Bye Bye By-Pass?

EDITORIAL: Cutting pork is a necessary sacrifice

Published: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 3:30 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 1:27 a.m.

( page 1 of 2 )

Some Democrats will no doubt delight that spending cuts are hitting top Republicans right along with Democrats. And fiscal policies are costing red states money.

Our own Republican U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, one of the kings of the earmark, had sizeable pieces of pork carved out for his home state and his hometown of Tuscaloosa. Shelby has a reputation of bringing home the bacon for Tuscaloosa. With the withdrawal of the Democrats' spending bill that included $8.3 billion in earmarks, Tuscaloosa may well have to look to its many famous barbecue restaurants for pork.

Shelby, of course, is never done until the fat lady sings. Whether a new spending bill will emerge from the Senate without the blemish of earmarks as promised will be determined once the legislative work is done. The senator didn't arrive inside the beltway by falling off a turnip truck.

But fiscal responsibility won't return to the federal government without some sacrifice. Fingers can point in many directions when talk turns to out-of-control federal spending. But until the taxpayers are willing to accept spending cuts and the loss that goes along with it, federal spending will remain out of control.

The federal system anticipates government administered at different levels. Federal, state and local government all have their roles. Part of the country's financial problems stem from the federal government assuming responsibility for projects more appropriately left to state or local governments.

Government spending should benefit the common good. At a local level, that means that every citizen in a town or country could potentially benefit from a project funded there. In truth, it may benefit some residents more than others, but it should always fit into a larger picture.

The same holds true at the federal level. While an interstate project may benefit a local community, it becomes part of an entire highway system. And it should be judged on its merits as a part of the interstate highway system.

For too long, projects that have little benefit outside the locales where they are built or funded have flourished on earmarks. Senators and Congressmen await the time when they have enough seniority and clout to cash in chits for pork. Once in the pork barrel driver's seat, they loathe to relinquish power.

But the cycle must be broken at some point, and the country's mood has never been more receptive than now. Curtailing earmarks won't solve all of the country's financial problems. But it is a logical step and one that has symbolic significance as well.

If the public isn't willing to allow Congress to cut pet projects from the budget, Congress must look elsewhere to strike a better balance between spending and revenue. The public could well be asked to consider a choice between pet projects and higher taxes. And the latter is never popular.

CREEKKEEPER Receives "Golden Horse's Ass"

CREEKKEEPER Receives "Golden Horse's Ass" 


John Hagood, ADEM attorney, was the only real friend I had at the Alabama Department of Environmental Maniacs. He resigned for another job.

Before he left, he bestowed a few awards to some of his "most memorable contacts" from both industry and environmental views.

Mike Mullen, Choctawhatchee RIVERKEEPER and
John L. Wathen, Hurricane CREEKKEEPER
were both awarded the
"Golden Horse's Ass"  for environmental advocacy.

                        "They are the agents of change"
                                     (John Hagood)

Final Comments for Eastern Bypass, by FoHC

(From the editor, Feel free to use these comments for a template and send your own comments to rowed@dot.state.al.us L. Dee Rowe, ALDOT 5th division before Dec. 19, 2010. Be sure and copy Lynne Urquhart Federal Highway Administration  Lynne.Urquhart@fhwa.dot.gov Also, Mark Bartlett Mark.Bartlett@dot.gov )

 

To: L. Dee Rowe, Division Engineer
Alabama Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 70070
Tuscaloosa, Al  35407-0070
                                                                                                            12/08/10
Comments of:
John L. Wathen, Hurricane CREEKKEEPER, and
Friends of Hurricane Creek

We were very frustrated with the October 26, 2010 "Design Hearing" discussing the Eastern Bypass. By placing the maps some 30 feet apart, the set-up made it impossible for the community to be together to hear and discuss the issues and problems concerning the selected corridor. The DOT representatives at each map location seemed evasive at times and did not fully answer all questions, oftentimes deferring the questions to other individuals who were not present. This led to people from ALDOT walking around asking questions of each other wasting valuable time. It never seemed that the purpose of the ALDOT "hearing" was to hear any of our comments.

A hearing is where people hear the project described, ask questions and get answers. A hearing is where people can give comment and publicly exchange information with the community. ALDOT employees often turned their backs on the community to talk to individuals about touchy subjects while crowds were left watching their backs and not HEARING a word of their neighbors concerns!

The stenographer recording comment was in the foyer with no sign or information visible showing where it was. Many voiced concerns about not being able to comment. ALDOT provided a piece of paper in the back of the handout with 6 lines on it double-spaced. No arrangements for on-line comments were made.

We have been disappointed many times in the past with ALDOT's seeming lack of interest in the community's need to protect our watershed. We remember the Hwy 216 bridge replacement. In the words of Paul Bowlin DOT Director, “We know that the 216 project was a disaster. We screwed up.”

 

In regards to the Eastern Bypass, first, a reevaluation of the Environmental Impact Study must be completed in the form of a supplemental EIS. A reevaluation of the entire project must be completed if major steps have not occurred within three years after the approval of the final EIS. 23 CFR 771.129. In this case, the final EIS was signed in January of 1999 and major steps such as gaining authority to buy significant right-of-way, or approving final plans have not taken place. A comprehensive reevaluation of the entire EIS must be completed, especially considering that the original EIS does not include indirect or cumulative impacts.

Further, there is overwhelming evidence that the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) is seriously flawed. Indeed, a commentary in the Tuscaloosa News by the Chairman of the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Alabama pointed out numerous flaws in the original EIS. The decision to place such a large-scale project in such a sensitive area cannot be made without a complete and accurate survey. It is not sufficient to merely respond that the EIS "already has been approved."  Alabama deserves better than to be singled out by the National Sierra Club as having one of the worst transportation projects in the country.

Time after time, we have pointed out that the current EIS is flawed and incomplete at best. There are plants located in the path of this road which have been documented as two of the most rare in the state. They are not listed in the EIS. There is the possibility of significant archaeological sites of interest in the area. In contrast with previous studies, a recent archaeology study done in the 70 or so acres in the “M” Bend Park showed significant cultural inhabitants.

In the 1998 EIS, ALDOT surveys missed 27 abandoned underground coal mine entrances in less than 1/2 mile of the corridor. They were obviously visible when ADIR abandoned mine expert Larry Barwick visited the site.  There are many more yet disclosed in the “M” Bend Park area. ALDOT surveys were proven flawed on many levels. The document is well over 20 years old.

