Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River analysis of and recommendations concerning high water levels

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

W. p
MARCH 1975

Lake Ontario
and the St. Lawrence River:

ANALYSIS OF AND RECOMENDATIONS
@CONCERNING HIGH WATER LEVELS

Cie-

w",

COASTAL ZOi\,rE-

INFORMATION CENTER

AT,
C

GE; STATE OF NEW YORK
459.5
.06
P35 ST. LAWRENCE- EASTERN ONTARIO COMMISSION
1975 317 Washington Street, Watertown, New York 13601

q U
0 0 orainage e r
01towar River

LAKE
OTTAWA
HORON c

Q 0
Cornwall-

Massena

Ogdensburg

Brockville
@R

KINGSTON
@p
Belleville
(0@)Swaga

OSHAWA

TORONTO
Watertown

LAKE ONTARIO

HAMILTON

Oswego

ST. C@THARINES
ROCHESTER

;@FFALO.
IPSYRACUSE
Lake
Droinoge El Drai
Drain
M Cities
Cities

0
LAKE
ON
H@JJR

ST. LAWRENCE-EASTERN ONTARIO COMMISSION

317 WASHINGTON ST. WATERTOWN, N.Y. 13601
PHONE (315) 782-0100
EXTENSION 2634

JOSEPH A. ROMOLA, Chairman WILLIAM E. TYSON, Executive Secretary

COASTAL ZONE
To the Governor and the Legislature: FORMATION CENTER

I am pleased to submit the report of the St. Lawrence-
Eastern Ontario Commission analyzing the problem of controlling
the water levels of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.
This report has been prepared in compliance with Chapter 701
of the Laws of 1974.

Our investigation indicates that the problems--associated
with changing lake levels and storm surges--have been occasioned
by a series of institutional constraints and governmental inertia
which has failed to keep pace with changing riparian land uses,
a growing public awareness of the value of the natural environ-
ment, and recent hydrological events within the Great Lakes Basin.

Major findings indicate:

--that criteria established by the International Joint
Commission in their Orders of Approval dated October 29,
1952, as amended, should be re-examined in light of the
passage of time and changes in Great Lakes Basin preci-
pitation rates experienced in the past twenty-one years.

--that lack of implementation of flood plain management
techniques has allowed development in areas considered
hazardous with or without lake level regulation.

--that riparian developments and productive natural re-
sources on the New York portion of the Lake Ontario Shore-
line do not lend themselves to protection by structural
measures alone.

In summary, to maximize beneficial use of the lands bordering
and the waters of Lake Ontario, a combination of improved lake
level regulation, expanded flood plain management programs, and
construction of selected structural measures must be developed.

Within the limits of time and staff res ources, this is the
Commission's perception of the problem and of the directions in
which solutions must be sought.

-2-

This report seeks objectivity, yet recognizes that just as
judgment and biases are credited to various interest groups,
our findings, too, may be biased, based on our belief that an,
additional effort will provide greater benefits for the people
of the State of New York.

The Commission recommends that the New York State
Legislature transmit these findings to the Congress of the
United States, requesting renewed efforts to maximize the
benefits yet to be realized from our Fourth Sea Coast.

Res ectfully submitted,

ph
C airman

JAR:ab
esecc r

ph A
irm
6@@Chaan

lot

ST. LAWRENCE-EASTERN ONTARIO COMMISSION

LAKE ONTARIO AND THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER-,,/
'N
ANALYSIS OF AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNI
HIGH WATER LEVELS

MARCH 1975 U S. DEPARTMEN OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL. SERVICES, CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOE@SOON AVENUE
CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413

Joseph A. Romola William E. Tyson
Chairman Executive Director

Report's Principal Author:
Daniel J. Palm, Ph.D

rsts

317 Washington Street
co
Watertown, New York 13601

PXOPOXtY Of CCC Librar
Q0 y

Acknowledgments

The Commission and author would like to express their
graditude to those agencies and individuals who provided
information requested in the development of the draft of
this report. In addition, those who expended considerable
effort in reviewing the technical aspects of the draft
report and in doing so provided comments that aided in the
improvement and clarification of the text, as evidenced by
the final report, deserve recognition for the professional
manner in which they dealt with the issues raised in the
report.

ANALYSIS OF AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONTROL OF THE WATER
LEVEL OF LAKE ONTARIO AND THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER

Page

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

A. The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

B. The Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

C. St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission -
Role and Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . 2

D. Study Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

E. Findings and Recommendations . . . . . . . . 3

1. Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2. Physical Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3. Data/Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

II. The Great Lakes System . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

A., Description . . . . I. . . . . . . . . . . . 13

B. Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1. Lake Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2. Seasonal Lake Level Variations . . . . . 21

3. Factors Affecting Great Lakes Levels. - 21

a. Natural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

b. Artificial or Man-made . . . . . . . 22

iii

Pag e

4. Background of Current High Water Levels 26

5. Hydrologic Data Collection Systems . . . 33

C. Great Lakes Levels Forecasting . . . . . . . 33

1. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

2. Appraisal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

III. Uses of Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River
Water and Adjacent Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

A. Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

1. Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

2. Power Production . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

B Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

1. Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

2. Hazardous Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

3. Environmental Values . . . . . . . . . . 65

IV. Impact of Water Levels During the Current
Period of High Water (January 1913 through
August 1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
A. Interest Groups Affected . ... . . . . . . . 66
1. Power Production . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

2. Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

3. Riparian Property Owners . . . . . . . . 82

a. Above Moses-Saunders Dam . . . . . . 83

b. Below Moses-Saunders Dam . . . . . . 88

C. Natural Environment . . . . . . . . 89

B. Evaluation of Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

V. Damage Reduction Techniques . . . . . . . . . . 96

A. Types of Damage Reduction Techniques . . . . 96

Page

1. Regulation of the Water Level .. . . . . . 96

2. Shore Protection Measures . . . . . . . . 97

3. Flood Plain Management . . . . . . . . . 100

a. Land Use Planning . . . . . . . . . . 100

b. Zoning Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . 100

C. Subdivision Regulation . . . . . . . 101

d. Public Utility Policy . . . . . . . . 101

e. Building and Health Codes . . . . . . 101

f. Official Map Technique . . . . . . . 101

g. Land Purchase . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

h. Development Rights Purchase . . . . . 102

i. Easement Purchase . . . . . . . . . . 102

j. Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

k. Flood Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . 102

B. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

1. Man-Made Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . 103

2. Natural Environment . . . . . . . . . . . 103

VI. Damage Reduction Measures Implemented in Great
Lakes Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

A. Water Level Regulation . . . . .. . . . . . . 105

1. Plans of Control Within the Great Lakes. 105

a. Lake Superior Regulation . . . . . . 105

b. Lake Ontario Regulation . . . . . . . 106

2. Organization for Regulation . . . . . . . 106

3. Existing Regulatory Works . . . . . . . . 109

Page

4. Evaluation of the Implementation of
the Plan of Control During the Current
Period of High Water . . . . . . . . . . 112

a. Conformity with Control Plan 1958-D 113

1. Water Levels in Montreal Harbor 113

2. Winter Operation . . . . . . . . 113

3. Flow for Power . . . . . . . . . 114

4. Navigation Channel . . . . . . . 114

5. Lake Levels . . . . . . . . . . 115

6. Special Conditions . . . . . . . 116

b. Effectiveness of Plan 1958-D in
Minimizing Adverse Impacts . . . . . 116

B. Structural Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

2. Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

C. Flood Plain Management . . . . . . . . . . . 131

1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 131

2. Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Selected References . . . . . I. . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Appendix A - Related Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Appendix B - List of References - Shore Protection
Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Appendix C - Flood Insurance Program Summary . . . . . 154

Appendix D - Office Consolidation of Order of
Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Appendix E - Description of Plan of Control 1958-D. 170

Page

Appendix F - Treaty Between the United States and
Great Britain Relating to Boundary
Waters, And Questions Arising Between
the United States and Canada . . . . . . 188

Appendix G - Organizations and Members . . . . . . . 195

ADDENDUM 1 - Discussion of Reviewers' Comments . . . A-1

vii

List of Tables

Table Page

1. Level of Government Holding Primary Respon-
sibility for Carrying Out Recommendations . . . 12

2. Great Lakes Physical and Hydrological Data 14-15

3, Lake Ontario - Physical and Lake Level Data. 16

4. Effects of Ice Retardation on Winter Flow . . . 24

5. Inflow to Lake Ontario from Lake Erie . . . . . 28

6. Monthly and Average Rainfall - Lake Ontario
Drainage Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

7. Monthly and Average Rainfall - Great Lakes
Drainage Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

8. Outflows from Lake Ontario Measured at
Ogdensburg, New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31-32

9. Hydrologic Publications - Great Lakes Data 34

10. Difference Between Recorded and Predicted
Lake Ontario Levels 1972-1974 . . . . . . . . . 43

11. Ten-Year Selected Traffic Summary - Montreal
to Lake Ontario . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 48

12. 1973 Final Selected Tonnage Totals . . . . . . 49

13. Eisenhower-Snell Locks - Lockages and
Transits 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . so

14. Electric Power Production - Moses Power Dam. 53

15. Electric Power Production - Saunders Power Dam 54

16. Shoreland Uses - Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence
River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

17. Hazardous Zones - Lake Ontario and St.
Lawrence River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

18. Hazardous Zones - Cornwall to Montreal . . . . 65

19. Summary of Lake Ontario Water Data and Impacts 67-71

viii

List of Tables (cont.)

Table Page

20. Relationship Between Time, Production and
Lake Ontario Levels - Moses Power Dam . . . . 72

21. Table of Normal and Restricted Speeds . . . . 76-77

22. Periods of Speed Restrictions - St. Lawrence
Seaway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

23. Number of Ships by Class Transitting St.
Lawrence Seaway During Restricted Periods
and Operating Costs Per Hour . . . . . . . . 79

24. Operating Costs - Normal and Restricted
Speeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

25. Ships Incidents Attributable to Current
Velocity or Water Conditions . . . . . . . . 81

26. Numbers and Amounts of Loans Resulting From
March 1973 Storms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

27. Applicants for Federal Financial Assistance
for Public Property Damage . . . . . . . . . 86-87

28. Magnitude and Incidence of Impacts of High
Water Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

29. Beach Erosion Control Surveys on Lake
Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

30. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Deferred Beach
Erosion Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

31. Operation Foresight Projects - U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127-128

32. Projects Not Feasible Under Operation Fore-
sight Criteria - Jefferson County, New York 129

33. Damage Reduction Management Techniques
Implemented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132-134

34. Federal Flood Insurance Program
Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135-136

35. Utilization of Damage Reduction Management
Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

List of Figures

Figure Page

1. Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River Drainage
Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2. Profile of the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence
River Drainage System . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3. Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River Drainage
Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4. Differential Crustal Movements Within the
Great Lakes Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

5. Mean Monthly Water Levels - Lake Ontario - - 25

6. Factors Affecting the Level of Lake Ontario. 26

7. Great Lakes Basin Water Level Gauge -
Locations and Records . . . . . . . . . . . . 35-36

8. Location of Climatological Stations -
Canadian Portion of Great Lakes Basin . . . . 38-39

9. Recorded and Probable Lake Ontario Water
Levels . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
10. Ten-Year Selected Traffic Summary - Montreal
to Lake Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

11. Relationship Between Release Rates and
Navigational Channel Depths. @51

12. Effects of Various Lake Ontario Outflows
on the Level of Lake St. Lawrence . ... . . . 51

13. Shoreland Uses, Hazardous Areas and
Environmental Values: Niagara, Orleans
and Monroe Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

14.' Shoreland Uses, Hazardous Areas and
Environmental Values: Wayne, Cayuga and
Oswego Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

15. Shoreland Uses, Hazardous Areas and
Environmental Values: Jefferson County . . . 60

16. Shoreland Uses, Hazardous Areas and
Environmental Values: St. Lawrence and
Franklin Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

List of Figures (cont.)

Figure Page

17. Hazardous Zones and Shoreland Uses - Canadian
Section of Lake Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

18. Hazardous Zones and Shoreland Uses - Canadian
Section of the St. Lawrence River . . . . . . . 63

19. Designated Zones of the Montreal - Lake
Ontario Section of the St. Lawrence Seaway 75

20. Erosive Forces at Work on Lake Ontario's Shore 83

21. The Impact is Varied . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

22. Destruction of the Natural Environment
Lake Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

23. Accelerated Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

24. North Sandy Pond: Barrier Beach Configuration
Sequence, 1938-1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

25. North Sandy Pond: Barrier Beach Configuration,
June 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

26. Schematic of Shore Protective Devices. 99

27. Decision Makers in Regulation of Lake
Ontario Outflows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

28. Existing Regulatory Works - Lake Ontario and
the St. Lawrence River . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

29. Lake Ontario - Comparison of Regulated and
Preproject Levels, 1968-1974 . . . . . . . . . 119

30. Man's Efforts in Action . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The Great Lakes Basin system is one of the largest
fresh water lake systems in the world. It is a complex
hydrologic system located in the heavily populated and
industrialized portions of both Canada and the United
States. Accordingly, man has encroached upon the flood
hazard zone in order to increase the benefits he can
derive from usage of them.

Under normal conditions this encroachment resulted
in relatively minor problems. However, under conditions
of above average precipitation as has been experienced
over the past couple of years, it has led to substantial
damage. The limits of man's ability to control the lake
levels, to provide the required structural protection and
to restrain his own activities, to the extent required,
in the hazardous zones in an effort to limit the extent
of these damages have been evidenced. This evidence is in
the form of unprecedented damage to both property and
natural resources along and on the flood plain areas of
the lakes and rivers of the system.

A. The Problem

Man's efforts to date have not prevented large amounts
of damage from being inflicted on the users of the waters
of and the lands surrounding Lake Ontario and the St.
Lawrence River. Acceptable, effective methods to reduce
these damages are required.

Regulation of Lake Ontario's water level is undertaken
in consideration of demands placed by navigational interest,
power producers and riparian land owners within the criteria
set forth in the Orders of Approval and implemented
through the Plan of Control 1958-D. Serious questions
have been raised relative to the equity of the current
method of implementing the control plan, the representation
on the board setting control policy and the -technical
soundness of the control plan itself.

Flodd plain management implementation is primarily
the responsibility of local levels of government while
relief in times of disaster has primarily been undertaken
by the federal government. Has this division of responsibility

reduced the incentive for developing and implementing
limitations to man's activities in the flood hazard
zone?

Examination of current flood damage reduction
methods will provide answers to these and other questions
regarding the effectiveness during periods of high water
of efforts implemented by man. From this, recommendations
relating to the various flood damage reduction techniques
and to the interest groups can be developed.

B. The Objectives

The objectives of this study were:

1. to develop an understanding of the Great Lakes
System.

2. to determine who has been bearing the costs
incurred by and the benefits derived,from the high water in
the period January, 1973 through August, 1974.

3. to evaluate methods of flood damage reduction
to determine if total damages were minimized during the
period January, 1973 through August, 1974.

4. to make recommendations relating to flood
damage reduction methods and the impacted interest groups.

C. St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission-Role
and Responsibility

The St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission was created
within the Executive Department of New York State effective
July 1, 1974. Prior to this the Commission had been
operating under the auspices of the Office of Planning
Services.

The Commission's interest in the problem associated
with high water levels has been extensive. Numerous public
statements relating to this problem have been released
which discussed the situation, the problems that might arise
and the actions that could be taken to alleviate the problems.
Prior to the storm of March 18 and 19, 1973, which ledto
a declaration of a disaster by the federal government, the
Commission hosted two public forums in an attempt to provide
information to the residents and property owners within the
area serviced by the Commission.

Due to the Commission's attempts to address the problem
of high water levels,the New York State Legislature, in 1973,
directed the Commission in addition to its primary mandate

to "study the problem of controlling the water level
of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River and to make
recommendations to federal, state, municipal and private
agencies."

The primary mandate of the Commission is to "insure
optimum conservation, protection, preservation, develop-
ment and use of the unique, scenic, esthetic, historic,
ecological, recreation, economic and natural resources
of the St. Lawrence Eastern Ontario Area."

A further purpose of the legislation forming the
Commission is "to focus the responsibility for developing
a long-range area policy in an area wide forum reflecting
statewide concern as well. This policy shall recognize
the major area wide and state interest in the conservation,
use and development of the area's resources, and.at the
same time, provide a continuing role for local government."

D. Study Approach

The approach taken in achieving the objectives set
forth will be to develop an understanding of the Great
Lakes drainage system as it influences Lake Ontario and
the St. Lawrence River. In addition, analysis of current
uses of the lands and waters of the basin will be under-
taken. From this an evaluation of the impact of the
water levels during the period of January 1973 through
August 1974 will be made.

A general review of damage reduction techniques will
be undertaken. This will include a discussion of which
technique(s) is applicable under varying conditions.
With an understanding of their applicability, currently
utilized damage reduction techniques will be examined
to determine the degree to which they are being implemented
within the study area.

Throughout each step of the study important findings
will be extracted. Each finding will be supplemented
with a series of recommendations indicating'not only
what ought to be done but also indicating which level of
government has the responsibility for carrying through
with implementation.

E. Finding and Recommendations

The analyses described in the followino- c hapters
yielded a series of findings that relate to existing
water resource management in the Lake Ontario and St.
Lawrence River basins. These findings were classified

as relating to either institutions, physical works or
data/research needs.

From each finding a set of recommendations was
developed. Some of the recommendations entail signifi-
cant changes in the established heirarchy of institutional
entities responsible for water resource management in
the basin. Others merely call for additional data and/or
study. However, in total they call for a re-evaluation
of current philosophies and institutional arrangements
for water resource management. This is required due, in
part, to the limited flexibility allowed existing entities.
These limits to flexibility are primarily institutionally
imposed restraints.

Following are the major recommendations and findings.
They are not listed in any order of priority since none
taken singularly can solve the problems. But taken
together as a comprehensive program, improvements in the
water resource management of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence
River System would result.

Table 1 reflects the recommendations set forth with
the level(s) of government - international, federal, state,
regional and local - that hold the primary responsibility
for implementing the recommendation. This responsibility
falls primarily on the international, federal and state
levels of government as is expected due to the size and
location of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River and the
many governmental entities encompassed within their drainage
basins.

1. Institutions

Finding 1: Flood plain management has not been effectively
implemented by minor-civil divisions in the past. This is
evidenced by the damages incurred by recent storms (over
25 million dollars alone reported on the United States
portion of Lake Ontario during the storm of March 18-19, 1973).
(IV-A-3a+cl VI-C)"

Recommendations:

1-1. Implementation of the federal flood insurance
program be accelerated in order that all persons in the
flood hazard zone are eligible for insurance.

lThese numbers refer to the Sections and Subsections of this
report which provide the background from which the finding
was developed.

This acceleration could be accomplished primarily
by increasing the rate at which technical data relative
to flood hazards are made available to local communities;
by providing technical assistance, through a state or
regional agency, in the development of ordinances re-
quired by the Flood Insurance Program; and through strict
enforcement of the provisions of the 1974 Disaster Relief-
Act and the 1973 Flood Disaster Protection Act.

1-2. Efforts should be made to ensure that the
flood damage reduction techniques - zoning, building
regulations, flood proofing, etc. - are implemented
and enforced as required by the federal flood insurance
regulations and the New York State flood plain management
bill.

Finding 2: Current institutional arrangements do
not provide for full representation of the many interests
in th-e Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River basin. (VI-A-2)

Recommendation:

2-1. Representation of riparian owners should be
added to The International St. Lawrence River Board of
Control. This representation could be in the form of
individuals with expertise in water resources management
from Canada and the United States provided by their
respective governments to represent riparian owners and
their interests.

In addition broader representation should be provided
in the planning process through which plans of regulation
are developed. This could be accomplished through repre-
sentation of environmental groups, states, riparian
interest and others on committees of planning or investi-
gative boards.

Finding 3: Flooding occurs in the Lake St. Louis -
Montreal section of the St. Lawrence River when the
combined flow of the St. Lawrence River and the Ottawa
River exceeds approximately 500,000 cfs. The current
burden of preventing this flooding is control of the
approximately 300,000 cfs flow of the St. Lawrence River.
(IV-A-3b)

Recommendations:

3-1. Joint efforts between the United States and
Canada should be undertaken to determine more satisfactory
ways to manage the combined flow of the St. Lawrence and
Ottawa Rivers to afford protection to the Montreal area.

This may require additional Canadian development of
the Ottawa River. Such action however should be part
of an overall management program'for the Lake Ontario
St. Lawrence River basin. This is critical because
flood conditions along the Ottawa River typically coincide
with seasonal high water levels on Lake Ontario, and the
restriction of flows from Lake Ontario, to prevent damages
in the Montreal area, increases the probability of damages
occurring on Lake Ontario.

3-2. New York State should strongly urge the federal
government to promote and develop an amended international
institution that is capable of dealing effectively with the
problem of lake level regulation. At the least this will
require a revamping of the International Joint Commission's
boundary water management functions, at the most it may
require development of a new institution and the dissolution
of existing ones.

The revamping suggested should include, as outlined
in recommendation 2-1, methods of providing broader repre-
sentation in the planning process. This is preferred to
development of a totally new institution. However, if the
problems of lake level regulation cannot be effectively
accomplished through this arrangement then the stronger
measure of development of new institutional arrangement
should be considered.

Finding 4: Of the $22 million loaned by the Small
Business Administration as a result of the March 18-19,
1973 storm approximately 90 percent or $20 million was
"forgiven" and not subject to repayment. (IV-3-a)

Recommendations:

4-1. Current government policies relative to disaster
loans must be re-evaluated due to the magnitude of losses
being incurred and to the potential for additional losses.
People who build in hazardous areas in order to enjoy certain
amenities - the beach, a view of the lake, etc. - should be
willing to assume the risk, i.e. no subsidized flood insur-
ance, involved with such locations. Forgiveness loans
reduce this risk, as do tax breaks for damages, and in effect
says "build here in the hazard area zone and enjoy the
amenities, others will bear the risk or a portion of it for
you.?? 4-2. Emphasis on this program should be further reduced
as the federal flood insurance program is implemented to its
fullest extent. Therefore, the provisions of the 1974
Federal Relief Act and the 1973 Flood Disaster Prevention Act

should be rigorously enforced. In addition the policy
of relief in the form of tax breaks should be*re-examined
and be applied judiciously.

. Finding 5: An adequate institutional framework has
not been developed for data gathering and analysis.
(II-C, IV-A-B)

Recommendation:

5-1. The International Joint Commission should
promote a program of data collection and analyses. Funding
to permit this should be provided.

Finding_6: Full use of the latitude allowed in the
operation of Plan 1958-D has not been adequate in the
prevention of substantial damage to the natural environment
and man made facilities on the shoreland of Lake Ontario
and the St. Lawrence River. (V-B)

Recommendation:

6-1. Plan 1958-D and the criteria underlying it be
continuously re-evaluated in terms of providing additional
fl,exibility to the Plan's operation in order that damages
sustained may be reduced.

Finding 7: The current regulation philosophy of the
International Joint Commission is to change lake level
regulation plans only if: 1) no economic loss to any
major interest (shore property, navigation, power) on any
lake or its outflow river occurs and 2) the existing Lake
Superior and Lake Ontario regulation criteria are satisfied.
(VI-A)

Recommendations:

7-1. This philosophy should be re-examined. An
alternative may be that lake level regulation should be
analyzed with the objective of maximizing net benefits of
the plan of regulation. For equity purposes this would
require a compensation machanism whereby those who receive
benefits from the change in regulation compensate those
who suffer damages due to the change.

7-2. Analysis should be undertaken to determine the
net impact that criteria differing from the existing would
have on lake level regulation.

Finding 8: Public funds are restricted in their use
for pr@oviding structural protection to private property.
(VI-B)

Recommendation:

8-1. Restrictions on expenditure of public funds
should remain. Additional study should be undertaken
to evaluate the social costs and benefits of alternatives
to structural protection. These alternatives should
include, but not be limited to, purchase of hazardous
areas and/or development easements on such areas by
governmental agencies, relocation of existing development
and flood insurance. From this analysis recommendations
should be made relative to New York State's and the
federal government's policy of expenditure of public
funds for the protection of private property versus
alternative flood plain management measures.

Finding 9: Criterion W of the Plan of Control
requires that all possible relief be given to both upstream
and downstream riparian owners during periods of high water.
Due to the conflicting goals of these two groups this is
not possible. (VI-A-4)

Recommendation:

9-1. The criteria underlying Plan of Control 1958-D
be re-examined with particular emphasis on Criterion k to
determine if the Plan, as designed, can be given greater
capability to effectively manage high water levels.

2. Physical Works

Finding 1: Developed areas are dependent upon structural
protective devices to reduce damages caused by high water
levels. However many areas throughout the New York State
portion of Lake Oniario do not lend themselves to such pro-
tection as was evidenced by the economic evaluation of
Operation Foresight projects. (VI-B)

Recommendation:

1-1. Efforts should be continued to provide protection
through the construction of structural devices in those areas
currently developed if they qualify for such protection under
existing criteria. Use of this technique in the future should
be de-emphasized as greater emphasis is placed on flood plain
management techniques.

Finding 2: Riparian protection utilizing structural
devices influences the quality of the environment, and may
result in unanticipated negative impacts on the natural
resource base of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.
Individual efforts to protect small sections of shoreline

from damages caused by high water levels are generally
not effective, and may cause additional damages to
contiguous property. (V-A-2 + B, VI-B)

Recommendation:

2-1. Analysis of construction of shoreland pro-
tective structures must be undertaken to determine if
these structures singularly or cumulatively affect the
natural environment by stabilizing material that other-
wise would aid replenishment of beaches; by draining
marshes, disrupting wildlife habitats and breaking the
food chain of valued species; and blocking river mouths
with sediments from shoreline currents altered by shore-
line protection structures.

2-2. Efforts should be made to ensure a coordinated
approach to construction of shore protection devices in
order to minimize the damages incurred on contingent
properties and to ensure that maximum benefits are derived
from such construction expenditures.

2-3. The Department of Environmental Conservation
and the U. S. ArmyCorps of Engineers shoul d assess their
project review procedures to determine if damages to con-
tiguous property and possible cumulative effect of many
small projects in an area are given adequate consideration
in project review.

3. Data/Research

Finding 1: Protection of the natural environment
(sand dunes, beaches, bluffs, etc.) of Lake Ontario and
the St. Lawrence River is dependent upon regulation of the
level of Lake Ontario. (V-A-1 + B-2)

Recommendation:

1-1. Additional efforts must be undertaken to derive
a plan of regulation that will provide adequate protection
for the natural environment of Lake Ontario and the St.
Lawrence River. Such an effort should include, but not be
limited to, the following:

a. Continued re-evaluation of Plan 1958-D in light
of the high supplies of water experienced in the 1970's
and low supplies of the mid 19601s.

b. Continued examination of the criteria upon which
Plan 1958-D is based to determine if they should be re-
formulated in light of man's activities or natural events

during the time s ince they were developed.

C. Development of a plan of regulation that incor-
porates lake level forecasts as an intregal part of the
regulatory procedure.

Finding 2: Current procedures for regulation of-Lake
_17
Ontario do not require forecasts of lake levels based on
meterologic and hydrologic data. (II-C)

Recommendation:

2-1. Regulation procedures be revised to incorporate
lake level forecasts as an input to the lake level regulation
decision model. These forecasts should be derived utilizing
available hydrologic and meteorologic data.

Finding 3: With present techniques of meteorologic
and hence hydrologic forecasting the ability to accurately
predict long range water supplies to the lakes is limited.
However, improved procedures for the collection of hydrologic
and meteorologic data which define water supplies to the
Great Lakes would contribute significantly to improved
regulation decisions. (II-B + C)

Recommendation:

3-1. Efforts should be made to improve the collection,
transmittal and analysis of meteorologic and hydrologic
data in order to improve the forecast of long range water
supplies to the lake.

3-2. The conversion of the United States portion of
the lake level gauge system to a semi-automatic system
should be accelerated and, if required for improved fore-
casting, expanded to include additional gauges. Efforts
should be made through the International Joint Commission
to persuade our Canadian partners similarly to expand their
gauge system as required for improved forecasting.

Finding 4: Evaluation of benefits and costs of tradeoffs
among varied groups impacted by changes in water levels of
Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River is not possible due
to the lack of adequate data and due to limitations of
existing institutional arrangements. (IV-B, VI-A-4)

Recommendations:

4-1. Stage-damage relationships for Lake Ontario and
the St. Lawrence River should be developed and kept current.

4-2. Studies should be undertaken to determine
the economic consequences of both changes in navigation
channel depth and length of navigation season. This
should include not only costs to shipping but' also the
economic affects to those sectors of the economy depen-
dent on shipping.

4-3. Additional studies should be undertaken to
determine the impact on fish and wildlife, recreation,
environmental factors and wetlands due to water level
changes.

4-4. Studies should be undertaken to determine the
economic consequences of flow changes for power gener-
ation. This would include a determination of costs of
providing comparable power by alternative fuels.

Finding 5: The U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers was
restricted by its budget in publishing data gathered in
their recently completed National Shoreline Inventory
Study. (III-B)

Recommendation:

5-1. Adequate funding should be made available to
allow publication of this data.

Table 1. Level of Government Holding Primary Responsibility
for Carrying Out Recommendations

Recommendationsa

Institutions

Level of
Government

1-1 1-2 2-1 3-1 3-2 4-1 4-2 5-1 6-1 7-1 7-2 8-1 9-1

Federal x x x x x x x x x

State x x x x

Regional x x x

Local x x

Interna-
tional x x x x x x x

Physical Works Data/Research

1-1 2-1 2-2 2-3 1-1 2-1 3-1 3-2 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 5-1

Federal x x x x x x x x x x x x x

State x x x x x x

Regional x

Local x

Interna-
tional x x x x x

aThe recommendation numbers refer to those listed in I, Findings and
Recommendations, of this report.

CHAPTER II

Great Lakes System

A. Description

The Great Lakes System consists of five connected
drainage basins. The outflow from each lake is discharged
into the next lake downstream with the outflow of Lake
Ontario, the last lake in the chain, discharged into the
St. Lawrence River. In general the drainage of the basin
is from west toward the east. The maximum dimensions of
the Great Lakes Basin are approximately 740 miles, measured
from north to south, and 940 miles, measured from east to
west (see Figure 1).

The area of specific concern in this report is the
drainage basins of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.
Following is a brief description of this portion of the
Great Lakes System.

Lake Ontario's surface is about 245 feet higher than
Father Point, Quebec, which marks the point of the river's
transition into the Gulf of St. Lawrence and is considered
to be essentially at sea level. From Lake Ontario down-
stream 68 miles through the Thousand Islands section to 4
miles east of Ogdensburg, New York, the drop in the St.
Lawrence River is about 1 foot (see Figures 2 and 3). In
the next 47 miles through the International Rapids section
the drop is about 92 feet. The International Rapids section
extends to the International Border at the entrance of Lake
Saint Francis from the South Cornwall Channel. Beyond this
point the St. Lawrence River flows entirely within the
border of Canada. In the next 72 miles to Montreal Harbour
the River falls another 132 feet. In the 340 miles from
Montreal Harbour to Father Point the fall is about 20 feet.

Lake Ontario is the smallest of the five Great Lakes
(see Table 2). It is approximately 7,600 square miles in
surface area and drains a watershed of approximately 27,200
square miles. Lake Ontario surface water is about 245 feet
above sea level. It is approximately 804 feet deep at its
deepest point. This places the Lake bottom at this point
561 feet below sea level which is lower than the bottom of
any other lake except Lake Superior. The Lake has a long
east-west axis which is approximately 200 miles. North to
south the Lake is approximately 53 miles. Table 3 provides
data on Lake Ontario.

Table 2. Great Lakes Physical and Hydrological Data

Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake
Description Superior Michigan Huron St. Clair Erie Ontario

Outlet river St. Ma-ry' s Str. of St. Clair Detroit Niagara St. Lawrence
or channel River Mackinac River River River River

Length in Miles 70 27 32 37 502
Recorded Outflows a b b b
Maximum 127,000 245000 C 265,000 350,000
minimum 40,900 995000 116,000 154,000
Average 75,400 1885200 2025600 2405300

Monthly Elevation of Lake
in feetd IGLD (1955) e e f
Aver. (1860-1971) 600.39 578.69 578.69 573.06 570.39 244.77
Maximum 602.06 581.94 581.94 575.70 572.76 248.06
Minimim 598.23 575.35 575.35 569.86 567.49 241.45
Aver. winter
lcw to summer
high 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.6 1.5 1.9
Max. winter low
to summer high 1.9 2.2 2.2 3.3 2.7 3.5
Min. winter low
to summer high 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.5 0.7

Annual Precipitation
in inches (1900-1971)
Aver. on basin
(land 9 water) 30 31 31 c 34 34
Aver. on lake
surface 30 30 31 c 34 33

Table 2. Great Lakes Physical and Hydrological Data (oc)ntinued)

Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake
Description Superior Michigan Huron St. Clair Erie Ontario

Approx. Aver.9
Annual Evaporation
from Lake Surface (in.) 22 26 26 c 36 25

Aver. Annual Evaporation
as a Percentage of
Average Annual Preci-
pitation on Lake Surface 69 79 79 C 100 74

aData. from Regulation of Great Lakes,Water Levels, Report to the International Joint Commission by the
International Great Lakes Level Board, December 7, 1973, page 12.
bMaximums established in 1973.
c ta not available.
die elevations are as recorded at Marquette (L. Superior), Harbor Beach (L. Michigan-Huron), Grosse Pointe
Shores (L. St. Clair), Cleveland (L. Erie) and Oswego (L. Ontario). Recorded elevations are affected by
man-made changes such as: regulation of outflows from Lake Superior (1921) and Lake Ontario (1960);
diversions of water from Hudson Bay basin into Lake Superior (1939) and from Lake Michigan basin into
Mississippi basin at Chicago .(before 1860); and regiment changes in the natural outlet channels from the
lakes throughout the period of record.
eThe Straits of Mackinac between Lakes Michigan and Huron are so wide and deep that the difference in the
monthly mean levels of these two lakes is not measurable.
fLake St. Clair elevations are available only for the period 1898 to date.
gBased on data for the period October 1950 - September 1960.
Sources: Great Lakes Shoreline Damage: Causes and Protective Measures, May, 1972, U.S. Corps of Engineers,
North Central Division, General Information Pamphlet.
Regulation of Great Lakes Water Levels, Report to the International Joint Commission by the International
Great Lakes Levels Board, December, 1973.

Table 3. Lake Ontario--Physical and Lake Level Data

Low water datum (LWD) 74.0 m 242.8 ft

Length: 311 km 193 mi

Breadth: 85 km 53 mi

Shoreline length: 1,168 km 726 mi
Total surface area: 19,000 km2 7,340 mi 2
Surface area in U.S. 8,960 km2 3,460 mi2
Volume at LWD: 1,637 km3 393 mi3

Average depth below LWD: 86 m 283 ft

Maximum depth below LWD: 245 m 802 ft

Average surface elevation (IGLD): 74.65 m 244.77 ft

Maximum surface elevation (IGLD): 75.66 m 248.06 ft

Minimum surface elevation (IGLD): 73.64 m 241.45 ft

Source: Great Lakes Basin Framework Study, Great Lakes Basin
Commission (draft report).

The Lake Ontario Basin is a lowland bordered on the
north by an escarpment of the Canadian Shield, on the east
by the Adirondack Mountains, on the south by the Appalachian
Plateau and on the west by the Niagran Eacarpment. The
lake bottom slopes generally southwardly from the north
shore, across more than two thirds of the lake. Then the
bottom formation rises abruptly to the south shore.

B. Hydrology

Changes in the level of each lake depend upon the
difference between their inflow and their outflow. Although
inflows change constantly in the shortrun and through
seasonal cycles due to changes in supplies resulting from
precipitation, the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence system has
a remarkably-steady outflow in comparison with the range
of flows observed in other large drainage basins of the
world. This is due to the vast water surface area of the
Great Lakes and their inherent ability to account for
enormous changes in the quantity of water in storage with
little effect on surface elevations. Table 2 reflects the

920 880 840 Boo 760

ONTARIO
OUEBEC

DER
@BAY,
480
MINNESOTA
SUPERI

DULUTW'.1

MARIE..
4 W,4
87@. MARYS. RIVER

MONTRE"

Moses- Sounders Power Dam

MASSENA

WISCONSIN
_KINGSt'M
440-

0
0
C.
%@M IH G A_@ TOR
ONTA

NIAGARA
MILWAUKEE: 4j
we i
NEW YOR
_j
T@C%@AIR
LAKE
D&R

N.
CHICAGO
PENNSYLVANIA
ELAND

. . . . . . . . . . . .

ILLINOIS
0 100 20
S_
400- INDIANA Scale in Miles
OHIO
L

920 880 840 800 760
Figure 1. Great Lakes St. Lawrence River Drainage Basin

01q
r_ z r-
'7@
(D
rn

74 r- r- (n
;K
b, 0 _n M
M r- M
Pi 0 rri rn
P. M
CL r-
All DO c)
Oq I Q
(D rti M M M
0 70
<
CIO Elevation 600.4' 78.7' 70.4'1
I-< 1 5 573. 1' 5 M
(n r+
rt @y 0 :c
(D (D
ro 24 .8

M 0

OD -HURON

(D
cl) 3
Q CL
C cl) 2.
1

CA _0 0
0
(D
CD

0
CD 0
3
379 miles 60 223 89 236 _1351 150 77 281 52 1331 35
(D J,
T -14
LAKES RIVER

< NOTE:
(D ELEVATIONS OF THE LAKE SURFACES ARE AVERAGES EXPRESSED ON
INTERNATIONAL GREAT LAKES DATUM (1955) AND ARE GIVEN TO THE
NEAREST TENTH (1/10) FOOT. HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALES
HAVE BEEN DISTORTED TO CONVEY VISUAL IMPRESSION.

norm a1 and the extreme range in monthly me an wat er le vels for
the lakes. The recorded range for Lake Ontario exceeds that
for any of the other Lakes.

Maximum flows of the outlet rivers of the Great Lakes is
only about 2 to 3 times their minimum over the period of
record. For the St. Lawrence Ri ver the extremes in flow are
351,000 cubic feet per second (cf 's) and 154,000 cfs. The
maximum outflow was established in 1973. Prior to construc-
tion of the St. Lawrence Seaway control structures the maxi-
mum recorded outflow was 318,000 cfs.

1. Lake Levels

Reliabl'e U.S. records of the water levels of all the
Great Lakes date from 1860. The Lake Survey Center, National
Ocean Survey, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Adffii,'n.-'
istration (prior to-197,0, the U.S_ Corps of Engineers District
Lake Survey) maintains 50 permanent water@level gaug Ies-on:,@l-":
the Great Lakes and along their outflow rivers. Canadian
agencies also maintain 33 water level gauges on their portion
of the Great Lakes system.

Data from:both the Canadi 'an and U.S. .gauges .1 ar@`in many
instances required for an adequate consideration of Great
Lakes problems and the two countries exchange data@freely.*

The water level records indicate that.the entire
surface of anyone of the Great Lakesis seldom '@.if"ever,
complet,ely at rest. From beginning to the end of any period
such,as-a month there may be an appreciable change in the
ave,r'age level of the whole surface of a lake that corresponds
to a change in the volume of the water in the lake during the
interval.

During.any'particular short period of time such as a
few.hours th',6 level at one point in the lake may be consid-
erably' above-,or.below the level at another point some
distance away., This differential-would be' causdd'by'an."ex-
ternal 'force', such as wind, acting :upon the lake -surface.
There-are usually wind-generated waves,of 'some magnitude at
any@point on the "lakes. Water temperature differentials do
not'disturb thelake surfaces to a measurable extent. 'The
lak'e,--levels recorded 'at a particular gauge station reflect
thelcbmbined effe .ct of the various level variations at that
statio'n-,excepting the level fluctuation due.to wind-generated
wave si.which have
periods@ of only a'fraction of a minute.

The,Great'Lakes are considered essentially non-tidal
bedduselbf the fluctuation of their levels'due to the gravi-
tational effect of the moon and the sun are relatively quite
small.

q
b

e r
MO@TREA
01towo
Rive

LAKE OTTAWA
HURON

0
Q
Cornwd

:446sseno

d
b
-,s urg
k 'I

A.
..K I UP. SION.

7, """04VO
;j
0 0-#
OSHAWA

LAKE ONTARIO

HAMILTON

Oswego
0

ST. CATHARINES
@R66ksfEk-
CD

BUFFALO.
SYRACUSE
St. Low
Lake Ontario
4b
0 El Drainage Basin (abc
01nage
Drainage Divide
P, Cities of more than 5

Cities of less than 50

0 50

Scale in Miles

Figure 3. Lake Ontario St. Lawrence River Drainage Basin

The lake levels mo -st frequently referred to are in
terms of the International Great Lakes Datum (IGLD) which
gives elevation@ in-feet above the meanmater level-at
Father Point, Quebec. This point is considered'mean''sea
level or.z,ero feet above sea level.

2. Seasonal Lake''Level Variations

An annual.pattern.of seasonal fluctuations in monthly
mean lake levels between 'a hi.gh-in.the summer and a low in
the winter occurs. .on e,ach'of the Great Lakes.. -every year
almost without exception. The difference between h-ighs and
lows as well as the months in which they might occur may
differ considerably from year to year.. The average and
maximum seasonal-,dif.ferences for Lake Ontario'ex6eed those
of any of the other, Lakes.

The seasonal pattern of natural.hydrologic factors is
a major cause of these fluctuations.' In the spring, runoff
increases because of snow* "melt and low losses@ of moisture
from the land,surface by evapotranspiration. Evaporation
from lake.surface is also slight during the@spring. As a
result, the lake begins to rise.. In the summer, runoff,is
less because snow melt does not occur and evapot'ranspiration
losses-are large.. Evaporation from.,lake surfaces also
begins to increase, and as a result lake levels,begin to..
decline.

in the fall evapotranspirati.on is Iessand runoff is
low, but evaporation fromthe lake s,urface is at a maximum.
The onset of freezing temperature-keep -s 'runoff low.. The_',
lake gener'all Iy reaches its lowest annual elevation level-
during the winter.

3. Factors Affecting Great Lakes Levels

The- factors that a'ffect.seaso'nal and yearly fluctua-,
tions of the Great Lakes levels can be separated into two
categories natural and artificial. Changes.in.the leve.1
result from an imbalance between the quantities of, water
received by the lake and the quantities of water removed
from it.

a. Natural The natural ' factors .causing seasonaland
yearly fl@T@ctuations of.the Great Lakes include precipitation,
runoff, evaporation, icere.t.ardation",aquatic growth and'
crustal disturbances.

The supplies of water to the lakes are changing
continually due to the natural variations in the hydrologic
factors. Water supplies to the Great Lakes system consist
principally of precipitation falling on th.e lake ' and.runoff
from the land areas of -the basin. For each o-f*.the.lower

lakes in the system outflow from the lake above augments the
supply to the lake's own basin. Evaporation reduces the
total supply reaching any of the lakes (Table 2).

Another factor which affects the level of the Great
Lakes is what geologists term crustal movement. For
thousands of years there has been a more or less continuous
differential uplifting of the earth's crust in the Great
Lakes Basin (see Figure 4). Geologists have determined that
an uplift of several hundred feet has occur-red in some
places on the Great Lakes shores since the glacial age.
From the lake level records available it appears that the
land along the northern and eastern shores of the Great
Lakes is rising with respect to the land along the southern
and western shore, and also that the crustal movement is
such that the land along most of the shores of each of the
lakes is subsiding relative to the land at the lake's out-
lets. This factor becomes especially significant when
discussing the St. Lawrence River outflow of Lake Ontario
since a rise in the east end will restrict outflow causing
inundation of a larger land area with the passage of time.
This factor is taken into account in the planning process
for the regulation of Lake Ontario.

One other natural factor which affects the lake levels
is the retardation of the outflow of outlet rivers by weeds
and other aquatic growth. Currently little seems to be
known about the effect of the aquatic growth retardation
upon the Great Lakes Basin as a whole. However, it is
thought that in some cases the effect of weed growth is
appreciable. Supportive data relative to this contention
is limited.

The flows in the outlet rivers of the lakes during the
winter seasons are often retarded materially by ice forma-
tion and by ice jamming. These conditions are not predict-
able for any specific winter, either as to their severity
or the exact timing of their occurrence. Average reductions
in the outflow rates, for the period January through March,
are indicated in Table 4.

b. Artificial or Man Made - The various artificial
factors which mogify supplies, outflows, and lake levels
have existed for many years. These artificial factors are:
the diversions of waters to and from the lakes, and changes
and outflows through the natural outlet by channel changes
and by regulatory works.

Significant artificial factors affecting lake levels
are:

1. Long Lake and Ogoki diversions into the Lake
Superior Basin;

920 880 840 800 760

LAKE

tF
ONTARIO

QUE

U,
00
460-
MINNESOTA,
0
SUPERI
1.75
0A?
P, Y,
0

SAUL eSTE: MARI O;P-
MARYS@P
IV 7A WA
C, en:

Moses-Sounders Po

00
WISCONSIN
N bN
0
440- 0

C%
0
10
M1 IGAN _JORONTO...
ONTAIR

@NIA ARA.."
IERL
MILWAUKEIE.
_e n I
FA
CLAIR.
LAKIE. ST.,
X -DETR
00_@.
T R I VE,
0 TROI
CHICAGO@. LA
PENNSYLVANIA
_:@CLE.VELAND

ILLINOIS
0 100

400- INDIANA Scale in M
OHIO

920 880 840 800

Figure 4. Differential Crustal Movements Within the Great Lakes Basin, Estimated Rates of Upward
'Century (Source: Regulation of Great Lakes Water Levels, Tnternational Great Lakes Leve

Table 4. Effects of Ice Retardation on Winter Flows (Jan. through
Mar., Incl.) in the Great Lakes Connecting Channels and
St. Lawrence River

Average Annual Estimated Average
FlCW (cfs) Ice Retardation Percent
@,Outlet River (1860-1967) (cfs) Retardation

St. Marys 74,500 3,000* 4*

St. Clair 187,000 19,000 10

Detroit 190,000 45000 2

Niagara 202,000 45000 2

St. Lawrenoe 239,000 75000* 3*

*Prior to regulation.

Source: Regulation of Great Lakes Water Le vel, Report to the
International Joint Conunission by the International Great
Lakes Levels Board, December, 1973.

2. Regulatory works on the St. Mary's River;
3. Diversions out of Lake Michigan Basin via the
Sanitary Canal at Chicago;
4. Channel changes in the St. Claire/Detroit River
system;
S. Diversion or Lake Erie via the Welland Canal;
6. Channel changes in the St. Lawrence River; and
7. Regulatory works on the St. Lawrence River.

A detailed discussion of the current artificial factors
affecting water levels in the Great Lakes Basin as a whole
is not pertinent to this report and therefore only a list-
ing of these factors is provided. For additional information
on the total diversion program for the Great Lakes Basin
consult Appendix 11, Levels and Flows, of the Great Lakes
Basin Framework Study.

The combined effect of all the factors-both artificial
and natural-that influence Lake Ontario water levels is
shown in Figure 5 which reflects the water levels of Lake
Ontario for the past three years. The ten year average
monthly mean level and the period of record average monthly
mean level is depicted also.

> M

Oq M
I< r_ < N) (A
(1) C_ t. ;C c- c- b- (n Z IZD c- In i' . IN c-
r+ > c- b. Q --n 3b, r_7 c- t. c- I-, CD C, CO 10 C,
(D C Ob 6 CD M
C (b Cr 1< z 'Q a Cr
to
0 to '0 to
z
o N Cn

(D
Cn 249" -
_< (D
Pi (D CA
(D th
(A C.A (A N Cn
K) N N --- N
(D
to, zo to (A
248' CA
-4
0 0
@J
rt OD N
N 2! -, - OD
(D 247' OD 01 GD F0 CD I
Ch CD OD OD 00
Cb* - D OD
0 OD OD M
O,qP rl N
7 CD N. \1 114 rv
rt 1.<

246'
J.- I N 7Z
@j (D 245'
(D
H (D @@\ .- I - '/.@
Cf)

244
(D I

>1V 243'
(D zo-
(D
242.8 ZD
0 (D Oj (A I (A (0 (A
(A (9 01 (A (A (A
4 ('0 Cil (n CC1'.O Z'
r+ (A W CA (A io- (A
242' (D (D
_b Cm -J(A
7
(A (0 to
P. (A (D CA
(A (A US U
rf 0 zo (A CA (A (A 0) (A M
(A CA W (A U
24 1'

0
(D 11 um..
10 0 Record Monthly Maxim
Recorded Monthly Mean Ten Year Monthly Mean
....... A\ierage Monthly Mean 242.j7-- Low Water Datum ip- Record Monthly Minimum
0

vaporation Precipi

oc;e -
7,

L A KE` ON RIO

NIAGARA'
Weiland RIVER
Canal Sur Ce
S
a
t e Grou water
Runof f
LAKE ERIE

Figure 6'.. Factors- Affecting the Level of Lake -Ontario.

4..:Background of Current High Water.Levels
As discussed in the preceeding section, the 'water
levels:of.the Great Lakes are influenced by seasonal varia-
tions When .the natural factors affecting @helake levels..'
-deviate.from the norm for a period of time, the.Lakes'may
experience what..appears to be a cyclical change in levels.
It can be evidenced by either a period of,high'orlow' water.

In,the period 1,9.64-1.966.low water levels were exper-
ienced.. Over.the past three years high water levels have
occurred. What were the these high levels.?

In alsimple analysis oflLake Ontariols,level, an
examination of the i,nflow,to,Lake 0 .ntario from Lake Erie,
the amount of precipitation* as an indicator of the amount
of inflow due to runoff, and the outflow from Lake Ontario
measured by the discharge at the control'structures at-
Massena, New York, will be made.. An understanding of these
figures.will partially,explain why Lake Ontario reached
record or near record levels.during the 1972-1974 period.
Figure 6 shows in schematic form the various factors
influencing lake levels.
E

Table'S reflects the amount of inflow received by Lake
Ontario from Lake Erie. In 1972 the inflow from Lake Erie
was 14 percent above the recorded average (1900-Aug. 1974)
and it was 23 percent above average during 1973. During the
first eight months of 1974, inflow was 24 percent above the
average. At present, Lake Erie as well as Lake Huron and
Michigan outflow is uncontrolled. Thus, man has no in"
fluence over this factor and its effect on the level of
Lake Ontario.

The other major source of inflow to Lake Ontario is
runoff from the 27,000.square miles that form the Lake
Ontario drainage basin. Data on rainfall yields insight
into the relative influence this factor has had on Lake
levels. Table 6 provides the average monthly rainfall for
the period of record (1900-1973) for the Lake Ontario basin
along with the monthly rainfall for-the period 1970 to
present. The rainfall for 1972 was 27 percent above the
yearly average for the period of record 1973 rainfall was
11 percent above the average and through July, 1974 rainfall
was 4 percent below the average.

The rainfall data for the entire Great Lakes Basin'.
reflected in Table 7 provides insight into why the inflow
from Lake Erie has been and currently is above average. It
also suggests that high water levels are not simply a Lake
Ontario problem, but are being experienced throughout the
entire Great Lakes Basin. Basin precipitation was 14 per-
cent and 7 percent above average during 1972 and 1973,
respectively.

The following rule of thumb provides additional insight
into why the problem is long term in nature and to the
effect that occurrences on the upper Lakes have on Lake
Ontario. The rule states that it takes'about three and one
half years for 80 percent of an effect of a-change in out-
flow from Lake Superior to reach Lake Ontario. In other
words, the Great Lakes system +s very slow in reacting to
major changes in water levels.

Outflows from Lake Ontario are the third major compon-
ent influencing the lake level. Table 8 provides data on
the flow of the St. Lawrence River at Massena, New York.
As can be seen, outflows have been above average. It should
be noted that since completion of the St. Lawrence Seaway
in 1959, these outflows have been controlled.

1
The recently released International Great Lakes Levels
Board Study states that it takes two and one half years
for 50-pdrcent of the total effect of a supply change to
Lakes Michigan-Huron to reach Lake Ontario.

Table 5. Inflow to,Lake-,O.ntario From Lake Erie

Average Inflows (1,000 cfs)
(1900-Aug. 1974) 1972 1973 1974

Jan 190.5, 215 244 233
% of* Aver. 113a 128 122

Feb. 205 236 237
% of Aver. 110 127 127

March 191.0 217 250 250
% of Aver. 114 131 131

April 201.2 222 263 264
% of Aver. 110 131 131

May 212.0 234 262 265
% of Aver. 110 124 125

June 213.8 236 265 259
% of Aver. 110 124 121

July 210.2 236 259 250
% of Aver. 112 123 119

August 206.3 232 249 240
% of Aver. 112 121 116

September 201. 5 228 240
% of Aver. 113 119

October 198.1 230 232
% of Aver. 116 117

November 198.1 236 234
% of Aver. 119 118

December 197.4 246 233
% of Aver. 125 118

Average
for Year 200.5 228.1 247.3 249.8
% of Aver. 114 123 124

a(-)Indicates inflow in excess of average.

Source: Adapted from data provided by Corps of Engineers,
Buffalo District.

Table 6. Monthly and Average Rainfall Lake-Ontario Drainage Basin.

Average. YEAR
UHO-1973) 1970 1971 -1772 197-3* 1974

January 2.66 1.69 2.11 2.23 2.03 2.30
% of Aver. 64 79 84 76 .-86-

Febraury 2.42 2.29 4.17 a 3.36- ..2.07 1.71
% of'Aver. 95 112 139 86 71

March 2.63 2.06 2.53 3.29 3.62 2.93
% of Aver. 78 96 125 138 ill.

April 2.80 2.79 1.54 2.55 3.98 2.48
% of Aver. 99 55' 91 142 .89

May 3.03@ 3.06 3.16 6.05 3.23 2.97
% of Aver. 101 63 125 127 133

June 3.02 3.03 3.16 6.05 3.23 2.97
% of Aver. 100 105 200 107 981

July : 3.15 4.18 3.62 3.19 2.43 2.69
% of Aver. 133 115 101 77 85

August 2.97 2.97 3.43 3.88 1.78
% of Aver. 100 115 131 60

Septent>er 2.97 3.61 2.77 3.21, 3.00
% of Aver. 122 93 108 101

October 2.95 3.57 1.90 3.48 3.73
% of Aver. 121 64. 118 126

Noveuber 2.95 3.52 1.89 4.15. 3.75
% of Aver. 119 64 141 127

December 2.80 3.65 3.62 4.50 4.69
% of Aver. 130 129 161 168

Annual 34.35 36.42 32.66 43.67 38.16 (Jan-July)
%:of Aver. 106 95 127 ill 96

,a(, ) Indi6ates rainfall in excess of average.

Source: Adapted from data provided by Corps of Engineers, Buffalo
District.

Table 7. Monthly and Average Rainfall-Great Lakes Drainage Basin

Average
(1900-1973) 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974

January 2.11 1.74 2.22 a 2.31 1.70 1.90
% of Aver. 82 105 109 81 90,

February 1.79@ 1.16 2.90 1.89 1.36
% of Aver. 65 162 106 76 70

March 2.13 1.76 2.01 2..82 2.97 1.93
% of,Aver. 83 94 132.' '_139 91

April 2.48 2.53 1.26 2.35 2.68 2.41
% of Aver. 102 51 '95 108 97

May 2.96 3.96 2.74 2.61 4.26 3.03
% of Aver.. 134 93 88 144 102

June- 3.17 2.73 2.84 3-.27 3.79
% of Aver. 86 90 103 120 99

July 3.07 4.31 3.22 3i75 3.11 2.20-
of Aver. 140 105 122 '101 71

August 3.00 1.86 2.72 4.56 2.99
% of Aver. 62 91 152 99

September 3.28 5.07 2.94 3.93 2.55
% of Aver. 155 90 120 78

October 2.73 '3.75 2.36 2.50 2.98
% of Aver. 137 86 92 109

Novewber 2.63 2.8-7 2.63 2.151 2.69
% of Aver. 109 100 95 102

Decenber 2.26 2.51 3.59 3.47 2.79
% of Aver. ill 159 154 123

Annual 31.61 34.25 31.45 35.98 33.87 (jan-july@
% o f Aver. 108 99 114 107 89

a Indicates rainfall in excess of average

Source: Adapted,from data provided by Corps.of Engineers, Buffalo
Distr,ict.

Table 8. Outflows From Lake Ontario Measured at Ogdensburg, New York-a

Annual
Year Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Aver.

