Please click on image to ENLARGE view of some members of the green-infrastructure environmental working group with a map of the area on which the group has been working.
MEETING PURPOSE: – 1) Have Work Groups report on progress so far; 2) Have Resource Team provide support to WGs, if needed; 3) Determine the potential for having WG product(s)/map(s)/report ready for the mid-February Work Group Report Meeting, the date and time uf which to be announced.
Note: BOB CAULK GIPP PROCESS CLARIFICATION POINTS page 12
ATTENDEES: Barbara Boland, Bob Caulk, Cindi Cope, Karen Rollet-Crocker, Patti Erwin, Delia Haak, Pete Heinzelmann, Doug James, Elizabeth Adam, Harriet Jansma, Alison Jumper, Joann Kvamme, Julie McQuade, Dot Neely, Eden Price, Bruce Shackleford, Aubrey Shepherd, Katie Teague, Duane Woltjen
WORKING GROUP (WG) REPRESENTATIVES' REPORTS
Environmental (EWG) – Delia Haak
The EWG was divided into three subgroups: 1) Wetland Prairie (WP) – Joe Neal, Aubrey Shepherd, Bruce Shackleford, Chris Wilson; 2) Upland Forest (UF) – Doug James, Elizabeth James, Judy Woltjen; 3) Water –Bob Morgan, Matt Van Eps
1) The Wetland Prairie Sub-Group established matrix criteria used to identify, evaluate and rank 11 to 13 potential sites for conservation.
Bob Caulk cautioned meeting participants regarding the risk presented by labeling features as “low”or “high” priority. Better to use terms “Critical” and “Important” to differentiate feature prioritization categories.
Fayetteville owns some of the WP remnants recommended for preservation.
Barbara Boland drew attention to the fact that prairie remnants identified in the GIP Study Area are depicted and differentiated within the Springfield Plateau Ecological Region.
Bruce Shackleford reported on the WP Sub-Group field trip to the Sweetser Prairie led by Aubrey Shepherd.
Bruce described the experience as, “Amazing!”
He said that the site was well worth saving, but if this is not possible it has great potential to serve as a seed bank for NWA regional prairie plant species.
(Read more about Sweetser Prairie on Aubrey’s Blog “ABUNIQUE”- http://aubreyshepherd.blogspot.com/2008/12/sweetser-prairie-could-become-multi.html) .
Developers of the Stonebridge Meadows Golf course at 3495 East Goff Farm Road off Hwy 16 East in Fayetteville, elected to preserve a portion of the property in its “natural” state as remnant prairie.
The prairie area lies south of the clubhouse and to the west of the 1st Fairway.
He expressed concern that prairies are rapidly vanishing with expanding development and fire suppression.
Bruce advised contacting and educating owners of land on which remnant prairie is found.
Private owners should be informed regarding the significance of prairies and made aware of socio-economic incentives for prairie protection/preservation.
According to Bruce, 30 acres of savanna (flat open grassland with sparse number of trees) lie to the north of the Woolsey Wet Prairie (WWP).
Were it not for the present economic situation, development of the 30 acres would be in progress.
The Water/Waste Water Committee suggested that a request to cancel the plans for development and a recommendation to conserve the parcel be submitted to the Fayetteville City Council.
Fayetteville now receives Mitigation Credits for actions taken to preserve WWP.
The addition of the adjacent 30-acre savanna to the WWP would bring more Mitigation Credits which could be sold to the Arkansas Highway Department.
2) The Upland Forest Sub-Group identified mapping corridors.
Duane Woltjen asked about North-South corridors to connect with Springdale.
Doug James mused that, “there’s not much forest in Springdale.”
Pete Heinzelmann observed that Webber Mountain property, in southeast Springdale, is listed for sale.
According to Pete, “Webber Mountain is a miniature Mt. Magazine which should be purchased and secured for preservation.”
Harriet Jansma suggested discussing options concerning the future of Webber Mountain the Shiloah Museum Board of Directors.
3) Karen Rollet-Crocker/Resource Team-Executive Group spoke for the Water Sub-Group.
Higher order streams in the study area were selected according to subjective input from sub-group members.
Of interest as a water feature in Johnson, AR is a trout farm (?)
