MARVIN NICHOLS

In this second part of our series on the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir we will look at mitigation.

Aside from the massive hole in the ground that would be filled with water for the lake, the construction of the lake would require vast amounts of land to be set aside to replace the wetlands and wildlife habitat that would be drowned under the surface.

This mitigated land is required by the federal government, and as Janice Bezanson at the Texas Conservation Alliance explains below, it is unlikely if there will be enough land left in the Sulphur River Basin to satisfy the mitigation requirements.

What does mitigation really mean?

It means the loss of bottomland hardwood forests that are essential to our local timber industry. It means the forever loss of hunting and fishing wetlands, and it means the loss of homes, farms, crops and history.

What is means is a change in a way of life in Northeast Texas that has been deeply rooted for generations.

Bezanson has long been following the progression of the proposed reservoir. She offers the following insight into the matters of mitigation.

It Is Questionable whether Marvin Nichols could be mitigated

Many biologists and persons knowledgeable about federal mitigation question whether there is enough suitable land left in the Sulphur Basin to mitigate for the various kinds of wetlands that would be inundated by Marvin Nichols Reservoir.

Below is a summary of what mitigation is and how it would apply to the projects proposed in the Sulphur Basin.

Basics about Mitigation:

Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act requires that any entity must have a federal permit whenever wetlands are dredged or filled. The 404 permit (“four-oh-four”), as it has come to be called, is technically granted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but it is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that actually works with the permit applicant and makes the determination of how much mitigation is required.

Both U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the relevant state game and fish agency, in this case Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), participate and provide input. The EPA provides comments on each stage of drafting the Environmental Impact Statement and has the authority to reverse the Corps’ decision (though rarely does).

Whenever wetlands are dredged or filled, there must be land set aside in perpetuity to compensate for the lost wetlands and wildlife habitat. This is referred to as mitigation land.

The amount of land required to mitigate a given project is determined by a formula of habitat values. It is not just a matter of how many acres will be lost to the project, but also how high-quality the habitat on those acres is. There’s also a provision that the mitigation land be “like kind” – that is, of the same habitat type as the land that is impacted.

Bottomland hardwood forests must be chosen to compensate for bottomland hardwood forests lost, emergent wetlands to mitigate for emergent wetlands, etc. The mitigation lands are to be located as close as possible to the site of the project being mitigated.

The amount of acreage that would be set aside to compensate for lost wetlands and wildlife habitat for the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir has not been officially determined – and wouldn’t be until the permitting process. There have, however, been some estimates.

A preliminary look at it by USFWS and TPWD in 1990 yielded an estimate of 163,521 to 648,578 acres, depending on how intensive the management for enhancement would be. The consulting engineers to the Region C Water Planning Group in the DFW area, Freese and Nichols, who would also be the lead engineers for the Marvin Nichols project, contends that the amount of mitigation would be less than the lower figure in the 1990 study.

We at Texas Conservation Alliance would be surprised if it were not at least in the neighborhood of 150,000 acres. The reservoir and the lowest number of acres estimated by USFWS/TPWD together would mean 235,000 acres taken out of production.

As noted above, many people doubt whether there is sufficient likekind habitat left in the Sulphur River basin, or in Northeast Texas generally, to mitigate the impacts of the Marvin Nichols project.