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.
Governor Glendening described exactly what FoFC has been saying. The infrastructure needs for a community that is more dense and walkable is less. And that there is a disconnect between what will sell and what we are building in Frederick County. FoFC inserted the photos below (they are not part of the FNP article).
Glendening describes mismatch between housing supply, demand
By Bethany Rodgers News-Post Staff | Posted: Thursday, September 5, 2013 2:00 am
The American dream is changing, and community design must keep up with it, former Maryland Gov. Parris Glendening told a Frederick group Wednesday.
In a talk focused on smart growth, Glendening said an increasing number of people are eschewing large, single-family houses in the suburbs and instead settling in dense, walkable communities. However, there’s a growing disconnect between the types of housing people want and what’s available on the market, he said.
“Keeping our downtowns strong and keeping our communities economically vibrant in the long term will require a different approach to growth than we have been doing for the last 60 years,” he said during the event at Frederick City Hall.
Two population trends are driving changes in the types of housing people want. For one thing, the nation’s senior population is on the rise, and by the year 2030, almost one in five Americans will be older than 65, Glendening said. Increasingly, older Americans are less inclined to head to Florida or a nursing home upon retirement and are more interested in aging in place. Seniors are now looking for communities where they wouldn’t have to drive and where they’re near stores, activities and health care services.
A large millennial population, made up of people between the ages of 18 and 30, is also shaping the housing needs of the future, Glendening said. These people are starting families later and are driving less, he said. The millennial generation tends to like small-lot homes or attached dwellings that are close to their workplaces and served by transit systems.
In addition, rather than choosing their place of residence based on a job, an increasing number of these individuals are selecting the communities they like and then seeking employment in those areas. Read the story…
It’s easy, it’s fun, it’s relaxing and only requires 4 hours of your time each year. Moreover the help you give IS SO VERY IMPORTANT to collective efforts of many people and organizations working to help clean up our waters in Frederick County.
There is cause for concern about our streams’ health in Frederick County. You can help change that. Please start now.
New partners in county stream improvement
For The Frederick News-Post | Posted: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 2:00 am
John Smucker recently partnered with the Potomac Conservancy as part of a project to remove a fish barrier, an outmoded dam and control bank erosion in Tuscarora Creek. He planted 55 native hardwood trees along with cocoa matts. Brook Hill United Methodist Church helped complete the field and leg work.
Ray Locke, coordinator of the Friends of Frederick County Clean Streams Initiative, is seeking to use similar techniques to improve the health of other streams in Frederick County. Frederick County has 20 different watersheds of which 11 are in poor condition. He is looking for groups to Adopt-A-Grid and install erosion stabilizers to improve water quality. Read the full story.
Email: friends@friendsoffrederickcounty or email@example.com to adopt a grid.
|Marylanders support bay cleanup
Originally published February 20, 2013
|Recent letters have commented about efforts to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. Stephen Seawright, past president of the Frederick County Building Industry Association, pointed out that an 80 percent majority of our current elected county commissioners are disinclined to support these local efforts. But he failed to account for the 70 percent of Marylanders who support bay efforts.Every one of us, regardless of domicile or occupation, has bay impacts and needs to be part of the changing practices to alleviate bay pollution. But the voices we often hear now are those with a complaint about a single regulation that affects their personal business or lifestyle.
Mr. Seawright suggests that because some efforts are lower cost per projected improvement impact, that we simply buy more of that mitigation while ignoring the ones that his industry needs to integrate into their development process. This is sophistic logic.
Bay pollution is costly and problematic, and efforts are spread across a wide spectrum of practices and public actions. Because of its nature, there is no single source or cause, no magic wand to health.
The problem is not simply solved by planting all trees and ignoring the variety of other causes, including the impervious surfaces that Mr. Seawright objects to mitigating. No matter how much of Frederick County we covered in streamside forest buffers, the water runoff from impervious surfaces, in velocity and heat and carrying an array of pollutants such as oil and chemicals and fertilizers, would impair the stream water quality, erode stream banks, and ultimately still diminish the Chesapeake Bay.
