The Watershed Center's Bias Shows in Timber Shores Comments
Note: Timber Shores has worked hard to update project plans in ways requested by Leelanau Township. That has resulted in some changes to acreage numbers as they apply to wetlands. Those updated numbers are stated in parentheses.
In this blog are excerpts of comments made by Charles Wolverton to the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy and to Heather Smith of The Watershed Center regarding comments made by staff of The Watershed Center on the proposed Timber Shores project.
What follows is excerpted from a letter from Charles Wolverton to Robyn Schmidt of the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy dated March 2, 2022. Wolverton sent the letter to submit comments from the Timber Shores project team regarding the public hearing held on March 1, 2022. The excerpts below focus on the comments submitted by The Watershed Center at the public hearing. Some edits have been made to provide updated information regarding the proposed Timber Shores project.
The Watershed Center (TWC) provided comments at the public hearing held by the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (“EGLE”) on March 1, 2022, from three representatives of that nonprofit organization, including the organization’s “Baykeeper”, attorney, and Executive Director. We believe that some comments made by TWC personnel need to be addressed because people generally expect an organization with the mission like TWC to be objective and provide unbiased and factually based comments on proposed projects like Timber Shores, but TWC has been in opposition to the project since the township review process began in 2019.
It is evident that TWC personnel are either misinformed, not familiar with the project site, or have not reviewed the project site plans or the EGLE application or all the above. It is discouraging that TWC, in its self-professed role of being the “Baykeeper” does not recognize that the proposed Timber Shores project will result in (i) only 0.48 acres of impact (note the wetland impacts have since been reduced to 0.41-acre), (ii) a net gain of wetlands on the site, (iii) unprecedented actions regarding permanent protection of wetlands on the site via permanent Conservation Easements and, (iv) a Wetland Protection and Management Plan to avoid secondary or indirect impacts. Timber Shores should be held up as a model of how to develop and use sensitive lands. Other uses of this property would likely not provide the natural resources protection that the Timber Shores plans provide.
Responses to specific TWC comments made at the public hearing are as follows:
TWC referenced “prior fill issues” at Timber Shores. The only “prior fill” was accomplished in the 1960s preceding wetland protection statutes being enacted. The proposed Timber Shores project will restore 2.23 acres (now 1.13 acres) of these prior fill areas as mitigation for impacting only 0.48-acre (now 0.41-acre) of wetland.
TWC recommended that uplands (i.e., non-wetlands) on the property be used for the Timber Shores project and avoid all wetlands. First, it is our understanding that the township and many residents do not want to have the RV campground in the open field adjacent to M-22. In its proposed location the Timber Shores project will be totally screened from M-22 except for the access road. Second, avoiding all wetlands on the property will mean that none of the previously filled wetlands will be restored as presently proposed and permanent protective easements will not be granted to protect wetlands on the property, which would be a great opportunity lost.
TWC indicated that “future development” of the property has not been specified and that “total build-out plans must be provided”. The fact is that there are no such plans and for the owner to speculate on what may take place on its land in the future is totally unrealistic. Any future development will also be subject to zoning and regulatory agency permitting oversight.
TWC somehow believes that Timber Shores has “plans to build a boat ramp and marina” and that a “crumbling marina structure” is present. It went on to say that “ecological restoration of the old marina site” is needed. First, Timber Shores has clearly indicated in its plans and documents submitted to the Planning Commission and to EGLE that the only work proposed in the existing boat basin is to remove the eight old steel pilings for public safety and aesthetic reasons. Second, comments about a “crumbling marina structure” and the need for “ecological restoration of the old marina site” clearly reveal that TWC personnel have no on-site knowledge of the condition of the existing boat basin. The former boat basin is a feature of the shoreline and has been for over 60 years. Other than the eight pilings there are no “structures” or any such features that need to be restored. The basin will remain in its existing condition and be used only for non-motorized watercraft access to Grand Traverse Bay.
