EPA/600/R-96/052
May 1996
Proceedings
Delmarva's Coastal Bay
Watersheds:
Not Yet Up The Creek
A Conference on Ecology
and Economy
Edited by
Kimberly Beidler,* Patricia Gant,** Marsha Ramsay* and Gwynne Schultz*
*JACA Corporation
Fort Washington, PA
**U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Annapolis, MD 21401
*Assateague Coastal Trust
Berlin, MD 21811
**Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Annapolis, MD 21401
March 8-9, 1996
Ocean City, MD
United States Environmental Protection Agency
National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory
Atlantic Ecology Division
27 Tarzwell Drive
Narrangansett, Rl 02882
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
ABSTRACT
On March 8-9 1996, 269 people attended the Delmarva Coastal Bay Watersheds Conference in
Ocean City, Maryland. The purpose of the conference was to provide a forum for citizens, elected
and appointed officials and other decisionmakers, and special interest representatives to discuss the
economic and environmental state of the Delmarva coastal watersheds and to determine further
continuing actions and activities. The design of the conference provided a unique opportunity for
citizens in the Delmarva region to express their ideas and to apply their collective wisdom to begin
to formulate strategies that will integrate economic, environmental, scientific and social considerations
toward achieving a sustainable future.
The conference goals were:
1. To promote the concept of balancing economic well being and environmental protection and
demonstrate why we should care about the coastal bays and their watersheds.
2. To encourage and secure stakeholder involvement.
3. To hear about and share local perspectives on the coastal bays and their watersheds.
4. To impart scientific information about the coastal bays and their watersheds.
5. To inform participants about the National Estuary Program and other models as vehicles for
problem solving.
6. To help launch Maryland's National Estuary Program (NEP).
7. To help Delaware's Center for the Inland Bays increase public involvement.
8. To transfer lessons and encourage Virginia's participation in a Delmarva coastal bays
coalition.
9. To use a conference report/summary to help communicate stakeholder views to
decisionmakers.
10. To establish next steps: Where do we go from here?
It was understood that these goals were very ambitious and that this conference would open the
door to future conferences, meetings and workshops — locally, Delmarva-wide and state-by-state.
Future activities are now being determined in large part by citizen input to a pre-conference
questionnaire (see page 28), by the 83 (31 percent) evaluation forms that were turned in at the
conference (see Appendix B), and the questions raised during the conference (see Appendix C).
Page ii
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
PREFACE
The appropriate citation for this report is:
Beidler, K., P. Gant, M. Ramsay, and G. Schultz, 1996. Proceedings - Delmarva's Coastal Bay
Watersheds: Not Yet Up the Creek. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and
Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division, Narrangansett, RI.
EPA/600/R-95/052.
This report is AED Contribution Number 1787.
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page iii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
AGENDA PLANNING COMMITTEE
Dr. Warren Flint, The Eastern Shore Institute
Rick Johnstone, Delmarva Power
Dr. Frederick Kutz, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Dr. Kent Price, Delaware Center for the Inland Bays
Marsha Ramsay, Assateague Coastal Trust
Gwynne Schultz, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
CONFERENCE DONORS
D6Illi3lV3 Delmarva Power and Light
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
(through grants from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)
This conference and proceedings were funded in part by the Coastal Zone
Management Program of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources pursuant
to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. NA470Z0132.
The views expressed here are those of the presenters and do not necessarily reflect
those of the sponsoring agencies.
Northampton County, VA
South Moon Under
Page iv
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
INLAND Delaware Center for the Inland Bays
PROCEEDINGS DONORS
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
National Park Service
Ocean City, MD
Worcester County, MD
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Pagev
-------
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT - ii
PREFACE iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
AGENDA 1
MAP OF DELMARVA PENINSULA 5
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Call to Order and Introductions, Marsha Ramsay, President,
Assateague Coastal Trust 6
Welcome, James Barrett, President, Board of Worcester
County Commissioners • 8
Opening Remarks and Introduction of Keynote Speaker,
W. Michael McCabe, Regional Administrator, EPA Region III 9
PRESENTATIONS
A Framework for Theory and Practice in Landscape
Planning: Alternative Futures for Monroe County,
Dr. Carl Steinitz, Alexander and Victoria Wiley
Professor of Landscape Architecture and Planning,
Harvard Graduate School of Design (Presented by
Madis Pihlak, Department of Horticulture and
Landscape Architecture, University of Maryland) 11
Panel Discussion: Changing Conditions in the
Delmarva Coastal Bay Watersheds: Linking People,
Economics, and Environment
Sussex County, DE, Robert Stickels, Sussex
County Administrator, Sussex County, DE 14
Worcester County, MD, Phil Hager,
Worcester County Planning Department 20
Page vi
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
Accomack-Northampton Planning District
Commission, James McGowan, Planner . . . . 25
Report on Pre-Conference Questionnaire on Public
Perceptions, James M. Falk, University of Delaware,
Sea Grant Marine Advisory Service 28
Sustainable Development: A Framework for a
New Century, Peggy Duxbury, President's
Council on Sustainable Development 32
Report on Breakout Groups to Develop a
Common Vision for Achieving Both Healthy
Economy and Environment, Focusing on
Specific Coastal Issues . 36
State of Maryland Remarks, Verna Harrison, Assistant
Secretary, Maryland Department of Natural Resources 45
Panel Discussion: What is the Environmental and Economic
Status of the Coastal Bays and Their Watersheds?
Environmental Health of the Delmarva Coastal
Bays and Their Watersheds, Dr. Frederick Kutz,
ORD Regional Scientist, EPA Region III 46
Economic Status of Fisheries and Aquaculture,
John Dunnigan, Executive Director, Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission 53
Delmarva's Tourism Industry, Lisa Challenger,
Worcester Tourism 56
Agriculture and Forestry, John Tarburton,
Secretary, Delaware Department of Agriculture 58
Question and Answer Session 60
Panel Discussion: Models for Addressing Coastal Bays
Issues: Where do We Go from Here?
Regional Perspectives on Coastal Bays
Issues, W. Michael McCabe, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region III . 63
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page vii
-------
National Estuary Program in Maryland,
Gwynne Schultz, Director, Coastal Zone Management
Division, Maryland Department of Natural Resources 65
Delaware Center for the Inland Bays,
Dr. Bruce Richards, Executive Director,
and Dr. Kent Price, Chair 67
Virginia's Approach to Sustainability: Balancing
Environment and Economy, Dr. Warren Flint, Executive
Director, The Eastern Shore Institute 70
Report on Breakout Groups to Discuss Models and Their
Applications to State and Local Strategies 76
Full Conference Discussion on Issues and Strategies
Best Addressed by a Delmarva-Wide Approach 81
,<
Conference Follow Up, W. Michael McCabe, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region III 83
APPENDIX A - Delmarva Coastal Bays Conference Participants 85
APPENDIX B - Conference Evaluation Form 98
APPENDIX C - Remaining Questions 100
Page viii
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
AGENDA
Delmarva's Coastal Bay Watersheds:
Not Yet "Up The Creek"
A Conference on Ecology and Economy
March 8-9, 1996
Carousel Hotel
Ocean City, MD
Friday, March 8th
12:30 Registration
12:55 Call to Order and Introductions: Marsha Ramsay, President, Assateague Coastal Trust
1:00 Welcome: Roland "Fish" Powell, Mayor, Ocean City and James Barrett, President, Board
of Worcester County Commissioners
1:05 Remarks and Introduction of Keynote Speaker: W. Michael McCabe, EPA Regional
Administrator
1:10 A Frameworkfor Landscape Planning: Alternative Futures for Monroe County, PA:T)r. Carl
Steinitz, Alexander and Victoria Wiley Professor of Landscape Architecture
and Planning, Harvard Graduate School of Design
2:00 PANEL DISCUSSION: CHANGING CONDITIONS IN THE DELMARVA COASTAL BAY
WATERSHEDS: LINKING PEOPLE, ECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENT
Facilitator: Dr. Kent Price, Chair, Center for the Inland Bays
Worcester County, MD: Phil Hager, Worcester County Planning Department
Sussex County, DE: Robert Stickels, Sussex County Administrator
Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission: James McGowan, Planner
2:45 Discussion Facilitator: Dr. Kent Price
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Pagel
-------
3:00 WHAT DO STAKEHOLDERS PERCEIVE AS THE MOST CHALLENGING
ECONOMIC/ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES?
Facilitator: Marsha Ramsay, Assateague Coastal Trust
• Report on Pre-Conference Questionnaire on Public Perceptions: James M. Falk,
University of Delaware, Sea Grant Marine Advisory Service
• Breakout Groups to Develop a Common Vision for Achieving Both Healthy Economy and
Environment, Focusing on Specific Coastal Issues:
1. Tourism and Recreation
2. Residential Growth and Development
3. Fisheries, Shellfisheries, Aquaculture
4. Agriculture: Poultry, Crops and Forestry
Facilitators and Recorders:
Dr. David Goshorn
Kathleen Ellett
Carl Zimmerman
Ilia Feher
Jeanne Lynch
Grace Pierce-Beck
Eric Walbeck
Stacey Marek
Abigail Lambert
Vivian Newman
Pat Campbell-White
Phil Hager
5:30 BUFFET DINNER
6:15 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: A BALANCING ACT
Introduction of Guest Speaker: Dr. Warren Flint, Executive Director, The Eastern Shore
Institute
Sustainable Development: A Framework for a New Century Molly Harriss Olson, Executive
Director, President's Council on Sustainable Development
Discussion Facilitator: Dr. Warren Flint
7:00 REPORTS FROM BREAKOUT GROUPS
Facilitator: Marsha Ramsay
8:00 SOCIAL HOUR AND EXHIBITS
Page 2
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
Saturday, March 9th
8:30 Coffee/Refreshments
8:45 RECAP OF FRIDAY: Geraldine Bachman, Executive Director, Lower Eastern Shore
Heritage Committee
9:00 WHAT IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC STATUS OF THE COASTAL
BAYS AND THEIR WATERSHEDS?
Facilitator: Gwynne Schultz, Director, Coastal Zone Management Division, MD Department
of Natural Resources
Environmental Health of the Delmarva Coastal Bays and Their Watersheds- Dr. Frederick
Kutz, EPA Region III
Resource Experts: Dr. Rob Magnien, MD DNR; Dr. Kent Price, U DE; John Masted,
DNREC; Barry Truitt, The Nature Conservancy; Dr. Rich Eskin, MDE
Economic Status of Fisheries and Aquaculture: John Dunnigan, Executive Director, Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission
Resource Experts: Michael Pierson, Cherrystone Aquafarms; Bruce McGuigan, Captain
Mack's Bait and Tackle; Tom Smith, commercial fisherman; Jim Casey, MD
DNR; Steve Beaston, Beaston Marina; Mark Homer, MD DNR
Delmarva's Tourism Industry: Lisa Challenger, Worcester Tourism
Resource Experts: Jim Falk, U DE; John Schroer, Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge;
Mark Koenings, Assateague Island National Seashore
Agriculture and Forestry: John Tarburton, Secretary, DE Department of Agriculture
Resource Experts: Bill Satterfield, DPI; W. Simpson Dunahoo, poultry farmer; Sam Dyke,
Glatfelter Pulpwood; Chris Lewis, Lower Shore Land Trust
9:55 Break to Develop Questions
10:10 Discussion Facilitator: Gwynne Schultz
11:00 MODELS FOR ADDRESSING COASTAL BAYS ISSUES: WHERE DO WE GO FROM
HERE?
Facilitator: Rick Johnstone, Delmarva Power
Regional Perspectives on Coastal Bays Issues: W. Michael McCabe, Administrator, EPA
Region III
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 3
-------
National Estuary Program in Maryland: Gwynne Schultz, Director, Coastal Zone
Management Division, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Delaware Center for the Inland Bays: Dr. Bruce Richards, Executive Director, and Dr. Kent
Price, Chair
Virginia's Regional Approach to Sustainability: Balancing Environment and Economy: Dr.
Warren Flint, Executive Director, The Eastern Shore Institute
12:15 BREAKOUT GROUPS TO DISCUSS MODELS AND THEIR APPLICATIONS TO STATE
AND LOCAL STRATEGIES:
(AFTER PICKING UP BOX LUNCHES)
Maryland: Facilitator: Gwynne Schultz
Delaware: Facilitator: Dr. Bruce Richards
Virginia: Facilitator: Dr. Warren Flint
1:20 FULL CONFERENCE RECONVENES TO IDENTIFY ISSUES AND STRATEGIES BEST
ADDRESSED BY A DELMARVA-WIDE APPROACH
Facilitator: Rick Johnstone
2:15 CONFERENCE FOLLOW UP: Michael McCabe
PRESS CONFERENCE
All officials are invited to participate with conference planning subcommittee.
Page 4
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
MAJOR WATERSHEDS AND BAYS OF THE
DELMARVA PENINSULA'S ATLANTIC COASTLINE
Delaware Inland
Bays Watershed
Maryland Coastal
Bays Watershed
Virginia Eastern Shore
Atlantic Watershed
Delaware
Inland Bays
Maryland
Coastal Bays
Accomack Co.
Virginia Eastern Shore
Coastal Bays Complex
Northampton Co.
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
PageS
-------
CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONS
Marsha Ramsay
President, Assateague Coastal Trust
On behalf of the 30 sponsors of this
conference, welcome. I hope everyone is
wearing a name tag so that we can become
familiar with one another — and it's our meal
ticket.
Please take a moment to look in your packets
to find the list of attendees. Those people with
asterisks next to their names represent our
sponsors.
I would like to introduce the members of the
agenda planning committee —those with double
asterisks — with whom since August I have
been in constant communication to put this
conference together:
• Dr. Warren Flint, an ecology and coastal
ecosystem scientist and Executive Director
of the Eastern Shore Institute.
• Dr. Rick Kutz, a scientist from EPA's
Office of Research and Development
assigned to the Region III office in
Annapolis.
• Rick Johnstone, Supervisor of Forestry for
Delmarva Power and Light Company,
serves on many state boards and public
interest groups, and chairs MD's Wicomico
Forestry Board.
• Dr. Kent Price is Associate Professor in the
Graduate College of Marine Studies and
Director of the Sea Grant Advisory Service
at the University of Delaware. He chairs
the Delaware Center for the Inland Bays
and its Science and Technical Advisory
Committee.
• Gwynne Schultz is Director of the Coastal
Zone Management Division at the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, and is
responsible for the start up of Maryland's
National Estuary Program.
I also want to thank two Assateague Coastal
Trust members: Eric Walbeck, who handled
conference registration and logistics, and Terry
Thompson, who coordinated the exhibits. Let's
also thank Nancy Howard for coordinating
publicity. Nancy is with the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources. And also,
Kathy Ellett and Dave Goshorn, both with the
MD DNR.
In your packets is a list of conference donors
to whom we extend our heartfelt thanks. I
would also like to call your attention to the
evaluation form in your packets. Please fill
them out and put them on the registration desk
before you leave tomorrow. We really want to
know how you feel about this conference and
where you want to go from here.
This conference is a stakeholders' conference.
A stakeholder is anyone and everyone who has
an interest in, or cares about, the Delmarva
Coastal Bays Watershed area. The purpose of
this conference is to provide a forum for all
stakeholders — citizens, elected and appointed
officials, and public and special interest
representatives — to discuss the economic and
Page 6
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
environmental state of the Delmarva Coastal Bay
Watersheds, and to begin to formulate strategies
that will integrate economic, environmental,
scientific and social considerations toward
achieving a sustainable future.
This is a stakeholders' conference —
undoubtedly, one of many to come as we work
to ensure both a robust economy and a healthy
environment.
The meeting will begin with a few words of
welcome from our host community.
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page?
-------
WELCOME
James Barrett
Worcester County Board of Commissioners
Good afternoon. Welcome to Ocean City and
welcome to Worcester County. Mayor Fish
Powell couldn't make it here today, but I would
also like to welcome you here from him.
Years ago, I used to fish a lot. There were a
lot of fish in the bay. This conference today is
well overdue. As President of the Worcester
County Board of Commissioners, I want to
challenge each and every one of you to work
together as a team to help our inland bays.
When I say "work together as a team", I am
talking about many different groups of people:
builders, government officials of all the counties,
town officials, boaters, land owners, DNR state
officials, developers, EPA and other federal
agencies, environmentalists, farmers, and
citizens. This should be a partnership of how to
clean up the bay. Those fish that I caught years
ago are just not there because the plant life is
dead in the bay.
So we need this partnership very much. It's
hard work; you can talk to a lot of people and
they can tell you all of the problems, but they do
not have the solutions. What we need to do is
not talk about the problems, but get to work and
get them fixed. The greatest thing that we can
leave to our children is the natural resources in
this land that we have. The next generation and
our generation can do that. And you people can
help do that.
Thank you very much and welcome to Ocean
City.
PageS
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
OPENING REMARKS
W. Michael McCabe
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region III
W. Michael McCabe served as a top aide to
Senator Joe Biden and as Staff Director of the
House Energy Conservation and Power
Subcommittee and the Congressional
Environmental and Energy Study Conference.
Mike is currently the EPA Region III Regional
Administrator and is responsible for
implementing environmental protection
programs in PA, DE, MD, VA, WV, and DC.
He is originally from Delaware.
Welcome on behalf of EPA Region III.
Entire areas of the coastal bays fall within our
area of responsibility and we are delighted
with the amount of interest shown in the future
of the coastal bays as evidenced by the large
attendance here today. Your attendance at this
conference demonstrates that the American
people are interested in moving forward with
the environmental progress made over the last
25 years.
The coastal bays of Delaware, Maryland and
Virginia are an important ecological and
economic resource whose physical
characteristics and location make them
particularly vulnerable to the effects of
pollutants. These estuarine bays are affected
by pollutants that come from the land as well
as stresses that come from the ocean.
Atmospheric deposition of pollutants represents
another source of stress. About 90 percent of
commercial fish, crabs and shellfish depend in
some way on estuaries and associated salt
marshes for their livelihood.
This is an important conference for us here
in Region III for several reasons:
• First, this conference is a prime example
of our ability to use scientific information
to guide and evaluate our environmental
decision-making. The motivation for
holding this conference is largely based
on a cooperative Federal and State study
which you will hear more about later in
the conference. Having environmental
information upon which to guide
management decisions is a major
objective of my tenure as the Regional
Administrator.
• Secondly, this conference also represents
our initiative to involve community
stakeholders in our resource management.
Considering both the socio-economic and
environmental issues in our decision-
making is an absolute necessity as we
move into the next century of
environmental protection.
• Thirdly, this endeavor provides us with a
timely illustration of the need for
Regional involvement. The areas of these
coastal bays crosses the boundaries of
three States. Our efforts to effectively
manage these bays require the full
participation of all three States
coordinated by a Regional presence.
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 9
-------
I am here for the entire conference; my
primary role will be as a listener and learner.
I am not here today to announce new
regulations or enforcement actions. I
encourage this group over the next 24 hours
with beginning to find new and innovative
ways of addressing these issues that will be
reasonable to all stakeholders. The diversity
of this audience will provide many different
perspectives. These perspectives will need to
be considered as we move ahead to face the
variety of issues associated with our protection
of both these resources and our way of life.
Page 10
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
A FRAMEWORK FOR THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANDSCAPE
PLANNING: ALTERNATIVE FUTURES FOR MONROE COUNTY
Carl Steinitz, Author
Department of Landscape Architecture
Harvard University Graduate School of Design
Cambridge, MA
Madis Pihlak, Presenter
Department of Horticulture & Landscape Architecture
University of Maryland
College Park, MD
Due to inclement weather, Dr. Carl Steinitz,
was unable to attend the conference. In his
place, Madis Pihlak, ASIA, AICP, delivered the
presentation. Mr. Pihlak is an Associate
Professor and Program Coordinator in the
Department of Horticulture and Landscape
Architecture at the University of Maryland. He
has been involved in -workshops -with
stakeholders and has researched the impacts of
actions and inactions on communities -which
have similar environmental problems.
In 1990, after almost 25 years of applying
GIS to many projects, I came to the realization
that there was a common structure to this work,
and I wrote a short paper entitled "A Framework
for Theory (Steinitz 1990). Over the past three
years, this framework has become the primary
organizational basis of my teaching, research and
projects. In this talk, I will give a brief
description of this framework and show how it
was applied to a recent project.
Six Questions in Search of An Answer
My proposed framework identifies six types of
questions. Each can be considered a level of
inquiry relating to a theory-driven modeling type.
The models on which we rely must be based in
usable and presumed-to-be-valid theory. They
each require the management of information, and
GIS can be applied—albeit differently—in each
type of model.
Project managers and researchers will work
through the framework at least three times in
any project: first, in defining the context and
scope of the project; second (and in reverse
order) in specifying the project methodology;
and third, in carrying the project forward to its
conclusion. The six questions with their
associated modeling types are listed in the usual
order for initially defining the context of a
landscape planning study.
I. How should the state of the landscape be
described: in content, boundaries, space, and
time?
This level of inquiry leads to representation
models.
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 11
-------
II. How does the landscape operate? What
are the functional and structural
relationships among its elements?
This level of inquiry leads to process models.
HI. Is the current landscape functioning -well?
The metrics of judgment (whether of health,
beauty, cost, nutrient flow or user satisfaction)
lead to evaluation models.
IV. How might the landscape be altered: by
what actions, where, and when?
This is directly related to I, above, in that
both are data; vocabulary and syntax.
This 4th level of inquiry leads to change
models. At least two important types of change
should be considered: changes brought about by
current trends and changes caused by
implementable actions, such as plans,
investments, and regulations.
V. What predictable differences might the
changes cause?
This 5th level of inquiry shapes impact
models, in which the process models (II) ) are
used to simulate change. This is directly related
to II, above, in that both are based on
information; on predictive theory
VI. Should the landscape be changed? How is
a comparative evaluation of the impacts of
alternative changes to be made?
This is directly related to III, above, in that
both are based on knowledge; on cultural values.
This sixth level of inquiry leads to decision
models.
Implementation could be considered another
level, but this framework treats it as a forward-
in-time feedback to level I, the creation of a
changed representation model.
Although the six levels have been presented in
the order in which they are normally recognized,
I believe that it is more helpful to consider them
in reverse order, both as a more effective way of
organizing a landscape-planning study and
specifying its method, which I consider the key
strategic phase, and as a more effective
educational approach. The methods of a
landscape planning study should be organized
and specified upwards through the levels of
inquiry, with each level defining its necessary
contributing products from the models next
above in the framework. This is how it works
in practice:
VI To be able to decide to propose or to
propose or to make a change, one needs to
know how to compare the alternatives.
V To be able to compare alternatives, one
needs to predict their impacts from having
simulated changes.
IV To be able to simulate change, one needs to
specify (or design) the changes to be
simulated.
Ill To be able to specify potential changes (if
any), one needs to evaluate the current
conditions.
II To be able to evaluate the landscape, one
needs to understand how it works.
I To understand how it works, one needs
representational schema to describe it. (This
has been the major GIS role.)
Then, in order to be effective and efficient, a
landscape planning project should progress
downward at least once through each level of
inquiry, apply ing the appropriate modeling types:
representation, process, evaluation, change,
impact and decision. At the extreme, two
decisions present themselves: no and yes. A no
implies a backward feedback loop and the need
to alter a prior level. All six levels can be the
focus of feedback; "redesign" and sensitivity
analysis are frequently applied feedback
strategies at Level IV.
A contingent yes decision (still a no) may also
trigger a shift in the scale or size or time of the
study. (An example is the decision to locate a
Page 12
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
highway corridor made on the basis of a more
detailed alignment analysis). In a scale shift, the
study will again proceed through the six levels
of the framework as described above.
A project should normally continue until it
achieves a positive, yes, decision. (In my area
of application, a do not build conclusion can be
a positive decision). A yes decision implies
implementation and (one assumes) a forward-in-
time change to new representation models.
While the framework looks orderly and
sequential, the line through any project is not a
smooth path: it has false starts, dead ends,
serendipitous discoveries—but the line has to
pass through the questions and models of the
framework as I have described it before a yes
can be achieved.
The framework has been the basis for the
organization of several regional studies and is
applied in this talk to a study of the future of
Monroe County.
References
Steinitz, C. "A Framework for Theory
Applicable to the Education of Landscape
Architects (and Other Environmental Design
Professionals)," Landscape Journal, October
1990.
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 13
-------
SUSSEX COUNTY, DE
Robert L. Stickels
Sussex County Administrator
Robert Stickels is the Sussex County
Administrator. Mr. Stickels has a strong
background in business and government
management. He has been the Town Manager
of Georgetown, DE, and Deputy County
Administrator for Sussex County from 1988 to
the present. He has also been a member of the
Delmarva Advisory Council, the Executive
Council of the Delaware Inland Bays Estuary
Program, the Delaware Private Industry
Council, as well as other organizations.
