Allegheny

Highlands

Conservancy

Next Meeting

Our next board of directors meeting will take place on Wednesday, July 16^th at 7 pm in the CAOS Building at Garrett College.  Among the topics to be covered will be a new outreach effort by AHC and MET (Maryland Environmental Trust) to connect with landowners in Garrett County.  Whether you’re currently a member or not, we hope you’ll attend this meeting to learn more about the valuable work of AHC!

Current Issues

Industrial Wind Turbines Blocked from Public Land!

The mission of the Allegheny Highlands Conservancy compels us to oppose the proposal to construct industrial wind plants on state forests in Maryland.  We appreciate the passion that all bring to this discussion.  We share the concerns of others here tonight about the availability of clean, affordable energy.  We share the concerns of others about the problems caused by traditional means of energy generation, including pollution, acid precipitation, and the specter of climate change.  It is difficult for those concerned about these issues to know how to respond to a proposal like the one before us tonight.  We want to do what is right, but it’s not a clear cut, black and white issue.  It’s an issue that threatens to divide people who usually see eye to eye.  It’s important that we learn about and consider all aspects of this issue. 

We believe the proposal is misguided and adds insult to injury.  Why try to correct one environmental problem by creating another?  Proponents of building industrial wind plants on state land have stated that they will cause no adverse impact because these forests are “industrial sites” that are logged, anyway.  We disagree with this contention.  It is true that these sites have been logged and may be logged again.  But logged forests grow back.  If this were not true, these ridgetop sites would not currently support forests today following the logging they experienced a century before.  Proponents also state that these sites have been “devastated” by gypsy moths and are thus already degraded; however, forests defoliated by gypsy moth and other insect species also grow back, even if mortality following defoliation is severe.   

In contrast, sites cleared for the erection of wind turbines will not support forests again as long as the wind turbines are in place.  Thus, unlike logging and defoliation, wind turbine construction creates permanent openings in previously continuous forest.  And it’s important to understand that the impact of this clearing will not be confined to the openings that will surround the individual turbines, nor to the openings that will be created by roads that will be built to connect the turbines, nor to the openings that will be created by new power lines that will be established to connect these sites to existing powerline right-of-ways.  Scientists who have studied the effect of such openings in forests have demonstrated additional impacts far into the surrounding forest -- impacts on forest plants, salamanders, mammals, birds, and others species – impacts that include altered microclimate, increased colonization by invasive non-native plant species, and increased predation.  In the case of birds, these impacts include increased nest parasitism by cowbirds and nest predation caused by predators which gain access to the forest interior from adjacent openings.  Thus, the effective disturbance caused by the establishment of these facilities will negatively influence an area much larger than the permanently cleared openings themselves.  We believe these structures, and the openings created to support them, will have a much greater ecological impact than what proponents suggest. 

Our state forests were first established in 1906.  The purpose of these state forests, and the agency charged with their management, was, and is, to provide for the protection of the forest, to contribute to the local economy through properly managed harvest of forest products, and to provide habitat for forest wildlife.  Savage River and Potomac-Garrett State Forests in Garrett County, along with Green Ridge State Forest in Allegany County, constitute the best remaining hope for permanent large blocks of forest left in Maryland.  As development continues to whittle away at surrounding private forest land, these large, contiguous blocks of state forest become more and more critical to the continued existence of forest wildlife species.  They will be even more critical in the future.  Our state forests are also critical to the recreational and timber products industry of our region, and therefore to our local and regional economy.  State forest designation ideally insures that these lands will always remain in forest.  We need our state forests – all parts of our state forests -- to remain as forest, and we need to know that state forest designation cannot be compromised.    

