Wetland Scientist Dr. Joy Zedler Re: Proposed NEN Development

Department of Botany
University of Wisconsin-Madison

June 5, 2014

To: CARPC Staff and Commissioners, and Kamran Mesbah, PE, Director of Environmental Resources Planning, Capital Area Regional Planning Commission, City County Building, Room 362, 210 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Madison WI 53703 allcommissioners@CapitalAreaRPC.org, KamranM@capitalarearpc.org

From: Joy B. Zedler, Ph.D., Professor of Botany and Aldo Leopold Chair of Restoration Ecology

Re: Northeast Neighborhood (NEN)

I am a wetland scientist; I reside in the Town of Dunn at the headwaters of Murphy Creek. I have personal experience with runoff from Fitchburg, because a farm across the road from me despoils my native sedge meadow with sediment, nutrients, and pesticides. The runoff is converting native vegetation to Wisconsin’s worst wetland weed (reed canary grass, Phalaris arundinacea). A graduate student of mine recently showed that the portion of my sedge meadow that is dominated by reed canary grass has only half as many plant species as the area in front of the invasion, and many of the associates of reed canary grass are weeds. Another student documented increased nitrogen content of plant leaves as we sampled plants away from and close to the culvert that imports Fitchburg runoff from the corn/soybean field. The source of the problem is nutrient- rich runoff and the outcome is continued degradation and loss of substantial value (“natural capital”) due to runoff from a Fitchburg farm.

Here are my science-based concerns about urban development west of Larsen Road:

Agricultural runoff is damaging; urban runoff can be much worse. As rural agricultural lands convert to urban land use, the downstream wetlands lose native species and become dominated by invasive weeds, particularly
reed canary grass and hybrid cattails (Boers, Veltman and Zedler 2007, Frieswyk & Zedler 2007: “Our results show that increased urbanization in the watersheds of the Green Bay coastal wetlands (Fig. 3) coincided with the loss of wet meadow habitat (Fig. 7).”

The components of urban runoff that cause the conversion of wetland vegetation to invasive weeds are excess water, excess nutrients in the runoff, and excess nutrient-rich sediment, based on patterns in the field and controlled experiments in mesocosms (Kercher and Zedler 2004, Kercher, Carpenter and Zedler 2044, Kercher, Herr-Turoff and Zedler 2007: “We discovered a three-step invasion and degradation process: (1) initially, resident native species declined with prolonged flooding and sediment additions, and (2) prolonged flooding, sedimentation, and nutrients accelerated Phalaris aboveground growth; biomass rose to 430 times that of the control within just two growing seasons. The dramatic expansion of Phalaris in the second year resulted in the formation of monospecific stands in over one-third of the treatments, as (3) native species continued their decline in year 2. Disturbances acted alone and in combination to make the resident wetland community more invasible and Phalaris more aggressive, leading to monospecific stands.”).

Wetlands that hold water (i.e., prolonged hydroperiods) can support highly productive cattails at the expense of providing other ecosystem services, such as nutrient removal, soil stabilization, flood peak reduction, stormwater retention, and plant diversity support. In constructed wetlands, where we measured these six ecosystem services, we found the lowest levels in the wetland that became a wet pond (Doherty, Miller, Loheide, Prellwitz, Thompson, and Zedler In press): “Hence....ponding supported such high levels of NPP that other services appeared to be limited (suggesting tradeoffs).”

Settling ponds can remove some total suspended solids and some phosphorus, but dissolved phosphorus flows through the system, as does nitrogen (in both particulate and dissolved forms). Furthermore, nitrogen, which is poorly removed by wet ponds, is a major stimulus to species invasions in downstream wetlands (Herr-Turoff and Zedler 2005: “Increased N alone facilitates its suppression of native wetland vegetation (Green and Galatowitsch, 2002). Thus, Phalaris is presumed to have high N uptake and to increase retention of N within a wetland.”)

I often drive to/from work on Larsen Road and view the degraded wetland to the west. When it rains, I watch it collect enough water to become a pond, and when it rains heavily, it becomes a lake that spills over into the ditch along Larsen Road. The runoff is likely polluted with sediment, nutrients and pesticides. I have observed Swan Creek and Murphy Creek via canoe along the Lake Waubesa Wetlands (areas set aside by The Nature Conservancy and WDNR as a State Natural Area and recognized by Wisconsin Wetlands Association as a “Wetland Gem”). Wisconsin’s worst invasive weeds (reed canary grass and hybrid cattails) are poised to expand, as even more runoff and more nutrients flow downstream. And in Lake Waubesa, dense bluegreen algal blooms already occur in summer. More nutrient-rich runoff will further degrade the ecosystem services of both the lake and its adjacent wetlands.

These changes are inevitable if the NEN is allowed to develop without adequate buffers (at least 300’) around the maximum water level of the degraded wetland. A vegetated buffer could help absorb water, nutrients, and other pollutants. All one needs to do to see the effects of urbanization on our local wetlands is to compare vegetation along Swan Creek downstream from the Swan Creek development, or, at a much larger scale, the Nine Springs E-Way, which is dominated by the two worst wetland weeds in the state—reed canary grass and hybrid cattails. Waubesa wetlands need to be conserved and protected before it is too late. Upstream landowners who fail to protect downstream wetlands should be held responsible.

