(en anglais seulement)

International Upper Great Lakes Study

Annotated Compendium of Orders of Approval

Pertaining to the Hydropower Projects

in the St. Marys River and

Lake Superior Outflow Regulation

March 24, 2007

Table of Contents

Section

1. Purpose

2. Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 and the International Joint Commission

3. Orders of Approval and Supplementary Orders

3.1   May 27, 1914 Orders of Approval

3.2   Sept 27, 1978 Supplementary Order (hydropower redevelopment)

3.3   Sept 27, 1978 Supplementary Order (flows in the St. Marys Rapids)

3.4   Oct 3, 1979 Supplementary Order

3.5   Apr 4, 1985 Supplementary Order

3.6   Apr 18, Aug 19, and Oct 17, 1985 Supplementary Orders

3.7   Dec 11, 1985 Supplementary Order

3.8   Requirements Governing Peaking and Ponding Operations

4. Regulating Lake Superior Outflows

4.1   Regulation Plans – Past and Present

4.2   International Lake Superior Board of Control

4.3   Deviations from Regulation Plans

5. Contemporary Concerns and Comments, Operational Issues

6. Findings

7. References

8. Chronological Events

9. Citizen, Agency and Interest Groups

Table 1: Orders of Approval, Supplementary Orders and other IJC Requirements

Table 2: Current Requirements Governing Lake Superior Outflow Regulation

1.  Purpose

In 1914, the International Joint Commission (IJC) issued Orders of Approval for the use of the waters of the St. Marys River for hydropower purposes, the construction of works in the river, and regulation of Lake Superior levels.  Since then, it has issued supplementary orders to reflect changing conditions and to better meet the needs of the interests in the upper Great Lakes system. This report provides a brief history and an assessment of these Orders, their requirements and rationale.  The operational issues and concerns expressed in recent years by the interests are also presented.  Water level elevations given in this report are in metres, International Great Lakes Datum (1985).  This report serves as a supporting document for the current International Upper Great Lakes Study.

2.  Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 and the International Joint Commission

The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 between Canada and the United States settled the then disputes regarding the use of boundary waters and established rules and principles to be followed to resolve future disputes.  Pursuant to the Treaty, the two Governments established the International Joint Commission (IJC) to help prevent and resolve future disputes relating to the use and quality of boundary water and to advise them on boundary waters issues.  One authority of the IJC is to rule upon applications for approval of projects affecting boundary or transboundary waters and may regulate the operation of these projects.  An example is the hydropower operation in the St. Marys River.

Under Article I, both countries agree that the navigation of all navigable boundary waters shall forever continue free and open for the purposes of commerce to the inhabitants and to the ships, vessels, and boats of both countries.  Article III and Article IV specify that, unless there is special agreement between the two countries, no further other uses or obstructions or diversions of boundary waters on either side of the line, affecting the natural level or flow of boundary waters on the other side of the line shall be made except by authority of the two countries and with the approval of the IJC.  Article VIII sets forth the rules and principles to be observed by the IJC when making decisions.  It also specifies that no further use shall be permitted which tends materially to conflict with or restrain any other use which is given preference over it in this order of precedence: (1) Uses for domestic and sanitary purposes; (2) Uses for navigation, including the service of canals for the purposes of navigation; (3) Uses for power and for irrigation purposes.  Under Article IX, either one or both Governments may refer matters related to boundary waters to the IJC for examination and report.

3.  Orders of Approval and Supplementary Orders

Table 1 lists the IJC Orders, supplementary Orders and other requirements pertaining to water levels and flows.  A review of their history and rationale is presented below:

3.1       May 26 and 27, 1914 Orders of Approval

In 1913, the Michigan Northern Power Company in the United States and Algoma Steel Corporation Ltd. in Canada applied to the IJC for approval to use the waters of the St. Marys River for hydropower generation and to construct a control structure with gates in the river.   After examining all the issues involved, the IJC issued Orders of Approval dated May 26 and May 27, 1914.  Separate Orders were issued in light of the separate applications; however the requirements pertaining to water levels and flows are common in both Orders.

At that time, a partial structure consisting of a crib and a rock-and-fill dam and four Stoney sluice gates already existed in the river.  As its name suggests, these compensating works were built to compensate for the lowering effect on the river’s water levels caused by diversion of water for power purposes.  The IJC Orders approved the completion of this structure having a total of sixteen gates, half of which would be located in Canada and the other half in the United States.

