Tossing Mullet

The Highway 98 debacle continues to evolve while the consequences remain shrouded in confusion. Many are perplexed by the apparent inability of the various bureaucratic layers to deal with the challenge. Why should that surprise any of us?

There are some interesting truths to grapple with in the context of the proposed transportation corridor. Number one is the very real need to improve the safety on “Bloody 98.” It is uncertain exactly where the root of the problem can be found.

Traffic increase on the road is undeniable and contested by no one. The average I.Q. of certain segments of the indigenous folk of the area is sometimes mentioned in the debate as well as some design characteristics of the highway itself, which has clearly been outgrown

Number two is the recognition by many other entities in the region that the proposed route to the north across Big Creek Lake was going to do two very different things. On one hand it was going to open quite a bit of land for development and growth, but on the other hand, some of that property is quite obviously providing truly valuable ecological services – not the least of which was the provision of relatively clean drinking water for the City of Mobile!

In fact the proposed route is relatively rich in wetland resources and therefore the full spectrum of value now widely recognized for wetlands as a whole. These include but are not limited to stormwater management and wildlife habitat, both factors of value to us that live in the area.

The Alabama Department of Transportation, hereinafter lovingly referred to as ALDOT, provided the usual required (minimal) opportunities for public input to the decision-making process. Those that opposed it on “ecoservices” grounds were faced with the data on increased truck traffic, population growth and accompanying traffic fatalities and progress marched on. The unlikely partnership between the Mobile Area Water and Sewer System and Mobile Baykeeper (only recently emerged from their own legal confrontation) appropriately filed suit to stop the progress and stop it they did. The very real threat to the drinking water supply apparently got the court’s attention.

Following months of wrangling over the possible implications, revisiting the rationale for the chosen route, and generally duking it out in court and in the press, a compromise was reached that involved generous concessions by ALDOT, which largely involved guaranteeing the application of “Best Management Practices” or BMPs during the construction of the new route. Mobile County also agreed to the application of the first-ever subdivision regulations in hopes this might at least blunt the effect of the projected wholesale slaughter of natural systems along the route.

The generally agreed upon and widely applauded compromise was doomed to failure from the outset. ALDOT has seldom paid more than lip-service to public comment in the past and at this point there was little reason to expect a significantly different response. It might be argued it was unlikely they enjoyed the licking they took in court either. Then there is some question as to whether they even knew what to do if they really wanted to utilize the conventional BMPs.

The rest, as they say, is history given the exposure by the investigative reporters at the Mobile Press-Register in the series of articles on “Muddy 98.” The revelations of the failure were so impressive it evoked an unprecedented apology from the ALDOT boss in Montgomery and an apparent trip to the woodshed for local supervisors and contractors! All to no avail as the impacts worsened when we actually got some real rain in the area. It is fair to assume the court can’t be happy about events that amount to a violation of a court order.

The real fallacy in this whole scenario is that the “state of the art” for BMPs looks a lot like the first wheel carved out of stone by some caveman! I mean, how much more primitive can you get than silt fence and hay bales?

The horror of this whole situation is that the manuals on the proper application of this technology (??) point out that they don’t work on anything but very low angle slopes. Even the application of anti-erosion matting is limited as to the severity of the slope upon which it is effective.

To prove this point there is a recent report from Chesapeake Bay where a great deal of money has been spent to “save the bay.” The funds have been used to develop elaborate models to assist managers in setting realistic goals of pollutant reduction and some of the factors apply quantitative values to specific BMPs as part of the model runs.

The analysis (Bay Journal, vol. 17, #9 or www.bayjournal.com) admits to the continued degradation of the bay despite the application of several BMPs and in fact every one of those used is being reduced in value for the next efforts at modeling! Their relative ineffectiveness has now been documented by the technical community trying to develop management tools and goals for Chesapeake Bay. There is no reason to think Mobile Bay is materially different.

So the fact must be faced that we are a long way from resolving the “Bloody 98” problem. It can be argued the new route is practicably infeasible due to the nature of the local landscape. There seem to be three possible solutions because good engineers can do about anything given enough money. I suppose conventional BMPs could be applied at an intensity and scale that the roadway soils along the new route could be maintained.

This will mean a re-design and a lot more anti-erosion materials and retention ponds (all costing money). Another alternative is a true and careful elevation of the road over sensitive wetland sites, which will certainly change the cost factors and might be presumed to be cost-prohibitive at this time.

Finally, ALDOT should revisit the alternative of widening the road in the existing corridor, which is what the environmental community recommended in the first place! Unfortunately that route does not provide access to additional development acreage and would possibly reduce the size of some parking lots.

Editor’s Note: For 28 years, Dr. George Crozier was the executive director of the Dauphin Island Sea Lab. He holds a Ph.D. in marine biology from Scripps Institute of Oceanography in San Diego and spent most of his career working in the area of costal zone management. He will now write a column on environmental (and other areas of interest) exclusively for Lagniappe.

George Crozier is Lagniappe columnist. Contact him at george@lagniappemobile.com.

Archives