LAKE ANNA WATERSHED SURVEY REPORT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How do Lake Anna Watershed Residents feel about Environmental and Land Use Issues?

 

 

 

Prepared by

 

THE LAKE ANNA WATERSHED ROUNDTABLE

 

 

 


25 March 2004

 

 

 

 

 

The Roundtable thanks the Lake Anna Civic Association for its leadership role and financial assistance in making this survey possible. The Roundtable also thanks the following individuals and stakeholder organizations who contributed to this survey:

 

·        Mary Washington College: Professors Michael Bass,  Jodie Hayob, Debra Hydorn,  Neil Tibert, Chuck Whipkey, and Grant Woodwell

·        Randolph Macon College: Professor Charles Gowan

 

with funding from the Virginia Commonwealth Department of Conservation and Recreation, the Chesapeake Bay Program, and the Lake Anna Civic Association

 

 

For further information contact:

 

Carl Groth

Chairman

Lake Anna Watershed Roundtable

540-895-5046

carl_groth@lakeannavirginia.org

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

 

 

Environmental issues, particularly those dealing with water quality and the land uses that affect water quality are most effectively managed in a watershed context. Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania counties joined in preparing a watershed management plan, called the Lake Anna Special Area Plan (LASAP), by March, 2000. This Plan recommended priority actions to protect water quality and adopt comprehensive planning by the counties.

The LASAP is the result of a unique planning effort undertaken by the Boards of Supervisors of Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties at the request of the Lake Anna Advisory Committee (LAAC). LAAC, created in 1994 by the three localities under the Joint Exercise of Powers provisions in the Code of Virginia, has been advising the three counties about Lake-related issues since the committee’s inception.

The LASAP needs a fresh look after more than three years in order to identify the status of its recommendations, and the possible need to revise or add to those recommendations. The Lake Anna Watershed Roundtable is undertaking three activities aimed at such a look: a survey of resident opinions about environmental and land use issues, an analysis of appropriate ordinances and policies across Louisa, Orange and Spotsylvania counties, and preparation of a land use database containing land use characteristics. This Report is the result of the first activity conducted between December, 2003 and April, 2004.

 

The following conclusions were drawn from a mail survey of almost 11,000 watershed households:

 

 

 

 

·        The number one priority recommendation of the LASAP was to create a watershed Special Overlay District to facilitate uniform management of the environment and land use. A narrow majority of responses supported creation of a Special Overlay District comprising the watershed. A substantial minority, however, “did not know,” and over one-third of agriculture responses disagreed. This priority recommendation of the LASAP, therefore is not roundly supported. The significant level of uncertainty about the proposal, however, indicates the need for more information about its costs and benefits.

 

 

 

 

These conclusions and their underlying findings will be used to help prepare a Lake Anna Watershed Land Use Plan in May, 2004. This Plan will recommend actions for the counties to undertake to more effectively manage the watershed.
CONTENTS

 

 

            Title                                                                                                                  Page

 

Executive Summary                                                                                                      3-4

 

Contents                                                                                                                       5

 

Introduction                                                                                                                  7-14

 

Findings                                                                                                                       

 

Watershed Survey Respondent Profile                                                  15-19

 

Watershed Respondent Opinions                                                          21-42

 

            Land Use                                                                                 21-25

 

            Watershed Development                                                           26-28

 

            Environmental Issues                                                                 29-35

 

            Transportation Issues                                                                36-37

 

            Watershed Management Issues                                     38-42

 

Conclusions                                                                                                                  43-45

 

The Lake Anna Watershed Survey:

A Report to the Watershed Community

 

By Carl Groth

Lake Anna Watershed Roundtable Chairman

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

What is the Purpose of the Survey?

 

To better understand how Lake Anna watershed residents feel about environmental and land use issues which may affect their future welfare.

 

What is the Authority for the Survey?

 

The survey was undertaken by the Lake Anna Watershed Roundtable which is a coalition of watershed stakeholders with interests in the watershed’s future development and condition of natural resources. The Roundtable has sought participation from the three counties (Louisa, Orange and Spotsylvania), regional planning district commissions and soil and water conservation districts, Virginia’s natural resource agencies, Virginia Farm Bureau, Cooperative Extension Services, and watershed community business and civic organizations. The Survey was prepared with participation from the three counties’ planning departments, planning district commissions, and soil and water conservation districts, all led by resident volunteers. Funding from Virginia’s Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the Chesapeake Bay Program supported the survey, amongst other Roundtable activities.

