Take the Local Produce Pledge

I found this reminder of how important it is to buy locally grown food on the New American Dream website. This month's Carbon Conscious Consumer (C3) pledge is "Buy 1 Pound of Locally Grown Food a Week." Why? "Because 'going local' is a small step that can lead to big change. Food in the U.S. typically travels 1500 miles and the transportation of conventional food generates five to 17 times more carbon emissions than food grown locally."

After reading the pledge, my first thought was that I wouldn't have to do anything different this week because we are already harvesting more than a pound per person from our garden. But, then I realized that since many of us are fortunate enough to be in this position, it's all the more reason to go beyond the "letter of the law" and embrace the spirit of the pledge. So, I am choosing to take additional steps to reduce food transportation miles and build a stronger local economy this month (and every month).

My pledge: To purchase an extra pound of [insert locally available food item here] at the Fitchburg Farmers' Market each Thursday. I will also connect with some local growers to obtain food each week throughout the winter or to stock up by preserving local foods ahead of time. (See the MACSAC website for info about sharing in the local harvest.)

If each Fitchburger (or Fitchburgian for my vegetarian friends) took the pledge, a mere one pound a week per person reduction in food shipped from California would total over 10 tons of food products each and every week that wouldn't be traveling cross-country!

Less traffic. Less noise. Less road maintenance. Less foreign oil. Less carbon emissions. More money recirculating in the local food/farm economy. More beautiful gardens. More friendships between growers and eaters. Pick your benefit.

Let's take our pies off the freeways and put them back into the sky where they belong!

I need your help. What changes could you make to replace one pound of food each week for each person in your household with locally grown food?

Determine True Costs of Development

Today, I emailed the following letter to District 4 Alders (Steve Arnold and Jay Allen):

As all city leaders know, the costs of residential and commercial development can not only be measured in dollars spent constructing the buildings, and the benefits are not only measured in increased tax revenues. Unfortunately, the process by which a development goes from ink and paper to wood and steel often sidesteps some necessary considerations to complete the full cost/benefit analysis.

A full cost/benefit analysis would factor in the long-term cost of city services as well as environmental, socio-economic, and traffic impact expenses. This analysis would be rigorous, comprehensive, specific to each development, and fully public. It would function as a standard tool to measure all new development proposals by, and it would take most of the guesswork out of the process.

Luckily, the University of Wisconsin-Madison Land Use Research Program has developed the framework of such a tool and has made it readily available to the people of Wisconsin. The “Community Guide to Development Impact Analysis” is available for download in PDF format at: http://www.pats.wisc.edu/abscomguide.htm

Every citizen and taxpayer deserves to have all the information necessary to form intelligent opinions about land use policies. I urge the Council to require this type of comprehensive analysis for the Northeast Neighborhood Plan and all new development proposals, and to resist pressure from developers to hasten the process. Land use decisions are too important and too complicated to continue to use the old, outdated methods of consideration.

Whose Agenda Is It?

At last night's Common Council meeting, Mayor Clauder suggested that if we don't like the fact that two alders can introduce an agenda item without the mayor's approval, perhaps we should change this for the next mayor. He clearly would like to see this duo-power removed.

On the flip side, an unnamed alder offered that we might also want to consider removing the power of the Mayor to introduce an agenda item on his/her own. Something tells me he had his tongue in his cheek at the time. But, I can't be sure because his speech wasn't affected by this difficult contortion.

Can you hear the hair bristling? Do you want to know the name of the alder? Sorry, but I need to give those of us who watched a bit of power in future Council Trivia games which I expect to see one of these days in the Fitchburg Star!

Personally, I think the agenda rules are fine. Being a mathematically minded person, I see it as: 2 alders = 1 mayor. Not a bad formula really.

But, wait. Could 50 residents = 2 alders = 1 mayor? Now, we're talking! Power to the people! I wasn't able to make this suggestion last night since I hadn't made a request to speak on the subject and besides, the meeting had already progressed past "Non-Agenda Items."

Maybe next time.

P.S.
I know many of you are new to Blogs. If you want to respond to a posting on this Blog, click on the word "Comments(#)" below any post and follow the instructions. You will be required to login with a Google Account (they are free and you can use your existing email address to create one) since we don't want (uncivil) anonymous entries. You will also be required to enter the letters you see on the "Word Verification" since that prevents spam comments. After your comments are approved, they will appear on the Blog.

If you'd like to become more involved and start a discussion on a new topic, send me an email (fitchburgvoices@gmail.com) and I'll explain the rules.

Professor DeWitt Critiques NEN Stormwater Plan

I provide my critique of the Stormwater Management Plan under a series of headings, as follows:

1. Failure to take the Watershed into Account. The Nine Springs Creek Watershed and the Swan Creek Watershed are smaller components of the Lake Waubesa Watershed. The Lake Waubesa Watershed, with a principal contribution to it by the City of Fitchburg, is the primary surface hydrologic feature of the “Northeast Neighborhood.” The very critical and far-reaching failure in the Stormwater Management Plan, as produced by the firm of Ruekert/Mielke Engineering firm of Milwaukee, is its total neglect and absence of any recognition of the Lake Waubesa Watershed within which the entire designated “Northeast Neighborhood” is located. A principal requirement of any watershed planning effort is that it must be accomplished within the context of the watershed in which it is located. The Ruekert/Mielke Stormwater Management Plan simply does not address this vital context within which any stormwater plan or study must be placed. It therefore does not evaluate in any appropriate manner the very topic of concern: run-off within the specific watershed of which it is a vital component. Put in other words, stormwater run-off is the run-off of stormwater, by definition. And the system within which and through which this water runs—the watershed—must be the central focus of any stormwater run-off plan or study. The Lake Waubesa Watershed, and Lake Waubesa itself, not only are neglected in this study, but the relationship of Lake Waubesa water quality in the context of this storm water runoff study is not addressed.

