A panel advising the Great Lakes Fishery Commission is urging the eight Great Lakes states and the province of Ontario to promote protection of vital Great Lakes aquatic habitat from disruptions caused by a growing number of energy projects. MEC Policy Consultant Dave Dempsey coordinated the work of the four-member panel.

In a report submitted in February, the panel said growing interest in crossing the beds of the Great Lakes with pipelines and installing wind turbines in the beds of the Lakes, in addition to other proposed lakebed alterations, raises important questions about protection of aquatic habitat that should be addressed through revisions in state and provincial policies.

A legal review undertaken as part of the project found that the jurisdictions have most if not all of the legal authority they need to assure habitat protection. The panel said the Great Lakes states and Ontario should exercise that authority by delineating policies that assure the publicly-owned lakebeds are protected while permitting environmentally sound projects, including development of wind power in the Lakes subject to restrictions that benefit the public.

"The lands under the Great Lakes are essentially a public park," Dempsey said. "Michigan and the other Great Lakes states should be careful about allowing any intrusion on that park-a clear public benefit has to be served. For example, wind farms in the Lakes should only be permitted if the electricity they generate will replace electricity generated from coal-fired power plants or other polluting facilities. And the public should always be compensated for the intrusion on its park."

Panel members include: Dempsey, a member of the Fishery Commission from 1994-2001; Dr. John Gannon, Senior Scientist, International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario, Canada; Chris Shafer, Professor, Cooley Law School, Lansing, Michigan; Steven Ugoretz, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin.

Great Lakes panel recommendations

The states and Ontario should:

• Identify and map areas that should be protected from any significant lakebed alterations due to the sensitivity of their biological, physical, archaeological or other values, and designate them for legal protection;
• Promote the siting of alteration projects in areas that can tolerate such disturbances;
  
• Prevent or, where necessary, minimize or mitigate degradation of aquatic habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms from proposed uses;
  
• Prevent or, where necessary, minimize or mitigate adverse impacts to water dependent birds and other wildlife from proposed uses;
  
• Prohibit uses of the lakebed that are not water dependent;
  
• Require a demonstration of clear and substantial public benefit, including but not limited to environmental benefit, before authorizing such uses;
  
• Apply or enact mechanisms to collect fair market value for the use of bottomlands to assure the public is compensated for lakebed alterations, including lease costs;
  
• Require long-term ecological monitoring paid for by those who undertake projects that alter lakebed habitat and provide for adjustment or disapproval of projects that impair the trust values of bottomlands.