We need to know what exactly is going to be destroyed. A wildflower recovery should be implemented to insure propagation of these displaced species. A complete and independent survey is called for and it must cover all impacted species.

         1. Surveys associated with the original EIS were severely flawed and mislead the public into believing the simplicity of building in this location and in this manner.

i.     A recent archaeological survey by University of Alabama archaeologists showed many sites of significance which were denied by ALDOT in the first EIS.
ii.     Biological surveys were proven false with the identification of rare and endangered species of fauna.
iii.     Geological surveys were proven false with the identification of at least 27 abandoned coal mine entrances directly in the corridor that were denied by ALDOT in the first EIS. New entrances have been found within the PARA land since.
iv.     These deficiencies on the original surveys suggest that the entire document is flawed and needs to be redone regardless of age.

There have been changes in the laws requiring a “Cumulative Growth Study” (“CGS”) and an “Environmental Impact Study” based on the CGS. This must be done.

Our concerns for this project do not start and stop with the “M” Bend. The entire corridor from just South of Crescent Ridge Road to the I-59 connection is in the TMDL protected segment of Hurricane Creek. Multiple wetlands will be disturbed in the Cottondale Creek watershed where flooding is already a problem. ALDOT should prove that they can maintain a 0 net gain increase in both storm-water flow and turbidity. Road shoulders should be of pervious surface to allow more absorption into the ground.

We believe that the mindset of ALDOT is that the Bypass route is already set and not subject to further modification. The current plan only serves political goals, not the best interests of the citizens of Tuscaloosa. We therefore strongly urge you to consider the following recommendations for the proposed Bypass.  If you decline to incorporate these recommendations, we request that you provide us the reasoning behind that decision.

Recommendations for the proposed by-pass:

The most recent ground-up technology must be employed to construct the piers and spans that cross the creek. The current push and bury technique will not work in this sensitive area. Mr. David Kemp of the Tuscaloosa ALDOT office suggested it and we agree that it is the best approach to this area. No disturbance of the existing banks should be allowed. All piers should be placed well above the banks to facilitate game crossing.

The actual construction of the bridges in either location should reflect the beauty of the region. Instead of a monolithic slab construction, we would like to see a steel web and brace style four-lane mono-bridge, such as you see in the Appalachian region of West Virginia. A typical construction of two abutments, two pillars, and three spans with radius arches would allow for greater distance between disturbed areas along the creek. This would allow the banks of the creek to remain intact and act as a buffer zone.

The entire length of the corridor should be fenced to prevent game from wandering into traffic and also to control access to the creek by off road vehicles.  All bridges should be fenced with in-curving tops to reduce blowing litter from entering waterways. Litter collection devices in the drain system need to be installed and a budget set aside for maintenance in the future.

An undisturbed game corridor should be left intact along the creek to encourage wildlife to cross under bridges and away from traffic danger zones. This will prevent needless deaths to the wildlife and reduce the number of animal related accidents.

Radius span construction will allow the natural flora and fauna to remain as the backdrop for a work of art instead of the tons and tons of rip-pap that will be needed to stabilize the banks if denuded. Also it would act as a game corridor to allow deer and other animals to travel the banks, as is their nature. The only wildlife that can flourish in the huge riprap piles is rodents and reptiles. Deer and other four-legged wildlife cannot cross the rocks without injury. In fact the deer will not even attempt to cross under the bridge but instead it will try to cross over the bridge where they become a traffic hazard.

Erosion will be a very serious concern with this project. Hurricane Creek was listed on the EPA 303(d) list of impaired streams for the very pollutants that will be discharged during construction of these five bridges and connecting roads. There is now a Total Maximum Daily Load assessment (TMDL) that requires a 32% reduction in turbidity and 87% reduction for Iron. Both will be problematic in this area due to topography and abandoned coalmines found throughout the corridor.

ALDOT should maintain less than 20 acres of disturbed area at any one time. This means that disturbed areas will have to achieve a stable condition of reclamation before further disturbance can begin.  We are deeply concerned about this requirement since ALDOT demonstrated on Buttermilk Road that it cannot control sedimentation in 25-acre increments.

No slope grade should exceed 3:1 throughout the project. The slopes on Buttermilk road failed early in the project and remained sources of erosion for the life of the project despite promises of repairs from ALDOT project supervisors. Slope grades above 3:1 cause problems during construction due to erosion. After construction they create problems for grass cutting and maintenance. Machines tear larges patches of grass out causing erosion and accidents due to tipping over.

The chosen corridor is inadequate to install retention ponds needed to contain the expected runoff from the site. Because of the adjacent streams and the steep nature of the terrain a comprehensive containment program must be included. This containment program must be implemented PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION to adhere to the reduction required in the TMDL approved for Hurricane Creek. The segments selected by ALDOT for the Eastern By-pass all lie within the Hurricane Creek watershed considered by EPA as a “priority stream”. 

According to Geological Survey of Alabama (GSA) the fish count below Cottondale Creek is in decline. Above Cottondale Creek the count is improving. This is due to the impacts of irresponsible developers, poor planning, and, in part, ALDOT construction on Buttermilk Road and I-59. Use of polyacrylamides (PAM) should be held to a minimum and, if used, should be limited to only those PAMs approved for aquatic life. The TMDL requires a 32% reduction in turbidity, with which ALDOT will not be able to comply. Alternate routes would alleviate this concern altogether for this segment.

FoHC would entertain an action by ALDOT whereby it (ALDOT) would purchase other lands to offset the loss of this pristine section of Hurricane Creek. ALDOT will have to buy stream bank mitigation acreage during the Corps of Engineers permitting process. Those acres should be purchased in another part of the Hurricane Creek watershed and set aside in perpetuity as natural areas, wildlife preserves, and or public use areas.

The abandoned mines in the path are especially problematic to this project because of the extremely acidic nature of the coal contained within. With no room for retention ponds there is no way to treat the runoff before it reaches Hurricane Creek.

Larry Barwick ADIR inspects abandoned coal mine

This is an extremely fragile ecosystem on the EPA 303 list of impaired streams with an approved TMDL for Iron associated with coal mining. Therefore we respectfully ask that A.D.I.R. supervise the extraction of the coal and approve the method of removal of acid from runoff water.

