A Report of the Chesapeake Bay Program
Land, Growth and Stewardship Subcommittee
         October, 1998
         Chesapeake Bay Program
   EPA Report Collection
   Regional Center for Environmental Information
   U.S. EPA Region HI
   Philadelphia, PA 19103

Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
         for the Chesapeake Bay Program

                           0f contents
Introduction	  1
Priorities for Action	2
Land Conservation and Stewardship Forum	5
Development Community Forum	 13
Appendix A	22
Appendix B 	24

                      dtesapeak "Bay R^iwwl mud forms
By the year 2020, the population of the Chesapeake Bay region is expected to increase by
almost three million people. Unfortunately, one of the very things that draws people to
this area—the Chesapeake Bay-is threatened by their arrival. These growth pressures will
add more and more challenges to the efforts to restore the health of the Chesapeake Bay.
But, with careful consideration of impacts, knowledge of alternatives, and wise planning
involving the stakeholders of the region, growth can be accommodated and the
environment can be protected simultaneously. To assist in meeting the sustainable
development challenge, the Chesapeake Bay Program adopted the "Priorities for Action
for Land, Growth and Stewardship in the Chesapeake Bay Region".

A variety of stakeholders play a direct role in land stewardship issues. The "Priorities for
Action" seeks to increase communication and dialogue with and among stakeholders such
as local and regional government representatives, land developers, realtors, businesses,
nonprofit and civic organization leaders, homeowners, and interested citizens. A
cornerstone of this effort was a series of regional land forums in 1997 to ensure that the
stakeholders in the Chesapeake area are involved in efforts to achieve the Priorities for
Action. The first forum included representatives from land trusts and conservancies. The
second forum involved the development community (see Appendix A & B for lists of

The forums provided an opportunity to share approaches/actions that could be taken by
land trust, conservancy and development communities to support the "Priorities for
Action's" goal of sustainable development.  The forums also identified what the
Chesapeake Bay Program could do to help promote sustainable development.

The "Priorities for Action for Land, Growth and Stewardship in the Chesapeake Bay
Region" take an approach that recognizes communities are the basic unit for addressing
growth and that all factors should be considered—the economy, quality of life and sense
of place in local communities, and the long-term stewardship of the natural environment.
To that end, its goal is:

       To encourage sustainable development patterns, which integrate economic
       health, resource protection, and community participation.
Priorities for Action for Land, Growth and Stewardship in the Chesapeake Bay Region

I.  Foster a sense of community and place to protect heritage. The Chesapeake Bay
   region's heritage is a composite of its landscape, people, institutions, and history. The
   special character, communities, and sense of place are important qualities to residents
   and a motivation for local protection and restoration efforts.

II. Revitalize existing communities. Increasing the vitality of existing communities will
  , influence development patterns in the countryside. Revitalization efforts will assist
   existing communities and help reduce sprawl development.

III. Encourage efficient development patterns. Efficient development patterns encourage
   higher density, compact, contiguous, transit-oriented, and mixed-use development
   that is ecologically sound. Benefits to the Bay include improved quality of life in our
   communities, reduced impervious surfaces, conservation of farms, forestlands, and
   natural areas, and reduced reliance on automobiles.

IV. Promote economic viability. Communities are recognizing the linkage between
   economic vitality, environmental protection, and a community's social fabric.
   Economies within the region will need to be designed to create opportunities for
   satisfying livelihoods and a safe, healthy, high quality of life for current and future

V. Foster resource protection and land stewardship. Many public and private
   landowners and users of Bay resources act as "stewards" of their share of the
   Chesapeake region, working to protect characteristics of the land and water while
   enjoying social and economic benefits.

VI. Develop a database for land, growth, and stewardship to analyze trends, measure
   goals, and provide technical assistance. Environmental indicators are a way to
   evaluate progress of land, growth, and stewardship efforts. They also can inform and
   involve the public in achieving Chesapeake Bay Program goals.

                      nod Conservation and. sfcwwnfcJifp Forum
                                  July 21, 1997

The first forum offered participants from the trusts the opportunity to share effective
preservation approaches with each other. There was also an opportunity to suggest what
actions could be taken by the trusts and by the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) that
would further land conservation and the LOSS "Priorities for Action," while moving the
region towards the goal of sustainable development. Each participant spoke about the
accomplishments and challenges of his/her organization and about the political and social
decisions affecting land trusts. A brief, open discussion involving  all participants
followed each presentation.

