4.	COORDINATION OF COMMON ELEMENTS BY THE STUDY BOARD

4.1	Direct and Coordinate Work of Study Teams

Given the multi-disciplinary nature of the study, it is proposed a Study Board be set-up to direct the work of the study teams. The Board's main duty is to ensure that the study remains focused and aims to address the questions raised in the IJC's Directive. The board would be composed of an equal number of members from Canada and the United States who would be appointed by the Commission to serve in their personal and professional capacities. The study teams and other groups associated with the study would also be composed of an equal number of members from Canada and the United States who would serve the Commission in their personal and professional capacities. Members of these teams and groups would be appointed by the board, with the approval of the Commission. The authority and tasks of the board would include:

1. Appoint appropriate study teams and approve work plans of the study teams.
2. Review and approve evaluation methods and data collection programs.
3. Oversee the work progress of study teams to ensure they are on schedule and to ensure that the work incorporates the ecosystem approach supported by the Commission.
4. Act as coordinator to ensure effective exchange of information among the study teams, and full use of studies or information from other sources.
5. Consult the St. Lawrence Board on Lake Ontario regulation and operating experience.
6. Conduct public meetings to gather information related to water level fluctuations.
7. Consult with experts on the subject of climate change and climate variability.
8. Propose a method of integrating the needs of all the various users including taking recreational boating and environmental needs into consideration respecting the requirements of the Boundary Waters Treaty and particularly its Article VIII.
9. Review and propose updated regulation criteria based on tasks above, while respecting the requirements of the Boundary Waters Treaty and particularly its Article VIII.
10. Recommend improvements to the Lake Ontario regulation plan.
11. Prepare progress reports and a final report to the International Joint Commission.

Participating agencies and organizations have stressed that they are unable to undertake a work program of these dimensions for the Commission without additional dedicated resources being made available. Each subject matter group contributing to this Plan of Study was therefore asked to ensure that they provided, as accurately as is possible at this early stage, an indication of the resources and time required for the work which they anticipate will be required. In addition, the magnitude and complexity of the studies and work outlined in this Plan is such as to require a full time manager in each country, the costs for which have been included in the overall Study Management figures (refer to Table 8).

4.2	Common Data Needs

4.2.1

Topographic and Bathymetric Data

Complete topographic/bathymetric data are required to properly assess the impacts of various water level scenarios on wetlands and assess the relationships between topography, water circulation, plant communities, and key organisms using key habitats. The wetlands/environmental interest group requires these data for the site locations chosen for study along the shores of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. In some cases, such as the shallow shoreline areas of the St. Lawrence River, there are no existing bathymetric charts because these areas are not used for marine navigation. Topographic and bathymetric data are also required to properly predict the impacts of various water level scenarios on the coastal zone interests. Models to accurately predict erosion and flooding along the coastal zone of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River will be developed, but accurate topographic and bathymetric data are an essential data input requirement.

Airborne laser mapping systems provide unprecedented potential for the mapping of coastal topography and bathymetry. Studies have been conducted by various agencies in the U.S., including the USGS Center for Coastal Geology, NASA, NOAA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to test laser mapping systems for measuring nearshore bathymetry, bottom environments, and coastal topography. Similar work has been carried out in Canada by the Canadian Hydrographic Service of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing. Airborne laser systems are a state-of-the-art advancement in coastal survey technology. The helicopter or fixed-wing airplane mounted systems use Light Detection And Ranging (LIDAR) technology to collect bathymetric data in the coastal zone. Using this technology, such systems can rapidly perform hydrographic and topographic surveys over large areas, far exceeding the capabilities and efficiency of traditional survey methods.

The entire shoreline (Canada and U.S.) for the study area covering Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River to Trois-Rivières totals 4350 km (2610 miles). The required resolution is ± 25 cm vertical and ±1 m horizontal resolution. An estimated $ 1 million U.S. is required to collect topographic and bathymetric data for the entire shoreline (Canada and U.S.) using an airborne laser system where appropriate. This could be split equally between Canada and the U.S. ($500 K U.S. and approximately $700 K Cdn). This data collection exercise should take place during the first year of the study. This is a separate item and is not included in any other section of this Plan of Study, but is captured in Table 8.

