As another of its excellent services to recreational boaters, the Department of Homeland Security this morning announced that it will use special dyes on the surface of Lake Ontario to mark the official border between the US and Canada. The program will require a fleet of satellite-guided helicopters equipped with 200-foot-long delivery tubes that will be lowered to within one foot of the surface, and has been funded through a new program named "Just try to Envision 2020" by the Bush administration, and will commence upon the opening of the charter fishing season May 1.

“Wind and waves would quickly dissipate normal dyes,” said Rhea L. Ziel, official spokesperson. “Fortunately, our two-year 660 million dollar study identified a group of long chain polymers that cling to each other so well the dye will remain substantially in place for a minimum of one hour before sinking. This 'cling time', as we call it, will permit an hourly schedule of over-flights to maintain the presence of the line.”

An example of what the line will look like from space. Helicopters will be based in Watertown and Buffalo.

The plan is seen as a response to public criticism of Homeland Security’s recent announcement that it intended to begin enforcing passport reporting requirements for charter fishing vessels operating out of New York State. All persons aboard charter vessels that leave American waters, even temporarily, will be required to have passports (or two other ID’s) in their possession at all times, and upon returning to port report to Customs as having left and returned to the country.

Ziel defended the need to strictly enforce Border policy. “If we let US citizens flout the law, how can we expect foreigners to pay attention,” she said. “We do have monitoring satellites in place over the lake, but until we're fully deployed it will be impossible to observe every boat all the time. For all we know, those fishing derbies might be nothing but cover schemes for Canadian fishermen to collude with Americans to smuggle in cheap Chinese laborers and send tax free cigarettes to Canada. Why do you think they call those boxes on their boats “live” wells?”

Charter operators will now be required to:

1. One hour before they leave shore, fax in passenger’s personal information – name, date of birth, and government ID # - to Customs and Border Protection office. The names will be run against an anti-terrorist watch list.
2. Make sure passengers carry either a passport of a government ID and a proof-of-citizenship document.
3. Send the passengers to a local border protection reporting station after landing, so they can call in on a videophone.

The 3,500 new Customs officers required by the plan will use patrol boats and government aircraft to do spot checks to back up the satellite images. Suspicious behavior would be any two boats approaching within five feet, people swimming, the presence of personal watercraft, semi-submerged objects, suspicious buoys or markers, and people urinating over the side, among others.

“Our concerns are anything from terrorists and terrorist weapons to polluters, drugs and undocumented aliens,” said Ziel.

Charter captain Randy Randall, who fishes out of Oswego, NY, could only shake his head. "The only thing worse than a zealot, is a zealous bureaucrat," he said. "So what if we stray over the line? There's no way they'll be able to keep track of everyone.”

"That's what he thinks," said Ziel. "The new dyes have another interesting characteristic; special molecules designed to be absorbed by fiberglass. Any boat that attempts to pass through the line will be dyed pink. The pink dyes also function as reflectors, which the satellites are programmed to home in on. Customs officials will patrol dock areas, looking for the markers. Chemicals required to remove the dye will be available exclusively at Customs offices. The introductory price will be $49.95 per ounce and will be sold only in 12 oz bottles.

Ziel did not think the price excessive. “Pink is now an official government color. It will be illegal to paint an entire boat pink to circumvent the dye. We mean business. As of next month, we’re putting a stop to all illegal activities out there. The data will show very quickly if we’re successful or not.”

Ziel would not reveal the number of charter fishing customers arrested over the last five years, but said the number is significant. When asked how the dye will affect the habitat, she said, “Environmental impact is minimal when compared to the very strong and visible benefits. Studies are incomplete, but these dyes are not soluble. Essentially, they sink to the bottom and will quickly be covered with sediment. Where’s the problem? Once it sinks, it’s gone. The up side is we’ll now have a clearly visible border on the surface of the lake. Before, it was very difficult to establish whether a boat was in American or Canadian waters. Now, it no longer will be. Just think, we will now be able to identify everyone who illegally leaves the country. We see that as a major advance toward the future security of all our citizens.”

