|
Vision, Goals and Guidelines
According to the Commission’s directive, the Board’s mandate is to undertake studies required to provide the Commission with the information it needs to evaluate options for regulating water levels and flows in order to benefit affected interests and the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River system as a whole in a manner that conforms to the requirements of the Boundary Waters Treaty. The Board is guided by this mandate in pursuing its studies. To meet this mandate, the Board has developed the following guidelines for its activities as the foundation for providing advice to the Commission.
| |
|
|
Gene
Stakhiv and Doug Cuthbert, Study Board Co-Directors,
listen to a discussion during a meeting in Akwesasne,
NY. |
|
Photo: Arleen Kreusch |
|
|
Vision
To contribute to economic, environmental and social sustainability of the Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River System.
Goals
To identify flow regulation criteria that best serve the wide range of affected
interests and climatic conditions in the basin and that
are widely accepted by all interests.
Guidelines
- Criteria and Regulation Plans will be environmentally sustainable and respect the integrity of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River ecosystem.
- Criteria and Regulation Plans will produce a net benefit to the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River System and its users and will not result in disproportionate loss to any particular interest or geographic area.
- Criteria and Regulation Plans will be able to respond to unusual or unexpected conditions affecting the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River System.
- Mitigation alternatives may be identified to limit damages when considered appropriate.
- Regulation of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River System will be adaptable to reflect the potential for changes in water supply as a result of climate change and variability.
- Decision-making with respect to the development of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River System Criteria and Plans will be transparent, involving and considering the full range of interests affected by any decisions with broad stakeholder input.
- Criteria and Regulation Plans will incorporate current knowledge, state-of-the-art technology and the flexibility to adapt to future advances in knowledge, science and technology.
Top
Study Team Views the St. Lawrence River from Helicopters
Serge Lepage, Environment Canada, Christiane Hudon, Environment Technical Work Group, and Michelle Tracy, Study Staff
| |
|
|
The Biosphere as seen from above during our flyover of the Montreal area. |
|
Photo: Tony Eberhardt |
|
|
On September 23rd, members of the Public Interest Advisory Group, Commissioner Irene Brooks, Study Board members and some Technical Work Group members participated in a helicopter field trip over the St. Lawrence River organised jointly by Environment Canada (la Biosphère) and the IJC. This flyover not only permitted them to have an overview of the major uses of the River, it also showed areas of concern and impacts related to water levels and water-level management.
| |
|
|
"Singin'
in the rain!" U.S. Commissioner, Irene Brooks,
Study Co-Director, Doug Cuthbert and PFEG
Co-lead, Bill Werick standing next to the
helicopter that took them to see the St. Lawrence
River |
|
Photo: Michelle Tracy |
|
|
In spite of inclement weather, the helicopters were able to complete the one-and-a-half hour circuit from St. Hubert to Beauharnois to Lac St. Pierre and back, giving Study Team members a deeper appreciation of this important section of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River system.
The first interest point on the tour was the Beauharnois hydroelectric dam, monumental in structure and providing 1657 MW of electricity. Plumes of clay, a symptom of the erosion process, were visible in the Beauharnois canal, which is used for commercial navigation. Next, they saw the Îles de la Paix, where the remains of riparian forests killed during high floods of the 1970s are still visible.
Over Lake St. Louis, they were able to see colonies of submerged aquatic plants
on dredging deposits, which have implications for recreational
boaters. Concrete riverbanks were visible, as well as
the dramatic mixing of the green waters of the St. Lawrence
and the brown of the Ottawa River.
| |
|
|
Chistiane Hudon
from the Environment TWG shows Commissioner Brooks
the route for the flyover. |
|
Photo:
Michelle Tracy |
|
|
Next along the River were the locks and the Lachine rapids, which provide a habitat for sturgeon and salmonid fry. Alongside the urban sprawl of Montreal, they observed the seaway canals, docks and factories that are an important part of the city’s economic life. East of Montreal were the Berthier-Sorel Archipelago, home to rich riparian forests and wetlands, and also sensitive to the process of erosion. Finally, at Lake St. Pierre, they were able to see the raised lake bottom and patches of vegetation emerging due to lower levels. Waterfowl, such as white geese, abounded in these areas rich in food.
