Layer: Moco_county (ID: 25)

Parent Layer: County green infrastructure

Name: Moco_county

Display Field: Categories

Type: Feature Layer

Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon

Description: The Montgomery County Green Infrastructure Network Map includes two basic land cover types, Natural Areas, and Network Gaps between those areas:Natural AreasNatural Areas include streams, forests, wetlands, and non-forest habitat within the mapped network. These areas form the existing green infrastructure network elements that have the potential to be further connected, enhanced, conserved, and protected.The Green Infrastructure Network uses three natural area mapping categories:Natural Areas in “Regulated” Areas,Natural Areas in Other Protected Lands, and Evaluation AreasNetwork GapsNetwork Gaps are natural area discontinuities within and between natural areas within the green infrastructure network. These areas provide potential sites for enhancements to the network.The Green Infrastructure Network uses three network gap mapping categories: Network Gaps in “Regulated” Areas, Network Gaps in Other Protected Lands, and Other Network Gaps.These six detailed mapping categories fall under four general mapping categories: “Regulated” Areas, Other Protected Lands, Evaluation Areas, and Network Gaps, as described below.Green Infrastructure Network Mapping Categories“Regulated”Areas“Regulated”Areas include environmentally sensitive features and their buffers such as streams, wetlands (where mapped in GIS), and 100-year floodplains, that are protected during the land development process by laws, guidelines, or regulations, and meet minimum criteria for inclusion in the network. “Regulated”Areas are the areas along stream corridors (based on GIS data) that have a minimum width of existing forest, non-forest habitat managed by the Department of Parks, or unmanaged non-forest habitat discernable on aerial photographs, on both sides of the stream. “Regulated”Areas also include stream segments that do not meet the minimum natural area buffer coverage criteria, but provide potential linkages between stream segments that do meet the minimum criteria, or between other significant natural resources. In “Regulated”Areas, preservation is the main focus and development is not generally permitted except for necessary construction of road crossings and installation of public utilities. Quotation marks in the “Regulated”Area category designation are used to indicate that these areas are only rough approximations of the areas that are regulated in the development review process. One reason for this is that the network map was based on County-scale GIS data, which are less accurate than site-specific data. Another reason is that other natural features that are used in determining regulated areas, such as steep slopes or erodible soils, need to be determined using field-verified data, and are not factored into the Countywide map. In addition, because “Regulated”Areas incorporate only those areas that meet the minimum criteria for inclusion within the green infrastructure network, the network map includes most, but not all, of the natural areas in the County that may be regulated. As a result, the Green Infrastructure Network Map is not a substitute for site-specific evaluations of natural resources,including those required for development review, but should always be used together with field-verified data. “Regulated”Areas are mapped using two sub-categories:Natural Areas in “Regulated”Areas- Streams, forests, wetlands, and non-forest habitats within “Regulated”AreasNetwork Gaps in “Regulated”Areas- Discontinuities between Natural Areas in “Regulated”Areas“Regulated” Area Mapping CriteriaThe following criteria were based on information from published literature regarding the importance of stream corridors in ecological health and connectivity. The criteria are applied depending on whether a site is located within the Urban Ring (as defined in the County’s General Plan) which includes part of the County’s State-approved Primary Funding Area (PFA), the rest of the PFA outside of the Urban Ring, or the remainder of the County outside of the PFA. Development density generally increases (and the mapping criteria for “Regulated” Area more inclusive) as one moves from the area outside of the PFA, to the PFA outside of the Urban Ring, to the Urban Ring. Resource mapping inclusivity increases with increasing density because of the significant loss of stream corridors over time in urban areas, and the heightened importance of those that remain in these areas. Outside of the Primary Funding Area:Minimum 200-foot wide stream corridors that are covered by forest, non-forest habitat buffer managed by the Parks Department, or unmanaged non-forest habitat discernable by aerial photographsStream segments that do not meet the minimum criteria for natural area buffer coverage, but provide potential linkages between stream segments that do meet the minimum criteria, or other significant natural resources Priority Funding Areas outside of the Urban Ring:Minimum 100-foot wide stream corridors that are covered by forest, non-forest habitat buffer managed by the Parks Department, or unmanaged non-forest habitat discernable by aerial photographsStream segments that do not meet the minimum criteria for natural area buffer coverage, but provide potential linkages between stream segments that do meet the minimum criteria, or other significant natural resourcesUrban Ring:No minimum stream corridor width “Regulated” Area stream corridors were mapped at 200 feet, 250 feet, or 300 feet in width depending on the State Water Use Class, per the County’s current Environmental Guidelines for Development. As described above, the “Regulated” Area corridor widths were also expanded to include the 100-year floodplain, and GIS-mapped wetlands and ponds and their buffers that are within, or contiguous with, the “Regulated” Area corridors. Until a revised version of the Environmental Guidelines for Development is promulgated, the approximate buffers for streams within the