Sussex County's portion of the Delmarva
Coastal Bays has changed dramatically since the
1950's. Geographically, Sussex County is one
of the largest counties east of the Mississippi.
This has resulted in a diversified economy. In
the 1950's and 1960's, the County's primary
industry was agriculture. In the 1970's, the
economy started to diversify with tourism
becoming the second largest industry in the
County. The total County population in 1950
was 61,360; in 1990 it was 113,226. The entire
population impact cannot be measured totally on
census figures. Census figures do not include
summer and part-time population. It is
estimated that 5.4 Million people visit our
County's beaches annually. This has been a
dramatic change from the 1950's and 1960's,
when most of the beach resorts closed at Labor
Day. Sussex County beaches are located within
a four hour drive of one-third of the population
of the United States.
To get a true figure on how much Sussex
County has grown, you can also look at the
assessment base of the County. This gives an
indication of the number of year-round
residential homes, seasonal homes, and
commercial building that has taken place in the
Inland Bays Watershed. Property assessment for
the Inland Bays Watershed area was $70,114,444
in 1960; in 1990 the assessment grew to
$892,322,377 for the same area. This is an
increase of 1,172% in four decades. As we look
ahead to the year 2020, populations are
estimated to increase an additional 31.59% for
our County.
Unfortunately, rules and regulations protecting
the environment and the welfare of the residents
and visitors of Sussex County did not develop as
quickly as our population and buildings
increased. Public acceptance of regulations has
been very slow. In the 1960's, it was the
attitude that if you owned the property, you
could do what you want with it. The 1970's led
to development of zoning ordinances and
regulations. A major breakthrough in the 1970's
was the adoption of the Coastal Zone Act. It
has been stated that former Governor Russell W.
Peterson, who was the author of this legislation,
led a major breakthrough that pointed the way
for other states and the federal government to
preserve priceless coastline resources. In the
1980's, the Sussex County Council realized that
density should be reduced as well as the heights
of buildings if Sussex County coastlines were to
avoid duplicating Ocean City, Maryland.
Page 14
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
Over the decades, we have learned that it is
not enough just to have zoning ordinances if we
are going to protect the environment and the
quality of life that has been expected in Sussex
County. The infrastructure must be in place.
This infrastructure should provide protection for
water quality. With the completion of the West
Rehoboth Sewer District, a $70 Million project,
all homes located along the Atlantic Ocean have
the capability of being connected to central
wastewater. This is a vast improvement from
the 1960's, when on holiday weekends, residents
actually had wastewater flowing in the streets.
The County's South Coastal Area Planning
Study lays out new sewer districts in the Inland
Bays area. Over 5,000 users have been
connected already to Inland Bays central sewer
systems. The County has plans to spend over
$25 million over the next five years to connect
more homes.
Creation of central water and sewer districts is
not the entire answer for the protection of the
Coastal Bays. Reduction in density and greater
setbacks from wetlands are also important.
However, public acceptance of additional
regulations is not always easily obtained. It has
been my experience that a majority of the people
living in the Coastal Bays area are only here for
a short period of time. Many people only live in
the area for a three to seven year period. People
who purchase summer homes may only wish to
visit the area for a three to five year period
before their recreational interests change to other
areas. Retirees who move to the area are usually
on a fixed income and wish to take advantage of
Sussex County's low tax base. Many of these
people are unable to pay what is needed to
protect the bays. The difficulty lies in trying to
come up with long-term cost effective solutions.
I hope I do not sound like a doomsayer. I do
believe we are going in the right direction.
Sussex Countians are willing to do their share to
protect Delmarva Coastal Bays. There is
evidence that water quality is already improving.
If we are going to continue to make
improvements, we are going to need consistency
in federal, state and local regulations. Federal
and state agencies cannot expect local
governments to be more restrictive than their
own requirements. If the state feels that there
should be property line setbacks from state
wetlands, local ordinances should be supported
with state law. Local governments cannot be
expected to develop ordinances that restrict
building in federal wetlands if the federal
government will still issue permits to allow for
construction. Consistency in rules and
regulations between the three levels of
government is necessary. Once this consistency
is developed, we will have to obtain public
acceptance, political fortitude and administrative
wisdom if we wish to see the Delmarva area
continue to be a desirable place to live and
vacation.
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 15
-------
SUSSEX COUNTY,
ASSESSMENT
Millions
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
$0
1960
1970
1980
1990
ASSESSMENTS
Series 1
Page 16
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
O
o
X
LLJ
CO
CO
ID
CO
o
CM
CM
i
O
«c
C5
spuesnoqj.
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 17
-------
Page 18
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
I
D
CL
1-
O
Q
X
LLJ
CO
CO
CO
CD
CM
O
CM
i
O
spuesnoiji
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 19
-------
WORCESTER COUNTY, MD
Phil Hager
Worcester County Planning Department
Phil Hager is a graduate of Frostburg State
University and holds a Master's degree in
Intergovernmental Policy Analysis from The
George Washington University School of
Government and Business Administration. Mr.
Hager previously worked for the Maryland
General Assembly and on Capitol Hill for the
United States Senate. For the past 7 years, he
has been actively involved in land use planning
and demography. In that capacity, he has
worked for the Maryland National Capitol Park
and Planning Commission, and as a consultant
for the telecommunications industry. Since
August 1995, he has been employed as a
Planner for Worcester County Maryland.
The following is a descriptive analysis of
Worcester County, Maryland. In a moment, I will
be delivering a brief historical overview, a series
of facts and figures detailing Worcester's present
conditions, and a cursory analysis for our future.
Some of these demographic data are contained in
the tables on the blue sheets that have been
distributed, or are in the process of being
distributed.
In addition to increasing our overall awareness
relative to local demographic conditions, it is also
my desire to go a little bit beyond the statistics and
attempt to offer interpretive analysis. In short, we
will look at what has been happening, what is
currently happening, what we expect to happen, as
well as why. This may be helpful to us as we
collectively strive to address the issues before this
conference.
Worcester County is Maryland's eastern-most
jurisdiction. Additionally, it is the only Maryland
subdivision bordering the Atlantic Ocean. Nearly
20 percent of the County experiences some form
of tidal influence. A ridge extending the length of
the County running roughly northeast to southwest
divides the two major watersheds. The land areas
on the west side of this feature flow to the
Pocomoke and eventually to the Bay. Areas to the
east drain into one of the four major inland bays
systems. With the exception of western Garrett
County, Worcester County is the only Maryland
jurisdiction whose entire waters do not flow into
the Chesapeake Bay.
Archaeologists believe that human contact with
what is now Worcester County has been relatively
brief and notably recent. Native Americans did
not begin to settle in this area until sometime in
the Twelfth Century. These American Indians
were Worcester's first immigrants. Historians
believe that there were never more than
approximately 300 Native Americans in permanent
„ residence here, but that significant numbers passed
through the area or rested here briefly while
enroute to other destinations. I suppose these
were Worcester County's first vacationers.
Early native settlements were located along the
coastal plain and adjacent to the waterway
systems; primarily, this translates into the
Pocomoke River, Nassawango Creek, and the
Coastal Bays and their tributaries. They hunted
the rich forests, fished the streams, rivers and
bays, and they began to cultivate the fertile soils.
The first European settlers moved into the area
through what is now Virginia in the latter portion
Page 20
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
of the 1600's. Then, as today, the region was
geographically remote; consequently, the area was
slow in growing. The primary activities of these
peoples were little different from those of the
Native Americans: principally hunting, fishing,
agriculture, and similar extractive activities.
The County grew slowly through the 1700's and
into the 1800's. As there was a surplus of
available land, and waterways were of significant
importance, the early populations tended to be well
dispersed. What concentrations that existed, were
primarily aligned along the transportation corridors
that these waterways represented. It was not until
the 1800's that people began to congregate in
towns and villages in appreciable numbers.
The advent of steam and railroad spurred some
economic and population growth, however, the
area was never the scene of a massive influx of
new residents. The economy and the population
maintained remarkable stability through this era.
Despite many changes and innovations,
Agriculture's importance as a mainstay of the local
economy has remained undiminished. Historically,
this activity has been the primary source of income
and employment. Although of slightly less
importance from an employment standpoint today,
farming and related activities continue to
determine Worcester's economic well-being.
Most of the County's most significant growth
occurred after World War II. The role of the
"baby boom", notwithstanding, it is no accident
that this transformation occurred in conjunction
with the expansion of this nation's highway and
railway systems during the 1950's. The most
notable alterations came about as a consequence of
the Bay Bridge construction. This advent forged
a closer relationship between the Eastern Shore
and the balance of the state. The people of
Southern Delmarva began to focus on Baltimore
and Washington, and the markets in Delaware and
points north declined in importance. These
transportation improvements provided a
tremendous boost for agricultural interests. It also
had another effect. It began an unprecedented
wave of tourism.
Today, agriculture and tourism share the
spotlight, but other forces are at work as well. A
tremendous proportion of Worcester's newest
wave of immigrants are over the age of 55.
Worcester County is becoming a retirement locale
for increasingly larger numbers of people. Its low
piggyback tax is also attracting large numbers of
second home purchasers and part time residents.
This is a benefit to the construction and real estate
industries. The vast majority of these new citizens
are establishing residence within the Coastal Bays'
Watersheds. The water access, the beaches, the
gulf courses, and the recreational opportunities
available to these residents is a tremendous selling
point.
As can be seen from the data in the handout,
Worcester County is beginning to grow extremely
rapidly. The County's growth from 1940 to 1969
was slow, but consistent. From 1970 onward,
however, the rate of growth has increased
markedly. From a statewide perspective, or when
compared to East Coast regional standards,
Worcester County with its current population of
40,300 is still comfortably rural. But when
compared to historical trends the expansion is
incredible. In 1940, the population was 21,245.
In less than six decades, the population has nearly
doubled. It took nearly three centuries to reach
the 1940 total. Current projections indicate that
we will achieve that number again by 2030. In
less than 35 years, we will have tripled the 1940
figure.
This rapid growth is not consistent with this
jurisdiction's history, nor is it in proportion to the
growth being experienced by other Eastern Shore
counties. This is vividly illustrated in the table
that compares Worcester's population growth rate
with the combined growth rates for the four Lower
Shore Counties. These statistics suggest that there
is something unique or different about Worcester
County. Many would argue that it is the
proximity to the Ocean and other water resources
that serves as such a draw. The ramifications of
that assumption are a double-edged sword. On
one hand, it makes the importance of the bays and
their watersheds more of a priority from an
economic standpoint. Conversely, preservation
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 21
-------
issues and natural resource health take on a greater
level of importance.
The second table emphasizes the importance of
that assessment. Clearly, these growth trends will
continue through the foreseeable future. In the
coming decades, it seems that Worcester County
will once again be on the receiving end of a
disproportionate population expansion.
There are two additional factors that should be
of significant interest to any demographic
discussions relative to the bays. First, although
the growth projections and the existing trends for
Worcester County are noteworthy, they pale in
consequence when you look at the distribution of
people within the County. 1990 Census figures
show that 62.2 percent of the County lived within
the watersheds.
Projections suggest that this percentage will
increase both in number and in speed. Nearly
three-fourths of the County could live in the
Coastal Bays Watersheds by the year 2020. The
second item of interest is that these numbers fail to
consider seasonal population. These trends reflect
only permanent year-round residents. During the
Summer, Worcester's population can be measured
in millions. For several months of the year, the
coastal bays infrastructure is faced with tasks
approaching the same magnitude as the large urban
centers that are the sources of these tourists.
Of equal or greater importance as "how much?"
is "from what source?". Generally, a significant
portion of any population increase can be
attributed to natural growth (ie., total births
outnumbering total deaths). This Js true with
Worcester County, but it cannot account for the
explosive nature of this population rise. As
previously stated, in-migration is the culprit.
Voluntary re-location is the single greatest factor
in Worcester's continuing growth trends. Since
1990, it has accounted for more than 71 percent of
die County's growth. From 1980 to 1990, in-
migration represented 120 percent of the total
increase. During this decade, the County grew by
4,139 persons, and 4,977 people moved to
Worcester County. This means that at least 838
County residents who were residents before 1980,
actually moved out of the County by 1990.
One final set of data is appropriate for this
forum. Since 1987, 15,887 acres of agricultural
land has been converted from active farming to
some other use. That represents a loss of nearly
13 percent. Simultaneously, the total number of
farms has declined by nearly one-fourth, from 631
to 474. It would be tempting to conclude that this
is due to development, but that assumption would
not be entirely true.. The majority of it is probably
due to conversion for residential purposes, but
some of it can be attributed to other factors, not
the least of which is the conditions under which
we mandate that agricultural concerns operate.
Another possible explanation is the trend for
assimilation of small farms by larger agricultural
operations.
Because of time constraints, I have had to cover
a great many variables in a short period of time.
It is probably not necessary that we remember
each of the statistics which I have cited here. It is
more important that we recognize that Worcester
County and the Coastal Bays area is undergoing a
metamorphosis; it is in a constant state of change.
It has been that way for centuries. What is now
different is the speed and degree of those changes.
People sometimes make the mistake of seeing
nature as static or stopped in time. This is
probably not the case with most things, and it is
definitely not the case with Worcester County and
the Coastal Bays environment. It may help us to
remember that the entire Delmarva Peninsula was
created by change, and it is still changing,
growing and evolving. The single most important
and dominant factor in that evolution has been the
role that man has played in'it. That is why it is
most important to note that this factor is also
growing, changing and evolving. And the speed
with which it is taking place is increasing ... at
a rate approaching geometric proportion.
Page 22
DISLMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
COMPARATIVE HISTORICAL POPULATION GROWTH RATES
1990-95
1980-90
1970-80
1960-70
1950-60
1940-50
STATE
5.6 Percent
13.3 Percent
7.5 Percent
26.5 Percent
32.3 Percent
28.7 Percent
WORCESTER
15.1 Percent
13.4 Percent
26.4 Percent
2.9 Percent
2.5 Percent
8.9 Percent
LESR1
6.9 Percent
12.3 Percent
14.4 Percent
4.0 Percent
9.6 Percent
6.3 Percent
Since 1940, Worcester County has experienced an annual average growth rate of 1.3 percent. During
the same time period, the State and LESR grew by 3.3 and 1.1 percent, respectively. Since 1990,
however, the state has had an annual growth rate of only 1.1 percent, the LESR has remained
somewhat steady at 1.4 percent, while Worcester County more than doubled that rate to slightly over
3.0 percent This means that Worcester County has been growing twice as fast as the rest of the
Lower Shore, and more than two and one-half as fast as the State, since 1990.
COMPARATIVE RATE OF PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH
1990-95
1995-00
2000-05
2005-10
2010-15
2015-20
WORCESTER
15.1 Percent
7.5 Percent
6.2 Percent
4.8 Percent
3.5 Percent
3.0 Percent
LESR
6.9 Percent
5.2 Percent
4.5 Percent
4.0 Percent
3.1 Percent
2.6 Percent
5.6 Percent
5.3 Percent
4.4 Percent
3.5 Percent
3.4 Percent
3.2 Percent
If the projections for the thirty (30) year period 1990-2020 hold true, the County will experience an
absolute growth of nearly 12,000 .and a percentage growth rate of 134.2. It is interesting to note, that
the County grew by an almost identical amount in the previous thirty (30) year time span (1960-90).
This growth translates into a factored increase of 147.6 percent.
1 - LESR: Lower Eastern Shore; includes Dorchester, Somerset, Wicomico and Worcester Counties.
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Maryland Office of Planning, and the Worcester
County Department of Planning Permits & Inspections.
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 23
-------
THE COASTAL BAYS WATERSHEDS' COMPONENT
(Proportion of Worcester County's Total Population)
ABSOLUTE PERCENTAGE
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
1995
2000
2010
2020
10,832
11,974
12,296
12,898
18,057
21,781
26,526
29,122
33,765
39,447
50.9
51.7
51.8
52.8
58.5
62.2
65.8
67.4
68.9
72.1
By 2020, the portion of Worcester County's population lying within the Coastal Bays Watersheds will
approximate the current County total. If these projections hold, the Watershed population component
will nearly double in the time period 1990-2020. During the same time span the County is only
expected to increase by 56.3 percent.
SOURCE: Estimates and Projections, 1996; The Worcester County Department of Planning
Permits & Inpections.
Page 24
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
ACCOMACK-NORTHAMPTON PLANNING
DISTRICT COMMISSION
James McGowan
James McGowan is Director of Planning at
the Accomack-Northampton Planning District
Commission, the regional planning commission
for the eastern shore of Virginia. As Director of
Planning, Mr. McGowan provides coastal
resources planning, transportation planning, and
technical assistance to 2 counties and 19
incorporated towns along the eastern shore. He
also supervises Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act
implementation for the 13 eastern shore towns in
the Chesapeake Bay watershed. A graduate of
the New York State University College at
Plattsburgh, Mr. McGowan also holds a
Master's degree in Planning from the University
of Virginia. Before moving to Virginia, he was
a State Park Manager with the New York State
Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation.
The eastern shore of Virginia is that part of
the State which is east of the Chesapeake Bay.
The peninsula is about 70 miles long, which is
as much coast as the rest of Delmarva coastline.
We are, however, a lot different than Maryland
and Delaware.
The eastern shore is both on the Chesapeake
Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. The peninsula
varies from about 15 miles to 5 miles in width,
which gives us a very unique geography. We
have a lot of waterfront, both bayside and
seaside (i.e., the Delmarva coastal bay
watershed). One of the major features is Route
13 which runs down the spine of the peninsula
and is pretty much the divide between the
Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean
watersheds. The Delmarva coastal bays area
comprises the areas to the east, beginning with
Assateague Island and Chincoteague Bay. We
have 14 barrier islands that run from Assateague
Island to the tip. The only island on the coast
that is accessible by vehicle is Assateague. This
is one of the most significant features of the
eastern shore of Virginia; the ocean beaches are
not open for development. They are all either
owned by the Nature Conservancy or by state
and federal agencies.
The population on the eastern shore in 1990
was 44,764; it has gone up slightly since then.
In 1950, the population was just over 50,000.
It dropped until 1980, and has since gone up
slowly. Projections to 2010 actually indicate
that we are expected to lose population. While
we do not have any hard figures and the net
population is not expected to change much, new
people are coming in and others are leaving. A
lot of retirees come to the shore or build second
homes. A lot of young people, however, cannot
get jobs and migrate out.
Twenty-six percent of the eastern shore
population is below the federal poverty level and
the area has an eight percent unemployment rate
(as compared to four percent for the rest of the
state). So we are an economically
disadvantaged area; 2,500 dwellings (or 17
percent of the housing stock) do not have indoor
plumbing. This is one of the major issues that
we are dealing with. We have a lot of programs
to rehabilitate substandard housing and introduce
indoor plumbing, but we still have a long way to
go.
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 25
-------
As far as the economy, in 1991, services
were the largest sector of the economy at 22
percent; manufacturing was 18 percent;
government was 17 percent; and retail was 14
percent. Fishing and farming only employed 8
percent, but fanning involves a lot more than
the people who work the land and much of the
manufacturing is food processing. As far as
industrial expansion possibilities, the poultry
industry is expanding (e.g., Tysons and Perdue),
vegetable production is increasing (e.g., tomato
growers are moving up from Florida, and
Accomack County is the largest vegetable
producer in Virginia), aquaculture is growing
(e.g., clam growers), and tourism is always
increasing (Chincoteague is the biggest area for
tourism and coastal development, but there is
some development all over the shore). One of
the new programs is the sustainable development
technology industrial park in Cape Charles,
which just landed a new employer that is
building solar panels. Also, the second home
industry is slowly growing. So, we do not
expect any major changes, but the potential is
there. For example, if the Chesapeake Bay
Bridge Tunnel toll is eliminated, there would be
an immediate change since there is a $10 toll
each way.
As far as land use changes, we do not have a
lot of good data. Accomack County now has a
GIS system so we are hoping that we can put it
into a more useable form. Northampton County
does not have a GIS system, but is working
towards this. The major factors hi development
are the local ordinances and future land use
plans. A ground water plan prepared a few
years ago estimated that the area hi the middle
of the peninsula, which is the main ground
water recharge area, has the potential for 37,000
more dwelling units (there are only 21,000
now). This indicates that there is a tremendous
capacity here. Both counties are looking into
this situation, with Accomack County updating
their plan and Northampton County developing
a new zoning ordinance.
In terms of the cost of public actions, while
there is not a tremendous amount of growth,
there is always the need to build new schools
and roads as development occurs. Also, health
care is a big issue as the number of retirees
increases. In terms of political activity, there is
a mix of interests. Local people want jobs and
wealthy retirees want to protect the shore. But
both groups are thinking about the future.
We are also concerned about transportation
and the future of Route 13 and potential impacts
on development and preservation efforts. State
and federal governments are involved, such as
through the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act,
which requires a 100 foot setback along
preservation areas. State ground water
regulations are in place, and will hopefully be
unproved. Also, state and federal grants help
fund programs.
As far as growing pains, there is a lot of
ground water but it has to be managed properly.
Industries can cause cones of depression that can
affect adjacent water users. The best way to
deal with this is to pump water from well fields
covering 'a larger area and store it as public
water supplies, but only a few exist. Lack of
sewers is a problem, although it can also slow
growth. In order to provide for water and
sewer to substandard housing, a central system
is needed. Also, this will hopefully allow for
focused growth and prevent sprawl. Currently,
unsuitable soils make it difficult to cluster
growth.
Farm loss is also a concern. Although
agriculture only employs eight percent of the
population, a lot of related businesses depend on
it. We are starting to try some new techniques
such as open space zoning and cluster
development. We need to do better planning
and zoning, but Northampton County hired their
first planner in 1976, and Accomack County did
not hire a planner until 1990. Without the
people, it is hard to know what to do. For
example, the build-out analysis conducted
previously estimated that the 37,000 new
Page 26
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
dwelling units would require 5.6 million gallons
per day. That is as much water as is currently
used by all the houses and industry on the
eastern shore. Also, it is estimated that the deep
aquifers on the eastern shore only have a
capacity of 5.5 to 11 million gallons per day.
Therefore, we really have to look at these
issues, but are not being forced to. It has been
said that people are either inspired to action or
do it out of desperation. I don't think we are at
the desperate stage yet, but hopefully we can act
before it is too late.
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 27
-------
REPORT ON PRE-CONFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE ON
PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS
James M. Falk
University of Delaware
Sea Grant Marine Advisory Service
Lewes, DE 19958
For the past 17 years, James Falk has been a
marine, recreation and tourism specialist at the
University of Delaware's Sea Grant Marine
Advisory Service. He is responsible for
developing and tabulating the pre-conference
questionnaire that -was received by many
participants. This questionnaire is only one of
the numerous applied research studies Mr. Falk
has conducted to help resource managers better
understand the perceptions and attitudes of
different user groups.
Introduction
During the late winter, 1996, a sample of
residents living around Delmarva's coastal bays
were mailed a survey instrument seeking their
input and attitudes about a number of issues
related to the environmental and economic health
of these important coastal ecosystems. Eleven
hundred questionnaires were mailed to a cross-
section of individuals who represented a variety
of interest groups. These groups included:
farmers, private citizens, environmental
organization representatives, and watermen. At
the time of the current data analysis, 321
respondents had replied to the survey.
Who Are Coastal Bay Respondents
Coastal bay respondents were predominantly
males (74%) and were, on average, 55 years of
age. Forty-one percent of the respondents were
from Maryland, 32 percent resided in Virginia,
and 24 percent were residents of Delaware.
Thirty-six percent of respondents indicated that
they lived on the bay's waterfront. Forty
percent indicated that they lived less than five
miles from the water and 24 percent reported
living five miles or greater from the bays.
Eighty-nine percent of respondents indicated that
they recreated on the bays or visited them.
Sixty percent of respondents reported that they
were college graduates and one-third of all
respondents indicated that they had graduate
level education experiences. The largest
percentage of the responding sample indicated
that they were retired (34%), 15 percent were
employed in the farming/agriculture industry,
and twelve percent were government employees
(local, state or federal). Twenty-two percent of
the respondents were employed in private
business, with 8 percent of this total being
tourism-related employment. Fifty-two percent
of all respondents had annual family incomes of
greater than $50,000. Only three percent
reported that they earned less than $20,000
annually. About one-third (34%) earned
between $30,000 and $50,000 annually.
Page 28
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
How Do Coastal Bay Respondents Rate
Conditions Around the Bays
When bay residents were asked how they
would rate the "quality of life" (e.g. jobs, clean
environment, public services, etc.) around the
bays, the overall rating was 2.7 (based on a 4-
point scale; with 1 = poor and 4 = outstanding).
Sixty-three percent of the respondents rate the
"quality of life" either "good" or "outstanding".
