FINAL REPORT - International Joint Commission

FINAL REPORT
Mitigation and Other Measures
Transition
Transition to Implementation
Managing water levels and flows in the Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River system in a way that
maximizes the economic, environmental and ecological benefits to each individual user or interest group
over all time periods and places is not possible. The three new candidate plans attempt to balance the
resulting benefits among the different public and private interest and user groups over space and time in
different ways. The result is that some interest and user groups may not be able to obtain the benefits
they could obtain if a plan were designed purely to maximize their particular objectives. Furthermore,
some plans may result in fewer benefits than those obtained by certain user or interest groups under the
existing Orders of Approval and their implementation in the existing Plan 1958-DD.
For example, if Plan A + is chosen, the least bittern may be at risk, and downstream St. Lawrence River
shore owners may experience increased damages from flooding. If Plan B + is chosen, muskrats in the
lower river may be at risk and shoreline erosion on the shores of Lake Ontario and the lower St. Lawrence
River may be increased.
If, under a new plan, any interest and/or user group suffers significant* losses in excess of those
associated with the existing plan, the concept of mitigation provides that they could be compensated for,
or measures could be taken to reduce those losses. The Study Board is not of one opinion as to the
necessity for mitigation associated with any particular plan, but clearly mitigation measures can increase
public support for any selected plan. The Study Board recommends that the IJC engage in discussions
with appropriate agencies or organizations to explore the possibility of implementing mitigation measures
if desired to offset any significant losses.
The IJC Study Directive requested that the Study Board provide information for any mitigation measures
and actions that might be appropriate to implementation of a proposed plan. As part of its Study Guidelines,
the Study Board addressed this complex issue in the form of principles and guidelines that were used to
both direct the formulation of options, as well as their evaluation and acceptability to the Study Board.
Guideline 4 stipulates that “[m]itigation alternatives may be identified to limit damages when considered
appropriate.” The Study Board expanded on this guideline by adding the following:
The Study Board will consider a range of plans that include:
a. Plans that maximize net benefits, but require mitigation to eliminate disproportionate loss (not to be
implemented until the mitigation implementation measures are in place);
b. Plans that minimize losses and require little or no mitigation.
* Significant losses would be judged relative to the uncertainty and variability of the performance indicator. For environmental
performance indicators, the Study Board determined that these losses would have to exceed 10%.
Options for Managing Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River Water Levels and Flows
93