Great Lakes Hydrometeorologic and Hydraulic Data Needs

Appendix A GREAT LAKES HYDROFETEOROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC DATA NEEDS

APPENDIX A

HYDRAULICS, HYDROLOGY, AND SYSTEMS EVALUATION

REPORT TO THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION

BY THE INTEKNATIONAL GREAT LAKES TECHNICAL INFORMATION NETWORK BOARD (UNDER THE REFERENCE OF 19 NOVEliSER 1979)

December 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS -Paragraph Page SECTION A1 INTRODUCTION

Al. 1 AUTHORITY

A1.2 TEKMS OF REFERENCE

A1.3 QUESTIONNAIRES AND SURVEYS

A1.4 COMMITTEE OKGANIZATION

A1.5 TEHfINOLOGY AND UNITS OF MEASUREEENT

SECTION A2 GREAT LAKES BASIN DESCRIPTION AND WATER MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

A2.1 GENERAL

A2.2 PHYSIOGRAPHY

A2.3 CLIMATE

A2.4 HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS

~2.5 GREAT LAKES WATER LEVEL AND now REGULATION

A2.5.1 St. Marys River A2.5.2 St. Clair - Detroit River System A2.5.3 Niagara River A2.5.4 St. Lawrence River

A2.6 GREAT LAKES SUBBASIN WATER MANAGEMENT

A2.6.1 Canada A2.6.2 United States

SECTION A3 EXISTING STATION NETWORK

A3.1 GENERAL

A3.2 METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION

A3.2.1 Meteorologic Parameters A3.2.2 ~~draulic/HydrologicParameters TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) -Paragraph Page

DATA COLLECTION AGENCIES AND EXISTING STATION NETWORKS AND DATA SYSTEMS

Canadian Systems Atmospheric Environment Service (AES), Environment Canada Water Survey of Canada (WSC), Environment Canada Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS), Fisheries and Oceans Canada Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE) Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) Ontario Hydro (OH) United States Systems National Weather Service (HWS), NOAA National Ocean Service (NOS), NOAA National Environnental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS), NOAA Great Lakes Environnental Research Laboratory (GLERL), N OAA United States Coast Guard (USCG) United States Geological Survey (USGS) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CUE) Others

STATION DIRECTORY

ACCURACY OF WATER LEVEL GAUGES AND DATA

DATA COORDINATION AND DISSEMINATION

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING AND FUTURE DATA ACQUISITION TECHNIQUES

General State-of-the-Art Data Collection Lake Superior Water Supply Study

INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGETENTS

Internatfonal Exchange System International Institutional Arrangements Canadian Institutional Arrangements United States Institutional Arrangements TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) -Paragraph SECTION A4 DATA NEEDS AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

GENERAL

INTERNATIONAL (IJC) BOARDS AND COMMITTEES

International Lake Superior Board of Control International Niagara Board of Control and International Niagara Committee International St. Lawrence River Board of Control International Great Lakes Water Quality Board International Great Lakes Science Advisory Board Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data

UNITED STATES AND CANADIAN FEDERAL AGENCIES

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers United States Geological Survey National Ocean Survey, NOAA National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, NOAA National Weather Service, NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory , NOAA United States Coast Guard Water Planning and Management Branch, Environment Canada Water Resources Branch (Water Survey of Canada), Environment Canada Atmospheric Environment Service, Environment Canada Public Works Canada, Ontario Region Fisheries and Oceans Canada Canada Centre for Remote Sensing Coast Guard, Transport Canada

STATE AND PROVINCIAL AGENCIES

Ohio Department of Natural Resources New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Illinois Department of Conservation Michigan Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Water Resources Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont 'd) Paragraph -Page Lands and Waters, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources A-104 Ontario Hydro A-105 Conservation Authorities A- 105

OTHER ORGANIZATIONS A-105

St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Lake Carriers Association

HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC MODELS AND THEIR DATA REQUIREMENTS

Evaluation of Meteorologic Network Adequacy in Estimating Runoff Evaluation of Streamflow Network Adequacy in Estimating Net Basin Supply

ASSESSMENT OF NETWORKS IN RELATION TO USERS

Network Gaps Optimum Meteorologic Network Optimum Hydrologic Network

COSTS OF NETWORK EXPANSION AND STATION AUTOMATION AS SUGGESTED BY DATA COLLECTING AGENCIES

Streamf low Stations Meteorologic Stations Water Level Stations

SECTION A5 ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS

GENERAL

SCENARIO 1 - INDEPENDENT SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT

Effect on IJC Boards Atmospheric Environment Service Water Survey of Canada Canadian Hydrographic Service Ontario Hydro National Weather Service National Ocean Service Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory United States Geological Survey U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

SCENARIO 2 - IMPROVED COliMUNICATIONS AND DATA CENTRALIZATION TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)

Paragraph Page >-- A5.4 SCENARIO 3 - NATIONAL DATA CENTRALIZATION A-137 SECTION A6 FUNCTIONAL ANALYSES AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

GENERAL

SYSTEM CHARACTEKISTICS

Accessibility Expandibilit y Maintainability Reliability

OPERATIONAL MODEL CONSIDERATIONS

Data Transmission Model Development Forecasts Responsiveness Current and Future Needs

ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

SECTION A7 COST AND ACCURACY ANALYSIS

GENERAL

POTENTIAL ACCUKACY DIPROVEMENTS

EXPECTED ACCURACY TMPROVEPENTS

Meteorologic Data Network Streanflow Data Network Hydraulic Data Network

EXPECTED COSTS OF SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENT

Meteorologic Data Acquisition Costs Hydrometric Data Acquisition Costs Hydraulic Data Acquisition Costs Computer Costs

Independent Agency Development (Scenario 1) Improved Communication. and Data Centralization (Scenario 2) National Data Centralization (Scenario 3) TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont 'd)

-Paragraph SECTION A8 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FINDINGS

CONCLUSIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS

LIST OF ANNEXES ---Annex A TERMS OF REFERENCE A-173

B LIST OF PARTICIPANTS A-175

C CONVERSION FACTORS (METRIC TO BRITISH UNITS) A-179

D TERMINOLOGY (DEFINITION OF TERMS) A-181

E LIST OF IJC BOARDS, GOVERNMEEJT AGENCIES, AND OTHER A-185 ORGANIZATIONS RESPONDING TO ICLTIN BOARD QUESTIONNAIRES

SUbiMARY OF RESPONSES OF IJC BOARDS, GOVERhTENT AGENCIES, A-187 AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

LIST OF TABLES

Number Page--.--

1 Percentage of Land Area Gauged by Basin to Measure A-2 1 Runoff

2 Present Canadian Streamflow Station Network - Lake Superior

3 Present Canadian Streamflow Station Network - Lake Huron

4 Present Canadian Streanflow Station, Network - Lake St. Clair

5 Present Canadian Streamflow Station Network - Lake Erie

6 Present Canadian Streamflow Station Network - Lake Ontario TABLE OF CONTENTS ( Cont ' d)

LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)

Number Page -- .-- 7 List of Active Snow Courses in Canadian Portion A-36 of the Basin

Percentage of Land Area Gauged by State to Measure Runoff

List of United States Streamflow Stations having Telemarks, Observers, or Satellite Data Relay Capability

Summary of Improvements Suggested by Users

Summary of Present and Future Data Needs by Categories and Users

Summary of Data Requirements of theGreat Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory

Hypothetical Inflow Network Proposed by Water Survey of Canada for Lake Superior

Hypothetical Inflow Network Proposed by Uater Survey of Canada for Lake Huron

Hypothetical Inflow Network Proposed by Water Survey of Canada for Lake St. Clair

Hypothetical Inflow Network proposed by Water Survey of Canada for Lake Ontario

Summary of Data Needs of Conservation Authorities in Ontario

~~drologic/HydraulicModels and Their Data Requirements

Summary of Cost for Expanded Streanflow Network as Suggested by USGS

Summary of Cost for Expanded Hypothetical Streamflow Network as Suggested by Water Survey of Canada

AES Recommended New Climatologic Stations for Lake Superior Basin by Priority

vii , TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)

LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)

Number .--.Page - 22 AES Recommended New Climatologic Stations for Lake Huron A-125 Basin by Priority

2 3 Costs to Implement TRADE Nationwide A-136

24 Ranking of Scenarios A-145

25 Estimated Number of Real-Time Meteorologic Stations A-149 Required in the Great Lakes Basins

26 Scenario Costs A-158

LIST OF FIGURES Number Page- 1 Map of the Great Lakes Drainage Basin A-3

Lake Superior Drainage Basin Showing Area A-2 2 Gauged by Streamflow Stations

Lake Huron Drainage Basin Showing Area Gauged by Streamflow Stations

Lake St. Clair Drainage Basin Showing Area Gauged by Streamflow Stations

Lake Erie Drainage Basin Showing Area Gauged by Streamflow Stations

Lake Ontario Drainage Basin Showing Area Gauged by Streamf low Stations

Lake Michigan Drainage Basin Showing Area Gauged by Streamf low Stations

Locations of New Streamflow Stations Recommended by USGS and Water Survey of Canada

Cumulative Percent Area Gauged vs Number of Stations - Canadian Portion of Lake Superior Basin TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)

LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd) Number Page---- 10 Cumulative Percent Area Gauged vs Number of A-9 2 Stations - Canadian Portion of Lake Huron Basin

Cumulative Percent Area Gauged vs Number of Stations - Canadian Portion of Lake St. Clair Basin

Cumulative Percent Area Gauged vs Number of Stations - Canadian Portion of Lake Erie Rasin

Cumulative Percent Area Gauged vs Number of Stations - Canadian Portion of Lake Ontario Basin

Locations of New Climatologic and Real-Time Stations Recommended by AES

Capital and Annual O&M Cost Curves for Improving Coverage in Canadian Portion of Lake Superior Basin

Capital and Annual O&M Cost Curves for Improving Coverage in Canadian Portion of Lake Huron Basin

Capital and Annual O&M Cost Curves for Improving Coverage in Canadian Portion of Lake St. Clair Basin

Capital and Annual O&M Cost Curves for Improving Coverage in Canadian Portion of Lake Erie Rasin

Capital and Annual O&M Cost Curves for Improving Coverage in Canadian Portion of Lake Ontario Basin GREAT LAKES HYDROMETEOROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC DATA NEEDS

APPENDIX A

HYDRAULICS, HYDROLOGY, AND SYSTEMS EVALUATION COMMITTEES

REPORT TO THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION BY' THE INTERNATIONAL GREAT LAKES TECHNICAL INFORMATION NETWORK BOARD

SECTION A1 INTRODUCTION

A1 .1 AUTHORITY

By letter dated February 21, 1977, the Governments of the United States and Canada requested the International Joint Commission (IJC) to undertake a study of unmet data needs in order to assist the Governments in improving the Great Lakes data collection network. The request was made pursuant to Article IX of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, and in response to tile Co~mission's 1976 Report entitled "Further Regulation of the Great Lakes" ;~'rlichrecommended that the Governments approve such a study.

The 1977 Government Reference requested that the Commission:

". . . bring to the attention of Governments unmet needs discovered in the course of its activities, both in comparable data methodology, and collection and exchange of information."

As a result of .this Reference, the Commission established the International Great Lakes Technical Information Network Board on November 19, 1979, and appointed Board members on January 25, 1980 to undertake the necessary investigations.

The 1979 IJC Directive instructed that the Board: ". . . investigate and report to the Commission concerning unmet needs in data collection with respect to the Great Lakes meteorologic, hydrologic and hydr~i~1.i.1::liit;,i rleti~orks. In its investigation, the Board shall compare data collection and analysis nethods presently used and advise the .Commission concerning their adequacy and compatibility; assess the adequacy of the data collection system with respect to coverage and timely response; and advise tile Commission concerning changes and additions to the data networks required to assure that the meteorologic, hydrologic and hydraulic data needs of the Great Lakes System are met."

The Board's Plan of Study, including cost estimates, was submitted to the Commission on June 16, 1980, and was approved by the Commission on August 14, 1980. To assist it in its investigation, the Board established the Hydraulics, Hydrology, and Systems Evaluation Committees. This report was prepared by the Committees as a technical appendix to the aoard's report to the IJC. A1.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Terms of Reference for the three Committees are listed in Annex A. This report contains the study results of the three Committees. All costs presented are expressed in terms of 1983 price levels. Lake stages are expressed in metres on International Great Lakes Datum (1955). In this report, the term hydrometerologic data is used frequently to denote either meteorologic or hydrologic data. Hydrometric data are predominantly streamflow data, but may also refer to stream level or sediment data.

Data needs are defined as those that are of interest to the International Joint Commission, its Boards of Control, and other agencies involved in the operation and/or monitoring of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River System. The data include those which are used in existing operations and models for forecasting water levels of the Great Lakes, as re11 as in future operation and improved methods of water level and flow forecasting. Water quality data needs were not addressed.

During the course of this study, the agencies and organizations which the Board consulted have also identified their data needs. While some of these needs are considere11 beyond the purview of this study, the Committees have listed them in Section A4.

The geographic coverage of the study was confined to the drainage basin of the Great Lakes, extending from the headwaters of the Lake Superior Basin to Cornwall, Ontario-Massena, New York, on the St. Lawrence River. Figure 1 is a oap of the Great Lakes Drainage Basin. The hydrometeorologic stations located outside the Basin but near the periphery were included if their data could be used to represent in-basin conditions. Major diversions such as Long Lac, Ogoki, Welland Canal, and the Chicago diversions were also included.

The types of data studied are basically hydrometeorologic in nature. Section A3 describes the types of data that are presently collected and used or that will be needed in the future by the various IJC Boards and other agencies. Because of the different purposes for which these data are used, various categories of uses have also been identified.

A1.3 QUESTIONNAIKES AND SURVEYS

The Great Lakes hydrometeorologic data are collected, compile~l, ;il~d p:lblished by many different organizations. Likewise, certain data are used by different users for different purposes. The objective of imptov i.11~the Great 1,aicc:s hydrometr.oroiogi.(: ~t:-:i:..rorks, in terms of coverage and timely response, is to enable the users to carry out their mandates in a more effective and efficient manner. In order to identify any present and future unmet data needs, it was necessary to solicit input from the users. Two separate requests for information were distributed by the Board. The first request was sent in the Fall of 1980 to over 40 organizations, including IJC Great Lakes Control Boards. A second request was sent in early 1982 to 15 of these organizations asking for more detailed information. Annex E lists all IJC Boards, agencies, and other organizations responding to the Board's requests. A summary of responses is given in Annex F. FIGURE 1

Map of the Great Lakes Drainage Basin

SCALE OF YlES ONTARIO

QUEBEC

CHICAGO SANIIARI 6 SHIP The Committees carefully reviewed all responses received by the Board. Any unmet present needs and future requirements were identified. To aid the Committee members in their work, a station directory was compiled. The directory is stored on computer file at the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Ann Arbor, Michigan. This directory, which is Appendix B of the Board's Main Report, lists all hydrometeorologic stations and associated information such as location, types of data collected, operator, etc. It is expected that the directory will be periodically updated to reflect network changes.

The evaluation of station networks remained with the agencies respon- ble for maintaining such networks. In the case of meteorologic station tworks, e.g., station densities were evaluated using minimum density guidelines suggested for flat regions of temperate zones in the World Meteorological Organization Guide to Hydrologic Practices. Streamflow station networks were evaluated by examining either the percentage of the basin areas gauged or the volume of runoff being gauged.

A1.4 COMMITTEE ORGANIZATION

Annex B lists the members who served on the three Committees.

A1.5 TERMINOLOGY AND UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

Descriptions of terms and expressions used are provided in Annex D to, this report. The terms and definitions were derived from standard engineering text books and from those usages common to those working in the given discipline. Where conflicts and uncertainties in definitions were found, the prevailing common usage was adopted.

Metric units of measurement are used throughout this report. Customary or British equivalents, where considered appropriate, are shown in parenthe- ses. A metric to British system of units conversion table is given in Annex C. SECTION A2 GREAT LAKES BASIN DESCRIPTION AND WATER MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

A2.1 GENERAL

The Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River System is composed of Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, St. Clair, Erie, and Ontario, and their interconnecting channels: the St. Marys, St. Clair, Detroit, Niagara, and St. Lawrence Rivers (Figure 1). The entire system drains northeastward through the St. Lawrence River, emptying into the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Atlantic Ocean.

In the System, Lake Superior flows into Lake Huron, Lake Huron through Lake St. Clair into Lake Erie, Lake Erie into Lake Ontario, and Lake Ontario into the St. Lawrence River. Lake Michigan also drains into Lake Huron. These two lakes, connected by the broad and deep Straits of Mackinac, stand at virtually the same level, and are usually treated as one lake in hydrologic and hydraulic considerations.

The Great Lakes and their Connecting Channels have a combined water surface area of about 246000 square kilometres. The land tributary to the Great Lakes consists of about 528000 square kilometres.

A2.2 PHYSIOGRAPHY

In large part, the land tributary to the Great Lakes is included within the areas of three broad physiographic regions: the Pre-Cambrian' Shield, the Central Lowlands and the St. Lawrence Lowlands. East of Lake Ontario, the limit of the Basin is the Adirondack Mountains; the limit southeast of Lake Erie and south of Lake Ontario is the Allegany Mountains.

Areas of the Great Lakes Basin north and west of Lake Superior and north of Lake Huron are in the Pre-Cambrian Shield and are .dominated by hills, a few low mountains with summit elevations up to about 518 metres above sea level, and many lakes and swamps. In general, the bedrock, which is composed of igneous and metamorphic rock, has a shallow overburden; the region is not cultivated to any great extent and much of it consists of forest lands.

The Central Lowlands portion of the Basin includes the Basins of Lakes Michigan, Erie and Ontario and the southern portion of Lake Huron's Basin. The physiographic relief varies from gently rolling to relatively flat topography. West and south of the southern end of Lake Michigan, the divide between the drainage tributary to the Mississippi River and that tributary to Lake Michigan is, in places, only about three metres higher than the level of Lake Michigan. The overburden in the Central Lowlands basin varies from a metre to several hundred metres in depth. The area is covered by glacial deposits which, in many localities, consist of rather heterogeneous mixtures of silt, clay, sand, gravel and boulders. Much of this portion of the Basin is cultivated. The St. Lawrence Lowlands are the wide, flat valley of the St. Lawrence River. It is underlain by sedimentary bedrock, including limestone, shale, sandstone, and conglomerate.

A2.3 CLIMATE

The Basin possesses a continental climate moderated by the presence of the Great Lakes.. Winds are predominantly westerly in winter and southwesterly in summer. Temperatures and precipitation are variable within the Basin with a trend to colder temperatures and less precipitation to the north. Humidities are higher near the water. Mean January temperatures range from -19°C in the north to -2°C in the south, and July averages range from 18°C to the north. of Lake Superior to 23°C south of Lake Erie. There is little seasonal variation in precipitation with annual precipitation increasing from 760 mm north of Lake Superior to 1270 mm east of Lake Ontario. Winter precipitation is generally a little less than in summer except in snowbelt areas downwind of the Lakes where it is 20 to 30 percent higher in winter. Annual and seasonal variation in precipitation and evaporation are the primary factors determining supplies to the Lakes.

A2.4 HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS

The levels of the Great Lakes are dependent upon the storage capacity of the Lakes, outflow characteristics of the Connecting Channels and the St. Lawrence River, operating procedures of the regulatory structures, and the total net water supply received by each lake. The hydrologic factors influencing the total water supply received by each lake Include the inflow from the upper lake, plus runoff from the land draining into that particular lake, plus precipitation falling directly on the water surface, plus any diversion into the lake (minus if out of the lake), less the evaporation from the lake's surface. Groundwater can flow into or out of the lakes. While groundwater flow is not measured directly, it was accounted for automatically by the present method of calculating supplies to the Great Lakes.

For further details on the various factors affecting the water levels and outflows of the Great Lakes, the reader is referred to: (1) Interna- tional Great Lakes Levels Board Report, December 1973; (2) International Lake Erie Regulation Study Board Report, July 1981; and (3) the International Great Lakes Diversions and Consumptive Uses Study Board Report, September 1981.

A2.5 GREAT LAKES WATER LEVEL AND FLOW REGULATION

A2.5.1 St. Marys River

The outflow from Lake Superior, through the St. Marys River, has been regulated since 1921. Regulation is carried out monthly by adjusting the control works located at Sault Ste. Marie according to an approved regulation plan. In 1914, the International Joint Conmission issued Orders of Approval permitting diversion of St. Marys River water for power purposes, and the completion of the Lake Superior Compensating Works. The 1914 Orders, together with subsequent amendments, were designed to provide a degree of protection for all interests on Lake Superior, the St. Marys River, and downstream. The Commission also established the International Lake Superior Board of Control to supervise the operation of control works, canals, head- gates and bypasses and to formulate rules for their operation.

Several regulation plans have been developed and used by the International Lake Superior Board of Control. The regulation plan currently being used is Plan 1977. The fundamental principle employed in Plan 1977 is to manage the Lake Superior outflows (within certain maximum and minimum limitations) in such a way as to strive to keep the levels of Lakes Superior and Michigan-Huron at relatively the same position with respect to their long-term monthly means. This balancing of the two Lakes is accomplished while protecting Lake Superior levels from exceeding a maximum elevation of 183.5 metres. To accomplish these objectives, a relationship was developed between the required Lake Superior outflow and the beginning-of-month water levels on Lake Superior and Lakes Michigan-Huron.

A major feature of this Plan is the employment of forecasts of future Lake Superior outflows based upon probabilistic supplies. The purposes of these forecasts are to provide system-wide benefits to Great Lakes interests, to minimize the number of gate movements in the Compensating Works, and to provide the most uniform flow possible in the St. Marys River. For details on the use of Plan 1977, the reader is referred to "Plan 1977: Development, Description, and Testing," May 1981, and "Operational Guides for Plan 1977, a report to the IJC by the International Lake Superior Board of Control," January 1982.

A2.5.2 St. Clair-Detroit River System

Flows in the St. Clair-Detroit River System are not regulated, but fluctuate according to the levels in both Lakes Michigan-Huron and Erie. Since Lake Superior's outflows, as determined by Plan 1977, are also dependent on downstream conditions, the flows in the St. Clair-Detroit River System are, in a sense, indirectly affected by regulation.

A2.5.3 Niagara River

Since the construction of the Chippawa-Grass Island Pool Control Structure in 1955, the water level in the Pool has been regulated according to conditions established by the International Joint Commission. The operation and maintenance of the structure are monitored by the International Niagara Board of Control. The Pool level is regulated by adjusting the gate openings at the Structure. The purposes of this Structure are: (1) to maintain flow over Niagara Falls as required by the 1950 Niagara Treaty; and (2) to facilitate efficient diversion of water for hydropower purposes. The effect of the Structure is rather localized in nature and does not appre- ciably extend upstream. The flow out of Lake Erie into the Niagara River depends primarily on the level of Lake Erie.

The Niagara Board of Control also maintains surveillance over the operation of the Lake Erie-Niagara River Ice Boom. The boom is installed each winter by the power entities to prevent massive ice runs in the Niagara River that could restrict power diversions. Towards the end of the winter, the power entities remove the boom according to procedures established by the T.JC. The International Niagara Committee was established by the Governments of Canada and the United States as part of the 1950 Niagara Treaty. It monitors, computes, and reports on the Niagara diversions and flows over Niagara Falls and the flow and power diversion in the Welland Canal, for compliance with the 1950 Niagara Treaty.

A2.5.4 St. Lawrence River

In 1952, the International Joint Commission issued Orders of Approval for the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway and Power Project. The International St. Lawrence River Board of Control was established to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Orders. The Board is responsible for determining the outflow from Lake Ontario in accordance with the approved plan of regulation. The regulatory works, located at Cornwall, Ontario, and Massena, New York, consist of two powerhouses, a spillway, and navigation facilities. The powerhouses constitute the main regulatory structure while the Iroquois Dam, located at Iroquois, Ontario, is used primarily to manipu- late the water levels in the river for various purposes including flow regulation and ice formation.

The current operational plan for the regulation of Lake Ontario outflows is Plan 1958-D. This plan was developed to provide benefits to all interests while at the same time satisfying the criteria and other requirements contained in the Orders of Approval for the Project. Plan 1958-D establishes rules which indicate the outflow to be released for various months and conditions of Lake Ontario levels and water supplies. The basic data required to implement Plan 1958-D are the end-of-week elevations of Lake Ontario. For details on the use of Plan 1958-D, the reader is referred to "Operational Guides for Plan 1958-D," December 1963, and "Regulation of Lake Ontario, Plan 1958-D," July 1963; reports to the IJC by the International St. Lawrence River Board of Control.

A2.6 GREAT LAKES SUBBASIN WATER MANAGEILENT

A2.6.1 Canada

In Ontario, about 40 Conservation Authorities were established under the Province's Conservation Authorities Act. These Authorities represent a partnership of the Province and member municipalities. The Authorities' pri- nary roles relate to flood and erosion control and, are therefore, formed on a watershed basis. Each municipality is represented on the Authority and, therefore, contributes to watershed-management decisions.

Under the Conservation Authority Act, an Authority has power to levy its constituent municipalities for funds to carry out conservation projects. In addition, an Authority receives financial assistance from the Province. The Government of Canada my also participate in financing certain projects.

Water uanagement has traditionally been the major objective of the Conservation Authorities. To this end, a wide range of projects have been undertaken including acquisition of floodprone and hazard lands, wetlands, forest lands and valley lands, assistance to private land owners on a host of conservation problems, as well as construction of a variety of water control structures such as dikes, channels, dams and weirs. The operation of these works is also under the jurisdiction of the Authorities. Such projects are developed within the context of comprehensive watershed management plans. In addition to direct remedial water management projects, Authorities assist in municipal planning and may establish flood plain regulations to control development or alteration of flood plain lands.

In addition to the major program of water management, Authorities also coordinate projects in other fields of resource management. Many unusual or sensitive natural and cultural features have been acquired to ensure protection for the education and enjoyment of the public. In order to maximize public benefits from lands acquired for water management and conservation programs, the Authorities often develop such lands as Conservation Areas to be used for outdoor public recreation.

Some of the Conservation Authorities also make or issue flood forecasts as a public service. Forecasts are made using hydrometeorologic data obtained either from in-house, or from other agencies such as Water Survey of Canada (WSC), and the Canadian Atmospheric Environment Service (AES). These agencies maintain close contact with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources1 Streamflow Forecast Centre, which has-the responsibility for issuing flood forecasts for the entire province. The Centre routinely monitors weather conditions for the province and issues flood forecasts for the area that may be affected. These forecasts, in the "form of advisories or warnings, are then distributed to the affected Conservation Authorities who in turn, either maintain a flood watch or issue flood warnings. The types of data used in making flood forecasts include: snow survey, air temperature, solar radiation, river ice, streamflow and stream/reservoir/lake stage, precipitation, wind speed and direction observations and weather forecasts.

At the Federal level, the Canada Water Act (1970) acknowledges the Federal Government's concern with the quality of the Canadian environment at large, and specifically with water quality and water quantity management of areas most critically affected in Canada. Part I of the Act provides for the establishment of formal Federal-Provincial consultative arrangements for water resource matters, for cooperative agreements with the provinces for the development of comprehensive plans for the management of water resources, and for implementation of these plans. The Act also enables the Minister of the Department of Environment, directly or in cooperation with any provincial government, institution, or person, to conduct research, collect data, and establish inventories on any aspect of water research. Consultative Committees were established at the outset of the Act to provide continuing consultation on water resources clatters. Information meetings of Federal-Provincial staff, however, have largely done away with the need for Consultative Committees.

Several Federal-Provincial water research management programs are in effect in Ontario. The Federal and Ontario Governments have entered into an agreement for joint funding of operation of hydrometric stations. Funding for the operation of the network is provided according to each party's needs. The Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Quality provides for the cost- sharing of research, surveillance, and information activities and reflects the commitments undertaken by.Canada in the Canada-United States Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The joint Federal-Provincial Flood Damage Reduction Program's aim is to reduce flood damages by identifying flood risk areas and discouraging further development in those areas.

A2.6.2 United States

In the United States, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) is the lead agency with regard to water resources management. The COE North Central Division has an assigned mission function to assist the IJC in the activities of the International Lake Superior, Niagara, and St. Lawrence River Boards of Control. The Buffalo and Detroit Districts encompass the watersheds of the lower (Lakes Erie and Ontario) and major. portions of the upper (Lakes Michigan-Huron and Superior) Great Lakes, respectively. The Chicago District covers. the southernmost portion of the Lake Michigan Basin.

COE Districts assist State, county and municipal agencies, as authorized by Congress, with water resources problems by planning, designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining navigation, flood control, and public beach erosion control projects. The Districts are also involved in programs related to water quality at COE projects, and enforce a regulatory authority over wetland development.

The Buffalo and Detroit Districts provide technical support to the IJC through several International Control Boards and investigative Study Boards and their Working Committees. The Buffalo District assists the International St. Lawrence River Board of Control with the operation of Plan 1958-D, while the Detroit District assists the International Lake Superior Board of Control with the operation of Plan 1977.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides support to the water resources management activities through the National Weather Service (NWS), National Ocean Service (NOS), and the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL). Flood forecasts in the United States are made by the NWS.

The measurement of the Great Lakes water levels and the International Great Lakes Datum vertical reference system are provided by the NOS. GLERL provides water related research and information. SECTION A3 EXISTING STATION NETWORK

A3.1 GENEKAL

The water levels of the Great Lakes fluctuate according to many natural and man-made factors. The natural factors include precipitation, evaporation and transpiration, runoff, groundwater, and ice and aquatic growth (weed) retardation. Man-made factors include dredging, diversions, consumptive uses, and lake outflow regulation. Other factors include meteorologic disturbances and crustal movement. With the exception of crustal movement, all the factors mentioned above are processes that make up the hydrologic cycle of the Great Lakes. These processes are monitored by a number of agencies in the Great Lakes Basin. Some processes can be observed directly; for example precipitation and streamflow. Other processes can be derived based on sone other observed hydrometeorologic factors. Examples are evaporation and weed/ice retardation. This section describes the types of hydrometeorologic data currently being collected, the methods of data collection, and gives a summary of existing data networks. A complete inventory of existing networks is contained in Appendix B, bound separately and entitled "Great Lakes Hydrometeorological Station Directory."

In the Great Lakes region, many agencies are responsible for observing the various hydrometeorologic conditions, archiving data, and providing the users with the information. Measurements are primarily taken at point sources (stations) to define conditions at the site, or from a network of stations to derive average overall conditions for the area. The precipitation station network is one such example. The collection of hydraulic (water level) and hydrometeorologic (precipitation) data on the Great Lakes dates back to the early mid-nineteenth century. Since then, the network has expanded and diversified.

It is worthwhile to note that man's activities have, to a certain extent, modified some of the natural factors affecting lake level fluc- tuation. For example, the increase in urbanization in areas around the Great Lakes has changed the characteristics of the runoff. Intensified industrial activities could cause precipitation in an area where it otherwise would not have occurred. Agricultural activities have impacts on runoff as well as evapotranspiration. No attempt is made here to evaluate the impact of man's activities on the various hydrometeorologic processes.

A3.2 METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION

This section describes briefly how the various hydraulic and hydroroe- teorologic data are collected. More detailed descriptions of the methods of collection can be found in manuals and publications by the operating agencies.

Hydraulic and hydrometeorologic data may be grouped according to tlicee different timeframes. Historic data are those that are not used immediately, and are normally collected for a long period of time. These data are generally used in statistical studies, design work, and model development and calibration. Present or real time data are used almost immediately. Forecast data are estimates of an expected hydrologic event. Many recording instruments used today have built-in recording devices such as strip charts or punched tapes which continuously record the hydraulic and hydrometeorologic parameters being observed. Data can be transmitted by wire from a remotely located station to a user's site. Many water level recorders can now be accessed by telephone. Satellites are being used more often to receive data transmitted directly from data collection platforms (DCPs) . A3.2.1 Meteorologic Parameters

Precipitation gauges and methods of observation are different in Canada and the United States. The standard Canadian rain gauge stands a little nore than 26 cm high and has a circular orifice of about 9 cm in diameter (area about 65 square cm). Snow depths at Canadian climatologic stations are measured with a ruler at a number of representative points and averaged. The water equivalent of snow is estimated by measuring the depth of the new snow and dividing by 10. Snow caught in the gauge is also sometimes melted and measured for .its water content.

In the United States, both rain and snow are measured in gauges with collecting funnels of about 20 cm and 30 cm in diameter for manual and automated gauges, respectively, each with its orifice about 79 cm above the ground. The snow caught is melted for water equivalent. Where facilities do not permit melting of snow, the average depth is divided by 10 to calculate water equivalent.

Radar is used to detect precipitation on a real-time basis. It is useful in determining the areal distribution of precipitation intensities. The range of radar imagery, however, is still rather limited (about 200 km.). At present, there is no standard method to evaluate the amount of precipitation based on radar imagery, or to store the results.

Precipitation over land areas is reasonably well known due to the density and quality of data from precipitation gauge networks. Similar characteristics over the Great Lakes are not well known since few over-water gauge networks, or even individual gauges, exist. It is physically impossible to synoptically measure precipitation by using gauges throughout the Great Lakes, due to a lack of appropriately located islands and the cost of constructing man-made structures. Over-lake precipitation is usually estimated by examining closely the records of on-land stations. Over-lake precipitation represents a significant portion of the water supply to the lakes. Small errors in extrapolating over-water precipitation from shoreline station data can result in serious errors in estimating the total volume of water collected in a large lake and in calculating related water supplies.

Due to the remote nature of the sites on the Great Lakes and to the use of storage gauges in some of the studies, readings were often only obtained twice yearly. Furthermore, gauges typically under-catch, which when combined with gauge design, placement, and meteorology, produce highly variable readings. Development of automatically-recording precipitation gauges enabled monthly lake/land ratios to be computed in one recent study satisfying objections pertaining to the use of storage gauges. However, the lake/land differences obtained were found to be smaller than the expected gauge under-catch. In addition, the monthly differences were statistically insignificant in most cases although some replication was demonstrated in recent radar studies. Additional studies using this traditional methodology are clearly not warranted unless either new information on gauge catch errors or new instrumentation becomes available.

b. Air Tem~erature

Air temperature is measured by a thermometer placed in a sheltered but well-ventilated box located about 1.4 metres above the ground. Electrical- resistance thermometers and other instruments are used for special purposes.

Wind speed is measured by an anemometer, having either rotating cups or a pressure-tube. The wind direction measuring system is comprised of a pre- cision positional motor or synchro, controlled by a wind vane, which in tun reacts to the anbient wind direction. The instrument is normally placed at a height of about 10 metres.

d. Solar Radiation

The short wave radiation incident to the outside of the earth's atmosphere comes primarily from the sun. As this radiation passes through the earth's atmosphere, it is absorbed by gases of the air, water vapor, clouds, and dust. As a result of these complex processes, the short wave radiation arrives at the earth's surface partly as direct radiation and partly as diffuse radiation. This short-wave radiation can be evaluated by direct measurement with suitable instrumentation or indirect evaluation in terms of easily measurable quantities.

When direct measurements of solar radiation are not available, empirical formulae may be used to estimate the value.

e. Evaporation The evaporation pan is the most widely used instrument for evaporation measurement. For large bodies of water, many methods of estimation have been developed; e.g., water-balance or water-budget, energy-balance or energy- budget, and mass-transfer.

f. Dew Point Temperature

Dew point temperature is defined as the temperature at which the air becomes saturated when cooled under constant pressure and with constant water- vapor content. A3.2.2 ~ydraulic/HydrologicParameters

a. Ice (Lake and River)

Surface and aerial observations are nade to collect ice data. Surface observations are made from ships or by drilling holes to measure ice thickness and quality. Aerial observations are made from either fixed-wing or helicopter aircraft using either human reconnaissance or Side Looking Airborne Radar (SLAR). Satellite data are used to evaluate the aerial extent of ice fields and ice types.

b. Streamflow

Streamflow, or discharge, is calculated from observations of velocity and cross-sectional area at various.locations across a stream or river. Current-meters measure velocities which are used to estimate flows for the development of stage-discharge relationships at a given location in a cl~an- nel. Calibrated hydraulic structures such as weirs and spillways are also used to neasure flow.

c. Diversions

Several major diversions in the Great Lakes are of particular interest to the Boards of Control. The Long Lac and Ogoki Diversions are determined based on flows passing through the l~ydraulicstructures and channels, as well as reservoir storage. The Lake Michigan Diversion at Chicago is officially monitored at Lockpott, Illinois. The Welland Canal Diversion is measured at its supply weir and guard lock, and at several points downstrean in the canal. No record of diversion is maintained for the New York State Barge Canal but the flow is estimated to average between 21 and 31 cms.

d. Water Level

Water levels can be observed on a simple staff gauge or recorded on analog or digital (punch tape) gauges with the data relayed or telemetered on automatic equipment. The float-type water-stage recorder requiring a shelter house and a stilling well is used most often. Other methods include gas purge/pressure and acoustic ranging.

e. l Water Current

Water current, oc velocity, is measured by a current meter. Surface currents may be observed by tracing the path of floating objects, such as drogues. Subsurface currents can be tracked by introducing color dyes and observing or measuring their subsequent movements. f. -Sediment Transport Sediment data are acquired by sampling water and river bed material with scientifically designed equipment. g. Snow-Water Equivalent

The water equivalent of snow pack is measured by weighing samples of snow extracted along snow course stations using a special sample tube. Snow water equivalent estimates are also derived from daily snowfall at many first order meteorologic stations by measuring the new snowfall depth and dividing by a factor, usually 10. The use of the airborne gamma radiation attenuation technique to estimate mean areal snow-water equivalent of snowpack is currently being evaluated over the Lake Superior Basin.

h. Soil Moisture

Soil moisture refers to the water that occupies the voids of the soil located above the water table. It is determined by either weighing the soil samples before and after drying, or using instruments permanently or temporarily set within a given horizon of the soil. It can also be sensed by gamma radiation attenuation.

i. Ground Water

Observation wells or groundwater probes are used to monitor the water table.

j Wave

Wave riders and buoys are used to measure and record wave data such as wave heights and periods. The use of satellites to measure these properties is at an experimental stage.

k. Erosion and Recession

Erosion and resultant recession rates are estimated by observing the change in shoreline features over a period of tine. Monitoring stations are usually set up and periodic surveys of the shoreline are carried out. Other means of determining erosion/recession rates include the examination of past and present aerial photographs.

1. Water Temperature

Similar to air temperature measurement, thermometers are used to measure water temperature. Surface water temperatures can also be determined from satellite imagery.

m. Water Quality

A wide range of parameters are analysed to describe the quality of water. These parameters may be classified as physical or chemical. Physical parameters include such factors as color, odor, taste, or temperature. Chemical analysis involves the determination of constituents such as elements and compounds. n. Evapotranspiration

Evapotranspiration is commonly considered to be the evaporation from all water, soil, snow, ice, vegetation, and other surfaces plus transpiration (the release of water as a byproduct of photosynthesis). It can be determined in controlled experiments, or by analytical methods.

A3.3 DATA COLLECTION AGENCIES AND EXISTING STATION NETWORKS AND DATA SYSTEMS

Several agencies collect hydraulic and hydrometeorologic data in the Great Lakes region for public information and forecasting purposes or to meet specific operational requirements. A complete listing of the stations is contained in Appendix B. A brief description of each of the major data collection agencies is given below.

A3.3.1 Canadian Systems

There are two federal Departments that have major responsibilities for hydrologic, hydraulic and meteorologic data collection, processing, dissemination and archiving. These are the Departments of Environment, and Fisheries and Oceans. Several Ontario provincial agencies and some specialized data users supplement the existing networks. Current Canadian data acquisition, processing and delivery systems are summarized by agency in this section of the report.

A3.3.2 Atmospheric Environment Service (AES), Environment Canada

a. Data Networks

The Atmospheric Environment Service (AES), as the Canadian weather service agency, maintains and operates a large network of observing stations throughout the Great Lakes region. In Ontario, AES operates over 50 stations providing information either hourly (aviation observations) or every 6 hours (synoptic, 0000 GMT, 0600 GMT, 1200 GMT, 1800 GMT) for all or part of each day. This real-time network provides the followlng data: temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, visibility, sky condition including cloud type and amount, and precipitation type and intensity. Special real-time observations on the beginning and end of precipitation, significant change in visibility, and unusually strong winds are also provided.

Some synoptic stations also report hours of bright sunshine in real- time. The network consists primarily of manned stations supplemented by automatic stations which are predominantly accessed via land line, and to a much lesser extent, data collection platforms (DCPs) interrogated by geostationary satellites. The manned stations are primarily AES operated; however, several are operated by Department of Transport Flight Service Stations. The network is also supplemented by contract with Private Aviation Weather Reporting Stations (PAWRS). Data from these sites are available in real-time from the AES communications system.

In addition to the above data from land stations, marine data from about 80 commercial ships on the Great Lakes are also collected by AES for its marine weather and ice observing program. The marine data also include wave heights and water temperatures every six hours. The ships do not collect data when they are in ports, canals, or interlake waterways. These data are supplemented by data on winds, visibility, and weather provided by a number of private volunteer vessels operating in nearshore areas of the Great Lakes. The above data are relayed in real-time to the Ontario Weather Centre, Toronto, through coastal marine radio stations.

On the Great Lakes, the AES operational ice reconnaissance program is coordinated with several United States agencies and, in general, begins in late December or early January, and terminates by the end of April. During the freeze up and break up periods, aerial ice reconnaissance flights are made approximately twice weekly. In between, the frequency is generally reduced to once per two weeks, depending on the need for ice information. These visual ice observations are augmented with information received from the Canadian Coast Guard Operations Office in Toronto, shore station reports, satellite information and weekly ice thickness measurements taken at: Thunder Bay on Lake Superior; Sault Ste. Marie on the St. Marys River; Nidland and South Baymouth, on Georgian Bay, Lake Huron; and, along the Welland Canal.

AES also conducts one or two flights each winter to observe ice throughout the System by means of Side Looking Airborne Radar (SLAR). Ice charts and forecasts are made once daily durfng the ice formation season. During winter, when the Lakes are closed to navigation, a weekly ice depiction chart is produced. Ice data can be transmitted to users by telecopier, telex, telephone, facsimile or mail. Data exchange takes place with the United States Coast Guard Ice Center in Cleveland, Ohio.

AES aerial ice reconnaissance of the St. Lawrence Seaway from Lake Ontario to Cornwall is requested, scheduled and funded through the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. In general, aerial ice reconnaissance of this area begins during freeze-up in December at a frequency of once or twice per week until ice conditions become firmly consolidated. Thereafter, very little ice reconnaissance is requested until springmelt and breakup in March. when once again the frequency of reconnaissance is increased.

Analysis of surface water temperatures of the Great Lakes bordering on Canada using NOAA polar orbiting satellite data is carried out by AES at intervals of two to three weeks, cloud cover permitting, and distributed by mail within 2 days. Through satellite reception facilities located at Downsview, Ontario, AES receives and processes these and other data from the GOES and polar orbiting environmental satellites operated by the National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS) of the United States Department of Commerce.

Currently, five weather surveillance radars are operated by AES in Ontario with another scheduled to be operational in the Fall of 1984. This radar network will provide coverage of nearly 100 percent of the Canadian portion of the Great Lakes Basin. In addition to the standard radar observations of precipitation and rainfall rates, accumulations covering the total duration of the storm can be provided, upon request, on a 4 kn X 4 kn grid on tape or hard copy about six to eight weeks after the event. The hourly and synoptic weather observing network is supplemented by a larger climatologic network. About 400 climatologic stations in Ontario report daily maximum and minimum temperatures, rainfall and snowfall amounts, and depth of snow on ground. At a number of stations, additional measurements are made of parameters such as hours of bright sunshine, wind speed and direction, solar radiation, evaporation, soil temperature, intensity -of rainfall, and snow course data. The climatologic stations are operated generally by volunteers. Other government agencies, such as the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Hydro and Agricultural Research Stations make climatologic observations for AES.

The climate data are not readily accessible in real-time. The observers mail the temperature and precipitation data to the Ontario Climate Centre once a month. Here the data are quality checked and made available in a computer compatible form to outside agencies within a month of data being received. These data are finally archived by the Canadian Climate Centre.

Data Acquisition, Processing and Delivery Systems

The AES operates a communication system to carry raw and processed meteorologic information in Canada primarily for the weather services programs. This includes a teletype system for alphanumeric data, a paper facsimile system for weather maps, a facsimile system for satellite imagery, and a facsimile system for radar imagery. One of the main functions of the teletype network is the handling of data from the various observation networks, including land based, marine manned, automatic stations, and upper air stations. The system is based on a Collins 8500 switching computer operated in Toronto, Ontario, by CNCP Telecommunications Ltd. The computer collects data from the observing networks and then transmits the data into appropriate distribution circuits. Recently, all AES Weather Centres, including the Ice Forecasting Centre, Ottawa, have been upgraded to use 600 bps (bits per second) circuits. A high speed (2400 bps) connection by the AES national communications computer with the United States National Weather Service (NWS) communications system enables the interchange of data as well as the receipt of data from remote DCPs interrogated by geostationary satellites. While the AES regional Weather Centres HP-1000 Computer Systems and Weather Offices are the main users of these systems, a number of other agencies have connections to the teletype and facsimile systems via, for example, nulti- drop teletype or dedicated user circuits.

