***********************************


November 2, 2005     


Ms. Helen Rucker
Tennessee Valley Authority
400 West Summit Hill Drive
Knoxville, TN 37902-1499

Dear Ms. Rucker,

In Re: Elk River Marina Project.  Reference Draft Environmental Assessment, by the Tennessee Valley Authority, US Army Corp of Engineers, entitled “Elk River Resort, Proposed Recreation Easement and Marina Facilities, Wheeler Reservoir, Lauderdale County, Alabama” dated October 2005, posted on TVA web site.

Two weeks ago, I picked up my local paper, The Huntsville Times, October 18, 2005, edition, and saw an article, entitled “Some try to stop TVA land swap”, on page B1. And to my disbelief, I read that TVA is leasing the slough next to mine to a private developer, “Bubba” Doss.  I’ve owned Lot 30A, Pinedale Homes Estates for thirty years, and use it as my cabin-on-the-lake -- address, 250 Jennifer Circle, Rogersville, AL 35652.

I reviewed TVA’s Environmental Assessment of the Elk River Marina Project-- referenced in this local newspaper article -- at your website.  Enclosed are my issues with your Environmental Assessment, and my assessment of your Environmental Assessment -- the basis for my issues.

I’m sure TVA is here to serve the public, and I am sure TVA is interested in doing the right thing environmentally. However, based on my assessment of your Environmental Assessment, I have numerous issues.  And because of these issues, I herein raise my objection to the Elk River Marina Project. And, I am actively working to ensure its prompt disapproval.

Regards,


Thomas Gary Wicks


Enclosure:  My Issue Statements/My Assessments, 4 pages

cc:
a) Bill Baxter, Chairman, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 W. Summit Hill Dr, Knoxville, TN 37902-1499
b)  Skila Harris, Director, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 W. Summit Hill Dr, Knoxville, TN 37902-1499
c) Shoals Environmental Alliance, Inc., Rogersville Area Special Interest Group, P.O. Box 509, Rogersville, AL 35630


 
My Issue Statements/My Assessments of
TVA’s Environmental Assessment of the Elk River Marina Project

      by Thomas Gary Wicks


        Issue #1

a) Issue Statement on the Methodology Used in Your Assessment:
You posted your environmental assessment report on your website and called it an assessment, more specifically, an analysis of alternatives. It’s not an analysis of alternatives at all. An analysis of alternatives is an analysis of more than one option, and includes cost-benefit trade offs of each option. 

b) My Assessment of the Methodology Used in Your Assessment:
Why is your, TVA’s, gift of public land to a private developer the only alternative?  Where is the alternative that turns the land back over to the original owners you evicted and paid nothing for the land in the first place? Where is the alternative use for environmental purposes? Where is the alternative for sale to the general public for the general good of many people?  Further, where is your benefit analysis? Where is your cost analysis? Where is the cost- benefit trade off of alternatives?
And, lacking an analysis of alternatives, what is your basis and rational for a recommendation and decision?

         Issue #2

a) Issue Statement On Your Substantiating Your Assessment
You prepared a report and published it for, apparently, justification of your project.  The project/ report is ill-conceived, incomplete, inaccurate, insufficient, unsubstantiated, and ill-advised. And hence, justifies nothing.

b) My Assessment of Your Substantiating Your Assessment
For 30 years, I’ve fished the shoreline of the property you want to give to a private developer—every stump, every weed bed, every sandbar—I know this shoreline. For 30 years, I’ve boated and skied the waters in front of the property you want to give to a private developer—every wave, every log, every shallow. I know these waters. Your justification for another marina next to two marinas and a third new one going in, is convoluted logic and, on the contrary, argues convincingly against a fourth marina. Your watercraft traffic minimal impact statement is total fabrication and pure spin. Two hundred more boat slips from two more marinas added to two marinas with hundreds of boats already near the mouth of the Elk River, will not only add two hundred more boats, but will also add the hundreds of jets skis that the two hundred new boat owners will also own. Your assessment justifies nothing. On the contrary, your environmental assessment report makes the case for the default option -- do nothing.

                                                                                                  Enclosure, page 1 of 4




           Issue #3

a) Issue Statement On Your Assessment’s Ethics
You evicted the original owners of property from their land to build Wheeler Dam.  Now you are giving the land you took from the original owners to a private developer.

b) My Assessment of Your Assessment’s Ethics
From my property deed I know of the original owners of my property. You told them they had no choice but to leave the land you were taking from them because it was for the public good. Since you are giving the land you got for nothing from the original owners, to a private developer, you would be betraying the original owners that you evicted from their private land.  And now, selling their land for the personal gain of a private developer, not for the common good of all, as you told the original owners, adds insult to injury.





           Issue #4

a) Issue Statement On Your Assessment’s Economics
You have agreements with the private developer to share in the private developer’s profits for, in essence, giving away this public land to a private developer for his personal gain -- at a loss to adjacent property owners. 

b) My Assessment of Your Assessment’s Economics
There is no way your share of the private developer’s profit will ever amount to even a fraction of the market value of this public land. You exist to hold land in the government’s trust. I buy land, build a cabin, work 30 years to develop it, take care of it, improve it, abide by your construction and maintenance rules in good faith, and don’t cut a single tree to conform to your wishes. Now after thirty years I’m ready to retire to my cabin, and you are giving away these financially valuable natural resources which you’re supposed to hold in government trust, to a private developer.  My property declines, while your private developer gets fat. And TVA, and hence, the public looses.







                                                                                                   Enclosure, page 2 of 4





              Issue #5

a) Issue Statement On Your Assessment’s Consideration of Natural Environment
Your environmental assessment, ironically, insufficiently addresses the natural environment impact.

 b) My Assessment of Your Assessment’s Consideration of Natural Environment
You exist to protect the natural environment and preserve native land in its pristine condition. I follow county health rules for disposing of my waste, and I follow county health rules for my well water usage. But, you let a private developer build a marina with not even a plan for disposing of the marina’s waste, nor of maintaining the marina’s water quality.  Resultantly, my property will absorb the waste from the private developer’s property and my water will become polluted from the private developer’s water pollution. In other words, TVA land becomes a hazard to others’ personal health and safety, and becomes a nuisance to other’s properties. This outcome is assured, when an environmental assessment doesn’t even address the environmental impact.


                  Issue #6

a) Issue Statement On Your Assessment’s Consideration of Adjacent Property Owners
You publish a report on your website and hold one meeting in a local high school.  And that’s the extent of your communications to the adjacent property owners? Do you not want the people in the area around this project, who are most affected, to know about this project?

b) My Assessment of Your Assessment’s Consideration of Adjacent Property Owners
You didn’t inform this adjacent property owner of your project to give away public land to a private developer. You know each and every one of all the property owners in the sloughs adjacent to this public land. And you, TVA, have this adjacent property owner’s name, address and phone number on file at TVA. You have my boat house application on file at TVA.  You, TVA have letters from me on recent tornado damage on file at TVA. You, TVA also have my email address.  You, TVA know where my cabin is. You, TVA have put notes on my door before.  You, TVA have been to my cabin before, at my request. You, TVA know I am in the Rogersville phone directory. You, TVA know I am on record at the Lauderdale County tax collectors office. You, TVA know I am on file at the City of Florence Utilities. All these resources are available to you. And yet, you don’t mail a simple letter, don’t put a simple flyer on my door, you don’t make a simple phone call, and you don’t even send a simple email. Resultantly, this person, an adjacent land owner, is unaware of your intentions.

                                                                                                   Enclosure, page 3 of 4




             Issue #7

a) Issue Statement On Your Assessment’s Consideration of Accessibility
Your assessment unconditionally fails to address the accessibility of the public land you are giving to a private developer for personal gain.

b) My Assessment of Your Assessment’s Consideration of Accessibility
Barnett Road is a  two lane black-top country road for access by a few local residents and a few weekend cabin owners, and for access by a few local fishermen and occasional local small boaters to that local part of the Elk River, as a convenient alternate location boat launch to at least five other boat launches near by.  Barnett Road doesn’t get a lot of traffic because it’s a narrow, low-shoulder road, which traverses residential areas, industrial areas, and a stop sign. While negotiating Barnett Road one must carefully watch for children, dogs, other vehicles, and pedestrians.  I only use it occasionally for these reasons, and prefer the numerous other boat launches which are only a little further distance. The notion that Barnett Road will service a one hundred boat marina is inconceivable.  I can’t imagine a string of RV’s, sailboats, mobile homes, SUVs, Off Road vehicles, yachts, bass boats, autos, campers, etc, up and down Barnett Road at all hours of the day and night. Similarly, and equally preposterous, is  the idea of an alternate connecting access road from Jennifer Circle, in Pinedale Homes Estates -- the location of my cabin -- to the proposed property usage as a marina. The property’s continuing existence as a surviving natural preserve is explained by the property’s isolation and inaccessibility. You publish an environmental assessment that doesn’t address the acute lack of accessibility for a marina project you are proposing, nor any practical solutions, while leaving the unsolved accessibility issues for others.
 

