Accomack County wetlands board orders restoration plan after rip-rap placed on Starboard Street marsh

The Accomack County Wetlands Board on Thursday voted that property owner Michael Pulaski must submit a staff-approved restoration plan, raise the low area to the adjacent vegetated-wetland elevation and submit to three years of monitoring after rip-rap was placed on marshland at the end of Starboard Street.

The board’s action follows testimony and photos showing rock placement on a marsh fronting an undeveloped lot near Pulaski’s house on Chincoteague Bay. Paul Watson, deputy director of the county’s Code Administration Division, told the board the affected wetlands area measured about 204 square feet and that staff observed rip-rap placed “directly on the wetlands.”

Why it matters: The board enforces the Virginia Marine Resources Commission policy of “no net loss” for wetlands within the county’s jurisdiction. Restoration plans and monitoring are the standard remedy when permitted work or construction is found to have harmed wetlands, and the board’s decision sets requirements the landowner must meet before the matter is closed.

At the hearing, Pulaski disputed that his work or his contractor caused significant wetland damage. Pulaski said he and his contractor removed much of the gravel from the marsh and that most of the marsh had eroded before their project. “I respectfully request that the charge against me be dismissed,” Pulaski said after recounting photos and prior erosion at the site. He also said he has invested about $70,000 in shore protection work and has filed separate complaints with state and federal agencies, including the Virginia DEQ and the Army Corps of Engineers.

County staff and several contractors who spoke at the meeting described a different timeline. Watson said staff visited the site in March after receiving complaints and observed rock placed on the marsh. Claire Gorman, a county environmental staff member who worked on the permit, said the revetment and breakwater applications were submitted in 2023 and then permitted, and that calls followed once construction began and rock was observed in the marsh.

Board members debated remedies. Several members favored a restoration plan matched to the existing permit rather than an in-lieu fee payment. The motion the board adopted directs the applicant to submit a restoration plan approved by staff, require three years of monitoring, and raise the low area to the adjacent vegetated-wetland elevation. The board also set an administrative expectation that staff will return the matter to the board if a plan is not filed within roughly 60 days.

The board did not order a fine at the meeting. Members noted the marsh has shown signs of regrowth in many places but identified a roughly 10-by-10-foot low spot where vegetation has not returned. The board’s remedy focuses on elevating and replanting that low area so the marsh can recover.

Pulaski told the board he may pursue civil or agency complaints separately and asked the wetlands board to assist if state or federal investigations proceed. Board members explained the board’s role is limited to permitting and restoration remedies and that some allegations Pulaski raised (for example, removal of an older gabion seawall by other parties) fall outside the board’s direct permitting authority.

The board’s motion passed by voice vote with the members present voting to approve the restoration plan requirement.