903R88116
• • " •*•:! FroJec'jon Pgeucj
', Ration Reseurce
in
225
.C54
copy 2
-------
Acknowledgements
The 2020 Panel's meetings were open to all inter-
ested parties. The insights and comments provided
by the public and by members of agencies and inter-
est groups during these meetings were extremely
useful. They provided many different perspectives,
which both enlightened and helped guide the Panel's
work.
Members of the Population Growth and Develope-
ment Commitment Team and their staff were active
participants throughout the year. Their enthusiasm,
data, comments, and attention to detail allowed the
Panel to stay focused on the issues before it. Among
the Team members and staff who were involved, we
gratefully acknowledge the assistance of: Keith But-
tleman, Anne DeWitt Brooks, and Sharon Anderson,
Virginia Council on the Environment; Edwin
Thomas, Maryland Department of State Planning;
David Carroll and Cecily Majerus, Maryland
Governor's Office; Roy Newsome and Pat Buckley,
Pennsylvania Governor's Office of Policy Develop-
ment; Ann Pesiri Swanson, Chesapeake Bay Com-
mission; Nancy Menning, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; and Gerald McCarthy, Virginia
Environmental Endowment.
-------
!i '• v. • '•" ."••:'/; •"Vi.vrt'jn /
'< ,..-.• ' ,-, -, j.i.^i.oii Resource
i ••;•: •-•"'. 'j
;"• •'. • --'l-.-:et
i..-^.V:^f'A 19107 '"
Population Growth and Development
in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
to the Year 2020
Summary
The Report of the Year 2020 Panel
to the Chesapeake Executive Council
December 1988
-------
December 1988
The Honorable Gerald L. Baliles, Governor of Virginia
The Honorable William Donald Schaefer, Governor of Maryland
The Honorable Robert P. Casey, Governor of Pennsylvania
The Honorable Marion Barry, Jr., Mayor of the District of Columbia
The Honorable Lee M. Thomas, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The Honorable W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr., Chairman, Chesapeake Bay Commission
At your request, we studied the consequences of population growth and development for the
Chesapeake Bay watershed to the year 2020. We examined a broad range of options for prevent-
ing or ameliorating adverse environmental impacts that come from growth.
Although we were challenged by the complexity of our task, a far greater challenge now rests
with you: to make the visions that are framed in this report reality. You must convey a strong
sense of leadership; an overriding sense of stewardship for the Bay and its watershed must
emanate from your offices. Judging, from the comments received at the Panel's four public
meetings, it is clear that strong and widespread support exists for the kinds of actions we are sug-
gesting.
The actions advocated in this report will do much more than improve the Bay. They are univer-
sal in scope. They work to ensure the economic and environmental vitality of the entire region.
Success in these actions will result in local and regional successes elsewhere as well.
Our report calls for bold actions. It will require the development of new policies and programs.
We recognize that they are not without cost. Funding must be found to implement the actions
recommended, or the millions of dollars of investment already made in the Bay will dwindle
away as growth overwhelms current successes. Likewise, it will become more costly the longer
you wait, and at some point no amount of money could reverse the disastrous effects of un-
managed growth.
We recognize that reports such as ours are legion. Decade after decade, committees, panels,
commissions, and vocal individuals have catalogued problems and offered prescriptions for their
resolution. The recommendations made here could easily be side-tracked "for more study". It is
our sense however, that this moment in the history of the region demands immediate action. We
sense an important difference in the political climate from past decades. Indeed, by signing the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement you set in motion the drive for new policies to protect the Bay.
Behind us, providing momentum, lie a decade of Bay studies, five years of initiatives, and two
decades of growing environmental concern. The recommendations in this report are a logical ex-
tension of the Bay programs. Public officials, politicians, developers, and private citizens who
worked on this Panel, who attended and participated in the Panel's meetings, and who came to
the public meetings that were held in each jurisdiction, are all strongly behind effective land use
management that will restore and protect the Bay. All are now awaiting the leadership that will
produce effective, timely actions.
