12-15-05
Susan Shipman (Director, Coastal Resources Division)
One Conservation Way
Brunswick, Georgia
REFERENCE- Marsh Hammock Restoration (Black Island Creek) |
12-6-05 Evacuated fill matter appears to have been spread on the stream
buffer of the adjacent hammock |
12-06-05 Hydraulic fluid container with labeling |
Dear Ms. Shipman,
This letter is being written by the Altamaha Riverkeeper,
Inc. (ARK) requesting your assistance at the above referenced
salt marsh hammock(s) in McIntosh County.
Several months back
the ARK filed a complaint with the CRD about salt marsh fill
and what we believe was the installation
of an unpermitted bulkhead (sea wall) at two hammocks at the
north end of Black Island in Black Island Creek. CRD did investigate
our complaint and I believe the determination was made that
the bulkhead in question had not been fully permitted. During
this
same investigation it was determined that all the fill material
for what appeared to be a road between two hammocks had not
been authorized. |
I later learned that the road and improperly permitted bulkhead
was installed by a contracting company owned by a Mr. Allen
Drury. During my inquiry about the action(s) taken by the CRD
at this site Mr. Allen Drury was asked to make a contribution
of $5,000.00 to an entity such as a save the sea turtle project
or a State Park along the coast or something of that nature
in lieu of a direct fine. It is also my understanding that
Mr. Allen Drury was required to remove the fill material (Road)
from the salt marsh behind the bulkhead.
It is also my understanding that the owner(s) of the hammock
and bulkhead in question were asked to make a $2,000.00 contribution
to an entity of a similar project as Mr. Drury. In my inquiry
I learned that the hammock owner is to be allowed to retain
the bulkhead as is.
Attached to this e-mail complaint are some
photos taken by me during my most recent visits to this site.
There
is also a couple of before and after comparison photos. I
would like to address the ARK's concerns with the removal of
the
road fill material first. |
12-06-05 Red dirt spread in the buffer of adjacent hammock
buffer on the west end by walkway |
- The ARK does not believe the contractor removed enough
of the fill material from the salt marsh. It appears the
contractor removed only the fill material that he could mechanically
remove. Ms. Shipman, I do not recall reading any place where
an entity that has violated the law says that they can not
use a shovel or other hand tool to complete a job properly.
It was the contractor who violated the law, not the salt
marsh so he should be required to return to the site and
remove ALL the fill material possible without further harming
the salt marsh. Yard rakes, etc. could be used to place the
excess soil in a position that it could be removed with out
doing further environmental damage.
- It appears the contractor did not employ any Best Management
Practices (BMP's) to prevent storm water from moving more
of the remaining dirt into the salt marsh. The Erosion and
Sedimentation Act (E&S ACT) requires that BMP's be used
to prevent further degradation to the environment at a construction
site. This contractor should be required to return to this
construction site and install BMP's to prevent mud from entering
the salt marsh during periods of rainfall. Further, after
the site has been stabilized (covered by salt marsh vegetation)
the contractor should be required to return to the site and
remove the remaining BMP devices.
- It appears the contractor may have placed at least a portion
of the red dirt he removed from the salt marsh onto the stream
buffer of the smaller hammock (see attached photos). Again,
the contractor should be caused to return to this site and
restore the stream buffer of the smaller hammock back to
its original natural state. Once more, BMP's should be installed
to prevent eroding sediment from entering the salt marsh
from the hammock.
- It appears the contractor may have left two commercial
grade five gallon hydraulic fluid containers on the smaller
hammock. I do not know of any reason why anyone would want
to wantonly leave oil buckets in the salt marsh. This type
material is not only unsightly; it can be a pollutant of
the worst type.
- As one of my photos indicates; on the south end of the
smaller hammock between it and Black Island is more of the
type rip rap normally used to stabilize areas around bulkheads
and unstable stream banks. It is not clear who placed this
rip rap along the banks of Black Island Creek, but it should
be removed.
|
The unpermitted section of the bulkhead
Ms. Shipman, this is the most contentious and in ARK's opinion
a most egregious violation of the Coastal Salt Marsh Protection
Act (CMPA).
When you were Chief of Fisheries at CRD surely you were aware
of the research that Dr. Jack Blanton (Skidaway Institute)
did in looking at larval transport and bulkheads. I believe
that Dr. Blanton's research indicated that hardened surfaces
such as bulkheads rip rap, etc. may be detrimental to larval
transport in the estuarine systems.This bulkhead at the hammock
on Black Island Creek started out at about 220 feet of authorized
bulk heading. It appears the owners
may not have been satisfied
with the length of that bulk head so they started the permitting process for
an extra 440 feet as best as I can recollect. The only problem was they only
obtained half the required permits unless I read the records improperly. I
believe the owners may have received some permits from the United
States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACOE) for this additional length of bulk head. However, I believe
that is only half the permitting process, it is my understanding the Coastal
Marshlands Protection Committee (CMPC) must also sign off on the permit for
it to become valid and complete. I believe for their permit to
have been valid the
CMPC had to also authorize the bulk head and unless I misinterpreted the records
that was never done.
I do not know why this owner did not follow up with all the
permitting requirements, but that is not the point now. The
ARK believes the point now is an unauthorized 400 plus feet
of bulk head has been allowed to remain in Black Island Creek.
Irregardless of how stable or unstable this extremely long
bulk head is, we believe the unauthorized section of bulk head
should have been removed from Black Island Creek. |
Road comparison
12-06-05 Salt marsh area not stablized and no BMPs to prevent
sediment from continuing to spread int the Salt Marsh |
Small Hammock buffer comparison
(top) Before Salt Marsh restoration: No red
dirt in stream buffer zone.
(bottom) After Salt Marsh restoration: 12-06-05 Fill materials
& oil containers
|
We also believe the $7,000.00 dollars donated to other entities that
may not have a direct connection to Black Island Creek could
have been better invested. The ARK believes that the entities
involved with the installation of this unpermitted section of
bulk head should have been required to hire an engineering firm
to come in and determine the most environmentally friendly way
to remove the unpermitted section of bulk head. From that point
on had it been feasible to do they should have been required
to remove the unpermitted portion of the bulk head at their own
expense.Ms. Shipman, I do not believe it is not like Mr. Drury
doesn't understand that the rest of the permit was required before
beginning construction at this site. In order for him to remain
in the dock building/bulk head building business he would need
to be very familiar with the permitting process. I am terribly
afraid that we may be sending the wrong message to those that
desire bulk heads along our estuarine systems. I think that I
can assume the people building these huge nice homes on these
hammocks are millionaires or more and $7,000.00 is nothing and
may be considered a price for doing business and as such just
thumb their nose at the law. So what happens if they don't get
caught; they didn't have to wait and spend that money during
the permitting process as others are required to do. The ARK
certainly hopes the CRD will reassess how it handles this type
situation in the future.
11-25-05 Rip Rap beyond bulkhead towards Black Island |
In conclusion, the ARK is requesting you to cause this contractor
to return to this site and complete the restoration work we
believe he failed to do in the beginning. We also request that
CRD work with the EPD and have the contractor return to the
small hammock and restore the stream buffer back to its natural
vegetative state. We further request that if it is determined
that this contractor did leave those commercial grade oil buckets
on the small hammock CRD, EPD or whom ever pursue a course
of action that is necessary to at least levy a littering fine
on the contractor for this unscrupulous act.
The ARK would like to thank you in advance for your assistance
in this very important matter.
James Holland, Altamaha Riverkeeper |
