The Montgomery
County Planning Department held a Community Meeting on the Ten Mile
Creek Master Plan Amendment on Monday night, 2/25/13.
* Attendance was robust -- and included close to a hundred citizens. Many
were from Clarksburg and also from around the county who support
protecting Ten Mile Creek and its watershed. We estimated that roughly
half of these folks were inspired by our action alerts to turn out -
including the alerts sent by ANS and MCA to all of their members.
* Topics presented by the staff and their consultants included the uniquely high quality of Ten Mile Creek and its watershed. Planners
Valdis Lazdins and Mary Dolan presented the 1994 Master Plan amendment
elements, and Biohabitats consultant Jennifer Zeilinski described the
existing watershed, habitat and water quality biological conditions.
* Planner Val Lazdins said that the 1994 Clarksburg Master Plan for Ten Mile Creek (Stage 4) "is
our starting point; based on the outcome of that analysis, do we go up
or down in terms of building densities, land uses, and distribution of
development? We'll have to see based on that initial analysis."
* Responses from the audience to the focus on
the 1994 Clarksburg Master Plan, and to the prospect of reliance on
experimental ESD stormwater management technologies for such a
high-quality, sensitive stream, ranged from skeptical - to downright
upset- with the apparent focus on the buildout scenario of the 1994
Clarksburg Master Plan and reliance on unproven ESD mitigation measures (though Planning Staff Director Rose Krasnow later told me there would be 2 additional scenarios).
* The timeline for this Master Plan amendment is on a fast track, with a March 14th Planning Board session coming up soon.
More Details
Attendees included two ANS Board members
- Mike Gravitz and Patty O'Malley - , and four ANS staffers - Debra
Prybyla, Cathy Wiss, Dolores Milmoe and Diane Cameron. To list just a
sampling of other ANS members and MCA activists: - several ANS Water
Quality Monitors attended, including Ed Pfister, volunteers Becky
Cromwell and Adrienne Nicosia.
Our partners, Caroline Taylor of Montgomery
Countryside Alliance, and Paul Hlavinka of Muddy Branch Alliance were
there, along with Ann Smith, leader of the Seneca Creek Alliance, Jim
Hall, Ellen Pearl and Johnny Haney. DEP Senior Biologist Keith Van Ness
and Planner Mark Symborski, both of whom contributed to the scientific
information, were there.
Councilmember Craig Rice, and Claire Iseli of
Councilmember Elrich's office attended. Botanist John Parrish was also
there. (About 5 developer reps attended, including Bob Kaufmann, Bob
Harris and Jim Soltesz.)
Topics presented by the staff and their consultants included the uniquely high quality of Ten Mile Creek and its watershed.
Planners Valdis Lazdins and Mary Dolan presented the 1994 Master Plan
amendment elements, and Biohabitats consultant Jennifer Zeilinski
described the existing watershed, habitat and water quality biological
conditions.
* Ten Mile Creek watershed land cover was reported to be at present 46% forested and 4% impervious.
*
The "steep slopes, shallow bedrock, and erodible soils" were noted,
along with the high biological quality of Ten Mile Creek (though to my
taste it was featured in a somewhat general way).
* In response to a question, Ms. Zeilinski said
that the ANS water quality monitoring data, along with that of DEP, was
incorporated into the existing conditions report.
*
The watershed's Interior Forest plays an important role in connecting
the woodlands of Little Bennett Regional Park to those of Black Hills
Regional Park - a "connector of two biological hubs." (We credit
John Parrish and the late Bob DeGroot for teaching us the need for
interior forest connectedness.)
The consultant then focused on the new stormwater
management mandate in Maryland- Environmental Site Design - and how
these ESD practices such as rain gardens and permeable pavements (along
with buffers) could be used to mitigate the stormwater runoff from any
future developments in Ten Mile Creek.
Planner Val Lazdins said that the 1994 Clarksburg Master Plan for Ten Mile Creek (Stage 4) "is
our starting point; based on the outcome of that analysis, do we go up
or down in terms of building densities, land uses, and distribution of
development? We'll have to see based on that initial analysis."
Responses from the audience to the focus on the 1994
Clarksburg Master Plan, and to the prospect of reliance on experimental
ESD stormwater management technologies for such a high-quality,
sensitive stream, ranged from skeptical - to downright upset- with the
apparent focus on the buildout scenario of the 1994 Clarksburg Master
Plan to be mitigated with stormwater engineering practices that are
unproven to protect high quality streams (though Planning Staff Director Rose Krasnow later told me there would be 2 additional scenarios).
Several questions during the public session elicited an
acknowledgement from Valdis Lazdins, and the consultant Jennifer
Zeilinski, that no high-quality, sensitive stream and its watershed have
been documented elsewhere to have been protected from large development
impacts, through reliance on these ESD-type practices such as rain
gardens and permeable pavements.
Several people logically asked when the meeting broke up, "If
all they are going to do is affirm the 94 Master Plan, then there's no
point to this effort and they are wasting the public's resources doing
this Amendment."
Melane Hoffman of Clarksburg asked about traffic
issues (but the answer wasn't very revealing.) During the public
Q&A, ANS Board member Mike Gravitz commented that the County was
proposing to "...experiment with unproven stormwater technologies in our last, best creek...this doesn't make any sense."
Several other citizens made similarly skeptical comments. Caroline
Taylor asked whether they were looking at groundwater impacts of future
developments (the answer was yes,) and I asked whether biological water
quality endpoints were going to be modeled (in addition to pollutant
loads), whether land cover conditions of imperviousness, construction
and forest cover were going to be studied, along with consideration of
limits on imperviousness, and Mary Dolan answered Yes to all of my
questions.
When the meeting broke up, I asked Planning
staff director Rose Krasnow whether additional scenarios beyond the 94
Clarksburg Master Plan were going to be fully studied, since the
presentations left us wondering -- to put it mildly -- and she said
definitely yes - that there would be two additional development/ creek
protection scenarios beyond the baseline scenario of "The 94 Master Plan
plus stormwater managment."
The timeline for this Master Plan amendment is on a fast track, with a March 14th Planning Board session coming up soon.
We
will keep you posted on our further responses to what we've learned --
and will share with you additional ways to be active to protect our
County's Last, Best Creek.
We are working to hone our message on how to effectively protect
Ten Mile Creek -- while allowing some further development in its
watershed.
- Diane
Diane Cameron
Conservation Director
Audubon Naturalist Society