2. The Stormwater Management Plan is not a Plan. The document produced by Ruekert/Mielke defines itself as a set of “objectives.” While it is true that objectives clearly must be identified as a pre-requisite to the planning process and to the development of a stormwater plan, these objectives by themselves do not in any way constitute a plan. The report therefore does not live up to its name, and the document produced represents a failure in producing a plan of any sort whatsoever. On the contrary, the Ruekert/Mielke document leaves to site-by-site analysis the function of developing site-by-site plans. This is contrary to state-of-the-art land use planning. William B. Honachefsky, in his book, Ecologically Based Land Use Planning, writes for example, “Designers and developers should encourage the local governments to create storm water management authorities that encompass the entire watershed. Although watersheds may include any number of municipalities, the watershed approach is a more accurate and effective means of managing storm water runoff... Developers can contribute to the authority based on runoff quantities and avoid the expense of dealing with the storm water on a site-by-site basis.” Despite this more accurate and more effective means of managing storm water runoff, the “plan” of Ruekert/Mielke advocates a policy to deal with storm water on a site-by-site basis. The Ruekert/Mielke document therefore is not a plan, but objectives that address the pieces of the watershed without considering, or even recognizing, the watershed as a whole. This is a clear violation of the principles of contemporary land use planning and provides no material whatsoever that would allow development plans, or designation of an urban service area, to be enabled.

3. Failure to Use Modeling and Predictive Technology. The document produced by Ruekert/Mielke fails to make use of some principal analytical tools for evaluating runoff, including such techniques as or similar to the Rational Method, the Source Loading and Management Model (SLAMM), and the Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) as summarized for example by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/swm-ch8.pdf.

4. Failure to recognize and analyze specifically phosphorus loading. Phosphorus is the principal pollutant of concern to the watersheds of Swan Creek, Nine Springs Creek, and to the Lake Waubesa Watersheds. Yet this is very insufficiently recognized and insufficiently dealt with in the Ruekert/Mielke storm water study. It is critically important, and its being passed over lightly is a major deficiency in evaluating the impacts of extending the urban service district to include the “Northeast Neighborhood” and to moving in the direction of permitting residential development in this area and its special and vitally sensitive watersheds of Swan Creek, Nine Springs Creek and the Lake Waubesa Watershed of which they are intrinsically a part.

5. Failure to do the storm water study in the context of a water balance for the region and for the City of Fitchburg. While likely inclusion of a water budget of the region and city was not part of the mandate given Ruekert/Mielke, it is a serious oversight. It is an oversight similar to addressing withdrawals from a savings account (groundwater being the balance or bottom line) and only one of two major withdrawals being studied and considered. Large scale municipal wells are also a major means of export of water from the region and the City of Fitchburg and must be considered in sum. Moreover, these withdrawals must be part of a water budget that also includes “deposits”—recharged water to the system. The recharge is addressed in the Ruekert/Mielke report, but only in terms that indicate that deposits to the groundwater would be made one of the objectives of any proposed development. But this does not address the water budget and the water balance. Large withdrawals—by runoff and municipal well pumpage—will not be compensated by small deposits. The withdrawals and deposits must be kept in balance for the “bottom line” to remain sustainable—the “bottom line” being the level of the water table. Managing a savings account by only looking at one of two major kinds of withdrawals, and by only saying that deposits will be made but without saying whether these will match the total withdrawals, is poor accounting, and poor economics. More than that, it has immense consequences on the near and more distant future. Already it means that some spring flows have been substantially reduced. This will continue and expand to include additional spring flows that will degrade regional natural resources, and do this very substantially.

6. Failure to address Eutrophication of Lake Waubesa. A primary purpose for a stormwater runoff plan is to prevent downstream eutrophication from occurring as a consequence of urban development. This purpose is wholly neglected in the Ruekert/Mielke report, and yet is most vital to the City of Fitchburg and to the region in which it resides. Eutrophication of Lake Waubesa has occurred in the past, first with the outfall of treated sewage into it from the Nine Springs Sewage Treatment plant operated by MMSD—a problem solved by the diversion of this outfall through a by-pass aqueduct that re-routed the effluent to Badfish Creek, and second with the conversion of cottages on septic tanks to year-‘round homes on Lake Waubesa—a problem solved by building sanitary sewers in the floor of Lake Waubesa on the east and west and pumping effluent, once going to leaking septic systems, to the Nine Springs Sewage Plant. A third effort was the successful defeat of a proposal to build a waste-disposal landfill site on the westerns shore of Lake Waubesa by Costain of England that using “state of the art,” “best engineering practice” would have put 300 gallons of leachate into Lake Waubesa daily via groundwater inflow. Thus, the failure of the Ruekert/Mielke study to address eutrophication, particularly in the light of their generic recognition in their report of the negative impact of urban development on surface waters, puts their report into a highly doubtful status as supporting additional urban development.