Private users pay directly to CNCP for'their connection while Government users are cost recovered. The entire communications system is in a dynamic state of transition. Public packet networks, permitting interactive access to alphanumeric data by AES Ontario Weather Offices via the Ontario Weather Centre's regional HP-1000 computer system, were initiated in 1983. The evolving New Communications System will be further described in subsequent sections of this report.

As previously described, temperature and precipitation data collected from the Ontario climate network are quality controlled on the regional HP-1000 computer and stored subsequently by AES Canadian Climate Centre in the National Climate Archive maintained by the Downsview AS16 (IBM compatible) computing system. At present, the Archive, consisting predominantly of hourly, daily and monthly meteorologic data, is not fully interfaced with the operational communications system. The digital archived data and special data packages, such as Marine Statistics (MAST), can be made available in hard copy or computer compatible form upon request or can be directly accessed by users' terminals upon arrangement with the Downsview Computing Centre. In either case, cost recovery is applied by AES. Further, historical climate information and normals are also available from AES in publication or microfiche form.

The other major computer facility located at Dorval, Quebec, consists of a Cray vector computer supported by CDC front-end computers. This system is primarily utilized for generating weather forecast guidance products disseminated over the various alphanumeric and facsimile systems as well as for diagnostic and predictive modelling research and development. In addition, the Ice Centre, Ottawa, which provides Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River ice composition charts and forecasts with increased frequency in strategic areas during ice freeze up and break up and maintains ice climatology, operates with an HP-1000 system.

A3.3.3 Water Survey of Canada (WSC), Environment Canada

Water Survey of Canada (WSC), part of Water Resources Branch (WRB), is the lead agency in Canada for collecting and publishing hydrometric survey data. These data include streamflow, stream stage, sediment, and water temperature. Hydrometric surveys in Ontario are conducted by the IJSC under agreement with the Province of Ontario. The provincial authorities contribute to the cost of the basic field investigations which are carried out in accordance with mutually agreed-upon plans. The major provincial authorities involved in this Federal-Provincial agreement are the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Ontario Hydro. The water level stations on the Great Lakes and Connecting Channels are operated under a memorandum of understanding with the Canadian Hydrographic Service of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Cooperative undertakings with other agencies form an important part of the activities of the WSC. Close cooperation is maintained with public agencies and private organizations concerned with water resources. Runoff and other data are mutually exchanged and stream-gauging operations are facilitated by the assistance received from a number of organizations.

On waters adjacent to the International Boundary, certain gauging stations are maintained by the WSC in Canada under agreement with the United States. . Records from these gauges are collected and compiled by the WSC in a manner equally acceptable to both countries.

The WSC collects and publishes streamflow and water level data for approximately 290 discharge stations and 10 water level stations in the Great Lakes Basin. The existing real-time data transmission network consists of 52 telemarks, 11 DCP units and 11 data loggers. Data from telemetry accessible systems are regularly interrogated by low-speed terminals with hard copy output;real-time DCP data are collected only on an "as required" basis in hard copy format through NESDIS facilities at Suitland, Maryland. No further processing or archiving is carried out for the real-time data with the exception of maintaining hard copy files. The computer/communication facilities required for real-time data retrieval and archiving are presently undergoing review with future systems being proposed. The principal users of real-time data are the local Conservation Authorities and the Stream Flow Forecasting Centre of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Historic data are available for another 133 discharge and 9 water level-stations which have been discontinued. Additional information, including sediment, water quality and continuous water temperature data, are also available for a limited number of stations in the Basin.

Analog charts are collected on a monthly or bi-monthly basis, reduced and compiled by the WRB, Ontario Region, located in Guelph. Computer facilities at the University of Guelph have been used exclusively for automated data reduction and storage. An IBM computer is used in conjuction with disk and magnetic tape files to serve as a mode for storage of current and ' historical information. Under the present system, punched cards are used as the principal mode of transmission of data to the University's Computer Centre. Data are supplied to users on an "as requested" basis in hard copy or computer compatible format.

Annually, daily mean values are forwarded to the Data Control Section, WSC Division, Ottawa, by May 1, for preparation of published output and magnetic tape file storage. The Computer Science Centre's CDC system at the Federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in Ottawa is used by the WSC Data Control Section, Ottawa, for data processing. The complete historic data files for all WRB Regional Offices are maintained by this section. Files maintained include: (1) HYDEX - descriptive information of all stations at which data have been collected and archived; (2) FLOW - historic daily discharge data; (3) LEVELS - historic daily water level data; and (4) PEAKS -annual maximum instantaneous values.

Data are available to users in publications and computer compatible format approximately three months after submission. To date, all requests for current and historic data are answered and distributed from the Regional Office. Raw data prior to 1969 have not been reduced to a computer accessible format. Large volume historic data requests are channelled through Data Control in Ottawa, Ontario.

. Table 1 shows the percentage of land area gauged by Basin to measure runoff. The following paragraphs describe in more detail the Canadian streamflow station network on each Lake Basin. The description is concerned only with the network of stations directly gauging inflows to the lakes, that is, the most downstream station on each tributary system. Table 1 - Percentage of Land ~reaGauged'by Basin to Measure Runoff

Percentage of Land Area Gauged Lake Basin Canada United States

Superior 7 6 43

Michigan

Huron

St. Clair

Erie

Ontario

a. Lake Superior

Surface inflow to Lake Superior consists of runoff from the 83900 sq km land component of its drainage area plus two diversions from the James Bay Watershed. It is presently gauged at 23 locations. Figure 2 shows the area that is gauged. One of these stations, 04JD003, gauges only the Long Lac Diversion. (The other diversion, the Ogoki, enters Lake Nipigon and is included in the discharge at Station 02AD008 - Nipigon River at Pine Portage). Therefore, the present areal coverage network consists of 22 stations, of which four are hydro plants. These are identified, with their drainage areas, positions, and current instrumentation, in Table 2.

b. Lake Huron

Surface inflow to Lake IIuron consists of runoff from the 92000 sq k~n Canadian land component of its drainage area. The present Canadian areal coverage network consists of 32 stations. Figure 3 shows the area that is gauged. These stations, together with their drainage areas, positions, and current instrumentation are shown in Table 3.

c. Lake St. Clair

Surface inflow to Lake St. Clair consists of runoff from the 10000 sq km land component of its drainage area. It is presently gauged at 5 locations; areal coverage of which is shown in Figure 4. The stations, together with their drainage areas, positions, and current instrumentation are shown in Table 4.

d. Lake Erie

Surface inflow to Lake Erie consists of runoff from the 12800 sq km land component of its drainage area. It is presently gauged at 14 locations. Figure 5 shows the area that is .gauged. The stations, together with their drainage areas, positions, and current instrumentation are shown in able 5. Lake Superior Drainage Basin showing area gauged by streamflow stations Tabla 2 - Reeent Canadian Streamflow Station Network - Lalre Superior .- .

1 STAT ION STATION NAME SITE 1 NSTRUMENTATI ON L-No*- -!& ...... 1 ...... -...... sO.,KH..AREA ..... LAT LONG PRESENT UPGRADED COST AGErlf:Y D M -.'S---D 'M -S7-8-RETTEL-O'AT SATD-AT ! ,,,,,,,,,-,,-, ,-,,------, ------I 02AAOOl PIGEON RIVER AT MIDDLE FALLS 1550. 4801 8937 111000 10 4500. IN1 2 02AB017 WHITEFISH RIVER AT NOLALU 210* 4818 A949 .. 011001.,--A 0 1 0. US(. 3 02ABOLO KAMINISTIKWIA R.AT KAKABEKA FALLS PH 6710. 4825 8938 1. -- 0.- - I.----O. 011 4 02A8008 NEEBING RIVER NEAR THUNOER BAY 187. 4823 8918 11 1 0 0 0 10 4500. WSr: 5 OZABO16 MC INTYRE RIVER AT THUNOER BAY 145. 4825 8916 111000 10 4500. W5, 1. 1 0 0 I ..-6 _ -~2~-e_qls_..~uq~w~1 VER-NEAR STE-PSLONE - . ....AS! 4832 . ~QL-? .... L o 10 4500. kSr NORTH CURRENT RIVER NEAR THUNDER BAY Ysf: WOLF RIVER AT HIGHWAY NO 17 * SC BLACK STURGEON RIVER AT HIGHWAY 17 w SC NIPICON HAVER AT PINE PORTAGE -on GRAVEL RIVER NEAR CAVERS wsc LONG LAKE OlVERSlON TO LAKE SUPERIOR 011,

STEEi RIVER NEAR TERRACE 'BAY -. --KS C LITTLE PIC RIVER NEAR COLOWELL W SC PIC RIVER NEAR MARATHON XS': BLACK RIVER NEAR MARATHON ... WSC WHlTE RIVER BELOW WHITE LAKE 'W 5 (: MAGPIE RIVER NEAR MICHIPICOTEN *S(. h)' wI-.-.. 19-,0280002 MICHIPICOTEN RIVER AT HIGH FALLS . 5130.2880 .-.., -4,4754 3.- 8443437--ll.-. 111010 0--1 01- 10 0. GCC' 20 028€002--MONTAEAL RIVER NEAR HARDOUR-.- .... 0. GL 1' 21 028F001 BATCHAWANA RIVER NEAR BATCHAWANA 1190. 4700 8432 001000 0 1 15000. . wsc 22 O2BF 002 COULAIS RIVER NEAR SEARCHWONT 11.60. 4652 8358 011001 0 1 0. WSC 23 028F.004 -8_1C, CARP RIVER NEAR SAUL1 STEW"MII , 51. 4631 , as2e. ! o . . . ? ..O. ,..... !-. 1 0 10SOOz.- -W,SC I ! \ .S"E- .. - ..taoEE~ - " ...... , A = TELECOnMuNICATI ON.. AVAIL-AOCE 8 = WALK-IN SHELTER . . INSTRUMENT AT^ ON CODE REC = ANALOG RECORDER CURRENT OATA ...... , ...... , ... TEL =.GROUND TELECONMUNICATI ON OF ...... --.. = GROUND TELEMETRY - CURRENT SrOREO SAT SATELL IlE TELEMETRY - CURRENT AND STORED DATA

LAKE SUPER1OR - SUMMARY .. , -...... --...-..-.----p.------I NUMBER'OF STA~IONS + 23 NUMBER OF STAT IONS PRESENTLY CONFORMING. TO. SPEC!_F_!CAT!ONI =_- 6--.------.7 -- NUMBER OF STATIONS REOUIRING UPGRAOLNG I - COST OF UPGRADING P 135000. GAUGED AREA = 63609. . - - . -- - ...- ...... FIGURE 3

Lake Huron Drainage Basin showing area gauged by streamflow stations Table 3 - Present Canadian Streamflov Station Netvork - Lake Huron . . -.

STAT ION STATION NAME ' SITE 1 NSTRUMENTATI ON ...... - ...... AREA LAT LONG PRESENT UPGRADED COST AGltrc' SQ.KH ' 0 M 5'-.'D M A-8-'REnEC'DAT-SAT--D'A'f3'A11 ,------I------. f ------~~.- 1 02CA002 ROOT RIVER AT SAULT STE MARIE 108. 463349 841655 101000 10 10500. W'if. 2 02CC008 MISSISSAG1 RIVER AT MISSISSAGI CHUTE 9300. 461204 8301.32 1110000 -'.O'-"- 3' 02CDOO 1 SERPENT RIVER AT HIGHWAY NO 17 1350. 461247 823033.. . O.---- 10I---'0--1 4500.0500. . W!;f.&;r: 4 02CE002 AUX SABLES RIVER AT MASSEY 1350. 461254 820414 111100 10 2000. hsc 5 02CE001 SPANISH RIVER AT ESPANOLA 11400. 461605 814620 111010 10 0. KV" 7500. WT.c' ..... 6.. .-o.?~eoos ... ~ANAPIW RIVER ..NEAR .W~~F~.UP-...... 3.1300. ..462040 . 805.(?4_ O-AL-0 0 0 o 1 j 7 O2DDOlO FRENCH RIVER AT DRY PINE BAY 13900. 460301 803426 111100 10 2000. W'.c 8 O2EAOll MACNETAWAN RIVER NEAR BRITT 2850. 454620 802846 011001 0 I 0. wq.r 9 O2EAO13 HARRIS RIVER AT HWY NO 69 35. 454115 802622 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0. b'sf- 10 02EBOll MOON RIVER AT HIGHWAY NU 69 84. 450348 794712 '0 0 - 1 0 0 0 0--1----15000;- -h

31 02FF002 AUSABLE RIVER NEAR SPRINGBANK 865. 430420 813935 11 I 0 0 0 10 4500. W:iC 32 02FF004 SOUTH PARKHILL CREEK NEAR PARKHILL 41. 430939 814356 101000 I 0 10500. *sc I---- ..... - -..... -. -- .. -. - ... - .. -. -.-...... -- .... - -...... --. --

SITECODE ------A = GROUND TELECOMMUNICATION AVAILADLE ------8 = WALK-IN SHELTER INSTRUMEhTATlON CODE REC = ANALOG RECGRDER I TEL = GROUND TELECOMMUNICATION OF CURRENT DATA OAT = GROUND TELEMETHY - CURRENT AND STORED DATA I SAT %-SATELL IT€-TELEMETRY - CURRENT AND-STORED-DATA-

...... LAKE HURON - SUMMARY

NUMBER OF STAT IONS a 32 NUMBER OF STAT IONS PRESENTLY CONFORMING TO SPECIFICATIONS = 4 ...... , NUMOER OF STAT IONS REOUIRING UPGRADING-. ' .. =---2. 8 COST OF UPGRAOING = 232000. GAUGE0 AREA 66169. Lake St-Clair Drainage Basin showing area gauged by streamflow stations

OU ff MIUS Table 4 Preeent Canadian Streamflow Station Network - Lake St. Clair - .... -. I STAT ION STATION NAME SITE INSTRUMENTATION . NO* --...... AREA LAT LONG PRESENT UPGRADED COST AGENCY SOaKM O M S '. 0 M S A -8-REC-TEC'DATSATDATTA------_---_-__ ------,-- I 02GG004 BEAR CREEK AOOVE W ILK€ SPORT 609. 424552 a22030 101000 10 10500. WSC 2 OiGGOO7 SYDENHAM RIVER NEAR DRESOEN - 1240. 423538 820631 101000o--o -.--- 10 10500. hSC 3 02GEOO3 THAMES HIVER AT THAMESVILLE 4300. 423242 015804 I-' 0 '---45OO.-- WSC 4 02GE007 MCGREGOR CREEK NEAR CHATHAM 202. 422300 820539 111000 10 4500. WSC 5 OZGHOOZ HUSCOM RLVER NEAR RUSCOM STATION 125. 421354 823700 101000 1 0 10500. bSC

. SITE CODE A = GHOUND TELECOMMUNICATION AVAILABLE ...... - .. - - -...... - - - ..... B = WALK- IN SHELTER INSTRUMEkTATION CODE REC = ANALOG RECORDER TEL = GROUND TELECOMMUNICATION OF CURRENT DATA OAT GROUND TELEMETRY CURRENT AND STOHEO DATA .. - ...... -.. - ... = - . .- . ....-. . - ....-... i - AND STORED OATA I ,

" L -.. -. -- ..- ... -- ...... LAKE ST.CLAIR - SUMMARY ..- ...... -...... -... - ..- ...... -.-...... --.. - - ... --

NUMBER OF STATIONS = 5 NUMBER OF STAT IONS PRESENTLY CONFORMING TO S-P$'CI-F,!_CAT IONS . =O. -- .- .. - ...... NUMBER OF STAT IONS REQUIRING UPGRADING =.' - 5-- COST OF UPGRADING GAUGED AREA NNSYLV

Lake Erie Drainage Basin showing area gauged by streamflow stations

LEGEND

. Area gauged

e. -.-- Lake Ontario

Surface inflow to Lake Ontario consists of runoff from the 29,500 sq km land component of its drainage area. It is presently gauged at 39 locations; areal coverage of which is shown in Figure 6. The stations, together with their drainage areas, positions, and current instrumentation, are shown in Table 6.

A3.3.4 Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS), Fisheries and Oceans Canada

The Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS), Fisheries and Oceans, Canada has the responsibility in Canada for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating bathymetric and water level data for the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River System. Bathymetric data are stored in the Hydrographic Data Centre at the Burlington, Ontario Office.

Depending on the data logging methods used during the field survey operations, the sounding data may or may not be recorded and stored on magnetic tapes. In all cases, the data are plotted and stored on heavy plastic sheets upon which the shoreline position and depth of every sounding are shown. The data on these sheets are then compiled to produce. the nautical charts, which are sold through licensed chart distributors.

Water levels are recorded at 33 permanent water level gauging stations on the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River System. These stations are owned and controlled by the CHS. The field work related to the maintenance oE the stations, vertical control, the operation of analog gauges, and the documentation of analog records is the responsibility of the Water Survey of Canada. The processing, verification and archiving of all water level records is carried out by the Marine Environmental Data Service Branch (HEDS), Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa.

All stations measure the water level by a stilling well equipped with a float sensor. Either a strip chart (analog) recorder or a punched paper tape (digital) recorder is used in all stations as standard equipment. Some selected stations also provide real-tine water level data via either teleannouncers, dedicated telemetry units or micro-processor controlled data loggers. A user can dial the phone number of any teleannouncer and receive the latest water level information directly. Dedicated telemetry units transmit water levels in real-time to specific locations, mainly narine traffic control offices, where an analog chart records and displays the information. CHS has installed micro-processor controlled data loggers in 13 water level gauging stations on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. The data are gathered by MEDS daily via telephone line and stored in a central computer (CDC CYBER 170). Any user can access this data base with a terminal and an account with the Computer Science Centre, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in Ottawa. Alternatively, an authorized user with a teleprinter operating at 300 bps can interrogate the gauge directly. However, the teleannouncers and data loggers can respond only to one user at any time. l-t P, 1 I-'. 0 u 1 P, I-'. =r P,' 09 10 tIJ P, rn t-'. t-'. 1 rn 3- 0 z P =r 09 Table 6 - Present Canadian Streamflow Station Network - Lake Ontario ...... - ... - .- .....

STAT ION STATION NAME SITE l NSTRUMENTATl ON NO , .. NO ...... -- . - ..:. AREA LAT5.' ---.O LONGM'S PRESENT UPGRADED COST AC~tl~ ______---_-_------_------__--__-_--____-______SO*KM .-.D A --b- RE(T TEL-' 0-ATSATDATSA- 1 02HA007 WELLANO RIVER BELOW CA ISTOR CORNERS 230. 430130 793700 10 1. 0 0 0 10 10500. wsc - .. 2 02~~006TWENTY MILE CREEK AT BALLS FALLS 293. 430802431356 794708792300 ..... 10.-... 10.0 0 1 0 ' 10500. WSC -' o- " - ' l-.'--o-"-- 3 ' 02HAO14 REDHILL CREEK AT HAMILTGN 61. 4500;--' bSC 4 . OiHBOlO SPENCER CREEK AT DUNDAS CROSSING 166. 431617 795821 111100 10 2000. Us< 5 02HBO12 GR INDSTONE CREEK NEAR ALDERSHOT 83. 431803 795210 101000 10 10500. WSC. -- OZHB O.!I BRONTE -CREEK .NEAR ,ZI HMER~AN ... _ ... -?35. 4326-13. . 7.95.!5-2-l-0_--1-- 0 0 4-. -- 10 losoo. wsc I 7 02H8005 OAKVILLE CREEK AT MILTCN 96. 433019 795148 111100 10 2000. wSc: ( 8 OZHR004 EAST OAKVILLE CREEK NEAR OMACH 1990 032955 794640 101000 10 10500. w5r. 9 02HB002 CREDIT RIVER AT ER 1NDALE A29. 433237 793929 111010 10 0. W5C LO 02HC030 ETOBICOKE CHEEK BELOW O.E.W. 204. ' 433602 793324 ll"1'1 0 0 .- o-- -'-2000;- -.,,5C I1 OZHC033 MIMIC0 CREEK AT ISLINGTON 71. 433850 7931 10 111010 10 0. WSC 12 02HC027 ULACK CREEK NEAR WESTON - 58. 434031 793021 lI1010 10 00 WSC i1- 13--.62HCoo3--. -R,,,ER AT . kEStoN ...... ----- ..-... l--l--. ---,--.. 0000-- ' 434154'-7931.1-9--- '-0-- -1-0 0. ws 1: 14 02HC024 DON RIVER AT TODMORDEN 316. 434150 792115 111010 1 .O 0. W5(: IS 02HC013 HIGHLAND CREEK NEAR WEST HlLL 880 434645 791026 111100 10 2000. wsr. I6 OZHC022 ROUGE RIVER NEAR MARKHAM 186.. 4351 30 791355 111100 435428 7912S8 ...... ' O..' ...... 10 2000. wC.c 17 02HC028 LITTLE ROUGE CREEK NEAR LOCUST HILL 1 "--O--' 4500.~"-~55 18 02HC006 DUFFINS CREEK AT PICKERING 249. 435110 790344 I11000 10 4500. WSC I .. ..I9 02HCO18 .... LYNDE.. CREEK NEAR WHI TBY...... 1.06.(,...--- 435232435549-785329.--1-..l-.-1---0 785743 ~0~000 --0-- O.. -1 0 10500. us(: 20 02HD008 OSHAWA CREE< AT OSHAWA 1-- 0---'-3 5'0 0 7-5 r 21 OEHDOl3 HARMONY CREEK AT OSHAWA 42. 435315 784950 101000 10 10500. W'JC 22 OEHDOl4 FAREWELL CREEK AT OSHAWA 59. 435318 784916 101000 10 10500. wsr.

23 OZHDOO6 DOWMANVILLE CREEK AT BOVHANVILLE . , 83. 435518 704209 111000 10 4500. WSC 78* 435408. 784021 ...... O . .... 24 OZHDOO7 ' - SOPER CREEK AT BOYMANVILLE 105001''- 'WSC 25 C2HD009 WJLMOT CREEK NEAR NEWCASTLE 83. 435547 703706 10 1.0 0 0 10 10500. WSC. 26 OiHDOl2-,-.GANARASKA RIVER ADOVE DALE 232.65.'...... 43~9~l..780007..--1-0.'..1.-435926 781943 11 10O' .'-O-10 -'-0-' 10 0. W5C W -' '27'--' O2HOO I0 SHELTER VALLEY BROOK NEAR CRAFTON---- -7)5 007r5t h) 28 02HE002 CONSECON CREEK AT ALL ISONV ILLE 114. . 440140 772200 101000 10 10500. WSC 29 OZHE001 BLOOMFIUD CREEK AT BLOOMFIELD 19. 435906 771346 101000 10 10500. MSC 30.... 02HK007_.. COLD--CR.EEK AT PRLANO , , . , , ., ...... lS9* .-. 440.804.. 77.4?1 .-.! ...... '? ... 1.. .. .-% lo OL wsc.- 31 OZHK004 TRENT RIVER AT GLEN ROSS - 12000. 44 1550 773610 111100 10 2000. WSC I 32 02HK008 RAWDON CREEK AT rEST HUNTINGDON STN. 87. 442018 772839 111010 10 0. WSC 33OZHL001 MO IRA RIVER NEAR F.OXBORO 2620. 441514 772510 11 100 10 4500. . USC OiHYOOJ SALMON RIVER NEAR SHAN~ONV~CLE----' 09 f'74C122'6- 1.23 ti-l.'O'- -'1-0-. 0'-4-7-0-8-050~ WSC 1 3534 O2HMOO7 NAPANEE RIVER AT CAMDEN EAST 694. 442003 765015- 11 1 1 0 0 10 2000. wsc , 36 02HM004 WILTON CREEK NEAR NAPANEE 112. 441422 765056 101000 10 10500. WSC 37 C2HM006 MILLHAVEN CREEK NEAR M ILLHAVEN ,150. 441334 764530 101000 10 10500. WSC 38 OZHM005 COLLINS CREE< NEAR KINGSTON 155. 44 1524 763646 101000 10 10500. WSC I 39 02MA002 CATAUAOUI RIVER AT CHAFFEYS LOCKS 394. 443443 761913' -' 1 1'-1 '0' 0 0 " 1 ' .O 4500.--"WSC

!SITE CODE A = GROUND TELECOMMUNIC AT1 ON AVAILABLE R r WALK-IN....- .-... SHELTFR- ..- - .- .. 1 INSTHUME~TATION CODE REC = ANALOG RECORDER ...... I TEL = GROUND TELECOMMUNICATION UF CURRENT DATA DAT = GHOUND TELEMETRY - CURRENT AND STORED DATA

LAKE ONTARIO - SUMMARY ------. ------

NUMBER OF STAT IONS = 39 NUMBER OF STAT lONS PRESENTLY CONFORMING TO SPEC1 FICATIONS- _ = 8 - ..-- NUMBER OF STAT IUNS REPUIR ING UPGRADING = 31 COST OF UPGRADING = 224000. GAUGED AREA f 22481. The regional office of CHS at Burlington issues a "Monthly Water Levels Bulletin" which gives the historic average, highest, and lowest monthly mean water levels, and the recorded monthly means for the last two years, for Lakes Superior, Huron, St. Clair, Erie and Ontario, and for the St. Lawrence River at Montreal. Six-month water level forecasts are provided by Inland Waters Directorate (IiJD), Department of the Environment, for inclusion in the Bulletin, coordinated with Corps of Engineers, Detroit under the authority of the Coordinating Committee of Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data. Preliminary data are mailed by MEDS to subscribers in the following formats:

a. "Weekly Water Level Bulletin" giving the latest daily and weekly means and the trend of water levels in the Great Lakes System; and

b. "Monthly Water Level Summary" giving the hourly, daily and monthly mean water levels. The monthly water level data are supplied to Water Survey of Canada forpublication.

A3.3.5 Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE)

On occasion, special OMOE programs dictate the need for streamflow data. Two major types of data are collected through periodic measurement programs and continuous streamflow monitoring.

The Periodic Streamflow Program, started in 1966, is a Provincial network of over one hundred stations. The streams monitored are normally tributary or headwater streams, and monitoring is carried out only during open water. On occasio'n, some of the streams are upgraded to continuous operation. The data are collected at the six regional offices and forwarded to the Water Resources Branch Headquarters, Toronto, for central data archiving and publication.

The continuous daily streamflow data collection follows much the same collection and reduction format. The data are reduced similar to Water Survey of Canada techniques and stored in Toronto. Current and historic data are provided on request.

A3.3.6 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR)

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, through its Conservation Authorities Branch, is charged with the control of Ontario's major rivers. OMNR has established 12 DCPs in northern Ontario which collect hourly streamflow and water temperature data in addition to meteorologic data. These are available to OMNR every three hours and will soon be archived on a minicomputer system.

OINR collects and publishes snow depth and water equivalents from a dense snow course network on a bi-monthly basis. OMNR also receives monthly data from a network of daily precipitation sites.

A3.3.7 Ontario Hydro (OH)

Ontario Hydro uses hydraulic, hydrologic and meteorologic data to assist in the production of hydroelectric energy. Real-time data are acquired at various locations on tributary river systems and the Great Lakes Connecting Channels for use in carrying out water and energy allocations, forecasting energy availability, optimizing system performance for operational needs, and long-term planning and development. The existing data system is not accessible to other agencies in real-time.

The data collected by OH in the environs of the Great Lakes are classified as follows:

a. Water Levels and.-- Flows Data

At the hydraulic power generating stations, the forebay intakes and tailrace water levels are continuously measured, transmitted, and recorded by automatic equipment. At most storage reservoirs, the level gauges are located at the control dam and read at regular intervals. In some cases, gauges have been installed at other locations where lake levels are better represented. In some other cases, water levels are measured at rated river sections for flow determination. Water levels are also measured by OH, as required by IJC Orders of Approval, at locations along some important waterways, such as the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers. Flows through sluices, spillways, generating units, and total river flows at control sections are derived using standard methods.

In real-time, water levels and flows at major generating stations are automatically transmitted through various media, such as microwave stations and DCPs, to the local control centre and OH System Control Centre in Toronto. Water levels at minor stations are transmitted only to local OH control centres where flows are determined. From these control centres, the data may be retransmitted to other users.

The water level data are recorded on continuous strip charts which are sent to the Toronto office for reduction and archiving. At the sane tine, however, periodic data are normally recorded by the operators at OH control centres, in order to derive the information necessary for operating the facilities. Daily summaries of water levels and flows are prepared at the local control centres and are sent by mail to Toronto for record purposes.

Most levels of storage lakes are periodically read by gauge readers or staff members who telephone the data to the local control centres where Flows and amounts of water in storage are computed. These data are telephoned or laailed from the control centres to Ti,rorlto for archiving.

The processing of data takes place at each of the locations for local requirements. The data are also processed in Toronto tc> ~I,.{II~:I...I- ;.'.;:;.:;:.i.:s such as hourly, daily, weekly and monthly averages.

b. -.-Meteorologic Data

Meteorologic stations have been established to automatical1.y ~:lti;~:;~~c:? data which are normally recorded by local staff members. Wind speed a~lrl [lirection are measured at eight sites, often at different altitudes, ~,:~I..I~IB::L~- :l:?l~tLy in southern Ontario and the northwestern portion of the Lake Superior Basin. ~vailabilit~is either real-time or after 60 days. Ontario Hydro operates 23 climate observing sites in the province. These data are published by AES.

Continuous meteorologic monitoring is done automatically near the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station (200 km northwest of Toronto) and upper air (minisonde) measurements are taken as required near the Lakeview Generating Station on Lake Ontario at Toronto..

c. Snow Survey Data

Snow depth and water content are measured normally at 15-day or 30-day intervals at 54 Ontario locations. These data are telephoned to operators at local OH control centres, who in turn relay the information to Toronto.

Over 50 snow survey courses were surveyed in the Winter of 1982-83. Normally, each snow course consists of 31 observation points spaced at 30.5-metre (100-foot) intervals along a 914-metre (3,000-foot) course, which is selected as a representative cross-section of the watershed. Table 7 lists the location of these courses.

d. Water Temperature Data

Water temperatures are recorded on the St. Lawrence and Niagara Rivers during winter operations.

e. Ice Cover Data

Ice thickness is measured occasionally on the St. Lawrence River and at the east end of Lake Erie. The extent of Lake Erie ice cover is observed periodically by fixed-wing and helicopter flights and by satellite imagery.

A3.3.8 United States Systems

In the United States portion of the Great Lakes Basin, there are four Federal departments that have the major responsibility for hydrologic, hydraulic and meteorologic data collection, processing, dissemination and archiving. These are the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Transportation and Interior. Within these departments, the primary agencies involved are: the National Weather Service (NWS), the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) , the National Ocean Service (NOS), and the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL), all of which are under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of Department of Commerce; the United States Geological Survey (USGS) of Department of the Interior; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) of Department of Defense; and, the United States Coast Guard, Department of Transportation. The mission to support the International Joint Commission and its Boards of Control, under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, has been delegated by the United States Government to the North Central Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Table 7 - List of Active Snow Courses in Canadian Portion of the Basin

Northeastern Region : Northwestern Region : Eastern Region : Georgian Bay

Abitibi Canyon :Cameron Falls :Bancro ft :Minden Aubrey Falls :Dog Lake Dan :Barrett Chute :Parry Sound Bowlands Bay :Ear Falls :Cloyne Frederickhouse Dam :Geraldton :Des Joachims Ghost River :Kenora :High Falls Hunta :Long Lake Control Dam:Barryts Bay Indian Chute :Red Lake :Prince's Lake : Kapuskasing :Sioux Lookout :Tee Lake Lady Evelyn :Wig Lake :Whi tney Matabitchuan :Rat Rapids :Heron Lake Matt ag ami Dam :White River :Otto Holden Mi lnet :At ikokan , . Wist inikon Dam :Armstrong Moosonee Nighthawk Pagwachuan Red Cedar Lake Dam : Red Rock Shilling ton Shining tree South Porcupine South River Wawaitin Chapleau Foleyet Hearst Temagami Biscotasing Hawk Junction OBA Key existing data acquisition, processing and delivery systems administered by the above agencies in the United States portion of the Great Lakes Basin are summarized in the following sub-sections.

A3.3.9 National Weather Service (NWS), NOAA

In addition to providing meteorologic data services, NWS is also responsible for the forecasting of flood flows and stages ,on various river systems-in the United States. To accomplish these missions, the NWS utilizes several networks for the acquisition and transmission of data.

a. Meteorologic Data Networks

The data acquisition program of NWS consists of several different networks collecting different types of data and having differing reporting schedules. The basic network consists of the NWS Synoptic and Basic Observing Stations (SBOS). These stations provide a nucleus of high quality observations for the basic weather program. They observe temperature, humidity, pressure, sky cover and wind speed and direction. There are 22 of these stations in the United States portion of the Great Lakes Basin. Observations are taken at synoptic times.

A second network consists of contract meteorologic observations. These provide similar reports using non-NWS employees. There are only a few of these contract stations in the Great Lakes Basin.

A third network is formed by the Automatic Meteorological Observing Stations (AMOS). These stations monitor the same basic parameters listed for the basic and synoptic networks and can reportas frequently as hourly. There are five of these stations in the Great Lakes Basin which make full reports, and an additional seven whichobserve a minimum of pressure and wind . The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation, operates an additional set of stations, primarily at air- ports, in support of aviation weather observations. They observe sky cover, temperature, humidity (at times), wind speed and direction and precipitation. The data from these stations are included in the synoptic and basic network data. Many of the stations discussed make observations every 3 hours, but precipitation is generally reported every 6 hours.

These networks are supplemented by Automatic Hydrologic Observing Stations (AHOS). These are automatic stations reporting temperature, dew point, and precipitation, or river stage, and can be interrogated remotely by radio, telephone, or satellite. The stations communicating through telephone are designated as AHOS/T.

AHOS stations are polled regularly, usually every 6 hours, by a computer system called the Automatic Data Acquisition System (ADAS). The stations communicating by satellite are designated AHOS/S. All data communicated via GOES, by any agency, are passed through the NOAA Central Computer Facility (NCCF). Software coding is underway to supply all of the pertinent ADAS and GOES data to appropriate River Forecast Centers (RFC). In addition, cooperative observers make climatic, agricultural, or hydrologic observations. Some of the observers report daily, some on a 6-hour basis, and some according to a fixed criteria. Criteria stations report whenever 12.7 mm of rain has fallen in the previous 24 hours. They continue reporting every 6 hours until significant precipitation ceases.

Apart from these surf ace observations, there is a network monitoring solar radiation; however, none of the stations are in the Great Lakes Basin. The closest stations are Madison, Wisconsin; Indianapolis, Indiana; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Most basic and synoptic stations maintain sunshine recorders and send data daily to the NCCF on the minutes of sunshine for the past 24 hours. NESDIS also stores in the computer estimates of solar radiation, on a lo by lo latitude-longitude grid, based on cloud cover appearing in the GOES satellite imagery. Upper air'sounding with radiosondes are taken once or twice daily at four stations in the Great Lakes Basin.

Ten weather radar stations are operated by NWS in the Basin. Of these, three are part of the basic network, and seven are classified as local warning and are used only when needed.

The above data sources are supported by reports from airplane pilots and by ship crews on the Great Lakes. There are nine stations on the Great Lakes servicing the Cooperative Ship Program. The primary observations reported are barometric pressure and wind.

b. Data Communication

The NWS has been undergoing a significant change in data communication, i.e., from teletype and facsimile circuits to a computer oriented system called the Automation of Field Operations and Services (AFOS). AFOS has telephone circuits which are connected to mini-computers in other offices For storage or access. Graphical products that appear as a series of lines are also handled on AFOS. Products which require shades of gray for display, such as satellite imagery, have not been adapted to AFOS. As initially planned, AFOS was expected to be able to handle all internal and external communications for NWS. However, AFOS is now near saturation when handling only internal communications. There are still potential products, such as high-resolution rainfall estimates from digitized radar, which have not yet been, and will probably not be, placed on AFOS. Most Weather Service Offices (WSOs) and all Weather Service Field Operations (WSFOs) and RFCs in the contiguous 48 States have AFOS drops. The WSFOs and some WSOs operate 24 hours a day.

The RFC's also have the following equipment:

(1) A Data General S140 computer to act as a gateway with external users for data exchange with the NUS system; and

(2) A dedicated telephone port for Remote Job Entry (RJE) through the AFOS computer to exchange data with the NOAA Central Computer Facility (NCCF) in Suitland, Maryland. Large rainfall-runoff models used by the RFCs are run at the NCCF by means of WE. The RFCs are staffed only during day-time hours, except during flood emergencies. The S140 gateway computers run unattended during of f-duty hours and have been inadequate to fully perform the exchange functions proposed for them.

The NCCF receives from AFOS and stores on a global file, weather reports from the Synoptic and Basic Observing Stations (SBOS). Also, automatically stored in memory are data from the stations owned and operated by the COE, USGS, and others which are telemetered through the GOES satellite. In addition, much of the data collected from the AHOS/T stations by the Centralized ADAS system (CADAS) is also stored in memory. The WCs send to the NCCF, through WE, the run-off and precipitation data which are .;rrlC over AFOS from the collection points in each Hydrologic Service Area.

Other types of meteorologic data are corn~o~lnicatedthrough AFOS to the NCCF by different routes, but these data types arid their method of communication are less important to the IJC Boards ancl art? n:,t detailed here.

c. Precipitation Data-

Rainfall data are collected from a potential of over 300 stations In or near the Great Lakes Basin. Nearly 60 of these stations are in the SBOS Networks (SBN) which report at least every 6 hours. A few of these SBN stations are manned by FAA and are closed several hours during the night. Of the stations which are not in the SBN, a large portion (over 70 percent) report only when precipitation exceeds a set criterion. In general this criterion is 12.7 mm during the previous 24 hours. A small (less than 5) percent report whenever there is measurable rain (greater than 0.25 mm) for the previous 24 hours. Reports from these stations are generally made as of 1200 GMT.

Data are cornmutlicated to the WSFOs by the AFOS circuits. Stations not in the SBN report their data to the appropriate WSFO. During flood emergencies, more frequent reports are available from some stii~lorls. Once the data have been received at tile WSFO they are placed on AF'OS and accessed by the appropriate RFC, which store the data for further access it:^^: :Ir-.l::r.ssing.

In the North Central RFC, located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, r;iillfall data are collected from a potential of 150 daily stations and 28 SPY{ st.ltions reporting every 6 hours. The rainfall data are collected at lWS offices at Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Minneapolis before being entered by APOS re~aoteter- minal to the IRM 360/195 central computer at Suitland, Maryland.

The Ohio River Forecast Center, located in Cincinnati, Ohio, receives d;lt;t from about 80 non-SBN stations ant1 10 SBN .stations in the Great Lakes Basin. Most of the non-SBN stations report on a 12.7 mm criterion. The Indiana stations report through Indianapol..i.G; i::lti:;t> In biichigan through Ann Arbor and Cleveland; and, those in.Ohio report through Cleveland. At least five of the stations can be polled by tel'epllorl~€:).I: ~yeceiptof data in computer compatible form. At the eastern end of the Great Lakes, the Northeast River Forecast Center, located in Bloomfield, Connecticut, has eight SBN stations and about 60 non-SBN stations in the Great Lakes Basin. About 15 percent of the. non-SBN stations report daily, whether it rains or not.

As mentioned above, precipitation readings from several primary stations are forwarded to the NCCF. Once each day, observed precipitation data throughout the United States are displayed on a map and transmitted via a facsimile network, originating at Suitland. A number of stations throughout the southern portion of Canada are also depicted. The data from Canada are received via facsimi.le entered at Montreal.

d. Air.Temperature, Pressure, Wind. Speed.and Dew Point Data

These data are observed hourly at 20 stations in the Great Lakes Basin and are available at the SBN stations on a 3 or 6-hour basis. They are sent via dedicated line to the central computer facility where the data from the entire contiguous United States are collected. Eight times each day (at approximately 3-hour intervals), these data for the entire United States are transmitted via facsimile circuit. Again, data for the southern portion of Canada, covering the Great Lakes Basin, are included and analyzed. This map of surface meteorologic conditions also includes the depiction of high and low barometric pressure centres, pressure gradients, and frontal systems. These maps, and all other products distributed on the NWS facsimile circuit are available to other Federal and State agencies and private organizations, such as airlines.

In addition to the quantitative meteorologic data measurements, additional qualitative data are obtained using radar. Radar is used to portray, on a real-time basis, the location, movement and size of severe weather, and also the location, movement and relative intensity of precipitation. Once each hour, the radar images are manually translated into digital format at each radar site.

The digitized data are then transmitted via teletype circuitry to Suitland. The image on the radar scopes provides real-time qualitative data and allows classifying rainfall into light and heavy amounts. Intensity levels are manually digitized to make quantitative estimates of rainfall which, in the absence of better data, can be used to estimate rainfall in real-time. Computer digitized radar, which is anticipated with the implementation of the next generation of weather radars (NEXRAD), should give high quality estimates of the quantity of precipitation when combined with rain gauge data.

e.. Satellite Data

Data from the GOES meteorological satellite (primarily imagery in the visible and infrared spectrum) are received by a number of stations in and near the Great Lakes Basin. The two-satellite GOES System generates images of the Americas, most of the Atlantic Ocean, and most of the eastern Pacific Ocean at 30-minute intervals. These images show the development and movement of cloud systems which are useful to short-range weather forecasting and warning. The GOES images can be distributed over specially conditioned telephone lines to photorecorders at WSFOs. Private users can arrange to receive these images via extension service from a WSFO. Images are available on the facsimile circuit about 25 minutes after being taken. Satellite Field Service Stations in Kansas City, Missouri, and Washington, D.C., provide advice and special training in the use of these data.

f. Hydrologic Data

As part of the river warning service, the NWS monitors river stage at many points on major rivers and streams. Approximately 2,500 communities are in the areas for which forecasts are issued. The mjority of the stage gauges are owned and maintained by other agencies. In the Great Lakes Basin, most river gauges used by NWS are operated by the USGS.

Daily river stage data from USGS and COE river gauges are received at the WSFOs via automated networks (DARDC - Device for Automatic Remote Data Collection, telemark or DCP relay) or local observers (phone call or mail). These data are then relayed to the appropriate RFC via AFOS or are directly input to the computer data base.

NWS has divided the responsibility for river forecasting in the Great Lakes Basin between three River Forecast Centers (RFCs). The public presen- tation of the forecasts generated by the RFCs on large rivers, the generation of forecasts for small quick-response streams and small headwater basins, and the authority for issuing flashflood watches and warnings rest with WSFOs located in Cleveland, Ann Arbor, Minneapolis, Chicago, Buffalo and Albany. The RFCs provide the WSFOs with values of rainfall that must be exceeded, within given periods, before flash flooding would be expected so that the lead forecaster on duty can issue flashflood watches without the need for intermediate communication with the responsible RFC. Headwater advisories are furnished to enable the forecasting of small headwater basins.

The North Central RFC has responsibility for river forecasting at 52 points in the Lakes Michigan and Huron Basins. Stream stage data for more than these 52 points are received at the North Central RFC. Data are entered by remote terminal into the NOAA Central Computer Facility. At present, no forecasts are made for streams that flow into Lake Superior.

The Ohio RFC is responsible for forecasting most of. the rivers that flow into Lake Erie. There are 16 stream gauge sites that are used as forecast points by the Ohio RFC. In addition, there are 43 nonautomated gauge sites that are not forecast.

In the Northeast RFC, flood stages are forecast for part of Lake Erie and all of the United States portion of Lake Ontario, and several rivers downstream that flow into the St. Lawrence River. Of the 102 stream gauges monitored by the Northeast RFC in the Lakes Erie and Ontario Basins, 13 are forecast points. Of the 20 gauges monitored for St. .Lawrence River tributaries, three are forecast points.

The rainfall and river stage data for the RFCs at Minneapolis and Cincinnati are maintained temporarily in files on the NOAA Central Computer and locally in the S140 gateway computers. g. Climate Data

Data are resident in the NJS computer system for a relatively short time. Time series of Ilydrologic data can be obtained for most of the stations providing real-time data, and for many which do not report in real-time but form a part of the climatic network. These data are archived at the National Climatic Data Centre (NCDC), at Ashville, North Carolina.

A3.3.10 National Ocean Service (NOS), NOAA

The National Ocean Service is responsible for lake level gauges on the United States portion of the Great Lakes. The gauge network consists of 54 permanent gauges and 123 seasonal 'gauges located throughout the Lakes and their Connecting Channels. Twenty-three of the 54 permanent stations are automated and capable of telephone telemetry to NOS headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. Seventeen sites are accessible by authorized users via telephone and appropriate minimal electronic data processing (EDP) equipment. Six sites require special software to access the data. All 23 sites store the last 125 hours of water level observations.