Suggestions from the group were divided into two categories:
1) how the Chesapeake Bay Program could help the land trusts in their efforts to
   preserve land, and
2)  Suggestions as to how the land trusts can maximize their effectiveness in land
   preservation, which in turn will help CBP meet its "Priorities for Action."

The following represents the most frequently made suggestions.

       I. Land trusts can benefit from increased accessibility of funds for land
       acquisition and from lower operating costs.
Land trusts are often relatively small organizations with minimal staff and funding.
Increasing operating budgets through greater accessibility of funds, and decreasing
expenses through such initiatives as lower property taxes were cited by many of the

Suggested Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Actions:
•   CBP funding should be able to go directly to land trusts. Currently funds are
    administered through state agencies and are difficult and frustrating for local land
    trusts to receive.
•   State funding needs to be broadened and made more easily accessible to land trusts.
    The amount of paperwork and bureaucracy involved in accessing state funds are often
    unmanageable for small land trusts that are understaffed or run by volunteers.
    Additionally, funds are sometimes held up in a "Catch-22" situation. For example:
    certain funds are unavailable to local groups until the group can say how the money
    will be used to support the state's tributary strategy. If the state has not yet written its
    strategy, the trusts are unable to receive the funds and they are also unable to
    influence when the strategies will be written.
•   CBP should push for legislation establishing state and/or federal dedicated funding
    sources for easements.
•   CBP should support increased funding to the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
•   CBP should explore ways to get more money to watershed groups. For example, CBP
    should establish a grants program for projects that are developed from a watershed
    perspective, rather than projects that consider impacts to only a local site.
•   Information regarding how to access federal funding, such as that from the
    Environmental Protection Agency, should be readily available to land trusts. Section
    319 grants and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-administered
    coastal grants were cited specifically.
•   CBP and land trusts should push for tax incentives that would lower operating costs
    for trusts.

Suggested Land Trust Actions:

•  Communicate with other land trusts and share information on funding sources.
•  Leverage funds whenever possible. Look for unusual partnerships, i.e., tie open space
   to crime prevention or water quality. The Trust for Public Land was cited as a prime
   example of such leveraging (see page 11 for more information)
•  To increase funding sources, stress the importance of land preservation as a tool for
   sustaining economic vitality rather than strictly as an ecological tool.
•  Look at the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) as a
   source of funding for watershed projects.
   II. Wetland mitigation banking policy should be reviewed.

Participants expressed strong concerns regarding the effectiveness of allowing wetlands
to be destroyed in one area under the stipulation that a wetland be built in another area.
There needs to be a watershed-based analysis in which cumulative impacts, as well as the
hydrology of the areas, are considered. Currently a wetland may be destroyed in an area if
a wetland is built somewhere else to "replace" it. This approach does not allow for the
fact that the subwatershed in which the wetland is destroyed will lose the ecological
values that the wetland provides. The values to that area will not be regained by building
a wetland in a different subwatershed.

Suggested CBP Actions:

•  CBP  should support a watershed-wide analysis of critical wetland areas, so that the
   specific value of wetlands in certain areas is understood.
•  CBP  should encourage the reconsideration of whether or not the Army Corps of
   Engineers is the proper agency to handle decisions affecting wetlands. Perhaps
   wetlands should be the purview of an agency whose job  is to protect water quality.

•  CBF could support a more rigorous review under NEPA of transportation and federal
   relocation projects.

Suggested Land Trust Actions:

•  Lands trusts could provide CBP with lists of projects that need closer review under
   III.  Mapping an area's resources is critical to identify what resources need

All participants agreed that the importance of mapping an area's natural resources could
not be overstated. Maps provide information that is critical in land planning decisions. To
make wise decisions, a community must have an understanding of the natural resources at
stake, and of what the loss of the resources would mean to the community, the economy,
and to the environmental health of the region. Maps also provide the information
necessary to determine what lands are most in need of protection and give the trusts an
effective way to present the information to funders and other decision-makers.