The 70 percent of Marylanders for bay cleanup know that as we spend to improve agricultural practices, change builder practices for impervious surfaces, and plant riparian trees, and the variety of other directives toward bay cleanup goals, it is ultimately all of us who really end up paying the difference. And we agree that clean water, for drinking, supporting the farmers of the bay, and sport and recreational uses, not to mention our obligation to our children and grandchildren’s future, is worth the effort.
I call upon our Board of County Commissioners, homebuilders, our farmers, and ultimately our individual lifestyle choices, to make every effort possible to sustain our environmental qualities.
That some are lobbying Congress and suing in federal court to stop the progress [cleaning the Chesapeake Bay waters] is not only tragic, it is mind-boggling. All of us who value the Chesapeake and are determined to see a better future for our children and grandchildren must let our voices be heard. It is time to finish the job.
|County pushes back on water cleanup regulations
Commissioners approve $25,000 payment to support coalition led by Dorchester County
Originally published November 09, 2012
Frederick County is putting $25,000 toward a mounting protest against water cleanup plans that county commissioners argue could burden local taxpayers.A coalition drawn together by Dorchester County officials is forming around concerns about a “pollution diet” for improving the health of the Chesapeake Bay.
Partnering counties doubt that Maryland’s strategy for meeting cleanup goals would do the job and say the measures would come at too heavy a price. Frederick County staff estimates that meeting state targets by 2025 would cost the county almost $1.9 billion.
“The stormwater regulations that are coming down are so enormous in cost that it has to be addressed,” Commissioner Paul Smith said Thursday.
In late October, county commissioners received a letter from Dorchester County leaders asking them to help push back against what they view as overly burdensome requirements. Dorchester County leaders need money for the cause, for which they have hired attorneys from the firm of Funk & Bolton to rally other jurisdictions and compile a body of scientific and legal data.
Smith approved of writing the $25,000 check to Dorchester County, but said he is not ready to promise future financial backing. Frederick County has already paid a firm called AquaLaw more than $24,000 since June 2011 to work on water-related matters. Smith said he wants to make sure officials don’t pay for the same thing twice.
Attorneys with AquaLaw have dealt with stormwater permits, and the coalition support would not duplicate their efforts, Commissioners President Blaine Young said.
Commissioner David Gray was the only board member to vote against supporting the coalition, taking issue with an attitude of resistance toward cleanup projects.
“I think we should see how we can accommodate some of the goals as opposed to fighting them all the time,” Gray said in an interview after the meeting.
He also said there was not enough detail about the coalition’s workings or mission to bring him on board.
The Oct. 26 letter sketches an organizational framework for the coalition, which would be steered by three committees made up of leaders from partner counties.
So far, Caroline, Cecil, Kent and Charles counties have joined Dorchester in the coalition, and a number of other local leaders have expressed interest, said Jefferson Blomquist, an attorney with Funk & Bolton.
The legal and technical costs of resisting the cleanup regulations could total about $300,000, Blomquist estimated.
Young said Thursday that the coalition-building could lead to litigation, but Blomquist said members have no intention of taking legal action and would prefer to wage the war on the fronts of lawmaking and policy-writing.
The group’s formation is not necessarily a cause for concern unless it represents an interest in shirking responsibility for improving state waterways, bay advocates say.
“If the motivation is to cause delay or to question a scientifically sound plan, then we are in disagreement with the counties and think the end result of that delay will be continued poor water quality,” said Alison Prost, executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
Prost said her group is sympathetic with worries about clean-up costs but believes innovation and acceptance of green technologies will continue to drive down the expense. Local jurisdictions are getting state aid for some pieces of the plan, she said.
Some county leaders have questioned whether they should press forward before other problems are solved. The Susquehanna River is one large source of pollution, Dorchester County leaders say.
The Conowingo Dam blocks pollution-loaded sediment before it reaches the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, but the debris has accumulated in the Conowingo Reservoir. During intense storms, a surge of water stirs up the sediment and flushes it into the bay, where nutrients feed the algae blooms that create dead zones and a blanket of debris stifles oyster beds.
Prost said sediment from the dam does not cancel out the county cleanup efforts, and arguments to the contrary ignore the importance of local streams and rivers.
“The locally impaired waters can only be fixed by local activities,” she said.
A spokeswoman for the Maryland Department of the Environment said state plans account for sediment from the dam, which is not a significant contributor to the larger problem of nitrogen pollution.