Environmental Planning Handbook. [2 ed.] 9781351177559, 1351177559

Citation preview

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING HANDBOOK FOR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES AND REGIONS SECOND EDITION

Tom Daniels

First published 2014 by he American Planning Association Published 2017 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © 2014 Taylor & Francis All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. ISBN: 978-1-6119-0151-1 (hbk) Library of Congress Control Number 2014935905 Figures 1.1, 2.1, 3.3, 3.5, 4.1, 5.2, 5.5, 6.1–6.3, 13.3, 14.2, 18.2, 19.3, 19.7, and 20.1 by Ethan Daniels

To my wife, Amy, and my three sons, Ethan, Jason, and Lincoln. You are my inspiration and hope.

CONTENTS

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii List of Photos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi List of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xxiii Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xxix Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xxxi Introduction: Guarding the Future: Sustainable Environmental Planning and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xxxvii Part 1: The Environmental Planning Process Chapter 1.0: Taking Stock of the Environment and Creating Environmental Plans. . . . . . . 3 1.1: Adding Environmental Planning to the Comprehensive Planning Process . . . 6 1.2: The Environmental Planning Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 1.3: A Further Look at Functional and Area Environmental Plans . . . . . . . . . . . .27 1.4: Day-to-Day Planning Decisions: Review of Development Proposals . . . . . . .35 Chapter 2.0: The Legal, Economic, Ethical, and Ecological Foundations of Environmental Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 2.1: Legal Issues in Environmental Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 2.2: Economic Reasons for Environmental Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 2.3: Ethical Reasons for Environmental Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 2.4: Ecology and Environmental Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68

vi

CONTENTS

Part 2: Planning for Sustainable Public Health Chapter 3.0: Planning for Sustainable Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 3.1: Air-Quality Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 3.2: Federal Responses to Air-Quality Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84 3.3: The Role of the States in Planning for Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 3.4: Local Planning for Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 3.5: Case Study: The Land Use, Air Quality, and Transportation Study in Portland, Oregon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Chapter 4.0: Planning for Climate Change: Mitigation and Adaptation. . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 4.1: Climate Change: Threats and Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 4.2: Federal Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mitigation) . . . . . . 120 4.3: International Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . 122 4.4: Regional Planning to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 4.5: State Planning to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 4.6: Local Planning to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 4.7: Case Study: Portland’s Climate Action Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Chapter 5.0: Planning for a Sustainable Water Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 5.1: Water Supplies and Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 5.2: Hydrology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 5.3: The Need for Water Supply Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 5.4: The Federal Role in Water Supply Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 5.5: The Safe Drinking Water Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 5.6: State Water Supply Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 5.7: County and Regional Water Supply Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 5.8: Local Water Supply Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 5.9: Case Study: New York City’s Water Supply Protection Program . . . . . . . . . 172 Chapter 6.0: Planning for Sustainable Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 6.1: Water-Quality Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 6.2: Federal Water-Quality Standards and Pollution Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 6.3: State Water-Quality Protection and Cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 6.4: Local Planning for Water Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 6.5: Case Study: The Chesapeake Bay TMDL Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

CONTENTS

vii

Chapter 7.0: Planning for Solid Waste and Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 7.1: The Challenge of Managing Solid Waste. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 7.2: Solid Waste: The Federal Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 7.3: State Solid Waste Planning and Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 7.4: Local and Regional Planning and Programs for Solid Waste, Reuse, and Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 Chapter 8.0: Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 8.1: The Challenge of Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste. . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 8.2: Federal Action on Toxic Substances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 8.3: Local Planning for Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Part 3: Planning for Natural Areas Chapter 9.0: Protecting the Nation’s Landscape Treasures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 9.1: The Challenge of Landscape Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 9.2: Federal Planning for Protecting the Nation’s Landscape Treasures . . . . . . . 278 9.3: State Programs to Protect Landscape Treasures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 9.4: Local and Regional Acquisition of Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 9.5: Local Planning for Landscape Treasures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 9.6: Case Study: Antietam Battlefield Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Chapter 10.0: Planning for Wildlife Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307 10.1: Pressures on Wildlife Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308 10.2: Federal Efforts to Protect Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314 10.3: State Planning for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 10.4: Nonprofit Organizations and Wildlife Habitat Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 10.5: Local Planning for Plant and Wildlife Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328 10.6: Case Study: Species Conservation in San Diego County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 Chapter 11.0: Planning and Managing Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 11.1: Pressures on Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 11.2: Federal Wetland Protection Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344 11.3: State Wetlands Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 11.4: Local Planning for Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354

viii

CONTENTS

Chapter 12.0: Coastal Zone Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361 12.1: The Challenge of Coastal Zone Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 12.2: Federal Planning and Management of Coastal Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . 365 12.3: State and Regional Coastal Protection Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372 12.4: Local Planning for Coastal Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375 12.5: Case Study: The California Coastal Commission and the California State Coastal Conservancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379 Chapter 13.0: Planning for Natural Hazards and Natural Disasters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385 13.1: The Challenge of Planning for Disaster-Resistant Communities . . . . . . . . . 385 13.2: Federal Planning for Natural Disasters and Hazard Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . 395 13.3: State Planning for Natural Disasters and Hazard Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . 406 13.4: Local Planning for Natural Disasters and Hazard Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . 407 13.5: Case Study: Hurricane Katrina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415 Part 4: Planning for Working Landscapes Chapter 14.0: Planning for Sustainable Working Landscapes: Farmland and Ranchland. . . 425 14.1: Challenges to Maintaining Working Agricultural Landscapes . . . . . . . . . . 426 14.2: Federal Planning for Farmland Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431 14.3: State Farmland Protection Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433 14.4: Local Planning for Farmland Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440 14.5: Environmentally Responsible Farming Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452 14.6: Case Study: Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). . . . . . . . . . . . 456 Chapter 15.0: Planning for Sustainable Working Landscapes: Forestry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461 15.1: Forest Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462 15.2: Pressures on Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465 15.3: Federal Forestland Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467 15.4: State Forestland Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468 15.5: Land Trusts and the Protection of Forestland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472 15.6: Local Planning for Forestlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473 15.7: Case Studies: The Northern Forest Initiative and Forests and Carbon Sequestration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478

CONTENTS

ix

Chapter 16.0: Planning for Mining. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485 16.1: Environmental Impacts of Mineral and Aggregate Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . 487 16.2: Federal Mining Regulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490 16.3: State Mining Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491 16.4: Local Planning for Mineral and Aggregate Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491 16.5: Case Study: Mountaintop Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495 Part 5: Planning for the Built Environment Chapter 17.0: Planning for Energy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501 17.1: America’s Energy Challenges: Production, Consumption, Efficiency, and Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502 17.2: America’s Energy Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506 17.3: Federal Energy Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518 17.4: State Energy Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520 17.5: Local Energy Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522 Chapter 18.0: Transportation Planning and the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535 18.1: Transportation Planning Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535 18.2: Federal Transportation Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541 18.3: Regional Approaches to Transportation Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 544 18.4: Local Planning for Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555 18.5: Case Study: Transportation Planning in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561 Chapter 19.0: Making Green Cities, Suburbs, and Metro Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567 19.1: The Challenges of Building and Managing Green Cities, Suburbs, and Metro Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568 19.2: Making Cities, Suburbs, and Metro Regions Into Sustainable Green Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575 19.3: The Importance of Good Design in Greening Cities and Suburbs . . . . . . . . 589 19.4: Federal Efforts Toward Creating Green Cities, Suburbs, and Metro Regions. . . 599 19.5: State Efforts to Revitalize Cities and Older Suburbs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601 19.6: Local Planning for Green Cities, Suburbs, and Metro Regions . . . . . . . . . . 602 19.7: Case Study: Chattanooga, Tennessee: From Worst to First . . . . . . . . . . . . 607

x

CONTENTS

Chapter 20.0: Greenfield Development and Site Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615 20.1: The Challenge of Sprawl and Greenfield Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616 20.2: Federal Programs to Manage Greenfield Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619 20.3: State Programs to Manage Greenfield Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621 20.4: Regional and Local Management of Greenfield Development. . . . . . . . . . 622 20.5: Local Planning for Greenfield Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 638 20.6: Case Study: Prairie Crossing, Illinois, and Tracking Greenfield Development vs. Urban Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642 Part 6: Environmental Planning Challenges at Home and Abroad Chapter 21.0: Positive Trends and Urgent Needs for Sustainable Environmental Planning. . . 649 21.1: Positive Environmental Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650 21.2: Environmental Planning Needs and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654 21.3: International Environmental Planning Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 668 21.4: A Final Note on Sustainable Environmental Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 671 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 675 Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695 Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 709 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719 About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 749

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1.

Eight Steps in Creating an Environmental Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Table 1.2.

Environmental Features to Show on the Natural Resources Inventory Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Table 1.3.

Innovative Techniques to Implement an Environmental Action Plan . . . . . 28–29

Table 1.4.

Environmental Impact Checklist for Reviewing Proposed Development Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37–38

Table 2.1.

Major Federal Environmental Laws, 1970–2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

Table 3.1.

National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air-Quality Standards . . . . . . . 86–87

Table 3.2.

Air-Quality Index Ratings of Daily Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97

Table 3.3.

Sample Air-Quality Goals and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . 106

Table 3.4.

A Checklist of Air-Quality Issues for a Development Review . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Table 4.1.

10 Things You Can Do to Reduce Greenhouse Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Table 4.2.

Target Areas and General Policies from Portland’s Climate Action Plan, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Table 5.1.

Water Use by Selected Manufacturing and Processing Operations . . . . . . . . 143

Table 5.2.

Stream Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Table 5.3.

Community Water Systems by Size and Estimated Infrastructure Needs, 2011–2030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Table 5.4.

Projected Water Use in City of Golden Valley, Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5.5.

Sample Public Water Supply Goals and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

Table 5.6.

A Checklist of Water Supply Issues in a Development Review . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Table 6.1.

Leading Sources of Nonpoint Water Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

Table 6.2.

Leading Causes of Water-Quality Impairment in the U.S., 2008, 2010. . . . . . . 185

Table 6.3.

Clean Water Act Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Table 6.4.

Water-Quality Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

Table 6.5.

Federal Water-Quality Standards for a Water Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

Table 6.6.

Recommended Best Management Practices for Construction Sites. . . . . . . . 197

Table 6.7.

Sample Water-Quality Goals and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan . . . . 209

Table 6.8.

New York City PlaNYC Water-Quality Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

Table 6.9.

A Checklist of Water-Quality Issues in a Development Review . . . . . . . . . . . 214

Table 6.10.

TMDL Allocations for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

Table 7.1.

Number of Curbside Recycling Programs and Population Served, 2010 . . . . . 225

Table 7.2.

Sample Solid Waste Goals and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan. . . . . . 235

Table 7.3.

A Checklist of Solid Waste and Recycling Issues in a Development Review . . . 238

Table 8.1.

EPA Brownfields Program Accomplishments as of October 2013 . . . . . . . . . 261

Table 8.2.

Sample Hazardous Waste Goals and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan . . . 265

Table 8.3.

A Checklist of Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste Issues in a Development Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

Table 9.1.

A Sample of Local Land Preservation Ballot Measures Passed in 2010 . . . . . . 287

Table 9.2.

America’s 10 Most Endangered Rivers, 2014, According to American Rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

Table 9.3.

Sample Special Landscapes Goals and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297

Table 9.4.

A Checklist of Natural and Scenic Environment Issues in a Development Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300

LIST OF TABLES

xiii

Table 10.1.

10 Causes of Wildlife Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308

Table 10.2.

Bioregions of California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

Table 10.3.

Federal Information Sources on Wildlife Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315

Table 10.4.

Listed Threatened and Endangered Plant and Animal Species by Top 10 States, 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316

Table 10.5.

Biological Principles for Local Habitat Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329

Table 10.6.

Sample Plant and Wildlife Protection Goals and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330

Table 10.7.

Wildlife Habitat Protection Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332

Table 10.8.

A Checklist of Plant and Wildlife Habitat Issues in a Development Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334

Table 11.1.

Section 404 Approval Process for Federal Wetlands Permit . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346

Table 11.2.

Sample Wetlands Goals and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . . 355

Table 11.3.

A Checklist of Wetlands Issues in a Development Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357

Table 12.1.

Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Six States and the District of Columbia in the Chesapeake Watershed, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . 374

Table 12.2.

Sample Coastal Resources Goals and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377

Table 12.3.

A Checklist of Coastal Resource Issues in a Development Review . . . . . . . . . 379

Table 13.1.

Average Funding for Disaster Relief, FY 2001–FY 2011 (in Millions of Dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395

Table 13.2.

Sample Natural Disaster Response and Hazard-Prone Areas Goals and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411

Table 13.3.

A Checklist of Hazard-Prone Areas Issues in a Development Review . . . . . . . 415

Table 14.1.

Farmland Capability Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431

Table 14.2.

Leading State Programs in Farmland Preserved, 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436

Table 14.3.

Leading Counties in Farmland Preserved, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437

Table 14.4.

Purchase of Development Rights Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438

xiv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 14.5.

Sample Goals and Objectives for Farmland and the Farming Industry in the Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441

Table 14.6.

A Checklist of Farm-Related and Non-farm-Related Development Issues in a Development Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448

Table 14.7.

Determining the Land Evaluation Score Based on Soil Productivity . . . . . . . 450

Table 14.8.

LESA System Site Assessment of Sample 300-Acre Farm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451

Table 14.9.

Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453

Table 14.10. Conservation Programs of the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . 454 Table 15.1.

Forest Landownership in the U.S. by Region, 2007 (in Millions of Acres) . . . . . 463

Table 15.2.

Riparian Management Areas for Logging in Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470

Table 15.3.

Sample Goals and Objectives for Forest Resources in the Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476

Table 15.4.

A Checklist of Forestry-Related and Nonforestry-Related Issues in a Development Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478

Table 16.1.

Sample Goals and Objectives for Mineral and Aggregate Mining in the Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493

Table 16.2.

A Checklist of Mineral and Aggregate Resource Issues in a Development Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495

Table 17.1.

U.S. Energy Production by Source, 2011– 2012 (in Quadrillion Btu) . . . . . . . 503

Table 17.2.

U.S. Primary Energy Use by Sector, 2011– 2012 (in Quadrillion Btu). . . . . . . . 504

Table 17.3a. Energy Sources and End Uses in U.S., 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505 Table 17.3b. Economic Sectors and Their Primary Energy Sources, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505 Table 17.4.

Sample Energy Goals and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan. . . . . . . . . 524

Table 17.5.

A Checklist of Energy Issues for a Development Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527

Table 18.1.

Energy Efficiency of Different Transportation Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536

Table 18.2.

Metro Areas With Light-Rail Systems, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549

LIST OF TABLES

xv

Table 18.3.

Advantages of Transit-Oriented Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549

Table 18.4.

Sample Transportation Goals and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan. . . . 558

Table 18.5.

A Checklist of Transportation Issues for a Development Review . . . . . . . . . . 560

Table 19.1.

Typical and Recommended Residential Design in Suburbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 596

Table 19.2.

Smart Growth Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 602

Table 19.3.

Sample Green and Built Environment Goals and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 604

Table 19.4.

A Checklist of Green Infrastructure and Built Environment Issues in a Development Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 608

Table 20.1.

Comparison of Cluster Development Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635

Table 20.2.

Sample Greenfield Development Goals and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 639

Table 20.3.

A Checklist of Greenfield Development Issues in a Development Review . . . . 643

Table 21.1

Leading Environmental Planning Challenges in America . . . . . . . . . . .655–656

Table 21.2

The Projected 10 Fastest-Growing States, 2000–2030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1.

General Zoning Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Figure 1.2.

Geographic Information System Database Layers: Aquifer Systems of the Southeastern United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Figure 1.3.

Map of Soil Types from the Adams County, Pennsylvania, Soil Survey . . . . . . .20

Figure 1.4.

Map Identifying Steep Slopes for the Natural Resources Inventory, Yonkers, New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Figure 1.5.

Hub and Greenway, Node and Link Patterns for Connected Green Infrastructure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Figure 1.6.

City of Grand Rapids Sustainability Plan: Plan-Do-Check-Act Process . . . . . . .33

Figure 1.7a.

Scenario A: Expected Loss of Open Space in Greater Boston, 2000–2030, if Current Development Trends Continue (152,000 Acres) . . . . . . .36

Figure 1.7b. Scenario B: Expected Loss Under the MetroFuture Plan (37,000 Acres). . . . . . .36 Figure 2.1.

Optimal Pollution Cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

Figure 2.2.

Federal Capital Outlays for Natural Resources and Environment. . . . . . . . . . .64

Figure 3.1.

National Total Emissions Estimates by Source for Selected Pollutants, 2008 . . .83

Figure 3.2.

Ozone Levels in the Puget Sound Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88

Figure 3.3.

Clean Air Act Pollution Management Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91

Figure 3.4.

Change in Annual Nationwide Emissions by Source, 1990–2008 (in Thousands of Tons) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97

xviii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.5.

Layout of Orenco Station, Near Hillsboro, Oregon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Figure 4.1.

The Greenhouse Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Figure 4.2.

Sources of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Figure 4.3.

Types of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2011. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Figure 4.4.

Trends in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 1990–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Figure 4.5.

Albany, California, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Baseline, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Figure 4.6.

Albany, California, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2004–2020, and Emissions Target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Figure 5.1.

Total Surface and Groundwater Freshwater Withdrawals in the U.S., 2005 . . . 142

Figure 5.2.

River Basins of the Central U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Figure 5.3.

Surface Water and Groundwater Withdrawals by State, 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Figure 5.4.

Colorado River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Figure 5.5.

Wellhead Protection Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Figure 5.6.

New York City Water Supply System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

Figure 6.1.

Stormwater Runoff and Impervious Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

Figure 6.2.

Sign Indicating That Water Is Unsafe to Swim in and Does Not Meet the Swimmable Water-Quality Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Figure 6.3.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

Figure 7.1.

Total Municipal Solid Waste, 2010 (by Material) 250 Million Tons (Before Recycling) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

Figure 7.2.

Recycling Rates of Selected Products, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

Figure 8.1.

Toxic Waste Management Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

Figure 8.2.

Toxic Release Inventory Disposal or Other Releases, 2010: 3.93 Billion Pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

Figure 8.3.

Toxic Releases by Industry, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

LIST OF FIGURES

xix

Figure 8.4.

Disposal or Releases of PCBs, 2001–2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

Figure 9.1.

NRCS Landscape Conservation Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284

Figure 9.2.

Viewshed Protection Strategy and Land Preservation Results, Antietam Battlefield. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .301–302

Figure 10.1. The Core Habitat, Hub, and Corridor Strategy for Wildlife Conservation . . . . . 312 Figure 10.2. Critical Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl, Covering 8.6 Million Acres of Federal Land in 52 Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 Figure 10.3. Massachusetts BioMap Showing Core Habitat and Supporting Natural Landscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 Figure 10.4. San Diego County, Multiple Species Conservation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . 336 Figure 11.1. Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 Figure 11.2. Average Annual Net Wetland Loss and Gain for Lower 48 States, 1954–2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344 Figure 11.3. Water Flow in South Florida: Historic, Present, and Planned . . . . . . . . . . . . 353 Figure 13.1. Map of California and Nevada Earthquakes, July 16, 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394 Figure 13.2. National Response Framework to Respond to a Natural Disaster . . . . . . . . . 396 Figure 13.3. Floodplain With 100-Year Floodway. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398 Figure 13.4. Low-Lying Coastal Areas in the Southeastern U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405 Figure 13.5. Flood Hazards in Greenville, North Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409 Figure 13.6. Pitt County, North Carolina, Multihazards Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410 Figure 14.1. Ownership of Land and Land Uses in the Lower 48 States, 2007. . . . . . . . . . 426 Figure 14.2. The Metropolitan Service District Growth Boundary of Greater Portland, Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445 Figure 15.1. Forest Cover of the Lower 48 States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462 Figure 17.1. U.S. Primary Energy Use by Source, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504 Figure 17.2. Installed Wind Power Capacity, December 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514

xx

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 17.3. Solar Energy Potential in the U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516 Figure 18.1. U.S. Commuting Transportation Modes, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537 Figure 18.2. Transit-Oriented Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547 Figure 18.3. Portland, Oregon’s, 450-mile Planned Bikeway Network by 2030 . . . . . . . . . 551 Figure 18.4. The Greater Charlotte Corridor and Transit System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 562 Figure 19.1. U.S. Population Change by State, 2000–2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568 Figure 19.2. City of Chicago Sustainable Development Policies, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571 Figure 19.3. A Smart Street With Trees and Shrubs to Absorb Stormwater, Provide Shade, and Separate Pedestrians from Car and Bike Traffic . . . . . . . . 577 Figure 19.4. A Suggested U.S. High-Speed Rail Network by 2030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585 Figure 19.5. Urban Growth Boundaries (in Gray) in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Set Limit for Extension of Urban Services for 20 Years . . . . . . . 586 Figure 19.6. The 10 Megapolitan or Megaregions of the U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588 Figure 19.7. A Tale of Two Land-Use Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591 Figure 20.1. Typical Suburban Residential Pod Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620 Figure 20.2. Urban Growth Boundary, City of Woodinville in King County, Washington . . . 624 Figure 20.3. Residential Strip Development and Cluster Residential Development . . . . . . 633 Figure 20.4. Residential Pod Reconfigured to Retain Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 634

LIST OF PHOTOS

Photo 3.1.

Brunner Island coal-fired power plant, York County, PA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82

Photo 6.1.

No dumping sign on storm sewer to protect water quality in Fort Collins, CO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

Photo 6.2.

Soil erosion and sedimentation occurring from an eroding stream bank. . . . . 186

Photo 6.3.

Impervious surface in a shopping mall parking lot contributes to stormwater runoff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

Photo 6.4.

The restored Little Sugar Creek and buffer protection sign, Charlotte, NC. . . . 208

Photo 6.5.

A lighthouse on the Chesapeake Bay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

Photo 7.1.

Trash-to-electricity incinerator plant in Lancaster County, PA. . . . . . . . . . . . 232

Photo 7.2.

Solar trash compacter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

Photo 8.1.

An abandoned mine remediation site outside of Breckenridge, CO. . . . . . . . 258

Photo 8.2.

A former brick factory brownfield in Lancaster County, PA, that was made into walking trails. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

Photo 9.1.

The mountains known as the Flatirons are within the City of Boulder, CO, open space and mountain parks system. . . . . . . . . . . . 276

Photo 9.2.

A former ranch, known as the Konza Prairie, was preserved for buffalo habitat by the Nature Conservancy and Kansas State University. . . . . 291

Photo 11.1.

Freshwater palustrine wetland, New Hartford, NY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342

Photo 11.2.

Constructed wetland to absorb stormwater runoff.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348

xxii

LIST OF PHOTOS

Photo 12.1.

Millions of Americans visit coastal beaches every year, like this one on the Delaware coast.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363

Photo 14.1.

Agricultural landscapes provide a rich array of environmental services. . . . . . 427

Photo 14.2.

Farmers market in Burlington, VT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432

Photo 14.3.

Part of a contiguous block of 9,000 acres of preserved farmland in northwestern Lancaster County, PA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439

Photo 14.4.

Preserved farmland reinforces an urban growth boundary, stopping the extension of residential development in East Donegal Township, Lancaster County, PA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446

Photo 15.1.

Colorado timberland.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464

Photo 16.1.

Stone crushing operation adjacent to a limestone quarry in Lancaster County, PA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486

Photo 17.1.

The cooling towers of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Dauphin County, PA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510

Photo 18.1.

Traffic flow on Interstate 5 in Seattle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538

Photo 18.2.

Light-rail train and bicyclist sharing the street in Salt Lake City. . . . . . . . . . . 548

Photo 18.3.

Traffic calming in Boulder, CO, with a bulb-out and a textured brick pedestrian crossing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 556

Photo 19.1.

Millennium Park in downtown Chicago has been a big draw for both residents and tourists.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569

Photo 19.2.

The Church Street pedestrian mall has been a big success in Burlington, VT, which is often cited as one of the most livable small cities in the U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573

Photo 19.3.

Green roof, Lancaster, PA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576

Photo 19.4.

Historic preservation helps maintain the character of Petoskey, MI. . . . . . . . 592

Photo 20.1.

Suburban houses encroaching on a farm in the competition for space. . . . . . 617

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ADA

Americans with Disabilities Act

APA

American Planning Association

APFO

adequate public facilities ordinance

ASCE

American Society of Civil Engineers

AUM

Animal Unit Monthly

BACT

Best Available Control Technology

BCDC

[San Francisco] Bay Conservation and Development Commission

BLM

Bureau of Land Management

BMP

best management practice

BOD

biochemical oxygen demand or biological oxygen demand

CAFE

corporate average fuel economy [standards]

CAFO

confined animal feeding operation

CAP

Central Arizona Project

CCC

California Coastal Commission

CCALT

Colorado Cattlemen’s Agricultural Land Trust

CDBG

Community Development Block Grant

CELCP

Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program

CERCLA

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CERCLIS

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Information System

xxiv

LIST OF ACRONYMS

CFC

chlorofluorocarbon

CIP

capital improvements program

CRP

Conservation Reserve Program

CRS

Community Rating System

CSO

combined sewer overflow

CZMA

Coastal Zone Management Act

DART

Dallas Area Rapid Transit

dB

decibels

DDT

dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

DOE

[U.S.] Department of Energy

DOI

[U.S.] Department of the Interior

DOT

[U.S.] Department of Transportation

DRI

development of regional impact

EIS

environmental impact statement

EPA

[U.S.] Environmental Protection Agency

EQIP

Environmental Quality Incentives Program

ESA

Endangered Species Act

FEMA

Federal Emergency Management Agency

FERC

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FIFRA

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

FHA

Federal Highway Administration

FONSI

finding of no significant impact

FRPP

Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program

FTA

Federal Transit Administration

FWS

[U.S.] Fish and Wildlife Service

GAO

[U.S.] General Accounting Office

GAP

Gap Analysis Program

LIST OF ACRONYMS

GIS

geographic information systems

GRTA

Georgia Regional Transportation Authority

HCP

Habitat Conservation Plan

HOV

high-occupancy vehicle

HUD

[U.S. Department of ] Housing and Urban Development

ICLEI

International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives

IPCC

International Panel on Climate Change

IPM

integrated pest management

ISTEA

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act

LAER

Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate

LEED

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

LESA

Land Evaluation and Site Assessment

LID

low-impact development

LRMP

Land and Resource Management Plan

MAP-21

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century

mpg

miles per gallon

MPO

Metropolitan Planning Organization

MRF

materials recovery facility

NAAQS

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA

National Environmental Policy Act

NFIP

National Flood Insurance Program

NOAA

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPDES

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRCS

Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRDC

Natural Resources Defense Council

NWF

National Wildlife Federation

OSHA

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

xxv

xxvi

LIST OF ACRONYMS

PAYT

pay-as-you-throw program

PCB

polychlorinated biphenyl

PDD

planned development district

PDR

purchase of development rights

PILTs

payments in lieu of taxes

POP

persistent organic pollutant

PSD

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

PUD

Planned Unit Development

PVC

polyvinyl chloride

RCRA

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RGGI

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

RTP

regional transportation plan

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SDWA

Safe Drinking Water Act

SEPA

State Environmental Policy Act

SIP

State Implementation Plan

SPDES

State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

SWAP

Source Water Assessment and Protection

TCE

trichloroethylene

TDR

transfer of development rights

TEA-21

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

TIP

Transportation Improvement Program

TMDL

Total Maximum Daily Load

TND

traditional neighborhood development

TOD

transit-oriented development

TPZ

timber production zone

LIST OF ACRONYMS

TSCA

Toxic Substances Control Act

TVA

Tennessee Valley Authority

UNFCCC

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

USDA

U.S. Department of Agriculture

USGS

U.S. Geological Survey

VOC

volatile organic compounds

WHIP

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program

xxvii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to many people who offered information, suggestions, comments, and encouragement that helped shape this second edition. I would especially like to thank my environmental planning students at the University of Pennsylvania, whose term papers provided important details and insights on several of the topics in this book. My son, Ethan, did the graphics for the book, once again proving that his artistic talents far exceed those of his father. Finally, I wish to thank my editor, Sylvia Lewis, and her predecessor, Tim Mennel, for their gracious support.

PREFACE

The only thing certain about the future is that it brings change. Planning is the process of how people anticipate needs, set goals and objectives, and take action to shape change for their personal and collective benefit. Planning as a private act involves deciding how to use financial assets, labor, and natural resources to achieve personal, family, and business goals. Planning as a public act is a political process of translating social values into government policies and programs to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of a community, region, state, or nation. Public planning does not mean total government control. Rather, public planning involves setting regulations and making infrastructure investments to guide the market system of supply, demand, and prices to achieve the goals of society-at-large as well as those of businesses and individuals. In fact, public planning often works best as a partnership between government and the private sector. Environmental planners seek to shape a community, region, state, or nation by protecting and improving air and water quality and conserving long-term supplies of water, energy, farmland, forests, and wildlife habitats. Environmental planners also aim to increase the resilience of the built environment by reducing exposure to natural hazards, maintaining natural features, and adding green infrastructure. Planning is a continuous process rather than

a discrete project or set of projects. Effective planning produces high-quality natural and built environments that stand the test of time. Environmental planning has become a profession with highly trained and dedicated people from several educational backgrounds, including land use and community planning, geography, geology, hydrology, biology, botany, zoology, chemistry, landscape architecture, climatology, public policy, economics, law, and journalism. Environmental planners work for wildlife conservation organizations, hunting and fishing groups, watershed associations, land trusts, developers, corporations, consulting firms, colleges and universities, and local, regional, state, and federal government agencies. *

*

*

People think of themselves as belonging to a place. Familiar open spaces, landmarks, and buildings give us a sense of order and identity. Yet, in the 20th century, America underwent enormous changes in population growth, dispersed settlement patterns, transportation and communications technology, and national wealth that transformed both the natural and built environments. During the 20th century, the nation’s population nearly quadrupled

xxxii

PREFACE

from 76 million to more than 281 million individuals. The mass-produced automobile revolutionized the way Americans live and work by affording greater mobility and the ability to commute long distances. The construction of the interstate highway system not only linked the lower 48 states but also helped create burgeoning suburbs around the major urban centers. Millions of acres of farmland, forestland, and wildlife habitat were converted to housing subdivisions, shopping centers, and office parks. By 1990, four out of five Americans lived in metropolitan areas, and more people were living in suburbs than in central cities for the first time in the nation’s history. America had become a suburban nation. Americans have amassed more wealth than residents of any other country. As of 2014, Americans made up slightly less than 5 percent of the world’s 7.2 billion people yet accounted for more than 20 percent of the annual global consumption of natural resources. America’s growth and prosperity have come at a price. The combination of population growth, sprawling development patterns, and motor vehicle dependence has unleashed a widespread assault on the nation’s air, water, landscapes, and wildlife. Americans are among the world’s leaders in per capita emissions of greenhouse gases, the main contributor to global climate change. Meanwhile, many urban and suburban Americans seem to have lost touch with the natural environment. It was in the 20th century that the nation collectively recognized the need for government action to protect the environment and conserve natural resources. The concept of sustained yield of natural resources began with noted forester Gifford Pinchot and led to the creation of the U.S. Forest Service in 1905. Improvements in farming practices aimed at reducing soil erosion started with the Soil Conservation Service (now the Natural Resources Conservation Service), formed in

1934. However, it was not until the 1960s that the serious degradation of the nation’s air and water and loss of open space spurred widespread public support for legislation to clean up pollution, to set standards of environmental quality, and to conserve valuable landscapes. In the 1960s and 1970s, federal laws created programs to improve air and water quality, established procedures for reviewing the potential environmental impacts of federal development projects, offered protection to endangered species, required safeguards in the disposal of municipal solid waste and the handling of toxic materials, and placed millions of acres of public lands off-limits to development. Congress authorized billions of dollars in grants to state and local governments for the construction of sewage treatment plants to improve water quality. Businesses were compelled to invest billions of dollars to reduce air and water pollution from factories and power plants. The 1960s and 1970s also marked the start of state-level land-use planning efforts that emphasized land conservation and environmental quality. Hawaii (1961), Vermont (1970), Florida (1972), and Oregon (1973) adopted pioneering programs. The 1980s marked a low point for federal environmental action. In response, citizens across the U.S. formed nonprofit land trusts to protect land and water resources in their communities and regions. As of 2014, more than 1,700 land trusts had protected a total of more than 50 million acres. The 1990s initiated a shift in environmental responsibility from the federal government to state, regional, and local governments. States gained primary control of air- and waterquality programs. Metropolitan regions drafted transportation plans to guide federal transportation funding and to meet federal air-quality standards. Local governments began to implement growth management and “smart growth” programs. From 1998 to 2002, voters in more

PREFACE

than 30 states approved more than 500 ballot measures authorizing more than $20 billion for land conservation and “smart growth” projects. The U.S. Census Bureau has estimated that the nation’s population will grow to at least 400 million by 2050, an increase of about one-third above the 308 million total in 2010 and equivalent to adding the population of nearly three Californias. Where will these additional people live, work, and play? How will new developments affect air and water quality; greenhouse gas emissions; food, timber, and mineral supplies; plant and animal habitat; and the integrity of cultural resources? Will the environment be sacrificed to accommodate this surge in growth? Or will growth have to adapt to the limited carrying capacity of the natural environment? Since the first edition of The Environmental Planning Handbook appeared in 2003, the U.S. has experienced several major environmental challenges. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 brought out the now widely recognized connection between greenhouse gas emissions, climate change, and extreme weather events that are causing hugely expensive property damage and an alarming loss of life. In 2012, Superstorm Sandy devastated much of the New Jersey coast, flooded large areas of greater New York City, resulted in more than $60 billion in property damage, and took more than 100 lives. That same year, a severe drought affected two-thirds of the lower 48 states, bringing widespread crop failures and underscoring the need for water supply planning and adaption to climate change. Meanwhile, our gains in air and water quality seem to have plateaued. Residents of the nation’s sprawling metropolitan areas still rely mainly on cars for transportation. Nonpointsource water pollution from urban streets and farm fields continues to degrade water quality. Moreover, since 2003 (i.e., in just 11 years), the U.S. has added nearly 30 million people to its population, about equal to the entire population

xxxiii

of Canada. It is daunting to improve the quality and durability of the environment in the face of such robust population growth. Since 1990, the federal government has shown little effective leadership on environmental matters. State and local governments, nonprofit organizations, enlightened businesses, and concerned citizens have tried to fill the gap. Several states have adopted renewable portfolio standards that require utilities to obtain a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources, such as wind and solar power. Many states have drafted plans aimed at ensuring adequate long-term water supplies. Local governments have produced climate action plans, green infrastructure plans, and sustainability plans to identify ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, maintain and enhance ecosystem services, and improve the overall resilience of the built and natural environments. Nonprofit land trusts continue to “preserve” hundreds of thousands of acres each year. Businesses have recognized that “going green” by reducing energy use, packaging, and waste through safer, healthier, and more easily reused and recycled goods can boost their bottom line. Individuals and households have purchased more fuel-efficient cars and are recycling more, as well as becoming more involved in local planning. Environmental planning is generally improving in the U.S., but many environmental problems are global in scope. Climate change, often referred to as global warming, poses an enormous long-term threat to the global environment, economy, and society. Climate change has the very real potential to cause substantial losses in wildlife, food production, and habitable areas. Curbing the consumption of fossil fuels would be the quickest way to lower greenhouse gas emissions. But unless there is a technological breakthrough in renewable energy production, countries around the world will continue to rely mainly on fossil fuels

xxxiv

PREFACE

to power their economic activities. Still, the U.S. can set an example by striving to move to a postcarbon economy. Planners and public officials may struggle to understand environmental problems given the reality of changing and often inexact scientific information. Yet there is an obvious need to continue protecting past gains in environmental quality and to make further gains in order to create truly sustainable communities and regions over the long run. Governments, businesses, and consumers will need to change many practices in order to protect the environment, conserve natural resources, and mitigate and adapt to climate change. Major new technologies and investments in transit, stormwater management, long-term water supplies, energy-efficient buildings, energy conservation, and renewable energy production will be needed. Land-use regulations will have to emphasize compact developments with a mix of land uses that offer residents and visitors opportunities to walk, bike, and take public transit as well as drive. The environment is nonpartisan. Both conservatives and liberals respect and defend the environment. Forging partnerships and alliances will be necessary across not only political lines but income classes; between the public and private sectors; and among urbanites, suburban dwellers, and rural people. In this way, planning becomes ingrained and accepted as a way to work through and solve community and regional environmental problems and avoid costly mistakes. *

*

*

Expanding the capacity of communities and regions to plan for and achieve environmentally sustainable development is a fundamental goal of this book. In short, environmental planning is a means toward the triple bottom

line of economic, social, and environmental sustainability. History tells us that if the environment is not sustainable, economic and social disorder are sure to follow. People need to think regionally. Watersheds, airsheds, and wildlife habitats are examples of regional environmental systems, and water supply and transportation networks are regional infrastructures that require a regional planning approach. Regional thinking also means a concern with social justice through equal access to a quality environment and a broad distribution of incomes. Environmental planning will not succeed if people perceive it as a way to create green enclaves for a wealthy, elite class and to impose health costs and dangers on those with low incomes. Protecting the environment does not mean sacrificing jobs. Technology and human innovation are key ingredients in building an economy that is also environmentally sustainable. Green jobs can bolster economic growth; examples include retrofitting and constructing buildings for energy conservation, renewable energy production, local food production, and recycling solid waste into new products. In addition, communities and regions with good environmental quality often can attract well-paying high-tech industries and skilled workers. Also, many businesses are adopting environmentally friendly production processes and creating healthy products and services because they are more profitable. Planning is most effective as a truly participatory process. If people take an active part in shaping plans for their community or region, they will want them to succeed. Successful planning happens when actions transform a common vision into a reality. The number and the creativity of recent community and regional actions throughout the U.S. are surprising and inspiring. Positive changes are happening, but much remains to be done. This book contains

PREFACE

a variety of environmental planning tools, techniques, and processes for maintaining and improving the long-term environmental quality of this wonderful nation. *

*

*

This book is intended for public sector planners, private planning consultants, developers, elected officials, environmentalists, concerned citizens, and students—anyone interested in taking an active role in the future of their immediate surroundings, the environment of the U.S., and planet Earth. The book is divided into six parts. Part 1 begins with a chapter on how communities and regions can incorporate environmental planning into their comprehensive planning process or create separate plans dealing with climate change, green infrastructure, and sustainability. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the disciplines that influence decision making about the environment: law, economics, ethics, and ecology. Part 2 presents the case for environmental planning to protect public health. Chapters 3 through 8 describe the challenges involving air quality, climate change, water supply, water quality, solid waste, and toxic waste as well as the federal, state, and local government regulations and spending programs. Part 3 discusses environmental challenges and planning programs for the protection

xxxv

of natural areas, including wilderness, wildlife habitat, wetlands, coastal areas, and natural hazards. Part 4 focuses on planning for the working landscape: farming, forestry, and mining. Part 5 examines environmental planning for the built environment. Part 5 begins with Chapter 17, on the role of energy, renewable energy supplies, and energy conservation. Chapter 18 discusses how transportation shapes the built environment and impacts natural resources. Chapter 19 presents ways to create green cities, suburbs, and regions that blend natural areas, green infrastructure, and the built environment. Chapter 20 examines planning for development on greenfield sites. Part 6 summarizes in one chapter the encouraging trends in environmental planning that further the concept of sustainability as well as remaining environmental planning challenges and needs at the local, state, federal, and international levels. A list of acronyms and their definitions appears at the beginning of the book. In each chapter, I define an acronym the first time it is used. I have listed the sources of facts, figures, ideas, and quotes in endnotes. At the end of each chapter, there is a brief chapter summary. Along with recommendations for further reading so that readers may pursue particular issues in greater depth, at the back of the book, there is a glossary of terms and a list of contacts of public and private organizations that are active in planning the environment.

INTRODUCTION

Guarding the Future: Sustainable Environmental Planning and Development

Then I say the Earth belongs to each . . . generation during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and encumbrances, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the Earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence. —Thomas Jefferson, September 6, 1789

“Sustainable development” has become a popular term with many possible definitions. Sustainable development implies that the production and consumption of goods and services and the development of cities and suburbs can occur without harming the natural environment. The natural environment provides the air, water, and land resources that sustain human life and serve as a “sink” for human wastes. The natural environment, however, is not limitless; it has a limit or “carrying capacity” for how much waste and human development it can accommodate.

The famous 1987 Bruntland Report for the United Nations defines sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”1 Economist Herman Daly emphasizes the concept of environmental carrying capacity: “Sustainable development means qualitative improvement without quantitative growth beyond the point where the ecosystem cannot regenerate.”2 Planners Philip Berke and Maria Conroy provide a detailed definition of sustainable development as

xxxviii

INTRODUCTION

“a dynamic process in which communities anticipate and accommodate the needs of current and future generations in ways that reproduce and balance social, economic, and ecological systems, and link local actions to global concerns.”3 Sustainability means durability and quality. Sustainable development describes buildings that last for several generations. It results in a continuous yield of renewable resources, such as timber and fish. Air and water quality, soils, and wildlife resources remain healthy. Sustainability also implies a manageable “ecological footprint”; usually, the higher a community’s standard of living and material well-being, the greater the area of land (the larger the footprint) needed to support that community. The U.S. enjoys a high standard of living and has a large ecological footprint, estimated at 20 acres per person in 2007, compared to seven acres per person in Costa Rica.4 Americans import huge amounts of food, minerals, and oil from other countries; consume enormous amounts of wood, paper, minerals, food, energy, and water; and produce millions of tons of solid waste and toxic waste, of which only about one-third is recycled. Sustainable development is not an end in itself but rather a means toward improving society’s well-being in the long run. Sustainable development carries the promise of longterm economic security, social equity, and environmental integrity. Moreover, sustainable development suggests the need for individual, community, regional, national, and international responsibility to maintain a healthy, high-quality environment. To bring about sustainable development, the choice is not between an unfettered free market and total government control. Rather, it is selecting the right regulations, spending programs, and financial incentives that will enable markets and market prices to function in socially rewarding ways and compel governments,

businesses, and consumers to be good stewards of the natural and built environments. Sustainable development principles must embrace the following goals: • the creation and maintenance of healthy environments, featuring clean air and water and biodiversity • the conservation of energy, soils, and water supplies • the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and adaption to the threats of climate change by creating a more resilient built environment • the reduction, reuse, and recycling of waste • a requirement that polluters pay for cleaning up the pollution they create • the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfield sites • an emphasis on infill development and the reuse of existing buildings rather than building on greenfields in the outer suburbs • the expansion and upgrading of mass transit along with compact, transit-oriented development • the construction of mixed-use commercial and residential development that includes public parks and enables walking and biking • the practice of environmental justice in the siting of controversial land uses, such as landfills and power plants • the designation of compact-growth areas that have the available services to support development • the separation of developing areas from sensitive natural areas to avoid natural hazards and to protect wilderness areas and wildlife habitats

INTRODUCTION

• the creation of greenways—linear paths and corridors—to connect cities and towns to the countryside and to each other • the protection of productive farming and forestry regions

Planning for a Sustainable Environment Communities across America are already incorporating sustainability into their planning efforts. Some cities and counties have integrated environmental goals and objectives into their comprehensive plans, while others have adopted climate action plans or green infrastructure plans. Still others have adopted broad sustainability plans with social, economic, and environmental goals and objectives. All these plans depend on cooperation between the public and private sectors to set goals and objectives for environmental improvement. But success comes from implementation through public and private investments as well as public regulations and financial incentives. Communities will need to monitor the implementation and performance of these plans and make adjustments as needed to continue progress toward their goals. Federal and state environmental laws and programs have established air- and waterquality standards and continue to provide funding for pollution cleanup and protection. Yet land-use plans, land-use regulations, and infrastructure spending programs at the local and regional levels can do much to shape the built environment and limit the negative impacts of development on the natural environment. Land-use planning is a public process that first identifies land and water capabilities and constraints and then decides where private and public developments and infrastructure should or should not be located. But plans alone will do nothing unless they are implemented through day-to-day decisions about

xxxix

proposed development projects and are coordinated with long-term “green infrastructure” spending programs for parks, natural areas, stormwater control, and working landscapes, along with “gray” infrastructure investment in sewer and water facilities and transportation networks. Transportation systems are the single most significant factor in shaping the development patterns of metropolitan America today. Different modes of transportation produce different land-use patterns and different environmental impacts. Cars and trucks are both necessary and convenient in a low-density settlement pattern. But in high-density cities and suburbs, cars and trucks are not as efficient, especially during rush-hour congestion. Motor vehicles use huge amounts of energy and generate substantial air pollutants. Mass transit— commuter trains, light rail, and buses—requires a fairly dense settlement pattern yet produces less air pollution than cars and trucks. Mass transit is also more efficient in moving people through a transportation corridor, such as a highway or a rail line. Land-use planning in the U.S. has traditionally meant planning for development. But this is changing because simply continuing to allow sprawling development is not financially, socially, or ecologically sustainable. Local and regional land-use planning along with public and private investments are now emphasizing redevelopment and infill development within cities and suburbs; maintaining quality built environments; preserving valuable natural areas, greenways, parks, and working farm and forest landscapes; and carefully designing greenfield developments. In short, communities and regions must plan to protect and preserve those sensitive environmental resources—air, water, shorelines, wetlands, productive farm and forest lands, and green spaces—on which the built environment depends.

xl

INTRODUCTION

A Community Perspective on Planning for a Sustainable Environment A community is perhaps best thought of as people who live in close proximity, share public services and private institutions, and interact socially. A community is often thought of as a village or a city neighborhood. Yet many of us live in one community and work or shop or attend church in another. In fact, when most of us think of a community, we think locally. But in practice, we often act regionally. Planning for environmental quality begins at the community level. But environmental planning can focus on a particular property or site, a city block, or a neighborhood. In addition, an understanding of regional environmental problems and opportunities can lead to more effective environmental planning efforts with neighboring communities. Planning is a political process of public decision making, and it is therefore important to form a vision of environmental quality—clean air, clean water, and safe, attractive surroundings. But ultimately a community must take action to protect and sustain its environmental assets and quality of life. Many local government officials do not really understand how their land-use decisions affect the environment. Planners can play a key role by educating local officials about the environmental consequences of development proposals, public infrastructure spending, and land-use and building design regulations. Planners can promote proactive comprehensive planning that seeks to avoid water and air pollution and land-use problems before they occur, and thus protect the community’s quality of life and potential for economic growth and social equity. The results of reactive community planning are all too common. Many ad hoc citizens groups have sprung up to address single environmental issues in their communities, such as

a proposed residential or commercial development on open land. The citizens must raise funds, attend meetings, and generally disrupt their lives. The developer usually says the proposal is permitted under the local zoning and subdivision regulations. And the local government often does not know whose side to take. Unfortunately, the development proposal is often decided at considerable expense in a court of law. After the development proposal is denied or approved, the ad hoc group disbands. When the next development proposal comes along, the process repeats itself. A new ad hoc group is patched together, the developer goes on the defensive, and the local government is forced to take sides. This reactive approach to environmental protection is inefficient, combative, and costly for citizens, developers, and local governments. Proactive environmental planning should designate where different types of development are desired along with specific design regulations. It makes more sense for the concerns of the public to be incorporated upfront into the local government’s comprehensive plan, zoning, subdivision regulations, and capital improvements programs. Proactive planning provides predictability for all parties about where certain types of development are allowed and where they are prohibited. This greater certainty in the planning process can save everyone time, money, and effort while protecting the environment.

A Regional Perspective on Planning a Sustainable Environment There are many ways to identify a region. Political boundaries can define a region, such as a county. Population, such as a Metropolitan Statistical Area that contains a city and typically

INTRODUCTION

more than one county, is another way to identify a region. Economic activity can characterize a region, such as California’s Silicon Valley. Culture and history also give a region identity; examples include New England or the Tidewater area of eastern Virginia. Natural features can define a region: the Adirondack Mountains of New York, North Carolina’s Outer Banks, or Florida’s Everglades. Ecological systems can also denote regions, for instance, the New Jersey Pinelands. The size of natural or ecological regions can vary greatly. In the western U.S., the watersheds of the Colorado and Missouri rivers encompass tens of thousands of square miles in several states. The Rocky Mountains stretch from Mexico to Canada. The larger the region, the more complex the planning is because of the greater number of political jurisdictions involved. It is important to take a regional approach to planning the environment because few watersheds and ecological systems are contained solely within a single political jurisdiction. Large developments, such as ski resorts, shopping malls, and major highways, can have impacts on air and water quality that are felt in more than one town or county. Local governments must recognize their dependence on one another if they are to achieve effective regional environmental planning. In the 1990s, Suffolk County, New York, joined with three towns and the state government to form the Long Island Pine Barrens Commission, which tightly controls development in a 100,000-acre area with a major groundwater source for drinking water and a high concentration of threatened and endangered plant and animal species. Regional planning enables a more comprehensive and integrated way to manage the environment and development. But new management institutions are needed. Through the 1990s, no metropolitan region in America sprawled as much as Atlanta. Toward the end of the decade, the region’s air quality failed

xli

to meet federal air-quality standards, and the federal government temporarily withheld additional highway funds from metropolitan Atlanta. In 1999, the Georgia legislature created the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority, a regional land-use and transportation authority for Greater Atlanta with the power to expand mass transit and approve or deny new major building projects. Regional environmental planning is becoming increasingly popular through cooperation among communities.

Managing the Environment: Problems and Possibilities Biologist Barry Commoner, in his book The Closing Circle, listed three laws of ecology that can serve as rules of thumb for environmental decision making and the stewardship of natural resources.5 The first law is There is no free lunch—that is, every action has a cost. For environmental planning, different development choices will impose different environmental costs. A regional mall with acres of parking will create a higher volume of runoff and more polluted runoff than the forest it replaced. The second law helps explain why there is no free lunch: Everything is connected to everything else. The clear-cutting of an old-growth forest could lead to the extinction of an endangered animal species by destroying its habitat. The clear-cutting may also cause soil erosion and flooding, thus decreasing water quality downstream. The third law is You can’t fool Mother Nature. Human attempts to manage the environment don’t always work. Houses built in a 100-year floodplain may avoid flood damage for 30 years but then may be swept away in year 31. The houses should not have been built in the floodplain in the first place.

xlii

INTRODUCTION

A corollary to the third law might be that each environmental system has a carrying capacity—a physical limit to the amount of development, pollution, and (human, plant, or animal) population beyond which environmental quality is unsustainable. This carrying capacity or limit to growth may be stretched by new technologies. But once a carrying capacity is exceeded, environmental quality is likely to decline suddenly, not gradually. However, carrying capacity is often difficult to identify with scientific accuracy.

A Note on “Good Science” Science is a body of knowledge that describes how we understand both the natural and built environments. In making choices about how to use our environment, we must have accurate information on which to base our decisions. Environmental planning relies on information from a variety of sciences, including biology, botany, chemistry, physics, agronomy, meteorology, geology, epidemiology, hydrology, engineering, and ecology. “Good science” is objective, technical information based on empirical evidence, past experience, and tested technology. However, an enormous amount of misinformation has been circulated about the environment. There is much about the natural environment and human influences on the environment that is not known with certainty. In some cases, there may be evidence but not conclusive proof. Scientists may disagree about sources of environmental problems and possible solutions. They may also disagree over what can be considered an acceptable level of risk from polluting activities or specific substances. Good science can change over time as new studies are completed, new data are analyzed, and new technologies are created. Technological inventions

can influence good science, but it is difficult to predict what new technologies will emerge, when, and at what cost. Environmentalists often support the “precautionary principle,” which holds that the absence of complete scientific certainty should not be an excuse for refusing to take action.6 A ban on the production of a particular chemical that tends to produce cancer in laboratory animals could be taken as a precautionary measure. The use of good science faces four main obstacles. First, information may be expensive to gather and analyze in a timely fashion. Second, the results may become politicized when debated by political parties with different interests. Third, some scientific results are based on models, which to a greater or lesser degree are abstractions from reality and typically include certain assumptions. This is not to say that all models are inaccurate or misleading. Rather, models vary in their accuracy and depend on the quality of the data used in the model. Fourth, it may be difficult to anticipate how a proposed development will impact the environment when the effects may not become evident for several years. Also, elected officials who make public rulings on development proposals often spend a relatively short time in office, whereas the negative consequences of their decisions may crop up long after they leave office and are no longer accountable. Congress frequently calls on the National Academy of Sciences and its National Research Council to provide objective scientific research, free from politics. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), university professors, businesses, and private consultants also conduct scientific studies of the environment. New studies and discoveries often change our thinking about the environment. In the 1970s, the EPA promoted the concept that “the solution to pollution is dilution.” This concept resulted in taller smokestacks on coal-fired

INTRODUCTION

electrical plants in the Midwest to reduce local air pollution. Unfortunately, the taller smokestacks sent sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution higher into the sky, where winds could carry the pollution eastward to contribute to acid rain in the Northeast. Today, the emphasis is on reducing air pollution emissions at the source. Or take the case of global climate change. Scientists sharply disagreed about it in the late 1980s, but the 1990s were the warmest decade since weather measurements were first regularly recorded in the 1890s. And the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s. Today, nearly all scientists agree that global climate change is real and poses serious long-term threats to humans and ecological systems.7 Good science can influence local and regional environmental plans, regulations, standards, financial incentives, markets, and best management practices. It is important to understand the costs and benefits of each environmental management approach and how to blend a number of approaches into a comprehensive environmental planning package. Ideally, our individual actions and our collective actions will be beneficial to us, our community, our region, and future generations of Americans and earthlings.

xliii

Notes 1. World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future (The Bruntland Report). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1987, p. 43. 2. Quoted in Greider, W. One World Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1998, pp. 454–55. 3. Berke, P., and M. Conroy. “Are We Planning for Sustainable Development?” Journal of the American Planning Association. Vol. 66, No. 1 (2000), p. 23. 4. Global Footprint Network. Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010. 2010, pp. 67, 75. http:// www.footprintnetwork.org/images/uploads/ Ecological_Footprint_Atlas_2010.pdf. Retrieved May 22, 2014. 5. Commoner, B. The Closing Circle: Nature, Man, and Technology. New York: Random House, 1971. 6. Dernbach, J. “Synthesis,” in J. Dernbach, ed., Stumbling toward Sustainability. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute, 2002. 7. See U.S. EPA. Climate Action Report 2002. Washington, DC: USEPA; Kolbert, E. Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change. New York: Bloomsbury, 2006.

Part 1

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

Chapter 1

TAKING STOCK OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND CREATING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS

If we cannot imagine a healthy, bountiful, and sustaining environment today, it will elude us tomorrow. —Mark Dowie1

Planning is about organizing resources and making choices to achieve goals and objectives. Rachel Carson first used the term “environment” in her book Silent Spring to refer to natural places and processes as well as the condition of human settlements. Environmental planning explains how governments, businesses, and households decide how to use natural resources, financial capital, and human resources to solve problems in natural areas, rural working landscapes, and the built environments of cities, suburbs, and towns. Governments can use laws, regulations, taxation, infrastructure spending, and financial incentives to encourage environmentally friendly business practices and household lifestyles. Businesses seek to sell goods and services and earn a profit for their owners or shareholders. Businesses are finding that they can reduce costs by cutting waste and energy consumption and also increase profits by

offering environmentally responsible goods and services to consumers and other businesses. Households provide labor for government and businesses and are consumers of goods and services. Household choices of what to buy, where to live, and how to live (i.e., recycling efforts) directly affect the quality of the environment. Planning also involves anticipating problems before they happen. Environmental planning can help communities to avoid or minimize air and water pollution, loss of wildlife, the conversion of farm and forest lands, and degradation of the built environment. The environment in general consists of air, water, and three main land uses: 1. Natural areas are undeveloped lands and waters that provide an array of environmental services, such as water supply,

4

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

water recharge and filtration, fish and wildlife habitats, air filtration, and recreation. Natural areas also include natural hazards that pose environmental constraints, such as floodplains, wetlands, and steep slopes. 2. Working landscapes of farms, rangeland, forests, mines, and commercial recreation areas provide food, fiber, lumber, minerals, and energy and contribute to the health of rural and metropolitan economies. 3. Built environments of cities, suburbs, and towns involve the design and siting of buildings, transportation systems, sewer and water facilities, and public spaces and parkland. How these three land uses interact with one another affect a community’s appearance, size, operations, richness of ecosystem services, and overall environmental quality. Deciding how, when, and where these land uses should or should not change is a fundamental challenge of environmental planning. Yet in the past few decades, the overarching challenge that has arisen is global climate change (see Chapter 4). Climate change has raised air and

ocean temperatures and is expected to produce more frequent and severe storms and droughts. Climate change also increases vulnerability to invasive species, wildfires, coastal storms, and rising sea levels. Mitigating emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change have become central goals of climate change have become central goals of environmental planning. This book emphasizes how planners, elected officials, and the public-at-large can add environmental planning to the comprehensive plan, land-use regulations, building codes, and infrastructure spending programs. Chapters 3 through 20 each contain examples of how to add environmental planning to the comprehensive plan and how to achieve environmental goals and objectives through an Environmental Action Plan of innovative zoning and subdivision regulations and capital improvements programs (CIPs). It is important to consult your state’s planning and zoningenabling legislation to determine which landuse regulatory tools and financial incentives are allowed in your state. Finally, each chapter contains a discussion of what a planning staff or planning commission should look for in reviewing a development proposal in order to minimize environmental impacts.

Box 1.1. The Role of the Planner in Environmental Planning Planning is central to any government policy or business decision. Elected leaders and citizens rely on public plans to guide budgets and financial investments, make landuse regulations, and adopt infrastructure spending programs. Local government decisions about public infrastructure investment influence private development decisions.

Both public and private developments have major outcomes on transportation systems, development patterns, the mix of land uses, and air, water, and ecosystem quality. Planners need to bring a long-range perspective to the planning process, particularly the cumulative impacts of development projects on the environment.

CHAPTER 1: TAKING STOCK OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND CREATING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS

Planners play a variety of roles in environmental planning: educator, communicator, negotiator, facilitator, enabler, data manager, and expert. Planners who work for local governments serve as staff to a city or county planning commission. Public planners can help to educate the planning commission about best planning practices for development and environmental protection. Planners also provide data and analysis of development proposals and recommend how these proposals could be improved. In short, planners enable the planning commission to make more informed recommendations to the elected officials about development proposals and changes to the local comprehensive plan, zoning and subdivision regulations, and capital improvements programs. The elected officials make the legally binding decisions about whether to approve development proposals and changes to local regulations and infrastructure programs. Public planners also work directly with the elected officials, keeping them apprised of landuse and environmental matters and helping them respond to public inquiries and requests for action. Planners must be able to communicate effectively with the public about the purpose of planning for the environment and how different planning tools work. One way local government planners have done this is by offering special evening courses for interested citizens. Another way is to use Internet websites, wikis, and social media to make communication more convenient for the public. Planners must work with the public to build a consensus on a vision for the

community—that is, a direction to work toward. Planners need to explain the importance of the environment to the community as well as the benefits of new planning programs and the costs of inaction. This is especially important when planners are promoting a new comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, or infrastructure spending program. But communication is not just one way; ideally, planners must involve a variety of stakeholders in the community and broad citizen participation to create active discussions and explorations of a variety of possible planning actions and tools to make the desired changes. In short, planners should not assume that they have all the answers and should be willing to learn what the public wants and how planning can achieve those desired outcomes. A planner who communicates well can garner public support, which can attract the attention and support of the planning commission and elected officials. Public planners also need to have good negotiation skills for interacting with the public, developers, landowners, the planning commission, and the elected officials. Planning is a political process as well as a legal process, and politics often involves compromise through negotiation. Planners can facilitate public meetings about planning and can explain to landowners and developers how the comprehensive plan and land-use regulations affect their development proposals. In this way, planners can promote the certain types of development and redevelopment, well-designed developments, and developments in desired locations while protecting environmentally sensitive lands, such as steep slopes, wetlands, and floodplains.

5

6

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

Planners who work for private sector clients should keep in mind that the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) code of ethics emphasizes the public interest over private gain. So a planner with a private client should try to promote decisions that are profitable for the client as well as beneficial to the public-at-large. Here, the planner as educator and enabler

1.1: Adding Environmental Planning to the Comprehensive Planning Process

can help the client understand why a more environmentally friendly development design can be more profitable because it will gain a quicker approval and less public opposition than a poorly designed project. Finally, private sector planners are legitimate experts. They may testify on landuse and environmental planning cases in court.

local comprehensive plans and regulations may be influenced by federal and state laws, requirements, and guidelines. The main purPublic environmental planning is put into poses of local comprehensive planning propractice through federal, state, and local gov- cess are to ernment laws, regulations, tax policy, and spending programs that discourage, encour1. decide on the appropriate uses of land age, or require certain actions by companies, and the spatial pattern of development; individuals, and governments. Federal laws set national standards to protect public health and 2. identify lands with development constraints, such as floodplains, wetlands, wildlife and compel improvements in air and steep slopes, and shallow depth to bedwater quality and the clean-up of hazardous rock, as well as lack of central water and waste sites. State governments have environsewage service; mental agencies that coordinate compliance with federal laws and regulations and in some 3. regulate the location, timing, and design of development; and cases set their own environmental standards. Private businesses, households, and nonprofit 4. invest in gray infrastructure, such as sewer organizations also do environmental planning and water facilities, public buildings, to guide their actions that influence environroads, and transit, and in green inframental quality. But the focus of this book is structure, such as parks, tree planting, mainly on environmental planning by cities, green streets, and green roofs, to address towns, and counties. The day-to-day decicurrent needs and to influence the siting, sions of America’s 39,000 local governments design, intensity, and sustainability of about the siting and types of private developfuture development. ment and public infrastructure arguably have the greatest consequences for the national environment. The Comprehensive Plan Municipal and county governments have primary responsibility for planning the use of The comprehensive plan establishes the trathe natural and built environments, although ditional foundation for local and regional

CHAPTER 1: TAKING STOCK OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND CREATING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS

planning. The plan sets forth a vision of how a community or region should look, function, and grow over the next 10 to 20 years and sometimes longer. The plan provides direction for public and private sector decision makers through an inventory of current conditions and the identification of future needs. The plan expresses goals and objectives for housing, the economic base, public facilities and services, transportation, land use, parks and recreation, and the environment. A crucial part of the comprehensive plan is a projection of population change. More people bring greater demands for housing, jobs, water, sewage treatment, and land for development. On the other hand, some communities may be losing population or experiencing little population change, but population shifts and new developments within such communities can still affect environmental quality. For example, sprawling development can occur even when there is little population growth and result in more vehicle miles traveled and air pollution emissions. Particularly important is the comprehensive plan’s future land-use map, which details the location of desired land uses and lays the foundation for the zoning map. Planners, public officials, and the general public should evaluate private development proposals and public infrastructure programs according to the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan as well as the future land-use map. A fundamental reason to emphasize environmental planning within the comprehensive plan is that it provides a legal basis for the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations that, along with the CIP and design guidelines, put the comprehensive plan into action. Consistency among the comprehensive plan, implementing regulations, and spending programs is essential. A lack of consistency creates confusion for landowners, developers, elected officials, and the public about the purpose of

7

the plan, the legality and fairness of the regulations, and the need for infrastructure spending. Also, environmental planning—like a comprehensive plan—should be holistic because, as the second law of ecology states, “everything is connected to everything else.”2 Planning for one aspect of the environment, such as water quality, without recognizing the impacts of other activities (such as air pollution degrading water quality) will result in less effective plans, less accurate regulations, and less successful incentives to maintain or improve environmental quality. Traditional city or county comprehensive plans often have several shortcomings for sustainable environmental planning. First, the traditional plan usually emphasizes economic development, transportation, and housing and does not place a high priority on environmental quality. It is not uncommon to find comprehensive plans that have little to say about the development capabilities and constraints of the natural environment. This is frequently the case with larger cities that have small amounts of open, developable land as well as rural communities that are hungry for economic activity. Communities on the metropolitan fringe often designate their remaining farmland as “vacant” in the comprehensive plan, as if the land has no legitimate current use and is just waiting to be developed. Many smaller communities try to save time and money by drafting a “policy plan” that does not include an inventory of facts or an analysis of environmental conditions. As a result, policy recommendations often sound like nothing more than a wish list. A weakness of the traditional comprehensive plan is that it lists several goals and objectives that are often difficult for planners and local governments to prioritize. Is an affordable housing goal more important than a water supply goal? Or, how does an objective to purchase 10 natural gas–powered buses compare with an objective to add 30 acres of parkland?

8

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

Many communities have comprehensive plans that are more than 10 years old and no longer reflect the community’s conditions or goals and objectives for growth, development, or environmental quality. All too frequently, planning commissions and planning staff find themselves overwhelmed with reviewing development proposals and have little or no time to devote to updating the comprehensive plan, the zoning and subdivision regulations, or the CIP. Another common problem is that the comprehensive plan of a single community or county may not recognize the environmental impacts of its land-use and development activities on neighboring jurisdictions or vice versa. For instance, the destruction of wetlands upstream will create more flooding downstream. Most land-use and environmental problems are regional, not local. Yet local governments usually try to address these problems by themselves rather than through regional cooperation. To promote environmental planning, planners would be wise to cite the importance of a quality environment in the economic development chapter of the comprehensive plan. Two of the largest economic sectors in America are high technology and tourism. High technology includes computer-related businesses, health care, biotech, optics, and aerospace, among others. High-tech companies are footloose; they can locate just about anywhere. Moreover, they employ well-paid and highly educated workers who value a healthy environment and an overall good quality of life. Attractive cities, towns, and villages with good air and water quality and access to open space are competitive for high-tech businesses and their workers. Tourists are looking for unique and enjoyable sights and activities. Scenic vistas, wildlife, recreation areas, clean air and water, historic sites and buildings, and good places to eat, shop, and spend the night all contribute to

positive experiences in places that can be visited again and again. This is not to say that everyone should be employed in writing computer software or in hotels. Heavy manufacturing is still important to many communities, as are retail trades, finance, energy production, agriculture, and a variety of service and government-related jobs. But there is a close link between sustainable economic activity and a sustainable environment. Functional and Area Plans

Local governments have a choice of whether to emphasize environmental issues within a comprehensive plan or to create separate strategic plans. Strategic plans fall into two categories: (1) functional plans and (2) area plans. A functional plan goes into more detail on a particular topic in a comprehensive plan. For example, many local governments have adopted a functional park-and-recreation plan in addition to the community facilities section of the comprehensive plan. An area plan focuses on a certain geographic location, such as a neighborhood, a transportation corridor, or part of a county. Functional plans and area plans can help to expand on the inventory and analysis of data and the goals and objectives contained in the comprehensive plan. For instance, a hazard mitigation plan is an area plan with elements of a functional plan that expand on the land use and natural resources inventory sections of a comprehensive plan. Planners use a comprehensive plan to note the location of places that are vulnerable to natural hazards. But a comprehensive plan is not a substitute for a detailed hazard mitigation plan. Local functional environmental plans often include a park and open space plan, water supply plan, Energy Plan, Heritage Area Plan, transportation plan, stormwater management plan, and a hazard mitigation plan. These

CHAPTER 1: TAKING STOCK OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND CREATING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS

and other plans are explored in greater depth in the chapters that follow. In recent years, several local governments have added a separate green infrastructure plan, which applies to particular areas and expands on the land use and natural resources inventory sections of the comprehensive plan. Climate action plans are also hybrids of functional and area plans. More than 100 local governments have drafted climate action plans to provide guidance on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially from transportation and buildings, as well as how to adapt to warmer temperatures, more frequent storm events, and rising sea levels. A small but growing number of local governments have drafted sustainability plans that express the interconnected long-range goals of a sustainable economy, environment, and society. These plans strive for the long-term health of the natural environment, productive working landscapes, efficient public investments, a durable built environment, economic prosperity, and access to a quality environment for all income groups. Separate functional and area plans can be much more strategic than a comprehensive plan. A comprehensive plan asks the general question: “What kind of community do we want to have in 20 years?” A strategic plan asks a very different question: “What do we have to do to be the community we need to be in 20 years?” Many comprehensive plans fail to come to life because they do not have an action plan element to implement them. A strategic plan more often lays out the regulations, incentives, and investments that a local government and the private sector need to make in order to achieve a level of environmental quality within a set time frame. Strategic plans often include quantifiable goals, such as a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2025, or 10 miles of greenways and trails by 2020, or 25 more miles of light rail by 2030.

9

Whether in a comprehensive plan or a strategic plan, environmental planning must be economically and technologically feasible. It makes little sense to advocate tax policies, capital spending programs, or technologies that a community, region, businesses, or households cannot afford. A plan alone will not guarantee long-term progress toward greater sustainability and quality of life. The key factors are the political will of elected officials; the mix of regulations, incentives, and investments to implement the plan; and the support of the general public for their communities. By referencing a functional plan or an area plan, the comprehensive plan can effectively make these strategic plans part of the comprehensive plan. As long as the functional and area plans are formally adopted by the elected officials as part of the comprehensive plan, they will have the same legal authority as a traditional comprehensive plan in setting a basis for zoning and subdivision regulations and in guiding capital investments. In short, a modern comprehensive plan is connected to a network of supporting functional and area plans. This network of plans is especially important for including detailed environmental data, analysis, policies, and action strategies to implement the comprehensive plan and the related functional and area plans. Zoning

Zoning is the most widely used land-use control in the U.S. to guide the future growth and development of a municipality or county. The traditional zoning ordinance consists of two parts: a text describing the rules for each zoning district (Residential, R-1 Single Family, R-2 Multifamily, Commercial C-1, Manufacturing M-1, etc.) and a map showing the location and boundaries of the zoning districts (see Figure 1.1).

10

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

Figure 1.1. General Zoning Map

Zoning has several purposes. First, it serves to implement the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan and, in particular, the plan’s future land-use map. Thus the zoning ordinance should be consistent with the comprehensive plan. In some states, a zoning ordinance that is not consistent with the comprehensive plan could be ruled invalid in a court of law. Another purpose of zoning is to separate potentially conflicting land uses—such as keeping a steel factory away from single-family

homes—to protect public health, safety, and welfare. Each zoning district has different rules for permitted uses, special exceptions, and conditional uses. Permitted uses are normally allowed outright after a review by planning commission staff. Special exceptions are usually reviewed by the zoning board (also called the zoning board of adjustment) after a public hearing, while conditional uses are typically reviewed by the planning commission and the elected governing body after public hearings.

