Feet per Second Year Superior Michigan Huron Erie Ontario U. S. Power 1970 6 68 9 137 34 1980 5 154 66 127 68 2000 37 522 209 416 95 2020 80 1145 464 814 186 U. S. Mineral 1968 84 4 3 18 8 1980 136 4 4 28 11 2000 203 8 6 57 21 2020 300 12 11 119 43 U. S. Water Supply Municipal 1970 7 295 16 250 53 1980 8 377 23 343 61 2000 12 577 44 508 98 2020 16 817 70 726 139 U. S. Water Supply Industrial 1970 17 721 28 412 48 1980 23 989 48 585 68 2000 52 1994 148 1448 158 2020 94 4084 428 3472 384 U. S. Water Supply Rural 1970 5 116 18 61 35 1980 5 141 25 73 42 2000 6 182 34 92 50 2020 6 219 45 114 60 U. S. Irrigation 1970 3 200 30 100 23 1980 4 254 32 134 31 2000 7 380 45 204 55 2020 9 517 67 284 82 TABLE 1140 U.S. Power Consumptive Los- TABLE 11-41 U.S. Consumptive Losses- ses in Cubic Feet per Second (Case 11) Present and Projected in Cubic Feet per Second (Case 1) Year Superior Michigan Huron Er ie Ontario Year Superior Michigan Huron Erie Ontario Total 1970 6 68 9 137 34 1970 122 1404 104 978 201 2809 1980 6 216 86 148 68 1980 181 1919 198 1290 281 3869 2000 59 822 318 641 97 2000 317 3663 486 2725 477 7668 2020 128 1807 730 1300 223 2020 505 6794 1085 5529 895 14808 Great Lakes Basin-Problems and Needs 103 TABLE 11-42 1970 Consumptive Losses- The most prominent seiche in Lake Michi- U.S. and Canada in Cubic Feet per Second gan produced a sudden and unexpected rise in Michigan lake level at Montrose Harbor (Chicago) oil Superior Huron Erie Ontario Total June 26, 1954, causing several drownings. In- U. S. 122 1508 978 201 2809 vestigations of such surges show that they are Canada 9 57 166 287 519 caused by intense squall lines that move Total T31 1565 E144 @88 3328 rapidly across the southern portion of Lake Michigan in a southeasterly direction. Other Great Lakes localities have experienced this TABLE 11-43 Present and Projected Con- type of water level disturbance. sumptive Losses-U.S. and Canada 1970 1980 2000 2020 10.6.2 Harbor Resonance Canada 519 784 1431 2180 Harbors may exhibit large oscillations due U. S. 2809 3869 7668 14808 to resonance within the harbor generated ini- Total 33-28 T6 6 3 9099 16988 tially by external fluctuations. Local harbor resonance, progressive within the harbor, may produce water levels higher within the TABLE 11-44 Effect of Consumptive Use on harbor than in the lake. Piers, docks, or small Great Lakes Levels inlets may amplify resonance within the har- Effec-,@-On- bor. These sudden disturbances can some- Consumptive Use (cfs) Lake Levels times result in navigation hazards. Hazard- Lake _ By Basin Cumulative' (feet) ous currents at harbor entrances are frequent Superior 131 131 --- 1 especially during storms at such places as Calumet Harbor (Illinois) on Lake Michigan, Michigan-Huron 1565 1696 -0.1 and Conneaut and Ashtabula Harbors on Lake Erie. Erie 1144 2840 -0.1 Ontario 488 3328 --- 1 10.7 Diversion from Lake Michigan at Chicago Indeterminate--Lake levels are regulated This diversion affects the levels of Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Erie and decreases in- flow to Lake Ontario. Only Lake Superior is 10.6 Water Level Disturbances not affected. The authorized diversion from Lake Michigan at Chicago is limited to 3,200 Because of their larger size, the Great Lakes cubic feet per second (U.S. Supreme Court de- experience unusual phenomena which nor- cree effective March 1970).48 This diversion, mally do not occur on smaller bodies of water. described in more detail in Subsection 12.6, in- cludes water from the Lake Michigan drain- age basin that normally would flow into the 10.6.1 Seiches Lake as well as water diverted directly from the Lake. The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Ca- A seiche or surge is an oscillation of the lake nal has a sustained capacity for diverting up water surface. Wind and barometric pressure to 8,500 efs. Approval for additional diversion are the two most common causes. Wind- amounts up to 8,500 efs was granted by the produced seiches follow cessation or shift of U.S. Supreme Court during the period Decem- wind after a period of relatively steady wind ber 17, 1956, to February 28, 1957, to alleviate direction. Atmospheric pressure changes may low water conditions on the Mississippi River. also change lake levels. One might also materially alleviate extreme Severe disturbances of lake levels formed by high lake level conditions on Lakes Michigan, the combined action of the intense pressure Huron, and Erie by increasing the Chicago gradient and strong winds have occurred in diversion on a temporary, emergency basis. various portions of the Great Lakes. The most Objections to increasing this diversion are severe effects are experienced at shallow well-known as the result of the U.S. Supreme water shorelines or bays. Court Report of Albert B. Maris, Special Mas- 104 Appendix 11 ter, dated Decemb,2r 8, 1966. During periods initiated diversion of water from the Albany of higher diversion flows (such as December River watershed (Hudson Bay) into the Lake 17, 1956, to February 28, 1957) some problems Superior basin. A detailed description of these in local navigation operations on the Illinois diversions appears elsewhere in this report. Waterway occurred. An exchange of notes in October and November 1940 between the governments of the United States and Canada provided for 10.8 Policy Relating to Transferring Water 5,000 cubic feet per second annually for the combined Ogoki and Long Lake diversions. In The City of Detroit constructed a water recent years, annual amounts diverted have supply intake facility at the lower end of Lake exceeded this amount by approximately 20 Huron that initiated operation in 1973. The percent. In late 1969, as a result of an inquiry intake has a capacity of 1,250 cubic feet per from a State bordering on the Great Lakes con- second, with average withdrawals somewhat cerning the higher quantities being diverted less. The unconsumed portion is returned to in recent years, the U.S. Section of the Inter- the Great Lakes system at Lake St. Clair and national Joint Commission asked the U.S. De- the Detroit River. Detroit's facility will also partment of State to clarify the intent of the supply the City of Flint, with Flint's unused exchange of notes on this matter. portion being returned to the Saginaw River. The provisions of the Treaty of 1950 concern- The major portion of the water withdrawn ing uses of waters of the Niagara River do not bypasses the St. Clair River and Lake St. include allocation of the waters that the Clair. Legal policy or regulating statutes Ogoki-Long Lake projects divert into the should be considered for controlling similar Great Lakes system. The 5,000 efs is for Cana- situations which in themselves may not sig- da's use for power production purposes at nificantly affect lake levels and flows but Niagara. The remaining Lake Erie outflows cumulatively may have a substantial effect on not required to flow over the Niagara Falls the Great Lakes. are equally divided for U.S. and Canadian power production purposes. Further descrip- tion of the implementation of this Treaty 10.9 Ogoki-Long Lake Diversions appears later in this appendix. Authorities modified the rule curve used for determining The Long Lake Project was started for-log- monthly Lake Superior outflow in 1955 to driving purposes in 1939 and for power de- allow for the increase in supply to the Lake velopment in 1941. The Ogoki Project, in 1943, due to these diversions. Section 11 LAKE SUPERIOR PROBLEMS AND NEEDS 11.1 General completion of control works at the head of the rapids in the St. Marys River in 1921. The In- This section presents information on prob- ternational Lake Superior Board of Control lems and needs related to levels and flows of was established pursuant to Orders of Ap- Plan Area 1 (Lake Superior) which consists of proval issued by the International Joint two planning subareas (Figure 11-41). Commission on May 26 and 27,1914, to super- vise the regulation of Lake Superior. The membership of the two-member board is 11.2 Fluctuations of Lake Superior shown in Figure 11-70. This Board directly supervises the opera- Seasonal and long-term variations in Lake tion of the river control works and the power Superior water levels have been recorded canals, as related to the flows in the canals. It since 1860. Based on these records, the differ- is charged with maintenance of Lake Superior ence between the highest monthly mean of water levels, as nearly as possible, between 602.06 feet, which occurred in August 1867 and elevations 600.5 and 602.0 feet IGLD (1955). In the lowest monthly mean of 598.23 feet, which addition, outflow is controlled to prevent the occurred in April 1926 at Marquette, Michi- level of the St. Marys River below the locks gan, is 3.83 feet. The greatest annual fluctua- from rising above 582.9 feet. To guard against tion as shown by the highest and the lowest unduly high stages in the lower St. Marys monthly mean of any year was 2.14 feet, and River, any discharge exceeding what would the least annual fluctuation was 0.41 foot. The have occurred at a like stage of Lake Superior maximum recorded short-period rise at Mar- prior to 1887 is restricted, so that the elevation quette, Michigan, for the period 1902-1968 was of the water surface immediately below the 2.8 feet. Investigators obtained this value by locks will not exceed 582.9 feet. The Board comparing the maximum instantaneous level regulates the rate of outflow from Lake recorded at this locality with its monthly Superior in accordance with the plan of opera- mean level. Regulation of Lake Superior since tion which meets these criteria, by opening 1921 has modified extreme fluctuations. and closing gates of the 16-gate control strue- Wind is the primary cause of oscillations in ture at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. Figure Lake Superior. The Lake's most recent severe 11-42 is an aerial view of the control structure. variation was on June 30, 1968, when a seiche A physical factor that severely limits the produced a reported level variation of five to results obtainable from regulating Lake six feet above normal at one spot near the Superior is St. Marys River's relatively small Keweenaw Peninsula. Local harbor reso- capacity to discharge water from the Lake as nance, progressive within the harbor, may compared to the large amount that sometimes produce water levels higher within the harbor comes into the Lake. Hydrologic and hydraulic than in the Lake. Marquette Harbor and Lit- factors are such that during the late spring tle Lake Harbor (smalleraft harbor refuge), and summer, the net amount of water enter- Michigan, have experienced these conditions. ing the Lake normally exceeds the outlet dis- Piers, docks, or small inlets may amplify reso- charge capacity. During the spring and sum- nance within the harbor. These sudden dis- mer months of a rainy year, the largest turbances can sometimes cause navigation monthly net supply may be nearly three times hazards. the outlet capacity, as it was in 1968. The maximum discharge capacity of the St. Marys River is considerably greater than it 11.2.1 Regulation of Lake Superior was, due to deepened navigation channels in the river and to the power canals at Sault Ste. Lake Superior has been regulated since the Marie. With all the gates open and with the 105 "ll / -\f@ --\- IL .-V 4 VICINITY MAP N T IF, MINNESOTA 1.2 C H-1 G N.- N$iN WISCONSIN SCALE IN MILES Lake Superior-Problems and Needs 107 FIGURE 11-42 Aerial View of Control Structure-Sault Ste. Marie flows through the power canals, when neces- ticularly Lakes Michigan and Huron, were at sary more water can be discharged from the or near all-time low levels. The International Lake than under natural outlet conditions. Joint Commission approved the discretionary The minimum gate setting is 1/2 gate open in authority releases. By the end of 1964, more the structure to maintain sufficient flow in the than 74,200 efs-months were discharged. As a river immediately below the structure to pre- result, at the end of 1964, the levels of Lakes serve acceptable conditions for fish. As 're- Michigan and Huron were 0.14 foot higher cently as 1957 the U.S. power diversions were than they would have been without the extra curtailed in order to adhere to minimum rule inflow. curve outflow requirements when Lake As part of the joint Canada-United States Superior levels were very low. Union Carbide study of the water levels of the Great Lakes, Company, the predecessor to Edison Sault an investigation of the feasibility of increasing Electric Company, lost money due to flows the present 85,000 efs regulated maximum that were insufficient to maintain manufac- winter outflow from Lake Superior is under turing processes. way. Under past discharge conditions this re- Additionally, the International Lake striction had considerable merit. At this flow a Superior Board of Control used discretionary good ice cover could be formed in the river, authority during the period April-December thus reducing the production of anchor and 1964 to deviate from the regulation plan and frazil ice, and consequent ice jams. Because of release water in excess of rule curve require- recent channel improvements in certain nar- ments. This was considered appropriate be- row reaches of the St. Marys River, it can pos- cause while Lake Superior had supplies much sibly carry higher flows during winter without above normal, the downstream Lakes, par- causing ice jams. Jams have caused flooding 108 Appendix 11 problems when the outflow was allowed to ex- lands Complex, Bad River, and Montreal ceed 85,000 efs in the past. Tests call for the River Complex drainage areas (Figure 11-43). outflow to be increased to about 95,000 efs. Ability to open and close gates quickly under adverse conditions had to be demonstrated. 11.3.1 General This was accomplished with the installation of steam-generating equipment and supply lines Ultimate storm water level data for the to de-ice certain gates. Lake Superior shore of Planning Subarea 1.1 Close surveillance of ice and river levels ac- were computed utilizing data from locations in companied the higher flow until the Interna- Table 11-45. tional Lake Superior Board of Control was as- There are serious problems of shore erosion sured that ice jams would not occur in the with some inundation along the entire river. The aim is to investigate increasing the shoreline of Planning Subarea 1.1. Shores in flexibility of winter outflows in expectation of Wisconsin are essentially clay, sand, and silt, deriving greater economic benefits. Tests and very erodible. In Minnesota the Lake were again carried out in February-March Superior shoreline, which begins at Min- 1970 and December 1970-January 1971. Under nesota Point and ends at the international conditions during the first two winters, flow boundary, is principally rock with gravel and tests of 95,000 cfs outflows were successful. sand beaches. The winter test operation for the 1970-71 The high water levels of 1968, coupled with winter began on December 16, 1970, with an storm and wind conditions, have seriously outflow of 95,000 cfs. But during January a eroded most of Lake Superior's shores. The steady increase in the water level was regis- Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, made a tered at the U.S. Powerhouse tailrace gage. field damage survey to determine the extent This level was approximately maintained of high water damages during August and until January 25, at which time a further build- September 1968 along the Lake Superior up began, reaching a peak on January 28. As shoreline. In addition, damage data were ob- this elevation was approaching the critical tained for the November 1968 storm at Saxon level where flooding of generator pits on the River, Wisconsin, and for the December 1968 U.S. side would occur, the International Lake storm at Two Harbors, Minnesota. Based on Superior Board of Control decided to reduce the above-mentioned damage survey, esti- the flow to 85,000 cfs by the closure of three mated losses amounted to $773,600 in Min- gates. This lowered the water level at the U.S. nesota and $428,700 in Wisconsin. Approxi- Powerhouse tailrace gage to an acceptable mately $270,000 of the damages in Wisconsin level on the following day. It is believed that were inundation of flooding of properties in such an anomaly was created by an accumula- Superior Harbor area. In Minnesota, minor tion of ice under the cover below the rapids. erosion damage occurred. Inundation damage The navigation season in the St. Marys in Duluth Harbor was estimated at approxi- River was extended until January 30, 1971. mately $64,000 with $500,000 damage to a Fed- This represents almost a three-week exten- eral breakwater structure at Two Harbors. sion over the previous year. The season exten- Some rivers in the planning subarea experi- sion complicates analysis of the winter test ence severe flooding problems, often compli- eondueted. It is not known what relationshiD cated by ice jams. The most serious ice jams navigation may have to the difficulties en- normally occur at the mouth of a river where countered in discharging the 95,000 efs. Addi- littoral drift and lake ice may impede the flow tional flow tests of 95,000 efs were planned of ice and flood the lower river. Lake level during the winter of 1972 after the 1971 navi- data, including the range and frequency of gation season had ended and a stable ice cover fluctuations that occur at a locality, are re- and normal winter slope were present in the quired information for designing channel im- St. Marys River. However, these were limited provements and harbor structures. to ice surveillance during the winter of 1972. 11.3.2 Sedimentation and Tributary Erosion 11.3 Planning Subarea 1.1 Sedimentation in streams and rivers of the Planning Subarea 1.1 includes the Superior Lake Superior drainage basin in the north- Slope Complex, St. Louis River, Apostle Is- western red clay area of Wisconsin has seri- Lake Superior-Problems and Needs 109 VICINITY MAP SCALE IN MILES ..0 Rive, \3 11rule Lake % Ba itt COOK ?D rand Marais AD 4 LAKE SCALE IN MILES Aurora Chishoirn 0 15 20 25 0,1 Virg,na Hibbing E eleth 0 0 0 1 Sil er ay 1,ze .face Pomt Detour N el wo Harbors p 'D 'ou;s Rive, 0 APOSTLE ISLANDS S Bay ST, UIS Duluth Cloquet S erior Orort. 8-Y a Ashla < a CARLTON Pt, 0 1 nwood 0 (6Z UJ A4/CH Z z W Isco/GA/v DOUGLAS BAYFIELD IRON FIGURE 11-43 Planning Subarea 1.1 ously marred the area's scenery and fishing. 11.4 Planning Subarea 1.2 Streambank erosion is common and is a major source of the sedimentation. The waters of Planning Subarea 1.2 consists of the follow- Lake Superior in the near-shore locality of ing drainage areas: Porcupine Mountains these tributaries become turbid (red clay col- Complex, Ontonagon River, Keweenaw or) after a rain due to clay sediment carried Peninsula Complex, Sturgeon River, Huron from interior lands. Mountains Complex, Grand Marais Complex, 110 Appendix 11 TABLE 11-45 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 1.1 Reach of Shore Weather Station Water Level Station Reach No.- International Boundary to Duluth, Minnesota Two Harbors, Minn. 9001 Two Harbors, Minn. Two Harbors, Minn. to Duluth, Minnesota Duluth, Minn. 9002' Point Detour, Wis. Point Detour, Wis. to Marquette, Mich. Marquette, Mich. 9003 Oronto Bay, Wis. Oronto Bay, Wis. to Marquette, Mich. Marquette, Mich. 9004 Copper Harbor, Mich. Tahquamenon River, and Sault Complex monthly outflow was 127,700 cfs, which oc- (Figure 11-44). curred in August 1943. The minimum monthly outflow was 40,900 efs, occurring in September 11.4.1 General 1955. The swiftest currents in the navigable channels of the St. Marys River are at the Ultimate storm water level data for the Middle Neebish dike, the West Neebish rock Lake Superior shore of Planning Subarea 1.2 cut, and the Little Rapids cut. Velocity of the were computed utilizing data from the loca- current depends largely upon the discharge of tions listed in Table 11-46. the river and the elevation of the water sur- Serious beach and shore erosion problems face at the river's mouth. Releases through exist throughout the entire shoreline of the navigation and power canals and the com- Planning Subarea 1.2. The high water levels pensating works at Sault Ste. Marie control that occurred in 1968, coupled with storm and river discharge, so that it varies according to wind conditions, seriously eroded most of the water level requirements of Lake Superior. U.S. shores of Lake Superior. A field damage When easterly or southerly winds raise the survey determined the extent of high water water surface at the upper end of Lake Huron, damage during August and September of 1968 current velocity is temporarily checked. When along Lake Superior shoreline. In addition, the stage on Lake Superior permits a large damage data were obtained for the November flow, the current is strong. If the level of Lake 1968 storm at Grand Traverse Bay (Keweenaw Huron is low, it further increases the current. Peninsula), Michigan. Estimated losses on the Michigan shoreline amounted to $371,000. Principal damages to Michigan shoreline were 11.4.3 Filling along St. Marys River. due to beach and bank erosion. Banks eroded three to four feet in several areas, and beaches St. Marys River, with its many islands and suffered considerable damage. The Whitefish channels, has experienced considerable filling Bay and Grand Traverse Bay (Keweenaw and dredging along its banks since the area Peninsula) areas in particular are subject to was first developed. While the State of Michi- high water damage. High water levels accom- gan's Inland Lakes and Streams Act (Act 291 panied by seiche or storm action result in con- P.A. 1965 as amended) has halted large-scale siderable erosion and often inundation along indiscriminate encroachments, many ripar- the shoreline of the planning subarea, where ians are still violating the law with smaller many cabins and summer residences have projects. The problem is two-fold: lack of suffi- been built in low areas. cient manpower to inspect the countless miles of river shoreline for proper enforcement of dredging and filling la*s; and misunderstand- 11.4.2 St. Marys River Discharge ing or ignorance by the riparians of Michi- gan's laws regarding shoreline development. The discharge of the St. Marys River during Additionally, people living outside Michigan the period 1860-1970 has averaged 74,500 cubic own large parts of these shorelines and may feet per second. The maximum recorded lack knowledge of the applicable statutes. This Lake Superior-Problems and Needs 111 Copper Harbor KEWEENAW ISLE ROYALE 9008 = Keweenaw te, Laurium KEWEENAW COUNTY 0 Houghton LAKE SUPERIOR Portalp take Huron Bay 900A Ontonagon flon, Dog 0,.nt. Say Au Train Say Marquette Gogebic Lake Wakefiel 1-111---90.,@Negaunee il C \-,r. Ironwood HOUGHTON GA z MARQUETTE < ALGER Whitefi@h Point goo SCALE IN MILES Au Train Bay 0 5 10 15 20 25 LAKE SUPERIOR wo Hearted Sault S te. Marie WHITEFISH SAY Muni Ing jihq-arnen@ z T Newberry LUCE CHIPPEWA dX SO DR MMONDI. VICINITY MAP SCALE IN MILES ,E, CA.- ""@@111E R.YAI FIGURE 11-44 Planning Subarea 1.2 112 Appendix 11 TABLE 11-46 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 1.2 Reach of Shore Weather Station Water Level Station Reach No, Oronto Bay, Wis. to Marquette, Mich. Marquette, Mich. 9004 Copper Harbor, Mich. Copper Harbor, Mich. to Marquette, Mich. Marquette, Mich. 9005 Huron Bay, Mich. Huron Bay, Mich. to Marquette, Mich. Marquette, Mich. 9006 Au Train, Mich. Au Train, Mich. to Marquette, Mich. Marquette, Mich. 9007 Point Iroquois, Mich. Keweenaw Waterway, Mich. ---- Marquette, Mich. 9008 threat of unauthorized shoreline improve- pids reach. Very little information is available ments is important. This area has many small regarding ice conditions in the St. Marys bays and shallow waters which provide valu- River. Based upon past experience, precau- able fisheries and wildlife habitat, and care- tions can be taken to identify the formation of less dredging and filling may easily destroy ice jams. A water level recorder above the see- such areas. tion subjected to jams and another below will register an increased difference in level, iden- tifying the onset of ice jamming conditions. 11.4.4 Winter Test of Control Structure For the winter tests described previously, the U.S. slip gage has beeD used as the upper The Lake Superior control structure is in monitoring recorder and a gage installed just the St. Marys River at Sault Ste. Marie, above Frechette Point has been the lower Michigan, 18 miles downstream from Lake water level recorder. Figure 11-45 shows the Superior. It lies across the river in a north- upper St. Marys River, depicting the re- south direction at a point immediately above stricted channels around Neebish Island and .the St. Marys Falls, which is by-passed by the head of the Little Rapid section with the navigation and power canals on both the Unit- monitoring water level gages. Data from the ed States and Canadian sides of the river as Frechette Point gage are telemetered to the shown in Figure 11-23. The structure consists U.S. slip gage site so that the two water levels of 16 steel gates, approximately 52 feet wide, can be monitored simultaneously. between concrete and masonry piers approx- In addition to gaging arrangements in the imately eight feet wide. The manually- critical sections of the lower St. Marys River, operated machinery is on a deck above the plans have also been made to provide regular gates, and it requires two men to operate a ground and air observation of ice formation, gate. A photo of the control structure is shown and to collect meteorological, hydraulic, and in Figure 11-22. other pertinent data. Under the direction of Because an icejam occurred in 1916 at a flow the Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, a con- of 108,000 cfs, authorities established a tinuous analysis of the data will determine if maximum winter outflow of 85,000 cfs. Consid- critical ice jamming conditions are develop- erable improvements in the navigational chan- ing. nels of the St. Marys River have since been made. Making the channel more efficient has reduced to some extent the probability of ice 11.4.5 Legal Demarcation between the St. jams. Ice jams can occur in the restrictions Marys River and the Great Lakes around the Neebish Island channels and at the head of the Little Rapids Section where The State of Michigan has designated the the river divides and approximately 75 per- legal demarcation of the St. Marys River from cent of the flow passes through the Little Ra- the Great Lakes for the purpose of administer- Lake Superior-Problems and Needs 113 o DRUMMOND tAKE @ORGE o. CANADA o ol, SUGARISLAND ST. JOSEPH ISLAND MUNUSCONG 51 DETO R 0 CMIOU -E LOWER ENTRANCE LME NICOLET NEEB19H ISLAND RABER POINT OF CANADIAN LOCK CKY CRABER FRECHETTE POINT P INT ST. VITAL POINT OKOUT .3-LITTLE RAPIDS 1@i SAULT STE. MARIE U.S. SLIF ONTARIO SAULT STE. MARIE % SW PIER LAXE @UIION BIG POINT MICHIGAN tAKE SUffkl@ SCALE IN MILES BRIMILEY L 5 FIGURE 11-45 St. Marys River-Location of Gages -Ao SHALLOWS POINT AUX PINS ONTARIO C, BRUSH PT. z> MICHIGAN SCALE IN FEET LAKE SUPERIOR o )GOD 2000 St. Marys River from Lake Superior. SAW@AILL PT. SCALE IN FEET P@@ o o looo 2oo P J 7 NEEBISH ISLAND 7 EVERENS POINT I RO LAKE HURON @LAKE HURON St. Marys River from Lake Huron. FIGURE 11-46 State of Michigan Legal Demarcation-St. Marys River from the Great Lakes 114 Appendix 11 TABLE 11-47 Water Usage at Sault Ste. Superior outflow at Sault Ste. Marie, Michi- Marie in Cubic Feet per Second gan, and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, is esti- Water Usage Cfs mated in Table 11-47. A map depicting these canals, locks and structure is shown in Figure Canada 11-23. Great Lakes Power Company 17,000 Each month the difference between naviga- Canadian Navigation Lock 200 tion and power requirements, and the outflow (during navigation season) prescribed by the rule curve is discharged through the control structure gates at the U.S. head of the rapids. Edison Sault Electric Company 30,500 Under a long-term contract, the Edison U.S. Hydro Plant 12,800 Sault Electric Company is obligated to pay the U.S. Navigation Lock 1,300 U.S. government annually for the use of wa- (during navigation season) ter. In 1916 the application by the Michigan Northern Power Company for the first lease ing appropriate statutes. Figure 11-46 shows was approved for the obstruction, diversion, the separations between the St. Marys River and use of the waters of the St. Marys River. and Lakes Superior and Huron. The Michigan The present lease, for surplus water available Department of Natural Resources determined to the U.S. in the St. Marys River between the these after considerable study. It is necessary United States and the Michigan Northern to define boundary areas of inland rivers, Power Company effective June 22, 1950, was which are under Statute Act 291, P.A. 1965, transferred to the Union Carbide Power Com- whereas Act 247, P.A. 1955, as amended, pany on July 14, 1952, and then to the Edison applies to Great Lakes water areas. Bottom- Sault Electric Company on August 21, 1962. lands on the river are considered private At the time of this writing, the Power Sub- property of the riparian owner whereas the committee of the International Great Lakes State of Michigan retains rights over Great Levels Working Committee has considered Lakes bottomlands. operating only existing facilities for the St. Marys River. The relatively low head and 11.5 Water Usage-Lake Superior Outflow small surplus available there make it unat- tractive for construction of new power de- The present water usage of the Lake velopments. Section 12 LAKE MICHIGAN PROBLEMS AND NEEDS 12.1 General River. Canada in 1962 43 agreed in principle to compensation but a specific plan has not been This section presents information, prob- agreed upon. This project has been held in lems, and needs related to levels and flows of abeyance pending the results of the IJC Study. Plan Area 2 (Lake Michigan), which consists of This is discussed in detail in Subsection 14.4.3. four planning subareas (Figure 11-47). 12.4 Policy Relating to Transferring Water 12.2 Fluctuations of Lake Michigan A legal consideration should be defined to The average or normal elevation of the lake determine a policy relating to transferring surface varies irregularly from year to year. water because it is physically possible to Each year the surface is subject to a consis- transfer water from the Wisconsin River (Mis- tent seasonal rise and fall, the lowest stages sissippi River basin) into the upper Fox River prevailing in winter and the highest in sum- (Lake Michigan basin) at Portage, Wisconsin. mer. In the 110 years from 1860 to 1969 the Water quality of the Fox River could be im- difference between the highest (581.94) and proved by such a transfer. Restoring the Por- the lowest (575.35) monthly mean stages of the tage Canal is the physical means to divert whole period at Harbor Beach, Michigan, has such flow. been 6.59 feet. Greatest annual fluctuation as shown by the highest and the lowest monthly means of any year was 2.23 feet, and the least 12.5 Planning Subarea 2.1 annual fluctuation was 0.36 foot. The maximum recorded short-period rise, at Planning Subarea 2.1 consists of the follow- Calumet Harbor, Illinois, for the period 1903 to ing drainage areas: Peshtigo River, Pen- 1969 was 3.5 feet. The value was obtained by saukee Complex, Oconto River, Suamico Com- comparing the maximum instantaneous level plex, Fox River, and Sheboygan-Green Bay recorded at this locality with its monthly Complex (Figure 11-48). mean level. At Green Bay Harbor, Wisconsin, temporary fluctuations of water levels 2.5 feet above or below the mean lake level may occur. 