Delia Haak said that the EWG needs clarification from the Resource Team (RT) regarding the degree of detail required for the “Final” GIPP WG Report.
Bob Caulk/Resource Team-Executive Group, commented that the ideal report format would consist of a 1-2 page summary from each of the 5 working groups.
Report format is to be kept straightforward and succinct for presentation to and use by the public.
Reports are to capture and emphasize the rationale behind the selection of features or sites used to create respective WG maps or other products.
The goal is to make clear to the public, “why experts in the Work Groups thought particular features were important.
This GIP Project is the PROTOTYPE for the Southeastern U.S. The goal of the GIPP is to successfully establish GIP in study area cities, then expand GIP throughout the SE Region. All details regarding reasoning and rationale need to be included for dissemination to other planning entities in the SE Region.”
Heritage (HWG) – Harriet Jansma (Also Submitted 2-page Summary of HWG Activities)
The initial activity of the HWG was a brainstorming session in which members listed all GI related historic features they knew of within the study area (e.g. green space, farms, gardens, cemeteries, church yards, etc . . .).
The HWG then made an attempt to define criteria for the inclusion of a feature in the HWG map and/or report.
The DRAFT HWG Criteria for Inclusion consists of the following items:
1) Places that are considered or serve as “Community Icons”
2) Community gathering place
4) Components complete enough to reveal history
5) Linkage possible
6) Viewshed or Site endangered by development
The Criteria List was used to narrow down entries on the features list created in the brainstorming session.
A charrette was held in which generalized collective knowledge of participants provided the basis for the categorization and ranking of features remaining on the list for inclusion on the HWG map.
HWG Feature Categories
1) UA Campus & System Properties
2) Working Farms – Preservation of heritage farms proves to be the most challenging issue. In the face of development pressures, will larger family farm tracts last as working farms or will they become farm remnants? As far as GIPP maps and reports are concerned, are we going to include/depict 10-acre gentlemen’s farms or actual working farms of more than 10 acres?
3) Urban Farm Remnant (e.g. Gregory House)
4) Camps/Retreats (eg. Mt. Sequoyah Methodist Assembly, Markham Hill, Lake Wedington Recreation Area, Washington County Fairgrounds and contiguous properties, Ghost Hollow)
5) Historic Buildings on the National Register (e.g. Johnson Old PO, Walnut Grove Church, Mt. Comfort Church, Son’s Chapel, Boynton Chapel, various Community Centers)
6) Historic Parks & Cemeteries (e.g. Wilson Park, Evergreen Cemetery)
7) Gardens (e.g. Botanical Garden of the Ozarks)
8) Historic Springs, Lakes, Mills, Bridges (e.g. Fayetteville Big Spring (#552), Johnson Trout Farm, Greenland Ward Slough and Adams Lake, Greathouse Spring)
9) Heritage Routes – Selection and rank based on number of historic features found along the route (e.g. Farmington Hwy 170, Greenland Hwy 265, Greathouse Springs and Reed Valley Roads, No-Ark & St. Paul Railroads, Trail of Tears - http://ualr.edu/sequoyahcenter/trail-of-tears.html , Butterfield Stage Coach Route, 11-Sided Barn, Heritage Trails Partners Website - http://heritagetrailpartners.com/ )
Category overlap pertaining to a feature or features increases significance in ranking process.
Karen Rollet-Crocker then visited listed sites to verify their existence, note the present condition, and arranged interviews with study area land owners and/or residents regarding respective feature history/cultural significance.
In most every instance, interviewees would point out additional features for consideration and refer Karen to other community members for information, leading to the expanding of the HWG Features and the GIPP Community Representatives/Contacts lists.
Karen posed the question of how individuals or communities were to implement GIPP recommendations.
Barbara Boland drew attention to the compendium of funding sources in the GI Book chapter on Implementation pages 151-195.
As far as outside time constraints on the GIPP go, Bob Caulk said that the plan to use the GIP Map(s) and Report to influence the planning process in the Study Area should be in place by September 2009.
Barbara stated that it is “critical to keep in communication with community representatives who will then feed information to and raise interest in participating towns.”
Pete Heinzlemann commented on the need for constant input from community contact persons.
