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