12.5.1 General Ultimate storm water level data for Plan- 12.3 Compensation Works in Lakes ning Subarea 2.1 were computed utilizing data Michigan-Huron Natural Outlet from Table 11-48. Manitowoc and Kewaunee Counties have As a result of the dredging of the 25-foot and shorelands with large portions of erodible 27-foot navigational projects in the St. Clair bluffs. Changes in levels affect these shore- and Detroit Rivers, the increased channel lands. The effect of erosion on the bluffs and cross-sectional areas have caused greater out- shorelands increases or decreases as the lake flows for a given Lakes Michigan-Huron level. level rises or falls. The increased channel capacity has resulted A recent channel improvement by the Corps in lowering the water levels of Lakes of Engineers has alleviated ice jamming on Michigan-Huron seven inches. the Oconto River's restricted channels. Ice The United States has developed plans to jamming problems still exist elsewhere, in- compensate for this lowering by structural cluding tributaries at Fond du Lac and means which are to be located in the St. Clair Sheboygan, Wisconsin. 115 C .A ViCISITY MAP 2,1 lv@ I N A N ILL) -WIN FIGURE 11-47 Plan Area 2 Lake Michigan-Problems and Needs 117 TABLE 11-48 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 2.1 Reach of Shore Weather Station Water Level Station Reach No. Point Detour, Mich. to Green Bay, Wis. Sturgeon Bay Canal, Wis. 7002 Manitowoc, Wis. Manitowoc, Wis. to Milwaukee, Wis. Milwaukee, Wis. 7003 Milwaukee, Wis. Escanaba, Mich. to Green Bay, Wis. Sturgeon Bay Canal, Wis. 7011 Green Bay, Wis. Green Bay, Wis. Green Bay, Wis. Sturgeon Bay Canal, Wis. 7012 Green Bay, Wis. to Green Bay, Wis. Sturgeon Bay Canal, Wis. 7013 Point Detour, Mich. 12.5.2 Regulation of Lake Winnebago 12.5.3 Upper Fox River The Corps of Engineers operates the pool The upper Fox River project, authorized by level of Lake Winnebago, insofar as possible, the Rivers and Harbors Act of July 7,1870, and in the interests of navigation, water power, subsequent acts, extended approximately 100 municipal water supply, sanitation, riparian miles from the junction of the Fox and Wolf landowners, fish and wildlife, recreation, and Rivers in Lake Butte des Morts to the junction flood control. They maintain project depths on of the Portage Canal with the Wisconsin River the lower Fox River during the navigation at Portage, Wisconsin. The project provided season. To provide these depths, enough water for a channel six feet deep, except between must flow from Lake Winnebago into the Montello and Portage where the channel lower Fox River. Power interests on the lower depth was four feet. It included nine locks, Fox River want a uniform flow of water from seven dams, six cut-off sections, and an artifi- Lake Winnebago for as long as possible. This cial canal two and one-fourth miles long at requires impounding water in Lake Win- Portage, which connects the upper Fox River nebago near the upper limits of regulation, so and the Wisconsin River.7 that water can be released as required. Any With the decline of commercial navigation excess waters, within elevation limitations es- on the upper Fox River from 1918 to 1928 and tablished by law and not required for naviga- cessation in 1938, maintenance of this project tion, are available for private interests to pro- by the United States would have been un- duce power. These private power rights ante- economical. Subsequently, the Wisconsin date the Federal government's acquisition of Conservation Commission requested permis- the navigation project. The limits of regula- sion to develop the area for conservation and tion for Lake Winnebago under existing laws, recreation. Section 108 of P.L. 500, 85th Con- orders, rules, and permits are from 211/4 inches gress, approved July 3, 1958, authorized trans- above the crest of Menasha Dam down to the fer of all upper Fox River project facilities. crest during the navigation season, plus an The Wisconsin Conservation Commission additional 18 inches below the crest in winter. ratified this on August 17, 1962. The Wisconsin Conservation Department re- quests that the level of Lake Winnebago be at the crest of the Menasha Dam by April 1 of 12.5.4 Diversion Scheme for Wisconsin River each year for fishery resources. There is a to Fox River at Portage, Wisconsin need to review the regulation of Lake Win- nebago as part of the development of a water Long-range basin needs for the Fox River resources management plan for the Fox-Wolf include pollution abatement and low flow reg- River basin. ulation. The report "Study of Comprehensive 118 Appendix 11 VICINITY MAP 0 1. take Michigamine o" IRO Paint #i,_ higamme Reservol, Iron River Ord River / DICKINSON C Pine Rii MENOM Nor.a Popple 9:"a' ron Mounta 0 1 0 Esca aba FLO ENCE Kingsford P. Cedar ARINE i FOREST QWAI" IN 'TON 'IL'AND ANGLADE An igo Men i ee s 0 M OMINEE Mari ette* J- Oconto 4. Stu on Bay DOOR Shawano L ke Shawano SHAWANO OCONTO KEWAUNEE Liffle lintdnVille 0 7012 Algoma OUTA MIE Ca 1? S, Green Bay aupaca De Pere I Kewaunee New London RROWN MA TOW C WAUPACA @wleton Kaukauna a:,h CA@,@ M ke Pyq- @N::n I itwoc River Two Rivers Manitowoc WAUS@ARA Berlin Oshkosh Chilton SCALE IN MILES *01* WINNEBAGO -i;@- FOND DU LAC S E GA 15 ;10 2 0 Ripon Grear Lake Fond du Lac S 0 Sheboygan ym I Ri 0 FIGURE 11-48 Planning Subarea 2.1 Lake Michigan-Problems and Needs 119 Scope", published by the Wisconsin State basin is diverted at Lockport, Illinois into the Planning Board in May 193851 proposed a Des Plaines River, a tributary of the Illinois scheme for interbasin diversion and recom- River and a part of the Mississippi River mended a 1,500 cfs diversion to aid Fox River drainage basin. The City of Chicago and other water quality. Providing such an amount cities in the Metropolitan Sanitary District would require additional storage capacity on pump approximately 1,700 efs from Lake the Wisconsin River above Portage, Wiscon- Michigan for domestic and industrial pur- sin, and possibly on the upper Fox River. The poses. After use, most of this water is dis- upper Fox River project could be modified to charged into the waterways at sewage treat- provide the means of discharging the diver- ment plants and flows into the Mississippi sion. River basin. In addition, surface runoff that The fall in the upper Fox River is 30.5 feet originally flowed into Lake Michigan and from the former Fort Winnebago locksite to water diverted directly from Lake Michigan, Lake Butte des Morts. At low flow, the Wis- an estimated total of 1,500 cfs, flow through consin River is 6.5 feet above the Fox, and 11.5 the Chicago area waterways into the Missis- feet at maximum flood stage. The original Por- sippi River basin. tage Canal was two and one-fourth miles long The natural divide separating the Great and 75 feet wide. The upper Fox River is 70 to Lakes drainage basin from the Mississippi 300 feet wide at low stages and flows through River drainage basin passes 10 miles west of extensive low, marshy areas up to five miles the Lake Michigan shoreline at Chicago. wide. It contributes 27 percent of the total in- When the Sanitary and Ship Canal was con- flow to Lake Winnebago. Operation of the structed from Chicago to Lockport, it upper Fox River locks stopped in 1951. There breached the divide near Summit where the are haulovers at six locations for recreational divide was 10 feet above the level of Lake boats. Michigan at LWD. Figure 11-50 illustrates the channel and river systems of the Chicago di- version. 12.6 Planning Subarea 2.2 Reversing the flow of the Chicago and Calumet Rivers and intercepting certain Planning Subarea 2.2 consists of the drainage areas along the shore of Lake Michi- Chicago-Milwaukee complex drainage areas gan at Chicago has eliminated 800 square (Figure 11-49). miles from the Lake Michigan watershed. Locks and controlling works have closed the 12.6.1 General Chicago and Calumet Rivers to Lake Michi- gan. The Calumet River between O'Brien Ultimate storm water level data for the Lock and Lake Michigan flows either lake- planning subarea were computed utilizing ward or toward Lockport depending on lake data from Table 11-49. and canal stage and storm runoff. At Wilmette Serious beach and shore erosion problems Harbor, a pumping station diverts lake water exist in a major part of the shoreline of Plan- to the North Shore Channel. A sluice gate at ning Subarea 2.2, particularly during periods this point is used for emergency storm water of abnormally high levels on Lake Michigan. releases from the channel to the Lake. During such periods, recreational and protec- On the western side of the divide is the Des tive beaches which front the uplands along Plaines River, which rises in southeastern much of the shoreline have been drowned or Wisconsin and flows parallel to and 12 miles eroded. The southwestern shore of the Lake is west of Lake Michigan's lakeshore. At a point generally composed of fine sand. Severe on- near Summit, Illinois, it turns southwestward shore winds and storms move large amounts 273 miles and empties into the Mississippi of it. The entire shorelands from Port River at Grafton, Illinois. Prior to 1848, in Washington, Wisconsin, to Evanston, Illinois, periods of extreme high water the Des Plaines consist of bluffs subject to severe erosion ex- River would overflow the divide and discharge cept where structures protect them. floodwater to the Chicago River into Lake Michigan. Between Lake Michigan and the divide lie 12.6.2 Diversion from Lake Michigan at the Chicago River and its two branches, the Chicago North Branch which flows south, and the South Branch, which, before the Sanitary and Water from Lake Michigan and its drainage Ship Canal was constructed, flowed north. 120 Appendix 11 -T @ICINITY MAP ..... SCALE IN M!LES a 50 IW W @Hl OZAUKEE Bend C,,@l Poll Washington 0 Hartford Cedarburg SCALE IN MILES 0Oconomowoc -Fm@ 0 5 10 1 1 20 Milwaukee Waukeshp ) ( -.L AUK Milwaukee WAUKESHA Ro.t WALWORTH Elkhorn Racine RACIn- I - - osha W 1@3@0 4S@I N KE!4.OSHA 01-laryard ILLINOIS 41 Zion Waukegan 0 Marengo Lake Forest 0 Crystal Lake Highland Park Z McHENRY LAKE KANE CO Igin o 0 COOK Saint Charles 0 Chicago War 7- ICHIGAN DU INDIANA at 0 Michigan City R Gary Chesterto 0 0 La Porte Joliet itil Chicago Heights@ O:z oint LA PORTE -@J WILL PORTER Knox LAKE STARKE FIGURE 11-49 Planning Subarea 2.2 Lake Michigan-Problems and Needs 121 TABLE 11-49 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 2.2 Reach of Shore Weather Station Water Level Station Reach No. Manitowoc, Wis. to Milwaukee, Wis. Milwaukee, Wis. 7003 Milwaukee, Wis. Milwaukee, Wis. to Milwaukee, Wis. Milwaukee, Wis. 7004 Waukegan, Ill. Waukegan, Ill. to Chicago Midway, Ill. Calumet Harbor, Ill. 7005 Gary Harbor, Ind. Gary Harbor, Ind. to Chicago Midway, Ill. Calumet Harbor, Ill. 7006 South Haven, Mich. Approximately 1.6 miles from the controlling water from flowing into the Lake. The Chicago works situated off the mouth of the Chicago River has a normal water level of 0.6 foot River, the two branches unite to form the main below the LWD level of Lake Michigan. The channel of the Chicago River which flowed amount of lockage water required depends on into Lake Michigan before the Sanitary and the number of lockages as well as the relative Ship Canal was constructed. water levels of Lake Michigan, the Chicago Prior to 1900 the flow of the Chicago River River, and the Sanitary and Ship Canal at the was reversed so that it flowed landward, away time of each lockage. An estimated annual re- from Lake Michigan, into the Sanitary and quirement of this lock is 45 cfs. Ship Canal, which begins at the West Fork of Since completion of the control works, sev- the South Branch of the Chicago River. Flow- eral severe storms have produced enough ing southwestward, away from Lake Michi- runoff to require the gates in the locks at the gan, the Sanitary and Ship Canal cuts through mouth of the Chicago River to be opened for the divide that separates the Great Lakes several hours to permit the North Shore Basin from the Mississippi River basin and Channel to flow into Lake Michigan. The flow enters the Des Plaines River drainage area. was allowed to enter the Lake because the The canal parallels the Des Plaines River and hydraulic capacity of the canals could not ultimately joins that river near Lockport, Il- carry all of the storm runoff to the Lockport linois, 31 miles downstream from the junction outlet. of the South Branch and the Sanitary and The Little Calumet River and Grand Ship Canal. Calumet River rise in the State of Indiana. A canal known as the North Shore Channel Part of the flow of the Little Calumet River connects the North Branch of the Chicago (that part of the stream lying east of Burns River with Lake Michigan at Wilmette, Il- Ditch and Burns Waterway) enters Lake linois, a suburb north of Chicago. This channel Michigan in Indiana through Burns Water- flows south 8.1 miles to join the North Branch way, and a part flows into Illinois. of the Chicago River. Diversions from Lake Water diverted from Lake Michigan enters Michigan and its drainage basin through the the Sanitary District's canals from three North Shore Channel flow into the Sanitary separate sources: directly from Lake Michi- and Ship Canal via the North and South gan through the locks and control works at the Branches of the Chicago River. mouth of the Chicago River and at Wilmette; At the Wilmette intake of the North Shore the Calumet River and the Little Calumet Channel are a sluice gate (installed in what River; and the control works in the Calumet was once a lock) and a pumping station de- River. signed to permit lake water to be pumped into Part of the runoff from the drainage basins the channel. This structure normally prevents of the Chicago River and Calumet River sys- flow from the channel to the Lake. tems, which flowed into Lake Michigan before At the mouth of the Chicago River, there are the canals were constructed, now flows di- sluice gates and a lock which permit lake rectly into the canals or their tributaries, or is water to enter, and normally prevent river diverted into the canals or their tributaries 122 Appendix 11 LAKE MICHIGAN CHICAGO RIVER WILMETTE LOCKS NORTH BRANCH ELGIN EVANSTON NORTH SHORE CHANNEL CHICAGO RIVER CONTROLLING WPRKS CHICAGO SOUTH BRANCH CHICAGO RIVER AURORA SO c4lum"', GRAND CHA Sw CALUMET RIVER 0 JF LOCKPORT LOCKS L-o, AND POWERHOUSE I JOLI ET J CIO OTTAWA Ols MORRIS Lzu MARSEILLES l::i LLJ RIVER U) KANKAKEE z 1< 0 -j 0 Z SCALE IN MILES 5 FIGURE 11-50 Channel and River Systems-Chicago Diversion Lake Michigan-Problems and Needs 123 through the Sanitary District sewers, inter- allocation during the 20-year period following ceptors, and treatment plant systems. Water the date of the order. Certain agencies, such as withdrawn from Lake Michigan through the the Metropolitan Sanitary District and the intake cribs of the City of Chicago for domes- City of Chicago, are to reduce the required tic, industrial, and other purposes is dis- diversion by higher quality waste treatment charged after use into the Sanitary District's and greater control over leak problems within canals in the form of sewage effluent and spill- their distribution systems. age from the interceptors. Water from the cities in the Sanitary District not served with water by the City of Chicago, some of which is 12.6.3 Chicago Metropolitan Area also taken from Lake Michigan and its drain- age basin, is discharged into the Sanitary Dis- Flooding has been a severe problem since trict's canals after use. the closing of natural outlets at Chicago Har- The 1930 Decree of the Supreme Court of the bor in 1938 and O'Brien Lock in 1965. These United StateS29 limited the amount of diver- tributaries ordinarily drain into the Missis- sion through the Chicago Drainage Canal, its sippi River basin through the Lockport outlet. auxiliary channels or otherwise, to an annual However, severe storms produce enough average of 1,500 cubic feet per second in addi- runoff to require control gates to be opened at tion to domestic pumpage. The June 12, 1967 the mouth of the Chicago River, at O'Brien Decree of the Supreme Court of the United Lock, and control works on the Calumet River StateS,411 which became effective on March 1, or at Willmette, Illinois, on the North Shore 1970, enjoins the State of Illinois and its Channel, allowing excess flows to enter Lake municipalities, political subdivisions, agen- Michigan. Prior to 1954 no problems of this cies, and instrumentalities from diverting any nature occurred. Since that time, because of waters from Lake Michigan or its watershed urbanization, increased runoff in severe into the Illinois Waterway in excess of an av- storms has necessitated the release of flood erage of 3,200 cubic feet per second. When waters into Lake Michigan. Flows are permit- necessary, a five-year accounting period is al- ted to enter the Lake in order to avoid serious lowed for achieving the average of 3,200 cubic flood damage in the area. When the releases feet per second. The total is not allowed to occur in summer, beaches must be closed for exceed 110 percent in any annual accounting several days because the releases degrade period. Lake Michigan's water. Several interested The State of Illinois is not now in compliance agencies, including the Metropolitan Sanitary with the provisions of the Decree although District, the City of Chicago, and the State of substantial progress has been made. A series Illinois, have suggested ways of alleviating of six public hearings has been held through- flood problems. Plans considered include some out northeastern Illinois to receive evidence or all rivers and canals in the Chicago met- from individuals and agencies that wish to use ropolitan area. Preliminary cost estimates water from Lake Michigan, to set forth and feasibility studies are being made. background information. The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Great- Preliminary information supplied at the er Chicago has suggested a series of deten- public hearings has been analyzed. The State tion reservoirs which would hold storm water of Illinois will probably not request an in- in many small basins throughout the area crease in the allocation of Lake Michigan wa- from the time of an intense rainfall until the ter until after the year 1085. With proper water could be released without causing dam- housekeeping measures Illinois will be able age. Larger reservoirs on some streams in the to make sufficient allocation to satisfy the area other than the Chicago River have also identified needs for the northeastern portion been considered. The Metropolitan Sanitary of the State up to that date. District of Greater Chicago considers this sys- The Illinois Division of Waterways has ini- tem most applicable to suburban areas with tiated work on the Lake Michigan diversion separate sewers. program. This agency is planning an initial The Sanitary District has also suggested allocation order concerning waters from Lake storing floodwaters in large underground Michigan, based upon flow rates identified at tunnels. During storm periods, water would the public hearings. It is expected that the enter these tunnels through dropshafts, be order will be acceptable to all parties, and no conveyed to large underground storage areas litigation is anticipated. Part of that order will and be pumped out after the storm. Moderate be an indication of the anticipated change in pumping rates would allow existing sewage 124 Appendix 11 treatment plants to treat polluted storm wa- and Des Plaines Rivers (Mississippi River ba- ter. The Metropolitan Sanitary District of sin) by impounding floodwaters in a common Greater Chicago considers this system most reservoir. The suggested reservoir would oc- applicable to the combined-sewer inner areas cupy a valley in lower Wisconsin from a dam of Chicago. site on the Des Plaines River directly west of The City of Chicago has suggested a similar Kenosha to a dam on the Root River near the tunnel system, but it would have less under- northern boundary of both rivers. This reser- ground storage and a large conveyance capac- voir would connect the Fox River system at ity to the Lockport outlet of the Illinois the north end by a waterway entering the Fox Waterway. This scheme is also considered River just below the present dam at Wilmot, most applicable to the combined-sewer area Wisconsin. The reservoir would also connect to where subsequent treatment of polluted Lake Michigan by a subsurface conduit at the storm water is a major objective. The State of north end. The reservoir would store storm Illinois has proposed a plan for flood control water from the rivers and also be a pumped- and improvement of drainage in the Chicago storage reservoir. No one has determined area by modification of the Sanitary and Ship the feasibility of such a plan or shown much Canal and the Calumet-Sag Channel. Sug- interest in it. gested structural changes would allow the normal water surface in the Canal and the Channel to be lowered 10 feet. The Canal 12.6.6 Little Calumet River Proposal would be widened. This improved system would provide greater discharge capacity at The Little Calumet River floods as a result of lower stages, greatly reducing direct flooding heavy runoff on its tributaries, principally and indirect flooding due to sewer-outlet sub- Hart Ditch and Thorn Creek. Under existing mergence. The deepened and widened canal conditions the flows that originate in Indiana would also provide a major navigation im- discharge into Lake Michigan. All flows in the provement for commercial barge tows. Illinois part of the basin discharge into the A technical advisory committee has been Calumet-Sag Channel and eventually reach formed for developing one coordinated plan. the Mississippi River via the Illinois River. The Northeastern Illinois Planning Commis- Hart Ditch flows can outlet either to Lake sion has already endorsed the concept of both Michigan or to the Calumet-Sag Channel de- tunnel plans in its wastewater plan for the pending on stream levels, because of the high combined-sewer areas. The technical advisory point in the riverbed just east of Hart Ditch. committee recommended that the City and From this point the streambed of the Little Sanitary District start detailed design on a Calumet River slopes eastward toward Lake portion of the tunnel system. Michigan and westward to the Calumet-Sag Channel. When flood levels are higher than the streambed at the high point, water from 12.6.4 Milwaukee River Basin Flood Control Hart Ditch can flow both east and west. The Proposal plan for the Little Calumet River will main- tain the normal drainage pattern of dry A principal feature of this plan for water weather flow but will divert all Hart Ditch resource development and flood control in the flood flow eastward to Lake Michigan. Hart Milwaukee River basin includes a proposed Ditch flow is counted in the 3,200 cfs diversion diversion channel north of Milwaukee to di- with the present average flow of 56.6 efs. Pro- vert flood flows from the Milwaukee River to posed construction of the dam and 10 efs Lake Michigan. The proposal provides divert- pumping station will reduce this amount ing the Milwaukee River to Lake Michigan by (Hart Ditch flow into the Illinois Waterway), a channel or channels near Saukville and enabling more strategic diversion elsewhere Thiensville, Wisconsin. Constructing such a in the Metropolitan Sanitary District of project would not affect the levels of Lake Greater Chicago system. This would not affect Michigan. Lake Michigan levels because when such an improvement occurs, the resulting amount of water would probably be reallocated in the 12.6.5 Fox and Des Plaines Rivers Proposal northeastern Illinois metropolitan area. In Indiana, storm water presently flows into Some interests have suggested a plan to Lake Michigan by natural drainage. Storm help alleviate flood damages on both the Fox water flows from Illinois are not usually al- Lake Michigan-Problems and Needs 125 TABLE 11-50 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 2.3 Reach of Shore Weather Station Water Level Station Reach No. Gary Harbor, Ind. to Chicago Midway, Ill. Calumet Harbor, Ill. 7006 South Haven, Mich. South Haven, Mich. to Muskegon, Mich. Ludington, Mich. 7007 Big Sable Point, Mich. TABLE 11-51 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 2.4 Reach of Shore Weather Station Water Level Station Reach No. South Haven, Mich. to Muskegon, Mich. Ludington, Mich. 7007 Big Sable Pt., Mich. Big Sable Pt., Mich. to Traverse City Ludington, Mich. 7008 Empire, Mich. Mich. Empire, Mich. to Pellston, Mich. Mackinaw City, Mich. 7009 Straits of Mackinac, Mich. Straits of Mackinac, Mich. to Pellston, Mich. Mackinaw City, Mich. 7001 Point Detour, Mich. Point Detour, Mich. to Green Bay, Wis. Sturgeon Bay Canal, Wis. 7010 Escanaba, Mich. lowed to flow into Lake Michigan. The O'Brien data from Table 11-50. Generally the Lake Lock in the Calumet River, the Chicago Har- Michigan shoreline in this planning subarea bor Lock, and the control structure at Wil- consists of an almost continuous sand beach mette Harbor prevent this from occurring bordered intermittently by bluffs and sand until river-canal stages exceed five feet above dunes. Along this segment of shoreline, espe- lake level (+5 Chicago City Datum). However, cially during times of high lake levels, erosion during severe flood conditions when stages of beach and undercutting of the bluff is con- exceed +3.5 ft. CCD at Chicago Harbor Lock tinuous. and O'Brien Lock and +5 ft. CCD at Wilmette, Several localities of the planning subarea these outlets are opened to forestall extreme have problems related to filling-in of the flood flood damages in the Chicago metropolitan plain without necessarily encroaching into area as noted in the description of diversion the riverbed itself. The Michigan Department from Lake Michigan at Chicago. of Natural Resources is presently working with local interests to restrict further filling in these several localities and to dike existing 12.7 Planning Subarea 2.3 fills to prevent materials from getting into the adjacent river and lake. Planning Subarea 2.3 consists of the follow- ing drainage areas: St. Joseph River, Black River Complex, Kalamazoo River, Grand River, and Ottawa Complex (Figure 11-51). 12.8 Planning Subarea 2.4 Planning Subarea 2.4 consists of the follow- 12.7.1 General ing drainage areas: Manistee River, Traverse Complex, Les Cheneaux Complex, Seul Choix- Ultimate storm water level data for the Groscap Complex, Manistique River, and Es- planning subarea were computed utilizing canaba River (Figure 11-52). 126 Appendix 11 M CAL o KENT ?0 Sparta Gree Ville 0 AWA Rockford Belding SHIAWASSEE @CLINTON Grand Haven r-.,, Walker 0 G nd St1 0.0 so N Ra 'd Ionia C, k 0 St. J hn _kkoll"T"a E Lo ell Rive, Durand o Hudsonville. ortland j s Zeeland 1. 1, cq" j . 'q@ 10 ]A - Holland ALLEGAN LR y 0 Grand Ledge Lansing Hastings Cedar Ri,a,. k.4 Gun Lke Mason ha otte 0 001, mver aton Rapids Otsego Plainwell ON INGHAM j South Haven VAN BUREN K-qAMAZOO a CALH -dN Z Pa. Paw azoo I Battle Creek Jackson hig Marshall Albion 0 Mic a Center e St. Joseph 0 Benton Harbor CASS ST. OSEP ANCH HILLSDALE 10 Dow ac q hree Rivers Ad Cold aterO ]a Buchan Niles Sturgis BERRIEN 31! MICHIGAN 0 ,4kw INDIANA Whi 0 'i TEUgiN MICHIGAN ut 0 hart 0 An).a OHIO Bend Goshen LASRANGE ST. Ligonier@L NOBLE ,fLK ART Plymouth an a e MARSHALL SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 25 ME VICINITY MAP ..... SCALE IN MILES LIKE FIGURE 11-51 Planning Subarea 2.3 Lake Michigan-Problems and Needs 127 SCHOOLC A OA Manistique Lake DELTA se ACKINAC Brevoort Lake 0 Manistique kinac Island ladston St. 11 nace S, I Escanaba o, Ale 10 Straits of M. i- Bois Blanc Island 1@ (1 6 e.Ver Island INIJ /0 Point Detour C 0\ Charlevoix Petoskey I MMET 41 take Charlemix North Manitou Island Q I yn - CHA.IEV.I@ South Manitou Is1ad0 s is Empire Torch Lake ANTRIM Lake LEELANAU BENZIE T averse Cit) 0 Frankfort CIO I Lsk GRAND TRAVERSE KALKASKA SCALE IN MILES MISSALIKEE Higgins take F@@ 15 20 25 Porte Lake g. No, Lake Lake C, anistes, o MANISTEE Cadillac D ROSCOMMON SbI Big Sable Point 0 Ludington Pian, VICINITY MAP MAS OSCEOLA. LAKE -S Big Rapids OCEANA ME.STA Fremont Whitehall -4 NEZYGO 0 M, USKEGON PIGURE 11-52 Planning Subarea 2.4 128 Appendix 11 12.8.1 General area's shorelines along the Upper Peninsula, except for several sandy beach areas. Ultimate storm water level data for the Filling in of the flood plain proper is also a planning subarea were computed utilizing problem. It is more acute in the Muskegon data from the locations listed in Table 11-51. River basin than elsewhere in this planning From the Straits of Mackinac to Grand subarea, because of the close proximity to a Traverse Bay the shoreline is characterized large metropolitan-industrial area. The by narrow cobble beaches, backed in some Michigan Department of Natural Resources stretches by high bluffs with only minor ero- controls filling activities by virtue of its ad- sion. The shoreline from the tip of Leelanau ministration of Act 291, P.A. 1965, as amended. County south to Muskegon consists of sandy Filling actually started before the turn of the beaches backed with dunes or bluffs severely century when. lumbering interests were very eroded by high lake levels. active in this river basin, and most of the Natural rock points protruding into the sawmills and boom areas were on the lower Lake generally protect this planning sub- reaches of the Muskegon River. Section 13 LAKE HURON PROBLEMS AND NEEDS 13.1 General ing drainage areas: Cheboygan River, Presque Isle Complex, Thunder Bay, Alcona This section presents information, prob- Complex, Au Sable River, and the Rifle-Au lems, and needs related to levels and flows of Gres Complex (Figure 11-54). Plan Area 3 (Lake Huron), which consists of two planning subareas (Figure 11-53). 13.3.1 General 13.2 Fluctuations of Lake Huron Ultimate storm water level data for the The average elevation of the lake surface Lake Huron shore of Planning Subarea 3.1 varies irregularly from year to year. Each were computed with data from Table 11-52. year, the surface is subject to a consistent sea- Certain segments of shoreline north of Tawas sonal rise and fall, the lowest levels prevailing Point on Lake Huron have experienced con- in winter, the highest in summer. In the 110 siderable damage to docks, beaches, and resi- years from 1860 to 1969, the difference be- dences, and threats to some cottage develop- tween the highest (581.94) and the lowest ment, particularly during high lake level (575.35) monthly mean stages of the whole periods. Because of the physical nature of the period has been 6.59 feet (Harbor Beach, beaches on Lake Huron in this planning sub- Michigan). The greatest annual fluctuation as area, characterized by gradual slope and ex- shown by the highest and the lowest monthly tensive stretches of sand and rock shoreline, means of any year was 2.23 feet, and the least erosion is minimal compared to other portions annual fluctuation was 0.36 foot. of Lake Huron. 13.2.1 Compensation Works on Lakes 13.3.2 Shoreline Filling Michigan-Huron Natural Outlet Problems concerning filling have occurred As a result of the dredging of the 25-foot and along the shore of Lake Huron within larger 27-foot navigational projects in the St. Clair communities such as Cheboygan, Rogers City, and Detroit Rivers, increased channel cross- Alpena, Tawas City, and East Tawas City. The sectional areas have caused greater outflows largest fill in the State was created years ago for a given Lakes Michigan-Huron level. The and is now part of the U.S. Steel Corporation's increased channel capacity lowered the water Port Calcite operation near Rogers City. This levels of Lakes Michigan-Huron approxi- fill encompasses 175 acres of Lake Huron bot- mately seven inches. tomland, conveyed to the company under pro- The United States has developed plans to visions of the Great Lakes Submerged Lands compensate for this lowering by structural Act. Many of the other fills in this area were means to be built in the St. Clair River. made in connection with previous lumbering Canada in 1962 agreed in principle to compen- activities or the development of large sation, but no specific plan was agreed upon. cement-making facilities and quarrying ac- This project has been delayed pending the re- tivities. Provisions of Act 247, Public Acts of sults of the IJC Study, discussed in more detail 1955, as amended, now control Lake Huron in Subsection 14.3. filling. At the present time, filling and dredg- ing activities within the inland rivers are also under jurisdiction of the Michigan Depart- 13.3 Planning Subarea 3.1 ment of Natural Resources by virtue of its administration of Act 291, Public Acts of 1965, Planning Subarea 3.1 consists of the follow- as amended. 