Outflow In 1000 cfs

1950 220 225 231 259 262 263 257 249 240 235 234 240 244

1951 243 2-31 263 287 297 294 294 279 270 257 253 254 269

1952 2H 266 277 297 305 308 299 286 275 265 251 @254 279

1953 254 257 259 273 282 286 278 267 259 245 237 239 261

1954 227 232 254 267 285 282 272 261 254 253 254 256 258

1955 260 267 289 294 287 276 265 256 254 258 249 267

1956 238 234 238 257 276 282, 274 265 260 247 240 Z36 254

1957 230 229 234 241 245 247 248 242 234 224 218 214 234

1958 219 212 213 230 229 230 226 221 217 212 204 205 218
--Outflow Regulated @y Moses-Saunders Power Facility--
1959 169, 180 192 234 250 250 243 225 213 203 204 208 214

1960 207 211 221 241 262 279 274 261 233 203 207 210 234

1961 210 212 208. 218 249 278 266 252 246 231 216 214 233

1962 210 207 204 190 195 211 214 216 215 210 207 210 208

Table 8. Outflows From Lake Ontario Measured,at Ogdensburg, New York (Continued)

Annual
Year Jan Feb, March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Aver.

1963 209 207 196 189 188 206 214 217 212 212 .205 210 -20.5

1984 211 206 193 179 184 196 201 207 207 206 :200 193 1'58

1965 183 182 180 184 177 189 201 206 20@ 203 210 227 195

1966 222 222 234 234 212 212 219 220 221 216 212 217 220

1967 219 228 215 212 219 218 226 233 , 232 249 277 281 29.4

1968 241 249 237 262 '246 237' 253 262 270 262 254 251 252

1969 235 253 255 264 .276 291 297 295 277 255 243 266

1970 228 235 235
237 N9 249 256 265 258 263' 265 '259 '250

1971 236 248 263 271 @85 273 261 259 263 259 247 235 258

1972 222 2301 254 273 291 300 310 310 -310 302 293 270 281

1973 252 279 299 337 350 3.50 323 317

Aver., .225 228 234 246 254 259 259 254 248 2 38 235 234 241
(1950-
1973),

a After the construction ofthe Power Proj ect the gauge location changed to Massena, New York.
Source: Adapted From Data Provided by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District.

Prior to development of the Seaway the record discharge
at Ogdensburg was 318,000 cfs. A flow of 351,000 cfs was
recorded on July 11, 21 and August 3, 1974. This is currently
the discharge of record at Cornwall-Massena.

In summary, the current situation has been caused by
prolonged, above average precipitation within the entire
Great Lakes Basin. Man has responded to a degree in an
attempt to reduce the levels of Lake Ontario by discharging
water at a rate well above the average. However, because of
physical and institutional constraints, it has not been
possible to prevent the lake from rising, at times, to levels
which have resulted in substantial damage to both man-made
facilities and the natural environment.

5. Hydrologic Data Collection Systems

Both the United States and Canada operate extensive
hydrologic data collection systems. These systems consist
of water level gauges on both the streams and lakes of the
basin along with rain and snow gauges strategically located
throughout the Great Lakes Basin.

Within the United States this monitoring program is
carried out by the Lake Survey Center, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. Within Canada the Marine
Sciences Directorate, Department of Environment, maintains
the hydrologic data collection system. Figure 7 and its
accompanying table provide data on Great Lakes water level
gauge locations and recorded elevations of each gauge.
Figure 8 reflects the locations of climatological stations
within the Great Lakes drainage basin while its accompanying
table provides data relative to each station.

Currently the Lake Survey and the Army Corps of
Engineers are converting the United States portion of the
Lake level gauge system to a semi-automatic system. A
telemetering system has been established for six key Lake
Survey Center water level gauges around Lakes Superior,
Huron and Ontario. Plans are underway to install the system
for gauges on Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie. Currently the
system is operational for gauges at Rochester and Oswego,
New York, on Lake Ontario. The Canadian portion of the lake
level gauge system has been automated since 1972.

Hydrologic data gathered is disseminated by both
governments through several publications. Table 9 lists
the major publications, frequency of issue and the type of
data available within each.

C. Great Lakes Levels Forecasting

In response to the interest created by the high water
experienced in 1951 and 1952, the U.S. Lake Survey began

Table 9. Hydrologic Publications - Great Lakes Data

Frequency
Name Publisher of Issue Data Included

Lake Ontario U.S. Army Weekly Daily Mean Elevation,
Data Corps of Daily Outflow and
Engineers Average Inflow for
Week of Lake Ontario;
Daily Mean Elevation
at Oswego and
Kingston.

Monthly Water- Dept. of the Monthly Mean for Month,
Level Bulletin Environment, Last Year's Mean
Canada for Month, Maximum
and Minimum Mean for
Month, Mean for
Month, Last 10
Years, Mean for
Month, all years
and Probable Mean
for Next Month for
Lakes Superior,
Huron, Erie and
Ontario and Montreal
Harbor.

Monthly U.S. Dept. Monthly Recorded Levels for
Bulletin of @of Commerce previous years and
Lakes Levels current year to date
and probable levels
for next six months
compared with long
term average, last
10-year average, and
extreme levels for
Lakes Superior, Mich-
igan-Huron, St. Clair,
Erie and Ontario;
Water Levels of the
Great Lakes in
inches above or
below the plans of
reference of the
navigation charts;
connecting channels
water levels and
depths.

r- oq 3
o1q $=
(D FJ
Ch (D
0 loo
6
Scale in Miles

2
8
MINN.
LAKE SUPE to
>
H. n
0 12
0
7
9 ONTARIO
10
9 4-5
26

18 22

0 FA 28
33 V 23
F-
(D 27
19 *Q
6
f-@N . 31
CP WISCONSIN
14 20
0
16 z 21
30 56

29 50
Cl) 32 52 55
17 MICHIGAN
39
24 41 40
15 4
34 25
37 42
Pi eft\
rf 46 3538 45 L - -
(D
6
ILLINOIS 131 49
44
PE
(D 7
< INDIANA
OHIO

Extremes of Instantaneous
Gauge Name Location Established Water Level Elevations, IGLD (1955)
and Location Number Date Maximum Date Minimum Date

LAKE SUPERIOR
Canada
Gros Cap 1 1926 603.53 10/16/72 598.00 1/25/68
Michipicoten 2 1915 604.28 6/16/39 598.05 4/13/26
Rossport 3 1967 602.96 6/30/68 598.70 4/23/70
Sault Ste. Marie
Lock (Above),, 4 1908 604.09 11/12/42 596.48 5/23/25
Sault Ste. Marie
Lock (Below) 5 1908 584.83 12/17/51 575.78 11/23/63
Thunder Bay 6 1907 603.17 7/21/52 597.93 3/17/26
United States
Duluth 7 1901 602.89 8/31/51 598.59 1/10/58
Grand Marais 8 1966 602.59 10/28/68 598.96 3/31/67
Marquette 9 1902 604.06 6/16/39 597.47 7/17/26
Ontonagon 10 1959 603.66 4/17/65 598.69 4/13/64
Point Iroquois 11 1930 604.23 10/31/51 598.48 4/21/64
Two Harbors 12 1904 603.53 5/5/50 598.61 4/11/48

LAKE MICHIGAN
United States
Calumet Harbor 13 1903 583.33 7/23/71 573.33 11/11/40
Green Bay 14 1953 583.62 4/9/73 573.17 11/21/64
Holland 15 1959 581.59 6/17/73 574.80 12/19/64
Ludington 16 1950 581.76 4/16/73 574.76 1/17/65
Milwaukee 17 1903 581-89 7/22/52 574.15 1/23/26
Port Inland 18 1963 581.29 9/16/72 574.19 1/18/65
Sturgeon Bay Canal 19- 1945 582-33 5/25/53 574.10 4/14/64

LAKE HURON
Canada
Collingwood 20 1906 582.12 6/25/52,17 573.48 6/26/64
Goderich 21 1910 582.02 5/5/52 574.26 11/28/64
Little Current 22 1959 581.17 11/2/71 573.91 3/5/64
Parry Sound 23 .1960 581.07 12/18/72 573.63 3/26/64
Point Edward 24 1927 581.41 5/5/52 573.06 11/28/64
Port Lambton 25 1927, 577.51 1/29/52 571.55 11/27/64
Thessalon 26 1926 581.68 7/23/52 574.37 2/12/65
Tobermory 27 1962 581.04 10/16/72 574.30 1/24/65
United States
De Tour 28 1954 581.28 7/3/73 574.26 3/5/64
Essexville 29 1952 583.57 3/17/73 571.54 3/18/65
Harbor Beach 30 1901 582.01 5/6/52 574.17 1/25/64
Harrisville 31 1963 581-19 8/21/73 574.36 1/9/64
Lakeport 32 1956 582.25 3/17/73 573.82 11/28/64
Mackinaw City 33 1899 582.01 7/22/52 574.45 3/5/65

LAKE ST. CLAIR
United States
Grosse Pte. Shores 34 1955 575.51 7/8/69 569.58 1/26/64

LAKE ERIE
Canada
Amherstburg 35 1960 575.25 11/14/72 566.21 1/27/65
Bar Point 36 1966 574.87 11/14/72 565.87 1/26/71
Erieau 37 1957 573.49 11/14/72 566.85 11/21/64
Kingsville 38 1962 574.50 11/14/72 564.13 11/21/64
Port Colborne 39 1911 577.69 4/l/29 564.22 3/10/64
Port Dover 40 1958 575.80 10/27/67 565.02 3/10/64
Port Stanley 41 1908 574.17 3/22/55 566.58 3/17/35
United States
Barcelona 42 1960 574.82 10/27/67 565.08 3/10/64
Buffalo 43 1889 579-09 11/3/55 564.17 3/10/64
Cleveland 44 1903 574-48 6/16/73 565.71 2/4/36
Erie 45 1957 574.85 12/16/72 566.00 3/10/64
Fermi 46 1962 575.85 6/17/73 563.03 2/16/67
Marblehead 47 1959 575.18 11/14/72 564.54 11121/64
Sturgeon Point 48 1968 576.47 ll/l/73 568.70 12/31/69
Toledo 49 1940 576.67 4/9/73 561.47 1/2/42

LAKE ONTARIO
Canada
Burlington 50 1970 247.19 7/23/72 242.85 1/25/72
Cobourg 51 1956 247.66 7/2/56 241.26 12/25/64
Hamilton 52 1960 246-45 6/3/69 241.04 2/3/65
Kingston
(Portsmouth) 53 1909 248.55 6/6/52 241.01 1/2/65
Point Petre 54 1969 247.21 8/9/72 243.31 1/28/70
Port Weller 55 1929 247.85 5/30/30 241.19 2/3/65
Toronto 56 1906 248-34 6/8/52 240.64 12/26/34
United States
Cape Vincent 57 1914 248-19 5/11/73 240.93 1/2/65
Olcott 58 1967 248.87 6/22/73 243.26 11/19/69
Oswego 59 1933 248.96 6/6/52 240.94 12/23/34
Rochester 60 1952 248.40 5/28/73 241.38 12/23/64

Source: Great Lakes Basin Framework Study, Appendix No. 11, Levels and Flows, Sept., 1972; Canadian
data updated through 1972 from Water Levels, Volume 1 - Inland, Dept. of Environment, Canada,
1972; United States data updated through 1973 by Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District.

Table 9. Hydrologic Publications Great Lakes Data (Cont.)

Frequency
Name Publisher of Issue Data Included

Water Levels NOAA, Lake Weekly Projected Water Level
of the Great Survey Center, for Week; Difference
Lakes, Weekly Water Levels from Stage Recorded
Data Summary Branch Prior Week, Prior
Month and Prior Year;
Difference from Long-
Term, Highest and
Lowest Monthly Aver-
age of Record.

publishing the Monthly Bulletin of Lake Levels. The first
bulletin included a forecast of lake levels that was based
upon judgmental consideration of the factors that affect lake
levels. Since then, numerous studies have been conducted by
the Lake Survey to determine mathematical relationships
between these factors and water supplies in order to improve
the over-all forecasts.

1. Methodologies

The method now employed by the Detroit District, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers was developed from an analysis of the 2
elements affecting the net basin supply to each of the lakes.
The net basin supply is a conceptual hydrological event that
can best be described by referring to the classical change of
storage equation, which is

MS = P + R + U - E + I - 0 + D

Where: S = Change in lake storage;
P = Precipitation on the lake's surface;
R = Runoff from the lake's land drainage area;
U = Groundwater contribution;
E = Evaporation from the lake's surface;
I = Inflow from the lake above;
0 = Outflow from the lake through its natural
outlet;
D = Diversion; plus (+) if into lake; minus
if out of lake.

This section is adopted from.: Forecasting the Levels of the
Great Lakes, U.S. Lakes Survey, Misc. Paper 67-2, B. G. DeCooke
and E. Megerian, Sept. 1967.

U) ITJ
F-j rt P-
tPlOON
FJ- PJ Oq
ri- r-
PU 1-3
rt 0 (D
0 100
0 @j
F- Q) CO
0 Scale in M
o1Q I pi

C-L
ONTARIO
SUPER/0,4@
n@ 1Q1 0
r+ Fl-0
P) P)

Fl-

@j 0
t-1 F1
C) rt @j

r+ 0
@u @:j

0 0 ur,
oQ H

00 (D G) - -
0
I (D
0)0
C) rt0

ri-
Fl-
Fj @50 .... ..... . .
0 in 0 77
0
Ft)
pKE ON
LO Cn
---3 Fl- F-j
C3 @5 Fl-

0
C/3 0
0 j
To To
40
0 Fl-

21
F- PY, f,

6 C

z t-4
0
W W W W 11.) IJ t-J N) N) N) H F- H 9 0
F I t- C) ',0 W --J M 0 -r- W tj H C) @.D M -4 M UI 41 W Ln r., W C) %D W ,j a@ Ui H Cr 03
;j o (D rt
0- 0 " H.
CU
rt
H. 03
rr 0
(D

rt H @A @-3 F-3 1-3 H H Cn U) V) En Cn M @O Z t- P5 W = Z = 0 0 0 Ij M t:@j t=) n W td tZ W
@r 5 F'. H- tI O@O 0 0 0 r- 0 Fl. A) 03 Fl- 0 0 0 0 03 H. 0 ID P3 W C: 0 0 (D F- 0 (D 0 C@ 0 0 F1
o) Cr :J H. :3 M @-I " " " ri in, r_ Fj C ti CI- " 0 r- 11 :J 0 0 " " PI 0 M tl CL H 0 r- F- 11 I-j " r:
rt (D CL rt (D !:$ 0 0 0 0 0 Cr rt rt 0 F- 0 CJQ rt P;@ 0 < O@ GQ N :J rt tl Fl- F- (D (D 01@ N PIV N 9a. (D
ti 0) (D H rr 0 o 0 0 0 rL r- @:F' "Y' 0 r?' H- rD Ir 0 rt (D 0 rt CO Cr' H. 0 @@ "d " r- H (D Cu OD
F- 0 W 0 rt rt rt rt rt (D t-h (D D) rt P;I @j 0 rt k4 0 rt @:Y, W H. U) 4) 03 rr 0 :j V) M
(D PO :J :3 0 0 0 0 0 fl W Fl- U) 0 td 0) ftj 0 0 QQ 0 W n PO U) F- 0 < 10 rIt
u) Fj. @L D) (D r? Fid 03 0 F-I > @:S H " :3 0 '4 @V U) (D :J H- > tl 03
LI) (D > %- > Cn F-I t:j CO > t4 F1 M 0 14 ?-t = E; 0 :D- ::" CO > H rr
(D Cn r) @J o 03 CL (D t:j > 0 > n > D3 (D 0 C) "- Fj.
" 0) H rt 14 @r- Cn (D 01) 0
rt (D :@ 03 H :1
@r 11 03 P-1 0 n rT ti 0 rt r, U) :j
D) rr U' @7d > En C 0 M 0 rt 03 x
:J rt H. 0 (D rt @D. tz) :71 C: 0 n @4
0 0 " (A @11 (D CO GQ U)
0 M 0 M E5 CO 1::L ::T, rt (D
4-0) r- 0 :@ rl F@ (D M (D
0 rt " r? 03 0 H- PI PV
Ir 0 @r 0 0 > rt
0 0 H.
r 0 0
10 0 =
rt

0 Fl-

rt
(D

F1 D3 C@
OQ 0)
rt r- rT
Fl. (D
0 F-I F- I-A
-4 Oo F- j-, (_n Ln F- .D F, H H -@j Oo Oo oo @.D r- H -.j -j c) --A r,) T_- T_- (-n --j cD w 0 M ON "0 -4 rt Cn
.F_ H In M C, 0 _j L. & 11@ M, M, M, W, J31 01, 03
a M Ui W %D Ln H @O M CD 4, X- @D F@ F" ID M kD r, 00 _j 0 __j 0 __j -4 __j C) 00 -4 %.D %.D ko U1 -P. -P, ON (31% a% F@ rT
oo 00 _r- OD __j 00 Fl- F1
o ri) 0
(D ::@ :1
(D
rt CL

(D
rs
(D X X x >4 114 >4 x x Synoptic Report
D3
0
@Y, @@ x >4 x >4 x x x >4 >4 x x X Hourly Weather
CL

x x >4 x x >4 >4 @4 x >4 x x @14 x x X >4 X x x x x x x >@ x x x x @.4 x Temperature

x @4 x x x X >4 >4 x >@ >4 x x x x x >4 x X x >4 X >1 >4 x X x x x >4 >4 x x x Precipitation

XX x xxx>4>@ xxx [email protected] XXXX@4 X@<XXXXXXXX Rate of Rainfall

@4x XX>4xxx Wind Mileage

CL
w Soil Temperature

>4 x Evaporation

>4 x >4 >4 >4 >4 >1 :4 >4 x :>4 >4 x >1 >< x Sunshine

Radiation

X Snow Survey

kgromet.

The changes in storage, inflow, outflow, and diversion
values are determinable directly from reliable records,
whereas the lake precipitation, runoff, groundwater contri-
bution, and evaporation cannot be determined directly from
presently available data.

The first four terms of the right-hand side of the
equation can be combined in a single term called net basin
supply (NBS) to the lake. The equation is then written:

(2) NBS = S + 0 - I + D

The net basin supply represents the volume of water the lake
receives from precipitation on its surface and its own land
drainage basin, minus the evaporation from the lake surface.'
The estimation of net basin supply is in fact a complex and
uncertain business for many reasons, such as the apparent
non-stationary nature of the precipitation process; the non-
linear response of the lake basin; and the inadequate
knowledge of runoff, underground flow conditions, and evap-
oration rates.

The Lake Survey develops forecasts for a six month
period. The forecast for the first month's NBS of the period
is determined using a multiple-linear regression model in
which precipitation,and temperature of current and ante-
cedent months are used as independent variables, with net
basin supply as the dependent variable, i.e.

(3) NBS = aP + bP + cT + dT + K
A A

Where

NBS'= Estimate of average monthly supply to the lake
from its own drainage basin (dependent variable)
in thousands of cubic feet per second;
P, P A =Current and antecedent precipitation (independ-
ent variables) in inches;
T, T =Current and antecedent temperature (independent
A variables) in degree Fahrenheit;
a, b, c, d = Coefficients of regressions; and
K = Constant of equation.

Twenty-eight years of data were utilized in obtaining
these multiple linear regression equations. The recorded
net basin supply data, the dependent variable used in the
above-mentioned relationship, were computed using the
equation (2) relationship.

The method being employed for forecasting the supply
used in the determination of the levels for the second
through sixth month is based on a time series analysis of
the recorded net basin supply.

In the development of the system, it was assumed that
net basin supply over a given period is the result of two
components: the persistence component and the random com-
ponent.

The persistent component consists of antecedent net
basin supply levels. There are in turn three sub-components
of this component. They are the trend, seasonal and cyclical
sub-components.

The second component of the net basin supply is the
random component. It is dependent on many seemingly chance
factors and cannot be reduced to definite rules. At times
this component is largely responsible for extreme supply
conditions.

In summary, the Detroit District, Corps of Engineers
forecast of lake levels for each month of the 6-month fore-
cast for each of the Great Lakes is accomplished by routing
through the Great Lakes system the forecasted net basin
supplies, as determined by multiple linear regression for
the first month (modified by trend), and by trend analysis
extension for the second through the six month. The rout-
ing employs the current methods of regulation on Lakes
Superior and Ontario and the current equations of outflow
from Lakes Michigan-Huron and Erie, with adjustments made
for average ice retardation during the winter months. -By
employing the routing system, the effects of the total
supplies to each of the lakes of the system of the current
lake level and outflow conditions of the lakes upstream are
embodied in the forecast.

The forecast employs the services of the U.S. Weather
Bureau, which supplies antecedent temperature and precipi-
tation and advance information on its 30-day outlook of
temperature and precipitation, and of the Meteorological
Service of Canada, which also supplies antecedent precipi-
tation and temperature.

About two years ago the Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration began to develop 2lake level forecasts utili-
zing a climatological approach. Long term monthly net
basin supplies are the basic input of this forecast method-
ology. These supplies are then routed through the Great

2This description was provided by Dr. Frank Quinn, Head,
Lake Hydrology Group, GLERL, NOAA in letters dated January 21,
1975 and February 5, 1975.

Lakes hydraulic response model to determine beginning-of-
month lake levels for the following six months.

Differences between the two independently derived
forecasts described above are then discussed and analyzed by
personnel from the two agencies making the forecasts. From
these efforts a coordinated six-month lake level forecast is
developed. This is published in the Monthly Bulletin of
Lake Levels.

2. Appraisal

The predicted lake levels are not a direct input into
the Plan of Control for the determination of release rates.
They are used, however, to provide guidance and to aid in
determining when deviance from the Plan is merited. They are
also important in providing information to those individuals
who are impacted by the level of the Lake. Since many of
these people's decisions are based upon the predicted levels,
a reliable estimate is desired.

Table 10 shows the actual level of Lake Ontario by m onth
from January, 1972 to August, 1974. In addition, the levels
predicted one and six months prior to the date of the actual
reading of the Lake level are shown. These are reflected as
plus (+) or minus (-) differences between the predicted and
the actual levels.

As can be seen, the predicted levels for the period
examined were generally less than the actual. In some cases
these differences were significant. For example, the one
month predicted level for December, 1972 was .65 feet less
than the actual. The six month predicted level for March',
1973, was 2.15 feet less than the actual.

This underpredi(ction is evidenced in Table 10 by the
preponderance of minus (-) signs preceeding the differences
between actual and predicted levels. Figure 9 depicts the
recorded and the predicted levels. Again, the fact that
during the period of high water, peaks and troughs were und er-
estimated is reflected. Similarly during periods of low
rainfall the methodology utilized will consistently predict
levels above those that actually occur.

In summary it.appears that the levels predictions are
limited in their usefulness because of the limitation of the
methodology utilized in deriving them. This methodology
appears to provide predic 'tions that consist'ently deviates
from the average less than the actual levels do. This results
as the methodology underestimates levels in time of above
average rainfall and overestimates them in time of below
average rainfall. It appears that efforts to improve this
methodology are required in order to provide more reliable
forecasts of future lake.levels.

Table 10. Differences Between Recorded and Predicted Lake Levels 1972-1974

1972 Actual Predicted - Actual 1973 Actual Predicted Actual 1974 Actual Predicted Actual
Predicted Predicted Predicted Predicted Predicted PFe-d=cted
1 month 6 months 1 month 6 months 1 month 6 months
In Adv. In Adv. In Adv. In Adv. in Adv. In Adv.

Jan 244.14 -.17 -.30 Jan 246.00 +.05 -1.90 Jan 245.30 -.10 +.25

Feb 244.40 -.25 -.60 Feb 246.40 -.15 -2.10 Feb 245.75 -.05 -.65

March 245.00 -.40 .70 March. 247.15 -.45 -2.15 March 246.20' -.10 -1.50

April 245.80 -.30 -.80 April 247.80 -.25 -1.85 April 246.80 -.30 -.75

-P7
W May 246.30 -.45 -1.00 May 247.85 +.10 -1.25 May. 247.30 -.35 -1.35

June' 246.55 -.50 -1.05 June 247.50 +.15 +.20 June 247.25 Same -1.20

July 246.50 -.55 -1.10 July 246.85 +.35 +.75 July 246.80 +.20 -.50

August 246.05 -.10 -1.10 August 246.00 +.35 -.20 August 246.00 +.15 -.45

Sept 245.20 +.10 -.80 Sept 245.20 +-10 +.60

Oct 244.70 -.-25 -.90 Oct 244.60 -.20 +.65

Nov 244.75 -.50 -1.10 Nov 244.35 -.15 +.15

Dec 245.30 -.65 -1.70 Dec 244.60 -.35 +.50

Source: Adapted from Great Lakes and Connecting Channels Water Levels and Depths, Dept. of Army, Monthly

-)V :aoanoS) s-E9 (saaau-i2uj ;o sdjoo I sqq-d;D(I PUP ST@Aa'j
J@;PM ST@UuPqD 2UT;09UUOO Pu-@? S;9@'(eq TPDJS WOJJ P@;dpl Aar-T Ja4PM OTJPTUO GNP-I @lq-eqOld PUP D@PIOOiDd -6
aan2TJ

SqjUOW XIS JXGU JOI S19A9-7 (IL14UOVV eiqoqoicl i-if uoijoa -loid jo q4uoui S19A9-7 Xiq4uoW popjooe&

VY
O'tltl?l Oy
I / N 10*tlt,3
VY @4 @o v /00000
0

oe
vq 00,
.\ s .0
10'9t,3 v 10'9t,3
N
VY A

Vq
N/ 0/
10'9i7z

10*Lt,3 0*,L.03

r
10,8V3 .0'8-oz

71 C- Q) Z 0 (1) J:@. C- C- ;j:
Ti C- C- C- 1:1 cn c- 2!
QD CD a co 0 (D c C-- '10 Cb Q CD 0 CD c c a CD 0
CD (D c 10 a U- - :3 a c Q 10 a
-a 0 'a 71 Cr z 0 < Z cr :3 0 <
zo-
4
LK

The following paragraph summarizes the situation
relative to forecasting in the Great Lakes Basin.

11 . . . benefits can be obtained from regulation
decisions based on a forecast if the forecast is
accurate for at least four months into the future.
Present knowledge of the future climate over the
basin prevents the preparation of such a forecast.
However, present knowledge of hydrology permits the
assessment of the hydrologic potential of flood or
drought on the basin. The principal deterrent to
such an assessment is the lack of near real-time
data. To provide such data for a basin the size of
the Great Lakes@is expensive, and tangible benefit
is difficult to demonstrate. However, regulation
decisions are made at present with only knowledge
of current water level and little knowledge of the
potential hydrologic response of the basin. There-
fore, in order to bring all available information
to bear on regulation decision, the study and
development of a real-time hydrometerorological
network for the Great Lakes basin should be under-
taken. Most of the data required are presently
collected by existing hydrologic and meterorological
networks. Further study of these networks is
required to determine their adequacy. The princi-
pal items which require development are the colla-
tion of data and interchange between countries
within a few days of data collection. Such a
collection in real time would provide those who
must make regulation decisions on the Great Lakes
with the response of the basin to various current
hydrologic condit @ons and would improve regulation
decision making."

3Regulation of Great Lakes Water Levels, Appendix A,
Hydrology and Hydraulics, International Great Lakes Level
Board, December 7, 1973, pp. A-55 to A-56.

CHAPTER III

USES OF LAKE ONTARIO - ST. LAWRENCE RIVER
WATER AND ADJACENT LANDS

Uses of Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River water and
adjacent lands are fairly compatible under normal conditions.
However, when conditions differ from the norm, conflicts
arise, the magnitude of which depends upon the degree to
which the normal and experienced conditions differ.
Discussed below are the primary uses of these waters and
lands along with descriptions of the water level conditions
each user would prefer to have maintained.

A. Water Use

Two primary uses of the waters of Lake Ontario and
the St. Lawrence River are discussed in detail. These are
navigation and power production. The St. Lawrence River
has been intensively developed for both uses through
efforts resulting from international agreements and coopera-
tion.

1. Navigation

Discussion of navigation is limited to the time
frame from the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway on April
25, 1959 to present. The Seaway was built as a joint venture
by the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation of the
United States and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority of
Canada. The former was authorized by Public Law 358 passed
in 1954 and was charged with the responsibility of developing
and managing the United States portion of the Seaway.

Construction took about five years and cost approximately
470 million dollars. These costs were shared by the United
States and Canada with the former paying about 25 percent or
130 million dollars and the latter 75 percent or 340 million
dollars.

The Seaway provides a channel of a minimum depth of 27
feet from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Lake Ontario, thus
opening the Great Lakes to ocean traffic. Ship size is
limited to vessels up to 75 feet in beam and 730 feet in
length with drafts 25 feet or less. This limit is due to
the size of the locks in the system.

Figure 10 and Tables 11 through 13 portray the amounts
and types of cargo and vessels that have passed through the
Seaway over the past 10 years. Although subject to fluctua-
tion, the general trend has been upward as far as total tonn-
age is concerned with an increase occurring in the percentage
of total tonnage made up by bulk shipment of cargo.

Millions
of Tons
60

.50

0 -
64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 '72 '73

GENERAL BULK

Figure 10., Ten-year Selected Traffic Summary Montreal'to
Lake,-Ontario.' (So7urce: -St'. Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation, Massena, New York
1973 Annual Report.)

Shipping interests, in general, are more concerned with
the rate of release of waters from Lake Ontario than with its
level. However, under occurrences of extreme low water levels,
the Lake level becomes of greater concern due to the fact that
outflow from the Lake and channel depths in harbors are
reduced.

Table 11. Ten-Year Selected Traffic Summary-Montreal to
Lake*Ontario

Cargo (in millions of tons)

General Bulk Total.

1964 3.7 35.6 39.3
1965 5.6, 3.7.8 .43.4
1966 5.5 49..2
1967 6. 0' 38.0 44.0
1968 8.0- .40.0 48.0
1969 7.0, .34.0
1970 6.5 '44 . 6 51.1
1971 @44 .3 .52.9
1972 7.9 45.8 53.7
1973, 5"..8 51.8 57..6-

Sour Ic e: St. Lawren c e Seaway Deve. 1 opment Corporation, Mas's ena
New York - 19@3 Annual Report

high rateof-release at the control
structure tends to draw down Lake St. Lawrence until-such
times as a sufficient steep gradient is established between
the water level at the control structure and Lake Ontario as
to maintain the.outflow from Lake Ontario equal to,the Power
Dam release rate (see Figures 11 and 12). This reduces the
water depths and thus may deny deeper draft vessels,adequate
water depths to allow transit of this area. The converse is
that a low rate of release at the control structure tends to
raise Lake St. Lawrence and reduce the gradient between
Lake-Onta-rio and'-the' Power Dam. Thus, vessels'with deepe Ir
drafts are,able to transit this area. This decrease in-
gradient occurs as Lake St...Lawrence fills to capacity when
inflows from Lake Ontario exceed outflows through the
control structure(s). It should be noted that this is one
of the critical areas for navigation since the area covered
by [email protected]. Lawrence was, prior to the construction of.the
control structures, a series of rapids kn own as the Interna-
tional Rapids.

Outflows from the control structures can create problems
for navigation under two sets of conditions.- In 'the case of
an extreme,low level of Lake Ontario, the required minimum,

Table 12. 1973 FINAL SELECTED TONNAGE TOTALS
Special Commodities-Montreal-Lake Ontario Section

PerceH-t
1972 1973 (+)or(-)

Bulk Cargo

Grain

Wheat 10,681,500 11,417,199 + 6.9%
Corn 3,642,624 3,922,792 + 7.7%
Soybean 1,614,608 1,656,316 + 2.6%
Barley 4,438,979 3,536,135 - 20.3%
Other 1,127,863 2,217,294 + 96.5%

Grain-Total 21,505,574 22,749,736 + 5.8%

Iron Ore 12,533,408 15,691,569 + 25.2%
Coal 269,164 277,667 + 3.2%
Fuel Oil 3,229,062 3,783,946 + 17.2%
Other Bulk 8,273,279 9,305,889 + 12.5%

All Bulk-Total 45,810,487 51,808,807 + 13.1%

General Cargo

Iron and Steel 5,333,432 3,723,202 - 30.2%
Automobiles and
Trucks 84,471 81,699 - 3.3%
Containers 427,604 299,797 - 29.9%
Other General 2,000,587 1,720,632 - 13.9%

General-Total 7,846,094 5,825,330 - 25.8%

Grand Total 53,656,581 '@_7,6341137 7.4%

Source: St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, Massena
New York - 1973 Annual Report.

discharge may be greater than the outflow possible from
Lake Ontario.1 This minimum is specified in the IJC's
Orders of Approval which are implemented through the-Plan
of Operation 1958-D. In cases of high water levels in Lake

lWhen this condition exists the minimum discharge may be met
for only a short period of time. The time is the amount-
required to draw down Lake St. Lawrence and is determined
by the difference in releases at the control structure and
the discharge from Lake Ontario divided into the storage
of Lake St. Lawrence.

Table 13. EISENHOWER-SNELL LOCKS
Lockages and Transits 1973

Lockages Ships Small Craft

March 28 33 0
April 434 466 2
May 733 801 27
June 740 791 100
July 845 802 614
August 809 745 411
September 671 692 106
October 702 759 25
November 6.93 777 3
December 382 426 1

TOTAL 6,037 6,292 1,289

Source: St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, Massena,
New York - 1973 Annual Report.

Ontario, such as the 1973-1974 period, large volume flows
were released in order to reduce the levels of Lake Ontario.
This effort resulted in what may be termed a "flow through"
condition, i.e., the outflow from Lake Ontario equalled
the discharge at the control structure but at a very high
volume. This volume approached or was the maximum that
could be discharged given the current capacity of the St.
Lawrence River channel. As this condition was reached,
Lake St. Lawrence became drawn down.

The results of these two cases are the same - shallow
depths in the area of Lake St. Lawrence.

Thus, as stated earlier, navigational interests are not
as interested in the level of Lake Ontario as they are in
the relationship between the Lake's outflows and releases
through the control structures, along with their respective
magnitudes.

In addition to the gradient changes caused by varying
the release rates, higher velocity currents are associated
with increased release rates. These can become a hazard to
navigation, since in many stretches of the River the nav-
igation channel does not follow the river channel and
currents arise that flow at various angles to the navigation
channel. These currents tend to increase the difficulties
of ship handling and thus reduce the safety of navigation.

E E
> C

Q),0
LAKE 0
ONTARIO water level - "slow release" LAKE
ST. LAWRENCE
7,

V,
t
'relea V

slow release rele@ase from Moses-Saunders Dam less than inflow from Lake Ontario
fast release"- release from Moses-,Saunders Dam greater than inflow from.
Lake Ontario.

Figure 11. Relationship between release rates and navigational
channel depths.

2-42

Uj
0 241 Q
Z
LLJ U') 240-
Cr
0

CIM _J 23
0 (D Low Water Datum
W _J
y 237 -
<
_j 2
242 243 244 24-5 .246 247 248
LAKE-'ONTARIO LEVEL
at Oswego I.G. D. 195.5)-

Figure 12. Effect of various Lake Ontario outflows on the level
of Lake St. Lawrence (Source: Corps of Engineers,
Buffalo District)
51,

During periods of high water, in conjunction with high
rates,of-,discharge., damage is.inflicted on-shoreline
property, in-addition to accelerated.erosion,.by ships'-wak es...
To preventor@ minimize this,,the St. Lawrence"Seaway :
Corporationha-s at.various,,times, is-sued speed,restrictions
on ships,,transiti*ng.the Seaway-Reduced speeds have-..
increasedtransit: time-and therefore.the cost @per,unit.of,
shipping. Chapter IV -discu sses these. costs in detail

In summary, it seems fair to say that navigational
interests de-sire to have maintained a lake level.condition
that will yield outflows to the St. Lawrence River that , .;
will minimize the problems as,sociated with wake-damage@and_
channel,depth1while ensuring adequate water levels-to
maintain uninterrupted navigati
on...

2. Power Production

As-the-Seaway was being:developed for-nav-igation,,.
the Power Auth 'ority.of the State of New York (PASNY) and
the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario . cIoncuIrre. nt1y
developed the hydro power potential of the.International
F,apids sectionlof the,.St.... Lawrence'..River. The,major
structure developed was the Robert Moses Robert H.
Saunders Power Damnear,Massena, New York. This semi-
outdoor type plant is.3,300 feet long. From lowest point
of foundation to the top of the intake.deck it rises 167
feet. It is 184 feet from upstream to downstream face.
The dam was a joint venture with each power agency building
half. Each half,contains 16 generators with a rated capacity
of 57,000 kilowa'tts.6ach.at 81 feet of head. Total rated
capacity at this head for the dam is 1,8..24.,000 kilowatts.
Cost of the United States portion of the Power Dam with all
electrical and other equipment was approximately @122,000,000.
Total Icost of the power facilities'co'nnected with
the development.of the Seaway was approximately $650,000,000.
The PASNY share:of this total was about $350,000,000.

Other hydro electric power plants tha:t preceeded the
development of the-.Se'away are the Beauharnois an&Cedars,-
plants. Both.are operated by Hydro Quebec, a power
commission under Canadian jurisdiction.

Most of the discussion of lake water levels required-
to be compatible with power production requirements will
center around the Moses-Saunders-Dam since it-i.s,the
l.argest of those.on.the St. Lawrence. River. Thus, its
requirements are the most encompassing..

The Moses-Saunders Power Dam is designed to pass flows
up to 325,000 cfs. The power facility operates at maximum
efficiency with a flow of about 270,000 cf-s. This is for
the production of its rated capacity under conditions when

normal head is available. This water use is non-consumptive
in nature in that the water,passes through the turbines with
negligible loss to the St. Lawrence River. In general terms
it can be said that any flow in excess of 270,000 cfs has
lesser value to the production of electric power than flows
under this amount. Flows in excess of 325,000 cfs have to
be passed through the Long Sault Dam since they exceed the
designed discharge capacity of the Moses-Saunders Dam and
are therefore of zero value to power interests.

Table 14 reflects total production of the Moses Dam or
United States portion by year. The years 1964 and 1965 were
years of drought and low lake levels. This is reflected
by lower total electric power production than during the
recent years when lake levels have been high.

Table 14. Electric Power Production-Moses Power Dama

YE AR MWH

1958 1,298,075
1959 5,637,143
1960b 6,316@308
1961 6,260,641
1962 5,847,028
1963 5,834,029
1964 5,558,167
1965 5,402,602
1966 6,034,744
1967 6,384,455
1968 6,761,601
1969 6,982,254
1970 6,644,491
1971 6,774,906
1972 7,248,140
1973 7,704,369
1960-1973 Average 6,410,981

aExcludes data for the Canadian (Saunders) generating facility.
See Table 17.
bFirst full year with full capacity as St. Lawrence project.

Source: Provided by Power Authority of the State of New York.

Table 15 provides data on power production from the
Saunders Power Dam or Canadian portion. Although data
on average production per year is not shown in the Table
the actual production in 1973 and so far in 1974 was
considered above average. This is accredited to the high
water levels and subsequent high flows in the St. Lawrence
River.1

Table 15. Electric Power Production - Saunders Power Dam

YEAR/MONTH MWH

1973 January 765,000
February 793,000
March 896,000
April 905,000
May 906,000
June 891,000
July 868,000
August 870,000
September 852,000
October 843,000
November 837,000
December 763,000
10,189,000

1974 January 711,000
February 765,000
March 863,000
April 884,000
May 899,000
June 886,000
July 872,000
August 856,000

Source: Provided by Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario

lCorrespondence dated September 22, 1974 from J. A. Keon,
Assistant Plant Superintendent, St. Lawrence Power
Development, Ontario Hydro.

Another factor that influences the,releases desired
by the electric companies, and therefore-the level,of Lake
Ontario,, is the fact that ice cover will not form in open
water in the area of the St. Lawrence River if the velocity
of flow exceeds approximately 2.5 feet per second with a
flow of 220,000 cfs.2 Thus, during construction of the
Seaway and power facilities, the channels were widened and
deepened and since completion, the flow has been regulated
to maintain a maximum flow velocity of about 2.25 feet per
second during the ice forming periods to ensure the forma-
tion of an ice cover. This cover is desirable to ensure
that frazil ice does not form in open water and flow to
areas covered with ice. If this formation and flow did
occur, the frazil ice would be drawn under the existing ice
cover and would tend to freeze, forming in effect, an ice
dam. Thi's in'turn would reduce the flow and be'detrimen-tal
to the production of power when and if the reduced flow
became less than 270,000 cfs. In addition,. upstream flooding
could be caused.

In summary, power interests desire to maintain a flow
of approximately 270,000 to 325,000 cfs throughout that
portion of the year when an ice cover is not present. During
the ice forming period, they would prefer to maximize the
flow within the constraint of not exceeding a flow velocity
of 2.25 feet per Second at 220,000 cfs. (This is based on
the assumption that the minimum flow to meet this constraint
is less than 270,000 cfs.)

After a solid ice cover has formed, they would prefer
to increase the releases to the maximum consistent with
maintaining the ice cover and not exceeding 270,000 to
325,000 cfs. The rationale behind this last statement lies
in the fact that the winter months are the peak demand
months for electricity produced by the PASNY system which
Moses-Saunders Dam is a component of.@3 Therefore, for most
efficient production a flow of 270,000 cfs is desired.

B. Land

The following discussion of land is limited to the
properties which border directly on Lake Ontario or the St.

2Experience has shown that a satisfactory ice cover can be
formed with flows in the order of 2355000 cfs.
3Peak demand for power produced by PASNY was in the month of
December in both 1972 and 1973-@ (1,974 Report of Member
Electric Corporation of the New York Power Pool and the
Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation) PASNY
personnel state that "the Authority's firm contracts for
firm power require that the Authority deliver fixed
quantities of energy throughout the year."

Lawrence River. This area will be described relative to
its current use, hazardous zones and environmental value.4

1. Use

Three categories of shoreland use-have been
defined. They are recreation which includes all designated
outdoor recreationlands; commercial, residential, industrial
and public buildings; and agricultural lands and open,space.

Table 16 reflects the percentage of each of these
categories for each county within the United States for the
entire United States shoreline of Lake Ontario and the St.
Lawrence River, for the Canadian shoreline of Lake Ontario
from the Niagara River to Cornwall and from Cornwall to
Montreal. As can be seen, the percentage in the agricultural
and open space category is slightly higher for the Canadian
portion than for the United States portion of their respective
shorelines. Figures 13 through 18 depict.the geographic
distribution of the shoreland use.

2. Hazardous Zones

The shoreline of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence
River was examined and categorized as either erodable.with
protection, erodable without protection or subject to
flooding. The areas not shown as falling.within one of
these categories on Figures 13 through 18 were considered
.not erodable or not. subject to flooding.

Protection of erodable areas refers to protective
devices provided'by a public entity such as the Corps of,
Engineers or Department of Environmental Conservation in
the United States and federal or provincial agencies in
Canada. Also included are substantial protective structures
provided in urban areas. Small scale private protection of
individual properties was not considered adequate to provide
long term protection from flooding or to 'prevent erosion.

Table 17 shows the entire United States portion and
the Lake Ontario to Cornwall on the St. Lawrence River
portion of the Canadian shoreline that falls within each of
the above categories. Approximately 50 percent of the
United States shoreline is classified as erodable. Of this",
a small portion, 11.2% is protected. Table 18 reflects the
portion of the Canadian shoreline from Cornwall to Montreal
that is erodable.

4The Corps of Engineers ha s gathered and analyzed detailed
data on land use, hazardous zones and environmental values.
However, due to budgetary limitations, this data*has not
been published in detailed form to date.'

Table 16 - Shoreland Use - Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River
Area Recreation Residentiala A9. & Open Space
Miles % of Area Miles % of Area Miles % of Area

United States
ff@iagara County 5.9 19% 16.5 53% 8.7 28%
Orleans County 2.2 9% 17.8 74% 4.0 17%
Monroe County 31.0 88% 1.3 4% 2.7 8%
Wayne County 7.4 17.3% 28.2 65.4% 7.4 17.3%
Cayuga County .8 10.3% 3.3 41.4% 3.9 48.3%
Oswego County 3.1 9.2% 20.3 59.6-% 10.6 31.2%
Jefferson County 3.6 3% 62.4 52% 54.0 45%
St. Lawrence County 7.6 10% 31.2 41% 37.2 49%

United States 61.8 16.6% 181.5 48.8% 128.7 34.6%

Canada
agara River to
Cornwall 160.0 13.6% 476.0 40.4% 542.0 46.0%
Cornwall to
Montreal 99.2 28.2% 109.1 31.0% 144.4 40.8%

Canada 259.2 17.0% 585.1 38.2% 686.4 44.8%

aResidential includes residential, commercial, industrial and public building.

Source: United States data adapted from National Shoreline Study, Department of the
Army, August, 1971.

Canadian data - Shore Erosion On the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence System,
Part 1-3, Government of Canada, 1973.

M mill

ORLEANS COUNTY

C
B
NIAGARA A
COUNTY
0@1- J., SOMERSET YATES
CARLETON
KENDALL
C r

- - - - - - - - - - - -
B -4
NEWFANE

WILSON
PORTER

SHORELINE
------------ L
COUNTIES
SHORELAND CLASSIFICATIONS
L. Ontario
MONROE COUNTY LINE "A"- EXISTING LAND USE
BRADFORD 0 andlor PUBLIC BUILDINGS
C NIAG COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, RESIDENTIAL
0 S
B NROE
BAY
G1 G2 G3 RECREATIONAL

B B NOTE: BAYSHORE PROFILE AGRICULTURAL and/or OPEN SPACE
A A NOT TO SCALE.
CWC LINE "B"- HAZARDOUS ZONES
G' G' G2 G3
HAMLIN ERODIBLE, GENERALLY PROTECTED
G2

7
BRADFORD 3 CS')U ERODIBLE, NOT PROTECTED
BAY 3 B
G3 A
SUBJECT TO FLOODING
PARMA LINE "C"- ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES
GREECE
UNIQUE ECOLOGICAL OR NATURAL AREA

WEBSTER
5 SIG NT FISH OR WILDLIFE VALUES
NIFICA

0
0 5 10 15

r
Rochester Scale in Miles

Figure 13 Shoreland Uses, Hazardous Areas and Environmental Values: Niagara., Orleans and Monroe Counties. (Source: Great 58
Lakes Region Inventory Report, National Shoreline Study, Corps of Engineers, 1971)

SODUS BAY
S S4 B C
1 "'0 k B
C !;2 C
A
WAYNE COUNTY 13 B
A A A
SI S2 S3 S4 OSWEGO
C
COUNTY
B
SANDY CREEK
A
SI 4
S
WOLCOTT

SODUS
BAY
ONTARIO WILLIAMSON HURON L- - - - - - -
2 E2
S
SODUS
r
S
- - - - - - - RICHLAND

CI
--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I k.' C;I)

I- C3
NEW HAVEN
SHORELAND CLASSIFICATIONS I
SCRIBA
LINE "A"- EXISTING LAND USE Oswego MEXICO
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, R .ESIDENTIAL CAYUGA
COUNTY
and lor PUBLIC BUILDINGS

RECREATIONAL
OSWEGO
AGRICULTURAL andlor OPEN SPACE
LINE B"- HAZARDOUS ZONES C3 SHORELINE
B r %
ERODIBLE, GENERALLY PROTECTED COUNTIES
A
ERODIBLE, NOT PROTECTED 13 STERLING L. Ontario
OSWEGO
LITTLE NOTE: BAYSHORE PROFILES NOT TO SCALE. CAYUGA
SUBJECT TO FLOODING
112 SODUS SAY E
I 11 2 3
LINE "C"- ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES C C 0 5 10 15
UNIQUE ECOLOGICAL OR NATURAL AREA B B I @-@ F----4 i I
A A Scale in Miles
SIGNIFICANT FISH OR WILDLIFE VALUES 3

Figure 14. Shoreland Uses, Hazardous Areas and Environmental Values: Wayne, Cayuga and Oswego Counties. (Source: Great Lakes 59
Region Inventory Report, National Shoreline Study, Corps of Engineers, 1971)

T TI T2 T.3 T4 T6 PP
CHAUMONT BAY
C
C SHORELAND CLASSIFICATIONS
B B
Am= 71 A LINE "A"- EXISTING LAND USE
A
B PT T I j2 j3 @4 j5 j6 PIP COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, RESIDENTIAL
C CAPE VINCENT/ LYME and/or PUBLIC BUILDINGS
dEFFERSON 'S
4
COUNTY T T3 RECREATIONAL
-Lake Section - T2 JEFFERSON
E AGRICULTURAL andlor OPEN SPACE
1, 1.3c CHAUMONT SAY COUNTY
C Tl/ BROWNVILLE -River Section -
LINE B HAZARDOUS ZONES
T C
NOTE: BAYSHORE PROFILES )3 11.7
NOT TO SCALE. T5 ERODIBLE, GENERALLY PROTECTED .1 B
4 N3
C N
5 2
N N RODIBLE, NOT PROTECTED
E A
C PT 4N
'D PP,
HENDERSON BAY C) Pi lar N6 0 N SUBJECT TO FLOODING
Sp pI p2 p3 p4 P t.. t.
I . N.P Peninsular LINE "C" ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES
cl@ C 01
C .'e3- Navy Pt.
c NP UNIQUE ECOLOGICAL OR
B HOUNSFIELD NATURAL AREA

A A
SI NIFICANT FISH OR
SP P, P2 P3 P NP @Z( p4 WILDLIFE VALUES
T ALEXANDRIA
P q!5 II I
Stony Pt. BLACK RIVER SAY
p3 I
River SID N NII N. 2 N. 3 N.4 N.5 N6 PT
C n C
P B B A
A
IMMJ A
HENDERSON
Lake" 1 2 *3 '4 5 6
NP N N N N N N PT

T
_J_
CLAYTON ORLEANS

FFERSON
J
C
ELLISBURG CAPE VINCENT -4
B

LYME

SHORELINE
0 5 10 15
COUNTIES I P----A !._@ v
B Scale in Miles

Figure 15. Shoreland Uses, Hazardous Areas and Environmental Values: Jefferson County (Source Great Lakes Regional Inventory 60
Report, National Shoreline Study, Corps of Engineers, 1-971)

SHORELAND CLASSIFICATIONS
LINE "A"- EXISTING LAND USE
CHIPPEWA BAY ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY
H1 H2 H3 Upstream Section - COMMERCIAL 'INDUSTRIAL, RESIDENTIAL
andlor PUBLIC BUILDINGS
C C
RECREATIONAL
B B

A A
H1 H2 H3 Ogdensburg AGRICULTURAL andlor OPEN SPACE
LINE "B"- HAZARDOUS ZONES

OSWEGATCHIE LISBON ERODIBLE, GENERALLY PROTECTED

ERODIBLE, NOT PROTECTED
@JLr MORRISTOWN
C H
SUBJECT TO FLOODING
CHIPPEWA
B BAY r,
A H2 LINE "C" ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES
HI f'A'5
UNIQUE ECOLOGICAL OR NATURAL AREA
LONG SAULT
HAMMOND LITTORAL GRASSE RIVER
WI W2 W3W 4 INLET S/ NIFICANT FISH OR WILDLIFE VALUES
RI R2
C I C IV I
C C C
B B B B Downstream
A A
A
f2 W@ @4 A`@
W, W
RI R!2 R3 R4 Upstream

FRANKLIN
LONG SAULT
ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY LITTORAL
@3191
R
-Downstream Sectio w4 COUNTY
63 W1
W R3 R4 A FRANKLIN
ST.
LAWRENC
MASSENA
C\
B LOUISVILLE
A
WADDINGTON.,
NOTE: BAYSHORE PROFILES NOT TO SCALE. BOMBAY

0 5 10 15
SHORELI E
Scale in Miles
COUNTIES

Figure 16. Shoreland Uses, Hazardous Areas and Environmental Values: St. Lawrence and Franklin Counties (Sources: St. 61
Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Shoreline Study, 1972, Soil Conservation Service Personnel Interpretation and Land
Use and Natural Resource Inventory Quadrangle Mapsj 1968)

Volt
negligible

HAZARDOUS ZONES
light

severe

Subject to Flooding

Erodible Sector
Severe, Light, or Negligible
negligible Severe

GENERALIZED
LAND USE

Agriculture, Forest, or Open Space

Urbanized Sector

Property
Miles of Value
Shoreline millions
of dollars)
400- 300

300
200 -200

100- -100

0 f 0
141' 4V
0
A, C)
4�
.Zc?
Q
44
@Z7

SHORELINES MAINLAND PROPERTY VALUE
ISLAND
4C)
. @_7 4 -
4@ V T
4i
CIS,

Figure 17. Hazardous Zones and Land Use Canadian Section of
Lake Ontario (Source: Shore Erosion on the Great Lakes-St.
Lawrence System, Government of Canada, 1973)

HAZARDOUS ZONES Montreal
W
!W Erodible Sector
Severe L' ht
or Ne@liglTle

Cornwall,,,,

GENERALIZED
LAND USE
(ffingslon to Cornwall)
Agriculture, Forest, or Open Space

Kin )ston
Urbanized Sector

Miles of
Shoreline
GENERALIZED Miles of
100-7 LAND USE Shoreline
too
(Cornwall to Montreal)
754"*:';*:"'
RIVER SHORE ISLAND SHORE -75

-50
50

25-
-25

4u
WQ7 - 1 40
4;T kj -1)
0- k 4j
Cl) 0
IT Z) X_ 0 @ j
4@k -j ._ A- 1j
4, 4,
C
co
_4j
-9 * Q7
CD
0
J'T

RIVER EROSION PROTECTION
SHORELINES HAZARDOUS ZONES
EDISLAND RECORDED EROSION

Figure 18. Hazardous Zones and Shoreland Uses - Canadian Section
of the St. Lawrence River (Source: Shore Erosion on the Great
Lakes-St. Lawrence System, Government of Canada, 1973)

Table 17. Hazardous Zones - Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River

Area Erodible Erodible Subject to
(Protected) (Not Protected) Flooding
Miles % of Area MT-les % of Area Miles of Area

Niagara 1.6 5.2% 8.1 26% 0 0%
Orleans 0 0% 24.0 100% 0 0%
Monroe 20.5 58.6% 7.4 21% 7.1 20.4%
Wayne 1.2 3% 41.8 97% 0 0%
Cayuga .6 7% 7.4 93% 0 0%
Oswego 4.4 13% 21.9 64.5% 0 0%
Jefferson 13.2 11% 12 10% 0 0%
St. Lawrence 0 0% 24 31.6% 0 0%

United States 41.5 11.2% 146.6 39.4% 7.1 2%

Canada:

Lake Ontario
to Cornwall 120 10% 1058 90% 0 0%

Source: United States data adopted from National Shoreline Study, Department of
the Army, August, 1971.

Canadian data - Shore Erosion on the Great Lakes St. Lawrence System,
Part 1-3, Government of Canada, 1973.

Table 18 - Hazardous Zones - Cornwall to Montreal

Land Use Protection Works Recorded Erosion
MT1-es % of Area Miles % of Area

Residential 42.6 46.4% 0 0%
Recreation 42.1 45.8% 1.0 16.4%
Agriculture 7.1 7.8% 5.3 83.6%

Total 91.8 100% 6.3 10006

Source: Shore Erosion On the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence
System, Part III, Government of Canada, 1973.

It should be noted that the definition of the word
erodible" changes for the three areas - United States
portion, Lake Ontario to Cornwall and Cornwall to Montreal
and thus they are not comparable. An example of this is
that the entire Lake Ontario to Cornwall shoreline in
Canada is classified as erodable while only about 2% of the
Cornwall to Montreal section is so classified.

As the included series of Tables and Figures show, only
a small portion of the shoreline is subject to flooding in
the United States. Canadian sources did not provide data
relative to the flooding hazard on the Canadian shoreline.

3. Environmental Values

Two categories of environmental values were
established: unique ecological or natural areas and
significant fish and wildlife areas. Comparable data for
the Canadian shoreline were not available.

Such areas provide desired amenities in terms of
recreation and aesthetics, and are important to the economy
of the region since a large portion of its employment is
based on the provision of services to tourists and visiting
recreationists. As can be seen in Figures 13 through 16,
about 50 percent of the United States shoreline falls within
one of these two classifications.

The composite Figures 13-16 depicting shoreland use,
hazardous zones and environmental values allow one to evaluate
shoreland use in relation to environmental values. Although
these Figures are general, they provide an overview of man's
interaction with nature in the shoreland area. More detailed
data would be useful in planning for greater compatability
between developmental activities and natural environmental
conditions.

CHAPTER IV

IMPACT OF WATER LEVELS DURING THE CURRENT PERIOD OF
HIGH WATER (JANUARY, 1973 THROUGH AUGUST, 1974)

A. Interest Groups Affected

During the period of January, 1973 through August,
1974, 'all interest groups utilizing the waters and adjacent
land of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River have been
impacted by the high water. Both positive and negative
impacts have been sustained. The incidences and magnitudes
of these impacts are difficult to identify and quantify.

However, a general understanding of the nature of the
impact on the various interest groups can be derived
through examination and interpretation of data related
to each group. Such efforts were undertaken and the
results are described below.

Table 19 summarizes Lake Ontario water level data
and the influence of these levels on each sector - power,
navigation and riparian owners. The data in this table
will aid in understanding the impacts described in the
following sections.

