A legal battle over a private dock on Cumberland Island is headed back to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia to re-examine whether federal officials approved the structure without proper public notice and input.
“The Center for a Sustainable Coast, along with its member, Karen Grainey, sued the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, upset that the Corps had issued a dock permit without full environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act,” the majority of the three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals wrote in their opinion issued May 2. “The Center established injury by showing that several of its members regularly visit Cumberland Island, where the dock is sited, and suffer an ongoing aesthetic injury on those visits. The Center also showed that the environmental review the Corps skipped could have protected that interest, at least in theory.”
While all of Cumberland Island is designated as a national seashore and most is owned by the federal government, “some land remains in private hands, owned mostly by descendants of those who vacationed on the island during its heyday,” the opinion notes.
After receiving a letter of permission from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lumar LLC built the dock in 2017 adjacent to an 88-acre, fee-simple property the group of Coca-Cola heirs bought in 1998 near Cumberland Island National Seashore’s Sea Camp. The 500-square-foot dock connects to a gangway, pier head and 200-foot walkway.
Lumar asked for and received permission to build a single-family dock, which poses few regulatory hurdles. But the company later made public plans to subdivide its Cumberland Island dockside acreage into 10 lots. The property remains undeveloped, however.
“(E)ven if a single-family dock requires no permit hearing under normal circumstances, because this site is within the National Seashore boundary a hearing should have been required by the Corps,” Center for a Sustainable Coast Director Dave Kyler told The Current. “Needless to say, it is our well-founded assertion that such new development is in direct, flagrant conflict with the purpose of the national seashore as stated in the founding 1972 legislation.”
Jessica Howell-Edwards, the executive director of the nonprofit Wild Cumberland, broke down the next steps: “If the district court concludes the Corps did violate NEPA, the Corps would go through NEPA to assess the need for the dock, the dock’s impacts, and alternatives to the dock, with notice to the public and opportunity for comment,” she wrote. “The Corps would then decide whether to allow the dock’s continued existence. That decision would be subject to further judicial review.”
The Tide brings regular notes and observations on news and events by The Current staff.
You must be logged in to post a comment.