“At a point where smart planning is more critical than ever to protect our coastal resources, it defies common sense to develop pristine coastal areas for the benefit of a few landowners to the detriment of shoreline health, wildlife habitat and public access to Georgia’s beloved beaches. It’s important to adopt a reasonable approach that balances the public interest and private rights—this project fails to strike that balance.”
— Steve Combs, Chairperson Surfrider Foundation Georgia
Developers are once again trying to develop a fragile, eroding part of the south tip of Sea Island called the Spit. In 2015, the Surfrider Foundation Georgia Chapter worked with Altahama Riverkeeper and GreenLaw to prevent the issuance of building permits on this ecologically sensitive and important parcel of land on the Georgia Coast. This 2015 campaign culminated in a lawsuit settlement that preserved 90% of the sea island spit area, including over 80 acres in a land conservation easement and funding for a five-year study on the coastal erosion and sand supply system in this part of coastal Georgia.
Most recently, the developers have revived a proposal to install a groin on Sea Island. As part of the 2015 settlement, the chapter and fellow plaintiffs reserved the right to challenge any beach nourishment or shoreline stabilization project. The chapter and its allies maintain that placing a groin at the south end of the island would further exacerbate erosion downcoast of the groin, resulting in loss of beach for recreation and habitat.
The US Army Corps of Engineers have approved a permit for the proposed project. The Chapter and allies challenged the permit, but unfortunately the challenge was not successful.
In February, the Southern Environmental Law Center filed a motion for summary judgment ("MSJ", asking the court to make a pre-trial ruling for plaintiffs ) on behalf of Surfrider and our co-plaintiffs in the case. The MSJ argues that the U.S. Army Corps' permit violates the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act, and that the Corps failed to consider the project's impact on beach access. Briefing on this MSJ continues, with the Corps and Sea Island having responded and made cross motions for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs' Reply brief due May 15th.
Meanwhile, in March, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources issued Sea Island a consent order (PDF) in response to Sea Island’s violation of the Shore Protection Act. The order required Sea Island to pay $40,000 and remove their unpermitted extension of the groin.
Permit Amendment. In Summer 2019, Surfrider learned that Sea Island had constructed its groin and sand renourishment project outside of the bounds of its U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit, and received an after the fact amendment of its permit to bring its project into compliance (instead of complying with the initial permit, or seeking approval of the changes before construction). The amendment was issued without any public notice or opportunity for comment.
Amended Complaint. In September 2019, Surfrider filed an Amended Complaint in our lawsuit informing the court of the USACE permit modifications and adding a claim that the permit modification violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the Clean Water Act. Sea Island and the USACE have filed their answers with the court, generally denying the new claim.
Next Steps. Surfrider anticipates plaintiffs' motion for summary judgement (where a party asks the court for a ruling in a case summarily, without a trial) will be due around late February 2020, with motions and briefing to follow.
Read our comment letter submitted by Southern Environmental Law Center:
[SELC Letterhead]
June 28, 2018
Via U.S. Mail and E-mail
Colonel Marvin Griffin, Commander
Attention: Sarah E. Wise
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Savannah District
100 West Oglethorpe Avenue
Savannah, Georgia 31401-3640
Sarah.E.Wise@usace.army.mil
John.E.Ballard@usace.army.mil
Re: Sea Island Groin, Application Number SAS-2015-00742
Dear Colonel Griffin:
The Southern Environmental Law Center submits the following comment letter on behalf of One Hundred Miles, Altamaha Riverkeeper, and the Surfrider Foundation. This letter is meant to supplement the comments that we submitted on January 15, 2016; February 28, 2017; and May 23, 2018. Thank you for including these prior comments in the record; we ask that you include this last set in the record as well. In these final comments, we attach an expert report that further supports our opposition to Sea Island Acquisition, LLC’s (SIA) request for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) permit. The permit would, should it be granted, authorize SIA to do the following: (1) construct a T-head groin in front of eight undeveloped building lots; (2) pump between 1,315,000 to 2,500,000 cubic yards of sand from an offshore source; and (3) place that sand in front of a revetment stretching 2.8 miles along the main part of Sea Island.
As we have stated in each of our comments, should the Corps grant this permit, it would be opening itself up for a legal challenge. As it is now configured, the project would violate federal law.
In the attached expert report, Bret M. Webb, Ph.D., P.E., D.CE, describes the irreparable harm that the Sea Island project could cause to the Spit. According to Dr. Webb, the storm surges that accompanied Hurricanes Irma and Mathew robbed the Spit and its beach of a tremendous amount of sand. And in some places these waves overtopped the Spit and reached the river on its landward side. As we demonstrated in our state challenge to the proposed project, the Spit was vulnerable even before the hurricanes made landfall. The proposed groin would exacerbate that problem. The groin would sit immediately updrift of where the Spit is the weakest. Any downdrift erosion would make it that much easier for the next set of storm surges to break the Spit in two.
Dr. Webb also explains in his report that SIA did not explore all reasonable alternatives. In particular, SIA did not perform a meaningful analysis of any alternative that would involve beach nourishment on the Spit south of the proposed project area. According to Dr. Webb, in light of the massive beach nourishment project SIA has proposed for the main part of the island, SIA could extend the proposed beach nourishment down the Spit. Not only would this alternative be logistically possible, but it also would be reasonable in cost.
We ask that the Corps take Dr. Webb’s report into consideration when it makes its final permit decision regarding the proposed project. If it does, the Corps must conclude that the proposed project would not meet applicable federal requirements.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project. If you have any questions concerning these comments, please feel free to contact me by email at bsapp@selcga.org or by telephone at 404-521-9900.
Sincerely,
William W. Sapp
Senior Attorney
Encl.
cc: Megan Desrosiers, One Hundred Miles
Jen Hilburn, Altamaha Riverkeeper
Staley Prom, Surfrider Foundation
Steve Combs, Surfrider Foundation