WEBVTT 00:02.533 --> 00:04.333 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% - Welcome everyone to Wednesday Nite @ the Lab. 00:04.433 --> 00:05.600 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% I'm Tom Zinnen. 00:05.700 --> 00:07.966 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% I work with the UW-Madison Biotechnology Center. 00:08.066 --> 00:11.366 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% I also work for the Division of Extension Wisconsin 4-H. 00:11.466 --> 00:14.066 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% And on behalf of those folks and our other co-organizers, 00:14.166 --> 00:17.666 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% PBS Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Alumni Association, 00:17.766 --> 00:19.666 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% and the UW-Madison Science Alliance, 00:19.766 --> 00:22.366 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% thanks again for coming to Wednesday Nite @ the Lab. 00:22.466 --> 00:25.766 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% We do this every Wednesday night, 50 times a year. 00:25.866 --> 00:29.500 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% Tonight, it's my pleasure to introduce to you Adam Bechle. 00:29.600 --> 00:32.833 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% He's an engineer with the Wisconsin Sea Grant. 00:32.933 --> 00:34.400 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% He was born in Green Bay, Wisconsin, 00:34.500 --> 00:37.166 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% and went to Green Bay Preble High School. 00:37.266 --> 00:38.733 align:left position:10%,start line:71% size:80% Then, he came here to UW-Madison 00:38.833 --> 00:42.166 align:left position:10%,start line:71% size:80% to study civil and environmental engineering as an undergrad 00:42.266 --> 00:44.866 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% and stayed on to get his master's and PhD, 00:44.966 --> 00:49.066 align:left position:30%,start line:71% size:60% also in civil and environmental engineering here. 00:49.166 --> 00:52.600 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% And then in 2016, he joined the Wisconsin Sea Grant 00:52.700 --> 00:56.066 align:left position:10%,start line:71% size:80% as a post-doc, and then in 2019, 00:56.166 --> 00:59.100 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% became a permanent member of the staff there. 00:59.200 --> 01:01.266 align:left position:10%,start line:71% size:80% Tonight, he's gonna talk with us 01:01.366 --> 01:05.100 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% about adapting to a changing Great Lakes coast. 01:05.200 --> 01:08.100 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% Would you please join me in welcoming Adam Bechle 01:08.200 --> 01:10.666 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% to Wednesday Nite @ the Lab? 01:10.766 --> 01:12.066 align:left position:30%,start line:71% size:60% - Thank you, Tom, for that introduction, 01:12.166 --> 01:14.300 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% and thank you Wednesday Nite @ the Lab for inviting me 01:14.400 --> 01:16.166 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% to speak about this important issue 01:16.266 --> 01:18.100 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5% facing our Great Lakes coasts. 01:18.200 --> 01:20.266 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% Fluctuations in Great Lakes water levels 01:20.366 --> 01:22.600 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% are very challenging for our coastal communities 01:22.700 --> 01:24.233 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% and coastal residents, 01:24.333 --> 01:26.466 align:left position:30%,start line:71% size:60% particularly when we see extremes, 01:26.566 --> 01:29.066 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% Extremes like extreme low water levels 01:29.166 --> 01:33.500 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% that were seen in record lows in 2013 on Lake Michigan 01:33.600 --> 01:36.566 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% and extreme highs that have been seen on Lake Michigan 01:36.666 --> 01:40.633 align:left position:30%,start line:71% size:60% and Lake Superior in 2019 and 2020. 01:40.733 --> 01:41.933 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% But before I get into talking 01:42.033 --> 01:44.566 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% about adapting to those changing coastlines, 01:44.666 --> 01:46.566 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% I'd like to give a little bit of a background 01:46.666 --> 01:48.000 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% on Wisconsin Sea Grant 01:48.100 --> 01:51.533 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5% and why Wisconsin has something called the Sea Grant program. 01:51.633 --> 01:55.733 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% So Sea Grant is a federal university partnership 01:55.833 --> 01:59.166 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 01:59.266 --> 02:01.866 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% and university partners around the nation. 02:01.966 --> 02:04.966 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% In total, there's 34 Sea Grant programs 02:05.066 --> 02:08.500 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% on all of our oceanic states and Great Lake states, 02:08.600 --> 02:11.966 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% as well as Puerto Rico and Guam. 02:12.066 --> 02:14.533 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% Wisconsin's Sea Grant is based at UW-Madison, 02:14.633 --> 02:17.300 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% with satellite offices at the UW campuses 02:17.400 --> 02:21.733 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% in Superior, Green Bay, Manitowoc, and Milwaukee. 02:21.833 --> 02:25.066 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% Wisconsin Sea Grant focuses on research, education, 02:25.166 --> 02:28.800 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% and outreach for the sustainable use of Great Lakes coasts. 02:28.900 --> 02:30.800 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% And so we fund basic research 02:30.900 --> 02:33.433 align:left position:32.5%,start line:71% size:57.5% on a number of Great Lakes issues, 02:33.533 --> 02:36.366 align:left position:30%,start line:71% size:60% and as well have outreach specialists 02:36.466 --> 02:38.866 align:left position:30%,start line:71% size:60% and communication specialists like myself 02:38.966 --> 02:41.533 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% who talk about issues like Great Lakes water levels, 02:41.633 --> 02:45.333 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% coastal engineering, fisheries, aquaculture, 02:45.433 --> 02:48.400 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5% water quality, social science, tourism, 02:48.500 --> 02:51.200 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% and a number of other issues in the Great Lakes. 02:52.200 --> 02:56.133 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% So why do we have a Sea Grant program in Wisconsin? 02:56.233 --> 02:58.166 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% Well, one thing I like to point to 02:58.266 --> 02:59.966 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% is the length of the coast that we have 03:00.066 --> 03:01.333 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% in the United States. 03:01.433 --> 03:06.333 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% The Great Lakes has 4,530 miles of coastline 03:06.433 --> 03:08.833 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% along the United States. 03:08.933 --> 03:10.466 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% That's more than the Atlantic coast 03:10.566 --> 03:12.100 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% and the Gulf coast combined. 03:12.200 --> 03:13.933 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% Not quite as much as the Pacific coast 03:14.033 --> 03:16.733 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% when you factor in Alaska and Hawaii, 03:16.833 --> 03:19.933 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% but still quite a substantial amount of coastline 03:20.033 --> 03:21.100 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% in the Great Lakes. 03:21.200 --> 03:24.433 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% Wisconsin itself has over 800 miles of shoreline 03:24.533 --> 03:27.366 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% between Lake Michigan and Lake Superior, 03:27.466 --> 03:29.333 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% and the Great Lakes are extremely important 03:29.433 --> 03:31.266 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% to the state of Wisconsin. 03:31.366 --> 03:33.033 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% It's where we live. 03:33.133 --> 03:35.166 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% Some of Wisconsin lives near coastline. 03:35.266 --> 03:38.400 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% There are $6 billion of improved property 03:38.500 --> 03:41.933 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% within a quarter mile of the Great Lakes coasts. 03:42.033 --> 03:45.366 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% Great Lakes are also a great economic driver for the state. 03:45.466 --> 03:47.866 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% The Great Lakes ports in Wisconsin 03:47.966 --> 03:52.400 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% generate over $1.5 billion of revenue annually. 03:52.500 --> 03:54.466 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% And the Great Lakes are a place that we recreate. 03:54.566 --> 03:56.366 align:left position:10%,start line:71% size:80% There's over 200 coastal beaches 03:56.466 --> 03:58.800 align:left position:30%,start line:71% size:60% along Wisconsin's Great Lakes shoreline, 03:58.900 --> 04:01.000 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% and those coastal beaches are not only important 04:01.100 --> 04:02.233 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% for our recreation, 04:02.333 --> 04:04.900 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% but they also drive tourism to those communities 04:05.000 --> 04:06.333 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% that depend on them. 04:06.433 --> 04:09.766 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% And so we have a really valuable resource in Wisconsin 04:09.866 --> 04:12.133 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% in our Great Lakes coasts. 04:12.233 --> 04:13.366 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% How did we get them? 04:13.466 --> 04:16.400 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% Well, the coasts and the Great Lakes in general 04:16.500 --> 04:19.066 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% are intertwined with our glacial history. 04:19.166 --> 04:20.333 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% Over 2 million years ago, 04:20.433 --> 04:22.966 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% the Laurentian Ice Sheet descended 04:23.066 --> 04:25.233 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% into the Great Lakes region from the north 04:25.333 --> 04:29.400 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% and over time, advanced and retreated numerous times. 04:29.500 --> 04:30.700 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% And as it did that, 04:30.800 --> 04:33.900 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% it started to carve out the Great Lakes Basins. 04:34.000 --> 04:36.433 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% The Great Lakes Basins mostly were old river beds 04:36.533 --> 04:37.600 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% with softer sediments, 04:37.700 --> 04:42.233 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% and really carved out the basins that we see today. 04:42.333 --> 04:45.166 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% The last glacial advance in Wisconsin, 04:45.266 --> 04:46.466 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% in the Great Lakes in general, 04:46.566 --> 04:50.800 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% was the Wisconsin glaciation about 25,000 years ago. 04:50.900 --> 04:53.466 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% Then the glaciers started to retreat for good 04:53.566 --> 04:54.633 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% out of the Great Lakes, 04:54.733 --> 04:57.833 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% and we were left with the landforms we see today. 04:57.933 --> 04:59.900 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% Now, when the Great Lakes retreated, 05:00.000 --> 05:03.033 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% we didn't see exactly the configuration of Great Lakes 05:03.133 --> 05:04.466 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% that we have today. 05:04.566 --> 05:07.100 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% The drainage patterns and water levels of the Great Lakes 05:07.200 --> 05:10.733 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% changed over that following thousands of years. 05:10.833 --> 05:14.800 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% As water changed course throughout the Great Lakes, 05:14.900 --> 05:18.733 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% the land surface in the Great Lakes area rebounded 05:18.833 --> 05:21.766 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% from having the heavy weight of the glaciers on top of it. 05:21.866 --> 05:24.600 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5% The northern part of the Great Lakes are rebounding faster 05:24.700 --> 05:27.466 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% than the southern part, so we're having a tilting effect 05:27.566 --> 05:29.700 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% because the northern parts were under thicker ice 05:29.800 --> 05:31.500 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5% and for longer periods of time. 05:31.600 --> 05:35.066 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% And so all those changes, the tilting land surface, 05:35.166 --> 05:37.900 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% the water flowing out through channels and rivers, 05:38.000 --> 05:40.500 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% have changed the drainage outlets over time 05:40.600 --> 05:42.466 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% until about 4,000 years ago, 05:42.566 --> 05:44.400 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% when we ended up with approximately 05:44.500 --> 05:47.866 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% our current configuration of the Great Lakes. 05:47.966 --> 05:49.133 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% So what were we left with? 05:49.233 --> 05:50.666 align:left position:12.5%,start line:89% size:77.5% Well, we have five Great Lakes. 05:50.766 --> 05:53.233 align:left position:22.5%,start line:83% size:67.5% We have Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, 05:53.333 --> 05:56.933 align:left position:22.5%,start line:83% size:67.5% Lake Huron, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario. 05:57.033 --> 05:59.100 align:left position:27.5%,start line:83% size:62.5% And the Great Lakes are all connected 05:59.200 --> 06:01.066 align:left position:27.5%,start line:83% size:62.5% through a series of connecting channels 06:01.166 --> 06:03.100 align:left position:27.5%,start line:83% size:62.5% flowing all the way from Lake Superior 06:03.200 --> 06:05.033 align:left position:17.5%,start line:89% size:72.5% out to the Atlantic Ocean. 06:05.133 --> 06:08.966 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% So Lake Superior sits about 600 feet above sea level, 06:09.066 --> 06:11.433 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% flows out the St. Marys River, 06:11.533 --> 06:14.433 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% and through a series of dams and power plants up there 06:14.533 --> 06:17.466 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% through the St. Marys River out into Lake Huron. 06:17.566 --> 06:20.733 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% Now, Lake Huron is connected to Lake Michigan 06:20.833 --> 06:23.900 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% through the Straits of Mackinac, and this connection is so wide 06:24.000 --> 06:27.333 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% that the water levels of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron 06:27.433 --> 06:28.833 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% are pretty much the same. 06:28.933 --> 06:31.266 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% In fact, we call it Lake Michigan-Huron, 06:31.366 --> 06:33.833 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% and we treat it as one large lake 06:33.933 --> 06:36.333 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% when we're talking about water levels. 06:36.433 --> 06:39.266 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% Out of Lake Michigan-Huron, 06:39.366 --> 06:41.933 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% the water flows through the St. Clair River 06:42.033 --> 06:45.133 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% into a small lake called Lake St. Clair near Detroit 06:45.233 --> 06:47.900 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% and out the Detroit River into Lake Erie. 06:48.000 --> 06:52.433 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% Now, there's no dam or human control structure on that flow, 06:52.533 --> 06:54.933 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% but that river is dredged periodically 06:55.033 --> 06:56.466 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% to allow navigation, 06:56.566 --> 06:58.600 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% and so that does change how much flow 06:58.700 --> 07:00.133 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% does go through that river 07:00.233 --> 07:02.533 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% when that dredging operation does occur. 