To the Editor:
In the recently published proposed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for proposed restoration of Dyke Marsh, the National Park Service (NPS) proposed three alternatives, alternative A (do nothing), alternative B (preservation and modest restoration), and alternative C (preservation and more comprehensive restoration). NPS has indicated that it prefers alternative C, but that alternative appears to be at cross-purposes to the comments received from the public when alternatives A-D were proposed in the 2008-2009 time frame.
In the NPS report concerning comments it received in 2008-2009, the most comments received (21.74 percent) concerned impacts on Belle Haven Marina. The second most were in opposition to previous alternative D "full restoration" (15.26 percent). These two categories dwarfed the next highest percentage (6.48 percent in favor of alternative D). Most of the commenters concerning the marina opposed any action that would materially impact its operations. Current alternative C includes what are described as optional restoration aspects that would essentially eliminate the marina from existence if enacted.
The EIS states that options which would effectively destroy the marina would not be exercised "unless the marina were to become economically infeasible and were to close for reasons unrelated to the Marsh restoration .…" What this means is that so long as proposed restoration of Dyke Marsh includes options that would destroy the marina, that destruction can become a self-fulfilling prophecy should the political winds blow in the direction of NPS unconscionably raising the marina's rent to make its operations economically infeasible. So long as the proposed restoration includes any options that could conceivably destroy the marina, this will be the case. As such, it is imperative that those options be stricken from any proposal to restore Dyke Marsh.
From the Wilson Bridge to Pohick Bay, the only public access to the Potomac River in Fairfax County is at Belle Haven Marina. During a public meeting of Supervisor Hyland's Visioning Task Force in 2009, former MVCCA Co-chair Katherine Ward bemoaned this lack of public access and suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate to obtain such public access from private property owners along the riverfront. No one else publicly supported this suggestion, but it points out the value of Belle Haven Marina to our community and the need to retain it at all costs.
Additionally, in the EIS, NPS concedes that implementation of alternative C would likely adversely impact private properties to the south of Dyke Marsh:
"If the NPS were to restore marsh south of the breakwater,
water levels to the south of the project area would be expected to become somewhat shallower over time, as sediments accreted in the restored marsh area and adjacent to it, as discussed in the hydrology section. However, water depths would not be anticipated to change enough to change the use of the existing docks south of Dyke Marsh."
Apparently, NPS is not aware that property owners to the south must construct docks over 300 feet long to merely obtain water depths of perhaps 3 feet at low tide in many cases. Any siltation whatsoever resulting from restoration efforts at Dyke Marsh will materially impact the ability of those property owners to moor a reasonably-sized vessel at their docks. It would be unconscionable for NPS, with full knowledge of material impacts to property values of downstream properties resulting from their actions, to go ahead and take those actions anyway. Government takings without compensation are forbidden by the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution. NPS would be well served to strike from any proposed restoration plan any possibility of actions that could conceivably materially impact water access of downstream properties.
It is clear that the proposed EIS is materially flawed and requires significant revision to ensure that Dyke Marsh is preserved in its current form without adversely impacting adjacent properties or the valuable resource of Belle Haven Marina, as preferred in public comments NPS previously received. Please listen, NPS.
H. Jay Spiegel, Mount Vernon