Top
Public Interest Advisory Group Meets in Dorval, QC
Michelle Tracy, Study Staff
On September 24, 2003 the Public Interest Advisory Group (PIAG) held a public meeting in Dorval, Quebec, on the shores of the picturesque Lake St. Louis. Forty-five members of the public were in attendance, as well as a number of Study participants, such as experts from the Technical Work Groups, the Study directors, and Commissioner Irene Brooks.
A lively discussion followed a presentation by Marcel Lussier, civil engineer and Canadian co-lead of the PIAG. The first topic to be discussed was the release of spring-freshet levels of water through the Moses-Saunders Dam during the power blackout that affected north-eastern North America in August. The sudden increase of flows allowed through the dam was an emergency response measure intended to assist in handling electricity demands.
| |
|
|
Elaine Kennedy, member of the PIAG, thanks one of the audience members for his comments on the jurisdiction of water uses. |
|
Photo:
Michelle Tracy |
|
|
André Carpentier, a member of both the Lake Ontario
St. Lawrence River Board of Control and the Study
Board, explained that they weren’t able to notify the
public immediately of this increase because regular
channels of communication had been shut down due to
the blackout. He also reassured people that, while the
sudden rise in levels may have inconvenienced people
along the shorelines, there was no danger in terms of
flooding.
A member of Les amis de la vallée du Saint-Laurent then raised the issue of climate change. He wanted to know if the Study was going to take into account an acceleration of climate change when preparing its new criteria. A Master’s student from Université du Québec à Montréal in environmental sciences also wanted to know if the Study was developing plans that could be adapted to handle changes in water levels over time.
Tom McAuley, Engineering Advisor to the International Joint Commission, explained
that four of the best global climate models were being
used by the Study to predict the effect of climate change
on water levels. He assured the audience that climate
change is considered a very important element as one
of the factors of change in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
basin. (Please see the article "Climate
Change Impacts and the Study".)
| |
|
|
André Carpentier, Study Board Member, adresses the public meeting in Dorval. |
|
Photo:
Michelle Tracy |
|
|
Members of Les amis de la vallée du Saint-Laurent were also concerned about the possibility of economic values being placed on the environment in the determination of performance indicators for the Study. Christiane Hudon from Environment Canada and a member of the Environment Technical Work Group stressed that she and her colleagues are also concerned about this approach, as it is much more difficult to put a dollar value on optimal conditions for pike spawning, for instance.
What it boils down to, suggested Christiane, is a balance between the coexistence of humans and the environment. In the past, the environment was not considered. "And now the tendency has been reversed, we are much more conscious of the environment, and the desire on the part of the IJC to involve the environment as one of the stakeholders in determining the new regulation plan, that’s audacious, that’s really courageous, and it’s really complex."
"And now the tendency has been reversed, we are much more conscious of the environment, and the desire on the part of the IJC to involve the environment as one of the stakeholders in determining the new regulation plan, that’s audacious, that’s really courageous, and it’s really complex."
Chistiane Hudon
|
|
| |
|
| Anjuna Langevin, Canadian lead of the Commercial Navigation TWG, explains how low water levels impact the shipping business. |
|
Photo: Michelle Tracy |
|
|
|
Members of another group, the Regroupement des usagers du Saint-Laurent, expressed concern over a perceived favouring of Lake Ontario interests by the International Joint Commission. There was a fear that, since the shores of Lake Ontario were more densely populated, this geographic region would be given more weight in the decision-making process.
| |
|
|
Christiane Hudon,
member of the Environment TWG, speaks about the
complex relationship between humans and the environment
in the Lake Ontario-St Lawrence River system. |
|
Photo: Michelle Tracy |
|
|
Tom McAuley addressed this concern by referring to
the intentions of the IJC. "The Joint Commission is
very conscious of the St. Lawrence, and, from the
beginning, when the Study was being formed and planned,
the St. Lawrence was considered." McAuley then went
on to point out that there are more than a few Study
participants from the Ministry of the Environment of
Quebec and Environment Canada in Montreal and Sainte-Foy,
and that the interests of the River are well represented.