129 130 Appendix 11 -MEWTR 5 2 mic ME YORK 4 o.K) VICINITY MAP 0 T R-- 0 'c; C1,03 Do 3.1 L A% K E R\ 0 N H U MICHIGA cr 3.2 o 10 20 30 40 50 FIGURE 11-53 Plan Area 3 Lake Huron-Problems and Needs 131 VICINITY MAP SCALE IN MILES 0 @0 I. 0, CHIPPEWA MACKINAC arp i DRUMMOND ISLAND S I ------- 5001 Mackinac, Island 7CO Straits of MaokinaIc, is Blanc Island SCALE IN MILES C a o Ban 0--" 01 0 5 10 15 20 Black Burt Lak, Mullet take Lake R ers City 0 t) 0 a P.,q.e Isle Grand Lake CHEBOYGAN PRESQUE11 E Long Le a Tj 'S Alpena Gaylord Thunder Bay OTSEGO ;@Cl MON 0 ENCY ALP NA Hubbard Lake A. Sable Ri Grayling 1WFORD OSCODA ALCONA 10SCO Oscoda 0 / - A. $lr Ta.as city E t Ta-S OGEM4%W ARENAC Rifle Rit*r Point Lookout SAGINAW DAY FIGURE 11-54 Planning Subarea 3.1 132 Appendix 11 TABLE 11-52 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 3.1 Reach of Shore Weather Station Water Level Station Reach No. International Boundary to Pellston, Mich. Mackinaw City, Mich. 5001 Straits of Mackinac, Mich. Straits of Mackinac, Mich. to Pellston, Mich. Mackinaw City, Mich. 5002 Presque Isle, Mich. Presque Isle, Mich. to Alpena, Mich. Harbor Beach, Mich. 5003 Point Lookout, Mich. Point Lookout, Mich. to Saginaw, Mich. Essexville, Mich. 5004 Essexville, Mich. TABLE 11-53 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 3.2 Reach of Shore Weather Station Water Level Station Reach No. Pt. Lookout, Mich. to Saginaw, Mich. Essexville, Mich. 5004 Essexville, Mich. Essexville, Mich. to Saginaw, Mich. Essexville, Mich. 5005 Pte. Aux Barques, Mich. Pte. Aux Barques, Mich. to Saginaw, Mich. Harbor Beach, Mich. 5006 Port Huron, Mich. 13.4 Planning Subarea 3.2 Saginaw Bay, tile drainage systems are oper- ated so that when wind tides on Saginaw Bay Planning Subarea 3.2 consists of the follow- create reverse flows in the main drains, the ing drainage areas: Kawkawlin Complex, water flows into laterals and subirrigates the Saginaw River, and Thumb Complex (Figure tile field. The tile fields have been designed to 11-55). utilize this method of water supply recharging during the dry season. Pump irrigation sys- 13.4.1 General tems also use the water from the drains. A similar technique is applied in maintaining Ultimate storm water level data for the wildlife marsh habitat in this planning sub- Lake Huron shore of Planning Subarea 3.2 area. were computed utilizing data from the areas Serious beach and shore erosion problems listed in Table 11-53. exist in segments of the shoreline of the plan- Locally, so-called wind tides on the Saginaw ning subarea, particularly from Pointe Aux River demonstrate the most prominent oc- Barques to Port Huron. The shore of the Lake currence of the seiche or surge phenomenon varies from rocky to clay bluffs with sections on Lake Huron. They exceed six-foot variance of fine sand. The sandy portions are most at Green Point (Saginaw River formed by the mobile during severe onshore winds and confluence of the Tittabawassee and Shiawas- storms, And in places some groins have been see Rivers at Green Point) at the upstream constructed to protect beaches. Because the limits of the City of Saginaw. The slope of the Saginaw Bay beaches have gradual slopes and Saginaw River between Green Point and extensive stretches of marsh vegetation, ero- Saginaw Bay is usually flat except under sion is minimized in comparison to other por- dry-weather flow conditions, when the level of tions of Lake Huron. Lake Huron largely controls its elevation. In Because of the small gradient of the beaches small areas used for truck farming along and marshes (particularly along Saginaw Lake Huron-Problems and Needs 133 s L A K E H RON Port Austi Caseville C LA R E GLA WIN Harbor Beach Bad Axe. SAGINAW SAY RiVer HURD 0 0 ,:hippe Midland Ess xville Mount Plea nt Bay City ISABELL li, MIDLAND BAY Car.* @t- Louis Al- Saginaw Vassar Ithaca RiV, TUSCOLA Chesaning SAGINAW a Mount Morris Flint I'lushin. Lapeer Port Huron Owosso *Swartz Creek 1 Durand LAPEE@R GENESEE Fenh9A Holly .Holly to % SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 VICINITY MAP 0 Iro 'o FIGURE 11-55 Planning Subarea 3.2 134 Appendix 11 Bay's shoreline), one of the main problems in Saginaw and Bay City. T he problem is more this planning subarea is that low lake levels acute in the lower Saginaw River than have a significant effect on recreational navi- elsewhere in the area, primarily because of its gation activities and fish and wildlife habitat. proximity to a large metropolitan-industrial Acres of shallow water habitat are lost physi- area where large quantities of earth and rub- cally. ble are readily available. Filling actually started before the turn of the century when 13.4.2 Shoreline Filling lumbering interests were very active in this river basin. Most of the sawmills and boom Some problems concerning filling-in of the areas were on the lower reaches of the river. flood plain have occurred within the Saginaw The Michigan Department of Natural Re- River system, which includes the City of sources now controls such fills. Section 14 LAKE ERIE AND LAKE ST. CLAIR PROBLEMS AND NEEDS 14.1 General the shallowest of the Great Lakes, and affords the least opportunity for the impelled upper This section presents information, prob- water to return through reverse currents lems, and needs related to levels and flows of below the depth disturbed by storms. This re- Plan Area 4 (Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair), sult is materially augmented in bays and at which consists of four planning subareas. Fig- the Lake's extremities, where converging ure 11-56 is a map of this area. shores impel water in a restricted space, espe- cially where a gradually sloping inshore bot- tom reduces the depth and checks the reverse 14.2 Fluctuations of Lakes Erie and St. Clair flow via lower currents. At the eastern end of Lake Erie westerly The average or normal elevation of Lake winds pile up the water in Buffalo Harbor and Erie water level varies irregularly from year increase the depth in the Niagara River, while to year. During the course of each year, the easterly winds drive the water out of Buffalo surface is subject to a consistent seasonal rise Harbor and lessen the flow and depth of the and fall, the lowest levels prevailing in winter, Niagara River. The winds produce exactly the the highest in summer. In the 110 years from reverse effect at the western end of the Lake, 1860 to 1969, the difference between the high- their maximum effect occurring at Toledo, est, 572.76 feet IGLD (1955), and the lowest, Ohio and at the mouth of the Detroit River. 567.49 feet, monthly mean stages at Cleve- Since 1900, the highest level recorded at land, Ohio, for the whole period has been 5-27 Buffalo, New York, was on November 3,1955, feet. The greatest annual fluctuation as when 579.09 feet was reached, while the lowest shown by the highest and lowest monthly recorded level was 564.17 feet on March 10, means of any year was 2.75 feet, and the least 1964. The extreme range of fluctuations dur- annual fluctuation was 0.87 foot. ing the total recorded period was 14.9 feet. The On Lake St. Clair the range of water levels greatest range for any one year was 11.6 feet has fluctuated during a 72-year period (1898 to in 1927. 1969) between 575.70 feet and 569.86 feet In extreme cases these wind set-ups have monthly mean elevations, a difference of 5.84 produced differences of more than 13 feet be- feet. The greatest annual fluctuation was 3.32 tween lake levels at Buffalo, New York and To- feet and the least annual fluctuation was 0.88 ledo, Ohio. foot. The storm of April 27, 1966 on the western In addition to the annual fluctuations, there shore of Lake Erie produced a record instan- are also storm-caused oscillations of irregular taneous- lake stage of 7.1 feet (575.7 feet) at amount and duration. Some, lasting a few min- Toledo Harbor or 5.5 feet above the April 1966 utes to a few hours, result from squall condi- monthly level of Lake Erie. Serious flooding tions. These fluctuations are produced by a and direct waves damaged the western shore combination of wind and barometric pressure of Lake Erie from Estral Beach, Michigan to changes that accompany the squalls. At other Toledo, Ohio, continuing easterly along the times the lake level is affected for somewhat shoreline to Marblehead, Ohio. The post-flood longer periods. Strong winds of sustained damage survey by the Corps of Engineers, De- speed and direction drive the surface water troit District, estimated shore property dam- forward in greater volume than that carried age for the State of Michigan at $1,181,000 and by the lower return currents. This raises the $926,000 for the State of Ohio. The record elevation on the lee shore and lowers it on the minimum instantaneous low level of Toledo weather shore. This type of fluctuation has a was 561.41 feet, on January 2, 1942. Raising or pronounced effect on Lake Erie because it is lowering the water level at the west end of 135 wl!!QE s X 8c ...... 0 0-- -10.1 1- 0 N T A R f m 4.16 MICHIGAN S'. cl.i, NEW YORK 4.4 E PENNSYLVANtA CHIGAN OHIO o PENNSYLVANIA o lo .2 .3 0 H MINNESOTA wIscoNsIN M(c"I$;AN,', ILLINOIS 11.131-NA OH VICINITY Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair-Problems and Needs 137 Lake Erie similarly affects the level of the Huron River, Swan Creek Complex, and Rai- lower Detroit River, with changes as much as sin River (Figure 11-57). six feet within eight hours. 14.3.1 General 14.2.1 Seiches Ultimate storm water level data for the Wind is the primary cause of oscillations in Lake Erie shore of Planning Subarea 4.1 were Lake Erie. Because the Lake Erie basin is ex- computed using data from Table 11-54. Ulti- tremely shallow, the wind tilts its surface in a mate storm water level data have not been very short time, causing the water to be low at computed for Lake St. Clair. one end and high at the other. Problems of shore use and erosion differ Hunt'17 Verber,49 and others have described greatly through Planning Subarea 4.1. In the seiches and oscillations in Lake Erie. The Lake St. Clair one problem involves control of entire Lake Erie shoreline gets these brief filling and occupation of bottomlands. From fluctuations at various times. Variations in the mouth of the Detroit River to Toledo, the wind movement seem to start the various problem is one of erosion and inundation of the seiches. shoreline during high level periods and severe storms. This shoreline consists of low, easily eroded clay bank and swampy estuaries so 14.2.2 Harbor Resonance that inundation from waves during high lake levels damages the shore. Beach erosion con- An 8.2-foot rise of lake levels has occurred trol in this area has consisted primarily of over the period of record at Buffalo, with a seawall construction, with some lesser substantially lower level resulting at the op- amounts of diking and groin construction. A posite end of the Lake at Toledo. During such serious example is the shoreline at Lost an extreme rise of lake levels at Buffalo, by Peninsula, Erie Township, Monroe County, extrapolation the estimated rise would be 1.1 Michigan, which has eroded 1,176 feet since feet at Ashtabula and 2.0 feet at Conneaut. 1835 (when the land was surveyed). Lost Cleveland, located in the nodal zone of the Peninsula is between the mouths of the Lake, exhibits little fluctuation during such Maumee and Ottawa Rivers and near the Ohio an occurrence. Knowledge of the magnitude border. and occurrence of brief fluctuations in the One of the other problems in Planning Sub- harbors and along the shoreline of Lake Erie area 4.1 relates to the filling in of the flood is important for safe navigation. plain without necessarily encroaching into the riverbed itself. The Federal government originally surveyed many flood plain lands, 14.2.3 Diked Areas for Disposal of Dredged then sold them to homesteaders for develop- Material ment. Michigan, in receiving certain swamp- lands from the Federal government, sold The Corps of Engineers harbor mainte- these lands under the Swampland Act for rec- nance dredging program is using diked areas lamation and higher use and development. for disposal of dredged material in Buffalo and Recently, the Michigan Department of Cleveland. Lake level data are needed for de- Natural Resources found that many of these signing and constructing the diked areas. flood plain lands, such as cattail marshes, are Such information will continue to be neces- patented lands being,filled or dredged to sary as the program continues and other har- create additional saleable real estate and bors adopt this type of disposal of dredged more recreational opportunities. These fills material. destroy valuable wildlife habitat on the flood plain and restrict the flood capacities of the river basin. Under the present Michigan statutes, most 14.3 Planning Subarea 4.1 of this type of development can be controlled to prevent substantial damage to the water Planning Subarea 4.1 consists of the follow- resources. However, the pressure to develop ing drainage areas: Black River, St. Clair flood plain properties for various purposes will Complex, Clinton River, Rouge Complex, continue until the Michigan legislature and 138 Appendix 11 7r, VICINITY MAP scA@=LES S ow. 21 SANILAC 0 Port uron 4,1 ST. CLAIR OAKLAND MACOMB St. Clair ii, Holly Romeo Richmond LIVINGSTON "Er'. Orion e City 'Rochester 19 Pontiac New Bait 0 Howell A-ho, Bay Algon 11 Mt. Clemens Miiford S, A@/ 0 ly" 0 101 D 0 0"" 00 0 Northville* WAYNE "-V 't, CT 0 Plymouth 0 Detroit LAKE ST. CLAIR 01b River @D Ch ' //' els"a A IT Arbor Ypsilanti SCALE IN MILES WASHTFNAW Flat Rock i- Milan 5 10 15 00 0 Tecumseh Pte. Mouille Monroe Adrian .Hu n Blissfie(Id \LENAWEE MICHIGAN M6NROE OHIO FIGURE 11-57 Planning Subarea 4.1 Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair-Problems and Needs 139 TABLE 11-54 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 4.1 Reach of Shore Weather Station Water Level Station Reach No. Pointe Mouillee, Mich. to Toledo, ,Ohio Toledo, Ohio 3001 Toledo, Ohio the courts further define the rights of the pub- has mid-channel depths varying from 30 to 70 lic and private interests. Probably more feet. The middle reach extends downstream changes in the statutes and common law will over the next 23 miles, is 1/2 mile wide, and has be necessary to prevent undesirable develop- channel depths varying from 27 to 50 feet. This ment and filling. reach also contains Stag Island, Fawn Island, Several rivers in the planning subarea ex- and a middle-ground shoal opposite the City of perience severe flooding problems that are St. Clair, Michigan. The lower reach extends often complicated by ice jams. The most seri- 11 miles to Lake St. Clair, where the river be- ous ice jams normally occur at a river's mouth, gins to divide into a number of distributaries where littoral drift and lake ice may impede that flow across the delta-shaped area called the flow of ice and flood the lower river. Lake the St. Clair Flats. level data, including the range and frequency Lake St. Clair is wide and relatively shallow, of fluctuations at a locality, are required in- with average depths of 10 feet. It covers 430 formation for designing channel improve- square miles. The drop in level in the 16 miles nients and harbor structures. of the lake from the Flats to the Detroit River The rapid increase in urbanization in met- is nearly 0.1 foot. The shallow depth of the lake ropolitan Detroit is changing the hydrologic requires a dredged navigation channel character of the area, causing higher flood throughout its length. peaks and lower base flows in rivers and Except at its head, where Peche Island and streams in the region by increasing the im- Belle Isle are located, the upper 13 miles of the permeable surface within the area. In addi- Detroit River has an unbroken cross-section, tion, there is evidence that a heat-island effect is approximately one-half mile wide with causes excess rainfall over the Detroit area channel depths varying from 27 to 50 feet. In and exacerbates the problem. Future urbani- the lower 19 miles, from the head of Fighting zation must be considered when analyzing Island to Lake Erie, the river broadens and is flood problems here. characterized by many islands and shoals cre- ated by an extensive limestone outcrop. The improved main navigation channels through 14.4 St. Clair-Detroit Rivers and Their the lower river are on the west side of Fighting Problems Island and the east side of Grosse Ile. In both the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers, except The St. Clair- Detroit River system extends for man-made changes, natural channels have from the southern end of Lake Huron to Lake remained unchanged due to the heavy blue Erie, approximately 86 miles. The system is clay of their beds. divided into three distinct parts: the St. Clair Many factors contribute to the formation of River, which has a length of 38 miles; Lake St. ice cover and ice jams in this river-lake sys- Clair, with a distance of 16 miles between the tem. During the cold weather water from Lake St. Clair River and the head of Detroit River; Huron rapidly cools when it enters Lake St. and the Detroit River which extends 32 miles Clair due to its shallowness. As a result, ice to Lake Erie. From the Lake Huron level to enters the Detroit River from Lake St. Clair Lake St. Clair, the fall is five feet; from the before it occurs on the St. Clair River. Lake St. Lake St. Clair level to Lake Erie, the fall is Clair ice causes minor ice retardation in the three feet. The slopes along the water-surface lower part of the Detroit River in the early profiles of the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers are winter. However, it eliminates the source of relatively uniform in distribution with no supply except for a small amount produced in rapids or falls. the shallow, low-velocity portions of the river. One generally considers the St. Clair River As the winter progresses, Lake St. Clair be- in three reaches. The contracted upper reach, comes ice-covered and the cover extends up- extending downstream four miles from Lake stream into the channels of the lower reaches Huron, is 800 feet wide at the narrowest and of the St. Clair River, to an extent dependent 140 Appendix 11 on the winter's severity and the water velocity mph through the channel entering Lake St. which may preclude ice formation. This indig- Clair and a velocity near its upper end of 4 mph enous ice seldom extends above Recors Point. through the rapids section extending from . As the winter progresses and heat transfers about 1,000 feet above to 200-300 feet below from Lake Huron, prevailing northerlies move the Blue Water Bridge at Port Huron, Michi- the ice toward the bell-shaped exit into the St. gan. At intermediate points, the velocity var- Clair River. There, large sheets of ice lodge ies irregularly. During periods of sustained against the ice anchored to both shores and high north-to-northeasterly winds on Lake eventually bridge the expanse of water across Huron, velocities in the upper St. Clair River the entrance. At Fort Gratiot, Michigan (head increase. of St. Clair), the river slope begins, limiting the downsteam extension of the ice cover. The transverse distribution of the velocity at the 14.4.2 Legal Demarcation between the St. entrance causes an arch-shaped ice cover. Ad- Clair-Detroit Rivers and Great Lakes ditional ice contributed by the lake exerts horizontal pressure on the arch, strengthen- The State of Michigan has designated the ing and enlarging it. The expanse of ice ex- boundary between the St. Clair and Detroit tending into the lake absorbs and dissipates Rivers and the Great Lakes for the purpose of the destructive force of the winds and protects administering appropriate statutes. Figure the arch. The reach below the ice arch on Lake 11-58 shows the separation of the Detroit Huron is ice-free (except for areas of shore ice) River from Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair, downstream to the limit of the indigenous ice and Figure 11-59 shows the separation of the cover formed in the river's lower reaches. This St. Clair River from Lake St. Clair and Lake cover is extended upstream by the release of Huron. The separation is necessary for defin- ice from Lake Huron. ing boundary areas of inland rivers under the The arch is periodically destroyed when the Statute Act 291, P.A. 1965, whereas Act 241, wind changes suddenly from the prevailing P.A. 1955, as amended, applies to the Great northerly to southerly. This south wind acts Lakes water areas. along the open water below the arch, exerting uneven pressure against its edge and causing it to fracture. When the wind shifts back to 14.4.3 Fills on St. Clair-Detroit Rivers northerly, the broken ice is pushed into the river. Possible cumulative effects of future land- As the broken ice reaches the ice cover of the bulkhead line fills on the St. Clair-Detroit Riv- lower river, pieces are pushed against it. ers and the channel regime are of concern. In Those that lodge vertically extend below the recent years, the Corps of Engineers has been bottom of the ice cover and trap pieces shoved evaluating such applications for fill permits in under the ice pack. In extreme cases, this pro- cooperation with the State of Michigan to de- cess continues until the river flow may be re- termine possible effects on the channel. duced by half. Ice jams are eroded by in- Fills shoreward from the Detroit River har- creased velocity across thejam area caused by borline now require a Federal permit. Previ- the increased differential in head until an ously Michigan required only a State permit. equilibrium condition is reached. Ice not This helps control shoreline ownership. trapped passes under the ice cover, through The Secretary of the Army was authorized the improved channels in the lower St. Clair to establish harborlines to fix the limit to River into Lake St. Clair. which piers, wharves, bulkheads, or other work might be extended into navigable waters without requiring Federal authorization 14.4.1 Current Velocities of Detroit and St. (Corps of Engineers navigation permits). Clair Rivers Since the establishment of the Detroit River harborline, Michigan has had considerable The approximate average current velocities difficulty protecting natural resources along in miles per hour through the different the Detroit River. The harborline limit for the reaches of the Detroit River are: 1.9 mph in the Detroit River reached an offshore depth of 12 Livingstone and Amherstburg Channels; 1.8 feet. The normal property boundary for the mph under the Ambassador Bridge; 1.4 mph in Detroit River has been the water's edge. For the Fleming Channel; and 1.4 mph at Windmill example, in the past many riparians on the Point. The St. Clair River has a velocity of 2 Detroit River have assumed that the harbor- Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair-Problems and Needs 141 LAKE ST. CLAIR PEACH ISLAND WINDMILL POINT 7 %7 lpoo 77 GROSSE POINTE PARK DETROIT RIVER ISLAND VIEW S Lake St. Clair from Detroit River GROSSE ILE __G'IBRALTAR HICKORY SUGAR ISLAND 11 LAND CELERON DETROIT RIVER HORSE ISLAND ISLAND LAKE ERIE LSCALE IN FEET 0 1000 2000 1@sTURGEON BAR Detroit River from Lake Erie FIGURE 11-58 State of Michigan Legal Demarcation-Detroit River from the Great Lakes 142 Appendix 11 SCALE IN FEET PORT HURON 0 1000 2000 LAKE HURON Lake Huron from St. Clair River POINT EDWARD SCALE IN FEET 0 1000 2000 St. Clair River from Lake St. Clair- OPIXY C11 North Channel S.- PTE. AUX TREMBLES CZ, LAKE ST. CLAIR Ay SCOTTEN MY SCALE IN FEET 0 1000 '000 SANS OUCI 0 MAPLE LEAF X V SCALE IN FEET 0 1000 2000 St. Clair River from Lake St. Clair River from Lake St. Clair-Middle Channel St. Clbir-South Channel FIGURE 11-59 State of Michigan Legal Demarcation-St. Clair River from the Great Lakes Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair-Problems and Needs 143 line limit was blanket authority to extend prehensive systems approach being developed their property by filling to this limit. This has by the ongoing IJC Great Lakes levels study, caused encroachment into the State's public Regulation of Great Lakes Water Levels. It navigable waters. Considerable filling re- would not be reasonable to provide compensa- sulted over the past 50 years, generally ex- tion without considering the overall context of tending the natural river bank to the harbor- probable future major international regula- line. This past practice, now under control, has tion projects. significantly changed the shoreline features The method of compensation generally of the Detroit River. mentioned in the past is to place sills at hy- draulically strategic points in the river to re- store the system to its 1933 status. However, 14.4.4 Commercial Dredging in St. Clair River the intensive studies the IJC is conducting have recently facilitated increased under- In the past, commercial dredging of gravel standing of the problems involved. An alter- from the St. Clair River has increased the hy- native method may be preferable-building a draulic capacity of the river and lowered the gated structure in the St. Clair River. Naviga- levels of Lakes Michigan-Huron. The 1926 Re- tion considerations, slope requirements, and port of the Joint Board of Engineers attrib- site conditions would determine its location. utes a 0.3-foot reduction of the levels of Lakes The main advantage would be that this struc- Michigan-Huron to these activities. Dredging ture (which would provide only partial control of gravel from the reach of the St. Clair River in the St. Clair River) would be operational at in the vicinity of the Point Edward docks (at times of high water, whereas sills would be- the head of the river) occurred during the come useless and might have to be removed at period 1908-1925. considerable cost. Removals of sand and gravel aggregates in the lower portions of the South Channel, St. Clair River, during the past decade have in- 14.4.6 Proposed Trenton Channel Navigation volved only minor amounts and have had no Project effect on the river's regimen. In each case, the State of Michigan's easement granted for this The Trenton Channel is in the lower Detroit type of activity (Act 236, P.A. 1913) was also River west of Grosse Ile. The present naviga- covered under a Federal permit (navigation) tion channel begins at the upstream end, issued by the Corps of Engineers. Michigan above Grosse Ile, where it connects with the has stopped issuing such easements by ad- main channel of the Detroit River. Project ministrative decisions. depths of 27 and 28 feet are maintained downstream to a turning basin at the McLouth Steel Plant. From this turning basin 14.4.5 Proposed Compensation for Lower a project depth of 21 feet is maintained to a Levels of Lakes Michigan-Huron Due lower turning basin at the Detroit Edison to Dredging thermal plant 1,700 feet below the Grosse Ile lower bridge, where the dredged portion of the Since 1933, there have been two dredging channel terminates. Below the lower turning projects in the St. Clair-Detroit River system basin the channel shoals to less than 10 feet, to provide for deeper draft commercial navi- and low, swampy Celeron Island divides the gation which has lowered the levels of Lakes flow before it discharges into Lake Erie. Michigan-Huron .26 Agreement in principle Plans for the improvement of the Trenton exists between the United States and Canada Channel are variations of three basic channel whereby the United States will undertake, as changes: an integral part of these dredging projects, (1) channel extending from the existing the installation of compensatory works to lower turning basin to the navigation channel offset the effects of increased channel depths. in Lake Erie This compensatory part of the dredging proj- (2) channel extending 8,000 feet down- ects has not been carried out as yet because stream from the lower bridge and terminating the extent of the effects remains to be coordi- in a turning basin nated and agreed upon between Canada and (3) channel from the present navigation the U.S., the best method of compensation re- channel in Lake Erie terminating in a turning mains to be determined, and the matter mer- basin just above Gibraltar, Michigan ited a deferred decision in light of the com- Final design of such a project should con- 144 Appendix 11 TABLE 11-55 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 4.2 Reach of Shore Weathe r Station Water Level Station Reach No. Pointe Mouillee, Mich. to Toledo, Ohio Toledo, Ohio 3001 Toledo, Ohio Toledo, Ohio to Toledo, Ohio Toledo, Ohio 3002 Sandusky, Ohio Sandusky, Ohio to Cleveland, Ohio Cleveland, Ohio 3003 Erie, Pa. sider the effects of the channel improvements 14.5 Planning Subarea 4.2 upon the water levels, velocities, flow dis- tributions, and the compensation works re- Planning Subarea 4.2 consists of the follow- quired to offset the channel enlargements. ing drainage areas: Maumee River, From the levels and flows standpoint, these Toussaint-Portage Complex, Sandusky River, are factors one must consider in the design of Huron River, and Vermilion River (Figure the project. 11-60). 