Population Growth and Development in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed to the Year 2020 The Report of the Year 2020 Panel to the Chesapeake Executive Council December 1988 ------- 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. ------- Population Growth and Development in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed to the Year 2020 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 Page 3 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 ._ A Alvin R. McNeal iJl ~ /ItLAJf Director of Strategic Planning and . / ' v •* >, Development Review Division Developme District of Columbia Office of Planning Representing the Environmental Protection Agency Representing the Chesapeake Bay Commission I Charles S. Spooner Director Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr. Chairman Chesapeake Bay Commission ------- Table of Contents Summary l Conclusions 1 Visions of Success 2 Realizing the Visions - Recommended Actions 4 State and Federal Actions 8 Pennsylvania Action Agenda 9 Maryland Action Agenda 9 Virginia Action Agenda 10 District of Columbia Action Agenda 11 Federal Action Agenda 12 Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 13 Introduction 13 Vested Interest in Success 14 The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement 14 The 2020 Panel 15 Experience Across the Nation 16 Assumptions in the Panel's Work - 17 The Bay's Problems 18 Effects of Development 18 How Growth Goes Unmanaged 19 The Tragedy of the Commons 20 Manifestations of the Problems 20 The Role of Growth and Development 22 Global Connections 23 Chapter 2. Development Patterns in the Chesapeake Bay Region 25 Population Growth and Distribution Until Now 25 Wealth and the Automobile 26 Population Patterns 26 Future Population Growth and Distribution 27 Where New Residents Will Go 27 Consumption of Land 28 Effects of Growth on Key Resources 29 Loss of Sensitive Areas 29 Waste Generation 30 Water Use 31 Infrastructure Costs 31 Chapter 3. Envisioning An Alternative Future 35 Location Alternatives 36 Density Alternatives 36 Comparison of High, Medium, and Low Density 37 Effect of Delay 38 Directing Growth 39 Land Management and Regulation 39 Infrastructure Investment 40 Taxes and Incentives 40 Chapter 4. Visions of the Future 41 Background 41 Leadership for the Visions 42 Visions of Success 42 Realizing the Visions - Recommended Actions 44 State and Federal Actions 48 Pennsylvania Action Agenda 49 Maryland Action Agenda 49 Virginia Action Agenda 50 District of Columbia Action Agenda 51 Federal Action Agenda 52 Appendix A A-l Appendix B B-l ------- 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 turn, 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 fat- 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- ticularily 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 of on-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 requke 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. 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. 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. 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. ------- 13 Chapter One Introduction And Background Introduction Population growth and development are is- sues facing the Chesapeake Bay watershed. This report examines the relation of projected growth to the living resources and water quality of the Chesapeake Bay system and to the quality of life in communities throughout the region. The ideas presented here form the basis of what must become a regional agenda for ac- tion, for change. The way land is developed needs to be examined critically, with the in- tention of doing a better job from now on. The vitality of the region — both economical- ly and environmentally ~ will be closely tied to the degree of success achieved in dealing with problems associated with growth. Clear boundaries between land use, environ- mental quality, and economics do not exist. An act or decision in one area affects the others. How the land is used is a basic factor in the ecological health of the Chesapeake Bay. Land use and the health of the Bay, in turn, affect the economic vitality of the region. A growing population requires land for homes, transportation, shops, jobs, and recreation. This development and use of land and the manner in which people conduct their daily lives can create pollutants that enter the environment. While the connection between "How the land is used is a basic factor in the ecological health of the Chesapeake Bay." human activities on land and Bay degrada- tion is inevitable, the flow of pollutants can and must be managed or there will be a steady erosion of the gains already made or planned in Bay improvement. A good deal is known about the relation- ships between land use and other human ac- tivities, and their effects on the environment and people. Some practices are harmful, and benefits are derived from following one course of action over another. A course of action that fosters sound development practices, land use pat- terns, and land management is fundamental to preserving ecosystems such as the Chesapeake Bay as growth continues. ------- 14 Chapter One There are solutions to the problems, but their implementation requires foresight and persistence. Vested Interest In Success Each person has a vested interest in solving environmental and social problems. Failure costs dearly. Taxes increase, services decline, and an already degraded environ- ment continues to slip. This vested interest in successful problem solving is often ig- nored. Time and distance frequently separate "Today, unmanaged new growth has the potential to erase any progress made in Bay improvements..." an act from its consequences elsewhere, fool- ing people into disregarding the connection. The connections are increasingly being demonstrated: the quality of the Bay is deteriorating, roads are clogged, and there is a widespread unease about society's impact on the environment generally. Unfortunately, people also have a vested in- terest in keeping things they way they are. The familiar is more comfortable and easier to deal with than the unfamiliar and new. Political, social, and economic institutions are most comfortable perpetuating themsel- ves. To tinker with a problem here, tighten up on a regulation there is the customary way of doing business. But, to change the trend, to give a new direction to society, requires a tremendous amount of time, energy, and money. Above all it requires persistence. Today, unmanaged new growth has the potential to erase any progress made in Bay improvements, overwhelming past and cur- rent efforts. Extensive programs underway to remedy and clean up existing problems hold promise of success. However, success in dealing with existing problems will be tem- porary, if new growth generates additional quantities of pollutants. The Panel finds that this need not be the case. Changes in the way land is used and managed are achievable. Change begins with ideas. Ideas become ac- tions. The actions proposed in this report, if supported, will preserve these gains so they become a legacy of those who acted during this century. The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement ushered in a new level of inter-government commitment to restoring the Bay. The Gover- nors of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsyl- vania, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Com- mission, and the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are sig- natories to this pact, committing each to un- dertake substantial and meaningful actions to restore the Bay's environmental and economic health. These officials constitute the Chesapeake Executive Council, and are responsible for implementing the Agreement. ------- Introduction And Background 15 The 1987 Agreement included goals and commitments for seven areas of concern, in- cluding Population Growth and Development — the subject of this report. The population growth and development, goal is clear and straightforward. It is to: "Plan for and manage the adverse environmen- tal effects of human population growth and land development in the Chesapeake Bay watershed." In support of this goal, the Agreement lists six objectives to be achieved. These are to: "Designate a state-level office responsible for ensuring consistency with this Agreement among the agencies responsible for comprehensive over- sight of development activity, including infrastruc- ture planning, capital budgets, land preservation and waste management activities. Provide local governments with financial and technical assistance to continue and expand their management efforts. Consult with local government representatives in the development of Chesapeake Bay restora- tion and protection plans and programs. Identify and give public recognition to innova- tive and otherwise noteworthy examples of local government restoration and protection-related programs. Assure that government development projects meet all environmental requirements. Promote, among local, state and federal govern- ments, and the private sector, the use of innova- tive techniques to avoid and, where necessary, mitigate the adverse impacts of growth." The Agreement finds "a clear correlation be- tween population growth and associated develop- ment and environmental degradation in the Chesapeake Bay system." The Agreement also states: "The States and the Federal government will assert the full measure of their authority to mitigate the poten- tial adverse effects of continued growth." States are to forge an active and cooperative partner- ship with local governments to establish policies, guidelines, and practices that will manage growth and development throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The 2020 Panel In partial fulfillment of the goal and objec- tives of the Population Growth and Develop- ment Commitment, a 12-member panel was commissioned to report by December 1988, on anticipated growth and related issues through the year 2020. Based on its time horizon, the group soon became known simp- ly as the 2020 Panel. The specific charge to the 2020 Panel, out- lined in the 1987 Bay Agreement, is to report to the Executive Council on: "Anticipated population growth and land development patterns in the Bay region through the year 2020. Infrastructure requirements necessary to serve growth and development. Environmental programs needed to improve Bay resources while accommodating growth. Alternative means of managing and directing growth. Alternative mechanisms for financing governmental services and environmental con- trols". ------- 16 Chapter One The 2020 Panel, support staff, and inter- ested observers met regularly throughout 1988 to discuss and debate various aspects of growth ~ its impacts, its management, ap- propriate levels of government involvement, the wisdom of various techniques and ap- proaches, technical and educational needs of professional and elected officials, and ways to effectively accommodate growth while im- proving Bay quality and the quality of life throughout the region. "This report . . . calls for a focused and ambitious agenda of cooperative and coordinated planning..." Four public meetings were held, one in each jurisdiction, to receive comments and recom- mendations from the public. Dozens of citizens, representing themselves or groups to which they belong, offered perceptive and thoughtful comments on growth and develop- ment and the Bay's future. These comments reflected a broad-based consensus throughout the Bay watershed for effective land use management that will restore and protect the Bay and maintain and improve the quality of life. This report distills that process of meeting, listening, and debating. It calls for a focused and ambitious agenda of cooperative and coordinated planning and management to im- prove the quality of the Bay and human life, accommodate new residents and businesses, preserve the sensitive and valued environ- mental resources of the Bay region, and be a model of interjurisdictional cooperation for the nation. Experience Across the Nation The Panel devoted considerable attention to the activities of other states with regard to planning for and managing population growth and development and protecting of environmental resources. Understanding the direction of other states throughout the nation aided the Panel in forming its recommenda- tions. The programs of ten states were examined. These states have several characteristics in common with the Chesapeake Bay water- shed: considerable water-related resources, considerable past and anticipated growth, and considerable tourism and recreation. Thus, the experience of these states is particularly relevant to the Chesapeake Bay area. Through review of these programs, the Panel found common traits and factors important to their success. A summary of those charac- teristics necessary to establish a strong and acceptable program follows: A new State agency or commission is created to perform the new duties and responsibilities. The State is required to prepare a plan. State agencies and local government policies, plans, and projects must be consistent with the State plan. In some cases, agency budgets must be consistent with the State plan. State and local plans must be coordinated. The focus of the State and local plans is to define and delineate growth and resource protec- tion areas. The State agency prepares guidelines, criteria, or standards to guide preparation of local plans and ------- Introduction And Background 17 programs. The local plans and programs and amendments thereto are approved by the State agency. In some cases, the State agency authorizes per- mits, issues orders, hears appeals, resolves con- flicts. Strong, pervasive and sustained citizen participa- tion is an important ingredient. Initial and continuing bipartisan support is needed to make these State efforts successful. Provision of substantial and sustained technical assistance and funds to local governments to enable them to comply with the new program is necessary. Precise specification of the duties and respon- sibilities of each involved party and clear defini- tion of each element of any program are necessary. Enforcement, monitoring, and serious long term commitment and follow through are required if these programs are to reach their potential. Several incentive and penalty devices are used to gain compliance with the State plan, for ex- ample: • Denial or veto of permits, • Compliance prerequisite to qualification for funding, • Higher priority is given to consistent projects, • Local governments are enable to institute specific measures when they adhere to they State plan, for instance, impact fees, trans- ferable development rights programs, purchase of development easements. Role of State legislature and regional planning agencies varies considerably among the dif- ferent State programs. The more recent programs cover entire States; earlier programs were tailored to ad- dress specific resource areas. The earlier programs were more environmentally oriented; recent programs are more develop- ment and infrastructure related. "Understanding