Dragon Run Special Area Management Plan

Advisory Group – Traditional Uses/Habitat Work Group

March 19, 2002

- Topics -

1. Welcome and Introductions

2. Advisory Group Overview/Background

3. Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats (SWOT) Activity

4. What’s next?

5. Adjourn

Minutes

Advisory Group Mission Statement

“The mission of the Dragon Run Special Area Management Plan is to support and promote community-based efforts to preserve the cultural, historic, and natural character of the Dragon Run, while preserving property rights and the traditional uses within its watershed by improving the tools available to manage its environmental, social, and economic resources.”

Attendance

David Milby (VA Dept. of Forestry); Craig Brann (Three Rivers Soil and Water Conservation District); Rebecca Wilson (VA Division of Natural Heritage); Pat Tyrrell (Tidewater Resource Conservation and Development); Neal Barber (VA Economic Development Partnership & Middle Peninsula Land Trust); David Fuss (Middle Peninsula Planning District Commission)

Welcome and Introductions

David Fuss welcomed everyone and began introductions.

Advisory Group Overview

David provided a brief overview of the SAMP project and the role of the Advisory Group.

Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats

David led the group through a brainstorming exercise to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of issues related to farming, forestry, hunting, and ecology in the watershed. The group also discussed external opportunities and threats that exist.

There was discussion about farming and forestry practices and markets. There was discussion about the use and effectiveness of Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for forestry and farming. Craig shared a BMP notebook. Public perception problems for farming and forestry were discussed. Conservation priority areas and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative were briefly addressed. The community benefits of farming and forestry were recognized as significant. The group requested that David prepare a table of percentages of land cover types (e.g. agriculture, forest, residential).

What’s Next?

The group agreed to meet next on April 23 at MPPDC offices at 7 PM. David promised to digest the discussions into priority areas. The priority areas below were distilled from the discussions and mailed to group after the meeting. They appear in no particular order.

• Protect natural buffers/wetlands

• Reduce/prevent fragmentation of farms, forests, and hunt club leases

• Acknowledge community benefits of forestry and farming and improve public perception of these economic sectors

• Achieve consistency among land use regulations across county boundaries to preserve farming and forestry

• Acknowledge community benefits of large farm/forest landowners, while realizing that ownership changes may threaten current landscape condition

• Improve/highlight incentive (e.g. financial) for using wildlife and water quality BMP’s (e.g. programs, certification)

• Continue to gather data/information to assess changes in watershed health over time

Requested Landcover Info

Landcover Type Percent Acres

Forest 80.3% 72,123

Agriculture 18.4% 16,482

Commercial/Residential 1.3% 1,176

Total 100% 89,782

Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned.