What happened at the Fitchburg Common Council meeting on Feb. 26, and what it means

The Common Council approved the resolution to create an application for an Urban Service Area Amendment for the Northeast Neighborhood, but our fight isn't over yet! Click here to read more.

The Missing Aquitard: A short explanation of why you shouldn't drill deep wells near the Yahara chain of lakes by UW Madison Professor Cal DeWitt

Here is an illustration from Wisconsin Geological Survey's Ken Bradbury that shows that he knows the situation with the Eau Claire formation:

You can access this from:
http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/partnerships/programs/docs/bradbury_slideshow.pdf

The whole presentation is worthwhile to read, but the illustration above (from page 5 of this report) is a good summary.

A few things to observe here:

1. A the base of the diagram is "Recambrian crystalline rock" -- note that it steadily rises from the west to the east; this rise in Precambrian bedrock is part of the Wisconsin Arch.  The "Mount Simon aquifer" was formed largely by sand deposition by an ancient sea over this arch. 

2. The "Eau Claire aquitard" (also call the  Eau Claire "Confining unit" was deposited next by the ancient sea, but as the sea got shallower from west to east, the deposition of silt gradually changed to the deposition of sand as the sea reached the beach (the deeper quiet waters allow deposition of silt, which later becomes the "Eau Claire shale" but the shallow more turbulent shallow waters in the foreshore and shore areas deposit sand which later becomes sandstone.

3. The Eau Claire formation thus becomes thinner and thinner from west to east, even as it changes from having much silt (which forms the shale) to having less and less silt and more and more sand (which forms the sandstone).

4. As this thinning progresses from west to east, and as this shift from silt to sand occurs as the sea water becomes shallower to the west toward the shore, the quality of the Eau Claire formation as an aquitard (confining unit) becomes less and less.

5. Upshore from the water the Eau Claire formation disappears altogether.

6. This diminishing and disappearance of the Eau Claire formation is strongly accentuated by the ancient bedrock valley that cuts below the Eau Claire formation as it progresses from north to south---a valley that now contains the Yahara chain of lakes and glacial till deposits---a classic "buried bedrock valley."

The recent work of Wasinee Aswasereelert adds vital information to all of this, and has been published not only as her Master's dissertation in Geology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, but also published as a refereed paper at:   http://wisconsingeologicalsurvey.org/pdfs/geoscipdf/1_GS19.pdf

NE Neighborhood Land Use Committee

Notes from the Committee Meeting on 5-20-08

By Phyllis Hasbrouck

Present at the table: Alder Steve Arnold (Chair), Alder Andy Potts, Alder Jay Allen, Alder Bill Horns, Samuel Cooke (RCC Chair), Tom Hovel (Senior Planner), Randy Christianson (with Sveum Enterprises). Present around the edge of the room: about 18 consultants, neighbors, and observers.

I won't report everything, just some highlights and lowlights.

Frog and Toad Need More Space!

At the last meeting, developer Phil Sveum said that a 75 ft. buffer would be enough for the restored wetland, not the 300 ft. buffer that the city had proposed. He was answered today by Professor Joy Zedler (UW Madison) who spoke about the need for very wide buffer zones around streams and wetlands to protect amphibians and reptiles. She cited the work of Dr. Ray Semlitsch, who found (using transmitters) that amphibians travel 125.3 meters (370 ft.), from wetlands to terrestrial habitat.

Dr. Semlitsch suggested an aquatic buffer zone of up to 30 - 60 meters, then the core habitat at a width of 142 - 289 meters, and then a terrestrial buffer of 50 meters, for a total of somewhere between 222 meters and 399 meters (728 feet and 1309 feet).

Dr. Zedler also spoke of how buffers help protect wetlands from the negative effects of stormwater runoff, which are: excess water, excess nutrients, and excess sediment. At the Arboretum, Dr. Zedler's team has shown how tubs planted with 14 native species are filled with nothing but Reed Canary Grass (a highly invasive, non-native species) in just one season when exposed to these effects.

She displayed a map that showed how huge portions of the E-way and other Dane County wetlands were completely overrun with Reed Canary Grass and cattails, another invasive species.

Which Will Prevail: Parks or Subdivisions?

Then there was the whole curious matter of the clash between the Sveum plan and the Parks and Open Space Plan. Randy Christianson said that Sveum Enterprises had adjusted their plan to accommodate environmental corridors, and Anne Marie Kirsch (of Montgomery Associates, hired by Sveum Enterprises to do their water studies) showed a composite slide which I found confusing because, although I believe it was intended to reconcile the parks plan with the street plan, it didn't seem to show all of the proposed Parks Dept. areas on it. Jim Schreiber, a consultant for Sveum Enterprises, also showed a slide of the changes they had made to accommodate wildlife: I found them underwhelming.

