July 23, 2014 at 2:10 p.m.
Wetlands issue is complicated (08/27/2008)
By By STEVE GARBACZ-
A firm hired to investigate wetland destruction at the former XPLEX Extreme Competition Park is playing detective.
RW Armstrong, Indianapolis, is performing a wetland delineation, an investigation into where wetlands were allegedly disturbed and how much damage was done at the site on county road 100 North. However, doing some investigative work more than three years later can be tricky.
"It is a little bit difficult to determine if there was an extensive amount of construction activity," said David Bourff, senior environmental planner with RW Armstrong, which was hired by the city of Portland to do the work at a cost of $12,881.
Bourff said the firm will use a combination of field examination, historical analysis and personal interviews to piece together circumstances and determine the scope of the damage.
The contract with RW Armstrong will include recommendations on solutions if wetlands damage is found.
Bettie Jacobs, coordinator for the Jay County Soil and Water Conservation District, said Monday that RW Armstrong had been out at the XPLEX site last week doing some initial work. The company is looking back into the park's history to figure out what went wrong.
A wooded area and land around the site was known to have poor drainage. Because the area would flood and hold water after heavy rains, XPLEX required some overhauls that could get that water moving before construction could continue.
Jay County was involved in the work. County surveyor Brad Daniels said county work crews fixed some of the drainage infrastructure that was broken down.
"My main responsibility was making sure the county-operated drains were working properly," he said. "The tile was an old county tile that didn't work. Part of the process was that tile was replaced. There was also a county tile that was in the woods. We repaired it in the places that it was broken."
At Monday's commissioners' meeting, commissioner Milo Miller Jr. wanted to check the county's liability.
"We have a right to repair that tile?" he asked.
"Right," Daniels affirmed.
However, additional drainage work to the property was done, not directly by the county. An area of interest, Jacobs said, is an open ditch at the site that had been used to drain water.
This ditch was constructed at the direction of XPLEX ownership, though was approved by the Jay County Drainage Board.
"Every time we mentioned open ditch, because it could handle more ... we had received nothing, but I felt, open blessings from the commissioners and Brad Daniels," said Ryan Vannatter, former chief of operations for XPLEX.
"We'd have tremendous downpours out there and there wasn't water standing out there like there used to be," he said. "When we opened that thing up, I told the guys, 'I'd love to get one of those $1 rafts and blow it up and ride it down through the ditch,' because the water was moving so hard and fast through that thing."
The open ditch was a major mover of water, water that was likely an integral part of the alleged wetlands on the property. Did Vannatter, or anyone else on the project ever consider that perhaps the property was a wetland?
"No," he said. And the reason I say that is that ... there were so many broken tiles and that so many problems with the drainage up there, I think it was just a general assumption that we had water on top of water with nowhere to go. It's just one of those where when you start thinking of it - we've got a broken tile here, we've got a broken tile there - it's just kind of one of those, 'well, we got to get this fixed.'
"I was kind of taken by (the allegations). I guess I didn't have any knowledge of it being a wetlands," he said. "I almost wonder who didn't know that needed to know."
The county didn't know and neither did XPLEX. It appears the city and economic development personnel were unaware too.
"Not to my knowledge," said Vicki Tague, executive director of the Jay County Chamber of Commerce and a member of the board of directors for both Jay County Development Corporation and the Portland Economic Development Corporation.
Tague said late economic development director Bob Quadrozzi was a leading figure in the XPLEX project. Tague said she wasn't aware of any discussions about the existence of wetlands in the former industrial park.
"As much as I know, the missing link is with the passing of Bob Quadrozzi," VanNatter said. "I would think that Quadrozzi would have known that it was a wetlands - that the city would know that this here is a wetlands."
Quadrozzi was a leading figure in helping XPLEX obtain the land. Purchased with Economic Development Income Tax funds by the Portland Economic Development Corporation, some of land was sold to XPLEX proprietor Glynn Barber and the rest of the property for the park was leased.
