FINAL REPORT - International Joint Commission

More documents

Recommendations

Info

FINAL REPORT Other efforts showed that it was possible to greatly expand hydropower benefits, but that in terms of commercial navigation benefits, it was difficult to improve on Plan 1958-DD. Keeping Lake Ontario higher increases the head at Moses-Saunders, which greatly increases energy production and the value of that energy. The difference in annual energy value between Lake Ontario at elevations 74.0 and 75.0 meters (242.78 and 246.07 feet) approaches $100 million U.S. per year at higher flows. This is one of the reasons that the candidate plans tend to keep Lake Ontario a little higher on average (doing so also creates more stored water to help people along the St. Lawrence River during droughts). Commercial navigation can be impacted by very low water levels because ships cannot carry full loads, which means that more ships are required to carry the same amount of cargo. This is rarely a problem in Lake Ontario and often a problem in Montreal Harbour, where the water depths available are a function of the flows from the St. Lawrence and Ottawa Rivers. More important are the delay costs incurred by ships that encounter shallower depths than expected or dangerously high river velocities, which can stop ship traffic in the Seaway. Natural Flow Plan: Plan E Plan E attempts to replicate pre-project or natural flow conditions as closely as possible. It was developed based on pre-project releases as outlined in the plan formulation section of the previous chapter. Plan E follows the pre-project stage-discharge relationship, but additional rules have been incorporated to limit maximum flow releases in the winter in order to form and maintain a stable ice cover on the River and prevent ice jams, a requirement of all plans. These added rules cause the conditions and the results of this plan to differ from those that would occur under a purely unregulated system. While Plan E is designed to approximate pre-project hydrologic conditions, it has not been designed to optimize the scores of the environmental performance indicators. Indeed, under this Plan, some environmental indicators are actually reduced. Nonetheless, it is believed that returning the system to its pre-project state would be most conducive to supporting the regeneration of the flora and fauna in the system, and this approach is backed by the Environmental Technical Work Group as the best possible plan for the environment. Although many Study Board members believe that the environmental objectives of Plan E should be considered a longer-term management goal for the system, they recognize that because of historical economic development, there are considerable adverse economic impacts associated with Plan E. The releases for this plan are calculated according to the pre-project Lake Ontario stage-discharge relationship developed by Caldwell and Fay (2002). The term to account for differential crustal movement has been fixed to simulate conditions as they would be in the year 2010. The historical pre-project winter ice retardation effects are included in the determination of the pre-project flow. During winter ice formation, the plan invokes rules to limit the maximum release in the winter in order to form and maintain a stable ice cover on the River and prevent ice jams. These ice limits are similar to those established for Plan 1998 and as identified in the plan formulation guidelines (Fay, 2005) and used for the candidate plans. The ice limits as specified are flexible and respond to the state of ice conditions in the River. The ice limits apply whenever an ice cover is forming or has been established in the Beauharnois Canal and/or the international section of the River. An ice status indicator is used to determine if the ice limits apply for the period. The ice limit maximum outflow is 6,230 m 3 /s (220,000 cfs) if an ice cover is forming in the Beauharnois Canal and/or the international section of the River in the period concerned. Once the ice cover has formed, the ice limit maximum outflow is the flow estimated to produce a level of 71.8 meters (235.57 ft) at Long Sault Dam. In addition, to prevent large flow changes from breaking up the ice cover and potentially causing an ice jam, a week-to-week flow fluctuation limit is imposed if there is an ice cover on the River. Plan E also has an overall maximum outflow limit of 11,500 m 3 /s (406,000 cfs) that applies at all times to protect the integrity of the control structures at Beauharnois and Coteau. On Lake Ontario, Plan E produces many more high levels than 1958-DD, with much higher peaks and similar lows. Lake Ontario levels are more variable, with as much as a 3.5 metre (11.5 ft) range possible with stochastic supplies. 