Lake Ontario

REGULATION OF LAKE ONTARIO

VOLUME 3 (of 3 Volunies) Appendices

REPORT

TO THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION ( Under the Reference of 25 June 1952)

THE INTERNATIONAL LAKE ONTARIO BOARD OF ENGINEERS

March 1957 TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLU'ME. 1

. . I Introduction I1 Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River Bash I11 Basic Data

IV Background and Development of Studies

V Methods of Approach to Regulation

VI Interim Report of 14 March 1955 VII Regulation of Lake Ontario --Plan 12-A-9 VIII Regulation of Lake Ontario - Plan 12-A-9(M) IX Recommended Measures and their Effects on Various Interests

X Discussion

XI Conclusions

VO-LUME 2

TABLES AND PLATES

('if) CONTENTS

VOLUME 3

APPENDICES

Page

A ORDER OF APPROVAL DATED 29 OCTOBER 1952

Appendix A to Order of Approval ...... ? Appendix B to Order of Approval (a map, not included herewith) Appendix G to Order of Approval ...... 9 Dissenting Opinion of Commissioner McWhorter ...... 10 Majority opinion in regard to statement in dissent ... 15

B SUPPUXENTARY ORDER TO ORDER OF APPROVAL DATED 29 OCTOBER 1952 Supplementary Order dated 2 July 1956 ...... 1 Letter from Government of Cmada dated 11 April 1956 . . 12 Letter from Government of the United States of America datedlMay1956 ..~..oooo.o..o.o..o l.4

C MEAN MONTHLY DISCHARGE OF THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER IN THE INTERNATIONAL RAPIDS SECTION ( Table )

D REGULATION OF LCLHE ONTARIO, IWTERIM REPORT TO THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION, 1h MARCH 1955

See Appendix D for its table of contents

(iii) RM;ULATION OF LAKE ONTARIO

APPENDIX A

ORDER OF APPROVAL

29 October 1952

Appendix A contains the text of the International Joint Commission's Order of Approval authorizing the construction of the power works in the International Rapids Section of the St, Lawrence River, INTERNATIONAL JOINT CQMMISSION P

IN THE UTTER OF THE APPLICATIONS OF THE GO-T QF CANADA AM) THE GOVERNPlENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMEEXCA FOR AN ORDER OF APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN WORKS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF WWER IN THE INTEWATIONAL RAPIDS SECTION OF THE STo LAWRENCE RIVER --ORDER OF JU'F'ROVAL WEFWS the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America under date of 30 June, 1952, have submitted Applications to the International Joht Cdssfon (hereinafter referred to as the ommi mission^) for its approval of the construction, jointly by entities to be designated by the respective Governments, of certafn 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 l1TreatyN], and of the construction, maintenance and operation of such works subject to and under conditions specified in the Applications, and have requested that the Applica- tions be considered by the Comission as fn the natur,e of a joint applic atf on; 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

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 State- ments 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 JulyB 19523 at Cornwd.1, Ontario, on 25 ~uly,1952; at Albany, New York, on 3 September, 19.52; at Montreal, Quebec, on 8 September, 19.52; and at Washhgton, Do 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 Cammission; and WHEW, pursuant to the said Applications, the hearings before, the evidence given, and material filed with the Comission, 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 0 WHEREAS the Commission has been informed that the Government of Canada has designated The Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario as the entity toconstruct, mahtain 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 Inter- national 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 protection 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 . ..

WHEREAS the Commission finds that it has jurisdiction 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 UR?lEED that the constmctfon, maintenance and operation jointly bj9 the Hydro-Electric Power Commission ~f Ontario and an entity to be designated by the Government of the United States of America of certain works (hereinafter called "the worksht) in accordance with the "Controlled Single Stage Project (238-242)~~which was part of the joint report dated 3 January, 19b, of the Canadian Temporary Great Lakesat. Lawrence Basin Committee and the United States St. Lawrence Advisory Committee, containing the features described in Appendix "At,, to this Order and shown in Appendix "Bts 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 construction, 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, and in accordance with the requirements of Article VIII of the Treaty,

(b) !he 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 prefer- ence over uses of water for power purposes by the Treaty, namely, uses for domestic and sanitary purposes and uses for navigation, including the serdce 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 Qrder.

[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 ofpower 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. hwrence Ever 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 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 (dl,

(f) Before the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario commences the construction 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 Govern- ment of the United States, for approval in writing, detailed plans and specifications 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 construction relating thereto as the respective Govern- ments 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 adopt- ing such change, subnit the changed plan, specification or program for approval in a like manner.

(g) In accordance with the Applications, the establishment by the Governments of Canada and of the United States of a Joint Board of Engineers to be known as the St. Lawsence River Joint Board of Engineers (hereinafter referred to as the "Joint Board of EngineersB) 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 redew and coordinate, and, if both Govern- ments 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 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. Lawsence River Board of Control (herein referred to as the "Board of ControlH) 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 Co~ssionas 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 States 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 Commis- sion 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 representations 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 regulation of the said discharge and flow,

(i) 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 paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) hereof, and, subject as hereinafter provided, shall be regulated in accordance with Method of Regulation No. 5 as prepared by the Department of Transport, Canada, dated September, 1940, and shall be based on the rule-curves forming part of that Method of Regulation. The flow of water through the Inter- national Rapids Section in any period shall equal the discharge of water from Lake Ontario as determined for that period in accordance with such Method of Regulation and shall be maintained as uniformly as possible throughout that period,

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 restrictions as to discharge of water from Lake Onterio and the flow of water through the International Rapids Section set out in this paragraph, for the purpose of determining what modifications or changes therein may be advisable, The Board of Control shall report to the Com- mission the results of such experiments together with its recam- mendations as to any changes or modifications in said restrictions, Recommendations as to any changes or modifications which the Commission desires should be made permanent will be referred by the Commission to the two Governments, and if the two Governments thereafter agree, they 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 ten years, or such shorter period as may be approved by the Com- mission with the forebay water level at the power houses held at -6- 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 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,O 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 will 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 test 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 out in Appendix nc" of the costs of constructing, maintaining and operating the works approved by this Order between The Hydro-Zlectric 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. 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 my be necessary in the judgment of the Com~nission~

Signed at Hontreal, this 29th day of October, 19520

SIGNED: A, Go Lo McNaughton Ao 0. Stanley George Spence Eugene W. Weber 5, Lucien Dansereau

Commissioner Roger Mcmorter dissenting.

(Dissenting opinion to be filed and attached to this Order.)

AgPEM)I]e A FEATURES OF THE WORKS APPROVED BY THIS ORDER:

(A) Channel Enlargements

Channel Enlargements will be undertaken from above Chimney Point to below Lotus Island, designed to give a maximum mean velocity in any cross-section of the channel which will be used for navigation not exceeding four feet per second at any time, also between Lotus Island and Iroquois Point and from above Point Three Points to below Ogden Island designed to give a maximum mean velocity in any cross-sectfon not exceeding two ard one-quarter feet per second with the flow and at the stage to be permitted on the first of January of any year, under regulation of outflow and levels of Lake Ontario in accordance with Method of Regulation No. 5, as prepared by the General Engineering Branch, Department of Transport, Canada, dated Ottawa, September, 1940. Downstream from the power houses channel enlargements will be carried out for the purpose of reducing the tail water level at the power houses.

Final locations and cross-section of these channel enlargements-will be determined from further studieso (B) Control Facilities

Adequate control facilities will be constructed for the regulation of the outflow from Lake Ontario,

(C;) Power House Structures

The power house structures will be constructed in the north channel extending from the lower end of Barnhart Island to the Canadian shore, and so located that one structure will be on each side of the International Boundary, Each power house structure will include the main generating units to utilize economically the river flows available to it, with provision for ice handling and discharge sluices.

(D) Dams and Associated Structures

A control darn will be constructed extending from Iroquois Point on the Canadian sida of the river in an easterly direction to the United States mainland above Point Rockway,

A dam will be constructed in the Long Sault Rapids at the head of Barnhart Island,

Dykes and associated works will be provided as may be necessary in both the Province of Ontario and the State of New York.

All the works in the pool below the control dam will be designed to provide for full Lake Ontario level,

(E) Highway Modifications

In both the Province of Ontario and the State of New York provincial and state highways, and other roads, will be relocated in those portions subject to flooding, and reconstructed to standards at least equal to those now in existence.

Railway Modifications

Such railway relocations as may be required as a result of the works herein described will be made in the Province of Ontario and the State of New York to standards at least equal to those now in existence, f~)Navi~ation Facilities

Provision will be made for the continuance of 14-foot navigation throughout the International Rapids Section during the construction period, (H) Flooded Areas

Lands and buildings in both the Province of Ontario and the State of Mew York will be acquired or rehabilitated as required, Inundated wooded areas will be cleared,

(Appendix B is a map)

. , APPENDIX C.

1, The power development works under this Application are those specified in Section 8 of the Application.

2. Total costs of the works described in Section 8 shall be based on Canadian costs and United States costs and the total shall be equally divided between the two constructing entities,

3. The costs to be divided should be based on actually experienced and audited expenseso 4. In relation to the three principles above, the three following provisions apply:

(8) The amount to be paid to Canada, as specified in the Agreement of December 3, 1951, between Canada and Ontario, in lieu of the construction by the power-developing entities of facilities required for the continuance of a-foot navigation, shall be excluded from the total cost of the power project to be divided between the Canadian and United States power- developing entities, in consideration of the fact that actual replacement of 14-foot navigational facilities will be rendered unnecessary by reason of the concurrent construction of the deep waterway in Canada,

(B) The Authority to be established pursuant to the provisions , of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act Chapter 24 of the Statutes of Canada, 1951 (second ~assionj,shall contribute an agreed sum of money towards the cost of the channel enlargement which the power-developing entities must undertake in the St. Lawrence River, as set out in paragraph 4 of the Annex to the Canada-Ontario Agreement of December 3, 1951, and in section 8 of the Application to the International Joint Commission, in consideration of the benefits which w5l1 accrue to navigation from such channel enlargement,

(c) All costs for construction, maintenance and operation . of the project except machinery and equipment in the respective power houses shall be borne equally by the two entities. All costs for construction, maintenance and operation of machinery and equipment in their respective power houses shall be paid by the respective entities and shall be deemed to satisfy the principle of an equal division between the two entities. INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE ST, LAWRENCE RIVER IMPROVEMENT APPLICATIONS OF TEE GOVERNPlENTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND CANADA, DATED JUNE 30, 1952

Docket .No. 68

McWhorter, Commissioner, dissenting:

In this case, Docket NO, 68, the Governments of the United States of America and Canada have in effect agreed by the terms of their applications that the necessary facilities for the production of hydro- electric power in the International Rapids section of the St. Lawrence River and all St. Lawrence seaway facilities necessary to provide a navigation channel with depth of 27 feet from Montreal Harbor to Lake Erie shall be constructed concurrently,

In the International Rapids section of the river, which extends from Chimney Point to St. Regis, N. Yo, a distance of about 48 miles, the applicants contemplate certain major works of construction having joint value for power development and nav%gation but surprisingly neither of the applications makes any provisl.ons for apportionment of the costs of suih joint-use facilities between power development and navigation. On the basis of the wording of the applications it might be argued that power should bear all the joint costs and indeed such unreasonable arguments have been made from time to time since the applications were filed,

During the past 20 years it has been asstuned by authorities in the United States, particularly the Corps of Engineers, United States Amy, and also by authorities in Canada, that the joint costs should be shared equally by power and navigation. In this exceptional dual- purpose project both power and navigation are of great importance and no one can say at the moment which of the two is the more importanto I find no reason, therefore, to take exception to proposals made at various times in the past for equal sharing of the joint costs by those two functions,

On that basis the procedure apparently contemplated by the two applications would result in loading upon power more than $100 million of costs which navigation rightfully should bear, I@ dissent in this case stems principally from the possibility of such a grossly un- uarranted imposition of financial burden upon all classes of power consumers on both sides of the international boundary within economic transmission distance of the St. Lawrence River powerplants. I am also concerned, however, with certain other questions arising in connection with these applications, some of which are serious from the viewpoints of both the United States and Canada and others from the viewpoint of the United States only, The estimated costs of facilities in the International Rapids section having joint value for navigation and power development9 as presented before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, February 29, 1952, by Lt. Gene Lewis Ao Pick, Chief of Engineers, United States Amw, on the basis of December 1950 cost levels, are as follows:

WORKS COMMON TO NAVIGATION AND Pm,. INTERNATIONAL RAPIDS SECTION , . .. ST. .LAWRENCE RIVER Channel ------Icecribs ...... Iroquois Dam and Dikes ------Dikes (detached dikes) ------Massena Canal intake and attached dikes ------Long Sault Dam, diversion cuts and attached dikes - - - New Cornwall Canal ------Workatlock25 ...... Railroad relocation ------Clearingpool b I Rehabilitation of Morrisburg ------Rehabilitation of Iroquois ------P;cqu-jsition of lands ------Highway relocation ------Raising lock 21 and dikes ------I Administrative facilities ------~ Power-distribution facilities for construction - - - - - I I Relocation of transmission lines ------

The total of $212,807,000 shown above is now too low because current construction costs are considerably higher than those prevailing in December 1950. It is also too low because the Corps of Engineers did not include in the costs of joint-use facilities an appropriate part of the sstinated cost of the large combination dam and powerhouse structure extending from the lower end of Barnhart Island to the Canadian shore, which trill form a barrier or dam sufficiently high and stable to raise the pool to the level of Lake Ontario just as will certain other joint- use structures, fiamely, the Long Sault Dam, the Iroquois Point Dam, and the dikes, Hence, it is logical that an appropriate part of the cost of that structure should be included in the cost of facilities having joint value for power development and navigation. In this connection attention is invited to the fact that the Corps of Engineers in setting up the cost of facilities having joint value for power development and navigation at the Bonneville project on the Columbia River, in a situation strictly comparable to this, included in joint costs an amount which that agency adjudged to be a reasonable and proper part of the cost of the combination dam and powerplant extending across the south channel of the Columbia River from Bradford Island to the Oregon shoreo -12-

I especially desire that it be clearly understood that I do not want power development relieved of any cost which it should properly bear, Every dollar of construction cost properly chargeab1e.b power development should be so charged; and likewise navigation should gear all of the costs properly chargeable thereto, including, of course, a reasonable share of the costs of facilities having joint value for na~gationand power development, Thus, revenue derived from the sale of power would amortize the power costs and revenue from navigation tolls would amortize the seaway costs; and as to both power and navigation, it is my opinion and to my howledge the view of informed authorities in both countries that the revenues dl1 be abundantly adequate to amortize the power and navigation costs, respectively, as so determined,

Development of the International Rapids section of the St. Lawrence River for navigation and power has been strongly advocated in both the United States and Canada for many years, particularly since 1940, on the grounds that both the additional power and transportation facilities are urgently needed for defense purposes as well as for strengthening the peacetime economy of the two Nationso Recognizing the soundness of such advocacy---and I am firmly convinced that it has been and is sound---it is highly desirable from the viewpoints of both the United States and Canada that defense industries of the type which are bulk consumers of low- cost electric energy, such, for instance, as almm reduction plants, be induced to locate along the international, section of the river on either side of the boundary, This objective can, in my opin+on, be achieved if an abundant supply of low-cost power is made available in that immediate locality but not otherwise, In this connection, i.t may be observed that the production of pig aluminum is a highly competitive business which requires enormous quantities of very low-cost electric energy,

If the cost of the St. Lawrence power is increased by arbitrarily loading onto power development certain costs which navigation tolls should amortize, the rates at which the power fs sold must be com- mensurately higher, thus tending to defeat one of the principal purposes which prompts the United States and Canada to improve the International Rapids section of the river,

During the extremely brief period which the majority was willing to devote to consideration of the record in this important case following the conclusion of the final hearing in. Washington9 October 20, 1952, I urged that power should not be expected to bear more than its just share of the joint costs and suggested that the order be so drawn that it would not become effective until after dlocati.on of such costs to power and navigation in some reasonable proportion t,o be determined by competent authority set up or designated by the two Governments; but while the Commission members comprising the majority apparently were unanimously in favor of apportioning the joint costs in a reasonable manner as a matter of simple fairness and justice and equity, and also of wisdomo yet they were not agreeable to insertion of the proposed condition in the order, The International Joint Comtnission may and customrily does attach conditions to its approval of applications filed under the provisions of articles 111 and hV of the Boundary Waters Treaty of January 11, 1909, and this may be done for reasons satisfactory to the Comission regardless of whether the applicant be a private citizen or corporation of either country or 1 of the 2 Governments, or both of them. This was conceded in open hearing by the United States speaking through counsel in the presence of counsel for the Government of Canada who took no exception to the opinion thus expressed,

In order that there may be no misunderstanding of my views, perhaps it is well that I say here that I did not at any the say or thMr that the Commission could require the two Governments to allocate the joint costs to navigation and power, but I had good reason to think that they would be willing to do so without hesitation, As a matter of fact, the Commission cannot force any applicant to do anything, but unless applicants are willing to comply with reasonable conditions imposed by the Commission they simply do not proceed further.

The two Governments may reasonably expect that the Commission, in passing upon applications filed with it, will see that dolence is not done to the public interest; but in the instant case, with respect to the burden of joint costs, not even a reasonable effort was made fn that direction. It follows that power consumers of all classes in both countries, and the public welfare, will suffer if the situation is not remedied.

In this case much is being asked of the United States. Among other things the United States is expected to make possible the construction of'the deep waterway in Canada through which all waterborne commerce between the Great Lakes and the sea will pass, and in the process do grave injustice to its own citizenry---and incidently to the people of Ontario across the boundary.

Tolls are to be charged for use of the deep waterway and United . States shipping will predominate---no one would suggest otherwise--- yet the United States is to have no voice in establishkg or changing the tolls, nor in fixing the period over which tolls shall be charged. The St. Lawrence Biver is, potentially, one of the great transportation routes of the world. It may confidently be expected that ultimately the tonnage passing through the waterway will be lhited only by the capacity of the locks to pass ships, and, of course, new locks can be added as needed, within reason. But the United States would not have the slightest measure of control over any of this, notwithstvlding its sacrifices and contributions.

It is true that the United States could build navigation works on its own side of the boundary along the international section of the river but it is hardly reasonable to expect that the deep-waterway facilities first built would be duplicated. The practical situation is, therefore, such that the United States nust decide whether as a Nation it is willing virtually to surrender its sovereignty over one of its greatestpotential arteries of commerce,

When the Congress of the United States gives attention to the ' matters reserved for its consideration in paragraphs 12 and 14 of the application of the United States, it will necessarily come face to face with the important questions raised herein. I 1 ROGER B. McWHORTER, Commissioner.

November 19, 1952. INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION WASHINGTON, Do C,, 28 November 1952

WCKET NO, 68

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA FOR AN ORDER OF APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN WORKS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF POWER IN THE INTEKNATIONAL RAPIDS SECTION OF THE ST, LAWRENCE RIVER. - -

MAJORITY OPINION IN REGARD TO MR, MsWHORTERuS STATEMENT IN DISSENT

All members of the commission are in agreement that the proposal for the development of power in the International Rapids Section of the St, Lawrence River which the two Governments submitted to the Commission for approval on June 30, 1952, complies with all requirements specified in the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, which compliance is a prerequisite to approval by the Codssfon of such proposale Moreover, there is no disagreement within the Commission as to the specific terms of the Order made by the Conrmission on October 29, 195'2 approving the construction, maintenance and operation of the works set forth in the Applicationso

In his statement of dissent, Mr, McWhorter puts forward the view that, while the Applications relate to works for the development of power, nevertheless the Comnission, in order to cheapen the cost of hydro-electric power, should require as a condition of its approval that certain of the costs to be incurred for power works should be made incident on navigation, The other five members of the Commission do not agree with this view, and no such condition is contained in the Commission1s Order dated October 29, 1952,

Since this was the only matter of difference between the five members of the Commission comprising the majority and Commissioner McWhorter in regard to the terms of the Co~ssionusOrder it is therefore necessary in this majority opinion to deal only with this question,

The Applications relate solely to works for the development of power and as set forth therein the two Governments have agreed that the development of the power potential of the International Rapids Section of the St. Lawrence River is of such importance that it is to be proceeded with by joint action in the two countries, The Commission has been requested to give its approval to such joint action giving priority to these Applications, and to expedite its consideration thereof and its action thereon so that the construction of the project may be undertaken at the earliest possible date. In the Applications, the Commission has been informed that there is an understanding between the two Governments that Canada will provide, as nearly as possible concurrently with the completion of the power development works for which the Applications request approvtll, all such works as may be necessary to provide and maintain a deep waterway between the Port of Montreal and Lake Erie,

The Applicants have, in effect, stated that the works for which they request approval ky the Commission are necessary to develop hydroelectric power and that they consider themselves justified in constructing the works for power purposes and in incurring the costs necessary therefor, The Applicants have not requested the Commission to apportion the costs of the proposed works between power and navigation, and any such apportionment is not subject to' determination by the Commission in its action upon the Applications as submitted,

The sole duty imposed upon the Commission in connection with navigation is to ensure that all main features of the power works shall be so planned, located, constructed and operated as to be adaptable to the use of the Ifiteknational Rapids Section of the St. Lawrence River for navigation purposes,

The matter before the Commission under the Applications is, therefore, for 'the approval of certain works for the development of power, which are to be made adaptable to the use of the International Rapids Section of the St. Lawrence for navigation purposes; no question in relation to the provision of the works for these navigation purposes is before the Commissiono

It is manifestly not within the authority .of the Commission,. under the Treaty of 1909, to undertake to deal with any project which has not been submitted to it for approval by the Governments, as required by Article 3 of the Treaty of 1909, in regard to works within their respective jurisdictions, i The majority, therefore, feel that Mr, McWhorterBs dissenting opinion deals with questions which are beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission,

A. 0, STANUX A. G, L, McNAUGHTON GEORGE SPENCE EUGENE W. bJEBEZ 3. LUCIEN DANSEREXU REGULBT1'ON OF LAICE ONTARIO I UPEMEX B

SUPPUXEXTARY ORDER

Appendix B contains the text of the International Jobt Co~ssionQsSuppbe- mentary Order amending the CommissionOsOrder of Approval dated 29 October 1952, Appendix B also contains the letters from the Government of Canada and the Govermlenk of 'the United States, dated 11 April 1956 and 1 May 1956, respectivsly, referred to in Condition ti) of the Supplementary Order, REGULATION OF WE QNTWO

APPENDIX B

SUPPLEMJBTARY ORDER

Appendix B contains the text of the International Joint CommissionBsSupple- mentary Order amending the Commissionns Order of Approval dated 29 October 1952. Appendix B also contains the letters from the Government of Canada and the Govermnt of the Unlted States, dated l.l April $956 and l May 195b8 respectively, referred to in Condition (i) of the Supp1ementax-y Order, INTERNATIONAL JOINT COBPIISION

IN THE MATTERS OF DEVELOPMENT OF POkdW IN THE INTERNATIONAL wms SECTION OF THE ST, LAWRENCE RIVER (Docket 68) AND REGULATION OF THE LEVEL OF LAKE ONTARIO (Docket 67)

SWPZEMENTARY 0- TO ORDgi OF APPROVAL DATED 29 OCTOBER, 1952

WEREBS the Commission, by Order dated 29 October

1952 (Docket 681, approved the construction, maintenance and operation jointly by the Hydro-1Electri.c Power

Commission of Ontario and an entity to be designated by the Government of the United States of America of

1'-' certain works for the development of'power in the

International Rapids Section of the St. Iawrenee River, subject to the conditions enumerated in the saidorder; and

wHEREAS the Commission has been informed that the

President of the United States of America by kecutive

Order NO, 10,500, dated 4 November 1953, designated the

Power Authority of the State of New York as the United

States entity to construct, maintain and operate the proposed works in the United States; and

tJHEREAS Appendix A to the said Order describes the features of the works so approved ad provides that channel enlargements will be undertaken fn specified areas, designed to give stated m&um mean velocities in any cross-section of the channel, under regulation of out,flow and levels of Lake Ontario in accordance with

Method of Regulation NO, 5, as prepared by the General

Engineering Branch, Depar-tnent of Transport, Canada, dated Ottawa, September 1940; and

kJHEREAS, condition (i) of said Order provides that, upon 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 (b), (c) and (d) thereof, and subject to possible modifications and changes to be recommended subsequently by the Inter- national St. Lawrence River Board of Control, in accordance with the said Method of Regulatf on NO, 5; and

WHEREAS, by the said Order of 29 October 1952, the

Commission specifically retained jurisdiction to make such flrther Order or Orders relating to the subject matter of the Applications of the United States of

Binerica and Canada (Docket 68) as may be necessary in the judgment of the Commission; and . . WEEREAS the Commission, as a result of its

investigations under the Reference from the Governments

of Canada and the United States of America, dated 25 June

1952, regarding the levels of Lake Ontario (~ocket67),

has determined that it would not be practicable to base

the regulation of flows from Lake Ontario on the said

Method of Regulation No, 5; and WJBFUM, pursuant to published notices, hearings

were held by the Commission at Detroit, Michigan, on

4 June 1953, Rochester, New Pork, on 17 November 1953

and 12 April 1955, Hamilton, Ontario, on 18 November 1953, '. and Toronto, Ontario, on 14 April 1955, at which all

persons interested were afforded convenient opportunity

of presenting evidence to and being heard before the

Commission; and at the said hearings held at Toronto

and Rochester in April 1955 all interested persons were

given convenient opportunity to express their views upon

the criteria and range of stage which had been ten-

tatively proposed by the Commission; and

WHEREAS the Commission, on 9 May 195s0 by letters

addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada and the Secretary of State of the United

States of America, respectively, recommended adoption by the two Governments of the followbgs

(i) A range of mean monthly elevations for Lake Ontario of 244 feet (narigation season) to 248,O feet as nearly as may be; and

) Criteria for a method of regulation of outflows and levels of Lake Ontario applicable to the works in the International Rapids Section of the St. Lawrence River; and

(fii) Plan of Regulation NO, 12-8-9, subject to minor adjustments that may result from further detailed study and evaluation by the Commission; and

WHEREAS, by letters dated 3 December 195S9 the

Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada and the Under Secretary of State of the United States of

America advised the Commission that the Government of

Canada and the Government of the United States of

America, respectively, approved the range of mean monthly elevations for Lake Ontario and the criteria r&mnmended in the commission^ s said letters of 9 May,

1955,. and

WHEZEAS, in the said letters dated 3 December 195s9 the Commission was advised further that the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America approved Plan of Regulation NQ, 12-A-9 for the purpose of calculating critical profiles and the design of channel excavations in the International Rapids

Section of the St, Lawrence River; and

WHEREBS, in the said letters dated 3 December 195S9 the two Governments urged the Codssion to continue its studies with a vLew to perfecting a plan of regulation so as best to meet the requirements of all interests both upstream and downstream, within the range of elevations and criteria therein approved; and

WHEREAS, by letter dated 3 December 195S9 the

Secretary of State for External Affairs, on behalf sf the Government of Canada, has informed the Comtnission of the arrangements that have been made for the redesign of a portion of the St, Lawrence Seaway Canal in the vicinity of Montred, between Lake Sto Louis and the

Laprairie Basing ard

WHEREAS condition (i) of the said Order of Approval dated 29 October 1952 makes provision for ad~ustments adprogressive improvements h the plan of regulation, subJect to requirements and procedures specffied therein, NOW, THEREFORE,, THIS CO~SSIONDOTH ORDER AND DIRECT that the Order of Approval. issued by the International Joint Commission on 29 October 1952, be and the same is hereby mended as foUowsoa

(1) Paragraph (a) of Appendix A to the said Order is amended by deleting the words, 'Nethod of Regulation Noo 5, as prepared by the General

Engineering Branch, Department of Transport, Canada,

dated Ottawa, September, 19bOm, and substituting the

words, "Plan of Regulation No, 12-A-9, as prepared

by the International Lake Ontario Board of Engineers9

dated 5 May 1955"; and by adding the following

sub-paragraph, "As approved by the Government of

Canada and the Government of the United States of

America in sMlar letters dated 3 December 1955,

the said Plan of Regulation Noo 12-8-9 shall be the

basis for calculating crfti.eal profiles and designing

channel exeavationsw, The said paragraph (a) will

then read as follows:

fl (a) Channel enlargements will be undertaken from above Chimney Pofnt to below Lotus Island, designed to give a maximum mean velocity in any cross-section of the channel which will be used for navigation not exceeding four feet per second at any the3 also between Lotus Island and Iroquois Point and from above Point Three Points to below Ogden Island designed to give a maximum mean velocity in any cross- section not exceeding two and one-quarter feet per second with the flow and at the stage to be permitted on the first of January of any year, under regulation of outflow and levels of Lake Ontario in accordance with Plan of Regulation NO. l2-A-y9 as prepared by the International Lake Ontario Board of Engineers, dated 5 May 1955. Downstream from the power houses channel enlargements will be carried out for the purpose of reducing the tail water level at the power ~OUS~S~

Final locations an3 cross-sections of these channel enlargements will be determined from further studies.