The TWC Executive Director stated that the Timber Shores project will be “the biggest wetland impact in the watershed in the past five years”. While we don’t have access to such data, we assume that EGLE does have that information and should check the accuracy of this public statement. That notwithstanding, it’s important to note that the proposed project will result in a net gain of 1.75 acres (now 0.72-acre) of restored wetland, which begs the question of how is this “the biggest wetland impact in the watershed in the past five years”? Even not considering the wetland restoration, it’s hard to believe that 0.48-acre (now 0.41-acre) of wetland impact is the largest impact in the past five years in the Grand Traverse Bay watershed.
6. Finally, TWC indicated that Timber Shores needs to start over in the planning and site design process due to changes in the township zoning ordinance. First, Timber Shores had made application for zoning approval in 2019 prior to the township imposing a moratorium on the review of the application and commenced the process of changing the Commercial Resort zoning. Second, changes to the zoning ordinance have not been approved and are not presently in effect.
In conclusion, the Timber Shores group has been forthright and transparent with the plans for the proposed project via our website that provides details about all aspects of the project. Updates are routinely posted on social media platforms and the website. There are no excuses for anyone to be unaware of what is proposed.
The following excerpts are from a letter from Charles Wolverton to Heather Smith of The Watershed Center providing comments to her August 26, 2020, letter to the Leelanau County Planning Commission regarding the proposed Timber Shores project.
You further state in your August 26, 2020, letter, “Wetlands provide several community benefits, including flood attenuation, water filtration, groundwater recharge, shoreline stabilization, carbon sequestration, fish and wildlife habitat, and represent one of the most biologically diverse ecosystems.”
Response:
The ecological attributes that you describe in your letter as shown in the quote above can indeed be attributed to wetlands, but it is important to understand that not all wetlands exhibit all these ecological attributes. For one thing, a wetland must have the opportunity to exhibit a function for it to be an ecological attribute of that wetland. For example, if the wetland does not receive flood waters or is not located on a shoreline then the wetland cannot be characterized as exhibiting flood attenuation or shoreline stabilization. As such, the wetlands on the Timber Shores project do not all have the same ecological attributes or may not each provide benefits at the same level of importance to the ecosystem. Thus, one must be careful not to use a broad brush when assessing wetland functions.
Stream Impacts
Your August 26, 2020, letter states, “The site contains two tributaries of Ennis Creek, a high-quality cold-water fishery.
Response:
There are no tributaries to Ennis Creek, only the main stem of the creek. The “tributary” that you are apparently alluding to is the excavated ditch/stream that is located along the east side of the former railroad grade and then curves to the east to its confluence with Grand Traverse Bay along the south property line of the Project. This stream does not connect to Ennis Creek and was obviously excavated in historically either for the railroad or the original Timber Shores construction. This stream has a very slow or non-existent flow and is warm water. Ennis Creek is a cold-water stream and brook trout have been surveyed in the stream in past stream survey investigations.
You further state, “Riparian vegetation shades nearshore waters, stabilizes banks and shorelines, filters water, and provides fish and wildlife habitat. The removal of riparian vegetation and replacement of pervious forested grounds with impervious surfaces will have a significant, adverse effect on Ennis Creek.”
Response:
Your description of the functions of riparian vegetation is accurate and is the primary reason that the owner of the project granted the Conservation Easement along the reach of Ennis Creek on its property. The 100-foot-wide easement protects the riparian corridor from human-induced perturbations that may impact Ennis Creek. However, your statement concerning removal of riparian vegetation and installation of impervious surfaces is without basis in fact and is pure speculation. First, riparian vegetation adjacent to Ennis Creek will not be impacted by the project because it is protected by the Conservation Easement. Secondly, predicting that there will be “significant, adverse effect on Ennis Creek” attributed to the Project has no scientific basis; you have no data or reasonable evidence for this statement. Common sense and basic hydrologic conditions indicate that the high groundwater table within much of the project provides stable base flow to Ennis Creek and would not be influenced by the project.
