Cumberland Harbour Decision Boosts Protection of Georgia's Coast
After a grueling 3-day hearing last November and several months of judicial review, in February the Center was gratified to learn
that our appeal of a marsh permit resulted in a substantial victory for our coast.
Thanks to the hard work of dedicated attorneys at Southern Environmental Law Center, who represented the Center, Georgia River Network,
and Satilla Riverkeeper, an administrative law judge found that our arguments were well-founded and rejected the permit for Cumberland
Harbour - a massive project in Saint Marys across the Intracoastal Waterway from Cumberland Island National Seashore.
This finding will help set a powerful precedent for the responsible review and control of future projects that threaten right whales,
manatees, and other marine life, plus the marsh itself. Without such a finding, future projects, regardless of size, could be expected
to cause major cumulative environmental harm along our coast - with dire long-term consequences.
As proposed and permitted, Cumberland Harbour would have been the largest marina complex ever built in coastal Georgia, tripling the
storage capacity for boats in Camden County, just north of the Florida line. Despite having the potential to intro-duce as many as
1,000 new power-boats into local waters, the committee issuing the permit failed to adequately evaluate the implications for species
meant to be safeguarded by the state's Marshlands Protection Act.
Furthermore, the proximity of the project to Cumberland Island presented serious questions about its impacts on the federally designated
National Seashore, much of it a wilderness area, one of the nation's few barrier islands under protection and still in near-pristine condition.
As reported over a year ago in this newsletter, within less than two weeks after the permit was issued in February 2005, a right whale was
severely injured by a recreational boat off Cumberland Island. Some six months later the whale died from infection believed to have been
caused by the propeller's lacerating impact. This tragic event was especially relevant because the permitting committee considered such
incidents unlikely due to the period when right whales are found in Georgia's waters.
Although less dramatic, perhaps the most significant finding in the case was that the committee must consider the project as a whole when
evaluating its impact on the marsh - not just looking at structures like docks and marinas that would disturb the marsh directly. A few
years ago a similar finding was made in a previous case in which we prevailed (Emerald Pointe in Chatham County), but the state has been
reluctant to accept that ruling as a precedent.
This is keenly important because so much harm to coastal marshes and waterways is caused by non-point source pollution, including storm-water
runoff that is not properly collected, filtered, and slowly released back to natural systems. By requiring the entire project to be evaluated,
we hope to ensure that such environmental risks are greatly reduced.
Another aspect of this case that may not be readily apparent has to do with tracking, evaluating, and responding to project impacts. A biological
assessment being prepared by the developer was not completed when the permit was issued. (In fact, the assessment is still in draft form, under
review by several public agencies.)
At the permit hearing last year, SELC attorney Chris DeScherer argued strongly against issuing the permit until the assessment was done.
This was not only because the assessment would reveal risks to protected resources, but also since it was to be used as the basis for
³conservation measures² for ensuring adequate control of such risks.
Beyond such controls, which would inherently include field assessment to measure environmental quality, there would be need to establish
accountability for correcting any harmful outcomes if they occur. Unless permit conditions ultimately include reliable methods to do this,
there is no way to protect resources that the project threatens.
It might be argued that taking such corrective action should be DNR's responsibility, but we believe otherwise. The cost of monitoring and
assessing impacts, and then taking corrective actions needed, could amount to several million dollars over a period of five years or more.
Considering the extreme constraints on state budgeting, it is impractical, unfair, and unreasonable to impose such an obligation on DNR.
This means that anyone who proposes to profit by imposing the impacts of development must assume responsibility for conducting their activities
to avoid adverse outcomes that harm public resources. Paying for reliable environmental protection must be considered one of the basic costs of
doing business, and it is entirely appropriate that developers consider it a legally binding obligation.
|