1 . Power Production

The impact of the high water on the power producers
can be estimated by examining river flows and power output
and revenues of the hydro power plants operating on the
St. Lawrence River.

As described earlier there are four hydro plants
operating on the St. Lawrence River. The largest is the
Moses-Saunders Power Facility operated jointly by Canadian
and United States interest. The impact of water levels
on the production at the Moses Power Facility can be seen
in Table 20 by relating output (KWH) to the average level
of the Lake for the year in question.

As is reflected in Table 20, 1962 through 1965 were
years of less than average production. Lake Ontario was
classified as having low water levels throughout this
entire period. In the years 1972 and 1973, production
well in excess of the average was achieved by the Moses

Table 19. Summary of Lake Ontario Water Data and Impacts

Date Daily Mean Daily Outflow Average Daily Inflow Lake Powerb Navigationc Upstream d
Elevation (cfs) For Week Levela Riparian
(cfs)

1973
1-3 245.45 260,000 352,000 R C
1-10 245.59 230,050 285,000 R C
1-17 245.70 255,070 278,000 R C
1-24 245.87 250,040 319,000 R C
1-31 246.01 232,730 302,000 R C

2-7 246.31 269,920 350,000 C C
2-14 246.31 290,790 284,000 F X C
2-21 246.25 290,150 268,000 F X C
2-28 246.15 294,850 256,000 R X C

3-7 246.24 299,800 329,000 R X C
3-14 246.47 290,120 381,000 R X C
3-21 246.95 297,050 463,000 R X C X
3-28 247.06 310,000 348,000 R X R X

4-4 247.43 316,000 453,000 R X R X
4-11 247.82 319,000 430,000 F X R X
4-18 247.77 330,000 319,000 R X R X
4-25 247.81 331,000 344,000 R X R X

a - R - indicates rising lake level; F indicates falling lake level; C indicates constant lake level
b - X - indicates full power production
c, - R - indicates speed restrictions in effect; C - indicates Seaway is closed
d - X - indicates elevation of Lake Ontario exceed 246.77

Table 19. Summary of Lake Ontario Water Data and Impacts (continued)

Date Daily Mean Daily Outflow Average Daily Inflow Lake Powerb Navigationc Upstream
Elevation (cfs) For Week Levela Ripariand
(cfs)
1973
5-2 247.90 332,000 368,000 R X R X
5-9 247.94 333,000 343,000 R X R X
5-16 247.97 334,000 344,000 F X R X
5-23 247.96 340,000 336,000 R X R X
5-30 247.99 345,000 351,000 F X R X

6-6 247.96 350,000 341,000 F X R X
6-13 247.91 350,000 329,000 F X R X
6-20 247.79 350,000 304,000 F X R X
Co
6-27 247.68 350,000 319,000 F X R X

7-4 247.61 350,000 322,000 F X R X
7-11 247.45 351,000 286,000 F X R X
7-18 247.21 350,000 273,000 F X R X
7-25 246.97 350,000 261,000 F X R X

8-1 246.85 350,000 310,000 F X R X
8-8 246.64 335,000 266,000 F X R
8-15 246.45 320,000 258,000 F. X R
8-22 246.29 317,000 255,000 F X
8-29 246.12 310,000 261,000 F X

a - R - indicates rising lake level; F indicates falling lake level; C - indicates constant lake level
b - X - indicates full power production
c - R - indicates speed restrictions in effect; C - indicates Seaway is closed
d - X - indicates elevation of Lake Ontario exceed 246.77

Table 19. Summary of Lake Ontario Water Data and Impacts (continued)

Data Daily Mean Daily Outflow Average Daily Inflow Lake Powerb Navigationc Upstream
Elevation (cfs) For Week Levela Ripariand
(cfs)

1973
9-5 245.97 318,000 263,000 F X
9-12 245.69 320,000 210,000 F' X
9-19 245.46 320,000 238,000 F X
9-26 245.32 315,000 271,000 F X

10-3 245.15 310,000 252,000 F X
10-10 245.01 310,000 259,000 F X
10-17 244.83 310,000 249,000 F X
10-24 244.64 305,000 242,000 F X
CD 10-31 244.60 290,000 280,000 F X
LO

11-7 244.47 300,000 255,000 F X
11-14 244.28 295,000 237,000 F X
11-21 244.30 285,000 293,000 F X C
11-28 244.30 288,000 292,000 C X C

12-5 244.28 288,000 280,000 F X C
12-12 244.30 287,000 294,000 R X C
12-19 244.23 258,000 256,000 F C
12-26 244.43 230,000 323,000 R C

a - R - indicates rising lake level; F indicates falling lake level; C indicates constant lake level
b, - X -indicates full power production
c - R -indicates speed restrictions in effect; C - indicates Seaway is closed
d - X -indicates elevation of Lake Ontario exceed 246.77

Table 19. Summary of Lake Ontario Water Data and Impacts .(continued)

Date Daily Mean Daily Outflow Average Daily Inflow Lake Power b Navigationc Upstream
Elevation (cfs) For Week Levela Ripariand
(cfs)

1974
1-2 244.74 230,000 333,000 R C
1-9 244.88 238,000 282,000 R C
1-16 245.04 242,000 255,000 R C
1-23 245.11 M,000 289 000 R C
1-30 245.37 252,000 355:000 R C

2-6 245.55 240,000 293,000 R C
2-13 245.61 270,000 275,000 C X C
2-20 245.61 280,000 273,000 R X C
2-27 245.69 290,000 306,000 R X C

3-6 245.84 300,000 366,000 R X C
3-13 245.90 293,000 313,000 R X C
3-20 245.95 300,000 314,000 F X C
3-27 245.92 310,000 296,000 R X R

4-3 246.08 310,000 368,000 R X R
4-10 246.35 308,0000 411,000 R X R
4-17 246.57 310,000 384,000 R X R
4-24 246.75 310,000 375,000 R X R

a - R - indicates rising lake level; F indicates falling lake level; C indicates constant lake level
b -.X - indicates full power production
c - R - indicates speed restrictions in effect; C - indicates Seaway is closed
d - X - indicates elevation of Lake Ontario exceed 246.77

Table 19. Summary of Lake Ontario Water Data and Impacts (continued)

Date Daily Mean Daily Outflow Average Daily Inflow Lake Powerb Navigationc Upstream
Elevation (cfs) For Week Levela Ripariand
(cfs)

1974
5-1 246.85 310,000 339,000 R X R X
5-8 246.88 310,000 324,000 R X R X
5-15 247.17 310,000 416,000 R X R X
5-22 247.41 300,000 386,000 R X R X
5-29 247.53 310,000 3419000 C X R X

6-5 247.53 320,000 315,000 F X R X
6-12 247.47 330,000 305,000 R X R X
6-19 247.48 330,000 336,000 F X R X
6-26 247.42 330,000 300,000 R X R X

7-3 247.46 330,000 346,000 F X R X
7-10 247.41 333,000 314,000 F X R X
7-17 247.20 337,000 262,000 F X R X
7-24 246.97 340,000 255,000 F X R X
7-31 246.84 340,000 298,000 F X R X

8-7 246.81 340,000 283,000 F X X
8-14 246.45 335,000 255,000 F X
8-21 246.25 324,000 258,000 F X
8-28 246.05 320,000 248,000 X

a - R - indicates rising lake level; F indicates falling lake level; C indicates constant lake level
b - X - indicates full power production
c - R - indicates speed restrictions in effect; C - indicates Seaway is closed
d - X - indicates elevation of Lake Ontario exceed 246.77

Source: Adapted from Lake Ontario Data, Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers, (Weekly).

Table 20. Relationship Between Time, Production and Lake

Ontario Levels Moses Power Dam

Production Production Lake
Year (KWH) Index a Levelb

1960 6, 316,308 99 Average

1961 6,260,641 98 Average

1962 5,847,028 91 Low

1963 5,834,029 91 Low

1964 5,558,167 87 Low

1965 5,402,602 84 Low

1966 6,034,744 94 Low

1967 6,384,455 99 High

1968 6,761,601 105 Average

1969 6,982,254 109 High

1970 6,644,491 104 Average

1971 6,774,906 106 Average

1972 7,248,140 113 High

1973 7,704,369 120 High

1960-.1973
Average 6,410,981 100

aThe index is the ratio of production of a given year to
the average production for the 14 year period during which
the facility has operated at full production times 100.
bThe lake level was classified by comparing a graph of
average levels for the period of record with a graph of the
recorded water levels for each year between 1960 and 1973.
From this a determination was made whether the lake level
was in general high, low or average.

Power Dam. These two years were classified as years of
high water levels on Lake Ontario.

Examination of the recorded flow at the Ogdensburg
gauge provides data upon which to determine the percent
of time that the flow of the St. Lawrence River was above
the 270,000 cfs required for most efficient production of
the Moses-Saunders Power Dam. Over the past 24 years
(1950-1973) the flow of the St. Lawrence River at this
point has exceeded 270,000 cfs 28 percent of the time.
This compares to 87 percent in 1973 and 74 percent in
1974.1 In contrast, at no time in the 1962 through 1966
period did the mean daily flow exceed 270,000 cfs.

The fact that power production has been well ' above
average during the last two years, in conjunction with no
reports of physical damage to or operational difficulties
of the power producing facilities, leads one to conclude
that the impact on power interests - producers and consumers
has been positive and significant in magnitude. This latter
statement is based on the following revenue data. Revenue
from the sale of St. Lawrence Power averaged $29.3 million
foY, 1970 and 1971. Average production for those two years
was 5 percent above the long te Fm average. Revenue for
1973 amounted to $32.2 million. Thus, about a 14 percent
increase above the long term average was achieved in 1973.

In addition there were considerable savings passed on
to the ultimate consumer of the electricity produced by
PASNY. Legislation authorizing PASNY requires the private
utility companies to pass on to their customers any savings
in production cost associated with purchasing power from
PASNY rather than generating it themselves. In fact, over
19 million dollars of such savings have been passed on by
the private utilities during the 1959-1973 period. During
1973 alone, the savings totalled $4,970,000. This amounted
to about 26% of the 15 year total.3

1For the period January through August, 1974.
2Data provided by Power Authority of the State of New York.
3This large percentage is due to two factors: the primary
one being the large amount of power produced in 1973 com-
pared to the average production, and secondarily the fact
that the unit price of electricity has increased approx-
imately 26 percent in the 15 year period ending in 1973.

2. Navigation

The high water levels experienced in the last two
years have impacted upon navigation on the St. Lawrence
Seaway. This impact has been reflected through vessel
speed restrictions imposed throughout parts of the past
two navigational seasons and in increased hazards en-
countered in navigation. Both of these impacts will be
discussed.

Due to the potential of inflicting damage on shore
property and natural resources by wave action caused by
ships'wakes, vessel speed restrictions were imposed over
various portions of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Figure 19
depicts the division of the Seaway into navigational
zones while Table 21 reflects the normal and restricted
speeds for these various zones. Table 22 relates the
times during which speeds were restricted and the zones
within which these restrictions were imposed.

The economic impact of these speed restrictions was
approximated in the following manner. Increased transit
times due to the reduced speeds were determined. Ships
transiting the Seaway during the times that restrictions
were imposed were classified as indicated in Table 23
along with the operating costs per hour for each class.

Operating costs were multiplied by the increased
hours of transit required due to the reduced speeds.
This provided an estimate of the direct cost to naviga-
tion resulting from reduced Seaway speeds. Estimates of
indirect costs such as reduced number of trips-over the
navigational season were not derived since it was felt
that the increased travel time resulting from the speed
restrictions was not significant when compared to the
overall normal total trip time of a vessel. Direct in-
creased costs derived by the above method amounted to
@1,953,075 based on 32,386 hours of increased transit
time required.4

A breakdown of the increased operating costs by year
and class of ship is shown in Table 24. Also reflected
is the percentage that this increase in cost was of total
operating costs of transiting the Montreal to Lake Ontario
section of the Seaway. As indicated, this increase is
approximately 12 percent of the normal operating cost.
This is a significant increase. However, the increase as

4
The St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation estimates
that the 2,025 commercial vessels transiting the Seaway
in 1973 incurred an increase in cost of 1.8 million dollars.

SOUTH SHORE CANAL- Lower Entrance
>
x
SOUTH SHORE CANAL- Upper Entrance
>
LAKE ST. LOUIS- Bouy 13A x

BEAUHARNOIS LOCKS- Lower Entrance x

L) BEAUHARNOIS LOCKS- Bouy 5B x
V@

LAKE ST. FRANCIS- Bouy 27F

Cl) x

>
0 LAKE ST. FRANCIS - Bouy 87F

C, X
31 SNELL LOCK
O'@
Moses -Sounders Power Dat@' EISENHOWER LOCK >
Long Sault Dom a I
c RICHARDS POINT- Bouy 55 >
U)

CA
5; E
MORR I SBURG - Bouy 84
> OGDEN ISLAND- Bouy 99
-Iroquois Dom and Lock

0
0
> 3:
0
0
0
V) t
P 0

BLIND BAY- 1/2 mile east of Light 162 0
00
*Q1
DEER ISLAND- Light 186

BARLETT POINT- Light 227

TIBBETTS POINT

Figure 19. Designated Zones of the Montreal Lake Ontar o
Section of the St. Lawrence Seaway. (Source: St. Lawrence
Seaway Development Corporation)

Table 21. Table of Normal and Restricted Speeds.

Maximum Speed Over
the Bottom
Statute (MILES PER HOUR)
Zone From To Miles Normal Speed Restricted Speed

I Bartlett Point Tibbets Point 17.8 15 (13 knots) 12 (10.4 knots)
Lt. 227

II Deer Island Bartlett Point 13.2 10 upbd (8.6 knots) 9 upbd (7.8 knots)
Lt. 186 Lot. 227 12 dnbd (10.4 knots) 12 dnbd (10.4 knots)

III Blind Bay Deer Island 10.1 13 (11.3 knots) 12 (10.4 knots)
1/2 mi. east Lot. 1.86
of Lt. 162

IV Ogden Island Blind Bay 38.3 15 (13 knots) 12 (10.4 knots)
Buoy 99 1/2 mi. east
of Lt. 162

v Morrisburg Ogden Island 4.9 13 (11.3 knots) 12 (10.4 knots)
Buoy 84 Buoy 99

VI Richards Point Morrisburg 10.3 15 (13 knots) 12 (10.4 knots)
Lt. 55 Buoy 84

vii Eisenhower Lock Richards Point 5.7 13 (11.3 knots) 12 (10.4 knots)

Ix Lake St. Francis Snell Lock 16.0 10 upbd (8.6 knots) 9 upbd (7.8 knots)
Buoy 87F 12 dnbd (10.4 knots) 12 dnbd (10.4 knots)

Table 21. Table of Normal and Restricted Speeds. (continued)

Maximum Speed Over
the Bottom
(MILES PER HOUR)
Zone From To Miles Normal Speed Restricted Speed

X Lake St. Francis Lake St. Francis 17.4 18 (15.5 knots) 18 (15.5 knots)
Buoy 27F Buoy 87F

XI Upper Entrance Lake St. Francis 15.1 10 upbda (8.6 knots) 10 upbd (8.6 knots)
Beauharnois Lock Buoy 27F 12 dnbd (10.4 knots) 12 dnbd (10.4 knots)
Buoy 5B

XIV Lake St. Louis Lower Entrance 8.6 18 (15.5 knots) 18 (15.5 knots)
Buoy 13A Beauharnois Lock

XV Upper Entrance Lake St. Louis 1.9 12 (10.4 knots) 12 (10.4 knots)
South Shore Buoy 13A
Canal

Junction of Open Waters
Canadian Middle between Wolfe
Channel & Main & Howe Island -
Channel abreast through the
of Ironsides Is. said Middle
Channel 21.2 13 (11.3 knots) 11 (9.5 knots)

All other canals 7 (6.1 knots) 7 (6.1 knots)

a upbd means upbound; dnbd means downbound
Source: St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, Massena, New York

Table 22. Period of Speed Restriction - St. Lawrence Seaway

Zone 1973 1974

March 27 - August 15 May 28 - July 28

II April 10 - August 15 May 28 - July 28

III April 10 - August 15 May 28 - July 28

IV March 27 7 August 15 May 28 - July 28

V April 10 - August 15 May 28 - July 28

VI April 10 - August 15 May 28 - July 28

VII April 10 - August 15 May 28 - July 28

VIII a a

Ix April 10 - August 15 May 28 - July 28

x a a

xi a a

XII a a

XIII a a

xiv A a

xv a a

a - No res,trictions imposed.

Source: Seaway Notice Affecting Navigation, St; Lawrence
Seaway Development Corporation, 1973-1974.

a percent of total trip.costs w ould normally be much less.
No estimate was made of this due to the diverse nature of
origins and destinations of the ships transiting the Sea-
way.

Other costsincurred are damages to ships and/or
navigation facilities due to grounding or collision.

Table 23. Number of Ships By Class Transiting St. Lawrence
Seaway During Restricted Periods and Operating
Costs Per Hour

Class Length 1973 1974 Cost/Hour
(ft)

A Under 400 1334 408 160a

B 400-499 535 153 221

C 500-599 332 104 252

D 600-649 349 137 297

E 650-699 342 143 328

F 700-730 120 63 348

G 731-849 462 239 366

TOTALS 3474 1247

aExtrapolated from a graph reflecting the cost per hour
and the length of vessel for classes B through G.

Sources: Eisenhower Lock Transit Log, St. Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation.

Regulation of Great Lakes Water Levels, Appendix
E, International Great Lakes Levels Board, 1973.

Estimates of th ese costs were provided by the St. Lawrence
Seaway Development Corporation. They total about $100,000
with $76,000 in damages to vessels and facilities and
$30,000 resulting from about 100 hours of lost time. The
incidents through which these costs were incurred are
listed in Table 25.

Additional costs are also incurred when the Seaway is
operated at minimum profile, as it did in the Fall of 1972,
1973 and 1974. Under this condition it is very sensitive
to meteorological effects and any shift in the wind to a
north, northeast or east direction can drop the water
levels below the minimum profile. For example, on the
first three days of December 1974 a total of 27 commercial
vessels were affected over.a period of about 46 hours.

Table 24. Operating Costs - Normal and Restricted Speeds

1973 Cost Percent Cost
Class Nor@al Speed Restricted Speed Increase Increase

A $ 2,882,804.80 $ 3,241,083.20 $ 358,278.40 12.4

B $ 1,596,660.91 $ 1,797,465.93 $ 200,805.02 12.6

C $ 1,128,209.04 $ 1,271,030.04 $ 142,821.00 12.7

D $ 1,399,743.18 $ 1,576,324.53 $ 176,581.35 12.6

E $ 1,514,444.88 $ 1,701,234.32 $ 186,789.44 12.3

F $ 563,443.32 $ 631,519.08 $ 68,075.76 12.1

G $ 2,282,811.54 $ 2,550,324.60 $ 267,513.06 11.8

TOTALS $11,368,117.67 $12,768,981.70 $1,400,864.03 12.3

1974 Cost Percent Cost
Class Normal Speed Restricted Speed Increase Increase

A $ 882,651.20 $ 995,200.03 $ 112,548.83 12 .8

B $ 445,279.89 $ 513,137.69 $ 57,857.80 12.7

C $ 352,742.04 $ 397,560.24 $ 44,818.20 12.7

D $ 547,501.68 $ 617,056.11 $ 69,554.43 12.7

E $ 631,770.64 $ 712,071.60 $ 80,300.96 12.7

F $ 294,561.12 $ 331,953.72 $ 37,392.60 12.7

G $ 1,178,121.06 $ 1-,-327,858.98 $ 149,737.92 12.7

TOTALS $ 4,342,627.63 $ 4,894,838.37 $ 552,210.74 12.7

GRAND
TOTALS $15,710,745.30 $17,663,820.07 $1,953,074.77 12.43

Table 25. Ship Incidents Attributable to Velocity or Water Conditions

Ship Date Incident - Location

Eirini 5/11/73 Bumped lower wall at Snell

Frankcliffe Hall 5/20/73 Grounded-South Cornwall Channel

County Clare 6/4/73 Grounded-South Cornwall Channel

Lorina 7/6/73 Grounded-South Cornwall Channel

Sugar Producer 7/8/73 Grounded-Copeland's Cut

Dneproges 7/13/73 Grounded-Copeland's Cut

Salvage Monarch 9/12/73 Grounded-Copeland's Cut

Calgadoc 10/4/73 Bumped lower wall at Snell

John E. F. Misener 10/7/73 Bumped lower wall at Snell

M/V Dawn of Kuwait 9/9/73 Bumped lower wall at Snell

Zakarpatye 11/8/73 Grounded-Copeland's Cut

Montrealais 11/8/73 Grounded-Copeland's Cut

Brunneck 11/8/73 Grounded-Copeland's Cut

Elianne 11/11/72 Grounded- Copeland's Cut

Janetta 11/11/72 Grounded-Copeland's Cut

Source: St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, Massena, New York.

This resulted in 1165 hours of lost time or an equivalent
loss of $350,000.5

Additional actions taken by the St. Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation to minimize the damages associated
with low.water and high velocity currents were to: (1)
prohibit passing or meeting of vessels in the affected

5Figures provided by St. Lawrence Seaway Development Cor-
poration. Dollar loss derived by the Corporation using
Figures from Table 23.

stretch, 6 (2) reduce speeds of vessels, in accordance with
the vessel's individual characteristics to reduce "squat"
so as not to strike bottom, (3) instruct Operation Per-
sonnel not to fill Eisenhower Lock when vessels in this
stretch of the Canal are at or approaching maximum draft,
(4) implement "sweeping" operations to determine present
river bottom conditions as compared to design grade, and
(5) program measures to determine actual velocity conditions
in this area.

There are certain additional costs associated with
concern, worry, anxiety and possible further reductions in
speeds attributed to caution. These costs are incurred as
a direct result of.the increased hazard potential occasioned
by the shallower water and increased currents. These costs
were not quantified.

Increased siltation in the St. Lawrence Seaway was
not a problem caused by high water due to the fact that
the river bed consists primarily of glacial till. A
minor problem occurs when wake action erodes banks and
causes them to slough. This exposes boulders which, in
areas of cuts, have had to be removed. The cost of
picking these boulders is not broken out from the general
cost of Seaway maintenance. However, it is considered by
Seaway personnel to be minor.7

3. Riparian Property Owners

The impact of the recently experienced high water
levels on riparian property owners can be approximated.
Data available provides estimates of damage to man-made
facilities. Estimates of damages to the natural environ-
ment are not easily quantified. Therefore, these damages
will be discussed verbally.

a. Above Moses-Saunders Dam - Data on damages
incurred on tT_e_U_n1Fed States portio-n of Lake Ontario are
limited primarily to that incurred during the March 17-18,
1973, storm. Through Presidential Disaster Declaration
No. 965, seven counties were declared major disaster areas
based on Federal criteria. Riparian property owners then
became eligible for Federal relief programs. Funds dis-
tributed through these various relief programs were used
as proxies of damages incurred. Figure 20 shows the
erosive forces of nature at work on the Lake Ontario
shoreline which inflicted severe damages.

6The stretch of canal referenced runs to about five miles
upstream from the Eisenhower Lock in the Wiley-Dondero
Canal. This includes the area known as Copeland's Cut.
7Phone conversation with William Spriggs, Director, Office
of Operations, St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.

- @16

Figure 20. Erosive Forces at Work on Lake Ontario's Shoreline

The Small Business Administration was the primary agency
dealing with loans following the declaration of the disaster.
Their records reflect that 4,344 home loans amounting to'
*19,264,855 and 254 business loans amounting to $3,678,900 were
granted as of September 24, 1974. This totals to $22,942,755.
Table 26 shows the breakdown of these loans by county. Of the
amount loaned, approximately 90 percent was in the form of a
grant due to the $5,000 forgiveness clause written into the
Disaster Relief Act of 1972.8

The above data reflects two important points. First,
most loans were of relatively small amounts, i.e., less than
$5,000 since about 90 percent of the money loaned was covered
by the forgiveness clause. Second, the majority of the loans
were home loans. It is contended that a large percentage of
these home loans were probably for second homes. Figure 21
depicts some of the types of damage that may have been inflicted
during the storm period.

Table 26. Numbers and Amount of Loans Resulting from March
1973 Storms

County No. of Loans Dollar Amount

Cayuga 114 $ 439,050
Genesee 15 31,700
Jefferson 877 4,287,953
Monroe 1,292 6,999,550
Niagara 702 3,942,950
Orleans 501 2,396,680
Oswego 509 2,153,425
Wayne 476 2,492,300
Others 114, 467,300
TOTALS 4,600 23,210,908

Source: Provided by Small Business Administration, Elmira, New
York.

Damage to public property is estimated by the claims made
by State agencies and political subdivisions for Federal finan-
cial assistance under Disaster OEP 367 DR, declared March 21,
1973 pursuant to Public Law 91-606 for flooding as a result of
storms during the period March 16-23, 1973. The amounts of
these claims are reflected in Table 27.

New York State, Office of Parks and Recreation, provided
data on damages, to state parks. These data are in terms of
budget requests to repair facilities. One million dollars was

8This estimate was provided by William McDevitt, Branch Manager,
SBA, Elmira, New York.

Ne,

71*1

j6!,

Figure 21. The Impact is Varied.

Table 27. Applicant*s'for Federal Financial"Assistance
for Publ-ic Property Damage.a,b

Public Entity Assistance Requested Mc

State Agencies

Parks And Recreation 26J70
SUNY, Oswego 31,185
Oswego Port Authority 127,152
184,507

Niagara County

Town of Newfane 6,301
Town of Porter 4,662
Town of Wilson
184,998
Village of Wilson 8,775
4,736

Monroe County

County 173,459
Village of Brockport, 9 @ 10 3
Town of Greece 29,810.
Town of Hamlin 35,886
Town of Irondequoit 55,200
Town of Parma 37,311
City of Rochester 14,400-
Town of Webster 10,453
3655622,

Wayne County

County 6,726
Town of Huron- 15,863
Town of Sodus 8,269
Village of Sodus Point 13,266
44,124

Cayuga County

Village of Fair Haven 1,468
Town of Sterling 6,127
7,595

Table 27.. Applicants,for-Federal Financial Assistance
for Public Property,Damage (continued,)

Public Entity Assistance Requested

Oswego County

Town of Mexico 1,975
City of Oswego 92,465
Town of Oswego 7,305d
Town of Sandy Creek 4,732
County 9,000
115 477

Orleans County

Village of Lyndonville 12,630
12 630

Jefferson County

County 24,700
Town of Alexandria 10,600
Village of Alexandria.Bay 8,480
Town of Brownville 2,030
Town of Cape Vincent 32,530
Village of Cape Vincent 1,640
Town of Clayton . 4,447
Village of Clayton 61,020
Town of Henderson,- 11,360
Town of Lyme 18,300
Village of Sackets Harbor. 20,390
195,4-79T

TOTAL 1,130,188

aAs of 20 December 1974

bData based on project applications approved by Federal
Disaster Assistance Administration. Applicants in
Genesee County not included as this county does not
border Lake Ontario.

cData does not necessarily reflect what applicants.,.will
receive, because final payment depends on work completed
and paid for by applicant, final inspection and audit.
Amounts may be decreased in this process.
dTown of Oswego will not receive Federal funds because
it does not plan to undertake repair work.

Source: Division of Military and Naval Affairs, State of
New York, Albany, New York.

requested and $900,000 was budgeted. Of this amount,
$660,000 was required for "reconstruction of various
parks and recreation f -acilities damaged by storms and
flooding, and construction of storm protection devices ...
due to storms and high level of Lake Ontario.

Genesee Regi on ............... 150,000
Niagara Region ...... :1--1200,000
Central New York Region ...... 270,000 9
Thousand Islands Region ...... 40@-000"

A representative of the Office of Parks and Recreation
states, "Additional losses such as property erosion, silting 1110
of channels, etc. are rather poorly covered by these estimates.

In total, approximately 25 million dollars worth of
federal 'aid was reque'sted by riparian owners of the New York
portion of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. This
figure can be used as an.estimate of the damage sustained.
by man made facilities in this area during the short period
of mid-March 1973.

Estimates of damage to,man made facilities sustained on
the Canadian portion of the shoreline.are,not available at .
this time. - Currently the.-Canadian,government has underway a
study, The Canada'/Ontario Gre at Lakes Shore Damage Survey
Report@,'Which'will evaluate damages.due to high water for the
period November, 1972 to November, 1973. It is expected to
be completed'in.November, 1974 (see Appendix A).

b...Below Moses-Saunders Dam Significant impact
to riparian owners below the Moses-Saunders.Dam.is limited
primar ily.to the area around Montreal.11- Negative impact
occurs when the combined flow of the 0 t@ awa River and the
St. Lawrence River exceed 5,00,000 cfs.

9New York'State Supplemental Budget, 1,9.73-1974, Chapter 600.
1OLetter from Ivan Vamos, Dire-ctor, Planning and Research,
New York State Office of Parks and Recreation, dated
August 27, 1974.
llThe area sensitive to flooding where major damage occurs-is
below Beauharnois and abov-e the Lachine Rapids. Flooding in
Montreal Harbor when-it does occuris primarily due to ice jams.
12The 500,000 cfs refers to the c ombined flow of the Ottawa
River, prior to its splitting upstream of Montreal, and the
St. Lawrence River, prior to its confluence with the Ottawa
River.. In other terms flooding on Lake, St. Louis occurs
when the outflow from the Lake exceeds 380,000 cfs (provided
by Canadian Regulation Representative and IJC) including the
contribution from the Ottawa River. A figure of 345,000 cfs
was provided by the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp.

The primary'causes of damage are backwater from-the
Ottawa River in the Lake of Two Mountains area and
flooding in the Three Rivers area. Montreal Harbour
itself experiences little flooding.

Again, no data were available upon which total
damages could be determined. Estimates of damages in
the Montreal Region are 10-15 million dollars in 1974
.and less than 6 million in both 1972 and 1973. It is
estimated that about 25 million dollars occurred in-the'
entire province of Quebec in 1974.13

It is understood that the Canadian federal and
provincial governments are currently studying the problem
of flooding on the Ottawa River, examining Ottawa River
regulation and developing the stage - damage relationship
for the Ottawa River and Montreal Harbour area.

c. Natural Environment - Assessment of the
impact of the high water levels on the natural environment
of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River had to'be
acquired through field observation since no published
sources could be,located that report such data. Negative
impacts are observed-in the form of bluff erosion, sand
dune erosion and general beach erosion at rate's that
appear to'be in excess of the historic rate. River mouths
clogged with sediment deposits are another example of the
impact. Destruction of vegetati 'on, including mature trees,
indicates the severity of,the-erosion. Figures 22 an 'd 23
depict examples of damage to the natural environment along
the New York portion of Lake Ontario.

Figure 24 depicts the changing barrier beach con-
figuration of North Sandy Pond, Oswego Co., New York, for
the period 1938 to 1973. Figure 25 shows an aerial view
of the beach in June 1974. As can be seen, the high
levels in the past few years have accelerated the rate of
erosion of this sand barrier beach.

No estimate of the impact of this destruction on the
natural environment of the area has been made to date by
federal, state or local governments. Efforts are now
underway by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to
partially examine this along with other aspects of shore
damage.(see Appendix A).

13Estimates provided by Mr. R. 'Pentland, Department of
Environment Canada.

do-

ve,

U.a

Figure 22. Destruction of the Natural Environment Lake Ontario.

Aar.&

Ow,

AIP-

_*70

7TWw" 71%
'n,
wk

Figure,23. Accelerated Erosion February, 1973 (top photo)
March, 1973 (bottom photo).
91 1

Green Green Green Green
Point Point Point Point

NORTH SANDY POND NORTH SANDY POND NORTH SANDY POND NORM SANDY POND

Carl Carl Carl Carl
Island Island

NOVEMBER 11 APRIL 23 JULY 2 MARCH 20
1938 1959 1965 1973
LAKE LEVEL: 243.491 LAKE LEVEL: 245-05 LAKE LEVEL: 244-551 'LAKE LEVEL: 246.96

0 1000 2000 0 1000 2000 0 1000 2000 0 1000 2000
Scale in Feet @c-ajie i'n Feet Scale in Feet Scale in Feet

Lake levels referenced to lnter@-
national Great Lake I)atum
(1955).
ARM 92
Figure 25. North Sandy Pond: Barrier Beach Configuration Sequence, 1938 - 1973.
J

,'X"W
4p 44V@31';'

7@'

Figure 25. North Sandy Pond: Barrier Beach Configuration,
June, 1974.

On the positive side the high water may have helped
water quality in many locations, as well as increasing
the productivity of adjacent wetlands by providing improved r
conditions for nesting and spawning during critical
periods. It may also have allowed the postponement of
dredging operations in some harbors and rivers. This
impact in terms of dollars was,not determined.

In summary, evaluation of the impact of the high water
levels on the natural environment of Lake Ontario and the
St. Lawrence River has been given almost no consideration.
Effects on fish spawning beds, wetlands, erosion rates,
littoral drift rates, etc. have been left unstudied.
Without this information, man's efforts to control the
levels of the Lake are at best biased - biased toward
other interests for whom impacts can be and are quantified.

B. Evaluation of Impact

Following is a brief summary of the magnitudes and
incidences of impacts of the high water levels on Lake
Ontario and the St. Lawrence River described above. Table
28 reflects whether the magnitude was small, moderate or
large and whether it was positive (+) or negative (-).
Positive impacts are synonomous with benefits and negative
impacts with damages. The incidence of the impact is broken
down by the three major interest groups - power, navigation
and riparian owners - and then into subgroups of these.

As can be seen the majority of the impacts have been
negative except for the power interest. Of these negative
impacts the magnitude has been large only for riparian
owners where properties above Moses-Saunders Dam, and
properties below Moses-Saunders Dam have been inflicted with
large negative impacts. Although the total impact on the
natural environment is felt to be negative the magnitude is
at this time indeterminate. Only increased revenue for
power interests can be classified as a large positive impact.

If the quantifiable impacts were summed, the total
would be negative for the period January 1973 through
August 1974. This sum would not reflect a true picture of
the absolute impact, however, since some negative impacts
damage to the natural environment - are not quantifiable.
However, it would reflect the fact that the impact has been
negative in total with riparian owners bearing the brunt
of the impact.

In general terms, it can be stated that the releases
from Lake Ontario were made in accordance with the require-
ments of the Order of Approval, as reflected through Plan

Table 28. Magnitude and Incidence of Impacts of High
Water Levels

Magnitudea
Incidence Small Moderate Large

Power
Increased Revenue +
Rebate to Customers +

Navigation
Increased Operating Cost
Damages

Riparian Owners
Above Moses-Saunders Dam
Below Moses-Saunders Dam
Natural Environmentb

a + indicates a positive impact
indicates a negative impact
bThe net impact is felt to be negative. However, the
magnitude is at present indeterminate.

Of Control 1958-D, and as modified by the actions of
the St. Lawrence River Board of Control. Under the
circumstances this resulted in a minimization of the
navigational hazard; a substantial gain for the power
interests; and inflicting of severe damages on the
riparian owners and natural environment.

CHAPTER V

DAMAGE REDUCTION TECHNIQUES

Methods of reducing damages to property on or
adjacent to the lake flood plain are classified into three
general groups - regulation of the lake water levels, shore
protection measures and flood plain management. Combina-
tions of any of these methods are also often feasible.
Each method will be described below along with its limita-
tions and strengths.

A. Types of Damage Reduction Techniques

1. Regulation of the Water Level

Regulation infers some degree of control.. As
used here, it relates to control of the water levels of a
lake. A regulation plan is a means of determining the flow
out of a lake for a given future period. A plan, very
simply, is normally developed by routing known past water
supplies through the system such that a more favorable level
and flow regimen is achieved than would occur if the system
was left uncontrolled. The routing sequence that comes
closest to achieving the desired results is then incorporated
into the plan of control. It is utilized under similar
supply conditions in the future.

Regulation of any lake generally requires two basic
facilities: first, one or more control structures capable
of reducing the outflow, especially when low lake levels
occur., and second, dredging of its outlet river so that
greater flows can be released at times when high lake levels
occur.

Regulation of water levels is limited to a degree by
the drainage area of the system to be controlled. To be
fully effective, the control structure(s) have to be capable
of reducing the outflow under extreme supply conditions
while the channel modifications have to be extensive enough
to allow passage of high supplies. In the case of the St.
Lawrence River, the outlet for the entire Great Lakes System,
any control device located on it would have to be capable
of controlling the waters discharged from about 95,000
square miles of water area and approximately twice as much
land area.

The costs incurred in building a system meeting these
criteria are usually high, both from an absolute dollar and
an environmental point of view. Thus, most existing systems
of this type are not built to control the extremes in
supplies, but only a range in the middle, leaving damages
to occur at both ends of the supply scale. Other limitations
of this method of control are that the operating criteria and
structures are usually developed to meet a given set of
conditions. Over time these conditions change. It is often
not possible - either physically or insitutionally - to
change the regulation procedures rapidly enough to keep pace
with such changes. Man's inability to accurately forecast
weather - both short and long term - is also a constraint
on the efficient operation of a regulatory system.

In general, regulatory plans are effective for the
range of supplies for which they were developed. However,
this range is usually less than the range in water supplies
that can be reasonably expected to occur.1 Thus the
extremes of the expected range are left uncontrolled and
when they are experienced, large amounts of damage normally
occur. This is particularly true of high water supply
conditions.
2. Shore Protection Measures 2

Protection measures are generally built for the purpose
of preventing recurrence of damages to shure property,
including measures to prevent damage from erosion and wave
action, and measures to prevent damage from inundation.

Shore protection methods may be divided into three
basic types: (1) those that provide protection by means of
a higher beach, (2) those that shield vulnerable portions of
the shores from the forces of waves and (3) those that
reduce or prevent flooding of lower adjacent lands behind
such protective structures.

Below is a description of several commonly used
protection structures and a discussion of their effective-
ness. Each of the different types of shore protective

As used here "reasonably expected" is that evaluation made
based on statistical analysis of past supplies. As an
example of its usage consider the fact that the Corps
usually builds flood protection levies to provide 100
year protection, if economically and technically feasible,
even though flows in excess of the magnitude of 100 year
flows are "reasonably expected".
2This section is adapted from: Great Lakes Shoreline Damage,
Causes and Protective Measures, U. S. Corps of Engineers,
North Central Division, May, 1972.

structures has its own inherent advantages, disadvantages
and limitations. These attributes generally dictate the
method to be employed and the degree of protection to be
achieved. In some instances, they provide an indicator as
to what not to do, as well as what should be done.
Appendix B lists several publications dealing with shore
protection measures.

Bulkheads, seawalls and revetments differ only in
their primary function. By definition, a bulkhead is a
structure separating land and water areas, primarily
designed to resist earth pressures; a seawall is also a
structure separating land and water areas, primarily
designed to prevent damage to an upland area while retaining
its seaward limit in a fixed position. A seawall may also
be designed to resist earth pressure. A revetment is a
facing, generally of stone, built to protect an otherwise
stable embankment against erosion from wave action (see,
Figure 26).

The principal advantages attributable to bulkheads,
seawalls and revetments are: (1) they provide positive
protection and generally permit more intensive use of the
adjacent upland; (2) they maintain the upland area on a
fixed alignment, and (3) they are adaptable to providing
protection to an area with a minimum of incidental damage
to adjacent areas. Disadvantages of bulkheads, seawalls
and revetments are: (1) they are not effective in
maintaining a beach; (2) they provide no protection to
adjacent areas which may continue to erode and eventually
expose the flanks of the protected property.

Groins provide upland protection by intercepting
part of the granular material that is moved along shore by
wave generated currents. Their principal advantages are:
(1) the resulting beach provides protection to upland areas
as well as a potential recreation area; (2) their effect
may spread over considerable lengths of shore; and (3) at
those locations where groins would be effective, protection
can generally be provided at lower initial cost by their
use. Disadvantages in the use of groins include: (1) they
are not as positive as a seawall for continuous upland
protection; (2) they may be outflanked; (3) they are in-
effective in areas of low littoral drift unless granular
beach fill is artificially added and (4) the area immediately
downdrift of the groin may be subject to increased scour.

Offshore breakwaters provide protection to upland
property by reducing the wave energy impinging on the
shoreline. Submerged breakwaters are a type of offshore
breakwater and have the same general effect depending on
depth of submergence. These may also be used to reduce

. ..... .. . . P
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X4:4:-:w:w:0:*:-:-.xx-

BULKHEADS ISTEEL OR TIMBER) SEAWALLS

EXISTING SLOPE
F LTER MATERIAL
REQUIRED FOR TIMBER PILES
SPLASH BACKFILLED WITH SAND
APRON

HIGH WATER
GRANULAR
FILL@:
HIGH WATER

CABL'
TIEBACK
SHEET STEEL PILING
CUT-OFF WALL
STONE TOE
WOVEN FILTER CLOTH
PROTECTION

.............
%

STONE REVETMENT
BROKEN CONCRETE REVETMENT
PELL MELL PLACEMENT

X
EXISTING SLOPE

HIGH WATER
HIGH WATER
EXISTING SLOPE LAKE BED

LAKE BED

FILTER
FILTER MATERIAL
MATERIAL

.....................
....................... x
-x
X: x X
-x-: .......
GABION REVETMENT PERCHED BEACH

STONE FILLED
SLOPE 1'x10' GABION TYPE FILL
GABIONS TO PROTECTION MATTRESS
BEACH
TYPICAL STONE 3'x3' GABION
OR CONCRETE PIECES I'/,'x3 GABI@N HIGH WATER LEVEL
BACKFILL
HIGH WATER
96.

5 & GRAVEL
RENO TTOM ILL STONE TOE PROTECTION
0 1
MATTRESS (ALTERNATE-GABION TYPE
MATTRESS)

. ... .................
X. . ....................... .. ..... .
X
X

OFFSHORE BREAKWATER
IMPERMEABLE GROINS
X
X, EXISTING SLOPE

LAKESIDE
RIP RAP ALONG 3' x 3'
END OF GROIN GABION
-.-.% HIGH WATER LEVEL

EXTREME
TIE INTO BANK 2-11/,'x 3'
HI GABIONS

ORIGINAL
BOTTOM
STONE TOE PROTECTION
EXISTING BLANKET. (ALTERNATIVE-
LAKE BOTTOM GABION TYPE MATTRESS)

%
HIGH WATER
E. STING NSLOPE
LAKE

Figure 26. Schematic of Shore Protective Devices (Source: Help
Yourself, Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers, North Central
Division) 99

beach slopes artificially, and thus prevent loss of
material. The principal advantages are that: (1) they
provide protection without impairing the usefulness of the
beach; and (2) they may provide sheltered waters for boating.
Disadvantages are: (1) the relatively high cost of con,
struction; (2) they protect only the shore behind them and
for a short distance updrift; and (3) they may cause down-
drift erosion.

A beach fill protects the upland by interposing a
width of beach between the upland and the lake to absorb
wave energy. The advantages of protection by beach fills
-are its pleasing appearance and possible recreational value.
The principal disadvantages are that they require an adequate
supply of beach material economically located and continuous
maintenance must be provided.

3. Flood Plain Management

Flood plain management can be considered an affirmative,
preventive measure in that it places constraints on man's
activities in flood plain areas. Thus flood plain management
can prevent,man, to varying degrees, from encroaching on
@he flood plain and therefore from experiencing damages
incurred by flooding caused by storms or high water levels.

Management techniques are numerous and are implementable
at various levels of government. Some of the more common
techniques are discussed below.

a. Land-Use Planning - Many cities, towns and villages
have planning boards empowered to develop plans for sound
future land use. Only the larger municipalities have the
financial ability to employ professional staffs for these
boards. Smaller municipalities, even with federal planning
aid available, must rely on consu-1tants to produce their
plans. The usefulness of these plans is limited by the lack
of staff to keep them current and to apply them to specific
implementation techniques.

b. Zoning Ordinance - Cities, towns and villages are
empowered to adopt zoning ordinances and to control flood
plain land use within these ordinances. The limitations
of staff which restrict planning also restrict the effective-
ness of zoning. In addition, the relatively small geographic
area of many municipalities may mean that they are frequently
subject to flooding caused by stream encroachment outside
their jurisdiction. Flood plain zoning in such cases may
be ineffective unless adopted in concert by adjoining
municipalities.

100

Flood plain zoning requires technical information and
engineering skill beyond that required for other types of
zoning. Also, public pressure on a local zoning board can be
very great. Exceptions and variances are common and can
destroy originally sound controls. It has been observed that
zoning works fine until it is readlly needed. When the
pressures of urbanization and recreational development become
most critical, zoning becomes most vulnerable.

C. Subdivision Regulation - Planning boards can deny
subdivision approval in areas deemed hazardous to public health
and safety. Subdivision rules may require that the land
be suitable for building sites and of such character that it
can be used safely for building purposes without damages to
health or peril from fire, flood or other menace. To use
this power effectively, flood hazard areas must be deline-
ated on a map.

d. Public Utility Policy - Communities may seek to
direct development away from flood plain areas by limiting
the provision of public water and sewer services in these
areas. In some areas this has been the subject of formal
policy resolution by the municipality. This is an indirect
technique. Unless firmly determined upon, it will be weak
when confronted with pressures for service in these areas.

e. Building and Health Codes - These codes regulate the
type of construction and the provision of adequate sanitary
facilities to protect the health and safety of the inhabi-
.tants. Additional cost may be involved in meeting these
regulations in hazard areas such as flood plains, but if
the developer is willing to meet these costs, the codes
will not prevent him from building there. Code requirements
should not be set arbitrarily high merely for the purpose
of preventing development.

f. Official Map Technique - Municipalities may adopt
an official map identifying the right-of-way or boundaries
of future streets, highways, public building sites, storm
drains or parks.

The official map serves as a regulatory tool; the
municipality may deny permits for the erection of any
building in a proposed street or other future public area
shown on the official map. This prevents speculation
construction for gain in areas which have been officially
declared necessary for future rights-of-way. Private
property owners thus restricted must be compensated by tax
relief and/or public purchase of the required property.
The law is inconclusive as to whether this authority can
be exercised within drainage ways. Although it permits
drainage ways to be shown on the official map, the official
map is little used because of legal uncertainties about its

101

operation relative to flood prone areas. It is also the
subject of variances where the owner can demonstrate
"hardship".

g.. Land Purchase - Municipalities can acquire flood
plain land and use it for parks, playgrounds and other
relatively damage-free uses. This is recommended in
numerous land-use plans, but is not frequently carried out.

Several problems stand in the way of large scale
municipal land acquisition. Even with state and federal
aid, the local share of purchase cost may be large in
proportion to community tax resources. The municipality
may also be unwilling or unable to take land off the tax
roles.

h. Development Right Purchase - This is authorized
but remains basically an untried tool at the local level.
Some states have used this tool to maintain scenic easements
along highways or rivers. The advantage over free-simple
purchase is, in theory, its lower cost, but experience
indicates that this saving is only significant in undeveloped
rural areas where pressures for development are smallest.
Where most urgently needed purchase of development rights
will-generally approximate the total value of the property.

i. Easement Purchase - This could be used to acquire
narrow drainage easements in developed area but would be
less applicable to the area of a large coastal flood plain.

j. Information - Information is usually provided by
a high - state or federal - level of government. Currently
the Corps of Engineers, United States Geological Survey,
Soil Conservation Service and the National Weather Service
all provide information relative to existing or impending
flood hazards, either in the form of delineation of existing
hazard areas or in the form of warning of an impending
hazard.

The ten techniques discussed above yield best results
when utilized in a coordinated manner. The degree of
success of almost all depends upon the degree of resolution
with which they are implemented or enforced.

k. Flood Insurance - Another measure that can be
utilized is flood insurance. This technique does not reduce
damages but changes the incidence of the damage over time
and as to who bears the financial burden. This program is
administered by the Flood Insurance Administration,
Department of Housing and Urban Development. Requirements
for eligibility have the potential to reduce future
damages incurred by flooding. These requirements include
implementation of some of the above listed management

102

techniques, for example, zoning ordinances, building codes
and the provision of information on the degree of flood
risks. See Appendix C for a summary of the Flood Insurance
Program.

The following chapter will discuss the degree to which
the above methods of reducing damages have been implemented
in the Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence Basin.

B. Applicability

The three damage reduction techniques described above
are not uniformly applicable along the Lake Ontario and
St. Lawrence River shoreline. The choice of technique to
provide the protection required is limited under certain
conditions. These limitations are discussed as they relate
to protection of both man made facilities and the natural
environment.

1. Man Made Facilities - Limitations to the type of
damage reduction techniqu ilized to protect man made
facilities are numerous. They are listed below and des-
cribed in general terms.

a. Economic - Structural protective devices provided
by governmental agencies must meet rigorous economic
criteria. The inability to do so often limits the use of
this technique.

b. Ownership of property to be protected - Public
funds are restricted in their use to provide protection
for private property. Thus, the use of certain structural
protective devices is limited by the ownership pattern of
the land to be protected.

C. State of development of shoreline - Flood plain
management techniques are often not applicable in areas
where development has occurred. In such areas, protection
is limited to lake level regulation and structural protective
devices.

d. Scale - Lake level regulation is applicable only
to the entire lake. Thus, segments cannot be regulated by
individuals or groups. Effectiveness of structural
protective device's generally are limited by scale also.
Such devices as seawalls, bulkheads, revetments, etc.,
protect shore reaches of shoreline, and when built by
individuals in an uncoordinated manner are usually not
effective in reducing overall shoreline damage.

2. Natural Environment - Protection of the natural
environment - sand dunes, beaches, wetlands, marshes, etc.
is generally restricted to lake level regulation. Structural

103

protective devices are generally not appropriate for use
in such areas; they often have the effects of limiting access
to the area, imposing upon its aesthetic quality, adversely
altering along shore currents, or otherwise damaging its
11natural" qualities. Flood plain management techniques
prevent man from encroaching upon the natural hazard areas
and thus from incurring additional damages to man made
facilities. However, such techniques do not protect the
natural environment itself from the damages caused by
changes in water levels. Only lake level regulation can
provide the protection that is required for the natural
environment.

In summary, it can be said that techniques suitable
to protect man made facilities, although limited, are more
flexible than those suitable for protecting the natural
environment. For the latter, only lake level regulation
seems to provide the protection desired without destroying
the area to be protected.

104

-CHAPTER VI

DAMAGE REDUCTION METHODS IMPLEMENTED IN THE
GREAT LAKES BASIN

Currently all of the methods of reducing damages
discussed in the preceeding chapter are being utilized
within the flood plain bordering Lake Ontario. In some areas,
combinations of the three general methods are used. Due to
the nature of the control plan and structural works for
regulating Lake Ontario water levels, all flood plain areas
are influenced and "protected" to some degree by the control
afforded by the operation of the plan and its associated
regulatory structures.1

A. Water Level Regulation

Currently there are two plans of regulation in
operation on the Great Lakes. Both have been designed to
satisfy certain criteria set forth @n Orders of Approval of
the International Joint Commission.

1. Plans of Regulation Within the Great Lakes

a. Lake Superior Regulation - Since completion
of the control work on the St. Marys River at Sault Ste.
Marie in August, 1921, the outflows from Lake Superior have
been subject to complete control. The Lake is regulated in
accordance with the Orders of Approval of the International
Joint Commission issued May 26 and 27, 1914, in reply to
applications for authorization of diversions of water around
the rapids for production of power. The Orders provide that
the works be so operated as to maintain the lake levels
within a specified range and not to interfere with navigation.

lEven in periods of high water when damage is occurring, the
U. S. Army Corps states that the damage would be greater
without operation of the control plan due to the fact that
the water level would be higher if there were not control
structures and a plan of regulation (See Figure 29).
2The International Joint Commission works within the frame-
work established as a result of passage of the Boundary
Waters Treaty of 1909 between the United States and Canada.

105

Further, they provide safeguards against extremely high
and low regulated lake levels, and high levels on the St.
Marys River. The International Lake Superior Board of
Control established by the Commission in accordance with
the terms of its Order directly supervises operation of
the river control works and the amount of the diversions.
Details on the regulation plans used for Lake Superior can
be found in the Great Lakes Basin Framework Study.3

b. Lake Ontario Regulation - The regulation of Lake
Ontario began in April 1960 in accordance with the Interna-
tional Joint Commission's Order of Approval of October 29,
1952, and the Supplementary Order of July 2, 1956, and is
under the direct supervision of the Commission's International
St. Lawrence River Board of Control. Appendix D provides
the office consolidation of the Orders of Approval.

The orders provide that the lake is to be regulated
during the navigation season within a certain range of
levels and to meet certain additional requirements relating
to downstream interests, to power interests, and to other
Lake Ontario interests. These requirements are set forth
in Criteria a-k listed in Appendix D.

2. Organization For Regulation

On January 11, 1909, the United States of America
and Canada entered into a "Boundary Waters Treaty." Appendix
G provides the text of this treaty. The purposes of the
treaty as set forth in its preamble are:

a. to prevent disputes regarding the use of
boundary waters;

b. to settle all questions pending between the
United States and Canada involving the rights, obligations
or interests of either in relation to the other, or to the
inhabitants of the other, along their common frontier; and

C. to make provision for the adjustment and settle-
ment of all such questions as may hereafter arise.

Article VII of the "Boundary Waters Treaty" established
the International Joint Commission (IJC). The International
Joint Commission, in carrying out the purposes of the
Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, has wide-ranging responsi-
bilities with respect to boundary waters between the United

3Great Lakes Basin Framework Study, Appendix 11, U. S. Army
Engineer Division, North Central, September, 1972.

106

States and Canada. The first of these responsibilities
is to approve or disapprove all proposals for use,
obstruction or diversion of boundary waters on either side
of the boundary which would affect the natural level or
flow of the boundary waters on the other side.

Projects may be brought before the IJC by what is
termed an "application" filed by interested persons -
either public agencies or private corporations or indivi-
duals. Examples in the Great Lakes system include the
regulatory works at Sault Ste. Marie and those on the St.
Lawrence River. In the case of an application for Commission
approval, the burden is on the applicant to furnish all
necessary information and data required.

The second general responsibility of the IJC is to
investigate'and make recommendations on specific problems
referred to by either or both Governments. The procedure
is to submit problems through the United States Department
of State and Canada's Department of External Affairs. In
the case of references to problems, the IJC appoints an
international board which is directed to make a thorough
investigation of the facts involved and file a written
report. The report of the Commission is then prepared,
including recommendations to the two Governments.

On October 7, 1964, during a period of critical low
levels on the Great Lakes, the Governments of Canada and
the United States requested the IJC to study the factors
which affect the fluctuations of the Great Lakes waters.
The Governments also asked the Commission if it would be
practicable and in the public interest to regulate further
the levels of the Great Lakes to reduce the range of stages
experienced in the past.

In December of 1964, the IJC established the
International Great Lakes Levels Board (IGLLB). This
Board, with its working committee and six subcommittees,
has been engaged in a joint Canada-United States study to
"determine whether measures within the Great Lakes Basin
can be taken in the public interest to regulate further
the levels of the Great Lakes or any of them and their
connecting waters so as to reduce the extremes of stage
which have been experienced, and ... for the purposes of
bringing about a more beneficial range of stage for, and
improvement in: (a) domestic water supply and sanitation;
(b) navigation; (c) water for power and industry; W
flood control; (e) agriculture; (f) fish and wildlife; (g)
recreation; and (h) other beneficial public purposes."

The International St. Lawrence River Board of Control
(SLRBC) was established (as noted above) with responsibility
for determining the outflow rate from Lake Ontario on a
weekly basis (see Figure 27). In addition it is responsible

107

Outflow Conforms With Outflow Does Not Conform
Plan 1958-D Criteria With Plan 1958-D Criteria

Operations Advisory Operations Advisory
Group (OAG) Group (OAG)
4W - 7W
Regulation Regulation
Representatives Representatives
7W
Barnhart Island St. Lawrence River

s_
Powerhouse (Mose@ Board of Control
Saunders Dam) (SLRBC)

Barnhart Isl and
Powerhouse (Mos es_
Saunders 7Dam

Steps Steps

1. OAG recommends outflow for 1. OAG recommends outflow for
the week to Regulation week to Regulation
Representatives. Representatives.

2. Regulation Representatives 2. Regulation Representatives
make decision on outflow for consult with SLRBC.
the week.
3. SLRBC makes final decision
3. Barnhart Island Powerhouse is on outflow for the week.
notified to make the release.
4. Barnhart Island Powerhouse
is notified to make the
release.

NOTE: Appendix C lists the membership of the decision making bodies.

Figure 27. Decision Makers in Regulation of Lake Ontario's Outflows.

