Lyndon Area Might See More Historic Changes Due To Floods: Does A Historic Covered Bridge Need To Be Removed

The Sanborn covered bridge in Lyndon. You can see how
it was pinching the flow of the Passumpsic River
beneath it. The bridge has since been removed from its
position for restoration. Due to increased flooding the
bridge might cause in the future, it's been recommended
the bridge not be placed back over the river 
after restoration is complete. 

 One of the many problem with big climate-related disasters is we know they can easily happen again.

Part of the dread is such disasters mean we face more big adjustments.  

You're going to have to change your life, your community, and what is familiar. It might be little things, it could be biggies. 

There's going to be hard decisions, and there's no straight answers on which solution is the right one. 

Which leads us to the Sanborn covered bridge in Lyndon.

It's one of several such historic spans in and around Lyndon and Lyndonville, up in the Northeast Kingdom. 

Before the flooding this summer and last, the Sanborn covered bridge was already slated for a temporary removal and a restoration. it would be moved off to the side, totally renovated and restored, then put back on its perch over the Passumpsic River in Lyndon.  

A community park would be constructed adjacent to it.

The work has already started, and the bridge is off to the side of the river, with work starting on it. But will it eventually go back to its spot spanning the river? Suddenly, we don't know. 

Lyndon, reeling from two catastrophic floods this summer, is looking for ways to mitigate future disasters. It turns out one problem is the Sanborn covered bridge. Or at least its location spanning the Passumpsic River.  

The bridge and its abutments constricts the river, helping back it up into a nearby mobile home park.

Removing the bridge would help. As VTDigger reports:

"At the manufactured home park just upstream, the bridge removal would reduce floodwaters by 0.3 feed during a 10-year flood and 0.6 feet during a 500-year flood, projections show."

A half a foot might not sound like much, but that could be the difference between water entering a home or just passing almost harmlessly beneath it. Or it could be the difference between minor damage and the loss of most of a resident's belongings. 

 The mobile home park has been partially or fully evacuated numerous times in the past few decades. Homes there were badly damaged in this July's flooding. 

I think it would actually be better to move the manufactured home neighborhood out of harm's way, since more flooding is inevitable. Especially in this age of climate change. But where would all these people go?  Who would pay for the move? Certainly not the residents, most of whom are probably living paycheck, to paycheck in the best of times. 

VTDigger describes how this is all painful, controversial and uncertain:

"Figuring out a path forward on the covered bridge project will be a challenging and important endeavor," Selectboard Chair Chris Thompson said during the board's Aug. 5 meeting.

'We need to try to get a win-win out of this,' he said."

The covered bridge won't go away.  The town will restore and keep it one way or another. But whether it spans the river like it was designed to do is now an uncertain. It will likely be one more departure from the familiar, from the way it's always been.  

For those who might ask what the big deal is about an old bridge, these covered bridges are a centerpiece of the state's history, and are absolutely treasured across the Green Mountain State.

We're gradually losing them to floods and other disasters, so we want to preserve them as much as possible.   Tropical Storm Irene back in 2011 destroyed the 1870 Bartonsville Covered Bridge in southeastern Vermont, local residents cobbled together federal aid, insurance payouts and lots of local donations to restore it. 

That restored Bartonsville bridge is now handling traffic again, just like it always did. 

Back in Lyndon, the hope is there will be a similar happy ending. Maybe things will be different, but still beautiful and historic. 

The Sanborn covered bridge dilemma is just one example of how Vermont towns and villages - and communities all over the world - have to make difficult decisions and see sometimes painful changes in the the fabric of these communities. 

A covered bridge isn't the only issue facing the region. 

Already in Lyndon and Lyndonville, the iconic Miss Lyndonville Diner shut down in the wake of July flooding. A new owner might buy it and revive it, but we don't know that as fact yet. Village Sports, also in Lyndonville announced earlier this summer it would need to stop a ski and snowboard program for area youths because its stock of snowboards was destroyed in this summer's floods. 

