LEVELS REFERENCE STUDY GREAT LAKES-ST LAWENCE RIVER BASIN SUBMllDTO THE INTERNATONAL JOINT COMMISSION BY THE LEVELS REFERENCE STUDY BOARD MARCH 31,1993 STUDY Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Submitted to the International Joint Commission By the LEVELS REFERENCE STUDY BOARD ' MARCH 31,1993 ISBN 1-895085-43-8 Cover design by Robert Travers courtesy of the City of Dorval Levels Reference 'StudyBoard International Joint Commission March 31, 1993 Chicago, Illinois Burlington, Ontario International Joint Commission Ottawa, Ontario Washington, D.C. Dear Commissioners: The Levels Reference Study Board is pleased to submit its report on methods to alleviate the adverse consequences of fluctuating water levels in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River System, pursuant the Comn~ission'sDirective dated February 8, 1990 and revised April 20, 1990. The Board recommends forty-two practical actions that governments can take in the following six key areas: Guiding principles. for future management of water level issues. Measures to alleviate the adverse consequences of fluctuating Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River water levels. Emergency preparedness for high- or low-water level crises. Institutional arrangements to assist in implementing changes. Improvements in comlnunications with the general public on water level issues. Management and operational improvements to facilitate future Great Lakes- St. Lawrence River management. The Board would like to call the attention of the Commission to Chapter 5 which deals with emergency preparedness. There are a number of actions recommended that should be given early attention by the Commission. The details of public involvement and details of the studies and investigations carried out by the Board are contained in six separately bound ~nnexesto the Final Report. March 31, 1993 Page 2 The Board wishes to acknowledge with thanks the assistance and guidance provided by the Commission and numerous other public and private agencies and individuals during the course of the Study. Respectfully submitted, 7 d- E. Tony ~aGer -AndrC Harvey Kent bkkesmoe Maurice Lewis & ?ck- Patricia Ure Petersen Neil R. Fulton Executive Summary In 1985 and 1986, after nearly two decades of above average precipitation and below average evaporation in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin, all of the Great Lakes - with the exception of Lake Ontario -reached their highest levels of this century. Storm activity combined with these high levels to cause extensive flooding and erosion of lake shorelines and severe damage to lake shore properties. Millions of dollars in damage resulted. In response to widespread public concern, the governments of Canada and the United States requested the International Joint Commission to study methods of allevi- ating the adverse consequences of fluctuating water levels in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin. This is the final report of the Levels Reference Study Board. It responds to the issues raised in the Reference from governments and the subsequent Directive from the Commission. This report recommends 42 practical actions that governments can take in six key areas: 1) guiding principles for future management of water level issues; 2) measures to alleviate the adverse consequences of fluctuating Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River water levels; 3) emergency preparedness planning for high or low water level crises; 4) institutional arrangements to assist in implementing changes; 5) improvements in communications with the general public on water level issues; and 6) management and operational improve- ments to facilitate future Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River water level management. Central to the success of this study has been an intensive public involvement process, which included an 18-member Citizens Advisory Committee and a full schedule of 17 Lake Level Regulation Measures public events throughout the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin during the study's final The Study Board concluded that, although it phase. Preparations leading up to this report would be engineeringly feasible to regulate all and the recommendations contained herein five of the Great lakes, the costs of such an have been subjected to review through public undertaking would exceed the benefits pro- events, meetings with senior government offi- duced, and it would have adverse environ- cials in the United States and Canada, and the mental impacts. A number of possible plans study's newsletter, UPDATE/AU-COURANT, for regulating three of the Great Lakes with a mailing list that began at 1,200 and (Superior, Erie and Ontario) were examined. grew to more than 3,600. One of these plans was strongly supported by shoreline property owners of the middle lakes. Guiding Principles Through dredging and installation of a struc- ture in the Niagara River, this plan would have Management of water level issues appears to provided benefits to shoreline property own- be guided by no clear or consistent policies ers on Lakes Michigan-Huron and Erie by among the numerous agencies and govern- reducing