rss
mobile
Feeds
Actually, it's easy to understand. Everyone in the Lowcountry should have perfect clarity on the issue.
These bridges are bad for the sensitive marsh environment. They are unsightly to neighbors. And development on small islands must be discouraged because their underbrush, trees and isolated wetlands are important to rare and valuable species of plants and animals.
We won't argue the specific issues involved in the request to build a bridge to the 0.27-acre hummock Risher bought in 1997. That case was heard last month by the S.C. Supreme Court, with the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control and the Coastal Conservation League opposing the permit.
What we will argue is the case in general for regulating bridges to marsh islands.
Regulations dealing with causeways and bridges to small islands have been around for many years. So when the state Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the law was too vague to deny a bridge permit to an island near Mount Pleasant, the reaction was swift.
Tighter state regulations were enacted in May 2006.
This came after hearing from many viewpoints and the collection of a great deal of data.
A Marsh Island Access Stakeholder Committee was established to get input from real estate developers, environmental consultants, conservation groups, land trusts, city planners and state agency staffs. They worked with a professional facilitator and met a total of eight times, according to a DHEC synopsis of the project it called the "South Carolina Coastal Marsh Island Management Strategy."
The synopsis states, "Topics addressed by the committee included a definition of 'public need' and size of islands suitable for development. The protection of private property rights and the balance of housing needs with environmental protection were discussed."
At the same time, DHEC's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management partnered with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the S.C. Department of Natural Resources and the stakeholders committee to inventory the islands, assess their biological significance, review bridge-access policies and develop a "GIS-based decision support tool to better document permit reviews for activities occurring in marsh islands." This enables regulators to "compare one particular island to all other islands in the coastal zone, as well as ensure a thorough cumulative-impact review."
From all this effort came policy recommendations much tougher than the ones adopted by a weak-kneed legislative committee.
But something was done. Marsh protection -- left vulnerable by the Supreme Court decision -- was restored.
No, it's not a surprise that the people of Fripp Island are dead set against a bridge through the marsh. They are not alone.