4.2.2

Digital Elevation Model

Topographic and bathymetric data will be used to develop Digital Elevation Models (DEM) for the shoreline of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River using a Geographic Information System (GIS). The DEM will be used in the modeling process for predicting impacts to the coastal zone and wetlands from various water level scenarios on a lakewide/riverwide basis. The DEM will also be valuable to the Recreational Boating impacts assessment. The development and funding of the DEM is included in the Coastal Zone interests section of this Plan of Study.

4.2.3

Hydrodynamic Models

Computer simulations of water levels and flows of the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River system downstream to Trois-Rivières are essential to the evaluation of Lake Ontario regulation plans, the practicality of proposed criteria, and understanding the impacts on the interests. The development and costing of these simulation models are covered in Section 7.0 of this Plan of Study.

4.3	Climate Change

Climate changes of the past have been shown to affect the Great Lakes in a dramatic fashion. Indeed the present Great Lakes were formed as a result of glacial and post-glacial events brought on by changing climate. Recent studies into the paleo record of the Great Lakes suggests that the lakes have indeed been much higher and much lower than during the past century of record (Thompson and Baedke, 1997; Sellinger and Quinn, 1999). Natural climatic variability will almost certainly result in future extreme high and low water supplies to the lakes.

Global warming associated with the enhanced greenhouse effect, will potentially cause further changes to the hydrology of the Great Lakes system, and the latest studies in this area will need to be reviewed. Most advanced computer models currently predict that projected climate change conditions in this region could cause a significant drop in water levels and flows throughout the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system. Work by the Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab (GLERL) and Environment Canada for a recent study prepared for the International Joint Commission estimates the total water supply to Lake Ontario to decline by about 25% under the transient scenario which is expected to be reached by 2050. A change of such magnitude in the water supplies to Lake Ontario would make the existing regulation plan obsolete. Depending on how the outflows from Lake Ontario were regulated with these much lower supplies, climate change could lead to a decline in the lake's mean level in the order of 0.6 m (2 feet) and a reduction in the mean level of the St. Lawrence River at Montreal of 1 m ( 3 feet).

Significant changes to the long-term water supply to Lake Ontario would have impacts on all of the interests on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. Climate change that resulted in decreased water supplies could cause lower levels, expose sediments, and result in an increase in emergent vegetation. Low levels for extended periods could also have serious impacts on fish access to wetlands and other critical habitats. Considerably lower flows in the St. Lawrence River would have major impacts on the ecosystem from Montreal downstream. Changes in supply that lead to substantially lower levels will have significant impacts on virtually every interest in the Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence River system.

4.4	Mitigating/Alternative Measures

In some cases, structural and non-structural measures taken at the local area may be superior to further regulation of the levels and outflows of the Great Lakes. In this study, the Board will identify and suggest the kinds of measures that may be feasible. It is proposed that measures, such as the following, be examined:

1. Dredging and other improvements to alleviate low water level problems at commercial docks or marinas.
2. Proper land use management at the local government level to reduce flood and erosion damage.
3. Possible improvements to St. Lawrence River ice management techniques.
4. Dredging and other measures to resolve navigation problems associated with high and low water levels/flows.
5. Measures home-owners, industries and municipalities can take to enhance the reliability of intakes and shore-wells affected by water level fluctuations.

As was recommended in the Commission's December 1993 report to the governments on the work of the Levels Reference Study Board, efforts toward prudent shoreline management practices at all levels of government will be encouraged.