Twice weekly the real-time data are telecopied to various users; a copy is then sent by mail. Daily mean data for all 54 stations are published each month and annually.

In 1978, NOS implemented the first master control station for the acquisition, transmission, and. storage of water level data from the remote telemetry systems. The master control station has several functions:

(1) Automatic interrogation of remote sites on a daily basis with computer printed reports on preselected interval or demand bases;

(2) Magnetic tape (data storage);

(3) Provide for selected field data entry configuration for observers (or maintenance personnel upon system malfunction) into computer generated reports at Rockville Headquarters;

(4) High-speed data transfer and retransmission in case of data errors with call-back capability to remote sites;

(5) Direct communications to agency computers;

(6) Transmission via tele:m? t ry from remote sites; and,

(7) Capability of collecting 10 separate data parameters.

The major objective of the master control telemetry unit is to provide automatic connections of remote collecting units to the Tides and Water Levels Computer Center. The Interdata 7/32 computer will be linked tothe master control telemetry (Interdata 8/16) unit which will permit field data to be automatically transmitted for processing and storage. Additionally, the separate data parameter design feature will complement planr~irid +tveen NOS and MJS to provide parallel meteorologic data along with tide and water level data from all gauge locations. All data stored can be made available to user organizations upon request.

A3.3.11 National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS) , NOAA

Major responsibilities of NOAA's NESDIS include the operation and management of two Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES); and, via its National Climatic Data Centre (NCDC), the archiving and management of all United States weather related data.

a. Environmental Satellites

NESDIS receives and processes data From the GOES satellites to produce specialized meteorologic, limnologic and hydrologic products. NESDIS, located at Washington, DC, uses the NOAA communications computer at Suitland, Maryland, for the distribution of some of its products. The COES/Visual and Infrared Spin Scan Radiometer (GOESIVISSR) can provide a Great Lakes sector or a central United States image, updated at half-hourly intervals. These images can be combined into a "loop" in which the last 10 hours of images are sequenced to provide an animated, usually videotaped, display. The IR images are thermally scaled so that the cloud-top temperatures of the low, middle and high clouds are enhanced and thus easily identified. Incoming images are continually added to the display as they become available, and the oldest image is automatically dropped.

VISSR data can be used to estimate rainfall. This estimate is based on cloud type, cloud top temperature, and the duration of tine the rain pro- ducing clouds remain over a given site. This is done for the most severe convective storms. Winds at three levels can be plotted from the GOESIIK imagery by vector plotting of cloud movement. This approach can vary from a simple overlay and hand plot to sophisticated automated video display and computer programs.

NESDIS provides a Great Lakes surface temperature analysis chart (usually once or twice weekly), which is produced from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) data. After computer analysis, 2OC isotherm lines are drawn on charts of each lake. The final product is mailed to users and distributed via facsimile. Monitoring lake temperatures is useful for circulation studies, forecasting freeze-up, showing upwelling and thermal fronts, evaporation studies, and local meteorologic forecasting. On cloudless days, surface temperature data for any of the Great Lakes arc? potentially available 48 times a day from the geostationary satellite.

During the winter (from mid-December to mid-April) , charts depicting Great Lakes ice cover are sent out via facsimile circuit twice a week. Satellite images are used to depict the extent and quality of the ice cover. Additional data are gathered from the United States Coast Guard and commercial shippers. This is especially useful to marine interests on the Great Lakes. High quality recorder systems are available to receive NOAAIAVHRR IR images. From these high quality images, upwelling and circulation patterns can easily be traced in a real-time mode.

The GOES satellites have the capability to relay information from Data Collection Platforms (DCPs). The present GOES system supports interrogated, random access and self-timed modes. The interrogated mode requires polling from the NESDIS ground system through the satellite before the DCP replies. Random access DCPs report when the variable being measured (usually precipitation) exceeds a preset threshold. The self-timed mode transmits during a specific time slot and the DCP contains an internal timing device that regulates its transmissions. The present NESDZS ground system is limited to supporting 80 channels and 5,000 DCPs; however, by 1990 the system will be capable of handling 200 channels and 12,500 DCPs.

Several United States and Canadian agencies use this system to interrogate their DCPs. Because NESDIS is a part of NOAA, and uses some of the NWS communications facilities, it is possible that all DCP data could be made available on the AFOS system. That is, data transmitted by USGS, NOS, COE, or Canadian agency DCPs could be put on the AFOS system. This is already occurring for certain USGS data.

b. National Climate Data Center (NCDC)

As the archive of all United States meteorologic data, the NCDC obtains data generated by NOAAINWS, the weather services of the Air Force and Navy, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Coast Guard and cooperative observers. These data include hourly, synoptic and daily surface observations, upper air soundings, radar observations, environmental satellite imagery and digital products. Many of these data are published by NCDC. Three of the most common are Hourly Precipitation Data, Climatological Data (listing daily data from the climatologic network for each State) and Local Climatological Data (which gives detailed data from the synoptic network for over 280 stations).

Climate data management and archiving activities are focused at the NCDC facilities in Ashville, North Carolina. Satellite data are available from the Satellite Data Service Division, NCDC, located in the World Weather Building, Camp Springs, Maryland.

NESDIS is currently developing an on-line, computerized National Environmental Data Referral Service (NEDRES) to provide a readily accessible means for anyone who needs environmental data, to find out whether the relevant data exist, and, if so, where and how they may be obtained.

A3.3.12 Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL), WOAA

As part of the Department of Commerce, under NOAA's Environmental Research Laboratories, GLERL is concerned with investigation, development, and application of hydrologic and hydraulic models to address the needs in the Great Lakes Basin. GLERL maintains several data bases with the support of the collecting agencies. These include: a. seasonal ice thickness and stratigraphy data;

b. a hydrologic data base on the Great Lakes composed of monthly precipitation, temperature, Connecting Channel flows, changes in storage, and evaporation;

c. a hydrologic.data base on the Great LakesBasin composed of daily and monthly precipitation, temperature, and runoff; and,

d. wave and current data.

GLERL also maintains several models for use internally and by other agencies. These include:

a. Great Lakes Hydrologic Response Model for determining water levels and flows through the Lakes;

b. Great Lakes Rainfall-Runoff Models for determining runoff into the Lakes and evapotranspiration in the watersheds;

c. lake evaporation models;

d. operational unsteady flow models forthe St. Clair, Detroit, and St. Lawrence Rivers;

e. freeze-up and break-up models on the St. Lawrence River (used by NWS) ;

f. lake circulation models; and,

g. lake set-up from wind models (used by NWS).

While most of the data bases are not used presently in operational mode, models (e) and (g) are. Others are to be implemented for operational purposes. GLERL1s existing data processing equipment consists of HP-1000 and DEC VAX-11 mini-computers. Large jobs are processed on the CDC CYBER Computer at NOAA1s Environmental Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado.

A3.3.13 United States Coast Guard (USCG)

As part of the Department of Transportation, the United States Coast Guard is responsible for keeping the navigable waterways of the United States open to traffic. On the Great Lakes, ice is the major impediment to navigation, with navigation often being completely halted due to ice during the winter months. In the ice forming season of late fall and early winter, the Coast Guard closely monitors the extent, thickness and quality of the accumulating ice. Monitoring is accomplished with the use of ships, helicop- ters and fixed-wing aircraft.

Fixed-wing aircraft provide the means for both visual and electronic observations. Side Looking Airborne Radar (SLAR) provides an estimate of ice coverage. Boring through the ice provides data on thickness and quality. The data gathered by the Coast Guard supplement satellite images, as available. The data are sent via Coast Guard radio and often relayed on NWS teletype circuits.

A3.3.14 United States Geological Survey (USGS)

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Department of Interior, is the largest United States water resources data collection agency. It is responsible for appraising the quality and quantity of water resources data. It also conducts research on hydrologic problems related to the occurrence and distribution of both surface and subsurface water.

The USGS is the primary source. of streamflow station.network information in the United States portion- of -the Great Lakes Drainage Basin through the stream-gaging program operated by its Water Resources Division (WRD). The program has evolved through the years as the Federal and State interests in surface-water resources have increased and as funds for operating the stream-gauging network have become available.

Cooperative stream-gauging programs of the USGS began about 1900 in most Great Lakes States. Data needs for water power, navigation, and water supply provided the impetus for early programs. Early records were collected for the most part on the larger streams in the Great Lakes Region. About 1960, in response to the need to better define the areal hydrology, gauging stations were established on medium and small-size streams.

'Streamflow data are presently collected at 321 continuously recording stations in the Great Lakes Basin. Cooperative programs designed to collect streamflow data are presently in operation in Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. The data collected are published in State reports and stored in files at the central computer facilities of the USGS at the National Center at Reston, Virginia. Data may be entered into or retrieved from these files through the District offices of the USGS.

The Great Lakes Region is Region 4 of the 21 Water Resources Xegions defined by the U. S. Water Resources Council. The regional boundary is the United States-Canada International Boundary on the north, through Lakes Superior, Huron, St. Clair, Erie, and Ontario and is along river basin divi- des elsewhere. Region 4 has a total United States area of about 455000 square kilometers (measured up to Cornwall, Ontario-tiassena, New York). Principal river basins include St. Louis River (Minnesota), Fox River (Wisconsin), Grand River (Michigan), Saginaw River (Michigan), Maumee River (Ohio), and Oswego River (New York). Areas of eight States contribute sur- f ace and subsurf ace inflow to the Great Lakes.

a. Surface Hvdroloeic Network

Areas of eight States - Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York - contribute to Great Lakes drainage. Table 1 shows the percentage of land area in the United States gauged to measure runoff, while Table 8 is a breakdown of the gauged area by State. Figures 2-7 show the extent of the area in the United States portion that is being gauged.

b. Types of Stations

Streamflow gauging stations sre commonly referredto as Seing either continuous or partial record. A continuous record station isone where a continuous record of streamflow is obtained as contrasted with a partial record station where a specific piece of data such as the peak discharge might be collected.

Most continuous record stations in the Great Lakes drainage area are equipped with digital recorders, although a few have analog recorders. Discharge data for the entire water year (October through September) at continuous record stations are computed and published in annual reports prepared by the USGS for each State. Partial record data are also published in the annual reports.

c. Area Distribution of Stations

The USGS operates 321 continuous gauging stations in the Great Lakes Drainage Area. The distribution by State is as follows: Minnesota - 9; Wisconsin - 34; Indiana - 23; Michigan - 145; Ohio -.25; Pennsylvania - 1; and New York - 84.

The average length of record for the continuous record stations is about 25 years. About 120 stations have streamflow records greater than 30 years in length.

Given a total United States Great Lakes Basin land area of approximately 303000 sq km, the density of the USGS network is about one station per 940 sq km. In addition, there are 212 partial stations in the Great Lakes Basin. Including these partial stations, the density is about one station per 560 sq kn. The following is a distribution of gauging stations by drainage area size.

Number of Drainage Area Stations (square kilometres)

d. Gauging Station Identification

The Office of Water Data Coordination (OWDC) of the USGS has been assigned the responsibility for coordination of federal water data activities. An up-to-date listing of all data collection activities, past and present, by federal and non-federal agencies is maintained to discharge that Table 8 - Percentage of Land Area Gauged by State to Measure.Runoff -- Drainage : Drainage ~rya: Percentage State -Bas in Gauged Area Gauged - (Sq km)

Minnesota :Lake Superior 10100 53

Wisconsin :Lake Superior 3300 4 4

Michigan :Lake Michigan 36500(1) : 9 8

:Lake Superior 7200 33

:Lake Michigan 52800 69

:Lake Huron 19600 47

:Lake St. Clair 3900 6 8

:Lake Erie 5500 7 1

Illinois :Lake Michigan 0 0

Indiana :Lake Michigan 4400 76

:Lake Erie 2700 8 0

Ohio :Lake Erie 28300 (2) : 80

Pennsylvania :Lake Erie 8 0

New York (3) :Lake Erie 2 100 55 :Lake Ontario 24900 7 7

Totals : 201300(4) : 6 7 --- (1) Includes 6900 sq km of State of Michigan drainage to Menominee River.

(2) Includes Maumee River drainage in Michigan and Indiana and Ashtabula and Conneaut Creeks in Pennsylvania.

(3) Figures do not include Niagara River whose contributing drainage area is 2340 square km.

(4) Rounded to nearest 100 sq km. FIGURE 7

Lake Michigan Drainage Basin Showing Area Gauged by Streamflow Stations ,

------

UI I-,.

C responsibility. The listings, which include an inventory of all past and present gauging-station operations in the Great Lakes Region, are reported in OWDC publications.

e. Streamflow Stations with Real-Time Capability

Stage information can be obtained on a real-time basis at 79 gauging stations operated by the USGS in the Great Lakes Basin. Telemetry equipment has been installed at 64 stations. Local observers furnish data for 16 sites, and four sites are served by satellite data relay. There are a few stations which are served by both telemarks and observer or satellite. New York has the greatest number of stations (25), followed by Michigan (23), Wisconsin (12), Ohio (12), Indiana (4), Minnesota (2), and Pennsylvania (1). Stations with real-time capability are shown in Table 9. The list in Table 9 was prepared by State and shows the agency station number, station name, telephone number, period of record, method of interrogation, and the agency using the data.

Local observers will, at the designated stations, read the gauge and telephone the data to the user upon request. Telemark gauges are those where encoders, attached to water level recorders, respond to a telephone call to the stations with a series of audible tones that represent the coded stage value.

f. National Water Data Storage and Retrieval System

The National Water Data Storage and Retrieval System (WATSTORE) was established in November 1971 to manage water data collected by WRD, USGS. The system is operated and maintained on the central computer facilities at the USGS National Center at Reston, Virginia. Approximately 95 percent of all discharge data collected at streamflow stations in the Great Lakes area are in storage at the National Center. Generally, the data are not real-time and are not available until about 2 months after acquisition. Only data from the satellite relay system are available in real-time.

The WATSTORE system consists of files in which data are grouped and stored by common characteristics and data-collection frequencies. The system is also designed to allow for the inclusion of additional data files if the need should arise in future years. Currently, files are maintained for the storage of (1) surface and groundwater data measured on a daily or continuous basis, (2) annual peak values for streamflow stations, and (3) geologic and inventory data for groundwater sites. In addition, an index file of sites for which data are stored in the system is also maintained. A brief description of each file follows:

Station Header File - All sites for which data are stored in the Daily Values, Peak Flow, Water Quality, and Unit Values files of WATSTORE are indexed in this file.

Daily Values File - All parameters measured or observed, either on a daily or on a continuous basis and numerically reduced to daily values, are stored in this file. Instantaneous measurements at fixed time- intervals, Table 9 - List of United States Streamflow Stations Having Telemarks, Observers. or Satellite Data Relay Capability UlSCONSIN

btation instrumentation No. Station Name Telephone No Period of Record Type of Instrumentation Instal led for TfO71000 con o ver nr i e iemaij iR:i ver nrGSb:tthtSuperi ol Digital Recorder 04024430 Call : Kenneth Sedl achek 715-399-8335 Rt. 1. Box 433 Superior, Ui s. 54880 04027500 White River nr Ashland Non-recording gage Call : James Cukla Rt. 2. Box 149 Ashland, Uis. 54806 I 04066000 Henminee River nr Pembine Digital Recorder Call : Otto Roth Route 1 Pembine. Uis. 541% I 04071858 Pensaukee River nr Pensaukee Digital Recorder Call : Ted Burdosh Route 2 Oconto. Uis. 54153 I usGs 04077000 Uol f River at Keshena Fa1 1 s Digital Recorder USGS Call : James Dick Keshana, Uis. 54135 04080000 Little Yo1 f River at Royalton Telemark USGS 04081000 Uaupaca River at Uaupaca Telemark USGS 04079000 Uol f River at New London 04085281 East Twin River at Mishlcot Dig1tal Recorder Call: Lester Reinke 527 5. Rockway Mishicot, Uis. 54228 04085200 Kewaunee R. nr Kewaunee Digital Recorder USGS Call : Ed Goetsch Route 3 Kewaunee. Uis. 54216 04073500 Fox R. at Berlin Telemark

PENNSYLVANIA

Instrumentation Statlon Telephone Period of Type of Installed for NO. NO. Station Name No. Record Instrumentation use of

1 04213040 Raccoon Cr. nr West Springfield 814-922-3265 Crest-stage None USGS Call : Harold Ueldon 1962-68 Continuous-record 1969-82

- -

MINNESOTA - Part 4

Instrumentation station I Telephone Period of Type of Installed for No. No. Station Name No. Record Instrumentation Use of - I

Minnesota Power and Light Co. 30 Nest Superior Street Dul uth. Minnesota 55802 Call : Norman Johnson 218-722-2641

I 04010<00 1pigeon R. at Middle Fall, Minnesota 1921-82 I 1 Table 9 - List of United States Streamflow Stations Raving Telemerks, Obaervers, or Satellite Data Relay Capability (Cont'd) NEW YORK

Instrunentation Station Telephone Period of Type of Installed for No. No. Station Name No. Record . Instrunentation Use of

1 04213500 Cattaraugus Cr. at Gowanda 716-532-5454 1939-82 Tel emark USGS 2 04214500 Buffalo Cr. at Gardenvllle 716-675-2110 1938-82 CE 3 04215000 Cayuga Cr. nr Lancaster 716-681-5090 1968-74 1974-82 CE 4 04215500 Cazenovla Cr. at Ebenezer 716-675-2320 1940-82 USGS 5 04216200 Scajaquada Cr. at Buffalo 716-891-5081 1957-82 USGS 6 04218518 El 1 icott Cr. bl. Uil1 iamsvll le 716-632-5926 1972-82 USGS 7 04221000 Genesee R. at Yellsvllle 716-593-6441 1955-58. 1972-82 Telemark OCP Satell ite USGS 8 04223000 Genesee R. at Portageville 716-468-2303 1908-82 Tel emark CE 9 04224775 Canaseraga Cr. above Dansvil le 716-335-2440 1974-82 DEC 10 04227000 Canaseraga Cr. at Shakers 716-658-4204 1915-22. 1958-70. CE Cross1ng 1974-82 11 04228500 Genesee A. at Avon 716-226-3664 1955-82 USGS 12 04229500 Honeoye Cr. at Honeove Falls 716-624-2500 1945-70. 1972-82 USGS 13 04230380 Oatka Cr. at Warsaw 716-792-2980 1963-82 USGS 14 04230500 Oatka Cr. at Garbutt 716-889-2730 1945-82 USGS 15 04230650 Genesee R. at Ballantyne Bridge 716-235-4584 1973-82 USGS nr Hortlmer 16 04231000 Black Cr. at Churchville 716-293-3560 1945-82 CE 17 04235000 Canandalgua Outlet at Chapln 716-394-7657 1939-82 OEC 18 04237500 Seneca R. at Baldwinsville 315-635-9524 1949-82 DEC 315-635-3697 19 04249000 Oswego R. at Lock 7. Oswego 317-343-0564 1900-06. 1933-82 DEC 20 04252500 Black A. nr Boonvllle 315-942-4242 1911-82 USGS 21 1 04260500 Black R. at Uatertown 315-788-4960 1920-82 USGS 22 , 04262500 U. B. Oswegatchle R. nr 315-543-2990 1916-82 DEC Harrisville 23 : 04275000 E. B. Ausable R. at Au 518-647-5505 1924-82 DEC Sable Forks 24 j 04295000 Richelleu R. at Rouses Point 518-297-6393 1863-76. 1871-82 Telemark Lake oEC -25 04217000 Tonawana R. at Batavia 716-344-0652 1978-82 Telemark USGS QW

Station Telephone Period of Type of Installed for No. No. Station Name No. Record Instrumentation Use of

1 04185000 Tiffin R. at Stryker 419-682-7422 1940-82 Telemrrk USGS Call: Frederick A. Clair 419-682-2105 RFD #2. Box 130 , Stryker. Ohio 43557

2 04186500 Auglaize R. nr Ft. Jennlngs 419-286-2733 1940-82 Digital recorder USGS Call : Leo 5. Grote Route 1 Ft. Jennlngs. Ohio 45844

3 1i 04189000 Blanchard R. nr Findlay 419-423-2973 1940-82 Telemark CE 4 1 04191500 Auglalze R. nr Defiance 419-782-5469 1915-82 DARC NUS a / 5 4 04192500 Maumee R. nr Defiance 419-782-5469 1939-74- Telemark I CE 6 1 04193500 Maumee R. at Uaterville 419-878-1361 1939-76 Telemark GOES Satellite CE

7 04195500 Portage R. at Uoodville 419-849-2507 1939-82 DARDC NUS Call: Jeff Mercer 419-849-3104 1111 W. College Avenue Uoodville. Ohio 43469

8 , 04196800 Tymochtee Ck at Crawford 419-396-2197 1964-82 Dig1tal recorder USGS Call : Ruth N. Kitcler I Route 1 Carey, Ohio 43316

9 04202000 Cuyahoga R. at Hi ran Rapids 216-569-7821 1944-82 Digital recorder NUS Call: Glen A. Martin 6228 Uinchell Road Hlrom. Ohio 44234

10 04206000 Cuyahoga R. at Old Portage 216-267-5035 1939-82 DAROC NUS FTS 293-4949

11 04208000 Cuyahoga R. at Independence 216-267-5035 1940-82 OARDC GOES-Sate1 11te NUS

12 04209000 Chagrin R. at Uilloughby 216-946-1065 1939-82 OARDC NUS -a/ Statlon discontinued in 1974-4 of E. Detroit installed telemark in January 1976--station inactive except for telemark.

A-52 . . Table 9 - ~i~tof United States Streamflov Stations Raving Tele-rks. Obeenrere, or Satellite DataRelap Capability (Contld)

MICHIGAN

Instrumentation Station Telephone Period of Type of Installed for No. No. Station Name Wo. Record Instrumentation Use of

1 04112500 Red Cedar R. at East Lansing 517-332-2001 1931-82 Telemark. NUS 2 04113000 Grand River at Lansing 517-484-7165 1901-06, 1934-82 NUS 3 04114000 Grand River at Portland 517-647-4440 1952-82 NUS 4 04115000 Grand River at Ionia 616-527-9660 . 1951-82 NUS 5 04119000 Grand River at Grand Rapids 616-456-8467 1901-05. 1930-82 NUS 6 04099000 St. Joseph R. at Hottville 616-483-7241 1923-82 NUS 7 04122000 Muskegon R. at Newayo 616-652-1771 1909-14, 1916-19 . NUS 1930-82 8 04148500 Flint River nr Fl int 313-732-6800 1932-82 NUS 9 04147500 Flint River nr Otisville 313-653-4220 1952-82 Reservoir oper. 10 04144500 Shiawassee R. at Owosso 517-725-6800 1931-82 . NUS 11 04157000 Saginaw R. at Saginaw 517-754-3181 1942-82 . NUS 12 04156000 Tittabawassee R. at Midland 517-636-6975 1936-82 NUS Between 1700-0800 hrs call 517-636-4565 13 04165500 Clinton R. at Mount Clemens 313-465-3644 1934-82 . NUS 14 04164500 N. Br. Clinton R. nr 313-469-6060 1947-82 . NUS Mount Clemens 15 04164000 Clinton R. nr Fraser 313-286-1202 1947-82 . NUS 04166500 River Rouge at Detroit 313-532-1692 1930-82 . NUS i 04176500 River Raisin nr Monroe 313-241-5997 1937-82 . NUS 18 04150800 Cass R. at Uahjemega 517-673-6197 1968-82 NUS 19 04154000 Chippewa R. nr Mt. Pleasant 517-772-3870 1931, 1933-82 NUS 20 04111379 Red Cedar R. nr Uilliamston 517-521-3115 1975-82 . NUS 21 04117500 Thornapple R. nr Hastlngs 616-945-9825 1944-82 . NUS 22 04174500 Huron River at Ann Arbor 313-994-2839 1904-82 Observer, Ann Arbor NUS Uater Plant 23 04162010 Red Ryn nr Uarren 313-264-0360 19679-82 Telemark USGS

lnstrumentatlon Station Telephone Period of Type of Installed for No. No. Station Name No. Record Instrumentation Use of BI 1 04182900 Mdumee R. at Ft. Uayne 219-422-4320 Tel emark City - Ft. Wayne- a/ 2 04181500 St. Harys R. at Decatur 219-724-8464 1946y82 Tel emark NUS 3 04178000 St. JosephR.at Newllle 419-542-7076 1946-82 Telemark NUS

4 04100295 Rime1 Br. nr A1 bion 219-636-7628 1979-82 Dig1tal Recorder USGS Call : Rick Jefferson Route 1 I Albion, Indiana 46701

-a/ No discharges are published for this site. Ye have a curve of relation with our gage discharge "at New Haven." -b/ NUS--Cincinnati uses this telemark for flood forecasting. daily mean values, and statistics such as daily naximum and minimumvalues also may be stored.

Unit Values File - All parameters measured or observed on a regular unit time basis (e.g., 5 minutes, 15 minutes, etc.) are stored in this file.

Peak Flow File - Annual maximum (peak) streanflow (discharge) peaks above a given discGrge and corresponding gauge height (stage) values at surface-water sites comprise this file.

WaterQuality File - Results of analyses of water samples that describe the chemical, physical, biological, and radiochemical characteristics of surface water and groundwater are stored in this file.

Groundwater Site Inventory File - This groundwater File is maintained within WATSTORE iGxependent of the files discussed above, but it is cross- referenced to the Water Quality File and the Daily Values File. It contains inventory data about wells, springs, and other sources of groundwater data; the data included are site location and identification, geohydrologic characteristics, well construction history, and one-time field measurements such as water temperature.

g. Capability and Facilities

WATSTORE provides a variety of data products which range from the simple retrieval of data in tabulated form, such as daily. streamflow, to moderately complex statistical analyses. Streamflow or other data in the WATSTORE system can be retrieved through any of the USGS District offices operating stations in the Great Lakes Drainage Area as listed below:

District Office Computer Facilities

Indianapolis, Indiana Data 100 terminal (Model 70-2), Prime Mini-computer P750 Lansing, Michigan Data 100 terminal (Model 70-1)" St. Paul, Minnesota Datapoint 1134 terminal, Prime Mini- computer P250 Albany, New York Data 100 terminal (Model 78), Prime Mini- computer P750 Columbus, Ohio Data 100 terminal (Model 70-l), Prime Mini-computer P750 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Data 100 terminal (~ode1.70-2), Prime. Mini-computer P750 Madison, Wisconsin Data 100 terminal (Model 70-l), Prime Elini-computer P750

*Has access .to Prime P750 in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Data are available from the above offices in the standard storage format of the WATSTOKE system or in the Format of punch cards or punch card images on magnetic tape. Other Federal, State, or local organizations and universi ti

h. Processing of Real-Time--- . - -- Data Under the present operating system, real-time data are being processed as described in Volume 5, Chapter IV of the WATSTOKE User's Guide.

i. --.-Satellite Data-Relay

The USGS now has six satellite rt?c,~?ivc?stations nationwide which receive data directly from one or both of the GOES satellites. The real-time data will be stored and processed on PRIME mini-computers in the six District offices. All real-time data collected in the Great Lakes Basin by USGS will be stored on the PRIME mini-computer in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Stage dat ;I t r;insmitted by GOES will still be communicated to the EJOAA Central Compl~teI- a1111placed in the RFC S140 computers.

A3.3.15 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (C94)

As the lead Federal agency responsible for the navigable waterways of the iJnited States, the Corps of Engineers (COE) is not heavily involved in i~yclrometeorologicdata acquisition. However, certain data are gathered st navigation and flood control projects maintained by the COE.

a. Gauaes

In the Great Lakes Basin, t!le COE has funded the USGS to install real- time stage gauges on tributaries to tile Great Lakes. These are included in the real-time gauges referred to in Section A3.3.14. Of the 25 real-time stage gauges on the shores of the Great Lakes :i:ltl their Connecting Channels, eight were installed by NOS for the COE. The COE pays for the operation and maintenance of these gauges.

The COE operates only five precipitation gauges in tlw Great Lakes Basin. One gauge, at Mount Morris Dam on the Genesee River in Xe-s York is read by the Dam's operating personnel with the data reported by i):-t0,:le 'If> the COE District Office in Buffalo, New York. Currently, there are fr-)~~t.COX operated precipitation gauges in the Fox River Basin (Wisconsin). Thest? ;.IT..- also read manually and reported to the Detroit District, COE, Office.

The Detroit District of the COE installed two weather stations at the head of tile St. Clair River in 1981 in order to collect data for the future design and possible operation of an ice boon. These stations collect meteorologic data such as precipitation, wind speell,

As part of their water control data systems, both tilt-. 3:ifEslo and Detroit Districts are planning for, and implementing, resp~-.r:tiv~?ly,DCPs to enable real-time data aquisition. As many as 50 DCPs are planned for the Buffalo District including seven on the Niagara River and 21 for improved regulation of Lake Ontario. Twelve DCPs will be installed in 1985 within the Genesee River Basin, nine of which will collect precipitation as well as stage data. In the Detroit District, DCPs are being installed at 14 gauge sites on the connecting channels of the Great Lakes, 10 are being installed on the Fox River-Lake Winnebago System (tributary to Lake Michigan), and 10 are being installed in the Lake Superior Basin as part of a pilot snowmelt/runoff study. Many of the DCPs will collect stage, precipitation, temperature and several other hydrometeorologic parameters.

The Detroit District publishes a "Monthly Bulletin of Lake Levels for the Great Lakes" which shows the historic average maximum and minimum monthly mean water levels as well as a 61nonth forecast. This publication is prepared under the auspices of the Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data and in cooperation with Inland Waters Directorate, Department of the Environment. Besides updating the bulletin weekly, Detroit COE also publishes bimonthly a "Great Lakes and Connecting Channels Water Levels and Depths" forecast for the St. Elarys, Detroit, St. Clair, and St. Lawrence Rivers.

The Detroit District also has responsibility for the hydraulic flow measurements in the Connecting Channels of the Great Lakes. Using the hydraulic and hydrologic data acquired, the Detroit and Buffalo Districts develop, maintain, and operate mathematical models of the Connecting Channels and the Great Lakes System.

b. Data Acquisition/Delivery System

The Buffalo District in-house computer is a Honeywell Level 6/57 mini- computer. This is used primarily as a remote terminal for transmitting and receiving data from other (outside) computers. Presently, there is no real- time data collection, and little capability to do so. The Buffalo District plans to acquire a mini-computer dedicated to water control activities.

The Detroit District has a Harris 500 mini-computer, and plans to acquire another mini-computer which will be dedicated entirely to Great Lakes Basin water control activities. The dedicated mini-computer will have the ability to receive and transmit real-time data. The data from the District's DCPs will be acquired by the mini-computer from a COE downlink located in Rock Island, Illinois. The North Central Division office, in Chicago, Illinois, plans to use an in-house IBM micro-computer for its data acquisition and management activities.

A3.3.16 Others

In Canada and the United States, there are a number of provincial and state agencies or private companies that also collect hydrometeorologic data. However, these organizations normally collect data for their own use and not for general public distribution.

For example, the New York Power Authority (PNPA) owns and operates a number of gauges on the Connecting Channels of the Great Lakes. On the Niagara River there is a telemetered gauge at the NYPA intakes and one at the tailwater. Both are telemetered to the Niagara Project Control Center. On the St. Lawrence River, NYPA operates 12 gauges; four of which are operated jointly with Ontario Hydro. Six of the 12 gauges are telemetered year-round to the Moses-Saunders Powerhouse; one gauge is telemetered during the winter only. Data from these gauges are used by NYPA to operate the Power Projects and are not published; however, the data can be obtained from NYPA upon request.

Other examples in Canada include the Conservation Authorities, Great Lakes Power Limited (GLPL), St. Lawrence Seaway Authority (SLSA), Parks Canada, Public Works Canada, and various provincial agencies and several mining companies.

In the United States, there are also several agencies and corporations such as the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation that collect supple- mentary data related to their own use. In general, these data are not readily accessible to outside users, but in some instances can be released upon request.

A3.4 STATION DIRECTORY

Appendix B to the Board's main report is a Station Directory listing all existing data collection stations in terms of collecting agency, data type, availability, as well as other pertinent parameters. It also shows the spatial distribution of data types. This directory is also stored on a computer file at the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor., Michigan.

A3.5 ACCURACY OF WATER LEVEL GAUGES AND DATA

Numerous studies and reports, by the several agencies involved, on water level accuracy have been completed both for general use and specifically for the Great Lakes System. Routinely, they identify the accuracy required for instantaneous gauge values and for the water level averages used to obtain longer term data values in the areas of study.

A review of investigations of instantaneous gauge accuracies, which develops the error budget over intake pipes, sumps, float responses, mechanical tolerances, etc., indicates that the collection methods employed in the Great Lakes obtain repeatable values and have been successfully employed when computed as means. Resolutions for this type of collection are on the order of 0.003 metre.

The long-term average water level data are determined from monthly mean values, based on daily mean values, which are obtained from the hourly values measured at each gauge site. All studies, which compared gauge data on the individual lakes show good correlation between the sites. When these data values are utilized in the transfer of elevations by water level transfer techniques, using 20 to 28 months of mean gauge data, the comparisons are equal to, or better than, first-order geodetic levelling techniques. Two scientific investigations, one Canadian and one U.S., provide authenticity to this method, which has been employed satisfactorily since 1935. The Canadian work suggests the water level transfers are valid when the gauging sites are 50 kilometers or more apart. The U.S. work was even more extensive and utilized both Canadian and U.S. information from all water level gauges on Lake Ontario and a first-order level line surrounding the perimeter of the Lake. The results showed that elevations determined from water level transfers using average water level data values were actually better than elevations determined from first-order geodetic levelling around the Lake tied to the same gauges.

A3.6 DATA COORDINATION AND DISSEMINATION

Section A3.3 describes the principal data collection agencies in Canada and the United States. The data collected by these agencies are normally provided to the public or other agencies directly without going through any procedure of international coordination. Streamflow or meteorologic data are such examples. The various means of data dissemination include periodic publications, mail, telex, or teletype. Some hydrometeorologic stations can be accessed by the public via telephone. More detailed descriptions of data dissemination to the public can be found in brochures and publications produced by the principal data collection agencies. This section deals with the methods of data coordination and dissemination pertaining to the operations of the IJC Boards of Control.

The IJC Boards of Control consist of members from government agencies in both Canada and the United States. Since some of these agencies also collect hydrometeorologic data, arrangements are often made by members within their Departments to have the needed data made available to the Boards. In other cases, data collection agencies are requested by the Boards to install additional stations, or to provide the data in a more timely fashion.

Regulation of Great Lakes water levels and outflows and related studies require data on Lake levels, major diversions, ice, and weed retardation in the Connecting Channels, and net basin supplies to the Lakes. The present methods in computing and coordinating these factors resulted from work done by the Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data which was established in 1953.

Prior to 1953, data pertaining to the hydraulic and hydrologic factors of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River were collected and compiled independently by the responsible Federal agencies in Canada and the United States, with only superficial and informal coordination of some of the data. As a consequence, the data in many instances were developed on different bases and datum planes and were divergent in many respects. This situation resulted in a great deal of study and evaluation by each country of the data used by the other in the solution of international problems.

The quantity and scope of the international problems were greatly increased by the advent of extreme high lake levels in 1952 and by the immi- nent power and navigation development in the St. Lawrence River System. Recognizing that continued independent developnent of the basic data was illogical under the circumstances and that early agreement upon the hydraulic and hydrologic factors was of paramount importance, several departments in Canada and the United States opened negotiations early in 1953 for the purpose of establishing a basis for developnent and acceptance of identical data by both countries. The negotiations culminated in a meeting of representatives of the interested agencies on 7 May 1953. At the meeting, the Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic 'and Hydrologic Data was formed to study the problem and to establish a basis of procedure. This Committee was established as an advisory group to the agencies of the United States and Canada charged with the responsibility for collecting and compiling Great Lakes hydraulic and hydrologic data. Present membership consists of representatives from federal agencies in Canada and the United States.

During the past 30 years, the Coordinating.Committee has made several major accomplishinents in the area of data coordination. Highlights include: the establishment of the International Great Lakes Datum, 1955 (IGLD, 1955); the methods of computing flows in the Connecting Channels; studies of the apparent vertical movement in the Great Lakes Basin; and coordinated physical dimensions of the Great Lakes Basins such as drainage basin boundary and area, surface areas and volumes of the Great Lakes, their shoreline lengths, etc. Other areas also under the supervision of the Coordinating Comnittee include the methods of flow measurements, and precise leveling for the purpose of updating the IGLD, 1955.

At present, the outflows of Lakes Superior and Ontario are determined by the appropriate IJC Boards, using methods developed by the Coordinating Committee. The flows in the unregulated St. Clair-Detroit River system are currently computed by the Committee since there is no IJC Board established for this system. The outflow of Lake Erie is also not regulated. Determination of flows in the Niagara River is made by the International Niagara Board of Control using a method developed by the Coordinating Committee.

Net basin supply is the principal factor considered in Great Lakes regulation. Because lake levels fluctuate according to the magnitudes of the supplies, the outflows of the regulated lake must be adjusted accordingly to maintain the lake levels within certain desirable ranges. All regulation plans used at present have been tested using historic net basin supplies to evaluate the performance of the plans. Evaluation of a plan is made by examining the resulting water levels and outflows that would have occurred on the Great Lakes if such a regulation plan had been in effect over a period of time, and with the Great Lakes experiencing the same sequences and magnitudes of supplies for the same period. The performance of a regulation plan is evaluated by comparing the resulting levels and flows with those under preproject conditions, or another plan, or by examining the degree to which the resulting levels and flows satisfy the requirements and criteria set for regulation.

Net basin supply is a term used to describe the water which a lake receives from precipitation on both its surface and on its own land drainage basin, less the net effect of evaporation and condensation on the lake surface. With presently available techniques, some of these.factors, especially supplies for the early years, cannot be determined accurately. Therefore, the net basin supplies are computed by employing reliable lake level and flow records for the required time periods (monthly, quarter-monthly, or weekly).

The values of outflows and inflows are determined by the IJC Boards using methods developed by the Coordinating Cormnit tee. This involves computing the channel flows using river stages or slopes and flows through structures such as navigation locks, compensating works, and power plants. Diversions into and out of the lake areobtained from the agencies responsible for the management of these diversions. The changes in storage are determined by measuring the differences in lake levels at the beginning and at the end of the period.

Research is being done on the forecast of net basin supplies. As described earlier, net basin supply is defined as the water which a lake receives from precipitation on both its surface and on itsown land drainage basin less the net effect of evaporation and condensation on the lake sur-. face. Mathematically, net basin supply for a lake may be expressed as follows:

Net basin supply = overlake precipitation + tributary streamflow - evaporation

Accurate long-term forecasts (6-12 months) of the weather are not probable in the foreseeable future. Therefore, it may be desirable to take advantage of the long timelapse response of the Great Lakes water levels to the existing conditions in the drainage basin. Accurate, advance knowledge of the soil moisture content and snow-water equivalent on the basin may assist in alleviating the problems of extreme high and low lake levels.

A3.7 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING AND FUTURE DATA ACQUISITION TECHNIQUES

A3.7.1 General

Section A3.2 describes briefly how each of the hydrometeorologic parameters is measured. Section A3.3 lists the data collection agencies as well as the networks of stations these agencies operate. In general, the techniques used in the measurement, as well as the method of data storage and transmittal, are left up to the agencies concerned with the data collection, and are not a matter of great concern to the IJC Boards. For example, present water level measuring instruments can measure water levels to the nearest 0.01 metre (some instruments to the nearest 0.001 metre). Temperature can be observed to the nearest 0.1 degree and flow within 5 percent. Seldom would the IJC Boards require any more accuracy than that now being measured and published. However, the methods of collection of some parameters are now being closely researched. The following section deals with the possibilities for improving the techniques of some hydrometeorologic data collection.

A3.7.2 State-of-the-Art Data Collection

In the future, remote sensing measurements, in combination with conventional methods of data collection, could provide frequent and timely information on snowpack areal extent, water equivalent and depth, as well as prevailing soil moisture conditions. Air- and space-borne sensors provide a more extensive survey of snow cover and soil moisture conditions in the Basin than can be done practically from the ground. The most promising techniques to provide the necessary data appear to be airborne gamma radiation and space-borne visible, near- and thermal-infrared, and microwave sensors. Since the late 1960s, research has been conducted in both the United States and Canada to develop a technique for using the earth's natural gamma radiation attenuation to measure snow-water equivalent and soil moisture conditions from low-flying aircraft. From this early research, the N[JS has implemented an operational airborne gamma radiation snow survey program in the upper midwest to provide reliable real-time snow-water equivalent data for use in the spring flood forecasts for the region. Additionally, the airborne technique is used to calculate mean areal soil moisture values for critical times in the hydrologic and agricultural cycles. The Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) has also been using the airborne gamma radiation attenuation technique for determining snow-water equivalent conditions in Ontario on an operational basis.

To date, the principal operational space-borne sensors aboard the Landsat, Nimbus, and NOAA satellites have been limited in their utility since they only carry visible and near- and thermal-infrared sensors. Such sensors cannot see through clouds and, thus, at critical times cannot measure the surface reflectance of the earth. These sensors can, however, monitor the areal extent of the snowpack within acceptable accuracies. Variables such as snowpack water equivalent, snow depth, snow albedo, and underlying soil conditions cannot be measured by these existing operational satellites.

Recent results, obtained from experiments and research satellites indicate that some of these limitations may be overcome in the future by using space-borne microwave sensors along with the standard visible, infrared, and thermal imaging sensors. Microwaves propagate through clouds and, thus, can be used to monitor snow cover conditions under all weather conditions. Moreover, microwaves penetrate snow and can indicate conditions within the snowpack such as water equivalent, depth, and surface soil state (frozen or thawed). Presently, NASA is conducting extensive research to outline requirements for developing an operational, space-borne microwave sensor.

With the advent of the Landsat earth resources satellites and NOAA's GOES system, a satellite data collection and transmission capability has become a reality. This capability, known as the Data Collection System (DCS), consists of synchronous, geostationary satellites, groundbased microwave-transmitting Data Collection Platforms (DCPs), ground-receive stations (downlinks), and data dissemination centers. The DCS can collect and distribute environmental data measured by remotely located DCPs on land, sea, or in the atmosphere in a routine or emergency manner. The DCPs are environmental sensing devices with radio transmission capabilities to relay data as required.

DCPs have been used with instrumented buoys, river gauges, and automated weather stations. Examples of data received through the DCS and which are relevant to this study include information on wind speed and direction, precipitation, temperature, humidity, ambient pressures and water level data. In fact, any measurement taken with an associated analog signal could be converted to a digital signal for transmission, retrieval and storage through the DCS. A3.7.3 Lake Superior Water Supply Study

During the winter of 1982-83, the Detroit District, COE, in cooperation with the NWS, GSC, and Environment Canada, conducted an airborne gamma radiation snow survey project over the Lake Superior Drainage Basin. The objective of the 1982-83 Lake Superior snow survey was to demonstrate the capabilities of the airborne gamma radiation attenuation technique for gathering reliable, real-tine, snowpack water equivalent data over the Basin. An additional motive for the project was to explore the operational capabilities of this technique for measuring conditions over the entire Great Lakes. The data gathered during the winter survey were used to assess potential spring and summer water supplies to Lake Superior and as test input to hydrologic response models under development.

During the Winter of 1982-83, airborne data were collected over United States and Canadian flight lines by the NWS. The GSC acquired airborne data over a portion of the Canadian flight line network, concurrent with the activities of the NWS. This was done to test the effectiveness and performance of the different gamma radiation systems used by the respective agencies. The Detroit District, COE, supplied necessary ground reference data (ground truth) on the United States portion of the Basin, while Environment Canada supplied ground reference data on the Canadian portion.

The Winter 1982-83 pilot program indicates that the airborne.measurement technique can provide reliable, real-time, snow-water equivalent data. Snow water storage estimates were derived and used as input to the hydrologic response models for the Basin.

The Detroit District, COE, has prepared a plan of study to continue and expand these study actions over a 5-year period. This began with the 1982-83 winter measurements and will continue through the winter of 1986-87. The study includes: (1) airborne gamma radiation measurements of snow-water equivalent and soil moisture conditions on a regular basis; (2) automation of key hydrometeorologic study gauges within the Basin; (3) development of operational links between weather satellite data and the modeling process; and (4) further refinements in water supply forecasting procedures using numerical models for the Lake.

The program is being conducted as an international, cooperative study involving the COE, NOAA, Environment Canada's Inland Waters Directorate and Atmospheric Environment Service, and the GSC. These agencies are assisting in the collection, evaluation, and development of ground, airborne, and satellite data over the study period. Water supply forecasting models are being modified to utilize the airborne and satellite snowpack and soil moisture measurements collected through the study. Evaluations of data utility and shortcomings and overall model sensitivities are continually being conducted.

