cv111-174comp-thbmedia.graytvinc.com/documents/complaint-1.pdfthrough counsel, mailed to defendant...

J. III) 0 ; .s i, P' rA i

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORLPtflCT 1 4 P1 3:55

AUGUSTA DIVISIONCLERK.

JONES CREEK INVESTORS, LLC, SO. DSJ OF O.

andSAVANNAH 1UVERKEEPER, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

VS. Civil Action File No.

COLUMBIA COUNTY, GEORGIA;CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.;CSX REAL PROPERTY, INC.,MARSHALL SQUARE, LLCf/d/b/a NBR INVESTMENTS, LLC;D.C. LAWRENCE COMMERCIALREAL ESTATE, LLC; DONALDLAWRENCE; JOSEPH H.MARSHALL, ifi; ALLEN DANIELMARSHALL; KIMLANDCO, LLC;SOUTHERN SITE DESIGN, INC.;DR. ROBERT F. MIILLINS;BRUCE LYONS; and JONESCREEK PARTNERS, LLC,

CV 11 1-- 174

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, CIVIL PENALTIES& INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

COME NOW, Jones Creek Investors, LLC and Savannah Riverkeeper, Inc.

("Plaintiffs") and submit the following Complaint for Damages, Civil Penalties

and Injunctive Relief as set forth below. A Certificate of Interested Persons

pursuant to S.D. Ga. L.R. 3.2 has been filed contemporaneously and is

Case 1:11-cv-00174-JRH -WLB Document 1 Filed 10/14/11 of 99

incorporated herein.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

1.

This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 505 of

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972 (hereinafter "Clean

Water Act" or "CWA"), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331

(federal question).

2.

The Court also has jurisdiction over pendant state statutory and common

law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction) because those

claims arise from the same transactions or occurrences, are related to the federal

claims, and form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the

United States Constitution.

3.

This action is brought by Plaintiffs as private attorneys general for past and

ongoing violations of the CWA. It seeks damages consisting of civil penalties,

civil damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs and expenses of

litigation for such violations.

4.

On or about February 11, 2011, Plaintiff Jones Creek Investors, LLC,


through counsel, mailed to Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc. and Defendant

CSX Real Property, Inc. the required Notice of Intent to Sue letter, pursuant to

CWA Section 505, 33 U.S.C. § 1365. A copy of the letter is attached hereto at

Exhibit A.

5.

On or about May 16, 2011, Plaintiff Jones Creek Investors, LLC and

Plaintiff Savannah Riverkeeper, Inc., through counsel, mailed to Defendant

Columbia County, Georgia the required Notice of Intent to Sue letter related to

Columbia County's Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System, pursuant to CWA

505, 33 U.S.C. § 1365. A copy of this letter is attached hereto at Exhibit B.

On or about May 16, 2011, Plaintiff Jones Creek Investors, LLC, through

counsel, mailed to Defendant Kimlandco, LLC, Defendant Southern Site Design,

LLC, Defendant Dr. Robert F. Mullins, Defendant Jones Creek Partners, LLC,

Defendant Bruce Lyons, Defendant Marshall Square, LLC f/d/b/a NBR

Investments, LLC, Defendant D.C. Lawrence Commercial Real Estate, LLC,

Defendant Joseph H. Marshall, III, Defendant Allen Daniel Marshall, Defendant

Donald Lawrence, and Defendant Columbia County, Georgia the required Notice

of Intent to Sue letters, pursuant to CWA 505, 33 U.S.C. § 1365. Copies of these

letters are attached hereto at Exhibits C, D and E.

-3-


7.

Defendants received said letters as evidenced by return postage receipts

and other confirmation of receipts.. To date, Defendants have failed to abate the

nuisance, to stop the trespass, to come into compliance with the Clean Water Act

or otherwise correct the problem. 8.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court's original jurisdiction is invoked

because the claims asserted herein are founded upon the existence of federal

questions arising under the laws of the United States.

No pending actions defeat this Court's subject matter jurisdiction.

10.

Plaintiff Jones Creek Investors also raises supplemental state law claims

arising from the same transactions or occurrences as Defendants' Federal

environmental statute violations. These state law claims seek compensatory

damages for losses and damage to real property as well as other damages

available to Plaintiff Jones Creek Investors under Georgia law in addition to

attorneys' fees, costs and expenses of litigation.

11.

Venue is proper against all Defendants under the venue provisions of the

Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), in that the violations

-4-


alleged occurred and continue to occur in this District, the endangerment alleged

occurs and may occur in this District, Defendants conduct business within this

District and Division, and all property involved in this matter resides within this

District and Division.

PARTIES

12.

Plaintiff Jones Creek Investors, LLC ("JCI" or "Jones Creek Investors") is a

Georgia limited liability company existing under the laws of the State of Georgia

and is a "citizen" pursuant to the Clean Water Act, capable of bringing a citizen

suit under the citizen suit provisions of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1365.

New Manchester Resort & Golf, LLC v. Douglasville Dcv,, LLC, 734 F. Supp. 2d 1326,

1332 (N.D. Ga. 2010). Jones Creek Investors has suffered damages to its property

as a result of Defendants' actions and/or omissions described in this Complaint.

13.

Plaintiff Savannah Riverkeeper, Inc. ("Savannah Riverkeeper") is a non-

profit corporation existing under the laws of the State of Georgia and is a

"citizen" pursuant to the Clean Water Act, capable of bringing a citizen suit

under the citizen suit provisions of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1365. See,

e.g., Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 120

S. Ct. 693,145 L. Ed. 2d 610 (2000). The members of Savannah Riverkeeper use

-5-


the waters damaged by Defendant Columbia County's violations of its Municipal

Separate Storm Sewer System ("MS4") National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

Permit as described herein and their aesthetic and recreational values of these

waters have been and continue to be lessened by the damage resulting from

Defendant Columbia County's violations of its MS4 Permit as described herein,

Accordingly, Savannah Riverkeeper is only a party to the Clean Water Act claims

alleged against Columbia County for violations related to the Columbia County

MS4 and Columbia County's MS4 Permit. Neither the Clean Water Act claims

asserted nor the relief requested by Plaintiff Savannah Riverkeeper require the

participation of individual members of Savannah Riverkeeper in this action.

14.

Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc. and Defendant CSX Real Property, Inc.

are and have been at all times relevant to this Complaint owners and/or

operators of the CSX embankment and culverts on the tributary to Jones Creek in

Columbia County, Georgia upstream and to the northwest from where Southern

Pines crosses Jones Creek ("CSX Crossing"), which is a source of the pollutants

flowing onto Plaintiff JCI's property. Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc. and

Defendant CSX Real Property, Inc. (collectively "CSX Defendants") are

responsible for the activities at the CSX Crossing that have resulted in violations

of Federal and State law and impacts to the property of Plaintiff JCI. The claims

rol


asserted herein are related to the CSX Crossing as defined as the embankment

and culverts on the tributary to Jones Creek and do not concern rail

transportation or the regulation thereof. At most, the claims asserted herein have

a remote or incidental connection to rail transportation.

15.

Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc. ("CSX Transportation") is a foreign

Corporation doing business in and around Columbia County, Georgia. Service

may be perfected via mail or personal service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.4 upon

Defendant CSX Transportation's Registered Agent, Corporate Creations

Network, Inc. at 2985 Gordy Parkway, 1" Floor Marietta, Georgia 30066.

16.

Defendant CSX Real Property, Inc. ("CSX Real Property") is a foreign

corporation doing business in and around Columbia County, Georgia. Service

may be perfected via mail or personal service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 upon

Defendant CSX Real Property's Registered Agent, Corporate Creations Network,

Inc. at 2985 Gordy Parkway, 1st Floor Marietta, Georgia 30066.

17.

Defendant Kimlandco, LLC, Defendant Southern Site Design, LLC, and

Defendant Dr. Robert F. Mullins are and have been at all times relevant to this

Complaint owners and/or operators of the Krystal River Commercial Park in

-7-


Columbia County, Georgia ("Krystal River"), which is a source of the pollutants

flowing onto Plaintiff JCI's property. Defendant Kimlandco, LLC, Defendant

Southern Site Design, LLC and Defendant Dr. Robert F. Mullins (collectively

"Krystal River Defendants") are responsible for the activities at Krystal River that

have resulted in violations of Federal and State law and impacts to the property

of Plaintiff JCI.

18.

Defendant Kimlandco, LLC ("Kimlandco") is a Georgia limited liability

company located in Richmond County and doing business in and around

Columbia County, Georgia. Service may be perfected via mail or personal

service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.4 upon Defendant Kimlandco's Registered

Agent, Dr. Robert F. Mullins at 3675 J . Dewey Gray Circle, Suite 300 Augusta,

Georgia 30909.

19.

Defendant Southern Site Design, LLC ("Southern Site") is a Georgia

corporation located in and doing business in and around Columbia County,

Georgia. Service may be perfected via mail or personal service pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 4 upon Defendant Southern Site's Registered Agent, Dr. Robert F.

Mullins at 3675 J . Dewey Gray Circle, Suite 300 Augusta, Georgia 30909.

-8-


20.

Defendant Dr. Robert F. Mullins ("Mullins") is an individual and resident

of Columbia County, Georgia. Service may be perfected via personal service

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 upon Defendant Mullins or a resident of suitable age

and discretion at 3675 J. Dewey Gray Circle, Suite 300 Augusta, Georgia 30909.

21.

Defendant Jones Creek Partners, LLC and Defendant Bruce Lyons are and

have been at all times relevant to this Complaint owners and/or operators of the

Townhomes at Willow Lake in Columbia County, Georgia ("the Townhomes"),

which is a source of the pollutants flowing onto Plaintiff JCI's property.

Defendant Jones Creek Partners and Defendant Bruce Lyons (collectively "the

Townhomes Defendants") are responsible for activities at the Townhomes that

have resulted in violations of Federal and State law and impacts to the property

of Plaintiff JCI.

22.

Defendant Jones Creek Partners, LLC ("Jones Creek Partners") is a Georgia

limited liability company located in and doing business in and around Columbia

County, Georgia. Service may be perfected via mail or personal service pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 upon Defendant Jones Creek Partners's Registered Agent,

Bruce Lyons at (PR1) - Lyons, Evans, Georgia Iredactionli.

in


23.

Defendant Bruce Lyons is an individual and resident of Columbia County,

Georgia. Service may be perfected via personal service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 4 upon Defendant Bruce Lyons or a resident of suitable age and discretion at

(PR1) - Lyons, Evans, Georgia [redaction].

24.

Defendant Marshall Square LLC f/d/b/a NBR Investments, LLC;

Defendant D. C. Lawrence Commercial Real Estate, LLC; Defendant Joseph H.

Marshall, III; Defendant Allen Daniel Marshall; Defendant Donald Lawrence;

and Defendant Columbia County, Georgia are and/or have been at times

relevant to this Complaint owners and/or operators of the Marshall Square

Planned Unit Development in Columbia County, Georgia ("Marshall Square"),

which is a source of the pollutants flowing onto Plaintiff JCI's property.

Defendant Marshall Square LLC f/d/b/a NBR investments, LLC; Defendant D.

C. Lawrence Commercial Real Estate, LLC; Defendant Joseph H. Marshall, III;

Defendant Allen Daniel Marshall; Defendant Donald Lawrence; and Defendant

Columbia County, Georgia (collectively "Marshall Square Defendants") are

responsible for activities at Marshall Square that have resulted in violations of

Federal and State law and impacts to the property of Plaintiff JCI.

-10-


25.

Defendant Marshall Square, LLC f/d/b/a NBR Investments, LLC

("Marshall Square LLC") is a Georgia limited liability company located in and

doing business in and around Columbia County, Georgia. Service may be

perfected via mail or personal service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.4 upon

Defendant Marshall Square LLC's Registered Agent, Donald C. Lawrence, 3705

Merion Drive Martinez, Georgia 30907.

26.

Defendant D.C. Lawrence Commercial Real Estate, LLC ("D.C. Lawrence

LLC") is a. Georgia limited liability company located in and doing business in and

around Columbia County, Georgia. Service may be perfected via mail or

personal service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 upon Defendant D.C. Lawrence

LLC's Registered Agent, Donald C. Lawrence, 3705 Merion Drive Martinez,

Georgia 30907.

27.

Defendant Joseph H. Marshall, III ("Joseph Marshall") is an individual and

resident of Dougherty County, Georgia. Service may be perfected via personal

service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 upon Defendant Joseph Marshall or a

resident of suitable age and discretion at (PE2) - Albany, Georgia [redaction].

