June 10, 2003
1. Welcome and Announcements
2. Draft Dragon Run Watershed Management Plan
Ø Next meeting: Tuesday, July 8 – Land Use Policy Audit Work Session 3
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 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.