The soil and water conservation district, which now is involved directly with these issues, was left out in this case.
"Back when that started, that was before the soil and water was reviewing ... plans," Jacobs said. "At that time the (Department of Natural Resources) was doing it. Had it happened later, we would have been aware."
VanNatter had suggested perhaps it was just an area with a flooding problem that had been holding water for some time and was now, later, being suspected of being a wetland. Although it's possible a temporary wetland could have been formed, an Indiana Department of Environmental Management representative said broken infrastructure probably isn't the main reason the site is garnering the attention.
"It is worth saying that a wetland can be created but it requires quite a bit of time," said Amber Finkelstein, a public information officer for IDEM. "Just because an area is under standing water doesn't mean it's a wetland and just because an area's dry doesn't mean it's not.
"I talked further with the project manager that's been dealing with XPLEX," she said. "The broken tile is not likely to have created the wetland."
Finkelstein said in order to be classified as a wetland, the property must meet three criteria. There must be a particular type of soil found, certain types of hydric vegetation must be growing, and the area must be inundated or saturated with water for an extended period of the year.
That determination is on the shoulders of RW Armstrong's team, who will likely return their findings to the city of Portland before the end of September. The report will shed light on what was done at the site to disturb the wetland and could help point to a responsible party, although at this point, all the reparations will probably be coming out of Portland's pockets.
All of the options come with a price tag for Portland, which wasn't directly involved in the work. While Barber still owns about 53 acres of land on the west side of the former park, the majority of the 160 acres, which includes the large wooded area on the XPLEX site, is owned by the Portland Economic Development Corporation.
But because that organization is funded by the city of Portland, the city will likely be responsible for fixing any wetlands violations.
Those costs could include applying for an after-the-fact permit, repairing the damage on site, or establishing a new wetland five times the size elsewhere - or a combination.
"Really it will probably be all three of the above," Jacobs said.[[In-content Ad]]
RW Armstrong, Indianapolis, is performing a wetland delineation, an investigation into where wetlands were allegedly disturbed and how much damage was done at the site on county road 100 North. However, doing some investigative work more than three years later can be tricky.
"It is a little bit difficult to determine if there was an extensive amount of construction activity," said David Bourff, senior environmental planner with RW Armstrong, which was hired by the city of Portland to do the work at a cost of $12,881.
Bourff said the firm will use a combination of field examination, historical analysis and personal interviews to piece together circumstances and determine the scope of the damage.
The contract with RW Armstrong will include recommendations on solutions if wetlands damage is found.
Bettie Jacobs, coordinator for the Jay County Soil and Water Conservation District, said Monday that RW Armstrong had been out at the XPLEX site last week doing some initial work. The company is looking back into the park's history to figure out what went wrong.
A wooded area and land around the site was known to have poor drainage. Because the area would flood and hold water after heavy rains, XPLEX required some overhauls that could get that water moving before construction could continue.
Jay County was involved in the work. County surveyor Brad Daniels said county work crews fixed some of the drainage infrastructure that was broken down.
"My main responsibility was making sure the county-operated drains were working properly," he said. "The tile was an old county tile that didn't work. Part of the process was that tile was replaced. There was also a county tile that was in the woods. We repaired it in the places that it was broken."
At Monday's commissioners' meeting, commissioner Milo Miller Jr. wanted to check the county's liability.
"We have a right to repair that tile?" he asked.
"Right," Daniels affirmed.
However, additional drainage work to the property was done, not directly by the county. An area of interest, Jacobs said, is an open ditch at the site that had been used to drain water.
This ditch was constructed at the direction of XPLEX ownership, though was approved by the Jay County Drainage Board.
"Every time we mentioned open ditch, because it could handle more ... we had received nothing, but I felt, open blessings from the commissioners and Brad Daniels," said Ryan Vannatter, former chief of operations for XPLEX.