As approved by the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America in similar letters dated 3 December 195s0 the said Plan of Regulation Noo 12-8-9 shall be the basis for calculating critical. profiles and designing channel excavations .qf t (2) Condition (i) of the said Order of

29 October 1952 is deleted and the following substituted thereforg

n(i) 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 requir.e- ments of conditions (b), (c), and (d) hereof; shall be regulated within a range of .stage f ram elevation 2h00 feet* (navigation season) to elevation 248.0 feet, as nearly as may be; -

*gU elevations mentioned in this Order are stated in relation to the United States Lake Survey 1935 datum. 8 and shall be regulated in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Co~ssio~a~sletters of 17 March 1955 to the 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 1956 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 prodde no less protection for nadgation 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 areas follows:

(a) The regulated outflow from Lake Ontario from 1 April to 15 December shall be such as not to reduce the minhum 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 llsupplies of the past as adjustedw),

(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 minimizede (c) The regulated outflow from Lake Ontario during the annual spring break-up in Montreal Harbor and in the river downstream shall not be greater than would have occurred assuming supplies of the past as adjusted,

(d) The regulated outflow from We Ontario during the annual flood dischqrge 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 fro.. Lake Ontario shall be such as to secure the maximum dependable flow for powero

(f ) . Consistent with other requirements, the.m&um 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 experienceda

(h) The regulated monthly mean level of Lake Ontario shall not exceed elevation 248,O with the supplies of the past as adjusted,

(i) Under regulation, the frequency of occurrences of monthly mean elevations of approximately 247,O 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 fram 1 April to 30 November shall be maintained at or above elevation 244,O.

(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 of the past as adjusted, the works in the International Rapids Section shall be operated to provide abl 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 produces 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 12-8-.99 when applied to the channels as determined in accordance with Appendix A hereto, and shall be maintained as uniformly as possible throughout that period.

* npresent channel conditions" refers to conditions as of March 1955. Subject to the requirements of conditions (b), (c) and (dl 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 modifications or changes in the plan of regulation may be advisable, The Board of Control shall report to the Commission the results of such experiments9 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 Orderoff

Signed at Montreal, this second day of July, 1956,

Len Jordan

Geo, Spenee

Roger Bo IfcMhorter

Jo Lucien Dansereau

Eugene W. Weber The Secretary of State for External Aff&s

Canada

Ottawa, April 11, 1956

Dear General McNaughton:

Levels of Lake Ontario

I refer to your letter of January 11, 1956, in relation to the levels of Lake Ontario, in which you pose the following questions concerning my letter of December 3, 1955:

(1) Does the phrase Ias nearly as may beo apply to both the lower and upper limits of the range of elevations, ioe., to 0244 feet (navigation season)g as well as to '248 feetP%

(2) Did the government approve textually the criteria proposed in the ConrmissionQsletter of 17 March, 195s9 or did it approve the criteria with such modifications as might be necessary in order to be consistent with the range of elevations specifically approved?

As your letter indicates, there has been some doubt as to the applicability of the phrase Ias nearly as may beQ used in your letter of May 9, 1955, This question has now been reviewed by the Canadian authorities. The proposed revision of paragraph (i)of the Order of Approval of October 29, 1952, has also been taken into consideration, and particularly the following proposed sub- paragraph which has a bearing on the matter:

Gen. the Hon, AaGoLo McNaughton, Chairman, Canadian Section, International Joint Commission, Ottawa. *The flow of water through the International rapids section in any period shal,l 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 t8Atberetoproduces no more critical governing velocities than those specified in that appendix, nor more critical governing water surf ace profiles than those established by plan of regulation 12-A-9, when applied to the channels as determined in accordance with appendix I8Am hereto, and shall be maintained as uniformly as possible throughout that periodotB

In the light of this review, it is the opinion of the Canadian Government that my letter of December 3, 1955$ should henceforth be interpreted as applying the phrase Basnearly as may beo to '2u feet (navigation season)', as well as to 8248 feet8, This opinion is expressed on the assumption that the sub-paragraph quoted above will be incorporated in the supplementary order to the Order of Approval, of October 29, 1952, possibly with minor changes in drafting,

The Government considered the criteria recommended in your letter of March 17, 1955> and the range of elevations recomniended in your letter of May 9, 1955, at the sane the, Neither the criteria nor the range of elevations should be regarded in isolation, but they, together with the other requirements which are laid down in the Order of Approval of 29 October 1952, should govern, as appropriate, the development and operation of the plan of regulation. This does not necessarily require the amendment of the text of the criteria, but it is for the Commission to indicate 5.n an appropriate fashion, as the occasion may require, the inter-relationship of the criteria, the range of elevations and the other requirements.

Pours sincerely, DEPARTMENT OF STATE Washington

May 1, 1956

In reply refer to - L 611,4232-LO/l-1156

Dear Governor Jordan:

Reference is made to your letter of January 11, 1956, concerning the levels of Lake Ontario in which you raise two questions in respect to the approvals contained in the Departmentus letter of December 3, 1955s

1, .Does the phrase "as nearly as may ben 'apply to both the lower and upper limits of the range of elevations, i,e., to tt244 feet (navigation season)lu as well as to "248 feetn?

2, Did the Government approve textually the criteria proposed in the CommissionPs letter of March 17, 1955, or did it approve the criteria with such modifications as might be necessary in order to be consistent 1~6ththe range of elevations specifically approved?

In reply to the first question, it is the view of the Government that the phrase Itas nearly as may be", as used in the Departnentss letter of December 3, 1955, applied to both the lower and upper - limits of the range of elevation, i ,e ., to "244 feet (navigation season)tt as well as to "248 feetn,

In reply to your second question, the Government did approve textually the criteria proposed in the Commissiones letter of March 17, 1955. While it is recognized that perfection is not easily attained in regulating these natural resources, the criteria are intended to establish standards which would be maintained with a nkinhum variation.

Sincerely yours,

For the Secretary of State:

/s/ Herman PhPeger

Herman PhPeger The Legal Adviser The Honorable Len Jordan Chairman, United States Section International Joint Conmission Room 792, Federal Trade Building Washington 25, D, C. FtEGULATION OF LAKE ONTARIO

APPENDIX. C-

MMN MONTHLY DISCHARGE

OF THE ST. LAWNCE RIVEFt

IN THE INTERNATIONAL RAPIDS SElCTION

5 February 1957

Appendix C contains a tabulation of monthly mean discharges of the St, Lawrence River in the International Rapids Section of the river as approved by the Co-Ordinating Committee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data on 5 February 1957, These flows are a revision from those used in the studies for this report on Regulation of Lake Ontario (see paragraph 9 of Volume 1). The revisions resulted from more detailed analysis of available data. APPENDIX C

MONTHLY MEAN DISCHARGE OF THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER IN THE INTERNATIONAL. RAPIDS SECTION

IN THOUSANDS OF CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

NOTE: Approved by the Co-ordinating Committee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data on 5 Februarv 1957.

YEAR 1 JAN. I FEB 1 MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY OCT. NOV. DEC MEAN 26 1 267 264 285 283 280 262 260 2 79 260 258 2 72 264 268 268 243 240 26 1 260 270 25 1 248 230 267 234 24 1 24 0 265 252 256

260 256 2 79 231 224 252 226 209 22 1 242 246 244 24 1 233 26 1 230 225 228 262 259 272 234 236 245 254 2 72 258 227 227 251

233 227 244 231 234 232 24 1 243 260 26 1 26 1 255 252 249 267 265 271 256 263 256 277 24 3 237 265 , 236 236 239 232 243 246

263. 256 268 2 20 217 250 232 230 232 235 231 24 3 228 218 239 193 194 208 207 202 215 209 213 220 220 221 230 210 2 12 226

216 222 228 211 215 226 230 224 231 227 220 242 24 3 22 1 247 24 1 235 238 229 227 238 245 244 248 238 227 260 225 222 238 zoo 220 214. 229 ZOO 212 212 217 191 24 1 243 236 243 242 238 257 215 226 215 236 203 212 2 19 2 16 230 223 243 224 251 246 245 223 239 234 244 235 240 233 252 204 2 19 226 222 221 2 10 215 232 198 208 230 196 204 207 2 14 202 218 208 224 188 2 06 210 211 180 227 227 212 200 2 16 233 226 231 231 235 24 1 229 252 238 259 252 231 222 259 205 197 194 210 216 204 203 220 198 184 179 203 173 170 170 184 168 176 175 ' 184 154 lq3 186 195 207 2 14 210 219 201 211 206 2 18 183 202 198 2 15

184 210 211 212 202 199 194 210 188 22 1 222 220 220 256 250 257 227 222 222 240 207 26 3 265 252 239 237 232 249 232 255 250 262 220 24 1 2 34 254 237 208 208 233

225 234 240 243 230 252 253 267 265 251 254 277 257 237 239 260 232 254 256 258 BM;ULATION OF LAKE ONTARIO

BPPENDIX D.

INTERIM REPORT TO THE

INTERNA'iTONAL JOINT COMMISSION

4 March 19.5.5

Appendix D contains a reproduction of the Interim Report, dated 14 March 19.5.5, of the International Lake Ontario Board of Engineers to the International Joint Commission on Regulation of Lake Ontario. The reproduction of this report is complete and includes all tables, plates and appendices. REGULATION OF LAKE ONTARIO

INTERIM REPORT

TO THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION

THE INTERNATIONAL LAKE ONTARIO BOARD OF ENGINEERS

March 14, 1955 INTERIM REPORT ON REGULATION OF LAKE ONTARIO . .

....

. . .. TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... '...... , . . . ', . , ...... Page. . INTRODUCTION ...... ' . .... : , l

... . . ,. ,, . - . . , ',' ,. , . . ,.. . ::;,.,:,;:2: : '~ermbof Re:ference from International Joint Comqission ...... " I...... : , ...... Composition of Investigation Bodies:' ...... , . ' ,..:'.) '...... : . :.'3......

. ..' ...... ,,...... ::, :,' :4 , . , Studies on Regulation . . , ,. :; .- . ., . . ., . , .. .. , ...... - ' . . , . , ...... I.' ...... ,, . . . . Purpose..... andScope. , .. of Report . . . -5.: , , hi-8 . . ., ...... C- . . ,.. , ...... , ...... , ...... ,. ' ...... > ...... :. , . . - ....: ! : REGULATION: STUDIES', ' ...... 7,:,-i ...... I ...... :: ...... , ...... 8..'!.>, : 1 Requirements of ~e~ulation. . , ...... : ...... , ...... ,, ! " ;. ' :m , . .: ~aaic-....Data .,'. !. . . :, .,g::; ...... '...... ' . . , . ': , ,,, , . ., .: ,;:' 10, ...Water ...... , .' . ,.~~.~f~~~~,.~:., , 1.. ..'. 10,...... , ...... , . . :. . , . . . . . ,...... , ...... , , suppllt$s. . . . . ;,, ' .. , .-.,lo.. . , . I. ...; ......

. '' ' . '., ' . ' . . . Procedure... 1.1: ...... ::,, Results:,' .. 1.;...... -;...... :.13 ...... , ...... ,. . ' , . , . . :, EVALUATION, OF. REGULATION PLANS ' 2i ......

......

Shore :Property . , , . ,'t . , ...... : Power-...... '......

I{ Navigation -

\- . - - .- . - . Page Evaluation 27 Plan 11-A-4 Plan ll:A-5

Plan 12-A-8 29 /'

LIST OF TABLES

Table No, $5 t le 1 Recorded Monthly Mean Elevat,ions of Lake

Ontario at Oswego, NoYo C Monthly Mean Outflow from Lake Ontario Provision Monthly Mean Supply to Lake Ontario ! Plan 11-A-4, ~o,ntklyMean Regulated Elevations Plan 11-A-4, Monthly Mean Regulated Outflows \ Plan 11-A-5, Monthly Mean Regulated Elevations Plan 11-A-5, Monthly Mean Regulated Outflows Plan 12-A-8, Monthly Mean Regulated Elevations Plan 12-A-8, Monthly Mean Regulated OutFlows Plan 14-A-1,:Monthly Mean Regulated,Elevations '. * Plan 14-A-1, E4odthly Mean Regulated Outflows for all Regulat f on Plans Compar.ison of 0u.tflows and Levels '- Economic Comparison of ~rialPlans -'.

\ -, \- TABLE OF CONTENTS (~ontId)

LIST PLATES

Plate No. Title 1. Rule Curves, Method 11-A-4 2 Rule Curves, Method 11-A-5.

.3 Rule Curves, Method 12.~18 , ' ...... 4 Rule Curves, Method 14-A-1" . .

5 Stage-Duration Curves .... !7: . . .. , ...... , 6 Outf low-Duration Curves . ' ......

. ,:-. . .:. . 7 , -. Hydrographs of Monthly Mean Levelk-of 1:... LSke ...... Ontario at .Oswego, N.Y...... , ... , . , ...... , ./I i. .' I ,, ' ...... ,...... , ...... , . . . . LIST OF APPENDICES '. , : : . : , ...... , ..... : ...... , . ..., .. ... : r ......

APPENDIX A. ', ...... EFFECT OF REGULATION ON LA~OWTARI~',SHORE,PROPERTY,...... ,. . !......

APPENDIX'.B' EFFECT OF REGULATION ON CHANNEL ENLARGEMENTAND POWER'.' i---

. ' : PRODUCTION AT AND ABOVE BARNHART,...... ISLAND POWERHOUSES...... ,.

APPENDIX c EFFECT OF REGULATION ON NAVIGATION ' ONLAKE"'~NTARIO'::AND THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER ABOVE THE: BARNHART . ISLAND ...... ,' . POWERHOUSES ...... INTERIE!REPORT OF? REGULATIOK OF LAKE ONTARIO

INTRODUCTION

Authority 1. 1n\a Reference dated 25 June 1952, the Governments of Canada and the United States of America requested the Interna- tional Joint Commission to investigate and report on the following: lPIn order to determineg having regard to all other interests, whether measures can be taken to regulate the level of Lake Ontario for the benefit of property owners on the shores of the lake in the United States and Canada so as to reduce the extremes of stage which have been experienced, the Governments of the United States and Canada have agreed to refer the matter to the Interna- tional Joint Commission for investigation and report pursuant to Article IX of the Treaty relating to boundary waters between the United States and Canada, signed January 119 1909," "It is desired that the Commission study the various factors which affect the fluctuations of water level on Lake Ontario, including the construction in the St, Law- rence River known as %ut Damg, and any diversion of water into or out of the Great Lakes basin, and shall determine whether in its judgment action can be taken by either or both Governments to bring about a more bene- ficial range of stage, having regard to the proposed plan for improvement for navigation and power of the Inter- national Rapids Section of the St. Lawrence River and the proposed method of regulation of the levels of Lake Ontario which is an essential feature of that plan," "As -a result of its studi-es under this Reference, it is desired that the Commission shall determine whether, in its judgment, changes in regard to existing works or other measures would be practicable and in the public interest from the points of view of the two Governments, having in mind the order of precedence to be observed in the uses of boundary waters as provided in Article VIII of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909," "In the event that the Commission should find that changes in existing works or that other measures would be feasible and desirable, it should indicate how the interests on either side of the boundary woule be benefited or adversely affectea thereby, The Comr~issionshould estimate the cost of such changes in existing works or of such other measures? including indemnification for damage to public and private property arising therefrom and the cost of any remedial works that may be found to be necessary, With due regard to the final paragraph of this reference and to the arrangements presently being proposed for development of power in the International Rapids Section of the St, Lawrence River, the Commissi on should indicate how the cost of any measures and the amounts of any resulting damage should be apportioned between the interests involved. " 8uInthe conduct of its investigation and otherwise in the pezrforrnance of its duties under this Reference, the Commission may utilize the services of engineers and other specially qualified personnel of the technical agencies of Canada and the United States and will as far as possible make use of information and technical data heretofore acquired by such technical agencies or which may become available during the ccurse of the investigation, thus avoiding duplication of effort and unnecessary expense, "It is the desire of both Governments that consideration of this Reference shall not delay action by the Commission with respect to applications submitted tg the Commission concerning the development of power in the International Ragids Section of the St, Lawrence River ,"

Terms of Reference from International Joint Commission 2, Under the authority of this Reference, the International Joint Commission, in April 1953, appointed the International Lake Ontario Board of Engineers, the members of which were drawn from the technical agencies of the two Governments, In the letter of appointment from the International Joint Commission, the Inter- national Lake Ontario Board of Engineers was instructed as follows: "The duties of the Board will be to u~dertakethrough appropriate agencies in Canada and the United States, the necessary investigation and studies and to advise the Commission on all technical engineering matters which it must consider in making a report or reports to the two Governments und.er the Recerence of 25 June 19520t1 The Board appointed a Working Committee and assigned to it the task of conducting the necessary investigation and compilation of data, Compositicn of Investi~ationBodies 3. The International Lake Ontario Board of Engineers is composed of one representati've from each Government. Mro Gail A, Hathaway, Special Assistant to the Chief of Engineers, Depart-

ment of the Army, Washington, DoCo is the United States member,

Mr, IoRa Strome, Chief, Water Resources Division, Department of Resources and Development was appointed the Canadian member, Owing to illness, Mr, Strome was not able to function on the Board and following his death in July 1953, Mr, TOMo Patterson, Chief, Water Resources Division, Department of Resources and Development (now Northern Affairs and National ~esources) , Ottawa , Canada, was appointed to succeed him, 4, The Board arranged for technical assistance through the appointment of its International Lake Ontario Working Com- mittee which comprised, in the United States, Colonel WoP, Trower, Division Engineer, North Central Division Corps of Engineers, United States Army, Chicago, Illinois Chairman, and Mr. Franklin Fo Snyder, Hydraulic Engineer9 Office of the Chief of Engineers,

Department of the Army, Washington, DOCo and in Canada, Mr, RoHo Clark, Chief, Water Development Project Section, Water Resources Division, Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Ottawa, Canada, Chairman, and Mr, R,H, Smith, Special Projects I Branch, Department of Transport, Montreal, Quebec, Mr. C ,Go Cline, Hydraulic Engineer, Water Resources Division, Department of Mor- I: them Affairs.-.and.National -R.e,sou.rc.e-s,served...as..--an ..alternateo

, . The Board recognize-s. and . ac,know-ledges ~t.he- - ma jor- contribution that. the Committee' and its assistants ,made -throughout---the--st.udy .and in . . I the preparation of this report, 5. The engineering facilities and equipment of the U.S. Corps of Engineers in the North Central Division including the UoSo Lake Survey; the Federal Bower Commission of the United

1 I' States ; the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario; tihe Canadian Departments of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Mines and Technical Surveys and of Transport; and the st. Lawrenee- Seaway Authority were available to the Working C~mmitteefor1 its / .,' invest igations. Studies on Regulation 6. Through the-medium of these -arrangements, the Board, undertook a study of the problem and the collection of the necessary basic data9 and initiated preliminary regulation sf udies involving several trial plans having the following lower and upper limiting levels on Lake Ontario: 244.0 and 248,8; 244.0 and 248.0; 243,O and 24700 (U,SoLoSo1935 datum), The plans developed to operate within each of these limits have been designated a$ Method No, 11, Method Noo 12 and Method Moo 14, respectively. The upper limit of Method No. 11 (248,8) is about 001 foot below the maximum level of Lake Ontario that would have occurred in the past with existing diversions and present channel conditions in the Galop Rapids reach, and 0,5 foot below the h%hest monthly mean level of 1952, elevation 249,3, It was considered that these ranges in stage bracketed the limits of regulated lake levels suggested by the various interests in written and oral submissions at the Com- missionDshearings in 1952 and 1953 on Lake Ontario levels, and that the evaluation with respect to lake shore, power, navigation and downstream interests of the methods of regulation developed for these ranges in stage would indicate, on technical consideration, the most appropriate range of stage, Final studies on the above regulation methods were contingent upon the receipt of approved basic data from studies of the Co-ordinating Cornmitt-ee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data - a committee of representatives of governmental agencies in the United States and Canada responsible for the collection of such data, .Purpose and Sco~eof this Report I. : , , 7. On 25 and 26 January 1955, the International Joint Commission met in executive session with its Lake Ontario Board to receive an informal progress report on the Board's studies. In discussiq$ the lake regulation plans, the Board emphasized that the navigation interests and the power entities urgently needed the- advice- of the Commission and the Governments as to what the critical water profiles in the international reach of the St,.Lawrence River would be under regulation. This information is essential to the design of the channel enlargements and navigation facilitieso It was pointed out that the profiles could not be determined until the range of lake levels under regulation had been selected and a suitable regulation plan esta- . blished. It was indicated at that meeting that the definition of the critical water profiles was required at the earliest possible date and not later than thpee months, in order not to delay construction, 8, On the premise- that computations -based on 48 years of record, i,e, from 1905 to 1-952, which included the extreme low water of the 1930's and the high water of 1952, would provide sufficient data to define a suitable range of stage on the lake, the Lake Ontario Board was requested to submit an interim report to the Commission at a meeting scheduled for Montreal, Canada, on 14 March 19550 It was indicated that this report should con- tain sufficient detail, including economic evaluations with respect to power and navigation as well as a qualitative determination of dayage-to shore property, for the Commission to reach a -, conclusion on the most appropriate range of stage in accordance with the purposes of the Lake Ontario Reference, 9, Upon receipt of advice from the Commission, the Board will proceed to develop a plan of lake regulation within the limits of lake fluctuation as directed by the Commission, This plan will be based on the full 95 years of rec.ord and it is understood that these studies are to be completed by 1 May 1955, In order to meet- this dead line the Board must be ac?vised of the desired range of stages immediately following the 14 March meeting. -i 1 10. In accordance with the Commissionns instructions at the 26 January 1955 meeting this interim report presents the results of four trial plans for the three methods of regulation already referred to, These plans have been based on the period of record from 1905 to 1952 and a monetary evaluation on a comparative basis with respect to power production and "navigation has been made, as well as a qualitative determination of the effect on Lake Ontario shore property. The -results of the plans are discussed with respect to downstream interests also, REGULAT ICii;; STUDIES

11. Artificial control of the outflow artd levels of Lake Ontario must follow some- preconceived rule, the .effectiveness I of which may best be-tested by applying it to conditions of supply to the lake over as long a period as records are available, In the case of Lake Ontario, records ,are available over 95 years i.e. since 1860, If the rule accornplis~eswhat is desired over this long period, it may be assumed that it will meet all requirements under similar supplies in the future, 12. In the study presented herein, the period fro? 1905 to 1952, or 48 years, was used to test the regulation plans, It is assumed that a comparative evaluation based on this shorter period will provide an adequate basis for selection by the Commission of an appropriate range of stage on Lake Ontario which then can be 3 made the subject of detailed study throughout the full 95 year record of supply to produce a plan that best meets the requirements of all interestso 13. In designing rule curves for the regulation of Lake Ontario, it has been assumed that, in tfie future, the net supply to the lake will be based on a continuous diversion from the Great

Lakes basin at Chicago of 3,100 c ,f, s and a continuous addition to the basin from the Albany River of 5,000 c.f ,so, via the Ogoki River and Long Lake diversion projects into Lake Superior. Thus, it is assumed that if the natural monthly mean supplies to Lake Ontario for the period of record were to be repeated, they would be greater by the present net diversion of 1,900 c,f.s. into t-he Great Lakes Basin, Reauirements of Regulation 14, 10 order to determine, having regard to all other interests, whether measures can be taken ta regulate the level of Lake-Ontario for the benefit of property-owners on the shores *of the lake so as to reduce the extremes of stage which have

-been experienced , .Itmi-t;ing--.-.rang-es.-of -stage ---on. Lake Ontario of

adopt.e.d- for -:study.; Trialplans designed to.-maint akn the lake levels within these ranges have been-designated Method9 Nos. 11, 12 and 14-respecti-vely,

f olZowing rules were -adopted as additional--basic requirements to be satisfied:

(a) The- regu-lat-ed outflow from Lake Ontario during the navigation season must be such as-not to reduce the minimum level of Montreal Harbour below that which would have occurred in the past assuming a continuous diversion out of the Great Lakes basin of 3,100 cofosoat Chicago and a continuous diversion into the Great Lakes basin of 5,000 cofosofrom-the Albany River basin, (b] The regulated wtnter outflows f'rorn Lake Ontario from 15 December --thraugh 31: March shouuld be 3s large as feasible and should be maintained so that the difficulties of winter power -operatton are minimized,

(.c ) - -The.--.r-e-gutat.ed'..-outtflow -.f-0 : Q during - t h,e-...-annual---spr *ng - -break-;up .i-n..Mont re;al ..-Harbour and in -the.r ive-rI-downstream -should -not -be.-greater $ han would .-have.--oc:curred. tn tlhe -past .a.s-surnkng-a c.onttnuous diver- si-on---out-of the.-Great Lake.s;-b-a~sin of. 3., 100 c-.f .s , at Chicago and a, continuous diversion, into the..Great Lakes: --basin.--.of5 ,.000 c :f ;-so-from t.he A%.b.any.R:iver-- bas.in,

(.d):--- -Durfag .t:.he f load -dLsc:harge.- f ram the Ottawa- -RPve-r, . th-e~---r:egulated outf 16% from Lake Ontar$0 should ....not...-b.e gr e.aeer than .would-:.have .. o:ccurre.d i-n $-he pa-s-t .a-ssumi-ng --a-cont.~nu~u& d:iversi~n -ou,t of -.t-he.-,G.re.a.t Lake s -&stin .of 3 ,100.. c. f ,s -at Chi-qago --and a cont i-n-uous diversion into the. Great Lakes basin of 5,000 c.f,so from the. Albany Ri.ve.r basin, . . (e) The' minirn~m-'-re-~ulatednonthlyqutf low from LaBe Ontario .shall be -as la-rge as-:p'o.ss-ible consistent with other requirements to secure the maximum dependable flow for -pow-er operation,

( f ) maximum -r.egolat~d---out-flow from Lalte ' Ontario should be maintained as low as passible to keep channel excavat i-on-.-toa miqimum,

(g) The low water level under regulation should be maintained as high as is consistent with other re- f-.uirements . (h) Lake Ontario should be maint asned throughout the year at as high a level as is consistent with other requirements. I 3 , . 0 16. .T-nnthedevelopment of-thes'e.-requirements,eonsideration . . -was-*en--to -the--Commi-ssi-on s --Order of Approval of 29 October 1952 and to -the-various -requirements used in Method of Regulation No. 5 .referred--to--in.--t.h,a,t-.-Ord-e-r, Th-e ..re-e-omm-endat-ionsby-the Department -.-of Transp:ort..-and--.theHyd'ro-Electric Power C:ommi-ss$on of Ontario inbriefs. dated 26 August 1953 and 30: Sept:ember $953 respectively, which were presented to-the -International Joint Commission, as well as testimony given at public hearings held by the C;ommission, were also considered, Basic Data

17, Although the .re.gu-1-sti-on> -stu.dZ-e-s---were - %nit tat ed as soon

as possible after the appo#intment,.-ofthe Boapd, figs-1 detailei p,lans could .not be--eve-Lved-.--unt'-$1 -agreement..-had-be.en -rea:ched be-

/ tween the pe-rtinent. agencies of Canada and.-the. Unztjed. ~t.at'eson- . . . . , .. , . .., . thebasic -watar level -and f-Low date, in-May;- 19:53 , the .,~~i&~din~ti~.~ \

'L Committee -on Great Lakes Basic -Iiydrqulic and Hydrologic Da.ta -was

work, it has been possible to assemble basic data in a near-fioal form for use in--tQe studies presented herein. ft is anticipate?

that minor --yeyi-stons;,-.-of. -a---rnagnttude ,: . tQat will not ;.detract; f row the results of $he pres-e.nt st:udlk.e,s,- -will -be---m,ade .-~b.qt..-$t 5,s.-- -a-s-sured

that final agreameqt.,, on the basic data wi11;. b.e. -0:btathed in, the. very near futu~e,

18,, , Wat-e.r Levels: --Ba.i$y',-re.c-ords-of .vqt:er-leve$son Lake , .. , . . . . , . . . .

Ontario are. availableat. . ~syego,,-N,~W. YOT~; Klnggton, Ontario ;

Port Dal~housie.. . , Ontario.; and Tor~nta,Ont-ario. These, reco,rds have been --used in this studyo

19, - - Tkactual -month;l;y;~~.me.a-n. water . levels. o,f: .. \. .Qn.$ario.- - at O.s,wego., for the- peri-od 1905 to 19.521..-as,reco:rded -by the United

,States Lake -Survey, a.re -shown. .. in Table lo ?hi-s. t:abul.at.%pn -i.spre-

se.nted -since-.the . . -a,c.tua$ ,\ . -le~els,, and. qodi,fi,cat+oas t-hereof , are -used

as. bgses. of. cornp-ar.ison. for the..-1eys.I~.-wilder re,gu;lat.i,orl.

20. Outf 2ows. .. : The..-mon$hl.yme-an, ogkf lows:; F~om:.L.ake Qnkayio . . .. . for the period 5905 to 19,52 are---pre;sqated in Tab*: 2. These out: 7. ,

/.. - flows. were der.kved .-.by.the: Rgyer-*. Fh~w..., Syb-Cgmm:it.$ee. . . of Che q.0- ordinating Committee on Great Lakes' Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data,

210 Su~~:li-e-s-:The-.-non.t-h-1~-~qa--n~~-n~t-~-~.s:uppI~-e~~ .., . . .\: to Lake Ontario

for the, period 1905. .to. 195:2:., :ass.~m~ng~~-.a.~-c.ont~i-nuous.... I .&J;,v,ers$on of'

3,,100 c if. s . at Chtcago and. . 0,OQ:: c..- f .s .. --.ad.de,q---from t be.. . O.goki i

River and Long.., .. ,: 'Lake.--Dive-r.. ., s.i.on,. . <. &.Q-. .j;e ..~ QC s,---are:,,.... gf, yen-;2p Table 3.,

22, The tot-al.ne .~ t--.,-sup,p:ly.- . . ,, ...... :t:-or?- $hr?-,e:~: Fo~.-:-anp:;monthis, the . . 1. ' ,

~.t:.a~lqut:f low..--c-opb;.in;ed.. .'w 2t:h t'h..--ga.in.or. 3:o.s~of ,. at ~ra.g.eon the- '> , . . ,. . \......

lake . The. cornput. . ,a.tions . we;r?e, b.a.sed, .. on. k:hei Co$.$,owing: sBep,s...,. and ass-umpt-ions:

. .

.. . . . , . (a) For the purposes of determining the monthly gain or loss of storage in any month the elevations of the lake at the end of the month were determined by graphically eliminating wind and other factors from the recorded elevations at Oswego and collating these values with those obtained using the same procedure . for the Toronto, Port Dalhousie and Kingston records!

(b) Lake '~ntariooutflo~s~ as presented in Table 2 were used; (c) The supplies were adjusted on the assumption of . a continuous diversion of 3,100 c.f.s. at Chicago and an addition of 5,000 c.f.s. from the Ogoki and Long Lake Diversion Projects;

[ld) A storage factor of 80,000 c.f .so per month per foot rise or fall of lake surface was used. 7 \ \, . I, 1 procedure ,-, , . f :> 23. The, general approach to the problem of regulation, used in the 'four trial plans contained herein, is based on a system of rule curves from which the regulated discharge to be allowed in any month or half month is determined by the level of L Lake Ontario at the end of the previous month or period. The discharge so determined is modified by a correction, based on the variation in supply from the mean for the previous month or period. This approach is similar to that used in the Canadian Department of Transport study, Regulation of Lake Ontario Method

1 No. 5, and the explanation of the procedure used in determining monthly mean discharges given in Appendix A of the Karch, 1952 I report on that' method would apply also for the four trial plans presented herein. These four plans have been designated 11-A-4, 11-A-5, 12-A-8 l'and 14-A-1. Two plans were selected under PIethod 11, with lirnitk of 244.0 - 248.8 on Lake Ontario, to develop more fully the capabilities of regulation within these limits, parti- or~ill~rlv wi +.hi rpqna~t.t.n nnwar 2nd chnra nrnnortv PI 3nc 1 3-A -R I

I' and 14-A-1 have limits of 244.0 - 248.0 and 243.0 - 247.0 respectively. The letter refers to the type of regulation and the ' number following it indicates the trial. Thus for plan ll-~-k,

the number 11 refers to the range in lake levels, 244.0"- , .,248.8, the letter A indicates that the rule curve approach was used and

the number krefers to the fourth trialplan for the::'m&thod;':. .: ', .. .. ' ,.. .. : 24. The desired results were obtained by successive~modi-. , , . , ...... fications of the rule curves to accommodate the conditions of supply that would have existed during the past 48 years, assuming \\ present diversions. The rule curves of plan ll-~-kare shown \ on Plates l(a) to l(d), of plan 11-A-5 on Plates 2(a) to '2(d), of plan 12.~~8on Plates 3(a) to 3(d), and of plan 14-A-1 on Plates 4(a) to 4(d). The correction curves are shown on the plates with the appropriate rule curves. Certain limitat ions

with regard :to the applibation of the 'correctionare;n&ted on. .'...... , .. , ...... , ,,' . . . . I these curves , . . 25. Although the general approach' to the' regulation plans'.;

. . : . . presented herein-is bymean3 -of--rule --curves5- it is considered - . .! - ...... that there are approaches which could provide the same results and may be better suited to the regulation of Lake Ontario. One such approach involves an element of forecasting based on the I long term mean supplies and the trend in supplies for the immediate period under consideration. In this approach, also, design levels are established for the end of each month, based ' on the long term record, which would be most desirable to attain, taking into consideration a11 interests. These and other approaches

will be carefully considered . in developing the final plans of regulation, . . . . Results . .

: . 26 .-Tab.ulat-ions.of the..;-.,r-egul&ed::Lak,e .OntarTo . 1e.ve.l~and .. ' ... , . ! ...... outflows obtained for---.the:.f o.ur: trial - plans 11-.~-4,..l.l-~-S,' ii. . ,. . . - .: .: ...... , . . . . . 124-8 and 14-A-1, are shown ::in :Tables. . k--toi,lo A su.mmary.of:., . '. .- ...... , ...... the regulated outflows and levels is pre3sented:--inTable 12. .., .., ...... Plan 14-A-1 (limits:' 243.0 - 247,.0) is ident-i~al'to plan 12-A-8 . . . . ., . . , . , . (lirnit~s: 2%. 0 - 248.0)pith the plane of :reference of the latter . .

lowered one foot;'the regulated outflows of-the-'::twoplans are iden- ' tical.

27 Tot a1 -p-e-ri-od..-&ur.a-tton.-.curve-s.-of:.--re-gulated -levels. . and . . outf 1ow.s.a-re sh-own on Plates -5 -and 6, -rrespe.ct-i-ve-Ly.; For comparative-purposes9 there are also shown on plate' -5 duration curves of' ... . . ,. -water levels for.tzhe following c.onditions: . . (a) The water levels a<0swego as actuallyrecorded; ...... (b.) The -water 'l-evels that--wou-.Id-haver.-'.ex,is t.ed with no divers.ions -and .wi-t'h channel. conditions in.the-- Galop Rapids reach as -existed --in 1860.;.--thesemay be -referred t.0 as "approximate stat-e of nature" levels; ...... , ....

(c) T-he .water levels thati:-would-.have --extsted. with a . . , net diversion of 1 900;~:f .so ---.int-o .the Great Lake-s a.nd' present (1~5~-1954j.channel conditions in the Galop

Ra'pf-d.s..r e:ac h (Gut Dam removed.:), . . ; % " , . -, ..

. . 28 Hydrographs showk.ng t-he lake 72evel-s-resu-Ttkng from .the -' .. , . , ... application of plans 11-A-4, 12-A-8 and' 14-A-1rre shown on plates . .

, < 7(a) to 7(c:). For cbniparison;the: -hydrog:raphs of;the.:rec.orded . , , . . .. ,.

levels the . t!ap:proxj.mat-e .:.st ate. . .of --iaturem. .l-evels. --afid:-.-t.he.-.-1eve.l.s :. 9 ,: ..' ...... , , . a ...... , ... -. , . I ..,.. adjusted to present , c0ri-d-ii:t.io-n-s:are ' alsp... :shown owthe . same plate's. . . , , . ,. @ ,. , :...... , , .

be generally higher than those in plan 11-A-4, 29. The discussion in the following paragraphs reviews the results obtained and indicates the extent to which each requirement of regulation is met, In this connection it should be pointed out that minor adjustments can be made to the regulation plans to better satisfy some of these basic requirements, particularly for downstream interests, but time has not permitted the adoption of such minor adjustments for this interim report. This will be done, r when a final 95 year plan is worked out. 30. Requirement (a): The regulated outflow from Lake Ontario during the navigation season must be such as not to reduce the minimum level of Montreal Harbour below that which would have occurred in the past, assuming a continuous diversion out of the Great Lakes basin of 3,100 c,f.s. at Chicago, and a continuous diversion into the Great Lakes basin of 5,000 c.f.s. from the Albany River basin.

31, In order to determine whether the regulated outflows . would reduce the water levels in Montreal Harbour, it is necessary to make a comparison of low water flows past Montmal. The extreme " low water levels in the Harbour occurred during the fall months of 1934-1936 when the outflows from Lake ~ntariowere low. The effect of plans 11-A-4, 11-A-5, 12-A-8 and 14-A-1 on the flows during this period is shown in the following table, 4.- 150

Effect of Re~ulaticjnon Low Voter Flows Past I\lontreal

1905 - 1952

Flow Past Montreal in 1,000 e.f.s. Recorded ~djustedto Present Con- Under Regulation Plan Date Recorded ditions 11-A-4 11-A-5 12-A-8 14-A-1 1934 Aug, 198 208 191 191 191 191 Sept. 192 202 202 202 2 02 2 02 OC~. 191 201 216 216 216 216 NOV . 186 196 226 226 226 226 1935 Augo 216 226 199 199' 199 Sept . 203 213 205 199205 205 206 Oct . 197 207 214 214 214 214 Nov . 198 208 232 232' 232 23 2. 1936 Augo 214 224 194 194 197 197. Sept, 211 221 206 2 06 210 210 Oct , 221 231: 248 2 501 263 263 Nov 233 243 276 2 76 269 269

Minimum 186. 19.6. l,91. , 191 191

3.2. AS- indicated &II%:he, table- the.~mi;ni:m.um: re-c.arded flow past Montreal as ad ju.st.ed:.to present:. cond2,-t;.iopswou-Id be 196 ,000 c .f ,s , but under e:ac-h of the. regulatf an. g.lans flows -would d.rop to as low as 191,000. However, only a -m-fno-r-ad'j:ust rnent' -.to'-t'he plans would be required:-.to provtda flows.equal: -to:--t h-e.--ab:ov.e:-. min2mum, As s,tated in paragraph 29.t;he s;e ad.justments:-wfll be----mad:e;-when the:

final 9.5 year plan is workecl out, ,; i .: '., ... . 33. Requirement (b): The regulated winter outflows froni Lake Ontario from 15 December through 31 l'larch should be as large as feasible and should be maintained so that the difficulties of winter power operation are minimized,

34, The evaulation of power and excavation are based in part on channel enlargements designed to give a maximum mean velocity in any cross-section of the channel between Lotus Island and Iroquois Point and from above Point Three Points to below Ugden Island not exceeding 2,25 feet per second with the flow and at the stage to be permitted on the first of January of any year as specified in the Commissfon~sOrder of Approval of 29 October, 1952. In order not to affect adversely the ice cover required for power operation, the maximum month to month variations in flow from 15 ,December to 31 March have been limited to 40,000 c,f,,s, The maximum outflows permitted to not set up veiocftfes considered detrimental to winter operation, 35, Reauirement (c): The regulated outflow from Lake Ontario during the annual spring breakup in Montreal Harbour and in the river downstream should not be greater than would have occurred in the past assuming a continuous diversion out of the Great Lakes basin of 3,100 oofosoat Chicago, and a continuous diversion into the Great Lakes basin of 5,000 cofos. from the Albany River basin, 36, The annual breakup in Montreal Harbour generally occurs during the first half of April, The results obtained.with res- . .. pect to this requirement are shown in the following table, Monthly Mean Outflows from Lake Ontario i.05- 1952,

Number of Times First Half of April was Above Plow Shown Outflow 1000 c.f,s, Recorded Recorded Adjusted to Under Regulation Plan Present Con- df tiona 11-A-4 11-A-5 12.~08 14~~01

Maximum 1000, c .f ,s, 294 295

37. These results, show that the requirement would be satisfied.

38. Requirement (d) : During the annual flood' discharge from the Ottawa River, the regulated outflow from Lake Ontario should not be greater than w~uldhave occurred in the past assuming a continuous diversfon out of the Great ~akesbasin of 3,100 c ,f ,s. at Chicago, and a continuous diversion into the Great Lakes baain of 5,000 c ,%.so from the Albany River basin. 39, Past records show that in any year of high water, the maximum level of Lake St. Louis, influenced to a significant extent by the flood discharge of the Ottawa River, occurs about 95 per cent of' the time in the month of May. For this reason the monthly mean May outflows from Lake Ontario are compared in the. foilowing table. 9 During Month--- of 1952

Total Number of Mays Above Flow 'shown Outflow 1000 c.f .s. Recorded Recorded Adjusted to Under Regulation Plan Present Con- ditions A-11-A-5 12-A-8 14-A-1

Maximum 1000 c.f.s. 308 309 310 312 314 314

40. As indicated in the table the maximum discharge of the St. Lawrence River adjusted to present conditions would be 309,000 c.f.s. Only minor adjustments to the plans would be

required to meet this maximum. phese minor adjustments will be made in the final plan. I 41. The following table presents a comparison of results based on Lake St. Louis outflows in order to.show that high levels on this lake would not aggravated, Monthly Mean Outflows from Lake St. Louis During Month of May 1905 - 1952

Total ~urnberof Mays Above Flow Shown Outflow 1000 c,f ,so Hecoraea Recorded Adjusted to Under Regulation Plan Present Con- dit ions 11-A-4 -A- 12-A-8 14-A-1

Maximum 1000 c.f.s. 450 4 57 438 434 434 434

42. These results show that, even though the requirement would not be entirely satlafled with respect to the regulated Lake Ontario outflows in May, the maximum May level of Lake St. Louis would not be exceeded under regulation. 43. Requirement (e): The minimum regulated monthly outflow from Lake Ontario shall be as large as possible consistent with other requirements to secure the maximum dependable flow for power operat ion. 44. The relative magnitudes of the specified , minimum'--7 I ... monthly mean outflows for the four trial plans were \designed to vary generally in accordance with the power demands throughout the year as shown in the foSlowing table. Minimum outflows-1000 c ,f .s * Under ~egulations 11-A-TC 12-A-8 Adjusted to and and Month Recorded Present Conditions 11-A-5 14-A-1 January 166 176 220 210 February 154 164 210 210 March 177 187 190 190 April 187 197 180 180

June 199 209 180 180 July August September October November December

45. Requirement ( f 1: The maximum regulated outflow from Lake Ontario should be maintained as low as possible to keep 1 ? 2, channel excavation at a minimum, I 1 46. It will be noted from Table 12 that the maximum outflow under plans 11-A-5, 12-A-8 and 14-A-1 would be 320,000 c .f .s ., which would be 7,000 c ,f ,so greater than the maximum that has occurred from 1905-1952, adjusted to present conditions. However, this high flow occurs in conjunction with high lake levels so,that the required channel enlargements are not materially affected, 47 o : The low water level under regulation should be maintained as high as is consistent with other requirements, 48. The water level data shown in a able 12 and the water level duration data, Plate 5, indicate the results obtained with respect to this requirement, In the trial plans of ~ethods11 and 12, the low levels have been well maintained for navi$$tfon and power, but in Method 14, which has a reduced upper limit, it was found necessary to select a lower limit of 243.0, in order that other criteria, princip&lly those pertaining to downstream interests, would not be violated, 49. mh):Lake Ontario should be maintained throughout the year at as high a level as is consistent with other requirements. 50. The duration curves of water levels, Plate 5, under regulation and under various unregulated conditions, illustrate the extent to which this requirement is satisfied,

General - I 51. The four trial plans presented herein have been evaluated monetarily on a comparative basis with respect to power production including the necessary channel enlargements, and navigation, at and above Barnhart Island powerhouses, and on a qualitative basis with respect to their.effects on Lake Ontario shore property, It is considered that the comparative monetary evaluations yield acceptable results since channel designs and derivation of power outputs were developed in the same manner for each of the plans, Differences in cost were also computed for providing equivalent controlling depths for

navigation in Lake Ontario harbours and channels and in the St, Lawrence River down to and including Robinson Bay lock. Each plan has been evaluated in exactly the same manner so that the differential cost and benefit figures presented herein are comparable and represent true comparisons. 52. A precise method has not been developed for esti- I I mating the annual average damage to shore property from flood- Sng and wave action, nor of assessing monetarily the effect on ! ,. ,; shore property of a change in the regimen .of lake stages because of the complex relationship between lake levels, storms,, ), and temporary fluctuations of the lake surface, The many and varied natural conditions encountered along the shore and the large variety of improvements which are subject to damage from the waters. of Lake Ontario are also complicating. factors. Shore Property 53. Shore property on Lake Ontario is subject to damage

I by flooding and by wave action, Major damage results from

8 : flooding during high lake stages but by far the greatefjtidam- i age is caused by wave action during storms particularly during periods of high lake levels, resulting in erosion of the shore and damaging or destruction of structures and buildings, 54, The shore of Lake Ontario varies from sparsely populated agricultural and undeveloped areas to the more developed sections in and adjacent to localities such as

.. . .",, Rochester, Great Sodus Bay, and Oswego, New York, and Toronto, '' ' Hamilton, and Cobourg, Ontario, In many communities extensive construction has taken place on low, unstable barrier beaches, as well as lakeward of the back shore at elevations well below that considered reasonably safe from flooding and wave action, The construction eonsists generally of summer homes, permanent residences, and various types of commercial establishments including docks and marine service facilities, 55. There are many factors other than mean lake level which have a direct effect on damage to shore property from the waters of Lake Ontario, These factors include winds and waves, temporary fluctuation in levels, the time of year, the preceding succession of levels which have obtained and the geological formation of the area, The incidence of storms and temporary rises in the lake surface coupled with strong onshore winds are major factors in the damage caused to shore property by the waters of Lake Ontario, Fortunately the storms are generally less frequent and. less severe during the summer season when the lake is at its highest seasonal stage, 56, Superimposed upon the mean lake level are daily and even hourly fluctuations resulting from unbalance or tilt- ing of the lake's surface, These are induced primarily by winds and differential barometric pressures, Such short period fluctuations reach a maximum of about 3,O feet at the east end of the lake and about 2,O feet at Oswego, 57. Damage to shore property results from flooding alone when the mean lake level exceeds natural or artificial barriers, However the problem is intensified and the flood damage increased when storm activity over the lake superimposes a temporary rise on the mean lake level, -Wave action during storms at high mean lake levels causes severe damage at many localities, Temporary rises in stage superimposed on the mean lake levels result in greater inshore. thus' increasing the force of the waves as they approach the shore .with a consequent increase in severity of wave action damage, 58, Information on property along the 265 miles of United States shore of Lake Ontario was obtained by the Corps of Engineers by means of a survey and an estimate of damages in the spring of 1952 covering the one-year period from the spring of 1951 to the spring of 1952, The Cofips of Engineers also made inspections of the shore in May 1952, May 1953 and October 1954, A reconnaisance survey in June 1954 was made of property in the United States affected by flooding at various lake stages, Cooperative beach erosion studies were conducted by the Corps of Engineers with the State of New York at Selkirk Shores, Fairhaven, Mamlin Beach and Braddock Bay State Parks, These surveys, %tud:fes and inspections

covered periods when the elevation of the lake varied from -_ 246.5 to 249.3. The Board made inspections iriMay 1953 and in June, August and October, 1954, 59. Erosion and flooding affect 225 miles of the

entire length of 330 miles of the Canadian $bore, The Canadian shore was inspected by the Board in May 1953, in June, August and October 1954 and in March 19556 These inspections covered periods when elevations of the lake varied from 246,5 to 247,9, 60, From the survey of improvements subject to flooding listed in Tables A-1 and A-3 of Appendix A, it $s indicated that severe damage from flooding begins when the water surface is between 248,O and 249,O and becomes progressively more severe at higher stages, The water surface elevation may be the same as the mean lake level or it may be higher because of a temporary rise, 61. It LB difficult to establish a critical mean lake level from the standpoint of damage from wave action. Surveys and inspections during the past three years indicate that damage from wave action is inconsequential when the mean bake level is at or below the long term average elevation of about

246.0. . Damage from wave action becomes progressively more severe as the mean lake level rises, . Such damage is intehsl- fled by temporary rises pf the water surface above the mean lake level which are often accompanied by severe stoms, As evidenced by the results of the survey in-the spring of 1952 damage may be very severe from wave action when the mean lake stage ranges between elevations 247.5 and the maximum stages. Temporary rises of from one to one and one-half feet supesim- posed upon the mean lake level at those elevations raise .the water surface, such that protect%ve beaches are drowned out and many protective structures are of inadequate height to prevent overtopping, Waves wash over at many localities . along the shore and attack the back ahore and shore structures m causing severe erosion and property damage, 62. Appendix A presents a description of the shores It of Lake Ontario with a summary of the major improvements and a qualitative analysis of the effect on shore property of the changes in the levels of Lake Ontario. 63e Any plan for regulation of the outflows from Lake Ontario would produce levels somewhat different than would . . obtain without regulation, Changes fn the lake levels and their duration will have an effect on the damage to shore property from flooding and wave 64, The effect of regulation on monthly mean stages under plans 11-A-4, 11-A-5, 12-A-8 and 14-A-1 is shown by stage-duratfon curves on Plate 5, It is considered that the stage-duration curve of levels which would have occurred with present diversions and present channel conditions in the Galop Rapids reach (Gut Dam removed) forms an adequate basis for comparison of damage to shore property since it reflects current conditions, Power 6 The procedures used in determining and evaluating, the channel enlargements to meet the criteria related thereto, and the comparative costs of the enlargements, are summarized in Appendix Bo The determination of the energy and power available from each of the four trial plans for the interim (238,0) untilmate and 242,O maximum forebay levels at the Barnhart .,,/ ,,-,- .,.. 7. Island powerhouses, the effects on Miagara power because of

%. %. the effect of changes in Lake Ontario levels on tailwater levels, and the comparative costs and benefits of the four

plans are also summarized in Appendix B, N_aviaatlon 66 The effect on navigation under the four plans is determined by the difference in costs between the plans for providing equivalent controllipg depths for navigation in the harbors of Lake Ontario, In the Thousand Islands Section of the St, Lawrence River, in the Iroquois Lock and Canal and in the Long Sault Canal and Robinson Bay Locko The cornpara-. tive evaluation of each plan with respect to navigation is

presented in Appendix C, Evaluation 67. A comparative evaluation of the four trial plans is presented in the following paragraphs and theresults are summarized in Table 13, Plan 11-A-4 has been selected as the base plan to which all others are compared, so that for the power and navigation evaluations the values shown are the differences between those of plan 11-A-4 and the other three plans.

