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. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 2 Hydropower Dams & Compensating Works Moses-Saunders Powerhouse

3. Étendue géographique

4. Glacial Geology

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

6. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 6 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

7. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 7 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

8. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 8 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

9. Water Supplies: Thirty-year Moving Average 1890-2000 Water Supplies: Thirty-year Moving Average 1890-2000 (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)

10. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 10 Why revise Plan 1958-D? It is clearly outdated with respect to: –No consideration for environmental issues –No consideration for evolving uses of the system, i.e. recreational boating –Inclusion of modern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)

11. 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

12. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 12 Where is the Study Now? 20012002200320042005 TWG Study Phase/Data Collection Plan Formulation Test Phase Plan Formulation Draft Phase Plan Formulation Final Phase LOSL Study Board Recommendations 2006 IJC Evaluations

13. 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

14. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 14 Hydrology and Hydraulics Technical Working Group

15. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 15 Common Data Needs Technical Working Group

16. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 16 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”

17. 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

18. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 18 Common Data Needs Technical Working Group

19. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 19 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

22. ProtectedSpecies HabitatEnhancements Exotic Species Wetlands Wetlands Environment Technical Working Group

23. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 23 Wetlands Study Sites Mont U N I T E D Syracuse Rochester Buffalo St. Catharines Hamilton Toronto        Oshawa  

24. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 24 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

25. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 25 Coastal Technical Working Group

26. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 26 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

27. High Resolution Digital Orthoimagery

29. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 29 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

30. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 30 Selected Performance Indicators by TWG Coastal – Erosion/flooding economic impacts Environmental - Wetland breeding bird populations and assemblage diversity, including rare species and endangered species.

31. Geomorphic Coastal Modeling Tools

32. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 32 Relational Database

33. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 33

35. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 35 WAVAD Wave Predictions

36. Ice Data

38. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 38 COSMOS Erosion Predictions

39. Shore Protection Performance Indicator

40. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 40 Sample Output for Monroe County

41. Flooding Performance Indicator

42. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 42 Flood Modeling – 77.2 m RUN

43. Flooding Function

44. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 44 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

45. LOSLS Decision “Trilogy”

46. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 46

47. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 47

48. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 48

49. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 49

50. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 50

51. 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)

52. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 52 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

53. Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 53 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