There's a long list of other important for Lyndon and Lyndonville to consider after the floods. How best to repair roads and bridges?  To what extent will federal money help? 

Should the town and homeowners take advantage of a buyout program, in which owners of flood-vulnerable homes sell them, and they they are demolished and turned into open land so that nobody else has to live through a flood on that site. How badly will such buyouts wreck the tax base?

These are questions being asked in towns all across Vermont. The answers will be slow in coming, I'm sure. I also bet there will be some wrong answers, not intentionally wrong, but just what you get when  you make educated guesses. 

Every time it starts to rain, it seems the main question that runs through everybody's mind is, "What fresh hell will this bring?" Almost always, the answer is none. We know that the vast majority of rain storms are harmless.

 But the PTSD of epic storms in the recent past mean you never know when it'll hit again, and what painful questions the next one will bring. 

 

Did Reforestation Forestall Climate Change In Eastern U.S ?

I boat sets sail on Lake Champlain on September 4, 2023, when 
it was 90 degrees. The trees in the foreground probably
made it feel a bit cooler.

They say trees are great for the environment.

One large scale example of the benefit from trees might have come over the past five decades or so in the eastern United States.  

First, the mystery, as reported in The Guardian. 

"While the U.S., like the rest of the world, has heated up since industrial times due to the burning of fossil fuels, scientists have long been puzzled by a so-called 'warming hole; over parts of the U.S. Southeast, where temperatures have flatlined, or even cooled, despite the unmistakable broader warming trend."

Most of the East was deforested for farms and such with European settlement. The lack of forests continued well into the 19th century. But starting in the 1920s and accelerating after World War II,   forests re-grew.  

The Guardian continues:

"'The reforestation has been remarkable and we have show this has translated into the surrounding air temperature,' said Mallory Barnes, an environmental scientist at Indiana University who led the research. The 'warming hole' has been a real mystery and while this doesn't explain all of it, this research shows there is a really important link to the trees coming back."

Tree blunt heat because water that was drawn up by red roots are released into the air via leaves as vapor. That water vapor cools the surrounding air a little bit. 

The renewed forests cooled the eastern U.S. by around two or three degrees each year. The cooling effect is most noticeable in the summer, as the trees are estimated to have cooled the air by roughly four to eight degrees Fahrenheit. 

The Guardian notes that trees probably weren't the only things keeping the East a little on the cool side. Pollution before the Clean Air Act purified the atmosphere in the late 20th century probably blocked sun, keeping temperatures from rising too much. 

It's possible agricultural irrigation might have had a small cooling effect, too. 

 POSSIBLE VERMONT EFFECTS?

In the age of climate change, Vermont has warmed more than places further south along the Appalachian chain and southeastern United States.

Still,  we might have partly gone through that cooling phase due to reforestation, but just a little earlier than the Southeast. 

After clearing the state for lumber and farms, only around 20 percent of Vermont remained forested by the late 1880s. Most of that was at high, rather inaccessible elevations.

During the 1990s, the trend reversed, but Vermont didn't become fully reforested until the 1960s or so. Since then, around 75 to 80 percent of Vermont was forested.

Remember how I said especially in the Southeast, the cooling effect of forests was most noticeable in the summer?

In Burlington climate records, I noticed that there was a relative peak during the 1930s and 1940s in the number of days in the summer that reached 90 degrees or more.  As more of the state became forested, the number of 90 degree days, as measured in Burlington, declined through the 1950, 1960s and 1970s.

At Burlington, there were six consecutive years from 1944-49 that each had eight or more days of 90 degree temperatures. Such a long streak of hot summer weather didn't happen again until 2015 through 2023, with each of those summers having eight or more 90 degree days. Climate change was very likely one major contributor to these very recent hot spells. 

The hot weather of the 1940s probably wasn't entirely due to a lack of forest. Drought can allow the air to heat more efficiently than wet ground can.  As noted earlier in this post, air pollution in the 1950s into the 1970s might have dimmed the sun enough to keep 90 degree weather at bay. There might have been just a persistent weather pattern in the 1940s that created hot days.