Ed Bartell, City Forester, from the Fitchburg Parks & Forestry Department, showed a revised map of what they would like to have as parks and open space in the NE Neighborhood (NEN), and frankly, it doesn't leave a lot of room for houses! Bartell wants to have an assessment done on the tree line (~100 ft. wide) that goes north from Goodland Park Rd to the forest at the top of the hill. He said it may be a corridor for wildlife and may contain remnants of oak savanna.

They also want to preserve a diagonal band of recharge area in the northwestern part of Sveum's land, and to investigate if there is an Indian trail west of the tree line, as historical documents indicate.

Parks revised their map because at the last NEN Land Use Committee meeting on April 29, Jeff Kraemer of Natural Resources Consulting (hired by either Sveum Enterprises or Montgomery Associates) said that the soil tests that he had conducted showed that much of what the USDA maps listed as hydric soils (wetland soils) were not hydric at all. So Parks gave up trying to save them.

But a funny thing came to light at this meeting: Resource Conservation Committee Chair, Samuel Cooke, had shown the data to a soil scientist, and the scientist maintained that Kraemer was not accurately portraying the data. For example, Kraemer cited pit #14, located in "Lake Larsen" (the degraded wetland that held about 15 acres of open water this spring) as a site which had hydric soil. About a quarter mile west was pit #17, which he said was not hydric.

Cooke asked how Kraemer could be sure where the boundary was between hydric and non-hydric soils, using only two reference points. Kraemer replied that he had not mapped the hydric soils, but then expressed his opinion that they only existed in one area and not another, something that was not proven by his data.

I've noticed that it is very hard to pin consultants down. They are very smooth talkers and rarely (if ever) say, "I don't know," or "I see your point," or "I guess you're right about that." Instead, I hear things like "We are addressing those issues," or "It's very early to have that level of detail, we'll address that later," or "We are seeking to achieve a balance." So, Samuel Cooke deserves a lot of credit for following up and restating that the data did not reflect what Kraemer was saying.

Can Amphibians Read?

Jeff Kraemer also explained that the largest wetland buffer demanded by law in Wisconsin is 300 ft., for the Butler Gartersnake. But he said that it doesn't really have to be 300 ft. all around: it can be less in some places, as long as the total acreage in the buffer is equal to what it would have been had it been evenly laid out.

So, by extension, he felt it was all right if the western buffer of the "Lake Larsen" restored wetland were only 75 ft., because there would be ample open space to the north and the south. I wonder if they put up little signs in frog and toad language, reading "Go North or South and you'll find all the habitat you want. Don't try to cross this bike path 'cause you'll get crushed." And I wonder how well those signs work.

Eau Claire Shale and Infiltration

The question came up of whether or not the Eau Claire Shale Formation (an aquitard layer separating the upper and lower aquifers) exists under the Northeast Neighborhood. This was the subject of Dr. Cal DeWitt's presentation to the Common Council on Jan. 15, 2008. No one expressed any criticisms of Dr. DeWitt's logic or data, yet Rob Montgomery expressed his own belief that the shale does in fact exist here, and no one countered him.

Anne Marie Kirsch's explanation of the infiltration system, for the proposed Sveum development, didn't convince me of its short or long term effectiveness. She explained that the outlot raingardens (not necessarily on each block, as I thought I had heard before, but totaling five acres) would be maintained by the Neighborhood Association, and might have to be rehabbed in 10 years. If the raingardens stop working, and the Neighborhood Association stops functioning, will anyone care enough to rehab them? And how will that affect the wetlands, the groundwater, and Lake Waubesa?

She also said that the whole infiltration system wouldn't fully work until the upstream is stabilized, i.e. "some of the houses are built." (Why not all of the houses?) She explained that sediment running off a construction site could clog the system. This shocked me, because I know that the county has a stormwater ordinance that controls sediment runoff from construction sites very strictly. It's not supposed to happen.

Anyway, Kirsch conceded that the downhill retention ponds "may be a bit taxed at first." If the system doesn't work until the whole project is done, how much damage will have been done by the time the work is finished? Will there have been enough sediment, water and nutrients for Reed Canary Grass to completely take over the newly restored wetland.

If you care about how development decisions are made, you need to get involved. Please contact all of the Alders on the NEN Committee (Arnold, Allen, Potts and Horns) and tell them that you want decisions made for the good of the environment and the taxpayers. Developers perform a necessary function, but their monetary interests should not come before those of the city, the taxpayers, or the environment. If citizens don't call the alders, the only voices they hear are developers and their consultants!

Contact info for Alders can be found at http://www.city.fitchburg.wi.us/common_council/index.php

Dr. DeWitt's Presentation Posted

As a follow-up to a previous blog, the city has posted Dr. Cal DeWitt's presentation on their website here.

The slide below is my favorite showing the various layers of bedrock deposits in Dane County (top left is north). The two darkest layers are the thickest areas of the Eau Claire formation which comprise the best aquitard separating our upper and lower aquifers. As you can see, much of the county does not benefit from this layer of shale.