the direction of other states throughout the na- tion aided the Panel informing its recommendations." State programs reviewed by the Panel in- cluded: California Oregon Florida North Carolina Vermont Maine New Jersey Hawaii Maryland Virginia Assumptions in the Panel's Work The Panel chose to operate with some basic assumptions. First, this report is addressed to the Chesapeake Executive Council, whose members are responsible for implementing the Bay Agreement Commitments. Second, we accepted that growth will hap- pen, but that it should not happen in the un- planned and unregulated way that it has in the past. At issue were where, in what form, and how much growth might occur and what could be done to.minimize impacts and maxi- mize its contribution to the region. Third, the focus was on the future. A vision was sought of what environmentally and so- cially responsible growth could be. The im- ------- 18 Chapter One aginations of developers, planners, and offi- cials need to stretch to find better ways to put new development on the landscape — ways that take into account the on-site and off-site consequences of a development decision, both immediately and over time. The last major assumption was that identify- ing the appropriate roles of state and local governments in land use management, growth policy, and intergovernmental rela- tions was a priority. "If we continue to rely on high- ways and automobiles; and if we continue with the same pat- terns of growth, it is virtually impossible that the quality of life in the region will get any- thing but worse." Effectively dealing with growth rests with the Chief Executives, legislators, officials, and citizens of each jurisdiction. The degree of success the Bay programs have will depend in large measure on daily, individual decisions about how to develop land, conduct lives, dispose of wastes, and invest time and energy. The Bay was not crippled by a few gross acts of wanton polluting. A great many decisions by individuals over decades created incremental changes, imperceptible in thek effect as isolated acts, but devastating in sum. The solution to the Bay's problems, and to other regional environmental problems, will come about in the same way, as the aggregate of thousands of daily decisions. The Bay's Problems The Bay's problems are not simply the Bay's problems — they are problems of living on the land. The region's officials and citizens are beginning to acknowledge this and do something about them. Effects of Development If growth and development are given free rein, it is reasonable to expect that for some counties the rate of growth will be stagger- ing, as a wave of development reaches them. If we continue to rely on highways and automobiles; and if we continue with the same pattern of growth, it is virtually impos- sible that the quality of life in the region will get anything but worse. The effects of growth and development ex- perienced in the Chesapeake Bay region — both in the water and on land ~ are not uni- que. American society has been transformed; both the pattern and consequences of develop- ment are different from earlier generations. Americans produce, and put into the environ- ment, vast quantities of exotic chemicals and nutrients. Wealth has freed people to pursue individual ways of living that were only dreams a generation ago. Scattered development is a fact, and new development continues to follow this trend. Outside urban centers, this pattern is charac- teristically low density. Low density sub- divisions and mini-estates necessarily rely on disbursed shopping centers to provide food, clothing, and luxury items. Pedestrian traffic ------- Introduction And Background 19 between home and other destinations is vir- tually impossible due to distances or the dif- ficulty of negotiating roads and parking lots. Even in areas of higher density, easily acces- sible commercial and transportation services are often inadequate. Effective mass transportation systems to serve scattered development are extraordinari- ly expensive to develop. The residential den- sity is too low for collection, and individual destinations are too numerous for efficient service because jobs and shops are scattered throughout the region. The car is the preferred means of locomotion in any case. Scattered development is wasteful of land. The wise use of land is not an idle daydream; it has important consequences. With scat- tered development, large areas effectively be- come "vaccinated" against any use except low density residential development. Farm- ing, gravel mining, or timber production are impractical when houses are peppered throughout the landscape, and homeowners are generally opposed to these activities near- by. Accessibility of areas via highways fosters the scattered pattern. Lack of central water supplies and sewage systems in many areas opened by highways result in on-site utilities: septic systems and private or local wells. These reinforce the trend to low density and land consumption. Public policies further this trend: if congestion and pollution are is- sues, local governments simply require development to be spread even more thinly, under the mistaken notion that this will be a solution. Higher density, alone, is not a panacea. In- creased density — with its wiser use of resour- ces and more logical mix of land uses — must also have a greater emphasis on controlling and managing environmental impacts. How Growth Goes Unmanaged Until a high rate of growth is experienced lo- cally, most citizens and officials do not spend a good deal of time and energy on land use planning. In areas where there is no tradition "The imaginations of develop- ers, planners, and officials need to stretch to find better ways to put new development on the landscape..." of planning, and where growth has been at a slow pace, the need for zoning, comprehen- sive planning, and site development review is not widely accepted. In many places these land management tools are in place, but are perfunctory or only weakly guide develop- ment. Often, factors external to the public plan- ning and decision process control the pace and location of development in the area. Community leaders, public officials, and professional planners react to development. The potential for local communities to foster specific patterns of development, enhance the quality of life, and increase the efficiency of public services often goes unrealized. It has become the habit to let the market drive the ------- 20 Chapter One planning and land management process. Development is initiated in response to real or expected demand for housing, offices, or retail shops. If it fits with the often broadly "...the need for zoning, com- prehensive planning, and site development review is not wide- ly accepted." drawn zoning requirements of a community, the community has little choice but to accept whatever is proposed. The developer responds to the demand and initiates the physical development process. The Tragedy of the Commons The problems we see around us today have come about because decisions that from an in- dividual point of view are sensible can lead to an overall bad result. This is the tyranny of small decisions. Individual decisions -- one-by-one — become a torrent of decisions throughout the region. The results of those decisions eventually wash to the Bay. Local governments in the region are acting out the tragedy of the commons. In pre-in- dustrial England each villager had a right to graze livestock on the common area of the village. Initially, the commons was large enough to support the livestock of everyone in the village. Population growth and in- creased wealth resulted in more cattle being grazed. Overgrazing followed, with the com- mons suffering from erosion and loss of vegetation. From the individual's perspec- tive it made sense to add one more cow since the benefit (in milk, hides, and meat) from the added cow accrued to the individual, while the damage was spread to everyone equally. Reduced use of the commons by everyone would sustain it in good condition, but this would require the self-restraint of everyone. Although the more thoughtful vil- lagers could foresee the end ~ a commons useless to all ~ the day-to-day decision of whether to add a cow overrode the need to protect everyone's collective long-term inter- est in having a sound and productive com- mons. Collective action was required to achieve a level of mutually agreed restraint with its long-term benefits. Manifestations of the Problems Current land use practices in most areas parallel those of the commons. When the country was younger, citizens could sub- scribe to the view that a property owner should be able to use land as he or she chose, with minimal regard to the general welfare. As the nation becomes more densely settled, the poverty of that philosophy if applied to its logical end is recognized. Suburban growth around cities, creating con- gestion and pollution and requiring extensive resource consumption, is a manifestation of the problem. Day-to-day decisions that may seem sound in the short-term, only com- pound problems in the long-term. Institution- al arrangements, decision processes, and traditional ways of viewing the world that have served well historically are not proving effective in dealing with the suburbanization process and its results. Self-restraint will not ------- Introduction And Background 21 work if everyone is not participating. Lack- ing any assurance of universal restraint, in- dividual (or local) decisions are made the best they can be under the circumstances. The problem is the circumstances. They need to be changed. Actions among affected parties need to be coordinated and planned. The decline of the Bay's water quality and resources resulting from the individual choices of landowners and consumers is well documented. Changes at the most basic levels of the ecosystem have had a disruptive effect throughout the Bay. The floor of the Bay is a major sink for metals and organic com- pounds. Studies have shown that Bay sedi- ments are toxic to aquatic organisms, probably due to a combination of high metal content and high loads of organic compounds. Although the input of metals to the Bay comes from both human and natural sources, some metals have been found to occur in sedi- ments in the northernmost part of the Bay floor at levels up to eight times higher than would occur from natural processes alone. In the Patapsco and Elizabeth Rivers where in- dustry has located, metal concentrations up to 100 times greater than natural background levels have been found. High levels of metal contamination have been also found in the upper Potomac, upper James, small sections of the Rappahannock and York Rivers, and the upper mid-Bay. Excessive levels of nutrients are also a major problem in the Bay. As nutrient levels increase, algal growth is encouraged. High levels of algae are a harbinger of oxygen depletion, especially during summer months. When algau die, the natural decaying process consumes oxygen. When oxygen is depleted, water can become anoxic and devoid of most forms of life except anaerobic bacteria. " ...traditional ways of viewing the world... are not proving ef- fective in dealing with the sub- urbanization process and its results." In July 1950, there were no anoxic waters and only limited areas of low dissolved oxygen in the main stem of the Bay. In July 1980, a very large area of the main stem of the Bay experienced anoxic conditions. The duration of oxygen depletion has also in- creased. This spatial and temporal increase in the extent of low dissolved oxygen levels reduces the area of the Bay that can support normal finfish and shellfish populations. Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) was once abundant throughout the Chesapeake Bay. In recent years, there has been a decline in all species of SAV in all sections of the Bay, with 1965 to 1980 representing a period of unprecedented decline. Annual surveys of SAV have shown that the number of vegetated survey stations in Maryland dropped from 28.5% in 1971 to 4.5% in 1982. Changes in the distribution and abun- dance of Bay waterfowl, which feed on SAV, have paralleled these vegetation changes. ------- 22 Chapter One Areas of greatest S AV loss correspond with areas of greatest nutrient enrichment. Reports show that on a worldwide basis, SAV communities are becoming increasingly affected by man-induced changes, and have declined in areas where there is extensive in- dustrial or urban development. Impacts to fishing harvests have also oc- curred. Between 1930 and 1960, annual har- vests of 30 million pounds of shucked oyster meat were sustained. Between 1960 and 1980, annual yields dropped to about 20 mil- lion pounds. Annual harvests of freshwater spawning finfish declined from a maximum of 20.44 pounds per acre (between 1901 and 1910) to 5.64 pounds per acre (1971 to 1980). Declines have occurred in harvests of alewife (herring), shad, yellow perch, striped bass, and white perch. A variety of factors impact finfish, and natural variables have major influences on the populations. However, evidence suggests that human- caused stresses, especially nutrient enrich- ment and toxicity in low-salinity spawning and nursery areas, may be related to recent declines in anadromous species. 