ComplaintsforCrater Land Use Consulting

• Initial Complaint

  07/28/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  My husband and I have lived on Harstline Isl for 20years. Ten years ago **** and ******************************* bought the parcel next to us and the one above us. The ******* started revising the flow of the artesian spring on upper parcel damaging us with water trespass. We have tried to get the county to stop this.- nothing- won't act because there are no trespassing signs up. We have worked with 6 different attorneys. We have decided to upgrade to the ******* bar and had planned to have a scientific assessment of our problem from a wetland specialist to begin planning. I contacted the ***** County wetland specialist **** for a list of companies whom she has successfully worked. Crater was one of them. I called a discussed with him the specifics of what I needed- a written overview of the water trespass and recommendations for actions to gain access for more details. He drafted a contract and we set a date in early June. He required $700.00 down. He arrived on June 9th about midday and it was raining lightly. I told him I wanted to do a walk around with him to point out areas of concern. I drove him down the easement to our house so i could point out drains and structures being used to divert huge amounts of water onto our parcel. When we got to our house we convened on the porch with my husband and two men- real estate insurance investigators to discuss our approach. I fell as I came down the concrete steps and I sustained a head injury and moderate soft tissue bruising.. I asked **** if we could reschedule. He cashed the check promptly and went on vacation. Later he was too busy (x 4 emails) to talk. He never responded until a month later after he said he was wrapping the "report". So **** was going to create a report based on 1 min drive down the easement, 2 minutes walking around shop , a walk behind our sign (not our property) and nothing on majority of our parcel down to the water. He broke the contract time and deliverables.

  Business response

  07/28/2022

  Tell us why here...After ***** reached out to us, we scheduled a site visit to start her project and sent her a contract and deposit invoice on May 22, 2022. As a standard across the board, we require the contract and deposit prior to doing any project work. We prefer to have our contracts signed electronically through DocuSign, and our invoices paid online (at no additional cost to the client)through QuickBooks. ***** expressed difficulty figuring out this system (though her language suggested that perhaps there was some kind of a glitch on our end.There was not. This has been the only complaint about it from any of our clients.) We did take time to attempt to help her, but eventually it was decided that she would print and sign the contract and give us a check at the site visit on June 9, 2022. She was able to read the agreement on May 22, ******************************************************************************************************************** full. The deposit invoice was for $722.00.***** provided a check for $700.00 only on June 9. Technically, the deposit was not fully paid so we were under no obligation to adhere to any timeframe in the contract. Despite this, we are not uptight and had made room in our schedule to complete the project, so we proceeded to begin work with the thought that we would just tack the additional $22.00 onto the final invoice rather than have to navigate getting another check from her.
  

  We disagree with Lindas recounting of the site visit on June 9, 2022. She did take an unfortunate tumble, but prior to that **** had far more than one minute to assess the site. In fact, he had ample time to review conditions, as he was on-site for at least 90 minutes if not more. **** and ***** drove the access road in looking at the area of interest. ***** showed **** multiple photos of what her concerns and accusations were about her neighbor. She writes that I told him I wanted to do a walk around with him to point out areas of concern. I drove him down the easement to our house so i [sic]could point out drains and structures being used to divert huge amounts of water onto our parcel. When **** was on site, he told her that looking around any further than what had already been done was unnecessary. There are two issues with Lindas statement above. First, it would take far longer than a minute to accomplish what she is describing. Second, the core problem with ***** and this entire project was that she did not want our expertise. She wanted us to confirm her opinions and accusations. She felt the need to show **** what was going on with the property, when that is literally what she was hiring him to do: He was there to investigate conditions himself and assess them.  This is further illustrated in her statement that I called a [sic] discussed with him the specifics of what I needed- a written overview of the water trespass and recommendations for actions to gain access for more details. This was not what we agreed upon in the contract for project deliverables, nor anything we ever agreed to provide. In fact, it was articulated to her several times what we would actually be able to provide, and she agreed; We were to provide a site assessment, within the bounds of our professional expertise which was limited to a critical areas assessment and investigating visible drainage patterns. Based on what we observed in Lindas area of concern, no reasonable person, let alone a wetland professional could conclude that there was any evidence to support her accusations concerning the neighbor.
  

  Particularly distressing in Lindas complaint is the following: He cashed the check promptly and went on vacation. Later he was too busy (x 4 emails) to talk. He never responded until a month later after he said he was wrapping the "report". First off, we would love to take a vacation, but havent in the last seven years. We are a very small business,and we must work diligently to make a living.  Also, yes, we do cash checks promptly. There is nothing wrong with that. It was a deposit. We had already completed work on the project at that point, so yeswe wanted paid for our time. **** did not go on vacation following the site visit. He traveled to southern ****** alone without his family to complete a wetland delineation for placement of a cellular tower in ******** for ******** This was a longstanding project on our schedule as are many other projects are for us. We are currently booked out until next year.