The 1914 Orders have three parts: (1) conditions as to construction of the works which have since been completed; (2) set criteria and requirements governing their operations, and (3) established a control board to oversee their operations.

One requirement specified that the levels of Lake Superior be maintained as nearly as may be between 602.1 feet and 603.6 feet above mean tide at New York.  These levels correspond to 183.40 metres and 183.86 metres, respectively, on the International Great Lakes Datum of 1985 which is the datum currently used to measure Great Lakes water levels.  Another requirement aimed to guard against unduly high Lake Superior levels above 183.86 metres in terms of frequency and magnitude.  A third requirement served to guard against unduly high levels in the lower St. Marys River below the locks.   The amount of water for hydropower purposes would be reduced, when necessary, to prevent unduly low levels in Lake Superior.

In addition, the 1914 Orders also required that all the approved works be operated in such manner as not to interfere with navigation.  This requirement pertaining to navigation is consistent with the terms of the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty and remains in effect in all subsequent IJC Orders. The 1914 Orders established a control board to assist the IJC in implementing the Orders to ensure that the two applicants complied with the Orders, and to formulate operating rules for the regulation of the outflows of Lake Superior.

In specifying these requirements, the IJC considered three interests: hydropower, navigation, and Lake Superior shore property.  The prescribed 46 cm regulation range was considered possible considering that in the previous 54 years Lake Superior has fluctuated a total range of 1.07 metres, and that reduction in the total range would be possible given increased outflow capacity of the river to be provided by hydropower operations and the compensating works.

The construction of the compensating works was completed in 1919.  The U.S. plant, first built in 1902, continued to operate and has undergone some upgrades since then. The Canadian plant was completed in 1918.  Currently, Edison Sault Electric Company and Brookfield Power are the successors to the U.S. and Canadian applicants, respectively.

3.2  Sept 27, 1978 Supplementary Orders (hydropower redevelopment)

In 1977, Great Lakes Power (now Brookfield Power) applied to the IJC for approval to replace its old plant with a more efficient plant having larger flow capacity.  Because the proposed redevelopment would have water level and flow implications, the IJC stipulated several requirements in its September 27, 1978 Supplementary Order granting permission to proceed with the redevelopment.

The construction of the new plant required a temporary cofferdam to be placed near the head of the power canal.  During this period, the cofferdam would limit the ability of the applicant to operate its power canal to maintain Lake Superior’s level below 183.86 m if the hydrologic conditions of Lake Superior basin were to turn wet.  Another concern was that when completed, the new plant would use more water than prior to redevelopment thus increasing the frequency of low flows over the St. Marys Rapids.  Under low flow conditions at the compensating works, there was a concern that there would not be sufficient water flows for the Rapids thereby harming the sport fishery and fish habitat.

In addition to considering the applicant’s study reports forming part of its application, the IJC considered comments from the public, state and provincial agencies, navigation interests and the advice from the International Lake Superior Board of Control.  On September 27, 1978, it issued two separate supplementary orders, one approving the redevelopment subject to certain conditions, and the other (see Section 3.3) specifying flow requirements to protect the rapids.

The main requirements in the supplementary Order approving the hydropower redevelopment were: Great Lakes Power to provide for the City of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario a water intake system during the construction; a requirement for pre-discharge of water from Lake Superior prior to closure of the Canadian power canal to be offset by reductions in that canal’s flow during construction; and conditions governing the timing for placement and removal of the cofferdam taking into consideration the water level conditions on Lake Superior.  Construction of the new power plant and modification to the canal took place during the period 1979-1983.

3.3  September 27, 1978 Supplementary Order (flows in the St. Marys Rapids)

This September 27, 1978 Supplementary Order was issued to protect the sport fishery and fish habitat in the St. Marys Rapids in light of the proposed hydropower redevelopment, and in anticipation that the fishery remedial works would be constructed some time in the near future.

In its 1976 report to Governments, the IJC recommended that Governments provide for the construction of remedial works to protect the sport fishery in the St. Marys Rapids.  Earlier in September 1974, the International Lake Superior Board of Control had completed a report on the feasibility of remedial works and presented possible designs and locations of such works.