Barbara pointed out that Judy Woltjen is keeping a Contact Database.
Bob summarized that, “The HWG is pretty far along.”
Karen affirmed noting that “We’re trying to keep everything on one map.”
Harriet added that, “We have lots written up.”
Bob reminded all present at the WG Representatives Meeting that we are to keep track of the time we spend on the GIPP.
Community Representatives (CRWG)
Pete Heinzlemann described the CRWG as “still developing.
Input on who has been contacted is needed from the other Work Groups.
Frank Sharp and Herman Jones have a long history with the region and extensive ties to a vast number of people in the study area.
They are CRWG members and great assets to the GIPP.
Pete asked about actions taken by other communities to establish a GI.
As an example of a community similar to Fayetteville, Barbara Boland described some of the GI amenities and successes achieved by Boulder, CO:
• University town
• 28,000 acres protected
• $135 million in funds for promoting GIP raised through various means
Pete expressed curiosity as to how Boulder promoted its GIP and managed to raise such an impressive number of contributions.
Joann Kvamme offered to provide Pete with contact information for her friend, a Boulder resident, who was on the first committee for No Growth/Boulder.
Pete intended that a PowerPoint presentation for promoting GIP be put together and trotted out to the public in study area communities, as well as to designated UA departments and entities.
Karen Rollet-Crocker said that she has a “good” contact list and asked if it would help to have 2 or 3 people from a town to help with organizing a public meeting?
Joann Kvamme recommended GIP presentations be scheduled with the Geosciences Department, in general, and with Dr. Sonja Hausmann who teaches a Conservation and Natural Resources course.
Cindi Cope was aware of the fact that local school teachers, John Diezel and Manuel Bradshaw, are working on GI related projects with their student.
Julie McQuade announced that the GIP Calendars are ready for distribution.
Bob Caulk said that he would arrange for calendar pickup from Julie on Friday, Jan. 9 and instructed meeting attendees to coordinate dispersing of the calendars with the Awareness Group.
On another note . . .
It was made known that Judy Horne furnished the Greenland City Council with a GI Monograph.
Julie McQuade was of the opinion that a Fayettevillle Alderman should be given a GI Monograph to bring forward to the Fayetteville City Council.
Bob Caulk spoke in favor of first bringing the GIP information to the public for input before submitting it to respective study area city administrations, departments, or commissions. He said that the best scenario for GIPP success is to submit a GI product coming from residents to a city council for consideration.
GIP Calendars would be excellent educational materials to acquaint City Council Members with GI Planning.
Parks & Trails (PTWG) – Joann Kvamme (Also Submitted 2-page Summary of PTWG Activities)
The PTWG decided to work from the known to the unknown and began by marking related GI features (e.g. public areas, flood plain connectors, large contiguous green areas, parks, trails, areas identified in forest conservation assessments, drainage areas) on a map they obtained from Barbara Boland.
Input from neighborhood representatives was also sought by the PTWG.
The PTWG ascertained that “all main streams are navigable by canoe”, thus have the potential for being designated as GI aquatic connector/trail corridors.
Yet to do is to add newly acquired parks and park land to Parks & Trails maps onto which many of the above mentioned features have already been digitized.
Barbara reminded all present that trail connectivity out into the counties was the driving force of behind being awarded the grant for the GIPP.
She said there is a need for clarification pertaining to flood plain designations.
Aubrey Shepherd expressed concern regarding trail construction within riparian zones.
Aubrey’s personal goal has been to negotiate for more donated land on either side of streams so trails can be built outside riparian zones.
Joann Kvamme mused that preservation of all flood plain designated areas would be ideal.
She speculated that there are ways to minimize impact of trail construction in to flood plains and observed, as did others present, that more North-South trail corridors are needed.
At this point, Barbara reiterated the purpose for this meeting – 1) Have WG report on progress so far; 2) Have Resource Team provide support to WG, if needed; 3) Determine the potential for having WG product(s)/map(s)/report ready for the mid-February Work Group Report Meeting, the date and time for which to be announced.
Bob Caulk noted that much is heard about Fayetteville Parks and Trails GI because Fayetteville is further along than other communities.
