|
Dragon
Run Special Area Management Plan Advisory
Group January
13, 2003 |
|
|
|
|
|
Topics |
|
1.
Welcome |
|
2.
Developing a
Watershed Management Plan - action plans |
|
3.
Adjourn – next
meeting Feb 11? |
Attendance
Robert Gibson, Frank Herrin
(King and Queen); Prue Davis, Dorothy Miller (Essex); Mary Ann Krenzke, Davis
Rhodes (Friends of Dragon Run); Robert Hudgins (Gloucester); Anne Ducey-Ortiz
(Gloucester County); Carissa Lee (Middlesex County); Julie Bixby (VA Coastal
Program); David Birdsall (Resource Management Service, Inc.); Andy Lacatell
(The Nature Conservancy); David Milby (VA Dept. of Forestry); Hoyt Wheeland,
Rebecca Wilson (VA Dept. of Conservation and Recreation); Kay Bradley (NN-MP
Public Education Consortium); David Fuss (MPPDC)
Welcome
David Fuss welcomed
everyone and began introductions. He congratulated the group for their
progressive efforts in long-range planning. He also related a story of a
similar effort underway on Maryland’s Eastern Shore as a reminder that the
Dragon Run SAMP is not an entirely unique effort in the Chesapeake Bay region.
Developing a Watershed
Management Plan
Building a Plan
David Fuss reminded the
group that the Dragon Run Steering Committee developed a watershed management
plan in 1996, but that this plan was never adopted by the counties. The 1996
plan is a good starting point to develop a more comprehensive watershed
management plan – one that will be presented to the counties.
The Special Area Management
Plan (SAMP) project is currently undertaking several primary activities. First,
an effort to make the community aware of the project and to develop support for
the project is underway. This effort consists of presentations and handouts to
civic and community group, planning commissions, and Boards of Supervisors.
Once the Advisory Group has developed a draft watershed management plan, public
meetings will be held in the four counties to share the concepts with community
members and to solicit feedback.
Another primary activity is
information gathering. Grant funding from the VA Coastal Program and from the
VA Dept. of Conservation and Recreation is supporting an aquatic inventory of
the Dragon Run, a natural heritage survey of headwaters in the Dragon Run, and
a land use policy audit of the four counties in the watershed. Additionally,
Willy Reay at the Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve in
Virginia will host a 1-day symposium to share research of natural resources in
the Dragon Run and Piankatank River.
The final primary activity
is to develop action plans to achieve the goals and objectives of the SAMP. A
review of previously discussed ideas focused on the concept of a Dragon Run
Overlay District. Mr. Fuss asked the group to consider the idea of amending
existing districts by thinking about a parallel example. The Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Act requires localities to designate Resource Protection Areas, in
which development activities are highly restricted, and Resource Management
Areas, in which development activities receive more scrutiny than that in
ordinary zoning districts. The overlay district for the Dragon Run could
function similarly to the Resource Management Area.
Possible Action Plans
Mr. Fuss then asked the
group to consider permitted uses within existing zoning districts in the four
counties, including those that might be allowed under rezoning requests. The
group talked briefly about mining as a permitted use – Gloucester and King and
Queen both recently had applications withdrawn due to citizen concern.
After some discussion, the
group deemed it too difficult to talk about individual permitted uses, but
settled upon the idea of providing general guidelines for an overlay district.
These might include concerns about surface and groundwater, threatened and
endangered species, soils, impermeability, and quantity of permitted discharge.
David Birdsall suggested
that this process was similar to the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process of
developing limits on discharges to a stream. He wanted the group to consider
what additional review could be useful that would be provided by the Dragon Run
Steering Committee in an overlay district.The group thought that Steering
Committee review of rezoning requests, conditional use permits, and special
exceptions would offer a more holistic view of the watershed and could consider
other resources, other county comprehensive plans (e.g. downstream), and the
interests of landowners that are not immediately adjacent (those who are
currently notified) but who may be affected by the proposed development.
