Members Report – October
25, 2007
I would like to thank
those of you who took the time to send your comments to GRDA regarding the
revised shoreline management plan draft. The board of directors will be voting
on the draft during their regularly scheduled November meeting. As I’ve said
before, after that it’s on to FERC where the real work will get underway. I’ll
paste below the latest response by those opposing a common sense approach to
the smp and you can bet they will be active at the
federal level as well.
Over the past two weeks
I’ve been the speaker at Rotary in Grove and for the Greater Grand Lake
Homebuilders Association. It still amazing how many folks know so little abut a
plan that could change the landscape of Grand Lake for years to come.
I also have been spending
some time with Tulsa World reporter Randy Krehbiel. Krehbiel usually covers the GRDA for the Tulsa World.
They’re putting a piece together on the status of the SMP which will probably
appear in Sunday’s edition. I’ve been proiding him
some comments on the oppositions letter below and also have provided additional
input from our perspective. If I’m reading the tea leaves right, I would expect
a balanced article without much depth….probably a limited summary. Those of you who take the World, watch for it. Let me hear from you!
In regards to: Comments on the Shoreline
Management Plan by Members of the Working Committees (Project-1494).
Grand River Dam Authority
P.O. Box 409
Vinita, OK 74301
Dear Sirs,
We, the undersigned members of the Working
Committees of the GRDA Comprehensive Shoreline Management Plan, wish to detail
our objections to the final draft of the plan recently submitted to the GRDA
Board of Directors for their approval. We find the plan does not meet the
stated goal of achieving a plan of management that balances the needs of the
varied stakeholders. Instead the plan allows for the continued commercial and
private development of the project at the expense of the environment, fish and
wildlife, aesthetic concerns and the interests of non-property owning
recreational users of the lake.
While attempting to appear to comply with
the letter of the SMP process, the product has little or nothing to do with the
intent of that process. In the Authorities’ own words it has the objective to
“Establish an equitable and reasonable balance between private/public uses,
overall maintenance of existing natural and cultural resources, and
hydroelectric generation.” The overwhelming tenor of the final draft of
the SMP is one in which the promotion of commercial and private development of
a public resource is given preference over its protection and preservation.
This SMP allows the remaining seventy
percent of the lake, that area not classified as “Sensitive Resource”,
“Project” or “Municipal Lands”, to be defaulted to “Responsible Development”.
This is consistent
The GRDA’s statement on page 59 of the
final draft of the SMP summarizes their attitude regarding the balancing of the
interests of the varied stakeholders: “After examining several potential
strategies for managing and controlling growth on the lake, GRDA concluded that
development of a lake-wide policy to contain growth or set limits on
development beyond the existing SMC was not equitable to a majority of adjacent
property owners or non-resident users of the lake.” While it is not immediately
apparent how non-residential users of the lake would be harmed by limiting
commercial and private development, what is clear is the unwillingness of the
GRDA to take on the task.
Under the mantras of “economic
development” and “local control” the GRDA has put in place a blueprint for the
almost unlimited development of a public resource. It has ignored the
insights and recommendations of eighteen months of Committee work designed to
represent and protect the rights of all stakeholders, not just those
fully represented by a Board of Directors dominated by commercial
development interests. The lake, to quote one of the GRDA executive staff
present during the SMP process, will be allowed to continue to “zone itself.”
While the Working Committees appreciate
the difficulty of instituting an SMP after fifty years of unmanaged growth on
the lake, it does not excuse the Plan put forth by the GRDA executive staff. It
is a plan without a baseline and without any scheduled review for at least six
years. By that time the damage to the resource may well be irreversible.
The later we wait to implement a meaningful SMP, the less likely it is to be of
any use in the preservation and protection of the project. If the intent is to
produce a balanced long-term plan for the management of the resource, it is
obvious to those of us who have volunteered our time that this is unlikely to
occur unless FERC intervenes in the process.
Our specific concerns can be grouped under
several headings and will be followed by recommendations specific to each
heading:
1) Shoreline Classifications:
The working committees strongly supported
the use of a “Limited Use/Residential” and “Multi-Purpose/Commercial” shoreline
classifications as suggested in the “Guidelines for Development of a Shoreline
Management Plan” published by FERC. In addition, it was obvious to a majority
of the committee members that several areas of the lake were at the point of
being fully developed and we supported a “Fully Developed” category as well.
These categories were changed to a single “Responsible Growth” category without
the knowledge or support of the committees.
Few, if any, of the FERC-approved
comparative SMP’s from other projects reviewed by the
applicable committees failed to recognize distinct classifications along the
lines of our recommendations. Many reserved a “Responsible Growth”, or
equivalent term for areas where extensive development and congestion was
already present. A plan without clear zoning classifications invites
controversy and, by definition, is arbitrary and capricious.