07:03.966 --> 07:07.300 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% And then Lake Erie outlets over the Niagara Falls, 07:07.400 --> 07:11.033 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% drops over 300 feet into Lake Ontario, 07:11.133 --> 07:13.000 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% of course, through a river, 07:13.100 --> 07:17.300 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% and then Lake Ontario sits about 243 feet above sea level. 07:17.400 --> 07:20.200 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% Lake Ontario outlets through the St. Lawrence River 07:20.300 --> 07:24.466 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% through a series of dams and out to the Atlantic Ocean. 07:24.566 --> 07:28.466 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% And so this is a large, interconnected system of water 07:28.566 --> 07:30.700 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% and those water levels in the lakes 07:30.800 --> 07:34.866 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% change over periods of years and seasons 07:34.966 --> 07:36.800 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% and months and even days. 07:36.900 --> 07:39.500 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% And so our period of record of water levels 07:39.600 --> 07:41.333 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5% in the Great Lakes extends back 07:41.433 --> 07:44.233 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% from about 1918 to the present day. 07:44.333 --> 07:48.766 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% And in that water level record, we see highs, lows, 07:48.866 --> 07:51.766 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% periods where water levels are above the long-term average, 07:51.866 --> 07:54.633 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% periods where water levels are below the long-term average. 07:54.733 --> 07:57.033 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% And these variations are on the order of feet. 07:58.033 --> 08:02.200 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% Recently, in the late 2010s, all the five Great Lakes 08:02.300 --> 08:04.400 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% have been above their long-term average, 08:04.500 --> 08:07.900 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% and each Great Lake has broken some form of water level record. 08:09.200 --> 08:12.233 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% Water levels, in their extremes, especially, 08:12.333 --> 08:14.333 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% can really change our coastline. 08:14.433 --> 08:16.000 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% When we have low water levels, 08:16.100 --> 08:18.733 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% things like navigation shipping are stressed 08:18.833 --> 08:22.333 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% because water depths can be insufficient to pass large ships 08:22.433 --> 08:26.033 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% or even recreational craft, and things like water intakes 08:26.133 --> 08:27.933 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% for our drinking water treatment plants 08:28.033 --> 08:29.400 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% sometimes can be stressed 08:29.500 --> 08:32.933 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% not having enough water depth to function properly. 08:33.033 --> 08:36.100 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% At high water levels, especially at the extremes, 08:36.200 --> 08:39.033 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% we have a higher probability for flooding along our coasts, 08:39.133 --> 08:41.033 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% as well as erosion of our coasts. 08:42.200 --> 08:43.933 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% So today, I want to talk a little bit 08:44.033 --> 08:46.866 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% about what is going on with Great Lakes water levels, 08:46.966 --> 08:49.600 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% what drives them up and drives them down, 08:49.700 --> 08:51.700 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% how is that changing the coast, 08:51.800 --> 08:53.900 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% and then what are some strategies that are being used 08:54.000 --> 08:55.733 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% to adapt to this change? 08:57.066 --> 08:59.566 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% So first, what is a water level 08:59.666 --> 09:02.100 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% or a lake level in the Great Lakes? 09:02.200 --> 09:03.700 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% When you hear about it in the news, 09:03.800 --> 09:06.933 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% or hear about it in maybe a scientific publication, 09:07.033 --> 09:09.100 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% really we're talking about an average 09:09.200 --> 09:11.666 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% over a daily, monthly, or annual period. 09:11.766 --> 09:14.533 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% And typically, monthly average is what's used 09:14.633 --> 09:16.266 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% to describe the lake levels. 09:17.433 --> 09:20.033 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% That's because we can see water level changes 09:20.133 --> 09:23.033 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% on a scale of time scales. 09:23.133 --> 09:27.300 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% We see inter-annual variations where water level goes up 09:27.400 --> 09:29.233 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% and down over a period of years. 09:29.333 --> 09:32.133 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% We also see seasonal changes in water levels, 09:32.233 --> 09:34.766 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% where we have, typically on an average year, 09:34.866 --> 09:36.700 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% our highest water levels in the summer 09:36.800 --> 09:39.433 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% and our lowest water levels in the winter. 09:39.533 --> 09:43.466 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% We also have changes out there on the lakes all the time. 09:43.566 --> 09:45.533 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% Wind waves, which if you went to go look 09:45.633 --> 09:46.833 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% at the lake right now, 09:46.933 --> 09:49.500 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% you'd see that rippling and maybe white-capping. 09:49.600 --> 09:51.733 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% That changes on the order of seconds. 09:51.833 --> 09:54.666 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% And then when we have large coastal storms, 09:54.766 --> 09:58.700 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% big winds blowing in, we get storm surges, seiches, 09:58.800 --> 10:02.233 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% those change water levels on the order of minutes to hours, 10:02.333 --> 10:04.333 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% and sometimes even up to days. 10:04.433 --> 10:06.266 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% But in general, when we talk about lake levels, 10:06.366 --> 10:08.233 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% we're talking about that monthly average. 10:08.333 --> 10:10.966 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5% That can kind of remove some of those short-term fluctuations 10:11.066 --> 10:14.766 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% and really help us focus on how much water is in the lake. 10:16.000 --> 10:18.633 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% So let's take a little bit more detailed look 10:18.733 --> 10:21.466 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% at the water levels in Lake Michigan-Huron. 10:21.566 --> 10:23.533 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% So again, we have a period of record 10:23.633 --> 10:25.533 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% of just over a hundred years. 10:25.633 --> 10:29.566 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% Lake Michigan-Huron has experienced a record high 10:29.666 --> 10:35.066 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% in October of 1986, a record low in January of 2013, 10:35.166 --> 10:39.566 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% and the range between those two is about 6.4 feet. 10:39.666 --> 10:41.666 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% Now, within the water level record, 10:41.766 --> 10:43.866 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% we see a seasonal fluctuation. 10:43.966 --> 10:46.466 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% Again, kind of peaking out in the summer 10:46.566 --> 10:48.366 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% and being lowest in the winter. 10:48.466 --> 10:51.066 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% And on average, that's about one foot. 10:51.166 --> 10:53.266 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% Some years may be more, some years may be less, 10:53.366 --> 10:57.233 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% but the average variation seasonally is one foot. 10:57.333 --> 11:00.100 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% As I said before, we have periods of high 11:00.200 --> 11:01.566 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% and periods of low. 11:01.666 --> 11:03.566 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% We've seen rapid changes in water levels 11:03.666 --> 11:05.133 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% on Lake Michigan-Huron. 11:05.233 --> 11:07.533 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% In the '50s, we had a rise of over three feet 11:07.633 --> 11:09.266 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% in just a year and a half, 11:09.366 --> 11:12.433 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% and then in the '80s, we saw a drop of over four feet 11:12.533 --> 11:14.033 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% in just over two and a half years. 11:14.133 --> 11:18.400 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% So we can experience pretty quick changes in water levels. 11:18.500 --> 11:20.266 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% We can also see prolonged periods 11:20.366 --> 11:22.166 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% of high and low water levels, 11:22.266 --> 11:24.200 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% like the 1970s, where we had eight years 11:24.300 --> 11:26.633 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% of prolonged high water levels 11:26.733 --> 11:29.166 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% or the early 2000s, where we had 15 years 11:29.266 --> 11:31.866 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% of prolonged low water levels. 11:31.966 --> 11:35.200 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% It's a bit similar story when we look at Lake Superior. 11:35.300 --> 11:38.300 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% Lake Superior has a slightly smaller range 11:38.400 --> 11:42.466 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% between its record high, which was set in October of 1985, 11:42.566 --> 11:45.600 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% and its record low, which was from 1926. 11:45.700 --> 11:48.733 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% That range is about 3.9 feet, 11:48.833 --> 11:52.633 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% but we also experience rapid changes, 11:52.733 --> 11:54.933 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% rapid increases, rapid decreases, 11:55.033 --> 11:58.133 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% periods of high and prolonged periods of low. 11:58.233 --> 12:00.233 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% So this is something we definitely need to expect 12:00.333 --> 12:02.933 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% when we live on the Great Lakes coast, 12:03.033 --> 12:05.733 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% is that high water levels and low water levels, 12:05.833 --> 12:08.900 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% based on history, will always be coming back. 12:09.900 --> 12:13.200 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5% So what drives the Great Lakes water levels up and down? 12:13.300 --> 12:15.466 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% Well, it's helpful to think of the Great Lakes 12:15.566 --> 12:17.800 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% kind of as a budget, 12:17.900 --> 12:20.300 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% thinking of water going in and out of the budget. 12:20.400 --> 12:23.033 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% And one of the big drivers is rainfall, 12:23.133 --> 12:26.366 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% precipitation falling directly on the lakes. 12:26.466 --> 12:30.300 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% That is quite a substantial amount of water. 12:30.400 --> 12:33.433 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% We also have rainfall that falls on the surrounding lands 12:33.533 --> 12:35.400 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% and runoff into the lakes. 12:36.400 --> 12:39.666 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% The lakes are also very big surfaces of water, 12:39.766 --> 12:42.066 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% and so we get quite a bit of evaporation 12:42.166 --> 12:43.866 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% directly off the surface of the lake 12:43.966 --> 12:45.766 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% and back into the atmosphere. 12:45.866 --> 12:48.266 align:left position:27.5%,start line:83% size:62.5% Those three terms, precipitation, runoff, 12:48.366 --> 12:51.133 align:left position:15%,start line:83% size:75% and evaporation, when lumped together and added up, 12:51.233 --> 12:53.133 align:left position:10%,start line:89% size:80% are called the net basin supply, 12:53.233 --> 12:57.066 align:left position:20%,start line:83% size:70% the supply of water into and out of the lakes. 12:58.633 --> 13:01.100 align:left position:25%,start line:83% size:65% So precipitation and runoff add water, 13:01.200 --> 13:03.266 align:left position:17.5%,start line:89% size:72.5% evaporation takes it away. 13:03.366 --> 13:06.833 align:left position:22.5%,start line:83% size:67.5% So if precipitation and runoff exceed evaporation, 13:06.933 --> 13:09.600 align:left position:25%,start line:83% size:65% then the Great Lakes in general will rise. 13:09.700 --> 13:12.366 align:left position:17.5%,start line:83% size:72.5% If precipitation and runoff are lower than evaporation, 13:12.466 --> 13:15.200 align:left position:17.5%,start line:83% size:72.5% we have more water leaving the basin than entering, 13:15.300 --> 13:19.900 align:left position:27.5%,start line:83% size:62.5% then generally the water levels will lower. 13:20.000 --> 13:23.100 align:left position:15%,start line:83% size:75% Now, there's other components to the water budget. 13:23.200 --> 13:25.400 align:left position:20%,start line:83% size:70% We have, as I mentioned, connecting channels 13:25.500 --> 13:27.000 align:left position:17.5%,start line:89% size:72.5% connecting the Great Lakes. 13:27.100 --> 13:29.533 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% So in the instance of Lake Michigan-Huron, 13:29.633 --> 13:31.666 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% flow comes in from the St. Marys River 13:31.766 --> 13:33.300 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% out of Lake Superior, 13:33.400 --> 13:37.900 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% and out through St. Clair River out on its way to Lake Erie. 13:38.900 --> 13:42.033 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% We also, in some cases, have man-made diversions 13:42.133 --> 13:44.066 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% into and out of the lake system. 13:44.166 --> 13:47.966 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% So Lake Michigan-Huron has the Chicago River diversion. 13:48.066 --> 13:51.966 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% So around 1900, the Chicago River, 13:52.066 --> 13:54.566 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% which once flowed into Lake Michigan, 13:54.666 --> 13:57.900 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% was reversed with the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal 13:58.000 --> 14:00.900 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% to flow out of Lake Michigan-Huron. 