Complete list of press releases

18 March 2004 - Raleigh, NC) Environmental Defense today praised North Carolina leaders for committing to petition the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to require polluting power plants in neighboring states to reduce dangerous air pollution that blows into North Carolina and poses a significant risk to public health.  The petition asks EPA to curb harmful air pollution from power plants in Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.  North Carolina’s petition is the first filed since President Bush took office.

“Every day, dangerous power plant pollution from neighboring states blows into North Carolina backyards right along with spring pollen,” said Michael Shore, Southeast air quality manager for Environmental Defense.  “Petitioning EPA is an important step in protecting the lungs of North Carolinians and citizens across the Southeast.  The petition sends a clear signal that sources in upwind states should be required to make cuts like those required by North Carolina’s Clean Smokestacks Act, and that the state expects EPA to protect the public by ensuring reductions in regional pollution.  A North Carolina petition can lead to cleaner air regionally, improving public health in all Southeastern states.  The petition also reinforces the need for EPA to strengthen and finalize its Interstate Air Quality Rule currently under consideration.”

Section 126 of the Clean Air Act grants states the right to petition the EPA administrator to address pollution from out-of-state sources.  If EPA grants the petition, the agency, not the upwind states, will mandate emissions limitations for the out-of-state air pollution.  EPA is required to respond to a 126 Petition within 60 days after it is filed.

“Out-of-state pollution has a significant impact on the health of North Carolina citizens,” said Jane Preyer, director of the North Carolina office of Environmental Defense.  “It’s clear that pollution coming from sources in upwind states is part of the reason why North Carolina and other Southeastern states cannot meet vitally important health-based air quality standards.  Taking a strong stand by petitioning the EPA is one of the best ways North Carolina can help counter federal Clean Air Act rollbacks and secure much needed cuts in regional air pollution.”  

Environmental Defense, a leading national nonprofit organization, represents more than 400,000 members.  Since 1967, Environmental Defense has linked science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships to create breakthrough solutions to the most serious environmental problems.
www.environmentaldefense.org

(10 March 2004)  Environmental Defense today released new information to help consumers navigate the murky waters of choosing seafood that is both ecologically friendly and low in dangerous contaminants.  A new layer of health advisories for fish high in contaminants such as mercury and PCBs has been added to the nonprofit’s web-based Seafood Selector, which ranks fish by “eco-best” and “eco-worst.”  Visit www.environmentaldefense.org/go/seafood to view the list.

“There is no one-size-fits all answer to the question of what are the safest fish, but consumers still should know what contaminants are in their food,” said Dr. Rebecca Goldburg, Ph.D., Environmental Defense scientist.  “Environmental Defense aims to provide consumers with the information they need to make this very personal decision for themselves and their families.  Given all the recent news about contaminants in fish, Environmental Defense hopes this tool will help the many consumers who are eager to have more information on which to base their seafood purchases.” 

The online resource, Seafood Selector, now features comprehensive information - never before available in one place - on contaminated fish.  Environmental Defense research found that Wild Alaskan and most canned salmon, tilapia, catfish, sardines, anchovies, crawfish and many clams are plentiful appear to be low in contaminants and have few ecological drawbacks.  The site lists contaminants information for fish and consumption advice based on gender and age.  Consumers can visit the site and search for health and ecological information about their favorite fish, or print out the Pocket Seafood Selector.

“Eating fish, especially those high in omega-3 acids, is good for the heart, but consumers should be aware of the potential risks from contamination,” said John Balbus, MD, MPH, health program director for Environmental Defense.  “Because the risks are generally greatest for developing fetuses and young children, women who are pregnant or of childbearing age and anyone preparing meals for young children should be most cautious.  For others, the safest choice and the amount will depend on their gender, age, and body size.”

Environmental Defense scientists obtained data on contaminants in fish tissue from over 40 government databases and scientific studies to determine the level of contaminants in common seafood items.  The scientists focused on four types of contaminants - mercury, PCBs, dioxins and pesticides - because high levels of these chemicals are the basis for more than 95% of government fish consumption advisories in the U.S.  The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) risk assessment methodology for these contaminants was then used to generate fish consumption advisories.