Why is it essential that our wetlands be protected from excess runoff of low quality water? In a updated analysis of the value of the world’s biomes, Costanza and colleagues (2014) provide new data that show the following (in 2007 US dollars): Four broad groups of wetlands provide $125,521 per hectare per year in ecosystem services, all of which lead to human well-being. That amount is 25 times the average for all other biomes. And comparing just the estimated value for ecosystem services derived from inland wetlands ($25,681/ha/yr) with that for cropland ($5,441/ha/yr) the ratio is 4.6. These services benefit all in perpetuity, so long as wetlands are conserved and protected from degradation.

Clearly, our inland wetlands are extremely valuable and deserve protection. Since Costanza published his first estimates of ecosystem service values in 1997, wetlands have become relatively more important providers of global ecosystem services, because other lands have undergone conversions to alternative uses, such as urbanization. Those changes in land use have reduced overall values of global ecosystem services some $4.3 - $20.2 trillion/yr from 1997 to 2011 (ibid.).

Some questions CARPC staff should look into:
• Why should wetlands in the Town of Dunn be degraded by inadequate protection measures in
Fitchburg?
• Why shouldn’t farmers be required to leave a buffer where their runoff flows downstream?
• Why shouldn’t urban developers be required to provide adequate buffers and treatment wetlands (not
just pits to collect phosphorus)?
• How will the impacts of any new development be assessed through actual monitoring of water,
nutrient, and sediment discharges?
• Why not establish a fine for improper protection of downstream wetlands? Fitchburg could require
developers to establish a bond so that downstream residents could obtain funds to provide weed abatement and other mitigating measures, such as nitrogen traps at the point of entry.
• Will contractors use the latest science-based information to design their runoff-control structures, instead of “best” management practices that are proving to be ineffective? I refer to topsoil addition to vegetated wetlands, reliance on “thick” vegetation to stabilize soil, and use of productive vegetation to indicate the presence of other ecosystem services. In our recent writings (Doherty et al. In press and Leaflets 27-28), we show how assumptions and predictions of models based on abiotic factors do not always hold up to actual measures of vegetated wetlands.

The Town of Dunn aims to protect wetlands that provide ecosystem services that benefit human well-being. If we apply the average value for inland wetlands from Costanza et al. (2014) to ~1,000 acres (404.7 ha) of set- aside lands, we provide an estimated $10,393,100 in ecosystem services per year. Even if that estimate is an order of magnitude too high, we still provide a million dollars in services annually, to the benefit of all in perpetuity (given wetland protection). Why should those values be diminished by inadequate buffering of upstream development to benefit a few people in the short term?

References cited:
Boers, A., R. Veltman, and J. B. Zedler. 2007. Typha x glauca dominance and extended hydroperiod constrain restoration of wetland diversity. Ecological Engineering 29:232-244.

Costanza, R., R. de Groot, P. Sutton, S. van der Ploeg, S. J. Anderson, I. Kubiszewski, S. Farber, and R. K. Turner. 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change 26:152–158.

Doherty, J. M., J. F. Miller, S. Prellwitz, A. M. Thompson, S. Loheide, and J. B. Zedler. In press. Bundles and tradeoffs among six wetland services were associated with hydrologic regime. Ecosystems.

Frieswyk, C. B., and J. B. Zedler. 2007. Vegetation change in Great Lakes coastal wetlands: Deviation from the historical cycle. Journal of Great Lakes Research 33:366-380.

Green E K and Galatowitsch S M 2002 Effects of Phalaris arundinacea and nitrate-N addition on the establishment of wetland plant communities. J. Appl. Ecol. 39, 134–144.

Herr-Turoff, A., and J. B. Zedler. 2005. Does wet prairie vegetation retain more nitrogen with or without Phalaris invasion. Plant and Soil 277:19-34.

Kercher, S. M., A. Herr-Turoff, and J B. Zedler. 2007. Understanding invasion as a process: The case of Phalaris arundinacea in wet prairies. Biological Invasions 9:657-665.

Kercher, S. M., and J. B. Zedler. 2004. Multiple disturbances accelerate invasion of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) in a mesocosm study. Oecologia 138:455-464.

Kercher, S. M., Q. Carpenter, and J. B. Zedler. 2004. Interrelationships of hydrologic disturbances, reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.), and native plants in Wisconsin wet meadows. Natural Areas Journal 24:316-325.

Leaflet #10. Why are wetlands so valuable? Online at uwarboretum.org/research - publications menu.

Leaflet #27. How ponded runoff and invasive cattails reduced wetland ecosystem services in three experimental wetlands. Online at uwarboretum.org/research - publications menu.

Leaflet #28. How ponded cattail marshes can expert phosphorus: A conceptual model. Online at uwarboretum.org/research - publications menu.

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.

Phyllis Hasbrouck: Fitchburg doesn't need more undeveloped land

[The original letter to the editor.  An edited version appeared in the Wisconsin State Journal on 2/25/2013.]