 

What use will be made of the Survey?

 

The survey results will be available to the public through local newspaper articles, reports to Roundtable stakeholders, and the Lake Anna Civic Association web site at www.lakeannavirginia.org. The results will be used to inform recommendations by the Watershed Roundtable to the counties and state agencies in the Lake Anna Watershed Land Use Plan, to be issued in May, 2004. The survey will also serve as a baseline of public opinion about watershed issues to assist county planners and supervisors in considering future ordinances and policies. In addition, the survey will serve as a model for other watershed management organizations in Virginia.

 

 

 

 

How were the questions selected?

 

The Louisa County Roundtable Committee designed the survey questionnaire, and prepared 30 initial questions. These questions were reviewed and modified by staff from the county planning departments, soil and water conservation districts, and planning district commissions representing Orange and Spotsylvania counties.

 

Consensus was reached that some demographic data, plus resident opinions on five categories of issues were needed: 1) land use, 2) watershed development, 3) environment, 4) transportation, and 5) watershed management. Principal interest was focused on questions in these categories, particularly 1, 2, and 3, which would help county planning staff prepare ordinances and assess attitudes about policies and plans.

 

 

Survey Questions

 

The survey mail-out is on pages 9-12. The survey’s 30 questions are on pages 10-11. The questions are grouped under 6 categories: General information to help identify the residence and characteristics of the respondent; Land use to identify opinions about watershed land use and population growth; Watershed development to identify opinions about development controls; Environmental issues to identify opinions about the relative importance of environmental issues; Transportation issues to identify opinions about road improvements; and Watershed Management issues to identify opinions about the Lake Anna Special Area Plan

 

Survey Procedures

 

The survey was bulk mailed to 10,640 resident homes in the Lake Anna watershed. Mail routes were selected which most closely corresponded to the watershed, using the watershed trace charted by the Rappahannock Area Development Commission (RADCO) and Geographic Information System (GIS) data on postal routes provided by Dominion Market Research, Inc, (DMRI) in Orange, Virginia. News articles in the local newspapers, plus advertisements, publicized the survey. A special advertisement was placed in local papers to ask post office box patrons to respond to the survey.

 

DMRI prepared and delivered in late November survey questionnaires for 22 postal routes to 7 zip code post offices. Responses were returned to a pre-printed post office box number assigned to DMRI, and collected from DMRI by the Rappahannock-Rapidan Regional Council (RRRC) in Culpeper. The RRRC compiled response data into an Excel spreadsheet database, which was then used to analyze the response data. 819 responses were received by the end of January and analyzed for this report.

 

Priority combinations of responses to survey questions were analyzed using MS Excel’s Pivot Table and graphics applications. Ch-Square tests for statistical significance of response data distributions used a PHSTAT application in Excel. Findings from the analysis were compiled to identify major conclusions, which will help provide a foundation for the Land Use Plan to be prepared in May.

 

Lake Anna Special Area Plan

 

This survey is intended to provide opinions about issues highlighted in the Lake Anna Special Area Plan (LASAP) of March, 2000, as well as issues that have arisen more recently. The following is a brief summary of the LASAP.

 

The Boards of Supervisors of the Counties of Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania agreed to support the development of an inter-jurisdictional, comprehensive plan for the Lake Anna watershed in the spring of 1998. Each locality appointed three persons to serve on the Lake Anna Special Area Plan Committee and asked the Lake Anna Advisory Committee to appoint one person from each jurisdiction from their membership. The resulting committee requested the addition of a Virginia Power representative, for a thirteen-member committee. The group started work December 1998. Staff support was provided by the three local planning staffs and the three planning districts that serve the localities in the Lake Anna Watershed: Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, Rappahannock Area Development Commission, and Rappahannock-Rapidan Regional Commission. The primary issue addressed in the Plan is the quality of the water in the Lake and its tributaries. A consistent regional approach is recommended for local action to preserve and protect Lake Anna’s water quality. This approach recognizes the regional nature of the watershed and the local authority for implementing the recommendations. The recognition of Lake Anna as a regionally shared asset undergirds the plan. [LASAP, p 10]

 

The LASAP is available for viewing on the Lake Anna Civic Association web site: www.lakeannavirginia.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINDINGS

 

Watershed survey respondent[1] profile:

 

Number of respondents (percentage of overall total in category). Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Comparisons of some of the survey response percentages with total population percentages estimated from Census Bureau data are on page 18.

