Table of Contents
River and Bay Compensation Needs Public Support
BackgroundThe Legislative Scorecard for Northeast Wisconsin Legislators
Three Alternatives
Priorities & Criteria
Weaknesses
Conclusion
What You Can Do
Sample Comment Letter
Senate Floor Vote DescriptionsChemical Terrorism
Assembly Floor Vote Descriptions
Backwards on Energy
Reform the Army Corps
National examples
Legislation Coming
What You Can Do
River and Bay Compensation Needs Public Support
Help define and support the biggest wildlife habitat project ever attempted in Northeast Wisconsin! Please mail your comment letter today!
The Federal, State, and Tribal agencies that make up the Co-Trustees for Fox River Natural Resources Damage Assessment have released a Draft Joint Restoration Plan for the Lower Fox River and the Green Bay area. Public comments are being accepted through Oct. 21.
The Restoration Plan provides an outline for how money from the paper mills will be spent in order to compensate the public for the damages caused by PCBs dumped by the companies.
We need to make sure the money is spent wisely, on property and projects that truly compensate the public.
In 2000, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service determined that the public has suffered a conservative $333 million in past and future damages, due to the long-term nature of the PCBs and the large region impacted. This Plan should aim to recover the full $333 million in compensation.
The plan gives 3 alternatives for public discussion:
A. No action - restore or compensate nothingThe plan suggests Alternative C as the preferred alternative and we agree.B. Spend restoration and compensation dollars only in the assessed area, the 39 mile Lower Fox River (downstream from Lake Winnebago), and the adjacent floodplain. This would also fund projects only in the western half of Door County (the half which drains to the Bay side), and only the Bay and adjacent coastal wetlands. Also tributaries to the lower Fox River and Bay upstream to the first impoundment, including adjacent floodplains and ecologically associated uplands.
C. Spend restoration dollars over a broader watershed, including the Wolf River and Lake Winnebago watersheds which flow into the Lower Fox. This alternative would include all of Door, Kewaunee and Manitowoc counties along Lake Michigan, plus the watersheds of ALL tributaries leading into the Bay
• wetland and sssociated upland habitat preservation, reestablishment or enhancement projectsWeaknesses• fishery resource enhancement projects
• aquatic habitat and water quality improvement projects
• natural resource-based public use enhancement projects (trails, boat ramps, docks, nature centers, etc.) limited to no more than 10% of total settlement dollars
• complies with applicable/relevant laws, policies and regulations
• addresses Lower Fox River and Green Bay ecosystem injured natural resources
• is technically feasible
• addresses/incorporates restoration of “preferred” resources and services as evidenced in prescribed tribal, federal, state mandates and priorities for injured resources, endangered or threatened species or species habitats
• is cost effective, including planning, implementation, and long term operation, maintenance, and monitoring
• uses established, reliable methods or technologies known to have a high probability of success
• benefits can be measured for success
• provides the greatest benefits to the largest area or population
• provides benefits not being provided by other projects or programs, and gives priority to resources not able to recover without help
• achieves environmental equity and environmental justice
• maximizes the time over which benefits accrue
• projects should not cause additional injury or affect human health and safety
• projects closer to the Alternative B area are preferred, even under Alternative C
Unfortunately, several weaknesses must be fixed in the Plan:
1. Major Loophole The proposal includes an escape hatch for the agencies. It allows the Co-trustees to change the plan at any time for any reason --- rendering this draft and our public comments meaningless.Conclusion
In the fine print, the Plan currently states that “As the Co-trustees receive settlement funds from each of the potential responsible parties and determine that a new restoration strategy is required to address compensation to the public, a supplemental document will be provided to the public designating any changes in priorities, criteria or alternatives.”This loophole must be removed. We need a solid, enforceable plan that accurately represents public comments and needs and that cannot be changed without additional, adequate public involvement.
