Lake Linganore is the major drinking water source for Frederick City residents.
Based upon a preliminary assessment it is clear that there are highly erodible soils and steep slopes adjacent to the streams and water bodies in the Linganore at Eaglehead PUD. Clearing the land for development exacerbates sediment runoff into Lake Linganore and the little tributaries that feed it. Since Lake Linganore is already experiencing a significant sedimentation problem, allowing development on these soils will make a serious problem even worse.
Methodology for Identifying Highly Erodible Soils and Steep Slopes in the Lake Linganore at Eaglehead PUD
Soils based on National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey  within the Lake Linganore at Eaglehead PUD (as revised 5/17/13) identified as being highly erodible are presented.
The most thorough discussion of soil erodibility is in Baltimore County’s “A Methodology for Evaluating Steep Slopes and Erodible Soils Adjacent to Watercourses and Wetlands”. “The ‘High’, ‘Medium’, and ‘Low’ values were assigned to each Map Unit Symbol (MUSYM) in place of K factor values to aid users of this document in determining which soil erodibility scores to use. ‘High’ erodibility is determined based on the narrative ratings for various MUSYM’s. The Web Soil Survey contains a multitude of K factor values for each soil map unit. All of these values were taken into consideration when assigning the ‘High”, ‘Medium’, and ‘Low’ values in Appendix A” (Baltimore County). If the soil is not listed in the Baltimore County Appendix A, then a Kf or Kw factor of 0.32 or greater is considered highly erodible. Steep slopes were identified by overlaying the NRI/FSD prepared in September 2007 and tracing the slopes identified as greater than 15% (spot checked and revised using 10’ County contours). These areas are identified by legend symbol on the attached concept plan.
Citizens living in New Market and Linganore are banding together over concerns with massive rezoning, proposed reductions to stream protective measures and the need for better prevent polluted waters in their area. CLEANWATER_LINGANORE, Inc. is a voice for clean water and a watchdog for activities that will impact the streams and tributaries to Upper and Lower Linganore Creeks and Lake Linganore, a significant drinking water reservoir in Frederick County (see map).
Posted: Thursday, October 17, 2013 2:00 am
It appears as though Frederick, Frederick County and the Lake Linganore Association may be sharing the cost of a much-needed project — dredging tons of silt that have accumulated in the lake since it was created in 1972.
LLA has been talking about this project for years, but the cost, estimated at between $4 million and $8 million, has been prohibitive for the development near New Market to bear alone.
It’s encouraging that these three potential partners in this enterprise met recently to discuss their interest in financing the project.
County special projects manager Mike Marschner presented the following three-way split on the project’s cost: Frederick County, 25 percent; the city of Frederick, 50 percent; and LLA, 25 percent.
Frederick Mayor Randy McClement and LLA representative Robert Charles seemed amenable to Marschner’s cost-sharing proposal. The city’s share is greatest because the lake, which Frederick uses for water storage, is a component of its water management system.
And while the county no longer relies on Lake Linganore for any of its water needs, that could change in the future. To ensure access to the lake’s water if it is needed, the county is willing to contribute to the cost of the dredging operation. Read the entire editorial.
There will be a meeting hosted by Oakdale LLC to discuss the Eaglehead DRRA. Please attend and spread the word to your neighbors and friends
When: Saturday May 11th 10AM
Where: Oakdale Middle School (entrance is usually around back)
To learn more please click here for the Casey Property PUD fact sheet.
Map below shows streams surrounded by floodplain, forest (green) and blue for ponds and wetlands.
The Frederick County Commissioners have approved or are discussing approval of over 7000 new dwellings, in many cases without appropriate plans for schools, roads, emergency services and other key infrastructure. We believe that our public officials should follow existing laws; in a growing number of cases that is not happening.