 

Table 1. Survey Respondent Profile

 

Category

Louisa County

Orange County

Spotsylvania County

Total

Total

465 (58%)

85 (11%)

236 (30%)

786

 

 

 

 

 

Land-use Category (see Figure 1)

 

 

 

 

    Residential (non-ag)

429 (55%)

64 (8%)

212 (27%)

705 (91%)

    Ag/Forestal

36 (5%)

17 (2%)

21 (3%)

74 (9%)

    Total of Land-use category

465 (60%)

81 (10%)

233 (30%)

779

 

 

 

 

 

Distance from Lake Category (see Figure 2)

 

 

 

 

    Live > 5 miles from Lake Anna

85 (11%)

65 (8%)

13 (2%)

163 (21%)

    Live 1-5 miles from Lake Anna

53 (7%)

14 (2%)

29 (4%)

96 (12%)

    Live < 1 mile from Lake Anna

324 (41%)

6 (1%)

194 (25%)

524 (67%)

    Total of Distance from lake                  category

462 (59%)

85 (11%)

236 (30%)

783

 

 

 

 

 

Resident-type Category (see Figure 3)

 

 

 

 

    Part-time resident

57 (7%)

1 (0%)

43 (6%)

101 (13%)

    Permanent resident

399 (52%)

82 (11%)

190 (25%)

671 (87%)

    Total of Residency type category

456 (59)

83 (11%)

233 (30%)

772

 

 

 

The following figures, and most of those used in this report, provide a graphic portrayal of the percentage of responses in a category (such as county or distance from Lake Anna) which fall into another category (such as land use). Figure 1 below, for example, shows the percentage of responses from each of the three counties which were from either non-agricultural or agricultural residents. The absolute number of responses in each category combination are shown in the table below the graph. For example, there were 21 responses from farmers in Spotsylvania County, which reflected just under 10 percent of the total number of responses from that county.

 

 

Figure 1: Land Use distribution by Counties

 

The graphic figures in this report shorten some terms such as agricultural/forestall that are in the questionnaire to economize on space. For example, agricultural/forestall is shortened to “Ag” or the term “farmers” is sometimes used in the text of the report. Spotsylvania County’s name is shortened to “Spotsy.”

 

The total of the number of responses in the table below the graphic chart usually is the total number of responses received with respect to the questions being addressed in that figure. Some questions asked for multiple choices or for rankings so that the total tally of choices are more than the number of respondents. The table will be marked as a “tally” for those figures.

 

Some respondents did not provide answers to some questions or provided written comments on some questions. The total number of responses to some questions, therefore, will not be the same as the responses to others. That is one reason that percentage charts were used.

Figure 2: Residence Distance from Lake Anna

 

Figure 3: Distribution by Residence Type

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. Survey Response Rates

 

2000 Census data indicates that there are about 1,600 part-time (vacation, weekend, etc.) residences in the watershed, or about 15 percent of the total watershed residences are part-time residences. Survey responses from part-time residents accounted for 13 percent of all responses. This part-timer response is representative of the overall population percentage, but it does mean that the survey results slightly understate opinions of part-time residents.

 

Response rates from Louisa and Spotsylvania residents were 9 percent each, and the rate for Orange County was 3 percent, with an overall watershed response rate of 7 percent. Two-thirds of the survey responses were from residents within 1 mile of Lake Anna, while 21 percent were from residents beyond 5 miles from the lake. This geographic distribution of responses overstates opinions from lakeside residents, and understates the opinions of residents living in the most populous portions of the watershed in the vicinity of Mineral, Louisa, Gordonsville, and Orange.

 

1999 Census data indicate that there were then about 210 farm housing units in the Lake Anna watershed, or about two percent of all watershed households. Over nine percent of survey responses were from agricultural/forestal households, so the watershed survey responses may over represent farmers’ opinions (see Figure 5 below). This statement needs to be qualified by the additional number of watershed households which owe their living, or a significant part of their living, to the agricultural industry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Figure 5: Farm Household Distribution

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Watershed Resident Opinions

 

Land Use

 

Watershed responses agree on desired population growth rates. The majority agree that the current growth rate of about two percent is about right, but a very large minority feel that the current growth is too high. Less than five percent feel the current growth rate is too slow (see Figure 6 below).  There are no significant[2] differences in opinions about desired population growth rates among responses from each of the three counties.