4.5	Review of Regulation Criteria

4.5.1

Basis of Current Criteria

Since 1960 when Lake Ontario regulation began, there have been a number of studies which attempted to improve Lake Ontario regulation. For example, in 1980, the International St. Lawrence River Board of Control completed a study and found that the use of Regulation Plan 1958-D in conjunction with the discretionary authority remains the best way to operate the project. Several other studies followed including those during the Levels Reference Study (1986-1993), and more recently by the St. Lawrence Board which developed Plan 35P (Plan1998). All these studies were carried out assuming no changes or additions to the IJC's regulation criteria. An understanding of the development of the criteria and other requirements specified in the IJC Orders is a pre-requisite to any review and changes to the regulation criteria.

A review of the current IJC regulation criteria would include:

1. Events leading to the issuing of the regulation criteria by the IJC in 1956. This includes: prior studies and field work, factors governing project designs and channel improvements in the international section of the St. Lawrence River, public meetings held by IJC, and government consultations.
2. A review of the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty and other agreements between Canada and the United States governing levels and flows on the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River system.
3. A review of the application of the criteria in actual operations since Lake Ontario regulation began in 1960, including the use of the "Discretionary Authority" granted by the Commission.
4. Determining whether changing conditions have rendered any of the criteria obsolete, or requiring updating.

4.5.2

Evaluate and Update Criteria

The existing regulation criteria will be updated, if appropriate, to meet the needs of all the various users in the system. Emphasis will be placed on the potential to add criteria for recreational boating and environmental interests. Since the needs of the users are different and divergent, and methods to measure water level impacts are also different, guiding principles will be required to facilitate fair and equitable evaluation. These will include:

1. Suitability and consistency with the principles and objectives of the Boundary Waters Treaty (and particularly Article VIII of the Treaty), and other bilateral agreements.
2. Feasibility of the regulation criteria and regulation plan, under the defined supply scenarios.
3. Acceptability of the regulation plan by the interests along with acceptability of the costs (i.e. is it worth the cost?)
4. Rather than simply considering non-monetary evaluations, equal weight will be given to monetary and non-monetary means of evaluation, where appropriate..
5. Such other principles as may be provided by the Commission to the Study Board.

The above guidelines form the basis of a generally-accepted method of integrating the interests, and have been applied in earlier reviews. However, since the needs and preferences of the various interests are different and at times in opposition, development of a more comprehensive set of criteria and a matching regulation plan satisfying all the interests will not be a simple task. There is a need to demonstrate what levels and flows are physically possible with the current physical regulatory works and channels, through simulation of regulation for the wide range of possible hydrologic conditions. An understanding of the reality and practicability of certain level or flow conditions could help promote better dialogue amongst the interest groups and the acceptance of the needs of others and the eventual needed compromise among the groups. It will be important that all interested parties appreciate that, within the constraints of the existing works and historic supplies, it is highly unlikely that any new regulatory plan will be able to provide significant additional benefits to every interest group.

4.6	Process Management and Integration of Work

It is anticipated that one of the first actions of the Study Board outlined in 4.1 will be to establish specific work groups which will be responsible for common data collection, as outlined in section 4.2 above, using the available expertise of the two nations and allocating resources accordingly. For example, the Canadian Hydrographic Service and U.S. Army Corp of Engineers will likely be requested to jointly plan and execute a coordinated topographic and bathymetric survey and data catalogue program. This work must begin at an early stage of the overall project, so as to ensure that the necessary data is available to others as the overall work plan proceeds. As is recommended in Part 5, early public involvement will also be critical, and the "Interests Advisory Group" would be established at an early date as well.

Study Teams will also be created for each of the "interests" identified in Part 6 of this Plan, in each case comprising a binational team from the various agencies with participation, as a minimum, of the groups listed in Annex 1. Scheduling of their work will need to be coordinated through the Study Board. In some cases, such as for "wetlands and environmental interests", the view of the subject matter experts is that a data collection phase of a full four to five years is necessary, so work would need to start almost immediately upon overall project approval and funding, and would continue throughout. Other groups, such as "commercial navigation" will require some early data collection, followed by analysis of the potential impacts of changed regulation criteria or plans as these become available, while still other groups such as "hydroelectric power" already believe they have adequate baseline data, and would concentrate their effort on understanding the potential impacts of changed or new criteria once these are proposed.

