Roger Gauthier, Great Lakes Commission Connie Hamilton, Environment Canada, Ontario Region

1. Coastal Mapping, Integrated Modeling and Information Management in the Lake Ontario – St. Lawrence River Study Roger Gauthier, Great Lakes Commission Connie Hamilton, Environment Canada, Ontario Region Pete Zuzek, Baird and Associates

2. Hydropower Dams & Compensating Works Moses-Saunders Powerhouse

3. Étenduegéographique

4. Nature’s Regulation Plan Niagara Falls Pre-project The St. Lawrence River’s International Rapids Section

5. Lake Ontario Outflow Regulation • Seaway was constructed during the 1950’s • Completed in 1958 • Allow a channel between the Atlantic and the Great Lakes • Facilitate hydropower • Structures built to compensate for channel enlargement and some measure of level control

6. Regulation Process • International Joint Commission (IJC) • Established by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 • International St. Lawrence River Board of Control • Established by the IJC in 1952 to administer the Plan • Regulation strategy • 1950’s criteria • interests’ needs • discretionary deviations

7. Water Supplies: Thirty-year Moving Average 1890-2000 (km3/yr) Post-project A thirty-year “look back”is the way many people perceive “how things used to be” (i.e., today vs. the past 30 years) This value was not reached again for 98 years

8. Why revise Plan 1958-D? • It is clearly outdated with respect to: • No consideration for environmental issues • No consideration for evolving uses of the system, i.e. recreational boating • Inclusion of modern technology and knowledge base (computerized modeling, satellite imagery, climate change, etc.) • Incorporation of years of experience working with the system (a living plan)

9. Study Organization IJC U.S. & Canadian Co-Leads and Study Board - 14 members U.S. & Canadian Study Managers & Public Affairs Officers • Technical Working Groups (TWGs) • Environmental • Recreational Boating &Tourism • Coastal Processes • Commercial Navigation • Domestic, Industrial & Municipal Water Uses • Hydroelectric Power • Hydrology & Hydraulics • Information Management • Plan Formulation and Evaluation • Public Interest Advisory Group • 22 Members (U.S.+Canadian) • appointed by IJC • Co-Leads on Study Board Direct Consultative

10. Where is the Study Now? 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TWG Study Phase/Data Collection Plan Formulation Test Phase Plan Formulation Draft Phase Plan Formulation Final Phase LOSL Study Board Recommendations IJC Evaluations

11. Major Challenges • Geographic and cultural priorities • Moving toward a shared vision • Complexity of the system • Opposite effects - same time, different locations • Time horizon • Changing sensitivities • Evolving water uses and priorities

12. Hydrology and HydraulicsTechnical Working Group

13. Common Data Needs Technical Working Group

14. Information ManagementTechnical Working Group Regionally-distributed system selected to support: * long-term sustainability of data* Sustainability of relationships after the Study* model for IJC and other organizations/studies”

15. L e g e n d f o r R a n k i n g SHOALS reconnaissance Presquille Bay Marsh July, 2001 B a t h y m e t r y - 1 s t P r i o r i t y ( > 7 0 ) B a t h y m e t r y - 2 n d P r i o r i t y ( 4 0 - 7 0 ) T o p o g r a p h y - 1 s t P r i o r i t y ( > 8 0 ) T o p o g r a p h y - 2 n d P r i o r i t y ( 5 0 - 8 0 ) I m a g e r y - 1 s t P r i o r i t y ( > 4 0 ) SHOALS July, 2001 I m a g e r y - 2 n d P r i o r i t y ( 2 0 - 4 0 ) SHOALS July, 2001 SHOALS July, 2001 SHOALS July, 2001 SHOALS July, 2001 Approved Areas for SHOALS Flights R 2 R 1 C N D 1 2 C N D 1 1 C N D 8 C N D 1 0 U S 8 C N D 7 C N D 9 C N D 6 U S 7 C N D 5 L a k e O n t a r i o U S 6 C N D 4 U S 5 U S 4 C N D 2 U S 1 U S 3 C N D 3 U S 2 C N D 1

16. Common Data Needs Technical Working Group

17. Common Data Needs Technical Working Group • Digital Elevation Model Development • U.S. (Lake Ontario - Reaches 2, 4 and 7) • Bathymetric and topographic LIDAR data merging completed • High resolution DEMs for 16 U.S. wetland study sites generated • Canada - Lake Ontario • Bathymetric LIDAR and topographic detail from FDRP maps were merged • DEMs for 16 Canadian wetland sites were completed • Canada - Lower St. Lawrence • DEMs from topographic LIDAR and conventional hydrographic surveys completed and posted on FTP site

20. Environment Technical Working Group Protected Species Habitat Enhancements Exotic Species Wetlands

21. Wetlands Study Sites   Mont  Oshawa  Toronto U N I T E D Hamilton  St.Catharines  Rochester  Syracuse  Buffalo 

22. Common Data Needs Technical Working Group • Bathymetric Mapping - Wetlands • Data collection for 32 wetland sites on Lake Ontario and upper St. Lawrence were highly problematic • It was determined that bathymetric LIDAR using the USACE-SHOALS system was too risky to justify further efforts and associated expenses. • The majority of the 32 wetland study sites were surveyed using conventional hydrographic means in July 2002; quite problematic due to vast expanses of emergent vegetation and lower water levels

23. Coastal Technical Working Group

24. Common Data Needs Technical Working Group • Imagery • U.S. (Reaches 2, 4 and 7) • High-resolution photography collected in May 2002; • 1-foot pixel resolution digital orthophotos produced • Canada (Montreal Region and Niagara Region) • Satellite imagery (IKONOS) acquired in August for habitat mapping • 2002 Ortho-imagery for Niagara Region from OMNR also used.

25. High ResolutionDigital Orthoimagery

27. Common Data Needs Technical Working Group • Feature Collection - U.S. All structure features (buildings, roads, transportation types, bluff characteristics and others) were mapped for detailed erosion study sites

28. Geomorphic Coastal Modeling Tools

29. RelationalDatabase

32. WAVAD Wave Predictions

33. Ice Data

35. COSMOS Erosion Predictions

36. Shore ProtectionPerformance Indicator

37. Flooding Performance Indicator

38. Flood Modeling – 77.2 m RUN

39. Flooding Function

40. Reaching a Decision Data collection All stakeholder interests Technical Working Groups Shared Vision Model Plan Formulation and Evaluation Group Public input Town hall meetings Public Interest Advisory Group Study Board develops options Public hearings IJC decision process

46. PC Based Shared Vision Model (maybe a sample on the Web-site) Model is Run for Numerous Plans Results are summarized In numerous ways Within the SVM portion of the web-site a user can drill down to get more information about the results of the PIs, where the PIs were applied and how they were calculated (the PI function) The Performance Indicators provide the link to the Information Management Data Discovery

47. Lake Ontario – St. Lawrence River Data Issues • Access Agreements are started but not completed • Interoperability needs continued attention (format, database design); • Metadata compliancy not well accomplished limiting discovery/ interoperability • Paradigm works - (own what you must, access what you need) • Long term data maintenance, access, dissemination and archiving requirements are still being defined

48. Contact Information • Roger Gauthier Great Lakes Commission gauthier@glc.org • Connie Hamilton Environment Canada, Ontario Region Connie.Hamilton@ec.gc.ca • Pete Zuzek Baird and Associates pzuzek@baird.com