  As far as being unresponsive to Lindas many emails, this was a small project for us and many hours of communication back and forth were not within the scope of work that we bid, nor were they necessary for us to complete the project. Her issues and demands were not within the scope of the project we bid. She seemed very much intent to have her own agenda validated and refused to accept the limitations of what we could do, and what we were hired to do, not to mention that many other experts would still be needed to look into this issue for her. In her own admission, ***** County Code Enforcement refused to do anything about her issue, and she blew through eight (8) attorneys so far. That says a lot!
  

  ***** sent us an email on July 11th, with the subject line WTF?. As an aside, this acronym with an implied expletive was frankly shocking and demoralizing for us to receive in communication with a client. She was concerned that the ********************************** the contract was passed by two days, which was irrelevant because she still hadnt paid the remainder of her deposit. Despite this, we were actively finishing our assessment and preparing to complete the project in the face of having heavy Covid delay issues this year with our schedule. We provided her a summary of the assessment via email as she seemed eager for information. We spoke on the phone to go over the email, and it was decided that I would reach out to a geohazards expert to lend their expertise to her issue, and she was going to request some documents from the county for us to review. Then out of the blue we were copied on an email (July 14) to her legal team and others working with her on this issue which disparaged our work and asserted that we had not reviewed the large quantity of documents that she had been sending us since May. These documents pertained to geohazard reports, which we had informed her several times were out of the scope of our expertise and she would need the input of a qualified geo person, but beyond that, the documents were reviewed as they contained some useful background information. Unfortunately, our assessment was ultimately not able to conclude that the neighbors were causing the issues, which we relayed to her, and we assume this prompted Lindas unexpected email on July 14. We got the distinct impression through the course of our interactions that she expected us to confirm her opinion of the water issue. We have professional standards to adhere to and were unable to find sufficient evidence to support her accusations, though at no time did we rule out the possibility but told her that additional experts would be needed to continue investigating the issue. Basically, our report would at least cover what the conditions are on site, what the estimated drainage basin is and a review of recent land use activities within the estimated drainage basin. This could be used to start pinpointing where the  potential focus area would be at. We did provide a thorough explanation via email before the project was cancelled. Specifically,her home lies within a large natural drainage area, downhill from other properties and that her driveway is helping to channelize flows directly towards her home. There also appears to be both a wetland and stream associated with her property that are located uphill from her home that also flow downhill towards the direction of her home.   
  

  The project was for a site evaluation with report and nothing more. The cost for this was $1,444.00, which equates to approximately 12 hours of our time dedicated to the project. This wasnt for a full blown assessment such as a Wetland Delineation costing $5,500 or more. ***** was made aware from the beginning that our area of expertise is limited to wetlands and streams, and that we would be conducting a site evaluation of how these features are distributed across her property and adjoining properties. Outside of that we were not authorized to go on other peoples property to investigate her claims. She will need to work through the legal process to get that accomplished. Ultimately, we wasted time and energy on responding to ***** and working on this project above and beyond the $700 she initially paid. After her July 14 email, we terminated our participation in the project based on Lindas own written words indicating thats what she wanted. We did not ask her to pay for the additional time we spend working on this projectmainly in hopes that she would cease harassing us.
  

  In the end, we dont think that she would have been happy with anything that we did if it didnt support her position. That was very obvious when she became aware of what our findings were going to be. The bottom lines is that she needs to come up with a road maintenance agreement with her neighbors to address stormwater runoff issues. She lives at the bottom of the slope between two hills that has upslope wetlands, streams/springs, rural residential development,and associated stormwater runoff. Her house is in the natural flow path for all hydrology within her specific drainage basin. A geo consultant already gave her some steps to take in order to address the runoff issues, but she said she didnt move forward with those recommendations due to costs associated. Her claims against us are unfair and could potentially damage our reputation. We are happy to provide any emails, contract, or invoices/receipts if requested.
  

  Thank you,
  

  **** and ******* Crater
  Crater Land Use Consulting

  Customer response

  08/19/2022

   
  Complaint: 17610508
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  
  What you have is the content I used to re-request BBB intervention.  I would appreciate the opportunity to rebut his response.  Mr **********************'s performance represents the possibility of grave economic consequences for people like us who ask for his consultation.  He is not licensed, nor bonded nor apparently currently certified in any subspecialty of ecology.  He operates his business on a *** and when I checked the *** in July the *** that came up was associated with a fishing boat--now corrected.  When I began talking to Mr. ********************** I explained that I have an attorney in ******* and I needed to get a scientific description of our property and the damage from the water diverted by our neighbors and their artesian spring suitable for admission to court.  I further explained that I wanted specific deliverables to address those needs.  I was very clear in what I wanted and he had ample time to say he could or couldn't accomplish them.  
  