CHAPTER 1: TAKING STOCK OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND CREATING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS

Each zoning district also has specific regulations on lot size, height of buildings, building setbacks from property lines, lot coverage (i.e., how much of a site can be covered with impervious surfaces), and may include other requirements. One of the most common uses of zoning in environmental planning is the overlay zone. An overlay zone creates a double-zone where a landowner or developer must meet the standards of both the underlying zone (such as R-1 Residential Single Family) and the overlay zone (such as a Floodplain Zone). Planners employ overlay zones to protect the public health, safety, and welfare in sensitive environmental areas. For instance, overlay zones include floodplain overlays, aquifer overlays, and steep slope overlays, among others. Zoning regulations must not remove all economic use of a private property. Otherwise the zoning will violate the takings test of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (see Chapter 2). Zoning must also be reasonable. The reasonableness test is largely a matter of common sense, based on land-use capabilities and constraints. But there should be a clear link between the goals of the comprehensive plan and what the zoning ordinance requires. Zoning, for example, can be used to protect natural areas from intense development; but the importance of the protection of natural areas, such as wetlands, should be described as a goal in the comprehensive plan for environmental, fiscal, aesthetic, and economic reasons. A valid criticism of traditional zoning is that it often separates commercial and residential land uses and forces people to travel by car from where they live to where they work and shop. This separation of land uses causes more energy consumption, air pollution, and sprawling development. The zoning ordinances of many cities and suburbs have only recently begun to allow for the mixing of commercial and residential uses. A number of commercial and residential uses can be safely combined in a mixed-use

11

zone of small shops, houses, offices, and apartments to create a more attractive, compact, and pedestrian-friendly built environment. Another criticism of zoning is that it tends to be rigid, resulting in “cookie cutter” housing developments with uniform rectangular lots. Also, local governments may poorly administer their zoning by frequently granting use variances and rezonings for other land uses that defeat the development goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. Because of the lack of guidance for the design of buildings in the traditional zoning ordinance, more than 300 cities in the U.S. have adopted a form-based code, at least for specific parts of the city, such as a downtown or a transit corridor. Other cities have incorporated elements of form-based codes into their traditional zoning ordinance to create what is known as a parallel code. A form-based code regulates the design and appearance of buildings more so than land uses. A form-based code emphasizes the importance of the public realm and how private and public buildings influence the public realm in terms of the building height and bulk, building façades, orientation to the street, and parking requirements. Local governments can implement a form-based code by adopting a regulating plan for a part of the city or even the entire city, as Miami has done. The regulating plan includes a combination of street and building standards and may include architectural standards as well. It is far easier to create mixed-use buildings and developments with a form-based code than the traditional zoning ordinance. Thus a form-based code may prove to be more effective in producing walkable mixed-use areas with sufficient density to make mass transit service feasible.3 Communities can use performance zoning to regulate the potential impacts of land uses rather than limiting land uses to those generally thought to be compatible with the area. Typically, performance zoning relies on buffers

12

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

sewage disposal, drinking water supplies, and stormwater drainage, as well as the retention of open space and vegetation. In some states or communities, the subdivision ordinance may require an environmental impact assessment for all major subdivisions and landdevelopment plans. The subdivision and land-development process requires the planning commission to review and approve a development proposal in three stages: the sketch plan, the preliminary plat, and the final plat. In the sketch plan stage, the developer presents a conceptual layout of the proposal. This is a brainstorming and negotiation process between the developer and the planning commission or staff rather than a rigorous review of requirements. The planning commission or staff recommends ways to improve the proposal, and the developer then prepares a preliminary plat. The preliminary plat shows a considerable amount of information about the proposed development, including planned lot configurations, building locations, streets, utilities, neighboring landowners and land uses, and environmental features such as streams, slopes, and vegetation. The planning commission and staff review the proposed development according to the subdivision and land-development regulations and provide an opportunity for the public to comment. The planning commission may approve the preliminary plat, approve it with conditions, or deny it. Most often, the planning commission imposes conditions to ensure that the proposed development meets the standards of the subdivision ordinance. The developer may be required to put up a bond for installing streets, sidewalks, and utilities for the development to ensure that adequate Subdivision and Landfunding for installing the infrastructure will be Development Regulations provided, even if the developer does not perThe subdivision and land-development ordi- form the installation. nance establishes rules for the design and Once the planning commission approves layout of lots, necessary roads and sidewalks, the preliminary plat, there is little the public

in the form of berms, vegetation, and setbacks to minimize noise and light that would spill over from one property to another. If a landowner can demonstrate that a proposed land use in a certain location will not adversely affect traffic, water quality, or other environmental features, then the proposed land use will be allowed. Performance zoning depends on adequate and trained planning staff to implement and enforce it. We do not recommend performance zoning in rural areas with few planning staff or little planning expertise. Local governments have all too often based their zoning ordinances and rezoning decisions on the hunt for new development to expand the property tax base. As a result, planning and zoning decisions have tended to downplay topography, hydrology, soils, wildlife habitat, or the availability of adequate infrastructure to support new development. Many communities allow commercial, industrial, and large-lot residential development that will increase the property tax base but openly discourage multifamily housing for fear of a greater property tax burden. This practice—known as “fiscal zoning”—zones out low-income households and promotes both large-lot residential sprawl and arterial commercial sprawl instead of compact, mixed-use developments. Finally, many zoning ordinances are long, dry texts. It is a good idea to place drawings or photos depicting correct zoning practices in the zoning text. These illustrations will help landowners, developers, elected officials, and concerned citizens to better understand the zoning concepts and implement them in new developments.

CHAPTER 1: TAKING STOCK OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND CREATING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS

can do to change the proposed development. The developer responds to the conditions attached to the preliminary plat approval and then submits a final plat for approval. At this stage, the municipality or county determines whether the developer has met the conditions attached to the preliminary plat, and if so, the chair of the elected officials signs the final plat and it is recorded with the recorder of deeds at the county courthouse. Then the land may legally be subdivided or developed. From the date the final plat is approved, the developer usually has up to three years to commence the project and five years to complete it. If the project is not begun within the three years or completed within five years, the final plat is null and void and a new application for a subdivision is required. Exceptions may be granted for large developments that are phased in over time, such as for some planned unit developments that can take several years to complete. Time limits for most types of development are a good idea because environmental and other factors can change. In several western states, there is no time limit for starting or completing new construction. For instance, in the real estate boom of the early 2000s, many subdivisions were laid out, legally approved, and then never developed. A large number of these “zombie subdivisions” are still sitting empty. Also, some local governments have mistakenly approved substandard lots in quickly laid out subdivisions that are often constrained by small lot sizes, steep slopes, lack of road access, and lack of water. These substandard lots cannot be developed. In many suburban communities, subdivision regulations together with rigid zoning ordinances have produced cookie-cutter residential layouts, varied only by the use of road loops and cul-de-sac “lollipops.” Curvilinear street patterns that maximize driving and disorientation are all too common. Any open space that is preserved is typically fragmented

13

and often not useful for recreation, wildlife habitat, or other purposes. The subdivision review process should require developers to present detailed studies of the likely environmental impacts of their proposed projects. Developers may be asked to consider alternative project designs that may be more compatible with the environment. For instance, local subdivision and land-development regulations may require developers to mitigate stormwater runoff through a limit on impervious surface coverage, grass swales, retention of vegetation, and by avoiding construction on steep slopes. The Capital Improvements Program (CIP)

Public roads, mass transit systems, schools, parks, sewer and water facilities, and police and fire stations have a powerful influence on where development occurs, when it occurs, and the type of development. A CIP describes (1) what public infrastructure a community will build, repair, or replace; (2) where these services are or will be located; (3) when construction, repair, or replacement will happen; and (4) how these infrastructure projects will be funded. Local governments typically use a CIP to budget 5 to 10 years into the future, but this may vary according to a community’s estimates of future population growth and service needs. The purpose of the CIP is to anticipate the location, type, and amount of public service needs and to provide adequate services at a reasonable cost. The CIP can help coordinate projects and avoid mismanagement, such as paving a street one year and tearing it up the next to install a sewer line. A CIP commonly includes public investments in roads and bridges, mass transit, school buildings, sewer and water treatment plants and lines, municipal buildings, and solid waste disposal sites. These public facilities

14

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

are also known as “gray infrastructure.” A CIP should also include “green infrastructure” projects, such as parks, trails, purchases of land and conservation easements, green roofs on public buildings, and financial incentives to encourage private landowners to install green roofs, rain gardens, and swales to reduce stormwater runoff. The CIP should contain detailed information on the capacity of current facilities, the projected future demand for public services, and estimated future costs and financing arrangements in relation to expected municipal or county revenues and operating budgets. Local officials and planners need to coordinate the CIP with the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance. Concurrency is a policy that requires infrastructure to be in place before public or private development can begin. Local governments can adopt an adequate public facilities ordinance (APFO) or add a concurrency policy into the subdivision and land-development regulations to ensure that new development will not exceed infrastructure capacity or impose an unreasonable tax burden on the community. Concurrency and APFOs are a good way to promote compact phased growth. The State of Washington requires local governments to practice concurrency as part of its 1990 State Growth Management Act. Many local governments in other states have adopted APFOs. Communities may choose to allow privately financed infrastructure to meet concurrency requirements. But it is important to note that a concurrency policy on public infrastructure may not stop the construction of buildings in areas that rely on private wells and individual on-site septic systems. Many extensions of central water and sewer by municipalities, authorities, and private developers have resulted in leapfrog development and the premature conversion

of farmland, forests, wildlife habitats, and open space. Sewer line extensions mean local water bodies will be receiving more treated effluent. More highways and wider roads generate more traffic, air pollution, wildlife fatalities, and stormwater runoff into waterways. The construction of public buildings, such as the city hall, post office, and schools, outside of downtowns and on arterial strips promotes automobile dependence, energy consumption, air pollution, and sprawling development patterns. One of the most successful uses of CIPs with zoning is an urban growth boundary. The growth boundary is a limit of urban services, such as central sewer and water, agreed on by a city and its one or more surrounding counties. Inside the growth boundary, there should be sufficient land to accommodate development for 20 years. Outside the boundary, the land is primary in farm or forest uses. The idea of a growth boundary is to promote compact development that can gradually expand over time and thus minimize sprawl and the loss of open space.

1.2: The Environmental Planning Process A good way to make the comprehensive plan a “living document” that people use is by communities and counties adopting an Environmental Action Plan. Local governments can use an Environmental Action Plan to implement goals and objectives from several parts of the comprehensive plan, especially the natural resources inventory, economic base, land use, and community facilities sections. In addition, the Environmental Action Plan can draw on planning strategies and tools in the functional and area plans that are connected to the comprehensive plan. The Environmental Action Plan can recommend regulations, financial

CHAPTER 1: TAKING STOCK OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND CREATING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS

incentives, infrastructure spending programs, and other actions toward promoting a sustainable environment. Finally, the Environmental Action Plan can list short-term, medium-term, and long-term actions; funding sources; and who will be responsible for carrying out the actions and when. Steps in the Environmental Planning Process

The environmental planning process has eight main steps, most of which contain a mix of technical planning and political “selling” of the benefits of environmental planning (see Table 1.1).

15

Recognizing the Need for Environmental Planning

To start the environmental planning process, elected officials must be convinced that certain environmental problems exist or could pose threats to public health, safety, and welfare. It helps if interest groups, business leaders, and the general public recognize the need for environmental planning and voice their concerns to the elected officials. Recognizing the need for environmental planning may result from a study done by the local government, such as a water supply plan. Similarly, a partnership of citizens and local government may do a study

Table 1.1. Eight Steps in Creating an Environmental Action Plan 1.

The public and elected officials recognize the need for environmental planning.

2.

Officials then commit people and funding to the environmental planning effort and appoint an environmental advisory committee to assist the planning commission.

3.

The planning commission, staff, and the environmental advisory committee conduct an Environmental Needs Assessment Survey and solicit public input.

4.

The planning commission, staff, and the environmental advisory committee develop a factual base of environmental conditions and analyze the information.

5.

The planning commission, staff, and the environmental advisory committee review the community’s comprehensive plan to revise the vision statement, broad goals, and specific objectives to incorporate environmental data and needs over the next 20 years or more.

6.

The planning commission, staff, and the environmental advisory committee draft an Environmental Action Plan to articulate a set of land-use controls, financial incentives, infrastructure spending, tax programs, and building design regulations that will put the environmental goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan into practice.

7.

Elected officials solicit public input and adopt the Environmental Action Plan.

8.

The planning commission and elected officials implement, monitor, and evaluate the performance of the Environmental Action Plan through an annual review of progress toward benchmarks and then make revisions and updates as needed.

16

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

consultant, when the work is due, the amount of the consultant’s fee, and payment dates. The Environmental Action Plan should include an acknowledgment of all public and private sources of funding for the plan as well as the major participants, including the planning commission, any advisory committees Committing People and Money to and volunteers, any consultants, and, of course, the Environmental Planning Effort the elected officials who will be asked to adopt Elected officials can either give the planning the plan. commission and staff the task of drafting an Environmental Action Plan or hire a profes- Surveys and Soliciting Public Input sional planning consultant to do the job. A wise move is for the elected officials or plan- An Environmental Action Plan must involve ning commission to appoint an environmental broad and meaningful participation from the advisory committee to help with drafting the public and a variety of interest groups. A good action plan. Many communities in the north- way for the planning commission and advisory eastern states have appointed a standing local committee to involve the public in the planconservation commission to assist the planning ning process is to conduct an Environmental commission and elected officials in drafting Needs Assessment Survey. The survey gives the environmental elements of the compre- people in the community the opportunity to hensive plan. The conservation commission voice their opinions about environmental concan also review and comment on the potential ditions and needed improvements. The survey environmental impacts of proposed develop- can ask specific questions about a range of ments. A local conservation commission or environmental issues, as well as include openenvironmental advisory committee should ended questions about what improvements ideally have between 8 and 12 members, and are needed. Other questions might ask for levinclude people from a range of backgrounds, els of willingness to pay for new environmental such as business, a local university, environ- services such as additional parks or upgraded mental groups, local planning, any adjacent water treatment facilities. Surveys may be distributed in a variety municipality that may share a natural resource such as a river, and citizens from different areas of ways. One way is to mail a survey to a samof the community. For technical expertise, it is ple of households in the community. Surveys a good idea to include a biologist and an engi- that are clear and short and include a selfaddressed stamped envelope and cut-off date neer on the committee. Some communities may want to hire a for responses often have good return rates. consultant to help with the Environmental Another way is to post the survey on the comAction Plan. Make sure the consultant is will- munity’s website. The survey responses will ing to tailor the action plan to the needs and indicate issues of concern in the community desires of the community. A pitfall to avoid or county and will help the advisory commitis allowing a consultant to present a “boiler tee and planning commission in revising the plate plan” used by several communities, an comprehensive plan. This may include redraftall-too-common practice among consultants. ing the vision statement, gathering and analyzSpell out in a contract what is expected of the ing additional environment-related data, and that alerts public officials about environmental needs and compels them to act. Elected officials are more likely to adopt an Environmental Action Plan and support specific actions if they receive credit for their support.

CHAPTER 1: TAKING STOCK OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND CREATING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS

formulating general environmental goals and specific objectives for the community or county. Community or neighborhood public meetings, newsletters, and notices in the local media are also helpful in publicizing the needs assessment effort and eliciting public comments. Two sets of meetings are recommended. The first set is to solicit input from the public. The advisory committee and planning commission members should ask people to identify the important environmental aspects of their communities and improvements they would like to see. This can be done effectively in small-group brainstorming sessions (known as focus groups) to draw people out and hear from everyone. It is helpful to have maps of the community or county on hand. After the surveys and informational meetings have been completed and incorporated into a draft of the action plan, the planning commission and advisory committee should present their findings and recommendations at a second set of public meetings to get feedback from the public. Does the action plan reflect a public consensus? Keep in mind that a consensus does not mean 100 percent support—there will always be some opposition. Are there important environmental issues or strategies that were left out? Taking the extra time to involve the public and make changes to the Environmental Action Plan will pay dividends in the long run. The public will appreciate the opportunity to voice concerns and opinions and will gain a better understanding of what the Environmental Action Plan is trying to do. Additionally, public support is crucial for convincing elected officials to adopt the Environmental Action Plan.

17

of population on environmental resources, create a factual base. The factual base in a comprehensive plan should include (1) a natural resources inventory of air, land, water, and wildlife resources and (2) a built environment inventory of buildings and gray infrastructure. These studies should present accurate, unbiased information on the current condition of the local or regional environment. The factual base will help to answer a variety of questions, such as the following: What is the quality of the community’s air and water? What type of wildlife and wildlife habitats exist? What is the condition of the sewage treatment plants? What is the suitability of lands and water resources in the community for different types of development? Federal, state, regional, and local governments are good sources of information. Local and state universities and environmental nonprofit organizations may also be helpful. Private consultants may be useful for specific tasks. Some of this information may be available from the community’s current comprehensive plan. Natural Resources Inventory

Natural resources include air, water, soils, geologic formations, farmland, forests, minerals, wetlands, and plant and animal species. In the inventory, planners should identify the location, quantity, and quality of these resources as well as their suitability for development, development constraints such as steep slopes and floodplains, and vulnerability to pollution or natural hazards. A frequent challenge in putting together a natural resources inventory is that a community’s political boundaries may differ from geologic or ecological boundaries. For example, Gathering Data About Environmental the community may be part of a river basin Conditions and Analyzing the Data or wildlife migration route. A community may Studies of the natural and built environ- need to consult with neighboring communiments, including projected future impacts ties, counties, and regional planning agencies

18

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

to gather complete inventory data. Dutchess County, New York, adopted a natural resources inventory in 2010 to serve as an information source for individual towns as they create comprehensive plans and make day-to-day decisions on the location of new development.4 The natural resources section of the Port Washington, Wisconsin, comprehensive plan states, “Approximately 25.8 percent of the City of Port Washington planning area is covered by hydric soils (about 2,531 acres), generally associated with stream beds and wetland areas. Although hydric soils are generally unsuitable for development, they may serve as important locations for the restoration of wetlands, as wildlife habitat, and for stormwater detention.”5 Resource maps are very useful, and a composite map of natural resource layers, generated by a geographic information system (GIS) is highly recommended (see Figure 1.2). Several states have GIS databases accessible online. If available, remote sensing information may also be helpful, especially for regional maps. Topographic maps from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) display elevations, roads, water bodies, and settlements. Other USGS maps can help to identify historic, current, and projected community land-use patterns. Aerial photos of the community or region can be especially helpful in showing the pattern of development (whether sprawled or compact), the amount of built-up area and undeveloped land, and where future development might best be accommodated.6 Orthophotos are computerized aerial photographs that are scale-corrected and distortion free. They are available from most local offices of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Digitized property tax maps showing property boundaries and land parcel patterns can be overlaid on top of the orthophotos. Planners can then add GIS data layers from the natural resources inventory maps (see Table 1.2) and built environment maps (roads, sewer and water lines, schools, hospitals, and

Figure 1.2. Geographic Information System Database Layers: Aquifer Systems of the Southeastern United States Green: surficial aquifer system; orange: Floridian aquifer system; blue: Southeastern Coastal Plains aquifer system. Source: Adapted from U.S. Geological Survey, Ground Water Atlas of the United States, HA-730-G, Figures 8,10, and 11, 2009. http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_g/jpeg/ G009.jpeg.

other buildings). Planners can identify land parcels from local tax maps. Areas with many small parcels will not be suitable for development that requires large acreages, such as industrial parks. Areas with large parcels have better potential for natural resource uses, such as farming, forestry, or mining. Combining

CHAPTER 1: TAKING STOCK OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND CREATING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS

19

Table 1.2. Environmental Features to Show on the Natural Resources Inventory Maps Natural Environmental Features 1.

Soils, geology, and topography

2.

Watersheds, streams, water bodies, floodplains, and wetlands

3.

Aquifer recharge areas and delineated wellhead areas

4.

Wildlife habitat

5.

Vegetation (forest cover, cropland, pasture, prairie, etc.)

parcel patterns with soils, topography, and proximity to sewer, water, and major roads provides a picture of development potential for specific sites. It is also important to identify any lands owned by federal, state, or county governments, which are generally off-limits to development. Planners can include discussions of the following natural resources in a natural resources inventory: soils, geography and topography, water resources, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and air quality. Soils. Soils information can include slope, erosion potential, wetness, strength, depth to bedrock, frost action, shrink-swell, prime agricultural soils, forest soils, and suitability for on-site septic systems. County soil surveys produced by the NRCS provide all this information as well as general soils maps (see Figure 1.3). In many counties, soil surveys have been digitized for GIS applications. Soils information indicates the ability of an area or parcel of land to support buildings, absorb water, and grow plants (see Table 14.1 in Chapter 14). Soils with high productive capability for agriculture and forestry are deep, level, and well drained; contain a wealth of micro-organisms and organic matter; and can produce crops with a minimum of fertilizers. These also tend

to be the same soils that can best support development and are most suitable for the use of on-site septic systems. Slopes of more than 15 percent should be avoided for building sites. Shallow depth to bedrock, poor drainage, and wet soils also hamper the construction and stability of buildings. Low weight–bearing soils, which might support development of singlefamily houses, might not be able to support heavier commercial, industrial, or institutional buildings. Septic systems in porous soils run a high risk of polluting groundwater, while septic systems in heavy clay soils may result in the back up of effluent to the surface. Geology and Topography. The geology of the community or region consists of the underlying rocks, mineral and aggregate deposits, and the topography of the landscape. Geology can help to identify areas likely to have productive groundwater aquifers and areas vulnerable to groundwater contamination. Planners should map underground faults that could lead to land subsidence, landslides, or earthquakes. There may also be unique geological features such as caves, mesas, and rock outcroppings that planners should note. Topographic maps will show ridges and steep slopes (Figure 1.4) and reveal stormwater drainage patterns. A study of topography will also

20

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

Figure 1.3. Map of Soil Types from the Adams County, Pennsylvania, Soil Survey. Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

be helpful in viewshed analysis, with an eye toward protecting outstanding vistas. Planners can obtain data on geology and topography from the USGS, the state environmental agency, and the state land grant university. Water Resources. Important water resources include groundwater and surface

water, public water supplies, wetlands, and floodplains. Planners should obtain or draft maps on the location and extent of water resources as well as watershed and aquifer boundaries (see Chapter 5). Topographic quadrant maps from the USGS and maps of wetlands from the national wetlands

CHAPTER 1: TAKING STOCK OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND CREATING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS

21

Figure 1.4. Map Identifying Steep Slopes for the Natural Resources Inventory, Yonkers, New York. Source: Westchester County, NY, GIS Department.

inventory are helpful. Information on the flow or yield of surface and groundwater may be available from state water resources or environmental agencies and the U.S. EPA. Planners should note the community’s present water consumption and treatment capacity. Planners can also describe the use of water for wildlife, recreational purposes, and energy production, along with minimum stream flows to sustain these uses. If there are known pollution problems that could threaten water supplies, planners can describe them and

identify them on a map (see Chapter 6). For instance, it is important for planners to map known hazardous waste sites and landfills, along with testing of the nearby groundwater. Planners can also describe the quality of surface and groundwater resources. Water-quality data are available from public water suppliers, the local municipality, and the state water resources or environmental agency. It is essential for planners to identify and map wetlands (see Chapter 11). Good sources of information include the national wetlands

22

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

inventory from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency and state-level wetlands maps from the state environmental agency. The county soil survey has maps that identify the location of wet or hydric soils, although not all hydric soils are considered wetlands. Identifying floodplains is important to avoid construction in these dangerous areas (see Chapter 13). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publishes floodplain maps nationwide. While much of the mapping is old, FEMA has updated maps for many communities. Additional information may be available from the state environmental or water resources agency. Wildlife Habitat. Planners should describe and map significant wildlife habitat, nesting areas, migration routes, fish spawning grounds, and feeding spots. Wildlife habitat can be identified by knowledgeable local volunteers, conservation groups, and personnel from the state land grant university and state fish and wildlife department. Habitats can be rated for importance and vulnerability. Planners can identify in a general way any threatened and endangered plant and animal habitats so as to protect species from possible poaching or habitat destruction (see Chapter 10). But state environmental agencies are often reluctant to give out specific information on the location of threatened or endangered species habitat. Vegetation. Planners can list and map lands in forest cover, farm use, or other type of vegetation. Sources of information include satellite imagery and aerial photos. Planners can digitize this information into a GIS database and combine it with the wildlife habitat map. Air Quality. An inventory of air quality includes measurements of carbon monoxide, particulates, nitrogen dioxide, lead, ozone, and sulfur oxides, which are the main air pollutants identified by the federal government under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 (see Chapter 3). Planners can note how many days

each year the air quality fails to meet one or more of the standards for these six pollutants. Carbon dioxide emissions are also important to determine, though this information may be more difficult to find. Carbon dioxide was ruled a pollutant by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007, and as of 2014, the EPA had not yet adopted broad regulations on carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to climate change (see Chapter 4). Information on air quality is available from the state environmental agency and from the regional office of the EPA. Local air quality is typically described but not mapped. Regional air-quality maps are more common. A Built Environment Inventory A built environment inventory can show the location, number, age, and condition of the housing stock, commercial and industrial buildings, parks, and public buildings. The inventory can also include the location and condition of public infrastructure, including roads, sewer and water lines, schools, landfills, and police and fire stations. The built environment has important connections with the natural environment. The amount of developed land, land with development potential, and the location of different land uses have implications for stormwater management, transportation and energy use, air and water quality, and exposure to natural hazards. For example, the Town of Dennis, Massachusetts, included a section on Human/Built Systems in a draft of their 2012 comprehensive plan. The section includes the following four topics: (1) a housing inventory, (2) cultural and historic resources, (3) public services and facilities, and (4) transportation.7 Planners can identify and map buildings and neighborhoods with historic and cultural value, public buildings and spaces, streetscapes, and blighted areas. These are all areas with potential for improving the quality of life for residents in the neighborhood.

CHAPTER 1: TAKING STOCK OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND CREATING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS

Historic buildings and streetscapes have been key assets in the redevelopment of many cities and towns across America. Public buildings and spaces draw people together and create a sense of community. Open spaces and greenways offer parkland and wildlife habitat, filter runoff, and buffer watercourses. Information on the built environment can be found through the state historic preservation office and city and county planning offices. Analysis of the Natural Resources Inventory and Built Environment Inventory The analysis of the natural resources inventory and the built environment inventory consists of three parts: a land and water suitability analysis, an environmental quality analysis, and a current trends analysis. Land and Water Suitability Analysis. A key product of the natural resources inventory is a land and water suitability analysis, which identifies those areas of the community that are appropriate for development, places that have moderate limitations for most developments, and areas that should be protected in their natural state because of severe environmental constraints and natural hazards. Planners can show the suitability analysis for the community on one or more GIS maps with several layers of environmental information (see Table 1.2). The analysis should also denote land with particular capabilities, such as productive farm and forest soils, as well as areas that will maintain critical natural processes such as wetlands and aquifer recharge areas. Overall, the land and water suitability analysis can provide important information on the carrying capacity of the community—that is, how many people and how much development the community can sustainably support before serious negative environmental impacts occur. In short, the land and water suitability analysis is a primary building block of the comprehensive plan and

23

any sustainability plan. For example, Lancaster County, Virginia, located in the eastern Tidewater area, identified two types of rural areas in its efforts to protect the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay: (1) Resource Protection Areas and (2) Resource Management Areas. The Resource Protection Areas are lands that directly affect water quality, such as tidal wetlands, shorelands, and buffer lands. The Resource Management Areas are lands that, if improperly managed, could degrade water quality. Development on these lands is subject to standards and permit requirements to ensure minimum impact.8 Rating Natural Resources and Development Suitability. The land and water suitability analysis should contain a method to rate or classify the development potential of different lands. For instance, planners can identify development constraints and natural hazards with a color code on GIS maps (red for severe limitations, orange for moderate limitations, yellow for few limitations) or a numerical points system with developable lands receiving higher points than lands with development limitations. Planners can depict natural resources worthy of protection by using a separate color code, such as shades of green. For instance, prime farmland could be shown in dark green and farmland with more than 15 percent slope in light green. Planners can prioritize natural resources for protection according to 1. whether the resource is renewable or irreplaceable—if irreplaceable, the resource is more valuable; 2. the rarity of the site—the less common, the more valuable the resource, particularly in the case of habitats of threatened and endangered plant and wildlife species; 3. the size of the site—generally, the larger the site, the more important it is; 4. the diversity of plants, wildlife, scenic views, and other natural features—the

24

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

greater the diversity the more important the site is; and 5. the fragility of the site, including the quality of the undisturbed site and human threats to the site. Planners can create a rating system for development potential that is clear and understandable to nonexperts. The rating system and maps will help planners in creating the future land-use map and zoning map, as well as in the day-to-day development review process. Environmental Quality Analysis. Planners can perform an environmental quality analysis to compare state and federal environmental standards with actual conditions in the community. For example, planners can compare local air and water quality against federal air and water pollution standards. This analysis provides baseline information that can help a community identify environmental quality problems, evaluate alternative solutions, rank its natural resources for protection, and set priorities for action. Planners can use the baseline information to set environmental quality targets, which can be readily updated to document progress toward environmental quality benchmarks. Current Trends Analysis. Recent trends in population growth, acreage developed, acreage in public parks, vehicle miles traveled, waste recycling, loss of threatened or endangered plant and animal species, air and water quality, and water use give indications of the direction of environmental quality. In the current trends analysis, planners ask the following questions: Where are we going in terms of population growth, land development, and environmental quality? Are these trends sustainable? What will be the environmental costs if these trends continue? What will be the economic costs and social impacts? Planners can

project recent environmental trends to help answer these questions. In the current trends analysis, planners can discuss the indicators of environmental strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to the community or region based on the information provided in the Natural Resources and Built Environment Inventories together with population projections. Strengths for a particular community might include a pleasant setting with scenic views, good-quality water, and a collection of solid historic buildings. Weaknesses might feature poor air quality and a lack of public transportation. Opportunities might exist for creating a greenway along a riverfront and rehabilitating historic buildings for commercial purposes in the downtown. Threats might involve flooding, sprawling suburbs, and a loss of open space. The current trends analysis will be useful in revising the community’s comprehensive plan, especially the vision statement and the broad goals and specific objectives to achieve that vision. A major purpose of a comprehensive plan is to influence current trends to produce better outcomes. The Vision Statement, Broad Goals, and Specific Objectives

The planning commission and environmental advisory committee combine input from the public Environmental Needs Assessment Survey and the data and analysis of the built and natural environments into a vision statement for the community or region. The vision statement describes what the quality of the natural, working, and built environments of the community or region should be over the next 20 or more years. The vision statement serves as an overall policy directive for the local government, as well as the foundation for the environmental goals, objectives, and the Environmental Action Plan. The vision statement

CHAPTER 1: TAKING STOCK OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND CREATING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS

typically advocates four outcomes: compliance with state and federal environmental standards; a healthy, sustainable environment; a sustainable economy; and a good quality of life for all citizens. Next, the planning commission and advisory committee can articulate environmental goals and objectives that not only reflect community desires and priorities but also provide direction for elected officials on public spending, taxation, and land-use regulation. This is the first step in making the environmental vision a reality. The goals and objectives must be based on a solid technical analysis of the natural and built environments, realistic costs, and an understanding of relevant state and federal environmental programs. A common problem is that a goal or objective may be rejected for being “politically not feasible,” even though it would significantly improve or protect environmental quality. Goals and objectives should address the full range of environmental issues facing the community or region and should build on strengths (such as a good water supply), address weaknesses (lack of park land), opportunities (ecotourism), and threats (groundwater pollution). Setting Goals and Objectives Goals. Goals are broad statements that reflect a community’s values and desires. Goals provide direction to local officials in their decision making and should be clear and decisive. Sample environmental goals might include the following: 1. Ensure compliance with state and federal environmental standards for air and water quality. 2. Increase the recycling of solid waste into useful products.

25

3. Conserve on the amount of land used for development by promoting compact, mixed-use development. 4. Expand mass transit to reduce reliance on the automobile and reduce air pollution. 5. Increase the amount of public park land. 6. Reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. Objectives. Objectives spell out specific ways to attain goals. Each goal usually depends on achieving more than one objective. The following sample objectives would help meet each of the preceding goals: a. Adopt a wellhead protection ordinance to limit development near public water supplies. b. Contract with a private recycling firm to increase the amount of solid waste recycled. c. Revise the zoning ordinance to allow smaller minimum lot sizes and a mix of commercial and residential uses. d. Explore funding for additional buses or the construction of a commuter light-rail system. e. Revise the subdivision ordinance to require mandatory dedication of park land or fees in lieu thereof. f. Add bicycle lanes to promote cycling as an alternative to driving. It is very important for planners and elected officials to coordinate the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. A major problem with many traditional comprehensive plans is that they have several conflicting goals and objectives that may create confusion and effectively cancel each other out. The common theme of sustainability should link the goals

26

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

and objectives. Communities and planners will find it useful to prioritize environmental goals and objectives, especially in relation to housing, transportation, community facilities, and economic development goals. The Environmental Action Plan

The chief reason so many comprehensive plans end up sitting on a shelf is that they do not include a detailed action strategy. Planners can establish indicators of success in the Environmental Action Plan along with annual benchmarks for progress toward short-term and long-term outcomes or targets. For instance, Marin County, California, did this in their 2007 Countywide Plan. Then planners can report on progress toward the targets in periodic reports, ideally each year. For example, New York City produced reports in 2011 and 2012 to measure the success of its 2007 PlaNYC. The Environmental Action Plan articulates a set of land-use regulations, infrastructure spending, tax and incentive programs, and building codes that will put the comprehensive plan into practice (see Table 1.3). These recommended actions should be consistent with the plan’s objectives. The action plan lists proposed activities, who is expected to do the work, funding options, and timelines for completion and is laid out in an easy-to-read table format. A clearly presented action plan will keep the comprehensive plan alive in the minds of the public and local government and help toward its full implementation. Ideally, the local elected officials will adopt the Environmental Action Plan as part of the comprehensive plan. Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation

A plan is only meaningful if it is implemented. As the City of San Francisco said in its 1997

sustainability plan, “The only goal of producing this plan is to begin implementing it.”9 The successful implementation of an Environmental Action Plan involves the use of effective spending programs, incentives, and environmental and land-use regulations. Above all, it requires cooperation among government, businesses, citizens groups, and households. Monitoring of the implementation efforts is essential for identifying successes and shortcomings and can provide information for recommending changes to existing programs as well as opportunities to use new environmental planning techniques. To monitor the progress of the Environmental Action Plan and to keep the local government accountable, planners can use benchmarking. Benchmarks are measurable targets, such as acquisition of a certain number of acres of park land, improvements in water quality from Class C (impaired) to Class A (swimmable and fishable), or adding 10 miles of track to a light-rail system. Each year, the planning commission or elected officials can set targets tied to specific objectives in the action plan. The planning commission can then assess the progress toward the benchmarks and publish an annual Environmental Action Report. The report can indicate which benchmarks were met and which were not and then suggest needed adjustments in policy priorities, regulations, and spending programs. Above all, benchmarking and the annual Environmental Action Report keep the Environmental Action Plan and the comprehensive plan in front of the public, businesses, and elected officials. Finally, the planning commission should review and update the action plan every three to five years to reflect changes in community desires and priorities, to keep the plan responsive to changes in environmental quality, and to keep the community on course toward long-range sustainability goals.

CHAPTER 1: TAKING STOCK OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND CREATING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS

27

Box 1.2. The Private Sector and Environmental Planning One of the most important trends since 1970 is the growth in private sector environmental planning. To comply with government regulations, businesses have formed environmental management units. Moreover, in working to reduce the costs of environmental compliance, businesses have been challenged to operate more responsibly and sustainably. New technologies are enabling businesses to reduce waste and toxic substances, save energy and water, and produce more durable products. These trends are encouraging because they show that businesses can be both environmentally friendly and profitable.10 In several states and many communities, land developers have had to address a wide range of questions about the impacts of their proposed developments on the natural and built environments, from air and water quality to transportation and aesthetics. Some developers have abandoned the uniform “cookie-cutter” designs of residential subdivisions in favor of mixed-use

1.3: A Further Look at Functional and Area Environmental Plans Many local governments have adopted one or more environmentally oriented functional or area plans in addition to their comprehensive plan. The purpose of these special plans is to focus attention on one or more environmental problems and to create a strategic course of action. Ideally, these plans should be made part of the comprehensive plan because the comprehensive plan provides the legal basis for zoning and subdivision regulations and guides CIPs.

residential and commercial projects that emphasize pedestrian access over motor vehicles. The trend toward urban redevelopment after the housing crash and Great Recession of 2007–2009 has highlighted the principles of new urbanism, which takes as its model the village—designed to be compact and walkable, with mixed uses at a human scale, and a vibrant public realm. The private nonprofit sector has taken on a rapidly expanding role in environmental planning, especially in the protection of natural areas, wildlife habitat, waterways, working landscapes, and historic buildings. The number, size, and importance of land trusts, conservancies, watershed associations, and citizens groups have grown impressively over the past 30 years. No longer is environmental planning conducted solely by governments. The result has been an increasing number of public-private partnerships in local and regional planning, land preservation, watershed protection, and redevelopment efforts.

Climate Action Plan

The lack of federal policies and actions to curb greenhouse gas emissions has compelled more than 120 American cities to draft climate action plans to mitigate and adapt to climate change.11 These cities recognized that local decisions about land use, transportation, building design, and energy consumption can have not just local impacts but global impacts as well. The first step in creating a climate action plan is to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions in a baseline year from the community’s energy consumption and waste generation.

28

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

Table 1.3. Innovative Techniques to Implement an Environmental Action Plan Zoning 1.

Special overlay zones protect sensitive resources, such as wildlife areas, steep slopes, wellhead protection areas, floodplains, and wetlands.

2.

Performance zoning regulates impacts rather than uses.

3.

A community and the federal government can designate historic districts to help protect historic areas and make property owners eligible for federal (and possibly state) investment tax credits (see Chapter 19).

4.

Bonus density or an increased height bonus is available for environmentally sensitive building design or use of green roofs.

5.

Form-based codes regulate the appearance of development rather than uses.

6.

Large minimum lot-size zoning protects farmland, forestland, and conservation areas.

Subdivision Regulations 1.

To evaluate the potential impacts of development, especially for a large development, a local government’s subdivision ordinance can require a developer to conduct a local environmental impact assessment.

2.

Vegetation requirements can include buffers between properties and the replacement of trees and vegetation removed in the development process.

Capital Improvements Programs 1.

Urban or village growth boundaries link capital improvements with zoning. They also provide a way to resolve annexation disputes, identify urban service areas for public sewer and water service, and separate developed areas from rural areas (see Chapters 14 and 20).

2.

A policy of concurrency linked to an adequate public facilities ordinance can promote phased growth.

3.

Impact fees and exactions require developers to pay for the cost of the development of public services, such as parkland and traffic improvements (see Chapter 20).

4.

Property tax incentives in the form of reductions in property tax assessments for farm and forest lands or historic properties can provide an incentive not to convert property from these uses (see Chapters 14, 15, and 19).

CHAPTER 1: TAKING STOCK OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND CREATING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS

5.

29

Fee simple land acquisition, the purchase of development rights, and the transfer of development rights are techniques to keep land open. The public purchase of land in fee simple gives the public ownership of the land, such as in the case of purchasing land for a park. In a purchase of development rights program, a landowner voluntarily sells to the public the right to develop his or her land; the landowner still owns the land but can only use it for farming, forestry, or open space purposes. A transfer of development rights program to protect farmland and open space areas or historic structures allows landowners to sell transferable development rights to developers who transfer the development rights to properties they are then allowed to develop more intensively (see Chapters 9, 14, and 15).

Other Regulations 1.

Building codes are standards for the construction of new buildings and renovations and can address energy conservation, as well as safety (Chapter 19).

2.

Nuisance ordinances can regulate light and noise pollution.

Note: Planners may want to seek legal advice about how to implement these tools and techniques and whether they are legally allowed in their particular state or community.

Next, a forecast is made of future emission lev- 2. Reduced automobile emissions through improving pedestrian and bicycle infraels based on current trends. Then greenhouse structure, improving public transit sergas reduction targets are established accordvice, promoting pedestrian- and ing to a timeline.12 The city drafts an action plan transit-oriented development, and to implement changes to land-use regulations, improving the energy efficiency of the infrastructure investment, building codes, and city’s vehicle fleet public education to achieve the greenhouse reduction targets. The city must then monitor progress toward the reduction targets and 3. Increasing recycling and composting through educating residents make adjustments in its climate action programs as needed. Albany, California’s, 2010 climate action Green Infrastructure Plan plan (see Chapter 4) features three strategies that have the greatest potential to reduce The term “green infrastructure” covers a range greenhouse gas emissions:13 of open space and stormwater management investment projects. At the site level in cities, 1. Increased energy efficiency in buildings, green infrastructure in the form of green roofs, including zero emissions city buildings by rain gardens, bioswales, and street trees have 2015; enhanced energy efficiency stanproven effective in capturing, retaining, and dards for new construction, increased infiltrating stormwater. At the regional or landuse of renewable energy, and improved scape scale, green infrastructure can link open energy management in homes and spaces, providing recreation and a variety of businesses ecosystems services (see Box 1.3).

30

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

Benedict and McMahon define green infrastructure as “a strategically planned and managed network of wilderness, parks, greenways, conservation easements, and working lands with conservation value that supports native species, maintains natural ecological processes, sustains air and water resources, and contributes to the health and quality of life for America’s communities and people.”14 In most cities and counties, the CIP emphasizes the construction, repair, and maintenance of “gray infrastructure,” such as roads, bridges, public sewer and water facilities, schools, municipal buildings, and police and fire equipment. Yet cities and counties can include “green infrastructure” investments in parks, greenways, trails, stormwater management, and farmland and forestland preservation in their CIPs. Like gray infrastructure, green infrastructure usually involves longterm investments and annual operating costs that require careful consideration of financing arrangements and project priorities. One goal of green infrastructure is to maximize ecosystem services. There are four general categories of ecosystem services: provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting.15 Provisioning services produce food, fiber, and energy for humans, plants, and animals. Regulating services affect climate, air quality, waste treatment, and water quality and supplies. Cultural services refer to opportunities for recreation, education, and spiritual or aesthetic enjoyment from contact with nature. Supporting services underlie the others with basic natural processes such as photosynthesis and nutrient cycling. Different types of green spaces provide different arrays of services. Thus communities and regions need a variety of green infrastructure to provide a range of ecosystem services, from provisioning (farms and forests), to regulating (forest and wildlife preserves), to cultural (parks and greenways), and supporting (open space). A green

infrastructure project can provide multiple ecosystem services. For example, greenways often buffer water bodies; intercept, infiltrate, and filter pollutants; and provide recreational trails and wildlife migration corridors. Green infrastructure plans embody six design characteristics: 1. Multifunctionality 2. Connectivity 3. Habitability 4. Resiliency 5. Identity 6. Return on investment16 A key goal of any green infrastructure plan is connectivity.17 Isolated strips of open land do not provide as rich ecosystem services (air and water filters, wildlife and plant habitat) as a connected network of green spaces. The connected green infrastructure is also more resilient to natural events, such as rainstorms and flooding. Finally, connected green infrastructure can help create regional networks of trails that tie cities and suburbs with the countryside. Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, adopted its green infrastructure plan, Greenscapes, in 2009. The plan has four main themes: (1) the preservation of outstanding natural resources, such as pristine streams and interior forests; (2) the conservation and stewardship of important natural resources, including floodplains, steep slopes, and wetlands; (3) the restoration of degraded ecosystems, and improvement of air and water quality; and (4) recreation as a way to improve public health.18 The plan first presents an analysis of existing conditions: land use, demographics, natural vegetation, steep slopes and highly erodible soils, unique geological features, watersheds, water quality,

CHAPTER 1: TAKING STOCK OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND CREATING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS

Figure 1.5. Hub and Greenway, Node and Link Patterns for Connected Green Infrastructure Source: Lancaster County, PA, Planning Commission, Greenscapes, 2009, p. 78.

air quality, biodiversity, interior forests, priority plant and animal habitat, parks and recreation areas, and trails. The plan then lays out the desired green infrastructure system of openspace hubs and greenways and smaller openspace nodes and links in a series of maps based on the pattern in Figure 1.5. Each of the four goals in Greenscapes is supported by objectives and strategies to achieve those goals. The plan describes a variety of tools that local governments can use, including land-use, transportation, watershed, and open space policies and plans; zoning and subdivision regulations; investments in green infrastructure to acquire land or permanent conservation easements; and education and partnerships with landowners and nonprofit organizations. Environmental Policy Plan

A policy plan is a set of desired outcomes and recommendations to achieve those outcomes.

31

Typically, however, a policy plan lacks the detailed facts and careful analysis found in a comprehensive plan or a future land-use map on which to base the zoning map. In many cases, a policy plan appears to be a wish list, which may or may not realistically reflect the community’s ability to make recommended changes. In 2007, New York City adopted PlaNYC 2030: A Greener, Greater New York, which can be thought of as a hybrid between a comprehensive plan and an environmental policy plan.19 The plan differs from a comprehensive plan in three main ways. First, the plan was drafted by the city with input from 25 city agencies rather than broad public input. Second, the city’s economic and social issues were not explored in depth. PlaNYC strongly implies, however, that environmental improvement, both in the natural and built environments, will strengthen the resilience of the economy and promote social harmony. Third, PlaNYC does not contain a future land-use map on which to base the zoning map. PlaNYC addressed New York City’s need to accommodate an expected increase of one million residents by 2030 while advocating for improvements to the city’s built and natural environments. The plan focused on six issues: land (housing, open space, and brownfields), water quality and supply, transportation congestion and repair, energy, air quality, and climate change. For each issue, the plan spelled out goals and objectives. In total, the plan listed 127 objectives or initiatives for the city. Like a comprehensive plan, the goals and objectives were tied to a new vision for New York: It is a vision of providing New Yorkers with the cleanest air of any big city in the nation; of maintaining the purity of our drinking water and opening more of our rivers and creeks and coastal waters to recreation; of producing more energy more cleanly and more reliably,

32

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

and offering more choices on how to travel quickly and efficiently across our city. It is a vision where contaminated land is reclaimed and restored to communities; where every family lives near a park or playground; where housing is sustainable and available to New Yorkers from every background, reflecting the diversity that has defined our city for centuries.20 In 2011 and 2012, the City of New York released updates to PlaNYC, reporting on progress toward the goals and objectives of the 2007 plan. Achievements included stricter energy efficiency regulations for buildings, more than 200 acres of new parkland, the planting of nearly half a million trees, and a 13 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 to 2011.21 This kind of benchmarking and monitoring is essential for keeping a plan alive in the minds of elected officials and the general public. The goals of the 2011 update include the following: 1. Create homes for almost a million more New Yorkers while making housing and neighborhoods more affordable and sustainable. 2. Ensure all New Yorkers live within a 10-minute walk of a park. 3. Clean up all contaminated land in New York City. 4. Improve the quality of our waterways to increase opportunities for recreation and restore coastal ecosystems. 5. Ensure the high quality and reliability of our water supply system. 6. Expand sustainable transportation choices and ensure the reliability and

high quality of our transportation network. 7. Reduce energy consumption and make our energy systems cleaner and more reliable. 8. Achieve the cleanest air quality of any big U.S. city. 9. Divert 75 percent of our solid waste from landfills. 10. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 30 percent by 2030. 11. Increase the resilience of our communities, natural systems, and infrastructure to climate risks.22 New York City has succeeded in creating a plan that provides direction for action by the city government, businesses, and households. The benchmarking and monitoring has helped to keep the plan a living document. In short, PlaNYC has established a model for an environmental policy plan that other large cities can look to as they forge goals, objectives, and actions to improve their natural and built environments. Sustainability Plan

A true sustainability plan must address the long-term durability of the natural and built environments, the local economy, and social equity. In 2010, the City of Grand Rapids, Michigan, approved a sustainability plan for the next five years with the subtitle Managing the Economic, Social, and Environmental Resources of the City through a Framework of Sustainability Outcomes and Targets.23 The city established a planning process based on a variety of local plans that city departments could use to achieve targets and outcomes by specific

CHAPTER 1: TAKING STOCK OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND CREATING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS

deadlines (see Figure 1.6). Each department 5. Enhanced customer service submits a quarterly report on progress, which 6. Vital business districts is summarized in a gap analysis, documenting the difference between progress and the targets. The city then can amend the sustainability Social Sustainability plan to better focus resources on outcomes and 1. Great neighborhoods targets that are proving more difficult to meet. 2. Strong education, arts, and community The elements of the sustainability plan 3. Civic engagement include the following: 4. Healthy lifestyles and healthy Economic Sustainability environments 1. A strong economy 5. Public safety 2. Diverse supplier base 3. Employment and workforce training 4. Financial management/sustainability

Environmental Sustainability 1. Energy and climate protection

Figure 1.6. City of Grand Rapids Sustainability Plan: Plan-Do-Check-Act Process

33

34

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

2. Environmental quality and natural systems Thirty-three states have source water protection plans to protect surface and groundwa3. Land use and development ter used by rural residents.25 Every state has a wildlife action plan to protect land and water The following are specific desired envi- bodies that provide wildlife habitat. The 2008 ronmental outcomes: Farm Bill required every state to conduct an assessment of their forests and devise ways to respond to threats and improve forest health. A. Maintain an adequate and safe water These plans, known as Forest Action Plans, also supply. identify priority forest landscapes for long-term B. Improve the quality of the Grand River protection and preservation. Each state has and its tributaries. a State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation C. Protect and maintain healthy ecosystems Plan, which is required for eligibility to obtain and habitats. funding for recreation projects from the federal D. Reuse and recycle; and reduce waste sent Land and Water Conservation Fund. All states have a State Implementation Plan to improve to landfills. air quality to meet federal air-quality standards. E. Ensure that sound land uses enhance the There are four main types of regional natural environment. environmental plans: (1) plans that protect F. Ensure quality design and construction special environmental regions and resources, of the built environment in accordance (2) river basin plans, (3) metropolitan transporwith the City’s Master Plan and Zoning tation plans, and (4) growth management plans Ordinance. that aim to balance environmental protection with economic growth. The Adirondack Park G. Ensure access to parks and open spaces Plan in upstate New York, the Pinelands Plan for all citizens. in New Jersey, and the Lake Tahoe Regional H. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions (carPlan spanning parts of California and Nevada bon footprint) and impact on climate are examples of plans that were created to change.24 protect special fragile ecological regions from excessive development.26 The comprehensive These principles speak to the importance plan of the Delaware River Basin Commission of the triple bottom line of environmental, eco- directs the decisions of staff and represennomic, and social sustainability. The challenge, tatives from four states (Delaware, New Jerof course, is to implement the plan and move sey, New York, and Pennsylvania) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.27 The Delaware River toward greater sustainability over time. watershed provides water to more than 15 million people. The commission, created in 1961, has responsibilities for water-quality protecState and Regional Environmental Plans tion, water withdrawals, issuing permits for States and regional governments have crafted natural gas wells, drought management, flood a number of environmental plans to guide management, and recreation. Transportation decision making. For instance, California, Geor- plans for metropolitan areas were required gia, Hawaii, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Texas have state water management plans. Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. ISTEA mandated

CHAPTER 1: TAKING STOCK OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND CREATING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS

that a metro area have a transportation plan in order to qualify for federal transportation funds (see Chapter 18). A metro area drafts a 20-year regional transportation plan, a threeto five-year Transportation Improvement Program, and a list of desired transportation projects. Furthermore, the metro plans must be consistent with the State Implementation Plan for achieving compliance with the federal air-quality standards under the Clean Air Act. Envision Utah, a public-private partnership of business and civic leaders and elected officials, was formed in 1997 and has advocated that communities and regions pursue a quality growth strategy for a strong economy, environment, and quality of life.28 Envision Utah first focused on the Greater Wasatch region around Salt Lake City, where population growth, water supply, air quality, transportation systems, and affordable housing are key issues. The Greater Wasatch region is expected to grow from 1.6 million people in 1995 to 5 million in 2050. The region has 10 counties and 91 cities and towns. Envision Utah decided to use scenario planning to form their regional plan. With plenty of public input, Envision Utah then developed four alternative growth scenarios. The first scenario continued the sprawling low-density, automobile-oriented development patterns. The second scenario was only a little less sprawling, based on current local land-use plans. The third scenario emphasized more compact and walkable development, some of which would be placed within existing urban areas. House-lot sizes would average slightly more than a quarter of an acre. The fourth scenario would put nearly half of all new development in existing urban areas and accommodate most of the remaining growth in compact new towns. The transit system would be greatly expanded. After a broad public outreach campaign, a public survey showed a preference for the fourth scenario. TRAX, the light-rail system around Greater Salt Lake City,

35

opened in 1999 and has grown to three lines, 41 stations, and 20 miles of track with more expansions planned by 2015.29 The light-rail system helps to implement the compact development and investment in urban areas called for in the fourth scenario. One example is the new town of Daybreak, which began construction in 2004. When Daybreak is fully built out by 2024, it is expected to have 20,000 residential units and 9.1 million square feet of commercial space. Already, Daybreak is connected by the TRAX light-rail system to Greater Salt Lake City.30 The Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) of Greater Boston used scenario planning in creating their 2008 MetroFuture plan, a 30-year plan for managing growth.31 The first scenario showed a projection of trends based on current development (see Figure 1.7a). The purpose of a plan is to change negative trends and support positive trends. In this case, the MAPC wanted to enable economic growth while reducing the amount of open space lost to development. The MAPC then tested a number of alternative scenarios using different assumptions about future development. From the several alternative scenarios, a preferred scenario was selected (see Figure 1.7b). The preferred scenario would reduce the loss of open space by 115,000 acres between 2000 and 2030.

1.4: Day-to-Day Planning Decisions: Review of Development Proposals The day-to-day implementation of the comprehensive plan and other environmental plans occurs through the recommendations and decisions made by planning commissions, zoning boards, zoning officers, and elected officials as they review proposed development projects for consistency with the plans,

36

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

Figure 1.7a. Scenario A: Expected Loss of Open Space in Greater Boston, 2000–2030, if Current Development Trends Continue (152,000 Acres)

the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, CIPs, and other local standards. When a development proposal is submitted to the planning commission, the commission should make an assessment of the potential environmental impacts. First, the commission should refer to any state or federal requirements. For example, if federal funds or approvals are involved in a proposed project, the developer must follow the federal environmental impact statement (EIS) procedures according to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; see Chapter 2). If there is a State Environmental Policy Act, its rules may affect the proposed development project. Air and

Figure 1.7b. Scenario B: Expected Loss Under the MetroFuture Plan (37,000 Acres) Source: Metropolitan Area Planning Council, MetroFuture Plan, 2008, p. 21.

water quality, water withdrawals, wetlands, and threatened and endangered species are examples of environmental issues that might require a review and approval from a federal or state agency. The planning commission should next refer to the local plans and zoning and subdivision regulations in reviewing a development proposal. For instance, if the natural resources inventory of the comprehensive plan has been properly used for drafting the future land-use map, zoning map, and ordinance language, then development will tend to be guided toward the most appropriate locations and inappropriate development proposals will be

CHAPTER 1: TAKING STOCK OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND CREATING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS

rare. The subdivision and land-development regulations should require developers to provide information about on-site environmental conditions in greater detail than the natural resources inventory. The subdivision and landdevelopment regulations may require that the developer/landowner perform an environmental impact assessment. In any case, the planning commission and staff should evaluate both site-specific impacts and the contribution of the proposed development to the cumulative environmental impact of all development in the community or region. The purpose of the environmental impact assessment is not to needlessly delay development but to ensure good development design and a minimum of negative environmental outcomes. This is not to say that all developments should be approved. The planning commission can also determine what new infrastructure is needed (roads, sewer and water lines, police and fire service, schools), what infrastructure the developer must provide, and what the local government will supply. Finally, it is important to note that often a development will be approved subject to conditions—for example, actions a developer is required to make, such as planting trees and vegetation to reduce stormwater

37

runoff—to improve the design and environmental performance of the proposed development. Whenever a development is approved with conditions, the local government will need to monitor the development to ensure that the developer met the conditions or else compel the developer to make the required changes. Development review is a case-by-case process that depends on the size, location, and design of the proposed project as well as the current environmental conditions. Small developments, often referred to as minor subdivisions of three or fewer lots, should have a more streamlined review than major subdivisions. Though some flexibility in development projects can be allowed, planners and elected officials should not rely solely on voluntary negotiations to produce environmentally acceptable developments. Planners can use the checklist in Table 1.4 as a guide for reviewing the impacts of proposed developments on the natural environment at a specific location. The answers to the questions in the checklist will help the planning commission in making findings of fact to support its recommendations about a proposed development.

Table 1.4. Environmental Impact Checklist for Reviewing Proposed Development Projects 1.

Is the proposed development consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan and the future land-use map?

2.

Is the proposed development consistent with the zoning ordinance or is a rezoning requested?

3.

Is the proposed development consistent with the subdivision and land-development regulations?

4.

Is the proposed development consistent with the CIP?

5.

What use or uses are proposed in the development?

6.

What is the size of the proposed development, including buildings, acreage, and lot coverage (impervious surface) by buildings, roads, driveways, and sidewalks?

38

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

Table 1.4. (continued) 7.

Can the development be considered a “development of regional impact”?

8.

Could the development have an impact on groundwater supplies or quality?

9.

Could the development have an impact on the water quality of or supply of water in a lake, pond, stream, or wetland?

10.

What will the source of water be? If on-site water is proposed, is there sufficient water to accommodate the use? Is there a possibility the proposed water source could be contaminated from nearby landfills or commercial or industrial uses? Could the on-site use of water adversely affect existing water availability to adjoining properties?

11.

Could the development change stormwater drainage patterns or increase runoff off-site?

12.

Could the development produce significant soil erosion and sedimentation?

13.

How will sewage be disposed of? If on-site sewage disposal is proposed, are soils appropriate and is the lot large enough to provide an adequate absorption field?

14.

How will the development affect air quality?

15.

How will the development affect transportation use and patterns?

16.

How will solid waste, including any toxic substances, from the development be disposed of?

17.

What kind of energy will the development use and where will it come from?

18.

Could the development affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species, sensitive wildlife habitat, or hunting and fishing areas?

19.

Is the development proposed for an area with known natural hazards, especially floodplains and steep slopes?

20.

Would the development affect any scenic views or unique land forms?

21.

Could the development adversely affect nearby agricultural land or forest land operations?

22.

How will the development fit in with the existing built environment in terms of scale, use, and aesthetics?

23.

Will the development spur additional development in the vicinity?

24.

Will the development affect any known archaeological or historic sites or historic buildings?

25.

Will the development generate unreasonable noise, odors, glare, or other off-site impacts that might be considered a nuisance?

26.

What state and federal reviews and permits are needed for approval of the proposed development and have they been obtained?

CHAPTER 1: TAKING STOCK OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND CREATING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS

Summary

A variety of environmental plans exist, but a plan is useful only if it is implemented through regulations, incentives, public and private investments, and day-to-day decisions about development proposals. A long-standing challenge for local governments has been to include environmental issues in the traditional comprehensive plan. One way to do this is to put environmentally oriented goals and objectives in the comprehensive plan. But it is vitally important to emphasize the implementation of these environmental goals and objectives through an action plan of regulations, incentives, and infrastructure investments. Several local governments have adopted special environmental plans both to give environmental issues priority and to spell out specific strategies. These special plans include climate action plans, green infrastructure plans, environmental policy plans, and sustainability plans. It is a good idea to tie these plans to the comprehensive plan, which is the legal basis for zoning and subdivision regulations. States have created environmental plans for wildlife, water management, forests, and outdoor recreation. Regional environmental plans feature special protection plans for fragile ecological areas, river basin plans, metropolitan transportation plans, and growth management plans.

Notes 1. Dowie, M. Losing Ground: American Environmentalism at the Close of the Twentieth Century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995, p. 7. 2. Commoner, B., quoted in Egan, M. Barry Commoner and the Science of Survival: The Remaking of American Environmentalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007, p. 126.

39

3. For example, see the SmartCode at SmartCode Central. Home page. http://smart codecentral.org. 4. Dutchess County, NY. Dutchess County Natural Resources Inventory. 2010. http://www .co.dutchess.ny.us/CountyGov/Departments/ Planning/16138.htm. Retrieved September 10, 2012. 5. Port Washington, WI. A Comprehensive Plan for the City of Port Washington: 2035. Chapter 3: Inventory of Agricultural, Natural, and Cultural Resources. 2009. http://www .cityofportwashington.com/compPlan.html. Retrieved May 22, 2014. 6. Humstone, E., J. Campoli, and A. McLean. Above and Beyond: Visualizing Change in Small Towns and Rural Areas. Chicago: Planners Press, American Planning Association, 2001. 7. Town of Dennis, MA. Draft Local Comprehensive Plan: Human/Built Systems. 2012. http:// dennismalocalcomprehensiveplan.wordpress. com/humanbuilt-systems. Retrieved September 10, 2012. 8. Lancaster County, VA. Lancaster County Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 2: Suitability of Land for Development. 2012. http://www .lancova.com/comp_plan_ch2.pdf. Retrieved September 10, 2012. 9. City of San Francisco. Sustainability Plan, 1997. http://www.sustainable.org/creating -community/community-visioning/717-the-sus tainability-plan-for-the-city-of-san-francisco. Retrieved September 10, 2012. 10. See Hawken, P., A. Lovins, and H. Lovins. Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. Boston: Little, Brown, 1999. 11. Henderson, H. “Planners Library: Keeping It Local.” Review of Local Climate Action Planning, by M. Boswell, A. Grieve, and T. Seale. Planning, February 2012, p. 45. 12. See City of Albany, CA, and ICLEI. Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report. Albany, CA: City of Albany, 2006.

40

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

13. City of Albany, CA. Climate Action Plan, 2010. http://www.albanyca.org/index.aspx? page=256. Retrieved May 16, 2012. 14. Benedict, M., and E. McMahon. Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006. Quoted in Rouse, D., and I. Bunster-Ossa. Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach. Planning Advisory Report Number 571. Chicago: American Planning Association, 2013, p. 10. 15. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005. http://www .millenniumassessment.org/documents/document .356.aspx.pdf. Retrieved June 6, 2013. 16. Rouse, D., and I. Bunster-Ossa. Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach. Planning Advisory Report Number 571. Chicago: American Planning Association, 2013, p. 18. 17. See Benedict, M., and E. McMahon. Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006. 18. Lancaster County, PA, Planning Commission. Greenscapes: The Green Infrastructure Element. Lancaster, PA: Lancaster County Planning Commission, 2009. http://www.lancastercounty planning.org/134/Greenscapes. Retrieved May 22, 2014. 19. City of New York. PlaNYC 2030: A Greener, Greater New York. New York: City of New York, 2007. http://nytelecom.vo.llnwd.net/o15/ agencies/planyc2030/pdf/full_report_2007.pdf. Retrieved May 17, 2012. 20. Ibid., p. 141. 21. City of New York. PlaNYC 2030: A Greener, Greater New York. Update April 2011, pp. 3, 12. http://nytelecom.vo.llnwd.net/o15/agencies/

planyc2030/pdf/planyc_2011_planyc_full_report .pdf. Retrieved May 17, 2012. 22. Ibid., p. 15. 23. City of Grand Rapids, MI. Sustainability Plan, FY 2010-FY 2015: Managing the Economic, Social, and Environmental Resources of the City through a Framework of Sustainability Outcomes and Targets. Grand Rapids, MI: City of Grand Rapids, 2011. http://www.grand-rapids.mi.us/ enterprise-services/officeofenergyandsustain ability/Documents/Sust%20Plan%20as%20 amended%206-21-11.pdf. Retrieved May 22, 2014. 24. Ibid., pp. 27–31. 25. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. “Source Water Protection Program.” http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp ?area=home&subject=copr&topic=swp. Retrieved May 17, 2012. 26. See Lapping, M., and O. Furuseth, eds. Big Places, Big Plans: Large-Scale Regional Planning in North America. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate, 2004. 27. Delaware River Basin Commission. Comprehensive Plan, 2001. http://www.state.nj.us/ drbc/library/documents/comprehensive_plan .pdf. Retrieved May 20, 2012. 28. Envision Utah. The History of Envision Utah, 2003. http://envisionutah.org/about/mis sion-history. Retrieved May 18, 2014. 29. Utah Transit Authority. Trax Fact Sheet, 2012. http://www.rideuta.com/uploads/Fact Sheets_TRAX_2012.pdf. Retrieved May 21, 2012. 30. Daybreak, Utah. Home page. http://www .Daybreakutah.com. 31. Metropolitan Area Planning Council. MetroFuture Plan, 2008. http://www.metro future.org. Retrieved May 21, 2012.

Chapter 2

THE LEGAL, ECONOMIC, ETHICAL, AND ECOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

It is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and Local Governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practical means and measures . . . to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans. —National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C., Section 4331, Title 1)

The ecosystem is greater than the sum of its parts. —Eugene Odum1

Planning is a technical and political process, but it occurs within a framework of laws and regulations, economic feasibility, personal values, and natural resource systems. This chapter describes the evolution of environmental law in the U.S., the tools of environmental economics, ethical beliefs about the interaction between humans and their environment, and basic science for environmental planning.

2.1: Legal Issues in Environmental Planning The law is a set of rules of behavior for individuals, companies, and governments. Environmental laws spell out the ground rules for protecting air and water quality, public health, wildlife, sensitive lands, and public lands. Environmental law is embodied in several state

42

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

and federal laws, regulations, and legal rulings. Local officials, planning staffs, business operators, and interested citizens should understand how state and federal environmental laws and regulations influence local and regional environmental planning efforts. Environmental plans, regulations, and planning decisions must be legally sound, or they risk being overturned in the courts. I do not offer legal advice here. For legal opinions and advice, I recommend that you consult an attorney. Constitutional Law

Constitutional law stems from the common law and interpretations of the U.S. Constitution by the nation’s courts. The Fifth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution form the basic legal framework for environmental and land-use laws. These three amendments are especially important to consider when communities are setting up new land-use and environmental management programs and making day-to-day decisions about development proposals on private land. The Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment states “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” A government regulation goes too far and results in a “taking” of private property if it restricts the use of that property to the point that no reasonable economic use of the property remains. In such a case, the courts will find the regulation unconstitutional and strike it (see Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon, 260, U.S. 393 [1922]). In Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission, 112 S.Ct. 2886 (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the commission went too far in restricting all Lucas’s rights to build on his beachfront property without paying him just compensation. The Supreme Court held that the government regulation violated Lucas’s Fifth Amendment rights and so was invalidated.

The common law does not give a landowner an absolute right to do whatever the landowner wants to with his or her land. Government regulations may legally reduce private property values or dampen their potential increase if the regulations further a public interest and protect the public health, safety, or welfare. For example, limitations on building on wetlands, floodplains, or steep slopes may be justified as protecting public health and safety. Regulations must have a “rational nexus,” or connection to the protection goal, and any reduction in property value must be “proportional” to the potential impacts of the proposed development. Governments, however, must be careful in negotiating with developers over exactions of money for infrastructure and dedications of land in the subdivision review process. Exactions and dedications must reflect the impacts of that particular development. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), arose over the city’s requirement that the Dolans donate land for a bicycle path in return for permission to expand their hardware business. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Dolans, saying there was no connection (rational nexus) between what the Dolans had proposed and what the city was requiring. Also, the requirement of the bicycle path was not proportional to the size of the Dolans’ land-development proposal and hence was unreasonable. In short, the donation of land for a bicycle path would have been a taking of private property. The Court did affirm that developers may still be required to dedicate land for roads as part of the land-development process, but local governments need to have clear standards and not ask for dedications that are unrelated to the proposed development.2 Although a government cannot take private property without paying just compensation, a government is also under no obligation to guarantee a private landowner’s return on a land investment. Holding private property for

CHAPTER 2: FOUNDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

investment, just like owning stocks and bonds, carries an element of risk. Government investments in infrastructure, such as new roads or a new sewer line, may increase the value of privately owned land, just as government landuse regulations may reduce or limit private property value. In the 1990s, several states passed laws requiring governments to compensate landowners for new regulations that reduce the value of a property by a certain percentage. Perhaps the most famous of these laws is Florida’s Bert Harris Act, which has made downzoning property virtually impossible, even though many rural parts of the state are zoned for one-, two-, and five-acre minimum lot sizes, which have produced rural residential sprawl. Ironically, throughout the U.S., many of the complaints from landowners have come from federal government regulations on wetlands and endangered species, not local zoning regulations. Properties declared wetlands under the Clean Water Act and properties designated as critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act for threatened or endangered plant or animal species may be tightly restricted as to their use. In response, since 1990, the federal government has offered compensation to landowners who voluntarily sell conservation easements banning the development of wetlands for 30 years or in perpetuity. By 2012, the federal government had purchased easements on more than 2.3 million acres of privately owned wetlands (see Chapter 11).3 The federal government has not, however, offered compensation to owners of lands with threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Instead, the federal government has negotiated hundreds of Habitat Conservation Plans with developers and landowners to designate areas where development is allowed and critical habitat where development is not allowed (see Chapter 10). The Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment allows state governments to use their police

43

power to protect the public health, safety, welfare, and morals. Each state has in turn delegated some of this authority to local governments. There are six so-called Dillon Rule states where a local government cannot adopt a landuse regulation unless the legislature has given its approval. In other states, the concept of “home rule” applies, which allows local governments to adopt land-use regulations without the approval of the state legislature. State governments use police power to impose safety standards, such as speed limits on roads. Local governments exercise police power when they adopt zoning and subdivision regulations over the use of private land. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the legality of zoning as a valid exercise of government police power under the Tenth Amendment in the landmark case Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926). Zoning separates potentially conflicting land uses, such as houses and factories, which could otherwise put people at risk of injury or ill health. Zoning also serves to protect property values. Subdivision regulations require that new developments meet standards in design, safety, and services, such as water supply, stormwater management, and sewage disposal. A tension between the Fifth and Tenth Amendments persists in environmental and land-use law and will continue to be at the center of legal battles involving property owners, governments, and citizens groups. Landowners typically view their property as a financial asset. The more development the property can support, the higher the value of the property. But the development of property has implications for public service costs, environmental quality, and overall quality of life in a neighborhood or community. The government as regulator is often placed in a middle position between the property owner proposing a development and members of the community who oppose the development.

44

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

The Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment proclaims, “No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Due process means that a person has the right to a fair and speedy trial or government decision. Governments that seek to delay development by dragging out their deliberations not only cost developers and taxpayers money but also violate the developers’ rights to a decision within a reasonable time frame. Governments must also follow correct procedures, including public notice of public hearings and meetings, or else risk legal challenge. Equal protection means that governments cannot enact laws or regulations that discriminate against anyone based on race, creed, color, or sex. An important issue that arises under the Fourteenth Amendment is environmental justice. All Americans have the right to a clean and healthy environment. But in practice, this is not always the case. For instance, minorities are more likely to live near a hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facility. Likewise, low-income neighborhoods tend to have more landfills and waste transfer stations. Siting such locally unwanted land uses (known as LULUs) has become a matter of fairness. The federal government must consider environmental justice in its actions, and several local governments have adopted this approach. The equal protection clause is meant to ensure that governments treat all citizens and like-situated properties similarly. For example, the practice of “spot zoning”—such as allowing a large commercial use in the middle of a single-family residential zone—could be interpreted as an illegal act of favoritism toward one property owner. Government officials may not make “arbitrary and capricious” decisions and must support their decisions with written findings of facts that are available to the public.

