The fact that they came out in the snow last Thursday night is a testament to the strength of their convictions.
Both environmentalists and recreational trail users appeared at a public hearing to present their views to the Park and Planning Commission. The hearing was held to gain community input into a proposed amendment to the process of deciding how to develop a trail through a Montgomery County park (see sidebar).
The system will have major implications for the Blockhouse Point area, if it is implemented. The Blockhouse Point project has been put on hold until this facet of the trail design strategy has been completed. When a design process is adopted, whatever form it takes, it will be used to determine the procedures for developing the trails in that area, and across the county.
The need for a process grew from the development of the Muddy Branch Trails. The Parks department realized they didn’t have an official process for making decisions about trails, including when any trail is appropriate, what route a trail should take and whether it should be natural or paved.
More than twenty individuals and representatives from different organizations presented their views in turn before the commission. The commissioners rarely asked questions, and those they did ask were more to clarify points that were made by presenters.
The public hearing was intended to allow groups and individuals the opportunity to comment on the proposed draft. Environmental groups sought to include language which would protect fragile ecosystems a trail could damage. Recreational groups wanted to ensure that they are allowed to have access to the park system that they help maintain through their tax dollars.
Those with environmental concerns, which outnumbered recreational user by almost two to one, had a more fundamental concern than how trails should be developed.
“Unfortunately, this document takes the de facto position that our parks are meant mainly for recreational purposes and thus should be planned in that way,” said Ron LaCoss, speaking on behalf of Friends of the Northwest Branch. WMCCA sided with the Environmentalists.
“[This plan] assumes that active recreation is a given in all our parks no matter how fragile the environment or what the conditions,” said Ginny Barnes, speaking on behalf of West Montgomery County Citizens Association.
Most of the environmental groups had a similar reaction – they think the question should not be about what kind of trail to plan, but if a trail is even necessary in a given area.
“To have environmentally friendly trails, we need a policy with criteria to objectively determine environmental impacts of proposed trails,” said Jim Fary of the Sierra Club.
Several of these groups cited a 1997 study by the University of Maryland, commissioned by the planning board, which concluded, “that 85-90 percent of all park visitors use our park natural surface trails for either just walking or enjoying nature,” said Fary. Most of the groups who cited this study used this to downplay the need for additional recreational opportunities. They frequently cited another example in the study. “When asked what should have the higher priority for funding, 73 percent stated ‘protect wildlife,’ while only 18 percent said ‘build recreational facilities,’” said LaCoss, a teacher at Landon and an expert on Blockhouse Point.
Environmental groups also expressed concern about terminology used in the draft — particularly the implications of the term “shared use.”
Shared use is the idea that both hikers and bikers, or hikers and horses, or all three groups, could use the same trail, happily.
This “leads to the absurd result that we would exploit out last few hundred acres of natural areas to provide ‘equality in use opportunities’ for the various recreation interests,” said R.G. Steinman of Sustainable Montgomery. “[This plan] provides a rationale for "shared use" in all our parklands with little regard for conservation,” Barnes said.
Recreation groups had a different perspective. They assert that they have a right to use the county parks system for the kinds of recreation they enjoy.
“Everybody pays taxes. Everybody wants to use these trails. We all just have to get along somehow,” said Tim McGrath, of the equestrian group Trail Riders of Today.
Recreation proponents also have a different, looser perspective on environmental issues.
“The environmental ‘criteria’ will become a nightmare of cost, complexity and litigation unless clarified they are intended as guidelines,” said Dave Scull of the International Mountain Biking Association.
“We appreciate that the language does not prohibit planning or building a trail in an environmentally sensitive area,” said Ellen Jones of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association. “We believe that intelligent, careful engineering can solve many of the concerns presented in environmentally sensitive areas,” she continued.
Others echoed that concern. “Most damage is done by bad trail design,” said Austin Steo of the biking group Mid-Atlantic Off Road Enthusiasts.