Two skiffs threaded their way through the wide, peaceful marsh toward Flora Hammock. The volunteer scientists aboard were on an important mission: conduct an inventory of a marsh hammock's biodiversity.

The Georgia Conservancy's coastal office, in partnership with the Southern Environmental Law Center, organized two of four hammock inventory days in May. The volunteer naturalists used the "Bio-Blitz" method of counting as many plant and animal species as possible in a single day, visiting 18 publicly owned marsh hammocks between Skidaway and Sapelo Islands.

By no means comprehensive, Bio-Blitz provides a basic snapshot of a local natural area.

Georgia urgently needs this information as it struggles to determine the future of 1,200 marsh hammocks and 400,000 acres of coastal marshland.

Last year, Georgia's Department of Natural Resources formed the Coastal Marsh Hammocks Advisory Council to assess the impacts of building homes on hammocks, and the bridges that would lead to them. As island and mainland waterfront property fills up, these small marsh islands increasingly beckon upscale-home developers.

One such home development, Emerald Pointe, is the pivotal project that created the public uproar that triggered the Advisory Council's creation. In March 2001, the Southern Environmental Law Center challenged a state permit to build three bridges from the mainland through public marshlands to three private hammocks, proposed site of 40 Emerald Pointe houses and a marina. SELC filed the suit on behalf of Center for a Sustainable Coast, Sierra Club and Altamaha Riverkeeper.

The Hammocks Advisory Council first tackled some basic tasks, as neither a working definition of a hammock nor a precise count of them existed. The council defined a marsh hammock as a "small back barrier island." These are all islands between the barrier island complex (Tybee, Sapelo, Cumberland, etc.) and the mainland.

The council also examined the ecological importance of marsh hammocks, which feature maritime forest communities in decline throughout the East Coast. Hammocks provide refuge and breeding places for mammals, wading birds and other wildlife. They are a vital stopover for migratory neo-tropical birds and a specialized habitat for diamondback terrapins.

The council also considered habitat loss, wastewater disposal, archeological resources, runoff and water quality impacts on surrounding marsh, and loss of view-shed and sense of place. The Georgia Conservancy's work on the council report focused on the water quality impacts of hammock development, including effluent from septic systems and runoff into the marsh caused by vegetation loss and increased impervious surfaces.

In March 2002, the council issued a report that offers options, rather than recommendations. (View it at www.dnr.state.ga.us.) Subsequently, DNR held two public opinion hearings in May and plans to hold more "stakeholder" meetings this year.

While 54 percent of hammock acreage is in private hands, most marshlands surrounding private hammocks belong to the people of Georgia. Further, it is through the state Coastal Marshlands Protection Act (CMPA) that permission to build almost anything in the marsh is given.

The Georgia Conservancy is concerned that the CMPA permit process favors private access over preservation of ecologically vital public lands. Georgia must consider what "in the public interest" means in the context of the CMPA.

The State is under no greater obligation to provide access through its property than any other property owner. Yet some officials may have interpreted the CMPA's language as requiring a permit issuance under conditions that a bridge alone can often meet, but a bridge with a residential development could not. Some coastal environmental groups have challenged this narrow regulatory approach, though early results are not encouraging.

The current project review process is fragmented. Responsibility lies with agencies at the federal, state, county and municipal levels. This lack of coordination tends to work against protecting hammocks and marshes.

For example, if a developer has state approval for a bridge, he has a stronger hand to negotiate for flexibility on other site restrictions, especially erosion buffers, septic system requirements, on-site wetlands, or setback requirements, which are regulated separately by the county government, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the local zoning board, respectively. After all, these hammocks officially have been made more appropriate for development by virtue of the fact that the State already has granted a bridge permit to them.

In practice, the more permit approvals a developer musters, the better the legal argument of "enhanced expectation" and the harder it becomes for any permit authority to fully enforce regulations that could render the site unbuildable, unprofitable or less profitable by scaling it back to meet site regulations. "Enhanced expectation" often translates into a credible threat of legal action against authorities that might choose to enforce standards over which they have some discretion.

Under this scenario, it is not hard to see how the various safeguards, so carefully noted by the Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee members when they first approve a bridge permit, are diluted by clever permit writing and piecemeal project approval.

Once development occurs, practically speaking, it will be with us forever. Even if research later proves that hammock development is harmful, owners will rightfully claim the State approved the project.

The Georgia Conservancy believes that these realities and environmental risks should be reason enough to convince our public officials to limit development now, by using the best science available, while gaining more specific knowledge of marsh hammocks. Development pressure is building, and time is of the essence.

Last fall, Scenic America named Georgia's marsh hammocks one of the 10 most endangered scenic places in America. The national recognition came as a result of Conservancy coastal program director Patty McIntosh's nomination on behalf of the Georgia Conservancy and Residents United for Planning and Action.

DNR's May hearings underscored public concern about the visual impact of bridges and hammock development. Sight lines are a normal interest for any neighbor, and they should be a central concern for public officials, especially if public land is conveyed to allow access to the site.

We urge the Georgia Department of Natural Resources to expand the dialogue through the advisory council, additional public hearings, and with county and local governments. Future efforts should also involve hammock owners to help develop alternatives for protecting the marsh system as a whole.

In the meantime, we urge DNR to evaluate every possible measure to provide for more comprehensive permit review, including deferring permit consideration until a better process is in place. We believe that in convening the advisory council, Commissioner Barrett acknowledged that past enforcement of the CMPA has been insufficient to address the threat to coastal marsh hammocks, a resource the council's report recognized as integral to the health and function of marshlands. With these realities in mind, we believe that a continuation of the CMPA's permit program as currently applied is insupportable.

What you can do: express your concern for the integrity of Georgia's hammocks and marshlands by writing Mr. Lonice Barrett, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 205 Jesse Hill Jr. Drive, Suite 1152 East, Atlanta, GA 30334.

Volunteers from the University of Georgia, Oatland Island Education Center, Ogeechee Audubon, Coastal Georgia Land Trust, Clean Coast, the Altamaha Riverkeeper, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and DNR Coastal Resources Division and others participated in the bio-inventory.

top | back