He asked if there was anything more, in terms of ideas for places to put trails, to include from other towns in the study area.
For Greenland, trail corridor would most likely follow the White River.
Bruce commented that in other cities, trails are often constructed along sewer line corridors.
Joann said that the PTWG didn’t get much input from Greenland, but, as mentioned by Pete Heinzlemann, the Mayor of Greenland, John Gray, has been convalescing after a motorcycle accident in which he was seriously injured.
Land Use (LUWG) – Eden Price
Eden Price described the Land Use Work Group (LUWG) as consisting of city planners and staff, developers, architects, designers, engineers, etc . . .
LUWG Sub-Groups: 1) Policy; 2) Infrastructure & Zoning; 3) Natural Systems
The group first brainstormed and focused on GIP issues:
• Changing state laws and local policies/zoning to allow for a more sustainable approach to GI planning facilitating development that allows for and accommodates GI
• Farmland preservation
• Property rights
• Development pressures
• Utility placements
• Project access
• Public education and outreach, especially in regard farmers and developers pertaining to provision of initiatives to for conservation of GI areas/corridors
She said that she “got lots of jaded perspectives on out to approach GIP. It seems that everyone is at war. No one wants to speak first.”
Karen was interested in knowing which of the issues were most difficult to solve.
Bob Caulk expressed excitement over the prospect of having a GI Plan in place when the western by-pass route is designated, “If the GI Plan can influence placement of the route, then the GIPP will have been a success.”
Eden has found Butch Pond to be a good person to speak with in regard to the future of farming in NW Arkansas.
Barbara praised the GIP group for the respect it has shown Butch.
Farmers make up the primary audience for preservation of larger tracts of land, so it would be a prudent move to bring the Farm Bureau in to the GIPP.
Dot Neely made mention of Conservation Easement initiatives presented to the Farm Bureau by the League of Women Voters member Joyce Hale.
See article entitled, “Conservation Easements: A Positive Move for Landowners” by Tom L. Riley, Jr. and Lorrie Barr/Special to Arkansas Agriculture featuring interview with Frank Sharp on the Farm Bureau Website: http://www.arfb.com/news_information/ark_agri/2007v4i2/easements.aspx
Eden said that in the course of the discussion on GI issues, the ‘Map-oriented” group got bogged down.
Barbara Boland related her conversations with Brian Culpepper of the UA/Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies (CAST) about the possibility of providing present and future on-line access to interactive GIP maps as a service for regional planning groups.
Eden had spoken with Brian Culpepper earlier today about the list of data sets GIP would require.
She said that Juliet Richey and Courtney McNair would be “wrangling” data in preparation for GIP mapping purposes.
Duane Woltjen asked if alternative means of on-line access would be provided for “folks with dial-up Internet accounts.”
Barbara stated that dial-up accounts would not be supported.
She and others addressed the “dial-up access” issue with insights into the nature of the mapping data files, which are quite large requiring high-speed connections.
In addition, low resolution output resulting from pared down data sets to facilitate “dial-up” data transfer or older computer screen display limitations is undesirable.
For the maps to be of use, a high resolution screen image or print is a must.
Pete Heinzlemann inquired as to the kind of input the LUWG was getting from city planning departments.
Eden responded that Fayetteville planners don’t want to say too much.
With the amount of recent publicity on Fayetteville’s GI initiatives and progress, Fayetteville LUWG members do not wish to dominate the process.
They prefer maintaining a low profile, allowing planners of other participating communities to take the lead.
Bob Caulk added that Greenland, Farmington, and Johnson don’t have their own Planning Departments.
They use the NW Arkansas Regional Planning Commission (http://nwarpc.com/index.htm).
Karen said that area planners are looking at regional planning issues and into ways of incorporating GIP.
Bob asked Eden if she could get the LUWG deliberations into some kind of reasonable summary.
Eden’s reaction – “Eeeek!”
She said she would need as much time as could be given to generate the LUWG report.
Bob commented that a DRAFT report, which could be refined as we go forward into the communities, would suffice for now.
Eden requested that another person address the LUWG on the issue of winnowing down information and issues to be included in the group report.
She hopes to produce a series of working DRAFT maps by the end of January.
