National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Front Matter
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11481.
×

Summary

INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF TASK

Water regulation has a complex history in the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River (LOSLR) basin that dates back to the mid-20th Century. In 1956, the International Joint Commission (IJC) of Canada and the United States adopted a water regulation plan for the Moses-Saunders power plant and dam, which affects water levels and flows in Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River (LOSLR). This initial plan required a series of adjustments in the early 1960s that culminated in 1963 with Plan 1958D. Due to the dynamics of the LOSLR system, Plan 1958D has required further deviations over the past 42 years, leading to the current situation described as Plan 1958DD (i.e., 1958 D with Deviations). Changing water management demands in the LOSLR system have made this plan outdated in many ways, and the IJC is seeking a suitable plan to replace it. In the 1990s, the IJC determined that the replacement plan will need to serve a fuller range of uses, including environmental, coastal, and recreational interests along with traditional navigation, hydropower, and municipal uses. New considerations have entered into the decision making process to select a plan: sound scientific foundations, public participation, transparency in plan development and evaluation, and inclusion of environmental considerations.

These aspects have become the hallmarks of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Study (LOSLR Study or “The Study”). The LOSLR Study is a 5-year, more than $20 million effort commissioned by the IJC to formulate, evaluate, and provide bases to select water regulation plans to replace Plan 1958DD. The LOSLR Study was designed to address a broad range of economic interests and environmental values affected by water level-fluctuations. The IJC Study Board, a bi-national committee charged with overseeing the LOSLR Study, commissioned empirical and modeling studies of wetlands, species at risk (SAR), recreational boating, fisheries, coastal erosion and flooding, commercial navigation, hydropower, industrial, municipal and domestic water intakes, public information and education, and hydrologic modeling. It used a Shared Vision Modeling (SVM) approach to compile, analyze, and display the results from these empirical studies; hydrologic, coastal, economic, and environmental models; and stakeholder input.

Near the middle of the final year of the 5-year LOSLR Study, the IJC asked the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) and Royal Society of Canada (RSC) to provide an independent scientific review of selected LOSLR studies, reports, and models. The NRC and RSC agreed to review the LOSLR Study materials in terms of their appropriateness and sufficiency to inform decisions related to regulation plan options. The IJC presented the committee with documents on the Shared

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11481.
×

Vision Model (SVM), the Flooding and Erosion Prediction System (FEPS), Wetlands, Species at risk, and an Integrated Ecological Response Model (IERM).

This study was a fast-track effort: the IJC selected the documents for review and provided them to the NRC in May 2005; the NRC/RSC review appointed a special, bi-national committee of experts to carry out the assignment; the committee met once in Canada and once in the United States in June and July 2005, respectively; and the report was completed in October 2005.

The agreed upon Statement of Task (Box S-1) charged the committee to investigate (A) whether the studies and models employ reasonable scientific methods,

BOX S-1
Statement of Task

The Committee shall perform an independent review of the Lake Ontario/ St. Lawrence River reports in the following areas: wetlands science and species–at–risk, the Flood Erosion and Prediction System (FEPS), the Integrated Ecological Response Models (IERM), and the Shared Vision Model (SVM). The level of emphasis for these various areas shall be approximately as follows: wetlands 15%, species-at-risk 15%, FEPS 10%, IERM 20%, SVM 40%, and reflect the International Joint Commission’s (IJC) determination of its priorities in this effort.

The overarching charge shall be to evaluate the appropriateness and sufficiency of the studies and models used to inform decisions related to regulation plan options. Recommendations shall be limited to those deriving from this overarching charge and shall not address management or policy issues.

The Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence River program science, as represented in the reports and model documentation provided, will be reviewed by in terms of the degree to which:

  1. the studies reflect reasonable scientific methods, assumptions and supported findings;

  2. the models sufficiently and appropriately integrate and display the key information needed for a comprehensive evaluation and understanding of the tradeoffs for selecting among the candidate regulation plans; and

  3. the models and reports are sufficient and appropriate to evaluate the various candidate regulation plans and impacts of changes in water levels and flows.