34 Options for Managing Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River Water Levels and Flows
Figure 9 shows a comparison of the average Lake Ontario levels under Plan E and Plan 1958-D. Figure 10 shows a “zipper plot” displaying the range of levels on Lake Ontario that occur under Plan E with stochastic supplies. The legend below Figure 10 helps explain the graph symbols. (This legend should be referred to for all subsequent “zipper plots” in this report). Similar plots for Montreal Harbour are shown in Figures 11 and 12, respectively. FINAL REPORT Figure 9: Comparison of Lake Ontario water levels for Plan E vs. Plan 1958-DD for the past 40 years of the historical simulation Figure 10: Plan E – Levels on Lake Ontario over the 50,000-year stochastic supply sequence Legend for all “zipper plots” in this Report: Options for Managing Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River Water Levels and Flows 35
Page 1 and 2: FINAL REPORT Options for Managing L
Page 3: FINAL REPORT Options for Managing L
Page 6 and 7: FINAL REPORT current operating regi
Page 8 and 9: FINAL REPORT The current regulation
Page 10 and 11: FINAL REPORT If none of the candida
Page 12 and 13: FINAL REPORT Divergent Viewpoints T
Page 14 and 15: FINAL REPORT Transition to Implemen
Page 16 and 17: FINAL REPORT 10: Priority Performan
Page 18 and 19: FINAL REPORT a considerable amount
Page 20 and 21: FINAL REPORT The plan consists of a
Page 22 and 23: FINAL REPORT Figure 2: The Lake Ont
Page 24 and 25: FINAL REPORT 2. Criteria and regula
Page 26 and 27: FINAL REPORT water level and flow d
Page 28 and 29: FINAL REPORT Independent Review Ind
Page 30 and 31: FINAL REPORT Coastal Processes The
Page 32 and 33: FINAL REPORT The current estimate o
Page 34 and 35: FINAL REPORT Table 2: Economic Perf
Page 36 and 37: FINAL REPORT • Shore protection m
Page 38 and 39: FINAL REPORT Abbreviations STELLA -
Page 40 and 41: FINAL REPORT Approach 2: Optimizati
Page 42 and 43: FINAL REPORT Evaluation and Screeni
Page 44 and 45: FINAL REPORT • All performance in
Page 46 and 47: FINAL REPORT 5. During the Seaway n
Page 48 and 49: FINAL REPORT The programmed Plan 19
Page 52 and 53: FINAL REPORT Plan E generally produ
Page 54 and 55: FINAL REPORT An early version of Pl
Page 56 and 57: FINAL REPORT Plan Evaluations and C
Page 58 and 59: FINAL REPORT Table 3: Differences i
Page 60 and 61: Lake Ontario FINAL REPORT Figure 13
Page 62 and 63: St. Lawrence River at Lac St. Louis
Page 64 and 65: FINAL REPORT Figures 29, 30, 32 and
Page 66 and 67: Discharge (m 3 /s) Discharge (tcfs)
Page 68 and 69: Level (m IGLD 1985) Level (ft. IGLD
Page 70 and 71: FINAL REPORT Economic Results All p
Page 72 and 73: FINAL REPORT Disproportionate Loss
Page 74 and 75: FINAL REPORT Table 7: Percent Damag
Page 76 and 77: FINAL REPORT Table 8: Environmental
Page 78 and 79: FINAL REPORT Beyond the Summary Num
Page 80 and 81: FINAL REPORT Figure 36: Net economi
Page 82 and 83: FINAL REPORT On Lake Ontario, lakeb
Page 84 and 85: FINAL REPORT Coastal damages occur
Page 86 and 87: FINAL REPORT Figure 39: Wetland pla
Page 88 and 89: FINAL REPORT Sensitivity Analyses D
Page 90 and 91: FINAL REPORT Table 11: Summary of E
Page 92 and 93: FINAL REPORT Figure 43: Lake Ontari
Page 94 and 95: FINAL REPORT Climate Change Analysi
Page 96 and 97: FINAL REPORT Table 13: Summary of E
Page 98 and 99: FINAL REPORT Validation The Plan Fo
Page 100 and 101:
FINAL REPORT Municipal and Industri
Page 102 and 103:
FINAL REPORT Interest-specific shor
Page 104 and 105:
FINAL REPORT Change the Criteria an
Page 106 and 107:
