Please email comments & suggestions to Carol

COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

PREFACE: Purpose of this document & how to read the edits;

The Maryland Coastal Bays Program is in the process of updating the Comprehensive Conservation & Management Plan (1999). MCBP is a consensus based organization that seeks to bridge community concerns with local, state and federal expertise and resources to protect and preserve the Atlantic Coastal Bays. We are seeking the technical advice of resource professionals to assist with the update of this plan. Please consider the following questions;

  1. As a Partner in implementing the CCMP, how should specific action items be edited to reflect your agency’s goals?
  2. Despite current limitations, what natural resource initiatives do you anticipate to occur over the next 10 – 15 years? Are those initiatives reflected in the CCMP?
  3. How can the staff of the Maryland Coastal Bays Program assist your group in meeting those initiative goals?

A tracking and evaluation of plan implementation occurred by committee in September 2011. The implementation status and comments from the committee has been inserted throughout this document in red text, based on the following criteria;

  1. Implementation status: based on a scale of 0 – 100 %

Full:Full implementation completed or nearing completion (75 – 100%)

Substantial: Major progress has been made (50 – 74%)

Moderate:Fair progress has been made (25 – 49%)

Some:Progress is beginning (10 – 24%)

Minimal:Very limited progress (0 – 9%)

  1. Tracking Committee recommendations for future efforts

DONE – the action is completed as written

INSTITUTIONALIZED – actions that have become standard operating procedures

DELETE – the action is infeasible, obsolete, or irrelevant to Partner goals

KEEP – action should continue to be implemented as written

MODIFY – the language or intent of the action should be revisited for clarity

CONSOLIDATE – the language or intent of the action is duplicative or otherwise can be simplified

SUPPLEMENTAL – actions that are completed but may require periodic discussion/review

  1. New or Updated Actions. Many of the actions in the Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan called for plans and studies that would benefit the watershed and ecosystem. Examples include Fishery Management Plans, Land use & County Comprehensive Plan, Storm surge & sea level rise models, Total Maximum Daily Loads, and many more. The recommendations from these studies and plans have been inserted (blue text) into the CCMP text where appropriate, or as a ‘best fit’ insertion.
  1. Process for determining final edits for the CCMP update:
  2. MCBP & partner staff will review this first draft and make edits/consolidations/recommendations for the second iteration.
  3. Subcommittees for each CCMP section will meet in to discuss and approve final actions. Each action will be categorized for future work as
  4. Indicator – policy is in place, use information to track change & measure effectiveness
  5. Restoration/conservation action – policy is in place, studies are complete, use information to prioritize restoration projects
  6. Educational effort – information & outreach projects that need periodic updates and dissemination to citizens, special interest groups and local decision makers
  7. Policy change – actions that are institutionalized but may need enforcement or other resources
  8. Ecosystem Monitoring /Research need – actions that require scientific monitoring and/or research and recommendations
  9. Within the Existing Resources of the lead agency of the lead agency, workshops, ad hoc committees, mapping & planning

For CE/Sustainable Communities effort – how can the Coastal Bays incorporate Blue Print, Green Print, Forestry, Agriculture, Fisheries and other mapping exercises? What are the quality of life and ecosystems indicators that can be measured over time and who tracks the economic and biological components over time?

  1. Modification Committee:

Members: content advisors for natural resource management, research and monitoring, local/state/federal program implementers, stakeholder group representatives.

Objective: Update the 1999 CCMP by streamlining goals and actions. Sharpen the Program’s focus through the clear designation of educational, restoration, research and policy efforts. Meet Partner and citizen objectives, facilitate scientific investigation, measure indicators of change against anticipated outcomes and reduce reporting requirements.

Task: create a subcommittee for each CCMP section, chairperson will assist the process by keeping people on task, collect the revised CCMP edits and assemble those into a 10 year work plan. Note that the existing CCMP is comprised of 505 actions. The Tracking & Evaluation Subcommittee designated 357 (70%) actions as KEEP, MODIFY, CONSOLIDATE or SUPPLEMENTAL.