Recognizing that there was a need to respond to the hydropower application in a timely manner and at the same time protect the sport fishery in the rapids, the IJC issued this supplementary order dated September 27, 1978.   In issuing this Order and the Order granting hydropower redevelopment, the IJC opted for a balance between the need for flows in the rapids and the need for water of sufficient quantity to make the hydropower redevelopment economically viable.  This Supplementary Order set the order of priority for the distribution of the outflows of water as follows:

• The requirements of navigation will be met;
• Until such time as the fishery remedial works have been constructed, the compensating works shall be operated so as to maintain a flow over the St. Marys Rapids equal to the regulated flow that would have occurred over the rapids had the Project (hydropower redevelopment) not been undertaken, up to four gates open*. Upon completion of the remedial works, a flow sufficient to protect the sport fishery in the St. Marys Rapids shall be maintained.
• The use and diversion of water as approved in the 1914 Orders shall be maintained.

* This requirement is referred to as Condition 1(b) in the Order.  Flows over the rapids pending the construction of fishery remedial works are to be the same as they would have been had the hydropower redevelopment not taken place and are to be the higher of those calculated under the new and old regulation plans, up to four gates open in the compensating works, or flows of about 570 m³/s.

3.4  October 3, 1979 Supplementary Order

The October 3, 1979 Supplementary Order adopted the objective of systemic regulation and changed the way Lake Superior’s outflows are regulated.  Whereas the 1914 Orders require that the level of Lake Superior be considered when determining outflows, the 1979 Order requires that the level of Lakes Michigan-Huron also be taken into consideration.   The rationale for this change can be traced back to the study by the International Great Lakes Levels Board.

In its final report to the IJC in 1973, the Levels Board concluded that regulating the outflows of Lake Erie, and/or Lakes Michigan-Huron would not be economically feasible or environmentally desirable.  However, the Levels Board found that adoption of systemic regulation which takes into consideration both Lake Superior and Lakes Michigan-Huron levels would provide benefits throughout the Great Lakes System.  One regulation plan having this objective was Plan SO-901.    Plan SO-901 was used as a guide for Lake Superior outflow regulation from 1973 to 1979.

Plan SO-901 uses a technique that attempts to balance the levels of Lakes Superior and Michigan-Huron about their monthly mean levels, giving consideration to their natural ranges.  This balancing is accomplished by adjusting the monthly Lake Superior outflows to Lakes Michigan-Huron.  When tested using historical water supplies, Plan SO-901 was found not to increase the likelihood of Lake Superior exceeding the 183.86 m upper limit specified in the 1914 Orders.  It was expected also, that implementing systemic regulation would not result in any material adverse effects to fish, wildlife or other environmental interests in the Great Lakes Basin.  After considering all the factors, the IJC informed the Governments in November 1976 of its intention to adopt systemic regulation and make amendments to the 1914 Orders.  In February the following year, the Governments expressed their support for the new objectives.

Since Plan SO-901 was an experimental plan, the IJC in May 1977 requested the International Lake Superior Board of Control to prepare an updated regulation plan to provide benefits to interests throughout the Great Lakes system without undue detriment to Lake Superior interests.  In September of that year, the Lake Superior Board submitted a report on the development and evaluation of Plan 1977, which was a refinement of Plan SO-901.  Upon receipt of the new regulation plan, the IJC issued its October 3, 1979 Order approving systemic regulation.

The requirements stipulated in the 1979 Supplementary Order are as follows:

• Systemic regulation which considers the water levels of Lakes Superior and Lakes Michigan-Huron when setting the monthly Lake Superior outflows.
• Regulate the monthly mean Lake Superior level between 182.76 m and 183.86 m; and reduce the probability of exceeding 183.86 m (Criterion a). 
• Restrict Lake Superior’s outflow when required to guard against unduly high levels in the lower St. Marys River below the locks (Criterion b).
• Reduce Lake Superior’s outflow when required to guard against unduly low levels in Lake Superior (Criterion c).

The last two requirements listed above have similar objectives as those in the 1914 Orders except that they have incorporated technical improvements for their application.  The IJC also noted that Lake Superior cannot be regulated within a 46 cm range.  The prescribed range of levels for Lake Superior, which was larger than that specified in the 1914 Orders, was considered more realistic and practical given the actual range of fluctuation that had occurred up to that time.

The 1914 Orders established a two-member control board to be appointed by Governments.  An institutional change was made in the 1979 Order, whereby thereafter, the International Lake Superior Board of Control consists of an equal number of members from Canada and the United States appointed by the IJC.

3.5  April 4, 1985 Supplementary Order

The IJC issued a Supplementary Order on April 4, 1985 to allow different gate open settings at the compensating works to evaluate the water level conditions in the rapids, and to allow for technical surveys in connection with the construction of the fishery remedial works.  This order is no longer applicable.