-11-


28.

Defendant Allen Daniel Marshall ("Daniel Marshall") is an individual and

resident of Columbia County, Georgia. Service may be perfected via personal

service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 upon Defendant Daniel Marshall or a

resident of suitable age and discretion at (PR3) - Appling, Georgia [redaction].

29.

Defendant Donald Lawrence is an individual and resident of Columbia

County Georgia. Service may be perfected via personal service pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 4 upon Defendant Donald Lawrence or a resident of suitable age and

discretion at 3705 Merion Drive, Martinez, Georgia 30907,

30.

Defendant Columbia County Georgia ("Columbia County" or "County") is

a political subdivision of the state of Georgia. Service may be perfected via mail

or personal service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 upon Defendant Columbia

County's Chief Executive Officer, Ron Cross, Chairman of Columbia County

Board of Commissioners, at 630 Ronald Reagan Drive, Building B, 2'' Floor

Evans, Georgia 30809.

31.

Defendant Columbia County is also and has been at all times relevant to

this Complaint owner and/or operator of the Columbia County Municipal

-12-


Separate Storm Sewer System ("MS4.") The County's MS4 is a source of the

pollutants flowing into the Savannah River via the tributaries of Jones Creek,

Jones Creek, Willow Lake and its attendant streams and wetlands; these

discharges enter the M54 from several sites in Columbia County. The sites

discharging pollutants to the MS4 are Marshall Square, Krystal River, the

Townhomes, Fresenius Medical Care ("Fresenius Medical"), Marshall Office

Park, Mucha Edgardo MD Pension Plan! The Family Y Young Men's Christian

Association! YWCO of the CSRA, Inc. Property ("Edgardo MD! Family Y Site"),

Howell Construction, the Maples Ferry Subdivision ("Maples Ferry"), and the

Estates at Jones Creek Subdivision ("Estates at Jones Creek.") Defendant

Columbia County is responsible for the activities at and related to the MS4 that

have resulted in violations of Federal and State law and impacts to the Plaintiffs.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. Jones Creek Golf Course (JCGC) and Willow Lake

32.

The JCGC is a 194.7 acre golf course located in Evans, Columbia County,

Georgia, near Augusta, Georgia. The JCGC has been in use as a golf course for

more than twenty (20) years.

33.

Plaintiff JCI owns and operates the JCGC.

-13-


The JCGC is designed to be reminiscent of the rolling hills of Augusta. A

central feature of the JCGC is Willow Lake, its attendant wetlands and its

tributary streams, including Jones Creek and its tributaries.

35.

Plaintiff JCI owns Willow Lake.

36.

Willow Lake, which is approximately 6.3 acres at full pool, serves as an

aesthetic feature of the JCGC and as a water hazard for the adjacent fairway,

Fairway 11. However, its primary purpose is to serve as the water supply for

irrigation of the golf course. Additionally, Willow Lake also provides

recreational opportunities to members of the JCGC and surrounding residents,

including fishing and boating.

37.

Willow Lake is the sole water supply/ source of irrigation for the entire

JCGC. Willow Lake provides the water dispensed to all 18 JCGC holes, including

tees, greens and fairways and adjacent areas, driving range and all other

common areas of the JCGC through the sprinkler system on a daily basis. During

peak pumping in the summertime, Willow Lake provides 280,000 to 350,0000

gallons of water for irrigation/ greens watering to the JCGC each day.

-14-


38.

Willow Lake has two primary tributary streams. An unnamed tributary

hereinafter referred to as Tributary 1 merges with Jones Creek approximately 300

feet upstream of Willow Lake, and Jones Creek flows into Willow Lake. The

other primary tributary stream, hereinafter referred to as Tributary 4, originates

to the southeast of the JCGC and flows through the JCGC to Willow Lake.

39.

Jones Creek flows from Willow Lake approximately 1.3 stream miles to the

Savannah River.

Jones Creek, its tributaries, and Willow Lake are waters of the United

States.

41.

Willow Lake is located adjacent to the Townhomes and downstream from

the CSX Crossing, Krystal River, and Marshall Square. The CSX Crossing,

Krystal River, and Marshall Square discharge to the Jones Creek/ Willow Lake

tributaries, specifically Tributary 1 and Jones Creek, upstream from Willow Lake,

and the Townhomes discharge directly into Willow Lake.

42.

Willow Lake is also located downstream from portions of the MS4 that

-15-


receive discharges of pollutants from Marshall Square, Krystal River, the

Townhomes, Fresenius Medical, Marshall Office Park, Edgardo MD! Family Y

Site, Howell Construction, Maples Ferry, and Estates at Jones Creek; these

portions of the MS4 discharge such pollutants from MS4 outfalls into the Willow

Lake tributaries upstream from Willow Lake, specifically Tributary 1, Jones

Creek, and Tributary 4.

43.

The CSX Crossing, Krystal River, Marshall Square, the Townhomes and the

Columbia County MS4 system are the source of the pollutants discharged onto

Plaintiff Jones Creek Investors' property.

44.

The waterways on the JCGC have historically contained insignificant

amounts of naturally occurring sediment, and historically Jones Creek Investors

and its predecessors have conducted periodic maintenance on Willow Lake to

address past impacts from internal development.

45.

However, Willow Lake and its attendant wetlands and tributaries were

clear and free of any recent or noticeable significant discharges from upstream

sources prior to the commencement of activities, actions and/or omissions of

Defendants, including land disturbing, at the Townhomes, the CSX Crossing,

-16-


Krystal River, and Marshall Square and prior to the commencement of pollutant

discharges from the MS4 that originated at Marshall Square, Krystal River, the

Townhomes, Fresenius Medical, Marshall Office Park, Edgardo MD! Family Y

Site, Howell Construction, Maples Ferry, and Estates at Jones Creek.

II. Savannah Riverkeeper

MI

The Savannah Riverkeeper is a membership organization that acts as an

advocate for water quality of the Savannah River. Its members are individuals

concerned with environmental problems facing the Savannah River.

47.

The purpose of the Savannah Riverkeeper is "to protect the water quality

of the Savannah River and the integrity of its watershed, and to promote an

enlightened stewardship of this unique heritage."

48.

At times prior to and since the commencement of the pollutant discharges

from the MS4 at issue herein, members of the Savannah Riverkeeper routinely

used the waters into which these discharges occur, specifically the tributaries of

Jones Creek, Jones Creek and the Savannah River, for recreational purposes and

to enjoy the aesthetics of the waters and the surrounding natural settings.

-17-


The Savannah Riverkeeper has individual members that use the affected

areas covered by this Complaint and are persons "for whom the aesthetic and

recreational values of the area will be lessened" by the Defendants actions,

omissions, failures, discharges and violation of the law here. These individuals

include, but are not limited to:

a. Tonya Bonitatibus, (PRO - Augusta, Georgia [redacted], who uses the river

for recreational purposes, enjoys it aesthetically and leads guided tours

though impacted areas;

b. Dr. Frank Carl, (PR5) - Augusta, Georgia [redacted], who uses the river

recreationally and has tested Jones Creek water quality on Jones Creek on

repeated occasions;

C. Chuck Hardin of (1'R6) - Augusta, Georgia [redacted], lives in Columbia

County, recreates on the river and owns a stand up paddle board company

that uses the river on a regular basis;

d. George Sancken of (PR7) - Augusta, Georgia [redacted], lives on the river

in downtown Augusta and uses all of the river for fishing as well as

recreation on a regular basis. Mr. Sancken lives directly below where the

discharges from Defendants come out of the canal. In addition, he is a

board member for the Savannah Riverkeeper;

-18-


e. Dr. Ted Weatherred of (PR8) - Augusta, Georgia [redacted], lives in

Columbia County on the river very close to where Jones Creek discharges

into river. He recreates and fishes in these waters on a regular basis and

deposits of the sediment discharged effect his property; and,

f. Sam Booher of (PR9) - Augusta, Georgia [redacted], is a Columbia County

Commission district elected official for the soil and water conservation

district (inspector), he lives in Columbia County, recreates on the

waterway on a regular basis, has participated in Adopt a Stream

monitoring on Jones Creek for many years, and leads trips and tours on

that section of the river and in the canal on a regular basis.

III. Activities, Omissions and/or Failures on Upstream Properties ImpactingJones Creek, its Tributaries, Willow Lake and the Savannah River

50.

Defendants are, or were, at times relevant to this Complaint owners

and/or operators of the Townhomes, the CSX Crossing, Krystal River, and

Marshall Square as described above.

51.

Since land disturbing, construction and/or development activities

commenced at the Townhomes, Krystal River, and Marshall Square, discharges

of eroded soils, sediment, sediment-laden storm water, rock, sand, dirt, debris

and other pollutants into Willow Lake and its tributary streams as well as

-19-


attendant wetlands and other jurisdictional waters have increased, resulting in

significant accumulations of sediment and repeated instances of turbid or

visually impaired water.

52.

Since the culvert and embankment failure, land disturbing and/or

construction activities commenced at the CSX Crossing discharges of eroded

soils, sediment, sediment-laden storm water, rock, sand, dirt, debris and other

pollutants into Willow Lake and its tributary streams as well as attendant

wetlands and other jurisdictional waters have increased, resulting in significant

accumulations of sediment and repeated instances of turbid or visually impaired

water.

53.

Since land disturbing, construction and/or development activities

commenced at the Townhomes, the CSX Crossing, Krystal River, and Marshall

Square, increased amounts of storm water, as measured by rate and volume,

have been discharged into the Tributary 1, Jones Creek and Willow Lake, its

attendant wetlands and other jurisdictional waters. These discharges are rising

in frequency and severity over time and result in significant bank and stream bed

erosion in Tributary 1 and Jones Creek, accumulations of sediment in the creeks,

wetlands, Willow Lake and other jurisdictional waters, repeated instances of

-20-


flooding on the JCGC property and damages to the Willow Lake dam and

spillway.

54.

Visual observations by JCGC staff and Savannah Riverkeeper members in

addition to water quality testing reveal that Willow Lake and its tributaries and

attendant wetlands and other jurisdictional waters on the JCGC property have

been and continue to receive excessive amounts of sediment, eroded soils, rock,

dirt, sand, sediment-laden storm water and other debris from the Townhomes,

the CSX Crossing, Krystal River, Marshall Square and the Columbia County MS4

System on Tributaries 1 and 4 of Jones Creek.

55.

These violations of water quality standards are a direct result of the

activities and/or omissions of Defendants at the Townhomes, the CSX Crossing,

Krystal River, and Marshall Square.

Land disturbing, construction, and/or development activities at the

Townhomes, the CSX Crossing, Krystal River, and Marshall Square were

initiated and continued without the proper design, installation and maintenance

of all appropriate erosion and sediment control structures and measures in

accordance with Best Management Practices (BMPs) as required by the Clean

-21-


Water Act, Georgia Water Quality Control Act, and the Georgia Erosion and

Sedimentation Act of 1975.

57.

Likewise, the culvert and embankment failure was allowed to occur and

continue at the CSX Crossing without the proper design, installation and

maintenance of all appropriate erosion and sediment control structures and

measures in accordance with Best Management Practices (BMPs) as required by

the Clean Water Act, Georgia Water Quality Control Act, and the Georgia

Erosion and Sedimentation Act of 1975.

58.

Neither the Georgia Water Quality Control Act nor the Georgia Erosion

and Sedimentation Act of 1975 regulates, manages or governs railroad

transportation or the operation thereof. Moreover, no federal regulations

promulgated by the Secretary of Transportation and related to railroad safety,

including those regulations set forth at 49 C.F.R. § 213.32, cover or substantially

subsume the subject matter of the Georgia Water Quality Control Act or the

Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act of 1975.

59.

Defendants' failure to follow BMPs adequately at the Townhomes, the CSX

Crossing, Krystal River, and Marshall Square has resulted in ongoing discharges

-22-


of pollutants including pollutant laden storm water, eroded soils, debris, dirt,

sediment, storm water run off, dredge and fill material and other pollutants from

various point sources.

These discharges have flowed into the tributaries of Jones Creek, Jones

Creek, and Willow Lake and attendant wetlands; some discharges have

continued on to the Savannah River.

61.

A substantial amount of eroded soils, rock, sand, dirt, debris, mud,

sediment, sediment-laden storm water and other pollutants remain in the

effected tributaries to Jones Creek, Jones Creek, and on Plaintiff JCI's property,

including Willow Lake and its attendant wetlands, as a result of Defendants' acts

and/or omissions at the Townhomes, the CSX Crossing, Krystal River, and

Marshall Square.