Issue #8

a) Issue Statement  On Your Assessment’s Consideration of Social Impacts
Your assessment is void of the true social impacts of this project, which is the increased threat to the security and safety of the adjacent property owners.

b) My Assessment of Your Assessment’s Consideration of Social Impacts
Private camping areas have developed into nothing more than shanty towns when the private owners of the cabins and campsites get into financial trouble. In the off season, the price reduces, and in comes the migrant workers, vagrants, and generally undesirables. Drug activity turns the cabins and campsites into meth labs. Theft of property from local boathouses and homes increases. Your assessment does not acknowledge social impacts in your environmental assessment, which relegates people to last in the assessment’s prioritizations.


                                                                                                     Enclosure, page 4 of 4

***********************************


Helen G. Rucker, NEPA Administration
Tennessee Valley Authority
400 West Summit Hill Dr. WT 9C
Knoxville, TN 37902
E-mail: hgrucker@tva.gov

Dear Ms. Rucker:

I am writing to you in order to make comment on the Draft Environmental Assessment, issued by Tennessee Valley Authority and U.S. Army corps of Engineers, regarding the request by Gilbert "Bubba" Doss for a long-term easement on 91 acres of TVA property on the Elk River for the purpose of developing a commercial marina and related facilities.
I oppose the granting of this easement to Mr. Doss for a variety of reasons. I feel that this property is a more valuable asset to the public if left in its present state.

I also believe that the Draft Environmental Assessment is substantially deficient, inaccurate, and lacking in specifics in numerous regards. In my opinion, these deficiencies make meaningful comment by the public impossible. I urge TVA to revise the EA and resubmit it to the public for comment before reaching a final decision on this proposal.
Applicant’s Proposal to Lease

On page 1 of the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) it is stated that TVA "is considering a request for a 30-year easement" by Mr. Doss, but in Appendix A-Application Package, on its page 12, we read the following: "Elk River Resort will acquire Parcel 21 from TVA under a term easement agreement for a 40-year period"  Which is it, a 30-year easement or a 40-year easement? If TVA has mitigated Mr. Doss’ request for a 40-year lease and is only allowing a 30-year lease, why is it not listed with other mitigations on page 37 of the DEA?

Mr. Doss has proposed making payment at the rate of 5% of gross sales, which he estimates (in Phase I & II) to be $17,500.00 (at 50% occupancy.)  Does this mean that until the completion of Phase I & II there will be no payments to TVA?  Other than the statement, "Construction time required for Phase I would be approximately 6 months", there is no timetable indicated.

Phase III is mentioned to occur in "2008, or as required by demand." This sounds pretty vague to me. What if construction is delayed for a substantial period of time? Does that mean that TVA receives no payments on the lease of this public land? Would a private company lease a valuable piece of property with no guarantee of income?

Has TVA had Tract 21 appraised in order to determine the real estate value of the property? If not how can TVA make a valid judgment about whether this lease is a responsible use of public land?

If economic considerations are to be weighed against the possible negative environmental impacts that will result from this development, shouldn’t the public have the right to review and comment on the economic agreement between TVA and Mr. Doss? All we have in the DEA is Mr. Doss’ rather vague proposal. I was told at the TVA Open House on October 18 that the final economic agreement was still being calculated. That being the case, how can the public even make serious comment in this regard yet?

On Page 12 of his proposal to lease, Mr. Doss states, "The value of making this land available to the public should be considered a large amount of compensation to TVA." I disagree with this statement. The public already has free access to this property. If the resort is built, access will be restricted to paying customers.  Public access is currently available several ways: Walking from Barnett landing, via TVA Tract No. 22. Walking from Lakeview Drive.  By boat.

Some of the drawings in Mr. Doss’s proposal show three docks containing boat slips and a fuel dock on the upstream side. Other drawings show four docks containing boat slips with the fuel dock on the downstream side. Which are correct?

Deforestation of the Site

On page 9 the DEA states, "The project area is 100 percent forested." I found this to be true.
On page 11 the DEA states, "The construction of the marina would create approximately 5 acres of openings within the forest." This statement is grossly inaccurate and appears to be the result of sloppiness, negligence, and a lack of attention by the preparers of this DEA.

Where did this 5 acres figure come from? On page 6 the DEA states that "The applicant’s proposed action includes the following environmental measures: Initial land clearing and excavation for access road right-of-way, location of maintenance building, and marina parking areas would directly affect approximately 5 acres on Tract XWR-21PT."
So, this five acres estimate comes from Mr. Doss, not TVA, and it only covers his access road, maintenance building and marina parking areas.

This five acres sounds like a reasonable estimate for those features, but since the whole tract is forested, additional land will have to be cleared for the rest of the development.  This additional development will include 200 RV campsites, four bathhouses ("A modern bathhouse with hot showers will service each 50 campsites."), an office/maintenance building (3,750 square feet), access to fishing piers, boat ramp, boat slips, and other marina facilities, a large dry storage building, play grounds, hiking trails, a chalet/restaurant, an unknown number of cabins, clearance for power lines & water lines, and clearings for septic tanks with drain fields to accommodate all of this. Mr. Doss’ proposal also states, regarding the RV parks, "Most sites will have river views." Will this entail even more tree clearing?

Why did the preparers of this DEA rely on this estimate of initial clearing and excavation by the applicant, instead of working up their own? And why did they then decide that this five acres figure was the full extent of forest clearing?
We see this erroneous five acres figure used again on page 14 of the DEA with this statement: "Considering that 5 acres of forested habitat would be disturbed, the project is not expected to result in adverse impacts to Indiana Bats." The forest habitat is not the only thing disturbed here. It’s disturbing to me that those in charge of preparing this DEA accepted this kind of slip-shod reportage.

Two things seem glaringly apparent to me:

1) No one at TVA has any idea how many acres of forest will be cleared in order to develop the Elk River Resort.
2) No one at TVA has even tried to ascertain how many acres of forest will be cleared.

With this in mind, a reasonable person might have cause to doubt other findings in the DEA concerning environmental impacts of the proposed development. For instance, consider this statement, concerning potential bald eagle nesting trees, "Some of these trees may have to be cut during the construction of the marina and associated facilities, though many suitable nesting trees would remain on the project site." Really? How can that be determined with any certitude, since no one at TVA knows or made any attempt to estimate the total amount of forest to be cleared?

After the developer "clear cuts" broad swaths of trees (a necessity in building the various resort amenities), what effect will these "clear cuts" have on the remaining forest? This "clear cutting’ will significantly increase the "edge effect," i.e. edge species of flora & fauna will flourish while forest species will decline, sun loving exotics will flourish, an increase in light and wind conditions will have a drying effect on the adjacent forest, adversely affecting many species, trees will become more susceptible to damage from strong winds, etc. This subject is not mentioned in the DEA, possibly owing to the fact that the full extent of deforestation is not known.

All we get in the DEA concerning impact to plants is this statement, "Under the Action Alternative, there should be no significant impacts to terrestrial plant communities since there is no uncommon terrestrial plant communities associated with the development."

This makes no sense to me. Does TVA mean to say that as long as a forest contains no uncommon plants, developers can have their way with it? That viable wildlife habitat is not important unless rare or endangered flora is involved?
On page 11 of the DEA we find the following statement: "There is no potential for this project, as described, to contribute to the spread of exotic or invasive terrestrial plant species." I beg to differ. There is a certain amount of Chinese Privet, an exotic invasive, on this property. It is on the DEA’s plant list in Appendix C. I, along with many others, have observed the exponential growth of this species when forestland is opened up and more sunlight is let in. Has TVA considered this problem and will appropriate measures be taken to control the privet and other exotics when the deforestation occurs? Apparently not, hence the DEA’s finding of "no potential" in this regard. Is this finding a result of the mistaken belief that "the marina development would [only] create approximately 5 acres of openings within the forest"?

Wetlands

Although the DEA states that the two wetlands will not be developed, I feel there will be negative impacts to them as a result of this project. The various resort facilities in close proximity to these wetlands (dry storage building, RV campsites, cabins, chalet/restaurant, roads) will all entail the clearing of forest. How will the associated "edge effect," (increased sun, wind & drying of flora) impact the wetlands? How will the noise pollution from boat traffic, cabin and RV air conditioners, etc., affect the wildlife therein?

Plant List

The Plant List in Appendix C is labeled, "Plant List of Species Observed on August 3, 2005." How is it possible to come to the conclusion that "there should be no significant impact to terrestrial plant communities", if the plant survey was done on August 3? What about spring ephemerals? I urge TVA to do additional plant surveys this spring before making a final decision about this project.

Terrestrial Ecology (Animals)

Was any kind of serious survey conducted to determine what animals inhabit this property? In section 3.1.3. [Terrestrial Ecology (Animals)] of the DEA, much of the description is of the generic, boilerplate type, not actual observations of the site.