These six are among the most major deficiencies and failures of the Ruekert/Mielke report, and are fully sufficient not to use it as a basis to approve extension of urban services or residential and business development in the “Northeast Neighborhood.”

Sincerely,

Calvin B. DeWitt
Professor
Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies

Member of the Graduate Faculties of
Land Resources
Water Resources Management
Conservation Biology and Sustainable Development, and
Limnology and Marine Science

Stormwater Management Must Exceed City Standards

To: Ruekert Mielke
From: Samuel Cooke, Fitchburg
Subject: Review of Ruekert Mielke Northeast Neighborhood Conceptual Storm Water Management Plan - Draft

I want to express my appreciation to City of Fitchburg staff and elected officials for commissioning the Ruekert Mielke May 2007 report, Northeast Neighborhood Conceptual Storm Water Management Plan – Draft. As stated in the Ruekert Mielke plan, the northeast corner of Fitchburg is in an area that has many important natural features that deserve protection and careful consideration. With Nine Springs Creek and E-way to the north, Lake Waubesa to the east, Swan Creek and Murphy Creek to the south I was especially interested in how the engineers and planners preparing this plan would conceptually address the stormwater management issues. As a sensitive area of Dane County, the Northeast Neighborhood is certainly unique to most parts of Fitchburg. Therefore, the stormwater management needs to be implemented with a higher level of care than most other parts of Fitchburg. Consistent with what the plan presented, the stormwater management standards, because of the location and proximity to the sensitive natural areas, needs to exceed the current City of Fitchburg standards. This is needed because we don’t just need to control and manage the stormwater but we also need to allow these sensitive areas to start recovering from the degradation that has already occurred from other developments and from modern agricultural methods. This recovery would be consistent with what an overwhelming majority of Fitchburg residents indicated when they completed a Fitchburg planning related survey a few years ago. The majority of Fitchburg residents placed protection of agricultural land and protection of natural resources as their top priorities, when it came to City planning issues. So, again I applaud the efforts to act responsibly and carry out the desire of an overwhelming majority of Fitchburg residents, by focusing on stormwater management issues. Here are my comments and questions, as well as a list of identified typos:

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Please add these to the plan)

1) Provide Guidelines for Separate Construction and Long-term Stormwater Management Controls - One of my main concerns is regarding the requirements that should be in place during construction at the site. It is at that time when there is the opportunity for the highest concentrations of sediment (total suspended solids) and, with it, the higher concentrations of the other pollutants of concern, to leave the site and damage the neighboring sensitive natural areas. As you know, stormwater management controls are typically installed for the long-term benefit of the development while often, during construction, large quantities of sediment and other pollutants (e.g., spilled diesel, trash, dead vegetation, etc.) are attempted to be temporarily treated/filtered/contained using sediment fencing, riprap, straw bales, erosion mats, filter socks and other means. But the stormwater management controls in place during construction often fail to treat/filter/contain the worst runoff. Over the past several years, during several high runoff rate storm events, I have witnessed stark examples of this type of failure. At two developments, that are direct neighbors to my two Lacy Road properties, the interim stormwater control measures tried to treat/filter/contain the runoff but failed because of the quantity of rain and the inability of the control methodologies to adequately treat/filter/contain the large flows of muddy runoff from the completely bare site. I stood there and watched as the rain poured, the mud flowed and the contractors/developers shrugged their shoulders. I know this is a widespread problem and the effective solution requires a concerted effort and partnership between the planners/designers, contractors, the City Department of Public Works and the City Building Inspection Department. But, because this is the planning stage of this project I propose that the following issues be included and handled separately in the final conceptual stormwater management report:

• Identify the stormwater management practices that conceptually will be implemented temporarily before or during the initial stages of the construction phase. The stormwater management practices should not only include the traditional methods of sediment fencing, riprap, straw bales, erosion mats and filter socks but should also include implementing either centralized or local detention basins and other controls. The centralized and/or local detention basins and other stormwater management controls should be implemented so that they are put in place prior to or at the same time as the initial site clearing and grading stages. These controls should be designed for the much higher peak sediment loads that would be expected from the initial and subsequent construction stages of any on-site development. The need for this is consistent with the Erosion Control text on Page 38 of the conceptual plan, but additional text describing this is needed.


• Identify the stormwater management practices that conceptually will be implemented for long-term management, post-development. This would, of course, likely utilize the same location and some of the same types of control as the first bullet but may require that the detention basin be excavated to a deeper depth, when it is installed at the start of the construction project, to handle the sediment that normally just flows off-site as part of the site clearing, grading and subsequent stages. It is my experience that, without detention basins and other controls in place at the start of a development, tons of sediment needlessly leave the site during construction and this site cannot afford to have that take place.