NO mine waste should ever be used for stabilization. Currently materials coming from the Bunn operation at the Tuscaloosa Resources coal strip mine contain silicates and Iron that is released when exposed to weather. Only limestone should be used and that in very limited quantities during construction and removed after completion.

Along with the coal mines there is the problem of blasting the rock formations.
With the close proximity of residences in the area and the underlying mines throughout the area, there is a significant chance of damage to homes along the ridge.

Residents in the area have been advised to do a pre-blast survey of their homes to be used to prove damage during construction. ALDOT needs to assure the community of their intent to compensate them for damages. Use of hydraulic track hammers to break up the rock would be preferred.

During every season of the year people use this section of Hurricane Creek extensively. In high water canoes and kayaks will be in great danger under the bridges during construction. Safety netting should be extended at least 15 feet out and under the construction over every stream crossing to ensure no construction debris falls on someone.

At the recent so-called hearing, David Kemp, ALDOT, repeatedly stated that the road would be elevated to help protect the “M” Bend Park area. The drawings clearly showed benched terraces through the hills there. In the past, however, we were told the road would be excavated 60 feet into the mountain to address noise in Summerfield. Which is it?

We prefer an elevated roadway with energy diverting downspout storm water control measures.

The current map shows a third bridge on the Green Acres side that serves as an off ramp for Hwy. 216. A cloverleaf type off ramp after crossing the creek will eliminate the need for that third and costly bridge and cause less impact to Hurricane Creek and result in savings for taxpayers.

In conclusion, an alternate route will result in fewer bridges and secondary roads than shown on the current map. Altogether the change of route will save the taxpayers 50 million dollars due to the lack of need for 5 bridges over Hurricane Creek alone. This would be a huge savings to the taxpayers and would involve less residential displacement.

Since there is no “access road” included in the corridor plans through the “M” Bend Park, the bridges will have to be built first just to get equipment into the construction area. This is going to be an added expense of which ALDOT has not informed the public.

The chosen route will cause extensive residential displacement in this community. Virtually the entire community of Green Acres will be wiped out with the exception of a few houses left on a dead-end road with several secondary roads having to be built in order to allow access to homes left virtually under the bridges.

An alternate route will be less problematic and less costly to implement due to less residential displacement on both sides of the project.

Current landowners should be paid the maximum allowable under the law for having to be displaced. Landowners should be compensated for both the cost of replacing their homes and the cost of relocating, and not what ALDOT estimators consider to be “fair market value”. Holt and Cottondale lie in economically distressed areas where the threat of this project has degraded the property values for years. Moving out of the way of the corridor will be far more costly than the “value” of the devalued home. ALDOT must pay ALL incurred costs for residential displacement.

ALDOT must allow a timely relocation of residences in the corridor. Finding homes for these people will be a time consuming process and ALDOT must allow that time. The economy could not be worse for relocation at this time.

            a. An alternate route will decrease the number of residentially displaced families and reduce the cost to the taxpayers and allow established families to remain on their land.

An alternate route will be more cost effective, less damaging to the fragile ecosystem of Hurricane Creek, cause less residential displacement, cause less damage due to blasting, and cause less concern over environmental issues, and will result as well in huge savings to the taxpayers of Alabama.

It is the final opinion of the Friends of Hurricane Creek that this project is far too problematic and costly to be seen as feasible.

Respectfully submitted,


Laurie P. Johns, President, Friends of Hurricane Creek
John L. Wathen, Hurricane Creekkeeper

 

Camden Lake Complaint 11/19/10

Please accept the following complaint on behalf of John L. Wathen, Hurricane Creekkeeper and Friends of Hurricane Creek.

This is a large file so I will break it down into 3 separate e-mails.

On 08.19.09, BGD, Camden Lake. NPDES # ALR 16B471 was cited for violating the consent order issued by ADEM. In this order BGD agrees to “ensure immediate and future compliance with AWPCA, applicable ADEM Regulations. This is not the case. BDG is now in significant non-compliance with the order and CWA standards. It is our belief that few of the benchmark dates for compliance have been met. We also believe that ADEM is negligent in their duties to follow up and ensure compliance.

Today the conditions remain mostly unchanged. While there is a better overall appearance for the subdivision, there are still major problems that have never been addressed and still today cause turbid runoff.

It is my opinion that the better appearance is due to the fact that there are fewer houses under construction. The ones that have been built to completion were done so in uniform significant non-compliance and no action from either ADEM or Tuscaloosa City.
(SEE ENCLOSED PDFs FOR PHOTOS)








The newest Platt map shows permanent and temporary vegetation on all slopes. There is some grass on slopes but hardly consistent and not at all complete permanent cover.
(photos A-1 thru A-4)
(B-1,2,8,&10)
(C-1,2,6,7,&8)
(D-3,4,&7)
(E- 9,10, 12,)

The new Platt map shows the Camden Lake to be a sediment basin. We have repeatedly pointed out that the lake is not a sediment basin and is not constructed to serve that purpose. (E-2, A1_4)
The lake is, in fact located in a watershed lake that was once a fishing pond known to locals and landowners prior to its destruction. It was a beaver established lake with a long history of good water and good fishing. (SEEN BELOW)



A sediment basin is constructed with a stand-pipe that forces storm surge to accumulate in the pond before overflowing. Camden Lake has a continuous overflow, as natural lakes do. The spillway is not constructed as to force any retention time for storm surge from the sites.

Williamsburg, and Abbey Trace both have properly constructed sediment basins on their sites. They can be seen under construction in the 06 aerials.

Camden Lake development, by contrast has no approved sediment basin anywhere on the site. Large areas of the road leading into the development drain directly into the unnamed tributary with no contact with even the lake.

Camden Lake is operating without retention facilities and with ADEM approval. In-stream treatment of pollutants is prohibited by the CWA.

There are no homebuilder sites under construction at either Abbey Trace or Williamsburg. There are some issues at Williamsburg that I will send as a separate complaint but it safe to say that MOST if not all turbidity seen in the in-stream Camden Lake and the creek below are in fact from BGD, Camden Lake Subdivision and poor standard of care.

On several occasions recently I have visited the site and found the same poor standard of care as in the beginning. There are only one or two houses are being built at a time but ALL have been built with bad or non-existent BMPs for a 100% failure rate.

