Counterpoint, by Dev Joslin, Ellen Smith, and Warren Webb of AFORR

 In recent weeks and months there has been considerable attention paid to the topic of the existing and possible future values of the Oak Ridge  Reservation to our community, the region, and the nation. Recently, a  number of misleading or erroneous allegations about this question  have  been circulating in several venues, including an April 4 guest column by  the head of the Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce.

 In hopes of moving beyond the current climate of polarization on this  issue, we would like to address a few issues surrounding past, current, and  future land use of the Oak Ridge Reservation.

 Our organization, Advocates for the Oak Reservation (AFORR), consists of Oak Ridgers and area residents who are concerned that the values and potential long-term benefits of DOE's Oak Ridge lands are being sacrificed for short-term benefits. We would like to see this land protected for its value for scientific research, conservation, recreation, education, safety buffer, and similar uses.

 In little more than a decade, a series of transactions -- many of them controversial -- have resulted in converting several thousand acres of Oak Ridge federal land to private development purposes, and the process seems to be continuing.

 We are concerned that these land-use actions have been taking place with  little public oversight, without a comprehensive plan, and without  examining their combined environmental impacts. We have urged DOE to  undertake a comprehensive planning process for the Oak Ridge Reservation, with extensive stakeholder involvement.

 In January, the Southern Environmental Law Center contacted DOE on behalf of AFORR and the Tennessee Conservation League to advise the agency that they have been skirting the law (the National Environmental Policy Act) by making land-use changes without assessing the long range, cumulative impact of development.  We asked the agency to "refrain from making individual land use decisions that would effectively dispose of separate, discrete parcels of the Oak Ridge Reservation prior to completing a comprehensive environmental impact statement (EIS)" on Reservation land use.

 The Chamber of Commerce and others have said that an EIS process for land use planning would freeze "all decisions regarding the DOE land," including "transfer of the American Museum of Science and Energy (AMSE), . . . modernization of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory campus, and . . . the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS)." This is not true -- no matter how many times it has been repeated in recent weeks.

 An EIS process on Reservation land use would not affect projects that are not on the Oak Ridge Reservation, such as the proposed transfer of the museum. It would not affect projects that were previously covered by an EIS and are already under way, such as construction of the SNS. An EIS process also would not affect actions that would neither change current land use designations nor prejudice decisions about other lands covered by the EIS, meaning that it should not affect Y-12 modernization or ORNL facilities revitalization.

 Our organization does not want to block important projects or interfere with existing federal programs here. What our organization seeks is a planning process for the contiguous Oak Ridge Reservation that considers all relevant factors and that considers the concerns and input of all interested parties. We believe that such a process is long overdue, and we think that effective long-range planning makes it necessary to defer some proposals that could limit long-term planning options. 

 For example, AFORR feels that a decision on the tracts of land collectively referred to as Parcel ED-3 must be deferred because commercial and industrial development on these lands could limit land-use options for other areas and for the Reservation as a whole.

 Another hot topic has been the recent sale of the 182-acre floodplain strip next to the Boeing land west of K-25. Conservation interests, including AFORR, objected to the way the proposed sale of this property was handled by DOE because of concerns that environmental and historical values in this floodplain were not being appropriately protected.

 Contrary to statements made by local business interests, we did not intend to interfere with private landowners' use of private land (that is, the Boeing property itself). Instead, we were concerned about protecting the public's interest in the values associated with the 182 acres of publicly owned floodplain adjoining that land, including nearly 70 acres of wetlands and several miles of river frontage.

 The Nature Conservancy several years ago judged that particular floodplain strip to have highly significant value for rare plants, birds, and other aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, and the property includes archaeological sites.  Furthermore, protection of the wetlands is important from a water quality standpoint.

 DOE decided to sell the land to a private developer anyway -- without conservation-related deed restrictions, apparently because the agency judged that the developer's interest in river access for its planned development outweighed the public's interest in maintaining environmental and cultural values in the land.

 We considered it "insult added to injury" when we learned that the land was sold for the bargain-basement price of $54 an acre.

 Governments and conservation interests often pay much more than that to buy up similar land to protect it from development. For example, just recently the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency paid over $3,000 an acre for Smith Bend, a tract on the Tennessee River in Rhea County that also contains wetlands, river bottom, and forest. A published study by a team of respected economists and ecologists concluded that wetlands are worth about $8,000 an acre per year in terms of "natural services" to society.

 As for the often-repeated assertion that DOE had based the sale price on an independent appraisal of the property value, Frank Munger reported in the April 25 Knoxville News-Sentinel that neither DOE nor the developer can produce documentation of the appraisal. He found that nobody in the DOE Oak Ridge Operations Office even remembers who the appraiser was.

 Munger aptly described this situation as "all but unbelievable." Can anyone keep a straight face any more when they say that DOE was diligently looking out for the public's interest when it sold this land?

 It's high time to move past the current atmosphere of polarization and mistrust. We were pleased to read in Parker Hardy's April 4 column that the Chamber of Commerce supports "comprehensive land-use planning conducted in a fashion that will meet the needs of the Department of Energy and the community, and ensure ample opportunity for community input."  We also support such planning.

 We hope we can all work together with DOE in a process that considers all the values of the Oak Ridge federal land as determined by its owners, the people of the United States.