FINAL REPORT Through the advocacy o
Page 108 and 109:
FINAL REPORT 5. People living along
Page 110 and 111:
FINAL REPORT The Study Board consid
Page 112 and 113:
FINAL REPORT • Ecohydrology is th
Page 114 and 115:
FINAL REPORT Institutional issues d
Page 116 and 117:
FINAL REPORT Environmental Data and
Page 118 and 119:
FINAL REPORT The point of access to
Page 120 and 121:
FINAL REPORT Possible Changes in th
Page 122 and 123:
FINAL REPORT 106 Options for Managi
Page 124 and 125:
FINAL REPORT People and Organizatio
Page 126 and 127:
FINAL REPORT Environmental Technica
Page 128 and 129:
FINAL REPORT Common Data and Inform
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
FINAL REPORT BASIN; WATERSHED - The
Page 134 and 135:
FINAL REPORT EROSION - The wearing
Page 136 and 137:
FINAL REPORT INTEGRATED ECOLOGICAL
Page 138 and 139:
FINAL REPORT PHYSIOGRAPHY - A descr
Page 140 and 141:
FINAL REPORT TECHNICAL WORK GROUP (
Page 142 and 143:
FINAL REPORT Pacific International
Page 144 and 145:
FINAL REPORT Savage, C. Lake Ontari
Page 146 and 147:
FINAL REPORT Doyon, B., et al. (200
Page 148 and 149:
FINAL REPORT Planning and Managemen
Page 150 and 151:
FINAL REPORT h. Information Managem
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164:
ANNEXES Options for Managing Lake O
Page 167 and 168:
ANNEXES Annex 3 - Plan Descriptions
Page 170 and 171:
ANNEX 1 Annex 1 Pertinent Documents
Page 172 and 173:
The Study Board shall provide optio
Page 174 and 175:
Pertinent Document 2 Plan of Study
Page 176 and 177:
trial regulation plans will need to
Page 178 and 179:
WHEREAS pursuant to the said Applic
Page 180 and 181:
(c) (d) (e) (f) (g) The works shall
Page 182 and 183:
(i) (j) (k) Under regulation, the f
Page 184 and 185:
(b) Control Facilities Adequate con
Page 186 and 187:
ANNEX 2 2 Annex2 Technical Work Gro
Page 188 and 189:
Hydrology, supplies Historical and
Page 190 and 191:
Performance Indicators As noted ear
Page 192 and 193:
Table A-2: Lower St. Lawrence River
Page 194 and 195:
Table A-3: Weighting Scheme for Eco
Page 196 and 197:
In the St. Lawrence River, high spr
Page 198 and 199:
References Armellin, A., Mingelbier
Page 200 and 201:
A. Environmental Contextual Narrati
Page 202 and 203:
types. Analyses of historical aeria
Page 204 and 205:
9. References Listed in text Baedke
Page 206 and 207:
B. Recreational Boating and Tourism
Page 208 and 209:
In addition to recreational boating
Page 210 and 211:
Summary of Key Findings Based on it
Page 212 and 213:
ANNEX 2 Figure B-3: Alexandria Bay
Page 214 and 215:
Participants Recreational Boating a
Page 216 and 217:
Communities along New York waters v
Page 218 and 219:
On the Canadian side, a telephone s
Page 220 and 221:
3. Potentially Significant Benefit
Page 222 and 223:
The average horsepower of motor boa
Page 224 and 225:
Noden, D. and Brown, T. (1975) The
Page 226 and 227:
The Lower St. Lawrence River In com
Page 228 and 229:
Table C-1: Unit Costs for the Const
Page 230 and 231:
Beach Access The beach access perfo
Page 232 and 233:
Since the value of shore protection
Page 234 and 235:
ANNEX 2 Figure C-6: Map of percent
Page 236 and 237:
ANNEX 2 Figure C-8: Map of downstre
Page 238 and 239:
References Baird, W.F. and Associat
Page 240 and 241:
C. Coastal Processes Contextual Nar
Page 242 and 243:
Given the current land use policies
Page 244 and 245:
. In the case of the shore protecti
Page 246 and 247:
e. With the ever increasing urban d
Page 248 and 249:
8. Risk Assessment/Sensitivity Anal
Page 250 and 251:
C. Coastal Processes Contextual Nar
Page 252 and 253:
This interest suffered badly during
Page 254 and 255:
5. Key Trends Construction along ri
Page 256 and 257:
Finally, from a computational stand
Page 258 and 259:
D. Commercial Navigation Technical
Page 260 and 261:
More information on the socio-econo
Page 262 and 263:
Participants Commercial Navigation
Page 264 and 265:
. Number of stakeholders The St. La
Page 266 and 267:
g. Trade flows and current market c
Page 268 and 269:
Commercial navigation costs actuall
Page 270 and 271:
5. Key Trends Provided below are hi
Page 272 and 273:
Another adaptive measure to falling
Page 274 and 275:
f. In Montreal, water levels impact
Page 276 and 277:
