SAVE THE GRISWOLD LAND!

Home

How You Can Help

What's New?

Blueprints for the Park

A Brief History

Endorsements

What Others Are Saying

Frequently Asked Questions

Letters to the Editor

Environmental Impact

Expert Scientific Reports

Photo Gallery

Contact Us

 

EXPERT SCIENTIFIC REPORTS

Many expert reports have been issued during this battle, and many citizens have questioned how the average layperson can make sense of the conflicting reports coming from environmentalists and from the developer. 

It isn't easy, of course.  Consider, however, who stood to make millions from this project, and who did not.  While money isn't always the whole story, it's always a major factor.  No one from the grassroots opposition stood to profit from blocking the construction of this development.  LeylandAlliance, obviously, could not say the same.

Furthermore, during the public hearings, Leyland refused to provide any kind of guarantee that their wastewater system would perform as promised.  If they were so sure that their experts' opinions were accurate, why would they refuse to provide insurance to back up their claims?

Robert Schreiber is an MIT-trained engineer and specialist in wastewater flow who testified for SGOD during the Madison Planning and Zoning hearings.  From the beginning, Schreiber maintained that the engineering firm hired by LeylandAlliance based its claims on insufficient data and insufficient analysis.  

In this memo from September 2005, Schreiber responds to BL Companies' report, dated August 18, 2005.  He points out repeatedly the inadequacy of their data collection, and describes their results as "questionable", "casual", "inappropriate", "not fully backed up by data", "clear misrepresentations", and more.  Schreiber also provided detailed testimony during the DEP hearings in Hartford, in May 2007.

Brian Howes, Ph.D. is Professor of Marine Science and Technology at the University of Massachusetts - Dartmouth, and the Director of their Coastal Systems Program. He performed an extensive review of all previous reports on the Griswold site, and also his own on-site study, to evaluate the potential for damage to the Hammonasset tidal wetlands from the Leyland proposal.  He and his PhD student donned hip waders and walked the site, toured the creeks by boat, got their hands dirty, and took their own measurements and samples.  Dr. Schreiber points out in his letter, outlined above, that Leyland has failed to do this kind of careful data collection.

Dr. Howes provides an outstanding overview of the plight of such estuaries in general, and then of this one in specific.  He discusses the specter of losing the ecologic, aesthetic, economic, educational, and recreational benefits of this rare and precious resource.  Dr. Howes' full report can be read here.  He provided additional detailed testimony during the DEP hearings in May 2007.

Keith Ainsworth, Esq., who specializes in environmental law and served as the legal counsel for SGOD, summarizes key findings of Dr. Howes report in this letter to the Connecticut DEP.  He emphasizes the impact to the tidal wetlands not only from the Amphidrome wastewater system, but also from increased fertilizer use and the greater surface runoff.  Ainsworth notes that the impact on the Hammonasset River estuary from Madison Landing is not permissible under the Federal Clean Water Act

LeylandAlliance responded to the Howes report with an analysis written by Connecticut College botanist Scott Warren.  In his report, Warren recycled old data previously discredited by Schreiber and Howes, made no attempt even to appear that he was providing any original information, and then spun his data into a set of conclusions that are at odds with objective science and common sense.  He argued that the freshwater discharge from Madison Landing would not only not harm the estuary, but would enhance it!  He also concluded that the nitrogen loading (human waste) from the Madison Landing wastewater system "...even under the most pessimistic scenario, will have no discernable impact on surrounding marshlands..."  Warren's claims, simply put, were not believable.  His report can be read here.

In order to generate a response to the Warren report, opponents of the plan again consulted Brian Howes, Ph.D.  Howes composed a highly detailed analysis, which can be found here.  Briefly, Howes concludes that the key assumptions and conclusions made in Warren's report are inaccurate.  He notes that the Warren report relied heavily on unsubstantiated assumptions which have not or cannot be proven, and on making calculations based on previously contested data.  He details the ways in which Warren grossly over-estimates the current nitrogen loading in the estuary, and thus underestimates the impact of Madison Landing.  He also assails the viability of the Phragmites control program proposed by Leyland.  See Howes' full report for details.

To follow up on this report, Attorney Ainsworth wrote this letter to Warren Herzig of the Connecticut DEP Bureau of Water Management.  Ainsworth contrasts Howes' rational, scientific report with Warren's insistence on using poor data and wrong assumptions.  He also reiterates that Warren's own report effectively acknowledges that Madison Landing would transgress the Federal Clean Water Act, by increasing nitrogen loading in a water body designated as impaired. 

Before the DEP rendered a decision, Leyland withdrew the Amphidrome Plus system from consideration and substituted the Zenon system, another system which is inappropriate for this site.  For more about the Zenon system, click here and here.

Return to Top of Page