Please email comments & suggestions to Carol

RECREATION & NAVIGATION

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:
  1. MCBP & partner staff will review this first draft and make edits/consolidations/recommendations for the second iteration.
  2. Subcommittees for each CCMP section will meet to discuss and approve final actions. Each action will be categorized for future work as
  3. Indicator – policy is in place, use information to track change & measure effectiveness
  4. Restoration/conservation action – policy is in place, studies are complete, use information to prioritize restoration projects
  5. Educational effort – information & outreach projects that need periodic updates and dissemination to citizens, special interest groups and local decision makers
  6. Policy change – actions that are institutionalized but may need enforcement or other resources
  7. Ecosystem Monitoring /Research need – actions that require scientific monitoring and/or research and recommendations
  8. Within the Existing Resources of the lead agencyof the lead agency, workshops, ad hoc committees, mapping & planning
  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 Recreation & Navigation goals include:

RN 1: REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF SAND AND SEDIMENT ENTERING THE COASTAL BAYS FROM THE INLET

Army Corps of Engineers/Ocean City Water Resources Study (1988)

RN 2: IMPROVE THE MANAGEMENT OF NAVIGATION AND DREDGING IN THE COASTAL BAYS

Navigation & Dredging Master Plan for Maryland’s Coastal Bays (2005)

Waterway Improvement Capital Program Benefits, Needs, and Opportunities (2011)

Maryland Working Waterfront Commission Final Report (2008)

RN 3: BALANCE RESOURCE PROTECTION WITH RECREATIONAL USE

Sensitive Aquatic Areas Workgroup Report (2005)

RN 4: IMPROVE BOATING SAFETY IN THE COASTAL BAYS

Maryland Coastal Bays Water-Use Assessment: Understanding Users Behaviors, Attitudes & Perceptions (2002)

RN 5: IMPROVE WATER-BASED RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND DIVERSITY OF ACCESS TO COASTAL BAYS AND TRIBUTARIES

Worcester County Parks, Recreation & Land Preservation Plan (2012)

RN 6: CREATE GUIDELINES FOR LOCATING NEW FACILITIES

Maryland Working Waterfront Commission Final Report (2008)

RN 7: IMPLEMENT SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AT HARBORS AND MARINAS

Recreation and Navigation

Due to the relatively shallow nature of the coastal bays, the maintenance of navigable waterways to support recreational and commercial boating is a critical regional need. A number of maintained waterways currently exist, including channels established by federal, state, and local interests. Effective management of these waterways requires balancing the economic and recreational benefits of maintaining viable navigation channels with the adverse effects on the aquatic environment.

Historically, sand and sediment have entered the coastal bays through a variety of natural sources including erosion, storm-induced natural inlets, barrier island wash-over and runoff through tributaries. From an ecological perspective, the natural inflow of sand and sediment is important to the creation and maintenance of estuarine habitats. Human activities on land, such as agriculture and residential and commercial development, have changed the patterns and extent of sedimentation. This has resulted in water quality and habitat degradation (see Water Quality and Fish and Wildlife sections) and changes in bay hydrodynamics.

In addition, human-induced sediment loading into the coastal bays through the Ocean City Inlet has caused widespread problems including shoaling, both in and outside of channels, and habitat degradation. Successfully resolving this issue will both improve navigation and enhance the conservation of natural resources.

Another opportunity to create multiple benefits lies in expanding the use of dredged materials in the restoration or creation of wildlife habitat.

Other navigation issues include: the adequacy of channels markers and navigation charts; a lack of clear-cut responsibility for, and public understanding of, the dredging permit process; and the potential need for channel improvements and/or new channels.

Recreational Use

Maryland's coastal bays provide a myriad of recreation opportunities, ranging from "active" pursuits such as hunting and motor boating to more "passive" activities like swimming and birdwatching. As recreational use of the coastal bays grows and diversifies, balancing resource protection with public use will become increasingly complex. Sensitive areas such as submerged aquatic vegetation, bird rookeries and nesting grounds, and aquatic species nursery areas provide unique recreational experiences, yet can be significantly impacted by certain activities.

Boating in the coastal bays is a very popular activity, particularly during the summer months. Many of the primary waterways, especially in the northern bays, are often congested. Recreational boating concerns include unpredictable boating conditions caused by strong currents, congestion and overcrowding near the Ocean City inlet and Route 50 bridge, non-compliance with existing operational, safety, and resource protection regulations, and direct resource impacts.

There is also concern that opportunities for eco-tourism and non-traditional activities are short of demand. Additional passive use facilities and bay access points on the mainland, as well as increased publicity for existing ones, may be needed.

Harbors, Marinas, and Related Activities

Harbors, marinas, and related facilities are an integral component of the local economy, supporting a wide variety of recreational and commercial activities in the coastal bays. While the value of these facilities is significant and growing, inappropriate location and management practices can result in serious environmental impacts, such as the loss of wetlands during initial construction, introduction of toxic contaminants from bulkheading and bottom paints, and water pollution from fuel and oil spills.