3.6  Apr 18, Aug 19 and Oct 17, 1985 Supplementary Orders

The construction of the fishery remedial works during the summer and fall of 1985 required that parts of the rapids be dewatered.  Three Supplementary Orders, dated April 18, August 19, and October 17, 1985 were issued to suspend the flow requirements for the rapids specified in the September 27, 1978 Supplementary Order.  These Orders are no longer applicable.

3.7  Dec 11, 1985 Supplementary Order

In response to a request from the power entities for relief from the flow requirements specified by Condition 1(b) of the 1978 Supplementary Order, the IJC reopened the question of the required flow in the St. Marys Rapids for fisheries protection in June 1983 and established a liaison group consisting of two Commissioners, the power entities, and four fisheries agencies and Parks Canada.  The group reached a conclusion on an adequate approach in the common interest, the construction of a berm roughly parallel to Whitefish Island, which would permit more effective use of available water at low flows.

In the fall of 1985, the long-awaited fishery remedial works was built.  Following consultation with biology experts in the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, the IJC issued a supplementary order on December 11, 1985 providing additional water for hydropower purposes and an assured supply of water for the St. Marys Rapids and the remedial works.

A major component of the fishery remedial works is the berm extending from the pier between Gate 1 and Gate 2 of the compensating works for a distance of about 1.1 km downstream in the rapids.  This berm established a separate channel in the rapids with its water supplied by Gate 1 (the most northerly) of the compensating works.  In accordance with the 1985 Order’s requirement, Gate 1 is set at a partially open position to provide a consistent flow of about 15 m³/s.  The berm, in concert with the water supplied by Gate 1, ensures that north shore spawning and nursery habitat is maintained.  This flow serves to achieve a minimum water level between the dike and Whitefish Island equal to that provided by opening four gates in the compensating works prior to construction of the berm.

The flow in the main rapids continues to be supplied by Gates 2-16, with the quantity depending on the number of gates opened.  The current IJC criterion requires that a minimum one-half gate open setting, or its flow equivalent, be set to supply water for the main rapids.  This flow is about 100 m³/s (including leakage through closed gates) and the actual amount varies depending on the water levels above the structure.

Another component of the fishery remedial works is a culvert which withdraws water from the Canadian navigation channel to augment the flow in the Whitefish Channel.  The 1985 Order requires that flows sufficient for fisheries habitat management to a maximum of 0.85 m³/s be maintained in Whitefish Channel between Whitefish Island and St. Marys Island.

3.8  Requirements Governing Peaking and Ponding Operation

At times, the monthly average amounts of water available for hydropower purposes are less than the capacities of the plants in the river.  During such periods, the hydropower plants may choose to operate at higher flows during the day and evening hours when demand for electricity is high, and lesser flows at night and on weekends to make more efficient use of their allocated water.  Peaking is the variation of the flow about the daily mean flow.  Ponding is the variation of the daily mean flow about the weekly mean flow.  Peaking and ponding operations cause fluctuations in the water levels and flows in the St. Marys River.

Peaking and ponding operations were infrequent and on a small scale prior to the redevelopment by Great Lakes Power Company in the early 1980s, When the hydropower facilities could not  fully use their allocated water, there was little opportunity to conduct peaking and ponding operations.  Following the completion of new Canadian hydropower plant in 1983 which increased the overall hydropower diversion capacity, peaking and ponding operations have become more frequent, particularly during periods of low Lake Superior outflows.

In 2000, some navigation interests first expressed concerns about the low water level in the lower St. Marys River, and that the low water levels were caused in part by fluctuations due to peaking and, in particular, ponding operations.  In November 2001, they once again expressed concerns about the lower weekend flows due to ponding operations and their impacts on the already low water level conditions.  In response, the International Lake Superior Board of Control arranged short-term increases in the Lake Superior outflow on three successive weekends in December 2001.  These short-term flow increases were reported to have reduced the delay time for the ships exiting the lower St. Marys River.  The over-discharges were offset by under-discharges the remaining part of the month.  At the same time, the IJC decided to examine the longer-term effects of peaking and ponding on not just the navigation interests, but also on other interests in the river including the environment.  Accordingly, the IJC in December 2001 requested the Board of Control to conduct a study and to advise the IJC on this subject.

For its study, the Board of Control consulted with the interest groups and stakeholders in the upper lakes system, reviewed comments collected from the public hearings held by the IJC in the cities of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario and Michigan, and analyzed water level data and ship transit records of the previous several years.  The Board submitted its report to the IJC in February 2002 and follow-up progress reports on this subject in December 2002 and January 2004.