Bare slopes surround the entire development site in large patches. Erosion is evident throughout. It seems that most of the grass used to vegetate the slopes was temporary and not maintained. Slopes we have pointed out along the lake are still eroding into the lake just above the overflow into the creek.
(A1,THRU4)
(B 1,2 &10)
(C- 1, 2, 6, 7, &9)
(D- 3&7)
(E- 2, 6, 9, 10, &12)

House construction sites have minimal and poorly placed BMPs at best. None that I have seen were installed properly or maintained after installation.
(A-1 THRU 4)
(B- 2,3, &4)
(C- 2, 3, 4, 8, & 9)

Drains are not covered directly in line with failing or non-existent BMPs and eroded slopes.

(A-  1-4)

(B-  (B- 2, 3, &4)

(C-  1, 2, & 8)

(D-  4, &7)

(E- 2 ,6, 9, 10, &12)


On lot 31 there has been a ditch dug to run storm-water off the back of the site where the creek is. No BMPs exist.
(C-8 &9)
(D-2 &6)
(E- 5 &7)


Concrete trucks routinely wash out chutes in the grass and track mud into the streets. No facility has been constructed for this purpose.
      (C-8)
(D-  4, 5, &7)

(E-


No approved gravel entrances to construction areas.
(A –1-4)
(B- 3, &4)
(C- 3, &8)
(D- 4 &5)

The pavement is in bad condition and in need of completing. The potholes are allowing pavement debris to accumulate in the street, gutters, and in the unnamed tributary to Cottondale Creek. Sidewalks along this stretch are eroding and without proper vegetation. Mud from here runs unchecked to the drains leading directly into the creek, bypassing the in-stream lake. The worst of the eroding pavement and sidewalk is on Mary Ford Blvd. where the drains run directly into the creek, not into the in-stream lake being used improperly as a sediment trap.
(B-5 THRU 10)

This site has been repeatedly reprimanded and ordered to reach compliance. It has not and never has seen total compliance yet all reports sent in by their engineers state otherwise. We have repeatedly proven that the reports here and at many others were not accurate at best. We would like to see EPA take a serious look at the engineers who knowingly sign off on these failing sites. If EPA looks closely at the most problematic sites in the Hurricane Creek watershed, you will find the same people signing off on failing permits. If there are criminal charges that EPA can file, then by all means it should.





John L. Wathen
Hurricane Creekkeeper,
Friends of Hurricane Creek

Members of
WATERKEEPER Alliance
http://www.waterkeeper.org

Who has the authority to say someone else
is not being a good steward of the environment?

Anyone who notices.

ALDOT, Citizen Complaint to EPA 11/02/10

Please accept the following complaint filed on behalf of Friends of Hurricane Creek and Hurricane CREEKKEEPER against Alabama Dep. of Transportation. (ALDOT)

This situation began years ago when ALDOT replaced the bridge at Hwy 216 in Tuscaloosa County.
ALDOT created a road into private property without permission of the property owner. A gate was destroyed allowing illegal entrance to the property for over 10 years. This has created an area of trash, litter and erosion of ALDOT right of way.

We have spoken with ALDOT about this situation many times only to be met with empty promises and more pollution.

The right of way in question is far beyond the normal right of way width. It should have been remanded to the property owner when abandoned by ALDOT. They have stubbornly refused to allow the owners to make improvements to stop the erosion across their adjacent property.

Deep rills and erosion gullies get worse with every rain event. ALDOT has refused to block off the illegal entrance they created so the entire responsibility for this problem lies with them.

This illegal road drains directly into a segment of Hurricane Creek protected by TMDL as it has for over 10 years of this discharge. I have included photos from as far back as 2007. We have many more.

ADEM and ALDOT have been called but the situation still exists. Now ALDOT has refused the park authority access to the park for a road leading from the abandoned right of way. Since ALDOT wants to hold onto the property, they MUST keep it from eroding and causing a visible violation of the TMDL and the ALDOT general storm water permit.

On 10/27/10 I visited the site or inspection purposes. I took the photos found in PDF ALDOT 10/27/10 current erosion.
It shows the situation as it exists today.



ALDOT past erosion shows the history of problems created by ALDOT building the road into private land without permission. This trespass is the cause of problem. As long as ALDOT owns the property, they are responsible for its upkeep and accountability for failure to comply.



We respectfully request EPA to consider enforcement since ADEM has taken no action to curb the pollution for over 10 years.



John L. Wathen
Hurricane Creekkeeper,
Friends of Hurricane Creek

Members of
WATERKEEPER Alliance
http://www.waterkeeper.org

Who has the authority to say someone else
is not being a good steward of the environment?

Anyone who notices.

Eastern By-Pass PRESS RELEASE

For Immediate Release...

Contact John L. Wathen
hccreekkeeper@hughes.net
205-233-1680




FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 25, 2010
ALDOT TO COME CLEAN?

Local groups question a plan to run Eastern Bypass through Hurricane Creek
On October 26, 2010, the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) will hold
a public meeting in Tuscaloosa to present plans to run the “Eastern Bypass” through
Hurricane Creek, a federally protected waterway and one of the region’s most
beautiful and important natural assets. Several citizen groups, including The Friends
of Hurricane Creek, will attend the meeting in hopes ALDOT will reveal why they
have selected a plan that maximizes both construction costs and damage to the
creek.

ALDOT’s proposed route for the bypass cuts through Hurricane Creek’s “M•Bend,”
an historically significant and ecologically sensitive set of turns forming the heart of
the creek’s beautiful and unique identity. In the proposed design, this small yet
complex section of the creek is to be traversed by five bridges.

Though poor transportation planning has left officials with limited options to
connect the growing suburban communities of north Tuscaloosa directly to the
Interstate 20/59 corridor, there seems no reason why the Eastern Bypass (a fourlane
thoroughfare) must cut through the very heart of Hurricane Creek.

Ever since ALDOT’s plans were first unveiled in 1999, local groups have proposed
nearby alternate routes that are available, feasible, and that would minimize
damage to Hurricane Creek. These alternatives would reduce ALDOT’s need to
employ expensive techniques required for construction near protected waterways.
For just as long, however, state and local officials have refused to acknowledge the
merits or the very existence of these alternatives.

Mile for mile, the proposed Eastern Bypass will be the most expensive road ever
constructed in Tuscaloosa County. ALDOT has not said why the route must run
roughshod through Hurricane Creek, one of the area’s few remaining environmental
jewels. Local citizen’s groups will attend the public meeting in hopes that ALDOT
can solve this mystery of sorts.