Dear Editor,

Fitchburg Mayor Shawn Pfaff's desire to bring the Northeast Neighborhood into Fitchburg's Urban Service Area (USA) doesn't make sense from a taxpayer's point of view.  His Plan Commission voted on Feb. 19 to instruct staff to create an application to the Capital Area Regional Planning Commission (CARPC).

But Fitchburg already has around 1175 acres of vacant land in its USA waiting to be developed, and its taxpayers are already on the hook to maintain and repair all of that infrastructure as soon as it is installed.  The city leaders are already gambling that this huge area will fill up and provide the increased taxes needed to maintain and service it.  Is this a good time to add another neighborhood's worth of infrastructure to sweep, plow, inspect and repair?

With 15 years' worth of land just waiting for builders and buyers, why extend urban services even farther from the city center? It doesn't take 15 years to jump through the CARPC hoops: more like 6 to 18 months. There is plenty of time to apply when Uptown and the North McGaw area fill up.

Ask the taxpayers of Oregon, Sun Prairie and Stoughton how they like paying to plow streets with just a few houses on them. Developers are risk-takers: when they are skilled or lucky, they get a big payoff.  But the taxpayers shouldn't be forced to bet their hard-earned dollars on such a risky scheme.

On Feb. 26 the Fitchburg Common Council will meet at 7:30 p.m. and decide whether to plow ahead or wait. The taxpayers are invited to contact Mayor Pfaff at shawn.pfaff@city.fitchburg.wi.us and let him know what they want.

Yours,

Phyllis Hasbrouck
Chair, West Waubesa Preservation Coalition

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

Jay Allen: Say no to leapfrog development in Fitchburg

(Jay Allen, former mayor of Fitchburg and current mayoral candidate)

Many people believe that new development is always good for a community. Some types are good. They add to the tax base, create efficiencies in services, and, in some cases, can actually improve the pre-development environmental conditions.

Other developments may create new tax base, but also create huge drains on municipal services, cause significant environmental damage, and cost taxpayers far more than they provide in tax revenue.

The City of Fitchburg is currently considering a development in the second category. Known as the Northeast Neighborhood, the area is bounded by Highway 14 on the west, Larsen Road on the east, East Clayton Road on the north, and Goodland Park Road and Haight Farm Road on the south. This area is not contiguous to any other development.

Fitchburg has roughly 1200 undeveloped acres within the Central Urban Service Area (CUSA). Those areas have available water and sewer. Almost all are within the a 4-minute response time for the fire department. They are contiguous to current development, so it is efficient to provide other municipal services, like police, trash collection, street maintenance, snow plowing, etc.

The Northeast Neighborhood is not within the CUSA. Fitchburg is considering submitting an application to the Capitol Area Regional Plan Commission (CARPC) to add it. This application should not be submitted, and, if submitted, it should be rejected. Some reasons are as follows:

1) The area is almost ¾ of a mile from the current edge of development. Municipal services will have to travel 1.5 miles round trip across vacant land, at significant cost.

2) The area currently has no water or sewer service. Fitchburg’s Water Utility will have to borrow in excess of $2 million to build those utilities. The area within the CUSA can currently be served with little additional investment. Existing areas should be built before burdening the ratepayers with the cost of new infrastructure.

3) The Northeast Neighborhood is 7 to 12 minutes away from Fire Station #1. This is unacceptable, and people will be endangered. The current mayor has suggested that the City of Madison could potentially cover that area. It seems unlikely that Madison taxpayers would subsidize this service. Current staffing at Madison Fire Station #6 is barely adequate, and an additional crew and an additional engine would be very costly.

4) Fitchburg’s last Urban Service Area amendment was approved in 2010. CARPC was promised that it would be at least 5 years before another request, and that was predicated on significant development occurring. Fewer than 6 buildings are under construction in the 1200 acres available. Reason would expect hundreds of buildings before requesting another amendment.

5) Development of the Northeast Neighborhood poses a significant risk to Lake Waubesa, which already has a eutrification problem. No studies have been done to examine what the effect will be on Lake Waubesa.

6) There is no reason to do this with so much land currently available and a sluggish market.

The major landowner involved is a political supporter of the current mayor. Politics should not play a factor in what should be objective planning decisions. Sacrificing environmental protection and taxpayer money should not happen to reward a political supporter. No reasonable person would support this amendment. I hope that in this case, reason will prevail.

Jay Allen
Former Mayor
City of Fitchburg

Rich Eggleston: Fitchburg development plans overly ambitious

(From a Letter to the Cap Times)

Dear Editor: The guy in the red vest got it wrong. It’s Fitchburg that is truly 35 square miles surrounded by reality.

Our little city is entertaining grandiose plans to develop not one, not two, but four new “neighborhoods” that will house thousands of new residents with whom we, the existing residents, will be expected to share our schools, our roads, and our limited crime and fire-fighting resources.

These starry-eyed development blueprints include:

• The North McGaw neighborhood, a 398-acre tract. The entire McGaw neighborhood, 720 acres, is supposed to provide 1,900 new homes and 2.4 million square feet of commercial space — enough for 13 “big box” stores.