We encourage concerned citizens to help protect Maryland’s natural resources by opposing the construction of any industrial wind facilities on our cherished public land.  You can vote against wind turbines being constructed on Maryland State Forests by visiting DNR's website www.dnr.state.md.us/sustainability/wpm
 

Garrett County Comprehensive Plan

Since June 2006 AHC has been actively involved in the planning process for the new county plan in the hope that it will both reflect the desires of Garrett County residents and maintain our rural quality of life.  The contents of our most recent letter to the Garrett County Planning Commission concerning draft Chapters 5 - 11 and dated March 19th, 2008 follows:

Allegheny Highlands Conservancy (AHC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft of chapters 5-11 of the new Garrett County Comprehensive Plan.  We were pleased with the prompt response to our letter regarding chapters 1-4, and we look forward to similar attention to the concerns we present below.  Some of our comments regarding chapters 5-11 relate back to concerns 3 and 4 (focusing on water issues) that we expressed in our initial letter to the Planning Commission at the start of the planning process back in January 2007.  Below, under “Chapter 5:  Water Resources Element,” we list (in italics) those concerns, followed by our thoughts as to how well Chapter 5 of the draft plan addresses those concerns.  We then comment on other chapters of the draft plan, along with some additional concerns. 

Chapter 5:  Water Resources Element 

3)  Very little appears to be known about the quantity and quality of surface and, especially, groundwater supplies in the county.  This compromises the ability to project the impact of future development on these supplies.  This information must be obtained before planning decisions can be intelligently made.  Adequate and safe water that can be affordably accessed must be available before development can be approved.  Development must not exceed what groundwater supplies can reasonably and affordably support, nor should it occur when it diminishes the quantity and quality of water for currently existing wells. 

The draft plan focuses a good deal of attention on groundwater supplies for municipalities/growth areas, then makes a very general three paragraph statement (Section 5.2.5, starting on p. 5-9) about supplies for the other 76% of the county’s dwelling units.  This statement indicates that we don’t know as much as we’d like about groundwater capacity in our county, yet we’re willing to move ahead and make potentially inappropriate assumptions that could come back to haunt us, all at the expense of supplies for existing wells and surface water.  We believe that our original concern remains valid, and we don’t feel the draft fully addresses it.  We think it is foolish to say that we have apparently sufficient groundwater resources when we don’t know if we do, and we think it is a mistake to move forward without the knowledge that the regional groundwater study will hopefully provide.

We want to emphasize that sufficient ground and surface water is needed not only for growth, but just as importantly for our lakes, ponds, streams, springs, seeps, and wetlands – the natural resources that chapter 7 seeks to protect for the benefit of our biological communities and our tourism economy.  When discussing “adequate” water supply, these natural resources must be given equal priority to new development.  Withdrawal of water from surface and groundwater sources in a way that decreases the value and functioning of these natural resources would be very misguided.  For instance, the expansion of the McHenry system (p. 5-7) has the potential to significantly affect flows in the Hoyes Run watershed (a watershed of high biological value and significant management focus), yet there seems to be relatively little concern about the potential impact.  Shouldn’t this project be delayed until the impact is fully understood, and not permitted if flows in Hoyes Run are adversely affected, rather than approved at the risk of a nasty surprise when it’s too late to do anything about it?  The plan also mentions the Source Water Protection Plan, designed to safeguard drinking water supplies.  We believe that protection of water for stream flows and biological resources is also vitally important and merits similar attention. 

We’re equally concerned about the potential impact of additional groundwater withdrawals on existing well owners.  When water tables drop, those who already have wells are likely to experience unwarranted expense and hardship.  The plan doesn’t appear to consider this.  In some areas of the state, moratoriums have been placed on growth due to the fear that existing homes will lose their water supplies.  Doesn’t it make sense to first find out what we have and what we can support before we allow additional withdrawals?  We agree that careful coordination must take place between the county and its municipalities, rather than allowing each municipality to draw water independently, since both town and rural residents are drawing from the same aquifers.   

The plan emphasizes increased withdrawal from aquifers (and potentially from surface waters) as the primary means of supporting new growth, assuming that we can continue unconstrained use without depletion of ground and surface water supplies.  Another way to permit more growth without impact on these supplies is to encourage (or, preferably, require) water conservation measures (including the incorporation of water conserving fixtures and appliances in new construction and retrofit in existing buildings), yet there is no mention of conservation in the plan. 

