County of Shenandoah · County of Shenandoah Office of Community Development Phone 540.459.6185 Planning & Zoning 600 North Main Street, Suite 107 Fax Woodstock, VA 22664 Wstock,

County of Shenandoah

Office of Community Development Phone Planning & Zoning 540.459.6185 600 North Main Street, Suite 107 Fax Woodstock, VA 22664 Wstock, VA 22664 540.459.6193

https://shenandoahcountyva.us/community/

County of Shenandoah Office of Community Development Phone Planning & Zoning 540.459.6185 600 North Main Street, Suite 107 540.459.6193 Woodstock, VA 22664 Wstock, VA 22664

1

MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE SHENANDOAH COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION August 6, 2020

Due to a national pandemic as a result of COVID-19, Coronavirus Disease 2019, the August 6, 2020 meeting of the Shenandoah County Planning Commission was held via electronic means using a GoToWebinar platform and, also in the Board Meeting Room, 600 North Main Street, Woodstock, Virginia at 7:00 pm EST, for those that wanted to appear in person.

The following members of the Planning Commission were present: Chairman Gary Lantz,

Vice Chairman Debbie Keller (virtual), Eunice Terndrup (virtual), Josh Stephens, Kathleen Curtis, Todd Steiner (virtual), and Supervisor Dennis Morris. The following members of the Board of Supervisors were present: Chairman Dick Neese, Vice Chairman Steve Baker (virtual), Dennis Morris, Brad Pollack (virtual), Karl Roulston (virtual), and Tim Taylor (virtual). Others present included County Planner, Tyler Hinkle, Zoning Administrator, Jason Smith, and Permit Technician, Summer Andes (virtual).

An invocation was given followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

Kathleen Curtis made a Motion, seconded by Josh Stephens, to approve the agenda. The

Motion was approved by a vote of 7-0 as follows: Ayes: Lantz, Keller, Stephens, Curtis, Terndrup, Steiner and Supervisor Morris.

Debbie Keller made a Motion, seconded by Kathleen Curtis, to approve the June 4, 2020

meeting minutes. The Motion was approved by a vote of 7-0 as follows: Ayes: Lantz, Keller, Stephens, Curtis, Terndrup, Steiner and Supervisor Morris.

PUBLIC HEARING

Dick Neese called the Board of Supervisors to order for the purpose of the joint public

hearings. 1. Special Use Permit 20-08-01: Tyler Hinkle presented information on the proposed to allow a Level II Home Business consisting of the sale of firearms and related accessories as a use of the property located at 11096 Senedo Rd., Mt. Jackson, VA 22842 per 165-12(B)(3)(b) of the Shenandoah County Zoning Ordinance. The property is currently zoned A-1 Agriculture. A neighbor of the property asked if this was going to include a shooting range, and it was answered that the proposal did not include a shooting range. Tyler Hinkle read an email sent by Patricia Greenwalt, resident of 11105 Senedo Road, Mt. Jackson, VA 22842. Patricia stated her opposition to the proposal due to the potential disruption of the peace and quiet of the area, in addition to the potential for impacting wildlife and the value of her house. Gary Lantz asked if anyone else would like to speak at this public hearing. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed.

2

2. Special Use Permit 20-08-02: Tyler Hinkle presented information on the proposed request for Remy and Jeremy Pangle to allow Agritourism Related Activities involving a short term rental as a permitted use on the property located at 1593 Hockman Road, Strasburg, VA 22657. The applicant Jeremy Pangle spoke on behalf of his proposal. Jeremy stated that they would prefer not to add a septic system as they do not wish to displace farmland. Jeremy followed this by stating that they would be ok with working with the VDH on ensuring the composting toilet met their standards. Jeremy also stated that the toilet would out of view from the public right of way. The applicant explained that the dome tent would comfortably sleep two adults with the possibility of children sleeping on the floor. It was noted that the dome has one double bed inside. Dennis Morris asked how many people might be at the location with tents. Tyler Hinkle explained that the current proposal would only allow for one non-dwelling short term rental and not additional non-dwelling rentals. Debbie Keller had concerns about traffic on Hockman Road. Debbie stated that while turning left on Route 55, people are passing a heavily trafficked working farm. She stated it would be safer to use Cottontown Road for any advertisement for directions instead of using GPS navigation. The applicant stated that they have entered in coordinates for the dome to make it easier for people to locate, and if somebody does a GPS search it will bring them in from Cottontown Road. Philip Secrist, resident of northeast bordering property, stated his concerns with how close people will be to his property and his children. Tyler Hinkle explained due to the way the SUP is written; the rental would be permitted on requested parcel of land (94.5 acres) but could not be moved to a separate parcel, in addition it is only permitted on the A-1 section of the parcel. With that stated, Tyler elaborated that the rental would not be limited to any one section of the permitted parcel unless a condition is set by the Planning Commission. Tyler Hinkle read an email sent by Robert Rosenburger and Brandy Hockman-Rosenburger, residents of 779 Hockman Road, Strasburg. The letter expressed their opposition to the SUP and that they do not like the location of the tent or restrooms being so close to the road, and believe the land value would decrease for them and the entire neighborhood. Gary Lantz asked if anyone else would like to speak at this public hearing. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed. 3. Special Use Permit 20-08-03: Tyler Hinkle presented information on the proposed request to allow a Level II Home Business consisting of a therapy and wellness business as a permitted use on the property located at 3153 Junction Road, Strasburg, VA 22657 per 165-12(B) (3)(b) of the Shenandoah County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed business would operate Monday through Friday from 9AM to 7PM and on Saturdays twice a month from 9AM to 1PM. The property is currently zoned A-1 Agriculture. The applicant, Donna Steffey, spoke on behalf of her proposed business. Donna explained that for the proposed location she intends to work with individuals, one per session, with six sessions per day.

3

Gary Lantz asked if anyone else would like to speak at this public hearing. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed.

Chairman Neese adjourned the Board of Supervisors. Gary Lantz announced the Public Hearings would now be considered by the Planning

Commission. Debbie Keller made a Motion, seconded by Josh Stevens, to approve the proposed SUP request

to allow a Level II Home Business consisting of the sale of firearms and related accessories as a use of the property located at 11096 Senedo Road, Mt. Jackson. The Motion was approved by a vote of 7-0 as follows: Ayes: Lantz, Keller, Stephens, Curtis, Steiner, Terndrup and Supervisor Morris.

Gary Lantz announced the SUP would go to the Board of Supervisors with the Planning

Commission’s recommendation for approval. Josh Stephens made a Motion, seconded by Debbie Keller, to approve the proposed SUP

request to allow Agritourism Related Activities involving a short term rental as permitted use on the property located at 1593 Hockman Road, Strasburg as long as applicant adheres to agency comments and the entrance, in all advertising, is listed off of Cottontown Road; not Hockman Road.

Todd Steiner suggested that a one acre buffer be added around the property to not be used for

commercial activity; to satisfy all neighbors’ concerns. Tyler Hinkle suggested wording the requirement in that restrictions would be on rear setbacks or setbacks from adjoining/neighbor parcels. Jason Smith explained that the normal front yard setback would be 40 feet, 20 feet for the sides yards and 10 feet for the rear yard. Gary Lantz stated it should not be a problem for the applicants to just adhere to normal accessory structure setbacks.

Todd Steiner then suggested setting a 300 foot setback from the property line on all sides.

Debbie Keller stated this 300 foot setback would cause the tent to be set in the middle of the field and would not allow the farming to continue; taking away from the Agritourism. The applicant explained that their goal was to keep the usage to the edge of the land because of the active farming that takes place. After discussion, an Amended Motion was not made.

The Motion was approved by a roll call vote as follows:

• Dennis Morris – Aye • Kathleen Curtis – Aye • Gary Lantz – Aye • Josh Stephens – Aye • Debbie Keller – Aye • Todd Steiner – Nay • Eunice Terndrup - Aye

4

Gary Lantz announced the SUP would go to the Board of Supervisors with the Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval.

Dennis Morris made a Motion, seconded by Josh Stephens, to approve the proposed SUP

request to allow a Level II Home Business consisting of a therapy and wellness business as a permitted use on the property located at 3153 Junction Road, Strasburg. The Motion was approved by a roll call vote as follows:

• Dennis Morris – Aye • Kathleen Curtis – Aye • Gary Lantz – Aye • Josh Stephens – Aye • Debbie Keller – Aye • Todd Steiner – Aye • Eunice Terndrup - Aye

Gary Lantz announced the request would go to the Board of Supervisors with the Planning

Commission’s recommendation for approval. PUBLIC COMMENTS

None.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

None. NEW BUSINESS

None. OTHER BUSINESS

Tyler Hinkle said the Citizens Advisory Committee currently has 83 completed responses on the Progress and Survey. They are hoping that five percent of the county will respond; about 2,150 responses. At the June CAC meeting it was decided to delay public engagement meetings until further notice due to everything going on at this time. They intend to hold large meetings in each district and smaller meetings in the small communities in the County to inform the public of the Plan.

There is a dedicated webpage now where you can keep up to date on what the CAC is

working on; Shenandoahcountyva.us/future. There is currently one SUP on for the September 3, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting. Tyler Hinkle explained that there is a Small Scale Solar Facilities ordinance it is prepared and ready to be seen when the Planning Commission is ready to see the ordinance. STAFF COMMENTS

5

None. ADJOURNMENT

Gary Lantz adjourned the meeting.

