Planning Issues in Connecticut...and elsewhere.

---

Follow the Silt        
NYTIMES
By CORNELIA DEAN
Published: June 24, 2008

LITITZ, Pa. — Dorothy J. Merritts, a geology professor at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa., was not looking to turn hydrology on its ear when she started scouting possible research sites for her students a few years ago.

But when she examined photographs of the steep, silty banks of the West Branch of Little Conestoga Creek, something did not look right. The silt was laminated, deposited in layers. She asked a colleague, Robert C. Walter, an expert on sediment, for his opinion.

“Those are not stream sediments,” he told her. “Those are pond sediments.” In short, the streamscape was not what she thought.

That observation led the two scientists to collaborate on a research project on the region’s waterways. As they reported this year in the journal Science, their work challenges much of the conventional wisdom about how streams in the region formed and evolved. The scientists say 18th- and 19th-century dams and millponds, built by the thousands, altered the water flow in the region in a way not previously understood.

They say that is why efforts to restore degraded streams there often fail. Not everyone agrees, but their findings contribute to a growing debate over river and stream restoration, a big business with increasing popularity but patchy success.

Many hydrologists and geologists say people embark on projects without fully understanding the waterways they want to restore and without paying enough attention to what happens after a project is finished.

In part because most projects are local and small scale, it is hard to say exactly how much Americans spend each year to restore rivers and streams. A group of academic researchers and government scientists, writing in Science in 2005, put the figure at well over $1 billion, for thousands of projects. Efforts are under way to bring more academic rigor to the business.

For example, the National Science Foundation is supporting construction of a large model streambed in Minneapolis, where researchers will be able to test ideas. Meanwhile, though, “an awful lot of stream restoration, if not the vast majority of it, has no empirical basis,” said William E. Dietrich, a geomorphologist at University of California, Berkeley, who studies rivers and streams. “It is being done intuitively, by looks, without strong evidence. The demand is in front of the knowledge.”

Property owners and local and state agencies restore streams for many reasons, like repairing damage from bridge and dam construction or runoff from farms, subdivisions and parking lots. The damage is visible in reduced water quality, damage to habitats, declines in fish, reduced recreational and aesthetic value and other problems.

Some projects use bulldozers to reshape waterways. Others rely on boulders, rock-filled metal baskets called gabions or concrete and other armor to hold rivers in place. Unfortunately, “we have not done enough monitoring to know what works and what doesn’t,” said Chris Conrad, an environmental engineer for the United States Geological Survey, voicing a widely held view.

“Most agencies want to spend the money making things happen and not spend the money finding out if they work,” Dr. Dietrich said.

David R. Montgomery, a geomorphologist at the University of Washington, agreed. Monitoring “involves a lot of people and thought and expertise,” he said. “And you don’t have any new projects to show for it.”

As a result, the academic and government scientists said in their report, “Many opportunities to learn from successes and failures, and thus to improve future practice, are being lost.”

Nowadays, Dr. Montgomery said, most people agree that the best approach is to create landforms and water flows that streams can maintain naturally. “But how you translate that into action and at this stream rather than that stream really requires a lot of work to figure out,” he said. With an ailing waterway, he said, “sometimes there’s a clear line between the symptoms and the cause, and sometimes there’s not.”

Project failure comes in many forms. Often, Dr. Dietrich said, people design projects in hopes of creating “a meandering channel with relatively low banks that look nice.” Then, he said, “a large storm can come through and completely wipe it out,” leaving shallow channels traveling around sandbars in multiple threads, what geologists call a braided channel.
“In most of those cases,” he added, “the restorer has taken a system that is naturally braided and forced it into a form. The channel simple defeated it by being its natural dynamic self.”

At other failed sites, restorers install boulders or other stabilizing armor only to see the water shift around it, leaving piles of rubble midstream. In the Pacific Northwest, people tried to improve stream flow by removing bank side logs and branches only to realize that the debris provided important fish habitat. “We are now spending millions of dollars to compensate for all the wood we took out earlier,” Dr. Dietrich said.

Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
Graphic
Shifting Waterways
 Science Times Podcast (mp3)
Related
For 2 Geologists, Collaboration Blossomed Into More (June 24, 2008)

RSS Feed
Get Science News From The New York Times »
In Pennsylvania, Dr. Merritts and Dr. Walter say, efforts to restore stream flow by removing dams ignored not just the sediment piled up behind them, but also the original landscape, in many cases not meandering streambeds but swampy valleys over which shallow water flowed in sheets.

