Welcome and Introductions
Chairman
Edward Hall welcomed everyone to the Dragon Run Steering Committee’s Watershed
Stakeholder Planning Forum on December 12, 2001, at the Middle Peninsula Planning
District Commission offices in Saluda, Virginia. Vice-Chairwoman Dorothy Miller
assumed the role of chairing the meeting, briefly explained the steering committee’s
role, and asked participants to introduce themselves. Other committee members
in attendance were: William F. Herrin, Robert Major, Dorothy Miller, Jack
Miller, and Jerry Horner. Stakeholders
in attendance were: Dick Brake, David Birdsall, Andy Lacatell, Davis Rhodes,
Mike Anderberg, William Reay, Anne Newsom, William Saunders, Kay Bradley,
Daniel Powell, Anne Ducey-Ortiz, Lewis Lawrence, and David Fuss.
History of the Steering Committee and the
Special Area Management Plan project
Vice-Chairman
Miller asked Lewis Lawrence, Director of Regional Planning MPPDC, to describe
the history of the Dragon Run Steering Committee and how their leadership led
to the current 5-year grant to undertake a Special Area Management Plan through
NOAA’s Coastal Zone Management Act Section 309 Enhancement Grant program. Lewis
explained that Special Area Management Planning is intended to protect significant
coastal resources when there is a strong commitment at all levels of government
to enter into a collaborative planning process to produce enforceable policies.
Dragon Run Special Area Management Plan (SAMP)
project manager
Lewis
introduced Dave Fuss, the Dragon Run SAMP project manager. Dave described his
professional and educational background and indicated that his experience in
Tidewater, Virginia and on the Dragon Run led to his excitement about this job.
Visions for the Dragon Run
Dave asked each forum attendee to share their vision of the Dragon Run in 5, 10, 20, 50, or 100 years. After this exercise, there was general discussion on a variety of issues relating to the watershed. One common theme was a desire to balance what all stakeholders need and want. Issues arising during this exercise are summarized below.
Dragon Run GIS Management Framework
Lewis
introduced Daniel Powell of Anderson and Associates who gave a short
presentation summarizing the GIS Management Framework that the firm completed
for the MPPDC. Daniel showed images illustrating the many GIS data sets that
have been compiled on the CD-ROM. He also demonstrated the Framework’s utility
as a management and analysis tool with an example of a buildout analysis
allowable under the counties’ existing zoning ordinances.
Adjourn
The Steering Committee
and forum participants agreed to meet again on January 9th, 2002 at
7:30 PM at the Middle Peninsula Planning District Commission offices. Chairman
Hall motioned to adjourn the meeting. William Herrin seconded the motion and
the motion carried.
·
Traditional uses – hunting and fishing
·
Family heritage (some date back to the 1600’s) is motivation
to protect pristine Dragon for future generations by limiting intensity of
development
·
Protection of species/communities by preservation –
maintain Dragon’s natural condition
·
Water quality deterioration
·
Anadromous fish disappearance
·
Apply current tools watershed-wide (political
courage), such as zoning ordinances (e.g. Middlesex County Dragon Run
Conservation [DRC] and Resource Husbandry [RH] Zoning District Overlays) and BMP’s,
to avoid deterioration of natural condition - fears about parcel fragmentation
under existing zoning ordinances
·
Sustainable communities – economic value of land
and natural resources vs. reasonable use/protection (fear “loving the Dragon to
death”)
·
Cumulative impacts of development/ changing land
use practices
·
Property/landowner rights
·
Land use changes will affect tax revenues and
public services delivery
·
Bay Act buffer – protects large areas (good or
bad?), but does have some holes
·
Sewage disposal – septic, sewage treatment
facilities, innovative technology (created wetlands for waste treatment)
·
Future expansion of Hampton Roads Sanitation
Department sewage lines – implications for development/land use changes
·
Conservation easements – often geared exclusively
for conservation; need to consider a range of possible easement terms
·
Need more public access, yet don’t want to “love it
to death”
·
Recreation – paddling
·
Fear that publicity will result in overuse (e.g.
State Park in the Dragon would cause too much visitation – preference for
wildlife management area/state forest with low intensity recreation
·
Focused education programs – curriculum/service
learning
·
Concern that economic forces/inheritance tax pressure
will fragment large parcels by converting working forests and farms to suburban
development
·
Open space preservation
·
Need good land stewardship which includes upland
areas – past focus was on stream itself
·
State support for SAMP project
·
Research, education, and monitoring – value of
baseline information for monitoring change in the Dragon watershed
·
GIS (geographic information system) is a tool to
address many forum issues
·
Information needs – aerial photography, satellite
imagery, estimates of development pressure, carrying capacity of existing water
supplies (e.g. wells, public)
·
Could use Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and
Threats (SWOT) analysis to help with identifying key issues/strategies to
address issues