• “Uptown,” 450 acres in northeast Fitchburg, on which construction has already begun on 150 apartments in two buildings.

• The Northeast Neighborhood, which could add 800 to 1,400 new homes

• The North Stoner Prairie neighborhood, 322 acres including some of the best farmland in the world, which is envisioned as mostly industrial, but with a residential component as well, east of Seminole Highway.

This is all very nice. None of these developments is likely to include the kind of ticky-tacky that development entailed in earlier days. But Fitchburg may be biting off more than it can chew.

The comprehensive plan that developers and city officials are using to justify this growth was developed without in-depth consultation with our neighbors on how to manage expected growth. Infrastructure costs money. Despite the best-laid plans, growth inevitably damages the environment. Fitchburg should not seek to bite off more than its rightful share of Dane County’s expected population and economic growth. Doing so puts existing home values, existing neighborhoods and the environment we all cherish at risk. City officials must consider existing residents before being seduced by the sirens of development.

Rich Eggleston

Fitchburg

Read more

Testimony before the Fitchburg Plan Commission, 2/19/13 - Phyllis Hasbrouck

Good evening.  My name is Phyllis Hasbrouck and I'm the chair of the West Waubesa Preservation Coalition. There are so many reasons to oppose this development, and there are so many reasons why a person who supports it would still oppose it at this time.  From a taxpayer's point of view, the most important reason is that it would be bad planning, and it would unnecessarily raise the real estate taxes that homeowners pay, and that renters pay indirectly through higher rents.

As of June 2012, there were already 1175 acres of vacant land within the Fitchburg Urban Service Area.  The largest chunks are Uptown, formerly called Green Tech Village, and North McGaw Neighborhood.  There are only 6 buildings underway in Uptown, and none as far as I know in McGaw, so where's the need for yet more space?

You may ask, "What's the problem with just getting all of our ducks in a row, going through the CARPC process so that when the market is ready, we will be too?"  Well, you've already done that, by bringing in Uptown and North McGaw.  When the market wants to build, you've got areas all ready for single family, multifamily, mixed use, civic, retail, even some industrial.  By your own estimates, you have enough for almost 15 years of expansion.

It doesn't take 15 years to jump through the CARPC hoops.  It's more like six to 18 months.  So why not wait until you think you are 2 years away from filling up Uptown and North McGaw, and then start getting your ducks in a row?

What is the downside to getting ready too soon?  As soon as a developer puts in infrastructure, the city has to spend tax dollars to do all the cleaning, plowing, inspecting and repairing.  By opening up 1175 acres, you've already signed up the taxpayers for a big burden, and it's not clear when the tax base will catch up to the cost of the new services.  So is this a good time to bring in two more neighborhoods' worth of infrastructure?  I say "two more" because Mayor Pfaff also wants to bring in the North Stoner Prairie Neighborhood.

Now, I know that Fitchburg has a much better planning record the Village of Oregon and Sun Prairie, both of which expanded too much, too fast, and were left with largely empty "ghost neighborhoods."   But when you get new staff and new elected leaders, practices can change.  Senior Planner Tom Hovel has done an excellent job of carefully phasing in new developments, but in three years he could be retired, and there's no guarantee that his successor would be as wise.  There are many pressures on staff and commissioners and alders to accommodate powerful and wealthy people who want to build.  It is harder to resist those pressures when the land in question is already in the Urban Service Area.

This environmentally-sensitive piece of excellent farmland should only be considered for development when there is nowhere else to build.  That is clearly not the case now.

In Support of 300 ft Wetland Buffer

Photo of the southwest portion of Lake Waubesa and wetlands to the west by Nadia Olker.






Fitchburg has written into the Comprehensive Plan the use of 300 ft. buffers for wetlands outside of the current urban service area. This is a major step forward by the Fitchburg Planning Department, because the County only mandates 75 ft.

Below is an appeal by Peter Ellestad to protect our wetlands.

Please submit your comments to the Planning Deportment on this or other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan by the Dec. 28th deadline, or better yet, give them a bit more lead time and turn them in by Dec. 23rd. Click here for the city's comment form.

-- Terry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Members of the Fitchburg Planning Dept and the Common Council:

I am sending you this message to go on record as supporting the maintenance of a 300 foot buffer for wetlands outside the urban services area. I believe that the reduction of that barrier to 75 feet would provide almost no protection at all, and would put the precious west Waubesa wetlands, and the lake itself, at unacceptable risk. If in spite of compelling arguments against it, a large subdivision is created in the northeast neighborhood, the city should mandate requirements that allow as little damage as possible to environmentally sensitive areas.

In my opinion, a 75 ft buffer would lead to the creation of a sterile greenspace speckled with inert ponds and patches of invasive grasses, one that would be more like the numbing sprawl of suburban Chicago, with its depressing and inadequate imitation of a natural landscape, than the flourishing natural communities that exist in the watershed now. Please don't allow that to happen.

