Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Needs in Sussex County Photo by Tanya Nolte Wetlands “Open space is good politically, good economically, good for biodiversity, and good for water supply.” Austin Carew, Chair, Sussex County’s Open Space Committee at a Freeholder Board meeting on May 14, 2003. This section of the plan discusses the open space, conservation, and recreation needs in Sussex County, as described by those active throughout the county in land conservation and stewardship. The needs derive from 11 outreach meetings conducted from March through May of 2003 with the following participants: • non-profit conservation organizations (1 meeting); • state and federal resource managers (1 meeting); • organizations that provide recreation services, such as hunting clubs and birding organizations (1 meeting); • regional meetings with Sussex County municipal leaders (8 meetings). As discussed in the previous section, a part of these meetings identified specific areas for preservation and the reasons why these areas should be targeted which resulted in a list of open space preservation goals. The other section of each meeting was devoted to discussing impediments to conservation and other barriers or issues that prevent efficient land conservation in Sussex County. The results of that discussion are described below. VI. Open Space, Conservation & Recreation Needs 87 The structure of this approach gives a strong voice to those most familiar with the conservation issues of Sussex County. The interests of the participants varied, but all are integral in forging conservation solutions in the county. A sampling of participants included: • park superintendents, managers, and rangers; • mayors; • planning board members; • municipal managers and administrators; • land conservation professionals; • environmental commissioners and open space committee members; • Sussex County federation of sportsmen representatives; • governing body members; • recreation advisory commission members. As mentioned previously, participants brought to the discussion different sets of concerns and interests regarding open space and recreation in Sussex County. This diversity translated to unique concerns being voiced at particular meetings. For example, groups that represented resource-based recreation users tended to see stewardship of existing preserved lands as the most important issues in Sussex County. Their concerns stemmed from a desire to see lands that support hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities managed for the continued existence of those activities. Resource managers, by contrast, were concerned primarily with ecological issues on the lands they manage. Regional conservation, invasive species, and landscape-scale science were all mentioned at the resource managers meeting. Non-profit organizations had yet another suite of concerns. Non-profit organizations often work in partnership with various levels of government in Sussex County. As such, one of their biggest concerns was education. It was felt that landowners, citizens and government officials could all benefit from education regarding the “hows” and “whys” of land conservation. Much of the opposition to open space preservation comes from those concerned about the financial and political implications of taking land off the tax rolls. An additional impediment to conservation, which could be addressed through education, is landowners who believe the best deal is to sell to the highest bidder (developers), notwithstanding the tax implications of this strategy. Finally, municipal officials had a more random set of issues. This is because the various goals for open space of each municipality has led to different problems or concerns for each town. The one unifying concern for municipalities, however, is the various financial aspects of land conservation. These issues include: forging effective funding partnerships; raising more municipal open space monies; and effectuating a more equitable split between county farmland and open space funding. These concerns all stem from the clear shortage of money, given what municipalities want to preserve. The discussions at all meetings resulted in the identification of 42 specific needs or issues (Table 12: Open Space Issues Identified at Regional Meetings) that have been VI. Open Space, Conservation & Recreation Needs 88 grouped into six general categories. Those categories are discussed below, with each specific need embedded within. Recreation needs are discussed separately later in this section because they were identified through a process targeting recreation officials specifically. Conservation and Open Space Preservation Needs Government Participation “Collaboration between the county and towns is a major step” towards open space preservation. With substantial financial and professional resources to bring to a particular project, government agencies are often instrumental in the successful completion of an open space preservation project. In addition, governments of all levels can and have enacted taxes to be used specifically for open space preservation. These dedicated, continuous sources of revenue, which are supported by the electorate, are testaments to the support for open space preservation in New Jersey. There is a clear mandate that garden state residents want more open space, and in bi-partisan fashion, governments around the state have responded to that mandate. From the perspective of conservation professionals and municipal officials, however, more can be done to make government participation smoother and more effective. This section details several of the issues raised by meeting attendees with respect to the role of government in land preservation. A majority of the needs regard the role of municipal government, although the county was mentioned in a few instances. First, it is perceived that there needs to be greater inter-municipal cooperation in land preservation projects. Home rule has its advantages when issues are confined to a single town, it was said, but conservation issues rarely conform to political boundaries and thus often require a different approach. When municipalities do partner on important projects, the county may also become involved. Many municipal officials felt that the county should financially “reward” towns that are actively working with other towns to achieve regional goals. Regional goals, by their nature, provide more of a countywide benefit and should be viewed as such. Also from the municipal end, it was said that there should be dedicated staff on hand to assist landowners with conservation issues. “There are people at town hall to help when a landowner wants to develop his land,” a municipal meeting attendee said. “There should also be someone to help when someone wants to preserve their land.” Another issue for municipal officials is the need for better cooperation between boards of education and municipal governments to coordinate recreation and conservation activities. Non-profit organizations, although pleased that the county has passed an open space trust and is compiling an open space plan, were concerned that the county has made non- VI. Open Space, Conservation & Recreation Needs 89 profits ineligible for open space grant funding. The county has already responded to this concern by allowing such applications if made in partnership with a municipality. Legal/Planning “We should be planning for twenty years from now, not just this month or this year.” This is the most diverse need, encompassing everything from the need to encourage countywide eco-tourism, to the need to plan at a regional level, to the need to ensure that laws are strong enough to withstand future development pressures. In this discussion the specific concerns have been grouped into Legal and Planning sub-groups, and are discussed accordingly. Legal concerns are those that deal with the legislative process and the laws that, either directly or indirectly, govern land conservation. Specific issues relative to this are the need to ensure the long-term strength of environmental laws and land protections, such as the permanence of state land holdings and conservation easements, as well as the strength of state regulations like Category 1 water protection and wetlands protections. A second issue in the legal realm was the need to ensure that environmental regulations are accomplishing the goals for which they were established. An attendee of one municipal meeting said that the amount of regulations in effect, and the difficulty of compliance for large landowners, creates a situation where owners would often rather divest themselves of the land as quickly as possible than go through the arduous process of conserving the land. Excessive regulations, as the attendee said, can be conservation disincentives. The final legal issue, which has some crossover into planning, deals with municipal zoning and master plans. Non-profit organizations expressed the need for zoning and master plans, which contain significant legal weight at the municipal level, to be more conservation-minded, taking into account the significant natural resources that private and public agencies are working to preserve. Strong support for conservation in zoning and master plans would also provide the benefit of affording a credible defense in the case of a lawsuit challenging that zoning. From the planning side of the spectrum there were several issues raised, a majority of which concern the need for strong regional planning. Specific instances