2. Budgets, not Acres The plan should not set rigid acreage goals for habitat acquisition. Rather, the Plan should specify a land purchase budget based on a large set percentage of the settlement dollars. This would give the Co-Trustees flexibility to stretch funds for the maximum benefits possible through lower-cost conservation easements, public/private cost-shares, challenge grants, etc. More acres could be protected using these techniques.
Clear budget figures would also tell us whether we’re getting the full dollar compensation we are owed. The plan currently sets a 9,600 acre land acquisition goal, and aims to “improve” 12,000 acres of aquatic habitat. When we calculated the average dollar values of this activity, the results showed that the agencies obviously don’t intend to recover anything close to the $333 million in damages in settlements from the paper industry.
If a budget of $333 million were available, the actual land acquired and improved could be 5-10 times higher.
The agencies have argued that the only thing that matters is that the acres gained provide the “restoration” required under the law. However, at the same time they’re telling us that the Bay system won’t be restored for more than 100 years, and possible centuries into the future, even after sediment hotspot cleanup. So, 9,600 plus 12,000 acres are NOT restoring the system and the best we can hope for are compensation projects equal to the $333 million in damages. This really should be called a “Compensation Plan.”
The agencies are trying to hide the inadequacy of the settlements by expressing the Restoration Plan as acres of vague value, rather than hard dollars.
3. Public Participation The Co-Trustees decision-making process has been closed and secretive. The meetings should be publicly noticed, open to the public, held locally (not in Madison), held during the evening (so regular working people can attend), and with public comment sessions at each meeting before decisions are made. No surprise announcements, except when sensitive land negotiations are involved. Public hearings must be held before any settlement is finalized and sent to a judge. The polluters should have no say in the project selection process. Currently, there are no provisions for public participation, and co-trustees can change the plan at will.
4. Biological Diversity is Key DNR’s Stewardship Plan and the Nature Conservancy’s list of important sites for biological diversity should both be used to select and prioritize lands for purchase and restoration.
5. Endangered Wildlife The Restoration Plan focuses a lot of attention on protecting federally listed endangered or threatened species. This is good, but needs to include state listed species as well, and be expanded in an ecosystem sense to focus on preserving entire endangered community types, such as beach plant/animal communities, and specific rare types of wetland habitats. This would be a preventative measure for individual species not yet listed and preserve at least the status quo for the future.
6. Settlements Must Follow Plan All individual settlements with the polluters must follow the Restoration Plan. The premature settlement in July between the co-trustees and Georgia Pacific does not follow the guidelines laid out in the plan. Our ongoing legal challenge of this settlement is based partly on the fact that the public should have had a chance to read this overall Restoration Plan before commenting on the particulars of the individual G-P settlement.
7. Settle Only After ROD The Restoration Plan reinforces our claim that the G-P Settlement was premature, because 5 of the 10 consideration factors which the regulations require for restoration are based on sediment cleanup results --- which won’t be known until the sediment cleanup Record of Decision (ROD) is issued a few months from now.
8. Purchase the Mine Site $5-10 million of the settlements could be used toward the purchase of the Wolf (and Fox) River Headwaters properties from Nicolet Minerals Company in Crandon. The Restoration Plan prioritizes preservation of tribal cultural values and “projects that avoid or minimize addtional natural resource injury or environmental degradation.” The Governor rejected the mine purchase due to lack of funds, but he never allowed exploration of this option or other alternatives.
9. Recreation Enhancements Even 10% of total funds is too high for recreation enhancements, given that this region already has 126 city, county and state park facilities. Endangered species, endangered communities and critical habitat acquisition are much more urgent needs.
Overall, the plan places emphasis on the correct priorities, with strong justification. The question is whether the agencies will actually follow this plan, or continue to enter into settlements that do not comply, using the loophole (#1) to change the plan each time in responseto corporate pressure.