Ten Mile Creek watershed will be shown per the current Environmental Guidelines.Other Protected LandsOther Protected Lands includes existing lands that are protected primarily for their natural resource values by Local, State, and Federal government. These areas include:Existing M-NCPPC Parkland of the following types:Best Natural Areas,Biodiversity Areas,Stream Valley Parks,Conservation Parks,Neighborhood Conservation Parks, and Managed Open Natural Areas within these Parks, such as meadowsAll of the above parklands were included in the network except for several Neighborhood Conservation Parks that are very small and located more than 600 feet* from the network. Existing Federal and State Parks Although some of the parks listed above have some non-natural areas within them such as agricultural land and park facilities, they are mostly natural lands. These areas will continue to be maintained and managed, by the respective government landowners as parklands that are recognized for the importance of the values and functions of their natural areas.Category 1 Forest Conservation Easements including:Category 1Offsite (Category 1)Bank (Category 1)Category 1 Forest Conservation Easements within 600 feet* of the network were included except for some very small or very narrow easements. Very small or very narrow easements, however, when located adjacent to the network, were also included in the network.Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) Lands (source water protectionThese are lands owned and managed by WSSC as natural areas (predominantly forested) that provide protection for drinking source waters.* The 600-foot distance criterion is based on published data and is the distance beyond which forest birds typically tend not to fly across gaps between forested areas. Other Protected Lands are mapped using two sub-categories:Natural Areas in Other Protected Lands- Streams, forests, wetlands, and non-forest habitats within Other Protected LandsNetwork Gaps in Other Protected Lands- Discontinuities between Natural Areas in Other Protected Lands“Regulated” Areas within Other Protected Lands are mapped as “Regulated”Areas.Evaluation AreasEvaluation Areas are natural areas adjacent to or near “Regulated”Areas or Other Protected Lands, that have the potential to form larger protected natural corridors through preservation, and through connection with existing corridors if currently separated by gaps. Evaluation Areas should be examined during the development review, park planning, and other master planning processes. This will help determine which non-regulated natural resources, if protected, would best serve to enhance the network, or to identify areas where restoration or mitigation could better serve to expand or connect adjacent resources. Evaluation Areas may contain environmentally sensitive features such as forest or special habitats, and they should be given high priority on such issues as onsite forest and habitat conservation during the development review and master planning processes. Development review, park plans, and other master plans in these areas should consider protection of natural resources, or non-forest tree canopy creation, in places that optimize network connectivity. Network GapsNetwork Gaps are natural area discontinuities within the green infrastructure network that may provide opportunities to revegetate and enhance connectivity within and between “Regulated”Areas, Other Protected Lands, and Evaluation Areas. Potential connections in upland areas across watershed divides were also identified and mapped. When restored or enhanced, Network Gaps can increase connectivity within the network, and increase the acreage of forest, non-forest habitat such as meadows, and non-forest tree canopy. During the development review, park planning, and other master planning processes, Network Gaps should be evaluated to determine the potential to improve green infrastructure connectivity. Discontinuities between natural areas that met the green infrastructure mapping criteria were mapped as gaps regardless of the underlying land use or cover. As a result, it should be noted that not all of the land within Network Gaps will be suitable or practicable for habitat or tree canopy enhancements. Many gaps in the network will remain gaps because of the existing land use and cover, or plans for future development. Again, site-specific data are necessary in evaluating mapped gaps for potential network enhancements. In other cases, site-specific evaluations may show a mapped gap to be a non-forested natural area, and therefore not a gap. Network Gaps, therefore, provide a general guide, which, when augmented by more detailed site-scale study, can aid in identifying potential sites for habitat enhancement, or other green area enhancements short of habitat creation, that can still provide increased green connectivity values. For example, Network Gaps in developed areas that are not suitable for establishing additional woodlands may provide opportunities to enhance green connectivity by increasing non-forest tree canopy, such as street trees. In any case, the conceptual network map can provide information regarding potential opportunities for enhancing local and Countywide natural area connectivity that might not otherwise be recognized and considered.Network Gaps are mapped using three sub-categories:Network Gaps in “Regulated”AreasDiscontinuities within forest and managed non-forest managed habitats within “Regulated”Areas are mapped as Network Gaps in “Regulated Areas. These gaps, however, may include non-forest habitats that are not managed by the Parks Department or mapped in GIS, which should be identified and evaluated during site-specific investigations to determine whether it would be preferable to reforest them or leave them as non-forest successional habitat. Network Gaps in “Regulated”Areas will generally have a higher priority for restoration or protection because of their proximity to aquatic features such as streams and wetlands.Network Gaps in Other Protected LandsNetwork Gaps on Other