CCMP section

WQ committee: Cathy Wazniak (chair)

FW committee:Carrie Kennedy & Gwen Brewer (co-chairs)

RN committee:

CE committee:Keith Lackie (chair)

Each section subcommittee will

Task 1: Chair or co-chairs will review the draft CCMP update for their section and take the first stab at editing the language. The goal is to make the CCMP leaner, focused, measureable & results oriented. The chair(s) will contact lead agency experts to clarify actions, intent and language. Focus on those actions that are designated as KEEP, MODIFY, CONSOLIDATE, SUPPLEMENTAL.

Task 2: Review the action items that have been recommended for that section and determine if they should be included in the discussion of future efforts.

Task 3: Convene a workshop for interested parties to discuss & review the chair’s revisions. Include at least one MCBP staff person and one seasoned Board member, and one new Board member in addition to the IC experts (both seasoned and new: consider asking lead agency IC members to bring additional staff from their organization for input). [Carol Cain to assist co-chairs with logistics]

Task 4: Further refine the actions by categorizing those that can be implemented in one of the following ways. Also determine if the action is a high priority; to be completed in the next 5 years?

Policy change

Educational effort

Restoration or Conservation

Research needs & Ecosystem monitoring

Indicator tracking

Within Existing Resources of lead agency

Task 5: Subcommittee chairs will report back to the Modification Committee who will finalize the draft document. Include a list of potential stakeholder groups that should be consulted.

Ten Year Work Plan & CCMP update:

Strategic planning -> implement -> track -> monitor -> assess & report ->collect feedback for adaptive management.

Implementation avenue or action items / Primary implementation responsibility (lead agency): provide funding, staff, tangible products or projects & reports information to all Partners / Secondary implementation responsibility (MCBP staff & committees): resource support & accountability through evaluation reporting & of success to the larger community / EPA requirements / standardized performance measures
Policy change / Lead agency – rule making, provide resources & enforcement / Ex. Director, Board of Directors, Policy Committee, / Operations & Management: Quantifiable goals, Collect feedback for adaptive management strategies.
Educational effort / Lead agency – brochures, curriculum, workshops, speaker series / Education Coordinator, Outreach Coordinator, Citizen Advisory Committee / Outreach & Public Involvement: Communications Plan, Mini-grants, scholarships
Restoration or Conservation / Lead agency – priority setting, permitting, / Science Coordinator, Project Manager, Implementation Committee / Priority setting. Habitat/Leveraging Reports. Clean Water Act effort to meet TMDLs
Research & Ecosystem monitoring / Lead agency – status & trends, emerging issues / Science Coordinator, Scientific & Technical Advisory Committee / Assessment, Monitoring & Reporting on Impact. Research to support or change policy. Emerging issues. Eutrophication & Terrestrial Monitoring Plan, Implementation Grants
Indicator tracking and Within Existing Resources actions / Lead agency – consensus & reporting on status, mapping & planning, emerging issues of concern / Technical Coordinator, Implementation Committee / Tracking & Reporting: CCMP implementation tracking system, triennial EPA Performance Review

Excerpts from the following studies and management plans for the Community & Economic Development goals include:

CE 1: EDUCATE AND INFORM THE POPULATION SO IT CAN MAKE KNOWLEDGEABLE DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT IT WANTS FOR ITS COMMUNITY AND FUTURE

DNR- An Assessment of the Economic Value of the Coastal Bays Natural Resources to the Economy of Worcester County, Maryland (2001)

CE 2: FOSTER A COMMUNITY CONSENSUS ON THE DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION OF THE MARYLAND COASTAL BAYS REGION AND A VISION OF HOW TO PROMOTE THE COUNTY AS A VACATION DESTINATION, FARMING REGION, RESOURCE PROTECTION AREA, AND RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, WHILE PROTECTING AND PRESERVING THE COASTAL BAYS

MDP- Maryland Coastal Bays Alternative Futures Project (2001)

Worcester County Comprehensive Development Plan (2006)

Coastal Hazards Initiative (2004) – to be posted on MCBP website

DNR & USGS Worcester County Sea Level Rise Inundation Model Technical Report (2006)

Worcester County Sea Level Rise Response Strategy (2008)

Draft Ocean City, Maryland Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (2012) not on-line

