The Toxic Slurry Pit is Bad for the Environment

• LOST WETLANDS: The farmland proposed for the site is actually drained wetlands. In order to obtain a Department of Environmental Quality permit to build in a wetlands, the sponsor practiced and the State accepted an amazing sleight of hand. The sponsor suggested that using only two hundred acres of the site, and returning the remainder to active wetlands met the mitigation requirements. But, in fact, the State and its citizens have lost 200 acres of wetlands WITH NO COMPENSATION OR MITIGATION.
• CONTAMINATION OF GAME AREA: The site is next to the Crow Island State Game Area, a refuge for wildfowl; fur bearing animals, and nesting eagles. The area is hunted and trapped and its game consumed. If, as proposed, the slurry pit remains an uncovered ponded site, toxics located in the sediment will be taken up by resident wildlife. Reproductive impairments and uptake by the human community would become a reality. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) voiced objections because the site could adversely affect the health of wildlife, detract from management objectives and detract from the public’s safety and enjoyment.
• IMPACTS ON DUCK HUNTING: The slurry pit is sited on a migratory flyway. The open slurry pond would be a deadly invitation. Dioxins are noted for causing reproductive failure. In addition, duck hunting is a billion dollar business in Michigan. What additional economic harm will result when research shows our watershed ducks join our fish in being unable to be safely eaten because of dioxin contamination?
• LACK OF WATER TREATMENT: According to the Clean Water Act any waters removed from lakes, rivers and streams must be returned clean. The Corps proposes to simply return it like they got it – no treatment. That violates the intent of the Clean Water Act and both Lone Tree Council and the National Wildlife Federation are contesting this decision before an Administrative Law Judge.
• IMPACT ON LAKE HURON: The U.S. EPA has told the Army Corps of Engineers in written comments that it feared selective dredging would destabilize Saginaw River sediment and wash toxics downstream. A dioxin trail already reaches six miles into Saginaw Bay. Doing navigational dredging for upstream business without regard for the environment threatens recreational and commercial fishing – it robs Peter to pay Paul.
• NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS): All federal projects are required to complete a review of impacts including alternatives. Every existing dredge site in the Great Lakes has completed an EIS except two. One was built in an upland location, and had previously completed two EIS’s for nearby locations. The other is -- here, at the Zilwaukee/Frankenlust site. The Corps took a shortcut, called an Environmental Assessment (EA). With very little fact finding, they dismissed all criticisms, including extensive EPA comments. An Environmental Impact Statement would require greater participation of federal and state agencies, examination of economic assumptions, and require clear reasoning why alternative sites were ignored. The Lone Tree Council with the help of the National Environmental Law Center, and attorney Robert June, is presently contesting the lack of an EIS in federal court.

• BAD GOVERNMENT
• BAD FOR OUR HEALTH
• BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
• SAFER ALTERNATIVES
• ABOUT DIOXIN
• HEALTH ADVISORIES