20,000 15.000 S 10.000 t 5.000 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Shad 1980 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 Year Shucked oyster meat 1880 1895 1910 1925 1940 1955 1970 1982 Year Fishery Harvests The Role of Growth and Development Not all these problems result from the development process and the pattern of development. All, however, result from an in- crease in the number of people living in the watershed, creating increased per capita demand for electricity, water, sewage, roads, trash disposal, recreation areas, and other goods and services. Growth dictates the need for public strategies to reduce per capita im- pacts if we are to merely maintain the status quo. Low density residential growth requires ex- tensive use of the private automobile, which dictates the need for extensive paved areas for roads and parking. These surfaces shed excess, contaminated runoff to waterways. Increased fuel use puts more pollutants into the atmosphere, from where they fall or are washed out to the land and the Bay. Combus- tion of hydrocarbon fuels adds carbon ------- Introduction And Background 23 dioxide to the atmosphere, contributing to the "greenhouse" effect and the warming of the earth. Greater car use requires greater use of motor oil. Nationwide, motor oil accounts for nearly 40% of the hydrocarbon pollution found in waterways. Nearly 80% of the oil purchased for do-it-yourself oil changes is not recycled. Quart by quart it finds its way into stormdrains, landfills, and holes dug in the backyard. It also finds its way to the Bay. Removal of trees and native vegetation near waterways takes away a natural buffer and fil- ter. Stream quality drops due to both the loss of vegetation and the added pollutants and runoff. Large grassed areas are generally maintained by the application of fertilizers and pesticides. Both are feedstock for water pollution. The degree of pollution depends on how much is used, the proximity of sur- face or groundwater, the timing of the use, and the characteristics of the chemicals, the soils, and the vegetation. Non-native vegeta- tion used in gardens and parks often is not well matched to the soils and rainfall of the region and will require extensive use of water and chemicals to survive. Public sewage treatment facilities can be ef- fective at removing nutrients from the waste stream. Low density growth makes the development of a community sewer very ex- pensive. Private septic systems are the norm in low density residential areas, but these sys- tems can be ineffective in some soil and groundwater conditions. Also, over time the systems require upkeep, which is the respon- sibility of the homeowner. If there is no ob- vious problem on the ground surface, malfunctioning systems go untended, adding their pollutants to groundwater and nearby surface water. Global Connections The Bay is affected by global problems as well. It has been estimated that as much as 25% of the nitrogen introduced into the Bay is from air pollution. Automobile and power plant emissions are deposited directly on the Bay or within the watershed, whence they wash to the Bay. Likewise, the long-term integrity of the Bay's wetlands will be challenged by sea level rise brought about by global warming. For the last two or three thousand years, sea level rise along the Northeast coast has been about .3 feet per century. Since 1940, the rate has risen to about 1 foot per century, and is projected to increase to a rate of 3 to 6 feet in the next century. Existing wetlands will disappear as they are submerged by the sea, and new ones will grow in areas newly inun- dated by the sea's rise. Unimpeded, wetlands will generally migrate landward, occupying land that was once upland but which has be- come tidally influenced. In some instances, accumulating sediment within a wetland will keep pace with the sea's rise and build new wetlands atop the old. To continue to exist, wetlands will also need to migrate landward of their present locations. Bulkheads, retain- ing walls, and fill destroy this process. Serious loss of wetlands in the Bay can be ex- pected unless communities are farsighted enough to ensure that development does not interfere with the migration of wetlands. ------- 24 Chapter One Clearly, problems in the Bay link directly back to how people conduct themselves on land: the style of life, the pattern of develop- ment, and the investment policies followed with regard to roads, sewers, water systems, and trash disposal. These linkages were ac- knowledged in the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. ------- 25 Chapter Two Development Patterns In The Chesapeake Bay Region Population Growth and Distribution Until Now The entire Chesapeake Bay watershed en- compasses portions of Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia, as well as portions of Delaware, New York and West Virginia. The Population Growth and Development Commitment of the 1987 Bay Agreement deals only with the Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Dis- trict of Columbia portion of the watershed. This somewhat smaller area was the focus of the 2020 Panel's concern. The 1990 popula- tion for the study area is estimated at 13,590,900 individuals, which is 83 percent of the total watershed population. Although more than 1/3 of the Chesapeake Bay basin and 1/4 of the basin's population lie within Pennsylvania, most of the recent growth in the basin has taken place in Maryland and Virginia, near the Bay and its major tributaries. For example, between 1973-1981 in Maryland, 17% of all new development in the counties around the Bay occurred within 1000 feet of the Bay and its tributaries. This strip accounted for only 9% of the land in these counties. In Queen Anne's County, one of the Maryland Bay Counties, the disparity in development be- tween shoreline and interior land was ex- treme. Seventy four percent of all development occurred in the 1000-foot zone, which represents only 11% of the county's land. " ...the Bay and rivers of the region have acted as powerful magnets to growth . . . The pat- tern of growth ignores political boundaries..." It is not simply the number of people that af- fect a region. For example, one evidence of growth ~ traffic congestion — became a sub- stantial issue in the last decade. The number of cars on roads has increased at a greater rate than the population. Likewise, the num- ber of houses has increased at a greater rate ------- 26 Chapter Two than the increase in population. How we con- duct our daily lives has a profound effect. Wealth and the Automobile Since World War n, the number of cars and houses in this country has grown dramatical- ly. Congestion on two-lane highways gave rise to the $108 billion dollar interstate high- way system and to the upgrading of other federal, state and local highways. The social and cultural changes that have swept our " ...the Baltimore-Washington- Annapolis area . . . of the Bay watershed has 5.8 million people, ranking 4th in the Na- tion behind New York, Los An- geles, and Chicago." Nation (and the world) have manifested them- selves in many ways. One is that many more women are in the workforce, and many households have two or even three cars ~ cars that are likely to be on the road as parents go to separate job destinations and teenaged children drive to school. Having a car has shifted from a luxury to a necessity, fostered by the development patterns we have sought. Fueled by relatively cheap gasoline and a subsidized road network, we have spread out in the low density pattern of living we have come to label "sprawl". The impact of this is readily seen in grow- ing areas. In Fairfax County, Virginia, for ex- ample, the population since 1975 has risen 31%, as people and jobs have come to the county. Washington, D.C. is still the job cen- ter for many people, but just as many people now spread out across the region, driving to new employment centers around highway in- terchanges throughout the greater Washington area. In Fairfax, the 31% popula- tion increase was accompanied by an 84% in- crease in autos. Not only are there a tremendous number of cars, they are being driven more. In 1976,466,000 vehicles a day used the Capital Beltway; now 735,000 vehicles a day make use of this road. The average speed on the Beltway in 1981 was 47 miles per hour; now this has been halved to 23 miles per hour. Population Patterns The population of the region is not spread uniformly. Growth has been most dramatic in the suburban counties around the region's cities. The parts of these counties nearest the cities are now largely urbanized, albeit at a lower density than the core cities. Now growth is moving into the far reaches of these counties and into the once more remote counties. Many counties in the hinterland, most notably in the upper reaches of the Susquehanna River have remained static or even lost population, as have central cities. In all cases, the Bay and rivers of the region have acted as powerful magnets to growth. Living in proximity to water remains a high priority of many people. People are moving toward the shore and to surburban areas around the cities. The pattern of growth ig- nores political boundaries, and once distinct areas are now merging where their spheres of ------- Development Patterns In The Chesapeake Bay Region 27 influence overlap. It is not unusual for people to live in one city and commute to another. Couples often select intermediate points of residence. This merging is clearly evident in the Baltimore-Washington-An- napolis area. If viewed as a metropolitan region, this area of the Bay watershed has 5.8 million people, ranking 4th in the Nation be- hind New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Population projected CD actual J$_ c 10 o — 1950 1959 1969 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Future Population Growth and Distribution Looking across the next three decades, it is possible to anticipate not only how many people there will be but how other aspects of life may change. No doubt, technology and social habits will change some things radical- ly, while other aspects of life will remain vir- tually the same as they are today. As for the make-up of the region's population, we ex- pect smaller families, an older average population, and a population with more wealth, leisure time, and education. Where New Residents Will Go In the next 30 years the Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia portion of the water- shed is projected to grow by 2.6 million people (nearly 20%), from 13.6 million in 1990 to 16.2 million in 2020. This projected growth, which is less than the increase of the last three decades, will still add considerably to the stress potentially applied to the Bay and to the region's environment generally. As with prior growth, the projected growth is not expected to be uniformly distributed. Percent Population Increase: 1990 - 2020 | 75-99 Percent Increase g 50-74 Percent Increase 3 25-49 Percent Increase 0 0-24 Percent Increase Ql Decline [] Not in Study Area ------- 28 Chapter Two Near-shore areas and the metropolitan ring counties will see much of the growth. Population projections for the portion of each jurisdiction within the Chesapeake Bay watershed indicate the following percentage increases between 1990 and 2020. Pennsylvania's population will grow 8%, Maryland 18%, and Virginia 32%. Washington will remain static. " ...conversion of agricultural and forest land to low density residential use is the form that most of this growth will take." Currently undeveloped land near the major urban centers of Washington, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, Richmond, and Norfolk, as well as Harrisburg and York, is likely to be converted for residential use as this growth occurs. If recent trends are an indication, conversion of agricultural and forest land to low density residential use is the form that most of this growth will take. The Washington Council of Governments has forecast population, household, and job growth in its region, and predicts a return to the rapid growth of the late '50s to early '70s. Over the next 25 years, local popula- tion is projected to increase 32%, with an in- crease of 47% in the number of households (reflecting the trend to smaller household size), and a 66% increase in jobs. About one- third of these jobs, but little population growth, is forecast for the central metro area of the District, Arlington, and Alexandria. The inner suburban counties -- Montgomery, Prince Georges, and Fairfax — are expected to see about half of both the population growth and the jobs. The outer suburban counties ~ Loudoun, Prince William, Char- les, and Frederick — will see 40% of the population growth while jobs grow by only 13%. This continues the trend of commuting from bedroom communities to central city and belrway work places. In contrast, the Richmond Regional Plan- ning District projects that future land develop- ment in the Richmond region would occur at slightly higher densities than existing development because of such factors as in- creased costs for energy, construction, and land, and decreased household size. If these assumptions are correct, land consumption will grow at a slower rate than will popula- tion in that region. Consumption of Land Undeveloped land has been converted to developed land at a rate that exceeds the rate of population growth. Between 1970 and 1980 in Maryland, for example, population increased 7.5 percent, but developed acreage increased 16.5 percent. In other words, the land used for development is more than dou- bling on a per capita basis. This is the result of development on large lots (e.g., 1 acre or more per house). The use of land was not uniform, however. Although only 8% of all developed parcels were sized 2-20 acres, these parcels accounted for 52% of developed residential land. It has been projected that by the year 2000 in Maryland, 80 percent of new housing will occupy one ------- Development Patterns In The Chesapeake Bay Region 29 third of the land being converted for new housing. This 80% will be in sewer service areas. The remaining 20 percent of the hous- ing demand will consume 2/3 of new residen- tial land, and will be located outside sewer service areas. developed land. During the three decades from 1950 to 1980, each new resident ac- counted for .65 acres of new development. The result is that the regional average of developed land per person has nearly doubled to .33 acres. The entire Chesapeake basin population grew almost 50% between 1950 and 1980 (from about 8.3 million to 12.4 million). In the same period, the amount of land used for residential and commercial purposes in- creased 180% (from 1.5 million acres to 4.2 million acres). This corresponds to a land consumption rate of .65 acres per new resi- dent. Looking at just the three state area, popula- tion will increase 31% between 1980 and 2020. If land consumption continues at the same pace as before, 59% more land will be developed than was developed in 1980. In 1978 (the only year for which basin-wide data are available), developed land made up 10% of the Bay watershed within Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the District. In 2020, this would increase to 16% of the watershed. By jurisdiction, the amount of developed land in Maryland will increase from 19% to 33%, in Virginia from 10% to 18%, in Pennsylvania from 7% to 8%, and in the District of Columbia there will be no change. Although the accuracy of projections is al- ways debatable, it is clear from experience that per capita land consumption is now taking place at a greater rate than was once the case. For example, in 1950, each resident in the region accounted for .18 acres of Effects of Growth on Key Resources Loss of Sensitive Areas Between 80 and 90 percent of the total Bay seafood harvest depends at some stage on wetlands. Wetlands provide a food source for finfish larvae, and serve as a buffer against excessive nutrients, sediment, and pollutants. "Undeveloped land has been converted to developed land at a rate that exceeds the rate of population growth." Nearly 1.2 million acres of wetland, 75% of which are inland wetlands, are found in the Chesapeake Drainage Basin. Between the mid-1950s and the late 1970s, more than 2,800 acres of wetlands were lost annually, principally to development and agriculture. Between 1955 and 1978, Maryland lost about 24,000 acres, (5%) of its 440,000 acres of wetlands. Virginia, with slightly more than one million acres of wetlands, lost 63,000 acres (6%) of its wetlands between 1956 and 1977. Of nearly 500,000 acres of wetlands in Pennsylvania, 28,000 acres (6%) were lost be- tween 1956 and 1979. Overall, inland wet- ------- 30 Chapter Two lands are disappearing at a faster rate than coastal wetlands. No doubt, this is due to protective federal and state laws now being applied to coastal wetlands. Other sensitive areas are at risk from growth and