Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Long-term impacts of the pumped-storage facility would have to do <br />mainly with resulting fluctuations in water level in the two lakes and with <br />the possible ecological effects of pumping Lake Ontario water into Lake Erie, <br /> <br />The interaction between the lake and its shoreline is one of mutual <br />adjustment over a geologic time scale extending to tens of thousands of years, <br />during which numerous catastrophic storms, floods, and droughts occur, No <br />analysis system has been evolved capable of assigning benefits or disbenefits <br />to the totality of such long-term processes. However, on a shorter time <br />scale, notable disbenefits are associated with episodes of unusually high or <br />low water and with wave action that alters the shores, High water destroys <br />land values by flooding and erosion, and low water aggravates problems of <br />water pollution, fisheries, etc. There are, of course, innumerable other <br />effects, <br /> <br />Water-level changes in Lake Erie have been studied in connection <br />with windstorms 19. Several times a century, windstorms have caused the <br />lake to rise at least 2 m above normal at Buffalo, causing widespread <br />damage. Less intense windstorms more or less regularly cause water level <br />changes of the order of I m at both ends of the lake, and life has accommo- <br />dated to them. A water level change would therefore be potentially damaging <br />only when it aggravated the effect of a natural windstorm. Further study <br />would be required to determine how the probability of extreme windstorms at <br />different seasons of the year relates to probable energy-storage status at <br />corresponding seasons, particular components of the environment exposed to <br />damage, magnitude of probable damages, and the cost and effectiveness of <br />mitigating measures. For the sake of this thought-experiment, it has been <br />assumed that available mitigating measures would render a water-level change <br />of 0.5 m acceptable for Lake Ontario, corresponding to 0.38 m excursions in <br />Lake Erie, <br /> <br />The one-way flow of water over Niagara Falls and through the WeIland <br />Ship Canal at present forms a barrier of sorts to the transport of living <br />organisms and waterborne material, It is breached by transport in various <br />other ways, such as on the bodies of migrating waterfowl and on the surfaces <br />of ships.- Nevertheless, very large quantities of Lake Ontario water entering <br />Lake Erie might aggravate problems of exotic organisms or materials invading <br />environments where they are now rare. More extensive studies would be <br />needed to define the scope of this problem. <br /> <br />3, Environmental I~pact of Transmission Lines <br /> <br />The principal direct impacts of conventional electric transmission <br />lines are that they occupy land, require commitment of resources for their <br />construction, cause a certain amount of interference with and annoyance to <br />other users of the environment, and perhaps have subtle biological effects <br />on nearby organisms that are not now well understood. <br /> <br />The occupancy of land by transmission lines is a phenomenon familiar <br />to most people. The land use is typically non-exclusive except for the <br />immediate area of the- tower footings, and other uses of the land are relatively <br />undisturbed. A rather complete listing of effects can be found by consulting <br />the environmental impact statement for any major transmission-line construc- <br />tion project, The present trend is to restrict new construction largely to <br />existing transmission corridors. <br />