After The Siting—A Forum About the Impact of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations on Quality-of-Life and Health in Rural Communities at NGLVC Feb 28 1:00pm

/ Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center/

WE LEARNED ABOUT THE STATE SITING REGULATIONS
FROM THE UW-EXTENSION IN DECEMBER,
NOW LET'S LEARN WHAT HAPPENS
AFTER THE CAFO COMES TO TOWN.

Update on Lake Superior Barrels Project December 18th

/

Lake Superior Barrels Project
 
December 18th Washburn, WI
Washburn Library
 
 Program will begin at 6:00

 

Since the mid 1990’s, the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa has been researching and conducting investigations on approximately 1,450 55-gallon barrels dumped into Gichigami (Lake Superior) by the US Army between 1959 and 1962 in collaboration with the Army Corp of Engineers and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). It is the goal and responsibility of the Red Cliff Band to fully characterize the type and extent of Department of Defense wastes, which may have impacts on the natural resources within the Ceded Territory. The Red Cliff Band is dedicated to working with federal agencies to clean up, restore and protect the ecosystems of the Ceded Territory. The Red Cliff Band is also committed to the economy, natural resources, and cultural uses within Chippewa Ceded Territory and to determine if further remedial work is required to preserve and protect the rich natural resources of Gichigami.
 
Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa has a Cooperative Agreement with Army Corp of Engineers to provide an update to area stakeholders who also have a vested interest in this project. A PowerPoint program will be presented and also any questions that may arise will be answered. These informational sessions are open to the public.
 
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
 
Gary Defoe Jr. Project Manager                                      Frank K. Koehn                                                            
88455 Pike Road                                                                619 17th Ave. W
Bayfield WI 54814                                                              Ashland, WI 54844
Phone: 715-779-3650                                                        218.341.8822                                            
gary.defoejr@redcliff-nsn.gov                                         frankjkoehn@gmail.com        

LWV/ABC's Letter to DNR re: Request for Input on Enbridge Sandpiper Pipeline Project

/

At an August meeting, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources requested public input to help determine the scope of an environmental impact statement for the Enbridge Sandpiper Pipeline construction and replacement project in northwestern Douglas County. 

The following letter was sent by our president, with the approval of our board, in response to that request.

Please add your input regarding this project to ours!

See our related Action Item for information about submitting input to the DNR.

ASHLAND-BAYFIELD COUNTIES 
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS

September 3, 2014

 

Jeff Schimpff
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921

DNROEEAAComments@wisconsin.gov

 

RE:  Enbridge Pipeline EIS

 

Dear Mr. Schimpff:

We are writing to urge DNR to conduct a broad and thorough assessment of the environmental impacts associated with Enbridge Energy’s Douglas County Sandpiper Pipeline proposal.  The potential impacts of this project would include oil leaks and spills into waters in the Lake Superior basin, and as precious as Lake Superior is, any proposals which put it at risk should be subjected to intense scrutiny.  Furthermore, this proposed pipeline would facilitate increased production and consumption of shale oil, particularly troublesome from a climate change perspective.  Those impacts should feature prominently in the environmental analysis of the Enbridge proposal.

As you have indicated, the proposal would involve extending the pipeline from the Bakken Shale region in North Dakota.  That crude is an especially hazardous material, in that its corrosivity will increase the likelihood of spills and leaks.  The Kalamazoo River disaster in Michigan in 2010, as well as incidents closer to home—the pipeline ruptures in Clark and Rusk County in 2007 and in Grand Marsh last summer, are examples of the dangers this pipeline expansion would pose.  Given Enbridge’s role in the largest inland oil spill in our nation’s history and over 800 oil spills in the past 15 years, the prospect of allowing it to increase its crude shipments in the Lake Superior basin is troubling, indeed.

As disturbing are the climate change impacts of the pipeline.  We understand that this line would be a “key enabler” for tar sands crude expansion projects, and tar sands oil is far “dirtier” than other oil with respect to carbon emissions.  In part because the extraction process is extremely carbon intensive and destroys vast areas of Canadian boreal forest, one of the globe’s largest carbon sequestration sites, greenhouse gas emissions associated with tar sands oil are approximately 17 % greater than other oil.  Any project which will facilitate increased production, transportation, and/or consumption of tar sands oil should be the subject of a detailed environmental impact statement which examines all of the potential adverse consequences, including the risk of catastrophic Lake Superior oil spills, the destruction of pristine boreal forests, and increased carbon emissions.  