2) Provide Enhanced Stormwater Management Standards – Another concern is the level of treatment that is being recommended. I appreciate the fact that the plan states the importance of the sensitive natural areas that exist along three of the four borders. I also appreciate the fact that the plan exceeds the City of Fitchburg Standards for Infiltration (Residential), Infiltration (Non-Residential), Wetland Protection and Thermal Control. With the sensitivity of the areas surrounding the proposed development area, I agree that the normal City of Fitchburg Standards should be reviewed for this development and made to be more stringent. I agree with the more stringent recommendations that have already been recommended and would like to see all of them in the final plan. Consistent with what has been done already I believe the other standards should be raised as well, especially for Total Suspended Solids (TSS). I propose that the TSS reduction goal of 80% should be increased to 90% based on a 2-yr, 24-hr storm event. This is based on the proximity to the wetlands and Northern Pike fishery at the southern tip of Lake Waubesa. Sediment loading to these areas must be limited in an attempt to turn around the degradation that has already occurred. Along with that increase in the TSS reduction goal I recommend that the off-site soil loss limit of 7.5 tons per acre (Erosion Control Standard) annually should be decreased to 5 tons per acre annually. This could be accomplished through the consistent enforcement of construction erosion control practices, street cleaning and the use of added detention, auxiliary filtration and other techniques. In addition, during construction and post-development, specific treatment for phosphorus reduction is needed because of the possibility of eutrophication of Lake Waubesa, limited only by the potential phosphorus loading (perhaps this could be addressed through the more stringent TSS reduction goals but it should be shown that phosphorus is expected to be treated).

3) Specify a Stormwater Site Inspection and Enforcement Plan – With any standards there, of course, needs to be site inspection and enforcement during construction and post-development for the stormwater controls that are specified and installed. The City of Fitchburg already has strong Building Inspection and Stormwater Utility District Departments. However, with stormwater management standards that are more stringent than elsewhere in Fitchburg, a site inspection and enforcement plan, that provides for those changes, is critical to the implementation of this stormwater management plan. Particular attention needs to be made to enforcement during construction. Therefore, it would be of benefit to have a conceptual outline of what enforcement steps are needed to proper implement the conceptual stormwater management plan so that those who are assigned to inspect know the differences to expect between this site and the normal Fitchburg construction site.

4) Additional Information is Needed to Prepare an Effective Design - I agree with the plan’s recommendations that the following additional studies and reports should be prepared prior to, or as a part of, site specific stormwater management plan completion: Groundwater study (including storm water recharge, water quality and spring flow protection), Definition of environmental corridor issues (wetland delineation, cultural archeological resources and endangered species identification), Site specific investigations (type of soils, depth of bedrock, depth of groundwater, infiltration and recharge rates). Furthermore, I agree with the suggestion on Page 57 to further evaluate and update the existing Dane County groundwater model as part of an overall effort to improve the accuracy of groundwater related predictions. Ken Bradbury (Wisconsin Geologic and Natural History Survey) should be contracted to perform this much needed update.

5) Implement Dane County Water Quality Plan – I agree with the references to the fourth Framework Plan (Pages 9 and 10) when it says that Fitchburg should: “…enforce infiltration maximization measures to protect Nine Springs Creek base flow; vigorously enforce and expand comprehensive erosion control and stormwater management requirements beyond the minimum standards of the Dane County Ordinance to protect Nine Springs Creek from the adverse impacts of development; revise building ordinances to require roof drainage to grassed areas, where feasible, for new development.” This is another reason why Comment No. 2, above, is needed. Either in the conceptual or the more detailed, site specific stormwater management plan the other elements of the Dane County Water Quality Plan should be discussed and a commitment made to implement those measures.

6) Potential for Damage to the Sensitive Natural Areas Should Far Outweigh Stormwater Management Cost Issues – I ask that you read in the July/August 2007 edition of Stormwater magazine (The Journal for Surface Water Quality Professionals) the article on “Stormwater Management as Adaptation to Climate Change” (Page 50 in the magazine). In the first paragraph of that article, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is cited as saying that there will be: “…a 90% chance of increased frequency of heavy rainfall events, heat waves, and hot extremes in the 21st century.” The article goes on to say, in the second paragraph: “This news comes at a time when many fundamental aspects of infrastructure management are being questioned and appear to be changing radically and in ways that will aid adaptation to climate change.” With global climate change being so unpredictable, and the modeling for the stormwater management systems being based on 1981 precipitation data, I recommend that more controls be assumed to be needed than less controls. However, on page 28 of the conceptual stormwater management plan, at the top of the page, there is the sentence: “The [stormwater management] systems should be cost effective, meeting the objectives at the lowest practicable cost.” Although I appreciate the fact that the “lowest practicable cost” is an important part of a normal design I think that, with the sensitive areas surrounding this part of Fitchburg, finding the cheapest way to “meet the objectives” should not be the emphasis. I would recommend that the final stormwater management design should lean heavily toward the better and more flexible solutions rather than the lowest cost of the currently available alternatives. Please have the plan reflect the above general sentiments.