For example, on page 11, after noting that there is oak/hickory forest habitat on site, a long list of birds and other wildlife that can be typically found in this type forest is recited. Only a few species are mentioned as actually being seen on the site, about what you might expect to see on a one-time, casual walk through the property of a few hours duration.
Were there any serious, attempts to assess what animals inhabit this site, using established scientific methods? If so, why are they not described? If no methodical assessments were conducted, how can the public possibly make meaningful comment in this regard?

Concerning Indiana Bats, the DEA, on page 14, states, "Although some potential roost trees of moderate quality exist on the site, the overall habitat ranks as poor for Indiana bats. Considering that 5 acres of forested habitat would be disturbed, the project is not expected to result in adverse impacts to Indiana bats."
The five acres figure, as we have already seen, is quite incorrect. I also take exception to the assertion that "the overall habitat ranks as poor for Indiana bats."

In contrast to this statement, on page 13 the DEA states that Indiana bats "form summer roosts under the bark of living and dead trees. Their summer roosts are found in forests with an open understory, usually near water." Much of this site does have an open understory and it is obviously near water. Additionally, the plant list in Appendix C of the DEA confirms that there are seven tree species on this site that Indiana bats use for summer maternity roosts. They are Green ash, Northern red oak, Sassafras, Shagbark hickory, Silver maple, Slippery elm and White oak. The Shagbark hickory, a particular favorite of Indiana bats, is quite bountiful on this site.

Bearing all this in mind, the assertion that "the overall habitat ranks as poor for Indiana bats" is curious to me. I would like to ask TVA this: Have you actually done a survey, using approved scientific methods, to determine whether Indiana bats, an endangered species, use this site or not, or are you content to just make subjective statements, despite evidence to the contrary, about "overall habitat" ranking poor?

On page 14 the DEA states, "Habitat for green salamanders…is nonexistent on the property." I guess this refers to the fact that these salamanders are generally found in sandstone ledge crevices, which aren’t on site, but they also use rocks, rotting trees, and stumps as habitat. This site has plenty of these elements. Again, has TVA done a methodical survey to assess whether green salamanders are present or is their finding of "habitat…nonexistent" based on a "guess-timate" by someone after a cursory walk across the property?
 
Concerning Alligator snapping turtles, on page 14 the DEA states, "Alligator snapping turtle habitat does occur in the Elk and Tennessee Rivers." Nevertheless, it finds that "The proposed project is not likely to result in adverse impacts to this species." Once more, a finding of no adverse impact (although it is qualified with the phrase "not likely") without any evidence to back it up and no mention of any attempt to actually look for this protected species. TVA’s Recreational Development Goal.

In TVA’s 1995 Wheeler Reservoir Land Management Plan, page 105-106, we find the following statements: "Presently there are two major resorts operating on Wheeler Reservoir-Joe Wheeler State Resort Park and Lucy’s Branch Resort."  "The greatest need for additional marina and resort development is near the two largest metropolitan areas, Huntsville and Decatur."

"During the tract evaluation process, TVA Recreation staff ranked the land capability for Tract No. 21 as excellent, but the suitability was considered poor because the location is so close to two existing resort operations." [The very same "major resorts" mentioned earlier] "Therefore, the tract was requested by Recreation as a medium land need tract. The planning team recognizes the public could be better served if all three resort operations were not located on the same side of the reservoir and within 6 miles (10 km) of each other."

What has happened to make TVA change its mind in this regard? Why is the "Action Alternative" now the "Preferred Alternative"?

TVA has been inundated with comments questioning why local residents have to have their lives and their neighborhood disrupted, why this fully forested 91 acre tract supporting a variety of wildlife has to be decimated, and why spawning beds local fishermen describe as "their favorite fishing hole" have to be dredged, all to build an unnecessary marina and resort complex in a location that TVA itself thought was unsuitable ten years ago. It’s all very curious.

Location of Proposed Marina

Indicative of the general sloppiness of this DEA is this statement from page 9, "Tract XWR-21PT is located on the west bank of the Elk River approximately 0.5 mile upstream from wheeler Reservoir" and this one from page 33, "This site, containing approximately 91 acres, is located on the west bank of the Elk River approximately 0.5 mile upstream from Wheeler Reservoir."

Both of these references to the location are wrong. The site is 1.5 miles from Wheeler Reservoir, not 0.5. This can be confirmed by consulting Map No. 1 in the 1995 Wheeler Reservoir land management Plan. At least Mr. Doss gets it right on page 16 of his Proposal to Lease, "Parcel 21 is approximately 92 acres of timber woodlands located on the west bank of the Elk River about 1.5 miles upstream from Wheeler Lake on the Tennessee River."

List of Agencies and Persons Consulted

On page 39 of the DEA, under List of Agencies and Persons Consulted we find the name of Mr. James W. Ware, Director, Department of Environmental Management, Montgomery, Alabama. This is odd since, I believe, Mr. Doss made application in late May, 2005, and Mr. Onis "Trey" Glenn III became director of ADEM on February 1, 2005. Aquatic Species

Has TVA made any attempt to determine what aquatic species are found in the river adjacent to this site and how they will be affected by the proposed dredging? On October 16 divers found five species of mussel in the immediate vicinity of the proposed dredging. Has TVA ascertained what mussels might be affected by this dredging? I know that Alabama’s State Malocologist, Jeff Garner, was not consulted. Why not? A talk I had recently with a professional biologist confirmed what local fishermen have been saying: This section of the Elk River is one of the richest fisheries in the area and spawning beds in the immediate vicinity of the dredging could be adversely affected. Has TVA done a survey in the vicinity of the proposed dredging to determine what types of fish spawn there and whether the dredging or the daily operations of the marina might adversely affect them? 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Draft Environmental Assessment,

Charles L. Rose


****************************
Back to SEA Elk River Marina Page


7 Nov 2005

Dear Ms. Rucker, Mr. Baxter and Ms. Harris:

It is with a deep sense of futility that I write to you.  Many people have  told me that it is simply no use to attempt contact with you because TVA will  ignore the concerns of the people.  The prime example of that attitude is  located just east of the Elk River Bridge on US Highway 72.  It is the wreck of the  old Wheeler granary that was erected there some years ago; also over the  objections of many residents of the area.  That eyesore was abandoned within a year  of it's construction after it blew up and polluted the area with the stink of  burning corn for several weeks.

My husband and I were part of a flotilla protesting the new marina some weeks  ago and were quoted in a story that was picked up by the AP wire service.  I  received comments from friends all over the country who read the story and  wondered why we are still trying to protect the beauty of our area when Big  government has not cared about it for at least the past 30 years that we have lived  here.  The answer is found in the story--our grandchildren.  Should they not  have the opportunity to know the river as we know it without extreme  congestion and poorly conceived, poorly planned development that will threaten  wildlife, destroy natural habitats and wetlands?

I urge you to deny the request for this river.


****************************

Nov. 7, 2005

For more than 30 years my family and I have been permanent residents at mile
marker 10 on Elk River.  You might wonder why being 8 1/2 miles up river from
the proposed site of this marina should we care.  How could a marina so far
down river possibly effect my family and me?  Admittedly, when we first moved
here, we were young and fun loving, looking upon the river as our playground. 
We took hardly any interest in the June 14, 1972, announcement by the EPA
Administrator when he made the final cancellation of all remaining crop uses of the
pesticide DDT.  In our youthful innocence we were not aware that "our river"
had been poisoned by cropland runoff of DDT. We didn't notice that there was
hardly any waterfowl.  About the only wild land animal we ever spotted were
squirrels and rabbits.

What, you ask, does any of this have to do with the proposed marina?  You
would point out to me that this is a completely different issue having no bearing
on the proposal at hand.  But, I would say to you there is most definitely a
connect, if you will allow me a moment to explain.  My family back then was
among a handful of permanent residents on Elk River.  We owned the river since
there was little river traffic.  There were no bassboats as we know them today.
 Jet skis were practically nonexistent.  Pontoons could be counted on one
hand.

In the intervening years and as we matured, we began to notice these strange
water fowl that in their migratory flight were visiting our river.  As time
marched on, the number of different species of waterfowl increased.  Then we
began to notice that more and more of these beautiful creatures were using the
Elk as their summer home.  Some had even taken up permanent residence on this
river.  There were rumors that a Bald Eagle had been spotted; another said he
had seen a two river otters playing; others spoke of beavers, no, not on Elk
River?

Now there are an abundance of these wonderful wild creatures.  While DDT no
longer poses a threat to the waterfowl and water animals, the water that they
make their home is becoming more and more polluted by the emissions from the
ever increasing river traffic.  The once serene river now suffers from noise
pollution.  There are now bass boats and jet skis that can fly over these waters
faster than any duck.  There are dozens of pontoons and runabouts.  The river
is once again faced with a different dilemma -- heavy river traffic and its
polluting emissions and noise.  How much longer will these water creatures hang
on as their home becomes less health and more invaded?