When a rating for "environmental quality" was
solicited, the average rating was 2.4 (on the 4-
point scale), with 48 percent of the respondents
indicating either "good" or "outstanding". When
a similar rating for "economic prosperity" was
solicited, the average rating was 2.1, with only
one-third of the sample reporting a "good" or
"outstanding" rating response. When asked what
they thought of their state's efforts at managing
and protecting their state's bay's resources, 38
percent responded that their state did either a
"good" or "outstanding" job and rated their
actions 2.2.
What Are Coastal Bay Respondents' Feelings
About the Role of Citizens and the
Environment
When asked what position they felt citizens
should take with respect to environmental issues,
62 percent believe that individuals can do much
more to improve the environment, 29 percent
feel individuals would do more, but are confused
about what is good and bad for the environment,
7 percent believe it is basically large companies
who are responsible for environmental problems
and they should solve them and 3 percent feel
that since other people won't make sacrifices
their contributions won't matter either.
How Do Coastal Bay Respondents Categorize
Themselves on Environmental Issues
Only 3 percent of all respondents indicated
that they were generally not interested in
environmental matters. Thirty-one percent
indicated an interest in the environment, but
seldom do anything about it. Fifty-six percent
of respondents support political candidates based
on their environmental stands and 46 percent
donate money to environmental causes. Twenty-
four percent of bay-area residents belong to an
environmental organization and 41 percent
belong to two or more environmental groups.
What Are Coastal Bay Respondents'
Environmental Factors of Greatest Concern
Respondents were asked to rank a series of
environmental factors that were of greatest
concern to them, using a scale of 1 to 3, with 1
being the most important. Water quality (218
total responses) and loss of fish/wildlife habitat
(196 total responses) were most often mentioned
by respondents as issues that were important to
them. The least mentioned issues were toxic
waste cleanup (25 total responses) and air quality
(36 total responses). When the average
importance rating was calculated for each factor
(using the 3-point scale, with 1 being most
important), water quality (1.7), protection of
drinking water supplies (1.8) and loss of
fish/wildlife habitat (1.9) were rated the highest.
Wastewater management (2.4), open space
preservation (2.3), and air quality (2.3) were
rated the lowest.
What Do Coastal Bay Respondents Feel Are
the Most Serious Water Pollution Problems
Around the Bays
Since water quality was mentioned as a major
concern by respondents, their opinions were also
solicited on what they felt were the most serious
water pollution problems around the bays.
Agricultural runoff (68%) was reported as the
most serious water pollution concern, followed
by sewage discharge (59%) and environmental
impacts caused by tourism-related development
(50%).
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 29
-------
How Do Coastal Bay Respondents Feel About
Growth and Development Issues
How Do Coastal Bay Respondents Feel About
Tourism Issues
Coastal bay respondents were quite candid
about issues related to growth and development.
They were requested to rate the issues using a 5-
point scale, with 1 = strongly disagree and 5 =
strongly agree. Respondents rated limiting
economic growth around their state's coastal
bays a'3.8 on the 5-point scale and 66 percent of
the respondents "agreed" or "strongly agreed"
with the statement. Fifty-six percent of the
respondents "agreed" or "strongly agreed" with
the statement, I feel my state's counties are
growing too fast (3.6 rating). Sixty-three
percent of the respondents "agreed" or "strongly
agreed" with the statement, industries and
businesses located around my state's coastal
bays contribute significantly to the local
economy (3.6 rating), however, only 27 percent
"agreed" or "strongly agreed" with the statement
that developing land around my state's coastal
bays provides needed economic growth (2.6
rating).
How Do Coastal Bay Respondents Feel About
Agricultural Issues
Seventy-four percent of the respondents
"agreed" or "strongly agreed" with the statement,
agriculture contributes a great deal economically
to the residents of my state's coastal area (3.9
rating on the 5-point scale). Fifty-seven percent
of the respondents "agreed" or "strongly agreed"
with the statement, agriculture around my state's
coastal bays provides diverse employment
opportunities for local residents (3.4 rating).
The lowest rated statements related to agriculture
were, environmental impacts resulting from
agriculture practices are relatively minor, with
a 2.7 rating and only 28 percent of the
respondents "agreeing" or "strongly agreeing"
with the statement, and taxes in my state's
coastal counties are kept low because of
agriculture, with a 2.8 rating and 23 percent
agreement response.
Coastal Bay respondents reacted both
positively and negatively to statements related to
tourism around the regions coastal bays. The
statement that received the most support with 73
percent of the respondents "agreeing" or
"strongly agreeing" was, long-term planning by
local governments can control negative impacts
of tourism on the environment—the statement
received a 4.1 rating (on the 5-point scale).
Respondents also reacted favorably to the
statements, the tourism industry provides many
•worthwhile employment opportunities for
residents, 3.6 rating and 67 percent agreement
response and, tourism is one of the bright spots
in my state's coastal bay's economic future, 3.4
rating and 54 percent agreement response.
Respondents did not react positively to the
statements, the overall benefits of tourism
outweigh the negative environmental impacts,
2.5 rating and 23 percent "agreeing" or "strongly
agreeing" and, / support tourism and would like
to see it become the main industry in and around
my state's coastal bays, 2.7 rating and 27
percent agreement response.
What Future Issues Do Coastal Bay
Respondents Feel Are Most Important
When asked what they felt were the most
important future issues they needed to be
concerned about, coastal bay respondents
indicated that protecting the coastal bays from
environmental degradation (79%) and preserving
forest, wetland and habitat areas (79%) were
most important. Other issues receiving majority
support included protecting drinking water
supplies (65%) and controlling growth in coastal
counties (54%). The least important issues as
reported by respondents included, addressing
global environmental issues (18%) and attracting
new industries and businesses (20%).
Page 30
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
How Do Coastal Bay Respondents Feel About
Paying More to Improve the Bays
Sixty-nine percent of respondents indicated
they would pay more taxes or higher prices to
protect and improve the environmental quality of
Delmarva's coastal bays. They felt user fees
(59%) would be the most preferred mechanism
to collect additional revenues to direct towards
bay improvements. The only other revenue
mechanism that received close to majority
support was voluntary private donations, with 45
percent of the respondents supporting this
revenue-generating mechanism. The least
supported methods for generating revenues were
property tax transfers (18%) and personal
income taxes (19%).
Conclusions
This preliminary analysis of coastal bay
residents provides a "snapshot" of how they feel
about many issues and concerns affecting the
health of the region's coastal bays. The
information present is based on frequency
responses for all respondents collectively and is
by no means exhaustive. There are additional
methods for analyzing the data which can
provide a thorough picture of how respondents
feel about coastal bay concerns. These could
include comparing results by state of residence
(Maryland vs. Delaware vs. Virginia) or by
occupational status (retired vs. agriculture vs.
private business). This further analysis will
provide a more-effective way to approach
management and policy concerns in the different
jurisdictions.
This study -was supported by the University of
Delaware Sea Grant College Program and the
Delaware Center for the Inland Bays. A special
thanks is also extended to the agencies and
organizations who assisted in mailing the survey
questionnaires to their clientele groups and to
University of Delaware, College of Marine
Studies' graduate students Cecelia Linder and
Lexia Valdes for their assistance during various
phases of the project.
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 31
-------
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: A FRAMEWORK
FOR A NEW CENTURY
Peggy Duxbury
President's Council on Sustainable Development
The originally scheduled speaker, Molly
Harris Olson, Executive Director of the
President's Council on Sustainable Development
(PCSD) was unable to attend due to other
commitments. Ms. Olson -was represented by
Peggy Duxbury, Coordinator of the PCSD's
Principles, Goals, and Definitions Task Force.
This Task Force was responsible for bringing
together, integrating, and synthesizing all of the
work of the many subcommittees and work
groups that comprise the President's Council.
Prior to working for the PCSD, Ms. Duxbury
held a one-year faculty research appointment at
Harvard Business School where she helped
develop a curriculum on environmental
management. She holds a Bachelor's degree in
Political Science from Old Dominion University
and a Master's degree in Public Administration
from the Kennedy School of Government at
Harvard University.
It's extremely exciting for me to be here this
evening. This is the first group that we have
met with since the Council members met with
President Clinton and Vice President Gore 24
hours ago to deliver the PCSD's report, which is
a unanimous consensus document on their vision
for sustainable development in the United States.
It's also very fitting that as the PCSD starts
winding down our efforts, I am in a filled-to-
capacity room with individuals who are
interested in taking these concepts and applying
them to a regional level. Without a doubt, the
"just do it" crowd will be a crowd like this one.
I thought I'd begin by giving you some
background on the concept of sustainable
development and its genesis. It is a fairly new
buzzword; I remember doing a search for the
term "sustainable development" at Harvard
Library and not really finding the term until
about four or five years ago. Then we will talk
about the work of the Council and the contents
of the report.
Beginning with the environment, while a
doom-and-gloom scenario is extreme, is it not a
crisis when:
• 15 million people die annually from
poverty-related causes?
• 35,000 children die daily from diseases that
are entirely avoidable?
• 100-300 species are lost daily from this
planet?
• There are holes in the ozone layer?
• The climate is undergoing changes?
• Fish stocks disappear?
• Wildlife habitats are devastated?
• Soils erode?
• 1,500 scientists, including 99 Nobel Prize
Laureates, issue a warning to humanity that
human beings and the natural order are on
a collision course?
The planet is in a severe state of
disequilibrium. Humanity cannot survive when
one-third of the world is wealthy and two-thirds
of the world is in poverty, and most of those, in
devastating poverty. The planet cannot sustain
Page 32
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
20 percent of the population consuming 80
percent of the world's resources. It cannot serve
as a repository for industrial waste, while
providing clean air, clean water, and soils
sufficient to support food and an expanding
population, all at the same time.
These crises bring me to the concept of
sustainable development. In the last decade, this
concept has gained widespread political
legitimacy, not just here in the United States, but
across the world. How can we restore some
balance to that ledger? How can we restore
economic prosperity, social equity, and
environmental integrity, all at the same time?
With that said, sustainable development is really
the politics of hope. It is the politics of looking
towards the future with the idea that we do
control our destiny and fate.
To understand sustainable development, we
also have to understand its historical context.
You could argue that many of these concepts
existed for centuries. You can find many of
these ideas and philosophies in the Old and New
Testaments, as well as many of our tribal nations
in the Americas. But as a modern political
philosophy, sustainable development really had
its genesis in the mid- to late-1980s. It was at
that time that the United Nations formed the
Bruntland Commission, which had leaders from
the developed and developing countries. They
published Our Common Future, which contained
many recommendations, and perhaps most
useful, a definition of sustainable development.
While this concept does mean different things to
different people, there is now some consensus
regarding this definition, which is also used by
the PCSD. This definition states that:
"Sustainable development is development that
meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs. "
Sustainable development then really rests on
three interrelated concepts: that you cannot have
environmental integrity without economic
prosperity; conversely, you cannot have
economic prosperity without environmental
integrity. Underpinning all of this is the
fundamental need that all human beings have a
basic level of social welfare. In other words,
these three issues are interwoven in the most
fundamental way, and yet in a way that most
societies have failed to recognize or appreciate.
It was because of the discussions of the
Bruntland Commission that in 1992 leaders from
across the globe came together at the Rio
Summit. One of the many agreements that came
out of the Summit was to form national
strategies for sustainable development. It was
that commitment that caused President Clinton to
form the PCSD. He asked the Council, which is
comprised of 25 individuals (8 industry leaders,
5 environmentalists, a number of key Cabinet
positions, and representatives of several civic
societies) to develop recommendations on how
the United States should address the rubric of
sustainable development.
Before going on to the PCSD's activities and
findings, I want to quickly discuss who is the
United States. We are the wealthiest nation on
earth; we consume, produce and waste more per
capita than any other country on this planet. We
are very religious (more people participate in
organized religion than in almost any other
developed country), fiercely independent, and
skeptical of government (sometimes healthy,
sometimes destructive). And we spend a lot on
environmental protection — 2.5% of our GDP.
We also have a lot of fears; e.g., crime, the
federal deficit, and quality of education.
The PCSD examined all of these issues three
years ago under the President's direction to be
bold and creative. It was a daunting time; jobs
vs. the environment were viewed as conflicting
concepts. The 25 members of the Council,
leaders in their respective fields, each brought
their own perspective to the process. They met
four times per year during the last three years at
locations nationwide. Eight Task forces were
formed that presided over dozens of meetings
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 33
-------
involving thousands of individuals. Mostly the
Council members listened and tried to learn what
issues need to be considered in developing a
national strategy.
First, the Council members needed to develop
a shared vision of the future, which took about
eight months to develop. From there, they set
goals through their Task Forces. Ultimately,
they developed approximately 350 goals that
were very specific, but cumbersome due to their
number. Therefore, the list of goals for the
future was narrowed down to the following 10:
Health and the environment
Economic prosperity
Equity
Conservation of nature
Stewardship
Communities
Civic engagement
Population
International leadership
Education
Following the establishment of goals, the PCSD
set indicators of progress or benchmarks to
measure progress towards goals.
After establishing goals and measures, the
Council started looking at ways to change how
we do business today. This information is
contained in the second chapter of the report,
entitled "A New Framework for a New
Century", which focuses on the environment and
the regulatory framework. It examines how we
can regulate better, be more cost effective, and
achieve the same environmental goals. First and
foremost, the Council agreed that our existing
environmental framework developed over the
past 25 years is a good one. Given the
backgrounds of the individuals and the political
climate at the time, this was a fairly profound
consensus. The Council members also
recognized that the framework is far from
perfect, and at times, needs to be more cost-
effective, goal-oriented, performance-oriented,
and flexible. The framework needs to encourage
more partnerships between agencies, levels of
government, and stakeholders. Specific policy
recommendations developed by the Council
include: increasing the cost-effectiveness of the
existing regulatory structure; allowing for
alternative, performance-based management
systems to go beyond compliance; and
encouraging voluntary systems for corporations
of extended product responsibility. One success
story involved Maiden Mills in Massachusetts
that uses recycled materials, stayed in an
industrial "brownfields" site, hired a 70%
minority workforce, worked with the community
to clean the river, and ultimately, gained national
attention when it burned down before Christmas
and committed to rebuilding. The other
recommendations in this section deal with the
government's macroeconomic tools; e.g., tax
shifts and subsidy reforms to change economic
policy to encourage more sustainable
development.
The next chapter addresses natural resource
stewardship. The Natural Resource Task Force
used watersheds as its unit of study. The most
important lesson learned was collaboration across
boundaries, agencies, and stakeholders. The
Task Force also emphasized the importance of
ecosystem management based on examinations
of sustainable agriculture, sustainable forestry,
and restoring fisheries. One of the success
stories involved the striped bass in the
Chesapeake Bay. Another important finding was
the need for better information to identify the
nation's biological heritage. A final priority was
biodiversity conservation.
Another critical part of the report addresses
population and consumption. Population is an
issue for the United States as well as developing
countries; we are the third largest nation in the
world and are the fastest growing developed
country. Our comparatively fast population
growth and extremely high consumption rate is
not a sustainable combination and should not be
mimicked by the rest of the world. Reductions
in population are eclipsed by our consumption
Page 34
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
rate, and vice versa. Equity considerations are
also interrelated.
Finally, perhaps the heart of the work
performed by the Council was at the community
level. It quickly became apparent that the lack
of a local government representative on the
Council was a loss, but was compensated for
somewhat by the meetings that were held. One
notable success story was Chattanooga
Tennessee; 20 years ago it was identified as the
dirtiest city in the country and was losing jobs.
Over several years, different groups collaborated
and turned the city around until it was listed by
EPA four years ago as one of the best places in
the United States to live.
While the report contains bold ideas, the
members agreed that the process was the most
remarkable accomplishment of the PCSD. This
process entailed really listening and learning
from each other over several years. In general,
it was a process of consensus that leads to better
decisions and policies. The challenge is now
captured by the phrase, "To plan is human, to
implement, divine." The report, itself, contains
a lot of good ideas, only about one-third of
which are aimed at the federal government.
Implementation will have to come from groups
like yourselves. At the federal level, President
Clinton and Vice President Gore have given a
commitment to start implementing some of the
ideas over the next eight or nine months. The
report will help guide implementation at other
levels of government and can be most easily
obtained via the Internet at:
PCSD@IGC.APC.ORG, or it can be purchased
from the Government Printing Office.
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 35
-------
REPORT ON BREAKOUT GROUPS TO DEVELOP A COMMON
VISION FOR ACHIEVING BOTH HEALTHY ECONOMY AND
ENVIRONMENT, FOCUSING ON SPECIFIC COASTAL ISSUES
Introduction
On the afternoon of the first day, a series of
breakout groups were held to discuss
environmental and economic issues relevant to
Delmarva's coastal bays. While there are many
issues, all conference participants were assigned
to one of the following four areas, which best
reflected both environmental and economic
interests as determined by responses to the pre-
conference questionnaire:
Tourism and Recreation
Residential Growth and Development
Fisheries, Shellfisheries, Aquaculture;
Agriculture: Poultry, Crops and Forestry
The goal for each group was to enable
participants to better understand and respect the
wide range of perceptions and opinions involved
in working toward a common vision for
achieving both a robust economy and a health
environment for the Delmarva Coastal Bay
watersheds. Due to the large number of
participants, two groups were held for each topic
for a total of eight groups. In assigning
participants to groups, the organizers of the
conference tried to maximize the diversity of
backgrounds and interests represented, based on
information supplied on the conference
registration form. Each group was lead by
facilitators who had earlier completed training to
standardize the process and recording of
findings.
On arrival to the breakout rooms, participants
were given a brief introduction to the purpose of
the session and access to copies of ground rules
for effective meetings. Each group was then
subdivided into three smaller groups to identify
commonalities and differences among
participants, and later, to identify influential
factors for their particular topic area over the
past 20 years. On an individual basis, small
group members were next instructed to list their
expectations as to what the future would be like,
given the factors previously identified, if nothing
different was done. Statements were shared on
a round robin basis with other small group
members, before reconvening the large group for
discussion. Based on input from the three small
groups, a single list was developed of
expectations for the future if nothing different
occurs. Finally, while still in the large group
setting, participants were asked on a round robin
basis to identify elements of their ideal future,
linking them to previously discussed themes.
Each group also selected a spokesperson to
report on their findings.
Following dinner, the spokesperson for each
of the eight groups reported back to all
conference participants on their findings. Flip
charts of the large group findings concerning the
future if nothing changes and the ideal future
were displayed along the walls of the meeting
room (flip charts of the small group findings
concerning commonalities, differences, and
influential factors were compiled for future
review). At the conclusion of the presentations,
all participants were asked to affix colored dots
next to the statements that most closely captured
their own beliefs (each participant was provided
with seven dots that could be used separately for
Page 36
-DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
seven different statements, or combined for
emphasis). The different colors of the dots
represented the backgrounds of the participant as
follows:
Agriculture
Government
Business and Industry
Recreation and Tourism
Fisheries
Academia
Citizens
Public Interest Group
The remainder of this section presents the
large group findings as listed on the flip charts.
The findings do not necessarily suggest group
consensus. The total number and composition of
dots associated with particular statements is
identified, where applicable. Statements
receiving the most dots are listed at the top of
each group. (Note: when several popular
statements appeared next to each other, a "best
guess" has been made with respect to which
statement is intended based on the proximity of
the dot.)
Tourism and Recreation. Group #1
Future if Nothing Changes
• Loss of habitat (1 dot: government)
• Loss of open space (1 dot: citizen)
• Transportation congestion
• Surface water quality deterioration
• Aquatic resources stress/fisheries decline
• Higher taxes and cost of living
• Increased storm damage
• Population increase
• Decline in supply and quality of
ground water
• Urbanization
• Casinos
• Infrastructure demand increases
Ideal Future
• Bay ferry, bikes, public transportation (14
dots: 6 recreation and tourism, 4
government, 1 business and industry, 1
fisheries, 1 citizen, 1 public interest group)
• Restoration of bays (11 dots: 5 recreation
and tourism, 3 government, 2 academia, 1
business and industry)
• More ecotourism (8 dots: 4 government, 2
recreation and tourism, 2 public interest
group)
• More public water front access (6 dots: 4
government, 2 recreation and tourism)
• Limit intensive recreation to Ocean City (5
dots: 3 government, 2 recreation and
tourism)
• Better fish and shellfish - more and bigger
(4 dots: 2 government, 1 public interest
group, 1 business and industry)
• Bring money and leave it here; just send
money (don't come)
• Wider beach (3 dots: 2 government, 1
business and industry)
• Balance between business and residential
• More cultural activities - theater, arboretum,
etc. (1 dot: recreation and tourism)
• Safer boating practices - licenses,
education/certification (2 dots: 1
government, 1 business and industry)
• 15 more golf courses (1 dot: recreation and
tourism)
Tourism and Recreation. Group #2
Future if Nothing Changes
• Decline of experience and quality of life -
too many people; conflicts over diminished
resources; fisheries
• West shore would have to support east
shore
• Deterioration of natural resources
• Change in type of recreation - gambling
• Aging population puts increased burden on
local government services
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 37
-------
treatment - no
(4 dots: 2
• Conflict of tourism vs. aging population -
this will change the political landscape as
values of society change
• Demographic changes and different
recreational needs
Ideal Future
• Increase density in designated growth areas
and protect agricultural land and forests
from conversion to other uses (28 dots: 9
government, 8 agriculture, 4 public interest
group, 3 business and industry, 2 recreation
and tourism, 1 fisheries, 1 academia)
• Restrict development to areas with planned
infrastructure (5 dots: 3 recreation and
tourism, 1 government, 1 public interest
group)
• Innovative wastewater
sewers, limit growth
government, 2 citizen)
• Transfer of development rights or purchase
development rights (3 dots: all
government)
• Restrict shoreline development, maintain
natural habitat (3 dots: 2 public interest
group, 1 government)
• Clean saltwater (2 dots: both public
interest group)
• Uncongested roads
• Federally funded sewer systems
• Abundant fish and wildlife (1 dot:
recreation and tourism)
0 Ability of people to enjoy the area without
negative impact (1 dot: citizen)
• More hands-on educational opportunities -
cultural, historical, and natural resources (2
dots: 1 business and industry, 1 academia)
• Planned siting of marinas, discharge
controls (1 dot: government)
• Purchase more parkland (1 dot: public
interest group)
• Greenways (2 dots: 1 government, 1
fisheries)
• Sustainable recreation and tourism - only
dependent on this location, low impact
recreation, sustainable development, non-
consumptive recreation
• Promote/encourage year-round vs. seasonal
tourism
• Develop ecotourism
Residential Growth and Development,
Group #1
Future if Nothing Changes
Increase in golf courses
Loss of habitat and sense of place
Decline in quality of life and more
development
Decline in quality of environment
Decline in farmland and disappearance of
farms
Water quality of bays reduced
Development on mainland will increase
Decline and demise of watermen
Decline in water quality
Increase in number of immigrants
Shift in job availability to service jobs
Sprawl - conversion of agricultural land to
residential
High-density on coastal highway
Fragmentation of ecosystem
Higher demands on government facilities
Higher taxes
Collapse of ecosystems
Overcrowding
Tragedy of the commons
Interstate highways
Impact of natural disasters
Increased urban runoff
Unplanned "strip" development
Water shortage - polluted aquifers, amount
of groundwater vs. demand, declining
quality for recreation
Lowering of expectations for quality of life
Depletion of resources - fishing, farming,
etc.
Increased crime as population increases
"Negative feedback" of decreasing life
quality may decrease development pressure
Page 38
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
Ideal Future
Population control (27 dots: 13 public
interest group, 10 government, 2 academia,
2 citizen) .
Mandatory environmental education as part
of school (9 dots: 6 public interest group,
2 government, 1 agriculture)
Increased stewardship (7 dots: 3
government, 2 public interest group, 1
agriculture, 1 citizen)
Sustainable development (4 dots: all
government)
Compromise between developers and
environmentalists for land restrictions (4
dots: 2 government, 2 public interest
group)
Eliminate political influence (4 dots: 2
public interest group, 1 agriculture, 1
government)
Public education, appreciation, and
awareness (3 dots: all public interest
group)
Similar environment elsewhere
Systematic approach to planning
Watershed planning (3 dots: 2 government,
1 public interest group)
Stricter land use control
Effective buffers next to water (3 dots: 2
government, 1 citizen)
Public realization and acceptance to limit
growth (3 dots: 2 public interest group, 1
government)
Lack of effective critical areas
Greater use of conservation easements (3
dots: 2 public interest group, 1
government)
Restoration of wetlands and barrier islands
(5 dots: 2 government, 2 public interest
groups, 1 citizen)
Better understanding of habitat (1 dot:
public interest group)
Preservation of biodiversity (2 dots: 1
government, 1 public interest group)
Serious effect for land base runoff (2 dots:
1 business and industry, 1 public interest
group)
• Sustainable economic development (1 dot:
public interest group)
• Prevent litter and solid waste from entering
waterways (3 dots: 1 agriculture, 1
government, 1 public interest group)
• Increased profitability of agriculture (3
dots: agriculture)
• Intensive 20-year study (2 dots:
government)
• Determine carrying capacity (1 dot:
government)
• "Tragedy of the Commons" required
reading in high school (1 dot: public
interest group)
Residential Growth and Development.
