roger gauthier, great lakes commission connie hamilton, environment canada, ontario region
DESCRIPTION
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. Hydropower Dams & Compensating Works. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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
Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 6
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
Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 7
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)
Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 10
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• It is clearly outdated with respect to: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
Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 12
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
Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 14
Hydrology and HydraulicsTechnical Working Group
Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 15
Common Data Needs Technical Working Group
Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 16
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
Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 18
Common Data Needs Technical Working
Group
Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 19
• 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
Common Data Needs Technical Working
Group
ProtectedProtected
SpeciesSpecies
HabitatHabitat Enhancements
Exotic SpeciesExotic Species
WetlandsWetlands
Environment Technical Working Group
Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 23
Wetlands Study Sites
Mont
U N I T E D
SyracuseRochester
Buffalo
St. Catharines
Hamilton
Toronto
Oshawa
Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 24
• 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
Common Data Needs Technical Working
Group
Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 25
Coastal Technical Working Group
Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 26
• 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.
Common Data Needs Technical Working
Group
High ResolutionDigital Orthoimagery
Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 29
• Feature Collection - U.S.
All structure features (buildings, roads, transportation
types, bluff characteristics and others) were mapped for
detailed erosion study sites
Common Data Needs Technical Working
Group
Geomorphic Coastal Modeling Tools
Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 32
RelationalDatabase
Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 33
Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 35
WAVAD Wave Predictions
Ice Data
Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 38
COSMOS Erosion Predictions
Shore ProtectionPerformance Indicator
Flooding Performance Indicator
Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 42
Flood Modeling – 77.2 m
RUN
FloodingFunction
Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 44
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
Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 46
Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 47
Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 48
Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 49
Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 50
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)
Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 52
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
Presented at the RDX ’06 – Rochester, New York, April 5, 2006 53
Contact Information
• Roger GauthierGreat Lakes Commission
• Connie HamiltonEnvironment Canada, Ontario Region
• Pete ZuzekBaird and Associates