OLD VALLEY

CEDAR

FRAVEL

0 2,400 4,8001,200 FeetSUP 20-09-01Zoning

¯

0 0.5 10.25 Miles

Prepared ByShenandoah CountyOffice Of Community

Development

Context Map

Legend

SUP 20-09-01

Parcels

RoadsRoad Type

Interstate

Primary

Private

School Access

Secondary

State Maintained

US Route

Driveway

Buildings

Town Boundary

Railroad

ZONINGZone

Shenandoah A-1

Shenandoah B-1

Shenandoah B-2

Shenandoah C-1

Shenandoah M-1

Shenandoah M-2

Shenandoah R-1

Shenandoah R-2

Shenandoah R-3

024-A-207

024-A-207

OLD VALLEY

CEDAR

FRAVEL

0 2,400 4,8001,200 FeetSUP 20-09-01General Land Use Map

¯

0 0.5 10.25 Miles

Prepared ByShenandoah CountyOffice Of Community

Development

Context Map

Legend

SUP 20-09-01

Parcels

RoadsRoad Type

Interstate

Primary

Private

School Access

Secondary

State Maintained

US Route

Driveway

Buildings

Town Boundary

Railroad

GLUMLanduse

Commercial

Farm

Industrial

National Forest

Public/Government-Owned

Residential

Town

Woodland

024-A-207

024-A-207

OLD VALLEY

CEDAR

FRAVEL

0 2,400 4,8001,200 FeetSUP 20-09-01Old Valley Pike Overlay

¯

0 0.5 10.25 Miles

Prepared ByShenandoah CountyOffice Of Community

Development

Context Map

Legend

SUP 20-09-01

Parcels

Town Gateways

Route 11 540ft Buffer

OVP Overlay District

RoadsRoad Type

Interstate

Primary

Private

School Access

Secondary

State Maintained

US Route

Driveway

Buildings

Town Boundary

Railroad

024-A-207

024-A-207

Cedar Creek Battlefield

Vaughn-Wymer PropertyFishers Hill Battlefield

OLD VALLEY

CEDAR

FRAVEL

0 2,400 4,8001,200 FeetSUP 20-09-01Historical Resources

¯

Cedar Creek Battlefield

Fishers Hill BattlefieldFishers Hill Historic District

Vaughn-Wymer Property

House, Rt 11

Fisher House

Bosman Farm

Rudolph Farm

House, Rt 799

Highway Tabernacle

0 0.5 10.25 Miles

Prepared ByShenandoah CountyOffice Of Community

Development

Context Map

Legend

SUP 20-09-01

Parcels

Historic Locations

RoadsRoad Type

Interstate

Primary

Private

School Access

Secondary

State Maintained

US Route

Driveway

Buildings

Town Boundary

Railroad

BattlefieldCore_Study

Core

Study

024-A-207

024-A-207

024 A 207

OLD VALLEY

CEDAR

FRAVEL

VA DMME

0 2,400 4,8001,200 FeetSUP 20-09-01Natural Resources

¯

024 A 207

VA DMME

0 0.5 10.25 Miles

Prepared ByShenandoah CountyOffice Of Community

Development

Context Map

Legend

SUP 20-09-01

Parcels

RoadsRoad Type

Interstate

Primary

Private

School Access

Secondary

State Maintained

US Route

Driveway

Wetlands

Buildings

Streams

Town Boundary

100 ft Stream Buffer

Sinkholes

FloodplainZONE_LID

1000

1001

2000

Railroad

Conservation Easements

AFD

Prime Farmland

Forested Land

024 A 207

OLD VALLEY

CEDAR

FRAVEL

0 2,400 4,8001,200 FeetSUP 20-09-01Topography

¯

024 A 207

0 0.5 10.25 Miles

Prepared ByShenandoah CountyOffice Of Community

Development

Context Map

Legend

SUP 20-09-01

Parcels

RoadsRoad Type

Interstate

Primary

Private

School Access

Secondary

State Maintained

US Route

Driveway

Buildings

Town Boundary

Contours

CriticalSlopeSlope Percentage

1 0 - 15%

2 15 - 20%

3 20 - 25%

4 25% Up

Railroad

OLD VALLEY

CEDAR

FRAVEL

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

0 2,400 4,8001,200 FeetSUP 20-09-01Aerial

¯

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/AirbusDS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User

0 0.5 10.25 Miles

Prepared ByShenandoah CountyOffice Of Community

Development

Context Map

Legend

SUP 20-09-01

Parcels

RoadsRoad Type

Interstate

Primary

Private

School Access

Secondary

State Maintained

US Route

Driveway

Buildings

Town Boundary

Railroad

024-A-207

024-A-207

Version January 2020 Page 4

SHENANDOAH COUNTY OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT600 N. MAIN ST., SUITE 107WOODSTOCK, VA 22664540-459-6185

SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION

Applicant Name:

Phone: Email:

Address:

Owner Name: Address:

If Applicant Is Not The Owner, Please Provide The Following:

PROJECT NAME:

Parcel Address / Location:Project Size: acre sqft

Parcel Number(s):

Phone: Email:

Use Applied For:

Applicant / Owner

Property

Project

Current Use:

Please Describe The Proposed Use:

Proposed Changes To Existing Buildings/Structures:

Proposed New Buildings/Structures:

Has A Previous Application Been Made For This Use? Y / N Date:

Do You Plan To Reach Out To Your Neighbors? Y / N If Yes, When?

Proposed Temporary Structures:

The Barns at Fishers Hill

29434 Old Valley PikeBlake Bullard

703-955-6648 [email protected]

29434 Old Valley Pike

Strasburg, VA 22657

Residential and agricultural

Strasburg, VA 22657

due to commercial use.

No new buildings or structures are proposed.

8 acres

You-pick farm/canoe and tube service.

There are no proposed changes to existing structures

Conversations occurred July 7, 2020

24A206

canoe, tube rental, and shuttle service.

The proposed business is an agritourism-related You-pick farm and possibly a

Small, farm-related recreational features are proposed.

Agritourism-related activities and Special Event Center

, special event

center, and possibly a canoe, tube rental, and shuttle service.

Version January 2020Page 5

OFFICE USE ONLY

Hours Of Operation:

Project Details

Parking Spots: Paved / Gravel / Other: Number Of Restrooms:

Permanent On-Site / Temporary On-Site

Expected Noise Level:

Lighting: Signage:

When It Rains Do You Experience Standing Water For Days After:

Does A Stream Run Through The Property: Y / N / Only After Rainfall

I (we), the undersigned, do hereby certify that the information provided in this application and associated documents is complete and correct. I (we) understand that in granting approval of an application for spe-cial use, the Board of Supervisors may require compliance with certain conditions and that such approval

shall not be considered valid until these conditions are met.

Applicant Signature: Date:

Owner Signature: Date:

SUP#: Fee: Date Received:

AD Dates: Public Hearing Date:

Planning Commission Recommendations:

Board Recommendations:

BOS Action Date: Clerk Of The Board:

Expected Daily Customer Count:

Current Soil Erosion:

Proposed Soil Erosion:

200 Gravel / grass 2

None to negligible

Existing residential and agricultural security lighting

No

Weekends initially, with the intention of expanding as demand allows

25

2 - 3 Mg ha− 1 yr− 1

No increase

15 July 2020

15 July 2020

Temporary road-front 2'x2' signage

Expected # of event attendees Approximate frequency of events ________

Proposed months of operation

Proposed hours of operation

Will food be prepared on site, catered, or both?

Type of sanitary facilities to be used

Will tents be used? Will permanent structures be used?

Additional Comments

I (we), the undersigned, do hereby certify that the information provided in this application and associated documents is complete and correct. I (we) understand that in granting approval of an

application for specia use, the Board of Supervisors may require compliance with certain conditions

and that such approval shall not be considered valid until these conditions are met.

Owner Signature Date

Applicant Signature Date

Fee Date Rec’d

Ver: 10/2019 Page 2 of 2

OFFICE USE ONLY

SUP #

Public Hearing Ad Dates

Planning Commission recommendations

PC/BOS Public Hearing Date

Board of Supervisors Action

BOS action date: Clerk of the Board

Yes

Temporary

<200 1 per month or less

March - November

Isolated weekend hours

Both

Yes, as needed

(church, school, and social groups), possible small-venue concerts, or civil war or otherwise historic re-enactments.

The intended use for the special permit is to host occasional weddings, community events

17 July 2020

~ ¥,21li\x I11',\l.III DISTRICT

August 18, 2020

Agency Comments:

Lord Fairfax Health District Shenandoah County Health Department

494 North Main Street, Suite 100 Woodstock, Virginia 22664

Tel. (540) 459-3733 ~ Fax (540) 459-8267 www.vdh.virginia.gov '

'I/DH VIRGINIA 'l DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

Mffling You illld YQ(JI' fnvirt)(lfllenl

This Health Department has reviewed the request for comments for Special Use Permit#

SUP 20-06-01 for operating a proposed You-pick farm. special event center, and a canoe.

tube rental. and shuttle service. identified as The Barns at Fisher's Hill. located at 29434

Old Valley Pike, Strasburg.VA, Tax Map#: 24-A-206. As requested. the Health

Department has produced a list of items noted about the proposed project and included in

the fo llowing comments·:

• The proposal indicates that food will be served at the propertv and prepared on site. Food prepared on site will require a food establishment issued bv the Virginia Department of Health (YOH). In order to obtain this permit a state approved commercial kitchen must be available for the facilitv. This kitchen must be inspected by VDH.

• An approved sewage disposal svstem capable of treating food grade waste will be required. This mav be accomplished by conversion of the residential sewage disposal system to a commercial sewage disposal svstem. following consultation with a licensed PE (Professional Engineer).

• The proposed number of 25 guests daily requires that a potable water source be approved by the Office of Drinking Water prior to issuance of a food establishment permit if water is obtained from a private water source.

• Additionally. anv resale of food items directly to the customers. such as convenience type products, pre-made sandwiches. etc. that require labelling. will be inspected by the Virginia Department of A2ticulture and Consumer Services (YDACS). in addition to YOH requirements. See also 12 V AC 5-421 of the Code of Virninia for additional information on state requirements fo r food establishments. ·

Page I

Revised 03/01/2012

CCoommmmeerrcciiaall EEnnttrraannccee SSiittee PPllaann CChheecckk LLiisstt

PROJECT: ____________________________________________________

DESIGNER: _________________________________ DATE: __________

Verify

Items

At a minimum, the following items must be provided in order to be considered for a Commercial

Entrance Site Plan review. This check list must accompany plan submittal package.

1) Detailed sketch or plan including location map and north arrow. (Maximum sheet size 24”x36”)

2) Show any adjacent and opposite side of roadway entrances. Provide distances to next adjacent entrance

and nearest State highway intersections in each direction. Proposed entrance spacing must meet the

Minimum Spacing Standards found in Appendix F of VDOT’s Road Design Manual.

3) List tax map number(s), proposed use, size of development, and trip generation traffic volume and

source.

4) Master plan for future development, if applicable.

5) Existing roadway information including State Route number, Highway Functional Classification, right-

of-way width, speed limit, edges of pavement, existing pavement markings, signage, utility, ADT, etc.

6) Include existing and proposed contours and necessary spot grades.

7) Provide analysis of right and left turn lane warrants.

8) Specify VDOT entrance standard (e.g. VDOT Standard CG-11) and type (i.e. low volume, moderate

volume, subdivision, or standard commercial) and show the placement of VDOT Standard CG-12 curb

ramps on plans, notating final location to be determined by VDOT Inspector.

9) Identify required (including any adjustments for grade) and available* unobstructed stopping sight

distance and intersection sight distance and line of sight profiles at all entrance(s). (*show the

maximum available sight distance and not minimum required.) Provide sight distance easements where

line of sight leaves right-of-way.