The Fourteenth Amendment also implies an individual’s right to free travel under the equal protection clause. The right of free travel means that an American citizen may live anywhere in the U.S. A state, county, town, or township cannot prevent a person from moving into that jurisdiction by banning all new residential construction. The exception to this is a temporary moratorium on new construction, usually for no more than 18 months in order to upgrade sewer or water facilities or to draft a new comprehensive plan or zoning ordinance. The use of large minimum lot size zoning in a single-family residential district may be declared exclusionary by the courts and overturned. The right of free travel is one of the fundamental liberties that Americans enjoy, especially in a society where many people move several times during their lives. But the right of free travel can pose challenges to communities as they seek to provide a sustainable quality environment in the face of increasing populations. The courts have supported attempts to limit building permits and the extension of sewer and water lines that would induce premature growth and adversely impact the environment. The City of Petaluma, California, located 40 miles north of San Francisco, enacted a growth control ordinance in the early 1970s to limit the number of building permits involving projects with five or more units to no more than 500 dwelling units a year, based on sewer and water capacity. Petaluma also established a city growth boundary with a goal of limiting the population to 55,000. Although a federal district court found the Petaluma ordinance a violation of the right of free travel under the Fourteenth Amendment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the decision. The Court of Appeals ruled that Petaluma had not been unreasonable or arbitrary in setting the cap on building permits and supported the city’s ordinance

CHAPTER 2: FOUNDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

as a valid use of the Tenth Amendment police power to promote the public welfare: “We conclude therefore that under Belle Terre and Los Altos Hills the concept of the public welfare is sufficiently broad to uphold Petaluma’s desire to preserve its small town character, its open spaces and low density of population, and to grow at an orderly and deliberate pace” (Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma, 375 F. Supp. 574, 6 ERC 1453 [N.D. Cal. 1974], p. 1). The goal of orderly and deliberate growth was also at the heart of the Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo, 30 N.Y.2d 359, 334 N.Y.S.2d 138, 285 N.E.2d 291 (1972), appeal dismissed, 409 U.S. 1003 (1972). In the late 1960s, Ramapo, New York, located about 40 miles northwest of New York City, set up a permit development system that required what is now known as concurrency; that is, a developer had to show that adequate infrastructure to service a proposed development was in place or would be put in place by the developer before development could occur. The town had drafted its capital improvements program for the next 18 years and would allow “phased growth” in specific “tiers” of land over time. The tier closest to the town center would have infrastructure for development in years one to six, the next tier farther out would receive public infrastructure in years 7 to 13, and the outermost tier would have infrastructure in years 14 to 18. The premature expansion of sewer, water, police, fire, and schools to the outer tiers would not be allowed, unless private developers were willing to pay for it. The Ramapo case is significant because the courts upheld the public goals of concurrency and phased growth and rejected arguments of takings and the restriction of free travel. Ramapo did not place a cap or moratorium on growth, nor did it try to be exclusionary. The New York Supreme Court determined that the Town of Ramapo’s permit system and

45

capital improvements plan would “provide a balanced cohesive community dedicated to the efficient utilization of land” (at 302). Ironically, the Town of Ramapo scrapped its growth management system in the early 1980s. But the concepts of phased growth, adequate public facilities, and concurrency soon became standard practices in other communities. Legislative and Statutory Law

Both Congress and state legislatures may enact legislation that becomes legislative law. Legislative law changes the law through amendments or new laws, unlike judicial law, in which judges interpret existing law. New legislative laws become statutory laws and are compiled in federal and state law books. Legislative law also refers to actions by county legislatures and commissioners as well as local city and town councils that create new laws and ordinances. For instance, a city council could pass a local nuisance ordinance banning noise above 80 decibels. Federal environmental legislative law emerged from a broad public concern about threats to public health and the loss of wilderness areas and wildlife habitat (see Table 2.1). The Clean Air Act of 1970, the Clean Water Act of 1972, and the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 have led to improvements in the nation’s air and water quality. The Resources Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 and the Superfund Law of 1980 have established rules for the manufacture, handling, disposal, and cleanup of toxic substances. The Wilderness Act of 1964 created the nation’s wilderness system, currently at more than 103 million acres, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 was passed to avoid the extinction of plant and animal species on both public and private land. Except for the Wilderness Act, which covers only federal land, the previously mentioned laws apply to

46

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

Table 2.1. Major Federal Environmental Laws, 1970–2012 1970

National Environmental Policy Act (PL 90-190) Clean Air Act Amendments (PL 91-224) Resource Recovery Act (PL 91-512) Occupational Safety and Health Act (PL 91-596)

1972

Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act (PL 91-224) Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (Clean Water Act; PL 92-500) Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (PL 92-532) Ocean Dumping Act (PL 92-532) Noise Control Act (PL 92-574) Coastal Zone Management Act (PL 92-583)

1973

Endangered Species Act (PL 93-205) Flood Disaster Protection Act (PL 93-234)

1974

Safe Drinking Water Act (PL 93-523)

1976

Toxic Substances Control Act (PL 94-469) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (PL 94-580)

1977

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (PL 95-87)

1980

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (the “Superfund” law; PL 96-510)

1984

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (PL 98-616)

1985

Food Security Act (PL 99-198)

1986

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (PL 99-499)

1990

Oil Pollution Act (PL 101-380) Pollution Prevention Act (PL 101-508) Clean Air Act Amendments (PL 101-549)

1994

National Flood Insurance Reform Act (PL 103-325)

1996

Food Quality Protection Act (PL 104-170) Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments (PL 104-182)

1999

Chemical Safety Information, Site Security, and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act (PL 106-40)

2002

Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (PL 107-118)

2005

Energy Policy Act (PL 109-58)

CHAPTER 2: FOUNDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

47

4331 et seq., established a process for the review of federal projects, policies, and investments that could affect environmental quality and result in the irreversible use of natural resources. NEPA created the Council on Environmental Quality to draft the regulations to The National Environmental Policy Act implement NEPA, oversee the NEPA process, The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and publish reports on the nation’s environPublic Law 91-190 (1969), 42 U.S.C., Section mental conditions and progress. all governments, businesses, and individuals. Parts of these laws are reactive in responding to pollution damage, and other parts are proactive in aiming to prevent pollution or degradation.

Box 2.1. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 extended the goals of public health and safety to include the workplace environment. Employers must provide workers with workplaces that meet standards of exposure to toxic chemicals, noise levels, mechanical dangers, heat or cold stress, and indoor air quality. The act created the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to conduct research on workplace safety as well as the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) in the U.S. Department of Labor to administer and enforce the health and safety standards. In many cases, OSHA is the most powerful federal agency when it comes to the indoor environment. Moreover, OSHA has put America’s indoor environment on a par with the outdoor environment. It can be argued that the air quality in a factory in Los Angeles is just as important as the air quality over the Grand Canyon.4

Box 2.2. How Environmental Legislation Becomes Law When Congress passes legislation to create a law, there are several additional steps that must happen before the law actually takes effect. Legislation emerges from a political coalition, even within the same political party. Next, the legislation is drafted and reviewed by one or more congressional committees. The legislation must then be passed by both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives and signed by the president. The next step determines which federal agency should write the administrative

rules to implement the law. In the case of environmental legislation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is usually assigned to write the administrative rules. The rules are then presented for public comment. In many cases, the EPA will have to defend those rules in court. If successful in court, the EPA issues a date at which businesses, individuals, and government agencies must comply with the law. The EPA has the responsibility to monitor compliance and enforce the law.

48

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

The expressed purposes of NEPA are to 1. fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as a trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; 2. ensure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; 3. attain the widest range of beneficial use of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable or unintended consequences;

3. alternatives to the proposed action and the likely impacts of those alternatives; 4. the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; 5. any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the proposed action, should it be implemented; and 6. ways to minimize the negative impacts of the proposed action.5

4. preserve important historic, cultural, and A federal agency must first determine natural aspects of our national heritage whether NEPA applies. If a proposed project and maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and a involves more than one federal agency, a lead agency may be named to conduct the NEPA variety of individual choices; review. The federal agency has two options: it 5. achieve a balance between population may make a finding of no significant impact and resource use that will permit high (FONSI), or it may decide that an EIS is necesstandards of living and a wide sharing of sary. A federal agency decision that NEPA does life’s amenities; and not apply to a proposed action can be chal6. enhance the quality of renewable lenged in court, and several court cases have resources and approach maximum attain- involved the question of whether NEPA applies able recycling of depletable resources. to a specific action. If the federal agency decides that NEPA The heart of NEPA is the environmental does apply, the agency must then determine impact statement (EIS) process, which screens whether an EIS is required before it can impleall proposed federal projects, funding, per- ment its project or action. If the agency rules mits, policies, and actions for potential envi- that an EIS is necessary, it must publish a notice ronmental effects. NEPA also applies to federal in the Federal Register. The agency then must agency decisions to approve, fund, or license draft an EIS and circulate it for comments to fedactions by state and local governments or the eral, state, and local government agencies with expertise and jurisdiction as well as to the pubprivate sector. lic. The comment period typically lasts 90 days. The EIS must describe and evaluate Following the comment period, the agency drafts a final version of the EIS, spelling 1. the current conditions and the environout environmental protection measures that mental impact of the proposed action; must accompany the proposed agency action. 2. any adverse environmental effects that As an alternative to project-by-project review cannot be avoided should the proposal under NEPA, a federal agency may also prepare a “program impact statement” to allow for a be implemented;

CHAPTER 2: FOUNDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

single review of several related projects, such as logging in a national forest.6 The U.S. Department of Transportation writes the most EIS reports, mainly for road construction projects. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is another leading agency in preparing EIS reviews, usually for water-related projects. NEPA also requires all federal agencies to review their statutory authority, administrative regulations, and current policies to determine necessary measures to comply with the act. But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is exempt from NEPA when taking actions under the Clean Air Act and in issuing pollution discharge permits under the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1972. However, the Clean Water Act exemption from NEPA does not apply to new point sources of water pollution, such as factories (see Chapter 6). The EIS process is designed to provide full disclosure of the impacts of federal actions that may affect the environment. State and local governments and the public have the opportunity to participate in the review of proposed federal actions. Public scrutiny is necessary because the quality of EIS reviews can vary from federal agency to agency and because federal actions under NEPA may involve major projects that affect important natural resources and large geographic areas. Consider the following major NEPA cases: • Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission, 449 F.2d 1109, 2 ERC 1779 (D.C. Cir. 1971), mandated an EIS for the federal licensing of a private utility to construct a nuclear power plant. • Named Individual Members of the San Antonio Conservation Society v. Texas Highway Department, 446 F.2d 1013, 2 ERC 1871 (5th Cir. 1971), resulted in a ruling that a major road project could not be reviewed as small, individual segments as a way to try to avoid

49

NEPA review. This ruling has important implications for development master plans that propose construction over several years. • United States v. 247.37 Acres of Land, F. Supp., 12 ELR 20513 (S.D. Ohio 1971), in which the court ruled that an EIS may apply to the condemnation of 247 acres of land for a flood control project. Environmental groups have filed numerous legal challenges under NEPA in order to delay or thwart proposed development projects. For instance, completion of the Tellico Dam was temporarily halted by Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978), in which the Court ruled that building the dam would endanger the survival of a small fish, the snail darter, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. A shortcoming of NEPA is that it creates a reactive rather than proactive process. Federal government planning often involves responding to state and local requests for projects rather than a carefully considered set of federal investments. NEPA has been criticized for not stopping federal projects and for enabling federal investments that have produced sprawling metropolitan development.7 When local and regional planners review development proposals, the first question they might ask is, is any federal money or permitting involved? And if the answer is yes, the next question should be, has a federal agency made a determination whether NEPA applies? If no determination has been made, the project should be tabled until the federal agency has rendered a decision. If a finding of no significant impact is made, the local review can continue. If an EIS is required, it should be thoroughly reviewed by local planners and officials, and they should decide whether to submit comments in writing within the allowed comment period.

50

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

State Planning and Zoning Enabling Legislation

In the 1920s, the federal government drafted the model Zoning Enabling Act and the model Planning Enabling Act. All states borrowed from these acts in drafting their own planning and zoning enabling legislation that allows local governments to adopt comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances. The planning and zoning enabling legislation varies from state to state. In some states, the planning and zoning enabling legislation has not been updated for decades. Also, the specific landuse controls that are allowed may differ from state to state. For example, Connecticut does not allow local governments to zone land for agriculture, while California does. State constitutions describe the powers of state governments and the authority that the states delegate to cities, counties, villages, and townships. State legislatures may enact specific enabling legislation to grant additional powers to local governments. Recall that most states are known as “home rule” states because the states have granted their local governments the authority to adopt comprehensive plans and land-use regulations. In the six Dillon Rule states without home rule, the state legislature must pass enabling legislation for local governments to use certain practices, such as the transfer of development rights to protect open space and move the development potential to designated growth areas (see Chapter 14). Most states, however, permit a wide variety of planning and zoning techniques. Some states, notably Oregon and Washington, require local governments to adopt comprehensive plans that then must be reviewed and approved by the state according to statewide planning goals. State Environmental Policy Acts

Twenty-two states have adopted State Environmental Policy Acts (SEPAs), which are similar

to NEPA in requiring a review of state projects and actions and sometimes local government and private projects and actions that could adversely impact the environment. Fifteen states require state agencies to follow the EIS, and six states extend this requirement to local government actions. Some states (specifically Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, and Washington) apply the environmental review process to cover private developments that are subject to land-use regulations. Four states apply the EIS only to certain public projects. Three states adopted the EIS approach administratively rather than through legislation. Planners should check whether their state has a SEPA and what it requires in the review of development proposals.8 As under NEPA, the state government, localities, and private parties must either obtain a “negative declaration” (known in shorthand as a “neg dec”) of no significant impact or draft an acceptable EIS. NEPA and the SEPAs cannot take the place of the community or regional comprehensive plan with an Environmental Action Plan component. The comprehensive plan, described in Chapter 1, can help identify the best locations for different types of development. And the Environmental Action Plan can recommend appropriate planning techniques and strategies to implement the comprehensive plan and protect environmental quality. Both NEPA and the SEPAs react to development proposals rather than create proactive planning. They allow for the review of projects at locations that may not be appropriate for the type of development proposed. For instance, the proposed site may have no zoning or the zoning may be out of date. The site may have severe development constraints, inadequate infrastructure, or important on-site or nearby environmental resources. Yet the typical NEPA or SEPA applicant has already heavily invested in one particular site. The applicant has often acquired the site and has spent a large amount

CHAPTER 2: FOUNDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

of money on engineering and other costs in planning the development of the site. Applicants and reviewing bodies may be reluctant to seriously consider alternative locations. Moreover, NEPA and SEPA reviews only occasionally result in the outright denial of a project. While NEPA and SEPAs can enhance local environmental planning, they should not be relied on as a substitute for it. Proactive local and regional planning can balance growth with environmental protection while saving developers, governments, and concerned citizens both time and money. The State of Washington has recognized this and has combined local reviews of development under its 1990 Growth Management Act with its SEPA. The combined review is more thorough, better coordinated, and quicker than separate state and local development reviews. Administrative Law

Whether or not statutory law sets up a government program, government agencies need to adopt rules and regulations to implement the statute. These rules and regulations are known as administrative law. When government agencies make decisions based on the rules and regulations, those decisions have the force of law. For example, Chapter 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations describes the regulations that the EPA follows and enforces to implement a host of environmental statutes. When a state air pollution control agency grants an indirect air pollution control permit so that a regional mall can expand the amount of parking by 2,000 spaces, that is an administrative law action. Similarly, a state agency’s reclassification of a body of water from Class A (fishable/swimmable) to Class C (impaired) would be an exercise of administrative law (see Table 6.4 in Chapter 6).

51

Four federal agencies set rules and regulations that directly affect the environment: the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, and the EPA. State environmental agencies go by several different names, such as the department of natural resources, the department of environmental conservation, and the department of environmental protection, among others. These state agencies are responsible for administering state environmental laws and regulations and coordinating state compliance with federal laws and regulations. Local government agencies that draft environmental regulations may include county planning departments, county health departments, a township planning department, a city planning department, and in larger cities, a city department of environmental affairs. Judicial Law (Case Law)

Judicial law or case law is created through legal rulings on cases brought before a court. One or more judges are asked to interpret how the U.S. Constitution and existing laws and regulations apply to a particular situation. In rendering a decision, judges in effect “make law.” For example, in Just v. Marinette County, 210 N.W.2d 761 (1972), a Wisconsin court upheld a county shoreline zoning ordinance that restricted resource lands (in this case, a wetland) to natural uses as a reasonable exercise of the police power. Judicial law has been important in interpreting the Fifth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments and in understanding, upholding, and enforcing laws. Nonprofit environmental organizations have been especially active in filing suits against the federal government to compel the government to enforce its own environmental laws. Environmental organizations also have sued corporations to force them to

52

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

comply with federal statutes. Both the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act allow private citizens to sue violators, even though private citizens cannot collect damages in those cases; instead, if a court levies a fine, the violator pays the fine

to the federal government. Also, a polluter cannot avoid a fine by agreeing to abide by the pollution laws after a suit has been initiated. State courts have jurisdiction over state and local land-use and environmental laws.

Box 2.3. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 3. bring enforcement actions against (EPA) was created through an executive state and local government agencies order by President Nixon in December of that are not carrying out environmen1970, partly in response to the first Earth tal laws and regulations; Day on April 22, 1970. The agency has 4. levy fines on violators of environmental broad regulatory powers that affect nearly laws and standards; every industry and local government in the nation. The EPA has the authority to imple- 5. undertake legal actions against polluters; ment and enforce a wide variety of environmental laws, such as the Clean Water Act; 6. initiate the cleanup of hazardous waste Safe Drinking Water Act; Clean Air Act; Toxic sites; Substances Control Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; Resource 7. ban the production of hazardous substances, such as DDT and PCBs; Conservation and Recovery Act; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compen- 8. require states to link land-use planning sation, and Liability Act (the Superfund for and the management of air quality; toxic waste cleanup); and others. The regula- 9. withhold federal highway funds from tions that the EPA administers to implement states and metropolitan regions that these laws are found in Chapter 40 of the do not meet National Ambient Air Code of Federal Regulations. Quality Standards; and As of 2012, the EPA had almost 16,000 employees; 10 regional offices in addition 10. conduct research on toxic substances and set safety standards for air and to its Washington, DC, headquarters; 10 water quality based on “good science.” research laboratories; and an annual budget 9 of slightly less than $9 billion. The EPA has the authority to The EPA has a difficult job. On the one hand, the agency serves as the primary 1. present testimony on EISs through the guardian of America’s public health and enviNEPA; ronment. On the other, it can be subject to the whims of whichever political party is in 2. block large development projects that the White House. Finally, the extent of EPA’s it feels would do irreversible environmental damage or violate federal envi- administrative authority is often challenged in long and expensive legal battles. ronmental laws;

CHAPTER 2: FOUNDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

State courts often differ about how far environmental management techniques may go in restricting land use. For instance, Pennsylvania courts have upheld conservation zoning of one dwelling per 10 acres and agricultural zoning of one dwelling per 50 acres. Quasi-Judicial Rulings

Judicial actions interpret the law. Quasi-judicial rulings (quasi meaning “as if”) also interpret the law based on facts, but the ruling is made by a publicly appointed board or elected officials, not by a judge. Government boards and elected officials make quasi-judicial rulings on the basis of a record of facts following a hearing. A quasijudicial ruling usually applies to a single landowner or a single property where the applicant has requested an exemption from or a change to a local land-use ordinance, such as a waiver, variance, or rezoning. In these cases, elected officials or appointed boards are called on to render a judgment on an issue that benefits one individual rather than the general public. Therefore, the officials or boards must observe due process by giving proper notice of a public hearing and making written findings of fact to support their decision. For instance, planning commissions often make quasi-judicial rulings when deciding whether to allow the rezoning of a property. The Zoning Board of Adjustment commonly makes quasi-judicial rulings on zoning variances for setback requirements for additions to buildings. A quasi-judicial ruling may be appealed to a court of law. Common Law and Property Rights

Many judicial decisions are based on common law. Common law decisions are based on legal precedents. By contrast, civil law is based on written legislation and gives judges wider

53

latitude in interpretation. Common law comes from the traditions of English law that are hundreds of years old. For example, there are landowners who believe that they should be able to do whatever they want with their land. But this sentiment runs counter to the common law tradition that a person cannot use land in ways that bring harm to neighbors. Another example of common law is the public trust doctrine, which dates back to Roman law. The public trust doctrine holds that government has an obligation to make certain resources available for the enjoyment of all citizens. Today, the public trust doctrine most often applies to public access to navigable waterways. On this basis, many states claim that all lands below the mean high-water mark are state property and should be managed for the public benefit. Common law contributed significantly to the origins of private property rights in America. In early colonial days, the creation of private property in land was not meant to give landowners total control. As William Cronon explains in Changes in the Land, “The passage of land from town commons to individual property was intended to create permanent property rights. These rights were never absolute since both town and colony retained sovereignty and could impose restrictions on how land might be used.”10 The use of private property has been a fundamental, important liberty and a major source of wealth creation in America. But as the number of Americans increased, the greater were the chances that the actions of one landowner might infringe on the welfare of neighbors or the community-at-large. A private landowner owns a bundle of rights to a property. These rights include air rights, water rights, mineral rights, the right to sell all or part of the property, the right to pass the property on to heirs, the right to lease the property, the right to use the property, and the right to develop the property. Any single right may be separated from the bundle and

54

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

sold or given away. For instance, it has long been a common practice for landowners to sell mineral rights to mining companies. But with rights also come responsibilities. A landowner cannot use or develop the property in ways that would harm others. A landowner has the right to defend his or her property through legal means against trespass across the property and against nuisances occurring on neighboring properties. A property owner also has the right to challenge government land-use regulations. The Legal Pecking Order

Which type of environmental law takes precedence over another? Constitutional law cases, especially rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, have the most clout. The Supreme Court, for instance, can rule that laws passed by Congress or a state legislature are unconstitutional. Generally, legislative law supersedes administrative law. The issue is whether the administrative rules adopted by a government agency are consistent with the letter or intent of legislation passed by Congress or a state legislature that established the program for the agency to administer. That determination is usually made by a judge in a court of law. Federal laws have greater authority than state or local laws. Federal laws can mandate that state and local governments take certain actions. Sometimes the federal government will make money available for state and local governments to carry out these mandates, such as federal funding for water treatment plants. But in some instances, the federal government enacts “unfunded mandates” that require state and local governments to take certain actions without the help of federal funding. State laws may be more protective of the environment than federal laws, and local laws more protective than state laws, provided that

there is no violation of the Constitution. In such cases, a law from a lower level of government may supersede that of a higher level. Legal Aspects of the Comprehensive Plan and What to Look for in a Development Review

Planners and local elected officials should work with an attorney who specializes in landuse law to ensure that local zoning and subdivision regulations and other ordinances have a solid legal foundation and are operated fairly, openly, and with careful attention to proper procedure. The attorney should review the comprehensive plan and especially the purpose and goal statements in the plan that help resist legal challenge. The attorney should also review the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations for legal correctness and consistency with the comprehensive plan. It is also a good idea to have a book on land-use law available as a reference.11 As local planners and elected officials review development proposals, they should be aware of the state and federal laws and regulations that may apply in addition to local ordinances. In some cases, the development review process can go beyond the local jurisdiction to involve state environmental agencies and the EPA. The more levels of government review, the more costly and time-consuming the review process is likely to be. The following chapters discuss specific state and federal laws and programs that shape local government planning decisions about proposed developments.

2.2: Economic Reasons for Environmental Planning Economics is the study of how scarce resources of land, labor, and capital are allocated among

CHAPTER 2: FOUNDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

competing uses. A central principle in economics is scarcity: there are not enough resources to satisfy everyone’s needs and desires.12 Therefore, individuals, businesses, and governments must make choices about the use of resources. Environmental economics is the study of how scarce natural resources are allocated among competing choices and how human production and consumption choices influence pollution levels and overall environmental quality. Choices also involve trade-offs. Making a certain choice closes out other options; for example, placing land under a conservation easement means that it cannot be developed for houses or stores. Economics can help individuals, businesses, and governments make choices that affect the environment. Economic Efficiency

An important concept in evaluating choices is efficiency. A choice is efficient if it gives a consumer the most satisfaction or a producer the most profit. The use of natural resources is efficient if it produces the most output per unit of input with the least amount of waste. Government is efficient if it maximizes the general welfare of its constituents. For instance, government programs that protect air and water quality may be efficient in improving the quality of life in a community or region. Yet there may be very real differences between decisions that are efficient for private individuals and businesses and those that promote the welfare of the general public. That is why the private use of air, water, and land resources is often moderated by government regulations. Moreover, every decision about the use of natural resources comes at the cost of a forgone opportunity. Economists also point out the need to understand who gains and who loses from economic decisions as well as the size of the gains and losses. Generally, if the overall

55

gains exceed the losses, a decision is considered an improvement in efficiency. Renewable and nonrenewable resources. There are two main types of natural resources: renewable and nonrenewable. A renewable resource is able to regenerate, either by itself or with human help, over a short to moderate time horizon. Fish, food crops, and trees are common renewable resources. A nonrenewable resource cannot create more of itself within a time horizon that is useful to humans. Oil, hard rock minerals, and water trapped in deep aquifers are examples of nonrenewable resources. Land has elements of both renewable and nonrenewable resources. Land can renewably produce crops and trees. The productivity of land can be enhanced, such as with fertilizers, or degraded by improper use, such as overgrazing or soil erosion. The quantity and location of land are essentially fixed like a nonrenewable resource. Access to land, the uses that land can be put to, and the proximity of land to amenities are the sources of land value. We can think of natural resources as a stock of resources, such as oil reserves or fish, or as a renewable flow, such as crops from the land. The stock of renewable resources, such as fish, can increase or decrease over time. But it is possible to turn a renewable resource into a nonrenewable resource through depletion and extinction. Natural resources can also be described in terms of physical supply and economic supply. The physical supply is the total amount of a resource that exists. The economic supply is the amount that is cost-effective to obtain through mining, harvesting, hunting, and fishing. For example, the economic supply of oil will tend to increase in response to a rise in the market price of oil, even though the physical supply may not change. The higher market price means that it is now attractive for oil companies to search for oil that is more expensive to produce.

56

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

Valuing Environmental Resources: Prices, Markets, and the Government Role

America’s economic system is based on private property and markets for goods, services, and resources in which buyers and sellers make decisions based on prices. Prices provide information not only to individuals as they decide what to purchase but also to companies as they decide what to produce, how to produce it, and for whom. Prices also influence government decisions on what to charge for user fees, such as for public water consumption, and government purchases of goods and services. Prices of nonrenewable resources tend to follow a U-shaped path over time. Initially, nonrenewable resources are expensive to develop. Then, thanks to technology, they become abundant and prices fall. Later, as supplies dwindle, they become expensive again. Renewable resources, on the other hand, tend to be initially abundant and cheap to exploit but become more scarce and expensive over time as the renewable resource is depleted.13 Over time, natural resource prices can fluctuate widely, driven by changes in demand, inflation, deflation, technology, government policies, subsidies, taxes, and substitute products. Economists assume that under perfect competition, no one buyer or seller would be able to influence prices. But Saudi Arabia, which controls about one-fifth of the world’s oil supply, can influence oil prices by deciding how much oil to sell. Prices must accurately reflect the costs of production (land, labor, capital, and management), and market prices and “social prices” (costs of production to society) must be the same for the market system to operate efficiently. Economists have long recognized flaws in the price system, known as “market failures,” especially when it comes to putting a value on natural resources and environmental services.14 Market prices typically do not include the external costs created in the processing

and manufacturing of products. Market prices may cause companies to overproduce environmentally undesirable by-products. For example, when a coal-fired power plant in the Midwest generates electricity, it does not charge its customers a price that includes the cost of the acid rain damage (reduced human health and degraded water quality) that it imposes on residents of the Northeast. The acid rain is an externality, a by-product of burning coal for which there is no market price. In this case, a government-imposed tax may be needed to raise the price of the electricity so that less electricity will be produced, less coal will be burned, and less air pollution generated. This tax, originally proposed in the 1920s by the economist A. C. Pigou, improves efficiency by bringing private costs and public costs in line. In economic terms, the Pigouvian tax is a way to compel companies to “internalize their externalities”; that is, the tax forces companies to charge a price for the electricity that includes the health costs of the air pollution. This new price accounts for all the costs, private and public, in generating coal-fired electricity. As a general rule, it is less costly and hence more efficient to prevent pollution than to clean it up later. Markets often do not put a price on nature and the environmental services that nature provides. What is the value of a wetland? People tend to look at a wetland as a wasteland that cannot be farmed or built on. But wetlands generate a variety of environmental services that people benefit from, including water storage and water filtration, a buffer against destructive storm surges, and a habitat for an array of wildlife, especially waterfowl. Economists have tried to estimate shadow prices for these services, but even so, the value of these services generally does not appear in the market price of a wetland.

CHAPTER 2: FOUNDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

Market prices may not accurately reflect the value of goods and the environment over time. Economic decisions involve trade-offs, such as whether to consume a resource today or at some future date. Prices are a measure of scarcity and should include the opportunity costs of forgone future benefits from consuming a resource now rather than at some future date or using a resource for one purpose instead of another. For example, if a farm field is developed into a housing subdivision, an economist would say that the price of the house lots should be greater than or equal to the cost of developing the lots plus the opportunity cost of not having the land available for farming. There tends to be a bias, however, in favor of consuming sooner instead of later. This bias often shows up in weighing the costs and benefits of an investment project with major environmental impacts, such as a dam. The branch of economics known as welfare economics embodies the concept of equity, or fairness. This is particularly important in the case of intergenerational equity. By consuming nonrenewable resources today, the current generation may well be reducing the ability of future generations to enjoy a good quality standard of living. Recall the definition of sustainability from the Bruntland Report: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”15 Market prices result in the underproduction of public goods. A public good is something that society values, such as a city park. The park is publicly owned, and no one can be excluded from the park because access is free. The private market has little incentive to provide public goods. Hence the market will create fewer public goods than society wants. Thus it is common for local governments to buy land to create parks or to require developers to set aside land or money for parks (known

57

as an exaction) in return for receiving approval for large residential subdivisions. Some privately held resources may have public good aspects, such as the view of privately owned land enjoyed by people who drive by. But there may be no way to force the public to pay the landowner for his or her enjoyment of the view. Moreover, if a community pays to keep the land open, a visitor from outside the community can enjoy the view without paying. This is an example of the free rider problem: how to get everyone who benefits to pay. The market is limited in its ability to allocate common property resources and to account for situations of uncertainty and irreversibility. No one owns a common property resource, such as the air or fish in the ocean. When there are no clearly defined property rights, everyone has an incentive to use as much of the common property resource as he or she wants. Unfortunately, this self-interest can easily lead to the degradation or depletion of the common property resource. In his famous essay “Tragedy of the Commons,” biologist Garrett Hardin describes the commons of New England towns of the 17th and 18th centuries, where any family could freely graze cattle. Because there was no limit on grazing, each family had an incentive to graze as many cattle as possible on the free land. This resulted in the overgrazing of the commons and the eventual reduction of cattle production for everyone.16 The recent drastic decline in many of the fishing stocks in the world’s oceans is a startling example of the tragedy of the commons. In the New England and Pacific fisheries, government-imposed limits on access to fishing grounds have been used to enable the fish stocks to recover. A similar restriction on access has resulted in an increase in the production of crabs in the Chesapeake Bay.17

58

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

The economic model of perfect competition assumes that producers and consumers have perfect information on which to base their choices. But prices reflect the private cost of producing goods and services today, not the uncertainty of supplying future goods and services. Moreover, there are many decisions that are irreversible. As a popular bumper sticker says, “Extinction Is Forever.” The market is a voting system according to dollar votes, and wealth and income are not evenly distributed throughout society. Willingness to pay for goods and services is largely predicated on ability to pay. Economists, however, shy away from making value judgments about wealth or income distribution. Yet consumers, through their dollar “votes,” influence the production of goods and services that have certain environmental consequences. For instance, consumer demand for sport utility vehicles means lower gas mileage and more air pollution compared to consumer demand for hybrid vehicles or electric cars. Because of these flaws in markets and the price system, government intervention may be necessary to establish environmental quality

standards and financial incentives to encourage a more efficient and equitable use of natural resources. Still, there is no guarantee that a government regulation or spending program will produce a more efficient or equitable allocation of environmental resources than the market—that is, market failure is only a necessary condition for government intervention. Market failure alone is not a sufficient condition. A common criticism of government programs is that they “throw money at a problem” for political reasons rather than to make markets perform in more socially desirable ways. Also, governments may subsidize environmentally harmful activities, such as mining, timber harvesting, and oil exploration that waste huge amounts of water, release toxic chemicals, and degrade soil quality.18 On the other hand, a combination of market-based decisions and government standards can result in the conservation of natural resources and greater efficiency, as producers streamline production and cut waste. For example, the EPA’s Energy Star ratings for appliances alert consumers about energy efficiency and help consumers purchase energy-conserving appliances that save consumers money.

Box 2.4. A Note on Economic Incentives and Environmental Planning The federal environmental legislation of the 1970s and 1980s featured “command and control” laws and subsequent regulations. These laws and regulations required businesses and individuals to meet standards for air and water quality using science-based standards and technologies but with little regard to the cost. Beginning in the 1980s, the focus of government shifted from regulation to economic incentives as a way to encourage businesses and individuals to reduce pollution and adopt more environmentally sustainable practices and lifestyles.

There are four main types of economic incentives: (1) pollution charge systems that assess a fee or tax on the amount of pollution that a company or source generates; (2) tradable permits systems, such as “cap and trade,” where an allowable overall level of pollution is established and allocated among companies in the form of permits that can be sold among polluters; (3) reductions in market friction and hence lower transactions costs, such as requirements for labeling the energy efficiency of products; and (4) reducing or eliminating government

CHAPTER 2: FOUNDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

subsidies that promote economically inefficient and environmentally unsound practices, such as the elimination of the federal ethanol subsidy at the end of 2011.19 In its 18th- and 19th-century origins, economics was better known as “political economy.” This term was used to describe how wealth and power are exercised in a community or society as a whole—that is, some people have political clout that enables them to influence government taxation, regulation, and spending programs. These programs in turn affect the market price, allocation, and use of natural resources. In America, companies hire lobbyists and make contributions to political campaigns to influence legislation. For instance, certain industries have enjoyed significant subsidies from the federal government: timber companies have had access to timber on federal land at prices below market value; in the Southwest, farmers and ranchers have received publicly subsidized water; oil companies have received a tax “depletion allowance” for each barrel of oil they pump; and car makers have benefited from publicly financed highways. But perhaps the largest subsidy is the deduction of home mortgage interest for federal income tax purposes, which is worth an estimated $80 billion a year.20 Since World War II, this subsidy has encouraged sprawl and the conversion of millions of acres of farm- and forestlands and natural areas.

How Much Should We Pay to Clean Up Pollution?

59

The federal government apparently believes that food, timber, gasoline, and housing are basic necessities and that it is in the nation’s best interest to provide these goods at discount prices. But the cost of these subsidies has been great. Moreover, these subsidies have rewarded behavior that degrades the environment through air and water pollution; the depletion of soil, water, and energy; and the loss of working landscapes and natural ecological systems. What if federal subsidies rewarded the recycling and reuse of wood and paper products and the production of organically grown crops? There would be less demand for virgin timber, less destruction of wildlife habitat, and less use of energy and water in producing new lumber and paper. There would also be less use of pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers in growing crops. What if the government taxed the use of oil at levels comparable to the Europeans to encourage conservation? There would be less driving, less air pollution, and a strong incentive to drive smaller, more energy-efficient cars and trucks and to use mass transit. And what if there was no mortgage interest deduction, as in Canada? There would be less demand for large houses on large lots and more demand for small houses on small lots. Less space would be needed to accommodate new development, and hence fewer working landscapes and natural areas would be converted to housing subdivisions.

good or the increase in satisfaction to a consumer from obtaining one more unit of the good. These incremental effects are known Economics focuses on incremental effects, as marginal costs and marginal benefits. Idesuch as the effect on the price of a good caused ally, marginal costs equal marginal benefits by the cost of producing one more unit of the and both equal the market price.

60

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

In a perfect world, the extra (marginal) benefit to society from achieving a certain level of cleanup, say, in air quality, should equal the extra (marginal) cost to society of cleaning up the air (see Figure 2.1). The price of pollution cleanup would be price P and the level of cleanup or the cleanliness of the air would be level Q, where marginal social costs and benefits are equal. This would provide the most efficient economic solution even though the maximum benefit of cleanup over cost is at point Z. Cleaning up air pollution beyond the point where the marginal social cost and marginal social benefits are the same would be inefficient. There are diminishing returns to investing in reducing air pollution beyond the point where P and Q meet. Too many resources would be spent achieving that extra unit of cleaner air, and the cost of an extra unit of cleaner air would be greater than the benefit. The shortcoming with this model is that market prices do not account for public health standards or threshold effects. An economically efficient solution may still impose

Marginal cost

X

P1

Marginal benefits

Z

Price of pollution cleanup (in dollars)

Y Quantity of pollution reduction

Q1

Figure 2.1. Optimal Pollution Cleanup

unacceptable health risks and premature deaths. A threshold effect is the amount of pollution an ecosystem can absorb before it “crashes” and can no longer support life. For instance, in the 1960s, Lake Erie was considered biologically dead. The lake had become so polluted that there were virtually no fish left. But the price of the goods the polluters of the lake made and the price households paid for sewage disposal (or lack thereof ) did not reflect the fact that pollution was killing the lake. If the price of the goods and sewage disposal had included the externality costs of pollution, less pollution would have been generated, and Lake Erie would have been better able to assimilate the lower pollution level. In the case of Lake Erie, government intervention in the form of water-quality standards and requirements for sewage treatment plants appear well justified. The lake has since recovered as a fishery and recreation area, though challenges still remain. The U.S. has been willing to make large investments to control air and water pollution and solid waste. From 1972 to 1994, Americans spent more than $1.5 trillion to control and reduce air and water pollution and solid waste.21 The EPA has projected that in 2020, businesses and governments will pay $65 billion to comply with the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. But the act will generate nearly $2 trillion in public health and environmental benefits.22 Congress has authorized more than $78 billion for sewage treatment plant construction and upgrades since 1972.23 The U.S. spent more than $52 billion on managing solid waste in 2010, up from $39.4 billion in 2000.24 Employment in environmental industries rose from 462,500 in 1980 to more than 1.6 million workers in 2010,25 and revenues from these businesses climbed from $52 million in 1980 to more than $316 billion in 2010.26

CHAPTER 2: FOUNDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

Valuing Environmental Services and Analyzing Environmental Improvement Projects

One of the biggest challenges economists face is putting a dollar value on the services that the environment performs. Natural resources have three kinds of value that people may be willing to pay for. The first is use value, such as when a person pays a fee to enter a national park to use the hiking trails and see the geologic wonders. Second is option value. For example, a person donates money to a private nature preserve to maintain the preserve and keep open the option of visiting the preserve at some future date. Third is existence value. People can derive satisfaction from knowing that a natural feature such as a free-flowing river exists, even though they may never visit the river. These people may be willing to contribute funds to an environmental group that is committed to keeping the river free flowing. We often take for granted the environmental benefits that ecosystems perform for free, such as recycling waste and filtering air and water. Globally, according to the American Planning Association, ecosystems provided life-supporting services (estimated to be worth nearly as much as the total gross world economic output in 2000, or about $33 trillion).27 Take, for example, the value of a coastal wetland. The private market price for the wetland is likely to be low, especially if it is unlikely that the wetland can be filled in for farming or to support buildings. But the value of the wetland to society is probably much greater because of the environmental benefits that the wetland generates. Coastal wetlands are breeding grounds for shellfish and a variety of waterfowl. They also serve as a buffer against storm surges and can act as water recharge areas. In addition, wetlands filter pollutants. All these services have real dollar values, but these values are

61

not reflected in the private market price. Economists have tried to estimate shadow prices for environmental services to reflect the services’ value to society. These shadow prices are based on how much the public would be willing to pay for the environmental services. The divergence between private price as an indicator of value and the public value or shadow price of the wetland means that the private sector alone will not maintain enough wetlands. Because the private market understates the environmental value of wetlands, private landowners have little incentive to protect them, and government regulations and subsidy programs (such as the federal Wetlands Reserve Program) may be necessary. Contingent Valuation

A question that politicians often want answered is, what price is the public willing to pay for environmental amenities? Economists have responded with a technique called contingent valuation. Contingent valuation usually features a survey that asks taxpayers how much they would be willing to pay for an environmental benefit, such as buying 10 acres to add to the community park system. Because there is no private market for public parks, economists try to estimate the “public” price (or shadow price) taxpayers would be willing to pay. Another way to estimate willingness to pay is through the travel-cost method; people reveal their preferences for a park by saying how much they are willing to pay to get there. Contingent valuation may include the concept of option demand; that is, a person may derive satisfaction from knowing that there will be a park that the person or others could use. In other words, the option of being able to go to the park has value to the person. Contingent valuation studies can be very helpful to politicians, planners, and citizens

62

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

groups interested in putting a spending measure on the ballot. If the contingent valuation study shows strong support among potential voters for increased funding for parks or other environmental projects, a bond measure on the ballot would probably have a good chance of passing. Cap-and-Trade Programs

A cap-and-trade program can be set up by a state, a group of states, or the federal government to reduce pollution emissions. In the 1990s, the federal government created a capand-trade program to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from coal-fired power plants. The federal government gave each emitter an SO2 emissions allowance (a cap). If an emitter exceeded this allowance, that emitter would have to purchase allowances from emitters who released less SO2 than permitted by their caps. Over time, the caps were lowered to reduce SO2 emissions. The cap-and-trade approach leaves it up to the emitters to choose the pollution controls to install and how much to pay for them. Economists support cap-and-trade programs as a more efficient way to achieve pollution reductions than a command-and-control approach in which government mandates certain pollution control technologies, regardless of cost. The sulfur dioxide cap-and-trade program achieved its pollution reduction goals several years ahead of time (see Chapter 3). Since 2005, 10 northeastern states have participated in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the first mandatory regional cap-and-trade system aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions.28 In 2013, California launched its own cap-andtrade program to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (see Chapter 4). California has allowed carbon dioxide emitters to pay forestland owners to sequester carbon by purchasing verifiable, tradable carbon credits, or carbon offsets as part of the cap-and-trade program.29

Cost-Benefit Analysis

Economists traditionally use cost-benefit analysis as a way to estimate the costs and benefits of a proposed large development project, government program, or government regulation. Cost-benefit analysis is a guide to decision making; it does not provide conclusive evidence of all costs or benefits. Monetary costs and benefits can be measured, but it is often difficult to put a dollar value on environmental costs (loss of wildlife or scenic views from building a dam) and benefits (less flooding and more recreation opportunities if a dam is built). Similarly, it is rather easy to estimate the monetary costs and benefits to a private company but difficult to predict the costs and benefits to society as a whole. Cost-benefit analysis is a convenient way to organize information to help decide (1) whether a certain project should be built, spending program undertaken, or regulation adopted and (2) which projects to build, programs to enact, or regulations to adopt among several alternatives. Cost-benefit analysis is an application of discounted cash flow analysis, commonly applied in the business world. The dollar values of project costs and benefits accrue in different amounts over a number of years. But there is a time value of money to consider—that is, a monetary benefit that is received a year from now is worth less than the same monetary benefit received today. Hence the monetary benefit received after one year is “discounted,” or reduced according to a discount rate (or interest rate). Say the monetary benefit is $100 and the discount rate is 8 percent. The monetary benefit today is worth $100 and in year one is worth $92. The $100 monetary benefit would be worth about $85 in year two, and so on. Discounting shows the value today of a project’s future stream of net benefits (benefits minus costs), corrected for the value lost in waiting to receive those net benefits.

CHAPTER 2: FOUNDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

The formula is

(Bt − Ct ) t t =0 (1+ r ) n

NPV =∑

where NPV = net present value; t = the time horizon or the life of the project up to the nth year; Bt = the benefits of the project; Ct = the costs of the project; and r = the rate of time preference, also known as the discount rate. The goal of cost-benefit analysis is to select those projects with the greatest net present value, indicating the highest return on investment. In comparing two projects using the same discount rate, the project with the greater net present value would be the more desirable one. If a project shows a negative net present value, the project should be avoided altogether. The main elements to consider in costbenefit analysis are (1) the size of the costs and benefits, (2) when they will happen, (3) the time horizon or life of the project, (4) the discount rate used, and (5) how the costs and benefits of one proposed project compare with another project. Take the case of a proposed dam. The functional life of the dam may be 75 years. The major costs—building the dam, relocating residents who will be flooded out, and the loss of wildlife habitat and farmland and timberland— will occur early in the life of the dam. Also, no benefits will accrue until the dam is completed. So for the first three years, say, costs significantly exceed the benefits, resulting in negative net benefits. But beginning in year four, the benefits of flood control and recreation are expected to be greater than the cost of operating the dam, producing positive net benefits. Deciding which discount rate to use is a crucial choice. A high discount rate, such as 10 percent, would mean that capital is scarce and the net benefits of the dam will have to

63

be quite high to justify construction. On the other hand, a low discount rate, such as 4 percent, would mean that capital is plentiful and future net benefits will not be heavily discounted; hence, the project will be easier to justify. From the 1950s to the 1970s, environmentalists often criticized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for using low discount rates and inflating anticipated benefits in estimating the net present value of dam projects.30 Considerable debate exists over whether the discount rate for public projects should be the same rate that businesses have to pay to borrow money or a lower “social” discount rate that reflects the desirability of public projects. The discounting of costs and benefits tends to create a bias in favor of projects with short-term net benefits. Projects that would produce net benefits only in the long run will not compare as favorably. Above all, costbenefit analysis does not address the question of who will bear the costs and who will reap the benefits of a project over time. Have environmental regulations produced greater benefits than costs? The EPA estimated that the 1970 Clean Air Act and the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments created about $23 trillion worth of health and ecological benefits between 1970 and 1990, compared to $523 billion in costs.31 The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget reviews federal agency rules and has the authority to change them. In addition, the OIRA performs cost-benefit analyses on new and proposed rules and regulations. In a 2011 report to Congress, the Office of Management and Budget noted that 20 rules within the EPA Office of Air produced between $77.3 billion and $535.1 billion in benefits and resulted in between $19 billion and $24.1 billion in compliance costs. Six rules of the Office of Water created benefits between $1.3 billion and $3.9 billion and cost between $1.1 billion and $1.2 billion.32

64

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

proposed development project. While costbenefit analyses are geared to evaluating the monetary and environmental impacts of large public projects and programs, fiscal impact studies generally address the anticipated effects on public finances of large private development projects. For example, a new shopping mall may require major highway improvements and traffic lights, or a residential subdivision of 300 homes might create a need for a new elementary school. How much money a private developer will contribute toward expanding infrastructure is often a matter of negotiation. The public might be expected to pay for at least some of the expanded infrastructure through Fiscal Impact Studies higher property taxes. Fiscal impact studies attempt to estimate the Planners conducting a fiscal impact anallikely costs to a community associated with a ysis typically look at the demands for new The report showed that clean air and clean water programs were producing net benefits, especially the clean air programs. Overall in 2011, the federal government spent $49 billion on protecting natural resources and the environment. This was less than 3 percent of the federal budget. Out of the $49 billion, 26 percent of the budget outlays went to water resources, 28 percent to conservation and land management, and 22 percent to pollution control and abatement (see Figure 2.2).

50,000 45,000 40,000

Millions of dollars

35,000 30,000

Water resources Conservation and land management Recreational resources Pollution control and abatement Other natural resources

25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000

0

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

5,000

Fiscal year

Figure 2.2. Federal Capital Outlays for Natural Resources and Environment Source: Office of Management and Budget, “Historical Tables,” in Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2012, 2012, pp. 50–55. Note: Budget outlays are reported net of offsetting collections.

CHAPTER 2: FOUNDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

infrastructure (sewer, water, roads, schools, parks, police, and fire service) compared to the property taxes and sales taxes that the proposed development would generate.33 But a fiscal impact study could also include the estimated environmental costs, such as loss of open space and wetlands, highway congestion, and impacts on air and water quality and supply. The fiscal impact analysis can show whether a project is desirable in the first place, or the analysis can suggest certain steps that a developer or the community can take to minimize the infrastructure and environmental impacts of the proposed development. Economic Development and Economic Growth

Most economists are firm believers in economic growth. Increased productivity (defined as output per person per hour, or higher quality and hence higher valued products) and more jobs mean more income, a broader tax base, better public services, and a higher standard of living. Traditionally, economic growth has come from a greater consumption of natural resources, especially, oil, natural gas, minerals, land, and wood. The affluent countries are also the ones that consume the most natural resources per capita. Can the increased consumption of these resources sustain economic growth indefinitely? And how long can greater efficiency in the use of natural resources take the place of the conservation (less use) of those resources? In 1972, the book The Limits to Growth caused an uproar by predicting when the world would run out of certain natural resources.34 The authors suggested that economic growth from exploiting natural resources could not go on forever. Some economists point to the rationing mechanism of markets for an answer. As a certain natural resource becomes scarcer, its price rises. This, in turn, compels consumers

65

and businesses to use less of the resource, to search for new supplies of the resource, and to adopt substitutes. For example, after the price of oil jumped in 1979, the demand for oil decreased, drilling for oil increased, and people began to use more natural gas. The price of oil fell dramatically by the mid-1980s. Another factor is technological change. In his 1798 book, An Essay on the Principle of Population, Thomas Robert Malthus predicted that because food output increased mathematically but population grew exponentially, population would outstrip the food supply, resulting in mass starvation.35 But Malthus overlooked the role of technological advances. Since 1945, food output has increased many times over, while the world population has doubled. Perhaps the concept of growth needs to be redefined. Economist Herman Daly, in his essay “The Concept of a Steady State Economy,”36 posited that there was a difference between physical growth and economic growth. Physical growth meant more, whereas economic growth meant better. In a steady state, there would be a fixed number of people and economic growth would occur without depletion of natural resources; that is, there would be no waste, and all materials and natural resources would be recycled. The same amount of natural resources would be available to future generations, thus maintaining intergenerational equity. The traditional method of accounting for economic growth is the gross national product (GNP)—that is, the value of all goods and services a nation produces in a year. But GNP does not discriminate between environmentally beneficial and harmful economic activity. The GNP includes such environmentally degrading activities as the production of toxic chemicals, the cutting of old growth forests, and the consumption of gasoline in vehicles that get fewer than 25 miles per gallon. In effect, GNP counts the depletion of nonrenewable resources as a

66

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

plus, even though this is akin to living off one’s capital rather than the interest. Some economists have offered an alternative “green” accounting that adjusts the GNP for changes in environmental quality. Herman Daly and John Cobb developed the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare as a measure of national quality of life and the condition of the nation’s natural capital—such as air, water, soil, and other natural resources.37 For example, if water quality showed improvements and conservation resulted in less water consumption, the green GNP would rise. The green GNP is perhaps a more accurate measure of how welloff a country is. This concept of green accounting can be used by cities and counties in the environmental benchmarking process discussed in Chapter 1.

What Economic-Environmental Balance to Look for in a Development Review

A starting point in a development review is to ask the following questions: What are the economic costs of the project to the public? Will the developer pay for or install streets, traffic signals, and sewer and water lines or hookups? Will the development require new schools, parks, and recreation areas? Next, what are the environmental costs? What is the impact on air and water quality? On wildlife habitat? Will wetlands be disturbed or filled in? Will active farm- or forestland be lost? These questions are all aimed at ascertaining a full cost accounting of the fiscal and environmental impacts and the overall potential costs to the community. Too often in the past, communities rushed through development approvals without thinking of the environmental impacts on the community or how public services would be paid for. Communities need to encourage developments that are fiscally and

environmentally sustainable and thus have net positive fiscal and environmental benefits.

2.3: Ethical Reasons for Environmental Planning Ethics are the values, standards, and philosophies that people live by. Ethics help individuals establish codes of personal behavior, and collectively, ethics become translated into institutional, business, and governmental policies and programs. Ethics form the basis of legal systems, economic systems, political action, and public policy about the environment. Yet what one person values about the environment may not mesh with someone else’s beliefs. Hence there are almost always competing interests for using natural resources, the working landscape, and the built environment.

From Nature as Servant to Humans to Nature as Sacred and Worthy of Stewardship

The anthropocentric, utilitarian view. There are several different ethical ways to look at the environment. The first and most common view is anthropocentric; that is, the environment exists primarily for its benefit to humans. This view dates back to the biblical edict to “be fruitful and multiply” and to have “dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the surface of the earth” (Genesis 1:29). In short, the human-centered perspective justifies the conquest, shaping, and management of nature to satisfy human needs and desires. Deep ecology and stewardship views. Deep ecologists believe that nature is sacred in itself and that the sustainability of the natural environment is paramount. Humans present

CHAPTER 2: FOUNDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

threats to that sustainability and must learn to make their needs subservient to the needs of nature. A more moderate philosophy sees humans as part of a larger ecosystem in which plants, animals, and humans share equal rights to exist and thrive. One of the most profound statements of this philosophy was made by Christopher Stone in his famous essay “Should Trees Have Standing?” Stone argues that nature has a right to be represented in legal proceedings as if it were a person.38 The concept of stewardship is fundamental to the principle of sustainability: leaving the earth in at least as good shape for future generations as one found it. Aldo Leopold, in A Sand County Almanac, emphasized the concept of human stewardship for the land and its resources. He wrote, “All ethics rest on a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts. . . . The land ethic [emphasis added] enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants and animals, or collectively: the land. . . . A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity and stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”39 More recently, the concept of biophilia holds that humans have an innate affinity for the natural world. Studies have shown that people feel better when they have views of trees and other greenery or can walk in a park. For instance, Americans spent an estimated $646 billion in 2011 to recreate in the outdoors.40 Biophilia in essence emphasizes the benefits to humans from being good stewards of the environment and working with nature rather than trying to bend nature to the human will. Preservationists versus utilitarians. The debate between preservationists and utilitarians has been going on since the early 20th century. Initially, the debate featured two wellknown figures: John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, for the preservationists, and Gifford Pinchot, father of the national forest system and

67

a favorite of President Theodore Roosevelt, for the utilitarians. Both the preservationists and utilitarians have valid points. Wilderness areas are refreshing to visit; exciting to view in photos; important for wildlife, watersheds, and air quality; and valuable for scientific studies. In addition, some people find it satisfying to know that there are wild areas remaining even if they never visit them. On the other hand, working landscapes are necessary to produce food, fiber, minerals, and energy. Working landscapes mean jobs, incomes, and tax base for rural communities. The preservationistutilitarian debate often centers on the national forests, which are supposed to be managed according to the principle of multiple uses and the maximum sustainable yield of natural resources. The multiple uses include timber harvesting, recreation, livestock grazing, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, and wilderness. Balancing these multiple uses is an ongoing challenge, which is supposed to be addressed in the management plans of individual national forests. Cornucopians. Some people believe there is no environmental crisis that technology and human ingenuity cannot solve. These people are often called cornucopians, derived from the bountiful harvest symbol of the horn of plenty. Cornucopians tend to be anthropocentric and utilitarian and tend to emphasize the abundance of natural resources. They have faith in the market system to allocate goods and services efficiently and feel that the price mechanism will successfully regulate the use of natural resources over time. Cornucopians, however, tend to overlook the impacts of population growth and some technologies on the environment. For example, according to the national resources inventory, between 1982 and 2007, 40 million acres of open space, farm, and forest uses were converted to urban and suburban development.41 In an example of the unknown outcomes of

68

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

technological change, nuclear power was supposed to produce power that was “too cheap to meter.”42 Unfortunately, nuclear power plants are expensive to build and nuclear waste has been difficult to dispose of. Alarmists. Some people feel that environmental disasters are imminent unless humans change their lifestyles and consumption patterns. Alarmists seek to shake people out of taking the environment for granted, and they tend to be closely allied with preservationists. Often it takes a major crisis or disaster to alert the public, to change household and business behavior, and to stimulate government action. For instance, the discovery of the Love Canal hazardous waste site, which caused illness and loss of property values, led to the passage of the federal Superfund law for cleaning up hazardous waste sites nationwide. On the other hand, alarmists can be wrong. The Malthusian vision of widespread food shortages in the face of rising populations has not yet materialized in developed countries. The current debate over climate change and whether to plan for mitigation and adaptation has pitted cornucopians against alarmists, though scientists point to the reality of climate change and the likelihood of severe environmental effects from rising temperatures, rising sea levels, inland droughts, and more frequent and powerful storm events in coastal areas. Cautionaries. In between the cornucopians and the alarmists are the cautionaries, who are most closely aligned with the concept of stewardship. Cautionaries believe in taking preventive measures and responding to existing environmental problems before they get out of hand. Perhaps the first American environmental cautionary was George Perkins Marsh, a Vermont native who served as ambassador to Italy in the years after the American Civil War. In Man and Nature, Marsh warned about destructive floods that resulted from cutting trees high in the hills and mountains.43

Years later, Virgil Carter and Tom Dale pointed out that ancient civilizations fell because of severe soil erosion; the Fertile Crescent of yore is now the desert nation of Iraq.44 Projected increases in population in some parts of the U.S. are cause for concern, if not alarm. Already the environmental footprint of the major metropolitan areas—the space needed to provide the natural resources, to produce the goods they consume, and to absorb their waste—is enormous. In effect, several major metropolitan areas already exceed their carrying capacity as shown by poor air quality and the need to bring water long distances. Consider the persistent smog of Houston. Think of the 300-mile-long aqueduct known as the LA River that draws water from the Owens Valley of eastern California to greater Los Angeles. Without the Owens Valley water and diversions from the Colorado River and San Francisco Bay Delta, Los Angeles would be a desert. But can metropolitan Los Angeles, with 13.1 million people in 2013 and still growing, be sustained for dozens or hundreds of years into the future?45 Planning is about anticipating change. Population projections and the needs of future populations form the heart of public planning efforts. It is always risky to predict what will happen in the future, but it is prudent to err on the side of caution. Cautionaries remind us that polluted air and water, depleted water supplies, and toxic waste sites are difficult and expensive to remediate, and the loss of unique ecosystems and plant and animal species cannot be undone.

2.4: Ecology and Environmental Planning Ecology and economics share the same root word from the Greek, oikos, which means “household.” Ecology is the study of the

CHAPTER 2: FOUNDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

household or one’s surroundings. Economics refers to the management of the household. Ecology is the science of how plants, animals, air, water, soil, and climate interact in a specific environment. These ecological relationships occur in ecosystems, a concept created by ecologist Eugene Odum.46 Ecosystem Dynamics

An ecosystem consists of individual plants and animals, a population of each type of species, and a community of several types of species. For example, there are forest ecosystems, coastal ecosystems, and prairie ecosystems, among others. To many ecologists, the diversity of plant and animal species defines the health of ecosystems. Ecosystems were once thought to evolve through stages from immaturity to a more stable “climax” stage. The greatest amount of species diversity was thought to occur at the climax stage where an ecosystem was likely to be the most resilient to natural or human disruption and was most able to maintain a closed loop of growth, death, decay, and reuse. This view has given way to a new theory of ecosystems existing in a state of dynamic disequilibrium where constant change is a reality.47 The loss of certain species or the disruption of ecological processes can reduce the ability of an ecosystem to recycle waste, to cycle vital chemicals such as nitrogen and phosphorus, and to support a variety of life-forms. Hence many ecologists place importance on maintaining “biodiversity” in a community or region. Ultimately, humans depend on ecosystems for food, clean water supplies, clean air, and the absorption of waste. So humans have a very real interest in maintaining healthy, functioning ecosystems that are biologically diverse. Natural disturbances to ecosystems include hurricanes, volcanoes, floods, earthquakes, meteorites, fire from lightning, and

69

the invasion of plants and animals. Some ecosystems, such as a prairie or forest, can benefit from occasional fires. Human disturbances to ecosystems have come from clear-cutting forests, filling wetlands, damming rivers, introducing nonnative plants and animals, covering land with buildings and pavement, and destroying wildlife habitats. Ecosystems provide a variety of services. Forest ecosystems help regulate climate by absorbing carbon dioxide and fixing moisture in the soil. Places without forests tend to have drier climates. The headwaters of most water supplies in the U.S. are found in forests, and forests absorb stormwater runoff and limit soil erosion and flooding. Forests also are a renewable source of wood products and wood for fuel. Forests are wildlife habitats and offer recreational opportunities for hiking, hunting, and bird watching. Finally, forests are aesthetically pleasing and even create feelings of well-being in people. Natural ecosystems recycle all their waste. As plants and animals die, their remains are transformed by micro-organisms into the soil to become nutrients for new plants that either die and decay or are eaten by animals that eventually die and the cycle continues. Humans do not recycle all their waste. Instead, it piles up in landfills, is incinerated, or remains untreated in the environment. The reduction of waste and pollution from human activities is thus an important element of environmental planning. Ecosystems play a valuable role in several natural chemical cycles in which essential chemicals are transferred from the air, water, and earth to living beings and back again. These cycles are important to sustaining life on planet Earth, and how well they function is a measure of environmental health. The earth can be seen as a single organism, as biologist James Lovelock asserts in his classic book Gaia.48 Or, as biologist Barry Commoner defined the second law of ecology, everything is connected to everything else.49

70

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

Natural Cycles

change, which is contributing to changes in the functioning of ecosystems worldwide. The oxygen cycle starts with trees and plants that take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. Humans breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, which returns to the atmosphere. The loss of vegetation reduces the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide increases, contributing to climate change. Nitrogen is one of the most important nutrients for life. In the nitrogen cycle, bacteria in the soil “fix” nitrogen so it can be taken up by plants. Animal manure is rich in nitrogen and is commonly used to fertilize crops. When plants and animals die, nitrogen is broken down by micro-organisms and made available to new plants. Bacteria in the soil also release nitrogen back into the atmosphere, thus completing the nitrogen cycle. Farmers can distort the nitrogen cycle if they apply more manure or nitrogenbased fertilizer than the soil or plants can absorb. In such cases, nitrogen often runs off into rivers and streams and causes harmful algae blooms or seeps into groundwater, raising the nitrate concentration to potentially harmful levels. Phosphorus is a necessary nutrient for DNA and cell development. In the phosphorus cycle, inorganic phosphorus rock is broken down by weather and erosion until it can be dissolved in water and absorbed by plants. Some plants are then eaten by animals and humans. When plants and animals die, phosphorus decomposes back into inorganic phosphorus. The excess application of phosphate fertilizer can cause algae blooms in water bodies. For instance, excess nitrogen and phosphorus have caused algae blooms and “dead zones” in the Chesapeake Bay (see Chapter 6).

The hydrologic cycle, also known as the water cycle, provides life-sustaining water to plants, animals, and humans. The water cycle purifies and removes salts from water so that it can be safely absorbed by living organisms. The water cycle is the system of precipitation that is partly taken up by plants, animals, and humans and partly recycled back into the air through evaporation, or evapotranspiration as the plants breathe. The aggressive harvesting of forests can result in a reduction in evapotranspiration and a subsequent decline in precipitation, leading to drier soil and slower plant growth. Water pollution impedes the ability of the water cycle to perform its water-purifying function and, in turn, reduces the survival and longevity of aquatic life and water-dependent plants and animals. Water pollution from industrial and agricultural waste and stormwater runoff also poses major health threats to humans. The carbon cycle features the process of photosynthesis, in which energy from the sun converts carbon and water in plants into sugar molecules that plants absorb as food. The sugar molecules break down to release energy, and through plant decay, carbon enters the atmosphere. Trees can be seen as large stores of carbon. Trees breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. When a tree is harvested or dies and decays, a carbon “sink” is lost. Coal, oil, and natural gas are fossil fuels from carbonbased fossilized plants. Humans can distort the carbon cycle by burning fossil fuels that release carbon in the form of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon monoxide has been listed under the 1970 Clean Air Act as one of the six “criteria” air pollutants that pose major health threats, and How Humans Fit Into Ecosystems carbon dioxide was ruled a pollutant in 2007 (see Chapter 3). The buildup of carbon dioxide Ecosystems vary in their ability to respond to in the atmosphere is a leading cause of climate human activity. Wetlands, for instance, are

CHAPTER 2: FOUNDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

vulnerable to dredging and filling that degrade or destroy the wetland’s natural functions. An ecosystem is not a static phenomenon. It is constantly changing. Two factors that influence the functioning of an ecosystem are the degree of change and the pace of change. Carrying capacity is the amount of pollution or disturbance that an ecosystem can assimilate or tolerate before environmental damage occurs. Carrying capacity is also a measure of an ecosystem’s resilience. A low carrying capacity suggests a nutrient-poor ecosystem with a shortage of water and little species diversity. This kind of ecosystem, such as a desert, is vulnerable to disruption from physical intrusions, such as all-terrain vehicles. By contrast, a nutrient-rich ecosystem with abundant water and a wide variety of species and healthy species populations will be more resilient to disruption. A lowland forest is one such example. Carrying capacity depends on soil and water quality, water quantity, air quality, and topography. For instance, deep, level, well-drained soils can support development better than thin, clayey soils on steep slopes. But carrying capacity is not necessarily fixed; it can be either increased or reduced by human intervention. For example, sewage treatment and water treatment facilities can increase the ability of a city to absorb waste and thus expand carrying capacity, or the dumping of toxic waste can reduce the ability of an ecosystem to support life. Yet to what degree can humans actually manage and control ecosystems and not cause them to exceed their carrying capacities? Or can humans achieve an optimal use of environmental resources without harming ecosystems? In his book The Control of Nature, John McPhee gives an example of the constant and expensive struggle to subject nature to the human will. Since 1963, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been working to hold the Mississippi River in its channel by diverting part of

71

it through the Atchafalaya River. This diversion provides flood control for New Orleans, a city with large areas below sea level, and maintains ocean access for the extensive petrochemical industry along the banks of the Mississippi. Said Norris F. Rablais of the Army Corps, “We are fighting Mother Nature. . . . It’s a battle we have to fight day by day, year by year.”50 Yet if Mother Nature were allowed to take its course, New Orleans would be submerged. One could argue that New Orleans grew up in the wrong place. In 2005, the property destruction and loss of life in New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina added to that view. A comprehensive plan with a natural resources inventory can help identify sensitive environmental areas (floodplains, steep slopes, etc.), and a well-crafted zoning ordinance can keep development away from them. Once mistakes are made in the location of development, it is expensive to maintain that development in the face of repeated assaults by nature. In planning human developments, planners must keep in mind four environmental issues: 1. The compatibility of the development with the surrounding ecological systems 2. The suitability of a site to support different types of development 3. The limitations and constraints of a site, including the vulnerability to natural hazards, such as flooding and landslides 4. The sustainability of the development over time—that is, how well the development fits with the local and regional ecological systems in the long run The idea of humans living in balance with ecosystems is a fundamental goal of sustainable environmental planning. It is also important for sustainable economic development.

72

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

Several U.S. cities have recently set a goal to become the greenest city in America, recognizing that environmental quality is a valuable economic asset in the new knowledge economy. Other mayors, city councils, and county commissioners may ask why to invest in parks, greenbelts, water quality, and other environmental improvements. If they were to access the website of any industrial development authority in America, they would find the answer. These websites tout not only available industrial sites and a capable workforce but also the quality of the environment in the community and region. In short, a good environment has become essential for economic development because companies and workers are mobile and are seeking places with a high quality of life. Tourism also is often a major local industry, and tourists want to visit quality environments. Thus investment in the green infrastructure of parks, greenways, and trails may be as important to economic development as investment in sewer and water lines and roads. Nor should this lesson be lost on those communities and regions that are losing population rather than growing. A quality environment can slow economic decline and can play a critical role in stimulating an economic turnaround (see the Chattanooga case study in Chapter 19). Decisions on what developments should go where, what to produce and consume, and how to dispose of waste will have powerful implications for the maintenance and health of ecosystems, on which humans ultimately depend. Local governments should continually assess the health of ecosystems through the benchmarking process described in Chapter 1. Planning for sustainable ecosystems and sustainable economies will also tend to promote sustainable social outcomes featuring equal access to quality environments and a good overall quality of life.

Summary Environmental planning is multidisciplinary. The legal system forms the foundation for environmental laws and regulations. At the federal level, the EPA has the main responsibility for enforcing environmental laws and standards and proposing new environmental rules. Economics offers a number of tools for evaluating choices in the use of natural resources and pollution cleanup. Markets and prices are the traditional means to allocate resources among competing uses. But prices may not reflect the external costs (e.g., air pollution) from private production (e.g., burning coal to generate electricity). Hence markets may fail to generate accurate prices or allocate resources as efficiently as possible. Market failure is a necessary condition for government intervention. The Pigouvian tax to internalize externalities and cap-and-trade programs can promote greater efficiency in the use of scarce resources and improve the environment. Economists use cost-benefit analysis to evaluate public investment projects and the impact of regulations on the environment. Economists also use contingent valuation to put a price on nonmarket goods and environmental services. Environmental ethics vary considerably according to personal beliefs. Historically, preservationists have advocated for wilderness areas, whereas utilitarians have called for the wise use of natural resources to benefit humans. Cornucopians believe that natural resources are bountiful and that human ingenuity, technology, and the market will produce economic growth. Alarmists feel that major changes need to be made in order to protect the environment, especially in the face of resource depletion, growing populations, and climate change. Cautionaries recognize that some environmental improvement has occurred (such as improved air and water quality in the U.S. since 1970) but that many

CHAPTER 2: FOUNDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

environmental challenges remain, such as urban stormwater runoff, ozone and particulate air pollution, and climate change. Planners need to understand the major natural cycles that affect the functioning of ecosystems and how human intervention can disrupt those cycles. The cycles include the hydrologic, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus cycles.

Notes 1. Craige, B. “A Tribute to Eugene P. Odum.” University of Georgia Research Magazine. Summer 2002. http://researchmagazine.uga.edu/ summer2002/printodum.htm. Retrieved May 4, 2012. 2. Freilich, R. H. From Sprawl to Smart Growth: Successful Legal, Planning, and Environmental Systems. Chicago: American Bar Association, Section of State and Local Government Law, 1999. 3. National Resources Conservation Service. “Wetlands Reserve Program.” 2012. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/ national/programs/easements/wetlands. Retrieved May 5, 2012. 4. Dowie, M. Losing Ground: American Environmentalism at the Close of the Twentieth Century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995. 5. 42 U.S.C., Section 4332(2)(c). 6. Mandelker, D. “Melding State Environmental Policy Acts With Land-Use Planning and Regulations.” Land Use Law & Zoning Digest, March 1997, pp. 3–11. 7. Daniels, T. When City and Country Collide: Managing Growth in the Metropolitan Fringe. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1999. 8. For a list of states requiring SEPA review, see Mandelker, D. “Melding State Environmental Policy Acts With Land-Use Planning and Regulations.” Land Use Law & Zoning Digest, March 1997, pp. 10–11.

73

9. See U.S. EPA. 2011 Federal Employee Viewpoint Results. http://www.epa.gov/ohr/2011 _results_summary.pdf. Retrieved May 8, 2012; U.S. EPA. 2011. FY 2012 EPA Budget in Brief. http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100A5RE .PDF?Dockey=P100A5RE.PDF. Retrieved May 8, 2012. 10. Cronon, W. Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England. New York: Hill and Wang, 1983, p. 73. 11. Callies, D., R. Freilich, and T. Roberts. Cases and Materials on Land Use. 5th ed. St. Paul, MN: The West Group, 2008. 12. See Barnett, H., and C. Morse. Scarcity and Growth: The Economics of Natural Resource Availability. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1963; Smith, K., ed. Scarcity and Growth Reconsidered. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979. 13. Fisher, A. Resource and Environmental Economics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981, p. 107. 14. See Bator, F. “The Anatomy of Market Failure.” Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol. 72, No. 3 (1958), pp. 351–79. 15. World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future (The Bruntland Report). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1987, p. 43. 16. Hardin, G. “Tragedy of the Commons.” Science. Vol. 162, No. 3859 (1968), pp. 1243–48. 17. Armstrong, C. “Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab the Highest Since 1993.” The Washington Times, April 19, 2012. http://www.washington times.com/news/2012/apr/19/chesapeake - bays- blue- crab- count- the- highest- since- /. Retrieved May 8, 2012. 18. Hawken, P., A. Lovins, and H. Lovins. Natural Capitalism. Boston: Little, Brown, 1999, p. 13. 19. Stavins, R. Experience With Market-Based Environmental Policy Instruments. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 2001.

74

PART 1: THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESS

20. Freemark, Y., and L. Vale.“Illogical Housing Aid.” New York Times, October 30, 2012. http:// www.nytimes.com/2012/10/31/opinion/ a-sensible-limit-to-the-mortgage-interest -deduction.html?_r=0. Retrieved January 17, 2013. 21. Council on Environmental Quality. Annual Report, 1996. Washington, DC: USGPO, 1996, p. 249, p. 250. 22. U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020. 2011. http://www.epa.gov/cleanairact benefits/feb11/summaryreport.pdf. Retrieved May 10, 2012. 23. Copeland, C. Clean Water Act: A Summary of the Law. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2010. http://www.cnie.org/ nle/crsreports/10May/RL30030.pdf. Retrieved May 10, 2012. 24. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2012. Washington, DC: USGPO, 2012, p. 232. 25. Council on Environmental Quality. Annual Report, 1996. Washington, DC: USGPO, 1996; U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2012. Washington, DC: USGPO, 2012, p. 232. 26. Council on Environmental Quality. Annual Report, 1996. Washington, DC: USGPO, 1996; U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2012. Washington, DC: USGPO, 2012, p. 232. 27. American Planning Association. Policy Guide on Planning for Sustainability. April 16, 2000. http://www.planning.org/policy/guides/ adopted/sustainability.htm. Retrieved April 26, 2014. 28. Daniels, T. “Integrating Forest Carbon Sequestration Into a Cap-and-Trade Program to Reduce Net CO2 Emissions.” Journal of the American Planning Association. Vol. 76, No. 4 (2010), pp. 463–75.

