District Engineer

U.S. Army Engineer District, Mobile

P.O. Box 2288

Mobile, AL 36628-000

Attention: Regulatory Division

                        RE: Permit Application Number:  SAM-2009-1088-GAC (Revised)

Dear Sir,

            I am the President of the Timber Creek Property Owners Association (TCPOA) and former Regional Representative with the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. The TCPOA is composed of over 700 households in the Timber Creek subdivision, Daphne, Alabama. The TCPOA has reviewed the referenced permit application concerning the proposed Baldwin County Service Road. The application explains that this road is designed to connect retail centers on Highway 98 and State Road 181. We understand that the road would be 2.6 miles in length and include two bridge structures spanning first order tributaries of D’Olive Creek and installation of culverts on an unnamed tributary in association with modification of the Interstate 10/Baldwin County Road 13 interchange.  According to Public Notice No. SAM-2009-1088-GAC, the applicant proposes to fill approximately 3.12 acres of wetlands, and impact approximately 700 linear feet of stream in conjunction with construction. The applicant, Baldwin County Highway Department is requesting Section 404/401 Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344) permits required for the project to proceed.
 

            The applicant’s stated purpose of the road is: (1) to provide non-stop access from U.S. Highway 98 to State Road 181, running parallel to the north side of Interstate 10; and (2) to enhance hurricane evacuation road capacity in conjunction with Baldwin County Road 13. It appears to us that the stated purpose has suddenly changed from the original purpose. The service road was originally proposed because a large hospital was planned on a tract just east of the Bass Pro Shop. The hospital was considered to be an asset to the local communities and a road would be required to get to the property. So, the “service road” was proposed in order for area residents to have ready access to the hospital. Later the hospital proposal was dropped and thus there is no current need for a new road.

            The Public Notice requests interested persons to “assist in developing facts on which a decision by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can be based.” The Corps makes clear that the decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on the public interest. Additionally, the Public Notice advises that : “All factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered including the cumulative effects thereof; among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, safety and in general, the needs and welfare of the people.”

            The TCPOA is opposed to construction of the proposed new “service road” connecting U.S. Highway 98 to State Road 181. The original purpose of the road was to provide access to a hospital as described previously in this letter. Plans for the hospital did not materialize and as a result, we contend there is no need for the road. Additionally, the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed road are numerous and severe and we will describe some of these in this letter. In addition, we refer the Corps to the files of the D'Olive Watershed Working Group (DWWG) and the associated Thompson Engineering Watershed Management Plan Team.  The DWWG whose membership is composed of federal, state, county and city officials has, for many months, been evaluating the watershed in which the proposed road would be located. Their files contain data concerning the fragile land base and the many water quality and other environmental problems created by previous developments in the watershed.

            In addition to the numerous environmental problems that will be associated with a new road, we strongly contend that a new road is not needed and is a waste of taxpayer’s dollars. Currently, there are three nearby routes that connect U.S. Highway 98 to State Road 181. These are U.S. 90, U.S. 31 and Interstate 10. We reviewed the Environmental Analysis (EA) and Finding Of No Significant Impacts (FONSI) documents prepared by the Federal Highway Administration and Alabama Department of Transportation. The FONSI document describes that there are no practical alternatives for the proposed service road because there is only one location for such a road. This is laughable! First, did the highway officials even evaluate whether or not a fourth road was needed? Where is their traffic study to show a real need for a fourth way to travel to and from State 181 to U.S. 98? Second, did they even consider the three other nearby routes as “practical alternatives”?

            We detected no concern in the EA or FONSI concerning the service road’s impact on factors such as “welfare of the people” and their private “economic” investments in their homes and other amenities. The proposed service road would border the yards of a number of Timber Creek homes and degrade the quality of life for residents. Vehicle induced fumes, dust and noise from the service road traffic would create unhealthy and uncomfortable conditions. The adverse economic impact of a nearby service road is already being realized by some home owners when they attempt to sell their property. In addition, if the service road is built commercial development is certain to follow. This would further degrade the welfare of the Timber Creek residents and decrease the value of their property.

            Development of the proposed service road would fly in the face of the ongoing efforts of DWWG and the Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan that the group is preparing.  The DWWG has worked for several years planning how to correct and manage the serious environmental problems in the watershed caused by developers and poor leadership of government officials in the past.

            When evaluating the environmental problems and solutions affecting a watershed, one must understand the geology and physiography of the basin of concern. When considering the cumulative effects of the proposed “service road” one must picture the D’Olive Creek-Tiawasee Creek-Joe’s Branch sub-watersheds as a unit. Hereafter we will refer to the three sub-watersheds as “the watershed”. Storm water runoff and its associated effects are the principle environmental problem in the watershed.