Sincerely,

Peter Ellestad
Fitchburg

Suburbs feeling the pinch as fuel prices soar

Open letter to District 2 alders
Submitted by Rosanne Lindsay

This is about the third article (click here) I've seen in as many days, on the need to rethink the status quo planning of suburbs. It offers some ideas to consider. Do we really need to plan and build extra homes when so many are standing empty and those who commute are struggling to fill their gas tank? I'm writing to you to consider how our times are changing and to reflect on these changes when considering the Fitchburg Comprehensive Plan and the approval of development in the NE Neighborhood Urban Service Area. Is there really a true need to add another 1000-plus homes to our Northeast corner when the dollar is heading south, gas prices are heading north, foreclosures and unsold homes are on the rise, and apartment rentals are gaining while home ownership is failing?

When many builders are going bankrupt, and others are trying to unload their unsold lots (see article), then something needs to give. Planners and local governments must find new paradigms. Does Fitchburg really want to add and pay for services to reach the far NE corner when the "core" is really just identifying itself as the area around City Hall and there is plenty of room to promote infill development first? If a new library does go in at the City Hall site, how will new residents on the NE side access it at an affordable price? Will we add transit services? At the moment, we don't even have enough money to expand our current transit service beyond the few runs down PD and Fish Hatchery. Has the Plan Commission considered these pressures on our budget and the pressures on the average homeowner?

Thanks for your consideration.

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

Suburbia - The Next Slum?

Here's an important and timely email (with emphasis added) from Rich Eggleston to the members of the Plan Commission, Common Council, Citizens Advisory Committee on the Comprehensive Plan, and Mayor Tom Clauder.

Monday, 25 Feb 2008

One of the hallmarks of a comprehensive plan that works is flexibility. What we know about the proposed Northeast Neighborhood now, for example, is more than we knew about it two weeks ago, much less two years ago or 20 years ago.

That's why I was miffed by a member of the Plan Commission who suggested recently that I should have brought up concerns about the proposed Northeast Neighborhood in 1985, or, presumably, forever hold my peace.

The need for flexibility in planning is highlighted further by developments in the national economy over which Fitchburg has no control, and immutable demographic reality. You folks are getting older.

A business column in Saturday's New York Times cited research by Arthur C. Nelson, director of Virginia Tech's Metropolitcan Institute, who has predicted that, by 2025, there will be a surplus of 22 million "large-lot homes" (those built on at least one-sixth of an acre) in America.

The column quotes Leinberger as ascribing that surplus to “'the pendulum swinging back toward urban living,' thanks to a set of economic, social, and demographic trends." The result, he says, could be that low-density suburbs “may become what inner cities became in the 1960’s and 1970’s — slums characterized by poverty, crime, and decay.” (article here)

The column built on an article in the latest Atlantic Monthly (here) that said, in part:

"In most metropolitan areas, only 5 to 10 percent of the housing stock is located in walkable urban places...

"Yet recent consumer research by Jonathan Levine of the University of Michigan and Lawrence Frank of the University of British Columbia suggests that roughly one in three homeowners would prefer to live in these types of places. In one study, for instance, Levine and his colleagues asked more than 1,600 mostly suburban residents of the Atlanta and Boston metro areas to hypothetically trade off typical suburban amenities (such as large living spaces) against typical urban ones (like living within walking distance of retail districts).

"All in all, they found that only about a third of the people surveyed solidly preferred traditional suburban lifestyles, featuring large houses and lots of driving. Another third, roughly, had mixed feelings. The final third wanted to live in mixed-use, walkable urban areas—but most had no way to do so at an affordable price. Over time, as urban and faux-urban building continues, that will change.

"Demographic changes in the United States also are working against conventional suburban growth, and are likely to further weaken preferences for car-based suburban living.

"When the Baby Boomers were young, families with children made up more than half of all households; by 2000, they were only a third of households; and by 2025, they will be closer to a quarter. Young people are starting families later than earlier generations did, and having fewer children. The Boomers themselves are becoming empty-nesters, and many have voiced a preference for urban living. By 2025, the U.S. will contain about as many single-person households as families with children."

Topics for comprehensive plans to consider.

Rich Eggleston
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.

Development Threatens Water Quality, Rural Character

Slightly revised version of Jan. 10, 2008 Letter to the Editor, Fitchburg Star
Submitted by Ed Korn, Fitchburg

Concerning the proposed development in the rural area of Fitchburg east of County MM and north of Lacy Road known as the Northeast Neighborhood. This parcel of undeveloped land abuts the Town of Dunn, a community that has worked hard to retain its rural characteristics.

As one example of the effort by the Town of Dunn to control the impact of development there was years ago an informal agreement between the Town chair and Fitchburg mayor that an undeveloped buffer would be left between Fitchburg and Dunn. The proposed Northeast Neighborhood completely ignores that agreement to the detriment of the kind of community Dunn is trying to maintain.

The shallow southern two thirds of Lake Waubesa is flushed and kept clean by three creeks which draw a significant quantity of their water from the Northeast Neighborhood. Changing the land use from agricultural to suburban will likely have a detrimental impact in those creeks and the already marginal water quality of Lake Waubesa.

