ELK RIVER MARINA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT--SUGGESTED COMMENTS
by John Crowder
The following subject matter is provided for those who wish to send
comments to TVA and/or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concerning the
proposed Elk River Marina. It is best to address the subject
matter and the substance of your concern in your own words, rather than
to use the text below verbatim. Also, it is not necessary for all
letters of comment to address all the points listed below. I
suggest that you select the areas of interest that you feel most
comfortable addressing and frame your letter around those.
o The very first area of
concern is the regrettable lack of specificity and quantification
concerning environmental amenities that would be lost with this
proposed development.
o It is simply not
possible, from the information provided in the Environmental Assessment
(EA) to form any confident conclusion as to just how much of the
91-acre tract would be cleared or otherwise altered. The EA
anticipates that the development will proceed in 5 phases, and it tells
us that, “The construction of the marina would create
approximately 5 acres of openings in the forest.” (Page
11). This initial clearing and related excavation are described
as being associated with “access road right-of-way, location of
maintenance building and marina parking areas.” (Page 6)
But these features are only the first phase of the proposed
development. There are other “resort components” to
follow in four successive phases. (Page 5, first paragraph) These
“resort components” include up to 200 spaces in an RV park,
camping areas, a ship’s store, a dry storage building,
playgrounds, an office and a “specialty restaurant…which
will offer catering to large rallies, reunions and church
groups.”(Appendix A, page 5)
TVA appears to have erroneously assumed that the 5 acres of initial
clearing and excavation--in the first of the proposed 5 phases--is the
totality of land clearing and excavation that would be involved in this
project. This error is plainly exemplified on page 14 of the EA
where, in considering potential impacts on Indiana bats, the EA states
that, “Considering that 5 acres of forested habitat would be
disturbed, the project is not expected to result in adverse impacts to
Indiana bats.” This conclusion clearly rests on the
incorrect premise that the 5 acres associated with the “initial
land clearing and excavation” (page 6, first “bullet”
item) constitute the totality of forested land to be cleared.
The first five acres of cleared land are associated with
development of the marina, but NOWHERE in the EA is it stated just how
much additional clearing of forest would be required to accommodate all
of the proposed development. NOWHERE in the EA is there any
information as to the size or locations of each of the other areas to
be cleared in each of the next four successive stages of the
development. NOWHERE in the EA is any ultimate limitation stated
as to the maximum permissible total area of forest that may be cleared
to accommodate all of the features in all of the five phases of the
proposed marina and resort. All the public is given, in the form
of any kind of assurance in these matters, is the developer’s
statement in his description of Phase III (page 4 of Appendix A), that
“…careful consideration will be given not to over crowd
this development, which would possibly harm the natural beauty that is
present there.”
Who decides how much “consideration” would be given to
protection of the “natural beauty?” Given the paucity
of detail in the EA, as now written, it would appear that the decision
as to how much forest to clear depends on how much and what kind of
“consideration” the developer would give to this
matter. “[C]onsideration” of this sort offers no
assurance to TVA, to the public, or to any other interest--other than
the developer--as to how much of the 91 acres of “100
percent forested” land (page 9, Section 3.1.1) in Tract
XWR-21PT would remain in forest cover upon completion of the
proposed project.
Nor is there any consolation in the commitment of TVA (Page 37, Section
3.13) to “…provide the applicant with visual management
practices to incorporate in the final design, which will be subject to
TVA approval.” It is abundantly clear, given the paucity of
detail in the EA, that there is no “final design” for this
project. Although details of the initial shoreline development
features are provided in the EA, the additional features of the
proposed Phases 2 through 5 are only conceptually sketched in this
document. With respect to these features, the EA provides, at
best, the opportunity to review and comment upon a development concept,
not a development plan. Absent the details of these additional
developmental features, including their locations and the extent of
forest alteration required for each, the reader of this EA has no
reasonable basis on which to anticipate and responsibly comment upon
the environmental impacts of TVA’s “preferred
alternative”
CONCLUSION: The EA, as currently written, is materially deficient
in that it fails to quantify the extent of destruction of mature
terrestrial forest land that would result if the “preferred
alternative” is implemented. This deficiency should be cured in a
revised EA to be submitted for public review and comment before any
final decision is reached on this application.
o A second general
area of concern is the cavalier manner in which the EA understates the
value of the mature forest resource of the 91-acre tract via the
rationale that “…there should be no significant impacts to
terrestrial plant communities since there are “no uncommon
terrestrial plant communities associated with the development.”