  
  Extracted from the "Statement of Work" contract signed by ********************** and myself
  
  3. Proposed Services
  
  SITE EVALUATION
  Objective: Conduct a field study to determine existing conditions within the subject property in-regards an
  on-going drainage issue with a neighboring property. Site evaluation will include (when relevant to the
  overall concern) location of existing appurtenances and roadways, estimated critical areas, visible
  hydrology and drainage patterns, vegetation, soil conditions, and site terrain. Visual observations of off-site
  conditions will be noted in the field. Evaluation of findings will occur within the framework of readily available
  DATE CONTRACTOR CLIENT PROJECT
  
  May 22, 2022
  
  Crater Land Use Consulting
  477 *******************.
  *******, ** 98638
  **********************************
  ************
  
  ***********************
  *********************
  
  ***** County
  PARCEL: ************************************************************************************************ 98584
  
  May 22, 2022 *********************** ************** 2 | P a g e
  site data obtained from environmental and regulatory databases, historical information provided by the
  Client, and GIS analysis.
  Deliverables: One (1) Site Evaluation Report summarizing the findings of the field study, subsequent
  evaluation, and any recommendations for resolving the issue. One (1) Site Map including findings. Relevant
  photos taken during field study.
                                            This was the ********************** Land Use "Final" Report.... July 13th
  **** **********************
  Wed, Jul 13, 11:01 AM (1 day ago)  
   
  to me
   
  
  We are doing a Land Use Evaluation which is identifying potential critical areas such as wetlands and streams that could be sources for water runoff contributing to problems you are dealing with. This review is also looking at historical development patterns in the recent past that have 
  occurred within potential steam/wetland areas we have identified that could have impacted historical drainage patterns, which could have
   potentially caused increased runoff issues you are seeing. The one big unknown we are not able to address is any changes in how 
  underground water is moving through the area and how that has changed overtime. 
  
  At this point we did not anticipate doing another site visit as we were able to see enough to address what we are doing in the existing report.
   We are more than happy to do another site visit and walk the area with you, but there is an additional cost for that. We are more than happy
  to look at any geo-reports you have that you can send us, but we are not professionals in the field of geological hazard areas so what we can 
  do on this end is very limited. 
  
  I know you are frustrated by the water issue, but these types of things are never resolved fast and take time and effort by several experts to 
  evaluate what the actual problem is. From what we could see when we were on site is that there is a wetland with a stream located on either
  side of your access road that we looked at and that I looked at again on my way out. Below is a rough draft of our mapping work so far. The 
  red area is the estimated drainage area, the green areas are suspected wetlands with at least a Type N stream being associated with the wetland. The identified critical areas are located along the typical points at the top of slopes in glacier deposit areas where both groundwater and surface water come together. Changes in both development actions on land and changes in the underground water flow can impact how these areas function and sometimes can lead to unexpected changes surface water runoff.  
  
  Also, looking at the picture below (which shows lidar information) your house is located in a drainage area, so it can be expected that water 
  management can become an issue. I understand what you suspect the neighbor has done *** have caused this issue, but from what I could
  see on site...I couldn't see how that could be a major factor in the increase in the water you are seeing. This doesn't mean it isn't a problem 
  or isn't the case...its just without access to their property and being on site when the water is release makes it extremely hard to understand
   what is going on with that issue, which is why the county declined to do anything. 
  
   
  
  
  ************ **********************
  Principal Planner & Ecologist
  Crater Land Use Consulting
  ************
  www.craterluc.com
  
  
  NOTE:
  I see that we have two problems at this point.  We are outside the time frame described in the contract (1. Period of Performance) and the Principal Planner doesn't appreciate the problem.  I'm gratified that he would review geo reports if I send them but they were sent (seven reports and photos 5/16)to him mid May.(I have proof)  After multiple attempts to contact him he sends the July 13th memo and a lidar photo I sent him.(I also have proof)  
  Clearly Mr. ********************** doesn't want to admit that he did nothing. I hired him to evaluate water trespass or diverted artesian water not natural water flows.  We have lived here 22 years and until 2013 when our neighbors arrived we had the natural drainage under control  . The neighbors decided they wanted our waterfront and the water trespass began.
  
  In Sum:  Mr. ********************** was asked to provide documentation of anything that would indicate wetland damage to our property and in areas where access was obstructed by NO TRESPASS signs, provide with recommendations on what types of evaluation and methods would be required to assess further i.e. GPR ground penetrating radiation, etc. We needed a foundation document for our attorney - the clock was ticking and the  He apparently does his site work on line rather than on foot.  He did not venture to the water side (four tiers and beach) at all despite being told the most recent slide was in that area.  He took no pictures on what little walk around he did - behind our shop and the logging road behind our sign( again - not our property)  And, finally, he misquotes a hydrologist we used who happens to be his friend. **** says "A geo consultant (****** friend) already gave her some steps to take in order to address the runoff issues, but she said she didnt move forward with those recommendations due to costs associated.   Not true:  We were advised by an excavator with years of experience on ******** Island that the hydrologist's plan of action would not work so we went elsewhere.  **** should stay in his own lane.
  
  As I read ****** response it is clear he should never have set the contract between us.  He made no provisos about limited scope or background.  If he couldn't do what I needed he should have said so.  Not to admit his shortcomings makes this a fraud.  I guess the real question is WHEN did **** figure out he could not do what I asked for and expected?  Before or after he took my check.  He sent a snarly email I can't find at the moment where diagnosed this problem as a result of my ego.  That *** be true but I do what I say and stand behind my own actions.  Plus, I write my own reports in the first person.
  
  **************************; Col USAFR (ret), MSPH 
  

  
  

  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***********************

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