PLEASE CALL OR WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVES TO OBJECT TO THIS PROJECT (to view their contact information click here)

February 24, 2010

Steven R. Leeds, Acting Administrator
United States General Services Administration
1800 F Street NW Washington, DC 20405

Dear Mr. Leeds:
The Talbot Preservation Alliance is a non-partisan organization of Talbot County, Maryland citizens working to preserve the environment and heritage of our county—its waterways, farmland and small towns.

We are writing regarding the proposed Foreign Affairs Security Training Center (FASTC) currently proposed to be sited in Queen Anne’s County near Ruthsburg. Our county adjoins Queen Anne’s County at its southern boundary.

We are concerned that the proposed center would significantly degrade the rural environment of our region. Just as one example, Tuckahoe State Park is a primary recreation resource for many citizens from surrounding counties, including Talbot. It includes a major equestrian center, meadows for quiet walks, a popular waterway for bird watching, canoeing and kayaking opportunities and hosts a myriad of other community activities. Among those are the nature and environmental education programs offered to hundreds of children each summer at the Adkins Arboretum, located within the park.

The park is not only nearby the proposed FASTC site; one can actually see one from the other. The noise generated by activities at the proposed center would be transmitted easily across the totally flat terrain of our community and into the park. There can be no doubt that important recreation and educational uses of Tuckahoe State Park will be significantly impacted.

The adverse impacts of the proposed center would not end with the park. For example, the center would remove from production over 2000 acres of prime farmland. Also, given the relatively flat terrain on our peninsula and despite claims of buffer effectiveness, anyone familiar with the weapons and explosive devices to be utilized within the center knows that the noise generated at the site would directly diminish the quality of life of farmers and other residents for miles around.

Local farmers pump irrigation water from the shallow aquifer below the site; their fresh water comes from the deeper aquifers. The certain impacts of the discharge of center-generated septic waters into the shallow aquifer and substantial fresh water extractions from the already-declining deeper aquifers are likely to have significant negative impacts on the water resources of local residents.

The environmental impacts of the FASTC activities on our region, outlined above, are only a partial list but, in themselves, are substantial. In that light, we believe that the Ruthsburg site is very poorly suited as a location for the proposed center. In our view, a finding by the ongoing Environmental Assessment (EA) that the proposed center would have “no significant impact” on Tuckahoe State Park and on other regional resources would be completely indefensible. Moreover, such a finding would expose the EA as a charade, as many here already fear it will be. We believe that a full Environmental Impact Statement is required to assess the multiple negative impacts of plopping this incongruous land use down in the middle of our farming community.

Sincerely,

Thomas T. Alspach
President

EASTON TOWN COUNCIL February 1,2010

Md. Code article 66B ( section 1.02) passed last year gives certain areas of comprehensive plans the force of law. No longer is a town’s comprehensive plan merely a guide or suggested plan of action. In seven defined areas, comprehensive plan’s policies are the law by which governments must manage.

In light of this, there are five points which TPA believes are needed to insure consistency and clarity in the Easton Comprehensive Plan.

1. The targeted growth rate for the next comp plan period is variably reflected throughout the plan as 1%, 3%, and between 1-3%. All references to the target growth rate for the next six year period should be consistently stated as 1% annually, reflecting overwhelming citizen input and thus decided during the comp plan process. There is no need to mention any other rate than the agreed upon 1%. Indeed the mention of any other rate is confusing and inaccurate.
2. Annexation is always completely discretionary. There is no requirement that land must be annexed into the town regardless of its priority designation or what year it happens to be. Public comment has overwhelmingly endorsed a no-annexation strategy for the next comp plan period. Even Priority 1 parcels carry no mandate, or demonstrable need, for annexation at the agreed upon 1% growth rate. There should be no language in the comp plan that conveys ambiguity on this point.
3. Your browser may not support display of this image. Both the size of the growth area and the population target for Easton are arbitrary. Neither the “ultimate” 38,000 population figure that appears as a goal in the plan nor the growth area was developed with any input from citizens. Both ideas came from a prior consulting firm used by the Town and the County in 2002. They have no known rationale or methodology behind them and should not be characterized as unchangeable goals in this report. The present council or a future council has the authority to change the size of the “ultimate” population or size of the growth areas during a prescribed comp plan review.
4. There remains one parcel that is curiously divided between two priority designations 1 and 2. It is identified on page 49 as a “wedge-shaped parcel” of land. There is no justification for half of this parcel being designated as Priority 1. At a 1% growth rate, there is no demonstrable need to annex it. Furthermore, it does not fit the plan’s definition of what a Priority 1 parcel is supposed to be i.e. “areas already developed in Talbot County”. Finally, it is simply false that this parcel is “surrounded by development on all sides”. As there is no need for annexation in the next six-year period, the parcel should be designated in its entirety as Priority 2.
5. Exhaustive traffic studies commissioned by both Easton and the county in 2005 that found that even without any further approvals or annexations , by 2030 most major intersections on Route 50 will deteriorate to level “F” service for at least part of the day. There is no level worse than “F”. A copy of that traffic study should be included in the transportation section of the comp plan to document the inadequacy of Easton’s main thoroughfare to handle the traffic it currently has. Going forward, as growth is contemplated; traffic must be a critical consideration.