I've watched as more and more undisturbed forest land is bulldozed away and
home after home is built.  Land animals are being displaced in the name of
progress from the only home they have ever known.  They are becoming surrounded by
progress with no avenue of escape available to them.

Your EA personnel have reported that none of that which Mr Doss proposes
building will have any impact on this river.  Dr Thomas Haggerty, a noted
terrestrial and behavioral ecologist whose publications are studied for their factual
content by his peers and college students, states in a November 6, 2005,
letter to Ms Rucker that he is dismayed by the methods used by your EA teams and
their findings.  He innumerates in his letter the lack of effort by the EA team
again and again.  He points out the ineptness and lack of knowledge of these
alleged experts.

Common sense alone should be enough to show that a project of this size
cannot but have a tremendous impact.  The waters surrounding this marina will
become fouled and polluted by the concentration of emissions of those who use its
facilities.  The undisturbed land will be raped and in its place will come
parking lots, RV camp sites, buildings of various purposes and the expansion will
continue.  And the irony of it all is that the marina is not needed.  Within
few minutes to the East and to the West are large, well established marinas.

My family and I, as well as hundreds of others who live on this beautiful
river ask that you deny this application.

****************************
Back to SEA Elk River Marina Page


11/6/05

Dear Sirs,

The homeowners who live on Elk River and those who appreciate the beauty of Elk River are greatly opposed to the massive and destructive construction of a marina on the Elk.  This is public land, and it is supposedly not to be leased to a private developer for financial gain.  Those who are familiar with the Elk still have to deal with the monster of the concrete granary that stares at all who pass like a huge ugly ghost protruding from the trees, all allowed by TVA. 

The main issues are the great environmental destruction that the development will bestow on the shoreline.  Gensing has been found in the area.  Biologists have found mussels that are at least nine years old.  This is a fish spawning area which will be totally destroyed.  I just cannot imagine the number of trees that will have to be cut down.  Water quality will be a great concern.  The river is already in a sick green, murky and fragile condition.  Another issue is the watercraft congestion.  I know that you did some vague study, but those of us who live there know first hand how crowded the river is with watercraft recreation NOW.  In addition, the proposed marina is in the curve of the river very close to the Tennessee River and across from another marina.  This is not a wide area and visibility is hampered by the curve of the channel. 

Please, please come visit and talk with the neighbors who surround this marina.  Please, Directors come visit the area and talk with us.  We can show you the issues.  We like the Native Indian cry for the river and for the wildlife, fish and birds who face  destruciton of their habitat.

****************************

Nov. 6, 2005

I attended the public scoping meeting at Lauderdale County High School  and made a written comment. I am writing again to make sure that my concerns  are heard.

     I am disturbed that TVA in the environmental assesment makes light of  undeveloped property that has no endangerd species. It is important for the  local traditions of hunting and fishing and also for aesthetic and cultural value  that we preserve natural habitat. Every piece of property that is develped  only serves to encourage further development.

       Another marina in this area is not needed and it is obvious that the  amount of activity at a marina at this proposed site would discourage wildlife  activity.. I  have seen over the past 20 years around my own home how  woodpeckers, owls and other species of wildlife have disappeared as development has  encroached, This is not rocket science.

      Please do not allow the political sway of the board to encourage an  agenda that puts privatizing ahead of stewardship and sound scientific practices.  I feel that the biologists involved , in order to protect their jobs were  "selling out".  It is obvious from the environmental assesement that much  important information was left out and the entire document was done in haste. There  is no clear plan for exactly how this develoment will be carried out. This sets  a poor precedent for other such proposed develoments.

    The character of the Teneessee River Corrider must not be comprimised for  the good of a few that stand to profit from the use of public property. We  depend on TVA to take a stand and protect these remaining lands as if they were  a national park. Economic gains from bird trails are in jeapordy from  continuing development. THESE LANDS ARE OUR LANDS AND MUST NOT BE TURNED OVER TO THOSE  WHO EXPLOIT THEM FOR PERSONAL GAIN, WIldlife is dependent on unbroken habitat.  Your scientists know this. It is shameful that your biologists must say  things they know are wrong to maintain their positions. Please do not allow this  development. Please do not sell off or lease out TVA lands at the expense of the  public to which they belong and the species which depend of them for their  suvival.

****************************

11/6/05

To All Concerned,

     I am 21 years old and am a student at UNA. I  feel very grateful to have grown up in an area with such abundant natural  beauty.  Soon I will be choosing a career and I will consider where I want to live.   I am disturbed by the rampant sprawl in the Shoals area, and I am also  concerned about the river's edge looking like one long strip mall.  Although TVA  asserts that this proposed development will have no significant impact, I  strongly disagree.  It should be the mission of TVA not to bend in favor of  development, but to preserve the last remaining natural areas along the Tennessee  River corridor.   Furthermore, after looking at the environmental  assessment, there are many questions that remain unanswered about this development.   To allow a private development on this site in this fashion is a hasty decision  and does not hold up to pure scientific reasoning. 

    What is apparent is that politics now take precidence over science.   Although this piece of land was designated in 1995 for "commecial development,"  this proposed marina would be devastating to the surrounding natural habitats. 

    It is a sad day when natural habitats must be deemed "important" only if  they harbor endangered species of flora and fauna.  Basic elementary science  students know a simple fact: fragmentation and loss of habitat are the number  one cause of extinction of a species.  This scenario reminds me of the old  saying: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I do not appreciate being  the next in line to inherit the consequences resulting from bad decisions  made by those on the TVA board.

Please do not allow the proposed development of the Elk River Marina!

****************************
Back to SEA Elk River Marina Page


11/2/05

Dear TVA:

Please accept this letter as a follow up and as additional comments to my prior letters to TVA officials concerning "Elk River Resort". My previous letter was to be my last letter to you prior to the November 7, 2005 deadline. New information keeps surfacing to add to the concerns and opposition of the proposed marina/campsites.

As my prior letters indicate, it is my contention that a new marina is entirely unnecessary and that it would have a devastating effect on our community as a whole. I stressed to you that another marina and campground is not needed due to the fact that there are two huge marinas/resorts less than 10 minutes away in either direction from the Elk River site. As part of our meeting on October 18, 2005, we observed the explosion of private development for miles in any direction from the proposed Elk River Resort. We observed the most recent private development, "The Pointe", directly across Elk River from the proposed marina. Within five miles of the proposed marina is Bay Hill. When the "Wheeler Reservoir Land Management Study" was done ten years ago, Bay Hill was "Lucy’s Branch Marina", a rather small operation. We observed that it is now a huge development that continues to grow and consume what was once miles of beautiful, undisturbed shoreline.

In addition, Joe Wheeler Park, a huge marina, lodge, and RV Park, is just downstream on the same side of Wheeler Lake. Please also note that the Tennessee River channel for commercial boat travel and other boats traveling through our area is closer to the opposite shore from these marinas. There are no marinas on that shoreline. Three marinas so close together, all on the same side of the reservoir, and all on the opposite side of the river from boat travel would not appear to be prudent.

It has recently come to my attention that your study in 1995 did, in fact, recognize that another marina in this area would become a problem Quoting from Page 105 and 106 of "Wheeler Reservoir Land Management Plan" your study states concerning Tract 21: "suitability was considered poor because the location is so close to two existing resort operations. Therefore, the tract was requested by Recreation as a medium land need tract. The planning team recognizes the public could be better served if all three resort operations were not located on the same side of the reservoir and within 6 miles of each other".

Another marina, with potential additional development on adjacent property, will be unfair to those of us who live here. It will be contrary to TVA’s "blended" approach to shoreline development and contrary to TVA’s own Reservoir Management plans. There is no legitimate reason to allow this property to be destroyed for the sake of one private developer versus over 220 residences currently within close proximity of the site.

Another issue that must be addressed is the "Reservoir Operations Study" that TVA completed recently. As part of that study, TVA did a random phone survey of 3,600 residents in the Power Service Area. The top priority identified by the telephone participants was "protecting the environment (32 percent)." TVA asked the public what was important and they reported that it was protecting the environment. As my neighbors and I have stressed so much to you in our opposition to the proposed marina, our area is already fully developed. If this happens, it will be contrary to TVA’s own development plans and contrary to TVA’s own "Reservoir Operations Study". Again, there is no legitimate reason for TVA to allow that property to be given away to the detriment of so many people.

A third issue that came up recently is the fact that the vicinity of the proposed marina is habitat and home for so many Mussels. Local divers did an underwater survey in the proposed dredging area. The operation was supervised by a microbiologist from Athens State University. They found at least fives species of Mussels. They found living mussels up to 9 years old. They were huge. Again, these were found in the exact place that dredging is planned and shells were found all up and down the shoreline. We found numerous shells just walking the shoreline. A local resident who has experience diving in this area for many years indicated that in past years there have been thousands of pounds of Mussels located in that area. Just a reminder, TVA allowed the developer at "The Pointe" directly across Elk River to dredge out an entire slough. It was a prime spawning area for fish. The dredging in this project will be another prime spawning area. It should be noted that the prior dredging was done without any input from the public and with no regard to those of us who live here. It is time for TVA Officials to do something for those of us who live here.

