Skip to content

Tag: Cumberland Island

Published on
Wetlands marked for destruction to make room for Frederica Road realignment.

In issuing permits for projects that disturb or alter the Waters of the United States, the Army Corps of Engineers plays a key role in protecting the nation's water under the federal Clean Water Act.

But the Corps repeatedly fails to fulfill its legal obligations to enforce regulations.

The Clean Water Act's [CWA] purpose is to restore the waters of the country – rivers, streams, and – to a lesser extent – wetlands. Defining those waters subject to regulations known by the term "Waters of the United States" (WOTUS) has been controversial. Due to the water-quality benefits of wetlands, there's been growing support for expanding the WOTUS definition to include more wetlands than previously recognized under the law. Under the CWA, the Corps regulates the disturbance and filling of wetlands that are defined under WOTUS.

Unfortunately, agricultural and land development interests have reinvigorated and funded resistance to expanding the regulated area under the CWA. In some cases and in some districts, this political resistance appears to be influencing both Corps permitting and subsequent court decisions, weakening protections of vital public resources and quality of life.

Certain kinds of projects are eligible for permits that are less thorough than requirements for others. For instance, government-funded road projects are eligible for a "regional general permit' [RGP] that can be issued without public review or environmental assessment. Likewise, individual docks that serve a single residential lot are eligible for a "programmatic general permit" [PGP], if they are not located within, or too close to, historic districts, national parks, or other features having special public purposes. A recurring problem is the Corps' failure to conform to the eligibility requirements for these RGPs and PGPs. This inappropriate issuance of special expedited permits removes safeguards provided by regular permitting, such as a public hearing and environmental review.

...continue reading "A Troubling Pattern Of Faulty Regulation On Georgia’s Coast & Beyond"

Published on

March 8 was the deadline for Georgians to comment on a justifiably controversial project proposed in Camden County, known as "Spaceport Camden." If approved, this spaceport would be the only such facility in the U.S. ever sanctioned to launch rockets over privately owned and occupied property. Moreover, the "hazard zone" for launching includes the world-renowned Cumberland Island National Seashore, part of which is a federally designated Wilderness Area.

Since 1997, under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, Georgia's Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has been authorized to review major federal permits to determine if they are consistent with Georgia's Coastal Management Program. DNR's Coastal Resources Division (CRD) is currently engaged in evaluating Spaceport Camden.

Accordingly, CRD invited public comments on the agency's proposal to issue Coastal Consistency Certification. If certified by CRD/DNR, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which administers spaceports under U.S. law, would have to decide whether to license Spaceport Camden. Most agree that without state certification, FAA would be less likely to grant the license. 

As objectionable as the project certainly is for jeopardizing humans, wildlife, valuable homesites, tourism destinations, and rare natural resources, there is a less apparent but closely related reason to oppose the spaceport - the appalling lack of detailed information to evaluate such risks responsibly. After years of unsubstantiated claims about the spaceport's benefits, compounded by incomplete, contradictory, and illogical review of the project, fundamental questions remain unanswered.

For instance:

...continue reading "Why DNR Should Give Spaceport Camden a Thumbs Down"