In her closing remarks, U.S. Commissioner Irene Brooks thanked the public and the members of the Study for their enthusiasm and interest. She underlined that she would be speaking with her fellow Commissioners about what she had learned from the meeting and alluded to the decisions she and her colleagues would be making about a new regulation plan. "At the end of this, we’re going to have to sit down and make some tough decisions, and it’s good for me to know what you’re thinking and the process along the way."
"At the end of this, we’re going to have to sit down and make some tough decisions, and it’s good for me to know what you’re thinking and the process along the way."
U.S. Commissionner, Irene Brooks
|
Top
Climate Change Impacts and the Study
By Thomas E. Croley II, Co-Lead, Hydrology and Hydraulics Technical Work Group
Climate is the average weather, including seasonal extremes and variations, that a given region experiences. Climate change can lead to changes in many aspects of weather such as temperature, wind patterns, the amount and type of precipitation, and the types and frequency of severe weather events that may be expected to occur.
The Hydrologic and Hydraulic Technical Working Group is determining how potential climate change scenarios might impact alternative plans and criteria for the regulation of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. To this end, they prepared their report, Great Lakes Climate Change Hydrologic Impact Assessment. This report provides background on earlier Great Lakes climate change impact studies, describes the Great Lakes and their climate, presents models of levels and flows used in assessing climate change, and summarizes results.
The report analyzed the results of several different models to determine the possible impacts of a warmer climate on the Great Lakes system in regards to rainfall, runoff, lake evaporation, connecting channel flows, lake regulation, and lake water balances. First, researchers used 52 years of historical data, which included present diversions and channel conditions, with their hydrology models to simulate a "baseline" of conditions. Then they conducted simulations to develop four climate change scenarios over the Study region: 1) warm and wet, 2) not as warm but wet, 3) warm and dry, and 4) not as warm but dry.
Because the Great Lakes possess tremendous water and heat storage capacities, they respond slowly to changes in climate. This means that, although they may not respond to short-term weather fluctuations, they will respond to longer-period fluctuations characteristic of climate change.
In the climate-change scenarios, higher air temperatures
could lead to higher loss of water from the soil, both
by evaporation and by transpiration from the plants
growing on the land. There could also be lower runoff
to the lakes with earlier runoff peaks, since the snow
pack may be reduced.
Water temperatures could increase and peak earlier, leading heat trapped in the deep lakes to increase throughout the year. Warmer temperatures would increase lake evaporation, as would reduced ice formation, as there would be more water exposed to the air during the winter.
All of these factors would contribute to the lowering of water levels in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River system, and are being taken very seriously by the Study. A similar climate-change-scenario study is being prepared for the St. Lawrence River. The results from both reports will be compiled and performance indicators and alternative criteria will be developed based on the information gathered. These outcomes will be put into the Shared Vision Model to assist in the development of possible water-level regulation plans.
Copies of the Great Lakes Climate Change Hydrologic Impact Assessment report are available. If you wish to receive one, please contact the communications representative in your area.
Top
Public Interest Advisory Group Partners with Save Our Sodus for Meetings in Sodus Point, NY
By Aaron M. Smith, Study Staff
The International Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Study presented at the Save Our Sodus (S.O.S.) meeting in Sodus Point on September 10, 2003. The meeting offered a chance for all interested people to come and give their opinions and input about water levels around Sodus Bay and Lake Ontario.
| |
|
|
Ron Daly, President of the International Water levels Coalition, encourages other attendees to speak up and add input so that the final decisions will reflect everyone's wishes and needs. |
|
Photo: Aaron Smith |
|
|
S.O.S. Inc. is an organization concerned with deteriorating water quality in Sodus Bay. Members include local residents, vacationers, property owners, businesses, boaters, sportspeople and many others who recognize the importance of preserving the Bay's natural beauty and purity.
