ASSESSMENT7- ENVIRONMENTAL

7.0- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE AND CONSERVATION PRIORITY AREAS

Initially implemented in 2012, the Environmental Assessment Procedure (EAP), has been applied to 19 projects, including hotel new construction and major renovation, residential planned-development construction, marina dredging, solar-energy development, park and trail projects, a major education facility rebuild, and JIA programs and services. The influence and benefits of these efforts are tangibly evident in the resulting projects. Trees have been saved, habitat has been restored, impermeable surfaces have given way to permeable ones, green stormwater infrastructure has been created, a hotel footprint was shifted further from the beach, dumpsters have been replaced with compactors to protect wildlife and a 25-foot freshwater-wetland buffer precedent has been set. A legally protected wildlife corridor was established within the leased boundaries of a residential planned development project. Bobcat kits and an adult eastern diamondback rattlesnake, both priority species, have been documented using the corridor habitat, which would have otherwise likely have been developed. The EAP has been positioned as integral to moderating development pressures and preventing the over development of Jekyll Island. While the EAP is referenced throughout this plan, the language in this chapter shall serve as the definitive guidance on its implementation.

All proposed projects that have significant potential to degrade natural systems within Jekyll Island State Park must undergo an EAP review to assess the potential environmental impacts. Each proposed project must demonstrate that it does not compromise the ability to conserve and restore Jekyll Island’s natural communities and species diversity, or compromise JIA interests in providing public outdoor recreation and education or achieving JIA institutional sustainability goals.

The EAP functions in coordination with the Jekyll Island Master Plan and the Jekyll Island Design Guidelines. In addition to projects, The EAP framework is adaptable to apply to any program or policy that could otherwise compromise natural resources, while the design guidelines review process is intended only to address development projects that involve the construction or renovation of buildings and associated site elements. The EAP is conducted first, and the final EAP report is transmitted to the Design Review Group. The EAP and the design guidelines review processes are outlined below. Together, the EAP, the design guidelines, and the Master Plan will function in concert as guardrails protecting against overdevelopment and inappropriate development. The unifying goal of these plans and processes will be to ensure that the combination of natural and constructed elements endowing Jekyll Island with its unique and increasingly rare character as a coastal habitat, community, and travel destination are upheld and enhanced without diminishment.

Environmental Assessment Procedure

1. Primary Guiding Document: Jekyll Island Conservation Plan 2. Core Review Team: i. the JIA Director of Conservation or designated second (EAP Lead) ii. one additional representative from either the JIA Conservation Department or the JIA Georgia Sea Turtle Center iii. the JIA Director of Landscaping and Planning iv. one additional participant representing JIA administration or operations v. a natural resources professional not affiliated with the JIA vi. a Jekyll Island resident vii. at least two additional individuals not affiliated with the JIA to be appointed by the JIA Executive Directorr

* Individual EAP participants are intended to vary from one project review to the next. In consultation with the Executive Director, the EAP lead may make substitutions to the core review team and invite additional staff or partners to participate. The EAP lead will strive to ensure that sufficient topical expertise and institutional knowledge are brought to bear, and to maintain a balance of JIA to non-JIA participants. Under no circumstances will individuals financially or otherwise associated with a development proposal serve as EAP participants, nor will individuals associated with businesses competing within the same market as those interests involved in the development proposal.

