Based on my earlier post, I would seriously challenge some of those
decisions --- if the list of "excess properties" was accurate and really did
include several of the parcels I mentioned.

A lot of us would like to see the analyses upon which decisions were based.
It has not been an open process and I am not sure what criteria were used. I
would for example, question why Henson State Park in Montgomery Co., a
stream valley park which has no structures and no real maintenance (although
it has been proposed for a bike trail) should present "fiscal, logistical
and/or operational management challenges." Instead it protects a watershed
and provides some habitat and (if bike trail built) recreational
opportunities. 

However, we are getting a bit far from "birds and birding" to debate this on
MDosprey. MOS should ask to see the basis on which any state lands are
proposed for de-accession, and the rationale for this. And where we feel the
decision is wrong-headed, make our voices known.

Gail Mackiernan
Colesville, MD

on 11/16/2004 9:51 PM, Mark Hoffman at  wrote:

> FYI re. the recent discussion on this issue.
> 
> Mark L Hoffman
> Associate Director, Administration
> Wildlife and Heritage Service
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To:     All DNR Staff
> 
> From:  Ron Franks, Secretary, DNR
> 
> Date:  November 16, 2004
> 
> Re:     DNR Public Lands
> 
> Over the past week, there have been many reports in the press regarding
> "plans" by DNR to dispose of state-owned real property.  Unfortunately, much
> of that coverage has provided a less than complete picture of our actions
> and intent.
> 
> To further Governor Ehrlich's objective of realizing efficiencies in state
> government, in April 2003 all state agencies were asked to conduct a
> comprehensive assessment of their real property inventory.  As part of that
> assessment, a DNR team of biologists, scientists, planners and public land
> managers reviewed the more than 430,000 acres of public lands that come
> under our purview, with the overarching goal of balancing conservation with
> fiscal responsibility.
> 
> The team's 10-month review identified 54 parcels (approximately 2,900 acres,
> or less than 1% of our total) that presented fiscal, logistical and/or
> operational management challenges that may outweigh their contribution to
> Maryland's land preservation and Chesapeake Bay restoration priorities.  The
> resulting list of potential excess property candidates was sent to the
> Department of Planning in February.
> 
> With the single exception of the Deep Creek Lake buy down (begun in 2001),
> to date no identified parcels have been excessed and no decision has been
> made to dispose of them.  Please be assured that any such decisions will be
> made with the utmost caution, to ensure that we maintain our commitment to
> our conservation goals and the citizens we serve.
> 
>