-------
December 1988
Page 2
The time is ripe for these actions. With uncommon unity, people are prepared to act on their
sense of joint responsibility for the Bay, its rivers, and the surrounding land.
The ability of your jurisdictions and agencies to work together for the common good and the fu-
ture of the Bay has attracted international attention. You have created a unique compact, and
made far reaching commitments that will serve people throughout the watershed well in the
years ahead.
We unanimously report to you our findings and recommendations. We are pleased to have
served you in this effort, and look forward to working with you in our private, professional, and
public capacities to begin implementing this regional agenda.
Representing Virginia
Representing Maryland
The Year 2020 Panel
James C. Breeden
Attorney at Law
Rumsey, Breeden, Hubbard, Bugg & Terry
Jack D. Edwards
Professor of Government,
College of William and Mary
Member, James City County Board of
Supervisors
Myron P. Erkiletian
President
Erkiletian Construction Corporation
J.P Blase Cooke
President
Thomas P. Harkins, Inc.
(General Contractors)
Robert Gray, 2020 Panel Chairman
President
Resource Management Consultants Inc.
O. James Lighthizer
County Executive
Anne Arundel County
-------
December 1988
PageS
Representing Pennsylvania
Representing the District of Columbia
Maurice J. Forrester, Jr.
Economic Development Analyst
SEDA Council of Governments
Irving Hand
Professor of State and Regional Planning
Director, Institute of State and Regional Affairs
Perm State Harrisburg
Jay D. Himes
Deputy Director
Pennsylvania League of Cities
Alvin R. McNeal
Director of Strategic Planning and
Development Review Division
District of Columbia Office of Planning
Representing the Environmental Protection Agency
Representing the Chesapeake Bay Commission
Charles S. Spooner
Director
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office
W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr.
Chairman
Chesapeake Bay Commission
-------
2020 Panel Report
Summary
The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement chal-
lenges the region's leaders to create a future
that is different from what today's trends will
otherwise bring. Dealing with growth effec-
tively while improving Bay water quality and
creating a better life for all people is key to
this challenge.
The future provides opportunities and holds
bright promises: a better quality of life, a
cleaner Bay, a robust economy, and a sense
of place and social well being.
Environmental quality fosters economic
vitality. This vitality, in rum, provides the
financial resources with which to address
other problems and issues. The two serve
one another. A prosperous society can afford
a sound environment; a sound environment
enhances prosperity. But this future may be
in jeopardy. Even the most casual review of
the state of the Chesapeake Bay region
reveals disturbing trends that will slowly
overtake the gains being made in improving
environmental quality. Unmanaged growth
has created pollution and congestion and has
degraded the quality of life. These trends are
not destiny. As it studied the problems of
growth and development to the year 2020,
the Panel found that means are available to
change these trends if prompt and forceful ac-
tion is taken.
Conclusions
The Panel was impressed with projections
showing 2.6 million new residents in the
region by the year 2020. This 20% growth in
population could change extensive areas to
developed uses.
"...procedures currently being
used throughout the Bay region
for managing and providing for
growth and development are in-
adequate..."
As a result of its work, the Panel's major
conclusion is that procedures currently being
used throughout the Bay region for managing
and providing for growth and development
are inadequate, and must quickly be changed
if current trends are to be reversed. While
many local jurisdictions are making valiant
efforts to deal with growth issues head-on,
overall there is a drastic need for change.
The use of land is a great environmental, so-
cial, and economic challenge. Society must
create rational growth patterns, supported by
adequate infrastructure and public transporta-
tion. Scattered unplanned development is
wasteful and expensive, and generates greater
net pollution than more rational patterns of
development.
