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

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, Hydropower Dams & Compensating Works Moses-Saunders Powerhouse

Étendue géographique

Glacial Geology

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

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 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

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 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

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, The Current Regulation Plan Plan 1958-D –Was guided by the political, social and economic climate of the 1950’s –Based upon 1950’s technology –Was designed prior to any practical experience with regulating the Lake and River over time –Has been in effect since 1963

Water Supplies: Thirty-year Moving Average Water Supplies: Thirty-year Moving Average (km 3 /yr) Post-project This value was not reached again for 98 years A thirty-year “look back”is the way many people perceive “how things used to be” (i.e., today vs. the past 30 years)

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, Why revise Plan 1958-D? It is clearly outdated with respect to: –No consideration for environmental issues –No consideration for evolving uses of the system, i.e. recreational boating –Inclusion of modern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)

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 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 DirectConsultative

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, Where is the Study Now? TWG Study Phase/Data Collection Plan Formulation Test Phase Plan Formulation Draft Phase Plan Formulation Final Phase LOSL Study Board Recommendations 2006 IJC Evaluations

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 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

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, Hydrology and Hydraulics Technical Working Group

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, Common Data Needs Technical Working Group

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, Information Management Technical 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”

US1 US2 US3 US4 US5 US6 US7 US8 CND1 CND2 CND3 CND4 CND5 CND6 CND7 CND8 CND9 CND10 CND11 Lake Ontario R1 R2 CND12 SHOALS July, 2001 SHOALS reconnaissance Presquille Bay Marsh July, 2001 Approved Areas for SHOALS Flights

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, Common Data Needs Technical Working Group

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 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 Common Data Needs Technical Working Group

ProtectedSpecies HabitatEnhancements Exotic Species Wetlands Wetlands Environment Technical Working Group

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, Wetlands Study Sites Mont U N I T E D Syracuse Rochester Buffalo St. Catharines Hamilton Toronto        Oshawa  

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 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 Common Data Needs Technical Working Group

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, Coastal Technical Working Group

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 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. Common Data Needs Technical Working Group

High Resolution Digital Orthoimagery

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, Feature Collection - U.S. All structure features (buildings, roads, transportation types, bluff characteristics and others) were mapped for detailed erosion study sites Common Data Needs Technical Working Group

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, Selected Performance Indicators by TWG Coastal – Erosion/flooding economic impacts Environmental - Wetland breeding bird populations and assemblage diversity, including rare species and endangered species.

Geomorphic Coastal Modeling Tools

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, Relational Database

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5,

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, WAVAD Wave Predictions

Ice Data

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, COSMOS Erosion Predictions

Shore Protection Performance Indicator

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, Sample Output for Monroe County

Flooding Performance Indicator

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, Flood Modeling – 77.2 m RUN

Flooding Function

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, Reaching a Decision Shared Vision Model Plan Formulation and Evaluation Group Data collection All stakeholder interests Technical Working Groups Public input Town hall meetings Public Interest Advisory Group Study Board develops options IJC decision process Public hearings

LOSLS Decision “Trilogy”

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5,

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5,

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5,

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5,

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5,

PC Based Shared Vision Model (maybe a sample on the Web-site) Model is Run for Numerous PlansResults are summarized In numerous ways The Performance Indicators provide the link to the Information Management Data Discovery 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)

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 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

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, Contact Information Roger Gauthier Great Lakes Commission Connie Hamilton Environment Canada, Ontario Region Pete Zuzek Baird and Associates