After dams were built — as many as 8,000 in Pennsylvania — water accumulated in millponds, and the sediment it carried settled to the bottom. When waterpower fell out of favor in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the dams deteriorated until they failed or were removed.

Freed to flow more swiftly, streams began incising channels through the beds of silt. The fine material eroded rapidly, sending tons of sediment — much of it carrying agricultural chemicals like nitrogen and phosphorous — downstream to the Susquehanna River and, ultimately, Chesapeake Bay.

One day recently, Dr. Walter and Dr. Merritts visited restoration sites in the Lancaster region. On one stream, a property owner had planted trees to stabilize stream banks. But the trees had to send roots through almost five feet of accumulated sediment before reaching the water table, a feat most were unable to accomplish before dying of thirst.

Dr. Merritts and Dr. Walter recommend simply removing the sediment and exposing the valley floor, as was done in a restoration project near Lititz, Pa. The project, financed by the State of Pennsylvania, working with LandStudies Inc., a restoration concern, involved removing up to 25,000 to 30,000 cubic yards of silt, enough to fill thousands of dump trucks. Luckily, said Ward Oberholtzer, a partner in LandStudies, it was easy to dispose of because farmers love to spread it on their fields.

And because there are no boulders or other armor involved, he said, “cost-wise we compete pretty well.”

When the work was done, a result was a shallow sheet of water moving over a graveled bed. The water was lined with native plants like sedges, vervain and verbena, sprouted from seeds buried under the silt for more than 100 years. One spot was deepened to create a cool refuge for fish, and nearby, dozens shimmered in the water.

But an approach that works in one place may fail in another. And some critics say restoration to some pristine ideal is simply impractical. Perhaps the most prominent is David L. Rosgen, a hydrologist who runs Wildland Hydrology, a consultancy in Fort Collins, Colo., that designs restoration projects and offers courses on his restoration theories.

“It is impossible to try to restore streams to some condition that is totally different, before we showed up, before we caused disequilibrium,” he said in an interview. “You know how many valleys have aggraded because of those old mill dams? You are talking about hundreds of millions of cubic yards of sediment.”

Dr. Rosgen devised a system that classifies rivers and streams, and prescribes restoration remedies according to several qualities, including water flow, channel characteristics and sediment load, and takes into account how human activity affects the landscape. By now, he said, more than 14,000 people from state and federal agencies and conservation groups have taken his courses and many have used his ideas to good effect.

But he, too, has his critics. Dr. Montgomery called Dr. Rosgen’s classification “a very clever system” but said it was wrong to think that “just by knowing what channel type you have you would know what to do.”

But there is not a great deal of other guidance. Some geologists point to a 1992 report by the National Research Council, the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences, that emphasizes understanding underlying natural conditions and the importance of monitoring.

Among other agencies, the federal Fish and Wildlife Service cites the Rosgen system, as does the North Carolina State University Stream Restoration Program. Overall, though, “The strategy is still largely a ‘kick it and see’ approach,” Dr. Dietrich of Berkeley said. “We don’t know whether any of this stuff that’s being done is worth it.”

He said he hoped better answers would emerge from the National Center for Earth Surface Dynamics, a research center supported by the National Science Foundation and based at the St. Anthony Falls Laboratory, on the Mississippi River, in Minneapolis. Scientists and engineers at the lab, which is affiliated with the University of Minnesota, use computers to model stream and river behavior, including sediment movement, channel and floodplain dynamics and dam removal.

The lab is also working on what Dr. Dietrich described as “the first major, outdoor, to-scale experimental facility to do experiments on a large enough scale to figure out how to bring a scientific basis to stream restoration.”

This “outdoor streamlab” relies on bypasses once used to send river water around falls, and researchers hope that it will let them try building restoration projects “to the scale of small, real channels” and test the results, Dr. Dietrich said . Researchers are lining up to use it. Dr. Dietrich said he hoped work at the lab and elsewhere would help make river and stream restoration “a predictive science — you do the following things, you get the following things.”

The problem is complex, he said, but the demand for answers is increasing. For scientists who study waterways, he said, “these are exciting times.”

The paragraph designates a large part of Preston City as a Special Economic Development Area — marked by a faded pink circle on a map — that could serve as the center for new businesses.

If the plan is approved, some residents and town officials fear that homeowners wouldn't be able to exit their driveways, and the area would become congested with buildings, cars and people.

