Joint Coastal/Environment TWG Meeting Minutes
Montreal, Quebec
Centre St. Laurent
September 12, 2002
Meeting began at approximately 8 AM. Members from the Study Board and both TWG’s were in
attendance.
Rob Read introduced and reviewed the agenda. Rob explained that the meeting was arranged to
facilitate information sharing between the TWG’s and to initiate partnerships where necessary.
Following the introduction and agenda review, presentations were delivered by Pete Zuzek from
Baird and Associates and Joe DePinto from Limnotech. Each provided an overview of their
modeling activities. A set of focus questions was handed out with the agenda to get people
thinking about issues of mutual concern to both TWG’s. The questions were as follows:
 Do alterations in sediment transport resulting from different regulation scenarios impact
upon the performance indicators of the ETWG?
 Will results from Baird’s Coastal model be useful in the analysis of ETWG performance
indicators?
 Are their individuals or individual research projects that should interface with the Coastal
TWG on a regular basis?
 What benefits can be accrued by having the two TWG’s work together?
After the presentations, discussions were opened up to the group. During this portion of the
meeting, areas for collaboration and issues that required cooperation between the TWG’s were
reviewed. Listed below are the main themes that were discussed:
1. Integration of the ETWG Model with the Shared Vision Model:
Frank S. wanted to know if the ETWG model could be integrated into the SVM. Joe indicated
that integration into the SVM was not stipulated in his contract; however, he did indicate that it
could be done.
2. Hydrologic Scenario Generation and Evaluation:
Frank S. noted that both Coastal and Environment TWG models are not in line with the thinking
behind the SVM. He clarified that the Plan Formulation and Evaluation Group (PFEG) would be
generating a suite of hydrologic scenarios for testing in the SVM and that each TWG will not be
evaluating the scenarios independently. Many suggested that other TWG’s were also under the
impression that they would be receiving scenarios that they could use to assess impacts affecting
their TWG. Wendy indicated that this was not the case and informed the group that a note would
be sent out to the TWG’s shortly to clarify the issue. Wendy indicated that the PFEG wants the
TWG’s to develop the hydrologic attributes (HA’s) that are required by their Performance
Indicators (PI’s). These HA’s will be used to develop a regulation scenario that best meets the
1
needs of each TWG. Based on the range of scenarios developed by the TWG’s, a set of
regulation alternatives will be identified for review in the SVM. These scenarios will also be
open for independent review in each TWG model to ensure consistency in results.
Ralph Moulton suggested that the SVM was a good tool to evaluate the effect of hydrologic
scenarios on hydropower over a specified time period. He continued and explained that both the
Coastal and Environment models need to consider events that occurred in the past to calculate the
impacts of the future. He suggested that this functionality was not available in the SVM.
Doug Wilcox stressed that the ETWG needs to evaluate the scenarios that are developed
independent of the SVM.
3. Showing Models to the Public:
Sandy Bonanno suggested that we use caution when showing our models to the public. She also
felt that preliminary results should not be shown to the public as they may create misconceptions.
Elaine Kennedy agreed and recommended that any model or results be crisp and defensible
before they are shown to the public.
4. Sediment Deposition analysis in Baird’s FEPS Model:
Doug Wilcox indicated that it is critical for Baird’s FEPS model to simulate and predict sediment
deposition processes. Currently FEPS focuses on erosion. Pete Zuzek agreed to look into
building sediment deposition functionality into FEPS and suggested we focus on critical areas
where sediment deposition is important to the concerns of the ETWG (e.g., barrier beach
wetlands). Mike Davies, from Pacific International Engineering (PIE), also highlighted the
importance of sediment deposition in the St. Lawrence River (much sediment carried to Lake St.
Pierre).
Action Item: Baird and PIE to work with ETWG representatives to prioritize areas and consider
how to model sediment deposition processes.
5. Metadata Workshop:
Chris Stewart described an upcoming workshop being put on by the Common Data Needs TWG.
The workshop is scheduled for September 27th in Burlington. The focus will be on the generation
of metadata to describe datasets being produced.
2