|
Dragon
Run Special Area Management Plan Advisory
Group – Traditional Uses/Habitat Work Group June
18, 2002 |
|
|
|
|
|
- Topics - |
|
1.
Welcome |
|
2.
Goals Review |
|
3.
Brainstorm
to Develop Action Plans |
|
4.
Adjourn |
Attendance
David Milby (VA
Dept. of Forestry); Rebecca Wilson (VA Division of Natural Heritage); Andy
Lacatell (The Nature Conservancy); David Fuss (Middle Peninsula Planning
District Commission)
David Fuss welcomed
everyone and distributed the final version of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
that the Dragon Run Steering Committee approved and passed along to the
Planning District Commission. He also solicited feedback about how the planning
process had worked in developing the goals and objectives in the MOA and asked
for suggestions on how to improve the process. The primary response was to
increase participation of other landowners not yet represented in the process.
David asked the
group to review the goals and objectives in the MOA and to offer ideas about
how to achieve them.
Discussion returned
to the idea of increasing landowner involvement. Andy Lacatell suggested that
it might be more effective to go to the landowners, rather than try to have
them come to us. He suggested the idea of an information meeting in each
county, where landowners, Supervisors, and Planning Commissioners would be
invited to hear an informational presentation. It was also suggested that
Advisory Group members, particularly landowners, be present at these meetings.
Furthermore, the
idea of getting landowners on the Advisory Group to become more involved in
spreading the word about the SAMP project was expanded. Landowners would be
more effective at talking with their neighbors than other Advisory Group members.
They might be able to speak at church socials or similar events. Andy also
suggested the idea of bringing a neighbor to the Advisory Group meeting as a
way of getting other landowners involved.
Rebecca Wilson
suggested the idea of developing a slide show to present at meetings of
specific organizations, such as garden clubs or Ruritan. This could be modeled
after presentations by Teta Kain of Friends of Dragon Run. David Milby noted
that many groups are struggling to find speakers for their meeting programs and
there may be many opportunities for presenting an informational slide show. It
was suggested to check with Steering Committee members about organizations with
which they are involved.
Expanding upon the
idea of a presentation, the idea would be to convey the message that the
planning process is a pre-emptive strike ahead of development pressure. It
would be helpful to present an example of an area(s) that has experienced
intense growth that has displaced the natural resources (e.g. Richmond, Fredericksburg,
Grafton Ponds area of Hampton Roads). The concern is that landowners in the
Middle Peninsula may feel that development in metro areas is not applicable
here. Within the Middle Peninsula, however, King William and Gloucester
Counties have experienced high rates of growth in recent years and may be good
examples of development pressure. Research of tax maps through the years may
yield interesting fragmentation of parcels and displacement of natural
resources.
David Milby
suggested that a 3-fold brochure could be made that explains the SAMP/Steering
Committee that could be used to distribute to landowners by members of the
Advisory Group. He also showed an example of a Dept. of Forestry brochure that
describes the economic value of forestry and that Tidewater RC&D plans to
produce a brochure about the intangible benefits of forestry (e.g. soil, water,
wildlife). He noted that forest inventory information would be available soon
that could provide more specific numbers for the Middle Peninsula. Andy Lacatell
mentioned that the Farm Bureau has information about the costs to public
services of different types of development (e.g. farming, forestry, commercial,
residential) and that this information would complement the information about
the value of forestry.
Discussion shifted
to the establishment of enforceable regulations and policies. Andy questioned
whether there was talk at the Local Government work group about regulation
enforceability above the idea of mere consistency across county boundaries. He
noted that TNC has employed a consultant on the Eastern Shore to analyze local
policies/regulations and that he looks specifically at enforceability (e.g.
ways to measure success).
The idea of a kayak
trip for the Traditional Uses work group was suggested. David agreed to pursue
this idea with Friends of Dragon Run for a Saturday trip. Andy thought that
coordinating a visit with Dr. Garman of VCU would be interesting, so that trip
participants could see what kind of fish live in the system. It was also suggested
that the “bring a friend/neighbor” idea could be used on this trip.
Finally,
opportunities and needs for data collection were discussed. The July 16 meeting
of natural resource agencies/organizations was mentioned.
The next work group
meeting will be at 7:00 PM on Tuesday, July 16. The meeting was adjourned.