development. These include watersheds of water supply reservoirs, areas over groundwater wells, aquifer recharge areas, "Between the mid-1950s and the late 1970s, more than 2,800 acres of wetlands were lost an- nually... " and large undisturbed forests that act as im- portant wildlife habitat. The natural fragility of these resources makes them especially vul- nerable to impacts from development on or near them. Waste Generation The demand for additional waste manage- ment services or facilities will be significant as population in the watershed continues to grow. Each resident generates about 1,300 pounds of municipal solid waste a year. For the basin, this translates to a need to manage 3.4 billion pounds of additional solid waste per year by 2020. By 2020, 260 million gallons of additional wastewater will be generated each day in the watershed (assuming 100 gallons per person per day). While some will be disposed of in septic systems, most will require municipal treatment. Assuming 80% of new develop- Design Capacity 370 mgd 423 537 1330 Available Canacitv 69 mgd 132 181 382 ment is in sewer service areas, an additional 208 million gallons of wastewater per day will require municipal treatment. The design capacity of sewage treatment plants in the coastal plain (i.e., where most of the growth and therefore demand will be) is estimated to be 1,269 million gallons per day (mgd), with 321 mgd of that available to treat additional waste flows. Capacity of Sewage Treatment Plants in the Coastal Plain 1985 Flow Metro*DC 301 mgd MD 291 VA 356 Total 948 '"includes VA and MD suburbs In the aggregate, current or planned capacity appears adequate to treat expected flow increases, or even larger volumes. Some of the currently available capacity is likely to be used to extend service to current- ly developed areas, and will therefore be un- available to serve future growth. The location of new growth in relation to existing treatment capacity will be an important factor is whether additional capacity is needed. In addition to readily quantifiable waste streams, increased development in the Bay watershed is likely to be accompanied by in- creased loadings from nonpoint sources. For example, it has been estimated that 2,300 tons of sediment per year erode from one square mile of land during development, and 700 tons of sediment per year erode from one ------- Development Patterns In The Chesapeake Bay Region 31 square mile of developed land. The latter rate of sediment loss is six times higher than the rate of sediment loss from wooded areas. (Some reports estimate that as much as 25,000 - 50,000 tons per square mile of sedi- ment comes from land stripped for construc- tion.) If land development continues at a faster rate than population growth, as has occurred over the past 30 years, as much as 1.5 million additional acres (2,300 square miles) of land could be developed. This development will generate an estimated 5.3 million tons of sedi- ment during construction, and 1.6 million tons per year at build-out. Not all of the built- out sediment load will be in addition to the current load, as the farmland and un- developed land being replaced also con- tribute sediment. Water Use In 1970, 76% of Bay area residents and many industries relied on central water sup- plies (872 mgd). By 2020, the demand for fresh water is expected to increase greatly. The Corps of Engineers estimates that the demand may increase by 170% to 2,320 mgd, and that 2/3 of the water systems will have average demands that exceed supplies. Even if we assume no growth in demand from existing development, new residents alone, at 100 gallons per day, will requke ap- proximately 260 mgd for domestic use. Water supply is a particular problem in the rapidly growing Hampton Roads section of Virginia. The community-by-community ap- proach to water supply planning, with the Commonwealth taking a minor role, led the Administrator of EPA Region HI to conclude that ..."the technical, legal and institutional tools essential for a regional solution to water resource development are not adequate at this "Local solutions for water plan- ning often put other resources at risk" time." Local solutions for water planning often put other resources at risk. For ex- ample, counties searching for suitable loca- tions for impoundments seek to be allowed to dredge wetlands and streams. Increased diversions from streams and rivers, groundwater withdrawals, and crea- tion of impoundments in wetlands and across watercourses are current issues that will re- quire regional and state-level solutions. A 20% population growth in the region (and a 32% growth in Virginia in particular) will only exacerbate this problem. Infrastructure Costs A report by the National Association of Home Builders, based on "typical" develop- ment and infrastructure, indicated that as housing densities increase, unit costs decrease. About 80% of the on-site cost variation is accounted for by density factors (on-site development costs include: grading and land preparation, stormwater drainage and management facilities, water and sewer ------- 32 Chapter Two lines or septic tanks and wells, street con- struction plus curbs and gutters, landscaping and site amenities). Increasing density re- quires fewer linear feet of water and sewer pipes, fewer square feet of paving, and fewer cubic yards of grading per dwelling unit. "It is unlikely that the roads, sewers, and other public facilities needed to fully support growth could be built if growth continues in present patterns and densities." A study by the Maryland Department of State Planning concluded that, although ini- tial costs per unit for constructing very low density housing may in some cases be lower (for example, a septic tank may cost less than a sewerage hook-up), in fact the costs are usually higher over the long term. Long term costs are usually incurred by the public, often through federal and state grants, for the fol- lowing reasons: In rural areas, pupils and cars are added slowly, giving the appearance of low cost until schools and roads must be expanded or replaced (in Maryland, school construction costs are paid for by the state). Per capita costs for operating rural schools are high due to long and scattered bus routes, and operat- ing costs due to small school size. Other community facilities (e.g., fire, police, library, health care) seem unnecessary during early phases of low density residential expansion, but are eventually added, with costs bome by residents and government. Septic tanks often require replacement within a 20 or 30 year period, or septic or well failures necessitate hooking up to public water/sewer systems (in Maryland, over 85% of water and sewer facility construction out- lays are paid for with state and federal money). At densities of one unit per 1-5 acres, ap- proximately $3,500 in site development costs can be saved for each one unit increase in density. In the range of 2-5 units/acre, ap- proximately $1,800 in site development costs can be saved for each one unit increase in density. For multifamily construction, ap- proximately $400 can be saved for each one unit increase. Traffic on Virginia roads has increased from 34.6 billion vehicle miles traveled in 1975 to 49.7 billion vehicle miles in 1985, an in- crease of 44 percent. Conversely, State transportation construction funding dropped from $230 million in 1975 to $130 million in 1987 (a decrease of 43 percent). This has recently reversed and a massive new invest- ment in transportation in Virginia is under- way. In 1988 alone, the state approved $915 million for highway construction and other transportation-related projects. Virginia plans to spend about $10 billion over the next dozen years. Other costs of traffic congestion are in- creased accident rates, operating costs, air pollution, and shipping costs. Decreased productivity due to all of these factors, and ------- Development Patterns In The Chesapeake Bay Region 33 barriers to economic development result from traffic congestion. It is unlikely that the roads, sewers, and other public facilities needed to fully support growth could be built if growth continues in present patterns and densities. The trend is otherwise: 92% of the roads in the U.S. were built prior to 1960 and keeping them repaired, let alone expanded, is a costly bat- tle. In 1950,19.1% of government expendi- tures were on public works; in 1985, only 6.8% of government spending was invested in public works. Even if the money to build new roads was available, most experts agree that no one would be unable to build enough to ever satisfy the demand. The illusion of ease of travel brings forth more of us in our cars. The Panel's evaluation (See Appendix A) reveals that roads will be a substantial ex- pense. By 2020, growth is projected to re- quire between $6.6 billion and $17.4 billion in new road construction, depending on the density of development. A policy favoring high density growth patterns rather than low density patterns could translate into as much as a $10.8 billion (present value) cost savings. This savings effectively becomes available to use in other programs, such as sensitive land acquisition. ------- 35 Chapter Three Envisioning An Alternative Future It is not difficult to make a case that development and growth over the past three decades has created some severe problems. Likewise, not much disagreement is found when we say we need to do things better in future. Better can be interpreted a number of ways, of course. Better can be doing the same things more efficiently and effectively, or better can be doing things differently. In working to establish an agenda for how future growth and development should take place, the 2020 Panel had to get beyond describing what was wrong currently to describing what alternatives were available in the future. The future was taken to be not just the year 2020. The future is tomorrow and everyday thereafter. Envisioning an achievable alternative future — that could begin to be put into place immediately — be- came the focus of the Panel in its final deliberations. We determined that alternative futures for population growth and development are most usefully expressed as alternatives in either the location or density of growth, or both. When we change the location of populations, we change the ease with which pollutants generated by those populations can reach aquatic systems. Pathways and opportunities for pollution migration are changed. Sensi- tive areas and buffers are preserved. When population density changes within the " ...we need to do things better in future... Better can be doing the same things more efficiently and effectively, or better can be doing things differently." landscape, the actual quantities of pollutants generated change. Land occupancy and ac- tivities that generate pollution are altered. A part of "density" is the mix of mutually sup- portive land uses available within the vicinity. Basic planning and hydrologic principles can be applied to determine where popula- tions should locate. However, a comparative method is needed to evaluate the relative ad- vantages of varying population densities. While it is very difficult to quantify all of the impacts from land use, key features can be examined and the relative costs quantified under different densities. Some of the fea- tures to consider are automotive emissions, ------- 36 Chapter Three sediment in runoff, energy use, driving time, and road construction costs. Location Alternatives The choice of location for development is largely controlled by land availability, access, and infrastructure. Public policies have directed development away from some areas (e.g., wetlands), but this accounts for relative- ly little of the land in the region. Common practice is for communities to zone large "Sprawl is an ineffective use of the land, difficult to service with infrastructure and transporta- tion, requiring extensive use of automobiles, and consuming large land areas." areas for various land uses. In more rural areas there is either no zoning or zoning which is readily changed to accommodate development proposals. More than any single development factor, we were concerned with low density sprawl. Sprawl is an ineffective use of the land, dif- ficult to service with infrastructure and transportation, requiring extensive use of automobiles, and consuming large land areas. Location of development should be more tightly controlled. For instance, distance to job centers, urban or village centers, cultural amenities, and recreation could be used to define an outer limit to development -- effec- tively an urban boundary. Within such a boundary, certain natural resource areas should be avoided. Wetlands, large wooded tracts, stream corridors, steep slopes, and shorelines are examples of resour- ces that are sensitive to development impacts. Thus, it is possible to create a "map" of the region which would show the geographic limits to significant development (i.e., lo- cated within reasonable boundaries and sup- ported by infrastructure) and the constraints on development within this boundary. Capi- tal improvements need to be planned and scheduled as an integral part of planning for growth in such areas. Growth would be ac- tively discouraged in areas not designated to be developed, while incentives are offered for growth in appropriate areas. This effec- tively creates a template of where develop- ment is most suitable, based on infrastructure, distance to urban and job centers, and environmental constraints. Density Alternatives Once alternative location patterns are deter- mined, the question of density of develop- ment within these patterns arises. Greater density requires less paving, landscaping, and automobile use, which results is less pollu- tion, runoff, and sediment per person. A drawback, of course, is that concentrating people will result in a parallel concentration of problems. Greater use of public transporta- tion is feasible, with greater use creating a demand for better and more frequent service. Higher density also provides opportunities to mix supporting commercial, institutional, and employment uses with residential uses. ------- Envisioning An Alternative Future 37 Three residential land use patterns were ex- amined: Low Density, Medium Density, and High Density. Each pattern is made up of five possible dwelling types: Single Family Conventional, Single Family Clustered, Townhouses, Walk-up Apartments and High- rise Apartments. (See the Appendix A for details on the analysis.) For purposes of this analysis, the Low Den- sity land use pattern consists of 75% Single Family Conventional homes and 25% Single Family Clustered homes. In the Low Density alternative, there are no Townhouses, Walk- up Apartments or Highrise Apartments. The Medium Density land use pattern has an equal distribution of the five dwelling types. Thus, Single Family Conventional homes constitute 20% of all new homes, Single Family Clustered homes comprise 20% of all new homes, Townhouses account for 20% of all new dwellings, and Walk-up Apartments and Highrise Apartments are each 20% of the new dwellings. The