7) Establish Recharge Rates Based on 7.6 inches per year PLUS the Amount of Groundwater Extracted for Use – I know this would be a departure from the established recharge design criteria but I am suggesting that the development be made to be sustainable and compensate for not only the loss of pervious surface, due to development, but also compensate for the extraction of groundwater that come with having additional households, businesses, etc. The true and sustainable recharge should account for not only the water not making its way back into the aquifer(s) but also the amount of water extracted for use by those inhabiting and visiting the developed area.
8) Establish a Public Education Plan – The need for public education and public involvement is mentioned several times in the plan. I agree with this and know that it not only needs to be performed initially but also on a consistent basis. The people who inhabit the development 10 and 20 years from now will have just as much impact (or more) as the people who would inhabit the development the first year. A long-term public education plan needs to be laid out either by the City, as a separate document, or conceptually within this plan, as part of the Northeast Neighborhood development. What are the suggested ways of carrying out the public education component of the conceptual plan?

Why Flood Housing Market, Destroy Farmland & More?

To: Ruekert-Meilke

From: Pat W., Town of Dunn

Please file this in the public comments on the Fitchburg Northeast Neighborhood development.

I live just east of the proposed development and have attended two of the public information sessions. I can't say that I am encouraged by what I have seen. From a very basic standpoint, why in the world would anybody propose to build over 1,400 new homes in a housing market that is in serious decline and by all reasonable accounts, is likely to stay in decline for a long time, if not permanently? The housing market in Dane County is very much overbuilt right now and flooding the market with this many new homes is not a responsible action for the city to take. It is also not a reasonable action for any developer to take. Nobody will gain from such an action, except the developer, and any area residents trying to sell a home will be negatively affected for a long time.

Regarding roads and traffic, I spoke at length with a member of the city council and one of the Ruekert-Mielke associates at the last session. I was amazed at how little understanding they had of basic traffic engineering and how this development would impact existing residents. That, or they simply didn't care. Several very basic questions I asked (pedestrian/bike traffic, rush hour flow/through traffic from Town of Dunn) were met with a shrug of the shoulders or something like, "Well, we'll have to address that in the future." No, traffic and roads need to be addressed before one more dollar is spent in planning. This time, by competent and knowledgeable people and presented by the same.

Another thing that struck me was how, in this age of supposed awareness of sustainability and lessened environmental impact, how the Northeast Neighborhood is just another gigantic, suburban development, with no regard whatsoever for the land or surrounding area. Stormwater runoff into the wetlands, obscene amounts of fresh water being taken from an aquifer in decline, a stated danger to polluting the Nevin Fish Hatchery and most of all, an automobile based lifestyle that depends on fossil fuel and asphalt.

Finally, I can't understand why there is such a push to destroy what little farmland and true greenspace Fitchburg has left. I lived in Fitchburg for nearly 12 years, but moved a few miles east five years ago to Dunn simply because I couldn't believe how little regard the city had for farmland and open space. Now, this monster is being proposed right up on the Dunn line, literally across the road from several nationally recognized prairie and wetland restorations and a world class lake. A true wildlife refuge for sandhill cranes would be paved over. One of your session displays had the audacity to say something like, "We will preserve the rural character of Larsen Road." If rural character includes 1,400+ homes within sight of what is left of the greenspace, somebody needs to check the definition of rural character.

Again, all I am able to gather from what I have seen, is a complete lack of understanding of how this development will affect anything other than Fitchburg's immediate tax base. And how it will make one developer very rich.

It's time to put a stop to the Northeast Neighborhood. Please, give yourself a reality check before this goes any further.

Out-Dated Plan Not in Community's Best Interest

Submitted by Mel “Butch” Powell, Town of Blooming Grove

Please consider the following points of concern relating to the Final Draft of the Ruekert-Mielke Northeast Neighborhood Plan.

Introduction

The Swan Creek Resource Area, designated by the City of Fitchburg as the Northeast Neighborhood, is a system of distinctive natural, social, and cultural features. Likewise, the proposed Neighborhood Plan is a system of components that involve “natural” (storm water management and residential water delivery), social, and cultural features.

In considering the RM plan, one must keep in mind that the proposed system is radically different from the current system and the RM plan would be imposed on the area in a relatively short period of time. Hence, the current functional balance between human and ecological components would be severely impacted and replaced by a new and unpredictable relationship of human-to-earth.

Thus, any new plan for land use in the Swan Creek Resource Areas should include as a primary consideration, the impact on the plan to the functional aspects of the current land use of the Area.

It is imperative to recognize that the functional aspects of the Swan Creek Resource Area extend beyond the City of Fitchburg’s political boundaries and potentially adversely effect nearby State and County parks, sensitive wetlands which are already impacted by municipal well pumping (Nine-Springs E-Way), property along the shores of Lake Waubesa, and the extensive preserved lands in the Town of Dunn.

1. Environmental Impact

The plan makes little mention of the importance of Swan Creek to the Waubesa Wetlands and the Lake, although it does recognize it as a significant natural feature.

The plan emphasizes the E-Way and Nine Springs Creek is in need of protection, however it does not recognize that Nine Springs Creek is classified as impacted while Swan Creek is classed as less effect by development, at this point in time. Hence, more attention should be given to the sensitive nature and significance of Swan Creek.

The RM plan indicates that development in the plan’s region of analysis would most likely need additional municipal well ( s) to service the area. An additional well is indicated as likely to be placed on West Clayton Road, on the edge of the Nine-Spring E-Way and just outside of the “Northeast Neighborhood” area. No mention is made of the previous degradation of the springs in this area due to municipal pumping. This omission does not sufficiently indicate the impact that development of the scale indicated in the plan will have on the wetlands associated with the E-Way.