10) Provide entrance profile from center line of roadway to 25’ beyond right-of-way with grading in

accordance with the specified proposed VDOT standard entrance type.

11) Provide typical section of entrance(s) and turn lanes including dimensions, cross slopes and pavement

design. VDOT Standard WP-2 Pavement Widening Detail to be included on all plans. Show in plan

view limits of mill and overlay per WP-2 Detail.

12) Provide current VDOT General Notes on plan cover sheet.

13) Drainage – show pipe sizes, lengths and material types (existing and proposed). Provide drainage

computations in accordance with VDOT Drainage Manual. Provide proposed culvert/storm sewer

profile. Show directional flow arrows of proposed and existing drainage to culverts, entrance(s) and

adjoining State highways. Notate or detail proposed pipe installation(s) in accordance with VDOT

Standard PB-1.

14) Evaluate need for under-drainage (VDOT Standards UD-4, CD-1, CD-2) and drain either to low invert

of drainage structure or daylight to VDOT Standard EW-12 as appropriate.

15) Provide current details with plan set of all VDOT Standards called for in design.

16) Provide signage and pavement markings on plan.

17) Construction entrance(s) should be shown off lowest traffic volume roadway adjacent to site.

18) Include Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) Plan for each phase of work on State Highways. At a

minimum, use Temporary Traffic Control (TTC) details from “VA Work Area Protection Manual”.

19) For land disturbance greater than 10,000 square feet on State right-of-way, add note that VDOT

Erosion and Sediment Control Contractor Certification is required.

If any of the above items have not been provided, please attach detailed explanation.

Staunton District

Occupant: The Barns at Fishers Hill Date Completed: 8/3/2020

Shenandoah County Fire Marshal's Office600 North Main Street, Suite 109Woodstock, Virginia 22664Phone: (540) 459-6167www.scfr.net

Occupant Name: The Barns at Fishers Hill DateCompleted:

8/3/2020

Street Number: 29434Street Name: Old Valley City: Town of

StrasburgStreet Type: Pike Postal Code: 22657

State: VA

Below are items found not to meet site plan requirements OR reminders of items that need to be installed or addressedduring the construction process.

Inspection Type: Request for ReviewSite Plan Requirements/Notes

No Violations Found On InspectionRequirement Count: 0

Notes: No concerns at this time.

Type First Name Last Name Signature Date Signature Graphic

Inspector David Ferguson 8/3/2020

FM ContactInformation:

David Ferguson, Fire Marshal - PHONE #: 540-481-0435 EMAIL: [email protected]

Since these conditions are contrary to law, you must correct them upon receipt of this notice.

Failure to comply with this notice may result in a class one misdemeanor for each violation.

Shenandoah County Ordinances: https://ecode360.com/SH15482015 Virginia Fire Prevention Code On-line: https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/VFC2015Virginia Code: https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/

Emergency Services Review Form

Department Information

Facility Information

Inspection Information

Inspection Notes

Signatures

Fire Marshal Contact Information

ORDER TO COMPLY

Web References

Page 1 of 2

Tyler, We have completed our review of the Special Use Permit Application for The Barns at Fishers Hill to operate a You Pick Farm, Special Event Center (to possibly include weddings, concerts and community events), as well as a canoe/tube rental and shuttle service at 29434 Old Valley Pike, Strasburg, Virginia. The existing private entrance is not permitted for the proposed use. This facility that has the capability of generating traffic volumes (200 parking spaces) that will require a detailed, signed, sealed Engineered Site Plan for review. The site plan must verify minimum required intersection sight distance can be achieved. The plan will also need to include design of the entrance and any necessary Rte. 11 improvements warranted as a result of the traffic generated from the site. This may include turn lanes, tapers, grading, etc. I have attached VDOT’s Commercial Entrance Site Plan Checklist to assist the engineer with design. Once design has been completed and accepted, a VDOT Land Use Permit, issued by this office, would be required for construction. We recommend as a condition of this Special Use Permit Application, the applicant be required to meet the conditions listed above, prior to any construction or operations the site that generates additional entrance trips from what are present today . This would be needed to ensure safety to the motorist traveling on Route 11 as well as those individuals utilizing the entrance. We appreciate the opportunity to review and provide comments on this Special Use Permit Application. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thanks, Timothy Rhodes VDOT~Land Development Engineer Clarke, Frederick, Shenandoah & Warren Counties 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA. 22824 (540)-984-5630

The Barns at Fishers Hill

Home Septic Drain Field

A PROPOSAL FOR A MASTER PLAN FOR THE NORTH FORK OF THE SHENANDOAH RIVER

Anna-Beth Lawler Maria TahamtaniKevin KaskTyler Hinkle

A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH

“Water has always played a central role in the history of the Shenandoah Valley.” -Shenandoah Valley Water

Resources Strategic Plan 2008

Anna-Beth Lawler Maria TahamtaniKevin KaskTyler Hinkle

Dr. Frank DukesUniversity of Virginia

Collaborative Planning for SustainabilityDecember 9, 2019

A PROPOSAL FOR A MASTER PLAN FOR THE NORTH FORK OF THE SHENANDOAH RIVER

A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH

This report was developed by a group of four students in the Masters of Urban and Environmental Planning Program at the University of Virginia in their Fall 2019 semester. This report was the final report for a course taught by Dr. Frank Dukes, who leads the Institute for Engagement and Negotiation at the University. The students’ names are Anna-Beth Lawler, Maria Tahamtani, Kevin Kask, and Tyler Hinkle. They were guided with the help of David Brotman, Director of the Friends of the North Fork, and Kim Woodwell, Program Director for the Alliance for the Shenandoah Valley. Crucial support and advice to ensure this report could be developed came from Mark Griffey, Shenandoah County Community Development Coordinator, and Evan Vass, Shenandoah County Administrator.

CONTENTS:Section I: Executive Summary ……………………………….…………. 1

Section II: Group Covenant ……………..………………………………. 7

Section III: Situation Assessment …………..……………………..... 9

Summary ……………………………………………..........………………... 9

Stakeholder Groups ……………………………………….......……. 12

Section III: Project Purpose & Goals ……………………......…… 13

Purpose …………………………………………….…………………………. 17

Overall Goals and Objectives ………………………………..… 18

Learning Objectives ……………………………………………...….. 18

Section IV: Options and Recommendations for Equitable

Collaboration ………..................................................................…. 19

Access ……………………………………………………………………….… 20

Overall Recommendations ……………………..…….. 20

Hiwassee River Watershed Recreational Access

Plan (HRAP) ……................................................………. 21

Greater Des Moines Water Trails and

Greenways Plan …………................................…..……. 22

The River Ring Of St. Louis …………….......………. 23

Clinch River Valley Initiative (CRVI) ……....….. 24

Dam Improvements................................................... 26

Quality …………………………………..………………………………..….. 29

Methods for Quality Improvement ……..….….. 29

York County …….………………………….….….. 29

The James River ………………………….………. 30

The Hudson River ………………….……….….. 31

Methods for Equitable Collaboration ……..…. 32

Boston, Massachusetts …………………………..………..…….. 33

San Antonio, Texas …………………………………..........…..……. 34

Elizabeth River ……………………………………......………...…….. 35

Lancaster Clean Water Partners Program ……....….. 37

Pennsylvania Pilot Counties Program ……….……......… 39

Engagement Process Recommendations ………..….…….. 41

Understanding Our Shared Values …………………...…………. 43

Toll House and Stream Communities ………………………… 44

Connecting The Watershed................................................... 45

Section V: Process Evaluation Protocol ………….…………. 47

1 2

SECTION I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to provide a process for Shenandoah County to envision the future of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River and its tributaries in a manner that both respects and incorporates all voices that are connect-

ed with, or impacted by, the watershed. While this report does not provide an all-inclusive answer to the opportunities and issues that the watershed offers and faces, it provides a method of revealing and developing the answers in a manner that is inclusive and flexible for the time that the answers are needed. This report calls for a plan that empowers the County and the people of the watershed to work together to do good through building off of existing assets.

While Shenandoah County is defined by the unique identities that exist within the County from the six towns, numerous villages and hamlets, to the sports teams at the three school campuses, the County has one aspect in common: unity around water and specifically the North Fork of the Shenandoah River. From memories of going fishing with grandparents, tubing with friends, learning about the animals and plants in science class, or having a picnic with the family along the River, every-one connects through the North Fork. Currently there are only eight official access sites along the total 116 river miles of the North Fork and three of which have boat ramps. In addition to the lack of coordination on access locations on the North Fork, there are no official fishing or access sites on the ten public creeks or connections from the river to the other major

natural resource in the County: the mountains. This report seeks to address this as well as bridge the gap between all river users from tourists to farmers and ensure that future improvements help all, as well as improve water quality.

This report addresses Virginia State code section § 28.2-1200, which states that all lands under perennial creeks and rivers are considered public. According to the United States Army Corps of Engineers, a general standard to measuring which waters are public is through taking into account all perennial waters that have a five square mile drainage basin. A map to the right demonstrates the public creek and river beds in Shenandoah County. The importance of this code section is that while the State of Virginia provides clarity on the ownership of the ten creeks and the North Fork of the Shenandoah River, there is no clarity on the best method of providing access to the public waters, addressing the quality of the water, or infrastructural improvements for the public waters that also increase the quality of life of the communi-ty. This report addresses said gaps.

The report is broken into six sections with the first sec-tion, this section, serving as an executive summary for the entire report. The second section outlines the group cove-nant that was developed by the students at the University of Virginia who worked on developing this report. The third section provides a situational assessment on the watershed in order to outline the key threats as well as the opportu-

Mill Creek

Passa

ge C

reek

Cedar Creek

Ston

y C

reek

Toms Brook

Holmans Creek

Litt

le S

tony

Cre

ek

Stony Creek

Shenandoah County Public River And Creek Beds

Legend

Hand Launch

Boat Ramp

Public Land Under The North Fork

Public Land Under Creek Beds

Public Trails

Town

0 8 164 Miles

Source: VDGIF, DEQ, NID,and Shenandoah County GIS

Author Tyler Hinkle Date: 2-12-2020

3 4

nities for the watershed in Shenandoah County along with numerous maps that detail the current conditions of the wa-tershed within Shenandoah County. These maps demonstrate that the major contributor of pollutants into the watershed is not one actor, rather the North Fork’s watershed faces issues from all sides with non-point source, or non-traceable, pollu-tion from wildlife and agriculture to urban runoff and unknown sources. Section four delves more in-depth with the purpose and goals of this report, as well as the learning objectives that the student researchers held with overall objectives as well as specific objectives for access and quality. Section five pro-vides the core research findings in the report, including rec-ommendations, case studies, and cohesive visioning ideas for what future efforts could be focused upon. These recommen-dations include the process that has been summarized to the right where meetings would be held with each river and creek community in order to determine the vision, desires, and needs of the communities as they relate to the watershed. The sixth and final section outlines the process that should be followed after meetings are held, as well as a method of evalu-ating the process and plan itself so it may be improved.