We are inclined to agree with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial writer who observed that “Earth’s finest collection of fresh water—Lake Superior and the Upper Great Lakes—is not a reasonable location for a major transportation corridor designed to carry tar sands crude oil to the overseas market.”  We were encouraged to learn that it is the Department’s intent to look at not only “direct local effects,” but also at the “broader impacts at regional, statewide and larger scales.”  We urge you to conduct the fullest possible environmental assessment of this project.

Sincerely,

Madelaine Herder
President
League of Women Voters of Ashland and Bayfield Counties

Report on Ashland NSP Superfund Site Clean-Up

/


Image of the site courtesy of the Midwest Hazardous Substance Research Center at Michigan State University.

Image of the site courtesy of the Midwest Hazardous Substance Research Center at Michigan State University.

 

LWV Community Advocates Kim Bro, Betty Harnsich and Shari Eggleson attended an update on Superfund cleanup in Ashland on Monday 6/16/2014. Following is their report.

 

Ashland NSP Superfund Site


 

Ashland’s lakeshore in the vicinity of the old sewage treatment plant, marina, and Kreher Park was contaminated 100 years ago by coal gasification operations conducted by NSP’s predecessor (NSP assumed its liabilities).  The oily, tar-like contaminants seeped into the upland soils and groundwater, and contaminated sediments found their way into Chequamegon Bay.  After years of studies and negotiations, NSP has finally commenced the clean-up of the land portion of the contamination this summer, in accordance with plans approved by DNR and EPA. 

NSP has built a fence around the site and is sealing off the area with a steel barrier wall along the lakeshore and a clay barrier trench around the other three sides of the site.  There is quite a lot of noise right now and some odor from digging the trench.  NSP has installed eight continuous air monitoring stations around the perimeter of the site both at the lake level and at the upper level to make sure levels of contaminants in the air in the vicinity do not exceed safe levels. They also have a person who regularly walks around the fence line with an air monitoring unit. There is more infrastructure to be installed: a concrete pad to hold the contaminated soil and a giant tent-like building that will cover the "thermal desorption unit."  This unit will heat the contaminated soil so hot that the contaminants will burn completely to carbon dioxide and water.  This Phase I is expected to be completed in January, 2015, at a cost of $28-40 million.

Later this summer, NSP plans to start a pilot project authorized by the EPA “Record of Decision” to attempt to show that the contaminated sediments in the bay can be safely and effectively removed using a wet dredging process rather than the more expensive dry dredging process already approved by EPA.  That project is scheduled to be completed in October.  An agreement for implementation of this Phase II of the project (contaminated sediment remediation) must still be negotiated.

There also is an issue about what happens to the wastewater generated at the site, from dewatering activities and from the groundwater extraction (pump & treat) systems.  There will be a treatment plant on the property, but it has not yet been determined what will happen to the treated water.  It could be discharged to the Ashland Wastewater Treatment Plant, or it could be discharged directly to Lake Superior.  Continued monitoring of this issue could be needed.

Betty Harnisch and Kim Bro have been representing the LWV/ABC on the Citizens Advisory Council established some time ago to advise the agencies working on the project and act as community liaisons.

 

Response of DNR re our letter: Enbridge Energy Permit Application No. 13-DCF-129

/ Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources/

This is the response to our letter of May 15.


 

Thank you for providing comments on the draft construction permit for the Enbridge Energy pipeline terminal in Superior, WI.

The Department has made its decision regarding this construction permit.   The Department issued the permit in accordance with the Wisconsin Statutes, chapters NR 400 – 499 and NR 150, Wisconsin Administrative Code on June 12, 2014.