There is a significant area of Cluster Residential Housing south of Goodland Park Road and on the rim of the steep banks of Swan Creek. This is, at the very least, reckless. Not only would the construction of cluster homes impact the Creek, but permanent human settlement and its associated activity would severely impact the Creek.

Land is recognized as a resource and not a commodity by the plan (see p 19). This is a positive aspect of the plan because it recognizes the obligation to account for and recognize the environmental service and functionality to the surrounding region entailed in the current land use pattern. The plan does not sufficiently address the consequence to the region of losing this resource if the plan is implemented.

2. Planning Principles underlying the Plan and Map

This plan places the existing land use plan (1995) and the FUDA study of 2003 (Appendix H of the 1995 plan) as the basic conceptual justification for developing the area. See page 4: it portrays this plan as being a contiguous extension of an existing development plan—Green Tech, which is not actually existent.

Note that two other FUDA’s were also identified in the FUDA study. The implementation of the plan should recognize the relative merits of implementing this plan, in this FUDA as compared to the other designated FUDA areas.

This plan under-represents the planning principles that the Committee of the Whole set out during their Nov. 15, 2006 meeting which were designed to give guidance to the Plan Commission in their consideration of future land use in the Swan Creek Resource Area.

The RM plan under-represents the extensive revision of the 1995 Plan as the mandated Comprehensive Plan is created. It appears to justify intensive urbanization of a sensitive area by reference to an out-dated plan that is under revision. These mandated revisions, to be done encompassing Smart Growth principles, testify to the recognition that current and projected economic conditions, resource scarcity, and the need to promote sustainable community development, all make land use policy based on the old 1995 Plan highly likely not to be in the community’s best interests.

High density and medium density housing are positioned so as to minimize the impact on Larsen Road, but the Nora Lane extension (to give the citizens of the Town of Dunn access to the “exciting places” to be created in the Mixed Use area) and the Meadowveiw Road extension contradict the efforts to buffer the border with the Town of Dunn.

3. Socio-cultural and Economic impact

The plan seems to over-estimate the market demand created by the non-existent Green Tech Village. It fails to specify what type of economic activities would support the residential areas. The term “Employment Hub” is too vague to be helpful in assessing the viability of the plan as a blueprint for a functional neighborhood.

The plan makes little mention of affordable housing accommodation except what is implied in the high-density area.

The study recognizes that there will be significant impact on the Oregon School district, yet does not indicate how this impact will be addressed by the Oregon School district. Hence, a major stakeholder in the plan is left unrepresented.

The plan seems to eradicate agriculture from the entire area and replace the economic activities with something like Hatchery Hill and a vague “employment hub.” No discussion in the plan is given to the relative merits/demerits of not retaining more of the working farmland or the possible advantage to Fitchburg’s economy to supporting small scale, sustainable agricultural production of fresh produce for local markets.

Over-all pattern does put new residents in close proximity to parks/possible garden areas and seems to create the potential for walkable neighborhood, however, the area is not really tied to any realistic economic development other than its proximity to Green Tech. There are significant barriers to pedestrian and bicycles transportation between the Green Tech area and the Northeast Area. An opportunity to truly erode the dependency on individual automobile travel is lost by not mitigating this barrier to non-auto travel.

4. Transportation

The plan is contingent on the new interchange, a significant impediment

The plan mentions the possibility of integrating the area with extended bus service, bicycle paths, and regional rail as an option for decreasing auto travel, yet seems to be based on the assumption that auto commuting will continue to be the norm. Bus stops and passage through the US HWY 14 barrier to east/west travel are missing from this plan.

5. Sewers

The plan admits the need for approval with Madison Metropolitan Sewer District to see if they can/are willing to accommodate the new flowage. It seems that little or no consultation has been done on this. This, like the lack of information on impact to the Oregon School District, leaves input from a major stakeholder out of the plan.

Too Many Unknowns in NEN Plan

My name is Phyllis Hasbrouck, and I’m the chair of the West Waubesa Preservation Coalition. We are in favor of preserving farmland, preserving and improving the quality of Lake Waubesa, its wetlands and tributary streams, of creating a dense city core near Fitchburg’s City Hall, promoting the use of trains and buses instead of cars, and of helping farmers stay on the land, make a decent living, and find another farmer to sell their farm to if they want to retire.

We are not in favor of development that proceeds without any assurance that the land and waters nearby won’t be harmed. This neighborhood plan and map, and this conceptual storm water plan, for the Northeast Neighborhood, give no such assurances. Dr. Cal DeWitt, professor of environmental sciences at the Gaylord Nelson Institute of the UW Madison, says that this development could damage the lake in several ways, including:

- runoff polluted by gasoline, anti-freeze, lawn pesticides, etc. damaging the plant and animal life downstream, including the Northern Pike hatchery in Swan Creek;

- floodwaters from all the impervious surfaces causing erosion and silting of Lake Waubesa, which is only 33 ft. deep (if it gets too shallow, wetland plants can take hold and turn the southern end into a wetland.);

- phosphorus from manicured lawns washing downstream and contribute to eutrophication of Lake Waubesa, which means it would become a big stinking mess of algae, with all other life destroyed;

- the water necessary for 1432 residences and 103 acres of commercial establishments robbing the Waubesa wetlands and the southern half of Lake Waubesa of water, which would also encourage eutrophication;

Given all these unknowns, it would be irresponsible for the city of Fitchburg to approve this or any other development near bodies of water or wetlands. Instead of committing $8 million to a highway interchange to open up this far corner of Fitchburg, they should spend a much smaller amount on the studies that would show them where and how to develop responsibly.