It should also be noted that the developer at the "The Pointe" has already built a huge private community "boat slip". It goes well over one-half way from one shoreline to the opposite shoreline directly across from it. It more or less blocks access to the rest of the public. TVA’s regulations stipulate that the distance of a proposed new structure shall not exceed more than one-third of a particular body of water it crosses. The developer’s plans call for four to five more community "boat slips". How can TVA justify the abuse they have already allowed of Elk River, much less another marina to satisfy a private developer?

My prior letter indicated that it would be the last of my comments. There are so many issues that continue to surface that I must leave my options open to bring further issues to your attention.

TVA should now recognize that the Environmental Assessment did not properly address the overwhelming impact that two large developments, (The Pointe and the Proposed Elk River Resort) separated only by a small body of water, will have on the adjacent family community.

We realize that the board will attempt to make a difficult decision that is fair for all parties concerned. We only ask that the board consider the hundreds of lives that will be detrimentally impacted versus that of one entrepreneur who "has a dream". We feel that the board in it’s common sense knows that such a large proposed operation cannot but have a detrimental effect to the ecology and environment. Your denial of Mr. Doss’s application will be most appreciated by the Elk River family, both human and wildlife.

Sincerely,


****************************
Back to SEA Elk River Marina Page


Dear Sirs,

After reading the environmental assessment on the proposed project for an Elk River Marina, there are several issues that seemed significant to me that were continuously labeled or deemed to be "insignificant" in the environmental draft.  The first issue is the lack of detail in the construction development.  Take the quote from the assessment, "Shoreline stabilization, if properly implemented should protect the immediate harbor area from excessive erosion."  What does properly implemented include, why isn't that spelled out in more detail?  Who will supervise/monitor to make sure that approved methods to stop soil erosion will be performed?

In the assessment it is stated that 2,700 cubic yards of material will have to be dredged for the dry storage forklift.  This also will destroy the spawning area of the shoreline.  In addition, it is stated that this area has highly erodible soils.  This much dredging will have a destructive impact on the entire area and will change the natural beauty of the site.

The third issue is the terrible deforestation.  As stated in the assessment, " The project area is 100 percent forested."  The assessment mentions that 5 acres will be impacted by the conversion of woodlands into the sites for the resort camps, roads and RV sites.  What about the additional proposed phases of the development. What is the estimate/count of the numbers of trees that will be eliminated?  The loss of the trees and the herbaceous layer will lead greatly to further pollutants and erosion.

 What will happen to the resort when and if the water is declared too polluted for swimmers and water recreation?  The quality of the river water is in jeopardy even at this point.  It is dirty and murky. I know, I have a home on the Elk.  I have even seen a refrigerator floating down the river.  How is that view of the river going to look at the resort?  The water quality has already been impacted.  The resort will further contaminate the water with even more runoff, leakage of fuel, untreated waste and just plain trash. 

Take another quote, "Proper design, construction, and operation of the proposed marina development are not expected to result in significant increases in reservoir pollutant, nutrient, or fecal coliform bacteria levels."  This statement certainly doesn't relieve the worries of pollution!  Who determines proper design in this area of soil prone erosion to prevent pollution?  How many perk tests have been performed?  What about sewage leakage?  None of these questions/concerns have been answered with any detail to ensure the pristine forested and river area will be safe guarded.

Another issue is the extension of the docks out into the water.  This is in addition to another private marina almost directly across from the proposed marina, and I saw no consideration of this traffic included in the assessment.  I understand in the assessment that the harbor limits have been reduced to 550 feet from the shoreline.  With the curve of the Elk River at this point,  visibility of other watercraft becomes a problem with speed, safety and congestion.  I know, I have a home on the Elk.  There are many days that water recreation safety already becomes a problem, and watercraft owners will not launch their boats because of the congestion and speed of the watercrafts.  Just a little personal note,  I spoke to a jet ski owner the other day who couldn't wait to get his new jet ski out on the Elk River because it goes "80 miles an hour!"

Security at the resort is another ignored issue/aspect of this development. The assessment states that "a caretaker will be on site at all times during normal and seasonally extended business hours to supervise activities."  There should be a caretaker/manager on this massive destructive development to provide security from the many problems that will be created for the homeowners and the surrounding community year round!  Security for this massive development has not been reviewed or completely addressed by the developer or TVA.  The community will be placed in an insecure situation. 

This TVA donation of public land to a private developer is not for the benefit of the people.  The area described in the 1995 TVA Land Management Plan has changed drastically in the last ten years.  Population has increased and much of the shoreline area has disappeared with construction.  Where is the supposed stewardship of this land.  Please do not destroy a beautiful area with additional sprawl and environmental destruction.  The resort is a massive plan detrimentally affecting the natural beauty, habitat and community of the area.  Once done there is no reversal.


 ****************************

The TVA Reservoir Operations Study – Final Programmatic EIS, Section 1.6  reports the results of an extensive TVA commissioned telephone survey showing that Stakeholders clearly consider conservation their top priority. Yet, review of TVA actions during the past several years show a preponderance of those actions favor of commercial developments. When will conservation actions begin to match your rhetoric?

****************************

Back to SEA Elk River Marina Page


We are a group of neighbors who live in close proximity to a proposed development on public land. TVA is considering an "easement" which would allow a private developer to build a large marina, cabins, campsites, a restaurant and a substantial storage building on approximately 91 acres of forest and wetlands on Elk River. This property, once classified by TVA as "Recreational," was reclassified as "Commercial Recreation" in 1995. It is the last parcel of undeveloped land for miles in either direction. We believe that TVA’s emphasis and reliance on this 10-year-old study is entirely unfounded and inaccurate.

For three months, we have voiced our objections to this proposal. We collected 259 signatures on our petition. During the comment period, almost 100 individuals wrote TVA opposing the marina, versus 19 who wrote in support of the applicant.

To help make the public aware of our concerns, we held a town hall rally, a nature walk on the property, and we wrote letters to the editor. We sponsored a "flotilla" so the public could actually see what we’re trying to protect. We wanted the public to realize that they have convenient, free access to this property and that it is available to all, even without the marina being built.

We believe that with 7 boat ramps within a 6-mile span of Elk River, a State Park at Elk River Bridge, a huge marina and RV Park at Bayhill  (5 minutes from the proposed site) and Joe Wheeler State Park (10 minutes away on First Creek), public access for water recreation and use of public lands in this area is already quite abundant.

Anyone who has opposed an action by a huge bureaucracy such as TVA should understand that one individual has no chance to be heard. We had to band together to even be recognized by TVA. We were fortunate to find an existing organization to guide us in our efforts. Shoals Environmental Alliance was formed about four years ago for a similar purpose. They opposed another major land give- away, when TVA considered granting an easement on almost 1,000 acres to another private developer.  Remember the golf course?

The recent Environmental Assessment (EA) of the proposed marina project indicates that the exact amount of compensation to TVA is unknown.  The developer has proposed that TVA receive 5% of his gross sales which he estimates would be a paltry $17,000 a year or less. Would you lease 91 acres of waterfront land to someone for 30 years at $17,000 a year? We believe that TVA is simply giving it away.
 
Three engineers reviewed TVA’s EA on our behalf. They noted that it has a regrettable lack of specificity; it is materially deficient in that it fails to quantify the extent of the destruction of the forest, and there are no contingency plans whatsoever should the developer fail. There is no plan as to what happens when the lease terminates. They also point out that TVA’s conclusions are speculative and subjective.
     
So why are we so upset? Because this is the last of it. There will be no undeveloped property left.  People here are still upset about TVA’s involvement in the failed granary upstream; its dilapidated structures still remain on the shoreline.
  
Another item ignored by TVA is Barnett Road. There are 51 homes on this narrow, hilly, road. We know of no other major marina/campground that uses a similar entrance road.  Must we put local residents in danger just for a marina?

There are numerous safety concerns. This area is remote. There are no security guards and no gated entrance proposed. The Rogersville Police Department, TVA Police, and the Sheriff’s Department are all too far away and understaffed to patrol such a project.

The stakeholders opposing this project have provided TVA with ample evidence that the site was a significant dwelling place for Native Americans. There are Burial Grounds on an island within a mile of the site and artifacts have been found all around the site.  TVA indicates this issue is insignificant.

TVA declared the wildlife habitat, the forest, the wetlands, and all our concerns as "insignificantly impacted". The search for an alternative marina site, mentioned in the EA, appears to be cursory. There are more suitable sites available with better resources already in place.
 
