Coastal Mapping, Integrated Modeling and Information Management in the Lake Ontario – St. Lawrence...

Coastal Mapping, Integrated Modeling and Information

Management in the Lake Ontario – St. Lawrence River Study

Roger Gauthier, Great Lakes Commission

Connie Hamilton, Environment Canada, Ontario Region

Pete Zuzek, Baird and Associates

Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 2

Hydropower Dams & Compensating Works

Moses-Saunders Powerhouse

ÉtendueÉtendue ggéographiqueéographique

Nature’s Regulation PlanNature’s Regulation Plan

Pre-project The St. Lawrence

River’s International

Rapids Section

Niagara Falls


Lake Ontario Outflow Regulation

• Seaway was constructed during the 1950’s • Completed in 1958

•Allow a channel between the Atlantic and the Great Lakes

•Facilitate hydropower• Structures built to compensate for channel

enlargement and some measure of level control


Regulation Process

• International Joint Commission (IJC)– Established by the Boundary Waters

Treaty of 1909• International St. Lawrence River Board of

Control– Established by the IJC in 1952 to

administer the Plan– Regulation strategy

•1950’s criteria• interests’ needs•discretionary deviations

200

210

220

230

240

250

Years

Su

pp

lies (

km3/y

r)Water Supplies: Thirty-year Moving Average 1890-2000 Water Supplies: Thirty-year Moving Average 1890-2000

(km3/yr)

Post-project

This value was not reached again for 98 years

A thirty-year “look back”is the way many people perceive “how things used to be”

(i.e., today vs. the past 30 years)


Why revise Plan 1958-D?

• It is clearly outdated with respect to:

– No consideration for environmental issues

– No consideration for evolving uses of the system, i.e. recreational boating

– Inclusion of modern technology and knowledge base (computerized modeling, satellite imagery, climate change, etc.)

– Incorporation of years of experience working with the system (a living plan)

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

Study Organization

IJC

U.S. & Canadian Co-Leads and Study Board - 14 members

U.S. & Canadian Study Managers & Public Affairs Officers

Technical Working Groups (TWGs) • Environmental• Recreational Boating &Tourism• Coastal Processes• Commercial Navigation• Domestic, Industrial & Municipal Water

Uses• Hydroelectric Power• Hydrology & Hydraulics• Information Management• Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Public Interest Advisory Group•22 Members (U.S.+Canadian) appointed by IJC•Co-Leads on Study Board

Direct Consultative


Where is the Study Now?

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

TWG Study Phase/Data TWG Study Phase/Data CollectionCollectionPlan Formulation Test Plan Formulation Test PhasePhase

Plan Formulation Draft Plan Formulation Draft PhasePhase

Plan Formulation Final Plan Formulation Final PhasePhaseLOSL Study Board RecommendationsLOSL Study Board Recommendations

2006

IJC EvaluationsIJC Evaluations

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

Major Challenges

• Geographic and cultural priorities– Moving toward a shared vision

• Complexity of the system– Opposite effects - same time, different

locations• Time horizon

– Changing sensitivities– Evolving water uses and priorities


Hydrology and HydraulicsTechnical Working Group


Common Data Needs Technical Working Group


Information ManagementTechnical Working Group

Regionally-distributed system Regionally-distributed system selected to support:selected to support:

* long-term sustainability of * long-term sustainability of datadata* Sustainability of * Sustainability of relationships after the Studyrelationships after the Study* model for IJC and other * model for IJC and other organizations/studies”organizations/studies”

US1US2 US3

US4

US5US6

US7

US8

CND1

CND2

CND3

CND4

CND5CND6

CND7

CND8

CND9

CND10

CND11

Lake Ontario

R1

R2

CND12

Bathymetry - 1st Priority (>70)

Imagery - 1st Priority (>40)Imagery - 2nd Priority (20-40)

Bathymetry - 2nd Priority (40-70)

Topography - 1st Priority (>80)Topography - 2nd Priority (50-80)

