Page Back

Maryland Alliance for Greenway Improvement and Conservation

February 9, 2000

Montgomery County Council

100 Maryland Avenue

Rockville, MD 20850

Ref: CIP Budget for Legacy Open Space Plan

The Legacy Open Space plan is a big step forward toward meeting the desires of the public as expressed in the Park, Recreation, and Open Space Survey conducted by Park and Planning in 1997. This survey shows nearly 75% of the people in Montgomery County attach a high priority to protecting streams, forests and wildlife. Based on this information alone, .I fully support funding of land acquisitions at the $100 million dollar level to achieve these goals.

I have some major concerns with the current plan, however. It’s divided into six parts, all which have equal weight. This is a fatal weakness in the plan, and needs to be corrected. The acquisition of ecological significant land to protect streams, forests, and wildlife in Montgomery County should not be subservient to acquisitions of property of lesser importance. Plan components should be evaluated differently depending on their ability to achieve environmental protection, and funds should be allocated accordingly.

My analysis of the current plan shows that 64% of the money is being allocated to projects that provide little or only moderate value toward the objective of environmental protection. This needs to be changed to obtain the desired objectives. The following table shows a suggested environmental value of each project in the current plan.

There are several questions that need to be asked concerning this plan.

1) Why is 64% of the funding for Low/Medium ecological projects?

2) Why aren't funds being prioritized and spent on projects in an ecologically prioritized manner?

3) Priority ecological projects will have to compete for funds with less important ecological projects in the out years. How will priority ecological projects be protected?

The first part of the plan "Protection of Sensitive Natural Resources" seems well thought out with properties selected to support the goals of the plan. Ecological connections are described as a key ingredient for protection of wildlife and plants. However, only two properties are listed for priority protection in FY 01-02 when all of them probably qualify as top priorities acquisitions.

Part two, "Protection of Water Supply" should be given top priority. Only the Patuxent River area meets the criteria of being funded for FY 01-02 with the Patuxent Headwaters areas, and gaps along the Patuxent, being addressed in later years. It would again appear all of these acquisitions should meet the criteria for a high priority in this plan.

Part three, "Protection of Heritage Resources" is an interesting subject, but according to the detailed information listed, the county already owns 100 historical sites and 300 archaeological sites with another eleven historical sites operated by other organizations. Funding to develop or maintain existing historical facilities may need consideration in the CIP budget, but making acquisition of additional historical sites a priority to the Legacy Open Space Plan moves completely away from the goal of funding land acquisitions for environmental purposes.. These acquisitions should be judged by their environmental significance.

Part four, "Protection of Trail Connectivity" is another controversial topic. While trail connections are worthwhile and important, acquisitions of trail connections should be judged by their ecological significance. A trail connection specified in the same area needed for an "ecological connection" suggests human trails are a higher priority in this plan than protection of natural resources. Ecological corridor connections are required for long term vitality of wildlife and plants, and human trails should only be planned if the connecting corridors are sufficiently wide to support both requirements. MAGIC encourages trail connections of at least 600 meters in width to meet both requirements.

Part five, "Protection of Farmland and Rural Open Spaces" serves to protect streams and water supplies, but extinguishing TDR's should be considered for funding based on their ecological importance just as the other projects in this plan should be so evaluated. It should be noted that protecting agriculture lands may not be as important as protecting forests when the two are compared with each other.

Part six, "Protection of Urban Open Spaces" is a worthwhile project. A mid-county Regional Park could add significant natural resource protection while providing additional recreational facilities in the upper county. Other parts of this section, such as purchasing closed schools, seem more important in providing additional recreational facilities where they're needed rather than protecting natural resources. Many of the trees on these properties have already been cut down, and the ball fields may be their most important feature. Similarly, urban boulevard "edge" acquisitions, while providing nice streets for people to admire, do little to protect natural resources in the county.

In closing, I'd urge the Council to require the same criteria be used to consider which projects should be funded, and this criteria be based on "protecting natural resources". Without such restrictions, an otherwise solid plan will not meet its goals of protecting the environment..

Sincerely,

Bob DeGroot

President, MAGIC