We see no reason for TVA to donate public lands to developers while our electric rates increase. If you agree with us, please go to our website and review our efforts. You can still help. We have until November 7, 2005 to submit final comments to TVA. You’ll find everything you need at: http://www.shoalsenvironalliance.netfirms.com/

****************************
Back to SEA Elk River Marina Page


Dear Sir/Madam:
I read the environmental assessment (EA) on the proposed project on Elk River listed as Public Notice 005-70, File Number 2005-01814. It was extremely disappointing that almost every issue was determined to be "an insignificant impact". In addition, it was disappointing that the plans for the development were so severely lacking in detail. How can the public be detailed in a response about plans that are so lacking in specificity? How can TVA rely on that data? For instance, the (EA) indicates that the cutting of trees will result in only a 5% opening. I don’t know where that came from, but if the development contains the number of cabins, campsites, septic tanks, field lines, roads, and parking lots projected for all 5 phases, that figure is, quite frankly, impossible.
Another matter that was totally missing was any contingency plans for if and/or when the development fails. With the failure of so many marinas and resorts in this area, one would think that TVA would require some detail on what happens if the applicant fails. For example, the marina and restaurant on nearby Town Creek is now bankrupt. Fisherman’s Resort below Wheeler Dam has been opened and closed numerous times. It recently changed hands again. The marina and restaurant in McFarland Park in the City of Florence has been in financial trouble every since it was developed. The restaurant has changed hands numerous times. The marina in Decatur has been in financial difficulty. It appears irresponsible to not have contingency plans. It appears it would be much more sensible to simply not take the risk. To be even more prudent, the applicant should consider purchasing one of the existing marinas for a bargain price. Why must we maintain the mentality of building new when the same facilities are going derelict nearby?

During the last week, especially on Tuesday, October 18, 2005, additional information has come to my attention that I feel should be addressed. I was finally able to talk to a TVA employee who appears to have some authority in this matter. I appreciate the fact that TVA allowed Mr. Spencer Boardman to meet with me on the afternoon of the 18th. Since Mr. Boardman was very involved in research in 1995 that led to the change in the classification of the property in question to "commercial recreation", it appears that he was the very person that I should meet with to discuss this project.

Before I address this matter further, I must apologize for a comment in one of my prior letters. In that letter, I was very unprofessional in calling the TVA employee who changed that classification a "moron". I apologized to him in person and I am doing so in this letter. There is no excuse for such language. I must say that Mr. Boardman took it well and I am glad that I could meet him and tell him in person. He commented that he understood that I was very passionate in my opposition to the potential development. I must say that after spending about three hours with him, I found him to be professional. I now believe that he was unbiased in his analysis and that he made decisions based on information he had at the time.

I learned from him that he was in this area for a considerable period of time about 10 years ago when TVA was considering this property for reclassification from simply "Recreation" to "Commercial Recreation". You should know that I never knew anything about this reclassification until just recently. In fact, I asked several people in my community if they knew about it. Most of them didn’t but I found three individuals who attended one or more meetings concerning the reclassification. One of those individuals was Bob Blanks who I consider as one of the "elders" and community leaders. He told me that he does not know how they let that "slip by". Another of the individuals, Joe Serocki, said they simply made a big mistake. Ken Hammond told me today that they could not have envisioned the vast changes in this area and they certainly would not have been so agreeable had they known what would happen over the next 10 years.
This is what I think actually happened. At that time, the local people who were involved in the changes in 1995 simply could not see what would happen in the succeeding 10 years. In fact, I believe if Mr. Doss had applied 10 years ago, he would not have received all the opposition that has arisen over the last several months. Although they would probably not have welcomed a marina with open arms, I think the opposition may have been minimal. I just can’t believe they actually had any idea what was coming. The three individuals I mentioned are now shaking their heads in disbelief. TVA met little opposition, so the change was made.

In the last 10 years, Bayhill exploded into a major development. It started out as just a small marina and campground. Mr. Boardman saw it again while he was with me last Tuesday. It is humongous now. My neighbors and I see the same thing possibly happening again. For miles in either direction from the 91 acres, construction of homes and condos have put tremendous pressure on our shoreline. There is a home or cabin on virtually every nook and cranny for miles. People are selling out up north and out west and moving here in large numbers.

Then in the last two years, a major development called The Pointe just slipped in under the radar screen. All of a sudden, we have a huge development of private land directly across from the proposed marina site. TVA has already allowed the developer to dredge a major slough out that completely ruined fishing there. He now has a large community boat slip that almost blocks the entire Slough. That prime spawning ground is totally ruined and TVA allowed it to happen with no input or comments from anyone of whom I am aware. TVA tells us they are going to allow him to build up to 5 or 6 more large community boat slips. In just a short 10 year span, everything is developed or in process of being developed, except for the TVA land now in question.
So why are we so upset? Because this is the last of it. There is nothing left on the shoreline. And people here are still upset about the failed granary just upstream from the proposed marina site. The dilapidated structures are still on the shoreline years after it shut down. And what happened to the land close to the granary? More houses and shoreline destruction.

In a newspaper article in the Huntsville Times on October, 18, 2005, (Exhibit P), Buff Crosby, TVA, is quoted as saying "officials have not made a decision about recommending the Elk River Resort deal to the utilities board. But she said ‘it helps’ that the agency identified the property a decade ago as a good location for commercial recreation." My contention is that information from a decade ago is totally out-dated and irrelevant in this case. Development in our area has exploded in the last 10 years and TVA is now considering giving the last of it away. TVA should not slavishly base decisions on projects such as Elk River Resort on data secured 10 years ago. An entire reevaluation should be done before any decision is made. It is simply unfair to the people who currently live here to rely so strongly on that outdated information.

Several TVA employees pointed out that a large percentage of TVA land is not "in use". We had that thrown up to us numerous times. I do not know the correct figures, but it seems that TVA has a relatively small percentage of its property being used for commercial purposes and they are trying to increase those percentages. If this development is approved, Elk River will be 100% developed, except for the small parcel of "Commercial Industrial" land adjacent to the proposed marina. We feel like that will be next, along with all the land around it. That’s the only thing that makes sense as it is apparent to us that the marina by itself will not be able to make any money. With so many acres of unused land, how can TVA justify forcing our area into 100% development, especially with local people so opposed to it?

In my opinion, TVA is acting on outdated and currently erroneous information. It would be simply unfair to the people on Elk River for TVA to surrender the last undeveloped property to shoreline development. My neighbors and I have had enough. But we can’t do anything about it but beg. That’s why I am so "passionate" and so upset with TVA. They simply do not appear to listen. I have tried to remain professional and tried hard to recognize that TVA employees just work there. A major problem is that local people appear to always lose when TVA is involved.

One of my neighbors researched some of TVA’s prior environmental assessments on other projects. He reported that they are all basically the same. The local residents plead with TVA not to do it. But they always do. For once in your life, please listen to the people who live here. The only people that want it are a few business people in the town of Rogersville, a few supporters and friends of the developer, and a very few people who think they can more easily get gas for their boats. None of those people will have to live next to it. TVA officials should, for once in their life, do something for the people who will have to live in close proximity to a new development.

I also firmly believe that the opposition to the proposed marina would have been much greater if we were not already beaten down. Everywhere I turned, people said that TVA would not listen, that this was a done deal, and that there was no need to waste time trying. This was made more evident during the "open house" public meeting at Lauderdale County High School. TVA was allowed to speak. Mr Doss was allowed to speak. But none of us were allowed to speak. That is not an open forum and certainly not an open discussion. This long process has been so frustrating. Our only hope is that someone, somewhere at TVA will have mercy on us and rule in favor of the people for a change.

As to the Environmental Assessment and the numerous "insignificant impacts" in it, this project will have an extremely significant impact on the over 220 homes that will have to live within close proximity to the proposed development. In addition, the 51 homes located on Barnett Road will be significantly impacted. The homes that will be broken into when the applicant has to rent by the month in the off-season will be significantly impacted. The children that play along Barnett Road will be significantly impacted. The wildlife and wetlands will be significantly impacted. The people who succumb to drugs purchased from drug dealers that will predictably flock to this remote area will be significantly impacted.

This project comes down to what is right and what is wrong. To quote Bridgette Ellis from the publication, "TVA River Neighbors", October, 2002, "I’ve learned how important it is to be open-minded - to listen to what stakeholders are telling us about the way we manage the public lands and waters in our care". If you listen to the vast majority of the stakeholders who live here and who are most familiar with Elk River, you will deny the project.
I appreciate the fact that you published quotes in the EA from the many letters written by people pleading with you to deny this project. You have evidence that the vast majority of the "stakeholders" oppose the development. There were 259 signatures on the petition, almost 100 who wrote opposing it, and only 19 people who wrote in support of the applicant. I know some of these people that have openly supported it. The ones I know see money and have little or no regard for their neighbors that will have to live next to it. The (EA) did not address the issue of the stolen petitions from local businesses, so no one really knows the ultimate number of those opposed. The fact that TVA did not allow an extension for the petition deadline skewed the numbers. Although it does not appear that this is a significant event to TVA, it is to the people who solicited and signed those petitions.

