Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Studies

Abstract

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: (A) the studies reflect reasonable scientific methods, assumptions and supported findings; (B) 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 (C) 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.