Besides offering consumers mercury contamination advisories, Environmental Defense is also working to curb mercury emissions at the source.  A recent Environmental Defense report, “Out of Control and Close to Home” at www.environmentaldefense.org/go/mercurypowerplants, explains how to reduce the country’s largest single source of mercury pollution - coal fired power plants.

(9 March 2004 - Raleigh, NC)  Environmental Defense today released an analysis of the trends responsible for the loss of one million acres of forestland in North Carolina and called on state officials to develop a comprehensive state forest policy to make conservation of private forest lands a top priority.  “North Carolina Forests at a Crossroads” examines federal Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data to pinpoint troubling trends affecting the state’s forests, wildlife habitat and unique ecosystems and issues recommendations for improving state forest policy.  The analysis is available at www.environmentaldefense.org/go/ncforestrystats.  The N.C. Division of Forest Resources and the U.S. Forest Service plan to publicly release statewide forest data for the first time March 10.

“North Carolina has policies and programs in place aimed at protecting water quality and air quality, but lacks effective policies to protect forests,” said Will McDow, forest economist with the North Carolina office of Environmental Defense.  “Forests are more than just a stand of trees.  Forests produce private and public benefits, including a steady supply of timber and other products, wildlife habitat, recreation opportunities, clean water and healthy soil.  If North Carolina fails to take action soon, the economic productivity and ecological health of our forests could be threatened forever.”

“North Carolina’s private forest lands are at a crossroads.  The state lost more than one million acres of forest over the last 12 years.  For the first time ever, more timber is being cut than is being grown, and forest acres are expected to decline for the next four decades.  Worse still, an alarming 76% of all tree harvests were clearcuts, which can increase runoff and impair water quality,” said McDow.

“Lack of planning, inadequate incentives, and poor forest management are among the root causes of the problems facing our forests,” said Dan Whittle, senior attorney with the North Carolina office of Environmental Defense.  “Almost 700,000 individuals own forestland in North Carolina and virtually every one of them manages his or her land in a vacuum.  Existing state programs and policies promote timber production and conversion to non-forest uses over forest stewardship.  Only by overhauling these programs can the state reverse current trends.”

“Today’s decision will only result in a flexible fuels fraud. It allows an SUV that gets 15 miles per gallon on ethanol to count as though its mileage were 100 mpg, even if it only burns gasoline. This regulatory loophole will increase oil consumption and global warming.  It’s bad environmental policy and bad energy policy,” said Environmental Defense automotive engineer John DeCicco.

“The administration’s own studies show the policy will increase oil consumption,” said Environmental Defense economist Eric Haxthausen.  A recent analysis by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated that extending the alternative fuel credit would increase gasoline consumption by about nine billion gallons, increasing emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases by 28 million metric tons.  “At a time when America’s oil dependence is growing and greenhouse gas pollution threatens the Earth’s climate, the administration’s policy is making both problems worse,” added Haxthausen.

The announcement today by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) extends by four years a provision allowing auto manufacturers to receive up to a 0.9 mile per gallon credit against the federal fuel economy standard for producing so-called “flexible fuel” vehicles.   In 2002 alone, automakers sold over 800,000 “dual-fueled” vehicles designed to use “E85” (85% ethanol/15% gasoline) fuel, including almost 400,000 SUVs.  Yet as of January 2004, there were only 182 locations in the U.S. offering this fuel, mostly in Minnesota and the upper Midwest.

“Most such vehicles never use a drop of alternative fuel, and under current policies expanding the supply of such fuels is uneconomic for the foreseeable future,” said DeCicco. “Instead of extending this useless flex-fuel vehicle program, the administration should develop policies that will improve fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas pollution.”

(17 February 2004 ? Washington, D.C.)  Environmental Defense today called for continued rejection of a revised Senate energy bill released on February 13th, citing, among other things, the proposed legislation’s damaging implications for weakening states’ environmental authority and undermining longstanding bipartisan protections for America’s oceans.

The energy bill failed to pass the Senate in November due to controversial proposals on a water pollution liability waiver for MTBE gasoline additive manufacturers, large incentives to traditional polluting energy sources, limited financing for renewables, failure to do anything on climate change, and because of an alarming price tag estimated at $31 billion dollars.