An initial phase of the study is to automate ten climatic reporting stations in the United States portion of the Basin to provide point measurements of snowpack and soil moisture conditions on a real-time basis. Data collected from these stations are being used: (I) as input to the continuous hydrologic response ~nodels; and, (2) for calibration of airborne and satellite data. These al~to~llatedstations utilize a satellite data transmission link through the GOES Data Collection System.

Meteorologic and land resources satellite imagery will be used in later phases of the study to establish an operational. link between existing and future generation satellite sensors and the hydrology response models for the Lake. This, in turn, could diminish the need for regular operational airborne measurements.

The Lake Superior water supply study should act as a developmental link between present forecasting procedures and future automated data collection and processing techniques employed on an operational basis. As the study proceeds, the possibility of ustrlg nethods developed and lessons learned to assess water supply conditions on the other Great Lakes could be realized.

A3 .8 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGE1ENTS

There are established a large number of formal and informal local, national, and international institutional arrangements which directly or indirectly serve to facilitate the management of Great Lakes data. These arrangements are largely of interagency nature and address planning and cost sharing of: standardized data networks; information exchange; data acquisition, processing, archiving and delivery systems; and, cooperative research efforts.

A3.8.1 International Exchange System

The International Exchange System (IES) is used to help meet the requirement for international meteorologic data. The IES consists of low- speed teletypewriter channel-s, high-speed data channels, and high-speed facsimile channels. The channels include radio teletypewriter, long-line, cable, and satellite channels operating from 60 to 3,000 words pe-r minute. Data are exchanged on a first-in-first-out basis with appropriate priorities and in time-block scl~edules,where necessary. Operating procedures are determined in conformance with World Meteorological Organization (\n.IO) standards. Transmissions between the United States and Canatla are made to and from these channels by the NOAA IBM 4341 communications computer at Suitland, Maryland, .and the AES communications computer in Toronto, Ontario.

A3.8.2 International Institutional Arrangements

International institutional arrangements related to Great Lakes water management are usually developed under the auspices of the IJC. Subse- quently, many supporting agencies have establistled various data and information arrangements which directly serve the interests of the IJC. In addition, many inter-agency arrangements have been established largely to serve the missions of the specific agencies; however, in an indirect sense several of these arrangements address the interests :.I? Lhe IJC. A brief overview of some of the formal and informal arrangements is presented as follows: a. The Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data carries out studies and formulates a basis for coordination and use of common data;

b. The US/Canada Ice Information Working Group facilitates the coordination of Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River ice information exchange including operational and research activities related to ice conditions;

c. Under standards, regulations and procedures established by the World Meteorological Organization, official meteorologic networks are operated by NWS and AES and the real-time exchange of standardized data takes place between these agencies via telecommunications centres;

d. A 5-year program, known as the Lake Superior Water Supply Study, began in 1982 and is being conducted as an international cooperative effort involving the COE, NOAA, Environment Canada, and Energy, Mines and Resources Canada. These agencies are assisting in the collection, evaluation and development of ground, airborne, and satellite data over the study period in support of refining forecast models to assess water supplies to Lake Superior;

e. The International Niagara Committee was created by the 1950 Niagara Treaty to monitor and report to the governments the amount of water available for purposes of the Treaty. The membership of the Committee is composed of representatives from Environment Canada and the COE;

f. Several United States and Canadian agencies use the facilities of NESDIS to transmit data from their DCPs;

g. United States and Canadian power entities operate gauge networks in the St. Marys, Niagara, and St. Lawrence Rivers; and,

h. The International Association for Great Lakes Research, a private organization of individuals, corporations and universities, was established to discuss and coordinate research activities.

A3.8.3 Canadian Institutional Arrangements

a. The AES primary meteorologic network is augmented in real-time by observation stations operated by Transport Canada's Flight Service Stations;

b. The cooperative climate network administered by AES includes the participation of such agencies as Ontario Hydro, and the Ontario Ministries of Environment and Natural Resources. AES maintains an accessible historic archive of these standardized data;

c. Under Federal-Provincial Cost-shared Agreements, a cooperative streamflow network has been established by WSC, OMOE, OMNR, and OH. Further, WSC maintains water level stations operated under a Memorandum of Understanding with the Canadian Hydrographic Service; and, d. Access to AES' alphanumeric, facsimile, satelJ.:i.t:c?, and radar read- outs by outside agencies can be negotiated. Also, access to other federal agencies' real-time and archived data can be negotiated.

A3.5.4 United States Institutional Arrangements

a. The NWS administers a co~,perative climate network under arrangements similiar to the AES climate network;

b. The NWS basic real-time observing network is supplemented by stations operated by the Federal Aviation Administration;

c. The National Climatic Data Center of NESDIS manages the archiving of meteorologic data collected by several United States agencies;

d. A United States program to exchange data in standardized format ( SHEF-Standardized Hydrologic Excl~angeFormat) between NWS and the COE , including real-time USGS streamflow data, has begun and should be fully implemented by about 1985; and,

e. The USCS operates most of the river gauges, including a substantial stream gau,ui.ng program with the COE. Most of the streamflow data used by NWS in river forecasting is collected by the USGS.

For additional information, the matter of institutional arrangements on the local, State, and national levels in the United States has been described extensively in the following publicat .ions:

a. "Great Lakes Framework Study ," by the Great Lakes Basin CornmissLon;

b. "Great Lakes Institutions: A survey of Institutions concerned with the Water and Related Resources in the Great Lakes Basin," GLBC, .June 1969;

c. "A proposal for improving the management of the Great Lakes of the United States and Canada," Canada-United States University Seminar 1971-1972, January 1973;

d. "Great Lakes Directory of Universities, Research Institutes, i,i+braries and Agencies," Interagency Committee on Marine Sciences and Fngineering, Federal Council for Science and.Technology, 1976; and,

e. "Great Lakes Experts Directory," Michigan State IJniversity, Institute of Water Research, ed. Lois G. Wolfson, 1983.

This overview is not exhaustive, but does illustrate that significant data and information coordination and cooperation exists. It is inherent, however, that due to the large number of arrangements, overall coordination is lacking. SECTION A4 DATA NEEDS AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

A4.1 GENERAL

This section is a summary of the data needs and system requirements of the IJC Boards and agencies in Canada and the United States. Over forty responses were received by the Board as a result of its requests for information dated 30 October 1980 and 19 March 1982. The types of data identified in the responses range from basic hydrometeorologic data such as precipitation, temperature and wind, to other less-widely used data such as subsurface currents, sediment transport, etc. Since these data are used for a variety of purposes, a category of uses was defined.

The IJC Boards of Control (Lake Superior, Niagara, and St. Lawrence River) indicated that, at present, the lack of real-time data is not a critical problem. Most hydrometeorologic data used in the Boards' regulation plans are available in real-time or near real-time. However, in the future the Boards prefer to obtain real-time hydrometeorologic data from existing stations to assess water supply conditions. There are some agency requirements which would include adding new stations to ungauged areas or increasing the ,densities of existing station networks.

There is a general consensus among users that improvements are necessary to provide real-time hydrometeorologic data, particularly for input to basin-wide hydrologic models under development. In addition, the use of remote sensing techniques to gather data such as snow cover and soil moisture conditions over wide geographic areas is currently being studied. These two areas of research are not under the direction of the IJC Boards, but rather are carried out by the agencies responsible for providing the technical support to these Boards. If hydrologic models are to be used in the regulation of the Great Lakes, then more real-time data such as tributary streamflow, snow cover, and precipitation would be needed by the IJC Boards.

In reviewing the responses, it was noted that data requirements vary among the many users. The Board's intention of soliciting other Boards and agencies was to develop a program to satisfy present and future IJC Board needs. Nevertheless, the responses from the agencies also identify their future, needs. Although their needs are beyond the scope of this study, they are listed here as well. All needs identified have been divided into the following categories:

a. Great Lakes water level regulation and forecasts;

b. river basin, coastal zone, and water resources management, including flood forecasting;

c. power, navigation, recreational beaches and boating;

d. information service, ice and weather forecasts; and

e. lake, basin, or channel modeling, and atmospheric loading studies. Tables 10 and 11 identify the Board and agency data requirements for the various use categories. Sections A4.2 to A4.5 describe in more detail the needs of the Boards and agencies. Annex E lists the Boards and agencies which identified a data need and Annex F is a summary of these needs.

A4.2 INTERNATIONAL BOARDS AND COMMITTEES

A4.2.1 International Lake Superior Board of Control

The present data needs of the Lake Superior Board are generally satisfied. Water level data for Lakes Superior, Michigan-Huron, St. Clair and Erie used by the Lake Superior Board are available on a real-time basis in provisional form. Daily climatologic data are reviewed once a month to assess water supply conditions but are not presently used as direct inputs in regulation. Additional water level gauges on the Lakes are not needed now- or in the foreseeable future, but automation for real-time access to existing stations, including real-time weather data, is desired.

Daily tributary stage data would be provided by the USGS or the NWS in the United States and the Water Survey of Canada. These data would be used for supply forecast models which would be run routinely at the end of each month and more often if required. Thus, water level data from the NOS Interdata 8/16 computer in Rockville, Maryland; USGS tributary stage data from the Honeywell 6880 in Reston, Virginia; NWS tributary stage data from its IBM 3601195 computers in Suitland, Maryland; all need to be transmitted to a Harris 500 in Detroit and to an HP9836 in Cornwall. Streamflow data from several major tributaries to Lake Superior are available the day after observation from Ontario Hydro via telephone. WSC stage data from an:AMDAHL 470 computer in Guelph, Ontario, and CHS water level data, transmitted or made available by a CDC 6600 from Ottawa, Ontario, and a CDC Cyber 171 in Burlington, Ontario, are similarly needed.

Meteorologic data would be needed regularly at the end of each month, and at other times as required. These data would, in the United States, be provided by the NWS and would be transmitted using the same computers as the NWS stage data (IBM 3601195). In Canada, data are transmitted via the Atmospheric Environment Service (AES) alphanumeric communication system in Toronto. The AES currently maintains a high speed data line with the NWS. (Dissemination of AES data in the United States and vice versa, is a possibility.) Monthly forecasts of temperature, precipitation, percent sunshine, etc. would come from the same two sources and would be used to provide input to forecast models.

Currently, preliminary data of monthly precipitation at various stations are received about two working days after the end of each month. These data are received in Detroit via teletype from NWS and telephone from AES. The Canadian data are transmitted to the Canadian Regulation Representative via telephone, mail and telecopier from AES. Also, some weekly summary data are made available by AES to users, including the Lake Superior Board of Control. Table 10 - Summary of Improvements Suggested by Users

Data Types : Requirements Identified by Boards and Agencies

Precipitation :Increase the density of gauging network over land and lake and provide real-time data.

Air Temperature :Increase the density of gauging network over land and lake and provide real-time data.

Wind :Increase the density of gauging network over land and lake and provide real-time data.

Solar Radiation :Increase the density of gauging network over land and lake and provide real-time data.

Evaporation :Provide Gre timely analysis of data.

Dew Point Temperature:Increaae Effort of Data Collection

Radar (Rain) :Provide more timely analysia of data.

Weather Forecast :Improve accuracy and extend period of forecasts.

Ice (Lake and River) :Intensify St. Levrence River aurveys from Iroquois to Beauhamole. improve forecaat of ice :freeze-up. increaae use of satellite data.

Stream Plw :Inatall new statione. provide real-time data aervice.

Divereions :Provide wre timely acquisition of data.

Water Level :Considered adequate in the Great Lakes.

Water Currents :Increase data collection in channel and near ahore and harboura.

Ottawa River Plw :Increase frequency of information.

St. Lawrence River :Provide real-time information at Montreal, Lake St. Peter (high level) and along Stage :St. Lawrence (lw level).

Sediment Transport :Generally increase data collection near shoreline and harbours.

Channel Depth :Obtain channel depths in St. Harye River.

Snw Water Equiva1ent:Intenaify effort in data collection over the Great Lakee Basin and provide near real-time :data.

Soil Moisture :Intensify effort in data collection over the Great Lakes Basin and provide near real-time :data.

Ground Water :Intensify effort in data collection.

Wave :Increase use of wave rider buoys in Great Lakes.

~rosion/~eceasion :Increase aurveys along coastal zone.

Water Temperature :Increase measurel~ent of surface and eubsurface temperatures.

Water Quality :Increase sampling of atmoepheric deposition.

Evapotranepiration :Increase efforta in estimation. Table 11 - Summary of Present and Future Data Needs by Categoriee and Ueers

Uee : Great Lakee : Categoriee: Water Level : River Baeinl : : Lakee. Basin or :Regulation and : Coastal Zone/ : Pwer, Navigation.:Information Service : Channel Modeling. :Forecasts. and :Water Resources: Recreational : Ice/Wave/ : Atmoepheric Data Typee :Related Studies: Management :Beache8 and Boating: Weather Forecast : Loading Study

Precipitation :COE-D. ILSBC , :NCD :MS. IQWR. NUS :NCD. CLERL. tlNNR. :INBC. ISLRBC : :COE-D

Air Temperature :ISLRBC, COE-D. : :US, mNR. AVS :cL.ERL. NCD. a3E-D :ILSBC. INBC : W ind :ILSBC , INBC . :ODNR :mUR :MRIR, NUS :CLERL, NCD :ISLRBC Solar Radiation :ILSBC . ISLRBC : :nNNR :CLERL , NCD Evaporation :ILSBC, ISLRBC : :US. MINU :CLERL , NCD

Dew Point :ILSBC

Radar (Rain) :AES

Weather Forecast :ILSBC. ISLRBC, :NCD :La. WE-D :NCD, ODE-D :COE-D. INBC :

Ice (Lake and River) :COE-D, ISLRBC :WNR. COE-D :COE-D :NUS :Nus. ODE-D. CLERL :ILSBC. INBC :

Stream Plou :CLERL. USCS-IN :lUlNR. WiNR : :ntWR :CLERL :ILSBC, ISLRBC :CLERL, USGS-IN :

Diversione :ILSBC. INBC. : :CLERL :ISLRBC Water Level :COE-D. ILSBC . :ODNR :COE-D, CLERL :INBC. ISLRBC :

Water Currents :NIX. COE-D. : :NCD :CLERL, ODE-D :m.ODNR :

Ottawa River Flw :ISLRBC

St. Laurence Stage :ISLRBC :LCA

Sediment Transport : :COE-D, NCD : :NCD

Channel Depth :LCA

Snw Water Equivalent :ISLRBC, ILSBC, : :nmR :US, CLERL. mE-D :COE-D Soil Moisture :ILSBC . ISLRBC : :CLERL , COE-D Ground Water :USCS-IN

Wave :ODNR. IQiNR. : :NUS :COE-D

Erosion/Receeeion : :NYSDEC

Water Temperature :ISLRBC. ILSBC. : :NUS. AES :CLEM,. NCD :INBC

Water Quality :USCS-WI

Evapotranspiration :ILSBC. ISLRBC :NCD :NCD

CODE REP

AES - Atmospheric Environment Service. Environment Canada. COE-D - Corpe of Engineere. Detroit District. CLERL - Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory. NOAA. ILSBC - International Lake Superior Board of Control. ISLRBC - International St. Lawrence River Board of Control. LCA - Lake Carrier's Aaeociation. UDNR - Uichigan Department of Natural Resources. WHNR - Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. NCD - North Central Division. Corps of Engineers. NUS - National Weather Service. NOAA. NYSDEC - New York State Department of Environmental Coneervation. ODNR - Ohio Department of Natural Resources. USGS - United States Geological Survey. Discharge measurements will be needed by the Lake Superior Board to recalibrate the Lake Superior Compensating Works. An accurate rating for the Compensating Works is required in the computation of the Lake Superior outflows. Other future needs are related to the development of hydrologic forecast models. Data will ,be required on near real-time basis for these models to become operational. These data include soil moisture and water equivalent of snowpack in the Lake Superior, and Lakes Michigan-Huron Basins. Other data that might also be required on a real-time basis include precipitation, streamflow, air temperature, percent sunshine and snowfall. Requirements would depend on the types of models. In general, these models are intended to forecast supplies to the Great Lakes, and if proven feasible, might ultimately replace the traditional methods of computing supplies as described in Section A3.6. Water level data in the St. Marys River are also needed in order to monitor and study ice jams in the river.

A4.2.2 International Niagara Board of Control and International Niagara Committee

The Board's primary data requirements are related to the regulation of the Chippawa-Grass Island Pool, the flow over Niagara Falls, and the installation and removal of the ice boom. During the winter, weekly data are needed on the area and thickness of the ice cover on Lake Erie. During the spring melt, ice and weather data are required more frequently (twice a week). The data are required in the offices of the Uni.ted States and Canadian Chairmen of both the Board and Working Committee.

In conjunction with determining a date to open the ice boom each spring, we,ather forecasts are needed. Recorded and forecast wind, temperature, and ice data from the lake and the Niagara River are required on a daily (real-time) basis during thla time of the year. The data are used in forecasting ice area and melt rate a1.1t1 I.:-L~I?9jrater temperatures. Data would be received at a water control mini-coiaputer in Buffalo, a Honeywell 6620 in the North Central Division Office irl Chicago, and a CDC Cyber 171 in Burlington.

The Board needs to obtain coordinated discharge data for the Niagara River and Lake Erie outflow within 2 months of the occurrence. Currently it is more than 2 months before these data arc? available. The Board requires discharge measurements in the lower Niagara River every 3 to 5 years, as well as better hydrographic data at the measure:nent location.

The Board has a need for up-to-date hydrographic information in the Fort Erie - Squaw Island area for use in the mathematical model of the upper Niagara River. Discharge measurements are also needed for improved calibration of the model.

The Niagara Committee considers that the present network of water level gauges, the method of data collection, and the c1.1rrent procedure to collect ice information, are adequate in terms of coverage and timely response for the present and future. The Committee does not have a need for real-time data. It relies upon the Power Entities for its data and conducts periodic inspections to ensure the accuracy of the data. A4.2.3 International St. Lawrence River Board of Control

The present network of Lake Ontario water level gauges used by the St. Lawrence River Board is considered an accurate representation of the Lake Ontario level and, therefore, no additional gauges will be required in the foreseeable future. The Board, however, could utilize both improved short-term (3-day) and long-term (monthly) weather forecasts and real-time data on soil moisture and water equivalent of snowpack on the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Basin. The Board also could utilize improved monitoring of ice conditions from Iroquois, Ontario, to Beauharnois, Quebec, to aid in Lake Ontario regulation.

The regulation of Lake Ontario also requires an advance indication of freeze-up in the St. Lawrence River which restricts flows. Forecasts of freeze-up are made by the Board using air and water temperature data. Flood levels at Montreal and Lake St. Peter are also needed by the Board for alleviating flood damages and reducing power losses. More frequent information on streamflow and improved flow forecasting for the Ottawa River Drainage Basin would also aid in Lake Ontario regulation. During critical water profile periods, the Board desires additional real-time water level information in the St. Lawrence River to aid navigation.

In conjunction with hydrologic models currently being developed, the St. Lawrence River Board of Control will need real-time climatologic data. Soil moisture and snowpack water equivalent measurements are needed as well as climate forecasts. These data would be transmitted from the NOAA 3601195 in Suitland and the new AES Communication System to the offices of the Board's Regulation Representatives. The climatologic dataiforecasts would also be used in ice forecasts and dissipation models. Currently, all data are received via telephone and facsimile.

There is the possibility that the St. Lawrence River Board may, in the foreseeable future, develop closer ties with the Ottawa River Planning Board. The purpose would be to operate both the St. Lawrence and Ottawa Rivers to minimize flooding at Montreal. Further discussions are expected.

A4.2.4 International Great Lakes Water Quality Board

The Water Quality Board is concerned with the identification and the concentration of constituents in the waters of the Great Lakes, as well as the sources and the loadings of these constituents. Information is collected for the International Joint Commission, by agencies in Canada and the United States through surveillance and monitoring activities. The Board has not identified any need for additional hydrometeorologic data.

A4.2.5 International Great Lakes Science Advisory Board

The Science Advisory Board advises the International Joint Commission with respect to the adequacy of scientific knowledge and research as they relate to the Great Lakes. The Board has not identified any need for additional hydrometeorologic data. A4.2.6 Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data

As described in Section A3.6, the Coordinating Committee provides advice to the government agencies charged with the responsibility for collecting and compiling the Great Lakes hydraulic and hydrologic data. Much of the work has been transferred to the IJC Boards of Control. These include the determination of flows in the St. Marys and St. Lawrence Rivers, the methods of determining lake levels and storages, net basin supplies, and ice retardation. The remaining functions of the Committee and the data requirements are described briefly below:

a. Determination of flows in the St. Clair, Detroit, and Niagara Rivers

The determination of flows in the St. Clair, Detroit, and Niagara Rivers require water level and power diversion data. Also required are stage-discharge relationships for several locations in these rivers. The present needs are generally satisfied and no drastic change in the needs is expected in the near future.

b. Current-Meter lleasurenents in the Great Lakes Connecting Channels

Current-meter measurements are carried out by the COE and Water Survey of Canada in all the Great Lakes Connecting Channels and the St. Lawrence River. These measurements are carried out under the auspices of the Committee at the request of the IJC Boards of Control. The two agencies provide the measurement crew, equipment, and funding required. The needs of the Boards are met as long as these services are available.

c. Precise Leveling for the Update of the International Great Lakes Datum 1955 (IGLD 1955)

A program of precise leveling was initiated by the Coordinating Committee in 1983. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed by the NOAA and the COE for the United States and the Departments of Environment and Energy, Mines and Resources for Canada. Over 2,000 kilometres of levelling was completed for the program update by the field parties of both the U.S. National Geodetic Survey and the Geodetic Survey of Canada, at an estimated cost of 1.2 million dollars. An up-to-date datum is of vital importance to the hydraulic community and the water managers of the Great Lakes Basin. The Vertical Control-Water Levels Subcommittee has scheduled October 1986 as the date for publication of the new elevation.

A4.3 UNITED STATES AND CANADIAN FEDERAL AGENCIES

A4.3.1 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

The COE has three offices which provide technical support to the Great Lakes area of responsibility of the IJC. The offices and support provided are: . a) the Buffalo District, which supports the Chairman of the United States Sections of the Working Committee of the Niagara and St. Lawrence. River Boards of. Control and the United States Regulation Representative of the St. Lawrence River Board; b) the Detroit District, which supports the United States Regulation Representative of the Lake Superior Board of Control and provides technical assistance to the Niagara Board; and, c) the North Central-Division (NCD) located in Chicago, which supports the Chairman of the United States Section of the three Boards of Control noted above. The COE needs a basin-wide hydrometeorologic network in its support of these three Boards. Although each District is concerned with a portion of the Basin, systemic consideration is needed by the Boards of Control that the COE supports. In addition, the Detroit District is responsible for publishing basin-wide Lake level and Connecting Channel forecasts. The COE North Central Division's water management responsibilities cover the entire United States portion of -the Great Lakes Basin, and therefore, needs a basin-wide data. system.

The COE has gauges which collect water level data in the Great Lakes Connecting Channels, such as the St. Marys and Niagara Rivers; 14 of which will become real-time with the installation of DCPs. However, for the most part, the COE relies upon other agencies for data acquisition and archiving; receiving certain data via facsimile, teletype, and the telephone. The COE is presently implementing a Master Plan for Water Control Data System. When fully implemented this system will provide a technical data system to meet the future data requirements presently envisioned by the COE. However, to avoid duplication, reliance will continue to be largely on the other responsible data gathering agencies.

Long-term weather forecasts will be required in the future to .assess flood potentials on the rivers tributary to the Great Lakes. The COE may also need river sediment data as well as surface and subsurface water current data to estimate material to be dredged from harbours, or material available for beach nourishment.

Much of the NCD Master Plan was developed with the express intent of meeting the requirements to support the IJC Boards and other COE activities. When fully implemented, the Master Plan system will be able to utilize the data systems of the various agencies involved in data collection in the United States and also have a tie to the Canadian data collection agencies for basin-wide coverage and coordination. The Master Plan, to that end, is being coordinated with all the United States data collection agencies. (The COE is coordinating with counterpart agencies in Canada through the auspices of the International Great Lakes Technical Information Network Board). Some. of the requirements of the COE proposed system are discussed below.

a. External Communication

The system must be capable of interfacing COE elements (District, Division and Washington, D.C. headquarters), with data providers in both the United States and Canada. The system should be able to both receive and transmit data in low and high speed digital communications, generate messages and have automatic calllanswer capabilities. External communications should be possible on a 24-hour basis (when needed) automatically. b. Programs

Computer programs, such as the basin supply models being developed at GLERL and ice accumulation/melt forecast models, will be used by NCD. This will ensure that all available information is being fully utilized in the regulation decision-making process. The computer model results will also enable decision-making to consider a number of alternatives and assess their possible consequences before arriving at a final decision. Software being developed by the COE IIydrologic Engineering Center will be used for data base management and communication.

Data Acquisition and Communication

The system must provide accurate data in a reliable and timely manner, especially during ice jams, flooding and other emergency events. A mininun of 95 percent of data stations should report correctly in a specified time frame. The system must be easily maintained and require no additional staffing to operate. The data to be acquired include: precipitation, evaporation, wind direction and speed, and air temperature (from NWS); snowpack water equivalent and soil moisture (from NWS and/or NESDIS); ice coverage, thickness and quality and lake surface temperatures (from NESDIS); Lake and Connecting Channels water levels (from NOS); and, stages on the tributaries (from NWS and USGS). Similarly, all of the above categories of data would be obtained through an automated system from the appropriate Canadian agencies.

Information Manipulation and Display

The system must be able to respond to requests for data display and be able to present the data in requested formats on designated media. Processing and analyses may involve calculations, tabulations and graphical plotting. Periodic and one-time reports, in graphical or tabular form, must be generated with little or no manpower requirements. Personnel must have instant access to data for modeling, forecasting and other activities without compromising data integrity in the process.

e. Data Storage for Real-Time Use

The system must facilitate the storage of all data pertinent to IJC Board water management activities that are collected during a specified period of time. The system must also offer timely and accurate access to these data on a continuous basis. The facilities must support on-line computer requests for information without frequent human intervention to make certain volumes of data media available. Also, the system must be able to detect data that are unreasonable or not designated for storage.

f. Total System Requirements

The ability of the Corps to support the IJC is predicated upon data reliability and timeliness, the effectiveness of the system to address alternative scenarios, and an easily maintained data system that offers the required support without additional manpower. The entire system (data acquisition and manipulation and model runs) must be capable of functioning under maximum demand on a 24-hour basis. To avoid duplication, the Corps' Master Plan System will make maximum use of the data collection systems in place or being developed.

A4.3.2 United States Geological Survey

The USGS does not require any real-time data within the Great Lakes Basin because the USGS does not have the responsibility for forecasting or regulating flows into or out of the Great Lakes. The data system requirements of the USGS are to provide the stage or discharge data in a real-time manner, as needed, on a system that is accessible by the users, and to cooperate in expanding the network of automated gauges to meet the future data requirements of the users. There are presently only eight streanflow gauging sites where real-time data can be retrieved in a machine readable format. These are the sites where the stage data are being collected by a data collection platform (DCP) or land-line telemetry which can be accessed directly by computer.

Real-time data are available at 71 more streamflow gauging sites where telemarks have been installed or where observers report the stage by telephone. These two mechanisms provide stage data at a given instant but are not an efficient system for continous monitoring over time. Many of these gauges with real-time reporting capability are reported to River Forecast Centers of the National Weather Service. These data, which are usually one to four stage and/or discharge readings per day, are stored on NOAA's IBM 3601195. Stage data for these 71 telemetry sites are processed through the USGS WATSTOKE system and, along with non-telemetry sites and provisional discharge data, are available from USGS about two months after measurement. Where funding permits, the USGS provides provisional discharge data on a monthly basis. If the data are needed more frequently than on a monthly basis, consideration is given to operation of a DCP or some other continuous real-time monitoring system.

To meet its own technical information system requirements, the USGS is upgrading its data dissemination network through a distributed information system. All USGS Districts in the Great Lakes Basin, except Michigan, have obtained PRIIIE mini-computers and will be storing in-house streamflow data . from their District. These PRIME mini-computers will be connected through a telecommunications network being established by the USGS. The dissemination of streamflow data to IJC Boards. and other. interested users, such as the COE and NWS, should be expedited under the Distributed Information System. In addition, the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, District Office has installed a receive station for satellite telemetry and linked it to a PRIME mini- computer. Since about September 1984, real-time data for all satellite telemetry streanflow stations in the Great Lakes Basin have been available on this PRIME mini-computer.

The gauging station network for each State was examined by USGS to determine where additional gauges might be needed. Particular attention was given to the most downstream gauges in a drainage basin. Examination of the entire Great Lakes Region resulted in the following USGS recommendations for additional stations: 1. Iron River Bayfield County 440 square kilometres 2. Sand River Bayf ield County 180 square kilometres 3. Sioux River Bayfield County 180 square kilometres 4. Montreal River Iron County 720 square kilometres

1. Black River Gogebic County 570 square kilometres 2. Presque Isle Gogebic County 470 square kilometres 3. Waiska River Chippewa County 310 square kilometres

1. Whitefish River Delta County 980 square kilometres 2. Maple River Emmet County 570 square kilometres

Michigan - Lake Huron

1. Pine River Alcona County 780 square kilometres 2. Pigeon River Huron County 390 square kilometres

Minnesota - Lake Superior

1. Brule River Cook County 560 square kilometers

2. Temperance River , . Cook County 570 square kilometres

Ohio - Lake Erie

1. Toussaint Creek Ottawa County 100 square kilometres 2. Huron River Erie County 960 square kilometres 3. Vermillion River Erie County 670 square kilometres 4. Ashtabula River Ashtabula County 340 square kilometres

New York - Lake Erie

1. Cat taraugus Creek Cattaraugus County 1110 square kilometres 2. Chautauqua Creek Cattaraugus County 160 square kilometres 3. Eighteenmile Creek Erie County 310 square kilometres

New York - Lake Ontario

1. Johnson Creek Orleans County 230 square kilometres 2. Little Salmon River Oswego County 230 square kilometres

The total additional drainage area for the above suggested sites is 10800 square kilometres. This would increase the percent area gauged from 67 percent to 71 percent. There are 143 fewer gauging stations operating in the Basin at present than in 1977. However, the percent of area gauged decreased only from 69 percent to 67 percent during this period. Installing streamflow gauging stations at the 22 sites specified above would provide a better sampling distribution of the surface runoff to the Great Lakes. It would provide significant improvement of accuracy since most of the sites suggested for gauging would serve as an index for nearby drainage areas. The locations of the 22 sites are shown in Figure 8.

A4.3.3 National Ocean Service, NOAA

The NOS has indicated that no additional water level gauges are needed. However, the agency plans to automate data transmissions from all of the 54 water level gauge locations on the Great Lakes. A near real-time telemetry capability will also be incorporated for immediate responses to user needs. Permanent records will still be maintained for achiving and for quality control.

Data from over 500 precipitation stations in Canada and the U.S. are collected and processed by NOS to determine average precipitation over the Great Lakes Basin. No additional precipitation gauges are needed for this purpose in the United States.

In the future, the NOS'S water level measurement plans will be directed at:

a. obtaining more near real-time data by increasing automated collection and data processing;

b. increasing instrumentation for collection of data on barometric pressures, air temperature, water temperature, wind direction and air speed; and,

c. investigating and reviewing methods utilized to monitor the apparent vertical movement of land forms in the Great Lakes Basin.

The system requirements for NOS are to: (a) provide computer-to- computer data access for all United States lake level gauges; and, (b) expand the present NOS network to meet the future data requirements of the IJC Boards.

At present, daily mean data for key gauges are received via telecopy at the.offices of the United States Board and Working Committee Chairmen. However, these data are not received on a real-time basis. Therefore, the NOS Interdata computer should be available to the other computer systems for fast and accurate data transmission. Further, during ice jams on the Con- necting Channels and wind storms on the lakes, real-time data (hourly, at. least) are needed to monitor actual or potential flood events. Again, the NOS system needs to allow the users instantaneous data acquisition.

The NOS is also cooperating with the COE to implement the Master Plan noted previously. The Master Plan calls for automation of existing gauges and the installation of several additional gauges. The data system of NOS should ensure that the COE future data system requirements are met, that is, that the mini-computers dedicated to water control at both the Detroit and Buffalo District Offices, and the North Central Division's micro-computer, 94- 91' !I,,- tu~ HI,. wq. u:#- FIGURE 8 I International Great Lakes Technical Information Network Study Board Hydrology Committee Locations of Additional Streamflow Stations Recommended by United States Geological Survey and Water Survey of Canada

46'

4 2.

74.

LEGEND

Locations of additional

80. streamf low stations SCALE OF MILES 100 0 100 200 can access the NOS computer to obtain the data needed (on an automated real- time basis under certain conditions ).

A4.3.4 National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, NOAA

The NESDIS provides satellite imagery and data transmission services. The-agency, as a data supplier, has no present or future hydrometeorologic data needs.

Improvement is mutually desired by NESDIS and the IJC Boards in regard to dissemination of estimated ice coverage, thickness and quality. NESDIS is responsible for this activity, but it is a cooperative effort between NOS, NWS, NESDIS and the USCG. Data dissemination needs to be expanded to include the offices of the United States Working Committee Chairmen of the Niagara and St. Lawrence River Boards and the United States Regulation Representative of the Lake Superior Board. Also desirable would be an increase in the frequency of data gathering and dissenination during the ice formation/melt period. A remote sensor is needed that does not depend upon "cloud free" conditions.

A4.3.5 National Weather Service, NOAA

Additional data buoys which collect meteorologic data would be required by the NWS to cover current gaps in the data collection networks. Areas of concern include eastern and central Lake Erie, eastern and western Lake Ontario and central Lake Michigan. The NWS would also like to increase the number of wave rider buoys in southern Lake Huron and in Lake Erie for wave forecasts. Eight automated coastal stations recording meteorologic parameters are required to form the network. The NUS would also like to install sensors on board several Coast Guard cutters and lake carriers to measure lake water temperature for ice forecast purposes.

The NWS considers that there is a need for an all-weather radar satellite observation system to evaluate lake ice characteristics. Surface reports and various types of aerial reconnaissance cannot provide comprehensive, real-time ice information. Areal estimates of lake and meteorologic variables by satellites , for input to mathematical models, would improve hydrologic forecasting for the Great Lakes.

Weather and ice forecasts, which are developed using the most detailed observations available, are a principal product of the NWS. Improvements in the accuracy of most forecasts are considered to be limited most by the lack of observation points, low frequency of reports from these points, errors in making areal estimates from point measurements, and the delay involved in getting data to processing centres. The NTJS maintains a priority listing of current reporting stations recommended for conversion to automatically observe and transmit data to the processing centres. A priority descending from one to ten is associated with the recommendation for each of these stations. Ice and weather forecasting will continue to require lake water temperature data and satellite observations of ice. To a large degree, the NWS already has data systems in existence that serve the IJC Boards. The NWS is in the process of improving its own data handling and transmission capabilities under the AFOS Program, as described in Section A3.3.9. This will replace the existing teletype and facsi~nilecir- cuits used by the COE Buffalo and Detroit offices and the North Central Division office in Chicago, to obtain NWS data in support of the IJC Boards. A new link must supply data to these COE offices.

Assuming that the new data communication links are successful in meeting the needs of the ~oards,'irnprovernents to data sensing (gauge) networks would be raised in priority. The Great Lakes water supply forecast models being developed by other agencies will utilize daily data. Thus, certain precipitation and stage gauges may need to be automated by their owners to provide real-time access (instead of precipitation provided as total monthly values after the end of the month). With the trend being toward fewer gauges, automation of key gauges becomes increasingly important. It is anticipated that new reporting stations would augment data already resident on the NOAA Central Computer and that these data could be transmitted to the Boards' computers through mini-computers (Data General S140) at the RFCs or through AFOS.

The International Lake Superior and St. Lawrence River Boards of Control stated that snowpack water equivalent and soil moisture data are future requirements. The NWS does not yet have a system to gather and transmit snowpack data in the Great T.akes Basin. The data transmission system used should be the same as for the precipitation data, and provide for weekly updating of data during the snow season. During the crop season, crop moisture indices are sent out on the NWS facsimile circuit about once a week. Also, antecedent precipitation indices are available from the River Forecast Centers on a continuous basis for a limited number of the Great Lakes tributary basins. The data used to compute the indices could be provided the Boards, perhaps with modifications and/or increases in coverage intensity, for input to the water supply models.

h4.3.6 Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, NOAA

The Lake llydrology Group of GLERL provides support to users and agencies responsible for management and analysis of the Great Lakes water resources. This group conducts research in several areas relevant to hydrometeorologic data system needs. These include modeling of large basin runoff, lake levels, water balance, unsteady flow in Connecting Channels, lake evaporation and ice conditions.

The GLERLts existing in-house data processing systems include a Digital Equipment Corporation VAX-11 mini-computer and an HPlOOO mini-computer, both - of which can link to the CDC Cyber 750 computer at NOAA's Envlronrnental Research Laboratories Offices in Boulder, Colorado. The future systems requirement for GLERL is the ability to access data from providers (to develop and test models) in direct or indirect telecommunications to tile computer/communications systems of NOS, NUS, AES, USGS, and WSC. Data are required on daily and monthly time scales on a real-time basis. a. Daily Data

The Lake Hydrology Group has requirements for real-time daily data, currently unmet, in connection with experimental forecasting of runoff to the Great Lakes with the GLERL Large Basin Runoff Model. Required are over-land precipitation and minimum and maximum air temperatures at selected sites within the Great Lakes Basin naintained by the NGJS and the AES. On a real- time basis, synoptic weather information for Canada, which AES distributes, is also accessible through NWS. Ties could be developed between GLERL and one of the NWS River Forecast Centers (RFC). Noncritical data desired are insolation, wind speed, and humidity. Data from the AES solar radiation network are accessible only from the Canadian Climate Centre's National Climate Archive, maintained on AES's AS/6 computer at Downsview, Ontario. Daily flow volumes into the Lakes are not required on a real-time basis, but preferably with relatively little delay for all first-upstream gauges on rivers emptying into the Lakes.

Daily flow volumes are collected by the USGS and by the Water Survey of Canada (WSC). GLERL requires greater density of streamflow gauging near each Lake for better determination of runoff volumes to each Lake. The need is acute for the Lake Superior Basin, but is evident on all Basins.

Real-time daily water surface temperatures are required from NESDIS for developing, testing and implementing experimental models to forecast lake evaporation. These data are required with wider coverage than presently available. Other daily data required with relatively little delay, but not on a real-time basis, include over-lake air temperature, wind speeds, and humidity. These data are presently extrapolated over the lake from nearshore land-based stations operated by the National Weather Service and may be supplemented in the future with the use of buoys.

The Lake Hydrology Group further requires daily ice thickness (St. Lawrence River) from the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, and water levels in Connecting Channels from the NOS on a real-time basis, for use in experimental models of unsteady flow in the St. Clair, Detroit, and St. Lawrence Rivers. GLERL has identified future needs of daily velocities in the Connecting Channels and plans to collect these data.

b. Monthly Data

While some of the following monthly data requirements would be satisfied if the preceding daily data requirements are met, a listing of these data is provided for completeness.

The Lake Hydrology Group maintains the Great Lakes Hydrologic Response Models for lake level routing determinations to assess management strategies and natural effects. Combined with the Large Basin Runoff Model in an experimental forecasting application, these models require real-time monthly data for overlake precipitation (from the NWS), flow volumes (runoff from the USGS and diversions from the COE), and lake evaporation (to be collected by GLERL). Additionally, over-basin precipitation and air temperatures are needed on a real-time basis for the climatic water balance models. The over- basin precipitation, air temperatures and,runoff flow volumes are collected by the agencies named under "Daily Data."

Improvement of the Large Basin Runoff Model was investigated in cooperation with the joint United States-Canada snow surveys on the Lake Superior Basin for the 1982-83 winter. This program was extended through the Winter of 1986-87. Anticipated future data requirements for experimental forecasting of runoff volumes to the lakes include monthly estimates of soil moisture and snowpack water equivalent on a real-time basis. While derived indices of soil moisture and snowpack water equivalent are provided by NWS RFCs in the United States and by the Canadian Climate Centre of AES, the need perceived by GLERL is for areal measurements or estimates from aerial surveys. Until available, access might be arranged from these agencies.

c. System Requirements

The technical information requirements of GLERL are summarized in Table 12. Many of the items might be currently obtained by direct linkages with the various data collection agencies. However, some of these items are being made available to other user agencies; other items are currently requested by other user agencies. It appears cost effective and more expedient for GLERL to form data links with another user agency currently receiving, or about to receive, these items from the collection agencies. This would provide an immediate solution not really suitable for the long term. As other user agencies make their needs known, it appears advisable to centralize data distribution in real-time for selected items. Then, more permanent and cost- effective data links can be established for real-time distribution of data for GLERL as a user. As an example, the International Lake Superior Board of Control has identified needs for daily tributary stages, daily lake levels, and real-time daily precipitation, sunshine, dewpoints, and air temperatures; these data are to be received by COE, Detroit District. Some monthly data are currently received on a real-time basis. GLERL's Hydrology Group is currently exploring data link possibilities with the COE for these data instead of duplicating collecting agency linkages already present with the COE. Such an arrangement would be temporary at best and must be replaced by arrangements with the collecting agencies or by arrangements with a centralized distribution centre. All linkages are envisioned as simple modem exchanges between agency computers and would require modest telecommunications software development. Table 12 - Summary of .Data Requirements of the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory

------.------A- - Data Type : DRT : MRT : DRLD : GD ------a------Overland Precipitation R R: Overland Min/Max Air Temperatures R R : Overland Insolation D : Overland Windspeeds D : Overland Humidities D : Flow Volumes (Overland runoff) R : R : R Flow Volumes (Diversions) :R : Water Surface Temperatures R : : R Overlake Air Temperatures : R Overlake Wind Speeds : R Overlake Humidities : R Ice Thickness, St. Lawrence River R : Water Levels, St. Clair, Detroit, and St. Lawrence Rivers R : Velocity Vectors in Connecting Channels : : F Overlake Precipitation :R: Lake Evaporation :R : Soil Moisture :F: Snowpack Water Equivalent :F :

DRT - Daily real-time need, e.g., daily values two days later or daily values. for a week one .day after the week.

MRT - Monthly real-time need, e.g., monthly values two days after the month.

DRLD - Daily need with relatively little delay, e.g., daily values for a month one month later.

GD - Greater gauge density and wider coverage needed.

R - Required; D - Desired; F - Future need.

d. GLERL Large Basin Runoff Model Requirements

Physically-based rainfall-runoff watershed models are used to simulate basin outflows to the Great Lakes for use in routing models for lake .levels simulation and forecast. These models are for weekly or monthly outflow volumes from large areas with severely limited data availability. Only daily precipitation and air temperatures are widely available over the Great Lakes Basin in a sometimes sparse meteorologic network.

e. Data Requirements

Required data consist of daily minimum and maximum air temperatures, daily precipitation, and weekly runoff volumes. In lieu of readily available daily values, weekly totals of precipitation may prove adequate. The areal extent of gauged runoff of the Lakes Ontario and Superior Basins should be expanded to more of the ungauged subbasins about these Lakes. The meteorologic network coverage for the Great Lakes appears to be adequate as far as precipitation and air temperatures are concerned. There remain two areas where improvements would benefit the use of the GLERL Large Basin Runoff Model: (1) extended data collection for other important hydrometeorologic parameters; and, (2) enhanced telecommunications and data base management to facilitate real-time data aquisition and reduction.

While some data on insolation are collected, its real-time use is impeded by its relative inaccessibility outside of the collection agency; this is true also for precipitation and temperature. The use of insolation in the Large Basin Runoff Model was, thus, limited during design to seasonal summaries. Model improvement is likely if daily insolation becomes more widely available. The greatest improvements in the model are expected to result if snowpack water equivalent and soil moisture are measured and reported for large areas. While these quantities are extremely important, point measurements are inadequate due to the wide spatial variability that accompanies these parameters. Areal measurements are needed, but the technology for obtaining them is still developing. Presently, soil moisture and snowpack water equivalents are provided as indexed quantities. These indices are inadequate for use in forecasting to support management decision making. Possible future improvements of the Large Basin Runoff Model are also tied to a wider availability of wind speed and humidity measurements.

While many of these data are collected now with adequate gauge densities, their availability in real-time is poor and restricts their use to simulations of past conditions. The Large Basin Runoff Model was designed to . make use of only the most available data: air temperature and precipitation. As a first step in the model's implementation for forecasting, these data (from the entire hydrometeorologic network) must be available within a week at either a central data bank or from a few sources. This is an immediate need. Future needs relate then to the similar availability of other important physical parameters including runoff, soil moisture, snowpack water equivalent, wind speeds, humidities, and insolation in order of importance.