The public hearing is open until the next Town Council meeting Tuesday, February 16th (Monday being a legal holiday, President’s Day). YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO "SPEAK" BY WRITING IN SUPPORT OF THESE POINTS. Just email Town Manager Robert Karge at robert@town-eastonmd.com. You can now view Council meetings anytime on your computer! Go to http://streams.tv-98.com/

To read the full report and and TPA's suggested modifications to the Easton Comprehensive Plan, read more here (This is an Adobe PDF document)

If you missed the hearing presented by the EPA DECEMBER 11, you can download the presentation here. In 1972 the federal Clean Water Act tasked the states around the bay with the job of developing TMDL’s to improve water quality. Almost thirty seven years later, the state of Maryland has yet to complete this task. EPA will establish and oversee achievement of a strict "pollution diet" known as a Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL, to remove excess pounds of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment harming the Bay and its network of waterways. More information can be obtained on the EPA website

How did the developer of the proposed 2500-home Lakeside development in Trappe obtain a construction permit for its wastewater treatment plant from Maryland Department of the Environment, bypassing County regulations and objections? If this developer can successfully ignore County regulations, is this the sign of things to come? To learn more read this recent article from the Center for Public Integrity.

To read more regarding potential development in Trappe, visit our news page, which also includes many other links to other articles.

We know it. We form committees. Bottom grasses, refuges for juvenile marine creatures, are disappearing. We know it. We make speeches. Oxygen levels are so low in many parts of the bay that not a single marine creature survives. We know it. We initiate study groups. The condition of bay waters worsens every year. We know it. We pose. We do nothing. 

Homeowners in the Chesapeake Bay watershed know that nitrogen loading is the stimulus for most of the water quality problems in the bay. We fertilize our lawns anyway. 

Farmers know that agriculture, principally corn, is responsible for 50 percent of the nitrogen load bay-wide and 70 percent on the Eastern Shore. They dispute the data and resist widened buffers. 

Watermen know that they overharvest. They blame others for declines in catch and lobby against shorter seasons and size restrictions. 

We know that heavy harvests by the menhaden industry strip the bay of food for game fish and deprive the bay of filter feeders. Virginia legislators cave in to industry lobbyists. 

Our elected representatives know that upgraded septic systems would reduce nitrogen discharge from those systems by fifty percent. They vote against legislation to require upgrades on new homes. 

We are standing by, watching, as the bay becomes a sewer. We. Each of us. All of us. We are responsible. We wring our hands and turn our backs. We plead for compensation. We have forgotten how to sacrifice. We are failing the bay and ourselves. Future generations will disdain us. We will have earned it. 

Because there is no “owner” responsible for the well being of common resources such as the bay, such resources are often abused and degraded, even destroyed. To avoid that unhappy end, individuals and communities must go out of their way to make the difficult and sometimes costly decisions necessary to defend them. In other environments, individuals, communities and legislators have chosen to make the tough calls. To our shame, we have not been strong enough, responsible enough, to make those choices. It is a lack of will and leadership. 

There are actions each of us--homeowners, farmers, watermen, legislators--can take. We know what they are. We point our finger at the other person. That’s too easy. It is not “their” responsibility. It is ours. We need to stand up! If each of us were to do our small part, a culture of personal responsibility for the bay would develop. The whole would begin to come together. And it would be a great help if our legislators were to find the courage to do what is necessary and right, to actually lead. 

Jack Fischer 
Sherwood, MD

On October 8, 2009 the Queen Anne’s County Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-2 against the proposed Wye Mills Plan.The plan called for 1 Million square feet of commecial development. The Maryland Department of Planning, Talbot County and Caroline County all opposed the plan. Queen Anne's Conservation, ESLC, Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage, Talbot Preservation Alliance, Friends of Wye River, and others all opposed the plan as well. Collectively, everyone's efforts made the difference. Thank you to everyone who sent in an email, made a call to the Planning Commission, or wrote a letter. Your efforts on this matter made all the difference!

by F. Kaid Benfield - The Huffington Post May 15, 2009

Just last week, my NRDC colleague Nancy Stoner pointed out that the federal program that provides water infrastructure to local communities is essentially subsidizing sprawl.  This is because the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (an atrocious name if I've ever heard one) "continues to fund new sewage treatment plants and new sewage and stormwater collection systems in greenfields, i.e., currently undeveloped or working landscapes."  Read more »