Leap frog development which this is, is not appropriate land use. It's expensive to provide the municipal services of police, water, sewage, public transportation, and fire safety. Swan Creek is only fractionally built out let alone Green Tech Village. There is also a significant quantity of appropriate land closer to Fitchburg's central core that at this time is far better suited for urbanization. I think the quality of life of both the Fitchburg and Dunn residents would be better served if the Northeast Neighborhood retains its rural character.

Northeast Neighborhood Poorly Planned

Jan. 10, 2008 Letter to the Editor, Fitchburg Star
Submitted by Holly Adams, Fitchburg


I am a resident of the Northeast Neighborhood, and I was hoping that Sveum’s plan for the forests and fields that surround my home would impress me with planning, innovation and forethought. Unfortunately, the plan failed on all three counts.

The neighborhood is not well planned out. The neighborhood is not really a neighborhood, just a large cluster of homes clumped together. There is nothing to build a sense of community, no center, no focal point, no main streets, just winding roads jam-packed with single family homes, condos and duplexes.

I was hoping for more innovation in the design. I was hoping for something that would make Fitchburg unique or identifiable. Instead, I saw a bedroom suburb, the same as I see around Sun Prairie, DeForest, and Cottage Grove. Putting garages in the backs of lots and houses close together will only encourage people to walk if there are places to walk to. However, everything for these families will be a car trip away. A carton of milk, a teacher’s conference, returning a book to the library and a swim lesson will require cars to dart out of this neighborhood in four different directions.

With all the work that has been done to study I thought there would be more forethought in the plan. The last thing I expected to see was a repeat of the Swan Creek neighborhood, except with more homes jammed in. The Northeast Neighborhood was picked as an area to study for future development because of its proximity to the GreenTech development and to the rail corridor that runs parallel to it. No one knows for sure what is going into that rail corridor, but everyone seems sure we want to develop along it. Of course, if it is high speed rail, the chances that there will be a stop between Oregon and Madison are slim, but that matters not to the people who want to tear up the fields and forests to build acres upon acres of vinyl-sided homes in every shade of taupe known to man.

The city of Fitchburg and the School District of Oregon will bear the costs of this development. The city will have to pay for fire and police protection in this remote corner of Fitchburg, the cost of maintaining the roads and alleys that will crisscross the cornfields, and the cost of leapfrogging urban services over vacant land while land in the existing urban services area goes undeveloped. The school district will bear the cost of bussing kids seven miles each way to school; and the cost of building new schools and spaces for children who live on the far outer edge of the district.

But more costly still is the cost all of us will bear as we continue to chew up field and forest for pockets of development. The cost to our lakes, springs, streams and well water. While Fitchburg and Oregon can tax all of us more to help defray the costs to them for services, there is no amount of money anyone can extract that will recompense us when we have drained our wells dry, or killed our lakes.

I grew up in the Northeast neighborhood. I followed the trails through the woods that led through the meadows and out into the fields that are soon to be torn up. I climbed up the trees, and helped friends build tree forts in the oaks that bent out over the corn fields below. When we had the chance to move back to this wonderful corner of Fitchburg, we jumped at it. We watch the turkeys and the deer during the day, and wait for the flying squirrels to soar in at night. I love the parts of Fitchburg that are forward thinking, progressive and unique. I just wish my own neighborhood was going to stay in that part of Fitchburg, and not become part of the poorly-planned, mundane, environmentally-lethal suburbia that one developer envisions.

'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.

Proposed Development is 'Green Washing'

Jan. 10, 2008 Letter to the Editor, Fitchburg Star
Submitted by Amy Schulz, Fitchburg

"Green" plans for N.E. Neighborhood really mean "green $" for developer

I just finished reading the article regarding the "new and improved" proposal for the N.E. Neighborhood. I'm glad that Sveum has tried to be responsive to the concerns of the citizens of Fitchburg but I'm afraid that his proposed solutions to our concerns are "green washing", in other words, they sound like they are good for the environment, but there are truly a lot of holes in the proposals.

For example, Sveum and Montgomery have plans to control runoff and methods to encourage infiltration, but if these are voluntary, it's likely that they won't be implemented. Sometimes developments promise to be kept free of pesticides (an example of voluntary proposals) but without any governmental teeth to enforce these types of promises, pesticides have been utilized.

Montgomery assured members of the commision that Swan Creek wouldn't be adversely affected by development but what about the issue of Lake Waubesa's water table being affected? Professor Cal DeWitt has done extensive research on the impact of development on Lake Waubesa and this wasn't even addressed.

I find the push for another development in rural Fitchburg to be short-sighted given the economic challenges of the recession that is in progress. There are plenty of homes on the market these days with depressed prices reflecting this recession. The new development in Oregon has plenty of vacant homes and the Swan Creek Neighborhood still has plenty of room as well. The small businesses close to downtown Fitchburg seem to be struggling, are more businesses what we truly need?

I hope that the planning commission will consider these points and NOT approve this development in light of these concerns.

Keep "Public" in Public Hearings

Phyllis Hasbrouck and Terry Carpenter discuss comments (some disturbing) made at the end of the Plan Commission meeting on 9/18/07 regarding the public input process.

Phyllis: Mark McNally started in again on what’s becoming a recurrent theme: that the public talks too much, and repeats themselves! He thinks they should be silenced after 150 seconds, no exceptions! Get an egg timer, and just cut them off!