29. Subchapter 10 Climate Change, Article 5, Sections 95800–96023, Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Article 5: California Cap on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and MarketBased Compliance Mechanisms, 2011. 30. Reisner, M. Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water. New York: Penguin, 1986, pp. 208–9, p. 328. 31. U.S. EPA. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act. Washington, DC: USEPA, 1997. 32. U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. 2011 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities, p. 15. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/ files/omb/inforeg/2011_cb/2011_cba_report .pdf. Retrieved May 9, 2012. 33. Burchell, R., D. Listokin, and W. Dolphin. The New Practitioner’s Guide to Fiscal Impact Analysis. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 1985. 34. Meadows, D., D. L. Meadows, J. Randers, and W. Behrens. The Limits to Growth. New York: Universe Books, 1972. 35. Malthus, R. An Essay on the Principle of Population. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. 36. Daly, H. “The Concept of a Steady State Economy.” In H. Daly, ed. Steady-State Economics, 2nd edition. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1991. 37. Daly, H., and J. Cobb. For the Common Good. Boston: Beacon Press, 1989. 38. Stone, C. “Should Trees Have Standing?” in M. A. Cahn and R. O’Brien, eds., Thinking About the Environment: Readings on Politics, Property and the Physical World. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1996. 39. Leopold, A. A Sand County Almanac. New York: Ballantine, 1970, p. 238, p. 239, p. 262. 40. Brune, M. “Your Land, My Land.” Sierra, November/December 2012, p. 4. Brune cited a

CHAPTER 2: FOUNDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

figure from the Outdoor Industry Association. Outdoor Recreation Economy, 2012, p. 1. http:// www.outdoorindustry.org/images/research files/OIA_OutdoorRecEconomyReport2012 .pdf?167. Retrieved October 13, 2012. 41. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Summary Report: 2007 National Resources Inventory. 2009, p. 71. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE _DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1041379.pdf. Retrieved March 8, 2013. 42. Strauss, Lewis L., Chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Quoted in the New York Times, September 17, 1954. 43. Marsh, G. (D. Lowenthal, ed.). Man and Nature, or Physical Geography as Modified by Human Nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965. 44. Carter, V., and T. Dale. Topsoil and Civilization. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1955.

75

45. U.S. Census Bureau. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013—United States, 2013. http://factfinder2 .census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/pro ductview.xhtml?src=bkmk. Retrieved April 26, 2014. 46. Odum, E. Ecology: A Bridge Between Science and Society. Sunderland, MA: Sinaur Associates, 1997. 47. Rissman, A. “Evaluating Conservation Effectiveness and Adaptation in Dynamic Landscapes.” Law and Contemporary Problems. Vol. 74 (2011), pp. 145–74. 48. Lovelock, J. Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. 49. Commoner, B. The Closing Circle: Nature, Man, and Technology. New York: Bantam Books, 1980. 50. McPhee, J. The Control of Nature. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1989, p. 7.

Part 2

PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Chapter 3

PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE AIR QUALITY

The average adult breathes over 3,000 gallons of air every day. Children breathe even more air per pound of body weight and are more susceptible to air pollution.1 —U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

3.1: Air-Quality Problems Air is a resource that we take for granted because it is everywhere around us and because we involuntarily breathe several times each minute. But since the early 1970s, there has been a heightened public awareness of the quality of the air we breathe. The term smog— combining the words “smoke” and “fog”—is widely familiar. Hazy smog reduces visibility and the enjoyment of scenic vistas; damages clothing, buildings, crops, and trees; and poses a threat to public health. During the summer months, news media in major cities often broadcast smog alerts to keep the elderly and those with respiratory problems indoors and to warn others to avoid physical exertion. Each year, air pollution in the U.S. accounts for more than 100,000 premature deaths.2 In addition, dirty air can increase the frequency and effects of asthma attacks, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, lung cancer, and circulatory problems.

The atmosphere, what we call the air, is made up of several different gases. Nitrogen composes about 80 percent of the total; oxygen composes about 16 percent; and traces of argon, helium, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, and sulfur make up the remaining 4 percent. The atmosphere provides necessary oxygen for humans and animals to breathe and carbon dioxide for plant respiration. The natural ozone in the stratosphere blocks most of the sun’s incoming ultraviolet rays that can cause skin cancers, cataracts, and genetic mutations. While ozone in the stratosphere protects human health, ozone near the surface of the earth is a poisonous gas that harms human health. The atmosphere also redistributes important nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorous, back to the earth. With the help of the sun and gravity, the atmosphere regulates climate through the hydrologic cycle. Carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere help provide a warm protective

80

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

shield against the cold of space. Through the greenhouse effect, the atmosphere holds in some of the sun’s ultraviolet rays after they reflect off the earth’s surface and thus keeps the world’s temperatures high enough to support life. The makeup of the atmosphere can vary over time, causing climate and temperature fluctuations as well as long-term climate changes. The primary source of climate change is currently air pollution in the form of carbon dioxide and soot from human activity (see Chapter 4). Sources of Air Pollution

Not all air pollution is caused by humans. Volcanoes can spew enormous amounts of fine gray ash that can travel thousands of miles and remain suspended in the atmosphere for months. Meteorites have hit the earth with the force of atomic bombs; it is thought that 65 million years ago, a huge meteorite may have blown enough soil and rock into the atmosphere to block the sun’s rays, sharply reducing global temperatures and driving the dinosaurs into extinction. Forest and brush fires touched off by lightning strikes can generate smoke that carries particulates and other pollutants hundreds of miles. But most natural disasters occur infrequently and produce minor amounts of air pollution. Since the Industrial Revolution began in the late 18th century, human-generated air pollution has presented far more problems than natural sources. The Industrial Revolution was based on the burning of fossil fuels: coal to drive steam engines and oil to power internal combustion engines. When burned, these fuels generate particles of soot and toxic substances, such as mercury from coal. Fossil fuels also release sulfur, nitrogen, and carbon, which then mix with air and water vapor to produce several types of pollution: sulfur dioxide (acid

rain, which is roughly 10 times more acidic than normal rain), nitrogen oxides (smog), carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas). There are three main sources of air pollution: mobile sources, stationary direct sources, and stationary indirect sources. Mobile sources include motor vehicles, airplanes, ships, lawn mowers, and leaf blowers. Motor vehicles cause about one-third to one-half of all air pollution in the U.S.3 Stationary direct sources consist of factories, municipal and private incinerators, electric generating plants, fireplaces, woodburning stoves, home furnaces, gas stations, dry cleaners, sewage treatment plants, and landfills. Indirect stationary sources are places that people travel to, such as shopping centers and sports stadiums. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also differentiates between major sources of air pollution and small or “area” sources and between regional sources of air pollution and out-of-region sources such as power plants that send pollution to other regions or states and are beyond local control. Air has some ability to assimilate or carry pollution without adverse impacts on the environment. Air pollution occurs when that assimilative capacity is exceeded. In the 1970s, the EPA pursued a strategy of “the solution to pollution is dilution,” meaning that if pollutants could be dispersed after they are released, the assimilative capacity of air would not be exceeded. But beginning in the 1990s, the EPA abandoned this approach in favor of regulating the mobile, stationary, and indirect stationary sources of air pollution. The ability of an airshed—a local or regional outdoor air supply—to assimilate pollution can be estimated as a coefficient of ventilation, a measure of horizontal and vertical mixing potential. The coefficient of ventilation is found by multiplying the height of the mixing layer of air and the mean wind speed

CHAPTER 3: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE AIR QUALITY

through the mixing layer. The coefficient of ventilation will vary over time and space, depending on precipitation levels, temperature, and the capacity of land, vegetation, and water to collect and absorb air pollution. A computer model can estimate and predict both assimilation and air pollution levels based on weather conditions. The concentration of air pollutants can change according to the following conditions: 1. The amount and rate of pollutants released by local stationary sources and mobile sources. 2. The form of the pollutant: gas, evaporating liquid, and particulates (solids). Gases are more apt to rise and be carried away. Liquid and solid sources are more likely to remain local. 3. The prevailing wind direction and speed. The stronger the upper-level and surface winds, the faster and farther pollution is dispersed. Also, areas downwind from concentrations of air pollution have less precipitation. 4. Climate: Warm, humid air will hold more pollutants than cold, dry air. Air pollution normally rises with warm air and dissipates horizontally with wind. For instance, climate change is expected to produce higher temperatures and cause more smog-alert days in California by 2050 unless pollution emissions are reduced.4 5. Topography: Thermal inversions are common in the western U.S. where cities, such as Los Angeles and Salt Lake City, were built close to mountain ranges. A thermal inversion occurs when cooler air close to the ground is trapped under a ceiling of warmer air. Polluted air cannot rise to disperse, and smog, in particular, can become dangerously concentrated. There

81

is a risk of severe health effects if the following conditions converge: (a) dense population, (b) industrial area, (c) valley, (d) fog, and (e) thermal inversion. 6. Vegetative cover: Trees and other plants help absorb and filter air pollution. Cities with little green space create “heat islands” that trap heat in impervious surfaces as the temperature increases. Once air is polluted, it is not easy to clean up, unlike polluted water that often can be treated and purified. Wind can help dissipate dirty, stagnant air. But polluted air does not recognize political boundaries and can travel hundreds of miles. The best-known example of moving air pollution is the acid rain caused largely by coal-fired power plants in the Midwest that falls hundreds of miles away on the northeastern states. Types of Air Pollution

Nitrogen oxide. Nitrogen oxide (NOx) is a reddish-brown gas that comes mainly from the exhaust of cars, trucks, and buses and from the smokestacks of factories and power plants (see Photo 3.1). Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a main ingredient in smog, which can reduce visibility and cause lung damage, bronchitis, and asthma attacks. Nitrogen dioxide also can combine with water vapor to form nitric acid, which falls from the sky as acid rain. Damage to trees and lakes from acid rain is well known. Nitrogen dioxide also raises the level of nitrates in drinking water. Nitrogen oxides also can damage bays and estuaries; for instance, nitrogen oxides from motor vehicles have contributed to algae blooms in the Chesapeake Bay that threaten aquatic life.5 Sulfur dioxide. Coal-fired electrical plants, paper and metal factories, and the burning of

82

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Photo 3.1. Brunner Island coal-fired power plant, York County, PA. Source: Tom Daniels.

gasoline are the primary sources of sulfur dioxide (SO2). This toxic gas can harm lungs and reduce visibility as well as damage or kill plants by interrupting photosynthesis. Sulfur dioxide also interacts with water vapor to form sulfuric acid, which returns to the earth as acid rain. Sulfuric acid can erode stone buildings, metal, rubber, and plastic. Lead. Lead (Pb) is a heavy metal that, when airborne, can cause developmental disabilities in children, neurological problems, and cancer. It is also harmful to wildlife. Airborne lead pollution can result from peeling

paint, lead smelters, and the manufacture of lead storage batteries. Since 1973, U.S. emissions of lead into the air have fallen sharply, mainly because of the phasing out of lead from gasoline by 1995. Even so, lead contamination in children, especially from exposure to lead-based paint in buildings built before 1980, continues to be a serious problem. Lead poses such a threat to brain development that in 2012 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lowered the acceptable threshold from 10 to 5 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood in children under six years old.6

CHAPTER 3: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE AIR QUALITY 83

Carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas that is poisonous to humans. Carbon monoxide is a byproduct of burning gasoline and diesel fuel, and about 60 percent of carbon monoxide comes from motor vehicles (see Figure 3.1). Carbon monoxide reduces the ability of blood to deliver oxygen to the body’s cells, muscles, and tissues. It can also exacerbate lung and circulatory problems. In large amounts without ventilation, carbon monoxide is fatal. Particulates. Particulates (PM-2.5 and PM-10) are microscopic dust, soot, smoke, and tiny bits of minerals, such as asbestos, that combine with water droplets in the air. PM2.5 refers to particles of less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter. PM-10 particles are less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter. A human hair has a diameter of about 70 microns. The EPA added the PM-2.5 standard in 2006 based on evidence that the smaller particles posed a greater health threat than the PM-10 particles. Particulates emanate from fireplaces,

smokestacks, processing plants, farm fields, cars, buses, diesel trucks, and cargo ships burning low-grade oil in ports. Particulates are the primary cause of haze that reduces visibility. More important, particulates are the leading air pollution health threat in America, causing nose and throat irritation, asthma, and premature death. The PM-2.5 particles are a major threat to human health because they are so small that the body’s defenses are unable to capture and expel these particles. The particles reach the innermost recesses of the lungs where the contaminants on the surfaces of the particles move into the bloodstream along with oxygen. Both children and the elderly are especially vulnerable to particulate pollution. Ozone. Ozone (O3) is a poisonous form of oxygen created by sunlight and warm temperatures that interact with nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbon compounds, also known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs). VOCs escape into the air from car and truck tailpipes, factory smokestacks, paints, solvents, glues, fireplaces, and

Direct PM-2.5

Air pollutants

Direct PM-10 NH 3 SO 2 NO X VOC CO Pb

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent of emissions Source category Stationary fuel combustion

Industrial and other processes

Highway vehicles

Nonroad mobile

Figure 3.1. National Total Emissions Estimates by Source for Selected Pollutants, 2008 Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards, Our Nation’s Air-Status and Trends Through 2008 (EPA454/R-09-002), February 2010, p. 6.

84

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

woodstoves. VOCs include such toxic chemicals as benzene, ethylene, formaldehyde, toluene, methyl chloride, and methyl chloroform. VOCs can cause cancer and a variety of other serious ailments. Ground-level ozone reacts with sunlight to produce photochemical smog. The resulting brownish haze is difficult to see through, and smog fills the lungs with a burning sensation. Smog can cause serious lung ailments and damage to crops, trees, and other plants. In addition, smog corrodes fabrics, rubber, and building materials and leaves behind a film of grime. May through September is the ozone smog season in many of America’s major metropolitan regions. Smog problems increase along with warmer temperatures, higher humidity, and less wind to disperse the smog. In the stratosphere, 6 to 31 miles above the earth, ozone occurs naturally and helps block ultraviolet rays that can produce skin cancers, cataracts, and genetic mutations, as well decrease crop yields. The loss of upperlevel ozone has been a source of skin cancer in many parts of the Southern Hemisphere and has been traced to chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other chemical gases used in air conditioners, refrigerators, and aerosol sprays and in the production of plastic foam. CFCs release chlorine, which destroys ozone in the upper atmosphere. The production of CFCs and other ozone-destroying chemicals was targeted for drastic reductions under the international Montreal Protocol of 1987. Toxic chemicals. Under the federal Clean Air Act, the EPA regulates 188 toxic air pollutants. Toxic chemicals present serious health threats to humans and other living organisms. Frequently released toxic chemicals include mercury from coal-fired power plants, ammonia (NH3) from agricultural fertilizers and livestock, perchloroethylene from dry cleaning shops, dioxin from the incineration of medical wastes, and VOCs from industrial processes,

among others. Toxicity levels can vary considerably among different pollutants. Carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the major greenhouse gas to which the recent worldwide rise in average temperatures has been attributed. Climate warming in turn can raise ocean levels, change weather patterns, and alter the functioning of ecosystems. The U.S. produces more carbon dioxide emissions than any other country, except China, generating about one-fifth of the world’s annual total. Although carbon dioxide makes up a very small proportion of the earth’s atmosphere, about 0.04 percent, or 400 parts per million, the concentration of carbon dioxide is increasing. Other greenhouse gases include nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and methane. Methane remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9 to 15 years and is more than 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period.7 In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were air pollutants, which enabled the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases.8 America’s annual greenhouse gas emissions increased by 7.3 percent from 6.182 billion metric tons in 1990 to 6.633 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2009.9 But by 2012, greenhouse gas emissions had plunged to 1992 levels, thanks in part to the substitution of natural gas for coal in generating electricity (see Chapter 4).10 Greenhouse gas emissions then rose by an estimated 2.1 percent in 2013.11

3.2: Federal Responses to Air-Quality Problems Federal Air-Quality Legislation

Air is a common property resource. No one owns the air, so no one has an incentive not to

CHAPTER 3: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE AIR QUALITY

pollute it. In the first half of the 20th century, air pollution from cars, factories, trash burning, heating systems, and electrical utilities increased because there were no requirements or incentives to limit emissions. The federal regulation of air quality began in earnest in 1970 with the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments (still widely referred to as simply the Clean Air Act). The act established a top-down “command and control” approach featuring air-quality standards for six “criteria” pollutants and enforcement through lawsuits and fines for violators. The command and control approach emphasized “end of pipe” solutions, such as installing expensive scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators on smokestacks to remove sulfur dioxide and some particulates. Often, power companies built smokestacks higher to enable the wind to carry the pollutants out of the local area. This practice was common among coal-fired power plants in the Midwest and contributed to acid deposition in the northeastern states. The command and control approach focuses on compliance with national air-quality standards rather than balancing the costs and benefits of compliance. Many businesses complained about the cost of complying with the regulations. But so far, the benefits of cleaner air have far exceeded the costs.12 The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments marked an effort to control air pollution at its sources and added incentives, such as pollution offsets and a cap-and-trade program, which better enabled businesses to decide how to comply with the regulations. Today, the Clean Air Act combines command and control standards and practices to protect public health along with incentives for governments, businesses, and individuals to lower the emission of pollutants. Even so, nearly 400 counties did not comply with at least one air-quality standard in 2011.13

85

The federal government employs two standards for outdoor air quality.14 Ambient airquality standards refer to the maximum allowed level of pollutants in the air that will still protect human health, property, and the natural environment. Emissions standards are the amount of certain pollutants that an emissions source—a factory, car, or truck—is allowed to release into the environment. The EPA must review each air-quality standard every five years and may revise the standard based on scientific evidence. The EPA, together with the states and metropolitan regions, bears legal responsibility for maintaining and improving air quality. Governments, businesses, and individuals may be held legally liable for their air pollution emissions. Ideally, when all emissions sources within a state or region meet their emissions standards, the state or region is also in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Clean Air Act and the 1970 Amendments

Federal air-quality legislation began in 1955 with the Air Pollution Control Act, which provided funds to states to control air pollution. The original Clean Air Act of 1963 gave states more money as well as help with crossboundary pollution. The 1965 Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act enabled the federal government to set emission standards for new vehicles. The 1967 Air Quality Act gave additional funds to states and required that they establish air-quality control regions. Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 to create uniform national standards for air quality in order to overcome problems caused by states having different priorities and standards for pollutants. The Clean Air Act authorized the EPA to establish NAAQS to protect public health and

86

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants from mobile sources and stationary sources. The states now regulate stationary sources built after 1969. The EPA sets NAAQS that cities, states, and metropolitan regions are required to meet or else draft plans that will bring these jurisdictions into compliance. Ambient air simply means the surrounding open air as opposed to air inside a building. Primary air-quality standards are designed to protect human health, including the health of “sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary air-quality standards are established to maintain visibility, limit the erosion of buildings, and avoid serious damage to plant and animal life. These standards apply to the six criteria pollutants: nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, carbon monoxide, particulates, and ozone (see Table 3.1 and Figure 3.2). Each of the six criteria pollutants can interact with the others in ways that heighten the effects of any one pollutant. Air pollution also increases the moisture in the air; for example, the heavy use of motor vehicles has raised the humidity levels in the desert environment of greater

Phoenix. A seventh pollutant, carbon dioxide, was added in 2007, but as of 2014, the EPA had not established broad national standards for carbon dioxide emissions. The EPA has divided each state into airquality control regions that have monitoring stations to report air-quality conditions. Each region has an air-quality rating for each of the six major criteria pollutants: 1. Nonattainment means that the region does not meet the national primary or secondary ambient air-quality standard for the pollutant or that the region contributes to air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the national primary or secondary ambient air-quality standard for that pollutant. 2. Attainment confirms that the region meets the national primary or secondary ambient air-quality standard for the pollutant. 3. Unclassifiable means that the region does not have sufficient data to make a rating.

Table 3.1. National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air-Quality Standards Pollutant [Final Rule Cite] Carbon monoxide [76 FR 54294, Aug. 31, 2011]

Lead [73 FR 66964, Nov. 12, 2008]

Primary/ Secondary

Averaging Time

Maximum Level

Primary

8-hour

9 ppm

(No secondary standard)

1-hour

35 ppm

Primary and secondary

Rolling 3-month average

0.15 μg/m3

Form Not to be exceeded more than once per year

Not to be exceeded

CHAPTER 3: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE AIR QUALITY

Nitrogen dioxide [75 FR 6474, Feb. 9, 2010]

87

Primary

1-hour

100 ppb

98th percentile, averaged over 3 years

[61 FR 52852, Oct. 8, 1996]

Primary and secondary

Annual

53 ppb

Annual mean

Ozone [73 FR 16436, Mar. 27, 2008]

Primary and secondary

8-hour

0.075 ppm

Annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hr concentration, averaged over 3 years

Primary

Annual

12 μg/m3

Annual mean, averaged over 3 years

Secondary

Annual

15 μg/m3

Annual mean, averaged over 3 years

Primary and secondary

24-hour

35 μg/m3

98th percentile, averaged over 3 years

Primary and secondary

24-hour

150 μg/m3

Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years

Primary

1-hour

75 ppb

99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years

Secondary

3-hour

0.5 ppm

Not to be exceeded more than once per year

Particle pollution [71 FR 61144, Oct. 17, 2006] PM-2.515 PM 2.5

PM-10

Sulfur dioxide [75 FR 35520, Jun. 22, 2010] [38 FR 25678, Sept. 14, 1973]

ppm = parts per million ppb = parts per billion μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Note: All measurements of air quality are corrected to a reference temperature of 25 degrees Celsius and to a reference pressure of 760 millimeters of mercury (1,013.2 millibars). Source: U.S. EPA, 40 C.F.R. Sections 50.4–50.11; U.S. EPA, “National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),” October 2011, http://epa.gov/air/criteria.html. Retrieved January 30, 2012.

88

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Figure 3.2. Ozone Levels in the Puget Sound Region Source: Puget Sound Clean Air Agency © 2014.

In 2011, a total of 393 U.S. counties were classified as nonattainment for at least one of the criteria pollutants.16 Nearly all nonattainment ratings were for ozone or particulates (PM-2.5 or PM-10). The EPA rates nonattainment areas according to either (a) the type of the pollution or (b) the type and severity of the pollution. If a county falls out of compliance with sulfur oxide, nitrogen dioxide, or lead standards, the county has up to five years to come into compliance. In the case of particulates, for political and financial reasons, the worse the pollution, the longer time the nonattainment

area has to comply with the federal air-quality standards. For instance, a county rated moderate for noncompliance with the particulates standard has six years to come into compliance. But a county rated serious for noncompliance has 10 years. A county rated marginal for ozone has three years to come into compliance, but a county rated severe has 15 years.17 The EPA sets air pollution emissions standards for mobile sources, such as cars and trucks, and can set emissions standards for new stationary sources of pollution, such as electrical utilities and factories. The states are

CHAPTER 3: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE AIR QUALITY

responsible for inspecting, monitoring, and setting emissions standards for stationary pollution sources built after 1969. Each state is allowed to make its own decisions on how best to regulate existing sources to meet the ambient air-quality standards through a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The EPA can set state pollution budgets for any of the six criteria pollutants as well as toxic emissions. But after the 1990 Clean Air Amendments, states gained much more responsibility for regulating new stationary direct and indirect sources of air pollution. This process is described in Section 110 of the Clean Air Act on state airquality management plans. Regulating Motor Vehicle Emissions and the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments

89

In 2012, a manufacturer’s passenger cars had to attain an average of 32.3 miles per gallon, increasing to an average of 36.2 miles per gallon in 2016. Light trucks had to get an average of 24.5 miles per gallon in 2012, rising to 27.5 miles per gallon in 2016.20 The EPA worked with vehicle manufacturers to set an ambitious goal of 54.5 miles per gallon for car and light truck fleets by 2025.21 This standard, if met, would go far toward reducing nitrogen oxide emissions, ozone, and smog as well as carbon dioxide emissions. In the early 1970s, carmakers were required to add catalytic converters that curtail emissions by turning incompletely burned gasoline into carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water. At first, leaded gasoline hindered the effectiveness of the converters, but this problem was resolved when automakers pressured oil companies into producing unleaded gasoline. By 1975, five years after the Clean Air Act became law, unleaded gasoline was available to enable catalytic converters to function properly. Leaded gasoline was phased out in 1995. The 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments emphasized cutting motor vehicle pollution by requiring inspections and maintenance in 70 cities and several states where carbon monoxide and ozone standards had not been met.

Federal efforts to control motor vehicle emissions include minimum fuel efficiency standards for new cars, cleaner-burning engines, cleaner fuels, and vehicle inspection and maintenance. Congress first enacted corporate average fuel economy standards in 1975 to enable the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to set fuel efficiency requirements for a vehicle manufacturer’s entire fleet of cars and light trucks. These standards have tightened significantly since 2011. For example, in 1978, a manufacturer’s cars had to average only 18 miles per gallon. From 1990 to 2010, cars had to achieve a fleet average of The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments 27.5 miles per gallon. Light truck fuel efficiency was first set at 18.2 miles per gallon in 1979, ris- In 1990, Congress passed a mammoth set of ing to 20.7 miles per gallon from 1996 to 2004 amendments to the Clean Air Act, featuring and then 23.5 miles per gallon in 2010.18 It is important to note that light trucks rose from 1. new requirements for SIPs to improve air less than 10 percent of motor vehicles sold in quality and to prevent deterioration in air 1979 to more than 40 percent a year from 1996 quality; to 2010.19 This means that more pollution has been coming from light trucks and that tighter 2. state and metropolitan transportation plans that conform to state air-quality fuel efficiency standards for light trucks are implementation plans; especially important.

90

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

10. the trading of air pollution credits.

Through the SIP, the state is responsible for ensuring that metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) adopt transportation plans that maintain attainment or move toward attainment of national air-quality standards. In particular, for nonattainment areas, proof of the conformity of MPO transportation plans to the SIP is required at least every two years. Each state submits its SIP to the EPA for approval. If the SIP is ruled inadequate or not implemented, the EPA may draft a federal implementation plan for the state.22 Alternatively, the EPA may impose sanctions in the form of higher offsets for new pollution sources or withholding of federal highway funds. The EPA also has the authority to file suit against a state that does not implement all or part of its SIP.23

New Requirements for SIPs

Transportation Plans

SIPs must explain how the state will maintain, improve, and enforce both primary and secondary air-quality standards for the six criteria pollutants. The SIP sets emission limits, lists pollution control measures, and includes a schedule for compliance with the Clean Air Act standards. States have some discretion in selecting measures aimed at attaining the national air-quality standards. The SIP must explain how the state will monitor air quality and compile and analyze air-quality data with the use of air-quality models. The monitoring system is essential for assessing the effectiveness of SIP pollution control measures and the resulting air quality. Enforcement of air quality is a crucial part of the SIP, both to ensure that air-quality standards are met and to prohibit any source of pollution that would cause an air-quality control district to no longer meet all six attainment standards or fall further from reaching attainment. Also, a SIP is supposed to prevent any significant contribution to nonattainment in downwind states.

A metropolitan area must establish an MPO, which has the responsibility to plan for transportation projects, in order to receive federal transportation funds. There are 385 MPOs across the nation.24 An MPO may include several counties, such as the nine counties of greater Philadelphia that make up the area of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, or a single county, as in the case of the MPO of Lee County, Florida. Each MPO must adopt a transportation planning process that will maintain the region’s air quality or move the region toward attainment of federal airquality standards in three-year intervals.25 The transportation plans have three elements:

3. sanctions against states and regions that do not meet Clean Air Act standards or do not show progress toward meeting the standards; 4. continued and expanded motor vehicle emission controls; 5. air pollution control technology; 6. air pollution permits; 7. air pollution offsets; 8. a process to identify and reduce toxic air contaminants; 9. an Acid Rain Program to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions; and

1. A 20-year regional transportation plan (RTP). This plan must be consistent with both the state’s long-term transportation plan and the SIP, especially the emissions budgets. 2. A 3- to 6-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). This program is essentially

CHAPTER 3: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE AIR QUALITY

an update of the RTP and must also be consistent with the state’s long-term transportation plan, the state TIP, the SIP, and emissions budgets. The TIPs must show that any increase in vehicle miles traveled and vehicle trips will not jeopardize the improvement of air quality. The TIPs include specific transportation projects recommended for federal funding and projects to be paid for entirely with state, local, or private money. 3. Individual transportation projects, such as new roads and bus or rail lines, must be listed on both the RTP and TIP and must be consistent with the state’s long-term transportation plan, the state TIP, and the SIP for air quality in order to qualify for federal funding (Figure 3.3). It is important to note that the MPOs do not actually spend transportation dollars. MPOs allocate federal funds to cities, counties, and transportation authorities, which then put the funds to work on transportation projects, ideally in keeping with the MPO plans.

91

Sanctions

Sanctions apply to planning and implementation failures, not failure to attain national air-quality standards. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments gave the EPA two options for sanctions: (1) stricter offset requirements for new pollution sources or (2) the withholding of federal funds for new highway and industrial construction in regions with air quality below the federal standards. If regions do not improve their air quality, federal sanctions can create the incentive for the regions to act. If states and regions do not draft acceptable plans for reducing pollution levels, the EPA may draft implementation plans for them. To date, however, the sanctions have been used sparingly but most notably in the case of greater Atlanta (see Box 3.1). The 1990 Amendments also gave the EPA the power to levy fines against violators of the Clean Air Act without having to go to court. For instance, in 2010, British Petroleum agreed to pay a $15 million fine for the release of toxic air pollutants, including benzene—a known carcinogen—at its refinery in Texas City, Texas. The refinery, the nation’s third largest, had a long history of air-quality violations.26

Motor Vehicle Emission Controls

Figure 3.3. Clean Air Act Pollution Management Planning

Building on the 1970 and 1977 Amendments, the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments contained several provisions aimed at reducing air pollution from motor vehicles. Catalytic converters on cars were first required in the 1970s. Starting in 1990, a catalytic converter must work for at least 100,000 miles and a car must have a dashboard light and under-the-hood system to show whether the converter is functioning effectively to control pollution. The 1990 amendments also called for more stringent and technologically sophisticated motor

92

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Box 3.1. Atlanta, Air Quality, and the GRTA Greater Atlanta, Georgia, has long been notorious for its sprawling development patterns. The Atlanta region now stretches for 115 miles from north to south across 28 counties and contained about 5.5 million people in 2010, resulting in one of the lowest population densities of any American metropolis at fewer than 2,000 people per square mile. This spread-out settlement pattern was made possible by a heavy reliance on motor vehicles and road building and has made the use of mass transit difficult. In 2009, Atlantans drove an average of 28.8 miles a day to get to and from work and spent an average commuting time of 35.9 minutes each way. In 2010, greater Atlanta had a total peak travel time of 127 minutes, the longest of any metro area in the U.S.27 That same year, Atlantans spent an average of 43 hours stuck in traffic, down from an average of 52 hours in 2000; yet this congestion cost Atlantans nearly $2.5 billion in gasoline wasted and lost work, proof that time is money. In July of 1998, the EPA withheld federal highway funds from 13 Georgia counties. The counties had done little to plan for the improvement of the air quality of greater Atlanta, which had repeatedly exceeded federal standards for ozone, the main ingredient in smog. In 1999, Atlanta experienced 69 smog-alert days, a local record.28 The Georgia legislature responded by creating the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA, pronounced “Greta”). GRTA has the power to block highway projects and major new developments, such as regional malls,

that would induce more traffic. GRTA also can push for the construction of mass transit alternatives. Based on the formation of GRTA and a state plan to improve air quality, the EPA lifted the ban on federal highway funds in July of 2000. The use of mass transit has notably improved in recent years; in 2010, Atlantans traveled 16 percent more miles by mass transit than they did in 2000.29 But metropolitan Washington, DC, which has slightly more people than greater Atlanta, had more than twice as many miles of ridership on its public transit in 2010. Still, vehicle miles traveled on greater Atlanta’s roads increased by only 6 percent from 2000 to 2010. Greater Atlanta remains out of compliance with Clean Air Act standards for ozone and particulates (PM-2.5).30 In 2011, there were 40 smog-alert days, all with a severity of “unhealthy to certain groups”— the elderly, very young, and those with respiratory ailments.31 Yet it is important to note that federal ozone standards became stricter in 2008. In 1999, the standard was 84 parts per billion and 75 parts per billion in 2008. This means that Atlanta’s air is cleaner than when the highway funding sanctions were imposed. Even so, Atlanta is just one of dozens of metro areas with air quality that falls short of federal standards. In this sense, the EPA merely made Atlanta a brief example of how sanctions can withhold federal highway funding when a SIP for improving air quality and an MPO’s TIP fail to reduce air pollution to levels that protect public health.

CHAPTER 3: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE AIR QUALITY

93

vehicle inspection and maintenance programs than under the 1977 amendments. The 1990 amendments required truck and bus makers to modify their diesel engines to reduce most particulate emissions and to improve fuel efficiency. The 1990 amendments also mandated that diesel fuel have less sulfur content. Gasoline refiners have had to reformulate gasoline sold in smoggy areas so that it contains fewer volatile organic contaminants, such as benzene, a known carcinogen. In congested areas with cold weather, refiners are required to sell oxygenated gasoline—gasoline with more oxygen so that the gasoline will burn cleaner and produce less carbon monoxide. In regions with high air pollution levels, gas stations must install devices on gas pumps to catch gasoline fumes. In addition, all gasoline must contain detergents to prevent the buildup of engine deposits, to burn fuel more thoroughly, and to keep engines running smoothly. Finally, the 1990 amendments promoted alternative, cleaner-burning fuels such as ethanol through federal subsidies to producers. The ethanol tax credit subsidy was eliminated at the end of 2011.

region’s air quality. Best available technology may change over time and can vary across regions, according to local air-quality conditions and geographic setting. In nonattainment areas, the New Source Review program requires companies to obtain a permit for major new stationary sources of air pollution that would emit 100 or more tons per year of any of the six criteria pollutants and for major modifications to existing stationary sources. These stationary sources must install pollution control technologies to achieve the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER). Like the BACT, the LAER involves a case-by-case analysis of required technology and can vary over time and from place to place. A company can combine LAER requirements with pollution emission offsets to achieve the necessary no net increase in air pollutant levels. Existing stationary sources in nonattainment areas must install Reasonably Available Control Technology. These technologies are established by individual states on a case-by-case basis. The goal is to bring the region into compliance with the national air-quality standards.

Air Pollution Control Technologies

Air Pollution Permits

The New Source Review program is a preconstruction review process for new and modified stationary sources of air pollution. The purpose is to compel regions to maintain or achieve compliance with the six criteria pollutants. The New Source Review program has two parts. For regions that meet air-quality standards, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program requires owners of new or modified air pollution sources, such as factories or power plants, to install Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to ensure that the outdoor air quality will not be degraded. These technologies are determined on a case-by-case basis and can be combined with air pollution offsets to prevent significant deterioration in the

Under the 1990 amendments, large existing stationary polluters, such as factories and power plants, must obtain and pay for a pollution permit. Permits are issued by the states, and the EPA can step in to issue or revoke a permit if a state does not perform its duties. The permit indicates the level of pollutants currently being released, the allowable level of pollutant emissions, and the actions the polluter is taking to reduce the pollution. Polluters are responsible for regularly monitoring their own emissions and reporting any violations. The permit system is a one-stop process that covers all types of air pollution that may emanate from a power plant or factory. Permit applications and permit information are a

94

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

matter of public record and can be obtained from a state or regional air pollution control agency or the EPA. Planners, businesses, and citizens can readily find out where the major polluters are located and what they are emitting into the air. Air Pollution Offsets

An offset is a way to achieve an improvement in air quality while allowing a change in the sources of air pollution. Take the case of a company located in a nonattainment area that wants to expand production or change a production process in a way that will increase the emission of one of the six criteria air pollutants. This will be allowed only if there is an offset—a reduction of the pollutant by an amount somewhat greater than the proposed increase—somewhere else in the region. This way, an offset will keep the region on track toward compliance with federal air-quality standards. An offset can come from reductions inside the company or from another company in the area. The 1990 amendments allow companies to trade offsets. In a nonattainment area, the required offset is often a reduction of as much as 1.5 tons of pollution emissions for each ton of emissions from a new facility.32 This is just one example of how the Clean Air Act is more stringent on development in nonattainment areas than in areas that currently meet the federal clean air standards. Because of this uneven regulation, the Clean Air Act creates an incentive to build in areas that already meet clean air standards, a potential advantage in competing for economic development.

damage. In 2009, Ohio, with its numerous coal-fired power plants, led the nation in the amount of toxic air emissions.33 The EPA must identify and regulate major and area (small) sources of toxic emissions, including gas stations, chemical factories, dry cleaners, coalfired power plants, auto paint shops, and print shops, among others. Sources of toxic releases that meet the Clean Air Act definition of “major source” are usually reviewed for compliance by the state environmental agency or the regional EPA office at least once every two years. Once a toxic source type is identified, the EPA requires an application for approval of new construction and alterations. Also, the EPA requires testing, monitoring, record keeping, and reporting by the companies that generate or use the toxic substance (see Chapter 8). If a company wants to release more toxic emissions, it will have to at least match the increase through reducing toxic emissions elsewhere in the company or by purchasing air pollution offsets from another company. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments also created the Chemical Safety Board to investigate accidental releases of hazardous air pollutants, much as the National Transportation Safety Board investigates train and plane crashes. The 1990 amendments mandated that Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) be used to combat the major industrial sources of toxic air pollution. The link between human health and best available technology will continue to evolve over time as more scientific information is gathered and analyzed and new technologies are developed.

Toxics

The 1990 amendments gave the EPA responsibility for setting standards for 188 hazardous air pollutants and reducing toxic emissions. Exposure to toxic air pollution can cause cancer, respiratory problems, and neurological

Acid Rain Program

Acid deposition consists of rain, snow, and fog that contain both sulfuric and nitric acid. Acid deposition is caused by emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides that interact with

CHAPTER 3: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE AIR QUALITY

95

Box 3.2. Radon Gas, a Persistent Toxic Substance Radon is a naturally occurring substance that is released as a colorless, odorless gas from decomposing uranium or radium in rocks. The radioactive gas can seep into the basements of homes and buildings. Radon has been identified as the second leading cause of lung cancer, after smoking, contributing to an estimated 20,000 deaths each year.34 It may take several years of exposure to radon gas before lung cancer develops. But the risk of lung disease rises for people who smoke and are exposed to high levels of radon. Radon is common in the Rocky Mountain states, along the northern tier of the Plains and Midwest and in the northeastern states. Radon exists in millions of homes and buildings. City, county, and state health

sunlight and water vapor. In the 1980s, acid deposition was harming the aquatic life in the lakes, ponds, and streams of the Adirondack Mountains of New York as well as reducing forest growth rates in New England. The prevailing southwest wind carried sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, mainly in the Midwest, resulting in the increased acidity of soil and water in the northeastern states. Acid deposition also increases the rate at which mercury leaches out of rocks and soil and can cause mercury poisoning in water and fish. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 launched the Acid Rain Program with a goal of reducing nitrogen oxide emissions by 2 million tons below 1980 levels and halving 1980 sulfur dioxide emissions by 2005. The emission reductions were expected to improve environmental and public health by decreasing acid deposition, enabling the recovery from

departments have created maps of radon levels. Radon levels can vary widely within a single city or county and over time. In 1988, the U.S. Surgeon General recommended that the indoor air in all homes be tested for radon. That same year, Congress passed the Indoor Radon Abatement Act, which provided federal funding and technical assistance to states with the goal of making indoor air as free of radon as outdoor air. The EPA recommends that all homes below the third floor be tested for radon and has set a standard for homes and industrial buildings of no more than four picocuries of radon per liter.35 Radon levels can be reduced at a cost of a few hundred to a few thousand dollars by adding a ventilation system to remove indoor air and bring in outside air.

acidification in freshwater lakes and streams, improved visibility, and less damage to forests and buildings. The main technique to implement the Acid Rain Program has been cap-andtrade programs for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. Tradable Air Pollution Allowances: Cap-and-Trade Programs

The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments established a cap-and-trade market mechanism to set a national limit, or cap, on pollution emissions and allocate pollution allowances (individual caps) among polluters. An allowance is a permission to emit a certain amount of a pollutant, usually one ton. Each polluter is assigned allowances (a cap) each year. Those polluters who exceed their annual allowances must buy “pollution allowances” from polluters who emit less than their allowances. Thus polluters have

96

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

air quality. From 1980 to 2012, America’s emissions of the six criteria pollutants fell by 67 percent.38 Over the same time period, America’s gross domestic product increased by 133 percent, proving that environmental improvement and economic progress can happen at the same time.39 The benefits of improved air quality are enormous and have significantly exceeded the costs. From 1970 to 1990, the EPA estimated the value of lower mortality and fewer illnesses, asthma attacks, trips to the hospital, and lost work days at $13.7 trillion to $21.7 trillion.40 In a follow-up study, the EPA projected that the total benefits of the 1990 amendments would reach $12 trillion over the 30 years from 1990 to 2020.41 For 2020 alone, the EPA has estimated that the Clean Air Act will create $2 trillion in health benefits compared to the $65 billion in direct costs of compliance.42 Despite the improvements in the general quality of the nation’s air, the EPA reported that in 2008 an estimated 127 million Americans were living in counties that did not meet NAAQS for at least one of the six criteria pollutants.43 Thus public health impacts from poor air quality remain a concern. A continuing and widespread air pollution problem is motor vehicle emissions, which are likely to continue because of (a) population growth, (b) a growing total number of motor vehicles, (c) and greater congestion. As traffic delays mount, motor vehicles will idle longer and be caught in stop-and-go patterns. The idling of engines and engine ignition contribute more to air pollution than moving traffic. Vehicle miles traveled appear to have peaked in 2007, thanks in part to the Great Recession of 2007–2009 and the slow economic recovery. Sprawling development patterns have slowed but could pick back up along with the economy. Coal-fired power plants are another major Progress and Continuing Challenges in source of air pollution, accounting for much of Solving Air Pollution Problems the carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulates, The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, 1977, and nitrogen oxide emissions as well as releases and 1990 have significantly improved America’s of toxic mercury into the air.

a double incentive to reduce emissions: (1) to save money from having to buy allowances to meet their cap or paying fines for exceeding their cap and (2) to earn money by selling excess allowances. The incentives mean that the more businesses reduce pollution, the more they can lower their operating costs and hence become more efficient and competitive. But businesses have the flexibility to decide how to reduce their emissions and whether to buy or sell allowances. Emissions are measured by computerized monitoring systems. At the end of the year, each polluting source must have as many allowances as its emissions to be in compliance and avoid a fine. Over time, the federal government could lower the cap on emissions, forcing companies to make further cuts in emissions. The federal government could auction off allowances and even give away allowances. In 2000, for instance, the EPA auctioned off 125,000 allowances for an average price of more than $130.36 On the open market, sulfur dioxide allowances traded for as high as $700 a ton in early 2005. The goal was to cut the 1990 level of sulfur dioxide emissions in half by 2005. Through the trading of pollution allowances, industrial companies achieved this reduction about six years ahead of time and also saved electrical consumers a few billion dollars in the cost of electricity. But by 2010, the annual sulfur dioxide allowances were capped at 8.95 million tons a year, or 8.95 million allowances. But in 2010, sulfur dioxide emissions were slightly less than 6 million tons, well below the cap.37 As a result, in the 2011 spot auction, 125,000 allowances were sold at an average price of just $2.81 per ton of sulfur dioxide.

CHAPTER 3: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE AIR QUALITY

97

Air quality can vary from day to day as air-quality control districts issue daily reports well as show different concentrations of pol- and predictions of air quality (see Table 3.2 and lutants. State air-quality boards and regional Figure 3.4). Table 3.2. Air-Quality Index Ratings of Daily Air Quality Air Quality

Index Rating Points

Color Pollutant

0–50

Green

Moderate (some risk to sensitive people)

51–100

Yellow

Unhealthy for some groups (e.g., the elderly)

101–150

Orange

Unhealthy (health risks to everyone)

151–200

Red

Very unhealthy (health alert)

201–300

Purple

Hazardous (emergency)

301–500

Maroon

Good (little or no risk)

Source: AirNow, “Air Quality Index (AQI): A Guide to Air Quality and Your Health,” December 2011, http://airnow.gov/ index.cfm?action=aqibasics.aqi. Retrieved January 25, 2012.

Source category

PM-2.5

PM-10

NH 3

SO 2

NOx

VOC

CO

Pb

Stationary fuel combustion

–773

–813

+43

–10,490

–5,323

+445

–228

–0.42

Industrial and other processes

–343

–217

–446

–731

–144

–3,150

–442

–2.80

Highway vehicles

–213

–216

+153

–439

–4,386

–5,970

–71,389

–0.42

–17

–24

–28

+85

+474

–76

–3,411

–0.27

–1,346

–1,270

–278

–11,575

–9,379

–8,751

–75,470

–3.91

–58%

–39%

–6%

–50%

–36%

–35%

–53%

–79%

Nonroad mobile Total change Percent change (1990 vs. 2008)

Figure 3.4. Change in Annual Nationwide Emissions by Source, 1990–2008 (in Thousands of Tons) Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards, Our Nation’s Air-Status and Trends Through 2008 (EPA-454/R-09-002), February 2010, p. 7.

98

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Nitrogen oxide. Emissions of nitrogen oxide—the main contributor to ozone and smog—declined by 36 percent between 1990 and 2008 (see Figure 3.4). Over this time, the U.S. population grew by more than 50 million people and about as many cars. Nitrogen oxide emissions mainly come from electrical utilities and motor vehicles, and nitrogen oxide continues to be a major contributor to acid rain. Nitrogen oxide emission allowances were part of a cap-and-trade program created by the federal government from 2003 to 2008. The NOx Budget Trading Program, or the NOx SIP Call of 2003–2008, reduced annual nitrogen oxide emissions by 46 percent over that time. In 2010, the spot price of nitrogen oxide emissions allowances averaged about $400 a ton.44 At this price, it was less attractive for owners of power plants to continue to pollute compared to installing pollution control equipment. From 2008 to 2010, nitrogen oxide emissions fell by about one-third, or more than 1.4 million tons, to slightly more than 2 million tons a year.45 Sulfur dioxide. Annual sulfur dioxide emissions fell by half from 1990 to 2008 (see Figure 3.4). The wider use of smokestack scrubbers and gasbags, along with the shift from high-sulfur to low-sulfur coal, accounted for much of the reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions. The cap-and-trade program to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions that contribute to acid rain has been widely heralded as a success. The program began in 1992, and by 2000, sulfur dioxide emissions were 30 percent less than the 15.7 million tons of sulfur dioxide released in 1990.46 Two indications of lower sulfur dioxide emissions were a decrease in the sulfur ions levels throughout New York and New England from 1990 to 2008 and a general increase in acid neutralizing capacity.47 In 2000, the EPA conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the Acid Rain Program that estimated that the benefits from fewer respiratory illnesses, cleaner water, and greater visibility at $60 billion and the costs

of upgrading power plants at just $5 billion.48 By 2010, sulfur dioxide emissions fell further to slightly less than 6 million tons.49 Lead. Airborne lead pollution emissions fell sharply from 220,869 tons in 1970 to fewer than 4,000 tons in 2000 after lead was phased out of gasoline.50 Only 22 counties nationwide did not meet airborne lead standards as of 2008.51 Annual lead concentrations in outdoor air fell by a national average of 52 percent from 2000 to 2012.52 Carbon monoxide. There have been great strides in reducing carbon monoxide pollution from automobiles, even as the number of motor vehicles has increased. The EPA reported that the national average of carbon monoxide emissions dropped by 57 percent between 2000 and 2012. All 265 reporting sites were below the maximum acceptable level.53 Particulates. Between 1990 and 2012, emissions of PM-10 particulates fell by an average of 39 percent, according to EPA. Particulates of 2.5 microns (PM-2.5) are of considerable concern because of their ability to lodge in the lungs and cause more damage than PM-10 particulates. The EPA began to monitor PM-2.5 emissions in 1999 and started regulating them in 2006. Releases of PM-2.5 particulates declined by an average of 33 percent from 2000 to 2012.54 Nonetheless, more than 100 counties are out of compliance with the national standards for particulates. Most of these counties are located between New York City and Washington, DC, in western Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, and greater Atlanta. Ozone. Ozone continues to be the most widespread pollutant in the U.S. Ground-level ozone concentrations decreased by 44 percent between 1970 and 2000, but ozone levels showed little improvement from 1990 to 2000.55 Average ozone concentrations decreased by only 9 percent from 2000 to 2012, partly because ozone standards tightened in

CHAPTER 3: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE AIR QUALITY

2008 from 84 parts per billion to 75 parts per billion.56 More than 200 counties remained out of compliance with national ozone standards in 2010. These counties are concentrated in Southern California; in the Boston to Washington, DC, corridor; and greater Atlanta, Houston, and Chicago. On the positive side, in 2001, Denver became the first city in the nation to improve its air quality to “clean air status” under the federal Clean Air Act, for ozone.57 VOCs and nitrogen oxide, which are the main sources of ozone and smog, decreased by 35 percent and 36 percent, respectively, between 1990 and 2008 (see Figure 3.4). Toxic air pollution. Emissions of toxic air pollutants fell by about 54 percent, or 850 million pounds, from 2003 to 2012.58 The main sources of toxic air pollution include metal mining and metal fabrication, electric utilities, chemical production, and paper manufacturing. Mercury is a persistent toxic air pollutant, and coal-fired electrical generating plants are the leading source of airborne mercury. High levels of mercury in fish have been detected in the Northeast, downwind from the coal-fired plants of the Midwest. Mercury can damage the nervous system and is fatal in large doses. In 2005, the EPA adopted the Clean Air Mercury Rule, which required owners of coalfired power plants to reduce mercury emissions from 48 tons to 15 tons by 2018. In 2011, the EPA adopted another rule to compel owners of coal-fired power plants to reduce emissions of mercury and other airborne toxics. About half of the nation’s coal power plants have already installed modern technology to control mercury emissions. The older, pre-1970 plants remain the biggest sources of pollution. The American Lung Association estimated that the new rule would prevent 11,000 premature deaths, 4,700 heart attacks, and 130,000 asthma attacks each year.59 Ozone-depleting chemicals. While most air pollutants have local or regional impacts,

99

some have global effects. One such example is ozone-depleting chemicals that reduce the atmosphere’s ability to block harmful ultraviolet rays. These rays are a major source of skin cancer. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments included implementing America’s adoption of the international Montreal Protocol to phase out chemicals that deplete the ozone layer 6 to 31 miles above the earth. Emissions of most chemicals that destroy high atmospheric ozone have declined since the 1987 Montreal Protocol. The U.S. used a combination of excise taxes on the manufacture of three types of CFCs, the main causes of ozone depletion, along with tradable allowances for CFC production. America’s releases of the three types of CFCs fell from 202 million metric tons in 1990 to 41 million metric tons in 1999.60 Since then, production of ozone-depleting chemicals, except for certain exemptions under the Montreal Protocol, has been phased out in the U.S.61 If the protocol is adhered to, the ozone layer in the stratosphere is expected to recover by 2050.62 Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the major greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that CO2 and other greenhouses gases were air pollutants, enabling the EPA to regulate them under the Clean Air Act. As of 2014, the EPA had not yet established ambient air-quality standards for CO2 emissions, even though a reduction in CO2 emissions would also lower emissions of particulates, ozone, and nitrogen and sulfur oxides. The EPA did propose a rule in 2013 to limit CO2 emissions from new coal-fired power plants to 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour and from large natural gas-fired power plants to 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour.63 In 2010, the EPA began requiring industries to report greenhouse gas emissions.64 Power plants were the largest stationary source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 with 2,331 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, followed by oil

100

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Box 3.3. Indoor Air Quality and OSHA The EPA regulates only outdoor air, even though the quality of air inside offices, schools, shops, and factories affects the health of workers. Poor indoor air quality can cause headaches, fatigue, trouble concentrating, and irritation of the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs. Also, indoor air contaminants can set off asthma attacks. Exposure to airborne asbestos, lead, or radon can produce cancer. Poor indoor air can happen from poor ventilation and a lack of fresh air, problems controlling temperature, high or low humidity, mold, dust from construction

refineries with 178 million metric tons. These two sources accounted for nearly 40 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.66 In 2010, the EPA adopted a standard 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile for a motor vehicle fleet average for vehicles sold in 2016.67 In addition, the EPA set a fleetwide standard of 163 grams of carbon dioxide per mile, equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon in 2025.68

3.3: The Role of the States in Planning for Air Quality State Air-Quality Implementation Plans

The relationship between the EPA and the 50 states is meant to be a partnership and somewhat flexible in meeting the NAAQS. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA requires states to submit air-quality management plans, known as State Implementation Plans (SIPs), for review and

or remodeling, pesticides, and cleaning products. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), within the U.S. Labor Department, does not set standards for indoor air quality. However, OSHA has established standards for ventilation and some air contaminants that cause indoor air problems. Employers are required to provide workers with a safe workplace that does not have any known hazards that are likely to cause death or serious injury. Twenty-five states have OSHAapproved State Plans and have adopted their own standards and enforcement policies.65

approval. States draft and implement SIPs to meet, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. Under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, MPOs draft regional transportation plans (RTPs) based in part on input from local residents and planners on how local governments will spend federal transportation funds. The states and the MPOs must show that their regional plans and state transportation investments are consistent with the SIP and do not exceed SIP emissions targets for mobile air pollution sources. State plans must include land-use and transportation controls if necessary to meet federal air-quality standards. Otherwise, states and regions cannot spend federal funds on highway or transit projects that would make a region out of compliance with the ambient air-quality standards or make a nonattainment region further out of compliance. Several MPOs have modeled the emission levels from different land uses in an attempt to determine alternative land uses that would enable the region to meet or maintain compliance with the federal air-quality standards.

CHAPTER 3: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE AIR QUALITY

101

SIPs must include the following elements: such as a shopping mall. The SIP process must involve the public through hearings and opportunities to comment. To improve 1. A review of proposed major new staair quality in nonattainment areas, the SIP tionary sources of air pollution, such as must include factories or power plants. There must be recommended limits on emissions from each single source. Each source may pro1. a modeling of the air quality and polluduce a different mix of pollution. tion emissions in a region; 2. A review process for large, new indirect pollution sources that would attract mobile sources of pollution. Indirect sources include shopping centers, airports, highways, and sports stadiums.

2. a determination of the level of emissions that will still result in attainment of the federal standards;

3. The designation of air-quality maintenance areas and air-quality improvement areas.

4. a timetable of emission reductions to achieve attainment; and

4. Air-quality maintenance plans, which explain how the state will maintain air quality and prevent “significant deterioration” in areas that meet the national air-quality standards. 5. Plans to improve air quality in “nonattainment areas” that currently do not meet the national air-quality standards. 6. Rules for the six criteria pollutants and emission standards for hazardous air pollutants. 7. Land uses and transportation connections. 8. Motor vehicle emission and fuel standards. 9. How state environmental policy conforms to the Clean Air Act. State environmental agencies use SIPs in reviewing the potential air- quality impacts of large development proposals. These proposals may involve a stationary direct source, such as a new factory, or a stationary indirect source that attracts a large amount of traffic,

3. the amount of emissions from mobile and stationary sources;

5. the allowable emissions budgets each year. Reducing pollution emissions in parts of the nation where the economy and population are growing is a challenge. Take, for example, a growing region with an ozone level that is above the federal standard. Three years later, because of economic and population growth, ozone emissions would be expected to increase. So to make progress toward meeting the federal ozone standard in year three, the region must reduce ozone emissions (from VOCs and NOx) by more than the expected increase in ozone experienced over the three years. In other words, population increases and economic growth make it difficult for regions that are trying to come into compliance with the federal air-quality standards. See Section 3.4 for a discussion of how local plans to improve air quality must become components of SIPs. The EPA has made grants to states to draft SIPs, and the EPA and the states share responsibility for administering, monitoring, and enforcing the Clean Air Act. The EPA and the

102

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

states have hundreds of air-quality monitoring stations. The EPA also operates a continuous emissions monitoring program that requires owners of facilities that emit sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides to regularly test their pollution control equipment and submit reports on emissions levels. A state may prevent the construction of a major highway or electric power plant if the pollution generated would cause the air-quality control district or state to violate one or more national air-quality standards. The EPA may also veto certain major construction projects. A state air pollution agency can fine a company for violating air pollution standards, as can the EPA. Beginning in the 1990s, there has been a shift in the control of environmental programs from the federal government to the states (see also Chapter 6). As of 2012, all 50 states managed at least part of (a) the review of new sources of air pollution to prevent significant air-quality deterioration, (b) the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and (c) the MACT program to control toxic releases from industrial plants. A developer of a large project, such as a factory, must obtain two permits from the state environmental agency: (1) an air pollution control permit to construct and operate the factory and (2) an indirect source air pollution control permit for allowed parking capacity. The permits may include conditions that the developer has to meet to ensure compliance with the air-quality standards. The developer should follow the direction of the state Air Pollution Control Division in conducting an air-quality impact assessment of the projected emissions from the factory and from car and truck traffic traveling to and from the factory. The likely impact of these emissions is then compared to the NAAQS. If the air quality in the air pollution control district currently meets national standards, the proposed development cannot degrade the air quality

beyond a certain percentage of the remaining “clean air capacity.” This is also known as “prevention of significant deterioration increments,” or PSD increments. The air-quality impacts of the proposed factory are compared to the available PSD increments for nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide. An important but often overlooked aspect of reviewing proposals for new direct or indirect stationary sources is the likely impact on low-income and minority neighborhoods. Air quality can vary considerably across a region, especially if there is a concentration of pollution sources in a particular area. Historically, factories and power plants have been sited in areas with mostly low-income and minority residents who have little political power. The concept of environmental justice became incorporated into federal policy through an executive order by President Bill Clinton in 1994.69 Federal agencies are required to consider the effects of their decisions on low-income and minority neighborhoods. This is especially important for decisions made under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which licenses power plants, because they affect the location of federally funded or permitted projects, such as highways and power plants. The EPA has levied stiff fines on air polluters yet has been reluctant to impose sanctions to dramatically limit local and regional development in order to meet the federal airquality standards. The Clean Air Act experience demonstrates that it is one thing to pass a law and another to see that it is properly carried out, particularly when authority for carrying out much of the program is delegated from the federal government to individual states. In sum, air-quality improvement will continue to vary from state to state and among air-quality management districts within the states. The

CHAPTER 3: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE AIR QUALITY

overall trend in air quality in the U.S. is positive, but much work remains to be done. Reductions in transportation-related pollution could produce significant air-quality improvement. Improvements can be achieved by minimizing sprawling land-use patterns, better fuel efficiency in motor vehicles, more efficient and coordinated transportation systems, and greater use of transit, walking, and bicycling. America’s sprawling metropolitan areas have maintained, if not increased, dependence on automobiles and trucks and made less-polluting and energy-conserving mass transit less feasible both physically and financially. While better vehicle fuel efficiency is important, it is also crucial to reduce vehicle miles traveled. So increased sprawl with more efficient vehicles will produce little improvement in air quality. State air pollution control agencies can 1. quantify the emission reductions from sustainable land-use patterns in SIPs; 2. adopt implementing measures in SIPs to bring about sustainable land-use patterns; and 3. document emissions reductions from sustainable land-use patterns that support the conformity of MPO regional transportation plans with SIPs. Metropolitan areas can pursue sustainable land-use policies that promote transit-oriented development, mix residential and commercial development, encourage pedestrian-oriented neotraditional development design, target infill development and redeveloping downtowns, and discourage the outward sprawl of suburbs. These efforts would create greater opportunities for efficient mass transit (see the case study in Section 3.5).

103

3.4: Local Planning for Air Quality Planners can establish the links between air quality, land use, and transportation systems in the comprehensive plan. The plan can then show how proposed future development and transportation systems will impact local air quality in relation to federal air-quality standards and the SIP. A municipal or county comprehensive plan must also be coordinated with any regional transportation plans drafted by the MPO. The comprehensive plan establishes the legal basis for zoning and subdivision regulations and guides public infrastructure investment that greatly influences landdevelopment and transportation patterns and hence local air quality. Inventory

The natural resources inventory section of the comprehensive plan is a good place to put information on local and regional air quality, including weather and topography, any local air pollution problems, and both major and area (small) sources of air pollution. The inventory can also include information on growth patterns and transportation networks as they affect air quality. For example, New York City’s PlaNYC provides information on particulates (PM-2.5), which are the city’s primary air pollutant. PlaNYC reported that New York City has the highest concentration of PM-2.5 pollution per square mile among U.S. cities with more than 1 million residents.70 The plan then includes estimates of premature deaths, hospitalizations, and emergency asthma cases caused by PM-2.5. Planners can contact their state air pollution control agency for information about airquality reports and the SIP. EPA regional offices also can provide air-quality information.

104

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Box 3.4. California Vehicle Emissions Regulations California has long been at the forefront of air-quality regulations among states. The federal government has often allowed California a waiver from federal Clean Air Act standards as long as the California standards are stricter. In 2009, the Obama administration issued a waiver for California’s standards on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars and light trucks. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia, which make up about 40 percent of the U.S. car and light truck market, soon adopted the California standards. The standards apply to model years 2009–2016. Passenger cars and the smallest light trucks must meet carbon dioxide levels of 323 grams per mile in 2009 and 205 grams per mile in 2016. Other light trucks must emit no more than 439 grams of carbon dioxide per mile in 2009 and 332 grams per mile in 2016. In 2012, the California Air Resources Board approved the Advanced Clean Cars program, which combines the regulation of smog-causing pollutants and greenhouse

The state air-quality office can provide air-quality reports that indicate major sources of pollution and whether the community is located in a region that meets or does not meet federal air-quality standards. New York City’s air, for instance, does not meet federal standards for ozone and fine particulates (PM-2.5). It is a good idea to map ambient air quality at different air-quality monitoring stations and to note areas that do not meet air-quality standards.

gas emissions for model years 2017–2025 and covers all cars and light trucks from compacts to SUVs and pickups. The rules are expected to lower smog by 75 percent in 2025 from 2014 levels. Greenhouse gas emissions limits from new cars of 166 grams per mile are expected to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 34 percent—equal to 52 million metric tons—from 2016 levels by 2025. The new standards for smog and greenhouse gases have the support of automobile manufacturers.71 The Air Resources Board also required that at least 15 percent of new cars sold in California in 2025 produce zero emissions. More than 1.4 million zero-emission electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles are anticipated to be on the road in California by 2025, compared to about 10,000 in 2012.72 The Air Resources Board commented that by 2050, 87 percent of the cars in California will need to be zero-emission vehicles to meet the state’s climate goal of reducing greenhouse gases by 80 percent from 1990 levels.

with each of the six criteria pollutants. Planners can point out whether the proposed comprehensive plan is consistent with the SIP and the MPO’s regional transportation plans. The analysis can include an evaluation of alternative ways for the city or county to meet the air-quality requirements of these plans. This is a good opportunity to use scenario planning to examine air-quality outcomes based on different land-use and transportation conditions. Ideally, planners, the public, and elected officials will agree on a preferred scenario to Analysis guide the comprehensive plan, zoning and Planners should note whether the city or subdivision ordinances, and capital improvecounty is in a nonattainment area or complies ments projects.

CHAPTER 3: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE AIR QUALITY

Goals and Objectives

105

million trees toward carrying out this objective of PlaNYC.

General goals and specific objectives address • Add 10 miles of bicycle lanes over the next maintaining or improving air quality to meet five years. federal standards and to comply with the SIP and the MPO’s regional transportation plans. • Add high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to encourage carpooling. The comprehensive plan can express one or more air-quality goals and specific objectives • Explore funding for the creation or expanthat support these goals (see Table 3.3). sion of mass transit systems. Environmental Action Plan or Action Strategy

Planners can draft an Environmental Action Plan or strategy to present techniques, programs, and a timetable for achieving the environmentally oriented goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. The Environmental Action Plan lists short-term, medium-term, and long-term actions, funding sources, and who will be responsible for carrying out the actions and when. Planners can identify air-quality benchmarks and measure progress toward those benchmarks in an annual report on environmental quality. New York City, for instance, published updates to PlaNYC in 2011 and 2012 to report on progress and noted that PM-2.5 concentrations had fallen somewhat but not enough to meet federal air-quality standards. Specific action strategies might include the following objectives: • Adopt mixed use zoning in the downtown to promote residential development near commercial development, to reduce commuting times, and to encourage alternatives modes of transportation to the car. • Identify infill sites within the city that could be developed. • Plant a million trees. From 2007 to 2012, New York City had planted more than half a

• Approve only those new or expanding businesses that are consistent with the SIP and the MPO’s RTP and TIP. • Publish annual air-quality reports for the region. Zoning Ordinances

One of the original purposes of zoning is to separate conflicting land uses, such as keeping smoke-belching factories out of residential neighborhoods. New industries that emit air pollution should be permitted to locate only in commercial or industrial zones, away from population centers. Zoning ordinances include setback requirements from property boundaries, in part to promote air circulation. Some zoning ordinances have additional standards for vegetative screening, earth berms, and buffer areas, which can mitigate the impacts of air pollution on neighbors. Zoning can also enhance air quality where governments want to create denser development that reduces car trips and commuting times, makes mass transit feasible, and encourages walking and biking. Zoning ordinances must allow mixed use residential and commercial developments at a fairly high density. At a county or regional level, zoning that tightly limits the number of dwellings allowed on open land outside of established settlements will help control the growth of cardependent sprawl.

106

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Table 3.3. Sample Air-Quality Goals and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan Plan Section: Natural Resources Goal: Maintain (or “improve and maintain”) local and regional air quality. Objective: Reduce regionally generated air pollutants from residential, industrial, and transportation uses, in particular emissions from vehicles and wood- and coal-burning stoves. Plan Section: Economic Base Objective: Promote air pollution control measures to make the community attractive to new development. Plan Section: Land Use Objective: Promote compact development as a way to reduce air pollution by decreasing automobile dependence and increasing the feasibility of mass transit. Encourage infill development on vacant land and underutilized downtown sites. Plan Section: Transportation Objective: Promote the use of mass transit and alternative modes of transportation to reduce air pollution. New York City’s PlaNYC has a separate section on air quality.73 The section includes the following goals and objectives: Goal: Achieve the cleanest air quality of any big U.S. city. Goal: Understand the scope of the challenge. Objective: Monitor and model neighborhood-level air quality. Goal: Reduce transportation emissions. Objective: Reduce, replace, retrofit, and refuel vehicles. Objective: Facilitate the adoption of electric vehicles. Goal: Reduce emissions from buildings. Objective: Promote the use of cleaner-burning heating fuels (e.g., a switch from oil to natural gas would help reduce particulates and carbon dioxide emissions).

CHAPTER 3: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE AIR QUALITY

Subdivision Regulations

Subdivision and land-development regulations can help protect air quality through the development review process. The subdivision ordinance can require that a large percentage of trees above a certain pole size be maintained or replaced on a site to help absorb and filter air pollution, generate oxygen, and provide shade to reduce ground-level temperatures in the summer. Many subdivision ordinances require developers of large residential subdivisions to dedicate parkland or fees in lieu of parkland. Parkland may include bicycle paths and walking trails for alternative, nonpolluting modes of transportation. The subdivision ordinance could also require that developments above a certain size include a bus stop and trails for walking and biking. Many developers have recognized that trails are popular and are willing to include them in their development proposals. Capital Improvements Programs (CIPs)

The location, type, and timing of public infrastructure investment in roads, transit, schools, sewer and water lines, parks, and police and fire stations greatly influence where and when commercial, industrial, and residential developments are built. The location and intensity of development and infrastructure in turn affect air quality. To promote compact development, the CIP can include an explicit policy of concurrency, stating that no development can occur until adequate public facilities (schools, sewer, water, roads, police, and fire service) are in place. The concurrency policy can help limit sprawl and vehicle miles traveled, but only if zoning is restrictive outside of developed areas. Otherwise, developers will choose to build in the countryside and contribute to car-dependent sprawl and air pollution. For example, the poor application of concurrency in Florida led to more sprawl than was envisioned.74 A smoother

107

flow of cars and a better mix of transportation modes can also reduce air pollution. Cities and metropolitan counties can explore adding HOV lanes, expanding mass transit systems, discouraging cul-de-sacs, and creating bicycle and walking paths. What to Look for in a Development Review

The first issues to consider in a development review are the type of proposed use, the size of the project, and the location (see Table 3.4). The type of development—whether residential, commercial, industrial, public, or a mix of uses—and the size of the development will suggest both the volume of air pollution that will be generated both at the site and indirectly through people driving to and from the site. The location of the proposed development in relation to existing and planned development can affect the future growth of an area, modes of transportation, traffic congestion, and overall air quality. The sketch plan stage of a large subdivision or land-development review is the proper time for planners to work with a developer to investigate the likely air pollution impacts and make possible modifications to the development proposal to minimize air pollution. Planners should be aware of the potential cumulative impact of several small new developments on transportation systems and air quality. While proposed subdivisions are not typically denied based on the potential of air-quality impacts, these impacts can be mitigated through better project design and transportation improvements. If the subdivision ordinance gives planners the authority to require an environmental impact process for large developments, planners can ask the developer to present evidence of current air quality and the likely effects of the proposed development on air quality.

108

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Table 3.4. A Checklist of Air-Quality Issues for a Development Review 1.

What are the proposed size and uses of the proposed project?

2.

Will the project generate a large amount of air pollution or attract a large amount of motor vehicle traffic?

3.

What transportation modes are available to provide access to the proposed project?

4.

Will the proposed project cause or worsen traffic congestion?

5.

What is the location of the proposed use to existing and planned development areas?

6.

Will the proposed development require transportation improvements, and are those improvements consistent with the MPO transportation plans and projects?

7.

How would the proposed development project affect the SIP or current air pollution levels in the region?

8.

Is the proposed project in a nonattainment area or an attainment area?

9.

Would the proposed project cause a deterioration of air quality?

10.

Has the developer obtained any necessary air pollution control permits from the state environmental agency?

11.

Is an environmental impact statement required by the federal government under NEPA, the state, or the local government?

Planners can contact the state environmental agency’s Air Pollution Control Division if there is any question about air-quality impacts based on the size or type of project. A state environmental agency typically uses a computer model to estimate the expected air pollution impacts of a proposed development. A model, however, may be too general to represent actual conditions at a specific site and may be less accurate in mountainous terrain. Planners should consider these issues when making recommendations for alternative development designs, mitigating air pollution, listing specific conditions the developer must meet, and granting overall project approval. The state environmental agency may also suggest alternative technologies to control air pollution emissions.

Municipalities and counties should obtain a copy of the findings and permits of the state environmental agency, especially if there was a state review under its State Environmental Policy Act. State and federal regulators often exercise the final say over whether to approve or deny a proposed development based on expected air pollution impacts.