Wake Up Dane County!

Last Tuesday night the room was packed for Dr. Cal DeWitt's remarkable presentation which was entertaining, important, and memorable! If you missed it, you might catch the replay on FACTv.

I'm sorry Channel 15 news was unable to record the unveiling of Dr. DeWitt's latest research during his second presentation to the Plan Commission, which unfortunately was delayed for an hour in order to accommodate people there for other agenda items.

Eau Claire Aquitard and Buried Bedrock Valleys

During his presentation, Dr. DeWitt shared his remarkable and eye-opening discoveries, involving over 700 hours of research since his September 2007 presentation to the Plan Commission. He unearthed to the public, the secrets of the hidden bedrock valleys which lay beneath the surface of Fitchburg. The bedrock was created in layers by various sea deposits over millions of years including a series of deposits from the ancient "Eau Claire Sea."

These deposits of mud, silt, and sand form the Eau Claire Formation and it is the shale in this formation that forms a barrier (aquitard) that separates the upper and lower aquifers. Valleys, cutting through this bedrock, make it look much like the rugged, exposed topography of the driftless area to our west. And the Nine Springs bedrock valley cuts completely through the Eau Claire Formation. After these incisions, however, the valleys around here were filled in by the glacier (which also created a fantastic chain of lakes) and they now lie silently below us.

Through research of previous core samples taken from wells, Dr. DeWitt demonstrated that the aquitard is slowly reduced in thickness from Southwest to Northeast Fitchburg, where it thins as it approaches Lake Waubesa and then disappears completely. This results in a joining of upper and lower aquitards, making them one.

In Northeast Fitchburg, east to west along the 9 Springs E-way, and in much of Madison and Sun Prairie, there is a joining of upper and lower aquifers, and this may more fully explain the reason for Madison's many water quality/contamination problems.

Caution is Urged

Dr. DeWitt strongly urged against drilling any new wells in or near areas where the aquitard is lacking and suggested that Fitchburg steward the land by "sleuthing" the science (hydrology, geology, hydrogeology, limnology) of the area carefully in future planning.

He warned against relying on current groundwater models, when considering new development (such as the Northeast Neighborhood). While these models are helpful for many areas where bedrock is fairly uniform, they do not account for the cutting through of the Eau Claire aquitard by the Nine Springs Bedrock Valley or the thinning of the Eau Claire Shale to zero in the northeast.

Other models being used for runoff similarly must be used wisely; and their current use does not adequately address phosphorus loading inputs. He suggested that unless care is taken to prevent the eutrophication of Lake Waubesa, by reducing the phosphorus runoff below levels found in present and future developed neighborhoods, Fitchburg would eventually pay in increased taxes for future remediation to restore the watershed.

Rosanne Lindsay
Fitchburg

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

To the 100 or more people that came to listen to Professor DeWitt's talk (some are pictured above before all the seats were filled!), I’m sorry that the Mayor decided to rearrange the agenda at the last minute. I’m glad that you were able to stay that extra hour and I’m sure you agree that this presentation was worth the wait!

Terry Carpenter
Fitchburg

Surprise Guest Remains a Mystery

This is a longer version of the Letter to the Editor, Capital Times
To be published 1/15/2008

Who could the “Special Guest” be at the top of the agenda? What forwarding-thinking person is Mayor Clauder going to present? I’ve never seen the Mayor so excited about anything. But, then, I’ve mostly seen him at Council or Plan Commission meetings. But wait. This IS a Common Council meeting and he’s still excited about something.

During the Mayor’s melodramatic and “suspenseful” introduction, I can’t help but watch the clock because time is valuable and I came here to observe the Fitchburg Common Council meeting. It’s been 3 minutes and he’s still playing his mystery game. So far, we know it’s connected to the Packers because he unfurled a giant poster containing the familiar helmet. We can also see a green and gold bobble-head doll perched near the Mayor’s seat (which remained in the camera’s view the entire night).

After 5 minutes of introduction, the moment arrived. There was no curtain so special guest John O’Neill appeared out of the wings of FACTv’s offices (affectionately referred to as “tent city” because of the tarps protecting their equipment from a leaky roof). Covered from head to toe in an elaborate green and yellow costume, “Saint Vince” strode across the Council Chambers carrying a staff topped with a cheesehead wedge and took the microphone from our beaming Mayor. O’Neill explained his unusual Packer Fan history including his costume (a tribute to “Saint" Vince Lombardi) and inclusion in the NFL Fan Hall of Fame.

Yes, this really happened and I had the misfortune to witness it for a mind-boggling 20 minutes at the beginning of the Common Council meeting on Jan. 8th.

I don’t think I was the only person to be dazed and confused by this display of Football Fever. I noticed a few other somber or perhaps puzzled faces in the audience. They probably came to express their concerns to about official agenda items. They were made to wait through 20 minutes of sports trivia before the Council could get on with business. I doubt that these concerned citizens appreciated the extra time spent waiting their turn.