High Density land use pattern contains no Single Family Conventional homes, but would contain 10% Single Family Clustered, 20% Townhouses, 30% Walk-up Apartments and 40% Highrise Apartments. For illustrative purposes, we used the forecasted population change for the region along with development variables from the book: The Cost of Sprawl, and considered these values in terms of the three develop- ment scenarios (Low, Medium and High Den- sity). Aside from the obvious costs associated with development, such as land acquisition and construction costs, cost implications come from the physical effects of alternative land use patterns. For example, if one land use pattern produces more air pollution than does an alternative, we can be reasonably sure that the social costs of that land use pat- tern also will be greater. The higher the air pollution, the greater the institutional costs to reduce these levels of pollution. With the addition of more stringent regulations comes greater costs of changing the emission producing or controlling technology. Comparison of High, Medium, and Low Density We found that the cost of roads to serve Low Density housing is highest: about 1.7 times the cost of roads serving Medium Den- sity housing and about 2.6 times higher than that associated with High Density housing. The energy required for Low Density hous- ing is about 1.4 times the amount required by Medium Density living, and about 1.8 times the amount required by High Density hous- ing. The overall driving time for Low Den- sity housing is about 70% greater than for Medium Density, and about 90% greater than for High Density housing. Potential air pollution from auto emissions in a Low Density land use alternative is about 1.6 times as high as the Medium Den- sity case, and about 2 times as high as the High Density situation. Commuting is the major reason for this difference. Also, at lower densities fewer destinations can be ------- 38 Chapter Three reached without using an automobile. Thus, the Low Density alternative would be the most expensive per capita air pollution problem to remedy and High Density emis- sions would be the least expensive. " ...the Low Density alternative produces environmental effects and infrastructure demands that are more expensive to remedy..." Potential air pollution (sulfur oxides) from residences using natural gas in a Low Den- sity land use alternative is about 1.3 times the Medium Density alternative and about 1.7 times the High Density alternative. Sediment due to erosion is highest for the Low Density alternative. Low Density erosion is about 1.5 times the Medium Den- sity alternative and about 1.75 times the High Density alternative. Not unexpectedly, the Low Density alterna- tive produces environmental effects and in- frastructure demands that are more expensive to remedy than the effects associated with Medium and High Densities. The cost dif- ferences are likely to be significant. Effect of Delay In the analysis of population growth im- pacts, we examined the question of how delay in implementing new management strategies might affect pollution loads. To study this question, we assigned to the year of its establishment all of the pollution ex- pected from a new household by the year 2020. Thus, a household arriving or being set up in 1990 would be credited with 30 years of impact, while a household coming in 2018 would be credited with only 2 years of impact. Although population growth is projected to be fairly steady, those who estab- lish households earliest will have many more years in the region than later arrivals. The evaluation revealed that households estab- lished in the 1990s have a forecasted 16.6 million household-years in the region, while those arriving the the last decade (the 2010s) have a total of only 2.8 million household- years in the region by 2020. If there is no change in our approaches to growth and development management over the next decade, then new households will develop in a similar fashion to those of, say, the past decade. These new households would contribute pollution and other impacts at the same level as existing households. About 38% of the new households projected for the next three decades will be set up by 1999. But, based on their longevity in the region, by the year 2020 these early households will have accounted for nearly 59% of the pollution attributable to all new households. Thus, the benefit of acting soon to introduce changes in development patterns is clear. ------- Envisioning An Alternative Future 39 Directing Growth For the purpose of discussing alternative land use patterns, the Panel focused on the new increment of population and the spaces created to accommodate growth. In assess- ing household development, it was recog- nized that even if there were no growth in population, additional households would be developed as average household size grew smaller. Changing household size for both the existing and new population means that the rate of household development will out- pace the population growth rate. The panel did not discuss in depth policy al- ternatives that might apply to existing struc- tures or land use patterns. The discussion was focused principally on land use practices and policies that apply to yet-to-be-created development. One basic approach to directing population growth is "no change". This alternative presumes that the market will create the best land use patterns (or that government is powerless to affect them) and that whatever government intervention already takes place is adequate. The Panel determined that this was not a valid growth directing mechanism for the region, and we needed a better alterna- tive. Thus, attention was focused on three ap- proaches that are within the power of government and have been used in various forms for many years. These three techni- ques either build on existing practices or re- quire new or additional government actions to implement. Land Management and Regulation Land management and regulation through the use of the police power is the most fre- quently used technique. Zoning-based land management is the principal strategy employed by most localities. Zoning has " ...the benefit of acting soon to introduce changes in develop- ment patterns is clear." wide variations in how it is applied. Incen- tive Zoning, for example, allows the acquisi- tion of a social good (such as a park) by giving a private good (such as a tax abate- ment). Conditional Zoning allows setting conditions for zoning concessions. This is much like incentive zoning but involves in- dividual negotiations. Impact Zoning estab- lishes a framework for negotiation based on likely impacts. Approval is contingent upon proof that development will result in no sub- stantial increase in costs for the community. Performance Zoning encourages develop- ment to be consistent with natural features. For example, there would be no floodplain filling. Other management approaches in- clude affecting the amount of developable land. For instance, Transfer of Development Rights allows current property owners to real- ize the economic value of the development potential of their land and allows the govern- ment to specify development and non- development areas. ------- 40 Chapter Three Infrastructure Investment A second basic technique is to control the timing, size, and location of public facilities. This approach is based on the simple notion that the government, by investing in roads, sewers, and water systems, creates oppor- tunities for growth to flourish. Planned "With 2.6 million new people by the year 2020, the states and their local governments need to adopt a more highly integrated approach to planning and growth direction and manage- ment. " management of this investment for land use control has not been widespread, but is rapid- ly being recognized as a key element in the management of growth and development. Managing public facilities requires the government to determine the optimal level and location of public facilities and then allow only the magnitude of growth that is consistent with that capacity. Capital facilities can determine growth patterns. They attract growth that would have other- wise spread throughout the region. By in- creasing access and reducing costs (e.g., sewer hook-ups are less expensive than sep- tic systems), public infrastructure attracts growth around it. Building infrastructure in designated growth areas and withholding it from other areas reinforces growth man- agement strategies at the local level. Govern- ment needs to clearly commit itself to building the necessary infrastructure accord- ing to a plan and schedule. Taxes and Incentives The last growth management technique is to impose or forgive taxes or fees as ap- propriate. Imposing penalties for develop- ment in designated low growth areas discourages their wholesale development. Conversely, growth can be greatly en- couraged in designated areas by granting sub- sidies and other economic incentives. Public infrastructure development, for instance, is one type of subsidy. While many of these and other techniques to manage growth have been applied from place to place in the region, they have not been applied in an effective and regionally comprehensive way. With 2.6 million new people by the year 2020, the states and their local governments need to adopt a more high- ly integrated approach to planning and growth direction and management. Coor- dinated, region-wide efforts need to be based on a common vision of the future. A much better job of managing, investing, and provid- ing incentives is required. ------- 41 Chapter Four Visions Of The Future Background The face of the land has been altered dramatically. More subtly, human activity has altered the balance of nature. Prior to colonial settlement and even well after, the Bay region consisted of largely wooded uplands. The water's edge was dominated by wetlands. Abundant fish and fowl were to be found, as observed by Captain John Smith in 1606, when he wrote that the Chesapeake was a fair Bay encompassed "with fruitful and delightsome land." Even before effects on the Bay were discernable, as forests were cleared for farms and towns, William Penn warned that his colony's resources were not boundless. Among his conditions for govern- ing the Province, published in 1681, was a re- quirement "that in clearing the ground, care be taken to leave one acre of trees for every five acres cleared." Use of the land gives rise to a host of en- vironmental issues. Choices of location for development, the types and densities of land use undertake, construction methods, and the ways day-to-day domestic and business prac- tices are conducted all have significant im- plications for environmental quality. For every action or choice there seems to be both intended and unintended consequences. The goal always must be to act in ways and at locations where negative effects are avoided "The goal always must be to act in ways and at locations where negative effects are avoided or made minimal." or made minimal. The sequence of events be- tween land development decisions and thek environmental consequences always must be recognized. Points of influence over the chain of events should be identified and suitable choices made on how to affect the results in a positive way. The continued attraction of the region as a place to live and work is both a boon and a curse. It brings with it prosperity and diver- sity, but also puts more people the region, changing the very place they came to. The amenities of the Bay — its open water, shore, and river networks ~ continue to attract people. Natural, visual, and cultural resour- ces abound. The heritage and amenities of the region clearly illustrate the relationship be- ------- 42 Chapter Four tween a desirable environment and a good economy. Leadership for the Visions From its deliberations, the 2020 Panel developed a linked set of visions of the Chesapeake Bay watershed's future. The principal finding was that the states must take a stronger role in managing their growth. Localities struggle daily with the issues, but "Achieving the future visions will require bold leadership at all levels of government." lack the active participation of the state. Regional planning, technical assistance, resource protection, all need a strong, cooperative presence from the state. Achiev- ing the future visions will require bold leader- ship at all levels of government. In the public meetings and in discussions with state and local officials, we heard one overriding sentiment repeatedly voiced: current problems and future growth require planning that is effective and coordinates growth management strategies across jurisdictions and levels of government. The only way to achieve the envisioned future is through a fully implemented plan — one that is sup- ported by effective programs and a leader- ship prepared to follow the plan. Otherwise, it really is just "business-as-usual," with a continuing enfeebling of the environment and, ultimately, the economy of the region. Proposing alternative futures for the water- shed that address fundamental issues of land use cannot be done in isolation. Alternatives for the region were reviewed and from these a vision of how new growth must fit into the region has been constructed. The visions are not complete in every detail; no vision ever is. Its purpose is to affirm that there is an al- ternative to following existing trends and con- tinuing current practices. If there are visions to work toward, it is possible to set a purpose- ful agenda and annually accomplish tasks that, in sum, lead to realization of the visions. To propose change without a clear direction and a program to measure success, leaves the region little better off than if everyone con- tinued their individual ways. The Panel's visions are not a blueprint, rather, they are a guide — one that calls for the development of specific policies and practices to implement the envisioned future. Visions of Success The Panel is dismayed by the lack of growth management and planning, par- ticularily on a state and regional level. It be- came readily apparent that the lack of comprehensive state and regional planning, uncoordinated public investment strategies, arid 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 ------- Visions Of The Future 43 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- phasize this is what will have happened if ap- propriate actions are undertaken today. Accomplishing 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 of on-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 ------- 44 Chapter Four mining activities occur hut 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- 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. 