14:01.000 --> 14:02.366 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% That is a diversion of water, 14:02.466 --> 14:04.433 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% diversion from the natural pattern. 14:04.533 --> 14:06.133 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% So it's interesting to kind of consider 14:06.233 --> 14:08.300 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% how much water is actually being diverted 14:08.400 --> 14:10.166 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% through that specific diversion. 14:11.166 --> 14:14.266 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% So the Supreme Court decreed in the 1960s 14:14.366 --> 14:17.433 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% the flow of the Chicago River flowing out, 14:17.533 --> 14:21.833 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% and that is 3,200 cubic feet of water per second. 14:21.933 --> 14:24.066 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% Now, if we take that over the course of a year, 14:24.166 --> 14:27.833 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% that adds up to 750 billion gallons of water. 14:27.933 --> 14:30.566 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% Which sounds like a lot, and it is a lot of water, 14:30.666 --> 14:34.266 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% but when average that amount of water over the surface area 14:34.366 --> 14:38.033 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% of Lake Michigan-Huron, which is 45,000 square miles, 14:38.133 --> 14:41.400 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% that amounts to just under an inch of water 14:41.500 --> 14:43.300 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% out of Lake Michigan-Huron 14:43.400 --> 14:45.666 align:left position:30%,start line:71% size:60% going out through the Chicago River. 14:45.766 --> 14:49.366 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% Definitely not negligible, but certainly small 14:49.466 --> 14:51.233 align:left position:30%,start line:71% size:60% compared to what Mother Nature can do 14:51.333 --> 14:53.300 align:left position:32.5%,start line:71% size:57.5% to water levels on the Great Lakes. 14:53.400 --> 14:57.366 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% There are other diversions into Lake Superior 14:57.466 --> 14:59.366 align:left position:10%,start line:71% size:80% on a similar order of magnitude, 14:59.466 --> 15:01.566 align:left position:32.5%,start line:71% size:57.5% and humans also have some control 15:01.666 --> 15:03.033 align:left position:32.5%,start line:71% size:57.5% in some of the connecting channels 15:03.133 --> 15:07.500 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5% where we do have locks and dams where flow is regulated, 15:07.600 --> 15:10.566 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% but in general, Mother Nature is really what drives 15:10.666 --> 15:14.700 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% these many-feet rise and fall in water levels. 15:14.800 --> 15:16.133 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% Humans do have some control, 15:16.233 --> 15:19.333 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% but that's more on the order of inches. 15:19.433 --> 15:22.400 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% So speaking of Mother Nature 15:22.500 --> 15:24.633 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% putting water into our Great Lakes, 15:24.733 --> 15:26.033 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% precipitation, as I mentioned, 15:26.133 --> 15:29.533 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% is one of the big components to the water budget. 15:29.633 --> 15:32.700 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% We have precipitation records dating back just before 1900 15:32.800 --> 15:34.233 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% all the way to present day. 15:34.333 --> 15:36.533 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% Over this long period of time, 15:36.633 --> 15:38.833 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% the wettest five years in history 15:38.933 --> 15:42.166 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% occurred from 2015 to 2020. 15:42.266 --> 15:44.800 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% In fact, we set our all-time record 15:44.900 --> 15:49.666 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% for water precipitation in the Great Lakes Basin in 2017, 15:49.766 --> 15:52.533 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% and then almost broke that record in 2019, 15:52.633 --> 15:56.533 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% so the two wettest years in history in that five-year span. 15:56.633 --> 15:58.600 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% That's a big reason why, as I mentioned, 15:58.700 --> 16:01.033 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% we've had record-high water levels 16:01.133 --> 16:04.833 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% throughout the Great Lakes in 2019 and 2020. 16:05.833 --> 16:08.066 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5% So taking a more detailed look at this road 16:08.166 --> 16:10.066 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% to record-high water levels, 16:10.166 --> 16:13.100 align:left position:30%,start line:71% size:60% let's drill down in Lake Michigan-Huron 16:13.200 --> 16:18.100 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% and kind of see how that lake went from January 2013, 16:18.200 --> 16:20.100 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% new record-low water level, 16:20.200 --> 16:24.233 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% all the way up to new monthly high records in 2020. 16:24.333 --> 16:27.700 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% So in the years preceding that record-low water level, 16:27.800 --> 16:30.866 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% there was quite high evaporation on the Great Lakes, 16:30.966 --> 16:34.233 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% which drove water levels down and kept them low. 16:34.333 --> 16:37.933 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% Then in 2013, we hit that all-time record low 16:38.033 --> 16:39.266 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% on Lake Michigan, 16:39.366 --> 16:40.700 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% followed up with a spring and summer 16:40.800 --> 16:42.700 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% that had very high precipitation 16:42.800 --> 16:45.000 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% and therefore high runoff as well 16:45.100 --> 16:46.466 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% that raised the water levels, 16:46.566 --> 16:48.766 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% but they were still below our long-term average, 16:48.866 --> 16:50.033 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% shown in red here. 16:51.100 --> 16:53.400 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% Then we had a low evaporation winter. 16:53.500 --> 16:56.633 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% We didn't get much seasonal decline in water levels 16:56.733 --> 16:58.033 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% that we normally see in the winter, 16:58.133 --> 17:00.200 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% and that seasonal decline is usually driven 17:00.300 --> 17:03.100 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% by increased evaporation in the winter 17:03.200 --> 17:04.900 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% and low precipitation in the winter. 17:05.000 --> 17:07.833 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% Well, we didn't have a whole lot of evaporation that winter, 17:07.933 --> 17:10.066 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% so we didn't see much seasonal decline. 17:10.166 --> 17:13.166 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% Followed up with a wet spring and wet summer 17:13.266 --> 17:15.833 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% that drove water levels just about average, 17:15.933 --> 17:19.966 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% and then that again was followed by a winter of low evaporation, 17:20.066 --> 17:23.533 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% bringing water levels from those record lows in 2013 17:23.633 --> 17:26.133 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% up to around average. 17:26.233 --> 17:28.466 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% Things were a little calm for a few years, and then 17:28.566 --> 17:30.900 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% we had that record-setting precipitation year 17:31.000 --> 17:35.866 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% in 2017 that drove water levels well above average. 17:35.966 --> 17:37.700 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% Followed it up in 2019 17:37.800 --> 17:40.733 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% with a near-record level of precipitation, 17:40.833 --> 17:43.166 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% and then we stack those up with another winter 17:43.266 --> 17:46.966 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% of low evaporation that really set the table for 2020 17:47.066 --> 17:49.400 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% to break records on Lake Michigan-Huron, 17:49.500 --> 17:51.766 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% and we set new monthly record highs 17:51.866 --> 17:55.566 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% from January all the way to August in 2020. 17:55.666 --> 17:57.666 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% July of 2020 was just two inches off 17:57.766 --> 18:01.366 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% the all-time record-high water level in Lake Michigan-Huron. 18:01.466 --> 18:03.633 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% So really, an unprecedented rise 18:03.733 --> 18:07.066 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% from record-low water levels in 2013, 18:07.166 --> 18:11.166 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% almost setting our new record all-time high in July of 2020. 18:12.333 --> 18:14.666 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% Since, we've sort of topped out there. 18:14.766 --> 18:17.600 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% 2021, at the time we're recording this, 18:17.700 --> 18:20.733 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% we've had a slight drought in the area, 18:20.833 --> 18:22.500 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% and that's had low precipitation, 18:22.600 --> 18:24.533 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% not a whole lot of water entering the lakes. 18:24.633 --> 18:27.700 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% Gotten some relief from those record-high water levels. 18:28.700 --> 18:32.233 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% Sitting here, September of 2021, we're still well above average, 18:32.333 --> 18:35.433 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% but definitely not in that record territory. 18:35.533 --> 18:37.033 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5% So where can you go to find out 18:37.133 --> 18:39.466 align:left position:30%,start line:71% size:60% about Great Lakes water levels today? 18:40.600 --> 18:42.333 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% The Army Corps of Engineers every month 18:42.433 --> 18:45.400 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% puts out a monthly bulletin of Great Lakes water levels. 18:45.500 --> 18:47.133 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% A web search for that term, 18:47.233 --> 18:49.366 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% Monthly Bulletin of Great Lakes Water Levels 18:49.466 --> 18:52.533 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% will bring it up, and with it is a graphic 18:52.633 --> 18:55.200 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% showing a two-year history of where we've been 18:55.300 --> 18:57.833 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% with water levels, as well as a six-month forecast 18:57.933 --> 19:00.766 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% of where water levels are predicted to go. 19:00.866 --> 19:03.533 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% So to orient you of this monthly bulletin, 19:03.633 --> 19:06.033 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% I've got here a Lake Michigan-Huron bulletin 19:06.133 --> 19:08.300 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% from September 2021. 19:09.300 --> 19:14.900 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% So across the top, we see time, we see years going back to 2019 19:15.000 --> 19:17.300 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% and months going back two years. 19:17.400 --> 19:21.766 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% On the vertical axis, we have the lake level elevation, 19:21.866 --> 19:23.500 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% and on the left-hand side is feet. 19:24.500 --> 19:26.133 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% The dashed blue line there 19:26.233 --> 19:28.300 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% is the long-term average water levels, 19:28.400 --> 19:30.800 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% and you can see that seasonal cycle in there, 19:30.900 --> 19:34.833 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% peaking out in the summer and bottoming out in the winter. 19:34.933 --> 19:37.600 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% The red line here is where we've been. 19:37.700 --> 19:41.900 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% This is the recorded water levels over the last two years. 19:42.000 --> 19:44.133 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% And then those little lines across the top 19:44.233 --> 19:47.200 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% with years on them, those are the monthly record highs, 19:47.300 --> 19:49.633 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% and then on the bottom are monthly record lows. 19:49.733 --> 19:51.233 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% And so you really get a full picture 19:51.333 --> 19:52.533 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% of where water levels have been 19:52.633 --> 19:57.000 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% and how that compares to our record levels. 19:57.100 --> 20:00.433 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% So we can see here, 2020, as I mentioned, 20:00.533 --> 20:05.200 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% set new monthly record highs from January to August in 2020. 20:05.300 --> 20:07.666 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% And since then, we've kind of been steadily declining, 20:07.766 --> 20:09.833 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% as I mentioned, been in a drought. 20:11.166 --> 20:12.833 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% The supply of water coming into the lakes 20:12.933 --> 20:14.233 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% has been a little bit lower, 20:14.333 --> 20:17.533 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% bringing us to where we are right now, again, 20:17.633 --> 20:20.300 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% as we're recording in September of 2021, 20:20.400 --> 20:22.233 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% kind of halfway between the long-term average 20:22.333 --> 20:23.966 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% and the monthly record high. 20:24.066 --> 20:25.966 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% The forecast for the next six month 20:26.066 --> 20:28.233 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% is shown in the dashed green line, 20:28.333 --> 20:31.066 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% and around it is kind of a cone of uncertainty 20:31.166 --> 20:33.366 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% of where those water levels might go. 20:33.466 --> 20:35.100 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% It's kind of like a hurricane forecast. 20:35.200 --> 20:37.366 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% The further out you get, the less certain we are 20:37.466 --> 20:40.133 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% of where water levels will be, but looking forward, 20:40.233 --> 20:43.933 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% we're likely gonna be sticking in that above-average range, 20:44.033 --> 20:48.033 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% at least for the next six months on Lake Michigan-Huron. 20:49.033 --> 20:51.466 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% We can also look Lake Superior, 20:51.566 --> 20:53.666 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% this monthly water level bulletin. 20:53.766 --> 20:55.766 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% We can see where Lake Superior was, 20:55.866 --> 20:59.833 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% setting monthly records in 2019 and 2020. 20:59.933 --> 21:02.500 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% And actually as we sit now, 21:02.600 --> 21:06.166 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% Lake Superior is right about its long-term average water level, 21:06.266 --> 21:09.066 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% and the six-month forecast has the lake 21:09.166 --> 21:12.700 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% sitting right in that area of long-term average. 