The following will seek to provide a concise outline of the process of both developing the plan and implementing a col-laborative process that will live on past the plan. On page six a gantt chart demonstrates the timeline for the development of the proposed master plan. The first three months include staff consultation with relevant agencies in order to develop

Step I: Consult Key Agencies

Step II: Identify Community Champions

Step III: Community Collaboration

Step IV: Refine Improvements

Step V: Implement

• Interview one on one, or use survey to gather core values.

• Identify needs in the community.

• Workshop initial locations for improvements.

Requirements For Improving Sites

• Sites must either already be an existing DWR site, or come from a River or Creek Community recommendation.

• Sites must provide adequate parking in ac-cordance to VDOT, and options for walk-ing and biking if feasible.

• Sites must be reviewed by local law en-forcement to ensure proper visibility of the site is possible.

• Trash and recycling as well as maintenance of the site must be set in an agreement with a local non-profit or other organiza-tion.

• Feasibility studies will be performed to ensure proper sanitation facilities can be located in accordance with VDH.

a set of standards that may be used to guide any sites that are existing or proposed by communities, as well as methods to share with communities on how they can work together to improve water quality and develop their own improvements. This period also includes the time needed to develop an agenda that will allow for meetings that will only take an hour or two of community members’ time, and the time to identify the existing community champions who have connections that can be built upon for discussion and collaboration. This first period also includes time for key agencies to review the process and make sure that all legal aspects are addressed before work begins. Time is also set for key aspects to have at the meetings and when and where such meetings will occur, as well as methods for people to participate in a safe manner in relation to COVID-19. On the left is an example of guiding materials which guide to ensure that all individuals have a say in future access points in a collaborative manner. With clear requirements and a clear process for adding new sites, the plan is a generative process and a framework to en-sure that all parties come out on top and there are no losers.

After the community meetings, staff will coordinate with community champions to determine any updates. Once this has been completed the findings will be compiled into the final plan, along with potential outside funding sources. If approved, the plan will serve as a cohesive statement of the vision of Shenandoah County’s watershed to outside individ-uals, yet it can also be amended by future generations.

5 6

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12

Agency Preparation

Agenda Setting

Identify Champions

Setting Dates And Locations

Agency Review Meeting

Writing

Community Meetings

Identify Funds

Community Review

Final Review

Final Edits

Final Presentation

Shenco ResidentsAnd Visitors

Community PartnersAnd Businesses

River Or CreekCommunities

CommunityChampions

Key Partners/Advisors

KEY TAKEAWAYS

A Master Plan for the North Fork of the Shenan-doah River may lead to may benefits from new businesses, tourist attractions, cleaner waters, and the potential for property values to in-crease. Yet, the most important benefit from a Master Plan is the improvement of the quality of life of people in Shenandoah County, as well as those who visit it. The improvements in the quality of life is summarized below:

1. Expanding educational opportunities with outdoor classrooms and educational sig-nage on trails and access areas.

2. Pride in the River and the watershed serving to further unify Shenandoah County and connect everyone in the County.

3. Four-season recreational amenities from tub-ing/kayaking, fishing or ice fishing, outdoor workout equipment, to running, walking, biking, and hiking trails.

4. Providing safe access points to the River and the ten public streams to reduce the stress on users and landowners.

5. Connecting the entire County with a Coun-ty-wide park that will both benefit those who live here, and those who come to visit.

LAYERS OF COLLABORATION

7 8

We feel that our team was dedicated to reaching our

aspirations for this project while remaining respectful and

honest to each other. We understood the need to practice

“Curiosity before Judgement” throughout the project. We

were honest with each other when attempting to remain true to project goals and specific requirements, always referring back to these requirements and openly addressing any holes in the assessment and proposal we compiled. We attempted to remain equitable in work assignment, dividing the project into “Access” and “Quality” subgroups and as-signing two team members to each topic based on prefer-ence. The work was roughly equal between the groups, and as such the structure of our collaborative effort felt well-bal-anced throughout.

Finally, we were able to overcome personal difficulties faced by individual members of the team through account-ability and open communication among members. We made ourselves available either in-person or by phone whenever possible to ensure constant reliability. Lastly, we referred back to our covenant several times, and have found a group covenant to be a wonderful tool for positive collaboration for which we were extremely thankful. We believe that efforts made by Shenandoah County and its partner organi-zations should also implement a group covenant of mutual understanding so that values rather than actions and situa-tions guide the conversation forward.

SECTION II: GROUP COVENANT ASSESSMENT

As an effort to effectively cooperate, our team made a group covenant, promising to hold one another accountable to a set of collectively made standards. The aspirations we determined for this project include:

1. Curiosity before Judgement - Always ask for clarification and be willing to learn from the perspectives of others.

2. Honesty before Frustration - Be open to sharing concerns with the group, or with individual members when they arise, giving enough time for others to change/adjust or to counter.

3. Equity in Work Distribution - Ensure every team member contributes equally, understanding that some tasks require more work than others, and considering everyone’s strengths and weaknesses to ensure that we are performing at our collective best.

4. Accountability to the Team - In both work product and physical presence, strive to be open and honest about personal successes as well as difficulties, ensuring that the team can count on your contributions to the whole in a timely manner or account for your difficulties before they place too much of a burden on the rest of the project team.

9 10

Mill

Cre

ek

Passage Creek

Cedar

Cre

ek

Stony Creek

Riles R

un

Smith Creek

Toms Brook

Holmans Creek

Pugh's Run

Swov

er C

reek

Painter Run

Gap C

reek

Falls Run

Peter

s Mill

Run

Jordan Run

Mill

Run

Mine Run

Tumbling Run

Spring Hollow

Straight R

un

Laur

el R

un

Crooked Run

Barb Run

Litt

le S

tony

Cre

ek

Beetle Run

Foltz Creek

Paddy Run

Posey Hollow

Little

Pas

sage

Cre

ek

Sulphur Springs

Mulberry Run

Runi

on C

reek

Anderson Run

May

Spr

ing

Run

Gap Run X-trib

Paddy Run

Shenandoah County Existing Access Conditions

Legend

Hand Launch

Boat Ramp

North Fork

Park

National Forest

State Forest

Town

Local Streams

0 8 164 Miles

Source: VDGIF, DEQ, and Shenandoah County GISAuthor Tyler Hinkle Date: 2-9-2020

SECTION III: SITUATION ASSESSMENT

The complete Shenandoah River Watershed runs from Waynesboro, Virginia in Augusta County - including parts of Maryland - all the way to Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, and is part of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL WIP. The Shenando-

ah River splits at Front Royal, Virginia in Warren County, into two forks. The South Fork’s headwaters are near Waynesboro, and the North Fork, which is the main focus of this proposal, has its headwaters in Bergton, Virginia in Rockingham County..

The watershed faces three main opportunities: access, quality, and infrastructure, with the overarching opportunity being the improvement of the quality of life for all in the watershed.

The total 116 miles of the North Fork Of The Shenandoah River are currently accessible to the public via eight access points, four with boat ramps and four with only hand-launch options. Access issues range from the need for greater road and 911 emergency access, boat landings, community approved and agreed upon fishing locations and walkable access points that will not cause nuisance concerns for riverfront private property owners. Vehicular access to the access points is another concern with vehicles currently parking on the shoulders of nearby roads to access the River. Adjacent landowners are also concerned with River users trespassing onto their property in order to access the River. Lastly, because the access points are +/- 13 linear miles apart, with miles on the river being further, short recreational boat trips on the North Fork are currently

The Shenandoah River watershed is threatened by major point and non-point source pollution. Point

source pollution for the main stem of the Shenandoah River and the South Fork includes mercury, which was released by the former E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (Du-Pont) plant for thirty years beginning in 1920. The DuPont plant was located in Waynesboro Virginia, and releases from the plant were carried by sewer drains through to the South River, continuing downstream to the South Fork Shenando-ah River and ultimately into the Shenandoah River as well.

In addition, the Shenandoah continuously faces pollution from E Coli, nitrates and other chemicals, and other point source pollution. The North Fork of the Shenandoah River, which runs through Shenandoah County, faces issues of impairment due to large amounts of runoff from agricultural, commercial, and residential lands. While there are instanc-es of point source pollution in the North Fork watershed, majority of pollution derives from non-point source which is not as heavily regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as point source pollution.

Point source pollution refers to waste, chemicals, sed-iment, or other materials introduced to a water-source by means of a pipe. An example of point source is an industrial facility pumping fecal matter into a stream or river by an outflow pipe. Non-point source pollution refers to runoff, which can be harder to pin-point exact causal locations.

11 12

In addition, the North Fork watershed faces issues from runoff due to pet waste and turbidity from soil erosion into the River and its tributaries Not only does turbidity lead to health complications for the animals that live in the North Fork, but it also leads to the water becoming dark and murky which prevents plant growth on the River bed and cuts off oxygen from the surface for the animals in the wa-ter. Turbidity is also of concern to farmers as it can be an in-dicator of the loss of prime agricultural soils, which detract from the lands’ agricultural vitality.

Infrastructure solutions have been discussed as partial remediation solutions. They range from green infrastructure, which could have positive impacts on both the economic vi-tality and water quality of the river (i.e. using river oysters or biochar, for example), to determining the best locations for amenities such as outdoor classrooms and walking/hiking/biking trails, to incorporating recreational businesses and linking the river to hiking trails on the mountaintop.

Safey is the unifying issue at hand with the North Fork as well as the entire Shenandoah River. While changes can be made in order improve River access, if water quality related issues are not addressed then individuals will not be safe to enjoy the River and may attribute to further diminishing the health of the River. Investing in infrastructure ensures the safety of River users and landowners.

Stakeholders currently involved in developing the Master Plan include:

1. Friends Of The North Fork Of The Shenandoah River

2. Alliance For The Shenandoah Valley

3. Seven Bends State Park

4. Friends Of The Shenandoah River

5. Virginia Department Of Forestry

6. Shenandoah County Water Resource Advisory Committee

7. Lord Fairfax Soil And Water Conservation District

8. Virginia Department Of Game And Inland Fisheries

9. Virginia Tech Agricultural Extension Office

10. Town Of New Market

11. Town Of Mount Jackson

12. Town Of Edinburg

13. Town Of Woodstock

14. Town Of Toms Brook

15. Town Of Strasburg

16. Shenandoah County Office Of Community Development

17. Shenandoah County Office Of Economic Development and Tourism

18. Shenandoah County Office Of Parks And Recreation

The current process used to address conservation, clean-up, and improving access along the Shenandoah River in-volves various methods from different groups that are not coordinated with an overarching set plan or goals. There is potential to combine efforts to lead to greater results.