------68,-- Plan 11-~-4; An examinathon of the stage-duration curves indicates that for plan 11-A -4 there would be some reduction, from what would have occurred with present diversions and present outlet conditions, in the duration of stages from elevation 248.8 down to elevation 247,5, a zone of levels where severe damage may occur to shore property. This would

result in some benefit, On the other hand, there would be a considera6le increase in the duration of stages between elevations 247,5 and 246,0, a zone in which moderate damage may occur to shore property, This would result in some increase in damage. It is believed that benefits resulting from the reduction in duration of stages above elevation 247,5 will approximately balance the damage resulting from the increase in duration of stages between 246,O and 247,5, 69, plan 11 -A - 5 : The stage-duration curves show that .* 1. for regulation plan 11-A-5 there would be an increase in duration of all stages up to elevation 247,g. he minor / reduction in duration of stages above elevation 247.9 would not result in any appreciable benefits to shore property, However, the significant increase in duration of stagesbetween elevations 246,O and 247,9, a zone in which damage to shore property may be moderate to severe, would reault in a substantial increase in damage shore property. Under plan 11-A-5 this substantial increase in damage would be far in excess of any benefits which might result from the minor reduction in duration of higher stages and the net result would be a large increase in damage to shore property, 70. This plan has been developed to provide the maximun power available for the range in stage from 244,o.to 248,8. In this respect it is similar to plan 12-A-8. The channel enlargements for plan 11-A-5 are estimated to c~st $1,000,000 more'than those for plan 11-A-4, This is due to the higher maximum discharge necessary at high lake levels in order to maintain the lake surface as high as possible and still not exceed the upper limit. The annual charges for this increased cost of channel enlargement would be $40,000, There would be a decrease in average annual power values at the Barnhart Island powerhouses for this plan over plan 11-A-4 of $33,560 for a maximum forebay level of 238.0, and an increase in average annual power values of $186,460 and $221,270 for a maximum of 242.0 and ultimate forebay levels respectively, There would be an average annual loas of power values a.t Miagara of $94,690 compared to plan 11-A-4 due to the generally higher levels of Lake Ontario which would in turn raise the tailwater levels of plants in the lower Niagara river, 71, As the critical low-water profile in the Inter- national Rapids reach for thia plan would be slightly higher than for plan 11-A-4, there would be a small reduction in the navigation costs for the Iroquoip Canal and Lock, the Long Sault Canal and the Roblnaon Bay Lock amounting to $265,000 with an avenage annual saving of $9,300, 72, Plan: Under regulation plan 12-A-8 the maximum atage of Lake Ontario would be reduced 0,8 foot from plan 11-A-4, or to elevation 248,0, The stage-duration curves show that the duration of stages between elevation8 248,O and 247,l would be reduced, This would reault in a marked reduction in damage to shore property because of the elimination of the extreme high stage8 where the moat severe qhore property damage occurs as well as the reduction of the duration of all other high atages down to the stage where property damage is considered to be only moderate, The resulting large reduction in damage to shore property ia considered to be much more than adequate to offset the damage resulting from the increase in duration of stages between elevations 247,l and 246,0, It is believed that, under regulation plan 12-A-8, there would be a major reduction in damage to shore property, 73. Due to the lower maximum stage permitted under this plan, the high flows must be discharged at a lower elevation, and this results In an increase in the channel excavations. The increased cost of channel enlargements of plan 12-A-8 over plan 11-A-4 would be $6,400,000, with an annual charge 1 30 0

of $256,000, In addition, plan 12-A-8 has a smaller range of lake fluctuation, and consequently a smaller storage capacity, 80 that the minimum regulated flows would not be as high. Also, due to the lower maximum limit of thin plan and the resulting generally lower levels on Lake Ontario, the average head on the power plants would be reduced slightly, There ~ouldbe a decreaae in average annual power values at the Barnhart Island powerhouses for this plan compared to plan 11-A-4 ranging from $119,700 for a maximum forebay level of 238,O to $497,600 for ultimate forebay levels, There would be an average annual increase in power values at Niagara of $127,560 compared to 11-A-4 due to the generally lower levels of Lake Ontario which would in turn lower the tailwater levels of plants in the lower Niagara River.

74, The lower limit of regulation for plan 12-A-8 is the same as that for plan 11-A-4 so that there would ?e no change in cost to navigation in the channels and harbours on Lake Ontario or in the Thousand Ialanda Section, The critical low-water profile for plan 12-A-8 would be lower than that for plan 11-A-4 in the - International Rapids sea@h,'reault%ngin an increased coat to navigation of $640,000 for the Isoquoia Canal and Lock, the Long Sault Canal and the Roblnson Bay Lock, with annual charges of $22,600. 75* Plan 14-A-1: Since all levels under regulation plan 14-A-1 are one foot lower than for plan 12-A-8, it is believed that all severe damage to shore property would be eliminated and only moderate damage would occur at the very infrequent intervals of severe s torms , 76. Due to the lower bevels, the power available under this plan would be considerably less than that for plan 11-A-4 and the channel excavations would be conaidesably increased. The total increased cost of excavation would be $20,000,00C, with an annual charge of $800,000, The decrease in annual power values at the Barnhart Island powerhouses for this plan, compared to plan 11-A-4, ranges from $417,450 for a maximum forebay level of 238.0 to $1,583,640 for ultimate forebay levels. There would . be an average annual increase in power values at Niagara 'of $532,990, compared to plan 11-A-4, due to the materially lower levels of Lake Ontario which would in turn lower the tailwater levels of plants in the lower Niagara River, Since the lower limit under this plan is one foot below that of plan 11-A-4, all harbours in the lake would have to be deepened one foot in order to maintain equivalent controlling depths. In addition, the critical low-water profile through the Thousand Islands Section and the International Rapids Section would necessitate a substantial lowering of the Iroquois and Robinson Bay lock sills and lowering the grades in the navigation channels and canals, The total increase in cost to navigation of plan 14-A-1 over plan 11-A-4 would be $17,388,000, with an annual charge of $613,100, 78. A summary of comparative costs and benefits for the four plans is given in Table 13 for three limiting forebay levels namely, maximum forebay levels of 238,O and 242.0 and ultimate forebay levels, All comparative power evaluations were based on the assumption that each limiting forebay level continues in perpetuity, The maximum forebay elevation of 238,O corresp(.nds to the interim level specified in the omm mission$ Order of Approval dated 29 October, 1952. If the interim levels should be of short duration, then the comparison shown for this level may not necessarily be valid, DISCUSSION 79. In attempting to develop a plan of regulation which . . will benefit shore property on Lake Ontario, consideration must be given to the duration of intermediate and high levels, as well as the maximum level that is reached under the plan, The results of any plan which recognizes both these factors.must be carefully assessed to determine the degree to which either of the above may outweigh the other, before conclusions can be reached as to the extent shore property interests are being benefitted or harmed. 80, The upper limits of regulation used in the studies in this report were selected as including the range of upper levels

#-- ' of Lake Ontario desired by the dfverse interests concerned with the levels and outflows of the .lake,. The requirements of the . . various-interests are not ccmpatible in all cases. The interests .-of shore property are served best by a general lowering of high lake levels while the interests of power are best served by maintenance of generally higher stages, Navigation is benefitted by generally higher stages particularly at low and medium lake levels, 81, In consideration of the above factors three methods

of regulation were selected. for study with lowerand upper limits . ,

. on Lake Ontario of 244.0 to248,8, 244.0 to 248.0 and 243.0 to 247,0, In developing the regulation plans consideration was . . given to the interests of shore prope~ty,power and navigation as well as other downstream interests in order that a proper comparative evaluation could be made of the effected interests for each range of stages stud.ied, Such a comparative evaluation is required for the selection of a range cf stages which will serve best the major interests-affected by the fluctuations of the levels of Lake Ontario, 82, Four plans of regulations were studied, 11-A-4 and 11-A-5 with limiting elevations ow Lake Ontario of 244,0 to 248.8, 12-A-8 with limits of 244-0 to 248,0 and 14-A-1 with limits of 243.0 to 247,O. 83. Plans 12-A-8 and 14-A-1 were similar in that they were designed to provide generally high stages within their respective ranges in the interests of power and navigation since it appeared that any feasible plans of regulation within those limits would result in benefits to shore property,

84. Two plans were selected under Method 11 with limits on Lake Ontario of 244,0 to 248,8, These plans were designed to develop mose fully the capabilities of regulation within these limits, particularly with respect to shore property and power, Plan 11-A-4 was developed to provide stages as high as possible for power and navigation without adversely affecting shore property. Plan 11-A-5 would give the highest levels possible for the benefit of power and navigation within the range although it was recognized that this plan would adversely affect shore property. 85. Since the above two plans were designed to obtain the maximum power within their own limits of lake range and since they both have the same lower limit on the lake, an estimate

can be made of the effect on power and navigation of the reduction in the range of stage, ibe, from 4,8 feet to 4.0 feet based on elevation 244,0, The effect on shore property of the two plans varies from substantial damage for plan 11-A-5 to considerable benefit for plan 12-A-8, It will be noted by reference to the stage dusation curves on plate 5 that for plans 12-A-8 and 11-A-5 there is a reduction in the duration of lake levels above 247,l and 247,g respec tively, These -elevations are each O,g foot below the top elevations of 248.0 and 248.8, the upper limits of plans 12-A-8 and 11-A-5 respectively, Thus,

\ if a plan of regulation with a lower limit of 244.0 and with a range of stage 4,0 to 4,8 feet is to be developed for its maxi-. mum power potential, the elevation beyond which the duration of stages would not be increased is approximately 0-9 foot below its upper limit, On the other hand if a level is selected, above which the duration of stages should not exceed those that would occur under present channel and diversion conditions, the upper limit of the range should not be less than about 0,g foot above this point for the most efficient use of the water from a power s t\andpoint, 86, Damage to shore property would be reduced substantially under plan 12-A-8 while under plan 14-A-1 practically all damage would be eliminated, Under plan 11-A-4 the reduction in damages at the higher stages would approximately offset increase in damages in the medium high stages, There would be a substantial increase in damage to shore psoperty under plan 11-A-5, 87. In the interests of navigation in the international reach of the St. Lawrence River and on Lake Ontario and in the interests of power in the International Rapids Reach, it is considered that a limiting level on Lake Ontario below 244,O would result in increased costs and reduced benefits to those

interests. . 88, From a consideration of the trial plans discussed heretofore, the maximum range of levels on lake Ontario should be at least 4 feet in order to provide the necessary flexibility of operation and to maintain the basic requirements of downstream interests, It is considered that benefits to shore property could be obtained under regulation by a careful selec-

1 tion of a duration limit above which the number of occurrences of high stages should not be exceeded any oftener than without regulation, 89. In presenting this interim report the ~oaGdhas forecast future operations on the records of 4g years 1905-52, Its final report will be based on the records of 95 years 1860- 1954, It is recognized that records of this length are short relative to the future and that supply conditions under project operation may be more severe. 90. 1.n the event of supplies in excess of those experienced the structures should be operated to give all possible relief to the riparian owners up and downstream, In the event of supplies less than those experienced the structure should be operated to give all possible relief to the navigation and power interests,

Gail A., Hathaway, To M, Patterson, United States' Member Canadian Member

.r' ! Toronto, Canada 12 March 1955. \ / 4' --4' . TABLE 1 RECORDED MONTHLY W3 ELEVATIONS OF L(LW ONTARIO AT OSWEGO, NEW,YORK, . . -.

PERIOD 1905-1952 >- , , % . -A

. + Year Jan. Feb, Mar. April May June July Aug. *,Sept. Oct. Nov, Dee..

1905 245.79 245.49 245.29 246.13 246.25 246.59 246.98 246.90 246.75' 246.45 246.07 245.88 ' 19 06 6,$2 6.09 5-90 6.24 6.35 6.40 6.57 6.26 5.80 5.51 5.58 5,70

1907 6.33 6-46 6.46 bj 6.86 7-08 7.11 7.11 6.89 6,49 6.39 6-32 6,825 1908 6.72 6.98 70 38 8.01 8.45 8'61 8.33 7.94 7.14 6.43 5.91 5.50

19 09 5-16 5.27 5. 69 6.17 7.15 7.29 7.15 6.81 6.27 5,83 " 5.34 5.2'

( continued) Table 1 ( continued) .Year Jan. Febo Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Mov. Dec. 1386 24-40 21 244.40 245.19 245a66 245.64 -245.41 245.20 244.89 244.55 244.31 244.30 244.54 1926 4.27 40 09 40 13 40 91 50 36 50 30 5. 19 4-98 4-85 4.92 5.23 5-41 1927 5.27 5.30 5.70 50 96 5-94 60 10 6, 00 5.76 50 26 4. 88 4.84 5.64 TABU 2 MONTHLY MEAN OUTFLOW FROM TAKE ONTARIO IN' 1,000 C.F.Sa PERIOD 1905-1952 Note: Determined by the Coordinating Committee on - - -- - Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data.

Year Jan. Feb, Mar, APri 1 May June July Aug. Sept, Oct. Nov. Dec.

1911 209 200 206 224 232 232 231 223 . 215 211 212 212 1912 202 19 1 198 236 255 269 259 252 247 243 241 243 1913 247 243 249 275 282 283 277 26 5 2 52 244 242 238 1914 226' 215, 210 2 53 257 257 252 245 241 229 226 215 1915 213 203 222 222 221 220 221 227 229 224 219 212

1916 218 - 216 214 245 262 2?7 279 26 7 \-d 252 2 39 230 223 1917 215 224 221 242 245 257 268 267 257 253 251 246 1918 230 - 223 241 258 260 259 257 248 243 237 2 39 234 1919 ' 239 235 2 38 251 -268 280 2T6 266 255 245 240 2 33 1920 212 204 -209 229 -229- 229 232 229 226 223 2 19 226 1921 227 221 235 245 251 250 245 236 226 2 19 210 2 15 1922 208 198 213 240 248 .252 257 248 237 229 219 208 1923 200 196 196 221 229 2 36 231 225 2 16 2'08 204 201 1924 210 202 208 224 240 243 242 238 230 226 218 208 1925 183 188 215 227 230 226 222 2 16 208 204 206 210

(.continued ) Year Jan. Feb. Mar. April May -June July Aug., Sept, Oct. Nov, Dec. 1 j1 Prwhional Monthly Mean Supply to Lake Ontario in 1,000 c.f,s. assuming 3,1000 c.f.s. diverted at Chicago a& 5,000 c,f,s, added from Ogoki and Long Lac

L Mote: 1, Outflaws used are those detemined for the - Co-Ordinating Camnittee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data

-- +- 2, End of Month levels obtained by analysis of daily hydrographs at Oswego, N.Y ., Toronto, Ont, Port Dalhousie, Ont . and Kbgston, Ont, 3. Effect of Diversions taken fromthe Niagara River Reports on the Yreservat ion of Niagara Falls.

- Yeax Jana Feb , Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. c,

Year Jan, Feb. Mar, April May June July Aw* Sept, Oct, Nw. Dec.

1921 229 231 - 301 283 273 zW, 231 202 1922 198 236 259 342 262 290 255 218 1923 2U, 198 258 263 263 262 209 - 207 1924 244 208 238 286 302 249 244 224 1925 181 u6 289 245 228 224 212 186 -...... , ...... , . :. . . . .

...... T=9.(c&Wea)..;'' ., ...... ,

Year .- Jan. Feb. ~ar..'~prFl .Way June ' July liug:' Sept. 0ct. ... - ... . .

194s 230 2l3 ' ,217, 263- 213 :! 208 . 2U. 185 184 ' 189' 1942 187 198 ' . 298 279 266 247 234 ,206 220 207 1943 238 253 ,291 294 . 385 313 ,276 254 . '229 233 1944 208 224 ,245 306 288 . 283 244 212 219 . ,194

1945- , 207 219 328 - 303 327' . - 286 . 268 231 ' . . 258- 284 .. -. 1946 247 242 287 242 265. . 262 234 220 215 226 -- - . 1947 . 261 226 267 331 338 369 306 246 226 -210 . 1948 :221 241 321 315 313 280 253 227 200 209 1949 254 274 . 256 283 . .248 222 2U, 179 200 189

1950 '285 m' ,279 , 327 . 262 259 237 217 200 219 . ., -......

19% 267 . 274 314. :: 376 ,299 . 288. . 280 228. ' , 226' 217

. , .'...... - . . 1952 298 290 ....: ,325 363 336, 288 -266 ,240 . 244 205 ..... :', ...... ,., . ., ...... MONTHLY MEXI? ELEVATIONS - 1906-1952

Year ' Jan. Feb, Mar. ~prll )I** 3une July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. - ...... 4 '(Confirmed): ....:::, .. :'.. 1.. m...... '; ....." ', ...... ,......

Year . Jan.. . Feb. ' Mar. . Apri 1 , May ::June,' Ju-. . ...Aug. ;Sept.. act...... 245.56 245.12 '245.14 246.01 246.61 246.87..247.'00:247.2? 247.27 '246.77

- 5.74 5.69 5-97 6-24 6.'65 " - 7-14 -' 70.30 70 30 7.01 6e63 ...... *...... $' ;...... I ...... _;,: ..: ...... ; ...... -...... : ...... > . , ...... :,. : ...... :,: . ....: .:.... : >. :... .:. .... - . . - ...... :. .-L, ...... -. -.- ...... : ...... :i.;.:;-. .. TmIIE,:-:'5: "; ;" ' .,- , . , ...... :,.:;...... ;..: ....:...... ,.. :,. . "." _...... 1.':;:~:...... - .... L ...... :...... : . . ... :. .: .;.:: ...... : :.. : ...... - 7...... ,: . . . .: ...... ,: ...... '- , , . . : . " . R'~G~~~~~:::OF" 'MICE '~~~1~::.:;:. .i{mo~ll-A--Q : ...... ,...... : ...... I ..: .:...... ,...... ~ONTHLY,M&' REG~TH).OUTFLO~JS *IN: 1,'0~0 6.f; s, - ;i9b5- 1952 . .' ...... : ...... + ...... -. , ...... , ...... , ...... -.

, Year Jan. - Feb.' .' Mar...... Apri. . 1. .. noy::: ,June : . JC~$-,, Aug. : ' Sept ,' Oct. Nov. Dec...... , '...... 220 210 :. 190 - . ,194 '213 ''252 . ,285 '254 3.03 271. ,286 26 2

220 ,234' 2~9... 217 ..214 221 258 ' 227 ' 244 247 288 273 . 220 260 - . 276 1 239 225 . . '.260 252. 245 277 289 285 276

220 251 28 0 28 3 274 ' 299' 310 26 2 276 253 271 220

220 210 ' 209 222 250 '300 2G4< 242 272 . 238 255 235 -" 220 210 207 24 0 229 260 '. 230 207 27 1 25or 272 '223 . ~ TABLE 5,' , ( cbntinued)

,7 Year Jan, Feb, Mar, April May June- July Aug, Sept. I Oct, Nov. Dec, 200 228 208 218 180 273 241 196 240 228 216 228 264 254 226" 264 239 287 - 283 298.- 310 310 29 3 288 295 288 293 292 248 255 TBLE 6 REGUWTION OF LAKE ONTARIO - XETHOD 11-A-5 I MONTHLY MEAN E~EVICTIONS - 1905-1952

Year Jano Feb. &I arm April May June July Aug, Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. . . Dec. -

TABLE L 7 , RE(3ULATION OF ONTARIO - METHOD 11-A-5 -.

MONTHLY MEAld REGULATED OUTFLOWS IN 1,000 C. f. s. - 1905-1952 . -- - i Year Jan. Feb. Mar. April gay June July Aug. Sept. 0cC Nov. Dec. 220 210 19 0 19 5 213 252 285 256 302 270 286 26 2

220 233 239 216 214 221 258 227 245 246 ' 288 273 220 26 0 277 239 224 26 0 254 244 .277 288 28 5 276 220 250 280 281 - 274 320 303 257 -. 2'76 254 267 220 220 210 207 22 3 25 0 316 ' 250 241 271 238 255 235 220 210 204 241 229 259 232 206 271 252 269 226

/- 220 210 205 803 204 220 230 18 0 230 248 264 241 220 234 217 231 266 309 265 216 269 297 279 273 220 26 0 280 285 283 '307 271 240 272 254 282 261 220 210 209 242 259 264 238 202 276 262 247 229 220 210 228 201 18 5 198 209 196 3G6 285 260 220

220 242 257 241 26'1 310 - 320 240 25 1 251 26 5 226 220 210 204 254 26 2 245 310 288 283 287 293 278 220 , 210 246 26 9 253 230 243 214 259 295 288 272 220 --- FS9 256 ' - 255 261 : 320 295 , 240 281 267 280 251 266 220 210 3 190 192 .. 186 ._ ' 202% 223. 227 259 26 1 281 -2 - d 220 241 , 253 264 243 248 225 198 230 242 255 241 220 210 230 246 269 ' 246 280 ' 231 250 26 0 238 220 220 210 190 204. 203 234 246 ,180 239 23'1 235 229 220 243 228 - 221 228 280 . 232 214' 26 1 26 8 241, 220 22e 210 191 282 . 202 197 , 202 180 211 256 228 267 - \

( continued)

/ -... >s-, Year Jan, Feb, Mar, April May June July Sept, Oct, Nova Dec. 271 227 282 289 253 209 244 207 190 190 TABU3 8 L' Regulation of Lake Ontario - Method 124-8 i

- ----Monthly --. ble+Xlarationk-. - .-- 305-1958. .

Year Feb. Mar. April May June July AURo Sept. Oct. Rove Dec. . -. .-\ year Feb,. Mar. April Mas June 3uls Aua.. SeD %.. '. :. Oct . ~ov. Dee. . . . . r ...... , .:...... : Tms.'...... :..:;. .'I, ; : ...... ' ...... : ... . of' Lake' 10ntario -.'$fethod12-~-8.:' ...... Monthly M ean:.~emlited~utflons~in ... 1,000 c.f. s. -. 1905 to 1952 . . . . : ...... k...... Year Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July AUR. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. TBLE 9 (continued) . . . . ,. .,, . . dl - ... 4' . - \ ......

Jan, Feb, Mar, - April ' May '. Sune - 3ul;v. AUR. 8ept. Oct, ' Nov, Dec,

-I 220 210 193 203 228 193 207 202 259 269. 287 . 280

220 223 2 34 239 -(195 223 '219 246 221 244 261 . 275 . .

220 260 280 268 255 211 256 26'7 278 236 ,286. ,. ,272.

220 242 249. 280 ' . 294 320 . 316 288 . 287 279 285 1. 275 210 25 0 2.80 294 285 320 250 . 275 247 274 232 '.:: 1247

210 . 210 190 184 - 180 212.. . 199 217. 203 .246.. 222 .-'... 223 219 255 280 - 234 248 . 21-3 196 . 227 239 . 201 250 . 242

216 217- 202 201 2 19 211 . 194 192 2 18 210 . 210 . 220

210 210 190, 180-1 ,. 180 180 ' 180 180 19 0 200 210 ' : 220

210 2io 190 180 . 180 180 ,180 180 190 200 . 210 . 220 J

210 210 19 0 202 221 181 180- 183 '194, 235 .' 229 220' 2.17 249 280 204 220 242 227 227 251 209 275 236 210 210 234 239 . 222 198 193 2 33 24 1 274 213 . 235

2 14. 210. 212 236 . 253 204 ,206 219 244 212 250 , 220

210 210 1'30 l182 220 . 236 ' 234 2 39 207 , 259 210 270 . . '

220 236 227' 201 . 200 180 180 198 207 222 239 . ,224

220 ' 210 195 248 . 234 - ,223 . 218 ' 232 229- 277 25 1 '."269

220 24 0' 276 . 258. , ,. 251- 320 - 320 277.. . 295 275 . ,285.:. 260

' 210 . 210 206 . 22.6 - 246 -. ' 246 .; -267 - 241 - 238 - "2.72 225 ...... 235 .

211 210 215 ...- 276 ' .. : 268 . 301 :-... 264:. . . ,273 :.' ,262 .. - . 30.8 ' 300 . 285 ... . . , . .... , . . . . . ,. , ...... ,. , :, . . .. 220 253 : . 280 . 249 .'- ':203 ' 221'. ' 238,-:..( 231, , : 251 . . ,261 ~",. .283 250.,;:::.. '. 245 . ,. , . 250-.:,;,.:. :' . . 214' 241 ...... ,. 275 . ' ,:'320 -320: 320 282 ; . 276 254 252 " 210 210 231:. . 278. .. 277 .... 285 ' 1' .264 185 3 257, ' . 238 ', 2.69' .: 253 . .

210 ' ' 228, 263 . - 245 . :.235' - 203 . . 188 . 211 . -196. . 251 227 : ; 220' .,,

. ~:.220 250. ....280 . 264 : ,276 . . 22.4 -' 233 2W , ,, 244 : 238 , 281; ,, :270', ,. :...... , ,, . -...... , . . . . ., ...... , . -. . . ' . . 26~'.'....; 272, ... . . 220 . 254 ' 280 . . 290 ' 308:. . 320 ,, 262 , , :287 "' 257. - 281

220 . 260 280: 302 .:, :,a14., 320 :. -; 317 - '. 265 , . 276 298 .. 242,., ' -. "2.70' ,., '- ...... ,...... '< ...... :...... , ...... 1'. -. . : ...... -1- ...... ~ . . .- ...... , ...... - . ... .1...... -...... " ...... ' ...... D=&.* Year Jan. Feb. ~ariApril ,..~~~',June'~~uly. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov...... ~ ...... 1C (continued) . Jj ...... ,. . .- . . . . ,. TaEaE ......

