Controlling the water flowing from Lake Ontario down the St. Lawrence River has hurt both wetlands and the life within them, according to an agency that advises Canada and the U.S. about water.
Wetlands, where some fish spawn and birds nest, have been hurt by the Moses-Saunders Dam. Photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The International Joint Commission recommends that more water fluctuations are needed to revitalize wetlands and diversify plants and wildlife.
Environmental groups laud the report. But shoreline homeowners fear fluctuating water will hurt their homes and wallets.
“Frankly, this won’t be good for anyone on the south shore of Lake Ontario or boaters,” said Dan Barletta, director at the Lake Ontario Riparian Alliance and owner of a shoreline home in Greece, N.Y.
The Moses-Saunders Dam prevents extreme highs and lows on Lake Ontario. Since 1963 it has mostly kept water levels within a four-foot range.
That’s both choked wetland plants and reduced the flooding that keeps trees and bushes from competing with them. Wetland plants also need low water levels sometimes to let seeds germinate.
There are about 64,000 acres of coastal wetlands in the Lake Ontario — St. Lawrence River system. Wetlands are needed for wildlife breeding and feeding — so both plant and wildlife diversity are decreasing. They also act like nature’s kidneys by filtering runoff and reducing erosion.
“With less diverse plants, you have negative impacts on insects and the base of the food chain,” said Frank Bevacqua, public affairs officer with the International Joint Commission. “The conditions are not good for water birds, fish and the mammals that wetlands support.”
The new approach would raise the maximum level of Lake Ontario under the most extreme circumstances by 2.4 inches and lower the minimum level by eight inches.
At least seven times over the past 50 years the levels have been out of the four-foot range. That will happen more with these changes, Bevacqua said.
And those living on the shoreline don’t like that.
Homes on Lake Ontario’s shore suffer damage when water levels get too high. Photo: Lake Ontario Riparian Alliance
“The plan is ill-conceived,” Barletta said. Higher water levels would cause more wave-induced harm to shoreline homes and overflow and damage sewers. Lower levels can hurt recreational boating.
But environmental groups argue the current system has already hurt wildlife enough, said Jennifer Caddick, executive director of Save the River, a St. Lawrence River conservation organization.
“Northern pike populations, a key top predator in coastal marshes, have declined 70 percent in the last 60 years,” Caddick said.
Pike populations have plummeted because they spawn in wet meadows, a type of wetland that have declined about 50 percent over that same time, she said.
Black terns, a wetland bird, have declined by more than 80 percent in that time because they nest in wet meadows.
While recognizing competing interests, Caddick feels the commission has struck a balance.
“Scientists are usually very cautious … this is one issue that they pretty much all say if we can change the water levels to more natural flows, the system will start to replenish itself,” she said.
Shoreline houses and buildings already prepared for higher water should be fine, Bevacqua said. But for those who already have problems, he admits the problems would worsen.
The commission estimates a 10 to 12 percent increase in shore protection costs for waterfront residents.
But Barletta said the commission underestimates building a break wall at about $300 to $400 per foot, when it’s closer to $1,200.
The report also undervalues property values, using numbers from 2000, and doesn’t take into account basement flooding costs, Barletta said.
He fears the New York state government will have no money to help homeowners prepare.
With current water level management based on data from the 1860s to the 1950s, the commission tried to do a balancing act in updating the regulations, Bevacqua said.
“The 1950s regulations provided benefits … we reduced impacts to the shoreline, reduced the frequency and severity of extreme water levels,” Bevacqua said. “But little can be done to improve the environmental health without hurting other interests.”
The International Joint Commission is accepting public comments on the report until June 15, 2012.
is that I hope to see them untroubled in the name of dmpeloveent, and I hope their lake bed (which is a large dry plain in summer) remains “undeveloped” in the typical sense here. Lakes, even in the US, are of very different types. Most lakes in Texas for example, are man-made, storing rainwater. On the other hand, in the northwest, you have spring and rainfed natural lakes, with a very different wetland system. So too are the lakes in Tennessee or Louisiana very different. The common theme there though is that they are all largely allowed to remain in their natural health, with their wetlands managed, even if they are in the midst of a large urban area.