3.5: Case Study: The Land Use, Air Quality, and Transportation Study in Portland, Oregon The following case study illustrates how greater Portland, Oregon, recognized the connection between land use, transportation, and

CHAPTER 3: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE AIR QUALITY

air quality and responded with a combination of more compact development and mass transit both to maintain air quality and to accommodate growth. Interstate 5 runs north and south through the center of Oregon’s largest city, Portland. In 1989, state highway engineers proposed a new interstate highway to bypass Portland west of the city. A citizens group grew concerned about the sprawl-inducing effects of the proposed highway. 1000 Friends of Oregon, a land-use organization formed to monitor Oregon’s 1973 state land use law, also became involved in the highway dispute. 1000 Friends joined with transportation and architectural consultants to undertake a $1 million study of the connection between air quality, alternative modes of transportation, and different land-use patterns in greater Portland. In 1992, the Land Use, Transportation, Air Quality (LUTRAQ) Alternative report appeared. The study showed that building the west side bypass around Portland would lead to more auto-dependent sprawl and increased air pollution. Part of the problem was that Portland sits between the Coast Range and the Cascade mountains, which rise up to 12,000 feet. It is not uncommon for inversions to occur, in which stagnant cold air becomes trapped under warm air and pollution concentrations quickly build up. The study’s conclusions helped put an end to the west side bypass. The LUTRAQ study noted that mass transit is more environmentally friendly and more energy efficient than travel by automobile.75 To help reduce vehicle miles traveled, the study proposed expanding the light-rail system that had served Portland’s eastern suburbs since 1986. In September 1998, the west side lightrail line was opened, linking Hillsboro to downtown Portland. The LUTRAQ study also featured transitoriented developments (TODs) designed by new urbanist architect Peter Calthorpe.76 TODs

109

combine a European-style transit system and the traditional U.S. small town, what Calthorpe described as a revival of the streetcar suburb, popular in the early 20th century. Calthorpe designed compact, high-density “nodes” at intervals along the rail lines, with the transit stations serving as the centers. In places without rail lines, buses could be used, or new light-rail lines could be built. TODs include a core area of about a quarter-mile radius and a secondary area that extends outward for an additional quarter mile. Within this bounded area, development occurs at a full range of densities— houses, apartments, and commercial space within walking or biking distance of a transit stop and an easily accessible town center at the transit hub. The compact design of TODs also helps keeps the outlying landscape open. The TOD concept became a reality in 1997 when developer Pacific Realty Associates broke ground at Orenco Station, near the west side light-rail line (Figure 3.5). The 209-acre site features 1,834 dwelling units, residential lots as small as 3,700 square feet, pocket parks, and a commercial district with three-story buildings, all within walking distance of the rail station.77 A ride to downtown Portland takes just 35 minutes. Orenco Station is effectively a new town, but one that fits into the region. In 1995, Metro, the regional elected government of greater Portland, drafted its longrange 2040 Growth Concept, which identified 35 centers with potential for TODs. These centers are expected to occupy about one-fourth of the metropolitan area and contain about half of the region’s residents. By 2040, the population of greater Portland is expected to increase by as many as 750,000 people to a total of about 2 million. If mass transit were not available, the region would choke on traffic congestion and air pollution. By the late 1990s, an estimated 40 percent of trips to downtown Portland were made by mass transit.

110

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Retail center Multifamily homes

Single-family homes Multifamily homes

Retail center

Town center

Single- and multifamily homes

Transit center

Figure 3.5. Layout of Orenco Station, Near Hillsboro, Oregon

Several U.S. cities have taken note of the success of Portland’s light-rail system. Light-rail commuter lines now exist in more 30 metropolitan areas, including fairly new systems in greater Minneapolis-St. Paul, Seattle, Charlotte, Atlanta, Houston, and Phoenix (see Chapter 18). Summary

Good air quality is essential for public health. Federal planning for air quality began with the Clean Air Act of 1970, which focused on setting and enforcing risk-based standards and emissions limits for the six criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxide, ozone, particulates, and sulfur dioxide. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments added incentives in the

form of offsets, sanctions, and cap-and-trade programs. America’s air quality has improved significantly since 1970, and the health benefits of the Clean Air Act have greatly exceeded the costs to government, businesses, and individuals. But more than 100 million Americans still live in areas that do not meet all the airquality standards, especially for ozone or particulates. Motor vehicles and coal-fired power plants are the main sources of ozone and particulate pollution. Toxic emissions, especially mercury from power plants, are a recent target. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were pollutants, and hence the EPA could regulate them under the Clean Air Act. States work with both the EPA and local governments through state improvement plans

CHAPTER 3: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE AIR QUALITY

to attain or maintain federal air-quality standards. MPOs must draft regional transportation plans in order for the local governments to receive federal transportation funds. The MPO plans must be consistent with a state’s SIP. States also monitor air quality and issue permits for stationary pollution sources. Local governments can include air-quality information, analysis, and goals and objectives in their comprehensive plans. Zoning ordinances can promote more compact and fairly dense development to make walking, biking, and mass transit more attractive and thus reduce vehicle miles traveled and pollution emissions. Subdivision regulations can require vegetation to absorb and filter air pollution and trails to encourage walking and biking. Capital improvements programs can emphasize public investments in mass transit over roads as well as public green space, sidewalks, and trails to promote walking and biking.

Notes 1. U.S. EPA. “Air and Radiation: Basic Information.” Last modified July 16, 2012. http:// www.epa.gov/air/basic.html. Retrieved March 20, 2013. 2. U.S. EPA. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020. http://www .epa.gov/air/sect812/prospective2.html, 2011. Retrieved January 16, 2012. 3. Stephenson, J. B., director of Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. General Accounting Office. Environmental Protection: The Federal Government Could Help Communities Better Plan for Transportation That Protects Air Quality. Testimony Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, July 30, 2002, p. 2. 4. Kleeman, M., S. Chen, and R. Harley. Climate Change Impact on Air Quality in California,

111

Final Report. Sacramento, CA: California Air Resources Board, 2010. 5. Stephenson, J. B., director of Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. General Accounting Office. Environmental Protection: The Federal Government Could Help Communities Better Plan for Transportation That Protects Air Quality. Testimony Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, July 30, 2002, p. 5. 6. Hartocollis, A. “C.D.C. Lowers Recommended Lead-Level Limits in Children.” New York Times, May 16, 2012. http://www.nytimes .com/2012/05/17/nyregion/cdc-lowers-rec ommended-lead-level-limits-in-children.html. Retrieved May 30, 2012. 7. U.S. EPA. “Overview of Greenhouse Gases: Methane Emissions.” Last modified April 17, 2014. http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemis sions/gases/ch4.html. Retrieved April 26, 2014. 8. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). The U.S. Supreme Court found that “greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of air pollutant” (pp. 528–29). 9. U.S. EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gases and Sinks: 1990–2009. Washington, DC: USEPA, 2011, Figure ES-1, p. 4. 10. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. “Climate Action Plans.” http://www.c2es .org/us-states-regions/policy-maps/action -plan. Retrieved May 22, 2014; U.S. Energy Information Administration. Monthly Energy Review, June 2012, p. 161. http://www.eia.gov/ totalenergy/data/monthly/archive/00351206 .pdf#page=171. Retrieved January 23, 2013. 11. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Short-Term Energy and Summer Fuels Outlook, 2014. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/ report/renew_co2.cfm. Retrieved April 26, 2014. 12. U.S. EPA. “Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, Remarks on the 40th Anniversary of the Clean Air Act, as Prepared.” September 14, 2010. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/

112

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

12a744ff56dbff8585257590004750b6/ 7769a6b1f0a5bc9a8525779e005ade13!Open Document. Retrieved January 16, 2012. 13. U.S. EPA. “Currently Designated Nonattainment Areas for All Criteria Pollutants.” Last modified December 5, 2013. http://www.epa .gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/ancl.html#ALABAMA. Retrieved April 26, 2014. 14. Indoor air quality is regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) within the U.S. Department of Labor. 15. U.S. EPA. “Regulatory Actions: EPA Revises the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Pollution.” Last modified November 19, 2013. http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ particlepollution/actions.html. Retrieved April 27, 2014. 16. Ibid. 17. Clean Air Act, Title 1, Part D, Subpart 2, Section 181. 18. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Transportation Safety Administration. Summary of Fuel Economy Performance. 2011. http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/ pdf/cafe/2011_Summary_Report.pdf. Retrieved January 30, 2012. 19. Ibid. 20. Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 88. Friday, May 7, 2010. Rules and Regulations, p. 25331. 21. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. “President Obama Announces Historic 54.5 mpg Fuel Efficiency Standard” (press release). July 29, 2011. http://www.nhtsa.gov/ About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2011/President +Obama+Announces+Historic+54.5+mpg+ Fuel+Efficiency+Standard. Retrieved February 6, 2012. 22. McCarthy, J. Clean Air Act: A Summary of the Act and Its Major Requirements. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2005. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/ 47810.pdf. Retrieved January 23, 2012. 23. Schneeberg, S. Federal-State Partnership in Implementing Air Quality Standards Under the

U. S. Clean Air Act: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: USEPA Office of General Counsel. 24. North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (Colorado). “Frequently Asked Questions.” http://www.nfrmpo.org/ AboutUs/FAQs.aspx. Retrieved March 29, 2012. 25. 42 U.S.C.A. Section 7511a(g). 26. Rudolf, J. C. “BP to Pay Record Fine for Refinery Violation.” Green (blog), New York Times, September 30, 2010. http://green.blogs .nytimes.com/2010/09/30/bp-to-pay-record -fine-for-refinery-violations. Retrieved January 23, 2012. 27. Shrank, D., T. Lomax, and D. Eisele. 2011 Annual Urban Mobility Report. College Station: Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, 2011, Summary Tables 2, 4, and 7. 28. Firestone, D. “Suburban Comforts Thwart Atlanta’s Plans to Limit Sprawl.” New York Times, November 21, 1999, p. 22. 29. Texas Transportation Institute. 2011 Annual Urban Mobility Report. College Station: Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, 2011, pp. 20, 24, 28, 32, 42. http:// nacto.org/docs/usdg/2011_urban_mobility _report_schrank.pdf. Retrieved April 27, 2014. 30. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Air Protection Branch. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Nonattainment Areas.” http:// georgiaair.org/airpermit/html/planning support/naa.htm. Retrieved January 23, 2012. 31. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Air Protection Branch. “Atlanta Smog Alert Statistics for 2011.”http://www.georgiaair.org/smogforecast/ stats.php?yr=2011. Retrieved January 23, 2012. 32. Moore, C. A. Smart Growth and the Clean Air Act. Washington, DC: Northeast-Midwest Institute, 2001, p. 4. 33. Natural Resources Defense Council and Physicians for Social Responsibility. Toxic Power: How Power Plants Contaminate Our Air and States. New York: NRDC, 2011. http://docs.nrdc

CHAPTER 3: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE AIR QUALITY

.org/air/files/air_11072001a.pdf. Retrieved January 23, 2012. 34. U.S. EPA. “Radon.” Last modified March 4, 2014. http://www.epa.gov/radon/index.html. Retrieved April 27, 2014. 35. U.S. EPA. “EPA Proposes New Standards to Protect Public Health from Radon in Drinking Water and Indoor Air” (press release). October 19, 1999. Washington, DC: USEPA. 36. U.S. EPA. 2011 EPA Allowance Auction Results. http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/trading/ auction.html. Retrieved January 23, 2012. 37. U.S. EPA. Clean Air Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program and Former NOx Budget Trading Program 2011 Progress Report, Figure 3. http:// www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARPCAIR 11_01.html. Retrieved January 24, 2012. 38. U.S. EPA. Air Quality Trends. April 21, 2014. http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html. Retrieved April 27, 2014. 39. Ibid. 40. U.S. EPA. The Benefits and Cost of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to 1990. 1997. http://www .epa.gov/oar/sect812/1970-1990/chptr1_7.pdf. Retrieved January 16, 2012. 41. U.S. EPA. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020. 2011. http:// www.epa.gov/cleanairactbenefits/feb11/full report_rev_a.pdf. Retrieved April 27, 2014. 42. U.S. EPA. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, Second Prospective Study 1990– 2020. 2011. http://www.epa.gov/cleanairact benefits/prospective2.html. Retrieved April 27, 2014. 43. U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards. Our Nation’s Air-Status and Trends Through 2008. EPA-454/R-09-002. Research Triangle Park, NC: USEPA, February 2010, p. 2. 44. U.S. EPA. Clean Air Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program and Former NOx Budget Trading Program 2011 Progress Report, 2011, Figure 12. http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ ARPCAIR11_01.html. Retrieved April 27, 2014.

113

45. U.S. EPA. Clean Air Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program and Former NOx Budget Trading Program 2011 Progress Report, 2011, Figure 9. http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARP CAIR11_01.html. Retrieved April 27, 2014. 46. U.S. EPA. Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2000 Status and Trends, 2001. Washington, DC: USEPA. 47. U.S. EPA. Clean Air Markets, Acid Rain and Related Programs: 2009 Highlights: 15 Years of Results, 1995 to 2009, 2010, Figures 7 and 8. http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ ARP09_4.html. Retrieved April 27, 2014. 48. U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation. Analysis of the Acid Deposition and Ozone Control Act (S. 172). Washington, DC: USEPA, 2000, p. 45. 49. U.S. EPA. Clean Air Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program and Former NOx Budget Trading Program 2011 Progress Report, 2011, Figure 3. http:// www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARPCAIR 11_01.html. Retrieved April 27, 2014. 50. U.S. EPA. Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2000 Status and Trends, 2001. Washington, DC: USEPA, p. 4. 51. U.S. EPA. “Lead Nonattainment State/ Area/County Report.” Last modified December 5, 2013. http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/ greenbk/mncs.html. Retrieved April 27, 2014. 52. U.S. EPA. “Air Trends: Lead.” Last modified August 29, 2013. http://www.epa.gov/air/air trends/lead.html. Retrieved April 27, 2014. 53. U.S. EPA. “Air Trends: Carbon Monoxide.” Last modified September 3, 2013. http://epa .gov/air/airtrends/carbon.html. Retrieved April 27, 2014. 54. U.S. EPA. “Air Trends: Particulate Matter.” Last modified September 3, 2013. http://epa .gov/air/airtrends/pm.html. Retrieved April 27, 2014. 55. U.S. EPA. Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2000 Status and Trends, 2001. Washington, DC: USEPA, p. 4.

114

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

56. U.S. EPA. “Air Trends: Ozone.” Last modified November 21, 2013. http://www.epa.gov/ airtrends/ozone.html. Retrieved April 27, 2014. 57. Stein, T. “‘Clean Air’ City Is Closer.” Denver Post, August 31, 2001, p. 1. 58. U.S. EPA. 2012 Toxics Release Inventory National Analysis Overview, 2014. http://www2 .epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-01/ documents/complete_2012_tri_na_over view_document.pdf. Retrieved April 27, 2014. 59. American Lung Association. “New Mercury and Air Toxics Standards: Historic Victory for Healthier Air.” December 22, 2011. http:// www.lungusa.org/about-us/our-impact/top -stories/historic-victory-for-healthier-air.html. Retrieved January 15, 2012. 60. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2000. Washington, DC: USGPO, 2001, p. 217. 61. U.S. EPA. “Ozone-Depleting SubstancesRegulatory Programs: The Phaseout of OzoneDepleting Substances.” Last modified March 13, 2014. http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phase out. Retrieved April 26, 2014. 62. Speth, J. G. Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis of the Global Environment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004. 63. This rule would make it virtually impossible for utilities to build new coal-fired power plants. 64. U.S. EPA. “Proposed Carbon Pollution Standard for New Power Plants.” 2013. Last modified February 26, 2014. http://www2 .epa.gov/carbon- pollution- standards/2013 - proposed- carbon- pollution- standard- new -power-plants. Retrieved April 26, 2014. 65. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). “Indoor Air Quality.” http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/indoor airquality/index.html. Retrieved January 27, 2012. 66. U.S. EPA. “Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Power Plants.” Last modified December 17, 2013. http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ ghgdata/reported/powerplants.html. Retrieved April 27, 2014.

67. U.S. EPA. “Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems.” Last modified December 17, 2013. http://www .epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghgdata/reported/ petroleum.html. Retrieved April 27, 2014. 68. U.S. EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. EPA and NHTSA Set Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Model Years 2017–2025 Cars and Light Trucks. 2012. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents /420f12051.pdf. Retrieved March 20, 2013. 69. U.S. EPA. “EPA Insight Policy Paper: Executive Order #12898 on Environmental Justice.” Last modified May 31, 2013. http://www .epa.gov/fedfac/documents/executive_order _12898.htm. Retrieved April 27, 2014. 70. City of New York. PlaNYC 2030: A Greener, Greater New York, p. 123. Last updated April 2011. http://nytelecom.vo.llnwd.net/o15/agencies/ planyc2030/pdf/planyc_2011_planyc_full _report.pdf. Retrieved February 7, 2012. 71. California Air Resources Board. “California Air Resources Board Approves Advanced Clean Car Rules.” January 27, 2012. http://www .arb.ca.gov/newsrel/newsrelease.php?id=282. Retrieved January 30, 2012. 72. Rogers, P. “California Air Board to Vote on Landmark Electric-Car Rules.” San Jose Mercury News, January 26, 2012. 73. Ibid., pp. 118–131. 74. See Chapin, T., C. Connerly, and H. Higgins, eds. Growth Management in Florida: Planning for Paradise. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2007. 75. Major, M. J. “Containing Growth in the Pacific Northwest.” Urban Land, March 1994, p. 16. 76. Calthorpe, P. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993. 77. Mehaffy, M. “Orenco Station, Hillsboro, Oregon.” Terrain.org: A Journal of the Built & Natural Environment, Fall/Winter 2001. http://www .terrain.org/unsprawl/10. Retrieved February 7, 2012.

Chapter 4

PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE Mitigation and Adaptation

Climate Change is a result of the greatest market failure the world has seen. —Sir Nicholas Stern, chief author of The Stern Report1

4.1: Climate Change: Threats and Responses Climate change, brought about by the warming of the earth’s atmosphere, poses the single greatest threat to the global environment. The earth’s atmosphere normally blocks some of the sun’s infrared rays from reflecting back into outer space and thus helps keep the earth warm enough to sustain humans and other living creatures. The buildup of certain gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) increases the ability of the atmosphere to the trap sun’s rays. The greenhouse effect then heats up the earth, much the same way that a glass greenhouse absorbs the sun’s warmth (see Figure 4.1). The leading so-called greenhouse gases include CO2, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and methane. These gases are typically measured in metric tons of CO2 equivalent. CO2 is the

Figure 4.1. The Greenhouse Effect As greenhouse gases build up in the atmosphere, fewer of the sun’s infrared rays are reflected back into outer space. The atmosphere warms up, and land and ocean temperatures rise.

116

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Agriculture most common U.S. greenhouse gas, account8% ing for more than four-fifths of the nation’s Commercial and total greenhouse gas emissions in 2011 (see residential 11% Figure 4.3).2 Yet the other greenhouse gases have much greater potential to trap the sun’s rays and warm the earth. Methane has a global Electricity 33% warming potential of about 21 times that of CO2. Nitrous oxide has a global warming Industry 20% potential of 310 times more than CO2 and per3 sists in the atmosphere for about 120 years. Transportation Fluorinated gases (hydrofluorocarbons and 28% perfluorocarbons) are 1,000 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2. In addition, particulates, also known as black carbon or soot, trap heat in the atmosphere and contribute to cli- Figure 4.2. Sources of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2011 mate change. The main sources of America’s green- Total emissions were 6,702 millions of metric house gases are the burning of fossil fuels: tons equivalent of CO . 2 coal for electricity, oil in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel to power motor vehicles, and Source: U.S. EPA, National Greenhouse Gas Emissions natural gas to heat homes and commercial Data, 2013. buildings (see Figure 4.2). In 2012, the burning of fossil fuels made up 94 percent of AmeriFlourinated gases ca’s CO2 emissions and more than 77 percent Nitrous oxide 2% 4 5% of total greenhouse gas emissions. Coal-fired power plants produce about half of America’s CO2 emissions. The burning of wood and the Methane manufacture of cement are two other import9% ant sources of CO2. Agricultural fertilizers and manure are leading sources of nitrous oxide emissions. Cars and trucks also emit large amounts of nitrous oxide gas and about onefifth of the CO2 released into the atmosphere. Carbon Methane is released from livestock, the decay dioxide 84% of solid waste in landfills, and the production of oil and natural gas. Fluorinated gases (hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons) are used in industrial processes to make refrigerants and air conditioners. Coal-burning power plants, forest fires, and dust from farming operations Figure 4.3. Types of U.S. Greenhouse Gas generate the majority of particulates. Emissions, 2011 In 2012, transportation accounted for Source: U.S. EPA, National Greenhouse Gas Emissions 28 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions; Data, 2013. industrial uses made up 28 percent, residential

CHAPTER 4: PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

uses made up 16 percent, commercial uses made up 16 percent, and agriculture accounted for 10 percent. Electricity consumption contributed much of the greenhouse gas emissions from industry, residences, and businesses. The production of electricity caused 32 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in 2012.5 In 1992, the U.S., along with 191 other countries, signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In keeping with the UNFCCC, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes an annual report on human-generated greenhouse gas emissions and sinks. U.S. annual greenhouse gas emissions increased by 7.3 percent from 6.182 billion metric tons in 1990 to 6.633 billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent in 2009 (see Figure 4.3). Greenhouse gas emissions peaked in 2007 at more than 7 billion metric tons. The decline in emissions since 2007 was due to a severe recession in the U.S. economy and the slow recovery. The leading carbon sinks in the U.S. are forests, which absorb about 1 billion tons, or 13 percent, of annual CO2 equivalent emissions. Annual absorption of CO2 has increased by 18 percent between 1990 and 2012, thanks to increased forest growth both in trees aboveground and in root systems belowground.6 The U.S. produces about one-fifth of the world’s annual CO2 emissions, second only to China, which is responsible for almost 30 percent of CO2 emissions.7 The U.S. is among the leading nations in per capita greenhouse gas emissions at about 20 metric tons of CO2 per person each year, though per capita emissions have declined slightly since 2000. Scientists have focused on the issue of climate sensitivity, or the relationship between increases in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and rising global temperatures. In 1789, the global concentration of CO2 was 280 parts per million;8 in 2011, it was 390 parts per million, a nearly 40 percent increase. A

117

concentration of 550 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere is cited by some scientists as the upper tolerable limit. Above that, rising temperatures would wreak widespread damage to the global environment. Yet others have argued that 450 parts per million should be the upper limit; the group 350.com has set a goal of 350 parts per million, based on the research of James Hansen, the former chief scientist of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.9 Greater releases of CO2 over time have the potential to disrupt the global carbon cycle (see Chapter 2). Forests and oceans are the main carbon sinks in which carbon is absorbed and stored. The decrease in forests—especially the loss of tropical rainforests in Brazil and Asia—from slash-and-burn agriculture, timber harvesting, and land clearing has reduced the ability of forests to absorb CO2. Oceans, meanwhile, are absorbing more CO2, which is turning the oceans more acidic. The long-term effects of this trend are not fully known but are expected to contribute to the bleaching of coral reefs and the weakening of mollusk shells. It is important to note that carbon emitted today will continue to warm the planet for hundreds of years. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has made several projections of temperature trends in the 21st century. On the low side, the earth’s average temperature would rise between 1.1 and 2.9 degrees Celsius (about 2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit). On the high side, the average temperature would increase between 2.4 and 6.4 degrees Celsius (about 4.5 to nearly 12 degrees Fahrenheit). A temperature of 6 degrees Celsius would likely spell disaster in the form of warming oceans, rising seas levels, widespread droughts, crop failures, wildfires, violent storms, rapidly melting glaciers, and tens of millions of climate change refugees.10 Future climate change and its impacts depend on choices made today. Sir Nicholas

118

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Stern in The Stern Report recommended that the world spend 5 percent of its annual gross product on curbing climate change.11 The first step, he noted, was to put a price on carbon so that the costs of CO2 emissions would be reflected in the prices of goods and services. In short, Stern recommended a form of the Pigouvian tax discussed in Chapter 2. The threat of catastrophic climate change has spurred many people to think about their carbon footprint: the amount of carbon released in certain actions, such as flying in an airplane and driving a car, or embodied in certain products, such as imported food rather than locally grown food. Carbon-neutral or net-zero carbon activities mean that the amount of carbon released by one activity, say, an airplane trip, is offset by other activities that sequester (store) carbon or offset the carbon emissions, such as planting trees. The ultimate goal of carbonneutral advocates is a postcarbon economy that relies on renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, which produce no carbon emissions. The impacts of climate change are not fully known, but the evidence is growing, and climate-related alterations to environments and ecosystems are expected to increase. Higher temperatures have been widely reported. A 2006 National Academy of Sciences study reported that “the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years”12 and that “the Earth warmed by roughly 0.6°C (1°F) during the 20th century and is projected to warm by an additional ~2–6°C during the 21st century.”13 The warming of the earth’s atmosphere is already melting glaciers, but the melting of parts of the polar ice caps is expected to result in rising sea levels that would flood low-lying coastal cities. Glaciers are a fairly good measure of global temperatures. According to the National Park Service, in 1850, there were 150 glaciers in Montana’s Glacier National Park.

In 2011, there were only 26.14 New York City’s PlaNYC of 2007 noted an 8-inch rise in sea level along the city’s shoreline in the 20th century and projected a further sea level rise of 7 to 12 inches by the 2050s, which could cause some flooding.15 Albedo is a measure of the ability to reflect rather than absorb the sun’s rays. The white polar ice caps have a high albedo and reflect much of the sun’s rays. But as the ice caps melt, the area of open water increases and the albedo decreases. The dark open water absorbs the sun’s heat, raising ocean temperatures and inducing more melting of the ice caps. This cycle of melting ice and water absorbing more heat is known as a feedback loop and makes the melting of the icecaps harder to slow or reverse. Other impacts that are already appearing include more frequent and violent storms and floods, droughts, and wildfires. While it may be tempting to attribute all extreme weather events to climate change caused by greenhouse gases, the year 2011 featured a record number of tornadoes, a searing drought in Texas, record wildfires in the West, floods in the Midwest, and Hurricane Irene in the Northeast. Severe weather produced a record 12 disasters that each caused more than $1 billion in damage and altogether resulted in more than 1,000 deaths.16 In 2012, the U.S. experienced its hottest year on record, and a prolonged drought in the Corn Belt, which devastated crop yields.17 Rising temperatures also pose threats to wildlife by damaging habitats and hastening the spread of invasive species into regions that were formerly too cold. For example, in 2008, the polar bear was declared a threatened species because of melting ice cover, which meant the bears had to swim farther between ice floes. Many bears had drowned. Since 2000, the pine bark beetle has moved farther north along the Rocky Mountains and by 2011 had decimated 3.5 million acres of forests in Colorado

CHAPTER 4: PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

119

property and entire communities will and Wyoming.18 The warmer temperatures are become more severe. For example, Hurlikely to melt the snowpack in the Rocky Mounricane Katrina permanently displaced an tains sooner in the spring, making for a smaller estimated 200,000 people, and New Orlesupply of water in the summer and fall. This ans has yet to regain its population level would cause the forests to dry out more and before the storm. The melting of permafor longer periods, increasing their vulnerabilfrost in Alaska not only releases methane, ity to wildfires. The Colorado River, which proadding to greenhouse gas buildup, but vides drinking water to more than 35 million is also forcing the evacuation of several people, could especially be stressed in the late communities. summer and early fall. In short, climate change could threaten America’s national security in several ways, resulting in potential hazards to human life The Evolving Climate Change Debate and health: Climate change is a prime example of the debate over good science. One of the tenets • Energy supply and use: Hydropower proof U.S. law is that an individual must be found duction could decline because of low flows guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In Euroin some regions. Power generation from pean countries, by comparison, the standard fossil fuel and nuclear plants could fall of guilt is a preponderance of the evidence. Oil because of increased water temperatures and coal companies have led an effort to raise and reduced supplies of cooling water. doubts about the link between the burning of fossil fuels and the accuracy of climate change • Transportation: Floods and droughts can models. Environmentalists cite the precaudisrupt transportation. Heavy downpours threaten the navigability of rivers. Declining tionary principle and the mounting evidence of climate change as reasons to take action to water levels in the Great Lakes and some reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to plan rivers could reduce freight capacity. for adapting to climate change. • Agriculture and forests: Droughts and The combination of several studies and diminishing water supplies for irrigation major natural disasters have tilted the majorcan decrease food and fiber production. ity of U.S. public opinion toward acknowledgHeavy rainfall can delay spring planting ing that climate change is real and is caused and damage crops. Drought stresses forprimarily by human actions. One of the preests. Earlier spring snowmelt leads to an increased number of forest fires in the sum- dictions associated with climate change is more frequent and violent storms. In late mer and fall. August of 2005, Hurricane Katrina slammed • Water: Droughts reduce surface and ground into the Gulf Coast of Louisiana and Missiswater supplies. Early snowmelt creates sippi. The City of New Orleans suffered severe water shortages later in the year. Waterflooding, and nearly 2,000 people lost their borne diseases and threats to human health lives. An estimated 200,000 people were perare likely to rise as precipitation increases in manently displaced. Hurricane Katrina was some parts of the country. the most expensive natural disaster in U.S. • Climate refugees: As storm events become history, estimated at causing more than $100 more frequent and violent, damage to billion in damage.

120

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

In 2006, respected British economist Nicholas Stern and a team of researchers published a report calling climate change “the greatest market failure the world has ever seen.”19 The report warned that climate change was already costing the world a 1 percent loss in economic output, equal to $35 billion a year. Moreover, if climate change was not addressed through a reduction in greenhouse gases, there would be a loss of between 5 percent and 20 percent in annual global economic activity. To cut greenhouse gases, the report recommended a carbon tax (much like the Pigouvian tax discussed in Chapter 2) that would fall mainly on fossil fuels. The report pointed out that 550 parts per million of CO2 was the agreed on maximum the world could tolerate. The world had reached 390 ppm and was headed toward 550 ppm in 50 years. The Stern Report was the first attempt to put a price tag on climate change and forcefully argued that from a cost-benefit perspective, the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions far outweighed the long-term costs of inaction. Also in 2006, former Vice President Al Gore published An Inconvenient Truth, a bestselling book about the threat of global climate change and the urgent need to take action. In particular, the book documented the correlation between rising earth temperatures and the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. That same year, Gore wrote and starred in a documentary film based on the book. The film won the Academy Award for the Best Documentary Feature of 2006. The following year, Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the United Nations IPCC. Together, the book and the film are credited with raising public awareness about climate change and inspiring new interest in the environment and sustainability. The Climate Change 2007 report of the IPCC featured two widely quoted findings: (1) “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal,”20 and (2) “Most of the observed increase

in global average temperatures since the mid20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”21 More important, this was the fourth report from the IPCC, which had begun assessing climate change in 1988. The IPCC has had a reputation as being very cautious in its approach to climate change. The definitive statement that climate change is real and very likely caused by human actions reflected a consensus among scientists about the climate change threat and the need to change human behavior to address it.

4.2: Federal Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mitigation) In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that CO2 and other greenhouse gases were air pollutants, enabling the U.S. EPA to regulate CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.22 In 2009, the EPA announced that six greenhouses gases endanger human health: CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. In late 2013, the EPA proposed two rules to limit the amount of CO2 that new coal-fired and natural gas-fired power plants could emit. Gas-fired plants would be allowed to emit up to 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour; coalfired plants could emit 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour. New coal plants in 2013 typically produced about 1,800 pounds of carbon per megawatt hour.23 But it is likely that these new rules would face legal challenges from the utility industry. In 2009, the federal government proposed a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emission by 83 percent below the 2005 level by 2050, equivalent to an 80 percent reduction below the 1990 level.24 Following the 2009 Copenhagen meeting on climate change, the

CHAPTER 4: PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

U.S. government agreed to a shorter-term goal of a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by 2020.25 As of late 2013, the U.S. appeared to be on track to achieve that goal.26 But the reason for America’s achievement can be attributed to slow economic growth, a decline in vehicle miles traveled since 2007, and the shift to cleaner natural gas-fired power plants and away from coal-fired plants. The federal government has been slow to adopt policies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions or to adapt to climate change. Mitigation involves the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, primarily through curbing the use of fossil fuels. Adaptation means preparing for natural disasters spawned by climate change, such as altering the location of future development, strengthening buildings, and securing long-term water supplies. The federal government is the nation’s largest single consumer of energy, and in 2010, President Obama signed an executive order calling for a 28 percent reduction in federal greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.27 The reductions were expected to come from greater energy efficiency in buildings and other operations and a greater use of solar, wind, and geothermal sources. There is no single solution to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow of Princeton University identified 15 actions, or “wedges,” that together could stabilize CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere at below 500 parts per million for 50 years. The wedges include greater efficiency in motor vehicles, buildings, and coal-fired power plants; decarbonization of electricity generation through the capture of CO2 at coalfired power plants and the replacement of coal-generated power with natural gas-fired plants, solar photovoltaics, wind generated power, and nuclear power; decarbonization of fuel through CO2 recapture, biofuels for coal, and hydrogen produced through wind power

121

for use in fuel cells in hybrid vehicles; and conservation of forests and agricultural soils.28 In addition, a carbon tax of about $100 per ton of carbon would be needed.29 The wedge approach demonstrates that no one single policy or technology will solve the climate change problem. Economic growth and population growth remain major challenges to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But several European countries, including Denmark, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, have been able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and still increase economic output. One U.S. study has argued that regulating end-of-pipe carbon emissions from a few thousand fossil fuel–consuming companies would address 80 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.30 There are no quick solutions to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and CO2 will continue to build up in the atmosphere unless the U.S. federal government—together with both other industrialized nations and developing countries—undertakes a number of bold actions. There are several options, but the most important is to get the price of fossil fuels to reflect the impact it has on climate change. One way to do this is to increase the cost of fossil fuels through the use of a Pigouvian-type tax. For example, Congress could raise the federal gasoline tax. The federal gasoline tax was 18.4 cents per gallon as of 2013. In Europe, gasoline taxes are more than $2 per gallon. Next, Congress could impose a gas-guzzler tax on new cars, sport-utility vehicles, and trucks that get poor gas mileage (fewer than 30 miles per gallon). The federal government has already taken an important step toward reducing greenhouse gases from motor vehicles by working with automakers to raise the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards to 54.5 miles per gallon average by 2025, up from the 2011 CAFE standards of 30.2 miles per gallon for cars and 24.1 miles per gallon for light

122

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

trucks.31 But it remains to be seen whether the auto industry can meet the higher standards. The EPA could more stringently enforce the Clean Air Act by imposing sanctions on the more than 300 counties that are out of compliance with national air-quality standards; this authority is included in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and allows the EPA to withhold federal highway funds. Sanctions have only been used sparingly—most notably in the case of greater Atlanta—and only for a short time (see Chapter 3). One of the largest obstacles to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions is the lack of markets that would reward landowners of farm- and forestland for providing ecosystem services in the form of greenhouse gas offsets. As part of a cap-and-trade program, farm and forest landowners could sell tradable carbon credits to companies that release too much greenhouse gas. The federal government could spur the expansion of carbon credits by mandating a Kyoto type of cap-and-trade system and by purchasing carbon credits to offset at least some of the greenhouse gases the federal government generates. A cap-and-trade system is allowed under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and was successful in lowering sulfur dioxide emissions in the 1990s. The federal government can provide subsidies in the form of tax credits or grants to encourage the adoption of more energyefficient cars, heating systems, and renewable energy production. The federal government has already offered tax credits for the purchase of hybrid vehicles, the replacement of oil-heating systems with natural gas, and commercial and residential investments in wind and solar power. Forests absorb about 13 percent of America’s annual CO2 emissions and have the potential to absorb considerably more.32 There are four general options for managing forests. The best for limiting carbon releases is to harvest

the tree just as it dies. The second-best option is to allow the tree to die naturally and decay. Selective harvesting is the third best, and clearcutting is the worst practice for controlling carbon releases (see Chapter 15). The federal government could manage the 191 million acres of national forests to maximize carbon sequestration. America’s more than 600 coal-fired power plants are a leading source of CO2 emissions.33 About 100 of the most-polluting coal-fired plants are more than 50 years old and were grandfathered in under the Clean Air Act of 1970. Upgrading all these old plants would cost billions of dollars. A major step toward reducing CO2 emissions would be for the federal government to sunset these older coalfired power plants. Between 2005 and 2011, annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions fell by an impressive 6.9 percent (see Figure 4.4). There are several reasons for this sharp decline. First, the use of coal to produce electricity was being replaced by natural gas, thanks to new discoveries of natural gas and the development of shale gas. Second, vehicle miles traveled peaked in 2006 and have declined each year since to 2013.34 And third, the U.S. economy plunged into a deep recession from 2007 to 2009, and the recovery was slow.

4.3: International Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Climate change provides a valuable case study of the need for coordinated international action to respond to a global environmental threat. The international community first officially recognized climate change in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, an environmental treaty signed in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 that stated a concern that “human

CHAPTER 4: PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

123

Total greenhouse gas emissions (million metric tons of CO2 equivalents)

8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000

0 1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Year Figure 4.4. Trends in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 1990–2011 Source: U.S. EPA, National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, 2013.

activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, that these increases enhance the natural greenhouse effect, and that this will result on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere and may adversely affect natural ecosystems and humankind.”35 The Rio treaty led to the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, which took effect in 2005 and required 37 industrialized nations to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels in the period 2008–2012. The main tool to achieve the decline in greenhouse gases was a cap-and-trade program (based on international carbon emissions trading credits), a technique that had proven successful in cutting sulfur dioxide emissions in the U.S. (see Chapter 3). The U.S. Senate, however, never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, contending that it would hurt

the U.S. economy. Developing countries, such as China and India, were not required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. The reasoning was that the industrialized nations had caused climate change with their emissions and the developing country economies needed to catch up economically before they could be expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This reasoning, however, was undercut in 2007 when China had surpassed the U.S. as the largest source of greenhouse gases. The European Union set up the Emissions Trading Scheme in 2005 to enable companies to buy and sell carbon credits as part of the cap-and-trade program. But this program has not performed well, thanks in part to the global economic recession of 2007–2009 and the fact that too many emissions allowances were given to European companies. The price

124

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

of carbon in the European market has languished at well below $10 per ton. The Kyoto Protocol expired in 2012, but it is important to note that the Kyoto Protocol only slowed the rate of increase of CO2 buildup in the atmosphere rather than reduced it. Between 1997 and 2012, global CO2 emissions increased by about 25 percent. While the Kyoto Protocol can be seen as a necessary and important first step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions, future international treaties on greenhouse gases will have to involve both industrialized and developing nations in order to actually cut global greenhouse gas emissions.

4.4: Regional Planning to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions The lack of federal action on greenhouse gas emissions has not stopped individual states, groups of states, or local governments from creating programs aimed at decreasing greenhouse gases. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI, pronounced “Reggie”) is capand-trade program adopted in 2005 by 10 northeastern states (the six New England states, plus New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland). RGGI is the nation’s first mandatory regional cap-and-trade program designed to reduce CO2 emissions. RGGI is similar to the capand-trade system called for under the Kyoto Protocol and the cap-and-trade approach successfully used in the U.S. to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants. Fossil fuel–burning power plants are the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions both nationwide and in the Northeast, where they account for one-quarter of the region’s total emissions.36 The RGGI set a cap on annual CO2 emissions from each of the region’s 209 electricity-generating plants that burn fossil fuel. The operator of each plant must

purchase emission allowances equal to the plant’s annual cap, each allowance permitting 1 ton of CO2 emissions. If a power plant’s emissions exceed the annual cap, then the operator can purchase emissions allowances from other power plant operators who have produced fewer emissions than their caps authorized. Through RGGI Inc., a nonprofit organization created to implement RGGI, the 10 states began in 2008 to auction off emissions allowances to the operators of the power plants. The RGGI raised $900 million from power plant operators from mid-2008 through September 2011. But the auction-based price on carbon has averaged less than $3 per ton, a price well below initial expectations, and less than the $10 to $15 per ton estimated to spur widespread sale of carbon offset credits.37 The participating states have used the revenues from the auctions to invest in weatherizing homes and in renewable, clean energy technologies. According to one study, the RGGI has reduced the bills of electricity customers while keeping more money in the local economy because of less demand for fossil fuels.38 RGGI is scheduled to sunset in 2018.

4.5: State Planning to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions States have most often responded to climate change by drafting a climate action plan and by setting standards for the percentage of electricity that a utility must provide from renewable energy sources. As of 2011, 36 states had drafted climate action plans to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to climate change. Colorado, for example, adopted its plan in 2007 with the goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and by 80 percent by 2050. The plan calls for energy audits of state

CHAPTER 4: PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

buildings, greener electricity, and a national carbon credit trading program that will pay farmers and ranchers for sequestering carbon. The plan also calls the state to plan for the impacts of climate change on the state’s water supplies and reduce the risk of wildfires.39 Climate action plans in other states have similar goals and recommendations. But overall, these state plans lack the type of inventory and data analysis found in a comprehensive plan. Moreover, the climate action plans have little to say about planning for reducing sprawl, increasing development densities, and expanding mass transit—all of which would go far toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Twenty-seven states have adopted renewable energy portfolio standards that require utilities to obtain a certain percentage of the electricity they sell from renewable sources, such as wind, geothermal, and solar power. New York State, for instance, required utilities to acquire 24 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2013. Maine requires 40 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2017, and California utilities must provide 33 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2030.40 The federal government has yet to set a national renewable energy portfolio standard. California has been a leader among states in the regulation of motor vehicles to improve air quality (see Chapter 3). Similarly, California has pioneered state-level planning and policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as AB 32, directs the California Air Resources Board to develop and implement regulations that will cut California’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a reduction of about 30 percent, and then to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.41 To track greenhouse gas emissions, the largest industrial sources must report their greenhouse gas emissions to the Air Resources Board each year.

125

Senate Bill (SB) 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, authorized the Air Resources Board to set greenhouse gas reduction targets for passenger vehicles. The Air Resources Board must also establish targets for 2020 and 2035 for each of the state’s 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs).42 Each MPO must draft a sustainable communities strategy that shows how the region will meet its greenhouse gas reduction target by integrating land-use, housing, and transportation planning to reduce vehicle miles traveled. The sustainable communities strategy is reviewed by the Air Resources Board and then becomes part of the MPO’s 20year regional transportation plan that determines how federal transportation funds will be spent. SB 375 also provides financial incentives to local governments to promote more compact development and more transportation alternatives to car travel. For instance, developers are exempt from certain environmental review requirements if their proposed residential and mixed use projects are consistent with the region’s sustainable communities strategy. In 2011, the San Diego Association of Governments MPO became the first MPO to have its sustainable communities strategy approved by the Air Resources Board.43 In 2012, California launched the California Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Trade Program to set a limit on greenhouse gas emissions from a variety of industrial activities and to create a system for trading greenhouse gas credits. The law applies to a wide range of greenhouse gases: CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, nitrogen trifluoride, and other fluorinated greenhouse gases. The companies that have caps on greenhouse gases include suppliers of natural gas, electricity, fuel oil, and liquefied petroleum gas as well as producers of cement, glass, hydrogen, iron, steel,

126

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

lime, nitric acid, paper, petroleum, natural gas, and electricity. Each of these companies must register with the Air Resources Board. The Air Resources Board then issues California greenhouse gas allowances to each company and determines and distributes offset credits to those companies that have emitted a lower amount of greenhouse gases than their allowance. Those companies that have exceeded their allowance must purchase offset credits from companies that are under their allowance or from third parties, such as qualified owners of forestland. The cap on total allowances is set to decrease from 394.5 million metric tons in 2015 to 334.2 million metric tons in 2020. If offsets are purchased, the owners of the offset projects, such as forestland, must comply with monitoring, reporting, and record keeping requirements to verify that greenhouse gases are being sequestered as agreed to under the sale of the offsets.44 A state can fund the development of renewable, nonpolluting energy sources. In 2006, California appropriated more than $3.2 billion to provide subsidies to owners of residential and commercial buildings who install solar photovoltaic panels or solar thermal systems on their roofs.45 The goal of the program is 1 million solar roofs by 2018 to create 3,000 megawatts of electricity and reduce reliance on fossil fuels. California passed a law in 2004 to cut greenhouse gases from cars and trucks. But the George W. Bush administration refused to grant California a waiver to exceed federal motor vehicle fuel efficiency standards. In 2009, the Obama administration granted the waiver that enabled California to require carmakers to achieve an average fuel efficiency of 35.5 miles per gallon in order to reduce CO2 and other pollutants by 40 percent starting with the 2016 models.46 The federal government has since adopted a stricter standard of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

4.6: Local Planning to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Climate change is a prime example of the saying “Think globally, act locally.” Although a challenge as large as climate change may seem overwhelming, actions by local governments, businesses, and individuals can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Governments, businesses, and individuals can also change location decisions and make investments to the built environment to adapt to environmental impacts resulting from climate change. Relying on the state and federal government to create policies and programs to address climate change has often proven frustrating. For instance, in 2005, the U.S. Conference of Mayors established their Climate Protection Agreement, which features the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that would meet or beat the original Kyoto Protocol goal of reducing emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. The agreement promotes limiting sprawl, improving urban forests, and public information campaigns as ways to mitigate emissions.47 By 2009, more than 1,000 mayors had signed the agreement. Local governments are also beginning to recognize the need to plan for adapting to climate change, especially sea level rise and flooding in coastal areas and rivers overflowing their banks from sudden and intense storms. Adaptation entails increasing the resiliency of the built environment through natural or soft strategies such as wetlands and floodplains and through hard infrastructure, such as seawalls and levees (see Chapter 13). Other important actions include retrofitting buildings and public infrastructure to withstand more frequent and powerful natural disasters, planting trees for shade and absorbing stormwater, altering the location of future development to minimize the risk of damage, and securing longterm water supplies to withstand drought.

CHAPTER 4: PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

Local planning for climate adaptation begins with an assessment of the community’s vulnerability to climate change and particular risks to both natural and man-made environments. The financial feasibility of investing in adaptation actions is of utmost importance and a very real challenge. The balance between cost and adaptation effectiveness often depends on the likelihood of a catastrophic event. It is often difficult to convince voters, public officials, businesses, and home owners to make major investments in the face of uncertain outcomes. Many businesses have recognized that climate change both poses threats to their companies and presents opportunities for increasing efficiency and profits. Several American companies have already set their own targets for reducing greenhouse gases.48 The insurance industry took note of the damage from Hurricane Katrina as well as from four hurricanes that hit Florida in 2004. In 2011, 12 major weather events caused $52 billion in damage. Insurance is about managing risk, and climate change brings greater risks to insurers. Companies are in business to make a profit, and reducing energy use and improving energy efficiency in buildings and transportation can also raise profits while decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, has become a leader in reducing greenhouse gases among businesses. Starting in 2004, Wal-Mart has shrunk the amount of packaging and waste, offered locally grown food in its grocery section, and lowered the use of energy in its trucking fleet. In total, from 2005 to 2008, Wal-Mart slashed its greenhouse gas emissions by 16 percent.49 “Going green” is good public relations and a way to attract and retain customers as well as a boost to the bottom line. Other businesses have taken note and followed Wal-Mart’s lead. Individuals and households can save money and cut greenhouse gas emissions by

127

purchasing fuel-efficient cars, taking mass transit, weatherizing their homes, and choosing to live closer to their work and in a place where they can walk or bike to shops. But perhaps the largest obstacle to reducing greenhouse gases is the needed change in individual lifestyles (see Table 4.1). Local Climate Action Plans

More than 120 American cities, both large and small, have drafted climate action plans to mitigate and adapt to climate change50 (see Box 4.1). Rather than wait for the federal government to adopt a national climate change policy, these cities recognized that local actions

Table 4.1. 10 Things You Can Do to Reduce Greenhouse Gases 1.

Drive less—walk; bike; take the bus, subway, or train; carpool; or join a car-sharing program.

2.

Recycle bottles, cans, and paper.

3.

Use less hot water by taking short showers and washing clothes in cold water.

4.

Replace incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescence bulbs.

5.

Turn off appliances and unplug them.

6.

Buy Energy Star appliances.

7.

Eat locally grown, organic food.

8.

Avoid heavily packaged foods.

9.

Buy recycled paper products.

10.

Fly less.

128

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Box 4.1. New York City’s PlaNYC New York City adopted a wide-ranging plan for the future development of the city in 2007 with updates in 2011 and 2014. The plan envisioned more than 1 million more people by 2030 and noted the threats the climate change posed to public health and safety. Buildings were the source of 75 percent of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2009, while transportation accounted for 20 percent, and solid waste management, wastewater treatment, streetlights, and traffic lights made up the rest. New York City is especially concerned about flooding from rising seas (melting ice caps), increased precipitation, and a greater number of days higher than 90 degrees. PlaNYC calls for the City of New York to

• partner with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to update flood insurance rate maps (see Chapter 13);

• conduct and publish an annual inventory of greenhouse gas emissions;

PlaNYC recommends four wedges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030: (1) greater energy, heating, and lighting efficiency in buildings; (2) an increase in clean energy supplies; (3) sustainable transportation; and (4) better management of solid waste, wastewater treatment, and fugitive emissions.

• assess opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050; • regularly assess climate change projections;

on land use, transportation, and energy consumption can have global impacts. Albany, California, a city of 18,539 located on the eastern shore of the San Francisco Bay, began to plan for climate change in 2004. The city and its consultant, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), first estimated the 2004 baseline greenhouse gas emissions; then they made a forecast of future emission levels, and set greenhouse gas reduction targets.51 The Albany 2010 climate

• identify and evaluate citywide coastal protective measures; • update regulations to increase the resilience of buildings; • work with the insurance industry to develop strategies to encourage the use of flood protections in buildings; • protect New York City’s critical infrastructure; • mitigate the urban heat island effect; • integrate climate change projections into emergency management and preparedness;

action plan spells out ways to meet the emissions reduction targets. Implementing measures, monitoring of results, and making adjustments are ongoing. The climate action plan is due to expire at the end of 2020. The City of Albany’s inventory identifies the sources of greenhouse gases measured in CO2 equivalents, such as transportation (gasoline and diesel fuel) and residential and commercial or industrial consumption of electricity and natural gas (see Figure 4.5). Vehicle miles

CHAPTER 4: PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

Transportation 34%

Energy use residential 29%

129

Energy use commercial/industrial 30%

Water 2%

Waste 5%

Figure 4.5. Albany, California, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Baseline, 2004 Source: City of Albany, CA, Climate Action Plan, 2010, pp. 1–8.

traveled were estimated from data provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Bay Area Rapid Transit provided information on the use of mass transit. Local utilities made available information on electricity and natural gas consumption. In addition, the U.S. EPA’s Waste Reduction Model was used to calculate emissions from solid waste and landfills. An emissions target depends on the emissions level in a base year, such as some year before the climate action plan was adopted, and a forecast of emissions in some future year based on “business as usual” trends. The emissions target calls for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of a certain percentage below the emissions in the base year by that future year. For instance, Albany, California, set a target of 25 percent below 2004 emissions by

2020 (see Figure 4.6). This target is 27 percent lower than the projected business as usual emissions in 2020, meaning that greenhouse gas emissions that year will have to be lower by 19,600 metric tons of CO2 equivalent. The City of Albany adopted its climate action plan in 2010.52 The plan features three strategies that have the greatest potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: 1. The buildings and energy strategy lists energy efficiency retrofits for existing buildings including zero emissions city buildings by 2015, enhanced energy efficiency standards for new construction, increased use of renewable energy including zero emissions city buildings by 2015, and improved energy management in homes and businesses.

130

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

CO 2 emissions (in metric tons)

100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000

2020 emissions projection (72,000) 2004 baseline emissions (69,800)

Business as usual

Red

uctio

60,000 50,000

27% reduction (or –19,600)

n pa

th

2020 emissions target (52,400)

40,000 30,000 2004

Year

2020

Figure 4.6. Albany, California, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2004–2020, and Emissions Target Source: City of Albany, CA, Climate Action Plan, 2010, pp. 1–6.

2. The transportation and land use strategy seeks to reduce automobile emissions through improving pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, improving public transit service, promoting pedestrian- and transit-oriented development (TOD), and improving the energy efficiency of the city’s vehicle fleet. 3. The waste reduction strategy involves increasing recycling and composting through educating residents. Other strategies in Albany’s climate action plan include (a) expanding the urban forest to increase carbon sequestration, (b) conserving water for both indoor and outdoor uses, and (c) promoting urban agriculture and the consumption of regionally grown food.

Climate Change and the Comprehensive Planning Process

One of the choices facing local governments is whether to draft a separate, stand-alone climate action plan or to integrate the plan into the local comprehensive plan. Most climate action plans have been created outside of the comprehensive plan. This may be a good choice because a climate action plan is basically a strategic plan that lays out where the community needs to be in terms of greenhouse gas emissions by a certain date. The comprehensive plan is a general statement of a community’s condition and where and how the residents would like the community to grow and change over the next 20 years. The comprehensive plan contains many goals and objectives, which typically are not expressed in order of priority. A separate climate action plan can underscore

CHAPTER 4: PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

the urgency of addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation in the community. For several reasons, it is a good idea to integrate the climate action plan into the comprehensive plan. First, many of the goals and actions recommended in the climate action plan involve land-use planning and investments in infrastructure. The comprehensive plan sets the legal foundation for zoning and subdivision regulations that greatly influence the location, density, and type of new development and redevelopment. The comprehensive plan also provides guidance for public spending in the capital improvements program. The inventory of greenhouse gases fits well with the assessment of air quality in the natural resources inventory. The transportation-related goals of the climate action plan can enhance the transportation section of the comprehensive plan. Waste management and the retrofitting of public buildings to reduce greenhouse gases are important to include in the community facilities section. The land-use goals of the climate action plan are helpful in creating the land use section of the comprehensive plan and for drafting the future land-use map, which is the basis of the community’s zoning map of the location of different land uses and densities. The target reduction deadline of the climate action plan can be the same as the timeline of the comprehensive plan—for example, 2020. Both the climate action plan and the comprehensive plan share the same process of compiling an inventory, analyzing the inventory data, setting goals and objectives, implementing actions, monitoring results, and making adjustments. Finally, the melding of the climate action plan with the comprehensive plan strengthens both by forming a single document that is clear in the minds of the public and elected officials. Trying to manage private development and public infrastructure investments with two separate documents can be confusing as to which one takes precedence.

131

Zoning and Climate Change

Zoning can influence settlement patterns and the design of communities, the size and type of housing, and transportation choices that produce lower greenhouse gas emissions. Since 1990, the U.S. has been a suburban nation with more Americans living in suburbs than in cities and the rural areas. The suburban lifestyle features large detached single-family houses, a heavy reliance on cars for transportation, and a separation of where people live from where they work, shop, and go to school. This development pattern is the result of local zoning ordinances that sought to avoid land-use conflicts and protect residential property values, along with a huge investment in public sewer and water facilities, roads, and schools. To improve the pattern of existing development will not be easy. But zoning ordinances can help shape and locate redevelopment and new residential and commercial projects to promote more compact development that saves on energy. Zoning can also help maintain urban downtowns and village main streets where a variety of land uses and transportation choices already exist. A common goal is to reduce vehicle miles traveled. Community design comprises the location and mix of houses, apartments, roads, streets, schools, commercial buildings, and transit stations. Compact, fairly dense, and mixed use community design can enable residents and visitors to walk, bike, or take transit to a wide variety of their desired destinations without relying solely on cars. According to one study, compact community design and development have “the potential to reduce total U.S. vehicle miles traveled by 10 to 14 percent and total U.S. transportation CO2 emissions by 7 to 10 percent.”53 The climate action plan of Portland, Oregon, provides one example of compact community design: the “20-minute complete neighborhood,” in which residents can access

132

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

stores, shops, and even schools and workplaces without relying on cars.54 Zoning can allow moderate to high densities and the blending of commercial and residential development to enable more walking and biking opportunities.55 Zoning for mixed use and moderately dense TOD around rail and bus stations can encourage new development and help lower greenhouse gases. Housing densities of eight or more units per acre are widely viewed as necessary to support viable mass transit systems. Bonus densities and zero lot lines (no setbacks from property lines for buildings) are two zoning provisions that can make TOD more feasible to build. Higher densities, however, can make property owners and local elected officials nervous. Property owners fear a loss in property values, congestion, and ugly development; local officials mostly worry about property tax revenues. Higher density can be attractive if done right. And higher density requires good mass transit options; otherwise, increasing traffic on streets will cause unacceptable congestion. Property values can be maintained through providing green space along with higher density. The mix of commercial and residential development will produce a higher level of property taxes than only residential development. A controversial zoning issue is off-street parking requirements. It is not uncommon to find a requirement of more than one parking space per dwelling. This requirement has made apartments and condominiums much more expensive and difficult to build than necessary. Off-street requirements of fewer than one car per dwelling make sense when there are good transit options. For instance, the zoning ordinance of Portland, Oregon, states, “There is no minimum parking requirement for sites located less than 500 feet from a transit street with 20-minute peak hour service.”56 Lower parking requirements can thus help decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

The zoning ordinance can also allow smaller and more energy-efficient houses and more apartments and condominiums. One way to encourage smaller houses is to allow small minimum lot sizes. For example, at Orenco Station, a development west of Portland, Oregon, the minimum lot size for single-family houses is 3,000 square feet. Living in a duplex, triplex, apartment, or condominium is typically more energy efficient than living in a single-family detached house. The less space per household and the shared walls of multifamily housing mean less heating and cooling are needed. Yet many suburbs have made it difficult, if not illegal, to build rental apartments and owneroccupied condominiums. Zoning ordinances that permit accessory dwellings such as “granny flats” or apartments over garages can add housing without taking up much space. Zoning ordinances that allow a greater variety of housing options along with an inclusionary provision for affordable housing will reduce energy use and hence decrease greenhouse gas emissions from buildings. Subdivision Regulations, Capital Improvements, and Climate Change

Subdivision and land-development regulations spell out what infrastructure a developer must provide along with standards for that infrastructure. For example, many suburban residential subdivisions have been built without sidewalks, making walking and bicycling less safe. Requiring sidewalks in new developments is important to encourage walking, jogging, and biking. Subdivision regulations can determine the street layout of a proposed development. The typical suburban residential development has winding streets and cul-de-sacs that complicate a smooth flow of traffic. A grid pattern with short blocks makes for better street

CHAPTER 4: PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

connections. For instance, the Commonwealth of Virginia banned cul-de-sacs in new subdivisions in 2009 and requires through streets that link to neighboring commercial or residential developments.57 A local government can establish the street pattern for future development by adopting an official map, which developers must adhere to. Subdivision regulations also address the siting of buildings on a lot. New buildings can be required to have a southeast exposure to maximize solar access and not block sunlight to existing buildings. Limits on impervious surface can help mitigate the urban heat island effect and cooling needs. Vegetation requirements can mandate retaining trees more than a certain pole size to provide shade as well as sequester carbon. Infrastructure investment influences the location, density, and accessibility of new and existing development. Transportation systems are the major determinants of settlement patterns. Climate action plans often include a recommendation for more investment in mass transit. Usually, a light-rail line or bus route must be put in place before private investment will follow. Combining mass transit with mixed use, TOD around stations has been a popular way to accommodate growth without the addition of greenhouse gas emissions. Growth boundaries that separate urban and urbanizing land from rural lands and limit the extension of urban services, such as sewer and water lines, are excellent tools to promote more compact development that requires less energy and produces lower greenhouse gas emissions per person. There are more than 150 urban growth boundaries throughout the U.S. Greater Portland, Oregon, has effectively combined a metropolitan growth boundary with light-rail and bus service to limit sprawl and has a long-standing goal to build new residential developments at 10 to 12 units per acre.58

133

Local governments can work with state and federal agencies to ensure that government offices remain in downtowns and new ones are located there. For example, since the late 1990s, the State of Maryland has a governor’s executive order encouraging state office buildings to be located in downtowns and requiring that they at least be located inside a priority funding area, Maryland’s equivalent of a growth boundary. Infrastructure also includes the green infrastructure of trees, parks, greenways, urban forests, green roofs, and planters. To absorb stormwater and to reduce the urban heat island effect, Chicago has planted hundreds of thousands of trees, and Chicago and Portland, Oregon, have been leaders in offering incentives for installing green roofs. The large amount of pavement and buildings in cities causes the retention of heat in the summer, resulting in higher temperatures than the less dense suburbs and countryside. Higher temperatures mean a greater use of energy for air-conditioning. Trees and green spaces help reduce the urban heat island effect, decrease energy demands for air-conditioning, and thus lower greenhouse gas emissions. Buildings in the U.S. account for almost half of all greenhouse gas emissions. Building codes can help lower greenhouse gas emissions by requiring the construction of energyefficient homes and commercial buildings. Local governments generally do not draft their own building code but rather adopt or follow a state or national building code. For instance, in 2008, California adopted a green building standards code that applies to “the planning, design, operation, construction, replacement, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such building structures throughout the State of California.”59 The International Green Construction Code is a standard code

134

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

that communities can adopt to require energy efficiency and lower greenhouse gas emissions in building renovations and new construction.60 The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program of the U.S. Green Building Council is a third-party rating system for the energy efficiency and overall sustainability of buildings and neighborhoods.61 Some cities, such as San Francisco and Boston, require all new municipal buildings and major renovations to meet LEED-certified standards.

4.7: Case Study: Portland’s Climate Action Planning Portland, Oregon, pioneered planning for climate change in the 1990s and has maintained its leadership among U.S. cities. In 1993, Portland adopted the nation’s first CO2 reduction plan. In 2000, the city established a green building policy to promote the construction and renovation of energy-efficient buildings. In 2009, Portland drafted a climate action plan with the goal of an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below the 1990 level by 2050 and a 40 percent reduction below the 1990 level by 2030.62 The climate action plan noted that about 46 percent of Portland’s greenhouse gases came from buildings, 38 percent from transportation, and the rest from industry and landfilling solid waste. The climate action plan listed eight target areas with general policies (see Table 4.2). The plan set a goal to increase solar power installations to 10 megawatts by 2012. Portland met this goal and exceeded it with 15 megawatts of installed solar power by the end of 2011. As of 2010, Portland had achieved a 6 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below the 1990 level, exceeding the 5 percent reduction goal of the Kyoto Protocol. Since 1990, Portland has built the most

LEED-certified platinum buildings per capita of any city in the U.S. Portland drivers operate the greatest number of hybrid cars per capita of any city in the U.S. Transit ridership doubled. The recycling rate more than tripled. Commuting trips by bicycle increased by five times. And from 1995 to 2013, vehicle miles traveled fell by 8 percent.63 In 2012, the City of Portland published a two-year evaluation of the progress toward the goals of its climate action plan. The city reported that (a) more than 1,400 homes and businesses had done energy efficiency retrofits through the Clean Works Energy program, (b) the number of bicyclists increased by 14 percent, (c) curbside composting became available to almost 150,000 households, and (d) Portland added nearly 10 miles of greenways and 7,000 trees in 2011. From 2009 to 2010, Portland’s overall greenhouse gas emissions declined by 2 percent.64 Summary

Evidence is growing that climate change is occurring and is caused mainly by human actions. In the U.S., greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels: coal to generate electricity, gasoline and diesel to fuel cars and trucks, and natural gas to heat buildings. CO2 is the main greenhouse gas. Forests provide carbon sinks that absorb about one-eighth of U.S. CO2 emissions. Global cooperation is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nearly every country except the U.S. ratified the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, which called for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. Some industrialized countries met this goal, but most did not. The Kyoto Protocol advocated the use of a cap-and-trade system to lower greenhouse gases.

CHAPTER 4: PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

135

Table 4.2. Target Areas and General Policies from Portland’s Climate Action Plan, 2009 Target Area

General Policies

1. Buildings and energy

Promote on-site renewable energy. Reduce electricity from fossil fuels. Promote the Energy Clean Works building retrofit program. Loans are repaid on utility bills over 20 years.

2. Urban form and mobility

Put pedestrians, bicyclists, and riders on public transit first in transportation priority. Reduce per capital vehicle miles traveled from 19 in 2008 to 13 in 2030. Change the mode split from 65 percent drive alone to 29 percent drive alone by 2030; increase bicycling from 8 percent to 25 percent and transit from 15 percent to 25 percent and walking from 4 percent to 8 percent of travel. Create healthy, connected communities with greenways, bike paths, transit corridors, and civic, mixed use corridors.

3. Consumption and solid waste

Increase composting and recycling. Reduce solid waste going to landfills.

4. Urban forestry and natural systems

Increase tree canopy and greenways.

5. Food and agriculture

Increase local food production.

6. Community engagement

Promote ongoing public education on climate change and what households can do.

7. Climate change preparations

Protect and restore natural areas. Plan for water conservation.

8. Local government operations

Promote greater energy efficiency in government buildings and motor vehicle fleets.

136

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

The U.S. federal government has not adopted a national policy on climate change. Even so, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases were pollutants, opening the way for the U.S. EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. California has been a leader among state governments in climate action plans, regulating greenhouse gases, creating a statewide cap-and-trade program for carbon credits, and linking land-use, housing, and transportation planning to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Businesses and households have recognized the cost savings of cutting energy use and greenhouse gases in buildings and transportation. Many local governments have drafted climate action plans to determine their baseline level of greenhouse gas emissions, set target levels, and identify implementing measures. Incorporating a climate action plan into the local comprehensive plan makes good sense. The comprehensive plan is the legal basis for land-use controls and guides public infrastructure investment. Zoning can help reduce greenhouse gases by allowing a mix of commercial and residential uses, more compact development with medium to high densities, and TOD. Subdivision regulations can require sidewalks and connected streets to improve bicycle and pedestrian travel and improve the flow of traffic. Subdivision regulations can also require vegetation and trees that absorb CO2. Infrastructure investments to reduce greenhouse gases include the green infrastructure of parks, greenways, and urban forests and mass transit, such as bus and light rail. Communities can adopt green building codes to ensure that new buildings and renovations to existing buildings maximize energy efficiency and limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Notes 1. Quoted in Benjamin, A. “Stern: Climate Change a ‘Market Failure.’” Guardian, November 29, 2007. http://www.guardian.co.uk/ environment/2007/nov29/climatechange .carbonemissions. Retrieved May 11, 2012. See Stern, N. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. 2. U.S. EPA. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2011, Executive Summary. Washington, DC: USEPA, 2011, p. ES-8. 3. U.S. EPA. “Overview of Greenhouse Gases: Nitrous Oxide Emissions.” 2010. http:// www.epa.gov/nitrousoxide/scientific.html. Retrieved January 9, 2012. 4. U.S. EPA. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012. Washington, DC: USEPA, 2014, p. ES-8. http://www.epa.gov/climate change/Downloads/ghgemissions/US- GHG -Inventory-2014-Main-Text.pdf. Retrieved April 27, 2014. The EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program requires facilities that emit more than 25,000 metric tons of greenhouses gases each year to report their emissions to the EPA. The first report was issued in January of 2012. 5. U.S. EPA. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012. Washington, DC: USEPA, 2014, pp. ES-22–ES-23. http://www.epa.gov/ climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US -GHG-Inventory-2014-Main-Text.pdf. Retrieved April 27, 2014. 6. Ibid, p. ES-23. Perschel, R., A. Evans, and M. Summers. Climate Change, Carbon, and the Forests of the Northeast. Santa Fe, NM: Forest Guild, 2007. 7. Bloom, A. J. 2010. Global Climate Change. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer. 8. Gore, A. An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It. Emmaus, PA: Rodale, 2006.

CHAPTER 4: PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

9. Hansen, J., et al. “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?” Open Atmospheric Science Journal. Vol. 2 (2008), pp. 217–31. 10. Specter, M. “The Climate Fixers.” New Yorker, May 14, 2012, p. 96. 11. Stern, N. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. 12. National Research Council. “Summary.” Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006, p. 3. 13. Ibid., “Overview,” p. 5. 14. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. “Glaciers/Glacial Features.” http:// www.nps.gov/glac/naturescience/glaciers .htm. Retrieved January 4, 2012. 15. New York City. PlaNYC 2030: A Greener, Greater New York. New York: City of New York, 2007 and updated April 2011. 16. Borenstein, S. “12 in ’11: Record Number of Billion-Dollar Weather Disasters.” Associated Press, December 9, 2011. 17. Tercek, M., and J. Adams. Nature’s Fortune: How Business and Society Thrive by Investing in Nature. New York: Basic Books, 2013, p. xix. 18. McMahon, E. T. “A Long Hot Summer: Climate Change and Extreme Weather.” August 12, 2011. http://citiwire.net/post/2883/. Retrieved January 26, 2012. 19. Stern, N. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. xviii. 20. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller, ed. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007, Table SPM3. 21. Ibid., Table SPM2.

137

22. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). The U.S. Supreme Court found that “greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of air pollutant” (pp. 528–29). 23. Shear, M. “Administration to Press Ahead With Carbon Limits.” New York Times, September 20, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/ 2013/09/21/us/politics/obama-administration -carbon-limits.html?hpw&_r=0&pagewanted =print. Retrieved September 23, 2013. 24. U.S. Department of State. Fourth Climate Action Report to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Chapter 5, “Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” http://www.state .gov/documents/organization/140007.pdf. Retrieved October 27, 2013. 25. Friedman, L. “Nations Take First Steps on Copenhagen‚ ‘Accord.’” New York Times, January 29, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/ cwire/2010/01/29/29climatewire-nations-take -first-steps-on-copenhagen-accor-35621.html ?pagewanted=all. Retrieved October 27, 2013. 26. Cheadle, B. “Canada Won’t Get Close to Meeting Emissions Targets: Environment Canada.” Canadian Press and Huffington Post, October 24, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost .ca/2013/10/24/canada-emissions-targets-co penhagen-accord_n_4158487.html. Retrieved October 27, 2013. 27. The White House. “President Obama Sets Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Targets for Federal Operations” (press release). January 29, 2010. http://www.whitehouse.gov/ the-press-office/president-obama-sets-green house-gas-emissions-reduction-target-federal -operations. Retrieved October 27, 2013. 28. See Princeton University, Carbon Mitigation Initiative. “Stabilization Wedges Calculations & Data.” Last modified July 28, 2011. http://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges/calculations .php. Retrieved January 3, 2012; Pacala, S., and

138

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

R. Socolow. “Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years With Current Technologies.” Science. Vol. 305, No. 5686 (August 13, 2004), pp. 968–72. 29. Ibid. 30. Metcalf, G., and D. Weisbach. “The Design of a Carbon Tax.” Harvard Environmental Law Review. Vol. 33, No. 2 (2009), pp. 499–556. 31. U.S. EPA. EPA and NHTSA Set Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Model Years 2017-2025 Cars and Light Trucks. Washington, DC: USEPA, 2012. http:// www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/ 420f12051.pdf. Retrieved April 27, 2014. 32. U.S. EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2009. Washington, DC: USEPA, 2011; Yardley, W. “Protecting the Forests, and Hoping for Payback.” New York Times, November 29, 2009, p. 22. 33. Clayton, M. “EPA Tells Coal-Fired Plants to Reduce Pollution. Some May Just Shut Down.” Christian Science Monitor, July 7, 2011. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/ 2011/0707/EPA- tells- coal- fired- plants- to -reduce-pollution.-Some-may-just-shut- down. Retrieved April 27, 2014. 34. Pyper J., and ClimateWire. “Has the U.S. Love of the Automobile Peaked?” Scientific American, July 29, 2013. http://www.scientific american.com/article.cfm?id=has-the-us-love -of-the-automobile-peaked. Retrieved September 23, 2013. 35. United Nations. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. New York: United Nations, 1992, p. 2. 36. U.S. EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2007. U.S. EPA 430 -R-09-004. Washington, DC: USEPA, 2009; RGGI Inc. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. 2009. http://www.rggi.org. Retrieved December 13, 2011. 37. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. “Auction Results.” 2011. http://www.rggi.org/market/ co2_auctions/results. Retrieved January 9,

2012; Daniels, T. L. “Integrating Forest Carbon Sequestration Into a Cap-and-Trade Program to Reduce Net CO2 Emissions.” Journal of the American Planning Association. Vol. 76, No. 4 (2010), pp. 463–75. 38. Analysis Group. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative: Economic Impacts of the First Three Years. Boston: Analysis Group, 2011. 39. Ritter, B. State of Colorado. Climate Action Plan, 2007. http://www.colorado.gov/governor/ images/nee/CO_Climate_Action_Plan.pdf. Retrieved April 27, 2014. 40. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. Renewable and Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards, 2014. http://www.c2es.org/ us- states- regions/policy- maps/renewable -energy-standards. Retrieved April 27, 2014. 41. California Air Resources Board. Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm. Retrieved October 26, 2009 42. California Air Resources Board. “Sustainable Communities.” 2011. http://www.arb .ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm. Retrieved January 10, 2012. 43. California Air Resources Board. “Executive Order G-11-114.” November 2011. http:// www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/eo%20sandag%20 scs.pdf. Retrieved January 10, 2012. 44. Subchapter 10 Climate Change, Article 5, Sections 95800–96023, Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Article 5: California Cap on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms, 2011. http://www .arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/finalregorder.pdf. Retrieved April 27, 2014. 45. Pennington, B., S. Gupta, P. Saxton, D. Eden, L. Green, and J. Fleshman. Guidelines for California’s Solar Electric Incentive Programs Pursuant to Senate Bill 1. 2nd ed. 2008. California Energy Commission. CEC-300-2008-007-CMF. 46. Hebert, H. J. “EPA Approves California Fuel Efficiency Rule to Cut Greenhouse Gases from Vehicles.” Associated Press, June 30, 2009.

