1. Decision/Evaluation Methodologies Physical modelling (hydrologic, Hydraulics, ecological suitability) Simulation models (Shared Vision Planning) Optimization – e.g. maximize net economic benefits; minimize risk-cost) Multiattribute/Multicriteria Models (MCDMs) Risk-based,Fuzzy arithmetic models Scenario Robust decisionmaking

2. Candidate Plans: –A: Balanced Economics –B: Balanced Environmental –D: Blended Benefits Natural Flow Plan –E: Natural Flow Interest Specific: –Ontario Riparian Plan –Recreational Boating Plan Reference Plans: –Plan 1998 –Plan 1958DD –Plan 1958D International Lake Ontario – St. Lawrence River Study

3. Net Economic/Ecologic Benefits of Alternative Plans Avg. annual net benefits ($US million)Plan 1958DDPlan APlan BPlan DPlan E Net Benefits0.007.526.486.52-12.30 Shoreline Damages 0.00-0.62-1.110.32-25.96 Navigation0.000.412.202.314.13 Recreation Boating0.004.23-0.582.04-4.64 Hydroelectric0.003.505.971.8214.16 Municipal Water0.00 Environmental Index1.001.061.351.104.04 Wetlands Index1.001.021.441.171.56

4. Stakhiv Plan selection rationale for IUGLS  Used Study Guidelines as basis for evaluation criteria  Developed simple MAUT model for replicable evaluation  Plan D is robust selection under wide range of weights – other plans vary in rank  Plan E is “worst” performing under most weights  Gave extra weight to equity considerations (disproportionate loss, geographic distrib, etc.)  Plan A, B, C close- selection depends on weights (I.e. preferences for particular attributes)

9. ‘Fuzzy Set’ Risk-Cost Analysis for alternative dredged material sites Multiattribute utility analysis High degrees of uncertainty and unknowns Use of weights, probabilities CAD – confined aquatic disposal UAD – unconfined aquatic disposal CDF – Confined disposal facility UFL – Upland disposal facility UPS – Upland protected source

10. Final Risk–Cost Tradeoff Site Risk (0.5) Human Risk Fish Risk Shellfish Risk Terrestrial Risk Ecol Risk (0.3) (0.7) (0.5) (0.7) (0.3) (0.7) (0.3) (0.4) (0.6) (0.7) (0.3) Cancer Noncance r Fish Burial Fish Toxicity Shellfish Burial Shellfish Toxicity Terrestrial Burial Terrestrial Toxicity Habitat Loss Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4 Cost

11. 0.20.40.60.810 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 UAD CAD CDF UFL UPS Terrestial Risk Shellfish Risk Level 2 Analysis

12. 0.110.01 10 -10 10 -8 10 -6 10 -4 10 -2 1 CAD CDF UPL UAD Biological Risk Human Health Risk UPS Level 3 Analysis

13. Goal Objective  Criteria Sustainable DevelopmentReduce Vulnerability Econ.Envir.EquitySWBSafetyReliability Mgmt. Measure $ Costs & Benefit W.Q. Habitat Diversity Income Distribution Relocate Population at Risk Frequency of Failure MM 1 … MM i … MM n Structural / infrastructure Legal / legislative Institutional / administrative Regulations (land use, zoning, standards) Education Financial incentives, subsidies (+) Taxes, tariffs, user fees (-) Research and development Market mechanisms Technology development Management  (Adaptive) Measures

14. Disposal Cost ($) Cancer Risk (probability) 10 6 10 8 10 5 10 -10 10 -8 10 -6 10 -4 10 -2 1 CAD CDF UPL UAD UPS Level 4 Analysis UAD – unconfined aquatic disposal UPL – upland disposal CAD – capped aquatic disposal UPS – upland protected CDF – confined disposal facility source 10 7 10 -6 is the *Standard*

15. ACT-ACF Study used RCHARC indices. TNC Riparian Index Shown in this schematic

16. 3 alternatives, 3 RCHARC output levels Opportunity cost tradeoff