The review shall be limited to critical evaluation and decision components of the topics listed that relate directly to the Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence River regulation plan options. This requirement shall further be interpreted to restrict the review to the impact of changing regulation levels and flows, within the limits that these two factors can be managed using the currently existing control structures and the hydrology/hydraulic characteristics of the system. The review shall neither compare regulation plan options nor provide advice on the preference of one regulation plan option over another, as these actions fall directly within the decision-making responsibilities of the Commission.

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11481.
×

assumptions, and supporting findings; (B) how well the models integrate and display information needed for a comprehensive evaluation and understanding of tradeoffs among regulation plans; and (C) whether the models and reports are appropriate and sufficient for evaluating regulation plans and the effects of water level changes. In fulfilling the charge, the committee evaluated the selected review documents for their appropriateness and sufficiency.

The committee developed ten criteria to evaluate the appropriateness and sufficiency of the LOSLR documents presented for review in Charges A, B, and C. These criteria reflect common expectations for scientific and technical work. The ten criteria were used to evaluate IJC documents with respect to the three charges of the statement of task (Box S-2).

SCOPE AND LIMITS OF THIS REVIEW

There are five qualifications to keep in mind when using this review of the LOSLR Study.

  • Documents presented for review. The documents presented for review were in various stages of completion. In cases where documents were incomplete, the committee tried to procure the most current version of the work. The committee treated the documents presented by the IJC as representative of the science under review, recognizing that some documents would be modified after the review.

BOX S-2
Ten Evaluation Criteria used to Review Appropriateness and Sufficiency of LOSLR Studies and Models

Charge A: Scientific Foundations

  1. Empirical Foundations (e.g., sampling, analysis)

  2. Quality Assurance and Quality Control (e.g., model validation, verification, and calibration; use of expert judgment; and independent peer review)

  3. Treatment of Error and Uncertainty

Charge B: Integration and Display of Key Information

  1. Linkages and Feedback Among Related Studies and Models

  2. Spatial and Temporal Resolution and Scaling

  3. Thorough Documentation

  4. Effective Scientific Communication

Charge C: Overall Appropriateness and Sufficiency

  1. Breadth of Study Scope

  2. Balance between Scientific and Practical Professional Approaches

  3. Identification of Future Study Needs

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11481.
×
  • Selected LOSLR studies and models are reviewed. The committee reviewed selected documents for the SVM, FEPS, and environmental sciences that represent a fraction of the body of LOSLR research undertaken. The selection of material presented for NRC/RSC review may not be fully representative of the LOSLR research and study effort as a whole. The scope of review does not encompass all of the scientific fields in the LOSLR study (e.g., hydrology and hydraulics, navigation, hydropower, municipal and industrial, river shore protection model, and other study aspects not reviewed). To the extent that the Shared Vision Model incorporates results from these other fields, this review offers a partial perspective on the overall sufficiency of LOSLR studies and models.

  • The review occurs toward the end of the 5-year LOSLR Study. The NRC review was initiated in the final year of the LOSLR Study. Some of the draft documents presented for NRC review were being completed concurrently with this review. This timing allows LOSLR authors a chance to identify opportunities to refine drafts prior to completion, although some recommendations would have been more useful at the beginning or middle of the study period rather than this close to the Study’s completion.

  • The review concentrates on the science for evaluating water level and flow effects of RPOs and for informing decision makers, and not on the RPOs themselves or on decision making policies. Ten scientific evaluation criteria were used to evaluate the LOSLR studies and models. These criteria are common to the scientific and practical professional disciplines involved in evaluating complex studies, such as the water level and flow effects of regulation plan options in the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River system.