CHAPTER 4: PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

47. U.S. Conference of Mayors. Climate Protection Agreement, 2005. http://www.usmayors .org/climateprotection/documents/mcp Agreement.pdf. Retrieved April 27, 2014. 48. Dunn, S., and C. Flavin. “Moving the Climate Change Agenda Forward,” in L. Starke, ed., for the Worldwatch Institute, State of the World 2002. New York: W. W. Norton, 2002, p. 43. 49. Humes, E. Force of Nature: The Unlikely Story of Wal-Mart’s Green Revolution. New York: Harper Business, 2011. 50. Henderson, H. “Planners Library: Keeping It Local.” Review of Local Climate Action Planning by M. Boswell, A. Grieve, and T. Seale. Planning, February 2012, p. 45. 51. See City of Albany, CA. Climate Action Plan. Albany, CA: City of Albany, 2010. http:// www.albanyca.org/index.aspx?page=256. Retrieved April 27, 2014. 52. Ibid. 53. Ewing, R., K. Bartholomew, S. Winkelman, J. Walters, and D. Chen. Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute, 2008, p. 35. 54. City of Portland and Multnomah County. Climate Action Plan 2009, p. 40. http://www .portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?a=268612 &c=49989. Retrieved July 3, 2013. 55. A model mixed use zoning ordinance is available from the American Planning Association at https://www.planning.org/ research/smartgrowth/pdf/section41.pdf. Retrieved January 13, 2012. See also FormBased Codes Institute, “Sample Codes.” http:// www.formbasedcodes.org/samplecodes

139

?search=mixed-use. Retrieved January 13, 2012. 56. Portland (Oregon), City of. Zoning Code. Section 33.266.110(B)(3). 57. Weiss, E. M. “New Virginia Rules Target Cul-de-Sacs.” Washington Post, March 22, 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/ content/article/2009/03/21/AR2009032102248 .html. Retrieved April 27, 2014. 58. Metro. The Nature of Metro 2040. Portland, OR: Metro, 1995. 59. California Building Standards Commission. 2008 California Green Building Standards Code. Sacramento, CA: California Building Standards Commission, 2009, p. 3. 60. International Code Council. International Green Construction Code, 2012. http:// www.iccsafe.org/cs/IGCC/Pages/default.aspx. Retrieved January 13, 2012. 61. U.S. Green Building Council. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx? CategoryID=19. Retrieved January 13, 2012. 62. City of Portland, OR. Climate Action Plan. Portland, OR: City of Portland, 2009. 63. Zehnder, J. Portland Climate Action Plan. Presented at the American Planning Association National Conference, Chicago, April 13, 2013. Portland, OR: Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. 64. City of Portland and Multnomah County. Climate Action Plan, 2009: Year Two Progress Report. Portland, OR: Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, 2012, p. 4, p. 6. http://www .portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/393345. Retrieved August 28, 2013.

Chapter 5

PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLY

We’ve reached a point in water management where if it’s not water reuse, it’s water abuse. —Don Beard, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner

The frog does not drink up the pond in which he lives. —American proverb

Water is a special resource. People, plants, and animals need water to survive, and there is no substitute for water. Water provides essential wildlife habitat, enables crops to grow, and is an important ingredient in many manufacturing processes and electric power generation. People use water for personal hygiene to bathe, shower, and wash up and to clean their clothes and dishes. Dirty water poses a variety of public health threats such as the spread of diseases. Water is a renewable resource that is replenished through the water cycle. But some water supplies, especially deep groundwater, are essentially nonrenewable because they recharge themselves at a very slow rate. Identifying the location, amount, and quality of water supplies and protecting them

over time are essential actions in planning for the future of a community, county, or region. Water supply planning is especially important in places that are experiencing rapid population growth and where water supplies are scarce. Accommodating more people and new development while protecting water supplies requires careful land-use planning and management of water demands. Pollution from new and existing development can contaminate surface water and groundwater at the same time that the demand for clean freshwater is increasing. Lack of a reliable water supply can pose a serious limit to growth and can even hasten a community’s decline. Water planning is divided into two chapters: water supply planning in this chapter

142

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), America has 3.6 million miles of rivers and streams; 41 million acres of lakes, including much of the five Great Lakes; 58,000 miles of shoreline; 34,400 square miles of estuaries (outside of Alaska); 278 million acres of wetlands; and 33 trillion gallons of groundwater.1 Americans use about 400 billion gallons of water every day2 (see Figure 5.1). Electric 5.1: Water Supplies and Uses power plants and manufacturing industries America possesses about 8 percent of the account for slightly more than half of all water world’s supply of freshwater. According to the consumption. Irrigating crops and watering and planning for water quality and pollution cleanup in Chapter 6. Yet the two types of water planning are closely linked. A water supply is not useful if it is polluted, and clean water in short supply may not meet present or future community needs.

Total surface freshwater withdrawals in the U.S., 2005

Public supply Domestic 88 Irrigation

29,600 74,900

Livestock 846 6,870

Aquaculture Industrial

13,900 Mining 1,300 Thermoelectric 0

25,000

142,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 Freshwater withdrawals, in million gallons per day

Total groundwater withdrawals in the U.S., 2005

Public supply Domestic

14,600 3,740

Irrigation

53,500

Livestock Aquaculture

1,290 1,910

Industrial

3,100

Mining Thermoelectric

2,540 1,960 0

7,500

15,000 22,500 30,000 37,500 45,000 Water withdrawals, in million gallons per day

52,500

60,000

Figure 5.1. Total Surface and Groundwater Freshwater Withdrawals in the U.S., 2005 Sources: U.S. Geological Survey, “Surface Water Use in the United States, 2005,” http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/wusw .html. Retrieved August 23, 2013.; “Groundwater Use in the United States,” http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/wugw.html. Retrieved August 23, 2013.

CHAPTER 5: PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLY

livestock make up about one-third of the nation’s water consumption. Farmers irrigated more than 56 million acres in 2007, accounting for more than two-thirds of all groundwater withdrawals.3 Residential uses comprise only 10 percent of America’s water consumption, and more than half of all residential water use goes for watering lawns and gardens and washing cars. Competing uses of water often arise, especially between farms and cities and between farms and wildlife habitat. Water rights are an attempt to decide who can use water, but there are few limitations on how much water a landowner, homeowner, or business may use. As a result, water consumption often resembles a “tragedy of the commons,” in which each consumer has an incentive to use as much water as possible to the eventual detriment of all consumers. This is especially the case with groundwater, which is a renewable resource, unless the rate of withdrawal exceeds the rate of recharge.4 Groundwater accounts for about half of all U.S. drinking water supplies, and in 2000, Americans withdrew 30 trillion gallons of groundwater.5 But more concerning is the recent trend of increasing depletion of groundwater.6 The loss of groundwater reduces available water supplies, which can lead to land subsidence, decreased flows of springs and surface water, and the decline of wetlands. Freshwater is necessary to both support life and enable economic growth. Wildlife and domestic animals rely on water for drinking and habitat. Freshwater is part of virtually every manufacturing process (see Table 5.1). Even the new information economy requires large amounts of freshwater. For instance, the production of a disk of silicon wafers requires more than 2,000 gallons of water.7 The use of water by a person, business, or city can be measured in terms of a water footprint. This is the amount of water a consumer or city uses both directly through drinking,

143

Table 5.1. Water Use by Selected Manufacturing and Processing Operations Activity

Water Used (Gallons)

Making a board foot of lumber

5

Processing a chicken

12

Making one pound of plastic

24

Refining one barrel of crude oil

1,851

Making a new car, including tires

39,090

Source: U.S. EPA, Liquid Assets. 800-R-96-002. Washington, DC, 1996.

washing, and landscaping and indirectly through the amount of water embodied in certain products. Reducing the water footprint is especially important in regions facing water shortages. Most of the nation’s easily accessible water supplies have already been harnessed or tapped. Nearly all the once free-flowing rivers have been dammed, and some waters, such as from the Colorado River, have been diverted hundreds of miles to their ultimate destinations. Cities are attempting to access distant water supplies and often face local opposition in the hinterlands. For example, Las Vegas, Nevada, has proposed to draw water from a valley in eastern Nevada more than 300 miles away.8 Landowners and governments with existing water rights are often reluctant to yield them or even sell them to others. In the foreseeable future, many major cities and even some smaller communities will face difficulties in trying to expand their water supplies. Water shortages and rationing will likely occur. Residents of the eastern U.S. often take water supplies for granted because of typically

144

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

adequate rainfall and an abundance of rivers, lakes, and groundwater. But in the West, access to water can mean the difference between valuable real estate and desert. As author Marc Reisner explained, “To easterners, conservation of water usually means protecting rivers from development; in the West, it means building dams.”9 But several areas of the East are facing water shortages. Maryland and Virginia have gone to court over water withdrawals from the Potomac River.10 North and South Carolina are negotiating the use of the Peedee River, which flows through both states. Georgia, Florida, and Alabama have verged on a water war over supplies coveted by all three states. In 2008, a U.S. Appeals Court ruled that Georgia could not withdraw unlimited supplies of water from Lake Lanier, the main reservoir for greater Atlanta, because some of that water was needed by Florida and Alabama.11 Many coastal Florida communities rely on groundwater, and water withdrawals have made the freshwater aquifers vulnerable to contamination from saltwater intrusion. Rising sea levels associated with climate change and melting polar ice caps pose a further threat to coastal aquifers. The lesson is that the lack of adequate long-term water supplies jeopardizes the goal of sustainable development.

5.2: Hydrology Only 3 percent of the earth’s water is fresh, and only one-third of that (1 percent) is surface or groundwater.12 Water supplies depend on the hydrologic cycle of precipitation and evaporation. When precipitation hits the ground, some water infiltrates into the soil and becomes groundwater. A portion of rainfall and snowmelt enters rivers and streams as surface runoff. But most precipitation evaporates or transpires through plants back into the atmosphere.

Local differences in impervious surface, slope, soil types, and vegetation can create wide variations in amounts of runoff and infiltration. Significant regional variations in rainfall, sizes of water bodies, stream flows, and aquifers exist among America’s humid eastern third, the drier Great Plains, the desert Southwest, and the rainforests of the Pacific Northwest, Hawaii, and Alaska. A key concept in water availability is the replacement period, or time it takes for water to replenish itself through the hydrologic cycle. Water in the atmosphere is recycled about every 9 to 12 days, rivers take 12 to 20 days, soil moisture cycles take about 280 days, and freshwater lakes take 10 to 100 years depending on depth. Groundwater can be replaced in a matter of hours, months, or much longer, depending on the depth of the aquifer, precipitation, topography, and the porosity of the soil. Groundwater at a depth of up to half a mile can take as long as 300 years to be replaced, and groundwater below half a mile—also known as “fossil water”—takes 4,600 years to completely recycle.13 Withdrawals of fossil water are very much like the mining of a nonrenewable resource. Watersheds and Surface Water

Water supplies may be thought of as belonging to specific watersheds or river basins. A watershed consists of the land area that drains into a particular lake or river system, including its tributaries. Most watersheds consist of several smaller watersheds and eventually drain into the ocean (see Figure 5.2). For example, the Mississippi River watershed—the nation’s largest—begins with its headwaters in Minnesota, includes the Missouri and Ohio River systems, and ultimately flows into the Gulf of Mexico. Watersheds vary in size, from the vast Colorado River basin in the West to the

CHAPTER 5: PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLY

145

Minor waterway Major waterway

Figure 5.2. River Basins of the Central U.S.

more typical Connecticut River basin in New England. (An exception to this description of watersheds is the arid Great Basin in Nevada and Utah where the watershed does not drain into the ocean.) The location and size of watersheds, along with the average annual precipitation and variations due to microclimates, are important factors to consider in assessing the quantity of water available to a community or region. Watershed boundaries rarely reflect political boundaries. Hills or mountain ridges typically define the boundaries of a watershed. The slope, soil depth, and soil type of watersheds affect how much water infiltrates on-site and how fast water runs off the land. The steeper the topography, the thinner the soils, and the greater the rock and clay content in the soil, the faster the runoff and the greater the potential

for flooding and soil erosion. Water passes fairly easily through sandy soils and loamy soils into groundwater. But soils with a high clay content impede infiltration. The type of vegetative cover and the amount of impervious surface are also important factors. Shrubs and grasses soak up water and hold soil in place, and trees with their large canopies and extensive root systems absorb large quantities of rainwater and runoff. Impervious surface allows little infiltration, and the greater the amount of impervious surface in the form of roads, buildings, and parking lots, the poorer water quality tends to be. Watersheds can be classified by the quality of their water. Federally designated exceptional value and high-quality watersheds have very clean water, and discharges into the water bodies are tightly controlled (see Chapter 6).

146

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Surface water provides about 75 percent of America’s total water use and half of the nation’s drinking water supply. Surface water availability is often measured in millions of gallons per day or in acre-feet. An acre-foot covers one acre to a depth of one foot and is considered a sufficient amount of water to meet the needs of two 4-person families for one year. The amount of surface water available in some locations is considerably greater than the surface runoff to lakes, reservoirs, and streams, because of baseflow recharge from groundwater sources. But in an average dry year, surface runoff can drop to less than 10 percent of normal and to far less in a drought year. Reservoirs, lakes, streams, and rivers are vulnerable to both heavy withdrawals and drought. Many states have minimum stream flow requirements to sustain fish, wildlife, and aquatic ecosystems, which means that some surface water is not available for human use. Rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands store water during floods and storms and replenish groundwater aquifers. Wetlands in particular do more to safeguard both water quality and water quantity than any other land feature on

an acre-for-acre basis. Wetlands, which include swamps, marshes, and bogs, act as natural catchment basins during floods and storms by retaining excess water and gradually releasing the water into the ground or nearby surface waterways. During dry seasons, wetlands also release water to ground and surface sources, thus helping to maintain relatively stable flows. In addition, wetlands purify water by filtering and biodegrading pollutants (see Chapter 11.) Streams are classified according to size and appropriate uses (see Table 5.2). Headwater streams in mountains are important drinking water sources and also provide essential wildlife habitat. Development and any sewage discharges should be kept well away from these streams, which are found in the first three stream orders. Larger, year-round streams in the fourth and fifth stream orders are attractive for recreational boating, canoeing, and fishing. Aquifers and Groundwater

About half of the nation’s drinking water comes from groundwater supplies. In rural America,

Table 5.2. Stream Ratings Stream Category

Stream Flow

Normal Depth (ft.)

Normal Width (ft.)

Uses

First order

Intermittent, seasonal

up to 1.5

1–5

Natural area

Second order

Intermittent or constant, storm runoff

1–3

3–12

Natural area

Third order

Low continuous flow

2–5

10–25

Linear parks, trails

Fourth order

Moderate flow with high clay content

3–6

20–40

Canoeing, trails, slight channel

Fifth order

Continuous flow with shifting channel

1–10 or more

50–200

Boating, fishing

CHAPTER 5: PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLY

groundwater accounts for about 90 percent of the overall water supply. Groundwater availability depends on the size and location of aquifers. Aquifers are underground areas that contain usable amounts of groundwater. Aquifers may be large, such the Ogallala Aquifer that lies beneath Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and west Texas, or they may be as small as a pond. Most aquifers are found within a half mile of the surface. The water in aquifers moves at various speeds and not in clearly defined channels like rivers and streams do. Below the earth’s surface lies the aeration or unsaturated zone with small spaces between the rock and soil that contain air and water in varying amounts. When precipitation infiltrates the soil, it passes through the zone of aeration. Any water that is not taken up by plant roots continues downward until it runs into impermeable bedrock. The water then backs up to form what is known as a water table. The water table lies below the zone of aeration and is known as the saturation zone. The saturation zone is similar to a sponge rather than an underground lake. Water tables often correspond fairly well to topography and are seldom level. They may lie just below the land’s surface or hundreds of feet belowground. Wetlands are water tables that lie at the earth’s surface. The precipitation and infiltration process restores or recharges the groundwater within underground aquifers. Depending on the porosity of soils and rock and the depth of the aquifer, the infiltration process can take from hours to months or even longer. The amount of precipitation and infiltration and rate of recharge of groundwater are important factors in estimating sustainable water supply. The rate of recharge depends on the composition of the soil, underlying rock strata, depth to the water table, the slope of the land, the amount of vegetative cover, and impervious surface areas. Sandy and loamy soils are more pervious than clay soils, and level ground

147

absorbs more water than steep slopes. Soil with a shallow depth to bedrock means that less water will percolate down to the water table. The lower the water table, the longer it will take water to percolate down to the aquifer. Vegetation helps groundwater recharge, as do surface wetlands. Impervious surfaces hinder recharge. Different rock types and structures affect groundwater movement rates and water yield. The chemical composition of rock can also influence the chemical content of groundwater and the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination. Groundwater recharge is enhanced in sedimentary geology, particularly in the unconsolidated geology of stream valleys and carbonate karst areas with sinkholes. However, these same pervious characteristics make groundwater in these areas prone to pollution from on-site septic systems, fertilizers, pesticides, chemical spills, and stormwater runoff. Aquifers can provide groundwater in three ways. Most often people drill wells of up to a couple hundred feet to access groundwater and pump it to the surface. Springs, which are found at locations where the water table intersects the land surface, are a second source. Artesian wells are deeper wells that reach underground aquifers between two layers of impermeable bedrock. Because these aquifers are under pressure, artesian wells gush with groundwater. In dry years, groundwater availability declines, particularly in shallow wells and springs and at higher elevations. Some community water systems and individual wells experience difficulty in meeting water demands during droughts. A decrease in rainfall or snowfall can reduce infiltration and lower the water table, resulting in higher pumping costs or even the need to drill new wells. Threats to Water Supplies

The availability of water supplies to meet current and future needs is greatly influenced by

148

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

land uses. Open lands such as wetlands, forests, grazing land, and cropland provide large pervious areas capable of absorbing enormous quantities of precipitation that can infiltrate into aquifers. Impervious surfaces consisting of buildings, streets, parking lots, and driveways greatly reduce the infiltration of groundwater and raise pollution levels in surface water. Impervious surfaces raise the volume and speed of stormwater runoff, which increases soil erosion and sedimentation and washes oil and other chemicals from roadways and parking lots into surface waters. Development on steep slopes or on lands where vegetation has been removed also reduces groundwater

recharge. A rule of thumb is that when more than 10 percent of a watershed is covered in impervious surfaces, serious and continued water-quality problems will result.14 People can deplete groundwater supplies through withdrawing more water than the aquifer can replenish. These overdrafts can occur for drinking water, irrigating farmland or watering livestock, mining and quarrying, industrial uses, or commercial uses. In some aquifers, excessive drawdown can lead to the collapse of the aquifer and a permanent loss of the groundwater source. Overdrafts indicate overreliance on a water source that cannot be sustained over time (see Box 5.1). One of the most prominent

Box 5.1. Tampa Bay Looks to the Sea for Drinking Water Supplies The Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater area on the Gulf Coast of Florida enjoys abundant rainfall of about 50 inches a year and grew from 2.4 million residents in 2000 to nearly 2.8 million in 2010.15 Public water has long come from wells. But sprawling development has threatened the water quality of those wells, and heavy pumping has depleted some of the aquifers. Moreover, the region’s population, which grew by a factor of six from 1950 to 2010, is expected to continue to increase along with the retiring baby boomer generation. The Southwest Florida Water Management District proposed and built a desalination plant at an estimated cost of $110 million.16 In 2003, the plant began providing 25 million gallons of freshwater each day, or 10 percent of the region’s freshwater needs. Two questions arise: What have the residents and businesses of the Tampa Bay region done to conserve water supplies, and what is the region doing to control growth to better balance water demands with water supplies?

Over the next few decades, several coastal regions are expected to look to the sea for freshwater supplies. California’s water consumption has been projected to increase by 40 percent between 2005 and 2030.17 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which serves 17 million people in greater Los Angeles, is expected to rely on a mix of higher water prices, water conservation, and new sources, including desalination plants.18 In 2012, the San Diego County Water Authority approved the purchase of an expected 50 million gallons of water a day from a privately operated desalination plant slated to open in Carlsbad in 2016. The estimated cost of the plant is nearly $1 billion.19 The potential drawbacks of desalinization plants are (a) the high energy costs because of the need to filter water, (b) the generation of concentrated saline waste that is then deposited back into the ocean, and (c) the disruption of coastal wildlife habitats as large amounts of seawater are withdrawn.20

CHAPTER 5: PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLY

examples is the south central Great Plains, where rainfall is typically fewer than 18 inches a year and the recharge rate into the Ogallala Aquifer is very slow. Since World War II, farmers and ranchers have withdrawn huge amounts of water from the aquifer to irrigate wheat fields and to water livestock. The pumping has lowered the water table to the point where much of the region above the Ogallala may return to lower-yield dry-land farming, which uses no irrigation, within 30 to 50 years.21

5.3: The Need for Water Supply Planning Effective water supply planning and implementation will be crucial to sustaining livable communities and regions (see Figure 5.3). For example, the Atlanta Regional Commission estimated that the demand for water in fastgrowing greater Atlanta would increase by 50 percent from 2000 to 2020.22 A large part of this expanding demand was expected to come from watering lawns and landscaping because summer water usage in greater Atlanta is about twice the winter usage. Water supply planning can help communities and regions anticipate both future growth and droughts by creating reserve supplies and water conservation programs as well as maintaining existing systems (see Box 5.2). Leaking pipes result in the loss of an estimated 17 percent of America’s annual potable water use.23 Finally, since the attacks of September 11, 2001, protecting water supplies from sabotage by terrorists has become an issue of both community safety and national security. The two main strategies in water supply planning are (1) ensuring a reliable long-term water supply and (2) managing water demand. Communities can create water budgets to identify existing and future capacity to meet anticipated water needs and to select ways to

149

limit water use. A community should review how any major new development or expansion of a water service area would affect projected future water supplies. A major portion of the water supplies of several large cities comes from sources many miles away. A considerable amount of energy is needed to pump and treat water, and water systems account for about 4 percent of U.S. annual energy consumption.24 Phoenix, Arizona, has gone out to the countryside to purchase “water ranches”—properties valued more for their underlying groundwater than the land on the surface. Phoenix also receives its share of the distant Colorado River through 190 miles of the Central Arizona Project canal. Los Angeles not only imports Colorado River water but also pumps water from the Owens Valley in eastern California over 200 miles via the concrete Los Angeles River and receives water pumped from Northern California through the Central Valley Project. California had the largest population of any state in 2010 with more than 37 million people and is expected to grow to between 44 million and 48 million by 2025.25 From 1990 to 2010, the Intermountain West between the Rocky Mountains and the Sierra Nevada Mountains was the fastest-growing region in the U.S. Most states in the region experienced population increases of more than 20 percent. Many communities in the Intermountain West and Southern California are having trouble finding new water sources to serve their growing populations. Water conservation alone will not be sufficient. There are simply too many people and not enough water. And the Colorado River basin is highly vulnerable to drought.26 Coastal communities will increasingly turn to the Pacific Ocean to desalinate seawater. But interior communities will face limits to growth. Groundwater quality tends to decline as water is withdrawn. Typically, concentrations of nitrates, sulfates, and sodium rise with

150

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Total surface water withdrawals, 2005

Withdrawals in million gallons per day 0–2,000 2,000–5,000 5,000–10,000 10,000–20,000 20,000–46,000

Total groundwater withdrawals, 2005

Withdrawals in million gallons per day 0–2,000 2,000–5,000 5,000–10,000 10,000–20,000 20,000–46,000

Figure 5.3. Surface Water and Groundwater Withdrawals by State, 2005 Sources: U.S. Geological Survey, “Surface Water Use in the United States, 2005,” http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/wusw.html, retrieved November 26, 2012; “Groundwater Use in the United States, 2005,” http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/wugw.html, retrieved November 26, 2012.

CHAPTER 5: PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLY

151

Box 5.2. Drought and Water Supply Planning In an average year, according to the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska, drought costs Americans between $6 billion and $8 billion, compared to flood losses of $2.4 billion and hurricane damage of $1.2 billion to $4.8 billion.27 In 2000, the Great Lakes region and a band of territory stretching from Arizona to Florida experienced moderate to severe drought. Water levels in the Great Lakes were the lowest in 35 years, causing disruption to shipping, water recreation industries, and nearby agriculture. Snowfall in the Rocky Mountains was far below normal. The risk of wildfires was acute, and Colorado’s Front Range and greater Los Alamos, New Mexico, experienced severe forest fires. Texas suffered through an extreme drought in 2011 and the driest seven-month period on record, during which the average

rainfall statewide was fewer than six inches.28 Much of the U.S. was parched by drought in the spring and summer of 2012—the worst drought in more than 50 years.29 Several communities and a few states have adopted drought-preparedness programs. Water supply planning can help in drought preparedness when planners and water suppliers estimate drought-condition water yields and identify potential, new longterm water sources as well as emergency backup water supplies. In addition, planners and water suppliers can make recommendations for changing water system pricing, such as a drought-related water bill surcharge, and educating consumers to conserve water. Under drought conditions, local governments may restrict outdoor water use for landscaping and agricultural irrigation, swimming pools, watering lawns, and washing cars.

Box 5.3. The Colorado River Compact and Water Supply One of the boldest attempts to allocate water supplies dates back to the Colorado River Compact of 1922 (see Figure 5.4). The compact was an attempt by the federal government to allocate water among several western states and Mexico. The compact estimated the available water at 17.5 million acre-feet per year. The upper basin states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico received rights to withdraw 7.5 million acrefeet per year, as did the lower basin states of Arizona, California, and Nevada. Mexico would be entitled to 1.5 million acre-feet per year. There would be a cushion of 1 million acre-feet per year. But historically, the Colorado River makes available only 11.5 million

acre-feet per year, not nearly enough to satisfy the agreed-on allotments. In Southern California, farmers control 3.85 million acre-feet of the state’s 4.4 acrefeet allotment of Colorado River water.30 But in 2003, the U.S. government cut in half the amount of Colorado River water going to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, or about 800,000 acre-feet.31 Southern California will need to buy water from farmers, build desalination plants, store more water, increase conservation efforts, or implement some combination of these measures. For example, San Diego in 2011 purchased 80,000 acre-feet of water from farmers in the nearby Imperial Valley.32

152

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

In the early 1980s, the 336-mile Central Arizona Project (CAP) was built to supply Colorado River water to Phoenix and Tucson. The CAP is an open concrete river that loses huge amounts of water to evaporation in the desert sun and dry heat. By the late 1990s, Tucson stopped using CAP water and decided to rely on local groundwater instead. Meanwhile, CAP water helped greater Phoenix grow from 2.2 million people in 1990 to 4.2 million in 2010.33 From 1990 to 2010, greater Las Vegas, Nevada, was the nation’s fastest-growing metropolitan region. In 1990, the population of metropolitan Las Vegas was 842,646; in 2010, it was 1.95 million.34 This does not include the 35 million people who visit Las Vegas each year.35 About 90 percent of the water supply for greater Las Vegas comes from Lake Mead behind the Hoover Dam. Nevada now uses all of its Colorado River allotment of 300,000 acre-feet per year. Las Vegas has been taking advantage of a return-flow credits policy included in the 1922 compact. For every gallon of treated wastewater returned back into Lake Mead, Las Vegas can draw another gallon. The city

increased water withdrawals. These chemicals threaten both drinking water supplies and irrigated agriculture. The more saline the water, the more saline the soil becomes, and the less productive. For instance, in the San Joaquin Valley of California, overpumping of groundwater for irrigation has increased the salinity of the soil and reduced crop production. The good news is that America’s average annual water use peaked in 1980. In the early 1990s, Congress mandated national water efficiency standards for new toilets, showerheads, and faucets (see Box 5.4). In addition, about

returns all of its treated effluent to Lake Mead and 6.5 miles downstream pumps drinking water out!36 Even so, Las Vegas could face water shortages. As a precaution, Las Vegas has been banking millions of gallons of water in underground aquifers. The Southern Nevada Water Authority is even considering pumping in desalinated seawater from the California coast.37 Renegotiation of the Colorado River Compact would not be easy because all of the Colorado River’s water is already allocated. Mexico often does not receive its fair share and in many years, the Colorado River is only a trickle by the time it reaches the sea in the Gulf of California.38 As of 2012, the Colorado River was the primary source of drinking water for 35 million people.39 Climate change is expected to reduce the usable supply of Colorado River water by 9 percent over the next several decades. Meanwhile, the cities and regions dependent on Colorado River water are projected to add more people.40 The Bureau of Reclamation has projected a shortage of 3.2 million acrefeet of water in the Colorado River basin by 2060.41

40 percent of water utilities have moved to charge water rates that rise as households use more water.42 This change to rising block rate pricing is significant because, traditionally, utilities have employed a declining rate structure that charges customers less per gallon as they use more water. The declining rate structure, still used by about one-quarter of water utilities, encourages water use, while the rising rate structure promotes water conservation. The price of water in the U.S. is generally low and does not reflect the true cost of providing clean freshwater or the environmental

CHAPTER 5: PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLY

153

Figure 5.4. Colorado River Basin Source: Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study, Executive Summary, 2012.

impacts.43 Higher water prices and required metering for all public water systems would go far toward reducing water consumption. Other demand-side policies include restrictions on water use (e.g., no watering lawns between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.) and programs that subsidize consumers who adopt more waterefficient technologies, such as the purchase of

low-flow showerheads. Public education campaigns for water conservation can also help. Albuquerque, New Mexico, with an average annual rainfall of only 9.5 inches, reduced its daily per capita water consumption from 250 gallons per day in 1995 to 164 gallons in 2007. A big factor was getting property owners to convert from lawns to xeriscaping with native,

154

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Box 5.4. Federal Standards for Water Consumption in Appliances Congress and the EPA have promoted water conservation through standards on household appliances. The federal standard for toilets is 1.6 gallons per flush. Anyone who is replacing an old toilet must install a toilet that meets the 1.6 gallons per flush standard. Newer toilet models now use as little as 1.28 gallons per flush.44 Showerheads must use no more than two gallons per minute to bear the WaterSense label, a joint program between the EPA

drought-resistant plants, such as cacti and yuccas.47 Water-conservation surveys and home and business water audits and retrofit programs involve recording water use, checking for leaks, and installing water-saving devices, especially low-flow toilets. More stringent demand-side policies feature limiting the number of new water hookups for homes and businesses to avoid excess demands on the community’s water supply. A more extreme action would be to impose a moratorium on new hookups where water supplies are in serious danger of falling short of demand. However, a moratorium usually cannot legally be imposed for more than about 18 months. Finally, a community could use water offsets to achieve a goal of no net increase in water consumption—that is, a proposal for a new development would have to be combined with reductions in water use from existing customers. Also, businesses can use gray water that is recycled from residential and commercial sources, such as for landscaping or watering golf courses. This use of gray water is fairly common in Florida. The mismatch between water supplies and population concentrations, the uncertain replenishing and expansion of water supplies,

and manufacturers. Most conventional showerheads use 2.5 gallons per minute, resulting in thousands of gallons of additional water consumption compared to the WaterSense models.45 Washing machines are supposed to meet federal standards of 30 gallons per wash. Newer models use only 15 to 25 gallons per wash.46 All these new technologies save households money through lower water consumption and lower water bills.

and demands on water supplies from competing uses all underscore the need for state, local, and national efforts to plan for long-term supplies of high-quality freshwater. Many cities and towns do not obtain all their water needs within their boundaries, and so cooperation with neighboring and even distant local governments is essential. States can plan for water supplies within their borders, but many rivers and lakes fall into two or more states. Here, either a federal role or a regional water basin commission is needed to help allocate water among states and competing users.

5.4: The Federal Role in Water Supply Planning Federal water supply policy has emphasized building dams and diverting water for irrigation. The federal government has relied on state water boards, water companies, landowners, municipally owned water utilities, and quasi-public water authorities to conduct water supply planning. However, these entities often do not coordinate their water supply planning with local or regional land-use plans.

CHAPTER 5: PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLY

Moreover, because water supply planning and land-use planning rarely occur using a watershed as the planning unit, there is often a confusion of plans and claims on water supplies. Since the passage of the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act and subsequent amendments, the federal government has compelled state and local governments to consider a watershed management approach to protect their drinking water supplies. Western Water Projects

The federal government has built water projects for more than a century, especially in the western states. Two federal agencies in particular—the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers—have long competed in building dams for flood control, hydroelectricity, irrigation, recreational reservoirs, and drinking water supplies. Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau of Reclamation was created in 1902 to develop water projects in 17 western states and Hawaii. The bureau gained prominence in the 1930s for building the enormous Hoover Dam on the Colorado River and a series of dams on the Columbia River, including the Grand Coulee Dam. In the 1960s, the bureau constructed the Central Valley Project in California to dam and pump billions of gallons from the water-rich north to water-starved Southern California. Water from the bureau irrigates about 9 million acres of farmland, provides water to nearly 20 million people, and generates almost 10 million kilowatts of electricity. The bureau’s sale of subsidized water to farmers has been the subject of much criticism. Originally, each farmer was entitled to low-cost water for 160 acres. In 1982, the 160-acre limit was raised to 960 acres and, in 1987, to an unlimited number of 960-acre “paper farms” (large farms that are divided into

155

960-acre ownerships by deed but are in effect controlled by one landowner or corporation).48 Especially in California, farms of thousands of acres in size have been receiving bureau water for years, and at a cost of less than $25 per acrefoot (about 326,000 gallons). This compares to the average cost of $484 to $565 per acre-foot for nonfarm water uses in the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California in 2010.49 The cost of many Bureau of Reclamation dams was to be paid back by farmers who purchased irrigation water from the bureau. But with very low water prices, farmers have not come close to paying for the cost of the dams. Army Corps of Engineers. Since the 1930s, the Army Corps of Engineers has built more than 250 dams, mainly for flood control and hydroelectricity. To date, more than 70,000 dams—including 8,100 major dams and 2,540 hydropower dams—have been built in the U.S., nearly all of them before environmental impact statements were required under the National Environmental Policy Act.50 The environmental impacts of dams have been enormous, including the flooding of thousands of acres of productive farm- and forestland, wilderness, geologic and archaeological sites, wetlands, and wildlife habitat as well as the decimation of anadromous fish runs such as the salmon on the Columbia River. Anadromous fish are born in freshwater, migrate to the sea, and then return to the freshwater where they were born to spawn and die. Dams hinder or prevent migration to the sea and the return spawning trip; hydroelectric turbines also kill the fish. Federal water projects for transportation and flood protection have also included stream and river channeling, diversions, dams, locks, dikes, and levees, all of which have destroyed large areas of wildlife habitat and freshwater ecosystems. In addition, efforts to modify stream flows have often led to increases in

156

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

the volume and velocity of floodwaters and increased downstream flooding. Since the 1950s, decisions on dam construction have been subject to cost-benefit analysis. But discount rates (interest rates) used to estimate the net benefits have often been low, skewed in favor of building dams. For example, in the early 1970s, the Bureau of Reclamation proposed to erect a dam on the Teton River in Idaho, primarily for irrigation. Yet the Teton dam realistically could not provide greater benefits than its cost.51 The dam made it through the environmental impact process and was mostly completed by 1975. In June 1976, the Teton dam ruptured, killing 11 people and destroying or damaging 4,000 homes. Total damage was estimated at $2 billion. But the days of dam construction appear to be behind us. Since 1999, more than 300 dams have been removed.52 Congress has long used water projects as a way to deliver jobs and dollars to the states and certain congressional districts. But starting in the late 1990s, it became clear that few new dams and water diversions were likely to happen. In fact, pressure has increased for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to deny the renewal of licenses for small hydroelectric dams because of growing public desire to remove dams and restore fish and wildlife habitat. River Basin Planning

hydroelectricity, shipping, and recreation. The construction of the dams on the Tennessee River brought electricity to one of the nation’s most impoverished regions along with jobs and good housing during the height of the Great Depression. In 1965, Congress authorized the creation of river basin commissions to undertake planning for entire watersheds extending across state boundaries. River basin commissions have been formed for the Delaware, Susquehanna, Ohio, Missouri, and Columbia rivers, among others. A key feature of river basin planning is bringing together water users to discuss water needs and allocations. River basin commissions have the authority to regulate large water withdrawals. For example, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission regulates surface and groundwater withdrawals of 100,000 or more gallons per day.53 Interest in river basin planning has increased since the late 1990s when the EPA was ordered by the courts to plan for water quality on a watershed basis. This provided an opportunity for the EPA and individual states to work in coordination with river basin commissions to 1. set minimum stream flows and maximum water withdrawals to support wildlife habitat, maintain adequate water supplies and the integrity of groundwater aquifers, and maintain the ability of rivers and streams to assimilate point and nonpoint pollution;

A river basin is the geographic area that drains into a particular river system. River basins are useful units for planning because water avail- 2. establish total daily maximum loads of ability affects settlement patterns, economic pollutants to help clean up polluted rivers activity, wildlife habitat, and overall environand tributaries (see Chapter 6); and mental robustness. Perhaps America’s greatest 3. issue drought declarations and require example of river basin planning was the crewater rationing measures. ation of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in 1933. The TVA was the first attempt to bring The Delaware River Basin Commission federal funds and management to bear in taming a river for a combination of flood control, (DRBC) has broader powers than most river

CHAPTER 5: PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLY

basin commissions. The DRBC has the authority to review and issue or deny permits for drilling for natural gas, especially when the drilling involves hydraulic fracturing. The Delaware River supplies water to 15 million users in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. The DRBC has wrestled with regulations for drilling with hydraulic fracturing and placed a moratorium on new drilling from 2010 into 2014.

5.5: The Safe Drinking Water Act The primary goal of public water system planning is to protect the water quality of those systems rather than maintain or increase water supplies. Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 with amendments in 1986, 1988, and 1996 to reduce contaminants in public drinking water supplies. The SDWA enabled the EPA to (a) set national drinking water-quality standards; (b) require waterquality monitoring, water treatment, and the public reporting of contaminants in drinking water systems; (c) fund source water protection programs to protect watersheds, aquifers, and wellheads from potential contamination; and (d) ban the underground injection of hazardous wastes. Public water systems defined. The EPA has the authority to regulate some 170,000 public water systems that provide 85 percent of the nation’s drinking water. In 2007, public water systems included 53,000 community water systems serving at least 15 connections or 25 year-round residents.54 Community water systems consist of municipal and private water systems serving cities, towns, and villages as well as private systems serving larger subdivisions and mobile home parks. Public water systems also include 21,400 noncommunity water systems serving at least 25 people daily for six months or more a year primarily at larger

157

businesses and recreational and public sites and buildings.55 The only water systems the EPA does not regulate are private water systems serving fewer than 25 people. Most community water systems are small and draw on groundwater to supply their customers. Larger community water systems rely mainly on surface water.56 Maximum contaminant levels. The SDWA enables the EPA to establish mandatory maximum contaminant levels for each drinking water contaminant, of which there were 102 in 2009.57 These contaminant levels include primary standards to protect human health from volatile organic compounds, synthetic organic chemicals, inorganic chemicals, radiation, and coliform bacteria. Under the primary standards, public drinking water suppliers must monitor their water. Where contaminants are found above the maximum contaminant levels, the water suppliers must treat the water to the primary standards before distributing the water to customers. The EPA also sets secondary standards on heavy metals, color, corrosiveness, and turbidity. Monitoring and treatment are also required for the secondary standards. Surface Water Treatment Rule. In 1989, the EPA adopted the Surface Water Treatment Rule under the SDWA, mandating all public water systems that use surface water to filter the water before distributing it to customers. Previously, many smaller public water systems had used only chlorination for treatment. The 1996 SDWA amendments set new drinking water standards for public systems that rely either on surface water or on groundwater that is under the influence of surface water. For instance, wells that are less than 50 feet deep, are adjacent to streams, or that experience turbidity after a storm may be under the influence of surface water. In 1996, the EPA adopted the Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule to require nearly all communities that rely on surface water or surface-influenced groundwater

158

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

to filter and disinfect their water before it is distributed. These new standards resulted in many smaller communities abandoning their surface water or surface water–influenced sources and seeking out new groundwater sources, to avoid the costs of building a filtration plant. The EPA may allow a waiver from the Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule if a public water system has good water quality and the community in which it is located has an active water source protection program with a proven ability to control potential contamination. For instance, New York City has avoided building a $6 billion filtration plant by protecting water supplies in the Catskill and Delaware watersheds, although the city was forced to build a $3.4 billion filtration plant to assure the quality of water coming from its nearby Croton watershed (see the case study in Section 5.9). In 2000, the EPA added new rules to require public water systems that rely on groundwater sources for drinking water to monitor for bacteria and disease-carrying parasites. If bacteria or parasites are found, water suppliers must disinfect the water above normal disinfection levels. In 2006, the EPA adopted a groundwater rule to identify public water systems that use groundwater that is at high risk from fecal contamination.58 Wellhead protection and source water assessment and protection. The 1986 SDWA amendments established the Wellhead Protection Program, which requires each state to develop a program to protect the wellhead areas of community water supplies. The 1996 SDWA reauthorization ordered states to create Source Water Assessment and Protection (SWAP) programs that address not only wellhead areas but also entire watersheds. States must assess the vulnerability to pollution of both surface and groundwater sources of public drinking water. The EPA may designate a groundwater supply as a sole-source aquifer if the water supply is the only source or the primary source of drinking

water for a city, town, or region. If a federally funded project has the potential to pollute a sole-source aquifer, the project must undergo a stringent review. A state SWAP program must produce a map showing the boundaries of the area providing public drinking water and the origins of contaminants within the area. States must make SWAP program findings available to community water systems, municipalities, and the public. The states, water suppliers, local governments, and the public can use the SWAP assessments to forge community-based plans, ordinances, and financial incentives to prevent contamination. SWAPs present inventory data and analyses on water sources and pollution threats along with goals, objectives, and strategies for protecting water supplies. Strategies may include the purchase of land or conservation easements, wellhead protection ordinances, and low-density zoning to limit or prevent new development and potentially contaminating land-use practices near water supplies. The goal is to reduce the variety and quantity of contaminants in the water supply along with saving money through lower necessary levels of water treatment. The SDWA amendments require water suppliers serving large populations to inform their customers about where their water comes from, any contaminants in the water, and how their water compares to state health department standards, including any violations that occurred in the previous year. Water suppliers must provide this information through an annual Consumer Confidence Report that is either mailed to customers or published in a local newspaper. Finally, public water systems must demonstrate adequate financial, technical, and management capacity to deliver safe drinking water to their customers. Future infrastructure needs. States have used the SDWA Drinking Water State Revolving Fund to make loans to public water suppliers for building and upgrading water treatment

CHAPTER 5: PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLY

plants and transmission systems and to protect water sources. For example, the State of Maine has loaned money to public water systems to purchase land needed to protect drinking water sources and thus avoid expensive water treatment.59 From 1997 to 2013, the State Revolving Fund pumped almost $15 billion into the states to improve drinking water treatment, transmission, and distribution.60 In addition, the EPA makes grants to states and tribes for public water supply systems. In recent

159

years, the EPA has made grants of slightly more than $100 million a year.61 Despite these state efforts and federal funding, the EPA has estimated that community water systems will need to invest $384 billion between 2011 and 2030 (see Table 5.3).62 Most of the money will be needed for installing and upgrading water systems. Many systems are more than 50 years old, and smaller community systems often do not meet the requirements of the SDWA.

Table 5.3. Community Water Systems by Size and Estimated Infrastructure Needs, 2011–2030 System Size

Infrastructure Needs (in Billions of Dollars)

Large systems, serving more than 100,000 people

145.1

Medium systems, serving 3,301–100,000 people

161.8

Small systems, serving 3,300 or fewer people

64.5

Native American systems

3.3

Amount needed to meet new regulations

4.9

Not-for-profit systems

4.6

Total

384.2

Type of Water System Infrastructure and Cost Water system installation, transmission, distribution, and repair

247.5

Water treatment

72.5

Water storage

39.5

Water source development and protection

20.5

Other

4.2

Total

384.2

Source: U.S. EPA, 2011 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment, 2013.

160

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

State water-quality boards or departments of natural resources work with operators of small systems serving fewer than 3,300 people to develop their technical, financial, and management capacity to provide safe drinking water. Small public water systems that lack sufficient capacity may be best assisted through interconnections with other systems, shared-water procurement and delivery contracts, or mergers with stronger systems. In the years ahead, states, counties, municipalities, and individual public water systems will bear greater responsibility for finding effective and financially sound ways to meet drinking water standards over the long run. Enforcement. Nearly all states have primary enforcement authority for the SDWA. But the EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance has the power to enforce the act if a state does not have primary enforcement authority or does not do a proper job of enforcing the act. States that have assumed responsibility for enforcing EPA drinking water standards must • maintain an inventory of the public water systems in the state; • conduct sanitary surveys of public water systems; • collect annual compliance reports from public water systems; • certify lab testing of public water quality; • ensure that new or modified water systems comply with state drinking water regulations; • require public water systems to keep records and report violations; • assess fines for violations; • require emergency response plans for public water systems; and • certify operators of public water systems.63

5.6: State Water Supply Planning Planning and regulating the use of surface water and groundwater are done by different state agencies, counties, local water districts, water authorities, municipal water utilities, and private water companies. Surface water withdrawals are regulated by state water resources boards or departments of natural resources as well as by river basin commissions. Many states do not regulate groundwater withdrawals at all. States have the power to declare drought emergencies and may call on public water systems to enforce voluntary or mandatory conservation measures. State planning for public water systems happens in conjunction with the federal government through the SDWA. For example, in 2010, the EPA and the states began a new approach for compliance with drinking water regulations by individual public water suppliers. The EPA and the states developed a scoring system that assigns points to each violation of federal drinking water standards and to reports on water quality and the potential impact on public health. The scoring system covers the most recent five-year history, and the water system scores within each state are updated quarterly. Each violation and its points are included in a water system’s score until the water system either is returned to compliance or is placed under a formal enforcement order to address the problem.64 Some states have begun to require local governments to plan for water supplies as part of their growth management efforts. In 1995, California required all cities and counties to include a study of water supplies in drafting their comprehensive plans and in reviewing large development proposals. In 2001, California mandated that developers who propose to build 500 or more housing units must demonstrate an ample water supply for the next 20 years.65 Developers have to work with local

CHAPTER 5: PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLY

water agencies to identify and certify the necessary water supplies. Vermont’s land-use and development law, Act 250, requires developers to show that their proposed developments of 10 or more housing units or commercial developments of more than 10 acres will not have “undue impacts” on water supplies.66 Since 1980, landowners in Arizona who propose to subdivide one or more lots must show “an assured water supply” over the long term in order to receive subdivision permission.67 States with their own environmental policy acts can require that proposed developments demonstrate an adequate long-term water supply as part of the environmental impact assessment process. State Water Law

The purpose of state water law is to define the rights of individuals, communities, and the state to use freshwater and to allocate water among competing uses but not necessarily to encourage conservation. Surface water law. Two main types of surface water law have evolved in the U.S. In the eastern states, the riparian doctrine allows a landowner adjacent to a river or stream to withdraw and use the water. Also, states allow riparian landowners to transport water to property not contiguous to the waterway. If a riparian landowner does not draw water from the adjacent waterway for a year or more, the riparian landowner does not give up the right to withdraw water at some future date. If a riparian landowner sells the property, the water rights pass with the property to subsequent landowners. Overall, landowners along a waterway are expected to be reasonable in their use of water; for example, they are not allowed to divert or dam the waterway or reduce the water quality. The riparian system works adequately in areas where there is

161

abundant water, little irrigation, and relatively few riparian landowners using the water. Most eastern states now regulate water withdrawals above a certain amount, usually 100,000 gallons a day. But that is a generous threshold.68 The appropriation doctrine applies in the drier western states to allocate water use. Water rights are determined by historic use. The primary guiding principle of the appropriation doctrine is “first in time, first in right.” Whoever files a claim first gets first rights to use the water. A landowner with water rights does not have to own land contiguous to the river or stream and may transport and sell water even to another watershed. Typically, a user who can show that the water will be put to a beneficial use receives a permit from a state water agency specifying the amount of water to which the user is entitled and what the water will be used for. In times of drought, this practice can result in a few users with long established water rights taking literally all the water or all except what may be required for minimum stream flows to maintain wildlife habitat, leaving more recent permit holders with no water. The second principle of the appropriation doctrine is “use it or lose it.” If a water user ceases to draw water or reduces the amount used, the user may lose future rights to the water. This aspect of the law creates a major obstacle to water conservation and potential water redistribution and freezes in time antiquated water allocation schemes that may not be responsive to changing community or regional needs. The use-it-or-lose-it principle is especially counterproductive when it comes to irrigating farmland. For instance, most farmers in the West still employ flood irrigation, which results in the loss of large amounts of water through evaporation. Drip irrigation, though expensive to put in place, could conserve enough irrigation water to supply urban needs for decades to come.

162

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Third, water rights in the West are considered private property rights. This means that water rights—like mineral rights—can be sold separately from the rest of the property. An active market in water rights exists, and water rights can be sold from one property to another. For instance, it has been common for farmers to sell water rights to cities to enable cities to expand. Public trust doctrine. The public trust doctrine of “public entitlement to the benefit of natural systems” is a legal concept that the courts have applied to water supplies.69 The public trust doctrine dates back to Roman days and exists in the legal systems of Great Britain and the U.S. It is uncodified law that says that government is responsible for holding important natural resources in trust for the public. In 1983, in National Audubon v. Superior Court, also known as the Mono Lake case, the California Supreme Court ruled that the State of California had an obligation under the public trust doctrine to oversee water use even after private users appropriated it.70 Private water users in eastern California and diversions to Los Angeles had drawn on streams feeding Mono Lake so that the natural calcium formations, called tufa towers, were drying up and disintegrating. The low water levels enabled coyotes to gain access to islands in the lake and raid bird nests. In short, the water diversions were endangering the natural functioning of the lake. The court ruled that private appropriators would not be allowed to seriously deplete the water resource, and long-term solutions for water use and environmental protection should be sought. Although Mono Lake did not specify how to measure the public trust, the court identified the need to monitor the ecological activity that produces public benefit. Such monitoring in water allocation will become increasingly necessary and difficult as competing demands for water intensify. For instance, in a situation

similar to Mono Lake, in the early 1990s, Congress authorized the allocation of 10 to 20 percent of the water from California’s Central Valley Project to be used for minimum stream flows to maintain fish habitat.71 Groundwater law. Eastern states follow the American Rule that says that landowners can withdraw as much groundwater as they want for beneficial uses that are reasonable on their land. Groundwater may not be transported to land not directly above the source, and withdrawals may not unreasonably harm a neighbor’s use of groundwater, such as lowering the water table or reducing water pressure, and may not adversely affect a waterway or lake. Large withdrawals of groundwater for commercial purposes and public drinking water supplies have prompted several states, including New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Maine, to require permits for large groundwater users. In most western states, the conjunctive use doctrine holds that there is a link between groundwater and surface water use and that groundwater and surface water need to be managed in a coordinated fashion to maintain adequate water supplies and water quality. For instance, conjunctive use allows the state to compel holders of water rights to reduce withdrawals of groundwater during times of drought. But groundwater is also considered private property, and landowners have the “right of capture,” which, under normal weather conditions, allows them to pump out as much groundwater as possible, even if neighbors lose their groundwater as a result.72 This principle opened the way for the heavy and widespread use of groundwater for irrigating cropland. Groundwater can also be pumped to the surface and transported to distant sites; this is common in Arizona with the development of “water ranches” in the countryside to provide water for urban and suburban water users.

CHAPTER 5: PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLY

163

5.7: County and Regional Water Supply Planning

2012 adopted its ninth state water plan made up of 16 regional water plans with a time horizon of 50 years.73 Florida has five water manPlanning for long-term supplies of high-quality agement districts. Kentucky requires all of its water will be an increasingly important com- counties to have long-term water plans. ponent of community and regional efforts to manage growth and create sustainable developments. A county or region often is the most Water Supply Plan Objectives useful planning scale for combining land-use An effective county or regional water supply planning and the identification and protecplan will have the following main objectives: tion of future water supplies. Municipal water supply plans are often inadequate because aquifers and watersheds typically cross several 1. Provide an evaluation of the technical, municipal boundaries, and both groundwater managerial, and financial ability of comand surface water sources may exist in places munity water systems to meet projected future water demands. that are far from the city water users. Texas in

Box 5.5. Wastewater Recycling and Reuse Wastewater reuse, also known as water recycling, involves finding beneficial uses for treated wastewater from sewage treatment plants rather than discharging it into waterways. Reused or reclaimed water is usually put through at least a secondary treatment process. In 1992, the U.S. EPA set treatment standards for reclaimed water based on the anticipated level of human contact. Reclaimed wastewater, for instance, may not be used on crops intended for human consumption. Most reused water is appropriate for other agricultural, industrial, and landscaping uses. The purpose of water reuse is to conserve potable water when lowerquality water will suffice. The main obstacle to water reuse is the need to construct a second set of pipes from treatment plants to major water users, such as power plants, large farms, and residential complexes. Beginning in 1977, St. Petersburg, Florida, built the first network of

pipes to deliver reclaimed water, which now irrigates nearly 10,000 lawns as well as several schools, parks, and golf courses.74 Tucson, Arizona, has 160 miles of pipe to deliver recycled water.75 Water reuse can also be successful at a more modest scale. Lagoon systems serving smaller communities and new developments can be used to spray irrigate adjacent farm fields, parks, and golf courses. Recycled water added to groundwater can help prevent saltwater intrusion in coastal areas. For example, since 2008, Orange County, California, has added highly treated recycled water into the aquifer to prevent saltwater intrusion and increase drinking water supplies.76 There has been some resistance using recycled wastewater for drinking, because of the perception of water that is transferred from “toilet to tap.” But in the water-scarce Southwest, if populations continue to increase, water recycling for a variety of purposes will only grow in popularity.

164

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

2. Help ensure that all community water systems have the long-term capacity to meet federal SDWA requirements. 3. Include a source water protection plan to delineate groundwater and surface water protection areas and public water supplies, identify potential sources of contamination, implement watershed and wellhead protection ordinances and financial incentives to keep inappropriate development away from water supplies used by public water systems, and consider the purchase of lands or conservation easements adjacent to reservoirs and rivers to keep them undeveloped. 4. Encourage and implement water conservation measures. 5. Help implement the water-related goals and objectives of local comprehensive plans. 6. Propose future water service areas that are and consistent with the recommended growth areas of local comprehensive plans and capital improvements programs (CIPs). 7. Improve communication and coordination among municipalities and community water systems in order to promote effective water planning in the future.

companies. County planners should map surface water and groundwater sources on a geographic information system (GIS). County planners can ask state agencies and public water systems to provide the following information: 1. The number of surface water and groundwater sources 2. Safe yield, seasonal flow variation, and annual water-use levels for each source 3. The location, capacity, current use, and age of water treatment plants, including disinfection or filtration systems 4. Average annual and peak water use by type of consumer (residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, agricultural) 5. The location, capacity, current use, and type of raw and treated water storage capacity 6. Maximum contaminant levels or levels exceeded in treated water in the last three years 7. The location, capacity, current use, age, and materials of the pumping, transmission, and distribution systems 8. Number and type of connections and population served, communities served, and potential to connect to other public water systems

The county planning department can form an advisory committee to guide the 9. Water system size (small, medium, large), drafting of the water supply plan. Public parownership, number and training of certiticipation and citizen involvement are essenfied operators, approved operation and tial components in a community’s water maintenance plans, and up-to-date water planning process. The next step is to comsupply reports pile an inventory of existing known groundwater and surface water sources. Much of 10. Water system metering, rate structure, billing period, and rate schedule this information should be available from the state department of natural resources or 11. Water system annual revenues, expenses, fixed assets, long-term debts, and continwater resources board and local water authorgency funds ities, public water systems, and private water

CHAPTER 5: PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLY

12. Emergency response plans that describe contingency procedures in the event of drought, contamination, or system breakdown, including backup water systems

165

protect water supplies from pollution and overdraft. This should involve coordination between areas where water sources are located and where the water is consumed. • New public water systems may be needed to serve existing or planned growth areas. Planners and local governments can encourage new public water systems through direct financial assistance and through zoning and subdivision regulations that discourage sprawling suburban and rural development that uses on-lot wells.

County planners can then analyze the inventory data to compare public water system capacities with projected future water demands and determine needed system improvements. The analysis can include an estimate of the potential costs of upgrading or expanding water systems. Projected future water demands for a county depend on pop- • County water supply plans can recommend ulation projections over the next 20 or more a variety of water conservation measures, years. County planners should estimate averdepending on the availability of water in age and peak daily water use in the future for the area and the potential for drought. each community water system. Public water suppliers can meter all water users, control leaks in pipes and pumping systems, and conduct public information Water Supply Plan Recommendations programs to encourage water conservation. Owners of businesses and residences can The planning commission, planning staff, and have water-use audits done, can make retadvisory committee can draft recommendarofits to improve water efficiency, and can tions to address the following needs: adopt landscaping practices that minimize water use. Water suppliers can explore the reuse and recycling of water, and local gov• Upgrading water treatment capacity or the ernments can adopt regulations on water type of treatment may be needed along use, such as no car washing or no watering with adding water storage capacity, changlawns between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. ing the planned service area, implementing water conservation programs, and revising water pricing policies. Wellhead Protection • Water system interconnections can be particularly helpful during times of drought, Municipalities, counties, and community water natural disaster, or contamination from systems can apply for grants under the SDWA to spills or leakage. Yet interconnections also develop wellhead protection plans. Each state have the potential to encourage sprawling has a wellhead protection program as part of development patterns. Interconnections its SWAP program to help local governments should be limited to communities within keep potentially contaminating activities away existing growth areas. from wells that provide public drinking water. • Careful land-use planning, land-use regulations, and infrastructure investment can promote compact development and help

The first step in creating a county wellhead protection plan is to form a team to draft the plan. The team should consist of 8 to 10

166

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

people, such as an elected official, a major water user, a developer, a planning commission member, an environmental group representative, a water system manager, an official from the conservation district, and an attorney. A professional planner can provide guidance for the team. The team should next identify the land area to be protected. The SDWA defines the wellhead protection area as “the surface and subsurface area surrounding a water well or wellfield, supplying a public water system, through which contaminants are reasonably likely to move forward and reach such water or wellfield.”77

Figure 5.5. Wellhead Protection Areas Source: Map by Ethan Daniels.

A hydrogeologist should delineate the wellhead and aquifer protection zones, which will reflect priority protection areas. A map— preferably GIS based—should display three specific zones (see Figure 5.5). Zone I (a 100- to 400-foot radius around the wellhead). Land-use activities in Zone I generally pose the greatest risks to groundwater quality. For new wells, the water supply system must own or control Zone I to prohibit activities that could contaminate the well. Zone II. This land area contributes water to a well and depends on local aquifer

CHAPTER 5: PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLY

conditions and the pumping rate of the well. A circle of a half-mile radius around the well is a default definition of this zone in the absence of a delineation by a professional hydrogeologist. Zone III. This land area also contributes surface water or groundwater to a well and is often located upslope from the well. After the wellhead protection zones are mapped, the team should identify existing and potential sources of contamination, including • residential uses, especially septic systems, the use of yard chemicals, and abandoned wells; • commercial uses, especially gas stations, dry cleaners, junkyards, and car washes; • transportation uses that may result in oil and gasoline runoff, spills, and road salts; • industrial uses, especially chemical manufacturing, storage tanks, pipelines, and mining; • agricultural uses, especially feedlots, manure storage and application, and improper storage or application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers; • institutional or public uses, especially landfills, sewage treatment plants, and golf courses; and • hazardous wastes, especially Superfund sites, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Information System generators and sites, spill sites, and other hazardous waste sources (see Chapters 7 and 8). The wellhead plan team should evaluate alternative tools and techniques for wellhead

167

protection. A wellhead protection zone is an overlay zoning district that restricts or prohibits the type of land uses allowed within the delineated wellhead protection areas. For instance, Renton, Washington, banned all new on-site septic systems in its aquifer protection zones and requires new homes and businesses to connect to central sewer systems. In one protection zone, any businesses that stored more than 20 gallons of hazardous materials were given a few years to reduce their hazardous inventories or move out.78 The purchase of land or conservation easements on property by the local government can give the public direct control over land uses and activities in the wellhead protection area, particularly in Zone I. The purchase of a conservation easement is less expensive than the fee simple purchase of land, and the easement document can specify the types of land uses and activities allowed and even limit certain practices—such as pesticide spraying— that could affect groundwater quality. An on-site septic ordinance can regulate the siting, maintenance, periodic clean-out, and replacement of on-site septic systems to help ensure that they function properly and do not pollute groundwater. Wellhead protection signs can be placed on highways at the perimeter of wellhead protection areas to alert private landowners and the public about the location and importance of the wellhead protection area and the need to notify authorities in the event of contaminant spills. Contaminated sites near or within wellhead protection areas should be remediated and monitored. Remediation actions may include replacing old and malfunctioning septic systems, replacing leaking storage tanks, moving feedlots, or closing landfills. Monitoring wells and regular water testing can determine whether contaminants are migrating toward public water wells or groundwater sources.

168

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

The plan should include a contingency plan for how the public water system will respond to drought, other natural disasters, or a chemical spill. Similarly, if new wells will be developed as part of the public water system, the wellhead protection plan should incorporate them into the plan. The wellhead protection team works with the community to develop and implement a plan of action, making use of a combination of the tools and techniques. The team can hold a series of workshops and public meetings to keep the public informed and to solicit input and feedback. Effective wellhead protection involves a partnership effort among the public water supplier, one or more communities receiving drinking water, and one or more communities where the wells are located. Aquifer and Watershed Protection

Aquifer and watershed protection involves safeguarding much broader areas of land than wellheads. Yet such protection often is less stringent or exact than a wellhead protection plan. Counties, municipalities, and public water suppliers can develop an aquifer or watershed protection program. An aquifer protection program can help prevent the contamination of multiple public water systems that may be located close to one another. An aquifer protection program can include protecting potential future wellhead sites before they are developed. Aquifers often underlie several different municipalities, making cooperation and coordination with neighboring communities critically important. A county or regional planning commission may be helpful in starting an aquifer protection program. Where there are multiple municipalities, the tools and techniques selected to protect groundwater do not need to be the same in each locality but should provide adequate protection.

Watershed protection programs have similar benefits and challenges as aquifer protection programs, with a few differences. Watersheds generally include larger areas than aquifers and have attracted the interest and involvement of county conservation districts, state water agencies, the EPA, and nonprofit watershed groups. The primary interest of these participants is surface water quality, however, and not water supply (see Chapter 6).

5.8: Local Water Supply Planning If a county has completed a water supply plan, a municipality can incorporate the inventory information, analysis, goals, and recommendations for action into the local comprehensive plan. Where there is no county water supply plan, a municipality should work with the local community water systems and state and county agencies to create an inventory of local water sources in the natural resources inventory section of the comprehensive plan. The local comprehensive plan should aim to ensure the provision of an adequate future supply of water for consumers, industry, recreation, wildlife, and energy needs. Inventory

Planners should determine present and recent water use in the community and then make an estimate of future water supply capacity and needs (see Table 5.4). Planners can gather information and map the geology, hydrology, and watershed and aquifer boundaries within the community. Planners should especially note any delineated wellhead protection areas and sole-source aquifers. Some of this information may already be available from a county or regional water supply plan or the state water resources board.

CHAPTER 5: PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLY

169

Table 5.4. Projected Water Use in City of Golden Valley, Minnesota Year

Population Served

Per Capita Use (Gallons per Day)

Average Day Use (Millions of Gallons)

Maximum Day Use (Millions of Gallons)

Millions of Gallons per Year

2014

22,000

70

2.96

7.40

939

2015

22,200

70

2.99

7.47

944

2016

22,500

70

3.03

7.57

952

2017

22,800

70

3.07

7.67

960

Source: City of Golden Valley, MN, Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan, 2008–2018, 2008, Chapter 9, “Water Supply,” p. 9–7.

in projecting future water needs. The number of people who should receive public water will depend on the extent of planned growth areas and the existing and projected capacity of the public water systems. Projected water needs for nonresidential uses will depend on the types of anticipated commercial and industrial users, and public and institutional users. Planners can estimate the potential growth of the community’s large water users and the likelihood of additional large water users locating in the community and their future water needs. The availability of public water together with other public services can have a significant impact on the willingness of industry and business to locate in an area. Industries are often reluctant to use groundwater from their own wells because of its variability in quality and potential fluctuations in supply during the year. Public water supplies generally provide more reliable water quality and quantity. It is useful to estimate groundwater recharge rates in rural areas to identify adeAnalysis quate water supplies where public water is not A community can use its 20-year or longer pop- available. Most residences have an average ulation projections in the comprehensive plan water use of about 150 gallons per day. At this Planners should identify areas with water constraints, such as locations with low water yields or high water tables, and any polluted (impaired) waterways or water bodies. It is helpful to identify the community’s existing and potential large water users. Common large water users include thermal electrical generating plants, food processors, irrigated agriculture, confined animal feeding operations, electronic equipment manufacturers, chemical producers, metal and petroleum refiners, makers of paper products, golf courses, hospitals, and hotel or restaurant complexes. Also, planners can gather information and create maps to show water bodies used for recreation, wildlife habitat, and energy production. Planners should describe any problems community water systems have experienced in meeting SDWA requirements. Finally, information on the community’s public water systems and current water use should appear in the inventory.

170

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

rate of use, groundwater yields of more than three gallons per minute with the water held in storage tanks or five gallons per minute without storage are adequate. Goals and Objectives

water and groundwater sources, ensure that growth and development do not exceed sustainable water capacity, and encourage patterns of development that are consistent with public water supply systems. The following water supply goals and objectives come from the Golden Valley, Minnesota, comprehensive plan:

The community should draft goals and objectives for water supply in the comprehensive plan after consulting with the community Goal: Reduce water consumption. water systems serving the area. Sample goals Objective: Limit per capita residential demand and objectives are presented in Table 5.5. Goals to 75 gallons per capita per day, which is and objectives should seek to protect surface the Twin Cities metro median.

Table 5.5. Sample Public Water Supply Goals and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan Section: Natural Resources Goal: Protect public water supplies for long-term drinking water sources. Goal: Protect aquifer recharge areas to maintain or enhance the rate of groundwater recharge to ensure dependable future water supplies. Objective: Purchase land adjacent to the city reservoir to protect the public water supply. Objective: Draft a wellhead area protection ordinance to protect aquifer recharge areas and public groundwater supplies. Section: Land Use Objective: Discourage new development in areas that would threaten long-term public water supplies. Objective: Promote compact development and encourage infill of vacant land and underutilized downtown sites to reduce necessary extensions of public water. Section: Economic Base Objective: Promote water supply protection and capacity enhancement to make the community attractive to new development and to sustain existing development. Section: Community Facilities Objective: Regularly test any municipally owned water supplies to ensure compliance with federal SDWA standards.

CHAPTER 5: PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLY

Objective: Limit peak daily demand to less than 2.5 times average daily demand. Objective: Limit total peak daily purchases from Minneapolis to fewer than 18 million gallons per day.

171

• adopt an on-lot well ordinance to require the grouting of all on-lot wells and the proper abandonment of wells that are no longer used.

Goal: Develop an emergency water supply.

Zoning Ordinances

Objective: Use proven General Mills wells and a well in New Hope, which draw water from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer.

One of the original purposes of zoning was to separate conflicting land uses. Intensive commercial, industrial, residential, and agricultural uses do not belong near public surface and groundwater supplies. A local government can use its comprehensive plan, future land-use map, and zoning ordinance to direct development away from areas with low groundwater yields as may occur at higher altitudes, in certain geologic formations, or in arid climates. A wellhead or aquifer zoning overlay district can place additional limits on development on lands overlying public groundwater supplies. A landowner or developer would have to meet the requirements of both the overlay and the base zone. The zoning ordinance can enforce large minimum lot sizes or density standards of 25 or more acres for farm and forestry operations and thereby promote groundwater recharge and discourage sprawl. The zoning ordinance can also limit impervious surfaces to no more than 10 percent lot coverage in important wellhead or aquifer recharge areas. An urban growth boundary can limit the extension of public water lines into the countryside and thus encourage compact development that can be served by public water systems. Zoning inside the growth boundary must encourage compact, intensive development but tightly restrict development outside the boundary.

Goal: Develop a backup water supply. Objective: Use groundwater from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer.79 Action Strategy

The Action Strategy should include tools and techniques for achieving the goals and objectives for sustainable water supplies. The Action Strategy can include water supply benchmarks, and planners can describe the progress toward those benchmarks in an annual report on environmental quality. The Action Strategy can be part of an overall Environmental Action Plan, which lists short-term, medium-term, and long-term actions; funding sources; and who will be responsible for carrying out the actions and when. Specific action recommendations for water supply could include • coordinate with public water suppliers to ensure that planned future water service areas match planned future growth areas; • adopt and implement wellhead protection overlay zoning for the community’s public water wells; • work with state and federal agencies, community water systems, and private land trusts and watershed associations to purchase land or conservation easements to land adjacent to public water sources; and

Subdivision Regulations

Subdivision and land-development regulations can help protect water supplies in several ways. First, the regulations can require proof that new on-lot wells can produce a certain

172

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

minimum amount of potable water and will not adversely impact water supplies on neighboring properties. Second, subdivision regulations can require developers to demonstrate a long-term adequate water supply for any development involving 10 or more dwelling units or more than 10 acres for commercial, industrial, or institutional use. Third, the regulations can require new development within one mile of public water systems to connect to those systems as a way to limit sprawl and avoid the proliferation of private wells. Woodland and vegetation standards can require developers to retain or replace a fixed proportion of trees of a certain diameter or vegetative cover to reduce runoff. Stormwater management requirements can be a separate ordinance or made part of the subdivision regulations to limit stormwater runoff that can contaminate water supplies and cause flooding. Especially in arid climates, the subdivision regulations can require the use of native vegetation that tends to need less water than nonnative species. Any mandatory dedication of parkland for residential subdivisions or other development can target wellhead or aquifer protection areas for open space. Capital Improvements Programs (CIPs)

Water facilities, including water treatment plants and water lines, are major infrastructure components and have a powerful influence on the location of development. The extension of public water service can promote more intensive development and even sprawl. Therefore, any municipal or county CIP should be consistent with the future land-use map of the comprehensive plan and the zoning map. Where public sewer lines are planned, public water lines should be considered as well, particularly in areas with low groundwater yields.

CIPs should identify potential funding sources for water system improvements, expansion, and source protection. As mentioned previously, the EPA makes grants to state revolving loan funds for the construction and upgrade of water and wastewater systems. The Economic Development Administration within the U.S. Department of Commerce makes grants to economically distressed communities for water and sewer projects. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service offers loans and grants for water and wastewater projects in rural areas and communities of fewer than 10,000 people. Community Development Block Grant funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development can be used for water and wastewater projects. What to Look for in a Development Review

The following checklist summarizes the questions that a planner or planning commission should ask in reviewing a development proposal for potential impacts on water supplies (see Table 5.6). The idea is to ensure that adequate potable water will be available to the proposed development and will continue to be available to existing neighboring water users. The checklist can help planners minimize the likelihood that the proposed development will contaminate groundwater or surface water supplies. Planners and the planning commission should evaluate the proposed development for consistency with the comprehensive plan and CIP and for compliance with the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, and any other applicable laws.