 

 

Figure 6. Opinions about Desired Population Growth Rate, by Counties

 

Different land use property owners do have different opinions about desired population growth rates. The majority of farmers’ responses show that the watershed population is growing too fast, while the majority of non-agricultural property owner responses show the current rate is about right (see Figure 7 below).

 

Figure 7. Opinions about Desired Population Growth Rates, by Land User

 

Farms and forests make up a large majority of the Lake Anna watershed, and contribute to what each county’s comprehensive plan calls the “rural nature” of the area. The Lake Anna Special Area Plan (LASAP) also reflects the watershed community’s desire to maintain the rural character of the area. Responses to Survey Question 12 about the desirability of this rural character indicate that there is no significant disagreement among residents of the three counties in their views (see Figure 8 below). Over 40 percent of watershed respondents wanted to be protected from development by conservation incentives for landowners. Another 25 percent wanted the farm and forest composition to remain the same. Only just over 30 percent of watershed respondents desired making way slowly for growth and development.

 

Figure 8. Opinions about Rural Nature of Watershed

 

Opinions about this issue did significantly differ among residents living at different distances from Lake Anna (see Figure 9 below). Lakeside dwellers (within 1 mile from the lake) favor making way for growth and development more than residents further away from the lake. These non-lake side dwellers preferred being protected from development by conservation incentives for land owners.

 

Opinions about this issue did not differ significantly between permanent and part-time residents (see Figure 10 below). On the other hand, opinions about this issue did differ significantly between agricultural and non-agricultural land users (see Figure 11 below). Farmers preferred incentives for land conservation, and keeping the watershed forests and farmland, compared to non-agricultural land owners who preferred making way for growth and development.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 9. . Desire for Forested and Agricultural area (by distance from lake)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 10. Desire for Forested and Agricultural area (by type resident)

 

Figure 11. Desire for Forested and Agricultural area (by Land Use)

 

Finally, are the clear preferences to keep the rural character of the watershed, and the desire to control population growth, possible under property owner plans for their property? Responses to Question 13 revealed that the vast majority of property owners, particularly agricultural, planned to keep their property in current use, thus enabling controls on growth and development.

Figure 12. Plans for use of Property

Watershed Development

 

How do watershed residents feel about alternative options for controlling growth and development, and for encouraging commercial activities?

 

Spotsylvania and Louisa county respondents prefer retail and professional services, whereas Orange County respondents prefer light industry at least as well as retail and professional services (see Figure 13 below).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 13. Preferred Commercial Activities

 

A majority of responses from Louisa and Spotsylvania counties indicate that trailers and tents should be regulated, but less than 50 percent of Orange County respondents agree with such regulation (see Figure 14 below).

 

Figure 14. Regulation of Trailer and Tents

Over 70 percent of watershed respondents agree or strongly agree with using controls to guide the pace of development, although almost 25 percent of Orange County respondents also disagreed with the use of such controls. Only about 16 percent of Louisa and Spotsylvania county respondents did not favor the use of such controls (see Figure 15 below). Slightly over 60 percent of farmers’ responses preferred the use of such controls, compared to just under 80 percent of the non-ag property owner responses.

 

 

 

Figure 15. Preference for Options to Control Growth and Development

 

How do the opinions about the population growth rate match up with top-ranking choices for development control (see Figure 16 below)? Those residents with the strongest perceptions that the population was growing too fast appeared to match up with choosing the most restrictive development controls (limiting density). Those with more sanguine perceptions of population growth tended to favor less restrictive control options (simple zoning).

 

 

Figure 16. Controlling Development versus Opinions of Population Growth Rate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environmental Issues

 

Survey responses strongly reinforced the Lake Anna Special Area Plan’s identification of water quality as the most important environmental issue. The tally of first choice rankings are shown in Figure 17 below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 17. Ranking Environmental Issues

 

Bacteria and sediment pollution received special attention in the survey. Question 20 asked for choices in controlling the bacteria pollution threat, and was complemented by questions 18 and 23. Watershed respondents appeared split evenly between agreeing, and disagreeing, with the proposition that alternative waste treatment systems (alternatives to individual septic systems) should be allowed. This ambivalence was mirrored in choices of reducing bacteria pollution threats (see Figure 18 below).

