Items of concern regarding new proposed lake level candidate plans

New-elevated ranges of plans

 Current plan of operation 58DD range – 243.3 ft – 247.3 ft.

Minimum - maximum range

58DD = 242.05 – 248.29

Plan “A” range = 243.23 -248.29

Plan “B” range = 242.74 – 248.32

Plan “D” range =  242.58 – 248.35

Plan “E” range =  242.18 – 249.93

 Special notes on Minimum – Maximum ranges above

58DD – criterion K usually invoked when levels fall below 243.5 ft and above 247 ft.

Plan “B” – Plan B on average every third year has a peak summer level will be 245.5 ft. (New Lower High)

Plan “E” – while not a candidate plan submitted to IJC for consideration, this plan is to be the long range goal for Lake Ontario as stated in LOSL Study Final Report by the majority of board members

 Emergency Criterion – Criterion K as we know it will no longer be allowed.  Water levels will range through whole of specific range.  At present, Criterion K has been invoked when level exceeded 247 ft., which is a foot below high end of 58DD range.

Plan 58DD exceeds 247 in March – May time of year 3% of the time

Plan A exceeds 247 ft. in March- May time of year 8% of the time.

Plan B exceeds 247 ft. in March- May time of year 5% of the time

Plan D exceeds 247 ft. in march- May time of year 3% of the time.

 Infrastructure

Breakwalls and other shore protection structures along with boat ramps, new houses and many other public and private developments have been built to present 4 foot operating range.  With new plans, cost or effect for new plans undetermined.

 Public lands losses have not been made part of economic model.

 Damage to homes due to wave action damage not part of economic evaluation only cost of shore protection.  Affect on flood insurance costs also has never been answered with increase risk of flooding.

 Peer Review

The LOSL study had the National Research Council and the Royal Academy of Sciences perform a peer review of the study.  They reported that the Environmental and Coastal areas of study did not have enough good data to make a valid decision.

 Modeled 58DD used by the study as baseline plan for comparisons of other developed plans is not same as the actual 58DD.

Things to do at upcoming public hearings:

 1.At IJC meetings this year, please don’t 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.

 2.Call or write your Federal Representative.  We live in Congresswoman Louise Slaughter’s district but many of us work in Congressman Tom Reynolds’ district.  A problem 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 # 663-5570

 Don’t 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., which is very bad for recreational boaters.

Items for letters to representatives:

•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 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.