1. Grandview Beach Association Spring Meeting March 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.

5. Equity there still is no equity between loss of personal property, i.e. a family’s 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 Pataki’s Web site regarding the Hydroelectric Dam at Massena: The relicense of dam continues to provide low cost power to surrounding areas. $10.5 million to surrounding areas for High Water Flow Adjustment $115 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 Aquarium $12 for improvements at local state parks $8 million for parks in Massena, Louisville, Waddington and Lisbon. $66 million for fish and wildlife habitat improvements $300,000 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 1:100 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.

10. Wind & Wave Action At 247.4 ft April 1993

11. Residential Flooding At 247.4 ft. April 1993

12. DateWater LevelEffect 4/7/1998247.44 36" diameter Sewer Interceptor along shoreline serving towns of Webster and Irondequoit undermined and threatened with breach. Major environmental problem 4/7/1998247.44 Brockport Drinking Water Treatment plant serving 35,000 homes. Below grade clearwells threatened with lake contamination. 4/7/1998247.44 Greece Drinking Water Treatment plant threatened within 6” of flooding in transformer station. Plant serves approx 1 million people in Monroe, Orleans, Wayne, Ontario, and Genesee counties including Batavia NY. 4/7/98247.44$2 million dollars in damage to road infrastructure in Monroe County 4/7/97246.63Lake Waves at Hamlin Beach State Park- $800,000.00 in damages 5/5/97247Governor requests Advance Measures Program from USACE

13. Coastal 75.2 (246.72 ft.) Max. Lake Ontario - Coastal 74.7 (245.08 ft.) Max. May through August November through February --------------------------------------------------- 75.38 243.3 74.15 247.3

14. Concerns about Environmental Science.

15. Other concerns Since the development of the projects in the 1950’s 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 Study’s results are only hypothetical. They are not a proven theory and as such need to be tested before enacted and damages inflicted.

16. The PIAG’s 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. Other concerns- cont.

19. Historic vs. 58DD

20. 50,000 stochastic lelves

21. A B D Post 1960 Pre-1960

22. 247.04/ 246.06/ 248.02/

23. 247.04/ 246.06/

24. Quality of Life????? Future view of Lake Ontario from the South Shore

25. Final Thoughts 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 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. 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.