No mention is made in the plan of the City of Frostburg’s wells in the Savage River watershed – wells which already exist.  What is the County’s obligation in terms of meeting Frostburg’s growing needs, and how might potentially increased withdrawals affect the Savage River watershed? 

4)  Streams in the county are currently threatened by sediment, fluctuating flows, and increased water temperatures.  Improperly planned new development will only exacerbate these problems.  The new county plan must minimize impervious surfaces, improve stormwater management, and increase vegetated riparian and wetland buffers. 

We believe current regulations are insufficient to ensure the health of our waterways for public and ecological benefit.  The draft plan (p. 5-25) “encourage[s] innovative stormwater management techniques…”, but will such “encouragement” really accomplish what must be done to fully protect water quality?  If these “innovative stormwater management techniques” are not adopted by anyone, or only by a few, then the goals of the plan will not have been accomplished.  We’d prefer to see stronger “teeth” in the plan -- requirements and regulations that fully protect the water quality of our streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands.  Appropriate enforcement must also be put in place to support whatever regulations are established.  A major current problem is that adequate staffing does not exist for proper enforcement of existing regulations.  We’re glad to see this concern addressed on pp. 5-25 and 5-26, but given the challenges posed by current insufficient staffing, we’d like to see an even stronger statement made in the plan regarding enforcement, both for current regulations and for additional regulations implemented in the future.   

We like that the plan discusses the implementation of Environmentally Sensitive Design techniques (to be delineated in the forthcoming revision to the Maryland Stormwater Design Manual) in new development; however, we would like to see the plan recommend incentives for decreasing impervious surfaces and implementing other measures to reduce sediment and stormwater runoff in existing development as well.   

Section 5.5 (Policies and Actions, on p. 5-28) includes the statement:  “Consider adopting a nutrient trading program, once MDE has developed statewide regulations to guide such programs.”  We’re curious about just what such a program would entail.  Would it involve jurisdictions from downstate exporting their nutrients to us?  We would appreciate clarification of such a program, since it isn’t discussed elsewhere in the chapter.  We also wonder whether requirements and/or tax incentives are a better approach to dealing with nutrients. 

Chapter 6:  Transportation Element 

The plan proposes the reconfiguration of MD-495, but doesn’t discuss specifics (e.g., would reconfiguration involve conversion of the current two-lane road to a four-lane highway?).  Though the plan acknowledges the need to “respect” the road’s designation as a Scenic Byway, and indicates that “the land use impacts of upgrading MD 495 would also need to be carefully assessed,” we are still uneasy with the proposal.  Would reconfiguration of this road truly be compatible with its designation as a Scenic Byway and with the plan’s goal to maintain the rural character of County?  We’re especially concerned about the impacts, including runoff, sedimentation, and road salt pollution, which such a reconfiguration might pose for aquatic resources in the Casselman and Savage River watersheds.  

 

Chapter 7:  Sensitive Areas Element

Once again, in the Sensitive Areas chapter, the phrases “encourages (but does not require)” and “encouraged (but not required)” accompany measures suggested to protect steep slopes and streams and rivers, respectively.  We reiterate that “encourage” doesn’t have teeth.  We believe that the only way to truly protect such sensitive areas is to require the implementation of the measures that are only suggested in this plan.  Additionally, exceptions to rules designed to protect steep slopes and floodplains are allowed “if no other [reasonable] option exists.”  How “reasonable” an option might be is open to interpretation, which may lead to potential abuse.  Finally, if the stated goals of this plan truly reflect the direction the County wishes to pursue, we suggest that the County’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance be revisited and revised in the near future.   

Given that much of Garrett County’s forestland is rated by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources as of high to medium ecological value, but at medium risk for conversion to nonforest use, we believe that the plan should state a numerical goal for forest preservation, just as it does for farmland preservation.  Just what that goal should be is something that we can discuss, but based on recent development trends, we are skeptical about the plan’s suggestion (p. 7-15) that a higher amount of land classified as RR will adequately accomplish conservation of many of these forests.   