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. - establish an interagency task force to report to the Governor or Mayor an- ------- Visions Of The Future 45 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. • Provide training for local officials in land use planning, resource manage- ment, and development review ------- 46 Chapter Four • 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 exist- ing 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. • Provide state leadership in planning and developing water supplies to meet the needs of rural areas. ------- Visions Of The Future 47 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. ------- 48 Chapter Four • 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 ------- Visions Of The Future 49 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, en- vironmental and, 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 ------- 50 Chapter Four 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. 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 recommenda- tions 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. 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. 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 ------- Visions Of The Future 51 be inclusive of state, local, and private inter- ests. Briefings of the Panel's findings to local government officials, state boards, the 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. 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. 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. 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. ------- 52 Chapter Four Federal Action Agenda Control of land use in a state responsibility, but the Federal government must become a strong supporter of these programs if hard won gains in environmental quality are to be preserved in areas of high growth. To this end, Federal environmental programs and policies should evolve to be specifically directed at preserving environ- mental quality through research, technical as- sistance, and, where necessary regulation. EPA should examine the array of available methods useful in quantifying the imports of growth and the technologies for further con- trolling emissions and for reducing genera- tion of wastes. Federal agencies owning and occupying real estate in the watershed should implement processes that ensure Federal facility confor- mous with State Comprehensive Develop- ment and Infrastructure Plan. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture estab- lish a task force to examine ways to integrate programs to protect water quality into Federal agricultural lows and programs with 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 involving State efforts. ------- Appendix A A-1 Introduction Population forecasts were provided by each jurisdiction and compiled by the Maryland Department of State Planning. It was as- sumed that the population forecasts apply to the beginning of the referenced year. Thus, referring to Table 1.1, as of 1990, Pennsylvania's watershed population is forecasted to be 3,570,719 and by 2000 the population is forecasted to be 3,657,049. The Panel assumed that any proposed land use policy or management program will leave existing structures and infrastructures intact. That is, new land use policy will not affect existing structures. Rather, land use policy will be taken to mean policy applying to the new uses of land due to population growth. xHence, all calculations use popula- tion change because of the interest in the land use management of population growth. Population As we can see in Table 1.1, the total popula- tion (the total watershed population of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement signatories) is forecasted to increase over the next 30 years to 16.2 million people. Table 1.2 shows the forecasted total number of households, based on the forecasted size of households (Table 1.3) and the change in population (Table 1.4). Table 1.4 contains population change values. These values are calculated by taking the differences in the population forecasts of Table 1.1. For example, between 1990 and 2000, the population in Virginia is expected to increase by 500,550. Table 1.4 also shows that the rate of population growth is not ex- plosive in most cases. For example, Maryland is forecasted to accrue 339,350 ad- ditional people during the 1990s, however Maryland forecasts fewer additional people, 243,300, during the first decade of the new century and about 247,750 additional people during the second decade of the 21st century. Population is forecasted to grow at an ap- proximately constant rate. The additional people identified in Table 1.4 are those to whom we are referring when we talk about "population growth" (in the District of Columbia population will decline in some years). Table 1.5 calculates changes in the number of households. This is equal to the number of additional housing units that will service the additional households, assuming that each residence will house only one household. Even in central cities, where population may dip, the number of households and housing units is expected to increase owing to the decreasing size of the average household. For the watershed as a ------- A-2 Tables 1.1 -1.5 State and Total Population Values Table 1.1 Pennsylvania (Watershed) Maryland (Includes Garrett) Virginia (Watershed) District of Columbia Total 1990 3,570,719 4,666,200 4,725,950 628,300 13,591,169 Forecasted Total Populations 2000 2010 2020 3,657,049 5,005,550 5,226,500 634,000 14,523,099 3,767,125 5,248,850 5,731,300 627,700 15,374,975 3,854,450 5,496,600 6,228,700 627,700 16,207,450 Table 1 . 2 > Forecasted Total Households- Pennsylvania (Watershed) Maryland (includes Garrett) Virginia (Watershed) District of Columbia Total 1990 1,368,674 1,752,325 1,792,837 270,187 5,184,023 2000 1,477,687 1,981,575 2,090,115 287,405 5836,7829 2010 1,573,670 2,148,200 2,369,540 294,177 6,385,587 2020 1,651,146 2,306,875 2,640,753 301,667 6,900,441 Table 1.3 Pennsylvania (Watershed) Maryland (includes Garrett) Virginia (Watershed) District of Columbia 1990 2.61 2.66 2.64 2.33 Forecasted Population per Household- 2000 2010 2020 2.47 2.53 2.50 2.21 2.39 2.44 2.42 2.13 2.33 2.38 2.36 2.08 Total 2.62 2.49 2.41 2.35 Table 1.4 Pennsylvania (Watershed) Maryland (includes Garrett) Virginia (Watershed) District of Columbia Total 1990 3,570,719 4,666,200 4,725,950 628,300 13,591,169 Forecasted Population Change > i Change by Decade < Total Change 1990 to 2000 2000 to 2010 2010 to 2020 1990 to 2020 86,330 339,350 500,550 5,700 931,930 110,076 243,300 504,800 (6,300) 851,876 87,325 247,750 497,400 0 832,475 283,731 830,400 1,502,750 (600) 2,616,281 Table 1.5 Pennsylvania (Watershed) Maryland (includes Garrett) Virginia (Watershed) District of Columbia 1990 1,368,674 1,752,325 1,792,837 270,187 -Forecasted Changes in Number of Households < Change by Decade < Total Change 1990 to 2000 109,013 229,250 297,277 17,218 2000 to 2010 95,983 166,625 279,426 6,772 2010 to 2020 1990 to 2020 77,476 158,675 271,213 7,490 282,472 554,550 847,916 31,480 Total 5,184,023 652,758 548,806 514,854 1,716,418 ------- A-3 whole, the number of new homes decreases slightly over each of the three decades. Alternative Land Use Policies Alternative land use policies with regard to population growth were taken to mean prin- cipally residential land use policies. Maryland has found that land development due to growth is predominantly residential construction. Thus, land use alternatives are defined to be alternative housing patterns for the additional households. Three land use patterns were used: Low Density, Medium Density and High Density residential living. As Table 2 shows, the den- sities are defined in terms of five types of housing units: Single Family Conventional (SFConv), Single Family Clustered (SFClust), Townhouse (TwnH), Walk Up Apartment (WUApt), and High Rise Apart- ments (HiRise). The Low Density housing pattern (or the Low Density land use) implies that households are not living very closely to one another. Thus, in the Low Density op- tion, most of the new construction would be Single Family Conventional homes and no new construction would be High Rise Apart- ments. In the Low Density option each home may occupy quite a significant amount of acreage. In contrast, the High Density land use implies that households are living much closer together. Thus, as Table 2 shows, a high percentage of new construction would be dedicated to apartments. Table 3 presents the number of residences in each housing unit type for each state and for each of the three land use alternatives (Low, Medium and High Density). The number of units in Table 3 are those which are forecasted to accrue in the next 30 years. The values in Table 3 come from the total number of additional housing units required (Table 1.5) for each state multiplied by the percent distributions of residential types (Table 2). Acreage: Acreage is required for both the residential site itself and for roads. Table 4 first presents a site acreage requirement for each type of residence. Using this require- ment and the number of new units for each type of residence (Table 3), the site acreage that might be needed for the next 30 years is forecasted and presented in Table 4. Every new housing unit must be connected to the rest of the community. Roads have been, and are likely to remain the most impor- tant connection. In general, units that are more spread out over an area will require longer road lengths than units that are closer together. Table 5 presents a road acreage re- quirement for each type of residence and presents total road acreage use for the 30- year horizon. Table 6 adds the site acreage of Table 4 to the road acreage of Table 5 to present the total development acreage related to housing required for the next 30 years. This is acreage which must come from an existing use such as forest or agriculture. Road Costs Tables 7.1 and 7.2 are used to present road costs. Table 7.1 presents road acreage in a ------- A-4 Table 2. Land Use Alternatives: Residential Development Percent Distribution of Residential Types for Each Land Use Alternative > Residential Types < SFConv SFClust TwnH WUApt HiRise Low Density Medium Density High Density 75X 20X 0 25X 20X 10X 0 20X 20% 0 20% 30X 0 20X 40X Data Source: Real Estate Research Corporation, "The Costs of Sprawl," prepared for the Council on Environmental Quality, U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1974, page 90. Table 3. Total Additional Housing Units by Residential Types for Each State and Each Land Use Alternative, 1990 - 2020 -Residential Types- Pennsylvania (Watershed) Total New Housing Units = 282,472 Low Density Medium Density High Density Maryland (includes Garrett) Total New Housing Units = 554,550 Low Density Medium Density High Density Virginia (Watershed) Total New Housing Units = 847,916 Low Density Medium Density High Density District of Columbia SFConv 211,854 56,494 0 415,912 110,910 0 635,937 169,583 0 SFClust 70,618 56,494 28,247 2000 138,637 110,910 55,455 211,979 169,583 84,791 TwnH 0 56,494 56,494 0 110,910 110,910 0 169,583 169,583 WUApt 0 56,494 84,741 0 110,910 166,365 0 169,583 254,374 HiRise 0 56,494 112,988 0 110,910 221,820 0 169,583 339,166 Total New Housing Units = 31,480 Low Density Medium Density High Density 23,610 6,296 0 7,870 6,296 3,148 0 6,296 6,296 0 6,296 9,444 0 6,296 12,592 Total New Housing Units 1,716,418 Low Density Medium Density High Density 1,287,313 343,283 0 429,104 343,283 171,641 0 343,283 343,283 0 343,283 514,925 0 343,283 686,567 ------- A-5 Table 4. Acreage Developed for Additional Housing, 1990 - to 2020 Site Acres Required Per Unit (1) > Residential Types < SFConv SFClust TwnH WUApt HiRise 0.33 0.2 0.1 0.07 0.06 Pennsylvania (Watershed) Total New Housing Units = 282,472 Low Density Medium Density High Density Maryland (includes Garrett) Total New Housing Units = 554,550 Low Density Medium Density High Density Virginia (Watershed) Total New Housing Units = 847,916 Low Density Medium Density High Density District of Columbia Total New Housing Units = 31,480 Low Density Medium Density High Density Total New Housing Units = 1,716,418 Low Density Medium Density High Density SFConv Acres 69,911 18,643 0 137,250 36,600 0 209,859 55,962 0 7,791 2,077 0 424,813 113,283 0 SFClust Acres 14,123 11,298 5,649 27,727 22,182 11,091 42,395 33,916 16,958 1,574 1,259 629 85,820 68,656 34,328 sidential Ty TwnH Acres 0 5,649 5,649 0 11,091 11,091 0 16,958 16,958 0 629 629 0 34,328 34,328 pes WUApt Acres 0 3,954 5,931 0 7,763 11,645 0 11,870 17,806 0 440 661 0 24,029 36,044 HiRise Acres 0 3,389 6,779 0 6,654 13,309 0 10,174 20,349 0 377 755 0 20,596 41,194 Total Acres 84,034 42,933 24,008 164,977 84,290 47,136 252,254 128,880 72,071 9,365 4,782 2,674 510,633 260,892 145,894 Note: (1) Source for acres required is: Real Estate Research Corporation, "The Costs of Sprawl," Prepared for the Council on Environmental Quality, U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1974, ------- A-6 Table 5. Acreage Developed for Additional Roads to Serve New Housing, 1990 - 2020 Road Acres Required Per Unit (1) > Residential Types < SFConv SFClust TwnH WUApt HIRise 0.077 0.062 0.044 0.029 0.016 Pennsylvania (Watershed) Total New Housing Units = 282,472 Low Density Medium Density High Density Maryland (includes Garrett) Total New Housing Units = 554,550 Low Density Medium Density High Density Virginia (Watershed) Total New Housing Units = 847,916 Low Density Medium Density High Density District of Columbia Total New Housing Units - 31,480 Low Density Medium Density High Density Total New Housing Units = 1,716,418 Low Density Medium Density High Density SFConv Acres 16,312 4,350 0 32,025 8,540 0 48,967 13,057 0 1,817 484 0 99,123 26,432 0 .