I can’t help but wonder why Mayor Clauder believed that this was an appropriate venue for such a guest. Clauder mentioned that Green Bay and Ashwaubegon councils both invited the famous fan. He mentioned that he’s personally known O’Neill for a long time because he lived in Fitchburg for many years. But I still don’t see why Fitchburg needs to follow the lead taken by Green Bay. The two cities are quite different. We don’t even have a stadium much less one filled with Packer fans year after year. I haven’t a clue as to why Ashwaubenon is now setting a precedent for Fitchburg to follow.

Now, before any of you send me hate e-mail for being anti-Packers, I should tell you that “Saint Vince” seems to be having a great time as he raises money for charity by charging people to have their picture taken with him. This is all well and good… in the right time and place. I believe that a Fitchburg City Council meeting is not the right place. And if it were the right place, the priorities around allocation of time are still wrong.

And there’s also the issue of fairness and equity. Many people, including me, find it quite difficult to get more than 3 minutes of face time with the Council or the Plan Commission without being interrupted by “Are you almost done?” But I’m not in the NFL Fan Hall of Fame like O’Neill who had no such problem.

I have to question the priorities because I know that Dr. Cal DeWitt, a UW Professor who has devoted his life to studying and teaching complex ecosystems, was given just 30 minutes to present important research at the Plan Commission meeting Tuesday, Jan. 15th when he could have spent much more time if permitted. Dr. DeWitt has built an international reputation through his involvement with projects and conferences relating to global climate change and other ecological issues. His interdisciplinary experience has allowed him to connect some important dots in Dane County and we need to hear what he has found.

Do you see anything wrong with the judgment over at City Hall when the Mayor can allocate 20 minutes for stories about the Packers while Dr. DeWitt is only allowed 30 minutes for a presentation about the importance of buried bedrock valleys, missing aquitard and how these affect our groundwater system?

I do. Fitchburg’s Council, Committees and Commissions have important work to do. Their decisions impact the daily lives of current and future residents. Although I enjoy the occasional bit of humor at city meetings, wasting 20 minutes on sports trivia is a disservice to our community.

Terry Carpenter
(Disgusted in) Fitchburg

How Will Measures Be Enforced?

Expanded version of Jan. 10, 2008 Letter to Editor, Fitchburg Star
Submitted by Phyllis Hasbrouck
Chair of the West Waubesa Preservation Coaliton

“Just Trust Us”

The main message that I heard from developer Phil Sveum and his team on Dec. 18 was “Just trust us.” They painted a picture of a “green development” in the Northeast Neighborhood, but with no real substance. They are “looking at” encouraging homebuyers to use efficient plumbing fixtures, limit lawn watering, create and maintain raingardens, and use rain barrels. They assure us that when they complete their CDP (comprehensive development plan) it will have measures adequate to protect Lake Waubesa, Swan Creek, the springs and the groundwater.

Should the Plan Commission just take their word for it? How many times have cities been left holding the bag when a stormwater plan went bad? Developers sure are good at sweet talking, but once they finish the project, they are done, and all problems are left to the city.

Can Neighborhood Associations be Depended on?

All of the neighborhood-wide water-saving and stormwater control features of the Sveum plan depend on a Neighborhood Association to carry them out, and that’s a real weakness. It’s hard to find people willing to put in the volunteer hours for the good of the whole neighborhood. Harlan Hills (which was built by Sveum to be an “environmental development”) has a neighborhood association, but it hasn’t stopped people from using the pesticides that Sveum said would be banned. People have mowed down prairie and incorporated pieces into their yards, and concerned residents were told that suing their neighbors is the only way they can get the covenants enforced.

It’s very easy to say, “the outlot raingardens, the repair and plowing of the alleys, and the greenways will all be managed by a dues-collecting neighborhood association,” but the reality may be quite different. A recent Capital Times article talked about the many area residents who buy homes without realizing that their street is private, and that they’ll have to pay for its upkeep. What if new residents of the NEN can’t or won’t keep up the raingardens, alleys and greenways? Will Phil Sveum step in and pay? Will the city? Or will the environment have to pay? I understand that Fitchburg has never allowed private streets. I hope that they stick to their principles when it comes to private allies, greenways, and infiltration features.

What makes anyone believe that the people who move into such a development will be interested in conserving tap water or maintaining raingardens? Congratulations to Commissioner McNally, who brought a sense of reality back to the discussion when he asked whether we could really count on all of these ambitious plans happening!

A Memorandum is not a Promise

The Ruekert-Mielke stormwater report was a list of goals, with no concrete suggestions to describe how the goals would be met. The Montgomery Associates Memorandum on water is a slight improvement. It describes the general sort of techniques that they plan to use, e.g. “providing multiple points of treatment and infiltration of runoff as close to the impervious surfaces as possible.” But we are told to wait until they have a comprehensive development plan to see exactly what kind, how many, and where such measures will be. Can it be that this is the accepted way of approving developments – to just take the say-so of people who have every reason to skimp once they have the approval?