62.

In addition, Defendants' actions and/or omissions at the Townhomes, the

CSX Crossing, Krystal River, and Marshall Square have and continue to result in

excessive discharges of storm water as measured by rate and volume, into

Tributary 1, Jones Creek and Willow Lake, its attendant wetlands and other

jurisdictional waters. These discharges are rising in frequency and severity over

-23-


time and result in significant bank and stream bed erosion in Tributary 1,

specifically downstream of the CSX Crossing, and Jones Creek; accumulations of

sediment in the creeks, wetlands, Willow Lake and other jurisdictional waters;

repeated instances of flooding on the JCGC property; and damages to the Willow

Lake dam and spillway.

63.

Plaintiffs JCI and Savannah Riverkeeper have made numerous attempts,

through oral, written, and in-person communications with the appropriate State,

County and other agencies to stop the discharges complained of herein without

obtaining a satisfactory resolution to the problem.

Nonetheless, excessive volumes of storm water, eroded soils, sediment and

other pollutants continue to be discharged into the tributaries of Jones Creek,

Jones Creek, Willow Lake and other jurisdictional waters on Plaintiff JCI's

property, including streams and attendant wetlands.

65.

It is a violation of the Clean Water Act to discharge a pollutant or

pollutants from a point source into the waters of the United States without a

permit to do so or in violation of an applicable permit.

-24-


M.

It is a violation of the Clean Water Act to dredge, fill or alter the natural

and/or existing course and flow of jurisdictional water without a permit to do so

or in violation of an applicable permit, or to allow such conditions to remain

unremediated.

67.

The Clean Water Act requires permits under the National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES"), Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, 33

U.S.C. 1342, for point source discharges of pollutants into waters of the United

States.

LSL*

Sediment, rock, sand, dredged spoil, and dirt are considered "pollutants"

under the Clean Water Act.

The structural failures, land disturbing, construction and/or development

activities complained of at the Townhomes, the CSX Crossing, Krystal River, and

Marshall Square involve point sources.

70.

The land disturbing, construction and/or development activities

complained of at the Towrthomes, the CSX Crossing, Krystal River, and Marshall

-25-


Square involve point sources requiring NPDES permits.

71.

For storm water discharges requiring NPDES permits, a discharger may

obtain either an individual or, if applicable, a general storm water discharge

permit.

72.

In Georgia, discharges associated with construction activities disturbing

one acre or more are covered under the State of Georgia's NPDES General Storm

Water Permit, Georgia Environmental Protection Division Authorization to Discharge

Under the NPDES, Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity for

Common Developments, General Permit Numbers GAR10000I (regulates stand-alone

construction activity disturbing one acre or more) (hereinafter "GAR100001 t') &

GAR100003 (regulates common development construction disturbing one acre or

more) (hereinafter "GAR100003"). GAR100001 and GAR100003 contain

significant common language and requirements, such as requirements that

various operational and record keeping measures to be followed, as well as

individual differences specific to each type of activity. A third version for

infrastructure development which is not implicated here, GAR100002, contains

identical provisions.

-26-


73.

Pursuant to the terms and conditions of GAR100001 and GAR100003,

storm water discharges may not violate Georgia water quality standards set forth

in Ga. R. & Reg. § 391-3-6-.03. GAR100001, Part I(C)(4); GAR100003, Part I(C)(4).

74.

In addition, under the GAR100001 and GAR100003, the Townhomes

Defendants, the Krystal River Defendants, and the Marshall Square Defendants

must maintain appropriate BMPs at all times and a separate violation arises for

each day where BMPs are not in place. GAR100001, Part III(D)(1&2);

GAR100003, Part III(D)(1&2).

75.

Furthermore, pursuant to GAR100001 and GAR100003, where BMPs are

not in place, a discharge which has a turbidity of greater than 25 NTIJs

constitutes a violation. GAR100001, Part ffl(D)(3); GAR100003, Part III(D)(3).

76.

Under GAR100001, Part ffl(A)(1) and GAR100003, Part III(A)(1) the

Townhomes Defendants, Krystal River Defendants, and Marshall Square

Defendants may only discharge storm water and no pollutants.

77.

Likewise, GAR100001 and GA-R100003 require adherence to specific

-27-


engineering principles including the protection of adjoining properties and the

preservation of stream buffers. GAR100001, Part IV; GAR100003, Part IV.

FWJ

GAR100001 and GAR1 00003 also require the installation and use of

velocity dissipation devices whose use is intended to preserve that natural

physical and biological character and function of the impacted watercourses so

that there are no significant changes to the hydrology of the receiving waters.

GAR1 00001, Part IV(D)(3)(b)(2); GAR100003, Part IV(D)(3)(b) (2).

79.

Under GARI00001 and GAR100003, the Townhomes Defendants, Krystal

River Defendants, and Marshall Square Defendants must have an Erosion,

Sedimentation and Pollution Control Plan (or "IESPCP") prior to the

commencement of any land disturbing or other construction activities.

GAR100001, Part IV; GAR100003, Part IV.

I.j

The Erosion, Sedimentation and Pollution Control Plan is required to

address the stabilization measures, structural controls, sediment basins, and high

performance BMPs necessary to control pollutant discharges.

81.

Requirements of the Erosion, Sedimentation and Pollution Control Plan

-28-


under GAR100001 and GARI00003 include:

1. measuring all rainfall and keeping records of said rainfall data;

2. turbidity sampling of outfalls or the receiving waters both upstream

and downstream of the development;

3. such sampling must occur within 45 minutes, but no more than 12

hours, after each occurrence of a .5 inch rain event over a twenty-

four (24) hour period;

4. inspections of the development site are required either once a week

or within twenty-four (24) hours of a .5 inch rain event, and a report

of each inspection must be created and maintained;

5. records of all monitoring performed in accordance with the permit

must be maintained by the permittee;

6. all persons on the development site must comply with the permit

conditions, and there is a duty to mitigate any possible permit

violations or to prevent anything which has a reasonable likelihood

of adversely affecting human health or the environment.

82.

Plaintiff alleges that the following water quality standards pursuant to the

Georgia Water Quality Control Act and set forth at Georgia DNR Rules 391-3-6 et

seq., have been violated as a result of Defendants' failures, actions and/or

-29-


omissions at the Townhomes, CSX Crossing, Krystal River and Marshall Square:

§ 391-3-6-.03(5)(c) which states that all waters shall be free from

material related to municipal, industrial or other discharges which

produce turbidity, color, odor or other objectionable conditions

which interfere with legitimate water uses;

2. § 391-3-6-.03(5)(d) which states that all waters shall be free from

turbidity which results in a substantial visual contrast in a water

body due to a man-made activity... For land disturbing activities,

property design, installation, and maintenance of best management

practices and compliance with issued permits shall constitute

compliance with Paragraph 391-3-6-.03(5)(d); and

3. § 391-3-6-.03(5)(B) which states that all waters shall be free from...

floating debris.., in amounts sufficient to be unsightly or that

interfere with legitimate water uses.

83.

In addition, Georgia DNR Rules 391-3-6 et seq. contain the following

relevant standards which are also applicable here:

1. § 391-3-6-.16(4)(a) which states that all pollutants shall receive such

treatment or corrective action so as to ensure compliance with

effluent limitations established by the EPA pursuant to the Clean

-30-


Water Act; and

2. § 391-3-6-.16(4)(b) which states that all pollutants shall receive such

treatment or corrective action so as to ensure compliance with Best

Management Practices established by the EPA pursuant to the Clean

Water Act.

84.

Georgia DNR Rules 391-3-6 et seq. set forth above in 1[9182 & 83 (hereinafter

referred to collectively as "Georgia Water Quality Standards") do not regulate,

manage or govern railroad transportation or the operation thereof. Moreover, no

federal regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Transportation and related

to railroad safety, including those regulations set forth at 49 C.F.R. § 213.32, cover

or substantially subsume the subject matter of the Georgia Water Quality

Standards.

85.

Defendants have discharged eroded soils, mud, dirt, debris, sand, rock,

sediment, sediment-laden storm water, excess water and other pollutants into the

tributaries of Jones Creek, Jones Creek, Willow Lake, including attendant

wetlands, and the Savannah River as a result of failures, activities and/or

omissions at the Townhomes, the CSX Crossing, Krystal River, and Marshall

Square.

-31-


Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1311, the discharge of any pollutant into waters of

the United States without a NPDES permit or in violation of a permit obtained

under 33 U.S.C. § 1342 or 33 U.S.C. § 1344 is illegal.

87.

The failure to correct or ameliorate culvert and embankment failures as

well as subsequent construction activities undertaken at the CSX Crossing have

resulted in discharges in violation 33 U.S.C. § 1311 and 33 U.S.C. § 1342 as such

activities resulted in discharges of pollutants. Upon information and belief, the

CSX Defendants do not have and did not obtain at any time relevant to this

Complaint a NPDES permit- or any other §402 permit- to discharge pollutants

from the CSX Crossing.

1I1

Land disturbing, construction and/or development activities undertaken

at the Townhomes, Krystal River, and Marshall Square have resulted in

discharges in violation of GAR100001 and GAR100003, Section 402 of the Clean

Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, for discharges of dirt, sand, rock, eroded soil,

sediment, debris, and other pollutants from the Townhomes, Krystal River, and

Marshall Square into waters of the United States.

-32-


These discharges are the direct result of the actions and/or omissions of

Defendants and/or their agents or representatives at the Townhomes, the CSX

Crossing, Krystal River, and Marshall Square.

In addition, the maintenance of failed structures, land disturbance,

construction and/or other development activities at the Townhomes, the CSX

Crossing, Krystal River, and Marshall Square have resulted, and will continue to

result, in the discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters of the

United States where the flow or circulation of such navigable waters may be

impaired or the reach of such waters reduced, and where the chemical and

biological characteristics of the navigable waters may be impaired and the

aquatic environment adversely affected, including but not limited to a negative

impact on the chemical, physical, biological and aesthetic value of Willow Lake,

its tributaries and attendant wetlands, yet no dredge and fill permit has been

secured or is proposed to be secured as required under Section 404 of the Clean

Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344.

91.

Federal regulations provide that a pre-discharge notification must be

provided to the Army Corps of Engineers if such activities will result in the

-33-


discharge of dredged fill material into special aquatic sites, including wetlands.

33 C.F.R. § 133.

92.

The failure to correct or ameliorate culvert and embankment failures as

well as subsequent construction activities undertaken at the CSX Crossing have

resulted, and will continue to result, in the discharge of dredged or fill material

into navigable waters of the United States. Upon information and belief after

making appropriate Freedom of Information Act Requests from Federal agencies,

the CSX Defendants do not have and did not obtain at any time relevant to this

Complaint a permit under 33 U.S.C. § 1344 for such activities.

93.

At all times relevant hereto, Defendants were responsible for complying

with all applicable federal, state, and local legal requirements concerning land

disturbing, development and/or construction activities related to the

Towrthomes, the CSX Crossing, Krystal River, and Marshall Square, including

but not limited too permits for stream buffer impacts and impacts to

jurisdictional waters.

94.

None of the applicable federal, state, and local legal requirements

concerning land disturbing, development and/or construction activities regulate,

-34-


manage or govern railroad transportation or the operation thereof. Moreover, no

federal regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Transportation and related

to railroad safety, including those regulations set forth at 49 C.F.R. § 213.32, cover

or substantially subsume the subject matter of the applicable federal, state, and

local legal requirements.

95.

At all times relevant hereto, it was foreseeable to Defendants that their

activities related to land disturbing, construction and/or development activities

at the Towrthomes, the CSX Crossing, Krystal River, and Marshall Square would

harm Plaintiff JCI and/or Plaintiff JCI's property.

no

Defendants have repeatedly failed to act, investigate, comply, remediate or

otherwise rectify the numerous and repeated violations which have occurred as a

result of their failures, actions and omissions that resulted in discharges

to Plaintiff JCI's property and the jurisdictional watercourses located thereon.

97.

As a result, Defendants' failures, actions and/or omissions have interfered

with or prevented Plaintiff JCI's use and enjoyment of its property and the

watercourses located thereon.

-35-


Md

As a result, Defendants' failures, actions and omissions have interfered

with Plaintiff JCI's exclusive possession of its property.

Plaintiff Jones Creek Investors' property continues to be damaged by

Defendants' conduct described herein

Townhomes at Willow Lake

100.

The Townhomes at Willow Lake, also known as Willow Lake Phase II, is

located immediately adjacent to Willow Lake on its east side.

