I received this from the Clean Water Network -- CWN Member Bob Adler has
requested that we circulate this action alert on the Legacy Highway in
Utah. Please contact Bob directly with any questions
<[log in to unmask]>.
If you find the information in this alert as unbelievable as I do, please
contact Carol Browner before January 2nd and ask her to veto the proposed
wetlands permit.
If a wetland area so significant can't be protected by the Corps of
Engineers through section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act, what hope do we
have for Iowa wetlands?
Thanks,
Jane Clark
[log in to unmask]
ACTION ALERT
WRITE OR E-MAIL CAROL BROWNER BEFORE JANUARY 2
URGE HER TO INITIATE VETO PROCESS TO PROTECT GREAT SALT LAKE WETLANDS
AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE 404 PROGRAM
What you can do:
Write or e-mail EPA Administrator Carol Browner [log in to unmask];
<mailto:([log in to unmask];> or Administrator, USEPA, Headquarters
Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Room 3000,
Washington, DC 20460) and urge her to begin the process under section
404(c) of the Clean Water Act to veto the proposed wetlands permit for
the proposed Legacy Parkway along the shores of Great Salt Lake. This
action is critical to protect the internationally-significant wetlands
adjacent to Great Salt Lake, and to protect the integrity of the section
404 program.
The wetlands ecosystem at risk:
According to wetlands experts at EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and international organizations such as the Western Hemisphere
Shorebird Reserve Network, the wetlands adjacent to Great Salt Lake are
among the most important in the Western Hemisphere. Great Salt Lake
and its associated wetlands are used by over 3 million ducks (30% of the
ducks in the Pacific and Central Flyways), 50,000 Canada geese, 60,000
tundra swans (3/4 of the Western Flyway population), and 400,000 Eared
grebes (the second largest staging population in North America). Great
Salt Lake is equally important to the 2 to 5 million shorebirds that use
the region annually, including the largest staging population of
Wilson's phalaropes in the world, the largest population of American
avocets and Black stilts in the Pacific Flyway, about 10% of the world
population of Red-necked phalaropes, the world's largest assemblage of
Snowy plovers, the only staging area for Marbled godwits in the interior
U.S., and the world's largest breeding population of White-faced ibis.
It is one of the 19 critical sites in the Western Hemisphere Shorebird
Reserve Network due to its importance to birds that migrate annually
between Canada, the U.S., Mexico, and Central and South America, and
recently was designated as a "threatened" shorebird site. The lake is
also home to one of the three most important remaining colonies of White
pelicans in North America, over 500 over-wintering pairs of bald eagles
and the only nesting bald eagles in the entire Great Basin, 11 active
pairs of peregrine falcons, and the world's largest breeding population
of California gulls.
The project:
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and Utah Governor Mike
Leavitt propose to build the first, 14-mile segment of a 130-mile
freeway through the wetlands that border the eastern shore of Great Salt
Lake. Future highway segments would impair more wetlands along the
eastern and southern shores of the lake and elsewhere. On December 21,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued its notice of intent to issue
the 404 permit for this project, giving EPA just 15 days over the
holiday period to react to the proposal.
The threat to the 404 program:
This proposed project and 404 permit threatens the integrity of EPA's
wetlands protection program nationally. The project proponents seek
approval for what they, and the Corps, acknowledge is not the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative. The project also
relies on out-of-kind preservation as proposed mitigation in lieu of
avoiding adverse wetlands impacts, as required by the Clean Water Act
and EPA's section 404(b) guidelines. These are the very types of
problems that caused EPA to veto the wetlands permit for the Two Forks
dam a decade ago.
Among other problems with the analysis:
Other highway routes exist that would impair fewer and less valuable
wetland resources.
The EIS and 404 permit application evaluate three only marginally
different highway routes and a "no action" alternative. The analysis
ignores feasible transit and other transportation strategies. Three
separate sets of independent transportation experts agree that the
area's travel needs could be met through means other than more roads.
The project purpose and need analysis is based on travel demand models
and other methods and assumptions that outside and EPA experts agree are
badly flawed, that produce unreliable travel demand, and that are
inherently biased in favor of highways.
The EIS and wetlands evaluations refuse to consider the cumulative
environmental impacts to wetland, air quality, and other resources of
the full 130-mile highway. Instead, the analysis is limited to the
first 14-mile highway segment, and is substandard even for that segment.
Moreover, evaluating such a small highway segment first further biases
the analysis in favor of highways and against transit alternatives.
The proposed wetland mitigation program is based on methods that ignore
wildlife resources, despite the fact that the area is among the most
important bird habitats in the hemisphere. The mitigation package
relies almost entirely on offsite mitigation, via preservation of
otherwise protected wetlands, and would protect different kinds of
habitats than those that would be destroyed by the project. .
To date, officials at EPA Region VIII have agreed with all of the above
points, and have taken a strong and admirable stand against this
project. The Corps of Engineers, however, proposes to grant this flawed
404 permit anyway. EPA now stands as the last line of defense to
protect both the tremendous wetlands ecosystem that is at risk as well
as the integrity of both the Clean Water Act wetlands program. Please
urge Administrator Browner to exercise all available legal authority,
including EPA's authority under section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act,
to prevent this project from proceeding as currently contemplated.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
to [log in to unmask]
|