-------
Summary
American society is extremely consumptive
and wasteful of resources. It must focus on
waste reduction, recycling of materials, and
conservation of resources. Harbingers of
where current trends lead are the degraded
quality of the Bay, water shortages, the trash
crisis, suburban sprawl, hop-scotch patterns
of development, congestion, air and water
pollution, and inefficient use of resources.
Adding increased numbers of roads, septic
systems, parking lots, and disturbed land sur-
faces creates more pathways for pollutants to
reach the Bay at an increasing rate. Water
quality is inextricably linked to population
growth.
Growth requires effective land use planning
and education of the public in proper land
management and stewardship. The longer
solutions are put off, the greater the problems
become. Better stewardship and manage-
ment of the land and better direction and in-
centives for appropriate growth are needed.
It is much easier (and cheaper) to prevent a
problem than to correct one, which is why ac-
tion is needed soon.
New highways, sewers, and other infrastruc-
ture have a powerful effect on the location
and pace of development. The best planning
allows for such infrastructure to guide and
manage growth. Unfortunately, the opposite
often happens. Patterns of low density
residential sprawl occur and then require im-
proved linkages. Open areas eventually fill
with new homes and congestion occurs along
the new roads. Densities are too low to sup-
port mass transit and no readily available
rights-of-way can be found for additional
roads.
A major force in establishing the present
land use pattern has been the desire of people
to locate primary residences in low density
settings and second homes near the water.
Unfortunately, development in agricultural,
forest, and shorefront areas chews up valu-
able farmland, woodland, and shore access
areas and destroys existing local economies.
As resource-oriented businesses die or are
forced out, the support businesses for farm-
ing and seafood harvesting die as well. The
diversity of the local economy is dramatical-
ly changed as well as the heritage, social con-
ditions, sense of place, and visual character
of the area.
Visions of Success
The Panel is dismayed by the lack of
growth management and planning, par-
ticularity on a state and regional level. It be-
came readily apparent that the lack of
comprehensive state and regional planning,
uncoordinated public investment strategies,
and undirected problem solving contribute
greatly to the current problems of the water-
shed. Unless changed, this lack of clear
policy and direction will compound future
problems.
To provide a framework for making useful
recommendations, the Panel conceived six
linked visions of what should come to pass in
the region by the year 2020. All segments of
society will benefit from achievement of
these visions. Likewise, all must share in the
in the cost of their implementation. The
visions are clearly and simply stated. They
are presented in the present tense to em-
-------
2020 Panel Report
phasize this is what will have happened if ap-
propriate actions are undertaken today. Ac-
complishing the visions will produce a
watershed with the following characteristics:
Well before the year 2020, state Comprehensive
Development and Infrastructure Plans have been
developed and implemented. State and federal
agencies, counties, and municipalities encourage
diverse and efficient land development patterns —
ones that concentrate growth and development in
urban, suburban, and already developed rural
centers. All growing areas have existing or
planned facilities. Densities in most of these
areas support mass transportation, van pooling,
or other forms of ride sharing to reduce traffic.
These thriving urban centers and suburban
areas are supported with funding adequate to
maintain or enhance existing services. Cities and
towns are vitalized by prudent public and private
investment. Developers are offered incentives to
provide greater community services and mitigate
environmental impacts.
New mixed use growth centers are planned to
take advantage of existing or projected infrastruc-
ture. Large open space areas are located within
walking, bicycling, or short-drive distances of
most people. Open space amenities are given the
same priority as infrastructure.
Sensitive areas are protected from encroach-
ment and damage. These areas have been
defined and mapped by state and local
authorities, and effective programs are in place to
protect these natural assets. Very sensitive areas
are in public ownership or under easement. Wet-
lands and lakes, rivers, and other waterbodies
are protected from upland impacts by undisturbed
vegetated buffers. In both urban and rural areas
the shoreline of the Bay and its tributaries forms
a series of vegetated corridors. These connect to
large forested areas and allow for enhanced
water quality, ecological balance, and biological
diversity. Water supply has become a statewide
issue, and safe and adequate supplies are avail-
able from protected groundwater and surface
water sources.