The Friends of Hurricane Creek will be joined at the meeting by the Black Warrior
Riverkeeper and the Alabama Rivers Alliance. The meeting begins at 4:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, October 26, 2010, at Paul W. Bryant High School, in the gym. The Paul W.
Bryant High School is 6315 Mary Harmon Bryant Dr., Cottondale, Alabama.
For more information, contact John Wathen at creekkeeper@hurricane-creek.org
Friends of Hurricane Creek




1999: ALDOT proposes to route Eastern Bypass through the heart of
Hurricane Creek. Files incomplete Environmental Impact
Statement.
2001, March: Friends of Hurricane Creek present ALDOT with alternative routes
for Bypass.
2001, July: Area residents raise concerns Bypass will bring noise and
pollution.
2002, Jan.: ALDOT makes a mess of Bryant Bridge construction, risks major
sewerage spill into river. City of Tuscaloosa issues halt work
orders. ALDOT keeps working.
2002, July: ALDOT holds public meeing regarding Eastern Bypass.
Approximately 500 people attend, many with protest signs
warning of danger to Hurricane Creek.
2004: Friends of Hurricane Creek begin work to have land along
Hurricane Creek brought into a conservation easement program.
2005: Huge billboard erected alongside Bryant Bridge despite City of
Tuscaloosa objections.
2006, Sept.: Tuscaloosa News runs feature article “On the Edge of Extinction,”
highlighLng the Bypass’s threat to Creek area’s many rare plants
and animals.
2006, Dec.: Sen. Richard Shelby and Mayor Walter Maddox ask ALDOT to
move Bypass to accommodate new residential development.
They do not request that Hurricane Creek be spared.
2007: Southern Environmental Law Center & Friends of Hurricane Creek
demand that ALDOT file a complete Environmental Impact
Statement regarding the Bypass.
2008, Jan.: 249 acres along Hurricane Creek sold to Trust for Public Lands
with understanding that Tuscaloosa Parks & Recreation Authority
(PARA) will acquire the land for a park.
2008, Sept.: PARA acquires land along Creek and opens it as a public park.
2010, Sept. 2: PARA sells 79 acres to ALDOT so Bypass can cut through Hurricane
Creek. ALDOT agrees to move other portions of route to
accommodate residential development.
2010, Sept. 10: Tuscaloosa News editorial headline says it all: “Hurricane Creek
Needs Protection.”
2010, Oct. 26: As required, ALDOT holds a “Public Involvement Meeting” about
the Bypass. However, ALDOT permits no opportunity for the many
critics of the Bypass to speak.

EPA criticizes ADEM over standards

Thomas Spencer -- The Birmingham News  

EPA criticizes ADEM over standards (with video and slideshow)

Water Testing

 Shades Creek sampling photos

http://photos.al.com/4461/gallery/water_testing_at_shades_creek/index.html?fromentry=5095519&fromblog=857

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has threatened to take over enforcing part of the Clean Water Act if the Alabama Department of Environmental Management doesn't hold cities to higher standards for keeping waterways clean. 

  The warning from the EPA, which specifically applies to storm sewer pollution control in small cities, is one of several steps the agency has taken recently focusing on Alabama's program for protecting water quality.

  The EPA has issued a series of audits critical of how local governments, under ADEM's watch, have been carrying out their obligations to control sediment and other pollutants that run into creeks and streams during rain storms. Sedimentation, caused by muddy runoff and by the rush of water flowing off paved surfaces, is considered a principal source of harm to rivers such as the Cahaba. It makes the river inhospitable to aquatic life, makes it harder to treat for drinking water and increases the potential for flooding as the river channel fills in.

  The federal agency also has been reviewing ADEM's standards for strip-mine discharge permits, leading to a backlog in issuing new permits.

  The EPA also is considering a petition filed earlier this year by environmental groups that asks that all of ADEM's authority to administer federal clean water law be revoked, which would lead to the federal agency taking oversight of all water pollution enforcement in the state.

  EPA officials in Atlanta and ADEM representatives in Montgomery downplay the impression that the federal agency is taking a particular focus on Alabama's environmental protection agency. Both say the agency under the Obama administration is making a nationwide push to strengthen water resource protection, and the state and federal agencies are working through the issues raised.

  However, business and environmental groups both see Alabama's program as being under particular scrutiny.

  The EPA's formal objection to ADEM's proposed storm water permits, which could
trigger a federal takeover, is believed to be the first time the EPA has taken that step.

  "This action by EPA was not only precedent-setting for Alabama and the Southeast, but potentially throughout the nation," said Beth Stewart, executive director of the Cahaba River Society.

  "I'm not aware of any other state in Region 4 that is under this type of review by EPA on all facets of their water program," said Joel Gilbert, an attorney who represents the Business Alliance for Responsible Development, an alliance of developers and landowners that includes Alabama Power, Drummond Co., the Barber Companies, the Greater Birmingham Association of Home Builders and U.S. Steel.

Old conflict
  The issues the EPA is wading into are part of a long-running conflict over how clean water regulations, particularly in regard to construction activities, are carried out in Alabama.
  Business groups insist that a single statewide environmental enforcer is preferable and is, in fact, mandated by Alabama law. For example, ADEM issues storm water permits for all construction sites one acre or greater, so business groups say it should oversee activity on those sites. Similarly, ADEM issues pollution discharge permits to industries and by law has primary jurisdiction over those permits.

  Requiring local governments to regulate those sites amounts to double oversight and will cost the governments money they cannot afford, Gilbert said.

  Environmental groups, on the other hand, say ADEM's inspection and enforcement program is woefully inadequate, and the federal Clean Water Act demands a robust local role in water pollution control.

  The EPA seems to agree. In its formal objections to ADEM's proposed storm water permits for small cities, the agency objected to a provision that would allow cities to rely on ADEM's enforcement and inspection program.

  The EPA noted that ADEM does not review site plans when issuing storm water permits. And ADEM has historically inspected only 10 percent to 15 percent of its active construction sites annually. At that rate, most construction sites within any city would never be inspected, the EPA wrote.

  According to ADEM, the agency has 29 employees tasked with inspecting and enforcing violations at the state's 7,523 actively-permitted construction sites.

  "EPA has determined that without significant modification or enhancement, ADEM's current program would not fulfill the oversight and enforcement responsibilities required," the objection letter states.