CE 3: MANAGE THE WATERSHED TO MAXIMIZE ECONOMIC BENEFITS WHILE MINIMIZING NEGATIVE RESOURCE IMPACTS

MDA Statewide Plan for Agricultural Policy & Resource Management (2006)

Water Resources Element Worcester County, MD (2011) – recommendations for ground water supply and infrastructure, starting on page 33

Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for the Lower Eastern Shore of Maryland, Tri-County Council, revised June 2011

CE4: ENHANCE THE LEVEL OF SUSTAINABILITY IN LAND USE DECISION MAKING

Delmarva Atlantic Watershed Network (2005)

Community and Economic Development

Goal 1:Educate and Inform the Population So It Can Make Knowledgeable Decisions About What It Wants for Its Community and Future

CE 1.1 Challenge: Increase Public Participation82%Full

Citizens often are unaware of all the associated impacts of growth in a community. We want more conveniences, services, and housing but do not associate development with the increased demands they also bring. Providing the public with information on community costs, like financing new schools and roads, increased traffic, loss of trees and open spaces, as well as the benefits of growth and additional services, will enable them to make better decisions about what they want for their community and their future.

Solution: Increase the community's understanding of growth impacts to increase involvement and foster informed decision-making.

Measure of success: numbers of citizens contacted through educational efforts

In 1998 and in 2000, more than 400 residents attended visioning exercises and overwhelmingly said they preferred planned growth and zoning to protect farms and forests. Again in 2006 during the Worcester County’s comprehensive plan update and in 2009-2009 during comprehensive rezoning, county residents established a consensus-based middle ground but kept farming, forestry and tourism viable by limiting parcelization. For every dollar levied in taxes, sprawl development costs taxpayers about $1.15, while land in agriculture and forestry demand only about 44 cents. (source D. Wilson)

Actions:

  1. DNR will develop and distribute information on costs of community services related to various land use development patterns. Modify. Update DNRs “An Asssessment of the Economic Value of the Coastal Bays” report. Consolidate this action with CE 1.1.5 below.
  2. MCBP will determine stakeholders' current understanding of impacts to the bays and target public education by:

A.Creating an electronic Watershed Atlas;ModifyMCBP will advertise web resources.New action: Obtain MOU with Worcester County to share GIS data.

B.Establishing Coast Day as an annual event; Keep and

C.Linking County public libraries to GIS. Delete

  1. MCBP will promote and provide education to decision makers and the public on low-impact development by:

A.Encouraging demonstration projects which show model developments, green building, and examples of "doing the right thing;"Institutionalized.

B.Establishing annual planning awards; Delete

C.Establishing Osprey/Gold Star award for "doing the right thing;" Keep and

D.Promoting workshops sponsored by other organizations related to sustainable development. Institutionalized

  1. WC, OC, and the Town of Berlin will supportpromote and incentivize redevelopment efforts in existing communities. Modify to promote and incentivize
  2. OP will characterize the differences between expanded (i.e., growing bigger) and enhanced communities. Consolidate with CE 1.1.1
  3. MCBP will educate the community about the demands and needs of transients (tourists and seasonal residents), traditional locals (e.g., Stockton), new locals (e.g., Ocean Pines). Supplemental – educational effort
  4. MCBP will educate seasonal residents, new residents, and visitors by:

A.Providing environmental education on topics like recycling and water conservation and promoting eco-tourism opportunities in advertising and marketing campaigns. Supplemental – social indicator (recycling rates over time)

B.Mailing information packets to new residents about the MCBP and the importance of recycling, and water and energy conservation. Modify from mailing to add links to MCBP website, reprint the Homeowners Guide

C.Providing information to new residents and visitors about the pros and cons of living near wetlands, open marsh, and coastal ecosystems. Keep, continue education through HO Guide updates & reprinting

Expected Benefits:

  • more public participation in decisions affecting the community
  • more rational and predictable growth patterns
  • enhanced tourism opportunities

Related Actions:

EPA Performance Measures: Outreach & Public Involvement

#32 the Program has socio-economic indicators to monitor and report on the impact of outreach & public involvement activities.