Electronic copies of the final approval cover letter, the Department’s findings of fact, the final permit, our responses to comment, the original application, original review, comments that were received but not directly incorporated into the responses to comments document, and other information regarding the permit review can be found on the DNR website. 

    http://dnr.wi.gov/cias/am/amexternal/AM_PermitTrackingSearch.aspx  

In the field “permit no.” enter      13-DCF-129      and click on the “search” button to do a search for this permit number.

This will open a new window:  Click on the upper tab   “Permits and Permit Applications”

This will open a window showing all of the permits.  Scroll down and select 13-DCF-129.   This will open a window with all of the permit documents associated with that permit number.  It may be necessary to scroll through the list to locate your files of interest.

 

Regards,  Neal E. Baudhuin


Northern Region Air Management Supervisor
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
107 Sutliff Avenue, Rhinelander, WI 54501
715/365-8958; Fax: 715/365-8932
neal.baudhuin@wisconsin.gov
General WDNR Information: 1-888-936-7463
Find us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/WIDNR
We are committed to service excellence.

 

 

Letter to DNR re: Enbridge Energy Permit Application No. 13-DCF-129

/ League of Women Voters of ABC/

 

We also sent this same letter to Ashland Daily Press and other county newspapers in Northern Wisconsin.

 

ASHLAND-BAYFIELD COUNTIES
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS

 

May 15, 2014

Mr. Don C. Faith
Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Air Management
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin 53707

 

RE:  Enbridge Energy Permit Application No. 13-DCF-129

 

Dear Mr. Faith:

I am writing on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Ashland and Bayfield Counties to urge you to deny Enbridge Energy’s application for a permit to construct huge new oil storage tanks in Superior and increase the capacity of its pipeline no. 61 to accommodate increased oil shipments from Alberta, on the grounds that this project could lead to more oil spills, water pollution, increased demand for tar sands oil, and more climate change pollution. 

While the air emissions from the vented tanks in Superior are not insignificant, the broader repercussions of the proposed pipeline expansion are of much greater concern.  Line 61 cuts through Wisconsin from Superior to Illinois, putting many waterways at risk, including the Wisconsin River and Lake Superior, a resource particularly cherished by residents of this area, including native peoples.  Enbridge pipelines have ruptured, leaked and spilled oil into waterways here and elsewhere. One catastrophic spill of a million gallons of tar sands crude into the Kalazamazoo River in 2010 is still not cleaned up four years later, despite remedial efforts costing more than $1 billion.  Another rupture two years later, in the Line 61 corridor, resulted in a geyser of crude oil near Grand Marsh, Wisconsin.  U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood stated, “…accidents, like the one in Wisconsin, are absolutely unacceptable.” PHMSA issued an order requiring an extensive review of repairs and corrective actions before allowing the pipeline to reopen.  These are the only two of many examples of why, given the present risk to Wisconsin’s natural resources, Enbridge should not be allowed to expand the flow of tar sands crude to and through the state.

As troublesome as the risk to the state’s waterways undeniably is, an even more disturbing repercussion of the proposed pipeline is its potentially disastrous contribution to climate change.  It is commonly understood that producing and burning tar sands oil emit particularly high levels of carbon, emissions which are, or should be, of grave concern.  Both the very recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Third U.S. National Climate Assessment, issued on May 6, confirm that “climate change is affecting Americans in every region of the U.S. and key sectors of the national economy.”  The latter report states that “observations unequivocally show that climate is changing and that the warming . . . is primarily due to human induced emissions of heat-trapping gases . . . [which] come mainly from burning coal, oil and gas.”  The report’s findings with respect to the consequences are dire:

Certain types of extreme weather events with links to climate change have become more frequent and/or intense, including prolonged periods of heat, heavy downpours, and in some regions, floods and droughts.  In addition, warming is causing sea level to rise and glaciers and Arctic sea ice to melt, and oceans are becoming more acidic as they absorb carbon dioxide. These and other aspects of climate change are disrupting people's lives and damaging some sectors of our economy.   

We are already seeing the effects of climate change in Wisconsin.  The drought and heat wave in 2012, followed by relentless rain and flooding last year give us a glimpse of what climate change could cost Wisconsin in the future, from our farms to our forests to our cold-water fisheries.  More tar sands oil is the last thing our climate needs.