TVA seems determined to approve this project to the detriment of the many stakeholders who oppose it. If you should decide to grant the permit, then, in order to make the project safer for the people who live next to it, safer for the families and children on Barnett Road, safer for those traveling to and from the site, safer and more compatible for the wildlife, including American Bald Eagles and their habitat, and to provide protection of Indian Artifacts and Sacred Grounds and to better protect the shoreline, I implore you to make the following demands, in a written contract, on the applicant:

1. Barnett Road - Find another access road that does not go through a residential area. If not, then the applicant and/or the City of Rogersville should have to pay for Barnett Road to be widened, with a turn lane added. A Traffic Light must be installed at the corner of Highway 70 and Barnett Road (There is only a four-way stop there now). A Traffic Light must be installed at Barnett Road and Highway 72. In addition, the applicant, the City of Rogersville, and/or the County should have to build a local park close to Barnett Road, with ample space for the children to ride bikes, play basketball, skateboard, and play in safety. After all, the mayor and a few of the local businessmen want the marina. It appears to me that they should do something to make it more palatable to the people who will have to live close by. In addition, the applicant should build a "sound break" between the entrance to the park and the residence next to it.

2. Safety of our neighborhoods - Make the marina smaller and eliminate the campsites. Instead of campsites, which draw drug dealers and vagrants, increase the number of cabins. The entrance to the site must have a gated entrance with a full time guard. The park at First Creek has a gated entrance and officers on patrol. Joe Wheeler Park at Wheeler Dam has officers on patrol and an entrance close to the main office. Neither have residences close to the park. There must be a quiet time and security officers on patrol to enforce it. The entirety of TVA land must be encased with a security fence to make sure visitors stay inside the park and that they do not infringe on our neighborhoods. The fence should be at least 10 feet high and encase both parcel 21 and parcel 22. There must be a guard, full time, in and around the marina to watch for those impaired from alcohol and drugs. They must be kept off the river. Lauderdale County is a "Dry County", meaning that alcohol is prohibited where the project will be. Ample signs should be posted throughout the park that prohibit the use of alcohol and/or drugs. TVA Police and Rogersville Police should be required to make routine visits, every hour on weekends and holidays, and arrest anyone who is found to have alcohol or drugs. In addition, the applicant should be required to monitor and report any instances of these abuses to TVA and local authorities. He should be fined anytime someone is found with alcohol or drugs on the premises. TVA should have a policy in place in the contract for alcohol and drug related offences on the premises. If there are a certain number of alcohol/drug related offences (to be determined in the contract), the applicant’s easement should be voided.

3. Shoreline Protection - The projected increase in boat traffic will have a significant impact on the shoreline. At this point, I must object to the data TVA used to count boats and assess the traffic on Elk River. TVA counted boats on a weekend when gas topped $3.00 a gallon. A lot of people were protesting gas prices and stayed home. I live on Elk River and it was an extremely low turnout. It was so unusually quiet. The jet skis were silent for a change. The entire river traffic report should be disregarded because it is totally unreliable. To keep the shoreline from being completely destroyed, the entirety of the TVA property must be lined with "rip-rap". In addition, the applicant should be required to place "rip-rap" on the shoreline for Barnett landing, and for all homes that do not have shoreline protection between Highway 72 bridge and the mouth of Elk River.

4. Wildlife and Plant protection - The applicant should have all cabin areas, campsite areas, and nature trails roped off, as in many parks across the country. Warning signs should be installed for people to stay on cabin sites, on nature trails, and out of the woods and wetlands. In addition, ample signs should be posted to prohibit people digging anywhere, cutting firewood, riding four-wheelers and dirt-bikes, or taking any thing from the forest. No roads, tree cutting, or any other digging should be allowed where Ginseng has been located. These plants are protected by Federal Law which does not allow it to be harvested on Federal Land or harvested if less than 10 years old. If it is disturbed, TVA will be allowing the applicant to destroy a protected plant. He will be getting special treatment. I know it’s not on the Botanist’s list, but it is protected.

5. Protection of Indian Artifacts and Sacred Grounds - The stakeholders opposing this project have provided you with ample evidence that the site was a significant dwelling place for Native Americans. There were Burial Grounds at the Island within a mile of the site and artifacts have been found all around the site. The applicant should be required to do an "Under Water Survey" in any area where there will be dredging. Dredging should not occur at all, especially in the area shown on the applicants "drawings". If the "Underwater Survey" indicates that the applicant can proceed, the dredging area must be moved out of the slough onto the main river. TVA should make sure that he gets further away from the wetlands. There are two maps (Exhibit A and Exhibit B) attached that shows where the applicant could do any necessary dredging, provided of course if an "Underwater Survey" is completed. Signs should be posted throughout the park that no digging is allowed for any purpose.

6. The entire proposed contractual agreement between the developer and TVA, including financial details, should be made public for comment prior to granting of the easement.

7. The developer should be required, as a continuing condition of the easement, to establish and maintain an approved water quality monitoring plan.

8. The search for an alternative site in the EA appears to be insufficient. More research should be done to find an alternative site. Here are some suggestions:
A. The Point on Town Creek is available. The marina, restaurant, and roads are already there. The applicant would own his own land and we would not have to give him ours.
B. The Park on Elk River, Limestone County, just north of Highway 72 Bridge is available. In fact, they already have roads next to a major highway. They already have an unused store. There is more than enough space for a marina. They had a gas station. The Park Attendant told me that the State was losing $70,000 a month and had to pull the pumps. Makes you wonder why the applicant wants in the marina business, doesn’t it? In addition, it appears that the land just north of the existing park is owned by TVA. We could give the applicant that land for cabins and campsites. I’m certain that the State would be willing to work out a deal.
C. The State Park on the Lauderdale County side of the Highway 72 Bridge is already there. They already have two boats ramps and ample space for cabins and campsites. You should know that the State tore down the building that used to be a rest area and removed all the picnic tables because it was losing money.
D. If the applicant will be patient, he will have an opportunity to own the marina at Florence Harbor/McFarland Park. It has changed hands numerous times. The restaurant has been opened and closed several times. And this marina is in the middle of a major city.
E. I was informed of another alternative site just prior to the meeting on the 18th. A neighbor and I visited the site the morning of the 18th. According to the informant, the applicant already has ample TVA land at the mouth of Second Creek right next to the main Tennessee River Channel. IF this is TVA land, it appears to be a perfect site for a marina, cabins, campsites, etc. IF, this land is used by the applicant per the informant’s statement, it already has a fine road all the way to the shoreline, several acres for cabins and campsites, great access to the Tennessee River, and a huge mess of metal debris already in place. It’s also very close to the applicant’s current business site.
In conclusion, the ultimate decision should be to deny the proposed project. If you can not find it in your heart to do the "right thing", then please protect my neighbors and me by imposing the requirements proposed in this letter on the applicant. It should be a written contract such as would be imposed by any party as part of a lease/easement agreement.


****************************
Back to SEA Elk River Marina Page


I have lived on Elk Eiver east of Barnett Boat Landing in Rogersville  since 1988. There has been a request by Gilbert Doss III for a 40 year easement to develop a commercial marina, with wet slips, dry storage, store, rv park camp area, cabins and a restaurant (and possible condos later ) this is tract number xwr-628re Elk River 2R. There will have to be a lot of old timber cut to put in a ramp, dry storage, marina, campsites and a big parking lot for all. This 91 acres is a natural forest, animal habitat and wetland (marshy area in back of cove with small creek) and this cove is an excellent spot for fishing of all kinds and bird watching. All the neighbors and river users ooh and aah over watching Eagles, osprey, hawks, owls,  pileated   woodpeckers, wood ducks, ring neck ducks, geese, mallards, herons, Hooded mergansers, horned grebe and all types of water Fowl in addition to turtles, mussels, beavers, Raccoons, deer , etc.

I kayak and walk on and around this property occasionally because of the peaceful sights and sounds mother nature provides. Please don't replace these sounds with routy campers, diesel motors, more trash, more boats, more noise, more pollution, more erosion. Right now there are 2 young eagles in this area. They have been seen several days fishing and sitting in These trees.  I have seen eagles in this area since the winter of 1998. My mother saw her first eagle in the wild on the proposed sight.

This is a very valuable wildlife habitat and wetland and is threatened by the possibility of this development, not to mention the erosion from wind, rain and wave action, cutting of trees and vegetation, pollution, fuel leakage, (you know there will be a lot of fuel leakage), runoff, sewage (lots of sewage with 200 campsites), increase of boat traffic on the water, dredging of the cove (and possibly indian artifacts) and other environmental impacts. Ginseng has been identified on this sight and we have photos of it

**************************** 

I 'm writing you regarding the possible presence of Native American artifacts in the area of the west bank of the Elk River about 1.5 miles north of the Tennessee River in north-west Alabama.

We know  that a number of Indian tribes used this area for hunting, fishing and camping .  A large marina is being proposed for a site in an area where artifacts were previously identified ( Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 122 Pg.91). Please see  http://www.shoalsenvironalliance.netfirms.com/ERM/ERM1.htm for a more detailed description of the site and proposed project. If we can prove that destroying this area and dredging the slough would disturb valuable artifacts we might be able to slow down the momentum of this project. I was wondering if you have any information about the presence of artifacts and/or Native American settlements in this area or if you could possibly refer me or one of the other concerned citizens below  to someone who does?