Areas with resource-based industries such as
agriculture, forestry, mining, and seafood harvest-
ing are protected from encroachment of incom-
patible land uses. These industries remain
important parts of the local and state economy.
They have brought their environmental problems
under control. Protection of these areas through
effective land use controls, reasonable incentives,
and innovative funding mechanisms insures a last-
ing, diverse economy and resource use options
for the future.
Transfer of development rights from one land
parcel to another better suited for development is
commonplace and is proving to be an effective
growth and resource management tool.
Growth in rural areas takes place in existing
centers. Rural towns and highway intersections
are defined by service boundaries and develop-
ment space is provided for an appropriate mix of
uses. These centers, with the assistance of state
and federal governments, provide adequate sewer
and water utilities. Use ofon-site waste water
treatment is limited so as to protect effectively sur-
face and groundwater from pollution.
Outside these rural centers, residential develop-
ment is limited so as to retain the economic,
ecological, and scenic values of the countryside.
Large woodlots and forests are retained and are
selectively used for managed forestry, if they are
not in preserves or parks. Quarries and other
mining activities occur but are screened from
neighboring uses by well developed wooded buf-
fers. Municipal, County, and State roads are
planned to allow for adequate capacity for rural
traffic.
The volumes of waste produced in the region
have been greatly reduced and are being effective-
-------
Summary
ly handled. Energy and water use per capita has
been reduced as conservation programs have
been put in place.
The public and government agencies are sensi-
tive to their responsibilities not to damage the en-
vironment and to conserve resources.
"...states must take a much more
active and central role in the
planning process . . . a Com-
prehensive Development and
Infrastructure Plan must be put
in place..."
Stewardship of the land and Bay is practiced by
ordinary citizens who have been made aware of
how they affect the land and water. The quality of
the Bay is improved, tourism is strong, resource-
based industry, manufacturing, and service busi-
nesses desire to locate in the basin because of its
resource base, amenities, diverse economy, and
the quality of life it provides residents.
Those programs that require funds are sup-
ported by Development and Conservation Trust
Funds that fund infrastructure and purchase land,
easements, and development rights in support of
the goals of the Comprehensive Development and
Infrastructure Plan.
Realizing the Visions -
Recommended Actions
Success in realizing these visions hinges on
two things: the states must take a much more
active and central role in the planning
process for both land use and infrastructure,
and a Comprehensive Development and In-
frastructure Plan must be put in place in each
state to guide state investments and policy
and to create coordination among local land
use plans. Only then can the visions and
recommended actions listed below be imple-
mented to change the course of the
Chesapeake region.
Vision I: Development is con-
centrated in suitable areas.
Action 1. States must each develop and keep
current a Comprehensive Development
and Infrastructure Plan. All planning, fund-
ing, and development must be consistent
with this Plan.
• The Chief Executive of each jurisdiction
should establish a broad-based Task
Force or Commission to promote the
preparation and implementation of a
state-level plan.
• Legislatively create (or designate) and
fund a lead state planning agency with
responsibility for preparing the state
plan, coordinating planning and develop-
ment activities, and achieving consisten-
cy among and with local and other state
plans.
• By legislation, require that all agencies
conform to the state plan.
• Develop criteria for the content of state
and local plans and for determining con-
sistency of local plans with the state plan.
— require local zoning and planning.
- require regular updates of state and
local plans.
-------
2020 Panel Report
- establish an interagency task force to
report to the Governor or Mayor an-
nually on the plan and its progress and
success.
Action 2. States must take the lead to estab-
lish and implement policies and programs
that result in compact and efficient growth
patterns.
• Create incentives
— for reuse and redevelopment of areas
already served by infrastructure (e.g.,
enterprise zones, creative zoning, den-
sity bonuses, and land assembly).