In the words of the National Climate Assessment, these recent findings “underscore the need for urgent action to combat the threats from climate change, protect American citizens and communities today, and build a healthy, sustainable future for our children and grandchildren.”  Given the significance of the potential consequences of granting this permit, we ask that the Department undertake a thorough environmental analysis before proceeding further.    

 

Sincerely,

Madelaine Herder

President, LWV of Ashland Bayfield Counties

 

 

Recommendation from Water Position Committee to LWV WI Board

/ League of Women Voters of Wisconsin/
 

Below is the recommendation of the LWV WI Water Position Committee to the LWV WI Board preparatory to presentation and voting at the LWV WI Annual Meeting May 31, 2014

 

Our thanks go out to the LWV/ABC members and board who worked to formulate amendments to the LWV WI Water Position. This issue is of special concern to LWV/ABC because of the threat the proposed taconite mine in the Penokee Hills presents to the waters of Lake Superior and the surrounding region. The changes presented by LWV/ABC addressed mining discharge,  local water quality testing, monitoring the transportation of polluting materials, respect for tribal sovereignty, and prevention of aquatic invasive species.

 

DATE:     January 9, 2014

TO:     LWV WI Board

From:     Elizabeth Wheeler, chair, LWV WI Water Position Committee

Subject:     Recommendation from Water Position Committee 

The Water Position Committee recommends that the LWV WI Board recommend to the May 31, 2014 Annual Meeting: 

(a) adoption of the revised state Water Position (see attached) and 

(b) authorization of a Water Education Campaign for 2014-15.

Adoption of revised position: The current LWV WI Water Position is showing its age, and it needed to be rewritten in modern language.  During one of the Water Position committee’s teleconference calls, there was agreement that League should advocate for the strongest possible water protection and restoration positions as possible.  Water is necessary for life.  As we learned while studying energy and global climate change a few years ago, League must look beyond current inadequate public policy and make a clear statement of our intent to deal with the planet’s limited natural resources consistent with League’s values – an informed citizenry participating in public policy that ensures equity for this and future generations.

Authorization of Water Education Campaign:  Many local Leagues and even the State Legislative Committee are wondering how the new Lake Michigan LWV Great Lakes Eco-System positions fit into all of League Positions.  In addition, the Legislative Committee has not updated Impact on Issues to reflect the recent repeated attacks by the State Legislature on air and water laws.  There is a need for presentation of updated Water materials to League members as a refresher of new and existing positions, how they have recently been used and provide a series of educational articles and programs to refresh LWV member understanding of emerging issues. This will provide for an update of Impact on Issues and set the stage for vigorous advocacy.

The Water Position Committee proposes a Water Education Campaign in order to: (a) increase member understanding of how to use League positions and (b) educate members on emerging issues.  We believe these objectives can be achieved by preparing study materials, informative articles and videotaped General Meeting programs for local Leagues.  A statewide committee would prepare three programs: Great Lakes (Dane County LWV the lead), Fracking (sand mining, oil and gas hydro fracking and Role of Local Governments (possibly in cooperation with Midwest Environmental Advocates) and Groundwater Withdrawals (Elizabeth Wheeler the lead) with possibly a fourth program on Phosphorus (Elizabeth Wheeler and Caryl Terrell the leads).  We are confident we can recruit Water Committee members and other Leaguers to write articles for this education campaign.

Submitted on behalf of the Members of the Water Position Committee: 

Chair, Elizabeth Wheeler, Dane County League 

Karen Isenbrands Brown, Northwoods League

Caryl Terrell, Dane County League

Margy Davey, Winnebago League

Jan Scalpone, Winnebago League

Barbara Gifford, Stevens Point League

Karen Jansen, Appleton League

Don Dahlstrom, Greater Green Bay League

Patricia Finder-Stone, Greater Green Bay League

Helga Guequierre, Great Lakes League

Pat Chung, Milwaukee League

Julie Arneth, Greater Green Bay League

 

The Proposed Water Position follows:


 

1-09-2014 final LWV WI Water Position - Proposed to LWV WI May 2014 Convention

 

Maintaining access to clean water which supports life and a healthy environment is a public trust, a fundamental human right, and is the shared responsibility of all who live or do business in Wisconsin.  Managing water as a natural resource is essential to maintaining our quality of life, as well as to ensuring its availability to support the mix of natural flora and fauna which is unique to our state. Decisions about water use and management must be made with consideration for public safety and the impact those decisions will have on all current and future generations of stakeholders.