Priority issues related to harbors and marinas target unsustainable management practices at existing facilities, including inadequate and/or improper sewage pump-out facilities, waste disposal (e.g., used oil, solid waste, maintenance waste), and pollution response capabilities. Another emphasis is on the real and perceived inadequacy of existing facilities such as inadequate trailer parking at popular launch sites, a perceived lack of facilities in certain areas, and a lack of public awareness about existing facilities. One of the most significant issues is the need to better coordinate federal, state, and local guidelines for new facilities to ensure that future development is compatible with resource protection goals.

Goal 1:Reduce the Amount of Sand and Sediment Entering the Coastal Bays from the Inlet

RN 1.1 Challenge: ReduceManageunnatural sedimentation due to Ocean City inlet 75% Substantial

The construction of jetties to stabilize the Ocean City Inlet in 1934-35 coupled with routine nourishment of Fenwick Island (Ocean City) beaches has resulted in large volumes of sand and sediment entering the coastal bays through the inlet. Extensive shoals have formed, resulting in decreased water depth for navigation in the adjacent bays and ocean. Sediment losses to the inlet also have resulted in unnaturally high rates of erosion and landward migration of Assateague Island.

The 1988 US Army Corps of Engineers/Ocean City Water Resources Study (OCWRS) is a recently completedstudy by the Corps of Engineers, National Park Service, State of Maryland, Worcester County, and Town of Ocean City to investigated several water resource-related problems in Maryland's coastal bays. The study addresses four primary issues, including impacts to Assateague Island from the stabilized inlet, long-term sand management, navigation, and environmental restoration.

The OCWRS has recommended several actions to address existing problems, including a long-term program to routinely remove sand from the inlet and adjacent areas for use in nourishing Assateague Island. If initiated, the "bypassing" program is expected to reduce shoaling and related navigation problems in the vicinity of the inlet.

Habitat restoration projects have also been proposed that will use dredged materials from maintenance dredging projects undertaken by the ACOE, WC and OC. The proposed projects include the beneficial use of dredge material to restore habitat by creating and maintaining island habitats for colonial nesting water birds.

Solution: Through outreach activities publicizing existing problems, develop public and political support for implementation of the Army Corps of Engineers/Ocean City Water Resources Study (OCWRS) recommendations which are related to inlet problems, long-term sand management, and habitat restoration.

Measure of success: decreased amount of sand filling in bays

Status: Twice each year, 72,000 cubic yards of sand are moved from the ebb and flood tidal deltas around the OC inlet and deposited in the surf zone of Assateague Island, south of the inlet.

The entire OCWRS report can be found at

Seven projects were identified

  1. Ocean Pines Saltmarsh Restoration (done – 8.5 acres of salt marsh restored)
  2. Isle of Wight Saltmarsh Restoration (done – 12 acres of salt marsh restored)
  3. Ocean City Harbor and Inlet Deepening (conducted twice yearly)
  4. Assateague Island Short-Term Restoration (done 2002 – 1.4M cubic meters)
  5. Assateague Island Long-Term Nourishment (2004 & on-going 144K m3/year)
  6. Dog Island Shoals Restoration – to be done
  7. South Point Spoils Island Restoration – to be done

Other considerations:

Insert Roman’s assessment of island loss

Of the 33 islands created in the 1930’s by side-casting dredge spoils, South Point Spoils is the last remaining island. This island was the first place that pelicans were breeding in 1987 in the state of MD. Today, 30-40% of the land mass has eroded.

In March of 2011 sand from the approach channel to Sunset Marina was placed on Skimmer Island to nourish and improve nesting habitat conditions for Black Skimmers, Common and Royal Terns.

A 49 acre oyster & clam aquaculture site near is proposed at South Point in Newport Bay. STAC has wondered if the pre-approved areas will interfere with island restoration sites?

Actions:

  1. MCBP, WC and ACOE will develop public and political support for the OCWRS-recommended habitat restoration projects and long-term sand bypassing program at Ocean City Inlet through outreach activities publicizing existing problems and explaining potential benefits.Keep & continue to implement this action
  2. MDE will expedite permit issuance to fast-track the plan to the extent possible.Keep

Other considerations: (excerpts from the Sediment Management Workshop 2010)

Islands are being created elsewhere successfully: Wilmington ACOE District summary lists pros and cons of using dredged material as a tool for management of Tern and Skimmer nesting habitats. some projects are unconfined, others use effluent control methods.

DISCUSSION: Identifying opportunities for island restoration and habitat creation for waterbirds should be a priority in all Atlantic coast states. Success depends upon cooperation among many regulatory and resource agencies, non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders. USACE Districts with operations affecting waterbirds should develop cooperative agreements and memorandums of understanding with state and federal resource management agencies to maximize natural resource benefits from dredged material disposal. Add this paragraph as a future item for consideration by the Dredge committee?

Skimmer Island: the Corps interest is to identify the source of material, ability to withstand forces upon it, and how will it affect Hooper’s if it is uncontained? What is the overall sediment budget for the bay? Corps also is concerned how sand management may exacerbate existing navigation problems.

How do we deal with the western side of Skimmer to maintain the channel? Can this group determine how to maximize the project to maintain navigation, create island habitat and support SAV beds.