Friday, October 23, 2009

Letter to EPA by JLW

I went back to my files after our visit. It turns out that Trick does, in fact hold the NPDES for Covington Villas. The signage in this PDF shows a different owner. That is why I was confused. I did not intentionally mislead you.

What this does show though is the fact that Burns IS tied to the Covington Villas site and has for some time shown no regard for environmental restraints.








                                                               This practice of duality in ownership and control over developments is a big problem here. A developer mass excavates the site and leaves it then sells lots to other contractors. Those contractors, Burns in this case, then violate the requirements and both sides then cry "it's not my fault".

Williamsburg is one of these. I remember your statement that until the site is reclaimed, the NPDES owner is responsible. It was my understanding that until Williamsburg reaches total reclamation the NPDES can not be terminated. Is that the case?

The city allows and even encourages this and then they do not enforce the local stormwater ordinances.

Case in point...

On 10/07/09 I photographed an inspectors truck parked next to failing BMPs with sediment in the street. On 10/11/09 and photographed the site again after a rain. No repairs had been made to the BMPs and sediment was evident in the drains. Here he did not see me and no warnings were issued.



On 10/12/09 I encountered the same inspector standing in a carport in Spring Valley. He recognized me when I took his photo and called the developer to warn him that I was on site and that he would have to issue a warning since I had seen him. NOT that he was in violation, but that he had been seen doing nothing. The developer called me to ask why I was there and inform me of the warning and the inspectors statements.








It seems that Tuscaloosa has no intention of holding contractors accountable unless forced to by my presence or outside pressure from EPA. I resent this action by the city even though it enforces my earlier beliefs that they are facilitating this ongoing violations through total negligence.

Once again, I wish to point out that the Tuscaloosa storm-water permit has NOT been revised to accommodate the TMDL for Hurricane Creek. This plus the consistent lack of accountability should make them accountable to ADEM or EPA for non-compliance.

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Rainfall data for Tuscaloosa

Mr. Burns, Jamestown Villas claimed there was 10.5 inches of rain in two days that caused the erosion problems at his development. Below are the rain statistics for Tuscaloosa. There is not one month with a 10.5 inch total. September had 9.17 which is a long way from 10.5 inches in two days.

September had one period from 09/18 to 09/21 which saw 6.32 inches over a 4 day period.

I am not sure where Mr. Burns got 10.5 inches in two days but it was NOT in Tuscaloosa and certainly not just at Jamestown Villas.











Suit, criminal charges target developer

The city of Tuscaloosa has issued a stop work order on construction at Jamestown Villas located at the end of Sixth Street East.
By Jason Morton Staff Writer
Published: Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 3:30 a.m.
Last Modified: Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 12:09 a.m.
TUSCALOOSA | Northport-based Burns Construction Co. faces a civil lawsuit and misdemeanor criminal charges over erosion issues at the site of Jamestown Villas, a 23-acre residential development off Crescent Ridge Road.





AT ISSUE
Charges: The city issued an order to stop work on a subdivision because of
erosion-control concerns, but says Burns Construction Co. ignored the order and continued working.

the developer says: The only work done after the stop-work order was to improve erosion control and says the site has been found to be in compliance with soil erosion rules.