U.S. Dollars ANNEX 2 Figure E-1: Sh
Page 278 and 279:
Ice formation Ice cover stability i
Page 280 and 281:
Hydroelectric Power Generation Tech
Page 282 and 283:
Regionally, hydropower is seen main
Page 284 and 285:
NYISO administers the Day Ahead Mar
Page 286 and 287:
(b) The hydropower performance indi
Page 288 and 289:
Synapse Energy Economics Inc. devel
Page 290 and 291:
9. References The Hydroelectric Pow
Page 292 and 293:
F. Municipal, Industrial and Domest
Page 294 and 295:
Taste and odours performance indica
Page 296 and 297:
Determining a critical elevation fo
Page 298 and 299:
Water level in Pointe-Claire (m) Fi
Page 300 and 301:
F. Municipal, Industrial and Domest
Page 302 and 303:
7. Adaptive Behaviours The evaluati
Page 304 and 305:
(d) History of the interest The Akw
Page 306 and 307:
Under this project, the H&H TWG pro
Page 308 and 309:
increases throughout the year. Mixi
Page 310 and 311:
• build operational hydrology for
Page 312 and 313:
Fan, Y. and Fay, D. (2001) Variatio
Page 314 and 315:
I. Common Data Needs Technical Work
Page 316 and 317:
Collection of detailed bathymetric
Page 318 and 319:
• Metadata requirements Metadata
Page 320 and 321:
FTP Support The first component of
Page 322 and 323:
ANNEX 2 Figure J-3: Typical product
Page 324 and 325:
ANNEX 3 Annex 3 Plan Descriptions a
Page 326 and 327:
After discussions, the Plan Formula
Page 328 and 329:
Table A-1: Constraints Applied to E
Page 330 and 331:
Deviations The outflow calculated a
Page 332 and 333:
The following list summarizes the a
Page 334 and 335:
ANNEX 3 Figure B-3: Lake Ontario Av
Page 336 and 337:
Lake Ontario level (m) 1.9 1.8 1.7
Page 338 and 339:
ANNEX 3 Figure B-8: Cumulative Freq
Page 340 and 341:
Total winter flow (10 m 3 /s - quar
Page 342 and 343:
Plan 1958-DD - Appendix Detailed de
Page 344 and 345:
SELECT CASE adjusted supply indicat
Page 346 and 347:
If the Lake Ontario level is greate
Page 348 and 349:
The inflow category (e.g., wet, dry
Page 350 and 351:
Step 5 - Ice limit: Exactly the sam
Page 352 and 353:
ANNEX 3 Figure B-18: Plan A + rule
Page 354 and 355:
Other rules Plan B + has two additi
Page 356 and 357:
Plan D + : Blended Benefits Objecti
Page 358 and 359:
ANNEX 3 Figure B-19A: Lake Ontario
Page 360 and 361:
ANNEX 3 Figure B-20: Lake Ontario s
Page 362 and 363:
ANNEX 3 Figure B-21F: Long Sault Da
Page 364 and 365:
Figure B-23 shows the three benefit
Page 366 and 367:
Score Figure B-25: Score based on t
Page 368 and 369:
Flow Constraints In addition to the
Page 370 and 371:
This procedure is repeated until th
Page 372 and 373:
Reference and Interest Specific Reg
Page 374 and 375:
Plan 1958-D Regulation of Lake Onta
Page 376 and 377:
4. The “I” limits, or ice limit
Page 378 and 379:
Figure B-31 compares the scoring re
Page 380 and 381:
Experimental variations In simpler
Page 382 and 383:
C. Summary Tables of Plan Results T
Page 384 and 385:
Historical Time Series (1900-2000)
Page 386 and 387:
Environmental Results (Historical)
Page 388 and 389:
Stochastic Supply Sequences Economi
Page 390 and 391:
Table C-8: Economic results for can
Page 392 and 393:
Table C-10: Economic results for ca
Page 394 and 395:
Table C-12: Environmental results f
Page 396 and 397:
Table C-14: Environmental results f
Page 398 and 399:
Page 400 and 401:
Page 402 and 403:
ANNEX 4 Introduction Annex 4 Mitiga
Page 404 and 405:
The great majority of potential act
Page 406 and 407:
Great Lakes Advance Emergency Manag
Page 408 and 409:
“(b) General Plan. (1) The Secret
Page 410 and 411:
Adaptive Management Action Plan (AM
Page 412 and 413:
difference in evaluations. If, for
Page 414 and 415:
Coastal Monitoring Purpose: Monitor
Page 416 and 417:
Adaptive Management Program Summary
Page 418 and 419:
GLOSSARY OF TERMS ABIOTIC - Non-liv
Page 420 and 421:
COASTAL EROSION - The wearing away
Page 422 and 423:
EROSION - The wearing away of land
Page 424 and 425:
HYDROLOGIC MODELING - The use of ph
Page 426 and 427:
MEASURE, STRUCTURAL - Any measure t
Page 428 and 429:
PUBLIC INFORMATION - Activities whe
Page 430 and 431:
SUBSTRATE COMPOSITION - Categorical
show all

FINAL REPORT - International Joint Commission

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?