FoFC is currently challenging:
* Crum and Thatcher (Frederick City north)
* New Market Municipal Growth Element in Maryland Court of Special Appeals(read letter from FoFC)
* Frederick City Comprehensive Plan in Frederick County Circuit Court
* Landsdale (Monrovia) at the Board of Appeals
* Landsdale Storm Water Management Administrative Waiver at the Board of Appeals, March 28, 2013 7pm
* Jefferson Technology Park at the Board of Appeals
* Frederick County’s 2012 Comprehensive Rezoning in the Frederick County Circuit Court
If school overcrowding is your concern, it is with good reason. Read this published letter from one Monrovia citizen who gives us the facts.
Skirting open meetings
Originally published January 18, 2013
We’re glad New Market’s attorney, William Wantz, put the brakes Wednesday night on two massive annexations, but not because we support or oppose them — that’s a matter for the town to decide.What concerns us are some of the maneuvers by town leaders that make it look like they’re trying to skirt the Open Meetings Act, a state law dedicated to ensuring we all have full and thorough access to government officials when they make decisions, most of which involve spending our tax money.
At issue in this case are two parcels of land — the 262-acre Smith-Cline and 134-acre Delaplaine properties — that, added to New Market’s boundaries, would double the town’s size and could add nearly 1,000 new houses.
New Market’s leaders know annexation proposals are controversial. In a 2007 referendum, in a vote of 148-105, residents shot down plans to annex the Smith and Cline farms after the public objected. The process dragged out over months and was extremely controversial; tempers flared on both sides. That was a tough, open and necessary debate, one that seems to be missing in this latest push to expand the town’s limits.
Take two examples where New Market’s leadership walked a fine line about notifying its residents and other interested parties.
On Jan. 10, the day of the planning commission hearing, the annexation discussion was added to the agenda at 10 a.m. The hearing was at 7 p.m. — and the planning commissioners voted to support the annexations that night. If you were interested in attending and making your opinion known, pro or con, but worked out of the county or had some other commitment, you were probably out of luck.
A planned vote on the annexations, listed innocuously enough as a “discussion,” was added to Thursday’s Town Council agenda only the day before the 7 p.m. meeting. That’s where Wantz, who is apparently listening to residents worried about the annexation, told council members, “We want to do this right, and we want to do this in a way that doesn’t cause harm.”
These meetings were not advertised even remotely adequately. In the case of the vote, the lack of notification was particularly egregious. Another public hearing has been scheduled for next month.
Scheduling the discussion suddenly on the day of the hearing or day before by adding it to the agenda at the last minute is government’s cowardly end run around the law to mute opposition in sometimes controversial decisions. Sadly, under the Open Meetings Act, it’s not illegal. But it’s certainly not within the spirit of the law. We’re not sure if an intentional suppression of opinion was what happened in the case of the annexations, or whether it was an overly hasty attempt to move this issue ahead. Either way, we’d urge Mayor Winslow F. Burhans III and the Town Council to consider the importance of allowing enough time for the public to be present at and speak at the next hearing.
Taken alone, the lack of notification could be considered just an oversight. But there are a couple of more points of concern.
Burhans says he has been meeting with anyone who wants to learn more. They have been one-on-one meetings in private homes. They were set up using his private business email, which he includes on nearly all of his town correspondence, and not the email he has through the town.
Why private email? Presumably because government emails are public information and subject to public information requests. Using a private email to communicate is the 21st-century equivalent to meeting in a smoky back room behind closed doors. Meeting one-on-one is similarly questionable.
Finally, in an explanation of the late notice to one of our reporters, Burhans indicated that letters from him and other council members were sufficient notice — except they didn’t contain a time, date or address for the meetings. This is hardly the “reasonable advance notice” required by the law. In fact, the Open Meetings Act manual published by the Maryland attorney general (and available on his website) clearly states: “Unless some unusual circumstance makes it impracticable to do so, the public body should give a written notice that includes the date, time, and place of its meeting.”
We hope these aren’t intentional strategies to subvert proper public comment and avoid the kind of divisive — but necessary — public debate that took months to resolve in 2007 and led to that special election referendum. But that’s how it appears, and in politics, even small-town politics, appearance is everything.
Hearings on this have not allowed for a full and thorough debate. We doubt a majority of residents’ voices have been adequately heard. That needs to happen before a decision as monumental as doubling the town’s size is voted on by the council.