Protection of scenic resources is a specific stated goal of this plan.  Our concern is, how is “scenic” defined?  AHC believes that, in Garrett County, our most important scenic resources include our forested ridges and valleys, farms, streams, and wetlands; in other words, open space, rather than landscapes dominated by human construction.  We made a similar point in our comments on chapter 3 of the plan, emphasizing that such terms as “viewshed” and “rural character” are open to interpretation, and will need to be more specifically defined. 

We suspect, though we are unable to verify, that the privately owned Callahan Swamp, in northeastern Garrett County, has been designated a Wetland of Special State Concern (WSSC).  It would certainly be considered to be a WSSC by knowledgeable biologists, based on the variety of state-rare species found there.  If, indeed, Callahan Swamp has been named a WSSC, we think it should be included in the map of Selected Wetlands of Special State Concern on p. 7-6.  

We question the accuracy of the total acreage value (listed on p. 7-11) for land protected by the Maryland Environmental Trust (in partnership with AHC and other groups).  Also, given the level of recent easement activity undertaken by AHC, we would appreciate specific mention of our group as an active private land trust in the County.   

Chapter 10 – Mineral Resources 

Given the resurgence of natural gas exploration in the County, we believe the County should seek to proactively guarantee protections to ground and surface water resources and adjacent landowners from potential problems caused by natural gas exploration and production. 

Additional concerns

Successful attainment of the forest and sensitive area conservation goals put forth by this plan is dependent to a large degree on whether the amount of land in the County classified as AR or RR is substantially increased, and whether the proposed changes to the Subdivision Ordinance are adopted for AR and RR lands.  In fact, these changes are cited in several chapters (5, 6, 7, and 11) of the draft plan as important for meeting a number of goals of the plan.  Obviously, it is crucial that these changes be adopted or much of what the plan hopes to accomplish will be compromised.   

Our mountain ridges have specific scenic, ecological (e.g., forests, special habitats, and wildlife migratory corridors), recreational, and potential wind power generation values.  A map of this resource should be included in the plan, especially given the current attention to and controversy concerning these sites.   

Given recent events, including the debate over construction of industrial wind turbines on public and private lands in the County, it is becoming increasingly apparent to us that the only way the County can effectively protect landowners from unwanted activities and inappropriate development on adjacent properties is through the implementation of countywide performance standards (a.k.a. zoning).  Many are understandably concerned about the loss of private property rights that might result from such performance standards, but if all interested parties were involved in the development of these standards, then we believe that all reasonable interests would be protected and a balance would be achieved between private property rights and the rights of adjacent landowners and the general citizenry.  We believe the County’s citizens would benefit from coming together, communicating reasonably with one another, and finding common ground for the good of the County and its future.   

Just as AHC has been a valuable contributor to the comprehensive planning process, we believe we can play a productive role in promoting and facilitating a discussion of countywide performance standards.  We look forward to working cooperatively with the Planning Commission, the County Commissioners, and our fellow Garrett Countians to help assure a positive future for both citizens of and visitors to our county, a future where the farms, forests, streams, and wetlands that make our home so special remain healthy and vital. 

AHC comments on draft Chapters 1 -4 dated December 21, 2007:

Allegheny Highlands Conservancy is pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the draft of the first four chapters of Garrett County’s new Comprehensive Plan. We believe that the Planning Commission, working with the County Commissioners, the Planning and Land Development Office, and ERM, has done a good job of addressing the concerns of a wide variety of individuals and interest groups in the County. Overall, we’re pleased with the plan, but we have some specific comments. Below we include (in italics) our initial concerns about the plan and the planning process from our January 2007 letter, followed by our current comments regarding how well we feel the new draft plan has addressed each concern. Some additional thoughts are listed at the end of the letter.

1) The process as it is currently designed may not fully capture the vision and concerns of the people of Garrett County. It seems to us that the Planning Commission would want to make every effort to hear from all county residents, and not just those who are able to attend the monthly afternoon sessions or are comfortable expressing their views in front of a large group at the evening public meetings. Therefore, we encourage the Planning Commission to meet with smaller groups throughout the county. This may require additional time and effort for members of the Planning Commission, but we believe the importance of your task makes such additional time and effort a necessity if the resulting plan is to fully reflect the desires of county citizens. We also encourage the Planning Commission to provide advance mailed notification of upcoming public meetings to all who attended previous public meetings.

