 |
P.O. Box 2642 | Darien, GA 31305 | Tel 912-437-8164 | FAX 912-437-8765 | |
| Home | About Us | River News | Wildlife | Advocacy | Education | Events & Meetings | Resources | Links | Newsletters | ||
|
P.O. Box 2642 | Darien, GA 31305 | Tel 912-437-8164 | FAX 912-437-8765 | |
| Home | About Us | River News | Wildlife | Advocacy | Education | Events & Meetings | Resources | Links | Newsletters | ||
 |
Are Our Coastal Marshlands Being Protected?By James Holland, Altamaha Riverkeeper"I am writing this article to articulate my displeasure at the development of coastal marshlands with disregard to the protection of marine species. Please do not misconstrue my intent as anti development. "In 1970 the Georgia State Legislature enacted into law theCoastal Marshlands Protection Act of 1970. In doing so, the Georgia State Legislature issued the following proclamation: The General Assembly finds and declares that the coastal marshlands of Georgia comprise a vital resource system. It is recognized that the estuarine area of Georgia is the habitat of many species of marine life and wildlife and, without the food supplied by the marshlands, such marine life and wildlife cannot survive. The General Assembly further finds that intensive marine research has revealed that the estuarine marshlands of coastal Georgia are among the richest providers of nutrients in the world. Such marshlands provide a nursery for commercially and recreationally important species of shellfish and other wildlife, provide a great buffer against flooding and erosion, and help control and disseminate pollutants. Also, it is found that the coastal marshlands provide a natural recreation resource which has become vitally linked to the economy of Georgia's coastal zone and to that of the entire state. The General Assembly further finds that this coastal marshlands resource system is costly, if not impossible, to reconstruct or rehabilitate once adversely affected by man related activities and is important to conserve for the present and future use and enjoyment of all citizens and visitors to this state. The General Assembly further finds that the coastal marshlands are a vital area of the state and are essential to maintain the health, safety, and welfare of all citizens of the state. Therefore, the General Assembly declares that the management of the coastal marshlands has more than local significance, is of equal importance to all citizens of the state, is of state-wide concern, and consequently is properly a matter for regulation under the police power of the state. The General Assembly further finds and declares that activities and structures in the coastal marshlands must be regulated to ensure that the values and functions of the coastal marshlands are not impaired and to fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as public trustees of the coastal marshlands for succeeding generations. The General Assembly enacted the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act (CMPA) (the Act) because they saw a need for a permitting process to protect these vital resources from development. In the Act there is a provision for a Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee (CMPC), which is made up of two coastal citizens, and the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Unfortunately, when the Act was created, no one foresaw the massive volume of development in the coastal marshlands that would occur in the late 1990's. Now the demand for homes, marinas, golf courses, and other businesses on the coast is literally gobbling up these once thought to be undevelopable lands. Development is also reaching out to small islands (hammocks) in the salt marshes that used to be considered undevelopable. As development of this vital resource occurs, let me repeat what the Act says: Such marshlands provide a nursery for commercially and recreationally important species of shellfish and other wildlife. Most people do not understand the importance of the place where fresh water and salt-water meet, called the interface. The interface creates an organic soup, sort of like a food smorgasbord, for many larval and juvenile marine species. The interface occurs where salt and fresh water meet, whether it is a major creek, river, or the tiniest intermittent stream. The interface is as important as the marshes themselves because this is where the mosquitoes and sand gnats, that many of us love to hate, lay eggs. The interface attracts blue crab larva, brown shrimp, and many types of fin fish. The area offers a place for the critters to feed on the eggs and grow. These streams provide vital food sources for marine life and for some species, like blue crabs, they are essential. If blue crab larva settles in water that is too salty they can become stunted in growth or even die. Rainfall and fresh water from upland streams also play a major role in marine life production. It is important to note that freshwater streams are not out in the open salt marshes. There are some intermittent streams on hammocks but the vast majorities are located along the shore and the swamps of the mainland and the larger barrier islands. The scenario I have just described is no great myth or mystery to marine and fisheries biologists. It is well documented in research and scientific literature. The only changes that have been made are in the human activities along the marshlands. Man's activity has increased many fold. At one time the Coastal Resources Division CRD fisheries biologists performed fish surveys on the larva and juvenile species along Georgia's coastal marshlands. The fisheries surveys, which are no longer done, took place in the brackish water (less salty) in ditches and small creeks in and near the mainland. These are areas of where the young crabs, fish, and shrimp live. The survey did not take place around the beaches and sounds when they were looking for inshore marine species, such as crabs, shrimp, menhaden, black drum, and the list goes on. Another important fact about fresh water streams is the method and timing of the stream flow into the salt marshes. It is also scientifically documented that fresh water is most productive when received in the marshes in a natural, slow, trickle down manner. When small streams and wetlands are filled in for development and storm water is piped down to the marshlands it can become a pollutant. For instance, if all the water from the pavement, parking lots, and rooftops is channeled into a pipe and delivered to the marshlands it becomes like flushing a giant toilet bowl. When this happens it flushes everything, including the all-important marine larva, out to saltier waters. This is when the real problems for marine life begin. The CMPC