Legend for Ranking

SHOALS July, 2001SHOALS July, 2001

SHOALS July, 2001

SHOALS July, 2001

SHOALS July, 2001

SHOALS reconnaissancePresquille Bay MarshJuly, 2001

Approved Areas for SHOALS Flights


Common Data Needs Technical Working

Group


• Digital Elevation Model Development– U.S. (Lake Ontario - Reaches 2, 4 and 7)

Bathymetric and topographic LIDAR data merging completed

High resolution DEMs for 16 U.S. wetland study sites generated

– Canada - Lake OntarioBathymetric LIDAR and topographic detail from FDRP maps

were merged

DEMs for 16 Canadian wetland sites were completed

– Canada - Lower St. LawrenceDEMs from topographic LIDAR and conventional hydrographic

surveys completed and posted on FTP site


Group

ProtectedProtected

SpeciesSpecies

HabitatHabitat Enhancements

Exotic SpeciesExotic Species

WetlandsWetlands

Environment Technical Working Group


Wetlands Study Sites

Mont

U N I T E D

SyracuseRochester

Buffalo

St. Catharines

Hamilton

Toronto

Oshawa


• Bathymetric Mapping - Wetlands– Data collection for 32 wetland sites on Lake Ontario and upper

St. Lawrence were highly problematic– It was determined that bathymetric LIDAR using the USACE-

SHOALS system was too risky to justify further efforts and associated expenses.

– The majority of the 32 wetland study sites were surveyed using conventional hydrographic means in July 2002; quite problematic due to vast expanses of emergent vegetation and lower water levels


Group


Coastal Technical Working Group


• Imagery – U.S. (Reaches 2, 4 and 7)

• High-resolution photography collected in May 2002;• 1-foot pixel resolution digital orthophotos produced

– Canada (Montreal Region and Niagara Region) • Satellite imagery (IKONOS) acquired in August for

habitat mapping• 2002 Ortho-imagery for Niagara Region from OMNR also

used.


Group

High ResolutionDigital Orthoimagery


• Feature Collection - U.S.

All structure features (buildings, roads, transportation

types, bluff characteristics and others) were mapped for

detailed erosion study sites


Group

Geomorphic Coastal Modeling Tools


RelationalDatabase


WAVAD Wave Predictions

Ice Data


COSMOS Erosion Predictions

Shore ProtectionPerformance Indicator

Flooding Performance Indicator


Flood Modeling – 77.2 m

RUN

FloodingFunction


Reaching a Decision

Shared Vision ModelPlan Formulation and

Evaluation Group

Data collectionData collectionAll stakeholder All stakeholder interestsinterestsTechnical Working Technical Working GroupsGroupsPublic inputPublic inputTown hall meetingsTown hall meetingsPublic Interest Advisory Public Interest Advisory GroupGroup Study Board develops Study Board develops

optionsoptions

IJC decision IJC decision processprocess

Public Public hearingshearings

PC BasedShared Vision Model(maybe a sample on theWeb-site)

Model is Run for

Numerous Plans Results are summarized In numerous ways

The Performance Indicators provide the link to the Information Management Data Discovery

Within the SVM portion of the web-site a user can drill down to get more information about the results of the PIs, where the PIs were applied and how they were calculated (the PI function)


Lake Ontario – St. Lawrence River

Data Issues

Access Agreements are started but not completed

Interoperability needs continued attention (format, database design);

Metadata compliancy not well accomplished limiting discovery/ interoperability

Paradigm works - (own what you must, access what you need)

Long term data maintenance, access, dissemination and archiving requirements are still being defined


Contact Information

• Roger GauthierGreat Lakes Commission

[email protected]

• Connie HamiltonEnvironment Canada, Ontario Region

[email protected]

• Pete ZuzekBaird and Associates

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



Coastal Mapping, Integrated Modeling and Information Management in the Lake Ontario – St. Lawrence...

Documents

Transcript of Coastal Mapping, Integrated Modeling and Information Management in the Lake Ontario – St. Lawrence...