the range and frequency of water ment bodies responsible for various aspects of level fluctuations. Water level and flow ranges the issues. In order to ensure consistent and on Lakes Superior and Ontario and in the St. comprehensive recommendations the Study Lawrence River would increase. Mitigation Board developed a set of guiding principles works in the St. Lawrence River would be for the conduct of the study. These same prin- required. This plan would adversely affect the ciples which respect, not only the Great Lakes- wetlands of the middle three lakes by reducing St. Lawrence River Basin ecosystem but the range of water level fluctuations. diverse interests of the people who use it, are recommended for adoption by all levels of This plan had the highest economic efficiency government. The principles provide broad 'of any of the three-lake plans considered. guidelines for future decisions and enhance While debate continues with shoreline proper- coordinated, system-wide management. They ty owners of the middle lakes as to the calcula- improve the opportunity for wise use and tion of this plan's benefits and costs, the study management of the finite water resources of determined that this plan could achieve a ben- the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin. efit-cost ratio of 0.08; much less than the ratio of 1.0 that is required if a project's benefits are Measures to equal its costs. Because of strong represen- tations from shoreline property owners, the A large portion of this study's effort was study also considered the maximum plausible directed toward developing practical mea- benefits that could result from this plan. Even sures that Governments could take to alleviate these benefits produced a benefit-cost ratio of the problems associated with fluctuating only 0.15. water levels. Three possible approaches could be used: preventive, remedial, or combina- Approximately $322 million annually would be tions of preventive and remedial. needed to dredge, construct, operate and maintain the control works on the Niagara The study found that no one measure will be River, together with the mitigation works in the answer to all water level-related problems; the St. Lawrence River that would be needed nor can measures be applied in specific for this plan to be implemented. Further costs instances without regard for measures taken of approximately $3.3 million annually to the in other areas, or without regard to the varied United States commercial shipping industry, interests affected. This study has also conclud- and $14.7 million annually to hydropower pro- ed that, regardless of lake level regulation, duction would be incurred. The Board con- flooding and erosion caused by wind, wave cluded that, although the plan is engineeringly and storm action will continue to occur along feasible and would reduce flooding and ero- the shorelines of the Great Lakes and St. sion damage on the middle three lakes, the Lawrence River. potential economic and environmental costs were too high to justify the project. The Board recommends changes to the exist- the intent of its recommendations is that gov- ing regulation plans for Lakes Sllrperior and ernments aim at uniformity to the maximum Ontario to better reflect the current needs of extent possible, in order to ensure consistency users, and to allow broader authority in devi- in the application of these measures along the \ ating from the Lake Superior regulation plan full length of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence I during emergency situations. River shoreline. An annual budget of $10 to- $20 million is recommended to help ensure Channel Changes in the Niagara implementation of the measures. River Recommended remedial land use and shore- In consideration of strong views expressed by line management measures include: reloca- owners of shoreline property on Lake Erie dur- tion of dwellings; floodproofing of existing ing the public forums on the draft final report, structures and structural and non-structural the Study Board has recommended removal shore protection. Recommended preventive of some of the fill that has been placed in the land use and shoreline management mea- Niagara River over the years. Removal of fill sures include: setback requirements; flood would help restore the river's flows nearer to elevation requirements, shoreline alternation those that occurred prior to placement of sev- requirements; and real estate disclosure. eral obstructions in the river. The Board also Measures that could be considered either recommends that Governments take steps to preventive or remedial, depending upon their ensure that further land,filling does not occur appli-cation, are hazard insurance and acquisi- in the connecting channels, where it can affect tion of developed and undeveloped land. lake levels and flows. Removal of the identi- fied fill from the Niagara River is anticipated to Emergency Preparedness lower Lake Erie's long-term average level by 0.03 to 0.06 metre (0.1 to 0.2 foot). The cost of A variety of short-term actions that could be this project, excluding purchase of land rights, quickly taken to lessen the effects of high or is estimated at $1.6 million.