Last year the Darby Creek Association made the decision to focus its conservation efforts on western Franklin County, where a history of irresponsible development has taken a toll on Hellbranch Run, and where growing development pressure threatens to exact an even bigger toll on Big Darby Creek downstream.

In the intervening months, DCA's concerns have only increased. County Commissioners,, Hilliard, several townships, and the city of Columbus have all faced tough decisions on a rash of new development proposals, while rumors of new projects continue to swirl. One in Brown Township would include a golf course and 1,265 houses.

As part of an ongoing dialogue with Columbus, DCA trustees recently met with Cheryl Roberto, Deputy Director of the Columbus Department of Public Utilities. Roberto outlined newly drafted plans to protect Darby even as the city pushes plans to develop the watershed.

Columbus is pursuing a two-tiered approach. West of Hellbranch Run and Clover-Groff Ditch, the city is proposing an Environmentally Sensitive Development Area (ESDA). Roberto described this region as being off-limits to Columbus development and suburban development supplied with Columbus sewer and water lines, "until we know how to do it." She added that this area needs multi-jurisdictional planning, which would presumably include city, county, suburban, and township governments.

To the east of Hellbranch, however, the city is taking a unilateral approach. Here officials believe the city can provide stream protection through a zoning overlay specific to the Hellbranch watershed. According to documents provided at the meeting, the purpose of the overlay is to "minimize adverse impacts on the Darby watershed." Included was a draft outline and sample ordinance.

The overlay, which has been in the works for about nine months, features a number of important protections. It will:

End the practice of burying small tributaries in storm sewer pipes.

Dictate that there be no net changes in the area of the flood plain, or in the flood plain's capacity to store stormwater.

Establish a stream bank buffer that will include either the entire 100-year flood plain or a 120-foot riparian corridor whichever is largest. For smaller tributaries of Hellbranch, Clover-Groff, and Hamilton Ditch, the riparian buffer will be 75 feet.

Require at least 40 percent open space for all developments.

Mandate that stormwater quality be mitigated through extended detention, natural or constructed wetlands, or other approved means-outside the flood plain- for the purpose of removing pollutants, reducing channel erosion, and controlling impacts from flooding.

DCA trustees recognize that this is a serious attempt by Columbus to address concerns raised by our group and many others in recent months. In many ways these measures set a new standard in Darby protection.

Still, DCA has a number of concerns that we feel need to be addressed before we can embrace Columbus's proposal.

For starters, we see a glaring weakness in having two strategies for the same watershed. The city understands the need for careful planning: that's why it proposed the ESDA in the majority of the Hellbranch watershed. Yet at the same time it is willing to exempt part of the watershed from this planning process. Columbus should go with its instincts and include the entire watershed in the ESDA.

Why aren't they taking this common sense approach? The only justification given has been that "development is already occurring" east of Hellbranch, and it wouldn't be fair to halt this process midstream. Needless to say, DCA does not find this explanation compelling.

Political pressure from developers, rather than fairness, may be the driving factor. In reality, developers are desperately trying to break into the lucrative Darby area, lobbying hard and throwing a lot of money and legal muscle at the border.

So far, Columbus has bent. Even as the city was developing its new zoning code it continued to annex into the watershed. Construction also began at a Columbus apartment complex along Alton-Darby Rd. That project, which was approved before Columbus's new emphasis on protective site designs, filled part of the flood plain and located a retention basin in the flood plain. Roberto regrets the project, and pledges that such practices are a thing of the past.

That pressure from developers may be Darby's undoing is nothing new. A recently completed U.S. EPA case study reviewed nearly 30 years of efforts to protect Darby, and concluded "development interests were little involved in Darby protection efforts." In summarizing the threat residential growth poses, the agency was blunt: "These threats did not appear to be under good control, and appeared to be especially serious."

To get better control, Columbus should be promoting regional cooperation. Why? Because if every jurisdiction "builds-out" its portion of the watershed, even with environmentally sensitive techniques, widespread impacts are inevitable. There is a limit to how much farmland you can turn into houses and still have a healthy stream. Figuring out this limit can only come through cooperation between stakeholders. Columbus believes it has promoted cooperation through its ESDA; but by exempting their piece of the pie they have only alienated other stakeholders.

A cooperative, comprehensive approach is not pie-in-the sky idealism. In fact, regional planning is occurring in a variety of places across the country. One example is nearby Fairfield County. At the July Darby Partners meeting Tim DeWitt, of Bennett and Williams Environmental Consultants, outlined that county's planning process. Called Land Evaluation Site Assessment, or LESA, the process consists of examining all the characteristics of a region-whether it is a political body, or, in our case, a watershed-and mapping out areas where development is appropriate.

In western Franklin County, such a process could identify "critical resource" areas based on a straightforward goal: protecting the Darby ecosystem. Critical resources would include those identified by Columbus's zoning overlay-riparian buffers and flood plain-but could be expanded to include critical areas with hydric soils, existing wetlands, and surviving forests. Other areas could be set aside to connect open space in large parcels, rather than leaving patches arbitrarily littered across the landscape.

With such a framework in place, decisions regarding future growth could be discussed and planned, rather than handled piece-meal as properties here and there are put forth by developers. And other goals would be easier to achieve, such as planning for roads, schools, and public services.

Rumor has it that Franklin County is toying with the idea using LESA. DCA advocates that the county and Columbus join in such a process for the entire Darby watershed. And in fact, the timing for such an effort could not be more appropriate. At this very moment a five-county effort to develop a watershed protection plan has begun. In addition the EPA is beginning a study of Darby water quality in preparation for the development of a pollution control "action plan" (see story on p. 1.) By taking a unilateral approach at this time Columbus is snubbing its nose at these cooperative initiatives.

Beyond its lack of planning, there are other potential shortfalls with Columbus's proposal. For instance, there has been no study of whether the proposed standards are sufficient to protect Hellbranch. While we appreciate Columbus's efforts, we think water quality standards should be science-based. As one trustee put it, "they're experimenting with the Darby."

For example, the 40 percent open space figure is arbitrary. A more reliable standard for stream protection is impervious surface, a standard recommended by the Center for Watershed Protection, a Maryland-based group recognized as a leader in the field of preserving streams from the effects of development. We suspect that the city's unwillingness to use impervious surface to regulate development stems from the fact that parts of Hellbranch have already exceeded recommended limits of imperviousness. Roberto counters that published limits do not take into consideration the kinds of stormwater mitigation they are planning. Although this is possible, without study the city is merely guessing.

DCA trustees recommend a simple approach: Start from an estimate of what it would take to actually protect Hellbranch and Big Darby. So far such a baseline has not been established.

For these reasons, despite considerable effort on the part of city officials, DCA believes Columbus needs to step back and reassess its basic goals. Both Roberto and Councilman Richard Sensenbrenner have described their objective as "minimizing" impacts to the Darby system. We recommend a more proactive goal in line with OEPA and ODNR recommendations: improving the Darby ecosystem.

Meanwhile, an effort to force Columbus to delay development has itself been delayed. A petition drive that would put an ordinance on the Columbus ballot forbidding the extension of city sewer and water lines into the watershed for five years has run out of time, pushing a vote to next May, according to PEER president (and DCA secretary) Paul Dumouchelle. The group had more than enough signatures-they needed over 7,000-but lacked a cushion to compensate for signatures that were likely to be invalidated.

So for now the Darby debate is simmering beneath public view. DCA will continue to urge caution, patience, and most of all science-based planning. Whether this plea will be heeded has yet to be seen. But we remain convinced that Darby's future depends on our success.

by John Tetzloff