  
     
|
|
Spring/Summer 2002 Newsletter
|
Moratorium Needed
If coastal Georgia is to successfully protect the resources and quality of
life that has made this region legendary, and nature-based business a major
source of our employment, there are tough choices that must be made, and
made soon.
The Center recommends a moratorium on any state or local permits that would
allow hammock development until thoroughly examined policy alternatives and
supporting environmental research studies are available for public review.
During this time, as concerned citizens, we should take stock of what we
value most in our communities, what we are, and are not, willing to trade
off, and the implications of these issues for how we live. To be responsible
and realistic, each of us must adjust our habits of consuming, driving,
working and playing in recognition of basic values, as our actions
cumulatively take their toll in an increasingly urban Georgia. |
Georgia's Coast At Turning Point
Center Calls for Marsh Hammock Moratorium
The Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Marsh Hammock Advisory
Council recently released a report summarizing their work to date in
determining the environmental value, vulnerability, and protection options
for Georgia's marsh hammocks. The report includes only rudimentary analysis
of the environmental function of hammocks. Options for protecting hammocks
have not been evaluated, ranked, or recommended.
In the two hearings held by DNR on the issue in Savannah and St. Simons
recently, two things became clear. First, much additional work of the
Advisory Council remains to be completed. Second, and most importantly, many
coastal Georgians are re-evaluating fundamental assumptions about the value
of public resources and their use by owners of private property to make
profits.
Most people agree that providing road access over tidal lands to marsh
hammocks is pivotal to their development. But for this to occur, the state
must approve permits for bridges across these environmentally sensitive
tidal marshlands that have been protected by state law under the Marshlands
Protection Act since 1970.
Because there is no clear prohibition against such bridges, there has been a
troubling tendency for DNR's Coastal Resources Division to approve them. And
due to the sheer number of hammocks in private ownership, the prospect of
this trend spreading has many coastal residents seriously concerned.
Imagine hundreds of bridges and elevated roadways spanning coastal Georgia's
marshfront vistas. And reflect on the escalated loss of native wildlife,
migratory birds, and maritime forest, not to mention harm to the diversity
and abundance of fish.
No wonder this issue has become so critical under such circumstances! The
question is: should marshlands protected in the public trust be used to
provide the means for private financial benefits gained from the development
of hammock property? And if so, how often and under what circumstances?
Trade-offs made in allowing hammock bridges that may have seemed acceptable
not long ago are being increasingly questioned. As Georgia's burgeoning
population imposes unprecedented stress on natural resources, coastal
residents are reaching a new awareness that will redefine the ground rules
for such decisions. This is largely motivated by understandable alarm about
the accumulating effects of many seemingly negligible individual actions
that disturb land, uproot native habitats, and risk further environmental
decline.
Most commonly, these concerns focus on the visual quality of our
communities. But what we cannot see may be far more significant to the
interests of this and future generations. As we have previously reported,
based on EPA publications, the permitted release of toxins into Georgia's
waterways rose by more than 80% from 1989 through 1998. Half of Georgia's
fish consumption advisories are in the coastal region, even though the coast
is less than one-fifteenth of the state's geographic area. Loosely
translating, this means that coastal Georgians are seven times likelier to
encounter toxic materials in fish than are other Georgians. Yet, our
economy is far more dependent on these resources than any other area of the
state. This can mean only one thing: those who have profited by improperly
using Georgiašs air and water resources are doing so at the expense of
others, including the public at large, as well as nature-based businesses.
Indications of such trends, once understood by coastal citizens, can bring a
major turning point in our perception of public interest. We believe that
coastal Georgia is now in the midst of such a re-evaluation, and that the
Center has contributed to the awareness needed to reach this stage of
reassessment. As important as it is, the hammock issue is just one of
several fronts along which these changes are taking hold. The Center will
continue working to identify and protect public interests by collaborating
with other organizations on air quality, water quality, land use, and
economic development. Please visit our website for further elaboration on
these various issues and activities. Your support, involvement and insights
are needed!
Won't you join us at the Center on these important issues? Someday we may
look back and remember these efforts to save one of America's Last Chance
Landscapes much as the authors of the Marshland Protection Act today take
pride in their contribution to the preservation of the Georgia coastal
marshes. Working together, we can achieve ecologically responsible
prosperity for coastal Georgians.
David Kyler
Executive Director
|
|