Water quality and quantity standards need to be addressed in terms of whole basin management and the hydrologic cycle. That is, management not just of the water itself, but of the land and watersheds which drain to  wetlands, aquifer, meteoric groundwater, river, lake or other body of water, whether it is naturally occurring or constructed, and wherever it is located.  Water management is therefore accomplished as management of all parts of an integrated system within basin boundaries and of any water which may move into or out of that system.  

We hold a vision of life where prudent management of water resources leads to sustainable use, where consumption does not exceed the environment’s ability to replenish and to protect itself, and where its quality and quantity is such that all native aquatic species thrive.  All current and future generations of stakeholders in Wisconsin shall enjoy the benefits of equal access to natural sources of clean, fresh water.

We support:

Reaffirming the Great Lakes Compact (Wis Stat 281.344-346), which strictly limits unnatural diversions of water from within the Great Lakes Basin.  The Great Lakes Compact provides guidelines for mandatory standards of water conservation and efficient water management within the Great Lakes Basin.  We support extending these mandatory standards to all waters of the State to prevent ground and surface water depletion.

Water conservation programs that:

  1. Are based on best practices and sound data
  2. Prevent depletion of our water resources
  3. Take into account cumulative impacts of local and regional water use.

Ongoing testing and monitoring for water quality and quantity on state and local levels. 

State, local and citizen legal authority to enforce water management standards.

Protecting water quality and quantity through wastewater and stormwater standards and management for both point and non-point sources. 

  1. Adjust cumulative discharge standards for waste and storm water discharges into surface or underground water where effluent levels have been proven toxic. 
    1. Acknowledge that cumulative discharge may come from a combination of sources which include, but are not limited to agricultural, municipal, residential, industrial, commercial, and institutional. (“Agriculture” is understood to be broadly defined to include any agricultural practices including current or emerging technologies.)
    2. Utilize sustainable practices and green infrastructure that mimic natural hydrologic processes to augment natural processes to control runoff.

2.    Work to eliminate all emergency discharges or spills of untreated sewage or waste into the environment that threaten public health and the environment by potentially contaminating sources of clean water for humans, wildlife habitat and fisheries.

  1. Increase and enforce per incidence fines offending parties are assessed and create fines and funds to restore the negatively impacted environment. 
  2. Decrease stormwater loadings that negatively impact the capacity of wastewater treatment facilities, decreasing the potential for overflows.

3.    Provide natural areas where runoff from impermeable surfaces and extreme precipitation events can soak into the soil instead of being released directly into bodies of water or directly into wetlands:

  1. Promotes replenishment of the hydrologic cycle as well as harvesting of rainwater for immediate uses (such as drinking water, irrigation, and livestock).
  2. Prevents the loss of limited sources of drinking water by allowing fresh water to follow its natural course of eventually flowing to the ocean.
  3. Prevents trash, bacteria, phosphorus, heavy metals, pharmaceuticals and other pollutants from unrestricted entry into bodies of water.

4.    Protect and enhance the biological integrity of wetlands and other naturally-occurring hydrologic resources that provide water quality, flood protection and habitat benefits.

Sufficient funding for state and federal agencies to monitor water quality and quantity through regular testing, and have a legally defined mandate to act in upholding water standards.

  1. Establish dedicated revenue sources to provide a dependable source of funding for state water quality programs.
  2. Revenue sources should have a clear and transparent connection to the use or potential abuse of water, generate sufficient funds to make an impact on water quality and quantity issues, and be easy to collect.  Funding options should include:
    1. General revenue sources because all Wisconsin citizens benefit from adequate water quality and quantity.
    2. User fees and taxes assessed to activities that affect water quality and quantity.
    3. Other revenue sources not mentioned may be considered for support if they meet these criteria.