21:12.800 --> 21:15.966 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% Certainly this can change if we get a wetter fall or winter 21:16.066 --> 21:18.866 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% than expected or lower evaporation than expected, 21:18.966 --> 21:23.400 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% but this is the current forecast as far as it's provided. 21:23.500 --> 21:26.233 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% So you can go and do a web search for that any time 21:26.333 --> 21:28.733 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% and find the latest water level bulletin 21:28.833 --> 21:30.733 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% as well as the water level forecast. 21:32.300 --> 21:34.666 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% So what's gonna happen with water levels 21:34.766 --> 21:36.366 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% under a changing climate? 21:36.466 --> 21:38.300 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% Well, one thing we do know, 21:38.400 --> 21:41.333 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% we know that we expect a warmer climate going forward, 21:41.433 --> 21:44.000 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% as well as a wetter climate going forward. 21:44.100 --> 21:45.166 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% So what does that mean 21:45.266 --> 21:46.700 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% to the Great Lakes water level budget? 21:46.800 --> 21:49.866 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% Well, that suggests an increase in precipitation 21:49.966 --> 21:52.200 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5%   and an increase in runoff to the lakes, 21:52.300 --> 21:55.100 align:left position:22.5%,start line:83% size:67.5% but that warmer weather will likely lead 21:55.200 --> 21:58.266 align:left position:15%,start line:83% size:75% to an increase in evaporation from the Great Lakes. 21:58.366 --> 22:01.433 align:left position:22.5%,start line:83% size:67.5% So an increase in water coming in 22:01.533 --> 22:03.300 align:left position:20%,start line:83% size:70% and an increase in water going out. 22:04.366 --> 22:07.700 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% So prior to about 2013, 22:07.800 --> 22:11.033 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% the general consensus running through climate models 22:11.133 --> 22:13.766 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% and routing them through models of water levels 22:13.866 --> 22:17.533 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% in the Great Lakes was that evaporation was gonna win 22:17.633 --> 22:20.600 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% and that lake levels are going to trend lower. 22:20.700 --> 22:25.466 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5% However, it was discovered that the treatment of how runoff 22:25.566 --> 22:27.933 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% from the land was making its way into the lakes 22:28.033 --> 22:30.733 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% in those models was under-predicting 22:30.833 --> 22:32.500 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5% how much runoff was happening. 22:32.600 --> 22:34.466 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% And so more recent studies, 22:34.566 --> 22:38.333 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% including one from Michael Notaro and collaborators 22:38.433 --> 22:41.900 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% at the UW-Madison have shown 22:42.000 --> 22:44.633 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% that we don't have a clear trend anymore 22:44.733 --> 22:46.533 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% of where we expect water levels to go 22:46.633 --> 22:48.433 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% under a changing climate. 22:48.533 --> 22:51.933 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% Really, it depends on how much warming we anticipate 22:52.033 --> 22:53.266 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% or will actually get, 22:53.366 --> 22:55.200 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% and how much increase in precipitation we get, 22:55.300 --> 22:57.133 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% because those two signs are kind of fighting 22:57.233 --> 22:58.400 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% with each other. 22:58.500 --> 23:01.966 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% So depending on which climate model you use, 23:02.066 --> 23:04.800 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% they see slight decreases in water levels, 23:04.900 --> 23:07.366 align:left position:10%,start line:71% size:80% slight increases in water level. 23:07.466 --> 23:10.233 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% So not a clear conclusion anymore, 23:10.333 --> 23:13.533 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% like we had prior where we thought water levels 23:13.633 --> 23:14.766 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% were gonna go lower. 23:14.866 --> 23:17.033 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% But one thing we do want to stress 23:17.133 --> 23:20.666 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5% is that historical variability is likely to remain. 23:20.766 --> 23:23.033 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% We're still likely to see extreme highs, 23:23.133 --> 23:25.366 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% still likely to see extreme lows, 23:25.466 --> 23:29.433 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5% possibly higher highs and lower lows than we've seen before. 23:29.533 --> 23:33.333 align:left position:10%,start line:71% size:80% With more extreme precipitation, more extreme evaporation, 23:33.433 --> 23:37.700 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% we could be in for greater periods of those extremes 23:37.800 --> 23:39.233 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% than we've seen before. 23:39.333 --> 23:42.633 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% So looking forward, it's really best to anticipate 23:43.866 --> 23:45.500 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% those extremes to continue. 23:46.900 --> 23:49.866 align:left position:25%,start line:83% size:65% So I've covered a bit about what is going on 23:49.966 --> 23:51.333 align:left position:12.5%,start line:89% size:77.5% with Great Lakes water levels, 23:51.433 --> 23:52.933 align:left position:32.5%,start line:83% size:57.5% and now I wanna talk a bit about, 23:53.033 --> 23:55.466 align:left position:25%,start line:83% size:65% so how are the coasts changing in response? 23:56.666 --> 23:58.233 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% As I mentioned before, 23:58.333 --> 24:01.300 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% when we have extreme low water levels, 24:01.400 --> 24:05.300 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% that really puts stress on our navigation facilities. 24:05.400 --> 24:08.066 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% In some cases, particularly when we had 24:08.166 --> 24:12.466 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% those record-low water levels in the early 2010s, 24:12.566 --> 24:16.200 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% there were marinas that had to dredge continually, 24:16.300 --> 24:18.200 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% boats were having a hard time getting in and out 24:18.300 --> 24:20.033 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% of the facilities, 24:20.133 --> 24:23.833 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% ships could not contain a full load and were losing money 24:23.933 --> 24:26.233 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% based on having to not be fully loaded 24:26.333 --> 24:29.666 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% just so that they had enough water depth to travel. 24:29.766 --> 24:32.833 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% Lots of dredging was going on in those low water levels, 24:32.933 --> 24:35.233 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% and of course, concerns about drinking water intakes, 24:35.333 --> 24:36.833 align:left position:30%,start line:71% size:60% whether there was enough water depth 24:36.933 --> 24:38.633 align:left position:35%,start line:71% size:55% for those to function as designed. 24:39.833 --> 24:43.666 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% With high water levels, the concerns become more 24:43.766 --> 24:47.433 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% with flooding and erosion and infrastructure damage 24:47.533 --> 24:49.566 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% from our high water levels. 24:49.666 --> 24:52.900 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% And so I wanna focus a bit on coastal flooding first, 24:53.000 --> 24:55.066 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% and then I'll talk a little more about erosion. 24:55.166 --> 24:57.166 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% So coastal flooding doesn't happen 24:57.266 --> 24:59.566 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% just with high water levels. 24:59.666 --> 25:03.333 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% It's a combination of high water levels and coastal storms. 25:03.433 --> 25:06.133 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% So when a coastal storm blows in 25:06.233 --> 25:09.833 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% with strong winds blowing towards the shore, 25:09.933 --> 25:12.800 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% those strong winds can push up a storm surge, 25:12.900 --> 25:17.800 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% so piling up water against the lake, the shoreline. 25:17.900 --> 25:21.233 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% That moves in water on the Great Lakes 25:21.333 --> 25:25.200 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% that can be anywhere from a foot to several feet of storm surge. 25:25.300 --> 25:27.133 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% On top of that are waves. 25:28.133 --> 25:29.800 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% Those waves, when they hit the shoreline, 25:29.900 --> 25:33.466 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5% waves typically will break when they get to shallower water 25:33.566 --> 25:37.266 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% and will run up the slope and cause additional water 25:37.366 --> 25:40.866 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% to get close to inundating, say a home, 25:40.966 --> 25:42.966 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% especially in low-lying areas. 25:43.066 --> 25:45.566 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% Now, at average water levels, a given storm 25:45.666 --> 25:48.166 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% may not cause flooding, may not bring the water 25:48.266 --> 25:50.000 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% up to a level of a home, 25:50.100 --> 25:52.466 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% but when we have high water levels, 25:52.566 --> 25:55.266 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% that storm has a head start at causing flooding. 25:55.366 --> 25:58.700 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% And so the same storm under average water levels 25:58.800 --> 26:02.400 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% may not cause flooding, may cause quite a bit of inundation 26:02.500 --> 26:06.133 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% and flooding for a home and for a wide stretch of homes. 26:07.333 --> 26:09.700 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% One place where this happens in Wisconsin 26:09.800 --> 26:11.966 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% is along the bay of Green Bay. 26:12.066 --> 26:15.533 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% The bay of Green Bay is long and shallow, 26:15.633 --> 26:16.900 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% oriented to the northeast, 26:17.000 --> 26:19.600 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% so that when strong northeast winds come, 26:19.700 --> 26:23.233 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% quite large storm surges can pile up at the end of the bay 26:23.333 --> 26:26.466 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% and cause problematic flooding for the city of Green Bay, 26:26.566 --> 26:29.733 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% as well as some of the cities along the bay, 26:29.833 --> 26:32.700 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% particularly the western arm of Green Bay. 26:32.800 --> 26:34.933 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% Places like Suamico, Oconto, 26:35.033 --> 26:36.666 align:left position:30%,start line:71% size:60% they've all been dealing with flooding 26:36.766 --> 26:39.400 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% during this record-high water level period. 26:39.500 --> 26:42.566 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5% I want to talk about two events in Green Bay in particular 26:42.666 --> 26:44.400 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% that were notable in this high water period, 26:44.500 --> 26:48.266 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% December 1st of 2019 and April 28th of 2020. 26:48.366 --> 26:50.966 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% Those were some notable flooding events, 26:51.066 --> 26:54.333 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% but to put those in context, let's actually go back in time. 26:55.333 --> 26:58.100 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% April 8th, 1973, 26:58.200 --> 27:02.533 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% the worst coastal flood recorded in Green Bay history. 27:02.633 --> 27:05.133 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% The headline from thePress-Gazettewas 27:05.233 --> 27:08.133 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% "Floods Force 800 From Their Homes." 27:08.233 --> 27:12.133 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% Large storm, northeast winds blew down the bay, 27:13.133 --> 27:17.200 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% brought in cold April icy water into those homes 27:17.300 --> 27:21.733 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% and flooded out a large area of low-lying land near the bay. 27:21.833 --> 27:25.300 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5% So what was going on here with storm surge and water levels? 27:25.400 --> 27:28.333 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% Well, those northeast winds kicked up 27:28.433 --> 27:31.700 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% about a 3.3-foot storm surge. 27:31.800 --> 27:33.033 align:left position:37.5%,start line:71% size:52.5% Pretty big. 27:33.133 --> 27:36.533 align:left position:10%,start line:71% size:80% Water levels were above average, no record highs, 27:36.633 --> 27:38.866 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% but they were quite above average. 27:38.966 --> 27:41.600 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% That brought the water level in Green Bay 27:41.700 --> 27:46.600 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% up to about just over 584 feet above sea level, 27:46.700 --> 27:49.233 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% and so that caused that widespread flooding. 27:49.333 --> 27:53.100 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% So that 584-foot mark I've marked here on the graph 27:53.200 --> 27:55.100 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% and is an important number to keep in mind 27:55.200 --> 27:57.433 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% when we're comparing to this event. 27:57.533 --> 27:59.600 align:left position:27.5%,start line:83% size:62.5% Shortly after this devastating flood, 27:59.700 --> 28:01.533 align:left position:25%,start line:83% size:65% the city of Green Bay constructed a dyke 28:01.633 --> 28:06.566 align:left position:15%,start line:83% size:75% along its Green Bay coastline in hopes to not experience 28:06.666 --> 28:08.600 align:left position:20%,start line:83% size:70% that sort of devastating flooding again. 28:08.700 --> 28:10.200 align:left position:12.5%,start line:89% size:77.5% And it's functioned quite well, 28:10.300 --> 28:13.566 align:left position:25%,start line:83% size:65% and there hasn't been that bad of flooding 28:13.666 --> 28:15.800 align:left position:17.5%,start line:89% size:72.5% from a coastal flood since, 28:15.900 --> 28:18.033 align:left position:22.5%,start line:83% size:67.5% but let's look at what has happened since then. 28:18.133 --> 28:21.500 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% Well, let's take us to December 3rd of 1990, 28:21.600 --> 28:25.000 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% and this storm surge was the big one. 28:25.100 --> 28:28.566 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% The strong northeast winds coming down the bay 28:28.666 --> 28:32.633 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% kicked up a 5.4-foot storm surge. 