- for locating housing and employment
in designated growth areas served by
public transportation.
- to encourage use of mass transporta-
tion, car pools, and van pools.
• Invest in public transportation to support
state and local growth policies.
• Develop programs to reduce private
automobile use:
- provide adequate and attractively
priced parking at public transportation
stations.
- decrease availability of free or sub-
sidized parking.
- develop more high occupancy vehicle
lanes and bus lanes on highways.
Action 3. States and localities must maxi-
mize use of existing infrastructure.
• Adopt programs and policies that con-
centrate growth at appropriate densities
in designated growth areas with existing
infrastructure.
Action 4. States should allow local com-
munities maximum flexibility in innovat-
ing and adopting procedures for creating
public open space and obtaining easements
that are of public benefit.
Vision II. Sensitive areas are
protected
Action 1. States must define sensitive areas
and have appropriate state and local agen-
cies designate such areas on a series of
maps that comply with a standard map
specification. These are to be used in plan-
ning, management, and project review.
• Include wetlands, floodplains, aquifer
recharge areas, wellhead protection
zones, water supply watersheds, impor-
tant habitat areas, unique and scenic
areas, large forest tracts, and other areas
in need of special protection.
• Coordinate all mapping through a single
agency that establishes statewide stand-
ards.
Action 2. States must make sensitive area
protection mandatory.
• Require that the Comprehensive
Development and Infrastructure Plan
contain criteria for sensitive resource
protection, management, and enforce-
ment.
-------
Summary
• Provide training for local officials in
land use planning, resource manage-
ment, and development review
• Furnish state or county level technical as-
sistance for sensitive area protection
planning and development proposal
review.
• Adopt and enforce minimum standards
for site development, construction, and
maintenance to minimize impacts to the
environment.
Action 3. States should coordinate acquisi-
tion and protection programs directed at
sensitive resources.
• Coordinate public and private land and
easement purchases by creating a coor-
dinating group that keeps participating
groups and agencies informed of needs,
priorities, and progress.
• Provide state funds for purchase of very
sensitive areas either in fee simple or
through conservation easements.
• Review incentives available to en-
courage conservation easement dona-
tions and provide better incentives.
Action 4. Establish federal, state and local
buffer zone programs that require adequate
deep-rooted vegetated buffers be left un-
developed around sensitive resources and
along all watercourses and water bodies.
• Set criteria for buffer zone widths ac-
cording to the resource being protected
and adjacent conditions. Clearly define
the uses permitted within a buffer that
will not compromise its effectiveness.
• Reestablish buffers in developed areas.
Vision III. Growth is directed to ex-
isting population centers in rural
areas and resource areas are
protected.
Action 1. Require state and local plans to
define and map growth and resource
protection areas.
• Indicate all areas where growth is incon-
sistent with resource protection.
• Provide adequate funding to improve
and develop infrastructure in designated
growth areas.
• Limit public investment in sewer and
water systems to designated service
areas. Require any expansion of the ser-
vice areas to conform with local and
state plans.
Action 2. Protect important agricultural and
forest lands.
Action 3. State and local governments must
protect water supply watersheds from
development.
• Protect and where necessary purchase
areas within watersheds where develop-
ment would degrade the water supply.
Encourage creation of easements that
protect the watershed.
• Develop a specific management plan for
each of these watersheds.
-------
2020 Panel Report
• Provide state leadership in planning and
developing water supplies to meet the
needs of rural areas.
Action 4. In Maryland and Virginia, stop
condemnation of shellfish areas for marina
and sewage treatment plant development.
Action 5. Each state should expand public
park and recreation systems.
• Provide funding for the development of
green belts around urbanized areas.
• Expand recreation opportunities near
developed and designated growth areas.
• Emphasize low intensity recreational
areas in undeveloped areas.
• Provide more public access to water-
bodies.