Group #2
Future if Nothing Changes
• Failed infrastructure - water, transportation,
schools, sewage, stormwater management,
public utilities
• Decline in quality of life - crime, property
taxes, traffic, siltation of channels, cost of
living
• Increase in human population - loss of open
space, decline in air and water quality, loss
of habitat, loss of woodlands, loss of
agriculture
• Some cause for optimism - through
planning and awareness, NEP
• Loss of biological resources - habitat loss,
water quality
• Economic opportunities - limited; rich get
richer
• Human health related problems
• Funding shifts/ ^ change in priorities for
government
• Northern bays could serve as harbinger for
future of southern bays
Ideal Future
• Ecological quality index to educate public -
for each coastal bay (20 dots: 14
government, 3 academia, 2 citizen, 1 public
interest group)
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 39
-------
Adaptive reuse of abandoned/degraded
properties (13 dots: 6 government, 4 public
interest, 1 agriculture, 1 tourism and
recreation, 1 academia)
More shoreline/marsh preservation (9 dots:
4 government, 2 citizen, 1 fisheries, 1
academia, 1 public interest group)
More community involvement in
conservation issues/decisions (8 dots: 5
government, 1 academia, 1 citizen, 1 public
interest group)
Expanded environmental education
programs in schools (8 dots: 2
government, 2 business and industry, 2
public interest group, 1 academia, 1 citizen)
County planning 50 years in future (6 dots:
government)
Habitat preservation (6 dots: 2 business
and industry, 2 citizen, 2 public interest
group)
Would like to see it look like Outer Banks
(3 dots: 2 government, 1 citizen)
Control growth with adequate
environmental protection
Farmland preservation (4 dots: 2 citizen, 1
agriculture, 1 government)
More compatible industry (2 dots: 1
government, 1 tourism and recreation)
Increased wildlife (1 dot: citizen)
Clean air and water (4 dots: 3 citizen, 1
government)
Land use decisions that reflect cumulative
impact (4 dots: 2 government, 1 business
and industry, 1 public interest group)
Higher standard of design applied to
commercial and residential development (1
dot: business and industry)
More restrictive land use regulations (3
dots: all government)
Balanced ecosystem (3 dots: all
government)
Fisheries. Shellfisheries and Aquaculture,
Group #1
Future if Nothing Changes
• Diminished commercial and recreational
opportunities
• Increase in aquaculture
• Increased degradation of water quality
• Altered species composition
• Shift away from fisheries activities to less
outdoor-oriented activities
• Loss of species/biodiversity
• Increasingly restrictive regulations
• Increased development because of
degradation of environment
• Decreased property values
• Public desensitization
• Biotechnology may save us
• Death of the bay
Ideal Future
• More conservation areas - land, water,
wetland, forests (22 dots: 9 government, 4
public interest group, 2 recreation and
tourism, 2 fisheries, 2 citizen, 1 agriculture,
1 academia, 1 business and industry)
• Fishermen more conservation-minded (10
dots: 5 government, 2 public interest
group, 1 agriculture, 1 business and
industry, 1 fisheries)
• Increased eco-tourism (10 dots: 5
government, 1 business and industry, 1
recreation and tourism, 1 fisheries, 1
academia, 1 public interest group)
• Eliminate nutria (8 dots: 5 public interest
group, 2 government, 1 business and
industry)
• Increase in aquaculture (8 dots: 1
agriculture, 1 government, 1 business and
industry, 1 recreation and tourism, 1
fisheries, 1 academia, 1 citizen, 1 public
interest group)
• Improved water quality (5 dots: 2
recreation and tourism, 1 government, 1
academia, 1 public interest group)
Page 40
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
• Participative decision making by all
involved parties (5 dots: 4 government, 1
recreation and tourism)
• Sustainable fisheries at level above/higher
than today's (3 dots: all government)
• Fisheries at pre-settlement levels
• No aquaculture
• High quality development that increases
property values (3 dots: all government)
Fisheries, Shellfisheries and Aquaculture.
Group #2
Future if Nothing Changes
Big brother regulations
Reduced opportunities - recreational,
commercial
Economic collapse - unemployment, crime,
drug trafficking, desperation
Twilight of the sea
Eventual environmental destruction
Eventual end of water-based recreation
Degraded habitat and ecosystem
Deteriorated quality of life
Changes in economy
Diminished water quality
Increased anoxic levels - algae blooms
leading to deaths in higher organisms like
shellfish
Vacancy signs on tackle shops
Increased closures of areas for swimming,
fishing, and clamming
Increased disgruntled public demanding
government solutions
No more fishing/crabbing (recreational and
commercial)
Decreased aesthetic and financial value of
property
Greater residential development of wetlands
Total government regulation to point of
socialism
More expensive seafood
Huge trade deficits
No more kids with chicken necks on strings
Imitation seafood
Increased reliance on other fish populations
and eventual destruction of those species
More expensive and difficult to solve
problems
High unemployment
Increased preservation of shorelines to
protect commercial properties - beach
restoration
Inability to get away from jet skis - only
use for water is recreational
Fish wars - warring anglers between nations
and/or states due to diminished stocks
More steak restaurants on coastal highway
More large commercial shopping centers -
increased development
"Coastal bays landfill project" - "Fill it in
and build on it"
Job loss due' to decreased fish/shellfish
stocks
Loss of reasons to improve environment
Need new development to replace jobs, but
development will further reduce water
quality
Expensive seafood
Loss of desirable species may encourage
"trash" species
May lose tradition of "watermen" culture
Increased regulation of all fishing
Loss of recreational industry
Aquaculture will expand
Diminished food stocks (and drinking
water)
Increasing stress on reduced fish stocks
Further loss of habitat
Algal blooms/"red tide"
Anoxia
Sediment contamination
Altered natural landscape
Ideal Future
No more jet skis (34 dots: 16 public
interest group, 9 government, 4 recreation
and tourism, 3 fisheries, 1 academia, 1
citizen)
Restoration of submerged aquatic vegetation
(22 dots: 9 government, 6 public interest,
3 academia, 2 citizen, 1 business and
industry, 1 fisheries)
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 41
-------
Greater understanding of coastal processes
and ecosystems (8 dots: 4 government, 2
public interest group, 1 academia, 1 citizen)
Healthy economic base built on
environmentally-friendly andenvironmental
businesses (7 dots: 3 citizen, 2
government, 1 business and industry, 1
academia)
Rural character of area maintained (6 dots:
4 government, 2 public interest group)
More wetlands (6 dots: 4 government, 2
public interest group)
No more waterfront development
Carefully planned communities
Partnerships between schools, government,
and business to take hard science and
transform it to marketable products (2 dots:
both public interest group)
Sustained natural resources
Economic growth (4 dots: 2 business and
industry, 1 citizen, 1 public interest group)
Look like it did 75 years ago (2 dots: 1
government, 1 fisheries)
Ocean and bay nature reserves (3 dots:
government)
Increased awareness by public of what has
been done and what can be done (1 dot:
citizen)
Aquaculture developed so it is a household
word (2 dots: 1 government, 1 business
and industry)
No more marine debris/trash (2 dots: 1
government, 1 public interest group)
All shoreline development halted and
beaches returned to natural state for public
use (4 dots: 2 government, 1 citizen, 1
public interest group)
Open shellfish beds
Diversified use of bays
Sustainable fisheries stocks/industry
Controlled development - designate natural
areas
Local Pride (1 dot: citizen)
Sustainable use of all resources (4 dots: all
government)
Goal of "zero discharge" (1 dot: citizen)
Commerce, agriculture, marine industry,
tourism, and residents living in harmony
within the natural resource capacity;
enriched by their environment and each
other (3 dots: 2 government, 1 academia)
• Opportunities for present and future
generations to enjoy and use resources and
the natural environment - leave better than
we found it
Agriculture. Poultry, Crops and Forestry,
Group #1
Future if Nothing Changes
• Decreased land available for agricultural
development due to production
• Decreased water supply due to irrigation,
development demands, pollution
• Increased cost of living
• More productivity and efficiency per acre
due to technologies and new products
• Decreased agricultural productivity due to
soil degradation, disease, and pests
• Less farming/less family farms
• Domination by forest monoculture and
many poultry farms
• Less concern for local agricultural interests
• Continued stakeholder conflicts
• Health concerns
• Increased population
• Less tourists
• Habitat and wetlands loss
• Less open space
• Reduced recreational opportunities
• Decreased surface water quality
• More transportation and infrastructure
demands
• Waste management problems
• Increased pesticide and herbicide use
Ideal Future
• Regional planning based on ecosystems and
better knowledge of ecosystems and
function - forestry, agriculture, poultry, and
other uses (31 dots: 8 government, 6
agriculture, 6 public interest group, 5
academia, 3 citizen, 2 fisheries, 1 recreation
and tourism)
Page 42
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
• Protection of sensitive and critical areas (26
dots: 14 government, 6 public interest
group, 2 fisheries, 2 citizen, 1 agriculture,
1 academia)
• Education of problems and solutions,
including regulated community and
stakeholders (23 dots: 13 government, 5
public interest group, 3 academia, 1
recreation and tourism, 1 citizen)
• Population control (15 dots: 10 public
interest group, 2 government, 2 citizen, 1
agriculture)
• Tri-state agriculture planning for estuary
preservation (9 dots: 5 public interest
group, 3 academia, 1 government)
• Promote "green" farming practices - reduce
pesticide/herbicide use and increase
recycling or containment (9 dots: 6
government, 2 public interest group, 1
academia)
• Involve stakeholders - increased cooperation
(2 dots: 1 business and industry, 1
academia)
• Balanced approach to land use and
management (1 dot: public interest group)
• Incentives for multiple land use (2 dots: 1
government, 1 academia)
• Agricultural diversity
• More understanding of how market forces
affect local farming practices (3 dots: 1
agriculture, 1 government, 1 public interest
group)
• Resource management enforcement and
strengthening existing policy
Agriculture, Poultry, Crops and Forestry.
Group #2
Future if Nothing Changes
• Development will swallow up forestry -
short-term gains and long-term loss of
sustainable use
• No forests - development of farms
• Less farmers/less land - increase in land
values
• Less farmers/more poultry
• Factory farms - growing food for chickens
Politics/less subsidies
Less conservation planning/more adverse
impacts
Equality loss
Ocean will move in
Changes in lifestyle
Population increase
Conversion of farmland to
residential/commercial uses
Fragmented forest/coastal lands
Production will decrease due to land/water
pollution
Increasing amount of arable land owned by
agribusiness
Loss of open space, rural life, biodiversity
Reduction in quality of drinking water
Forestry and agriculture will diversify and
intensify
Increase in impervious surface, decrease in
water quality
Agriculture becoming more friendly
Loss of forestry market
More efficient use of farmland/poultry
industry
Government will streamline regulations for
conservation planning
Increase in nonpoint source pollution
Too many people/birth control
Pollution decreasing through
technology/BMPs
Negative impacts on wetlands
Create more wetlands through new
techniques
Ideal Future
• Government with common sense (17 dots:
5 agriculture, 4 government, 3 citizen, 2
academia, 2 public interest group, 1
recreation and tourism)
• Development prohibited along shorelines
and wetlands (9 dots: 5 government, 3
public interest group, 1 agriculture)
• Effective public/private partnership to
maintain productive and environmentally
compatible farming (7 dots: 3 public
interest group, 2 government, 1 business
and industry, 1 citizen)
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 43
-------
Inclusion of agricultural community in
watershed planning (7 dots: 5 government,
2 public interest group)
More open space, less density around inland
bays (6 dots: 2 public interest group, 1
agriculture, 1 government, 1 academia, 1
citizen)
Leave wetlands alone and protect forest (6
dots: 4 government, 1 fisheries, 1 citizen)
Grocery stores agreeing to sell locally
grown products (6 dots: 4 government, 2
public interest)
Forest buffers on all streams and shoreline
(4 dots: 3 government, 1 public interest
group)
Development of more organically growing
farms (4 dots: 2 government, 1 fisheries, 1
academia)
"Better" chicken (4 dots: 3 agriculture, 1
government)
Prosperous and environmentally friendly
Farms increase productivity through
technology using less damaging chemicals
and buffers to prevent runoff (1 dot:
recreation and tourism)
Improve balance between farming and
development (2 dots: both agriculture)
Extend high profits for agriculture and
forestry while enhancing environmental
quality (2 dots: both agriculture)
No net loss of farm acreage, increase in
family farms and use of best available
technology to reduce pollution
Produce wetlands as a cash crop (2 dots: 1
government, 1 public interest group)
Realistic, comprehensive land use planning
fully implemented (2 dots: both
government)
Less supply-side intervention (1 dot:
government)
More vegetable farming, fewer chickens (2
dots: both citizen)
People with attitudes of conserving rather
than consuming (3 dots: 1 government, 1
business and industry, 1 fisheries)
Balance between development and
conservation (1 dot: government)
Fully-funded conservation reserve program
Zoning to limit housing development for
open land and parks (2 dots: both
government)
Technology of farming more in harmony
with nature values
Reforestation of large tracts of land (1 dot:
government)
Protection of prime agricultural land and
directed growth (1 dot: public interest
group)
End of the plague of greed (2 dots: both
public interest group)
Page 44
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
STATE OF MARYLAND REMARKS
Verna Harrison
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Verna Harrison is an Assistant Secretary at
the Maryland Department of Natural Resources,
and is responsible for the Chesapeake Bay and
watershed programs.
Good morning. Very briefly I would just like
to say on behalf of the Maryland Department of
Natural Resources and Governor Glendening and
the members of his Cabinet, that the Governor is
strongly committed to the preservation,
protection, and restoration of the coastal bays.
We want to assure you of our support in
working with the very many partners that are
here in making this a reality.
One of the things that struck me last night as
I listened to the speaker from the President's
Council on Sustainable Development was that
the Council members noted a couple of things
associated with successful actions. These are
among the lessons that we have learned from the
Chesapeake Bay restoration program. And they
are obviously embodied in what we are seeing
today in that people are gathered here to
cooperate and collaborate, and in the process,
listen. It is a long road, but with the kind of
enthusiasm and energy that we have seen, it can
absolutely happen.
Yesterday we gave thought to what the future
might hold, and this morning we are going to
hear about science and assessment — the
findings of today. My purpose in speaking to
you is to commit Maryland's full support to
work with Delaware and Virginia, the various
federal partners, our very important local
government partners, citizen interests, and
Congress, towards the development and
implementation of actions that can make our
visions a reality. So I want to commend you for
taking your time on a Friday and Saturday to
work together. Thank you.
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 45
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OF THE DELMARVA
COASTAL BAYS AND THEIR WETLANDS
Dr. Frederick. Kutz
EPA Region III
Dr. Rick Kutz received a Ph.D. from Purdue
University with a concentration in Medical
Entymology, Physiology, and Ecology. Dr. Kutz
has worked for EPA for the past 20 years,
including 12 years -with the Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances -where he
worked on studies involving environmental
epidemiology and human exposure to pesticides
and other toxic substances. He joined EPA's
Office of Research and Development in 1985,
and is currently a Regional Scientist for EPA's
Region III,
Slide No. 1 - Title and Cooperators
• Good morning! I am pleased to be here.
* The objective of my presentation today is
to share with you some findings about the
condition of the Delaware and Maryland
coastal bays. In order to gain a more
detailed understanding of our study, you are
invited to see the exhibit on display here at
the conference. If you are particularly
interested in the entire scientific report,
please leave your name and address, and a
copy will be sent to you when it is
available in a few months. A two-page
summary is provided at the exhibit booth.
• This study was designed to provide a
"report card" on the condition of the
coastal bays. It was intended as a snap shot
to characterize the major problems.
• We found a wealth of new information
about the bays and also confirmed on a
system-wide basis some older existing
findings. On behalf of the Delmarva
Coastal Bays Assessment Group who
planned and implemented the study, I am
pleased to briefly describe our findings.
• This was a truly cooperative effort among
the State and Federal agencies listed here.
All phases of the study - planning,
sampling and examining results - were
accomplished together over about a four
year period.
Slide No. 2 - Picture of Benthic Sampler (Not
Included)
• This study emphasized the condition of the
living resources of the coastal bays — the
fish, the submerged aquatic plants and the
bottom-dwelling organisms. This slide
shows the scientific equipment (Young-
modified Van Veen sampler) used to
sample bottom-dwelling organisms. As you
will note, it's not as simple as reaching
down to the bottom and grabbing a handful
of muck.
• All of these living creatures represent
crucial elements of a healthy bay. We also
measured other important parameters -
water quality, chemical contaminants in the
bottom sediment. We studied most of the
important stresses affecting the bays.
Page 46
OELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
Slide No. 3 - Significant Findings
• This slide summarizes the major scientific
findings of the study.
• Major portions of the coastal bays were
found to have degraded environmental
conditions due largely to excessive nutrients
from human activities. Twenty-eight
percent of the area in the coastal bays had
degraded communities of bottom-dwelling
organisms (worms, insects and clams).
These bottom-dwelling or benthic
communities are important because they
represent a critical level in the food chain,
serving as food to many types of fish and
crabs. They also serve as good indicators
of water quality.
- Within the coastal bays, Chincoteague
Bay at the southern boundary was in the
best condition of the four major
subsystems, while Indian River at the
northern part was in the worst. This
seems to form a gradient of the best
condition in the South and the worst in
the north. Only 11% of the area in
Chincoteague Bay had degraded
communities of bottom-dwelling worms
and insects compared to 77% in Indian
River. Less than 10% of the area in
Indian River was suitable for the growth
of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV).
In comparison, almost 45% of the area
in Chincoteague Bay was shown to
support SAV. In fact, the most abundant
growth of SAV is found in Chincoteague
Bay.
- Tidal streams (tributaries to the bay)
were in poorer condition than the main
bodies of the coastal bays.
• Eutrophication (nutrient enrichment)
threatens recolonization of submerged
aquatic vegetation. More than 75% of the
area in the coastal bays was found to have
water quality unsuitable for the growth of
SAV. Vegetation beneath the surface of
the water provides crucial habitat for
spawning and development of fish, crabs
and other estuarine animals. This hostile
habitat for SAV is caused by elevated
nutrient levels which stimulate algal blooms
and decrease water clarity, thus reducing
light required for the growth of submerged
plants.
• Traces of pesticides and other toxic
compounds were detected, probably a
remnant of historic inputs. Most frequently
detected pesticides were DDT, dieldrin and
chlordane; most frequently detected other
toxic compounds were nickel and arsenic.
• Man-made dead-end canals were profoundly
degraded. About 57% of their area had
dissolved oxygen concentrations less than
state standards of 5 ppm. Man-made, dead-
end canals were also biologically barren,
averaging only 4 bottom-dwelling (benthic)
species per sample compared to 26 species
per sample in the remaining portions of the
coastal bays. Traces of pesticides were also
found more frequently in these canals.
• The scientific approach used in this study
allowed comparison of conditions in the
coastal bays with that in other major
estuarine systems in EPA Region III. The
coastal bays were found to be in about the
same condition as Chesapeake Bay or
Delaware Bay with respect to water quality
and condition of bottom-dwelling
communities. Of course, the actual size of
the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays far
exceed the area of these coastal bays and
must be considered when making these
comparisons. There are many other
differences as well.
• The variety and abundance of fish in
Maryland's coastal bays were found to have
remained relatively unchanged during the
past twenty years, while that of similar
systems in Delaware have changed
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 47
-------
substantially. The kinds of fish found in
the Maryland coastal bays are dominated by
Atlantic silversides, bay anchovy, Atlantic
menhaden, and spot, which is similar to
those measured in the Delaware coastal
bays 35 years ago. The fish fauna in
Delaware's coastal bays today has shifted
markedly toward killifish and sheepshead
minnows which are more tolerant to
adverse environmental stress. While
silversides, anchovy, menhaden and spot
have a broad range which includes both bay
and ocean waters, the killifish and
sheepshead minnows have a much more
restricted range and usually stay within
several hundred feet of their hatching
ground. This means that the food chain has
been weakened because they are less
available to predator birds and fish feeding
on them.
Slide No. 4 - Potential Management
Implications
• A number of potential management
implications logically follow the results of
this study.
• Nutrients appear to be the major stress
affecting this system. The sources of these
nutrients need to be identified, and
strategies to reduce them need to be
implemented. Eutrophication is affecting
the plants and animals so important to
restoring the health of these estuaries.
• When these results are examined on a
system-wide basis, it becomes apparent that
relationships exists among the bays in the
three-state area. For example, much of the
stress associated with these bodies of water
comes from non-point sources. Many of the
non-point sources affecting the northern
part of Maryland bays are actually within
the State of Delaware. This is because
some of the area which drains into
Maryland bays fall within Delaware.
Looking at a map, the State Line separating
Maryland from Virginia falls across
Chincoteague Bay. Obviously, the
movement of pollutants across this line
would be unobstructed. Therefore, a
Delmarva-wide watershed management
approach is imperative.
• Related to a Delmarva-wide approach to the
management of these areas, we need to
know what is happening in the Virginia
coastal bays. A powerful advantage of the
approach used to examine the Delaware and
Maryland coastal bays is having the
environmental information to tell whether
the actions that are taken are doing the
right things in the right way. Therefore, a
real priority in this Delmarva-wide
approach is gathering similar data for the
Virginia coastal bays.
• The construction of additional dead-end
canals needs careful study. These canals
are defined as being at least 200 feet in
length with engineered side walls. These
canals are for practical purposes devoid of
living organisms, and thus, contribute little
to the ecological health of the bays as a
whole.
• Decisions to dredge new channels and to
redredge existing ones need thorough
consideration because of the unexpected
detection of traces of pesticides and other
toxic chemicals. The actual operation of
dredging exposes the organisms living in
the bay to these chemicals. With the data
that we have now, it is difficult to predict
whether any kind of biological effect will
occur. Additionally, the bottom sediment
removed during dredging operations may
need to be placed in areas where it will not
drain back into the bays.
Slide 6 - Summary (picture of bay - not
included)
• This study shows that major parts of the
Delaware and Maryland coastal bays are
Page 48
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
degraded resulting from man-induced'
stresses. Plants and animals living in the
bays are showing indications of decline and
change. Nutrients appear to be the most
important problem; however, other potential
problems also have been detected.
A frequently-asked question of audiences
after hearing this presentation is "What
happens if no changes are made?" That is
a difficult prediction to make. The stressful
conditions that we found will certainly not
change without our intervention. If
nutrients continue to increase in these
systems, certainly algal problems will
become more prominent. Episodes' of algal
blooms and other related effects will
become more common.
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 49
-------
CO
CO
CO
^1^1
CO
CO
o
o
•o
C
JO
•L*
CO
SE
i
o
•••
CO
CO
o
o
c
0)
CO
0
CO
CO
^f
c
"6
*O
t:
UJ
s
42
2
o
•Q
jo
"5
O
^
ources and
CO
CD
cc
"s
3
+•<
CO
*©
Hh>«
C
CD
•*-*
V.
CO
o.
CD
Q
CD
CO
CO
CD
O
Q
*-i
c
o
o
"cc
«•••*
CD
E
c
0
•^
c
UJ
>i^ sf
"c
CD
c
o
c
UJ
0
HK"*
H—
o
*J
CD
4-1
CO
Q.
CD
O
•u
C
JO
^*
CO
^
15
ources
(0
CD
DC
"cc
15
to
*o
+-I
c
CD
•+-*
i_
CO
Q.
CD
O
T3
C
JS
i^,
CO
2E
sr
£m
+*~>
CO rf_i
C
_o
*rj\
\Jv
CD
cc
3_
D)
O
CO
3
to
UJ
<0
CO
DQ
"U
C
JO
o
1_
CO
CO
CD
O
r-
evelopmei
o
•o
c
CO
o
*T*
TO
CD
CD
QC
H—
O
CD
.a
3=
Q
Page 50
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
(/>
O)
"•5
c
LL
"c
LU
73
CD
73
CO
O)
CD
Q
CO
03
CD
ff\
C/}
CD
O
O
to
CD
DC
O)
_C
Z]
CO
c
CD
*-*
CO
CD
L.
JZ
c
o
"43
CO
0
Q.
O
+-•
13
LU
CO
^^J
^ '
c
0
£
0
C
'co
"co
u
£
0
o
o
'x
.2
0
O
T3
C
CO
CO
0
T3
jo
"43
CO
0
CL
'o
0
O
CO
^
^
0
0
"to
O
•=
0
4-1
0
CO
"co
CO
O
T3
C
LU
Gj ft \
Qm
^W*
1|
IS
L.
o
CO
m
0
CO
JO
0
O
CO
CO
T3
0
TJ
CO
D)
0
Q
CO
0 ^»
co^
cc"^
"co ®-
•4-J CO
CO CO
CO 0
O-C
oo
L.