Year Jan. Feb. Mar.... ' April , May . .: ~une: . : Julp. . . Augo . Sept.. . . , "Oct. " Nov. Dec...... ,...... ,. .>...... -. .: . ",...... : ...... ,...... : . . . . > ...... ". , ...... , ...... - ...... : ...... - ...... , ...... :. :...... ~. .~...... ,...... , . ., ., .. . : .. . . . Tm . 11:: -.;; ..... ; . ,.f . ;. -;:, ...... , ...... :...... '- . . , . , ...... , , :...... ,...... -.>...... :: ... .* ...... ~~~~o~~~.~~~~,~~.~~~,~.~~:~~~~~,~~~~~; : : ...... :...... -. ... : ... . . , ...... i...... : :':' . , '. ' ' ' . Monthlr :Mean Ra~1ate.dOutf+lors - ... . c.'f. s. , -..19~'to 1952. : 1 :' ...... :,in.:l,.~~o,...... ' . . ' . .

:%ear : . Jan, , Feb. .': ~ar.Ail ', a . ,:...... JU@, . . .: ~uly. . . : .. Sept. . Oct. ,,:" Nov. . ~ec...... ' Fear , . ,Tan,: .=to TABLE 12 HEGUUITON OF LAKE ONTARIO - METHODS 11-A-4, 11-A-5, 12-A-8 and 14-A-1 Pepfod 1905-1952 COMPARISON OF 0UTFII)WS AND LFVELS

Adjusted to Ae Actually Present Under Regulation kthod Occurred Conditions ll-A-4 A512-A-8 U-An1 -- -- Monthly mean Outflows in 1,000 cofoso \

No. of Months- above 310 1 1 0 17 16 16 ti 300 4 9 20 26 25 25 n 290 16 25 43 38 36 36 below 210 UO 63 96 98 85 85 " 200 59 32 55 52 52 52 190 31 %3 29 29 24 24 180 13 5 0 0 0 0

Monthly Mean Lake Levels a. Total Pepiod: Mm 249629 Mi* 242ou

No, ~f Wnths- abve 249 0O 2 " 24805 13 . 248a0 31 " 24705 56' In 24700 100 below 245,O :138 " 24405 73 O0 24.400 34 ' 24305 16 a 24300 5 be Navigation Season Only (~pr~~rJsp~,incl,) Mbbum 242068 242094 24.4035 244058 244028 243028 Table 13

ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF TRIAL PLANS WITH 11-8-4 FOR VARIOUS LIMITING FOREBAY LEVELS

Plan and Items Economic Value (Average Annual) to U. S. and Canada by comparison with Plan 11-A-4. Limi tin^- Forebay Levels Jnterim (218+0) ultihate 242,0

Barnhart Island Power -$33,560 $221,270 $186,460 Niagara Power - 94,690 - 94,690 - 94,690 Channel Excavations - 40,000 - 40,000 - 40,000 Navi-gation Facilities and Harbours 9,300 9,300 9,300 Totals -$158,950 $ 95,880 $ 61,070 Shore Damage Considesahle increase in damage

Basnhar t I sland Power -$119,700 -$497,600 -$4519 570 Niagara Power 127,560 127 ,560 127,560 Chanqel Excavations -256,000 -256,000 -256,000 Navigation Facilities and Harbours - 22,600 - 22,600 - 22,600 Totals Shore Damage Considerable decrease in damage

Barnhar t Island 'power Niagara Power Channel ~xcavat ions Navigation Facilities and Harbours Totals -$1,297,560 -$2,463,750 42,352,820 Shore Damage A11 significant damage eliminated REGULATION OF LAKE ONTARIO RULE CURVES ,M.ETHOD I I A 04

PLATE I(a) INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION

REGULATION OF LAKE ONTARIO RULE CURVES - METHOD II-Am4 APRIL* MAY

LAKE INTERNATIONAL ONTARIO MARCH 1955 .BOARD OF ENGINEERS PLATE l(b) INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION

REGULATION OF LAKE ONTARIO RULE CURVES METHOD II. A -4 JUNE JULY AUGUST

PLATE I(c1

PLATE 2(b) PLATE 2(c) PLATE 2(d) INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION

REGULATION OF LAKE ONTARIO RULE CURVES METHOD 12.A.8

JANUARY. FEBRUARY MARCH

NTERNATIONAL LAKE ONTARIO MARCH 1955 BOARD OF ENGINEERS PLATE 3(b) INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION

REGULATION OF LAKE ONTARlO RULE CURVES METHOD 12.A-8 JUNE . JULY - AUGUST

PLATE 3 (c) REGULATION OF LAKE ONTARIO RULE CURVES METHOD 12.A.8 SEPT.- 0CT.- N0V.-DEC.

PLATE 3(d) INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION

REGULATION OF LAKE ONTARIO RULE CURVES METHOD 14*A*I JANUARY - FEBRUARY. MARCH

INTERNATIONAL LAKE ONTARIO MARCH I/ BOARD OF ENGINEERS

PLATE 4(a) RULE CURVES

APRIL. MAY

PLATE 4(b) REGULATION OF LAKE ONTARIO RULE CURVES METHOD 14*A*I JUNE JULY. AUGUST

PLATE 4(c) WATER LEVEL OF LAKE ONTARIO - BEGINNING OF PERIOD INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION

REGULATION OF LAKE ONTARIO STAGE -DURATION

PERIOD 1905 - 1952

PLATE 5 ------Adjusted to present conditions.

REGULATION OF LAKE ONTARIO OUTFLOW - DURATION

PERIOD 1905 - 1952

PLATE 6 ELEV. ABOVE MEAN TIDE AT N.Y. IN

246.0 L - II I

245.0

I 244.0 -

I It - (, 243.0

I,'

J - -I I 'I u,,' I- 1 - 242. 1935 DATUM

PLATE 7-A ELEV. ABOVE M €AN TIDE AT N.Y. IN FEET 249.0

248.0

247.0

246.0

245.0

244.Q

243.0

242.0 1935 DATUM ELEV. ABOVE MEAN TIDE AT N.Y. IN FEET

Adjusted to Present Condition$

Regulation Method II -A -4 Regulation Method 12-A - 8

INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION Regulation of Lake Ontario MONTHLY MEAN LEVELS OF LAKE ONTARIO AT OSWEGO 1940 -- 1952

INTERNATIONAL LAKE ONTARIO BOARD OF ENGINEERS MARCH 1955

1935 DATUM INTERIM REPORT ON REGULATION OF LAKE ONTARIO

APPENDIX A

EFFECT OF. REGULATION ON LAKE ONTARIO SHORE PROPERTY '

TABLE OF CONTENTS

General

Description of United States Shoreline

Niagara Falls to Olcott Harbor

Olcott, Harbor to Oak Orchard Harbor

Oak Orchard to Rochester Harbor Rochester Harbor to Great Sodus Bay Harbor Great Sodus Bay Harbor to Oswego Harbor

Oswego Harbor to Sackets Harbor

Sackets Harbor to Cape Vincent

Cape Vincent to Alexandria Bay

Alexandria Bay to and Including Ogdensburg Damage Survey of the United States Shore in 1952 Description of Canadian Shoreline Niagara River to Hamilton City of Hamilton to Humber River Humber River to Scarborough Scarborough - Port Hope Port Hope to St. Lawrence River Summary of Damages on the Canadian Shore

Discussion TABLES

A-1 Extent of Flooding on United Gtates Shore of Lake Ontario.' A-2 Rate of Shore Erosion in Lincoln County, Ontario. A-3 Principal Wharves and Breakwaters along Canadian Shore of Lake Ontario Affected by Levels of Lake Ontario,

PLATE

8-1 -Location of Shore Property Damage INTERIM REPORT ON REGULATION OF LAKE ONTARIQ APPENDIX A EFFECT OF REGULATION ON LAKE ONTARIO SHORE PROPERTY

General 1, Shore properties on Lake Ontario are subject to damage by flooding and by wave action, By far the greatest damage on . - both the United States and Canadian shores is caused by wave action during storms resulting in erosion of the shore and the damaging or destruction of shore installations, Studies made by the Corps of Engineers in the spring of 1952 of the damage to the United States shore of Lake Ontario for the one year period from the spring of 1951 to the spring of 1952, a period of high lake stages, indicated that approximately 85 per cent of the damage to shore properties resulted from wave action while only 15 per cent resulted from flooding, 2. Any plan for regulation of the outflows from Lake On- tario must necessarily result in regulating the levels of the lake to produce levels somewhat different than would obtain without regulation and with an uncontrolled outlet, Changes in the lake levels and their duration will have an effect'on the damage to shore properties from flooding and from wave action. This appendix will consider the effect on shore properties of the changes in levels of Lake Ontario which would result if the lake were regulated between limits of 244,0 - 248.8, 244.0 - 248,p, and 243.0 - 247,0. The effect on shore

A-1 properties will not be evaluated monetarily since no method has been developed to derive such an evaluation. 3, Lake Ontario has a surface area of 7,540 square miles, Its maximum length is 193 miles and -maximum-widt-h 53 miles and it has a maximum recorded depth of 778 feet, Records of lake levels have been maintained since 1860, All levels in this report are based on-monthly mean values at Oswego, New York, as published. by the UoSoLake Survey on the 1935 datum, Since 1860 .---the.mont-hly-mean .-level--ha-s--v.ari-ed from a .low -of-24~~68 in Noven- ber 1934 to a..-high.of -249029..-i-n -June. 1952, for a --maximum f luc- tuation in monthly mean stages of 6,61 feet, The average mean elevation of--the lake for the period 1851-1954 was -246,04-, 4. In addition to long-range fluctuations, the levels of

/ Lake Ontario show a seasonal pattern of high stages in summer and low in winter, The highest monthly mean level is usually 1' reached in June with the lowest level occurring most often in January, The average seasonal range in levels is 1,8 feet, varying from a minimum of 003 foot-to a maximum of 3,5 feet between the winter low and summer high, 50 Supertmposed upon the long--range and seasonal flnctua- t ions resulting f rom-the actual quantity of water-in the lake, --t-hereare .daiPy.-and.eGen.--hourly--:fl-u-ctu-attons --re~sulti~g from .unbal-a-nce---.or-.--ti.lti-ng of' -the lake-9----surf.ace. T-hese .are induced..

primarily - by winds and- -differential barometri-c--pressures. These .-short p e-r-iod--f lu-c-t uat-i-ons --re-a c k .-.a,--maximum'---of. about 3.0 feet at

the east end of--the-la-ke*andabout . . 2,O-fe-et .-at-Owego. As major storm movements are -generally in an ea-sterly direction It can be

the east end of the la-ke as a result of'low barometric pressures followed by .strorig we-ste-rly winds, , 6, There are many factors other than mean lake level whi: h

have a d ire-ct .ef f ect.--on-.dams-ge----to ----s-hore:.:-p:rope.r.t~:e:s-f'rom- .the -.w.ate ps

I of Lake ~Ont-ario,. T-he.se factors include' winds and.waves 9. temporary fluctuation in levels , the time of year, the preceding -succession

of levels whic-h- have..obtained-, and - geological--^format %on of t.he area , The.-incidence of :-storms and -tkmporary..-r5.s-e-s-in ,the. -lake surface coupled with strong onshore winds are major factors in the damage caused to shore properties by the waters of Lake Ontario. Fortunately the storms are generally less frequent and less severe during the- summer season when.-the lake is'--.at--i.ts highest stage, . . The- ---most--severe:.-st-orms --:usually ,--oc-cur-..-durtng the -fall .wint-er and

.early-- the '.lake-2evel- . is--.-on-the .low.::side -.:of ::its... seasonal : fluctuation cycle-, i 7, Damage -t.o -shore- property -can -r-r-e-sult----Prom-f 1-ood ing -alone when the me an la-ke Level .r-exceeds..natural--- or.^.-artificial ..barr.iers , This damag-ing situation may last for a period -of-'several-week,s and may involve no parti-cu1a.r---storm .-.a-cti.vtty-, .However, the -problem is intensified and the flood damage increased when storm activity over-the lake superimposes a-temporary .rise on the mean lake level, 8, The offshore depth of water determines the point at which a particular wave will break and dissipate its energy as it approaches the shore% Temporary rig-6s in stage superimposed'

pact of wave act-ion, A-3 9, Although- a -few storm events accelerate and dramatize- most of the damages from wave action at a particular locat-ion, erosion processes are continuous -throughout the year, To con-

s.ider damage s' to.--be- rt:he. :.:ent~re-.-~-re:s~l~ ,.-of. an --tnd-%vidual. st o.rm event would -not--gi-ve,proper .-considerat %on .-to--.t he -cont.inuous -proce.s se s:. wh.2c.h-.v.ary --i-n --i-nt-ens~.ty---with..::s-e~a-sona~: .l.ake.-eJe-

vat ions ,'- p~revai-tin-g---~i.nd.~:. :at .-:di-f f s r:ent -.lo.cati.ons:9.--.:*c.e cove-r and

perties are encountered. However, fbatkng i-ce-fields form many I

miles off shore . and durtng "'st-orms--these.f ieTds lare--some.ti.mes driven on .-shore causing severe-..-d-amage'-to structures Description of Unit-ed States Shoreline 11, The United Sta-tes shore of Lake Oqtario varies from sparsely populated undeveloped and agricultural areas to the more developed sections in and adjacent to localities such as Rochester, Great Sodus Bay and Oswego, New York, Since World War I1 many . . summer cottages have been converted to year---around homes, In add ition new shore communities -have developed, and irregular intervals of extreme high lake stages permits individuals and communities to overlook the inevitable recur- rence of such extreme high levels, 13. Information on the properties along the Unites States shore of Lake Ontario included herein was obtained by the Corps of Engineers by means of a -survey and an estimate of damages in the spring of 1952--covering the one-year perfod from the spring

of . 1951 .to:-%he --spring -of -1952, kspect-f.on:s --of-.-l-t.he : shore- -were-. made in May 1952, May-: 1953, and October 1954, A reconnais.sance..

. ... -.-survey.-i.n :June ,1954- was -made -of..-..prop-e-rt.i-e.s-:-a.f-f.ected -by flooding at-..various.la-ke --st-ages C-o-.ope~.at.$ve:-be-ach. :e-ro-s ion -st~d.ie.~.-we~e

ondu-cte d .by---t.h-e :.. @ 0 rp s ,of --Englnesr s---w f th-.-.t'he ---~-.t.at:~ f ...New Yo r.k at Selkirk Shores, Fairhaven, Hamlin Beach and Braddock Bay State Parks. These surveys,-~tudiesand inspections covered

periods whqn -the elevation of the lake-varied from -246,s to I 249 .3. Thq Board -made 'joi-nt'.--inspections in May 1953 and October

1954 0

14, The le.ng-thof---the.:-unf.ted Bt:at:esV-main1a-nd . of

Lake Ontario is approxtmatel-y 265 miles and ex-tends from the mouth of -the Nf agara River to -the head -of the St. Lawrence River. The United States -shore line of- the St, Lawrence River from Cape Vin-cent -to Ogdensburg ----t-s'.-:appr.oxi-mate1y100 -m-iXes i.n .length.

15, . For -.c.o-nveni.ence,--t.n- .d:escrt-bing----t-he..-.phy.si-cal---c.haracteris------t,tcs. of ---the---~shor g-.:-and -the.- t.yp:e. -of -deveI;opment-s--.whl-c-h are. sub-je c&

-to -recurri.ng -f lood.$ng and --ero-~$on-dramage , -the -Unft.ed S-ta-te s -shore

.---ha s '-been . d.iv.i:&ed.--int.o -zsever al---.rea.c.he-s , --.e-a-chof--which -ks de-scribed -hereinafter 16. Table A-1 indicates the extent of flooding at various lake stage-s up to elevation 25100, which is 1.7 feet above the maximum mean monthly level of record, The-survey covered improvements subject to flooding at the higher elevations since actual flooding does occur at elevations above monthly mean stages due to-temporary rises in the lake surface during storms and in addition daily mean lake-stages are often higher than the monthly me.an, 17. ,P-1-a-teA-1 is -a map of-.Lake..-Ontarioon which are india-

\ cat ed the .-reac.hes as.-..well .-.as -~.t.he--:a.re:a.s-~.w.here--:~:~.he~- most serious -~prop-~rty~dama~e~.~oceurr~.-$n 19.51-520

180 Niaaara Falls to 0lcot.t Ha-rbor. This reach is 28 mile-s long, 12. mP1e.s be-ing in %-.he-river -be-low.Ni-a~gara Falls. The lake.. shore from-the mouth of Niagara BTver~toOlcott Harbor consists of lacustr-ine bluffs fronted.-.by--beaches. up .to 50 feet in width . .. at mean lake level, elevation ,246, ..The westerly part of the reach as far as Wilson Harbor is 'well -developed -for.-resid.ent ial purposes -wh.ile east.--ofWi1:son -.H-a~bor--to.-withi-n--one mile of Olcott. . .

Harbor -the-shore..-f ront age is fused -for-agricultural ~purp-o-ses . There . - : ,. are c-ommercial -.estabTishments. along the .:waterfront .in. :t:he Federal .. .

-- ha.rbors---at.-b!il.son - and 0 l-c-ott. --T..he.--government..-ent-rance ~ .pa.ers. .Tat the-se harbors--would be overt-opped at- el-evation -251.0.

',\.> 19. Exi-sttng-:.-ero-sf.on.::and-f~oo&--.prev.~nt~~on:.:-mea~e s c.0n.s-i st

of groins, --bulkheadsand --dumped--riprap constructyed to protect individual parcels of -property, The -only large scale shomprotecticn I is at the state park adjacent- to the Niagara River mouth where a heavy bulkhead and a system of groins have been constructedo Only a small portion of this reach of shore has been protected, although most of the shore at Olcott has been protected against -erosion with dumped stone, In many of the unprotected -areas serious bank recession has resulted from wave action, 20, Damage from flooding in this reach, althouyh significant, represents a minor portion of the total damages along the shore. Table A-1 indicates the approximate number and type of st-ructures i-n-the- -reach-which would be f looded--whenthe 'lake

surf ace -reac-hes-'-%he--i-nd-i-c-at-ed--.el--evation-so . It .-is-to benoted that this table reflects only improvements which would be affec-

, ted by flooding, Flooding of 1-awns, basements and access roads would usually begin at lower elevations, 21, Of the total damages estimated to have occurred in the one-year period from the spring of 1951 to the spring of 1952 about 80 per-cent resulted from wave action and 20 per cent resulted from flooding, 22, Olcott Harbor to Oak Orchard Harbor, This reach has a length of 27 miles. Lake -bluffs -just east of Olcott rise to about 40 feet for -two miles, -then descend gradually to about 20 feet, continuing at a-bout -that -height for approximately 15 miles, From, this point eastward the shore line becomes lower, j 23. The -first mile of this -reach of shore has generally -been

prot ectedwi-th-st-one and -be:ache-s---retained --by---gro-i-ns -and 3s . deve- !. loped principally for re-sidential purposes -but-i-nc-ludep -the county I owned Krull- Park. 24, In the next-ten miles to--the Niagara-Orleans County line rock forms at least-the lower part -of the shore bluffs, From the , county line to Oak Orchard Harbor the shore con-si-sts of low bluffs

... of lacustrine. material wtt-h rock .-outcropping-----f rom a--f-ew--f.eet.- above - to a few feet below mean lake level. Except for the- westerly one-mile section, the land, in general, is used for agriculture. 25, The improvement of Oak Orchard Harbor for light draft navigation as a Federal project is authorized but unconstructed. 26, No comprehensive plan of shore protection against erosion has been developed although individual property owners -have constructed bulkheads and placed dumped riprap, Damage from f loodi'ng -..Ln-..th.rs.,..rea.c.h-i-s---of.---mi-nor- -consequence. . The few homes and other structures -are generally at elevations which are not subject to flooding, Table A-1 -indicates the approximate number and type of structures -in -the reach which would be flooded when the lake surface reaches the indicated elevations. Flooding of lawns ,-/basements, and access roads would -occur at lower elevations, 27, The damage survey made in the spring of 1952 indicated that practically all of --thedama-ge-..-which --hadu-.o-ccurred in the previous 12 months was c~aused.by ,-wave action, 28, Oak Orchard---- Roc-he-ster Harbor, .This -re-a-ch-is about 33- miles--in length, Tp--t.he-we-st erzy 13---miles .-of:----the re~a-cb---t he. bluff s-j composed .of .-1zcustri:ne---.material,. . are -low -except--tn -the last two miles where theyrise to a maximum height of qO;--fe.et,--then drop

/ to about 20 feet, - Narrow -beaches -front the -bluffs at mean lake levelo 29. The easterly 20 miles of the reach consists of an almost

ter Harbor , .at...t.be.-mout,h -.of.---t:he..- -Gene-sses .. R%ver-.:%s -the e aste~lylimit .. . / : i. of this reach. ~othharborentrance piers have a top elevation of 251,5, A municipal dock and warehouse ad-joins the inner end of the west pier and immediately iandward thereof the New York Cen- Y tral freight yards occupy about one mile of the -west shore of A-8 the Genessee River,

300 F.or-.-the-f irst-~-tenmiles east of Oak Orchard the -shore property '-is-used -primarily for -agricultural purposes w%th a few residential developments. ~e,~ondthis, and including a porti.on'

. of .-.t.he..- hi. gh---groun&-::r-eferred t.0:-:above , ' .is: Haml-tn:.:Bea-c~h..Stat Park

- wzt.h--a-b.out 2.-1/2:-miZes --of .frontage -o

310 -The--:b:arrie .::be-a~he-~ --comprts*ng -t.he..e-aste-r-l.y 20 miles t-o -Roc-hester ---Harbor-are -hi-ghly .deve.l-op-ed-as---.re s ident'ial- area s , aTt-hou-ghthe- .ave.rage e.l~evation of ---the..--ar-e~a-varies .--from249 to 252 and the beach -berm varies from 252 to 2540 Included in this portion -of --the -reach-are areas -known as Braedock Bay State Park, W-automa Bela-c.h, -.HtZt.on -Be-a-ch.,David-s-on Beach, Granclvkew- Beach,

Crescent Beach.-and I-sland C.ot:tage.-Beach, ..T:h-e-se--rareas4 other than

Braddock Bay--State Park, are hTgh.1~developed--re.s+-dential -areas- with a total of about 1,000 cottages -and-year-around homeso 32. Although no comprehensive plan of shore protection has been developed a large portion of this 20--mile-reach of shore has partial protection from wave- attack and flooding- in-the form of

dumped stone- revetment, sea walls and -groins,yt he-: general esleva- t.ions of '--whi--ch-.yare..-about -250 - 251, T-he-.-mater2-a1 --in the barr i.e.r beach is easily eroded and erosion was-very severe during 1951 and 1952- when some-unprotected -frontages -receded-from 20 to 30 feet . 'At -,Grandview--~Beac.ht-he -mai.n-.-road.-on the -barrier beach has been rai-s'e.d-.,,.to--..-approximat e ly e2eVatton ,254--:si-nee t-he 1952 high

-lake -level occurred.

in co-operatton "wi-t-h%he state .of New York--w%th --a-.view to-- de,ve- loping a plan for protection of these publicly owned shores. A-9 34. Damage from flooding in this reach is also extensive, However, the sea walls provide protection against flooding until the water surface reaches approximately elevation 249, Table A-1 indicates the number and type of improvements that would be flooded when the lake surface reaches the indicated elevations, Flooding of lawns, basements and access roads would occur at lower elevations, 35, The damage survey made in spring 1952 indicated that d.amage from wave action represented approximately 83 per cent of the total damages which occurred in the preceding 12 months and flocd- ing 'caused the remaining 17 per cent, 36. Rochester Harbor -to Great Sodus Bay Harbor, The reach is about 35 miles in length, From Rochester to Sea Breeze, at the west side of Irondequoit Bay, the shoreline consists of bluffs 29 to 40 feet high of lacustrine materialo Across the lakeward end of Irondequoit Bay there is a 5 foot natural barrier beach which has been raised for a railroad fill to about 15 feet above mean lake level, The shores around the sides of the bay are steep with only a few scat.tered low areas --between-the--toe.of the bluffs and the water, However, the south end of the bay is low and flat, State Route 104 crosses this area at an elevation of about 250, East from Irondequoit Bay the lake -shore-is -composed of lacustrine bluffs 30 to 40 feet in h-ei-ght to the vicinity of Pultneyville where they -decline to about 20 feet, East of Pultneyville to Great Sodus Bay the shoreline becomes lower but intermittent bluffs reach 80 to 100 feat above the mean water elevation, 370 Most of the property in the first nine miles east of Rochester is protected by bulkheads or dumped riprap, There are also a few rock outcrops in -this section oi' the -reacho Consider- able lake front property in Pultneyville and near Great Sodus Bay A-10 has been protected by riprap and bulkheads. Zlsewhere along the lake front only scattered protective measures have been taken, 38. The lake shore in the first 1-1/2 miles east of Roches- ter .Harbor in Rochester is residential, the next mile is occupied by a'city park which is adjoined by 3 miles of shore occupied by the New York Central Railroad, The next 2-1/2 miles are all residential, Most of the remaining 27 miles are used for agricultural purposes although small groups of homes are located at intervals of about 1 mile, Pultneyville, where a small harbor and Yacht Club are located is the only settlement of any size. Great Sodus Bay Harbor is a Federal deep-draft navigation project. The bay is about 4 miles in length and 2-1/2 miles in width and the shores are highly developed for residential purposes. All jetties and breakwaters have a top elevation of 251,5, Sand Point, a pcnin- sula located on the west side of the bay near the lake, is particularly well developed for-year-around residential and commercial purposes althoufh the ground elevation averages only 249 feet. Local interests have constructed concrete floocl walls on the peninsula to elevation 250 to 251, State Route 104 crosses the inner end of the bay at an elevati~nof ab~ut250, 390 Damage from flooding is extensive, particularly at Great Sodus Bay. However, the sea walls on Sand Point restrict flooding until the water surface reaches about elevation 249 in the residential areas, Table A-1 indicates the approximate number and type of structures in the reach, including the west shore of the bay, which would be affected by flooding when the water surface elevation equals the indicated elevations, Lawns and access roads are flooded at lower stages, 40, The 1952 survey indicated thot about 70 per cent of the damage in the preceding 12 months was caused by wave action and the remaining 30 per cent resulted from flooding* 41, Great Sodus Bay Harbor to Oswego Harbor, The length of this reach is 29 miles, The easterly shore of Great Sodus Bay ant1 three islands located in the bay near the northeast

corn€r are developed for residential use o The residential arehs known as Crescent Beach, Charles Point and Bute Island are in this area. The lake shore of the reach consists of eroding faces of glacial till drumlins connected by low sand barrier beaches, fronting bays and swamps, 42. Only a few erosion-prevention measures have been taken