Turbidity Examplesmrbdc.mnsu.edu

Two Men Rock Climbing In Shenandoah County

Cows And Children Sharing Waterwashingtonpost.com

13 14

CHAPMAN

BURNSHIRE

WUNDER DAM

EDINBURG DAM

STRASBURG DAM

WOODSTOCK DAM

MCCLANAHAN DAM

JOHN MOSES DAM

LOPHAVEN FARMS DAMSTONY CREEK DAM #9

PLANT SEDIMENT POND

SEVEN FOUNTAINS DAMSTONY CREEK DAM #10

CAROLINE FURNACE DAM

Shenandoah County Existing Dam Conditions

Legend

Dam

Hand Launch

Boat Ramp

North Fork

Local Streams

Park

National Forest

State Forest

Town

0 8 164 Miles

Source: VDGIF, DEQ, NID,and Shenandoah County GIS

Author Tyler Hinkle Date: 2-9-2020

Shenandoah County Existing Recreation Conditions

Legend

Hand Launch

Boat Ramp

RecreationFully Supporting

Insufficient Information

Not Assessed

Not Supporting

Park

National Forest

State Forest

Town

0 8 164 Miles

Source: VDGIF, DEQ, and Shenandoah County GIS

Author Tyler Hinkle Date: 2-9-2020

Shenandoah County Existing Source Of Impairment

Legend

Hand Launch

Boat Ramp

Source Of Impairment

Aquaculture (Permitted)

Atmospheric Deposition - Acidity

Atmospheric Deposition - Acidity, Wildlife Other than Waterfowl, Non-Point Source, Agriculture

Industrial Point Source Discharge, Municipal (Urbanized High Density Area), Wildlife Other than Waterfowl, Non-Point Source, Agriculture

Municipal (Urbanized High Density Area), Wildlife Other than Waterfowl, Non-Point Source, Agriculture

Non-Point Source, Agriculture

Source Unknown

Wildlife Other than Waterfowl

Wildlife Other than Waterfowl, Non-Point Source, Agriculture

Wildlife Other than Waterfowl, Source Unknown, Non-Point Source, Agriculture

Park

National Forest

State Forest

Town

0 8 164 Miles

Source: VDGIF, DEQ, and Shenandoah County GIS

Author Tyler Hinkle Date: 2-9-2020

Shenandoah County Existing Quality Conditions

Legend

Hand Launch

Boat Ramp

<all other values>

Impairment CauseAlgae

Benthic Macroinvertebrates Bioassessments

Benthic Macroinvertebrates Bioassessments, Escherichia coli (E. coli)

Benthic Macroinvertebrates Bioassessments, Escherichia coli (E. coli), Fecal Coliform

Benthic Macroinvertebrates Bioassessments, Escherichia coli (E. coli), Temperature, Fecal Coliform

Escherichia coli (E. coli)

Escherichia coli (E. coli), Fecal Coliform

Escherichia coli (E. coli), Temperature, Fecal Coliform

Escherichia coli (E. coli), pH

Fecal Coliform

Temperature

pH

Park

National Forest

State Forest

Town

0 8 164 Miles

Source: VDGIF, DEQ, and Shenandoah County GIS

Author Tyler Hinkle Date: 2-9-2020

15 16

Shenandoah County Existing Aquatic Life Conditions

Legend

Hand Launch

Boat Ramp

AQUA_LIFE

Fully Supporting

Insufficient Information

Not Assessed

Not Supporting

Park

National Forest

State Forest

Town

0 8 164 Miles

Source: VDGIF, DEQ, and Shenandoah County GIS

Author Tyler Hinkle Date: 2-9-2020

Shenandoah County Existing Fish Consumption

Conditions

Legend

Hand Launch

Boat Ramp

Fish ConsumptionFully Supporting

Not Assessed

Park

National Forest

State Forest

Town

0 8 164 Miles

Source: VDGIF, DEQ, and Shenandoah County GIS

Author Tyler Hinkle Date: 2-9-2020

Shenandoah County Existing Wildlife Conditions

Legend

Hand Launch

Boat Ramp

Wildlife ConditionsFully Supporting

Not Assessed

Park

National Forest

State Forest

Town

0 8 164 Miles

Source: VDGIF, DEQ, and Shenandoah County GIS

Author Tyler Hinkle Date: 2-9-2020

Shenandoah County Existing Public Water

Conditions

Legend

Hand Launch

Boat Ramp

Public Water SupportingFully Supporting

Not Applicable

Not Assessed

Park

National Forest

State Forest

Town

0 8 164 Miles

Source: VDGIF, DEQ, and Shenandoah County GIS

Author Tyler Hinkle Date: 2-9-2020

17 18

SECTION IV: PROJECT PURPOSE AND GOALS

Learning Objectives

In order to better address these goals, our team also de-veloped learning objectives for each of the main issues faced by the Shenandoah River. These are:

• Who are the key stakeholder groups and what about the river do they value most?

• What types of landowners exist on the water and how are their values and collaboration methods different?

• How do individuals in public office and with administra-tive power feel about the river?

• What steps could localities follow before implementing water projects to ensure everyone can express their opinions?

• What collaborative approaches/frameworks are most effective given the context?

• Can we develop a framework for updating and monitor-ing adherence to the master plan once its approved?

Our team seeks to provide Shenandoah County a model for equitable collaboration with all stakeholders, and recom-mendations on courses of action that can be taken to improve quality, access, and infrastructure based on commu-

nity input.

Overall Goals & Objectives

1. Identify key stakeholders and their attachment to the watershed.

2. Determine unknown assets that could be leveraged for successful implementation.

3. Develop a set of “best practices” based on the successes and failures of other cities and counties who have faced or are facing similar issues, in order to assist Shenandoah County in developing their Master Plan.

4. Develop a set of recommendations for equitable collaboration to assist Shenandoah County in developing a Shenan-doah River Master Plan in order to achieve greater water access, higher water quality, and better infrastructure, in the hopes that this can develop into a workable and replicable model that every other county in the watershed can look to in order to promote the protection of the entire watershed.

Access

• What creative infrastructure solutions have been uti-lized in other areas facing similar issues, and what has their success rate been, if known?

• What options are available in providing equitable access to the river without creating a nuisance, and which of these might be most cost effective?

Quality

• What are the sources of water quality problems, and what possible remedies exist to reduce pollution?

• What methods for improving and incentivizing water quality are already being used by groups in the area?

• What, if any, additional methods could be used to in-centivize these water quality remedies?

• What laws govern water quality, or the river itself, and what, if anything, may need to change within the regula-tions to affect a meaningful change to the watershed?

19 20

SECTION V: OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EQUITABLE COLLABORATION

In order to best address the issues of access, quality, and infrastructure, we draw on precedent examples and case studies of similar issues as they have occurred in other rivers both locally and across the globe. We draw on these prec-

edents not only to develop the most appropriate model for equitable collaboration in Shenandoah which will be specific to the River’s unique situation, but also to understand what viable options might be available to address each of the issues going forward.

ACCESS

Recommendations should ultimately be based on public input, however, we have included a list of commonly proposed recommendations that could be applicable to Shenandoah County. Considering the unique context of the North Fork

and background research, the specific recommendations presented below encompass five major categories: financial, adver-tising, physical, educational, and policy. These actions have been proved successful throughout many similar situations.

Recommendations for Improving Access

Financial Establish a public water access grant fund for the purpose of acquiring, improving and maintaining water-front recreational property.

Advertising Increase marketing of current access points.

Physical Create more boat launches.

Interconnect water trails to bike trails.

Maintain up-to-date signage and information within information kiosks.

Develop portage sites around existing dams as well as leverage the dams for recreational moments.

Educational Provide area Chambers of Commerce and other partners with informational materials that advertise wa-ter-based recreation opportunities in the area.

Provide river safety and responsible use education.

Policy Investigate if/how the process of obtaining access easements can be streamlined.

21 22

Access Precedent & Justification

Hiwassee River Watershed Recreational Access Plan (HRAP)

The Hiwassee River Watershed Coalition (HRWC) devel-oped the (HRAP) as an effort to identify and prioritize im-provement projects that expand opportunities for citizens to access natural resources. The Hiwassee River Watershed Recreational Access Plan can serve as a model for engag-ing the public in the planning process for improved access. Similar to Shenandoah County, until this project was initi-ated, every river within the project area had an 11+ mile area where no official public access existed. Local residents were concerned with safety and trespass problems, but also the limited access to the river.

The first phase of the project included background research on the stakeholders and access to the natural resources. This phase also consisted of obtaining input from agencies on priority areas and investment strategies within the project area. The second phase focused on public out-reach and input. Information was gathered through public meetings (24 participants), personal communication and co-ordination of an online 12-question survey (82 participants).

At each meeting, a presentation was given describing the purpose of the project and the current state of access in the watershed. After the presentation, there was an open discussion regarding access points. Phase three included the analysis and conclusions from the study. Recommenda-tions were based on HRWC’s priorities, agency priorities, public input, and the existing uses and assets. Recommen-dations were then ranked on a low, medium, high scale.

Greater Des Moines Water Trails and Greenways Plan

The Greater Des Moines Water Trails and Greenways Plan included a Greater Des Moines Water Trails Commu-nity Engagement report which detailed the extensive and meaningful community participation process. The public engagement process included a survey, focus groups, and community events. In total, 341 people participated in the paper-based survey, 335 participated in the online survey and 180 participated in focus groups. 12 public events were also held to help build excitement and collect data for the water trails planning initiative.

What makes this project notable is the thought or sensi-tivities these facilitators showed throughout the processes. As an effort to improve rural input, they mailed invitations to farms and collaborated with Iowa State Extensions, Iowa Soybeans Association, and Heartland Area Co-op and Farm Bureau. Recognizing the distrust in government many minority communities feel, the facilitators developed part-nerships with immigrant and minority community leaders to ask for additional survey input. Special interests were also recognized throughout the analysis of the data. Concerns and interests were broken down by race, age, and gender to ensure that all interest group’s input was valued.