Rob Montgomery, Sveum’s water expert, said “Those [municipal] wells draw water from the lower aquifer relatively isolated from the upper aquifer, and also draw from a wider region of Fitchburg and areas to the west.” People who attend or watch the next Plan Commission meeting at 7 p.m. in City Hall on Jan. 15 will learn that this is not so, when they hear Dr. Cal DeWitt speak on buried bedrock valleys.

The memorandum says that “Water draining off the Par Fore site will be managed to exceed state and local ordinance criteria for water quality, peak discharge rates, and runoff volumes.” Once again, we are told to just trust them. Everything will be done according to the law. But does that mean that it won’t harm the environment? The environment has been gravely harmed by development, and presumably most of that development was done within the law. We need some leadership by people willing to defend the resources that will sustain our grandchildren!

Groundwater, Lakes and Phosphorus

Rob Montgomery’s conclusion was that “placing consideration of the Northeast Neighborhood ‘on hold’ because of regional groundwater management concerns is not warranted. We suggest that an appropriate approach for the Planning Commission is to approve the neighborhood plan including an objective of maintaining groundwater recharge, and recommending appropriate municipal water supply conservation practices.” Translation: “Just write down that it would be good for people to save water and let rainwater infiltrate, and let us go about our business.”

It was encouraging to hear Commissioner Kinney ask Rob Montgomery how he could ensure that the water going in to Swan Creek would be both cleaner and of the same volume post-development. I hope that all the commissioners will be asking skeptical and probing questions, as they are responsible for the welfare of the entire community.

Some commissioners may think that the question of phosphorus has been laid to rest with City Engineer Paul Woodard’s calculations that post-development the NEN will contribute less phosphorus to surface waters than it presently does. While this may be true, (a schedule of corn, corn, and soy results in a lot of phosphorus runoff) it is not the relevant question to ask. Because Lake Waubesa is already partly eutrophic, a large reduction in phosphorus loading is needed, not a small one. Small scale, organic farming could be the best option of all for protecting and restoring Lake Waubesa, and it should be studied.

Workforce Housing and the Future of Fitchburg

Kudos to Alder Allen and Mayor Clauder for bringing up the issue of workforce housing. This is a huge need, but it won’t be met unless the city insists on it. Our proposal for the Northeast Neighborhood, which we will present to the Plan Commission in Feb., contains 30 units of workforce housing, for the farmers, teachers and entrepreneurs who will run the school of organic farming, the farmers market, and the Bike and Breakfast that we envision. The people who will be attracted to inhabit the NEN if our vision is realized will definitely be interested in and dedicated to saving water, infiltrating rainwater, stopping soil loss, rejecting pesticides, and creating a vibrant, closely knit community.

I hope that the Plan Commission and Common Council will remember that the choice before them is not between Mr. Sveum’s proposal and the worst possible development. The choice is between Mr. Sveum’s proposal, just leaving the land in agriculture, or endorsing our plan to preserve our lakes and groundwater while producing healthy food for the community.

'Green Plan' is Actually SPRAWL

Jan. 10, 2008 Letter to the Editor, Fitchburg Star
Submitted by Rosanne Lindsay, Fitchburg

Call it what you will, but the proposed Sveum development, on the outer edges of Northeast Fitchburg, is SPRAWL by any name, and raises more questions than it offers answers.

This plan may boast many things, including parks, rain gardens, native plantings, and filling a need to “provide houses in an area that reduces commuting distance” (for whom I might ask)? What it does not do is tell Fitchburg residents who care about increased taxes, what they will pay to provide services (water, sewer, fire, etc) to the NE area. Nor does it convey to those who care about protecting our natural resources, how these measures will be enforced.

The need for “greening” this plan was prompted by concerned citizens who believe that runoff pollution from this development will irreversibly degrade the native fauna and flora, creeks, springs, the Northern Pike Fishery, Lake Waubesa, and one of the highest quality and diverse wetlands in southern Wisconsin, only one mile from the site.

While Mr. Sveum’s effort to respond to citizen concerns was noted by some on the Plan Commission, discussion of specific measures by Sveum to address risks to the basic water chemistry and aquatic habitat conditions on pre-existing water bodies (Swan Creek, Lake Waubesa, Deep Spring), was lacking. These risks have been noted to be high and growing, according to Environmental Toxicologist, Dave Zaber (See 11/16/06 Star article).

Mr. Sveum’s consultant predicted that Swan Creek will not be adversely affected by development and that surface runoff will be cleaner than current conditions. However, he did not talk about accountability. In fact, Sveum et al. admitted that compliance with infiltration on individual lots cannot be enforced so how are we assured that groundwater recharge will be maintained or that runoff and the water bodies will remain clean?