J ' in this reach in the -form of bulkheads and dumped riprap, some of which are located in Fairhaven State Park. In the easterly 12 miles of the reach, shore line recession averaged about 20 feet during the one-year period spring 1951 - spring 1952, How- ever, in t-he remaining 17 miles the amount of s.hore recession was of minor consequence, 43, The lake shore is undeveloped except for a 2-mile reach west of Oswego. IIowever, the shores of East Bay, Port Bay, Bli.nd Sodus Bay and Little Sodus Bay are developed with -year-around homes and summer hones which havc been constructed at elevations above hi-gh lake levels, Little SoGus Bay Harbor is a Federal shallow--draft project with jetties and breakwaters withtop elevaticns of 251,5, Oswego Harbor is a deep draft Federal -project with breakwater el-evations ranging from 252.5 to 253,O; The shoreline inside the breakwaters is developed for commercial use, 44. There is considerable flooding in this reach although many of the homes are above elevations subject to flooding from \ Lake Ontario. Table A-1 indicates the number and type of structures whkch would be affected by flooding when the water surface reaches the indicated stages, Lawns and some access roads are affected at stages lower than those shcwn for homes. 45. The damage survey in the spring of 1952 indicated that of the damages occurring in this reach in the preceding one-year period approximately 55 per cent resulted from wave action and 45 per cent resulted from flooding. 46, Oswe~oHarbor to Sackets Ha-rbor, The length of this reach is about 89 miles. In the first 9 miles between Oswego and Nine Mile Point bedrock varies from a few feet below to 15 I feet above mean lake level. Glacial till bluffs cover the rock and range to 60 feet-in height, For a -distance of 1/2 mile at Nine Mile Point rock forms the-entire bluff in a vertical face up to 15 feet in hetght, In the next 9-miles to Selkirk the shore consists of eroding bluffs of glacial till up to 40 feet in height alternated by barri-er beaches fronting swamplands. From Selkirk to Stony Creek, a distance of 17 miles, the shore at elevation 246 feet consists of an almost continuous -sand beach up to 300 feet in width backed -by sand -dunes up to 60 feet in height, separating the lake from ponds and swamps. 47. At Stony Creek-the character -of the shoreline changes from a smooth alinement to a succession of peninsulas and long narrow bays. The 5-mile southerly shore of Stony Point consists of gravel' and shingle beaches rising to elevations 252 to 254 feet fronting land 2 to 3 feet lower, The shore along the next 16 miles including the westerly shore of Stony Point and the shore along Henderson Bay to near Wescott Beach State Park consists of either vertical rock bluffs or stee~sloped rock covered by a thin layer of till and fronted by narrow gravel and cobble beeches, 48. Neer Wescott Be;ch the bedrock dips below lake level and the shore for 2 miles consists of s and beaches in front of high san.d dunes, In the next two miles the shore is low and fronted by low flat beaches, The last r~ileto Sackets Harbor consists of a vertical rock bluff up to 15 fect in kLeight, Sackets Harbor itself is partly inclosed by a narrow neck of land about 1,000 feet lone with a top elevaticn of about 250 feet, The mainland shore is low, 49. Some private property owners have constructed bulkhesds or dumped riprap to protect their property from damage, However, the only extensive shore protection is at the state pzrk at Port Ontario where 2,500 feet of bulkheed has beer, c~nstructed, In the unprotected reaches of residential areas between Oswego and Port 0ntari.0, erosion averaged about 10 feet during the one-year period from the spring of 1951 to the spring of 1952, 50, There is only one building development along the shore between Oswego and Nine Mile Point, which is known as Lakeview, a conference camp ground with all buildings located on high ground. Between Nine Mile Point and Selkirk the shore is deve- l~pedfor summer residential use, the majority of homes are sufficiently high to prevent flooding, Between Selkirk and Stony Creek there are many small settlements, only two cf which are situated on the lake shore, the rest are situated on North and South Ponds, In most of the settlements, houses are located on A-14 high ground, The south shore of Stony Point is being developed for residential use and the shores of Henderson Bay are all well developed. At Henderson Harbor there are numerous commercial establishments subject to flooding at lake stages above 248 feet, 510 Association Island at the north end of Stony Point has been developed as a vacation area for General Electric Company employees. There are about 100 buildings includinz cottages, recreational buildings, restaurants, etc., on the island which has an average elevation of about 248,5 feet, Sackets Harbor includes the wharves of the New York State Naval Militia, three boat liveries, a gasoline tank farm and a fish dock, Port Ontario Harbor located at Selkirk at the mouth of the Salmon River is an autno-

'\ rized Federal shallow draft navigation project upon which no improvements have been -made, Sacket s Harbor is--an authorized ~edbralshallow draft navigation project. The only shore protection improvements completed at Sackets Harbor are two groins and a.brush and stone jetty located on Navy Point, 52, Flooding in the reach of the mainland shore as well as on Association Island has been extensive although the damage is relatively small when compared to that of erosion, Table A-1 indicates structures 'that erould be affected by flooding only when the water surface elevation reachzs the indiczted elevations , Lawns and certain access roads -would be affected at lower stages. 53. The damage survey made in the spring of 1952 indicated that approximately 90 per cent of the total damage in this reach resulted from wave action and the remaining 10 per cent resulted from -flooding. 54. Sackets Harbor to Cape Vincent, This reach includes the shores of the following bays: Black River, Chaumont, Sawrni.11, Three Mile, Mud, Wilson and Fuller and' the intervening lake shcre. These bays all lie in a general northeast-southwest direction, The lake shores and parts. of the b.ay shores arc -exposed to the

full f orc-e of - waves generated -by- winds f rom .the westerly quadrant with a fetch of 200 miles, Theyare also subject to the largest temporary rises, up to about 3 feet, experienced on the lake, Bedrock is, in general, covered -by a thin layer of glacial till varying from a few inches to several feet in thickness, In places bedrock lies only a few feet below lake surface for 1/2 mile off- shore. The principal areas subject to erosion damage are the t barrier beachestin front of swamp areas exposed to westerly storms l and the St. Lawrence River shore from Tibbets Point to Cape Vincent, 55. Erosion prevention measures corlsist of riprap which has been placed at several locations to protect highways, Most of the

\ property in Cape Vincent is prote.cted by bulkheads, .-but elsewhere N7--. only a few protective measures have been-.unrlert'akeno Due to the'

rocky---.nature- -0-f, the -shoreline"-there --has been little erosion except in a few locations -where--the shore--recession has amounted to about 5 to 10 feet during the one-year period spring 1951 - spring 1952. 56. The developments along the -shores in this reach are centered in the following areas: The shores of Guffin Bay Point Salubrious to Chaumont Village ~nde~eddencePoint C.haurnont Village to the mouth of Three Mile Bay Inner end of Three Mile Bay Northwe.st-erly shore of Chaumont Bay St, Lawrence River, Tibbetts Point to Cape Vincent 57, There are three villages in the reach, Chaumont - Three Mile Bay and Cape Vincent, where commercial establishments are located, The commercial buildings in this reach include a Yacht Club, Coast Guard workshops town garage, village pump house, -cust,oms offtce (.ferry)., and a fish house, 58. Pot.ent.ia1 flooding in this area is real at extreme high stages but' most of the residences -and other structures are located

suc.h.-.t&t a,--water-- surface elevation of about 250 is required to produce d-amage. Tabla- A-1 indicates the structures which would be affected by flooding when the water surface reaches the indicated stageso Lawns are flooded and access to many homes is cut off at elevations lower khan those shown, 59, The damage survey made in 1952 indicated that about 85 per cent of the damage in this reach resulted from wave action and 15 per cent resulted from flooding, 60, Cape Vincent to Alexandria Bas, The length of the mainland shore is about 49-miles in this-reach. -The-mainland shore of the St, Lawrence River -between Cape Vi-ncent-and the village of Clayton is, in general, devoted to agri-culture or is -undeveloped, There are, however, small groups of three or more summer homes scattered throughout the section, The -shore of the village of Clayton consists almost entirely of boat liveries, boat works and marine supply houses, many of which were flooded during high water of 1952, From Clayton to A-1-exandria Bay the shore is more in-

- -t,ense-ly,developed for summer--residential use. Most of these homes are located on high ground, The shore of Alexandria Bay, like

A017 that of Clayton, is an almost continuous wharf in front of boat liveries, boat works, marine supply houses and two recreation boat wharves, Many of these wharves were flooded in 1952, but have since been raised, 61, Few erosion preventive structures have been constructed, In short sections of this reach, erosion averaging about 5 to 10 feet took place between the Spring of 1951 and the Spring of 1952, Flood prevention measures consist mostly of raising of the wharves, 62, Commercial buildings subject to flooding in this \ reach are two large lumber yards, a village pumping station, a State Police barracks and the basements ,or lower floors of a city-block of commercial buildings, 63, Table A-1 presents -the structures which would be affected by flooding in this reach when the water surface of the St, Lawrence River reaches the indicated stages., An estimate of the damage which occurred in the one-year period from the Spring of 1951 to the Spring of 1952 indicated that about 85 per cent of the total damage -resulted from wave action and the remaining 15 per cent from flooding, 64, Alexandria Bas to an including O~densburn, - In this reach the mainland shore is 50-miles in length, For about one mile below Alexandria Bay the shore is flat,- then begins to rise, with bluffs reaching about 20 feet in height, About 12- miles down river from A-laxandria Bay the bluffs suddenly rise to 50 - 60 feet, Toward Morristown the bluff top generally recedes--from the river, From Morristown to Ogdensburg there is a-narrow, flat shore at the foot of the slope, A railroad occupies shore front-property at -intervals between Morristown and OgCensSurg, both of which are Federal Harbqrs, 65, There are only a few scattered erosion control structures in the reach which _consist of bulkheadsk and dumped d riprap, From Alexandria Bay to about 2-mil-es above Morristown the shore, - in general, is undeveloped, About- 60 per cent of the renainder of the reach is-residential, 20 per cent commercial and 20 per cent -undeveloped, The shore of Ogdensburg and for a-mile -upstream is -mostly tndustrial with the exception of Morrissette Park, the city-parking lot, the Customs Euifding and--the ferry dock, These latter and the Match Company lumber yard and build-ings are -commercial buildings-subject to flooding, 66. Flooding-is -not -extensive -but a few homes and commer- ctal bui1d.i-ngs are affected when the river stage -reaches about elevation 249. Listed in Table A-1 are the number and types of structures-which would be -affected by flooding in this reach when the river water surface reaches the indicated stageso 670 -The 1952 damage survey indicated that about 85 per cent of the total damages which occurred in the one-year period from the Spring of 1951 to the Sprtng of 1952 resulted

- -from wave action and the- remaining 15-per cent-resulted from flooding, Damage Smey- of -'the--Unttsd- St-atss Shore in- 1952. 68, During the Spring of 1952,-the Corps of Engineers made an estimate of the damage to -the -United States shore- . -- properties on Lake Ontario and the St, Lawrence River for the one-year period -from the Spring of 1951 to Spring of 1952, During this one-year period ,-the monthly mean Lake Level ranged from a low of 246,8 in November 1951 to a ,high of 248.8 in April 1952, The maximum monthly mean stage of 249,29 was reached in June 1952, The damage survey was made in co- .ordination.with state and other public officials supplemented by interviews with property owners, The results of this damage surveyare included. in a "Preliminary Examination Report on Property..Damage on the Great Lakes Resulting from Changes in Lake Levelst1, dated June 9, 1952, by the Division Engineer,

. . Great. Lakes Division, Corps of Engineerso 69, The most severe damage was found to be erosion and damage to .shore protection structures and other improvements from wave action, Flooding was serious in many reaches but the total damage resulting from actual flooding was much less than- from -wave action, 700 Estimates included damage to shore protection structures, cost of emergency protection measures, damage to improvements on shore, loss of land by erosion and deprecia- tion of value of remaining land and improvements thereon in some cases. 710 Although damage from wave action occurred more or less -cont'inuously- during t-his one-year period along many

-...... ,. r.e:ac.p~,;s:,::q~pL,-t.he~i...... shore, most of the wave damage actually occurred :" . .\:::,. ., ,<,.>,,,, .:r,A'. :..;.. .:;.,;,, ', ;,,.;. ., , , , . . , :,, . during a fkw storm periods when the high mean lake level was -tempor.ari-w.--incre-ased:,and -waves-.propa-gated themselves over -barrier -beaches and dissipated their energy against structures and back shores , 72. Areas along the shore which suffered the most severe wave action damage during -the.--on-enye-ar--:p-eriod -from *the Spring ,

of 1951 to the Spring ~f". ,1952. ,.. ... and particularly during storm : . . : :.,.. periods were the Wilson-Olcott area, Rochester ar-d vicinity anci Mexico Bay areaz arid the areas wh',ch s~fferedthe mcst

-,. ,, severe flood damage were the Wautoma - ~raddcckBay - Roche~t~r area, Irondcquoit Ba.4, Great Sodus Bay and t11e St. Lawrei~ce River - Thousand Island section where flooding of 111:proved properties was exterlsive, 73, Serious daalage of the extent which occurred in 1951-1952 has not occurred sirice that date, The mdximum monthly mean stages reached in 1953 and 19% werp about 2b7,9 as coniphred to a maximum stage of F49,3 in 1953, Development of the shore property has shown some increase in many locations since 1952, particularly with respect to new residential developments and the conversion of summcr cottagcs to year- around homes. Comnercial establishments serving the n-arine interests have increased in number or enlarge? their establishments as the resident population has increased, Description of Canadian Shoreline

74 0 The entire 330-miles of the Canadizn shoreline of Lake Ontario extending from the Niagcra River to the outlzt into the St. Lawrence River, as shown on Plstc A-1, is in the Province of Ontario, Erosion and flooding affect 225-miles of this shoreline to varying degrees, This part of the shcre was inspected Jointly by the Board in May 1953 and October 1954,

:;:: 'and ' by the Canadian member +n June and August in connection , ... 1954 ...... ,' ,:

of the Board inspected the Burlington Bay area near Hamilton on March 9, 1955, These inspections covered periods when the elevations of the lake varied from 2b6,5 to 2k7,?, 750 Niagara River to Hamiltonn, The shore from the mouth of the Niagara River to Hamilton is a line of long smooth curves without prominent headlands or deep bays and consists for the most part of low cliffs composed of clay aqd sand, except near Grimsby where some outcrops of shale form part of the cliff, This shale disappears about a mile west of Grimsby and the cliffs which are from 12 to 24 feet high are formed of clay, At Winona the shore cliffs begin to disappear and low lying -sandy beaches, which are subject to flooding at high water levels, form the shoreline to Stoney Creek, The western end of Lake Ontario, known as Burlington Bay, is closed off by a--prominent sand bar which is about 4-miles long and of varying width, This bay forms Hamilton harbour,

76, An area of land of some 65,000 acres fronting on Lake -0nt-ario and-extending from the Niagara River to a point about a mile west of Grimsby is one of 'the most productive and valuable--fruit growing -areas in Canada, This stretch of shoreline is subject to erosion which is more serious at high lake -levels, The rate. of erosion depends on the level of the lake, the geological nature of the shore and the direction of prevailing storm paths, 77, The easterly townships of Niagara and Grantham) which are exposed to -the-more severe north-westerly storms, experi-ence an -erosi-on -rate -of -more than -double the rate suffered by-the townships further west which are exposed to the northeasterly winds, Differences in geological formation also contribute to -this-difference in rate of erosion, The eastern shores have more sand and-till in their formation than the western shores which are chiefly shale, 78, Table A-2, taken from the 1953 Report of the "Select Committee of the Ontario Legislature on Lake Levels of the Great Lakesw, is indicative of the rates of -erosion of shore in Lincoln. County on Lake Ontario, 79, City of Hamilton to Humber River - From Hamilton to the Humber River shore cliffs varying up to 40 feet high form the shoreline along the lake, Outcrops of shale and a few good beaches exist west of Oakville, Cliffs with better beaches east of Oakville are almost entirely formed of silt, clay and sand, The whole shore has no prominent headlands or deep bays and is exposed to storms from the east and southeast. The shore east of Oakville more than the shore to the west is subject to storm damage and erosion with resulting loss of buildings and land, 80, Residential suburbs of Toronto and Hamilton have extended along this section of the lake front and with the other municipalities in the area there is an almost continuous urban development from Hamilton to Toronto, 81, Humber River to Scarborough, The shore between these points is the lake frontage of the City of Toronto, The sho~elineis low and a considerable amount of the property along the waterfront has been built up fron sand and silt dredged from the lake, Toronto Island which is a large sandy hook with an area of 1,280 acresg is the major physical feature of this shore, It was originally a long peninsula composed , of sand bars extending for about 2-miles in a south-westerly direction and was formed over a long period of time from deposits carried from the Scarborough Bluffs by lake currents, 82, The greater part of Toronto Island is at elevation 249 feet or below and suffers very severe damage in periods of excessively high water, Its chief use is for recreational purposes and there are many summer homes and several parks, Of recent years, due to shortage of housing, a large number of these residences have been winterized and there are now about 3,000 permanent residents on the island, High water in addition to other damage dislocates school, shopping, fire- protection and sanitation facilities, 83, Reduction in the use of the recreational facilities of the Island caused by high lake levels is reported to have caused a considerable loss of revenue to the Toronto Trans- portation Commission, in the 'operation of its ferry to the island because of reduced passenger traffic,

I 84. Protective structures for the island consist of 1,700 feet of off-shore breakwater built in 1922 and 6,500 feet of sea wall built in 1936, The top of the sea wall was at elevation 252 and did not provide protection during storms coincident with the high lake levels of 1951 - 1952, It was, therefore, raised 3 feet in 1952, 85, Scarborough - Port Ho~e, East of Toronto, at Scarborough, sand and clay bluffs rise almost perpendicularly Much of the beach-forming as much as- 300 feet above the lake, ', material for off-shore sand bars and Toronto Island has come from these- bluffs which are composed of easily eroded materials, sand, silt, well-bedded clays and boulder clay, 86, Factors which contribute to the erosion of these cliffs are- the wind, the lake, surface run-off, and seepage, Wave action of the lake, particularly during periods of high water, attacks the base of the cliff, undermining it and causing

; - large sections to fall or slide down into the lake. 87! East of Scarborough the bluffs become gradually lower and the shoreline, consisting of alternating cliffs and low swampy land created at river estuaries, is characterized by smooth curves with no prominent headlands or bays, The shore cliffs consist of unconsolidated sediment, stratified clay, boulder clay, sand, and silt, all of which are subject to erosion, 88, Permanent -homes, particularly on the Scarborough Bluffs and summer cottages at various places along this part of the shore of the lake, have been endangered by erosion at high lake levels, 850 Port Ho~eto St. Lawrence River, The shoreline east of PortHope changes f$om low clay and sand bluffs to outcrops of shaly limestonet On the west shore of Prince Edward County sand covers the limestone but on the eastern shore of the County and extending east of ~ellevilleto Kingston, the limestone on the shoreline is exposed, At Kingston the limestone gives way to granitic Precambrian rocko 90, The transition section from Lake Ontario to the St, Lawrence River begins at Kingston and extends 40-miles downstream through the Thoasand Islands almost to Brockville, With the exception of a few small docks and some small islands used for summer homes, the effect of the high levels of the lake -has been inconsequential in this reach,

A-2 5 .:...:...... :./ .. _ ,.. .. yC.: a,.' .,. J !rx. ,,;,.> ...... /: .... ::: rr'-the C-anadfan. ., Shore. >:: .-.. ... ;...... -

damage: 'c.awed..-by -.;ht:g s. -0f .~.~~@i:lOnt-@~i:o-.-has'. :b-e en, under- h.; .. .,.a. ... 4. !...... ; . , rr. .". .._. .. I : ... y ' ., , . . , . ... .,. :;. .:. .... '>......

.beer:. . . . g3vep;;, at-r:he;$lrkyrg:s ...... -of -.--th~,:.-.Lnte..r,nat.ionpl ~,!.... .: .> .... L ': Joint. ,C.~mmi s s ion . . ., 1 . '. . 1 ...... I. .: .... , ,: ' . . -and;::+zb~-fore--.:-,t~e~.. . -Se.Tect-.:@ . ., . . , 6';. ...ogm$-tp,q-:;of --the; :~nf+io Legislature . ., ...... /..; . , : : "t :..... ,! ..... >!. ...~ . . . ,.. ., ...... - . ! . .'

to :lndicite-I , that. rna:$or . , .damage, . has:+n->cay$ed ... :to ric..h.... orchard. " ...< .:,: .* . \..~ . - ...... , . .1 . .. , ...... 1. ' ' . 2qhd. . :.dong ...the., s bore :fram : t he.~i~~:i~ R$.ver t-0. we st of Grimsby ; : .,.I .'? . 8 ...... <. ,;.,,.>- ,, A ...... , . . ... :...... L ' >' 't )_ _. , ......

,2 :i.*hpt::beaLlhes, cottages-..&cj::.:h6mes, ...... 7: ' Snl-the... ,> :~Haqilton.&& For~nt... o...... < ;. I x.. :... . , , .., .. L.. I...... ,

,,are&s -have - .~e.qn tro$bd; ,.,t:hat;~&ontiy,,:...... ,..Jsland ~aq@ , ...... : ...... r. -.,..;: ...... : .. ;., ..,..;: ,:., .. : : . ) .<. . . ,? - ...... > ...... , ...... :.. I ...... , ...... <,. ;...... kc;ar,bor:ou& Bzuf f g,,:;have suf fe~ed--cons 2d:e -@image during ...... , ... ,...... : . , ...... , . . , . ,...... :. :. , ,, ...... 8 i. . .. . gf levels and ...... ;sewers : and other p~eri-ods lake, ; that:+ st qm ..:, I ., . I,. . .. , ., ......

. . - munictpal ,-g-apkt.ary:...... servi;ce.s ...-..have:--been.--di-srupted and,endangered . ... '. '.. 1. . . . " ...... (1 I ,:-.an&. : . ... al.ong. . the . . at-,-Hamklton; .Toront.o :other..:! .....s.m?ller-.-commyn-i:t$e..s. .... :.:. ,!. ,,., ,. ,I

,. . ./,. . . -.shores-:of--:thq--Lzke*.,,. ,+ south-.aria-wastern , .: :TqbXe .indicates ,' .... i ..- I.'.. ..:.. -

shore of Lake Ontario which are affected at .various lake levels. Discussion 92. From the survey of improvements subject to flooding as listed in Tables A-1 and A-3 it is indicated that severe damage from flooding begins when the water surface is between elevation 248,0 -249,0 and becames progressively more severe at higher stages, The water surface elevation may be the same as the mean lake level or it may be higher because of a temporary rise. 93, Study of the records of temporary rises at Oswego for the' period 1901 - 1952 indicates that a temporary rise of 1.0 foot above mean lake level occurs on the average of over twice per year and a temporary rise of 1.5 feet above mean lake level occurs about once every three years, Also a temporary rise of about 2,O feet at Oswego occurs about once in eight years, At lake stages of from elevation 2k7,5 to 248,0 temporary rises of from loo to 1,5 feet would cause material flooding with durations of from a few hours to a few days, If such temporary rises are superimposed upon extreme high mean lake stages the water surface may reach elevations up to 251.0 at which stage the damage from flooding becomes very severe, 94, It is difficult to establish a critical mean lake level from the standpoint of damage from wave action. Surveys and inspections along the United States shore of the Lake indicate

that damage from wave-- action is inconsequential when the mean lake level is at or below the long term average elevation of 2k6.0, Damage from wave action becomes progressively more severe as the

A-27 mean lake level rises, Such damage is intensified by temporary rises of the water surface above the mean lake level which are usually accompanied by severe storms. As evidenced by the results of the survey in the spring of 1952 damage may be very severe from wave actioo when the mean lake stage ranges between elevations 247,5 and 248.8, Temporary rises of from one to one and one-half feet superimposed upon the mean lake level at those elevations rai~esthe vater surface to elevations from 248.5 to about 250, With the water surface at those elevations

: protective'beaches are drowned out and many. protective structures

are of inadequate,.. . height to prevent over-topping, Waves wash over at many localities along the shore and attack the back shore and shore structures causing severe erosion and property damage. 95. In considering the shores of Lake Ontario and the general configuration of the inshore lake bottom it is not believed that damage from wave action becomes serious until the mean lake level rises to somewhere in the range between elevation 247.0 and 248.0, 96. The effects on shore properties of regulation plans 11-A-4 and 11-A-5 with limits from 244,0 to 248.8, plan 12-A-8 with limits from 244.0 to 248,0, and plan 14-A-1 with limits from 243.0 to 247.0 are discussed in the following paragraphs. Under the regulation plans the long range fluctuations of Lake - Ontario levels within the limits of regulation would follow generally a pattern similar to that in nature, that is, with A-28 generally, . higher stages during periods of above normal pre- -. . . cipitation and lower stages during periods of below normal precipitation, The seasonal pattern of generally high levels in summer and low levels in the fall and winter would also continue, Plates 7A to 7C in the main report show the seasonal as well as the long-range pattern of lake fluctuations under, regulated and unregulated conditions, 97, Zake regulation will affect the monthly mean stages with the magnitude of the change in monthly mean stages being dependent upon the upper and lower limits of regulation and the method of regulation, The effect of regulation on monthly mean stages under plans ll-~-k, 11-A-5, 12-A-8, and 14-A-1 are shown on stage-duration curves on Plate 5 for each of the plans compared with stage-duration curves of actual recorded levels, levels which would have occurred with no diversions and channel conditions in the Galop Rapids reach as existed in 1860, and of levels which would have occurred with present diversions and present channel conditions in the Galop Rapids reach (Gut Dam removed), It is believed that the last mentioned stage-duration