Frank Sciremammano, member of the International St. Lawrence River Board of Control as well as a member of the Study Board, gave a presentation about the current regulation of outflows from Lake Ontario through the St. Lawrence River followed by Dan Barletta, U.S. Co-lead of the Public Interest Advisory Group (PIAG). S.O.S., the PIAG, and the Board of Control collaborated to give the attendees the most information possible in order to receive constructive feedback and input about Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.
| |
|
|
After the meeting, Ann Haylip of S.O.S. talks with PIAG member Henry S. Stewart, President of the Lake Ontario South Shore Council. |
|
Photo: Aaron Smith |
|
|
Over 65 people attended the meeting and voiced their concerns about recreational boating, erosion impacts on lakefront property, riparian and shipping interests, as well as the need for a balanced effort to coordinate the needs of each of these groups. Along with comments provided at a roundtable meeting in the afternoon, which brought several elected officials from the area together, the Study received a considerable amount of input from a wide variety of interests.
If you attended the meeting and have not mailed back
the questionnaire provided at the meeting, please mail
it to us. The information you provide will help us in
planning.
Top
Practicing the Decision
By Bill Werick and Wendy Leger, Plan Formulation and Evaluation Group Co-Leads
The Study Board made a practice decision, choosing one possible water-level regulation plan over others, at its September 2003 workshop in Montreal. This practice decision took place a year and a half before the Board is scheduled to provide the International Joint Commission with its recommended options for plans and criteria. The Board asked the Plan Formulation and Evaluation Group to lead as many practice decision sessions as possible so that the real decision will the best it can be. Practicing the decision forces everyone to make sure the studies we’re doing will produce the information we need. It stimulates debate about how to balance competing interests, and it allows the Board to focus on one part of the decision at a time.
For instance, at the September meeting, the Board asked, "Which plan best meets the proposed criteria?" Our triangle shows the Board’s evaluation process will eventually include economic and environmental impacts (the "Performance Indicator" corner of the triangle), but researchers were not scheduled to submit those impacts until the end of December 2003, so it made sense to work with what we had.
Just saying which plan best meets the criteria is hard enough. In 1962 the Control Board did this assessment when it decided that Plan 1958D met the Orders of Approval criteria better than Plan 1958C. Their report is over 100 pages, considering two plans and a dozen criteria. Plan 1958D was a minor variation on Plan 1958C, and it scored marginally better on almost all counts. The Study Board has a harder job. In September 2003, the Board looked at eight plans and compared them to about 40 suggested criteria.
The PFEG began with the Board’s Principles (see "Visions Goals and Guidelines"), focusing on the first two, which directly applied to this exercise:
- Criteria and regulation plans will be environmentally sustainable and respect the integrity of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River System ecosystem.
- Criteria and regulation plans will produce a net benefit to the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River System and its users and will not result in disproportionate loss to any particular interest or geographic area.
PFEG used an early version of the Shared Vision Model to simulate the releases and water levels produced by eight different plans. Except for 1958D With Deviations, the plan in use now, all the plans were identified only by a single number – the blind "taste test" concept – to discourage biased interpretations and presumptions. PFEG identified 1958D With Deviations because all plans were compared to it, and it was obvious which one it was.
PFEG also categorized the criteria according to the proponent (Coastal, Environmental, etc.) and geography (above or below the Moses-Saunders dam). This made it easier to see whether a plan hurt or helped a particular concern.
Performance of a plan against a criterion was typically measured by how often the plan met the criterion, how badly it failed when it did not meet the criterion, and the length of time it took for the failure to be corrected.
Figure 2 illustrates this idea. One of the suggested criteria is that Lake Ontario elevations should be kept below 75.2 meters (246.66 feet). The graph shows a two month (eight quarter-month) period in which the Lake goes over 75.2 meters four times out of eight. The failure is shown in red. The first metric, reliability, would have a value of 50% over these eight periods because the plan met the criterion four periods out of eight. The second metric, vulnerability, is the average amount the plan fails by (0.25, in this case), and the third metric is the average time it takes to return to a state of compliance (in this case, half a month). PFEG combined the last two measures into a severity (how bad and how long) metric, and then graphed these statistics for each plan.
