AAA

I don't understand how anyone can have the position that the Atlantic stocking program is not struggling compared to the other stocking programs. Using the current DEC stocking plan numbers there are roughly 6 Kings, 3 Browns, 3 Steelhead, 2 Lake Trout and 1 Coho stocked for every 1 Atlantic. I think we can all agree the open lake harvest of Trout and Salmon reduces the non-Atlantic Salmon numbers far greater as Atlantics are a rare catch in the open lake compared to all the other species. Yet the return numbers for Kings, Coho, Browns, and Steelhead far exceed their stocking ratio compared to the Atlantic. You certainly do not see one Atlantic caught for every 6 Kings, 3 Browns, 3 Steelhead or every Coho in total across the tributaries. I also do not buy the argument that if Atlantics were stocked in greater numbers they would have a better survival rate. Coho Salmon are the best direct comparison since they are stocked in similar numbers and both have the advantage of being stocked as Yearlings. Atlantics also have the advantage of not necessarily dying after spawning, yet Coho numbers exceed Atlantics. I don't have a problem with Atlantic's, but not sure the current stocking program is worth the effort until they figure out how to get better survivability.

According to the video that LO resident fluid engineer put together, the water level at end of 2018 was 245.34 and the peak for 2019 was 249.08. He had predicted in July that end 2019 would be 245.9 but I believe it was actually 246.2 at end of 2019.

No one wants to see flooding. But it seems to me some of the opinions expressed here were kind of that's what they get for building in a flood plane. Yet Montreal isn't is a flood plane and somehow should have different treatment? I wouldn't want to make the call to flood one area over another, but the management plan needs to be revisited as it does not work in extreme conditions to equally protect all interests to the extent possible. You can't tell me that over a two year period more water couldn't have safely been released knowing that more water was on it's way based on the levels of the other Great Lakes. What has been done is history, but they need to learn from this history and adjust the water management plan to be more proactive.

So asking for equal treatment is F everyone else? LO water levels were allowed to flood another 1.1 feet higher to protect Montreal from Ottawa River flooding. Asking that the flooding burden be at least shared equally between Montreal and LO is a selfish prospective? Yet protect Montreal at all costs for Ottawa River flooding is the fair thing to do? Seems you are the one with a skewed perspective.

There is no question that flooding has impacted lots of areas. Most of the other examples given do not have the outflow controls LO has and their run off is more naturally controlled. The point is more could and should have been done to proactively reduce the LO levels since there are outflow controls which make it possible. 85% percent of LO inflow comes from Lake Erie. With the high water levels in all the other Great Lakes, LO levels should have been more aggressively reduced over the winter to make room for the inflow. As far as the everyone has flooding issues argument, the point is why should LO bear the higher burden / impact? Montreal was flooded by the Ottawa River while LO was under flood levels. Plan 2014 as administered by the IJC resulted in unequal flood protection for those it served. Rather then equally spread the flooding, LO outflow was reduced to keep it no more than the F level and in effect buffer the Ottawa River run off by holding back water in LO. This added 1.1 feet to LO water level according to the video posted from the fluid engineer. I don't understand how lack of recreational access can even be in the same sentence impact wise as flooding and erosion impacts. The LO outflow level management will never make everyone happy, but it needs to be more fair and more proactive.

From what I gathered from the video you posted from the engineer living on LO, there is a minimum flow ("carve out") for shipping but not a maximum flow. There is a maximum outflow (L limit) objective for shipping. Clearly, as stated in that video, outflow was limited to protect Montreal over LO in April and May and to protect shipping since then. Which, according to him, was in violation of provision H14. He states that the flow should have been up to 500 m/s over L limit if I followed it correctly. He had also recommended at least 300 m/s over. Highest I believe I have seen is up to 200 m/s approved by IJC. What am I missing here? This is a fluids engineer who has stated that outflows could have been significantly higher but wasn't to protect against flooding in Montreal and also shipping thereafter, at the expense of LO. By his calculation this added 1.5 feet to LO water levels. I am not sure I understand the disagreement here.

Yes, there is only one tax rate. It is the assessed value of the property that causes the higher assessment resulting in higher taxes. As lake property owners lose property due to erosion the towns resist making adjustments to the assessment to compensate for the lost value. Adjustments are small and infrequent. I was just pointing out for his argument that NYS was using everyone else's taxes dollars to compensate lake owners that lake owners have paid a higher percentage of the property taxes over the years due to their higher property assessments.

You are also not paying the same taxes. Property taxes are significantly higher for those that own lake frontage and that is every year not just in high water years. Your property taxes are lower due to the tax burden carried by high value properties like lake frontage. So if you really wanted to be fair about it, the lake owner should see a property tax assessment reduction for their damages so instead the decision was to apply state funds to the damages.

20% reduction year over year for three years is about a 49% reduction from the original pre-cut numbers or in other words the proposed King stocking would be about 51% of the King sticking total before the cuts began. Still not great.