Protected Lands are discontinuities within forest and non-forest managed habitats that occur on lands that are already protected primarily for the forest and non-forest natural values of the land. Some of the parklands in the Other Protected Lands category may have non-natural areas within them such as farmland and park facilities. As with Network Gaps in “Regulated”Areas, these gaps may include unmanaged or unmapped non-forest habitats. In such cases, site-specific evaluations will help to determine whether it would be preferable to reforest these areas or leave them as non-forest successional habitat. In any case, Other Protected Lands will continue to be maintained and managed by the respective government landowners under their current policies, plans, and programs. In the course of implementing park plans, such as the County’s PROS Plan and specific park or natural resource management plans, some of the gaps on these lands may be reforested or revegetated over time. As with Network Gaps, Network Gaps on Other Protected Lands that are not suitable for reforestation due to existing land use and cover, or planned park development, may still provide opportunities to enhance green area connectivity by increasing non-forest tree canopy. Gaps on Other Protected Lands mapped within Category 1 Conservation Easements may be indicative of tree stands that have died, tree plantings that have not yet occurred or failed in part or in whole, potential violations of the easements, or easements that predate the Forest Conservation Law. Other Network GapsOther forest and non-forest managed habitat discontinuities are mapped as Other Network Gaps. These are typically within Evaluation Areas or between Evaluation Areas and “Regulated”Areas or Other Protected Lands. Due to the lower detail of map data available on a Countywide scale, Other Network Gaps may include unmapped non-forest habitats, which should be evaluated during site-specific evaluations to determine whether it would be preferable to reforest them or leave them as non-forest successional habitat. Open areas on golf course lands are included as Other Network Gaps because they are relatively large open spaces, and network connections and ecological functions could potentially be strengthened if they are proposed for redevelopment in the future. Green Infrastructure Network Map Applications in Existing Montgomery County Planning, Review, and Programmatic Processes to Enhance Green Area Functions and Connectivity The County’s General Plan currently contains a number of objectives and strategies related to protecting and enhancing ecological health and connectivity. In addition, the County has a wide variety of existing planning, review, and programmatic processes that serve to implement these, and other important environmental goals, objectives, and strategies. By showing which areas provide higher potential local and regional natural area connectivity benefits, the Green Infrastructure Network Map provides Countywide information that, in conjunction with other more site-specific environmental data, can be useful in making decisions related to natural area mitigation, restoration, enhancement, protection, conservation, or acquisition. In addition to County agencies, many other entities, including local jurisdictions, municipalities adjoining counties, regional authorities, State and Federal agencies, and non-governmental organizations will be able to use the network map to enhance their environmental efforts. The existing public and private planning, review, and programmatic processes that can potentially use the green infrastructure map as a source of additional information to support environmental decision making are listed below.Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning CommissionPlanning Department1. Development Review Processa. Natural Resource Identification b. Natural Resource Protectionc. Forest Retention and Mitigationd. Conservation Easementse. Park Dedication2. Master Plan Update Analyses and Recommendationsa. Stream Buffersb. Natural Area i. Enhancement,ii. Connectivity, andiii. Protectionc. Tree Canopyd. Park Dedication Recommendations3. Upland and Riparian Reforestation Planting Projects4. Forest Banking Program5. Urban Tree Canopy and Street Tree Enhancement Projects6. Water Resources Functional Master Plan Implementation7. Patuxent River Watershed Functional Master Plan Implementation8. Environmental Setting Analyses in Historic Preservation CasesDepartment of Parks1. Park System Planning a. PROS Planb. Legacy Open Space Functional Master Plan2. Park Management Plansa. Natural Area i. Identification,ii. Protection,iii. Conservation,iv. Enhancement,v. Restoration, andvi. Management3. Park Development Review Processa. Natural Resource Identification b. Natural Resource Protectionc. Forest Retention and Mitigationd. Conservation Easements4. Natural Resources Management Plans5. Countywide Parks Trails Plan6. Water Quality Permit (TMDL) Planning and ImplementationWashington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC)1. Source Water Protection Plans and Programs2. Reservoir Watershed Management Plans3. Forest Management Plans4. Water Quality Permit (TMDL) Planning and ImplementationCounty AgenciesDepartment of Environmental Protection (DEP)1. Watershed Restoration Studies Planninga. Stream and Riparian Restoration Projectsb. Upland and Riparian Reforestation Projects2. Water Quality Permit (TMDLs) Planning and Implementation 3. Regional Watershed Feasibility Studies with the US Corps of Engineers to assess potential and locations for water quality improvement practices 4. Tree Montgomery Projects5. DEP’s Watershed Restoration and Outreach Grant Applications6. County Climate Protection Plan Implementation and other Sustainability EffortsDepartment of Transportation (DOT)1. Street Tree Planting Projects2. Potential Conversion of Undeveloped Road Rights-of-Way to ParklandMunicipalities, Nearby Counties, Regional Planning Authorities, State Agencies, and Federal Agencies1. Park System Planning2. Park Management Plans3. Watershed Protection