 

Looking solely at responses to question 20, less than 10 percent of watershed responses indicated that the bacteria impairment issue was not a serious problem (see Figure 19 below). Beyond that, watershed respondents appeared to choose somewhat equally among possible bacteria control options.

 

 

Figure 18. Opinions about Alternative Waste Treatment Systems, and Bacteria Pollution Controls

 

Figure 19. Choices for Reducing the Threat of Bacteria

 

One of the potential sources of bacteria impairment is in group facilities such as marinas, and property owner association boat slips and common areas. Spotsylvania and Louisa county responses were ambivalent about the need for controls in such areas, but Orange County respondents were not (see Figure 20 below). Almost 70 percent of Orange County respondents felt that sanitary facilities should be required. Less than 40 percent of lake-side dweller responses agreed with the requirement, whereas over 60 percent of non-lake-side dweller responses agreed (see Figure 21 below).

Figure 20. Controls over common area facilities?

 

 

Figure 21. Lake-dwellers Don’t Agree with other Watershed Residents about need for Common Area Sanitary Facilities

 

Erosion and stormwater runoff are two related issues. Changing county stormwater ordinances to agree with Chesapeake Bay Act[3] standards ranked as the clear top choice in stormwater control options (see Figure 22 below). Orange County had the largest percentage of responses (88%) which include the “Chesapeake Bay Act” option, while Spotsylvania and Louisa counties had 82% and 79 % respectively. Only 11 percent of watershed respondents ranked “no controls needed” as their first choice. Choice of stormwater controls did vary as resident distance from Lake Anna varied (see Figure 23 below).

 

Similarly, only just over 10 percent of watershed respondents indicated that soil erosion was not a serious threat (see Figure 24 below). However, unlike for stormwater controls, all responses were evenly divided between the two control options offered, and opinions did not vary by distance from the lake.

 

 

Figure 22. Tally of Stormwater Control Choices

 

Figure 23. Choices for Reducing Stormwater Runoff

 

Figure 24. Choices for Reducing Soil Erosion Threat

 

Groundwater from wells is the major source of water for human consumption in the watershed. The majority of responses indicate that quality and quantity regulation is needed (see Figure 25 below). Over 30 percent of lake-side dweller responses, however, indicate that there are no surface-water quality and quantity problems, whereas less than 15 percent of respondents living over 5 miles from the lake believe there are no problems. Over 20 percent of non lake-side respondents thought that public well-head protection was needed.

 

 

Figure 25. Groundwater Quality and Quantity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Transportation Issues

 

Respondents living closest to Lake Anna agreed that Routes 208 and 522 should have priority for improvements, while respondents living over 5 miles from the lake thought that Routes 522, 15 and 20 should have priority (see Figure 26 below). Respondents living near the lake are largely from Louisa and Spotsylvania counties, while those over 5 miles from the lake are from Orange County. Respondents were asked to pick three roads which they thought most needed improvement. The data table below reflects the number of tallies for each road.

 

 

Figure 26. Priority Roads for Improvement

 

Widening shoulders and painting the edge of lanes were considered the road improvements most needed (see Figure 27 below).

 

 

 

Figure 27. First Choice Improvements for Roads

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Watershed Management Issues

 

 

Environmental issues, particularly those dealing with water quality, and the land uses that affect water quality are most effectively managed in a watershed context. Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania counties joined in preparing a watershed management plan, called the Lake Anna Special Area Plan (LASAP), by March, 2000. This Plan recommended priority actions to protect water quality and adopt comprehensive planning by the counties. The last four questions of the Survey asked for resident opinions about the topic of watershed management and particular recommendations of the LASAP.

 

The number one priority recommendation of the LASAP was to create a watershed Special Overlay District to facilitate uniform management of the environment and land use. There was a significant difference among different county respondents in their agreement with this recommendation (see Figure 28 below). Spotsylvania and Louisa county respondents largely agreed with the recommendation, whereas less than 50 percent of Orange County respondents did so. A significantly larger percentage of Louisa County respondents (just over 15 percent) disagreed with the recommendation than did respondents from the other two counties (about 10 percent). Different land users also viewed the recommendation differently (see Figure 29 below). Over 50 percent of non-agricultural land owner respondents agreed with the proposal, but less than 40 percent of agricultural land owner respondents agreed.