We urge the citizens of Fitchburg to learn more about this costly and unnecessary development, and to tell their leaders that they expect them to be better stewards of our land, water, and money! People can visit our website at www.westwaubesa.org. Thank you.

Phyllis Hasbrouck, Town of Dunn

NE Neighborhood "Plan" is Flawed

Submitted by Terry Carpenter, Fitchburg

The new Ruekert-Mielke Neighborhood Plan for the Northeast Neighborhood (NEN) is flawed in many ways including its name. A “plan” should create a vision of what you want to see happen, not just assume that trends of the past will continue to be the trends of the future, and then figure how to accommodate those trends.

As one example, take this quote from page 11 of the plan:

“The convenience of US Highway 14 will only be enhanced with the addition of the planned interchange at the western edge of the neighborhood, increasing the appeal of the area as a residential location for workers who are employed elsewhere in the Madison metropolitan area.”

Is it the job of the city of Fitchburg to encourage more automobile traffic at a time when global climate change is running amok? Half the country is suffering a drought. The West is experiencing triple digit temperatures. Tropical diseases like West Nile Virus are spreading northwards. And Ruekert-Mielke is enthused about creating a new, car-centered development on farmland. This doesn’t make sense.

Yes, an interchange would make driving from the NEN more convenient, which is precisely why the city should be discouraging it and encouraging mass transit instead. What if they took the $8 million that they’d have to spend on that interchange and put it into rail, buses, bike paths or other more efficient transit? I realize that the interchange is planned as part of Greentech Village but I don’t see how adding an interchange contributes to the green in Greentech. Bikes, rail and other mass transit are green -- highways are not. So, if this interchange can be avoided, it should be. And then where does that leave the Northeast Neighborhood with all that traffic on MM and the now quiet country roads to the east.

I hope Fitchburg's city government will wake up to its responsibility to make changes that will slow global warming before it’s too late. We are responsible for what we leave our children and grandchildren. And we need to start now on crucial and authentic planning that takes new realities into account.

There are many reasons not to develop according to the typical residential/office/retail plan created by Ruekert-Mielke. There are several other options for this land that:

• bring needed education and implementation of local food systems into the area;
• improve runoff problems by restoring and buffering degraded wetlands identified by a UW class study in 2006;
• and promote small-scale farming so that Fitchburg’s future includes a major farming component.

Fitchburg doesn’t need leapfrog development or more houses miles away from its city core. The 2007 Business and Community Guide lists only 4 businesses under Agriculture. While a few additional farms aren’t listed, there is a shortage of locally grown food. The "highest and best use" of this land is a combination of small-scale agriculture, wetlands and parks (or other low impact use) that blends with its surroundings and not only protects but also improves the quality of water, and therefore life, in the entire area.

Conceptual Stormwater Study Insufficient

Comments submitted to Ruekert Mielke
By Rosanne Lindsay, Fitchburg

The city of Fitchburg recently received a Draft Conceptual Storm Water Study which, if approved, would attempt to mitigate runoff pollution from a proposed development in the Northeast Neighborhood. I reviewed this draft Stormwater study using current statutes and recent published studies to determine whether it could be implemented to protect the natural resources and the public health.

Additional Studies Recommended

The authors of this plan state,“The Northeast Neighborhood planning area and surrounding properties have significant natural resource features that require protection.” They further recommend additional studies prior to development which “would include a more detailed evaluation of how the proposed development would affect the groundwater system, including storm water recharge, water quality and spring flow protection.”

To the authors’ credit, the plan area is indeed situated near a natural treasure in Dane County. The area is home to woodlands, wetlands, hydric soils (historic wetlands), Big Fen, Murphy and Swan Creeks, Deep Spring, and Lake Waubesa. Thus, I encourage the city to await results from several ongoing studies that will evaluate many of the stated concerns.

Spring flow protection is relevant because Deep Spring helps freshen the lower two-thirds of Lake Waubesa, and depends on adequate groundwater flow and recharge. Wisconsin has taken steps to protect springs under (2003 WI Act 310, p.2); and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is now charged with evaluating whether groundwater pumping by new high-capacity wells will impact these springs.

A groundwater study should also be conducted. In Dane County, large water withdrawals from the aquifer and the diversion of about 50 million gallons per day to Badfish Creek results in a net deficit to our aquifer. Waukesha, New Berlin, and Green Bay are examples of cities that have depleted their clean groundwater and will spend tens of millions of dollars to clean the contaminated water that’s left or find a new source.

Water levels in the region have dropped enough that the computer model used to calculate the impacts of new wells on the aquifer and surface water in Dane County will need to be updated before future decisions on groundwater use are made, according the model’s author, hydrologist Ken Bradbury.

Additional research, including a graphic model of key hydrologic interactions of the study area, is also being conducted by UW scientist and world renowned wetlands expert, Professor Cal DeWitt.