Hiwassee River, TennesseeHrwc.net

Overview Map Of Des Moines PlanDmampo.org

The Dam Plan Of Des Moines, IowaPolk-swcd.org

23 24

The River Ring Of St. Louis

In 1994, St. Louis 2004 was formed in order to bring a renaissance to the metropolitan region. More than 10,000 individuals were asked two questions: how should St. Louis build upon its assets to improve the region’s quality of life, and how should the region celebrate the centennial of the 1940 World’s Fair and the bicentennial of the Louisi-ana Purchase. Proposition C was one of 11 priorities for the region, and it was the need for clean water, safe parks, and community trails. Proposition C was put to public vote and in November 2000, 68 percent of voters supported it. The vote created what is now The Great Rivers Greenway Dis-trict which began to work with the Metro East Park and Rec-reation District in Illinois in order to ensure the maximum regional benefit. Their public report points to three major outcomes of an interconnected system: Economic Devel-opment, Social Capital, and Environmental Stewardship. In order to show that such a project is feasible they demon-strate four case studies: Boston’s Southwest Corridor, Den-ver’s Cherry Creek Greenway, Minneapolis’ Chain of Lakes, and Portland’s Williamette Greenway.

The process involved a 36-member Citizen Advisory Committee that represented the St. Louis Metro Area, which allowed for residents to give their public input on the communities desires with the project. The project identified nine ways that the project could benefit their community:

physical development, education, social connectivity, ac-cessibility, aesthetics, economic, preservation, health, and pollution deterrence. Through the process the participants were able to identify the assets and liabilities, in addition to their priorities and criteria for actions that should be taken for implementation.

Map Of The River Ring Of St. LouisGreatriversgreenway.org

Clinch River Valley Initiative (CRVI)

The Clinch River Valley Initiative included collaborative efforts to understand the need for greater river access. This initiative created an “Access Points Action Team” that identified best practices. One of the best practices suggest-ed by the team included prior research on the wildlife pres-ent at each site location. After selecting the communities desired locations for new access points, localities should consult with the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) to ensure that a proposed location will not create any unacceptable risks to wildlife. The CRVI public access committee group also suggested that new access points be located approximately a two hour or less canoe float away from the next upstream and downstream access point. The team also recommends that a few access point locations should be in towns. This will help encourage spending at local businesses. The team also highlighted that each public access location should have space for at least one large truck or van with a boat hauling trailer to enter and exit the location safely. Not only is this necessary for boaters to access the river, but it also ensures that emergency vehicles will be able to reach peo-ple more efficiently. This initiative resulted in many more best practices for improving access that should be included throughout the Shenandoah River Master Plan.

Clinch River Merchandise Clinchriverva.com

Taste The Clinch Promotional MaterialTimesnews.net

25 26

Barton Dam Portage Improvement

The Huron River Watershed Council (HRWC) developed an innovative approach to the concern of providing portage for non-motorized floation devices around the Barton Dam in Ann Arbor, Michigan. HRWC consulted with a design team with Smith Group JRR in order to develop, “the first-of-its-kind boat slide, a stainless steel railing that makes portaging a canoe or kayak across the dam as easy as lifting it up on the rail and gliding it up or down the dam.” (HWRC.org) HRWC plans to use this design as a model for addition-al portage improvements along the Huron River Water Trail as well as other rivers in the state. The Huron River Water Trail runs 104 miles and has waterproof maps for naviga-tion, as well as an online interactive map at huronriverwa-tertrail.org/explore.

Wildcat Creek Portage Improvement

The Wildcat Creek Guardians earned a $5,000 grant to install a 125 foot gravel trail along Wildcat Creek. They were able to succeed in their efforts not just because of the grant, but also because a local landowner donated an acre of land for them to use, a dozen volunteers aided in pre-paring the land, and Sunbelt Rentals donated the rental of two Bobcats which saved the Guardians $2,000 in costs. As shown to the right the portage trail begins over a 100 feet from the dam, and at the site of the dam the group installed a concrete launch pad.

Portage Rack

huronriverwatertrail.org

Kiosk Stand In Town Handicap Access Device

Portage Path Portage Padkokomotribune.com

Iowa’s Department of Natural Resources provides saftey reosurces for dams. www.iowadnr.gov/things-to-do/canoeing-kayaking/low-head-dams

Siltcoos River Portage Site canoetour.org/siltcoos-river-8th-of-august/

Pine River Minnesota Dam Transformationpinerivermn.com

Roaring River Dam Removallrn.usace.army.mil

Pine River Dam Reuse

While some communities turn to removing dams entirely like Roaring River pictured above, others reuse the dam as moments for recreation as seen with Pine River. The pool of water produced by its dam was tranformed into not just a pool for the local community, but also tiered seating for picnics and per-formances. There may be potential for repurposing some dams.

27 28

Quality

In order for a collaborative process to be successful in addressing the specific types of pollutants in the River,

it is critical that all pollutants be measured and addressed as they will vary at different points along the River’s path. Unique solutions to cleansing the river of each pollutant must be found. To first address the quality impairments the river is facing, we sought to understand the depth and breadth of methods available for decreasing both point and non-point source pollution. The following case studies address best practices and methods for diminishing impair-ments similar to those of the Shenandoah River. We then collected and evaluated potential methods of collaboration for addressing such impairments.

Quality Precedent & Justification

York County

Various Pollution Reduction Techniques

York County, located in the Tidewater region of Virginia, also faced the need to combat pollution as part of an effort to reach goals set by the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. Specifi-cally, York County reduced nitrogen loading by 4 million pounds from streams and waterways throughout the county. In their solution, York County provides a blueprint for how to effectively use a variety of techniques to combat this sort of pollution and implemented riparian buffers and live-stock stream crossings on farm. In addition York County invested in stream restoration projects (restoring stream channels and reconnecting to the floodplain) in both ur-ban and agricultural areas. Pollution reduction techniques included tree planting to increase canopy coverage, the introduction of bioswales and forest buffers, wetland res-toration, implementation of infiltration basins and bioret-ention/rain gardens, Stormwater Performance Standards (for Stormwater treatment and runoff reduction), Urban stream restoration, and the creation of a nutrient manage-ment plan, among others.

York County set as its first priority the need to create “a coordinating entity that would identify priority locations for improvement, fund projects, and monitor water quality to identify and quantify improvement.” They then imple-mented a community engagement plan which ensured transparency and involvement at each and every step in the process. Drawing on resources such as the existing coalition of clean water groups, which included agriculture, storm-water, municipalities, non-governmental organizations, the County Conservation District and other interests, the York County Planning Commission lead bi-weekly meetings open to the public. The County created a mailing list for all stake-holders who wished to get involved or remain apprised of the situation. Finally, York County understood the need to remain trauma-informed, emphasizing that the plan would call for voluntary actions by all stakeholders. To be trau-ma-informed means to be aware of and to adknowledge past traumas in a community which can prevent collabora-tion. The resulting plan thus included three major strategies which were then converted into action items for each stake-holder group. The strategies were:

1. Collect efforts already on the ground and not credited

2. Determine how to reach compliance with their local area goals

3. Develop actions to meet compliance and surpass it

The James River

Low Impact Development & Integrated Stormwater Man-agement

The James River, which courses through the heart of Richmond, Virginia, also had severe issues relating to ni-trogen, phosphorus, and other sediment runoff pollutants. Algal blooms and dead zones along the river were all too common, and as such a proposal to the Governor recom-mended Low Impact Development (LID) strategies, and In-tegrated Stormwater Management as two viable solutions to clean up the pollution in the James. These approaches were targeted solutions in order to protect the James from runoff, reduce the risk and impacts of flooding, and increase the water supply. As such, these solutions can also become viable options for other localities as well.

James River Richmond, VirginiaSrmfre.com

29 30

The Hudson River

Dredging

Beginning in 1947, General Electric used polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in their manufacturing process, and up un-til 1977, were discharging the PCBs into New York’s Hudson River. This point source pollution caused severe damage to the river ecosystem and water quality. In addition, the Hud-son River has faced mercury pollution and the discharge of untreated sewage, creating a ‘perfect storm’ of river quality pollutants which ultimately led to the designation of the Hudson River as a Superfund site in 1984. By 2001, the river was contaminated with over 100,000 pounds of PCBs.

The solution to this contamination took a two-fold ap-proach over many years. First, to raise awareness about the river, Pete and Toshi Seeger founded “Hudson River Sloop Clearwater.” in 1966. They employed the use of a one mast-ed sailboat, in order to educate residents and visitors alike as to the Hudson’s history and to the necessity for environ-mental success in the area. Then, in 1991, the EPA conduct-ed a ten year study on PCB pollution in the Hudson. The study concluded in 2001 and the EPA proposed dredging the River, starting with the most contaminated sites. Over 2.6 million cubic yards of polluted sediment was dredged and disposed of as a result of this plan.

Hudson River, New YorkTimeout.com

Approaches to Collaboration For Quality

Our group assessed and compiled a variety of meth-ods of community collaboration surrounding river

impairments were then assessed and compiled. The follow-ing precedents describe the various approaches to collab-oration that could be taken in light of current concerns. As each community faces their own challenges surrounding their histories and their perspectives, both Boston and San Antonio provide a perspective in how different communities can move past former tensions between groups. The Eliz-abeth River’s River Star program offers a unique collabora-tive pollution prevention strategy, and the Lancaster Clean Water Partners program provides a strategy for group orga-nization, agenda-setting, and impact. Finally, the Pennsylva-nia Pilot Counties program showcases a valuable planning process used to achieve results both locally and regionally which serves as a model for how Shenandoah County can be a model for the rest of the watershed.

Boston, Massachusetts

Boston has recently faced the need for increased storm-water management and flood prevention, and recognizes that this will only increase with the ongoing threat of climate change. As such, the city developed the Climate Ready Initiative. One of the first major outcomes of the initative was the “Coastal Resilience Solutions for East Boston and Charlestown,” published in October 2017. Boston created a framework for equitable collaboration that can be adapted to address Shenandoah River quality.

Boston’s collaborative protocol brought together a wide range of stakeholders, including representatives from both city and state government, neighboring cities, city planning, neighborhood associations, architects, landscape design-ers, engineers, and urban planners and designers to garner a range of professional input which would yield the best designs for the rising tides. The city also notably solicited input from over 400 city residents for the plan. Within the report, a series of stunning renderings and detailed descrip-tions outline a number of “near term” and “long term” solutions, and is thus careful to aim solutions toward ad-dressing predicted coastal flood levels for 2030 and 2050-2070 respectively. Seven criteria - Effectiveness, Feasibili-ty, Design life & Adaptability, Social Impact, Equity, Value Creation, and Environmental Impact - were used to eval-uate design ideas and recommendations for both the near

31 32

and long term and to compose the final list of solutions. These solutions are thus similar in nature but differ mostly in scale of implementation.

Both consideration of the scale of solutions, as well as creating objective criteria for evaluation were thus proven to be important aspects of any large scale collaborative process.

