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.
------- |