 

 

Figure 28. A Special Overlay District for the Watershed
 

Figure 29. A Land Use Owners’ View of the Special Overlay District

 

Different land user groups also disagreed in their views of the LASAP recommendation for counties to concentrate public services and commercial development in “village centers.” Almost two-thirds of non-agricultural land owner responses agreed with this recommendation, whereas only about one-third of agricultural land owner responses agreed. On the other hand, there was not a significant difference among county views (see Figure 30 below).

 

 

Figure 30. County views of the “Village Center” Recommendation
Over 80 percent of respondents in each county agreed with the LASAP emphasis on maintaining the rural character of the watershed (see Figure 31 below).

 

 

Figure 31. To Maintain Rural Character of Watershed

 

Agreement with this emphasis on the rural character of the watershed (question 29) correlated well with responses to question 12 about resident views toward a watershed largely forest and farmland (see Figure 32 below). Those agreeing with the emphasis on maintaining the rural character of the watershed also strongly wanted the land to “remain the same” or be protected from development with conservation incentives for land owners. Responses to question 12 with a preference to “make way slowly for new business and residential development” also agreed much less with the emphasis on “rural character.”

Opinions on Maintaining Rural Character
 

 

Figure 32. Consistency of Responses to Questions about “Rural Character” of Watershed (question 29), and about desirability of an area of largely farms and forests (question 12)

 

 

 

Finally, Improvements and management need resources. Watershed respondents were about evenly divided in choosing user fees, voluntary effort, and bond funding (see Figure 33 below).  Orange County differed slightly from the other two counties in its relatively stronger preferences for user fees and increased taxes. Only 5 percent of watershed respondents thought no improvements were needed.

 

 

Figure 33. How to Obtain Resources for Watershed Management?

CONCLUSIONS

 

Some of the foregoing findings point to conclusions about the directions that public policy, education and information, and further research might take. These findings and conclusions are described in Table 2 below.

 

Finding

Reference

Conclusion

1. Watershed responses overall agree that a population growth rate of 2% is about right

p. 21, Fig. 6

 

1. There is not only broad agreement among watershed residents to limit population growth to 2%, but there is the potential to do so given land owners’ intentions to largely keep land in current use, and more particularly farmers’ desires for land conservation incentives.

 

This appears to be an opportunity for the counties and local community groups to undertake comprehensive land conservation activities with willing farmers and to jointly establish controls to guide development so as to maintain a 2% population growth rate.[4]

 

2. A majority of Ag/Forestal land owner responses indicate the current population growth rate is too fast

pp. 21-22, Fig. 7

3. Watershed responses overall agree with maintaining the rural character of the watershed, meaning over 50% farms and forests, or helping conserve land with conservation incentives.

pp. 22-25, Fig. 8-10

4. Farmer responses prefer incentives for land conservation as a mechanism for maintaining rural character of the watershed

pp. 23 & 25, Fig. 11

5. The vast majority of watershed respondents plan to keep their property in current use over the next 10 years

p. 25, Fig. 12

6. Over 2/3 of overall watershed respondents agree with using controls to guide the pace of development. Just over 60% of farmer responses, and just under 80% of non-ag property owner responses agree.

p.27, Fig. 15

 

2. The types of controls for guiding the pace of development need to be tuned to the particular land owners and their county. Different counties may need different controls to achieve a mutually agreeable overall pace of development for the watershed.

7. Almost 25% of Orange County respondents disagreed with using controls to guide development, compared to only about 16% of Louisa and Spotsylvania county respondents.

p. 27, Fig 15

8. Louisa and Spotsylvania county respondents want to encourage retail and professional service commercial activities, whereas Orange County respondents prefer light industry and professional services to retail.

p. 26, Fig 13

9. The majority of Louisa and Spotsylvania county respondents agree that counties should regulate the use of campers, travel trailers and tents in the watershed. Less than 50% of Orange County respondents feel that way.

p. 26, Fig. 14

10. Water quality is clearly the dominant environmental issue in the watershed, receiving 3 times the 1st place “votes” as the second issue: water supply.

p. 29, Fig. 17

 

3. Water quality is the dominant environmental issue in the Lake Anna watershed. However, there is uncertainty about options to help control water quality, particularly with respect to potential bacteria impairment and stormwater runoff. It appears that information programs are needed to inform residents about water quality control options.

