Draft Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay

The Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay released its Draft Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay on November 9, 2009 (concurrent with the Draft Strategy, an Executive Summary was released). Comments on the Draft Strategy are due by January 8, 2010 and the final strategy for protecting and restoring the Chesapeake Bay is to be completed and released by May 12, 2010.

The Draft Strategy isn't very different from the Draft 202(a) Report submitted by the EPA to the Federal Leadership Committee. Some of the recommendations that may be of particular interest to the building industry include:

  1. Development of an Economic Market for Ecosystem Services: Federal agencies will support the development of innovative technologies and economic markets as a way to provide landowners with an incentive to practice sustainable agriculture and forestry. Essentially, entities such as urban water utilities, industrial polluters, and land developers who must pay to mitigate negative impacts to the watershed will pay for the implementation of conservation practices that offset those impacts. USDA will lead a collaborative federal effort to develop ecosystem markets in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

  2. Promote Smart Growth and Sustainable Development: Because land use has a direct impact on the environment, federal agencies will promote sustainable development and smart growth through assistance and tools to local governments. DOT, EPA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development will convene a series of forums and partner with local governments to conduct integrated transportation, land use, housing, and water infrastructure planning in a sustainable and environmentally sensitive manner. DOT will promote use of public transportation, bicycling, and walking, and partner with the Department of Energy (DOE) on a pilot project to support increased use of electric cars.

There are a couple of statements in the Draft Strategy that seem to directly address some of the concerns raised by the industry during listening sessions with the EPA. For example, page 23 of the Draft Strategy addresses the cost implications for more stringent stormwater management practices for new construction but ultimately concludes that change is more valuable:

Demonstrating the value of changing our behaviors is a difficult task. Often, such changes are viewed as a threat to people’s lifestyle or economic well-being. Reducing stormwater runoff, for example, may require the installation of new technologies in both residential and commercial developments. Requirements to use new roofing technologies or porous pavement have the potential to raise the price of such development. Partnering with states and communities to lead change in community planning and individual choices is important to bring all stakeholders and residents into the effort to achieve and sustain a healthy system.”

Here are a few statistics cited in the Draft Strategy that builders and developers may find interesting:

  1. Between 1990 and 2000, the amount of land in the watershed covered by impervious surfaces increased by about 41 percent, while population in the Bay watershed grew by 8 percent. Stormwater running off urban and suburban lands is now the fastest-growing source of pollution in the Bay. (Draft Strategy p.19)

  2. Construction sites can contribute, on a per-acre basis, 10 to 20 times more sediment than do agricultural lands. (Draft Strategy p. 22)

  3. A one-acre parking lot produces about 16 times the volume of runoff that comes from a one-acre meadow.” (Draft Strategy p.31)

  4. Development has increasingly altered both natural and cultural landscapes, tearing at the very fabric that defines the region and supports our way of life….Moreover, converting forests and open spaces to development simply exacerbates pollution problems now harming the Bay and its rivers. On average, an acre of forest delivers just 3.3 lbs of nitrogen to streams annually; an acre of developed land delivers 32.9 lbs of nitrogen annually. (Draft Strategy p. 33)

If you have any statistics, data, or general comments that you'd like to make to the FLC and the EPA as they go forward in developing a more concrete strategy, it's important to submit them by January 8, 2010 to be considered. Comments can be provided via this link.

Executive Order on Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration

On May 12, 2009, the Office of the Press Secretary for the White House released Executive Order 13508, Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration. The goals elucidated in the Executive Order are to "protect and restore the health, heritage, natural resources, and social and economic value of the Nation's largest estuarine ecosystem and the natural sustainability of its watershed..."

To accomplish these goals, the Order directs various federal agencies to develop separate reports on key challenges to protecting and restoring the Chesapeake Bay. These draft reports are due to the newly established Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay on September 9, 2009.

The Environmental Protection Agency is charged with drafting the so-termed Section 202(a) Report; the goal of this report is to define the next generation of tools and actions to restore water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and describe the changes to be made to regulations, programs, and policies to implement these actions.

I attended a listening session between the EPA and several representatives of home builders and developers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed area on August 10 in Washington, D.C. to discuss stormwater issues.

Here are some of the most pressing concerns voiced during that meeting:

  • The EPA has concluded that runoff from urban and suburban lands, including septic systems, is the only source of pollution that is increasing. Therefore, it's likely that the 202(a) Report will recommend that even higher standards be implemented for new construction projects in order to prevent runoff.
  • The Report may recommend placing much of the burden for reducing pollution levels on new construction projects rather than implementing retrofitting policies for existing projects. It may be difficult to achieve the goals set by the Order if the runoff attributable to existing development is not being addressed. 
  • Recommendations made in the Report may result in even higher land approval and development costs than current market conditions support.

Feel free to give the EPA feedback , or post your comments here for discussion.  There is also a Facebook Group that the EPA has set up as an alternate discussion forum.