Suggested CBP Actions:

•  CBP should provide tools such as Geographic Information System (GIS) maps on a
   watershed basis.
•  CBP should map high quality lands that are in the path of development or are in need
   of protection because of the resources threatened. High quality lands are often
   ignored, because of the sense of urgency inherent in protecting already threatened
   lands. When high quality areas are not protected, the overall quality of the watershed
   is threatened, as well as the species that are reliant on the specific area. Maps should
   be made available to local trusts and government agencies.

Suggested Land Trust Actions:

•  Land trusts should provide assistance in identifying lands that are most in need of
   protection. This should be done based on impacts to the eco-region, rather than on
   political boundaries.
•  Land trusts should map high quality lands that are in the path of development or are
   in need of protection because of the resources threatened.
•  Land trusts should map natural resources and make the maps available to county and
   local planners.
•  Land trusts should request GIS maps from their county governments.
   IV.  New tax incentives should be provided to support land conservation efforts.

Incentive programs that provide monetary benefits to individuals and to land trusts are
invaluable. The suggestions for new incentive programs included the following:

•  CBP and land trusts should support the proposed reform of federal estate tax law,
   which would exempt land held in easement, providing tax relief for individuals and
   land trusts.
•  CBP and land trusts should support tax incentives that would lower operating
   expenses for land trusts, i.e., a charitable exemption on property taxes for trusts.
•  CBP should recommend new tax incentives to support land conservation efforts.

   V. Land Trust Models for Land Conservation

While all of the land trusts involved in the discussion had many valuable suggestions,
there were three groups that were cited as possible models in their use of certain
preservation techniques: the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy for its Agricultural
Security Corridor; the Harford Land Trust for its effective use of Maryland's purchase of
development rights program; and the Trust for Public Land for its methods for leveraging

The Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
The Eastern Shore Land Conservancy's (ESLC) Agricultural Security Corridor can serve
as one model for effective land preservation. The middle Eastern Shore of Maryland
contains one of the largest contiguous masses of highly productive farmland on the East
Coast and produces roughly half of Maryland's soybeans, com, wheat and vegetables.
When ESLC mapped the regional landscape, certain geographic, environmental, and
economic relationships became apparent. The corridor is defined by the presence of the
best agricultural soils in a five-county area of the mid-shore, a concentration of
agricultural infrastructure, and extensive agricultural easements. As these relationships
became apparent, the conservancy used the information to focus its outreach efforts,
together with the American Farmland Trust, and to draw attention to how important large
areas of connected land are to the agricultural industry.

The fact that the corridor is also characterized by extensive networks of natural resources
such as woodlands, riparian forest buffers, waterways, wetlands, and animal and plant
habitats became obvious. Maintaining a healthy web of natural resources is  dependent on
maintaining large areas of interconnected open spaces. Mapping helped the  conservancy
to get a clear picture of the ecology of the area, which is extremely useful information for
local citizenry and decision-makers. When land use decisions are being made, it is
important to be able to point out exactly what natural resources will be affected.

For more information on the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy, please contact Donna
Mennitto, Eastern Shore Land Conservancy, P.O. Box 169, Queenstown, Maryland,

Harford Land Trust
The Harford Land Trust uses the state of Maryland's purchase of development rights
(PDR) program effectively. If an owner of agricultural land establishes an agricultural
district of 100 acres or more and agrees not to develop the land for five years, the owner
receives a 50 percent tax credit. If the owner sells the develop rights to the PDR program,
the owner receives a 100 percent tax credit. The Harford Land Trust ensures that these
programs and their benefits are fully understood and supports their use to landowners.
The trust has found an extraordinary amount of cooperation between private landowners,
county and state governments.

For more information on the Harford Land Trust, please contact David Miller, Harford
Land Trust, P.O. Box 385, Churchville, Maryland, 21158.

Trust for Public Land
One of TPL's techniques for finding new funding sources for land acquisition has been to
assist local and state governments with passing bond referendums. TPL helps with
polling and research to understand the open space needs and issues within the community
in order to ensure that the  bond is positioned and named in such a way that voters
immediately understand the potential impacts of the bond. For example, while many
voters may not know that  a land acquisition bill will likely  affect water quality, renaming
the bill to include the phrase "water quality" will make it obvious. The trust uses this
technique to expand its partnerships to include not only groups interested in open space
but also those interested in other community issues such as crime prevention or safe
drinking water. This approach  expands the reach of all of the partners and helps citizens
understand the far-reaching impacts that their votes will have. TPL has issued two reports

underscoring the benefits of open space protection. They are Healing America's Cities
and Protecting the Source.