101.

The Townhomes is located off of Hammonds Ferry Crossing Road in

Evans, Georgia and consists of 10.8 acres of land. Of those, 9.3 acres were

disturbed to construct single-family homes on 43 lots.

102.

Defendant Jones Creek Partners and Defendant Bruce Lyons are and have

been at all times relevant to this Complaint owners and/or operators of the

Townhomes.

103.

In or around October 28, 2008, Defendant Bruce Lyons filed a Notice of

-36-


Intent ("NOl") for reissuance of coverage under GAR100001 for construction

activities at the Townhomes. Defendant Bruce Lyons is identified as the owner of

the Townhomes in the NO!, and he signed his name in the space provided for the

signature of the owner.

104.

Defendant Bruce Lyons is and has been at times relevant to this Complaint

involved in activities at the Townhomes that resulted in the Clean Water Act

violations described herein. As the primary permittee/owner on the

Townhomes NOl, Defendant Bruce Lyons has responsibility for ensuring

compliance with the Clean Water Act at the Townhomes and has failed to ensure

such compliance. In addition, he has received Columbia County warning notices

regarding BMP violations at the Townhomes and upon information and belief he

has remained Columbia County's contact regarding erosion and sedimentation

violations at the Townhomes to the extent that Defendant Columbia County has

inspected for and/or documented such violations.

105.

Additionally, Defendant Bruce Lyons has personally participated in,

directed, ratified, and/or exercised control over the acts and/or omissions

creating the conditions at the Townhomes that resulted in the impacts and

damages to the JCGC described herein. As the primary permittee/owner on the

-37-


Townhomes NOl, Defendant Bruce Lyons has responsibility for ensuring that

excessive storm water and pollutants are not discharged from the Townhomes

and has failed to ensure that such discharges do not occur.

106.

In or around July 2008, Defendant Bruce Lyons received Columbia County

warning notices regarding BMP violations at the Townhomes.

107.

According to a search of Columbia County property ownership

documents, Jones Creek Partners was the owner of the 10.8 parcel of land upon

which the Townhomes is located at times relevant to this Complaint, and it is

currently the owner of at least the roads and other common areas in the

Townhomes.

108.

Jones Creek Partners is also identified as the owner of the Townhomes in

land disturbing permit applications for lots in the Townhomes and as the

primary permittee in several secondary permittee NOIs.

109.

Development and construction activities at the Townhomes have and

continue to directly impact Willow Lake and its attendant wetlands.

-38-


110.

Storm water runoff from the Townhomes flows into Willow Lake. Since

land disturbing, including grading activities, commenced at the Townhomes, the

amount of storm water runoff from the Townhomes into Willow Lake has

increased in rate and volume.

111.

Since land disturbing and other construction activities commenced at the

Townhomes, discharges of eroded soils, sediments, sediment-laden storm water,

rock, sand, dirt, debris and other pollutants into Willow Lake have increased,

resulting in significant accumulations of sediment and repeated instances of

turbid or visually impacted water.

112.

Visual observations by JCGC staff, agents and/or members reveal that

land disturbing and other construction activities associated with the Townhornes

have resulted in discharges of increased storm water and eroded soils, sediment,

sediment-laden storm water, rock, dirt, sand, and other debris onto Plaintiff JCI's

property, including Willow Lake and its attendant streams and wetlands and

other jurisdictional waters, causing significant amounts of erosion, sediment

accumulation and damage to Plaintiff JCI's property, including Willow Lake and

its attendant streams, wetlands and other jurisdictional waters and other

-39-


detrimental impacts to the JCGC.

113.

On information and belief, Plaintiff JCI alleges that discharges in violation

of applicable laws have occurred on specific dates beginning in or around

October, 2008 and continued on November 9, 2009, December 25, 2009, August 3,

2010, March 27, 2011, March 28, 2011, August 5, 2011,October 11, 2011 and are

currently ongoing. These discharges continue through the present, and the list of

discharges in violations of applicable law grows daily.

114.

The Erosion and Sedimentation Pollution Control Plans for the

Townhomes are deficient and in violation of the Georgia Erosion and

Sedimentation Act, Columbia County's Erosion and Sedimentation Ordinance,

the GAR100001, and the Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control in Georgia (or

"Georgia E&S Manual"). Even if the ESPCPs were implemented as approved,

they would not protect against erosion and sediment discharges from the

Townhomes into Willow Lake.

115.

The initial perimeter control ESPCP for the Townhomes is deficient in

numerous ways, including but not limited to: no temporary sediment basins in

the major drainage paths; no diversion specified above the stream crossing along

-40-


Furys Ferry Road; greater silt fence storage capacity claimed than that allowed by

the Georgia E&S Manual; only twenty-five percent (25%) of the actual site

drainage area to the silt fences is claimed; and engineering errors cause sediment

storage to be less than ten percent (10%) of the Georgia E&S Manual requirement.

116.

The intermediate ESPCP for the Townhomes is deficient in numerous

ways, including but not limited to: no temporary sediment basins in major

drainage paths; no storm drain outlet protection at pipe outlets; no diversion

specified above the stream crossing along Furys Ferry Road; and no sediment

barrier between disturbed areas and streets.

117.

The final ESPCP for the Townhomes is deficient in numerous ways,

including but not limited to: the majority of the required storm drain outlet

protection flow characteristics and apron dimensions are not provided; no

sediment barrier provided between disturbed areas and streets; and no inlet

sediment traps specified for any inlets.

118.

A review of State and Columbia County documents produced pursuant to

open records requests, it appears that the Townhomes Defendants have not

complied with GAR100001 and ESPCP inspection, sampling and record keeping

-41-


requirements, including but not limited to weekly site inspections, site

inspections after rain events, turbidity sampling and rainfall recording.

119.

Visual observation of the Townhomes on May 12, 2011 showed that even

the inadequate BMPs specified on the ESPCPs for the Townhomes have not been

implemented.

120.

Visual observation of the Townhomes on May 12, 2011 revealed that BMPs

on the individual lots are inadequate. Many lots are not stabilized but are

primarily bare soil, and silt fences have not been installed.

121.

According to a search of Columbia County property ownership

documents, Jones Creek Partners owns at least two of the individual lots that are

not stabilized and have inadequate BMPs.

122.

These BMP violations have not been corrected and are ongoing through

present day.

123.

As an owner of the company and the individual in charge of BMP

decisions, Bruce Lyons is responsible for the proper design, installation and

-42-


maintenance of BMPs on site and compliance with related relevant laws.

124.

Defendant Bruce Lyons and Defendant Jones Creek Partners' failure to

properly design, install and maintain BMPs at the Towrthomes has resulted in

discharges of eroded soils, sediment, sediment-laden storm water, rock, dirt,

sand and other debris directly into Willow Lake and into the streets at the

Townhomes. The discharges into the streets are able to enter directly into the

storm drainage system due to the absence of inlet sediment traps, and from there

the sediment and other pollutants discharge into Willow Lake.

125.

As such, Defendant Bruce Lyons and Defendant Jones Creek Partners'

failure to properly design, install and maintain BMPs at the Townhomes has

resulted in discharges of eroded soils, sediment, sediment-laden storm water,

rock, dirt, sand and other debris onto Plaintiff JCI's property, including Willow

Lake and its attendant streams and wetlands and other jurisdictional waters.

126.

Furthermore, Defendant Bruce Lyons and Defendant Jones Creek Partners'

failure to properly design, install and maintain a storm water control system

which prevents the discharge of increased amounts of storm water has resulted

in excessive discharges of storm water to Plaintiff JCI's property and caused

-43-


damages thereto.

127.

These discharges of increased storm water, eroded soils and sediment are

the direct result of the actions and/or omissions of Defendant Bruce Lyons and

Defendant Jones Creek Partners and/or their agents or representative at the

Townhomes.

CSX Crossing

128.

The CSX Crossing is located upstream from Willow Lake on Tributary 1,

upstream and to the northwest from where Southern Pines Road crosses

Tributary 1.

129.

The portions of the CSX Crossing relevant to this Complaint are the

embankment and culverts across Tributary 1, and the CSX Crossing is

accordingly defined as the embankment and culverts for purposes of this

Complaint.

130.

Defendant CSX Transportation and Defendant CSX Real Property are and

have been at all times relevant to this Complaint owners and/or operators of the

CSX Crossing.

-44-


131.

Historically, the CSX Crossing was comprised of one brick culvert in the

railroad embankment.

132.

An inspection of the CSX Crossing by Columbia County on January 26,

2010 showed that the brick culvert had deteriorated to the point of failure with

portions of the culvert caved in.

133.

The deterioration of the brick culvert and the resulting bank failure on the

railroad embankment at the stream crossing resulted in the discharge of

significant amounts of sediment and rock from the CSX Crossing into Tributary 1

and then onto Jones Creek and Willow Lake.

134.

The failure of the CSX Crossing was not inspected, maintained or repaired

in an adequate or timely manner; as a result, the CSX Crossing discharged

eroded soil and sediment into Tributary 1, Jones Creek, and Willow Lake during

every subsequent rain event.

135.

Upon information and belief, neither Defendant CSX Transportation nor

Defendant CSX Real Property took any action to prevent or control these

-45-


discharges for some time despite significant soil loss from the CSX Crossing.

136.

Instead, at some point after the brick culvert failure, subsequent

embankment and stream bank failure and the discharge of significant amounts of

pollutants, including sediments and eroded soils, into Tributary 1, approximately

twenty to twenty-five railroad car loads of medium size rock were used to fill in

gaps in the embankment left by the discharged soils.

137.

In June 2010, it was observed that the brick culvert had been replaced by

two larger seventy-two (72) inch pipe culverts.

138.

The two pipe culverts increased the rate and volume of upstream storm

water discharges and the amount of sediment discharged from Tributary 1 to

Jones Creek and Willow Lake.

139.

The two pipe culverts convey more storm water through the CSX Crossing

at a greater velocity than the brick culvert.

140.

The two pipe culverts conveys more sediment from upstream sources

through the CSX Crossing than the brick culvert.

-46-


141.

In addition, the velocity of the stream and storm water in the stream

channel has increased as a result of the placement of the upstream side of the

culverts above the grade of the stream channel and the failure to align the

culverts with the stream channel upstream.

142.

The increased volume and rate of storm water through the pipe culverts

caused and continues to cause bank failure and erosion downstream between the

CSX Crossing and Southern Pines Road and in Tributary 1 and Jones Creek.

143.

The significant bank failure and bank and bed erosion downstream from

the CSX Crossing is a continuous source of discharges of eroded soils, sediments,

sediment-laden storm water, rock, sand, dirt, debris and other pollutants to

Tributary 1, Jones Creek and Willow Lake.

144.

Since the brick culvert failure and subsequent construction activities at the

CSX Crossing, discharges of eroded soils, sediments, sediment-laden storm

water, rock, sand, dirt, debris and other pollutants into Tributary 1, Jones Creek

and Willow Lake have increased, resulting in significant accumulations of

sediment and repeated instances of turbid or visually impacted water.

-47-


145.

Visual observations by JCGC staff, agents and/or members reveal that the

brick culvert failure and subsequent reconstruction activities at the CSX Crossing








146.

Plaintiff JCI alleges that violations of applicable laws have occurred on

specific dates beginning in approximately October, 2008 and continuing on

January 26, 2010, August 3, 2010, August 17, 2010, October 27, 2010, March 27,

2011, March 28, 2011, August 5, 2011, October 11, 2011 and are presently ongoing.

These violations continue through the present, and number of instances of

violation increases daily.

147.

These discharges and violations of law are the direct result of the failures,

activities and/or omissions of Defendant CSX Transportation and Defendant

-48-


CSX Real Property and/or their agents or representative at the CSX Crossing.

Krystal River

148.

The Krystal River site is located on Tributary 1, west of and upstream from

the JCGC and Willow Lake.

149.

Krystal River is located at 737 and 739 Industrial Park in Columbia County,

Georgia and consists of approximately 12 acres of land. The majority of the

Krystal River property is bare exposed soil with inadequate vegetation.

150.

Defendant Kimlandco, Defendant Southern Site and Defendant Mullins are

and have been at all times relevant to this Complaint owners and/or operators of

Krystal River.

151.

On or around June 5, 2007, Defendant Southern Site filed a Notice of Intent

("NOl") for coverage under GAR100001 for construction activities at Krystal

River.

152.

Columbia County documents evidence payment of the Krystal River site

plan review fee by Southern Site in the latter half of 2009.