108

for continually improving the means of regulations and has
periodically revised the plan of operation. The last major
revision occurred in 1963 when Plan 1958-D was adopted and
placed into effect in October of that year. Appendix G
lists the members of the various organizations described
above. Appendix E provides a description of Plan of Control
1958-D. 3. Existing Regulatory Works

The flows in'the St. Lawrence River, the natural
outlet of Lake Ontario and the Great Lakes, are regulated by
a series of structures and an associated channel enlargement
(see Figure 28). Between Lake Ontario and Lake St. Louis,
where part of the.Ottawa River joins the St. Lawrence,
there are structures at Points Rockway-Iroquois, at Massena-
Cornwall, at Coteau Landing and at Beauharnois. The Moses-
Saunders Power Dam and Long Sault Dam at Massena-Cornwall
normally control the levels of Lake Ontario, while the
series of dams near Coteau Landing, together with the
Beauharnois power plant, control the levels of Lake St.
Francis.

The Iroquois Dam, which extends 1,980 feet from Point
Rockway in the United States to the Canadian shore near
Iroquois, was designed with the capability to pass and
control, as required, the full discharge from Lake Ontario.
Two 350-ton travelling gantry cranes operate the 32 steel,
roller-type, sluice gates. Elevation of the top of sills
is 200.0 feet. The gates can be dipped to prevent
excessive build-up of water levels in Lake St. Lawrence
during periods of strong westerly winds. The pattern of
gate settings for the dam was developed from hydraulic
model tests, and has been selected so as to minimize adverse
currents in the navigation channel at the lower approach
to Iroquois Lock. The gates are also used during ice
formation to assist in promoting a stable ice cover.

Long Sault Dam is located below the foot of Long
Sault Island, about 25,miles downstream of the Iroquois
Dam, and lies entirely within the United States. It is
capable of discharging a flow of up to 450,000 cfs. It
measures 2,960 feet along its curved axis and comprises
a sluiceway section and a non-overflow section. Thirty
50-foot sluiceways, formed between 10-foot piers, discharge
flows in excess of requirements at the Moses-Saunders
plants and affect control of river flows and water levels
within specified ranges. Eighteen of the thirty sluice
gates are equipped with fixed electric hoists, while the
other twelve are handled by service cranes on the deck.
Two 275-ton electric travelling gantry cranes, running
on tracks the length of the deck, provide hoisting service.
The spillway crest elevation is 217.0 feet. The gates of

109

:E] 0q ....

(D
(D Iroquols._ .... .......
00

<
(D M
....... .. . ..
x IROQUOIS
DAM

IROQUOIS-'-.LOCK
m
O,q

... . ..... ...........
(D
.. ...........

Mo risburg
.... ......
2000
. .........U
@J
.............

...............
............ . .....
Cy
... . . .............
0 ......
... .... .....
.. .. .... ....

Waddington ........

Iroquois
NtA
Deg()
(D

..........

rt
fSENHOWER
LOCK
AO
0
..... Gfos

0 5 10 0 2000
rt
@3' Ya rds
(D Scale in Miles

Ogdensburg

this dam are operated only under very high river flow
conditions or when flows are restricted through the power-
houses for maintenance of generating units.

Located about three and one-half miles downstream from
Long Sault Dam and two miles west of Cornwall, Ontario,
the Saunders Generating Station of the Hydro-Electric Power
Commission of Ontario and the Moses Power Dam of the Power
Authority of the State of New York form contiguous power
plants spanning the St. Lawrence from Barnhart Island in
the United States to the Canadian shore. Bisected by the
International Boundary Line, the semi-outdoor plants have
a combined length of 3,300 feet with a rated head of 81
feet, and a total flow capacity of approximately 325,000
cfs. With thirty-two 57,000 kilowatt capacity generators,
equally divided between Canada and the United States, the
combined power plants have a total rated capacity of
1,824,000 kilowatts, making the installation one of the
largest hydroelectric power producing plants in the
western world. Impounded behind the concrete gravity dam
of the power plants is the water of man made Lake St.
Lawrence with a volume of 750,000 acre-feet at the normal
lake level elevation of 241.0 feet. The lake has an area
of 37,500 acres and extends upstream to Iroquois Dam. It
is c'onfined by a system of earth embankments at the lower
end totalling about 16 miles in length.

At the lower end of Lake St. Francis, about 32 miles
east of Cornwall, Ontario, the major part of the St.
Lawrence flow is diverted through a 15-mile navigation and
power canal to Hydro-Quebec's generating station at
Beauharnois. Constructed in three stages over a period
of thirty years, the Beauharnois Power House has 36 main
generating units with a total capacity of 1,574,000
kilowatts at a head of 80 feet of water. The length of
the structure is 2,836 feet and has a maximum discharge
capacity of 270,000 cfs. The remainder of the flow leaves
Lake 'St. Francis through the Coteau Control Dams which have
a maximum discharge capacity of 435,000 cfs and are
utilized by the 162,000-kilowatt Hydro-Quebec generating
station in the natural channel of the St. Lawrence River
at Cedars. The navigation channel is situated along the
north bank of the Beauharnois Canal and has a minimum
depth of 27 feet, over a width of 600 feet. Two locks
at its confluence with Lake St. Louis allow ships to enter
the canal.

An integral part of the St. Lawrence Seaway-Power
Project was the St. Lawrence River channel dredging and
excavations carried out for the following purposes: (1)
to provide a channel depth, width, alignment and water
velocity for 27-foot depth navigation; (2) to reduce
velocities to induce ice over most of the river thus
minimizing operational problems and enhancing the channel

ill

carrying capacity of the river subsequent to the ice
forming period; (3) to distribute the flow in such a way
as not to interfere with navigation; and (4) more important
from the standpoint of lake regulation, t'o reduce head
losses at specific points in order to increase the
channel capacity and to maximize the head available for
hydroelectric power generation. For the most part, channel
enlargements carried out for one interest'were beneficial
to the other interests.

The International Joint Commission, in its Orders of
Approval, specified that the power entities were required
to undertake channel enlargements which would ensure that
acceptable velocities are provided through the Galop Rapids,
particularly below Galop to Morrisburg. These velocities
were not to exceed 2.25 feet per second in order to form
an ice cover during the winter. Additionally, minimum
depths required upstream and downstream of Iroquois were
29.5 feet and 28.5 feet respectively. The power entities
carried out channel enlargements in ten areas while the
navigation agencies carried out dredging in four locations.
The principal locations of channel enlargements carried
out by the power entities were at Chimney Island, Galop
Island, Lalone-Lotus Islands, Sparrowhawk Point -
Toussaints Island, Iroquois, Pt. Rockway, Point Three
Points, Ogden Island, the heddrace of Long Sault Dam and
the trailrace of the Moses-Saunders Dam. The principal
locations of channel improvements carried out specifically
for navigation were at the Thousand Islands Section in the
International Rapids Section at Iroquois Lock, Wiley-
Dondero Ship Channel, including Eisenhower and Snell Locks,
and in the North and South Channels, adjacent to Cornwall
Island.4

A total of approximately 107 million cubic yards of
material was excavated. The excavations carried out by
the power entities totaled 63 million cubic yards; the
major locations being in the vicinity of Sparrowhawk Point
Toussaints Island (12 million), Galop Island (16 million)
and Point Three Points - Ogden Island (11 million). The
excavations carried out by the navigation agencies totalled
44 million cubic yards, with the principal locations being
Wiley-Dondero Channel (25 million), and north and south
of Cornwall Island (15 million).

4. Evaluation of the.Implementation of the Plan
of Control During the Current Period of High
Water

4The Wiley-Dondero Canal was excavated principally through
the U. S. mainland and did not affect the hydraulic
capabilities of the river channels.

112

The following evaluation of the implementation of
the Plan of Control during the current period of high water
is based primarily on the results achieved. Granted, this
allows the opportunity for hindsight to be utilized and
criticism to be rendered based on the knowledge gathered
over time. However, the additional information forthcoming
during the time period January, 1973 through August, 1974,
provided little of significance beyond what was known to be
the situation prior to this time period. No natural
phenomena, other than above average rainfall of about 1.3
inches for the period, occurred that would influence the
implementation of the Plan of Control. Thus, this evaluation
is made not with additional knowledge but possibly only with
different objectives than the ones that were strived'for by
those who implemented the Plan of Control during the period
in question.

a. Conformity with Control Plan 1958-D - The
operation of the plan is evaluated on the degree to which it
conformed with the criteria set forth in Plan 1958-D.
Listed below are general groups to which one or more
criteria are relevant along with the evaluation of the plan
relative to the criteria.

It should be made clear prior to reading the following
evaluation of the criteria that they are prefaced on supplies
as received in the past (1860-1954). During the period for
which they are being evaluated (January 1973 through August
1974), the rainfall in the Lake Ontario Basin was 2.1
inches above the average.
51. Water Levels at Montreal Harbour -.(Criteria a,
c and d. ) Criterion a is aimed at providing minimum depth
within Montreal Harbour during the period April 1 to
December 15. The latter two criteria regulate the discharge
of the St. Lawrence River above Montreal and the Ottawa
River during periods of high inflow from the Ottawa and
spring breakup of ice in Montreal Harbour, respectively.

Criterion a was fulfilled at all times during the past
two year. Criterion c and d were met through control of
releases from the Moses-Saunders Dam. However, severe
flooding did occur around the Montreal area due to the extreme
flows discharged by the Ottawa River. This flooding was..
more severe in 1974 than in 1973.

2. Winter Operation - Criterion b dictates that
from December 15 to March 31 the outflow be as large as-
feasible while minimizing the difficulties of winter'
operation. The operating procedures followed appear to have

5See Appendix D for wording of the criter ia.

113

minimized the difficulties of winter operation in that no
major problems were encountered during ice formation or
break-up during the period in question. Nor were there any
major difficulties encountered during the period of ice
cover.

Due to the high water levels prevailing and anticipated,
efforts were made to discharge greater flows of water during
this period than normal. During the December 15-March 31
period in 1972-73, the average flow was approximately
270,000 cfs as measured at Massena, New York. In 1973-74
period it was approximately 267,000 cfs. These figures
compare to an average flow for the period of about 228,0.00
cfs for the years 1959 to 1974.

These figures reflect a substantial effort to reduce the
level of Lake Ontario during the winter months by dis-
charging quantities of water well in excess of normal. It
also reflects-that the Plan of Control has a degree of
flexibility in the manner in which it was implemented.

3. Flow for Power - Criterion e requires that
consistent with other requirements the regulated outflow
should be such as to secure the maximum dependable flow
for power. It appears as if this criteria was met. As
discussed earlier in this report, the percent of time that
weekly outflows exceeded 270,000 cfs in 1973 was 87 percent,
and in 1974 through August it was 74 percent. The average
amount of time this occurred during the period 1950 through
1973 was 18 percent. This flow is accredited with production
of power well above the average yearly production.

The period of time during which the flow was less than
270,000 cfs during the January, 1973 through August, 1974
period was at ice formation time (December - January).
The Plan of Control, through Criterion b imposes flow
restrictions at this time in order to ensure ice formation.

4. Navigation Channel - Criterion f states that
maximum regulated outflow from Lake Ontario should be
maintained as low as possible to reduce channel excavation
to a minimum. Currently the Seaway is advertised as having
a 27 foot navigational channel and maintenance of this
appears to be the goal for regulation from the navigational
point of view.

During the period in question this depth has been
maintained except in isolated periods of extreme weather
conditions. At times when high rates of discharge occurred
adverse current conditions and problems associated with
steerage have been experienced. However, at no time under
normal weather conditions was there any limitations on the
27 foot navigational channel in the Seaway. Thus, it can
be said that the operational procedures fulfilled this

114

criteria but as discussed earlier, several incidents
incurring damage to ships or navigation facilities occurred
which were attributed to low water and high currents.

5. Lake Levels - Criteria g, h, i and j set forth
the constraints on Lake Ontario water levels as the result
of regulation. Each of these will be examined in detail.

Criterion g states that consistent with other
requirements, the levels of Lake Ontario shall be regulated
for the benefit of property owners on the shores of Lake
Ontario in the United States and Canada so as to reduce
the extremes of stage which have been experienced.6 As
detailed in Section IV-B of this report, property owners
on the shores of Lake Ontario have sustained severe damages
due to the high water. In addition the lake level has
established or been near the record high levels as was
reflected in Figure 5. Also, during the period in question
the level of Lake Ontario was above elevation 246.77, the
level below which it was to be controlled, approximately
40 percent of the time.

Although the Lake exceeded the Plan of Control's
established upper limit it should be noted that without
the control works, it is estimated that the level would
have reached 249.1 feet during 1973. This is approximately
13 inches above the actual recorded peak elevation. This
reduction in elevation is the effect that man's control
activities had on the level of Lake Ontario.

in light of these data it can be concluded that this
criterion was not satisfied to a high degree.

Criterion h states the regulated monthly mean of
Lake Ontario shall not exceed elevation 246.77 with the
supplies of the past as adjusted. As stated above, Lake
Ontario has exceeded elevation 246.77 approximately 40
percent of the time during the period from January, 1973
through August, 1974. Thus this criterion can be judged
to have not been met with any degree of consistency.

Criterion i states that under regulation the
frequency of occurance of monthly mean elevation of
approximately 245.77 and higher on Lake Ontario shall be
less than would have occurred in the past. For the period
from January, 1973 through August, 1974, this mean monthly
elevation has been exceeded approximately 68 percent of
the time compared to approximately 59 percent for the
period January, 1935 to December, 1954.

6Lake levels used in the International Joint Commission's
Orders of Approval refer to monthly mean values.

115

criterion j states that the regulated level of Lake
Ontario on April 1 shall not be lower than elevation 242-77.
The regulated monthly mean level of the lake from November
1 to 30 shall be maintained at or above elevation 242-77.
This criterion has been fulfilled at all times over the
period in question.

6. Special Conditions - Criterion k states that
in the event of supplies in excess of the supplies of the
past as adjusted, the works in the International Rapids
Section shall be operated to provide all possible relief
to the riparian owners upstream and downstream. Since
supplies were in excess of the past, this criterion should
have been followed to a greater extent. This basis for this
statement is that outflows have been restricted during the
late summer and early fall months during both 1973 and 1974.
Without these restrictions, water levels could have been
reduced and upstream riparian owners could have been
provided greater relief in the periods when high water
normally occurs.

In summary then, it can be stated that based on the
degree to.which the operation of the Plan of Control con-
formed with the criteria set forth in Plan 1958-D it is
felt that the Plan was implemented adequately with respect
to navigational and power interests. Criteria relative
to navigational and power interest were conformed to at
all times. On the other hand, criteria relative to maximum
water levels were not adequately conformed to although
efforts were made through releasing outflows in excess of
those called for by the Plan. Criteria relative to
riparian owners were not conformed with to a satisfactory
degree. It is the conditions of the times when Criterion k
is utilized that makes it nearly impossible to implement
this Criterion effectively due to the conflicts that exist
between upstream and downstream riparian owners. Both
upstream and downstream riparian owners can not be "provided
all possible relief", as required by the Criterion, during
times of high lake levels.

In light of the above it is felt that the implementation
of the Plan, although adequate in certain areas, could have
been changed and therefore possibly prevented a portion of
the damages that were sustained. In addition it is felt
that Criterion k is, as written, difficult to conform to.

b. Effectiveness of Plan 1958-D in Minimizing
Adverse Impacts - Prior to the following discussion, two
important poinTs should be made. First, the Plan of Control
1958-D as implemented has resulted in lake levels that are

116

lower than would have occurred under preproject conditions.7
These differences in lake levels are reflected in Figure 29.

This reduction in lake level undoubtedly has resulted
in less damage being incurred during the recent period of
high water than would have occurred without the development
of the St. Lawrence River. However, quantification of the
magnitude of the damage reduction was not possible.

The above has been pointed out in order to keep in
mind that the current Plan of Control has afforded positive
benefits to riparian owners on Lake Ontario without in-
curring significant damages to other interests. However,
still at issue is the question whether total damages
incurred by high water could be reduced through changes
in the Plan of Control or its implementation.

Second, physical constraints within the Lake Ontario-
St. Lawrence River drainage system limit the outflow that
is possible. Prior to the development of the St. Lawrence
River the record flow of the St. Lawrence was 318,000 cfs.
Upon completion of the channel enlargement and other works,
the record flow was increased to 351,000 cfs. achieved in
1973. Greater flow could have physi6ally been discharged
but damage would 'have been incurred.

The above discussion describes the benefits that are
attributed to the development of the St. Lawrence River
and the implementation of Plan of Control 1958-D. With
this in mind an examination of the sequences of discharge
passed through the control structures in an attempt to
evaluate whether all interest were given consideration in
the operation of the Plan of Control. This examination
may seem, and it may be, subjective. However, the process
of following the sequence of releases through the period in
question may provide insights into the control process from
which operational improvements can be recommended.

In order to evaluate the operation of the Plan for the
January, 1973 through August, 1974 period, an understanding
of what occurred in the fall of 1972 is required. Following
is the information required for such an understanding.

Lake Ontario peaked in 1972 at elevation 246.75 on July
16, 1972.8 This placed the Lake near the upper limit of

7Preproject conditions refer to the conditions that existed
prior to construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Moses-
Saunders Power Facility and their associated works.
8246.75 is the mean daily level for July 16, 1972. The
monthly mean level was 246.72 for July 1972.

117

the range (246-77) within which it is to be regulated.
From the end of June until the middle of October the outflow
was maintained at 310,000 cfs, which is the maximum outflow
permitted by Plan 1958-D. By the end of October the lake
level had dropped two and one quarter feet but remained
approximately .5 feet above normal. At this point in time
Lake Erie was still at a record high level.

As the lake level fell, difficulties experienced by
navigation increased with continuation of the discharge rate
of 310,000 cfs. On October 14, 1972 the outflow was reduced
to the maximum specified by the plan for navigation
requirements until winter limitations prevailed on December
16. Between October 13 a 'nd November 7 the lake fell .4 of
a foot. From November 8 to December 15 it then rose .4 of
a foot returning it to the elevation experienced on October
13, 1972.

During the calendar year 1972, precipitation in the
Lake Ontario Basin exceeded the average by about 9.3 inches.
Precipitation in the remainder of the Great Lakes Basin
exceeded the average by about 4.4 inches. This resulted in
near record or record high levels in the upper Great Lakes
which in turn indicated that above average-supplies of
water would be forthcoming to Lake Ontario in the future.

The large discharges released in the July to mid
October period raised the Montreal Harbour water level to
record high levels for that period of time. The levels
experienced were approximately 3 feet above the average.

In summary, the situation prevailing was one where
Lake Ontario was above average in elevation and approaching
the-level under which it was to be regulated. Precipitation
throughout the Great Lakes Basin had been well above
average which signalled forthcoming supplies that would be
above average. Discharges were above those called for by
the Plan until navigational problems were encountered.
At this time - mid October - they were reduced.. With this
information in mind a detailed examination of the 1973
operation procedures will be undertaken.

After the formation of an ice cover in late 1972
and early 1973 discharges were increased from the low
weekly average of 230,000 C'fs in the second week of
January to 350,000 cfs in the first week of June. This
flow was continued until the first week in August. This
increase was accomplished at an almost steady rate during
the period.

Inflow exceeded outflow for the majority of the period
from January 1973 through May 1973 which is normal since
this is the period'of normal seasonal rise for Lake Ontario.
From 245.45 feet on January 3 the Lake rose to 247.99 feet

118

M M
M r,
M
C) 2!
M W
Z! n I- RZ b. w 0 2 0
Q, I'D 0, 2 f
0
< z

?49' 249'
--:EETTT ------ I I T4
246' H FTT- ------
?48'
F
247'---- regulated maximum monthly mean level 247'
246.77 - TTTTTT--TTTT--TTTT- t --tf f tt--- I- T t t t t. -T--f f f- 246.77
246'- - I ITF I III I I I I F- I I III I I ---- ---246'

245' A 245'
`% - I EMM
v,

244'
244'- IN
-::A@. V.-i
r
-7<Wl
?43'- ?43'
242.77 regulat f f - 242.77
j ed minimum month y mean level
242'- 1 1 - - - - - - 242'
241' H I..-LLJ tH 1 241'
- I I ij I I - it I I I ,

zo
M
00
]>@ORZO@ nit W U b w p Ig 11@n R -.n
C2
SL cz

249'-

.... ... .. .. ....
.... ...........
TTT F .... ... .. .. ....
248'-
Regulated Level

I X7 A:
maximum monthly eon /a e I xss
..... ... .... ....
N-'- - - ---- Preproject Level
246.77
--TTTTT T
---t--T7TT t T T T T -------------

@46 - .. . .... ...
to
Wa:
xv,
:N
Excess of
egulated Levels
245'- ... .. R
above
Preproject Levels
244'- -

Deficit of
Regulated Levels
242.77 ..........
regulated minimum monthly mean-le-v-6-1-- ---------
below
.........
..........
242'-
- ..... Preproject Levels

241'. - - - - - - - -

Figure 29. Lake Ontario Comparison of Regulated With Preproject Levels 1960-1974. 119
(Source: Data provided by U. S. Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District).

on May 31, 1973. At this point in time the Lake exceeded
its average level for that time of the year by about two and
one quarter feet and was above the maximum elevation
(246-77) within which it is to be regulated.

During the winter of 1972-73 there was a very weak
ice cover on Lake Ontario. On the weekend of March 17-18,
1973, heavy winds, in conjunction with the weak ice cover
and high lake level, caused extensive damage to the shore
area of the Lake in the seven counties of Jefferson,
Oswego, Cayuga, Wayne, Monroe, Niagara and Orleans.
Additional damage was experienced prior to and after this
storm due to the lack of protection normally provided by a
stable ice cover.

In June outflow began to exceed inflow and the Lake
began to recede. At this point the discharge rate was.
maintained around 350,000 cfs until early August. Again,
due to the occurra'nce of navigation problems, the rate of
discharge was reduced steadily for the remainder of the
navigation season and through the ice formation period.
During this time, the lake level continued receding. It
dropped from 246.85 on August 1, 1973 to 244.68 on
December 31, 1973.

It should be noted that in July 1973 the record mean
daily outflow from Lake Ontario was recorded- This flow
was 351,000 cfs measured at Cornwall, Ontario.9

The effect of this large volume of discharge was felt
in the area below the control structure as evidenced by
the elevation of the water level at Montreal Harbour. From
April into December the elevation was well above average.
The record highs of 1972 for August through October were
approached but not equalled.

To date in 1974 a repeat of the operations of the
control structures described for 1973 has been witnessed
with one minor modification. Instead of discharging at a
very rapid rate and then decreasing it toward the end of
the summer, a lesser discharge has occurred this year.
This lesser rate will be continued for a longer period*of
time with the end result being approximately the same lake
level being reacheloby late fall as was reached in the
late fall of 1973. Presumably, this change in operation

9351,000 cfs was recorded on July 21, 1973 at the Cornwall
Ontario gauge near Massena, NY. Data provided by USGS.
1OThe monthly mean Lake Ontario levels for October, November
and December 1974 were 244.52, 244.00 and 244.03, respectively.
Th-ese waters were 0.33, 0.36 and 0.33 foot, respectively,
below the levels of October, November and December 1973.

120

will reduce some of the problems navigation encountered
along with stabilizing the level of Montreal Harbour
throughout the summer and early fall months.

With this brief description of the control activities
in mind it is time to turn to an examination of the
impact changes'in these activities may have had. The
examination of impacts of the high water level in Chapter IV
indicates that adverse impacts were experienced by both
navigation interest and riparian owners while beneficial
impacts were experienced by power interest. Since this
study is oriented toward minimizing adverse impacts,
emphasis will be placed on examining how these adverse
impacts may have been reduced.

In general terms, navigation interests desire a flow
below 310,000 cfs in order to reduce velocities and to
maintain a 27 foot navigation channel. Riparian owners
downstream of the control structure and around Lake St.
Lawrence also desire a similar discharge rate. This reduces
flooding for the former and eliminates draw down of Lake
St. Lawrence and the resultant "mud-flats" that occur when
the flow exceeds 310,000 cfs. Riparian owners upstream of
Lake St. Lawrence desire high rates of discharge during
periods of above average lake levels. For those along the
river this would reduce ship wake damage, and for those on
the Lake it would lower the water level and the damages
caused by high levels and storm surges.

As stated earlier in this report, under average water
level conditions, this conflict of desired rates of dis-
charge does not arise. However, under conditions of above
normal supplies it does. As evidenced by the implementation
of the Plan over the past three years, described above,
it appears that the.navigation interests have had the
strongest hand in determining the discharge rate. This
may be due to the fact that they have representation on
the controlling board along with direct representation of
power interest whose desires are nearly compatible during
periods of above average Lake levels. Both groups have
mutually agreeable goals for release rates between 270,000
and 310,000 cfs. On the other hand, riparian owners are
at present not represented by a spokesman of their own.
This is important because the desired release rates for
riparian interest above the control structure conflicts
with both power, navigation interest and riparian owners
downstream during periods of high water levels.

Any attempt to determine if adverse impacts could
be reduced through a different mode of operation requires
substantial effort. One of the most critical elements
required would be stage - damage relationships for both
Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River above the control structure
and for the St. Lawrence River below the control structure

121

including Montreal Harbour. This is.required in order to
determine the effect.any given change in elevation of
the Lake, or River, would have in terms of change in
damages.

Other necessary elements include the relationship
between economic impact and various channel depths in-
cluding those less than 27 feet. From this the economic
impact resulting from varying channel depth could be
estimated. Also the economic impact on power interests
from various modes of operation should be considered.

With the four relationships described above (two
stage - damage curves and an economic impact - channel
depth curve and mode of operation - power impact)
estimates of the impact of alternative operation methods
could be derived. With these estimates trade-offs
between adverse impacts to any two or more parties could
be evaluated objectively. In refined form procedure's could
be developed by which total adverse impacts could be
minimized or conversely, total beneficial impacts could
be maximized.

The decisions on the mode of operation of the Plan of
Control to be followed are currently made under conditions
of severe institutional constraints, combined with inadequate
knowledge by persons whose decisions are, at the least,
biased by the fact they are emplyyed by specific interests -
riparian interests not included. In addition the
regulation philosophy pursued by the IJC is one that
permits a change in lake level regulation plans only if no
economk loss to any major interest (shore property,
navigation, power) on any lake or its outflow river occurs
and the existing Lake Superior and Lake Ontario regulation
criteria are satisfied.

It is not possible to determine if the adverse impacts
could be reduced by a different mode of operation of the
Plan given the current availability of data. All that
can be accomplished in this section is to raise several
serious questions. Answers to these might result in
changes to the current method of operating the Plan of
Control.

llIt should be made clear here that this statement and
others throughout the text are not personal attacks on
the members of the St. Lawrence River Board of Control.
They are statements of the belief that persons employed
full time by an agency with a specific interest "acquire"
the philosophy of that agency and their institutions.
This process limits the scope of problems and/or solutions,
either explicitly or implicity that the individual preceives.

122

The first question is why, after almost 15 years of
operation, has not the economic impact - channel depth
relationship been determined and made available so that
it can be utilized in determining the optimal mode of
operation?

Secondly, why has not the International Joint Commission
refined its stage - damage curves so that they can be used
in determining the optimum mode of operation? This
organization has been in existence long enough to realize
that an acute need exists for such data.

Thirdly, since riparian owners are a major interest
group influenced by the water levels of Lake Ontario and
the St. Lawrence River, why are they not represented on
the decision making body that determines the mode of
operation of the Plan of Control?

In summary, the major question appears to be that of
whether or not the institutional arrangements that exist
force those who make the decision to be biased toward
specific interest. This is reflected in that the Order of
Approval require that a 27 foot navigational channel will
be main tained at all times. Thus decisions on the mode of
operation by the SLRBC are made to minimize damages given
that the navigation channel is maintained; not with the
objective of minimizing total damages considering all
interests. At present the response to this appears to be
yes, based primarily on past performance.

B. Structural Measures

Structural measures are implemented by either an
individual or an agency depending primarily on the size of
the project and the nature of the area to be protected.
No listing of private protective structures was attempted.
It is known that they are extensive in number but probably
insignificant over all in reducing damages.

1. Description

The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers is the Federal
agency with primary responsibility for construction and
maintenance of public shore protection structures in the
United States portion of the Great Lakes. Following is a
brief description of the projects the Corps have constructed
in the past and those that are currently authorized but
not undertaken or completed. . I
Fort Niagara State Park - Beach Erosion Control - Fort
Niagara State Park is located on the south shore of Lake
Ontario at the mouth of the Niagara River. The property,
formerly a U. S. Military Reservation, was acquired in 1964
by the State of New York for park development under
jurisdiction of the Niagara Frontier State Park Commission.
The cooperative beach erosion plan was authorized by the

123

Senate and House Public Works Committee in December, 1970,
under provisions of the Flood Control Act of 1965. The
authorized project provides for the construction of a low
offshore breakwater about 4,000 feet long to protect a
bathing beach that is to be improved by placement of
162,000 cubic yards of sand fill. The total estimated
first cost if $3,050,000 of which the authorized federal
70 percent contribution would amount to $2,140,000.
Initiation of action on this project is contingent upon
reduction of pollution in the area.

Hamlin Beach State Park - Beach Erosion Control -
Hamlin Beach State Park, under jurisdiction of the Genessee
State Park Commission, is located on the south shore of Lake
Ontario, about 20 miles west of Rochester Harbor. The
cooperative beach erosion control project by the State of
New York and the Federal Government authorized in July,
1958, provides for restoration and protection of the westerly
beach area at the park by alteration of two existing stone
and one exis'ting concrete groin, construction of four new
groins, grading of the nearly vertical bluffs behind the
beach to a stable slope, and placement of approximately
217,000 cubic yards of sand fill. Authorized Federal
contribution to the extent of 70 percent of the' total first
cost, estimated at $2,310,000, would amount to $1,618,000.
Preconstruction planning was completed in 1972. As of
October 1974, four of the six' new groins wer .e in place.

Table 29 reflects the current beach erosion control
studies the Corps has underway. Table 30 lists authorized
projects that are presently classified as inactive or
deferred. This classification is generally the result of
changes in conditions after project authorization and is
primarily due to reduction in anticipated project benefits,
lack of local cooperation, development within project area
precluding project economic feasibility at this time or
the proposed work which is considered not necessary at
this time.

Under Public Law 84-99 as amended by Public Law 87-844,
the Corps of Engineers is authorized to provide emergency
assistance as required to supplement local efforts and
capabilities in time of flood or coastal storm and reduce
damages and human suffering. During,the current period of
high water on Lake Ontario the Corps, under a program called
Operation Foresight, has undertaken several protective
measures. These are listed in Table 31.

In addition to those areas which qualified for an
Operation Foresight project from an economic point of view,
there was a substantial number of areas that were found
economically unfeasible. Table 32 lists these areas for
minor civil divisions within Jefferson County. The Corps
of Engineers informed each applicant, by letter, after

124

Table 29. Beach Erosion Control Surveys on Lake Ontario

APPROXIMATE
DATE TO BE
NAME PURPOSE COMPLETED

Durand-Eastman To determine the advisibi- Indefinite
Park at Rochester lity of undertaking
measures for control of
shore erosion along the
Lake Ontario frontage
of the park.

South Shore of To determine the advisibi-
Lake Ontario lity of undertaking
measures of control of
shore erosion at several
publicly owned lake
frontages and related
improvements for light
draft craft.

Interim Report - Fort Favorable
Niagara State Park report sub-
mitted by
District
Engineer
in 1968

Interim Report - Golden 1971
Hill State Park

Interim Report - Four- 1971
mile Creek State Park

Source: Water Resources Development in New York, U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, North Atlantic Division, 1973.

reconnaissance survey when an area was found to be
ineligible for temporary flood control projects under the
criteria of Operation Foresight.

2. Evaluation

Both the beach erosion control projects and the
Operation Foresight projects have only recently been
constructed. Adequate time has not elapsed upon which to
base an evaluation of their effectiveness. However, an

125

Table 30. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Deferred Beach
Erosion Projects

Year of
Authori- Federal Cost Year of
Project Locality zation (dollars) Estimate

Fair Haven Cayuga Co. 1958 546,000 1971
Beach
State Park

Selkirk Oswego Co. 1954 278,000 1971
Shores
State Park

Source: Water Resources Development in New York, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, North Atlantic Division, 1973.

appraisal of the structures has been provided by Corps of
Engineers personnel.12

The beach erosion control facilities at Hamlin State
Park appears to be effective to the extent that it is
completed. Although it is too early to fully evaluate,
current air photographs indicate it is performing as
designed.

A field inspection by Corps of E ngineers personnel of
the Operation Foresight structures in August 1974 indicates
that in general they-have held up. Some gabions were found
to be tipping due to undermining. It is possible that if a
major storm occurred, sections of the gabions could be lost
due to this undermining. A small amount of stone was also
found to have escaped from the gabions.

Iri_general the structures have done the job they were
designed for. It is felt that they have prevented the
damages as estimated and shown in Table 31. It should be
reiterated that these structures were temporary in nature and
were evaluated in terms of economic feasibility assuming a
two year design life.

As stated earlier, man's efforts to prevent erosion
from occurring on an individual lot are usually ineffective
and aesthetically displeasing. Figure 30 depicts the

12Henry Vitale and Denton Clark of the Buffalo District,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provided the appraisal of
Operation Foresight and of beach erosion structures,
respectively.

126

Table 31. Operation Foresight Projects U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

Estimated
Estimated Damages Length of
Location Area Cost Prevented Protection (Ft.)

Chautaugua Co.. Van Buren Point 80,711 100,000 8SO

Niagara Co. Olcott Harbor East 154,662 500,000 1,100
Olcott Harbor West 56,475 100,000 Soo

Orleans Co. Jones Beach 150,044 500,000 2,000

Monroe Co.

Town of Hamlin Brockport Water
N3 Plant Area
Reach 1 209,414 400,000 2,700
Newco Beach
Area (2)
Reach IV
Shore Acres
Reach VIII 64,765 500,000 2,000
Summer Haven
Reach IX 141,219 500,000 2,000
Woutoma Beach
West Reach X

Town of Parma Davidson Beach
West Reach XIII *(l) 100,000 *(2)
Davidson Beach
East Reach XIV *(l) 100,000 *(2)
Lighthouse Beach
West Reach XVI *(l) 150,000 *(2)

Table 31. Operation Foresight Projects U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (con't)

Estimated
Estimated Damages Length of
Location Area Cost Prevented Protection (Ft.)

Bogus Point
Reach XVII *(l) 150,000 *(2)

Monroe Co.

Town of Greece Manitou Beach
FJ West Reach XIX *(l) 50,000 *(2)
rIJ
co Grandview Beach
Reach XXIV 104,646 150,000 400

Monroe Co.

Town of Webster Nine Mile Point 87,255 480,000 500

(1) *All one contract $173,366
(2) *Total Length 29001

Source: Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District.

Table 32. Projects Not Feasible Under Operation Foresight
Criteria - Jefferson County, New York

Minor Civil Division Area

Alexandria Bay Point Vivian
Swan Bay
Carnege Bay
Alexandria Sanitary Plant F,
Alexandria Village Business District

Brownville Pillar Point

Cape Vincent Fox Creek
Mud Creek
Tibbets Point Road
U. S. Coast Guard Station

Clayton French Creek Bay
Downtown Business Area

Ellisburg Jefferson Park

Henderson Henderson Harbor
Ray Bay
Association Island and Causeway

Hounsfield Sackets Harbor Pumping Station
South Shore of Sackets Harbor
Gilmore Shore
Boulton Beach

Lyme Point Peninsula State Park Road Area
Dels Marina Area
Chaumont Bay, Bay Street Area
Isthumas Road Area
State Park Road, Three Mile Point
Road, South Shore Road and
Isthumas Road

Orleans Fishers Landing
Seaway Road Area
Collins Landing
Wellesley Island

Source: Copies of letters to each minor civil division
from Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District.

129

777-77,

-4-

Af S

Figure 30. Man's Efforts in Action.

130

results of such efforts. In the upper photo the rip-rap in
place may have resulted in accelerated erosion at both ends
of it. In the bottom portion of the Figure the junk cars
placed as a temporary wave barrier have in effect destroyed
the amenities associated with a beach.

C. Flood Plain Management

1. Description

Of the numerous management techniques discussed in
the preceeding chapter there are only four that have been
utilized in the area under consideration. These are zoning
ordinances, subdivision regulations, building codes and the
federal flood insurance program. Only the last of these has
damage reduction as a directly stated objective. However,
the first three can be used to control or restrict mants
activities in order to reduce damages due to high water.

Table 33 lists the minor civil divisions bordering
Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. Listed also is
the current status of zoning ordinances, subdivision
regulations, building codes within each of these units of
government. Table 34 provides the current status of the
federal flood insurance program in each of these minor
civil divisions.

It should be pointed out that the mere enactment of an
ordinance or regulation does not ensure that the objective
of damage reduction is being fulfilled. It does provide
the tools by which the goal can be achieved but this
depends upon the degree of committment the governing bodies
have as evidenced by enforcement. The information provided
in Tables 33 and 34 only reflect the existence of programs
and does not attempt to evaluate their implementation and
enforcement.

2. Evaluation

An evaluation of the effectiveness of flood plain
management techniques is difficult at best. This evaluation
will be based primarily on whether or not management techni-
ques have been implemented by local levels of government.
An implied assumption will be that enactment of ordinances
and regulations also means enforcement. This may or may not
be the case.

Table 35 reflects the percentages of minor civil
divisions that are utilizing Various damage reduction
management techniques. As can be seen, those minor civil
divisions in the area serviced by the St. Lawrence-Eastern
Ontario Commission have a participation rate for all four
techniques examined that is WE@ll below the rate for the
entire area. For zoning, subdivision regulation and

131

H -e4 0 -el @-3H @-3H -el @11H H H < H .44H C4 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m
En En (A @V 1-d00Z t-' (D En0 t-4 til t1i t:jn000 n bd w > > H, in Pil C:
0 03 0) @-40w w (D M yQ 0)H o m H m H I-- :a'0m H H m rt 0) OQ En
0 03 ct0 m m M F4 F-6
0 t@ :1 F3 m @-A F@x m m
CL CL P, ID mm H H 0 m m g :j
It 0 . . JnA0 F4 @-4 rt H 0
1 k4 k@H (D OQ GQ 0 :3 cl m m w w m rt rr 0 Fl 0
pv 0 0 ju0 0 0) 0 rt @-tH F-d V* 0 0 0 0 F6 ZV4 0
F4 .4 0 &0W @-6 P. co P)0 0 F4 F4 H- CLA CL ;j
rL m 0 H m 0 " H H rt :3H F-A" H 0 % 8
m m rt Fj H rj pqA UQ CrQ 0 n F" H P. H- 0 m
(Dm t-4 03 m r-L m 9 m m m m 9: zi
p;A p7l 0
rlt rt td
0

F,
@j t-n Ul ko -P@ C@ 0 -1 C) %D
In
U.) X., 41- W F"

0
10
0 In
w
FJ m
ND >4 >4 >4 No

C) Ul
In
C) 00

>4 In

>4 >4 >@ >4 >4 >4 x >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 Nor

00 (7% co 41
1 >4 -- In
Ln -4 al@ -j
00 co

>4 x >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 Non

FA @_i H 0 el @A H H H z H 0 H H t-3 H
H . . . H . . . . .
F@ 0)
(D 1-4 ::E: Ln t-d Z DQ ::E@ PO I-dH :4 0 0 @4 t-4 t-4
9) (D A3 0 P--0 0 03 (D 0 W PI 0 lb A) En OQ 0 9) 0 Fl-M t-I
rt @j pi F- El H Cr 2@ g 0 (D M CL DA 4 O@ " En r..
M CL F@ (n M M M rt @-h 9b ril :J FlM in, InA mm " H w w H
En 0 rt 000 0 H (D rt (D U H- 0 n H' H- GQ 93 H- FJ- (DM W 0 (D 0 0 H
0 U) m " m Ca m (D 0 0 0 p3 rn rD u)0 0 < 0 F- 0 0 m
F- 0 rt (D m 0 Ili rt r@ QQ GQ rt Cy' rt rt 9b 9) Fl- ct CL CL tj
o 0 rt M ;j rt rr C: 0 0 0
ri ?1 0 rt 0 0 H (D
rt rt
F4 rt M
0

F- F@ F@ F@ F@ F@ H F-@
"o %,o ko %D %0 @D ko
ON Ul ON ON 0% as -.1
CY% (7% ko w Ln F- -4
4- C)

>4 x >1 >1 @l >4 >4 >1 x @4 >1 >4 >4 @4

F-J
w
w
F@ F@
>4 >4 >1 >4 >4 >4 >4

>4 x >4

00
>1 >1 >4 >4 >4 >1 >1

@4 >1 >4 >4 >4 x >4 >4 >4 >4

@d FJ- rt t7' rt V) H n@ PJ (-f @l @_j p t-S rt rt 01 r+ %11 r@ 0 P- @l t:Y 1-3 <1 @-3 @-3 @-3 :1@
@-4 (D 0 . . . . . .
1@ (D FJ- (D 03 H- FS (D 0 @3' P- @f (D @3' 0 @:J FJ- r- ;j ti r_
0 < M Fj M W rf < @j 0. @l @El m 0 w < m @j m @l CO :J Fl- OQ U) 11 :0_ cn in 0 :4
Gq 0 @l rt r+ (D @31 0) Fl- 0) F-: F(J rt P- (D @U r- 0 F-I m 0 0 0 H. 0 0 ;j (D
@-j F- FJ- (D F-b P) F- " P - O'q rf (n F-J F@ U) 1-t Pi 1@ I-S @l H :j (D Fl Fl CL CL rt
0 .. 0 F- 0 @: M 0 C')
P) < @J @J F-J P- (D 0 @J Fl - @-3 (D PJ rt (D F- P- F- @O PJ t-' 1-3 PJ p t_4 (D o H. in (a H 0 0
@l (D V) 0 @j lo 4 @J' r@ ::@ (f) < FJ- 0 0 P) --0 m @:j 0 @j ;@ H rt FA-
C-L r_ 0 0 m 0 @l "i r_ m Ft H. @@ m r+ @J 0 w 0 0 P.(Yq tz) rt 0
ps Ft r-L o, m m F@ 0 m 0 @j rt w @l w 11 (D < m W rij rt rt
P) Pi @j w m 0 @j Fj @_b rt " (D P.Fd rt Fl- 0 W rf* 0
@j @j @l P. rt < FI) 51 Cf) (D (D ::3' FJ- @l rt PJ o F0 F- 0 03 0
In, 0 Pi @j 1-11 0 (D @j F-h rt 0 Pi :@ I,< I-S F@ @l GQp
(D @l U) Fl- _" 0 0 @D' FJ- @J' t@ (D U) (n Cn r+ coO @l (D (IQ CD 0,
ri- Pi Fz: r+ (D :j r+ :E: Ili Fl- rt P- $@ P- 0 Fl- cr, N FJ- U) Fl- H ct
_T' Fj op @'j -T' Ft p. rt O-q @A (n @'J tY @'S @:J @_h 0 1@ < - 0 @_h ::r
(D P) (D PJ (D " @D' @J F-: :D, H. (D 0 (D P 0 F- " pi P. 0 @-h fD
90 Fl- H
rt u) @j (D PJ O_q @:$ rt FJ- U) Pi @l @J (D @J (D r+ 10 (D @l Cl) Fl- H m (D
O'q (D () o () N @l 0 :r:, ca F@ @_: rt @j 0 @Zrl p F@ Fi- rt Ol CL
0 CO r+ (D r- rt Pi " (D Pi @j (D 0 (D H (D r+ 0 F(:) 0 FO
< 0 FS @'S 1@ F@ FJ- r+ @:r 0 (D @3' (D Co FJ- (D PJ @:f FJ- F- C7' C7' H F,
(D (D Fd f@ 0 @l r+ (D P) r+ ri- W cn " --j 0 0 @J Fl cn 'o
@3' @j (n rt t@ C:) Fj :5 ON
r@ Fj (D @J 0 r- Pi rf r@ Fl- ct
(D @r
@3' 0 @J f-- Fj 1-:1 F- 0 pi 03 pi 0 FJ- @J H
@J (D Olq rf t-@ U) (D (D F-J F@ 0 rt @l tD' t:@r O'q W FJ- 1@ Ft 0 (D H. m
(D rt FJ (D t:@r @l (D (D ';-I Pi (D H @-j @J @J Pi 0 F. rt in OQ m
@:f 1@ I'd Pi @l @l 0) @l '<@ (D < (D @d @l Gq (D FJ- PJ @l PJ r-f @o @J' cn t1o Z, CO
r_ F@ @:j (D r- Pi (D (D @:J (n @J (D D) (D r
0) I-j @l (D 0 Fl-
H o < n (D @l @-j rt H F- rf < C/I @31 rf 0 co r@ rt r@ m A)
H @d :@ (D P- PJ W 0 w rt H. m (D (D @3' (D :31 P_ Vi @31 H N t-4
Fl-l< (D P- H @J U) Oq 0 0, (D tY H X 0, 0 (D Cf) (D 0 (D 0)
m t-I F- 0 Oq - (D 93 W Q@ H 0 @l Fl @:j m ::j
pa
0 w rt H" U) H (D Fo r@ (D Ul w 0 FS rf 0
0 1@ 0 (+ @l P. :@ P. :j @l (D P- CL.
:J (D (D @-3 0, Gq Gq @J :E; (D H O@ @J 0 0 a (Zj' C(] rf 0 pi (D 0
rv 0 @J (D @J' 0 (D P. @:5 (D 0 CO rt Fi- r+ H 0 GQ m
Fl- rF 5D, rF (D (D Gq r+ rt < a (D r+ Vi @J a) H. 1
11 0 m
In, Cf) (D IJ @f (D r+ (D (D 0 m r@ m :j 0
F-@ (D (D FJ- (D rt FS (D (D @3' Fj t:7' H 0 _"'GQ ID, @31 rf OQ A) co
(D @l FJ @:J 0 @j Pi rt Pi 1-ci -< (D FI) Pi 0 (D @3' 0 H rt
Ct) rt @:Fl Ca -4 r_@ Fj 5-1 r@ @J (D (D
0
r+ :@ (n W Qrq F-J (D 0 (D F@ @_j N) r+ PJ Fl- @3' PJ
Cn 0 :3' @J' @,J (D Ft P- @:f rt Pi 0 (D 0 - ':I' (D rf rt (D @-j F@
r_ (D Fl- rt U) 0 @l rt Fl- @l (D 0 0 0 (D F-J FJ- @3' (D P) 0
tY r+ Ft Fl F@ FJ- PJ 0 o Es n (D pi p - t-. o P) F@ P) r+ 0
(n @31 r+ 0 rf rt r+ H @j :@ @_: @J H @:l 5 oq @:j C+ (D H. rt
H- (D 'j p. Fj rt @l P. H- co @3- (D 0 0 @4 x
I- P. :3, cn p aq "
@:5 Id Pi rf r+ @J @-S H Oq H- @J tZr m Pi I'd 0 H.
Fl. Fj @J Gq PJ rf ::@ FI- 0 0 m I,< 0 0 0 P. P. . (D Ft P3 w 0
N FJ- @l r+ Fl- 0 Fl- @l @j @j < QJ FS H @j Ft I-S 0 0
Fl, rt P- ::@ F-J @J r+ PJ 0 @l (D rt FJ- PJ () @.j r@ 9 P) n
H. @.i 0
@J @S' P. @31 0 P_ F@ m oq (D H- M 0 r+ (D 0 (D @31 0
Orq F-h (D :5 H 0 (D 'J U) Fl--< " rt ::s " P) GQ
@3, " ::@ @l rt @l < F-t) rt H ct >1 x x @>4 >4
jai P- (D PI (D (D FJ- " (D r+ 0 td 0 En
t:f < F-i :@ H @:j H 0 0 @31 0 @_t 0 (D Ca
(D (D (D F-J r@ rf. 1@ rt Pi @l 0 W :3 H
H (D 0
ri- ri) ;j
m
(D

Table 34. Federal Flood Insurance Program Participation

STATUS
Minor Civil No Tentively Maps
Division Contact Identified Notified Published Eligible

Cayuga County

V. Fair Haven 2/22/74 4/20/73
T. Sterling X 7/26/74 7/26/74

Jefferson County

T. Alexandria 5/31/74 5/31/74
V. Alexandria Bay 2/22/74 6/21/73
T. Brownville X
V. Brownville 5/10/74 5/10/74
T. Cape Vincent X
V. Cape Vincent 5/24/74 5/24/74
V. Chaumont 5/17/74 5/17/74
T. Clayton 6/14/74 6/14/74
V. Clayton 5/31/74 3/8/74
V. Dexter 7/26/74 7/26/74
T. Ellisburg 4/5/74 5/29/73
V. Ellisburg 8/30/74 8/30/74
V. Glen Park 3/29/74 3/29/74
T. Henderson 8/9/74
T. Hounsfield 8/2/74
T. Lyme X
V. Mannsville X
T. Orleans 5/31/74 6/6/73
V. Sackets Harbor 5/31/74 5/31/74

Oswego County

V. Lacona 11/22/74 11/22/74
T. Mexico X 11/17/74 11/17/74
V. Mexico X
T. New Haven X 7/19/74 7/19/74
C. Oswego 5/10/74 4/30/73
T. Oswego 5/31/74 5/31/74
V. Pulaski 5/10/74 5/10/74
T. Richland 7/26/74 3/21/74
T. Sandy Creek 5/24/74 5/24/74
V. Sandy Creek 11/15/74 11/15/74
T. Scriba X 7/19/74 7/19/74

St. Lawrence County

T. Hammond X
V. Hammond X
V. Heuvelton 5/24/74 5/24/74

135

Table 34. Federal Flood Insurance Program Participation (con't)

STATUS
Minor Civil No Tentively Maps
Division Contact Identified Notified Published Eligible

St. Lawrence County

T. Lisbon 8/16/74 8/16/74
T. Louisville x
T. Massena
V. Massena 3/8/74 3/8/74
T. Morristown 9/6/74 9/6/74
V. Morristown 5/31/14 5/31/74
C. Ogdensburg 7/26/74 7/26/74
T. Oswegatchie 9/13/74 9/13/74
T. Waddington x
V. Waddington x

Monroe County

T. Greece 1/18/74 3/9/73
T. Hamlin 1/18/74 3/2/73
T. IronDequoit 6/28/74 3/16/73
T. Parma 11/9/73 3/9/73
C. Rochester 6/28/74 4/9/73
T. Webster- 6/28/74 3/9/73

Niaga a County

T. Newfane 5/17/74 4/10/73
T. Porter 4/12/74 7/17/74
T. Somerset 3/15/74 5/24/73
T. Wilson 5/17/74 5/21/73
V. Wilson 4/5/74 2/15/74
V. Youngstown 3/1/74 3/30/74

Orleans County

T. Carlton 8/2/74 4/5/73
T. Kendall 4/12/74 3/30/73
T. Yates 6/28/74 6/12/73

Wayne County

T, Huron 7/23/74
T. Ontario 5/31/74 5/15/73
T. Sodus 8/16/74 3/30/73
V. Sodus Pt. 8/31/73 3/9/73
T. Williamson 6/28/74 3/23/73
T. Wolcott 6/28/74 6/28/74

Source: Data gathered by the St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission
personnel and verified by Erie-Niagara Regional Planning Board, Genesee/
Finger Lakes Regional Planning Board and Oswego County Planning Board.

136

Table 35. Utilization of Damage Reduction Management Technique.sa

% Participation % Participation % Participation
Technique in SLEOCb Rest of Areac Total

Zoning
In Effect 36 67 45
In Process 11 0 8
None 53 33 47

Subdivision
Regulation
In Effect 22 47 30
In Process 7 0 5
None 71 53 65

Building
Codes
In Effect 25 58 35
In Process 2 0 2
None 73 42 63

Flood Ins.
Program
Eligible 16 95 41

aAs of September 1, 1974. Oswego County as of January 8, 1975.
bThe St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission includes those towns in
Cayuga, Jefferson, St. Lawrence and Oswego Counties bordering Lake
Ontario or the St. Lawrence River.

cThe "rest" includes those towns in Wayne, Monroe, Niagara and Orleans
Counties bordering Lake Ontario.

Source: Adapted from tables 33 and 34.

It appears that local efforts to reduce damages have
been limited when measured by the participation rates in
damage reduction management techniques. It is encouraging
to see efforts have been taken since 1970 and that the
federal flood insurance program, combined with New York
State flood plain management legislation (see Appendix C),
will ensure that additional efforts will be forthcoming
quickly.

Again the point should be made that enactment does not
ensure enforcement. Thus, one must not be misled by
participation rates. A true indication of the efforts made

137

must await the test of high water levels. The current
test indicates that insufficient effort has been put forth
as evidenced by the vast amounts of damage done to
structures near or on the flood plains of Lake Ontario and
the St. Lawrence River.

138

SELECTED REFERENCES

1. Climatological Station Data Catalogue - Ontario
Dept. of Transport,.Meteorological Branch 1970.

2. Coastal Construction Setback Line, James Purpura and
William �ensabaugh, Fl-or- da Cooperative Extension
Service, Marine Advisory Program, 1974.

3. Convention Concerning the Boundary Water Between
The United States and Canada, Treaties, Conventions,
International Acts, Protocals and Agreements, 1910-
1923 Volume III, Government Printing Office,
Washington, D. C., 1923.

4. Flood Plain Information, Ontonagon County, Michigan,
Dept. of the Army, St. Paul District, Corps of
Engineers, 1970.

S. Forecasting The Levels of the Great Lakes, U. S.
Lake Survey Misc. Paper 67-2, B. G. DeCooke and E.
Megerian, Sept., 1967.

6. Great Lakes and Connecting Channels Water Levels and
Depths, Departitent of the Army, Corps of Engineers,
(monthly).

7. Great Lakes Basin Framework Study, Main Report and
Appendicies 1-24, Great Lakes Basin Commission (drafts
of this report are of various dates).

8. Great Lakes Region Inventory Report National Shoreline
Study, Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers, North
Central Division, Army, 1971.

9. Great Lakes-Shore Erosion in Michigan - Status Report,
State of Michigan, Dept. of Natural Resources, Water
Resources Commission, 1969.

10. Great Lakes Shoreland Damage Reduction Pro
Report Number 1, Great Lakes Basin Commission Shore
Use and Erosion Work Group, Nov., 1973 (Draft)

11. Great Lakes Shoreline Damage Causes and Protective
Measures, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Central
Division, May, 1972.

12. Lake Ontario Data, Department of the Army, Corps of
Engineers, (we@Tk--iy).

139

13. Low Cost Shore Protection for the Great Lakes,
Research Publication No. 3, University of Michigan
Lake Hydraulics Laboratory in Cooperation with
Michigan Water Resources Commission, reprinted 1959.

14. Monthly and Yearly Mean Water Levels 1972, Department
of the Environment, Ottawa, Canada, Vol. 1, Inland
1973.

15. Monthly Water Level Bulletin - Great Lakes and
Montreal Harbour, Department. of Environment, Ottawa,
'Canada (monthly).

16. New York State Supplemental Budget, 1973-74, New
York State.

17. Order of Approval, October 29, 1952 as amended by
Order of Approval, July 2, 19S6, International Joint
Commission, (official consolidation).

18. Ottawa River Basin - Water Quality and Its Control
in the Ottawa River, Volume 1, Prepared by Ontario
Water Resources Commission and Quebec Water Board,
1971.

19. Power Authority of the State of New York - Annual
Report, Power Authority of the State of New York,
1972, 1973.

20. Regulation of Great Lakes Water Levels, International
Great Lakes Levels Board, Report to the IJC, Main
Report, Summ-iry and Appendix A-G, December 7, 1973.

21. Regulation of Lake Ontario, Operational Guides For
Flan 1958-D, Report to the IJC, The International St.
Lawrence River Board of Control, December 12, 1963.

22. Regulation of Lake Ontario Plan 1958-D, Report to the
IJC, The Internati-onalSt.' Lawrence River Board of
Control, July, 1963.
23. Regulation of Lake 'Ontario, Plan 1958-D Report to the
IJC, The International St. Lawrence River Board of
Control, Vol. 2, Appendix A, May 14, 1958.

24. Regulation of Lakes Superior and Ontario Plan SO-901,
15raft Environmental Statement, U. S. Army Engineer-
District Detroit, Corps of Engineers, Detroit, Mich.,
Sept., 1974.

25. The Regulation of Water Levels on the Great Lakes:
Emphasis on Lake Ontario, Frank Sciremammano,
(Department of Mech. and Aerospace Science, Univ. of
Rochester, Rochester, N.Y.) (July 7, 1973) (Preliminary
Report - Draft).

140

26. Report on HydroloEy and Regulation of the Ottawa River,
Appendix 1, Hydrologic and Forecasting Studies,
Ottawa River Engineering Board, June, 1965.

27. Report on Hydrology and Regulation of the Ottawa River,
Appendix 2, Flow Regulation Studies, June, 1965.

28. 1974 Report of Member Electric Corporation of the New
York Power Pool and the Empire State Electric Energy
Research Corporation pursuant to Articie Viii, Sec-F-ion
149-B oF-the ublic Service Law; Volume 1.

29. Report on the National Shoreline Study, Dept. of the
Army, Aug., 1971.

30. St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Shoreline Study, Prepared
for SLEOC by SUNY, College of Environmental Science and
Forestry, April 28, 1972, Summary and Technical Reports
1-11.