"We'd have tremendous downpours out there and there wasn't water standing out there like there used to be," he said. "When we opened that thing up, I told the guys, 'I'd love to get one of those $1 rafts and blow it up and ride it down through the ditch,' because the water was moving so hard and fast through that thing."
The open ditch was a major mover of water, water that was likely an integral part of the alleged wetlands on the property. Did Vannatter, or anyone else on the project ever consider that perhaps the property was a wetland?
"No," he said. And the reason I say that is that ... there were so many broken tiles and that so many problems with the drainage up there, I think it was just a general assumption that we had water on top of water with nowhere to go. It's just one of those where when you start thinking of it - we've got a broken tile here, we've got a broken tile there - it's just kind of one of those, 'well, we got to get this fixed.'
"I was kind of taken by (the allegations). I guess I didn't have any knowledge of it being a wetlands," he said. "I almost wonder who didn't know that needed to know."
The county didn't know and neither did XPLEX. It appears the city and economic development personnel were unaware too.
"Not to my knowledge," said Vicki Tague, executive director of the Jay County Chamber of Commerce and a member of the board of directors for both Jay County Development Corporation and the Portland Economic Development Corporation.
Tague said late economic development director Bob Quadrozzi was a leading figure in the XPLEX project. Tague said she wasn't aware of any discussions about the existence of wetlands in the former industrial park.
"As much as I know, the missing link is with the passing of Bob Quadrozzi," VanNatter said. "I would think that Quadrozzi would have known that it was a wetlands - that the city would know that this here is a wetlands."
Quadrozzi was a leading figure in helping XPLEX obtain the land. Purchased with Economic Development Income Tax funds by the Portland Economic Development Corporation, some of land was sold to XPLEX proprietor Glynn Barber and the rest of the property for the park was leased.
The soil and water conservation district, which now is involved directly with these issues, was left out in this case.
"Back when that started, that was before the soil and water was reviewing ... plans," Jacobs said. "At that time the (Department of Natural Resources) was doing it. Had it happened later, we would have been aware."
VanNatter had suggested perhaps it was just an area with a flooding problem that had been holding water for some time and was now, later, being suspected of being a wetland. Although it's possible a temporary wetland could have been formed, an Indiana Department of Environmental Management representative said broken infrastructure probably isn't the main reason the site is garnering the attention.
"It is worth saying that a wetland can be created but it requires quite a bit of time," said Amber Finkelstein, a public information officer for IDEM. "Just because an area is under standing water doesn't mean it's a wetland and just because an area's dry doesn't mean it's not.
"I talked further with the project manager that's been dealing with XPLEX," she said. "The broken tile is not likely to have created the wetland."
Finkelstein said in order to be classified as a wetland, the property must meet three criteria. There must be a particular type of soil found, certain types of hydric vegetation must be growing, and the area must be inundated or saturated with water for an extended period of the year.
That determination is on the shoulders of RW Armstrong's team, who will likely return their findings to the city of Portland before the end of September. The report will shed light on what was done at the site to disturb the wetland and could help point to a responsible party, although at this point, all the reparations will probably be coming out of Portland's pockets.
All of the options come with a price tag for Portland, which wasn't directly involved in the work. While Barber still owns about 53 acres of land on the west side of the former park, the majority of the 160 acres, which includes the large wooded area on the XPLEX site, is owned by the Portland Economic Development Corporation.
But because that organization is funded by the city of Portland, the city will likely be responsible for fixing any wetlands violations.
Those costs could include applying for an after-the-fact permit, repairing the damage on site, or establishing a new wetland five times the size elsewhere - or a combination.
"Really it will probably be all three of the above," Jacobs said.[[In-content Ad]]
Top Stories
9/11 NEVER FORGET Mobile Exhibit
Chartwells marketing
September 17, 2024 7:36 a.m.
Events
250 X 250 AD