28:32.733 --> 28:36.133 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% Compared to the next-highest storm surge 28:36.233 --> 28:38.666 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% in the historical record, which was four feet, 28:38.766 --> 28:40.266 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% this is a foot and a half higher 28:40.366 --> 28:43.000 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% than anything that's been recorded in modern history. 28:43.100 --> 28:44.566 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% This was the big one. 28:44.666 --> 28:46.000 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% When the Army Corps of Engineers 28:46.100 --> 28:49.000 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% analyzed coastal flooding in Green Bay, 28:49.100 --> 28:53.233 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% they estimated this was about a 1-in-300-year storm, 28:53.333 --> 28:56.733 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% or to put it in other terms, in an average year, 28:56.833 --> 28:58.666 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% there'd be a 1-in-300 chance 28:58.766 --> 29:01.466 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% of a storm surge like this occurring on Green Bay. 29:02.900 --> 29:05.966 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% The biggest one that we've seen in the historic record. 29:06.066 --> 29:08.933 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% Fortunately, Lake Michigan 29:09.033 --> 29:12.700 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% was at roughly average water levels here, 29:12.800 --> 29:15.500 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% depicted on the graph by the red line. 29:15.600 --> 29:17.733 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% So when you add those average water levels 29:17.833 --> 29:20.166 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% with this extreme storm surge, 29:20.266 --> 29:23.200 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% that brought the water level in the bay of Green Bay 29:23.300 --> 29:25.466 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% roughly to about 584 feet, 29:25.566 --> 29:29.133 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% similar territory to that 1973 flood. 29:29.233 --> 29:30.400 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% With the dyke in place, 29:30.500 --> 29:32.900 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5% there wasn't that devastating, widespread flooding, 29:34.033 --> 29:36.633 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% but if water levels had been above average, 29:37.633 --> 29:39.833 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% things could have been worse. 29:39.933 --> 29:43.233 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% When we look at the timing of water levels and storm surge 29:43.333 --> 29:44.966 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% specifically in Green Bay, 29:45.066 --> 29:46.966 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% looking at the top five storm surges 29:47.066 --> 29:50.433 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% that have occurred in our modern history, 29:50.533 --> 29:52.000 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% the only one that really occurred 29:52.100 --> 29:56.033 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% at elevated water levels was that 1973 event. 29:56.133 --> 29:58.100 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% Otherwise, they've occurred at near-average 29:58.200 --> 30:00.366 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% or below-average water levels, 30:00.466 --> 30:04.333 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% which brings us to our current period 30:04.433 --> 30:07.333 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% where we've had record-high water levels. 30:07.433 --> 30:11.400 align:left position:22.5%,start line:83% size:67.5% So December 1st, 2019, strong northeast winds 30:11.500 --> 30:15.600 align:left position:17.5%,start line:83% size:72.5% coming down the bay created a 2.4-foot storm surge 30:15.700 --> 30:18.366 align:left position:22.5%,start line:83% size:67.5% on the bay of Green Bay and caused local flooding 30:18.466 --> 30:20.700 align:left position:17.5%,start line:89% size:72.5% right along the bay there. 30:20.800 --> 30:23.433 align:left position:25%,start line:83% size:65% In terms of how large this storm surge was, 30:23.533 --> 30:28.133 align:left position:30%,start line:83% size:60% this was about an average large storm 30:28.233 --> 30:29.933 align:left position:27.5%,start line:83% size:62.5% that you would see in a given year. 30:31.266 --> 30:33.733 align:left position:25%,start line:83% size:65% Obviously some years, there'll be bigger storms, 30:33.833 --> 30:36.066 align:left position:27.5%,start line:83% size:62.5% some years may not see a storm this big, 30:36.166 --> 30:40.500 align:left position:17.5%,start line:83% size:72.5% but roughly, this is about what you'd call a big storm 30:40.600 --> 30:41.933 align:left position:20%,start line:89% size:70% that you'd see in a year. 30:42.933 --> 30:47.500 align:left position:22.5%,start line:83% size:67.5% Then in April of 2020, another storm surge, 30:47.600 --> 30:51.033 align:left position:17.5%,start line:83% size:72.5% a little bit larger, about 2.6 feet, came down the bay. 30:51.133 --> 30:54.566 align:left position:15%,start line:83% size:75% Again, strong northeast winds caused localized flooding 30:54.666 --> 30:58.266 align:left position:20%,start line:83% size:70% around the bay area and a little bit into the city. 30:58.366 --> 31:01.333 align:left position:17.5%,start line:83% size:72.5% Green Bay Metro Boat Launch was swamped. 31:01.433 --> 31:03.133 align:left position:30%,start line:83% size:60% This storm was a little bit bigger. 31:03.233 --> 31:07.166 align:left position:15%,start line:83% size:75% This is roughly a storm you'd see every two or three years. 31:07.266 --> 31:09.166 align:left position:17.5%,start line:89% size:72.5% So not a remarkable storm. 31:09.266 --> 31:12.733 align:left position:10%,start line:83% size:80% Certainly a big one, but nothing compared to that 1990 storm. 31:12.833 --> 31:16.266 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% But when you add it on top of record-high water levels, 31:16.366 --> 31:20.133 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% brought the bay up to just about that 584-foot mark, 31:20.233 --> 31:21.633 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% causing localized flooding. 31:21.733 --> 31:24.933 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% Again, that dyke's in place, so the widespread flooding 31:25.033 --> 31:29.166 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% that was seen in 1973 didn't happen, 31:29.266 --> 31:32.366 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% but it just underscores how much coastal flooding 31:32.466 --> 31:34.966 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% is impacted by our Great Lakes water levels. 31:35.066 --> 31:37.666 align:left position:30%,start line:71% size:60% So when we're at record-high water levels, 31:37.766 --> 31:41.233 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% it doesn't take a remarkable storm to cause issues, 31:41.333 --> 31:42.866 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% but when at average water levels, 31:42.966 --> 31:47.000 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5% it took the largest storm surge ever recorded in Green Bay 31:47.100 --> 31:51.100 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% to get to that same level compared to high water levels. 31:51.200 --> 31:54.333 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% So really, flooding is problematic, 31:54.433 --> 31:58.200 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% especially when we have high water levels, 31:58.300 --> 32:00.533 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% something we've seen in the last few years. 32:01.700 --> 32:03.033 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5% Green Bay is definitely a spot 32:03.133 --> 32:04.666 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% where coastal flooding is concerning. 32:04.766 --> 32:06.733 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% It's low-lying, and it's like I said, 32:06.833 --> 32:08.866 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% the bay is long and shallow, 32:08.966 --> 32:12.233 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% which is really conducive to large storm surges. 32:12.333 --> 32:15.666 align:left position:30%,start line:71% size:60% Most of Wisconsin Great Lakes shoreline 32:15.766 --> 32:17.066 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% is not that low-lying. 32:17.166 --> 32:20.166 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% In fact, a lot of it is up on coastal bluffs, 32:20.266 --> 32:24.066 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% 10 feet high, 100 feet high, 130 feet high, 32:24.166 --> 32:26.700 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% and not really subject to flooding from the coast, 32:26.800 --> 32:30.000 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% but there are other issues that come with a coastal bluff, 32:30.100 --> 32:33.100 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% and that is erosion and bluff failure. 32:33.200 --> 32:34.866 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% So what happens there? 32:34.966 --> 32:37.200 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% Well, much like with flooding, 32:37.300 --> 32:39.333 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% coastal storms come into the mix, 32:39.433 --> 32:41.033 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% creating storm surge and waves. 32:41.133 --> 32:44.533 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% And when those storm surge and waves reach up high enough 32:44.633 --> 32:48.700 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% that the waves can touch the bottom of the bluff 32:48.800 --> 32:50.966 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% and start to impact it, 32:51.066 --> 32:53.333 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% those waves bring a lot of power and force 32:53.433 --> 32:55.833 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% and start to wear away sediments there. 32:55.933 --> 32:58.866 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% And so again, at average water levels, 32:58.966 --> 33:02.700 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% it's harder for those storms to reach the base of a bluff. 33:02.800 --> 33:05.233 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% But when we have higher water levels, 33:06.233 --> 33:09.200 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% it's that much easier for the same coastal storm 33:09.300 --> 33:12.700 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% to bring waves up and impact the base of the bluff. 33:12.800 --> 33:16.766 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% If the water level gets up and over the beach, 33:18.000 --> 33:19.833 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% we don't have that benefit of the beach 33:19.933 --> 33:22.966 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% being able to have waves break over it nicely. 33:23.066 --> 33:24.866 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% Those waves can come in and strike the bluff 33:24.966 --> 33:27.700 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% at an even higher height in that case. 33:27.800 --> 33:31.266 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% And so sediment is continuing to be worn away 33:31.366 --> 33:33.033 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% at the base of the bluff. 33:33.133 --> 33:35.433 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% It can steepen that toe up 33:35.533 --> 33:39.866 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% up to a point where the soils that comprise that bluff 33:39.966 --> 33:42.333 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% can no longer stand at a stable angle. 33:42.433 --> 33:45.600 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% Each soil has sort of a natural angle 33:45.700 --> 33:49.033 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% that it will remain stable at and not be at risk of collapse, 33:49.133 --> 33:51.966 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% and as you steepen up further and further from that angle, 33:52.066 --> 33:53.466 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% you increase the likelihood 33:53.566 --> 33:56.700 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% that there will be a slope collapse. 33:56.800 --> 34:00.066 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% And so as waves continue to remove material away 34:00.166 --> 34:01.366 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% and steepen that toe, 34:01.466 --> 34:03.833 align:left position:30%,start line:71% size:60% that risk becomes greater and greater. 34:03.933 --> 34:07.033 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% Now, depending on the type of soil that a bluff is made of, 34:07.133 --> 34:10.233 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% it may fail in a number of different ways. 34:10.333 --> 34:13.666 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% Some places experience a deep-seated slumping, 34:13.766 --> 34:17.733 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% where the whole slope will kind of slide out into the lake. 34:17.833 --> 34:21.400 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% That's not the most common form of slope failure in Wisconsin, 34:21.500 --> 34:24.366 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% but it does happen in a number of places. 34:24.466 --> 34:29.366 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% More common is called sliding or translational sliding. 34:29.466 --> 34:32.800 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% That's where we see a series of smaller failures 34:32.900 --> 34:36.100 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% on that unstable, over-steepened part of this slope. 34:37.266 --> 34:39.100 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% So we'll see a smaller section of the slope 34:39.200 --> 34:42.966 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% kinda collapse and fall off down to the base of the bluff, 34:43.066 --> 34:46.700 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% and that leaves a steeper portion up the bluff. 34:46.800 --> 34:50.366 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% That steeper portion further up the bluff is now unstable 34:50.466 --> 34:53.166 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% and subject to potentially collapsing. 34:53.266 --> 34:55.533 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% This can be worsened if the high water levels 34:55.633 --> 34:56.933 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% and waves continue. 34:57.033 --> 34:59.600 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% They remove the material that had just eroded 34:59.700 --> 35:01.400 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% down at the bottom of the bluff, 35:01.500 --> 35:04.366 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% and then start to continue to work on that bluff 35:04.466 --> 35:06.266 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% and steepen up the slope. 35:06.366 --> 35:08.366 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% Eventually, the upper part of the bluff slope 35:08.466 --> 35:09.933 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% will collapse and slide, 35:10.033 --> 35:13.233 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% and this failure works its way up the slope of the bluff. 35:13.333 --> 35:15.333 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% Even if there was no more wave erosion 35:15.433 --> 35:17.933 align:left position:37.5%,start line:5% size:52.5% once we've destabilized the bluff, 35:18.033 --> 35:19.433 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% that slope is gonna want to get 35:19.533 --> 35:23.066 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% to a more stable configuration, a more shallow angle. 35:23.166 --> 35:24.366 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% And how does it do that? 35:25.533 --> 35:27.933 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% Bluff failures and collapses. 35:28.033 --> 35:32.533 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% So that is how we eventually see recession of the coastline 35:32.633 --> 35:35.333 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% at the top and where our bluffs start to encroach 35:35.433 --> 35:38.666 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% upon things that we value like homes, businesses, parks, 35:38.766 --> 35:39.933 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% and things like that. 35:40.933 --> 35:43.866 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% A recent study out of the UW Geosciences 35:43.966 --> 35:48.033 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% and Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey 35:48.133 --> 35:51.566 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70%   by Russell Krueger, Luke Zoet, and Elmo Rawling 35:51.666 --> 35:55.833 align:left position:15%,start line:83% size:75% looked at bluff evolution in response to high water levels 35:55.933 --> 35:59.733 align:left position:32.5%,start line:83% size:57.5% using some real advanced methods, 35:59.833 --> 36:03.933 align:left position:27.5%,start line:83% size:62.5% drone surveys, and slope stability modeling 36:04.033 --> 36:06.533 align:left position:25%,start line:83% size:65% to really understand how fast these failures 36:06.633 --> 36:08.300 align:left position:17.5%,start line:89% size:72.5% work their way up a bluff. 