31. Saint Lawrence Power Project Data & Statistics, Power
Authority of the State of New York (NDG).

32. Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, Annual
Reports - 1968, 1969, 19705 19725 19735 U. S. Dept. of
Transportation.

33. Seaway Notice Affecting Navigation, Saint Lawrence
Seaway Development Corporation, 1973, 1974.

34. Shore Erosion on the Great Lakes - Saint Lawrence
System, Part 1 - Summary Report, Part 2 - Shore Erosion
on the Great Lakes System and Part 3 - Shore Erosion
on the St. Lawrence System Below Cornwall, Government
of Canada, 1973.

35. Shore Erosion in Ohio, State of Ohio, Department of
Natural ResourceE'-,Division of Shore Erosion, 1959.

36. Shore Management Guidelines, Dept. of the Army, Corps
of Engineers, Washington, D. C., August, 1971.

37. Shore Protection Guidelines, Dept. of the Army, Corps
of Engineers, Washington, D. C., August, 1971.

38. Shore Protection Planning and Design, Technical Report
No. 4, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Corps of
Engineers.

39. Shoreland and Flood Plain Zoning Along Wisconsin Shores
of Lakes Michigan, A. R. Striegl, State of Wisconsin,
Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of Resource
Development.

141

40. Shoreline Erosion Study, Lake Erie Shoreline, Lake
County, Ohio, State of Ohio, Dept. of Natural Resources,
August, 1969.

41. Water Levels 1972, Department of the Environment, Canada,
Volume 1, Inland, 1973.

42. Water Levels on Lake Ontario: A Fact Sheet, U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, June-, 1974.

43. Water Quality and Its Control in the Ottawa River, Volume
1, Ontario Water Resources Commission and the Quebec
Water Board, 1971.

44. Water Resources Development in New York, U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers, North Atlantic Division, 1973.

45. What Actually Happened This Past Spring, Final Narrative
Report, Lawrence Leopold, Sea Grant Advisory Service,
Brockport, N. Y., August, 1973.

46. Help Yourself, Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers,
North Central Division.

142

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX A
RELATED STUDIES AND REPORTS
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
1 143
1

Appendix A

Related Studies and Reports

Summarized below are several studies of significance
that have been completed recently and which bear directly
on the topics discussed in this report. Included also
are descriptions of studies known to be currently underway.

A. Studies and Reports Recently Completed -

1. A Strategy for Great Lakes Shoreline Damage
Reduction, The Joint Federal Regional Council - Great Lakes
Basin Commission Task Force for Great Lakes Shorelands
Damage Reduction, March, 1974.

This report was prepared to serve as a focal point
for consideration of the development and implementation of
a strategy for Great Lakes shoreland damage reduction by
the Governors of the Great Lakes States. Emphasis is
directed at identifying an early and sustained action
strategy which can be supported by all levels of government.
The strategy emphasizes proper land use planning on the
one hand and the need to stabilize certain reaches on the
shoreland on the other.

Seven alternatives for action were determined to be
available to reduce erosion and flooding, structural damage,
and resulting losses and hardships. These alternatives were
evaluated against the following set of selection criteria:

a) Shoreland integrity and uniqueness should be
protected and preserved by minimizing the impact of
development;

b) Future losses should be controlled primarily by
nonstructural means;

c) Extensive government financed structural control
measures cannot be justified economically especially for
the short term. Protection of essential public facilities
and public lands is important now;

d) Major structural control is needed to protect
shoreland �,esources, to reduce economic losses to private
development and to enhance Great Lakes water quality;

144

for pe) Extensive public funding support is not available
rotection of privately owned property;

2. Great Lakes Shoreland Damage Reduction Program,
Great Lakes Basin Commission Shore Use and Erosion Work
Group, November, 1973.

This brochure summarizes the status and scope of
Federal programs for minigating shore damages on the Great
Lakes and the interest of the Great Lakes State in the
stra tegy alternatives for shoreland damage reduction.

The following seven elements of the strategy are
discussed:

a) Further lake regulation to reduce high levels.

b) Structural protection against erosion and flooding,
both permanent and temporary, including methods of reducing
ground water effects on bluffs.

c) Regulatory action to modify or avoid any construction
in navigable water which tends to aggravate erosion and
flooding.

d) Remedial measures to modify improperly designed
navigational works and repair accumulated damages.

e) Zoning and structural setback requirements to
prevent further development on vulnerable shorelands.

f) Acquisition and relocation of development from
vulnerable shorelands.

g) Insurance against or reimbursement from other
sources for damage from erosion and flooding.

3. Great Lakes Shoreline Damage, Causes and Protective
Measures, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, May, 1972.

This report is organized in three parts. Part I
pro vides a history of lake levels, causes of fluctuations
and, most important, effects of lake level changes on
shorelines. Part II discusses the role of Federal and
State Governments in various activities and responsibilities
on the Great Lakes related to water and shore areas. It
includes information on available data and the sources of
such data. Part III provides a brief discussion of several
emergency type remedial measures, estimates of their cost
and general statements on their applicability to various
typical situations.

145

4. The following four reports resulted from the
National Shoreline Study authorized in 1968 by Congress
to appraise shore erosion and shore protection needs in
the United States.

a) Great Lakes Region Inventory Report, Department
of the Army, Corps of Engineers, North Central Division,
August, 1971.

This is one of nine regional reports. It assesses
the nature and extent of erosion; develops conceptual plans
for needed shore protection; develops general order-of-
magnitude estimates of cost for the selected shore protection
and identifies shore property owners within the Great Lakes
Drainage Basin.

b) Shore Protection Guidelines, Department of the
Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, D. C., August, 1971.

This report describes typical erosion control measures
and presents examples of shore protection facilities and
criteria for planning shore protection programs.

c) Shore Management Guidelines, Department of the Army,
Corps of Engineers, Washington, D. C., August, 1971.

Provided-in this report is information to assist
decision makers in developing and implementing shore
management programs. Examples of successful management
programs at both the state and local levels are given.

d) Report on the National Shoreline Study, Department
of the Army, August, 1971.

This document is addressed to the Congress and
summarizes the findings of the study and recommends priori-
ties among problem areas for action to stop erosion.

5. Regulation of Great Lakes Water Levels, Report to
the International Joint Commission by the International
Great Lakes Levels Board, December, 1973.

The purposes of this study were:

a) to review the various factors affecting the
fluctuations of the water levels of the Great Lakes.

b) to determine the feasibility of regulating further
the water levels in the Great Lakes and connecting channels
so as to bring about a more beneficial range of stage and
other improvements.

146

c) to determine the changes in existing works or other
measures within the basin needed-to acomplish such
regulation that would be practicable and in the public
interest.

d) to provide an estimate of the costs of such
measures, and

e) to indicate the probable effects, beneficial or
adverse, in each country of any regulation plans or measures
proposed.

In summary form the conclusions were: a) small net
benefits to the Great Lakes system would be achieved by a
new regulation plan for Lake Superior which takes into
consideration the levels of both Lake Superior and Lakes
Michigan - Huron; b) regulation of Lakes Michigan - Huron
by the construction of works in the St Clair and Detroit
Rivers does not warrant any further con*sideration; c)
further study is needed of the alternatives for regulating
Lake Erie and improving the regulation of Lake Ontario,
taking into account the full range of supplies received to
date; d) the hydrologic monitoring network of the Great
Lakes Basin should be progressively improved; and e)
appropriate authorities should act to institute land use
zoning and structural setback requirements to reduce future
shoreline damage.

6. St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Shoreline Study,
prepared for the St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission
by the State University of New York, College of Environmental
Science and Forestry, April 28, 1972.

Detailed data and information for the St. Lawrence-
Eastern Ontario area as it applies to physiography, geology
and soils, waters, natural vegetation, wildlife, fisheries,
and recreation are presented in seven technical reports
with maps and a summary report. Using the resource data
gathered, developmental suitability was also investigated
with special reference to environmental impact. The report
points out the value of the natural resources to the area and,
furthermore, provides a productivity rating for fisheries
and wildlife habitat and natural vegetation.

7. Great Lakes Framework Study, Great Lakes Basin
Commission, (partially completed).

The Framework Study is the first step toward prepara-
tion of a comprehensive, coordinated joint plan for the
development and utilization of the water and related
resources in the Great Lakes Basin. Included in this report
are the analysis and findings of the federal, state and
local agencies involved in water and related resource
planning and development within the Great Lakes Basin.

147

8. Report to Assembly Scientific Staff, Frank
Scieremammano, Jr., February 26, 1973.

The purpose of this report was to explain the operating
procedures used in regulating Lake Ontario water levels.
The outflows for the year and the procedures by which they
were arrived at were reviewed. Criticism of certain aspect-s
of the operating plan and the 1973 operational procedures
were stated. It was also shown how alternative actions
might have relieved some of the flooding that occurred on
the Lake in, 1973.

9. Shore Erosion On the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence
System, Parts 1, 2 and 3, Government of Canada, 1973.

This report was published in three parts. Part 1,1the
Summary Report, contains a general description of shore
erosion in the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence System and
dis-cusses its causes, its nature and location, and its
social and economic implications. Part II of the report,
Shore Erosion in the Great Lakes System, provides a more
detailed description of shore erosion in the Canadian
portion,of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River above
Cornwall. Part III of the report, Shore Erosion on the
St. Lawrence System below Cornwall, describes in detail
shore erosion on the St. Lawrence River and Estuary and
the Quebec shoreline of the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

10. Major Findings and Recommendations of the Tentative
Board Plan - St. Lawrence Basin, St. Lawrence - Franklin
Regional Water Resources Planning Board and New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation,.June, 1974.

Set forth in-this report are the,findings and
recommendations of the St. Lawrence - Franklin Regional
Water Resources Planning Board. Recommendation 2 states
that "the International Joint Commission should undertake
a lake level regulation study of the Lake Ontario - St.
Lawrence River Subsystem of the Great Lakes with New York
State representation and with objectives of (1) developing
improved'methods of regulating the subsystem and (2)
developing data on high and low water level conditions for
use in management of shore-line areas which would be
valuable information for the State's Coastal Zone Management
Program."

B. Studies and Reports Underway

1. Lake Ontario Water Level Prediction, The University
of Rochester, Rochester, New York, Frank Sciremammano, Jr.

An attempt to develop a method of forecasting water
levels 12-18 months in advance will be undertaken. This
method will take advantage of the long lag time (as much as

148

three years) between the onslaught of heavy rains in the
Great Lakes Basin and the consequent change in Lake Ontario
water levels.

The water level time series will be split into two
components. One is the long time-scale fluctuations
associated with basin-wide precipitation excess and the
other short term and seasonal components. A deterministic
linear model will be fit to the long term component with
rainfall as the imput. A weighted, lagged combination of
each lake's rainfall will be used as the rainfall imput.
The shorter scale fluctuations will be treated as a
stochastic time series and an attempt will be made to find
a generating process for it. This will yield a long-term
forecast and the statistical bounds within which it is likely
to fall.

2. Engineering Studies For a Contract For Field
Investigation of High Water Damages In (Selective) County,
Detroit District, Corps of Engineers.

In this study about 14 counties in the Great Lakes
Basin will be examined in detail for the purpose of deter-
mining economic damages and environmental and social losses
resulting from or associated with the high levels of the
Great Lakes for the period July 1972 to July 1974. The
work shall conform to the general guidelines and detailed
procedures specified herein for collecting, analyzing and
displaying data. These data are needed to evaluate the
positive and negative effects of a large number of Federal
and state programs directed at reducing or mitigating Great
Lakes shore damages.

The activities required as part of the Contract include
development and management of a self-administered shoreland
damage assessment program, follow-up field interviews, on-
site inspections and field surveys, office computations and
analysis, and report preparation. The work shall include
the following tasks:

a. Compile a list and prepare maps of the complete
riparian shoreline ownership, use and description in the
counties under study. This will involve a complete review
of existing County land records.

b. Design, print and distribute a self-administered
Great Lakes shoreland damage questionnaire to all known
riparian residential shoreland owners and analyze and compile
.the results of the returned questionnaire.

C. Conduct a follow-up personal interview of a random
sample of residential property owners to further support and
evaluate the information provided by the questionnaire.

149

d. Conduct a field damage survey of commercial,
industrial , public buildings, transportation facilities,
and public and private utilities and compile the results.

e. Compile a list.-of existing erosion control and
flood protection structures and provide general evaluations
of their effectiveness including damage reduction benefits,
costs, and condition relationships.

f. Conduct field studies and review topographic maps
to establish high-water marks, areas flooded and depth of
flooding relationships. Tabulate high-water marks and
identify flood-prone areas on maps.
g: @onduct damage surveys of flood plain areas by
interviewing flood victims. Determine existing flood damages,
damages for a range of stages and damages prevented by
emergency construction. Compile data on damage appraisal
forms and summarize the information on tables.

h. Collect information on shore damages including
newspaper accounts of storm damages and available photo-
graphs of damage areas. Present this information in
appendices to the report.

i. Analyze the short term high-water reces sion of the
Great Lakes shorelands. Compute the volumetric contribution
of bluff erosion sedimentation to the Great Lakes. Provide
bluff and surf zone profiles. Present information on maps
and charts.

j. Compile available information on the effects of
high-water on recreational opportunities and aesthetic
and environmental values.

k. Prepare maps, charts and graphs to illustrate the
results of the damage survey.

1. Prepare a draft and final report and appendices
in the format specified in this contract. The final report
will be camera ready for printing.

3. The Canada/Ontario Great Lakes Shore Damage Survey
Report, Environment, Canada.

This report will evaluate shoreline damage due to
high water levels and storms during the period November,
1972 to November, 1973 and will recommend subsequent
strategies in shoreline management, planning and shore
protection. Completion Date: November, 1974.

150

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX B
LIST OF REFERENCES - SHORE PROTECTION MEASURES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 151
I

Appendix B

Li st of References - Shore Protection Measures

Title Publishing Agency

Shore Protection Planning Coastal Engineering Research
and Design Technical Center, Corps of Engineers
Report No. 4

Shore Erosion in Ohio State of Ohio, Department of
Natural Resources, Division
of Shore Erosion, February,
1959

Low Cost Shore Protection University of Michigan Lake
for the Great Lakes, Hydraulics Laboratory in co-
Research Publication No. 3 operation with Michigan Water
Resources Commission, reprinted
October, 1959

Shoreland and Flood A. R. Striegl, State of Wiscon-
Plain Zoning Along sin, Department of Natural
Wisconsin Shore of Lake Resources, Division of Resource
Michigan Development

Great Lakes Shore Erosion State of Michigan, Department
in Michigan-Status Report of Natural Resources, Water
Resources *Commission, June,
1969

Shoreline Erosion Study State of Ohio, Department of
Lake Erie Shoreline, Lake Natural Resources, August,
County, Ohio 1969

Flood Plain Information Department of the Army, St.
Ontonagon River, Onton- Paul District, Corps of
agon, Michigan and Lake Engineers, September, 1970
Superior Shoreline,
Ontonagon County, Michi-
gan

Great Lakes Shoreland U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Damage - Causes and North Central Division,-May
Protective Measures 1972

152

Title Publishing Agency

Shore Management Guide- Dept; of the Army, Corps of
lines Engineers, Washington, D. C.
August 1971

Shore Protection Guide- Dept. of the Army, Corps of
lines Engineers, Washington, D. C.
August 1971

Help Yourself Dept. of the Army, Corps of
Engineers, North Central
Division

153

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX C
I FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM SUMMARY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 154

Appendix C

National Flood Insurance Program

I. Background

The National Flood Insurance Program was first
established through passage of Federal Legislation entitled
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. The most recent
expansion of this program is incorporated in the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, which was signed into law
by the President on December 31, 1973.

II. Program Purpose

The stated purpose of this program is to provide
better protection to the public and to reduce annual
disaster assistance outlays through the increased
availability of flood insurance.

III. The Program Objectives Are:

A. to implement land use controls (in flood-erosion
hazard zones) designed to prevent those types of land use
and/or construction that are prone to damage due to flooding,
the erosive action of streams and lakes, mud slides, etc.

B. to make federally subsidized flood damage
insurance available to persons owning property within
identified flood hazard zones within communities or
municipalities that adopt and enforce adequate flood
hazard zone land use controls.

IV. Main Provisions

A. Requirements for Program Qualification - Local
Government. A-unit of local government may become qualified
for participation in the Federal Flood Insurance Program by:

1. providing satisfactory proof that they currently
enforce flood hazard zone land use controls satisfactory
to The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
requirements; or

2. if such controls are not in effect, by:

a. cooperating with HUD in the identification and
mapping of flood hazard zones within the municipality;

155

b. enacting a building permit review system
requiring a permit for construction on all lands within
the municipality - including those in identified flood
hazard zones;

C. local governing officials meeting in session
pass resolutions to the effect: 1) that the government unit
recognizes the existence of a flooding problem within its
municipal boundaries and expresses its desire to comply with
future improvement measures, and 2) that instructions are
established and directed to an enforcement officer who is
charged with the review of permits for construction within
flood hazard areas;

d. making a formal application to HUD for inclusion
in the Federal Flood Insurance Program;

e. complying with any resulting further specifi-
cations by HUD for qualification; or,

3. if the municipality fails to seek inclusion in the
Federal Flood Insurance Program (in New York State) and
is found by HUD to have flood hazard zone(s) within its
political boundaries:

a. if a municipality fails to seek inclusion
in the program by mid-1975, the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation (by legislative authority)
shall prescribe appropriate land use controls for that
municipality thus qualifying the residents of that munici-
pality for participation in the Federal Flood Insurance
Program (subsidized ffood damage insurance).

B. Requirements for Eligibility - Property Owners

Property owners.may become eligible for purchase of
subsidized flood damage insurance when the municipality
their property is located in has been qualified by HUD for
participation in the Federal Flood Insurance Program.

C. Sanctions

Sanctions will be imposed upon municipalities with
identified flood hazard zones that fail to qualify for
inclusion in the Federal Flood Insurance Program. The
primary sanction prohibits lending institutions controlled
by Federal regulations to lend money for construction or
renovation within the hazard area of municipalities that
have not qualified for the program. In addition, flood
insurance, if available, must be purchased in connection
with Federally related financing of projects in identified
flood-prone areas as a condition for Federal assistance
in times of disasters.

156

D. Subsidized Flood Damage Insurance Coverage
Tv-ailable

Following are listed the maximum amounts of
subsidized insurance available, by type of structure,
under the current insurance program:

Structure Contents
Type Maximum Cost/ Maximum cost/
Structure Coverage $100 Coverage $100

Single Family
Residence 35,000 $.25 $ 10,000 $.35

Apartment House $100,000 $.40 $ 10,000 $.40

Non-Residential
Structure $100,000 $.40 $100,000 $.75

V. Participating Agencies

Federal: Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Federal Insurance Administration
Washington, D. C. 20010

New York State: The NYS Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
Office.of Program Development,
Planning and Research Programming and
Analysis Bureau
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12201

VI. References

A. Enabling Legislation

1. Federal

National Flood Insurance Ac t of 1968 as Amended
(enacted by Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968)
Public Law 90-448, approved August 1, 1968.

Housing and Urban Development Act of 1969 Public
Law 91-152, approved December 24, 1969.

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 Public Law
93-234, approved December 31, 1973.

2. New York State

Chapter 839

(Laws of 1974 - Article 36 of the Environmental
Conservation Law)

157

B. Key Publications Related to the National Flood
Insurance Program, Flood Damage, Flood Plain Management,
and Land Use Controls Related to Flood Hazard Reduction

1. "A Guide to Planning and Zoning,Laws of New York
State," revised, December, 1973, State of New York, Office
of Planning Services, available New York State Office of
Planning Services, Albany, New York, or National Technical
Information Center, 528S Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA,
22151, 115 pp.

2. "Community Response to Flood Risks," and "Federal
Flood Insurance," Compiler, Lyle S. Raymond, Jr., Extension
Associate, Water Resources, Cooperative Extension, New York
State, Cornell University, State University of New York,
Ithaca, New York, October, 1972, 35 pp., illus.

3. "Flood Plain Management -- A challenge for the State,"
Water Resources Commission, Division of Water Resources,
New York State Conservation Department, July, 1967, 104 pp.,
illus.

4. "Flood Plain Management and the National Flood
Insurance Program," NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation,
Albany, New York, 12201, 17 pp., illus.

5. "Flood Plain Information," prepared for Broome
County (New York) Legislature by Baltimore District, Corps
of Engineers, December, 1969 (Susquehanna and Chenango
Rivers), 57 pp., illus.

6. "Model Zoning Ordinances for Flood Hazard Areas,"
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and
New York State Office of Planning Services, Albany, New York,
13 pp., illus.

7. "Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas to Reduce Flood
.Losses," United States Water Resources Council, 2120 L Street,
N.W., Washington, D. C. 20037. Available in two volumes:
Volume 1, 578 pp. Volume 2, 389 pp., illus. Available for
purchase from the Superintendent of Documents, U. S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402,
(Volume 1 costs $2.50; Volume 2 costs $2.00, FSN 5245-0010).

8. "The National Flood Insurance Program," U.S. Dept.
of Housing and Urban Development, Washington,-D. C., June,
1973.

1S8

APPENDIX D

OFFICE CONSOLIDATION OF ORDER
OF APPROVAL

October 29, 1952
as amended by
Order of Approval, July 2, 1956

159

Appendix D

Office Consolidation of Order of Approvall

The attached Office Consolidation has been prepared
for the convenience of persons who have occasion to refer
to these two Order of the Commission. It has no official
status and in case of any discrepency between it and the
actual Order, the terms of the Order shall prevail.

Office Consolidation

INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF
CANADA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FOR AN ORDER OF APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN
WORKS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF POWER IN THE INTERNATIONAL RAPIDS
SECTION.OF THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER

ORDER OF APPROVAL

WHEREAS the Government of Canada and the Government
of the United States of America under date of 30 June, 1952,
have submittedApplications to the International Joint
Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission") for
its approval of the construction, jointly be entities to be
designated by the respective Governments, of certain works
for the development of power in the International Rapids
Section of the St. Lawrence River, these being boundary
waters within the meaning of the Preliminary Article of the
Boundary Waters Treaty of 11 January, 1909 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Treaty"), and of the construction,
maintenance and operation of such works subject to and
under conditions specified in the Applications, and have
requested that the Applications be considered by the
Commission as in the nature of a joint application; and

WHEREAS pursuant to the aforementioned request
of the two Governments, the Commission is considering the
two Applications as in the nature of a joint application;
and

iThis Office Consolidation was provIided by The International
Joint Commission.

160

WHEREAS notices that the Applications had been filed
were published in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission; and

WHEREAS Statements in Response to the Applications and
Statements in Reply thereto by both Applicants were filed
in accordance with the Rules of the Commission; and

WHEREAS pursuant to published notices, hearings were
held by the Commission at Toronto, Ontario, on 23 July, 1952;
at Ogdensburg, New York, on 24 July, 1952; at Cornwall,
Ontario, on 25 July, 1952; at Albany, New York, on 3 September,
1952; at Montreal, Quebec, on 8 September, 1952; and at
Washington, D.C., on 20 October, 1952; and

WHEREAS by reason of the said notices of the said
applications and hearings, all persons interested were
afforded convenient opportunities of presenting evidence
to and being heard before the Commission; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the said Applications, the
hearings before, the evidence given, and material filed
with the Commission, the Commission is satisfied that the
proposed works and uses of the waters of the International
Rapids Section comply with the principles by which the
Commission is governed as adopted by the High Contracting
Parties in Article VIII of the Treaty; and

WHEREAS the Commission has been informed that the
Government of Canada has designated The Hydro-Electric
Power Commission of Ontario as the entity to construct,
maintain and operate the proposed works in Canada, and that
the Government of the United States intends in due course
to designate the entity to construct, maintain and operate
the works in the United States; and

WHEREAS the program of construction of the works,
as proposed by the Applicants, includes the removal of
Gut Dam from the International Rapids Section and the
Government of Canada has informed the Commission that it
is its intention to take steps for the early removal of
Gut Dam as soon as the construction of the proposed works
is approved and as soon as river conditions and the protec-
tidn of down river and other interests that will be,
affected during its removal will permit, thereby advancing
the time of removal of Gut Dam; and

WHEREAS the Commission finds that suitable and
adequate provision is made by the laws in Canada and by the
Constitution and laws in the United States for the
protection and indemnity of all interests on either
side of the International Boundary which may be injured
by reason of the construction, maintenance and operation
of the works; and

161

WHEREAS the Commission finds that it has juris-
diction to hear and dispose of the Applications by approval
thereof in the manner and subject to the conditions
hereinafter set out;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the construction,
maintenance and operation jointly by The Hydro-Electric
Power Commission of Ontario and an entity to be designated
by the Government of the United States of America of
certain works (hereinafter called "the works") in accordance
with the "Controlled Single Stage Project (238-242)11, which
was part of the joint report dated 3 January, 1941, of
the Canadian Temporary Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin
Committee and the United States St. Lawrence Advisory
Committee, containing the features described in Appendix "A"
to this Order and shown in Appendix "B" to this Order, be
and the same are hereby approved subject to the conditions
enumerated below, namely,

(a) All interests on either side of the International
Boundary which are injured by reason of the construc-
tion, maintenance and operation of the works shall
be given suitable and adequate protection and
indemnity in accordance with the laws in Canada
or the Constitution and laws in the United States
respectively, arid in accordance with the require-
ments of Article VIII of the Treaty.

(b) The works shall be so planned, located, constructed,
maintained and operated as not to conflict with
or restrain uses of the waters of the St. Lawrence
River for purposes given preference over uses of
water for power purposes by the Treaty, namely,
uses for domestic and sanitary purposes and uses
for navigation,.including the service of canals
for the purposes of navigation, and shall be so
planned, located, constructed, maintained and
operated as to give effect to the provisions of
this Order.

(c) The works shall be constructed, maintained and
operated in such manner as to safeguard the rights
and lawful interests of others engaged or to be
engaged in the development of power in the St.
Lawrence River below the International Rapids
Section.

(d) The works shall be so designed, constructed,
maintained and operated as to safeguard so far as
possible the rights of all interests affected by
the levels of the St. Lawrence River upstream
from the Iroquois regulatory structure and by the
levels of Lake Ontario and the lower Niagara River;
and any change in levels resulting from the works

162

which injuriously affects such rights shall be
subject to the requirements of paragraph (a)
relating to protection and indemnification.

(e) The hydro-electric plants approved by this Order
shall not be subjected to operating rules and
procedures more rigorous than are necessary to
comply with the provisions of the foregoing
paragraphs (b), (c) and (d).

(f) Before The Hydro-Electric Power Commission of
Ontario commences the construct ion of any part of
the works, it shall submit to the Government of
Canada, and before the entity designated by the
Government of the United States commences the
construction of any part of the works, it shall
submit to the Government of the United States, for
approval in writing, detailed plans and specifica-
tions of.that part of the works located in their
respective countries and details of the program
of construction thereof or such details' of such
plans and specifications or programs of construc-
tion relating thereto as the respective Governments
may require. If after any plan, specification or
program has been so approved, The Hydro-Electric
Power Commission of Ontario or the entity designated
by the Government of the United States wishes to
make any change therein, it shall, before adopting
such change, submit the changed plan, specification
or program for approval in a like manner.

(g) In accordance with the Applications, the establish-
ment by the Governments of Canada and of the United
States of a Joint Board of Engineers to be known
as the St. Lawrence River Joint Board of Engineers
(hereinafter referred to as the "Joint Board of
Engineers") consisting of an equal number of
representatives of Canada and the United States
to be designated by the respective Governments,
is approved. The duties of the Joint Board of
Engineers shall be to review and coordinate, and,
if both Governments so authorize, approve the plans
and specifications of the works and the programs
of construction thereof submitted for the approval
of the respective Governments as specified above,
and to assure the construction of the works in
accordance therewith as approved. The Joint Board
of Engineers shall consult with and keep the
Board of Control, hereinafter referred to,
currently informed on all matters pertaining
to the water levels of Lake Ontario and the
International Rapids Section and the regulation of
the discharge of water from Lake Ontario and the
flow of water through the International Rapids

163

Section, and shall give full consideration to any
advice or recommendations received from the Board
of Control with respect thereto.

(h) A Board of Control to be known as the International
St. Lawrence River Board of Control (herein
referred to as the "Board of Control") consisting
of an equal number of representatives of Canada
and of the United States, shall be established by
this Commission. The duties of the Board of
Control shall be to give effect to the instructions
of the Commission as issued from time to time with
respect to this Order.

During construction of the works the duties of the
Board of Control shall be to keep itself currently
informed of the plans of the Joint Board of
Engineers insofar as these plans relate to water
levels and the regulation of the discharge of
water from Lake Ontario and the flow of water
through the International-Rapids Section, and to
consult with and advise the Joint Board of
Engineers thereon.

Upon completion of the works, the duties of the
Board of Control shall be to ensure that the
provisions of this Order relating to water levels
and the regulation of the discharge of water from
Lake Ontario and the flow of water through the
International Rapids Section as herein set out are
complied with, and The Hydro-Electric Power
Commission of Ontario and the entity designated by
the Government of the United State*s shall duly
observe any direction given them by the Board of
,Control for the purpose of ensuring such compliance.
The Board of Control shall report to the Commission
at such times as the Commission may determine.

In the event of any disagreement amongst the
members of the Board of Control which they are
unable to resolve, the matter shall be referred
by them to the Commission for decision. The
Board of Control may, at any time, make represen-
tations to the Commission in regard to any matter
affecting or arising out of the terms of this
Order with respect to water levels and the regula-
tion of the said discharge and flow.

Upon the completion of the works, the discharge of
water from Lake Ontario and the flow of water
through the International Rapids Section shall be
regulated to meet the requirements of conditions

164

(b), (c), and (d).hereof; shall be regulated
within a range of stage from elevation 244.0 feet*
(navigation season) to elevation 248.0 feet, as
nearly as may be; an@. shall be regulated in
accordance with the -@riteria set forth in the
As amended Commission's letters of 17 March 1955 to the
2 July 1956 Governments of Canada and the United States of
America and approved by the said governments in
their letters of 3 December 1955 and qualified, by
the terms of separate letters from the Government
of Canada and the Government of the United States
of America dated 11 April 19S6 and 1 May 1956,
respectively, to the extent that these letters
agree that the criteria are intended to establish
standards which would be maintained with the minimum
variation. The project works shall be operated in
such a manner as to provide no less protection for
navigation and riparian interests downstream than
would have occurred under pre-project conditions
and with supplies of the past as adjusted, as
defined in criterion (a) herein. The Commission
will indicate in an appropriate fashion, as the
occasion may require, the inter-relationship of
the criteria, the range of elevations and the
other requirements.

The criteria are as follows:

(a) The regulated outflow from Lake Ontario
from 1 April to 15 December shall be such as
not to reduce the minimum level of Montreal
Harbour below that which would have occurred in
the past with the supplies to Lake Ontario since
1860 adjusted to a condition assuming a continuous
diversion out of the Great Lakes Basin of
3,100 cubic feet per second at Chicago and a
continuous diversion into the Great Lakes Basin
of 5,000 cubic feet per second from the Albany
River Basin (hereinafter called the "supplies
of the past as adjusted").

(b) The regulated winter outflows from Lake
Ontario from,15 December to 31 March shall be
as large as feasible and shall be maintained so
that the difficulties of winter power operation
are minimized.

(c) The regulated outflow from Lake Ontario
during the annual spring break-up in Montreal
Harbour and in the river downstream shall not
be greater than would have occurred assuming
supplies of the past as adjusted.

All elevations mentioned in this Order are stated in
relation to the United States Lake Survey 1935 datum.

165

(d) The regulated outflow from Lake Ontario
during the annual flood discharge from the
Ottawa River shall not be greater than would
have occurred assuming supplies of the past as
adjusted.

(e) Consistent with other requirements, the
minimum regulated monthly outflow from Lake
Ontario shall be such as to secure the maximum
dependable flow for power.

(f) Consistent with other requirements,
the maximum regulated outflow from Lake Ontario
shall be maintained as low as possible to reduce
channel excavations to a minimum.

(g) Consistent with other requirements, the
levels of.Lake Ontario shall be regulated for the
benefit of property owners on the shores of Lake
Ontario in the United States and Canada so as
to reduce the extremes of stage which have been
experienced.

(h) The regulated monthly mean level of
Lake Ontario shall not exceed elevation 248.0
with the supplies of the past as adjusted.

(i) Under regulation, the frequency of
occurrences of monthly mean elevations of
approximately 247.0 and higher on Lake Ontario
shall be less than would have occurred in the
past with the supplies of the past as adjusted
and with present channel conditions in the
Galops Rapids Section of the Saint Lawrence
River.*

(j) The regulated level of Lake Ontario on
1 April shall not be lower than elevation 244.0.
The regulated monthly mean level of the lake
from 1 April to 30 November shall be maintained
at or above elevation 244.0.

(k) In the event of supplies in excess of
the supplies of the past as adjusted, the
works in the International Rapids Section shall
be operated to provide all.possible relief to
the riparian owners upstream and downstream.
In the event of supplies less than the supplies

11present channel conditions" refers to conditions as
of March 1955.

166

.of the past as adjusted, the works in the
International Rapids Section shall be operated
to provide all possible relief to navigation
and power interests.%

The flow of water through the International Rapids
Section in any period shall equal the discharge of
water from Lake Ontario as determined for that
period in accordance with a plan of regulation
which, in the judgment of the Commission, satisfies
the afore-mentioned requirements, range of stage
and criteria and when applied to the channels as
determined in accordance with Appendix A hereto
produ ces no more critical governing velocities than
those specified in that appendix, nor more critical
governing water surface profiles than those
established by Plan of Regulation 12-A-9, when
applied to the channels as determined in accordance
with Appendix A hereto, and shall be maintained
as uniformly as possible throughout that period.

Subject to the requirements of conditions (b), (c)
and (d) hereof, and of the range of stage, and
criteria, above written, the Board of Control,
after obtaining the approval of the Commission, may
temporarily modify or change the restrictions as
to discharge of water from Lake Ontario and the
flow of water through the International Rapids
Section for the purpose of determining what modifica-
tions or changes in the plan of regulation may be
advisable. The Board of Control shall report to
the Commission the results of such experiments,
together with its recommendations as to any
changes or modifications in the plan of regulation.
When the plan of regulation has been perfected so
as best to meet the requirements of all interests,
within the range of stage and criteria above
defined, the Commission will recommend to the
two Governments that it be made permanent and, if
the two Governments thereafter agree, such plan of
regulation shall be given effect as if contained
in this order.

(j) Subject as hereinafter provided, upon completion
of the works, the works shall be operated initially
for a test period of tenyears, or such shorter
period as may be approved by the Commission,with the
forebay water level at the power houses held at a
maximum elevation of 238.0 feet, sea level datum.
Subject to the requirements of paragraphs (b),
(c) and (d) hereof, the Board of Control, after
obtaining the approval of the Commission, may
temporarily modify or change the said forebay water

167

level in order to carry out experiments for the
purpose of determining whether it is advisable
to increase the forebay water level at the power
houses to a maximum elevation exceeding 238.0 feet.
If the Board of Control, as a result of these
experiments considers that operation during this
test period at a maximum elevation exceeding
238.0 feet would be advisable, and so recommends,
the Commission wi"11 consider authorizing operation
during this test period at a maximum elevation
exceeding 238.0 feet. At the end of this test
period, the Commission will make such recommendations
to the two Governments with respect to a permanent
forebay water level as it deems advisable or it
may recommend an extension of the t(%-st period.
Such of these recommendations as the two Governments
thereafter agree to adopt shall be given effect as
if contained in this Order.

(k) The Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario
and the entity designated by the Government of the
United States shall maintain and supply for the
information of the Board of Control accurate
records relating to water levels and the discharge
of water through the works and the regulation of the
flow of water through the International Rapids
Section, as the Board of Control may determine to
be suitable and necessary, and shall install such
gauges, carry out such measurements, and perform
such other services as the Board may deem necessary
for these purposes.

(1) The Board of Control shall report to the Commission
as of 31 December each year on the effect, if any,
of the operation of the downstream hydro-electric
power plants and related structures on the tailwater
elevations at the hydro-electric power plants
approved by this Order.

(m) The Government of Canada shall proceed forthwith
to carry out its expressed intention to remove
Gut Dam.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allocation
set our in Appendix "C" of the costs of constructing,
maintaining and operating the works approved by this Order
between The Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario and
the entity to be designated by the Government of the United
States be and the same is hereby approved but such approval
shall not preclude the Applicants from submitting to the
Commission for approval any variation in the said allocation
that may be agreed upon between them as being appropriate
or advisable.

168

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission retains
jurisdiction over the subject matter of these Applications,
and may, after giving such notice and opportunity to all
interested parties to make representations as the Commission
deems appropriate, make such further Order or Orders
relating thereto as may be necessary in the judgment of the
Commission.

Signed at Montreal, this 29th.day of October, 1952.

(Signed) A. G. L. McNaughton

A. 0. Stanley

Geo. Spence

Eugene W. Weber

J. Lucien Dansereau

Commissioner McWhorter dissenting.

169

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX E
I DESCRIPTION OF PLAN OF CONTROL
I 1958-D
I *
I
1 11
I
I
I
I
1 170
I

APPENDIX E

Description of Plan of Control 1958-D

I. Criteria Under Which Plan 1958-D Operates

Plan 1958-D was developed to respect the criteria
set forth in the Order of Approval of 29 October 1952
(See Appendix D).
II. Generall

Artificial control of the outflows and levels of Lake
Ontario must follow a plan that is designed to satisfy the
criteria and other requirements that have been established
to protect or to provide advantages to the various interests
concerned. By testing a plan over the period of record,
employing the supplies of the past as adjusted, assessment
may be made of the degree to which a plan will satisfy
the criteria and other requirements and of the probable
effects of regulation under the plan in the future.

Plan 1958-D consists of a supply indicator, two basic
rule curves, shown as Figures 1 and 2, seasonal adjustments
tabulated on Table 1 and a number of maximum and minimum
outflow limitations shown on Figure 3 and Table 1.2 In the
application of Plan 1958-D, the regulated Lake Ontario out-
flow is obtained in three steps. In the first step the
basic regulated outflow is derived from the family of curves
on Figure 1 or Figure 2 which shows the basic regulated
outflow as a function of the end-of-period Lake Ontario
level and the "adjusted supply indicator." In the second
step the basic regulated outflow is adjusted by applying
the seasonal adjustment tabulated in Table 1. In the
third step the resultant seasonal adjusted outflow is
compared with the maximum and minimum outflow limitations
shown on Figure 3 and Table 1 which have been chosen to

lThis description is taken primarily from Regulation of
Lake Ontario (Plan 1958-D), Report to the International
Joint Commission by the St. Lawrence Board of Control,
July 1963.
2Figures and Tables referenced refer --o those included in
this Appendix.

171

MINIAq1RA FLGK LnIITATIONS MA=1@04 FLON LIA9TATIONS
SEASONAL
WEIGHTED ADJUSTIVIENT Add to Supply Add to Supply
MONTH NOR71AAL TO BASIC Indicator at End For For Ice indicator at End
SUPPLY RULE of Preceding Minimm Channel Formation of Preceding
OUTFLO'N Period Design Lachine Period
(P)* (14) (L) (I) (P)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9

JANUARY 1 234 0 - 210 -
2 234 - 6 - 210
3 233 - 6 - 210
4 233 - 6 - 210 -
FEBRUARY 1 233 - 6 - 207 248
2 233 - 6 - 207 248
3 233 - 6 - 207 248
4 233 - 6 - 207 248
MARCH 1 233 - 6 - 204 248
2 235 - 6 - 204 - 248
3 237 - 6 - 204 - 248
4 242 - 6 - 204 - 248
APRIL 1 246 - 8 - 188- - 248
2 249 - 10 - 188 - 253
3 252 - 12 - 188 -
257
4 254 - 14 - 1.88 - 259
0a,
14 (U
I&Y 1 257 - 16 - 188 - 261
2 258 - 18 - 188 - 263
260 - 20 227* 188 - 265
4 261 - 20 232* 188 cli 266 +S
JUNT 1 262 - 20 237* 190 - 267
2 262 20 242* 190 - 267
3 263 20 245* 190 - C. E0 -
268 '0
4 263 20 247* 190 - 268
JULY 1 262 - le 249* 193 - 268 '4@@' FC@) 0
2 262 - 16 251* 193 - 267 8" 0
3 261 - 14 252* 193 - 266 g0"
.9
4 2@ - 12 253* 193 - 265 "r,"

AUGUST 1 258 - 10 254* 193 - -
2 256 - 8 255* 193
3 254 - 6 256* 193
4 252 - 4 256* 193
SEPTEMBER 1 250 - 2 256* 193
2 248 0 256* 193
3 246 + 2 255* 193
4 244 + 2 252* 193
OCTOBER 1 243 + 2 249* 193
2 241 + 2 24?* 193
3 239 + 2 245* 193
4 238 + 4 243* 193
NOVEMBER 1 237 + 4 241* 198
2 236 + 6 240- 198
3 235 + 6 239* 198
4 235 + 8 238* 198
DECEMBER 1 235 + 8 238* 210
2 235 + 8 238* 210
3 234 + 6 - 210 280 from
4 234 + 6 210 Lake St.
Louis

*If sum exceeds (225 - IA I) where I is the difference between the outflows of Lake St. Louis and Lake Ontario
for preceding quarter, use (225 - 1/6 1) (P).
Table 1. Table of Normal Supply Indices and Flow Limitations in Thousands of Cubic
Feet Per Second (Source: Regulation of Lake Ontario Plan 1958-D, The Interna-
tional St. Lawrence River Board of Control.)

172

0 0 Oq

0 (D

I A A I I A I @l
R, z' z z' I/ V//,
Pi r- P) 7
F, co 247' NOTE:
loz - - - Iz
(D r-+n a
@3 P. - - x __oz__ Iz _oz__ VVIZ1,111.014, J
0 0 ';d '. * I /Y, 1) LIMI
(D @J i-- CL >
0 @-j
(D rrl 246' cfs
Ft x Z'
< n r GOV
(D f-- rn
(D A VVY /,/,/y REG
CL <

(D (D
0 1c;0 1 'A I
CD 11 245' 2) WAT
IA I I ONT
Cl rt (D CL
Pi t7l LEV
0 Hs li rri oz _lz_ v /v, six
" P. r- 0 - -/-- 1 7 THE
244' --,Z--- - I.G.L
6 >
0 1-1:@ X I TO
@:j
r+ ADD
I I 1A YV// llo@
0 @j C-4 A I
H r- -711
@-j @-j 71'71
CD 1-g@ ;7' ;;e
@-j cn 70
co m P.
243 oz
0 ZK @t@:
H 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
r_-
@Dl co BASIC REGULATED DISCHARGE FROM LAKE ONTARIO- 1000efs
(D FJ-

FTJ
P. c/) p
0 0 Gq
@:l r- r-
@jj 1-5 F-3
H 0 (D
(D

(D
N 247' NOTE:
@-j U) I
Ij @u F.
m r+
@J p -
0 -;o 1) LIMIT
BETW
@;d 0 (D M 246' lz
m cfs
cp GOVER
0 rri
(D r- co / XX/y REGUL
a < 1@12 /1 171, , /@/ Y Y .1
m /yyyyyyyyyyy
< :) r-
w (D (D 40 N (3
-0 0 / /
0 -n 245'
p Q 2) WATE
ONTAF
>
CL ol
rt 5-- -,Z LEVEL
pi oq - m
o @-j r- SIX Gi
60
. z THE 0
0 rt r-
244' I.G.L.D
0 1 ;o TO U.
zo- 0
rt F--j C-4 ADD 1.
Fj w w
0 @j @J

@-j @u 243'

co co

180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
@A H
@jl Fz: BASIC REGULATED DISCHARGE FROM LAKE ONTARIO- 1000 cfs
(D W

@j (D
r+
(D

@u c/) p -
rt 0 Crq
H - r- f--
0 F@
(D

cf) @o
r+ (D @4
0 @b -n NOTE:
x m
H P. 247' CD
@u c: 0
5., 1) APPLY
LIMITA
(D 0
::50 rn SMALL
06 CD (A z
r- X I DISCHA
(D 0 ct 0 c: CL
M 2465' 0

0
> mr- >
-<O x
t7' 0 M I o
(D z 2) LIMIT
< CL < c-- -(D X: --
5. M > m BETWE
(D r- CA
1@ (D 10 PERIOD
<
0 245'
cD -n WHEN
0 @:l Z!.r-
0 GOVER
Pi rt r-+ 0. >
@lj A LIMITA
- m 00,
60 - /APRIL TO DECEMBER
0 0 0 z
::j -1 244' 244.02 1 CLUSIVE, 3) WATER
I CIO >
243.67 LX ONTAR
cn L
0 pi 0 LEVEL
43.38
7@ Ln SIX GU
1@ td THE 0
0 (D
H 243' e-t I.G.L.D
Lo Qj J@NUARY TO DECEMBER TO U. S
Ln r-+
00 (D I I I@[email protected]@ ADD 1.
I CL
ISO 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
-30 MAXIMUM REGULATED DISCHARGE- 1000cfs
@:)- :E:
(D Pi
rt
(D

rt
@67

(D
<

meet various requirements of regulation. These outflow
limitations vary throughout the year. If the seasonal
adjusted outflow is between the minimum And maximum
limitations for the period, it is adopted as the regulated
outflow. If it is higher than the maximum limitation or
lower than the minimum limitation, the applicable outflow
limitation is adopted as the regulated outflow. A sample
computation sheet and explanation is presented on Figure 4.
The features and procedures of Plan 1958-D3 are
described below.

III. Supply Indicies

To make most effective use of the storage available on
Lake Ontario, it is necessary to vary the regulated outflow
according to some estimate of future water supply conditions.
Approximately 85% of the average water supply to Lake
Ontario comes from the upper Great Lakes where it is subjected
to the regulatory influence of the large surface areas of
the lakes. This component of the water supply changes very
slowly so that reasonably accurate seasonal forecasts of it
are practicable. The remaining 15% of the average water
supply originates in the local drainage basin and fluctuates
widely and it is not possible to predict this component with
any degree of accuracy with presently available data and
techniques.

In the selection of a factor to be used as an indication
of future supplies, the following considerations were taken
into account:

(i) It must use data which have some relationship to
supply conditions and which are available for the period of
record. The data should be adjusted to present conditions
of diversions and should be properly coordinated. At
present the best available data are the total water supplies
to Lake Ontario.

(ii) Because the water supply to Lake Ontario from the
upper Great Lakes varies approximately with the quantity of
water stored in the lakes which must eventually reach Lake
Ontario, it is possible to get a fairly good indication of
future supplies by a procedure which gives due weight to
the magnitude and sequence of the total water supplies that
have already occurred. The supplies must be weighted in such
a manner that the resultant supply indicator is sensitive
enough to indicate the beginning of a significant long-term

3Plan 1958-C was revised to form Plan 1958-D with the
explicit objective of improving the water levels in Montreal
Harbour to the extent consistent with all requirements of
the Orders of Approval.

176

COLUMN
NUMBER P R 0 C E D U R E Exam-01c for 7 April 1937

1. The regulation periods are quarter month periods as defined in paragraph 13.
2. Supply to Lake Ontario = 1 = Outflow plus change in storage when lake level rises during period and minus change in storage when lake level falls.
These supplies were determined as described in paragraphs 28 and 29 and are tabulated in Table 8 Volumn 2 of the report on Regulation
Plan 1958-A.

3. 16.5 x Weighted Supply = "K011 forms part of the routing procedure described in paragraphs 36 to 38. To compute KO, subtract the value of 0
(Column 4) for previous period from the value of KO for previous period and add the value of f (Column 2) for current period. 3636 220 + 273 3688
4. Weighted Supply = 11011 also forms part of the routing procedure and is derived by dividing value in Column 3 by 16.5. 3688 223
16.5
5. Weighted Normal Supply = These data are tabulated on Plate 3 for each regulation period.

6. Supply Indicator. Subtract value in Column 5 from that in Column 4. 223 246 22

7. Change in Supply Indicator in Three Months. - 22 34) = + 12

8. Adjustment. Add values in Column 7 for three preceding periods to value for period in question and divide by 4.5. The adjustment is limited in
application to magnitudes of - 7,000 cfs and + 11,000 cfs, (see paragraph 41 ). The adjustment is also held constant during the winter and
early spring; the value during this period is dependent upon the value of the adjustment during the third quarter of December, which was 26 + 23 + 15 + 12
+ 7,000 cfs. 4.5 = 17

9. Adjusted Supply Indicator. Add value in Column 8 to that in Column 6. - 22 + 7 15

10. With adjusted Supply Indicator (Column 9) for previous period and end of period level (Column 16) for previous period, enter the appropriate Basic With elevation of 244.02 and adjusted supply indicator of
Rule Curve (Plate 1A or IB) and read discharge from horizontal scale. - 15, basic regulated discharge from basic curve is 229.

11. Seasonal Adjustment. These data are tabulated on Plate 3 for each period.

12. Seasonal Adjusted Outflow is obtained'by adding value in Column 10 to that in Column 11. 229 + 8) 221

13. Discharge with limitations. The limitations are tabulated on Plate 3. There are three types of maximum limitations and two types of minimum
limitations.
For January 4, only two limitations may apply: a minimum designated (M) and a maximum designated W. Since the seasonal adjusted outflow
222 (Column 12) exceeds the maximum limitation 220L (derived from Plate 2 with elevation 243-94), use 220L.
For April 1, three limitations may apply: a minimum (M) and two maxima (L) and (P). The (L) from Plate 2 is 280L and the (P) maximum is 248
plus the supply indicator (Column 6) of March 4 of - 22, which gives 226P. The seasonal adjusted outflow is 221, therefore use 221.
For June 1, four limitations may apply: two minima (M) and (P) and two maxima, (L) and (P). The (L) from Plate 2 is 304L and since the Lake
St. Louis regulated outflow (298) for the previous period does not exceed 345, the maximum (P) is not applicable. The (M) is 190M and the
minimum (P) 237 - 15 = 222P with a maximum limit of (225 - 1/6 1) or 214. The seasonal adjusted outflow is 232 which is greater than the
minima and less than the maximum, therefore use 232.
For October 2, three limitations may apply: two minima (M) and (P) and a maximum (L). The (M) is 193M, the (P) is 247 - 18 = 229 with a
maximum of (225,- 1A I) which is (225 - 3) or 222P. Since the seasonal adjusted flow, 217, is less than minimum (P) 222, use 222P.

14. Change in Storage, Column 2 minus Column 13. 273 221 + 52

15. Change in Storage in Feet, use conversion Table on Plate 4. + 52 + 0.16 feet

16. End of Period Water Level. Add value in Column 15 to end of previous period level. 244.02 + 0.16 = 244-18
17. Mean for Period. Average of end of current and previous period level. 244.02 + 244.18 _ 244-10
2
18. Recorded adjusted Lake Ontario outflows were determined as described in paragraphs 22 and 23.

19. Recorded adjusted Lake St. Louis outflows were determined as described in paragraphs 24 and 25.

20. Mean outflows from Lake St. Louis with Lake Ontario regulated under Plan 1958-D. Add difference between values in Columns 19 and 18 to value in
Column 13. (278 - 225) + 221 274

Figure 4. Example of Sample Computation Sheet (Source: Regulation of Lake Ontario, Plan 1958-D, International 177
St. Lawrence River Board of Controls, 1963).

Note: 1. All references in this figure are to the source document.
2. These computations were made to a higher degree of accuracy using an electronic computer and therefore
totals may not agree exactly due to rounding.

SUPPLY INDICATOR AT ADJUSTMENT OF SUPPLY INDICATOR U N D E R P L A N 1 9 5 8 D REG ED ADJUSTED MEAN
END-OF-PERIOD OUTFLOW
REGULATION SUPPLY 1000 CFS AT END-OF-PERIOD, -- 1000 CFS OUTFLOWS FROM LAKE ONTARIO -- 1000 CFS CHANGE IN STORAGE WATER LEVELS OF OUTFLOWS - 1000 CFS FROM LAKE
PERIOD DURING CHANGE LAKE ONTARIO - ST. LOUIS
16 5 x WITH LAKE
1937 PERIOD WEIGHTED WEIGHTED WEIGHTED SUPPLY IN SUPPLY ADJUSTED FROM SEASONAL SEASONAL WITH END OF MEAN FOR FROM FROM OkARIO
SUPPLY SUPPLY NORMAL INDICATOR INDICATOR ADJUSTIENT SUPPLY BASIC 1000 CFS FEET LAKE LAKE REGULATED
"KO" 1101, SUPPLY IN THREE INDICATOR CURVE ADJUSTMENT ADJUSTED LIMITATIONS PERIOD PERIOD ONTARIO ST. LOUIS UNDER PLAN
MONTHS 1958-D
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (?) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)
Jan 1 249 3299 200 234 - 34 + 7 + 7 - 27 180 0 180 210M + 39 + 0.12 243-40 243-34 201 247 256
2 28? 3386 205 234 - 29 + 12 + 7 - 22 180 - 6 '174 210M + 77 + 0.24 243.64 243.52 207 256 259
3 306 3487 211 233 - 22 + 17 + 7 - 15 183 - 6 177 210M + 96 + 0.30 243-94 243.79 210 265 265
4 277 3553 215 233 - 18 + 21 + 7 - 11 228 - 6 222 220L + @7 + 0.18 244.12 244-03 213 259 266
Feb 1 244 3582 217 233 - 16 + 20 + 7 - 9 235 6 229 229 + 15 + 0.05 244.17 244-14 212 273 290
2 233 3597 217 233 - 15 + 20 + 7 - 8 238 - 6 2 32 232P + 1 0 244.17 244.17 217 252 267
3 231 3610 219 233 - 14 + 22 + 7 - 7 239 - 6 233 233P - 2 - 0.01 244.16 2.44.16 215 246 264
4 270. 36.62 222 233 - 11 + 26 + ? - 4 240 - 6 234 234P + 36 + 0.11 244.27 244.22 222 255 267
Mar 1 237 3677 223 233 - 10 + 28 + 7 - 3 245 - 6 239 237P 0 0 244.27 244.27 221 262 278
2 203 3657 222 235 - 13 + 26 + 7 - 6 246 - 6 240 238P - 35 - 0.11 244.16 244.22 219 264 283
3 222 3657 222 23? - 15 + 23 + 7 - 8 241 - 6 235 235P - 13 - 0.041 244-12 244-14 222 250 263
4 200 3636 220 242 - 22 + 15 + 7 - 15 238 - 6 232 232 - 32 - 0.10 244.02 244-07 216 246 262
Apr 1 273 3688 223 246 - 22 + 12 + '7 - 15 229 - 8 221 221 + 52 + 0.16 244.18 244-10 225 278 274
2 258 3723 226 249 - 23 + 6 + 7 - 16 233 - 10 223 223 + 35 + 0.11 244.29 244.24 226 306 303
3 322 3819 231 252 - 21 + 1 + 7 - 14 232 - 12 220 220 +102 + 0.32 244.61 244-45 226 301 295
4 311 3899 236 254 - 18 0 + 7 - 11 242 - 14 228 228 + 83 + 0.26 244.87 244.74 231 326 323
may 1 286 3948 239 257 - 18 - 2 + 7 - 11 250 - 16 234 234 + 52 + 0.16 245-03 244.95 237 336 333
2 256 3965 240 258 - 18 - 3 1 - 19 254 - 18 236 236 + 20 + 0.06 245.09 245.06 239 344 341
3 310 4035 244 260 - 15 - 1 1 - 16 237 - 20 217 217 '+ 93 + 0.29 245.38 245.24 245 337 309
6
4 263 4053 24 261 - 15 4 2 - 1? 254 - 20 234 -234 t 29 + 0.09 245.47 245-42 246 310 298
Jun 1 247 4055 246 262 - 16 - 6 3 - 19 252 - 20 232 232 .+ 15 + 0.05 245.52 245.50 247 300 285
2 247 4:056 246 262 - 16 - 3 3 - 19 245 - 20 225 225 + 22 + 0.07 245.59 245.56 247 291 269
3 277 4087 248 263 - 15 0 3 - 18 246 - 20 226 226 + 51 + 0.16 245.75 245.67 245 283 264
4 246 4085 248 263 - 15 + 7 0 - 15 254 - 20 234 234 + 12 + 0.04 245.79 245.77 246 278 266
Jul 1 231 4069 247 262 - 15 + 7 + 2 - 13 265 - 18 247 247 - 16 0.05 245.74 245.76 247 273 273
2 228 4050 245 262 - 17 + 6 + 4 - 13 266 - 16 '250 250 - 22 0.07 245.67 245.70 244 265 271
3 232 4037 245 261 - 16 + 5 + 6 - 10 264 - 14 250 250 - 18 0.06 245.61 245.64 . 248 266 268
4 233 4025 244 259 - 15 + 3 + 5 - 10 266 - 12 254 254 - 21 0.07 245.54 245.58 249 267 272
Aug 1 226 4007 243 258 - 15 + 3 + 4 - 11 265 - 10 255 255 - 29 0.09 245-45 245.50 243 263 275
2 243 4007 243 256 - 13 + 5 + 4 - 9 262 - 8 254 254 - 11 0.03 245-42 245-44 244 2. 62 272
3 192 3956 240 254 - 14 + 1 + 3 - 11 263 - 6 20 257 65 - 0.20 245.22 245-32 241 265 281
4 221 3938 239 252 - 13 + 2 + 2 - 11 257 - 4 253 253 - 32 - 0.101 245.12 245.17 238 257 272
Sep 1 186 3885 235 250 - 15 + 1 + 2 - 13 255 - 2 253 253 - 67 - 0.21 244.91 245.02 234 250 269
2 3836 232 248 - 16 0 + 1 - 15 249 0 249 249 - 63 - 0.20 244.71 244.81 234 248 263
3 170 3773 229 246 - 17 - 2 0 - 17 243 + 2 245 245 - 75 - 0.23 244-48 244.60 233 2,49 261
4 194 3738 227 244 - 17 - 2 - 1 - 18 233 + 2 235 233 - 41 - 0.13 244-35 244-42 226 244 253
Oct 1 193 3705 224 243 - is - 3 - 2 - 20 226 + 2 228 228 - 35 - 0.11 244.24 244-30 225 243 246
2 159 . 3639 221 241 - 20 - 3 - 2 - 22 215 + 2 217 222P - 63 - 0.20, 244-04 244-14 223 243 242
3 239 3658 222 239 - 17 - 1 - 2 - 19 203 + 2 205 222P + 17 + 0.05 244.09 244.06 223 241 240
4 241 3677 223 238 - 15 0 - 2 - 17 217 + 4 221 222P + 19 + 0.06 244.15 244.12 225 253 250
Nov 1 192 3646 221 237 - 16 - 1 - 1 - 17 226 + 4 230 230 - 38 - 0.12 244-03 244-09 225 258 263
2 268 3693 224 236 - 12 + 1 0 - 12 224 + 6 230 230 + 3s + 0.12 244.15 244-09 221 260 269
3 192 3661 222 235 - 13 + 1 0 - 13 235 + 6 241 241 - 49 - 0.15. 244.00 244.08 225 290 306
4 210 3649 221 235 - 14 - 1 0 - 14 231 + 8 239 239 - 29 - 0.09 243-91 243.96 227 278 290:
Dee 1 223 3651 221 235 - 14 + 1 0 - 14 228 + 8 236 236 - 13 - 0.04 243.87 243.89 224 263 275
2 175 3605 218 235 - 17 - 1 0- - 17 227 + 8 235 235 - 60 - 0.19 243.68 243.78 224 259 270
3 234 3620 219 234 - 15 + 2 0 15 207 + 6 213 215J + 19 + 0.06 243.74 243.71 219 252 248
4 165 3566 1 216 234 - 18 - 1 0 18 219 + 6 225 225 - 60 0.19 243.55 243.64 214 245 256
Figure 4 (continued). Example of Sample Computation Sheet. 178

supply change but not so sensitive as to give any appreciable
weight to short-term supply changes which provide an
erroneous indication of future supplies, such as those
caused by ice jams in the Niagara River and winter floods
and early freeze-ups in the local drainage basin.