5.9: Case Study: New York City’s Water Supply Protection Program New York City has taken large steps to promote water conservation and to protect its drinking

CHAPTER 5: PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLY

173

Table 5.6. A Checklist of Water Supply Issues in a Development Review 1.

Will the proposed project use a private on-site well or a public water supply?

2.

If a private well is used, where will it be located in relation to neighboring properties, existing or planned on-site septic systems, known contaminant sites, and nearby streams or water bodies?

3.

Is the proposed development in a wellhead or aquifer protection area? If so, does it meet the standards of any wellhead or aquifer protection standards that have been adopted?

4.

If public water is used, how much water would the proposed project use, and what is the capacity of the public water system?

5.

If private water is proposed for a large development, has an aquifer test demonstrated that planned withdrawals will not adversely impact neighboring water use?

6.

How much impervious surface does the project create, and how much vegetation would be removed?

7.

What are the drainage patterns and stormwater runoff patterns?

8.

What best management practices have been proposed to reduce pollution from runoff?

9.

Are any state- or federal-level reviews required?

water supplies. In 1985, the city began installing meters on properties to track water consumption. This allowed the city to charge residents and businesses based on how much water they consumed instead of using an estimated rate. As people saw how much water they used—and how much they paid for it— consumption dropped by a total of 200 million gallons per day. In 1994, the city launched the world’s largest toilet replacement program. In order to speed the transition to new federally mandated high-efficiency toilets, the city offered incentives for owners to make the switch. Showerheads and faucets were exchanged for low-flow fixtures at the same time. The program replaced 1.3 million inefficient toilets between 1994 and 1997, reducing average consumption by 70 million gallons per

day and decreasing water usage by 37 percent in participating apartment buildings.80 Several large U.S. cities rely heavily on distant water sources to meet their water demands. The development of rural lands surrounding important reservoirs not only increases competition for water supplies with these far-off cities but also creates a serious pollution threat. The pollution may come from several sources, such as sewage treatment plants, malfunctioning on-site septic systems, farm and lawn fertilizers, pesticides, manure, and oil- and salt-laden runoff from roads. The experience of New York City underscores the reality that it is cheaper to prevent pollution than it is to clean it up. New York City was one of only five major cities in the U.S. that does not filter its water.

174

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

New York City’s drinking water comes from reservoirs west of the Hudson River in the Catskill Mountains and Delaware Valley and east of the Hudson River in the Croton system (see

Figure 5.6). The reservoirs supply 9 million New Yorkers with more than 1 billion gallons of drinking water each day. The watershed that feeds the reservoirs covers some 2,000 square

Figure 5.6. Map of New York City Water Supply System Source: New York City Department of Environmental Protection.

CHAPTER 5: PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLY

miles, of which 400 square miles are in the Croton watershed. The Croton supplies about 10 percent of New York City’s water, but only to Manhattan and the Bronx. The first of 10 Croton reservoirs was developed in the 1840s along with an aqueduct to New York City. The New Croton Aqueduct connecting to New York City was completed in 1890. The seven CatskillDelaware reservoirs were built in the early 1900s, and two aqueducts were built to carry water to reservoirs east of the Hudson and then on to New York City. While the CatskillDelaware region is still quite rural, the Croton has experienced a considerable amount of suburban development. Increased development on both sides of the Hudson was threatening water quality in the early 1990s when the EPA gave New York City a choice: either build a $6 billion plant to filter its drinking water or institute a watershed protection plan to safeguard the water quality.81 In 1997, New York City decided to work with the counties and towns in the watershed— mainly in the Catskill-Delaware region, which supplies 90 percent of the city’s water. The city was willing to spend $1.5 billion to protect land near reservoirs through (a) purchases of land and conservation easements to keep the land largely undeveloped, (b) improvements in farming practices through Whole Farm Plans, (c) the repair of failing septic systems and sewage treatment plants, and (d) prosecuting polluters. In 1997, the city owned about 50,000 acres, which was less than 4 percent of the land in the watershed.82 The city planned to protect more than 350,000 acres (about one-quarter of the watershed) through outright purchase or buying conservation easements. As of 2010, more than 100,000 acres had been preserved at a cost of $350 million. The preserved land is intended to form a buffer around the reservoirs and along waterways. But clearly not all the stream banks and reservoir edges can be

175

protected. Local land-use planning and zoning is surprisingly weak in the New York City watershed; some towns do not even have zoning. Nonetheless, through the 1997 Memorandum of Agreement with the city, local governments agreed to new watershed regulations on best management practices and development design such as setbacks for septic systems from waterways, stormwater runoff control, hazardous materials storage and disposal, wastewater treatment facilities, and the storage of petroleum and salt. The city spent about $35 million in working with dairy farmers to create Whole Farm Plans to improve the soil, runoff, and manure management practices so that bacteria, such as giardia, crytospiridium, and E. coli would not enter the streams and end up in the reservoirs.83 The city allocated $14 million for replacing failing on-site septic systems, but an estimated 128,000 systems were in the watershed, and the city first had to find them. Meanwhile, the city already had an active watershed police force that identified and prosecuted polluters. New York City’s efforts to protect its drinking water have been widely heralded as a success. In 2007, the EPA gave New York City a 10-year Filtration Avoidance Determination, in keeping with the SDWA.84 Even so, two expensive shortcomings have emerged. First, because of urban stormwater runoff problems in the Croton watershed, the EPA required New York City to build a water filtration plant in the Croton watershed. The plant was built at a cost of $3.4 billion.85 Second, the Delaware Aqueduct, originally built in 1945, was found to be leaking anywhere from 15 to 35 million gallons per day. The repair solution was a new threemile tunnel under the Hudson River, which is expected to be completed in 2019 at an estimated cost of $1.2 billion. Finally, New York City’s 2011 update to PlaNYC reaffirms the city’s commitment to protecting its watersheds and water supply. The

176

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

update spelled out four priorities for the main3. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Census of taining the city’s water supply: Agriculture, 2007. Washington, DC: USDA, 2009; M. Maupin and N. Barber. “Estimated Withdraw• Continue the watershed protection program. als from Principal Aquifers in the United States, 2000.” U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1279, 2005. • Protect the water supply from hydrofractur4. Glennon, R. Unquenchable: America’s ing for natural gas. Water Crisis and What to Do About It. Washing• Complete the Catskill-Delaware Water Ultra- ton, DC: Island Press, 2009, p. 123. violet Disinfection Facility. 5. Ibid., p. 129. 6. Konikow, L. Groundwater Depletion in the • Repair the Delaware Aqueduct. United States (1900−2008). U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2013−5079. 2013. Summary http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5079. Retrieved August 23, 2013. Water is essential for life on earth. The U.S. fed7. GrowingBlue. “Thirsty High Tech.” 2011. eral government has no distinct water supply http://growingblue.com/case-studies/thirsty policy. In the past, the federal government, -high-tech. Retrieved May 22, 2014. through the Army Corps of Engineers and 8. Las Vegas Sun. “Water for Las Vegas.” July Bureau of Reclamation has built thousands of 10, 2011. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/ dams for irrigation projects, drinking water, 2011/jul/10/water-las-vegas/. Retrieved Novemflood control, hydroelectricity, and recreation. ber 26, 2012. Many of these water supply projects occurred 9. Reisner, M. Cadillac Desert: The American in the arid Southwest where water is scarce. West and Its Disappearing Water. New York: PenMost water supply planning is done by pub- guin Books, 1987, p. 12. lic water systems with some planning done 10. Jehl, D. “A New Frontier in Water Wars by states, river basin commissions, and local Emerges in East.” New York Times, March 3, governments. The SDWA of 1974 set drinking 2003, p. 1, p. 21. water standards for public water suppliers. 11. Glennon, R. Unquenchable: America’s Source water protection plans and wellhead Water Crisis and What to Do About It. Washingprotection plans have become widely adopted ton, DC: Island Press, 2009, p. 29. through states along with local governments 12. Owen, O., D. Chiras, and J. Reganold. Natand nonprofit organizations. ural Resource Conservation. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998. 13. Ibid., p. 177. 14. Beach, D. Coastal Sprawl: The Effects Notes of Urban Design on Aquatic Ecosystems in the 1. U.S. EPA. Liquid Assets 2000: America’s United States. Arlington, VA: Pew Oceans ComWater Resources at a Turning Point. Washing- mission, 2002. 15. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2000 Census ton, DC: USEPA, 2000, p. 7. http://water.epa .gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/upload/ of Population and 2010 Census of Population. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. assets_2000.pdf. Retrieved April 27, 2014. 2. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical 16. Yuhas, E., and T. Daniels. “The US FreshAbstract of the United States, 2012. Washington, water Supply Shortage: Experiences With DC: USGPO, p. 228. Desalination as Part of the Solution.” Journal of

CHAPTER 5: PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLY

Environmental Planning and Management. Vol. 49, No. 4 (2006), pp. 571–85. 17. Hanak, E. Water for Growth: California’s New Frontier. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2005. 18. Metropolitan Water District. Integrated Water Resources Plan Update. Los Angeles: Metropolitan Water District, 2003. 19. Luke, S., and M. Garske. “Proposed Carlsbad Desalination Plant Approved.” NBC News Channel 7 San Diego. November 29, 2012. http:// www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Vote -Will-Decide -Fate -of-Proposed-Carlsbad -Desalination-Plant-181300521.html#ixzz2Dz v8j0bW. Retrieved December 3, 2012. 20. Yuhas, E., and T. Daniels. “The US Freshwater Supply Shortage: Experiences With Desalination as Part of the Solution.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. Vol. 49, No. 4 (2006), pp. 571–85. 21. Opie, J. Ogallala: Water for a Dry Land. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1993. 22. Firestone, D. “Booming Atlanta Saps Water as Drought Wilts Georgia.” New York Times, June 15, 2000, p. A16. 23. Frost, D. “The Water Demand Revolution.” Planning. Vol. 79, No. 7 (2013), p. 20. 24. Glennon, R. Unquenchable: America’s Water Crisis and What to Do About It. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2009, p. 60. 25. Public Policy Institute of California. California’s Future Population. 2008. http://www .ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_Future PopulationJTF.pdf. Retrieved December 3, 2012. 26. Committee on the Scientific Bases of Colorado River Basin Water Management, National Research Council. Colorado River Basin Water Management: Evaluating and Adjusting to Hydroclimatic Variability. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2007. 27. Stevens, W. “Persistent and Severe, Drought Strikes Again.” New York Times, April 25, 2000, p. F4.

177

28. Blaney, B. “Texas Drought 2011: State Endures Driest 7-Month Span on Record.” Huffington Post, December 3, 2012. http:// www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/10/texas - drought-2011-record_n_859902.html. Retrieved December 3, 2012. 29. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center. “State of the Climate: Summary Information, July 2012.” http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/. Retrieved August 9, 2012. 30. Greene, S. 2000. “The Colorado: River of No Return.” Denver Post, September 24, 2000, p. A1, p. A27. 31. Perry, T. “What Now for Water Agency?” Los Angeles Times, January 2, 2003. http:// articles.latimes.com/2003/jan/02/local/me -supply2. Retrieved April 28, 2014. 32. Tercek, M., and J. Adams. Nature’s Fortune: How Business and Society Thrive by Investing in Nature. New York: Basic Books, 2013, p. 6. 33. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Annual Estimates of the Population of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011. http://www.census.gov/popest/ data/metro/totals/2011/. Retrieved April 28, 2014. 34. Ibid. 35. Egan, T. “Las Vegas Bet on Growth But Doesn’t Love Payoff.” New York Times, January 26, 2001, p. A1. 36. Ward, J. “Water for the Desert Miracle,” in D. Littlejohn, ed., The Real Las Vegas: Life Beyond the Strip. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 139. 37. Southern Nevada Water Authority. Water Resource Plan 09. 2009. http://www.snwa.com/ assets/pdf/wr_plan.pdf. Retrieved December 5, 2012. 38. Reisner, M. Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water. New York: Penguin Books, 1987, p. 125. 39. Gleick, P. “An Historic Step Toward Saving the Colorado River and Delta.” Huffington Post,

178

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

November 20, 2012. http://www.huffington post.com/peter-h-gleick/an-historic-step -toward-s_b_2167513.html. Retrieved December 5, 2012. 40. Bureau of Reclamation. Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study, Executive Summary, 2012. http://www.usbr.gov/ lc/region/programs/crbstudy/finalreport/ Executive%20Summary/Executive_Summary _FINAL_Dec2012.pdf. Retrieved December 18, 2012. 41. Ibid. 42. Frost, D. “The Water Demand Revolution.” Planning. Vol. 79, No. 7 (2013), p. 14. 43. Glennon, R. Unquenchable: America’s Water Crisis and What to Do About It. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2009, p. 223, p. 225. 44. U.S. EPA. “WaterSense: Toilets.” 2014. http://www.epa.gov/watersense/products/ toilets.html. Retrieved April 28, 2014. 45. U.S. EPA. “WaterSense: Showerheads,” 2014. http://www.epa.gov/watersense/products/ showerheads.html. Retrieved April 28, 2014. 46. Frost, D. “The Water Demand Revolution.” Planning. Vol. 79, No. 7 (2013), p. 15. 47. Ibid., p. 176. 48. Reisner, M. Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water. New York: Penguin Books, 1987, pp. 352–53. 49. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Central Valley Project Schedule of Irrigation and M$I Rescheduled Water Rates 2010 Special Water Rates. 2009. http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvpwaterrates/ ratebooks/mi/2010/2010_m&i_sch_a- 1.pdf. Retrieved April 28, 2014; Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. “Historical Water Rates.” Last modified April 16, 2012. http:// www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/finance/ finance_02.html. Retrieved December 5, 2012. 50. National Atlas.gov. Major Dams of the United States. Last modified March 21, 2006. http://www.nationalatlas.gov/metadata/dams 00x020.faq.html. Retrieved December 5, 2012.

51. Reisner, M. Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water. New York: Penguin Books, 1987, p. 402. 52. American Rivers. “Dams Slated for Removal in 2008.” 2008. http://www.american rivers.org/assets/pdfs/dam-removal-docs/ dams-removed-1998-2008.pdf. Retrieved December 18, 2012. 53. Susquehanna River Basin Commission. Regulation of Projects. 2012. http://www .srbc.net/programs/docs/Final%20Rlmkg% 20from%20CFR%2004_01_2012.pdf. Retrieved December 5, 2012. 54. U.S. EPA. “Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment.” 2012. http:// water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/ dwns/index.cfm. Retrieved December 6, 2012. 55. Ibid. 56. U.S. EPA. 2006 Community Water System Survey, Volume 1: Overview. EPA 815-R-09-001. February 2009. http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/ drink ingwater/pws/upload/c wssrepor t volumeI2006.pdf. Retrieved December 6, 2012. 57. U.S. EPA. “Drinking Water Contaminants, 2009.” Last modified June 3, 2013. http://water .epa.gov/drink/contaminants/#List. Retrieved April 28, 2014. 58. U.S. EPA. “Final Ground Water Rule Fact Sheet.” Last modified March 6, 2012. http:// water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ gwr/regulation_factsheet_final.cfm. Retrieved December 10, 2012. 59. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. Using the State Revolving Fund Set-Aside Funds for Source Water Protection. Washington, DC: USEPA, 2000. 60. U.S. EPA. “EPA Survey Shows $384 Billion Needed for Drinking Water Infrastructure by 2030” (press release). June 4, 2013. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/ F72C2FDC7D61F92085257B800057655F. Retrieved July 27, 2013. 61. U.S. EPA. “State and Territorial PWSS Program Allotments.” Last modified March 6, 2012.

CHAPTER 5: PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLY

http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/pws/ allotments_state-terr.cfm. Retrieved December 10, 2012. 62. U.S. EPA. 2011 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment. Fifth Report to Congress. EPA 816-R-13-006. 2013. http:// water.epa.gov/grants_funding/dwsrf/upload/ epa816r13006.pdf. Retrieved July 27, 2013. 63. U.S. EPA. “Public Water Systems: Primacy.” Last modified October 11, 2012. http://water .epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/pws/ primacy.cfm. Retrieved April 28, 2014. 64. Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, Drinking Water and Groundwater Protection Division. “Operator Certification Rules & Regulations,” 2012. http://drinking water.vt.gov/opcertrules.htm. Retrieved April 28, 2014. 65. Sanchez, R. “New Calif. Water Law Seeks to Curb Runaway Sprawl.” Washington Post, December 23, 2001, p. A3. 66. Vermont’s Land Use and Development Law, Title 10 V.S.A., Chapter 151, Section 6086. 67. Arizona Revised Statutes, Chapter 1, Article 1, Section 45-108; Glennon, R. Unquenchable: America’s Water Crisis and What to Do About It. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2009, p. 181; McKinnon, S. “Proposal: No Water, No Rural Growth.” Arizona Republic, September 23, 2004. http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special 26/articles/0923water-ruralcrisis23.html. Retrieved December 10, 2012. 68. Glennon, R. Unquenchable: America’s Water Crisis and What to Do About It. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2009, p. 304. 69. Sax, J. “Bringing an Ecological Perspective to Natural Resources Law: Fulfilling the Promise of the Public Trust,” in L. MacDonnell and S. Bates, eds., Natural Resources Policy and Law, p. 150. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1993. 70. National Audubon v. Superior Court, California Supreme Court 658 P.2d 709 (1983).

179

71. Easterbrook, G. A Moment on the Earth. New York: Penguin Books, 1996, p. 637. 72. Yardley, J 2001. “For Texas Now, Water and Not Oil Is Liquid Gold.” New York Times, April 16, 2001, p. A14; Glennon, R. Unquenchable: America’s Water Crisis and What to Do About It. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2009, p. 123. 73. Texas Water Resources Institute. “Water for Texas 2012.” http://twri.tamu.edu/publica tions/txh2o/fall-2011/water-for-texas-2012/. Retrieved December 10, 2012. 74. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. “Florida’s Reuse Projects.” Last modified September 21, 2011. http://www.dep .state.fl.us/water/reuse/project.htm. Retrieved December 15, 2012. 75. Glennon, R. Unquenchable: America’s Water Crisis and What to Do About It. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2009, p. 164. 76. U.S. EPA Region 9. “Water Recycling and Reuse: The Environmental Benefits,” 2013. http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/recycling/. Retrieved April 29, 2014. 77. U.S. EPA. “Water: The Safe Drinking Water Act: Laws & Statutes.” The Safe Drinking Water Act, Section 1428(e) as amended, 2002. http:// water.epa/lawsregs/guidance/sdwa/laws _statutes.cfm. Retrieved April 28, 2014. 78. Homsy, G. “Liquid Gold.” Planning. Vol. 63, No. 5 (1997), pp. 10–11. 79. Golden Valley, MN. Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan, 2008–2018. Chapter 9: Water Supply. 2008. http://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/ planning/comprehensiveplan/pdf/09-Water Supply.pdf. Retrieved December 18, 2012. 80. U.S. EPA. Cases in Water Conservation: How Efficiency Programs Help Water Utilities Save Water and Avoid Costs. 2002. http://www .epa.gov/watersense/docs/utilityconservation _508.pdf. Retrieved December 17, 2012. 81. Revkin, A. “Billion-Dollar Plan to Clean the City’s Water at Its Source.” New York Times, August 31, 1997, pp. 25, 27. 82. Ibid.

180

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

83. New York Times. “Politics and the Watershed,” April 8, 1999, p. A26. 84. U.S. EPA and New York City Department of Health. “New York City Filtration Avoidance Determination,” 2007. http://www.nyc.gov/html/

dep/pdf/reports/2007_fad.pdf. Retrieved April 29, 2014. 85. Tercek, M., and J. Adams. Nature’s Fortune: How Business and Society Thrive by Investing in Nature. New York: Basic Books, 2013, p. 23.

Chapter 6

PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WATER QUALITY

In many ways, clean water is the fuel that powers the nation’s economic engine. —U.S. Environmental Protection Agency1

6.1: Water-Quality Problems Clean freshwater is necessary for drinking, bathing, swimming, washing clothes and dishes, providing fish and wildlife habitat, sustaining plant life, irrigating crops, processing food, and enabling a number of manufacturing processes. Clean water is essential to America’s economic growth and ability to compete globally. But clean water is first and foremost a public health issue. Reliable, long-term supplies of clean water are vital for sustainable communities and regions. But in 2000, about 40 percent of America’s waterways were not fit for swimming or fishing, and about four out of every five U.S. residents were living within 10 miles of a polluted lake, river, stream, or coastal area.2 In a 2004 report to Congress, based on assessments of less than one-third of the nation’s waterways, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) noted that 44 percent of stream miles, 64 percent of lake acres, and 30 percent of bay and estuarine square miles were not

clean enough for drinking, swimming, or fishing.3 The EPA found that bacteria and sediment were the most common pollutants in rivers and streams, with farm runoff a leading source. In lakes and ponds, mercury from burning coal, polychlorinated biphenyls from industrial and municipal waste disposal, and nitrogen and phosphorus from farming were the leading sources. Of particular concern was the poor water quality in the near shore areas of towns and cities bordering the five Great Lakes, which contain nearly one-fifth of the world’s supply of fresh surface water. Polluted water poses very real threats to public health. In 2009, as many as 20 million Americans became sick from drinking contaminated water.4 Water pollution occurs when a chemical, physical, or biological substance exceeds the capacity of a water body to assimilate or break down that substance. Polluted water harms aquatic ecosystems and poses health risks to humans. While water itself can only dilute pollutants, bacteria in the water and adjacent soils

182

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

and vegetation can actually break down or absorb pollution. The ability of a water body to assimilate pollution depends on the amounts and types of pollution, whether surface water or groundwater is involved, the size and flow of the water body, and the time of year. Water has a greater capacity to assimilate pollution in the spring, when snowmelt and higher precipitation rates and higher stream flows occur, than in the late summer, when little rain falls and stream flows are lower. Moving surface water receives oxygen through aeration, which enables bacteria in the water to break down additional waste. A large lake or pond generally dilutes more waste than a smaller water body. The capacity of groundwater to assimilate pollution is very limited and mainly depends on the filtering capacities of overlying soil, rock, and vegetation. Polluted water can be cleaned up. But the definition of clean water ultimately depends on the uses of that water. For example, water for drinking must be cleaner than water to swim in, which in turn must be cleaner than water used to water lawns. Although some water pollution may occur naturally, such as eroding stream banks that add sediment to waterways, most water pollution is the result of human activities. In order to clean up water, it is important to identify the sources and types of pollution and how those sources can be eliminated or better managed. Water-quality problems may also result from limited supplies of freshwater, poor stormwater management, and inadequate wastewater treatment. For instance, groundwater often has high levels of salts that often become more concentrated as more groundwater is pumped to the surface. Stormwater can easily lead to flooding, which introduces sediment and biological and chemical contaminants into waterways. And wastewater treatment plants often release raw sewage into waterways during major storm events. In

response, water managers are adopting integrated water resources planning to protect water supplies and better manage stormwater and wastewater treatment facilities. Sources of Water Pollution

Water pollution comes from point sources, which are stationary and easily identifiable “end of pipe” sites such as a sewage treatment plant or a factory, and nonpoint sources, which are dispersed and not in a fixed location (see Table 6.1). Regulators can fairly easily identify and quantify point-source discharges through monitoring. By comparison, nonpoint-source discharges are often difficult to identify, measure, and control because they can be hard to see and because they come from several sources that can vary in location and over time. For example, nonpoint sources, such as stormwater runoff from urban streets and parking lots and runoff from farm fields, do not enter waterways at a single place. Between 70 and 90 percent of all water pollution comes from nonpoint-source pollutants.5 But of the more than 40 potential nonpoint sources of water pollution, urban stormwater runoff and agricultural runoff are the two main sources. When rain falls on open land, about half of the rainwater is absorbed and infiltrates into the ground. Around 40 percent of the rainwater evaporates into the air, and 10 percent runs off the land.6 The percentage of impervious surfaces in a watershed or subwatershed is a key measure of the likelihood of long-term and persistent threats to water quality. Impervious coverage, such as roads, parking lots, and buildings, impedes water absorption and infiltration into the groundwater. The speed and volume of stormwater runoff increase and wash away oil, grease, salts, and other pollutants into waterways. Also, the greater amount of stormwater often overloads combined sewer systems and

CHAPTER 6: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WATER QUALITY

183

Table 6.1. Leading Sources of Nonpoint Water Pollution Source

Type of Pollution

1. Farm fields and grazing land

Manure; pesticides including herbicides, insecticides, insecticides, fungicides, and rodenticides; and fertilizer runoff into water bodies or groundwater. Nutrients cause algae blooms on surface water. Elevated nitrates, coliform bacteria, and pesticides enter drinking water supplies. Bare fields and overgrazed pasture and rangeland contribute to soil erosion and siltation of waterways, which harm aquatic life and reduce water quality.

2. Logging and harvesting

Soil erosion and siltation from logging roads and timber. These increase turbidity of rivers and streams, harming fish. Loss of streamside trees reduces shade and increases water temperature, reduces water storage capacity, and destabilizes or destroys stream banks.

3. Road building and construction sites

Soil erosion and siltation from road and building construction increase the turbidity of rivers and streams, harming fish.

4. Runoff from impervious surfaces

Rain and melting snow carry oil, gasoline, antifreeze, and salt into water bodies and groundwater.

5. On-site septic systems

Malfunctioning septic systems release nitrogen, phosphorus, and fecal coliform bacteria into groundwater. Even properly functioning septic systems release some pollution into groundwater.

6. Lawns and golf courses

Fertilizer and pesticide runoff into water bodies or groundwater.

7. Motor vehicles

Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions cause acid rain, snow, and fog, which raise the acidity of water bodies and decimate aquatic life.

8. Mines

Acid mine drainage from mined waste and spoils leaches toxic chemicals, such as sulfuric acid, into waterways.

even separate storm sewer systems, resulting in releases of contaminated stormwater and raw sewage into waterways (see Figure 6.1 and Photo 6.1). When the impervious coverage is between zero and 10 percent of a watershed, the water quality is usually good to excellent. Once impervious coverage exceeds 10 percent, chronic problems are likely. For more than 10

percent and up to 25 percent impervious coverage, water quality will often be degraded, and the watershed will have moderate urbanization. At more than 25 percent impervious coverage, aquatic life is generally threatened, and for humans, the water is unlikely to meet the federal swimmable and fishable waterquality standards.

184

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Stream flow

Stream flow rate

Large storm

Higher and more rapid peak discharge

Small storm

Predevelopment Postdevelopment

More runoff volume Lower and less rapid peak

Gradual recession

Higher base flow

Time

Figure 6.1. Stormwater Runoff and Impervious Surface

Photo 6.1. No dumping sign on storm sewer to protect water quality in Fort Collins, CO. Source: Tom Daniels.

CHAPTER 6: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WATER QUALITY

Types of Water Pollution

185

do not support present or desired uses. The major causes of water pollution in the U.S. are Water pollution comes in three types: physical, shown in Table 6.2. chemical, and biological pollution. Each type of pollution is likely to come from a different Physical Pollution source. The EPA defines impaired waters as Physical pollution of water includes sediment water bodies that have levels of pollution that from soil erosion, debris carried by floods and

Table 6.2. Leading Causes of Water-Quality Impairment in the U.S., 2008, 2010 Cause of Impairment

Number of Causes of Impairment Reported

Type of Impairment

Pathogens

10,722

Biological

Metals (other than mercury)

7,621

Chemical

Nutrients (mainly nitrogen and phosphorus)

6,893

Chemical

Organic enrichment or oxygen depletion

6,367

Physical, chemical, biological

Sediment

6,142

Physical

Polychlorinated biphenyls

5,457

Chemical

Mercury

4,747

Chemical

pH, acidity, or caustic conditions (including acid rain)

4,096

Chemical

Cause unknown—impaired biota

3,673

Biological

Turbidity

3,129

Physical

Temperature

3,013

Physical

Salinity, total dissolved solids, chlorides, or sulfates

1,897

Chemical

Pesticides

1,872

Chemical

Source: U.S. EPA, “National Summary of Impaired Waters and TMDL Information,” 2012, http://iaspub.epa.gov/ waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T. Retrieved January 28, 2012. Note: Some states reported 2008 data, and some reported 2010 data.

186

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

stormwater runoff, and thermal heating from power plants and factories and streams without shade trees on their banks. Sediment pollution. Sediment pollution is the most common type of physical water pollution. Soil particles transport chemical pollutants into surface waters, and they make water gritty, cloudy, and unfit for drinking and swimming (see Photo 6.2). Turbidity is a measure of the suspended solids in water that affect clarity; the higher the turbidity, the more clouded the water. Turbidity blocks sunlight to submerged aquatic vegetation, reducing the plant matter available for fish to feed on.

Soil particles in water clog fish gills and make breathing difficult. Farming, forestry, mining, and construction sites are the main sources of soil erosion and sediment pollution. Plowing farm fields, timber harvesting, and the removal of plant cover at construction sites cause the most sedimentation. Soil loss is greatest in areas with steep slopes or no vegetative cover and along stream banks. Plowing steep slopes and floodplains and leaving harvested land bare of cover crops renders land vulnerable to water and wind erosion. Livestock that overgraze pastures and trample stream banks can cause

Photo 6.2. Soil erosion and sedimentation occurring from an eroding stream bank. Source: Tom Daniels.

CHAPTER 6: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WATER QUALITY

soil erosion by removing protective vegetation. Harvesting trees from steep slopes and in places with significant rainfall can contribute greatly to the buildup of silt in rivers and streams. Construction sites involve land clearing and excavation, which expose large areas of soil to rainfall and potential runoff problems. Floods and stormwater runoff. Floods and stormwater can wash debris into waterways. Development in floodplains along with stream channeling and dredging can cause water to flow faster and increase the erosion

of stream banks. Impervious surfaces (roads, parking lots, and buildings) raise the volume and speed of stormwater runoff and increase soil erosion. Sprawling patterns of development generate from five to seven times more sediment than a forest and nearly twice the sediment of compact development.7 Thermal pollution. Thermal pollution can occur from sunshine on waterways without shade trees and with high temperatures on hot summer days, especially during droughts and low flow conditions. Thermal pollution

Photo 6.3. Impervious surface in a shopping mall parking lot contributes to stormwater runoff. Source: Tom Daniels.

187

188

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

can also happen when stormwater runs off hot pavement into rivers and streams and when power plants and factories use water to cool equipment. The higher water temperatures can harm or kill fish. Biological Pollution

Municipal drinking water systems are generally safe and reliable and must be tested to EPA standards. Yet biological pollution causes thousands of Americans to become sick from drinking contaminated water each year.8 A worst-case scenario was the 1993 outbreak of cryptosporidium, a disease-causing microbe, which contaminated the drinking water supply of Milwaukee, making 400,000 people sick and killing more than 50. Centralized municipal sewage collection and treatment systems are allowed to discharge treated wastewater into rivers and streams or through spray irrigation onto land. According to the EPA, 772 U.S. cities have combined storm and sanitary sewers.9 During heavy rainstorms or snowmelts, the surge of water into combined sewers is diverted through outfall pipes to rivers and lakes to avoid damage to municipal sewage treatment plants. These diversions, called combined sewer overflows (CSOs), release dangerous levels of bacteria-laden sewage into rivers, lakes, and estuaries, posing threats to drinking water supplies and often leading to beach closings. The EPA has estimated that it could cost as much as $63.8 billion (in 2008 dollars) to fix the nation’s CSO problem.10 On-lot septic systems are a significant source of fecal coliform and fecal staphylococcus contamination of groundwater. About one-quarter of all Americans use some type of on-site septic system.11 An estimated 1 to 5 percent of all on-site systems fail each year, but the rate can be higher in some places.12 Many on-lot septic systems and cesspools were improperly sited, have outlived their useful

lives, are improperly used, or are not properly maintained (pumped out every three years on average). Even properly functioning systems contribute pollutants to groundwater. Few municipalities require on-lot septic systems to be pumped out and maintained on a regular basis, and many older systems are located quite close to lakes, rivers, private wells, and even public wells. Land application of manure, septage, and sludge for farm fertilizer can also contribute to bacterial contamination of groundwater. Chemical Pollution

Chemical pollution results from inorganic and organic sources. Inorganic chemicals are natural or man-made substances that are often toxic and do not readily break down in the environment. Examples include salts, metals, and minerals. Organic chemicals can also be natural or man made, but not all organic chemicals break down in the environment. Organic chemicals that pose serious threats to water quality include the family of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are used to make the solvents, cleaners, and degreasers in many industrial and household products. Some of these VOCs are toxic and proven carcinogens: trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene (also called “perchlorethylene,” which is dry cleaning fluid), trichloroethane, benzene, toluene, and xylenes. Estrogen and other hormones are endocrine-disrupting compounds with potentially dangerous effects on the health of humans and fish. Several endocrine-disrupting compounds have been found in water and are difficult to remove from drinking water supplies. Nutrient pollution. Nutrient pollution results from excess nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium that come from chemical fertilizers and human and animal wastes. While these nutrients are necessary for successful plant

CHAPTER 6: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WATER QUALITY

growth, excess nitrogen and phosphorus are prime contributors to water pollution. Nitrates (a form of nitrogen) in groundwater are a particular problem. Concentrations of more than 10 milligrams per liter are a potential health hazard to unborn children, causing oxygen deprivation (known as blue baby disease) and even mental disabilities and may also be linked to liver cancer. High levels of nitrates are also a potential health hazard for livestock, causing bovine infertility and low milk yields. Phosphorus is not as readily transmitted to groundwater because it tends to bind with soil. Thus phosphorus either remains in the soil or is swept by stormwater runoff into surface water where it contributes to pollution by promoting the growth of algae. Sources of nutrient pollution include onlot septic systems, sanitary sewage and package treatment plants, combined sanitary and storm sewer systems, water treatment plants, poorly constructed or maintained manure storage, unrestricted livestock access to streams, and the overapplication of fertilizer, manure, sludge, and septage to land. Agriculture is the leading source of runoff pollution in the U.S. according to the 2004 National Water Quality Inventory.13 Confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are often a serious source of nutrient pollution from livestock manure, particularly where such operations are near streams or vulnerable groundwater sources. The application of manure to farm fields can be an effective and cost-efficient way to fertilize farm fields. CAFOs, however, sometimes occupy parcels that are too small to fully use the nutrients in the manure. Nutrients that are applied in excess of what can be taken up by plants either run off the land to nearby streams or infiltrate through soil and rocks to underlying groundwater, where they can accumulate in unacceptably high concentrations. CAFOs have stored manure or manure ponds that can wash away

189

or overflow in severe storm events (see Section 6.2 for a discussion of government regulation of CAFOs). Inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus from detergents and chemical fertilizers are nutrients that can produce algae blooms as inorganic chemicals are converted to organic forms that algae plants can use. In lakes, ponds, rivers, and estuaries, bacteria feed on the decomposing algae and organic nutrients from manure, sludge, and septage. This process reduces the oxygen content of the water, resulting in eutrophication (literally, the premature aging of a water body) that causes stress on fish and other aquatic life, which depend on adequate oxygen. In severe cases of eutrophication, the water body has too little oxygen to support fish and other aquatic life. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is a measure of the amount of dissolved oxygen needed by bacteria and other microorganisms to break down organic material in a body of water, at a certain temperature, and over a certain amount of time. The higher the BOD and the lower the existing level of dissolved oxygen, generally, the more polluted the water and the less able the water is to assimilate additional pollution. Stormwater runoff with high nutrient loads along with discharges from wastewater treatment plants and storm sewers are leading causes of eutrophication, high BOD levels, and low dissolved oxygen levels, especially in lakes and estuaries. Natural contaminants. Inorganic chemicals can occur naturally in soil and water or can be released into waterways through human activity. Water quality is partly influenced by geology. For example, water can range from “soft” (low in mineral content) to very “hard” (high in mineral content) in limestone geology. Other naturally occurring quality threats include arsenic, iron, manganese, phosphorus, sulfur, and salts. Radiation can enter water from radon gas or from uranium or radium deposits.

190

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Long exposure to radiation can cause certain kinds of cancers. Hazardous chemicals. Potentially toxic chemicals include an array of naturally occurring heavy metals, such as lead, copper, and zinc as well as petroleum products and VOCs. Lead and copper still line some water supply distribution lines, exposing consumers to unacceptably high levels of these chemicals. Coal-fired power plants are a major source of the toxic methyl mercury, which mixes with water vapor and falls to earth with the rain. Mercury is the most common cause of fish consumption advisories. As of 2010, 37 states had issued 4,598 fish consumption advisories covering 42 percent of the nation’s total lake acreage and 36 percent of the total river miles.14 Pesticides (including insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides, and fungicides) can present a public health concern when they enter groundwater and waterways. Pesticides tend to bind with soil particles and are more likely to find their way into waterways through soil erosion and sediment transport than they are to percolate down into groundwater. Home owners, businesses, institutions, and farmers commonly use pesticides. Toxic substances generated by commercial, industrial, and institutional activities can be released in chemical spills, leaks, outfall pipes, and dumps that contribute contaminants to waterways and groundwater. Spills occur primarily when vehicles transporting hazardous substances are involved in accidents and release hazardous substances. A major source of groundwater contamination is leaking underground gasoline storage tanks, which often go unnoticed until nearby wells are contaminated or until gasoline or fuel oil shows up in a nearby river or stream. Nationwide, there are about 590,000 underground tanks that store petroleum or hazardous substances. As of 2013, a total of 78,000 leaking underground storage tanks had yet to be cleaned up.15

Federal regulations require the approval of new underground fuel storage tanks and periodic inspection of installed underground storage tanks. Leaking hazardous waste disposal sites, sanitary landfills, and illegal dumps also continue to contaminate groundwater and surface water. And significant direct discharge of chemical pollutants into waterways may be legally allowed through permits issued under the Clean Water Act (see discussion in the next section).

6.2: Federal Water-Quality Standards and Pollution Control Water quality is first and foremost a matter of public health. Federal efforts have aimed at controlling and reducing water pollution and ensuring the quality of public drinking water. Prior to 1972, many cities and industries used rivers, lakes, and harbors as open sewers. In 1972, when the Clean Water Act was passed, only one-third of the nation’s navigable waterways were considered safe for fishing or swimming.16 Funding programs to build and upgrade water and sewage treatment plants, to place limits on industrial discharges into water bodies, and to enforce stricter federal drinking water standards have significantly improved the nation’s water quality over the past 40 years. But much work remains to be done on improving the nation’s water quality. The Clean Water Act of 1972

The 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, better known as the Clean Water Act, established surface water–quality standards, programs to protect water quality, and ways to clean up polluted water (see Table 6.3). The purpose of the Clean Water Act

CHAPTER 6: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WATER QUALITY

191

Table 6.3. Clean Water Act Programs Section 201

Grants for construction of public sewage treatment plants.

Section 208

State water-quality standards and management plans addressing the nondegradation of swimmable and drinkable waters and waters of “exceptional recreational or ecological significance” and the identification and use of best management practices for the control of point and nonpoint pollution sources.

Section 303(d)

State Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process for prioritizing and implementing cleanup of impaired waterways. The state compiles a list of impaired waters by priority for cleanup, known as the 303(d) list.

Section 305(b)

Biennial EPA report to Congress on the nation’s water quality, based on statelevel data.

Section 319

State plans and programs and federal loans and grants for the control of nonpoint-source pollution and to publish reports.

Section 402

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit system for point and nonpoint sources of water pollution, including stormwater management permits and permits for CAFOs. This includes the monitoring of urban stormwater discharges into regulated streams.

Section 403

Pretreatment of industrial sewage before discharge into municipal sewage treatment plants.

Section 404

Wetlands permitting system for the draining and filling of wetlands (see Chapter 11).

Section 503

Sewage sludge land application and disposal regulations.

Section 604(b)

State water-quality planning and assessment grants. Grants can be used for monitoring water quality and setting water-quality standards.

is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.”17 The Clean Water Act is administered by the EPA, but the day-to-day regulation of water quality is mainly carried out by state water resources boards and departments of natural resources or environmental protection. The EPA sets water-quality ratings, and a water body

rated less than Class B is considered “impaired” (see Table 6.4). The EPA also establishes waterquality standards, such as swimmable and fishable (Class A and B), and requires states to list the designated uses of a water body (see Table 6.5). The Clean Water Act requires states to (a) plan to maintain water quality, (b) protect against the degradation of high-quality waters and water bodies that already meet

192

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Table 6.4. Water-Quality Ratings 1. States have authority for setting water-quality ratings. Most states use a few ratings or classifications that comply with the federal Clean Water Act standards. 2. State water classifications must designate the uses of all the water bodies. 3. The water-quality criteria must be sufficient to protect the designated uses. 4. The state must have an anti-degradation policy and be able to keep waters from degrading. Class A waters are suitable for public water supplies, with disinfection. The State of Maine, for example, uses four water classifications for freshwater rivers (AA, A, B, and C) and one for lakes and ponds (GPA). All four classifications meet the federal fishable-swimmable standards. Waters that do not meet these standards are considered impaired waters. • AA and GPA rated waters are high quality. Impoundments and waste discharges are not allowed. • A rated waters are high quality, but impoundments and some waste discharges are allowed. • B rated waters are high quality but have fewer restrictions on use. • C rated waters are good quality with the least restrictions on use but could become degraded Sources: U.S. EPA, Water Quality Standards Handbook-Chapter 1 (40 CFR 131.6). http://water.epa.gov/scitech/ swguidance/standards/handbook/chapter01.cfm. Retrieved May 5, 2014. Maine Department of Environmental Protection. “Classification of Maine Waters.” http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/classification/index.html. Retrieved May 5, 2014.

Table 6.5. Federal Water-Quality Standards for a Water Body 1.

All existing uses of the water are noted (e.g., drinking water, industrial, agricultural, human contact, swimming, fish for eating).

2.

Water must be fishable and swimmable, with rare exceptions.

3.

Waste transport is not an acceptable designated use.

4.

Multiple designated uses are allowed, but the most sensitive use (e.g., drinking water) takes precedence.

5.

Economic and social effects of designating the water body may be considered.

Source: U.S. EPA, Water Quality Standards Handbook-Chapter 2: Designation of Uses (40 CFR 131.10), 2014. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/handbook/chapter02.cfm. Retrieved May 5, 2014.

CHAPTER 6: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WATER QUALITY

the fishable and swimmable standards, and (c) clean up polluted or impaired waterways (see Figure 6.2). The EPA allows individual states to set water-quality standards for uses other than drinking. This is quite different from the Clean Air Act, under which the EPA has established national air-quality standards that states are supposed to meet (see Chapter 3). Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the draining and filling of wetlands, which can affect water quality (see Chapter 11). Finally, the act includes provisions intended to minimize the pollution of water by requiring the pretreatment of industrial sewage, regulating the disposal of sewage sludge, and establishing planning procedures and construction grants for new and upgraded sewage treatment plants. When the Clean Water Act passed in 1972, most water pollution came from point sources. One solution was to build and improve public sewage treatment plants to remove pollutants from wastewater. The other solution was to

193

require polluters to obtain “pollution permits,” through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Under Section 201 of the Clean Water Act, the EPA has given more than $100 billion in wastewater treatment grants to states and localities to build and upgrade thousands of sewage treatment plants. State and local governments have contributed an additional $25 billion.18 Beginning in the 1990s, the grant program was replaced by the Clean Water State Revolving Fund lowinterest loan program. As these low-interest loans are paid off, the funds become available for additional lending for wastewater treatment projects, stormwater management, and land acquisition to protect water supplies. As of 2014, the State Revolving Fund had funded more than $100 billion in projects through more than 33,000 loans.19 Between 1972 and 2000, American governments and private industry spent more than $1 trillion to upgrade and expand wastewater treatment facilities.20 As of 2008, there were almost 21,600 public sewage treatment plants.21 That same year, however, the EPA listed a hugely expensive backlog of needed projects to protect the nation’s water quality: • $298.1 billion for wastewater and stormwater treatment • $192.2 billion for wastewater treatment plants, pipe repairs, and the purchase and installation of new pipes • $63.6 billion for correcting CSOs • $42.3 billion for stormwater management22

Figure 6.2. Sign Indicating That Water Is Unsafe to Swim in and Does Not Meet the Swimmable Water-Quality Standard

In 2013, the American Society of Civil Engineers rated the nation’s wastewater infrastructure a D+.23 Unless major new investments are made in wastewater treatment plants and sewer lines along with expanded funding for

194

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

operations and maintenance, America’s gains in water quality could easily be jeopardized. The U.S. spends more than $50 billion a year to treat water to drinking quality standards.24 Wastewater treatment methods include disinfection and primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment. Historically, communities with central sewer systems built primary treatment plants. However, secondary treatment is the minimum required under the Clean Water Act for potable water, and nearly all municipal treatment plants treat sewage to this level. Today, secondary and tertiary sewage treatment plants collect, treat, and dispose of wastewater for about two-thirds of all U.S. residents.25 Primary treatment removes solids and some nutrients from the water. When wastewater enters a treatment plant, it first passes through grit screens to remove large objects. The wastewater is then directed into settlement basins where organic solids either float or settle to become sludge and are removed. The treated water is then disinfected and discharged into waterways or given secondary treatment. Primary treatment removes about one-third of the inorganic nutrients and about 60 percent of solids, which contain most of the chemical and biological contaminants in sewage. Secondary treatment uses chemical and biological treatments to break down organic matter and remove chemicals, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, iron, and other metals. Two main secondary treatment methods may be used: (1) the activated sludge process or (2) the trickling filter. After the removal of solids, the activated sludge process involves pumping wastewater to outdoor aeration basins where air is bubbled into the water to provide oxygen for microorganisms to digest the organic matter in the waste. The microorganisms and inorganic solids settle out in clarifiers at the bottom of the basins to form sludge. In the trickling

filter process, wastewater is sprayed by a sprinkler onto a filter bed of stones coated with bacteria. As the wastewater trickles over the stones, the bacteria break down the organic matter and solids are piped to a settling tank as sludge. Sludge from the secondary treatment process is usually pumped to a sludge digester, where bacteria break it down. The sludge is later removed, dried, and either buried in a landfill or sent to farms to be applied to land as fertilizer. Secondary treatment removes at least 80 percent of suspended solids and up to 90 percent of nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus. An increasingly common secondary treatment step is nitrification and denitrification. The EPA has mandated lower discharge limits for nitrogen from sewage treatment plants in communities where nitrogen loadings are a problem, such as the lower Chesapeake Bay watershed. After secondary treatment, the water is disinfected with chlorine, fluoride, or ozone to kill bacteria, viruses, and parasites before it is released into waterways. Tertiary treatment is the most advanced form of wastewater treatment. Tertiary plants are significantly more expensive to build and operate than primary and secondary treatment plants. Tertiary plants are mainly used when the receiving body of water has a very high quality that must be maintained. Tertiary treatment removes virtually all contaminants, including suspended and dissolved solids, chemicals, and many pathogens. It is probably the only process that is consistently effective in removing parasites, such as cryptosporidium. One type of tertiary treatment is membrane filtration in which membranes with microscopic pores trap contaminants yet allow water to pass through. Another type of tertiary treatment involves granular activated carbon. Charcoal is treated with oxygen to create tiny pores in the charcoal, which trap a variety of impurities, especially carbon-based organic

CHAPTER 6: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WATER QUALITY

chemicals, and remove odors. Wastewater that undergoes tertiary treatment is generally safe for drinking and swimming. Section 208 of the Clean Water Act requires states to conduct sewage facilities planning. The location of sewage treatment plants and sewer lines determines where large and intensive developments can occur. The size or capacity of a sewage treatment plant sets a limit to the outward growth of intensive development and is a key determinant of how much overall development a community or region can accommodate. Several local governments have established sewer service areas, while more than 150 places now have urban growth boundaries that limit the extension of sewer lines into the countryside. However, many sewer systems are controlled by sewer authorities, which are not readily accountable to local governments or voters. The mission of a sewer authority is to provide sewer service, virtually wherever it is demanded. Thus the good landuse planning intent of Section 208 has often been thwarted by local sewer authority actions to expand sewer service. The construction and upgrading of wastewater treatment plants to treat municipal sewage have played a major role in improving the nation’s water quality. But since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, public information about the location and capacity of sewage treatment plants has become hard to find. The fear is that terrorists might damage or destroy these plants, sending millions of gallons of sewage into waterways. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

Section 402 of the 1972 Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of any pollutants into navigable waters from a point source—such as a factory, a power plant, or a municipal sewage

195

treatment plant—unless the discharge has been authorized in a NPDES permit. NPDES permits are also required for a CSO, pretreatment of sewage, stormwater management from construction sites, separate sewer overflows, pesticide applications that leave a residue that enters waterways, and discharges from ships.26 An individual, company, or local government can obtain a permit from the state environmental agency or the EPA. The EPA has turned over most of the NPDES permitting, monitoring, and enforcement to the states. Forty-five states have authority to administer NPDES permits.27 State discharge permits are known as SPDES permits, or “speedies.” The NPDES and SPDES permits are typically good for five years and can be renewed. Pollution discharge permits must be consistent with the Section 208 state water-quality management plans. Individual NPDES and SPDES permits are based on effluent guidelines that limit levels of different pollutants in wastewater. Also, the permits reflect overall water-quality standards for a water body. More than 400,000 sources were required to have an NPDES (or a SPDES) permit in 2001. Since 2003, the EPA has considered CAFOs (defined as feedlots or farms with more than 1,000 animal units equivalent of cattle, dairy cows, hogs, chickens, and turkeys) as point sources of water pollution. The EPA requires CAFO operators who discharge into waterways to obtain an NPDES permit. About 8,000 CAFOs have NPDES permits. NPDES and SPDES permits are negotiated between the discharger and either the EPA or the state environmental agency. The permit process has been criticized because, even if a discharger is meeting the terms of the permit, this does not mean that pollution is eliminated or even sufficiently reduced to improve water quality to the swimmable and fishable standards.28 Also, a permit does not have to require the most up-to-date pollution

196

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

control technology. The permit may not cover all the pollutants released by a polluter into a waterway. Permitting is based on the type of watershed, with higher-quality watersheds having more controls on permits, and no discharge permits are granted in the highestquality watersheds. Finally, the monitoring and enforcement of the permits remains a time-consuming and expensive undertaking, and there are not always adequate personnel to do the job through the EPA or in many states. To address this problem, in 2011, the EPA called for more than 45,000 municipal and industrial facilities to monitor and submit electronically their discharge monitoring reports to gauge compliance with NPDES permitted pollutant discharge limits. The EPA also requires electronic reporting of inspections and enforcement actions taken by states and the EPA for NPDES sources so that the public is better informed about the protection of water quality.29 Nonpoint-Source Pollution Control

When the 1972 Clean Water Act Amendments were passed, Congress correctly assumed that point sources of water pollution posed greater threats to water quality than nonpoint sources. Today, however, nonpoint sources are the primary threat to water quality, in large part because the NPDES and SPDES program and the construction of wastewater treatment plants have significantly reduced point-source pollution. The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act added Section 319, which (a) calls for states to create and implement plans and programs to control nonpoint-source pollution, (b) provides federal loans and grants for the control of nonpoint sources, and (c) requires each state to prepare a nonpoint-source assessment report to identify existing and potential pollution sources. Even so, Section 319 of the Clean

Water Act does not enforce the management of state nonpoint-source pollution plans. State statutes do not regulate all stormwater runoff, and relatively few local governments have adopted stormwater management ordinances. As a result, federal, state, and local governments have largely been ineffective in managing nonpoint-pollution sources. Part of the reason is that the emphasis has been on the installation of best management practices on a site-by-site basis rather than on holistic watershed management plans. Since 1990, the EPA has required an NPDES or SPDES stormwater permit on construction sites that involve clearing, grading, and excavating five or more acres of land (Phase I). In 1999, the EPA adopted a rule requiring an NPDES or SPDES stormwater permit on most construction sites that disturb between one and five acres of land (Phase II). Construction sites of an acre or less may need a stormwater permit if the state environmental agency or regional EPA office determines that there is potential for significant water pollution. To obtain a permit, a developer must first submit a notice of intent to disturb a site and describe the construction project, and then draft and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), incorporating best management practices to minimize runoff (see Table 6.6). Most state SWPPP requirements follow the federal requirements. In fiscal year 2011, there were more than 181,000 construction site permits.30 The Clean Water Act does not specifically address most agricultural practices. CAFOs with large concentrations of cattle, dairy cows, chickens, turkeys, or chickens are considered point sources and are required to have an NPDES permit. But fertilizer and manure runoff from farm fields are not directly regulated. The Natural Resources Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture works with farmers nationwide to draft soil and water conservation plans and implement stream buffers,

CHAPTER 6: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WATER QUALITY

197

Table 6.6. Recommended Best Management Practices for Construction Sites Nonstructural Best Management Practices 1. Minimizing disturbance (clearing, grading, excavating) 2. Preserving natural vegetation and drainage patterns 3. Cleaning up and disposing of debris Structural Best Management Practices Erosion Controls

Sediment Controls

1. Mulch

1. Silt fence

2. Grass

2. Inlet protection

3. Stockpile covers

3. Check dams 4. Stabilized construction entrances 5. Sediment traps

Source: U.S. EPA. “Construction Site Stormwater Control: BMP Fact Sheets,” 2012. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/ stormwater/menuofbmps/?action=min_measure&min_measure_id=4. Retrieved May 7, 2014.

no-till farming, and other best management practices to reduce soil erosion and runoff (see Chapter 14). County Soil and Water Conservation Districts work with farmers on nutrient management plans, conservation plans, and erosion and sedimentation control plans. A separate Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program, Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, addresses nonpoint-pollution problems in coastal waters. Coastal areas and estuaries are especially rich in aquatic life and provide breeding grounds for fish, shellfish, and waterfowl. Section 6217 requires the 34 states and U.S. territories with approved Coastal Zone Management Programs to develop Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs. A state or territory must describe how it will implement nonpoint-source pollution controls that conform to those described in the EPA’s Guidance Specifying Management

Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. The EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration jointly administer the program. Sewer Overflows and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)

The U.S. has two main types of public sewer systems: combined sewer systems and sanitary sewer systems (SSSs). It is common for a city to have some areas served by combined sanitary and storm sewers and some by separate storm sewers. A combined sewer system collects wastewater from homes and businesses as well as stormwater and snowmelt through street grates and sends those waters through a single pipe to a sewage treatment plant. Combined sewer systems were built in the 19th century and into the early 20th century. Today there are 772 combined sewer systems owned by a state,

198

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

municipality, or sewer authority, and they are mainly found in the older cities of the Northeast and Great Lakes region. A combined sewer system overflows when the volume of stormwater and wastewater exceeds the capacity of the sewage treatment plant. The result is a CSO in which a sewage treatment plant operator discharges raw sewage and contaminated stormwater directly to surface waters. The untreated sewage and stormwater can threaten drinking water supplies and pose significant harm to human health. For instance, New York City released an estimated 30 billion gallons of raw sewage into waterways in 2011.31 Combined sanitary and storm sewers are no longer being built, but they are very expensive to replace with separate sanitary and storm sewers. Over the last 100 years, U.S. cities have mostly installed SSSs. These systems are designed to collect and convey sewage to a sewage treatment plant. Areas served by SSSs often have a municipal separate storm sewer system (known as an MS4) to collect and convey runoff from rainfall and snowmelt. This runoff is usually untreated and released directly from outfall pipes into waterways. A sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) can occur when a sewer pipe breaks or becomes blocked or when sewage flows are greater than the capacity of the sewage treatment plant. SSOs can vary greatly from a small discharge to a million gallons into a waterway. SSOs can carry microbial pathogens and other pollutants that can contaminate drinking water supplies, kill fish, and compel the closing of beaches and shellfish beds, often because of high concentrations of bacteria in the water. Nationwide, as of 2004, there were 15,582 municipal SSSs with wastewater treatment facilities and 4,846 regional SSSs with treatment plants.32 The EPA estimates that between 23,000 and 75,000 SSO events occur each year in the U.S., resulting in discharges of 3 billion to 10 billion gallons. The EPA has estimated that as many as 3.5 million people fall

ill from swimming in waters contaminated by SSOs each year. In many cases, these overflows go undetected and violate NPDES permits.33 MS4 operators must obtain an NPDES permit and draft a stormwater management plan with measurable goals and stormwater management controls in the form of best management practices to deal with runoff from construction sites, postconstruction runoff, and runoff from industrial facilities.34 Regulation of MS4s is crucial for the effective management of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and sediment pollution originating from developed areas. Since 1994, the EPA has tried to eliminate SSOs and reduce CSOs through permits, longterm control plans, and consent decrees. Both a CSO and an SSO are point sources of water pollution and require an NPDES permit. An NPDES permit for a CSO must describe the pollution discharges, demonstrate the use of technologies to control the discharges, and develop long-term overflow control plans, including an estimate of square miles served by the storm sewer system, proposed best management practices, and measurable goals for each stormwater control. Best management practices include detecting and eliminating illegal discharges, controlling stormwater runoff from construction sites, and preventing pollutants from entering municipal storm sewers. As of 2012, there were 835 NPDES permits that authorized discharges from 9,348 CSO outfalls in 32 states and the District of Columbia.35 The CSOs released an estimated 850 million gallons of untreated wastewater that year. In 2004, about 59 percent of all CSOs had longterm control plans drafted by state and local governments and approved by the EPA and state environmental agencies to reduce discharges over time. For instance, greater Cincinnati’s Long-Term Control Plan includes water testing, water-quality modeling, a cost-benefit analysis of options to reduce CSOs, and actions

CHAPTER 6: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WATER QUALITY

to reduce CSOs. If a city or sewer authority violates its long-term control plan, the EPA may levy fines and require a consent decree. A consent decree is an agreement between the EPA and a city or sewer authority that spells out how the city or sewer authority will reduce CSO events and eliminate discharges from SSSs. A consent decree also has a time line for compliance. The EPA can fine cities, states, and sewer authorities that do not comply with the NPDES permits, long-term control plans, or consent decrees. For instance, as part of its proposed consent decree, the Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati agreed to pay $1.2 million in fines for previous SSOs and CSOs.36 Although the EPA has spent more than $10 billion to control CSOs and SSOs, the EPA has estimated that $50.6 billion will be needed to capture 85 percent of the CSOs by volume and $88.8 billion to control SSOs between 2000 and 2020.37 Cities, states, and sewer authorities have six main options for reducing CSO and SSO events: 1. Operation and maintenance practices include sewer testing and cleaning as well as reducing customer sewage loadings. 2. Collection system controls involve maximizing flow to the treatment plant through pipe maintenance and replacement and pump upgrades, using flow monitors to improve the response of the sewer system to wet-weather events, removing stormwater connections to the sewer system (such as downspout disconnection), and separating combined sewer systems into storm and sanitary systems. 3. Stormwater storage facilities consist of inline storage, large storage tunnels to dissipate stormwater flows, and retention basins to hold stormwater at the sewage treatment plant longer and reduce wastewater flows.

199

4. Treatment technologies can be used to disinfect and filter wastewater and to screen out solids just before the wastewater is released from a SSO or CSO event. 5. Water conservation such as harvesting rainwater, reusing gray water for landscaping, and low flow toilets and showers can limit the amount of water entering the treatment system. 6. Low-impact development (LID) techniques can help reduce the volume and rate of stormwater flows from roofs, parking lots, roads, alleys, and sidewalks. The goal of LID is to capture and infiltrate on-site the first inch to inch and a half of stormwater in a 24-hour storm. Decreasing stormwater runoff also lowers the likelihood of a CSO or SSO event. LID techniques are often known as “green infrastructure” and feature green roofs, porous pavement, rain gardens, bioswales, and the planting of trees and shrubs. By replacing impervious surfaces with green infrastructure, more stormwater is retained on-site and infiltrates down into the groundwater. (For more on green infrastructure, see the discussion on capital improvements programs [CIPS] later in this chapter and in Chapter 19.) Several U.S. cities are now using a combination of green infrastructure and “gray infrastructure” to control stormwater runoff and decrease the number of CSO events. Chicago built a 109mile Deep Tunnel and reservoir system capable of storing 2.3 billion gallons of stormwater. The system cost $3.5 billion.38 But Chicago has been a leader in tree planting, greening alleys by replacing impervious surfaces with pervious pavement and green space, and creating green streets. New York City decided to spend $1.5 billion over the next 20 years on green projects to cut sewer outflows by 40 percent by 2030.39

200

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

In 2011, the City of Philadelphia became the The report features an assessment of the state’s first city in the U.S. to receive approval from water bodies according to a range of water the EPA and the Commonwealth of Pennsyl- conditions, defined in the following ways: vania for emphasizing the use of green infrastructure to reduce stormwater runoff and 1. Good/fully supporting: Meeting waterquality criteria and fulfilling the desigthus lower the number of annual CSO events. nated uses. Philadelphia’s CSO Long-Term Control Plan for stormwater management, “Green City, Clean 2. Good/threatened: Meeting water-quality Waters,” carries a price tag of more than $3 billion criteria at present but in danger of degraover 25 years. A key strategy is to transform dation in the near future. one-third of the city’s impervious surface into 3. Fair/partially supporting: Meeting watergreen roofs, swales, and rain gardens to capture quality criteria most of the time. the first inch of rainfall. The plan is expected to reduce the amount of sewage overflow enter- 4. Poor/not supporting: Not meeting waterquality standards. ing city waterways by 5 billion to 8 billion gal40 lons per year, or by 85 percent. 5. Not attainable: One or more of the designated water uses cannot be met because of biological, chemical, physical, or socioWater-Quality Monitoring and Enforcement economic conditions. Monitoring water quality for the swimming and fishing standards and designated water The Clean Water Act makes dumping uses can be done through sampling at estab- trash and waste into waterways illegal activilished monitoring stations at different times of ties. Ocean dumping of sewage sludge, industhe year. Both the EPA and state environmental trial and medical waste, radioactive waste, and agencies monitor water quality through hun- chemical and biological weapons was banned dreds of monitoring stations. Some nonprofit under the Ocean Dumping Act of 1972 and watershed associations monitor water quality the 1988 amendments. Mining wastes are as well. to some degree controlled by the 1977 SurThe EPA and most states have the power face Mining Control and Reclamation Act. Yet to enforce the Clean Water Act. The EPA has there has been some legal confusion about the authority to levy fines against companies, the coal-mining method known as mountainindividuals, and governments that violate the top removal. Coal companies have buried and Clean Water Act. For example, in 2011, the EPA polluted miles of streams in Appalachia under fined Lafarge North America, a leading con- tons of rock overburden removed from mouncrete producer a total of $740,000 for exceed- taintops. The EPA has used the Clean Water Act ing allowed effluent limits and unpermitted to deny permits for such mining, but legal chalstormwater discharges at plants in five states.41 lenges cloud the issue.43 That same year, the EPA fined Danbury, Connecticut, $30,000 for releasing untreated sewage into waterways and not reporting the 6.3: State Water-Quality releases.42 Protection and Cleanup Under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, states must submit a report to the EPA on The 1977 amendments to the Clean Water Act the quality of their waterways every two years. gave the states primary responsibility for rating

CHAPTER 6: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WATER QUALITY

201

the water quality of rivers, streams, and lakes. State agencies also establish water-quality standards for all surface waters in the state, which must then be approved by the EPA. This approach is considerably different from that of the Safe Drinking Water Act, in which the EPA establishes national standards for drinking water quality that states and local governments must meet (see Chapter 5).

watersheds and contain important environmental features, such as trout fisheries. Wastewater treatment plant effluent and any other discharges to streams classified as high-quality or exceptional value waters are permitted but only if water quality is maintained. This would have the effect of requiring any wastewater treatment plants in these areas to provide tertiary treatment.

Designation of Water Quality

Cleaning Up Impaired Waterways: Total Maximum Daily Loads

The Clean Water Act requires state waterquality standards for surface waters to include The NPDES permit system has not been sufficient to clean up most of the nation’s polluted three elements: waterways to the swimmable and fishable standard. The Clean Water Act compels states 1. Designated uses. The goal for all water is to to clean up impaired waterways. The biennial meet either drinkable or swimmable and state assessments of water quality (known fishable quality standards. Other water as Section 305[b] Reports) are meant to alert uses (e.g., to provide water to support states, the EPA, and the public about which agriculture and boating) are also allowed. waterways meet federal fishable and swimStates are required to designate water mable standards and which do not. Section bodies that do not meet the drinkable, 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to swimmable, and fishable standards as identify impaired waterways, create a priority impaired waters (see Table 6.4). list, and implement Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plans to clean up those waterways to 2. Criteria. For certain chemicals, maximum the swimmable and fishable standard. threshold levels must be established, To initiate the TMDL process, a state conusually expressed as “not to exceed so ducts an assessment of water quality in some many parts per million.” These threshold or all of its waterways to identify impaired standards are meant to protect the deswaters and the contaminants that cause the ignated uses described previously and especially to protect people and fish from impairment. Next, the state compiles a list of the “water quality limited segments” and “water adverse health effects. quality limited waters” in polluted lakes, reser3. Antidegradation policy. States must not voirs, ponds, streams, rivers, and bays. Then, the allow waters that meet the Class A or B state ranks the listed waterways for urgency of standards to deteriorate in quality.44 cleanup and sets a schedule for creating the TMDLs. The state sends its list of impaired waterSpecial protection is provided for streams ways to the EPA for approval. Within 8 to 13 designated by the state as high-quality or years after the water body is listed as impaired exceptional value waters. These waters are often under Section 303(d), TMDLs should be estabsmaller tributaries in higher-elevation forested lished by the state and approved by the EPA.

202

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

For each impaired segment or water body, the state must determine the maximum amount of different types of pollution the impaired waterway can assimilate and still meet state and federal water-quality standards for drinking, swimming, and fishing. The state must also identify and place pollution limits on the individual point sources (such as factories) and nonpoint sources (such as farm fields) so that maximum pollution levels are not exceeded. The state is supposed to enforce the TMDL “pollution budgets” for each waterway. A TMDL analysis must be conducted for each pollutant (such as nitrogen or phosphorus) that is contributing to the impairment of a waterway or segment of a waterway. The analysis must determine the sources of pollution and allocate to each source a set level of that pollutant that may be discharged into the waterway. The total level of each type of pollutant from all sources must not exceed the maximum that the water body can assimilate and still meet federal and state water-quality standards. The acceptable pollution load is thus allocated among the point sources (known as the wasteload allocation) and nonpoint sources (or load allocation). In 2001, according to a National Research Council study, there were “21,000 polluted river segments, lakes, and estuaries making up over 300,000 river and shore miles and 5 million lake acres. The number of TMDLs required for these impaired waters is greater than 40,000.”45 The study questioned whether states had the necessary scientific information to identify, assess, and reduce pollutant loadings. Even though TMDLs have been part of the Clean Water Act since 1972, the EPA largely ignored TMDLs until 1997. By 2000, the EPA was under either a court order or consent decree in several states to establish TMDLs.46 In 2002, states identified 39,503 specific water bodies as impaired under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.47 In 2011, the EPA reported

that 2,926 of these impaired waters had been cleaned up to federal swimmable and fishable standards. If an impaired water body is cleaned up, it can be “de-listed” from the Section 303(d) list. Clean Water Act rules that prohibit the deterioration of the quality of the water body then take effect. From 1996 to 2014, a total of 51,949 TMDLs were developed and 55,008 causes of impairment addressed.48 In 2011, the EPA reported that approximately 76 percent of the TMDLs mainly involved nonpoint sources.49 But thousands more TMDLs are needed. As of 2014, the U.S. EPA listed more than 42,600 impaired waters in the 50 states.50 If a state fails to set up TMDLs for polluted water bodies, the EPA has the authority to intervene and establish TMDLs. For example, in 2010, the EPA developed an estimated 2,600 TMDLs for Pennsylvania because state budget cuts and layoffs limited the state’s ability to develop TMDLs.51 But Pennsylvania still had almost 7,000 impaired water segments in 2013, the most by far of any state. The largest ever application of TMDLs was ordered in 2010 by the EPA for the Chesapeake Bay watershed to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loadings (see the case study in Section 6.5). State Watershed Management

The federal government initiated the Clean Water Action Plan program in 1998 as a way to compel states to better coordinate efforts to restore watersheds that do not meet waterquality standards as well as to maintain water conditions in healthy watersheds. Clean Water Action Plans are made up of three parts: 1. A unified watershed assessment of the conditions in each of the state’s

CHAPTER 6: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WATER QUALITY

watersheds, including those in need of restoration, preventive action, or extra protection as pristine watersheds. Section 319 of the Clean Water Act already required each state to prepare a unified watershed assessment to determine where additional funding would help achieve fishable and swimmable waters. To qualify for additional federal water-quality funding, a state must put together the following two items. 2. Watershed Restoration Priorities, a list of highest-priority watersheds for restoration over the next two years. 3. Watershed Restoration Action Strategies detailing the actions needed to address watershed cleanup over the next five years. More than 20 states have adopted statewide watershed approaches to managing their water-quality programs.52 A watershed approach consists of five elements: (1) a delineation of watersheds by drainage basins; (2) assessment, planning, implementing actions, and monitoring by watershed; (3) coordination with the Clean Water Act and other regulatory programs; (4) a process for involving local governments, landowners, and the general public; and (5) evaluation of results by watershed. States can either take the lead in watershed planning and management or develop a locally driven partnership with local communities and nonprofit groups. State-led watershed planning efforts have resulted in better monitoring data and assessment of problems, and greater efficiency and coordination in permitting programs.53 One of the biggest problems that states cite is the uncoordinated timing of different EPA programs under the Clean Water Act. For instance, there is a five-year permitting reissuance cycle for SPDES and NPDES permits,

203

a three-year water-quality standards review period, and a two-year reporting cycle for water-quality data to the EPA under Section 305(b) and the Section 303(d) listing of impaired waterways and TMDLs. A coordinated reporting schedule would make all the information available in the same year and would improve planning and evaluation efforts. Perhaps most important, federal, state, and local governments must coordinate the several water cleanup and pollution prevention efforts of the Clean Water Act with the Safe Drinking Water Act programs to protect drinking water supplies. State Water-Quality Monitoring and Enforcement

The federal government has transferred most of the responsibility for monitoring and enforcing the Clean Water Act to the states. Nearly all states manage their Clean Water Act sewage treatment plant construction grants and control the NPDES permit process. Most states regulate the pretreatment of industrial waste discharged into public treatment plants and manage the Section 604(b) state water-quality planning grant program. Predictably, the vigor of monitoring and enforcement has varied considerably from state to state. For instance, 42 states have passed audit privilege laws or policies that enable polluters to police themselves and avoid prosecution or receive lower fines for any violations they report.54 If the states do not do an adequate job of monitoring and enforcement, the EPA could step in to take back these functions. Some states have created innovative planning programs for water quality. For instance, since 1997, the State of Oregon has provided grants for water quality and stream restoration to speed the recovery of salmon, especially coho salmon that are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. This land-use

204

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Box 6.1. EPA Grants for Water Quality The EPA offers a wide variety of grant funds for states, Native American tribes, local governments, sewer and water authorities, and in some cases, individuals and universities to implement water-quality and drinking water programs and projects. Categorical Grants • Beach Monitoring and Notification Program Implementation Grants

• Water Pollution Control State and Interstate Program Support • Water Protection Grants to the States (Homeland Security Grants) • Water Quality Management Planning Grants • Wetlands Program Development Grants Noncategorical Grants

• Nonpoint Source Implementation Grants

• Clean Water State Revolving Funds

• Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program Implementation Grants

• National Estuary Program

• Public Water System Supervision Program

• Chesapeake Bay Program

• State Underground Injection Control • Targeted Watershed Grants • Wastewater Operator Training Grant Program

and water-quality connection is fundamental for sustainable water quality and fish habitat. Between 1997 and 2009, total grant funding for restoration projects from state, federal, private, and other sources exceeded $646.1 million. These projects included 2,700 improvements to stream crossings, 9,000 miles of road improvements, 2,600 miles of road closures, and the retirement of 135 push-up dams.55 Agricultural runoff from farm fields and barnyards can contain sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, manure, fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides and is a leading source of water pollution. Soil and water conservation practices on farms are important for water-quality

• Drinking Water State Revolving Funds • Gulf of Mexico Program • Great Lakes Source: U.S. EPA. “Grants Redirect,” 2014. http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/. Retrieved May 7, 2014.

improvement. The Maryland Agricultural Water Quality Cost-Share (MACS) Program pays up to 87.5 percent of the cost to farmers for installing eligible best management practices to protect water quality. There are more than 30 eligible best management practices, including manure storage facilities, grassed waterways, cover crops, stream buffers, nutrient management plans, and the transportation of excess manure off the farm. The maximum levels of funding range from $20,000 to $100,000. In 2013 alone, Maryland spent more than $26 million on 2,546 conservation projects, mainly for farmers to plant cover crops on more than 400,000 acres.56

CHAPTER 6: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WATER QUALITY

Riparian forest buffers are the most cost-effective way to reduce nonpoint-source pollution because they filter sediment and stormwater before they reach waterways. Forested buffers have been shown to cut nitrogen loadings by 60 to 90 percent. Since 1996, Maryland has operated a “Stream ReLeaf program” to pay landowners to plant forest buffers along rivers and streams to minimize runoff. The buffers serve several purposes, including a filter for sediment and runoff, wildlife habitat, stream bank stabilization, flood control, recreational greenways, and regulation of water temperature. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources has used a GIS to target rivers and streams with high nutrient loadings, low-order streams, and unforested stream banks for tree planting. The GIS is able to track the location of stream forest buffers, the size of trees and tree species in the buffer, funded projects, and buffers protected by conservation easements. Funding for the program comes from the Chesapeake Bay program, the EPA, the U.S. Forest Service, the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, and state buffer incentive money. Maryland originally set a goal to create 600 miles of forest buffers along stream banks by 2010. By 2001, that goal was met, and Maryland set a new goal of 1,200 miles by 2010. As of 2010, Maryland had created 1,354 miles of forested buffers at an average width of 137 feet and covering a total of 24,600 acres.57 Failing or improperly functioning on-site septic systems can leak effluent into groundwater and waterways, degrading water quality and posing health risks. In 1995, the Massachusetts legislature passed Title 5, which requires home owners, before they sell or expand a house, to hire a professional engineer to inspect the on-site septic system.58 If the system fails the inspection, the owner must fix or replace the system before the house can be sold or expanded. More than 30 percent of

205

Massachusetts homes use on-site septic systems. Thousands of polluting septic systems have been detected and repaired or replaced.