Action 6. States should develop strategies to
discourage development in areas devoted
to resource-based industries and to reduce
the need for localities to compete for
property tax revenues.
• Institute a transfer of development rights
system to allow local officials to desig-
nate areas of high and low growth, and
to transfer the development rights from a
designated resource protection area to a
designated growth area. This will com-
pensate the affected landowner and keep
designated land in its current use.
• Offer incentives and other inducements
to industrial development when this
development is inside designated growth
areas.
Vision IV. Stewardship of the Bay
and the land is a universal ethic.
Action 1. State agencies should establish
written environmental stewardship policies
to guide their actions and should review
their programs to ensure conformance
within these policies.
Action 2. States should develop a required
school curriculum unit focused on environ-
mental and growth issues.
Action 3. Each state and the federal govern-
ment should prohibit dumping of sewage
from vessels into the Bay.
Action 4. Develop a broader-based public
awareness of stewardship and proper en-
vironmental management.
Vision V. Conservation of resources,
including a reduction in resource
consumption, is practiced
throughout the region.
Action 1. Reduce waste generation.
• Impose disincentives on excessive waste
generation, including excessive use of
consumer packaging that will become
waste.
• Promote hazardous waste minimization.
• Create local recycling programs for all
materials that are capable of being
recycled.
• Require recycling of used motor oil, in-
cluding do-it-yourself oil changes.
-------
8
Summary
• Establish hazardous household products
collection programs at the local level.
Action 2. States should develop programs to
reduce automobile use and fuel consump-
tion.
Action 3. States should develop programs to
reduce water and power usage.
• Impose a sliding scale levy on water and
power use to discourage excessive con-
sumption.
• Set standards and require all new con-
struction and remodeling to be energy
and water use efficient.
Action 4. States should make best environ-
mental management practices mandatory
for development, agriculture, and forestry.
Action 5. Foster innovative technology and
programs that reduce resource consump-
tion and environmental impacts.
• Fund approaches that are practical and
can be widely used.
Vision VI. Funding mechanisms are
in place to achieve all other visions.
Action 1. Establish state Development and
Conservation Trust Funds to provide for in-
frastructure, development incentives, and
the purchase of land, permanent ease-
ments, or other rights in the land.
• Potential sources of funds to capitalize
the Funds include:
— tax on profits from land sales
— utility surcharges
— user fees
- property transfer tax
— voluntary income tax check-off
Action 2. Develop revenue sharing or pool-
ing arrangements among municipalities or
counties affected by growth.
Action 3. States should encourage develop-
ment of local taxing districts to allow local
governments to recover the operating costs
of public facilities unique to that district.
State and Federal Actions
Each jurisdiction has a unique set of con-
cerns and needs, and programs that address
the impacts of growth are at various stages of
definition and development. Different ap-
proaches and priorities to reach the Visions
and achieve the Actions will be used by each
jurisdiction. In some cases legislative chan-
ges will be needed and in others fiscal ap-
propriations will be required. Many actions
can be initiated immediately, while others
will require longer to implement. In addition
to the general recommendations, each State's
delegation to the Panel has prepared an agen-
da for action tailored to its state. The Panel
prepared a Federal agenda.
- higher fuel taxes
-------
2020 Panel Report
Pennsylvania Action Agenda
Pennsylvania should consider the following
actions.
Convene a task force charged with review-
ing this report, and present within 90 days a
Pennsylvania Action Agenda. The Action
Agenda should take the report's respective
recommendations and apply them, as ap-
propriate, to the Commonwealth.
Legislation should be prepared and enacted
to establish a State Planning Office in the Of-
fice of the Governor. The Planning Office
should be directly responsible to the Gover-
nor, and should be broadly charged with the
planning and overview responsibilities set
forth in the 2020 Report. The legislation
should also provide for a State Planning
Board, advisory to the Governor and to the
State Planning Office, with membership rep-
resentative of the interests, economy, and cul-
tural composition of the Commonwealth.