TPL is also creative and successful at leveraging funds. One of its most innovative
techniques has been to use projects and programs outside of TPL as matches to attract
special funding sources. For example, in order to obtain a grant for land acquisition from
the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, TPL compiled the following as a
match for the grant: a state park acquired with bond money, conservation easements
donated to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, land donated to The Nature Conservancy,
and wetlands to be restored by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Ducks Unlimited.
While each of these preservation efforts is effective on its own, by combining them to
provide a match for federal funding, TPL was able to essentially double the effectiveness
of each and strengthen the partnerships between organizations working within a resource

For more information on the Trust for Public Land, please contact Debi Osbome,  Trust
for Public Land, 668 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., Suite 401, Washington, DC, 20003.
       VII. Well Established Channels of Communication Would Increase
       Effectiveness of Land Protection Efforts.
An overarching theme of the discussion was the need for clearer communication channels
among the Chesapeake Bay Program, government, and land trusts. More communication
could increase the awareness of funding opportunities, as well as knowledge of existing
resources. For example, the Chesapeake Bay Program has a 20-minute video on the value
of forest buffers that is available for use by land trusts and others. An organization known
as the Conservation Technical Support Program provides free GIS software to trusts. It
was suggested that perhaps a method of formalized communication, such as periodic
meetings, be established among the representatives of the land trusts.

                        Development Community/issues Form
                               September 26, 1997
This second forum involved representatives from the Chesapeake Bay Program's Land,
Growth and Stewardship Subcommittee (LGSS) and representatives from the
development community. For a list of participants, please see the Appendix B.

This forum offered the following topics to the participants to foster discussion of how
best to promote sustainable development. Each of the topics was addressed briefly by
certain forum participants, then opened to discussion by the full group.  There was also an
opportunity to suggest what actions could be taken by the development community
(developers, Realtors, land planners) and by the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) that
would further the goals of sustainable development and the Chesapeake Bay Program
"Priorities for Action" for land, growth and stewardship.

I.      State/Local Government Programs and Regulations as Tools for Sustainable

Participants indicated that local government regulations that control development are
inconsistent, time-consuming, sometimes expensive, and often frustrating for the
development community. It is often not environmental regulation that developers find
objectionable, as much as it is the process required to meet the regulations. If regulations
were streamlined,  made clearer and more consistent, and if the amount of time and money
involved in meeting regulations could be made more predictable, frustration and
resistance would decrease considerably for developers. A regulatory process that requires
as much as three years and an indefinite amount of money to accomplish depletes a
developer's resources, which might otherwise go to  achieving a more sustainable design.

The forum participants also mentioned the need for more flexibility in local government
regulations on site designs. They indicated bad development designs at times result from
developers merely following local regulations in order to get approval as fast as possible.
Since following established regulatory requirements will take less time to obtain approval
for development projects, there is no incentive for developers to propose alternative
development designs such as traditional neighborhood designs (TND).

In addition, current local regulations at times set specific frontage, setback and lot size
requirements without giving developers any flexibility. A forum participant indicated that
landowners do not necessarily want large lots but they want open space. Forum
participants suggested that local regulations instead should focus on conservation of open
space and then provide more latitude on frontage and lot size as long as open space is
protected in the development designs. Local regulations  could establish specific
requirements on amount and quality of open space (to ensure interconnectedness of open
space). Workshops with local governments in Pennsylvania on open space design were
mentioned as a good educational tool.

In addition to providing flexibility, local governments could direct growth to certain areas
by expediting the approval process for proposed development in those areas  as an

Suggested Development Community/Local Government Actions:

•   Partner with local governments to foster education on alternative development
    patterns (e.g., open space designs, traditional neighborhood designs) for the following
    audiences: landowners and other citizens, government officials at the local, state, and
    federal levels, developers, land planners, and state associations such as representatives
    of the National Association of Counties.

•  Use examples from existing developments as educational tools. Include examples of
   successful sustainable development efforts, but also those that have not been as
   successful in order to illustrate potential problems to avoid.
•  Promote experimentation through the use of sustainable development "laboratories"
   that allow for research into which techniques work and which do not. This could be
   accomplished through public/private partnerships.