A4.3.7 United States Coast Guard

No additional data needs are identified by the USCG. The agency pre- fers, however, to obtain water level information on a real-time basis. The USCG does not have an automated data.system for Great Lakes hydrologic/hydraulic data. Information supplied by USCG (primarily ice measurements) is relayed via radio and NWS teletype, as appropriate. Because themethods of gathering.the data (boreholes, ship and SLAR aircraft observations, etc.) are not repetitive - systematic - the USCG data do not readily lend themselves to being part of a basin-wide, automated system. Therefore, as the data systems evolve, provision should be made to expedite distribution of USCG data as it becomes available. This could probably best,be handled through the NWS . data distribution system, i. e. , ensuring the existing links to USCG data (NWS Marine Circuit) are maintained or improved. This would include relay of data toconcerned agencies in Canada as well.

A4.3.8 Water Planning and Management Branch, Ontario Region, Environment Canada

No unmet data needs were identified by the Branch.

A4.3.9 Water Resources Branch (Water Survey of Canada), Environment Canada

In the foreseeable future, a growing problem will be encountered by the Water Resources Branch as a result of a lack of real-time data acquisition systems. A great majority of the water level recorders on the rivers do not provide real-time data, and the ability to obtain real-time data is becoming a high priority with various users, particularly for flood forecasting. The expansion of this program depends upon greater funding to permit the purchase, operation, and maintenance of real-time data acquisition systems.

Water Survey of Canada has examined the possibilities of either: (1) upgrading the present network to "real time" telemetry, or (2) expanding the present network. The costs of upgrading are discussed in Section A4.8.

For each basin, the present Canadian inflow network was plotted and the gauged area delineated. Tables 13-16 list the "hypothetical" networks with additional stations on all major ungauged tributaries and, in a few cases, relocations downstream of existing stations, to improve the areal coverage. The sites of most of these added stations were selected from the 11250,000 National Topographic Series maps, and their drainage areas delineated and planimetered, The remainder are located at the sites of former stations, now discontinued, Field reconnaissance will be necessary to select precise sites of any new stations that might be proposed as a result of the evaluation. Compared to Tables 2-6 which show existing coverage, the AES proposal calls for an additional 22 stations to increase the coverage from the present 73 percent to 83 percent.

Since there are no large ungauged tributaries in the Canadian portion of the Lake Erie Basin, an improved network for Lake Erie was not hypothe- sized. In the Lake Ontario Basin, the present inflow network is close to the saturation point and as a result, any further changes will be minimal.

Figures 9-13 show the present networks and a "theoretical maximum" curve which defines the limit of areal coverage considered possible for a given number of stations. These curves were generated by ranking stations by drainage area to produce a smooth curve which gradually becomes nearly hori- zontal as the size of basins gauged by additional stations diminishes to insignificance. The limit was estimated from the 11250,000 maps. Thus all networks bounded by this curve might be called "maximum coverage" networks in that they gauge the n largest tributary basins, where n is the number of stations in the network, a term used later in the area gauged vs cost diagrams. Table 13 Hypothetical Inflow Network Proposed by Water Survey of Canada for Lake Superior - ......

! STAT 1rJN srnrIoN VANE SITE NU. NO. A1EA LAT LO42 . . . - --PRESENT-----.-----INSTQUYENTAT - UPGRADED-COST I ON' - -- AGEYC' ...... S.1. KM Dt4S DMa 4 9 REC TEL OAT SAT DAT SAT ' 1 0244001 '1;<3'4 RIVE9 AT qIDDL: F4LLS 1553. 4001 A937 Ill000 I0 4500. INT 2 ' 0244002 PIN5 dlVER NEAR Cl100K 3 303. 4004 n"xs2 I 0 o 0 0 . 0 -1 0 10500.. . Q;C 3 OLA3017 UHITEFISIi RIVER AT NOL4LU 210. 401tl 0949 011001 0 I 0. dEC 1 4 OZA0007 KAMIh(1STIKWIA RIVER AT STANLEY 7740. 4822 8934 100000 I0 10500. USC a 5 02hU007 NE-IUING RIVER NEAW Tli.JVDER DAY 1 Y7. 4923 0311) Ill000 I0 4500. YSC I-.. 3 .... .O243015 . YCIYTYRC. RIVER AT THUNDER 3AY . . 145. .-4325 . 0916 ...-I... 1.- ..I-.0-0--0---1- O+CrOO. . .- U',G

I I 02AlJOl5 CUR;

. LIJTLE PIC RIVER NEAR COLDYELL ...... O.-O .- ..I -0 0.-0 0 -..- I- 15000. ... bSC PI. RIVER NEAR MARATHJN 01 100 0 0 I 7500. W5C BLACC RIVER NEAI? MARATMON 00I000 0 I 15000. W5C WtiI TE HIVZR AUOVE 2ND FALLS 000000 0 I 15000. WSC JUiASKdA If IVEM AOOVC IS1 HAP IDS ... 0.. 0.. ... 0 0 o ...... 0 ...... o ~5000. . wsc UNIVEYSITY RIVER NEAa DOG HARDOUQ 000000 0 I 15000. WSC MAGPIE RIVE'< NEAR MICYI PICOTEN ~~~~CIIIPICOTEI~IlIVEIl AT cIIGH FALLS ..... SAN3 HIVEY AUIIVE IST '4LLS AGAdA 9IVER Ar ENTRAYCI TO CANYON MOY TQEAL H IVER NEAR HA3UOUR OATCJAdANA RIVER NEAR BATCHAYANA

HARYONY RIVER AUOVE CHIPPEWA FALLS 000000 0 I 15000. WSC GOdb41S RIVER NE4R K193Y'S CORNERS 000000 0 I 15000. WSC -. BIG CARP RIVER NEAR SAUL7 ST€. MARIE- - 1-0 1--&--00 dAlQ500----USG 'I : 51Ttl CUDE A = G?OUND TELECIYYMUNICATION AVAILABLE il = WALK-IN SI~ELTER lYSlHUYENTATI9Y CODE REC = ANALOG QECORDER TEL = GHOUND TELECOMMUNICATION. OF C~RREVTDAT~ DAT = GQOUND TELEYET3Y - CUQWENT AYO STORED D4TA SAT s SATELLITE TELEMETRY - CURRENT AYD STORED DATA LAKE SUPERIOR - SUMMARY . -

NU'4RER OF STAT IONS PIU!4UER OF STAT IONS PRESENTLY CONFORll IPlG TO NJ'lOER OF 5141IONS RC2UIQING UPG9431NG CJST OF UPGRADING ..... I Table 14 - Hypothetical Znf lov Netvork Propoeed by Water Survey of Canada for Lake Huron ...... 1 ! I I STATION STAT ION NAME SITE 1NSTRUYENTAT ION .. ~0. 90. 4RF.4 LATr LONG ...... PQESFNT - -- UDGR4DEO---.COST - AGENC'. I ...... Ij?.KY Dt.1~ DYS A n REC TEL DAT S&T DAT 541 ------/ 1 02cA002 P03T aIvER AT sAc,LT w: HdrrlIE 100. 463349 1141655 ioI00o 10 10500. vie , . 2 OtCA9OQ.. . GAQDEN RIVE'? AT GARDCZN RIVER IR 1010. 6634 R4lO 0 0 . 0 0 ...0 0 ... .I) ...... 1 1 :,ooo. uqc J O2C4101 EC-IJ RIVE4 AT ECHO R4Y 365. 4632 0403 100000 10 10500. YSC 1 4 OZCA902. TtlESiALON RIVER AT SIiERW003 740. 4617 9334 100000 10 10500. w5C 5 OZCC009 MISSISSAG1 RIVER AT MISSISSAGI CHUTE 9300. 461204 nJOl32 111000 I0 4500. USC i. 6 OZCDQOO . DLlNJ RIVEQ NEAR BLIN3 RIVER 399.. .. 4613 0259 .... 1.. O... . .O 0 0.. ...o 1.0 LOGOO. Ui C I 7 O2CDOOl SERPENT HIVEQ AT HIGllWAY NO I7 l:j50. 461247 !I23033 101000 10 10500. ~SC 8 O2CEOO2 AUX SAULES 'IIVER AT '4ASSEY 1350. 461254 A20414 111100 10 2000. WSC ' ? O2CEOOL SPPVI5H i2IVER AT ESPAVOLA 11400. 461605 514620 . 1 1 1 0 1 0 ...1 . o...... 0. KVP 10 O2CF900 WHITEFISH RIVER AT 'dIllTEFISH FALLS 365. 4507 8143 100000 10 10500. WZC 11 OZCG700 SILVER CREEK AT '4049ISVILLE 45. 4554 0251 100000 10 10500. UJC 12 O2CGQOl MAYITOU RIVER NEAR MIC+IAEL BAY 3U6. 4537 0206 000000 0 1 15000. WSC I . . FUENCH RIVE? AT OX ~AY 15100. fI040 000000 0 I 15000. h5C KEY RIVEH NE1R LUOGATE 10 10. 0035 000000 0 1 15000. U5C MAGVETAdAN H IVER NEAR 3RI TT 2350. 1\02'346 0~~0010 1 0. u5C HARdIS RIVER AT HHY NO 69 35. 702622 011001 0 .. 1- .- 0. usc YAISCOOT H IVEY AT H'dY 67 2 JO. 0020 100000 10 10500. USC SHAdANAGA RIVER AT HWY 69 235. 001705 100000 10 10500. WSC

141-L LICE AT PARRY SOUND ...... -- 1050. 000~. 0 .... 0 ... .o---o 1---~--1~500. S~C YOJY RIVEQ AT WIGHWXY NO 69 84. 7'34712 001000 0 1 15000. WSC MUSC3KA 'IIVER AT IiIGIif4Y 110 69 4760. 774630 101000 10 10500. 'dSC SEVEQN RIVE13 AT SWIFT 2APIJS 5950. 14ATCHEOASIi RIVER 3ELOU OTTER LAKE . . 136. NDdT'i RIVER NEAR KE5SEQING 352. COLD^ 4TEU RIVER AT COLDWATER 177. 7Q3R37 101000 10 10500. CSC *YE 91VEH AT dYEDRIDGE . . 169. 795250.1- 0 1--.0 02- 14.10500.- -. Wl;C HILL04 CREEK AT YIOIlU?ST 127. 7Q4347 101000 10 10500. USC NUTTAdASAGA RIVEQ NEA9 DAXTER 1100. 704920 11'1 100 LO 2000. USC PINE RIVER NEAR EVE?ETT 195. 735735 10 100 0 10 10500. uOE MA> 4IVER NEAQ GLENCAI4N 2 95. ~00007 .. 1... 0 ..... 1 ....0 ...... I&-0 ---. ld- 10500. --- WSC

DEAVER RIVE9 NEAR CLARKSBURG nlGiEAD RlVER NEAR MEAFOQD 0L~I.3007...... SY~EYHAHRIVER NEAR OdZN SOUND. .. ---.- lfll.-- 4431 21.--005551.- --I -0 1---0--0-0-14- 1-0600.----WSC OZFAOO2 STJCES RIVER NEAR FEPNDALE 50. 450210 012010 101000 10 10500. WSC O2F4001 SAU3LE RIVER AT SAUBLE FALLS 327. 444010 011510, 101000 10 10500. WSC O2FCOOl SAJSEEN RIVER NEAR PO31 ELGIN 3260. 442723 811936 011000 0 1 7500. WSC O2F3001 Dl45 QIVE2 41 LUQGAN 154. 440537 814336 IIlOOO 10 4500. ?SC O2FDOO2 LUC

I SI I€ CODE A = GROUND TELECOYMUNICATION AVAILAOLE . 9 = WALK-IN StlELTER ...... - - ...... - ...... - ... .. -- .- .-.-. .-- - -. .- .. . ~~i~si~Ru~~ENi~~i~h(~CoD~REC = ANALOG RECORDER TEL = GROUND TELECOVMUNICATION OF CUR9ENT DATA I OAT = GIaOUND TELELIETPY - CURRENT AND STCIQEO 0414 i SAT = SATELLITE TELEMETRY - CURRENT AND STORED D4TA ...... -- ... -. ...

LAKE HURON - SUMMARY ...... - - ...... -- ...... - ... - .-. . . -

NLJ'4DER OF STATION5 = 43 ,IU84RER OF STATIONS PRESENTLY CONFORg41NG TO SPECIFICATIONS ..4 . NJYDER OF STAT IONS REQUIRING UPGRADING = 39 CUST OF UPGRADING = 301500. GAUGED AREA = 724950 Tabla 15 - Hypothetical Inflow Netwo~kPropoeed by Water Survey of Canada for Lake St. Clair . .

SlAT 10'4 .ST.ATlON 'NAME SITE INSTRUVENTAT 1 ON. ?_-.NO- NO a ...... - ...... AREA ...... :LA1 - --. .LONG .-...- .----PRESENT.- . UPGE).ADEo-.cnST-- . AG[''JrV S3mKY D Y S O M S A B REC TEL OAT SAT OAT SAT

' 1 OZGGOOY SY3EYiAY RIVER AT WALLACEOUIG 2540. 423520 822330 11 10.1 0 LO 0. '4ti" 2... OZtG009 S'AIICV .MCKEOUGH DIVERSION AT SOMBRA 0. 4242 . 8220 . 1 0 . 0 0...... 0. -.. o ...... 1 0 10500. u"'' 3 OdGE003 lHA'4ES RIVEQ AT TtiAMESVILLE 4300. 423242 815904 111000 10 4500. W5C I 4 O2GEOO7 YCGREGOU CQEE': HEAM CHITHAM 202. 422300 020539 111000 10 4500. W5C , S O2GHOOZ QUSC3U RIVER NEAR RUSCOM STATION 1'25. 421354 023700 101000 1 0 10500. US!:

...... 1 SITE CODE A = GROUYD TELECOMMUNICATION AVAILABLE .- -~ 0 = WILY-IN SHELTEQ IHST~~UMEHTATION CODE REC = ANALOG RCC3QDER I TEL = GQOUND TELECOMMUNICATION OF CUSQENT DATA .- - .- - ...... DAT =-.GROUND TELEMETQV - CURRENT .ANO..STORED..DATA ....- . - .. - - . ------SAT = SATELLITE TELEMETRY - CURSENT AND STORED DATA I

___-.-. .-.__-.-.-- ...... _...... - . _ -- ...... - .-...... -... _ ...... ---.- GREAT LAKES 3ASIN HYDQOMETRIC NETWORK - ONTARIO INVENTORY 3f STATIONS - JANUARY 1993 TI L 1- I--...... -...... -...... , ...... _/_ ...... LAKE STaCLAIR - SUMMARY ...... - -.- .-

NUYREI OF STATIONS = 5 NUNDER OF STATIONS PSESENTLY CONFORVING TO SPECIFICATIONS------=- - 1 -- -- NUMflER OF STAT IONS REOUIR ING UPGQADING = 4 COST OF UPGRADING = 30000. GAUGED AREA I 71 67. 1:

.\' Table 16 - Hypothetical Inflow Network Propoeed by \.later Survey of Canada for Lake Ontario .. ,-

I I STATION STATION NAME SITE INSTQUYENTAT ION '...NU. . NO...... AQEA -LA1 LONG . - ..--PRE.SENF-- .---.--UPGRADED--- -COST S?.KH OMS 0 '4's A U REC TEL DAT SAT D4T SAT ...... ,------. UELL4N3 RIVER DELOw CIlSTOR COQNERS 230. 430130 TUEYTY M1Lt.i CHEEK AT SALLS FALLS 233. 4 301)02 QE3YILL CIZEEK AT HA'dILTON 61- 431355 SPENCER CIfEcK AT DUND4S CRDSSING 166. 431617 GRI VJSTONE CREEK NEA? ALDE?SHOT 0 3. 431003 ERJY TE CWEEK YEAR LIYYERMAN ...235 ...... 432613

OACVILLE CREEK AT YILTJN 100 LO 2000. hiC EAST OAKVILLE CREEK NC4R OMAGH 000 I0 10500. *SC CRE31T QIVEQ 41 ERINDALE 0 1 .o . 1 ...0 . 0. *SC ET33ICOKE C9EEK UELOW 3.E.W. 100 10 2000. 'WSC MlYICJ CREE< AT ISL!NGTON 010 10 0. usc ULAC< CREEK NEAY WEJTJN 010 10 0. wsc tIUY3EII RIVElf AT WESTON 909. DOV 9IVEQ AT TOO!4U;IOEV 3 16. HIGHLAND CMEEK NEAR itEST HILL R'3. ROUGZ RIVER NCAQ YARKHAH 186. LITT-E ROUGE CREEK NE4R LOCU+T HILL 711. OUFFINS C4EEK AT PICKERING 243.

I3 OZHCOLO.. ..LYNDE CREEK NEAR WHITLlY ...... 106. --.435232-.:70!j743 . l..O 1 0 OO---I-- 0- 10500. 'WSC LO OZIIDOOY 0Si4uA CREEK AT OSHA'dA 33. 435549 7fl5329 Ill000 LO 0500. 'WSC 21 OZH0013 HAqUJNY CREEK AT 0SH4d4 42. 435315 704930 101000 I0 10500. WSC O2HD014 FAYEdELL CUEEK AT 05H41A 50. 435318 7nA916 101000 10 10500. riC I - $5 013DOUO UU*-(ANY ILL€ CREEK AT 80'4HANVILLE 93. 435518 704209 I 1 . I ..0...... 0 0.- 1--1)..4!j00.. wfc ULHOOO7 50'EN CYEEK AT O'3WMANVI LLE 79. 435400 704021 10 10. 0 0 I0 10500. dSC

25 OZHD003 WILhlOTr CREEK NEAR hEUCASTLE 93. 435547 783706 IOIODO 10 10500. 45C I...26. 02HDOI~.-GANA4ArKl IIlVER ABOVE DALE .. ...232, 4 35926 7C 1743 1-.I .--- L.0.--1'--0--I--. . 0.-- . aiC ' 27 UZiOOlO SHELTER V4LLEY UHOOC NEAR GqAFTOH 65. 435331 700007 101000 10 10500. WSC ? 28 O2HEOO2 CONSLCON CREEK AT ALL150NVILLE 114. 440140 772200 101000 I0 10500. WSC \D 27 OZHE001 dL33YF IELD CHEEK AT HLOOMFIELD 19. 435336 771346 101000 10 10500. WSC O 1 ... 30. ... OZHK007.... COLD CREEK AT ORLAND . 159. . 440804 . 774717...... 1.. 1 1 .--...0 .-..-....1 ...... 0 1 .- .o. .. wsc I Jl O2HK004 TRENT RlVEY AT GLEN ROSS 12000. 441550 773610 IIlIOO 10 2000. . USC JZ O2HKOO9 RAdODN CllEEK AT WEST HUNTINGDON STN. 97. 442018 772R39 IIIOlO 10 0. 4SC j 33. OZHL001--.. MOI2A RIVER NEAR F OX9090 ...... 26200- -44151 4.--.-7725 10.-1.- I--.---I--.-0 -.-.0--4---I-0-4500- ---WSC J4 OZt4M003 S4L'43N RIVEQ NEAR SHANNONVI LLE 031. 441228 771235 101000 10 10500. WSC 34 OZHYOO7 ' NA~ANEEQIVER AT CAYDEN EAST 6'24. 042003 765015 111100 10 2000. WSC 36 OZHMOO4 WILT3Y CREEK NEAR NAPANEE 112. 441422 715056 101090 10 10500. WSC I 3I 02YY006 MI-Li4VEN CQEEK NEAR YILLHLVEN 38 OZlir(005 COLLINS CREEK NEAR KINSSTON . ' 32 O2YA900 CATAWAOUI Re AT KINGSTON MILLS PH i

' 51Tt CUOE A = GROUND TELECTIYMUN ICAT ION AVA ILA0LE I fl = WALK-IN SYELTEU INSTRUWEIiTATIOH CODE REC = ANALOG RECORDE2 TEL = GROUND TELECOMMUNICAT ION OF CtJRRENT DATA I DAT = GYOUND TELEfIETRV - CURRENT AND STORED'DATA I SAT = SATELLITE 1ELEMETRY - CURQENT AND STOREDJD4TA c1 I I.. .I I

NUYflCR OF STATIONS = 134 NUYRER OF STATIONS PRESENTLY CONFOR!.l lNG TO SPECIF [CAT IONS. ...= -.. 17----- ...---. NJYflER OF STATI014S QEOUIRING UPG44DItiG = 117 COST OF UPGQADING = 1058000. GAUGED AREA = 195543...... - -.. - -- 100.

8 0

I I

5I- 0 a w DEVELOPMENT OF PRESENT NETWORK a. I I aY < 0 w ,i -! Wr 40 Z C1 m a ? a>- a i 3 1:Z Y I- 20 . Z W V) aW a

O 0 4 0 80 120 160 200 NUMBER OF STATIONS

FIGURE 3 : Cummulative percent area gauged vs number of stations - Canadian portion of Lake Superior Basin 100

60 C Z W aU aW I < aW < CI 40 m c(0 a* < 3 Z2 V C Z 20 V) aW ba

O 0 40 80 120 160 200 NUMBER OF STATIONS

FIGURE 10 : Cumulative percent area gauged vs number of stations - Canadian portion of Lake Huron Basin 100-

-ow------AX\MUM EoRET\c h-- - 8 0 TH --'- -0 w - - --

6 0 C Z W a0 aW I I DEVELOPMENT OF PRESENT NETWORK a W a I- -4-a0x ' 40. c3 W Z h C) za a> a z3 a 2 0 7 V k Z W V) aW 0

0 0 10 2 0 3 0 4 0

NUMBER OF STATIONS

FIGURE 11: Cummulative percent area gauged vs number of stations - Canadian portion of Lake St-Clair 'Basin NUMBER OF STATIONS

FIGURE 12 : Cummulative percent area gauged vs number of stations - Canadian portion of Lake Erie Basin 100.

A%I~M

8 0 /

60 zC W 0 DEVELOPMENT OF a a w PRESENT NETWORK a. c W Z a n aW m a zQ) 40 - a* a 3 Z =i V C Z W V) aW 20 . 0,

OO 20 40 60 80 100 NUMBER OF STATIONS

FIGURE 13 : Cummulative percent area gauged vs number of stations - Canadian portion of Lake Ontario Basin The unruly punch card system of data compilation and processing prompted a major change of upgrading. WSC, Ottawa, is in the process of purchasing mini-computers for its regional offices. The proposed systems will have the capability to carry out data editing and processing, to automatically interrogate, decode and organize data from real-time acquisition stations and to communicate with main data files stored at WSC, Ottawa.

It is anticipated that electronic real-time data logging systems, including satellite telemetry, will eventually phase out analog recording devices as the principal mode of data collection. In such cases, the existing analog recorders will be used as back-up gauges. New archiving, data base management and larger computer facilities will evolve in the regional office. It is apparent that providing improved communications and user access 'to current processed discharge and water level data would significantly increase operational effectiveness. Access to the central data bases for historic and current information will allow for more accurate lake level and net basin supply forecasts.

A4.3.10 Atmospheric Environment Service, Environment Canada

The AES collects, quality controls, archives, analyzes and disseminates hydrometeorologic data in.Canada. All standard data may be archived, while non-standard data are identified and made known along with standard data through a data referral system. The AES data system serves a broad national interest, and is designed to service the more significant weather-sensitive elements of the Canadian economy.

The demand for data is increasing rapidly and the AES is responding to the accelerating demand by implementing a new National Communication System (NCS) designed to meet all projected needs for the next decade, and by incor- porating a Climate Data Base Management System (CDMS) that will make interactive retrieval of real-time data possible, along with inventory, summary, quality and other desired information relating to archival holdings. The AES is also giving priority to the development of "Day 1" and climate forecast (monthly and seasonal) and to the archiving and retrieval of high volume satellite and radar data. In all of these activities, user needs are being identified. The systems being put into place should suffice for the next decade and will be difficult to modify. When operational, they should enable real-time access by all users to data, both measured and from analyzed fields such as forecasts and analyses derived from satellite irradiance measurements.

Preliminary assessments of the climatologic (air temperature and/or precipitation) and real-time station networks indicate that more reporting stations need to be established over the Canadian portion of the Great Lakes Basin. This expansion is necessary to obtain representative geographic and climatologic measurements of temperature and precipitation in areas presently devoid of measurement. Over the Lake Superior Basin, 32 new climatologic stations are recommended by the AES, just more than doubling the present network. This, however, appears to be beyond practical expectations. Certain areas of the Lake Superior Basin are completely uninstrumented to collect temperature and precipitation data. Establishing even a few new clirnatologic stations in this region would represent a large improvement over the present network. Although the distribution of stations is by no means uniform over the Canadian portion of the Lake Superior Basin, as a rough measure there is one station per 400 square km of mainland area.

Although the southern parts of the Lake Huron Drainage Basin are considerably better instrumented, the northern half of this basin is similar to the Superior Basin in physiography and scarcity of observed data. Ideally, 17 additional climatologic stations are recommended by AES.

The addition of the recommended climatologic stations would result in a network whose density is within provisional standards established for similar regions (Volume 1 of the Guide to Hydrological Practices - WMO No. 168). Locations of additional climatologic stations recomuended by AES are shown in Figure 14.

Since real-time observations are required for hydrologic modeling, the real-time precipitation network of reporting stations was also studied. An evaluation of the real-time network confirms a need for additional reporting stations, particularly in areas to the northeast of Lake Superior and northern parts of the Huron-Georgian Bay drainage area. A minimum of five additional real-time reporting stations are needed for acceptable coverage of the Canadian Great Lakes Basin for estimating basin precipitation for input to hydrologic models. Locations of these stations recommended by AES are also shown in Figure 14.

The increased and more sophisticated demands for AES meteorologic services, including those expressed by the IJC Boards and supporting agencies, necessitate more effective and efficient data acquisition, processing and delivery systems. Improvements in short-range forecasting are being sought through, for example, automated weather element prediction, increased usage of remotely sensed data, and upgrading of the core surface observational network. The development of physically based climate forecasting is projected for the late 1980s. Also, the need for more timely analyses and access to hydrometeorologic data such as radar, rainfall, remotely sensed snow cover, basin precipitation and lake evaporation has been expressed. Therefore, factors such as demand, economics and advances in remote sensing, communications and computer technology have dictated that data acquisition, processing and delivery systems adapt, expand and evolve to keep pace.

a. Data Acquisition

The trend is toward increased automation of the AES principal station network through replacement of existing sites. Automation will take place through development of READAC (Remote Environmental Automatic Data Acquisition Concept) autostations which will probably go into production in 1986. These stations will measure pressure, temperature, humidity, wind direction, speed and gusts, visibility and precipitation amounts. Data transmission can be via landline, VHF and geostationary satellites. In addition, to support the marine and ice programs, automated weather stations (MAPS2), accessible in real-time via land line or GOES, are being installed at ten lighthouses in the Canadian portion of the Great Lakes Basin in 1984 Location of New Climatologi- cal Stations Recommended by AES

Location of New Real-Time Precipitation Stations Recommended by AES

A : 2 Stations €3: 2 Stations C : 1 Station

Location of New Climato- logical and Real-Time Precipitation Stations SCALE OF MILES 100 o 100 200 Recommended by AES and 1985. These include five new stations, two of which are on Georgian Bay. The need to upgrade portions of the climate network to real-time accessibility status is recognized, but, to date, funding has not been approved or secured.

Currently, a high percentage of data from DCPs are lost mainly due to landline problems between NESDIS facilities at Suitland, Maryland, and AES headquarters at Downsview, Ontario. This and other factors have culminated in a recommendation to add GOES reception facilities to existing AES receiving stations including the Satellite Data Laboratory at AES, Downsview.

Processed satellite and radar information in image and digitized format will become more readily available. Research and development projects to evaluate, for example, the utility of satellite TOVS data (vertical atmospheric profiles of temperature and humidity), and correlate radar and satellite data to increase surface areal coverage are well underway.

There will be increased emphasis on ice reconnaissance through airborne and satellite remote sensing. Ice service systems are also being upgraded and AES plans to increase its frequency of radar observations of lake ice in 1955-86 to weekly and monthly, depending on the stability of ice conditions. All-weather remote sensing capability would be beneficial.

b. Communications System

The need for upgrading and eventual replacement of the current AES communications system was identified by studies undertaken in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The following factors were identified:

(1) The existing Collins 8500 switching computer is rapidly becoming obsolete;

(2) Teletype distribution and collection circuits are overloaded;

(3) The transmission of facsimile products from the Canadian Meteorological Centre (CMC) in Dorval, Quebec, and the Regions is limited;

(4) Unreliable communications facilities serve remote sites;

(5) The handling of requestlreply in teletype circuits is frequently delayed;

(6) The switching computer does not have any quality control function for input data; and

(7 ) The existing networks have no station addressing capability.

Further, in 1981 the AES Communications Study Review Panel identified several information needs not available in the network, including the following in decreasing order of priority:

(1) Digital radar information for weather offices; (2) Weather Centres require data from climatologic and special networks in real-time;

(3) Regional offices need one-day response from the climate archives data base;

(4) The requirement for a significant increase in grid point model output from CMC to weather centres;

(5) Improved quality control of meteorologic data in real-time;

(6) Regional meteorologists need access to regional climate data bases;

(7) External users require small volune, on-demand access to weather information using electronic means; and,

(8) Regional forecast centres need access to increased computer power at CMC . As a result, it was decided to replace the existing communications system. Upgrading, feasibility testing and demonstration projects have already been initiated. It is expected that the AES new communications system will evolve by 1985186 to:

(1) National communications and data base management processors at AES and at CMC;

(2) National collection and management of national weather observations and forecasts. The national processors will manage a national level data base and communications to users or processors requiring that level of information. The national system would include high speed United States connections, regional processors and AES major computers at Downsview and Dorval;

(3) Regional collectlon and management of regional weather observations and forecasts (Ontario Region will include the Great Lakes Basin);

(4) Considerable use of packet network and circuit switching concepts;

(5) Weather offices and other users interactively accessing regional data bases for their alphanumeric requirements;

(6) National digital weather facsimile supporting regional analog weather facsimile;

(7) Photo facsimile system implemented at weather offices;

(8) Interprocessor communications between major operational computer systems; and

(9) Weather radar distribution will be carried using public packet communications. It is expected that by 1987188, the AES new communications system will evolve to :

(1) Satellite based broadcast capability for all data (best mix of terrestrial and satellite based communications). Cost savings expected to be gained primarily in weather and photo facsimile networks; and,

(2) Facsimile charts will be digitized - Current projections indicate that implementation of the entire interactive system and elimination of the current CNCP switch in 1986. It is a recognized design hypothesis that present system users from both the public and private sectors must be capable of continuing their modes of operation using presently installed equipment, protocols and methods. Theref ore, existing users of multidrop distribution of operational weather data will be protected. However, it is expected that the additional advantages of interactive access will result in most users adjusting their methods in favor of that type of operation.

In summary, the more effective and efficient new communications system will be more accessible and reliable with increased expandibility capabli- ties.

c. Computing Facilites

(1) Downsview Computing System - The AS16 computing system has been used for multi-purpose applications, including: national climate data base management; meteorologic applications, prediction and processes research and development; and, climate diagnostics. Since the installation of the system in 1980181 efforts have been concentrated on improving the useability of the system.

Within the framework of the El204 Data Base Management System, which has been tested but not fully implemented, is the new CDMS. The Quality Control portion of the OMS is scheduled for completion in 1984. Within this portion, hourly and daily meteorologic data from the AES principal station network will be captured directly from collection circuits and fully quality controlled. The data will be available to users on an interactive basis within days of capture. Further, an on-line station information system is also scheduled for completion in late 1984. However, insufficient memory and CPU in the existing computing system will not allow full implementation of the CDMS until 1986 when either the current system is upgraded or replaced. Access to the OMS by non-AES users will not take place until 1987188. (2) Regional Computer Systems - Regional mini-computer systems are similarily strained by existing and anticipated future demands and as a result are scheduled for replacement in 1986 by a Regional Communications Computer and a Regional Application Computer. (3) Ice Centre, Ottawa - At present, the ice climatologic archive is maintained in hard copy. The future trend is to automate and rnicrof iche the archive to make it more readily available. A4.3.11 Public Works Canada, Ontario Region

The DPW has no unmet data needs at the present time or in the foreseeable future.

A4.3.12 Fisheries and Oceans Canada

a. Eiarine Environmental Data Service Branch

The Marine Environmental Data Service Branch (EEDS) processes and disseminates water level and wave climate data for the Great Lakes. As such, MEDS is not a final user of data but acts as intermediary between the data collectors and users. As such, no additional data needs are identified.

b. Bavfield Laboratorv.for Marine Science and Surveys (Canadian Hydrographic Service)-

The Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS) collects bathymetric information required to produce nautical charts and measures water levels in the Canadian portion of the Great Lakes. No additional data needs are identified. Plans for future changes to the system consist of increased water level network coverage and improvements in instrumentation and sampling techniques.

The historic growth of the network generally seems to have been in response to user demand 'or to forecasted requirements. A review of present user requirements is proposed by CHS to eliminate gauging stations which are no longer needed. The agency indicates that too dense a coverage is presently provided in some areas.

A new generation of data logger has been developed and is presently being implemented by the CHS. The unit is microprocessor controlled, providing a capability to improve data sampling techniques. For example, samples can be taken and integrated over specified time periods rather than instantaneous samples taken at discrete intervals as is presently the case.

Advancements in sensor technology are being explored with a view toward providing more accuracy and reliability, and reducing gauging station construction costs. With a microprocessor controlled data logger, mechanical filtering of water levels using a stilling well may no longer be necessary, possibly eliminating the need for these wells.

A4.3.13 Canada Centre for Remote Sensing

The agency does not have any requirement for water-related data.

A4.3.14 Coast Guard, Transport Canada

No additional data requirements are identified. The agency has representation on -the International St. Lawrence River Board of Control and hence can obtain all needed data. A4.4 STATE AND PROVINCIAL AGENCIES

A4.4.1 Ohio Department of Natural Resources

The Ohio Department of Natural Resource (ODNR) needs data on wind, waves and associated currents primarily in the nearshore area. Data are needed on wave height and wave runup to refine coastal hazard area delineation and the distribution of wave energy along the shore. Data on the direction and energy of longshore currents and their effects on nearshore deposits and sediment transport are also required. At the present time, the ODNR depends upon others to collect, analyze, and distribute these data.

A4.4.2 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

The one area where the agency has identified an unmet data need is on rates of shoreline erosion. Periodic (annual or biannual) aerial photography of the shorelines of Lakes Erie and Ontario would be valuable data. The State's Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas regulatory program requires the calcula- tion of long-term, annual shoreline recession rates.

A4.4.3 Illinois Department of Conservation

No additional data needs are identified.

A4.4.4- Michigan Department of Natural Resources

There is a critical lack of streamflow data in Michigan, especially on smaller watersheds. The lack of such data has negative impacts on the State's water quality and quantity management decisions.

A4.4.5 Minnesota Departmentof Natural Resources

In order to provide information on flow characteristics of selected streams draining into Lake Superior, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (?¶Dm) recommends that several new gauges be installed on the Rrule River, St. Louis River, Temperance River and on the Floodwood or Cloquet River. These gauges would be used for fisheries management purposes.

The MDNR would like to obtain additional data on precipitation, temperature, and solar radiation to provide an adequate dependable climatic data base for the Minnesota land area adjacent to Lake Superior. For example, 5-6 daily recording temperature gauge stations are recommended by the FIDNR at different elevations along the Minnesota shoreline of Lake Superior. Data could be collected by automated reporting equipment and maintained in computer files compatible with the National Weather Service systems.

Up to 30 additional precipitation gauges are recommended by the t.IDNR. These gauges would be established at each 150 metres (500 feet) of elevation above the level of Lake Superior including 2 or 3 gauges located from 15 to 30 kilometres inland from the ridgeline. The gauges could be automated recording gauges with data archived in computer files compatible with the National Weather Service systems. The MDNR has also recommended that an extensive once-a-day manual recording system be established to supplement automated recording data. The MDNR presently operates a single transect of snow depth observation stations for a small area extending ridgeward from Grand i-larais. Two or three additional transects of snow depth observations along the land area adjacent to Lake Superior are recommended by the MDNR for areas southwest of Grand tiarais.

There are presently no radiation measuring stations along the north shore of Lake Superior in Minnesota. Three radiation stations are recommended by the HDNR in the area; one at the shoreline, one on the ridgeline, and one 30 to 50 kilometres inland from the ridge.

To provide backgrounddata on windlwave actions over Lake Superior, the MDNR recommends that three .wave buoy stations be established in the Lake extending from the eastern end to the Minnesota shoreline. Wind data are needed for recreational and commercial boating purposes and in shoreline protection studies.

Additional information on over-lake precipitation is required by the MDNR to assess the nature and extent of atmospheric loadings to the Lake.

Other needs identified by the MDNR include:

a. one recording evaporation station to obtain reliable information.on north-shore climate;

b. data on lake water circulation patterns required to determine the effects of currents on aggradation and deposition of sediments-forfisheries management, intake design, harbour dredging evaluation, etc.; and,

c. data on wave actions required to assess the short- and long-term effects of wave actions on shoreline erosion, and for information purposes intended for watercraft users.

Finally, the effects of ice on the shoreline areas along the north shore are being studied. This requires additional information on ice and geologic features.

A4.4.6 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

No additional data requirements are identified.

A4.4.7 Water Resources Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment

No additional data needs are identified.

A4.4.8 Lands and Waters, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

The development and calibration of a model to forecast possible flooding along various sections of the shore due to lake level rises caused by wind setup might require some additional hydrometeorologic data. A4.4.9 Ontario Hydro

No additional data needs are identified either for the present or for the foreseeable future.

A4.4.10 Conservation Authorities

Responses from the Conservation Authorities in Ontario are summarized in Table 17. While some authorities are satisfied with the present data network, others have specified additional hydrometeorologic data as future requirements.

A4.5 OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

A4.5.1 St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Forecasts of ice freeze-up and break-up are required for navigation purposes and this information is now provided by either the AES or the NWS. The SLSDC's other hydrometeorologic data needs are presently being met and it has no recommendations regarding future improvements.

A4.5.2 Lake Carriers Association

The association requires more accurate and timely weather forecasts pertaining to navigation routes throughout the Great Lakes System, as well as updated hydrographic information on Middle Neebish Channel in the St. Marys River.

A4.6 HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC MODELS AND THEIR DATA REQUIREMENTS

Hydrologic and hydraulic simulation involves applying. appropriate physical laws and/or statistical theories to duplicate observed events such as streamflows. t4any computer models have been developed by engineers and researchers for water resources planning, structural design, reservoir operation, hydrologic forecasting, etc.

It should be noted that modelling can also refer to hydraulic studies which involve the use of laboratory models or prototypes. Such hydraulic models are often required during preliminary design stages to observe flow phenomenon which are difficult to generate using analytical methods. This report deals only with analytical models.

In analytical or computer simulation, the processes in the hydrologic cycle and their interrelationships are written in computer language to form an algorithm. Models are designed to generate desired output. Efforts to make the model output fit observed conditions require the adjustment of some of the empirical or physical constants. This adjustment is termed model calibration. By changing some of the input parameters, or physical characteristics, the model can be used for forecasting.

A large number of hydrologic and hydraulic simulation models have been developed. The following lists those that are being used currently or under study by the Great Lakes Boards of Control. Also included are several selected models that simulate flood events in watersheds. The latter are mainly used for either flood forecasts or flood mapping purposes. No attempt has been made to evaluate the performance of these models.

a. Optimization/Simulation Models

(1) Lake Superior Regulation Plan 1977 (2) Lake Ontario Regulation Plan 1958-D (3) SYSNET (Great Lakes System Network) (4) Great Lakes Hydrologic Response Model (5) Lake Evaporation Model (6) TREND-Net Basin Supply Forecast Model

(1) HYMO - Problem-Oriented Computer Language for Hydrologic Modeling (2) HYDRO-1 (3) HEC-1 - Flood Hydrograph Package

c. Continuous Simulation Models

(1) HSPF - Hydrological Simulation Program - Fortran (2) NWSRFS - National Weather Service River Forecast System (3) SSARR - Streamflow Synthesis and Reservoir Regulation (4) Large Basin Runoff Model

d. Steady State Hydraulic Models

(1) HEC-2 - Water Surface Profile (2) Great Lakes Connecting Channel Mathematical Models

Unsteady State Hydraulic Models

(1) St. Marys, St. Clair, Detroit, and Upper St. Lawrence River Transient Model (2) Unsteady Flow River Network Simulation by Finite Element Method (3) DWOPER-Dynamic Wave Operational Model (4) PER-One-Dimensional Hydrodynamic Model

Table 18 summarizes the input requirements of these models, and comments relative to their data needs.

A4.6.1 Evaluation of Meteorologic Network Adequacy in Estimating Runoff

One major task assigned to the Committees was to assess network coverage. In order to perform a representative assessment, the existing climatologic data base of the Lake Superior Basin was evaluated by applying the Large Basin Runoff Elodel to subsets of this data base. Questions of data transmittal, timeliness, and gauge location were not addressed. Instead, a general assessment of the number of gauges and the useful information gained from them was made for the sole purpose of estimating net basin supply. Use Table 17 - Summary of Data Needs of Conservation Authorities in Ontario

Conservation : Flood : Additional Hydrometeorologic Authorities : Forecast : Data Required

1. Ausable Yes : Future meteorologic and streamflow data Bayfield : : needs could be met by adding in-house : stations.

2. Cataraqui Yes : Rainfall intensity at Gananoque, Newboro, and Region : Napanee, evaporation pan and radar-derived : rainfall intensity at Kingston.

3. Catfish Creek : No : Stream stage and flow at Aylmer and Springfield.

4. Central Lake : N o : Telemetric capability for retrieving stream Ontario : level data.

5. Credit Valley : : None reported.

6. Crave Valley : : None reported.

7. Essex Region : Yes : Meteorologic data from several unspecified : locations. Streams are too short for fore- : casting purposes.

8. Ganaraska : Water level and streamflow in the Cobourg Region Yes : Creek Watershed.

9. Grand River : Yes : Aerial distribution of rainfall by radar, : snorwater equivalent, and snow cover in : basin.

10. Halton Region: Yes : Streamflow stations in the watershed.

11. Hamilton Region Yes : Precipitation, water level, and stream flow : stations at several unspecified locations.

12. Kawartha Yes : None reported. Region

13. Kettle Creek : Yes : None reported.

14. Lakehead Yes : Future needs could be met by adding in-house Region : stations.

15. Long Point : : None reported. Region

16. Lower Thames : : None reported. Valley No Table 17 - Summary of Data Needs of Conservation Authorities in Ontario (Cont'd) - Conservation : Flood : Additional Hydrometeorologic Authorities : Forecast : Data Required

17. Lower Trent : Yes : Precipitation and water levels within Region : watershed.

18. Maitland Yes : Weather radar picture every 112 hour. Valley

19. Mattagami : Yes : Streamflow and meteorologic data at various Region : locations upstream of Tiramins.

20. Met. Toronto : . Yes : Daily precipitation forecast in Toronto. and Region :

21. Mississippi : Yes : Water level and precipitation at Kimburn, Valley : Gordon Rapids, Blakeney, Fallbrook, Lamark, : and Appelton.

22. Moira.River : Yes : Network expansion to proceed when funds are : available.

23. Napanee : None reported. Region

24. Niagara Yes : Rain gauge and water levels in Welland River Peninsula : : and Twenty Mile Creek Watershed.

25. Nickel Yes : Streamflow and stage, precipitation, tem- District : : perature, and soil moisture at specified : locations.

26. North Bay - : Yes :Snow depths and water content at Kiosk, rain- Matt awa :fall and air temperature at Mattawa, Kiosk, :Corbeil, and Powassan, and streamflow at Parks :Creek, Wasi River, North River, and Kaibuskong :River.

27. NorthGrey : : None reported.

28. Nottawasaga : Yes : It has not completed a thorough reassessment Valley : of system to identify future needs.

29. Otonabee : None reported. Region

30. Prince Yes : Streamflow at locations not yet identified. Edward Region Table 17 - Summary of Data Needs of Conservation Authorities in Ontario (Cont 'd)

Conservation : Flood : Additional Hydrometeorologic Authorities : Forecast : Data Required

31. Raisin Region: Yes : Future needs could be met by adding in-house

, : stations.

32. Rideau Valley: Yes : Temperature and precipitation at Jock River : and. Kemptville -Watersheds.

33. Sauble Valley: Yes : Water levels of Sauble River at Allenford : and at Tara.

34. Saugeen Yes : Radar-derived precipitation intensity maps. Valley

35. Sault Ste. No : Flood forecasting is not practical due to Marie : size and nature of streams Region

36. South Lake : No : Upgrade of equipment and network expansion Simcoe : are in planning stage.

37. South Nation : Yes : Real-time access to streamflow stations at: River : Chesterville, Russell, Bourget, Riceville, : Casselman, and Plantagenet.