(iii) The computation of the supply indicator should
be simple. Since the data are used only as an indication
of future supplies, a great amount of elaboration is not
required.

A simple method of weighting past supplies is by means
of standard routing procedures based on the storage
equation: Inflow - Outflow = Changes in storage
By manipulation of the storage equation, the following
equality can be obtained:

02 - (T - 01) + kOl
k

where 02 = outflow at the end of the period

*01 = outflow at the end of the preceding period

I = mean supply for period
change in storage + 0.5
k change in outflow

This equation is used to compute progressively the routed
outflows which by definition are the "weighted supplies."

The value of k can be chosen to give any desired
weight to the sequence and magnitude of past supplies. If
k were made equal to 1, the weighted supply would equal
the mean supply for the preceding period. As k is increased,
more weight is given to the more remote supplies and the
weighted supply becomes less sensitive to recent supply
changes.
As previously defined, k = change in storage + 0.5.
dhange in outflow
It can be seen that k is constant when both the storage
and outflow bear a linear relationship to each other. For
convenience in setting outflow limitations (discussed
hereafter), the value of k was chosen so that the weighted
supply would approximate the preproject outflow from Lake
Ontario with no ice retardation. For this condition with
a one-foot change in stage on Lake Ontario

179

change in outflow = 20,000 cubic feet per second
approximately

change in storage = 80,000 cubic feet per second for
one month

= 320,000 cubic feet per second for
one quarter-month

= 348,000 cubic feet per second for
one week

Use of these quantities results in values of k equal to

k = 4.5 for a period of a month
k = 16.5 for a period of a quarter-month
k = 17.8S for a period of a week

The weight given to the supply for each month in
deriving the weighted supply using these values of k is
shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Weights Given to Supply For Months Past

Number of Months Weight Given to Supply of tth
in Past (t) Month in Computing Weighted
Supply

1 0 .2212
2 0.1723
3 0.1341
4 0.1045
5 0.0814
6 0.0634
7 0.0493
8 0. 0385
9 0. 0299
10 0. 0233
11 0.0182
12 0.0141
remainder beyond 12 0.0498

The "weighted normal supplies" are the weighted supplies
derived from the long-term average supplies for each period
of the year. The weighted normal supplies are tabulated in
Column 3 of Table 1. The "supply indicator" is defined as
the difference between the weighted supply and the weighted

180

normal supply.

As an index of future supplies, the supply indicator
is not sufficiently sensitive to detect all significant
supply changes, so an adjustment is required. In Plan
1958-D, this adjustment is determined, except during
the winter and early spring, by computing the change in.the
supply indicator from the indicator value occurring twelve
quarter-months previously, averaging these changes for the
last four quarter-month periods (so it would not be too
dependent on isolated values), and multiplying the result
by a factor of 8/9. During the winter and early spring
the adjustment is held constant and is determined by
averaging changes in the supply indicator for the eight
quarter-month periods ending at the conclusion of the second
quarter of December, and multiplying the result by 8/9.
The constant adjustment is applied to the varying supply
indicator during the period from the third quarter of
December to the first quarter of April, inclusive, if
negative and, if zero or positive, to the first quarter of
May, inclusive. Adjustments to the supply indicator are
limited in application to magnitudes of -7,000 cubic feet
period second and +11,000 cubic feet period second.

The supply indicator with the adjustment applied is
defined as the "adjusted supply indicator." During the
summer and fall months when the limitations on the
adjustment do not apply, the supply indicator is approximately
equal to the deviation from normal of the average supply
for the past three months. Although the adjusted supply
indicator is in general quite similar to the adjusted
deviation of the supply index from normal used in Plan 1958-C,
there are significant differences in the computation of the
adjustments. These differences have been made in order to
make the adjusted supply indicator more sensitive to
significant supply changes and less sensitive to spurious
supply changes, such as those caused by winter floods in
the local drainage basin, than the adjusted deviation of
the supply index from normal.

IV. Basic Rule Curves

Each of the basic rule curves shown on Figures 1 and 2
consists of a family of straight lines which gives the
regulated outflow for each period of the year as a'function
of the water level of the lake and the adjusted supply
indicator at the end of the preceding period. On Figure 1
which is applicable to the period February through July, the
curve of zero adjusted supply indicator approximates the
preproject outflow rating curve lowered by one foot. The
second basic rule curve, shown on Figure 2, covers the
period August through January and is identical to the
basic rule curve for the period February through July above
elevation 243.80. Below elevation 242.80, the lines have

181

a slope of 100,000 cubic feet per second per foot, which
permits the retention of more stored water at low lake
levels than would result from the use of Figure 1 through-
out the year.

The lines for all indicators greater or less than zero
are parallel to the zero line. The spacing of the lines
was determined by successive trials. Except during very
low supply conditions, the outflow is changed by 1000 cubic
feet per second for every 1000 cubic feet per second change
in the adjusted supply indicator. This small rate of
change is possible because the line of zero deviation is
considerably below the preproject outflow curve. When
the adjusted supply indicator is below -15,000 cubic feet
per second, the outflow is reduced very rapidly in response
to changes in the adjusted supply indicator in order to
maintain high levels in anticipation of probable low supply
conditions.

Plan 1958-D has two basic rule curves and thus differs
from Plan 1958-C which has only one. However, the basic
rule curves for the period February to July and for the
period August to January above elevation 243.80 are similar
to the basic rule curve of Plan 1958-C except that they
have been raised 0.03 foot to facilitate computation on
IGLD 1955.

V. Seasonal Adjustments

The seasonal adjusted outflows are obtained by adding
the seasonal adjustments shown on Column 4 of Table 1
to the outflow derived from the basic rule curve. These
seasonal adjustments vary from -20,000 cubic feet per
second in the latter part of May and June to +8,000 cubic
feet per second in the latter part of November and the
early part of December. The purpose of the seasonal
adjustments is to store water by a reduction in outflow
below the*basic rule outflow in the winter, spring and
early summer months, and to produce an increase in outflow
above the basic rule outflow in the late summer and fall
months. This results in a more efficient use of the
available storage range and a higher average elevation of
Lake Ontario than would be obtained if only the basic
rule outflow were used.

The seasonal adjustments have little effect on the
water levels of Lake Ontario during high supply periods
since the water stored by application of the seasonal
adjustments is normally dissipated by December and since
from December to July of a high supply period the seasonal
adjusted outflows normally exceed the outflows resulting
from application of the maximum flow limitations. However,
the seasonal adjustments have a beneficial effect on the
water levels and outflows of Lake Ontario during low supply

182

periods by providing high water levels on Lake Ontario at
the commencement of such periods.

The seasonal adjustments of Plan 1958-D result in the
storage of slightly more water during the spring months and
the discharge of slightly more water during the fall months
than the seasonal adjustments of Plan 1958-C.

VI. Outflow Limitations

Once the seasonal adjusted outflow has been obtained
from the basic rule curve and the seasonal adjustments, it
is checked to ensure that it does not violate the various
outflow limitations for the period. These outflow
limitations are set so that the outflows will not be higher
or lower than those necessary to meet the various regulation
requirements. The smallest of the maximum outflow limitations
and the largest of the minimum outflow limitations set the
limits for any period and the seasonal adjusted outflow is
used only if it falls below the applicable maximum
limitation and above the applicable minimum limitation.
The various classifications of outflow limitations are
described hereunder.

Channel excavations in the International Rapids Section
were designed to provide stipulated limiting depths and
velocities for navigation and stipulated maximum velocities
for formation of an ice cover. During the period April 1
to December 15, inclusive, outflows are limited by the
permissible navigation velocities and depths. As a matter
of procedure,, the outflow limitation for the April 1 to
December 15 period was applied to the December 15 - 31
period also. During January, the regulated outflows are
limited by permissible ice-forming velocities. During
February and March, the limiting outflows are based on a
consideration of winter operating conditions. Those
limitations are noted in Column 7 of Figure 4 and are
shown on Figure 3 as a function of the water level of
Lake Ontario at the end of the preceding period. When
these limitations are in effect, they are designated in
the computations by'the letter (L). The limitations for
Plan 1958-D differ from those of Plan 1958-C in that the
lower curve of Figure 3 between outflows of 216,000 cubic
feet per second and 255,000 cubic feet per second has a
slope of 100,000 cubic feet.per second per foot, rather
than 200,000 cubic feet per second per foot.

During the last half of December, it is necessary at
times to reduce the outflows from Lake Ontario so that the
outflow from Lake St. Louis will not exceed 280,000 cubic
feet per second. The limitation on Lake Ontario outflow
for this period is determined by subtracting the inflow
between Lake Ontario and Lake St. Louis from 280,000 cubic
feet per second, which assumes that the inflow is known

183

for the current period, and is thus identical with the
limitation applied in Plan 1958-C. This outflow limitation
is referred to in Column 8 of Figure 4 and is designated by
the letter (I) in the computations.

In certain periods of the year it is necessary to
have outflow limitations which will control the deviation
of the regulated outflows from those outflows which would
occur under preproject conditions. The application of
these outflow limitations is made relatively easy by the
use of the supply indicator. This indicator is approximately
equal to the deviation of the preproject outflow from
average if ice retardation is neglected. Therefore, an
outflow limitation determined by adding this indicator to
a fixed quantity for any period, hereinafter referred to
as the limiting control number, will bear the same relation-
ship to the preproject outflow that the limiting control
number bears to the average preproject outflow for that
period. The application of these outflow limitations is
automatic since they are obtained by adding the supply
indicator at the end of the preceding period to the limiting
control number. When the regulated outflow is determined
by these limitations, it is denoted in the computations by
the letter (P).

The limiting control numbers used to obtain the maximum
outflow limitations are tabulated in Column 9 of Figure 4
and are identical to those of Plan 1958-C. It should be
noted that these maximum outflow limitations for the
period from the 2nd half of April to July, inclusive, are
to be used only if the outflow from Lake St. Louis during the
preceding quarter exceeds 345,000 cubic feet per second.

The limiting control numbers used to obtain the
minimum outflow limitations are tabulated in Column 5 of
Figure 4. In application, this limitation is subject to
an overriding limit equal to 225,000 cubic feet per second
minus 1/6 of the difference between the outflow from Lake
St. Louis and the outflow from Lake Ontario for the preceding
regulation period. Both the limiting control numbers and
the overriding limit differ from those of Plan 1958-C in
such a manner as to increase the regulated outflows during
the navigation seasonal when the Lake Ontario supplies and
Ottawa River flows are low, and to decrease the regulated
outflows during the navigation season when the Lake Ontario
supplies are low and the Ottawa River flows are high.

The absolute minimum outflows for each period of the
year are tabulated in Column 6 of Figure 4. The volume of
water available for this purpose is governed by the
critically dry periods. The load requirements of the
power entities in the International Rapids Section were
the chief factor in determining the distribution of the

184

winter minimum outflows, while the selection of the minimum
summer outflows was based on the requirements of the
navigation and riparian interests in the Canadian reach of
the river. In the computations, this minimum outflow
limitation is designated by the letter (M). The minimum
outflow limitations of Plan 1958-D are the same as for
Plan 1958-C except during the months of July, August and
September when they are increased from 190,000 cubic feet
per second to 193,000 cubic feet per second.

185

APPENDIX F

TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND
GREAT BRITAIN RELATING TO BOUNDARY
WATERS, AND QUESTIONS ARISING BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

186

APPENDIX F

TREATY
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT 13RITAIN
RELATING TO BOUNDARY WATERS, AND QUESTIONS
ARISING BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA.

The United States of America and His Majesty the King of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond
the Seas, Emperor of India, being equally desirous to prevent disputes regarding
the use of boundary waters and to settle all questions which are now pending
between the United States and the Dominion of Canada involving the rights,
obligations, or interests of either in relation to the other or to the inhabitants
of the other, along their common frontier, and to make provision for the
adjustment and settlement of all such questions as may hereafter arise, have
resolved to conclude a treaty in furtherance of these ends, and for that purpose
have appointed as their respective plenipotentiaries:
The President of the United States 'of America, Elihu Root, Secretary of
State of the United States; and
His Britannic Majesty, the Right Honourable James Bryce, O.M., his
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary at Washington;
Who, after having communicated to one another their full powers, found
in good and due form, have agreed upon the following articles:

PRELIMINARY ARTICLE
For the purposes of this treaty boundary waters are defined as the waters
from main shore to main shore of the lakes and rivers and connecting waterways,
or the portions thereof, along which the international boundary between the
United States and the Dominion of Canada passes, including all bays, arms,
and inlets thereof, but not including tributary waters which in their natural
channels would flow into such lakes, rivers, and waterways, or waters flowing
from such lakes, rivers, and waterways, or the waters of rivers flowing across
the boundary.

ARTICLE I
The High Contracting Parties agree that the navigation of all navigable
boundary waters shall forever continue free and open for the purposes of com-
merce to the inhabitants and to the ships, vessels, and boats of both countries
equally, subject, however, to any laws and regulations of either country, within
its own territory, not inconsistent with such privilege of free navigation and
applying equally and without discrimination to the inhabitants, ships, vessels,
and boats of both countries.
It is further agreed that so long as this treaty shall remain in force, this
same right of navigation shall extend to the waters of Lake Michigan and to all
canals connecting boundary waters, and now existing or which may hereafter
be constructed on either side of the line. Either of the High Contracting Parties
may adopt rules and regulations governing the use of such canals within its own
territory and may charge tolls for the use thereof, but all such rules and regu-
lations and all tolls charged shall apply alike to the subjects or citizens of the
High Contracting Parties and the ships, vessels, and boats of both of the High
Contracting Parties, and they shall be placed on terms of equality in the use
thereof.

187

ARTICLE II
Each of the High Contracting Parties reserves to itself or to the several
State Governments on the one side and the Dominion or Provincial Governments
on the other as the case may be, subject to any treaty provisions now existing
with respect thereto, the exclusive jurisdiction and control over the use and
diversion, whether temporary or permanent-, of all waters on its own side of the
line which in their natural channels would flow across the boundary or into
boundary waters; but it is agreed that any interference with or diversion from
their natural channel of such waters on either side of the boundary, resulting
in any injury on the other side of the boundary, shall give rise to the same
rights and entitle the injured parties to the same legal remedies as if such
injury took place in the country where such diversion or interference occurs;
but this provision shall not apply to cases already existing or to cases expressly
covered by special agreement between the parties hereto.
It is understood, however, that neither of the High Contracting Parties
intends by the foregoing provision to surrender any right, which it may have,
to object to any interference with or diversions of waters on the other side ol
the boundary the effect of which would be productive of material injury to the
navigation interests on its own side of the boundary.

ARTICLE III
It is agreed that, in addition to the uses, obstructions, and diversions
heretofore permitted or hereafter provided for by special argreement between
the Parties hereto, no further or other uses or obstructions or diversions, whether
temporary or permanent, of boundary waters on either side of the line, affecting
the natural level or flow of boundary waters on the other side of the line shall
be made except by authority of the United States or the Dominion of Canada
within their respective jurisdictions and with the approval, as hereinafter
provided, of a joint commission, to be known as the International Joint
Commission.
The foregoing provisions are not intended to limit or interfere with the
existing rights of the Government of the United States on the one side and the
Government of the Dominion of Canada on the other' to undertake and carry
on governmental works in boundary waters for the deepening of channels, the
construction of breakwaters, the improvement of harbours, and other govern-
mental works for the benefit of commerce and navigation, provided that such
works are wholly on its own side of the line and do not materially affect the
level or flow of the boundary waters on the other, nor are such provisions intended
to interfere with the ordinary use of such waters for domestic and sanitary
purposes. ARTICLE IV
The High Contracting Parties agree that, except in cases provided for by
special agreement between them, they will not permit the construction or
maintenance on their respective sides of the boundary of any remedial or
protective works or any dams or other obstructions in waters flowing from
boundary waters or in waters at a lower level than the boundary in rivers
flowing across the boundary, the effect of -which is to raise the natural level of
waters on the other side of the boundary unless the construction or maintenance
thereof is approved by the aforesaid International Joint Commission.
It is further agreed that the waters herein defined as boundary waters
and waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to
the injury of health or property on the other.

188

ARTICLE V
The High Contracting Parties agree that it is expedient to limit the
diversion of waters from the Niagara River so that the level of Lake Erie and
the flow of the stream shall not be appreciably affected. It is the desire of
both Parties to accomplish this object with the least possible injury to in-
vestments which have already been made in the construction of power plants
on the United States side of the river under grants of authority from the State
of New York, and on the Canadian side of the river under licences authorized
by the Dominion of Canada and the Province of Ontario.
So long as this treaty shall remain in force, no diversion of the waters
of the Niagara River above the Falls from the natural course and stream
thereof shall be permitted except for the purposes and to the extent hereinafter
provided.
The United States may authorize and permit the diversion within the
State of New York of the waters of said river above the Falls of Niagara, for
power purposes, not exceeding in the aggregate a daily diversion at the rate of
twenty thousand cubic feet of water per second.
The United Kingdom, by the Dominion of Canada, or the Province of
Ontario, may authorize and permit the diversion within the Province of Ontario
of the waters of said river above the Falls of Niagara, for power purposes, not
exceeding in the aggregate a daily diversion at the rate of thirty-six thousand
cubic feet of water per second.
The prohibitions of this article shall not apply to the diversion of water for
sanitary or domestic purposes, or for the service of canals for the purposes of
navigation.
NOTE: The third, fourth and fifth paragraphs of Article V were terminated by the Canada-
United States Treaty of February 27, 1950 concerning the diversion'of the Niagara River.

ARTICLE VI

The High Contracting Parties agree that the St. Mary and Milk Rivers
and their tributaries (in the State of Montana and the Provinces of Alberta and
Saskatchewan) are to Be treated as one stream for the purposes of irrigation
and power, and the waters thereof shall be apportioned equally between the
two countries, but in making such equal apportionment more than half may
be taken from one river and less than half from the other by either country so as
to afford a more beneficial use to each. It is further agreed that in the division
of such waters during the irrigation season, between the 1st of April and 31st
of October, inclusive, annually, the United States is entitled to a prior appropria-
tion of 500 cubic feet per second of the waters of the Milk River, or so much of
such amount as constitutes three-fourths of its natural flow, and that Canada
is entitled to a prior appropriation of 500 cubic feet per second of the flow of St.
Mary River, or so much of such amount as constitutes three-fourths of its
natural flow.
The channel of the Milk River in Canada may be used at the convenience
of the United States for the conveyance, while passing through Canadian
territory, of waters diverted from the St. Mary River. The provisions of
Article II of this treaty shall apply to any injury resulting to property in
Canada from the conveyance of such waters through the Milk River.
The measurement and apportionment of the water to be used by each
country shall from time to time be made jointly by the properly constituted
reclamation officers of the United States and the properly constituted irrigation
officers of His Majesty under the direction of the -International Joint
Commission.

189

ARTICLE VII
The High Contracting Parties agree to establish and maintain an Inter-
national Joint Commission of the United States and Canada composed of six
commissioners, three on the part of the United States appointed by the N
President thereof, and three on the part of the United Kingdom appointed
by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Governor in Council of the
Dominion of Canada.

ARTICLE VIII
This International Joint Commission shall have jurisdiction over and shall
pass upon all cases involving the use or obstruction or diversion of the waters
with respect to which under Articles III and IV of this Treaty the approval
of this Commission is required, and in passing upon such cases the Commission
shall be governed by the following rules or principles which are adopted by the
High Contracting Parties for this purpose:
The High Contracting Parties shall have, each on its own side of the
boundary, equal and similar rights in the use of the waters hereinbefore defined
as boundary waters.
The following order of precedence shall be observed among the various
uses enumerated hereinafter for these waters, and no use shall be permitted
which tends materially to conflict with or restrain any other use which is
given preference over it in this order of precedence:
(1) 'Uses for domestic and sanitary purposes;
(2) Uses for navigation, including the service of canals for the purposes
of navigation;
(3) Uses for power and for irrigation purposes.
The foregoing provisions shall not apply to or disturb any existing uses
of boundary waters on either side of the boundary.
The requirement for an equal division may in the discretion of the
Commission be suspended in cases of temporary diversions along boundary
waters at points where such equal division can not be made advantageously
on account of local conditions, and where such diversion does not diminish
elsewhere the amount 'available for use on the other side.
The Commission in its discretion may make its approval in any case
conditional upon the construction of remedial or protective works to compensate
so far as possible for the particular use or diversion proposed, and in such
cases may require that suitable and adequate provision, approved by the Com-
mission, be made for the protection and indemnity against injury of any
interests on either side of the boundary.
In cases involving. the elevation of the natural level of waters on either
side of the line as a result of the construction or maintenance on the other
side of remedial or protective works or dams or other obstructions in boundary
waters or in waters flowing therefrom or in waters below the boundary in
rivers flowing across the boundary, the Commission shall require, as a condition
of its approval thereof, that suitable and adequate provision, approved by it,
be made for the protection and indemnity of all interests on the other side of
the line which may be injured thereby.
The majority of the Commissioners shall have power to render a decision.
In case the Commission is evenly divided upon any question or matter presented
to it for decision, separate reports shall be made by the Commissioners on
each side to their own Government. The High Contracting Parties shall
thereupon endeavour- to agree upon an adjustment of the question or matter
of difference, and if an agreement is reached between them, it shall be reduced

190

to writing in the form of a protocol, and shall be communicated to the Com-
missioners, who shall take such further proceedings as may be necessary to
carry out such agreement.

ARTICLE IX
The High Contracting Parties further agree that any other questions or
matters of difference arising between them involving the rights, obligations,
or interests of either in relation to the other or to the inhabitants of the other,
along the common frontier between the United States and the Dominion of
Canada, shall be referred from time to time to the International Joint Com-
mission for examination and report, whenever either the Government of the
United States or the Government of the Dominion of Canada shall request that
such questions or matters of difference be so referred.
The International Joint Commission is authorized in each case so referred
to examine into and report upon the facts and circumstances of the particular
questions and matters referred, together with such conclusions and recommenda-
tions as may be appropriate, subject, however, to any restrictions or exceptions
which may be imposed with respect thereto by the terms of the reference.
Such reports of the Commission shall not be regarded as decisions of the
questions or matters so submitted either on the facts or the law, and shall
in no way have the character of an arbitral award.
The Commission shall make a joint report to both Governments in all cases
in which all or a majority of the Commissioners agree, and in case of disagree-
ment the minority 'May make a joint report to both Governments, or separate
reports to their respective Governments.
In case the Commission is evenly divided upon any question or matter
referred to it for report, separate reports shall be made by the Commissioners
on each side to their own Government.

ARTICLE X
Any questions or matters of difference arising between the High Contracting
Parties involving the rights, obligations, or interests of the United States or of
the Dominion of Canada either in relation to each other or to their respective
inhabitants, may be referred for decision to the International Joint Commission
by the consent of the two Parties, it being understood that on the part of the
United States any such action will be by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate, and on the part of His Majesty's Government with the consent
of the Governor General, in Council. In each case so referred, the said
Commission is authorized to examine into and report upon the facts and
circumstances of the particular questions and matters referred, together with
such conclusions and recommendations as may be appropriate, subject, however,
to any restrictions or exceptions which may be imposed with respect thereto
by the terms of the reference.
A majority of the said Commission shall have power to render a decision
or finding upon any of the questions or matters so referred.
If the said Commission is equally divided or otherwise unable to render
a decision or finding as to any questions or matters so referred, it shall be the
duty of the Commissioners to make a joint report to both Governments ' or
separate reports to their respective Governments, showing the different con-
clusions arrived at with regard to the matters or questions so referred, which
questions or matters shall thereupon be referred for decision by the High
Contracting Parties to an umpire chosen in accordance with the procedure
prescribed in the fourth, fifth and sixth paragraphs of Article XLV of the
Hague Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes, dated

191

October 18, 1907. Such umpire shall have power to render a final decision
with respect to those matters and questions so referred on which the Commission
failed to agree.

ARTICLE XI
A duplicate original of all decisions rendered and joint reports made by the
Commission shall be transmitted to and filed with the Secretary of State of
the United States and the Governor General of the Dominion of Canada,
and to them shall be addressed all communications of the Commission.

ARTICLE XII
The International Joint Commission shal meet and organize at Washington
promptly after the members thereof are appointed, and when organized the
Commission may fix such times and places for its meetings as may be necessary,
subject at all times to special call or direction by the two Governments. Each
Commissioner upon the first joint meeting of the Commission after his appoint-
ment, shall, before proceeding with the work of the Commission, make and
subscribe a solemn declaration in writing that he will faithfully and impartially
perform the duties imposed upon him under this treaty, and such declaration
shall be entered on the records of the proceedings of the Commission.
The United States and Canadian sections of the Commission may each
appoint a secretary, and these shall act as joint secretaries of the Commission
at its joint sessions, and the Commission may employ engineers and clerical
assistants from time to time as it may deem advisable. The salaries and
personal expenses of the Commission and of the secretaries shall be paid by
their respective Governments, and all reasonable and necessary joint expenses
of the Commission, incurred by it, shall be paid in equal moieties by the
High Contracting Parties.
The Commission shall have power to administer oaths to witnesses, and
to take evidence on oath whenever deemed necessary in any proceeding, or
inquiry, or matter within its jurisdiction under this treaty, and all parties
interested therein shall be given convenient oportunity to be heard, and the
High Contracting Parties agree to adopt such legislation as may be appropriate
and necessary to give the Commission the powers above mentioned on each
side of the boundary, and to provide for the issue of subpoenas and for
compelling the attendance of witnesses in procedings before the Commission.
The Commission may adopt such rules of procedure as shall be in accordance
with justice and equity, and may make such examination in person and
through agents or employees as may be deemed advisable.

ARTICLE XIII
In all cases where special agreements between the High Contracting Parties
hereto are referred to in the foregoing articles, such agreements are understood
and intended to include not only direct agreements between the High Contracting
Parties, but also any mutual arrangement between the United States and the
Dominion of Canada expressed by concurrent or reciprocal legislation on the
part of Congress and the Parliament of the Dominion.

ARTICLE XIV
The present treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States
of America, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and
by His Britannic Majesty. The ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington
as soon as possible and the treaty shall take effect on the date of the exchange

192

of its ratifications. It shall remain in force for five years, dating from the day
of exchange of ratifications, and thereafter until terminated by twelve months'
written notice given by either High Contracting Party to the other.
In faith whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed this treaty
in duplicate and have hereunto affixed their seals.
Done at Washington the 11th day of January, in the year of our Lord
one thousand nine hundred and nine.
(Signed) ELIHU ROOT [SEAL]
(Signed) JAmEs BRYcr, [SEAL] -

AND WHEREAS the Senate of the United States by their resolution of March
3, 1909, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein) did advise and
consent to the ratification of the said Treaty with the following understanding,
to wit:
"Resolved further, as a part of this ratification, That the United States
approves this treaty with the understanding that nothing in this treaty shall
be construed as affecting, or changing, any existing territorial or riparian rights
in the water, or rights of the owners of lands under water, on either side of the
international boundary at the rapids of the St. Mary's river at Sault Ste. Marie,
in the use of the waters flowing over such lands, subject to the requirements
of navigation in boundary waters and of navigation canals, and without prejudice
to the existing right of the United States and Canada, each to use the waters
of the St. Mary's river, within its own territory, and further, that nothing
in this treaty shall be construed to interfere with the drainage of wet swamp
and overflowed lands into streams flowing into boundary waters, and that this
interpretation will be mentioned in the ratification of this treaty as conveying
the true meaning of the treaty, and will, in effect, form part of the treaty;"
AND WHEREAS the said understanding has been accepted by the Government
of Great Britain, and the ratifications of the two Governments of the said treaty
were exchanged in the City of Washington, on the 5th day of May, one
thousand nine hundred and ten;
NOW, THDREFORE, be it known that 1, William Howard Taft, President of
the United States of America, have caused the said treaty and the said under-
standing, as forming a part thereof, to be made public, to the end that the same
and every article and clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good
faith by the United States and the citizens thereof.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal
of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington this thirteenth day of May in the year
of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ten,
[SEAL1 and of the Independence of the United States of America the one
hundred and thirty-fourth.
Win H Taft
By the President:
P C Knox
Secretary of State.

193

PROTOCOL 0'F EXCHANGE.
On proceeding to the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty signed at
Washington on January 11, 1909, between the United States and Great Britain,
relating to boundary waters and questions arising along the boundary between.
the United States and the Dominion of Canada, the undersigned plenipotentiaries,
duly authorized thereto by their respective Governments, hereby declare that
nothing in this treaty shall be construed as affecting, or changing, any existing
territorial, or riparian rights in the water, or rights of the owners of lands under
water, on either side of the international boundary at the rapids of the St. Mary's
River at Sault Ste. Marie, in the use of the waters flowing over such lands,
subject to the requirements of navigation in boundary waters and of navigation
canals, and without prejudice to the existing right of the United States and
Canada, each to use the waters of the St. Mary's River, within its own territory;
and further, that nothing in this treaty shall be construed to interfere with
the drainage of wet, swamp, and overflowed lands into streams flowing into
boundary waters, and also that this declaration shall be deemed to have equal
force and effect as the treaty itself and to form an integral part thereto.
The exchange of ratifications then, took place in the usual form.
In witness whereof, they have signed the present Protocol of Exchange
and have affixed their seals thereto.
DONE at Washington this 5th day of May, one thousand nine hundred and
ten. PHILANDER C KNOX [SEAL]
JAMEs BRYCE [SEAL]

194

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX G
I ORGANIZATIONS AND MEMBERS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 195
1

APPENDIX G

Organizations and Members

Following are listings of the members and mailing
address of the organizations dealing with control of the
water level of La]<e Ontario.

196

INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION

UNITED STATES SECTION*

Honorable Christian A. Herter, Jr., Chairman

Honorable Charles R. Ross, Commissioner

Honorable Victor L. Smith, Commissioner

William A. Bullard, Secretary
John F. Hendrickson, Executive Director
Stewart H. Fonda, Jr., Engineer Adviser
James G. Chandler, Attorney Adviser

Suite 203, 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington,
D. C. 20440 STOP NO. 86
Phone 202-296-2142

CANADIAN SECTION*

Honorable Maxwell Cohen, Chairman

Honorable Bernard Beaupre, Commissioner

Honorable Keith A. Henry, Commissioner

David G. Chance, Se'cretary
J. Lloyd MacCallum, Legal Adviser and Assistant
to the Chairman
Murray W. Thompson, Engineer Adviser

Suite 850, 151 Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario
KiP SH3
Phone 613-992-2945

*Membership as of 19 Sept. 1974

197

INTERNATIONAL GREAT LAKES LEVELS BOARD

BOARD MEMBERS*

UNITED STATES CANADA

**BG W. 0. BACHUS .**Mr. C. K. HURST
Division Engineer Director of Engineering
North Central Department of Public Works
Corps of Engineers Sir Charles Tupper Building
536 South Clark Street Ottawa, Ontario KlA OM2
Chicago, Illinois 60605

Mr. B. T. JOSE Mr. R. H. SMITH
St. Lawrence Seaway Chief, Waterways Development
Development Corp. Division
(retired) Ministry of Transport
21 Sherwood Drive Place de Ville - 300 Sparks St.
Massena, New York 13662 Ottawa, Ontario KlA ON5

Mr. MARK ABELSON Mr. N. H. JAMES
Staff Assistant, Office Director, Water Planning and
of the Secretary Management Branch
U. S. Department of the Inland Waters Directorate
Interior Department of the Environment
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario KlA OE7
San Francisco, California
94102

Membership as of 26 Sept. 1974
Chairman

198

INTERNATIONAL ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BOARD OF CONTROL

BOARD MEMBERS*

UNITED STATES CANADA

**BG W. 0. BACHUS **Mr. R. H. SMITH
Division Engineer Chief, Waterways Development
North Central Division
Corps of Engineers Ministry of Transport
536 South Clark Street Place de Ville - 300 Sparks
Chicago, Illinois 60605 St.
Ottawa, Ontario KlA ON5

Mr. D. BROWN Mr. J. B. BRYCE
Head, Section of Inspections Hydraulic Engineer
Bureau of Power GenerAtion Dept.
Federal Power Commission Hydro-Electric Power
Washington, D. C. 20426 Commission of Ontario
620 University Avenue
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Mr. R. D. CONNER Mr. R. H. CLARK
Resident Manager Engineering Adviser
Power Authority of the State Inland Waters Directorate
of New York Department of Environment
P.O. Box 110 870 Carling Avenue
Massena, New York 13662 Ottawa 1, Ontario, Canada

Mr. Y. DeGUISE
Commissioner
Hydro-Electric Power
Commission of Quebec
75 Dorchester Blvd., West
Montreal, P.Q., Canada

*Membership as of 26 Sept. 1974
"Chairman

199

REGULATION REPRESENTATIVES*

UNITED STATES CANADA

COLONEL BERNARD HUGHES Mr. DAVID WITHERSPOON
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer-in-Charge
Buffalo District Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
1776 Niagara Street Study Office
Buffalo, New York 14207 Environment Canada
318 Federal Building
Cornwall, Ontario, Canada
K6H SR8

*Representation as of December 4, 1974

200

OPERATIONS ADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS*

UNITED STATES CANADA

Mr. JOHN ADAMS - Mr. THOMAS WEGLE
St. Lawrence Seaway Hydro-Electric Power
Development Corporation Commission of Ontario
Massena, New York 13662 Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Mr. JOHN BARTHOLOMEW Mr. FERDNARD SANTARE
Power Authority of the State Hydro-Electric Power
of New York Commission of Quebec
Massena, New York 13662 Montreal, P.Q., Canada

Mr. CHARLES LAWRIE
Ministry of Transport
Ottawa, Ontario

*Membership as of December 12, 1974

201

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ADDENDUM 1
DISCUSSIOR OF REVIEWERS COMMENTS
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I A-1

ADDENDUM 1

Discussion of Reviewers Comments

Draft copies of this document were forwarded to
52 individuals for technical review. In general, the
comments received indicated four areas of weakness
existed in the draft report. Briefly they were as follows:

1. Insufficient credit was given to the beneficial
effects of the current regulation plan. In order to
remedy this shortcoming a section was added, including
Figure 29 which reflects preproject and actual lake levels
since 1960, discussing the positive benefits from the current
regulation plan.

2. Insufficient background into the basis of lake
regulation was provided. In order to provide this background
two appendicies, E and F, were added. These provide the
text of the Treaty of 1909 and the Office Consolidation of
the Order of Approval upon which the Plan of Regulation is
based.

3. It was felt the report was over critical of the
actions of the members of the St. Lawrence River Board of
Control. To clarify the Commission's position the text was
reworded, as required, to indicate that it is not the Board
members but the institutional framework that limits their
management options that is being questioned by this report.
Also as explained in Footnote 11 Chapter VI the criticism
rendered is not a personal attack on the Board members.

4. The discussion of lake level forecasting was felt
to be inadequate. This section was rewritten and expanded
to include discussion of the methods of forecasting currently
used.

Included in this Addendum are the letters received
from the reviewers. Each comment was examined and a
decision rendered whether to revise the text of the report
or not. To aid the reader of this report the following
format was utilized in this Addendum. The review comment
is printed as received followed by a summary of the action
taken by the Commission in revising the text. This summary
is typed in italic type and enclosed in brackets E ].
Although the letters from the reviewers are segmented they
do appear in their entirety.

A-2

STATE OF NEWYORK
DIVISION OF MILITARY ANo NAVAL AFFAIRS
PUBLIC SECURITY SUILOING,
STATE CAMPUS
MALCOLM WILSON ALBANY, NEW YORK 122,26 JOHN C.SAKER
GOVERNOR MAJOR GENERAL
COMMANDER IN CHIEF CMtE; OF STAF,- TO THE Govmni

IvINDP 23 December 1974

Mr. William E. Tyson, Executive Director
St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission
317 Washington Street
Watertown, New York 13601

Dear Mr. Tyson:

The following comments are submitted following a review of the
draft transmitted with your letter of 18 December 1974.

1. Page 3 - First paragraph

a. The March 1 973 storm resulted in a Presidential
declaration of major disaster. The term, major
disaster, is the legal phrase under Public Law
91-606.
b. The Federal-State Disaster Assistance Agreement
states, "On March 21, 1973, the President deter-
mined that damages resulting from high winds,
wave action, and flooding beginning on or about
March 16, 19713, have caused a major disaster ...
The duration of the catastrophe, causing the dam-
age with which this Agreement is concerned, was
from the 16th day ofMarch, 1973, through the 23rd
day of March, 1973 ...
[The text w" Aevized to inco,%poute the co/rAect teAminotogyj
2. Page 109 to Page 115

a. It is important to be clear when one speaks of
disasters. Under Federal legislation in effect
in 1973, the declaration by the President of a
major disaster, as occurred on 21 March 1973, in-
cluded the triggering of disaster loan action by
the Small Business Administration. Had the major
disaster not been declared, it might have been
necessary to obtain a disaster declaration from
the Small Business Administrator, which would

A-3

Mr. William E. Tyson 23 December 1974

have made available the SBA disaster loans,
but not other forms of Federal aid. I sug-
gest you check with SBA to ascertain whether
their loans were made under the major disaster
OEP 367-DR, or under the SBA's disaster auth-
ority, or both.
l
M. Howa&d Gatity, 046ice ManageA, EtmiAa 06jice, SBA indicated
that the FedeAaZ decta4ation w" utitized to make Zoanz avait-
abte. The text waz &evized to &eitect tW point.

b. With respect to the table on pages 114 and 115:

(1) Date the table. Suggest it be da-ted as of
20 December 1974.

(2) Correct spelling of Town of Sodus, Wayne
County.

(3) On page 115, make the following dollar
changes:

(a) Village of Alexandria Bay - change
from.$6,250 to $8,480.

(b) Jefferson County total - change from
$193,267 to $195,497.

(c) Total - change from $.1,127,958 to
$1,130,188.
[The tabte was updated and the changez zugguted we&e inco&po4ated.]
Although this agency's primary concern is coordinating the fur-
nishing of disaster assistance after the fact, and my comments
about the draft have been limited to that concern, I endorse
heartily the recommendations relative to pre-disaster actions
which could reduce the danger of losses, such as land use man-
agement and implementation of the flood insurance program. I
am.also personally in sympathy with Recommendations 4-1 and 4-2
on pages 16 and 17, Recommendation 8-1 on page 18, Recommendation
1-1 on page 19, and Recommendation 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 on page 20.

Sincprely,
ARNOLD W. E-RUSHKY
egp Deputy Director of Civil Defense

A-4

RHS/lw

Transport Transports
Canada Canada

Marine Marine

Your file Votre r6fdrence

8 January 1975 Our file Nolte r6t6reme

Mr W.E. Tyson
Executive Director
St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission
317 Washington Street
Watertown
New York, 13601.

Dear Mr Tyson,

Thank you very much for'providing me with a copy of the
December 1974 draft report of your Commission concerning
the water levels on Lake Ontario at the St. Lawrence
River. The review of it, which I have made, indicates to
me that a great deal of research has gone into this matter
on behalf of your Commission.

With respect to specific comments, it is my understanding
that these are being assembled on behalf of many of us
involved at the Federal Government level by the.
International Joint Commission. Consequently, I have
discussed what I consider to be certain gaps in the
report with the Chief Engineer of the Canadian Section,
IJC. These included the absence of any detailed reference
to the IJC's Orders of Approval for the St. Lawrence
Project and the background related thereto, and the lack
of emphasis on the results of the water level control of
Lake Ontario compared with the conditions that.would have
resulted without such control (i.e. preproject).
Appendice-6 D and F weAe added to the kepwrt. They ptovide the
text oJ the Tkeaty o6 1909 and the 06jice Con.6otidation oJ the
Otde& o6 App&ovat. In addition the text waz expanded to discuZ6
-the bene6it6 &autting 6&om the cuA&ent ugutation ptan.
Iwould appreciate being sent a copy of your report once
it has been finalized.

A-5

Yours sincerely,

R.H. Smith
Chief
'Watenva s. DDevaIppmoat,

A-6

Your f@oe Volre dossi,@r

Environment Environnement Otir Ne Norre das5,er
Canada Canada

Water Gestion
Management des Eaux

318 Federal Building,
Cornwall, Ontario K6H 5R817
9 January, 1975.

William E. Tyson, Esq.,
Executive Director,
St. Lawrencei-Eastern Ontario
Commission,
317'Kashington SG.,
Watertown, N.Y.., 13bul.

Dear Mr. Tyson:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the report on the ??Analysis of and
Recommendations Concerning High Water Levels on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence
River" by the St. LaiTrence-Eastern Ontario Commission. My detailed comments are
attached. By way of summary., it is apparent from the report that the author@ has
several basic misunderstandings. Although he describes briefly and clearly the
problems related to the regulation of lake levels on pages 127 and 128, he fails
to appreciate that the most important single factor in the amount of control of
Lake Ontario levels which can be achieved is the hydraulic capacity of the St.
Lawrence River in the winter months. This description (pages 127 and 128) and
the above fact are inconsistent with the findings which attach the fa'ult for high
lake levels to the institutional arrangements and the implication that regulation
decisions are based on lack of knowledge. This implication is incorrect and can
only lead to public misunderstanding.
The text was expanded to dL6cuzz the timitatio" o4 the cuAAent
hyd,kauUc capacity o6 the St. Lawtence RiveA. HoweveA, "
addAmsed by the upoxt the question oJ whetheA o& not the
adveAze impactz weAe minimized thtough the imptementation oJ
6tood damage teduction techniqua .6tiU temainz at i6,sue.
Further, before your commission, by its report, criticizes the international
institutions and how they operate., their basis and their intended purpose agreed
to by both the governments of Canada and the United States should be thoroughly
understood. Misunderstanding of these institutional arrangements is exhibited
in your report since 'Ghe basic documents governing the operation of the Interna-
tional Rapids Section of the St, Lawrence River are ignored. These documents are
the Order of Approval of the International Joint Commission for the St. Lawrence
Power Project in the International Rapids Section of the St. Lawrence River dated
29 October, 1952 and the Supplementary Order of Approval dated 2 July, 1956.
[
ge 141-'142 and 151 o4 the dAa6t text [email protected] the ftdeA o6
Apapp%ovat and the Tteaty o6 1909. In the 4inat Aepoxt Appendice/s
V and F we&e added which ptovide the text o4 the Tteaty o6 1909

A-7

and the 066ice Consotidation o6 the Otde)L o6 App&ovat. The
quation being addmezsed by the tepoxt iz whetheA the cAiteAia az
.6et 6otth au now tetevant due to the pazzage o4 time and the
high watelt tevetz ucentty expexienced. Onty a comptete te-
evatuation, a6 catted jox in the Xepott, can an.6wex tW que6tion.
The text Wa,6 expanded to inctude a di6cuzzion o6 the beneJitz
dexived 6kom the cuAAent ptan o4 tegutation. Page 155 o6 the
dAajt ztated that the Ptan o6 ContAot a,6 imptemented u6tected
-a degue o4 6texibitity, di@c&etionaty powe)rs in youA wotd6.
The approved regulation plan (Plan 1958-D) is the plan of operation which
attempts to meet the requirements of these orders. In addition, the Inter-
national St. Lawrence River Board of Control has discretionary powers to
deviate from this plan under certain circumstances. It is important that a
full understanding of these arrangements be conveyed in your report or unfor-
tunate public misconceptions may develop.

If you require further explanation of these comments, please contact my office
at the above address or phone 613-932-4325.

Yours sincerely,

D. F. Witherspoo
Engineer-in-Charge
Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
Study Office

1hcl.

A-8

Comments of D. F. Witherspoon
on
"Analysis of and Recommendations Concerning
High Water Levels on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River"
by
St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission

P.1 Para. 2

Basic premise incorrect - man's ability to control is limited by the
physical system. If absolute control of levels desired then St. Lawrence
would require capacity equivalent to greatest water supply which might occur
or a channel capacity equivalent to two St. Lawrence Rivers.

It is contended that contAotz ok contAot oj the take tevetz iz
Zimited by technoZogy and institutionat consttaintZ. The
ZatteA can be teitected by the jact that the navigation channet.
depth wu Zet at 27 jeet ot the jact that impozed economic
cAitex& tequiAe a BIC gteateA than one. Phyzicaf_ con.6tkaints
oAe temovabie ij technotogy exist6 and economicz show it to be
JeazibZe. Exampte - the InteAnationat Rapids .6ection-oi the St.
Lawtence waz at one time a phy-sicat con.6tAaint to shipping but
a.6 it became technotogicaUy and economicatty jeazibte to kemove
-it ej4oAt6 weAe undeAtaken to paxtiaUy do zo.

P.5 Para. 3

Lake Ontario experienced a mean daily level of 246.75 on 16 July 1972,
the highest level for the year. The range within which it is to be regulated
is 242.77 to 246.77 are monthly mean levels. July monthly mean in 1972 was
246.68.

The maximum allowable outflow under Plan 1958-D is 310,000 cfs. It is
incorrect to say it is specified for navigation requirement - it is not above
any limitation, it is the maximum outflow limitation of Plan 1958-D.

Lowest mean daily level 244.50 - 6 November 1972

Lowest monthly level 244.58 - November 1972

Long term mean (normal) for November - 243.99
[
In o,%deA to ctati4y the take tevets in6o&mation the text w"
expanded to incZude this.

P.6 -

To convey a correct*picture, the level of Lake Ontario without control
should also be given - October 1972, 246.52.
FiguAe 29 was added to u4tect wateA Zevetz with and without the
p,toject in otdeA that wateA teveb undeA .the two conditionz coutd]
[be compa&ed.

A-9

P.7 Para. 2 L.4

"335,000 cfs in the first week of August"
should read
"350,000 cfs in the first week of June"
[The change in itow data wa,6 made.]

P.7 Para. 4 -

Some of the weakness of the ice cover in 1972-73 can be attributed to the
high flow being passed under it.
[No comment.]

P. 8 Para. 2 -

"351,000 cfs" should read 350,000 efs - a monthly mean.
l
The mean daity @Zow i6 being te4eAenced heAe. In otdeA t
ctaxi6y thiz it w" identi6ied " .6uch. 01
P. 8 Para. 4

A lower level has been achieved in 1974 of 244.00 in November normal 243.99
low 1973 level 244*.33 in December.
[No comment-]
P.9 Para. 1 - I

Navigation had similar problems in fall 1974 as in 1973.

The level of Montreal Harbour through the summer and fall month!3 of these
years (1973-74) did not influence the decision on the amount of water released.
from Lake Ontario. The principal factor is the depth for navigation in the
project area i.e. Ogdensburg to Massena and reduction of the time flooding occurs
downstream on Lake St. Louis.

A membeA oJ the St. LwAytence RiveA BoaAd o6 ContAot ptovided th
[commenta,ty in the Aa@t text.
P.9 Para. 2 - 2nd sentence

Power interests receive very little additional benefit from high discharges
beyond their maximum efficiency, about 270,000 cfs and some adverse impact due
to lower head.
[Necuzzion with the tesident manageA o6 Mozes Dam indicated th
t
,i
h net vatue oJ 6&wz above 270,000 c64 w" pozitive untit th
capacity oJ the JaciUty a teached at 325,000 c4z.

P.9 Para. 3

The greatest drawdown of Lake St. Lawrence in 1974 occurred at-flows less
than 310,000 cfs.

A-10

The peAioct6 when 6tows weAe Zeu than 310,000 c6z in t974 wexe:
.Jan I-Mak 20 - 205,000-310,000; Apk 6-Apt 12 - 308,000; May 20-
27 - 305,000-300,000; Sept 23 - 309,000; Oct 2 - 309,000; Oct 12-
Dec 31 - 309POOO-270.1000

D,tawdownz at this time oj the yea& aiLe Zms objectionat than duAing
LPe&ioc(z when wateA contact Aeckeation takes ptace. _j

P.10 Para. 2

Conflicts also arise when below normal water supplies occur i.e. 1964.
[study peAiod was yeau o6 high wate)t tevetz]
The current regulation plan 1958-D has been in effect since 4 October 1963.
. [Pages 142-145 o6 dAa6t coveA this-1
The agreed upon goal of the Board over the past three years has been to
utilize the capacity of the river to its maximum without excluding the use of the
river by any interest. The 3rd sentence in paragraph 2 misrepresents the facts
and is the sort of innuendo which leads to a badly informed public.
FThe goat o6 the Boa&d is one o@ the key izzuez being addAeszed by
1
this @Lepoxt. The Commission 4ee& it zhoutd be the minimization
o6 adveue impacts.

The 3rd sentence misrepresents the Board and demonstrates a total misunder-
standing of the International Joint Commission's intent in choosing membership
on the Board. The intent is that Board members are chosen for their expertise
in relation to the technical questions involved, not because they represent an
interest!'

The Commission jeeE6 that at Zeast one usident in the dtainage
basin oj the St. Lawtence RiveA-Lake OntaAio not associated with
goveument, poweA, ok navigation has the uquiAed expexWe to
-deat with the p&obtems oj take tevet tegutation.

When the levels are high,.a flow of between 270,000 cfs and 310,000 cfs is
a desirable flow.

Desiubte So& who-xipatian:owneu , poweA inteAest ot navigation
inteAe,6t? As d@scuzsed in the text theAe is con4tict between
these g&oup,6 and the 270,000 to 310,000 cjs itow is not desi&abte
-6o& aU thAee gtoupz.

If the innuendo of this paragraph were carried out, Lake St. Lawrence woul 'd
be dry. Would this be in the riparian interest? Montreal would be in a flood
condition for six months a year is this in the riparian interest?
The Commission 6aia,to akAive at the same conceusion. Xt issue
is the question oA whetheA the cu"ent impZementation oj the Ptan,
ot the design o6 the Ptan., allowz the minimization o6 damages to
OCCUA.

The last sentence of this paragraph is incorrect. If there is a conflict

A-11

it is between upstream and downstream riparians. Power interests have never
objected to any outflow during 1973-74. Navigation require certain depths in
the fall or they would be excluded from the use of the river. As a result of
the choice of flows during the fall in 1972, 1973 and 1974 navigation have
suffered losses due to delay since the river was at its minimum profile and
wind effects decrease depths at times stopping navigation.

The quati6ying statement "duAing pexiods o6 high watelt" was added
to the text. The pubtem o6 up,6tAeam and dow"tAeam tipaAian
con6tict is addAeszed thAoughout the text and iA &ecognized by
the div"ion o6 xipaxian owneAz into two gtoup,s-above and betow
the contAot .6tAuctuAe/s. The cnAectne/ss o6 the sentence .6tand,s
a.s quati6ied. The out6tow de,6i&ed duAing pekiods o6 high wateA
by 4ipatLian owneu above the contAot 6tAuctuAe/s di66eu 6tom that
dai/Led by poweA and navigation. The majoAity o6 the jotmeA desite
&eteazez as gteat a,6 pozzibte, the tatte/t, " you stated in youA
comments woutd tike to manage the 6tow to inswxe adequate 6tow
in the 6att.

LPage,6 99-109 documents the impacts to navigation.

P.10 last Para. and top P.11

It is most impractical to talk of stage damage curves because it is doubtful
that either of our countries would permit damage to be caused in Canada to prevent
damage in the United States. The only practical discussion which can take place
is with reference to preproject or natural conditions i.e. if the project had not
been constructed.

The Commizzion 6eetz that the "ptacticat" way you see it i's not
the onty way. We advo&te. thAoughout the %epott a dii6eAent
app,toach. ftecedent h" been set thtough the enactment o6 the
-Cotumbia RiveA Tteaty.
P.11 - I
Economics are not the final argument. Two nations are involved in the
operation.
L
The Commizzion 6impty asU "1,6 not the objective oJ the two
t_
na ko" to maximize the bene6its 6&om u.6age o6 the tive& andl
e's 9F?

P.11 last Para.

Statement is inaccurate - see comments with reference to page 1'0. This is
to'say the governments of Canada and the United States are biased. The Board's
representative in Canada is specifically charged to look at interests in Canada.
All of the decisions made are made considering the technical consequences i.e.
how to lower levels of Lake Ontario and not flood Lake St. Louis while providing
adequate depth for navigation.
rhe thoughts o6 the Commi,6,sion weAe ctaxi6ied by the Aevision
o6 the text in this section and the addition o6 a 6ootnote.

A-12

All the necessary knowledge is available as to the effects of specific flow
on such a decision.
[
As discussed thAoughout the text the Commission 6eet6 that
adequate data is not avaitabte upon which to base management
decisions. I
Statements such as this paragraph are innuendo and in themselves based on
in adequate knowledge.
Ekee puceeding, statement)]

P.12 Para. 2, 3 and 4 -

When international problems are to be solved, economics are not the answer.
The relationship to natural conditions have always been used to date on the
St. Lawrence and Lake Ontario - see comment for P.10 last paragraph.
rThis is one o6 the questions at issue. 1.6 this the apptoptiate]
Lb"iz 4ot the e,6tabt"hment oj a decision cAi-tetia.

P.13 Para. 1

It must be emphasized the protection of the various interests in already
written into the Orders of the International Joint Commission. The persons
advising and making the decisions must recognize these orders as well as the
technical considerations in the regulation of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence
River. To further imply that the regulation has not been impartial is to impune
the motives of professional engineers in both countries responsible for the advice
provided to the Board and the International Joint Commission.
the %evised text cZati6ia it is not the Boa-td membvtz
themzetvez that aAe being cxiticized but the inzti-tutionat
con6tutintz which timit thei& management options. HoweveA, it
&emainz that the in,6titutionat aiftangementz aAe biased against
tipaAian owneAA. Atzo, since the ftdeA o6 Apptovat uquiAez the
BooAd to make tecommendationz concetning the Ptan o6 ContAot it
seems as i6 theiA cwL&ent e66okt .6houZd be expanded to inciude a
ULeevatuation o6 the ckiteAia.
To make a statement such as paragraph 1 is the worst kind of innuendo since
it is made without knowledge of the technical considerations behind the decisions
made. The simple fact remains - the St. Lawrence River has not the capacity to
discharge the waters required to keep Lake Ontario below an arbitrary elevation
of 246.77 at all times. Without recognition of this fact even the best "Monday
morning quarterbacking" is to no avail.
The Commizzion, as stated tWughout the text, 6eeb that the
[degue oj 6texibiUty existing does not petmit ejjective wateA
tevet tegutation.