Terry: He mentioned bringing in a gong not an egg timer. How appropriate for the all powerful commission.

Phyllis: Ed Kinney went him one better, and said, “It should be one minute! If they can’t say what they need to in one minute…” My notes fade out there: was it because he faded out, or he couldn’t express himself in one minute?

Terry: If Ed is serious, it would appear that he has no appreciation for the level of involvement and amount of research that some of the public bring to these meetings. I daresay that few topics can be covered in one minute or less.

Phyllis: Jim Anderson was absent, but at the Sept. 4 meeting, he complained about how much the public repeats themselves. If they start repeating, he said, they should be cut off! Next time, he said, let’s only let them talk about changes to the plan. If they say anything else, cut them off!

Terry: As the Plan Commissioners know all too well, repetition is sometimes needed to make a point when it has not been previously understood. For example, the commissioners have discussed whether or not schools should be considered as one of the guiding parameters to determine the Urban Growth Boundary. The Mayor repeats that “schools are huge.” Others follow along those lines. The Commission is divided on the subject. Thus, we end up hearing the very same discussion on many occasions. Does that mean that they didn’t need discuss the issue again on 9/18? Evidently not, because it was brought up for the umpteenth time and voted down for the umpteenth time through this decision to move the land use plan forward rather than waiting for a meeting with the superintendent of the Oregon School District as suggested by Mark McNally. (More details about this and the rest of the 9/18 Plan Commission meeting from an earlier blog are here.)

I was disappointed to hear one of the Commissioners say that he knew what some people were going to say before they opened their mouth. In some circles, this is known as “already, always listening” as in "I'm already listening for what you always say instead of for what you are saying." This leads nowhere. Perhaps this Commissioner (or others) could consider listening for something new in each comment and create the possibility of learning something. For example, why is this person upset or what facts are not being communicated to the public?

It makes no sense to limit public comments to only changes to the Neighborhood Plan. What if the earlier comments were not heard and not incorporated into the plan? Should we have just give up explaining that water is a finite resource because it was ignored the first few times it was mentioned and it doesn’t specifically address a change the plan? I don’t think so.

And how the heck would they implement these restrictions on civic participation? Who would keep track of what each person said before? Who would keep track of the list of changes that could be addressed?

Phyllis: The Mayor said that he does remind people to finish up, but Mark McNally told him “you’re too nice! You need to cut them off!”

Terry: This is one time that I partially agree with the Mayor. People should be allowed to speak. The city should be open to input from the public and I appreciate the Mayor’s interest in allowing it. But, clear standards need to be defined and implemented to make it fair for everyone. I’m as guilty as the next person of talking more than 3 minutes. But, when people are timed and interrupted (like me) and others are not (even when they talk for over 7 minutes), it is inconsistent and unfair.

Phyllis: Of course, under their new plan for limiting comments, all of these comments by commissioners and many more made at the same meeting, would have been inadmissible, because they were either repeating themselves, speaking off topic, or taking more than 1, 2 or even 3 minutes. Oh, I forgot, those rules are just for the public!

Terry and Phyllis: Dear Commissioners, we know that it can be tedious listening to the public. We know, because it can be tedious for us to listen to you at times. We are all human, and may repeat ourselves or even ramble on. But listening to people we’d rather silence is one of the prices of democracy. Because once you start getting into the business of setting criteria for who is allowed to speak (e.g. no repetition, only speak to changes in the plan) you have to consider, “how would I – or how will I like it when this is done to me?” It’s a slippery slope, and we never know when we might be in the party or faction that is out of power. And that’s why we all need to protect the rights of the public to fully participate. Remember, you might become a member of the public at some time in the future.

However, we also realize that the Commission is busy and your time is limited. Although some seem to suggest that (almost?) all comments from the public could and should be made through phone calls and email, this is not a good way to keep the public involved in the planning process. This might benefit those commissioners who faithfully answer the phone, return messages and read all their email. But, not only does this potentially limit information sharing with some commissioners who are less diligent but it also omits the entire public. Public meetings and especially public hearings, should benefit the public as well as the commissioners. We are there to hear each other’s concerns and that doesn’t happen when most things takes place behind closed doors or (email) windows. The public wants to learn from other residents. How can we do that if we are silenced or stifled?

The Mayor is right to tread lightly when asking people to finish up. Of course, he could be much more consistent, as we noticed that Phil Sveum spoke for over 7 min. on Sept. 4 without a word from the Mayor, while several WWPC people were reminded after 3 or 4 minutes. But in general the Mayor has managed to let everyone have their say at 3 minutes or a bit longer. Perhaps he is more attuned to just how mad people get when they are told that they cannot speak, because he needs their votes, and the Plan Commissioners don’t. Or maybe he’s just more polite.

The Mayor and others often bemoan the fact that more people don’t attend meetings and show they care. Wouldn’t it be smart to reward those who do care by listening to them for a whole 3 to 5 minutes or whatever time allotment is set, even if you find it tedious? People come to meetings because they care deeply about the topic at hand. Very often, their lives will be seriously impacted by what you are deciding. Whether you agree with them or not, in a democracy, your duty is to listen to them respectfully. Sounding a gong after 1 minute won’t do it.