It will be the task of the overall Study Board, with input from each Study Team and the Interest Advisory Group outlined in Section 5.1, to then consider the differing outputs of each study area and bring these together in a coherent manner that allows for public discussion of the impacts and benefits of various regulation plans and criteria, always having in mind the priorities already established under Article VIII of the Boundary Waters Treaty. Given the considerable cost of the overall Plan of Study activities, the Study Board will also need to ensure that duplication of effort is minimized, and data collected is made widely available across all teams.

The Study Board will also need to satisfy itself that each Study Team is carrying out the required work in a satisfactory manner, and that cross - interest impacts have also been considered. Each interest needs to define what benefits or impacts have resulted from regulation of the Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River system. And each study program outlined in Part 6 will need to evaluate how criteria which might be proposed to facilitate or benefit a specific interest group would benefit or impact on other interests.

The evaluation process will be an iterative one, beginning early on in the study process and continuing to its completion. It will involve the development and refinement of an evaluation methodology, workshops, public meetings, regulation plan development and testing. It is expected that the last two years of this study will concentrate heavily on the development of criteria and an acceptable regulation plan. The challenge will be to develop criteria and regulation plans that recognize the interests of all groups, and which create improved benefits for some without significant negative impacts on others. A decision support methodology specific to this situation will need to be developed as a part of the proposed studies which recognizes the complexity of the impact and benefit distribution challenge inherent in regulation of the Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence system. The limitations of the Treaty, and constraints of the existing Orders of the Commission will also need to be taken into account. The Study Board will explore new methods and techniques and will develop and implement appropriate decision-support algorithms, through the use of tools such as the Analytic Hierarchy Process, the Policy Delphi process, or Multi Attribute Utility Analysis (e.g. Golden et al., 1989, Saaty, 1994). The costs of the work described in this section is covered under "Interrelations Review" in Table 8.

It will be important that all interested parties appreciate that the Study is not expected to be simply one of adding one or two regulation criteria. Since the needs of the users are different and divergent, conflicts among the criteria will invariably surface. As noted earlier, the challenge of the study is to promote understanding and acceptance of what is feasible given current institutional arrangements and control facilities. The process leading to the proposed criteria will include iterations in defining possible criteria, meeting with user groups, and meetings with the Commission, which may itself undertake in turn consultations with governments, as was the case during the 1950s.

As described in Section 7.5, it is likely that a number of trial regulation plans will need to be developed and considered by the Study Board so as to allow the effects of any new or revised criteria to be described in a manner which the Interest Advisory Group, general public, and the Commission can fully appreciate. While criteria may be stated in a number of ways, including upper and lower limits of level or flow, or restrictions on the frequency of exceeding certain conditions, their impacts can only be appreciated once they are used to frame a new regulation plan, the outcome of which can then be tested using historic data so as to allow comparisons against previous experience. The costs of this work is contained within the various components of the "Hydrologic Model and Evaluations" as shown in Table 7.

Upon completion of this work, the Study Board, again with input of the subject matter experts for each interest (the Study Teams,) the Interest Advisory Group, and the general public, will then report to the Commission regarding the work carried out, its recommendations on any amendments or additions to the present criteria, and the recommended regulation plan to give effect to these criteria. The Commission, in turn, may wish to hold further public consultations prior to any decision to adopt, or otherwise, the Study Board's recommendations.

4.7	Progress Reports and Meetings

It is proposed that the Study Board will meet twice a year to evaluate progress. Each of the Committees evaluating interests will meet more frequently and provide monthly status reports to the Study Board. Progress reports will be provided to the IJC on a semi-annual basis. The Study Chairmen will also be available to brief the IJC at their semi-annual hearings in Washington and Ottawa.