In his May 23 commentary, Thomas Lynch attempts to cast illusions, build straw men and further polarize growth and development issues — the very things he suggests we rise above.

Lynch unfairly characterized the recently adopted comprehensive plan, and Frederick County government in general, as being unfriendly toward the business community. As a business owner who moved to Frederick County specifically to start a business, I can tell you that nothing could be further from the truth.

The hundreds of properties that Lynch refers to as being “downgraded” constitute less than 1 percent of the properties covered under the comprehensive plan. In addition, within that 1 percent, a large number of the properties were reevaluated as a result of new, updated flood-zone maps issued by FEMA. Most reasonable people would agree that properties in a flood zone are not good candidates for development.

Furthermore, the county commissioners specifically acknowledged that some of the rezoned properties could still be developed if annexed by the adjacent municipalities as part of their growth plans. This ensures that new development can be serviced by adjacent municipal infrastructure.

In the end, there were only a handful of property owners out of the approximately 230,000 residents in Frederick County who were adversely affected. Little consolation for those individuals for sure, but not a bad track record for elected officials trying to balance the desire of individuals with the best interests of the community at large.

The business community in Frederick County is diverse and made up of more than just developers. For example, Frederick County has more farms than any other county in Maryland. The number of farms in Frederick County is also up 13 percent from 2002, unlike many other counties.

Those counties that focused on development as the main engine of growth have suffered the most as a result of the bust in the construction industry.

The industry was premised on people continually upgrading to the next most fashionable neighborhood or floor plan. Studies have shown that land zoned agricultural puts money in the bank for local governments. They pay more in taxes than they consume in services. The opposite is true for new development, which costs existing taxpayers more than it brings in.

The county commissioners spent two years and countless public meetings updating the comprehensive plan. The process was fair and open. All voices were heard. The final comprehensive plan does exactly what it is supposed to do. It accommodates the population growth that is projected to occur in Frederick County over the next 20 years. It aligns growth with existing infrastructure, minimizing the cost to existing residents and taxpayers.

If developers are looking for something to do, look no further than the Golden Mile or any other half dozen communities in Frederick County that are in desperate need of redevelopment.

William Morrow

writes from Whitmore Farm, Emmitsburg

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_lte.htm?storyid=106102

“When the area of driveways, parking lots, streets and other impervious cover reaches 10 percent of a watershed area, many types of pollution sensitive aquatic insects decline by as much as one third, compared to streams in undeveloped forested watersheds,” said Tom Cuffney, USGS biologist. “We learned that there is no ‘safezone,’ meaning that even minimal or early stages of development can negatively affect aquatic life in urban streams.”

As a watershed becomes developed, the amount of pavement, sidewalks and other types of urban land cover increases. During storms, water is rapidly transported over these urban surfaces to streams. The rapid rise and fall of stream flow and changes in temperature can be detrimental to fish and aquatic insects. Stormwater from urban development can also contain fertilizers and insecticides used along roads and on lawns, parks and golf courses.

“Stream protection and management is a top priority of state and local officials, and these findings remind us of the unintended consequences that development can have on our aquatic resources,” said Tom Schueler, Chesapeake Stormwater Network coordinator. “The information has been useful in helping us to predict and manage the future impacts of urban development on streams and reinforces the importance of having green infrastructure to control stormwater runoff and protect aquatic life.”

USGS studies examine the effects of urbanization on algae, aquatic insects, fish, habitat and chemistry in urban streams in nine metropolitan areas across the country: Boston, Mass.; Raleigh, N.C.; Atlanta, Ga.; Birmingham, Ala.; Milwaukee-Green Bay, Wis.; Denver, Colo.; Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Portland, Ore.

These USGS studies also show that land cover prior to urbanization can affect how aquatic insects and fish respond to urbanization. For example, aquatic communities in urban streams in Denver, Dallas-Fort Worth and Milwaukee did not decline in response to urbanization because the aquatic communities were already degraded by previous agricultural land-use activities. In contrast, aquatic communities declined in response to urbanization in metropolitan areas where forested land was converted to urban land, areas such as Boston and Atlanta.

Comparisons among the nine areas show that not all urban streams respond exactly the same. This is mostly because stream quality and aquatic health reflect a complex combination of land and chemical use, land and storm-water management, population density and watershed development, and natural features, such as soils, hydrology, and climate.

These USGS studies represent an integrated approach to understanding urban streams that includes physical, chemical and biological characteristics associated with urbanization. This is critical for prioritizing strategies for stream protection and restoration and in evaluating the effectiveness of those strategies over time.

For more information, listen to USGS Corecast Episode 127. The full report and extended video podcasts are available at the National Water Quality Assessment program urban studies website.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2475&from=news_side

Wednesdays, 3pm in the old Carmack Jay’s parking lot, between 3rd and 4th streets on Market St. Cut flowers, berries, vegetables, herbs, fruit, beef, pork, eggs, baked goods, lamb, rabbit, wool, yarn, chocolates, and hand made knits.

All items raised, grown or made within 120 miles of Frederick.

John Burgeson, Staff Writer

Published: 11:49 p.m., Sunday, June 6, 2010

The forests of southern New England are being chopped down to make room for subdivisions, strip malls and highways, and this loss of natural landscape has been particularly rapid in the last 30 years, according to the report, “Wildlands and Woodlands,” the work of nearly 20 pre-eminent professors from Yale, Harvard, Brandeis, Cornell and other prominent schools in the Northeast.

Released last week, “Wildlands and Woodlands” is intended to be a “vision for the New England landscape,” which advocates that at least 70 percent of New England remain forested, while at the same time, some development would actually be encouraged.

