Dragon Run Special Area Management Plan

Advisory Group

August 26, 2003

Topics

1. Welcome and Announcements

2. Dragon Run Land Use Policy Audit – Final Report

3. Watershed Management Plan

4. Adjourn

Ø Next meeting: Tuesday, September 9

Attendance

Russell and Rachel Williams (King and Queen); Mike and Lorna Anderberg (Friends of Dragon Run); David Milby (Dept. of Forestry); Rick Allen, Anne Ducey-Ortiz (Gloucester); Andy Lacatell (The Nature Conservancy); Julie Bixby (VA Coastal Program); David Fuss (MPPDC)

Welcome and Announcements

David Fuss welcomed everyone to the meeting and opened the floor for announcements. Andy Lacatell provided an update on proposed Forest Legacy funding and The Nature Conservancy’s efforts to match that funding. David Fuss provided an update on invasive species initiatives. David announced that he, Andy, and several members of Friends of Dragon Run guided three staffers of U.S. Rep. JoAnn Davis on a paddle trip of the Dragon Run. Russell Williams expressed concern about an observed lack of frogs in ponds and streams adjacent to the Dragon Run.

Dragon Run Land Use Policy Audit

Attendees were presented with a Final Report of the Dragon Run Land Use Policy Audit. Discussions ensued about the major elements of the report, focusing mainly on the phased approach making changes to comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances.

• Concern about Level 2 and how each county may be operating separately for designating a Planning Area – intent of Final Report is that counties act to define a “unified” Planning Area
• Each county’s comp plan update schedule is different; Level 2 will require staff time and resources for mapping, coordination with other parts of comp plan, etc.
• Question about how adopting the watershed management plan as an addendum to the comp plan works?
• Concern about how an addendum (Level 1) works as enforceable policy
• Mike A. suggested that Level 1 could be sufficiently general to be adopted out-of-sync in comp plan update schedule
• The addendum would work more effectively than the 1996 Watershed Management Plan that never had enough exposure at the decision-making level
• Is this like other SAMPs?
• A long-term process with adequate public input should work better
• Caution not to proceed too slowly
• Can amendments to comp plans and zoning ordinances be undone? Yes, by the same process that they enacted
• Andy L. reminded the group that the Policy Audit is only one of the tools available and that the SAMP Advisory Group and Steering Committee can base its own action steps on the recommendations in the Policy Audit; should focus on more than just the Audit
• With the counties comp plan update schedule, we will learn as each county addresses the recommendations; what works and what should be changed
• Andy L. suggested, and Anne D. concurred, that it would be best to define responsibility if the counties are going to adopt the watershed management plan as an addendum to the comp plan because there are many things that are outside of local government responsibility
• Rezonings could require analyses and assessments of impacts on living resources, like they often do with impacts on traffic, schools, etc.; this is similar to the requirements of a Planned Unit Development in Gloucester
• Stewardship manual is a good idea, but probably not limited to the Dragon Run
• Noted examples of land use policies, maps of proposed scenarios, and conclusions
• The Final Report will be a useful tool for each of the counties beyond just the Dragon Run project

Watershed Management Plan

David F. asked the group for feedback on how to incorporate elements of the Final Report into the Watershed Management Plan. He will use his judgment based on all of the discussions and comments at prior meetings to revise the draft Watershed Management Plan for consideration at the next SAMP Advisory Group meeting.

Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned. The next meeting will be on Tuesday, September 9 from 7-9 PM at the MPPDC offices.