Please write a letter expressing your concerns about the Restoration Plan, and send copies to both these agencies:
Greg Hill
Wisconsin DNR
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
Collette Charbonneau
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1015 Challenger Court
Green Bay, WI 54311
Short on Time? Just cut-out, sign and mail the ready-made comment letter on page 3 of this newsletter. You can add your own comments at the bottom.
For more background on this issue, please visit our website: www.FoxRiverWatch.com
Comments must be postmarked by: Monday, October 21
Greg Hill
Wisconsin DNR
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
Collette Charbonneau
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1015 Challenger Court
Green Bay, WI 54311
Dear Mr. Hill and Ms. Charbonneau,
I am writing to express support for the Draft Joint Restoration Plan for the Lower Fox River and the Green Bay area, with the following reservations:
1. Major Loophole The Plan states that “As the Co-trustees receive settlement funds from each of the potential responsible parties and determine that a new restoration strategy is required to address compensation to the public, a supplemental document will be provided to the public designating any changes in priorities, criteria or alternatives.” This loophole must be removed. We need a solid, enforceable plan that accurately represents public comments and needs and that cannot be changed without additional, adequate public involvement.Overall, the plan places emphasis on the correct priorities, with strong justification; however, I am very concerned as to whether the agencies will follow this plan, or continue to enter into settlements which do not comply, using the loophole (#1) to change the plan each time in response to corporate pressure.2. Budgets, not Acres The plan should not set rigid acreage goals for habitat acquisition. Rather, the Plan should specify a land purchase budget based on a large set percentage of the settlement dollars. This would give the Co-Trustees flexibility to stretch funds for the maximum benefits possible through lower-cost conservation easements, public/private cost-shares, challenge grants, etc. More acres could be protected using these techniques. Clear budget figures would also tell us whether we’re getting the full $333 million in compensation we are owed at a minimum.
3. Public Participation The Co-Trustee’s decision-making meetings should be publicly noticed, open to the public, held locally (not in Madison), held during the evening (so regular working people can attend), and with public comment sessions at each meeting before decisions are made. No surprise announcements, except when sensitive land negotiations are involved. Public hearings should be held before any settlement is finalized and sent to a judge. The polluters should have no say in the project selection process.
4. Biological Diversity is Key DNR’s Stewardship Plan and the Nature Conservancy’s list of important sites for biological diversity should both be used to select and prioritize lands for purchase and restoration.
5. Endangered Wildlife The Restoration Plan focuses a lot of attention on protecting federally listed endangered or threatened species. This is good, but needs to include state listed species as well, and be expanded in an ecosystem sense to focus on preserving entire endangered community types, such as beach plant/animal communities, and specific rare types of wetland habitats. This would be a preventative measure for individual species not yet listed and preserve at least the status quo for the future.
6. Settlements Must Follow Plan All individual settlements with the polluters must follow the Restoration Plan.
7. Settle Only After ROD The Restoration Plan correctly shows that any settlement now is premature, because 5 of the 10 consideration factors which the regulations require for restoration are based on sediment cleanup results --- which won’t be known until the sediment cleanup Record of Decision is issued a few months from now.
8. Purchase the Mine Site $5-10 million of the settlements should be used toward the purchase of the Wolf River Headwaters properties from Nicolet Minerals Company in Crandon. The Restoration Plan prioritizes preservation of tribal cultural values and “projects that avoid or minimize additional natural resource injury or environmental degradation.” The Wolf River is the headwater for the Fox River.
9. Recreation Enhancements Even 10% of total funds is too high to allocate for recreation enhancements, given that this region already has 126 city, county and state park facilities. Endangered species, endangered communities and critical habitat acquisition are much more urgent needs.
Sincerely,
Signature _____________________________________
Printed Name ________________________________________
Address__________________________________________________________
City _____________________ State _________ Zip Code _________________
The Legislative Scorecard for Northeast Wisconsin Legislators
It’s hard to keep track of what our legislators are doing, but this year, the new Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters has produced a detailed “Conservation Scorecard” to let voters know. The full report, including legislators’ votes in committees, can be viewed on their website at: www.wlcv.org
The report also tries to explain the complexities and politics that come into play during passage of legislation. It’s fascinating and disturbing at the same time.