The Board’s analysis of the data shows that peaking and ponding operations have their maximum water level impacts immediately downstream of the power plants.  The effects dissipate as one proceeds downstream and become negligible near the mouth of the St. Marys River.  The water level effect also diminishes towards Garden River in the North Channel.  Peaking and ponding operations were found to have a negligible effect on the levels upstream of Sault Ste. Marie.  It was found that, under certain conditions, sustained low weekend flows conducted as part of ponding operations could be detrimental to navigation and that suspension of ponding operations would be advisable in some cases.  The public views and comments collected during the 2001-2002 study did not identify any known adverse environmental or other impacts.   It concluded that further studies would be needed to better understand the relationships between water levels and the interests in the river.  On this basis, the Board recommended that the IJC approve peaking and ponding operations on a yearly basis under guidelines developed by the Board.  The Board also expected that the International Upper Great Lakes Study would help refine these guidelines.

The April 2002 report by Environmental Resources Management commissioned by the IJC to follow up on any environmental issues associated with peaking and ponding concluded that, while further study is warranted by other agencies, peaking and ponding was not considered to have a significant, if any, impact on the St. Marys wetlands, fish habitats, or sea lamprey control programs.

The first IJC approval of peaking and ponding, issued in December 2001 in its letters to the Board of Control and the power entities, was for a one year period until March 2002.  The authority was subsequently extended on a yearly basis.  The authority dated March 17, 2006 permits peaking and ponding operations for an indefinite period under the Board of Control’s supervision.  These guidelines are to be reviewed every five years starting with the last year of the International Upper Great Lakes Study, or 2010, whichever comes first.

The current guidelines governing peaking and ponding operations are as follows:

1. Subject to prior approval from the Board of Control at the beginning of each month, peaking and ponding operations may be conducted in a manner that meets hydropower needs.

2. The Board may suspend ponding operations for the month if it is expected that ponding operations would result in sustained weekend levels at the U.S. Slip Gauge declining below chart datum elevation.

3. The power entities shall record hourly water level and flow data and furnish these to the Board each month.

4. Further, under emergency conditions, the Board may alter or suspend peaking, or ponding, or both.  These could be due to equipment failure at the hydropower facilities, ship incidents such as groundings, electrical system difficulties or other circumstances.  At such times the Board shall direct outflows that are consistent with the Orders of Approval in consideration of the needs of the interests.

With respect to items (a) and (b) above, the original procedure was to approve or disapprove ponding operations on a monthly basis.   Subsequently, operating experience has made it possible to identify parts of the month that require cancellation or moderation of ponding operations.  In 2003, the Board agreed with the power entities’ request to make ponding decisions also at mid-month.  These changes require close consultations between the Board staff and representatives of the power entities and navigation interests on Lake Superior outflow, proposed peaking and ponding operations and anticipated vessel traffic.  In essence, the practice has become closer management of the system requiring greater staff attention.

4.  Regulating Lake Superior Outflows

4.1  Lake Superior Outflow Regulation Plans – Past and Present

Since 1916, several regulation plans have been used to regulate the outflows of Lake Superior.  The early regulation plans considered only the Lake Superior level in determining the outflow.  Following the adoption of systemic regulation in 1979, all subsequent plans consider also the level of Lakes Michigan-Huron in setting the monthly Lake Superior outflow.  Successive regulation plans were developed also to incorporate operational experience and new techniques, longer periods of hydrologic data, and changing conditions such as hydropower redevelopment.

Plan 1977-A, the current regulation plan, specifies monthly mean Lake Superior outflows with the objective of balancing the levels of Lakes Superior and Michigan-Huron relative to their historical ranges.  The monthly flow is allocated first to meet the needs of municipal and industrial water uses, operate the navigation locks and provide sufficient flow to maintain the aquatic habitat of the St. Marys Rapids.  In accordance with IJC requirements, a one-half gate open setting, or its equivalent, is the minimum allowable to provide flows for the main portion of the rapids.   Gate 1 is set to provide a continuous supply of water (15 m³/s) for the fishery remedial works.  The remainder of the Lake Superior outflow, which is the majority, is allocated equally between the U S. and Canada to generate electricity.  If the amount of water available for hydropower generation exceeds the capacities of the hydropower plants, the excess is released by opening more gates at the compensating works.