Mr. Fuss reminded the group
that the watershed management plan could specifically refer to what they would
like to preserve in the watershed. These should follow along with the goals of
the project that are geared toward farming, forestry, hunting, etc.
The concept of tax
incentives to locate businesses in areas that are deemed appropriate was
suggested.
Mr. Fuss indicated that he
would research the idea of an overlay district and provide a rough draft of
what it would look like by the next meeting in February.
The discussion then shifted
to forest stewardship plans. The development of these plans has clear benefits
to landowners, the community, and the environment. David Milby indicated that
there was some misinformation at the last SAMP meeting concerning the VA Dept.
of Forestry’s (DOF) role in developing forest stewardship plans and offered to
clarify.
Mr. Milby explained that
DOF originally developed forest stewardship plans free of charge. At some
point, the private forestry consultants complained that DOF was undercutting
their business by providing these services for free. DOF instituted a fee
structure for the development of forest stewardship plans. Shortly after
instituting this fee structure, the demand for plans dropped to zero. Requests
for other services from DOF also stopped. Without forest stewardship plans and
other services, landowners may not be gaining the best benefits. In December
2002, DOF began offering the free service of developing forest stewardship
plans for up to 200 acres. Above 200 acres, a charge of $5/acre will apply.
Landowners may provide a voluntary donation of $25 for materials.
Mr. Milby then described
the process of developing a forest stewardship plan. First, the landowner
completes a questionnaire in which he/she identifies goals for the land by
ranking. This helps DOF determine what resources are needed to complete the
plan. Resource experts in the areas identified as goals will then visit the
property to develop recommendations. Collection of environmental and forestry
data will also be performed. The DOF forester then compiles all of the
information into a management plan. An appendix includes considerable
information for the landowner, including forestery methods, best management
practices, and natural heritage species. There is no obligation to the
landowner. The plan is normally updated every 5 years.
Once the plan is developed,
DOF can also provide other services. DOF does not provide timber pricing or
timber appraisal, but can steer the landowner toward reliable businesses that
do provide those services. Landowners may also pursue certification as a Forest
Steward. One benefit of utilizing DOF to develop a plan is access to resource
professionals outside of forestry (e.g. wildife specialists).
The question of compliance
with the plans was asked. Mr. Milby indicated that, since this is a voluntary
program, most landowners are motivated to comply with the plan because it is
designed around their own goals. Furthermore, DOF is engaged with the landowners
and can help them comply with their own plans by providing other services.
Mr. Fuss noted that the
Dragon Run Steering Committee’s 1996 Watershed Management Plan recommended the
idea of a PreHarvest Plan that notified the local government and DOF. Mr. Milby
indicated that DOF would not inspect plans that were required by local
governments outside of state requirements. He did note that the Prior
Notification Law, enacted in July 2002, allows DOF to inspect a harvest
operation within 10 days of its start. For large operations, DOF will inspect
several to many times during the operation. Most operators in the Middle
Peninsula notify DOF prior to cutting to consider special situations that they
may encounter.
DOF works with operators to
help them implement the Forestry Best Management Practices (BMP) Manual, of
which the 4th Edition was recently released. In the Middle
Peninsula, the effort to comply with the BMP Manual is very high, although
on-the-ground compliance is not 100%. Even with training, some BMPs are
implemented incorrectly. The SHARP Logger Certification Program is designed to
train loggers to implement BMPs properly. DOF keeps a list of SHARP Certified
Loggers.
Finally, the concept of
farm plans was touched upon. It was noted that the VA Dept. of Conservation and
Recreation (DCR) provides assistance in developing nutrient management plans
for farms, but that state budget cuts may hamper DCR’s ability to provide these
services. The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, via its Natural Resources Conservation
Service, has a number of programs that provide incentives to farmers for
employing BMPs (e.g. no till farming) or for taking marginal land out of
production (e.g. Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program).
Adjourn
The next meeting was set
for Tuesday, February 11, 2003 from 7-9 PM at MPPDC. The meeting was adjourned.