Suggested CBP Actions:

•  Fund educational efforts, including the distribution of information about sustainable
   development to local communities every year.
•  Encourage state and federal government to partner with and to provide information to
   local  governments.
•  Conduct forums on sustainable development like this in communities in Maryland,
   Virginia and Pennsylvania for the next ten years.
•  Encourage flexibility in local government regulations. Encourage local governments
   to think in terms of zoning rather than lot size,  street width, etc.
•  Establish on-going communication with the private sector particularly through state
•  Promote honest brokering among different sectors within a community.
•  Encourage states to have predictable, consistent planning frameworks.
•  Encourage local governments to provide incentives that promote sustainable
•  Work for consistency across federal, state, and local regulatory programs.

II.     Different Development Patterns/Techniques: Preserving Green
       Infrastructure, Open Spaces, and Rural Areas and Promoting a Sense of

Concern was expressed over the lack of consistent definitions of certain terms in use at
the forum, as well as in the development and environmental communities.  Terms used to
define development patterns, such as sustainable development, traditional neighborhood
development, environmental development, and cluster development, are often misused
and are used interchangeably, which creates opportunity for vague and misunderstood
communications.  It was also suggested that such terms as cluster development and high-
density development be eliminated from the lexicon because of their negative
connotations.  Participants agreed that defining these terms is important, but that it was
beyond the scope of the forum.

Forum participants discussed the need for more rigorous studies to determine the market
demand for different development patterns and how people decide where they live. It was
mentioned that most studies on market demand are anecdotal and that they merely
surveyed the public on their housing preferences without measuring the market demand.

Two alternatives were discussed as alternative methods to drive the design of
development: one based on effective stormwater management and another based on
preservation of open space. The first alternative discussed is based on the "low impact
development" being promoted in Prince Georges County, Maryland, for effective
stormwater management. The goal of "low impact development" is to preserve the
hydrologic regime of a site through building codes and road designs and site designs, in
order to handle stormwater runoff.

The second development alternative discussed is focused on preservation of open space.
St. Augustine, Florida, Savannah, Georgia, Charleston, South Carolina, and Portland,
Oregon, were cited as examples of cities where design was driven by preservation of open

space. It was suggested that local regulations be established that require preservation of a
certain percentage of open space, while leaving how that is accomplished up to the
developer at a particular site. The forum participants also mentioned that site-specific
natural resources need to be identified as early as possible in the design of a development.

While there is a body of evidence that suggests that communities designed with areas of
open space sell more quickly and improve in value, there was concern that such evidence
is anecdotal. It may not be sufficient to all the fears of developers involved in the
financial risks of developing such communities. It was suggested that studies on the
benefits of open space designs be collected and be made more accessible to the
development and regulatory communities.

Suggested Actions for the Development Community/Local Governments:

•  Provide definitions for various development terms, including "sustainability."
•  Encourage local governments to define where growth can occur, rather than only
   where it cannot. A good example mentioned is the designation of growth areas in
   Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.
•  Develop standards for site planning ("performance zoning"). For example, standards
   focused on open space should focus on both quantity (minimum requirements) and
   quality ("connectedness" of open space).
•  Determine effective ways to get alternative development ideas to large and small
   private property owners.  Provide professional expertise on options.
•  Encourage more rigorous studies of market demand and preferences for types of
Suggested CBP Actions:

•  Provide funding and technical assistance to increase capacity at the local level to
   perform site-specific resource mapping.
•  Encourage local governments to place code restrictions on preservation areas.

•  Encourage statewide planning policies to coordinate local land use decisions and
•  Encourage a consistent framework in Geographic Information System (GIS) maps to
   make them more useful for planners and others.
•  Need to ground-truth wetland maps.
•  Encourage governments to define where growth can occur, rather than only where it
   cannot. Maps using gradations of green to show preferred areas for development
   were suggested. Study existing programs, such as that in Lancaster County,
   Pennsylvania, and Maryland's Smart Growth Initiative to determine their
   effectiveness as possible models.
•  Collect examples of effective local programs.
•  Encourage education efforts that are focused on economic advantages of sustainable
   development.  Tax attorneys  are an important element of this audience.
•  Include engineers, local officials, and commercial developers in land  use forums.