Many of these concerns remain.  More particularly, the revised energy bill still proposes a controversial plan to assign unilateral permitting and regulatory authority to the Secretary of Interior for all offshore energy-related industrial facilities within the 200-mile U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Further, the bill would arbitrarily interfere with decades of successful federal consultation with coastal states under the Coastal Zone Management Act and includes a giveaway of free undersea oil in fragile Alaskan areas to petroleum companies in an attempt to promote new offshore drilling in rough and spill-prone waters.

“The Senate had a reasonable chance to repair the previously fatal problems with this bill between legislative sessions, but unfortunately, the current flawed version continues to unduly threaten America’s coastline,” said Richard Charter, marine conservation advocate with Environmental Defense.  “The revised bill still bulges with expensive taxpayer-funded offshore drilling incentives and budget busting tax breaks for the oil industry, while seriously jeopardizing our economically important living marine resources.”

The Senate is expected to bring the bill up for debate soon after February 23, when Senators return from a weeklong break.

(17 February 2004)  Environmental Defense called the ruling today by the U.S. District Court, First Circuit to uphold the Maine mercury auto switch law a triumph for human health and the environment.  This law requires the auto industry to set up a system and pay for the removal of mercury switches from cars that contain them.  Similar bills have been introduced in the Minnesota and Massachusetts state legislatures.

“This law will help remove from the environment this highly dangerous chemical that can cause permanent brain damage to fetuses and infants,” said Environmental Defense project manager Karen Thomas.  “Removing switches before vehicles are recycled is a cost effective way to reduce mercury exposure in the U.S. compared to controlling mercury emissions from smokestacks.”

The ruling today upholds the Maine Law, An Act to Prevent Mercury Emissions when Recycling and Disposing of Motor Vehicles, striking down the auto industry’s claim that the law impedes interstate commerce and imposes unreasonable financial burdens on automakers, among other things.  Enacted on July 25, 2002, the law requires the automakers to establish and maintain consolidation facilities for the collection of mercury switches, pay a minimum of $1 per switch, phase out some uses of mercury, and label mercury components in new cars. 

“Now that a federal court has confirmed that the law is constitutional, there is no reason why every state should not follow Maine’s lead,” said Thomas.  “Instead of resisting sensible policies, automakers need to take responsibility for solving the problem that they helped create.”

Mercury switches are the nation’s largest manufacturing source of toxic mercury.  Since automakers began installing the switches in autos over 30 years ago, they have used an estimated 197 tons of mercury in vehicles in the U.S.  The mercury from these devices has been released into the environment as vehicles are scrapped at the end of their useful life.  After publicly pledging to use mercury-free alternatives, the auto industry continued to use mercury switches for at least eight years even though mercury free alternatives cost only pennies more.

Environmental Defense works on this issue through the Partnership for Mercury-Free Vehicles, which includes the Steel Manufacturers Association, Institute for Scrap Recycling Industries, Steel Recycling Institute, Automotive Recyclers Association, and the Ann Arbor-based Ecology Center. 

(12 February 2004 — Raleigh, NC)  Environmental Defense today praised the N.C. Environmental Management Commission (EMC) for asking the state attorney general to seek review in Superior Court on a decision that halted implementation of statewide stormwater rules. Last week the N.C. Rules Review Commission (RRC) rejected a set of stormwater rules developed by the EMC to protect water quality from runoff from municipalities and from rapidly growing rural areas.  

“The Rules Review Commission’s decision to reject the stormwater rules benefits developers and not North Carolina citizens and precious water resources,” said Jane Preyer, director of the North Carolina office of Environmental Defense.  “The Rules Review Commission went against the strong, clear advice of their own staff, against the strong advice and pleas of municipalities and counties, and certainly against the best interest of the state’s water resources.  The EMC should be saluted for its vote to appeal the RRC decision and for its commitment to protecting water quality and public health.”

“North Carolina is required by federal law to develop reasonable rules to control stormwater runoff from cities and developing rural areas,” said Dave McNaught, policy analyst with the North Carolina office of Environmental Defense.  “The EMC spent five years developing rules in a comprehensive public process that engaged all stakeholders.  Now those rules should go into effect.” 

“North Carolina is losing its rural heritage and becoming increasingly urban, which makes stormwater runoff of sediment and other pollutants an enormous threat to streams and rivers across the state.  It is imperative that the state, developers and homebuilders act responsibly to ensure that growth is adequately managed to protect water resources,” said McNaught.