14.4.7 Proposed Regulatory Works for Lakes .14.5.1 General Michigan-Huron Ultimate storm water level data for the The present International Joint Commis- Lake Erie shore of Planning Subarea 4.2 were sion study, Regulation of Great Lakes Water computed with data from Table 11-55. Levels, is considering regulatory works sites The highly unpredictable currents in Toledo for the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers described Harbor are a commercial navigational hazard. in a Corps of Engineers report.42 The principal problem area is near the lake- Because of riparian use and developments front and C and 0 Docks at the mouth of the along the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers and Maumee River, where currents affect vessels along the shores of Lake St. Clair, control entering and leaving the docks. The primary structures would be needed at several points generating forces are brief water level oscilla- along the system to keep variation of the regu- tions (wind tides, surges, and seiches) in Lake lated rivers and Lake St. Clair levels within Erie and discharge from the Maumee River. acceptable limits. Since the St. Clair-Detroit The highest current speeds occur during the River system carries considerable commercial formation of a wind tide in strong southwest traffic any regulatory works that would delay winds (rapidly falling water level) along with a navigation would have a large economic im- significant discharge from the Maumee pact. River.30 Current velocities greater than 0.8 The slopes along the St. Clair and Detroit foot per second occur near the lakefront and C Rivers are relatively flat. Their distribution and 0 Docks. A recent study reports that a along the profile is fairly uniform except near current-indicator system in the harbor is the head of the St. Clair River. Here the slope feasible. is substantially greater than those in the low- During periods of water level oscillation in er part of the system. Such conditions necessi- the vicinity of Sandusky, Ohio, similar tate a combination of control structure sites. hazardous currents occur in the entrance to The 1965 Corps of Engineers Report lists pos- Sandusky Harbor. The outlet to Sandusky sible control structure sites of the St. Clair Bay retards water outflow. during decreasing River at Point Edward, Stage Island, St. Clair water levels on Lake Erie due to the con- Middle Ground, Fawn Island, S.E. Bend stricted opening of the bay mouth. Velocities Channel, and North and Middle Channels. of 0.6 foot per second are not unusual at the Possible control structure sites of the Detroit entrance to Sandusky Bay. River include Stony Island and Trenton Serious beach and shore erosion problems Channel. exist along the entire shoreline of Planning Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair-Problems and Needs 145 LAKE ERIE M CHI@N Say 0 3002 Montis LUCAS oledo @@%j Kellys Island OTTAWA C". AL L S FULTON lo Port Clint 0 usk Be Bryan 0 0 DEFIANCE Napoleon Maumee Bowling Gree Sandusky Auburn V F ernont ERIE "d z 0 Defianc SA Us Y - Bellev Norwalk Paulding. C, TNAM Fo oria 4 HENRY)" W D Tiffin 0 nch d River Findla 0Wi lard Fort Wayn PAULDI Bli, SE ECA HURON ay" VAN RT CRAWFORD AWLLEN Carey Van We D In s ALLEN -,_WCOCK 0"a. yer Upper an sk Ada Linna YANDOT AMS -K MER ER AU LAIZE ap onet Celina St. Marys SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 25 VICINITY MAP SCALE IN MILES 0 1. Imo, -A Oes, FIGURE 11-60 Planning Subarea 4.2 146 Appendix 11 TABLE 11-56 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 4.3 Reach of Shore Weather Station Water Level Station Reach No. Sandusky, Ohio to Cleveland, Ohio Cleveland, Ohio 3003 Erie, Pa. Subarea 4.2 except near Marblehead Penin- 14.6.1 General sula and Catawba Island in Ottawa County, Ohio, and along the islands (North, Middle, Ultimate storm water level data for the and South Bass Islands), where the shores Lake Erie shore of Planning Subarea 4.3 were consist of limestone cliffs. West of Sandusky computed utilizing data from Table 11-56. Bay, except for the limestone shores of Serious beach and shore erosion problems Marblehead and Catawba Island, the land is exist throughout the entire shoreline of Plan- low and there are no rock outcrops along the ning Subarea 4.3 except near the mouth of the shores, which are essentially clay. In some Rocky River (Edgewater Park in Cleveland to places only narrow barrier beaches separate Huntington Park Beach) where the shore con- marshes from the Lake. Dikes protect some of sists of shale cliffs. Erosion of bluffs and shore- the low areas. Maumee Bay, at the west end of lands increases or decreases as the lake level Planning Subarea 4.2, has banks of low, easily rises or falls. During periods of high lake eroded clays. levels, storm-generated waves and currents Development of -flood plain areas with no cause recession of the upland areas. At low alternate routes for flood flows causes most lake levels, the rate of recession is much less, flood problems in the Sandusky River basin. but once eroded, upland areas remain lost. Because of the flat slope of the river, velocities Major flooding has accompanied ice jams at are relatively low between Fremont and the Lakewood and Rocky River, Ohio at the mouth mouth of the river, forming ice jams and fre- of the Rocky River, and at Eastlake at the quently causing abnormal flood stages in mouth of the Chagrin River. Flooding oc- Fremont. The level of Sandusky Bay influ- curred as recently as January 1959 on the ences this situation. Floods occur on the aver- Rocky River, and January 1959 and January age of once every 11/2 to 2 years along the 1968 on the Chagrin River. river. A Federal project has been adopted, The mouth of the Rocky River was dredged with construction started in 1970, for flood for an improved boat navigation harbor in protection along the Sandusky River at Fre- 1968. This increased the ice-discharging mont, Ohio, to provide for enlargement of the capacity of the river. Engineers are designing channel, protective floodwalls, and other im- similar improvements for the Chagrin River. provements. A problem of ice jamming on the Maumee River occurred below Perrysburg, Ohio, in 14.6.2 Harbor Resonance 1958 and previous years. Lake Erie level influ- ences the level of the lower portion of the Harbors such as Conneaut, Ashtabula, and Maumee River. Problems generally exist in Fairport exhibit large oscillations, perhaps restricted channels of the Maumee River due to resonance within the harbor and exter- where islands or other natural obstructions nal fluctuations. Local harbor resonance, occur. Ice jamming problem areas need to be progressive within the harbor, may produce defined on tributaries in order to avoid adding higher water levels within the harbor than in to this problem by future development of river the Lake. Pier 's and docks of small inlets frontage. within the harbor may amplify resonance. These sudden disturbances cause navigation hazards. 14.6 Planning Subarea 4.3 From 1939 to 1951 the Lake Carriers Associ- ation reported 180 accidents at the entrance to Planning Subarea 4.3 consists of the follow- Conneaut Harbor.49 It is believed that cross- ing drainage areas: Black-Rocky Complex, currents at the entrance to Conneaut as well Cuyahoga River, Chagrin Complex, Grand as short-period fluctuations within the harbor River, and Ashtabula-Conneaut Complex (Fig- caused many of these. It seems that vessels ure 11-61). entering Conneaut Harbor are caught in out- Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair-Problems and Needs 147 e onneaut Ashtabula ab. M z 0 Geneva z 0 X Fairport Harbor Painesville Grand River Jefferson r<- > z 4- > LAKE U ASHTABULA) Lorain Cle land Slack River 0 Elyria GEAUGA Oberlin 0 CUYAHOGA 0 W Ilington Medioa 0 Ravenna LORAIN c kron MEDINA PORTAGE SUMMIT SCALE IN MILES F-@ 0 5 10 15 VICINITY MAP SCALE IN MILES o @o I6o FIGURE 11-61 Planning Subarea 4.3 148 Appendix 11 flowing or inflowing currents produced by a toral drift and lake ice impede the flow of ice higher fluctuation in the harbor than in the and storm discharge. Serious damage occurs Lake. These short fluctuations occur three or almost every other year with the last major four times more often than the larger fluctua- damage in 1968. A small-boat navigation im- tions at Buffalo, but are associated with these provement and levees to provide flood protec- changes. Harbor resonance generated by tion are nearly completed at Cattaraugus seiches also causes lake level fluctuations at Creek. Conneaut. It is known that these disturbances produce different fluctuations at Fairport, Ashtabula, and Conneaut. Verber reports a 1.3- 14.7.2 Niagara River foot rise in forty-five minutes on March 7, 1955, in Conneaut Harbor. An 8.2-foot rise occurred.. The Niagara River, which is 36 miles long, during the period of record at Buffalo, with flows northward out of the northeast end of substantial lowering at the opposite end of the Lake Erie into the southwest end of Lake On- Lake at Toledo. During such an extreme rise tario. The fall of the river, taken at the respec- at Buffalo, the estimated rise by extrapolation tive mean levels of Lakes Erie and Ontario for would be 1.1 feet at Ashtabula and 2.0 feet at the years 1900 to 1969, is 325.61 feet. Details of Conneaut. the approximate fall are shown in Table 11-58 based on mean levels for Lake Erie as deter- 14.7 Planning Subarea 4.4 mined by the Buffalo District, Corps of En- gineers. Planning Subarea 4.4 consists of the follow- Just below Goat Island the Niagara waters ing drainage areas: Erie-Chautauqua Com- descend rapidly to the level of Lake Ontario, plex, Cattaraugus River, and Tonawanda through the rapids above the Falls, the great Creek. Figure 11-62 is a map of this planning Falls themselves, and the rapids below the subarea. Falls whose approximate descents are: upper rapids, 50 ft; Niagara Falls, 182 ft. (during 100,000 cfs flow over Falls); lower rapids, 83 ft.; 14.7.1 General Niagara River below Lewiston, 0.5 ft. During the 110-year period from 1860 to 1969 Ultimate storm water level data for the the discharge of the Niagara River averaged Lake Erie shore of Planning Subarea 4.4 were 201,900 cubic feet per second. The currents- in computed utilizing data from Table 11-57. Ul- the Niagara River from its head to the foot of timate water levels were not computed for the Squaw Island are strong and somewhat vari- shoreline from Erie, Pennsylvania, to Buffalo, able, and the bottom is generally rocky. The New York, in the IJC study, Regulation of channel in the open river is shallow, and navi- Great Lakes Water Levels. Ultimate water gation is hazardous. The Black Rock Canal levels have been derived for this segment of affords an alternate deep route from Lake shoreline for the Framework Study. Erie at Buffalo to the foot of Squaw Island, Serious beach erosion problems exist at where it connects with the river by means of a Presque Isle, Pennsylvania. A cooperative ship lock accommodating large vessels. Its beach erosion control project was originally present available depth is 21 feet. authorized in 1954 .6 Seawalls and groins have been constructed and a continuing beach nourishment program established. The re- 14.7.2.1 Federal Navigation Project mainder of the shoreline in Planning Subarea 4.4 consists primarily of shale bluffs. The Navigation improvements from the head of length of shore vulnerable to appreciable the Niagara River at Buffalo, New York to wave damage is small. Tonawanda, New York provide a channel 21 Serious flooding has accompanied ice jams feet deep from the Buffalo north entrance on the Buffalo River and its tributaries. These channel to a point opposite Sixth Avenue in j ams normally occur in shallow areas, and lake North Tonawanda, having a total length of stages do not affect them. The most recent 131/2 miles and width of 200 feet or more. The major damage occurred in January 1959. improvement encompasses the Lake Erie en- Other serious flooding problems occur on Ton- trance; Black Rock Canal and ship lock; the awanda Creek and its tributaries, Ellicott, east channel of the river from the foot of Bull, and Mud Creeks. Severe ice jams occur Squaw Island through Strawberry Island at the mouth of Cattaraugus Creek, where lit- Reef to deep water below Rattlesnake Island Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair-Problems and Needs 149 LAKE ONTARI z NIAGARA w Lockport Niag ra Fa s onawanda k Grand d atavia Ellicott S Buffaill Lances 0 East Aur a ot - Hamburg Springville. C11"efe" S Cr. Ik Dunkirk ERIE 0 Fredonia I---- We Presque sle 0 Salamanca Erie @ Jar 9 Olean w z z z w CHAUTAUQUA NEWYORK CATTARAUGUS a- PENNSYLVANIA z -y 0 w ERIE a Union City 0. SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 VICINITY MAP ... SCALE IN MILES o @-o @o 10 FIGURE 11-62 Planning Subarea 4.4 150 Appendix 11 TABLE 11-57 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 4.4 Reach of Shore Weather Station Water Level Station Reach No. Sandusky, Ohio to Cleveland, Ohio Cleveland, Ohio 3003 Erie, Pa. Erie, Pa. to Buffalo, N.Y. Erie, Pa. 3004 11 miles south of Buffalo, N.Y. TABLE 11-58 Niagara River Profile tives determine the amounts of water avail- Distance Approx. Fall able for Treaty purposes, and record the From Lake Erie in Miles in Feet amounts of water used for power diversions. To Peace Bridge 2.0 3.4 By an exchange of notes during January 1955, To Foot of Squaw Island 4.0 5.7 the two governments officially designated the To Head of Grand Island 6.3 6.4 representatives as the International Niagara To Head of Tonawanda Island 12.1 7.2 Committee. To N. Grand Island Bridges 18.8 9.5 To Head of Goat Island 22.4 16.1 With regard to flows and diversions, the Treaty of 1950 became effective October 10, 1950. Under this treaty all waters in excess of Shoal; and a channel through the shallow area certain minimum flows needed to maintain in the river on the west of Tonawanda Island, the scenic spectacle at Niagara Falls are terminating in a turning basin below the foot available for power diversion and, with the of the island at North Tonawanda. The New exception of the 5,000 cubic feet per second York State Barge Canal System utilizes the (Ogoki-Long Lake Diversions into Lake mouth of Tonawanda Creek as its entrance, Superior) authorized in 1940 for Canadian di- Tonawanda Creek is used as the canal to Pen- version, are to be allocated equally between dleton, New York, where the artificial chan- the two countries. If the power development of nel begins. one country cannot use its total allocation, the Black Rock Canal lies along Buffalo's Niag- other country may use what is left. Minimum ara riverfront. It is generally parallel to the flows over the Falls are not to be less than river, separated by Bird Island Pier and 100,000 cubic feet per second between 8:00 a.m. Squaw Island. These retain the canal pool on and 10:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, from the west end, and with the Black Rock Lock, April 1 to September 1, and 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 serve to keep the canal level the same as the p.m. from September 16 to October 31. At all water surface of Lake Erie. Black Rock Lock, other times, the flow over the Falls is to be at connecting the canal with the river near the least 50,000 cubic feet per second. foot of Squaw Island, is 650 feet long (usable The International Niagara Committee re- length 625 feet), 70 feet wide (68 feet in the ceives daily reports of operations of the hy- clear), with 21.6 feet depth over miter sills and droelectric generating stations on the Niagara an average life of 5.2 feet. River that divert water above Niagara Falls, and the DeCew Falls plant in Canada that di- verts water from Lake Erie through the Wel- 14.7.2.2 The Treaty of 1950 Concerning land Canal. The Committee checks these re- Niagara River ports submitted by the power entities. These reports show the quantities of water diverted The Treaty of 1950 between Canada and the each hour, and from this, the Committee pre- United States concerning uses of the waters of pares monthly and annual summaries. the Niagara River was signed on February 27, Monthly values for diversions by the New 1950. By its provisions it ended the limitations York State Barge Canal and the Welland on diverting Niagara River water for power in Canal for purposes other than power are also accordance with Article V of the Treaty of included in the summaries. 1909. It replaced temporary international Committee representatives inspect all agreements for the allocation of the Niagara plants bi-weekly and intermittently to obtain River for power purposes. In accordance with independent watt-meter readings for power provisions of Article VII of the 1950 Treaty, a output and to assure compliance with all Trea- representative was appointed by each gov- ty provisions and periodically check gages ernment. Acting jointly, these representa- used to compute flows. These checks are in- Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair-Problems and Needs 151 TABLE11-59 Power Generating Installations The high-head plants produce 22 to 24 kilowatts of power per cfs. Data on the Niag- Capacity Average Head ara River and Welland Canal power generat- Station in Kilowatts in Feet ing installation are summarized in Table 11-59. United States Figure 11-63 is a ma showing the location Robert Moses 1,950,000 300 P (Pump Storage) 240,000 75 of the Niagara River power plants. An esti- mated dollar value of additional flow for power Canada 1 purposes on the Niagara River is provided in Sir Adam Beck 1 441,000 295-298 1 Figure 11-75. Sir Adam Beck 11 1,200,000 294-297 2 (Pump Storage) 170,000 50-75 3 60-85 1 14.7.2.4 Chippawa-Grass Island Pool Ontario Power 135,000 205-230 1 Canadian Niagara 80,000 189-208 Toronto 108,000 135 When the flow over the Falls is changed DeCew Falls 1 36,000 266 from 50,000 efs to 100,000 cfs or vice versa in DeCew Falls 11 120,000 283 order to comply with the Treaty, the level of IVaries with flow over Niagara Falls - 50,000 cfs the Maid-of-the-Mist Pool suddenly changes minimum at times, 100,000 cfs minimum at other more than ten feet and outflow no longer times equals inflow. 2100,000 cfs The four miles of river from the lower end of 350,000 cfs Grand Island to the head of the Cascades op- posite the upstream end of Goat Island is known as the Chippawa-Grass Island Pool. The high-head hydroelectric power plant in- corporated into the existing power inspection takes are in this pool. On the Canadian side, schedule and include the storage reservoirs near the downstream end of the pool, the and low-head plants, as well as the high-head Niagara River control structure extends into plants. the river at right angles to the shore for 2,000 feet. Except for an approach fill adjacent to the shore it consists entirely of piers and 18 14.7.2.3 Power Projects movable control gates. The control structure which was constructed as a result of the Trea- There are five hydroelectric power plants ty of 1950 compensates for the large power di- (U.S. and Canadian) using Niagara River versions, maintains natural levels in the water, and one plant utilizing Welland Canal upper Niagara River, and expedites the twice- water. All Niagara River hydroelectric power daily changes in flow over the Falls during plants divert water from above the Falls. The the tourist season. The approximate elevation diverted water runs through the turbines and of the water level of the river at the control is returned to the river below the Falls. Ter- structure is 561.5 feet. If this level is exceeded, minology divides the plants into the two types, the water level is beyond the capacity of the high-head and low-head. The high-head plants control gates. The low-head Canadian plants of the Power Authority of the State of New must thus operate to utilize flows in excess of York at Lewiston, New York and the Hydro the Treaty requirements, or the additional Electric Power Commission of Ontario at water will be lost for power-gene rating pur- Queenston, Ontario use most of the diverted poses. The performance of the control struc- water and nearly all of the difference in eleva- ture during 1968 averaged 750 cfs in excess of tion between the Lakes (approximately 300 Treaty flows over the Falls. The power entities feet of the available 326 feet), returning water operate the control structure to maintain the to the river below the Whirlpool Rapids. The pool at normal levels within the tolerances set low-head plants in Canada divert their water by the International Niagara Board of Con- for power purposes just a short distance up- trol. The International Joint Commission 14 es- stream of the Falls and discharge into the tablished this Board to supervise the con- Maid-of-the-Mist Pool at the foot of the Falls, struction, maintenance, and operation of re- where the water elevation is approximately 76 medial works provided on the Niagara River feet higher than below the Whirlpool Rapids.' under the 1950 Treaty with Canada. The es- The low-head plants generate 7 to 12 tablished tolerances are _t 0.5 foot for the daily kilowatts of electrical power per cfs of water. mean, and � 0.3 foot for the monthly mean. 152 Appendix 11 ONTARIO NEW YORK ROBERT MOSES NIAGARA SIR ADAM BECK POWER PLANT NIAGARA GENERATING STATIONS RESERVOIR RESERVOIR #2 PUMPING GENERATING STATION LEWISTON PUMP GENERATING PLANT 11c 11@ ONTARIO 110 POWER Im CITY OF NIAGARA @, 'c) 011 GENERATING Ilm 0 rnjj STATION FALLS iic: z 10 z z rn C7 c: CANADIAN NIAGARA VJ BUCKHORN DIKES GENERATING STATION CHIPPAWA GRASS "a 0 TORONTO POWER NIAGARA ::E RIVER Flow rn GENERATING STATION ISLAND POOL z CONTROL STRUCTURE NAVY 1. WELLAND RIVER GRAND ISLAND NEW YORK SCALE IN MILES 0 1 2 FIGURE 11-63 Niagara River Power Plants Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair-Problems and Needs 153 The average fluctuation (range from the low- damaged shoreline property and reduced est to highest level) at the control structure on power production from blockages at the in- a daily basis is approximately 1 to 11/2 feet. takes. The largest recent ice jam flood was in The extreme fluctuation experienced at the March 1955. Other serious damage occurred in control structure caused by low levels or storm April 1909, April 1928, May 1942, and January .conditions over Lake Erie may vary three feet. 1962 and 1964. The ice boom is designed to help The New York State Department of En- consolidate the early ice cover on the Lake so vironmental Conservation representative that it does not break up and move down the from Avon, New York, has commented on the river. Under strong winds ice will override the range of fluctuations in the upper Niagara boom, but as the winds subside the boom will River as the result of power diversions and rise and reduce the flow of ice. the effects of these fluctuations on the fish The ice boom is placed in position in De- habitat. The main concern is the bass fisheries cember and opened in April or early May. spawning period that occurs between May Since construction of the ice boom, there has and July. It was stated that the present power been relatively little damage to shore prop- operations have had no detrimental effects erty and power production. The ice boom is on the fish habitat. pictured in Figure 11-64. Extensive studies have been under way sinc6 1967 by the Corps of Engineers and the Water Survey of Canada to determine the 14.7.2.6 Land Fills and Marine Structure backwater effect in the upper Niagara River Development along Upper Niagara and Lake Erie produced by manipulation of River the Chippawa-Grass Island Pool. Several methods of determining this effect have been Landfills along river frontages could change tried, and further study is required. Field the river's hydraulic capacity. There is con- measurements have also been made to check cern that cumulative effects could reduce flow the summer weed retardation effect on upper and ice passage capacities down the Niagara, Niagara River flows. The degree of weed effect and raise levels on Lake Erie. The Interna- is necessary in order to determine a suitable tional Niagara Board of Control is investigat- permanent method for controlling the level of ing this because it exists on both sides of the the Chippawa-Grass Island Pool. Also, ice re- river. tardation in the winter must be taken into The State of New York and Federal agencies consideration. must review construction permits for landfills and marine structures along the Niagara River with consideration of their effects on 14.7.2.5 Lake Erie-Niagara River Ice Boom discharge capacity. An alternative solution might include making approval for future Lake Erie has an area of approximately permits dependent on payment of prorated 10,000 square miles, most of which becomes costs for compensating measures required to ice-covered during a normal winter. The ice maintain the river's hydraulic capacity. near the Niagara River entrance usually arches from shore to shore, preventing ice from passing from the Lake into the river. 14.7.2.7 Niagara River Gorge Natural Ice Under especially adverse conditions of wind, Bridge temperature, and ice thickness, this arch and the ice behind it break, and large quantities of Ice from Lake Erie that is carried down the ice (up to 40 square miles per day) flow down Niagara River and swept over the Falls causes the Niagara River. The Niagara River above an ice build-up in the Niagara River gorge. the Falls cannot carry ice at this rate for more Freezing river waters add extensively to this than a few hours without serious blockages. ice bridge. The Niagara River gorge ice bridge The Power Authority of the State of New York has occasionally caused physical damage, and the Hydro Electric Power Commission of most recently in 1964 when ice rose 80 feet and Ontario constructed the Lake Erie-Niagara extensively damaged Maid-of-the-Mist Pool River ice boom to prevent the mass movement facilities. Ice damaged the Ontario power of ice from the Lake to assist in reducing ice plant in the gorge and jammed the river damage in the Niagara River. Before con- nearly solid to Youngstown, New York. With struction of the ice boom in 1964, the flow of the installation of the ice boom, ice jamming Lake Erie ice into the Niagara River seriously has been substantially less on the lower Niag- 154 Appendix 11 -7 FIGURE 11-64 Niagara River Ice Boom ara River, but no noticeable change has oe- The water levels of the river in the vicinity curred to the natural ice bridge. of Lewiston, New York, and Queenston, On- tario, fluctuate rapidly because of water dis- charges from high-head power plants due to 14.7.2.8 Niagara River below Niagara Falls their pump-storage power generating opera- tions. These fluctuations average from 0.2 to The lower Niagara River is navigable for 0.4 foot. Recreational navigation interests seven miles from its mouth in Lake Ontario to should consider greater utilization of the Lewiston at the foot of the lower rapids. It has lower Niagara River. an unobstructed channel 1,500 to 2,000 feet wide and 30 to 70 feet deep, although the river entrance has a limiting depth of 13 feet. The 14.7.3 Diversion from Lake Erie via Black area in Lake Ontario off the mouth of the Rock Navigation Canal Niagara River has extensive shoals within a three-mile radius. Commercial sand and The Black Rock Navigation Canal at Buffalo gravel are dredged intermittently in the area, is a means of diverting more waters from Lake and the depths change. Commercial naviga- Erie down the Niagara River when Lake Erie tion is limited on the lower river. has high water levels. With a normal five-foot The lower Niagara River reach, upstream drop from the Lake Erie level to the lower end from the Lewiston, New York-Queenston, On- of the Black Rock Canal Lock it is possible to tario area, is not considered navigable be- discharge approximately 15,000 cfs continu- cause of heavy rapids extending more than ously. However, it would take a sector gate four miles. modification to accommodate such continuous Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair-Problems and Needs 155 flow because the lock is now equipped with ing the navigation season. Lock Numbers 4, 5, miter gates. The present annual canal diver- and 6 are twin locks in flight, overcoming the sion for navigation is estimated at 10 cfs. The steep rise between Merriton and Thorold intake valve culverts for the lock under con- known as the Niagara escarpment, and per- tinuous flow could discharge approximately mitting uninterrupted passage to both up- 700 cfs. It would cost little to accomplish this bound and downbound traffic. small increase in outflow from Lake Erie. Lake Erie water reaches Lake Ontario Use of the canal as an additional diversion through the Welland Canal and the tailrace of channel would interrupt navigation. Local DeCew Falls hydroelectric power plant three navigation between Tonawanda- Buffalo miles west of the Welland Canal. The DeCew River makes limited use of the canal through- Falls plant draws its water from the Welland out the winter. Actual lock modification would Canal. The amount of water the Welland cost $1,720,000, not including the cost to pro- Canal diverts from Lake Erie for navigation tect the lock walls against resulting higher and power has averaged 7,290 cfs for the water velocities. Detailed studies would be re- period 1959-1968. The computed effect of the quired to determine such cost and substan- Welland Canal (7,000 cfs) has lowered Lake tiate the cost, as well as to determine the bene- Erie level by 0.32 foot and decreased the Niag- fits to be derived from such a project. ara River outflow accordingly. An alternative that provides greater flexi- bility, because it would not impede navigation, would be to excavate a new discharge canal across Squaw Island. This could lower con- 14.7.5 Study of Preservation and struction costs to provide greater Lake Erie Enhancement of the American Falls, outlet capacity during high water periods. A Niagara River control structure consisting of a 70-foot-wide weir section with a sill elevation of 546 feet Before 1931 the American Falls had a fairly was selected for this. The control gate would straight crest with a relatively unbroken fall be of the tainter type, submersible to allow ice to the pool below, although some debris was skimming. The scheme's estimated first cost is visible at the base. Rock falls beginning in $1,714,000. An increase in the outflow from 1931 have left the Falls with a jagged crest. Lake Erie of 15,000 cfs for a period of seven Fallen rock obscures much of the base and has months would lower the level of the Lake by reduced the unbroken curtain height by half. 0.53 foot. Under the diversion conditions permitted by the 1950 Treaty, stages in the downstream pool may be as much as 25 feet lower during 14.7.4 Welland Ship Canal, Ontario, Canada non-tourist hours than was permitted before 1950, exposing more debris at the base of the This canal was constructed between 1913 Falls. and 1932 to supersede a former third canal By reference dated March 31, 1967, the gov- that restricted the size of vessels passing be- ernments of the United States and Canada tween Lake Ontario and the Upper LakeS.4 It requested the International Joint Commis- crosses the Niagara peninsula generally in a sion, pursuant to Article IV of the Boundary north-south direction between Port Weller on Waters Treaty of .1909, to investigate and re- Lake Ontario and Port Colborne on Lake Erie. port upon measures necessary to preserve or The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority of enhance the beauty of the American Falls at Canada controls it. Niagara.In 1967 14 The IJC established the The canal is 27.6 miles long and generally American Falls International Board to under- 200 feet wide at the bottom and 3 10 feet wide at take, through appropriate agencies in Canada the water surface. Its present depth is 27 feet and the United States, the necessary investi- with a permissible draft of 253/4 feet. There gations and studies and to advise the Commis- are eight locks, comprising seven lift locks lo- sion on all matters relevant to a report or re- cated in the northern one-third of the total ports under the above-cited reference. The length at and below Thorold, and one guard Commission directed the Board to advise it as lock about 11/2 miles north of the Port Col- to the desirability of removing some or all of borne entrance. The lifts vary from 43.7 to 47.9 the talus collected at the base of the American feet, aggregating 327 feet. Any vessel no more Falls and feasible measures for effecting such than 730 feet in overall length, 75 feet 6 inches removal; feasible and desirable measures to in extreme breadth, and 253/4 feet draft, in- retard or prevent future erosion of the Ameri- cluding permanent fenders, may transit dur- can Falls; any other measures which it consid- 156 Appendix 11 4@, AIP 24 r FIGURE 11-65 American Falls Dewatered Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair-Problems and Needs 157 ers desirable or necessary to preserve or en- no significant talus accumulates at Horseshoe hance the beauty of the American Falls; and Falls and recession is greater. the allocation between the United States and To implement the 1950 Treaty concerning Canada of the work and costs involved in un- the use of the waters of the Niagara River, the dertaking any such measures. United States and Canada constructed reme- From the examinations of the dewatered dial works at the Falls and in the upper Niag- American Falls from June to November 1969 ara River. Their purposes were to reduce the (Figure 11-65), some preliminary observations erosional recession rate of the Canadian may be made as to the geologic character and Horseshoe Falls, to provide a dependable flow condition of the Falls. Much compilation, cor- of water over the Falls, and to control relation, and analysis must be done before Chippawa-Grass Island Pool with the ability completing the study, but it seems that the to meet promptly the permissible power diver- degree of undermining is less severe than had sions while assuring flows of 50,000 to 100,000 been anticipated. cubic feet per second over the Falls. The three There seem to be two types of failure major features of the remedial works were: mechanisms. In the 1931 rockfall, Rochester Chippawa-Grass Island Pool control struc- shale apparently was removed to a significant ture; excavation and fill on Goat Island flank degree prior to failure. The failure occurred of the Horseshoe Falls; and excavation and fill principally as a downdropping and the talus on Canadian flank of Horseshoe Falls. accumulated close to the area of the rockfall. The average flow over the American Falls In the July 1954 rockfall, apparently less un- today is 8,800 cfs, much less than in 1900 be- dermining occurred prior to failure. That fail- cause much of the total river flow is now di- ure appears to have been a downward move- verted for power production. The American ment of the rock mass followed by a considera- Falls receives water around the open end of ble amount of outward rotation, spreading the control structure. Therefore, the dis- the talus accumulation from the rockfall charge over these falls depends upon the level area to the Maid-of-the-Mist Pool. There of the Chippawa-Grass Island Pool upstream. is one large rock mass near Prospect Point Since the control structure holds this level rel- that has become detached to a greater degree atively constant, flow over the American than previously realized. It is approx- Falls remains relatively constant even though imately 38,000 tons, half the size of the 1931 the total flow over both Falls changes from rockfall. 