The govenrment of Canada was quick to respond. Prime Minister Sue Yu issued a terse statement. "We fully support and endorse the actions of the US Government in its attempt to secure its borders. However, we strongly oppose the red and white striped colours of the proposed line. Red and white are our national colours. Any government with the resources to establish a line in the first place should be capable of adding a third colour, blue, to make the line distinct from the line we will be establishing ourselves in near future." 

This has been an April fool’s story. The dye line is a fabrication, but the new reporting information is not. Rules go into effect in May.

"Seven with one blow"

Borrowing several pages from the classic Grimm Brothers fairy tale, The Little Tailor, the International Joint Commission (IJC), which oversees the St. Lawrence Seaway and controls Lake Ontario water levels, has proposed the adoption of new discharge management plan D+(as revised) to become effective next year. In doing so, the commission promised that in two years environmental groups and recreational boaters could have the plan they favored (plan B+), but only if they first succeed in accomplishing three seemingly impossible mitigation measures.

The mitigation measures:

1 - Create and implement shoreline protection (high water) for all at-risk areas, and demonstrate that the measures are in place and working as designed. Among these measures are breakwaters, beach nourishment and other habitat restoration measures.

2 - Deepen channels that would be at risk during low water conditions by dredging and other measures.

3 - Convince federal, state, provincial and local governments to act as follows: public acquisition of properties that can not be otherwise protected from high water; low interest loans where at-risk properties can be protected; institute stricter floodplain and land use programs; zoning changes.

Both plans D+ and B+ are descended from a five-year $20 million study commissioned by the IJC and completed in 2005. The study recommended three possible plans of action; plans A, B, and D. All three represented a distinct departure from the plan then in effect (plan 1958DD).

The study clearly stated any of the new plans could be implemented without the prior implementation of mitigatory measures.

The commission did accept the final report, but promptly appointed another group to review it and suggest better alternatives. This second very distinguished group of scientists and researchers produced revisions; plans A+, B+, and D+, all of which came closer to the IJC’s plan (1958DD) and were thus more acceptable to the commission – but apparently not yet close enough to be totally so.

Additional study and consideration commenced, resulting in last week’s March 28 introduction of proposed “Plan 2007.” Although nominally a derivative of plan D+, plan 2007 is virtually identical to plan 1958DD. This is not surprising as both were developed with the interests of commercial shipping and power generation in mind. It appears the commission – from the tone of its documents reluctant to undertake the study process in the first place – has managed for the most part to deflect change.

Plan B+ is favored by environmentalists and boaters because it results in both higher and lower extreme water levels than the other plans. Plan B+ would favorably impact wetland areas adjacent to Lake Ontario proper by narrowing the transition line from submerged to upland plant species, thus improving spawning habitat and the diversity of marshlands. Specifically, occasional very low water levels would dry out marshes and reduce the dominance of cattails that crowd out aquatic grasses and other plants. Boaters supported this concept, even though the same low water conditions could make things difficult for them.

Last week’s decision was not unexpected. The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 established an order of precedence in the IJC’s management of its assets: uses for sanitary and domestic purposes; uses for navigation; and uses for power generation, and the commission is bound to uphold its responsibilities under the treaty. This it has done, stating that it is now the responsibility of the governments of New York State, the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the joint federal governments, and the governments of waterfront cities and counties to implement whatever mitigation processes they please.

Like the little tailor in Grimm’s fable, who after having miraculously swatted seven flies with one blow, cried “I killed seven with one blow” - just as the king asked who in his kingdom could kill the two giants - environmentalists, boaters, and shoreline communities stood up and were counted when invited, only to be handed the task of slaying the giants. Is it possible? Yes, but not only have no sources of funding been identified, no organization seems ready to step forward. Even if funds were available immediately, it might take two years just to compile a list of potential impact sites. IJC has to know this as well as anyone. For an international organization to establish such a set of conditions in the face of the recommendations of its own study, which categorically stated no remediation actions were needed, seems cynical indeed. 

The IJC - left to right: Jack Blaney; Irene Brooks; Herb Gray- chair; Allen Olson