The LUWG wants to see a map with features LU group members have identified before they engage in further discussion of issues.
Pete agreed as to the utility of maps in helping to see what is on the ground.
As a participant of recent public charrettes, Harriet related her observations of the consensus building effect that results when diverse assemblages of individuals mark maps.
Bob volunteered to advise the LUWG concerning report content at the next LUWG meeting.
He emphasized the need to get to a clearer idea of what the GIP product will be by sometime in February 2009.
Awareness (AWG) – Julie McQuade (Submitted GIP 2009 Calendar)
Julie reported that most AWG members have been involved in recent political campaigns and, therefore have not been available to participate in AWG meetings.
The AWG primary purpose is to build pubic awareness of the GIPP.
Another goal for designating representatives to give presentations on GIP to the public, is to select speakers familiar with, tailored for, and focused on respective special interest groups.
Julie recommended the selection of work group members or community contact persons as key for grooming as communication links to build public support in study area communities.
Effectiveness of presentations would be enhanced by including local “GI Site Stories” as examples of how GIP works and contributes to quality of life in a community or region (e.g. a working farm with river frontage provides a riparian corridor link to another “Green Space” in the study area).
Need to collect site stories and recruit/coach specific respected community individuals to spread the word on GIP.
Harriet suggested establishing on-line(?) Green Mapping Systems in participating cities which present the GI “Big Picture” and show each person’s role in relation to GI.
Julie restated Harriet’s comment as, “Show how GI applies to each individual.”
Cindi Cope serves on the Botanical Garden of the Ozarks (BGO) Board.
As a member of the educational program development team, she would love to have GI materials to use to distribute and appeal to BGO patrons.
In the coming year the BGO will host over 2000 students and wants GIP posters, flyers, brochures . . .
Cindi plans to inform and get kids interested in GI, then have them take the information home to share with and get their parents involved.
Birding and Botany are big draws for people and present tremendous opportunity for promoting GIP.
An Audubon Workshop will be held on Sunday, January 17th at the Lake Fayetteville Environmental Center.
Harriet propagated the notion of compiling a list of individuals with vast knowledge of community/regional history and/or ecology who could be contacted to lead guided walks for special interest groups.
She described these human repositories of historical or environmental information as “Reference Librarians for a GI Library without walls.” An example of such a person is A.D. _____________, who knows the location and history of all the old mills in NW Arkansas.
Bob instructed the AWG to define the message(s) to convey to the public. He wants to get GI Calendars into the hands of Judy Horne, Bob Bova, and others to disperse to key or potential key people who could help move the GIPP along.
Julie needs to know the locations where GIP materials are to be placed.
MEETING ADJOURNED @ 8PM
Wednesday, January 14, 2009 MINUTES SUBMITTED BY DOT NEELY/GIPP SCRIBE
BOB CAULK GIPP PROCESS CLARIFICATION POINTS:
• GIP Calendars would be excellent educational materials to acquaint the public and City Council Members with GI Planning.
• GIP information, other than that included in the GIP Calendar, is to be brought to the public for input before submitting it to respective study area city administrations, departments, or commissions. The best scenario for GIPP success is to submit a GI product coming from residents to a city council for consideration
• Ideal Work Group report format is a 1-2 page summary from each of the 5 Working Groups: Awareness, Environmental, Heritage, Land Use, Parks & Trails
• Report format is to be kept straightforward and succinct for presentation to and use by the public.
• Reports are to capture and emphasize the rationale behind the selection of features or sites used to create respective WG maps or other products. The goal is to make clear to the public, “why experts in the Work Groups thought particular features were important.
• The labeling of features as “low” or “high” priority introduces potential for “low priority” to be disregarded by the public or planning staff. Better to use terms “Critical” and “Important” to differentiate feature prioritization categories.
• This GIP Project is the PROTOTYPE for the Southeastern U.S. The goal of the GIPP is to successfully establish GIP in study area cities, then expand GIP throughout the SE Region. All details regarding reasoning and rationale need to be included for dissemination to other planning entities in the SE Region.”
• The plan to use the GIP Map(s) and Report to influence the planning process in the Study Area should be in place by September 2009
• Design Team/Working Group Members are to keep Time Sheets to track time spent on the GIPP