            From 1974 to 2008 there has been much development and land use change in the watershed area. In 1974 approximately 5,000 acres of forest existed. By 2008 forest land made up only about 3,000 acres, a decline of 2,000 acres. Likewise in 1974, urban areas covered about 1,300 acres and had enlarged to almost 3,000 acres in 2008. Recognizing these changes in land use is important to understanding some severe environmental problems that have occurred.

            The loss of forest land and creation of urban areas in the watershed has resulted in enormous increases of storm water runoff. This runoff has eroded upland areas, filled in floodplains, caused excessive erosion of stream channels and stream banks, degraded wetlands, increased flooding, filled in large areas of Lake Forest lake and Mobile Bay and affected navigation. The combination of all these and other factors has resulted in serious water quality degradation. Fish and wildlife habitats have been destroyed and degraded and their populations have steadily declined.

            While the specific adverse impacts of the service road construction and future consequences of the road will be serious, they will greatly magnify when combined with numerous other serious problems in the greater watershed area. The cumulative effects of the proposed service road and past abuses in the watershed are enormous. We ask those officials responsible for proposing the road:  Will the proposed road enhance the environment? We believe the answer is clearly no. Will the road further degrade the environment? Again, we contend the answer is an astounding yes.

            Storm water runoff and those features affecting runoff are essential to understand when considering the proposed road and the watershed wherein it may be constructed.  There are four principle factors affecting surface runoff, erosion and sediment transport.  These are: (1) topography; (2) surface soils and geology; (3) rainfall; and (4) land use and land cover.  Only one of these four factors, land use and land cover, can be controlled by man. Solutions to the problems created by land use and land cover are needed to address the surface runoff, erosion and sedimentation issues affecting the watershed.

            The topography of the watershed is extreme relative to other northern Gulf Coast locales. The extreme relief of the area is obvious when viewing a topographical contour map. For example, elevation increases from sea level to 160 feet in less than four miles from Mobile Bay. Steep gradient streams in the watershed result in powerful runoff which, when native vegetation is removed, accelerates natural “headcutting” of stream channels.  As a result stream channel instability increases and high sediment transports are produced. Many stream segments are bordered by slopes exceeding 25 percent.

            Typically soils in the area are highly erodible. Subsoils are characteristically more erodible than top soils. Underlying surface soils are non-cohesive geological material dominated by sands. Natural stream bank soils range from highly erodible fine sands to somewhat erosion resistant hard clays and some weathered rock. According to a geomorphologist on the DWWG, portions of the watershed are experiencing 500 years of erosion in a single year.           

            Annual rainfall in the watershed area averages 67 inches. There are 59 average annual days with rainfall. Rainfall events are often intense, producing large volumes of water within a short period of time. Many rain storms are characterized by large raindrops that possess considerable impact energy. The Rainfall Erosion Index values for the north central Gulf Coast, within the Mobile/Daphne area, is the highest in the United States.

            Watershed land use and land cover changed significantly during the 34 year period between 1974 and 2008.  Forest cover was reduced from 56 percent to 25 percent. The former forested areas were converted to urban areas. Agricultural land acreage remained approximately the same. The increased urban development resulted in increased run-off rates, reductions in infiltration capacity of soils, increased flood peaks, accelerated rates of stream/ditch headcutting, increased streambank erosion and increased sediment loads. While there are some very expensive methods available to address stream channel problems, the source of the problem is accelerated runoff rates. Solutions should be directed to halting additional run-off and then work on reducing runoff volumes to pre-development levels.

            The proposed service road described in the Public Notice will clearly add to the environmental problems in the watershed. The proposed 2.6 mile long road will directly impact 38.1 acres, approximately 700 linear feet of streams and 3.12 acres of wetlands. The impacts of the proposed road at the planned location will have impacts far greater than what would be expected in an area with more gentle topography, more stable soils, less rain fall and more native trees and brushy undergrowth. Yet, these natural features cannot be altered to any significant degree.

            Unfortunately the watershed conditions are what they are. The new road construction would further alter the hydrology of the watershed through large increases in flows and stream channel morphology. A paved road will increase the amount of impervious surface in watersheds, resulting in substantial increases in peak run-off and storm discharges. Reduced evapo-transpiration within the road rights-of-way may also result in increased run-off and stream flows. The road will concentrate surface water flows, which in turn will increase erosion.  All of these factors will contribute to head cutting and mass wasting of stream channels and banks, adding to the sediment load. These factors will in turn increased flooding downstream and seriously degrade water quality.  As conditions exist today taxpayers will have to pay for correcting the current damages to the environment and will have to pay even more if the service road adds to existing problems.