Plans4. Water Quality Protection Programs5. Air Quality Programs6. Drinking Source Water Protection Planning7. Water Quality Permit Implementation8. Forest, Wetland, and Tree Canopy Programs9. Development Review10. Coordination with the Montgomery County for Natural Area and Trail ConnectivityPrivate Organizations and Other State ProgramsPrivate Citizen and Other Non-Government Organizations (NGOs)1. Reforestation Projects2. Tree Planting and Canopy Enhancement Projects3. Habitat Enhancement and Maintenance Activities4. Regional Green Infrastructure InitiativesOther State Land Conservation Programs1. Program Open Space2. Rural Legacy Program3. GreenPrint Program4. Maryland Environmental Trust (MET)5. The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)6. The Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF)General Priority Guidance for Habitat Mitigation, Restoration, Enhancement, Protection, Conservation, and Acquisition within the Green Infrastructure NetworkThe Green Infrastructure Network Map provides information on potential locations for enhancing natural area health and connectivity that can be used in existing planning, review, and programmatic processes related to natural area mitigation, restoration, enhancement, protection, conservation, or acquisition. Depending on which of these are the goals, enhancement or protection of certain areas within of the green infrastructure network can often provide higher potential environmental benefits than other areas, and opportunities for network enhancement can be ranked accordingly in terms of relative priority. It should be noted that the following prioritization factors are only a general guide. A thorough analysis of regional and specific local conditions, resources, and opportunities available for specific enhancement and protection projects may reveal factors that may result in different priorities. For example, in urban areas with limited opportunities for natural area creation, the creation and enhancement of urban tree canopy may be a higher priority. Basic factors that should be considered in prioritizing network enhancement opportunities include maximizing the: • Location within the Network o Headwater areas generally have higher priority than downstream areas. Priority also generally increases with increasing proximity to streams, wetlands, and other water features.• Area of natural land that can be connected • Length of green corridors that can be created• The number of separated natural lands and corridors that can be connected. • In some cases, potential project sites can be given a higher priority because they would significantly facilitate additional future efforts to connect large or important areas. • In urban areas where the focus is on tree canopy, the highest priority should be on street trees and other tree canopy that maximizes greenway connections between urban parks and other urban green spaces, and natural areas within or adjacent to the area under consideration.The following lists provide generalized priorities that should be considered in conjunction with the basic factors listed above, and local goals, needs, and opportunities, in decisions regarding natural resource mitigation, restoration, enhancement, protection, conservation, and acquisition within the Green Infrastructure Network. The highest priority should generally be given to areas where green area enhancements would provide the greatest benefits for local and Countywide ecological connectivity and ecological function.Generalized Priorities for Natural Resource Mitigation, Restoration and Enhancement within the Green Infrastructure Network1. Network Gaps in “Regulated” Areas within Other Protected Lands 2. Network Gaps in “Regulated” Areas between Other Protected Lands3. Remaining Network Gaps in “Regulated” Areas 4. Other Network Gaps between Other Protected Lands5. Other Network Gaps between “Regulated” Areas6. Other Network Gaps that would increase the area of interior forest7. Other Network Gaps between Other Protected Lands and Evaluation Areas8. Other Network Gaps between “Regulated” Areas and Evaluation Areas9. Other Network Gaps within and between Evaluation Areas 10. Areas within all Network Gaps that are not suitable for habitat restoration but suitable for other environmental enhancements such as urban tree canopy and street treesMaster plans, zoning, and field-verified data will be essential in setting final priorities or sub-priorities for a given area or site.Natural resource mitigation, restoration, and enhancement on Other Protected Lands will continue to be identified and prioritized under the policies, plans, and programs of the respective agency landowners. Generalized Priorities for Natural Resource Protection, Conservation, and Acquisition within the Green Infrastructure Network1. Lands containing significant forest or other natural area coverage that are designated as future conservation parkland or identified for natural resource values through the Legacy Open Space Functional Master Plan implementation process2. Natural Areas in “Regulated” Areas that are not within Other Protected Lands3. Evaluation Areas contiguous with Natural Areas in “Regulated” Areas4. Evaluation Areas contiguous with Other Protected Lands5. Network Gaps in “Regulated” Areas between Other Protected Lands6. Network Gaps in “Regulated” Areas that separate significant natural areas in “Regulated” Areas outside of Other Protected Lands7. Evaluation Areas closest to Other Protected Lands and associated Other Network Gaps 8. Evaluation Areas closest to Natural Areas in “Regulated” Areas and associated Other Network Gaps 9. Remaining Evaluation Areas and associated Other Network Gaps 10. Other Network Gaps across watershed dividesMaster plans, zoning, and field-verified data will be essential in setting final priorities or sub-priorities for a given area or site. Natural resource protection, conservation, and acquisition on Other Protected Lands will continue to be identified and prioritized under the policies, plans, and programs of the respective agency landowners.