But there's no denying trees are probably helping us cool off at least a little on hot summer days.  In Vermont, and pretty much everywhere else, trees can help mitigate the effects of a warming planet, especially in the summer. 

One of the reasons the city of Burlington, and so many other cities across the United States plant trees is for that cooling effect in the summer.  

It's probably weird that we're talking about heat waves on a February day that brought morning temperatures to near zero.  But it will be summer soon enough. If you want to stay cool, thank a tree near you. 

One Telling Example Of Why Climate Change Adaptation Is Hard

Aerial view of flooding in Waterbury, Vermont this
summer. Photo from University of Vermont via Vermont Public.

We had yet another flood in Vermont this month.  For the second time in five months, the town of Waterbury was hit especially hard. 

Like many communities in Vermont - and around the world for that matter - Waterbury is trying to figure out how to adapt to climate change. 

The town is built in large part in the Winooski river flood plain. Wetter and more intense storms are making the Winooski more likely to flood, and that trend will continue well into the future. 

It's literally sink or swim for Waterbury. 

Recent events, though, demonstrate how hard it can be to adapt. Even seemingly simple, relatively inexpensive ideas are easily shot down. 

After the severe flooding in Waterbury from Tropical Storm Irene in 2011, town officials began to seek ways to mitigate future disasters. One idea in particular popped out.

As Vermont Public reports:

"Experts quickly identified a straight forward project that could provide huge relief for a modest expense. They determined that a small field in neighboring Duxbury sat at a crucial spot on the river, and that building a floodplain in the field could dramatically reduce flood levels a mile away in Waterbury Village.

For $3 million, the project would reduce flooding in downtown Waterbury by as much as 12 inches and prevent millions of dollars of damage to homes and businesses, officials said. 

Better yet, converting the field into a floodplain didn't require knocking down a home or any building. And Waterbury taxpayers wouldn't suffer much of a hit - FEMA would pick up 75 percent  of the cost, and officials hoped to secure grants to spare taxpayers the 25 percent local match."

There's a choke point on the Winooski River in Waterbury a little north of the Winooski Street Bridge. At that point the river runs between the private property and railroad tracks near and parallel to Route 2.

Somewhat elevated land on both sides of the river at that spot means the river can't spread out. It creates a sort of dam that eventually releases a crapload of water back into the town during severe rainstorms.  The idea was to lower land owned by the Harvey family so the water would spill onto that property, which would spread out the water and reduce flooding in the village. 

The problem is that somebody owns that private property in Duxbury. 

That would be the Harvey family, who have lived  on an adjacent property for more than a century. Vermont Public says the family would have kept their land, would have been paid an unspecified price for its use, or may received another piece of land for allowing the project to happen. 

To be fair to the Harveys, they need that land. It's a big part of their livelihood. They train and pasture horses on the parcel that would face more frequent inundations under the plan. So they wouldn't entertain the idea of turning their land into more of a flood plain to potential reduce trouble in Waterbury. 

Vermont Public goes on: 

"They have used the field, which is less than 10 acres to train racehorses, and feared that if it flooded more frequently, it wouldn't be usable. Maureen Harvey told Vermont Public recently.  They were also skeptical of the project's purported benefits. 'I'm not saving the world, I'm not saving Waterbury,' Harvey said. 'It's not a plan that really, I don't think, in the long term is going to do squat.'"

I can understand the Harveys' point of view.  It can be hard to imagine how the plan would work if you're not a hydrologist. That's not to say the experts are wrong about the potential benefits of the plan. They probably are correct. It's just hard to picture it. Especially when the plan threatens the use of your land the way you had intend. 

The State of Vermont could have played hardball. They could have seized the property under eminent domain by declaring the land was necessary for flood control projects. But ultimately, state officials declined to do that. 