100,000 to 50,000 efs. Actually the flow over the Flow over the American Falls is small com- American Falls is slightly greater during pared to the Canadian Horseshoe Falls' flow. periods of 50,000 efs flow condition than at the This smaller flow is not sufficient to cut 100,000 efs condition. through the lower rock strata, so that the By reference dated October 1970, the two masses of rock that fall from the crest of the governments directed the International Joint Falls form a talus on a resistant lower shelf. Commission to extend the study to include the As the talus accumulates, it partially protects American Falls flanks and also Terrapin Point the Rochester shale and apparently retards of Horseshoe Falls. The problem of stabiliza- recession. The much greater flow over Horse- tion of these flank areas, and the question of shoe Falls cuts through the lower strata and public safety, will also be reported on by the forms a basin by the scouring effect of the American Falls International Board. The ex- fallen blocks in the turbulent water in the tended study is scheduled to be completed by pool. As the blocks and fragments wear down, December 1974. Section 15 LAKE ONTARIO PROBLEMS AND NEEDS 15.1 General 15.2.1 Flood Problems Plan Area 5 (Lake Ontario) consists of three Since the start of regulation in April 1960, planning subareas (Figure 11-66). Lake Ontario has had no major high water problems. High lake levels in 1951 and 1952 caused extensive damage and erosion along 15.2 Fluctuations of Lake Ontario the shore. After this, U.S. property owners filed more than 530 claims. They claimed that The average or normal elevation of the lake Gut Dam (constructed by Canada in the Galop surface varies irregularly from year to year. Island Rapids Section of the St. Lawrence During the course of each year, the surface is River in the early 1900s) caused, or at least subject to a consistent seasonal rise and fall, aggravated the high water. The courts have lowest in winter, highest in summer. In the favored these claims. Although the structure 110 years from 1860 to 1969 the difference be- was removed in 1953, this action shows the tween the highest (248.06 in June 1952) and the relationship between lake levels and damage, lowest (241.45 in November 1934) monthly and the value of proper regulation of lake mean stages was 6.61 feet. The greatest an- levels. The Lake Ontario Claims Tribunal, a nual fluctuation as shown by the highest and three-member international arbitral tribunal the lowest monthly means of any year was 3.58 appointed by the U.S. and Canada, has the feet, and the least annual fluctuation was 0.69 final disposition of claims. Gut Dam is de- foot. The maximum recorded short-period rise scribed in detail in Section 6. at Oswego, New York for the period 1933-1968 was 2.2 feet. This value was obtained by com- paring the maximum instantaneous levels re- 15.2.2 New York State Barge Canal corded each month with its monthly mean level. The Niagara River system is the prime Lake Ontario levels have been regulated water supply for the New York State Barge since April 1960 in connection with the St. Canal west of Lyons. The Court Street Dam in Lawrence Seaway and Power Projects, in ac- Rochester is operated to maintain the cordance with the IJC's Orders of Approval Genesee River crossing at canal navigation dated October 29, 1952, and July 2, 1956, di- level and to insure an eastward canal flow of rectly supervised by the International St. 375 cfs. Between Lyons and Three Rivers this Lawrence River Board of Control. The Orders flow is supplemented by releases from Seneca require that the Lake be regulated within a and Cayuga Lakes and runoff to the Seneca range of monthly mean stages from elevation River basin. Figure 11-18 shows the canal sys- 242.8 feet to elevation 246.8 feet (IGLD, 1955) tem. during the navigation season. The water diverted into the canal enters During the winter, the level of Lake Ontario Lake Ontario by four routes. It is spilled at may drop below elevation 242.8 feet. Sihce Lockport, New York into Eighteenmile Creek; 1960 is has dropped to a low elevation of 240.8 at Medina, New York into Oak Orchard Creek; feet. The high level of 246.8 feet under regula- at Rochester, New York into the Genesee tion is 1.3 feet below the previous record high River, 16 and flows into Lake Ontario by the level of 248.1 feet, recorded in 1952. This reduc- Oswego River. An indeterminate amount is tion in high levels was to reduce the damage to diverted at various places along the canal for shore property resulting from extreme lake irrigation purposes. stages. Regulation Plan 1958-D is described in The western section of the Erie Canal has detail in Section 6. sufficient water supply available from Lake 159 160 Appendix 11 TABLE 11-60 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 5.1 Reach of Shore Weather Station Water Level Station Reach No. Niagara River to Rochester, N.Y. Rochester, N.Y. 2001 Hamlin Beach, N.Y. Hamlin Beach, N.Y. to Rochester, N.Y. Rochester, N.Y. 2002 Rochester, N.Y. TABLE 11-61 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 5.2 Reach of Shore Weather Station Water Level Station Reach No. Rochester, N.Y. to Oswego, N.Y. Oswego, N.Y. 2003 Port Ontario, N.Y. Port Ontario, N.Y. to Oswego, N.Y. Oswego, N.Y. 2004 Stony Creek, N.Y. Erie by way of the Niagara River. This is esti- 15.3.2 Rochester Harbor mated at 1,100 cfs per month during the navi- gation season, and considered to be the hy- Rochester Harbor is at the mouth of the draulic capacity of this segment of the canal Genesee River seven miles north of the main system as it is presently operated. Any future business district of the City of Rochester. The plans to divert more water from the Niagara river is navigable for six miles above the River at Tonawanda, New York would require mouth with controlling depths of 21 feet for a detailed investigation to determine whether the first three miles, 13 feet for an additional such increases could be passed without dam- two miles, and 11 feet to the first of a group of age. dams just above the Ridge Street Bridge. There is no navigable connection between the lower portion of the Genesee River and the 15.3 Planning Subarea 5.1 New York State Barge Canal, which joins the river 11 miles upstream from the Lake. There Planning Subarea 5.1 comprises the is a fall in the surface elevation of the river of Niagara-Orleans Complex and Genesee River more than 260 feet between the Rochester drainage areas (Figure 11-67). Terminal of the New York State Barge Canal System and the head of navigation of the lower portions of the river below the dams. 15.3.1 General Ultimate storm water level data for Plan- 15.4 Planning Subarea 5.2 ning Subarea 5.1 were computed using data from Table 11-60. Planning Subarea 5.2 consists of the follow- In the first 50 miles east of Niagara River, ing drainage areas: the Wayne-Cayuga Com- the shoreline of Lake Ontario has a steep clay plex, the Oswego River, and the Salmon bluff of varying height, with some short nar- River Complex (Figure 11-68) row beaches footing the bluff. In the next segment of shoreline the shore is much lower, with only short disconnected clay bluffs and numerous marshy areas behind barrier 15.4.1 General beaches in the vicinity of Rochester, New York. Serious shore erosion and some inunda- Ultimate storm water level data for Plan- tion problems exist throughout the shoreline ning Subarea 5.2 were computed using data of Planning Subarea 5.1. from Table 1.1-61. Lake Ontario -Pro b lems and Needs 161 CANADA .1N.-A WISCONSIN N NEW YORK 4 ILLINOIS j.-A.A' IINISYLIAIIA VICINITY MAP o 5.3 CANADA -UN-IT-EDSTA-TES L A K E ONTARIO 5.2 N E W rR ',K /5. SCALE IN MILES 0 10 20 30 40 50 FIGURE 11-66 Plan Area 5 162 Appendix 11 L A K E 0 N T A R 1 0 Hamlin Beach 20()l 00 jo,@ State Barg- Canal 43 a 0Albion Rochester 0 Medina Brockport L-ist.n Lockport LEANS Niagara Fa Cle-k a, Grand ".1a:.d Bata)a MO OE LIVINGSTON GENESE r,p@' -c' Conesas take Hweoye take take Canadice rake m, Dansvill WYOMING ALLEGANY Wellsville NEWYO@K PENNSYLVANIA VICINITY MAP SCALE IN MILES SCALE IN MILES 5 10 15 0 So Im o- FIGURE 11-67 Planning Subarea 5.1 Lake Ontario-Problems and Needs 163 Tibbetts Point Od It CMA a S G Port Ontario 0 0 Os.e o L 20o3 Camden Fulton WAYNE w V Rome Oneids Lake New, York i.M 8 winsville B.,9- C I C a Syra Onei 0 Utica Palmyra Lyons C a ONTARIO Noonl,k It. 0 anandaigue Waterloo Fall. Aubur Ofism ON NDA Cauemo@!@ HERKIMER Geneve* Lake ONEIDA Canandaigua A *Hamilton C.Ygs 0. LA. o YATES MADISON SINMICS Penn Yen Lake CAYU SENECA K*.k. Lake Itha atkins then TOMPKINS SCHUYLER S IN MILES !@O 15 20 0 5 VICINITY MAP 0 .1. FIGURE 11-68 Planning Subarea 5.2 164 Appendix 11 The regulation of Lake Ontario as part of 15.4.3 Water Level Datums the operation of the St. Lawrence Seaway and Power Project has decreased the range of lake There is an additional problem in Planning level fluctuations. High lake levels are re- Subarea 5.2 that must be considered in any duced by one-half foot, although bank and watershed study. Several datum planes are shore erosion continues throughout the plan- used on Lake Ontario, so that care must be ning subarea along Lake Ontario. East of taken to base all elevations in one study on the Sodus Bay, homes will soon be lost because of same datum plane. Examples of the differ- extensive erosion. Other erosion problems ences between planes: International Great exist at Selkirk Shores State Park, Fair Haven Lakes Datum (1955) at Oswego +1.22 = Beach State Park, and near Sterling Creek U.S.C.G.S. Datum; at Lock Number 1, north outlet. Lake level data and ultimate stormwa- end of Cayuga-Lake, U.S.C.G.S. Datum + 1.30 ter level data will be useful in further studies Barge Canal Datum; at Balwinsville, for improvements in these areas. U.S.C.G.S. Datum +1.05 = Barge Canal lee jams at the mouths of streams are not a Datum. problem along the shores of Lake Ontario in Planning Subarea 5.2. The ice build-up that does occur along the shore dampens the wave 15.5 Planning Subarea 5.3 action and protects the shoreline. Ten miles northeast of Oswego, nuclear Planning Subarea 5.3 consists of the follow- power plants will provide power for upstate ing drainage areas: Black River, Perch River New York through three 345,000-volt trans- Complex, Oswegatchie River, and Grass-Ra- mission connections. The Nine Mile Plant, quette-St. Regis Complex (Figure 11-69). opened by the Niagara Mohawk Power Corpo- ration in 1969, has a gross capacity of 642,000 kW. The Fitzpatrick Plant, under construction 15.5.1 General by PASNY, was expected to begin operation in 1974 at 850,000 kW. A second plant is planned Ultimate storm water level data for Plan- at Nine Mile for 1978. These plants will in- ning Subarea 5.3 were computed utilizing data crease consumptive water loss for Lake On- from Table 11-62. tario. Large lakes and reservoirs in the Os- The regulation of Lake Ontario has de- wego basin affect Lake Ontario elevation fluc- creased the range of fluctuation of lake levels tuations, especially during spring thaws. and has reduced high levels by about one-half foot. Erosion, with the exception of some sandy shoreline areas, is not a serious problem in Planning Subarea 5.3. The major portion of 15.4.2 Navigation Facilities the shoreline and channel is composed of bed- rock, ledgerock, and gravel. Great Sodus Bay and Oswego Harbors are The revised St. Lawrence River Navigation deep-draft navigation harbors protected by Regulations, dated October 16, 1970, establish piers and breakwaters. Port Bay, Little Sodus more control over vessel speeds, and provide Bay, Port Ontario, and Sackets Harbor are St. Lawrence River beaches more protection small-boat harbors of varying depths. I 'm- over a much larger area. provements for Port Bay and Port Ontario During 1969 the levels of all the Great Lakes have not been authorized. Only Little Sodus were above their long-term average eleva- Bay has an active Federal project. As small- tions. Lake Ontario had well above average boat interest in these areas grows, lake level levels during most of the summer recreation and wave data will be required for these har- season. With high levels, higher outflows were bors. The overflow of boating enthusiasts from required at the Moses-Saunders Powerhouse, the inland waterways will increase rec- resulting in a lowering of Lake St. Lawrence reational boating around Port Ontario. to a degree never experienced before by ripar- The introduction of coho salmon in the Sal- ian users. Many recreational boaters com- mon River has also attracted fishermen. Little plained. Such low levels result from the hy-' Sodus Bay Harbor has a growth problem draulic necessity of the steep slopes between which also causes problems with all rec- Lake Ontario and the powerhouse to permit reational water uses in the shallow water the discharge of the high outflows from Lake areas of Cayuga, Seneca, and Oneida Lakes. Ontario. This situation will recur with above- I Lake Ontario-Problems and Needs 165 M ena s 0 Ogdensburg Potsdam W Canton 0 Black @7 LOP G neu et Tupperl-ak 0 Cranberry Lake Tibbetts Point Watertow 0 ST.LA NCE arthage Beaver Stillwater ReserVoirl Stony Creek Raquette ake LAKE Lowville Fulton Lake,; ONTARIO JE FERSoN 0 Moose SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 VICINITY MAP .... SCALEIN MILE5 G so 11 o"' FIGURE 11-69 Planning Subarea 5.3 166 Appendix 11 TABLE 11-62 Data Stations, Planning Subarea 5.3 Reach of Shore Weather Station Water Level Station Reach No. Port Ontario, N.Y. to Oswego, N.Y. Oswego, N.Y. 2004 Stony Creek, N.Y. Stony Creek, N.Y. to Watertown, N.Y. Oswego, N.Y. 2005 Tibbetts Point, N.Y. normal lake levels. The reverse condition, depths of 10 feet. These harbors have hard high levels on Lake St. Lawrence, exists when channel bottoms so that level fluctuations are low outflows are required at the powerhouse. important. The combination of levels of Lake The International St. Lawrence River Ontario and flows in the St. Lawrence River Board of Control has investigated the situa- establish the navigation depths and power tion, concluding that discretionary deviations production. from computed outflow might be used in cer- Because of the International St. Lawrence tain years to improve the low levels of Lake St. Power Development, diversion of water into or Lawrence during the recreational season. out of the Great Lakes can have a measurable These deviations can be applied only in- effect on the region's power production. A di- frequently, as they would not be significant version of 1,000 efs can mean the annual pro- improvements and may be detrimental to duction or loss of $140,000 of power beside the other interests. value of power capacity and the industrial There are many small capacity hydroelec- production involved. tric power plants located on tributaries in Planning Subarea 5.3, most with medium-to- 15.5.2 IJC Order of Approval-Raisin River high head but operating primarily on a run- Diversion of-the-river basis with only small, brief stor- age. The International Moses-Saunders Pow- The Raisin River lies just north of the St. erhouse on the St. Lawrence River has an in- Lawrence River in the Province of Ontario. It stalled capacity of 1,824,000 kW. Regulation of discharges into the St. Lawrence River near Lake Ontario is carried out by the computed the Village of Lancaster downstream from the weekly discharges from this powerhouse. To St. Lawrence Power Development. In summer carry out successful power operation during its flows are low, sluggish, and intermittent. the winter, approximately four miles of ice The Raisin Region Conservation Authority booms have been used upstream from the is a corporate body established under the Con- power dam. The booms reduce ice jamming servation Authorities Act of the Province of and help maintain uninterrupted flows. A Ontario to carry out conservation programs in problem that would have to be solved in order the Raisin River watershed and adjoining to extend the winter navigation season on the areas under its jurisdiction. This Authority International Rapids Section of the St. Law- applied to the IJC through the Canadian gov- rence River would be developing a means of ernment for permission to divert water from maintaining a stable ice condition on the Lake St. Lawrence in the St. Lawrence River river. The power entities (Power Authority to the Raisin River watershed. of the State of New York and Hydro Electric The IJC issued an Order of Approval on De- Power Commission of Ontario) have the re- cember 31, 1968, allowing the diversion of ap- sponsibility for installing and maintaining the proximately 25 cfs from Lake St. Lawrence six ice booms. This includes any shoreline into the Raisin River watershed for 100 days, damages that may be caused by the installed to augment the natural low summer flows in ice booms or their operations. Lake levels and the Raisin River, for a period not to exceed flow data will be extremely important in four years. This provided a reliable water studies being made for the extension of the St. source for farms and villages, an improved en- Lawrence Seaway winter navigation season. vironment for fish and wildlife, and an in- Lake fluctuations affect operations of har- crease of the Raisin River's recreational and bors and navigation facilities in Planning aesthetic values. The diversion would be made Subarea 5.3. The harbors at Cape Vincent, Og- at two Lake St. Lawrence locations, one near densburg, and Morristown have project the Village of Long Sault and the other two Lake Ontario -Pro b lems and Needs 167 and one-half miles west of there. The diverted agreed to the proposed diversion, provided water would be returned to the St. Lawrence that the applicant reimbursed PASNY for the River at the mouth of the Raisin River, near value of the hydroelectric power that the di- the Village of Lancaster. verted water would have generated had it not At the IJC hearing on this matter, tes- bypassed the Robert H. Saunders Generating timony was presented describing conditions in Station downstream on the St. Lawrence. the Raisin River and a tributary, the South This diversion is a minor amount of the flow Raisin River, and the purpose of the proposed of the St. Lawrence River. However, the prece- diversion of water from the St. Lawrence dent established by this Order of Approval River. Due to the flatness of the Raisin River may well carry into other diversions of this watershed, there are no feasible reservoir nature. In December 1970 the International sites where water might be impounded in the Joint Commission approved the plans and spring to augment the low summer flows. The specifications for the diversion works to pass Counsel for the Hydro Electric Power Com- the requisite amount of water from Lake St. mission of Ontario stated that the Commission Lawrence into the Raisin River. Section 16 DATA AND RESEARCH NEEDS 16.1 General 16.2.1 Hydraulic Investigations The relationship of many of the factors that A study to determine the effect of vessel affect the fluctuation of lake levels are imper- squat in constricted reaches of connecting fectly understood. This can be improved by an channels would be valuable for determining active physical research program paralleling safe vessel speeds under various loads. With and extending beyond the engineering studies large vessels being constructed, this factor is currently in progress for the International becoming an increasingly important hy- Joint Commission's study. Important factors draulic consideration for deep-draft naviga- include precipitation, evaporation, winds, tion. An area of study might be the Livingston barometric pressure differentials, and ice. channel of the lower Detroit River, with an Precipitation on the Great Lakes and on their estimated cost of $20,000. tributary land areas is the source of all the The compilation and development of charts water entering the Lakes, whereas evapora- showing velocities and direction of current in tion removes about two-thirds of this water connecting channels would provide vital in- from the Basin. Variations of these two factors formation for commercial and recreational largely cause the long-term water level fluc- navigators. This information will also help to tuations. Wind and barometric pressure differ- solve sewage, pollution, and water supply entials over the Lakes and ice on them and in problems. Estimated cost for conducting the their outflow rivers cause short-term fluctua- necessary field work on the connecting chan- tions. nels and compilation is $75,000. 1 A study to determine the feasibility of main- taining an index meter in the Detroit River 16.2 Progress on Needs during the winter period would be of value. Experiments during recent discharge meas- Researchers have filled several needs for urements taken on the Detroit River indicate levels and flows data recently or are presently an installation below the water surface could filling them. The necessary detailed hydro- measure winter flows and verify application of graphic surveys on the St. Clair River have open-water discharge equations. Such a feasi- been completed to provide physical data re- bility study is estimated to cost $15,000. quired to develop a hydraulic mathematical The New York State Barge Canal diversion model. Investigators accomplished the neces- at Tonawanda, New York, should be verified. sary field collection and office compilation as Reported amounts of the diversion from the part of the present IJC study. Niagara River through the canal are based on As a joint Canadian-U.S. effort, a Leading 1916 field discharge data. Updated field meas- Edge (acoustical) flow meter was installed in urements would also be required to determine the Niagara River near the International the maximum diversion capacity of the New Railroad Bridge at Buffalo, New York-Fort York State Barge Canal. This work would cost Erie, Ontario. The flow meter, which was in- approximately $20,000. stalled by the Westinghouse Company in 1971, There are a number of other short-term re- has not been functioning satisfactorily. Ef- quirements that come up from time to time, forts to improve its operation are still under dealing essentially with hydraulic problems way. The contin uo u sly- monitoring flow meter on the connecting channels of the Great may bring improved knowledge of Niagara Lakes, for which no specific funds are avail- River discharges. This could be of value to the able. To implement the projects and standard power operations at Niagara Falls, New York. periodic discharge measurements of the con- 169 170 Appendix 11 necting channels not itemized, the Corps of 16.3.1 Precipitation Engineers estimates annual work cost at $50,000. Each investigation will require coor- One of the most important derived-supply dination of field activities with the Water Sur- factors is the amount of precipitation directly vey of Canada. on the lake surface. The Lake Survey Center, NOAA, publishes monthly precipitation data, overwater, for each Lake. These data are de- 16.2.2 Hydrology Studies rived by averaging precipitation measured at land stations. Limited simultaneous observa- Fluctuations in Great Lakes levels are inti- tions of precipitation overwater as measured mately related to variations in precipitation. by tiny island stations and overland by sta- Much further physical research is required to -tions not far from the shoreline have indicated determine this relationship. equal annual amounts, with a difference in the Some other short-term problems requiring seasonal distribution. The overwater precipi- investigation are: tation for a 10-year period was approximately (1) comparison of instruments and meth- 9 percent less in warm weather and 9 percent ods used in Canada and the U.S. for measuring more in cold weather than at nearby land sta- rain and snow tions. Before reliable month-by-month data (2) studies to establish the best (and will be available for precipitation on the minimum) size of precipitation networks re- Lakes, more field observations must be made quired for regulation studies and lake level to better establish the relationship with pre- forecasts cipitation at land stations. The analytical (3) studies to establish the representa- methods should be improved to correlate those tiveness of overland precipitation meas- data. Further discussions on this subject are urements for overwater areas in Appendix 4, Limnology of Lakes and Em- (4) relative effect of seasonal (or monthly) bayments. precipitation on lake levels. Does one inch of precipitation affect lake level to the same ex- tent in June as in November? (5) the contribution of snowmelt to lake 16.3.2 Wind levels. What sequence of meteorological events produced maximum and minimum var- Winds cause shore damage through waves, iations in levels due to snowmelt? currents, shore erosion, and littoral drift, as Further discussions on several of these well as short-term variations in water levels items are in Appendix 4, Limnology of Lakes through set-ups and seiches. Overlake winds and Embayments. are stronger than corresponding overland winds due to reduced frictional effects. How- ever, overlake to overland wind ratios vary 16.3 Long-Term Requirements from month to month with changes in air mass stability created by differences between air Long-term data needs require extensive in- and water temperature. Further studies are vestigation of time, manpower, and funds. needed to confirm recent findings and to Many of these needs are associated with re- evaluate the wind field over each Lake from quirements of ongoing data collection efforts the known wind field overland, to obtain bet- required to assess environmental changes. It ter estimates of hourly winds over the water to was mentioned in Section 10 that increased determine deepwater wave characteristics urbanization is affecting the local climate and and the resulting maximum storm water meteorology in some plan areas. The impact of levels, and to obtain better wind data to im- such long trends must be considered in light of prove estimates of evaporation from the how they affect Great Lakes water supplies. Lakes on a month-by-month basis. New Because of the large water surface in the meteorological stations in deficient locations Great Lakes, data cannot be collected directly could provide them. As pointed out in Section on a year-around basis, but must be obtained 10, a minimum meteorological network station from land-based stations. There is a need for should be established coinciding with the pres- research into the relationship between the ent water-level gaging network. Overlake air data overland and corresponding data over temperature and relative humidity data could the lake surfaces to make the over-water also be improved. Further discussions on this data more reliable. Other research needs subject are in Appendix 4, Limnology ofLakes are described in following subsections. and Embayments. Data and Research Needs 171 16.3.3 Runoff wind from breaking it up, while maintaining safe open channels for the passage of commer- Runoff from large areas, especially near the cial vessels. The Lake Huron outlet critically shores of the Great Lakes, is not gaged and needs ice-area stabilization. Data needs and probably will not be in the foreseeable future additional research investigations required because of the physical problems of gaging at for determining the practicability of winter the mouths of tributary streams. Research is navigation on the Great Lakes are: required to improve estimates of runoff from (1) detailed study of the formation, move- ungaged areas for use in obtaining month- ment, breakup and decay of the ice cover in the by-month total runoff into a Lake from its lower Lake Huron to Lake Erie reach, particu- tributary basin. larly the outlet of Lake Huron. This would include all factors affecting the ice bridge, and its characteristics. Other critical areas to be 16.3.4 Evaporation studied would include Whitefish Bay-St. Marys River, Straits of Mackinac, and the St. Twice as much water is being lost through Lawrence River. evaporation from the Great Lakes Basin as (2) collection of all necessary hydraulic flows out the St. Lawrence River. While recent data in order to establish optimum location of advances in understanding this phenomenon ice stabilization devices in Lakes Huron and are encouraging, there are still many areas St. Clair, also St. Marys and St. Lawrence Riv- requiring more study. ers. Studies using hydraulic models should be Some objectives are to: considered. (1) establish reliable estimates of average (3) careful evaluation of present annual and monthly evaporation from each techniques of establishing ice control as they Lake (only Lakes Ontario and Erie appear apply to the problems faced in these studies. fairly reliable) This may also require some experimental (2) improve estimates of month-to-month work. and year-to-year evaporation from Lakes On- (4) a careful study of possible effects on tario and Erie and extend them to other Lakes Great Lakes levels caused by anticipated (3) develop a technique and instrumenta- changes in ice retardation brought about by tion network to evaluate quickly monthly (or keeping channels open for navigation weekly) evaporation from regularly observed Appendix C9, Commercial Navigation, de- parameters scribes operational problems and economic investigations needed to determine whether the winter navigation period should be ex- tended. 16.3.5 Great Lakes Ice Each of the Great Lakes is at least partially 16.3.6 Water Characteristics ice-covered for three to five months of the year. This ice affects lake levels by reducing It has been suggested that regulation may outflow, evaporation, and local precipitation. improve water quality in some of the Lakes, Ice also drastically shortens the navigation especially Lake Erie. This would require de- season and creates problems in power produc- tailed knowledge of variations of water tion. Information is needed on the behavior of characteristics by time and location. Water in- ice cover in the Lakes and connecting rivers flow to a Lake might be scheduled when' the under changing flow conditions, and on the quality of the upstream Lake is high in com- formation of ice jams, in order to plan for op- parison to that in the lower Lake. Knowledge timum outflow patterns during the winter of vertical and horizontal water diffusion fac- months. Forecasting the formation of ice tors and of the effect of Niagara Falls on the cover will help to extend the navigation sea- water of Lake Ontario is also needed. Perma- son in the connecting channels, and possibly in nent stations would be required in the Lakes the Lakes. Further discussion on this subject to record these water characteristics and their is found in Appendix 4, Limnology of Lakes associated factors. These stations, when cali- and Embayments. brated with the Lake proper, would indicate To facilitate winter navigation on the Great the long-term changes in water releases from Lakes, it is necessary to find some means of the Lakes for the improvement of water stabilizing the ice area and preventing the quality. 