Complaint ID 113399 — Public Copy

Report generated July 29, 2026 8:52 AM.

On this Page

Status: Approved/Closed

Complaint Received
July 15, 2025 6:14 PM
Assigned Office
Mountain District
Complaint Closed
August 20, 2025 3:29 PM
Review Comments
[Not entered]

Nature of Complaint

Jonathan Wells, EPD, received the following email on 07/15/2025: "MEMORANDUM Date: July 15, 2025 To: Mr. Johnathan Wells, Program Manager, Georgia EPD From: [REDACTED] Reference: [REDACTED] Dear Mr. Wells, Since an onsite meeting has not been feasible, I am writing to clearly state my expectations of the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD) regarding the recent land disturbances on my property at [REDACTED] and the 2 other disturbances downstream. My property includes two lots on [REDACTED], a designated Georgia trout stream protected by the Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act (O.C.G.A § 12-7). In November 2024, Teague Outdoor Contracting LLC (Teague) performed maintenance on an access road that crosses my property. This maintenance activity, contracted by upstream and downstream neighbors, resulted in significant damage to the berm along Mountaintown Creek on my upstream lot and three other downstream locations. Teague used an excavator to cut into the berm, ignoring the 50-foot buffer and failing to obtain a land-disturbing permit or variance. This action allowed standing water from the road to drain directly into the creek, damaging a critical protective feature. Conversations with Mr. Art Wlochowski (Gilmer County LIA) and Mr. Matt Teague revealed a concerning disregard for proper procedure and environmental protection. Mr. Wlochowski initially defended Teague's actions, citing practices of the U.S. Forest Service, which are not applicable under Georgia law. The "technical assistance" report you approved, provided to Mr. Wlochowski, states that the "repair" performed by Teague (using red clay, leaf litter, and a flat rock) is sufficient. The report states it might keep the road from washing away by destroying the berm is just beyond belief. This assessment directly contradicts GA EPD guidelines for restoring a berm on a protected trout stream. Proper restoration requires specific steps including: Assessing the Damage: Documenting location, dimensions, and buffer impact. Contacting Local Authorities: Engaging LIA and GA EPD, potentially seeking a Stream Buffer Variance. Developing a Restoration Plan: Utilizing soil bioengineering techniques and avoiding hard structures unless necessary. Implementing Erosion & Sediment Controls: Following BMPs from the Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control. Revegetating with Native Species: Choosing appropriate riparian species. Monitoring and Maintaining: Inspecting after heavy rains and replacing failed plantings. Photos of the land disturbance to my property follow. Photo 1 is the left side of the disturbance left by Teague A river with a rock and leaves on it You can easily see the damage as well as the excavator tracks where Teague simply pushed the berm into the creek. Photo 2 shows the right side of the damage: A rock on the ground by a body of water In Photo 2 above you can easily see exposed roots and rocks in the water that used to be part of the berm. The water washed the loose soil away. Photo 3 shows the red clay being put down to replace what was pushed into the creek. I have a video showing the leaf litter being raked over the red clay if you would like to see the complete video. The "repair" will lead to further erosion, especially during heavy rains, and does not adequately protect my property or the creek. Photos clearly show the excavator tracks, the extent of the cut, and the inadequate "restoration" efforts. I have since incurred $[REDACTED] in costs to properly stabilize my property and plant native fauna in accordance with GA EPD guidelines. I intend to pursue legal action against Teague in magistrate court for these and other damages. My expectations of the Georgia EPD are as follows: Rescind the "technical assistance" report provided to Gilmer County (Mr. Art Wlochowski) due to its failure to align with GA EPD guidelines. Provide a replacement report to me and Gilmer LIA that accurately articulates GA EPD guidelines for repairing land disturbances to a berm on a protected trout stream. Fine Teague Outdoor Contracting LLC for the land disturbances on Mountaintown Creek and require them to properly repair all affected areas. I can provide photographic evidence and homeowner contact information for the other damaged sites if needed. Issue a statewide bulletin to all Local Issuing Authorities (LIAs) emphasizing proper handling of land disturbances within the 50-foot buffer, particularly for "Blue Card Holders." Gilmer LIA's initial response suggests a clear failure to uphold their responsibilities under the Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act. I believe GA EPD should prioritize protecting Georgia's natural resources over shielding contractors who disregard environmental regulations. I want you to investigate this matter thoroughly and take appropriate action. Thank you for your attention to this critical issue and I look forward to your response to this email. Sincerely, [REDACTED] [REDACTED] Cell: [REDACTED] CC: Mr. Art Wlochowski, Gilmer County"

