93-08-27: Study Examines Future of Lands Near Shenandoah National Park Concerned about changing land use around Shenandoah National Park, superintendent Bill Wade asked a U.Va. team to assess the natural conditions and the impact of encroaching urbanization on lands that fall within the original 1926 boundary authorized by Congress. Looking at such features as animal and plant habitats, water quality and scenic views, the recently published School of Architecture study of land in Albemarle and Rockingham counties bordering the park brings together a wealth of data to identify primary and secondary conservation areas and those more suited to local use, although the categories are not mutually exclusive. "We wanted the U.Va. team to look at lands within the authorized boundary to see if they are still of benefit to the park, and if so, they would have priority in being accepted for donation. If not, they should eventually be excluded from the park boundary," said Sandy Rives, a management assistant for the park. "This is a problem across the country with land use adjacent to national parks that are no longer isolated or insulated, resulting in a loss of habitats and a decline in water quality," said associate professor of urban and environmental planning Timothy Beatley, who worked on the study and will head any further research on additional central Virginia counties. For instance, in Rockingham the number of houses within a mile of the park has increased from 841 built before 1965 to over 2,500 today. Other counties such as Warren and Augusta are facing even more pressure for development. After initial, well-attended public meetings in Albemarle and Rockingham counties where researchers heard the concerns of local residents, they added to the study the identification of areas suitable for "human habitats," agriculture and places with particular cultural or historical meaning for the existing communities. Common ground lies in preserving the natural environment enjoyed by those living nearby as well as those visiting the park, according to the report. "Most of the people involved basically want to keep things the way they are. People want park officials to understand why they want to live there; and the park needs to trust those people, too,"said Jim Klein, a former assistant professor of landscape architecture at U.Va. who led the research team. By law, the park is not allowed to buy land but relies on donations. During the 1920s and 30s, the Commonwealth condemned some properties so that the land could be donated to the federal government for the park. People's bitter feelings about their ancestors being forcibly removed and fears that the same thing could happen again came out during the public meetings. "Perhaps the biggest related lands issue facing the park is whether or not the park and its neighbors can build a new sense of community which many feel has been missing for too many years," says the report. Park officials wanted the study team to come up with criteria by which they could judge whether or not to accept donated land. Using all the available and existing data they could find, the study team defined three categories for primary and secondary conservation and for local use, recommending that the park not accept land in the last two areas. Two atlases of detailed, colorful inventory maps accompany the report, depicting everything from forest cover to black bear habitat suitability to historic and archaeological sites to composites of areas where conservation and local uses overlap. In determining what area the lands fit into, the study team analyzed plant and animal communities, scenic, water and recreation resources, as well as the human habitat and agricultural and cultural resources. The collaborative study also included contributions from Bruce Dotson and graduate students at the Institute for Environmental Negotiation and the Department of Environmental Science's geographic information system laboratory, as well as the two U.Va. architects and a private consultant. The report's introduction emphasizes that "The Shenandoah National Park agrees with the many citizens who spoke at the public meetings and open houses about relying on local action, rather than federal action, to conserve important resource values associated with lands within the 1926 Authorized Boundary." For the most part, it is up to the counties to decide how land will be used, said Mr. Beatley. The lands described as primary conservation areas include those with "resource values" (qualities deemed worthwhile by park managers, visitors or neighbors) similar to or complementing those of the park that should be "conserved to protect the existing quality and character of the Shenandoah National Park." Wetlands and places where streams flow into park land, critical habitats for endangered and other park species and spots contiguous to the boundary that would provide easy access to the park for day hikes are among the features of the primary category. In Albemarle County, 23,062 acres of private land, or 38 percent of the area within the authorized park boundary, meet the criteria for primary conservation, and 29,223 acres (48 percent) have local use values, with 17 percent of those lands overlapping with the primary conservation area, approximately a third of which would be suitable for recreation. There are about 12,000 acres that the study recommends should be removed from the authorized boundary "because they do not appear to meet any of the criteria for primary conservation value." About 19,000 acres, or 74 percent, of the Rockingham County land falls into the local use category and contains 3,742 acres with overlapping primary conservation values. The report recommends that approximately 40 percent (10,337 acres) be removed from the original boundary. Although the primary conservation areas would be acceptable for donation, should the occasion arise, state and local governments, conservation groups or private citizens also could have them protected through means such as land trusts and easements or the creation of forest and agricultural districts, according to Mr. Beatley. Secondary conservation areas were identified where conservation would indirectly benefit the park -- fields and some hunting areas, for example. "Near Whitehall, there are wonderful forests and bear habitat, but it's not contiguous to the park so it wouldn't make sense for them to accept any of that land," explained Mr. Klein. Places that offer scenic views from more than one spot along Skyline Drive could fall into this category or the primary one, depending on the proximity to park or Appalachian Trail entrances. Local and state parks and historical and archaeological sites also fall into the secondary category. The local use areas are described as "lands of importance to citizens living near the park for human use." This covers existing homes and farms, croplands and pastures, and areas where additional people might want to live because of being within 200 meters of a main road and having suitable soil for an on-site waste treatment system. "What we did is take stock of the resource lands so everyone can know about them. The data in the report could be used by counties, conservation groups and property owners," said Mr. Beatley. Park officials will present the report's findings and the detailed maps of resources at an Albemarle County Board of Supervisors meeting Sept. 1.