4.2  International Lake Superior Board of Control

The authority and duties of the International Lake Superior Board of Control specified in the 1914 Orders, as amended by the 1979 Supplementary Orders, are as follows:

1. Exercise direct control over the operation of the IJC-approved works in the St. Marys River.

2. Review and develop regulation plans for IJC approval.

3. Implement the approved regulation plan and determine Lake Superior outflows.

4. Determine the amount of water available for hydropower purposes, and allocates outflow waters among the interests in the river in accordance with IJC requirements.

5. Ensure accurate measuring and reporting of water used for hydropower purposes.

6. Advise the IJC on the need for, and implement deviations from the regulation plan to respond to unusual hydrologic conditions, or to meet critical needs of the user interests in the St. Marys River.

Other related duties include dissemination of information to the public on Lake Superior outflow regulation and on changes in the gate open setting at the compensating works.  The Board holds public meetings, at least once every year, to present its work to solicit public comments and hear any concerns the public might have that are related to the Board’s activities.

4.3  Deviations from Regulation Plans

The Board constantly monitors the hydrological conditions of the upper Great Lakes basin, and determines Lake Superior’s outflow each month according to Regulation Plan 1977-A.  The IJC may approve deviations from the regulation plan on the advice of the Board.

The purposes for deviating from the regulation plan include: flow measurements to rate the structures in the river; sea lamprey trapping; surveys or environmental studies of the rapids; or short term repairs at the hydropower plants or compensating works.  The impacts of these deviations on the levels of the upper Great Lakes are typically very small.  Larger deviations may, on rare occasion, occur to allow reconstruction of the hydropower plants, or in attempt to provide relief to shore property interests on the upper Great Lakes during unusual water level conditions.

For example, outflows less than specified by the regulation plan took place in June-October 1994 to accommodate repairs at the hydropower plants.   These deviations resulted in a maximum raising impact of two centimetres on Lake Superior, and one centimetre lowing impact on Lakes Michigan-Huron.  These impacts dissipated following a return to regulation plan outflows.

Much larger deviations from the regulation plan occurred in 1973 and again in 1985.  In 1973, the IJC, in response to a request from the U.S. Government, approved reductions in the Lake Superior outflows to provide relief from critical high water levels downstream on Lakes Michigan-Huron and Erie.  The deviations from the regulation plan (1955 Modified Rule of 1949) lowered the peak level of Lakes Michigan-Huron in that year by about 13 centimetres.

In the spring 1985, the water levels of Lakes Michigan-Huron were almost 60 cm above average while Lake Superior was less than 15 cm above average.  The continued high water supply conditions on Lakes Michigan-Huron and Erie made it impossible for Plan 1977 to keep Lake Superior and Lakes Michigan-Huron balanced with regard to their respective mean levels.  To provide relief to the shore property interests on the downstream lakes, the IJC approved Lake Superior outflows less than specified by the regulation plan beginning in May 1985.  By the end of September, the accumulated under-discharges resulted in 11 cm raising impact on Lake Superior.  The maximum impacts corresponding to these deviations were 7 cm lowering on Lakes Michigan-Huron, 4 cm lowering on Lake St. Clair and 3 cm lowering on Lake Erie.  Partially into the program of under-discharge, the hydrologic conditions on the Lake Superior basin turned wet prompting the Board to terminate the under-discharge at the end of August.  Beginning in that October, outflows higher than specified by the regulation plan were released.  This event illustrates the unpredictability of the hydrologic conditions and the limited impact Lake Superior outflow regulation has on upper lakes levels.  About two years later, the water levels of the upper lakes dropped precipitously due to the rapid drop in water supplies to the lakes.

5.  Contemporary Complaints and Comments, Operational Issues

In the Great Lakes basin, human activities are closely intertwined with the water levels of the Great Lakes.  Complaints and comments about water levels surface from time to time and their number increases when water level departs considerably from the seasonal norm.  This chapter provides a summary of the typical contemporary complaints and comments.  These were heard at public meetings, identified by reviewing letters received by the Lake Superior Board, and collected during the preparation of the Upper Lakes Plan of Study.

The complaints and comments discussion below are grouped by interest as defined in the Upper Lakes Plan of Study.  Owing to their size, shore property owners provide more complaints and comments than the other interest groups.  Absence of, or lack of complaints from an interest group should not be interpreted as impacts on them are minor.  The purpose of this chapter is to highlight how fluctuating water levels affect the interest groups.  The evaluation of these impacts and investigation of potential improvements to Lake Superior outflow regulation are to be carried out in the current International Upper Great Lakes Study.