Concerned Citizens:

We’ve reviewed a document presented by the planning department staff to the Commissioners listing options to discuss with regard to the public participation process for agenda items, non-agenda items and public hearings. Although many of the ideas are helpful, others are potentially restrictive. One troubling section includes “Fitchburg has been very generous in allowing persons to speak on any agenda item (and even non-agenda items), although that practice could end if the Commission so chose. The meeting has to be open to the public… but the only right to speak is when a public hearing is noticed.”

We recommend that all concerned citizens weigh in with the Plan Commissioners on this important topic (public participation) before the next Plan Commission meeting on 10/2 at 7:00 pm.

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.)

Fitchburg's Grand Opportunity

Phil Lewis, "retired" Professor Emeritus of Landscape Architecture, shares with us a revised version of the comments he recently submitted regarding Ruekert-Mielke's proposed "Northeast Neighborhood" Plan. [Emphasis and clarification in brackets are mine.] -- Terry

To Ruekert-Mielke and Fitchburg's Planning Commission:

The option to integrate the two plans (on the rail corridor) of Kelly and Wall appears to be taking shape. Truly high-density economically viable development at this location should be considered. A design providing opportunities for such high-density development, starting with a foundation framework than over time can be added to as demand for more facilities increases, is required. Such a design could also assure that future development would occur over first-phase surface parking lots. Ideally, such a design would look to underground parking now and in the future.

Based on information presently available to me, development of the Sveum property [in the Northeast Neighborhood] should be postponed until the necessary transit-oriented density on the rail corridor is achieved. This requires a major effort by all to improve and utilize the rail corridor for transit. Consideration should be given to moderate-density adjacent to high-density development and organic food production opportunities should be pursued (see Sveum property) along with E-Way expansion at this time. I have presented such ideas publicly on a number of occasions.

I have also noted that a large percentage of the people in Dane County live within one mile of a rail corridor and Fitchburg has a grand opportunity to put into practice the kind of development that supports mass transit and higher liveable densities, that provides greater amenities for daily living, local food production, preservation of natural and cultural resources, and avoids mindless sprawl.

Since a high percentage of Dane County people live within a corridor, one mile either side of a rail line, and since this percentage uses electricity, doesn’t it seem reasonable to locate proposed new [ATC] transmission lines within this rail corridor, placed within or attached to higher density structures, or beneath them, as is possible in Fitchburg? As part of urban structures (easily accessible for repair, less susceptible to weather and other damage, grounded to eliminate stray voltage problems, and well insulated for protection of their surroundings), electricity for magnetic induction motor propelled personal rapid transit or other applications with minimal line losses would be available. Towers that unnecessarily disrupt our magnificent landscape would not be needed.

Philip H. Lewis, Jr.

McIntosh Questions Indulgent Development

[The comments below (emphasis mine), and other public comments submitted to Ruekert-Mielke regarding the NE Neighborhood, can be found in 6 PDF files on the City's website here under "Comments from 7/12/07 Public Meeting."]

My name is Melanie McIntosh and I am a resident of Fitchburg's Hatchery Hill neighborhood. I have been following the issues involved in Fitchburg's urge to develop outwardly, especially in the eastern direction. Sprawl is a problem most everywhere and it is a problem here as well. Water resources are challenged by the pressures of development and other quality issues most everywhere and they are challenged here as well. Farmland is disappearing most everywhere and it is disappearing here as well.

What is wrong with city and land use planning processes that they don't favor the preservation of natural resources and farmland? Why won't we stand up and initiate new planning processes such as have been adapted in Ashland, Wisconsin and some other communities? Perhaps there isn't the knowledge level on Fitchburg's City Council to be able to move toward such planning processes?

It baffles me that the majority of Fitchburg officials seem to be able to place economic development as paramount over preservation of land to grow food and over water to fulfill basic needs. Even if the aesthetic and moral aspects of preserving nature are set aside, and it seems that they are frequently set aside in this land use planning process, then how do Fitchburg officials square with the idea of no holds barred development of farmland?

And how do Fitchburg officials stand up for a process that puts at risk one of the lakes and wetland areas that make Dane County such a great area to live in? Perhaps it is a problem of putting other community's resources at risk not our own? Hopefully not. Perhaps it is that developers make great neighbors and community leaders? Hopefully not. Or that they are men relating well to the men of the council? Let's hope that isn't the reason. As you can see, I don't understand the dynamics involved in such indulgent approaches to development and the conversion of farmland to more residential developments. It seems the mayor and a few other Council members are impatient when it comes to the discussions of land use and natural resources. I watched part of the testimony on local access television and I learned how impatient the council is with public testimony.

I was attracted to Fitchburg because of the leadership it showed in recycling. I thought it was a community committed to sustainability of natural resources. Was I mistaken?

Please register my view that residential developments should be limited to the areas nearer to Fish Hatchery Road. Please don’t allow unlimited development in the city's northeast area.

Thank you for this opportunity to share my opinion,

Melanie McIntosh
Fitchburg