172 Appendix 11 16.3.7 Water-Level Forecasting 16.3.8 Conclusion The various research needs suggested It is expected that the intensive research under precipitation, evaporation, wind, and efforts being made in conjunction with the ice should be coordinated to evaluate their ef- wealth of data to be collected during the In- fect on lake levels. These needs should be ternational Field Year on the Great Lakes evaluated: will help provide for some of the long-term (1) effects of precipitation and evaporation needs as well as determine future research on lake levels over different periods: day-to- requirements on Lake Ontario and the other day, month-to-month, year-to-year, and Great Lakes. For several years the joint longer. A study of lag periods between precipi- Canadian and United States effort has been tation and lake levels will help to establish a preparing for a full-year data collection effort procedure, based on physical and statistical that was initiated in April 1972. This program analyses, to predict brief and lengthy varia- is largely physical in nature encompassing a tions number of related and international studies (2) the effect of wind and barometric pres- on water balance, meteorology, and circula- sure on lake levels through wind set-up and tion in Lake Ontario. seiches in order to forecast short-period water The Limnological Systems Analysis of the level changes at regulatory structures Great Lakes: Phase I was prepared by a con- (3) the effect of ice cover in the Lakes and sultant for the Great Lakes Basin Commission in connecting channels on the seasonal varia- in March 1973 to provide insight into the com- tions of lake levels plex interrelationship among the various (4) development of reliable weather fore- Lake environment subsystems. A proposed casts for periods from 30 days to 6 months on Phase II study should improve knowledge of an individual Lake basin in order to refine the relationship of lake levels to the lake envi- water-level forecasts ronment. Section 17 MANAGEMENT AND FUTURE DEMANDS 17.1 General 17.2.1 International Lake Superior Board of Control There are a number of established IJC con- trol and technical boards dealing with various This two-member Board (Figure 11-70) is aspects of Great Lakes levels and flows. The responsible for regulating Lake Superior International Joint Commission, in fulfilling water levels and outflows. The Board pre- the purposes of the Boundary Waters Treaty scribes the necessary monthly gate settings at of 190950 has wide-ranging responsibilities. Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, and Sault Ste. The first is to approve or disapprove all pro- Marie, Ontario, depending on the require- posals for use, obstruction, or diversion of ments of the approved regulation plan and boundary waters on either side of the bound- consideration of the water-level and supply ary which would affect boundary level or flow situation prevailing throughout the Superior on the other side. Projects may be brought basin. The Board meets at least annually at before the IJC by application of public agen- Sault Ste. Marie to inspect the condition and cies, private corporations, or individuals. maintenance program of the control works. Examples in the Great Lakes system include the regulatory works in Sault Ste. Marie and those on the St. Lawrence River. The appli- 17.2.2 International Niagara Board of Control cant has to furnish all necessary information and data. This four-member Board (Figure 11-70) is The second general responsibility of the lJC responsible for supervising the construc- is to investigate and make recommendations tion, operation, and maintenance of remedial on specific problems of either or both govern- works, described earlier, provided in the ments. It is under this provision of the treaty Niagara River under the 1950 Treaty. These that requests or references by the two gov- works allow maximum power diversions ernments have been made on such subjects as around the Falls while maintaining Lake Erie regulation of the Great Lakes levels, water and Niagara River water levels for navigation pollution, and preservation of the American and shore property interests, and Treaty flows Falls at Niagara. In this case, the Commission over the Falls for scenic purposes. These appoints an international technical board to works also include an ice boom at the outlet of make a thorough investigation of the facts in- Lake Erie. The District Engineer, Buffalo Dis- volved and file a written report. The Commis- trict, Corps of Engineers, is the chairman of sion holds public hearings, normally one in the U.S. section 9f the Working Committee. each country in the areas affected, at which An agency identification legend follows for any person may comment on the findings and international boards and committees shown recommendations. Public hearings may also in Figures 11-70 to 11-74. be held before an investigation to determine problems and areas affected. 17.2.3 International St. Lawrence River Board of Control 17.2 International Joint Commission Boards This eight-member Board (Figure 11-70) is There are three control boards and two responsible for supervising the operation technical boards pertaining to management and maintenance of the St. Lawrence Seaway or investigation of Great Lakes levels and and Power Project and coordinating the flows. These boards have continuing respon- regulation of Lake Ontario water levels and sibilities as prescribed by the IJC. outflows. The Board is advised concerning op- 173 174 Appendix 11 Agency Identification Legend INTERNATIONAL LAKE SUPERIOR UNITED STATES BOA" OF CONTROL BFLO DIST-Buffalo District, Corps of En- U.S. - Division Engineer, NCD gineers S. H. Fonda, Jr., NCD (Secretary) BSF&W-Bureau of Sport Fisheries and CANADA - R. H. Clark, ENV. CANADA Wildlife, U.S. Department of Interior N. P. Persoage, ENV. CANADA (Secretary) BU. OF MINES-Bureau of Mines, U.S. De- partment of Interior DEPT. OF COMMERCE-Department of INTERNATIONAL NIAGARA Commerce BOARD OF CONTROL DEPT. OF INTERIOR-Department of the U. S. *Division Engineer, NCD Interior D. Brown, FPC DETROIT DIST-Detroit District, Corps of S. H. Fonda, NCD (Secretary) Engineers CANADA *R. H. Clark, ENV. CANADA E PA-E nviron mental Protection Agency C. K. Hurst, DPW FPC-Federal Power Commission N. P. Persoage, ENV. CANADA (Secretary) GLBC-Great Lakes Basin Commission I GLC-Great Lakes Commission WORKING COMMITTEE IJC-International Joint Commission U.S. *District Engineer, Buffalo LSC-NOAA-Lake Survey Center, National W. H. S. Diehl, FPC Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration CANADA *B. E. Russell, ENV. CANADA MARAD-Maritime Administration, Depart- K. A. Rowsell, DPW ment of Commerce NCD-North Central Division, Corps of En- gineers NFSPC-Niagara Frontier State Park Com- INTERNATIONAL ST. LAWRENCE mission RIVER BOARD OF CONTROL NWS-NOAA-National Weather Service, 1'a- U.S. *Division Engineer, NCD D. Brown, FPC tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- R. D. Conner, PASNY tration F .F. Snyder, OCE (Retired) OCE-office, Chief of Engineers, Corps of En- S. H. Fonda, NCD (Secretary) gineers CANADA *D. M. Ripley, MOT PASNY-Power Authority of the State of New R. H. Clark, ENV. CANADA J. B. Bryce, HEPCO York Y .De Guise, HYDRO-QUEBEC SLSDC-St. Lawrence Seaway Development C .J. R. Lawrie, MT (Secretary) Corporation I UNIV. OF CALIF.-University of California, WORKING COMMITTEE Berkeley U.S. *District Engineer, Buffalo District CANADA S. H. Fonda, NCD R. D. Conner, PASNY DEPT. OF FISHERIES-Department of Fish- J. H. Spellman, FPC eries CANADA *D. F. Witherspoon, ENV. CANADA DPW-Department of Public Works R. H. Smith, MOT ENV. CANADA-Department of Environ- R. A. Walker, HEPCO ment,Canada F. Santerre, HYDRO-QUEBEC HEPCO-Hydroelectric Power Commission of Ontario HYDRO-QUEBEC-Hydroelectric Power ST. LAWRENCE RIVER Commission of Quebec OPERATIONS ADVISORY GROUP KC&O-ARC-Kane, Carruth & O'Brien, D. M. Foulds, HEPCO Landscape Architects R. D. Conner, PASNY MOT-Ministry of Transport F. Santerre, HYDRO-QUEBEC J. B. Adams, SLSDC NPC-Niagara Parks Commission R. H. Smith, MOT ODLF-Ontario Department of Lands and *Chairman Forests PROV. OF ONTARIO-Province of Ontario PROV. OF QUEBEC-Province of Quebec UNIV. OF TORONTO-University of Toronto FIGURE 11-70 International Boards of Control Management and Future Demands 175 eration of the projects by an Operations Ad- Joint Commission dated March 31, 1967, re- visory Group (Figure 11-70) composed of rep- questing that the Commission investigate and resentatives of several interests on the river. report upon measures necessary to preserve The District Engineer, Buffalo District, Corps and enhance the beauty of the American Falls of Engineers, is chairman of the U.S. section of at Niagara. The Division Engineer, North the Board's Working Committee. The Chief, Central Division, Corps of Engineers, is the Hydraulics Branch, Engineering Division, U.S. chairman of the Board. The Canadian Buffalo District, Corps of Engineers, is the chairman is J. D. McLeod, Senior Engineer, Board's U.S. representative in coordinating Department of Environment, Canada. The weekly outflow from the project. Board meet- other members of the Board from each coun- ings are normally held semi-annually at the try are well-known landscape architects. The time of the IJC regular meetings and also as U.S. member is Garrett Eckbo, Dean of Land- required to resolve operating problems. scape Architecture, University of California at Berkeley. The Canadian member is H. S. M. Carver, Central Mortgage and Hous- 17.2.4 International Great Lakes Levels ing Corporation (retired). The Commission Board selected these men because of the inherent aesthetic aspects of the American Falls study. The International Great Lakes Levels Early in 1970, the Board had information Board (Figure 11-71) was appointed in accord- from local interests concerning the stability of ance with a reference from the two govern- several areas of the Niagara Gorge wall near ments to the International Joint Commission the American Falls. The International Joint dated October 7, 1964. The reference re- Commission was asked to advise on the limits quested that the Commission study the vari- of the Board's responsibility. The stability of a ous factors which affect the fluctuation of large portion of the Prospect Point area as well Great Lakes water levels and determine the as Terrapin Point and Luna Island areas is practicality of further regulation of the Lakes. doubtful. Terrapin Point is on the Goat Island The Board appointed a seven-member Work- flank of the Canadian Horseshoe Falls, ing Committee to prepare the data and studies whereas the Prospect Point and Luna Island pertinent to the Board's report. areas adjoin the American Falls. The two gov- The Working Committee appointed three ernments issued a new reference dated Oc- subcommittees to determine the effect of reg- tober 1, and October 5, 1970, requesting that ulation on shore property, power, and naviga- the IJC expand the American Falls study to tion interests. A fourth subcommittee is to de- include these problem areas and examine the velop necessary regulation plans, a fifth is to subject of public safety. carry out the necessary studies of the regula- An Interim Report to the IJC on progress of tory works required for various regulation the study was released by the Commission in plans, and a sixth is to prepare the necessary early 1972. This presented the historical guidelines for and supervise the preparation background of the problems and a discussion of the complex report to the Commission. As of aesthetic factors and physical conditions can be seen from Figure 11-71, the study rep- which must be considered in reaching a solu- resents pertinent U.S. and Canadian Federal tion. It explored the range of options for pre- and Provincial agencies at all levels. Because serving or enhancing the beauty of the Ameri- of the number of States in the Great Lakes can Falls and for securing the safety of the Basin, there is no direct State membership on viewing public, and grouped them into several the Board or its committees. However, broad alternative courses of action. The through correspondence with the Governors Board's final report to the International Joint and State representatives at subcommittee Commission is scheduled to be completed in meetings, the States have been fully advised June 1974. The appendixes to the main report and involved in the studies to the extent that are expected to be completed in September they wish. Details of this study have been de- 1974. scribed in Sections 7 and 10. 17.3 Special Committees and Groups 17.2.5 American Falls International Board There are two committees and a study group This four-member Board (Figure 17-72) was that perform specific functions of recording, appointed in accordance with a reference from coordinating, or exchanging data and re- the two governments to the International search program information. 176 Appendix 11 INTERNATIONAL GREAT LAKES LEVELS BOARD U.S. - *Division Engineer, NCD M. Abelson, DEPT. of INTERIOR B. T. Jose, SLSDC C. H. Paquette, OCE (Secretary) CANADA - *C. K. Hurst, DPW N. James, ENV. CANADA R. H. Smith, MOT N. P. Persoage, ENV. CANADA (Secretary) WORKING COMMITTEE U.S. - *Dr. L. H. Blakey, NCD M. Abelson, DEPT. of INTERIOR F. A. Blust, DEPT. of COMMERCE J. H. Spellman, FPC S. H. Fonda, NCD (Secretary) CANADA - *R. H. Clark, ENV. CANADA D. W. Quinlan, DPW C. J. R. Lawrie, MOT J. Bathurst, ENV. CANADA (Secretary) SHORE PROPERTY SUBCOMMITTEE POWER SUBCOMMITTEE U.S. - *D. J. Leonard, NCD U.S. - *J. H. Spellman, FPC C. Kleveno, EPA G. T. Berry, PASNY H. C. Anderson, BSF&W J. Weinrub, Buffalo District CANADA - *D. W. Quinlan, DPW M. Abelson, DEPT. of INTERIOR J. W. Giles, PROV. of ONTARIO CANADA - *D. F. Witherspoon, ENV. CANADA C. E. Deslauriers, PROV. of QUEBEC J. B. Bryce, HEPCO D. Watt, MOT F. Santerre, HYDRO-QUEBEC D. 8rown, ENV. CANADA Dr. J. J. Tibbles, ENV. CANADA REGULATORY WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE NAVIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE U.S. - *B. Malamud, Detroit District S. H. Fonda, Jr., NCD U.S. - *G. S. Lykowski, NCD I. M. Korkigian, Detroit District J. Aase, BUREAU of MINES K. Hallock, Buffalo District J. Officer, SLSDC CANADA - *G. Millar, DPW L. Ervin, DEPT. of COMMERCE J. Bathurst, ENV. CANADA CANADA - *G. V. Sainsbury, SLSA C. J. R. Lawrie, MOT D. W. Quinlan, DPW J. Keefe, ENV. CANADA P. Klopchic, PROV. of ONTARIO K. A. Rowsell, DPW REPORTS S7TRCM'P!ITTFE REGULATION SUBCOMMITTEE *J. Bathurst, ENV. CANADA U.S. - *B. G. DeCooke, Detroit District **D. J. Leonard, NCD J. Miller, NWS-NOAA D. W. Quinlan, DPW CANADA - *D. F. Witherspoon, ENV. CANADA N. P. Persoage, ENV. CANADA T. L. Richards, MOT C. Larsen, NCD B. G. DeCooke, Detroit District 1. M. Korkigian *Chairman **Vice Chairman FIGURE11-71 International Great Lakes Levels Board, Working Committee and Subcommittees Management and Future Demands 177 AMERICAN FALLS WINTER NAVIGATION BOARD INTERNATIONAL BOARD *Division Engineer, NCD U.S. - *Division Engineer, NCD **Rear Admiral A. Heckman, U.S. COAST GUARD G. Eckbo, UNIV. of CALIFORNIA G. E. Wilson, SLSDC S. H. Fonda, NCD (Secretary) B. Kyle, MARAD CANADA - *J. D. 'McLeod, ENV. CANADA C. Pemberton, EPA H. S. M. Carver, CENT. MORTGAGE & L. B. Young, FPC HOUSING CORP. (Retired) M. Abelson, DEPT. of INTERIOR N. P. Persoage, ENV. CANADA (Secretary) F. 0. Rouse, GLBC I R. W. Warren, GLC & ATTY. GEN. of WISCONSIN WORKING COMMITTEE Rear Admiral Harley D. Nygren, NOAA U.S. - *District Engineer, Buffalo K. Hopkins, NFSPC S. Bartolone, NFSPC ADVISORY GROUP D. Carruth, KC&O-ARC. INDUSTRY CONSUMERS CANADA - *B. E. Russell, ENV. CANADA FLABOR CONCERNED CITIZENS K. A. Rowsell, DPW D. R. Wilson, NPC J. E. Secords, SALTER, FLEMING & *Chairman SECORD - ARC **Vice Chairman INTERNATIONAL NIAGARA FIGURE 11-74 Winter Navigation Board COMMITTEE U.S. - Division Engineer, NCD S. H. Fonda, Jr. (Secretary) 17.3.1 International Niagara Committee CANADA - R. H. Clark, ENV. CANADA N. P. Persoage, ENV. CANADA (Secretary) This two-man Committee (Figure 11-72), ap- FIGUREII-72 International Technical Board pointed by the United States and Canadian and Committee governments, is responsible for determining and recording the amounts of water exceeding COORDINATING COMMITTEE ON the minimum flow required to maintain the GREAT LAKES BASIC Niagara Falls scenic spectacle. HYDRAULIC & HYDROLOGIC DATA Committee representatives periodically in- U.S. - *D. J. Leonard, NCD spect all power plants in service to obtain in- B. G. DeCooke, Detroit District dependent power-output readings and check F. A. Blust, LSC, NOAA water-level gages to compute flows and assure CANADA - *Dr. A. I. Prince, ENV. CANADA compliance with all provisions of the Treaty. R. Smith, MOT They investigate any discrepancies in re- corded levels data between official gages and INTERNATIONAL GREAT LAKES entities gages or operations and report to the STUDY GROUP two governments. The activities of the Com- CO-CHAIRMEN mittee are usually conducted through corres- U.S. - L. T. Crook, GLBC pondence. CANADA - Dr. A. D. Misener, UNIV. of TORONTO 1 17.3.2 Coordinating Committee on Great STEERING COMMITTEE Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydro- U.S. - S. H. Fonda, NCD logic Data J. Raoul, (ALT), NCD Dr. A. P. Pinzak, NOAA Dr. D. C. Chandler, UNIV. of MICHIGAN Recognizing that continuing independent UNIVERSITY REPRESENTATIVE development of the basic data would be illogi- CANADA - T. L. Richards, ENV. CANADA cal, and that early agreement upon hydraulic J. P. Bruce, CCIW and hydrologic factors was mandatory, the Dr. A. M. McCombie, ODLF Corps of Engineers and its Canadian counter- F. A. Voege, ENV. ONTARIO Dr. K. Rodgers, UNIV. of TORONTO parts formed the Coordinating Committee on *Chairman Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data in 1953. It has advised the U.S. and FIGURE 11-73 International Group and Canadian agencies responsible for compiling Committee Great Lakes hydraulic and hydrologic data. 178 Appendix 11 Present membership of the Committee is (2) regulation of Lakes Michigan-Huron shown in Figure 11-73. Three subcommittees, (3) regulation of Lake Erie the River Flow Subcommittee, Vertical (4) further regulation of Lake Ontario, tak- Control-Water Levels Subcommittee, and ing into account the full range of levels and Physical Data Subcommittee, assist the Coor- flows dinating Committee. The requirement for the management of the Great Lakes as a system will be a definite con- sideration. The presently approved regulation 17.3.3 International Great Lakes Study Group plan for Lake Superior does not specifically consider the situation on the lower Lakes in The Great Lakes Study Group is an informal determining the Lake Superior outflow. In the organization of Federal, State, and university past the Board, under its discretionary au- personnel with ongoing research programs in thority, provided additional outflows to bene- the Great Lakes area. The Group provides a fit interests on the lower Lakes. The 1964 low useful forum to assist in coordinating pro- water-level situation was described in an ear- grams and members' activities to eliminate lier section. In the future the Board may con- duplication. Leonard T. Crook, Executive Di- sider adjustments to decrease flows to benefit rector, Great Lakes Basin Commission, is cur- interests on the lower Lakes suffering from rent chairman of the U.S. Section of the Study high lake levels. Group. There is concern that consumptive water The Study Group is the only organization losses may seriously affect the levels of the able to bring together for close discussion rep- Great Lakes. An assessment of future esti- resentatives (Figure 11-73) from both sides of mates of consumptive losses is provided in the international boundary, with authority Section 10. Management may demand that an within their own organization to implement appointed authority, such as the Interna- some coordination of the various research ac- tional Great Lakes Levels Board, should in- tivities. It meets twice a year, once in each vestigate and assess all future facilities con- country. templating significant withdrawals or con- There has been consideration of formalizing sumptive use of Great Lakes waters by means the International Great Lakes Study Group as of a permit procedure. a body to act with some authority for directing There have been preliminary discussions all @areas of research efforts on the Great indicating a continuing effort to update and Lakes. Should such a proposal materialize, it keep current shore property damage assess- would probably help the research needs re- ments by responsible agencies in the U.S. and lated to Great Lakes hydraulics and hydrolo- in Canada. No specific recommendation has gy. been formulated yet. Such a continuing effort to update stage-damage relationships for shoreline reaches will be a valuable manage- 17.4 Improved Regulation ment tool in planning shoreline developments. The International Joint Commission study of further regulation of the levels of the Great 17.5 Extension of Great Lakes Navigation Lakes is nearing completion. The Lake Levels Season Board's main report was presented to the Commission on December 7,1973. Regulation Congress authorized a $6.5 million program plans have been developed and are being to demonstrate the practicability of extending tested. Investigations of cost and design of the navigation season on the Great Lakes and regulatory works, which required intensive St. Lawrence Seaway in the Rivers and Har- field exploratory phases for choosing suitable bors Act of 1970. The Act directed the Secre- sites, design criteria, and cost estimates, are tary of the Army, acting through the Chief of essentially completed. The unilateral study by Engineers, to carry out the program in coop- the Corps of Engineers, dated December eration with the Departments of Transporta- 1965,42 has the only results available now. The tion, Interior, and Commerce, and the En- Levels Board's findings and recommendation vironmental Protection Agency. A Winter will consider the following: Navigation Board consisting of representa- (1) improved regulation plans utilizing tives of participating agencies has been estab- existing works facilities for Lakes Superior lished to direct the program. and Ontario with no great costs involved The program concept consists of seven ele- Management and Future Demands 179 ments, each to be carried out by a lead Federal ecological aspects would be considered here. agency. The elements and lead agency desig- Prior to extensive vessel transits, surveillance nations are: lee Information, National of a channel under various winter ice condi- Weather Service; Ice Navigation, U.S. Coast tions would establish base-of-comparison con- Guard; lee Engineering, U.S. Army Corps of ditions. Engineers; Ice Control, St. Lawrence Seaway (2) ice information. A central ice-reporting, Development Corporation; Ice Management forecasting, and information center is essen- in Channels, Locks, and Harbors, Corps of En- tial to winter navigation on the Great Lakes. gineers; Economic Evaluation, Corps of En- (3) ice forces. Solution of ice navigation gineers; and Environmental Evaluation, En- problems requires basic data and full under- vironmental Protection Agency. A three-year standing of ice forces in the Great Lakes. program was initiated during the winter of (4) ice control. Retaining and diversion 1971-1972. The Winter Navigation Board structures in connecting channels may be re- membership is shown in Figure 11-74. quired. Future demands resulting from the exten- (5) ice supression. A number of possible sion of the Great Lakes navigation season in- methods have been utilized to suppress ice clude establishment of surveillance programs formation. However, further evaluations are on the Great Lakes' connecting channels. necessary to determine practicability in the Surveillance programs are essential to protect Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway. shore property interests along the connecting (6) ice effects on ships. Design for rein- channels. For example, because of the exten- forcement requirements for vessels to operate sive build-up of the St. Clair-Detroit River in ice field are needed. Navigation interests shoreline, its susceptibility to damage, and the must satisfy themselves on practicability and shoreline's general low relief, there is concern economic feasibility. for shore property with any navigation season (7) navigational aids (for ship control). An extension. There is serious risk of problems electronic navigation positioning system is from ice formed on Lake Huron discharging needed for ship control in restricted areas. into the St. Clair River. No facility is available (8) ice management in harbors and locks. to reduce the flow of lake ice into the river. For harbors, ice management would include The passage of vessels through the St. Clair- ice regime, entrance problems, berthing prob- Detroit system may materially affect ice lems, loading and unloading aspects, and gen- damaging conditions. Consequences of such eral ice difficulties. lee problems at navigation action are uncertain at this time. Extensive locks are related to lock operation difficulties hydraulic and related investigations will be and ice management difficulties. Both areas essential to extend the navigation season on are of continuing concern and will require ac- the Great Lakes successfully. celerated programs. The establishment of an Ice Management (9) economic studies. Economic studies and Program in the Great Lakes requires efforts in evaluations are necessary along with investi- specific areas: gations of the practicability of winter naviga- (1) ice surveillance. Ice damage to shore tion before a decision can be reached on an structures, ice jamming, access problems, ero- extended or year-round Great Lakes naviga- sion, and recreational, environmental, and tion season. Section 18 PROJECTED NEEDS 18.1 Additional Diversions into or out of the over the Falls during tourist hours, and the Basin first 50,000 efs in the remaining hours. The United States has only the high-head The following discussion provides estimates PASNY plant. Canada has the high-head Sir of benefits, costs, or losses if a given quantity Adam Beck plants and the low-head Ontario, of water becomes available for diverting into Canadian-Niagara, and Toronto Powerplants. the Basin from some other basin. The reverse The high-head plants, which make propor- case will also be discussed should new diver- tionally more power for the same amount of sions out of the Great Lakes be authorized. water than the low-head plants, use the first Several factors have to be identified: the water available for power diversion after the amount of such a diversion, physical means of Falls flow. For this reason the additional 1,000 the project, other delivery costs involved, and cfs has the most value when the flow in the the cost of any necessary compensating mea- river is low. sures in Great Lakes channels to offset the The PASNY plant has a design capacity of change in flow conditions. In the case of addi- 85,000 efs and has diverted up to 105,000 cfs tional water being diverted into the Great under high flows. The Sir Adam Beck plants Lakes, during periods of high water on the have a physical limitation of 66,000 efs because Lakes, the new diversion will increase the of restrictions in their intake canals. This high water conditions and result in an in- means that during the tourist hours the re- crease of shore damages. During low water maining water in the river, averaging 100,000 level periods on the Lakes, such a diversion cfs, can be used in the high-head plants. would improve lake level conditions. No one can estimate costs for the design and con- struction of such compensation until the di- version is fully identified. TABLE 11-63 Capacities of Niagara Power Plants 18.2 Value of Water for Power Approx. Plant Capacity KW/CFS 18.2.1 St. Marys River Robert Moses 90,000 23 The flows necessary for power-gene rating Sir Adam Beck 66,400 22 facilities, navigation canals, and regulating Ontario 6 000 2 12.6 works for the St. Marys River total 60,000 efs. Toronto 9:0002 7.1 When regulation plans call for lesser flows, Canadian-Niagara 9, 000 7.6 amounts made available to the power- 1 generating facilities are reduced. Water ex- These are approximate values. Curves ceeding 60,000 cfs is discharged through the were plotted from a number of points gated control works. for the two high-head plants and enery values were developed for the varying 18.2.2 Niagara River diversions 2 The value of an additional flow of 1,000 cfs Inability to get water to the intakes depends on the amount of water already under conditions of low Falls flow available. The more water already flowing in limits actual capacities. Particularly the Niagara River, the less value any addi- in the Canadian-Niagara plant, it is tional water has. Under the Treaty of 1950 the necessary to waste considerable water first 100,000 efs in the Niagara River must go in order to use the plant 181 182 Appendix 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 1 NOTE: VALUE OF ENERGY PLUS SAME AMOUNT FOR CAPACITY =TOTAL VALUE 10 20 30 z Uj Uj a_ 40 z 00 50 CL 3: 0 60 70 80 90 VALUE OF ENERGY IN 100,000 DOLLARS FIGURE 11-75 Value of Additional Flow for 1,000 Cubic Feet per Second Based on Entire Year-Niagara River Projected Needs 183 During non-tourist hours, when the Falls tion on the Great Lakes is presented in Ap- requirement is only 50,000 efs, the high-head pendix C9, Commercial Navigation. The ef- plant capacity of about 150,000 efs is exceeded fects on navigation of a change in lake levels by the time river flow reaches average. As depend on the type of shipping evaluated, river flows increase above average, all addi- i.e. intralake or interlake traffic. Also, the tional water must be used in the low-head dollar value of the additional shipping depth plants (except for use by PASNY). Additional available varies from month to month during water then has a much lower value for power the April-to-November navigation season. production. A change in depth of .1 foot during the The control structure is used to hold proper navigation season on Lakes Superior, levels in the upper Niagara River. Power di- Michigan-Huron, Erie, and Ontario at low versions would otherwise reduce levels of water datum elevation on each Lake for all flows. The control structure can maintain traffic provides $800,000 benefit or loss to 50,000 cfs over the Falls while maintaining shipping (both U.S. and Canadian interests). proper levels up to river flows of 206,000 cfs, This value is representative only when the which occurs approximately 50 percent of the Lakes are at or near low water datum eleva- time. Above that discharge amount the struc- tions. ture can no longer control the required flow over the Falls and the excess water flows around the structure. The Canadian low-head 18.4 Alternatives for Regulation of Great plants, at a discharge of 225,000 cfs, catch and Lakes Levels and Flows use this extra flow. Above this discharge most of the additional water goes over the Falls. The Great Lakes are a challenge to those Because flow frequencies vary depending on concerned with developing and managing their the month, the value of water varies with the water resources. There are both international month of the year used to determine the value. implications and a diversity of interests con- All of these factors have been worked into cerned with the levels and outflows of the Figure 11-75 (power value curve). The curve Lakes, including hydroelectric power, naviga- value is based on the value of energy de- tion, water supply, and recreation. veloped, plus an equal value for additional The IJC study, Regulation of Great Lakes plant capacity for 1969 conditions. The capac- Water Levels, investigated alternative regula- ity value assumes that additional water would tion schemes utilizing all of the Lakes as a be made available over an extended period. A system and assessing the economic effect on short-term diversion would have only half the the diverse interests. The final report consid- dollar worth. The dollar values are based on an ers structural alternatives for further regula- energy value of 2.67 miles per kilowatt. En- tion of Great Lakes levels and flows. The study ergy produced was measured by manufac- also investigates nonstructural alternatives turers' ratings and Gibson test ratings for in the form of improved ways of regulating the various plants for approximate heads. Lakes Superior and Ontario at minimal cost. If Treaty flow requirements over the Falls were ever changed, an alternativesuggested in Subsection 18.4.2, the assumptions used to 18.4.1 Other Structural