36:08.400 --> 36:11.833 align:left position:15%,start line:83% size:75% And they found that unstable services progress up the bluff 36:11.933 --> 36:15.066 align:left position:27.5%,start line:83% size:62.5% at a rate of about 4.4 meters per year, 36:15.166 --> 36:17.500 align:left position:15%,start line:89% size:75% or roughly 15 feet per year. 36:17.600 --> 36:19.300 align:left position:30%,start line:83% size:60% So kind of to put that in context, 36:19.400 --> 36:22.733 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% a low bluff, maybe 10 or 15 feet high, 36:22.833 --> 36:25.700 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% can really experience failure in recession 36:25.800 --> 36:28.733 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% at the top of the bluff almost immediately. 36:28.833 --> 36:32.433 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5% Our higher bluffs in the state, over a hundred feet, 36:32.533 --> 36:34.433 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5% now, we're talking on the order of a decade 36:34.533 --> 36:38.066 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% before erosion that occurs at the toe of the bluff 36:38.166 --> 36:40.633 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% works its way all the way to the top of the bluff. 36:40.733 --> 36:42.466 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% And we can kind of see that visually 36:42.566 --> 36:45.466 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% if we look at a couple different sites in Wisconsin. 36:45.566 --> 36:49.100 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% So first looking at a shorter bluff 36:49.200 --> 36:51.666 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% from the Kenosha area in Somers. 36:51.766 --> 36:54.033 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% This is about 30 to 40 feet tall. 36:55.466 --> 37:00.166 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% 1970s to 2012, there wasn't a lot of change in this bluff. 37:00.266 --> 37:01.800 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% 2012, as you'll recall, 37:01.900 --> 37:04.733 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% we were almost at record-low water levels. 37:04.833 --> 37:07.900 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% So not a whole lot of erosion happening at the toe. 37:08.000 --> 37:10.366 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% Well, from 2012 to 2017, 37:10.466 --> 37:15.066 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% we had quite a rise in water levels on Lake Michigan, 37:15.166 --> 37:17.533 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% a lot of wave erosion reaching the toe, 37:17.633 --> 37:20.566 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% and that recession happened 37:20.666 --> 37:22.966 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% at the top of the bluff pretty readily. 37:23.066 --> 37:26.766 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% Just in that five-year window, went from having some distance 37:26.866 --> 37:29.033 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% between the edge of the bluff and the house 37:29.133 --> 37:32.300 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% to by 2017, the back porch of that house 37:32.400 --> 37:33.866 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% falling in the lake. 37:33.966 --> 37:36.066 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% One more year down the road in 2018, 37:36.166 --> 37:38.733 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% the foundation is exposed of that house 37:38.833 --> 37:40.833 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% and unfortunately had to be removed, 37:41.833 --> 37:44.600 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% demolished by crane for safety reasons. 37:44.700 --> 37:47.433 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% But this house was lost to erosion in Wisconsin. 37:47.533 --> 37:50.266 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% A big impact of erosion here. 37:50.366 --> 37:53.766 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% If we look at a taller bluff, this is from Milwaukee County. 37:53.866 --> 37:58.033 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% We see in 2012, reasonably stable configuration. 37:58.133 --> 38:00.900 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% Lake levels are close to record lows. 38:01.000 --> 38:03.633 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% By 2017, lake levels have risen, 38:03.733 --> 38:05.466 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% waves have impacted the toe of this bluff, 38:05.566 --> 38:09.033 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% and we see some erosion and failures working their way up, 38:09.133 --> 38:11.766 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% maybe a third of the way up the bluff. 38:11.866 --> 38:15.266 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% Much taller bluff here, using maybe some of those trees 38:15.366 --> 38:18.000 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% as a reference point as we move forward in time. 38:18.100 --> 38:20.900 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% By 2018, we lose some of those evergreens 38:21.000 --> 38:22.466 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% on the bluff slope. 38:22.566 --> 38:26.366 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% 2019, still, the failure's working its way up. 38:26.466 --> 38:28.366 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% And then by 2020, 38:28.466 --> 38:30.866 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% we don't see much vegetation on the bluff slope anymore. 38:30.966 --> 38:32.700 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% Those failures have worked their way 38:32.800 --> 38:34.166 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% to the top of the bluff, 38:34.266 --> 38:36.866 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% but it took a lot longer than our low bluff example, 38:36.966 --> 38:39.866 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% so really demonstrating that failure process. 38:39.966 --> 38:44.800 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% So lower bluffs, typically we'll see those impacts quicker, 38:44.900 --> 38:47.466 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% definitely at the top where we have homes 38:47.566 --> 38:48.766 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% and things we care about. 38:48.866 --> 38:51.566 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% The taller bluffs, we'll see them eventually, 38:51.666 --> 38:53.000 align:left position:10%,start line:71% size:80% but it may go a little unnoticed 38:53.100 --> 38:54.600 align:left position:30%,start line:71% size:60% because it can be kinda hard to see 38:54.700 --> 38:56.600 align:left position:32.5%,start line:71% size:57.5% what's going on down at the lake, 38:56.700 --> 38:59.000 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% but we know that failure is working its way up the bluff. 38:59.100 --> 39:02.000 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% So definitely something to be aware of, 39:02.100 --> 39:04.366 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% no matter what the coastal configuration. 39:05.533 --> 39:08.300 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% Water levels and waves are a big impact 39:08.400 --> 39:10.666 align:left position:32.5%,start line:71% size:57.5% on Great Lakes coastal bluff erosion, 39:10.766 --> 39:11.866 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5% but they're not the only thing 39:11.966 --> 39:15.233 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% that affects Great Lakes coastal bluffs. 39:15.333 --> 39:16.633 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% One thing we need to think about 39:16.733 --> 39:18.933 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% is water coming from the land surface. 39:19.033 --> 39:21.666 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% So as water flows down 39:21.766 --> 39:24.233 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% from the top of the bluff to the base, 39:24.333 --> 39:26.900 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% that can erode soil particles 39:27.000 --> 39:28.900 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% directly off the surface of the bluff. 39:30.133 --> 39:32.766 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% Groundwater in the bluff slope. 39:32.866 --> 39:35.200 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% When it comes out in the middle of the bluff, 39:35.300 --> 39:37.600 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% it's coming out at a high enough rate, 39:37.700 --> 39:41.233 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% it can cause sapping or erosion of the soil particles there. 39:42.233 --> 39:47.033 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% Also, groundwater in a slope reduces its stability. 39:47.133 --> 39:49.500 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% It's not as strong, and that stable angle 39:49.600 --> 39:52.400 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% will have to be shallower or less steep. 39:52.500 --> 39:56.033 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% And so high groundwater conditions can also factor in 39:56.133 --> 39:59.266 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% to bluff failure and bluff erosion issues. 40:00.400 --> 40:02.166 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% And so we really need to think about 40:02.266 --> 40:05.933 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% all these natural processes at a bluff site. 40:06.033 --> 40:09.466 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% Certainly lake levels and wave erosion a main driver, 40:09.566 --> 40:11.900 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% but we can't ignore other factors. 40:12.000 --> 40:16.400 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% Now, as humans, we live on the coast and we make changes, 40:16.500 --> 40:18.700 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% and some of those aren't exactly the best thing 40:18.800 --> 40:20.466 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% for bluff stability. 40:20.566 --> 40:22.866 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% One thing we do is we build. 40:22.966 --> 40:26.466 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% We add surfaces where water can no longer be absorbed. 40:26.566 --> 40:29.166 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% It runs off, and possibly causing 40:29.266 --> 40:32.033 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% increased surface water erosion problems. 40:32.133 --> 40:34.033 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% So we have to be mindful of where 40:34.133 --> 40:36.666 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% those impervious surfaces go. 40:36.766 --> 40:39.200 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% Vegetation on the bluff naturally occurs on a bluff. 40:39.300 --> 40:42.166 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% The roots of that vegetation, beneficial for a few reasons. 40:42.266 --> 40:46.366 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% One, the roots hold the soil, at least to some depth, 40:46.466 --> 40:48.900 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% let the roots go and add strength to the soil. 40:49.000 --> 40:51.433 align:left position:30%,start line:71% size:60% They also absorb water from the soil 40:51.533 --> 40:54.000 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% and put it up into the atmosphere, 40:54.100 --> 40:57.500 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% and so they help remove excess water from the bluff. 40:57.600 --> 41:00.866 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% So if we come along and we remove that vegetation, 41:00.966 --> 41:04.166 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% we're decreasing that stability of the bluff. 41:04.266 --> 41:08.200 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% And then another thing we do is when we see toe erosion 41:08.300 --> 41:12.500 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% at the base of the bluff, oftentimes we try to stop it 41:12.600 --> 41:14.366 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% to save the properties at the top. 41:14.466 --> 41:19.000 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% This can be done by adding erosion-resistant materials 41:19.100 --> 41:23.366 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% like concrete, oftentimes armor stone, rock, 41:23.466 --> 41:25.700 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% to sort of keep that wave energy 41:25.800 --> 41:28.566 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% from being able to erode the bluff slope. 41:28.666 --> 41:31.066 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% However, this kind of fundamentally changes 41:31.166 --> 41:34.566 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% how those waves interact with the bluff, 41:34.666 --> 41:37.100 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% and instead of eroding sediment away 41:37.200 --> 41:39.666 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% and sort of being absorbed maybe on a beach, 41:39.766 --> 41:42.033 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% they're striking a hard surface. 41:42.133 --> 41:43.933 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% And changing that near-shore dynamics 41:44.033 --> 41:47.300 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% can, in some cases, have negative impacts 41:47.400 --> 41:48.733 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% at neighboring properties, 41:48.833 --> 41:51.666 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% sometimes increasing erosion around the structure. 41:51.766 --> 41:53.400 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% And so it's something to be aware of 41:53.500 --> 41:56.766 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% and definitely something that does happen in some cases. 41:58.533 --> 42:01.266 align:left position:25%,start line:83% size:65% You can look at these changes yourself 42:01.366 --> 42:03.066 align:left position:25%,start line:83% size:65% on a great tool that we have in Wisconsin 42:03.166 --> 42:05.133 align:left position:25%,start line:83% size:65% called the Wisconsin Shoreline Inventory 42:05.233 --> 42:06.966 align:left position:20%,start line:89% size:70% and Oblique Photo Viewer. 42:07.066 --> 42:09.933 align:left position:25%,start line:83% size:65% You can either search that name online, 42:10.033 --> 42:16.400 align:left position:17.5%,start line:83% size:72.5% or you can type in the web address, no.floods.org/wcmp. 42:16.500 --> 42:18.133 align:left position:30%,start line:83% size:60% This is something that was put together 42:18.233 --> 42:21.433 align:left position:25%,start line:83% size:65% by the Association of State Floodplain Managers, 42:21.533 --> 42:24.066 align:left position:25%,start line:83% size:65% the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, 42:24.166 --> 42:25.233 align:left position:27.5%,start line:89% size:62.5% and Dave Mickelson, 42:25.333 --> 42:28.933 align:left position:17.5%,start line:83% size:72.5% who is a professor emeritus at UW Geosciences, 42:29.033 --> 42:31.933 align:left position:10%,start line:83% size:80% compiling historic aerial photos of the coast 42:32.033 --> 42:34.533 align:left position:15%,start line:83% size:75% and putting them in a viewer for everyone to take a look at. 42:34.633 --> 42:37.400 align:left position:32.5%,start line:83% size:57.5% So up there are photos from the 1970s, 42:37.500 --> 42:40.766 align:left position:17.5%,start line:89% size:72.5% the 2007, 2008, 2012 photos 42:40.866 --> 42:43.233 align:left position:20%,start line:83% size:70% that were acquired by the Army Corps of Engineers, 42:43.333 --> 42:45.066 align:left position:25%,start line:89% size:65% and then since 2017, 42:45.166 --> 42:46.866 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% the Coastal Management Program has been working 42:46.966 --> 42:49.566 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% with the Wisconsin wing of the Civil Air Patrol 42:49.666 --> 42:51.966 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% to routinely acquire photographs of the coast. 42:52.066 --> 42:53.966 align:left position:10%,start line:71% size:80% And these are extremely valuable 42:54.066 --> 42:56.800 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% in being able to track changes on the coast, 42:56.900 --> 42:59.533 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% see how certain bluffs and structures 42:59.633 --> 43:01.266 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% have responded over time, 43:01.366 --> 43:04.133 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% and really get a good picture of how things have changed. 43:04.233 --> 43:06.866 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% There's also data layers up there 43:06.966 --> 43:09.666 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70%   looking at assessing bluff stability. 