Q^
^o ^>
2°
CO 73
Q- C3
0 >«
al
2.E
^^ Q^
CO m^m
"0"?
Q§
.E£
0 O
C£
3 .£2
J= ^
.2| .
C CO
— o 0
5 co "to
o££
DELMARVA's Coastal
Bay Watersheds,
1996 Conference
Page 51
-------
C
o
•a
CD
CD
03
BO
"EL
S
c
o
CD
O)
CO
C
03
CO
CO °3
co CD
0
O 4-1
II
S
"S CO
03 >»
^ CO
C C
§.2
E^
&a
Q> i_
gs
£lS
a
C
CD
HH*
O
a.
C ®
occ
•-5T3
03 r-
&£•
2S
MM Q^
LLJ32
»*—
•o o
£ §
Qco
o.o
"§ "co
ir ®
QCL
Page 52
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
ECONOMIC STATUS OF FISHERIES
AND AQUACULTURE
John Dunnigan
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission
John Dunnigan is the Executive Director of
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission,
-which was formed over 50 years ago to improve
inter-state cooperation and coordination to
protect the public's interest in coastal fishing
resources. The Commission is best known for its
inter-state fisheries management program, which
coordinates regulatory planning among states
with coastal fisheries. Prior to joining the
Commission, Mr. Dunnigan had an extensive
career with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and the National
Marine Service, serving in a variety of legal and
programmatic positions in the field as well as
headquarters.
What we do at the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission is something that all of
you will be focusing on over this period of study
— find ways of bringing people together. The
Commission recognizes that none of the 15
coastal states can adequately protect their long-
term interests without working together. This
whole concept of working together is both
critical and exciting, based on the Commission's
experience of bringing 15 sovereign states
together to mutually define their common
interests and then agreeing to move forward by
taking steps that are hi everyone's best interests.
At the outset, I want to thank some of the
people who helped in the development of this
presentation, particularly Dianne Stephan from
the staff of the Commission. Dianne is the
Director of our Habitat Program and did most of
the legwork in putting this information together.
I would also like to thank all of our resource
specialists who are listed in the conference
program. In addition, I want to recognize Tim
Goodyear from the National Marine Fisheries
Service, Jeff Tinsman from the State of
Delaware, and Mark Homer and Jim Casey
from the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources.
It is interesting that fisheries seem to always
receive such a specific focus. The fact that it
gets highlighted is a testament to the enduring
and intrinsic values that we all place in fish and
fisheries when we start to think of coastal areas.
Fisheries are a good indicator; they are one of
the ways that you know whether or not a good
job is being done in husbanding the coastal
environment. It's one of the ways that we first
see the results of what we are doing, or the pain
of what we are not doing.
The Delmarva Bays are a microcosm of a lot
of the issues that play out up and down the
Atlantic coast. However, there are also certain
issues that tend to make this area unique and this
conference will probably want to focus on these.
This presentation will cover resources and
habitat, commercial and recreational fisheries,
aquaculture, and conflicts. The information,
however, will be very qualitative, which should
provide a certain indication of the direction you
will want to take. There is a lot of primary
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 53
-------
information that is being collected, but we had
difficulty finding a lot of that information
collated in such a way that people who are
considering and determining policy can fully
utilize it. There is a lot of work yet to be done
in this area of trying to provide some structure
to the information that is available about these
fisheries. It is also important to note that
fisheries must be examined on a system-wide
basis, and not as a single issue, because they are
tied to many of the other economic and social
issues that are attendant in these Delmarva
coastal bays. We can't even really look at
individual fish species, because the way that
they are prosecuted ties everything together.
Commercial fisheries hi this area are
predominantly small family operations, rela-
tively few hi number, and very much tied to
being able to respond to whatever fish are
available at any given time. These small vessel
operations are similar to those found hi many
areas up and down the Atlantic Coast, and must
be able to target and switch their catch
depending on the availability of the resources
from season to season and from year to year.
A wide variety of species are caught, many of
which are the same as those caught along other
areas of the coast.
The economic values of these fisheries are not
well-documented. Many of the statistics are
there, but they do not always distinguish
between what happens hi the bays and what
happens in the oceans. In order to address
concerns over the coastal bays, we have to be
able to develop a system that will capture that
information for us. But in general, the whole
panoply of species that are important along the
Atlantic Coast are important hi the Coastal Bays
(e.g., flounder, weakfish, shad, striped bass,
and many others).
A much larger fishery hi the Delmarva
Coastal Bays exists for the recreational fisheries.
Currently, there are both good and bad signs
concerning the state of this resource. Some of
the species that the recreational fishery is
dependent upon are doing fairly well right now,
for, example, the success hi bringing back the
striped bass resource along the Atlantic Coast.
Some seem to be improving, such as summer
flounder fishing, which was almost closed a few
years ago, and weakfish fishing, which appears
to be beginning a recovery according to the
most recent stock assessment.
There are very few charter boats that operate
hi this area. The fishery is dominated by
private, individually-owned craft. This creates
interesting opportunities and interesting
problems. The opportunities for, local
businesses and for tourism are closely linked.
But the opportunity creates problems when you
have large numbers of tourist recreational
fishermen who are only in the area for short
periods of time. They are a diverse community
and it is extremely difficult to get in touch with
them concerning the status of the resources and
good fishing practices. They are also very hard
to sample to determine impacts on the fishery
resources. The major recreational fisheries
sampling mechanism along the Atlantic Coast is
the National Marine Fisheries Services and
Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey,
which is not designed to yield information and
data on a scale that is relevant to inland bays or
even on a state level. This survey was designed
15 years ago to provide broad coastal
information. In a number of instances, states,
including Maryland, have tried to supplement
this survey data. But often there are not enough
resources to capture all of the data that is
needed.
Aquaculture is, perhaps, a large area of
opportunity still to be explored in the inland
coastal bays. There are operations underway in
Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia for clams and
scallops. Governments have riot yet figured out
how to respond completely to this opportunity of
using coastal waters for aquaculture. This is
true all along the Atlantic Coast. There are a
number of businessmen who have tried to make
/investments hi aquaculture for some species that
Page 54
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
we have been aware of for some time (e.g.,
rock fish), as well as others (e.g., summer
flounder). Governments have not yet learned
how to deal effectively and efficiently with these
businesses, resulting in complaints regarding the
labyrinth of regulations and procedures at all
levels of government. The situation is further
complicated by technologies that are still under
development and businessmen that are trying to
break into traditional markets. Therefore,
aquaculture has to undergo much more
development before it is a major factor
influencing the fisheries in the area.
The Delmarva Inland Bays are distinguished
from other regional and sub-regional fisheries by
the small size of the area, both in terms of miles
and the size of the watershed. In addition to
being a relatively contained area, barrier islands
make this a very fragile environment.
Development has consumed much of the buffer
zones. Nonpoint source pollution and
stormwater management still need to be
addressed, and public education needs to be
increased. A small area also means less
diversity and therefore less buffering between
different interests. However, a small area
facilitates bringing people together and
identifying what their interests are, resulting in
more participative decision-making and more
locally-controlled public policy decisions.
Let me close with the following conclusions:
1) There is a lot of work that needs to be
done in terms of studying what is going
on in these fisheries. Much primary
information has been collected but has
not been collated in a format that is
useable for public policy decision-
making.
2) Find ways to capture non-scientific
information. By the time scientific
information is collected, analyzed and
made usable, it is somewhat dated. The
small size of this area creates
opportunities to collect real-time
information and make it useable to
public policy decision-makers.
3) Focus on education. There is a great
opportunity here to raise people's
consciousness concerning the critical
nexus between habitat, fisheries, and
economics.
4) Working together can break down the
barriers of communication and overcome
the rhetoric that clouds public policy
decision-making and fisheries
conservation and management decision-
making.
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 55
-------
DELMARVA'S TOURISM INDUSTRY
Lisa Challenger
Worcester County Tourism
Lisa Challenger is a graduate of Perm State
University and moved to Worcester County in
1987. She worked in the hospitality industry in
Ocean City before taking her current position as
Tourism Coordinator for Worcester County six
years ago. Ms. Challenger serves on the Board
of the Maryland Downtown Development
Association and the Lower Eastern Shore
Heritage Commission, and is a member of the
Maryland Tourism Council.
I. Past Tourism Trends
1. Beaches, beaches, beaches
2. Long vacations
II. Present Tourism Trends
1. Heritage Tourism
Educational oriented experiences
(Visitation to historic sites, trails, parks
with an emphasis on interpretation)
2. Eco Tourism
Comprising 10-20% of all travel;
birdwatching, nature cruises, hiking &
canoeing, cycling, etc.
3. Conservation and outdoor recreation as
tools for economic development
• Tourism can justify conservation and
subsidize conservation efforts. This is
because an environment of scenic
beauty & interesting features,
III.
vegetation, wildlife, clean air and
water offers many of the resources
that attract tourists
Statistics:
40.4% walk for health
32.8% pursue physical
fitness/exercise
14.9% bicycle
13.75% boat or sail
12.4% run or jog
9.2 million people are involved in
wildlife related recreation, 71%
pursued wildlife viewing
$13/day spent by typical birdwatcher
$22-$60/day spent by cyclists
Over 1,000 rail-trails in U.S. today
Pressing Issues Facing Tourism on
Delmarva
1. Balance of built environment vs
natural environment
2. Jobs - High unemployment rate in
Worcester County and a higher than
national average across Delmarva
Page 56
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
IV. What's Being Done Today
1. Forming partnerships with local, state
and federal government
2. Forming grass roots organizations to
address our individual needs/concerns,
with particular attention to land use
issues. Organizations include:
Lower Shore Land Trust
Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
Lower Eastern Shore Heritage
Committee
Pocomoke River Alliance
Nanticoke River Alliance
3. The visions of the 1992 Planning Act
which have been or are being
incorporated into local plans
throughout the state:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Development is concentrated in
suitable areas
Sensitive areas are protected
In rural areas, growth is directed
to existing population centers
and resource areas are protected
Stewardship of the Chesapeake
Bay and the land is a universal
ethic
Conservation of resources,
including a reduction in resource
consumption, is practiced
4. GIS Mapping Project
A visual illustration of correlations
between resources and resource uses
Source:
Statistics - Rivers, Trails & Conservation
Assistance Program of the National Park Service
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 57
-------
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
John Tarburton
Delaware Department of Agriculture
John Tarburton was appointed Delaware's
Secretary of Agriculture in 1993. He graduated
from the Virginia Polytechnic Institute -with a
Bachelor's degree in Agronomy. For the last 23
years, he has owned and operated a 315-acre
potato and grain farm. His involvement in
agricultural policy began well before his current
position. He served for eight years as President
of the Delaware Farm Bureau, and also served
as President of the Delaware Association of
Conservation Districts and Chairman of the
County Conservation District. He was a member
of the Delaware and Maryland Governor's
Wetlands Roundtable and Co-Chairman of the
Water Committee of the Governor's
Environmental Legacy Commission.
Before I get started, I want to give you a few
"teasers." We have not talked much about the
Delaware Center for the Inland Bays, which is a
model of how to get something done. The
Center is a child of 10 years of work concerning
the problems of the inland bays in Delaware.
The process takes several years; the development
of the Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP) almost got into
trouble after five years, but was saved by strong
leadership and the involvement of other
interested groups that did not feel they had been
part of the planning process. It is important to
involve all stakeholders at the outset. The
process of consensus-building means leaving
your agenda at home and understanding, not
necessarily accepting, other points of view.
Delaware also has the Governor's planning
committee. I am convinced that most people are
enthused about geographic information systems
(GIS), but do not necessarily understands what
the acronym stands for, and even less know what
it can do. We are at the point where we have
overlaid 17 GIS maps together, 10 of which are
priorities and the rest are ancillary. The State of
Delaware can no longer put water lines, sewer
lines, schools, and roads in "west Podunk." We
just don't have the cash. As we overlay the
population distribution with the school districts
and infrastructure, the old geometry formula for
the circumference of a circle (radius squared)
shows that it will cost significant amounts of
money to incrementally extend services to the
next area. This is what is driving planning in
the State of Delaware.
Now on to my topic. The best place to begin
is with some education and discuss agriculture
on a generation basis; what was it like when
your parents were the decision makers and what
is it like now? In 1975, there were 3,700 farms;
in 1995, there are 2,500 farms. I am not sure
whether this is good or bad. Always question
the statistics; don't make a snap judgment.
Average acreage in 1975 was 186; today the
average is 228 (a +22.5% change). Delaware
has a total of roughly 1.2 million acres; in 1975,
about 690,000 acres were productive (in field or
vegetable crops) and in 1995, about 570,000
acres were in production (a -17% change). As
expected, however, the value of the operating
unit has gone up. In 1975, the value was about
$181,000 (including infrastructure and
Page 58
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
equipment); today, it's $581,000 (a +221%
change). This far exceeds the Consumer Price
Index. A key point is that agriculture is a highly
capital intensive business and is not capable of
accommodating snap decisions (e.g., planters
cost $60,000).
The value of the poultry industry alone along
the Delmarva Peninsula is $1.5 billion. On top
of this, poultry processing has one of the highest
multiplier effects, not only in dollars but also in
terms of labor (both are over 5). So when you
consider regulations on various aspects of input
for the poultry industry, keep in mind the ripple
effect that occurs over the allied industries. This
came home when there was a threat to cut off all
poultry imports into Russia. This was a $700
million threat, which would have resulted in
dumping on the domestic market to the
detriment of the beef and pork industries, and, in
general, have had a severe impact on the entire
corn-soybean-meat complex.
Forestry acreage has increased in Delaware
since 1909, from 330,000 acres to 376,000 acres
today (these are acres that are actively farmed).
231,000 of those acres are in Sussex County and
81 percent are privately owned. The industry
employs about 3,700 people and gross sales of
products are evaluated at $97 million. In terms
of environmental impacts, the larger fields have
pushed aside smaller fields due to changes in
equipment. Lots of small plots have been
abandoned.
We have made several conversions; the State
of Delaware led the nation for years in the
percentage of acreage converted to no-till.
While this reduces the erosion, more chemicals
are used. A lot of capital has also been used to
put in water retention systems in dairy and
poultry farms. Because it costs $50,000 to put
in a waste lagoon on a dairy farm, the State has
been involved in cost sharing programs;
similarly, the State helps share the cost of
manure sheds for poultry farms. Again, good
science may make us wonder, however, if this is
good or bad. I would suggest that government
be allowed to experiment. Manure in a field
develops a crust that may result in less nutrients
in run-off than previously assumed. Manure
sheds, on the other hand, present a fire hazard
due to spontaneous combustion.
Farms are by far the largest habitat for
wildlife. I think many "green" groups now
understand that whatever form agriculture takes,
they would rather see land in agriculture rather
than 1 housing unit per acre. Subdivisions do
not have wildlife. Forestry is a renewable
resource and a great habitat for quail. The
problem is that forestry has an image problem.
Trees are only cut down every 30-40 years, and
it disturbs some people when they see a forest
being cut down. But I would suggest that some
image building is needed; maybe a few bus trips
to show people what the land will look like 3, 5,
or 7 years later.
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 59
-------
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
Facilitator:
Gwynne Schultz
Director, Coastal Zone Management Division,
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Introduction
Following the panel discussion on the
environmental and economic status of the coastal
bays and their watersheds, conference
participants were provided with a 15-minute
break in which to develop questions for any of
the panelists or resource experts. For the
remainder of the hour, the panelists and resource
experts addressed several questions, which are
presented below. Due to the overwhelming
number of questions and limited time, however,
the majority could not be discussed. Appendix
C lists these other questions that remain for
future discussion.
Question 1.
dead?
Why are the dead end canals so
Response: Dead end canals go against natural
forces in estuary systems — estuaries are wider
and deeper at the mouth, while dead end canals
are uniformly deep (or deeper inside the canal
than at the mouth) and do not become wider.
Therefore, dead end canals do not have flushing
and have a dead zone. Also, because these
canals are engineered, they have a linear
shoreline. In addition, land uses that cause
problems (e.g., contaminated ground water and
runoff) are in much closer proximity to the
canal.
Question 2. How can we incorporate the effects
on fishery resources into the decision-making
process for human activities on land? Apply this
to small permitting decisions and local and
regional land planning.
Response: Some of the laws currently focus on
fishing activities. Other activities, however,
affect fisheries health. This is a basic structural
problem. The best action available now is to
provide information to citizens and public policy
makers concerning land use and water quality.
We also need to coordinate fisheries
management decisions made by different
agencies (e.g., land use and water-quality).
Question 3. What is the definition of a tourist?
The main negative impacts on DE inland bays
are from what we call "summer people" who
come for two months and then either go home or
to Florida to avoid paying DE income tax. They
do not attend environmental conferences so how
do you reach them?
Response: A tourist is someone who drives here
and spends any amount of time and money. One
action is to try to market certain types of tourists
who will appreciate the resources this area has.
How to reach tourists is a challenge to all of us
here, and any input is appreciated.
Page 60
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
Question 4. If farmers were in a room together
to discuss where they would like farming to go,
what would their vision be (more intensive or
incentives for preserving wildlife and
biodiversity)?
Response: Tax law is probably the single
biggest tool that changes small business. The
1985 law in particular, caused radical changes by
removing the investment tax credit and taking
away the opportunity for private enterprise to
participate in passive losses. Regarding
production and environmental issues, there is a
fair amount of agreement; farmers are the
foremost stewards of the soil and are as
concerned about the environment as anyone.
Farmers also work primarily by example; e.g.,
what is successful for neighbors, the Cooperative
Extension, and the USDA. In general, voluntary
measures will be much more effective than
regulation. Finally, if an action is economically
profitable, farmers will ultimately take it (some
time may be required to change equipment).
Question 5. Is it feasible to renew the
headwaters of our estuaries by recycling the
soils into top soil? Headwaters of the St.
Martins River were 25 ft. deep and supported
the lumber industry's barge and ships, but are
now 1.5 ft. deep and spreading out to the larger
bays.
Response: Dredging is very expensive.
Dredging also raises concerns about spreading
historic contaminants that have been found in the
sediments. Therefore it may be better to leave
the soils in place.
Question 6. As afield researcher, you have the
first access to primary data. In your years of
experience, how do you feel is the best way to •
collate this primary information into a "real
time" useable tool for policy members?
Response: The data is being used right now as
part of a process to comment on 15 management
plans for different species. The data is also used
for long-term monitoring.
Question 7. Could you speak more as to how,
while providing appropriate environmental
protection and "sustainable development" to keep
tourism in the inland bays area affordable to
most citizens? Many places are already out of
reach to lower income brackets, which is
approximately 35% of the population. I am
concerned that close to 2 of every 5 citizens can
no longer afford to see and learn from heritage
tourism and other valuable resources and thus
many citizens do not understand the need or
benefits of conservation and preservation. This
is a big part of society out of this loop.
Response: Heritage tourism is not expensive.
For example the Beach to Bay Indian Trail is a
national recreation trail that stops at all of our
museums and parks. The museums do have a
nominal fee most of the time, but other activities
are free. Also, the National Park Service is in
the process of developing models for sustainable,
affordable ecotourism in St. John. While the
process will take several years, the findings can
be transferred to bay localities.
Question 8. Agriculture is our most important
industry on the Peninsula. It is also a major
source of water contamination. With the sandy
soils over much of the Peninsula, some degree of
ground-water contamination from fertilizers and
manures is unavoidable. How much more than
what we have done (or are doing presently) with
best management practices (BMPs) can we
expect to improve this situation?
Response: Agricultural improvements are
continuous. For example, in Sussex County, the
"We Care" program brought poultry farmers and
environmental representatives together, and
Delaware was among the first to calibrate
manure spreaders in the 1970's. However, as
noted in the question, contamination is not only
limited to nonpoint sources, but also ground
water, and improvements take a long time to see.
Nitrate has begun to level off (shallow flow
paths have been determined to be approximately
10 years long), but it would take several years to
measure improvements if all activities were
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 61
-------
stopped today. Ongoing activities include
research into manure spreaders, assigning one
nutrient manager per county in Maryland, and
implementation of BMPs on a lot of land.
Manure use is likely to increase (e.g., on
vegetable crops) because it is less expensive than
other fertilizers. Generally, there is a lot of
awareness in the industry and incentive to
protect ground water because farmers also use it
for drinking water.
Page 62
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
REGIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON COASTAL BAYS ISSUES
W. Michael McCabe
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region III
The previous speakers talked about many
different values — social, economic,
environmental. All of these contribute to the
complexity of the issues we are trying to address
concerning the Delaware Coastal Bays. Their
impact on the watershed is critically important.
As we have heard today, we have a lot of
important information on the conditions and
impact of development on the bays. What we
need to do now is use this information to mold
the decisions on the future of this area. We
need to construct models that are constructive
and useful enough to allow policy-makers to use
this information. The assumption that "if we
build it, the infrastructure will come," is no
longer the case, and this presents us with an
opportunity to develop information and to show
that the end product of development does have
consequences. Some of these impacts can be
alleviated if we plan properly and manage
growth in the proper way.
Therefore, considerations for the future must
incorporate all of these outlooks — social,
economic, and environmental. Our thinking
must be on a Delaware Bays watershed level,
not on a county- or state-specific level. There
is a role for all of us in developing the
information and models. EPA, state
government, local government, citizens and
business all must be part of a process to help
policy-makers gain some control over the future
of growth in this area. Our approach must be
consistent with the environmental information
that has already been collected and is under
development. We need to use this information
to determine whether the approach we take has
the desired outcome.
The current Environmental Protection
Agency Administration has a very strong
commitment and orientation towards community-
based environmental protection. This area,
Region III, has some of the strongest programs
in the entire country. The Chesapeake Bay
Program is a model not only for the rest of the
country, but for the world, in how to bring
together a regional approach to address a major
environmental resource issue. We haven't
solved all the problems nor been able to always
implement what we believe to be the most
effective and efficient approach of managing
growth, but we are certainly further along in
understanding the issue and providing policy-
makers with information to set objectives. We
are also working very closely with people hi the
mid-Atlantic highlands in Maryland and West
Virginia. The approach there brought together
all levels of the community to help develop
priorities for how they want to grow. For this
project, EPA provided technical support and
information for them to use hi charting their
future for protecting the environment and
creating sustainable development. The EPA is
also involved hi the Delaware and Maryland
Estuary Programs that have already been
discussed. An important aspect of this
conference is hopefully that we will be able to
coordinate the resources that are operating in
Delaware and Maryland already, and bring in
Virginia to create a new synergy.
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 63
-------
We need to leave this conference with
several major commitments among ourselves:
• We need to form a partnership to
characterize the Virginia coastal bays to
understand them better and in a way that
is compatible with Delaware and
Maryland activities
• We need to work with officials from all
three states and the interested
stakeholders
• We need to draw in local government
more directly because they need the
information and incentive to move
forward in a way that protects the area
• We need to continually support the
implementation of recommendations in
the Delaware Inland Bays Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan
(CCMP)
• We need to develop a solid CCMP for
the Maryland coastal bays that reflects all
three states' support and participation.
To summarize, it is a total regional effort,
the model is as nearby as the Chesapeake Bay,
and we can draw on the many experiences and
technical support available from EPA Region
HI. EPA is not the only actor; the strength of
EPA lies in our scientific information, technical
support, and by virtue of our position, the
ability to bring together so many different
people. Hopefully, if we ever get a budget, we
can free up financial resources to further the
development of a very important project and
process that will determine the future of this
incredibly sensitive natural area.
Page 64
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM IN MARYLAND
Gwynne Schultz
Director, Coastal Zone Management Division,
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Gwynne Schultz is Director of the Coastal
Zone Management Division in the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources. She is
currently serving as the Interim Chair of the
Management Committee for the Maryland
Coastal Bay Program.
Last July, the Environmental Protection
Agency accepted the Maryland coastal bays into
its National Estuary Program. This is a national
program to encourage long-term planning and
management of nationally significant estuaries
that are currently threatened by pollution,
development or overuse. The overall goals of
the program are:
1) Protection and improvement of water
quality
2) Enhancement of living resources
There are a total of 28 estuaries in the program
nationwide.
Maryland's "new program" will build on
existing programs - strengthen them and give
them more focus. We need to decide what will
come out of this planning process and your input
is essential. Success depends on realistic, cost-
effective, equitable, and fair recommendations.
Therefore, we need all input.
The geographic scope of the area extends
from the Delaware state line to the Virginia state
line and includes the coastal bays and their
watersheds.