In addition, the consultants from
Kleinschmidt advised us that FERC was unlikely to approve a plan without a
“Limited Use/Residential category.
However, in the final version of the SMP,
the comments made at the public meeting are given credence over the
eighteen-month long work of the committees. For example, the GRDA accepts the
comments on page 12 at face value: “the majority of commentators argued that
the limited/residential classification unnecessarily restricted the potential
for future commercial development around the lake”.
It is important to put these comments
into proper perspective. The GRDA is anxious to point out the number of people
(734) and the nature of their comments made at the public meetings.
Notification of these meetings was provided only to those with dock permits and
in free weekly newspapers around the lake area. Notification was not provided
to the Resource Agencies, even those that were a part of the Working Committees
or the various fish and wildlife federations and it was not posted in the Tulsa
World or Daily Oklahoman (Oklahoma City) newspapers for either of the meetings
held in those respective cities. It is of little surprise that the comments
generated were pro-development or NIMBY-driven and
were critical of the draft SMP.
Rusty Fleming and the G.L.U.E.
organization generated additional rhetoric primarily around the issues of the
Vegetation Management Plan and limitation of development. As it turns out, Mr.
Fleming is a paid employee of the G.L.U.E. organization whose major
contributors are marina owners and commercial developers on the lake. His
mailing list includes most of the GRDA executive staff, although he was
unwilling to divulge the individuals who were paying members of his
organization.
The SMP, even in light of the above,
contains contradictions. The introductory section of the revised version of the
SMP says that “the majority of the shoreline of the lower section of the Lake
is highly developed” and refers to “a high concentration of private
docks”. Yet the SMP contradicts itself by saying “no shoreline areas are
completely built out.”
In the executive summary the SMP states
that there is “Too little shoreline for future commercial development.”
However, the allocation chart depicting current use (page 31) shows that only
0.3% (3.6 miles) of the 1200 mile shoreline is now in commercial development.
The Working Committees classified 15% (180 miles), or a 5000% increase as a
potential area for commercial development. Apparently, this was felt to be too
restrictive by the GRDA staff.
In respect to residential areas, 9.3% of
the shoreline is currently classified as residential. Is it really necessary or
appropriate to expand that potential to 70%, while ignoring the rights and
needs of non property-owning lake enthusiasts?
As for the concept of “Fully Developed”,
in the Adaptive Management section on page 59, one finds the following
statement: “Available data do not support listing any area of the lake as
requiring special management because of negative environmental or social
effects resulting from over-development or over-use.” Yet there are
special rules in place on, for example, Duck Creek and Gray’s Hollow because of
the over-use of those popular locations on Grand Lake.
In response to the Working Committees
preference for a “Fully Developed” shoreline classification, the staff
completely removed this classification, stating that the new Carrying Capacity
Study indicates that there are no areas of Grand Lake which are at greater than
11% of capacity on holiday weekends. While we will discuss the integrity of the
Carrying Capacity Study in section 4 of these comments, this is obviously
inconsistent with the experience of most of our committee members.
2) Habitable Structures.
Few elements of the SMP garnered more
discussion from the Working Committees than “Habitable Structures”. The
experience of other lakes, FERC policy, USACOE SMP’s, Oklahoma Water Resources Board comment, enforcement
and oversight, as well as policy for existing unpermitted
habitable structures were discussed extensively. Consistently and decidedly,
the Committees recommended against permitting habitable structures and
recommended permitting only those which had been legally permitted as such.
According to GRDA staff, none of the existent structures on the lake had been
permitted as habitable structures.
It was also felt that these structures
are aesthetically unpleasing and they detract from the ability of sportsmen to
use the lake, especially for night fishing, which is extremely popular on Grand
Lake. The implication that they were “strongly supported” in the public
meetings is misleading, as this statement is based upon a separate survey
completed by twenty-eight people of whom only 12 out of 28 were supportive. The
majority of support for these structures comes from those who currently own
them without proper permits or commercial developers who see the advantage of a
lake home sale without a land purchase.
3) Resource Inventories.
The ODWC and USFWS
conducted a very preliminary study of sensitive resources at no cost to the
GRDA. The GRDA refused to fund more appropriate and thorough surveys.
Kleinschmidt staff repeatedly told the committees that “this is not a science
project” and insisted on using the limited and dated existing information. For
example, the GRDA refused to fund an update of the National Wetlands Inventory
maps, which are nearly 30 years old, in spite of the offer by the USFWS to do this for their cost of $2000. The lack of
reliable information was a consistent problem throughout the process.
4) Carrying Capacity Study.
Although contracted to professional firm,
Kleinschmidt, at $41,000 plus expenses of $2,800, the area delineations,
sampling times and data collection all appeared to be designed to create the
impression of a lower level of lake use. In particular, the avoidance of
methodology used in the 1996 Study prevented any comparative analysis of the
trends identified and slated for careful monitoring in the 1996 Study.