There are accountability mechanisms which should be insisted upon: Sveum’s proposed Northeast Neighborhood, like his Harlan Hills, and Swan Creek developments contrast with the very rigorous accountability mechanisms that Bill Linton imposed in the Fitchburg Center. There, independent associations oversee the management and monitoring of compliance with covenants, much like the Natural Heritage Land trust does for PDR easements in the area.

In Harlan Hills, no additional funds will be provided to restore promised prairie land which is overwhelmed by clover. Mr. Sveum seeded and maintained the prairie for 2 years. Unfortunately, prairie restoration needs 3-5 years of maintenance to ensure proper generation of prairie plants, according to local experts. Promises of “no lawn pesticide application” (to protect the Arboretum) became “certain pesticides acceptable.” And even banned pesticides are sometimes applied because there is little, if any, ability to enforce.

As a result of the heavy rains last August, the Village of Oregon is faced with purchasing several flood-damaged homes, at least partly at taxpayer expense. The homes are downhill from Oregon's new Bergamont and Alpine Valley developments. Some have accused the developers of "design error" from poor stormwater management plans. Others say the developers are not to blame because they complied with the stormwater ordinance and other village requirements. Either way, there is little doubt that the developments exacerbated Oregon's pre-existing flood problems, as some residents had predicted.

These local histories prove that good intentions and inadequate city policies are simply not enough. Maintaining our precious environmental resources--the forests, prairies, wetlands, fisheries, and lakes that make living here so desirable--requires nothing less than full commitment to do whatever it takes to accomplish the goal, be it prairie restoration or preserving Swan Creek and the Lake Waubesa watershed.

Developers can talk all they want about "sustainability" and "green" development but they often fail to follow through. So it must be the city’s job to probe for specifics and examine concerns raised previously about the developer's Northeast Neighborhood Plan, including the suitability of the model being used for hydrological impacts, the absence of cumulative effects analysis, the preservation of rare hydric soils and infiltration, and the threats to our aquifer (groundwater) from a burgeoning population, as described by UW Ecologist Cal DeWitt.

Mr. Sveum also gave the rosy economic prediction that his thousand-home development will not cost the city money. But will Mr. Sveum give the city an enforceable guarantee as the country heads toward a recession? Or will Fitchburg taxpayers be the ones who bear the cost when his prediction proves incorrect? Virtually all Cost of Urban Service studies show that residential development leads to a net drain on local government budgets. What justifies Mr. Sveum’s belief that his Northeast Neighborhood development will be any different? What about reality of the nation’s economy; the shortage of credit to homebuyers resulting from the mortgage meltdown, the perceived need for more housing when many homes stand empty waiting for a buyer, or the fall of the dollar? City officials should require a full Cost of Urban Services Study for all new development proposals as a matter of fiscal responsibility.

The public policy question is one of deciding whether or not “market forces” should allow this sort of development at this location when it makes such a dramatic influence on the area’s natural and recreational resources, as well as contributes to commuter traffic and sprawl. The fact that there is the rail line and the Green Tech Village plan, both of which do far more for the City, is an important alternative that must be given more thought.

Proposed developments, in conjunction with past and present developments, are adversely affecting groundwater and surface water resources throughout Dane county and this problem is particularly acute in this part of Dane County. Let's hope that at future meetings of both the Plan Commission and the Common Council, the city will ask many probing, skeptical questions that will truly serve the interests of the many Fitchburg residents waiting for answers.

And while Mr. Sveum may, indeed, share many of our concerns, he may be the only one to see “green” if the Northeast Neighborhood turns into more Fitchburg SPRAWL.

No Substitute for Water

Here’s a great line from one of my favorite comedians:

"You never know what you have until it's gone, and I wanted to know what I had, so I got rid of everything." - Steven Wright

Maybe that’s not such a bad idea. What would we really miss? What would we put in its place?

I certainly wouldn’t miss the closet full of project files that I ended up with after I sold my business. Come on… admit it… you also harbor a different, but equally useless, stash. Let’s face it; nobody alive today will ever ask for papers that are already 5 to 25 years old even if we did manage to remember we had them! (Exception: This excludes all documentation required by guys with guns… the IRS.)

In addition to the cardboard-clad “files” of paper, consider all those plastic-encased tubs of trinkets. It probably amounts to quite a pile of stuff weighing us down and not a collection of treasures that lifts our spirits. In fact, this assortment often distracts us from more important things. Oh sure, you have it closeted all right, but how many times are you going to move it from dwelling to dwelling or room to room over the course of your life?

Wouldn’t it be better to clear some of the clutter to create an opening for new thoughts and room for new interests (ok, new stacks of paper and plastic)?