San Antonio, Texas

When beginning a collaborative process it is always recommended that stakeholders approach the issues at hand on equal footing with a process that ensures that each stakeholder group feels that they are an equally valu-able voice in the process. However in practice, most all contentious issues are so highly fraught with emotion that any effort toward collaboration begins with less than equal stakeholder input. This was true of the City of San Antonio, until they addressed the tensions and implemented a col-laborative process worthy of recognition. Although the city did not specifically face water quality issues, their collabora-tive approach to highly contentious water quantity concerns is thus of great note.

Specifically, when attempting to address the significant low water levels in the Edwards Aquifer as mandated by a federal court judge, San Antonio was at a standstill, wherein the citizens were distrusting of the government and indus-try, and where legal methods were being used as a way for citizens to attempt to have their voices heard. It was not until the stakeholder groups agreed to mediation that a true collaborative process began to unfold. San Antonio’s collab-orative effort began with city council agreeing to study all ideas and to create a public process for using the results of scientific research to develop the plans further. The stakeholder groups then agreed to a set of eight criteria by

Getting The Kids Involved With Clean Up EffortsEnvironmentmassachusetts.org

which each plan would be evaluated. This took the emotion-al tensions out of the decision-making process, and placed the stakeholder groups on equal footing such that they then could move forward and feel able to voice their concerns with any particular plan properly.

Elizabeth River

In 1983 the Elizabeth River was singled out by the En-vironmental Protection Agency (EPA) as one of the most polluted bodies of water in the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed. While the watershed is still listed as impared, the community has organized for action in order to prevent future pollution as well as clean up the current conditions of the River. The process began in November of 1991 with a conversation over a kitchen table that led to the formation of the organization, which became incorporated two years later. Following their first Watershed Action Plan in 1996, they achieved their first wetland restoration and launched the River Stars Program for industries.

The River Star Program seeks to engage businesses and industries, and since 2011 it also engages homeowners and schools in the best actions they can take to not only prevent pollution, but also help clean up the current con-ditions of the watershed. Their website at elizabethriver.org/river-stars provides three options for becoming a River Star and lists the requirements for each designation. For businesses there are three different levels of commitment based on the level of accomplishments achieved in the fields of pollution prevention and wildlife habitat enhance-ment and protection. In order to receive a designation the business or industry must document the progress that they have made.

Blanco State Park Outside Of San Antonio In Blanco, TexasSanantonio.culturemap.com

33 34

River Star Schools are school or youth organizations that implement projects in pollution prevention or habitat en-hancement. The projects that the students implement can be small and take a day, or long and take all year to com-plete. Schools commit at the start of the school year and around April 21st they turn in summaries of their projects to be reviewed for decisions on awards to be made. Some examples of projects are water monitoring, recycling, eco-art, journaling, clean-ups, outdoor classrooms, in addition to many more.

To be recognized as a River Star Home and receive a flag to put in their front yard, homeowners only need to agree that they will do seven actions:

1. Scoop The Dog Poop

2. Reduce Lawn Fertilizers

3. Only Rain In The Storm Drain

4. No Grease In Your Sink

5. Help Geese Migrate - Don’t Feed Them

6. Avoid Single-Use Plastics

7. Don’t Flush Medicines

In addition to the methods that are suggested, the River Star Homes Program provides funding for rain gardens, rain barrels, and plants to help with shoreline restoration.

This is possible through having a revolving fund which can be used to help with implementation projects.

In order to help with promoting a cleaner watershed the community is broken up into civic leagues which work within themselves collaboratively, while at the same time collabo-rating with all other civic leagues in order to promote ac-tions for a healthier watershed.

This model works within their Watershed Action Plan which is reworked every ten years in order to reassess their situation and determine the major actions that should be fo-cused on in order to improve the quality of the watershed. This is done in a collaborative process with community meetings that will typically involve food to make up for the time that individuals are contributing to the meetings. Cur-rently their major actions are:

• Keep the goo going! - This focuses on the clean up of the contaminated bottom of the Elizabeth River so that the known hotspots are able to reach non-toxic levels.

• Achieve sustainable development and redevelop-ment practices. - This action requires collaboration between the government, citizens, and businesses in the area.

• Restore resilient natural shores. - This action seeks to improve and recreate wetlands, oyster reefs, and

reforest banks in the watershed area in order to pro-vide habitats for wildlife.

• Restore clean water - This action is to find and fix the sources causing the highest levels of fecal indicator bacteria, while also reducing nutrients in the water.

• Create a river revolution - 25,000 citizens of all ages and backgrounds lead this effort to bring others to understand, embrace, and promote the restoration of the Elizabeth River.

To help demonstrate the impact that the Elizabeth River Project has had on the community they also publicly list the five major restoration projects that they completed with Money Point, Paradise Creek, Lafayette River, Living River, and the Eastern Branch.

Showing Off A New River Star Home FlagElizabethriver.org

The Collaboration ModelElizabethriver.org

35 36

Lancaster Clean Water Partners Program

The Lancaster Clean Water Partners (LCWP) is a pro-gram under the Lancaster Conservation Foundation (LCF), which was formed in 2007 in order to help fundraise for the Lancaster Conservation District (LCD). The LCWP seeks to achieve collective impact in order to leverage assets together with multiple partners at the table in order to achieve clean water along with as many players at the table as possible. Lancaster points to their unique situation in having important agricultural land, as well as urban spaces in the same locality and that these assets need to be lever-aged together in order to find and fuel nuanced solutions to environmental challenges. In addition to breaking up the watershed geographically with each of the different small-er watersheds in the County, the LCWP breaks down its organization according to the chart on the right. This chart demonstrates that while the Executive Committee and Steering Committee remains relatively constant, the system of Stakeholders and Partners remains open in order to bring more people to the table. In order for any individual, organi-zation, business, agency, or institution to become a partner they must embrace the LCWP vision, goals, and operating procedures, and are not required to pay fees or dues to join.

Partners must commit to:

• Share information disseminated by the Partnership

with their respective members or peers;

• Provide input to the Steering Committee on ways the Partnership goals can be attained;

• Be publicly listed as a partner;

• Collaborate in a constructive manner with other part-ners;

• And support the consensus-based decision making process that the LCWP follows.

Collaboration ModelsLancastercleanwaterpartners.com

The collective impact process is used by the LCWP in order to unite multiple efforts under one Common Agenda. The process for developing the Common Agenda can be seen to the right as it allows for perceived problems to go through a collaborative process before a solution is deter-mined. To give an example the LCWP problem is that, “more than half of Lancaster County’s 1,400 miles of streams suffer from poor water quality due to sediment and nutrient pollu-tion.” Their vision is to have the streams clear and clean in their generation. Their mission is to coordinate efforts and expand the impact of their partners in improving the health and viability of local streams. The solution is to build and sustain local cross-sector collaboration, with a strong back-bone organization supporting it, and to advance the Com-mon Agenda toward a shared result, with the result being clean and clear water in their generation.

The LCWP also has 17 metrics that are used to measure success across different aspects of the project. In order to promote action and progress the Program has six differ-ent action teams: agriculture, buffers, data management, communication, stormwater, and watersheds. The teams must meet at least once a quarter and the leads must meet bi-monthly in order to check-in and promote full collabora-tion.

In addition the Program has a publicly available mapping service which helps to show the different conditions of each

of the smaller watersheds, which make up around 600 acres each, in order to inform the public and help with planning efforts. The website makes the point to state that the data alone should not be used to make decisions as, “results should be ground-truthed using local knowledge through stakeholder and landowner participation.”

To help grow and further develop the number of lead-ers in the community the Program offers the Watershed Leadership Academy, which is a 12 month long program that involves field investigations, an overnight retreat on the Chesapeake Bay, 10 single day sessions that include field components, and five self-selected electives hosted by part-ner organizations throughout the year. The fee is $300 and there are courses offered every year.

To further grow public knowledge of the work being done and the data that is gathered the Program holds an an-nual Water Quality Monitoring Data Summit. This provides for a public space for data dissemination as well as collab-orative thinking based on the data at hand. The website also directs visitors to sources of funding as well as success stories in order to help motivate as give individuals the nec-essary tools to start implementing change.

37

Pennsylvania Pilot Counties Program

Lancaster County also played a key role in being one of four different counties selected by the Pennsylvania Ches-apeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan Steering Com-mittee for a collaborative process of seeking to reach their nutrient pollution reduction targets.

The following is the planning process that was used in order to achieve collaboration:

1. Have diverse team with members countywide;

2. Select a team leader;

3. Define goals to accomplish alongside water quality goals;

4. Identify local, regional, state, and national resources to meet goals;

5. Determine and report appropriate actions to meet identified goals, and plan implementation;

6. Set up an Implementation Team to ensure implemen-tation and reporting of results.

Each county was asked to share their local planning process, ask other counties questions, and share challenges, lessons learned, and recommendations for a more effective process. Below is a compilation of each County’s findings:

Collaboration ModelDep.pa.gov

York County Lancaster County Franklin County Adams CountyProcess - Bi-weekly meetings

-Mailing list with all stake-holders involved-Toolbox process-Start with big strategies then move to small proj-ects-Three fold strategy: 1- Collect efforts on the ground not credited2- Reach compliance3- Meet the gap in order to go above and beyond compliance

- Clean Water Partners (CWP) is the coordi-nator- Bi-weekly meetings- Google Drive for sharing- Data compliation- Interviews and conversations with stake-holder groups to gauge mission and feed-back- Have six main areas of focus

- Planning Commission takes lead- No formal organization for clean water- Education is important- Where can data be reached and how to know what is not reported?- Better communication and awareness across agencies is needed

- SRBC and ICPRB are involved- Need scenarios to use for initial engagement meeting- Have good tracking of BMPs on the ground- Represent all municipali-ties at the kickoff meeting- Need to capture every-thing being completed- First stakeholder meet-ing needs to educate the group about the WIP

Opportunities / Challenges

- Integrate existing efforts- Achieve compliance- Capture existing credit activities - Get practices on the ground- Bridge communication gap- Costs to WIP process- Private landowner per-mission

- Accessibility of info- Timeframe- Pressure is key- Tons of customized data- Right team members- Ag community buy-in- Connect with PA wide efforts and messag-ing- Cultural barriers- Stressful- Who provides oversight, and how to track?