  • The review distinguishes among conclusions and recommendations in terms of their certainty, importance, and ability to fix deficiencies. The conclusions of this report vary in terms of their certainty due to the state-of-the-science in different fields and gaps in study documentation. Some conclusions have more importance to the success of the LOSLR Study than others. Points of study weaknesses and recommendations vary in the degree to which they can be fixed and the amount of time and additional research needed to address them. The review strives to distinguish among recommendations that entail short- and long-term action. Short-term recommendations are largely limited to improving the documentation, scientific communication, and disclosure of potential implications of these limitations for decision makers. Longer-term recommendations require investment in additional data collection, analysis, and interpretation.

KEY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The LOSLR Study’s breadth is impressive, and the scale and inclusiveness of the studies and models are commended. In terms of informing decision making, however, the reviewed studies and models show deficiencies when evaluated against the ten criteria. Four overarching conclusions are drawn from the review of

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11481.
×

these documents, and one additional prospective recommendation is made to build upon the significant body of work already completed in the LOSLR Study.

1. LOSLR studies and models expand interdisciplinary scientific inquiry on the potential environmental effects of water level and flow regulation options in the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Basin in ways that are useful for informing some aspects of decision making. The LOSLR studies undertook a broad set of studies and developed models that extend beyond previous Great Lakes water regulation efforts in compiling results of scientific analysis and stakeholder input, and they result in some notable successes. First, given the complexity of the LOSLR system, bi-national interests, and the range of scientific and other information compiled, the undertaking of this comprehensive study is a major contribution by itself. Further, identification and inclusion of environmental performance indicators advance understanding of the LOSLR system and water resources planning. The LOSLR studies also have created large new databases on wetland vegetation and coastal land use, that did not exist previously and that could, if archived and made readily accessible, have continuing value. This organization of a multi-disciplinary water resources planning project could serve as an example for other regions concerned with water level and flow regulation.

With few precedents for a study of this scale on regional water level regulation, opportunities for improvement are expected in the LOSLR effort. The following three findings and associated recommendations indicate the need for scientific and technical improvements in relation to the three charges in the statement of task.

2. The scientific foundations of the studies and models presented for review vary widely in empirical support, and overall, need stronger and more consistent quality control, quality assurance, and treatment of error and uncertainty to inform decision making. Three evaluation criteria were used to assess the scientific foundations of the LOSLR studies and models presented for review: empirical support, quality assurance, and treatment of error and uncertainty.

Empirical support (e.g., data, sampling, analysis). In the LOSLR Study documents reviewed (wetlands, species at risk, and IERM), empirical research was conducted in coastal and environmental investigations, and some problems were noted. In the coastal research (FEPS model and sub-models), a detailed land use parcel database was developed, but that database differs in completeness for Canada (~75 percent coverage) and the USA (~100 percent coverage), but neither the means to complete the Canadian database nor actions to account for differences in data coverage were included in the documentation.

The environmental work depends on wetland and species at risk empirical data. The wetlands studies provided detailed accounts of empirical sampling, which allowed for detailed evaluation of this work. However, wetland sampling appears to have been limited primarily to shallow water sites; it excluded or undersampled deeper-water wetlands, which may have resulted in an underestimation of high quality habitat associated with deeper water wetland ecosystems. Also unclear

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11481.
×

is the degree to which the sampled wetlands are representative of wetland vegetation types across the LOSLR shoreline. The reviewed documents do not present evidence that wetlands were selected randomly. Furthermore, quantitative methods were not documented to show how findings in the sub-set of wetlands that were sampled can be extrapolated to LOSLR wetlands in general. In the SAR work, SAR performance indicators were developed inconsistently: some were developed using empirical data, but others were developed via different means (e.g., expert judgment).

The use and application of regression models in the SVM and FEPS work needed better explanation and defense. In the SVM research, regression equations rather than hydrodynamic models were used to calculate water levels and flows when the latter approach presumably would have been empirically feasible and more accurate. In the FEPS research, regression analysis problems concerned the variable quality of the empirical data used in the regression analyses and the 4th and 5th order polynomials that may be numerically unstable and misrepresent the potential effects of extreme events. The rationale for using regression and limitations of the regression analyses were not fully discussed or quantified in the documents reviewed.

