|
Dragon Run Special Area
Management Plan Advisory Group – Education
& Access Working Group July 17, 2002 |
|
|
|
|
|
- Topics - |
|
|
|
|
Attendance
Davis Rhodes (Friends of Dragon Run); Kay Bradley (MP-NN
Public Education Consortium); Jerry Horner (RCC); Willy Reay (VIMS/CBNERR-VA);
David Fuss (MPPDC)
David asked the group to review the goals and objectives for
the Dragon Run SAMP and consider possible action plans to achieve those goals
and objectives.
Initially, the question of the state parks bond referendum
arose. David explained that the bill had passed the House and the Senate and
been signed by the Governor. It would go to voters in the November general
election. If passed, $119 million would be available. Most of this is for
projects at existing parks and natural area preserves, but $30 million is for
acquisition of new parks and preserves ($10M to preserves; $20M to parks). One
park is expected to be located along the Chesapeake Bay or a major tributary in
the Middle Peninsula (i.e. Mathews or Gloucester). It is to be from 600-1000
acres and would be designed to provide public access to the Bay. The search
pattern is not in the Dragon Run Watershed.
Water and groundwater concerns were raised. The concern is
that industrial users could have a major effect on groundwater supplies in the
spring-fed Dragon Run (e.g. Smurfit-Stone in West Point). This could spark
water wars. Dr. Reay indicated that his research shows that most wells are
drawing from deep aquifers and would not greatly impact the spring water that
feeds the Dragon Run. It was suggested that education of community and
landowners might be needed to communicate the importance of water resources in
the Dragon Run Watershed. It was also suggested that a regional plan be
developed to protect against over-utilization.
The discussion shifted to real estate tax breaks for
traditional uses (e.g. farming, forestry, hunting) in the watershed or along
the streamfront. This tax break should be tied to the continuation of these
traditional uses. This led to a discussion of the concept of
agricultural/forestal districts, where landowners voluntarily enter into a
zoning district that allows tax breaks in return for a commitment to keep the
land in agriculture or forestry. This concept is probably not palatable to the
Boards of Supervisors right now, considering the budget climate. Another
suggestion was that tax rates could be different for undeveloped land with
potential for development vs. developed lands.
The concept of conservation easements was discussed. The
idea was raised about using the state’s Neighborhood Assistance Program to gain
a certificate that can be used any time during the tax year.
This led to the idea of using conservation easements as a
way to attract ecotourism to the area. Ecotourism, in turn, might be a revenue
generator for the local economy. The question was raised as to whether the PDC
might be able to perform some modeling to provide some persuasive figures for
the benefits of ecotourism on the local economy. Also, the idea of showing
examples of successful efforts by other communities was discussed. Mr. Rhodes
mentioned an area in the Western U.S. that had been utilized during the
Friends’ presentation about conservation easements. The Texas Birding Trail was
offered as a successful ecotourism venture. Also, The Conservation Fund’s
Palmetto-Peartree Preserve in Tyrrell County, NC has undertaken a local ecotourism
implementation plan, with great support from the local communities.
The focus then shifted to education of accountants,
attorneys, and estate planners. Dr. Reay indicated that CBNERR-VA could host
professional development workshops for professional estate planners.
Mr. Rhodes referred to a comment made by Andy Lacatell (TNC)
at an earlier meeting that TNC has documented that education does not have a
significant positive impact on conservation. He expressed concern that if this
was true then maybe our efforts are not going to be as effective as we would
hope.
Dr. Reay referred to Dr. Garman’s giddiness at an earlier
meeting about the Dragon Run being such a special place and that he called it a
“time capsule from 100 years ago.” He used the example of the diversity of
mussels found in the Dragon Run and the research from a VCU student many years
ago who had investigated the relationship of mussels and native fish. Dr. Reay
was enthusiastic about education as a promoter of protection of unique natural
resources.
Dr. Reay went on to talk about learning more about shoreline
erosion and sediment loads in the Dragon Run. He raised the idea of a nutrient
credit that would be transferable to other areas that cannot meet their
nutrient load cap. He thought he had read about this in the Bay Journal
magazine. The group was not sure whether the state allowed this type of
nutrient credit transfer program and, in a Dillon Rule state like Virginia,
localities would not be able to participate in such a program without authority
from the state.
Ms. Bradley suggested that we invite Del. Albert Pollard to
a future meeting as a potential co-sponsor of a bill at the state level to over
come the Dillon Rule problem by introducing legislation for a nutrient credit
transfer program.
David spoke briefly about his effort to informally survey
the number of canoe trips and number of people per trip that are using the
Dragon Run. Dr. Reay indicated that they had one trip this year sponsored by a
Rotary club, where children stayed at Christ Church.
Groundwater withdrawal concerns were raised again and it was
acknowledged that not that much study had been done on near surface water.
Terry Wagner has mostly done work on deep aquifers.
An idea was proposed to get the counties to acknowledge the
watershed as an area of uniformity among the counties. The idea of signs
recognizing the watershed’s boundaries also was raised. David mentioned that
the Local Government work group has come up with the idea of an overlay
district within which rezoning requests, special exceptions, and conditional
uses would automatically trigger a request for a formal response from the
Dragon Run Steering Committee.
The group agreed to meet again on Aug. 28 at 7:30 PM. This
night is a PDC Commission meeting, so an alternative site will be necessary.
Dr. Reay suggested the possibility of VIMS as a meeting site. The meeting was
adjourned.