Ecosystem including Wetlands

The seasonal and the occasional long-term cycles of high and low water levels are considered by experts in the biology community essential for the well-beings of Great Lakes wetlands.  However, persistent high or low levels can have adverse impacts on the wetlands.  During the work on the preparation of the Upper Lakes Plan of Study in 2005, many complaints were received from residents in the cottage country about the impacts of low water levels on the wetlands, boating and accessibility. One concern was that when water levels move to and remain at a different regime, wetlands have difficulty migrating to the new regime and they may take years to recover.    For some wetlands, what were once productive spawning grounds for fish were converting to grassy meadows.  In the Georgian Bay’s steep nearshore environment, the concern is that the aquatic plant life in the wetlands can not survive on the steep granite shores of the bay when water levels recede and stay recede.

Recreational Boating and Tourism

Low water levels are a concern for the recreational boating and tourist industry because they make some docks and ramps un-useable, shorten the boating season, increase boat-propeller damage and reduce accessibility while on the lake and river.  High water levels can overtop boat docks and can flood marinas that are not properly designed.  For marinas built on rocky shores, dredging could be cost prohibitive.  These have adverse effects on the tourist industry.

Hydropower

High Lake Superior levels and outflows increase hydropower generation while low levels and flows reduce generation.  AAs discussed earlier, ponding operations would be suspended or moderated to prevent water levels from falling below chart datum at the harbor below Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.  By 2004, the navigation interest’s area of concern in the lower St. Marys River has been deepened.  Following the completion of this dredging, there was a suggestion by one navigation interest to lower the reference water level for suspension of ponding to account for the channel deepening.   To solicit public comments on this proposal, the Lake Superior Board consulted with the hydropower and navigation interests, and other interest groups regarding this proposal to use Low Water Datum minus one foot (about 30 cm) at U.S. Slip as the new reference level, that is, 176.09 m at U.S. Slip, for future ponding decisions.  If this change is accepted, it is expected to reduce the number of times that ponding will be restricted in the future.  Following comments provided by a fisheries biologist requesting additional research prior to implementation of the proposal, the Lake Superior Board decided to suspend further consideration for changing the reference level pending the results of additional studies on this matter.

From their perspective, the hydropower interests prefer gradual changes in the opening of additional gates at the compensating works over a period of months, as opposed to abrupt and large changes from one month to the next.  They also prefer that when releasing surplus water from Lake Superior, they be let out over a longer period of time to enable the power entities to use the water as opposed to releasing it at the compensating works.

Coastal Zone

High water levels can cause flood damage in flood-prone and low-lying areas.  For some shore zones, erosion can be accelerated by storms acting on high water levels.  Due to its geological setting and the relatively sparse urban development, flood and erosion damage on the Canadian shores of Lake Superior is relatively minor compared to that on the U.S. shores.  The record high water levels in 1985-86 generated many complaints from shore property owners, many of them from Lake Michigan, Lake Huron and Lake Erie.   Concerns about high water levels again surfaced as recently as the spring of 1997.  During one public meeting in 2001, the Lake Erie shore property interests expressed concerns about the potential of future high water episodes.

While low water levels reduce flood damage and may also reduce erosion damage, they generate concerns about lake-front beach turning into mud flat, and local water quality degradation.

Commercial Navigation

Low water levels reduce the ship’s capacity to transport cargo and thus require more trips increasing operating costs.  For some harbours such as that at Thunder Bay, low water levels particularly when they fall below chart datum can seriously disrupt shipping.  As discussed earlier, some shipping interests have expressed concerns about the impacts of peaking and particularly ponding operations on the water levels of the lower St. Marys River.  The guidelines governing peaking and ponding operations implemented in 2002 have resolved much of the problems.  However, concern about peaking and ponding operations remains with some navigation interests as is also with some biologists about the impacts on the river environment.

Municipal, Industrial, and Domestic Water Use

While designed to accommodate the full range of historical water levels, holding tanks and outfalls at treatment plants can be affected by high water levels.  Low water levels increase pumping cost and deteriorating water quality increases the cost for water treatment.

St. Marys Rapids and Operation of the Compensating Works

In the watered areas of the rapids the flow conditions under the present regime have provided a relatively stable environment for aquatic organisms that live within the rapids or migrate into them for critical life cycle events (spawning and nursery).  According to some biology experts, from time to time this stability has been compromised by short and long term releases of high volumes of water through the compensating works.  One concern is when the gate open setting increases from one-half gate open to several opened, or the reverse.