Legislation should be prepared and enacted
dealing with regional planning in the Com-
monwealth, a function whose area-wide
perspective warrants statutory expression.
The Municipalities Planning Code should
be reviewed in light of the findings in the
2020 Report, and amendments to the Code
should be drafted to accomplish the Report's
recommendations.
A mechanism should be established for
providing technical assistance and funding
support to municipalities as they seek to deal
with their responsibilities in implementing
the recommendations of the 2020 Report.
Convene a panel to review the management
policies that apply to all lands owned by the
Commonwealth, and to suggest ways in
which the various policies can be better coor-
dinated, consistent with the mission of each
land-managing agency, to further the aims of
the 2020 Report.
Funding should be provided for the develop-
ment of a model environmental education cur-
riculum for Pennsylvania school districts.
Maryland Action Agenda
Maryland should consider the following ac-
tions.
Release the 2020 Report with strong sup-
port for the Visions to local governments,
and environmental, development, economic,
and community interests. Conduct a series of
informational meetings and workshops to ex-
plain the background and purposes for the
Visions and Actions and obtain ideas for how
the Visions and Actions can be accomplished .
Request that state agencies indicate how the
Visions and Actions can be accomplished
with current or new resources and authorities.
Each agency should state what issues it must
address and what it will have to do different-
ly to help realize the Visions and Actions.
State agencies should respond by March 1,
1989.
Charge the Department of State Planning
with preparation of the initial Comprehensive
-------
10
Summary
Development and Infrastructure Plan by Sep-
tember 1, 1989, including criteria for deter-
mining consistency of State and local Plans.
Capital improvements including major
facilities; transportation; open space, recrea-
tion, and park areas; schools, etc. will be in-
cluded.
Request Secretaries of the Departments of
Budget and Fiscal Planning and State Plan-
ning to explore creation of Development and
Conservation Trust Funds including sources
of funds, and use and allocation of funds.
Results are to be reported to the Governor by
April 1,1989.
Direct the Governor's Council on the
Chesapeake Bay to report to the Governor on
July 1st each year on the progress and suc-
cess in achieving the Visions and Actions.
The Executive Order creating the Council
should be reissued to broaden the member-
ship and purpose of the Council.
Direct the Department of Natural Resources
with assistance from the Departments of the
Environment, State Planning, and Agriculture
and in cooperation with local governments to
define and map sensitive areas by January
1990.
Appoint by March 1, 1989 a private/public
Resource Protection Work Group to coor-
dinate, establish priorities, target, and share
information about the various private and
public programs to acquire and protect sensi-
tive areas. The group should make its recom-
mendations for improvements to the
Governor within six months of its creation.
Direct the Department of State Planning in
cooperation with local governments to
prepare by September 1, 1989 a model
resource protection program. Provide assis-
tance to local governments in establishing
resource protection programs to include buf-
fers, performance standards, easements, etc.
Establish a Forest Protection Task Force to
include the Departments of Natural Resour-
ces, Agriculture, and State Planning, local
government officials and private sector par-
ticipants to prepare local and State legislative
and administrative proposals for the protec-
tion and re-establishment of forest land and
wildlife habitat. If possible, proposals will
be drafted for consideration during the 1989
and definitely prior to the 1990 General As-
sembly session.
Virginia Action Agenda
Virginia should consider the following ac-
tions.
Charge and appropriately fund an agency to
collect, develop, and distribute 1) current and
projected population figures, and 2) environ-
mental, land use, and economic data in sup-
port of the needs of state agencies, regional
planning commissions, and local govern-
ments.
Create a Virginia Commission for the Year
2020 to evaluate and recommend a statewide
planning process in support of the Panel's
recommendations. This Commission should
be inclusive of state, local, and private inter-
ests. Briefings of the Panel's findings to
local government officials, state boards, the
-------
2020 Panel Report
11
development community, and the general
public should be an integral part of the
Commission's activities.