38. St. Clair : None reported. Region

39. Upper Thames : Yes : None reported. River Table 18 - Bydrologic/Hydraulic Models and Their Data Requirements

Model (Usere* : or Developers) : Purposes : Input Data Comments

Plan 1977 : Regulation. forecasts. : Diversions. Stagel : Probabilistic net besin supply data (Superior Board) : studies : Flove. Net Basin Supply: are used. Current studies dmat : improving the forecast of supplies.

Plan 1958-0 : Regulation. forecasts. : Stagelllovs. Net Basin : Similar to Plan 1977. improvements (St. Lawrence Board) : studies : Supply : in the plan will depend on improve- : ments in forecasting supplies.

SYSNET : Studies : Diversions. Stagel : An optimal solution seeking simula- (Environment Canada) : : Flws. Net Basin Supply: tion model for regulating the Great : Lakes.

Great Lakes Hydrologic : Studies : Precipitation. Evapw : Response (CLERL) : transpiration. Diver : : sions. StageIFlovs :

Lake Evaporation : Studies : MrlWater Temperature. : Better water surface temperatures (CLERL) : Wind. Dew Point : wuld improve undel results.

Net Basin Supplies : Studies : Precipitation. Mrl : Uodel is in development stage. Forecast (Superior : :WaterTemperatures. : Board) : RndiationISunshine. : : IceISnov. Soil : Uoisture. Dew Point :

BYnO (Williams : Flood studies. : Precipitation. Soil : Low data requirement. Used widely and Hann) : forecasts. mapping : Moisture. Basin Pea- : in Ontario in flood forecasting : tures. Channel Pro- : and mapping. : perties

BYDRO-1 (Ontario : Flood studies : Precipitation. Mrl : Low to moderate data requirements. Natural Resources) : : Water Temperature. : It needs to be interfaced with other : Wind. RndiationISun- : models to perform flood routing. : shine. Basin Features. : : Channel Properties. : : Infiltration

AEC-1 (Corps of : Studies, design : Precipitation. Ice1 : Low data requirements similar to Engineers) : Snw. Basin Features. : EYM. : Channel Properties :

ASPP (Updated by : Studies, forecasts : Precipitation, Mrl : Very extensive data requirement. Johanson et al) : Water Temperature. : Model is considered most complete and : Wind. RadiationISun- : is widely used in USA and Canada : shine, Evapotranspir : including studies of movement of : ation, Basin Features. : pollutants. More data would improve : Channel Properties. : model results. : Dew Point

: Flood forecasts : Precipitation. Evapo- : Additional data would improve model : transpiration. Stagel : results. : Flovs. Basin Features. : : Channel Properties :

: Planning, design. : Precipitation. Mrl : Developed originally for Columbia : forecasts, operation : Water Temperature. : River. the model can be made appli- : Evapotranspiration. : cable for other rivers. Additional : Basin Features. Channel: data wuld improve model results. : Properties. : Infilitration

Large Basin Runoff : Runoff forecasts and : Precipitation. Mr : Can use measured basin storage to Model (CLERL) : simulation studies : Temperature : advantage.

AEC-2 (COE) : Water surface profile : StageIFlovs. Channel : Uore stage-flow data would assist in : computation : Properties : model calibration/validation.

Great Lakes : Water surface profile : StageIPlovs. Channel : More stage-flow data would assist in Connecting Channels : computation : Properties : model calibrationlvalidation. Mathematical (Superior.St. Lawrence.: Niagara Boards)

River Transient : Studies : IceISnov. StageIPlovs. : Uore ice. stage-flow data wuld (CLERLICOE) : Channel Properties : assist in model calibration1 : validation. Unsteady Flow . : Studies : Stage Flowsl Channel : More etage-flow data would assist Finite Element : Properties : in model calibration/validation. (Environment Canada) :

Dynamic Wave : Flood forecasts : Stage Flowsl Channel : More stage-flow data would assist (NUS) : Properties : in model calibrationlvalidation.

One-Dimensional : Studies : IceISnw, Stage Plovs. : Mre stage-flow data would aesist Aydrodynamic : Channel Properties : in model calibration/validation. (Environment Canada) :

*The user agencies in support of the Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data utilize most of the models listed. A-110 of these gauges for other purposes, such asriver stage forecasting for flood warnings, was not addressed. Only model estimates of 'basin runoff were attempted. The other components of net basin supply (over-lake precipitation and over-lake evaporation) were considered separately elsewhere. Likewise, as the model utilized only daily precipitation and air temperatures, assessment of the usefulness of wind and humidity data was not possible.

The assessment reveals that little information is lost, using the Large Basin Runoff Model for estimating weekly runoff volumes, with 53-or 23-station 'data sets. It appearsthat between 2.0 and 30 stations are adequate for use with this model on the Lake Superior Basin. It is' important to note that most of the meteorologic stations that were eliminated in the suc- cessively smaller subsets of this study were based in the United States. Thus, it is difficult to assess how much more information would be useful if stations were added in the Canadian portion of the .Basin as recommended by AES. Since the coverage is sparse, it seems likely that the addition of a few stations in Canada would result in modeling improvements.

A4.6.2 Evaluation of Streamflow Network Adequacy in Estimating Net Basin Supply

The existing streamflow station network was evaluated, with respect to the potential for forecasting net basin supply to each of the Great Lakes, particularly Lake Superior. Questions of data transmittal, timeliness, and gauge location were not addressed. Instead, a general assessment of the number of gauges and the useful information gained from them was made for the sole purpose of estimating the runoff component of net basin supply.

Only the adequacy of basin runoff, as given by flow station measurements, was analyzed. The adequacy of the other components of net basin supply (over-lake precipitation, over-lake evaporation, inflows, outflows, and lake levels) were not considered in this study.

Study results show that there is little information lost, for use in estimating net basin supply, between the 35- and 14-station data sets. The explained variance of net basin supply is about 75 percent for the 28- to 35-station data sets, with a root mean squared error between lake-level- derived net basin supply and net basin supply determined with basin runoff of about 28 millimeters over the Lake. As the number of stations drops to 1, the explained variance drops to about 43 percent, with a root mean squared error.of about 43.5 millimeters over the Lake. It appears that 24 or more flow stations are adequate for estimating net basin supply, selected in accordance with the above procedures as used in this general analysis.

A4.7 ASSESSILENT OF NETWORKS IN RELATION TO USERS

A4.7.1 Network Gaps

After reviewing the current modes of operation of the IJC Boards, the Committees considered that the current network of hydrometeorologic stations fully meet the essential requirements of the Boards. This is because current regulation plans and procedures basically require water level data from a limited number of stations in the Great Lakes and their Connecting Channels. As long as these stations remain in operation, and there is no change in regulation plans and procedures, the needs of the Board will be met. This basic water level information is supplemented by other data such as weather forecast, soil moisture content .and snow survey; although they are used for general assessment purposes only.

As far as Great Lakes regulation is concerned, any data gaps would be in the area of data dissemination to the Boards. An example would be more timely provision of downstream flow and level information to the St. Lawrence Board. This problem could be overcome by improved communication between the Board and other water management agencies.

In reviewing the responses from other users, the Committees have also identified some existing data network gaps and dissemination problems. These are considered rather localized in nature.

A4.7.2 Optimum Meteorologic Network

An optimum network is one of compromise. The ideal scientific network can be specified once needs are clearly delineated and the variability of the parameter known. However, in reality the network must be designed in a manner that is cost-effective, i.e., where there is a demonstrable return on investment, economics being inescapable. That design is generally considerably below the scientifically desired level. When needs and variability are not well understood, guidance is available from a variety of sources, but it must be used pragmatically, having in mind what was intended, what is needed, and alternatives.

Guidance as to what a minimum precipitation network for hydrologic purposes should consist of is given in the Guide to Hydrometeorological Data Practices (WMO No. 168). In this, the "recommended range of provisional norms tolerated in difficult conditions" is one precipitation observing station per 900-3,000 sq. km. However, the last figure should be tolerated only under exceptionally difficult conditions. This amounts to a mean station spacing of somewhere between 30 and 90 km. In the northern portions of the Great Lakes Basin, neither of these minimum figures is met. The Guide further suggests that there should be at least two precipitation gauges for each stream gauging station (or major subbasin), one located near the stream gauge and the rest in the upper portions of the basin. An evaluation of northern areas was nade using IJMO criteria to see what network additions were, implied. The resulting increase is a total of 32 stations in the Lake Superior and 17 in the Lake Huron Drainage Basin.

In arriving at a rational optimum, these results must be weighed against other factors: (1) the WMO surface network criteria were developed prior to the advances of satellite, radar and surveys etc., that are now available to assess the climate of the Great Lakes Basin; (2) the present network has been deemed generally adequate by IJC users and the deficiency is primarily a projected one based on the future use of models whose requirements are yet to be clearly defined; (3) the cost of implementating the WMO based optimum network is appreciable ($1.5 million capital to install); (4) the benefits from such an investment are speculative at this time; (5) the station density needed for the Large Basin Runoff Model (Section A4.6) already exists, although distribution and reporting timeliness need to be improved. Development of a surface network to meet WMO specifications nevertheless provides a target for the future when demands on water will be greater and the use of models widespread. With that in mind, WMO criteria can be used in strategic planning of the future AES data network.

With respect to existing use, the AES "real-time" reporting network does not adequately define monthly precipitation patterns. Deficiencies were found in both the Superior and Huron Basins where a minimum of five additional stations are needed. These need not be conventional synoptic reporting stations. Timely reporting on a monthly basis would suffice for that purpose.

For operational models to be used on a daily basis the requirements would be more rigorous. Daily observations will be needed from additional locations, along with consistent timeseries of climate parameters. These make desirable the enhancement of programs and automation of existing climatologic stations and the communication system. DCPs offer an opportunity to obtain information from remote sites. Other levels of automation and communication would serve at sites that can be reached by telephone as dictated by economics, and the planned National Communication System and CDMS should provide rapid access to new observations and historic data.

Snow cover and snowfall measurements are of major importance since melt is the major source of runoff. Point measurements have limitations as indices and are costly to obtain. Remote sensing of snow cover appears to be an attractive future solution. Satellite and microwave sensing may satisfy much of the future need for snow and soil moisture data, providing information on a desired areal, as opposed to point basis. Certain data, such as solar radiation can be generated from existing network information and their availability does not necessarily require network enhancement.

Remotely sensed data must be analyzed and the analyses routinely summarized for central archives in order to become available to users in near real-time. The capability exists now to produce maps of radar rainfall rate for instants in time and for post-processing of radar data to obtain storm rainfall. The radar rainfall data can be integrated and summarized daily and be made available in near real-time for areas covered by the AES radar network from central archives. Satellite inferred precipitation amounts, snow-water equivalent, snowcover, soil moisture, cloud cover, ground temperature and other parameters, observed or derived can also be summarized and available to users in near real-time along with conventional data.

In order to be useful for network design, or for almost any other purpose, the individual stations in a climate network must have a sufficiently long period of record of observations. For future applications of hydrologic modelling, the full impact of present day network expansions will not be felt for many years to come. In the interim, additional climate stations will be useful for assessing and calibrating remote sensing techniques which, if feasible, may eventually replace portions of the climate and real-time network. Accurate climate predictions have been identified as potentially very useful information with regard to lake levels regulation. The AES has designated development of its climate prediction capability as a high priority activity, and operational forecasts are to be available in late 1984. Increased emphasis is being placed on diagnostic and climate modeling studies to obtain a better physical basis for prediction. This activity does not require enhancement of the Great Lakes climate network.

A4.7.3 Optimum Hydrologic Network

The current inventory of hydrometric stations on the Great Lakes Basin has been identified in the Hydrometeorological Station Directory. Additional information regarding-network expansion and evaluation has been discussed in Section A4.3.2 for the United States network, and Section A4.3.9 for the Canadian network. The latter identifies the extremes of hypothetical possibilities for network expansion, however, this is not specifically the "optimum" network. Under the "Terms of Reference" of this study only the primary needs of the IJC Great Lakes Boards are to be addressed in "optimizing" the network.

Review of the hydrologic forecasting models currently being used by the Boards identifies the "net basin supply" as the major input/output parameter required from the hydrometric network of stations at the most downstream location on each tributary system. Section A4.3.2 shows that installation of an additional 22 streamflow stations in the United States would increase the coverage from 67 percent to 71 percent. Much of the improvement would occur in the Lake Huron and Erie Basins. Section A4.3.9 shows that an expansion of 22 stations in Canada would increase areal coverage from 73 percent to 83 percent, with most of the improvements occurring in the Lake Superior and Huron Basins. It appears that the present network defines "optimum" number of gauging stations possibly with a few additions in major tributaries in the Lake Superior and Huron Basins. Essentially, the present network of stations has been identified as adequate, particularly the lake level station network. However, the real-time capability of data delivery system requires upgrading. Improved real-time data would improve the GLERL Model Basin Supply forecast which in turn could provide the IJC Boards with more accurate and up-to-date information needed for operation decisions.

A4.8 COSTS OF NETWORK EXPANSION AND STATION AUTOMATION AS SUGGESTED BY DATA COLLECTING AGENCIES.

A4.8.1 Streamflow Stations

a. United States

In the United States, the cost for installing a new continuous record gaging station is about $8,200. Annual operation costs which include publishing of the record are about $5,400 for each station. Installation of a telemark to a new or old gauging station is about $3,300, and installation of a DCP for utilization of the GOES Satellite is about $5,400. Thus a new gauge with real-time reporting capability costs about $11,500 and $13,600 for telemark and DCP telemetry, respectively. Present streamflow stations equipped with automated real-time reporting capability cover 3 percent of the Lake Superior, 31 percent of the Lake Michigan, 20 percent of the Lake St. Clair, 38 percent of the Lake Huron, 50 percent of the Lake Erie, and 60 percent of the Lake Ontario watersheds. The estimated cost of upgrading existing United States stations to provide automated real-time data using satellite telemetry would be: $90,000 for Lake Superior (43 percent coverage), $270,000 for Lake Michigan (78 percent), $22,000 for Lake St. Clair (68 percent), $30,000 for Lake Huron (46 percent), $60,000 for Lake Erie (74 percent), and $15,000 for Lake Ontario (76 percent). Stations with drainage areas of less than 130 sq km were not included.

Section A4.3.2 shows that a total of 22 new stations with real-time capability are recommended by the USGS to improve the coverage. Of these 22 stations, nine are located in Lake Superior Basin, two in Lake Michigan Basin, two in Lake Huron Basin, seven in Lake Erie Basin, and two in Lake Ontario Basin. A summary of the cost for installing and operating these stations is shown in Table 19.

b. Canada

In Canada, the estimated costs of upgrading the present network to real-time telemetry, on a per station basis, are:

Shelter construction and instrumentation for satellite telemetry

Shelter construction and instrumentation for land telemetry $10,500

Instrumentation only for satellite telemetry $ 7,500

Instrumentation only for land telemetry $ 4,500

Replacement of obsolete land telemetry equipment $ 2,000

Average annual operation and maintenance $ 6,000

In Section A3.3.3, the present Canadian streamflow station networks were described and tabulated for Lakes Superior, Huron, St. Clair, Erie, and Ontario in Tables 2 through 6, respectively. Only. 7 of the 23 hydrometric stations in the Canadian portion of the Lake Superior Basin are equipped to provide real-time data. These real-time stations cover a runoff area of about 40700 sq km (49 percent). The cost of upgrading the other 16 stations to provide up to 76 percent real-time coverage would be about $135,000.

On the Lake Huron Basin, 32 stations are used to gauge the Canadian portion of the runoff. Only 4 are equipped with real-time capability covering an area of about 20100 sq km (22 percent). To upgrade the other 28 stations to provide 72 percent coverage would cost about $232,000. Table 19 - Summary of Cost for Expanded Streamflow Network as Suggested by USGS

-. -- : Percent of Area Gauged : Estimated Cost for an Expanded Network : Area of Land : :Suggested by : Lake :(Square Kilometre): Present : USGS Capital Annual O&M - : (%) : (%I $ $

1. Superior 43800 : 43 52 103,500 48,600

2. Michigan 1 18000 78 79 23,000 10,800

3. Huron 4 1800 : 47 50 23,000 10,800

4. St. Clair 5700 68 - - -

5. Erie 48300 7 5 8 3 80,500 37,800

7 6. Ontario 34500 : 77 78 23,000 10,800 rnP NOTE: Capital cost is based on $8,200 for construction, and $3,300 for telemark installation per new gauge. ~nnualoperation cost is $5,400 per new stations. Five gauges are used to measure the runoff in the Canadian portion of the Lake St. Clair Basin. These stations cover an area of 6500 sq km (64 ~ercent),but none are equipped with real-time capability. The cost to upgrade all these stations would be about $40,500.

On the Lake Erie Basin, 14 stations are used to gauge runoff. Only one station can provide real-time data for an area of 5210 sq km (41 percent). The cost of upgrading the other thirteen stations to provide up to 65 percent real-time coverage would be about $101,500.

On the Lake Ontario Basin, 8 of the 39 Canadian hydrometric stations are equipped with real-time capability and cover an area of 2550 sq km (9 percent). The cost of upgrading the other 31 stations to provide 77 percent real-time coverage would cost about $224,000.

Section A4.3.9 shows that a total of 22 new stations with real-time capability would be required to form a hypothetical inflow network in the Canadian portion of the Great Lakes Basin. Eleven are suggested in the Lake Superior Basin while the remaining eleven are for the Lake Huron Basin. No additional gauges are suggested by Water Survey of Canada for the other lakes, although site relocations and instrument upgrades are generally required for all the Basins. A summary of the cost for gauge relocation/construction, instrumentation, and operation, etc., is shown in. Table .20. Figures 15-19 show, by Lake, the capital and annual operation and maintenance cost curves for improving the inflow coverage in the Canadian portion of the Great Lakes.

A4.8.2 Meteorologic Stations

a. United States

No network expansion is suggested by the National Weather Service and, as such, no costs are presented.

b. Canada

It is noted in Section A4.3.10 that AES has recommended 32 new station sites in the Lake Superior Basin and 17 sites in the northern half of the Lake Huron Basin. The recommendation was based on the proposition that ideally there should be 2 or 3 precipitation and temperature stations in each of the major river subbasins.

All 32.new Lake Superior sites and 15 Lake Huron sites have been graded inorder of priority of requirement, (see Tables 21 and 22 and Figure 14). All AES proposed sites, except for three on the shore of Lake Superior south from'Marathon, are accessible by road and many are located at settlements. Therefore, it is expected that volunteer or paid observers could be found at several sites, but it is impossible to estimate beforehand how many. Table 20 - Summary of Cost for Expanded Hypothetical Streamflow Network as Suggested by Water Survey of Canada -- : Pecent of Area Gauged : Estimated Cost for Hypothetical Network

: Area of Land : Lake :(Square Kilometre) : Present :~e;work (WSC) : Capital Annual O&M : (%) (%I $ $

1. Superior

2. Michigan

3. Huron

4. St. Clair ? I- 5. Erie I- 33 6. Ontario

SOURCE: Tables 13-16. MAXIMIZED NETWORK 100

Unit Cost = 815000. 70

60~ 200 400 600 800 1 thousands of dollars AREA GAUGED VS. CAPITAL COST

Unit cost = $6000.

0 200 400~ - - 600 800 1000 thousands of dollars AREA GAUGED VS. ANNUAL OPERATION.& MAINTENANCE COST YSXIHIZED NETWORK

FIGURE 15 : Capital and Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost in Canadian Portion of Lake Superior Basin MAXIMIZED NETWORK 100

90 . zC- W Ua W q- 80 < W a < Unit Cost = $12000. 70

60 0 200 400 600 800 1000 thousands of dollars AREA GAUGED VS. CAPITAL COST

100

Unit Cost = $4200.

60 0 200 400 600 800 1000 thousands of dollars AREA GAUGED VS. ANNUAL OPERATION 8 MAINTENANCE COST

FIGURE 16 : Capital and Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost in Canadian Portion of Lake Huron Basin 100

90 +z W a0 C 80 < W a Unit Cost = $3200. < 70 -

60 0 20 40 6 0 8 0 100 thousands of dollars AREA GAUGED VS. ANNUAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST

FIGURE 17 : Capital and Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost in Canadian Portion of Lake St-Clair Basin MAXIMIZED NETWORK

100 1

I! 90 + I 2 I 0a LU j 80 < l LU a i < Unit Cost = .qb10500. 1 70 i I

i 60 ! 0 200 400 600 800 1000 i thousands of dollars I ! AREA GAUGED VS. CAPITAL COST !

100

I 90 zI- W 0 I a i W f 80, < LU I a Unit cost = $3200. 4:

600 800 1000 thousands of dollars AREA GAUGED VS. ANNUAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST I I FIGURE 18 : Capital and Annual Operat'ion and Maintenance 1 Cost in Canadian Portion of Lake Erie Basin I ! I i

I' MAXIMIZED NETWORK 100

90 I-z W

0 L aE , 80 < W S Unit cost = $10500. 70

60 0 200 400 600 800 1000 thousands of dollars AREA GAUGED VS. CAPITAL COST

100

90 . 5I- 0 a 80 < W a Unit cost = 83200. C 70

200 400 600 800 1000 thousands of dollars AREA GAUGED VS. ANNUAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST

FIGURE 19 : Capital and Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost in Canadian Portion of Lake Ontario Basin Table 21 - AES Recommended New Climatologic Stations for Lake Superior Basin by Priority

Station Type : Volunteer or : : Paid Observer : Automatic

1st Priority

White River x Simons Harbour Franz x

2nd Priority

On Highway 17 at Pearl x Auden, Highway 801 and CNR Track : x Killala Lake Road Stevens x Highway 17 and Highway 614 x Highway 101 and Highway 651 x Highway 17, Lake Superior Prov. Pk. : Hanes Lake Road

3rd Priority

Harmon Lake, on road from Graham : Gull Bay, on Highway 527 Aguasabon Dam Highway 17, Kabenung Lake Pineal Lake Road Batchawana

4th Priority

On Road North From Argon (Hwy 17) : Black Sturgeon Lake, on Road from : Hurke t t Jellicoe, Highway 11 Triangle Lake Road Kama Bay, Highway 17 Cosgrave Lake Road McLeod Lake Tocheri Lake Road Beaton Lake, Highway 631 Otter Island Lthse Oiseau Bay Missanabie x Hawk Junction x Searchmount x Highway 17, Goulais x Table 22 - AES Recommended New Climatologic Stations for-~akeHuron Basin by Priority

Station Type : Volunteer or : : Paid Observer : Automatic

1st Priority

Rock Island Reservoir Dam Spragge, Highway 17 Rue1 Killarney

2nd Priority . . Highway 456 and Highway 639 Benny, Highway 144 Yorston Lake, Highway 805

3rd Priority

Ranger Lake, Highway 556 Leeburn Wenebegon Lake, Highway 129 Mozhabong Lake, Webwood-Ramsay Road : Welcome Lake Road Lake Timagami, Latchford Road

4th Priority

Elliot Lake Venetian Lake Road Taking the 7 first priority station sites and assuming that volunteer observers can be found for 5, the cost would be:

Installation (Capital) Cost

5 climatologic stations at $3,500 each = $17,500

2 MAPS precipitation stations at $65,000 each = $130,000

Total $147,500

Annual O~erationand Maintenance Costs

5 climatologic stations. = minimal

2 MAPS stations at $6,000 each = $12,000

If observers are paid:

5 climatologic stations at $700 each - = $3,500

Total operating costs $12,000 to $15,500

Similar estimates for the 11 second priority sites give installation costs of $346,000 and operating costs/year of $34,000. However, if volunteer or paid observers can be found only at the Pearl and Stevens sites, installation costs would increase to $592,000, and ope'rating costs to $55,000.

In summary, the cost of installation of 18 stations in the 1st and 2nd priority classes would range from $500,000 to $750,000 and operating costs from $46,000 to $70,00O/year.

A4.8.3 Water Level Stations

a. Canadian Costs

The cost of network expansion can be subdivided into three general areas: station construction, gauging equipment and station operation. Costs associated with station construction include the design and fabrication of gauging shelters and stilling wells and the provision of electric power and heating. The gauging equipment costs are restricted to one analog recorder and float sensor and one contact tape gauge. Station operation costs include gauge attendant fees, annual levelling checks, electricity, service calls, salaries and land lease fees. The following list summarizes these costs in 1983 Canadian dollars:

(1) Capital Construction $15,000

(2) Gauging Equipment 5,000

(3) Station Operation 3,00O/yr Station automation at Canadian gauging stations would include the purchase, operation and maintenance of digital data loggers that could be accessed with conventional telephone lines. At the present time, this gauge accepts data from a conventional float sensor. In future, the data logger would be configured to accept data from other sensors. The choice of sensor may, at that time, result in an increase in cost. The following summarizes the cost of network automation in 1983 Canadian dollars:

(1) Equipment purchase. $5,000

(2) Communication 1,00O/yr

(3) Operation and Maintenance 1,00O/yr

The automation of the 20 existing analog CHS/IWD gauges in the Great Lakes and the upper St. Lawrence River would have a capital cost of $100,000 and an additional operating cost of $40,000 per year.

There is no cost saving in combining network expansion with station automation. As a result the capita1,cost of combining these activities is estimated at $25,000 per station.

b. United States Costs

The cost of automating the United States permanent Great Lakes water level stations is divided between gauging sites and office requirements.

The gauging sites can be automated for approximately $10,000 per site. Since 23 sites are now automated only 31 sites require.automation, and of these, 17 are acceptable candidates for upgrading. Therefore, $170,000 would effectively bring automation to a practical number of U.S. water level sites.

The NOS plans a tide and water level automated processing and accessible working data scheduled for 1988. In the interim, it is possible to provide a working data base for water level ties to other agency computers or mainframes for $15,000 to $20,000 by adding to the current water level processing automation capability.

This would bring the total cost to $190,000 to meet U.S. water level requirements identified by the Committees.

This does not cover the :cost of increasing the parameters of collection nor the increased cost of sensors for those parameters. Those equipment costs approach $20,.000 per site. SECTION A5 ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS

A5.1 GENERAL

The previous section describes the data and system requirements of the various IJC Boards, federal and provincial agencies, and others. This section considers various alternatives to accomplish the needed and anticipated data distribution system improvements. Scenarios. to be considered, as described below, range from independent agency evolution to an independently located and centralized system. A functional analysis of each alternative will be addressed in the next section.

A5.2 SCENARIO 1 - INDEPENDENT SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT

The IJC would recommend to Governments that the present data systems be allowed to continue along their independent courses, with individual agencies maintaining or providing future improvements as they see fit. In general, the improvements are expected to support the data needs of the IJC Hoards. The existing contact between the IJC and agencies is informal, only through representation. As the agencies change their mode of operation, or the degree of coverage and/or automation, the IJC Boards and other agencies may be affected. The following sections describe the changes that are presently anticipated by the various data gathering/dissemination agencies and their effects on the IJC Boards.

A5.2.1 Effect on IJC Boards

Certain needs for real-time data are presently not being met. While it is not possible to foretell with certainty what effect this scenario will have on the IJC Boards, some inferences can be made, based upon the known plans of agencies to expand and/or automate their networks.

The primary means of disseminating meteorologic data in both Canada and the United States is by means of a multi-drop teletype system. In Canada, interactive access to AES operational alphanumeric data, which includes the capability to eliminate the teletype drops, is projected for 1986. It is envisaged that present users of nulti-drop distributed data will be protected. Further, AES projects a fully operational Satellite Broadcast System supporting facsimile and alphanumeric data by 1988. In the United States, the present teletype system will be replaced with the full implementation of AFOS in 1985. This will require the Boards to make arrangements for continued receipt of the data. Also, with the anticipated regionalization of data by both AES and NWS, the Boards may have to purchase new equipment and go to new access points to obtain the present level of data.

With regard to hydrologic data, the receipt of lake level data from NOS and CHS probably will not be changed in the future. Much of the tributary data from the USGS which would be used in the supply forecast models are distributed by the NWS. The trend in the United States is towards fewer gauges, but increased automation, which may reduce the need for secondary data links for the IJC and user agencies. In Canada, the WSC is installing a mini-computer in each regional office which will enhance data availability on real-time and historic bases. WSC does not anticipate a reduction in the size of the network.

A5.2.2 Atmospheric Environment Service

The expected evolution of the AES data system during the 1980s includes the following main features. The trend will be towards increased automation and sophistication of the AES principal observing network through replacement of existing gauges. GOES DCP reception facilities have been recommended for location in Toronto, Ontario. Digitized-radarand satellite data will become more readily available through refinement of data compression techniques. AES priorities include automation of weather .element prediction.and deve.10~-: ment of physically-based climate*forecasts.

The upgrading of the AES Communications System has been initiated. By 1985186, national processors will distribute national weather observations, forecasts and communications to users or processors requiring that level of information. Regional processors will manage regional data bases and communications for regional users. There will be interprocessor communications between major operational computer systems. A hybrid combination of communication approaches, e.g., packet networks, circuit switching concepts, will be adopted. Interactive access to AES alphanumeric data, which includes the capability to eliminate teletype drops, is projected for 1986. However, it is envisaged that present users' existing modes of operations, e.g., multi-drop access, will be protected. Further, AES projects a fully operational Satellite Broadcast System supporting facsimile and alphanumeric data by 1988.

Improved data base management systems (CDMS) will improve the accessibility to, and timeliness of, the national Climatic Archive currently maintained by the Downsview AS16 computer. Station Information Systems, fully quality controlled AES principal network meteorologic data, will be available within days of capture from the collection circuits. Interactive access to the CDMS by non-AES users will not take place until approximately 1987188.

The ice climatology maintained at the Ice Centre, Ottawa, will become more readily available through automation and microfiching.

Computer facilities will be concurrently upgraded. Regional HP-1000 computing systems are scheduled for replacement in approximately 1985186 by Regional Communications and Application Computers. The AS16 will be upgraded or replaced in the same time frame.

A5.2.3 Water Survey of Canada

WSC, as a surface water data collection agency, is currently undergoing intense renovation of data processing facilities and services. A mini- computer system installed in mid-1983 will enhance data availability on real- time and historic bases. Future plans for the system include: (a) direct user access to data files; (b) regional centralized data banks; and, (c) data analysis techniques available on-line.

The upgraded facilities and services will allow extra lead time for hydrologic response models used at all levels. These will, no doubt, improve flow and level forecasting for regulation, navigation, hydroelectric power, fishing, flooding, and recreation purposes.

It is projected that the gauging network expansion will be minimal; however, there is a major program in progress for automated field data retrieval. WSC, Ontario Region, is installing 34 DCPs in remotely located gauging stations in northern Ontario over a five year period (1984-1988). Data loggers with real-time data availability will be phased-in slowly at a large number of sites in the more southern portion of the Province. An ongoing network evaluation will be carried out.

A5.2.4 Canadian Hydrographic Service

The CHS has no plans to change the operation of the water level network in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River System. The equipment will be upgraded whenever possible with the emphasis toward computerization. Users will be able to obtain water level information by direct dialing to some of the gauges or by contacting CHS offices in Ottawa or in Burlington, or MEDS in Ottawa. The water level data are also available through the several publications issued by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Department of the Environment. Real-time, and some historical, water level data at 13 gauging stations in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River System are now accessible directly by any user who has an account with the Computer Science Centre, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in Ottawa. Plans are being made to expand this service to include all historical data. The present hard copy, "Tide and Water Level Bench Marks," will be supplemented by a cow puterized information retrieval system.

A5.2.5 Ontario Hydro

OH is in the position of being both a user and provider of data. It needs hydrometeorologic data for operations on the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers.. OH has no strong preference forreceiving data from AES via multidrop (teletype) or interactive access. As noted previously, AES has a target date of 1986 for ful.1 interactive access. If OH chooses to go with interactive access, it would be to their advantage. Retaining multidrop access will have minimal impact.

As a provider of data, OH has several gauges on the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers. Data from these gauges are not available to other agencies on an automated real-time basis, but could be made available on a next-day basis. The result of this scenario is that the data still would not be available basin-wide in real-time. OH also regulates a number of rivers tributary to the Great Lakes. Data are collected at the control points (power dams). These data are not available to others, but could possibly be made available on a next-day basis. Again, this scenario may not provide a means of making these data available to others in real-time.

A5.2.6 National Weather Service

The primary change foreseen by the NWS with relation to data gathering and dissemination is the implementation of AFOS. NWS is phasing out many teletype and facsimile data circuits, and reducing the areal distribution of access ports to remaining circuits. Consequently, other arrangements are required to serve agencies that support the IJC Boards. One of the most promising of these arrangements is being studied under the joint NWSICOE project: "Test the Reliability of Automated Data Exchange" (TRADE). The details of this project are described in Section A5.2.10. A primary effect of TRADE is the expansion of the S140 gateway computer and associated peripheral equipment at each RFC to allow increased data storage and additional ports for expanded access to the data in the RFC data base.

Potentially, the data exchange using the S140 conputers is quite simple. There are no exotic protocols required to access the system, although the data may not be in the optimum form for use by a prospective user. Steps are being taken to study the exchange process. The most important requirement is the approval of the RFC involved, to allow external users to access the system. The Hydrologist-in-Charge of the RFC must be convinced that the data exchange will not negatively impact his function. Once that approval is obtained, simple access is obtained with use of the appropriate telephone number and the use of commands, described in user's documentation, to access the data.

Mention was made earlier of non-NWS data that are on the NOAA computer; for example, some AES data for areas in southern Canada. There is, however, no interchange of lake level data from buoys between NOS and the NOAA Central Computer Facility (NCCF). These data reside in the NOS Interdata Computer in Rockville, Mary,land. It is noted that NCCF and the NOS computer are in telephone zones that can be connected by local calls. Data from AHOSITs and AHOS/Ss find their way to NCCF by paths already discussed. Many of these stations are owned and operated by the USGS or COE and contain precipitation data andlor stream stage data. There are no plans to receive data from Canadian Agencies other than AES and hence data from the CHS or WSC are not available. Expansion of networks for which data are handled by the NWS, depends upon the resources required and the use of the data within the NJS. When new stations are telemetered through the GOES satellite, the arrangement for the telemetry is made with NESDIS by the agency owning the DCP. Because NESDIS and NWS share the NOAA computer facilities which process these data, NWS has the ability to retrieve data that it would like to have. On the other hand, the handling, processing, and storage of such data does have a cost in facilities and manpower. Therefore, the inclusion of new data in the NWSIRFC data distribution system must generally show a benefit to the NWS in carrying out its mission as well as providing a benefit to the requesting agency. A5.2.7 National Ocean Service

The trend in data collection for NOS is to maintain fewer gauges, but with more gauges being automated. The potential consequence is that existing data availability may not improve. The IJC Boards have identified the need for additional automated gauges on the Great Lakes and Connecting Channels. Gauges that will be dropped or automated may not coincide with what is needed presently or expected in the future. Thus, an optimized data system.for Great Lakes levels, vis-a-vis IJC Boards, nay be made more difficult.

A5.2.8 Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory

GLERL is researching rainfalllrunoff volumetric flow models and water supply forecasting techniques for determining net water supplies to the Great Lakes. These models are to be used in both simulation and forecasting modes in conjunction with developing lake level (routing) hydrologic response models for purposes of lake level management. The development and use of these models and their use by service agencies will require: (1) the automated real-time acquisition of both meteorologic and hydrologic data from many existing stations throughout the Great Lakes Basin and (2) remotely- sensed areal averages of soil moisture and snow-water equivalent. GLERL has found it very difficult to obtain access to real-time data of NWS and USGS and has explored secondary data links with existing user agencies (for example, COE). Such links may be insecure and limiting and may not be suitable for subsequent model use by service agencies, thus curtailing the usefulness of the models and forecasting techniques in forecasting Great Lakes water supplies. The trend toward fewer gauges with increased automation, coupled with the accessibility problems just mentioned, will limit the usefulness of secondary data links for GLERL and its user agencies, as presently envisioned.

A5.2.9 United States Geological Survey

The following changes are anticipated in the streanflow data collection and dissemination activities of the USGS. There will be an increase in the number of real-time reporting streamflow stations and a general decrease in the total number of stations in the Great Lakes Basin. The trend toward decreasing the total number of stations is primarily due to. lack of funding to support the stream-gauging activity and is not an indication that the data are not needed. The USGS is presently undertaking an analysis of the stream- gauging program which will: (1) examine the data uses, sources of funding, and data availability at each streamflow site; (2) consider alternate methods of providing the needed streamflow information such as flow routing and. multiple-regression analysis; and (3) determine the most cost-effective operation of the stream gauges in the program. The objective of this analysis is to produce the most cost-effective stream-gauging program that will still satisfy the user needs. This program may be reduced in terms of the total number of stream gauges but, hopefully, the information generated will not be significantly reduced. The IJC Boards have -.identified the need for more gauges. and more automation, especially in developing and implementing water supply forecast models in the Great Lakes. The calibration of these models may only require operation of streamflow sites for a few years or operation of gauges on a seasonal basis. It is also possible that alternate methods such as flow routing and multiple-regression analysis can be used to fulfill some of the data needs in lieu of operating continuous stream-gauging stations. The stream-gauging program should be considered an information system where data are provided by both observation and synthesis rather than by a network of observation points. By coupling these alternate methods with automation of gauges at "critical" locations, the data needs of the various IJC Boards may be met in the most cost-effective manner. It is important that the data needs of the various Boards be made known as early as possible in order that the appropriate USGS District Offices can plan for this activity. Several alternative approaches as noted above should be considered in developing a stream-gauging strategy for the unmet data needs in the Great Lakes.

The USGS is also developing a modular data collection system known as the Adaptable Hydrologic Data Acquisition System (AHDAS) which should be operational in 1985. AHDAS is a system of complementary modules which may be arranged and configured in "building block" fashion to fit any practical data collection requirement. Its design will incorporate intelligent, program- mable microprocessor features and solid-state memory. The system will be capable of operation with the full spectrum of existing and future sensors, communication systems, and other peripheral devices. The AHDAS system should be more reliable than the present technology and should encourage the use of satellite and landline telemetry.

The acquisition of PRIME mini-computers in most USGS Offices should facilitate the processing and delivery of both real-time and non-real-time data. In particular, all real-time streamflow data collected in the Great Lakes Basin by satellite telemetry will be stored on the PRIME mini-computer in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The ability of the USGS to deliver real-tine data to the various IJC Boards should be enhanced because of the reduced number of data transmission links. The USGS receive stations will get the data directly from the GOES satellites without the data being transmitted through the NOAA computer facilities or the USGS Honeywell 6880 mini-computer in Reston, Virginia. All USGS District Offices will store non-real-time data in-house on their PRIME mini-computer. A national data base of non-real-time data will be maintained in Reston, Virginia, and basinwide retrievals could be made directly from this file. The implementation of the distributed information system and the AHDAS system should decrease data acquisition time and increase the utility of the streamflow data.

A5.2.10 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

a. Master Plan for Water Control Data System

As noted in Section A4.3.1, COE is implementing a comprehensive Master Plan to address current and future data needs. This involves automation of existing gauges, installing new gauges, and upgrading or acquiring computer equipment. The North Central Division office in Chicago currently has a micro-computer and peripheral equipment and no upgrading is required at this time.

Several alternatives for the Buffalo and Detroit Districts were analyzed. It was recommended that both Districts obtain a dedicated water control mini-computer. This recommendation was forwarded in 1984 to the Office of the Chief of Engineers (OCE) in Washington, D.C. Approval was obtained previously (1983) to obtain one mini-computer, which will be located at the Detroit District, and the automation of several key gauges. However, approval to obtain the second mini-computer, automate several more hydrometeorologic gauges, and develop new water supply mathematical models has not yet been given, in part because of OCE's requirement that the IJC indicate a need for this degree of support from the COE. It is expected that this study will provide the vehicle for IJC to request this degree of support from the COE and other United States and Canadian agencies. As an interim partial solution, the Buffalo District is moving a surplused HP 1000 micro-computer to the Water Control Section to be used for water control activities.

b. Data Exchange With NWS

The TRADE program is designed to serve as a prototype for national program improvement in data exchange between the two agencies. This test program is being implemented by the Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) at Davis, California, acting for the CUE, and the California-Nevada River Forecast Center (CNRFC), located in Sacramento, California, acting for the NWS.

It is the goal of this test program to develop a cost-effective means to transfer data between the NWS and COE data systems in order to increase both agencies ability to meet their mandated responsibilities. To avoid duplication of effort, it was agreed that data, forecast material, and operational schedules should be exchanged as promptly as feasible, and, whenever possible, data should be collected on time schedules which will encourage the maximum level of data synopticity.

This program has been divided into several phases. The first phase, consisting of initial system software design, testing and implementation, has begun. In Phase I, the CNRFC will provide for on-.line storage of selected alphanumeric AFOS and CNRFC products desired by the HEC. A.computer protocol will be established- that will allow the HEC to initiate an automated transfer of these products 0n.a dedicated dial-in-line. The transfers will use modems which ensure correct transmission and receipt of data with receiver confir- mation. Data transferred between computers under Phase I will be alphanumeric products. The CNRFC will not reformat its existing data display or forecasts. Products received from AFOS will be sent "as is" with no modifi- cation by the CNRFC.

In Phase 11, when the CNRFC computer is called by the HEC system with a product transfer request, the HEC computer will transmit selected coded data in SHEF format from the HEC data and reservoir operations system which has been identified as significant to the CNRFC. The CNRFC system will have the capability of initiating such transfers from the HEC--either requesting data to be sent from HEC or sending data to HEC. Phase I11 will consist of translating data in the NWS DATACOL data base to SHEF or some other nationally accepted format for relay to the COE. This . will utilize software being developed by River Forecast Centers other than the California-Nevada River Forecast Center.

Phase IV will expand the information transfer from the CNRFC to the HEC to include binary data, such as plotting points utilized by AFOS graphics. The HEC will develop routines appropriate to their computer systems which will allow the graphic data format to be converted for their display purposes. In the event of a change in NWS graphic protocol the HEC will make such changes to ensure continuing compatibility.

To implement TRADE nationwide, the resources listed in Table 23 are required in each RFC in addition to its normal S140 configuration. In the interim, some COE offices are already obtaining limited amounts of data from some RFCs on a case-by-case basis, with varying degrees of success. In particular, the NCD COE office has a direct line connection, via the St. Paul District Office, to the NWS North Central RFS in Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the receipt of AFOS data.

Table 23 - Costs to Implement TRADE Nationwide

Actual Initial : Operating Item Cost Cost --.----.--- -..------$ $ 1. Communication equipment

a. DG multiplexor Model 4255 ALM-8 2,310 240 b. Modem rack (type depends on modem) : 500 0 c. Per modem (initially 1)

(1) 1200 bps modem with error correction . . 900 150

(2) Cable

(3) Phone line installation and recurring changes

2. 256 KB Memory DG Model 8687

3. Large capacity disk drive, System Industries Model /I9784 14,000 1,560

a. Installation 650 0

4. Multi-user sof tware: Wild Hare 5,000 0

5. Total 26,960 2,870 The following times have been estimated for the completion of each phase following successful installation of the equipment:

Phase I -- Eight months Phase I1 -- Twelve months Phase 111 -- Fifteen months Phase IV -- Twenty months

Inasmuch as these times may be affected by operational activities and the performance of equipment and software over which the cooperating offices have little control, all times are intended as planning estimates.

The one-time procurement for this upgrade for all twelve RFCs consists of a total of $300,000. The COE share (one-half) is $150,000. The additional hardware will require $33,000 per year in recurring maintenance costs.

A5.3 SCENARIO 2 - IMPROVED COMMUNICATIONS AND DATA CENTRALIZATION

This scenario is intended to provide data on an automated, real-time basis. Agencies would not only maintain the existing system, but also expand that system to accommodate the projected future data needs of the IJC Boards. The agencies would be requested to make improvements, as needed, to increase automation and allow greater and more timely access. Also, each data agency would establish a centralized point of access for data users. Instead of a Board going to several regional data centres, all required agency data would reside at a single point in each agency. This would enable nore efficient data links. For this scenario, the IJC would take a positive role to influence the planning process of various governmental agencies. (For instance, IJC support is needed to obtain a mini-computer for the Buffalo District, COE, in support of the Niagara and St. Lawrence River Boards.) Some agencies are upgrading their communications to satisfy their own missions and in order to met IJC Board needs, additional institutional arrangements would be necessary.

The IJC would need to be active in both this and the following scenario in resolving funding and institutional problems, and others, and may require a continuing international group. At present, the Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data accomplishes the coordination of historic level and flow data. This Committee's functions could be taken over by a permanent IJC Board and expanded to include real-time data.

A5.4 SCENARIO 3 - NATIONAL DATA CENTRALIZATION

For the third scenario, all agencies will provide the data service in the same level as indicated in the second scenario and in addition, a centralized data system will be established in both the United States and Canada to handle all recent Great Lakes Basin technical data - hydrologic, hydraulic and meteorologic. Also, the capability to include water quality and other parameters could be considered. Each agency or IJC Board having need of data would be able to go to a single source in each country, greatly simplifying things from a user point of view. For the data acquisition agencies, the data networks would feed to a single point in each country. Instead of a certain agency feeding data "bit by bit" to the user agencies and IJC Boards, one transmission point outside of its own agency would be sufficient to satisfy IJC needs. This would save time and manpower for both the users and gatherers of the data. Each agency would still be responsible for archiving and publishing its own data. The central data bank would serve as a "clearing house" for real-time data-- it would not be a place of permanent storage, or publication. Automatic purging of data, after being held for a specified period, would reduce storage requirements.

