This is the third in a series of articles about the Rappahannock River.

On Tuesday the Board of Supervisors voted to schedule a joint informational meeting with the
Department of Conservation and Recreation to address the public and hear concerns about DCR’s
proposed purchase of land near the confluence of the Hazel and Rappahannock rivers refered to as
the Woolfrey property.

David Brickley, the director of DCR, agreed last month to work with Culpeper County in holding
such a meeting. The meeting will take place in the Board of Supervisors’ meeting room on an
evening yet to be announced.
Brickley’s letter refered to the meeting as “a joint informational meeting,” and more than one
supervisor expressed concern Tuesday over the word “joint,” preferring that the meeting be
conducted solely by DCR. “If it’s a joint meeting, we become as guilty as they are,” said Supervisor
James Lee.
The board decided to call it a joint meeting, but to plan on participating solely by introducing
speakers from DCR. A motion to that effect passed with only Bill Chase dissenting. “This is sheer
political stupidity, playing with words,” Chase said in reference to Brickley’s use of the term
“joint.”
Sue Hansohn spoke strongly in favor of holding the meeting, and recommended scheduling it in
the evening, but not on a Tuesday because that might conflict with a Richardsville Fire Department
meeting. Hansohn said she had questions for DCR about “the Heritage Corridor” and about
“Culpeper Flatwoods,” a piece of property she said the department has been looking at. “They have
not been forthcoming about where it is located,” she said.
Culpeper Flatwoods was mentioned in an e-mail released in response to a Freedom of Information
Act request in November. Asked about it on Tuesday, Gary Waugh of DCR said, “We are not
acquiring anything other than the Woolfrey property. We haven’t even decided about the Woolfrey
property.”
Waugh said the Natural Heritage Division of his department has identified Culpeper Flatwoods as
high enough in a ranking of lands with endangered species to qualify for acquisition, but that DCR
has not so much as found out who owns it. Waugh would not reveal where the property is or even
what the endangered species are. According to a report released by DCR in January 1999, the
loggerhead shrike is an endangered species found somewhere in Culpeper County.
Waugh said his department routinely identifies land with endangered species and does not
routinely report on this work to county boards of supervisors. “It’s a shame that this is something
else that’s come up as something that we’re doing with evil intent. . . . At the public meeting we’ll
be glad to explain again what Culpeper Flatwoods is.” Waugh said that he thought he had explained
to the Culpeper residents who made FOIA requests that DCR “had no interest in that acquisition.”

*****
In 1998, DCR studied the “feasibility” of establishing a state park on the Rappahannock. Three
meetings were held -- in Fredericksburg, Remington, and Richardsville -- to gather public input . As
a result, DCR came out with its report in January1999, recommending against a state park but in
favor of “a Historic Rappahannock River Conservation Corridor, or other appropriate designation.”
The General Assembly has yet to take any action on the proposal.
The 43-page report, titled “A Feasibility Study for the Establishment of a State Park on the
Rappahannock River,” found the establishment of a state park “feasible” but not “realistic.” A state
park along the length of the river, it said, would be expensive and was opposed by a majority of the
riparian landowners who attended the public meetings.
“While the concept of a state park consisting of just several nodes at key locations along the river
was somewhat better received, it too carried the perception of attracting higher use and causing a
degradation and a loss of the remote experience.”
Therefore, the report recommended against a state park of either sort, but in favor of something
else. The report outlined eight specific recommendations. The first recommendation was that existing
public access sites be monitored and enhanced in response to complaints of littering, drinking, and
loitering.
The second recommendation was more a statement of unresolved conflict than a recommendation
for anything other than “additional study.” Between Kelly’s Ford and Motts Run (a two-day canoe
trip) there is no public access point to take a boat in or out. Creating a new public access point might
reduce trespassing on private lands, but might also increase the use of the river.
The third recommendation was to (somehow) protect the river’s cultural resources and develop
“educational/interpretive programming” around them. These resources include early Native American
sites, Civil War battlefields, historic locks and canals, and “one of the earliest North American
industrial sites,” namely Spotswood’s Tubal Furnace, the first commercially successful iron blast
furnace in the hemisphere.
The fourth recommendation was to abandon the state park idea in favor of “a Historic
Rappahannock River Conservation Corridor, or other appropriate designation.” The purpose of this,
the report said, “would be to enhance the protection of the resource while managing the recreational
use in line with the remote experience. . . . In effect, any lands acquired by DCR would be managed
along the lines of a conservation or natural area in harmony with protecting the resource and the
remote experience.”
The fifth recommendation was that any major development on the river should leave “a substantial
buffer” to protect the river. In addition, “historic interpretation of the corridor, natural resource
protection, and tourism should be important aspects of any future strategy to provide visitor
information services.” The report mentions in particular a planned major development in
Fredericksburg and Stafford County.
The sixth recommendation is the one that has led to the latest controversy in Culpeper. “A
conservation and management presence could be established at the northern end of the study corridor
by combining a Civil War battlefield owned by the Association for Preservation of Civil War Sites
[since merged with the Civil War Trust to form the Civil War Preservation Trust] with additional
riparian lands, should they become available, which would link the battlefield to the river. This area
could serve as an educational and interpretive facility for the northern end of the conservation
corridor and could be administered by DCR as part of a river management plan.”
The seventh recommendation was to protect Spotswood’s Tubal Furnace. The eighth was to look
at the entire river and consider possible designations. A proposal has already been made to the
federal government by Friends of the Rappahannock to designate 30 miles of the river upstream from
Fredericksburg an “American Heritage River.” The report recommends considering adding the lower
portion of the river to that proposal.
It also recommends consideration of developing a “Rappahannock River Water Trail that would
traverse the length of the river. If implemented, this could have a positive impact on tourism
throughout the region.” The report does not explain how such an impact is consistent with preserving
a “remote experience.”
Waugh said that a Water Trail is an area that already has boat ramps, and that the designation
involves producing brochures linking the boat landings. Asked whether “a positive impact on
tourism” meant an increase in tourism or a qualitative improvement in it, Waugh said “I guess it
could mean either.”
“A Water Trail,” Waugh said in a later conversation, “involves maps with narratives to help
people prepare for trips. It tells them where they can stop but also where they can’t stop. . . . It
won’t affect the wild nature of the river.”