Primary Concern
Erosion & Sedimentation Control
Secondary Concern
Water Quality Control

Complaint Location

Location of Complaint
550 Gallery Court, Ellijay, GA 30540
City of Complaint
Ellijay
County of Complaint
Gilmer County

Source

Source Name
[Not entered]
Facility ID Number
[Not entered]

Source Contact

Contact Name
[Not entered]
Source Address
[Not entered]

Actions

Other

20‑Aug‑2025 by Jonathan Wells

Since this complaint remains within the LIA's primary jurisdiction, the complaint has already been addressed by the LIA, and EPD considers this to be exempt activity with no current observable violations, EPD recommends this complaint for closure. No further EPD action is necessary. Issues regarding trespassing do not fall under EPD's purview and would need to be addressed as a civil matter.

Follow-Up Investigation

4‑Aug‑2025 by Jonathan Wells

EPD met with complainant at his residence to discuss his concerns regarding several potential buffer disturbances. During the visit, EPD walked the road in from of the complainant's house to the Site where the berm described in the complaint had been disturbed. At the time of the Site visit, no Land Disturbing Activity was observed, no signs of erosion, such as rills were observed on the slope leading to the Creek. and no sediment deposits were observed in State waters. There was a berm observed along the length of the road between the road and the Creek. The complainant pointed out the section of berm that he was concerned about. The section of berm was approximately 8' x 20' and appeared to be restored to the same grade as the surrounding landscape. Erosion control matting was observed on the slope leading to the Creek, and the slope leading to the Creek was partially stabilized with vegetation. Native vegetation had not yet established completely. EPD Considers this activity to be consistent with minor land disturbing activity in accordance with O.C.G.A. 12-7-17(3), which describes exempt activity as: "Such minor land-disturbing activities as home gardens and individual home landscaping, repairs, maintenance work, fences, and other related activities which result in minor soil erosion." Pictures of the berm that complainant describes in the complaint, that were investigated by EPD during the 08/04/2025 Site visit are attached. These pictures were taken by EPD during the 08/04/2025 Site visit.