Thank you for your time.


****************************

As many of this newspaper's readers are aware, TVA is examining a  proposal for a new marina on the lower Elk River. This marina will  certainly increase the traffic on the Elk dramatically and almost as  certainly destroy the habitat of our precious waterfowl and aquatic  creatures.

Those who have frequented the Elk River since the 1970s have seen a  gradual but measurable return of bald eagles, blue herons, and egrets of  different species among others that have come to rest, feed, and raise  their young in this quiet environment.

Two kinds of tanagers, the scarlet tanager and the summer tanager, also  nest on the banks of the Elk in the summer. They have blessed this area  with their presence because the Elk has provided the solitude and food  supply that they seek.

These creatures have no voices to fight “progress” other than those of  the citizens of the river, the people who have homes on the river and  those who respectfully travel its waters. We must speak for them before  they disappear from our shores and waters again.

Our duty is to protect these creatures who have made their homes with us  from yet another tourist industry which will give us only noise,  pollution, and garbage to take their places. As we speak for those who  cannot protest for themselves, we will also save the natural wonder of  the Elk River for our children.

Read the compendium of objections to the marina proposal at  http://www.shoalsenvironalliance.netfirms.com/ERM/Objects.htm, and raise  your voice.

****************************
Back to SEA Elk River Marina Page


I would like to request a public hearing on the application No. 2005-01814,  Public Notice No. 05-70, located on Elk River, Alabama.  The reason for my  request is that I am opposed to the proposed Marina because it will cause  more water traffic and boating hazards it the area.  Elk River already has  heavy traffic in this area.

I am also concerned that a marina may not make it which would leave the  piers and wave brakes behind as an eye sore as the old Wheeler Granary and  grain shoot did, on Elk River, when the company went broke.

This area is a favorite spot for fishing and boating enthusiast.  This  proposed Marina would destroy a part of nature that could not be replaced.

****************************

As an Elk River resident, I request a public hearing on the proposed Elk River Resort development.  I believe the following specific issues must be addressed in public hearing to ensure the best serving of the public's interests.

o  Safety of the county-maintained access roads (County Road 70 and Barnett Road) leading into the proposed development.  Both Barnett Road and CR 70 are very narrow, with no shoulders, and several hills that degrade sight distance.  These roads are not adequate to safely handle the increase in traffic of large boats/trailers and campers associated with the proposed development.  Additionally, many of the homes along both roads are single family homes built very close to the roadway, so much so that the road itself serves as play area for local children, who would be exposed to the traffic hazard.

o  Effect of the proposed marina on the Elk River flow and the accumulation of debris (both natural and man-made).  The proposed marina would appear to intrude into the Elk River at a point that would impede the natural ability of the river to carry debris around the left-turn bend and out into the Tennessee.  The Elk River is well know for its debris and the associated water hazards.  The concern over the proposed development should be its impact on the rivers ability to carry debris safely out into the Tennessee, and not allow it to accumulate upstream, creating more water hazards.

o  Effect of the proposed development on the natural wetlands in the area. 

o  Need for another marina located within 20 minutes (by watercraft) of the existing Bay Hill Marina (public marina on the west bank of the Tennessee) and just across the Elk River from the private marina associated with The Pointe development. 

      Thank you for your consideration of this request.

****************************

I would like to express my objections to the subject project for several reasons.

1)  In the Wheeler Reservoir Land Management Plan (Dec. 1995 P.149) TVA indicates for the parcel that is the site of the proposed marina, that "Removal of under-story vegetation or tree canopy could have an impact on the erodible soils. Approved methods for checking soil erosion must be implemented if major development is considered on this tract."  The description provided by the developer offers no information whatsoever on erosion monitoring and control. I believe that a full environmental impact study is needed to determine what will erode and where it will erode to. At the very least, a long term base-line turbidity  study needs to be performed so as to be able to identify future project impacts. I expect that TVA will counter this objection by requiring that a  "best practices" plan to mitigate construction environmental impacts be followed during construction. I suggest that such a plan should be produced, examined and approved *prior* to easement award, not *after* the award. After award, what authority does anyone have if the "best practices" are inadequate or not followed?

2)  The water quality information cited in Section 3.6 of the Draft Environmental Analysis (DEA) is for areas several miles from the proposed project, it is several years old and does not even include turbidity data.  The applicant provides very little information on how the hydraulic dredging spoils will be handled. The DEA states (Pg.9) that "Some spoil will be removed by barge and transported to a loading dock, then hauled to area landfills. Some spoil closer to the shoreline will be removed from dry land with an excavator." What is "some"? That's important to know because "some" of the spoil and water carrier is going to be dumped near the shoreline where it will be removed with an excavator. How will the spoil slurry be kept from washing back into the water and further down-stream where it will cause increased sedimentation and turbidity?

3)  The DEA states "BMPs [Best Management Practices] and proper management of storm water runoff from construction activities and the proposed facilities are expected to result in insignificant impacts to reservoir water quality." How can this conclusion be reached when no significant engineering details of the BMPs or construction plans is provided?  At the proposed site there is very little level ground available. There will have to be a *lot* of dirt moved to build this project. The original Joint Public Announcement and the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA)  have virtually no details about how much dirt will be moved, where it will be moved to, and how erosion into the river with it's associated sedimentation and turbidity will be prevented.

4)  To add insult to injury, TVA is apparently willing not only abdicate its role as an environmental steward, but is willing also to do it "on the cheap" and in-camera. What is the economic market value of this public land? If the land was to be leased as-is for thirty years via public auction, what would be the likely value? The developer claims that he had an appraisal performed, and suggests that 5% of the gross would be fair. Will TVA have it's own appraisal performed or will it accept the buyer's offer without question? It seems to me that 10% of the gross proceeds from the operation of the marina and all related facilities, with suitable audit provisions, would be needed to adequately compensate the public for its loss of this resource.

5)  TVA has indicated that the financial and contractual agreement with the developer will not be made public. Why? TVA is a public entity disposing of a valuable public resource. These details are of interest to the public. At a time when TVA is facing serious financial challenges and competition, strict management of resources is necessary for the health of both TVA and the Tennessee Valley to which it has a fiduciary responsibility. That responsibility should not be sacrificed to political expediency.

The granting of this easement, in light of TVA's recent record vis-à-vis the Nickajack land swap, will further make a mockery of TVA's self-proclaimed status as a responsible steward of the valley's environmental resources. In the last three years, I have lost so much respect for TVA that I am truly saddened.

****************************
Back to SEA Elk River Marina Page


I would like to add my voice to the cry of horror coming from the proposed marina to be built in Rogersville.  This massive project will totally destroy one of the last pieces of undeveloped property on this side of the Elk River. TVA ought to be ashamed of itself for even considering using the 92 acres of varied forest and wetlands right on the Elk River for a commercial development. This is the type of treasure that should be preserved for our children and grandchildren.

The proposed 50 boat slips and 200 campsites will completely stress the current local resources available and the proposed plan has no accommodations for the increased use of the county road, sewage disposal, trash pickup, river traffic and ravishing the land in order to make it flat enough for parking, camping, boating, a restaurant and other buildings. 

It would behoove us to learn a lesson from California, where I lived for a few years.  They allowed undeterred development until many of their natural treasures were lost or trashed.  We have an opportunity now to save this unbelievably beautiful property.  TVA should remain a steward of its lands, not grow in its role as a commercial developer.

****************************

Opinion Letter to the Editor

Road to Proposed Elk River Marina Dangerous

The proposal by a private developer to destroy 91 acres of primitive woodland and wetlands on TVA/Public property for a marina, campsites, and cabins on Elk River is bad news.  The fact that the marina/campgrounds will have no security, no guards, and no gated entrance is worse. 
  
Even more critical may be that the only entrance road to this marina will be Barnett Road. Barnett Road is a narrow, two lane road with steep hills in a residential area..  There are 51 residences between Highway 72 and the end of Barnett Road.  Many of these homes have driveways from which one cannot see on-coming traffic.  There are 8 additional residences within two blocks of the intersection of Barnett Road and County Road 70, about half way from Highway 72 to the proposed marina site.  

Children from some of these homes, especially those close to the intersection, often play in the street.  Since this road traditionally has very little traffic, the children are accustomed to skateboarding, riding bikes, and sometimes playing basketball on the road itself.
  
Neighborhood children have been playing on these roads for years.  It may be dangerous now, but  the situation will become even more treacherous if the road is used for the entrance road to a major marina/campground. It appears TVA is going allow the developer to proceed.   TVA has been warned about this potential problem.  If some drunk leaves that camping area and runs over one of those children, then TVA will be to blame.  If TVA allows the developer to continue, they need to find another entrance road.

****************************

Back to SEA Elk River Marina Page