^ _ -p*» SFClust Acres 4,378 3,502 1,751 8,595 6,876 3,438 13,142 10,514 5,257 487 390 195 26,604 21,283 10,641 sidential Ty TwnH Acres 0 2,485 2,485 0 4,880 4,880 0 7,461 7,461 0 277 277 0 15,104 15,104 pes WUApt Acres 0 1,638 2,457 0 3,216 4,824 0 4,917 7,376 0 182 273 0 9,955 14,932 HiRise Acres 0 903 1,807 0 1,774 3,549 0 2,713 5,426 0 100 201 0 5,492 10,985 Total Acres 20,690 495 8,500 40,620 25,286 16,691 62,109 38,662 25,520 2,304 1,433 946 125,727 78,266 51,662 Note: (1) Source for acres required is: Real Estate Research Corporation, "The Costs of Sprawl," prepared for the Council on Environmental Quality, U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1974, Data were transformed from length/width to acres. ------- A-7 Table 6. Total Acreage Developed for Additional Housing and Additional Roads, 1990 - 2020 Pennsylvania (Watershed) Total New Hous ing Maryland Total Hous ing Virginia Total Hous ing District Total Hous ing Total Hous ing Units - Low Medium High 282,472 Density Density Density SFConv Acres 86,223 22,993 0 Ti SFClust Acres 18 14 7 ,501 ,800 ,400 sidential Ty TwnH Acres 0 8,134 8,134 pes WUApt Acres 0 5,592 8,388 HiRise Acres 0 4,292 8,586 Total Acres 104,724 43,428 32,508 (Includes Garrett) New Units » Low Medium High (Watershed) New Units - Low Medium High of Columbia New Units - Low Medium High New Units - 1, Low Medium High 554,550 Density Density Density 847,916 Density Dens ity Density 31,480 Density Density Density 716,418 Density Density Density 169,275 45,140 0 258,826 69,019 0 9,608 2,561 0 523,936 139,715 0 36 29 14 55 44 22 2 1 112 89 44 ,322 ,058 ,529 ,537 ,430 ,215 ,061 ,649 824 ,424 ,939 ,969 0 15,971 15,971 0 24,419 24,419 0 906 906 0 49,432 49,432 0 10,979 16,469 0 16,787 25,182 0 622 934 0 33,984 50,976 0 8,428 16,858 0 12,887 25,775 0 477 956 0 26,088 52,179 205,597 109,576 63,827 314,363 167,542 97,591 11,669 6,215 3,620 636,360 339,158 197,556 ------- A-8 Table 7.1 Additional Road Acreage by Decade 2000 2010 2020 Total Low Density Pennsylvania (Watershed) Maryland (Includes Garrett) Virginia (Watershed) District of Columbia Total Pennsylvania (Watershed) Maryland (includes Garrett) Virginia (Watershed) District of Columbia Total Pennsylvania (Watershed) Maryland (includes Garrett) Virginia (Watershed) District of Columbia Total 7,984 16,792 21,774 1,260 47,810 Medium Density High Density 4,968 10,451 13,555 783 29,757 3,279 6,899 8,947 516 19,641 7,029 12,204 20,467 495 40,195 4,375 7,597 12,739 306 25,017 2,888 5,014 8,408 201 16,511 5,674 11,622 19,865 548 37,709 3,530 7,233 12,365 338 23,466 2,330 4,774 8,161 223 15,488 20,687 40,618 62,106 2,303 125,714 12,873 25,281 38,659 1,427 78,240 8,497 16,687 25,516 940 51,640 Table 7.2 Additional Road Costs: Construction and Right-of-Way Costs (1989 dollars) (1) 1990 to 2000 2000 to 2010 2010 to 2020 1990 to 2020 Pennsylvania (Watershed) Maryland (includes Garrett) Virginia (Watershed) District of Columbia Total Pennsylvania (Watershed) Maryland (includes Garrett) Virginia (Watershed) District of Columbia Total Pennsylvania (Watershed) Maryland (includes Garrett) Virginia (Watershed) District of Columbia Total Low Density 1,479,353,111 3,111,036,490 4,034,199,679 233,645,021 $8,858,274,201 Medium Density 890,299,134 1,872,315,169 2,427,884,371 140,597,189 $5,331,136,700 High Density 568,469,663 1,195,496,206 1,550,230,835 89,772,651 $3,403,995,809 915,140,603 1,588,674,936 2,664,175,564 64,567,569 $5,232,576,602 550,744,670 956,114,094 1,603,373,928 38,847,066 $3,149,108,451 351,659,156 610,484,950 1,023,768,295 24,804,328 $2,010,738,751 499,035,321 1,022,045,411 1,746,919,917 48,238,233 $3,316,250,995 300,329,331 615,098,505 1,051,336,793 29,034,742 $1,995,799,374 191,760,160 392,744,139 671,292,743 18,539,039 $1,274,346,008 2,893,529,035 5,721,756,837 8,445,295,160 346,450,823 $17,407,101,798 1,741,373,135 3,443,527,768 5,082,595,092 208,478,997 $10,476,044,525 1,111,888,979 2,198,725,295 3,245,291,873 133,116,018 $6,689,080,568 Note: (1) Excludes major limited access highways. ------- A-9 format different from that of Table 5. In Table 5, the road acreage is presented as the 30 year totals, broken down into residential types. In Table 7.1, we aggregated density types and present road acreage on a decade basis. Because the two tables come from the same data base, their values are consistent. For example, in Table 5, for Pennsylvania, for the Low Density alternative, the total road acreage equals 20,690. In Table 7.1, for Low Density, for Pennsylvania, the total road acreage is presented as 20,687 (the difference is due to truncation in the intermediate cal- culations). Consistent with the population change, the change in road acreage over the three decades is somewhat constant. Each type of residential development re- quires different types of roads. For evalua- tion purposes, three types of roads were considered: minor, collector and arterial. Minor roads link the residence with a collec- tor road. Collector roads link a set of minor roads to an arterial road. Arterial roads con- nect a set of collector roads to an interstate highway. The following road lengths require- ments were assumed for each residential type. The road lengths are in feet. Street SFConv SFClust TwnH WUApt HiRise Minor 47 22.00 10.0 4.50 1.70 Collector 7 17.25 13.5 8.75 4.85 Arterial 6 5.50 5.0 3.75 2.40 Data Source: Real Estate Research Corporation, "The Costs of Sprawl," US Govern- ment Printing Office, April 1974, p.58. In order to calculate total road lengths for each road type, the feet/residential type was multiplied by the number of units in each residential type. Although road costs are functions of many factors (traffic volumes and types, construc- tion materials, topography, weather), for this study it assumed that road costs are a func- tion of road types. Total costs are the sum of construction costs, right-of-way costs, and maintenance costs. For planning purposes maintenance costs are not usually considered. For this report, the convention of ignoring maintenance costs is followed. However, there appears to be growing opinion that maintenance costs must be included in any planning analysis especial- ly when the time horizon of the study ex- ceeds the expected life of the capital investment (in this case, roads). Roads are often considered to have a 20-year expected life. And because the study time horizon is 30 years, not only maintenance, but also re- placement costs, are relevant. Thus, the ab- solute values of these cost estimates may be quite understated. Construction and right-of-way costs are in- cluded. Right-of-way costs are those that are incurred in order to procure the property and include both property acquisitions and any relocations (business or residence). These costs can be substantial, sometimes exceed- ing the construction costs. Right-of-way costs are often expressed as functions of con- struction costs. It was assumed the right-of- way cost equals 25% of the construction cost (this value was suggested by Mr. Orcutt, Vir- ginia Department of Transportation). ------- A-10 Minor and collector roads were assumed to have substantially the same construction cost, $166/foot. Adding 25% for right-of-way costs, the per foot cost of minor and collector roads equals $208. Arterial roads cost $497/foot for construction. With 25% added for right-of-way, the per foot cost for arterial roads equals $621. In summary, Minor street Collector street Arterial street Cost/Foot $208 $208 $621. Data Source: 'Virginia Department of Transportation "Estimated Roadway Construction Costs," September 1988, transformed to dollars per foot. In Table 7.1, the additional road acreage remains rather constant throughout the time horizon, but the present value costs in Table 7.2 decrease. Roads will not be cheaper in the future. Rather, Table 7.2 presents those present value dollars which (if invested in 1989 and earning a real rate of 4%) would be sufficient to pay future construction and right- of-way costs. Ecosystem Effects Housing units not only remove acreage from a current use, but the people who live in these residences produce effects on the en- vironment. Once a unit is built, it is assumed that someone will constantly live in that hous- ing unit from the time it is built until the year 2020. Thus, although each housing unit makes a one-time claim for land, the people who live in the residence have a continual im- pact on the environment. At this point, it is necessary to introduce the "household-year". The household-year (hh-y) may be described in two ways. One might say that 2 hh-y either represents 2 households each living in their housing units for 1 year, or 1 household living in a housing unit for 2 years. The hh-y is important for calculating the ongoing effects people produce on the ecosystem when they live in alternative den- sities (Low, Medium and High). Once a type of residence is built, the associated behavior or activity (lawn care, driving hours, runoff, erosion, use of solvents, etc.) continues for each of the years extending from the time the residence is built until the end of the study period, 2020. Thus, if a housing unit is built in 1990, then that housing unit will con- tribute 30 hh-y by the year 2020. However, if a unit is built in 2019, then it will con- tribute, at most, 1 hh-y by 2020. The hh-y is important because it enables us to use typical pollution/data (such as units of pollution per unit time per household) for an extended period of time. The hh-y enables us to calculate the future contributions of pollu- tion that are made by the additional households which move into a particular den- sity pattern in a particular year. Such a cal- culation shows that the longer government waits to implement an alternative land use policy, the greater are the ecological effects of the existing policies. The suburban sprawl built in 1990 will exist in the year 2020 and will have contributed its effects on the en- vironment for each of the 30 years. However, if in 1990, a new land use policy encouraging more compact living were imple- ------- A-11 mented, then the foregone environmental degradations of that living would also accrue in each of the 30 years to produce a cleaner environment at the end of the 30 years than would have otherwise been the case. Household-years were calculated in the fol- lowing way. Household data on a decade basis were divided by 10 to obtain the forecasted number of new households on an annual basis. The number of housing units was also forecasted on an annual basis. The number of new units (for example, 50) in any one year (for example, 1990) was then multi- plied by the number of years remaining in the study period (2020 -1990) in order to calcu- late the number of hh-y (1500 hh-y). The hh- y contributions, in this example 1500, are assigned to the construction year, 1990, in order to identify the year in which all future, unavoidable environmental impacts start to accrue. Once developed, the only way to avoid impacts is to apply mitigation policies to this land that will be applied to all existing development. Tables 8.1 and 8.2 present the number of new housing units and their household-years, respectively. Table 8.1 is a restatement of Table 1.5, presented, again, for the reader's convenience. Table 8.2 presents the set of values which resulted from transforming decade data into annual data, calculating household-years on an annual basis and then aggregating annual values of hh-y back up to decade data. These tables show that ap- proximately 650,000 residences are forecasted to be built throughout the water- shed in the last decade of this century, these residences will contribute approximately 28 million hh-y to the environment by the year 2020. Although the number of new residen- ces is approximately the same for each of the next three decades (Table 8.1), the number of household-years brought about by the con- struction in each decade is not at all constant (Table 8.2). The most telling positive results will, come from rapid implementation of new strategies. This will bring more households under management earlier hence more household-year-based pollution will be prevented. Tables 9.1 and 9.2 present pollution factors. The values in Table 9.1 are data with their original units of measure, pollution units per time per household. Table 9.2 presents the data transformed to pollution units per household-year. The values from Table 9.2, when multiplied by the hh-y in Table 8.2, yield the ecosystem effects presented in Tables 10.1 through 10.5. Tables 10.1 through 10.5 present the ecosys- tem effects for each of the four signatory jurisdiction and the total watershed. The values in these tables are growth-related loads on the ecosystem which are forecasted to occur for the next three decades. The pol- lution loads are not total loads, they are only that part of the loading due to population growth. ------- A-12 Tables 8.1 and 8.2 New Residences and Their Household-Years Table 8 .1 > Forecasted Number of New Housing Units- 1990 to 2000 2000 to 2010 2010 to 2020 Total 1990 to 2020 Pennsylvania (Watershed) Maryland (includes Garrett) Virginia (Watershed) District of Columbia Total 109,013 229,250 297,277 17,218 652,758 95,983 166,625 279,426 6,772 548,806 77,476 158,675 271,213 7,490 514,854 282,472 554,550 847,916 31,480 1,716,418 Table 8 . 2 > Forecasted New Household- years- Fennsylvanla (Watershed) Maryland (includes Garrett) Virginia (Watershed) District of Columbia 1990 to 2000 2,779,755 5,845,875 7,580,385 438,855 2000 to 2010 1,487,690 2,582,610 4,331,010 104,935 2010 to 2020 426,085 872,685 1,491,655 41,195 Total 1990 to 2020 4,693,530 9,301,170 13,403,050 584,985 Total 16,644,870 8,506,245 2,831,620 27,982,735 ------- Tables 9.1 and 9.2 Pollution Factors A-13 Table 9 .1 Pollution Factors in their Original Form Pollutants Auto Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Residential Sulfur Oxides Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Partlculates Sediment (erosion) Water Use Energy Use Driving Time Community Densities- Low Medium < High 0 . 404 0.0487 0.0475 0.0005 0.0003 0.0317 0.0951 0.0143 0.617 0.0117 0.406 3.2 0.254 0.0306 0.0299 0.0004 0.0002 0.0231 0.0693 0.0104 0.443 0.0091 0.2822 1.86 0.202 0.0244 0.0238 0.0003 0.0002 0.0181 0.0542 0.0082 0.37 0.0076 0.2274 1.66 Units of Measure Pounds/Day/Household Pounds/Day/Household Pounds/Day/Household Pounds/Day/Household Pounds/Day/Household Pounds/Day/Household Pounds/Day/Household Pounds/Day/Household Tons/Year/Household Million Gallons/Year/Household Billion BTU/Year/Household Hours/Day/Household Data Source: Real Estate Research Corporation, "The Costs of Sprawl," prepared for the Council on Environmental Quality, U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1974, pages 12 t> 13. Table 9 . 