   Making Sustainable Development More Marketable

A study of the household market (American Demographics Household Growth) shows
that the "married-with-children"  market has decreased from 40 percent in 1972 to 25
percent currently. In order to target the market successfully, such changes need to be
carefully considered. Data indicate that the two most potentially successful markets to
target for sale of the sustainable development concept are "influentials" and seniors.
"Influentials" are considered to be physically active, "greener" than average, communiry-
oriented, early adopters of products, brand loyal, and trusted for word-of-mouth
recommendations. Seniors often are also community oriented, prefer smaller houses and
mixed-age and mixed-use communities.

Unfortunately, zoning frequently prohibits such communities. Funding for mixed-use is
often difficult as well (e.g. Fannie Mae limitations on mixed-use development). These
problems need to be addressed through the development of coalitions involving

developers, environmentalists, and community members.  Such coalitions could also
define desired areas and types of developments before the developers begin planning,
which would reduce the number of appeals and interventions that frustrate the
development community.

The book Best Development Practices: Making Money By Doing The Right Thing by
Reid Ewing (American Planners Press in Washington, D.C.) was cited as a good resource
for specific and successful prescriptive techniques for sustainable development.

It was suggested that the concept of community is a stronger selling point than is the
preservation of the environment. For example, narrower streets are appealing because
they are safer than wider thoroughfares, which is an excellent selling point. Narrower
streets also decrease the amount of impervious surfaces, which reduces the amount of
stormwater runoff, but this concept is a more elusive idea to the average consumer.

Suggested Actions for the Development Community/Local Governments:

•  Economic value is the most important factor for the consumer and the developer.
   Demonstrate value to the consumer rather than only to the developer.  Ultimately, the
   consumer is the driving force behind development.
•  Provide specific information to the consumer that demonstrates long-term economic
   benefits of sustainable development (e.g., decreases in energy and transportation
•  Use the concept of traditional, interactive communities as a selling point.
•  Overcome barriers by forming coalitions among developers, environmentalists, and
   members of the community.
•  Encourage the establishment of incentive programs that promote sustainable
   development, as well as those that discourage non-sustainable development.
•  Educate real estate agents on the advantages of sustainable development, so that they
   are able to promote the concept to their clients.

•  Educate environmental consultants to speak to developers in terms of the economic
   advantages of environmental protection.
•  Suggest alternatives to traditional methods of meeting regulations. For example, if
   zoning requires two sidewalks, suggest one sidewalk and a set of interconnecting
•  Keep abreast of changes in the market and target accordingly.

Suggested Actions for CBP:

•  Avoid an accusatory atmosphere wherein developers are presented as the problem.
•  Encourage communication between environmental consultants and land planners.
•  Educate environmental consultants to speak to developers in terms of the economic
   advantages of environmental protection.


          APPENDIX  A: Land. Conservation aid SfcwMip Forum
Steve Bunker    The Nature Conservancy
               2 Wisconsin Circle, Ste. 300
               Chevy Chase, MD 20815

Ellen Dayhoff   Land Conservancy of Adams County
               Adams County Courthouse
               Gettysburg, PA 17325

Mary Heinricht  Agricultural Reserve Program
               Virginia Beach, VA  23455
Helen Hooper
Patty Jackson
Land Trust Alliance
1319 F St., NW, Ste. 501
Washington, DC 20004

James River Association
P.O. Box 110
Richmond, VA 23218
Marcia Keener   Friends of the Rappahannock
               45 Bluestone Drive
               Fredericksburg, VA 22405

Donna Mennitto Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
               P.O. Box 169
               Queenstown, MD  21658

Chris Miller     Piedmont Environmental Council
               P.O. Box 460
               Warrenton, VA 20188

David Miller    Harford Land Trust
               P.O. Box 385
               Churchville, MD 21158
               c/o Henry Webster

Billy Mills      The Mattaponi &
               Pamunkey Rivers Association
               P.O. Box 242
               Manquin, VA  23106

Debi Osbome   Trust for Public Land
               666 Pennsylvania Ave., Ste. 401
               Washington, DC 20003
(301) 656-8673  (617) 482-5866

