Dear Council Members: I am writing as President of the Sugarloaf Citizens Association and on behalf of all my board members in opposition to 29-03 the Forest Conservation Exemption for Equestrian Facilities

Jim/Tina Brown July 1 Letter to County Council on Forest Conservation

Montgomery County Park and Planning
8787 Georgia Avenue
Silver Spring, Maryland

RE: Forest "Conservation" Legislation (Bill No. 29-03) Equestrian Facilities

Dear Chairman Berlage and Members of the Planning Board,

We write today to ask for your environmental oversight in the proposed equestrian exemption, #29-03 to the Forest Conservation Laws. There are too many questions left unanswered in the proposed legislation that could have long-term negative consequences.

Questions remain about the environmental monitoring practices that are critical to the long-term impact on the water quality in the Agricultural Reserve and the eventual impact on the Chesapeake Bay.

Opportunities exist to skirt the forest conservation law under the proposed exemption. And we are concerned that there will be a real increase in individuals who decide to take their chances given the lax enforcement and small staff.

Important environmental questions remain unanswered:

Where is the requirement for a baseline survey of forest? How will you measure compliance with a reforestation plan if there is no baseline data?
What constitutes a stream buffer? Is it the entire riparian zone? Is it some measured distance from the stream centerline? Who decides if the stream buffer is adequate?
How will stream buffers be protected? Under the proposed exemption, horse pasturage can go right up to the stream valley bank, allowing the horses to degrade the stream bank and reducing the vegetative cover that serves as a filter for the increased sedimentation and runoff.
When do the requirements for sediment control and other permits actually kick in on some of these projects? Who will track and monitor compliance?
Grass pastures do not hold the same filtration capacity nor ecological function as do the more diverse stream bank vegetation that is found in a forested area. What are your environmental impact projections for the eventual transition from the current vegetative/filtration system to a denuded stream bank if this exemption is widely used?
There is also the question of what constitutes a commercial equestrian activity. Does the boarding of another horse not owned by the property owner constitute a commercial activity?
What is the projected water quality impact of this new exemption to forest conservation laws if there is widespread use by large and small agricultural and equestrian landowners in the Agricultural Reserve?

Finally, the proposed facilities don't meet the state's Forest Conservation Act definition of agriculture. And therefore should not qualify for the forest conservation exemption.

"These facilities appear to be a commercial recreational enterprise instead of a farming activity which cultivates a product. ... Based on this, the proposed amendment does not meet the intent of the Forest Conservation Act and would not be approved by the Department of Natural Resources Forest Service." (Sept 11, 2003, memo to Cathy Conlon from Marian Honeczy, State Forest Conservation Program Coordinator)

For all these reasons we ask that you oppose the legislation as currently written and address the critical environmental impacts outlined above.

Thank you for attention to this important development decision that could have long term consequences on the water quality in the Agricultural Reserve.

Jim Brown, President
Tina Brown, Board Member
Sugarloaf Citizens Association

Return to Postings List