P.13 Para. 3

There is considerable flexibility in existing international arrangements.
[No comment.]

A-13

P.15 Recommendation 2-1

The International St. Lawrence River Board of Control has never been an
adversary proceeding. It.is a group of engineers who come to a technical
decision. If there is a conflict, it is decided by the International Joint,
Commission. The members are nominated by their respective jurisdictions,
Government of Canada, Provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The State of New York
has a nominated men..)er on the U. S. Section of the Board.

Finding 3 - incorrect. Flooding on Lake St. Louis occurs when the outflow
from that lake exceeds about 380,000 cfs including the'contribution from the
Ottawa. A knowledge of the geography of the area would aid in understanding
the downstream problem.
A 4pokesman Jtom the Dept. o6 Envi)tonment, Canada ptovided the-
500,000 c@s JiguAe. It W" hi-6 and the autho& undeutanding
that thiz was the combined 6tow o6 the Ottawa ' above MontAeat,
and the St. Law&ence, above MomtAeat- A 4ootnotew" added to
ctaAi@y the text.

P.15 and 16 Recommendation 3-1

Canada does not control the Ottawa River. Most of the reservoirs on this
river are in its upper reaches. There is a very'large uncontro,lled.drainage.
area above Montreal. The land area contributing to the Ottawa I RivIer is about
50,000 square miles while the local'land area 'contribut ing .to Lake Ontario is'
about 27,000 square miles and the Ottawa River has no largd.@st6rage like Lake'
Ontario.
l
The Commizzion 6eet6 that the pubtem '" an inteAnationat one]
and that the IJC shoutd seek inte)Lnationae Sotutionz.

P.17 Finding 5

Further data gathering and analysis will not solve curre nt problems. -It
might lead to better division of benefits under near normal conditions.
Divi6ion oJ bene4it6 i6 one o4 the qumtionz.adAezzed by the'
,tepo,tt. The Commimion agtee.6 that imp)Loved data iz paAt o6
the &equiAements to imptove upon the existing divi,6ion o4
Lbene4its az you 6tate in youA comment.

P.17 Finding 6

Considerable flexibility exists at present, for example, discharges of
350,000 cfs in 1973 which were 32,000 cfs above the*pre'vious maximum and 40, .000
cfs above the agreed to maximum.
GAanted theu iz 6texibitity in thiz one a,6pect o4 the Han o6
ContAot. HoweveA, thete is ze)Lo. 4texibitity in the ftdeu, and
thuz the Ptan, with tespect to the maintenance o6 a 27 Joot
navigationat channeZ.

P.19 Finding 9

Agreed. This criterion was put in the Order of Approval'to protect both

A-14

riparian groups knowing full well this protection is a compromise made in the
light of the technical considerations of operation of the river. This criterion
was enunciated with the knowledge that no plan of regulation can take into
account every contingency of water supply.
[No comment.]

P.21 Recommendation 1-1 (c)

Lake level forecasts are already an integral part of the regulatory pro-
cedure. These are not part of the regulation plan but are provided to the Board
each month by its technical advisers.

P.21 Finding 2 -

Incorrect - current lake level forecasting techniques use hydrologic data
but do not use meteorologic data. The state of meteorologic forecasting is
such that little statistical significant benefit can be shown by the additional
expense of incorporation of these data into the forecast. Even so the technical
advisers receive rainfall and snow accumulation information routinely and base
their advice on this. It must be understood that, on the average, 85% of the
water supply to Lake Ontario comes from Lake Erie. Therefore, the forecast of
this component is included in.the present internationally agreed to forecast.
Forecast of local supplies to Lake Ontario can make small improvements in the
forecast procedure. It is difficult to prove that these small improvements in
the forecast warrant a large expensive data gathering network. Technically,
it is agreed that such a network is desirable.

P.22 Recommendation 2-1

There is a disadvantage to incorporation of forecasts in the plan of regu-
lation in that an advance in the technology of forecasting would require going
through the international red tape to change the plan of regulation.

P.22 Finding 3

We agree- however, to develope a meteorologic and hydrologic data collection
system of sufficient density over an area of 300,000 square miles requires-a lot
of benefit to justify it. It is presently being improved*in each country according
to its priorities.

P.22 Recommendation 3-2

The Canadian lake level gauge system has been completely automatic since
1972. Data is available for the period ending at 0800 hours for the"previous
24 hours from a computer data storage located in Toronto and accessible to anyone
who provides himself with a terminal and contract with Dataline Systems Ltd.,using
the standard voice telephone service or telex. All Canadian gauges used in the
regulation of Lake Ontario are on this system.
rThe section on take tevet 4otecast was itevized in tight o6
Lthis and otheA in4otmation p1tovided by uvieweu..

A.- 15

P.23 Recommendation 4-1

See comments on P.12 and P.17.

A,6 ztated thAoughout the text adequate data is Aequiud in.
o&de)L to know what the tAadeo4js o4 any decizion.6 aAe.
CuAAentty it iz 4ett tit" data is tacking.
P.25 2nd last sentence - I
Incorrect - the International Rapids section extends from Ogdensburg-Prescott
to the International Border at the entrance to Lake St. Francis from the south
Cornwall channel.
[Detineation o4 inteAnationat Rapidz Section ctaAi4ied.]
P.26 last sentence - I
.... 11seasonal cycles'and water supply from precipitation, the Great Lakes-
St. Lawrence [Sugge,6ted ph4a,6e was added]
P.29 Figure 3 - I
The drainage basin boundary looks very approximate and incorrect in the area
north of Oshawa in Ontario. See Corps of Engineers Lake Survey Chart of Great
Lakes.
[FiguAe tevized to moAe ctozety te4tect boundaAy

P.30 Table 2

For correct data see page 12, Regulation of Great Lakes Water Levels,
report of the International Great Lakes Levels Board, 7 December 1973.
abte checked.

The data pAe6ented w" ptimakity jum the souAce &e6etenced
and updated.

P.33 Para, 2 L. 3

351,000 cfs daily maximum - due to rounding previous day 349,000 cfs.
It is more significant to refer to monthly means i.e. 350,000 cfs as used in
Table 2.
1
Re6eAence in text iz to the maximum mean daity 4tow which
351,000 C6,6. w"I

P.33 -

Suggest adding under "Lake Levels" - Lake levels used in the International
Joint Commission's orders are monthly mean values.
[Added )Lecommended sentence on page 157 (o6 dta4t)-]

A-16

P. 36 -

A major cause of level rise in the lakes is the ice retardation in the
connecting channels particularly in the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers.
Without this the lakes would not start their winter and spring rise so early
and the magitude of the rise due to snowmelt and precipitation would be much
less. See paragraph 3, page 37.
[No comment.]

P.37 Para. 1

The regulation of Lake Ontario, under current operations, takes into account
crustal movement.
I
Text wa,6 expanded to indicate that this SactoA i,6 taken int
a
ccount in take ugutation. 01
P.47 Para. 3 -

Who's rule? 80 percent should be more like 50 percent.
The xuZe oS thumb was ptovided by Co&p.6 o6 Engineeu peAzonnet
[Bu6jato Di6tAict 06iice.
P.51 Para. 2

The great rise in the levels of Lake Ontario takes place in the winter when
the outflow from the lake is restricted by ice and is much less than the water
supply to the lake.

The physical system - winter discharge capacity 1972-73 limited the amount
of water which could be discharged. By spring it was too late, the lake had
already done its damage on 17 March! The institutional arrangements did not
iimit the discharge until flooding was occurring downstream in April and May 1973.
The physical dimensions limited the flow during the winter of 1972-73 and 1973-74.

This i.6 teaZized. Howeve,%, i6 the take teveL6 had been attowed
to 6aU in the tate summe/L and eaAty 6aU o6 the pteceeding
yeaA the Lake woutd have been abte to ab.6otb the expected Ai@e
without incuAAing damag" to the extent that it did occuA.

P.52 Para. 2 -

See comment for P.22P Recommendation 3-2.
Text changed to indicate that the Canadian poAtion o6 the]
16y6tem iz automatic.
P.52 Section C

There are more recent studies of forecasting lake levels - see Inter-
national Great Lakes Levels Board report, Appendix A, Hydraulics and Hydrology.

P.63

A-17

It is obvious the writer is not familiar with statistics and the prediction
of natural phenomena. By the very nature of a random event the average is the
best predictor. The'further you look in the future this is true and the analysis
shown in Table 10, p. 61 shows that this statement is true. Our findings are that
forecasts of lake levels can be made with value one month ahead due to the natural
persistence in the system, after that, in the future 'six months the average becomes
a better and better predictor in the future. If a bias is added, the error of long
term prediction is multiplied.
[
The zection on take tevet 4ouca@ting w" tevised to incot-
poAate youA commentz and those o4 otheA uvieweu .

P.70 Figure 11 -

The profile of the St. Lawrence River is not a straight line to Cape Vincent.
There is a small slope to Ogdensburg and most of the fall occurs Ogdensburg to
Massena.
[FiguAe I I waz modi6ied " .6uggated.]
P.71 Para.2 - I
The minimum is not established by Plan 1958-D. Rather it is a requirement
of the International Joint Commission's orders which specify the minimum profile
of the river which will be adhered to for all discharges high or low.
The text wa-6 changed hexe and thkoughout to etaAi6y the oAigin]
[o6 the &equiAement6 zet 6oAth in the Uitexia.
P.78 Para. I -

If such an ice dam occurred, it would be detrimental to riparians also
since it limits the outflow from Lake Ontario.
[No commentJ

P.78 Para. 2

These desires*of power are also requirements necessary to provide riparian
benefits to Lake Ontario.

,6tatement t6 paktiatty coAtect. In peAio6 o4 high
vL theAe iz no bene6it to poweA oJ jtowz above 325,000 C6
z.
white theAe iz to upztAeam Aipaxian inteAest

P.117 Para.- Wlst sentences

See comment P.15.

The 500,000 cfs figure used is the total flow downstream Montreal.

The Montreal Harbour level, Figure 22, is not indicative of flooding problems
in the Montreal area since it has been subject to-flooding from ice jams in the
past. The area sensitive to flooding where major damage occurs is below Beauharnois
and above the Lachine Rapids. Lake St. Louis levels where flooding occurs are
about 50 feet above the Montreal Harbour levels.
YoU/1L
w
at

A-18

r
text Was expanded to cta)ti@y the itow Aiguxu FiguAe 22 was
x'emp-oved 6,tom the text in @ight oJ youA comment and otheAz.

P.126 Para. 4 -

This paragraph reflects a basic misunderstanding of the relationship of the
regulation plan to the requirements of the Orders of Approval of the International
Joint Commission. These orders have the approval of the governments of Canada
and the United States. Theregulation plan is the plan of releases from Lake
Ontario to comply with these orders. Releases since the fall of 1972 have seldom
been the plan 1958-D releases rather they have been based on the physical capacity
of the river or such as to minimize the adverse impacts on the various interests.
The damages to the riparian owners and the natural environment were less than would
have occurred without the project in place. The physical dimensions of the St.
Lawrence River would not permit sufficient discharge to totally protect riparian
owners.

he text was expanded to uitect the beneiiciat aspect6
deAived 6&om the Ptan o4 Contut. Abo a dLscuzzion o6 the
cuMent phy.6icat timitatiou oA the St. Lawtence RiveA weke
inctuded. HoweveA, the question 6tiU at issue is whetheA
Lthe Ptan as imptemented dou minimize advwe impacts.

P.128

Well said!

Pages 128 and 129 are not compatible with the other inferences made in the
findings and recommendations and other places in the report., There is not doubt
that the regulation of Lake Ontario is not perfect and the principle reasons for
this is given on pages 128 and 129. In all cases of both high and low supplies,
regulation has provided better water level conditions than would have.occurred
without the construction of the project.

Commi6,6ion @aits to see wheu incompatabiUty aAi6es.
P"_ 28 discusAes the t-imitationz oJ contAot ptanz-both J&om the]
[,T6tAuctuAa &equiAed and the ope&ating cAitetia.
P.129 Para. 1

The extremes are not left uncontrolled. Instead, the physical limitations
of the discharge channel limits the amount of control which can be achieved.
This i,6 one oJ the questionz at issue. Given the cuAAent
physicat timitationz o6 the St. Law)Lence RiveA, iz optimat
contAot being achieved? The Commizzion Jeeb that the a"weA iz
-no.

P.138 Section 1 - Man Made Faci lities (a)

Just as shore structural protective devices must meet rigorous economic
criteria so the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway and Power Project also
had to meet rigorous economic criteria before it could be constructed.
[Th.is is wW andeutood. The text heAe is mvLety saying that]

A-19

I
otection o4 the natwtat enviunment iz dependent upon take
ttle'vet ugulationz.

P.140 Para. 2

Lake level regulation can never provide total protection. It can reduce
the high levels and raise the low levels. There are too many unknowns in the
future such as the vagaries of the weather to make such a claim. The general
problem is that the riparian expects more from lake level regulation than can
be delivered by the physical dimensions of the system. To totally control Lake
Ontario would require another outlet from Lake Ontario of a similar magnitude
to the St. Lawrence River.
[No comment.]

P.141 Footnote 1 -

This statement by the Corps of Engineers is based on internationally agreed
to data on preproject levels in comparison with actual levels.
[No comment.]

P.146 Figure 28 -

Note Appendix "C" should read "D".
[Re4etence to Appendix co)rAectedl

P.157 Section A Para. 2 and 3

You must consider what 13 inches on Lake Ontario represents in discharge in
the St. Lawrence River. It represents 100,000 cfs discharge for one month.
Knowing the physical limitations of the St. Lawrence River and the amount of
increase in capacity achieved by the excavations of the project, this represents
a considerable achievement and leads to the conclusion the criteria was satisfied.
All of the criteria with set limits are stated in terms of the supplies of the pasL
as adjusted. This is defined in the International Joint Commission's orders. The
only criterion which.refers to the future supplies is criterion (k).

P.157 Section B

The key words in this criterion are the words "with the supplies of the past
as adjusted". The supplies of 1972 to 1974 exceeded the supplies of the past as
adjusted and the plan did not meet this level. If the supplies were equal or less
and the plan permitted the level to exceed 246.77 then the criterion is not met.

In o@LdeA to e"uAe that the uadeA is awoAe that the cAiteAia
aAe evatuated on the ba,6i.6 o6 Zupptie/S o4 the po.6t a section
,stating tW and the 4act that ptecipitation in the Lake OntaU'o
bazin was above ave&age duAing the petiod unda study w" added
immediateiy p4eceeding the section on evauation.

A-20

P-158 Section 6 - S2ecial.Conditions

The key words in this criterion is "all possible". This is the interpre-
tation placed on this criterion by the International Joint Commission with the
agreement of the Board.

The restrictions in flow cited on the, bottom of this page and the top of the
next were made to minimize adverse impacts on other interests. A more rigid inter-
pretation would-have maximized adverse impacts.

The outflow from Lake Ontario is controlled even with the power dam in place
by the level of Lake Ontario. High levels permitted high outflows of 350,000 cfs.
To continue such high flows into the late summer and fall months after Lake Ontario
was below 246.77 would have maximized damage by causing prolonged flooding down-
stream and denied the use of the river to a large portion of the commercial naviga-
tion fleet since levels of Lake St. Lawrence would have been several feet below
that which would provide safe depths. Currents would have similarly been worsened.
The result was a compromise which must be made whenever high or low supplies occur.
P.210 [See above comment]

Correct address - Mr. David F. Witherspoon
Engineer-in-Charge
Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Study Office
Environment Canada
318 Federal Building,
Cornwall, Ontario, Canada
K6H 5R8
[Add,%us was cottected in jinat upoxtj

A-21

STATE OF NEW YORK

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
OFFICE OF PLANNING SERVICES

488 BROADWAY
HENRY G.IWILLIAMS, JR. ALBANY, N.Y. 122 07
DEPUTY OIRECTOR

January 15, 1975

Mr. William E. Tyson
Executive Secretary
St. Lawrence/Eastern Ontario Commission
317 Washington Street
Watertown, New York 13601

Dear Bill:

As requested, OPS staff has reviewed the Coircinission's re-
port entitled "Analysis of and Recommendations Concerning High
Water Levels on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River." They
found the report to be very factual, but the author should have
expanded on several of his recom-raendations. Particularly, the
author should have developed more details on how to accelerate
implementation of the federal flood insurance program and re-
lated flood plain management, for he cited that such a programi
has not been adequately implemented.
[
The tecommendationz weAe keviewed and wheAe apptoptiate
expanded to inctude guateA detait.

The reviewers also feel that the need for more data and
the potential benefits of a revised regulating Dlan based on
better data could be highlighted, maybe by giving it a more
prominent place in the order of findings and recommendations
and making it more explicit. The ideal would probably be a
computerized model to assess effects of varying criteria for
regulating the St. Lawrence. In this connection, adequate con-
sideration of power production is of state-wide interest (.see
pp 91-98).

Recommendation 4 undet DatalReseoAch w" expanded to inctude
additionat data uquiAement6.
It, I
Other comments on recopLmendations are:

(a) 1-3: consider dropping this; the flood insurance
act requires notice through the mortgage bank now, and
if recording is required in this case, why not for
other hazards?

A-22

William E. Tyson
Page 2
January 15, 1975

[Recommendation 1-3 w" dAopped
(a) 2-1: riparian owners should have some input into
how the St. Lawrence is regulated, but the exact manner
of selecting representatives will require considerable
thought.
[The Commizzion " in a9teement with this statement-I
(a) 4-1: should be corrected to include the latest pro-
vision of the 1974 Disaster Relief Act and the 1973 Flood
Disaster Protection Act which essentially prohibit SBA
"forgiveness," loans to property owners who do not have
flood insurance.
1
Recommendation 4-1 w" expanded to inctude tejeAence to tecent]
tegi.6tation.
1

(a) 6-1, (a) 7-1, Cc) 1-1 and wherever else it is appro-
priate; re-examination of the regulating plan should be
continuous or undertaken periodically.

Fhe text W" Aevized to inctude the idea that the Ptan zhoutd b
c
I ontinuatty tevized.
Finding Cc) 4 should specifically mention electric power
generation.
Recommendation.4-3 and 4-4 weAe added. The co,6t oj atteAnative]
16owtce/s o6 poweA i6 inctuded az a data need.
p. 24 - state and local governments also have primary re-
sponsibility for recommendation (a) 1-1.
[Tabte I was tevised in tight o6 you& and otheA comment6
We are looking forward to the final report.

4'rycerely,

Henry'--G. Williams, Jr.
Deputy Director and
Acting Director

A-23

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233

Ogden Reid
Commissioner

January 15, 1974

Mr. William E. Tyson
Executive Director
St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission
317 Washington St.
Watertown, N.Y. 13601

Dear Bill:

In regard to your St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission draft report on
Lake.Ontario water levels, we are providing you with comments on your
findings and recommendations. In general, we concur with the thrust of
the recommendations. However, we have the following specific comments.

1. Page 14 The*State and local agencies should have primary roles and
responsibilities in cooperation with the Federal Government and the
International Joint Commission in the development of plans for
regulation of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. We wouldn't
say that the responsibilities fall primarily on the IJC and Federal
Agencies. The State and local agencies have prime responsibilities
in the Coastal Zone Management, flood insurance and water quality
programs that are directly related to the water levels study.
[Tabte 1 was uvized to inctude thiz and otheA point6l

Institutions

2. Page 15, Recommendation 1-3 Recording flood hazard on property deeds
would be desirable. However, it would tend to be expensive, perhaps,
it could be required when property is transferred.
[Recommendation 1-3 was dAopped in the jinat tepoxt
3. Page 1-5, Recommendation 2-1 There should be an IJC Investigative
Board for the Lake Ontario-St, Lawrence River to include State and
other non-Federal participants, particularly in the committee work
of such a board. Also, the riparian owners and their interests should
be represented on the committees as well as other interests, particu-
larly representatives of,environmental concerns. Adding local
representation to the existing St. Lawrence Control Board which is
basically an operating mechanism may be desirable. However, this
kind of representation can be more effective on an Investigative

A-24

or Planning Board which is analyzing and recommending specific
proposals.
Recommendation 2-1 waz expanded to inctude an invatigative ot
pot,icy boatd with btoadet %epuzentation.
1 1

4. Pages 15-16, Recommendations 3-1 and 3-2 New York State should be
adequately represented in any effort to develop an overall management
program for the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Basin. We have
proposed further study of the possibility of control and remedial
works in the St. Lawrence River through an investigative board with
New York State membership. A revamping of the IJC institutional
arranaement is not ndeded. It is true that the IJC has been too far
removed from state and local interests and in the past has not involved
public participation in the formulation of its proposals. Formation
of an investigative board representing all interests should be the
means to overcome past deficiencies.
[
Recommendation 3-2 was tewotded to ctati6y the action the]
Commiz4ion Jett wete apptopAiate.

5. Page 17 Findings here and elsewhere in the report should be amended
to include the recent Corps of Engineers proposal SEO-17P in combination
with the modified plan 1958-D. Also, the development of a scope of
work for the recent proposals should include environmental and economic
studies which are required and are necessary to attempt to maximize
net benefits, which is probably not possible because of the trade-offs
required among economic, environmental, social and political considerations.
In particular, environmental considerations require identification and
quantification to the extent possible. Environmental studies are needed
and the scope of work should be developed in order to determine what
effects the proposed plan would have on wetlands and other environmental
consideration. This identification should be done by the IJC with State
and other non-Federal assistance. However, the cost of these studies
should be Federal and funded through the IJC.
SEO-17P puvidez 4oA a zZightty dig6eting ptan o4 opeAation o6
1958-D. Howevet, the b"ic ptemi6e upon which SEO-17P w"
6o,tmuf-ated i6 that the cAitetia set 6okth in the Otdeu o6
App@wvat be met. It is these c&iteAia that the Commizzion jeetz
need te-evatuation. In addition tecommendation 4-3 and 4-4
VeAe added. They indicate otheA data uqui@ements.

6. Page 14, Finding 9 We interpret Criterion K to be possible from the
viewpoint of providing consideration to both upstream and downstream
owners.
The discu,5,5ion oJ CAiteAion (k) was Aevised heAe and thAoughout]
[the text.
7. Page 19, Recommendation 9-1 In view of the recent SEO-17P proposal, this
recommendation should probably-be changed. Also, there should be a
recommendation which calls more specifically for an overall study of
environmental effects of lake level regulations covering both high and

A-25

low water periods.
SEO-17P onty examined the C,,t@UeAia in tight o6 whethe,% they we&e
met o,% not by SEO-17P. The Commizzion Aeetz the C)rUe&ia zhoutd
be te-examined in tight o6 the pazzage o6 time, the %ecotd high
take tevetz and othe& comideAntionz. Atzo Recommendation 4-3
and 4-4 weAe added.

Data Research

8. Page 21 We can't agree with the finding that the productivity of the
natural environment of Lake Ontario is dependent upon regulation.
Sufficient environmental studies have not been made to make a statement
of this nature.
[This 6inding was &ewotded to ctati6y what the Commission de6ines
Las the natuut envi&onment. 1
9. Page 21, Recommendation 1-1 alludes to some of the earlier recommendations
under the institutional heading and is not specifically related to data
and research needs. A list of environmental and economic research studies
that are required should be given.
VouA point is wett taken. HoweveA, when categokizing items some]
do not JaU in exact categotiez so they aAe ptaced wheAe they
most cf-ozety jit.

10. Recommendation 2-1 is questioned because we believe lake level forecasts
are being used now in the decision-making process. There may be need
for improvements and additional data, but we question the statement
that current procedures do not utilize forecasts of lake levels.
The section an take Zevet @otecasting was tewtitten to inctude.
data on the cuiftentty used methods . HoweveA, it @Lemains that
take tevet jo&ec"ts aAe not an integ&cV- paxt oj the JoAmat
dec.@,s ion- making pAoce.6,6.

11. Page 23, Recommendations 4-1 and 4-2 relative to the evaluation and
benefits and costs of trade-offs are much more than the two listed on
this page. Reliable flood damage information should be developed
and trade-offs between economic and environmental considerations should
be identified. In specific:

Recommendation 4-1 may be over simplistic. Stage-damage relation-
ships should be established but this involves more than a curve,
and Recommendation 4-2 should provide for studies of economic
consequences relating to power generation, fish and wildlife,
recreation and environmental factors in addition to navigation.
[Recommendations 4-3 and 4-4 weAe added.]

12. The finding should make more reference to the need for data on fish and
wildlife resources, wetlands, recreation resources, which are required
for full evaluation of alternative regulation plans.
[(See comment above).]

A-26

13. Page 24 State, regional and local primary responsibilities are more than
those indicated in the Table. We have indicated some suggested additions
in the enclosure.
[Ta.bte I w" tevized in tight o6 youA and otheA comments.]
Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft report.

Sincerely,

J A
. . i k
Assistant Director for
Plan Development

Enclosure

cc: T. Eichler
H. Williams
E. Rich
E. Karath
C. Morrison
J. Wilson
H. Doig

A-27

Ta'bie: 1 level C., C'-v@rn-mt Pri-zv;
Ca. r r-
yinu 0 7-, tC o =;:@:Id

Reco.-,_--en d-, ions a

Ins -11-tu tions

Level - 0 f
Govcrn-ert -

1-1 1-2 1-3; 2_7-1 3-1 ^@-2 4-1 4-2 5-1 6-1 '1772 8- 1'9- 1

F e -d e r -:u'xx x x x

S*ata x x

Ra-giomal
Local 00

Interna- x x x
tional

Physt cal @@orks Data/researcli

1-1 2-1 7-2 2-3 1-1 2-1 3-1 3-Al 4-1 4-2,5-1

Federal x x - y x x x x
CA)

State x x x x

Regional
Local S)
Interna- x x x x
tional

'@Vhe reco--end-at4cn, -vz:be,-s rel@er to -'-hose listed in 1, Flndim-@s and
Reco-r-ene-a"t.1--zs'. a-f' this reporc.

A-28

0 0
Cffeat Lakes Basin Conm&sion

Januar y 16, 1975

Frederick 0. Rouse
Chairman Mr. William E. Tyson
State of Illinois Executive Director
Natural Resources Development Board St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission
State of Indiana
Department of Natural Resources 317 Washington Street
State of Michigan Watertown, New York 13601
Department of Natural Resources
State of Minnesota
State Planning Agency Dear Mr. Tyson:
State of New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
State of Ohio Your letter of December 18, 1974 to Mr. Crook requesting
Department of Natural Resources technical review of a "Draft Document" entitled, "Analysis of and
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources Recommendations Concerning High Water Levels on Lake Ontario and
State of Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources the St. Lawrence River" dated December 1974, has been referred to
Department of Agriculture me for reply.
Department of the Army I have briefly reviewed the "Draft Document". I consider
Department of Commerce it to be a compilation of valuable information as set forth in your
Department of Health,
Education & Welfare statements of findings and recommendations. We agree that the
Department of Housing & regulation of Lake Ontario, as well as the whole Great Lakes system,
Urban Development entails extremely complex engineering plans and institutional
Depadment of the Interior arrangements. Because of this and the somewhat cursary nature
Department of Justice of my review made necessary by other business, I am reluctant to
Department of State
Department of Transportation insure that your analysis of the situation is completely tech-
Environmental Protection Agency nically correct, and by so doing, sign off on your "Draft Document
Federal Power Commission
Great Lakes Commission The Great Lakes Basin Commission is vitally concerned
with further regulation of the Great Lakes. The Commission members
are well aware of the damage which has occurred to riparian owners
due to unusual amounts of precipitation and reduced amounts of
evaporation together with the strong winds accompanying the storms
that have occurred in the past several years. For this reason,
the Commission appointed an Ad hoc Review Committee to review the
Main Report of the Lake Levels Board to the International Joint
Commission together with the appendices.

The Ad hoc Review Committee met on October 16, 1974
and developed a set of recommendations for presentation to the
Great Lakes Basin Commission relative to the regulation of Great
Lakes water levels. Mr. William Daley, of New York State, is a
member of the Ad hoc Review Committee. Recommendation No.@ 2 is

3475 Plymouth Road, Post Office Box 999, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
313/763-3590 FTS: 313/769-7431
A-29

William E. Tyson
January 16, 1975
Page Two

addressed to the regulation of Lake Ontario water levels. It reads as follows:
"The Commission endorses the recommendation for further study and evaluation
of the regulation of Lakes Erie and Ontario water levels to insure that
apparently reasonable alternatives, in addition to SEO-42P, receive adequate
consideration. However, benefits should not be derived from substantial
lowering of long-term mean and low levels of Lake Erie."

In conversation with Mr. Daley during the progress of the meeting,
he indicated that conditions in the St. Lawrence River are the major constraints
to regulation oY Lake Ontario. The Main Report recognizes that the physical
dimensions of the St. Lawrence River are inadequate to accommodate the record
supplies to Lake Ontario received in 1972-1973 and, at the same time, satisfy
all the criteria and other requirements of the IJC Orders of Approval for the
regulation of Lake Ontario.

I have not had the benefit of comments from Mr. Daley or other con-
cerned Committee members relative to the analysis of your recommendations
concerning the high water levels on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River
as set forth in your report and, therefore, we do not wish to express a
Commission position without the benefit of Mr. Daley's input.

I would comment on your point, expressed as the third item on page 12,
relative to riparian owners being represented on the decision-making body
that determines the mode of operation of the Plan of Control. It is our
understanding that there have been opportunities for some degree of represen-
tation. The State of New York, who could represent the riparian owners, has
been previously invited to name a member to the St. Lawrence River Board of
Control. We note that there are presently only three U.S. members on the
Board. As I indicated earlier, I believe that this document contains much
valuable information and would be a good guide to other Great Lakes states
for developing additional legislation and institutional arrangements. We
would like to request that when you have the final document prepared, that
copies be furnished to all members of the Commission's Ad hoc Review Commit-
tee. This document will be valuable to further consideration and deliberations
of the Committee relative to their responsibility to make whatever additional
recommendations they deem to be desirable to the Great Lakes Basin Commission.

For your information, I am attaching a copy of the recommendations
adopted by the Commission at their November 20 meeting. These were forwarded
to the IJC for their information and use.

We are pleased to.have received a copy of the Draft Document and we
will appreciate your cooperation in making the Final Report available to the
attached list of the Ad hoc Review Committee members.

Sincerely yours,

John L. Hull
Comprehensive Basin Planner A-30 Enclosures: as stated.
cc: Mr. William Daley

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
10 COLUMBUS CIRCLE NEw YORK, N. Y. 100 19
(212) 265-6510
TRUSTEES GEORGE T. BERRY
GENERAL MANAGER
JAMES A. FITZPATRICK AND CHIEF ENGINEER
CHAIRMAN SCOTT B. LILLY
GENERAL COUNSEL
GEORGE L. INGALL.S
VICE CHAIRMAN WILBUR L. GRONBER(
ASSISTANT GENERi L
WILLIAM J. RONAN MANAGER. ENGINEERING
JOHN W. BOSTON
RAYMOND J. LEE DIRECTOR OF
POWER OPERATIONS
DANIEL J. REIDY January 17, 1975 THOMAS F. MCCRANN, JR.
CONTROLLER

Mr. Joseph Romola
Chairman
St. Lawrence - Eastern
Ontario Commission
317 Washington Street
Watertown, New York 13601

Dear Mr. Romola:

The Power Authority of the State of New York has reviewed
your Commission's draft "Analysis of and Recommendations Con-
cerning High Water Levels on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence
River".

In general terms, the report recommends changes in the
present scheme for regulating Lake Ontario to provide additional
protection to riparian owners. However, the report does not
recognize that such changes could only be achieved by imposing
severe adverse effects on others, namely, downstream riparian
owners, navigation and power generation in New York,.Ontario and
Quebec.
The upott does not make the tecommendation as stated. It does
tecommend that the cwftent method o6 take &egutation be &e-
examined and that the take tevetz be tegutated with the ob-
jective o6 minimizing totat damages. In addition to take tevet
LAegutation otheA methods o6 damage teduction ate aszazed.
The report, in making such recommendation, fails to reflect
an understanding of the provisions of the 1909 Boundary Waters
Treaty and of the function of the International Joint Commission
in acting for Canada and the United States in both-devising the
criteria governing regulation and in conducting the present
regulatory scheme to meet the objectives contained in the
criteria.
fThe ptovizionz wete undeutood. The question at issue is whetheAl

A-31

r
e ftitekia a&e stitt appticabte due to the pazzage oJ time]
and the high wateA tevet6 expetienced.

By way of background,, during the 1954-58 period, the
'Authority, together with its Canadian partner, Ontario Hydro,
built the St. Lawrence power facilities.

The pow er facilities represent an investment of over
@700-million 1953 dollars. Together with the Seaway facil-
ities, financed by the two federal governments, the total
investment on the St. Lawrence in structures which make Lake
Ontario regulation feasible exceeds $1-billion 1958 dollars.

The International Joint Commission, acting for. the two
governments, implemented a plan of regulation for Lake Ontario
in 1960. The original plan (1958-A) and its successors (1958-C
and 1953-D) have, over the past 15 years, been successful in
providing a more beneficial range of levels on Lake Ontario
than would have occurred under natural conditions. Official
government records indicate that monthly mean Lake Ontario
levels over this 15-year period would have varied from 241.61
in January 1964 to 249.02 in May 1973 if regulation had never
been implemented. With regulation, the range of levels has been
from 241.78 to 247.92. The riparian owners on the lake and in
the upper river have received this benefit.
The text was expanded to teitect the beneiiciat "pect6 o6 the]
IwAent Ptan oJ Requ&itinn.
We think your Commission should recognize that the invest-
ment in both power and navigation facilities was justified
because of the assurances provided by the criteria approved by
the International Joint Commission. In other words, a regulation
scheme to indicate the probable levels and flows was necessary
for both the economic analysis and the design of the project.
To suggest now, 15 years later, that the riparian interests
should have further benefits,- is really to suggest that the two
countries alter the basic conditions under which the St. Lawrence
facilities were financed and constructed.
We have not suggested that &ipaAian inteAest.6 be given JuAtheA-
bene@it,s speci6icatty. What is zuggested iz that the itood
damage teduction techniques be apptied with the objective o6
_mcntmizing the advex6e impacts.
Further, although your report does not do so, it should
be brought to the attention of the Legislature that to confer
additional benefits to the riparian interests on Lake Ontario
beyond those specified by the IJC's criteria would have serious

A-32

adverse effects on other areas of the New York State economy.
Further compression of the range of sLage on Lake Ontario
Would doubtless confer additional benefits to riparian interests
there but given the present physical channels and structures,
would simultaneously reduce the output of low-cost power from
the St. Lawrence and reduce drafts for commercial navigation
both of which would adversely affect New York State. By reducing
hydro electric generation, such a proposal would seriously affect
efforts in New York to conserve fossil energy sources. It there-
fore seems fair to ask whether your Commission should advocate
such a course to provide additional benefits to that small
percentage of the population who live along the shoreline.
The que.6tion at izzue is 'What ate the tAade-oj6z invotved?" U
the bene6it dexived 4&om ming tow coAt hyAo powe& compoAed to
6oz,sit 6uet6 tezz, g&eateA ot equat to the damages incuA&ed by it6
me; ate the beneAit6 o6 navigation in the Seaway t",s, gAeateA
oA equat to the cozts incuAAed by maintaining a 27 6t. channet?
Theze a,%e the data that mulst be deteAmined in o&deA that &ationat
ttade-oj6z can be made in oAde& that totat adveue impactA can
,be minimized.
The implication that because the Authority generated
record amounts of low-cost eneray in 1973 and 1974, it realized
"Windfall gains" is simply not true. As a matter of fact, in
both 1973 and 1974 water equivalent to over one-half billion
kilowatt hours was spilled at Long Sault Dam to provide relief
to the riparian interests on Lake Ontario. If the water which
was spilled could have been used to generate electricity over
a million barrels of oil mi-ht have been saved. Surely your
0
Commission is aware that Authority power is sold without profit
and at rates lower than any alternative sources of power avail-
able to New York State users.

In the di,6cu,6sion o4 "Intete.6t Gtoupz A46ected" the powet
inte)Le,st6 conzideted we&e not onty the ptoduceu but atso the
conzumeu o4 powe)t. ks ztated on pg. 98 the comumeu achieved
about 5 mitUon dottau o6 .6aving.6 due to PASNY ptoducing above
aveAage poweA.

Secondty, ij thiz wateA had not been Apitted oveA Long Sautt Dam
iz the data baze avaitabte to tett what impact it woutd have had
on wateA tevelz and thm damage,6. Pozzibty the damaga woutd
have been guateA than the 'cozt oj mittion baAAets o6 oit zaved.
-This is the question the Commizzion woutd tike to see addteszed.-
In summary, the Authority feels that your Commission has
a responsibility to present the full picture to the Legis-
lature and that your draft report falls short of meeting that
responsibility. The pmier and seaway facilities which make

A-33

Lake Ontario regulation feasible were constructed only because
of commitments by the two federal governments to regulatory
schemes designed to meet the IJC's criteria. The course you
now advocate to provide more protection for riparian interests
on Lake Ontario and in the upper St. Lawrence would seriously
jeopardize that investment, impose serious economic penalties
on the users of Authority energy, would require the consumption
of additional fossil fuels to replace lost hydro energy, would
adversely affect the navigation comunity in the Great Lakes,
and would impose added flooding on downstream riparian owners.
We ask that you consider whether this course of action is in
the best interests of the State of New York.
The Commission woutd tike to ask the 6ottowing quation: "How doa
managing take tevets in a mannet that minimize/s adveue impactz
-tead to the tuuttz set 6otth in the summaty poAagAaph?"
Attached is a list of major technical errors we have found
in the draft.

Sincerely,

Chairman

Attachment

A-34

ST. LAWRENCE-EASTERN ONTARIO COINVISSION
REPORT ON HIGH WATER LEVELS
DECEMBER 1974

NAJO'R TECHNICAL ERRORS NOTED

Page 51: There were no known institutional restraints
which prevented more rapid discharge of water
in 1973 and 1974. Flows during the spring
and summer months were designed to minimize
flooding problems both upstream and downstream
while fall -flows were those which provided
design depths for Seaway navigation; higher
C>
fall flows would have resulted in restricted
drafts for navigation.
@
e institutionaZ constAaint u6med to i,6 the &equiud mainte-
nce oJ a 27 Joot navigation channet. The Commizzion 6eetz that
na
the cost-benejit xetation,ship o6 this zhouZd be examined.
Pages 71 & 72: The discussion relative to the effect of changes
in flow is somewhat misleadina. Normally, flow
changes are effected at Moses-Saunders at mid-
night on Friday and our records indicate that
only about 48 hours are required to establish
the new regime throughout the river. The
flows released in 1973 and 1974 could have been
considerably higher but would have either
caused downstream flooding or would have re-
stricted seaway draft.
La [The text in this section wa.6 modi6ied to ctaAi6y the d,@,scumionj
gL..L74: The Moses-Saunders Powerdam has the capability
to pass flows up to about 325,000 cfs. While
the number of kilowatts per cfs is maximized at
a flow of about 270,000 cfs, it is not true
that flows above 2705000 cfs have zero value
for power production.
The text on page 74 o6 the dAaJt waz tevized to AejZect th"]
c
I omment.
Pages 76 & 78: As regards the winter season, the project chan-
nels were designed to provide water velocities
no greater than 2.25 fps with a flow of 220,000
cfs) the maximum specified by the plan of regu-
lation throughout the month of January. Over

A-35

the past few years we have found from experience
that we can form a satisfactory cover with flows
in the order of 235,000 cfs.
LThe text was tevized to -te6tect this in6otmation.]
You r statement midway on Page 73 that the
winter months are those of peak demand is not
accurate - the Authority's firm contracts for
firm power require that the Authority deliver
fixed quantities of energy throughout the year.
Footnote 03 was added to te6eAence the zouAce o6 the statement
that peak demand 6ot etectAic puduction o6 the PASNY 4yztem iz
in DecembeA. You& comment on the Autho4ity.6 @@m contAact 6o&
6i,tm poweA i,6 inctuded since th" powet is an etement o6 the
Lpeak demand. J
Page 87: We question your conclusion that only 2% of,
the shoreline between Cornwall and Montreal
is considered erodible. The shoreline of
Lake St. Francis is very flat a-ad even thougIn
Hydro Quebec holds the lake levels within a
band of about one foot 0
,, flooding and erosion
do occur. The highly developed shoreline of
Lake St. Louis below Beauharnois is also
subject to flooding and'erosion with combined
St. Tawrence and Ottawa flows in excess of
about 350,000 cfs.
As indicated in the zowtce o6 Tabte 16 the data on the Canadian
,shoutinez was obtained 6Aom Canadian zouAcez. Time ptevented
-u,6 6um gatheAing data owtzetva.
Page 98: Using your own figures from Table 20, you
considered 1970 and 1971 as average years.
During those two years, the Authority's
revenue from the sale of St. Lawrence power
averaged $29.3 million. our revenue in 1973
from St. Lawrence was $32.2 million and it is
expected 1974 revenues will be slightly less
than for 1973. This hardly constitutes a
20% increase in revenue.
I
The text in this section =z changed to &e6tect the data
ptovided. This data indicat" a 14% incteaze in )Levenue .
Page 126: Contrary to the paragraph at the bottom of
the page, releases from Lake Ontario through
the Moses-Saunders Powerdam have not been in
accordance with Plan 1958-D to the point where

A-36

the Lake Ontario level on December 27,, 1974
was 3.6 feet lower than it would have been if
Plan 1958-D had been strictly followed. You
should understand that the alternative to what
you have termed "windfall gains for power"
would have been to have spilled theTater.
Would this, have been a logical decision in
view of the high cost of alternative power
sources?

The text wa,6 tevised on page 126. A .6e6tion w" added inctuding
Figute 29 di6cuzzing the beneJit6 o6 Ptan 1458-D. FiguAe 29,
which uitect,6 pxeptoject and tegutated Zevets, indicates that
the diSJeAence in Lake OntAtio',s tevet at the end o6 SeptembeA
1974 waz onty 2.17 Jeet.
With the Zbnited data avaitabte the Commi64ion 6eetz that a
judgement cannot be tendeted tetative to the quation "ked.
M pointed out in the text the Zack o@ data on the cozt oJ
atteAnative 6uet zouAces compated to the di46e&ent modez oJ
imptementing Zake tevet conttot, inctuding ".6pitting" gteateA
Lquantitie,6 o6 watet, cannot be made due to the Zack o6 data.
Pa&es 152 & 153: In the tabulation relative to enlargement of
river channels, you have included the excava-
ti'on of 25 million cubic yards to form the
Wiley-Dondero Canal. This canal was princi-
pally excavated through the U. S. mainland
and did not affect the hydraulic capabilities
of the river channels.
[Text expanded to incotpotate thi,6 in6mnation]
Pages 153 Thru In evaluating the-degree to which operations of
C:)
Page 159: 1973 and 1974 met the objectives of the IJC
criteria, you apparently have concluded that
the limitin- elevations contained in Criterion
CD I
hi i. and j are absolutes - they are not. The
Cotmnission,, in its wisdom,, indicated that
regulatory schemes were to meet certain
objectives, assuming that the supplies of
the past were representative of what would
occur in the future. However, the Commis-
sion also indicated that in the event of
future supplies outside the range of pre-
vious experience, the regulation procedures
should provide all possible relief to the
various interests in recognition that nature
is unpredictable.
[AO,6ection, pteceeding the evatuation o6 the cAiteAia, waz added]
t addtaz thi6 topic.

A-37

INTERNATIONAL
STAAWRENCE RIVER BOARD OF CONTROL

CANADA UNITED STATES
R,H. SMITH, Chairman BRIG. GEN. W.O. BACHUS, Chairman
R.H. CLARK, Vice-Chairman FRANKLIN F. SNYDER
J.B. BRYCE ROBERT D. CONNER
Y. DE GUISE DESLOGE BROWN

January 17, 1975

Mr. William E. Tyson,
St. Lawrence --Eastern Ontario Commission,
317 Washington Street,
WATERTOWN, New York, 13601,
U.S.A.

Dear Mr. Tyson:

I wish to acknowledge your letter of December 18,
1974, enclosing a draft document "Analysis and Recommenda-
tions Concerning High Water Levels on Lake Ontario and the
St. Lawrence River" dated December 1974. Review and
comment by appropriate agencies and individuals was
requested prior to finalizing this document.

I have reviewed the document with interest, and
as your letter was addressed to me as a member of the
International St. Lawrence River Board of Control, I have
forwarded certain comments to Mr. R.H. Smith, Chairman,
Canadian Section of the Board.

The document contains a comprehensive review of
regulation of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River
particularly during the recent high water period. As a
general personal comment, I would say that the findings
and recommendations with respect to regulation are written
very much from the standpoint of upstream riparian inter-
ests, which unquestionably are.important. In my view,
however, there is not adequate recognition of the basis of
the present regulation, the benefits that have resulted
and the limitations that exist. Regulation of this nature
is unavoidably complex in view of all the interests and
factors involved.

The &epmt w" expanded to inctude mote detaited &e6etence to
the ateaz pointed out in youA comment6. TW was accompWhed by
adding Appendices D and F, 04jice Con4otidation o6 OtdeA o6
Apptwvat and the Text o6 the T&eaty oj 1909 uspectivety. In
addition a section was added dizcu/ssing the bene6iciat aspect,6
detived 6kom the cuAAent Ptan o6 OpeAation and the ZiInitationz
that now exizt.

A-38

I wish to thank you for forwarding the draft
document to me.

Yours very truly,

J.B. Bryce
Member, Canadian Section
International St. Lawrence
River Board of Control

A-39

@bv lite Votre r0prenc

Environment Environnernent out A'-e Nulre r6t6rence
Canada Canada

Environmental Gestion
Management de 1'environnement

Ottawa, Ontario
KIA OH3

January 17, 1975

Mr. William E. Tyson
Executive Director
St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission
317 Washington Street
Watertown, New York
U.S.A. 13601

Dear Mr. Fyson:

Thank you for sending me a draft copy of your report
"Analysis of and Recommendations Concerning High Water Levels on
Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River". It must be understood
that it is inappropriate for me to comment upon the report in my
capacity as a member of the Canadian Section of the Great Lakes
Levels Board and it must also be understood that my remarks cannot
be construed as representing the official position of the Canadian
Government. However, as an engineer who has been involved with water
resource development for over twenty-five years, and who has also
been associated with the Great Lakes for a number of years, I offer
the following comments.

This document appears to be largely a synthesis of various
other reports and does not seem to add anything new. I am not certain
that the author truly understands much of what is currently being done
in the area. For example, his comments on pages 52 to 63 reviewing
levels forecasting speaks of a bias because of the use of 50% probability
of precipitation in estimating future lake levels. This comment ignores
the fact that the International St. Lawrence River Board of Control in
its projections of lake levels uses three basin supply projections -
95% exceedence level, 50% exceedence level and 5% exceedence level. In
other words, a range of levels are forecast to reflect high, low and
medium supplies to the Lake. With the present state of knowledge on
long term (up to six month) weather forecasting, this appears to be
the only logical assumption.

ction on Joucasting was &evized. It temainz " stated
d4ait that the take tevet 6otecast6 aAe not diuctty tZed
he Ptan Jot take tevet tegutationz. SecondZy, since the

.... 12

A-40
EMS-1004

take Jokeca,sts i6zued by vatiouz agencia have not been adequate
in the p"t -it Z6 .6titt tecommended that additionat &aeatch be
done to imp)Love them. (,see Appendix B, Studie/s and Repo&t6
Undetway and Regutation o6 Gteat Laka Watet LeveU , Appendix A,
Lpp. A55-A56).
The author's remarks on pages 128 and 129 about regulation
plans left me wondering if he thoroughly understood the subject. For
example, in the first full paragraph on page 129, he speaks of ranges
of levels and extremes of levels when in actual fact it is the range of
water supply which is the uncontrollable variable. He speaks of extremes
which could "reasonably be expected to occur" without indicating how. .
these would be determined. I Would point out that the recent high flows
to Lake Ontario have exceeded any known flows in the last hundred years.
I certainly expect that at some time in the future even the high flows
of the past three years will be exceeded but I do not know if this fits
the author's concept of "reasonably expected".
Text changed on page 129 and otheA ptace.6 to te6tect supptie.6
vice tevetz. "Re"onabty expected" was deiined.

Atthough thete i.6 a detetmined Aetationship between zupptiez and
Zeve?A when opetated within the @tamewotk oJ a teguzation ptan it
is mote expttcit to discuss the subject in tetms o6 supptiez.

The above are only examples of two areas where.I feel the author
has failed to grasp the significance or to fully understand the material
which he is treating. I have not had the time to give the repor@ the
thorough review required to permit me to discuss it at lenqth. However,
before closing,,I would like to deal briefly with the findings and
recommendations.

(a) Institutions

1. 1 agree whole heartedly with the author's finding No. I and
his recommendation 1-2. These echo the Great Lakes Levels Board Report
and my personal conviction. It is inappropriate for me to comment on
recommendation 1-1 and 1-3 as these are internal U.S. matters.
[No comment.]

I do not agree with this suggestion. The present governmen i
representatives on the Board are there to look at all interests. Thece
would be considerable difficulty in selecting representatives for specific
interests; also such representatives would then tend to seek benefits for
their specific interests at the expense of others. Such a situation would
lead to interminable wrangle and would not necessarily produce an overall
improvement in the results.
[The commiz,sioniz po,sition )Lemacft az stated.]

3. The control of flows in the Ottawa River is a Canadian matter
and cannot be subject to the wishes of an external board. Specifically,

A-41

I cannot agree with the author's recommendation 3-1 particularly his
final phrase "increases the probability" which suggests that it makes
the situation on Lake Ontario worse. This is not so; it in fact limits
the opportunities to "make it better". I am totally opposed to recom-
mendation 3-2. Obviously, the author has not made a study of the IJC's
history, duties or accomplishments. If he had, he would realize the
value of this Commission in dealing with water problems along our
mutual border.

Recommendation 3-2 wa.6 )Lewoaded to cea,%i6y the Commi6zion'z
po.6ition.
PAecedent h" been zet in Cotumbia Rive&, 4o& inteAnationat
devetopment o4 &iveA bazinz. It iz Jett that the Gteat Lakes-
St. Lawtence RiveA - Ottawa RiveA system .6houtd be examined in
teAW oJ such an ag&eement to deteAmine i6 it woutd tesutt in
-incAea6ed beneJit.6 to both countAie,6.
4. Strictly a U.S. recommendation and I have no comment.
[No comment-]

5. Again, I would suggest that the author has not reviewed and
does not understand the IJC's role and functions. He does not under-
stand its relationship with the relevant government operating agencies
who do the data collection. I do not agree with the suggestion that the
IJC be allowed to develop intoanother bureaucracy by having to assume
functions of this type.

It " Jett that adequate data Z6 not avaitabte to the IJC. This
being the caze, they .6houtd initiate e66ott to obtain 6uch data.
Thae e64oAt6 coutd be in the 6o,@n o4 4inanciat aid to otheA
agencia, cottecting it themutvez ot howeveA the IJC 6eet,6 it
4hould be accompti6hed. _j
6. This recommendation and finding appears to be a Aptherhood"
statement and appears to offer little of substance.
t iz impottant to point out the 4act that the SLR8C haz .6tated
,%epeatedty that they have 6texibiU-ty and option,6 and that they
have uzed them to the 4uUut. At the same time the natuAat
-enviwnment o6 Lake OntaAio wa,6 .6ustaining damagu.

7. Like recommendation No. 6 this offers little new.
1
It is o6 impoAtance when the ba,6ic phitosophy o6 kegutation
6ubject to question.
8. This applies largely to U.S. internal matters.

9. Again the author appears to misunderstand Criterion k. He has
drawn what I view to be an incorrect conclusion that Criterion k is
inconsistent and cannot be satisfied. This appears to stem from his
interpretation of the words "all possible". Instead of giving relief
to either uostream or downstream interests to the detriment of the other,

A-42

the intention is to operate as equitably as possible with resi)ect to the
problems in both areas.
[
The discu/ssion o6 CtiteAion (k) wa.6 tevized in the text and in]
the Uzt o6 Finding,6 and Recommendationz.
(b) Physical Works

1. A U.S. matter

2. Also a U.S. matter
[No comment-]
(c) Data/Research

1. This appears to be repetitious of earlier recommendations.
All the author is really saying is re-evaluate Plan 1958-D.

The 4indingz di46e& atthough the sotution temainz the zame
thu,6 tepetition occuu.
2. Again I repeat the author does not appear to be familiar
with all the facts. The Board of Control does recognize in its
projections anticipated water supply conditions and sets its discharge
levels accordingly.
CuA&entey the Han o6 ContAot does not caU 6ot, not )Lequite
take tevet 6o&eca,6t,6. It i.6 being suggest%d that thi.6 be made]
-a 6o@tmat )oaAt o6 the tegutation ptan.

3. This is similar to recommendations made by the Great Lakes
Levels Board. [No comment.]
4. May be some merit in this approach.
EiJicient, e@jective management oJ the Lakez &equiAe.6 thiz data
lbaze which appeau to be caAAentty tacking.
5. This is a U.S. matter,
[No comment.]
Time has not permitted as detailed an examination of this report
as I would have liked. My comments are, therefore, in the somewhat hasty
once-over-lightly category. In summary: Even recognizing that the
author had a tough assignment in exploring such a complex area apparently
within such a short time frame, the result is not an authoritative work
and adds virtually nothing to the state of knowledge on this subject nor
does it make any substantive suggestion for improvement.

urs si er ly,

A-43 N.H Ja s
Direct
Water Planning and Management Branch

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 MASSENA. NEW YORK 13662

Massena, New York
January 20, 1975

Mr. William E. Tyson
Executive Director
St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission
317 Washington Street
Watertown, New York 13601

Re: "Analysis of and Recommendations Concerning Hi h Water Levels
on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River" - ?Draft) by St.
Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission - December 1974

Dear Mr. Tyson:

As requested in your letter of December 18, 1974, the Saint
Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, being fully aware of the
importance of your final document to represent technically correct
information and/or data, submits for your consideration and incorp-
oration into the final report the following comments. Unfortunately,
a detailed review was not possible due to lack of time and.thereby
prevented possibly a more comprehensive response on my part.

At the outset, I would like to commend Dr. Daniel J. Palm on
the compilation of an intricate engineering matter concerning proper
Lake Ontario regulation into a fairly comprehensive report. Since
water regulation is a complex issue and consumes a considerable amount
of our staff's time and efforts, I can appreciate the extensive time
and effort that Dr. Palm has expended in gathering background data and
information for preparation of the report.

As stressed throughout the report, the regulation of Lake Ontario
entails extremely complicated engineering criteria and demands that
attention be directed to many factors and considerations. A plan of
regulation which fully solves the problems of one particular interest
may have a disastrous effect on the,affairs of a large number of other
interests. This is an important point that I feel the author has
completely ignored.
In o,%deA to temove the injeAence that one gtoup a being given
ptejeAence the intAoduction w" tewxitAen. In doing .6o equat
emph"" wa.6 ptaced on the 3 method6 o4 damage teduction. In
addition the di6cu.6.6ion o6 the eijectivene.6z oj Ptan 1958-D w"
moved to the chapteA dizcu,6zing take tevet Aegutation. The text

A-44

wcus atzo changed thAoughout to &eitect mou cteaAty that the
Commizzion viewz the objective o6 tegutation to be the minimiza-
tion o6 ad,veue impact6.
The regulation of Lake Ontario is indeed intricate and, in this
vein, I would like to recommend that a review of the film "Not Man's
to Command", produced and distributed by Environment Canada, be under-'
taken by your staff. This is a fine and technically correct production
and may provide further insights into the subject matter and which may re-
quire that the general mood of the report be altered to present a more
accurate representation of all interest groups. I would also suggest
that you recommend to the appropriate office in Albany that they also
view this film.

fly initial impression, after a review of the report, is that
it fails to properly appreciate the expertise of and the time spent
by, tagether with the lack of bias of, the various representatives
responsible for the overall success of the plan of regulation since
its inception. The report only dwells on the mini-mal shortcomings of
the plan of regulation during a period when nature provided an inordinate
amount of precipitation., The report also fails, I believe, to recognize
the ability of the plan of regulation to cope with these recordbreaking
amounts of precipitation, for without the project and the plan of regulation,
riparian interests would have suffered to a much greater extent. In
this regard, it is interesting to note that.the.report does not address
the fact that both navigation and power interests acceded to the direction
of the St. Lawrence River Board of Control and worked together for the
benefit of the riparian owner, when in 1973 and 1974 water was allowed
to spill-over Long Sault Dam -- water which then could never produce
power and water which did, in fact create severe navigation problems.
Item 3 in the inttoduction to th" Addendurn ctaAijiu the
Comm",sion'.6 attitude towa&d the )teptesentatives tezponzibte
60,% the imptementation o6 the Ptan. AXzo a zection w" added
de,scAibing the beneiiciat "pect.6 oJ the Ptain and the existing
Ltimitation,s to contAot,.
The Seaway was cons tructed as a joint undertaking between the Saint
Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation of the United States, and the St.
Lawrence Seaway Authority of Canada. Both entities are intended to be self-
supporting and self-liquidating through fair and equitable tariffs of tolls
and charges for use of the Seaway facilities. As pointed out in the subject
report, the approximate cost of constructing the Seaway project was about
$470 million, of which Canada paid approximately.$340 million and the
United States approximately $130 million. As you will readily agree, the
St. Lawrence Seaway is the economic lifeline to the Great Lakes Region and,
when it was completed, the Seaway stood as a symbol of U.S.'and Canadian
efforts to create a waterway "for the mutual benefit of their,peoples".
The Seaway was hailed as "one of the greatest achievements for the advance-
ment of our nation" and "tile arrival of a mirarle". Generally speaking, the
development of the Seaway and the economy of the nation-were (and are) inter-
twined. IIn retrospect, I can only observe that the ni'racle" is still with
us; and to any informed observer, it has been, without.a doubt, a success.