They point out that the intersection of Routes 164 and 165, in the heart of the village, sees a steady flow of traffic, much of it headed to the area's two casinos.

“Something needs to be done about the traffic before they think about a commercial district,” said Ann Way, who with her husband, Dwight, lives on Route 164.  The economic development area is included in a proposed conservation and development plan, created by the Planning and Zoning Commission, that would chart the town's potential and expected growth.

While the Ways and some local officials say the paragraph singles out Preston City for future unwanted development, zoning officials working on the plan say it simply highlights one area of the town where the potential for economic growth exists.  Town Planner Kathy Warzecha stressed that even after the plan is adopted, a business would need a zone or regulation change before it could open in Preston City.  “It's a 10-year plan. They need to consider what could occur in the next 10 years. That's what the bottom line is,” she said. “It's only a small part of the plan. It's a paragraph.”

Late last year, the commission approved a Preston City Village District, where homes, specialty retail outlets, bed-and-breakfasts, banks, offices and some food-service establishments are allowed. The proposed economic development area would be slightly larger than the village district.

While the proposed plan does not state what kinds of businesses would be allowed in the Special Economic Development Area, some residents fear they would be bigger and more intrusive than what is allowed now.

Ann Way and other residents who turned out for a recent public hearing said there's no need to designate Preston City as both a village district and Special Economic Development Area.  “No other part of town has a circle drawn around it,” Mrs. Way said. “The zoning commission members are definitely not listening. Everyone at that workshop was against the Plan of Development and that circle around Preston City. I'm not opposed to
change or development, but I'm opposed to junky stuff.”

At a December public hearing, resident Jim Pearson said the circle should be eliminated from the plan. Resident Patrice Champagne told the board that most townspeople moved to Preston so they could enjoy a country setting, not uncontrolled commercial growth.  Another public hearing is required before the panel can approve the draft form as a final document. A workshop is scheduled for April 16.

Warzecha, who helped the zoning panel compile the document, said the plan is designed to give an overview of the town.  “It's a document that is supposed to look at planning for the future. The commission isn't saying necessarily that there needs to be rezoning, but they're saying that is a possible area where future mixed development could occur,” Warzecha said.

But Bill Champagne, whose Northwest Corner Road property is surrounded by the recently created village district, said no matter what some town officials claim, “Clearly the intent is to make a commercial zone.”  Champagne, who serves on the zoning panel, said the first public hearing made it “very clear” that residents inside and outside Preston City did not want a peripheral zone. No one has spoken in favor of it and the board is now in the position of defending itself, he said.

The Conservation/Inland Wetlands Commission also has recommended that the special commercial district be removed from the plan because the circle includes Amos Lake.  The commission's chairman, Kent Borner, said the circle “sits on the most sensitive environmental area in the whole town.”

k.gathers@theday.com

The Eightmile River development rights were sold for $800,000, much less than they are worth. The fact that 11 different members of the Bingham family agreed to the sale reflects the family's love for the land and its recognition of the value this open space has to preserving a healthy region. The family will still be able to use the land, barn and fields, but there will be no development allowed there.

The purchase ties into the generosity of Dr. and Mrs. Richard Goodwin of East Haddam, who contributed land for the Nature Conservancy's Burnham Brook Preserve, some 1,122 acres, and the Firestone property in East Haddam and Lyme, a parcel of 318 acres. The Burnham property abuts the main stem of the Eightmile and the Firestone property is located closer to the east branch.

Protecting key feeder streams to the Connecticut River assures that waterfowl, anadromous and resident fish and a variety of animals and birds will thrive not only along the main river, but also in the tributaries, some of them fragile ecological specimens.

The Nature Conservancy actively pursues its Tidelands Program on the Lower Connecticut River after recognizing this region as one of the 40 “Last Great Places” in the Western Hemisphere. The Conservancy also has designated this same region as one of the outstanding river systems in the nation for the variety and quality of its ecological system.

These events make the efforts of people such as the Bingham family all the more important. The Connecticut River is a gem. Its preservation is essential. 

Town officials are currently mulling over the town's Plan of Conservation and Development as required by the state once in every decade. Several public hearings have been held and many residents have turned in surveys indicating they want to preserve the town's rural charm while keeping
taxes low — something elected officials have been pondering how to do over the past year.

More than 60 percent of Salem's tax burden is on residential homeowners, and that figure is expected to rise. With residential developments rapidly increasing over the past five years, town officials are trying to figure out how to regulate the growth.