3. Participant Role: Participants will be expected to familiarize themselves with any materials provided in advance, attend and participate in the meeting(s), and review and provide comment on the draft EAP Report(s). 4. Meeting: The EAP Review Team will meet at least once. More meetings may be called if justified by the complexity of the project, if the project changes substantially in concept or scope following the first meeting, or if initial participation is deemed insufficient. 5. Evaluation: The initial step of the EAP will determine whether there are any foreseeable environmental impacts that would result in a recommendation for major conceptual revisions or a determination that a proposed project is inherently incompatible with the Jekyll Island Conservation Plan. Such a recommendation must be justified based firmly upon specified, irreconcilable inconsistencies with fundamental goals and objectives of JIA environmental stewardship specifically identified in JIA Board approved planning documents, including the Conservation Plan. Any legal constraints on the JIA’s ability to reject or approve a project must be considered. For projects that have no such “fatal flaw,” the evaluation will identify specific required conditions of a favorable EAP determination and recommendations for specific design and operational elements that could enhance the project further. 6. Reporting: The EAP Review Team will report its findings to the JIA Executive Director and, when also engaged, the Design Review Group. The EAP Report will identify required conditions of a favorable determination and specify any modifications to a proposed project that may be necessary to, at minimum, avoid conflict with the goals of the Conservation Plan. Optimally, the outcome will be a project that contributes to the Plan’s goals and JIA’s Mission as it relates to stewardship of natural and cultural resources. Reports may be amended or reissued to address project changes and subsequent EAP deliberations. 7. Publishing: A notice will be posted to the JIA website when an EAP has been initiated to include a brief summary of the project under review. The final EAP Report, along with any attachments, will be posted on the JIA website.

Relationship of the EAP to the Jekyll Island Design Guidelines

The Jekyll Island Design Guidelines, last updated in 2014, lays out a stepwise design process for consideration of development projects that require a JIA Board vote to advance. The Design Review Group, composed of JIA staff as assigned by the Executive Director, formulates staff recommendations to inform votes on project advancement by the JIA Board of Directors. The objective of the Design Review process is to uphold standards of project design and construction on all leased lands within the Park and ensure alignment with the Jekyll Island Authority Mission. Some projects, such as residential remodels, typically call for engagement of the Design Review Group independently and are not typically subject to Board review. Other projects, such as recreational trail or wildlife viewing facilities, call for engagement of the EAP independently but do not engage the design review process. Projects that engage both processes, call for their integration in concert. This is typical of new residential development, commercial development, or major renovation of commercial properties. In these cases, the design review is positioned as the governing process and as a vehicle to communicate the conditions of EAP Review Team support to developers. The EAP Report influences staff recommendations to the JIA Board in advance of required JIA Board votes associated with development projects, thereby giving additional weight to the EAP’s conditions of support.

In the case of proposals for commercial development or new residential development, the Design Review Process is the means by which JIA requires submission of materials, such as design schematics, that are made available to inform the EAP review. As stated in the strategies listed under Section 5.2, Park-wide Objective A, of this Plan, upon revision of the design guidelines, language should be added to explicitly allow for the requirement, prior to concept approval, that a sea-level rise and coastal flooding resiliency analysis be provided and vetted through the Environmental Assessment Procedure. Such analyses should be required in cases where the average elevation of the land within the project area would be subject to flooding within sea-level rise planning parameters specified in the Jekyll Island Master Plan. An analysis derived from a prior project may be acceptable if the circumstances and project specifications are sufficiently similar. The JIA may draw upon resources offered by institutional partners, such as Georgia DNR, when conducting such analyses for its own projects. Prior to the revision of the design guidelines, the Design Review Group is nonetheless empowered to require submission of resiliency analyses on a case-by-case basis.

1. Typically, the JIA Director of Conservation (DOC) will identify that a proposed project calls for EAP review and communicates this to the JIA Executive Director. (Anyone may petition either the JIA Executive Director or DOC for an EAP review of a proposed project).

2. The JIA Executive Director approves the DOC to proceed with carrying out an EAP, and the JIA website is updated to specify that an EAP review is in progress along with a summary of the subject matter under review.

3. The DOC, in consultation with the Executive Director, identifies the specific individuals who will be assigned (internal) or invited (external) to serve as EAP participants.

4. An EAP meeting is scheduled and advance materials pertaining to the project under consideration are shared with EAP participants. • For projects necessitating creation of a new lease agreement or requiring re-negotiation of lease terms on an existing lease, EAP review will commence prior to the concept approval phase of the design review process. • For projects that are conceptually compatible within the terms an existing lease agreement as stated, EAP Review will commence at the design development phase of the design review process. • For projects that do not involve lease agreements, and for those projects for which the scope falls outside the design review process, the EAP review will commence at the concept phase of project development.

5. At least one meeting of EAP participants is held • need for multiple meetings is determined by the DOC in consultation with the Executive Director based on project complexity or changes in concept/scope following the first meeting.