Shoreline and Nearshore Impacts:
In this section of your August 26, 2020, letter you state, “We have substantial concerns with plans to convert the vegetated, natural Lake Michigan shoreline with a large, artificial sandy beach area. The removal of this natural vegetation significant (sic) adversely impacts the nearshore waters so critical for juvenile fish and other wildlife.”
Response:
The shoreline along Grand Traverse Bay is dynamic, constantly changing in relation to the annual and long-term fluctuations of water levels in addition to periodic storm or ice damage. The beach at Timber Shores is no different. The area along the water’s edge at Timber Shores is generally sand and the high beach has scattered herbaceous and woody vegetation that has colonized since the original Timber Shores Resort ceased operations. A sandy beach on the Great Lakes is in no way to be characterized as “artificial” as you state.
The second sentence in this part of your letter where you say, “The removal of this natural vegetation significant (sic) adversely impacts the nearshore waters so critical for juvenile fish and other wildlife” is obviously biased and not supported by any reasonable scientific basis. Keep in mind that the waters of the bay influence the land/water interface which is generally characterized by beach sand. This shoreline zone will not change with the implementation of the proposed project, but the high beach will have vegetation removed to provide beachfront recreation.
It is important to note that the maintained beach will be 1.2 acres in size with 526 feet of beach along the water’s edge. Thus, the 526 feet of beach along the water only constitutes 31% of the total 1,724 feet of frontage. If you are going to stand by your statement that “removal of this natural vegetation significant (sic) adversely impacts the nearshore waters” we request that you provide an explanation of how the “significant (sic) adversely impacts” will be manifested because I cannot comprehend how you can justify this statement. Your use of the word “significant” as it is defined in Merriam-Webster dictionary indicates that the beach restoration is “having or likely to have a major effect; important.” Will sand wash or blow from the high beach into the water and cause deleterious impacts to fish and wildlife? Isn’t movement of sand in the water either by littoral drift currents and/or wave action a natural phenomenon? Secondly, what data do you have regarding the presence of juvenile fish in the nearshore area at the project site?
You further state in your paragraph titled Shoreline and Nearshore Impacts, “impervious marina and boat launch facilities further threaten water quality and aquatic habitat as they create stormwater issues and remove riparian vegetation and their associated ecosystem services.”
Response:
The project does not propose any “impervious marina and boat launch facilities” so your statement that such facilities have the impacts that you predict is of no importance.
Regarding a letter dated October 7, 2021, sent by Heather Smith of TWC to Steve Patmore, Leelanau Township Zoning Administrator, Charles Wolverton sent the following comments to Heather Smith in a letter dated October 21, 2021.
Water’s Edge Setbacks
In this section of your October 7, 2021, letter you state, “The land-water interface, also referred to as the riparian zone, is one of the most ecologically diverse and productive habitats on earth.”
Response:
I don’t disagree that the “riparian zone” is ecologically valuable, but your characterization of the riparian zone as “one of the most ecologically diverse and productive habitats on earth” is at best a generalization and is a statement that would not be supported by most ecologists. Wetlands are known to be some of the most diverse and productive habitats on earth, but not all wetlands are, as I explained previously in this letter. Likewise, not all “riparian zones” have the same ecological benefits and characteristics. I believe that the riparian zone in the area where the beach restoration is proposed for the project is not as ecologically important as the waterfront being preserved on the north portion of the Timber Shores property. Over-generalization of the functions and values of ecological areas is not good science.
In Summary:
The Timber Shores project should be lauded by The Watershed Center as an example of having great commitment to protection of Grand Traverse Bay and its shorelines, instead of fighting against it by promoting zoning changes and other actions to stop it.
Timber Shores is an exemplary model of a development project that fulfills the goals that The Watershed Center strives to attain for protection of Grand Traverse Bay.
Wetland impacts are minimal as evidenced by the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) issuing a permit for the project.
A net gain of wetlands on the property will result due to the restoration of wetlands previously filled in the 1960s for the original Timber Shores Resort.
15.9 acres of land will be placed in a Conservation Easement to the State of Michigan as part of the wetland mitigation plan.