The following are the direct floor votes of Northeast Wisconsin legislators. A “+” means a pro-conservation vote. The top of each table shows whether that is a “Yes” or “No”vote on each item. Each legislator’s party affiliation and district number is listed after his or her name.
As you can see, a number of our local legislators scored very poorly, while others received 100% scores.
Senate Floor Vote Descriptions
1) DNR Secretary Restoration SB3 - Making the appointment of the Secretary of the DNR the responsibility of the Natural Resources Board. Since 1996, the Governor has had the authority to appoint the Secretary of the DNR. SB3 would return that authority to the Natural Resources Board, thereby reducing the likelihood that the Secretary of the DNR would be subject to direct political pressure when making decisions about the state’s natural resources. A “Yes” vote is pro-conservation. Passed 20-13 on 2/13/01. This bill died when not taken up by the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources.
2) Constitutional Amendment ASA1 to SJR2 - Creating a new section of the Wisconsin Constitution to guarantee the right to fish, hunt, trap and take game. This resolution supports amending the state constitution to protect the hunting and fishing rights that are part of Wisconsin’s heritage. A “Yes” vote is pro-conservation. Passed 32-1 on 5/8/01. Also passed the Assembly. Must be passed a second time by both chambers, then submitted to the public for a referendum.
3) Captive Wildlife SB370 - Creates a new regulatory structure under the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for captive wildlife and expands the scope of certain licensing and registration requirements administered by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP). Among its provisions, SB370 requires the DNR to establish rules to ensure that humane treatment and adequate and sanitary housing are provided to captive wildlife; imposes new regulatory measures on native reptiles and amphibians; prohibits the sale of gall bladders from the carcasses of captive bears, and expands DATCP authority to control diseases in domestic animals and livestock to include captive wildlife. A “Yes” vote is pro-conservation. Passed 24-8 on 3/8/02. Also passed the Assembly. Signed by the Governor on 4/3/02. See Assembly Vote #3 for more discussion.
4) Chronic Wasting Disease SB1MY2 - Enabling the DNR to regulate the feeding and method of taking of wild game to combat the spread of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in the state’s whitetail deer herd. Following the regular legislative session in the spring of 2002, the Governor called a special session to enact legislation to enable the DNR to pursue its plans to control CWD in Wisconsin. While individuals may oppose certain provisions of this bill, it appears to be a reasonable approach to combating CWD given the current state of knowledge about its origin and extent in the wild deer population. A “Yes” vote is pro-conservation. Passed 32-0 on 5/15/02. Passed by the Assembly, signed into law 5/18/02. (Note: If CWD is found in deer outside the area near Mt. Horeb, the DNR’s plans to combat the disease may need substantial revision.)
5) Wetlands SB37 - Closing a loophole for isolated wetlands opened by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in January 2001. SB37 would have required the DNR to regulate isolated wetlands under state law, returning these areas to the same, protected status they had prior to the court ruling. See Senate Vote #7 for more discussion. A “Yes” vote is pro-conservation. Passed 27-6 on 2/13/01. Died in the Assembly Committee on Environment.
6) Wetlands SB54 - A moratorium on the filling of isolated wetlands for which Army Corps of Engineers permits are no longer required. A measure to prohibit dredging or filling all isolated wetlands in Wisconsin until legislation is implemented returning these wetlands to the same protected status they had prior to the U.S. Supreme Court decision. A “Yes” vote is pro-conservation. Passed 21-12 on 3/13/01. See Assembly Vote #4 for more discussion. SB54 was not passed in the Assembly, but see Senate Vote #7 for final legislation.