The process we'll be following has four key
elements:
1) Establish management framework
2) Characterize estuary and define problems
3) Create management plan
Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP)
4) Implement plan
Key problems and issues identified in the
initial nomination package are:
1) Eutrophication
2) Loss of wetlands
3) Decline in finfish populations
4) Toxics contamination
5) Areas closed to shellfish harvesting
6) Water-based activities
We have set up four committees to ensure all
constituents are able to participate:
« Policy Committee - elected and appointed
policymaking officials
• Management Committee - environmental
managers from federal, state, and local
governments
• Scientific/Technical Committee - peer
review/identify data gaps
• Citizen's Advisory Committee - provide
input
Some of the key activities we'll
undertaking in the near future include:
be
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 65
-------
1) Developing public participation strategy
(e.g., how to get tourists involved)
2) Developing an environmental
characterization - look at all information,
put in usable format, and identify gaps
3) Looking at all existing programs -
environmental regulations and education
4) Setting up a water quality monitoring
program and tracking BMPs.
Page 66
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
DELAWARE CENTER FOR THE INLAND BAYS
Dr. Bruce Richards
Dr. Kent Price
Delaware Center for the Inland Bays
Dr. Kent Price is the Chair of the Delaware
Center for Inland Bays. Dr. Bruce Richards is
the new Executive Director for the Center. Prior
to his new position, Dr. Richards worked for
Penn State University in the Philadelphia area
where he focused on training science teachers,
small animal science, and invertebrate zoology.
Previously, he spent two years as an agricultural
teacher in Lancaster County, PA. He holds a
Bachelor of Science degree in Animal Science
from the University of Delaware, and his
Master's and Ph.D. are in Agricultural Science
Education and Administrative Studies.
Overview
The Delaware Center for the Inland Bays was
established as a nonprofit organization in 1994
under the Inland Bays Watershed Enhancement
Act (Chapter 76 or Del. C. S7603). The mission
of the Center for the Inland Bays is to oversee
the implementation of the Inland Bays
Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan and to facilitate a long-term approach for
the wise use and enhancement of the inland
bays' watershed by conducting public outreach
and education, developing and implementing
conservation projects, and establishing a long-
term process for the preservation of the inland
bays' watershed.
The goals of the Center for the Inland Bays
are:
1. To sponsor and support educational
activities, restoration efforts, and land
acquisition programs that lead to the
present and future preservation and
enhancement of the inland bays'
watershed.
2. To build, maintain, and foster the
partnership among the general public; the
private sector; and local, state, and federal
governments, which is essential for
establishing and sustaining policy,
programs, and the political will to
preserve and restore the resources of the
inland bays' watershed.
3. To serve as a neutral forum where inland
bays' watershed issues may be analyzed
and considered for the purposes of
providing responsible officials and the
public with a basis for making informed
decisions concerning the management of
the resources of the inland bays'
watershed.
The establishment of the Center was the
culmination of more than 20 years of active
public participation and investigation into the
decline of the inland bays and the remedies for
the restoration and preservation of the watershed.
A key element of this progression was the
publication of a Decisions for Delaware: Sea
Grant Looks at the Inland Bavs (1983) and the
participation by Sea Grant researchers and
outreach personnel in the problem-solving
process. The last six years of this work were
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 67
-------
accomplished as part of the National Estuary
Program.
The National Estuary Program, established
under the Clean Water Act and administered by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), provided approximately $2 million to
study the inland bays, characterize and set
priorities for addressing the environmental
problems in the watershed, and develop a
Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan (CCMP) to protect and restore the bays.
The underlying theme of the program is that a
collaborative, consensus-building effort involv-
ing citizens; private interests; organized groups;
and federal, state, and local governments is
essential to the successful development and
implementation of the CCMP. Recently
completed through a highly successful
participatory effort, the Inland Bays CCMP has
now been approved by Governor Thomas Carper
and the EPA.
Accomplishments: 2/1/94-1/31/96
The Director of the Delaware Sea Grant
Marine Advisory Service (MAS), Dr. Kent Price,
continues to serve as chair of the Delaware
Inland Bays Scientific and Technical Advisory
Committee (STAC) and was also reelected chair
of the legislatively-created Center for the Inland
Bays. He also serves as a member of the
Advisory Committee for the Delaware/Maryland
Coastal Bays Joint Assessment Program.
Progress to date has included filing and
obtaining non-profit status for the Center;
requesting and receiving a one-time $50,000
start-up line from the state of Delaware;
assisting in the proposal preparation,
submission, and acquiring a grant from the
U.S. EPA for $257,000 to conduct
demonstration projects relating to the Delaware
Inland Bays Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP); presiding at the
ceremony where Governor Thomas Carper and
U.S. EPA Administrator Carol Browner
ratified the CCMP; designing the recruitment
strategy; coordinating the hiring of an
executive director for the Center, Dr. Bruce
Richards; establishing basic operating
procedures for the Center through the
University and local vendors; and assisting in
grants management for the Center, including
acquiring a $25,000 grant from the Crystal
Foundation to enhance the outreach capabilities
of the Center.
CENTER FOR THE INLAND BAYS
Organization Chart
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
CITIZENS ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/STAFF OFFICE
(Secretary, Volunteers, In-Kind Agency Staff (MOUs)
Page 68
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
Board Members and Alternates
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee:
Kent Price, Chair
James Falk, Vice-Chair
Citizens Advisory Committee:
James Alderman, Chair
Grace Pierce-Beck, Vice-Chair
Department of Agriculture:
Jack Tarburton, Secretary
Ed Ralph, Alternate
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control:
Christopher Tulou, Secretary
Gerard Esposito, Alternate
Sussex Conservation District:
Greg McCabe, Representative
Eric Buehl, Alternate
Sussex County Association of Towns:
John Johnson, Representative
Matthew Falls, Alternate
Sussex County Council:
Robert Stickels, Administrator
Lawrence Lank, Alternate
Ex-Officio Members:
Danny Magee, Appointee of President Pro-Tempore of Delaware State Senate
Pat Campbell-White, Appointee of Speaker of Delaware State House of Representatives
Richard Pepino, Representative, Environmental Protection Agency
Charles App, Alternate, Environmental Protection Agency
Contact:
Bruce A. Richards, Ph.D., Executive Director
Center for the Inland Bays
P.O. Box 297
Nassau, DE 19969
PH: (302) 645-SEA5 Mobile: (302) 670-2515
PH: (302) 645-4243 E-mail: brichard@udel.edu
FAX: (302) 645-5765
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 69
-------
VIRGINIA'S REGIONAL APPROACH TO SUSTAINABILITY:
BALANCING ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMY
Dr. R. Warren Flint
The Eastern Shore Institute
Exmore, VA 23350
Dr. Warren Flint is Executive Director of the
Eastern Shore Institute in Virginia.
What Is Sustainable Development?
Communities face enormous challenges
world-wide as their social, economic, and
environmental resources are depleted and
destroyed. Sustainable development represents
a way to achieve recovery, improve public
health, and seek a better quality of life in these
communities by limiting waste, minimizing
pollution, maximizing conservation, promoting
cooperation and efficiency, and developing local
resources to revitalize the economy. This is an
approach that the two counties on Virginia's
Eastern Shore (Accomack and Northampton) are
beginning to embrace with respect to revitalizing
their local economies while also protecting their
wealth of natural resources associated with the
coastal bay systems.
Sustainable development recognizes that all
resources - human, natural, and economic - are
interrelated, and therefore they must be
addressed in concert with one another. In
practicing sustainable development over the
long-term one will:
1) not diminish the quality of the present
environment;
2) not critically reduce the availability of
renewable resources;
3) take into consideration the value of non-
renewable resources to future generations;
and
4) not compromise the ability of other
species or future generations to meet their
needs.
The idea of sustainable development not only
implies wisdom and stewardship in resource
management for the future, but also includes
equal fulfillment in the present for basic human
needs, such as food, shelter, clothing, health, and
the economic means to achieve these.
In practicing sustainability, one attempts to
balance economic development programs with
environmental quality. This can be
accomplished through both ecological
(environmental) and socio-economic
(community) assessments that take into
consideration and try to balance issues such as
quantity vs. quality, value of non-renewable
resources, efforts that meet societal needs, extent
of natural habitats, status of environmental
degradation, and critical numbers of plants and
animals to support functional ecosystems. If a
balance is not struck among many of these
economic-environmental characteristics than a
region can be judged as potentially acting
unsustainable.
An equally important issue of sustainability
is the equitable distribution of resources and
benefits among all sectors of society. If the
Page 70
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
quality of life for the most disadvantaged
segment of a community is not improved,
sustainability will not happen. Thus,
sustainability also translates into community
solidarity, equal access to resources, and equal
access to opportunities. But in dealing with
wide-spread poverty, often the perceived solution
is to grow economies. Can we realistically grow
out of poverty? The economy is build upon a
foundation of natural resources, human-made
capital, and human resources. All of these
elements that support rural economies are
extremely limited. If we want to grow our
economy to expand benefits, this growth will be
built upon a limited foundation, and sooner or
later the economy will falter. Alternatives to the
philosophy of uncontrolled economic growth are
strategies that (1) consider enhancing quality of
goods and services (development) rather then
their quantity (growth) and (2) the
transformation of economic flows of capital,
materials, and human resources.
Virginia Coastal Bays and Sustainability
Features which distinguish Virginia's Eastern
Shore, such as natural areas, landscapes, towns,
and local culture, are increasingly valuable assets
on a national and global scale, luring increasing
numbers of people from cities for outdoor
recreation and the experience of this unique
region. But change is occurring rapidly, as it is
along the entire Eastern Shore of Delaware,
Maryland, and Virginia. The health of the
estuaries, bays and forests has declined, and
along with them the resources, livelihoods and
social fabric upon which rural communities and
local economies depend. Degradation and
alteration of critical ecological components and
processes have occurred due to the magnitude
and distribution of land uses in this region.
Maintenance of the area's natural resources
and social capital is the foundation of, and
essential to, a sustainable economy important far
beyond the boundaries of the Eastern Shore.
Thus, focus upon Virginia's Eastern Shore
provides the opportunity to demonstrate
sustainable development as a world class model.
Many people are seeking ways to manage
economic change and to retain and restore the
environments from which the region derives its
character and value.
Changes on Virginia's Eastern Shore
landscape have raised a number of issues of
concern for this region that focus around:
agriculture
groundwater
transportation
environment
public services
affordable housing
land-use
regional governing
approaches
aquaculture
treatment of wastes
recreation
tourism
economic development
education
forestry
historic and rural
character
The Virginia Coastal Resources Management
Program, a part of the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, has devoted significant
energy and resources to assisting the two
counties on the Eastern Shore, Accomack and
Northampton, in addressing many of these
issues, especially as they relate to a more
sustainable future for the region. The Virginia
Coastal Program works with the Marine
Resources Commission, Department of Game
and Inland Fisheries, Department of
Conservation and Recreation, and Department of
Health in Virginia to carry out its programs on
the Eastern Shore.
Cape Charles Sustainable Park: A World
Class Model
An example of how the Eastern Shore of
Virginia and its local governments, in this case
Northampton County, have begun to take charge
of their own destiny in moving towards a more
sustainable future is represented by the fine work
on the Cape Charles Sustainable Technologies
Industrial Park. A large number of stakeholders
came together and created a vision, design, and
strategies to implement the creation of an
industrial park that sits at the cutting edge of
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 71
-------
sustainability with regards to its connections
between economic development, environmental
protection and enhancement, and social ethics.
The design of this sustainable, industrial park
has been the result of work by local
governments, state and federal agencies, non-
profit groups, businesses, and individual citizens.
The design principles and business approach for
the eventual park embrace many characteristics
that are now considered important in achieving
sustainable communities, such as:
self sufficiency
nature-based business
not what business
does, how it does it
industrial ecology
alternative energy
businesses sensitive to
economic importance
of natural resources
adequate tax base
family-wage jobs
environment a
forethought
environmental design
local priorities met
equal access by all
societal sectors
Coastal Bay Watersheds
Tidal wetlands and coastal bay lagoons,
featuring productive salt marshes and shallow
bay bottoms behind a chain of 18 barrier islands
stretching 60 miles, dominate the Atlantic
seaside coastal bay area of Virginia's Eastern
Shore. This area of approximately 362 square
miles of open water and emergent wetlands
provides habitat to fish and wildlife, including
varieties and numbers of bird populations
unequaled on the Atlantic coast. These Virginia
coastal bays are a tide-dominated estuarine area
with a complete replacement of water from
oceanic flux in as little as 2-3 days. The
principal land uses of the watersheds in this
coastal region include agriculture, forestry, and
recreational tourism. The population within
these watersheds is approximately 47,000.
As noted above, through time the coastal
region of Virginia's Eastern Shore has
experienced major changes. These impacts are
compounded by the fact that watersheds in this
coastal region have a land to water surface ratio
that approaches 1, meaning that landscape
alterations have a more immediate impact on the
contiguous bay waters. These alterations have
resulted in declines in water quality and certain
components of biological diversity which in turn
have caused the decline in health of Atlantic
coastal bay fisheries, devastating traditional
industries of fishing and shellfishing.
Agriculture is important to Virginia's Eastern
Shore rural economy but there are perceived
conflicts between its impacts on the environment
and the traditional seafood and aquaculture
industries. Contaminant input to coastal bays
has been suggested as the agent responsible for
eutrophication in these mid-Atlantic estuaries,
potentially affecting fisheries and habitats. The
understanding of watershed function is important
in being able to predict the relationships among
agricultural practices, aquatic-transport agents,
lagoon water quality, and associated biological
responses. An ecosystem approach is needed to
simulate the physical and biological balances that
sustain the ecology of these important coastal
bay watersheds in relation to their land-use
patterns.
For example in one Virginia Eastern Shore
watershed study, results to-date illustrate a
pattern of nitrate build-up in shallow agricultural
soil layers during the fall. These high
concentrations of soil nitrate shift from 15-30 cm
depth in November, to 45 cm depth by March,
and to 60 cm depth by April, coinciding with
spring rains and associated leaching, suggesting
that there is significant residual of crop-applied
fertilizer nitrogen occurring on this watershed
from agriculture activities. Groundwater quality
measured at selected wells also exhibits a pattern
of nitrogen enrichment underlying the
agricultural portions of the watershed. For
example, total dissolved inorganic nitrogen in the
groundwater coming from under agriculture
fields showed an average of 228.0 wmol/L while
these same measures in groundwater derived
from areas of forest in the watershed showed an
average of 5 wmol/L.
Page 72
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
Stream discharge and nutrient flux
measurements in this watershed indicate quality
of the creek surface water is impacted by
surrounding land use as dissolved inorganic
nitrogen increases during its passage through
agricultural dominated regions. Creek dissolved
inorganic nitrogen fluxes show increases during
passage through the watershed several fold (up
to 10 times) greater than estimated fluxes based
on background nitrogen levels over the extent of
the creek. Likewise, measures of nitrate and
chlorophyll collected in the tidal creek and
adjacent lagoon areas are indicative of the
dynamic nature of the groundwater flow of
nutrients to the coastal lagoons, and impacts of
these nutrients on water quality. Nitrate is high
near the terrestrial confluence (7 z/M/L) and
decreases readily (0.7 - 1.8 «M/L) as one moves
away from this influence and as the creek waters
are further diluted with tidal seawater.
Chlorophyll levels ranged from 80-100 ug/L in
March 1994, during low tide (time of greatest
impact from groundwater), in contrast to only 40
ug/L at high tide. Chlorophyll levels decrease
drastically with distance from land, further
emphasizing the potential impact of terrestrial
nitrogen. These preliminary data suggest that
seaside watersheds can represent a constant but
widely variable nitrogen source to the coastal
bay systems.
Socio-economic Systems
Other areas of focus in Virginia with regards
to sustainable land-use and coastal bay
environmental quality, include the evaluation of
social vitality in this region and how that is
impacted by changing environments as well as
serving as a source of impact to the quality of
the coastal environment. In recent years, as fish
stocks have dwindled and agricultural processing
has become regionalized closer to metropolitan
centers, the Virginia Eastern Shore region has
suffered serious economic decline, resulting in
the loss of hundreds of jobs. These poor
economic conditions have resulted in ripple
effects throughout this region's society in that
more than 20% of the households live below the
poverty level as compared with 10.2% for the
State of Virginia as a whole. Many households
(greater than 15%) do not even possess in-door
plumbing.
The citizens of the region are hungry for new
business opportunities that will increase
economic development and jobs. The challenge
will be to balance desires for economic
prosperity and improved social well-being with
continued maintenance of environmental quality
and important natural resources in the region.
Nature-based tourism is being promoted as an up
and coming business opportunity for Eastern
Shore communities. It is important that we fully
evaluate the positive and negative impacts of this
potential industry to a region so dependent on its
natural resources as the Eastern Shore is.
Economic impact analyses performed for three
years on the Eastern Shore Annual Birding
Festival have shown significant positive impact
to local business over the three-day period of
this event. The southern end of Northampton
County for example, has regularly experience a
gross industrial output from this festival of more
than $60,000 since 1993 with a peak in income
of $112,000 in 1994.
In working towards a sustainable future for
Virginia's Eastern Shore, as stated previously, it
is also important to guarantee the social well-
being of the different communities. Part of this
social well-being relates to the development of
affordable housing that also takes into
consideration the preservation of natural
resources on the shore. Work is presently
underway to explore possibilities for linking
together affordable housing concepts with
sustainable, resource efficient building designs.
The outcome of this work is expected to further
enhance the affordability of housing on the
Shore while also adding measures in residential
development designed to protect our limited
water supplies, shortage of building materials,
and enhance the homeowner's energy savings.
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 73
-------
Delmarva Regional Approach
Implementation of sound management
strategies in coastal regions like the Eastern
Shore requires the coupling of coastal
environmental quality with sound land-use
decisions, supported by improved scientific
knowledge. The challenge is to design and carry
out interdisciplinary programs of integrated
assessment, focusing on the interactions of
external forces and associated responses in the
coastal zone, that will more soundly guide
landscape sustainable development in these
regions. This requires an "ecosystem approach"
to management and decisionmaking. It also
implies that there is often a direct linkage among
events that happen respectively in Delaware,
Maryland, or Virginia and the outcomes from
these events being realized in any other of these
states. In other words, the different regions
(states) of the Delmarva Peninsula are truly
interconnected. Delaware watersheds impact
Maryland coastal bays. Likewise, Virginia
coastal bays, because of their significant oceanic
influence, affect the quality of Maryland bays.
The Delmarva Peninsula represents a coastal
compartment. This coastal compartment
exemplifies ageomorphologically and physically
Structured coastal unit repeated around the U.S.
and the world, and thus serves as an organizing
principle and a model to direct the comparative
assessment of the many forces acting on the
Delmarva Peninsula's coastal ecosystems. Using
this organizing focus and taking a holistic
assessment approach can more effectively guide
development of the management strategies
ultimately required to protect the long-term
sustainability of coastal resources in a regional
context.
The Eastern Shore Institute
The Eastern Shore Institute (TESI) is a non-
profit organization founded in 1994 to address
sustainable development on Virginia's Eastern
Shore. TESPs mission is to study and
demonstrate ways for rural coastal communities
to promote economic prosperity and -social
development through methods that will also
preserve and enhance their natural ecosystems.
The Institute carries out its mission related to
environmental integrity, economic viability,
social well-being, and cultural uniqueness by
pursuing two programmatic tracks: [1] linking
land-use development with conservation and
protection of economically valuable coastal
watersheds and [2] providing assistance in
developing rural, sustainable communities
through grassroots empowerment, enhancement
of local economies, and equitable improvement
in quality of life.
The Eastern Shore Institute has become a
respected, independent organization sensitive and
fully responsive to regional needs. Because its
constituency is all sectors, of Eastern Shore
society, while serving no special interest group,
the Institute can truly facilitate the application of
objective and sound information in assisting
others to meet their goals. It serves as a catalyst
in assisting communities to improve human well-
being without degrading environmental health.
Measuring Success
The next level of effectiveness for work in
Virginia will include the development of tools
for measuring progress of projects, programs,
and campaigns intended to advance sustainability
in this region. The challenge in developing new
and different efforts for improving the region's
quality of life will be to balance desires for
economic prosperity and improved social well-
being with continued maintenance of
environmental quality and important coastal
resources. Several governmental-driven
programs and projects, viewed as ways of
improving economic conditions in a sustainable
way for the region, are either being implemented
or in the planning stages. For example, in the
development of the Northampton County
Comprehensive Plan citizens defined a desired
future for the County and strategies to reach
their goals. The goals specified in the plan are
to conserve the County's natural resources and
Page 74
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
rural character, as well as to pursue economic
self-sufficiency for all citizens. Citizen leaders
also developed a Blue Print for Economic
Growth which further articulates goals and
development strategies that preserve and
capitalize on the County's natural and cultural
heritage. Accomack County has defined similar
goals through its comprehensive planning
process, and with Northampton County, has
cooperated in the Countryside Stewardship
Exchange Program.
At present there is no way of determining
(measuring) the success of these various
programs and projects. In other words, how will
we know we are getting where we want to go, or
whether we have arrived? Benchmarks are the
indicators that tell us whether elements of a plan
are being achieved over time or if we are losing
ground. An appropriately designed benchmark
program for measuring Eastern Shore progress
toward achieving sustainable goals will provide
this region with an excellent set of coastal
management policy tools. These tools will offer
managers new approaches for evaluating the
effectiveness of current policies and management
strategies designed to link coastal resources with
economic development. Positive trends can be
highlighted, recognized, and actively maintained.
The beginnings of negative trends can be
detected and action taken to ameliorate
problems. A benchmarks program will also
promote community awareness about important
issues of sustainability and guide future policy
and decision making for the region regarding
development that is done in harmony with the
important natural resources of the area.
With the assistance of The Eastern Shore
Institute, governments and public special interest
groups in this region of the Delmarva Peninsula
are working to bridge the gaps among
environment, economy, and society in their
programs designed and intended to improve
economic conditions within the region. I hope
that I have been able to accurately present to you
some of the new and innovative approaches that
are being taken in Virginia and at the same time
demonstrated to you how these approaches fall
within the realm of a region focusing in a
systematic way to achieve sustainable
development for its many diverse communities
that emphasizes simultaneous focus on
environment, economy and social well-being.
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 75
-------
REPORT ON BREAKOUT GROUPS TO DISCUSS MODELS AND
THEIR APPLICATIONS TO STATE AND LOCAL STRATEGIES
Introduction
At lunchtime on the second day of the
conference, all participants were directed to
select one of three breakout groups, Delaware,
Maryland, or Virginia, based on their own
interests. For approximately one hour, each
breakout group was directed to discuss the issues
and findings raised during the conference in the
context of their particular state as well as
Delmarva-wide. At the conclusion of the
breakout sessions, the full conference reconvened
to discuss the findings of each group, which are
summarized below. Reports focused on
Delmarva-wide strategies, with the exception of
Maryland, which used the time to further discuss
the National Estuary Program (NEP).
Virginia
The facilitator for the Virginia breakout
group was Dr. Warren Flint, Executive Director
of the Eastern Shore Institute. Findings from the
breakout session were recorded on flip charts in
terms of issues and obstacles, and presented to
all conference participants.
The first key finding is that, given all of the
activity in Delaware and Maryland, Virginia
wants to be included. Very little of the process
to date has crossed the state line. Models have
been developed, organizations are in place, and
state boundaries are artificial. What Virginia
offers the process is serving as a model for what
the other bays would like to achieve in their
restoration efforts. These bays are to a large
degree, with the exception of agricultural runoff,
untouched by human activity. Defining what
exists is not complete and additional good
science needs to be undertaken to define what is
achievable. Also, while lack of coordination
among local jurisdictions is another issued faced
by Virginia, a planning district commission has
been formed to address cross-county issues.
Therefore, a mechanism is in place and needs
to be activated with respect to coastal bay issues.
Among the areas where they would like to
receive help are:
• Support from the State of Virginia for
eastern shore issues — Unlike Maryland
and Delaware, the rest of the State pays
little heed to the eastern shore. No
commissions or coastal bay programs
exist. The focus on the Chesapeake Bay
is almost total. Also, there is a lack of
constituency/voting block.
• Development of an overarching
purpose/mission to bring the people of the
eastern shore together — Virginia should
immediately take advantage of the models
offered by Delaware and Maryland to
begin motivating people.
Delaware
Dr. Bruce Richards, Executive Director of the
Delaware Center for Inland Bays, facilitated the
breakout session. Findings were presented on
flip charts, beginning with the key factors that
contribute to tourism, development,
Page 76
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
fisheries/shellfisheries/aquaculture, and
agriculture.