Initial Investigation

18‑Jul‑2025 by Jonathan Wells

On July 18, 2025, EPD reviewed files related to this Site and related to this complaint and discovered the following information: On December 2, 2024, EPD received a request from Gilmer County Local Issuing Authority (LIA) for technical assistance regarding land disturbing activity in a State waters trout stream buffer. On December 11, 2024, EPD met with LIA at the Site to provide assistance. At the time of the visit, no land disturbing activity was observed. On February 6, 2025, Jonathan Wells with EPD, Cartersville Mountain District, received the following voicemail: "Yes, my name is [REDACTED]. My number is [REDACTED], looking for Mr. Wells or Mr. Hicks trying to get a copy of a report, a trip report that was filed on property at as known as [REDACTED]. My name is [REDACTED]. Thank you very much." On February 7, 2025, EPD had correspondence with caller by phone, and discussed the concerns occurring on Site, as well as scheduling another Site visit. On February 7, 2025, EPD received the following email: "Jonathan, Good to talk with you this afternoon. One of my neighbors provided me with a [REDACTED] and incomplete copy of your report concerning a trip report Gibson Hicks had made to our property. I’m glad my neighbor provided me a copy but am surprised that they had it and I did not. Anyway, I think your idea of coming and seeing the site would be very helpful for you to understand why my [REDACTED] and I are not happy with a contractor who decided to move a boulder/rock which was placed by us 15 or so years ago to prevent people from driving onto the berm and destroying it. We take pride in keeping the berm as natural as possible since it protects our property downstream. The contractor without our permission and with no notification to ostensibly drain water from the road unilaterally decided this was a good idea. We have had this property for 20 years only when the creek overflows is when anyone cannot access their property. I have no issue (until now) with anyone working on the road (actually an access easement it’s our road) and if it ever got so bad people could not traverse our property I would have fixed it. This access road is known as Clark Trail and Falcon Trail it’s always going to have water on it puddling unless the berm is completely removed. It’s interesting though the cuts made in the berm only seem to be on unimproved properties in fact we had purchased to lot where the damage was done, and one would not know who’s property it’s on unless they actually made some effort to find out. They did not in this case. The berm is the berm the access easement is just that and it is adjacent to the berm I am hopeful that a site visit will help. But to clarify a few things on the report and after some research on the GAEPD websites the area has not been restored using best practices. What was done the contractor came back, moved the rock in the middle of the picture, put some red dirt/clay down, compacted it, and move the rock back, then proceeded to rake a bunch of leaves and debris over the area. Again, not per best practices. They refuse to do any further restoration. IE: good topsoil to promote new growth, erosion control matts (with seed?) when the creek rises, planting some native plants since what was there was torn out and pushed into the creek. I have seen this creek rise to overflowing when we get heavy raid. Your report says no “turbidity” was noted. Would not expect to see any until some heavy rain. I had call Gibon Hicks back in November on the 23rd. After explaining the situation, he said that GAEPD will follow the lead of Gilmer County, so I did not pursue further with Gibson. We would not have gotten you or EPD involved but when a neighbor provided a [REDACTED] copy of your report I wanted the complete report. Thank you for sending that to my [REDACTED] today. Picture of damage: note roots torn away and about a 8-12 inches of berm destroyed (the top layer). Note the excavator track." During the week of February 10, 2025, EPD spoke internally and with the Gilmer County LIA to re-evaluate the need for enforcement action regarding the Site. EPD did not take enforcement action due to the Site being within Gilmer County's primary jurisdiction, the Gilmer County LIA's ability to gain voluntary compliance to stop work in the buffer and to restore the buffer to pre-existing conditions to the maximum extent practical, the buffer encroachment being minor with no evidence of impacts to State waters, and that there were no active land disturbing activities occurring in the buffer at the time EPD visited the Site or at the time that this conversation occurred. On February 12, 2024, an email was left to the Erosion and Sedimentation Program Manager with EPD Cartersville Mountain District: “Hi Jonathan this is [REDACTED], we talked last week sometime I think about that my property at [REDACTED], hey I didn't I don't know if you received the email I sent I think I sent it Friday night so I need to I'd like to confirm that you got it and as far as the site visitor is concerned I was hoping you might be able to meet like 9 o'clock this Monday that would be I think the 17th 17 February at the site and we could obviously go up and down the road there where I think you might be interested to see how things played out over the years anyway give me a call back when you get this message redacted thank you and have a good day bye…” On February 13, 2024, the following voicemail was left to the Erosion and Sedimentation Program Manager with EPD Cartersville Mountain District: “Hey Jonathan, this is [REDACTED]. I left a message at work. Give me a call when you get a chance [REDACTED]. I want to see if Monday at 9 AM would work for you to come by my property in [REDACTED]. Thank you bye…” EPD has been in contact by phone with [REDACTED], as well as the Gilmer County LIA, several times since initially contacted in February of 2025 regarding concerns of land disturbing activity. The Gilmer County LIA has been responsive in answering questions about Site conditions and has taken the lead on investigations and communication with all parties involved at the Site. No formal request for EPD assistance from the LIA has been made since the initial Site visit from EPD in December of 2024.

Attachments

(Attachments may not be available for complaints resolved before April 2018. Please note that not every complaint has attachments.)

File Size Date Uploaded
TC_00893.JPG 517.7 KB 20‑Aug‑2025
TC_00894.JPG 453.8 KB 20‑Aug‑2025
TC_00895.JPG 508.2 KB 20‑Aug‑2025