Conflicting views
  To environmentalists, who long have complained that ADEM's clean water enforcement is lax, the EPA's stance is a long overdue intervention.

  "EPA has been pretty consistent in what needs to be done," said David Hanson, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. "It's just that EPA is no longer putting up with ADEM not doing what EPA is telling them to do."

  But BARD attorney Gilbert says the EPA's demands to ADEM are an overreach by the Obama administration, pushing changes that would amount to new regulations that contradict state law.

  "What EPA doesn't take into account is state law and the state constitution," Gilbert said. "EPA is reinterpreting the regulations to this administration's liking. And they are focusing on Alabama because the environmental community has lobbied them to do it."

  The Cahaba River Society's Stewart said she had no apologies for meeting with the EPA about Clean Water enforcement. It's common for interested parties, including business groups, to talk to regulators.

  In fact, it was lobbying by the business community that led to the permit conditions the EPA is now objecting to.

  When ADEM released a draft of the small city storm water permits early this year, it more closely conformed to the EPA's expectations. But after response from the business community, the revised version of the permit drew the EPA's objection.

  The revised permit allowed cities to continue relying on ADEM and allowed cities five years, till the end of the permit, to reach compliance with the permit's term.

  ADEM has until mid-October to respond to the EPA's objections. ADEM can revise the permit to meet the EPA's wishes. Or it can request a public hearing from the EPA, which would trigger a formal review. Or it can accept an EPA takeover of that facet of the storm water program.

National initiatives
  ADEM spokesman Scott Hughes said the agency is working with the EPA.

  "There have been numerous discussions and meetings on the proposed storm water permits and we will continue to maintain an open dialogue with EPA staff," Hughes said.

  He said the EPA has very publicly announced national initiatives both on storm water and coal mine discharge regulations, so it is a mistake to assume Alabama is being singled out.

  "Since this is a national enforcement initiative, it appears to contradict the perception that there is a specific interest in Alabama," Hughes said.

  Jim Giattina, the director of the EPA's Region 4 Water Division, agreed that Alabama is not being singled out. The EPA is working closely with Florida and Kentucky in the development of permits for those state. Tennessee has produced a permit that met EPA expectations, Giattina said. The EPA's formal objection in Alabama's case came after Alabama announced it was about to start issuing permits that the EPA had objected to.

  "Our interest in Alabama is no different than in any of our other states," he said. "We have been very interested in storm water issues, particularly in the past couple of years. ADEM hasn't necessarily gotten any more special attention than other states."

  Giattina said the EPA's current thrust is to make sure storm water permits being issued to local governments are clear, specific, and enforceable with measurable results. Cities must have a program of inspection and enforcement to control storm water. That doesn't preclude a cooperative relationship between the local governments and ADEM. At the same time, Giattina said, "it does not alleviate the responsibility of cities to have their own appropriate programs in place. A community can't just say, 'That's ADEM's responsibility.'"

  Giattina said he was aware that voices in Alabama's business community were describing the EPA's suggested permit standards as beyond what is legally required.

  "I understand that they have that viewpoint," Giattina said, "but our objections are grounded in the law and in the regulatory requirements."

  On the petition filed by environmentalists seeking to have all of ADEM's authority over Clean Water regulation revoked, Giattina said no decision has been made.

  "ADEM gave us a very robust response," Giattina said. "We are in the process of
both reviewing ADEM's response and doing our own evaluation."

  Giattina said the agency is working expeditiously and hopes to have a response to the petition in three to six months. He said Alabama's environmental enforcement effort is not that different from efforts in other states. Agencies across the South are stretched thin, since environmental protection often is not the top priority in tough economic times.

  "Resources always present a challenge," Giattina said. "But ADEM has strong programs in many regards."

Join the conversation by clicking to comment or e-mail Spencer at tspencer@bhamnews.com

 

Drainage Improvements Made at Hargrove Road

I have to admit that this looks as if it may work.
I have to ask the question...
If this was NOT due to poor planning and approval of flawed plans, why are they now spending mega-bucks to repair something that was not broken.
JLW

 

 

 

 

 

Drainage improvements made at Hargrove Road

City officials hope to prevent flooding

Tuscaloosa News | Robert Sutton

Buy photo

A new retaining wall has been built and improvements made on drainage at the Woodlands apartments on Hargrove Road near Snow Hinton Park.

By Robert DeWitt Senior Writer

Published: Friday, October 1, 2010 at 3:30 a.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, September 30, 2010 at 11:04 p.m.

( page of 2 )

TUSCALOOSA | City officials hope drainage improvements at The Woodlands of Tuscaloosa will help prevent flooding on Hargrove Road.

“I’m cautiously optimistic that these changes will function as designed,” said Chad Christian, the city’s storm drainage engineer, after Tuesday’s City Council Projects Committee meeting.

Flooding in the area earlier this year has been blamed on The Woodlands, a large apartment complex that was completed during the summer, but the developer, The Dovetail Companies, has said the apartments aren’t the cause.

City officials had threatened to withhold a certificate of occupancy unless the developer addressed the flooding issue. The city later agreed to issue a conditional certificate of occupancy, but established several conditions that The Dovetail Companies agreed to meet. Drainage improvements were among them, City Attorney Bob Ennis said.

The developer has said the flooding was merely the result of extraordinary rain events. National Weather Service records indicated that storms in May, June and July dropped unusually large amounts of rain on the city.

The developer’s hydrologist recommended several changes to the development’s original design to help alleviate the flooding. The development used a bridge across a floodway that runs down the middle of the property as a structure to retain water on the property.

The most recent improvements closed part of the opening under the bridge so that it holds back more water. The idea is to keep from overloading the culvert under Hargrove Road, Christian said.

The developer also created a concrete flume between the bridge and the culvert under Hargrove Road to improve the flow to the culvert, Christian said, and built a retaining wall on Hargrove Road designed to hold back water on the property and improve the flow through the culvert.

If water can be held on the property and released more gradually, it decreases the chance that the culvert will become overloaded. When the culvert becomes overloaded, water flows over the road, becoming a traffic hazard, and can cause flooding in adjoining neighborhoods.

The developer has said that before The Woodlands was built, a two-year flood event would have overtopped Hargrove Road. With the improvements, it would now take something between a five-year flood event and a 10-year flood event to overtop Hargrove Road.

