Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreline Erosion Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Athens County board approves riprap extension at 99 Studs Creek after applicant cites steep bank
Summary
The Athens County Weblands Board approved an application to extend an existing bulkhead with riprap at 99 Studs Creek after the applicant said a living-shoreline approach was infeasible because of a steep bank; the board required corrected application details be submitted to the BMRC before final processing.
ATHENS COUNTY — The Athens County Weblands Board voted to approve an application to extend riprap in front of an existing bulkhead at 99 Studs Creek during its August meeting. The applicant said a living-shoreline alternative was not feasible because the bank is too steep.
The applicant, Lauren Morgan of 2959 Buckle Hall Road, said she submitted an amended drawing and asked the board to consider an extension of the bulkhead from 60 feet to 65 feet. “We did consider a living shore while on this project, but with the steepness of the height of the bank … we couldn’t grade far enough back,” Morgan said, adding that riprap was the “best option.”
Board staff noted inconsistencies in the application’s page 17, question 3, where square footage of encroachment was listed as “0” despite photographs showing exposed substrate between the low-tide line and the bulkhead. A staff speaker told the board the application could be heard that night but asked that corrected information be submitted to the BMRC (the agency cited in the hearing) before final processing.
Board members asked whether the 5-foot extension would remove marsh vegetation and were told the BMRC would not require a mitigation fee for the proposed change because it could be considered a conversion with some opportunity for vegetation establishment. Morgan confirmed the extension would cover a few feet of marsh grass and said she had consulted with a BMRC contact.
After the public-comment period closed with no speakers for or against the proposal, the board discussed feasibility and precedent, and a motion to approve the application carried. The board’s action requires the applicant to submit corrected application materials to the BMRC before the permit files are completed.
Discussion-only points: staff’s identification of an incorrect “0” entry for square-foot encroachment on the submitted form and the applicant’s explanation that the existing footprint and site constraints made a living-shoreline approach impractical.
Decision and next steps: the board approved the riprap extension. The applicant must submit corrected documentation and the revised drawings to the BMRC for the project record.
Background: The hearing notice identified the application as BMRC permit 25-1070, map 16-4-1, described as a request to install Class 2 riprap in front of an existing bulkhead with "approximately 42 cubic feet" of material behind the existing wall along the Dutch Creek shoreline, per the hearing description read into the record.