2 Pollution Factors in Terms of Household-years- Pollutants Auto Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Residential Sulfur Oxides Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Particulates Sediment (erosion) Water Use Energy Use Driving Time Low 147.46 17.7755 17.3375 0.1825 0.1095 11.5705 34.7115 5.2195 0.617 0.0117 0.406 1168 numcy fen: Medium 92.71 11.169 10.9135 0.146 0.073 8.4315 25.2945 3.796 0.443 0.0091 0.2822 678.9 < High 73.73 8.906 8.687 0.1095 0.073 6.6065 19.783 2.993 0.37 0.0076 0.2274 605.9 Units of Measure Pounds/Householdyear Pounds/Householdyear Pounds/Householdyear Pounds/Householdyear Pounds/Householdyear Pounds/Householdyear Pounds/Householdyear Pounds/Householdyear Tons/Householdyear Million Gallons/Householdyear Billion BTU/Householdyear Hours/Householdyear ------- A-14 Table 10.1 Ecosystem Effects due to Population Growth under Three Residential Land Use Scenarios Pennsylvania (Watershed) Pollutants Auto Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Sulfur Oxides Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Partlculates Sediment (erosion) Water Use Energy Use Driving Time Land Use, Houses Land Use, Roads Auto Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Residential Sulfur Oxides Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Partlculates Sediment (erosion) Water Use Energy Use Driving Time Land Use, Houses Land Use, Roads 1990 to 2000 409,902,672 49,411,535 48,194,002 507,305 304,383 32,163,155 96,489,465 14,508,931 1,715,108 32,523 1,128,580 3,246,753,840 10,700 2,634 1990 to 2000 257,711,086 31,047,083 30,336,856 405,844 202,922 23,437,504 70,312,512 10,551,949 1,231,431 25,295 784,446 1,887,175,669 5,465 1,638 Low Density Development 2000 to 2010 219,374,767 26,444,433 25,792,825 271,503 162,902 17,213,317 51,639,951 7,764,997 917,904 17,405 604,002 1,737,621,920 13,644 3,358 Medium Density 2000 to 2010 137,923,739 16,616,009 16,235,904 217,202 108,601 12,543,458 37,630,374 5,647,271 659,046 13,537 419,826 1,009,992,741 6,970 2,089 2010 to 2020 62,830,494 7,573,873 7,387,248 77,760 46,656 4,930,016 14,790,049 2,223,950 262,894 4,985 172,990 497,667,280 10,824 2,664 Development 2010 to 2020 39,502,340 4,758,943 4,650,078 62,208 31,104 3,592,535 10,777,607 1,617,418 188,755 3,877 120,241 289,269,106 5,528 1,658 Total Change 1990 to 2020 692,107,933 83,429,841 81,374,075 856,568 513,941 54,306,488 162,919,465 24,497,878 2,895,906 54,913 1,905,572 5,482,043,040 35,168 8,656 Total Change 1990 to 2020 435,137,165 52,422,035 51,222,838 685,254 342,627 39,573,497 118,720,493 17,816,638 2,079,232 42,709 1,324,513 3,186,437,516 17,963 5,385 Units of Measure Pounds Pounds Pounds Residential Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Tons Million Gallons Billion BTU Hours Acres Acres. Units of Measure Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Tons Million Gallons Billion BTU Hours Acres Acres High Density Development Auto Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Residential Sulfur Oxides Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Particulates Sediment (erosion) Water Use Energy Use Driving Time Land Use, Houses Land Use, Roads 1990 to 2000 204,951,336 24,756,498 24,147,731 304,383 202,922 18,364,451 54,991,893 8,319,806 1,028,509 21,126 632,116 1,684,253,554 3,056 1,081 2000 to 2010 109,687,383 13,249,367 12,923,563 162,902 108,601 9,828,423 29,430,971 4,452,656 550,445 11,306 338,300 901,391,371 3,897 1,379 2010 to 2020 31,415,247 3,794,713 3,701,400 46,656 31,104 2,814,930 8,429,239 1,275,272 157,651 3,238 96,891 258,164,901 3,091 1,093 Total Change 1990 to 2020 346,053,966 41,800,578 40,772,694 513,941 342,627 31,007,804 92,852,103 14,047,734 1,736,605 35,670 1,067,307 2,843,809,826 10,044 3,553 Units of Measure Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Tons Million Gallons Billion BTU Hours Acres Acres ------- A-15 Table 10.2 Ecosystem Effects due to Population Growth under Three Residential Land Use Scenarios Maryland (includes Garrett) Low Density Development Auto Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Residential Sulfur Oxides Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Partlculates Sediment (erosion) Water Use Energy Use Driving Time Land Use, Houses Land Use, Roads Auto Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Residential Sulfur Oxides Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Participates Sediment (erosion) Water Use Energy Use Driving Time Land Use, Houses Land Use, Roads 1990 to 2000 862,032,727 103,913,351 101,352,857 1,066,872 640,123 67,639,696 202,919,090 30,512,544 3,606,904 68,396 2,373,425 6,827,982,000 42,064 10,356 1990 to 2000 541,971,071 65,292,577 63,798,956 853,497 426,748 49,289,495 147,868,485 22,190,941 2,589,722 53,197 1,649,705 3,968,764,537 21,489 6,446 2000 to 2010 380,831,670 45,907,184 44,776,000 471,326 282,795 29,882,089 89,646,267 13,479,932 1,593,470 30,216 1,048,539 3,016,488,480 30,158 7,425 Medium Density 2000 to 2010 239,433,773 28,845,171 28,185,314 377,061 188,530 21,775,276 65,325,828 9,803,587 1,144,096 23,501 728,812 1,753,333,929 15,407 4,621 2010 to 2020 128,686,130 15,512,412 15,130,176 159,265 95,559 10,097,401 30,292,205 4,554,979 538,446 10,210 354,310 1,019,296,080 30,709 7,561 Development 2010 to 2020 80,906,626 9,747,018 9,524,047 127,412 63,706 7,358,043 22,074,130 3,312,712 386,599 7,941 246,271 592,465,846 15,688 4,704 Total Change 1990 to 2020 1,371,550,527 165,332,947 161,259,033 1,697,463 1,018,477 107,619,186 322,857,562 48,547,455 5,738,820 108,822 3,776,274 10,863,766,560 102,931 25,342 Total Change 1990 to 2020 862,311,470 103,884,766 101,508,317 1,357,970 678,984 78,422,814 235,268,443 35,307,240 4,120,417 84,639 2,624,788 6,314,564,312 52,584 15,771 Units of Measure Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Tons Million Gallons Billion BTU Hours Acres Acres Units of Measure Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Tons Million Gallons Billion BTU Hours Acres Acres Auto Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Residential Sulfur Oxides Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Partlculates Sediment (erosion) Water Use Energy Use Driving Time Land Use, Houses Land Use, Roads 1990 to 2000 431,016,363 52,063,362 50,783,116 640,123 426,748 38,620,773 115,648,945 17,496,703 2,162,973 44,428 1,329,351 3,542,015,662 12,016 4,254 High Density Development 2000 to 2010 2010 to 2020 190,415,835 23,000,724 22,435,133 282,795 188,530 17,062,012 51,091,773 7,729,751 955,565 19,627 587,285 1,564,803,399 8,615 3,049 64,343,065 7,772,132 7,581,014 95,559 63,706 5,765,393 17,264,327 2,611,946 322,893 6,632 198,448 528,759,841 8,772 3,105 Total Change 1990 to 2020 685,775,263 82,836,218 80,799,263 1,018,477 678,984 61,448,178 184,005,045 27,838,400 3,441,431 70,687 2,115,084 5,635,578,902 29,403 10,408 Units of Measure Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Tons Million Gallons Billion BTU Hours Acres Acres ------- A-16 Table 10.3 Ecosystem Effects due to Population Growth under Three Residential Land Use Scenarios Virginia (Watershed) Auto Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Residential Sulfur Oxides Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Particulates Sediment (erosion) Water Use Energy Use Driving Time Land Use, Houses Land Use, Roads Auto Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Residential Sulfur Oxides Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Particulates Sediment (erosion) Water Use Energy Use Driving Time Land Use, Houses Land Use, Roads 1990 to 2000 1,117,803,572 134,745,133 131,424,924 1,383,420 830,052 87,708,844 263,126,533 39,565,819 4,677,097 88,690 3,077,636 8,853,889,680 62,046 15,276 1990 to 2000 702,777,493 84,665,320 82,728,531 1,106,736 553,368 63,914,016 191,742,048 28,775,141 3,358,110 68,981 2,139,184 5,146,323,376 31,698 9,508 Low Density Development 2000 to 2010 2010 to 2020 638,650,734 76,985,868 75,088,885 790,409 474,245 50,111,951 150,335,853 22,605,706 2,672,233 50,672 1,758,390 5,058,619,680 62,573 15,406 Medium Density 2000 to 2010 401,527,937 48,373,050 47,266,477 632,327 316,163 36,516,910 109,550,732 16,440,513 1,918,637 39,412 1,222,211 2,940,322,689 31,967 9,589 219,959,446 26,514,913 25,861,568 272,227 163,336 17,259,194 51,777,582 7,785,693 920,351 17,452 605,611 1,742,253,040 61,656 15,180 Development 2010 to 2020 138,291,335 16,660,294 16,279,176 217,781 108,890 12,576,889 37,730,667 5,662,322 660,803 13,574 420,945 1,012,684,579 31,501 9,448 Total Change 1990 to 2020 1,976,413,752 238,245,914 232,375,377 2,446,056 1,467,633 155,079,989 465,239,968 69,957,218 8,269,681 156,814 5,441,637 15,654,762,400 186,275 45,862 Total Change 1990 to 2020 1,242,596,765 149,698,664 146,274,184 1,956,844 978,421 113,007,815 339,023,447 50,877,976 5,937,550 121,967 3,782,340 9,099,330,644 95,166 28,545 Units of Measure Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Tons Million Gallons Billion BTU Hours Acres Acres Units of Measure Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds , Pounds Pounds Pounds Tons Million Gallons Billion BTU Hours Acres Acres High Density Development Auto Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Residential Sulfur Oxides Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Particulates Sediment (erosion) Water Use Energy Use Driving Time Land Use, Houses Land Use, Roads 1990 to 2000 558,901,786 67,510,908 65,850,804 830,052 553,368 50,079,813 149,962,756 22,688,092 2,804,742 57,610 1,723,779 4,592,955,271 17,726 6,276 2000 to 2010 319,325,367 38,571,975 37,623,483 474,245 316,163 28,612,817 85,680,370 12,962,712 1,602,473 32,915 984,871 2,624,158,959 17,875 6,329 1 2010 to 2020 109,979,723 13,284,679 12,958,006 163,336 108,890 9,854,618 29,509,410 4,464,523 551,912 11,336 339,202 903,793,764 17,616 6,236 Total Change 1990 to 2020 988,206,876 119,367,562 116,432,293 1,467,633 978,421 88,547,248 265,152,536 40,115,327 4,959,127 101,861 3,047,852 8,120,907,994 53,217 18,841 Units of Measure Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Tons Million Gallons Billion BTU Hours Acres Acres ------- A-17 Table 10.4 Ecosystem Effects due to Population Growth under Three Residential Land Use Scenarios District of Columbia Auto Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Residential Sulfur Oxides Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Particulates Sediment (erosion) Water Use Energy Use Driving Time Land Use, Houses Land Use, Roads Auto Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Residential Sulfur Oxides Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Particulates Sediment (erosion) Water Use Energy Use Driving Time Land Use, Houses Land Use, Roads Low Density Development 1990 to 2000 64,713,558 7,800,867 7,608,648 80,091 48,054 5,077,771 15,233,315 2,290,603 270,773 5,134 178,175 512,582,640 705 173 1990 to 2000 40,686,247 4,901,571 4,789,444 64,072 32,036 3,700,205 11,100,617 1,665,893 194,412 3,993 123,844 297,938,659 359 105 2000 to 2010 15,473,715 1,865,272 1,819,310 19,150 11,490 1,214,150 3,642,451 547,708 64,744 1,227 42,603 122,564,080 0 0 Medium Density 2000 to 2010 9,728,523 1,172,019 1,145,208 15,320 7,660 884,759 2,654,278 398,333 46,486 954 29,612 71,240,371 0 0 2010 to 2020 6,074,614 732,261 714,218 7,518 4,510 476,646 1,429,940 215,017 25,417 481 16,725 48,115,760 0 0 Development 2010 to 2020 3,819,188 460,106 449,581 6,014 3,007 347,335 1,042,006 156,376 18,249 374 11,625 27,967,285 0 0 Total Change 1990 to 2020 86,261,887 10,398,400 10,142,176 106,759 64,054 6,768,567 20,305,706 3,053,328 360,934 6,842 237,503 683,262,480 705 173 Total Change 1990 to 2020 54,233,958 6,533,696 6,384,233 85,406 42,703 4,932,299 14,796,901 2,220,602 259,147 5,321 165,081 397,146,315 359 105 Units of Measure Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Tons Million Gallons Billion BTU Hours Acres Acres Units of Measure Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Tons Million Gallons Billion BTU Hours Acres Acres High Density Development Auto Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Residential Sulfur Oxides Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Particulates Sediment (erosion) Water Use Energy Use Driving Time Land Use, Houses Land Use, Road.i 1990 to 2000 32,356,779 3,908,442 3,812,333 48,054 32,036 2,899,295 8,681,868 1,313,493 162,376 3,335 99,795 265,902,244 200 69 2000 to 2010 7,736,857 934,551 911,570 11,490 7,660 693,253 2,075,929 314,070 38,825 797 23,862 63,580,116 0 0 2010 to 2020 3,037,307 366,882 357,860 4,510 3,007 272,154 814,960 123,296 15,242 313 9,367 24,960,050 0 0 Total Change 1990 to 2020 43,130,943 5,209,875 5,081,763 64,054 42,703 3,864,702 11,572,757 1,750,859 216,443 4,445 133,024 354,442,410 200 69 Units of Measure Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Tons Million Gallons Billion BTU Hours Acres Acres ------- A-18 Table 10.5 Ecosystem Effects due to Population Growth under Three Residential Land Use Scenarios Total Auto Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Residential Sulfur Oxides Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Partlculates Sediment (erosion) Water Use Energy Use Driving Time Land Use, Houses Land Use, Roads Auto Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Residential Sulfur Oxides Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Partlculates Sediment (erosion) Water Use Energy Use Driving Time Land Use, Houses Land Use, Roads 1990 to 2000 2,454,452,530 295,870,886 288,580,433 3,037,688 1,822,613 192,589,468 577,768,405 86,877,898 10,269,884 194,744 6,757,817 19,441,208,160 115,515 28,439 1990 to 2000 1,543,145,897 185,906,553 181,653,788 2,430,151 1,215,075 140,341,221 421,023,664 63,183,926 7,373,677 151,468 4,697,182 11,300,202,243 59,011 17,697 Low Density Development 2000 to 2010 2010 to 2020 1,254,330,887 151,202,757 147,477,022 1,552,389 931,433 98,421,507 295,264,523 44,398,345 5,248,353 99,523 3,453,535 9,935,294,160 106,375 26,189 Medium Density 2000 to 2010 788,613,973 95,006,250 92,832,904 1,241,911 620,955 71,720,404 215,161,214 32,289,706 3,768,266 77,406 2,400,462 5,774,889,730 54,344 16,299 417,550,685 50,333,461 49,093,211 516,770 310,062 32,763,259 98,289,777 14,779,640 1,747,109 33,129 1,149,637 3,307,332,160 103,189 25,405 Development 2010 to 2020 262,519,490 31,626,363 30,902,884 413,416 206,708 23,874,804 71,624,412 10., 748, 829 1,254,407 25,767 799,083 1,922,386,818 52,717 15,810 Total Change 1990 to 2020 Units of Measure 4,126,334,102 497,407,104 485,150,666 5,106,847 3,064,108 323,774,234 971,322,705 146,055,883 17,265,346 327,396 11,360,989 32,683,834,480 325,079 80,033 Total Change 1990 to 2020 2,594,279,360 312,539,166 305,389,576 4,085,478 2,042,738 235,936,429 707,809,290 106,222,461 12,396,350 254,641 7,896,727 18,997,478,791 166,072 49,806 Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Tons Million Gallons Billion BTU Hours Acres Acres Units of Measure Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Tons Million Gallons Billion BTU Hours Acres Acres High Density Development Auto Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Residential Sulfur Oxides Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrous Oxides Partlculates Sediment (erosion) Water Use Energy Use Driving Time Land Use, Houses Land Use, Roads 1990 to 2000 1,227,226,265 148,239,212 144,593,985 1,822,613 1,215,075 109,964,333 329,285,463 49,818,095 6,158,601 126,501 3,785,043 10,085,126,733 32,998 11,680 2000 to 2010 627,165,443 75,756,617 73,893,750 931,433 620,955 56,196,507 168,279,044 25,459,191 3,147,310 64,647 1,934,320 5,153,933,845 30,387 10,757 2010 to 2020 208,775,342 25,218,407 24,598,282 310,062 206,708 18,707,097 56,017,938 8,475,038 1,047,699 21,520 643,910 1,715,678,558 29,479 10,434 Total Change 1990 to 2020 2,063,167,050 249,214,236 243,086,017 3,064,108 2,042,738 184,867,937 553,582,445 83,752,324 10,353,610 212,668 6,363,273 16,954,739,136 92,864 32,871 Units of Measure Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Tons Million Gallons Billion BTU Hours Acres Acres ------- Appendix B B-1 Other Topics In the course of its meetings and discus- sions, Panel members and others brought to the group many topics that were briefly dis- cussed but were not fully explored. A num- ber of these topics may warrant further study and are listed here. Most relate to fiscal is- sues. 1. Expand environmental trust funds to pay for such diverse growth-related topics as: • private and public transportation sys- tems • research in technology to reduce resource consumption • extensive land acquisition (sensitive land, state parks) 2. Increase user fees to reduce consumption • gasoline taxes • credits for developers and employers who promote ridesharing and other group transportation modes • increase use of toll roads • tax second homes substantially • increase transfer tax on houses adjoin- ing the shore • credits for environmental retrofits to property • increased boating fees 3. Fund projects to deal with combined sewers. 4. Review road standards for subdivisions with the intention of reducing stormwater runoff. 5. Require water saving and energy saving devices in new construction. ------- 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 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 consensus1 was reached. ------- |