- curve forms an adequate basis for comparison since it reflects

-, current . conditions, 98, Since damage to shore property from flooding and from wave action during any given storm is most severe at high l~kestages, any reduction in maximum levels and/or a reduction in the duration of high lake stages will result in benefits to shore property, As previously indicated, damage to shore property from wave action commences when the mean lake stage is A-29 at about the long term average elevation of 246,O. The damage increases progressively as the mean lake level rises and becomes serious when the mean lake level exceeds an elevation of about 247.50 Similarly it was found that when consideration is given to the frequency and magnitude of temporary rises, damage of consequence from flooding commences when the mean lake level rises to about elevation ?47,5 and may become severe at any mean lake stage above elevation 248,O0 Since damage to shore property is only nominal at medium lake stages and is most severe at extreme high lake stages, a change in the duration of higher lake stages has much more effect on shore .. . property than a similar change at.medium lake stages, , . 99. As previously indicated no precise method has been developed for estimating the annual average damage to shore property.from flooding and wave action nor of assessing monetarily the effect on shore property damage of a change in the regimen of lake stages because of the complex relationship between lake levels, storms, temporary fluctuations of the lake surface and the many and varied natural conditions encountered along the shore and the large variety of improvements which are subject to damage from the waters of Lake Ontario. 100, An examination of the stage-duration curves for plan 11-A-4 indicates that for plan ll-~-4there would be some reduction in the duration of stages from elevation 248.8 down to elevation 247.5 which is in a zone of levels where severe damage may occur to shore property, This would result in some benefit to shore property, However, it is noted that there would be a considerable increase in the duration of stages between elevations 24705 and 246,0, a zone in which moderate damage may occur to shore property, This would result in some increase in damage. It is believed that bene- f$.ts resulting from the reduction in duration of stages above elevation 247.5 would approximately balance the damage resulting from an increase in duration of stages between 246.0 and 247.5 under regulation plan 11-A-4. 101. The stage-duration curves show that for regulation plan 11-A-5 there would 'be an increase in duration of all stages up to elevation 247.9. The minor reduction in duration

.pf . stages above elevation 247.9 would not result in any :: appreciable benefits to shore property. However, the significant increase in duration of stages between elevations 246.0 and 247.9, a zone in which damage to shore property mag be moderate to severe, would result in a substantial increase in damage to shore property. It is believed that under plan 11-A-5 this substantial increase in damage would be far in excess of any benefits which might result from the minor reduction in duration of higher stages and the net result would be a large increase in damage to shore property, 102. Under regulation plan 12-A-8 the maximum stage would be reduced 0.8 foot, or to elevation 248.0, The stage- duration curves show that the.duration of stages between elevation 248,O and 247.1 would be reduced, This would result in a marked reduction in damage to shore property because of the elimination of the extreme high stages where the most severe shore property damage occurs as well as the reduction of the duration of all other high stages down to the stage where property damage is considered to be only moderate. The resulting large reduction in damage to shore property is considered to be much more than adequate to offset the damage resulting from the increase in duration of stages between elevations 247.1 and 246,0. It ks believed that under regulation plan 12-A-8 there would be a major reduction in damage to shore property. 103. Since all levels under regulation plan 14-A-1 are one foot lower than for plan 12-A-8 it is believed that all severe damage to shore property would be eliminated and only moderate damage would occur at the very inf~equentintervals of severe storms. TABLE A-1 Extent of Flooding on United States Shore of Lake Ontario

Cumulative Table of Description Structures Flooded at Reach of Structure Indicated Lake Stages

Niapsra Falls to G~cottHarbor Private Homes 3 13 22 22 22 Marine Storage and supply 3 3 4 4 4 Commercial Buildings - 3 3 Commercial Wharves - 91 7 Olcott Harbor to Oak Orchard Harbor Private Homes - - - - - Marine structures and supply - - 1 1 1 Commercial Buildings - - 2 2 2 Commercial Wharves - o 2 2 2 Oak Orchard Harbor to Rochester Private Homes - - 50 127 167 Harbor Marine storage and supply - - - - o Commercial Buildings - - 1 2 3 Commercial Wharves - - 1 3 Roads, Miles - - - c 7 Rochester Harbor tc* Great Sodus Private Homes - 23- l22 16911 17*12 Bay Harbor Marine storage and supply - Commercial Buildings - 2 6 12 12 Commercial Wharves - 2 10 10 10 Roads, Miles - - 103 103 lo5 Great Sodus Bay Harbor to Oswego Private Homes Harbor Marine storage and supply Commercial Buildings Commercial Wharves Roads, Miles Oswego Harbor tc Sackets Harbor .Private Homes (Pncl. cabins on Association Island) Marine storage and ,supply Commercial Wharves Roads, Miles Sackets Harbor tz Cape Vincent Private Homes Marine storage and supply Cornrnercia 1 Buildings Commercial Wharves Railroad Yards Roads, Miles TABLE A2(Continued)

Cumulative Table of Description Strucutres Flooded at Reach of Structure -Indicated Lake Stanes

Cape Vincent to Alexandria Private Homes - 15 15 34 34 Marine storage and supply 13 24 27 29 29 Commercial Buildings a 2 9 10 10 Commercial Wharves 13 19 27 27 27 Railroad Yards - - - 1 1 Alexandria Bay to and including Ogdensburg, N.Y. Private Homes - 1 21 21 21 Marine storage and supply - a - - - Commercial Buildings - 2 2 4 6 Commercial Wharves a 2 3 5 5 Railroad Yards - a - 1 1 Total U. 8. SHORELINE Private Homes 4 59 413 771 917 Marine storage and supply 16 31 50 - 70 72 Commercial Buildings - 7 23 38 44 C.ommercia1 Wharves 13 24 59 72 72 Roads, Miles - - 4,6 10.3 13. Railroad, Miles - - - 3 3 --TABLE A-2 Rate of Shore Erosion inLincoln County* Ontario

Recession Average Recession Location -Date (feet) (feet per year) Niaaara Townshie Lot 194 1942 - 1950 1950 - 1952

Lot 186 1915 - 1936 1936 - 1946 Grantham Township Lot 4 1913 - 1949 1949 - 1952 Lot 7 1912 - 1949 1949 - 1952

-Louth Township I\ Lot 2 1916 - 1949 1949 - 1952 Lot 11 1940 - 1946 1946 - 1952 Clinton Township LO^ 20 1928 - 1941 1941 - 1952 North Grimsby Township Lot 5 1947 - 1950 Nil 1950 - 1952 9.0 3.6 TABLE A-3

Principal Wharves and Breakwaters Along Canadian Shore of Lake Ontario Affected by Levels of Lake Ontario

Cumulative Table of Structures With Top Description Level Below Indicated Reach of Structure Elevation

West of Toronto Wharves Breakwaters Toronto wharves Breakwaters East of Toronto Wharves Breakwaters Totals INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION ( Regulation of Lake ontat-i 0 I SCALE OF MILES LOCATlON OF SHORE HHHHt:: I k q I 10 5 0 10 20 30 40 -I REACH LIMIT PROPERTY DAMAGE DIRECTION OF DRIFT INTERNATIONAL LAKE ONTAmlO BOARDOF ENGINEERS MARCH 1955

J PLATE A-l INTERIM REPORT ON REGULATION OF LAKE ONTARIO

APPENDIX B

EFFECT OF REGULaTION OM CHlPNMEL EMLARGErnT aEJD POWER PRODUCTION AT AND ABOVE BARNHART ISLAND POWERHOUSES

TABLE OF CONTENTS -. Page

Determination of Channel Enlargements B-2 Evaluation of Channel ~nlar~ements B-3 Determination of Power Production Effect Upon ~ia~araPower

TABLES B-1 Regulation Method 11-8-4. - Power and Energy Output (a) Interim Forebay Level (b) Ultimate Porebay Level

B-2 Regulation Method 11-A-5o - Power and Energy Output (a) Interim Forebay Level (b) Ultimate Forebay Level (c) Fosebay Level Limited to Maximum of 242.0

B-3 Regulation Method 124-8. - Power and Energy Output (a) Interim Forebay Level (b) Ultimate Popebay Level

(c) Forebay Level Limited to Maximum of 292.0 B-b Regulation Method 14-A-1. - Power and Energy Output (a) Interim Forebay Level . - (b) Ultimate Forebay Level (c) .Forebay Level Limited to Maximum of 242.0

B-5 Economic Comparisons of Regulation Methods From Power Standpoint with Interim Forebay Level of 238.0 (a) Canadian Powerhouse, Barnhart Island

(b) U. S. Powerhouse, Barnhart Island (c) Canadian and U.S. Powerhouses, Barnhart Island

B-6 Economic Comparison of Regulation Methods From Power Standpoint with Ultimate Forebay Level (a) Canadian Powerhouse, Barnhart Island (b) U. S. Powerhouse, Barnhar t Island ( c) Canadian and U.S. Powerhouses, Barnhart Island

B-7 Economic Compar i soil of Regulation Methods From Power Standpoint with Forebay Limited to Maxinluxn of 242.0 (a) Canadian Powerhouse, Barnhar t Island (b) U.S. Powerhouse, Barnhart Island

B-8 Economic Comparisons of Regulation Methods From Power Standpoint for Niagara River Plants (a) Canadian Miagara River Plants (b) U.S. Niagara River Plants (c) Canadian and U.S. Niagara River Plants INTERIM REPORT ON ' REGULATION OF LAKE ONTARIO /

, APPENDIX B /

~FECTOF REGULATION ON CHANNEL ENLARGEMENT AND POWER PRODUCT ION AT AND ABOVE QARNHART ISLAND POWERHOUSES

General 1. The trial regulation plans c~nta~nedin this report, as well as a number of preceding plans, were submitted to the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario (Ontario Hydro) for determination of the channel enlargements required and the power production to be obtained. The difference of the cost of the channel enlargements and the difference of the value of the power obtained between the various plans were also cleveloped. The methods used and the results derived were reviewed by representatives of the Board and are considered acceptable for the purposes of this report. 2. Because of the preliminary nature of the many regulation plans which were to be evaluated, and the limitations of time and effort, a detailed evaluation of each plan was considered neither warranted nor feasible, As only conparis~ns--between the schemes are essential a number of short-cut methods of computing channel enlargements and power outputs -were- devised which were considered to y-ield acceptabh relative results. A description of the procedures used is -given in the following sections. Determination of Channel Enlargements 3. The design of the channel enlargements for each plan was based on the requirements set forth in the International Joint Commissionqs Order of Approval dated 29 October 1952, In order to expedite the evaluation of the four trial plans rela- tionships were developed for a number of key plans of enlargement already available, covering the range of critical design conditions encountered in all regulation plans presented herein, 4, The procedure used in determining the channel enlargements for these key plans was as follows: (a) Channel Enlargement in Galop Island Reach. The critical level-flow combinations were ascertained for each plan, and the channel enlargement determined such that computed velocities in the channel enlargement

were equal to those computed at corresponding sections - in the Final Alternate Plan as presented in 1946 by the Corps of Engineersounited States Army, While the computed velocities for this plan somewhat exceeded 4 feet per second, subsequent model tests have indicated that the maximum mean velocity at any cross- section of the channel which will be used for navigation does not exceed 4 feet per second, This satisfies the velocity requirement in the Order of Approval. Having -determined the required channel dimensions for each plan, backwa-ter computations were made through this reach and the critical-levels determined at the foot of Lotus Island, (b) Channel Enlargement Below Galop Island Reach, Using the critical levels previously obtained at the foot of -Lotus Island, des-ign water surface profiles were computed- from this point to the powerhouse using Ontario Hydro backwater curves developed in 19Z0 Based on the-se design profiles the dimensions of the channel enlargements in this reach were determined to meet the required velocity criteria, i.e. 2,?5 feet per second, New backwater computations were then made through-the channel enlargements and the resulting slopes-=we.reused -in..the power -.c.omputations. . . --Evalu.ati-on .of Channel Enlargements

5. - Exc-avat-kon-.qu-ant ?-ties -were-dete.rm-i;ned in detail for , the key .pl.ans-and ,the -co.st :estimates were .b-ased on the unit values used in the project estimate prepared in 1954 by the

- construction entities. A method of plotting these channel costs in relation to -critical design flow and level combinations was

' devised such that the costs of channel enlargements for any plan could be determined from these curves. The use of these curves enabled the differences in the costs of the plans to be estimated. Determination of Power Production 6. Monthly duration curves of Lake Ontario regulated outflows and water levels, and backwater curves relating Lake Ontario water levels to forebay water levels were prepared for each of the four trial plans, Tailwat?er levels were determined from stage- discharge curves based on representative channel improvements

d.ownst ream -fram- .-.t-he--.p-ower:ho.u:se:.s --T-he.se.----curv.es..:we.re --common t 0 ..all regulation plans, Curves relating discharge and head to total plant output were developed, based on an installation of 32 propellor type turbines, rated at 75,000 horsepower each, and 32 - 60,000 kva generatorso These curves were used with all regul-ation plans. 7. The average, 85 and 100 per cent of time dependable monthly loads and energies were computed, Average monthly4 loads and energies.-were d-etermined by integrating the monthly -duration curves of Lake Ontario outflows and water levels in 10 per cent increments, computing gross head and plant output for each increment, and -averaging the plant outputs so obtained, The monthly loads and -energies to be expected 85 and 100 per cent of the time were similarly determined using the 85 and 100 per cent values from the duration curves, Tables B-1 to B-4 present the computed power output for both interim and ultimate forebay levels. The interim forebay level as specified in the Order of Approval is not to exceed elevation 238.0; the ultimate forebay level as used herein is the maximum possible level at the powerhouses, ioeowith all gates open at the Iroquois dam, 8. Of the four trial plans considered in this report, the results of plan 11-A-4 were used as a basis of comparison, The other three plans have been compared to -it in terms of differences of power production and the annual cost of -power replacement, which-in the -present case has been taken as the cost of thermal power. This comparison is -given in Tables B-5, B-6 and B-7 for the interim, ultimate and a 242,0 -maximum forebay level respec-

t ively. The evaluations at these - various forebay levels were made since permanent maximurn.forebay elevations are subject by the Order of Approval to.later decision. It should be noted that a11 comparative power evaluations are based on the assumption that each limiting forebay level -continues in perpetuity, If the interim level should be of short duration, then the comparisons shown for this level may not necessarily be valid, The increase in capital and annual cost of channel enlargements is also tabulated, The sum of the replacement power cost and the additional channel cost evaluates the total annual economic differential from the power standpoint for each plan compared with plan ll-A-4-e 9. Two factors were considered to be significant in determining the value of the power production for each plan, i.e. the average annual energy and the dependable December peak output taken as the 85 per cent value for the Canadian project-s and the 100 per cent value for the United States -projects. The values of these items shown in Tables B-5, B-6 -and B-7 were taken from the power production figures given in Tables B-1, B-2 , B-3 0 and B-4, The annual cost of replacing -the power loss was com- / puted for Canadian6 plants by .the Ontario Hydro, This cost was computed for the United States plants from replacement cost figures supplied by the Federal Power Commissiono Effect Upon Niaaara Power 10. Any raising or lowering of-the average Lake Ontario levels by regulation will affe-ct-the tailwat-er levels and therefore the head at the Sir Adam Beck-Ni-agara G.S. No, 1 and No. 2 in Canada and at the proposed redevelopment in the United States

-as.-.prese-nted----Pnthe --report-of - the -Di-stri-ct'..Engi-ne-erat - Buff a10

and the Dkv.ts?on Engi-neer, Nort-h Central Divi-sion; ' Corps of Engtneers---i-ntheir October 1954 report on "Redevelopment of Nia- gara River for Powerrr, The median lake 'level change between the B- 5 a four regulation plans was determined and the effect of this change on the tailwater of the above Niagara plants was estimated. Table B-8 lists the differential power outputs and

.For-..theCanad;ian . . .pla.nt.s -the same -c.o.st.-f act-ors *--are applicable as used for the St. Lawrence -Power Project. Cost factors -used

. . - .- for.-t.he - -.UMt.ed .St..ates--.-p-l-a.-,-are .. th0zse .-f ~r~~~h~d-:.by-the .. . Fe de.ral -Power .Commks.sion~~~-f-orthe aforementioned October 19-54 report by the Corps of Engineers...... : TAB^ h&-l('a)-,..: .' .. .: . .. . . ,......

. . ., REGULA~ION OF .. wa9. . ONTARIO METHOD: 11-AA. , , ......

PaELIM IElARY ESTIMATE 05'. T011AL. ' .. .

. . AVERAGE, 8% AND 10%OF :..TIME..DEPENDABLE MONTHLY OUTPUT , . .. , , . . INTERIM FOREBAY LEVEL...... PmIOD 1905-1952. . :...... -

Continuous Load - - Mw . Monthly Energy - Mwh . .

Average 8% Dep. 13%Dep, . . ' Average 85% Dep.' 10% Dep. January 1343 February 1381 .<

March 1376 . , April njay. June July August September October. November December Summation TW.~(b) -- - ... . - REGULATION OF LAICE PMTARIO -OD 1144 mIBdINARY ESTIMATE OF TOTAL AVERAGE, 8% 10% OF TIME DEPENDABLE MONm OUTPUT L - ULTIMATE FORESAFLm \I - ~IOD1905-1952

Continuous Loaa - Mw Monthly Energy - Mwh Month Average 83% Dep. 10% Dep, Average 85% Dep. Dep,

January 1356 1337 1310 1,008,864 994,728 974,640 February 1386 1292 1254 939,708 875,976 ' 850,212 March 1389 1217 1184 1,033,416 905,448 880,896 April 1521 1335 1196 -... 1,095,120 961,200 861,120 May 1551 1354 1212 1,153,944 1,007,376 901,728 June 1594- 1405 1217 1,147,680 1,011,600 876,240

- July 1594 1397 1295 1,185,936 1,039,368 963,480 August 1465 1243 - 6229 1,089,960 927,024 914,376 September 1608 1416 1'2;82 1,157,760 1,019,520 923,040 .-'

-0~t'ober 1595 1461 1330 1,186,680 1,086,984 989,520 November 1602 1541 1366 1,153,440 1,109,520 983,520 December 1545 1420 1'406 1,149,480 1,056,480 1,046,064

Summat ion 13,301,988 11,995,224 11,164,836 - TABLE B-l(c) REGULATION OF LARE ONTARIO METHOD 11-8-4

AVERAGE 85% AND 100% OF Tim DEPENDABLE MO HLY OUTPUTS

$OREBAY LEVEL LIMITED TO MBXIM.VF.4 OF 2 2.0 c,

Continuous Load - Mw Monthly Energy - Mwh Month Average 85$Depo 100%Dep, Average 85% D~PO 100$ Dep, January February Marsh- April May June Jdr August September October November December . Summation ", . . . : T+E kaia)

~REWIA?IONOF. ~~'PARIo~&OD ll-~25 -. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF TOTAL' AVERAGE, 85% AND 100$ OF TIME DEPENDABLE MONTHLY OUTPUT IESTWIEII FOREBAYIXVEL PERIOD 1905-1952

Continuous Load - Mw ~ionthlyEnergy - Mwh Month Average 85% Dep. 100% Dep. Average 85% Dep. 10% Dep.

January 1345 1345 1319 -1,000,680 1,000,680 931,336 February 1384 1292 1262 938,352 875,976 855,636 March 1381 1183 . . 1183 1,027-9464 880,152 880,152 ,7-- April 1460 1268 1154 1,051,200 912,960 830,880 h! ay 1473 1274 1154 1,095,912 947,856 - 858,576 June 1525 . 1324 1154 1,098,000 953,280 830,880 - July 1512 1308 1154 1,124,928 973,152 858,576

August 1372 1154 1154 1,020,768 858,576 - --858,576 September 1543 1324 _ 1211 1#110,960 953,280 871,920 October 1558 1407 1208. 1,?.59,152 1#046#808 943,392 November 1574 1423 1319 1,133,280 1,024,560 949 # 680 December 1529 1379 1379 1,137,576 1,025,976 1,025,976 Summation 128898,272 11,453#256 10,695,580 - fl , PRELIMINARY ES-TE c'lF TOTAL AVERAGE, 8% AND 100$ OF TIME DEPEND~~LEMONTKLY OUTPUT / ULTIMATE FOREBAY LEVEL PEFtIOD 1905-1952 ,'

...... (. continuous Load - :;Iw ivionthly Energy Mwh Month Average 85% - ~ep. 10m Dep.. .. Average . 85% Dep. .. 10% Dep.

January - February I~arch - : . Apr i 1 l!i l!i ay June

July -4,ugus t September

October Novemver December

Summat ion TABLE B-2(c) REGUTION OF LAKE O~~IOETHOD 114-5

AVERAGE, 85s AND 100% OF TIME DEPENDABLE MONT Y OUTPUTS FOREBAY LEVEL LIMITED TO MAXIMUN OF 2fP 2,O - - - .PERIOD. 1905 9. 1952- .. . . C'ontinueus Load - Mw Monthlg-Energy - Mwh Month Average 85% D~PO 100s Dep. Avelbage 85% D~PO 100% Dep, January 1366 10345 lw9 1;016,230 1,000 i680 981,336 February 13 96 3-299 1262 946 9217 880,722 855,297 March 1399 122a 1190 1,040,558 908,424 885,658 April May June

J~Y august Septembep October November Dee ember -

TABLE M(a) , REGULATION OF LAKE ONTARIO 14'ETHOD 12-A-8

I - PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF TOTAL AVERAGE, 8% AND 10% OF TIME DEPENDABLE I~OWHLY OUTPUT INTERIM FOREBAY LeVEL , PmIOD 1905-1952

Continuous Load - Mw Uonthly Energy - Mwh Month Average 85% Dep. 10@ Dep, Average 85% Dep, 10% Dep. January 1317 1290 1271 979,848 959,760 945,624 February 1376 1287 1257 932,928 872,586 852,246 March 1380 1186 1183 1,026,720 881,640 880,152

April 1468 1274 1154 - 1,056,960 917,280 830,880 May 1484 1285 1154 1,104,096 956,040 858,576 June 1460 1234 1154 1,051,200 888,480 830,880 July 1460 1234 1154 1,086,240 918,096 858,576 August 1495 -1299 1154 1,112,280 966,456 858,576 September 1525 1321 1211 1,098,000 951,120 871,920 /\A October November December Summation TABLE ~(b) REGULATION OF' LAKE ONTARIO METHOD 12-A-8

PRELIMINARY ESTIF!ATE OF TOTAL. AVERAGE, 8 5% AND 10% o f TIME DEPENDABLE MONTHLY OUTPUT ULTIMATE FOREBAY LEVEL PERIOD 1905-1952

Continuous Load - Mw Monthly Energy - Mwh Month Average 8% Dep. 100$ Dep. Aver age 85% Dep. 100$ Dep. - January 1327 1290 1271 987,288 959,760 945,624 February 1378 - 1287 1257 934,284 872,586 852,246 March 1386 1209 1184 1,031,184 899,496 880,896 April 1516 1334 1195 1,091,520 960,480 860,400 May 1546 1357 1205 1,150,224 1,009,608 896,520 June 1524 1317 1217 1,097,280 948,240 876,240 July 1534 1323 1226 1,141,296 984,312 912,144 August 1567 * 1386 1226 1,165,848 1,031,184 912,144 September 158C 1399 1278 1,137,600 1,007,280 920,160

October 1597 1511 1325. 1,188,168 1,124,184 985,800 November 1573 1448 1363 1,132,560 1,042,560 981,360 December 1535 1409 1397 1,142,WC 1,048,296 1,039,368 Summat ion 13,199,292 11,887,986 11,062,902 TABLE B-3(c)

# _.- REGITLATION OF L&oN'~~Io METHOD 12-8.08 *..- .- . - PRELIMI~WR~ESTINBTE OF TOTAL AVERAGE,-. 85% AND - 100% OF TIME DEPENDABLE MONTHLY OUTPUTS FOREBAYLEVEL LIRITED TO+MAXIM~~MOF 2W00 : - . - -. - P~IQD.1905--7 1952- . -.-.. ..

. . Continnous Load - MW -' - Monthly -.. Average Dep, 100% Dep, ~verage,., 85% D~PO Month 85% . .. .. January February March fLpril May June J~Y August September October November December Summation . . . . Y - PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF: TOTAL .;.. 'AVEXAGE.,. . --8% :+ID 1- :OF TIMEDEPENDABLE L'ONTKLY OUTPUTS . . LEVEL. .:...... ,... :. ... INTERIMFOREBAY ...... : ...... PERIOD 1905-1952,'.- .... :,...... '__ ...... , . '......

. . . Continuous Load - Ma Pdonthly Energy - Allwh Average 85% Dep. - . 100%Dep. : Average' .85$ Dep- 10% Dep. January February March

...

Apri 1 1467 1274 . ,,', 1154 . :. , 1,056,240 902,880 . "830,880

May ' . . 1484. ' ' , 1285 . 1154 ' 1,104,096 : ' . 956,040 .... 858,576

June 1452 1234 '. 115.4 -' . 1,045,440. 888.,480. . , , . 830,880 ......

July :. . . , 1455. . 1234:. -, . . :.1154.. . .' .1:,082,520 . ...,918,096 858,576..,, '. ., . . ' .

August ' . 1493 . . , 1299 . ... 1154 , - . , . : " 1,110,7923 . . 966,456 . . :- 858,576 . . ... September. - ' ,1520 ' 1321 , - - .:...... 1211,...... 1,094,400 . 1 . ' . . ... 951;120 . . : ... 871,920 ...... :...... 1560 ...1461 ... : .. I 1268 . .:, .... . 1.,:160,640. .... 1-,0&6,, 984 :... 943,,392. '. .. ' . . October . . . . 1410...... ' '11324. .,.:';'. .. . . November 1535 ...... 1.,.105,200 .< 1~,.015,200. 95 3,280 ..1503. . '1379:. . ,. . : '.'7 .,. : 1,:118,.2:32 . . . ., ...... 1,025,976...... : 1,025,232' ...... : . . , ...... - , 'December ' . ' ...... # : ...... _...I' ...... ' , ...... : .' . . sumption, ...... 12,'772,5:12.r,...... '11,398s398 10,647,612 ...... s ...... : .., ...... - ...... , ...... : , ...... : ...... :...... ,. . , ...... , ...... " : :' . ' ...... : ......

...... , ...... a

. .

...... '...... : :...... I ..:: ., ...... ~ .. ...