If the central data base is set up in an existing agency, additional hardware may have to be purchased by that agency. (It is noted that, the COE Master Plan was designed, in part, to support the United States Sections of the Great Lakes IJC Control Boards.) Software would likely need to be developed to handle the distribution of the data and its acquisition from other agencies. This would require identifying a source of funds. Also, there may be some institutional resistance to collecting and disseminating data that the particular agency is not responsible for. An alternative to this would be for the IJC to set up and maintain its own independent data system (computer). SECTION A6 FUNCTIONAL ANALYSES AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

A6.1 GENERAL

This section examines the three scenarios described in Section A5. Each scenario will be analyzed from two major viewpoints to determine the optimum system for the future needs of the IJC Boards and other users. The first viewpoint, system characteristics, discusses the characteristices that an automated hydromet system should have to be effective. These relate mainly to communications necessary to relay data from the field to where they are used, analyzed, and displayed. The second major consideration is related to the system's performance, when it is in place. Having defined the criteria for setting up and operating an automated Great Lakes hydrometeorologic system, the scenarios will be examined to see how well they meet the criteria. The scenario which best meets the criteria can then be identified. This would be the optimal system from the operational point of view. In examining the various criteria and scenarios, it should be kept in mind that the data referred to are real-time, not archived, data. That is, data that are or will be needed for day-to-day operations and analyses.

A6.2 SYSTEM CHARACTEKISTICS

An effective information network possesses a number of communication characteristics. This section will consider how well these characteristics are met, primarily for the IJC Boards, and other agencies and users secon- darily. The characteristics (criteria) should include accessibility, expandability, maintainability, and reliability. These are discussed in detail below.

A6.2.1 Accessibility

Accessibility, as used herein, is defined as the ability to contact the sources or devices which have the required data. In addition to this contact, the ability to utilize the devices or information network is necessary so that the available data can be queried, examined, and required information obtained when needed. The existing systems in the United States and Canada must be capable of interfacing. The system should be able to both receive and transmit digital data at both low and highspeeds (at least 1,200 bps) generate messages, and have automatic call/answer capabilities. Preferably, these communications should be available on a 24-hour basis for emergency data needs; however, at most times normal business hours will suffice. Computer software will be placed on the system to fully utilize all available information in the regulation decision-making process.

As the present systems develop on their own, agencies supporting the IJC Boards will need to access changing systems. In the United States, there should be little effect as the COE, the lead agency supporting the IJC's Great Lakes Control Boards, is moving to keep pace with these changes. In Canada, however, the situation is somewhat different as the three Boards of Control are chaired from three different offices. This may be of concern if real-time monitoring and/or modeling is implemented. Development on the part of data supplying agencies (Scenario 1) should result in an increase in accessibility for the IJC Boards, but at increased costs. Hardware ranging in size from a terminal/communications interface to a microprocessor, or larger computer, may be needed in the future to obtain data in real-time from several of the agencies. The costs would not be substantive.

With network upgrading, improved communications and data centralization to meet needs (as requested) of the IJC Boards (Scenario 2), the situation should improve for users, there being fewer interfaces needed -to obtain the required data. A combined Great Lakes data bank (Scenario 3) would be even more accessible to IJC Boards, especially in light of the IJC/agency coordination needed to implement that scenario. It is also the perception of the data supplying agencies that Scenario 3 would provide the greatest data access, or be at least as accessible as the other two scenarios. The existing CHS and NOS data systems are at the Scenario 2 level, while AES and USGS will also bring their systems to or near this level. AES' evolving network may not totally meet the Boards' needs. The USGS has centralized its data and is improving communications with the PRIME mini-computers. Increased streamflow station automation requires support. In order to meet Scenario 2, the NWS may have to automate several stations to report daily. To be able to interrogate a sensor at any time, considerable resources would be required. To obtain daily data on an accelerated (short) time frame (say two hours) would also require large resources, both monetary and manpower. NWS data are already accessible on a single computer; however, tailoring the specific data for IJC needs would again require large resources.

While Scenario 3 would have greatest accessibility, it also has the greatest cost of implementation. Also, if the data bank had a power outage, it would leave the IJC Boards without access to data if there were not ,a backup, and/or some contingency plan.

An added benefit of Scenario 3 is that technology transfer would be greatly enhanced since a centralized data bank would be reliable for future research, development and model use. The standardized formats and protocol would also aid in both technology transfer and improved reliability and accessibility.

A6.2.2 Expandability

Expandability includes the capability to access new gauges, add new users and expand the system to include new parameters and data types. The systems developed should accommodate existing and future users and interface between data provider computers and IJC Board (and other users) computers, both present and future. his requires flexible systems which, if possible, should provide alternative nethods of access. The system should also be adaptable to data gathering methods other than single-point gauges, such as digitized radar, and satellite or aerial sensing. Improvements in the degree of expandability would be enhanced by the following: the interconnection of systems; standardization of equipment, systems, and methods; and, the coordination of efforts through establishment of guidelines and criteria. The important. consideration for IJC and other users is to make. their needs known to the data providing agencies, where the internal mechanisms exist, to establish new or automate existing gauges, expand systems,,etc. Scenario 1, compared to the present situation, will probably be an improvement. For example, certain USGS data are becoming available through the NWS system and agencies are standardizing software, hardware and communication protocols. When compared to the other two scenarios, Scenario 1 is expected to be less adaptable for two reasons. First, there would continue to be a variety of equipment and data exchange formats and second, there would continue to be the problem of .including new. data types to meet future requirements.

Formal IJC participation should make Scenarios 2 and 3 more expandable than Scenario 1. Scenario 3 may be more expandable than Scenario 2 as far as the IJC Boards and some agencies are concerned. If the centralized data .bank is independent of an existing agency system, it may be expandable because it would be without some of the constraints placed upon agencies. For example, an agency may be constrained from expanding to new data types or sensors unless there is a benefit to the agency and the new data are within the agency's purview. On the other hand, a centralized data bank within an existing agency system would cost much less than the independent system and would be much preferred to Scenarios 1 and 2.

As far as adding gauges is concerned, there should be little difference between scenarios. Further, it is not feasible for agencies to fully automate all their sites, thus allowing users to access all of their gauges directly.

On the whole, Scenario 3 was generally rated to be superior, followed by Scenario 2, and then Scenario 1. It is noted that some agencies feel that there is little difference in expandability between scenarios, with the exception of the possible institutional arrangements required.

A6.2.3 Maintainability

Maintainability of the technical information system (software, gauges and dissemination techniques) is the third characteristic analyzed. The emphasis is on software and data dissemination.

Maintenance of existing gauges is assumed to be done by the data providing agencies, resulting in no change vis-a-vis the IJC Boards. If IJC needs result in the addition of gauges, part of the maintenance would need IJC support. Maintainability of software for users may require more effort due to interfacing with various changing systems, especially for Scenario 1. Because of a reduced number of agency contact points and formal coordination between users and providers, Scenario 2 should be an improvement over Scenario 1. The software for Scenario 3 may require more maintainance because an additional interface would exist between the gauge and the user than with the other two scenarios. However, standardization of data exchange formats should more than offset the problems of an added layer. A6.2.4 Reliability

Reliability can be defined as the percent success of accurate data transmission and the degree of accessibility when needed. Alternative sources of information and communication lines, and improved equipment enhance system reliability. Coordination among agencies can lead to greater standardization. Duplication of types of communication links and multiple channels of communication improve reliability.

As improved equipment is added by the agencies, reliability should improve. Because of standardization, and possibilities for back-up capability and alternate communications, Scenario 2 may be the most reliable. Scenario 3 .limits contact between the providers and users of data, which means less incentive for ensuring reliability. Also, failure.of the centralized data bank would be more of a burden to the users than if a single agency system or subsystem failed. For both of these reasons, Scenario 2 is rated superior to Scenario 3.

A6.3 OPERATIONAL MODEL CONSIDERATIONS

The second.major aspect analyzed is system performance, once it is in place, and includes the transmission of data, model development, forecasts and responsiveness to present and future user needs. Supporting physically- based models is also a prime consideration.

A6.3.1 Data Transmission

For a real-time data system, radio (i.e., land-based repeaters, not satellite) and nail links are not sufficient. The use of telephone links and automated equipment is generally needed. The scenarios address the automated receipt of data.

Accurate data are required in a reliable and timely manner, especially during ice jams, flooding and other emergency events. A minimum of 95 percent of the data stations should report accurately when needed. The system should respond to requests for data display in requested formats on designated media. The processing may require calculations, tabulations and graphical plotting. Reports, in graphical and tabular form, should be generated with little human intervention.

Transmission of data to the IJC Boards should be improved for all three scenarios. Improved telecommunications will make Scenario 2 superior to Scenario 1. Computer-to-computer data links and the acquisition of more reliable equipment will also bring about the improvement. Scenario 3 would require the fewest contacts between Boards and the data base(s) and would represent the greatest improvement for data users. Data providers, for the most part, also see Scenario 3 as the most efficient means of data transmission. A6.3.2 Eiodel Development

Physically-based runoff models are presently being developed for the individual Great Lakes Basins using historic data. Real-time data generally are not needed for this, except for some development activities, i.e., to develop real-time nodels requires real-time data. Access to historic data banks is needed in the development and optimization of models. It is envisaged that modelers will continue to obtain historic data. directly from each agency's archives. Model users must have rapid access to data for modeling, forecasting, and other activities without modifying the data base or compromising data integrity in the process.

Automated data receipt is needed to implement and recalibrate the nodels in a forecast mode. Specifically, as the hydrometeorologic data system is adapted to include snowpack water equivalent and soil moisture measurements, model improvements will be necessitated in an ongoing fashion as the data are received. To the extent that model development is thus tied to "user friendly" real-time data acquisition, model development will best be accomplished under' Scenario 3. Because computer-to-computer links are established for real-time data, model development and updating would be better facilitated. Again, the fewest points of contact are for Scenario 3, representing the greatest improvement, with Scenario 2 superior to Scenario 1 due to improved telecommunication.

A6.3.3 Forecasts

The preparation of forecasts requires methods of interpolation to substitute for missing data, ability to supply forecasts on demand, and to input artificial data for analyzing special situations. The generation of timely deterministic and probabilistic outlooks of runoff and net basin supply is tied very strongly to real-time data acquisition and reliable climate forecasts of average temperature and total precipitation. Real-time data are needed to develop forecasts.

The first two scenarios will allow considerable access to an agency's entire data base for substitution or interpolation, as needed, to compensate for missing data. Forecasts can then be timely and flexible. For routinely used and available data, Scenario 2 would be somewhat better than Scenario 1 because of its higher reliability and accessibility.

Scenario 3 is more effective in forecasting than Scenarios 1 and 2 because of its superior accessibility. Initializing the models with real- time data is clearly best under Scenario 3. Also, the utilization of digitized data, such as radar, and satellite information, while not yet fully implemented, will best be accomplished under Scenario 3.

A6.3.4 Responsiveness

The available systems should be responsive to routine, weekend, and emergency needs. The facilities must support on-line computer exchanges of information without frequent human intervention. The systen should be able to detect bogus data (i.e., quality assurance programs) not designated for storage. Processing and temporary storage of data, other than the raw data, would in most cases be done on the user's computers.

The IJC Boards have little need for data outside of normal business hours. For routine work, Scenario I would be slowest, Scenario 3 would be the most effective. Scenario 2, with improved telecommunication would be superior to Scenario 1. However, if weekend or emergency data requests arise, they would probably best be handled directly between the user and the office most directly responsible for the data. In these cases, Scenario 3 may be less effective. Thus, for this situation, Scenario 3 is superior for routine work, while Scenario 2 is superior for off-hour data needs.

A6.3.5 Current and Future Needs

The current and future needs of the IJC Boards, and the agencies queried, were considered in analyzing the alternatives. Perhaps the greatest perceived need at this tfme is for the timely transmittal of hydrometeorologic data to enable their real-time use. This need, and others, will be least effectively addressed in Scenario 1. Formal coordination, as in Scenarios 2 and 3, will do much to see that the IJC Board's present and future needs are met.

A6.4 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

Each of the three scenarios were analyzed to see how well they met the criteria. Table 24 shows how the scenarios were ranked under each criterion.

Of. the criteria used in analyzing the scenarios, four were judged to be the most important. These were: accessibility, reliability, data transmission; and capability to meet present and future needs. Of these four, Scenario 3 is superior in two areas (accessibility and data transmission), and equal to Scenario 2 in one other area (meeting present and future needs). Scenario 2 is superior in one of these four most important criteria, i.e., reliability.

Of the other criteria, Scenarios 2 and 3 would be equally effective with regard to responsiveness. Scenario 2 would be superior in the criterion of being most maintainable, while Scenario 3 would be superior in the criteria of model development and supply forecasts. With regard to expandability, Scenario 3, depending upon its location, nay be marginally superior.

Based upon all of the above, independent system development is clearly the least desirable alternative. A single data base in each country may be the optimum system. It is marginally better than having data centralized by agency. Scenario 3 is also approaching realization in the United States with the implementation of the COE Plaster Plan for Water Control Data System. The completion of this Master Plan, as noted in Section A5.2.10, and whether a similar system in Canada is to be set up, both need IJC support. IJC support is also needed for Scenario 2. The next section will take into account the cost involved to better define an "optimum" system. Table 24 - Ranking of Scenarios ------.------Scenario - --P Criterion 1 2 3 ---. .------.------Accessibility 3 2 1 Expandability 2 2 : 1-2* Maintainability 2 1 2 Reliability 2 1 2 Data Transmission 3 2 1 Model Development 3 2 1 Supply Forecasts 3 2 1 Responsiveness 2 1 1 Present and Future Needs 2 1 1

Overall 3 2 1

------& ------NOTE: 1 - the most desirable system 3 - the least desirable system *Split ranking SECTION A7 COST AND ACCURACY ANALYSIS

A7.1 GENERAL

Lake Superior was selected regarding investigation of the potential improvements that could be attributed to an automated real-time data system for the Great Lakes. It was selected because Lake Superior is the uppermost Lake and its regulation (by Plan 1977) has system-wide effects. The improvements, both potential and expected, were addressed in a general manner; further refinement of improvements and costs will require a more detailed analysis. Nevertheless, the assessments are presented to show: (a) that improvements in modeling and lake regulation are reasonably attainable; (b) where future efforts should first be focused; and, (c) order-of-magnitude costs and benefits in terms of accuracy improvements.

A7.2 POTENTIAL ACCURACY TMPROVEMENTS

For all of the Great Lakes Boards of Control, the primary concern is with Lake levels and Connecting Channels flows. The Boards have stated, in response to questionnaires, that the determination of mean Lake levels is sufficiently accurate. That is, there are enough gauges to accurately determine average Lake levels. The only concern in this area is that the data are not always available on a real-time basis when they are needed. Comparison of recorded Lake levels and the monthly forecast shows that at the end of 6 months the difference between the two has been as high as 9 cm on Lake Superior and 15 cm on Lake Ontario. About 30 percent of this difference is attributed to a lack of accurate real-time data on the starting lake elevations. Thus, an automated Great Lakes technical information system could also improve Lake regulation.

Besides improving the accuracy of real-time water level determination, another area showing potential for improvement is in the determination of net basin supplies and the parameters used in calculating net basin supplies. To determine the hydrologic benefits of improving net basin supply forecasts, the Board examined the optimum effect of "perfect" foreknowledge of water supplies for six months into the future. "Perfect" data consisted of the actual published net basin supplies and diversion rates. Forecasts using this "perfect" foreknowledge were compared to the present procedure of the Lake Superior Board of Control of using probability net basin supplies.

The results of this simple assessment showed that if hydrologic data were to be improved for only one lake, the priority should be given to Lake Superior. The range of levels for Lake Superior could be reduced by about 6 cm (0.2 foot) if "perfect" foreknowledge were available for Lake Superior only. The benefits of such foreknowledge to navigation, shore property, and hydroelectric production throughout the Great Lakes System were roughly estimated at about $300,000 per year (July 1981 dollars). The economic analysis was based on International Lake Erie Regulation Study methodologies. The best combination for improvement of two lakes would be Superior and Michigan-Huron. "Perfect" foreknowledge of supplies to those two lakes would result in total regulation benefits of about $370,000 per year. The addition of Lake Erie "perfect" supply foreknowledge would provide total benefits of about $420,000 per year. Drawing upon past studies and the general assessments made for this Board, an automated Great Lakes technical information network would improve lake level determination for forecasting purposes and, hence, improve systemic regulation. Further, improvements should first start with the Lake Superior Basin.

A7.3 EXPECTED ACCURACY IMPROVEMENTS

The Committees carried out an assessment to determine what can reasonably be expected in the way of net basin supply forecasts if a real- time network were in place. What must be kept in mind is that a real-time network does not necessarily have all of its gauges automated. Some observations are made manually and entered into a real-time communications system. Thus, the degree of automation of gauges in the rest of the report are conservative, i.e., probably more than needed.

It was assumed that the forecast of net basin supplies will rely on deterministic models, instead of probabilistic models now used. The data network needs of one readily available deterministic model, the Large Basin Runoff Model, were evaluated as an example. It should be noted that the assessments could not address the value of data that are not currently (historically) available, i.e., present data network spatial deficiencies were not addressed. Again, the Lake Superior Basin was chosen for the assessments.

A7.3.1 Meteorologic Data Network

Section A4.6.1 presents the results of an assessment of the number of stations and the useful information gained from them for the sole purpose of estimating runoff volumes. It appears that between 20 and 30 stations are adequate using this model.

Within the limitations of the assessments, it appeared that the location of the stations (system configuration) is of as much importance as the number of stations used. It seems reasonable that a configuration of 18 stations (16 of which would require automation) gives adequate results when forecasting Lake Superior basin runoff.

Other configurations may produce results that are just as good and may be preferable when logistics, institutional arrangements, or other factors are considered. Thus, the number of stations in Table 25 may be an upper limit. Again, further and more detailed study would be needed to determine the location and total number of meteorologic stations in each Basin.

The perceived needs for Lake Superior were extrapolated to the other Basins of the Great Lakes by using equivalent areal station densities. The results are presented in Table 25 below. Table 25 - Estimated Number of Real-Time Meteorologic Stations in the Great Lakes Basins -- ---.-- -- - Real-Time Meteorologic Stations --- Basin -- : Required* : Existing** Additional*** - Superior Canada 12 4 8 U.S. 12 4 8

Michigan 22 15 7

Huron Canada 17 9 8 U. S. 8 8 0

St. Clair Canada 3 2 1 U.S. 2 2 0

Erie Canada 3 1 2 U.S. 9 32 0

Ontario Canada 6 6 0 U. S. 7 19 0 -- * Required stations are those that report daily values of precipitation, minimum and maximum air temperature, humidity (dew point), and wind speed and direction, on --at least a weekly basis within a week after last day of the week. ** From AES and NWS principal observing networks; based upon availability of real-time precipitation as the limiting factor during the simulation period of the assessment. *** Based upon automation of existing gauges.

A7.3.2 Streamflow Data Network

The existing streamflow station network was evaluated (see also Section A4.6.2) in a manner similar to that of the meteorologic station network in the previous section. Only the adequacy of basin runoff, as given by the 35 "most-downstream" flow stations, was analyzed. The adequacy of the other components of net basin supply (over-lake precipitation, over-lake evaporation, inflows, outflows, and lake level) were not considered in this study.

The assessment showed that there is little information lost, for use in estimating (hindcasting) net basin supply, between the 35- and 14-station data sets. It appears that 24 or more flow stations are adequate. It should be noted that net basin supply derived from lake level changes is only a tenuous estimation. While additional streamflow stations may improve estimations of net basin supply, the small marginal forecasting accuracy improvement does not appear to be economically justified with the exception of possible improved winter outflow estimations.

A7.3.3 Hydraulic Data Network

It was concluded by the Committees that the present Great Lakes and Interconnecting Channel water level and flow data network is adequate. Therefore, an accurate assessment of automating or adding hydraulic stations was not undertaken.

A7.4 EXPECTED COSTS OF SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENT

The expected costs can be broken into two general categories: data acquisition networks and data management and delivery systems. The future data acquisition costs were estimated, based upon the hydrometeorologic data network assessments of the previous section; that is, automated networks needed to support net basin supply modeling. The second category, data management, is the cost of implementing the data system scenarios.

A7.4.1 Meteorologic Data Acquisition Costs

a. Net Basin SUDD~YModeline Assessment

If the number of meteorologic stations around the various Lakes is to reach the number of consistently recording stations estimated in Section A7.3.1 for use in the net basin supply model, the following number of stations will have to be converted to daily stations which report regardless of criteria or will have to be automated to report automatically: Lake Superior - 16 gauges (8 Canada, 8 United States); Lake Michigan - 7 gauges (all United States); Lake Huron - 8 Canadian gauges; Lake St. Clair - 1 Canadian gauge; and Lake Erie - 2 Canadian gauges (Table 25). If the additional 15 required maximum United States stations were made up by converting criteria stations to daily stations, it would likely require an additional hydrologic technician in the Minneapolis KFC to handle the increased load of telephone calls, the installation of telemetry at existing stations, or in some cases the establishment of entirely new stations. Reliable costing of the network improvement would necessitate the following steps: (1) determine where the stations were needed, (2) determine the cost, in increasing order, of converting a criteria observer to a regular observer, automating an existing station, or establishing a completely new station, and (3) determine the additional cost of processing or communicating the additional reports.

Currently, most of the paid gauge observers get a flat fee for being an observer, plus so nuch for each report. The pay per observation is in the vicinity of $1.25. The additional cost per station per month would run about $40.00. The cost for hiring required additional hydrologic technicians is $25,00O/year per technician. It is likely that at least one would be needed. If criteria stations are converted to daily stations -and one additional hydrologic technician was hired, the costs would also run close to $32,000 per year, assuming no increase in wages or costs.

In Section A4.6.1, an assessment was made for the Lake Superior Basin's meteorologic data needs for modeling. The costs for the data collection network in various sizes were estimated.

Average annual costs to automate existing meteorologic stations by using data collection platforms were estimated for hardware, installation, and maintenance. To automate 16 stations on the Lake Superior Basin would cost about $96,000 (including installation costs of $1,000 per gauge). Annual maintenance would be about $12,000 for these 16 stations. It should also be noted that the actual costs to implement the network may be less, if advances in remote sensing supplement or replace some of these gauge automa- tions. Therefore, these costs can be considered an upper limit.

b. Atmospheric Environment Service Assessments

As noted in Section A4.3.10 and based on an assessment of the climatologic (air temperature and precipitation) and real-time station networks, more reporting stations are needed to achieve a network density in accordance with World Meteorologic Organization standards. To achieve the recommended density,, AES estimated that as many as 32. new stations would be needed in the Lake Superior Basin and 17 new stations in the Lake Huron Basin. Priorities were established for implementation. (See Section A4.8.2 and Table 21.) However, it is highly unlikely that all of' these.stations will be added. Technological advances in remote sensing (e.g., the Lake Superior Water Supply Study, utilizing airborne gamma radiation techniques to obtain instantaneous soil moisture and snow cover water equivalent) will supplement, and may replace someground based precipitation stations. However, land stations will still be needed for calibration and preserving climate bench- marks.

Taking the seven first-priority stations, and assuming that volunteer observers are used for five of them, the total cost would be about $147,500. Annual operation and maintenance costs would be about $15,500. It is noted that two of the first-priority stations would be MAPS (Modular Acquisition Processing Systems) stations.

The total cost to install and/or automate all 18 first and second priority stations was estimated to range from $500,000 to $750,000. Annual costs would range from $46,000 to $70,000. However, as noted in Section A4.3.10, planned replacement READAC autostations supporting public weather services (beginning in 1986187) and MAPS2 autostations at Canadian Great Lakes lighthouses (both replacement and new) to support the marine and ice programs, may partially alleviate data network deficiencies. c. National Weather Service Network

No network expansion was suggested by the National Weather Service. However, the costs for automation of some NWS gauges to support basin water supply modeling were estimated and presented in Section A7.4.la. It is assumed that these costs would be shared with the IJC.

A7.4.2 Hydrometeorologic Data Acquisition Costs

The costs for automating and/or expanding the stream gauging network were estimated based upon the requirements of the net basin supply model (Section A4.6.2) and the assessments of WSC (Section A4.3.9) and USGS (Section A4.3.2).

a. Net,Basin Supp1y:Modeling Assessment

From the streamflow data assessment (Section A4.6.2), it was estimated that about 24 stream-gauging stations are needed for supply modeling for the Lake Superior Basin. The stations used in the assessment appeared to be suf- f icient so that additional stations are not needed. However, some automation and/or relocation would be required. Based upon station weighting, 15 stations may need to be automated to bring the total number of automated stations to 24. Of these 15, three are at power plants, thus only improved communication of data is needed. Of the remaining 12, five are in the United States and seven are in Canada.

Based upon using satellite telemetry, the first cost to automate the 12 existing-stations is about $80,000 ($27,000 United States; $53,000 Canada). Annual operation and maintenance would run about $15,000 ($6,000 United States; $9,000 Canada).

b. Water Survev of Canada Assessment

The Water Survey of Canada estimated that an additional 22 stations with real-time capability could be added to the Canadian portion of the Great Lakes Basin with an increase in gauged area from the current 73 percent to 83 percent (Section A4.3.9). Of these 22, eleven would be in the Lake Superior Basin and eleven would be in the Lake Huron Basin. The total first cost would be about $700,000 (see Table 20). Recurring costs would be about $130,000 per year. It should be noted that these costs are for entirely new stations, whereas the assessment for basin supply modeling considered only existing stations.

Further, WSC recommended that the most cost-effective path is to upgrade the existing system. The cost to fully automate the existing system was estimated (see Section A3.3.3 and Tables 2-6). The number of gauges and the costs are: Lake Superior - 16 stations at $135,000; Lake Huron - 28 stations at $232,000; Lake St. Clair - 5 stations at $40,500; Lake Erie - 13 stations at $101,500; and, Lake Ontario - 31 stations at $224,000. The total cost would be $733,000 for 93 stations. Again, this is the maximum degree of automation. A detailed study would be needed to determine a recommended number of stations to automate and their optimum locations. c. US Geoloeical Survev Assessment

The USGS recommended an additional 22 stations in the United States portion of the Great Lakes Basin (see Section A4.3.2 and Table 19). Of these, nine would be in the Lake Superior Basin, two in the Lake Michigan Basin, two in the Lake Huron Basin, seven in the Lake Erie Basin, and two in the Lake Ontario Basin. The USGS estimated these improvements to cost about $253,000 (including automation) (see Table 19) and incur annual operation and maintenance costs of about $120,000. Again, these are for new stations, not automation of existing stations.

A7.4.3 Hydraulic Data Acquisition Costs

The density of lake level gauges has been found by the Committees to be adequate for determining lake volume. However, not all of the gauges on the Great Lakes are automated. In the United States, NOS has estimated that to automate the remaining 17 gauges in need of automation will cost about $170,000. The cost per gauge for landline telemetry is about $10,000. In addition, a 10 megabyte disk will be used to store the data. This will cost about $20,000. Operation and maintenance costs should not increase as the gauges are already in existence and a part of the maintenance program. In fact, costs may be reduced somewhat because of more reliable equipment. This will be of benefit to the IJC Boards, but its costs are not attributable to the IJC as it is part of an ongoing improvement. program.

In Canada, no changes are considered necessary to the existing lake level gauging network and instrumentation.

A7.4.4 Computer Costs

Of the three scenarios evaluated in the previous section, it was considered that Scenario 3 (centralized data bank "clearing houses") in each country was marginally superior to Scenario 2 (data centralization by agency and increased communication). However, it was also pointed out that the costs to implement Scenario 3 would be much greater than for Scenario 2. Presented below are estimates of costs for these two scenarios.

a. Scenario 2 Com~uterCosts

To modernize the lake level gauges and centralize the data in the United States will cost about $190,000, of which $20,000 is for disk storage of data. The lake level gauging system in Canada is already at the Scenario 2 level, and hence no additional cost would be incurred.

With regard to meteorologic data, the NJS and AES are also nearing the Scenario 2 level with regard to data dissemination systems. Minimal computer costs are expected as a result of IJC Boards requests. However, there will probably be some software and communications costs not currently borne by IJC support agencies. With regard to hydrometric data, the USGS is currently implementing a system of mini-computers (approximately 75 nationwide). Accessing one District office mini-computer will allow access to that District's data, as well as data from other USGS District offices. The significant computer costs will be for communication equipment and data storage facilities. Assuming two additional on-line data users, the cost for communications equipment and additional disk storage would be about $30,000.

In Canada, a similar situation with regard to hydrometric data is expected. That is, WSC will not incur added computer expense due to the IJC Boards ' needs; rather, total data user needs are considered.

To gain access to the above data systems, it may require the addition of computer equipment, depending upon the user's present configuration and desire for computer-to-computer data access. In the United States, the COE is implementing a system of mini-computers in its District offices. These mini-computers are dedicated solely to water data acquisition and management. Plans are underway for a mini-computer to be installed in the Detroit District in 1985. Part of the justification for this equipment is that one of its main functions will be to support the data needs of the Great Lakes Boards. As the lead agency supporting the IJC Boards in the United States, improvement of the COE computer system in this regard will he of immense value in meeting future IJC needs. The COE needs coincide on the Great Lakes with those of the IJC, thus, while the improvements are to meet COE needs, they also coincide with the scenarios outlined in this Report.

The mini-computer planned for Detroit was sized partially based on IJC Board support workload. This equipment is expected tocost about $267,000, with peripherals adding about another $122,000. Working under the assump- tions that the peripherals would be obtained anyway for COE use, and that about 30% of the mini-computer will be used by IJC support activities, then the cost to the COE to support the IJC for Scenario 2 (or, for that matter, Scenario 1) is about $80,000. Annual operations and maintenance for IJC support is about $22,500. Roughly the same IJC Board support costs are expected upon implementation of a similar system in the Buffalo District, COE. The North Central Division office plans to use existing equipment in its support of the IJC Boards.

Computer costs for users could, in summary, range from a computer terminal to a mini-computer system,. plus software development and communications costs. It should be noted, however, that under Scenario 2 no additional funds would be required to satisfy the needs of tlie Boards of the IJC above those already contained in the data gathering and IJC support agency's budgets . Scenario 3 Computer Costs

The cost to set up a central data "clearing house" in each country was estimated. Again, it is emphasized that data archiving will remain with the data acquisition agency. In general, data would be stored in the computer for this scenario for probably one month or less, although certain data may be stored for longer periods before being purged.

(1) Existing Facilities - To estimate the computer costs for Scenario 3, two alternatives are possible in locating the facilities, i.e., use existing facilities or establish a new facility. The centralized computer may be located at the existing facilities of one of the data acquisition agencies or one of the users, assuming that suitable institutional arrangements can be made. If the computer is located at the former type of agency, then the TRADE agreement, discussed earlier in Sections A5.2.6 and A5.2.10, can be used as 'an estimate of costs. Recalling that this agreement is to upgrade the mini-computers at the RFCs for use of a major user, the upgrade at a host facility would cost about $27,000, with annual recurring costs of about $3,000. There are two factors that make this a very conservative guide. First, the object of the agreement is data transfer, not temporary storage. Second, it does not include software development, which can equal or even exceed hardware costs. Thus, increasing the TRADE agreement costs by a factor of two or three is probably more realistic, i.e., from $55,000 to $80,000, plus operations and maintenance. Also, it is likely that at least one additional technician would be needed. This would cost about $25,000 per year.

As mentioned earlier, a data user could also host the centralized computer "clearing house." In the United States, the logical place would be the COE, because of its basin-wide IJC support mission and since its planned water management system of mini-computers was designed to serve this function. In Scenario 2 it was estimated that about $80,000 in computer costs could be attributed to IJC support by the COE. If the planned mini-computer were to be used as the Scenario 3 "clearing house", it would also satisfy most IJC needs with only a minimal additional cost. This is because the system is being sized to include support of the IJC needs.

Whether a comparable system is to be implemented in Canada would need further detailed study and would need the initiative of the IJC. If such a system is to be established, the most logical place would be with an agency currently providing Working Committee support to the Control Boards (i.e., Environmental Conservation Service in Burlington or the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Study Office in Cornwall).

(2) New facilities - If a suitable host is not found for the computer "clearing house," then the alternative is to establish one. This would be at considerably increased cost. A detailed study would be needed to determine the size, configuration, etc, of such a system. However, a range of estimates was determined. Presented below are some consolidated cost ranges for each country's system: ------.-.------.------.-- Development Costs in Dollars*** ------.- ---- a. Mini-computer 75,000 to 225,000 b. Peripherals 40,000 to 75,000 c. Communications lease 20,000 to 40,000 d. Site preparation 65,000 to 240,000 e. Software 250,000 to 450,000 f. Implementation study* 250,000 to 450,000

Total Development 700,000 to 1,480,000

---.-.-.------Annual Operations Costs- in Dollars*** ----.-- - a. Maintenance** 15,000 to 60,000 b. Lease and utilities 45,000 to 85,000 c. Supplies 15,000 to 35,000 d. Communications lease 50,000 to 90,000 e. Personnel based 200,000 to 400,000

Total Annual 325,000 to 670,000

*Mostly personnel costs **Does not include non-communications costs associated with data acquisition ***Capture, analysfs, display, etc. of satellite and-radar information have not been considered in the above estimates

All of these are preliminary estimates. A detailed study would be needed. From the expected minimum and maximum costs, it is obvious that a new (independent) system would cost considerably more than utilization of a host. A middle-of-the-road, "most likely", system would cost about $1 million to set up and $1/2 million each year to operate and maintain.

A7.5 SUMMARY

The expected data acquisition and management costs are summarized below.

A7.5.1 Independent Agency Development (Scenario 1)

For Scenario 1, agencies change (improve) their systems to meet their own missions. For the most part, these independent developments will be of benefit to the IJC and other users. In reality, there is not complete and total independence; the needs of the IJC Boards and other users are considered in agency development plans. In the case of the IJC Boards, the interaction is informal and "low level." No costs, either for data acquisition or management, are attributed to Scenario 1. A7.5.2 Improved Communication and Data Centralization (Scenario 2)

To improve data communication, a number of meteorologic and streamflow stations will need to be automated. Of interest to the IJC Boards are those used in basin water supply modeling and lake level monitoring. Preliminary assessments indicate that for the Lake Superior Basin the automation of 16 meteorologic stations may cost about $96,000 (Section A7.4.1). Automation of streamflow gauges, costing $80,000 (Section A7.4.2), brings the total first cost to $176,000. (See Table 26).

At this time, an estimate can only be made of the model improvement costs, i.e., $176,000. Again, a detailed study would be needed to refine the Lake Superior Basin cost estimates and determine the costs for other Basins.

With regard to data management (computer) costs, NOS will be spending about $20,000 to allow real-time access to its gauge data. The COE plans on spending about $80,000 which is directly attributable to IJC Board support for computer equipment under its Master Plan for Water Management Information System program. Similarly, AES, NWS, and USGS are spending considerable sums of money to improve their data communication and accessibility. These costs, while of benefit, are not directly attributable to the IJC. If modifications to these improvements are needed to make them more compatible with IJC support agencies and activities, added costs would be incurred; the extent of which would need further study.

A7.5.3 National Data Centralization (scenario 3)

For Scenario 3, there are no data acquisition costs incremental to Scenario 2, i.e., they are the same. Data management costs can range from about $160,000 to about $3.2 million, depending upon the site used for the computer. Operations costs would start at $45,000 for the smaller system. The cheaper system would be to have the data "clearing house" at an existing site as an add-on. If such a route were taken, the costs incremental to Scenario 2 could be minimal. On the other hand, an independently located system would cost from $700,000 to $1.5 million to each country, plus large annual operating expenses of about $325,000 to $670,000. Table 26 summarizes the estimated costs. Table 26 - Scenario Costs (Thousands of Dollars)

----.- --a ------: United States : Canada -.------TOT~---- .------:First Cost: Annual :First Cost: Annual : First Cost : Annual-- I. Scenario : Two (1) : 75(2): 12 : 101 (3) : 15 : 176 : 27 (Gauges )

11. Scenario : Three (Com- :

b. New Facility : 700-1,480: 325-670: 700-1,480: 325-670: 1,400-2,960:650-1,340

--.------.- - (1) To support Lake Superior Basin Supply Plodel (2) $27,000 for automation of five.stream gauges; $48,000 for automation of eight meteorologic gauges (3) $53,000 for automation of seven stream gauges; $48,000 for automation of eight meteorologic gauges (4) COE or NWS, respectively, inthe United States (5) Assuming comparable costs in Canada SECTION A8 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A8.1 FINDINGS

1. USEK SURVEYS INDICATED THAT, FOR THE MOST PART, THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION (IJC) GREAT LAKES CONTROL BOARDS' PRESENT DATA* NEEDS ARE BEING ADEQUATELY MET. HOWEVER, FUTURE DATA NEEDS WILL EXIST FOR THE APPLICATIONS OF EVOLVING TECHNOLOGY AND SYSTEMS CURRENTLY BEING DEVELOPED WHICH COULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL COST EFFECTIVE BENEFITS.

At present, regulation plans for Lakes Superior and Ontario require only water level data from stations in the Great Lakes and Connecting Channels. All other information is generally used for advisory and local contingency planning purposes, e.g., monitoring of ice jams and ice booms. Existing data systems generally meet these needs. However, future improvements in the regulation process will only occur, in all likelihood, through development of physically based hydrologic forecast models, dependent on real-time hydraulic, hydrologic and meteorologic data, and availability of reliable climate forecasts of at least seasonal length. One of the major areas of interest is winter flows in the Detroit and St. Clair Rivers. Accurate determination of flows in the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers and through the Compensating Works at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, and Ontario are also required by the Boards of Control

.2. ONLY SLIGHT SKILL CURRENTLY EXISTS IN FORECAST- ING AVERAGE MONTHLY OR SEASONAL TEMPERATURES. VERY LITTLE VERIFIABLE SKILL IS DEMONSTRATED IN FORECASTING TOTAL PRECIPITATION FOR THE SAME PERIOD.

Skill in this context means forecast accuracy as compared to assuming average conditions (climatology) or that the weather will remain unchanged (persistence). Presently, long-range monthly and seasonal forecasts address the probability that average temperatures and total precipitation for the forecast period are above, near, or below normal. As expressed in the Policy Statement on Weather Forecasting, issued by the American Meteorological Society, forecast skill is small and, in general, only modest improvements are expected in the near future. However, improved long-range forecast capabilities are a high priority with the meteorologic agencies of Canada and the United States, Atmospheric Environment Service (AES) and National Weather Service (NUS), respectively.

--.------.- -- * Data referred to are hydrologic, hydraulic and meteorologic.

A-159 3. PHYSICALLY-BASED CONCEPTUAL RUNOFF AND NET BASIN SUPPLY MODELS CURRENTLY BEING TESTED FOR PURPOSES OF LAKE REGULATION SEEM RELATIVELY INSENSITIVE TO CHANGES IN NETWORK DENSITY ABOVE CERTAIN DENSITY . LEVELS. HOWEVER, ASSESSMENTS OF THE EXISTING PRECIPITATION NETWORKS IN THE LAKE SUPERIOR BASIN SHOWED THAT FOR LAKE REGULATION THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH OF THE EXISTING STATIONS AVAILABLE IN REAL-TIME TO BE OPERATIONALLY USEFUL. THE ASSESSMENTS DEMONSTRATED THAT INCREASED REAL-TIME AVAILABILITY OF PRECIPITATION DATA CAN IMPROVE THE ACCURACY OF WATER SUPPLY MODELLING.

Using the existing Lake Superior Basin historical data base and applying the Large Basin Runoff Model in a lumped paraneter approach, little information was lost between the full data set (53 precipitation stations) and a subset of 23 stations determined by Thiessen weighting. It should be noted that: (1) the stations are not totally available for interrogation in real-time; and, (2) the assessments could not address existing spatial deficiencies. It appears that between 23 and 33 stations are adequate for use of the Large Basin Runoff Model in a.hindcasting mode. Use of the model for forecasting requires as few as 18 real-time stations.

Similar hindcast assessments of the adequacy of streamflow station measurements on the basin were undertaken. Little information was lost between 35 and 14 station subsets. At least 24 stations, however, were considered adequate for estimating net basin supply.

4. THE TECHNOLOGY EXISTS TO DEVELOP A RELIABLE AUTOMATED REAL-TIME HYDROMETEOROLOGIC DATA NETWORK SYSTEM FOR THE GREAT LAKES BASIN.

All data agencies have, to some degree, installed automated stations in their basin networks. New generation automated stations already evolving will have more internal data processing capabilities and will be capable of handling more sensors. Thus, they will be more expandable and reliable. However, technological advances in remote sensing may preclude the necessity to develop an expensive fully automated ground based hydrometeorologic network, other than.key indicator stations required for model calibration purposes.

5. IN KEEPING WITH RAPIDLY EVOLVING TECHNOLOGY, DATA COLLECTION AGENCIES ARE PLANNING AND.IMF'LEMENTING PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE THEIR DATA ACQUISITION AND DELIVERY SYSTEl4S. THE TREND IS TO INCREASED AUTOMATION OF NETWORKS, DIGITIZING OF REMOTELY SENSED MASS DATA SUCH AS WEATHER RADAR AND SATELLITE INFORMATION, AND IMPROVED DATA BASE MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM TO ALLOW FOR MORE TIMELY AND "USER FRIENDLY" ACCESS TO BOTH REAL-TIME AND HISTORIC DATA. FOR THE MOST PART, SUCH UPGRADES ARE PROCEEDING AS QUICKLY AS FEASIBILITY TESTING AND FUNDING WILL ALLOW.

A 5-year program, "The Lake Superior Water Supply Study," conducted as an international cooperative study involving the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), NOAA, Environment Canada, and Energy, Mines and Resouces Canada began in 1982183 with an airborne snow survey project to demonstrate the capabilities of airborne gamma radiation systems for gathering snowpack water equivalent data over the heavily forested basin with a view to explore operational capabilities for the entire Great Lakes Basin. The study includes: (1) airborne gamma radiation measurements of snowpack water equivalent and soil moisture conditions on a regular basis; (2) automation of key hydrometeorologic gauges within the Basin; (3) development of an operational link with environmental satellite data and the modeling process; and, (4) refinements in water supply forecasting procedures using hydrologic response numerical models for the Lake.

Data agencies in general, are upgrading their principal observing networks through installation of automated stations, accessible by land line or satellite, primarily developed to meet their mission oriented objectives. The upgrades, referred to in this report as Scenario 1, will also benefit the IJC Boards and the agencies providing support to those Boards.

Computer oriented data communications, such as the NWS Automation of Field Operations and Services (AFOS) System, projected to be fully operational by 1985, and a similar AES computer oriented communications system, based on a mix of terrestrial and satellite based communications, being phased in during the 1980s, are notable improvements. Implementation of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) distributed information system and the Adaptable Hydrologic Data Acquisition System (AHDAS), projected to be operational by 1985, should increase data acquisition timeliness and increase utility of stream gauging networks. Water Survey of Canada (WSC) is examining new computer and communications facilities for real-time data retrieval and archiving.

Historic archives will be more readily accessible through improved data base management systems and interactive access development.

6. THE. TREND IN DATA ACQUISITION AND DELIVERY SYSTEMS IS TO INCREASE CENTRALIZATION OF DATA BY THE SUPPLYING AGENCIES.

With their requirements for handling large volumes of data, NWS and AES have centralized, and to a large degree, standardized their data systems. Currently, they are upgrading their communications systems. The Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS) water level gauges can be accessed via computer link to Ottawa, Ontario. The USGS and WSC have developed plans to facilitate real-time centralized data collection. Access to NWS data could possibly be achieved through River Forecast Center (RFC) gateway computers or through the AFOS System (although AFOS is already saturated). AES real-time data will, in the future, be primarily accessed through public packet networks (small requests) or through the Toronto regional communications computer.

In keeping with this, a United States program to exchange hydrometeorologic data (Testing the Reliability of Automated Data Exchange, or TRADE) between NWS and the COE, which will also include real-time USGS streamflow data, has begun and should be fully implemented by about 1985. Furthermore, a common format (Standard Hydrologic Exchange Format or SHEF) to facilitate data exchange has been agreed upon. This will provide the basis for future data transfer between the two agencies. The COE Davis, California, Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) and the Sacramento, California, RFC are involved in developing the necessary software and testing the exchange program. Because the COE is the lead United States agency supporting the IJC Boards, and has a mission to do so, implementation of this program will provide IJC Boards access to more NWS and USGS data.