According to one fishery expert, the present minimum flow requirement (1/2 gate open setting or its equivalent) is not sufficient to water the entire bed of the rapids.  The south shore of the rapids under such flow conditions consists of shallow pools and areas of exposed river bed.

6.  Findings

The IJC exercised its quasi-judicial authority under the terms of the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty in granting approval for the use of the waters of the St. Marys River for hydropower purposes. Successive amendments have been made to reflect changing conditions and to meet the diversified needs of the interests in the upper Great Lakes system.

The requirements governing hydropower operations and Lake Superior outflow regulation reflect a balanced approach taken by the IJC to address the needs of the interest groups.  The principle of providing benefits or relief to interests affected by water levels and flows without causing undue detriments to other interests has been followed by the IJC when amending its Orders and approving deviations from Lake Superior

Different regulation plans have been used to regulate the outflows of Lake Superior

The objective of systemic regulation is sound as it aims to protect both the upstream (Lake Superior) and downstream (Lakes Michigan-Huron through Lake Erie) interests affected by extreme fluctuations of water levels.  However, water supplies to the system at times can limit the ability of Lake Superior outflow regulation to achieve a desired balance in the water levels for both the upstream and downstream lakes.

Since the needs of the interests vary, designing regulation plans that satisfy all the interests all the time poses a great challenge.  The difficulty is compounded by the variability and unpredictability of water supplies.  The operational experience shows that Lake Superior outflow regulation in conjunction with deviations from the regulation plan when needed has been fairly effective to address interest needs.  Nevertheless, regulation plans need to be reviewed periodically to ensure they best comply with the criteria and requirements of the IJC, and to incorporate the latest science and technology.

9. List of Interested Citizen, Interest and Agency Groups

The following are interest groups, industries and government agencies who have provided comments about Great Lakes water levels through attendance at recent public meetings of the International Lake Superior Board of Control and the Upper Lakes Plan of Study Teams (2002 and 2005), or by letters and telephone:

Great Lakes Coalition

Nature Conservancy

Ohio Lakefront Group

Ohio Department of Natural Resources

Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Michigan Sea Grant

Council of Great Lakes Industries

Sierra Club

Environmental Protection Agency

Lake Church Lakeshore League

Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute

Great Lakes Boating Magazine

Great Lakes Commission

Triad Engineering

Save Our Great Lakes

Friends of the Milk River Clean-up

Michigan Boating Industries Association

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Edison Sault Electric Company

Lake Superior State University

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Whitefish Bay Shoreline Association

Ontario Forestry Research Institute

Grand Portage Environment Department

Anishinabek Nation

Georgian Bay Association

Georgian Bay Property Owners Association

Sans Souci Association

WahWah Taysee Association

Pte. Baril Islanders Association

Table 1

Orders of Approval, Supplementary Orders, and Other IJC Requirements

May 26 and 27, 1914 Orders of Approval

• Approved applications for use of St. Marys River waters for hydropower purposes.
• Approved construction of compensating works and hydropower works in the river.
• Established Lake Superior Board to oversee the operations of the approved projects.
• Established criteria and requirements for regulating Lake Superior levels and outflows.

September 27, 1978 Supplementary Order

• Approved application by Great Lakes Power Corporation Ltd for redevelopment.
• Requirements to protect interests on Lake Superior and in river during construction.

September 27, 1978 Supplementary Order

• Set order of priority for use of water and flow requirements for the rapids before and after construction of the fishery remedial works.

October 3, 1979 Supplementary Order

• Adopted objective of systemic regulation.

• Amended the 1914 criteria and requirements for Lake Superior outflow regulation.

• Institutional change in formation of International Lake Superior Board of Control.

April 4, 1985 Supplementary Order

• Approved temporary changes to gate open setting at the compensating works to allow technical survey in the rapids.

April 18, August 19 and October 17, 1985 Supplementary Orders

• Temporary suspension of flow requirements in the rapids during  construction of fishery remedial works.

December 11, 1985 Supplementary Order

• Set flow requirements and distribution of flows in the rapids following completion of construction of fishery remedial works.

Requirements Governing Peaking and Ponding Operations

December 10, 2001:  First one-year IJC approval to conducting peaking and ponding.

March 17, 2006: Indefinite period subject to periodic review.

Table 2

Current Criteria and Requirements⁽¹⁾ Governing Lake Superior Outflow Regulation and Operations of the Hydropower Plants