6. EAP participants collaboratively determine if the group will deem the proposed project to be compatible with the Jekyll Island Conservation Plan, conditionally compatible, or inherently incompatible. • EAP participants do not vote on a determination of compatibility. If the group fails to reach a consensus determination, this will be recorded in the resulting EAP Report and divergent positions will be described. • Determinations of compatibility must consider the relationship of the project to Conservation Priority Areas (CPAs) along with any landscape-scale impacts and local, site-scale impacts, as defined in this chapter.

7. The JIA Conservation staff, led by the DOC, prepares a draft EAP report summarizing the deliberations of EAP participants and the conclusions of their meeting(s), including any required conditions of a favorable EAP determination along with recommendations to further improve environmental outcomes.

8. The draft EAP report is distributed to EAP participants for review and comment.

9. The DOC reconciles input received from EAP participants on the content of the draft report.

10. The draft EAP report is posted to the JIA website and public comment on the draft is accepted via online submission for 10 business days.

11. The DOC reconciles input received from the public on the content of the draft report.

12. The DOC transmits the updated draft EAP report to the Executive Director, along with any input from EAP participants or the public in response to the draft.

13. The Executive Director and DOC discuss the report and the Executive Director may propose modifications pertaining to how the content of the report is communicated and presented or how stakeholder input was addressed. • If the Executive Director objects to the determination of compatibility, or required conditions of a favorable assessment, he/she must call for additional EAP deliberations to attempt to reconcile these matters.

14. With the approval of the Executive Director, the EAP report is finalized, and posted to the JIA website.

15. The guidance provided in the EAP report is communicated, via the design review process or official memorandum, to those parties responsible for implementing it.

16. JIA staff monitor approved projects and can intervene through appropriate channels, up to and including legal remedy, should the required conditions of favorable EAP review fail to be properly implemented.

7.1- CONSERVATION PRIORITY AREAS

Conservation Priority Areas (CPAs) are designated with the intent to conserve Jekyll Island State Park’s most valuable natural assets — those most essential to advancing the Conservation Program Mission and achieving JIA’s overarching Mission to “maintain the delicate balance between nature and humankind”. CPAs include the Park’s most ecologically rich and productive natural areas, open spaces that are essential to preserving the unique character and experience of Jekyll Island, and features, such as dune topography and wetlands that buffer the Island from erosion and flooding. Meeting the local needs of the Plant and Wildlife Priority Species identified in this Plan requires the sustained ecological integrity of these areas.

Conservation Priority Areas (CPAs) include:

• Priority Vegetative Communities (defined below), as amended in the 2020 Plan update • Any naturally vegetated land lying between the beach and leased parcels, roads, public structures so-designated public beach parks, not otherwise included as CPAs • All saltwater, brackish, and freshwater wetland systems • Wading bird rookeries, and high-value wading-bird rookery habitat • Federally designated Critical Habitat for wintering piping plovers

Buffers required by existing state and federal regulations are considered minimal; CPAs warrant buffers larger than these minimum requirements. Buffer requirements will be determined on a case-by-case basis by the Director of Conservation in consultation with the EAP Review Team and the Design Review Group. Buffers are to be determined based upon:

• The vulnerability of the CPA • The potential for introduction of invasive exotic species • The potential for hydrological impact • The potential for introduction of sediments/pollution • The potential for disturbance/impacts to wildlife • The potential for sea-level rise to expand the CPA • The nature of the project under review

Sanctioned activities in CPAs and associated buffers must not significantly impose upon the viewshed of a nature-dominated landscape, degrade the ecological integrity of the natural system or its habitat value for priority species, or reduce the erosion/flood protection afforded by natural features. EAP-vetted outdoor recreation and environmental education along with, minimal constructed elements in support of these activities, can be compatible with CPAs, so long as design elements needed to effectively minimize disturbance are implemented. Likewise, management activities associated with natural/cultural resources, public safety, or infrastructure, are not intended to be prohibited in CPAs. However, such activities will be subject to more careful supervision in the CPA context and may call for EAP review if significant negative impacts are possible. Temporary disturbances that may result from maintenance activities interacting with CPAs will require the approval of the Director of Conservation, the Executive Director, or their designee.