Mrs. Leahy and I are members of the Friends of James River Park. Recently, an email was circulated to the membership regarding a number of trees that Stuart Siegel had removed from Science Museum of Virginia property along the James River in order to improve his view. It seems someone either didn’t follow, or possibly even ignored, the rules about removing trees from the River. An email from Ellen Wolf of the FoJRP to Rex Springston of the Richmond Times-Dispatch lays out the problem:
Thanks for taking the time on a weekend to come talk about the clearing of the Science Museum property below the Siegel house. I plan to call the Department of Conservation and Recreation first thing in the morning to report what certainly appears to be a violation of the regulations promulgated under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. The James River is certainly a resource protection area, which requires a 100 foot buffer (VAC10-20-80, p. 4). On page 12, “permitted modifications” to this buffer are described:
5. Permitted modifications of the buffer area.
a. In order to maintain the functional value of the buffer area, existing vegetation may be removed, subject to approval by the local government, only to provide for reasonable sight lines, access paths, general woodlot management, and best management practices, including those that prevent upland erosion and concentrated flows of stormwater, as follows:
(1) Trees may be pruned or removed as necessary to provide for sight lines and vistas, provided that where removed, they shall be replaced with other vegetation that is equally effective in retarding runoff, preventing erosion, and filtering nonpoint source pollution from runoff.
(2) Any path shall be constructed and surfaced so as to effectively control erosion.
(3) Dead, diseased, or dying trees or shrubbery and noxious weeds (such as Johnson grass, kudzu, and multiflora rose) may be removed and thinning of trees may be allowed, pursuant to sound horticultural practice incorporated into locally-adopted standards.
(4) For shoreline erosion control projects, trees and woody vegetation may be removed, necessary control techniques employed, and appropriate vegetation established to protect or stabilize the shoreline in accordance with the best available technical advice and applicable permit conditions or requirements.
The Science Museum Foundation did not seek approval by the local government, allowed the removal of far more vegetation than necessary for “reasonable” sight lines, and made no attempt to replace the vegetation removed.
Their professed lack of knowledge of the extent of what was being done in no way mitigates their failure to follow the law, nor their failure to oversee, or even once inspect, what was happening on their property and with their permission. In fact, their casual treatment of the Siegel request demonstrates negligence, and an irresponsible lack of stewardship for the valuable resource so generously endowed them, and for river health and aesthetics in general. This from an agency of the state, one of whose missions is “to foster a love of nature and a concern for its preservation.” (from its mission statement.) (The quibble that the foundation is a private entity, not a state agency, is hair-splitting that not many citizens and environmental groups are likely to take seriously.)
That there even is a law that governs the establishment and protection of a 100 foot riparian buffer along the banks of the James is not widely known. Ralph White did not know of it, Helen Tansey of Virginia Forever (a Nature Conservancy spin-off) did not know if it, and the Science Museum did not know of it. The many James River Park visitors and recreational boaters who over the summer watched the progressive destruction of one of the Park’s most beautiful views did not know that what they were bemoaning is, in fact, illegal, and could have been stopped had they known to report it and to whom.
There IS a story here: 1.) a conservation law has been broken by a state agency whose mission is to educate the public and foster a love of nature 2.) that law was broken at the request of private citizen who also failed to oversee or inspect work he had contracted for, and 3.) the complete obscurity of that law means that this is probably happening every day.
This is one side of the story and I don’t know if it has appeared in the RTD (or at least I could not find one this morning). It is entirely possible that the Science Museum did all that it was required to do, under law, to ensure the cutting was properly handled. If anyone has more information on this matter, please pass it on.