PFEG created one graph showing each criterion score (Figure 3) and a second graph showing averages of the criteria scores for each Technical Working Group (Figure 4). PFEG does not assume or recommend the decision should be based solely on averages, since doing so makes all criteria equally important. PFEG asked the working groups to prioritize and refine their criteria, and they are in the process of doing that.
None of the plans did well on all of the criteria. Figure 3 shows the performance of the individual criteria for Plan 5, and figure 4 shows the average performances of Plan 5 for each TWG above and each TWG below the dam. Symbols in the green quadrant of the graph represent criteria for which this plan failed less often and less severely than Plan 1958D With Deviations. Symbols in the red quadrant signify more frequent and more severe failures. You can see that this plan does well for the environment below the dam (green triangles). It fails less often for navigation (dark blue triangles) below the dam, but the failures are worse when they occur. The plan failures are more severe and more frequent and recreational boating above the dam (red square).
The PFEG ranked plan performance on each of the applicable
principles. In this exercise, Plan 5 did better than
Plan 1958D With Deviations for overall benefits, and
it was slightly better for the environment (you can
see that this plan does well on average for the environment
below the dam).
Plan 5 was declared the winner for the purpose of the exercise, but the Board said it would not want to make the decision without a geographic display of the scores or prioritized criteria. The Board also recognized that this is only half the picture and that having the performance indicators will make the decision process more meaningful. We will also be inventing better plans than "Plan 5" before the Study is complete. In fact, if you have a particular interest in plan formulation, please contact the Public Interest Advisory Group to discuss your ideas with them.
The Board’s next practice decision will be made in Toronto in March 2004. Some of the performance indicator information will be modeled by then, so the Board will practice deciding which criteria, as well as which plans it likes based on the estimated economic and environmental impacts identified through the performance indicators. Between now and then, decision principles and criteria will change, and there will be heated debate about how these decisions should be made. That debate will make the real decision more trustworthy.
Top
Public Interest Advisory Group Holds Meetings in Greece, NY
By Aaron M. Smith, Study Staff
The Public Interest Advisory Group (PIAG) discussed the Study with many different interests at meetings in Greece, NY, on August 7, 2003. During public meetings held at the Greece Town Hall, over 95 local residents, boaters, and elected officials talked with the PIAG about how the water levels of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River impact their lives.
|
|
|
Study Team members listen to public concerns after the meeting. |
|
| Photo: Aaron Smith |
|
|
|
After a presentation by Dan Barletta, U.S. PIAG Co-Lead
and shoreline resident of Greece, the floor was open
for comments as citizens gathered to provide feedback
to the Study Team. There were a number of shoreline
residents interested in how the outflows from the Lake
and River affect their property. There were also concerns
raised about the water levels in Montreal and the Ottawa
River in Canada and how they affect Lake Ontario and
the St. Lawrence River in the U.S. Many of the recreational
boaters present were concerned with the high and low
levels that influence their boating seasons.
A few attendees pointed out that only through public participation will the Study’s results accurately reflect the wishes of the people. Henry Stewart, a PIAG member and Monroe County resident, agreed that a positive outcome revolves around the input that is received from the various interests concerned with the Study. "The end result can’t be shocking to the public. We are working to involve the public in the Study. We can’t make our plans and show them to the public after the fact."
| |
|
|
Tony Eberhardt, U.S. General Manager, responds to a question from an audience member. |
|
Photo: Aaron Smith |
|
|
Attendees from Hilton Beach and Manitou Beach asked questions about the goals and constraints of the Study. Dan Barletta talked about the Study’s goals. "The health of the system is at the top. You and I are part of the system. So are boaters and so is the environment. We need to preserve the health of all interests."
The Study Team plans to return to Greece next summer during its series of public
meetings. PIAG member and Monroe County resident Max Streibel assured the people
in attendance at Greece that next summer’s meetings would reach all areas on both
sides of the border. "We’ll be back next year with the different models that will
be tested on different interests." If you, or a group you know of, would like
to see the PIAG presentation before next summer, please visit www.losl.org
or contact the communication representative for your area.
Top
Discuss Concerns About Water Levels!