Commission an economic analysis to ex-
plore the best combination of actions to fund
the Panel's recommended Development and
Conservation Funds.
Direct that state funds be expended on in-
frastructure (e.g., water, sewer, roads) only in
locations that support the Panel's suggested
development patterns.
District of Columbia Action Agenda
The District of Columbia should consider
the following actions.
Assign to the Interagency Planning Council
the responsibility to evaluated and recom-
mend a District-wide strategy to implement
the Panel's recommendations.
Continue to implement the Environmental
Protection Policies in the District's Com-
prehensive Plan.
Request a detailed assessment of legal bar-
riers to the use of creative, innovative, and
cooperative land management techniques,
and develop a strategy for eliminating them.
Initiate legislation or regulatory actions, as
needed, and a program of incentives and dis-
incentives in support of resource conserva-
tion. The program should include waste
minimization and recycling ~ especially a
beverage container deposit and return
program — the reduction of automobile use
and increased support for mass transporta-
tion, and reduced water and power usage.
Initiate a program to define and map sensi-
tive areas consistent with other Chesapeake
Bay wetlands and living resources commit-
ments.
Implement erosion control measures along
streams within the city such as stream bank
cleaning and stabilization programs.
Consider constructing a boat ramp at an ap-
propriate location along the Anacostia River
to improve boating access.
Increase enforcement of soil erosion con-
trols and construction activities through ap-
propriate permitting processes.
Aggressively implement provisions of D.C.
Law 7-33, which outlines several resource
recovery initiatives, including yard waste and
composting programs, multi-material recy-
cling centers and the identification of environ-
mentally sound methods of sludge disposal.
Fully implement the wetlands conservation
plan developed by the city and the National
Park Service under the 1986 Emergency Wet-
lands Protection Act.
-------
12 Summary
Federal Action Agenda
Control of land use is a state responsibility,
but the Federal government must become a
strong supporter of their programs. To this
end, Federal environmental programs and
policies should be specifically directed at
preserving environmental quality through re-
search, technical assistance, and, where
necessary, regulation.
EPA should examine the available methods
useful in quantifying the impacts of growth
and the technologies for further controlling
emissions and reducing waste generation.
Federal agencies owning and occupying real
estate in the watershed should ensure Federal
facility conformance with State Comprehen-
sive Development and Infrastructure Plans.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture
should establish a task force to examine ways
to integrate programs to protect water quality
into Federal agricultural laws and programs.
These should have the flexibility to be
specifically adopted to the needs of the
Chesapeake Bay watershed.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
should specifically examine ways to integrate
Federal incentives for the protection of en-
vironmentally sensitive areas with evolving
State efforts.
-------
For Additional Information:
Virginia
Council on the Environment
903 Ninth Street Office Building
Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 786-4500
Maryland
Governor's Chesapeake Bay Coordinator
Governor's Office
State House
Annapolis, MD 21401
(301) 974-3004
or
Department of State Planning
301 W. Preston Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
(301)225-4500
Pennsylvania
Governor's Office of Policy Development
506 Finance Building
P.O. Box 1323
Harrisburg, PA 17120
(717)787-1954
District of Columbia
D.C. Office of Planning
Strategic Planning and Development Review Division
415 12th Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 727-6500
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office
410 Severn Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21403
(301) 266-6873
Chesapeake Bay Commission
Chesapeake Bay Commission
60 West Street, Suite 200
Annapolis, MD 21401
(301) 263-3420
Fritts Golden and John Rogers, of the firm of
Rogers, Golden & Halpern, acted as technical staff
for the Year 2020 Panel. In this role, they and their
staff organized meetings, facilitated discussions,
conducted research, and produced the final report for
the 2020 Panel. The Report was developed based on
Panel discussions and went through four drafts.
Substantial changes were made by the Panel at each
stage, until a consensus was reached.
------- |