7) Wetlands SB1MY1 - A compromise bill to effectively close the loophole created by the Supreme Court decision which removed federal protection from isolated wetlands. This was the most important piece of environmental legislation during this session. Despite pressure from hunters, anglers, and environmentalists, the Senate and the Assembly failed to agree on how to proceed. Following the end of the regular legislative session, the Governor called the legislature back for a special session where it took up SB1MY1, a compromise bill to protect nearly all of the wetlands the court decision put at risk. A “Yes” vote is pro-conservation. Passed 33-0 on 5/1/01. Also passed the Assembly. Signed by the Governor on 5/7/01. Notwithstanding some minor exceptions written into this bill, with its passage Wisconsin became the first state to return protection to isolated wetlands in the wake of the Supreme Court decision.
8) Ashley Furniture SA3 to SSA1 to AB1JR2 - An amendment to the Assembly’s budget repair bill providing an exception to current state law which would give the Governor authority to enable Ashley Furniture to fill a 13 acre wetland in Trempealeau County. The company never formally applied to the DNR for a permit to fill the wetland, and a similar provision in a previous budget bill was ruled unconstitutional by a state circuit court. A “No” vote is pro-conservation. Passed 22-11 on 4/5/02. During the regular legislative session the Assembly passed a similar provision. This Senate version was included in the 2002 Budget Adjustment bill. Ashley Furniture Industries later announced they were expanding production at another plant and no longer needed this exemption, but urged that it be signed into law. This provision was eventually vetoed by the Governor.
9) Cyanide in Mining SB160 - Prohibiting the use of cyanide in metallic mining in the state of Wisconsin. Cyanide is sometimes used to leach metals from metallic ore. This method can produce large quantities of toxic, cyanide-contaminated waste, which, if released to a lake or river, can destroy aquatic habitat. This bill was written to protect the headwaters of the Wolf River from possible contamination by the proposed mine near Crandon, Wisconsin. A “Yes” vote is pro-conservation. Passed 19-14 on 11/6/01. Died in the Assembly Environment Committee.
10) Hazardous Waste & Mining SSA1 to SB271 - A measure to subject the mining industry to the same Wisconsin laws regarding solid andhazardous waste as other industries in the state. In addition to requiring the mining industry to treat its by-products the same as other industries, this measure would also remove the current exemption for mining operations from state groundwater law. SSA1 strengthens the language of the bill, especially regarding groundwater regulations. (Also called the “No Special Treatment Bill”) A “Yes” vote is pro-conservation. Passed 18-15 on 11/6/01. Died in the Assembly Environment Committee.
Assembly Floor Vote Descriptions
1) Constitutional Amendment SJR2 - (See #1 under Senate) A “Yes” vote is pro-conservation. Passed 93-4 on 5/1/01. Also passed the Senate. Must be passed a second time by both chambers, then submitted to the public for a referendum.
2) Captive Wildlife SB370 - (See #3 under Senate) A “Yes” vote is pro-conservation. Passed 99-0 on 3/7/02. Also passed the Senate. Signed by the Governor on 4/3/02.
3) Chronic Wasting Disease SB1MY2 - (See #4 under Senate) A “Yes” vote is pro-conservation. Passed 90-6 on 5/15/02. Passed by the Senate, and signed into law 5/18/02.
4) Wetlands ASA1 to SB54 - Vote on a motion to reject a time limit on a Senate-passed moratorium on the filling of isolated wetlands until legislation could be implemented to return those wetlands to the protected status they enjoyed prior to a U.S. Supreme Court decision in January, 2001. A “Yes” vote to reject the time limit is pro-conservation. The rejection motion failed 40-57 on 3/20/01. The Assembly voted to allow the moratorium to expire July 1, 2001 even if new legislation had not been passed. This issue was finally resolved in a special session (see vote #5, below).