I think Fitchburg residents have an equally useless and distracting set of clutter. (You knew I’d somehow relate this to the Blog’s theme… right?) We seem to shelter tattered ideas and drag them out from time to time instead of tossing them into the recycling bin. Sure we need to preserve some history (those breadcrumbs showing where we have been) but, above all, we need to pay attention to new information.

In case you haven’t guessed where I’m headed, this new input should serve as the basis for our revised vision of Fitchburg in the year 2030 or beyond. Instead of harping about the previous versions of the Future Urban Development plan, let’s listen to experts as they guide us in a new direction. We have more tools and more facts now than at any time in the past. This is both bad and good. We have more ways to destroy our habitat, our environment, our home. But, we also have more ways to measure this destruction and evaluate how to reverse the trend.

(1) One such reversal is to restore wetlands and protect streams and creeks through buffers and stream bank projects. (Water Quality)
(2) Another is to create (and live within) our Water Budget by knowing how much water we extract from the aquifer and how much we put back. (Water Quantity)

Although the Plan Commissioners have looked at farmland preservation and many other factors as they create a new Urban Growth Boundary, they have yet to factor in these two related concerns.

During his presentation on Sept. 4th (described in an earlier entry here), Professor Cal DeWitt recounted a conversation with someone at the Fish Hatchery. He described his research showing that adding a new municipal well probably reduced the flow of an old artesian well one mile away at Nevin Springs Fish Hatchery. The person responded to this discovery by saying “That well’s already built. Right? Then, we can’t do anything about it.” But, as Professor DeWitt pointed out, that’s the way our whole environment deteriorates, of course.

Let’s not destroy this wonderful area by a thousand tiny cuts to our support system.

Instead of only caring about the “top quality” wetlands, streams and lakes, we should be doing everything we can to restore all water resources to their original state. It is foolish to let some resources die an unnatural death at our hands just because we’ve let them degrade up until now. There are ways to protect them from further harm and also to slowly restore them to health.

Creeks and streams have a purpose and we need to appreciate their role. I was amazed to learn that once we’ve degraded a creek to certain level, the city no longer offers it the same protection as one that managed to escape that level of damage. Isn’t this backwards? Shouldn’t we be doing more to protect the one that needs it the most?

Wetlands help clean and regulate the water in our area and we need more of them not less. Our current guidelines protect the “high quality” wetlands more than those we’ve degraded to a greater extent. Again, this is backwards or at least short-sighted. Let’s strengthen the regulations to protect them all (when feasible). We should also identify areas that were once wetlands by evaluating the telltale hydric soils and restore them whenever possible to help prevent catastrophic floods and purify our water for decades to come.

A recent study, Strategic Watershed Restoration and Protection Plan for the West Waubesa Wetlands, by a UW–Madison class evaluated hydric soils in one watershed covering a large portion of Fitchburg along with parts of the Town of Dunn. The map below shows hydric soils identified in the study. For orientation, Hwy 14 runs north and south through the center of the map from McCoy Rd (top) to north of Hwy M (bottom). Click here to view a larger version of the map and for more information about the study, please email me at fitchburgvoices@gmail.com.

Although groundwater recharge has been considered by the Planning Commission, it has been analyzed under the assumption that we want the most “recharge” per acre so areas were considered more valuable if they scored in the top 25% based on infiltration criteria. Although their definition of good infiltration is debatable, even if it’s accurate it misses the point. Dr. Ken Bradbury, Groundwater Expert and Hydrogeologist, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, gave a presentation last week explaining the hydrogeology system which underlies the Yahara Basin, including Fitchburg, and describing how scientists model and predict underground water movements. During the Q&A discussion, he indicated that although some recharge areas may be considered more important than others, all are important because some areas recharge different water features than others.

See the problem? If we recharge areas that affect X and not those that affect Y, Y will suffer.

In addition to recharge, the quantity of water we pull from the aquifer is also a big concern. As reported in recent newspaper articles, Dane County is now drinking from a couple of its lakes because numerous high capacity wells in the area are drawing down the aquifer enough that the water is no longer flowing into some lakes and is instead seeping from the lakes into the aquifer.

Dr. Bradbury also stated that in all of Wisconsin there are two areas that are having serious problems with groundwater (Green Bay and Waukesha) and two others that are designated as Groundwater Attention Areas to be watched – the Little Plover River (which recently dried up for the first time ever) and… you guessed it… Dane County.

I recently saw the new documentary film The 11th Hour. Without giving away the “plot” (which you probably already know), I was struck by one very unusual and startling calculation; it would cost the world about $35 trillion a year to perform all of the functions that nature does for us free of charge. That’s something like twice the size of all the world’s economies! Talk about externalities! This free service includes things like turning carbon dioxide into oxygen and pollinating plants. I assume it would also include flood control and water purification.

So, shouldn’t we use the *Precautionary Principle as we plan for our city’s future? The natural world is not just priceless from an aesthetic standpoint but is way beyond reach in economic terms. Will we miss it when it’s gone? Of course! What would we put in its place? The truth is; we can’t afford to replace it even if we knew how!