The Carrying Capacity Study also did not
meet the GRDA contract conditions that clearly stated the Resource Agencies
would approve the sampling method in advance. The USFWS
and ODWC were never contacted.
The calculation of usable acres for
pleasure boating was incorrect, and did not delete: 1) No wake zones, 2)
stationary structures, and 3) proper 150’ Coast Guard buffer requirements plus
the 1/3 cove rule before calculating usable water for power boating capacity
calculations. These factors lead to an underestimation of current use.
The sampling did not begin until much of
the summer was past and the number of samples (or flights) was far too low to
support any meaningful statistical analysis or decisions. The data collected
did not meet contract conditions of holiday over flights, using times in the
morning or early afternoon, as well as using the Columbus Day weekend as a
holiday weekend. In addition the data is numerically inconsistent in multiple
areas. Finally, the effect of boat size was not factored in to density of use
calculations.
It is our opinion and that of Oklahoma
State Professor, Dr. Lowell Caneday, who authored the
Recreation Plan now in effect since 1996, that the recent Carrying Capacity
Study underlying this SMP is so fatally flawed as to be unusable as a
management tool.
5) Permitting issues.
This topic was never given to the Working
Committees for discussion or input. The committees would have preferred to
provide input on permitting as this is where the SMP transitions from intent to
reality and confusion is possible if terminology and intent are not consistent.
6) Vegetation Management Plan
While the source of much of the
controversy surrounding the SMP, the VMP was
conceived and implemented entirely by the GRDA staff. We were only asked for
input after it had been instituted, prior to it being placed in the SMP.
We are empathetic to the problems of
instituting such a plan on an existing lake, but adamant in our support for a
rational plan to protect the project boundary. It is of note that the focus of
such plans is for the preservation of the appeal of the lake for those who look
at the lake from the water in (sportsmen and recreational users), and not
necessarily from the shoreline out (adjacent property owners).
However, what was most interesting about
the interchange between the committees and the GRDA executive staff, was their
defense to the crowd that such a plan had only been put in place because
someone had reported them as failing to properly oversee shoreline VMP issues on the lake and the penalties and consequences
had become too significant for them to ignore. This responsibility, no matter
how unpopular, cannot be abdicated to the adjacent landowner without firm,
appropriate and enforceable guidelines which protect all other stakeholders on
the lake.
7) Adaptive Management Techniques.
The document states, the “SMP provides
support and rationale for consistent land management policies and permitting
decisions.” Yet the “adaptive management” approach advocated in Section 8
provides absolutely no consistent land management policies. Other than to
identify certain environmentally sensitive areas, which the GRDA must do under
Federal law, the SMP provides virtually no rationale to guide future
development. GRDA makes the case for a need, but does not follow up that
need with a plan. “Adaptive management” is a suitable approach when goals
and objectives are clearly established. Regrettably, this SMP does not
establish those goals and thereby becomes merely a vehicle for establishing the
status quo.
Along these lines the committees were not
willing to simply “discard” all data and all trends identified since the 1996
Recreation Managment Plan was written. The
Committee pressed for review of VERP- type monitoring
data obtained from ’96 to ’07. Kleinschmidt refused to include an alaysis of the last 11 years (even in areas specifically
identified for more careful monitoring in Recreation Plan filed in 1996).
Kleinschmidt was only willing to include policy for monitoring the next
six years, and a review in 2013 (which would make a total of seventeen years
between the last review and next scheduled policy adjustment in lake
management).
If you don’t know where you are going,
any road will take you there.
8) Water quality/Heavy Metals Testing
The SMP draft makes a compelling case for
action on a variety of serious water quality concerns impacting Grand
Lake. Yet, other than some guidelines under the Vegetation Management
section, GRDA regrettably does not aggressively deal with those concerns, nor
make the connection that the degree of development on Grand Lake contributes to
those water quality problems. These are not simply potential future
problems. Today, many portions of Grand Lake do not meet their beneficial
uses, including those of “primary body contact.”
Recent assessments by the OWRB, USFWS, and USGS provide ample
justification for stronger measures involving phosphorus inputs, dredging,
heavy metals testing, whole fish testing, and sedimentation due to shoreline
clearing, dredging etc. The results of these tests and recommendations were
reported to FERC in separate letters from these agencies in July of ’06. This
is echoed in the SMP: Specifically, “concentrated development around the Lake,
including resorts, has exacerbated phosphorous inputs.” Similar concerns are
raised about sedimentation. The plan does not provide definitive language about
the requirement for such testing, nor does it specify who shall pay for, direct,
and interpret the results of any such tests. By not taking action decisive
action today, these problems will only become worse.
9) Density Model Calculations.
