International Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Study

About Us



Public Interest Advisory Group

Technical Work Groups

Reports and Minutes

Study Data


The Boardroom

International Joint Commission

Great Lakes Information Network
Web Site and Translation
by the Translation Bureau

Get Adobe Reader
Download Adobe Reader 7.0

International Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River Study Board
Meeting in Amherst, New York
November 14, 2002 (1300 - 1730) and November 15, 2002 (0800 - 1030)


Board members in attendance were: Eugene Stakhiv; Doug Cuthbert; Frank Sciremammano; Andre Carpentier; Pete Loucks; Sandra LeBarron; Frank Quinn; Marcel Lussier; Dan Barletta; and Jim Snyder along with Study Managers Tony Eberhardt and Ed Eryuzlu. Others in attendance for all or part of the meetings were: Elaine Kennedy; Stephanie Weiss; Henry Stewart; Max Streibel; Bill Werick; Wendy Leger; Roger Gauthier; Ian Gillespie; Joe Atkinson; Brad Parker; David Fay; Ralph Moulton; Tom Bender; Jon Brown; Serge St-Martin; Roger Haberly; Debbie Lee; Amy Lyttle; Tom McAuley; Russ Trowbridge; Arianne Matte; Arleen Kreusch; Pete Zuzek; Chris Stewart; Aaron Thompson; Trevor Elliott; David Klein.

  1. Agenda approval: The agenda was modified slightly to allow PIAG to give its update and discuss funding on the first day of the meeting.
  2. Reporting out on October 2002 appearance with IJC:
  • The Institutional Structures Report was provided to the Commission and it is being reviewed.
  • The Commission agreed that the Plan of Study (1999) should be retooled to cover activities not originally proposed in that document, but within the funding framework outlined in that report.
  • The Commission noted the Board's concerns regarding individual "black box" models.
  • In related business regarding membership, the Board:
    • Approved the appointment of Brad Parker as Canadian Lead for the Environmental TWG,
    • Is awaiting formal IJC approval for Dan Barletta as a new Board member and U.S. Lead for PIAG,
    • Jon Montan was approved by the IJC as a new PIAG member,
    • Paul Finnegan and John Osinski have switched roles as PIAG member and U.S. Hydroelectric Power TWG Lead, with IJC approval,
    • Since Ron Daly declined, the Commission is seeking another International Great Lakes Coalition member for PIAG.
  1. Discussion regarding the University Inn workshop:

    A problem that became evident during the workshop was that many investigators have proposed continuing their data collection and research work into years 4 and 5 of the Study. In order to bring Study activities and timing into focus, the General Managers presented a Gantt Chart.
  • The Board confirmed that, as shown in the draft chart, years 1 through 3 should be the Data Collection Phase and Plan Formulation Phase, and years 4 through 5 the Plan Evaluation and Finalisation phase.
  • The Board agreed that in some cases, data could be refined in the later years of the Study, but such should not be extensive.
  • The TWGs were instructed to review the chart and suggest changes before the January Board meeting. (The Environmental TWG seemed to be deviating the most from the chart and the emphasis during its December 10th meeting in Burlington should be to refocus activities.)
  • Ed and Tony will prepare a memo to the TWGs by Friday, November 22, instructing them to review the chart and provide critical timeframes to be incorporated in the chart to fit in the overall Study timeframes.
  • The TWGs should review their approved y-2 work plans and determine which activities have fallen behind schedule as part of the mid-term budget adjustments. This information is due back to the GMs by December 6, 2002.
  • The TWGs are to be asked by the GMs also to provide estimates of y-3 funding requirements for Board review during a conference call which will take place before Christmas.
  • The Board directed all TWGs to incorporate translation costs in their yearly budget proposals.
  • PIAG provided a list of questions that the TWGs will answer prior to the next PIAG meeting.
  • All TWGs must provide a write-up of their economic evaluation approach by the end of December 2002 and make available economic data for the Economic Advisory Panel (EAP) organized by PFEG.
  • All presenters shall make their presentations available on the Study FTP site.
  • IM TWG will develop metadata template for use by all groups and PIs to place all technical reports and data on FTP site.
  • Specific to TWGs:
  • Environmental: Board noted that the ongoing research was useful, but questioned how it would serve the overall needs of the Study in terms of establishing criteria and adapting to the framework of the SVM.
    • There should be co-ordination between TWGs to share research.
    • U.S. Year 1 reports of this TWG are due by the end of November 2002 and all Study reports will be included on the ftp site.
    • The group needs to review the work being performed by each of its investigators to assure that the needs of the overall Study are met within the Study schedule.
  • PFEG:
    • An economic advisory panel (EAP) has been established.
    • The Board deferred the approval of an economic feasibility study until it has been addressed by the EAP. The panel will determine the cost, feasibility and usefulness of evaluating economics of the environment.
    • The PFEG will hire a facilitator for the March workshop to assist TWG participation and input into the model.
    • There will be 3 cycles of plan formulation in 2003, 2004 and 2005. The PFEG will have its first draft of an alternative plan prior to its March 2003 workshop with yearly test evaluations in March 2004 and 2005 (final). All TWG milestones will be affected by these yearly evaluations and information is required by each group by the January preceding the workshops. The GMs will draft memos requesting TWG input.
    • PFEG needs to budget more realistically in subsequent years to account for added meetings with PIAG and training sessions with TWGs.
  • Commercial Navigation and Hydroelectric Power: Both groups need to provide a qualitative assessment of local, regional and international economic sensitivities.
  • Hydroelectric Power TWG: The "White Paper" will be available for review by the end of calendar year 2002.
  • Coastal:
    • Land use policy differences between the U.S. and Canada should also be addressed.
    • The intent of the "bulk sand budget" approach proposed by Baird Associates to evaluate erosion must be made very clear, especially when presenting it to the public.
  • Recreational Boating: It was noted that there is no attempt to differentiate pre- and post-regulation marinas in its surveys.
  • Common Data Needs/ Information Management:
    • All GIS mapping must be compliant with IJC/ Common Data Needs standards.
    • Common Data Needs TWG needs an additional $20,000 US to complete wetlands elevation mapping at one site that was incorrect due to technical sampling errors.
    • The Board deferred a final decision on the proposal that the Great Lakes Commission should manage the web site for the Study.
    • The Board agreed that the IJC should consider providing additional funding other than from the Study, since in the proposed approach the site will also serve future IJC information needs.
  1. Budget update, review and Board decisions
  • Regarding Canadian funding, the Board agreed to the following mid-term adjustment to the y-2 budgets:
    • $70,000 earmarked for the Water Uses TWG can be released since this amount was provided with U.S. funds to the group.
    • Total Canadian funds amount to $3,408,000 (Cdn $'s) with the breakdowns as follows (in 1000 Cdn $'s):
Secretariat 270
PIAG 182
Environment 950
Coastal 680
RecBoating 350
H & H 406
ComNav 110
Water Uses 0
Power 0
Common Data/IM 360
PF&E 100
TOTAL Budgeted 3,408
(Approx. uncommitted) 398
  • Regarding U.S. funding, (in US $'s):
    • About $102,000 year 1 funds remained as of September 30, 2002.
    • Of the $3,246,884 available in year 2, $33,309 was unspent due to contracts less than estimates.
    • $173,625 was provided by the Canadian IJC for Common Data Needs and Coastal TWG activities in year
  • Board decision on funding the proposed IM strategy was deferred.
  • PIAG: (this item covered here, as some PIAG members were not expected to be available the next day)
    • The next public/roundtable meeting would be held in Trois-Rivières, Quebec on November 26th.
    • There will be six public meetings next year including Toronto, Ontario; St. Regis (Akwesasne); Brockville, Ontario; Wilson, NY; Sodus Bay, NY and around Lake St. Louis.
    • All TWG outreach activities must be co-ordinated with PIAG.
    • PIAG will add any TWG concerns or questions to its surveys.
    • The Ripple newsletter will be published quarterly in lieu of annual PIAG reports. Information published will be based on input from TWGs.
    • The proposed U.S. PIAG year 3 budget is $239,000.
  • Rec. Boating:
    • The Board approved the U.S. Rec. Boating TWG work plan for year 3 including $30,000 US $'s for stakeholder information transfer to be conducted by Dave White of NOAA's Sea Grant Program.
    • The meetings proposed in the survey will be done as a PIAG activity, fully coordinated with PIAG, in order to avoid public confusion.
    • Total proposal for the TWG is $208,000 (US $'s).
  • Com. Nav: $89,000 was approved for U.S. Com. Navigation TWG work in year 3.
  1. Discussion on re-tooling POS
  • Ed and Tony will continue to work on this item with input from the TWGs in preparation of the December Board budget conference call. The U.S. year 3 POS figure is $2,247,000.
  1. Review of action items from Ogdensburg Board meeting
  • Awards: Ian Crawford and Sandy LeBarron will work with IJC staff on this and report to the Board prior to the January meeting.
  • Propeller vibrations: Roger Haberly will contact Henry Lickers about specific sites to be investigated.
  • Substantive Board decisions: Wendy Leger is compiling a list. GMs will check minutes for decisions and comments will be included on the Study Gantt Chart.
  1. Update of water level issues and the St. Lawrence Board of Control strategy
  • Andre Carpentier gave an update of conditions and the most recent Control Board strategy.
  • As part of the PFEG work, Mark Lorie of the Corps of Engineers' Institute for Water Resources is soliciting suggestions from each Control Board member on how the Criteria can be changed for better regulation. Also Doug Cuthbert has requested the Control Board to provide a summary of operations during 2002 and suggestions on what criteria, if any, could be added to keep water on the Lake after the seasonal peak.
  • The Board proposed joint ½ day Control Board/Study Board meeting is for Washington, DC in April 2003. This will be co-ordinated with John Kangas, U.S. Secretary of the Control Board.
  • Wendy Leger and Bill Werick have been invited to observe the Control Board meeting in March in Chicago.
  • The Control Board is holding its next multi-city conference call on March 18, 2003 in Hamilton, Montreal, Oswego and Ogdensburg.
  • The Control Board is developing a CD on how the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence System works. It is holding its next public meeting, tentatively, on June 16, 2003 at a Canadian location. With this in mind, the Study Board will likely hold its next public meeting in September 2003.
  1. Update of PIAG Activities (discussed previously)

  2. Communications plan
  • The plan was approved as presented and will be distributed by PIAG.
  1. Other business: none.

  2. Future meetings and conference calls
  • December 12, 2002: Budget Conference Call from 1000 to noon.
  • January 22-23, 2003: Board Meeting to discuss budget in either Watertown or Alexandria Bay, NY. Sandy LeBarron to assist with logistics.
  • March 11-14, 2003: Board Meeting and PFEG workshop in Ottawa, Ontario.

Submitted by Tony Eberhardt and Ed Eryuzlu, 12/6/02.

Top of page