“They assert that it is now better than it was before they built the project,” Christian said.

Attempts to reach Dovetail on Wednesday and Thursday for comment about the recent improvements were unsuccessful.

Christian said that an independent hydrologist studying the floodway must still approve the developer’s drainage improvements. The

“third-party” hydrologist acts independently of the city and the developer.

“We won’t have a final judgment on that until we have a review from the third-party hydrologist,” Christian said.

Joe Robinson, head of the city’s Office of the City Engineer, said that the Birmingham office of AMEC Engineering’s Earth and Environmental Division, based in Plymouth Meeting, Pa., has been jointly selected by Dovetail and the city. Dovetail is paying for the $8,500 hydrologic study, Robinson said.

“The agreement the city has with Dovetail states that the developer and the city shall employ at — the developer’s expense — a hydrologist acceptable to both parties,” Robinson said in an e-mail. “We should get AMEC’s report back before Nov. 1.”

Staff writer Jason Morton contributed to this report.

Hargrove Road, July 10

http://mudbuster.blogspot.com/2010/07/photos-from-hargrove-flooding-072610.html

Citizen Complaint Jamestown Villas EPA region 4 Enforcement Branch,

To Jim Giattina

CC: Lisa Jackson.

Attn: EPA region 4 Enforcement Branch,

On 04/28/10 EPA Region 4 issues administrative order # CWA 04-2010-4760 to Jimmy Burns, Jamestown Villas (JTV) for site violations concerning BMPs and other miscellaneous issues.

No penalty was imposed with the order.

In the EPA order, certain requirements were made of the developer, that were never implemented.

1. BMPs are still in disrepair of non-existent in some places where needed.

2. Turbid and heavily silted discharge still occurs with every rain event as it did yesterday,  09/27/10.

3. While no corrections had been made upon inspection, it should be noted that road construction and drain work was ongoing in violation of CWA standards as well as the EPA order.

I submitted a complaint to this effect to Jim Giattina, EPA Region 4.

Subsequently EPA sent ADEM to reinspect the site on 08/10/10.

Inspector Roberts visited the site and reported some violations. It is my opinion that the inspector did not thoroughly inspect. His photos are primarily taken from distances and not along the creek where the majority of violations exist.

It is also my opinion that the inspector played down the seriousness of off-site as well as on site violations. He was only on the site for 1 hour 20 minutes.  That includes the arrival greetings as well as filling out paperwork before departure. In all I would suggest that he spent only about an hour doing the actual inspection.

He did not visit the lake below for off-site impacts. It is only a hundred yards or so from JTV. The lake is continuously filling in with silt from JTV. There are no other disturbances in the entire watershed of impact. 

Photo plate 02 in ADEM report photos shows the inlet protection taken from a distance.

Photos taken up close show multiple flaws with these including the installation and maintenance.

Plate 3 shows the entrance from Vassie Dr. Once again the shot is a wide one that does not show the extent of failing or nonexistent BMPs. That section of the site does NOT flow to any retention basin at all but discharges directly into Stone Creek.

Road construction has begun since the ADEM visit and no precautions made to keep the mud from leaving the road-bed.

Plate 4 shows the creek from the top of the hill and some distance away, just at the discharge from the Vassie Dr. entrance. He states that little of no sediment was seen and previously disturbed slopes have been grassed. He makes no mention that on the other side of the newly constructed road, the creek-bed is full of silt. Had he walked out into that grass he would have seen large rills and erosion gullies on the surface. Those rills lead to silt fencing that has fallen down long ago from the weight of the accumulated sediment. Just below the tree line on the creek, the sediment begins accumulating and is very heavy throughout the entire wetlands and flood planes leading to Whitley Lake.

Plate 5 is a long distance shot of the undersized retention basin and a skimmer. Had he inspected closely as he should have, he would have seen that the overflow and the pipe leading from the basin have long ago been piping from the pond directly around the skimmer and into the creek with no treatment.

All of the grass from this point to the end of the site bordering Whitley’s property is long ago dead. It is very sparse and allowing sheet flow of sediment from the site.

Plate 6 shows a rip-rap-lined channel leading away from the discharge and into failing silt fencing.

1.     The rip-rap is not a sediment control but an energy diffuser. It leads to fencing with holes under it large enough to roll basketballs under. I don’t think it will hold much sediment back in it’s current condition. I have been watching this hole for months and have reported it to EPA on more than one occasion. I can’t see how inspector Roberts missed it unless he did not inspect anything below the edge of the hilltop.

2.     Below this failed section lie more failures. Silt fencing that does not reach the ground, holes throughout, sediment blankets spread out over rotting tree debris that is in the riparian buffer zone for Stone Creek.

Plate 7 I see where he did follow a well-worn path to the failing fences below the outfall. He shows some holes but specifically does not show the silt fence that is over a foot off the ground. Where he shows the holes, he is still inside the fencing and does not show the sediment outside the fences leading to Stone Creek. The barrier in back is NOT attached to the ground and is lying on top of rotting trees that leave many conduits for sediment to leave the site.

Plate 8 he shows the fencing but only mentions that it is 2/3 full. No mention of the back fences seen falling and holding noting back from leaving the site.

Plate 9 he says “Silt fence needs maintenance” The silt fences her refers to was NEVER installed properly and never maintained. This also is in an area where NO retention exists. The water overflowing these fences comes from an area of the site disturbed in June of last year and has never been routed through any retention basin at all.

Plate 10 (final ADEM plate)

This plate does say that sediment does not appear to have been removed. Once again, if the inspector had walked just a few feet out of his comfort zone he would have noted the entire flood plane and wetland associated with this project is heavily inundated with sediment.

All in all, I believe that ADEM does not want to show the full extent of damage caused by this irresponsible permittee . If ADEM showed the full extent it would also show a serious lack of diligence on the part of ADEM for…

1. Not investigating this permit before issuance. It sat on an ADEM desk for months with no review while the developer was busy constructing his failure.

2. ADEM and Tuscaloosa City refused to take any action to stop him until compliance was met.

3. ADEM has, in my opinion downplayed the seriousness of this violator to cover their own inept permitting and enforcement. This site is only one of many used for the petition to remove the ADEM program. It now seems that EPA is also allowing the developer to get off with a slap to the wrist by issuing an prder with no penalty.

It is quite obvious to me that JTV has no intention of following the law unless forced.