(12 February 2003 — Washington, D.C.)  Environmental Defense called the version of the transportation bill passed today by the Senate a giant step backwards for public health and the environment. 

“This bill wipes out the balance and common sense that evolved over the last four decades of transportation policy,” said Michael Replogle, Environmental Defense transportation director.  “It is an affront to the 170 million Americans who live in communities that fail to meet basic air quality standards.  If it becomes law, this bill will make air quality worse and reduce the ability of communities to make clean transportation choices.  We will look to the House to restore balance and make better choices for the health of all Americans.”

The bill will severely roll back the Clean Air Act (CAA) by allowing major highway expansion to proceed without consideration of long-term environmental or health impact.  Attacks to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) will block public participation in transportation planning decisions, curb consideration of alternatives to road expansion and remove long-standing protections to the country?s environmental resources.

“A global warming future for Connecticut will mean increased temperatures and higher levels of smog blanketing the state, resulting in increases in asthma attacks and heat-related illnesses. A warmer climate is also more hospitable to vector-borne diseases, such as Lyme disease and West Nile Virus,” said Environmental Defense president Fred Krupp. “Sea level rise from global warming will increase the frequency and impact of coastal flooding, eroding the state’s beaches and putting portions of I-95, the Northeast Corridor rail line, the Tweed-New Haven Airport, the University of Bridgeport, and coastal populations all at risk.”

“This study provides yet additional evidence that global warming is a major threat to Connecticut, our citizens and our environment. We can and must take appropriate steps to reduce the pollution that causes global warming. States like New York are already acting to protect their citizens; the time has come for Connecticut’s leader’s to act,” said Brooke Suter, coordinator, Connecticut Climate Coalition and director, Clean Water Action Connecticut.

“Transportation produces 39% of Connecticut’s greenhouse gas pollution, so passing the Connecticut Clean Cars bill will reduce the global warming threat and protect our children’s future,” said Don Strait, executive director, Connecticut Fund for the Environment. “New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have already adopted the clean cars program, and it’s time for Connecticut to step up to the plate and join the rest of the Northeast in taking action to cut greenhouse gas pollution.”

State Senator Don Williams (D-Killingly), Senate Co-Chair of the General Assembly’s Environment Committee and lead sponsor of the Clean Cars Bill called the study “a powerful reminder that we have an obligation to our citizens and especially our children to deal with the threat from global warming,” Williams said. “We will not let the turmoil in Hartford keep us from taking dramatic steps to make Connecticut a healthier place to live and raise a family. The Clean Cars Bill is at the top of our agenda.”

(21 January, 2004 — Washington)  Today the Supreme Court affirmed the federal government’s power to protect public health by enforcing clean air measures when states fail to carry out their basic responsibilities under the Clean Air Act.  The case involved a Clean Air Act enforcement action against the Red Dog Mine in northern Alaska, the largest zinc mine in the world.  Environmental Defense filed an amicus brief in the case, spearheading a coalition of environmental and conservation groups.

“Today’s decision is good news for the lungs of every American and shows that the federal government has an obligation to secure clean, safe air for all Americans,” said Environmental Defense senior attorney Vickie Patton.  “Now the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must carry out these fundamental public health and environmental responsibilities, not weaken clean air enforcement as it recently announced.”

In the case before the Court, Alaska issued a construction permit for a large diesel generator at Teck-Cominco’s Red Dog Mine, requiring pollution controls only a third as effective as technologies the state determined were feasible and affordable.  EPA brought an enforcement action to prohibit construction until a proper permit was issued.  The Red Dog Mine is located five miles from the Noatak National Preserve, a spectacular mountain-ringed river basin containing an intact Arctic ecosystem. 

The case arises under provisions of the Clean Air Act governing the pre-construction review permit requirements for large new power plants and industrial sources, a key element of the Act’s “new source review” program.   EPA recently announced it was abandoning some 50 pending investigations against high-polluting power plants and other industrial sources.  The investigations were based on alleged violations of the Clean Air Act’s new source review program.

(22 December 2003 — New York)  Environmental Defense called today’s signing of Intro 191A a groundbreaking action for clean air in New York City and nationally.  With this law, New York becomes the first major U.S. city to require cleaner fuel and best available emissions control technology in its public works construction.