Meteorologic agencies are gradually phasing out multidrop, i.e., teletype access to operational alphanumeric weather data in favor of interactive computer oriented access. NWS will replace teletype drops by 1985. Interactive access to AES alphanumeric data is projected by 1986; thereafter, teletype drops could be eliminated. Further, AES projects a fully operational satellite broadcasting system supporting facsimile and alphanumeric data by 1988.

7. ALTHOUGH THEKE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF FORMAL AND INFORMAL INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNIlENT REGARDING DATA ACQUISITION AND DELIVERY SYSTEMS, RESEARCH, AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE, AN OVERALL CENTRALIZED COORDINATION IS LACKING.

The various evolving systems, some of which are noted under Finding 6, above, are primarily intended to meet the missions of the individual agency. The purpose of Scenario 2 is two-fold. First, it includes IJC participation in modifying institutional arrangements, as needed. Second, and pursuant to this, it envisions the agencies centralizing their Great Lakes Basin data at a single point within that agency, and allowing automated, real-time access to that data.

8. INITIAL ANALYSES INDICATE THAT COSTS TO DESIGN, IMPLEMENT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN NATIONAL DATA BANK "CLEARING HOUSES" AS ENVISAGED IN SCENARIO 3 COULD BE SUBSTANTIAL.

Scenario 3 involves consolidating all Great Lakes data at a single point in each country. For the IJC to set up, independently, such a system would cost about $1 million. The data "clearing house" (temporary data storage) facility could be established for $160,000 to $210,000. Major costs would be for software development and storage. Very little would be added to operational costs. If no existing facility was readily available, the development and implementation costs (in terms of hardware, software, communications, personnel) and annual operating costs of a new facility could be in the $500,000 to $1,000,000 range, respectively.

A8.2 CONCLUSIONS

The Committees concluded the following:

I. THE PRESENT NETWORK OF METEOROLOGIC (PRIPIARILY PRECIPITATION AND AIR TEMPERATURE) STATIONS IN BOTH CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES IS CONSIDERED ADEQUATE TO MEET THE PRESENT AND FUTURE NEEDS OF THE IJC BOARDS. HOWEVER, ADDITIONAL METEOROLOGIC STATIONS ARE PREFERABLE NOW ON THE CANADIAN PORTION OF THE UPPER LAKES BASIN WHERE STATION DENSITY IS LOW.

Consideration was given to defining an optimum precipitation network for the Great Lakes Basin. The Guide to Hydrological Data Practices (WMO No. 168), recommends one precipitation observing station between 30 and 90 kilometres, as a minimum. The Guide also suggests that there should be at least two precipitation gauges for each stream gauging station or major sub-basin; one located near the stream gauge and the rest in the upper portion of the

basin. In the northern portions of the Great Lakes Basin neither of these , criteria are met.

It is recognized, however, that technological advances in remote sensing of rainfall, soil moisture and snow cover through radar or satellite data may in the future supplement or replace surface measurements. Surface measurements will remain essential for ground truthing and to provide a consistent climatologic record. Considering these facts, an optimum precipitation network would consist of the present network augmented by 32 and 17 stations in the Canadian portion of the Lake Superior and Lake Huron Drainage Basins, respectively. While costs may vary among the stations depending on site accessibility and availability of observers, the cost of installation would be about $28,000 to $42,000 per station, and the annual operating cost about $3,000 to $4,000 per station. All costs are in 1983 dollars.

It was noted that the meteorologic station network in the United States portion of the Great Lakes Basin is relatively dense when compared to that in Canada. Hence, no serious network gap was identified.

2. THE PRESENT NETWORK OF WATER LEVEL STATIONS ON THE GREAT LAKES IS CONSIDERED ADEQUATE TO MEET PRESENT AND FUTURE OPERATIONAL NEEDS OF THE IJC BOARDS.

Present plans for the regulation of Lakes Superior and Ontario require water level data from only the limited number of stations in the Great Lakes and their Connecting Channels. As long as these stations remain in operation, and there is no change in regulation plans and procedures, the needs of the Boards will be met. Efforts should be maintained to ensure that equipment at these sites is up-to-date and the data they collect will be provided to the users in a timely manner.

3. THE PRESENT NETWORKS OF HYDROMETRIC (STREAMFLOW OR STREAM LEVEL) STATIONS IN BOTH CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES ARE CONSIDERED ADEQUATE TO MEET THE PRESENT AND FUTURE NEEDS OF THE IJC BOARDS.

A review of existing hydrometric (streamflow or stream level) networks in Canada and the United States. shows that no serious gap exists in relation to the needs of the IJC Boards. At present, 73 percent of the land area in. Canada is being gauged. An expansion of this network by an additional 22, stations.would increase the areal coverage to 83 percent, with.most of the improvements occurring in the Lakes Superior and Huron Basins. The cost of installation would be about $10,000; and with real-time instrumentation, an additional $5,000 to $7,000 per station. The annual operating cost is about $6,000 per station.

In the United States, installation of 22 additional gauges would increase the coverage from the current 67 percent to 71 percent. Much of the improvement would occur in the Lakes Huron and Erie Basins. The cost of installation would be about $12,000 per station, and the annual operating cost would be about $5,000 per station.

Although additional stations would increase the areal coverage, the incremental improvement is small 'and tends' to be rather .expensive.' This is because the additional stations would be located mostly on small tributaries, resulting in only minor improvements. Thus, it may be more desirable to upgrade (automate) existing key hydrometric stations to provide real-time data to users.

In Canada, present hydrometric stations equipped with real-time capability cover 49 percent of the watershed area for Lake Superior, 22 percent for Lake Huron, none for Lake St. Clair, 41 percent for Lake Erie, and 9 percent for Lake Ontario. The cost of upgrading existing Canadian stations to provide real-time data would be: $135,000 for Lake Superior (76 percent); $232,000 for Lake Huron (72 percent); $40,500 for Lake St. Clair (64 percent); $101,500 for Lake Erie (65 percent); and, $224,000 for Lake Ontario (77 percent); for a total of $733,000.

In the United States, present streamflow stations equipped with automated real-time reporting capability cover 3 percent of the watershed area for Lake Superior, 31 percent for Lake Michigan, 20 percent for Lake St. Clair, 38 percent for Lake Huron, 50 percent for Lake Erie, and 60 percent for Lake Ontario. The estimated cost of upgrading existing United States stations to provide automated real-time data using satellite telemetry would be: $90,000 for Lake Superior (43 percent coverage), S270,OOO for Lake Michigan (78 percent), $22,000 for Lake St. Clair (68 percent), $30,000 for Lake Huron (46 percent), $60,000 for Lake Erie (74 percent), and $15,000 for Lake Ontario (76 percent); for a total of $487,000. It is noted, however, that the Committees are not recommending that the agencies or the IJC allocate funding for upgrading all existing hydrometric stations or embark on a major program of gauge installation. The number of hydrometeorologic gauges in existence is generally adequate. Future needs may dictate that a modest number be automated; no installation of new gauges is presently foreseen.

4. THE PRESENT TECHNIQUES IN THE COLLECTION OF BASIC HYDROMETEOROLOGIC DATA ARE CONSIDERED ADEQUATE TO MEET. THE PRESENT NEEDS OF THE IJC BOARDS. SEVERAL TYPES OF DATA, INCLUDING OVER-LAKE PRECIPITATION, SNOW-WATER EQUIVALENT, AND SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT ARE NOT CURRENTLY COLLECTED OR ESTIMATED ON A SYSTEMIC BASIS AND THE NEEDS FOR THESE DATA MAY BECOME MORE PREVALENT IN THE FUTURE AS FORECASTING OF WATER SUPPLIES BECOMES PART OF THE REGULATION PROCESS.

Great Lakes water level data are the essential inputs to the regulation plans currently used to regulate Lakes Superior and Ontario. While the regulation plans do not specify the locations where the data are to be collected, they do specify the minimum numbers of gauges to be used on each lake. Present water level measuring devices can measure and record levels to the nearest 0.01 metre (0.03 foot), some even to the nearest 0.001 metre (0.003 foot). Hence, it is concluded that the present technique in the collection of water level data is adequate to meet the present and future needs of the IJC Boards.

In the future, remote sensing measurements may make it possible to transmit more frequent and timely information on snowpack areal extent, water equivalent and depth, as well as prevailing soil moisture conditions. Experiments are currently being conducted using an airborne gamma radiation technique to demonstrate its capabilities in collecting these data.

5. THE PRESENT MJ?,THODS OF DATA COORDINATION AND DISSEMINATION BY THE VARIOUS COLLECTION AGENCIES ARE CONSIDERED ADEQUATE TO MEET THE PRESENT NEEDS OF THE IJC BOARDS. THERE IS, HOWEVER, A NEED TO EXPEDITE THE TRANSMITTAL OF SOME OF THE HYDROMETEOKO- LOGIC DATA TO THE BOARDS.

It is noted that the transmittal of precipitation data to the IJC Boards is often delayed. While such delays are not considered serious at the present time, they nevertheless could hamper the IJC Boards' ability to make up-to-date assessments of, for example, soil moisture conditions in the Great Lakes Basin. Real-time data from data collection platforms (DCPs) or other alternatives would help solve the computer-to-computer data exchange problem.

Various agencies have individually developed systems to disseminate, collect, and analyze data according to their assigned needs. In the United States, there is, a need to make the historic and real-time hydraulic data readily available to all authorized users. Factors such as the number of diverse institutional arrangements, agency mission-oriented observational networks and communications upgrades, and the need for data user agencies supporting the IJC Boards to keep in phase with the evolving systems dictate that formal coordination between the IJC Boards and the data collection agencies is necessary. The ad-hoc nature of the Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data limits this Committee's effectiveness to carry out the necessary formal coordination.

Improved formal coordination is required so that the IJC Boards can keep abreast of.rapidly evolving data agency information systems and be assured that their information needs are coordinated with those of the agencies.

6. IJC BOARDS WILL BE REQUIRED TO ACT TO ENSURE CONTINUED AND ENHANCED RECEIPT OF HYDROLOGIC, HYDRAULIC, AND METEOROLOGIC DATA.

Rapidly changing communications systems may at present be perceived by data user agencies as disruptive in terms of requiring revision to operational access methods and procedures, but in the long-term, will be a benefit. Data comunications upgrades by data supplying agencies will result in more reliable, responsive, and adaptive systems through computer-oriented communications, data centralization, and interactive access. These upgrades are largely mission-oriented towards each agency's primary missions; however, the needs of outside user agencies are, or will be, considered, if they are expressed. Due to the large number of formal and informal institutional arrangements, there has been little coordination of Great Lakes operational data. The onus, however, should be on the data user to keep in phase with these evolving systems. Computer-to-computer, or remote terminal, access will in general be the norm.

7. REVIEW OF THE RESPONSES RECEIVED BY THE BOARD REVEAL THAT MOST DATA USERS ARE SATISFIED WITH THE PRESENT LEVEL OF INFORMATION THEY RECEIVE. THERE ARE, HOWEVER, SOME USERS WHO HAVg LUCNTIPLEI) DATA REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE NEITHER MET CURRENTLY NOR LIKELY TO BE MET IN THE FUTURE.

In addition to the IJC Boards, the Technical Information Network Board also contacted other organizations regarding their data needs. These organizations include government agencies, and power and navigation interests in Canada and the United States. Although most are satisfied with the present level of information they receive, some users have identified data requirements that are neither met currently nor likely to be net in the future. For example, the States of Minnesota, Michigan, and New York have identified areas where data collection should be instituted or expanded to satisfy the needs of State programs such as flood and erosion control, local weather forecasts, and resources management. Navigation interests have also expressed an interest in obtaining additional hydrographic data and better weather forecasts in the Great Lakes navigation routes. The Cornittees consider these requirements rather localized in nature, however, and not falling within the purview of the current Study Board. 8. THE DISSEMINATION OF REAL-TIME HYDKOMETEOROLOGIC DATA WOULD ENHANCE THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONAL USE OF HYDROLOGIC MODELS OF THE GREAT LAKES WHICH MAY IN TURN PROVIDE MORE ACCURATE KNOWLEDGE OF FUTURE WATER' SUPPLIES TO THE GREAT LAKES. HOWEVER, RESOURCES ARE STILL LACKING FOR THE OPERATING AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT REAL-TIME DATA FOR MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVED REGULATION.

Present regulation plans (Plan 1977 and Plan 1958-D) require up-to-date lake level information in formulating outflow decisions. All plan-designated water level gauges on the Great Lakes are already automated, or equipped to provide real-time data. Hence, the provision of real-time data does not pose any problem to the IJC Boards at the present time. However, the Committees concluded that one major shortcoming in the present regulation procedures is that they do not take into consideration the hydrologic conditions on the land portion of the Basin. Runoff from the land portion of the Great Lakes constitutes about one-half of the water supply to the Great Lakes. Advanced knowledge of runoff conditions could improve regulation of the water levels of the Great Lakes.

Physically-based hydrologic runoff and water supply models currently being developed are hindered by the paucity of accurate information on areal snowpack water equivalent, soil moisture, overlake precipitation, evaporation, and by the unavailability of reliable climate forecasts. A properly calibrated hydrologic model would give accurate relationships among the various factors affecting the water levels of the Great Lakes. Models such as the Large Basin Runoff Nodel are presently limited, in the real-time sense, to using, generally, temperature and precipitation measurements. Important factors such as soil moisture and snowpack water equivalent are provided as indexed quantities for water balances. These indices are inadequate for use in forecasting. In future models, there is also a need to incorporate important factors such as overlake precipitation and evaporation, which currently are poorly estimated. Often, estimates of seasonal historic averages are used for some of these data in the models.

Only a small portion of the hydrometeorologic stations have been automated at the present time. An increase in station automation would improve the accuracy of the results of hydrologic modeling.

There is a need to establish in-place flow meters at select locations in the Great Lakes Connecting Channels (particularly the St. Clair-Detroit River System) to support hydraulic studies and modeling of winter flows. Such data would best be collected in a real-time mode. There is also a need to verify periodically the stage-discharge relationships in the connecting Channels and at various regulatory or remedial structures in the Great Lakes.

9. SUBJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS, IN TERMS OF SYSTEM CHARACTEKISTICS, OPERATIONAL MODEL CONSIDERATIONS AND ABILITY TO MEET FUTURE NEEDS OF THE IJC GREAT MSCONTROL BOARDS, INDICATES THAT A NATIONAL CXNTRALIZED DATA BANK IN EACH COUNTRY IS MARGINALLY BETTER THAN DATA CENTRALIZATION BY EACH AGENCY. HOWEVER, THE COSTS ' MAY BE SUBSTANTIAL TO DESIGN, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN AN INDEPENDENTLY LOCATED CENTRALIZED DATA BANK (CLEARING HOUSE). USING OR UPGRADING AN AGENCY'S EXISTING SYSTEM WOULD BE A LESS COSTLY ALTERNATIVE.

System characteristics of three scenarios were subjectively analyzed in terms of accessibility, expandability, maintainability, and reliability. Operational model considerations included data transmission, model development, forecasting, and responsiveness. For most of these factors, Scenario 3 (National Data Centralization) was considered to be the optimal system. The exceptions were that the Scenario 2 (Improved Communications and Data Centralization) system was more reliable and more responsive in the off-hours than a dedicated national data bank operation. Further, the expandability of the national data-bank system could be dependent on individual data-agency systems.

10. IN-DEPTH COST/ACCURACY ANALYSES AKE REQUIRXD IN ORDER TO OPTIMIZE THE DATA ACQUISITION AND DELIVERY SYSTEMS REQUIRED BY THE IJC GREAT W(ES CONTROL BOARDS.

The potential improvements that can be attributed to a real-time data system.for the Great Lakes in this study were focused primarily on Lake Superior regulation. The improvements, both potential and expected, were addressed in a general manner; further refinement of improvements and costs will require a more detailed analysis.

The Committees examined the effect on Lake Superior regulation of "perfect" foreknowledge of water supplies and diversions. This assessment showed that the range of levels for Lake Superior could be reduced by about 6 cm (0.2 feet), if "perfect" foreknowledge of supplies to Lake Superior were available. Also, assessments using a large basin runoff model indicated that 18 precipitation gauges and 24 streamflow gauges were considered adequate for modeling purposes. Of these, only 4 precipitation and 9 streamflow gauges are available in real-time. Costs to automate and operate the remaining precipitation gauges were estimated at $96,000 and $12,000 per year, respectively. Costs to automate and operate the remaining streamflow gauges were estimated to be $80,000 and $15,000 per year, respectively. A8.3 RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committees recommend the following:

1. ADDITIONAL METEOROLOGIC STATIONS BE INSTALLED IN THE CANADIAN PORTION OF THE UPPER GREAT LAKES BASIN, AND KEY EXISTING STATIONS IN BOTH CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES BE UPGRADED n> PROVIDE REAL-TIME DATA CAPABILITY. The Commit tees recommend that additional meteorologic stations be installed as soon as possible on the Canadian portion of the Upper Great Lakes Basin. These stations have been listed as first priority by AES and include: White River, Simons Harbour and Franz on the Lake Superior Basin; and Rock Island Reservoir Dam, Spragge on Highway 17, Rue1 and Killarney on the Lake Huron Basin. The total capital cost for the installation is about $147,500, while the annual operation and maintenance costs would be about $15,500.

While it would be ideal to install up to 32 new' stations in the Lake Superior Basin and 17 in the Lake Huron Basin, the Committees recommend that such a huge outlay of capital not be undertaken at the present time. The Committees recommend that the benefits fromexpanding the precipitation network be further investigated by determining the sensitivity and accuracy of prediction from suitable ,hydrologic models by modifications to the network. Consideration should be given to making some key existing stations automatic. This would enhance the development and testing of hydrologic models used to forecast water supplies to the Great Lakes.

2. NO FURTHER CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO THE ADDITION OF NEW WATER LEVEL OR HYDROMETEOROLOGIC (STREAMFLOW) STATIONS IN THE GREAT LAKES BASIN. HOWEVER, SEVEKAL WATER LEVEL STATIONS SHOULD BE UPGRADED TO REAL-TIME DATA CAPABILITY.

More real-time flow meters should be established in the Great Lakes Connecting Channels and the St. Lawrence River to support model studies. The stage-discharge relationships used by the IJC Boards should be verified on a regular basis.

3. EFFORTS BE CONTINUED IN THE SURVEY OF SNOW-WATER EQUIVALENT, SOIL MOISTURE, AND THE COLLECTION OF OTHEK TYPES OF DATA BY REMOTE SENSING TECHNIQUES, AND A SYSTEM BE DEVELOPED FOR THE COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION OF THESE DATA.

Beginning in the winter of 1982-83, the COE, Detroit District, in cooperation with the NWS, the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC), and Environment Canada, conducted an airborne gamma radiation snow survey project over the Lake Superior Drainage Basin. The objective of the survey was to demonstrate the capabilities of this technique to gather reliable, real-time snowpack water equivalent data over the Basin. The data collected were used to assess potential spring and summer water supplies to Lake Superior and as test input to hydrologic response models under development-. Results from the pilot program indicate that airborne measurement techniques using gamma radiation can provide reliable, real-time snow-water equivalent data for the region. The Committees recommend that such an effort be continued and that a system be developed to store the information and provide it to the IJC Boards on a routine basis. In addition to snow-water equivalence, over-lake precipitation data might be collected through remote sensing techniques. 4. THE IJC SHOULD ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT DATA CENTRALIZATION BY THE DATA COLLECTION AGENCIES (SCENARIO 2) FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEETING THE GREAT LAKES BOARDS' FUTURE TECHNICAL INFORMA- TION NEEDS IN THEIR APPLICATION OF AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY.

The agencies would be requested by the IJC to make,improvements, as needed, to increase automation and allow greater and more timely access to data. Also, each data agency would establish a centralized point of access for data users. Although many agencies' data systems are evolving to this level, the key is that through IJC support, the IJC Boards' needs will be best addressed. The benefits of data centralization are obvious - timely and efficient access to real-time data required for model development and implementation for possible future regulation purposes.

National data centralization (Scenario 3) is better in the system sense for the IJC Boards' purposes, but the Boards' present needs, and the anticipated immediate future level of use of a completely independently located system by the IJC, cannot justify, at this time, the additional resources required. However, IJC support to establish such a system at an existing agency's computer system may be justified and bears investigation.

5. THE IJC ESTABLISH A PENWNT BOARD WHICH WILL TAKE OVER THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CURRENT COORDINATING COMMITTEE ON GREAT LAKES BASIC HYDRAULIC AND HYDROLOGIC DATA, AND WILL ALSO BE GIVEN THE RESPONSIBILITY TO IMPLEMENT THE IFPROVE- MENTS RECOMMENDED BY THE INTERNATIONAL GREAT LAKES TECHNICAL INFOIUUTION NETWORK BOARD.

Since its inception in 1953, the Coordinating Committee has accomplished several major tasks directly related to the management of the water levels and outflows of the Great Lakes Basin. These include the establishment of the International Great Lakes Datum, 1955 (IGLD, 1955), the procedures to calculate flows in the Connecting Channels and the St. Lawrence River, and methods to determine lake storage and water supplies. The work of the Coordinating Committee has been accepted in both Canada and the United States, especially in the case of the establishment of the IGLD. The Committees have noted that'the work progress of the Coordinating Committee in its 30-year existence has depended very much on the resources made available to it by the supporting government agencies. The Coordinating Committee was. originally formed on an ad hoc basis by the Governments and as such, often experienced delays in its projects due to a lack of manpower and financial resources.

The Committees recommend that a permanent Board be established by the International Joint Commission to take over the duties and responsibilities of the current Coordinating Committee. Such a Board would ensure that the program to update the IGLD would be completed on time. It could also take over the responsibility for determining the flows in the St. Clair-Detroit River System. It should also be given the mandate to provide research assistance to the IJC Boards of Control.in areas such as Great Lakes hydrologic modeling and regulation plan studies. It would also periodically review the hydrometeorologic data system to ensure continued adequacy for IJC Board needs. Finally, such a Board could oversee the implementation of the recommended changes proposed by the International Great Lakes Technical Information Network Board, and act as coordinator between the IJC Boards and the various data collection agencies.

6. THE IJC RECOMMEND TO THE GOVERNMENTS THAT ONGOING RESEARCH IN HYDROLOGIC MODELING BE ENCOURAGED. THIS SHOULD BE DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH EFFORTS TO IMPROVE DATA ACQUISITION AND TRANSMITTAL TECHNIQUES, AS WELL AS, LONG-RANGE WEATHER FORECASTS.

A principal component of present lake regulation plans, particularly for Lake Superior, is the forecast of basin runoff, lake precipitation, and lake evaporation for all of the Great Lakes Basin. Forecast packages are required that use real-time information to establish outlooks that consider both the existing basin storages and anticipated or forecasted meteorology. With the intrinsic memory of the basins and lakes, there is much potential for developing useful short term operational outlooks in the face of uncertain hydrometeorologic forecasts. Improvements in the regulation plans await the development of improved hydrologic forecasts which in turn depend on improvements in hydrologic modeling, data coverage,.and data transmittal.

The needs for improved models and improved data collection and transmittal are interrelated. Models developed for practical use are predicated on the data available at the time of the development; that is, they are designed to make use of only data that are currently available in a timely manner. Improvements in data collection and data transmittal are often predicated on existing model needs. Hence, it is no surprise that the existing data collection network has been judged as adequate to meet present needs by the users in the Great Lakes Basin. Nevertheless, it is recognized that the measurement of areal soil moisture and snowpack water equivalence and the timely transmittal of all hydrometeorologic data are important improvements in the Great Lakes network; hydrologic models which fully utilize the new data and which can be used in real-time in concert with improved data transmittal must be developed and implemented. It is expected that such developments will complement the design of data transmittal networks. The importance of improvements in data transmittal techniques is tied to the improved ability to estimate current states of the hydrologic system (basin storage). A good knowledge of the system's current state, coupled with the intrinsic memory of the system, will enable better Forecasts with hydrologic models designed to make full use of timely data. ANNEX A

TERMS OF REFERENCE

The purpose of this document is to provide general goals which the Board wishes the Committees to achieve. In its charge to the Board the International Joint Commission requested the Board to:

". . . investigate and report to the Commission concerning unmet needs in data collection with respect to the Great Lakes meteorologic, hydrologic and hydraulic data networks. In its investigation, the Board shall compare data collection and analysis methods presently used and advise the Commission concerning their adequacy and compatability; assess the adequacy of the data collection system with respect to coverage and timely response; and advise the Commission concerning changes and additions to the data networks required to assure that the meteorologic, hydrologic and hydraulic data needs of the Great Lakes System are met."

The Committees are to carry out the above charge as it pertains to the Great Lakes hydrometeorological data networks. These will include the networks used to determine water supply components of the Great Lakes Drainage Basin (precipitation, runoff, evaporation, groundwater, etc.).

Specifically, the Hydrology Committee will:

a. Identify and describe the existing hydrometeorological data networks (techniques and frequency of measurement) as well as the institutional arrangements for the collection, coordination and dissemination of such data;

b. Evaluate the current and projected hydrometeorological data needs in relation to the existing networks; and,

c. Recommend changes and additions to the hydrometeorological data collection network, considering both the identified needs and the relative costs.

The Hyraulics Committee will:

a. Identify and describe the existing hydraulic data networks as well as the institutional arrangements for the collection, coordination and dissemination of such data;

b. Evaluate the current and projected hydraulic data needs in relation to the existing networks; and,

c. Recommend changes and additions to the hydraulic data collection networks, considering both the identified needs and the relative costs. The Systems Evaluation Committee will:

a. Review the present data acquisition and delivery systems;

b. Evaluate the integrated system needs as identified by the users;

c. Develop alternate modes of data acquisition and delivery and the relative benefits of each; and,

d. Employing present economic information, make recommendations'for the optimum system (considering both cost and benefits).

The-Systems Evaluation Committee was directed to carry out this undertaking while considering the findings of the Board's Hydraulics and Hydrology Commit tees.

Further to the above Terms of Reference it was concluded by the Board that:

a. Evaluation of existing models should be addressed by each Committee and, in particular, by the Systems Evaluation Committee; and,

b. Any hydrometeorologic data network improvements would.need to be justified in terms of increased accuracy in forecasting. The increased accuracies should then be evaluated as a function of cost and not in terms' of economic benefits. ANNEX B - LIST OF PARTICIPANTS IGLTINB - SYSTEMS EVALUATION COMMITTEE U.S. Section Canadian Section

14. J. Todd, Chairman T. Allsopp, Chairman U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environment Canada February 1981 to Completion August 1982 to Completion

T.E. Croley 11, Member S. Lapczak, Chairman U.S. Department of Commerce Environment Canada February 1981 to Completion February 1981 to July 1982

W.O. Thomas, Member L. Ku, Member U.S. Geological Survey Department of Fisheries and Oceans February 1981 to Completion February 1981 to Completion

R. Farnsworth, Member I R. Myslik, Member U.S. Department of Commerce Environment Canada February 198 1 to Completion February 1981 to Completion

R. McPheters, Member C. Stevens, Member U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ontario Hydro May 1981 to Completion April 1982 to Completion

J.W. Kangas, Secretary J. Ho, Member U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ontario Hydro May 1981 to Completion February 1981 to April 1982

P.A. Bolduc, Member Department of Fisheries and Oceans February 1981 to August 1981 ANNEX B - LIST OF PARTICIPANTS (~ont'd) IGLTINB - HYDROLOGY COllMITTEE U.S. Section Canadian Section S .P. Sauer , Chairman P.P. Yee, Chairman U. S. Geological Survey Environment Canada October 1982 to Completion March 1981 to Completion

J.E. Biesecker, Chairman A. Sauleslej a, Member U.S. Geological Survey Environment Canada February 1981 to June 1982 February 1981 to Completion

T .E. Croley 11, Member J. Eaton, Member U.S. Department of Commerce Ontario Hydro February 1981 to Completion February 1981 to Completion

R.E. Wilshaw, Member J.R. Robinson, Member U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environment Canada February 1981 to Completion February 1981 to Completion A.J. Eberhardt, Member R. Myslik, Member U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environment Canada October 1981 to Completion May 1981 to Completion

A. Coniglio, Member U.S. Army Corps of Engineers February 1981 to September 1981

A.S. Kachic, Member U.S. Department of Commerce May 1981 to Completion

R. Mann, Member U.S. Department of Commerce February 1981 to May 1981 ANNEX B - LIST OF PARTICIPANTS (Cont'd) IGLTINB - HYDRAULICS COMMITTEE

U.S. Section Canadian Section

P .C. Morris, Chairman R.J. Moulton, Chairman U.S. Department of Commerce Environment Canada February 1981 to Completion June 1981 to Completion

J.F. Bailey, Member M. Quast, Chairman U.S. Geological Survey Environment Canada February 1981 to Completion February 1981 to June 1981

R.E. Wilshaw, Member F. Sullivan, Member U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environment Canada February 1981 to Completion June 1981 to Completion

R. Walden, Member Environment Canada February 1981 to June 1981

D. St. Jacques, Member Department of Fisheries and Oceans February 1981 to Completion ANNEX C - CONVERSION FACTORS* (METRIC TO BRITISH UNITS)

1 cubic metre per second (cms) = 35.31 cubic feet per second (cis)

1 cms-month = 35.31 cfs-month

1 metre = 3.28 feet

1 centimetre = 0.39 inch

1 kilometre = 0.62 statute mile

1 kilogram = 2.20 pounds

1 square kilometre = 0.386 square mile

1 cubic kilometre = 0.24 cubic mile

Temperature in OC = 0.556 (OF - 32)

1 litre = 0.22 British gallon or 0.26 U.S. gallon.

*Note that the conversion factors shown here are approximate only.

A-179 ANNEX D - TERMINOLOGY (DEFINITION OF TERMS)

Data, Basic Records of observation and measurements of physical facts, occurrences, and conditions, as they have occurred, excluding therefrom any material or information developed by means of computation or estimate.

Data Collection A data logging device which is used tostore data and Platform (DCP) transmit to satellite via radio signals.

Data Communication A process whereby information is transmitted from one point to another in a communications channel.

Data Coordination A process in which derived data, such as supplies, flows, forecasts, etc., are adopted for international use.

Data Derived Records of observations and measurements of physical facts, occurrences, and conditions which have been developed from basic data by means of standard methods of computation and estimation.

Data Dissemination A process by which data are provided to the users.

Data Logger A device which analyzes and/or stores the data.

Data, Real-Time Data which can be provided to the user immediately after being collected at a station.

Evapotranspiration Evaporation and transpiration from plant surfaces.

Hydrometeorology A branch of science concerned with the study of the atmospheric and land phases of the hydrological cycle, with emphasis on the interrelationships involved.

Micro Processor A computer chip or set of chips that perform the basic arithmetic and logical functions of a computer's central processing unit.

Model, Computer or A series of equations and mathematical terms based on Analytical physical laws and statistical theories that simulate natural processes.

Model, Hydraulic A small-scale reproduction of the prototype used in studies of spillways, stilling basins, flood regulation, river beds, etc.

Network, A term used to refer to all stations of a particular Climatologic type, or station participating in a special program irrespective of their type. ANNEX D - TERMINOLOGY (Cont'd) (DEFINITION OF TEKMS)

Network, Station A set of stations from which data are adopted and used to represent the region.

Recorder, Analog A device that makes a continuous graph from the data collected.

Recorder, Digital A device that registers the data at a certain prescribed interval.

Satellite Data An interface between remote instruments which relay Relay System data through an earth orbiting satellite to the -point of use.

Snow Course A permanently marked area where snow surveys are taken each year;

Snow-Water The depth of water which would result from melting the Equivalent snow cover over a given area.

Soil Moisture Pellicular water in the soil area. Content

Station, A general term which includes all stations reporting Climatologic for climatologic purposes. This includes synoptic stations, both surface and upper air, aeronautical stations, and stations established primarily for climatologic use.

Station, Hydrometric A location on a stream or conduit where measurements of discharge or stage are customarily made.

Station, Manual A location where an operator is required to observe and record the data.

Station, Partial Station that does not collect all standard meteorologic parameters, or collects only peak discharge.

Station, Principal A climatologic station at which observations are (first order) made at least three times daily in addition to hourly Climatologic tabulation from autographic records. An hourly observation usually includes: sky condition, visibility, weather and obstructions to vision, atmospheric pressure, dry bulb temperature, dew point temperature, wind speed and direction, cloud height and type.

Station, Ordinary A climatologic station at which observations are Climatologic made at least once daily, including daily readings of extreme temperature and of amount of precipitation. ANNEX D - TERMINOLOGY (Cont'd) (DEFINITION OF TERMS)

Telemetry The measurement and transmittal by automated appara- tus, of some hydrometeorologic parameter to a distant station and there indicating or recording the quantity measured. ANNEX E - LIST OF IJC BOARDS, GOVERNMENT .AGENCIES, AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS RESPONDING TO IGLTIN BOARD QUESTIONNAIRES

IJC Boards

International Lake Superior Board of Control* International Niagara Board of Control* International Niagara Committee International St. Lawrence River Board of Control* International Great Lakes Water Quality Board International Great Lakes Science Advisory Board Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data

Government Agencies

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Central Division* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District U.S. Geological Survey, Indiana District* U.S. Geological Survey, Wisconsin District* U.S. Geological Survey, Ohio District U.S. Geological Survey, New York District U.S. Geological Survey, Minnesota District U.S. Geological Survey, Pennsylvania District U.S. Geological Survey, Illinois District National Ocean Service, NOAA* National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, NOM National Weather Service, NOAA* Great Lakes Environmental Research ~aborator~,NOAA* U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Transporation Water Resources Branch (Water Survey of*Canada), Environment Canada Water Planning and Managment Branch, Ontario Region, Environment Canada Atmospheric Environment Service, Environment Canada* Public Works Canada, Ontario Region Fisheries and Oceans Canada Canada Centre for Remote Sensing Coast Guard, Transport Canada Ohio Department of Natural Resources* New York State Department of Environmental Conservation* Michigan Department of Natural Resources* Minnesota Department of Natural Resources* Illinois Department of Conservation Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Water Resources Branch, Ontario Ministry of The Environment Lands and Waters, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Ontario Hydro Conservation Authorities

Other Organizations

St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Lake Carriers Association*

* Agencies identifying a data need. ANNEX F - SUMMARY OF RESPONSES OF IJC BOARDS, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

Location or :Desired Resolution : Preferred Means BoardIAgency Data Type : Purpose : Geographic Coverage :Desired Frequency: or Accuracy :of Data Retrieval

International Lake Superior:Soil Moisture :Basin Mode1ing:Upper Lakes Basins :Monthly :Near Real-Time Board of Control : :Water Equivalent of :Basin Mode1ing:Upper Lakes Basins :Monthly :Near Real-Time :Snow Pack

:Long-Term Weather :Forecast :Upper Lakes Basins :30 Day :Near Real-Time :Forecast :

:Discharge :Regulation :Compensating Works :As Required :Measurements

International Niagara Board:Discharge :Regulation :Niagara River :As Required of Control :Measurements

:Ice Conditions :Regulation :Lake Erie-Niagara :Weekly or Better :Area + 5 Percent :SLAR, Satellite, :River :Aircraft

:Weather Forecasts :Regulation :Lake Erie Basin :Twice Weekly : :Computer :(Short-Term) : :Monthly 7 :(Long-Term) C m 4 International St. Lawrence :Weather Forecasts :Regulation :Great Lake Basin :Twice Weekly : :Computer River Board of Control : :( Short-Term) : :Monthly :(Long-Term)

:River Ice Forecast :Regulation :St. Lawrence River :Daily :Computer

:Flood Level :Regulation :Montreal, Lake :Daily :Computer : :St. Peter

:Ottawa River Flow :Regulation :Ottawa River :Weekly :Computer

:Water Level :Navigation :St. Lawrence River :Daily, During : :Computer :Critical Water : :Profile

:Soil Moisture and :Regulation :Great Lakes Basin :Weekly or Better : :Telecopier :Water Equivalent of : :Snow Pack :

:Ice Conditions :Regulation :Iroquois-Beauharnois :Weekly or Better : :Telecopier ANNEX F (Cont'd) - SUHHARY OF ESPONSES OF IJC BOARDS, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS Location or :Desired Reeolution : Preferred Meane BoardIAgency Data Type : Purpose : Geographic Coverage :Desired Frequency: or Accuracy :of Data Retrieval : North Central Division, :Long-Term Weather :Flood Forecaet:Great Lakee Basin :Weekly or Better : :Telecopier Corpe of Engineers :Forecae ta

:Nearshore Sediment :Shoreline, :Harboure and Channe1e:Ae Required :Load, Currents :Management and: : :Navigation : : : :Water Level :Basin :U.S. Baein :Daily :Telephone or :Management : :Computer

:Ice Forecast and Data:Navigation :Great Lakee and :Daily :Telephone or : :Chennels : : :Telecopier

:Wind, Temperature and:Evaporation :Greet Lakes :Radiation :Models : :Precipitation and :Supply :Great Lakee Basin : :Evapotranepiration :Forecaete, : :Shoreline :Management :

Detroit District, Corpe of :Long-Term Weather :Forecast, :Great Lakee Basin :Daily :0.25 mm (Ppt) :Telephone, Engineers :Forecae t :Navigation and: :0.06'C (Temp) :Telecopy, AFOS :Studies

:Nearshore Sediment :Shoreline :Great Lakee :Annual :+-. 765 m3 :Publicetion8 :Management :

:Currents :River Mode1ing:Great Lakee Channels :Seasonal :0.03m/sec

:Ice Forecast :Flow Forecaet,:Great Lakes and :Navigation, :Channels :Daily-Monthly : :Pictoral :Flood :Forecast, :Studies

:Snow Pack Water :Supply :Great Lakee Basin :Monthly :Airborne Gamma- :Equivalent, :Forecae t :Radiation :Precipitation, :Temperature

:Wave :Forecast :Bays and Inlete : USGS - Indiana :Streamflow :Basin :Low Slope Area :Management : : ANNEX F (Cont'd) - SWYOF RESPONSES OF IJC BOARDS, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

Location or :Desired Resolution : Preferred Means Board/Agency Data Type : Purpose : Geographic Coverage :Desired Frequency: or Accuracy :of Data Retrieval

USGS - Indiana (Cont'd) :Groundwater :Bas in :Northwestern Indiana : :Management

USGS - Wisconsin :Precipitation :Atmospheric :Wisconsin :Loading Study

National Ocean Survey, N0AA:Water Level :Studies, :Great Lakes :Hourly :0.3 cm :Satellite :Precipitation :Forecast :Information :Great Lakes Basin :Monthly :0.25 mm :Computer

National Weather Service, :Data Buoys (Met. and :Information, :Eastern Lake Erie :Hourly :Knots 25% (Wind :Teletype, NOAA :Wave) :Studies :(42°18'/80030'), :Speed) 1°C (Temp) :Satellite, AFOS :Central Lake Erie : :O. 1/mb (Pressure) : :(NU of Ashtabula), : :1/10 (Sky Cover) : :Eastern Lake Ontario : :1 Hin (Percent :(43°36'/77000'), :Sunshine) :Western Lake Ontario : :0.1 watt/u2 (Solar :(43'30' /79OOO'), :Radiation) :Central Lake Hichigan: :0.25 cm (Ppt) :(44°00'/87005') :0.25 cm (Snow :Water Equivalent)

:Wave Rider Buoye :Information, :Lake Erie Near :2 Hour :0.3 m :Teletype, :Recreational :Ashtabula. Lake Huron: :Satellite, AFOs :Boating :in Alpena and Port : : :Huron Areas, Lake : :Superior at White : :Fish Bay. Harquette : :and Extreme Western : :End, Lake Hichigan at: :Mouth of Green Bay, : :Milwaukee, Huskegon : :Areas and Extreme : :South End

:Automatic Coastal , :Information :Stannard, MI; Detroit: :Station (Het.)' :River, HI; Sheboygan,: :WI; Kenosha, WI; St. : :Joseph, MI; Michigan : :City. IN; Lake Erie : :at Toledo; Fairport : :Harbor, OH : :Lake Water Temp :Information, :Great Lakes (On-Board:6 Hour, Spring :l°C :Teletype, :(Expendable :Ice Forecast :Four Coast Guard :and Fall :Sqtellite . AFOS :Bathythermograph) : :Cutters and Four :Selected Lakers) ANNEX F (Cont'd) - SUMMARY OF RESPONSES OF IJC BOARDS, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

: Location or :Desired Resolution : Preferred Meane BoardIAgency Data Type : Purpose : Geographic Coverage :Desired Frequency: or Accuracy :of Data Retrieval

National Weather Service :Ice Cover by :Weather, Ice :Great Lakes and :Weekly-Daily :30-50 Metree :NOS or Faceimile NOAA (Cont'd) :Satellite :Jam and Flood :Channels :Forecaets , : :Modeling

Great Lakee Environmental :Water Current :Modeling :Connecting Channels :Hourly-Daily : :Mail Research Laboratory, NOAA:

:Water Surf ace Temp :Modeling :Great Lakes :Mail

:Streamflow :Modeling :Great Lakes Baein : :Mail

:Soil Moisture, and :Modeling :Great Lakee Baein :Weekly-Monthly : :Mail :Snow Pack Water :Content

Atmospheric Environment :Temperature and :Information, :49'14'/90°00' Service, Environment :Precipitation :Forecae t :48'401/88'39' Canada :49'15'/88'47' :49'401 189'55' :49"50'/89'10' :50°151/87054' :49'42'/87'33' :4g026' 187'46' :49'011 188'01' :49°131/870540 :4g004 '187'04' :4g033' 186'36' : :49'001/86'35' :49'33'/85'48' :48'42'/85'52' :49'02'/85'101 :48'52' 184'49' :48°351/850171 :4E024' 186'11' :48'16'/86'08' :48'07' 186'04' :48"18' 184'57' :4E028' 184'05' :48°19'/840051 :48°05'/840331 :47'57'/84'07' :47'3S1 184'45' :47"311 183'37' :46"55' 184'36' ANNEX F (Cont'd) - SLMWRY OF RESPONSES OF IJC BOARDS, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

Location or :Desired Resolution : Preferred Means BoardIAgency Data Type : Purpose : Geographic Coverage :Desired Frequency: or Accuracy, :of Data Retrieval .' Atmospheric Environment : :47'05'/83"52' Service, Environment :46'47' /84"03' Canada (Cont'd) :46'45' /84'22' :46'52'/83'35' :46'28'/83'49' :47'25'/83O13' :46'58'/83'04' :46'40'/82'49' :46'13' /82'40' :46'47'/81°38' :46'55' /82'13' :47'15'/81°28' :46'53'/81°15' : :45'58' /81°31' :47'17'/81°02' :47'10g /80°04' :47'02' /80°32' :46'44'/79'49' P :44'52'/79'09' . . wC :43'47'/81°04' r . Ohio Natural Resources :Wind, Wave, Current :Coastal :Ohio Coast :Management :

New York State Department :Shoreline Recession :Coastal Zone :Lakes Erie and :Annual or of Environmental :Management :Ontario, Niagara and :Biennual Conservation :St. Lawrence Rivers :

Michigan Natural Resources :Streamflow :Water :Small Watershed in : :Management :Michigan '

Minnesota Natural Resources:Streamflow :Resources :Brule River West of :Daily :Computer :Unnagement :Hovland, St. Louis : :River at Brookston, : :Temperance River Near: :Tofte, Floodwood or : :Cloquet River Above : . . :Island Lake Reservoir: :Temperature :Information :'Grade' of the North :Daily :Computer :Shore (About 6 :Stations) .

:Precipitation (On :Information :(About 30 Gauges) : :Land ) :Computer :(Over Lake) :Atmospheric : :Loading Study : ANNEX F (Cont'd) - SUHHARY OF RESPONSES OF IJC BOARDS, GOVERNUENT AGENCIES AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

Location or :Desired Resolution : Preferred Means BoardIAgency Data Type : Purpose : Geographic Coverage :Desired Frequency: or Accuracy :of Data Retrieval

Hinnesota Natural Resources:Snow Depth :Information :Southwest from Grand : (Cont'd) :Marais (2 or 3 . . :Traneects)

:Solar Radiation :Information :North Shore (3

:Stations) , .

:Wind :Navigation, :Eastern End of Lake : :Telemetry :Recreational :Superior to Minnesota: :Boating, :Shoreline : :Shoreline :(3 Stations) :Uanagement :

:Evaporation :Information :North Shore :Computer

:Lake Currents :Coastal Zone :Lake Superior at : :and Fisheries :Major Shoreline :Management :Developments, Mouths : :of Rivers, Harbours : :. : :Wave :Coastal Zone : : :Management, : :Information :

:Ice Actions :Coastal Zone :Lake Superior :Management :Shoreline :Computer . . Lake Carriers Association :Weather Forecasts :Navigation :Great Lakes inore ~i&l~ :Hore Accurate :Navigation Routes :

:Water Depth :Navigation :Neebish Channel on : :St. Uarys River