Great Lakes Aquatic Habitat News
The Newsletter of the Great Lakes
Aquatic Habitat Network and Fund
Volume 13, Number 1 • Connecting Communities 2005
Great Lakes Aquatic Habitat NewsThe Newsletter of the Great Lakes
|
|
Responding to the urging of state legislators, coastal municipalities, private property owners, and conservation organizations, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich announced in November that Illinois would begin the application process to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Coastal Management Program (CMP). Illinois had been the only coastal state in the U.S. not taking advantage of this federally supported planning and funding program, resulting in an annual loss of $1.5 - $2 million in coastal rehabilitation and improvement funds.
Illinois was actually one of the first states to attempt to join the program in the mid-1970s. In order to join successfully, the state must complete a coastal management plan in cooperation with shoreline municipalities. At that time, concerns by private property owners over local zoning control overshadowed the benefits that CMP would bring to coastal states.
Fortunately, this problem prompted clarification of how the federal program interacts with municipal zoning. Today, NOAA’s approach is clear: state and local policies governing shoreline management are given precedence in the development of a management plan. Congress actually amended the Coastal Zone Management Act recently to ensure federal consistency with local land use decisions.
To that end, the state of Illinois will soon embark on the application process, which is expected to take 2 - 3 years. Starting with a round of discussions with coastal municipalities, the state will work towards a coastal management plan that incorporates the special conditions of Illinois’ highly altered shoreline, while providing mechanisms for reducing sewage overflows, preventing beach closings, restoring natural areas, and enhancing public access to the coast.
Cities such as Highland Park and Chicago have taken steps over the last several decades to protect their valuable coastlines. Chicago’s Lakefront Protection Ordinance and the incorporation of natural habitat guidelines for coastal planning are helping the city grow into a sustainable relationship with the Great Lakes. Highland Park also has special ordinances governing coastal construction, and maintains a local lakefront commission.
Quoted in the Chicago Sun-Times, avid birder and 19-year Highland Park lakefront property owner Donnie Dann had this to say: “I see an enormous effect on my property values from having clean water and a better Lake Michigan. I think my neighbors feel the same way.”
For more information, contact Radhika Shah at rshah@lakemichigan.org or 312-939-0838x6.
The largest proposed expansion of a coal-burning power plant on the Great Lakes coast is now up for a serious fight. The massive generating plant promoted by Wisconsin Energies (WE) for a community just south of Milwaukee,Wisconsin, would effectively create a new facility to be regulated under less-stringent existing facility construction guidelines and emissions rules.
Among the problems with the new plant are an outdated, “oncethrough” cooling water system that would require the withdrawal and heating of 2.2 billion gallons of lake water per day, to be returned to Lake Michigan 15 degrees hotter than its natural temperature. WE is also proposing the use of an unusual water-based scrubbing system that would result in a waste stream of mercurycontaminated water with levels exponentially higher than the U.S. EPA recommended safe allowance. Additionally, the project would result in the destruction of several coastal bluff/wetland complexes, substantial lakefill, and significant fish kills near a known yellow perch hatchery.
Adding to the chorus of environmental organizations including the Sierra Club, Clean Wisconsin, and Lake Michigan Federation that are calling for a halt to the project, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan asked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in October to compel WE to file a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to replace the widely criticized draft EIS previously prepared. A Dane County judge recently put the project on hold indefinitely. The court’s ruling found that WE had broken Wisconsin law in its draft EIS by not considering alternate sites for the plant or fully accounting for all costs to be incurred by the project. The agency responsible for approving the draft EIS, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, is appealing the decision. Meanwhile, the Wisconsin legislature is circulating draft legislation designed to circumvent the court’s ruling.
For more information, contact Laurel O’Sullivan at losullivan@lakemichigan.org or 312-939-0838x3.
Lake Michigan Advisor |