While Jim is absolutely correct that a serious review of these lands needs
to be done, I am familiar with several of them and can assure you that these
are better off staying in state hands than developed. Many are important in
providing buffer lands for the Chesapeake Bay, although they themselves may
not have any distinct or unique "natural resource" value per se. However
most do provide habitat for birds and other wildlife.

Most of what I have written below does not directly apply to birds and
birding (Norm, please forgive me) but it does apply to our state's
environmental quality and thus, indirectly to our hobby.

One property cited in a Washington Post article on land sales was Horn
Point, part of the University of Maryland. The article somehow failed to
mention that this property is the site of the Horn Point Environmental
Laboratory, one of the (if not THE) most important estuarine research
facility in Maryland and in fact, one of the most important in the country.
Much of what we know about nutrient impacts on the Chesapeake, oyster
aquaculture, and so forth is from research done there. They have a large
campus which is used for experiments to demonstrate the relationship of land
use to water quality and so forth, as well as for environmental education.
While I have to assume the state does not plan to sell the actual lab
grounds, the loss of the adjacent waterfront would be a real blow to the
work going on at this important facility.

Some of the other properties are vital riparian buffer areas for streams
leading to the Bay and its major tributaries (the riparian root zone
denitrifies much of the N in ground water before it enters streams) -- these
lands include Patapsco Valley State Park, Matthew Henson State Park, and
Cedarville State Forest. I wonder what lands in North Beach they are
referring to, as well -- not the marsh I hope.

Going westward, the designation of Cunningham Falls State Park, Deep Creek
NRMA and other sites adjacent to attractive lakes or other "prime
development" sites is tremendously suspicious.

The fact that DNR officials were opposed to some of the earlier sales (e.g.
St. Mary's Co. forest) is an indication that the review was not done by
their staff. In fact, I don't think it should be -- they need a committee of
land-use, recreational and environmental gurus without a vested interest to
do triage on these lands. I can well imagine that the state, like The Nature
Conservancy, receives properties of little value to their goals, and which
would be better off sold and the monies used for further land acquisition.

However, the amount of developed land in Maryland per person has increased
threefold since the 50s (Chesapeake Bay Program 2020 Report). There is some
formula for the "ideal" amount of available recreational lands per person
(Anyone know it?) and as I recall, we are at or below that in many more
developed areas of the state. I served on the citizen's advisory panel for
Wheaton regional Park in the 1980s and even then, that part of Montgomery
Co. had "too little" available open space for its citizens, which influenced
our recommendations to the County Council re the park development plans.

What I am saying is threefold:

1) Some of the lands determined to be "surplus" are of environmental
importance as well as recreational importance. Most disturbing is the move
to sell lands of direct importance to Maryland's Bay restoration goals.

2) No clear procedure or rationale has been put forward as to why these
properties were selected, and who made that determination.

3) There needs to be an open review system put in place to look at all these
decisions and to apply a scientific and unbiased approach to determining
which properties should be disposed of and which maintained. It could be
that in some cases, the properties could revert to the counties if they want
them. The issue of funding is important but we are not in as bad shape here
as originally thought (according to news reports earlier in the fall). Many
of these properties receive little or no maintenance in any case. Others,
such as Cunningham Falls State Park, actually bring in revenue.

And (this relates to Rob Gibbs' post) any monies from sales should be
returned to the fund to acquire more appropriate properties, not to state
general funds.

Gail Mackiernan
(in former life, U. of MD Sea Grant research director)

on 11/15/2004 9:36 AM, Jim Stasz at  wrote:

> Hi Folks!
> 
> I would urge a bit of caution before jumping on the State of Maryland for
> trying to dispose of "excess" land.  In my 19 years as a Land Planner for
> Prince George's County I have often had to review land that the County has
> received and had to determine if it might be better off sold than  retained.
> The County regularly obtains ownership of land by failure of the landowner to
> pay taxes.  No public funds were used to acquire the land.  Part of my review
> is to determine if the land has more value as open space than as something
> that "could"  be developed in some fashion and provide tax revenue.  One prime
> reason to "excess" property is to remove the maintenance responsibility from
> the County.  I am certain that some of the property the the State of Maryland
> is proposing to excess is land that they obtained at little or no cost, the
> expense to maintain the land outweighs the benefit to the general public and
> the potential for tax revenue is a bonus.
> 
> A review of each parcel has probably been completed by the State.  I suspect
> that these reviews are public documents.  Check the particulars of each parcel
> and do not make a blanket "We think this is a bad idea."
> 
> Perhaps someone from the State of Maryland could provide appropriate links to
> give us all a better prespective.
> 
> Good Birding!
> 
> Jim
> 
> Jim Stasz
> North Beach MD
> 
> 
>