“Sprawl has become even more of a factor than it was even in the 1950s because of our appetite for larger home lots, bigger malls and wider highways,” said Yale professor Lloyd Irland, a senior research scientist with the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Strip malls, parking lots, big box stores and other features of our motor vehicle-centered society have taken their toll on the landscape, too, he said.

“This is not an anti-development proposal — rather, it’s in favor of rational development,” said Irland, who said that he hopes that the Wildland and Woodlands report will be seen as a “manifesto’ that guides future land use decisions.

He notes that development that has taken place since the 1950s has been mostly in the form of high-cost housing that was built with little regard for mass transit routes and existing infrastructure, resulting in a huge cost to society for many decades to come. “Roads, sewer lines, water lines and other utilities were extended largely to benefit the wealthy,” he notes. “Development has taken big gouges out of the forest. We have huge lots for rich people and slums for poor ones,” Irland said.

The authors said that, unlike the development seen in the mid-1800s, in which thousands of acres were cleared for farms, today’s sprawl is “hard” development, meaning it won’t revert to woodland anytime soon.

“A lot of the pastures in the 1800s were turning back into forest even before the cows left,” notes Brandeis professor Brian Donohue.

Forestry experts note that there is, in fact, more forested lands in the state than there was in mid-19th century. In 1600, when European colonists first began arriving, it’s estimated that about 90 percent of the state was carpeted with trees. By 1860, only about 30 percent of Connecticut had forest cover, as land was cleared for farms, and timber was needed for construction and iron smelting operations.

But by 1950, as agriculture and timber operations moved to the West and Midwest, the forests rebounded — with about 70 percent of the state covered by woodlands in the mid-20th century.

Since then, sprawl and development has taken its toll, and now just about 50 percent of the state is forested.

“We were given a second chance,” said Bill Toomey, director of the Redding woodland preserve Highstead. “But now, it will be a lot harder for forests to recover from the loss that we’re seeing today.”

There’s also been a meteoric rise in the number of people. New England’s population in 1800 was a little more than 1 million; now it’s 14 million.

Experts note that the hardwood and conifer forests of the Northeast are of global importance, as they act as a “sink” for carbon — converting the global-warming gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere into cellulose — the long-chain sugar molecule that wood is made out of — and also free oxygen, which is a cooling gas.

“If current trends continue, the effectiveness of that carbon sink will gradually decline,” saidCornell University’s Timothy J. Fahey. “The Northeastern forest is a stronger sink for carbon than most other forests, such as the mature forests of the Northwest.”

The authors note that development can take place without taking down stands of trees. Instead, construction can take place on so-called brownfields — previously developed land that has been abandoned.

“Brownfield development is more costly, but maybe society needs to think about `buying down’ the cost of close-in brownfield development as opposed to extending sewer and water lines for greenfield development,” Irland said. “When you think about it, planning and zoning laws have made efficient use of land illegal.”

Harvard’s Davis Foster, one of the report’s principal authors, said that one solution is to take a second look at New England’s post-industrial landscape. “A lot of old industrial towns are actually very attractive because rivers run through them.”

All of the authors stress that some woodland development is advantageous. Logging, for example, can have some real ecological benefits if it’s done properly.

“When you realize that 95 percent of the lumber we use comes from other parts of the world, and also that it’s harvested in such a way that’s much more destructive than the way we would do it here,” Foster said. “You really have to look at the big picture. And, if people see the forest as a valuable resource, there’ll be a greater incentive to take care of it.”

There are aesthetic considerations, too.

“Another thing that won’t come back is the long tradition of being able to freely walk across undeveloped land,” Irland said. “As Connecticut loses its forest, the opportunity to take that walk in the woods — which is a big part of the quality of life — will disappear. It’s a heritage that we shouldn’t just fritter away.”

LIVABLE LANDSCAPES explores the connection between landscape and community in northern New England, focusing on how growth and sprawl affect quality of life.

Thanks to our sponsors of this film:  The Buyer’s Best and Briggs Associates Inc.

EmPOWER CLEAN ENERGY Communities Grant Winner to Dedicate and Explain New Thermal-Solar System on location with an energy legislation update by Maryland Assembly Delegate Sue Hecht and an update on Maryland’s Clean Energy Center Executive Director,  I. Katherine Magruder.

Curtis Nelson, Principle of NCP Solar/Nelson Commercial Plumbing of Frederick, local vendor/installer of the Claggett Center’s thermal solar system, will provide a program about the features and benefits of thermal solar systems. He will have a cutaway model of a thermal solar system and photos available to demonstrate the Claggett Center installation.   EmPOWER CLEAN ENERGY Communities  grant supported installation of a thermal solar hot water system that now uses the renewable energy of sunshine to pre-heat water used in the Bishop Claggett Center’s institutional kitchen dishwashing system. The system is expected to offset annually the need for approximately 100 therms of gas with clean renewable energy. According to Malcolm Woolf, Director of the Maryland Energy Administration who toured the installation earlier, “The Maryland Energy Administration is thrilled to partner with the Bishop Claggett Center through the O’Malley-Brown administration’s EmPOWERing Clean Communities initiative to make continued strides in realizing our shared energy efficiency goals,” commented MEA Director Malcolm Woolf, “This marks yet another big step forward in meeting our State’s EmPOWER Maryland goal of 15% reduced energy consumption by 2015.”  Come and learn about the new thermal solar installation “pre-heating” the water used in the Bishop Claggett Center’s kitchen.

Location:  Bishop Claggett Conference Center 3035 Buckeystown Pike , Buckeystown, 21717

The program is free and open to the public.

Please RSVP to Stuart at 301-874-5147 X103