Recommendation: As no new data can be collected in the near-term, LOSLR study final reports should identify limitations of empirical data and information sources, data gaps, and sampling problems, and discuss their implications for decision making. For the longer-term, research to correct data and model deficiencies, including replacement of regression equations with process models, should be prioritized.

Quality assurance and quality control (e.g., model validation, verification, and calibration; use of expert judgment; and independent peer review). In general, reviewed models lack adequate validation, verification, and calibration. In some cases, validation may have occurred or is briefly mentioned but is not thoroughly documented; in others, it appears not to have been undertaken. For example, the SVM is still awaiting model validation from technical work group members. Reports on FEPS suggest that model calibration has occurred, but that documentation is not included in the materials presented for review. Documentation of the proprietary COSMOS model (a sub-model of FEPS) referred to, yet did not provide, model validation; even though proprietary models too, need to be validated and subjected to full scientific peer review.

Environmental information presented for review lacks demonstrated protocols for quality assurance, and the IERM model acknowledges that validation was not attempted. The SVM and FEPS models and SAR studies make creative use of expert judgment, but such judgment should be subject to formal quality assurance measures and standard methods for eliciting expert judgments. In cases where peer review was documented, it was inconsistent. Some studies used “peer review” by fellow team members while others involve refereed papers. This NRC/RSC report is the only known independent scientific review of the broader LOSLR study program, and a review earlier in the Study’s five-year lifespan would have been more timely for identifying and rectifying deficiencies.

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11481.
×

Recommendation: In the short-term, LOSLR final reports should inform decision makers of the types of quality assurance measures that were and were not undertaken and discuss their potential implications for decision making. Further independent scientific review of final reports is recommended. In the longer-term, rigorous quality assurance methods should be put in place for evaluating the effects of water level and flow regulation.

Treatment of error, uncertainty, and risk. The treatment of error, uncertainty, and risk in the studies and models reviewed was neither commensurate with scientific and practical standards nor conducted at a level suitable to inform decision making. The SVM, FEPS, and IERM models do not present an overall framework for uncertainty analysis, which should include natural variability, data uncertainties, model uncertainties, model parameter uncertainties, and decision model uncertainties. Some individual studies (e.g., wetlands vegetation analysis) address natural variability and indicate error bars. The SAR 3A report provides a good model for qualitative discussion of uncertainty. In contrast, the SVM treats the uncertainty of environmental performance indicators with a simplistic and unexplained 10 percent criterion, and it does not apply any uncertainty estimate to economic indicators. Linkages among LOSLR studies and models inherently propagate uncertainties, but SVM documentation does not analyze those cumulative uncertainties or discuss their implications for informing decision making. Without formal analysis and discussion, it is not possible to assess the types or magnitudes of error and uncertainty for particular water regulation plans, or to know whether differences between plans are significant.

Recommendation: In the short-term, LOSLR final study reports should inform decision makers of the uncertainties that were analyzed, those that were not analyzed, and their potential implications for decision making. Future studies of water level regulation effects in the LOSLR basin should develop a comprehensive approach to uncertainty analysis.