A numerical model using available G.I.S. data to calculate percentage of shoreline
obstruction criteria (trigger points) for each Classification was suggested and
preferred by the Working Committees. The use of such a model would avoid
the arbitrary and capricious use of permitting and allow GRDA unbiased
justification for its decsions within each shoreline
classification. Kleinschmidt informed the committees that the GRDA staff would
not consider density modeling for the stated reason that they felt it would be
too hard to implement.
We feel that the
because the data required for density modeling is GIS-based, and already
exists, the objection to cost of implementation is unfounded. The cost of density modeling is negligible and carries the
benefit of providing a fair and equitable solution to the current arbitrary and
capricious permitting by replacing personal influence and financial gain
with visual, non-biased and reprouducible data in the
application process.
10) Removal of shoreline from the
Stewardship Areas.
Areas of a known sensitive nature were
removed from the current Land Use Classification maps without knowledge of the
committees or Resource Agencies most capable of their proper identification.. In addition, the SMP contains an obvious misstatement of
fact when it refers to the 1630 acres of hardwood forest presently under
management by the GRDA as a wildlife management area. The GRDA to date has been
unable to locate, much less manage, such an area.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) Shoreline Classifications
Utilize the Shoreline Classifications as
developed by the Working Committees in the SMP process. Add the classification
of “Responsible Growth” for those areas already known to be in need of special
monitoring including mitigation if new development is approved
Expand newspaper advertisement for all
official GRDA notices to include the Tulsa and Oklahoma City major newspapers.
Send specific notice to all Resource Agencies as well as the applicable
wildlife and fishing NGO’s.
Limit commercial development to a
reasonable percentage increase compared to current levels realizing that these
developments take up a disproportionate amount of recreational water space
which will then no longer be available to other stakeholders.
2) Habitable Structures
Provide clear language that “Habitable
Structures” are not permissible on Grand Lake. Those now existing may be
grandfathered in if they were previously permitted specifically as a habitable
structure. If only permitted as a dock, they may remain as a dock and be given
24 months to remove umpermitted elements and be
inspected by the GRDA. At the end of this period, the GRDA should
have a complete list of where any legally grandfathered structures are located
and should require annual inspections of these units thereafter.
3) Resource Inventories
Authorize and direct the Resource
Agencies to provide a proper survey and update of environmentally sensitive
project resources at a fee to be negotiated between the parties.
4) Carrying Capacity Study
Repeat the Carrying Capacity Study under
the terms of the original contract with Kleinschmidt with the proper input from
the Resource Agencies and provide the opportunity for the Working Committees to
review the results.
5) Permitting Issues
Provide existing Commercial Dock Permits,
Residential Dock Permits, Dredging/Excavation Permits and Vegetation Management
Permits to the Working Committees for review and reconciliation of the terms
and policies of the Permits to the terms and policies of the SMP.
6) Vegetation Management Plan
Submit the VMP
to the Resource Agencies (USFWS, ODWC, USACOE, and OWRB) for comment and revision, including
shoreline classification-specific criteria.
7) Adaptive Management Techniques
Clearly define goals and methods of
measurement which are easy to understand and easy to oversee. Include clear
enforcement language for policy violations and a clearly stated appeal process.
8) Water Quality/Heavy Metals Testing
Identify sampling intervals, methods, and
agencies responsible for each type of testing through consultation with the
Resource Agencies. Do not allow applicants to provide their own testing when
required for permits.
9) Density Model Calculations
Incorporate the use of density model
criteria for each land use classification and use these criteria in the
permitting process as a fair and non-capricious method for qualifying new permit
applications.
10) Removal of Shoreline from Stewardship
(“Sensitive”) Classification
Replace areas designated by the Resource
Agencies as “Sensitive” and subsequently removed by GRDA staff back into the
“Stewardship” classification until new surveys and maps can be drawn
incorporating the recommended updated information from the Resource Agencies.
In summary, we find that this Plan is
inconsistent with the goals as set forth by FERC for the SMP Process as well as
the goals of the Plan itself to balance the interests of the listed
stakeholders. It is not protective of the environment, aesthetic concerns,
adjacent property owners, the rights of sportsmen or the rights of recreational
users of the lake. It ignores the input of the Working Committees. We recommend
against its approval until the matters listed above can be resolved.
Sincerely,
The undersigned members of the Grand Lake
SMP Working Groups
Date/Signature Affiliation/Agency
Occupation
J. Mark Osborn MD Ottawa County Citizen
Physician
Mike Brady Duck Creek Homeowners Assoc.
Engineering/
Private and Rental Property Sales
Jack Lenhart
Lake Homeowner Insurance
Kevin Stubbs USFWS
Fish&Wildlife
Biologist
Joseph A. Mccormick
Lake Homeowner Lawyer
Doss Briggs OK Anglers Unlimited
Fisherman
C. Joseph Chouteau MD Lake Homeowner
Physician
CC: FERC