But officials from two area conservation organizations, the Nature Conservancy and the Salem Land Trust, say they would consider protecting more property from future development if the land becomes available. Combined, they already own or protect more than 1,000 acres in town.

By protecting property, they argue, town services will stay at their present level and the tax burden will not grow. Housing developments increase the amount of services the town must provide and put a strain on the school district, they say.

The Connecticut chapter of the Nature Conservancy, a group dedicated to protecting the marsh ecological system of the Eightmile River corridor, has purchased nearly 750 acres in Salem over the last several years. The latest purchase, a 331-acre parcel on Harris Brook between Round Hill Road and Route 82 in Salem, ended a plan for a multimillion-dollar dollar golf course on the site.

Nathan Frohling, Director of the Conservancy's Tidelands of the Connecticut River program, said that the organization is incredibly lucky to have attracted so much land. Separate 82.35-acre, 149.87-acre and 183.79-acre parcels off Darling Road in Salem and along the Eightmile River have
also been purchased in recent years, taking them off the town's tax roles.

“We have been very active in Salem because there have been opportunities that have come to us,” Frohling said. “People there have been conducting an aggressive open space campaign.”

The Salem Land Trust is also finding farmers with large parcels of land interested in joining with the group in a conservation easement, which protects the land from future development while permitting continued use for farming. The nonprofit organization recently reached an agreement protecting 65.5 acres of land off Darling Road.

Although the land is protected, about nine acres can still be used for commercial use, according to the deed to the property on file at Town Hall.

David Bingham, who serves as president of the land trust, said conservation easements help keep forest, ponds, meadows and cultivated pastures undisturbed.  The trust, a nonprofit organization, was organized in 1996 and is dedicated to natural resource conservation, study and education. In addition to the Darling Road land it also protects an 80-acre parcel on Morgan Road, off Route 85.

Bingham points to towns such as Lyme, where nearly half of the residents are members of the local land trust organization, as an example of how residents can take control of growth, keep taxes steady and preserve land. The Lyme Land Trust today protects more than 60 parcels.

“It's clear that some kinds of development really do provide substantial tax relief, but rapid growth is very expensive,” Bingham said. “We represent a movement that I think is really going to continue to expand.”

Bingham and his wife, Anne, have helped support a group called “SPRAWL,” Salemites for the Preservation of our Rural and Agrarian Way of Life. The group, made up of about a dozen residents, successfully stopped the proposal for the Salem Meadows Country Club golf course resort on 331
acres off Route 82.

Three members of SPRAWL challenged the town in court when zoning changes would have allowed the golf course community on what is now a densely wooded area with walking trails and a running brook. The developer lost his option to purchase the property when his financial backing waned, while the case was in court. The Nature Conservancy then purchased the land.

Differences between the town and area developers has increased as the new environmental groups begin to apply pressure against new developments.

One of those developers is Roger Phillips, who moved to Salem in 1969. An energetic entrepreneur, he quickly began planning to develop sections of the town.

Phillips has been before the Planning and Zoning Commission dozens of times, successfully and unsuccessfully. His developments include the Emerald Glen housing development off Route 85 and two commercial buildings at the Salem Four Corners.

Today, Phillips said, the political environment has changed. As the town restructures its Plan of Conservation and Development, ardent environmentalists are making it increasingly difficult for developers to construct new homes or build new businesses here, he said.

“The town center would not be built under today's regulations,” he said. “I think that Salem is a wonderful place to live, but with the present mentality of the Planning and Zoning Commission, it will be a great place if you're already here, but a difficult place to move into.”

State law requires the town to study its future development needs, said Richard Asafaylo, chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

“I don't think you can stop development, but I think we want to try to maintain this as a town that looks rural,” Asafaylo said. “It's possible to allow commercial, industrial and residential development and still maintain the rural character of the town, and we're working on how to do that.”

Asafaylo said a municipal land use committee has also been recently studying whether the town needs to purchase more land to meet municipal building needs. A future library project and a school building project may mean the town would have to purchase more land over the next decade, he said. The committee is scheduled to make recommendations this month.

Hugh C. Teel, chairman of the Board of Finance, and a former first selectman, said that the town must come down on the issue someplace in the middle. Teel used to own a 100-acre farm on Route 82. Over the years, Teel subdivided the land and built five houses there for his children.

He said he likes to see land preserved and protected, but he recognizes the dilemma.

“One side (says) you're cutting down on taxes because you're not going to have subdivisions built, and the other side is that if you have subdivisions built it will bring people into town to pay taxes,” he said.