Local citizens review management plan

By Sam Harvey
Staff Reporter

The CCMP’s no spring chicken – authored in 1995, it includes slightly dated comments here and there. And while the review isn’t necessarily a precursor to an actual update, it’s an opportunity to ask what citizens, government and the CIB have accomplished over the past 11 or 12 years, and where everyone needs to redouble efforts.

All of the CIB’s actions revolve around implementation of the conservation plan, so a periodic review is arguably important. In fact, one of the big seven, federally-mandated tasks outlined in the plan is: “Monitor the effectiveness of actions taken under the CCMP.”

Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) subcommittee members offered mixed ideas about what the review might produce, at a Feb. 21 meeting at the South Coastal Library n Bethany Beach — perhaps a “report card” (although it will in many ways be a self-review), perhaps a series of “white papers” succinctly detailing the subcommittee’s findings.

In the end, there seemed to be a consensus to forge ahead, and settle on the exact format later. But subcommittee member Jim Elliot revisited his report on the Agricultural Source Action Plan, from a previous meeting.

First, a brief overview of the CCMP, from the CCMP (available online at www.inlandbays.org, click Restoration, scroll down to Habitat Restoration and Enhancement.):

In 1988, then-Gov. Mike Castle requested the convention of an Inland Bays Estuary Program. That program created a group to tackle the Clean Water Act-mandated tasks, which included:

• Assessment of trends in water quality, natural resources and use;

• Identification of the causes of environmental problems;

• Assessment of pollutant loadings (to be addressed by the state’s still-pending Pollution Control Strategy, or PCS, for the Inland Bays);

• Prioritization of actions that would restore and maintain the estuary, and the means to carry them out — the heart of the CCMP; and

• Coordination with federal, state and local agencies and, as noted, monitoring for effectiveness.

A Management Conference took a look at the Inland Bays, deliberated and came up with these goals and objectives, in order of priority:

• Establish a nonpoint-source pollution control program. That would be part of the PCS — as noted, the state’s still working on it;

• Protect, restore and enhance living resources by improving water quality and protecting and enhancing habitat;

• Develop comprehensive zoning ordinances, laws and regulations at all levels of government that promote environmentally sound land use;

• Establish a comprehensive wastewater management program;

• Develop a groundwater management program;

• Develop a water use plan;

• Establishment of a shoreline protection program;

• Coordinate Inland Bays management with existing solid waste, air pollution, and toxics programs; and

• Ensure that public participation, information, and education are a part of planning and management.

From the CCMP: “They agreed to address those problems of greatest concern, particularly those related to nutrient overenrichment and habitat loss, for which solutions are available and economically and politically feasible, though perhaps controversial.”

Again, while the PCS doesn’t address habitat loss directly, it’s squarely aimed at nutrient overenrichment, or “eutrophication.”

But as Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) staff will freely admit, the PCS doesn’t really focus on the agriculture community.

Getting back to the subcommittee meeting, Elliot did focus on just that. He reviewed the five tactics within the CCMP’s Agricultural Source Action Plan:

• Conservation-plan through the Sussex Conservation District (the local equivalent of DNREC’s Drainage section);

• Develop nutrient utilization and distribution alternatives;

• Manage and plant forested/vegetative buffers;

• Track implementation of conservation plans and Best Management Practices (BMPs); and

• Research the relationship between nutrient movement and poultry houses.

Folks with an interest in protecting the Inland Bays have seen great successes out of the agriculture community, but as CIB’s Eric Buehl (habitat coordinator) put it, if the history of the CCMP was a novel, there was a certain tragic element associated with this chapter.

There’d been a time when the farmers fought the CCMP tooth and nail, he said, thinking the conservationists were trying to put them out of business. However, they’d eventually come to realize that wasn’t so, and returned to the table willing to help.

“Back in the 1950s and 1960s, the Department of Agriculture used to say, ‘The cheapest manure you’ll ever find is right there in your chicken house — the chicken manure,” Elliott pointed out. “Everybody just spread it right on their fields — no one had any idea what a calibrated manure spreader was.”

All that changed over time — but now, after all their work together, toward implementation of new, cleaner agriculture technologies and BMPs, the farmers are disappearing, Buehl reflected.

“I don’t think there’s enough money in the world to protect every single farm,” Elliott pointed out.

“And I don’t think we need to do that,” added subcommittee member (and CAC Chair) Bob Collins. “But we should note the changes (since the CCMP was written).”

As CIB’s Ed Lewandowski (executive director) admitted, the center typically placed all the focus on implementation, and didn’t always take time to look back.

So, the CAC subcommittee will be working through the CCMP, one action plan at a time. Subcommittee member Martha Keller said they planned to tackle the Industrial, Municipal and Septic System Action Plan at the next meeting – which is, again, largely dependent on the implementation of the PCS.

The CCMP lists two tactics for that action plan:

• Meet the nutrient reduction goals of the PCS; and

• Tie new and certain existing development to appropriate sewage treatment infrastructure.

The other action plans, in no particular order, are Public Participation and Education (no tactics specified), Habitat Protection and Land Use.

Tactics for Habitat Protection are:

• Create a Resource Protection Area management plan;

• Develop Sussex County habitat protection ordinances;

• Establish and Inland Bays Comprehensive Water-Use Plan;

• Establish a shoreline building-setback line;

• Expand public land acquisition, protection and access;

• Promote natural alternatives to bulkheading; and

• Review, update and codify the Inland Bays Dredge Plan.

Tactics for Land Use are:

• Review and meet land-use goals in the Coastal Sussex Land-Use Plan. This was the precursor to what has become Sussex County’s Comprehensive Plan, which was at one time split east-west into two components; and

• Require environmentally sensitive development.

Again, the next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, Feb. 28, at Fenwick Island town hall, 4 to 6 p.m. The subcommittee planned to focus on the Industrial, Municipal and Septic System Action Plan. All meetings are open to the public, although acceptance of public comment is at the subcommittee members’ discretion.