FINAL REPORT - International Joint Commission

ANNEX 4
Mitigation Action Plan
Summary
• Since the IJC has no authority to implement mitigation, it can only suggest certain adjustments in
existing management and mitigation measures related to flood risk reduction, for implementation by
other federal, provincial, state and local authorities, where appropriate.
• The Commission’s principal role in promoting mitigation will be its authority to convene and convince
the respective responsible entities to undertake the suggested mitigation actions as a desirable
complement to the selected Plan.
• Most of the potential mitigation requirements address slightly increased flooding and shoreline
erosion, primarily on the U.S. side. Shoreline erosion, however, is inexorable, and long-term
maintenance of existing shoreline protection structures is unsustainable under any of the Plans.
• The potential mitigation measures must be compatible with and build on prevailing coastal zone
management practices.
• The following two principal mitigation measures are proposed for further consideration as part of the
IJC Mitigation Action Plan:
1. Consolidation and revision of the current shoreline protection permit procedures of New York State
(Department of Environmental Conservation and Coastal Management Dept) and the Corps of
Engineers as part of a new General Permit for existing shore protection structures. This will
accommodate new design criteria necessitated by changes in Lake Ontario’s average and 100-year
range levels, inherent in the selected Plan.
2. Extension of the Corps’ Advance Measures flood protection program, to be specifically adapted
to the unique conditions of the Great Lakes, for extreme flood conditions greater than the
100-year range.
Background
Mitigation actions are rarely taken as single measures—most are packages of complementary measures,
relying on an extensive web of supporting regulations and mechanisms that already exist to address such
problems. Rarely is a mitigation action implemented that is new or unique to the issue at hand. Hence,
most mitigation actions are extensions, improvements or refinements of existing practices—that are not
quite well coordinated or well adapted to the existing situations. The rationale and the logic behind
mitigation are based on three generally accepted conditions:
• There must be significant loss or disproportionate harm, when evaluated against a baseline or existing
condition.
• Damage (or losses) must be caused by an action by an identifiable entity.
• Mitigation action must be commensurate with loss, and compatible with and complementary to
prevailing practices.
234 Options for Managing Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River Water Levels and Flows