(717) 334-6781  (717) 334-2091

(757) 460-0750  (757) 460-0750

(202) 638-4725  (202) 638-4730

(804) 730-2898  (804) 730-8297


(410) 827-9756  (410) 827-9039

(540) 347-2334

(410)836-2103  (410)836-2103

(410) 836-2754

(804) 769-0841  (410) 769-0841

(202) 543-7552  (202) 544-4723

Jill Schwartz    American Farmland Trust
               1920NSt.,NW, Ste.400
               Washington, DC 20036

 Bill Sellers     Brandywine Conservancy
               P.O. Box 141
               Chadds Ford, PA 19317

Jim Thorne     The Nature Conservancy
               Lee Park, Ste. 470
               Conshohocken, PA 19428

Karen Weiss    Lancaster Farmland Trust
               128 E. Marion St.
               Lancaster, PA 17608

Paul Wigman    Western Pennsylvania Land Conservancy
               209 Fourth Ave.
               Pittsburgh, PA  15222

Nick Williams   Maryland Environmental  Trust
               100 Community Place, 1st Floor
               Crownsville, MD 21032
(202) 659-5170  (202) 659-8339
(610)388-2700  (610)388-1575
(610) 834-1323  (610) 834-6533
(717)293-0707  (717)293-0779
(412)288-2774  (412)281-1792
(410)514-7907  (410)514-7919

                      APPENDIX B:  Development Community Forum
 Randall Arendt
Louis Biacchi
Barry Carpenter
Ron Cascio
Larry Coffman
Jim de Francia
Jack Detweiler
Natural Lands Trust
1031 Palmers Mill Rd.
Media, PA 17011

PA Builders Association
600 North 12* Street
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(610)353-5587  (610)353-0517
(717) 730-4380
ext. 3018
Regional Strategic Land Planning  (540) 459-9590  (540) 459-9591
132 N. Maine St., Suite 100
Woodstock, VA  22664
Chestnut Creek
10046 Silver Point Land
Ocean City, MD 21842
(410) 213-2017
Prince Georges County           (301)883-7424  (301)883-9218
Dept. of Environmental Resources
9400 Peppercorn Place, #600
Largo, MD 20785
Lowe Enterprises
1945 Old Gallows Rd., #210
Vienna, VA 22182-3931
(703) 761-7600  (703)761-7606
c/o Howard, Hannah, and Detweiler(717) 761-1910  (717) 761-5308
3310 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA  17011
Sheldon Edner
Mark Fina
Abby Friedman
Edward Goodhart III
Metropolitan Planning Division    (202) 366-4066  (202) 366-7660
mail code ATP-20
400 7th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20590

Water Resources Research Center  (540) 231 -7089  (540) 231 -6673
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24061

National Association of Counties  (202) 942-4225  (202) 737-0480
440 First Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
PA State Association of
Township Supervisors
950 W. Fairway Drive
Lancaster, PA 17603
(717)397-4769  (717)397-7913

James L. Helsel, Jr.
PA Association of Realtors
213 Pine Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 234-8044  (717) 233-395 8
Ralph Higgins
John Hodges
Kristan Mitchell
Rich Pais
David Plott
Dick Schmoyer
Brett Van Akkeren
Higgins Associates
8501 Patterson Avenue
Richmond, VA 23229

Hanover County Planning Dept.
P.O. Box 470
Hanover, VA  23069

Institute for Sustainable Dev.
University of Virginia
Campbell Hall
Charlottesville, VA  22903

Richard C. Pais, Inc.
Ecology and Landscape Design
14222 Peddicord Road
Mt.Airy,MD 21771

HBA of Maryland
1502 Woodlawn Drive
Baltimore, MD 21207

PA Planning Association
Adams County Office of
Planning and Development
111-115 Baltimore Street
Gettysburg,  PA 17325

US EPA, mail code 2127
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(804) 740-7500  (804) 740-1620
(804) 537-6174  (804) 537-6232
(804) 924-6454
(301) 829-3139  (301) 208-0189
(410) 265-7400  (410) 265-6529
(717)334-6781  (717)334-2091
(202) 260-6914

The Chesapeake Bay Program is the cooperative
partnership among the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia; the District of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay
Commission, a tri-state legislative body; the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, representing the federal
government; and participating citizen advisory groups.

      For more information, please see our website:
               Chesapeake Bay Program