            Water flows from the service road construction, completed road surfaces and future developed building surfaces will cause polluted water to flow more rapidly into streams, wetlands and eventually into Mobile Bay. When the cumulative effects of all the development of roads, homes and businesses in the watershed area are considered, the adverse impacts to the natural environment will be huge. The healthy fisheries and wildlife populations in the area have already been seriously impacted by loss of habitat and degraded water quality and development of a new road will add to the losses.

            Even the best designed roads produce sediment. There will be many earth cuts and fills on the proposed service road which will result in large amounts of erosion and water quality degradation.

            Rain water running off the proposed service road will tend to pick up gasoline waste, motor oil, heavy metals, trash and other pollutants which are created as combustion byproducts of gasoline and other fossil fuels. Cumulatively, this additional source of contamination will have serious effects on streams, wetlands and water quality in the area. All of these pollutants will eventually flow into Mobile Bay, which is already suffering. Mobile Bay and delta is an especially important part of our nation’s natural resources. The Mobile Bay National Estuary Program (MBNEP), established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for attempting to protect and enhance this unique and important area.  The MBNEP mission is to promote wise stewardship of the water quality characteristics and living resource base of the Mobile Bay estuarine system. MBNEP is guided by a Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan (CCMP), a blue print for the management of natural resources within the Mobile Bay area. It appears to TCPOA that the proposed service road is in direct contradiction to the MBNEP and the CCMP.

            While some of these effects may be minimal on the specific proposed road, the cumulative effects all over Baldwin County and the region are seriously damaging to the natural environment.

            The proposed route of the service road would be largely located on lands that are currently forested. This would further eliminate the type of natural cover that protects against water runoff and erosion and helps to enhance water quality. These forest lands likewise provide productive song bird and other wildlife habitat in an area where such habitat has been greatly diminished. Federal, state, county and city road systems in Baldwin County and the region have already led to large scale wildlife and fish habitat losses, wetland losses and environmental degradation both directly and indirectly. These cumulative effects will only worsen with the construction of the proposed service road.

            According to the ALDOT’s Environmental Assessment, road construction, as currently planned, will cause direct losses of 3.12 acres of wetlands through the effects of filling, draining, and alteration of hydrology. Importantly the highway, if constructed, will also indirectly lead to additional wetland degradation and loss by enabling or inducing secondary development and filling of nearby wetlands with eroded sediment. While the direct loss of wetland acres on the service road may be small, the affects of increased water run-off loaded with eroded sediments will degrade downstream wetlands. When added to the cumulative loss of wetlands in the area, there are tremendous adverse environmental consequences. 
   

            According to the FONSI, the Rusty gravedigger crayfish is a candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. We understand that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the proposed road would not affect the crayfish habitat because bridges would be constructed to span over the habitats. We disagree with the Service and question if they considered the large, erosion filled runoff volumes from construction activities and the increased eroded material that will flow into the Rusty gravedigger habitat from increased water run-off from the new paved service road.

            We respectfully request that a Public Meeting be held to discuss this proposal before Section 404/401 permits are considered. We contend that the public has had not had a fair opportunity to review the proposed service road. In fact, it seems to us that opportunity for citizen review and input has been purposefully denied.  According to the FONSI document, a FHWA Coordination Meeting summary prepared by ALDOT dated September 13, 2007, advised that a Public Involvement Meeting would be required for the project to explain the proposed service road as well as the proposed changes to the CR-13 project. Based on the outcomes of the meetings, FHA and ALDOT would determine if the County’s request to exempt the project from a public hearing will be approved. However, a public involvement meeting was held on March 6, 2008. The meeting records advise that some of the attendees were in favor of the road. Two of the persons in attendance at that meeting advised that the general belief then was that the road was being proposed to provide access to the proposed hospital.

            Apparently, according to the record, another public involvement meeting may have been required.  County Engineer, Mr. Cal Markert, P.E. County Engineer requested a waiver of the public meeting. Alabama Public Television and Timber Creek Land Company, both landowners, wrote letters supporting the waiver. Then, on June 3, 2009 a letter from U.S. Department of Transportation, FHA, Alabama Division states: Dear Mr. McInnes, Your request to waive the public hearing for the subject project (#)2-02-408 Baldwin County Service Road) is approved. If you have any questions please call Lynn Urqubart at (334) 223-7300. Signed: Mark D. Bartlett, P.E., Division Administrator.

            We also request that Section 404/401 be denied. If the permits are not denied, we request that an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared before a final decision is made. The proposed service road along with the cumulative effects of other developments in the watershed will have long-lasting adverse environmental effects within the watershed and within the Mobile Bay estuarine system.

            Thank you for carefully considering our views.

                                                                        Sincerely,

                                                                        David Chalk, President

                                                                        Timber Creek Property Owners Association

cc: Gus Palumbo,

      Fred Small, Mayor of Daphne

      Randy Davis, State Representative    

      Trip Pittman, State Senator

      Baldwin County Commissioners

      Daphne City Council members