3. The LOSLR models and studies reviewed here do not adequately integrate and display the key information needed for comprehensive evaluation and understanding of the tradeoffs among the candidate regulation plans. This conclusion is based on the following four review criteria:

Linkages and feedbacks among related studies and models. “Comprehensive evaluation and understanding of tradeoffs among regulation plan options alternatives” (NRC Committee Statement of Task Charge B, Appendix A) requires a system dynamics approach that models the linkages and feedbacks among socioeconomic and environmental processes. The SVM compiles first-order effects on environmental, coastal, and other indicators generated by FEPS, IERM, and other models. But, as the IERM user’s manual indicates, it is not an ecosystem model that incorporates the feedback effects of water level variation on species and habitat conditions. Instead, it compiles initial impacts (first-order effects) on performance indicators, and it is thus an impact accounting model rather

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11481.
×

than an ecosystem model. In terms of model linkages, the FEPS model alters the bathymetry of shoreline environments, but those bathymetric changes were not fed into the IERM to vary wetland inundation, which could be used to model vegetation, shoreline habitats, and other environmental performance indicators associated with water level variation. These vegetation changes could have feedback effects on sediment transport and coastal erosion. External model linkages include economic and demographic scenarios that are relevant for evaluating candidate water regulation plans to replace Plan 1958DD. For example, real estate values of coastal property continue to rise at rapid rates, and the demand for different water and related land uses is changing, but the SVM does not incorporate such scenarios in its structure.

This report acknowledges that some of these linkages and feedbacks require knowledge beyond the current limits, and that fact should be discussed in the final reports and presentation of SVM results as well. Other linkages and feedbacks between the SVM and its sub-models, and externally between the SVM and scenarios of socioeconomic change, could have been addressed. The reviewed studies and models make progress toward comparing the effects of regulation plan options, but the comparisons do not provide a comprehensive basis for evaluating and understanding tradeoffs among regulation plan options.

Recommendation: In the short-term, the LOSLR final reports should inform decision makers of what has, and has not yet, been accomplished in the way of integrated water and environmental systems modeling. As part of an ongoing program, a LOSLR modeling system that dynamically links and reflects feedback among sub-models is recommended.

• Treatment of spatial and temporal resolution and scaling. Scaling issues in the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River basin are challenging. The LOSLR studies involve a wide range of spatial and temporal scales, and associated concerns. For example, although more detailed hydrologic time series and station data are available at multiple locations on Lake Ontario and at a finer time step than the quarter-month period, the STELLA model in the SVM generates a single series of quarter-monthly values for the level of Lake Ontario, based on historical water management practice. Use of these single series values can result in a loss of precision, as the quarter-month does not provide enough temporal variation for many environmental impacts, including fish, SAR, and wetlands. This coarse time step was recognized as a potential problem in the LOSLR Plan of Study, which called for a 2D hydrodynamic model for the St. Lawrence River that operated on fine enough time scales to supplement the quarter-monthly time step generated by the SVM. As noted earlier, the LOSLR approach of using quarter-monthly values in Lake Ontario to calculate water levels for selected stations in the upper St. Lawrence River through regression analysis is inferior to hydrodynamic flow routing, and the combined use of regression and hydrodynamic models in the LOSLR Study needs to be more fully explained. The FEPS model uses lake level elevations along with a grid of wind and wave fields that erode and flood individual shoreline parcels and reaches, the results of which are then aggregated back to lake-wide effects. The errors and uncertainties associated with these different resolutions and scales of

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11481.
×

inquiry need fuller analysis and discussion, as errors may exceed the differences among model outputs for some performance indicators and plans.

Recommendation: In the short-term, the LOSLR final reports should inform decision makers of temporal and spatial scaling issues that affect the accuracy and uncertainty of predictions of regulation effects. In the longer term, choice of time step should better reflect the critical response times for system indicators, including those where transient fluctuations in water temperature and water level are critical, and appropriate hydraulic and hydrodynamic modeling approaches should be implemented.

