I live on the river and have a large number of mature trees along the riverbank. My property has been tested and found to have dioxin levels in excess of 1000 ppt. Would I consider removing trees to resolve the problem? The answer is a qualified yes. Will I miss them? Yes. Then why would I consent?

• I considered our property destroyed once the dioxin was discovered, so what if a row of trees is removed?
• It's not established that all trees must be removed. The study has barely begun. Until the entire river and flood plain is sampled, it's premature to state that all trees will be removed.
• Dioxin is not the only contaminate. Studies have identified 29 other extremely toxic chemicals in the river, including mercury, lead, octachlorostyrene, DDT, and toxaphen to mention a few. Clean up will reduce exposure to these as well.
• Once the clean up process moves downstream, upstream residential properties lose the stigma of a contaminated Dow facility.
• Dioxin is entrenched in soil and will never goes away by ignoring it. A significant portion is deposited within the first 6" of soil which greatly enables it’s contact with humans and wildlife.
• Contaminated soil has been implicated as one of the sources contributing to elevated dioxin levels in the bodies of flood plain residents including humans, wild game, birds, and fish.
• Removing the dioxin in the floodplain soil and sediment removes the dangers to subsistence and sports fishermen who catch and eat the contaminated fish.
• Removing the dioxin in the floodplain soil and sediment removes the dangers to hunters and the wild game they eat.
• Clean it up and the wild game and fish consumption warning signs can be removed from our parks.
• My dioxin is your dioxin, It and the other contaminates are constantly moving downstream to other communities and the Great Lakes.
• Dow is required to plant trees of significant size to replace those removed . Trees are a renewable resource and constantly reseeding themselves. They will grow back.
• While removing trees is a temporary disruption, wildlife will move back in to their habitat.
• The large trees along the river have been disappearing for ages. As everyone who owns property on the river knows, mother nature regularly takes them down due to lighting, high winds, flooding, and erosion.
• Tree removal along the river is not a new concept. Check out the NW corner of Tittabawassee and Midland Rd.. Tittabawassee Township has not said a word about the clear cutting of a huge swath of riverside property to make way for an imaginary strip mall.
• The small amount of soil that might escape into the river during a controlled cleanup is infinitesimal small compared to the toxic brew that is being redistributed during our annual flooding events.

• A recent report by the Brooking Institute, "Great Lakes cleanup could generate $50 billion windfall" states "(Investing in cleanup) makes tremendous sense in terms of the economic strategy for our region and our country. These restoration activities aren't just nice things to do for the environment.". The report concludes that increased residential property values are the primary contributor to the windfall. An additional $30 billion would gained due to new job related activities.
• Contrary to what local bureaucrats are stating in the media, countless research studies by world renowned scientists implicate dioxin exposure as a health risk and have linked it to a wide array of adverse health effects including cancer, birth defects, diabetes, learning and developmental disorders, endometriosis, and immune system abnormalities.

• The U of M study constantly cited by the local media is suspect and has not undergone extensive peer review. Why are they withholding the data from the EPA?

• Once the river is cleaned, current and future generations will benefit. Can you imagine once again fishing, swimming, and boating in a local river without fear of harm? Can you imagine the prosperity the region might regain by restoring the river as a tourism magnet?

If one where to believe all the spin from Dow influenced local bureaucrats and media, dioxin is nothing to worry about. If you want the truth, look outside the Tri-cities and you will find the rest of the world is very concerned and is taking action to clean up sites with levels as low as 100 ppt. Some of us have over 1,000 times that much in our backyards. I will miss the trees. However, when the cleanup is complete I will have a much clearer view of a thriving and pristine river.

Gary Henry

Freeland Michigan