We applaud the Planning Commission’s effort to better capture the views and concerns of Garrett County citizens, and to better notify the public of upcoming meetings. We also appreciate the plan’s attempt to address many of the concerns expressed during the public meetings.

2) The maps used in the current planning process don’t appear to show all areas currently under some form of protection (e.g., state land, Nature Conservancy properties, and properties under easement). This makes it difficult to truly understand what parts of the county are open to development. We encourage the Planning Commission to provide updated maps that accurately reflect this information and can be linked to tax and topographic maps and aerial photos.

We are pleased with the effort to update the maps; however, they still don’t identify all properties currently under protection (e.g., state land, Nature Conservancy [TNC] properties, and land under easement or other protection programs). These properties may be (but aren’t always) included in Rural Resource (RR) or Agricultural Resource (AR) areas, but it would be helpful for planning purposes to see the properties in context by somehow indicating (perhaps by hatching or stippling) that they are permanently protected from further development. For instance, part of the northern portion of the Cherry Creek subwatershed of the Deep Creek Lake watershed (west of Foxtown Rd) is owned and permanently protected by TNC (the North Cherry Creek Bog Preserve), yet the area is designated on the map as Rural (R) (see the Proposed Land Use map on p. 3-10). If such protected lands were identified on the map, it would become more evident that the “neck” of land sandwiched between RR (including state forest), AR, and TNC land should be redesignated as RR. Another example is TNC’s Hammel Glade property, which lies between US 219, Mayhew Inn Rd, and Foster Rd in the southwestern part of the Deep Creek Lake watershed. This land is designated on the new map as Lake Residential 2, but clearly the TNC property is not available for development.

It would also be helpful, if possible, to more accurately delineate state forest boundaries. For instance, private property along Savage River Road is not identified. Finally, we appreciate that a 500 foot buffer around state land, where these properties adjoin land classified as R, is included in the new plan, and we agree that such a buffer should be incorporated into county ordinance.

3) Very little appears to be known about the quantity and quality of surface and, especially, groundwater supplies in the county. This compromises the ability to project the impact of future development on these supplies. This information must be obtained before planning decisions can be intelligently made. Adequate and safe water that can be affordably accessed must be available before development can be approved. Development must not exceed what groundwater supplies can reasonably and affordably support, nor should it occur when it diminishes the quantity and quality of water for currently existing wells.

4) Streams in the county are currently threatened by sediment, fluctuating flows, and increased water temperatures. Improperly planned new development will only exacerbate these problems. The new county plan must minimize impervious surfaces, improve stormwater management, and increase vegetated riparian and wetland buffers.

We expect that our initial concerns 3 and 4 will be addressed in the forthcoming Water Resources chapter. We look forward to seeing the draft of that chapter, and presume that a public meeting will be scheduled and that adequate opportunity to comment on the chapter will be provided once the chapter is completed.

5) Many areas of the county that should legitimately be classified as Agricultural Resource Areas and Rural Resource Areas are currently listed as Remaining Rural Areas, and thus are subject to less restrictive subdivision ordinances. We believe that Agricultural Resource Areas should be expanded to include woodland areas, since forests and the forest products industry are perhaps as integral to the character and economy of the county as is agriculture. Further, we believe that much more of the agricultural and forest land in the county should be classified as Agricultural Resource Areas. We also believe that the Rural Resource Areas of the county should be increased to include more forested tracts and other scenically and ecologically significant lands.

We are pleased that a much greater proportion of rural land is now classified as RR or AR, which is more consistent with the current usage of that land. However, we note that the Potomac-Garrett State Forest tract that lies south of Fingerboard Rd should be classified as RR (see p. 3-10). We also question the continued classification of much of the North Branch watershed as R rather than as RR and/or AR, especially given that much of this area is in forest or agriculture.

