David Milby (VA Dept. of
Forestry); Robert Gibson, Frank Herrin (King and Queen); William Hester (US
Fish and Wildlife Service); Andy Lacatell (The Nature Conservancy); Pat Tyrrell
(Tidewater RC&D); Jack Miller (Middlesex); Prue Davis, Dorothy Miller
(Essex); Willy Reay (Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve); Anne
Ducey-Ortiz (Gloucester); Lorna Anderberg, Mike Anderberg, Mary Ann Krenzke
(Friends of Dragon Run); Rebecca Wilson (VA Natural Heritage Program); Hoyt
Wheeland (VA Dept. of Conservation and Recreation); Kay Bradley (NN-MP Public
Education Consortium); David Fuss (MPPDC)
David Fuss welcomed everyone
and began introductions. Refreshments were provided by David’s Last Chance.
David updated the group on
the status of the RFQ for a land use policy audit of the Dragon Run watershed.
The review team, a subcommittee of the Advisory Group, has selected two
finalists. After gathering more information about these two finalists, the
review team will make a decision soon and the MPPDC will enter into contract
negotiations with the top-ranked consultant. David hopes that the project can
get underway by the end of March or early April.
David began by reviewing how
the plan development process has unfolded. Referring to a handout, he told the
Group that a draft watershed management plan should be prepared by the end of
March. The draft plan will be modeled on the outline provided by the Virginia
Delegation of the Chesapeake 2000 Watershed Commitments Task Force and will
include the project’s goals and objectives and the action plans to achieve
them. David reviewed this outline.
David then reviewed the
recommendations which had already been approved by the Advisory Group. He also
reviewed other possible actions and ideas that had been mentioned during
previous discussions, but had not been fully addressed by the Group. These
lists appear below:
Ø Establish Dragon Run
Watershed Overlay District
Ø Establish Public Education
Campaign
Ø
Develop Awards Program
Ø
Erect Watershed
Boundary Signs
Ø
Promote Use of Forest
Stewardship Plans
Ø
Promote Use of Farm
Programs/Plans (e.g. EQIP, nutrient management)
Other Possible Actions/Ideas
·
No wake zones
·
Exceptional waters designation
·
Natural Area Preserves
·
Recreational carrying capacity/access
·
Signage notifying boaters of private property rights
·
Conservation easements
·
Economic/tax forces fragmenting traditional uses
·
Cluster/conservation zoning
·
Promote the use of land-based access as an alternative to boat-based
access
David then noted the handout
that summarized state and federal farm and forest programs that were available
in the watershed. The Group has recommended the promotion of farm and forest
programs and the handout serves as a reference for those programs.
David then started
discussion on the other possible actions and ideas. He raised the idea of a no
wake zone in the lower Dragon based upon landowner complaints of erosion
problems related to boat wakes. Concerns were raised that no wake zones are
more trouble than they are worth, particularly with regard to maintenance and
enforcement. There was also concern that jet skis, mentioned as a potential
problem, cause less wake at high speed than at low speed. It was noted that
signs can inform those people who want to do the right thing, because those
that don’t won’t heed signs anyway. A question was raised about whether
landowners could be using the no wake argument as a ruse to limit waterway use
near their property. David suggested that evidence of actual erosion could come
from an assessment by DCR’s Shoreline Erosion Advisory Service. Willy Reay
indicated that he had recently received a publication with many articles
related to jet skis and erosion. As an alternative to promoting the idea of a
no wake zone in the watershed management plan, the Group could merely identify
the process for designating an area as a no wake zone. This would capitalize on
existing programs and processes without creating anything new. Questions were
raised about the possible impacts of jet skis, but since this has not been
mentioned as a major issue, it was tabled until it is identified as a problem
(e.g. water use zoning?). The group decided that the watershed management plan
should not mention no wake zones because it could be controversial and it has
not been strongly identified as a widespread problem.
