A summary of the March 18 2008 St Lawrence River Board Teleconference

Thanks to Mike Hill of the Dolphins for providing this.

It's well worth browsing the FAQ page on the Board's website for more information about many of the topics raised during the Conference.

I'm not sure how many of you had a chance to listen in to the Teleconference held by the International St Lawrence River Board of Control. For those who didn't manage to do so, I thought that there might be some interest in notes from the event, which was very well run and supported.

---

Notes from the teleconference held on March 18th, 2008 with a central meeting place in Rochester NY. The Conference opened at 7 pm and closed at 8:25 pm with an expression of appreciation for everyone's interest and attention from the Chairman.

A total of 37 telephone correspondents listened in to the conference. The operator remarked that a particularly large number of subscribers had dialed in from Kingston (testimony to the success of CPS and K7 publicity for the event?)

The Meeting opened with a briefing from the American alternate chair - speaking to the slide briefing pack provided in advance of the conference.

Questions then alternated between members of the Rochester audience and telephone subscribers. Briefly, they covered the following points (a couple have been missed):

There was a question about measurement of levels in the Quebec area. Concerns about accountability for wind were expressed. The answer was that measurement was generally instrumented - relayed over internet links and averaged out over a period. WInd conditions were taken into account in this way.

A Toronto yacht club representative asked about control of drastic shifts in Lake Ontario levels. The chair explained that they operate within a 4 foot range and that they had not, to his knowledge failed to maintain this control. In fact, it had not been close to reaching the minimum levels aimed for.

A question was posed about beach erosion on the South Shore. The caller was worried that, despite falling water levels, a local beach was shrinking noticeably. The Board explained that geological shifts had a greater influence on this situation than the water levels. The changes were also episodic and annual changes would vary. Water level controls had little or no effect.

Another remark was made about beach levels. When levels rose beyond 245 (or as much as 246) feet, erosion was obviously more severe. The Board response was that 247.3 feet had been set by the controllers as the maximum permitted and this was not under review.

A listener asked how ice measurements were taken and where. The Board explained that they checked ice - and aimed to slow flow - between Montreal and Ogdensburg during the ice forming season. They did this by slowing outflows in order to avoid downstream damage.

A Fairhaven resident (South Shore) expressed concern (as a boater) about low water levels late last season. His boating had been curtailed early. He asked what was the average level from 1957 - 2007. A respondent said that the change in levels between pre and post construction periods on the Seaway was only about 2/10 of a foot - with little change in range. The new controls, however, it was remarked, had enabled much greater control over lake levels - to everybody's benefit.

A caller living between the Eisenhower Dam and Morrisburg said that he had seen daily fluctuations of nearly a foot occasionally. Records showed no evidence of such large fluctuations. Was there a reason and could anything be done to resolve the issue. The answer was related to peaking at the power dam, which did cause about a foot of change. Wind too played a significant part. There was nothing that could be done to control the weather effects. The respondent remarked that gauges at Morrisburg and elsewhere did in fact show the substantial fluctuations.

A cottage owner near a land spur called 'Devil's Nose' asked if artificial enhancement of the outcrop could be considered to provide additional protection to his area. The Board suggested that there was little they could do to change land forms and environmental concerns would probably also preclude any significant changes.

A questioner raised the question of whether precipitation levels had a major effect on lake levels - or whether shipping interests and power demands had the greater effect. The answer was that nature played much the greatest role. The Board work was, honestly, 'tinkering around the edges'. A US Army engineer with experience of Lake Superior's conditions remarked that there an effective drought was causing serious issues. When ice cover is not as widespread as expected, there is also much greater evaporative loss from the lakes. All these factors were inter-connected and affected lower lakes. Critics leveled accusations of 'pulling the plug' each fall, but low water levels were really naturally occurring.

There was a convoluted question about relationships between conditions on the Onondaga Escarpment and the Niagara Watershed and erosion impact related to power project development. The Board remarked that the matter was under consideration and an IJC Study Board report was due in the Spring.

A Quebec caller asked about rumours of plans to conduct further dredging of the Seaway to allow larger vessels to navigate the waterway. The Board answered that they were aware of no plans to conduct further dredging, but that navigability studies of the Great Lakes were in train.

A yacht club representative asked if consideration had been given to 'flushing through' the seaway by allowing winter water levels to drop more than currently. The Board answer was that there was no mandate to experiment and current controls required no levels below 243.3 feet. Any lower water levels would carry through and re-constitution of lake levels in boating season could not be guaranteed.

In an answer about fluctuation rates last year it was revealed that during some periods last fall more water had evaporated from Lake Ontario than contributed by all inflows.

A yacht club vice commodore asked if faster responses were planned when falling levels were becoming evident. The Board's response was that response had to be measured and deliberate. Only a centimetre or two could be altered weekly. There was a danger of overshooting otherwise - and this had drawn criticism.

A final 'phone correspondent made a point of expressing appreciation for the open and generous way in which the IJC and other bodies were providing information and taking input on their activities. A Board member thanked the individual and explained that they tried to take all factors into account when creating management strategies - but compliments were appreciated.

A caller asked what measures might be taken to deal with any situation where lake levels were getting set to fall below 243 feet. The Board response was that the Plan gave priority to sanitation, drinking water and the like. This being the case, concern for boaters upstream would be set aside to maintain downstream drinking supplies. Fortunately, there had never been a need to address the issue.

A caller from Collins Bay closed telephone questions by remarking that everyone associated with the lake had to accept that living with, and acknowledging the fact that, we were dealing with a dynamic system was important. That said, if the Board could do anything to influence those who granted permits for mitigation work to provide shoreline erosion protection, it would be enormously appreciated. The Board response was that education was seen as a substantial responsibility Environmental agencies were in attendance at Board meetings and information was made readily available to such bodies. While they could exercise no influence over environmental decisions, they could ensure that fullest information was made available.

Mike Hill
http://web.mac.com/mike.hill
http://www.flickr.com/photos/divenutz/