Documentation of scientific studies and models. Of the ten criteria employed in this review, inadequate documentation is the most apparent deficiency, with examples throughout the materials presented for review. Fortunately, FEPS included more detailed descriptions of modeled performance indicators than other studies, but did not document the models themselves. Descriptions of wetland methodologies need additional information about site selection and means to ensure adequate representativeness of sampled sites. A user’s manual exists for the IERM and provides partial documentation, but explanations of weighting and aggregation in the model are insufficient. Exceptions to these general patterns include the SAR 3A and 3B reports, which are well documented. Better documentation is needed to explain choices of what was done and methods used, and the rationale behind those decisions. The SVM is the primary tool for understanding and evaluating tradeoffs among potential regulation plans. It was surprising, therefore, that the SVM had the least amount of documentation presented for this review, and the documentation that was presented was not at a level of completion ready for external scientific review. Documentation of the SVM should have a more complete discussion of its role in the Shared Vision planning process; describe SVM development and refinement, including standard technical documentation of all component models; and describe how scientific and stakeholder criteria were used interactively to formulate, screen, and evaluate the range of choice among regulation plan options.

Recommendation: In the short-term, LOSLR final reports should include a thorough documentation of studies and models, especially the Shared Vision Model, and seek further independent scientific review of those reports.

Effective scientific communication. Effective scientific communication is achieved when scientific information is presented to and received and correctly understood by scientific, public, and decision making groups. The efficacy of scientific communication varies among LOSLR studies and models in the materials submitted for review. Performance Indicators, an Index of Ecological Integrity, and documentation of studies, models, and sub-models were used to communicate scientific information from the LOSLR Study. In general, the environmental studies and performance indicator summaries were easier to understand than the submodels’ documentation, and sub-model documents were more digestible than the

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11481.
×

SVM documentation. An example of deficient, or even misleading, communication is the differential treatment of economic and environmental indicators in which the former are presented as simple values while the latter are subject to a +/-10 percent error. The LOSLR Study’s display of model output in a spreadsheet file of tables and graphs, known as the “Board Room,” has strong potential as a venue for scientific communication.

Recommendation: In the short-term, the LOSLR final reports should communicate their scientific results with transparency to support decision making while giving a full treatment of uncertainties and non-scientific dimensions of the studies. In the longer-term, the SVM Board Room may be refined for continuing use as a vehicle for scientific communication.

4. Despite the breadth of LOSLR studies and models, ongoing analysis is needed to provide a strong scientific basis for long-term decision making about water level and flow regulation in the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River basin. Three points support this conclusion. First, current knowledge about the lower Great Lakes system is not comprehensive. While the LOSLR studies and models broaden understanding about the potential effects of regulation plans, a more comprehensive data collection and modeling approach is needed to understand system feedbacks, linkages, and uncertainties. Ideally, a system dynamics model should be used to: (a) improve the physical system description; (b) identify the most important feedback relationships; and (c) improve understanding of feedback effects on system behavior. Some feedback relationships require expansion of the model boundaries so that key processes, ranging from coastal urbanization and regional economic growth to climate change, are incorporated and their impacts are made visible within the model.

Second, the LOSLR history with Plan 1958DD shows that regulation plans can be superseded by newer, better plans, and change in management objectives. Any plan adopted now on the basis of current science without provision for regular updating as knowledge advances is likely to require adjustments over time.

Third, the LOSLR models evaluate effects of future regulation plans and hydrologic scenarios based primarily on historical and current environmental and social performance indicators. This is important given the significance of hydroclimatic variability for water regulation and the challenges of modeling current environmental and socioeconomic processes. Although this report does not review the climate change research and scenarios, it commends the LOSLR inclusion of global processes that affect the robustness of regional regulation decisions. In the future, however, regulation plan decisions will also require comparable scenario development and evaluation for other environmental and social processes. Changes in regional economic structure, demography, water demand, transportation technology, coastal land use, and socioeconomic values will likely transform the profile of stakeholder interests, performance indicators, and socioeconomic impacts associated with water level regulation. The past half-century indicates that these types of structural shifts in socioeconomic and environmental conditions and values, in conjunction with hydrologic variability, have had substantial implications for regulation plan decision making.