The next issue was the idea
of designating some or all of the Dragon Run as Exceptional Waters, which is
the state equivalent of Tier 3 waters under the federal Clean Water Act. David
provided a handout with the VA DEQ’s guidance document for designation of
Exceptional Waters. The primary goal of the Exceptional Waters designation is
to limit the permitted discharges into the stream. There was concern about what
this designation would mean for Rappahannock Community College if it wanted to
expand. There are currently three Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permits in the watershed, one of which is held by the community college
for its wastewater treatment. Further comments included: how to determine the
area of designation (i.e. not all the way to US 17 because it is a development
corridor); confusion with the Scenic Rivers designation, which was attempted
and soundly defeated by citizen opposition two times previously; restrictions
of what landowners can do with their land such as logging (do not need permits
and are already governed by BMPs); and who would nominate (e.g. Friends of
Dragon Run, Dragon Run Steering Committee). Several comments were made urging
caution on this subject, including: observing the reaction to the watershed
overlay district first before trying for Exceptional Waters designation; try to
diminish landowner suspicion by providing information about other streams that
receive designation through this newly revived program (2002); and it will be
easier to convince citizens of the Dragon Run’s importance once the mussel and
fish and natural heritage resources work is completed. In any case, it will be
imperative to clearly state how it will affect landowners. The Group decided
upon a wait-and-see approach, leaving it as a possibility for the future but
choosing not to recommend it in the watershed management plan.
The concept of Natural Area
Preserves was discussed. David provided printouts from the Natural Heritage
Program’s web site concerning Natural Area dedication and management
agreements. With the assistance of Rebecca Wilson, the Group discussed how
Natural Areas work. They are primarily intended to provide habitat for natural
heritage resources, or rare species and natural communities. An explanation was
provided for the difference between conservation easements and Natural Area
dedications. Natural Area dedication provides the strongest form of protection
available. For instance, the Virginia Outdoors Foundation owns conservation
easements, but sometimes chooses to further dedicate an easement as a Natural
Area. Questions were raised about management of Natural Areas and resources
available to support managing Natural Areas. For most of the possible cases in
the Draogn Run, management needs may be very low (e.g. swamp). There were
concerns about what restrictions might be placed on landowners. It is important
to note that these are voluntary agreements and will not be forced upon a
landowner unwillingly. It was also noted that, with only 36 Natural Area
Preserves throughout the state, this is unlikely to happen very often, if at
all, in the Dragon Run watershed. The group decided that it would best be
addressed in the watershed management plan as one of a menu of tools available
for preservation of natural resources.
David Milby mentioned that
the Dept. of Forestry has a Virtual Forestry Tour on CD-ROM that is full of
information related to forestry. The CD allows the user to choose a particular
section that is of interest, rather than having to page through all of the
information. It has pictures, movies, quotes, etc. He thought that it could be
applied to the Dragon Run Watershed Management Plan. It could prove useful to
individuals in the community because it would provide examples of how the plan
could be implemented. This would help community members understand how the plan
elements relate to on-the-ground actions. Kay Bradley suggested that this
information could also be translated to an interactive web site.
David Fuss referred briefly
to a handout that described the Appalachian Sustainable Development project.
This project is established in a rural region in western Virginia and is geared
towards sustainable agriculture and forestry. Since sustaining the traditional
uses of forestry and farming is a goal of the SAMP, David wanted the group to
see how this rural VA project was developing the capacity to add value to their
farm and forest products by producing specialty items for niche markets (e.g.
custom cabinets, paneling, hardwood flooring, organic vegetables, etc.). David
provided the information as reference material for the Group.
Mike Anderberg provided a
“motivational” story. He described that the Friends of Dragon Run evaluated the
possibility of purchasing a vacant 5-acre lot in the Dragon Run Farms
subdivision near Rt. 602 in Middlesex County. The lot was listed at $19,900 and
the Friends ultimately decided against submitting an offer. The seller
eventually received two full price offers, one offered in cash. This is an
example of the development pressure that exists in the Dragon Run.
The meeting closed with
David promising the provide a draft watershed management plan to the Group
before the April meeting. The Group may discuss the draft plan and other
possible actions and ideas that have not fully been addressed.
David explained that the
process of developing a watershed management plan offers many opportunities for
input, feedback, and discussion. He asked the Advisory Group to think of
themselves as a committee that generates the ideas and concepts that go into
the plan. David incorporates those ideas into the preparation of the draft
plan. After that, it will be presented to the public and the localities for
feedback. Many revisions will undoubtedly occur before the Advisory Group and
the Steering Committee finalize the watershed management plan. Between draft
and final versions, items may be added or deleted based on the discussions
among the Group and feedback from the watershed’s communities.
The meeting was adjourned.
The next SAMP meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 8.