Factors that influence tourism include:
• No sales tax
• Two bridges with access
• Stock car races
• Birding/ecotourism activities
• Coastal state parks
« Outlets
• Boating/jet skis
Factors that influence development include:
• No sales tax, good economy, job base
• Infrastructure
• Proximity to water
• Profit/developer
• Quality of life
• Retirement area
• Clean beaches
• Recreational opportunities
• Pro-development atmosphere (politicians)
• Availability of housing
• Colleges and universities
• Public schools
Factors that influence fisheries/
shellfisheries/aquaculture include:
Lack of submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV)
Political environment
Water quality
Nonpoint source pollution
Loss of habitat
Lack of education
Agricultural impacts
Neighboring jurisdictions (PA, MD, VA,
NJ)
Overharvesting
Loss of wetlands
Increase in technology
Recreational boating/jet skis
Commercial development
Benthic food systems
Septic system impacts on habitat
• Shoreline stabilization
• Point source pollution
• Storm/waste water impacts
• Laws and regulations
Factors that influence agriculture include:
Jack Tarburton/Frank Perdue
Russian exports
Profit/costs/equipment
Need to eat
Commodity markets
Weather
Proximity to markets/infrastructure
Consumer demand
BMPs
Land availability
Uncontrolled development
Laws and regulation
Drainage/irrigation
Availability of labor
Urban encroachment
Buffer zone/tax ditches
Pest/weed control
Technology
Government subsidies
Changing demographics (family farm
preservation)
The other key area focused on by the
breakout group was Delaware's connection to
Delmarva-wide issues. Issues that were
identified included:
Over/underplanned uses of the landscape
Population growth
Changes in age/demographics
Transportation
Loss of habitat
Water quality
Quality of life
Dredging Assawoman canal
Rural/urban conflict
"User" conflicts
Natural disasters and planning
Collective planning and education
Increased cost for infrastructure
Loss of federal funds
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 77
-------
• Political "will" regionally (county and
state)
• Loss of farmland
• Environmental data collection, use
In summary, key areas were access and
infrastructure, changing demographics,
unplanned growth, coordination at all levels of
government, education and outreach, and
regulations and laws.
Maryland
The facilitator for this breakout group,
Gwynne Schultz, Director of the Coastal Zone
Management Division, Maryland Department of
Natural Resources identified four topics for
discussion:
1) upcoming activities; 2) the process; 3)
confirmation of the problems and goals; and,
time permitting, 4) Delmarva-wide strategies.
Regarding National Estuary Program (NEP)
activities, a committee structure is under
development. The management committee
recently met, while the remaining committees
(policy, scientific/technical, and citizen's
advisory) have yet to meet. Candidates for the
Program Director's position will be interviewed
this week. Conference participants interested in
learning more about the program and its
committees should call Kathy Ellet at 410/974-
3382.
Strategic activities underway include
development of a public participation strategy to
reach all stakeholders, development of a data
management strategy, preparation of a first-year
work plan, and signing of a partnership
agreement among key players. Other activities
include an environmental characterization study,
review of environmental programs, identification
of priority problems, development of a
monitoring program, and preparation of a
management plan.
The following comments/questions were
received concerning the NEP process (responses
are noted where applicable):
Comment: Please elaborate on development of
the public participation strategy.
Response: The Maryland NEP will review and
evaluate strategies that were developed for the
Chesapeake Bay Program and for other NEPs.
A draft strategy will be developed based on
these experiences. We will look at what groups
have been involved in past issues and determine
which interests we need to reach to make this
new program a success.
Comment: Americorp requires goal-orientation,
while we keep hearing about the process. There
are numerous Americorp people on the eastern
shore who have been trained in databases,
environmental assessment, etc. Citizens need to
know what is expected of them and what the
goals will be. We also need to develop a list of
community groups with contact names that can
help.
Response: Maryland has used the Conservation
Corps in the past to identify problems. In
general, volunteer assistance is essential.
Comment: We need to make sure that different
agencies do not have barriers that exclude
cooperation (e.g., years ago a bridge was built
that now restricts flushing, dredging actions may
bring up contamination, and barrier islands were
created that are now preserved). Different issues
will require agencies to work synergistically.
Response: The NEP will be looking at linkages
over the next year.
Comment: What connection is there between the
NEP and the Corps of Engineers?
Response: The Corps of Engineers recently
completed a 1 1/2-year long study that used a
holistic approach to examine water resources
(e.g., navigation, water quality, and
infrastructure). This study set the groundwork
for the NEP, which will elaborate on it.
Page 78
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
Comment: Is there a process for getting citizen
input?
Response: The NEP will have two focuses:
getting input from all stakeholders and getting
information out to everyone. Mechanisms are
under development.
Comment: Instead of population control, we
should recognize that everyone is a "re-creation"
artist and capable of re-thinking things.
Limiting creativity, in general, is a bad idea.
Also, why not try to develop other areas of the
state and bring the whole state into the process,
since all resources come from the same pot of
money?
Response: This leads into the next part of the
discussion, priority problems.
The breakout/group next discussed the
following priority problems identified by the
NEP:
Eutrophication
Habitat modification and loss
Decline in living resources
Toxic contamination
Shellfish closures
Water-based activities
The following comments/questions were
received concerning the identification of
problems:
Comment: Flooding and standing water
problems due to population pressures should be
added. We need better stormwater management.
We also need to consider land subsidence due to
ground-water withdrawal, as well as sea level
rise (the minimum estimates indicate that it will
affect this area).
Comment: Environmental education is one of the
most significant actions to take.
Comment: We need to start demonstration
projects on sustainable economic development.
Comment: None of the studies have shown a lot
of toxic contamination. Why is this problem
listed and not sedimentation (like eutrophication,
this affects drainage patterns)? [Note: a
resource expert responded that toxics are listed
because of findings pertaining to historical
practices and implications for dredging;
sedimentation is a valid issue and should be
covered as a separate problem or as a subset of
another.]
Comment: Fishing is very poor in the back bays
and the flounder are gone. Clam dredges flatten
out the floor of the bay and create large flows of
material. In addition, a speed limit should be
established for all vessels to control wakes. The
MD DNR says concerns are an over-reaction, but
the commenter has seen these changes over a 45-
year period.
The final discussion focused on the four main
goals for the MD NEP that were identified in the
original submittal package:
• Reduce water and habitat quality impacts
where they are most severe and maintain
quality of areas not degraded
• Protect existing high-quality habitat, and
where possible, restore degraded habitat
• Control input of pathogens and toxic
chemicals for human health and recreation
purposes
• Plan for sustainable development and
population growth.
The following comments/questions were
received on these goals (responses are noted
where applicable):
Comment: No one has recommended looking at
the Chesapeake Bay and what has been done
there. Rumor says it has improved. We also
have not heard anyone talking about critical
areas. Is there any movement to push this
legislation?
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 79
-------
Response: The MD NEP is not aware of any
legislation, but does have plans to look at the
Chesapeake Bay program. Furthermore, EPA
noted that there are 28 NEPs in the country and
a technology transfer program exists to exchange
information. There are several good examples,
beginning with the Delaware Inland Bays.
Comment: Anything that happens needs to go
through the Maryland State legislature; therefore,
we need to push for what we want.
Comment: A lot comes down to money and
development. We are not going to be able to
keep people out. Ultimately, county, regulations
are most important and critical areas are a good
place to start. We need to figure out how to live
with these conditions. For example, we may
want to consider opening up areas that are
restricted in exchange for controls on harmful
types of development. Also, we need to
communicate within groups (e.g., via a computer
bulletin board or e-mail).
Response: Besides regulatory programs, we
need to look at offering incentives to the
development community. In addition, the MD
NEP has flyers available on becoming involved
with the Citizen's Advisory Committee.
Page 80
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
FULL CONFERENCE DISCUSSION ON ISSUES
AND STRATEGIES BEST ADDRESSED BY A
DELMARVA-WIDE APPROACH
Following reports from the state breakout
groups, Rick Johnstone, Supervisor of Forestry
for Delmarva Power and Light, opened the
discussion to all participants on Delmarva-wide
issues. In doing so, he noted that reduced
federal funds increase opportunities for
partnerships. Specifically, his experience in
developing new Endangered Species Regulations
emphasized the importance of involvement with
respect to non-regulatory approaches. To
elaborate on these approaches, Mr. Johnstone
showed a videotape that outlined the voluntary
pesticide environmental stewardship program
between the U.S. EPA and Delmarva Power and
Light, and other utilities. The videotape
provided an example of a partnership between
private industry and regulators to resolve
environmental concerns through best
management practices instead of regulations or
legislation. These approaches constitute a
paradigm shift, are economical, and have proven
successful hi farming and the Chesapeake Bay.
The following Delmarva-wide issues were
then identified by conference participants:
• The scientific and technical communities
are very aware of what the problems are
and some of the solutions, but the public
at large needs to be educated. A series
of public service announcements in the
tri-state area needs to be undertaken
regarding the problems, programs, and
objectives.
• As revealed by the Chesapeake Bay
studies, the significance of ah- emissions
needs to be taken into account, including
auto emissions.
« Do not underestimate the fondness of the
American public for some of the
regulations that have protected and
improved our environment far more than
any other nation hi the world.
Environmental regulations are not
harmful and were not developed to be
bothersome; they were developed because
they are necessary. People do not write
unnecessary regulations.
• Perhaps the bays should be federalized.
The states will not get together with
enough clout, and this approach was
successful for the Grand Canyon. It
should be used here because this resource
feeds people.
• Regarding how to reach the people who
did not attend, every person here has the
ability to contact other people; everyone
here is a carrier of the disease called
"bay-saving". It doesn't matter if it's
your Rotary Club, Kiwanis Club, Lion's
Club, sorority, board of realtor's,
farming organization, or other groups.
Everyone has jobs that are dependent on
the health of the economy hi this area.
We cannot point fingers and expect others
to act; we have to do it.
• The structure of the conference will be
kept together for a while; i.e., the
Agenda Planning Committee will meet
again. Your input is needed as to what
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 81
-------
would be most helpful. Ideas can be sent
to Marsha Ramsay, Rick Kutz, Warren
Flint, Rick Johnstone, Bruce Richards,
Kent Price, and others if you are not
comfortable speaking in front of a large
audience! Also, please fill out the
evaluation forms.
• Can the state representatives get together
a few times per year to share information
on what works and what doesn't work?
• There are many youth in the area that can
get involved; e.g., Americorp and
Conservation Corps. These people are
trained ha environmental assessments and
environmental restoration. This
involvement will improve the
environment, provide hands-on training,
and help these youth to be of service to
their community and become worthy
citizens of tomorrow.
• Everyone should visit and snorkel in
Virginia's inland bays with elected
officials and citizens to see pristine bays
and develop goals for Delaware and
Maryland.
• Lack of involvement by the biggest
stakeholder, Ocean City, is a concern.
We will have a difficult time achieving
goals without them.
• As a direct consequence of this
conference, the Worcester County
Planning Department has received
tentative commitments from the four
other planning staffs to begin meeting on
a regular basis.
Page 82
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
CONFERENCE FOLLOW UP
W. Michael McCabe
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA
Marsha Ramsay, President of Assateague
Coastal Trust (ACT), began the Follow Up
session by stating ACT's commitment to
advancing the work of the conference. She
expects ACT to facilitate communications among
conference sponsors and participants, to build
on this coalition to reach others, to reach out to
and educate all Delmarva stakeholders, and to
facilitate involvement of local governments. She
invited all conference sponsors to work with
ACT. ACT will seek public and private funding
to carry out this commitment. Ms. Ramsay then
turned the podium over to Michael McCabe for
closing remarks.
I just want to thank everybody for coming,
and in particular, thank all of the members of
the Planning Committee, especially Marsha
Ramsay and the people at the Assateague Coastal
Trust. When they first started talking about
putting this conference together, I think they
were envisioning 60 or 70 people coming, and
obviously with 275 involved, this has been
beyond the planners' wildest expectations. This
says great things about the level of involvement
in this region.
I am not about to provide a summary or
synthesis of what went on; I think everybody can
take away different things from this conference.
But I think it's pretty clear that we need to build
on the success of this conference in order to
accomplish some of the goals and objectives that
have been set forth here. I was really pleased to
hear that the four counties will be getting
together and that the agenda committee is
staying together. I think we ought to make this
conference an annual event and EPA would
certainly be willing to help if that is the desire
of the stakeholders.
We need to reach out and pull in more
people. One disappointment, I think, with this
conference is that there were not more
development representatives. These people are
having a tremendous impact on this area and we
need to bring them in, talk to them, and educate
them. We also need to involve local
government; I was pleased to see the level of
local government participation but I think it can
be better. We are lucky that with the
Chesapeake Bay Program in such close
proximity, we can have a lot of overlapping
benefits. One of the exciting new things in the
Chesapeake Bay Program is our local
government initiative. It's being put together
this year, including an action plan scheduled for
completion by this October. This action plan
can be applied to several other communities as
well, including the coastal bays. As has been
discussed, EPA can tap into the community at
every level, and this is what we need to do.
Everyday new people move into this community
because of the quality of life and they do not
want to see that jeopardized. To the extent that
we can involve these new residents as
stakeholders, they will be a potent force in
making sure that we have the kind of sustainable
future that we all care about and are looking for.
If you are not involved, get involved with the
Delaware and Maryland Estuary Programs.
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 83
-------
Also, as discussed, Virginia has a number of
new initiatives in the coastal area that need our
involvement and a broader stakeholder base.
With that kind of involvement, we can make
some changes. To my knowledge, there has
been no natural tidal wave that has hit the
Delmarva Peninsula, but we are experiencing a
tidal wave approach to development in this part
of the country. Unlike the natural phenomenon,
we can plan for the impacts of the man-made
kind. If we don't, however, the destruction to
the quality of life and to the environment could
be no less severe, although a lot more prolonged.
We are looking for ways to deal with the impact
of that tidal wave. Your commitment and
participation indicates that you care about how
we manage that, and I think that the future looks
hopeful. I am glad that I was part of this
process, and I certainly plan on being a part of
future events of this kind, whether I am in a
politically appointed position or as a private
citizen. Thank you and I look forward to the
next meeting of this group.
Page 84
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
APPENDIX A
DELMARVA COASTAL BAYS CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS
DELMARVA COASTAL BAYS CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS
March 8,9,1996
Robert Abele
Ocean Pines
4667 A Ocean Pines
Berlin, MD 21811
Raymond W. Alden III
Old Dominion Univ./AMRL
1034 W. 45th St.
Norfolk, VA 23503-0456
Edward Ambrogio *
U.S. EPA Region III
Mail Code 3EP10
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Carol Anderson-Austra
Corps of Engineers, Baltimore Dist.
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, MD 21203-1715
Charles App
US EPA Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Suzanne Aucella
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Bldg., E-2
5 80 Taylor Ave.
Annapolis, MD 21401
Geraldine Bachman *
Lower Eastern Shore Heritage Com.
30485 Prince William St.
Princess Anne, MD 21853
Billy Barroll
The Conservation Fund
1800 North Kent Street, Suite 1120
Arlington, VA 22209
Steven D. Beaston
USCG Sea Partners
19 Hassell Ave.
Bethany Beach, DE 19930
Gene A. Bechtel
1901 L street, N.W., Suite 250
Washington, DC 20036
Robert Beckett
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Bldg., E-2
580 Taylor Ave.
Annapolis, MD 21401
Kim Beidler
JACA Corporation
550 Pinetown Rd.
Ft. Washington, PA 19034-2682
Geraldine Bell
Assateague Island Nat. Seashore
7206 National Seashore Lane
Berlin, MD 21811
Jeri L. Berc
USDA Nat. Resources Cons. Serv.
339 Busch's Frontage Road
John Hanson Business Center
Annapolis, MD 21401
* = Sponsors' Committee
** = Agenda Planning Committee
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 85
-------
Paul F. Berge
Accomack-Northampton Planning Dist.
P.O. Box 417
Accomac, VA 23301
Elysabeth Bonar-Bouton
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Building. E-2
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21401
Jane Boraczek
EA Engineering
11019 McCormick Road
Hunt Valley, MD 21031
Donald E. Briggs
National Park Service
Conservation Assistance Program
200 Chestnut Street, Suite 260
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Dave Bunting
Dorchester Street Dock
307 Dorchester Street
Ocean City, MD 21842
Randy Burgess
Center for Marine Conservation
306A Buckroe Avenue
Hampton, VA 23664
Mary Burton
Sussex LWV
R.D. 6, Box 98
Millsboro.DE 19966
Patrick Burton
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Bldg., E-2
580 Taylor Ave.
Annapolis, MD 21401
Agnes Busacca
2726 Superior Ave.
Baltimore, MD 21234
Michael Busacca
2726 Superior Ave.
Baltimore, MD
Jim Butch
US EPA
841 Chestnut Bldg., 3EP10
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Jo Campbell
Ecotopics International News Serv.
P.O. Box 2309
Ocean City, MD 21842
Pat Campbell-White
Center for Inland Bays
702 Rehoboth Avenue
Rehoboth Beach, DE 19971
Christopher Carbaugh
Lawrence T. Whitlock Associates
3409 Coastal Highway
Ocean City, MD 21842
Ron Cascio
Chestnut Creek, Inc.
10046 Silver Point Lane
Ocean City, MD 21842
James F. Casey
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
Matapeake Terminal - Fisheries
301 Marine Academy Drive
Stevensville, MD 21666
Lisa Challenger *
Worcester County Tourism
105 Pearl Street
Snow Hill, MD 21863
Lee Anne Chandler
Critical Areas Commission, MDNR
45 Calvert St., 2nd Fl.
Annapolis, MD 21401
John K. Chlada
Perdue Farms Inc.
P.O. Box 1537
Salisbury, MD 21802
Page 86
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
John Chubb
Citizens for a Better Eastern Shore
P.O. Box 882
Eastville, VA 23347
Jessica Cogan
DE Center for the Inland Bays
P.O. Box 297
Naussa, DE 19969
Sumner Crosby
US EPA Region III
841 Chestnut Building, 3EP10
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Charlotte A. Cully
Assateague Coastal Trust
3802 Perry Hall Rd.
Perry Hall, MD 21128
Carolyn Cummins
West Ocean City Association
9628 Oceanview Lane
W. Ocean City, MD 21842
Dennis W. Dare
Town of Ocean City
P.O. Box 158
Ocean City, MD 21842
Celia Dawson
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Bldg., D2
580 Taylor Ave.
Annapolis, MD 21401
Frank Dawson
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Bldg., E-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
George P. Demas
USDA - Natural Resources Cons. Ser.
301 Bank Street
Snow Hill, MD 21863
Susan Y. Demas
USDA - Natural Resources Cons. Ser.
301 Bank Street
Snow Hill, MD 21863
Judy Denver
U.S. Geological Survey
300 S. New Street, Rm. 1201
Dover, DE 19904
Chester T. Dickerson Jr.
Draper Dickerson Ent.
11313 Willowbrook Dr.
Potomac, MD 20854-2568
Sally D. Dickerson
Draper Dickerson Ent.
11313 Willowbrook Dr.
Potomac, MD 20854-2568
Steve Doctor
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
Matapeake Terminal - Fisheries
301 Marine Academy Drive
Stevensville, MD 21666
.Mark Duffy
Assateague Island Nat'l. Seashore
7206 National Seashore Lane
Berlin, MD 21811
William Dunstan
Old Dominion University
Norfolk, VA 23529-0276
Samuel H. Dyke
Glatfelter Pulp Wood Company
P.O. Box 1971
Salisbury, MD 21802-1971
Ajax Eastman
Assateague Coastal Trust
112 E. Lake Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21212
Beth Ebersole
ICF Kaiser
9300 Lee Highway
Fairfax, VA 22031
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 87
-------
Kathleen Ellett *
MD Dept of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Bldg., E-2
580 Taylor Ave.
Annapolis, MD 21401
Donna R. Emory
Assateague Coastal Trust
1525 Bolton Street
Baltimore, MD 21217
Richard W. Emory Jr.
Assateague Coastal Trust
1525 Bolton Street
Baltimore, MD 21217
Pamela L. Eng
Salisbury State University
Bioenvirons Club
312 Gay Street, Apt. 2
Salisbury, MD 21801
Steve D. Engel
Lawrence T. Whitlock Associates
3409 Coastal Highway
Ocean City, MD 21842
Richard Eskin *
MD Dept. of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
Joe Farrell
University of Delaware
Sea Grant Marine Advisory Service
700 Pilottown Road
Lewes, DE 19958
Joseph W. Fehrer
Worcester Environmental Trust
HOW. Federal St.
Snow Hill, MD 21863
Ilia J. Fehrer*
Worcester Environmental Trust
HOW. Federal St.
Snow Hill, MD 21863
Patricia Ficken
Coalition of Coastal Communities
Rt. 3, Box 297A
Selbyville, DE 19975
Cynthia Field
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
580 Taylor Avenue
Tawes State Office Building, C-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
Erin M. Fitzsimmons
Assateague Coastal Trust
Salisbury State University
Political Science Dept.
Salisbury, MD 21801-6837
Ingo Fleming
National Marine Fisheries
P.O. Box 474
Ocean City, MD 21842-0474
R. Warren Flint **
The Eastern Shore Institute
P.O. Box 688
Exmore,VA 23350
Woody Francis
Baltimore Dist. Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, MD 21203-1715
Julia M. Fritz
Worcester Soil Conservation Dist.
P.O. Box 97
Snow Hill, MD 21863
Rebecca Gast
MD Geological Survey
2300 St. Paul St.
Baltimore, MD 21218
Elinor Gawel
Kent County Planning Office ;.
103 N. Cross St.
Chestertown, MD 21620
Page 88
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
Jim George
MD Dept. of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
Barbara Gillespie
Assateague Coastal Trust
10046 Silver Point Lane
Ocean City, MD 21842
Charles B. Glover
Ocean Pines Association, Inc.
239 Ocean Parkway
P.O. 2700 Ocean Pines
Berlin, MD 21811
Michael N. Goldberg
P.O. Box 548
Berlin, MD 21811
Tim Goodger
Nat'l. Marine Fisheries Service
904 S. Morris St.
Oxford, MD 21654
David Goshom*
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Bldg., D2
580 Taylor Ave.
Annapolis, MD 21401
Bob Haase
South Point Association
7146 Chandler Drive
Berlin, MD 21811
Phil Hager*
Worcester County
One W. Market St.
Room 116 Court House
Snow Hill, MD 21863-1070
Robert Hand
R D Hand and Assoc.
13354 Cove Landing Road
Bishopville, MD 21813
Harriett Hankins
Dorchester County
1902 Pig Neck Rd.
Cambridge, MD 21613
Audrey Hansen
Salisbury State University
Bioenvirons Club
9137LiberrytownRd.
Berlin, MD 21811
Walter B. Harris
CWRAC
13650 Blooming Neck Road
Worton, MD 21678
Vema Harrison
MD Department of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Building, C-4
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21401
Molly Harriss Olson
President's Coun/Sustainable Devel.
730 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, DC 20503
Philip E. Hartman
Assateague Coastal Trust
1604RalworthRd.
Baltimore, MD 21218-2232
Zlata Hartman
Assateague Coastal Trust
1604 Ralworth Rd.
Baltimore, MD 21218-2232
Ian Hartwell
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Bldg., D2
580 Taylor Ave.
Annapolis, MD 21401
Sue Hayes
Oceanside Advisory Committee, DNR
Oyster Bay Tackle
11615 Coastal Highway
Ocean City, MD 21842
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 89
-------
John Heisler
U.S. EPA
Mail Code 4504-F
401MSt.,SW
Washington, DC 20460
Frederick B. Higgins
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122
Louise Hildreth
Assateague Coastal Trust
912RolandvueRoad
Baltimore, MD 21204
Margarita Hill
University of Maryland
Dept. of Horticulture & L.A.
College Park, MD 20742-5611
Charles H. Hocutt *
University of MD, Eastern Shore
Princess Anne, MD 21853
Ralph Hoen
South Point Association
7146 Chandler Drive
Berlin, MD 21811
Mark L. Homer
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 150
Piney Point, MD 20674
Nancy L. Howard
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
201 Baptist Street, Suite 22
Salisbury, MD 21801
Bill Hulslander
Assateague Island Nat'l. Seashore
7206 National Seashore Lane
Berlin, MD 21811
Margot Hunt
Assateague Coastal Trust
P.O. Box 26
Chincoteague, VA 23336-0026
Henry W. Immanuel
2250
Elliott Island Road
Elliott Island, MD 21869
William Jenkins
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Building, E-2
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21401
Judy Johnson
Assateague Coastal Trust
Broadmead, Apt. K-17
13801 York Road
Cockeysville, MD 21030-1808
Rick Johnstone **
Delmarva Power & Light
P.O. Box 1739
Salisbury, MD 21802-1739
Evelyn Kampmeyer
MD Conservation Corps, DNR
Tawes State Office Building, E-3
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21401
Lee Karrh
University of Delaware
College of Marine Studies
700 Pilottown Road
Lewes, DE 19958
Renee Karrh
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Bldg., D2
580 Taylor Ave.
Annapolis, MD 21401
Katie Kause
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
Forest, Wildlife & Heritage Service
201 Baptist St., Suite 22
Salisbury, MD 21801
Page 90
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
Joan Kean
CWRAC
P.O. Box 269
Chincoteague, VA 23336-0269
Frederick Keer Jr.