“Today, New York City is taking a big step in the fight against asthma in New York City,” said Andy Darrell, director of the Living Cities program at Environmental Defense.  “This law has the potential to cut emissions from construction machinery by up to 90%.  New York is now the first major American city to make a comprehensive commitment to advanced retrofits and ultra low sulfur fuel in all public construction projects.”

Intro 191A will require city construction contracts to call for ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD at 15 ppm) and best available pollution control technology on heavy diesel construction machinery above 50 horsepower.  Before this law, this machinery engines usually ran without emissions controls with diesel as high as 3400 ppm sulfur.  ULSD combined with the best available retrofit technology has the ability to reduce diesel emissions by up to 90%.  As written, Intro 191-A provides a reasonable timeframe for implementation and provides flexibility for agencies and contractors to adapt to its requirements. 

“One million people in New York City have asthma - and nonroad vehicles, like diesel construction machinery, put out more fine particulate pollution than cars, trucks and buses combined,” said Darrell.  “This law makes sense for business and for all New Yorkers who want to breathe clean air.  The pollution is bad and the solutions exist - this law takes a bold step toward making the solutions available in every neighborhood of the city.”

The bill passed was based on a successful project to cut emissions from construction vehicles at the World Trade Center site.  There, Environmental Defense worked with Governor Pataki to establish a commitment that would require all state construction vehicles at the World Trade Center site to use retrofits and ultra low sulfur diesel fuel.  Intro 191A will also begin downtown, and will bring the benefits citywide within a reasonable timeframe.

(18 December 2003 — Raleigh, NC)  Environmental Defense today called on North Carolina leaders to take immediate steps to protect the state’s forests from fragmentation, over-harvesting and other activities that pose severe threats to one of the state’s most valuable resources.  The U.S. Forest Service and the N.C. Division of Forestry Resources today released forest inventory data that document the continued decline in forestland in the Piedmont and mountain regions of the state.

“For years, report after report has shown that North Carolina forests are in a crisis, but the state still lacks a plan to reverse disturbing trends and put forests back on a sustainable path,” said Will McDow, forest economist with the North Carolina office of Environmental Defense.  “Some policies the state does have in place actually contribute to forest declines.  The continuation of current trends spells economic and ecological disaster in the long run.  Trees readily grow back, but functioning forests do not.”

The Forest Inventory Analysis reports released today conclude that sprawl is destroying forests at record rates and remaining forests are becoming more fragmented.  Forests in North Carolina are younger today than 12 years ago, and young forests lack the same species composition as those that were harvested, raising serious concerns for game and nongame wildlife species.

“Forest resources provide a steady timber supply and are an economic engine for the state, but forests also are essential for clean water, clean air, healthy soils, and game and non-game wildlife species,” said Daniel Whittle, senior attorney with Environmental Defense.  “Development or pine tree farms should not be the only two choices for landowners who have forestland.  The state should develop forest policies that provide meaningful incentives to landowners to keep forest lands in trees and to manage them not only for timber production, but for wildlife and other conservation uses.”

(18 December 2003)  According to a new analysis released today by Environmental Defense, smog-forming chemical pollution from motor vehicles in every one of a dozen major metropolitan areas examined would be allowed to grow by 10 to 52% in 2007 and beyond under a proposed regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Despite cleaner vehicles and fuel, motor vehicles remain a large source of pollutants that form health-threatening smog, accounting for a quarter to half of such emissions.  The full analysis is available at www.environmentaldefense.org/go/conformity.

The proposed regulation of pollution from motor vehicles is part of EPA’s transition to stronger ozone air quality standards, which are intended to protect children and other vulnerable populations from air pollution that leads to respiratory ailments, hospital admissions and lung damage.  EPA is taking comments on the rule until Monday, December 22. 

“Ozone standards have resulted in progress to improve public health by reducing pollution, and EPA’s transition to stronger standards should support that progress not diminish it,” said Environmental Defense transportation director Michael Replogle.  “Starting in 2005, EPA?s proposal would allow nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds from motor vehicles to increase 10% to 52% by 2007 and beyond.  This could put dozens of polluted metro areas over adopted pollution limits, violating the weaker old health standards and making attainment of the new standard harder.?