5) Wetlands SB1MY1 - A compromise bill to close the loophole created by the Supreme Court decision which removed federal protection from isolated wetlands. This was the most important piece of environmental legislation during this legislative session. (See #7 under Senate) Following the end of the regular legislative session, the Governor called the legislature back for a special session where it took up SB1MY1, a compromise bill to protect nearly all of the wetlands the court decision put at risk. A “Yes” vote is pro-conservation. Passed 94-0 on 5/3/01. Also passed the Senate. Signed by the Governor on 5/7/01. Despite some minor exceptions written into this bill, with its passage Wisconsin became the first state to return protection to these wetlands.
6) Ashley Furniture AB580 - An individual bill to allow Ashley Furniture to fill 13 acres of wetland on the banks of the Trempealeau River. This bill was introduced after a similar provision contained in the 1999-2001 state budget that was found to be unconstitutional by a state circuit court. Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. never formally applied to the DNR for a permit to fill these wetlands, and appears to have never seriously examined less-damaging alternatives to their plans. Instead, the company applied to the legislature to be exempted from state law. A “No” vote is pro-conservation. Passed 71-27 on 11/6/01. A similar provision was included in the 2002 budget fix legislation (see Senate Vote #8), but vetoed by the Governor.
7) Stewardship Fund AA5 to AA1 to ASA1 to SB55 - A motion to table (or kill) an effort to restore funds (in the form of full bonding authority) to the Stewardship Fund. This motion was prompted by a 38% cut in the Stewardship bonding authority contained in the Assembly budget bill for 2001-2003. The Stewardship Fund provides money for the acquisition of land deemed important to preserving the integrity of Wisconsin’s plants, animals, and landscapes. It receives money from state bonds and does not have a direct impact on the state’s budget. A “no” vote on this motion is a pro-conservation vote to restore full funding to the Stewardship Fund. Motion to table passed 57-42 on 6/29/01. The final 2001-2003 budget rejected this cut and retained full bonding authority for the Stewardship Fund.
8) Newsprint Recycling AB365 - Relating to the newspaper recycling fee and the recycled content of newsprint used in Wisconsin newspapers. Current law has targets for recycled content of 33% in 1998, 37% in 2001, and 40% in 2003. If those targets aren’t met, the publisher pays a newspaper recycling fee based on the volume of newsprint used. This bill would cap the recycled content at 33%, the target for 1998. A “No” vote is pro-conservation. Passed 67-30 on 11/1/01. Substantially amended by the Senate Environmental Resources Committee.
A year after the 9/11 tragedy, the government has done nothing to address the threat posed by the thousands of U.S. chemical plants that serve as potential terrorist targets.
Across the U.S. some 15,000 chemical plants use and store hazardous chemicals in quantities that put large numbers of Americans at risk of serious injury or death in the event of a chemical release. According to the EPA, at least 123 plants keep amounts of toxic chemicals that, if released through explosions or other events, could put a million or more people in danger; more than 700 plants could put at least 100,000 people at risk. Until recently the vulnerability of chemical plants has been virtually ignored in the legislative debate about homeland security.
In July the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously passed the Chemical Security Act (S.1602), which would require facilities to assess their vulnerabilities to terrorism, take appropriate security measures, and consider any opportunities to make their plants safer.
But the chemical, oil and fertilizer industries are lobbying to weaken or kill the bill before it gets to the Senate floor, so this important measure has little hope of passing Congress before the end of the session unless it gets incorporated into the larger homeland security bill that is now being considered by the Senate.
This issue is far too important to ignore. Failing to secure chemical plants could be a fatal mistake, with dire consequences for Americans.
Please write your federal representatives today! (Addresses: page 8)
Source: Natural Rsources Defense Council --- www.nrdcaction.org
With rumblings of war in the Middle East and Americans’ dependence on oil growing, Congress is desperate to pass an energy bill this year. Unfortunately, congress members, oil companies and their supporters in Washington, D.C. are horse-trading on an energy deal that could open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil drilling. This “deal” would open the Arctic to drilling in exchange for nearly meaningless action on climate change and energy efficiency.