A-45

The plan of regulation wh ich I believe your draft report unfairly
criticizes has also been a success, for without the project, the
plan of regulation and the successful implementation of the plan
of regulation, you and I would have seen and would still be seeing
a disastrous flood condition along the shores of Lake Ontario and
the St. Lawrence River.
Thi,6 comment addkezsa one oA the que,6tionz AzU,6ed in the tepokt.-
G.kanted the Seaway Z6 impoktant but what iz the magnitude o4 thiz
impo@utance. TW and otheA data aAe kequited to allow injokmed
-decision making.
While I would not argue with Dr. Palm's conclusion that
... riparian owners are a major interest group influenced by the
water levels of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River", I have
been advised that such a group represents less than one percent of
the total population of the Great Lakes area. This fact must be
continually kept in mind when vie consider the millions of people
in both the United States and Canada who receive, either directly
orindirectly, economic benefits of the Seaway/Power Projects.
The que,6tion iz not the numbeA oJ peopte in each gtoup but the]
magnitude and incidence,6.oi damages due to high watet-

The Seaway and Power Projects were designed and constructed
under specific design criteria which, among other engineering con-
siderations, were not arrived at for the benefit of navigation and
power solely, but for all interests, including riparian owners as
well. For the report to say that riparian owners are not represen-
ted by a spokesman of their own is a grave error, for we believe
that the Corps of Engineers, among others, has clearly indicated
its concern for riparian interests. Furthermore, we understand that
Mr. Robert D. Conner is charged with the responsibility of repre-
senti ng the people of the State of New York.
Again &eJeAence iz given to item 3 in the intAoduction to this
Addendum.

Contrary to the report, the plan of regulation I iined,
for regulation purposes, specific water levels, velocities and flows
for optimum operation.. As evidence of the concern shown for riparian
owners, it should be remembered that the Seaway entities, during the
1973 and 1974 periods of high water, issued and effectively enforced
speed restrictions on the river to minimize damage to the shore. These
speed restrictions jere very costly to shipping interests. It should
also be noted that draft limitations for navigation were established
based on the minimum profile of the St. Lawrence River established in
the plan of regulation.
It iz not debated in the 1Lepo,%t that Ptan 1958-D ha's .6peci6ic
guidetine,s 6o@L optionat opekation given CxiteAia A-K. What i.6
contented i.6 whethet this optimum opeAvtion wa,6 achieved and
whethelt the cAitex@a now tequite te-examination in tight o@ the
po-6-6age o4 time and the tecokd high watek tevetz tecentty

A-46

expetienced. Shipping costz weAe wett documented on page.6 99-1
109. It is in.6titutionat constAaints 6uch as speci6ic dtait
timitationz that ate undeA question in this upoAt.
These same levels and flows criter ia which the Seaway operations
are based upon were affected by above average precipitation within
the entire Great Lakes Basin. The Corporation reacted to this unprecedented
supply situation and permitted flows greater than average and above
that called for in the plan of regulation in an attempt to lower
Lake Ontario. These higher flows were permitted up until the time
that they affected the minimum profile and established draft limitations
for navigation. It should be noted that these high flows further
complicated the downstream flooding conditions experienced in the
Montreal-Lake St. Louis area,'which was already receiving a high
supply flow condition from the Ottawa River. I felt that navigation
should not be expected to carry the brunt of man's inability to forecast
periods of high precipitation; consequently, flows were established
in order to maintain the minimum profile during the late Fall of the
time in question, inasmuch as above average precipitation values were
not forecast and, fUrthermore, flooding was not occurring in any upstream/
'd-ownstream areas during this same period.

t is not the intent o6 the upoWz tecommendation to p".6 the
"b,tunt oj man'z inabtUty to 6otecazt pe4ioA o6 high p,%ecipita-
tion" onto navigation. It a the intent o6 thme kecommendations
to devize a ptog&am o6 6.eood damage &eduction wheAe the adveAze
impact6 ate minimized. See page,6 8-10, 47-51, and 99-109
atzo (dAa6t). -1 1
The loss to navigation by a reduction in the draft limitations
can be determined by a number of mathematical means; however, a channel
depth-economic impact relationship would vary with time, depending on -the
number-and mix of the transiting vessels. For example, it has been
recently estimated that the value of a ton of cargo to the regional
income of the Great Lakes area is $5 and $24 per ton, as produced from
servicing bulk and general cargo, respectively. Any reduction in vessels.'
drafts would naturally directly affect the regional income. As previously
pointed out, riparian interests represent less than 1% of the total
population of the Great Lakes Area, while the total population of this
same area represents 30% of the nation, which produces approximately 30%
of the North American personal income.
The 6iguAa given in youA comment do not addAe's.6 .@he question o6
magnitude oj impact. Thi.6 is the i.6,6ue. The magnitude zhoutd be
dete&mined so that tAade-o66.6 can be detewined in an in6otmed
-A,ationat manneA.

Additionally, it must be pointed out that operating the Seaway
at theminimum profile, as was done during the Fall of 1972, 1973 and
1974, places navigation in a very serious economical situation. For,
at this minimum profile, Lake St. Lawrence is very sensitive to meteor-
ological effects and any shifts in the wind to a north, northeast or
east direction drops the water levels below the minimum profile. Vessels

A-47

are then ordered to anchor until the wind shifts, thereby allowing a return
to the minimum profile and in turn a resumption in normal traffic. During
one low water period spanning approximately a 46-hour duration over the
Ist, 2nd and 3rd of December 1974, a total of twenty-seven commercial vessels
were affected, resulting in a total lost time of 1165 hours to the shipping
trade, or an equivalent loss, using Dr. Palm's operating costs per hour,
(Table 23) of approximately $350,000.
[The economic impact ptovided in youA comment was added to the text.]
Furthermore, operating at the minimum profile is operating at the
minimum level of safety on the Seaway. This safety factor could contrib-
ute to loss of cargo and property, pollution of the environment, loss of
human life and substantial increases in the insurance rates for shipping
interests.
[No comment-]
One of the major errors in the report and one'that affects the
total validity of the entire report is the finding tha 't "Flooding occurs
in the Lake St. Louis-Nontreal section of the St. Lawrence River when
the combined flow of the St. Lawrence River and the Ottawa River exceeds
approximately 500,000 cfs". It is-generally accepted and so stated in
the operational plans that flooding occurs in the Lake St. Louis-Montreal
section of the St. Lawrence River when the combined flow of the St.
Lawrence River and the Ottawa River exceeds approximately 345,000 cfs.
When this figure is reached, the Operations Advisory Group selects the
highest possible flows for the St. Lawrence River in order to minimize
flooding upstream of the power.dam, and at the same time being mindful
of the possible flooding downstream of the power dam. During this
critical period, flows are.selected based on solelyriparian interes ts.
The authot )Leatizez that the totat itow o6 the Ottawa PiveA dou
not %each the St. Lawtence RiveA above MontAeat. Footnote 12 in
ChapteA TV ctaAi@iez the conditions undeA which 6tooding occuu
in the Montteaf_ HaAbouA atea.

In reference to criticism of the current plan of regulation, we
find it extremely unfair to use damage figures accumulated during the
storm in the Spring of 1973 in an attempt to establish the plan's in-
adequacies without assessing the positive benefits that the same plan
of regulation has afforded riparian interests over the years. If the
plan is inadequate, data to prove it so should be accumulated from all
periods during the plan's operation. The positive benefits afforded
the riparian interests can best be illustrated by examining the huge
accumulated positive deviation from the plan. This positive deviation
represents a lowering of Lake Ontario which would not have been possible
if the project had never been built and the plan of regulation never
initiated. During a period of high precipitation, any regulatory plan
can only serve to distribute the effects of the,adverse conditions. In
the-'Case of high water condition, power and navigation have distinctly
opposite goals. In actuality, during periods of high water levels on
Lake Ontario, high flows through the power dam benefit upstream riparian
interests and power, yet are a detriment and hazard to navigation and

A-48

downstream ri@arian interests (for reasons as pointed out herewith and
in the report . Yet in periods of low water levels on Lake Ontario, this
relationship is reversed. That is, the low flows through the power dam
benefit upstream riparian interests and upstream navigation, yet are a
loss to power, downstream riparian interests and also downstream naviga-
tion, since levels in Montreal-Lake St. Louis are at or below the minimum
profile.
l
The text wcus expanded, inctuding a JiguAe )Leitecting ptep"toje
and expetienced take tevetz, to di@cuzz tW zubject.
The report contains a number of other findings and corresponding
recommendations, some of which obviously should be given further con-
sideration. I would suggest, however, that this consideration be
cautious and studied, for the implementation of a number of the recom-
mendations such as the renegotiation of the applicable international
agreements might well result in a worsening of the situation for those
interests that the report proposes to protect.
The tecommendationz weAe &eexamined in tight o6 the comment-,]
Iteceivedi Seve&at changes weAe made.
As I have previously indicated, the plan has, in my opinion,
served its intended purpose, but this is not to say that we should.
not continually review and revise it. Dr. Palm's report, when corrected,
could serve as valuable input to the on-going project of the St. Lawrence
River Board of Control to review, revise and improve the plan.

In'closing let me say that I greatly-appreciate the opportunity to
review your draft report and hope that the comments contained in this
letter.will prove beneficial to you as you prepare the final report to
be submitted to the New York State legislature and I look forward to
seeing the final product.

Sincerely,

William H. Kenned
Resident Manager

A-49

A
BLACK RIVER@ST. LAWRENCE

REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD

LEWIS JEFFERSON ST.LAWRENCE FRANKLIN counties

R&D Center, St. Lawrence University, Canton, New York 13617 (315)379-5355

January 20, 1975

William E. Tyson, Executive Director
St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Counission
317 Washington Street
Watertown, NY 13601

Re. Draft - "Analysis of and Recommendations
Concerning High Water Levels on Lake Ontario
Dear Mr. Tyson: and the St. Lawrence River

We have reviewed this draft and find it to be acceptable as to writing, develop-

ment of background information, and presentation of recommendations. "Findingl"

and its associated three recommendations is especially welcomed and strongly

endorsed. Review time 5.5 hours.

Sincerely,

Donald S. King
Regional Planner
Environmental Health Services

DSK/pas

A-50

T I
tAT

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
JUational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Ar of Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
2300 Washtenaw Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48104

January 21, 1975

Y1r. Daniel Palm
Associate Economist
St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario Commission
317 Washington Street
Watertown, NY 13601

Dear 1,11r. Palm:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the water level
forecast portion of your draft report entitled Analysis of and
Re cornmendat ions Concerning High Water Levels on Lake Ontario and
the St. Lawrence River. Ify comments on the report as discussed
with you by phone are:

1. In Table 9, add Water Levels of the Great Lakes, Weekly
Summary, a copy of which is attached.
[RejeAenced pubtication waz added to Tabte 91
2. On page 56, Flethodology-, the method discussed is currently
employed by the Detroit District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
and not the Lake Survey Center.
The section on take tevet 6oucasting w" xewAitten in tight o4
tW and otheA comments.
I I
3. The Lake Survey Center is now a unit of NOAA's (National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) National Ocean Survey
and not the Corps of Engineers.
[
The authot wa,6 awaAe o6 thiz az is indicated on page 51 o6 Aajt
text.

4. The NOAA component currently involved..in lake level forecasting
is the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory of the
Environmental Research Laboratories. We are currently using a
climatological approach in our lake level forecasts.
The section on take tevet 6oucasting waz &ew&itten in tight o
the,se and othex commentz.

A-51

Page 2
January 21, 1975
Mr. Daniel Palm

5. The current 6-month and 1-month water level forecasts are
coordinated between the Detroit District, Corps of Engineers
and the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, NOAA.

I would appreciate receiving a copy of the final report when it
becomes available.

Please contact me if further information is required.

Sincerely yours,

Frank H. Quinn
Head, Lake Hydrology Group

Enclosure

cc: Dr. Aubert

A-52

A
g
INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION

UNITED STATES AND CANADA

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20440

14 February 1975

Mr. William E. Tyson
Executive Director
St. Lawrence - Eastern Ontario Commission
317 Washington Street
Watertown, New York 13601

Dear Mr. Tyson:

This is further to our letter of January 29, 1975, in
which initial comment is given concerning your December 1974
brief on the water levels of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence
River.

I have attached a number of comments which include
information received from Commissioners and members of our
Board.

Aparallel letter is being sent by the Chief Engineer
of the Canadian Section of the Commission.

Sincerely yours,

-.7
Stewart H. Fonda, r.
Engineer Adviser
United States Section

enclosures: as stated.

SHF/cs

A-53

COIN24ENTS ON THE ST. LA"FREINCE-EASTERN
ONTARIO.COMMISSION DRAFT REPORT

GE-NIERAL CONTEMENT

1' "Thile it is without question that the author has expended
a great deal of time and effort, the general impression left
by this report is that it is narrow in view and not completely
factual. The overall conclusion of the report is that the
regulatory system is operated primarily for the benefit of
po-V@er and navigation interests with almost no consideration
of the riparian interests. The objectives, as stated on
pace 2 of the report, are limited to an evaluation of the
two years, 1973 and 1974, which were years of record levels
and flows exceeding those upon which the -regulation plan was
formulated. It gives no recognition to the 13 years of
reaulation from 1960 through 1972, which included very low
levels and flows, and in which overall benefits were derived
Irom regulation, The objectives more desirably should have
been to evaluate the effectiveness of the operation over
the full period since the construction of the navigation
and power project, and compare this with the history of
levels and flows in nature before the regulation plan.
Even if the SLEOC objective was limited to evaluating the
extremes rather than the complete cycle under the current
plan, the least that should have been done would be to a-lso
include the two lowest flow years (1964 and 1965).
I
k zection w" added to the tepo@rt discuzzing the puptoject an
a
ctuat wateA tevets. See FiguAe 29 and-accompanying text. d]
2. The Board is currently working on a revision to Plan
1958-D, which incorporates supply data covering the 20 years
since 19S4. These studies are being conducte within the
scope of the present criteria and existing physical constraints.
The studies are examining the feasibility of incorporating lake
level and supply forecasts into the regulation procedure.

The CommZ6zion encoutagu a zpeedy comptetton o6 thiz wo,%k.
HoweveA, it atzo encoutaga a teexamination 66 the cAitexia.
I I
3. The report fails to recognize the ability of the plan of
regulation to.operate with water supplies as received durin 'C-,
the period 1860-1954 ancl the discretionary deviations that
were made by the Board to copp-with the sequence of record
high water supplies in 1973 and 1974. 11,"ithout the project,
C.
riparian interests would have suffered to a much greater extent.
r
a a
The report does not acknowlede that both na,,igation and
poi,,cr inter--S*ts worked toa--ther for the benefit of the
riparian otvners,when in 1973 and 1974, water was allowed to
spill over Long Sault Dam--water which then could never
produce power and water which did, in fact, creat severe
problems for navigation.

A-54

r
he quution at izzue is not whetheA the Ptan oJ ContAot puvida
6ene6it6 but whetheA it maximizes theze bene4its.
4. The Seaway and Power Projects were designed and constructed
c'
under Specific desi-n criteria which, a-mona other enaineerina
C> 0 C,
considerat ions, established specific water levels, velocities
and flows. These criteria were not set for the sole benefit
of navigation and power, but for all interests, including
riparian owners as well. These structures were paid for by
the navigation and power entities, yet they have been of
extensive benefit to riparian interests by permitting the
operation ol'a control vlan which has reduced the h;kah levels
of the past two years ai all times from one to two feet
below what they would have been under pre-project conditions.
[Thi,s is undex6tood by the authot]
5. On pages 12 and 13 there are three questions implying a
lack of informational input on regulatory decisions and a
0
conclusion that there is both a lack of input and of impartiality
in attempting to minimize the adverse effect. he cannot agree
that the Board has not been fully cognizant of problems as
they have arisen or that the Board has not acted to minimize
adverse effects to riparian interests above and below the
project area. In response to these allegations, and as noted
above, it should be pointed out very strongly that since 1960
regulation has provided better than natural conditions for
riparian interests on the Lake Ontario shoreline. The report
speaks, on Page 21, of the need for "Addlitional efforts--.to
derive a plan of regulation which will provide adequate
protection for the natural environment of Lake Ontario and
the St. Lawrence River." This can only in-ply that the natural
environment is considered as the post-1960 environment. The
point should be made that under regulated conditions the
monthly mean levels of Lake Ontario at Oswego have ranged
C,
from a low of 241.78 in January 196S to 247.92 in 'May 1973 for
a total range of 6.14 feet; whereas, under preproject conditions,
levels would have ranued frort, 241.52 in December 1964 to 249.03
0
in June 197.33, or 7.Sl feet.
ot denied that the Boatd ttied to minimize the damage to
n owneu given the inztitutionat consttaint6 and the tack
It i.6 the ZatteA two zubjectz that th" upo&t addAase,6._
6. The thrust of the criticism of the regulatory operation
seems to be that releases were restricted, holding the level of
Lake Ontario higher than it might have been with the present
discharge capability. The critical assessment did not
recognize that these releasQs were considerably in exces5 of
those which would have occurred without the project, and that
the), were necessarily restrained because of problems of flood-
ing -downstream.
fAgain, the que,6tion being ad&teszed iz whetheA the Ptan o4i

A-55

ContAot as imptemented attoum 6ot the maximizatio'n o6 bene6itz.
The Commission 4eetz that inztitutionat constAaintz and the tack
6 data cuiAentty puvent this .
7. The suggestion that the IJC needs to collect data is not
0
valid in that the IJC has available to it any and all data
collected by agencies of both countries.
The text was expanded to indicate that the 1JC does not have to
cottect the data itset4 but to make known what data it needs im
decision making and then 6timutate otheA agencies to cottect it.
The Aact temainz that the Commission jeetz that adequate data
-iz not cuAAentty avaitabte upon which to make decizionz.
S. Tne discussion concernincy the use of Criterion (k) is
C OR rrFu s i n gStat6ments are Flade that "thiscriterion should
ha,v-- been followed to a greater extent," and that "an
int.-i-nal inconsistency in the Plan, i.e., Criterion (k) [email protected]
it nearly i-i-11possible to implement the Plan effectively. Both
unst@-eari and downstream riparian owners cannot be provided
all possible relief, as required by the Criterion, during
times of high lake levels." A final statement is "that
Criterion (k) is, as written, impossible to conform to."
The report should clarify the authors concept of and remarks
concernin 'a its use. In our view, the latitude provided by
Criterion (k) has been responsible for improving the results
of regulation during the past two years.
[The d,@ zcuzzion tetative to C,-titeAia W was tewotded.]
9. In regards to the author's statement concerning meteorologic
C@
forecastin-, the International Great Lakes Levels Board (IGLLB)
conducted a very extensive investigation on this matter. it
concluded that there is very little promise for forecasting
precipitation for Pnore than a few weeRcs. The IGLLB did
L1nd so-me improvement is possible in forecastina runoff into
the lakes from precipitation which has already fallen on the
tributary land areas. The benefits and cost of expanding
the Great Lakes hydrometeorological networks would need to be
C>
studies to determine the most feasible and desirable expansion
program.
0
1
The Commission encouAagez this study to be undeAtaken as soon
possibte. 0-11
10. The report author implies that he "perceived," from events
in 1972 -resulting in high water level conditions on the upper
C@
Great Lakes, that the Board,..using meteorolocric and hydrologic
Ters
Fe re'
forecasting, should have known what to expec
specifically to the 20-montli period of January 1973-August
,97@1. The extreme conditions on Lake Ontario were due largely
to the extreme local supply received during that period. As
an a-@,amplc, the exces5 of local basin supply above the average
(1950-1970) for the period january 1973-August 1974 resulted
ip an additional 3.8 feet of storage.on Lake Ontario. More
[TO'

A-56

discussion on this is provided in specific comments below.
Since, on the avetage, 85 petcent o6 Lake Ontatio'4 zuppty comez
6"m the uppeA take.6 it zeem.6 Zog.Lcat that the 6act that these takez
weAe weU above aveAage tevetz taken by it6et4 woutd have uquited
ztAong action on the paxt oj the BoaAd.

SPECIFIC M4NITENT

Pg. 1) Only two of the lalkes are currently controlled by man,
c'
Para. 1 This control is based on a set of criteria established
by the IJC and we're developed thru a series of public
hearings on the matter.

Pg. 1, @%Ianfs ability to control levels has had the effect of
Para. 2 lowering the extreme condition from that urhich would
have occurred under unregulated condition and thereby
has reduced the damage.

Pg. 1 Technical soundness of plan and satisfaction of the
Para. @3 criteria is determined fron, a 100-year test over
historical supply conditions.
[The 'intAoduction to the tepo&t was tewAitten-
PCF. C Lake Ontario reached its 1972 peal-, level of 246.75 on
Para. 3 16 July. The highest monthly mean elevation in 1972
Sent.IE12 was 246.72 in July and this was not in violation of the
criterion Ch) monthly mean level of 246.77 feet.
[The etevation &ejeAenced in the text w" 6ootnoted to te4tect
V
it was a mean daity tevet. The monthf-y mean tevet w" aL6o
vided.
o. I
Pg. 5 Outflow of 310,000 cfs as incorporatedinto Plan 1958-D
Para. 3 is Pot above the limitation specified for navigation
0
requirements. The upper limit specified by cTiteria
is a monthly elevation and can be exceeded during the
C>
month. The criteria'is satisfied if the rionthly average
is equal to or less than 246.77. Aaree,that Lake Erie
was at or near record level. However, Lalk-es Mlichigan-
Huron.which contributes most of the supply to these
lower lakes was only 1-1/2 ft. above its long-term
average but below the highs of 1952 and much below
the all time highs. The flow 'was maintained at
310,000 cfs., This is the maximum outflow permitted
under Plan 1958-D and was consequently the highest
outflow that had been discharged since recrulation
be gan in 1960. From about mid-Septeriber to mid-
October this flow was in excess of the maximum outflow
limitation specified by Plan 1958-D for navigation
requirements. The Lake remained approximately 0.4
foot above normal (1860-1970 average for Oct = 244.43,
C
Oct 72 average - 244.82).

A-57

[The text was tewotded in tight o6 this comment.]
I)CY. 6 During this period, 13 October - 7-November, the lake
Para. 1 fetl 0.4 foot to a low of 244.50 on 7 Nov., and then
Sent 21r43 rose 0.4 foot to an elevation of 244.90 on 15 December,,
which was equivalent to its elevation on 13 Oct, just
prior to the flow reduction.
EThe patagkaph was )tewo)Lded to u4tect data puvided-l
Pg. 6 Lake Ontario's basin precipitation exceecled the average
Para. 2 9.38 inches. Precipitation on the entire Great Lakes
-Sent 1&2 Basin exceeded the average by 4.41 inches. The amounts
by which the precipitation on the remainder of the
Groat Lakes basin exceeded average ranged from about
2-1/2 to 6 inches.
Typog)taphic ektot wo,6 coAAected. Tabtes 6 and 7 te@tect Aain-
6aU data in detait.
Pg. 6 Appendix "B" of Great Lakes Levels Board Study, pages
Para. 4 B-129 to B-313, compares extreme supply conditions.
These figures indicate that the most extreme supply
conditions on Lakes Erie and Ontario occurred in the
1970-1973 period. However, this was not the case on
the upper lakes. Since supply to the lower lakes is
equal to Inrlow+Local Supply, it can be concluded that
the extreme conditions were clue to the extreme local
supply. Hence, the statement that much above-average
supplies i@Jould continue is not necessarily so - If
local supply vrould have dropped off, the total
supply would have been near average.
C>
[G)tanted it woutd have been neaAe,% aveAage but stitt above.]

7 See comment above.
Para. 1
[The sentence u6eAAing to take tevet use was deteted-1
Pg 7 The Lake Ontario discharges were increased from a low
Para 2 weekly average of 233,000 cfs in the second week of
January to a high of 3SO,000 cfs in the first week
in June.
. 1335,000 c6.6 changed to 350,000 c6.6.1
Pg. 7 The fact that the inflow exceeded the outflow for the
Para. 3 period January - May 1973 or any other year is normal,
Sent. 1 since this is the period of the normal seasonal rise
on Lake Ontario.
[Azentence was added that stated this to be the nowaZ cased

A-5 8

Sent. 2 From 245.39 on 1 January 103, the Lake rose 247.99 by
the end of May. A

Sent. 3 The average level for May of 247.94 exceeded its long-
term (1860-1970) average for May by about two and one-
half feet.

P or
". 8 The levell dropped from about 246.8 in early August to
Para. 1 244.3 in mid-December.

Data weAe added to ctaAijy which take Zevetz weAe being u4eA
enced.

P-@. 8 This flow was measured at Massena, not Ogdensburg. The
P ara. 2 official Lake Ontario outflow is determined as the
summation of all flows,(i.e., powerhouse flow, spillage
1,7 i
at Long Sault dam, lockage in the 1 ley-Dopdero Canal
and various minor diversions) at the Cornwall-Massena
section of the St. Lawrence Rive(r.-
[A 6ootnote w" added to ctaAi@y the gauge tocation.]
Pp,.8Fj9 The monthly mean Lake Ontarialevels. for October,
Z@
P ara. 4 November and December 1974 were 244.52, 244.00 and
Sent. 3 244.03, respectively, These values, were 0.33., 0.36
and 0.33 foot, respectively, below the levels of
October, November and December 1973.

The folloi,fing is offered as an accurate amount. of Lake
C>
Ontario level conditions for the past three years, 3.972,
1973 and 1974:

The levels rose from near averaue levels in early 1972 to a
0
hiah level in July Of 246.72. This level did not violate -he
L
criterion (h) monthly mean level of 246.77 feet. The sudden ris,-
in early June and July was primarily clue to the extraordinary
rains caused by Hurricane Agnes. The Lake then entered its
seasonal decline and the level fell at a greater than normal
rate into November, even after the outflo-vi was reduced for
navigation purposes on the St. Lawrence River. Ho,.., -ever,
whOWthe Lake beuain to rise unusually early causing an
increas6 in level of about 112 foot during the period
6 November - 16 December 1972, the Board began deviating from
the Plan and flowing great--r-than-Plan flow.
Z1.1 C>

The greater-than-Plan flows continued in 1973, until the first
week of October when it was necessary to reduce flows for
navigation in the St. Lawrence River. During this period, record
high outflowsiere recorded both during the winter Ovith ice
conditions) and the sum.-iiier.

Lake Ontario's 1973 levels remained high during the year because
0
it continued to receive record high supplies. Despite the
Board's ef-.Ports to discharge the maximum possible amount of

A-59

considering downstream conditions the
.@,ater from Lake Ontario,
Lake peaked in May at 247.94 feet Chighest since regulation
becran and third hiahest since record keeping began in 1860)
c' c> @>
whilch exceeded the upper limit of 246.77 feet as specified
in the IJC Orders of Approval. However, the levels throughout
this period were at least one foot lower than they would have
been if the project had never been built.

Throughout the sumner months the Board continued to use its
dis-retionaiy auth@koity by making releases in excess of Plan
1958-D and pro-project. In fact, for two months, June and
Jul), 1973, the outflow averaged 350,000 ci's which v-as the
highest ever recorded since regulation began and prior to
C>
n caused the Lake level to drop
regulation. The Board's actioo
45 inches from the peak level to 244.27 It. by the end of
Nove-mber 1973.

Th.- Lake then began its seasonal rise and reached a level of
about 245.85 ft. by the beginning of 'ilarch 1974, which was about
1 0
4-1/2 inches lower than at the same time in 1973. The levels
Supplies
continued to rise clue to the high J_ and, again, despite
the Board's action (of flowing maximum possible), even during
the winter ice cover period, Lake Ontario exceeded the upper
limi@ criterion and it peaked in June at a level of 247.45 ft.
This peak level was 1/2 foot below that of a year ago (1973),
and it was about 1.4 ft. below what it would. have been had
the pTaject not been built.

Following -the peal,, in June the Board continued to use
its discretionary authority in making flow releases which
C@
were as high as 340,000 cfs in late July and early
August 1974, and the level fell approximately 3-1/2
feet to a December rnean leve of about 244.0 ft. This
level is about 0.3 foot below the level of a year ago
and only 0.2 foot above the average for this time of
the year. The lowest daily mean level recorded during
the month of December was 243.95 feet. During portions
of Nover-nbor and December 1974 were the first occasions
in nearly three years that the level dropped below
elevation 244 feet. Unless extreme high supply
conditions continue in 1975, which cannot be reliably
predicted, the Board expects the level to peak
significantly below the 1974 peak level. This takes
into account the existing storage on the upstream lakes.
I
A Jootnote waz added te6tecting the data puvided. The text
w
az examined in tight o4 youA commentoAy.
P-. 9 Although -the net effect of the excessive supply of water
Para. I was certainly beneficial to the power interests, there
were two adverse effects to power, brought about by the
method of regulation, which should not be overlooked.
The drawdown effect in the power pool-, which is created

A-60

by the discharge of high flows through the powerhouses,.
reduces the hydrostatic head available for power
generation.
@n--. Therefore, there is a reduction
in the electrical power produced from each cubic foot of
water discharged through the powerhouses. Secondly, and
more important, spillage of water through Long Sault Dam
was necessary from mid-April through mid-September 1973,
and again for a period of time in 1974, to discharge the
high flows authorized by the Board of Control. The total
volume of the spillage, which was equivalent to one foot
of storage on Lake Ontario in 1973 and one-half foot in
1974, by-passed the Moses-Saunders, Power dam and thus
was unavailable for power production.
[,Powe "oduction tecotds appeax to veAijythat the incteause in
to the high wateA tevetz mote than compen.6ated 6ot th
itow due e
0,6,6 in e6jiciency.
Pg. 10 Regulation Plan 1958-D was designed to provide the design
Para. I depths of the navigation channels.
Sent. 3
[Thiz iz undeutood by the authot-1
Sent. 6 It is stated that "...riparian owners are at present not
represented-by a spokesman of their own." Mr. Robert D.
Conner, Member of the International. St. Lawrence River
Board of Control, was nominated by the Governor, State
of New York and is concerned with the interests of all
the people of the State of New Yorh.
Footnote 11 ' ChapteA VI zet-6 4o&th the Commizzion'z 6eeting on]
BoaAd tepte,6entation-

Sent. 7 Correct the last part of this sentence to read-
-conflicts with power, navigation and the riparian
owners downstream."
[The .6entence wa.@ changed " zuggezted.]

P,--. 10 The Levels Board Study made available loss functions
Para. 2 mentioned in this paragraph. By letter dated 4 November
1974, to Dr. D. Palm, from Mr. B. G. DeCooke, Detroit
District, Corps of Engineers, the Lake Ontario generalized
shore property loss functions used in the International
Great Lakes Levels Board Study were made available.
[
The in6o&mation teceived a6tek the dtait w" ptinted. Te
changed to teitect teceipt o6 data.
Pg. 11 The economic impact on power from various modes of
C,
Para. 2 operation should alsc be considered.
Sent. 1
[The text =6 expanded to inctude a dizcu,6,6ion o4 tW impact]

A-61

Pg. 11 There is strong objection to use of terms "inadequate
Para-3 knowledge" in reference to Operations Advisory Group.
Sent. I A better phrasing of this sentence might be as follows:
11 ... are currently made without definitive information
on the relative economic impact on each 'interest."

The tcxt was tewmded as 6uggested. The 6act 6titt .1temainz th
without the data de.6cAibed as tacking in the text wett injotmedl
-decisions cannot be made.
Pg. 12 Any modifications to the present plan of operation will
Para. 2,3 utilize both hydrologic and economic evaluations for
final selection. [No comment]
Pg. 12 This report continually challenges the capabilities of
Para. 5 the members of the Board. Suggest preparing a short
biography of each member of the Board, giving
affiliation, education, years of service, etc., similar
to that prepared for the International Joint Commission.

The Aa6t was tewmded th,%oughout to ctati4y the Commizzion'z
position. It was not the intent o4 the Commission to chattenge
the capabitities oJ the Boa,%d membeu but to discuss shotteoming.6
oJ the Ptan o4 ContAot and its imptementation oveA the past 6ew
yea,ts. As the %evized text &e4tects it is not so much the
"doing" oJ the BoaAd as it is the timits ptaced on them by the
-Ptan which aAe subject to quation.

Pg. 14 "Table reflects ... It is not known what table is
Para. 1 referred -to.
Sent. 1
[ReJeAence to Tabte 1 was added]
Pg. 15 It should be noted that the report is in error in stating,
Para. 4 that flooding in Lake St. Louis occurs with flows in
and 5 excess of 500,000 cfs. In this regard, it may be that
the recently initiated study by Canada and the Province
of Quebec may conclude that Ottawa River regulation can be
improved for flood control- purposes, but this is an
internal Canadian matter. Any proposed modificatic,ns
to Plan 1958-D include investigating the effects of
limiting, the maxiniurn outflow from Lake St. Louis.
[
Footnote 12 in ChapteA TV etaAiiie.6 the text utative to @toodin
in the MontAeat aAea. 91
Pg. 16 This is no justification whatsolever given for the
twl 0
Para. I statements in this paragraph concerning the International
Joint Commission.
[The text was expanded to ctoAi6y what is meant by "&evamping"

A-62

P-.. 17 The International Joint Commission presently maintains
C>
Para. 3 a program of data collection, analysis and design
through the agencies with which the members of the
International Boards are affiliated.
l
Text waz added de6cAibing the data need,s that aAe cuxkentty
un4iUed.

Pg. 17 This statement implies that Plan 1958-D was exercised only
Para. 4 to its full latitude. The fact is that, with few
excep-tions, regulated outflows have been equal to and,
in most cases, in excess of the maximum outflow limits
specified by Plan 1958-D since the fall of 1972.
Tt was stated and discussed thAoughout the text that the Boaxd
allowed tetea6a above thoze catted 6ot by Ptan 1958-D. HoweveA,
exeAci6e oj this Zatitude was @ett not to be adequate in pteventing
damage,,s.

Pg. 18 The IJC has attempted to investigate the impact of
Para. 2 regulation studies on various entities by holding widely
publicized Public Hearings -throughout the Great Lakes
on the report by the International Great Lakes Levels
Board.
.stated in Recommendation 2-1, In,6titutionz, imput in the]
[@ptanning stage woutd be bene6iciat.
Pa. 221 Finding 3 3, page 22, is a recommendation of Great
Lakes Levels Board contained in their report- of
December 1973.

The gage netv;ork development and pattern establishment
is carried out by the Coordinating Committee on Great
Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data - a Canadian-
U.S. Committee.

The existina institutional arranaements have been
0 0
instrumental in data gathering efforts.
he Commi.6,sion @ett this wazimpoAtant and inctuded it in theit]
1:epoAt.
Pg 47 Th_- IGLLB Study states that it'takes about 2-1/2 years
Para. 2 for 50 percent of the total effect of a supply change
Sent. 2 to Leks Michigan-Huron to reach Lake Ontario.
Thiz comment waz inctuded in the d@,scuzzion o@ time tag.6 in the]
esponse oj the Zakes.
Pg 47 Should state: 1'...flow of the St. Lawrence River at
Para. 3) Massena, NY."
Sent. 2

Pg 47 The flow was measured at Massena, NY, not Ogdensburg,
Para. 4 N Y . The maximum outflow at Cornivall-Massena was

A-63

351,000 on July 11 and 21, 1973.
Pg 51 [Re6eAence to gauge tocation changed]
Table 8 should be headed, at Massean, NY rather than
Ogdensburg, NY.
C>
r
he Tabte waz jootnoted to indicate that the tocation oj the gaug
changed with the con,6tAuction o6 the Powa pAoject.
Pg 51 This sentence could be better stated as: "However,
Para. 1 because of physical and institutional constraints,
Sent. -3 it has not been possible to prevent the lake from
rising, at times, to levels which have resulted in
substantial damage'to both man-m-ade facilities and
the natural environment."
[Sentence tewAitten " Aecommended]
Pg 52 Description of Lake Level Forecasting method is
Para. 3 described in a technical paper pub 14 shed in 1967.
There have been a number of chanues made to the
method since that date. In this entire discussion
no mention 'is made of Regulation Representatives'
technique, and its application.

FICT 39 Outlool, on la'Ke levels made each north is employed as
Para 3 a auide to future release.

Pu 60 Nethod uses a cycle correction factor to compensate
Para 3 for excess precipitation.
C
Oent 1
[The section on take tevet 6otecasting was %ewAitten]
g 65 Sentence should be reivorded: "A high rate of release
P a 4 at the. control- structure tends to draw down LaRe
Sej,t. 1 St. La@,,--rence until SUch times as sufficiently steep
gradient is established between the water level at
the control structure and Lake Ontario, to maintain
the outflo@,', from Lake Ontario equal to the Pov-er Dam
release rate."

P,T 65 The converse of the rewording in previous comment should
C-
Para 4 be used to improve this sentence.
Sent 3

Pa 71 This paragraph and its footnote are confusing if not
Para 1 incorrect. Suggest this: Outflows from the control
structure can create problems for navigation under
either high or low Lake Ontario levels. However, in
either case, the reason is the same: the outflow
through the control structure is high, relative to
C, -no-mally-be flowing from,
the dischaTae which i%rould

A-64

Lake Ontario at its given stage at that-time.
[The text wa.6 tevised to inctude the tecommended wotding]
Pg 72 Not true- during low supply period and minimum
Para I discharge, levels in Lake St. Lawrence are h@gh.

Para 2 Not true for navigation in the various harbors on
Lake Ontario where the level is very important.
During periods of low supply, navigation downstream
of the International Rapids Section can be very
critical.
[Thazection was teexamined in tight oJ the,6e and otheA comments]
vi
Pa 74 Not true - the Moses-Saunders PoeTdam has capability
C,
Para 4 to pass flows. up to about 325,0ft cfs. Also, while
the number of kilowatts per cfs is maxim-um at a
flow of 270,000 cfs, it is not true that flows
above 270,000 cfs have zero value for power.
[The text w" tevized to coAAect the .6tatement in the dAaJtJ

PCr 117 Damaae occurs when combined flows of the Ottawa and
0 0
Para 2 St. Lawrence Rivers exceed 380 000 cfs. Do not agree
with statement that major effec't is due to backwater
and that Montreal experiences little flooding.
@
0 te 12t ChapteA IV ctaitijim the JZow data. Statement6
e to akea oJ damage and tetative magnitude ptovided b
k v tative oJ Dept. oJ Envitonmentat Con-6eAvation. yl
&rpEn
PC, 119 1%re uestion whether accelerated erosion has occurred
P0 q
ara 3 the change in beach width may be due to increase in
elevation of iv@ater.

)n site inspection indicata eAosion ha.6 occuAAed " evidenced
by the uptooting o6 matute t&ees and othet 6oms o6 vegetation.
11 1
Pg 124 Great Lakes Levels Board has developed stage-damage
Para 2 curves for shore property.
Addti,@ionat data, a,6 outtined in the text, is uqui@ed to ,ceiine]
Ithe,6e 6tage-damage cutvez.
Por 125 The effect above 'Moses-Saunders Dam on riparian owners
is questioned. During periods of high supply, Lake
C> I C,
St. Lawrence levels are lower than during periods
of low supply.
Ripaxian owneA6 above Moza-Saundeu Dam inctude those not ont
on Lake St. Lawtence but abo Lake Ontaxio.
I[ 11
J@Cy 126 These paraaraphs are biased in only evaluating one
C, C,
Para 1 short period. Consideration should have been given
and .2 to total p---riod of regulation to determine how much
0

A-65

a.given interest has been benefited or damaged.
@
T '4 "tudy wous dijLected towoAd examining a pekiod oj high watel,]
I@ wa6 not pozzibte to examine the entiAe time peAiod duAing
whic4 conttot 4" been e@6ectuated-
P(I 126 False - This statement implies that'Plan 19S8-D was
Para 3 exercised onlv to its full latitude. The fact is
that, with fe@@ excepti611s, regulAted outflows have
been equal to and in most cases in excess of the
maximum outflow limits specified by Plan 19S8-D since
the fall of 1972. From Dec-ember 1972 to the summer
of 1974, the St. Lawrence Board of Control authorized
the discharge of a volume of water equivalent to
approximately four feet of storage on Lake Ontario
in excess of the volume that would have been dischargeO,
under the strict application of Regulation Plan 1958-D.
I - I
The autho& iz awaAe oj this and add&a.6 thiz thtoughout the
text. Since the Boaxd has upon .6eveut occuions .6ugg"ted they
did a.U they coutd it was 6ett that the 6utt tatitude o4 the
-Ptan had been exetcized.
Pg 127 A. Reuulation of the Water Level. This section is very
0 t" --
C, -excep Unfortunately
and 128 coo t for theiew comments below.
its value is minimized by its rather obscure location
in the report. Something is apparently missing in
line 15, page 128, otherwise what does "both" refer
to? The St. Laurrence Control system was designed to
handle the iextremes of the past (1860-1954) and to
satisfy the IJC criteria for regulation - do not
agree with 2nd sentence of the lst paragraph, page
128. It is suggested that line 17, page 123 be changed
to 11 ... flow., but rather somewhat reduced range,...It
eve&at wo&d6 weAe omitted in the dTa6t. They have been inctuded]
rn the jinaf- upoAt.
Pa-129 Do not auree. Regulation during period of high supply
0 Z> C> 0
Para I did not satisfy criteria, but reduced the peak levels
below those which would have occurred under nature.
Thus benefit has been provided during the 1972-74
period.
It is 4ett that i6 man i.6 unabte to manage take tevetz a,6 he]
dai,ta then the takes can zaid to be uncontAotted.

Pg 153 It is interesting to note that the author implies that
Para 4 lie "perceived" what Lake Ontarlo's hydrologic conditions
Sent. 3 would.be for the 20-month period Jan 1973-Aug, 1974.
The following is given of the conditions for that
period:

(1) Lake Ontario's local basin water supplied (NBS)

A-66

(does not include inflow from 'upstream lakes) svas
significantly above the 19SO-1970 average NBS for
16 out of the 20 months of the period Jan 1973-Aucy 197-4.
(2) The NBS for IMar 1973 exceeded the maximum NBS
for March for the 19SO-1970 period by 20 percent,
which corilbined with the supply from the upstream
lake caused Lake Ontario's level to rise by one
foot during March 1973. This is a-bout twice th-o-
average rise for March for the period 19SO-1970
The excess of local basin supply above the average
(1950-1970) for the period Jan 1973-Aug 1974 resulted in an
additional 3.8 feet of storage on Lake Ontario, and this
does not consider the additional supply from the upstream
lakes.

The "pe/tceived" te6eu to thoze invoZved in take tevet tegutation
not the authot. The point being made Zs that the conditionz as
o4 Jan. 1973 caUed Jot cettain actionz and that the injo4mation
gatheAed thAough the next 20 monthls did not add enough 6igni6icant
Lknow@edge to change tha tequiiLed action.
pg. 153 In general, the evaluation is based on the degree to which
and 154 the IJC met the specified criteria during 1973 and 1974.
Para. 1 Primarily, this referred to Criteria (1), (J) and (H).
It should be pointed out that the criteria are prefaced
on supplies as received in the past (1860-1954).
The average rainfall in the Lake Ontario Basin from
Jan 1973 thru Augst 1974 was 2.1 inches above normal.
he text w" tevized to make it cteax that c&.itexia W W and W
aAe pte4aced on 6upptiez as xeceived in the put (1860-1954) and
that the aveAage )tainjatZ in the Lake OntwLio B"in 6tom Jan.
-1973 thAu August 1974 was 2.1 inches above notmat.

Pg. 155 "...measured at Massena, NY."
Para. 2
Sent. 2
[Point o6 meazutement co)iAected.1
Pg. 158 This may be true if one would have known exactly what
and 159 the future supply conditions to Lake,Ontario, as well
Para. 3 as upstream lakes, were going to be.
Sent. 4
[No comment]
Pg. 198 The Regulation Study is currently in progress.
Para. 1

Para. 2 Indicated approach to forecasting appears to be similar
to studies made by Corps in the mid-50's (Beek).
ENo comment]

A-67

Pg. 215 There,are some problems with figure and table numbers
through as related to those provided in.the text.
234 [FiguAe and Tabte numbem weAe coAAected]

A-68

INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
COMMISSION MIXTE INTERNATIONALE

151SLATER
OTTAWA, ONT.
KIP 5H3

February.19, 1975

William E. Tyson, Esq.
Executive Director
St. Lawrence-Eastern Ontario
Commission
317 Washington Street
Watertown, N.Y. 13601

Dear Mr. Tyson:

I regret that it has been impossible toprovide you,
at an.earlier date, further comments on the draft analysis
and recommendations concerning high water levels on
Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. The Commission's
report on the regulation of the Richelieu River and
Lake Champlain was a high priority assignment.
In general, your document is a good synthesis of a
number of.reports. The author should be complimented for
attempting to describe some of the natural phenomena and
methodology. For example, he went to great pains to explain
in layman's language the "backwater curves" an the Upper
St. Lawrence, a subject so elementary to engineers familiar
with channel hydraulics that they have never taken time to
explain it in layman's language. His description of lake
level forecasting was well done. Unfortunately, the method
used by the Commission's Regulation Representatives is
similar to that used by Environment Canada. That method,
in addition to average precipitation, takes account of the
probability of excessive or scant water supplies on the land
and water areas of the Upper Lakes, as well as on Lake Ontario.
A copy is enclosed for your information.

The economic analysis concerning navigation savings is
one of the many methods used by economists. With regard to
the statistical analysis, one should always bear in mind the
statement made by the University of McGill's most honoured
economist, ".There are lies, damn lies and statistics".'

one last general comment. On page 140 of your treatise
there is a statement, "Only lake level regulation can provide
the protection that is required for the natural environment...
without destroying the area to be protected". Ironically

A-69

William E. Tyson, Esq. Page 2 February 19, 1975

at the IJC Public Hearings in Plattsburgh on December 4, 1974,
the official statement of the State of New York lamented
the unfortunate emphasis placed on regulation as a solution
to flood problems. The New York statement went on to say,
"Our primary environmental concerns are the potential and
possible detrimental changes to wetland areas which could
result from reducing the height and duration of seasonal
flood peaks." This is contrary to the general thesis set
out in your report.
Given the cuAAent tevet o6 knowtedge the Commis-sion 6eetz that
take tevet &egutation iz Aequiked to p&otect the natutat
envi&onment. Howevet, as ztated in Recommendation 4-3, Data,'
Reseatch, additionat data Zs @tequiAed. When this becomez
avaitabte a change in attitude may be &eqtdAed on the paxt o4
-the Commission.

The more obvious omissions and errors were outlined in
letters from this Commission dated January 23 and January 29,
1975. Mr. Fonda, the Engineering Adviser in Washington, on
February 14, sent further comments. I understand others have
also forwarded their comments to you. Since I agree with
their comments, they will not be reiterated in this letter.

It is hoped the comments set out below-will be of value
and integrated into your final document. If you wish to be
cognizant of all the comments sent to you, it appears that
the document should be rewritten with further technical aid
in order..to transform it into an accurate and objective
report with creditability and worthy,of serious consideration.

Page 11, Last Para.

The allegation.that those persons who made the decision
on the,Lake Ontario outflows do so "under conditions of
inadequate knowledge" and that they are "biased by the fact
that they are employed by specific interests - riparian
interests not included" is unfounded and false.
l
lootnote 11'ChapteA VI ctati4iu the Comm.L6,6ion',s posit-conj
egoAding teptesentation on the St. Lamence RiveA BooAd oJ
ctonttot.

Page 12, Last Para.

This paragraph appears to summarize the purpose of the
brief. Unfortunately, the author does not understand the
operation of the International Joint Commission and its
International Boards, including the International St. Lawrence
Board of Control. Such statements degrade an objective report

A-70

to an advocate's brief.
1
This zection wo-6 &ev"ed and pf-aced ZateA in theIupoxt in the]
,6ection discu.6,6ing take tevet tegutation.

Page 15, Finding 3

This finding is incorrect. The figure 500,000 should
be changed to read 380,000.

Footnote 12, Chaptek TV ctoAi4ies the conditionz undet which
[itooding occwLs in the MontAeat, atea.
Page 15, Recommendation 3

The Ottawa River should remain under control of Canadians
since it is wholly within that country or until they can
control shoreline use in New York State. Quebec shore
property interests.should not be required to suffer more
damage than would occur under pre-project conditions. Storage
in the Ottawa River Basin is rather limited. Shore property
interests in the Ottawa Basin, like the citizens of New York
State, are also concerned about high water and preserving the
environment. The author does not appear to have made a
detailed study of the effectiveness of the International
Joint Commission in dealing with boundary water problems
that are of major concern to both Canada and the United States.
ecedent 4oA inteAnationat devetopment o4 wateA &aou,%ce-6 h"
[,bpeten set by the Cotumbia RiveA Tuaty. Such an apptovat may be]
e4ut 4ot the St. Law,%ence RiveA Aainage b"in.

Page 17, Recommendation 5

The author does not understand the relation-ship of the
International Joint Commission with the relevant-data
collecting agencies in both Canada and the United States.
The International Joint Commission should not develop into
a bureaucracy duplicating the functions of existing govern-
mental agencies.
[M *indicated in the tevised text the TJC does not have to 10ew
@o
me a data gatheting agency. What it ha,6 to do is make kn n]
data need6 to the agenciez estabtiAed to gathek data.

Page 17, Recommendation 6

Additional studies, which take into account the unprece-
dented water supplies of the last few years, are being
conducted by the St. Lawrence Board of Control. One must
bear in mind the physical and constitutional constraints.
[TW Commizzion uAge,6 a speedy comptetion o4 thme studie,6.1

A-71

Page 17, Finding 7

The regulation philosophy in this finding is not that
of the International Joint Commission, but part of the criteria
used by the International Great Lakes Levels Board in assessing
various regulation plans for the Great Lakes System. The main
complaint has been against high water levels in Lake Ontario.
It should be understood that nearly all of the property damage
occurs during storms and consequently the direct result of
wave action. During the period when storms are most.frequent,
the levels of Lake Ontario, in the last few years, have been
about two feet lower than those levels which wou*ldhave occurred
had not the St. Lawrence Project been built. Some estimate
that the damage due to wave action is four times greater than
that caused by inundation.

Since the 1JC estabtished the Intetnationat G&eat Lakes'Levetz
BooAd to study a specigic pubtem it wals Jett that basic aS,6um-
ptio" and cAiteAia undeAtying the study mo.6t.tikety %eitected
the phitozophy o4 the agency cAeating the study gwup.

Page 42

The chart woula tell-the whole truth if pre-project levels
were also plotted.
A compaAiso n ob pte-ptoject and actuat take Zevets w"- added
See Figute 29 and accompanying text.
Page 74, Para. 4

The statement that "any flow in excess of 270,000 cfs is
of zero value to the production of electric power" is incorrect.
The maximum flow that can be utilized is about 320,000 cfs.
The output by the hydro-electric plants is increased by about
200,000 kw when the'flow is increased from 270,000 to 320,000 cfs.
FThe text w" ,tevised.in tight o6 comments 6Aom the Pow
LAuthotity o6 the State oJ New Yo&k.
Page 96, Para. 2

Itis inferred that high water levels have a significant
increase on-power production. It is the outflow from Lake
Ontario, not the level of the Lake, that is a major factor
in powek production.
[
This is tA-de. Howeve&, duAing the peAiod in que,6tion both]
high Zevetz and 6tows occmAed.

Page 1,26, Last Sentence

This statement is not correct and should be deleted.
During the spring and summer of both 1973 and 1974, navigation
was subjected to serious hazards.. The water releases from

A-72

Lake Ontario was not a "windfall" gain, but actually a loss
because water was spilled at Long Sault Dam. It should be
stressed that the riparian owners derived an appreciable
benefit because the lakes were one to one and a half feet
lower than they would have been under pre-project conditions.

Navigation pptobtemz a&e wett documented in Chaptut IV, Section
A-2. The gain te6vrAed to is the 20% above the avetage pto-
duction that was pos,6ibfe at Mozez Powe)L Dam. Re6eunce to the
toweAing o6 the take due to the imptementation og the Ptan o6 Con-
tAot was incZuded in the uvi.6ed text.

Page 155, Para. 4

It is apparent that the author does not understand the
meaning of the term "maximum dependable flow". it has nothing
to do with flows of 270,000 cfs.
The aathoA unde&ztancts the teAms. G)Lanted that ove& the tong
,um the maximum dependabte tow o6 the St. Law&ence Rivek iA
tes,6 than 270,000 cis. k used heAe 270,000 c6.6 iS not in6med
to be the dependabte JR-ow but a 6igu)Le to u/se in examining
LpeAcentage,s oJ time actuat itow exceeded a given itow. J
Page 158, First Sentence

The statement that Criterion (h) has not been made with
any degree of consistency is incorrect. If one considers the
supplies that have occurred in the last 114 years, Criterion (h)
has only been exceeded in two years. This indicates that
Criterion (h) has been met with a very high degree of con-
sistency. Furthermore, it stresses the unprecedented supplies
that have occurred in, the 20 months examined by the author.
This comment also applies to Criterion (i) in the next
paragraph.
[
Within the time 4,tame oJ tW anatyzi6 the u6eAenced cAitetia
weAe not 6utAiUed with a high degue o6 consi6tency. Gxanted
the peAiod examined i6 one oJ high watet tevetz.

Yours truly,

A
@.T Th o m p s o n
Chief Engineer

MIT:ab
Enclosure

A-73

STATE OF NEW YORK

HUGH L. CAREY, Governor

ST. LAWRENCE -EASTERN ONTARIO COMMISSION

JOSEPH A. ROMOLA
Banking Executive/St. Lawrence County
Chairman
RICHARD R. MACSHERRY WILLIAM L. CURTIS, JR.
Motor Transport Executive/Jefferson County Educator/Jefferson County
Vice-Chairman Secretary

St. Lawrence County At Large
SAM AGATI/Labor Leader MRS. JANE GRAY COX/Community Leader
DR. HERMAN L. SHULMAN/College Dean DR. RICHARD PENTONEY/College Vice President
RUSSELL B. STRAIT/Insurance Executive

Jefferson County Ex Officio
LEWIS V. BRANCHE/Banking HON. OGDEN R. REID
E. RUPERT WAGER, JR./General Contractor Commissioner
NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Oswego County Commissioner
HUGH NICHOLSON/Dairy Farmer NYS Dept. of Commerce
EUGENE SALOGA/Municipal Government
HOKSTEPHEN BERGER
Cayuga County Director
CLAIR CONROY/County Legislator Office of Planning Services

COMMISSION STAFF

Administration Land Resource Analysis Program Development
William E. Tyson Thomas M. Cutter Daniel J. Palm
Executive Director Senior Natural Resource Planner Associate Economist
Edward H. Cole Roger J. Case John E. Shattuck
Counsel Senior Soil Scientist (IPA) Senior Statistical Clerk

G* L. Harder
Director of Planning Water Resource Analysis Stenographic Services
Peter C. Strakulski Barbara J. Rockhill Jan M. Lozo
Public Information Officer Senior Aquatic Biologist Secretary to Executive Director
Steven N. Meyer R. Dennis Faulknham Ardis M. Bolton
Senior Cartographer Conservation Biologist Senior Stenographer
Ann Marie Carlisle Constance A. Adderley
Senior Account Clerk Stenographer
Chazelle Blanchard
Stenographer

0,1%,rm DUE

ST. LA -RIO

GAYLORDINo. 2333 PRINTED IN U.S.A.

-3- 66-68 -1410 3 5-029 j