(Page 10)
Here, TVA, already having failed to describe the areal extent of
mature forest habitat that would be destroyed by construction of this
proposed project, seems to be saying that it does not, after all,
matter how much of the forest is cleared, since it does not sustain
“uncommon terrestrial plant communities.”
Since when is that which is not “uncommon” thus to be
relegated to environmental insignificance? Has TVA now decided
that its terrestrial forest lands are not of environmental significance
unless there are some “uncommon terrestrial plant
communities” associated with such lands? Are all of the
thousands of acres of mature terrestrial forest lands in the TVA
inventory to be regarded as environmentally insignificant unless they
are possessed of some “uncommon terrestrial plant
communities?” It is, of course, appropriate to provide a
higher degree of consideration to those elements of the environment
that are uncommonly encountered, such as endangered wildlife and
plants, or species associations of uncommon beauty or rarity. But
the absence of the uncommon does not reduce to a state of worthlessness
that which is not “uncommon.”
CONCLUSION: The EA fails not only to quantify the areal extent of
the mature terrestrial forest land that would be destroyed with
construction of the “preferred alternative,” but also,
without proffering any justification, denigrates the environmental
importance of such forest land by concluding that its loss would
constitute “no significant impacts to terrestrial plant
communities.” If, indeed, the loss of this
as-yet-undetermined quantity of terrestrial forest habitat is to be
adjudged insignificant, TVA should, at minimum, establish some rational
quantitative and qualitative threshold values by which the loss of such
forest lands would be found to be significant. Absent some such
standards, TVA’s conclusion of insignificance is speculative and
subjective.
o TVA’s
approval of this project would be contrary to the spirit of land
stewardship publicly expressed by its Board members.
The TVA Board of Directors recently voted to auction off 578 acres of
shoreline forest on Nickajack Reservoir, anticipating the purchase of
these lands by a developer who, in return, transfer 1,100 acres of
conservation lands to TVA for public use. In approving the proposal,
Chairman Bill Baxter pointed out that, “The most important
precedent that it sets is that there will be no net loss of public
lands.” Director Skila Harris applauded the proposal because it
will expand public lands for preservation and recreation. The proposed
marina and resort involve no such land swap as the TVA Board has
endorsed in the Nickajack transaction. There would, without
question, be a net loss of lands
dedicated to conservation (although regrettably, as pointed out above,
the extent of such loss is yet to be disclosed). In the
anticipated Nickajack transaction, the TVA land is to be conveyed in
fee, whereas with the Elk River Resort, the land would be made
available under long-term (30-year) renewable easement.
Irrespective of the legal instrumentality employed, the 91 acres
of TVA land would be alienated from the public domain into
private control, and would be reduced in environmental value, all
without mitigation in any way comparable to or consistent with that
which obtained in the Nickajack transaction.
Although there is a difference between acquisition in fee and a
grant of easement, the difference here is one that is largely formal
and artificial and without a distinction in terms of the central
concept and purpose saluted by the TVA Board, that of “no net
loss of public lands.” True, the 91 acres in Tract XWR-21PT
would remain in TVA ownership, but they would not be “public
lands” in any other substantive sense of that term. They
would be lands under sole control of a private operator, no longer
available without cost to the using public sector, including fishermen,
hunters, equestrians, hikers or others who now use and enjoy this truly
public land for recreation.
o The forest
resource of Tract XWR-21PT is described in the EA as “91 acres of
timber woodlands.” This resource, presumably, is
marketable, since the timber trees growing in these timber woodlands
are largely mature trees, suitable as fiber for the manufacture of
paper products and/or as saw timber. Presumably, TVA’s
corporate conservation ethic would dictate that such timber resources
would not be merely cleared and burned. Yet nothing is said in
the EA concerning the ultimate disposition of the merchantable timber
that would be removed during clearing of the (as-yet-undisclosed)
acreage that would be cleared for construction of developmental
features. Moreover, the EA does not address the disposition of
any funds that might result from sale of this timber. Would the
land developer receive, as an the ancillary financial benefit, the
proceeds of any such timber sales, or would TVA retain the right to
contract for sale and removal of this timber, with the proceeds being
made available for conservation or other public purposes? The EA
should forthrightly disclose the disposition of the harvested
merchantable timber from this tract, the financial beneficiary of any
such timber sold on the market, and the anticipated use of the monetary
proceeds resulting from any such commercial sale of this timber.