6) We are concerned, as are many county residents, about the current rate of loss of working farms and forests and other rural lands in the county. In the Agricultural Resource and Rural Resource Areas, we endorse a decrease in the density of dwelling units to at least one per ten acres, required clustering, and a limit on lot size. We believe that creative means exist to implement these measures without unduly impacting land values and other concerns of property owners.

We can find no specific mention of densities in the AR and RR areas in the new plan. Has the current density of one dwelling unit per three acres been retained? We advocated for a lower density of dwelling units (at least one per ten acres) in AR and RR areas. We’re disappointed to see that this important step for retaining the rural character of these areas has not been adopted. We are happy, however, to see that clustering has been retained and emphasized in the new plan.

Given that the new plan (p. 3-14) suggests an 80% set aside (which we endorse), we’re less concerned about a maximum lot size, since the set aside accomplishes much the same thing. In fact, the proposed 1.5 acre maximum lot size may be too small, and therefore may limit a landowner’s flexibility, as was suggested by at least one speaker at the November 2007 meeting. For instance, if a farmer chooses to subdivide his/her 100 acre farm, then according to the new plan, 80 acres would be set aside as open space for continued farming or other rural uses. Shouldn’t the farmer be allowed to subdivide the remaining 20 acres into whatever lot size s/he chooses, as long as s/he follows the density requirement for that land category?

Additional concerns

The plan (p. 3-8) emphasizes the protection of “state owned lands from encroachment by incompatible development uses.” The plan also “support[s] wind power projects at appropriate [emphasis ours] locations in the County” (p. 3-39). We believe that the development of industrial wind facilities on public land is both incompatible and inappropriate (see enclosed letter).

The section on “New Residential Development in Rural Resource and Agricultural Resource Areas” (p. 3-14) provides for a special exemption decreasing the 80% set aside to a 66% set aside if “the subdivision design meets the intent of the land use category—by protecting viewsheds, and maintaining rural character, or mitigating impacts by planting forests or other measures.” We’re concerned that these provisions are vague and could be easily abused. Specific criteria and practices must be stipulated for these provisions to have any value. Just how viewsheds are protected and rural character is maintained must be clear. For that matter, “rural character” will need to be defined. Subdivision design should also take into account land use on adjacent properties.

The Policies and Actions section of the Land Use chapter (p. 3-39) encourages the “formation of a private, non-profit local land trust to support current efforts to protect farmland.” Such a land trust has been formed to protect both farmland and forestland: the Allegheny Highlands Conservancy (see enclosed brochure). We currently co-hold four easements in the County and are working on several more. We encourage the County to consider budgeting funds to help defray the costs (sometimes several thousand dollars) to a landowner of donating an easement, as well as to earmark funds for the purchase of easements.

Finally, to protect property rights of adjacent and nearby landowners, there is a need for performance standards to be applied throughout the county for certain property uses. Shouldn’t this be included in the plan? Examples of land uses impacting property rights and land values of adjacent and nearby landowners include:

1) amusement parks, ATV parks, race tracks
2) temporary festivals, carnivals, camporees, fairs, and raves
3) electric power generating plants, substations, and transmission lines
4) primary manufacturing from raw products, including quarries and charcoal kilns
5) sanitary landfills
6) antennas and towers without setbacks
7) shooting ranges

Such land uses should require special exemption hearings and special performance standards. Although state regulations may regulate some of these uses, it would be helpful to enact ordinances to allow for local control. These activities, and many others, are already regulated within Garrett County municipalities and the Deep Creek Lake Watershed.

We recognize that much hard work has been put into developing the new Comprehensive Plan. It is our hope that this effort will be followed up with the appropriate ordinances to best put this plan into effect. We look forward to continuing to play an active and productive role in this process.

For more information or to receive notification of upcoming public meetings concerning the Garrett County Comprehensive Plan call 301-334-1920 or visit http://www.garrettcounty.org/PlanningLand/PlanningZoning/Planning.aspx

Send mail to info@alleghenyhighlandsconservancy.org with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2008 Allegheny Highlands Conservancy, Inc.
Last modified: 07/02/08