Alternatives Relating derive the value of water for power at Niagara to Levels and Flows would change and hence the value of power would change. In the event that the regulation of Lakes Michigan-Huron is not feasible, the U.S. gov- ernment is committed to restoring the levels 18.2.3 St. Lawrence River of these Lakes to 1933 conditions. A recom- mended means for restoring these levels was A flow of 1,000 cfs can mean the annual pro- discussed in other subsections. Structural duction or loss of $140,000 of power energy means may be necessary to compensate for besides the value of peak capacity and the in- effects of river development and landfills dustrial production involved. along the connecting channels. Studies expected to be undertaken for ex- tension of the navigation season may require 18.3 Value of Water for Navigation structural means to stabilize flow conditions in the connecting channels. It would appear The value of water for commercial naviga- that some type of temporary or permanent 184 Appendix 11 structure, or a combination of both, would be pearances in the vicinity of the Falls by cover- required to control the ice floes passing ing the lower levels of the talus accumulation through such critical navigation areas as the at the base of the American Falls, by covering outlet of Lake Huron. A temporary structure the rock ledges on the Canadian shore, and by could be a winter-installed, modified version of covering other exposed debris at several shore the type of floating boom utilized in the Lake locations. Construction of a control structure Erie-Niagara River outlet location. at the head of the Whirlpool Rapids will create A possible permanent, less expensive struc- a water-level differential, which, in combina- ture might be a system of rockfill spur dikes tion with the large, steady river discharges along the St. Clair River to reduce or prevent (50,000 cfs or 100,000 cfs Treaty flows), will large ice-runs out of the Lake. One might de- provide a significant hydroelectric potential. sign many other types of structures to prevent Therefore, such a structural measure could ice-runs out of Lake Huron, but all would be provide for a multi-purpose project. very costly and probably objectionable to many people, including recreationists and riparian owners. A possible solution is artifi- 18.4.2 Nonstructural Alternatives cially strengthening the ice arch which nor- mally forms in the funnel-shaped Lake Huron The existing international treaties, orders outlet. Large mesh nylon nets frozen into the of approval by the International Joint Com- ice-covered arch would help prevent the inter- mission, and the supervision by its Board of mittent break-up of the arch under wave action Control are the principal authorities limiting and premature warming periods that may use of the hydroelectric resources of the St. occur in the winter. A fixed structure could be Lawrence and Niagara Rivers. The value of installed to maintain a fixed navigation chan- these resources depends largely upon how well nel opening. the power they produce fits the demands of the Additional structural alternatives may be areas they serve. At Niagara Falls, the flows possible for improved control of ice on connect- required by the Treaty of 1950 to provide for ing rivers with hydroelectric power develop- the scenic beauty of the Falls compete with ments subject to low winter temperatures the ideal distribution of these flows for power. such as the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers. Pumped-storage facilities in both Canada and This often presents many varied and difficult the United States have been provided and a problems. The Power Authority of the State of river-dispatching procedure developed which New York and the Hydro Electric Power permits full utilization of the flows available Commission of Ontario have taken significant for power while maintaining the Falls flows measures to achieve control of these rivers in specified by Treaty.2 A change or amendment the winter. Ice booms have proved to be of of the Treaty of 1950 on Niagara Falls flows great value on the Niagara and St. Lawrence could provide increased diversion for power Rivers in forming and retaining ice covers purposes and is considered an alternative for where natural ice covers are uncertain or un- furnishing additional power. However, struc- stable. In the case of the St. Lawrence River, tural measures may be necessary to provide extension of navigation will necessitate mod- for added compensation in order to maintain ifying regulation of the ice boom systems pres- an acceptable scenic appearance of the waters ently utilized for stabilization of the ice flowing over Niagara Falls. As an example, if cover. The practicality of winter navigation on tourist-hours flow minimums would be re- the St. Lawrence River without causing dam- duced to 70,000 cfs instead of the present age to power generation and shore property 100,000, it may be feasible, by a submerged interests has not been demonstrated. weir scheme, to provide nearly the same scenic Structural alternatives for the preservation appearance of the Falls. Detailed studies and protection of Great Lakes shoreline prop- would have to determine the feasibility of this erties are discussed in detail in Appendix 12, alternative. Shore Use and Erosion. The establishment of building codes and The American Falls International Board is zoning restrictions for those individuals build- investigating the feasibility of constructing a ing along the shoreline of the Great Lakes is control structure in the lower Niagara River covered in Appendix 12, Shore Use and Ero- to raise the level of the Maid -of-the- Mist Pool sion. to approximate what existed before diversion The establishment of a permit policy for ap- of water for hydroelectric power generation. proval of large water withdrawals from the Increased water in the Pool would improve ap- Great Lakes may be necessary to constrain Projected Needs 185 consumptive water losses that may occur with weather forecasting should also become more future developments. The case of the City of reliable. Detroit's water supply intake facility at the lower end of Lake Huron was cited on previous pages. 18.6 Great Lakes Hydraulic Modeling Efforts Other possible nonstructural alternatives include previously mentioned control or mod- Great Lakes hydraulic mathematical model- ification of weather conditions over the Great ing combines, in a computer program, the Lakes. If techniques can be developed, these physical hydraulic-hydrographic relation- applications may modify precipitation over ships which govern the outflow of a given the Basin. Also, one might explore ways to Great Lakes channel. Input data describe modify the evaporation of Great Lakes water. water supply conditions to the affected Lake or Lakes that have occurred historically or 18.5 Lake Stage Forecasts in Great Lakes have been derived by statistical methods. Weather Forecasts When such a hydraulic mathematical model has been developed and verified adequately, a In recent years the National Weather Ser- great variety of problems may be solved at vice has been preparing a plan to forecast lake minimal expense. stages. Actual meteorological observations The IJC Water Levels of the Great Lakes transmitted to a forecasting office would be Study utilized mathematical simulation in needed to verify the forecasts. Accurate long- computer modelS.32 Mathematical models for term water-level forecasting demands the de- the St. Marys, St. Clair-Detroit, and Niagara termination of long-range weather forecast Rivers have been developed and tested. inputs. Studies using them for selecting regulatory Several people have worked on a lake stage work sites and design are under way. Replac- forecast method for Lake Erie in recent years. ing physical models with these mathematical While these methods yield good forecasts, they simulations has not only substantially re- cannot be used without meteorological input, duced actual development and operational such as hourly winds at a number of shore costs, but provides greater engineering appli- locations around the Lake. It would be neces- cation. They also completely eliminate con- sary to telemeter lake stages from water level tinuing maintenance costs of large-scale phys- gaging stations at specific locations from the ical models. Great Lakes. A forecasting scheme operating with these inputs could be very helpful in pre- dicting major surges similar to those exper- 18.6.1 Data Needs for Modeling Purposes ienced at both the eastern and western ends of Lake Erie. No lake stage forecast procedures There is a constant need for field are operating now. An immediate need exists discharge-measurement data on the connect- for the National Weather Service to initiate ing rivers to verify the mathematical models. such services to safeguard livesand property. Verifications of outflows for a channel under varying conditions are essential. The Detroit District, Corps of Engineers, has to provide a 18.5.1 Long-Range Weather Forecasting and continuing program of measurements of the Modification Techniques Great Lakes connecting channels, normally carried out in a 5-year program. Given the In recent years technical investigations and funds, these planned periodic measurements research projects have partly succeeded in are made as scheduled. producing precipitation as well as reducing Updated, detailed hydrographic surveys are heavy snowfall over populated Great Lakes required of the St. Marys River and of a por- shoreline areas. The snowstorm suppression tion of the Detroit River from Amherstburg technique makes more snow fall over the Lake Channel upstream to the head of Belle Isle in and less on the land or on a wide area and thus order to improve the two existing mathemati- to a lesser depth. Such control may save mil- cal models. The hydrography covering these lions of dollars annually by reducing damage, two rivers is based on surveys completed storm clean-up, and indirect losses. As the many years ago to satifsy charting specifica- feasibility of modifying the weather over large tions, and does not provide data for complete, areas of the Great Lakes advances, long-range detailed hydraulic modeling. 186 Appendix 11 18.6.2 Model Needs Wind, waves, and currents are factors in short-term changes, while ice cover, temper- Numerous hydraulic model requirements ature, and radiation cause seasonal varia- need to be filled in order to provide the de- tions. The long-term natural aging (eutrophi- tailed investigations for carrying out an ex- cation) of the Lakes is related to the cultural tension of the navigation season on the Great and industrial development of the Basin and Lakes or the deepening of the Great Lakes to other factors involved in the process. Ap- connecting channels to a 30-foot depth. Modi- pendix 7, Water Qualify, and Appendix C9, fying an existing mathematical model might Commercial Navigation, discusses these be enough. subjects in more detail. A mathematical model of the International The Detroit River carries large quantities of Rapids Section of the St. Lawrence River is pollutants into Lake Erie from municipal and needed. The approximate cost of development industrial developments along the river. The of such a model is $100,000. St. Lawrence Sea- Niagara River discharges water of somewhat way Development Corporation plans to con- deteriorated quality into Lake Ontario. A re- struct a physical model of the reach of the St. port10 by the International Great Lakes Pollu- Lawrence River below the International tion Board describes the water quality condi- Power House and Snell Navigation Lock to the tions of Lakes Erie and Ontario. Because the International Bridge. In this reach, the di- flows of the Detroit and Niagara Rivers con- vided channels of the river at times produce st'itute such a large proportion of the total currents hazardous to navigation. water supplies to Lakes Erie and Ontario, A physical model of the St. Marys Rapids their pollution effects on main-body waters of reach of the St. Marys River, including three these Lakes are significant. Therefore, in the power and navigation canals, is also needed to design and construction of regulating struc- investigate future replacement of structures, tures and of excavated channels in the St. anticipated new navigation, lock replace- Clair-Detroit and Niagara Rivers, post- ments, and navigation channel improve- project conditions must provide maintenance ments. of profile conditions and provide for no worse Additional deepening of Great Lakes con- than specific pre-project water quality necting channels was authorized in 1952 and standards. largely completed in 1962. Commensurate In the ongoing IJC study, Regulation of deepening of harbors came in the period 1959 Great Lakes Water Levels, the International to 1965, following studies begun in 1956. The Great Lakes Levels Board will be coordinating deepening generally increased the system with the International Great Lakes Pollution depth from 25 to 27 feet in the downbound Board the regulatory works requirements for channels and from 21 to 27 feet in upbound all final regulation plans recommended to the channels. Consideration should be given also International Joint Commission. Any recom- to a study of the feasibility of a 30-foot or 32- mended plans will fully consider all conditions foot navigation system. Appendix C9, Com- and criteria cited by the Pollution Board. As mercial Navigation, discusses the economic part of their shore property investigations, feasibility of deepening the Great Lakes-St. the Levels Board is closely examining fish and Lawrence Seaway System. wildlife habitat areas along the connecting A deepening project will necessitate de- channels so as not to harm these interests. tailed hydraulic studies. Additionally, the Special design features and site considera- elimination of a navigation lock for the St. tions may be necessary to minimize impact on Lawrence River at Iroquois Lock and Darn the local environment, particularly during site appears feasible. Detailed hydraulic construction. In the regulatory works investi- studies are necessary in order to substantiate gations, the cost of any necessary remedial enlargement of the navigation channel in measures during construction of any project this reach of the St. Lawrence River. will be charged against the total cost of the project. Special preventive measures may in- clude cofferdam arrangements and onshore 18.7 Implications of Water Quality disposal of dredged materials to minimize any Considerations effects of the water quality conditions. A preliminary evaluation of Regulation Water quality in the Great Lakes undergoes Plan 64-MH-9 by the Federal Water Quality rather significant short-term and seasonal Administration, Cleveland Program Office for changes in addition to the long-term trends. Lake Erie, indicates that regulation of lake Projected Needs 187 levels in itself hardly affects water quality. islands so as to redirect currents through the Under this Plan, the average level of Lake western basin. The installation of training Erie would be reduced less than 0.4 foot, rep- dikes to control the direction of Detroit River resenting a reduction of average volume by 0.7 flows entering the Lake would be considered percent, an insignificant influence on con- also. Any adverse effects would have to be stituent concentration. However, regulated evaluated. In order to improve prediction of inflows and outflows on Lake Erie and their the effects of the islands and dikes on current timing are important. It was determined that direction, a hydraulic model of the western this plan would lower water quality in the De- end of the Lake would be used, so that various troit River and the western basin because of island and dike arrangements could be tested low flows in winter and spring. before designing the prototype. It may be that Flushing the Lakes with low-nutrient water improvements of the situation would be has been suggested as a restorative measure. largely due to the removal of organic bottom Assuming no inflows to the Lakes, and keep- sediments, and that current redirection could ing outflows at their respective mean values, effect benefits to certain inshore areas with it would take 184 years for Lake Superior and somewhat less desirable results in other 21/2 years for Lake Erie to empty. This is a areas. Appendix 4, Limnology of Lakes and hypothetical situation. In reality, there are Embayments, discusses these problems in always inflows and it is not possible to empty detail. the Lakes completely. In view of the huge vol- A benefit of regulation might be improved umes of the Lakes and the very large annual water quality in some of the Lakes, particu- amounts of their natural water supplies, logi- larly in Lake Erie. However, to define the ben- cal limits to this solution would be to increase efit to be obtained may be difficult to dem- natural supplies from outside the Basin. This onstrate. Water inflow to a Lake may possi- involves consideration of water source pos- bly be scheduled when the quality in the up- sibilities, the problems relating to diversion of stream Lake is higher than that in the lower such water into the Lakes, and, unless offset- Lake. Permanent water quality monitoring ting lake outflow facilities were added, the stations should be established in the Lakes to harm to shore property interests from in- record water characteristics and associated creased lake levels from added supplies. data. These stations, properly calibrated with The most suitable Lake for flushing would the Lake proper, would indicate the long-term be Lake Erie. Lake Erie's needs are greater changes in water characteristics and also pro- and the flow-through time more favorable vide information to assist possible scheduling than for the other Lakes. A hypothetical of water releases from each regulation Lake. example shows that increasing the Lake's av- Research should establish the optimum en- erage outflow rate by 20 percent would require vironmental conditions for the Great Lakes augmenting its water supply by 40,000 cubic waters and all lake regulation plans should be feet per second. For flushing Lake Erie, the modified to achieve them. additional flow obviously would be applied at the western end of the Lake. Because north- ern areas are the most likely out-of-the-Basin source of low-nutrient water, the flow might 18.8 Wastewater Management Programs be introduced upstream of the St. Clair- Detroit River system and conducted via that Authorization has been given to study the system to become a part of the Detroit River feasibility of wastewater management pro- discharge to Lake Erie. However, analysis of grams in the Great Lakes Basin. Initially, available data shows that further research studies are being made for the Detroit, and pilot scale testing would be required to Cleveland -Akron, and Chicago metropolitan assess the effects and practicalities of apply- areas as part of the Great Lakes rehabilitation ing such a technique on Lake Erie. program. These locations were chosen be- The dredging of organic bottom sediments cause of their critical natures as sources of from the shallow western basin of Lake Erie pollutants. The studies are ajoint effort by the has been suggested as a restorative measure. Environmental Protection Agency and the The organic dredgings would be placed in Corps of Engineers to solve regional pollution diked enclosures to form islands in the Lake. problems by eliminating the disposal of in- Associated with the suggestion is an idea that adequately treated wastes into our inland improvement of water quality in certain areas waters and by evaluating the reuse of might be obtained by placing and shaping the adequately treated wastewater. 188 Appendix 11 18.8.1 International Great Lakes Waste Water land Canal, Lake Ontario, and the St. Lawr- Quality Agreement ence Seaway. The existing navigation project for the The Treaty of 1909 between the United Great Lakes connecting channels was au- States and Canada provides that no action thorized on March 21,1956. The improvement may be taken that affects the level of flow of provided for increasing controlling depth their boundary waters, except under pre- from 24.8 feet and 21 feet below low water scribed procedures for coordination and datum in downbound'and upbound channels, agreement between the two nations. The pro- respectively, to a controlling depth of 27 feet cedures normally involve a reference by one or below low water datum in both channels. both governments to the IJC, which then con- Therefore, a safe draft of 25.5 feet for Great ducts appropriate investigation and reports Lakes freighters is provided, with allowances back to the two governments. The Treaty pro- for squat of vessel underway, wave action, and vides further that the waters are not to be bottom conditions. These project depths have polluted on either side of the international been available since June 1962. Subsequent boundary to the injury or health of property on authorizations related to harbor improve- the other side of the boundary. Unilateral im- ments have provided similar and commensu- plementation of preventive measures such as rate project depths at principal harbors on the pollution abatement obviously would be in ac- Great Lakes. cord with the Treaty, but any restorative The new Poe Lock, placed in operation in measures having trans-boundary effects on 1969 at Sault Ste. Marie, is 1,200 feet long, 110 levels or flows of the Lakes would require feet wide, and 32 feet deep over the sills. It has Commission approval prior to implementa- led to construction of two new self-unloading tion. With respect to questions of pollution of superearriers, both 'of 105-foo"t beam, one 1,000 the Lakes, the Commission may be asked, feet long, and one 858 feet long, and both de- among other things, for recommendations re- signed for a draft capability of 32 feet of water. garding remedial measures. The economy to be realized by larger craft A United States-Canadian agreement on points to construction of more of these large Great Lakes water quality matters was signed vessels, which will not be able to operate at full by U.S. and Canadian leaders in Ottawa, On- draft and optimum safety in the existing tario, on April 15, 1972. At that time, the two channels, harbors, and facilities. These con- countries adopted as their joint objective the structions, with the exception of the new Poe elimination of water pollution in the Great Lock, were designed for maximum vessel di- Lakes. It is anticipated that the International mensions of 730 feet long, 75-foot beam, and Joint Commission will be responsible for over- 25.5 feet of draft at low water datum.- seeing the agreement. To provide for ease of navigation and the safe passage of the larger vessels, it has been recommended that various bends and reaches 18.9 Great Lakes Connecting Channels and of the St. Marys, St. Clair, and Detroit Rivers Harbors Study be widened and deepened. The investigation will determine to what extent, if any, the con- The Corps of Engineers has been directed by necting channels should be improved with the U.S. Congress to review the report of the corresponding determinations of improve- Chief of Engineers on the Great Lakes con- ments at Great Lakes harbors. Solutions must necting Channels, with a view to determining consider not only commercial benefits but also the advisability of further improvements to effects of any modifications on the environ- the Great Lakes navigation system in the in- ment to include those navigation-related terest of present and prospective deep-draft problems pertaining to shore property. The commerce, with particular consideration to analysis of the system will also take into con- improvements for the safe operation of vessels sideration the effect of an extended naviga- up to the maximum size permitted by the Poe tion season, the need for additional lock capac- Lock in the St. Marys Falls Canal. A survey ity or lock modification at Sault Ste. Marie, study was initiated in 1971 to investigate pos- and other changes that may affect the Great sible improvement of the Great Lakes naviga- Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway System. tion system, which includes Lakes Superior, It is planned that interim reports on indi- Huron, Michigan, and Erie, together with vidual harbors and specific sections within the their connecting channels and harbors. The Great Lakes navigation system be prepared as system is linked to overseas trade by the Wel- soon as practical where economic and en- Projected Needs 189 vironmental justification can be established grams which will affect the environmental because of deep-draft bulk cargo traffic. setting of the connecting channels and There are several ongoing studies by the harbors Corps of Engineers that have some relation to Final design of any connecting channel mod- the Great Lakes Connecting Channels and ification or improvement projects must de- Harbors study: termine the effects of such channel improve- (1) International Joint Commission Regu- ments upon the water levels, velocities, flow lation of Great Lakes Water Levels was pre- distributions, and the required compensation viously discussed in detail in this appendix. works to offset the channel enlargements. (2) Lake Erie-Lake Ontario Waterway study considers the need for an additional deep-draft waterway between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, with possible canal located in 18.10 Design Wave Heights-Statistical the United States. The existing waterway is Information the Welland Canal in Canada. (3) St. Lawrence Seaway Additional Lock A&urate wave-height measurements have study is considering additional locks in the been recorded only in recent years at a few United States section of the Seaway on the St. selected locations throughout the Great Lawrence River. Investigations in this study Lakes. Most of these locations have recorded will determine: waves for only relatively short periods. To de- (a) nature of improvements desired. This velop design wave-height statistics for con- would include depths and widenings desired struction of shoreline developments, theoreti- and the areas involved. cal wave heights are calculated. Detailed de- (b) developments which now are under sign wave-height data have been determined consideration or which local interests propose only for the immediate areas of the various to be undertaken in connection with the de- Federal harbor and protective structures pro- sired improvements jects on the Great Lakes. The development of (c) expected benefits from the desired ultimate water level data is described in Sec- improvements such as accommodation of tion 8 with tabulation of such values available larger vessels, ease of maneuvering, safety of from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North navigation, anticipated potential commerce Central Division. by commodities. The desired information In order to provide specific design wave- should particularly pertain to the prospective height and nearshore current data for commerce anticipated to use the Great Lakes shoreline construction purposes, more precise navigation system. determinations of such detailed information (d) statements as to existing environ- are needed for relatively short segments of mental conditions and planned future pro- shoreline. GLOSSARY basis-of-comparison data-these recorded lake escarpment-a topographic landform de- levels and outflows adjusted to fixed diver- veloped as a more or less continuous line of sion and lake outlet conditions are used as a steep slopes facing in one general direction base in testing regulation plans. which are caused by erosion or by faulting. compensating works-hydraulic structures fetch-the unobstructed course (path) of wind (channel improvements, locks of dams) built blowing across a lake. to control the outflows and levels of a lake or a lake system. frequency of occurrence-number of times an event of a certain magnitude occurs or has connecting channels-the Detroit River, Lake been exceeded, normally expressed as St. Clair, and St. Clair River comprise the events per hundred years or as the percent connecting channel between Lake Erie and change of occurrence in any year. Lake Huron. This connecting channel has been deepened to provide a controlling proj- hydraulic capacity-the maximum amount of ect depth of 27 feet. Between Lake Huron water a channel is physically able to carry and Lake Superior, the connecting channel under given stage conditions. is the St. Marys River. ice retardation-the difference between the consumptive use-quantity of water with- amount of water discharged at given lake drawn or withheld from lakes or consumed and river stages under open water condi- in various processes and not returned. tions and under ice conditions. criteria for regulation-the standards, or gov- lake diversions-diversions of water into or erning conditions, used in designing a regu- out of a lake basin. Diversions into a lake lation plan. have the effect of raising the water levels of the lake into which the diverted water is crustal movement-the change in level of the charged and of raising the levels of the lakes earth's surface at a location with respect to downstream through which the diverted another location. Crustal movement is ex- water must pass on its way to the sea. Diver- pressed as a differential rate of level over sions of water out of a lake basin have the time. This process is still continuing and converse effect on the levels of the lakes affects differences in elevations. downstream from the point of diversion. cubic feet per second month (efs-month)-unit lake drainage area-the drainage area of a of supply used in testing regulation plans. It lake measured in a horizontal plane en- is equivalent to the volume of water rep- closed by a drainage divide. resented by a flow of one cubic foot per sec- ond for an average month of 365/12 days. lake drainage basin-that part of the surface of the earth that is occupied by a drainage sys- diversion-man's changing the natural course tem of rivers and lakes. of water as it drains toward the sea from one drainage basin to another. lake inflow-contribution to a given lake. In the Great Lakes, by the outflow from the divide-the line of separation between drain- lake immediately upstream through the age systems. river connecting the lakes. embayment-an indentation in the shoreline lake level forecasting-the prediction of future forming a bay. lake levels. The Lake Survey Center, NOAA, 191 192 Appendix 11 Department of Commerce, the Federal ses from the lake surface and bottom. The agency in the United States that is respon- net total supply is the net basin supply plus sible for collection and dissemination of outflow from lake upstream and diversion Great Lakes water level data, has for a into the lake. number of years published a monthly bulle- tin of lake levels for the previous year and physiography-a descriptive study of the the current year to the date of the bulletin, earth and its natural phenomena, such as compared with long-term averages and ex- climate, surface,etc. tremes of levels that have been experienced. The Detroit District, Corps of Engineers, regulation plan-a method of determining at forecasts the probable levels for six months the beginning of a period the amount of in advance for use on the bulletin, which is water to be released from a lake(s) in order widely distributed around the Great Lakes. to control lake levels and outflows to ac- complish certain aims. lake outflow-the amount of water flowing out of each of the Great Lakes through its rule curve-a set of agreed upon conditions, natural outlet channel. summarized in a graph or a table for the purpose of lake regulation. lake regulation-control of lake levels by con- trolling the amount of water flowing out of seiche-an oscillation of the water surface of the lake in accordance with a rule designed a lake following a water level disturbance. to accomplish certain goals. In the Great Lakes area, any sudden rise in the water level in a harbor or along the lake storage-the volume of water storage shore of a lake. areas of the Great Lakes constitute a characteristic feature since relatively small stage-water surface expressed in feet above changes in the levels of the lakes involve or below a plane of reference. enormous quantities of water. surge-a water level disturbance resembling moraine-an accumulation of glacial drift hav- a large wave or a great roll of water crossing ing initial constructional topography, built a lake or harbor. by the direct action of glacier ice. till-nonsorted, nonstratified sediment car- net basin supply-represents the supply of ried or deposited by a glacier. water a lake receives from its own basin less the losses by evaporation from the lake sur- ultimate water level-level obtained from face and leakage through the bottom. superimposing on the still water level, the temporary storm rise and the wave run-up. net total supply-represents the total supply of The run-up is the maximum level reached water to a lake from all sources less the los- after a wave has broken. LIST OF REFERENCES 1. Atwood, W.W., The Physiographic Pro- 10. DeCooke, B.G., Regulation of the Great vinces of North America, New York, Ginn Lakes Levels and Flows, Miscellaneous and Company, 1940, pp. 215 and 220. Paper 68-8, U.S. Lake Survey, June 1968. 