Please find below, a series of photos taken just before the last ADEM inspection aerial photos of the entire site, along with a detailed report with photos after the ADEM inspection,

ON 08/07/10 and 08/08/10,

 

 I visited the site on a call from a landowner. He explained how Burns agreed to fill his land and grade it in exchange for space to dispose of unwanted dirt. He informed me that this was going on across the street as well. Although it is admirable for Mr. Burns to want to help, it is without permit and was never completed. This left the landowners with land too steep to use and impossible to maintain using household lawn equipment.

See pdf; JTV OFFSITE, 

plates 3-5, photos OS-6, - OS-10. The land West of 6^th St. E. was filled as well but no complaints from landowner. This does not leave Mr. Burns with no responsibility to permit the fill under JTV.

During the visit and subsequent visit the next day, I found…

1. Multiple BMP violations that have been there since before EPA region 4 visit on 11/15/09, Mr. Don Joe, inspector. Silt fences down, non-existent, riddled with holes and inadequate throughout.

2. New road construction underway while existing violations go unresolved.

3. sediment in large amounts in the receiving stream, Stone Creek.

4. Offsite transport of bulk material to fill land not on the permit and without previous approval from Tuscaloosa or ADEM.

5. Large areas of the permit have been in disturbance since excavation began without proper permitting. No vegetative cover on land disturbed over 2 weeks.

6. Sediment basin is inadequate for amount of drainage.

7. Large tracts of the permit do NOT drain to basins of any kind. Those areas drain untreated to Stone Creek

8. Large rills and gullies throughout from inadequate cover and slope grades exceeding the permit design.

a.                   This site was approved by Tuscaloosa City Engineer under the agreement that the slopes would NOT exceed 3:1. I have measured the back slopes. Some measure as much as 27 inches to 3 feet, or 3:2+

9. On the West side behind a huge pile of unstabilized soil there is a new, unpermitted outfall leading into the woods and off the property.

(see pdf JTV 08/08/10 B)

10.          Heavy impacts to the Stone Creek, Whitley Lake, and 2 offsite deposits of unpermitted fill material.

(SEE PDF JTV OFFSITE 08.07.10)

 All of the above was documented 1 to 2 days before the ADEM inspection.

 On 08/20/10, I returned to the site in a light rain to find the following.

1. Upstream water was clear.

2. Downstream at Whitley Lake the water was extremely turbid.

a.                   There is no other disturbance throughout this entire drainage. ALL sediment and turbidity can be traced to JTV. (SEE PDF JTV 09/11/10 Aerials, Plate 4, photo A-7

3. Roadwork onsite had no bmps.

4. What drain covers that were there were not installed properly leaving no protection. (C-3, 4, 5, 6, of PDF JTV 08/20/10 rain) ((C-5 is looking downstream from Vassie Dr. entrance))

5. Vast areas of the site do not drain to any type of retention pond.

a.                   The area surrounding the Vassie Drive entrance drains to the creek directly as well as the entire back section of the site along the bank of Stone Creek. (photos C-7, - C-11 PDF JTV 08/20/10)

6. There is only one retention pond onsite. It is grossly undersized and failing to contain the outfall.

a.                   The pipes leading from the pond to the final discharge are not compacted. This has allowed water to follow that underground channel to a sediment laden, turbid discharge point on the slope above the discharge.

b.                  A second culvert tower was installed about mid point in the back slope. It also has compaction issues. The tower washed out underneath because it was installed improperly. It now leans at a noticeable tilt of several degrees off plumb. Burns filled it in with concrete rubble and it still stands today tilted and full of concrete.

c.                    Many areas drain mud to the creek without ever coming in contact with any retention at all.

7. Mr. Roberts, ADEM inspector, noted that slopes that were previously bare are now covered. I beg to correct him. While some slopes have fresh vegetative cover, many more acres stand bare as they have for over a year now.

8. BMPs throughout are inadequate, failing, or completely nonexistent.

9. Offsite discharge of known pollutants listed on the approved TMDL for Hurricane Creek occur with every rain event. This condition has existed since the first unpermitted disturbance in 06/09.

10.          All surrounding wetlands are now inundated with sediment.

11.          Whitley Lake is now inundated with silt and consistently turbid water.

12.          It is my considered opinion and confirmed by an erosion control specialist that the mass excavation of clay bearing many metals, silicates and introduction of fertilizers have changed the chemical make-up of the stream causing an Iron fallout throughout the stream bed. It does not exist above JTV. (Hurricane Creek is listed and an approved TMDL exists calling for an 87% decrease in Iron.

a.                   This permit not only is in violation for turbidity and offsite impacts due to mud, but also has caused an increase in the Iron content for Stone Creek

(SEE PDF 08.20.10 rain)

I recently spoke with Chip Crockett, ADEM stormwater enforcement. He informed me that since EPA has begun action (albeit non-deterrent action) ADEM will not spend any more resources on this site. I find that deplorable. This entire fiasco was caused by ADEM and the city of Tuscaloosa not doing their jobs. ADEM had a responsibility to take action and as usual failed us.

We came to EPA early on to seek help. To date even EPA has failed to take any action that has caused the slightest change in the operation at JTV. It is still in a non-complaint state after over a year of prodding from FoHC, several “courtesy visits” from ADEM, one inspection from EPA, and an administrative order with no penalty of deterrent value at all.

Please accept this complaint in the nature it is intended. We want to make clear that the entire process has failed.

Tuscaloosa City issued the site disturbance permit with certain stipulations. Stipulations that the contractor has to date ignored. Retention ponds were grossly undersized, Slopes that were guaranteed by city engineer Joe Robinson to be less than 3:1 far exceed that and cover large deposits of rotting tree debris. The city has taken no action to correct this and live up to their responsibility to the people of Tuscaloosa.

ADEM has a responsibility to regulate through permitting and enforcement of the CWA and Alabama codes approved by EPA.  ADEM has presented such a failure in this respect that FoHC and many others have petitioned to remove them from the process.

EPA is the last resort to fixing this, not only in Tuscaloosa, but all of Alabama. The conditions I have reported here exist all across Alabama while ADEM sleeps at the wheel.

We come to you for the last time on this complaint to ask for maximum penalty, maximum enforcement and deterrent action that will stop this developer from proceeding further without addressing his violations and sending a loud message to all developer in the area. Accountability is a must if you do business here.

Yours Respectfully,

John L. Wathen