Vermont Public explains: 

"The way things work in Vermont is we don't take people's land or force then to do things on their land,' said Roy Schiff, a water resource engineer and scientist who authored the 2013 study that identified the Harveys' field as a potential site for a floodplain."

The Harveys refusal to participate and the state's reluctance to push the issue, probably predicts what will happen when officials try even more complicate flood prevention projects. 

Of course, the December flood added more urgency to the idea of mitigating floods in Waterbury. Once again, parts of the town flooded, including a number of homes on Randall and parts of Elm Streets. 

The Waterbury thing would have been a relatively easy fix. Now imagine what Vermont flood-prone communities need to do when there's a lot more moving parts, and a lot more private properties involved.

Barre is another flood prone Vermont city.  In October, Gov Phil Scott, who grew up in Barre, presented an ambitious major re-do of Barre to flood proof the community. 

It's only a first draft, but as VTDigger describes it, the plan envisions demolishing 92 existing housing units - both single family homes and apartments - in the flood prone north side of downtown. That area would be replaced by parkland and flood plain.

On the edge of this area, above where flood waters would reach, the idea is to building mid and high rise buildings and single family homes, for a total of 225 new homes and apartments. 

Again, it's just an idea. But can you imagine how difficult it would be to get everybody to sign on to this?  Yeah, stay tuned. 

All this is just two examples of the extremely difficult task Vermont has in facing the consequences of  climate change. It's mot just about making a few culverts bigger. Been there, done that. We're going to need to find away to redesign much of the Green Mountain State. 

 

One Of Nation's Top "Heat Islands" Is Burlington, Vermont

A view of  Burlington, Vermont from Lake Champlain

on Wednesday. Notice all the dark colored buildings.

These dark colors exacerbate the summertime heat

island effect to a surprising degree.

 Nobody considers Burlington, Vermont a broiling hot city, on the level of say, Phoenix or Baghdad.  Burlington is far more known for the bitter winter winds that sweep off of Lake Champlain. 

One recent study though had a surprising result: Burlington has among the nation's worst "heat island" effects in the nation. 

The heat island effect is the idea that asphalt, buildings and other urban development collects summer heat much more than the surrounding leafy or agricultural countryside.  That means the city is hotter in the summer than those places way out of town. 

It turns out the difference in summer temperatures between Burlington, and say, a woodsy spot in Monkton or something, is about seven degrees on average, according to a study by Climate Central.

Of 159 cities examined by Climate Central, Burlington had the 13th greatest heat island effect. The magnitude of the heat island effect in Burlington is on par with Baltimore and Miami.

That's certainly not to say Burlington is as hot as those cities. It's just that the difference in temperature between the core of all these cities and the countryside is similar. 

Burlington's high ranking in this study is surprising, given the cool breezes that sometimes come off Lake Champlain. 

Moreover, cities with lots of trees and parks tend to have a somewhat more subdued heat island.  Trees and grassy surfaces tend to have a cooling effect, and Burlington certainly has lots of trees. Cities with tall skyscrapers, like New York and Houston and Miami, tend to trap more heat than low rise cities.  Burlington doesn't have skyscrapers, so that's not the issue either

The problem probably is that Burlington is an old Northeastern city. That means lots of brick facades, asphalt roofs, dark colored walls, all of which absorb summer heat.

More newly built cities tend to at least make attempts at minimizing the heat island effect by painting walls and roofs lighter colors. That's something Burlington can try.

We do have long winters, but the lighter colors won't make the interior of buildings colder, especially in structures with decent insulation.

But lighter colors, or rooftop gardens and other mitigating factors can help reduce the suffering hot summer days can cause in Burlington. 

Overall, summers are getting hotter under the weight of climate change, so reducing the effects of heat islands will benefit everyone who lives in Burlington or any other city. 

After a relatively cool July, summer is returning to Vermont, and you will certainly feel the effects of the heat island effect once again if you are in Burlington during the upcoming week or more.  High temperatures for the next several days at least will be in the 80s. Hottest in Burlington, of course!