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11481.
×

The LOSLR studies and models begin to address these issues through brief conceptual narratives with a planning horizon of 10 to 15 years that are linked to the SVM. The conceptual narratives employ a common template, but they vary in detail, completeness, and level of peer review. Correcting the scientific and modeling deficiencies identified in this review is necessary and appropriate, but not sufficient, for informing water regulation decisions on a long-term multi-decadal timescale.

Recommendation: In the short-term, the LOSLR Study should complete the conceptual narratives. For the longer-term, the IJC should consider an ongoing management and monitoring system to feed the results of current choices for water level regulation into a dynamic model of the LOSLR system to strengthen the scientific basis for future planning on a multi-decadal timescale, as outlined in the final recommendation below.

Looking Ahead: Adaptive Management in the LOSLR Basin

As the LOSLR Study draws to a close in 2005, a unique opportunity is presented for water level regulation in the LOSLR basin. Even after the deficiencies noted above are addressed, and a new regulation plan is adopted and implemented, the need will remain to monitor the system for responses to the new regulation plan. Long-term monitoring may also indicate needed adjustments to the plan. Adaptability is mentioned in the LOSLR Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles in a number of ways: “… regulation plans will incorporate flexible management…;” “Regulation of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River System will be adaptable…;” and “…regulation plans will incorporate…flexibility to adapt….” An adaptive management program could help the basin constituents build upon the LOSLR studies and models over time.

Before an adaptive management program is designed, the deficiencies noted in LOSLR models and studies need to be corrected to avoid perpetuating existing problems. The challenges of implementing an adaptive management in the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River basin should not be underestimated. Adaptive management can be resource intensive: an “active” adaptive management plan could involve annual costs comparable to those of the LOSLR study; “passive” adaptive management costs would be significantly lower, depending upon the scope of monitoring and management involved, but also less useful. Either way, adaptive management is seen as a viable option to build upon the LOSLR Study successes, address deficiencies, and maintain a responsive, flexible water regulation plan for the LOSLR basin.

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11481.
×

Recommendation: In the short-term, adaptive management alternatives should be identified that build upon the LOSLR studies and models. In the longer term, the IJC should, in collaboration with other scientific and stakeholder organizations in the basin, develop an adaptive management program that would provide a continuing scientific basis for monitoring the effects of water regulation, experimenting with alternatives, and thereby improving decisions about future regulation plan options.

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11481.
×
Page 1
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11481.
×
Page 2
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11481.
×
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11481.
×
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11481.
×
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11481.
×
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11481.
×
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11481.
×
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11481.
×
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11481.
×
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11481.
×
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11481.
×
Page 12
Next: 1 Introduction »
Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $52.00 Buy Ebook | $41.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Since the 1950s,the International Joint Commission (IJC) of Canada and the United States has issued water regulation and management plans for Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. Changes in recreational, environmental, navigational and other uses of the water system have prompted the IJC to consider replacing the current water regulation plan in operation for more than 40 years. IJC’s goals for a replacement plan include sound scientific foundations, public participation, transparency in plan development and evaluation, and inclusion of environmental considerations. To help develop and select the new plan, the IJC supported a 5-year, $20 million Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Study (LOSLR Study). The LOSLR Study uses models to compile and integrate data gathered from a series of commissioned studies of wetlands, species at risk, recreational boating, fisheries, coastal erosion and flooding, commercial navigation, hydropower, industrial, municipal and domestic water intakes, public information and education, and hydrologic modeling.

This report reviews a portion of the study that focused on wetlands and species at risk and three of the models that were used. The report finds that the overall breadth of the LOSLR study is impressive, and commends the scale and inclusiveness of the studies and models. In terms of informing decision making, however, the reviewed studies and models show deficiencies when evaluated against ten evaluation criteria, including treatment of uncertainty, quality control/quality assurance, thorough documentation, and empirical foundations. Among the report’s recommendations is a need for more thorough documentation of study methods and findings, stronger and more consistent quality control, and more attention to how uncertainty should be addressed to better inform decision making. This NRC study was conducted in collaboration with the Royal Society of Canada.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!