- No existing entity- Educational process- Identify lots of questions and data- Need to engage more stakeholders, including homeowners- Find the data and know what is reported- Better communication across agencies, build awareness

- No existing entity- Effort will be an educa-tion tool- This is a lot to do in a short time- Want to engage AG com-munity- Worries of if it will mean anything

Lessons Learned

- Landowner participation- Toolbox helpful- Process works- Compliance isn’t a given

- Openness and transparency- Value of good record keeping-Value of asking lots of questions- Benefit to breakdown content areas and give timeline- Main goal is Lancaster’s local waters reso-nates better- Looking for, “Big Idea” opens more doors- Regulation can prevent ideas from being feasible- Need tools

- There are a lot of prac-tices on the ground not captured- Lots of homeowners are doing good things

- Starting with information out by educating stake-holders

39 40

Engagement Process Recommendations

Given the success of the above projects and methods, the following lists some overall recommendations for both the access and quality impairments the North Fork is currently facing.

AccessAccess Engagement Process Recommendations

Situation Assessment Create a survey

Tally visitors and produce quarterly and annual summary reports. Conduct trend analysis on visitor statistics

Speak to community members to determine past and cur-rent traumas related to River access and usage.

Advertising Create presentation explaining the goals of the project and summarizing the current quality of river access.

Advertise the project through bulletins (especially at the river’s current access points), radio, and social media. Investi-gate most used social media within the community to decide platforms.Hold public meetings and public events to generate knowl-edge and support for the project.

Outreach Reach out to minority community leaders and organizations that have historically provided services and done outreach to minority populations within the community

Quality

Shenandoah County should survey the issues of water quality faced by each of the stakeholders in the stakeholder groups as well as their understanding of the necessity and importance of a complete water quality clean up solu-

tion(s). In addition, gather information from all types of stakeholders and community members on the current and past trau-mas in relation to improving the quality of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River and its tributaries. There should be an understanding of who has been hurt, is being hurt, and is concerned they will be hurt by any changes.

Request several representatives from each of the stakeholder groups to come together in monthly meetings to create a set of criteria which will enable the group to evaluate all quality improvement plans for the area objectively in order to create a brave space under which they may discuss this potentially contentious topic. In addition the stakeholders that are identified should be included in development review processes to ensure that the watershed is not further impaired so that all future development works in tandem with the proposed Master Plan for the North Fork of the Shenandoah River.

Using the criteria agreed upon, evaluate all ideas brought forward through the case studies as well as those offered by the stakeholder and science groups. If multiple ideas pass the evaluation criteria equally, take those ideas to the stakeholder group most impacted for a vote on which idea is most preferred. A list of the criteria and methods of engagement should be gathered from all agencies, groups, and individuals who currently work with landowners and communities so that a cohe-sive approach to landowners and communities can be developed. This criteria should not just apply to River or watershed improvements, but also to greater improvements for the environment in order to ensure that all of the natural resources in Shenandoah County are invested in.

41 42

Understanding Our Shared Values

In order to improve the chances of collaboration this chart demon-

strates a general overview of the shared values that different current, possible, and unactivated stakeholders have. It was found that local politicians and public members of Government support improvements along the River as long as there is a sound plan and the ability to offset or not incur the costs of the projects.

River And Creek Communities

David Brotman, Director of the Friends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River (FNFSR) has suggested the concept of looking at organizing identity along the North Fork based on the part of the watershed that individuals lived near-

est to rather than identifying with the entire watershed. Based on Virginia State code section § 28.2-1200 and the information from the US Army Corp Of Engineers, there are ten different creeks in Shenandoah County that classify as public creek beds. In addition to the ten different creek communities, there are nearly 76 miles of the North Fork of the Shenandoah Riv-er within Shenandoah County. In order to both connect people with the part of the watershed close to where they live and to existing communities that can be build off of, this report breaks the North Fork into six sections, with each section having a little over 12 river miles. Expanding on this model there are fifty-nine possible Stream communities to increase action by connecting individuals to a more local level. While this report only calls for coordination led by Shenandoah County for the six river and ten creek communities, there is a possibility for stream communities to unite on their own through a set of guid-ing documents laid out by key agencies and individuals in the development of the Master Plan. Page 44 demonstrates a map of all the communities and the following is a list of possible local watershed communities:

River Communities Creek Communities

New Market Smith Creek

Mount Jackson Holman Creek

Edinburg Mill Creek

Woodstock Stony Creek

Toms Brook Narrow Passage Creek

Strasburg Toms Brook

Cedar Creek

Little Stony Creek

Pugh’s Run

Passage Creek

43 44

Stream Name Location Stream Name LocationAlum Run Orkney Springs Mikes Run Conicville

Anderson Run Orkney Springs Mill Run Toms Brook

Bakers Run Mountain Falls Millers Run Woodstock

Barb Run Orkney Springs Mine Run Toms Brook

Bean Run Orkney Springs Mountain Run Hamburg

Bear Run Orkney Springs Mud Run Conicville

Beetle Run Orkney Springs Mulberry Run Middletown

Buck Run Rileyville Paddy Run Mountain Falls

Bull Run Orkney Springs Painter Run Edinburg

Cedar Spring Run Strasburg Peters Mill Run Rileyville

Cold Spring Run Mountain Falls Poplar Run Wolf Gap

Cove Run Woodstock Pughs Run Toms Brook

Crooked Run Conicville Riles Run Conicville

Dry Run Rileyville Rinker Run Orkney Springs

Edinburg Run Edinburg Rocky Run Wardensville

Eishelman Run Middletown Saltpeter Run Orkney Springs

Falls Run Conicville Shell Run Mountain Falls

Foltz Creek Jerome Snapps Run Toms Brook

Fowlers Run Toms Brook South Fork Tumbling Run Toms Brook

Gap Creek Mount Jackson Spruce Run Wolf Gap

Hockmans Run Mountain Falls Stickley Run Middletown

Hollow Run Toms Brook Straight Run Conicville

Honey Run New Market Swamp Run Middletown

Indian Run Middletown Swover Creek Conicville

Jordan Run Toms Brook Town Run Strasburg

Kelly Run Orkney Springs Tumbling Run Toms Brook

Laurel Run Conicville Turkey Run Middletown

Liberty Run Edinburg Yellow Spring Run Wolf GapMay Spring Run Wolf Gap

Mill Creek

Passa

ge C

reek

Cedar

Cre

ek

Stony

Cre

ek

Smith

Cre

ek

Toms Brook

Holmans Creek

Pugh's Run

Litt

le S

tony

Cre

ek

Stony Creek

Shenandoah County River And Creek

Communities

Legend

Dam

Boat Ramp

CommunityNew Market

Mount Jackson

Edinburg

Woodstock

Toms Brook

Strasburg

Public Creek Beds

Local Streams

Park

National Forest

State Forest

0 5 102.5 Miles

Source: VDGIF, DEQ, NID,and Shenandoah County GIS

Author Tyler Hinkle Date: 2-9-2020

45 46

Connecting The WatershedThis proposal seeks to suggest that Shenandoah Coun-

ty and its community partners examine investing in starting an initiative in order to work towards greater access and mobility across the watershed for users of various back-grounds. The map to the right demonstrates the existing conditions of publicly owned properties, as well as possible public-private partnership properties which could expand the access to the watershed.

As stated at the start of this report, Virginia State code section § 28.2-1200 outlines the North Fork of the Shenan-doah River as being owned by the public, in addition based on guidelines from the US Army Corp of Engineers there are ten different creeks that are owned by the public as well. This does not limit other streams from being considered public as the code section covers all perenial streams. With this deter-mination the water is legally stated to be of public use, yet private ownership still runs on the land along the water as it is considered trespassing once someone crosses the vegetation on the banks of the River.

If Shenandoah County and its partners were to work to-wards easements and small purchases of property in the floodplain then the acreage of public water could increase to 20,432.2. This could be combined with promoting quasi-public access with private ventures and bike routes on public roads.

Mill Creek

Passa

ge C

reek

Cedar Creek

Ston

y C

reek

Toms Brook

Holmans Creek

Litt

le S

tony

Cre

ek

Stony Creek

Shenandoah County Existing Connections

Legend

Hand Launch

Boat Ramp

Public Trails

North Fork

Public Creek Beds

Local Streams

Public Land In Floodplain

Potential For Public-Private Partnerships

Public Land

Private Protected Land

Town

0 8 164 Miles

Source: VDGIF, DEQ, NID,and Shenandoah County GIS

Author Tyler Hinkle Date: 2-12-2020

Mill Creek

Passa

ge C

reek

Cedar

Cre

ek

Stony

Cre

ek

Smith

Cre

ek

Toms Brook

Holmans Creek

Pugh's Run

Litt

le S

tony

Cre

ek

Stony Creek

Shenandoah County Connecting The Watershed

Legend

Dam

Public Trails

Public Land Under The North Fork

Public Land Under Creek Beds

Potential Bike Routes Along Major Public RoadsPrimary

US Route

Hand Launch

Boat Ramp

Public- Private Partnership: River Floodplain

Public-Private Partnership: Creek And Stream Floodplain

Private Streams

Park

National Forest

State Forest

Town

0 5 102.5 Miles

Source: VDGIF, DEQ, NID,and Shenandoah County GIS

Author Tyler Hinkle Date: 2-12-2020

47 48

SECTION VI: PROCESS EVALUATION PROTOCOL

In order to evaluate the success of this equitable collab-oration protocol that the Shenandoah River chooses to

implement, the following questions should be asked and addressed at each step in the process when applicable:

• Were all stakeholder groups identified and invited to participate?

• Was time taken to address and note current and past traumas from all perspectives in the community?

• Did every member and each stakeholder group have a voice throughout the collaboration process?

• Did every member feel that the space was brave enough for them to speak up?

• Were ideas discussed in a non-confrontational way?

• Did members of the group understand the higher ground to which they were called?

• At the conclusion of the process, did most, if not all, members feel satisfied with the approach agreed upon?

• Here, a three finger test for consensus should be used here to assess the satisfaction of individual members. The scale is as follows:

• 1 finger = Blocking consensus

• 2 fingers = Alright with group recommendation

• 3 fingers = Fully supportive of group recommenda-tion

• If two approaches were equally viable and supported by the group, were those most directly affected by the decision (riverfront property owners, farmers, etc.) able to choose their preference?

We recommend that a paper survey is developed for indi-viduals to take after collaborative meetings are held so that there can be a measure of the effectiveness of the meet-ings. In addition, meetings should be held within the com-munities that are taking part in the discussion as this will allow for a closer connection to the land and water. There can be meetings held at neutral sites such as the Shenan-doah County Administration Building, yet we recommend that such meetings revolve around the need to have certain technology or presentation space available as most discus-sion should occur within the communities. In addition, after meetings a brief period should be given for reflections so that individuals who participated can state what worked well, and what did not in order for the next meeting to go smoother and cause less disruption for participants. A summary of the discussions held should be kept in order to allow new members and participants to be included on past discussions. In addition, there should be time given to breath and take a break between discussions, with some food and drinks to aid in retaining a amicable space.