CE 1.2 Challenge: Improve planning tools100% Full

Elected officials, appointed officials and local agency personnel need more tools and information when evaluating growth and land use issues. These resources are necessary to make more informed decisions that better reflect community needs.

Solution: Provide tools and information, such as GIS capability, examples of successful local ordinances, and information on sub-watershed-based planning to local decision makers to facilitate implementation of actions contained in this plan.

Measure of success: use of new tools and data by local governments in implementing the CCMP

Actions:

  1. The technical resources of MCBP will be made available to local governments to assist them in making decisions to resolve planning issues. Institutionalized

Expected Benefits:

  • more accurate and less costly county decision making
  • improved political accountability and responsiveness

Goal 2:Foster a Community Consensus on the Desired Future Condition of the Maryland Coastal Bays Region and a Vision of How to Promote the County as a Vacation Destination, Farming Region, Resource Protection Area, and Retirement Community, While Protecting and Preserving the Coastal Bays

CE 2.1 Challenge: Reduce threat of development to cultural and natural resources 98% Full

As development pressures continue to increase in the watershed, important natural and cultural resources are threatened. Actions that preserve and enhance natural and cultural resources are essential for maintaining water quality and habitat, and for ensuring the economic stability of the watershed. The needs of specific groups must be met in order to ensure true community consensus.

Solution: Promote the culture and character of the region by continuing to preserve, restore, and enhance wetlands, forests, and cultural resources and educating the public about available tools.

Measure of success: number of developments emulating culture and character of region, number of new businesses dependent on region’s culture and character.Status unknown.

Actions:

  1. Explore a variety of planning tools that promote sustainable low impact practices. OP and MCBP will provide examples where effective use has been made of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs), Purchase of Development Rights (PDRs), preferential taxation, compact development, open space preservation, and efficient development. Modify
  2. WC and MCBP will identify important cultural areas and promote traditional ways of life by: Consolidate A, B, & C, all have become institutionalized

A.Working with MHT to encourage museums, such as old oyster packing houses;

B.MCBP will educate developers and realtors about the information available from MHT regarding archaeological and cultural resources.

C.WC will incorporate cultural, heritage, architectural, archeological, and historic resources planning components in the Comprehensive Plan.

  1. DNR and the Maryland Forestry Task Force will conduct an analysis of forestry industries and if necessary propose changes to ensure its long-term viability and environmental benefits. Modify, move to the forestry section – FW Goal 2
  2. MCBP will produce educational materials about the importance of protecting wetlands, forests, and cultural resources to ensure the cultural integrity and economic viability of the coastal bays region. Supplemental – educational effort

Expected Benefits:

  • more cost-effective county planning proposals
  • enhanced eco-tourism opportunities
  • greater community appreciation of natural and cultural heritage
  • increased enjoyment of open spaces and forested land cover

Related Actions: CE 3.3, FW 2.2, FW 2.3, FW 2.6, FW 3.1

CE 2.2 Challenge: Articulate long-term vision100% Full

Seeking community consensus is the first step in developing a vision for the future. Once the community has been given the tools to make informed decisions and the opportunity to express what they want for their future, those ideas must be incorporated into land use decision making. "Alternative Futures" analysis is a tool to demonstrate various possible outcomes for the future of the watershed.

Solution: Present "alternative futures" to the community to educate citizens and demonstrate possible outcomes for the future of the watershed.

MDP- Maryland Coastal Bays Alternative Futures Project (2001)

How do PlanMaryland recommendations compare or supersede the Alternative Futures recommendations?

Measure of success: hold public meetings and publication of brochure

Actions:

  1. OP will perform build out analysis of the watershed including impacts from necessary services such as schools, roads, police, etc. Revisit the MDP- Maryland Coastal Bays Alternative Futures Project (2001) recommendations & determine if the Worcester County Comprehensive Plan address those recommendation. Modify action if appropriate.
  2. MCBP will document community vision for future. Modify
  3. MCBP and WC will sponsor workshops to present alternative futures scenarios based on zoning build out and community visioning, and

A.Incorporate carrying capacity benchmarks. Delete carrying capacity, modify wording to measure some type of Quality of Life Indicators