2. Berry, George T., "Power Generation 11. Derecki, J.A., Evaporation from the Under IJC Regulation," Proceedings of Great Lakes, U.S. Lake Survey, Corps of the ASCE Journal, Power Division, Engineers, February 1967 (unpublished). November, 1968. 12. Exchange of Notes between the govern- 3. Bryce, John B., "Ice and River Control," ments of Canada and the United States, Vol. 94, NO.PO2, Proceedings of the relating to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence ASCE, Journal of the Power Division, Basin, October 14, 1940, including November, 1968. Supplementary Notes of October 31 and November 7, 1940. 4. Canadian Department of Transport, The Canals of Canada,'Ottawa, Ontario, 1937, 13. Freeman, John R., Regulation of the pp. 15-16. Great Lakes and Effects of Diversions by Chicago Sanitary District, 1926. 5. Canadian Department of Transport, Regulation of Outflows and Levels ofLake 14. Great Lakes Basin Commission and Na- Ontario, Method No. 5, Ottawa, Ontario, tional Council on Marine Resources and Special Projects Branch, March 1952, pp. Engineering Development, Great Lakes 1-33. Institutions: A Survey of Institutions Concerned with the Water and Related 6. Chief of Engineers Report, Presque Isle Resources in the Great Lakes Basin, Peninsula, Erie, Pennsylvania, Beach Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Erosion Control Study, House Document Printing Office, June 1969, p. 4. No. 231, 83d Congress, 1st Session, Com- mittee on Public Works, Washington, 15. Hough, J.L., Geology of the Great Lakes D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, Urbana, Illinois, University of Illinois 1953. Press, 1958, pp. 20, 27, 30. 7. Chief of Engineers, Report on Examina- 16. Hudowalski, E.D., "New York State tion ofFox River, Wisconsin, with a letter Barge Canal System," Journal of the from the Secretary of War, Washington, Waterways and Harbors Divisions, Pro- D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, ceedings of the American Society of Civil 1922. Engineers, November 1968. 17. Hunt, Ira A., Winds, Wind Set-Ups and 8. Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes Seiches on Lake Erie, U.S. Lake Survey, Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data, 1959, p. 59. Crustal Movement in the Great Lakes Area: Reports on Lake Superior, Lake 18. International Great Lakes Levels Board, Michigan-Huron, Lake Erie and Lake On- A Survey of Consumptive Use of Water in tario, May 1957 to April 1959. the Great Lakes Basin, released by IJC, Regulation Subcommittee of the Work- 9. Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes ing Committee, September 1968, pp. 1-16. Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data, Establishment of International Great 19. International Joint Commission of Lakes Datum (1955), September 1961. Canada and United States, Interim Re- 193 194 Appendix 11 port on the Regulation of Great Lakes 29. Maris, Albert B., Report of Albert B. Levels, July 1968. Maris, Special Master, Supreme Court of the United States, States of Wisconsin, 20. International Lake Erie and Ontario-St. Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michi- Lawrence River Water Pollution Boards, gan, New York v. State of Illinois and the Pollution of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater the International Section of the St. Law- Chicago, December, 1966, pp. 5-11,39-41. rence, Report to the International Joint Commission, Vol. 1, Summary, 1969. 30. Miller, Gerald S., Water Movement in To- ledo Harbor, Ohio, Research Report 1-4, 21. International Lake Ontario Board of U.S. Lake Survey, November 1969. Engineers, Effect on Lake Ontario Water Levels of the Gut Dam and Channel 31. National Waterways Commission, Re- Changes in the Galop Rapids Reach of the port on Regulation of Lake Erie, 1910. St. Lawrence River, Report to the Inter- national Joint Commission, October 1958. 32. Pentland, R.L., H.B. Rosenberg and G * S. Cavadias, Digital Computer Applications 22. International Lake Ontario Board of to Great Lakes Regulation, Symposium of Engineers, Regulation of Lake Ontario, Tucsar, The Use of Analog and Digital Report to the International Joint Com- Computers in Hydrology, December 1968. mission (under the Reference of June 25, 1952), 3 volumes, March 1957. 33. "Runoff Char- acteristics in the Great Lakes Basin," 23. Irish, S.M., "The Prediction of Surges in Proceedings of the International Associa- the Southern Basin of Lake Michigan," tion on Great Lakes Research, 1968. Part II, "A Case Study of the Surge of August 3, 1960," Monthly Weather Re- 34. Power Authority of the State of New view, Vol. 93, No. 5, May 1965, pp. 282-291. York and the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario, Ice Condition 24. Joint Board of Engineers, St. Lawrence Report 1970, St. Lawrence Power Project, Waterway Report, 1926, p. 13. 1970, pp. 1-7. 25. Krishner, L.D., "Effects of Diversions on 35. Red Clay Interagency Committee, Ero- the Great Lakes," Presented before sion and Sedimentation Control on the Great Lakes Water Resources Confer- Red Clay Soils of Northwestern Wiscon- ence, Toronto, Ontario, June, 1968, Mis- sin, 1967. cellaneous Paper 68-7, U.S. Lake Survey, November 1968, p. 296. 36. Regulation Subcommittee, Coordinated 26. Korkigan, I.M., "Channel Changes in the Basic Data, Report to the International St. Clair River Since 1933," Journal of the Great Lakes Levels Working Committee, Waterways and Harbors Division, Pro- May 1969. ceedings of the American Society of Civil 37. Regulatory Works Subcommittee, Winter Engineers, May 1963, pp. 3-8. Operations at the Lake Superior Regula- 27. Lawhead, H.F., and T.M. Patterson, tory Works, Sault Ste. Marie, Report to "History and Present Status of Regula- International Great Lakes Levels Work- tion Studies of Water Levels and Flows ing Committee, Winter 1968-69. on the Great Lakes," Proceedings of the Great Lakes Water Resources Conference, 38. Ropes, Gilbert E., "Vertical Control of the Toronto, EIC and ASCE, June 1968, pp. Great Lakes," Proceedings of the Ameri- 201-228. can Society of Civil Engineers, Surveying and Mapping Division, April, 1965, pp. 28. Leverett, F., and F.B. Taylor, The Pleis- - 39-49. tocene of Indiana and Michigan and the History of the Great Lakes, Monlg. 53, 39. U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Re- Washington, D.C., U.S. Geologic Survey, search Center, Shore Protection, Plan- 1915, pp. 328, 441, and 502-518. ning and Design, Technical Report No. 4, List of References 195 Third Edition, Washington, D.C., U.S. Regulation, Appendix C, December 1965, Government Printing Office, 1966, pp. pp. C-12 through C-18. 1-19. 46. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Water 40. U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Effect on Levels on the Great Lakes, Report on Lake Erosion and Flood Damage of an In- Regulation, Appendix F, December 1965. creased Water Level in Lake Ontario At- tributable to Gut Dam, Washington, D.C., 47. U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit, U.S. Government Printing Office, No- and Corps of Engineers, Post Flood Re- vember, 1966. port, Storm of April 27,1966, Lake Erie, Michigan, and Ohio, Detroit, Michigan, 41. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis 1966. District, Report on Field Investigations of High Water Damage and Flow Poten- 48. U.S. Supreme Court Decree, States of tial on the Lake Superior Basin-1968, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsyl- Washington, D.C., U.S. Government vania, Michigan, New York v. State of Printing Office, March 1969. Illinois and the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, Decreed June 42. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Water 12, 1967, Supreme Court Report, Vol. Levels on the Great Lakes, Report on Lake 87-No. 17, July 1, 1967, pp. 1774-1776. Regulation, December 1965. 49. Verber, J.L., Long and Short Period Os- 43. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Water cillations in Lake Erie, Division of Shore Levels on the Great Lakes, Report on Lake Erosion, Department of Natural Re- Regulation, Appendix A, December 1965, sources, State of Ohio, 1959, pp. 44-66. p. A-21. 50. Welsh, M.F., "The Work of the Interna- 44. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Water tional Joint Commission," address made Levels on the Great Lakes, Report on Lake to Great Lakes Water Resources Confer- Regulation, Appendix B, December 1965, ence, Toronto, June 25, 1965. pp. B-6, B-7, B-9. 51. Wisconsin State Planning Board, The 45. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Water Proposed Wisconsin-Fox River Develop- Levels on the Great Lakes, Report on Lake ment Planning, Bulletin No. 6, May 1938. BIBLIOGRAPHY Arctic Institute of North America, Annotated International St. Lawrence River Board of Bibliography on Freshwater Ice, Prepared for Control, Regulation of Lake Ontario, Opera- Great Lakes Research Center, Detroit, Michi- tional Guides for Plan 1958-D, Report to the gan, U.S. Lake Survey, August 1968. International Joint Commission, December 1963. Bajorunas, L.,Natural Regulation of the Great Lakes, Detroit, U.S. Lake Survey, Corps of International St. Lawrence River Board of Engineers, 1963. Control, Report to the International Joint Commission on Regulation of Lake Ontario, Bols.enga, S.S., River Ice Jams, Research Re- Plan 1958-D, July 1963. port 5-5, Detroit, Michigan, U.S. Lake Survey, 1968. Kirshner, L.D., and Blust, F.A., Compensation for Navigation Improvements in St. Clair- Brunk, I.W., "Evaluation of Channel Changes Detroit River System and Regulation of Lake in St. Clair and Detroit Rivers," Journal of the Ontario and St. Lawrence River, Miscellane- Sciences of Water, Water Resources Research, ous Paper 65-1, U.S. Lake Survey, October Vol. 4, 1968. 1965. Chow, V.T., Open Channel Hydraulics, New MacNish, C.F., and Lawhead, H.F., History of York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959. the Development of Use of the Great Lakes and Present Problems, Presented before Great Cold Regions Research and Engineering Lakes Water Resources Conference, Toronto, Laboratory, Bibliography on Cold Regions Ontario, June 1968. Science and Technology, Volume XXIV, Pt. 2 Index, Hanover, N.H., Dartmouth University, Michel, Bernard, and Claude Triquet, Bibliog- July 1970. raphy ofRiver and Lake Ice Mechanics, Report S-10, Quebec City, Quebec, University of Horton, Robert E. and Grunsky, C.E., Hydrol- Laval, August, 1967. ogy ofthe Great Lakes, Report of the Engineer- ing Board of Review of the Sanitary District of Richards, T.L., Meteorological Factors Affect- Chicago on the Lake Lowering Controversy ing Great Lakes Water Levels, Department of and a Program of Remedial Measures, 1927. Transport, Meteorological Branch, February 1965. Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario, The Sir Adam Beck-Niagara Generating Sta- Schwietert, A.H., and Lyon, L.S., The Great tion No. 2, Ottawa, Ontario, October 1961. Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway and Power Proj- ect, Chicago, Ill., Chicago Association of Com- International Joint Commission, Report on the merce and Industry, 1952. Preservation and Enhancement of the Niagara Falls, United States and Canada, 1953. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Great Lakes Pilot, Detroit, Michigan, Lake Survey, 1970. International Lake Ontario Board of En- gineers, Effect on Lake Ontario Levels of an U.S. Congress, Great Lakes Connecting Chan- Increase of 1,000 Cubic Feet per Second in the nels, Senate Document No. 71, 84th Congress, Diversion at Chicago for a Period of 3 Years, 1st Session, Presented by Mr. Thurmond for Interim Report to the International Joint Mr. Chavez, Washington, D.C., U.S. Govern- Commission, June 1955. ment Printing Office, 1955. 197 ADDENDUM The Addendum contains data pertinent to The data are listed in the following se- the information requirements of other Great quence: Lakes Basin Framework Study work groups and individuals seeking additional specific Outflows data or sources. Historical data furnished St. Clair Ri'ver (1957-1971) here are the outflows from the St. Clair and Detroit River (1936-1971) Detroit Rivers and several diversions into or St. Clair and Detroit Rivers (1860-1956) out of the system. Other data, i.e., derived data, such as ultimate water levels developed Diversions for generalized reaches of Great Lakes shoreline, are available at the North Central Ogoki-Long Lake Projects (1939-1970) Division, Corps of Engineers Office, 536 S. Chicago Diversion (1900-1970) Clark Street, Chicago, Illinois 60625. Illinois and Michigan Canal (1860-1910) TABLE 11-64 Mean Monthly Discharge of St. Clair River at Port Huron, Michigan in Thousands of Cubic Feet per Second Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean 1957 136 150 170 171 176 179 184 185 180 178 173 171 171 1958 135 126 166 168 174 174 172 171 167 165 159 143 160 1959 105 111 150 158 163 170 170 170 171 170 172 170 157 1960 172 141 160 174 187 195 201 203 202 200 191 193 185 1961 171 180 181 181 182 184 185 186 185 184 181 178 182 1962 143 143 178 186 189 193 192 189 187 181 175 171 177 1963 141 140 160 168 171 173 174 174 171 168 163 156 163 1964 128 135 148 147 157 157 159 159 159 157 154 152 151 1965 139 134 149 157 166 174 177 174 179 184 184 184 167 1966 181 169 182 184 187 187 189 187 182 179 176 175 182 1967 175 172 172 180 185 191 195 195 194 188 193 185 185 1968 170 185 184 182 186 190 197 200 201 203 202 200 192 1969 187 194 193 192 200 206 212 216 214 212 209 208 204 1970 163 175 201 196 203 208 211 213 212 209 208 210 201 1971 207 202 205 209 216 218 224 224 224 219 217 213 215 199 200 Appendix 11 TABLE 11-65 Monthly and Annual Flow of the Detroit River at Detroit, Michigan in Thousands of Cubic Feet per Second Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean 1936 112 143 152 157 158 162 160 157 159 160 154 153 152 1937 150 128 147 153 162 161 162 161 159 155 155 151 154 1938 122 155 144 163 167 174 178 179 178 177 172 170 165 1939 162 100 131 175 176 181 185 183 184 180 176 171 167 1940 136 125 142 173 167 173 176 174 177 176 172 173 164 1941 156 127 150 166 172 173 172 169 166 171 171 171 164 1942 155 116 155 182 183 193 193 190 189 185 184 186. 176 1943 155 148 180 190 201 202 209 211 210 206 203 204 193 1944 142 168 171 196 196 200 202 198 197 198 193 194 188 1945 157 157 180 190 197 201 206 202 200 205 195 195 190 1946 180 142 193 200 198 208 205 201 196 191 186 184 190 1947 159 157 183 200 196 198 204 207 207 204 200 196 193 1948 185 176 194 195 202 199 201 200 194 185 178 181 191 1949 187 181 155 182 179 179 183 182 176 173 167 167 176 1950 163 154 152 180 173 176 185 186 188 188 186 189 177 1951 173 175 190 196 201 207 214 216 215 217 219 202 202 1952 204 209 216 224 223 228 234 236 234 226 215 215 222 1953 212 206 209 213 216 220 225 225 222 216 207 204 215 1954 173 160 208 208 210 213 220 218 216 225 218 215 207 1955 212 193 208 206 208 215 213 211 202 195 190 188 203 1956 122 118 171 188 204 195 198 200 197 190 185 182 179 1957 148 152 181 180 182 184 192 186 188 182 176 186 178 1958 146 140 175 164 180 176 176 176 174 172 167 145 166 1959 110 124 159 169 168 173 172 173 174 174 177 178 163 1960 183 150 167 186 190 200 202 204 204 201 195 200 190 1961 175 181 187 188 188 187 189 190 187 187 185 183 186 1962 156 143 182 190 190 194 192 190 189 184 179 173 180 1963 148 140 169 175 176 176 176 177 175 170 168 160 168 1964 134 137 152 155 164 161 162 163 163 160 157 156 155 1965 142 142 158 168 172 176 178 179 180 185 185 188 171 1966 185 176 186 187 188 188 188 189 186 182 180 187 185 1967 186 171 182 187 191 194 200 196 196 194 200 193 190 1968 177 197 190 191 193 200 204 206 205 206 205 200 198 1969 184 198 202 207 212 213 220 222 219 215 215 209 210 1970 160 176 205 206 208 214 217 217 216 214 214 215 205 1971 212 198 217 218 219 223 225 228 226 221 219 218 219 Addendum 201 TABLE11-66 Monthly and Annual Flow of the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers in Thousands of Cubic Feet per Second Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean 1860 225 202 219 220 228 233 232 234 232 228 222 210 224 1861 208 198 222 214 220 230 235 240 235 234 230 228 224 1862 207 200 210 224 227 230 228 231 232 233 227 224 223 1863 211 200 203 209 196 223 223 221 220 222 221 210 213 1864 196 205 194 211 215 215 215 214 210 210 203 204 208 1865 178 155 197 196 206 210 218 220 218 215 208 200 20'2 1866 194 190 180. 197 198 203 207 210 208 206 206 195 200 1867 189 199 172 207 205 213 218 220 217 213 208 199 205 1868 195 175 209 204 205 206 207 205 202 201 201 198 201 1869 180 167 162 192 195 198 207 214 214 210 212 204 196 1870 187 167 174 199 209 222 224 222 227 222 216 209 206 1871 187 166 218 224 230 230 231 228 216 208 208 188 211 1872 196 194 186 193 200 205 206 206 206 204 206 189 199 1873 188 185 189 189 203 216 215 218 217 218 216 210 205 1874 185 166 206 209 211 218 217 218 219 217 210 210 207 1875 206 206 203 211 213 216 219 219 221 221 220 207 214 1876 215 207 207 205 218 227 238 239 238 234 231 229 224 1877 210 208 156 192 194 226 228 227 222 223 222 216 210 1878 217 156 185 209 212 215 221 221 216 219 217 208 208 1879 209 165 197 202 204 206 206 206 207 204 206 203 201 1880 197 188 194 192 202 211 216 216 216 212 210 194 204 1881 192 207 202 203 206 213 217 216 216 222 225 218 212 1882 208 202 201 208 211 215 219 221 222 220 218 203 212 1883 204 210 198 209 219 222 230 235 231 227 232 230 220 1884 216 178 210 222 226 227 231 230 226 232 229 220 221 1885 216 226 213 219 230 232 233 236 235 231 228 222 227 1886 186 169 208 236 241 242 239 237 236 235 232 220 223 1887 216 221 207 210 222 224 228 226 220 222 215 209 218 1888 203 204 211 208 215 220 220 222 219 216 212 209 213 1889 198 188 194 188 198 206 210 211 211 208 202 197 201 1890 194 189 187 188 192 197 204 208 204 203 198 194 196 1891 184 187 169 184 199 197 198 198 196 192 189 186 190 1892 181 150 162 181 182 187 191 196 195 196 191 184 183 1893 159 184 182 186 192 198 202 203 199 199 197 189 191 1894 188 181 191 188 194 203 207 205 202 200 198 192 196 1895 188 187 182 175 182 191 191 190 188 186 178 170 184 1896 171 110 129 171 173 182 184 184 183 181 181 179 169 1897 174 166 169 177 184 190 194 196 193 191 188 182 184 1898 178 161 182 187 188 191 195 194 194 189 188 182 186 1899 @174 173 114 167 179 194 201 201 200 194 191 184 181 1900 150 178 178 177 176 185 102 193 197 198 200 192 185 1901 162 105 137 126 202 201 203 205 201 199 196 165 175 1902 126 134 181 182 186 190 190 192 188 184 185 176 176 1903 136 125 167 178 180 184 188 190 192 196 191 160 174 1904 155 143 141 181 189 197 200 203 202 202 199 179 183 1905 112 118 15-j---196 196 202 204 205 205 203 200 177 181 1906 170 148 142 157 202 203 205 204 201 197 193 182 184 1907 146 158 179 189 195 199 204 203 203 199 194 190 188 1908 175 151 163 187 194 200 205 202 198 190 190 187 187 1909 168 118 148 181 184 190 191 191 190 188 183 171 175 RLT EST L8T 06T IMT 86T 96T '76T @6T 88T OLT ON ZZT 9S6T OOZ 98T 68T M 66T 8OZ OTZ ZTZ 8OZ 90Z ZOZ 88T TOZ S96T f7OZ f7TZ LTZ ZZZ 91Z LTZ 8TZ ZTZ LOZ COZ ZOZ @9T OLT f796T ETZ VOZ 60Z 9TZ OZZ EZZ ZZZ 8TZ CTZ ZTZ LOZ 9OZ CTZ E961 STZ 91Z 9TZ EZZ OU TH SZZ SZZ TZZ STZ 8OZ 9OZ OOZ -ZS6T OOZ '@OZ 8TZ 9TZ ETZ ETZ TTZ SOZ TOZ 96T' 58T OLT 69T T961 f7LT 98T L9T 68T 68T L8T 98T 9LT ELT TLT 69T SET Z9T 096T 9LI 99T 69T ZLT 9LT 081 08T 6LI 6LI 6LT 09T LLT T8T 696T LST ORT LLT ZST Z6T 86T 86T 86T ZOZ 96T 68T '79T 89T 896T 88T S6T 86T OOZ ZOZ f7OZ ZOZ '76T 06T 88T UT E9T f79T Lf76T TH 89T T6T T6T S6T OOZ OOZ 66T 66T TOZ Z6T E9T OLT 9f76T 88T LLT S6T 86T OOZ OOZ ZOZ OOZ S6T 98T 98T T9T OST S96T LST ZRT f76T OOZ 66T OOZ TOZ L6T L6T 96T 69T Z9T 917T "6T SST 96T 9OZ LOZ 60Z ETZ OTZ 96T T8T 98T ZLT ECT 8TT E@6T ELT LLT ORT 981 98T 98T 68T 88T UT ZST 991 66 99T Z96T Z9T M fILT 17LT 69T OLT ZLT 9LT 9LT C9T 6'7T 9TT UT T'76T T9T 69T ELT ELT 9LT 9LT ZLT OLT 89T 179T T9T 9ZT f7ZT 0176T L9T ELT 6LT T8T "T Z81 ZRT 08T 9LT 69T 9ET 170T 99T 6E6T C9T 69T 9LT 091 LLT SLT 9LT flLT 89T 99T @ZT Z47T f7ZT SM LST OST Z9T 09T 09T T9T T9T E9T E9T ?ST 09T SZT LST LC6T 09T T9T 99T TLT ELT OLT L9T 89T '79T T9T 991 1717T M 9C6T 6ST 617T 89T 89T 89T OLT TLT OLT OLT 89T 69T LTT ZET 9C6T SVT Z9T 09T T9T 69T 69T L9T 9ST RST O@T ZZT '7 Z T TTT f7M TST IST EST f7ST SST 09T L9T 99T LST V@T T9T ON Sf7T EM 99T ZVT 19T Z9T C9T 99T f79T Z9T 09T T9T 9ZT LST 99T ZE6T LST Z9T L9T L9T L9T OLT VLT 9LT 9LT L9T 8TT LOT 17ET TC6T M T9T 98T M L6T ZOZ TOZ 96T 68T 98T 68T T9T 99T OM L6T 98T 90Z 60Z '7TZ 8TZ RTZ 9TZ 60Z ZOZ OST 89T 9LT 6Z6T T8T L6T TOZ 66T 96T C6T 06T 98T 98T -T8T 09T O'7T Z9T 8Z6T Z9T 59T 9LT LLT 9LT 8LT 9LT SLT TLT 99T Z91 9TT ZZT LZ6T OST L9T 89T 89T Z9T 99T S9T f79T 89T 9ST '7CT 90T OZT 9Z61 99T S9T 99T 09T T9T 99T L9T 99T Z9T T9T 99T 9ET ECT 9Z6T 99T L9T ZLT CLT 08T 08T 9LT ELT TLT S9T L47T 9ZT 99T 9Z6T ZLT OLT ELT 6LT ZST ZST EST 6LT 9LT ELT 99T 9ST OST CZ6T 6LT 8LT OST ZST 06T T6T T6T 98T Z8T 98T SLT O'7T 99T ZZ6T 9LT LLT 9LT ZST Z8T 98T SST 98T 06T EST S9T ZET 68T TZ6T "T 98T 98T T6T 96T L6T 96T T6T S6T 68T Z8T EST Lf7T OZ6T T6T LLT 98T Z6T C6T 96T 66T 96T 66T '16T T6T 98T S8T 6T6T 681 86T 66T TOZ LOZ OTZ ZTZ OTZ OOZ 99T OLT ELT 991 ST6T L6T Z9T 96T TOZ 90Z ZTZ OTZ 86T L6T 66T 06T L6T TOZ LT6T 08T L8T Z6T C61 86T 86T 96T UT T8T EST 6ZT LST 98T 9T6T ELT 9LT 9LT SLT Z8T S8T EST UT 9LT ELT 09T 6ST 6f7T 9T61 CLT 69T OST "T 06T 06T E6T EST VT SLT 99T R'7T �ST 'IT6T ZST 98T T6T Z6T Z6T L6T 861 98T ZST EST 99T ZVT 8LT CT6T 9LT 06T T6T T6T T6T LST 06T T8T 08T 89T 61@T LET ECT ZT6T 9LT 98T 476T EST ZLT 98T T6T T6T EST TRT OLT Zf7T 'VET TUT M L9T L8T "T L8T 98T UT 06T "T EST 09T f7f7T ECT OT6T uVaN -aa(l AON :130 das SnV Tnr unr Auw JdV avW qad uef aeal, puo;)aS jad laod ;)iqna jo spuusnoqj, ui S.10AI I!Ojla(l PUIC -11910 *IS aqj jo Atold junuuV puv AlqluoN (panui Iuo;)) 99-11 ariaviL TT xtpuaddV gog Addendum 203 TABLE11-67 Total Monthly Mean Diversion to Lake Superior Basin from Albany River Basin through Ogoki and Long Lake Projects in Cubic Feet per Second Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean 1939 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 105 365 369 190 0 0 ---- 1940 0 0 0 0 578 847 1122 1281 881 0 0 0 392 1941 212 723 612 668 1489 1621 1402 1216 1288 1205 1737 1550 1144 1942 1235 939 725 724 1780 2307 1927 1607 1270 550 2092 1876 1419 1943 1466 1143 866 705 1607 2281 3152 4209 5053 5468 5316 4530 2983 1944 3978 3384 2663 2439 4663 8026 7362 2962 2317 3837 2816 2563 3918 1945 2882 2052 1937 2574 3608 7113 8696 6388 3767 3733 3980 3697 4202 1946 3312 2872 2785 3777 10061 12484 10627 5652 3807 4671 7351 7287 6224 1947 5075 3990 2950 2425 7635 8500 9845 5180 4950 4035 3390 3720 5141 1948 3550 2835 2165 2560 8200 9315 9075 7590 4565 3335 3330 4700 5102 1949 3705 3435 3515 4855 10266 10430 5435 4745 3610 3645 4595 4940 5265 1950 5025 4420 3875 3470 8930 2290 2315 2115 6984 3550 6845 6655 4706 1951 4755 3725 3065 2550 4645 2970 3575 4700 3980 7575 7540 9440 4877 1952 6320 4880 3773 1945 985 2095 2040 1540 1270 1245 880 3420 2533 1953 6125 3870 3185 3220 5355 9305 9305 1250 1350 3215 7925 5240 4945 1954 7490 5605 4395 3890 7460 2585 1270 5985 5920 5940 6395 7560 5375 1955 5102 4505 3990 4086 9723 10686 9762 5611 4265 3795 4419 4678 5900 1956 4328 3892 3468 3263 4769 14565 11344 6935 4807 4411 4374 4630 5899 1957 3804 3130 2865 3242 9424 10921 2645 6617 4423 4218 5489 4542 5110 1958 3887 3828 3548 3817 8897 11370 8237 5876 5356 7203 8677 6865 6463 1959 5597 4951 3804 3602 5142 12181 12796 9148 6694 6143 5226 4774 6672 1960 4057 3960 3288 3218 5895 9879 7722 4866 3507 2722 3503 3894 4709 1961 3844 3697 3419 3493 9411 11,165 7825 4887 3510 4010 4720 4090 5506 1962 3960 4040 3450 3210 4790 10250 8650 7780 7960 5910 4570 3960 5711 1963 3880 3590 3090 3190 4340 8310 7040 9890 9090 5930 4200 3710 5522 1964 3580 3400 3100 3430 11160 12780 7330 12120 10620 12670 9350 6630 8014 1965 5360 4550 4810 4750 6600 8400 7450 6150 4770 7020 7650 7310 6235 1966 6580 5610 4700 4620 8380 17680 5000 10230 6490 4700 4010 3540 6795 1967 3720 3310 2910 3370 6420 13490 9650 6230 3925 3032 3510 3550 5260 1968 3730 3260 2950 3900 9900 15790 9760 3860 3350 2910 12570 8920 6741 1969 6470 5600 4590 4400 10410 16310 5260 1380 12300 8800 6589 5447 7296 1970 4800 4470 3800 3260 6280 9890 11170 8830 8760 12300 3010 6190 6897 204 Appendix 11 TABLEII-68 Monthly Mean Diversion to Lake Superior Basin from Albany River Basin through Ogoki Project in Cubic Feet per Second Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean 1943 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 723 2122 3197 4047 4026 3400 ---- 1944 3048 2650 2048 1865 2626 5298 5186 460 0 2187 1211 1184 2314 1945 1795 1200 1244 1258 2514 4930 6647 4723 3131 2654 2682 2579 2946 1946 2409 2153 2199 2815 7462 9784 8004 3808 2420 3562 5661 5497 4648 1947 3785 2885 2235 1830 6165 6305 7605 3165 3375 2920 2590 2590 3787 1948 2690 2180 1865 2335 7115 7690 7670 6705 3865 3065 3265 3720 4347 1949 2855 2195 1905 3355 9110 8315 4355 3975 2590 2585 3270 3515 4002 1950 3430 2820 2475 2415 7065 0 0 735 5650 2105 4410 4465 2964 1951 3200 2510 2130 1660 2705 1370 2270 3700 3030 6410 6050 7785 3568 1952 4710 3435 2745 1230 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 2560 1225 1953 5195 2830 2250 2290 3500 7090 7060 160 160 1950 6795 4265 3629 1954 6350 4290 3210 2895 4765 0 150 4810 4725 5035 5215 6490 3994 1955 3962 3010 2565 3225 7760 9135 8450 4488 2992 2814 3401 3634 4620 1956 3344 3024 2555 2465 4179 12388 9755 5770 3751 3081 3156 3690 4763 1957 3056 2442 2172 2426 6909 8289 718 5355 3209 2957 4257 3355 3762 1958 2419 2328 2364 2632 6477 8476 6065 4581 3991 6039 7278 5834 4874 1959 4253 3218 2546 2617 3961 10309 11606 8083 5865 5348 4420 3939 5514 1960 3072 2592 2200 2296 4108 7360 6313 3916 2621 2063 2269 2446 3438 1961 2366 2060 2042 2277 6798 10921 6519 4028 3029 2490 2760 2910 4017 1962 2550 2120 2010 1960 3330 7480 7550 6610 6140 4550 3290 2660 4188 1963 2470 2200 2020 2260 3180 5540 5980 8910 7960 4710 3040 2500 4231 1964 2340 2220 2030 2200 8070 9310 4570 10030 8830 10050 7640 5110 6033 1965 3870 3130 2770 2580 4140 6290 6370 5170 4070 4830 6270 5840 4611 1966 4750 3890 3380 3280 5550 14990 3300 7990 4690 3070 2390 2020 4942 1967 1720 1590 1680 1910 3310 10570 7900 4720 3220 2290 2110 1850 3573 1968 1800 1690 1780 2440 7230 12970 6870 1330 2150 1540 11010 7070 4823 1969 4690 3900 3190 3040 7460 13300 3520 0 11030 7620 5690 4640 5673 1970 3580 2880 2440 2210 4250 6850 8610 7420 7500 9940 710 4550 5078 Addendum 205 TABLEII-69 Monthly Mean Diversion to Lake Superior Basin from Albany River Basinthrough Long Lake Project in Cubic Feet per Second Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean 1939 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 105 365 369 190 0 0 ---- 1940 0 0 0 0 478 847 1122 1281 881 0 0 0 392 1941 212 723 612 668 1489 1621 1402 1216 1288 1205 1737 1550 1144 1942 1235 939 725 724 1780 2307 1927 1607 1270 550 2092 1876 1419 1943 1466 1143 866 705 1607 2281 2429 2087 1856 1421 1290 1130 1524 1944 930 734 615 574 2037 2728 2176 2502 2317 1650 1605 1379 1604 1945 1087 852 693 1316 1094 2183 2049 1665 636 1079 1298 1118 1256 1946 903 719 586 962 2599 2700 2623 1844 1387 1109 1690 1790 1576 1947 1290 1105 715 595 1470 2195 2240 2015 1575 1115 800 1130 1354 1948 860 655 300 225 1085 1625 1405 885 700 270 65 980 755 1949 850 1240 1610 1500 1156 2115 1080 770 1020 1060 1325 1425 1263 1950 1595 1600 1400 1055 1865 2290 2315 1380 1334 1445 2435 2190 1742 1951 1555 1215 935 890 1940 1600 1305 1000 950 1165 1490 1655 1308 1952 1610 1445 1028 715 970 2095 2040 1540 1270 1245 880 860 1308 1953 930 1040 935 930 1855 2215 2245 1090 1190 1265 1130 975 1317 1954 1140 1315 1185 995 2695 2585 1120 1175 1195 905 1180 1070 1380 1955 1140 1495 1425 861 1963 1733 1310 1123 1273 981 1018 1044 1281 1956 984 868 913 798 590 2177 1589 1165 1056 1330 1218 940 1136 1957 748 688 693 816 2515 2632 1927 1262 1214 1261 1232 1187 1348 1958 1468 1500 1184 1185 2420 2894 2172 1295 1365 1164 1399 1031 1590 1959 1344 1733 1258 985 1181 1872 1190 1065 829 795 806 835 1158 1960 985 1368 1088 922 1787 2519 1409 950 886 659 1234 1448 1271 1961 1478 1637 1377 1216 2613 2244 1306 859 481 1520 1960 1180 1489 1962 1410 1920 1440 1250 1460 2770 1100 1170 1820 1360 1280 1300 1523 1963 1410 1390 1070 930 1160 2770 1060 980 1130 1220 1160 1210 1291 1964 1240 1180 1070 1230 3090 3470 2760 2090 1790 2620 1710 1520 1981 1965 1490 1420 2040 2170 2460 2110 1080 980 700 2190 1380 1470 1624 1966 1830 1720 1320 1340 2830 2690 1700 2240 1800 1630 1620 1520 1853 1967 2000 1720 1230 1460 3110 2920 1750 1510 705 742 1400 1700 1637 1968 1930 1570 1170 1460 2670 2820 2890 2530 1200 1370 1560 1850 1918 1969 1780 1700 1400 1360 2950 3010 1740 1380 1270 1180 899 807 1623 1970 1220 1590 1360 1050 2030 3040 2560 1410 1260 2360 2300 1640 1818 206 Appendix 11 TABLE11-70 Monthly and Annual Mean Outflow from Lake Michigan Basin through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal in Cubic Feet per Second (Consisting of Diversion from Lake Michigan Watershed and Domestic Pumpage) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean 1955 2731 2809 2626 3525 3708 3706 3661 3797 3261 2825 2821 3455 3244 1956 2830 2790c 2725 3507 3439 3586 3848 4052 3260 3242 2882 5834 3499 1957 9102 8009 2863 3357 3352 3355 4015 3427 2998 3146 3045 3379 4171 1958 2877 3341 2785 3245 3419 3500 3640 3456 3125 2962 3341 3409 3258 1959 4626 2592 2814 2840 2670 3357 3699 4164 3242 3069 2937 3478 3291 1960 3571 2905 3060 3660 3457 3256 3217 3187 3400 2933 3021 3580 3271 1961 2915 2906 3013 3530 3540 3711 3671 3731 4551 2292 2035 2968 3239 1962 2944 2442 2538 2916 3547 3668 3834 4079 3707 3131 3127 3527 3288 1963 2413 2662 2758 3892 3929 3758 3832 3565 3212 2729 3117 3399 3272 1964 2488 2473 2679 3222 3502 3944 4098 3651 3712 2747 3483 3142 3262 1965 2841 2789 3018 3367 2967 3181 3433 4225 3642 2788 2780 3390 3202 1966 2275 2638 2880 3436 4058 2620 3354 3973 3482 2740 3308 3642 3200 1967 2296 2426 2810 3553 2568 3940 3235 3703 3914 4008 3025 3387 3239 1968 2233 2478 1803 2767 3307 3726 3658 4341 3415 3294 3879 4445 3279 1969 2894 2026 2180 3551 3644 4444 4871 4267 4051 3116 1951 1943 3245 1970 2865 3243 2215 4320 4545 4286 3669 3251 3595 3106 2684 2211 3333 aas reported by Sanitary District of Chicago bThe U.S. Supreme Court on December 17, 1956 authorized an increase in diversion from Lake Michigan Watershed from 1500 cfs to an amount not exceeding an average of 8500 cfs in addition to Domestic Pumpage to and including January 31, 1957 and on January 28, 1957 extended this authorized increase to and including February 28, 1957. TABLE 11-71 Annual Mean Outflow from Lake Michigan Basin through Illinois and Michigan Canal in Cubic Feet per Second Period Outflow 1860-1864 100 1865-1870 200 1871-1883 300 1884-1886 1,000 1887-1888 900 1889 800 1890 700 1891-1894 600 1895-1897 500 1898-1903 600 1904-1910 700 NOTE: This diversion ceased upon completion of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal in 1910. 4 fir DATE DUE ,4* L A AlY innesota ew York rmy jl@ A Commerce r IN" Depa of the Interior N of A ssice t of S e Dep ransportation Environn, -otection Agency Federa Wv Great 3 6668 14106 2879