As the energy debate rages, environmental leaders are asking President Bush and representatives in Congress to only support an energy bill that:
• Protects the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska from oil drilling;An energy bill that does not include these provisions would do more harm than good - increasing our dependence on oil, spoiling untouched wilderness areas, and aggravating environmental problems like air pollution and global warming.• Reduces wasteful and destructive taxpayer subsidies for fossil fuels that increase greenhouse gas pollution, or encourages nuclear energy which produces radioactive wastes;
• Increases funding to catalyze the development of clean and renewable energy resources, and energy effiency technologies;
• Increases fuel efficiency in cars and light trucks, saving millions of gallons of oil each day; and
• Includes meaningful policies to reverse the harmful effects of global climate change.
We need to take America in a new energy direction and embrace common sense technical solutions to reduce our dependence on polluting fossil fuels. It’s time to put national security and environmental health ahead of the interests of the oil, coal and nuclear industries.
Please write your federal representatives today! (Addresses on last page) Source: Natural Rsources Defense Council -- www.nrdcaction.org
No federal agency has had as great an impact on the nation’s rivers, floodplains, wetlands and estuaries as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. For nearly 200 years, thousands of the nation’s most wonderful rivers have been dammed, dredged and channelized by the Army Corps. Corps projects are among the leading reasons that North America’s freshwater species are disappearing as fast as tropical rainforest species, and five times faster than land-based species. Nevertheless, the Army Corps continues to build navigation and flood control projects with few economic benefits and high environmental costs.
The evidence supporting reform is substantial: the Army’s own Inspector General (IG), the National Academy of Sciences, and the General Accounting Office all recently concluded that the Corps sometimes exaggerates the economic benefits and underestimates the environmental impacts of large water projects. Examples of this can be found across the country. Locally, we remember our 11 year battle to stop the nonsensical expansion of the Kidney Island (Renard Isle) dredge disposal dump offshore from Bay Beach Amusement Park in Green Bay.
• Delaware River --- The Government Accounting Office (GAO) found that a project to deepen the Delaware River would generate only $13.3 million in annual economic benefits, far less than the $40.1 million in annual economic benefits predicted by the Corps. According to the GAO, the Corps’ analysis featured “miscalculations, invalid assumptions, and the use of significantly outdated information.”Legislation Coming• Columbia River --- A six-month review of a project to deepen the Columbia River by the Portland Oregonian found that the Corps overestimated projects benefits by assuming that empty ship containers were full. The Oregonian’s review found the project would only return 86 cents for every tax dollar invested.
• Mississippi River --- The Army’s IG concluded that Corps economists had been ordered to manipulate data to justify the construction of longer Mississippi and Illinois River locks. A National Academy panel found that the Corps’ planning models grossly overestimated expected increases in waterway traffic.
Congress will soon consider legislation that ensures that Army Corps projects are environmentally and economically sound. These reforms would require the following:
• Independent Review Large or controversial Corps projects must be subject to independent reviews. Corps reforms will not delay projects, and independent review will be limited to less than 10 percent of Corps projects.What You Can Do• Modernize Cost/Benefits Corps projects must meet modern economic and environmental standards. Corps reforms will ensure that project costs and benefits are accurately calculated. Many Corps projects have failed to produce predicted benefits. Two National Academy of Sciences panels have urged the Corps to update the agency’s 20-year-old planning standards.
• Wetlands Mitigation The Corps must fully replace wetlands they destroy. Corps reforms will ensure that environmental impacts are quickly and fully mitigated. The GAO recently concluded that the Corps mitigates poorly, if they bother to mitigate at all.
Please write your federal representatives today!
Write to Congress and tell them what you think should be done about chemical terrorists, U.S. energy policies and Army Corps reform:
Senator Russ Feingold
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Senator Herb Kohl
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Congressmen Mark Green or Thomas Petri
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
|
|
|
|
|