--. : ' :;T:~~.:.EW(b)'-.., .. . . -. >, , ;.' : . . I ,.- ...... I.:...... , .., ...... '" ...... , ...... , '.: ...... :. <. ....:... .~ ...... :....:..:...... ;.... . :' .. R.E~U~TION.::,OF~u&-:ONT,2RIO': m-10~ . ...M-A-~;. ... .: ...... -...... :. . : ...... ~...... ~. .: ,; ...... I...... ; .. .,. . . . - .". . ; . .: pRaIh~~NJ2R~~.Es~~=,MATE j.0~ ....TOTAL.. ... :...... 'qmAGE'. :-- : . 435% ,A?\:D. 10% oE' T Ib4E DEPENDABLE RO.NTHI,Y OUTPUTS ' ,' - ...... ULTNATE, FOR~EBAY .L~L,': .; ':-:.: ::I: ...... P~IOD,.,1905-1952, .,:.. . ;.,.. :, ::: :.: ...... :' .. '. .. . .,...... :... ' .. ~ ...... -...... , ......

.... 5 . Continuous Load ' - Mw . . - Eonthly Energy - ~wh 10% Dep. Month ' . Average 85% Dep. ~OO$. Dep. . . , . . Average 85%.Dep.

January 1305 1268 1226 - 970,920 943,392 - 912,144 February 1352 1265 1234 "'.916,656 857,670 836,652. .' . March 1354 - . 1191 1166 1,007,376. ' .. 886,104';. .,867,504 ......

April 1490 . ,1316 - -.1180 - , 1,.07E ,800 347,520 849,600 ..

May ' 1521 , . . i340 , ' 1189 1,131,624 996,960 8'84, 6 16

. , June 1496 . , . 1300 : . . ,1201 1,07'1 ,.I20 936,000 864,720 ...... 130F July '. . ,1508 ...... 1211'... , . 1,121,952,' . . 972,408 . 900,984...... 1,146,504 1,018,536'. 900,240 ' Aueus t 1541 ....1.369 : : .3210 : : .... '...... 907,320, September ... 1551 . ,. 1381. . . . 12-61;..;...... ;: . . . - 1,116:,..720., 994,320 -...... October. . -. ', -1571 1488,. .:l308. ' . :.'I .- 1,168 ,824. 1,10?,072 ' 973,152;. . ~

...... ,.I344 - , j:: 1';109,520' . . 1,027,MO , ' 967,680.. . . ' , November . 1541 1427-'... . '...... :.:...:. .. .. December: ',1505 3190:. . . .: . .:'1'378. . . 1,119.,720 1,034,160.'- .. 1,025;2,32...... , ...... '11,721,582' . 10,890,444 . . . . ' ...... - . ' . . . . Summation ..; . . 12,,959:,.7'36. . 1,...... : .. , ...... : ...... TABLE B-&(c)

. -- - ,.> REGULATION OF LAXE ONTARIO METHOD 14-A-1 ..- P~~ELIMI~Y-ESTIMATE OF TOT~ AVERAGE, 85% AND 1008 OF TIME DEPENDABLE MONTHLY OUTPUTS FOREBAY LEVEL -LIPIITED TO MAXIMUM OF 242,0 PERIOD 1905 - 1952-

Continuous Load - Mw MonthL Energy - Mwh Month Average 858 Dep, 1008 Dep, Average g5$ Dep. 100%Dep,

'- January February March April May June

J~Y August September

". October November December TABLE B--5 ( a ) REGULATION OF LAKE ONTARIO Economic Comparisons of Regulation Meth~dsfrom Power Standpoint for Canadian Powerhouse, Barnhart Island INTERIM FOFSBAY LEVEL OF 238.0

Notes: 1. Period considered 19'05-1952 ( inclusivd 2. Replacement cost of energy - $2.86/megawatthour 3. Replacement cost of peak capacit 14.43/kilowatt/anhum 4. Interest rate for excavation at z.;d 5. Amortization period for excavation - perpetuity 6. All data supplied by Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario

Comparison with Method Me t hod Method Regulation Method 11-A-4 11-A-'5 12-A-8 14-.A-1

Decrease in Average Annual Energy Megawatthours 2,300 16,900 , 65,200 Annual Replacement Cost - $6, 580 $48,330 $186,470

Decrease in December Peak Load mofirne Denendable ) Megawatts Annual Replacement Cost -

Increase in Channel Excavation Capital Cost - $5OO,OOO $3 200,000 $10 000,000 Annual Charges - $20,000 $128,000 $400,000

Total Annual Economic Loss from Power Standpoint - $33,790 $183,540 $593 680 TABLE B-5(b) R3GULATION OF LAKE OITAEIO Economic Comparison of Regulation Methods from Power Standpoint for U.S. Powerhouse, Barnhart Island INTERIM FOREBAY LEVEL d~ 238.0

Notes: 1. Period considered 1905-1952 ( inclusive) 2, Replacement cost of energy - $)3.04/megawatthour 3. Replacement cost of peak capacit - $25,55/kilowatt/annum 4. Interest rate for excavation at toO% 5. Amortization period for excavation - perpetuity 6. All data supplied by New York State Power Authority with exception of replacement costs of energy and capacity which were supplied by Federal Power Commission.

Conparison with Method Method Method Regulation Method 11-A-4 11-A-5 12-A-8 14-A-1

Decrease in Average Annual Energy Megawat thours 2,300 16,900 65,200 Annual Replacement Cost - $6,990 $51,380 $198,210

Decrease in December Peak Load (100% of Time De~endable) lvlegawatts Annual Replacement Cost -

Increase in Channel Excavation Capital Cost - $5OO,OOO $3 200,000 $10 000,000 Annual Charge~s- $20,000 $128,000 f 400,000

\ Total Annual Economic Loss f mm Power Standpoint - $39,770 $192,160 $623 770 ,.:.. . ., . Economic Cornparispns of ~e~u,lqtio~.,'. .. ~&$hods:, from Power Standpoint .. for ~anadianand, . U,S 7..Pdwerhouses,. , Barnhart Island ' . ' '!,> -: 1. >,:. i ,. ., . Ti'.,: .'., . . ., ......

...... , .. :Note: Table. smariees data. qhwn on table,^, B--5.-(a) and ~-5Cb)

Comparison with Method Method Met hod Regulation Method ll-~-4 11-A-5 12-A-8 14-A-1

Decrease in Average Annual Energy Megawatthours 4,600 33,800 130,400 Annual Replacement Cost - 9813,570 $89 ,710 $38.4,680

. . ..., ' ,,' Decrease in December. . Peak, ...Load ... , . . Megawatts . . 1'. . 1.0. :' 1.0 1.5

Annual Replacement ~osk'- $;I9 ,990 $19:, 9% $32,770. ..

Increase In Channel Excatraeions Capital Cost - $1 ,OOO,OOO $6 400,000 $20 OOO,OOO Annual Charges - $40,000 4256,000 $800,000

5. . . Tot a1 Annual Economic Loss . : from Power Standpoint.. . - . , $73,560 $.375:,700 $1,217,450 TABLE B-6(a)

REGULATION OF LASE ONTA@IO

Economic Comparison of Regulation Methods from Power Standpoint for Canadian Powerhouse, Barnhart Island

ULTIMATE F'OREBAY LEVEL

Notes: 1. Period considered: 1905-1952 (inclusive) 2. Replacement cost of energy - $2.86/mep,awatthour 3. Replacement cost of peak capacity - $14.43/kilowatt annm 4. Interest rate for excavation at 4.00% 5 Amortization period for excavation - perpetuity 6. All data supplied by Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario

Comparison with Method Method Method Regulation Method 11-A-4 11-A-5 12-A-8 14-A-1 /

Decrease in Average Annual Energy Megawat thour s 28,000 ( increase ) 51,400 ‘l7l,l00 Annual Replacement Cost $80,080 (increase) ' $147,000 $489,350

Decrease in December Peak Load (85% of Time Dependable) Megawatts 3.0 ( increase ) 5.5 15.0 Annual ~e~lacementCost $43,290 (increase ) $79,360 $216,450

Increase in Channel Excavation Capital Cost $500,000 ~GualCharges $20;000 Total Annual Economic Loss from Power Standpoint $103,370 (gain) $354,360 $1,105,800 TABLE B-6(b) REGULATION OF LAKE ONTARIO Economic Comparison of Regulation Methods ffom Power Standpoint -.. for U,So Powerhouse, Barnhart Island

ULTIMATE FOREBAY LEVEL

Notes: lo Period considered 1905 - 1952 (inclusive) A 2, Replacement cost of energy - $3,04/megawa tthodr 3. Replacement cost- of peak capacit - $25,55/kiLowatt/annurn 4. Interest rate for excavation at cOOO$ 5 Amortization period for excavation - perpetuity 6, All data supplied by New Pork State Power Authbrity with exception of replacement costs of energy and cdpacity which were supplied by Federal Power Commissiod

Comparison with Method Met hod hethod ' Regulation Method ll-~-4 11-A-5 12.~~8 J.4-~-1 Decrease in Average Annual Energy Megawatthours 28,000(increase) 51,400 ' i7l,l00 Annual Replacement Cast $85,120( increa se) $156,260 $!m,140

Decrea Se- in December Peak Load (100% of Time De~endable) Megawatts O,5 (increase) 405 14,0 Annual Replacement Cost $12,78O(increase) $114,980 $3 57 9 700

. . Increase in Channel . . Excavation Capital Cost $500,000 $3 ,200,000 $10,000,000 Annual Charges $ 20,000 $128,000 ,000

Tota'l- Annua 1 Economic Loss from Power Stand- Point $ 77,900kain) $399,240 $1,277,840 Economic ~orn~aris.ori$-~f.'':~e,~ul&i~<.~et hod s.;f Power..!, ... Standpoint. ., . ram- ' ' U'. i,...... ,;- . for Canadian'.and S Pow'erliouses,-.C Ba-rnhart' .Island...... \ . ' ' -, .' ...... , 1. ;' : . . ,' .... .<. . ,:..,...... 'I' ..>. . . . .,. . /. . : , ,

Note: Table summarizes data shown on Tables B-6(a) and B-b(b)

Comparison with Method . Method Me,t hod Regulation Method. 11-A- : 12-~-8, . 14-~-1 ...... 5 ...... 11-A-4 ... ,

Decrease in Average Annual Energy Megawatt hours 56 ,OOO(inc.rease) 102,800 342,200 Annual Replacement Cost $165,2OO(increase) ' $303,260 $1,009,490

Decrease in December Peak Load Megawatts 3.5 (increase) 10.0 29.0 Annual Replacement Cost $56,07O(increase) $194,340 $57!t,150 i I

Increase in Channel Excavations Capital Cost $1,000,000 Annual Charges $40,000

Total Annual Bc,onomic: ..

Loss from Power , ,.).' Stand~oint...." , @1A1,:2.70( g sin ) $753,600 , $2,383',640 < :: i- : ..: ... ,...... > .: _., ...,: ...... , .... :... .% ...... i ,.,-...... :., . ? .,. .' . . ... ,,. . ,.. . >. . .., . .:,. "...... /: ...... , ... TABLE B-7(a)

, . Economic Comparison of:~e~uiation~ethods from Power Standpoint

for Canadian Powerhouse, Barnhart Island ,...... _ ...,.: ,' . - . ... . , . -. . ., ...... , ...... , ., .. , ...... , .. . ,. , , , , < ,. , . - . . . . : . . . . : , ,- :I .). i FOREBAY LEVEL LIMITED TO MAXIMUM OF 242.0

.., ... . , , : * . ., . .. ? < Notes: 1. Period -considered: 1905-1952 (inclusive) 2. Replacement cost of --energy-'-.$2.86/megawatthour 3. Repla-cement 'cost of peak capacity ' - .' $14.43/kilowatt/annum. 4. .'Interest -rate..-f-or.,-excavationat. 4-.00$. ' .. , 5. hort-ization period for excavatibn - fierpetuity. 6. All data supplied. . by Hydro-Electric Power Commisrlion - .. . of Ontario ......

Comparison with . Regulation Method Method Met hod Method 11-A-4 -. 11-A-5 12-A-$ 14-A-1

Decrease in Average Annual Enernv Megawatthours Annual Replacement Cost

Decrease in December Peak Load 85% of Time Dependable) Annual Replacement Cost

Incr-ea~sein C hanne 1 Excavation Capital Cost. ~nnualCharges

Total Annual Economic Loss from Power Standpoint $86,50o(gain) $332,650 $19~52,020 REGULATION OF LAKE ONTARIO , Economic Comparison of ~e~ulationMethods from Power Standpoint for U.S. Powerhousep Barnhart Island

TO MAXIMUM FOREBAY LEVEL LIMITED OF 292.0 ,

Notes : 1. Period considered 1905-1952 (inclusive) 2. Replacement cost -of energy -- $3.04/l~e~gawatthour 3. Replacemeiit cost -of peak capacit - $2!je 55/kilowatt/annum 4. Interest rate for excavation at ~.OO$ I 5. Amortization period for -excavation - perpetujty 6. All data supplied by New York State Power, Authority with exception of replacement costs of energy and capacity which were supplied by Federal Power Co~ission.

a Comparison with Regulation Met hod Met hod Method Met hod' 11-A-4 11-A-4 124-8 14-A-1

Decrease in Average Annual Energy Megawatthours i 22,100( increase) Annual Replacement Cost $67,180(increase)

Decrease in December Peak Load (100% of Time Denendable) Megawatts 0.5 (increase) ' Annual Replacement Cost $12,78O(increase) -.-

L 1 ~ncrehsein Channel Excavation Ca~italCost , ~nhualCharges

Total knnual Economic Loss from Power Starid~oint REGULATIQN QF LAm ONTARIO

Economic Comparisons of Regulation Meth~dsfrom Power Standpoint - for Canadian and U, S. Powerhouqes, Barnhart Island

Notes: Table summar;izes data shown on Tables @-"Pa) anq B-7(b)

Comparison with Method ~et ho~ Method Regulation Method 11-A-4 &l-A-5 12-4-8 14-A-1

Decrease in Ayerage Annual Energy Megawa tthours $44,200(increase) 887i20Q $304,600 Annual Replacement Cost $130,390(increa se}%$2574230 $898 ,560

. . Decrease' in De.ce.mber .- : Peak Load . . _.- Megawatts 3.5 (inoyease) 10.0 29 .O Annual Replacerne~tCost $56,070 (incyea se) $194,340 $574,150

Increase in Channel Excavations Capital Cost $1,000,000 $6,4.00,OOQ .$2Q,OOC?,000

Annual Charges, $$0,000: " ' ,000: $80d,ooo jl

Total Annual Economic Loss from Power Stand- point $146,460 (pa in) $707 570 $2,272,710 TABLE B-8(a)

... , ...... f Economic:.O om par is on.^, of Regulation Methods roiu ~,ower..Stand~oint...... for Canadian Niagara.River 'Plants...... , ......

...... ,.. "-flote$<... 1e,/P,~riodconside,red1905 -. 1952 (inclusive).. . . . >. - ...... :. : 2. :'CW , ...... Twelve 75,000 units installed at Sirddam... Beck- ...... :-.Nia'garaG.S.. No?.2 . . , ...... : .: '.Replacement cost of en6rgy - $2..86~meg&ratthour.:.: :" ; ... . .: . :. :, . ..l 'Replacement. .cost . ofr .peak capacity"- $14.k3:/kilowatt/annum. . . : ...... _ ... :-." :: ,. All' data 'supplied.by wdro-Electri,c::'I,Pmer...... Cornmi ssion. .:- ... 5...... ::. . . '. ,:. . ' . ...,...... '...... , . - , , . . . . , :. . -:1. '.: of ,Ontario :' ...... , ...... : ...... , ...... ,...... , . . , ...... :. :..

Comparison with Method Re~ulationMethod ll-~-k 11-A-5 I ... . :...... : . ., ...... , .... . , ., ...... /. . . . ,, ...... ,..;:. >, ...... ,., ,...... ,. , : -1ncrea... sed Average ~nnGl. . . . l ,. , . ., . .'...... , , ...... -...... - Fnergy ...... <. . . : 45,100, . , -,':Megawa.tthours' ...... 7,400(decrease) , 12,,030:: ' , . '

,. Annual. Replacerpent. . cost:..... $1,16O(decrease) ,.... $34,410 .: ':, . , : . , $128,990...... ,,' ...... ,. ,. .... b.!. . ' ...... , ...... :. . .: ...... \_ ...... <, ...... -...... ,.. .< . . Increased. . December. Peak...... ' : ...... ; Capacity . :' '...... , I. . . (85% of. Time Dependable) I ...... 5.40. : .. .. '. -1720;:'. ,9 .Kilowatts ' ,' . ' 960(decf ease) Annual ~e~laceient. . Cost $13,80o(decrease) g24:900 . . : . . $85,800. . . .

...... ". ' ,J ...... :, ...... <. r...... , ...... ' . . ... TO& ;*AnnualEconomic ...... , . . . Gain' from ,power Stand- ......

~oint...... $34,,960(10ss) , $59,310 : ' : , $214,790'. .- TABLE B-8(b) REGULATION OF LMB ONTARIO Economic Comparisons of RegulAtion Methods from Power Standpoint for U.S. Niagara River Plants

Notes: 1, Period considered 1905-1952 (inclusive) 2. Installed capacity at Lewiston high head plant - 1,512,000 kw Installed capacity at Lower Miagara plant - 120,000 kw 3. Replacement cost of energy - $2,84/megawatthour 4. Replacement cost of peak capacity - $23.OO/kiPowatt/annum - 5e All data supplied by Corps of Engineers with exception of replacement costs %or energy and capacity which were supplied by Federal Power Commission

Comparison with Regulation Method Method ~ethoh- Method 11-8-4 11-A-5 12-A-8 14-A-1

Increased Average 8nnual'Ener~y Megawa tthour s 9,450 (decrease) 13,990 51,790 Annual replacement cost - $26,84O(decrease) $39,730 $147,080

Increased December Peak Capacity: (100% of Time Dependable) Kilowatts l9430(decrease) 1,260 7,*0 Annual replacement cost - $32,%90(decrease) $28,520 $171,120

Total Annual Economic Ga;in from power Standpoint - > > . I $59173~(los~) $68,250 $3ld, 200 . TULE BA~(c)

Economic Comparisons of Regulation Methods from Power Standpoint for,Canadian and U. So Nia~araRiver Plaht s

Note: Table summarizes data shown on Tables B-8(a) and B-8(b)

Comparison with Method Method Method Regulation Method 11-A-4 11-A-5 12-A-8 14-~-1

Increased average Annual Energs Megawatthours 16,850 (decrease) 26,020 96,890 Annual Replacement Cost - $48,000(decrease) $74,140 $276,070 .

Increased December Peak Load Kilowatts 2,39O(decrease) 2,960 13,380 Annual Replacement Cost - $46,69o(decrease) $53,420 $256,920

Total andual Economic Gain from Power Standpoint - $94-,690(10ss) $127,560 $532,990 INTERIM REPORT OM . REGULATION OF LAKE ONTARIO

APPENDIX C

EFFECT OF REGUUT~ON ON MAVIMTIDN ON LaKE ON!I!ARIO AND THE ST, LAWREaCE RI~ABOVE THE BA~NHART ISLANb POII&WUSES

Page General 6-1 Welland Canal C-2 Harbors on Lake Ontario and the Thousand Islands Section C-2 Iroquois Canal and Lodk c-4 Long Sault Canal and gobinson Bay Lock c-4 Summary of Comparative Costs c-4

C-1 Increased Cost of Channel and Harbor Deepening for Plan 14-A-1 Compared to Plan ll-~-b C -3 C-2 Differences in Cost to Navigation Between -. - PUZi lf -1-5 %M-PI-8 *-I;2*&-5y- ~&2*~-&+- and 14-a-1 C-5 C-3 Summary of Annual Savings and Charges to Navigation c-5 ,INTERIM REPORT on .REGULATIOI"i OF LAKE ONTARIO

BFFEC,T OF REGULATION ON NAVIGATION ON LAKE ONTARIO AND ,THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER ABOVE THE BARNHART ISLAND POWERHOUSES .

...... General . . . . . - ......

1.. The four. ..trial , regulatioh plans under study provide . . for Tegulating the monthly mean levels of Lake bhtario within the following limits:

2. The above minimum monthly mean levels dill be main- -. . , tained during the navigation seasoh although they may be permitted to drop slightly beldw the iower limits of these plans in the non-navigation season. For the purpose of this study .- - the effect on navigation is determined by the 'diherehce in cost between the four trial regulation plans for providing

equivalent depths. a for navigation in the harbors oh Lake Ontario including the lower approach to the Welland canal, in the I Thousand Islands Section of the St, Lawrence River, in the

Iroquois Lock- . and Canal, ,and. . . in..- the Long Sault Cahal and Robin- son Bay Lock, Although plans 11-A-4 and ll-A-5 have the same limiting elevations on Lake Ontario, the resultihg regulated water levels and outflows produce different critical low water

profiles in~,theSt. Lawrence-.!River,-- . .. , .. . . -. .. , - - -

3. -Plan ll-A-4 is used as a basis for comparison and , the difference in costs of providing the required controlling depths under plans 11-A-5, 12-A-8, and 14-A-1 has been computed. Welland Canal 4. When the Welland Canal was constructed the elevations at its lower entrance were based on a low water level for Lake Ontario of Elevation 242,5 feet above mean sea level, 1903 adjustment (about 242,3 feet above mean tide at New York, 1935 datum), Under the four trial plans presented herein this minimum lake level would be raised, so that there would be no additional costs involved to insure the same controlling depth as now exists, Harbors on Lake Ontario and the Thousarid Islands Section -. 5. Elevation 244.0 feet is the low water datum to which all navigation depths are referred on Lake Ontario. Depths in the Thousand Islancs Section are referred to the sloping river surface when the level of Lake Ontario is at elevation 244.0. Since elevation 244,0 on ,Cake Ontario will be maintained under plans 11-84, 11-8-5 and 12-A-8 there will be no costs to navigation to provide project depths on Lake Ontario or in the Thousand Islands Section bder these plans, 6, Under plan 14-A-1 the lower limit of Lake Ontario levels would be one foot lower %han for plans 11-14, 11-A-5 and 12-A-8 during the navigation season, It would therefore require deepening by one foot, in relation to plan 11-~-4, of all improved channels and harbors, including those authorized for improvement on Lake Ontario and the sections of channel which require improvemen% in the Thousand Islands Section, C-2 7* Estimates of costs have been made for increasing . . . by one foot the depths in the channels and harbors referred to in the preceding paragraph, These are listed below: United States Shore Canadian Sho~e

Wilson Hamilton Picton , Olcott Bronte Waupoos Oak Orchard Oakville Wellington Rochester Port Credit Salmon Point Great Sodus Bay Toronto Si~icoeIsland Port Bay Whitby Hornets Point Oswego oshawd !Mi{;;ille Port Ontario Port Sfope Sackets Harbor Cobouk$ ~iblhaven Cape Vincent VictoPLb Islarld ~&iltn'sBay Ogdensburg Point yhaverse ~b&hsmouth Trentoh United. States and d.ABada Thousand Islands Sedtion 8. The total estimated cost af deepening 83-one foot the channels and harbors listed in the preceding filragraph is shown in Table C-1, Table C-1 Increased Cost of Channel and tiarbbr ~ee~erihn~ for Plan 14-Am1 compared tb,,,Plan ,l1-~-4,J, ~stirnathCost for Dee~enidkby 1 foot U.S, Harbors Dredging Canadian Harbors Dredging b,043,000 Strengthening of Structures 4,275,000 Thousand Islands Sec tibn &,.loo,000 Totill $15,958,000 . . oauois Canal and Lock . . . ..,! , ,, .;&:. ' ,

9. The critical low water profile at the upper and . .

, ,' lower entrances to the Iroquof s Canal, during the navigation season, for plan 11-A-5, would be 0,45 foot higher than for I

\I '. . . plan 11-A.-4 and for plans 12,-A-8 and 14-A-1, it would be . ,- 1 : . . .. 0.8foot and 2,O feet- .. ..lower respectively than for plan 11-A-4. , .: ...... -. .

To provide-. the necessary, grades'in the Canal and changes, . in , r. ,. ,.. .. , .? .... the lock in accordance with the. . critical wat6r profiles,... . ~. 1 ...... plan 11-A-5 would result in a saving of $160,000 over plan

11-A-4, while plans 12-A-8 and 14-A-1 would require increased ' costs of.. $300,000 and $700,000 respectively aver plan 11-~-&. Lonk Sault Canal and Robfnsbh Bay Lock , ' 10, In the upper reach of the Long Sault Canal, the critical lgw water profile imder, plans 11-A-5, 12-A-8 and 14-A-1, during the navigation season, would be 0,40 foot higher, 1,3 feet lower and 2,4 feet lower respectively than for plan ll-~-4, Differencbs in costs of $105,000 (decrease), I $340,000 (increase 1 and $?30,000 (increase) would result under plans 11-A-5, 12-A-8 ahd 14-A-b respectively, to provide required controlling- depths as for plan 11-A-&, These costs. ,. ' , .. .-- . . .-. ., ~ . - . , - - - ... . . cover ,deepening-. the Long Sault Canal above-Robinson Bay Lock' ., , ...... ,,' t. .: .<. ..., -. ,.. :. , , , and any necessary changes in the Lock itself...... Summary' of Comparative Costs ...... - - . - . , 11, The differences in costs to navigation between plan 11-~-4and plans 11-A-5, 12-A-8, and 14-A-1 are shown in , Table (2-2. Differences in Cos% %o Navigation between Plan 11-A-b and Plans 11-A-5, 12-8-8 and 14-A-1 Decreased Increased Increa sed Cost Cost Cost for Plan for Plan for Plan 11-A-5 12-A-8 14-A-1 U. S. Harbors 0 0 $3,%09000 Canadian Harbors 0 0 10,318,000 Thousand Islands Section Iroquois Canal and $160,000 $300,000 7OO,OOO Lock Long Sault Canal ahd 105,000 340,000 730,000 Robinson Bay Lock Totals $265%000 $64-0,000 $17,388,000

12. Annual davings on decreased costs and annual charges on increased costs to naviga%ion a3 outlined in Table C-2 were computed using an interest rate of 2-1/2 per cent with amortization over a period of 50 years, These figures are shown on Table C-3. TABLE C-Q Summary of Annual Savings and Char~esto Navigation Cornpapison with Plan 11-A-b Annual AnnuaI Plan Savings Charges