-49-


153.

In September 2009, Kimlandco submitted site plans, including an ESPCP,

for Krystal River.

154.

Although Southern Site did not file an Notice of Termination ("NOT"),

Defendant Kimlandco filed a NOl for coverage under GAR100001 for

construction activities at Krystal River on or around February 1, 2010. A project

manager for Defendant Southern Site is identified as the site contact on the 2010

NOl.

155.

In addition, Columbia County identified Southern Site as the party

responsible for BMPs at Krystal River in a memorandum for a Krystal River

preconstruction conference attended by a Southern Site employee on March 16,

2010.

156.

Defendant Mullins is the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial

Officer of Southern Site, and the management of Kimlandco is vested in Mullins.

157.

Defendant Mullins is and has been at times relevant to this Complaint

involved in activities at Krystal River that resulted in the Clean Water Act

-50-


violations described herein. Defendant Muffins is the unifying link between

Defendant Southern Site and Defendant Kimlandco, which share office facilities

and commingle funds. In addition, he was copied on correspondence with EPD

regarding a GAR10000I violation in or around August 2009 and as the primary

officer/manager in both companies Plaintiff JCI alleges that he continues to be

kept apprised of and is responsible for all decisions regarding issues related to

coverage of Krystal River by GAR100001 and any other violations thereof.

Following, Defendant Mullins has responsibility for ensuring compliance with

the Clean Water Act at Krystal River and has failed to ensure such compliance.

158.

Defendant Mullins has personally participated in, directed, ratified,

and/or exercised control over the acts and/or omissions creating the conditions

at Krystal River that resulted in the impacts and damages to the JCGC described

herein. As the primary officer and manager of the companies, he is the

individual in charge of I3MP decisions, thus, Defendant Mullins is responsible for

the proper design, installation and maintenance of BMPs on site and compliance

with related relevant laws. As the primary officer and manager for Defendant

Southern Site and Defendant Kimlandco, he is responsible for ensuring that

excessive storm water and pollutants are not discharged from Krystal River and

has failed to ensure that such discharges do not occur.

-51-


159.

Southern Site and Kimlandco share office facilities.

160.

Upon information and belief, Southern Site commenced construction and

development activities at Krystal River in approximately April 2009.

161.

In or around August 2009, Mullins was copied onto ongoing email

correspondence between EPD and Southern Site employees generally regarding a

Notice of Violation issued to Southern Site for its operation of Krystal River

without submitting an NOl under the updated 2008 GAR100001 in violation of

the Clean Water Act. The Notice of Violation specified that the site was not

stabilized.

162.

Upon information and belief, Kimlandco undertook construction and

development activities at Krystal River in February 2010.

163.

In March 2010, Kimlandco received a land disturbing permit for Krystal

River.

164,

Development activities at Krystal River have and continue to directly

-52-


impact Willow Lake and its attendant wetlands.

165.

Storm water runoff from Krystal River flows into Tributary 1 and then into

Jones Creek and Willow Lake. Since land disturbing, including grading

activities, commenced at Krystal River, storm water runoff from Krystal River

into Tributary 1 and then into Jones Creek and Willow Lake has increased in rate

and volume.

166.

Since land disturbing and other construction activities commenced at

Krystal River, discharges of eroded soils, sediments, sediment-laden storm water,

rock, sand, dirt, debris and other pollutants into Tributary 1 and then into Jones

Creek and Willow Lake have increased, resulting in significant accumulations of

sediment and repeated instances of turbid or visually impaired water.

167.

Based on the review of State and Columbia County documents produced

pursuant to open records requests, the Krystal River Defendants have not



inspections after rain events, turbidity sampling and rainfall recording.

-53-


168.


land disturbing and other construction activities associated with Krystal River as

well as the failure to properly maintain the site have resulted in discharges of

increased storm water and eroded soils, sediment, sediment-laden storm water,

rock, dirt, sand, and other debris onto Plaintiff JCI's property, including Willow

Lake and its attendant streams and wetlands and other jurisdictional waters,

causing significant amounts of erosion, sediment accumulation and damage to

Plaintiff JCI's property, including Willow Lake and its attendant streams,

wetlands and other jurisdictional waters and other detrimental impacts to the

JcGc.

169.

Plaintiff JCI alleges that discharges in violation of applicable laws have

occurred on specific dates beginning in or around October, 2008 and continued

on November 17, 2008, May 14, 2009, May 20, 2009, May 21, 2009, June 2, 2009,

June 3, 2009, June 4, 2009, June 5, 2009, June 26, 2009, June 20, 2009, August 13,

2009, August 14, 2009, August 21, 2009, November 9, 2009, December 25, 2009,

January 12, 2010, January 20, 2010, January 25, 2010, January 26, 2010, August 3,

2010, August 17, 2010, October 27, 2010, March 27, 2011, March 28, 2011, August

5, 2011, October 11, 2011 and are presently ongoing. These discharges continue

-54-


through the present, and the list of discharges in violation of applicable law

grows daily.

170.

Inspections conducted by Columbia County have found violations of

BMPs at Krystal River on numerous occasions starting on or around November

17, 2008 through at least January 2010.

171.

The Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans for Krystal River are

deficient and in violation of the Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act,

Columbia County's Erosion and Sedimentation Ordinance, the GAR100001, and

the Georgia E&S Manual. Even if the Erosion and Sedimentation Pollution

Control Plans were implemented as approved, they would not protect against

erosion and sediment discharges from Krystal River into Tributary 1 and then

into Jones Creek and Willow Lake.

172.

The ESPCP deficiencies include, but are not limited to: an incorrect outfall

sampling turbidity limit of 75 NTU instead of the applicable 50 NTU; insufficient

silt fence; no inlet sediment traps specified for existing drainage structures or

storm drain inlet structures; no temporary basins during the initial perimeter

controls phase; roads, structures, and drainage system construction during the

-55-


initial perimeters controls phase without required BMPs; no storm drain outlet

protection at pipe outlets; no sediment barriers specified on or below high steep

slopes, and no required matting and blankets specified for high steep slopes.

173.

Currently, the upper two-thirds of the Krystal River site is entirely bare

exposed soil with inadequate vegetation, and the lower one-third of the site has

inadequate BMPs consisting of a single breeched sediment barrier.

174.

Currently, almost the entire site has significant gullies and rills that convey

storm water and pollutants across Krystal River; the storm water and pollutants

are then discharged into Tributary 1.

175.

The sediment basins at Krystal River are inadequately sized and

improperly retrofitted, resulting in excessive storm water and pollutant

discharges into Tributary 1.

176.


present day.

177.

Defendant Kimlandco, Defendant Southern Site and Defendant Mullins's

-56-


failure to properly design, install and maintain BMPs at Krystal River has

resulted in discharges of eroded soils, sediment, sediment-laden storm water,

rock, dirt, sand and other debris into Tributary 1 and then into Jones Creek and

Willow Lake.

178.

As such, Defendant Kimlandco, Defendant Southern Site and Defendant

Mullins's failure to properly design, install and maintain BMPs at Krystal River

has resulted in discharges of eroded soils, sediment, sediment-laden storm water,

rock, dirt, sand and other debris onto Plaintiff JCI's property, including Willow

Lake and its attendant streams and wetlands and other jurisdictional waters.

179.

These discharges are the direct result of the failures, actions and omissions

of Defendant Kimlandco, Defendant Southern Site and Defendant Mullins

and/or their agents or representative at the Krystal River site.

180.

Furthermore, Kimlandco, Defendant Southern Site and Defendant

Mullins's failure to properly design, install and maintain a storm water control

system which prevents the discharge of increased amounts of storm water has

resulted in excessive discharges of storm water to Plaintiff JCI's property and

caused damages thereto.

-57-


Marshall Square

181.

Marshall Square is located on the headwaters of Tributary 1, southwest of

and upstream from the JCGC and Willow Lake.

182.

Marshall Square is located between N. Belair Road, Evans Town Center

Road, and Evans to Locks Road and on Industrial Park Drive in Columbia

County, Georgia and consists of approximately 57.6 acres of land. The entire 57.6

acres is estimated disturbed acreage.

183.

Defendant Marshall Square LLC, Defendant D.C. Lawrence LLC,

Defendant Joseph Marshall, Defendant Daniel Marshall, Defendant Donald

Lawrence, and Defendant Columbia County are and have been at times relevant

to this Complaint owners and/or operators of Marshall Square.

184.

On or around September 30, 2008, an NOl was filed for re-issuance of

coverage under GAR100003 for construction activities at Marshall Square;

Donald Lawrence is identified as the facility contact. D. C. Lawrence LLC is

identified as the operator of Marshall Square on the original NOl filed on August

17, 2005.


185.

NBR Investments, LLC is identified as the owner of Marshall Square on the

2008 NOl even though documents filed with Georgia's Secretary of State show

that N13R Investments, LLC changed its name to Marshall Square LLC in June

2008.

186.

Joseph Marshall and Daniel Marshall do D.C. Lawrence LLC are

identified as the owner/developer/contact on September 27, 2007 site plans for

Marshall Square, including the storm drainage plan and the Erosion and

Sedimentation Pollution Control Plan.

187.

Joseph and Daniel Marshall do D.C. Lawrence LLC are identified as the

owners on the 2006 Land Disturbing Permit and Application for Marshall Square.

188.

Defendant Joseph Marshall signed the 2008 NOl as a member of Marshall

Square in the signature space provided for the owner of Marshall Square.

Donald Lawrence is identified as the facility contact on the 2008 NOl.

189.

Upon information and belief, Joseph Marshall and Daniel Marshall are the

managers of Marshall Square, LLC and were the managers of Marshall Square,

-59-


LLC when it was named NBR Investments, LLC.

190.

According to documents filed with the secretary of state of Georgia, Joseph

and Daniel Marshall were managers of the various entities that consolidated to

form NBR Investments, LLC, and Joseph Marshall signed the documents

changing the name of NBR Investments, LLC to Marshall Square, LLC as its

manager.

191.

A July 2006 stop work order was issued by Columbia County to Joseph

and Daniel Marshall do D.C. Lawrence LLC.

192.

D.C. Lawrence LLC is identified as the client for turbidity monitoring and

reporting that was conducted at Marshall Square from approximately August

2008 through March 2009 to purportedly comply with GAR100003.

193.

Donald Lawrence received the results of the Marshall Square turbidity

monitoring, including the turbidity reports showing violations of applicable

turbidity limits and water quality standards described herein, and he received

correspondence from Columbia County regarding BMP violations at Marshall

Square.


194.

D.C. Lawrence LLC and Marshall Square LLC provide the same Post

Office Box, P.O. Box 2356 Evans, Georgia, as their principal office address to the

Secretary Of State.

195.

Defendant Joseph Marshall is and has been at times relevant to this

Complaint involved in activities at Marshall Square that resulted in the Clean

Water Act violations described herein. He is identified as the owner on a ESPCP

for Marshall Square, is a manager of Marshall Square, LLC, and is a unifying link

between Marshall Square LLC and D.C. Lawrence LLC, which share a principal

office address. In addition, he has been the recipient of at least one stop work

order from Columbia County and BMP inspections from the Marshall Square

BMP contractor; upon information and belief, he has remained a recipient of BMP

inspections showing BMP violations and a contact for Columbia County

regarding erosion and sedimentation violations at the Marshall Square to the

extent that Defendant Columbia County has inspected for and/or documented

such violations. Defendant Joseph Marshall is one of the individuals in a position

to make BMP decisions, thus, he is responsible for the proper design, installation

and maintenance of BMPs on site and compliance with related relevant laws.

Following, Defendant Joseph Marshall has responsibility for ensuring compliance

Irem


with the Clean Water Act at Marshall Square and has failed to ensure such

compliance.

196.

Defendant Joseph Marshall has personally participated in, directed,

ratified, and/or exercised control over the acts and/or omissions creating the

conditions at Marshall Square that resulted in the impacts and damages to the

JCGC described herein. As an owner, officer and/or manager for Marshall

Square, LLC and D.C. Lawrence, LLC, Defendant Joseph Marshall has

responsibility for ensuring that excessive storm water and pollutants are not

discharged from Marshall Square and has failed to ensure that such discharges

do not occur.

197.