43:09.766 --> 43:13.333 align:left position:12.5%,start line:83% size:77.5% In some cases, we have erosion measurements up there as well, 43:13.433 --> 43:16.000 align:left position:17.5%,start line:83% size:72.5% but really a great resource to help understand 43:16.100 --> 43:17.900 align:left position:27.5%,start line:83% size:62.5% how specific areas have been responding 43:18.000 --> 43:19.700 align:left position:20%,start line:89% size:70% to changing water levels. 43:19.800 --> 43:22.100 align:left position:17.5%,start line:83% size:72.5% Again, that's the Wisconsin Shoreline Inventory 43:22.200 --> 43:27.966 align:left position:20%,start line:83% size:70% and Oblique Photo Viewer, no.floods.org/wcmp. 43:28.066 --> 43:29.700 align:left position:15%,start line:89% size:75% A great resource to check out 43:29.800 --> 43:32.366 align:left position:25%,start line:83% size:65% when we're trying to explore the coast. 43:32.466 --> 43:34.766 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% So I covered how the coasts are changing 43:34.866 --> 43:37.533 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% with specific emphasis on how water levels 43:37.633 --> 43:39.700 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% are behind some of that change. 43:39.800 --> 43:41.300 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% Now, I want to talk a little bit 43:41.400 --> 43:42.666 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% about what strategies are being used 43:42.766 --> 43:44.533 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% to help adapt to these changes. 43:45.733 --> 43:48.533 align:left position:30%,start line:71% size:60% So when I talk to folks in my job, 43:48.633 --> 43:51.600 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% talking to property owners, to municipalities, 43:51.700 --> 43:53.966 align:left position:32.5%,start line:71% size:57.5% people who are dealing with erosion, 43:54.066 --> 43:56.300 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% I'd like to start with a top-down approach 43:56.400 --> 43:58.600 align:left position:35%,start line:71% size:55% to protecting coastal investments. 43:58.700 --> 44:00.966 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% And part of that is the top is where, 44:01.066 --> 44:02.700 align:left position:32.5%,start line:71% size:57.5% typically, what we care about is. 44:02.800 --> 44:06.100 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% That's where homes are, businesses are, infrastructure. 44:06.200 --> 44:08.100 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% And so starting up at the top 44:08.200 --> 44:10.700 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% and trying to see what is the problem, 44:10.800 --> 44:14.566 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% how close is erosion or flooding to causing an issue, 44:14.666 --> 44:16.633 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% and work our way down towards the lake, 44:16.733 --> 44:19.633 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% because, as I'll talk about in a moment, 44:19.733 --> 44:21.766 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% fighting with Lake Michigan and Lake Superior 44:21.866 --> 44:23.466 align:left position:30%,start line:71% size:60% is tough and it's very expensive, 44:23.566 --> 44:25.700 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% so if we can work our way from the top down 44:25.800 --> 44:27.333 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5% and see if we need to do that, 44:27.433 --> 44:30.000 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% that's usually the best course of action. 44:30.100 --> 44:32.266 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% So what can we do at the top of the bluff? 44:32.366 --> 44:36.200 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% Well, managing our land use, managing where water flows, 44:36.300 --> 44:39.400 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% and managing vegetation are all great things that we can do. 44:39.500 --> 44:43.700 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% In terms of managing land use before something's built 44:43.800 --> 44:45.500 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% in siting things intelligently, 44:45.600 --> 44:48.966 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% not having them too close to the edge of the bluff 44:49.066 --> 44:51.100 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% and trying to keep them out of nature's way. 44:51.200 --> 44:53.233 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% As we've covered, erosion and flooding, 44:53.333 --> 44:55.666 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% these are natural processes on the Great Lakes. 44:55.766 --> 44:57.400 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5% It's what the lakes want to do, 44:58.400 --> 45:01.733 align:left position:10%,start line:71% size:80% but it's problematic when we put things we care about in the way. 45:01.833 --> 45:02.933 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% And so if we can stay 45:03.033 --> 45:04.866 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% as far out of nature's way as possible, 45:04.966 --> 45:07.633 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% that can usually be the most effective solution. 45:07.733 --> 45:10.666 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% So in terms of doing this in a policy perspective, 45:10.766 --> 45:13.566 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% some of our counties and municipalities in Wisconsin 45:13.666 --> 45:16.533 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% have enacted building setback ordinances 45:16.633 --> 45:19.333 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% that try to keep new development out of harm's way. 45:20.333 --> 45:24.933 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% These will often include things like erosion rates 45:25.033 --> 45:28.233 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% over a certain amount of time for a life of a building. 45:28.333 --> 45:30.966 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% They range anywhere from 30 years to 100 years, 45:31.066 --> 45:34.200 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% depending on how conservative you are. 45:35.400 --> 45:40.333 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% And then slope setback, if a slope is going to fail 45:40.433 --> 45:41.966 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% to its natural stable slope angle, 45:42.066 --> 45:44.966 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% accounting for having that distance in that setback. 45:45.066 --> 45:48.733 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% And then oftentimes they include somewhat of a buffer 45:48.833 --> 45:51.233 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% to provide a little bit of breathing room 45:51.333 --> 45:52.500 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% in case erosion happens 45:52.600 --> 45:55.533 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% at faster rates than they have in history. 45:55.633 --> 45:57.333 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% And so these can be really effective ways 45:57.433 --> 46:01.500 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% at keeping new development safer from the threat of erosion 46:01.600 --> 46:03.533 align:left position:30%,start line:71% size:60% and keeping them out of harm's way 46:03.633 --> 46:06.900 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% so we don't have to try and fight these problems 46:07.000 --> 46:08.433 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% with Lake Michigan. 46:08.533 --> 46:09.666 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% For existing buildings, 46:09.766 --> 46:13.333 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% obviously they can't be sited initially 46:13.433 --> 46:16.133 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% further away from the coast, but relocating a building 46:17.133 --> 46:18.766 align:left position:32.5%,start line:71% size:57.5% can be a pretty effective strategy 46:18.866 --> 46:20.900 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% at getting out of harm's way. 46:21.000 --> 46:23.633 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5% Requires you to have somewhere to move the building, 46:23.733 --> 46:26.633 align:left position:12.5%,start line:71% size:77.5%   but as this example shows from Sheboygan County, 46:26.733 --> 46:29.500 align:left position:22.5%,start line:83% size:67.5% a home was pretty close to the edge of the bluff 46:30.500 --> 46:33.400 align:left position:20%,start line:83% size:70% and a bluff failure precipitated the homeowner 46:33.500 --> 46:35.433 align:left position:27.5%,start line:83% size:62.5% to really consider their options. 46:35.533 --> 46:38.266 align:left position:27.5%,start line:83% size:62.5% And since they had a large enough lot, 46:38.366 --> 46:40.733 align:left position:22.5%,start line:83% size:67.5% they were able to hire a house mover to pick up 46:40.833 --> 46:43.400 align:left position:22.5%,start line:83% size:67.5% and move the house back sufficient distance away 46:43.500 --> 46:46.800 align:left position:20%,start line:83% size:70% from that erosion threat, reconnect the utilities, 46:46.900 --> 46:49.033 align:left position:17.5%,start line:89% size:72.5% put in a new septic system. 46:49.133 --> 46:50.800 align:left position:22.5%,start line:83% size:67.5% All of that totaled up, of course, 46:50.900 --> 46:55.133 align:left position:17.5%,start line:83% size:72.5% but it was probably cheaper than trying to stop the erosion 46:55.233 --> 46:56.900 align:left position:10%,start line:89% size:80% and keep the house where it was. 46:57.000 --> 46:58.066 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% Again, building relocation 46:58.166 --> 47:00.100 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% is not maybe necessarily always an option, 47:00.200 --> 47:02.233 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% but it's something to keep in the toolbox 47:02.333 --> 47:04.933 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% when we're trying to adapt to changing coasts, 47:05.033 --> 47:07.000 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% staying out of nature's way. 47:07.100 --> 47:09.766 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% Other things we can do at the top of the bluff, 47:09.866 --> 47:12.000 align:left position:15%,start line:89% size:75% managing healthy vegetation. 47:12.100 --> 47:14.233 align:left position:20%,start line:83% size:70% As I mentioned, certainly not clear-cutting 47:14.333 --> 47:16.000 align:left position:15%,start line:89% size:75% the vegetation we have there, 47:16.100 --> 47:18.700 align:left position:17.5%,start line:83% size:72.5% but encouraging deep-rooted native vegetation 47:20.600 --> 47:23.900 align:left position:17.5%,start line:83% size:72.5% for the benefits of holding the soil and removing water. 47:24.000 --> 47:26.400 align:left position:22.5%,start line:83% size:67.5% Keeping a no-mow buffer near the edge of the bluff 47:26.500 --> 47:28.433 align:left position:32.5%,start line:83% size:57.5% will help those roots grow deeper 47:28.533 --> 47:29.866 align:left position:15%,start line:89% size:75% and help slow down any water 47:29.966 --> 47:32.300 align:left position:22.5%,start line:83% size:67.5% that wants to flow over the edge of the bluff. 47:32.400 --> 47:34.633 align:left position:10%,start line:89% size:80% Views of the lake are high value 47:34.733 --> 47:37.466 align:left position:20%,start line:83% size:70% when we're at properties that are close to the coast. 47:37.566 --> 47:41.733 align:left position:22.5%,start line:83% size:67.5% So obviously, if we're covered with vegetation, 47:41.833 --> 47:44.366 align:left position:27.5%,start line:83% size:62.5% some of those views may be impeded on, 47:44.466 --> 47:47.433 align:left position:25%,start line:83% size:65% but really a good way to get those views back 47:47.533 --> 47:50.966 align:left position:17.5%,start line:83% size:72.5% is to frame views and have low-growing vegetation 47:51.066 --> 47:52.466 align:left position:22.5%,start line:89% size:67.5% over those sight lines. 47:52.566 --> 47:55.100 align:left position:15%,start line:83% size:75% If there's trees in the way, rather than cutting them down, 47:55.200 --> 47:56.666 align:left position:30%,start line:83% size:60% exploring if they can be pruned up 47:56.766 --> 47:58.933 align:left position:30%,start line:83% size:60% to give you those viewing corridors, 47:59.033 --> 48:01.900 align:left position:17.5%,start line:83% size:72.5% trying to maintain as much healthy vegetation as possible 48:02.000 --> 48:04.266 align:left position:17.5%,start line:83% size:72.5% and balancing that with the use of the site. 48:05.266 --> 48:07.800 align:left position:22.5%,start line:83% size:67.5% Management of water at the top is also important. 48:07.900 --> 48:09.933 align:left position:35%,start line:83% size:55% Knowing where drainage is flowing, 48:10.033 --> 48:11.433 align:left position:27.5%,start line:83% size:62.5% making sure gutters aren't pointed 48:11.533 --> 48:14.833 align:left position:20%,start line:83% size:70% directly over the edge of the bluff, things like that. 48:14.933 --> 48:18.733 align:left position:17.5%,start line:83% size:72.5% Rain barrels are a popular choice to really hold that water 48:18.833 --> 48:20.966 align:left position:17.5%,start line:83% size:72.5% and avoiding putting things like rain gardens 48:21.066 --> 48:24.500 align:left position:20%,start line:83% size:70% or tilled beds right near the edge of the bluff 48:24.600 --> 48:27.333 align:left position:27.5%,start line:83% size:62.5% where water can go right into the bluff. 48:27.433 --> 48:29.300 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% As we work our way down the slope, 48:29.400 --> 48:32.800 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% a lot of those principles still remain good practices. 48:32.900 --> 48:35.466 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% Managing water, making sure it's slowed down 48:35.566 --> 48:38.133 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% so it's not picking up speed as it goes down the bluff 48:38.233 --> 48:40.533 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% and eroding the bluff surface. 48:40.633 --> 48:44.300 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% One good way to do that and slow that down is to, again, 48:44.400 --> 48:46.200 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% ensure there's good, healthy vegetation 48:46.300 --> 48:48.200 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% on the bluff surface as possible. 48:49.200 --> 48:53.000 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% Sometimes the bluff is too steep to be stable. 48:53.100 --> 48:55.800 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% That steepness may be threatening a property. 48:55.900 --> 48:58.033 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% If a house can't be moved, 48:58.133 --> 49:02.000 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% reshaping an unstable slope is sometimes needed. 49:02.100 --> 49:04.166 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% Oftentimes this is done by cutting back 49:04.266 --> 49:07.200 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% the slope of the bluff to a shallower angle, 49:07.300 --> 49:11.500 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% back to that stable angle of whatever the bluff material is. 49:11.600 --> 49:16.100 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% If space is an issue, retaining walls in building terraces 49:16.200 --> 49:18.333 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% can also be an effective option 49:18.433 --> 49:21.433 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% to increase that slope stability. 49:21.533 --> 49:25.600 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% In some cases, adding fill to get that stable slope 49:25.700 --> 49:29.166 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% is possible, but that can oftentimes be expensive 49:29.266 --> 49:30.633 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% and hard to get permitted 49:30.733 --> 49:33.766 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% because then that fill would encroach upon the lake. 49:35.233 --> 49:37.533 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% So things that would be considered 49:37.633 --> 49:40.466 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% if bluff stability is really threatening a home. 49:40.566 --> 49:43.633 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% Then as we work our way down to the shoreline 49:43.733 --> 49:46.233 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% and these other options aren't a solution, 49:46.333 --> 49:49.333 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% the home is still at threat, it can't be relocated, 49:49.433 --> 49:52.566 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% then we start thinking about trying to slow toe erosion 49:52.666 --> 49:54.933 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% if that's absolutely necessary. 49:55.033 --> 49:56.800 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% And so the concept here is putting 49:56.900 --> 50:00.533 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% erosion-resistant material or reducing the wave energy 50:00.633 --> 50:03.000 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% reaching the toe to kind of stop that process 50:03.100 --> 50:04.966 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% of erosion at the toe. 50:05.066 --> 50:08.100 align:left position:12.5%,start line:83% size:77.5% There are a number of ways this is done in the Great Lakes. 50:08.200 --> 50:11.333 align:left position:20%,start line:83% size:70% By far the most common is what's called a rock revetment. 