No Implementation Plan

According to the authors, the purpose of this stormwater plan is “to provide directions and standards” to reduce runoff pollution resulting from development, avoid the creation of future problems, and protect natural resources, using seven goals. However, the plan also states that “no recommendations on how or where storm water management measures will be implemented are included as part of this report.”

A plan based on “goals” without specifying enforceable measures to meet those goals cannot ensure that pubic health and natural resources in the area will be protected.

For example, the goal to “preserve and reproduce existing hydrologic conditions,” by itself, represents a major challenge to the city. In simple terms, the “hydrology” of a watershed is dependent on two main criteria: adequate surface flow which feeds both spring flow and the lake, and adequate infiltration for groundwater recharge. Changing either criteria, even by small amounts, can alter existing hydrology. So the real question becomes can infiltration and groundwater recharge be preserved?

Inadequate Measures for Groundwater Recharge

The 2005 Dane County Water Body Classification Study showed that even low levels of development upland from a watershed will impact and often degrade the hydrology and predictability of the water system. In fact, the County recently revised its stormwater ordinance (Ch 14) to replace caps on maximum land area required for infiltration. New language aims to maintain pre-development groundwater recharge through new design practices and flexibility to the developer.

However, groundwater recharge rates are highly difficult to measure directly or to estimate accurately, and vary with geologic conditions, land use, soil class, and changes in precipitation. Without a specific site evaluation, it would be hard to determine what standards are needed to protect or improve upon the water quality, groundwater supply, or flood protection for this area. Neither the State Code (NR 151) nor County standards are “resource based” (watershed specific).

Moreover, would existing models allow developers the flexibility to develop new approaches to improve infiltration at the site when specific site data is lacking? This question further demonstrates the need to wait for site-specific research.

Finally, this study makes no requirements for testing, monitoring, inventorying, or reporting infiltration amounts. There are no funding resources at the County to capture and maintain these inventories and there are limited resources at the city level. How will the city verify that any implementation of stormwater controls meets the original goal?

Pollution Standards Lacking

According to a 2002 EPA Water report, pollution from runoff during and after rainfalls is now the single largest cause of water pollution. A 2006 EPA Report shows 40% of streams to be in poor condition due to increased sediments. This suggests current protections under the State and County Stormwater Management Standards do not necessarily guarantee the protection of public health and safety or the natural resources in the plan area.

Conceptual Study Insufficient

This study is only a concept. Each goal that might be implemented omits an objective assessment of efficacy. It is impossible to evaluate what the outcome might be with respect to probable percent reduction in stormwater runoff and erosion, even if all of the suggested measures were employed in response to development in the Northeast Neighborhood Plan area. Therefore, the city should not use this study as a means to approve any neighborhood development plan, any growth boundary, or any extension of urban services.

Recently, a newly formed regional planning body was created by Governor Doyle. The Capital Area Regional Planning Commission (CARPC), charged with planning growth and protecting the county's water resources, should be able to further study this issue and the aforementioned ongoing studies to determine whether this plan, and others submitted, merits extension of Urban Services to develop the environmentally sensitive Northeast corner of Fitchburg.

A version of these comments was published in the June 28, 2007 issue of the Fitchburg Star.

Additional comments:

1) The level of protection specified under Stormwater Management Standards (Appendix A), does not guarantee the protection of public health and safety. One need only look to the best management practices (BMPs) used in Waukesha (the home site of Ruekert Mielke), to see that the public health protection is not guaranteed. Radium levels in drinking-water, there, remain over federal drinking water standards.

2) Where are the study elements for protecting Wetlands? This study merely pays lip service to the wetlands located to the south (Waubesa) and north (Nine Springs) but does nothing to ensure their protection. Any real stormwater plan must include the protection of the wetlands as part of the special, natural, integral features of this area. (See p. 41of Dane County Water Body Classification Study):

“- Since wetlands are degraded by the same processes that affect streams and lakes and greatly contribute to their overall health and well-being, they too should be afforded the same level of protection and emphasis.
- Even wetlands smaller than 2 acres play important roles, individually and cumulatively. Protection should be based on field delineation, working around these areas or incorporating them into the design.
- Prior-converted wetlands and others that have been ditched or drained should be restored and enhanced.”

3) Further studies related to development in the NEN should be conducted including:

- A groundwater (hydro-geologic) study of the aquifer in the NEN showing the effects of development from increased well pumping.

- Cost of Community Services Study related to costs of development (i.e, water, sewer, and new roads and interchanges), that are passed on to the community. Virtually all of these cost studies show that residential land is a net drain on local government budgets and that it brings costs to the community that are not fully borne by the new residents but are instead distributed throughout the community. Findings show that for every dollar collected in taxes and non-tax revenue, between $1.15 and $1.50 must be spent in the form of local government services. (see study from the Town of Holland in La Crosse, WI: http://www.co.la-crosse.wi.us/TownOfHolland/Docs/COCSreport.pdf

and this study from the towns of Dunn, Perry and Westport http://www.pats.wisc.edu/abscost.htm).

In fact, proponents of farmland and open space preservation now have an important economic argument on their side.

- Transportation Study showing the impacts of traffic flow and increases in traffic and pollution to the area.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit my comments.