Defendant Daniel Marshall is and has been at times relevant to this


Water Act violations described herein. He is identified as the owner on a ESPCP

for Marshall Square, is a manager of Marshall Square, LLC, and is a unifying link

between Marshall Square LLC and D.C. Lawrence LLC, which share a principal

office address. In addition, he has been the recipient of at least one stop work

order from Columbia County; upon information and belief, he has remained a

contact for Columbia County regarding erosion and sedimentation violations at

-62-


the Marshall Square to the extent that Defendant Columbia County has inspected

for and/or documented such violations. Defendant Daniel Marshall is one of the

individuals in a position to make 13MP decisions, thus, he is responsible for the

proper design, installation and maintenance of BMPs on site and compliance

with related relevant laws Following, Defendant Daniel Marshall has

responsibility for ensuring compliance with the Clean Water Act at Marshall

Square and has failed to ensure such compliance.

198.

Defendant Daniel Marshall has personally participated in, directed,



JCGC described herein. As an owner, officer and/or manager for Marshall

Square, LLC and D.C. Lawrence, LLC, Defendant Daniel Marshall has

responsibility for ensuring that excessive storm water and pollutants are not

discharged from Marshall Square and has failed to ensure that such discharges

do not occur.

199.

Defendant Donald Lawrence is and has been at times relevant to this


Water Act violations described herein. He is identified as the facility site contact

-63-


on the GAR100003 NOT, has accepted responsibility for BMPs related to soil

removed during the Ronald Reagan Boulevard Extension and stock piled at

Marshall Square, and is a unifying link between Marshall Square LLC and D.C.

Lawrence LLC, which share a principal office address. In addition, he is the

recipient of recent turbidity monitoring in violation of applicable turbidity limits

and water quality standards. Defendant Donald Lawrence is one of the

individuals in a position to make BMP decisions, thus, he is responsible for the

proper design, installation and maintenance of BMPs on site and compliance

with related relevant laws Following, Defendant Donald Lawrence has

responsibility for ensuring compliance with the Clean Water Act at Marshall

Square and has failed to ensure such compliance.

200.

Defendant Donald Lawrence has personally participated in, directed,



JCGC described herein. Based on his role within Marshall Square LLC and D.C.

Lawrence LLC and his actions and listed responsibility for the Marshall Square

site, Defendant Donald Lawrence has responsibility for ensuring that excessive

storm water and pollutants are not discharged from Marshall Square and has

failed to ensure that such discharges do not occur.

-64-


201.

Columbia County purchased 26 acres of Marshall Square in or around July

2010.

202.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Marshall Square LLC, Defendant

D.C. Lawrence LLC, Defendant Joseph Marshall, Defendant Daniel Marshall, and

Defendant Donald Lawrence commenced construction and development

activities at Marshall Square in or before July 2008.

203.

Land disturbing and development activities are ongoing at Marshall

Square. Daily inspection reports from July and August 2011 show that land

disturbing and development activities related to the extension of Ronald Reagan

Boulevard through Marshall Square are occurring. These land disturbing

activities include, but are not limited to: the disturbance of approximately 7,000

cubic yards of soil, the placement of excess soil from the road project on Marshall

Square as a "stock pile", and the purported installation of BMPs related to the

stock pile.

204.

Development activities at Marshall Square have and continue to directly

impact Willow Lake and its attendant wetlands.

-65-


205.

Storm water runoff from Marshall Square flows into Tributary 1 both

directly and from a large detention pond and thence into Jones Creek and Willow

Lake. Since land disturbing, including grading activities, commenced at Marshall

Square, storm water runoff from Marshall Square into Tributary 1 and then into

Jones Creek and Willow Lake has increased in rate and volume.

206.

Since land disturbing and other construction activities commenced at

Marshall Square, discharges of eroded soils, sediments, sediment-laden storm

water, rock, sand, dirt, debris and other pollutants into Tributary 1 and then into

Jones Creek and Willow Lake have increased, resulting in significant

accumulations of sediment and repeated instances of turbid or visually impacted

water.

207.


land disturbing and other construction activities associated with Marshall Square





Im





208.

Plaintiff Jones Creek Investors alleges that discharges in violation of

applicable laws have occurred on specific dates beginning in or around July 2008

and continued on July 10, 2008, August 13, 2008, October 25, 2008, November 4,

2008, November 13, 2008, November 14, 2008, November 18, 2008, December 31,

2008, January 8, 2009, February 27, 2009, April 22, 2009, April 23, 2009, April 30,

2009, November 9, 2009, December 25, 2009, January 20, 2010, January 26, 2010,

February 4, 2010, March 8, 2010, March 28, 2010, August 3, 2010, August 17, 2010,

September 27, 2010, October 27, 2010, March 27, 2011, March 28, 2011, May 12,

2011, August 5, 2011, October 11, 2011 and are presently ongoing. These

discharges continue through the present, and the list of discharges in violation of

applicable law grows daily.

IpJ

Inspections conducted by Columbia County have found violations of

BMPs on numerous occasions starting on or around December 31, 2008 through

at least March 2010.

-67-


210.

In addition, monitoring data from water quality monitoring stations

downstream from Marshall Square in Tributary 1 indicates that turbidity levels

spike up to or exceed NTIJ limits during rain events.

211.

For instance, following a rain event on October 27, 2010, turbidity was

elevated downstream of both sediment detention basins located at Marshall

Square and in Tributary 1 immediately downstream adjacent to Industrial Park

Drive; the turbidity measurements were between 254 NTU and 1060 NTU.

212.

The Erosion and Sedimentation Pollution Control Plans for Marshall

Square are deficient and in violation of the Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation

Act, Columbia County's Erosion and Sedimentation Ordinance, GAR100003, and

the Georgia E&S Manual. Even if the Erosion and Sedimentation Pollution

Control Plans were implemented as approved, they would not protect against

erosion and sediment discharges from Marshall Square into Tributary I and then

into Jones Creek and Willow Lake and further downstream.

213.

The ESPCP deficiencies include, but are not limited to: incorrect and

deficient BMP details; no storm drain outlet protection shown at pipe outlets/

-68-


required information not provided; no sediment barriers specified on or below

slopes; no required matting and blankets specified for steep slopes above the

sediment basin; no inlet sediment traps on storm drains; and check dam shown

constructed in State waters.

214.

Currently, Marshall Square has graded slopes with inadequate vegetation

and inadequate BMPs that do not meet requirements of the Georgia E&S Manual;

these inadequately vegetated areas are sources of sediment discharges to

Tributary 1.

215.

The inadequately vegetated slopes at Marshall Square include steep slopes

around the southern perimeter of the site and above the large sediment basin on

the northern end of the site.

216.

BMPs on slopes above the large sediment basin, including temporary

down drain structures, have failed and resulted in gully erosion on the slopes to

the sediment basin.

217.

A smaller sediment basin at the north end of Marshall Square is

inadequately planned and built. As a result, turbid water is not retained by


and/or bypasses the sediment basin and discharges from Marshall Square into

Tributary 1.

218.

In addition, inadequately vegetated and bare areas up slope from a weir

inlet structure on the northeast portion of the site discharge sediment to flows

leaving Marshall Square into the weir inlet structure and into Tributary 1.

219.

Bare soils adjacent to streets and storm drains without adequate BMPs

allow eroded sediments to enter the drainage system and discharge to Tributary

1.

220.

The sediment discharges from the drainage system flow into the inlet weir

structure and into Tributary 1.

221.

Based on a review of State and Columbia County documents produced

pursuant to open records requests, the Marshall Square Defendants have not



inspections after rain events, turbidity sampling and rainfall recording. For

example, turbidity reports for Marshall Square show that turbidity monitoring

-70-


was not initiated until July 2008.

222.

Visual observations on May 12, 2011, August 5, 2011 and October 11, 2011

revealed extremely turbid discharges in the tributary into which the weir inlet

structure discharges.

223.

BMPs such as matting and blankets that were specified on site plans have

not been installed at Marshall Square.

224.


present day.

225.

A Notice of Termination ("NOT") of coverage under GAR100003 was filed

on March 3, 2009; the NOT was improperly filed because the site was not

stabilized as required by GAR100003.

226.

NBR Investments, LLC is identified as the owner and primary permittee on

the improper 2009 NOT even though the name of NBR Investments, LLC was

changed to Marshall Square, LLC in June 2008. In the improper 2009 NOT,

Joseph Marshall printed and signed his name in the signature space provided for

-71-


the owner of Marshall Square.

227.

In July, 2011, Donald Lawrence requested excess soil from the Ronald

Reagan Boulevard Road Extension be placed at Marshall Square. According to

document produced by Columbia County pursuant to open records requests,

Donald Lawrence represented that he would install BMPs related to the excess

soil at Marshall Square.

228.

The Marshall Square Defendants' failure to properly design, install and

maintain BMPs at Marshall Square has resulted in discharges of eroded soils,

sediment, sediment-laden storm water, rock, dirt, sand and other debris into

Tributary 1 and then into Jones Creek and Willow Lake.

229.

As such, the Marshall Square Defendants' failure to properly design, install

and maintain BMPs at Marshall Square has resulted in discharges of eroded soils,

sediment, sediment-laden storm water, rock, dirt, sand and other debris onto

Plaintiff Jones Creek Investors' property, including Willow Lake its attendant

feeder streams, wetlands and other jurisdictional waters.

230.

Furthermore, the Marshall Square Defendants failure to properly design,

-72-


install and maintain a storm water control system which prevents the discharge

of increased amounts of storm water to Tributary 1, Jones Creek and Willow

Lake has resulted in excessive discharges of storm water to Plaintiff JCI's

property and caused damages thereto.

231.

These discharges are the direct result of the failures, activities and/or

omissions of the Marshall Square Defendants and/or their agents or

representatives at Marshall Square.

IV. Columbia County's Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)and MS4 Permit

232.

The County's MS4 receives discharges from several sites in Columbia

County, including Marshall Square, Krystal River, the Townhomes, Fresenius

Medical, Marshall Office Park, Edgardo MD! Family Y Site, Howell Construction

the Estates at Jones Creek and Maples Ferry.

233.

Marshall Square, Krystal River, and the Townhomes have been

particularly described and discussed in Section ifi supra, and such description

and discussion is incorporated here.

234.

Storm water and pollutants from Marshall Square enter the MS4 through

-73-


the storm drainage system of Marshall Square. The MS4 discharges the storm

water and pollutants from Marshall Square into Tributary 1 through the outfall of

the storm drainage system of Marshall Square, which is identified as an MS4

outfall by Defendant Columbia County.

235.

Storm water and pollutants from Krystal River enter the MS4 through the

storm drainage system of Krystal River. The MS4 discharges the storm water

and pollutants from Krystal River into Tributary 1 through the outfalls of the

storm drainage system of Krystal River, which are identified as MS4 outfalls by

Defendant Columbia County.

236.

Storm water and pollutants from the Townhomes enter the M54 through

the storm drainage system of the Townhomes. The MS4 discharges the storm

water and pollutants from the Townhomes through outfalls of the storm

drainage system of the Townhomes, which are identified as MS4 outfalls by

Defendant Columbia County.

237.

Fresenius Medical is located at 3000 McCrary Court in Columbia County,

Georgia and is comprised of 1.87 acres and an estimated disturbed acreage of

1.52 acres. Storm water and pollutants from Fresenius Medical enter the MS4

-74-


through the storm water system for Fresenius Medical. The MS4 discharges the

storm water and pollutants from Fresemus Medical into Tributary 1 through the

outfalls of the storm drainage system of Fresenius Medical, which are identified

as MS4 outfalls by Defendant Columbia County.

238.

Marshall Office Park is located on McCrary Court and Industrial Park

Drive in Columbia County, Georgia. Storm water and pollutants from Marshall

Office Park enter the MS4 through the storm water system for Marshall Office

Park. The MS4 discharges the storm water and pollutants from Marshall Office

Park into Tributary I through the outfalls of the storm drainage system of

Marshall Office Park, which are identified as M54 outfalls by Defendant

Columbia County.

239.

The Edgardo MD! Family Y Site is comprised of property at 746 Industrial

Park Drive owned by the Much Edgardo MD Pension Plan ("Edgardo Property")

and adjacent property at 756 Industrial Park Drive owned by the Family Y Young

Mens' Christian Association YWCA of the CSRA, Inc. ("Family Y Property").

Storm water and pollutants from the Edgardo MD! Family Y Site enter the MS4

through the storm water systems for the Edgardo MD/ Family Y Site. The MS4

discharges the storm water and pollutants from the Edgardo MD! Family Y Site

-75-


into Tributary 1 through the outfails of the storm drainage systems of the

Edgardo MD! Family Y Site, which are identified as MS4 outf ails by Defendant

Columbia County.

240.