50:11.433 --> 50:15.533 align:left position:22.5%,start line:83% size:67.5% This is a sloping face of erosion-resistant, 50:15.633 --> 50:18.066 align:left position:22.5%,start line:89% size:67.5% most often rock, stone, 50:19.266 --> 50:21.100 align:left position:30%,start line:83% size:60% that will resist movement by waves 50:21.200 --> 50:23.500 align:left position:17.5%,start line:89% size:72.5% and those are large rocks. 50:23.600 --> 50:25.133 align:left position:22.5%,start line:89% size:67.5% And on the Great Lakes, 50:25.233 --> 50:27.100 align:left position:15%,start line:83% size:75% especially on the open coast of the Great Lakes, 50:27.200 --> 50:30.800 align:left position:12.5%,start line:83% size:77.5% we're talking about ton rocks, multi-ton rocks, 50:30.900 --> 50:33.166 align:left position:25%,start line:83% size:65% to be able to resist the force of waves. 50:33.266 --> 50:36.133 align:left position:17.5%,start line:83% size:72.5% And under those large rocks are smaller stone, 50:36.233 --> 50:38.500 align:left position:22.5%,start line:83% size:67.5% so that when water gets in between the gaps 50:38.600 --> 50:39.733 align:left position:25%,start line:89% size:65% in those large rocks, 50:39.833 --> 50:42.100 align:left position:20%,start line:83% size:70% it doesn't undermine the structure from underneath. 50:42.200 --> 50:46.900 align:left position:22.5%,start line:83% size:67.5% Again, revetments, most common type of structure 50:47.000 --> 50:48.366 align:left position:22.5%,start line:89% size:67.5% to reduce toe erosion. 50:48.466 --> 50:51.066 align:left position:20%,start line:83% size:70% Other ones that are used sometimes are a seawall, 50:51.166 --> 50:52.966 align:left position:12.5%,start line:89% size:77.5% which is a vertical structure, 50:53.066 --> 50:55.966 align:left position:27.5%,start line:83% size:62.5% either made out of steel or concrete, 50:56.066 --> 50:58.933 align:left position:27.5%,start line:83% size:62.5% functions somewhat similar to a revetment, 50:59.033 --> 51:00.233 align:left position:20%,start line:89% size:70% but when waves hit them, 51:00.333 --> 51:01.933 align:left position:27.5%,start line:83% size:62.5% they reflect a lot more wave energy 51:02.033 --> 51:04.300 align:left position:22.5%,start line:83% size:67.5% and can cause some more issues in the near shore. 51:04.400 --> 51:07.533 align:left position:22.5%,start line:83% size:67.5% But again, the concept there is to directly resist 51:07.633 --> 51:09.766 align:left position:22.5%,start line:89% size:67.5% erosion from the lake. 51:09.866 --> 51:12.366 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% Breakwaters are sometimes used 51:12.466 --> 51:14.200 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% to reduce wave energy at the coast. 51:14.300 --> 51:18.000 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% They're built out into the water and waves hit them, 51:18.100 --> 51:20.933 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% either blocking the wave energy 51:21.033 --> 51:23.300 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% or reducing the wave energy that the coast sees 51:23.400 --> 51:25.700 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% to reduce the erosive capacity. 51:25.800 --> 51:28.600 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% And then an emerging area in the Great Lakes 51:28.700 --> 51:31.133 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% is something called nature-based shorelines. 51:31.233 --> 51:34.800 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% This is trying to work with nature or mimic nature 51:34.900 --> 51:36.666 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% to provide some protection of the coast. 51:36.766 --> 51:39.700 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% Oftentimes it's a hybrid with some harder structures 51:39.800 --> 51:43.766 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% with rock or concrete, but in the example that I show here, 51:43.866 --> 51:46.066 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% this is what's known as a marsh sill. 51:46.166 --> 51:49.233 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% There's a little bit of rock sill, 51:49.333 --> 51:52.233 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% kind of like a small breakwater out in the water. 51:52.333 --> 51:54.800 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% The waves hit those and that reduces wave energy 51:54.900 --> 51:56.000 align:left position:35%,start line:5% size:55% a little bit. 51:56.100 --> 51:58.066 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% We've got marsh vegetation growing. 51:58.166 --> 52:01.700 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% As the waves hit those, reduces a little bit of wave energy. 52:01.800 --> 52:04.400 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% And then it's backstopped by some smaller rocks 52:04.500 --> 52:06.933 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% for whatever wave energy reaches the shoreline 52:07.033 --> 52:08.700 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% to stop erosion there. 52:08.800 --> 52:10.900 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% Nature-based shorelines have been much more developed 52:11.000 --> 52:13.033 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% on our nation's ocean coasts 52:13.133 --> 52:15.300 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% and internationally on ocean coasts. 52:15.400 --> 52:18.033 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% The Great Lakes, we're still developing here. 52:18.133 --> 52:20.933 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% We've got ice, we've got freshwater species 52:21.033 --> 52:22.800 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% that don't work the same as our ocean coasts, 52:22.900 --> 52:24.133 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% so it's definitely an area 52:24.233 --> 52:25.966 align:left position:32.5%,start line:71% size:57.5% that's growing in the Great Lakes 52:26.066 --> 52:28.233 align:left position:10%,start line:71% size:80% and something to keep an eye on, 52:28.333 --> 52:32.366 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% whether or not this sort of solution is suitable at a site. 52:32.466 --> 52:33.966 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% It has more habitat benefits 52:34.066 --> 52:35.800 align:left position:32.5%,start line:71% size:57.5% to aquatic and terrestrial habitats 52:35.900 --> 52:38.466 align:left position:30%,start line:71% size:60% than conventional armoring of the shoreline 52:38.566 --> 52:39.900 align:left position:32.5%,start line:71% size:57.5% with just rock. 52:40.000 --> 52:42.066 align:left position:27.5%,start line:71% size:62.5% So it's definitely gaining a lot of interest. 52:43.433 --> 52:46.533 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% Where can you learn more about these sorts of options? 52:46.633 --> 52:48.333 align:left position:17.5%,start line:71% size:72.5% Well, Wisconsin Sea Grant, 52:48.433 --> 52:50.900 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% we've just published two new guides, 52:51.000 --> 52:54.500 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% one, "A Property Owner's Guide To Protecting Your Bluff," 52:54.600 --> 52:57.100 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% going into more detail about a lot of the concepts 52:57.200 --> 52:59.633 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% I talked about, going from working your way from the top 52:59.733 --> 53:02.700 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% down to the bottom, good practices to use, 53:02.800 --> 53:06.800 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% managing land use, vegetation, water, 53:06.900 --> 53:08.033 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% and then slope stability, 53:08.133 --> 53:10.900 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% and, if needed, shore protection. 53:11.000 --> 53:13.733 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% And then we've also put together a guide called 53:13.833 --> 53:16.833 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% "Nature-Based Shoreline Options For Great Lakes Coasts." 53:16.933 --> 53:18.000 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% As I mentioned, 53:18.100 --> 53:19.800 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% this is a developing area in the Great Lakes, 53:19.900 --> 53:24.300 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% and so we've put together some basic techniques 53:24.400 --> 53:26.500 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% that are being used now in the Great Lakes, 53:26.600 --> 53:27.800 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% as well as some case studies 53:27.900 --> 53:30.000 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% of where they've been implemented in the Great Lakes 53:30.100 --> 53:31.400 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% to help folks wrap their head around 53:31.500 --> 53:32.833 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% what nature-based shorelines are 53:32.933 --> 53:35.966 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% and kind of how they can be used in the Great Lakes. 53:36.066 --> 53:40.466 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% We also have two guides called "Adapting to a Changing Coast." 53:40.566 --> 53:42.900 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% These are a little higher-level views. 53:43.000 --> 53:46.666 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% One is written for Great Lakes coastal property owners, 53:46.766 --> 53:49.166 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% covering some of the options they can use 53:49.266 --> 53:50.766 align:left position:10%,start line:5% size:80% to address flooding and erosion, 53:50.866 --> 53:53.833 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% and one is more geared towards local officials 53:53.933 --> 53:57.300 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% thinking about policy, funding options 53:57.400 --> 54:00.900 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% that might be helpful for adapting to a changing coast. 54:01.000 --> 54:04.533 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% All those can be found on the Wisconsin Sea Grant website, 54:04.633 --> 54:06.833 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% seagrant.wisc.edu, 54:06.933 --> 54:10.200 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% or a web search for Wisconsin Sea Grant. 54:10.300 --> 54:13.066 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% It has lots of information about these issues, 54:13.166 --> 54:16.566 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% as well as the whole profile that Sea Grant has: 54:16.666 --> 54:20.200 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% fisheries, aquaculture, water quality, tourism. 54:20.300 --> 54:21.700 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% Lot of great information out there, 54:21.800 --> 54:23.300 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% both from Wisconsin Sea Grant, 54:23.400 --> 54:25.500 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% as well as from many of our partners 54:25.600 --> 54:28.033 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% at the state and federal and local level. 54:28.133 --> 54:30.033 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% One thing I'd like to point out on the website 54:30.133 --> 54:33.200 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% that might be particularly useful to some of the viewers, 54:34.566 --> 54:37.033 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% a website called "Resources for Property Owners." 54:37.133 --> 54:40.566 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% This is where we've collected a number of useful resources 54:40.666 --> 54:42.133 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% for Great Lakes coastal property owners 54:42.233 --> 54:46.166 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% to help understand what's going on on the Great Lakes. 54:46.266 --> 54:48.866 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% Waves, erosion, sediment transport, 54:48.966 --> 54:52.300 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% how to assess vulnerability to some of these hazards, 54:52.400 --> 54:54.266 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% how to pick options going forward. 54:54.366 --> 54:55.800 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% And then when it comes time, 54:55.900 --> 54:59.066 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% if you need to work with an engineer, a contractor, 54:59.166 --> 55:02.133 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% some resources to help understand that process 55:02.233 --> 55:07.133 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% and a list of known contractors and engineers to start from 55:07.233 --> 55:09.666 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% when trying to do that sort of work. 55:09.766 --> 55:12.400 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% Again, seagrant.wisc.edu, 55:12.500 --> 55:14.566 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% can find a lot of great information about water levels 55:14.666 --> 55:15.833 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% and more there. 55:16.833 --> 55:19.233 align:left position:20%,start line:5% size:70% As I close out, I'd really like to acknowledge 55:19.333 --> 55:20.833 align:left position:12.5%,start line:5% size:77.5% that I don't do this work alone 55:20.933 --> 55:22.933 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% and Sea Grant doesn't do their work alone. 55:23.033 --> 55:26.066 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% We have strong partnerships at the state and federal, 55:26.166 --> 55:28.666 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% university, regional, and local level. 55:28.766 --> 55:31.466 align:left position:27.5%,start line:5% size:62.5% Just to name a few, we work closely 55:31.566 --> 55:33.833 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% with the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, 55:33.933 --> 55:37.433 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, NOAA, 55:37.533 --> 55:39.333 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% the Army Corps of Engineers, 55:39.433 --> 55:42.266 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% UW-Madison researchers, UW-Milwaukee researchers, 55:42.366 --> 55:45.566 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% researchers at universities across the state. 55:45.666 --> 55:47.666 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% The Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, 55:47.766 --> 55:49.733 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission, 55:49.833 --> 55:51.900 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% Association of State Floodplain Managers, 55:52.000 --> 55:54.866 align:left position:17.5%,start line:5% size:72.5% and a lot of local partners as well. 55:54.966 --> 55:56.466 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% And so really we'd like to acknowledge 55:56.566 --> 56:00.600 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% and thank them for their work with us on these issues. 56:00.700 --> 56:03.700 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% I'd also like to acknowledge a lot of this information 56:03.800 --> 56:05.266 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% that was shared today was developed 56:05.366 --> 56:08.533 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% under a NOAA Regional Coastal Resilience grant 56:08.633 --> 56:10.033 align:left position:22.5%,start line:5% size:67.5% that was funded by NOAA 56:10.133 --> 56:11.900 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% through the Office of Coastal Management, 56:12.000 --> 56:13.866 align:left position:30%,start line:5% size:60% helped make a lot of this information 56:13.966 --> 56:16.466 align:left position:32.5%,start line:5% size:57.5% and the guides I mentioned possible. 56:16.566 --> 56:20.066 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% With that, I'd like to leave you with just a reminder 56:20.166 --> 56:23.300 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% that the Great Lakes are really important to Wisconsin, 56:23.400 --> 56:28.100 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% both economically, as a sense of place, a place we recreate, 56:28.200 --> 56:31.466 align:left position:20%,start line:71% size:70% and they face challenges, particularly when we have 56:31.566 --> 56:33.600 align:left position:25%,start line:71% size:65% extreme water levels, high and low. 56:33.700 --> 56:36.700 align:left position:30%,start line:71% size:60% And from history, we kind of anticipate 56:36.800 --> 56:39.666 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% we'll continue to face these challenges in the future. 56:39.766 --> 56:41.433 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% They may be made worse by climate change, 56:41.533 --> 56:43.666 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% but working to adapt to them 56:43.766 --> 56:45.833 align:left position:22.5%,start line:71% size:67.5% is in the best interest of everyone in Wisconsin, 56:45.933 --> 56:50.400 align:left position:15%,start line:71% size:75% because of how important that that resource is to our state. 56:50.500 --> 56:53.133 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% With that, I'd like to again thank Wednesday Nite @ the Lab 56:53.233 --> 56:55.566 align:left position:15%,start line:5% size:75% for having me, and thank you for your attention 56:55.666 --> 56:56.833 align:left position:25%,start line:5% size:65% and have a great day.