Service Item Id: f0c8cd9769734b1eaac5a876a61a7da8

Copyright Text: Mark Symborski, Eliud De Jesus, Jay Mukherjee

Default Visibility: false

MaxRecordCount: 1000

Supported Query Formats: JSON, geoJSON, PBF

Min Scale: 0.0

Max Scale: 0.0

Supports Advanced Queries: true

Supports Statistics: true

Has Labels: false

Can Modify Layer: true

Can Scale Symbols: false

Use Standardized Queries: true

Supports Datum Transformation: true

Extent:

Drawing Info:

Renderer:

Simple Renderer:

Symbol:

Style:

Color:

Outline:

Style:

Color:

Width:

Label:

Description:

Transparency:

Labeling Info:

Advanced Query Capabilities:

HasZ: false

HasM: false

Has Attachments: false

HTML Popup Type: esriServerHTMLPopupTypeAsHTMLText

Type ID Field: null

Fields:

Shape_Length ( type: esriFieldTypeDouble, alias: Shape_Length )
Shape_Area ( type: esriFieldTypeDouble, alias: Shape_Area )
OBJECTID ( type: esriFieldTypeOID, alias: OBJECTID )
Shape ( type: esriFieldTypeGeometry, alias: Shape )
Categories ( type: esriFieldTypeString, alias: Categories, length: 50 )
Acres ( type: esriFieldTypeDouble, alias: Acres )
Shape_Leng ( type: esriFieldTypeDouble, alias: Shape_Leng )
numeric ( type: esriFieldTypeSmallInteger, alias: numeric )

Supported Operations: Query Query Attachments Query Analytic Generate Renderer Return Updates

Iteminfo Thumbnail Metadata