Assateague Coastal Trust
P.O. Box 21887
Baltimore, MD 21222-6887
Willett Kempton
University of Delaware
College of Marine Studies
Newark, DE 19716
Randall Kerhin
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
MD Geological Survey
2300 St. Paul Street
Baltimore, MD 12118
Butch Kinerney
DE Dept. of Natural Resources
89 Kings Highway
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
Dennis G. Klosterman
Corps of Engineers, Baltimore Dist.
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, MD 21203
Chris Klump
2522 Bayview Rd.
Girdletree, MD 21829
Kim A. Klump
Worcester County
One W. Market St.
Room 116 Court House
Snow Hill, MD 21863-1070
Henry Koellein Jr.
Atlantic Coast Chapter, M.S.S.A.
538 Marlinspike Drive
Severna Park, MD 21146-3355
Marc Koenings
Assateague Island Nat. Seashore
7206 National Seashore Lane
Berlin, MD 21811
John Koslosky
9133 5th Street
Lanham, MD 20706
Stella Koslosky
9133 5th Street
Lanham, MD 20706
Steven Krasnow
Assateague Coastal Trust
12604 Celtic Court
Rockville, MD 20850
William K. Kroen
Wesley College
120 North Street
Dover, DE 19901
Jack Kumer
Assateague Island Nat'l. Seashore
7206 National Seashore Lane
Berlin, MD 21811
Rick Kutz **
US EPA, Region III
Suite 200,201 Defense Hwy.
Annapolis, MD 21401
Abigail Lambert *
Lower Shore Land Trust
P.O. Box 271
Secretary, MD 21664
Chris Lea
Assateague Island Nat'l. Seashore
7206 National Seashore Lane
Berlin, MD 21811
Cyrus Lesser
MD Dept. of Agriculture
50 Harry S. Truman Parkway
Annapolis, MD 21401
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 91
-------
Mary Jane Lindblad
DE Center for Inland Bays
204 West llth St.
South Bethany, DE 19930
Cecelia Linder
University of Delaware
700 Pilottown Road
Lewes, DE 19958
Calvin D. Lubben
Chesapeake Forest Products Co.
P.O. Box 300
Pocomoke City, MD 21851
Jeanne R. Lynch *
Worcester County Commissioner
10464 Azalea Rd.
Berlin, MD 21811
Dale A. Maginnis *
Delmarva Advisory Council
P.O. Box 4277
Salisbury, MD 21803-4277
Stacey A. Marek *
Corps of Engineers, Baltimore Dist.
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, MD 21203-1715
Joe Margraf
University of MD, Eastern Shore
MD Fish & Wildlife Coop Unit
Room 1120 Trigg Hall
Princess Anne, MD 21853
Lora Martin
DE Center for Inland Bays
P.O. Box 297
Nassau, DE 19969
Lora Martin
DE Center for the Inland Bays
P.O. Box 297
Naussa,DE 19969
Gregory McCabe
Center for Inland Bays
Rt. 2, Box 120-A
Selbyville, DE 19975
Michael McCabe
US EPA Region III Administrator
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
John McCloud
NOAA
,MD
Jack N. McDonald
York (PA) Suburban School District
455 Sundale Drive
York, PA 17547
Susan McDowell
US EPA Region III
841 Chestnut Building, 3EP1O
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Margaret McGinty
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Bldg., D2
580 Taylor Ave.
Annapolis, MD 21401
James McGowan
Accomack-Northampton Planning Dist.
P.O. Box 417
Accomac,VA 23301
J. Chapman McGrew Jr.
Salisbury State University
Dept. Geography/Regional Planning
212DevilbissHall
Salisbury, MD 21801
Kate Meade
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Building, B-3
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21401
Page 92
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
Joseph N. Melson Jr.
P.O. Box 1468
Bethany Beach, DE 19930
Cornelia Melvin
The Nature Connection
24 Pack Lane
Lewes, DE 19958
Mark Mendelsohn
Corps of Engineers, Baltimore Dist.
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, MD 21203-1715
Samantha Metcalf
Perm State University
4101 WoodleyDr.
Alexandria, VA 22309
Andy Meyer
CWRAC, Harford County MD
220 South Main Street
Bel Air, MD 21014
Bruce Michael
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Bldg., D2
580 Taylor Ave.
Annapolis, MD 21401
Saralynn C. Molliver
Assateague Coastal Trust
110 Woodbrook Lane
Baltimore, MD 21212
Ralph Moore
Perdue Farms
P.O. Box 1537
Salisbury, MD 21802-1537
Dana Morris-Jones
Morris-Jones Associates
279 Fairtree Plaza
Sevema Park, MD 21146
William F. Moyer
DE Dept. of Natural Resources
89 Kings Highway
PO Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903,
Laura Murray
University of MD, Horn Point
P.O. Box 775
Cambridge, MD 21613
Robert W. Nelson
Ocean Pines Association
239 Ocean Parkway
2700 Ocean Pines
Berlin, MD 21811
Vivian Newman *
MD Wetlands Committee
11194 Douglas Ave.
Marriottsville, MD 21104-1622
Bruce E. Nichols
USDA - Natural Resources Cons. Ser.
301 Bank Street
Snow Hill, MD 21863
Raymond Nomes
South Point Association
7146 Chandler Drive
Berlin, MD 21811
John C. North
Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Comm.
45 Calvert Street
Annopolis, MD 21401
Katherine Nowarth
Newark, De
Peter Noy
Corps of Engineers, Baltimore Dist.
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, MD 21203-1715
Mary Ochse
Assateague Coastal Trust
P.O. Box 551
Ocean City, MD 21842
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 93
-------
Bill Painter
US EPA
Office Policy Planning/Evaluation
USEPA, Mail Code 2124,401 M ST.,SW
Washington, DC 20460
Tom Parham
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Bldg., D2
580 Taylor Ave.
Annapolis, MD 21401
Mitch Parker
Frontier Town Campground
P.O. Box 691
Ocean City, MD 21842
R. G. Parks
Kegotank Bay Clam Co.
19081 Glenn Drive
Parksley.VA 23421
Jim Parsons
Perdue Farms Inc.
P.O. Box 1537
Salisbury, MD 21802
John W. Passwater
99 Woods Drive
Lewes, DE 19958
Tom Patton
Assateague Coastal Trust
P.O. Box 578
Berlin, MD 21811
Michael Peirson
Cherrystone Aqua-Farms
P.O. Box 347
Cheriton,VA 23316
Robert Perciasepe
US EPA, Asst. Admin, for Water
Washington, DC
Grace W. Pierce-Beck *
Delaware Audubon Society
20 Muirfield Court
Dover, DE 19904
Christina Pompa
206 Windsor Avenue
Centreville, MD 21617
Stephanie Poole
University of Delaware
Center for Study of Marine Policy
301 Robinson Hall
Newark, DE 19711
Shirley Price
Murray's Bait & Tackle
RD 2 Box 120
Millville, DE' 19970
Kent S. Price **
DE Center for Inland Bays
P.O. Box 297
Nassau, DE 19969
Til Purnell
SWAB
R.D. 6, Box 98
Millsboro,DE 19966
Rose Railey
Assateague Island Nat'l. Seashore
7206 National Seashore Lane
Berlin, MD 21811
John Ramsay
Assateague Coastal Trust
6009 Lake Manor Dr.
Baltimore, MD 21210
Marsha Ramsay **
Assateague Coastal Trust
6009 Lake Manor Dr.
Baltimore, MD 21210
Bruce A. Richards *
DE Center for Inland Bays
P.O. Box 297
Nassau, DE 19969
Spencer Rowe
12409 Kent Road
Ocean City, MD 21842
Page 94
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
Bill Satterfield
Delmarva Poultry Industry
RD 6, Box 47
Georgetown, DE 19947-9622
Jeff Schoellkoff
P.O. Box 237
Warren, VT 05674
Pat Schrawder
Baywatch
12808 Harbor Rd. -.-_.
Ocean City, MD 21842
John D. Schroer *
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Chincoteague NWR
P.O. Box 62
Chincoteague, VA 23336
Gwynne Schultz **
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Bldg., E-2
580 Taylor Ave.
Annapolis, MD 21401
Chris Shelton
Town Creek Foundation
P.O. Box 159
Oxford, MD 21654
Diana L. Sienicki
21 Cognac Drive
Newark, DE 19702
Michael L. Sienicki
21 Cognac Drive
Newark, DE 19702
Anne Sloan
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Building, E-2
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21401
Evan Smith
The Conservation Fund
1800 North Kent street, Suite 1120
Arlington, VA 22209
Kevin M. Smith
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Bldg., E-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
Ray Smith
Balfour Holdings Inc.
1180 Sunrise Valley Dr., Suite 925
Reston,VA 22091
Kelly Snannahan
Worcester County
Room 112 Court House
One West Market Street
Snow Hill, MD 21863
Ralph Spagnolo
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Bldg., 3EP30
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Carl F. Steinitz
Harvard University
Graduate School of Design
48 Quincy Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Charlie Stek
Sen. Paul Sarbanes'Office -
Washington, DC
Naki Stevens
Restore America's Estuaries
1400 16th St. NW, Room 236
Washington, DC 20036
Barbara E. Stratton
Corps of Engineers, Phila. District
Wanamaker Building
100 Perm Square East
Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390
David Sutherland
The Conservation Fund
1800 North Kent Street, Suite 1120
Arlington, VA 22209
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 95
-------
Betsy Tarn
US EPA
1079 South Fprest Drive
Arlington, VA 22204
Jack Tarburton
DE Dept. of Agriculture
,MD
Mitchell Tamowski
MDNR Shellfish Program
361 Sherwood Trail
Annapolis, MD 21401
Steve Taylor
U.S. EPA
401MSt.,SW
Washington, DC 20460
Allen B. Teasley
Broadwater Academy
P.O. Box 546
Exmore,VA 23350
Cal Thomas
Salisbury State University
Dept. of Geography
Salisbury, MD 21801
Terry Thompson *
Virginia Coast Reserve - TNC
P.O. Box 158
Nassawadox, VA 23413
Paul C. Ticco
Critical Areas Commission
45 Calvert St.
Annapolis, MD 21401
Carol Toomey
Assateague Coastal Trust
15004 Reserve Road
Accokeek,MD 20607-9403
Amanda Truett
Wildfowl Trust of North America
Horsehead Wetlands Center
600 Discovery Lane, P.O. Box 519
Grasonville, MD 21638
Barry Truitt
The Nature Conservancy
Virginia Coast Reserve
P.O. Box 158
Nassawadox, VA 23413
Jerry Truitt
Delmarva Poultry Industry
RD 6, Box 47
Georgetown, DE 19947-9622
John G. Trumpower
12943 Windy Drive
Ocean City, MD 21842
Alice M. Tweedy
3522 Figgs Landing road
Snow Hill, MD 21813
Lexia Valdes
University of Delaware
700 Pilottown Road
Lewes, DE 19958
Elizabeth Valentine
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Bldg., E-2
580 Taylor Ave.
Annapolis, MD 21401
Eric S. Walbeck *
Assateague Coastal Trust
HOMarykay Road
Timonium, MD 21093
Larry Walton
Chesapeake Forest Products Co.
P.O. Box 300
Pocomoke City, MD 21851
Perry Weed
Rep. Wayne Gilchrest's Office
12 IN. Washington St.
Easton, MD 21601
Thomas Weiss *
MD Office of Planning
201 Baptist St., Suite 24
Salisbury, MD 21801
Page 96
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
Darlene V. Wells
Maryland Geological Survey
2300 St. Paul Street
Baltimore, MD 21218
Alan E. Wesche
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
Matapeake Terminal - Fisheries
301 Marine Academy Drive
Stevensville, MD 21666
Lee Whaley
Sen. Paul Sarbanes' Office
Salisbury, MD 21801
Christopher Williams
MD Geological Survey
2300 St. Paul St.
Baltimore, MD 21218
Lana Williams
Worcester County Public Schools
6270 Worcester Highway
Newark, MD 21841
Stephen N. Williams
DE Dept. of Natural Resources
89 Kings Highway
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
Roger C. Williamson
100 Woods Dr.
Lewes, DE 19958
Carolyn Windsor
Assateague Coastal Trust
8406 Maymeadow Court
Baltimore, MD 21244
Sandy Winter
Wor-Wic Community College
32000 Campus Drive
Salisbury, MD 21801
Philip Wirth
Univ. of MD, Eastern Shore
MD Fish & Wildlife Coop Unit
TriggHall, Rm. 1120
Princess Anne, MD 21853
Philip Wirth
University of MD, Eastern Shore
MD Fish & Wildlife Coop Unit
Room 1120 TriggHall
Princess Anne, MD 21853
Harry Womack
Salisbury State University
Department of Biology
Salisbury, MD 21801
Frances A. Wright
Assateague Coastal Trust
15004 Reserve Road
Accokeek, MD 20607-9403
Marie Youngs
Assateague Coastal Trust
P.O. Box 731
Berlin, MD 21811
Ann Zahn
7814GlenbrookRoad
Bethesda, MD 20814
Theodore Zahn
7814GlenbrookRoad
Bethesda, MD 20814
Mark Zankel
The Nature Conservancy, DE Chapter
321 South State Street
Dover, DE 19901
Nick Zimmerman
University of MD, Eastern Shore
Princess Anne, MD 21853
Carl S. Zimmerman *
Assateague Island Nat'l. Seashore
7206 National Seashore Lane
Berlin, MD 21811
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 97
-------
APPENDIX B
CONFERENCE EVALUATION FORM
Please turn in this completed form at the end of the conference.
1. Did the conference meet your expectations? 73 Yes 10 No
2. The conference was
Well organized 75 Yes 4 No
Informative 76 Yes I No
Good presentations 68 Yes 6 No
How could the conference have been improved?
Comments: Audio-visuals should have been suitable for large audience and large room so all
could see. Some presentations not effective. More local officials, developers, local citizens should
have attended. Subject matter too general. More breaks needed.
3. How were the conference accommodations?
Meeting rooms
Food
34 Good 36 Fair U. Poor
35 Good 40 Fair 6 Poor
Comments: Too cold and noisy in breakout groups.
4. Should this conference set the stage for followup actions?
81 Yes 0 No
Future Conferences 70 Yes 5 No
Newsletters 69 Yes 5 No
Committees 62 Yes 3 No
If YES, what issues should be addressed?
Comments: Most respondents stressed need for public education and involvement and cited issues
raised at conference (agricultural practices, development, tourism, fishing) as well as good land
planning, preservation of fragile areas, and updates on three-state efforts as being most important
issues for future focus.
Page 98
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
If YES, at what governmental level?
49 Local (County) 34 State 59 Delmarva-wide
5. Are you willing to commit your time and/or money to ensure follow up actions are successful?
71 Yes 5 No
6. What is your personal vision for the future of Delmarva's Coastal Bays?
Comments: There was considerable agreement that nature and human needs be in harmony:
affordable and good quality of life; clean environment; open space; reasonable growth; protection
of sensitive areas such as wetlands and shorelines; good fishing; clean bays throughout Delmarva.
7. How can this vision best be achieved?
Comments: There was considerable support for education of all citizens, visitors and political
leaders; for better planning for growth, involving all stakeholders and including reduction of
waterside development and putting sensitive lands in conservation; for local zoning ordinances
to protect sensitive areas and guide development to already developed areas and away from
wetlands and shorelines. Everyone working together: cooperate, build consensus, stop finger-
pointing.
8. What role do you envision for elected and appointed officials?
Comments: There was almost unanimous agreement that officials need to listen to stakeholders'
concerns and lead an effort toward sensible growth in the region that considers responses
summarized in 6 & 7 above. Elected officials, most believe, should lead public education and
involvement efforts and fund projects that protect and restore fragile and sensitive areas. Other
suggestions include creating incentives to businesses that operate in environmentally protective
ways and establishing user fees to pay for restoration. There was considerable criticism of local
elected officials who chose not to attend the conference. There was additional criticism that these
officials tend to make decisions that favor special, rather than public, interests. Most agreed,
however, that it's time to move forward together.
Total attendance at the conference was 269. The summary above is based on the 83 Evaluation Forms
that were turned in at the end of the conference, representing 31 percent of conference attendees.
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 99
-------
APPENDIX C
REMAINING QUESTIONS
Following the panel discussion on the environmental and economic status of the coastal bays and their
watersheds, conference participants were provided with a 15-minute break in which to develop
questions for any of the panelists or resource experts. For the remainder of the hour, the panelists
and resource experts addressed several questions, which are presented on page 60. Due to the
overwhelming number of questions and limited time, however, the majority could not be discussed.
This Appendix lists these other questions that remain for future discussion.
1. How can overuse/abuse of resources be prevented or curtailed?
2. Discussions of this conference have all emphasized sustainable development practices as a means
of assuring good quality of life and healthy ecosystems for the future. If this approach is
adopted, we will need a means to persuade the public to adopt this idealogy. Will there be any
focus on the economic benefits of sustainable development approaches that can be translated to
pocketbook savings meaningful to the individual taxpayers?
3. We keep talking about growth management and control. This issue has even been addressed in
comprehensive management plans. So, why are growth limits/boundaries not drawn and
implemented by co-governments? Why don't we do what Portland has done?
4. How much of the original wetlands have been lost to development over the years?
5. The majority of attendees are either from the government or are involved in grass roots efforts.
How do we involve in the planning process those people in the middle?
6. What efforts are underway to enact better land use planning mechanisms such as: transfer of
development rights and cluster zoning to create open space, etc.?
7. The perception among citizens is that their input is not truly desired because they may not be
qualified or have a different agenda that is contrary to the environmental protection. This is not
true! They offer real time, on-site data. However, they may need more information. What
efforts will be made to inform and involve the public?
8. Why not set up a "Tributary Strategies" type process for the Coastal Bays involving DE, MD and
VA? Since nutrients are the major problem, a "Coastal Bays Strategies" would involve citizens,
local, state and federal governments, businesses and environmental groups, and could concentrate
on specific issues that are unique to each state's coastal bays.
Page 100
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
9. We have heard about limited resources, but have not tapped our most available - volunteers. The
governmental agencies do not seem to have had, as a part of their process, harnessing this
resource for gathering data, interviewing people and in general creating an army of extra help.
Can you do more to integrate public groups into your teams? Example: Ocean Pines has several
groups to help: Boat Club, Fishing Club (Anglers), Power Squadron, and individuals.
10. It was mentioned that the benthic community in southern Chincoteague Bay was in good shape
and that northern Indian River Bay was in poor shape. Does this indicate a general north to
south trend in degradation which may correspond with numbers of individual septic systems
going north to south? Were the northern Indian River Bay sites and the southern Chincoteague
Bay sites sampled simultaneously?
11. Do manmade canals act as a sump keeping runoff pollutants from entering the main bodies of
water in the bays?
12. What are the largest sources of nutrient pollution into the bays? What causes the oxygen and
toxic chemicals? What two to three things would have the most impact on reduction?
13. Are county economic development and tourism staff talking to planning and zoning staff to
ensure that natural resource amenities that serve as attractions to companies to locate in this area
are protected? If so, how is the planning process affected?
14. Functionally, a stand of trees does not make a forest. What is Delaware doing to foster a
sustainable forestry ethic among its forest industry?
15. Hasn't Delaware put the cart before the horse by creating major access routes between its bays
and beaches and the metropolitan areas to the north before establishing, fully, management plans
relating to the coastal area?
16. What about the loss of biodiversity associated with Loblolly Pine Plantations; i.e., less of mixed
hardwoods and old growth forest? How will this highly potential problem be addressed?
17. Is the environmental degradation in the north, i.e., Delaware Bay, reversible?
18. How will the new Farm Bill affect Delmarva agriculture ("Freedom to Farm")?
19. Are the tree farms monoculture? If so, is there any effort to change this?
20. Has the amount of eutrophication caused by agriculture and human habitation been quantified?
21. What needs to be done to stop eutrophication? If implemented, how long to see an
improvement?
22. What has caused the decrease in spot and mullets in Indian River?
23. Who is benefitting from the poultry industry on the shore?
24. How would life change if the poultry industry was not here?
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 101
-------
25. For the benefit of the eastern shore, agriculture should diversify!
26. Is it true that intensive farming (use of pesticides, fertilizers, manure, etc.) is indicated in the
nonpoint source of pollution? What role does the poultry industry play? Please discuss the
economic and environmental bad buys; how it got that way and what needs to be done.
27. Ecotourism is a developing concept globally. Where is Delmarva going with this concept, or
have they even considered marketing this concept?
28. Is it feasible to promote (or require) trapping of storm runoff from farms and elsewhere into
ponds? These could serve as sediment traps, sources of irrigation water, recreational fishing etc.
and help lessen bay pollution.
29. Do you know of any way to "garner" the numbers of individual farmers who are implementing
BMPs on their own but aren't being "captured" in existing reporting systems? This would be a
valuable information/education source for the general public to realize farmers, on a whole, are
good stewards.
30. What is the adverse impact of tree farms on the ecosystems (include use of toxics, pesticides,
fertilizers, etc.)?
31. Do the fish that we find in the ocean spawn in the coastal bays, and if so, what percentage?
32. Offering incentives to recreational fishermen for filling out a simplified survey before a fishing
license is issued.
33. How can you reconcile your studies showing no fisheries stock change in MD waters over the
past 20 years with the undoubted severe decline in the flounder fishery?
34. For discussions of water quality, no one has mentioned the trends in sediment loads in the bays
or the actual effects of sediments on SAV; etc. What are the trends and effects?
35. Rick Kutz stated that species in Chincoteague Bay "haven't changed in 20 years." Does that
mean that healthy populations of fish and shellfish exist?
36. Dredging of clams during winter months disturbs crab beds and also creates serious silting
conditions in the shallow water bays. Please comment on whether it may be desirable to modify
the practice of dredging.
37. Recently proposed crab regulations are geared to conditions in the Chesapeake Bay and do not
adequately address the problems of over-crabbing in the coastal bays. Please comment on the
need for additional conservation measures such as establishing sanctuary areas where commercial
crabbing would be prohibited and also placing greater restriction on the taking of sooks.
38. If dredging brings up toxic chemicals and is considered bad and submerged vegetation is so
important, why are hydraulic clam dredges allowed to operate in our beleaguered bays?
Page 102
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
-------
39. In the species changes that have occurred in Delaware Coastal Bays, has there been biomass shifts
as well? In the Maryland Bays has there been number changes; i.e., have numbers and age
classes shown declines while species composition may be insignificantly changed?
40. What is ASMFC doing about the decline of the horseshoe crab population and its impact on
shorebirds and fin fish?
41. Secretary of Agriculture DE brought this home: in other words, economics controls everything
including conservation, which is unfortunate for the planet! For me, I am in a quandary since
my employment is dependent upon agriculture yet it is clear that how things are done are
controlled first by economics not conservation. We find ourselves educating how to conserve
based on economics, which is not always the correct way.
42. Why not require a salt water recreational fishing license (like hunting) that requires "catch"
information to help assess the resource "taken" and enhance knowledge of scientists? (Should
be done statewide)
43. Is recreational water usage and aquaculture compatible in populated areas such as that
surrounding Ocean City?
44. Isle of Wright Bay's filling with sand in its interior sections, probably due to the severe
channeling of its two (east and west) sides and due to the addition of rock pilings by the Route
50 bridges. What environmental impacts will the continued reshaping of the bay have? Is
anyone doing anything to combat those manmade changes?
45. Studies show that industrial tourism coupled with corporate farming practices are a major
contributor to loss and degradation of critical fmfish nursery and spawning habitat in the
Delmarva Bays. The ASMFC manage both weakfish and winter flounder which occur here and
are in serious decline. What is the ASMFC doing to address this matter?
46. Can a resort community like Ocean City be made to stop - by overbuilding, overcrowding, and
overstressing utilities and water supplies - the destruction of the natural features tourists come
to enjoy?
47. Where was the Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA, Assateague Coastal Trust, etc. when the last
remaining shoreline of West Ocean City (including Captain's Point) were allowed to be
developed by a few very wealthy people, thus excluding all of the mostly working class people
of West Ocean City from their beaches that they have used for generations. The only people I
noticed at the local hearings were worried "summer people" and lawyers for wealthy property
owners. "Locals" say "oh, the EPA was bought off."
48. Seems to be an absence of those involved in tourism; perhaps having them as the tourism experts
would have been wiser than using the government employees. What efforts are being made to
involve the general public and to educate them in this conference so they could participate with
some "real time" information?
49. What is your organization doing, or what can it do to support ecotourism ventures? Is there
financial or logistical support? Can you advise of grant monies that may be available?
DELMARVA's Coastal Bay Watersheds, 1996 Conference
Page 103
•U.S. Government Printing Office: 1996 — 750-001/41023
-------
------- |