*****
Other designations already apply to the river. The Rappahannock from I-95 upstream one mile
past Route 620 (Spotswood Furnace Road) is listed on the National Rivers Inventory. “The historic
values cited are the ‘Rapidan Dam Canal of the Rappahannock Navigation System [which] is a linear
National Historic Register Site’ within the river segment. This National Register site is located near
the confluence of the Rapidan and Rappahannock Rivers.”
In 1985 the Rappahannock was designated a Virginia Scenic River for 84 miles, between the
headwaters near Chester Gap and the Route 3 bridge south of Fredericksburg. This designation
specifically states that it does not preclude the construction of any roads or bridges.
DCR’s report described the current condition of the river. “For many years, the Rappahannock
was considered to be one of the most pristine rivers in the Chesapeake Bay system. Current status of
a few water quality indicators; e.g., total nitrogen, algal levels and phytoplankton community health,
remains ‘good’ in the tidal portion of the Rappahannock (the estuary). However, certain others are
currently ‘poor’; i.e. [sic] water clarity and total suspended solids in the middle estuary, and
dissolved oxygen in the lower estuary. Of Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay tributaries, the Rappahannock
estuary currently shows the most degraded water quality conditions.”
The report blamed agricultural land uses for most of the river’s degradation, mentioning urban
land use and wastewater treatment as well. “As the population of the basin continues to increase, the
volume of discharge from municipal wastewater treatment facilities ultimately mean an increase in the
annual loadings of phosphorus and nitrogen into the river system.”
The report listed as the last of eight concerns that “all the local governments want assurances that
if a park is established, they would be able to continue to use the river for domestic water supply and
treated effluent discharge.”

*****
The first of the concerns listed was that of property rights. Property owners worried about
increased use of the river, and had other serious fears. “There were major concerns among some
property owners that the state will condemn the lands needed to create the state park. The DCR
director and staff attempted to reassure property owners that the state has no plans to condemn
anyone’s land to create a park. They also emphasized that land would only be acquired on a willing
seller basis.”
Waugh said that fears of restrictions and seizing of property are unfounded. He said DCR was
trying to purchase the property at the confluence of the Hazel and Rappahannock “because of the ford
and its role in the battle of Brandy Station.” He said that he didn’t know whether there would be
access to the river from the site, but said “we will not establish an access point unless there is a
reasonable way up or down river for people to get in or out.”
Outgoing Del. Butch Davies commented on the public meetings held in 1998 to discuss the state
park proposal: “I had hoped we could have a reasoned discussion. We got caught up in a lot of
misinformation.” But, Davies said, a lot of real problems came out of the meetings, including
concerns over trespassing, vandalism, lack of lighting at existing public access locations,
four-wheelers driving into the river and tearing up the banks, and boaters getting out of canoes and
urinating in people’s yards.
These concerns have received little attention in the past year in comparison with land-owners’
fears that DCR will sieze their land, and the county’s worry that a new designation could restrict its
ability to discharge treated waste.
One concerned citizen, Kurt Christensen, said this week that he and two or three others will be
going to Richmond in a couple of weeks to meet separately with Del.-elect George Broman, Sen.
Kevin Miller, and Del. Jay Katzen, chairman of the Rappahannock River Commission. Christensen
said his group did the same thing last year to let the representatives know what they thought about
the future of the Rappahannock.
Broman, who heads to Richmond to begin his term as 30th-District delegate next Tuesday, said
he would like to attend the meeting that is being scheduled in Culpeper and will if his schedule
allows it. Broman said he could offer no opinion on DCR’s proposed purchase of the Woolfrey
property without knowing more about what the department intends to do with the land.
“Preservation is a huge issue,” Broman said. “The 30th district’s appeal is in its nature.
Preservation of farmland needs to be addressed. And landowners’ property rights need to be
respected. How that all comes together is anybody’s guess.”