Grandview Beach Association Spring Meeting March 20, 2006

1
Grandview Beach AssociationSpring MeetingMarch
20, 2006
2

• LOSL Study Decision Guidelines
• Contribute to ecological integrity
• Maximize net benefits
• No disproportionate loss. Mitigation alternatives
  may be identified to limit damages when
  considered appropriate. Eliminate
  disproportionate loss (any adopted plan not to be
  implemented until the mitigation implementation
  measures are in place).
• Flexible in recognition of unusual or unexpected
  conditions
• Adaptable to climate change and climate
  variability.
• Decision-making will be transparent and
  representative
• Adapt to future advances in knowledge, science
  and technology.

3
(No Transcript)
4
(No Transcript)
5
Equitythere still is no equity between loss of
personal property, i.e. a familys home and land,
and the inability to use a recreational boat.
They had been put on same plane for Study but
never quantified in importance.
6
Equity- Continued The following was obtained
from NYS Governor Patakis Web site regarding the
Hydroelectric Dam at MassenaThe relicense of
dam continues to provide low cost power to
surrounding areas.10.5 million to surrounding
areas for High Water Flow Adjustment115 million
for community enhancements in Towns of Massena,
Louisville, Waddington, Lisbon and villages of
Massena and Waddington and the school districts
of Massena, Lisbon, Madrid-Waddington and St.
Lawrence County.23 million for the St. Lawrence
Aquarium12 for improvements at local state
parks8 million for parks in Massena,
Louisville, Waddington and Lisbon.66 million
for fish and wildlife habitat improvements300,00
0 for boat docks and picnic area improvements on
Galop Islands State Park
7
High Water Impacts
8
Emergency Deviations
These thresholds can be defined as extreme water
level and flow occurrences approximating 1100
year exceedance probability events, or by known
physical limitations or response functions of the
system, for example Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence
River water level conditions at which significant
shoreline damages occur, or levels beyond which
environmental benefits may not continue to accrue
depending on recent occurrences of high- or
low-water level events. The Study Board suggests
that in the event of a 50 probability that the
thresholds listed in Table 15 will be exceeded,
the International St. Lawrence River Board of
Control evaluate the effects of deviating from
plans flows and implement appropriate water
management strategies, with the express
concurrence of the Commission.
9
(No Transcript)
10
Wind Wave Action At 247.4 ft April 1993
11
Residential Flooding At 247.4 ft. April 1993
12
 
13
Lake Ontario - Coastal
Coastal
May through August
--------------------------------------------------
-
75.38
247.3
75.2 (246.72 ft.) Max.
74.7 (245.08 ft.) Max.
November through February
--------------------------------------------------
-
243.3
74.15
14
Concerns about Environmental Science.
15
Other concerns Since the development of the
projects in the 1950s on the St. Lawrence were
built the system has became controlled by man.
Saying that we will take it back to conditions
seen prior to regulation is not be practical due
to the development that has also occurred based
on criteria that have been in effect since that
time. Development both public and private has
been based on 4 ft range.  Changing the present
Orders of Approval, which guaranteed certain
conditions to those recognized interests
including riparians, could be in conflict with
the treaty due to damages that will occur.  The
Studys results are only hypothetical. They are
not a proven theory and as such need to be tested
before enacted and damages inflicted.
16
Other concerns- cont.
The PIAGs principal objective was to ensure that
the results of the Study considered the interests
and natural knowledge of the public. When we
told plan formulators that certain levels
particularity in spring months cause problems.
This effort had no affect on the proposed plans.
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
Historic vs. 58DD
20
50,000 stochastic lelves
21
A
D
B
Pre-1960
Post 1960
22
248.02/
247.04/
246.06/
23
248.02/
247.04/
246.06/
24
Quality of Life????? Future view of Lake Ontario
from the South Shore
25

• Final Thoughts
• At IJC meetings this year, please dont let
  environmental groups have final word. We let our
  elected officials speak for us last summer and
  this did not have same weight as individuals
  speaking for themselves. Please stay and make
  comments even if it takes some time to get to
  microphone.
• Call or write your Federal Representative. We
  live in Congresswoman Louise Slaughters district
  but many of us work in Congressman Tom Reynolds
  district. A problem with with our homes would
  affect many businesses!
• Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, 3120 Federal
  Building, Rochester, NY, 14614, Telephone
  232-4850
• Congressman Tom Reynolds, 1577 W. ridge Rd.,
  Rochester, NY 14615, Telephone [phone]
• Dont be confused by terminology. The
  environmental groups were misleading last summer
  when they said there would be lower lows with
  their preferred plan, Plan B) it lower end is
  higher than present plan. They want a lower
  high(mid summer)level. Around 245.5ft. Very bad
  for recreational boaters.

26

• Final Thoughts Page Two
• Ideas for letters
• Why was first floor flooding only economic
  evaluated for damages. Wave induced damages was
  not evaluated.
• What will be effect on FEMA flood insurance if
  operating range changed? Question was asked
  numerous times to no avail.
• Why was not value of properties used for damages?
  Only cost of shore protection. Also damages to
  private property without shore protection not
  part of economics. Public lands tax payer
  financed also not included it is assumed that
  erosion of this land is source of beach sand and
  has no value.
• Present breakwalls and houses built to present
  standards. If changed how will costs be paid to
  rebuild to new standards.