A.C. and Doris Whitley filed the lawsuit in circuit court, claiming soil runoff from the site has damaged their adjoining property.
The criminal charges stem from Burns’ alleged refusal to comply with a stop-work order the city issued, citing erosion control violations. The Office of the City Engineer issued the order on Sept. 25.
Jimmy Burns, the owner and developer of the 90-unit garden home subdivision, said the court actions are the result of political and personal agendas.
“Any runoff was because of excessive rainfall,” Burns said, noting the extreme rainfall totals that West Alabama has tallied in recent weeks. “You can do all that you can do, but it’s not going to stop [the runoff from] 10.2 inches of rain in two days. ...“This is all a political ploy, just for some people to get their name in the paper.”
But City Engineer Joe Robinson said the municipal complaint was filed after the city learned Burns had continued to work on the Jamestown Villas site after being served with the stop-work order.
“He removed the stop-work order sign and then he continued to work on items other than the erosion control,” Robinson said.
Burns is denying the allegations, saying that his only work on the site following the stop-work order was to improve erosion control measures.
“I intend to fight [it] to the fullest,” said Burns, who pleaded not guilty Oct. 5 and is scheduled for a hearing in
November, “because I’m right and I’m going to prove I’m right.”
Burns also said he has spoken with the Whitleys, Cumberland Road residents who own 28 acres adjacent to the Jamestown Villas site, and said he believes they were pushed into the lawsuit.
Burns would not say who he thought was behind the lawsuit, however.
The suit, filed Oct. 2, claims that since June, when Burns Construction began clearing the land for the subdivision, soil, mud and debris has been washing onto the Whitleys’ property.
“The quantity of the silt, sediment and mud from the [Burns’] development is so great that it has caused substantial harm to the recreational and aesthetic attributes of [the Whitleys’] property,” the suit said. “The stream, wetland area, and ... pond on the [Whitleys’] property has been destroyed by the accumulation of large quantities of mud and silt.
“The release and discharge of sediments, mud and silt ...recurs upon each rainfall event.”
Burns said the site has been inspected by engineers for the city of Tuscaloosa, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and all have found the development to be in compliance with current soil erosion control rules. The city lifted the stop-work order on Oct. 9.
Reach Jason Morton at jason.morton@tuscaloosanews.com or 205-722-0200.

Comments on Jamestown Villas erosion controls

From Mike Mullen,


This
was a difficult but by no means impossible construction site.
1) poor drainage planning - detention ponds and a drainage system
directing runoff to them should be in place before there is any mass
grading save for that needed to create the pond and drainage system -
in one of the pictures a large amount of runoff was bypassing the
drainage system - why?

















 2) inadequate project phasing - project phasing should get the sediment ponds
and drainage in place first, then the access roads and then phase in areas
where dwellings are to be located - from the aerials it does not appear
that this happened
3) inadequate erosion control - the perimeter slopes did not appear to
have any erosion control, slopes this steep need erosion control blankets
and a drainage system that keeps water off the slopes
4) excessive dependence upon silt fence - silt fence is a stop-gap solution
when erosion control fails or when it rains before vegetation or mulcj can
be put in place - unfortunately it is seen as a cure all by the unknowing -
anytime I see double lines of silt fence I immediately sense drainage
system problems or failure and inadequate or absent erosion control
5) improper placement of silt fence - it was hard to tell but it looked like
the silt fence ran up and down the hill in places and was not on the contours -
also, in areas this steep silt fence should have wire backing - I failed to see
it but perhaps it was present - it wouldn't have mattered anyway as the silt
fence was not adequately trenched in
6) improper installation of silt fence - the silt fence did not appear to be on the
contours, was not properly trenched in, was probably not the proper type of fence
and there was little flat area for water to pond behind the fence

It is impossible to say what parties are at fault - was it flawed engineering (was there
any engineering)?, did the contractor fail to install measures in a timely manner
where and how they were designed and specified in the plan?, did the engineer
inspect the site or have a designated person inspect the site routinely to confirm
that measures were properly installed and maintained.

While it is impossible to say why the project was screwed up or who is responsible
it does appear that the responsible regulatory entities let the situation get out of hand.

Preventing more offsite transport of pollutants should be the first priority. The second
priority should be mitigation of the damage already done. But will anyone be willing
to see that the mitigation is done. And, if post-construction planning and BMPs are
as lacking as construction BMPs appear to have been (given the amount of accumulated
sediment) it appears that damage to the stream will continue with ongoing degradation.

Stream restoration is an expensive measure but in some states the developer would
have to pay for removal of the sediment and any stream restoration deemed necessary
for restoration of the stream to as near as possible pre-development conditions.
However, in these states where state and local environmental regulators are more
proactive it is much less likelt that this mess would have been allowed. But, this is
Alabama. ADEM is reactive not proactive and streams are being damaged and
"destroyed" as this one has been all across Alabama.

Michael William Mullen, CPESC
Choctawhatchee Riverkeeper

CPESC - Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control.
I have been a CPESC since 2000. My registration number is 2129.

That means that I have 1) met certain basic requirements (education,
experience etc.), 2) have passed the CPESC examination and
3) have maintained professional development education requirements.