should also consider the massive number of bulkheads permits being requested for new developments. There is research that indicates bulk heading in the estuary may interfere with larval transport. To put it simply, larval transport is natures built in method in which larva transports itself from salty waters to the more optimum less salty waters, it needs for survival. Therefore the General Assembly declares that the management of the coastal marshlands has more than local significance, is of equal importance to all citizens of the state, is of state-wide concern, and consequently is properly a matter for regulation under the police power of the state. Earlier, I stated the General Assembly had the fore sight to enact the Coastal Marshland Protection Act, and the Costal Marshland Protection Committee to oversee a permit process to protect coastal marshlands. The process is designed to allow development but protect the vital resources that belong to all people. Originally there were only three people on the committee but in 2004 the legislature amended the Act to create two new committee positions and on May 30, 2004, the DNR Board of Natural Resources approved the appointment of two more people to serve as members. The CMPC now consists of; the DNR Commissioner (Chairman), an engineer, a geologist, a corporate lawyer and a transportation expert. In my opinion, the CMPC is not reflective of all of our interests and values in coastal Georgia. Without healthy estuaries and marshlands, coastal Georgia's major industry, eco tourism, will crumble. The natural resources that grow food for us also provides the habitat for the many wading birds that our eco tourism friends pay to come and see. These same fisheries are already stressed to the max from poor water quality and possible over fishing. As a reminder of what can happen if the habitat becomes degraded, remember how many ducks we used to have down here? Commercial and recreational fisheries also pour millions of dollars into the coastal Georgia economy. Over the past thirty years many of the commercial seafood processing plants have closed along coastal Georgia, closed with no intent of reopening. These business failures have a tendency to drive our seafood prices higher and price consumers out of the market place for local shrimp. When the General Assembly created the Act, they aptly stated, such marshlands provide a nursery for commercially and recreationally important species of shellfish and other wildlife. The question that now begs to be asked is; why hasn't someone been appointed to the CMPC that has a back ground in marine fisheries? It is not realistic to expect each committee member to be knowledgeable in all categories of marine fisheries science. With the addition of two more members to the committee, I certainly believe it would be prudent for one of the new additions to have, at minimum, a working knowledge of marine fisheries. Now I believe we have a dilemma. Where do we go from here? Can we rely upon the CRD staff to ask appropriate questions of the applicant? In my opinion, the answer to this question is a resounding NO. We need someone on the CMPC who asks the applicant pertinent questions and votes against projects that are detrimental to marine fisheries. The CRD staff is in an advisory capacity role but they do not make the decisions or have the ability to reject a project if they feel the proposed project impacts the environment negatively. When the General Assembly wrote the ACT it gave the state very broad powers to protect our coastal marshlands. In my opinion, the CMPC has chosen not to use these powers to the best interests of all people. For instance, when issuing permits, the Act gives the CMPC the authority to consider the upland impact to marshes. So far, there is little evidence that indicates the CMPC is considering these impacts. In summary, I have seen very little to lead me to conclude that the state is doing all it can to protect our coastal marshlands for all citizens of Georgia. The following paragraphs illustrate a few of my concerns. There is a CMPC Permit application working its way through the pipe line for a sub division to go in on Pointe Peter Creek in Camden County. The developers are advertising lots that include at least 95 private docks. This may be just fine for the owners of these private docks, but did you know that a commercial blue crab fisherman can not place a crab trap within 100 feet in any direction of a private dock? I'll let the readers do the math on how much traditional fishing grounds the riverfront home sites will remove from an already financially stressed fishing industry. I feel like commercial fishermen should have the right to use these waters to make a living. I am not an advocate who opposes all docks in our estuarine system but I do believe when a large development is marketing home sites with private docks, the CMPC should place conditions on the permit restricting the number of docks and how close the docks can be built to one another. Unfortunately, private docks do not have to be reviewed by the CMPC to obtain a permit. I have seen private docks constructed by a pile driving boat in a manner that destroys live oyster beds. With a little planning, by someone who cares, this can be easily avoided. There are many private floating docks being constructed in tidal creeks that go dry on low tide. This practice allows the docks to settle on the mud which causes harm to the benthic community that lives in the mud and sediment. 12-5-288 of the Act relates to activities and structures considered contrary to public interest.
In Darien, on the Darien River, is a 42-unit condominium site being constructed on filled marshlands. The original permit to fill this marshland was issued for a public marina which clearly passes the Public Interest Test. The owner of this property later decided not to build the marina and sold the property to private developers. The public raised objections that the condos were not water related and the boat slips were not a public marina but the developers requested and received a CMPC permit to build a private development of 42 condominium units and 42 floating dock slips. The CMPC permit was transferred, even though the project does not qualify as Public Interest. The transfer of the permit raises another extremely important question; does the public voice count in this permitting process? It is long past time for Georgia's citizens to speak out for the protection of marine species and public rights to natural resources. Please call or write and express your concern to the governor. Office of the Governor, Georgia State Capitol, Atlanta, GA, 30334, Telephone number 404-656-1776 |
|
||
| ||||