Howell Construction is located at 859 Triangle Industrial Court in

Columbia County, Georgia. It is comprised of 1.0 acre and an estimated

disturbed acreage of 0.56 acre. Storm water and pollutants from Howell

Construction enter the MS4 through the storm water system for Howell

Construction. The MS4 discharges the storm water and pollutants from Howell

Construction into Tributary 1 through the outfall of the storm drainage system of

Howell Construction, which is identified as an MS4 outfall by Defendant

Columbia County.

241.

Maples Ferry is located on North Belair Road in Columbia County, Georgia

and is comprised of approximately 20 acres and an estimated disturbed acreage

of 13.4 acres. Storm water and pollutants from Maples Ferry enter the MS4

through the storm water system for Maples Ferry. The MS4 discharges the storm

water and pollutants from Maples Ferry into Tributary 1 through the outfalls of

the storm drainage system of Maples Ferry, which are identified as MS4 outfalls

by Defendant Columbia County.

-76-


242.

The Estates at Jones Creek is located on Evans to Locks Road in Columbia

County, Georgia. Storm water and pollutants from Estates at Jones Creek enter

the MS4 through the storm water system for Estates at Jones Creek. The MS4

discharges the storm water and pollutants from Estates at Jones Creek into

Tributary 4 through the outf ails of the storm drainage system of Estates at Jones

Creek, which are identified as MS4 outfalls by Defendant Columbia County.

243.

Columbia County is permitted to discharge storm water from its MS4

under the 2007 General NPDES Storm water Permit for Phase II M54, NPDES

Permit No GAG610000 ("MS4 Permit.") The M54 Permit covers all new and

existing point source discharges of storm water from the County's MS4.

244.

According to Part 1II.A.1 of the MS4 Permit, a permittee must submit a

Notice of Intent for Coverage ("M54 NOT") to be authorized to discharge under

the MS4 Permit. The County has submitted a MS4 NOl, although the County's

MS4 NOl is neither signed as required by Part 111.A.1 and Part VI.L of the MS4

Permit nor dated. Because the County has submitted the MS4 NOT, the County

"must comply with other applicable NPDES permit requirements, standards and

conditions established in the... general permit." See 40 C.F.R. § 122.34 &

-77-


122.34(f).

245.

According to Part III.A.1 of the MS4 Permit, the MS4 NOl must include a

description of the County's Storm Water Management Plan ("SWMP.") The

SWMP is incorporated into the MS4 permit. MS4 Permit, Part IV.

246.

The County is liable for compliance with the MS4 Permit and for the

implementation of the SWMP for all discharges from the County's MS4. MS4

Permit, Part ffl.A.3 & Part VI.A. In addition, the County is required by Part VI.E

of the MS4 Permit to properly operate and maintain at all times all facilities and

systems of treatment and control, and their relative appurtenances, owned or

operated by the County to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of

the MS4 Permit and the requirements of the SWMP.

247.

The County is required by Part 11(b), (c) & (d) of the MS4 Permit to not

cause applicable water quality criteria to be exceeded to the maximum extent

practicable. The applicable water quality criteria (hereinafter "Part II Water

Quality Criteria") include:

all waters shall be free from oil, scum and floating debris associated

with municipal or domestic sewage, industrial waste or other

-78-


discharges in amount sufficient to be unsightly or to interfere with

legitimate water uses;

all waters shall be free from material related to municipal, industrial

or other discharges which produce turbidity, color, odor, or other

objectionable conditions which interfere with legitimate water uses;

all waters shall be free from turbidity which results in a substantial

visual contrast in a water body due to a man-made activity.

248.

Part IV of the MS4 Permit requires the County to implement and enforce

its SWMP, "designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from the small MS4 to

the maximum extent practicable (MEP), in order to protect water quality and to

satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the [Georgia Water Quality

Control Act."

249.

The water quality requirements of the Georgia Water Quality Control Act

("GWQCA"), O.C.G.A. § 12-5-20 et seq., which are defined as the Georgia Water

Quality Standards for purposes of this Complaint in Section III supra, are set forth

in Ga. Comp. R. & Regs., 391-3--6-.03(5), include the following:

(1) § 391-3-6-.03(5)(b) which states that "[a]ll waters shall be free from...

floating debris. . . or other discharges in amounts sufficient to be

-79-


unsightly or that interfere with legitimate water uses";

(2) § 391 -3-6-.03(5)(c) which states that "[a]ll waters shall be free from

material related to municipal, industrial or other discharges which

produce turbidity, color, odor or other objectionable conditions

which interfere with legitimate water uses";

(3) § 391-3-6-.03(5)(d) which states that "[a]ll waters shall be free from

turbidity which results in a substantial visual contrast in a water

body due to a man-made activity.. . . For land disturbing activities,

proper design, installation, and maintenance of best management

practices and compliance with issued permits shall constitute

compliance with Paragraph 391-3-6-.03(5)(d)"; and

(4) § 391-3-6-.15(4)(a) which states that "[a]ll pollutants shall receive

such treatment or corrective action so as to ensure compliance with...

effluent limitations established by the EPA pursuant to [the Clean

Water Act.]"

250.

The maximum extent practicable is defined in the MS4 Permit as "the

reduction of the discharge of pollutants from a municipal separate storm sewer

system using a combination of best management practices, control techniques,

system design and engineering methods, and such other provisions as described

-80-


in the [SWMP]." Part I.B.11.

251.

A Best Management Practice, or BMP, is defined in the MS4 Permit as

meaning "both structural devices to store or treat storm water runoff and non-

structural programs or practices which are designed to prevent or reduce the

pollution of the waters of the State of Georgia." Part I.B.11.

252.

The SWMP must specify BMPs to be implemented for six storm water

minimum control measures. The six storm water minimum control measures

include illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction site storm water

runoff control, and post-construction storm water management in new

development and redevelopment. MS4 Permit, Part IV.A &.B.

Illicit Discharges BMPs

253.

The SWMP must include BMPs that will effectuate the development,

implementation and enforcement of a program to detect and eliminate illicit

discharges into the MS4. MS4 Permit, Part W.B.3. An illicit discharge is any

discharge to a MS4 that is not entirely composed of storm water, except those

discharges authorized under a NPDES permit other than the MS4 permit. MS4

Permit, Part I.B.10.

-81-


254.

At a minimum, the County must implement and enforce the following

illicit discharge minimum control measure BMPs: (1) prohibit, through ordinance

or other regulatory mechanisms, non-storm water discharges into the MS4 and

implement appropriate enforcement procedures and actions, MS4 Permit, Part

IV.B.3.b; and (2) develop a storm sewer system map showing the location of all

outfalls, which is the point where a MS4 discharges to waters of the State, and the

names and location of all waters of the state receiving discharges from those

outfalls, Id. at Part IV.B.3.a. & Part I.B.15.

255.

Pursuant to open records requests, the County provided a map showing its

MS4 outfalls purportedly updated for submission with its 2010 MS4 Annual

Report ("Updated MS4 Outfall Map.")

256.

An illicit discharge BMP specified in the County's SWMP requires the

County to identify illicit discharges and eliminate them by using the ordinances

for nuisance, littering and illicit discharges. County MS4 NOT, at Appx. C.D.1

and C.E.I.

257.

In its SW-MP, the County asserts that the specific regulatory mechanism

-82-


that satisfies the permit requirement to prohibit, through ordinance, or other

regulatory mechanisms, non-storm water discharges into the MS4 and implement

appropriate enforcement procedures and actions is found in Sections 34-148 and

34449 of the County's Environmental Ordinance. County MS4 NOl, Appx.

C.B.1.

258.

Sec. 34-149 concerns illicit discharges, making it unlawful for any person to

connect any pipe, open channel or any other conveyance system that discharges

anything to the MS4 except unpolluted storm water; improper connections in

violation of the prohibition must be disconnected and redirected. Columbia

County Environmental Ordinance, Art. IV, Sec. 34-149.

259.

Sec. 34-148 prohibits discharges to the MS4 of any matter of nature

excepting only such storm water or surface water as authorized in the storm

water concept management plans ordinance for the County. Id., at Sec. 34-148(a).

260.

Because the illicit discharge minimum control measure BMPs are part of

the SWMP, they must be implemented and enforced to the maximum extent

practicable to protect water quality and satisfy Part II Water Quality Criteria and

Georgia Water Quality Standards. MS4 Permit, Parts II & IV.

-83-


Construction Site Run-off BMPs

261.


implementation and enforcement of a program to reduce pollutants in any storm

water runoff to the small MS4 from construction activities that result in a land

disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre and from construction activities

less than one acre if part of a larger common plan of development disturbing one

acre or more. MS4 Permit, Part IV.B.4.

262.

At a minimum, the County must implement and enforce the following

construction site run-off minimum control measure BMPs: (1) an ordinance or

other regulatory mechanism to require erosion and sediment controls, as well as

sanctions to ensure compliance, to the extent allowable, under State or local law;

(2) requirements for construction site operators to implement erosion and

sediment control best management practices; (3) procedures for site plan review,

which incorporate consideration of potential water quality impacts; (4)

procedures for site inspection and enforcement of control measures. Id. at Part

IV.B.4.a, .b, .d, & J.

263.

In its SWMP, the County asserts that its Sediment and Erosion Control

-84-


Ordinance ("E&S Ordinance") is adequate to require erosion and sediment

controls at construction sites. (County MS4 NOl, Appx. D.A.1).

264

The first BMP in the SWMP to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff

from specified construction sites requires the County to subject site plans to an

extensive review process and require implementation of mandatory BMPs.

County MS4 NOl, at Appx. D.B.I. The E&S Ordinance is the regulatory

mechanism that ensures compliance. Id. All commercial properties or

subdivision developments under construction are required to implement erosion

control BMPs that have been approved by the Columbia County Engineering

Services during the site plan review process. Id. The following BMPs are

required for all commercial and subdivision developments: construction site

entrance BMPs, silt fences, sediment control devices in temporary ponds,

temporary vegetation, storm drain inlet protection, and retro-fits to the outlet

structures of storm water control structures. Id.

265.

The E&S Ordinance establishes minimum requirements for erosion and

sedimentation control best management practices. E&S Ordinance, Sec. 34-69.

According to the E&S Ordinance, BMPs must be at least as stringent as the

applicable state general NPDES permit and must be consistent with and no less

-85-


stringent than BMPs contained in the Georgia E&S Manual. Id.

266.

The County is required to periodically inspect the sites of land-disturbing

activities to determine if the activities are being conducted in accordance with the

E&S Ordinance and if the measures employed are effective in controlling erosion

and sedimentation. Id. at Sec. 34-71.

267.

Penalties and incentives, including County requirements upon finding of

violations, are set forth in the E&S Ordinance. Id. at Sec. 34-72.

268.

As set forth in Sec. 34-72, the County requirements upon finding of

violations include: issuance of a stop-work order if a violation consists of taking

action without a permit or the discharge of significant amounts of sediment into

state waters and/or wetlands; issuance of notices of violation (or "NOV") for all

other violations of the E&S Ordinance for the first and second occurrence of such

violation; and issuance of an immediate stop-work order for the third and each

subsequent occurrence of such other violations. Sec. 34-72(b). Stop work orders

are effective immediately upon issuance until corrective action or mitigation has

occurred and apply to all land-disturbing activity on the project site at issue

except for installation and maintenance of erosion and sedimentation controls.

-86-


Id. at (b)(4).

269.

The second BMP in the SWMP for construction site run-off requires the

County to use the E&S Ordinance as a mechanism to control storm water run-off

from construction sites. County MS4 NOl, at Appx. D.C.1. Commercial sites

and subdivision developments are required to implement erosion control BMPs

that have been approved by Engineering Services during the site plan review

process. Id. Inspections of commercial and residential construction sites are

conducted by the County's Engineering Services Department on a continuing

basis; site inspections must be initiated prior to any land disturbing activities and

occur on a daily basis until permanent stabilization of disturbed areas is

achieved. Id.

270.

The third BMP in the SWMP for construction site run-off requires the

County to use its authority pursuant to the E&S Ordinance to enforce approved

erosion and sediment control BMPs. County MS4 NOl, at Appx. D.D.I.

Enforcement actions of violations, including 5-day warnings, 24-hour warnings,

and stop work orders, will be in accordance with the E&S Ordinance. Id. at

Appx. D.D.1 &.2. The County must track the number of deficiencies and type of

action taken against the violator and include such information in the MS4 annual

-87-


report.

271.

