Stanton: Implement remedial measures on St.Clair River without delay

International Joint Commission July 16 2012

Concerning – Phase 2 and Final Report – Upper Great Lakes Study Board Report – Lake Superior Regulation – Addressing Uncertainty in Upper Great Lakes Water Levels

– Thank the IJC representatives for holding tonight’s meeting in Midland, North Simcoe

– Acknowledge the gargantuan task this Study Board has been seized with since 2007

– Each report highlights the incredible complexity of the question surrounding abnormally low water levels – in our case – on Georgian Bay – and the remaining gaps to fill in terms of broadening our understanding of the hydrology and dynamics of the Upper Lakes – and how that translates to the reality we experience along our shorelines.

– I recognize that we, here on Georgian Bay, can’t consider ourselves isolated from the rest of the Lake system – that our experience here is directly related to up and downstream realities also – and that for the most part – the forces acting on the Upper Lakes that cause the fluctuation and cycling of water levels, is due to the natural environment – that we cannot influence – GIA (Glacial Isostatic Adjustment), hydro- climatic.

– It is encouraging to see this study recognize the additional areas of interest – Ecosystems, Recreational Boating and Tourism – all areas of interest and concern to us here in Georgian Bay.  They are vital to our economy, the health of our environment, and our way of life. 

– In respect to the Study Recommendations:

o I support the IJC’s recommendations 3, 4, 5, 6,  and 7 – concerning Hydro climatic Conditions; Adaptive Management and forgoing a Multi-lake Regulation at this time.

o On the 1st and 2nd recommendations – the new Lake Superior Regulation – I recognize this new 2012 regulation improves on its predecessor, but I am concerned that the new regulation will provide a greater ability to restrict Lake Superior flows downstream to Huron- Michigan for the purpose of protecting navigation and hydro-electric power generation.

o I realize it takes a larger contribution of Lake Superior to have even a tangible effect on water levels in Huron-Michigan – but facing the likelihood of a continued downward trend in water levels here – Huron-Michigan will need all the help that can be mustered.  This dynamic between Superior and the next tier down on Huron-Michigan – is all the more reason I raise my final point.

– But – something overlooked – in my view

a) I understand the potential risk that restoration measures in the St. Clair River pose for increasing the threat of reaching historical high levels in the future – especially in the South-West portions of Lake’s Michigan-Huron – and the difficulties that scenario poses for flooding/shoreline damage etc, but

b) When one considers the greater plausibility of seeing more frequent historical lows (p. 157 of the report) based on the Global and Regional Climate Models presented, and

c) Considering the likelihood that more frequent historical lows will be experienced on Lake Superior – limiting the ability to give Huron – Michigan any means of forestalling further reductions, let alone stabilizing, water levels,

d) It seems to me that restoration and mitigation measures in the St. Clair River remain our only basis for preventing further reductions in Georgian Bay water levels. 

a. We can’t control hydro-climatic conditions

b. There is nothing we can do about GIA

c. We’ve been just above chart datum for a decade

d. The trend line continues downward.

e. Lake St. Clair River – is all we have left – if we are to stabilize, and hopefully improve on the historically, and persistently low water level we have experienced since 2000.

e) By your own calculations – the 1962 dredging yielded about a 250 cm3/s – about a 5.0% increase in conveyance of the St. Clair River.

a. Voices representing shoreline owners in my region have submitted credible arguments suggesting the conveyance may even be 100 cm3/s higher – about a 7% increase.  I am disappointed those submissions have not been responded to as of yet.

f) Taking a serious look at these restoration and mitigation measures, in my belief, need to be revisited.  

a. I take some encouragement from the rather conditional recommendation you first endorsed in the 2009 – St. Clair River report – “that remedial measures not be taken – at this time”.

b. Fair enough, but may I suggest that you consider an 8th recommendation in this Phase 2 and Final report – “that as the hydro-climatic science and adaptive management strategy begins to build a body of scientific knowledge around this question – the remedial, restorative measures on the St. Clair River be revisited by the new Advisory Board on an annual basis – and if the downward water level trend on Huron-Michigan is persisting over that time – the Advisory Board recommend the IJC reverse its 2009 position – and indeed recommend that remedial measures in the St. Clair River be implemented without delay.