11. Over 90% of respondents felt that bacteria impairments were a serious problem, however, they were fairly evenly divided among potential bacteria control options.

pp. 29-31, Figures 18-19

12. Respondents were split between agreeing and disagreeing with the proposition that alternative waste treatment systems (alternatives to individual septic systems) should be allowed.

pp. 29-30, Fig. 18

13. Respondents from Louisa and Spotsylvania counties were evenly divided about requiring sanitary facilities at common areas and marinas, but almost 70% of Orange County respondents felt that such facilities should be required. Less than 40% of lake-side dweller respondents wanted such requirements compared to over 60% for other watershed respondents.

pp. 31-32, Figs. 20-21

14. Respondents felt that complying with Chesapeake Bay Act standards was the most preferred way to control stormwater runoff, which is a major source of erosion and other forms of water quality impairment.

p. 32-33, Figs. 22-23

15. Although almost 90% of responses to the topic of controlling soil erosion believed that soil erosion was a serious threat, responses were evenly divided between the two control options offered.

pp. 32-34, Fig. 24

16. The majority of residents felt that groundwater regulation is needed, although perception of the problem of groundwater quality and quantity increases with residents’ distance from Lake Anna.

pp. 34-35, Fig. 25

17. Responses from those living closest to Lake Anna agreed that Routes 208 and 522 should have priority for improvements, while responses furthest from the lake (most in Orange County) want to focus improvements on Routes 522, 15, and 20.

pp. 36-37, Figure 26

 

4. A narrow majority of responses supported creation of a Special Overlay District comprising the watershed. A substantial minority, however, “did not know,” and over one-third of ag responses disagreed.

 

This priority recommendation of the LASAP offers a mechanism for implementing policies and ordinances designed specifically for the Lake Anna Watershed. The significant level of uncertainty about the proposal, however, indicates the need for more information about its costs and benefits.

 

Concentration of commercial activity in “village centers” received somewhat greater support, but still leaving at least one-fourth of the respondents “neutral.”

 

These priority recommendations of the LASAP need greater visibility, public discussion, and then resolution by the three counties.

 

Maintaining the rural character of the watershed continues to receive global support, but is linked to land use controls among the three counties.

18. The majority of Louisa and Spotsylvania responses agreed with the LASAP’s first priority recommendation to create a Special Overlay District to facilitate uniform management of the watershed. Only about 45% of Orange County responses agreed, but another 45% said they “don’t know.” Over 50% of non-ag responses agreed, whereas less than 40% of ag responses agreed.

pp. 38-39, Figs 28-29

19. A majority of each county’s responses agreed with another priority LASAP recommendation to concentrate commercial development in “village centers.” Only one-third of ag responses agreed with this recommendation, however.

pp. 39-, Fig 30

20. Over 80 percent of all responses agreed with LASAP emphasis on maintaining the rural character of the watershed. This broad agreement correlated well with responses to question 12 which wanted the land to “remain the same.”

pp 40-41, Figs 31-32,

21. Watershed responses were about evenly divided among choosing user fees, voluntary effort, and bond funding to support watershed management. Orange County responses appeared to have a greater preference for user fees and taxes than did responses from other counties. Louisa and Spotsylvania county responses slightly favored voluntary effort and bond funding.

p. 42, Fig 33

 

 


[1] Although 819 mail responses were analyzed for this report, not all respondents answered all questions, nor were some responses capable of being compiled into the database. Therefore the total for different profiles will be different.

[2] “Significant difference” means statically significant as determined by Chi Square tests with a 5% level of significance. A 5 % level of significance means that there is a chance of no more than 5 in 100 of mistakenly thinking that there is a difference among relationships. In statistical language, this is the greatest probability for which the null hypothesis can be rejected, when the null hypothesis is true. The null hypothesis in each Chi Square test is that there is no difference among the observed population distributions. For example, in Figure 6 the null hypothesis is that there is no difference of opinions about the population growth rate among the residents of each of the three counties. Although there is some difference in the distributions of opinions, the differences are small enough to be attributed to random error. In Figure 7 below, however, the differences are large enough to reject the null hypothesis of no difference in the opinions of land users.

[3]  The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, commonly known as "The Bay Act" in Virginia, was adopted by the Virginia General Assembly in 1988 to protect the public interest in the Chesapeake Bay, its tributaries, and other state waters. The Act’s provisions for local ordinances which most strictly control opportunities for impairment of water quality apply to Spotsylvania County, but not Louisa or Orange counties.

 

[4] This conclusion is qualified to the extent that a significant number of land parcels have already been platted for development, and are therefore a potential source of future developments that cannot be restricted.