Because the construction site minimum control measure J3MPs are part of

the SWMP, they must be enforced to the maximum extent practicable to protect

water quality and satisfy Part II Water Quality Criteria and Georgia Water

Quality Standards. MS4 Permit, Parts 11 & IV.

New Development and Redevelopment Run-off BMPs

272.


implementation and enforcement of a program to address storm water runoff to

the MS4 from new development and redevelopment projects that result in a land

disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre and from construction activities

less than one acre if part of a larger common plan of development disturbing one

acre or more. MS4 Permit, Part IV.B.5. The new development and

redevelopment program/ BMPs must ensure that controls are in place that will

prevent or minimize water quality impacts. Id.

273.

At a minimum, the new development and redevelopment BMPs must

include: (1) the development and implementation of a combination of

appropriate structural and/or non-structural BMPs, including the adoption of

-88-


the Georgia Storm water Management Manual or equivalent local manual, MS4

Permit at Part [V.B.5.a; (2) ensure adequate long-term operation and maintenance

of the BMP, Id. at Part IV.B.5.c; (3) use an ordinance or other regulatory

mechanism to address post-construction runoff from new development and

redevelopment projects to the extent allowable under State and local law, Id. at

Part IV.B.5.b.

274.

The County asserts that its Storm Water Control Ordinance effectively

controls storm water runoff to the MS4 from new development or redevelopment

sites. County M54 NOl, Appx. E.A.1.

275.

The Storm Water Control Ordinance, Sec. 34456(b) provides that storm

water management control facilities are publicly owned and/or maintained if

accepted for maintenance by the County.

276.

The first BMP in the SWMP to control storm water runoff from new

development and redevelopment sites is inspection and maintenance of

County-owned detention and retention ponds. Id. at Appx. F.B.i.

277.

An additional BMP for controlling storm water runoff from new


development and redevelopment specified in the SWMP is structural BMPs.

County MS4 NOl, at Appx. E.D.I. The County's Stormwater Management

Design Manual ("County Stormwater Manual") is a technical guide and sets

minimum design requirements for this BMP but is not intended to replace sound

engineering judgment or practices. Id.

278.

All site plans submitted for new and/or redevelopment will be reviewed

for compliance with the County Storm water Manual. Id. at Appx. E.D.2.

According to the County, the use of a design manual will provide a mechanism

of keeping design standards consistent, and providing adequate storm water

management controls for commercial and residential sites will minimize flooding

and provide for better water quality controls. Id. at Appx. E.D5.

279.

Because the new development and redevelopment minimum control

measure BMPs are part of the SWMP, they must be enforced to the maximum

extent practicable to protect water quality and satisfy Part II Water Quality

Criteria and Georgia Water Quality Standards. MS4 Permit, Parts II & IV.

Failure to Adequately Implement and Enforce the SWMP

280.

The County has failed to implement and enforce the BMP set forth in

II


Appx. E.B.1 of the SWMP/County MS4 NOl, which is to control storm water

runoff to the MS4 from new development and redevelopment sites by inspection

and maintenance of County-owned detention and retention ponds.

281.

Several County-owned detention and retention ponds, which upon

information and belief are part of the MS4, are located upstream from JCGC and

Willow Lake.

282.

The storm water system for Maples Ferry, which includes a detention

pond, was accepted for ownership and/or maintenance by the County by letter

in or around August 2007. The storm water system for Maples Ferry is located

upstream from the JCGC and Willow Lake. The Maples Ferry detention pond

discharges into Tributary 1.

283.

The detention pond for the Estates at Jones Creek was accepted for

ownership and/or maintenance by the County in or around February 2007. The

Estates at Jones Creek its detention pond discharges into Tributary 4.

284.

Upon information and belief, at least a portion of the Marshall Square

storm water management system, including at least one detention pond, is

-91-


located on property at Marshall Square purchased by the County. The Marshall

Square storm water management system, including the detention ponds, are

located upstream from the JCGC and Willow Lake and discharges into Jones

Creek.

285.

The detention ponds at Maples Ferry, Estates at Jones Creek and Marshall

Square are not and have not been at times relevant to this Complaint adequately

inspected and/or maintained.

ROM

As a result, eroded soils, mud, dirt, debris, sand, rock, sediment, sediment-

laden storm water, excess storm water and other pollutants are discharged from

the outlets of the detention ponds, which are outfalls of the MS4, into tributaries

of Jones Creek and/or Jones Creek and onto the JCGC property, including the

streams, wetlands, and Willow Lake. A portion of these pollutants regularly

continues on from Willow Lake to the Savannah River.

287.

Plaintiffs have observed and continue to observe turbid water in the

detention ponds at Maples Ferry, Estates at Jones Creek, and Marshall Square

and the discharge of such polluted water, which is comprised of eroded soils,

mud, dirt, debris, sand, rock, sediment, sediment-laden storm water, and excess

-92-


storm water, from the detention pond outlets and into tributaries of Jones Creek,

Jones Creek, and Willow Lake.

The County has failed to implement and enforce the BMJ' set forth in

Appx. C.D.1 and C.E.1 of the SWMP/County MS4 NOl, which is to identify illicit

discharges and eliminate them by using the ordinances for nuisance, littering and

illicit discharges.

Site conditions at Marshall Square, Krystal River, the Townhomes,

Fresenius Medical, Marshall Office Park, Edgardo MD! Family Y Site, Howell

Construction, and Maples Ferry are in violation, and have been in violation at all

times relevant to this Complaint, of the County's Environmental Ordinance, Art.

W, Sec. 34-148 & 34-149 because such site conditions cause illicit discharges to be

conveyed and discharged to the MS4.

290.

These illicit discharges are comprised of eroded soils, mud, dirt, debris,

sand, rock, sediment, sediment-laden storm water, and excess storm water, and

are discharged from the MS4 into tributaries of Jones Creek, Jones Creek, and

Willow Lake.

-93-


291.

The County has failed to use the Environmental Ordinance, Ch.34, Art. IV,

Sec. 34-148 & 34449, to eliminate these illicit discharges to the MS4.

292.

The County has failed to use the Environmental Ordinance, Ch.34, Art. IV,

Sec. 34-148 & 34-149, to require corrective action to remedy site conditions at

Marshall Square, Krystal River, the Townhomes, Fresenius Medical, Marshall

Office Park, Edgardo MD/ Family Y Site, Howell Construction, and Maples

Ferry. These site conditions and the resulting illicit discharges are ongoing as of

the date of this Complaint.

293.

Marshall Square has extensive bare or inadequately vegetated areas,

including high, wide, steep slopes. As a result, illicit discharges comprised of

eroded soils, mud, dirt, debris, sand, rock, sediment, sediment-laden storm

water, and excess storm water eroded sediments are leaving Marshall Square and

entering the MS4 via the Marshall Square storm drainage system. The M54

discharges such storm water and pollutants from Marshall Square into Tributary

1 through the outfall of the storm drainage system of Marshall Square, which is

identified as an MS4 outfall on the Updated MS4 Outfall Map.

-94-


NO

Currently, Krystal River is primarily bare exposed soil with almost no

vegetation; no stabilization has occurred at the site. As a result, extremely high

rates of soil erosion are occurring and illicit discharges comprised of eroded soils,

mud, dirt, debris, sand, rock, sediment, sediment-laden storm water, and excess

storm water eroded sediments are leaving Krystal River and entering the MS4 via

the Krystal River storm drainage system. The MS4 discharges such storm water

and pollutants from Krystal River into Tributary 1 through the outfall of the

storm drainage system of Krystal River, which is identified as an MS4 outfall on

the Updated MS4 Outfall Map.

295.

The Townhomes is being and has been developed with improper erosion

and sediment control plans. Since land disturbance and other development

activities at the Townhomes were initiated, even the inadequate BMPs specified

on the deficient erosion and sediment control plans have not been installed and

maintained. The failure to implement BMPs on lots in the Townhomes has

resulted in illicit discharges comprised of eroded soils, mud, dirt, debris, sand,

rock, sediment, sediment-laden storm water, and excess storm water eroded

sediments leaving the Townhomes and entering the M54 via the Townhomes

storm drainage system. The MS4 discharges such storm water and pollutants

-95-


from the Townhomes into Willow Lake through outfalls of the storm drainage

system of the Townhomes, which is identified as an MS4 outfall on the Updated

MS4 Outfall Map.

296.

Fresenius Medical has on-going erosion problems, including gully erosion

and eroding bare soils that begin at the southern property line. As a result, illicit

discharges comprised of eroded soils, mud, dirt, debris, sand, rock, sediment,

sediment-laden storm water, and excess storm water eroded sediments are

leaving Fresenius Medical and entering the MS4 via the Fresenius Medical storm

drainage system. The MS4 discharges such storm water and pollutants from

Fresenius Medical into Tributary 1 through the outfall of the storm drainage

system of Fresenius Medical, which is identified as an MS4 outfall on the

Updated MS4 Outfall Map.

297.

At Marshall Office Park, a steep slope is bare, eroding soil and an area of

exposed soil exists on the detention pond dam near the outlet structure. As a

result, illicit discharges comprised of eroded soils, mud, dirt, debris, sand, rock,

sediment, sediment-laden storm water, and excess storm water are leaving

Marshall Office Park and entering the MS4 via the Marshall Office Park storm



Marshall Office Park into Tributary 1 through the outfall of the storm drainage

system of Marshall Office Park, which is identified as an MS4 outfall on the


298.

The Edgardo MD! Family Y Site has cleared areas that have eroded to

form significant rills on the exposed soil slopes. As a result, illicit discharges

comprised of eroded soils, mud, dirt, debris, sand, rock, sediment, sediment-

laden storm water, and excess storm water are leaving the Edgardo MD! Family

Y Site and entering the MS4 via the Edgardo MD! Family Y Site storm drainage

system. The MS4 discharges such storm water and pollutants from the Edgardo

MD! Family Y Site into Tributary 1 through the outfall of the storm drainage

system of the Edgardo MD/ Family Y Site, which is identified as an MS4 outfall

on the Updated MS4 Outfall Map.

299.

Howell Construction has significant areas of exposed soils. As a result,

illicit discharges comprised of eroded soils, mud, dirt, debris, sand, rock,

sediment, sediment-laden storm water, and excess storm water are leaving

Howell Construction and entering the MS4 via the Howell Construction storm


Howell Construction into Tributary 1 through the outfall of the storm drainage

-97-


system of Howell Construction, which is identified as an MS4 outfall on the


300.

Maples Ferry has several lots with steep slopes and eroded soils and lots

with exposed soils and/or gravel piles. As a result, illicit discharges comprised

of eroded soils, mud, dirt, debris, sand, rock, sediment, sediment-laden storm

water, and excess storm water are leaving Maples Ferry and entering the MS4 via

the Maples Ferry storm drainage system. The MS4 discharges such storm water

and pollutants from Maples Ferry into Tributary 1 through the outfall of the

storm drainage system of Maples Ferry, which is identified as an MS4 outfall on

the Updated M54 Outfall Map.

301.

The County has failed to implement and enforce the BMPs set forth in

Appx. D.B.1, D.C.1, & D.C.2 of the SWMP/County MS4 NOl, which require the

County to subject site plans to an extensive review process and require

implementation of mandatory and/or approved BMPs using the County's E&S

Ordinance.

302.

As set forth in Section III infra and below, the site plans for Marshall Square,

Kiystal River, and the Townhomes are inadequate to prevent erosion and

-98-


sediment discharges from the site, and the mandatory BMPs are not implemented

and have not been implemented at times relevant to this Complaint.

303.

As a result of the inadequate site plans and/or failure to implement the

mandatory BMPs, pollutants comprised of eroded soils, mud, dirt, debris, sand,

rock, sediment, sediment-laden storm water, and excess storm water, are

discharged from Marshall Square, Krystal River, and the Townhomes to the MS4

and from the MS4 into tributaries of Jones Creek, Jones Creek, and Willow Lake.

304.

The site plans approved for Marshall Square by the County are deficient

and in violation of the Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act, Columbia

County's E&S Ordinance, the Georgia NPDES Permits for Storm Water

Discharges Associated with Construction Activities, and Georgia E&S Manual.

The site plans are deficient in numerous ways, including but not limited to the

following: details for check dams, retrofits, and silt fences are incorrect and

deficient; storm drain outlet protection is not shown and/or the required

information is not provided; a check dam is shown constructed in State Waters;

necessary temporary and final stabilization is not shown; and inlet sediment traps

are not specified for storm drains.


cv111-174comp-thbmedia.graytvinc.com/documents/complaint-1.pdfthrough counsel, mailed to defendant...

Documents