“This rule would remove critical public health protections in dozens of regions before new smog standards are in force, rolling back existing clean air safeguards,” said Environmental Defense health program director, physician, Dr. John Balbus.  “EPA also proposes to avoid looking at the effect of transportation on fine-particle air pollution hot spots which cause huge health problems. Already more than 80% of the cancer risk from air pollutants nationwide is from mobile sources.  EPA’s proposal will make it easier to fast-track approval of new sprawl-inducing highways, but will likely send more children to hospital emergency rooms, as well as increasing the exposure of millions of Americans to hazardous mobile source air toxics.”

Motor vehicles are a significant source of the volatile organic hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides that combine in the presence of heat and sunlight to form smog.

(15 December 2003 — New York)  Environmental Defense called today’s City Council unanimous vote to approve 191A a groundbreaking action and a tremendous step forward for healthy air in New York City.

“Today, New York is one step closer to being a national leader in the fight against urban asthma,” said Andy Darrell, director of the Living Cities program at Environmental Defense.  “With this bill, New York City will be the first major American city to make a comprehensive commitment to require advanced retrofits and ultra low sulfur fuel in all public construction project.”

Intro 191A will require city owned or leased construction equipment to use cleaner fuel and be equipped with pollution control technology.  Ultra low sulfur diesel fuel combined with the best available retrofit technology has the ability to reduce diesel emissions by up to 90%.  As written, Intro 191-A provides a reasonable timeframe for implementation and provides flexibility for agencies and contractors to adapt to its requirements. 

“One million people in New York City have asthma — and the non-road diesel sector, which includes construction machinery, emits more dangerous fine particles than cars, trucks and power plants combined,” said Darrell.  “We urge Mayor Bloomberg to sign the bill.  There is no reason not to.  The technologies are available, the cost is reasonable and the benefits for health are significant.” 

A press conference is expected to be held Wednesday, December 17, at 2:30PM on the steps of City Hall.  Speakers will include; Councilmen James Gennaro and Alan Gerson; Andy Darrell, director of the Living Cities program at Environmental Defense; Catherine McVay Hughes, Founder and President of Asthma Moms; and a representative of the General Contractors Association.

The bill passed today was based on a successful project to cut emissions from construction vehicles at the World Trade Center site.  Environmental Defense worked with Governor Pataki to establish a commitment that would require all state construction vehicles at the World Trade Center site to use retrofits and ultra low sulfur diesel fuel.  Like the state, the City would start downtown but would then extend further to bring the benefits citywide within a reasonable timeframe.

Find out more at http://www.environmentaldefense.org/go/airquality.

(11 December 2003 — Washington, DC) A revised study of navigation needs for the Upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is based upon unrealistic estimates of future barge traffic, according to a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report issued today.  The report, entitled Review of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Upper Mississippi-Illinois Waterway Restructured Feasibility Study: Interim Report, said the Corps should instead reduce waterway congestion by implementing scheduling, congestion fees, helper boats and other small-scale measures that can reduce lock congestion now.

A separate NAS panel made the same recommendations in 2001 after Corps economist Donald Sweeney disclosed that senior Corps officials ordered him to exaggerate the benefits of longer locks.

“Congress and the Administration should demand a credible, trustworthy assessment of navigation needs,” said Environmental Defense water resources specialist Scott Faber. “The future of the Mississippi and, frankly, the entire agency hangs in the balance. This report provides an opportunity for the Corps to finally reject economic tools that exaggerate the benefits of big water projects, and to instead use scheduling, helper boats and other small-scale solutions to ease waterway congestion while the agency gets the math right.”

Today, a new NAS panel urged the Corps to:

• Develop Credible Economic Models - develop economic models that properly recognize the impact of rail and ethanol plants on demand for barges. The Corps is using two economic models rejected by the 2001 panel; one model was also rejected by the Bush Administration.
• Develop Credible Traffic Forecasts - develop traffic forecasts that reflect current traffic trends. River traffic has not increased in more than 20 years.
• Implement Small-Scale Measures - immediately implement scheduling, congestion fees, helper boats and other small-scale measures that can reduce lock congestion now.
• Restore Natural River Processes - focus greater attention on projects that restore natural river processes, such as floods and droughts.

For more information on Army Corps reform and the Mississippi River, go to http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?ContentID=2215