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. ------- |