Please let your Plan Commissioners and Alders know that you want them to protect all of our water resources as they plan for the future of Fitchburg.

Footnote:

* (From Wikipedia) “The Precautionary Principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.”

Water, Water... Anywhere?

The word is out. Professor Cal DeWitt has sleuthed some amazing and disturbing facts out of the recesses of our aquifers. At Tuesday night’s Planning Commission meeting, he explained the relationship he discovered between Fitchburg’s deep-aquifer, high-capacity Well #10 (located on Granite Circle) and the 125-year-old, upper-aquifer, cased artesian Well #8 (located at Nevin Springs Fish Hatchery). It had been assumed that both wells were drawing from separate aquifers based on their depth profiles (800 feet or more for Well #10 and 180 feet for Well #8), and one mile distance from each other. However, Professor DeWitt found a significant correlation between them that changes the original assumptions.

Nevin Springs was producing 400 gallons of water per minute (gpm) for a number of years until late 2001 when it started dropping. It has since continued at a lower rate of 300-350 gpm. A mile away, Well #10 started pumping in 2001 and within a year was pumping around 600k gallons per day.

As shown in one of his graphs, a pattern appears when comparing the flow volume drawn by the new, municipal well and the decreased flow, about 12 months later, from the artesian well.

The bottom line? About 10% of the pumpage of Well #10 is equal to the losses at Well #8 that show up after a 12-month lag. So, there is a connection between these wells in the upper and lower aquifers and water is traveling at the rate of 14.5 feet per day from Nevin Springs in the direction of the Granite Circle well.

The fact that Professor DeWitt was able to find this relationship buried in the data from many area wells is surprising enough but I received another shock when he told us that we don’t really know how this happens. It appears that, at least sometimes, the upper and lower aquifers are indeed connected even though they separated by an aquitard (made of layers of sedimentary rock) which limits vertical waterflow except in cracks. To complicate matters, the horizontal flow between these two wells is 10s of thousands of times greater than the vertical rate of water flow through the aquitard, perhaps because of long horizontal pipes that formed over the years.

What does this mean? Professor DeWitt urges us to consider the entire groundwater hydrology system before we do something that would stop the flow of water to important springs and lakes in the area. For example, if we turn off Deep Spring and other groundwater resources that refresh Lake Waubesa, the entire southern boot (most of the lake) would die (eutrophy). And distance does indeed make a difference when dealing with solutions. The farther away we stay from precious water resources, the better chance we have to protect them. So, locating any new well in the vicinity of the NE Neighborhood is more of a threat to Lake Waubesa and the natural resources because of its impact on groundwater flow to the watershed.

Although this bombshell was dropped during the agenda item for the NE Neighborhood and Stormwater Plans, it also must be considered for all well drilling activity and increased water use (ie. development) in Fitchburg and beyond. If we fail to consider how new high-capacity wells will draw groundwater from the surrounding area, other springs or wells (including private wells) could dry up. This has happened with many of the famed springs of Waukesha and the Little Plover River in Stevens Point, among others.

[Side Track: According to Devil in the White City by Erik Larson (link here), one entrepreneur wanted to pipe water from a Waukesha spring on his property all the way to Chicago to supply the 1893 World’s Fair. But, Waukesha residents didn’t want the water to leave the city and they showed up with guns, knives and pitchforks to stop the pipeline workers, returning at 2 am with a cannon (!) to drive away them away again. For the rest of the story, see the Lake Lore article on page 4 of the Alliance for the Great Lakes newsletter here.]

Fast forward to Fitchburg 2007.

Professor DeWitt explained the concept and vital need for Groundwater and Watershed Budgets which he likened to other budgets. Simply put, we need to know how much we are depositing (infiltration) into each aquifer and withdrawing (wells and springs) from each aquifer to be sure that we don’t overdraw our account and live beyond our means. To protect against this, he suggests that the City of Fitchburg recommend to Dane County and CARPC (Capital Area Regional Planning Commission) that:

1. they place high priority on developing a policy for a Groundwater Budget for the region; and
2. they work with Fitchburg on procedures for monitoring and evaluating diminished well and spring flow to the city and region.

I am happy to report that, after the presentation, applause (normally against the rules at these meetings) was allowed to acknowledge Professor DeWitt’s efforts, and the Planning Commissioners wisely responded to these sobering data by asking for more information before making a decision about the NE Neighborhood. I’m not sure if they actually ordered a Groundwater Budget but I think that prospect is at least on the radar if not the table.

(NOTE: FACTv recorded the entire meeting including Professor DeWitt's presentation. So, you can contact them to have a DVD made of all or part of the meeting or to rebroadcast it during their Thursday morning request slot. If that doesn't work for you, drop me an email at fitchburgvoices@gmail.com to borrow my copy.)

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