CBP/TRS211/98 EPA903-R-98-018 1997 CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM REGIONAL LAND FORUMS 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 INTRODUCTION 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 areathe 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 participants). 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. ------- BACKGROUND 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 consideredthe 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 generations. 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 groups. ------- 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 NEPA. III. Mapping an area's resources is critical to identify what resources need protection. 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 funds. 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. 10 ------- For more information on the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy, please contact Donna Mennitto, Eastern Shore Land Conservancy, P.O. Box 169, Queenstown, Maryland, 21658. 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 11 ------- 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 area. 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. 12 ------- 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 Development 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. 13 ------- 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 incentive. 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. 14 ------- 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 associations. 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 development. Work for consistency across federal, state, and local regulatory programs. 15 ------- II. Different Development Patterns/Techniques: Preserving Green Infrastructure, Open Spaces, and Rural Areas and Promoting a Sense of Community 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 16 ------- 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 development. 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. 17 ------- Encourage statewide planning policies to coordinate local land use decisions and programs. 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 18 ------- 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 costs). 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. 19 ------- 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 trails. 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. 20 ------- APPENDICES A & B 21 ------- APPENDIX A: Land. Conservation aid SfcwMip Forum PARTICIPANTS PHONE FAX 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 5016MosbyRoad 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 (703)441-6474 (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 22 ------- PARTICIPANTS PHONE FAX 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 23 ------- APPENDIX B: Development Community Forum PARTICIPANTS: PHONE FAX 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 FHWA 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 24 ------- PARTICIPANTS James L. Helsel, Jr. PA Association of Realtors 213 Pine Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 PHONE FAX (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 25 ------- 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: www.chesapeakebay.net/bayprogram Chesapeake Bay Program ------- |