Frank Herrin,
Robert Gibson (King and Queen); Prue Davis, Dorothy Miller (Essex); Andy
Lacatell (The Nature Conservancy); Julie Bixby (VA Coastal Program); Anne
Ducey-Ortiz (Gloucester); David Birdsall (Resource Management Service, Inc.);
David Milby (VA Dept. of Forestry); Mary Ann Krenzke, Lorna Anderberg, Mike
Anderberg, Wright Robinson (Friends of Dragon Run); David Fuss (MPPDC)
David Fuss welcomed
everyone and began introductions. Several announcements followed:
·
Summary of
Rose Hill Farm open house event on May 18 sponsored by Friends of Dragon Run
and Middle Peninsula Planning District Commission
·
Comments on
the Technical Memorandum are due to Vladimir Gavrilovic by the end of the week
·
The Nature
Conservancy purchased a 452-acre tract near Rt. 603 at Mascot
·
The Middlesex
Scouts have cleared a ¼ mile loop trail at the Friends of Dragon Run property
at the Rt. 603 bridge; this is part of the VA Dept. of Game and Inland
Fisheries Birding and Wildlife Trail and an information kiosk is anticipated
During the May SAMP
meeting, there was some confusion and uncertainty regarding provisions of the
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and the distinction between Resource Protection
Areas (RPAs) and Resource Management Areas (RMAs). David circulated a fact
sheet describing these areas and a table with how they are designated in the
four counties in the watershed. David also distributed sections of the Virginia
Administrative Code that describe RPAs and RMAs. Discussion followed concerning
how these areas are designated. Related discussion surrounded the topic of
silvicultural and agricultural exemptions in exchange for the implementation of
best management practices. David noted that Nancy Miller, regional
representative from the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department, had offered
to come to speak to the group about these issues and new guidance on Bay Act
regulations.
David provided an
overview of the draft watershed management plan, which was distributed at the May
SAMP meeting. He asked the group to provide feedback regarding the format and
feel of the document, the content focused on the actions, and what is missing
from the document.
Discussion
followed:
·
Discussion of
the overlay district – purpose, details
·
Mike Anderberg
suggested that it could be structured so that performance standards would have
to be met, and the Steering Committee would be asked to comment only if those
standards were violated
·
David Milby
noted that the Riparian Forest Buffer Tax Credit should be added as a tool for
farm/forest programs
·
Andy Lacatell
suggested that a section should be added that discusses the ongoing
conservation efforts (Friends of Dragon Run, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Middle
Peninsula Land Trust, Virginia Outdoors Foundation, The Nature Conservancy) in
the watershed that support the preservation of traditional land uses
·
Mike Anderberg
suggested that a similar section should be added discussing the role of
agricultral programs that result in the conservation of traditional land uses
and provide water quality benefits
·
The
possibility of doing something at the local level that would enhance the
ranking of possible projects for farm funding/grant programs
·
Should the
overlay district include permitted uses?
·
A specific
action should be added to address the need to pursue monitoring and research to
track plan implementation
·
The Progress
Benchmarks section might benefit from a Baseline Conditions table
·
The Watershed
Characterization section would benefit from a discussion of ownership patterns
(e.g. public/private, non-profit, timber)
·
The table on
page 14 regarding how actions relate to goals and objectives is confusing;
using the titles of actions might help; a narrative example of how to read the
table would also be useful
·
An idea to ask
other county supervisors or administrators (those that are not participating in
the SAMP Advisory Group and Dragon Run Steering Committee) what could make the
draft plan more meaningful to them
·
An idea to
make presentations to the county Planning Commissions; it was suggested that
this should be a recommendation from the Steering Committee to the Boards of
Supervisors, so that the Board of Supervisors will request that the Planning
Commissions hear this presentation as a precursor to possibly adopting the
watershed management plan as an addendum of the comprehensive plan
David indicated
that comments are welcome any time. He will be making revisions to the draft
plan and the group will revisit this at its August meeting.
David asked the
group to provide comments and feedback regarding the draft watershed management
plan. The next meeting will be focused on the Land Use Policy Audit and will be
held on Tuesday, July 8 from 7-9 PM at the MPPDC. The meeting was adjourned.