Come and visit the revamped Discussion Forum on our website! View and post
messages with ease! Share your concerns with other users of the Lake Ontario-St.
Lawrence River System! What water levels are optimal for you? What are your priorities
and how should they be featured in a new plan? Discuss answers to these and other
questions at http://www.losl.org/discussion/forum-e.asp.
Top
St. Lawrence River Institute of Environmental Sciences Conference
Come to Cornwall in May!
See the St. Lawrence River as it flows through the Moses-Saunders Dam. Learn about the Science that is helping us understand the effects of Water Levels on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.
Each May, the St. Lawrence River Institute of Environmental Sciences, which is located in Cornwall, Ontario, Canada, holds a conference on Water.
In 2004, the 11th Annual International Conference on the St. Lawrence River Ecosystem, hosted by the St. Lawrence River Institute of Environmental Sciences in partnership with the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne will again be held at the NavCanada Conference Centre.
On May 18th, 19th and 20th, 2004 the theme will be "Managing Our Waters: The Great Lakes/St. Lawrence River Ecosystems. The impacts of water level changes: past, present and future."
For information about Sessions, Registering and the River Institute, check
out www.riverinstitute.com.
Top
PIAG Speakers Bureau
|
|
| Elaine Kennedy, Public Interest Advisory Group |
|
|
Photo:
Arleen Kreusch |
|
|
|
|
PIAG Speakers Bureau
The Public Interest Advisory Group membership would like to meet with you. A representative in your area can give a presentation about the Study to your group. Please contact the communications staff listed at the end of this newsletter to request a presentation.
Canada
Marcel Lussier - Montreal, QC
Larry Field - Toronto, ON
Michel Gagné - Montreal, QC
John Hall - Burlington, ON
Marc Hudon - Trois-Rivières, QC
Elaine Kennedy - Cornwall, ON
Anjuna Langevin - Rimouski, QC
Sandra Lawn - Prescott, ON
Paul Webb - Brockville, ON
Al Will -
Hamilton, ON |
United States
Dr. Dan Barletta - Rochester, NY
Paul Finnegan - Albany, NY
Thomas McAuslan - Oswego, NY
Tony McKenna - West Amherst, NY
Jon Montan - Canton, NY
Henry Stewart - Rochester, NY
Max Streibel - Rochester, NY
Paul Thiebeau - Clayton, NY
Scott Tripoli - Mannsville, NY
Stephanie Weiss - Clayton, NY |
|
Top
Study Announcements
Team Arrivals
We welcome the following new Public Interest Advisory Group member:
Paul Thiebeau, Jr., was born and raised as a riparian on the St. Lawrence River. He is a Civil Engineer with a construction background. Currently retired, Paul brings to the PIAG his love for living and boating on the St. Lawrence River. Paul is also a member of the International Water Levels Coalition.
Team Departures
We sincerely wish to thank the following participants for all of the time and hard work that they provided to the Study!
Ian Gillespie, formerly Canadian Co-Lead of the Information Management Technical Work Group.
Anjuna Langevin, formely Canadian Co-Lead of the Commercial Navigation Technical Work Group.
Michel Turgeon, formerly a member of PIAG.
Featured in our Next Issue
Our spring issue will have a special feature on the Shared Vision Model.
|
Share Study News!
Do you know someone who would be interested in this newsletter? If so, please pass it on!
Contact Us
If you are interested in sharing your concerns about water levels in Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River, would like to receive more information about the Study, or would like to participate in one of our meetings, please contact the communications representative in your country.
|
United
States
Arleen Kreusch
Public Affairs Specialist
1776 Niagara Street
Buffalo, NY 14207-3199
Tel: (716) 879-4438
Fax: (716) 879-4486
arleen.k.kreusch@
lrb01.usace.army.mil |
Canada
Michelle Tracy
Public Information Officer
234 Laurier Avenue West
22nd Floor
Ottawa, ON K1P 6K6
Tel: (613) 992-5727
Fax: (613) 995-9644
tracym@ottawa.ijc.org |
Visit the Study
website at: www.losl.org |
|