6.4: Local Planning for Water Quality County and Regional Partnerships and Nonprofit Groups

Counties, regional planning commissions, and nonprofit organizations can play key roles in maintaining and improving water quality, especially when their efforts focus on an entire watershed. Counties that have land-use planning and zoning authority are in a good position to make a positive impact on water quality. These counties can adopt land-development standards that reflect current best management practices, and the counties can direct growth and development away from vulnerable water bodies and groundwater supplies. Regional planning commissions and counties in the northeastern states that do not have zoning authority can provide leadership and guidance to communities by keeping an upto-date comprehensive plan that addresses water-quality issues and by providing technical assistance to communities. Nonprofit watershed groups can partner with local governments to conserve stream buffers and educate the public about the importance of protecting water quality. County conservation districts administer a number of programs designed to reduce soil erosion, including drafting and approving conservation plans for farms. The conservation districts also provide assistance to landowners interested in stream bank stabilization and other soil-saving measures, such as fencing to control the access of livestock to rivers and streams. In some states, the districts also administer erosion and sedimentation control

206

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

programs and review and approve plans for earth-disturbing activities. A variety of federal programs that are intended to reduce soil erosion and runoff into waterways and water bodies are administered through county or regional offices (see Chapter 14). For instance, the Natural Resources Conservation Service manages the federal Environmental Quality Incentives Program, which pays landowners to install buffer strips and other practices to reduce runoff. The county offices of the Farm Service Agency administer the federal Conservation Reserve Program and Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. These programs pay farmers who agree to take highly erodible cropland and stream buffer areas out of production for 10 to 15 years. Watershed management. In partnership with state water departments and nonprofit watershed associations, counties or regional planning commissions can prepare and adopt watershed plans for each watershed located within their boundaries. The plans can identify high-quality, exceptional value, and impaired waterways and water bodies as well as existing and potential sources of pollution. The plans can also present a strategy for upgrading water quality, including priority streams for cleanup. Pennsylvania has a state program that requires each watershed to have a stormwater plan geared to reducing off-site flows. Counties draft these plans. Each municipality then must adapt its local land-use controls to fit the framework of the watershed plan. There are more than 3,000 private nonprofit watershed organizations throughout the U.S. These watershed organizations are often alliances of landowners, farm organizations, environmental groups, fish and wildlife groups, elected officials, local government agencies, civic organizations, and conservation districts. Watershed alliances perform volunteer monitoring of waterbodies, hold workshops and school programs, restore stream banks,

plant forest buffer strips, and sponsor stream cleanup days. The State of Maryland has created 12 regional tributary teams covering the state to work on cleaning up and protecting waterways through demonstration projects and public education. Nationwide, sports groups such as the Izaak Walton League of America, Trout Unlimited, and Ducks Unlimited are active in watershed protection and restoration efforts. Groundwater Guardian is a national group active in promoting the protection of groundwater. American Rivers works to protect and restore the nation’s rivers and streams. Several nonprofit land trusts have become active in working with landowners and water providers to protect water quality. For example, the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests has drafted two model conservation easements in its Water Supply Land Protection Project. Landowners and water companies can sell or donate a conservation easement to a land trust, thus placing permanent restrictions on the land (see Chapters 9 and 14). A conservation easement can be written to ban the construction of any new buildings or structures near the surface water and require a buffer of a certain distance from the surface water for farming, forestry, or any commercial or residential uses. A conservation easement can also restrict or ban development or active uses in wellhead protection areas. Local Government Planning for Water Quality

Water quality strongly influences the ability of a community to sustain itself and the type and amount of development it can support. Good water quality is essential to human health, a variety of businesses, fish and wildlife, and recreational activities. Planning for water quality begins with identifying surface watersheds,

CHAPTER 6: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WATER QUALITY

groundwater aquifers, and existing and potential water pollution sources. Ideally, water-quality planning should be combined with planning for sustainable water supplies (see Chapter 5). The Natural Resources Inventory

The natural resources section of the comprehensive plan can include information and GIS maps of the location and quality of surface waters and groundwater in the community. Planners should note exceptional value and high-quality waters, waters that meet drinking water standards as well as swimmable and fishable standards, public drinking water supplies, sole-source aquifers, any delineated wellhead protection areas, and any impaired waterways or water bodies. Much of the water-quality inventory information is available from the state water resources board or environmental agency, the county, water utilities, and community water systems. It is important to note the location and severity of existing and potential point and nonpoint sources of water pollution. Any known hazardous waste sites and underground storage tanks should also be mapped (see Chapter 8). The inventory should describe the impacts of existing pollution levels on drinking water, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation opportunities, and water used for other purposes in the community. Analysis

207

analyzing threats can lead to proactive strategies to avoid problems before they happen or become worse (see Photo 6.4). Planners can use GIS to anticipate potential sources of nonpoint pollution through land-suitability analysis, development projections, and calculations of the percentage of impervious surface in an area or watershed. GIS displays watershed features in overlays of land uses, land cover, hydrology, watersheds, and wildlife habitats and can manipulate, analyze, and display data quickly and accurately. Planners can produce maps to review proposed future land-use scenarios to evaluate alternative pollution source impacts on water quality. Through the analysis, planners can determine the community’s future water-quality needs, based on projected population growth, land uses, and economic activities. Planners must also consider federal and state requirements, a community’s values, water-quality data, and projected growth in other communities in the watershed, especially upstream. For example, evidence of impaired water quality could lead to a decision by the elected officials to change the local zoning and land-development ordinances to site new development more carefully and at a lower density in sensitive environmental areas. Similarly, recognition of the vulnerability of surface water to a variety of contaminants could motivate neighboring communities to work together to protect a common water resource. A community or county should evaluate how its use of water affects other communities in the watershed and vice versa. A regional watershed planning approach yields many benefits in the long run. The analysis process leads to general community goals and specific objectives for the community’s water quality.

Local planners and the planning commission can identify and analyze strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to local water quality. For instance, an abundance of high-quality water is both a strength and an opportunity. Poor water quality is a weakness that may Goals and Objectives exist in parts of a community, if, for instance, private wells have become contaminated by Community goals and objectives for water malfunctioning septic systems. Identifying and quality in the comprehensive plan should

208

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Photo 6.4. The restored Little Sugar Creek and buffer protection sign, Charlotte, NC. Source: Tom Daniels.

and objectives of protecting surface water and groundwater quality. For example, the comprehensive plan’s future land-use map and zoning ordinance can be revised to direct future growth and development away from vulnerable water bodies and waterways. The Action Strategy should contain water-quality benchmarks, and planners can evaluate progress toward those benchmarks in an annual report on environmental quality. The Action Strategy can be part of an overall Environmental Action Plan that lists short-term, medium-term, and long-term actions, funding sources, and who will be responsible for carrying out the actions Action Strategy and when. The Action Strategy should present techThe Action Strategy might include the folniques and programs for achieving the goals lowing specific recommendations: reflect federal and state requirements as well as community desires (Tables 6.7 and 6.8). For instance, water suppliers are required to coordinate water testing and protection measures with state and federal officials. A general goal would be to maintain or improve surface water and groundwater quality. Another goal might be to protect present and future sources of drinking water. Specific objectives can be listed in the natural resources, land use, economic base, and community facilities sections of the comprehensive plan.

CHAPTER 6: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WATER QUALITY

209

Table 6.7. Sample Water-Quality Goals and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan Section: Natural Resources Goal: Maintain and improve surface water and groundwater quality. Objective: Draft or update a community stormwater management ordinance to ensure best management practices are being used to minimize stormwater runoff. Objective: Sponsor a watershed group to conduct educational, cleanup, and pollutionprevention activities to protect the watershed. Section: Natural Resources Goal: Minimize stormwater runoff and retain and infiltrate stormwater on-site as much as possible. Objective: Support through grants, zoning, and subdivision regulations the installation of green infrastructure such as rain gardens, green roofs, and bioswales. Objective: Create smart streets by retrofitting streets for increased green space. Section: Land Use Objective: Prohibit new development or activities in areas that would threaten to pollute surface water or groundwater. Objective: Adopt LID provisions in the subdivision and land-development ordinance. Section: Economic Base Objective: Promote water-quality protection to make the community attractive to new development and to sustain existing development. Section: Community Facilities Objective: Assure that local sewage treatment plants have adequate future capacity. Separate storm sewers from sanitary sewers.

• Promote partnerships between the local government and nonprofit watershed groups to educate the public and to clean up local water bodies.

• Work with state and federal agencies, nonprofit land trusts, and watershed associations to purchase land or conservation easements on land adjacent to waterways.

• Explore state and federal funding for the separation of sanitary and storm sewers.

• Promote the installation of green roofs, rain gardens, and bioswales on public and

210

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Table 6.8. New York City PlaNYC Water-Quality Goals and Objectives Goal: Continue implementing gray infrastructure upgrades. Goal: Use green infrastructure to manage stormwater. Goal: Remove industrial pollution from waterways. Goal: Protect and restore wetlands, aquatic systems, and ecological habitat. Objective: Upgrade wastewater treatment plants to achieve secondary treatment standards. Objective: Upgrade treatment plants to reduce nitrogen discharges. Objective: Complete cost-effective gray infrastructure projects to reduce CSOs and improve water quality. Objective: Expand the sewer network and optimize the existing sewer system. Objective: Build public green infrastructure projects. Objective: Modify land-use codes to increase the capture of stormwater. Objective: Provide incentives for green infrastructure. Objective: Restore and create wetlands. City of New York. PlaNYC Full Report (April 2011). http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/theplan/the-plan.shtml. Retrieved February 13, 2012.

private property to reduce stormwater runoff. • Adopt a woodland protection ordinance to minimize the loss of tree cover in the development process. • Adopt a stormwater management ordinance. Zoning Ordinance The zoning map can guide development away from high-quality water bodies, impaired waterways, and delineated wellhead protection areas. Development permitted in these areas should be sensitively sited and required

to employ best management practices, such as setbacks from water bodies of at least 100 feet, limits on impervious surface, avoidance of steep slopes, and the creation of filter strips and riparian buffers along streams and water bodies to intercept runoff. Zoning can promote compact development patterns that facilitate the use of central sewer and water systems instead of on-site septic systems and wells and thus reduce the potential for contamination of groundwater. Zoning can protect farm- and forestlands through the use of large minimum lot sizes to maintain large areas of pervious soils and readily absorb precipitation with minimal erosion and runoff. Large lot farm and forest zones

CHAPTER 6: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WATER QUALITY

of no more than one house per 40 acres also minimize the use of on-site septic systems and wells that could jeopardize water quality (see Chapter 14). In suburban and rural areas, watershed, stream, woodland, steep slope, or conservation overlay zones can limit land uses or activities that could jeopardize water quality and can require the use of best management practices where development is allowed. A floodplain overlay zone can minimize development in flood-prone areas and thus protect water quality. Planners can use GIS and data on existing or proposed zoning districts to produce a buildout analysis, indicating the ultimate level of development possible if all land were put to its allowed uses and densities. Planners can use the build-out analysis to calculate potential impervious surfaces, with an eye toward whether the zoning would allow more than 10 percent of the watershed to be covered in impervious surfaces—a maximum recommended percentage. A local government may then adjust zoning uses, densities, or lot coverage requirements to reduce impervious surfaces and future runoff and thus protect water resources. Communities and counties can establish zoning setbacks for buildings and structures from riparian corridors. For instance, the ordinance could require a minimum of 100 feet from the stream for septic system drainage fields and the application of septage on farm fields, a minimum of 200 feet for underground or aboveground oil or gasoline storage tanks, and a minimum of 300 feet for solid-waste landfills. Subdivision Regulations Subdivision and land-development regulations can help protect water quality in several ways. They can require developers to use best management practices for stormwater management and flood control and to maintain or plant vegetative cover along streams, on steep

211

slopes, and next to wetlands. The regulations can also require the siting of development away from vulnerable water resources and wetlands. Both Seattle and Washington, DC, have passed “green area factors,” innovative development regulations that establish the minimum amount of plant material on a site. In Seattle, this applies to commercial zones, multifamily residential areas, and certain industrial properties within designated urban village boundaries.59 On a smaller scale, Chicago requires one shade tree for each 25 feet of street frontage.60 Stormwater management ordinance. A community can adopt stormwater management standards as part of the subdivision regulations or as a stand-alone ordinance to control the impact of development on runoff, groundwater recharge, and overall water quality. The advantage of a separate ordinance is that it can be made to apply to all earth disturbances and not just those associated with subdivisions and land development. For instance, the State of Maryland requires all of its counties to adopt a stormwater management ordinance. Stormwater management provisions can include guidelines to assist developers in choosing appropriate techniques, such as retention or detention basins, porous pavements, constructed wetlands, seepage pits, and swales, among others. A guiding standard can be that poststorm runoff should be equal to or less than prestorm runoff for a 25-year storm. In limestone or karst geology, retention basins should be prohibited and detention basins and stormwater runoff directed away from sinkholes and depressions. Erosion and sediment control ordinance. Local governments can enact special soil erosion and sedimentation ordinances that exceed the federal standards to further minimize runoff. For example, Boise, Idaho, passed a construction site erosion ordinance to protect wetlands, the Boise River, and its tributaries. The ordinance requires developers to

212

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

obtain a soil erosion control permit. Developers must submit a sediment, erosion, and dust control plan, and a person certified by the city to implement the controls must be available at each construction site.61 Woodland protection ordinance. Communities that want to limit stormwater runoff and soil erosion may choose to adopt standards that limit the removal of mature trees or require their replacement when a new development is proposed. Usually, a fixed percentage of trees of a certain caliper diameter at a certain height must be retained, unless they are allowed to be replaced with trees of a smaller but certain minimum caliper size. Some developers avoid such requirements by harvesting the trees on the property before they submit a subdivision proposal. Communities can eliminate this loophole by prohibiting the clear-cutting of property within areas deemed important for protecting water quality, regardless of whether it is proposed for development. Communities can adopt streamside overlays that permit only selective cutting along stream banks as well as limit other uses that could jeopardize water quality. Moreover, studies have shown that mature vegetation and trees add significantly to the value of property planned for development.62 Capital Improvements Program: Gray Infrastructure and Green Infrastructure Public sewage treatment facilities and water treatment and distribution systems are expensive gray infrastructure components and have a powerful influence over the location of development. Maintaining and upgrading sewage treatment plants and miles of sewer and water pipes is a major outlay for cities as they attempt to maintain or improve water quality. Federal and state funding sources are important to explore, such as the Clean Water State Revolving Fund for low-interest loans.

In the outer suburbs and rural areas, the proliferation of on-site septic systems has posed difficulties for communities trying to establish or revise a capital improvements program (CIP). If septic systems on large lots fail, water or sewer lines must be extended to serve those homes and businesses. This can be very expensive. Once sewer and water lines are extended, they will promote additional development in areas not necessarily planned for growth. A CIP should be consistent with the state Section 208 sewage facilities plan, public water system planning, the future land-use map of the comprehensive plan, and the zoning map. Public sewage treatment plants must maintain adequate capacity for anticipated future growth, and combined storm and sanitary sewer systems can be separated to reduce CSO events. Cities can opt for a deep tunnel, such as the 109-mile network of tunnels Chicago built between the mid-1970s and 2006. In addition, Chicago is constructing two underground reservoirs capable of holding 18 billion gallons of stormwater. The total cost of the Chicago stormwater system is estimated at $35 billion.63 But this is a costly way to manage stormwater. Many cities are now installing green infrastructure to retain and infiltrate stormwater and snowmelt on-site and reduce the occurrence of combined and separate sewer overflows. Green infrastructure tries to mimic or restore natural hydrologic systems to manage stormwater. Green infrastructure requires maintenance, just as gray infrastructure does, but green infrastructure may prove more resilient in the face of major storm events. Chicago has employed an array of green infrastructure practices, including bioswales, green roofs, tree planting, rain gardens, infiltration basins, retrofitting alleys with pervious pavement and green space, and disconnecting roof downspouts.64 Often, green infrastructure has a lower cost than gray infrastructure such as stormwater detention tunnels. The challenge

CHAPTER 6: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WATER QUALITY

is to create enough green infrastructure projects and to connect them in a network. Each city will have to determine the right mix of gray and green infrastructure to control stormwater. Examples of incorporating green infrastructure are presented in detail in Chapter 19. A CIP can include public spending for preserving land to protect water quality, such as forestlands, wetlands, natural grasslands, steep slopes, land close to or on both sides of small streams, and land next to reservoirs. What to Look for in a Development Review

A planning commission typically evaluates a development project for consistency with the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision and land-development regulations, CIP, and any other applicable local laws. The commission must focus its questions about a proposed development on the requirements in these public planning documents. Planners most often review and regulate environmental impacts through the subdivision and land-development ordinance. The potential impact of a development on water quality will depend on the size, location, design, and type of project as well as current environmental conditions. It is important to keep in mind the cumulative impact of multiple new developments on water quality. That is one reason why regular testing of private and public water supplies and waterways is strongly recommended. Table 6.9 presents a checklist of questions to ask about the potential impacts of a proposed development on water quality.

6.5: Case Study: The Chesapeake Bay TMDL Program The Chesapeake Bay is one of the world’s largest estuaries, where freshwater and saltwater

213

combine to provide a rich breeding ground for shellfish and waterfowl (see Photo 6.5). In 1900, the Chesapeake Bay was a world leader in the production of oysters, and Chesapeake Bay blue crabs still support a major industry. But yields of crabs and oysters have declined sharply in recent decades, and the water quality of the bay has suffered in that same period. Algae blooms from nitrogen and phosphorus runoff have reduced submerged aquatic vegetation that the fish and shellfish depend on. Hypoxia (lack of oxygen) causes large “dead zones” in the summer months. In 1983, a unique compact was forged among three states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed (Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia), the District of Columbia, and the federal government to protect the waters of the Chesapeake Bay. This initial Chesapeake Bay Agreement was followed by a second agreement in 1987 aimed at reducing nitrogen and phosphorus loadings in the bay. In 2000, a third agreement focused on restoring forests, protecting wetlands, and reducing nitrogen and phosphorus and toxic chemicals in the bay. But despite nearly 30 years of efforts to curb bay pollution, relatively little progress had been made to clean up the bay to the federal swimmable and fishable standard. A major reason is that nonpoint sources contribute about three-quarters of the pollution entering the Chesapeake Bay, and nonpoint sources are much harder to identify and control than point sources.65 Agricultural runoff and urban stormwater runoff are the two main nonpoint sources. In May 2010, President Obama issued Executive Order 13508 to restore and protect the Bay. In December 2010, the U.S. EPA established the Chesapeake Bay TMDL or “pollution diet.”66 The Chesapeake Bay TMDL is the largest TMDL ever developed by the EPA and applies to the bay’s 64,000-square-mile watershed. As background for the TMDL, the six states in the bay watershed and the District of Columbia

214

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Table 6.9. A Checklist of Water-Quality Issues in a Development Review 1.

Will the proposed project use a private on-site septic system or public sewer?

2.

If a private septic system is used, where will it be located in relation to neighboring properties, any on-site wells, and nearby streams or water bodies?

3.

If public sewer is used, how much sewage will be generated, and what is the capacity of the sewage treatment facility? Under Section 402(h) of the Clean Water Act, if a sewage treatment plant is in violation of its NPDES permit, the EPA may not allow new sewer hookups until the plant comes into compliance.

4.

Will the proposed project use private on-site wells or public water facilities?

5.

What is the slope of the site? Have local steep-slope standards been met?

6.

Do any local erosion and sedimentation control standards apply? Have they been met?

7.

How much and what type of vegetation is proposed to be removed? Will any of it be replaced? Do local standards limit removal or require replacement?

8.

How much impervious surface does the project create? Is it within the limits of local standards?

9.

What are the drainage and stormwater runoff patterns? What stormwater management techniques will be used? Do they meet local standards? What best management practices have been proposed?

10.

Will there be discharges into streams or other surface water?

11.

Is an NPDES permit needed?

12.

Is any state-level review required?

drafted Watershed Implementation Plans to spell out pollution controls and a schedule for meeting their pollution limits. Such controls include upgrades to sewage treatment plants to reduce nitrogen, best management practices on farms to decrease soil erosion and runoff from farm fields into waterways, and green infrastructure to retain and infiltrate urban and suburban stormwater. The Chesapeake Bay TMDL identified the necessary pollution reductions from major

sources of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment in the District of Columbia and large sections of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia (see Figure 6.3). Parts of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia make up about 83 percent of the bay watershed and account for roughly 90 percent of the nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment discharged into the bay. The TMDL set total limits of 185.9 million pounds of nitrogen, 12.5 million pounds

CHAPTER 6: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WATER QUALITY

215

Photo 6.5. A lighthouse on the Chesapeake Bay. Source: Tom Daniels.

of phosphorus, and 6.45 billion pounds of sediment per year, compared to the actual 2010 levels of more than 276 million pounds of nitrogen, 19 million pounds of phosphorous, and 8.5 billion pounds of sediment. The TMDL limits were then divided among the six states and the District of Columbia, which must report every two years on their progress toward meeting the limits (see Table 6.10). The

TMDL was designed to ensure that all necessary pollution control measures to fully restore the bay and its tidal rivers are in place by 2025. Summary

Water quality is essential for a sustainable environment and a sustainable economy. Access

216

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Figure 6.3. Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Table 6.10. TMDL Allocations for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed TMDL Allocations Nitrogen (Million Pounds per Year)

Phosphorus (Million Pounds per Year)

Sediment (Million Tons per Year)

Maryland

39.09

2.72

1,218

Pennsylvania

73.93

2.93

1,984

Virginia

53.42

5.36

2,579

Total for all six states and DC

185.93

12.54

6,454

State

Source: U.S. EPA. Chesapeake Bay TMDL Executive Summary, 2010, p. ES-7. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/ pdf_chesbay/FinalBayTMDL/BayTMDLExecutiveSummaryFINAL122910_final.pdf. Retrieved May 7, 2014.

CHAPTER 6: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WATER QUALITY

to good quality water is also a matter of social equity. The federal government first adopted a command-and-control approach for end-ofpipe treatment to reduce pollutant discharges into waterways. The Clean Water Act of 1972 established the NPDES and SPDES permits for polluters who release pollutants into waterways and made huge grants for the construction and upgrade of sewage treatment plants. The emphasis on controlling pollution from point sources has improved water quality, but many water bodies still do not meet the federal swimmable and fishable water-quality standard. Nonpoint sources, such as urban streets and parking lots and farm fields, are now the major sources of water pollution. Beginning in the late 1990s, the EPA modified its strategy on water quality to try to reduce or prevent pollution at the source. The TMDL process, which was included in the Clean Water Act, requires states to identify impaired waters, set limits on individual pollutants, and allocate pollutant budgets among the major dischargers. The EPA and several cities have become interested in green infrastructure as a way to retain and infiltrate stormwater and snowmelt and thus decrease combined and separate sewer overflows. Local governments can include waterquality goals and objectives in several sections of the comprehensive plan. The zoning ordinance can feature overlay zones that are designed to protect water quality by keeping development away from sensitive environmental areas such as steep slopes, floodplains, and wellhead areas. Subdivision and landdevelopment ordinances can require vegetation and the retention of trees to absorb stormwater. CIPS can balance the use of gray infrastructure (public sewer systems) and green infrastructure (green roofs, bioswales, rain gardens, and tree planting) to decrease stormwater runoff and reduce combined and separate sewer overflows.

217

Notes 1. U.S. EPA. Liquid Assets 2000: America’s Water Resources at a Turning Point. Washington, DC: USEPA, 2000. 2. Ibid. 3. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. The National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress for the 2004 Reporting Cycle—A Profile. Washington, DC: USEPA, 2009. http://water.epa.gov/laws regs/guidance/cwa/305b/upload/2009_01 _22_305b_2004report_factsheet2004305b.pdf. Retrieved January 29, 2012. 4. Duhigg, C. “Toxic Waters: As Sewers Fill, Waste Poisons Waterways.” New York Times, November 23, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/ 2009/11/23/us/23sewer.html?pagewanted =all&_r=0. Retrieved May 7, 2014. 5. U.S. EPA. Liquid Assets 2000: America’s Water Resources at a Turning Point. Washington, DC: USEPA, 2000. 6. Tercek, M., and J. Adams. Nature’s Fortune: How Business and Society Thrive by Investing in Nature. New York: Basic Books, 2013, p. 157. 7. Negative Population Growth. “Effects of Overpopulation: Sprawl and Development.” 2013. http://www.npg.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2013/07/effects_of_overpopulation_sprawl .pdf. Retrieved May 5, 2014. 8. Michael F. Craun, G. F. Craun, R. Calderon, and M. Beach. “Waterborne Outbreaks Reported in the United States.” Journal of Water and Health. Vol. 4, No. 2 (2006), pp. 20–30. 9. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: Combined Sewer Overflows.” 2011. Last modified February 16, 2012. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home .cfm?program_id=5. Retrieved May 5, 2014. 10. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. Clean  Watersheds  Needs  Survey 2008  Report  to  Congress. EPA-832-R-10-002. 2011. http://water.epa.gov/ scitech/datait/databases/cwns/upload/cwns 2008rtc.pdf. Retrieved January 30, 2012.

218

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

11. U.S. EPA. “Septic (Onsite/Decentralized) Systems.” 2013. http://water.epa.gov/infrastruc ture/septic/index.cfm. Retrieved May 5, 2014. 12. U.S. EPA. “Preventing Septic System Failure.” Last modified May 24, 2006. http:// cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuof bmps/index.cfm?action=browse&Rbutton= detail&bmp=25. Retrieved February 16, 2012. 13. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. The National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress, 2004 Reporting Cycle: Findings. Washington, DC: USEPA, 2009. 14. U.S. EPA. “National Listing of Fish Advisories: Technical Fact Sheet 2010.” 2012. http:// water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/fishshell fish/fishadvisories/technical_factsheet_2010 .cfm. Retrieved May 5, 2014. 15. U.S. EPA. “The National LUST Cleanup Backlog: A Study of Opportunities.” 2013. http://www.epa.gov/swerust1/cat/backlog .html. Retrieved May 5, 2014. 16. Wolf, V. “Restoring Authority to the Clean Water Act.” Houston: Clean Houston, 2007. http://www.cleanhouston.org/living/features/ water_authority.htm. Retrieved February 22, 2012. 17. U.S. EPA. “Clean Water Act.” 2013. http:// www.epa.gov/oecaagct/lcwa.html. Retrieved April 27, 2013. 18. Glennon, R. Unquenchable: America’s Water Crisis and What to Do About It. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2009, p. 211. 19. U.S. EPA. “Clean Water State Revolving Fund.” 2014. http://water.epa.gov/grants _funding/cwsrf/cwsrf_index.cfm. Retrieved May 5, 2014. 20. U.S. EPA. Liquid Assets 2000: America’s Water Resources at a Turning Point. Washington, DC: USEPA, 2000. 21. U.S. EPA. Clean Watershed Needs Survey 2008 Report to Congress. 2011. http://water.epa .gov/scitech/datait/databases/cwns/upload/ cwns2008rtc.pdf. Retrieved May 5, 2014. 22. Ibid.

23. American Society of Civil Engineers. “2013 Report Card for America’s Future.” 2013. http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/. Retrieved May 7, 2014. 24. Glennon, R. Unquenchable: America’s Water Crisis and What to Do About It. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2009, p. 213. 25. U.S. EPA. Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2008: Report to Congress. EPA-832-R-10-002. 2011. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/data bases/cwns/upload/cwns2008rtc.pdf. Retrieved January 30, 2012. 26. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. Protecting the Nation’s Waters Through Effective NPDES Permits. EPA-833-R-01-001. 2001. http://www.epa .gov/npdes/pubs/strategicplan.pdf. Retrieved February 16, 2012. 27. U.S. EPA. “Questions Regarding the NPDES Permitting Program.” 2012. http:// cfpub1.epa.gov/npdes/contactnpdes.cfm. Retrieved May 7, 2014. 28. Horton, T., and W. Eichbaum. Turning the Tide: Saving the Chesapeake Bay. Washington, DC: Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Island Press, 1991, pp. 70–71. 29. U.S. EPA. “The Clean Water Act Action Plan Implementation Priorities Fact Sheet.” 2011. http://nepis.epa.gov. Retrieved May 7, 2014. 30. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. National Water Program Mid-Year Performance Report, Fiscal Year 2011. 2011, p. 17. http://water.epa.gov/ resource_performance/performance/upload/ FINAL-FY-2011-Mid-Year-Report-08-03-11.pdf. Retrieved February 9, 2012. 31. City of New York. PlaNYC Full Report (April 2011). http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/ html/theplan/the-plan.shtml. Retrieved February 13, 2012. 32. U.S. EPA. Report to Congress on the Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs, Executive Summary. 2004. http://www.epa.gov/npdes/ pubs/csossoRTC2004_executive_summary .pdf. Retrieved February 8, 2012.

CHAPTER 6: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WATER QUALITY

33. Duhigg, C. “Toxic Waters: As Sewers Fill, Waste Poisons Waterways.” New York Times, November 23, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/ 2009/11/23/us/23sewer.html?pagewanted=all &_r=0. Retrieved May 7, 2014. 34. U.S. EPA. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Municipal Stormwater Programs. EPA 833-F-07010. 2008. http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/ region3_factsheet_swmp.pdf. Retrieved February 9, 2012. 35. Ibid. 36. Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati. “Global Consent Decree Fact Sheet.” 2004. http://www.msdgc.org/downloads/consent _decree/consent_decree_fact_sheet.pdf. Retrieved February 8, 2012. 37. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. 2000 Clean Watershed Needs Survey Report to Congress. EPA 832-R-03-001. 2003. http://nepis.epa.gov. Retrieved May 7, 2014. 38. Cassidy, R. “River, Front and Center.” Planning, January 2013, p. 29. 39. Rosenberg, T. “Green Roofs in Big Cities Bring Relief from Above.” New York Times, May 23, 2012. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/ 2012/05/23/in-urban-jungles-green-roofs-bring -relief-from-above/. Retrieved May 31, 2012. 40. Philadelphia Water Department. Amended Green City, Clean Waters. Philadelphia: Philadelphia, 2011. http://www.phillywatersheds.org/ doc/GCCW_AmendedJune2011_LOWRES-web .pdf. Retrieved February 8, 2012. 41. New York Water Environment Association, Inc. “Recent Environmental Legislative, Regulatory and Judicial Developments November 3, 2011 through July 30, 2012.” 2012, p. 23. http:// nywea.org/gac/LegislativeUpdateJuly12.pdf. Retrieved May 7, 2014. 42. Hohman, R. “EPA Fines Danbury for Clean Water Act Violations.” Newstimes.com, November 19, 2011. http://www.newstimes.com/news/ article/EPA-fines-Danbury-for-Clean-Water-Act -violations-2278103.php. Retrieved February 16, 2012.

219

43. Broder, J. “E.P.A. Appeals Coal Mine Ruling.” New York Times, May 14, 2012. http://green .blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/14/e-p-a-appeals -coal-mine-ruling/. Retrieved May 31, 2012. 44. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. Storm Water Phase II Final Rule. EPA 833-F-00-001. Washington, DC: USEPA, January 2000. 45. National Research Council, Committee to Assess the Scientific Basis of the Total Maximum Daily Load Approach to Water Pollution Reduction, Water Science and Technology Board. Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001, p. 2. 46. National Wildlife Federation. Pollution Paralysis II: Code Red for Watersheds. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation, 2000. 47. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. National Water Program Mid-Year Performance Report, Fiscal Year 2011. 2011, p. 23. http://water.epa.gov/ resource_performance/performance/upload/ FINAL-FY-2011-Mid-Year-Report-08-03-11.pdf. Retrieved May 7, 2014. 48. U.S. EPA. “National Summary of Impaired Waters and TMDL Information.” 2014. http:// iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy .control?p_report_type=T. Retrieved May 7, 2014. 49. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Assessment & Watershed Protection Division, Nonpoint Source Control Branch. A National Evaluation of the Clean Water Act Section 319 Program. Washington, DC: USEPA, 2011. 50. U.S. EPA. “National Summary of Impaired Waters and TMDL Information.” 2014. http:// iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy .control?p_report_type=T. Retrieved May 5, 2014. 51. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. National Water Program Mid-Year Performance Report, Fiscal Year 2011. 2011, p. 24. http://water.epa.gov/ resource_performance/performance/upload/ FINAL-FY-2011-Mid-Year-Report-08-03-11.pdf. Retrieved May 7, 2014.

220

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

52. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. A Review of Statewide Watershed Management Approaches. Washington, DC: USEPA, 2002. 53. Ibid., p. 2. 54. U.S. EPA, Region 5. “State Audit Privilege and Immunity Laws & Self-Disclosure Laws and Policies.” 2014. http://www.epa.gov/region5/ enforcement/audit/stateaudit.html. Retrieved May 7, 2014. 55. Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Waters, 2009– 2011 Biennial Report Executive Summary. 2011. http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/Biennial Report_0911/OPBiennial_2009_2011.pdf. Retrieved February 10, 2012. 56. Maryland Department of Agriculture. Annual Report, 2013. 2014, pp. 75–76. http:// mda.maryland.gov/Documents/MDA_2013 AR_web.pdf. Retrieved May 7, 2014. 57. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. “Riparian Forest Buffer Restoration: Maryland Stream ReLeaf.” 2011. http://www .dnr.state.md.us/forests/programapps/rfb restoration.asp. Retrieved February 10, 2012. 58. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. “310 Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR).” 2014. http://www .mass.gov/eea/docs/dep/service/regulations/ 310cmr15.pdf. Retrieved May 7, 2014. 59. Keeley, M. “The Green Area Ratio: An Urban Site Sustainability Metric.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. Vol. 54, No. 7 (2011), 937–58.

60. Beatley, T. Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature Into Urban Design and Planning. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2011. 61. Boise City Planning and Development Services. “Erosion & Sediment Control.” 2014. http://pds.cityofboise.org/building/bld/ erosion/. Retrieved May 7, 2014. 62. U.S. EPA. Economics of Riparian Forest Buffers. EPA 903-F-98-003. Washington, DC: USEPA, 1998. 63. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. “Tunnel and Reservoir Plan.” 2014. http://www.mwrd.org/irj/portal/anonymous/tarp. Retrieved May 7, 2014. Grimm, A. “Blast at Thornton Quarry Propels Deep Tunnel Project.” Chicago Tribune, September 24, 2013. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-09-24/ news/ct- met- thornton- quarry- 20130924_1 _deep- tunnel- thornton- quarry- 7- 9- billion -gallons. Retrieved May 7, 2014. 64. Chicago Department of Environment. Green Infrastructure in an Urban Environment. 2010. https://www.metroplanning.org/ uploads/cms/documents/city_of_chicago _green_infrastructure_intro_mpc_igig.pdf. Retrieved May 7, 2014. 65. Chesapeake Bay Program. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model, Phase 5.3.2. Annapolis, MD: Chesapeake Bay Program, 2010. 66. U.S. EPA. Chesapeake Bay TMDL Executive Summary. 2010. http://www.epa.gov/reg 3wapd/pdf/pdf_chesbay/FinalBayTMDL/ BayTMDLExecutiveSummaryFINAL122910 _final.pdf. Retrieved February 15, 2012.

Chapter 7

PLANNING FOR SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING

Waste is a wholly human concept. —S. Breyman1

Waste-cutting is the secret to sustainability. —E. Humes2

We live in a society that places a premium on convenience. Many of the products we consume and most of the packaging we use have a useful life span of only a few weeks. Quick disposal then becomes a priority, usually through weekly trash collection. For the ordinary consumer, what happens to the trash after it is removed is often a case of out of sight, out of mind. As a result, America has often been called the “throwaway society” because of the tendency to not reuse or recycle products and packaging. Solid waste consists of household garbage, industrial waste, hazardous waste (see Chapter 8), and construction waste. Disposing of solid waste is a matter of public health. If allowed to accumulate, household garbage

and industrial waste can soon become a breeding ground for a variety of pests and generate polluted runoff into waterways and groundwater. In addition, the smell and sight of rotting garbage are offensive. But disposing of solid waste is not cheap, and the cost of disposing of solid waste has been increasing despite greater recycling efforts. Managing household solid waste is typically the third-largest component of local government budgets, after education and police. In 2010, managing household solid waste cost Americans $52.4 billion.3 Household solid waste attracts the most attention but makes up a small fraction of the overall waste stream. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has estimated industrial waste at 7.6 billion tons a year, more than

222

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

20 times the amount of household waste.4 Industrial wastes come from 17 industry groups, including iron and steel, oil and gas, mining, plastics, glass and concrete, paper, and chemicals.

3.4% 4.6% Other Glass 6.4% Wood 8.4% Rubber, leather, and textiles

7.1: The Challenge of Managing Solid Waste Americans generate more municipal solid waste per person than any other country and about 50 percent more person than Western Europeans.5 In 2010, Americans produced 250 million tons of municipal household garbage (see Figure 7.1), of which 34 percent was recycled, 54 percent was dumped into landfills, and 12 percent was incinerated.6 The encouraging news is that municipal garbage generated per person in America has declined slightly from about 4.6 pounds per day between 1990 and 2007 to 4.43 pounds in 2010.7 Of this amount, about 1.51 pounds per day were recycled or composted, which prevented the release of approximately 186 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent into the air, equal to taking 36 million cars off the road for a year.8 Yet more important than weight is the volume of garbage, which is the amount of space the waste stream takes up. The volume of trash is more of a problem than the weight because available landfill capacity is measured by the space that the landfill has remaining. In particular, loose, lightweight garbage can take up a considerable amount of space. An important first step in understanding garbage is an audit of the waste stream (see Figure 7.1). Paper and paperboard are the leading category of garbage. They can take up a lot of space and are heavy when compacted. Corrugated boxes alone make up about 40 percent of the weight of all paper products thrown away. Plastics are the second-heaviest component of household waste.9 Food scraps and

28.5% Paper and paperboard

9% Metals 13.9% Food scraps

12.4% Plastics 13.4% Yard trimmings

Figure 7.1. Total Municipal Solid Waste, 2010 (by Material) 250 Million Tons (Before Recycling) Source: U.S. EPA, “Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2010,” 2011, p. 4. http://www.epa.gov/waste/ nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw_2010_rev_factsheet.pdf. Retrieved May 2, 2014.

yard trimmings also can consume considerable space. Food scraps include a large amount of edible food or scraps that could be composted. Paper is fairly easy to recycle, and in 2010, nearly three-quarters of newsprint and mechanical paper were recycled (see Figure 7.2). In 2010, nearly 58 percent of yard trimmings were composted.10 Just more than one-third of all glass and metals were recycled, mostly glass bottles and steel and aluminum cans. Only 15 percent of wood and rubber, leather, and textiles were recycled, and less than 10 percent of plastics were recycled.11 Disposal of Municipal Solid Waste

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 set federal standards for the

CHAPTER 7: PLANNING FOR SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING

223

120

Recycling rate

100

80

96.2 71.6

67.0

60

57.5

49.6 35.5

40

33.4

29.2

27.5

20

0

Auto Newspapers/ Steel batteries mechanical cans papers

Yard Aluminum trimmings beer and soda cans

Products

Tires

Glass PET bottles HDPE containers and jars natural (polyethylene (white tereph- translucent) thalate) bottles

Figure 7.2. Recycling Rates of Selected Products, 2010 Source: U.S. EPA, “Municipal Solid Waste, Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2010,” 2011, p. 3. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw_2010_rev_factsheet.pdf. Retrieved May 2, 2014.

construction, operation, closure, and postclosure maintenance of landfills. As a result, the number of landfills has decreased dramatically, from 7,924 in 1988 to 1,908 in 2010.12 That year, the western region of the U.S. had 718 landfills, followed by the South with 668, the Midwest at 394, and the Northeast with 128.13 Despite the closing of many municipal landfills, overall landfill capacity has not changed much because new larger regional landfills are handling more solid waste, and big private trash haulers, such as Waste Management and Browning-Ferris, have expanded their operations. The EPA rates nationwide landfill capacity as adequate but notes that some communities may face shortages of space.14 The EPA has not estimated the number of years of available landfill capacity. Still, if U.S. population levels continue to increase,

the siting of new landfills will be an important land-use issue for some states and communities in the near future. A compelling argument can be made that a community or region should be responsible for safely disposing of its own waste. But disposal should be seen as a last resort. Unfortunately, in the short run, disposal is often cheaper than recycling or reuse. Tipping fees at municipal landfills are much lower in America than in Japan or Germany, for instance, and manufacturers do not include the cost of disposal in the price of their products. If the costs of disposal were included in the price of products, prices would be higher and consumers would buy fewer products. Moreover, consumers would have an incentive to buy products that could be recycled, thus lowering the need to dispose of as many products.

224

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Reduction, Reuse, Recycling, Upcycling, and Recovery

Reduction. One strategy, and arguably the most important, is to go to the sources of solid waste to reduce the creation of waste. The reduction of solid waste depends on effective consumer education, regulations, and incentives that stress the importance of purchasing longer-lasting products and consuming less. This need not result in a reduced standard of living. Authors Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and Hunter Lovins go so far as to assert that “90 to 95 percent reductions in material and energy are possible in developed nations without diminishing the quantity or quality of services that people want.”15 The federal government could help reduce solid waste by banning certain kinds of packaging, such as polystyrene, that are not biodegradable. Packaging comprises about one-third of all municipal solid waste, and packaging refuse has more than doubled since the 1960s. Reducing the use of plastics in packaging would be a good place to start. Plastics make up nearly one-third of the volume of municipal solid waste, and about onethird of all plastics are used for packaging.16 For instance, Americans consume about 28 billion plastic bottles of water each year, and one study found that slightly less than two-thirds of these bottles are recycled.17 Plastics take hundreds if not thousands of years to break down. While it is possible to recycle most plastics, some plastics are not easily recycled. A garbage audit can show where progress is being made in reducing the waste stream and where more effort is needed to decrease the sources of waste and increase recycling. Incentives and regulations can compel manufacturers to use fewer inputs. Or companies that can use each other’s by-products could be grouped together in eco-industrial parks, such as in Kalundborg, Denmark. Manufacturers

could also be required to take back and recycle their products (a practice known as extended producer responsibility, which is common in Europe). Such a requirement would create an incentive for manufacturers to create longer lasting products that use fewer inputs in the first place. Reuse. Reuse is the next best strategy to reducing the overall consumption of goods. Reuse means that a product can be used again with little or no processing. Donating old clothes to the Goodwill or using cloth shopping bags to carry groceries are two examples of reuse. Boxes are durable and can be used more than once. One possibility would be to establish a waste exchange to match buyers and sellers. One person’s waste is another’s raw material. Recycling. Recycling is the reuse of materials to make new products. By decreasing the need to harvest, mine, and process virgin materials, recycling conserves wood, minerals, oil, energy, and water. For example, recycled aluminum cans use about 95 percent less energy in processing than new aluminum cans, because making aluminum is a very electricity-intensive process. Recycling also reduces the emission of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, as reprocessing is less energy intensive than original processing. Recycling saves on landfill expenses and litter cleanup costs and creates jobs, as many companies manufacture with recycled materials. But it is worth noting that many materials that are recycled are “downcycled” to a simpler product that will eventually wind up in a landfill or incinerator.18 Recycling programs depend on the willingness of consumers and businesses to participate, regulations requiring recycling, and convenience. The EPA reported that in 2010 there were about 9,000 curbside recycling programs nationwide, serving more than 104 million people.19 The Northeast had the largest number of recycling programs at more

CHAPTER 7: PLANNING FOR SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING

than 3,600 programs, which served the most people at just more than 47 million and the largest percentage of its population at 85 percent (see Table 7.1). Successful recycling also depends on the availability of material recovery facilities. In 2010, the EPA reported that there were 633 material recovery facilities nationwide.20 Composting of food scraps and yard waste can provide a useful source of fertilizer as well as keep large amounts of waste out of landfills. In 2010, there were 3,090 community composting programs nationwide.21 That year, more than half of the 33.4 million tons of yard waste were composted. Composting food scraps has proven much more difficult, especially in urban areas. Raising tipping fees at landfills creates another incentive to rein in consumption and to reuse and recycle, although the higher fees could lead to an increase in illegal dumping. On average, Americans pay about $44 per ton to bury garbage in a landfill, compared to $200 to $400 per ton in Germany and Japan.22

225

There is considerable debate about the percentage of garbage that the U.S. could recycle. Forty-six states have established goals to recycle 20 to 70 percent of municipal waste, and most states require cities and towns above a certain size to have curbside recycling. California has a goal of 50 percent recycling. And in 2009, Los Angeles boasted the highest recycling rate of the nation’s 10 largest cities at 65 percent.23 The top seven cities each had recycling rates of more than 40 percent. San Francisco has a goal of achieving zero waste by 2020 and, since 2009, has mandated residents separate their garbage into organics (including food waste), recyclables, and trash for easier recycling and composting.24 In 2010, San Francisco recycled or composted a nation-leading 77 percent of its municipal solid waste.25 Creating markets for recycled materials. The economics of recycling work better for some materials than for others. One issue is the cost of separating recyclables, such as by color of glass or type of plastic. Another challenge is

Table 7.1. Number of Curbside Recycling Programs and Population Served, 2010 Region

Number of Programs

Population (in Thousands)

Population Served (in Thousands)

(%)

Northeast

3,619

55,417

47,160

85

South

1,157

27,127

17,870

66

Midwest

3,286

37,844

20,720

55

West

1,004

27,610

18,670

68

Total

9,066

147,998

104,420

71

Total U.S. population

309,051

Source: U.S. EPA, Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States Tables and Figures for 2010. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw_2010_rev_factsheet.pdf. Retrieved May 22, 2014.

226

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

the price of competing virgin materials such as newsprint and cardboard, which can discourage recycling efforts. Critical to the success of any recycling program is the existence of a strong and reliable market for the recycled raw materials and finished products. Yet prices for recycled raw materials can be very volatile. Government subsidies for wood and paper products from the national forests and tax depreciation for oil and forest products companies have helped keep the prices of products from virgin materials artificially low. These subsidies discourage reuse and recycling and encourage waste. For example, governments are big buyers of paper products. To help create stronger markets for recyclables, governments at all levels can institute procurement practices that favor the purchasing of products made from recycled materials, such as recycled paper. Some states, notably California, Utah, and Minnesota, have created recycling market development zones that offer a package of incentives for recycling businesses. The incentives include low-interest loans, product marketing assistance, permit streamlining, property tax reductions, and a consistent supply of recyclable material from local municipalities. Even so, several obstacles remain for developing recycling businesses and physical processes. For instance, most plastic and paper packaging is difficult to recycle, and more could be done to recycle yard waste and food waste. Yard waste in the form of grass cuttings, leaves, and discarded Christmas trees can make up to as much as 20 percent of municipal garbage. Burning yard waste is no longer an option in urban and suburban areas because of the air pollution it would produce. Instead, yard waste is often dumped in landfills. Yard waste can be returned to the land through composting. Yard waste is piled up, and over several months, microorganisms turn it into a form much like dirt. The compost is then sold or given away to gardeners and farmers.

The EPA estimated that in 2010 Americans threw out more than 33 million tons of food, which accounted for about one-fifth of the nation’s total municipal solid waste.26 The recovery rate for food waste was a paltry 2.8 percent. Food scraps and leftovers can be added to yard trimmings and wood chips to make rich compost, and the food decomposes more quickly and with less smell than in a landfill. Also, household backyard composting is a possibility in many suburbs and more rural areas. Some recycling practices are controversial. About 135 million tons of sludge are created each year from sewage and water treatment plants.27 Slightly more than half of this sludge—also known as “biosolids”—is spread on farmland, forestlands, and other property. The application of sludge as fertilizer on farmland may run a number of risks. Sludge may contain heavy metals that can be taken up by crops and livestock and passed on to humans. Even if sludge is tested before application, heavy metals can build up in the soil over time. It is important to note that sewage treatment plants pay farmers to take the sludge. And some food processing companies have stated that they will not purchase crops grown on fields to which sludge has been applied. The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, better known as the Ocean Dumping Act, enabled the EPA to ban the dumping of sewage sludge into oceans and coastal waters to protect seashore recreation, marine life, and the fishing industry. If sludge cannot be recycled onto land, then the two remaining alternatives are to burn it or to bury it. Recycling and reuse of products and packaging is not a total solution to solid waste. Some materials, such as polystyrene, cannot be recycled. The amount of material that consumers, businesses, and governments use will have to decrease in the long run. Continuous disposal of products means that manufacturers of those products must obtain raw materials

CHAPTER 7: PLANNING FOR SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING

from the earth to make new products. Many raw materials, such as aluminum for cans and oil for plastics, are nonrenewable. Upcycling. A common problem with recycling is that lower-value or lower-quality products are the result: This is known as “downcycling.” Upcycling embodies the concept of creating more valuable and useful products through recycling, such as plastic rain barrels from plastic soda bottles. A similar idea is “cradle to cradle,” pioneered by architect William McDonough and chemist Michael Braungart.28—that is, a product or material should be repurposed for additional use rather than thrown away. This repurposing can happen up to several times. Waste, then, is a flaw in the design of products. Manufacturers should be thinking about the next use of their products or materials, not just the initial use. The shift in thinking then is from waste management to materials management with the goal of zero waste. Recovery. Many landfills have a materials recovery facility (MRF) where useful materials, such as metals from electronic products, are rescued from landfilling. At the MRF, workers and machines separate recyclable materials from waste. Another way to do recovery that is not yet popular in the U.S. is for manufacturers to take back their products, disassemble them, and use the materials to make new products.

7.2: Solid Waste: The Federal Response In 1976, Congress passed the RCRA, which tied the disposal of municipal solid waste to the protection of water supplies under the Clean Water Act. Subtitle D of the RCRA empowered the EPA to set minimum national standards for the states to follow in issuing permits for new, existing, or expansions of public or privately owned and operated solid waste landfills. These landfills may accept nonhazardous

227

waste, including household waste, septic tank waste, nonhazardous sludge, and commercial and industrial solid waste. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

The EPA evaluates state permitting programs for compliance with the minimum national standards but allows the states some flexibility in how they allow landfill operators to meet the standards. States may enact landfill regulations that are stricter than the federal standards. The RCRA minimum standards apply to the following items: 1. The location of landfills. Landfills must be kept away from steep slopes, wetlands, sinkholes, airports, public drinking water supplies, and natural hazards such as earthquake fault zones and floodplains. 2. Operating procedures. Daily compacting and covering of waste with soil is required. Access is restricted in order to prevent illegal dumping. Stormwater runoff and air emissions must be controlled. Landfills may not accept 55-gallon drums filled with liquid waste. 3. The design of liners. Liners must minimize the leaching of pollutants into groundwater. The liner design preferred by the EPA is a plastic liner over a two-foot layer of clay. There should also be a leachate collection system of pipes and pumps to capture and treat leachate. 4. Groundwater monitoring systems. Monitoring systems are required to detect leakage from landfills. Groundwater sampling and analysis must be conducted twice a year.

228

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

5. Corrective action. If a leak from a landfill is detected, the landfill operator must fix it.

• acquisition of equipment and materials

6. Closure of a landfill and postclosure monitoring and maintenance. After the landfill stops accepting waste, a final cover of a synthetic liner and at least two feet of clay and topsoil and vegetation must be placed over the landfill to keep liquids from leaking into or out of the site. For 30 years after closure, the owner or operator must maintain the final cover, monitor groundwater and landfill gas, and perform general maintenance of the site. After 30 years, new permanent structures may be built on top of the landfill site.

• collection, processing, and marketing of recyclables

• siting and construction of facilities

• transportation • operation and maintenance of facilities (e.g., transfer stations, landfills and MRFs) • cleanup of illegal dumping sites • landfill closure and postclosure monitoring • program promotion • administration31

Full cost accounting provides a complete picture of municipal solid waste management 7. Financial assurance. The landfill operator costs on a continuous basis. This method can must demonstrate the financial capacity to undertake corrective action, if needed, lead to better negotiating positions if municipalities contract out their waste hauling to a and to pay for the closure of the landfill private company, or it can lead to better deciand postclosure monitoring and maintesions by municipalities if they handle their nance (see 40 C.F.R. Chapter 1 Part 258). own waste. Full cost accounting can also help municipalities determine the value of recycling In 1978, there were an estimated 20,000 and whether to use a regional landfill or incinlandfills in the U.S. But the RCRA’s stricter land- erate garbage. fill regulations resulted in the closure of thousands of landfills that could not meet the new safety standards. In 1986, the first national list- The Pay-as-You-Throw Program ing of municipal landfills found 7,683 active sites. In 2010, the EPA reported 1,908 active The EPA has sponsored the pay-as-you-throw program, nicknamed PAYT, to reduce waste, landfills.29 promote recycling, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the methane gas created Full Cost Accounting by landfills (see Box 7.1). Traditionally, communities have charged households for garbage The EPA encourages municipalities to use full service as part of the property tax bill, or pricost accounting to help local officials and the vate companies have charged a flat monthly public recognize and compare the direct and fee, regardless of the volume or weight of garindirect costs of solid waste management and bage collected. In a PAYT program, a municdisposal.30 These costs include up-front costs to ipality or private waste hauler bases the fees create a landfill, operating costs, and back-end on the volume, type, or pounds of garbage the costs after a landfill closes. Full cost accounting household generates. Garbage disposal can covers the following actions: be charged according to the size or number of

CHAPTER 7: PLANNING FOR SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING

229

Box 7.1. Landfill Gas to Energy Compacted garbage in landfills breaks down slowly because it does not have much oxygen. A by-product of degrading garbage is landfill gas, made of approximately half methane gas and half carbon dioxide. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that is 21 times as effective at trapping heat as carbon dioxide. As trash decays, these gases are emitted into the air, adding to climate change. In 2009, landfills were the third-largest source of human-influenced methane, after leakage from natural gas production and burping cattle. Landfills created about 17 percent of human-generated methane or 27.5 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalents and produced about 2 percent of the nation’s total greenhouse gases.32 Also, since 2009, landfills have been required to report greenhouse gas emissions to the EPA.33 The buildup of methane gas within a landfill can pose a significant risk of fire, and under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, larger landfills must collect and burn

containers, by the type of garbage identified by bag tags, or by weight. Communities that participate in this pricing strategy reduced their municipal solid waste by 4 to 8 million tons a year, increased recycling by about onethird, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions by more than 7 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.39 As of 2006, more than 7,000 communities serving 75 million people (including the 30 largest U.S. cities) were using PAYT programs. PAYT programs have been especially popular in West Coast states, the upper Midwest, and the Northeast.40 EPA studies have shown that places with PAYT programs also recycle a greater percentage of their trash than the national average. For example, Seattle has

off landfill gases to destroy trace volatile organic compounds.34 In a “controlled” landfill, a piping system collects the landfill gas and channels it to a collection point. Here there are two options: either flare off the gas or use the gas as an energy source. The methane gas can be used as fuel for nearby businesses, shipped into natural gas distribution lines, or used on-site to generate electricity in natural gas turbines. About half of landfill methane is either flared or used to generate electricity.35 Since 1994, the EPA has operated a Landfill Methane Outreach Program to reduce landfill methane emissions that contribute to climate change. As of 2014, there were 636 landfill gas-to-energy projects in operation in the U.S.36 The largest landfill in the U.S. at Puente Hills, outside of Los Angeles, produces 50 megawatts of electricity from landfill gas.37 But even landfills with landfill gas–generating systems lose about half of the methane to the atmosphere.38

a PAYT system, and in 2009, city residents recycled more than half of their trash.41 Federal Efforts to Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle Solid Waste

In the 1970s, the EPA thought that adequate waste disposal could be achieved by landfilling or burning garbage. In 1990, Congress passed the Pollution Prevention Act that marked a sharp departure from the end-of-pipe or endof-smokestack control of pollution or the acceptance of solid waste as a valid output. The act set a priority on pollution prevention that “reduces the amount of any hazardous

230

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

substance, pollutant, or contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise released into the environment prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal.”42 Moreover, “pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled . . . pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an environmentally safe manner . . . and disposal or other release into the environment should be employed only as a last resort and should be conducted in an environmentally safe manner.”43 The Pollution Prevention Act set an emphasis for decreasing the amount of waste through the “three Rs”—reduce, reuse, and recycle. For instance, the federal government has mandated that the paper it buys (and that others must use in submitting grant requests) must contain at least 30 percent recycled material.44 Since 1991, the EPA has coordinated federal agency efforts to use recycled or recyclable products whenever possible.

7.3: State Solid Waste Planning and Programs States have primary authority for carrying out the federal RCRA requirements. Typically, the state department of the environment regulates the siting of landfills and trash incinerators and certifies waste haulers and operators of landfills, transfer stations, and composting and recycling facilities. States also offer solid waste technical advice and financial assistance to local governments and solid waste districts and oversee the remediation of illegal disposal sites. RCRA required all states to adopt a solid waste management plan to guide state and local decisions about solid waste. The state plan must address hazardous wastes; residential, commercial, and institutional solid waste; wastewater treatment sludge; pollution control residuals; industrial wastes; mining wastes; agricultural wastes; water treatment sludge; and

sludge from septic tanks. The state plan must also consider resource conservation, source separation, solid waste collection, transportation, storage, transfer, processing (including resource recovery), treatment, and disposal.45 The state plans are meant to implement the EPA’s integrated waste management policy to cut the sources of waste and increase recycling. But the EPA has not reviewed the state plans since 1987.46 Several states have set waste reduction targets and recycling goals, strengthened by mandatory recycling programs. Forty-six states have established goals to recycle 20 to 70 percent of municipal waste. California, for example, adopted a statewide goal of 50 percent recycling. Most states require cities and towns above a certain size to have curbside recycling. As of 2012, 48 states had programs to collect and compost yard waste. At least 21 states ban yard waste from entering landfills, requiring that it be composed instead. A number of states have also banned certain materials from landfills, such as car batteries, tires, yard trimmings, and electronic equipment.47 Returnable container laws in 11 states require sellers of bottles and cans to offer a deposit on returnables. This has worked well to reduce litter and solid waste and lower the cost of solid waste disposal. In 1995, the State of Wisconsin banned all paper from its landfills, which created a strong incentive for households, businesses, and governments to recycle paper.48

7.4: Local and Regional Planning and Programs for Solid Waste, Reuse, and Recycling Counties and municipalities today have four options for the disposal of solid waste: bury the garbage in a local landfill, ship it to a regional

CHAPTER 7: PLANNING FOR SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING

231

landfill, ship it to a landfill in another state, or regional landfills are located farther away from incinerate it. Each option has both advantages population centers where the garbage is generated. When an old municipal landfill reaches and disadvantages. capacity and is closed, a new local landfill site often cannot be found nearby. This means that Local Landfills garbage must be transported to a regional landfill farther away. The attractiveness of this Burying waste in local landfills is convenient option depends in large part on energy costs. for waste haulers and is a relatively inexpensive For example, New York City’s huge Fresh Kills process. Decomposing garbage in landfills can landfill—the world’s largest landfill—opened produce commercial quantities of methane in 1947 and was closed to municipal waste in gas for local energy use (see Box 7.1). March of 2001. New York City decided to transEnvironmental concerns and commu- port nearly 11,000 tons of daily garbage out nity opposition are common impediments to of the city in trucks and by rail to landfills in creating new landfills. Landfills can and often upstate New York and out of state.49 In 2011, do have negative impacts on the immediate New York City spent more than $300 million for surroundings. Pungent odors, flies, vermin, hauling municipal waste to landfills.50 and frequent heavy truck traffic do not make Although economically distressed rural for good neighbor relations. A large landfill areas are often tempted to take the waste of can also have a visual impact on a neighbor- others, cities may become wary about relyhood. Wind can blow garbage onto neighbor- ing on faraway and out-of-state landfills. ing properties. Landfill leachate can leak into What would happen if those states used up groundwater, polluting drinking water supplies their landfill capacity or decided they didn’t and posing health hazards. Although munici- want to take any more out-of-state waste? In pal landfills are not supposed to take hazard- 2000, a federal judge ruled that Virginia could ous waste, they can end up with household not block garbage coming in from New York products that contain hazardous chemicals as and other states. The judge said that garbage well as lawn pesticide and herbicide contain- imports constituted interstate commerce, ers. Air pollution in the vicinity of landfills has which only the federal government has the been linked to health problems, and the EPA power to regulate.51 has a program to monitor air emissions from landfills. Finally, the siting of new landfills often raises heated debate over issues of environ- Incinerating Trash mental justice. Specifically, is the landfill being located near low-income residents or certain About 1 out of every 8 tons of municipal trash in America goes up in flames. Trash incinerators minority groups? can generate electricity by producing steam to turn turbines as the trash is burned (see Photo 7.1). The revenues from the sale of electricity Regional and Out-of-State Landfills can cover much of the cost of incinerating the Regional landfills can be sited away from popu- garbage. Trash incinerators are usually large lation centers where there is often less opposi- enough to handle a regional waste stream and, tion and less environmental impact. However, like regional landfills, can be sited away from the price of burying garbage is likely to rise as population centers. Incinerators also save on

232

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

landfill space. Yet burning garbage does not destroy garbage; it only changes the form from a solid to a lesser solid (fly ash) and gas. Even smokestack scrubbers and gas traps do not eliminate pollution; the remaining toxic fly ash must be disposed of, and some particulates, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides are released in burning trash. Incineration of medical waste can send toxics such as dioxin into the air. Trash incinerators, like the coal-fired electrical plants mentioned in Chapter 3, have tall smokestacks that send air

pollution high into the atmosphere where the prevailing winds will carry the pollution out of the local area. In the 1970s, the EPA required states to ban burning at municipal landfills. This ban, along with the high cost of building incinerator facilities, made recycling and landfills more acceptable options. Yet many rural dwellers still burn their trash in their backyards. As of 2010, there were 86 waste incinerators nationwide.52 Lee County, Florida, recycles about half of its trash and burns the other half to generate electricity.53

Photo 7.1. Trash-to-electricity incinerator plant in Lancaster County, PA. Source: Tom Daniels.

CHAPTER 7: PLANNING FOR SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING

Local Efforts to Reduce Solid Waste

There is considerable debate about the percentage of garbage that cities can recycle. In 2009, Los Angeles boasted the highest recycling rate of the nation’s 10 largest cities at 65 percent.54 The top seven cities each had recycling rates of more than 40 percent. San Francisco has a goal of achieving zero waste by 2020.55 Mandatory recycling programs exist in many cities. In 2010, there were more than 9,000 curbside recycling programs serving more than 104 million Americans (see Table 7.1). Millions of people also recycle at work. Recycling has worked fairly well for aluminum cans, other metal containers, glass bottles, newsprint, some plastics, cardboard, and paper (see Figure 7.2). Paper, wood, food scraps, and yard waste make up the majority of the weight of all garbage. Newspaper recycling has been popular in households, and paper recycling has become routine for businesses, governments, and educational institutions. Paper recycling is especially important because the initial production of paper involves huge amounts of water and energy as well as the release of large amounts of toxic chemicals (especially dioxin) into the air and water. Pulp processing and paper manufacturing use more water per ton of output than any other industry in America, whereas recycled paper uses only 10 to 40 percent of the energy needed to manufacture new paper.56 In sum, “U.S. pulp and paper factories have one of the highest pollution intensities, or emissions per value of output, of the 74 industrial sectors monitored by the government’s Toxic Release Inventory.”57 Food recycling and reuse holds considerable promise. Because of dense settlement patterns, backyard composting may be difficult in cities. San Francisco, however, began a food waste recovery program in the early 1990s. Since 2009, San Francisco has required its residents to separate food scraps from

233

recyclables and trash to enable easier composting.58 Moreover, much of the food that enters the waste stream is still safe for human consumption. Caterers and restaurants have plenty of leftovers. Social service agencies and organizations can use this food, thus reducing solid waste costs and the costs to taxpayers of operating social support programs. San Francisco’s Food Bank has successfully redistributed more than 500 tons of edible food each year from more than 600 donating companies. As of 2013, San Francisco was collecting 600 tons of food waste each day, and almost 100 cities required separating out food waste for curbside composting.59 Local governments can grant property tax breaks to start-up recycling firms to help reduce their costs. Or local government can include these firms in incubator programs in which the companies operate in low-rent space for 18 months to 2 years and receive training in marketing, accounting, and finance. The EPA offers grants to start-up recycling businesses. A local government could ban certain materials from landfills. For instance, in 2007, San Francisco banned single-use plastic bags.60 More than 30 cities have since followed San Francisco’s lead.61 The U.S. consumes more than 100 billion plastic bags each year; many end up in landfills and some simply become litter, a public nuisance.62 In 2010, Washington, DC, imposed a nickel a bag fee for plastic bags, which sharply reduced the number of plastic bags used.63 In an effort to create less waste, New York, San Francisco, and Seattle banned the use of government funds for the purchase of singleuse water bottles. Waste management is typically the thirdbiggest expense for communities after schools and roads. A municipality or county should establish long-term waste management goals and strategies that are consistent with the state solid waste plan. Pricing based on volume or

234

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Box 7.2. Eco-Industrial Parks An eco-industrial park employs the principle of a closed loop in which the waste from some producers is turned into the raw materials and energy for other producers. The often cited example of an eco-industrial park is in Kalundborg, Denmark. The industries in the park recycle and share resources as one company’s waste becomes another’s raw material. The businesses include a coal-fired power plant, an oil refinery, a wallboard manufacturer, and a pharmaceutical company. The power plant transmits excess steam for heat to the refinery and the drug

weight of garbage generated can create a powerful incentive to reduce waste and increase the reuse and recycling of materials. Many communities and private haulers have set a limit on the size of trash containers; any trash exceeding that size involves an extra cost to the household or business. But higher disposal fees may also lead to more illegal dumping, so additional policing and enforcement may be needed. In the long run, separating waste, recycling, and composting food and yard waste can be more cost-effective than landfilling or incinerating it and much healthier for the environment and community residents. Solid waste is a small but important source of greenhouse gases, and local climate action plans typically call for a reduction in the generation, landfilling, or incineration of solid waste. Inventory

Planning for the disposal of solid waste is often overlooked as part of a traditional comprehensive plan. Planners can use the community facilities section of the comprehensive plan or draft

maker. The oil refinery sells natural gas to the wallboard company and to the power plant. The refinery recovers sulfur dioxide to sell to a chemical company outside the industrial park. Also, steam heat from the power plant is used to heat nearby homes and commercial greenhouses, and heat from the refinery warms the water for a local fish farm.64 The U.S. EPA has operated a small ecoindustrial park pilot program to encourage demonstration projects. As of 2012, there were fewer than 20 eco-industrial parks in the U.S.65

a separate solid waste management plan to indicate the location of municipal and regional landfills and remaining capacity, where private waste haulers dispose of solid waste, and where solid waste is recycled or composted. Also, any neighborhoods or districts not covered by solid waste or recycling service should be noted. Finally, the inventory can show total and per capita waste generation and recycling by type and percentage of waste. Analysis

Planners can combine an analysis of a community’s solid waste stream with population projections to determine future needs for solid waste disposal and recycling. The analysis can also suggest ways to achieve additional recycling. If the analysis indicates that landfill capacity will be reached within the planning period, the community should evaluate different local and regional disposal options, using full cost accounting. This will help identify the advantages and disadvantages of each option.

CHAPTER 7: PLANNING FOR SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING

Goals and Objectives

235

Draft 2011 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan:

The community facilities section of the comprehensive plan or a separate solid waste management plan can present goals to reduce • Monitor and report the amount, composition, and source of solid waste entering the solid waste, to dispose of solid waste safely transfer and disposal system. and responsibly, and to increase the reuse and recycling of solid waste. The community facil- • Update the solid waste tonnage forecast to support short- and long-term planning and ities section and other sections of the combudgeting for facilities and operations. prehensive plan should contain objectives to achieve these goals (see Table 7.2). • Monitor and report waste prevention and Most counties and large cities have a separecycling activity, including the amount of rate solid waste management plan. King County, materials recycled and the strength of commodity markets. Washington, listed the following policies in its

Table 7.2. Sample Solid Waste Goals and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan Section: Community Facilities Goal: Reduce solid waste, to dispose of solid waste safely and responsibly, and to increase the recycling of solid waste. Objective: Support efforts to reduce locally and regionally generated solid waste from residential, commercial, industrial, and public places. Objective: Monitor the remaining capacity of existing landfills and identify future local landfill sites or regional landfill facilities. Section: Economic Base Objective: Promote cost-effective solid waste disposal and recycling programs. Section: Land Use Objective: Keep landfills away from sensitive environmental areas, such as steep slopes and wetlands. Objective: Encourage compact development to make solid waste and recycling pickup easier and cheaper. Objective: Separate areas designated for future growth away from any potential landfill sites. Section: Natural Resources Objective: Protect air quality by avoiding the use of incinerators to dispose of solid waste.

236

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

• Work with the division’s advisory committees, the cities, and the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum on solid waste management planning and decisions.

• Allow recycling businesses in commercial and industrial zones.

• Incorporate principles of equity and social justice into solid waste system planning.

• Require the local government to purchase paper with at least a 30 percent recycled content and encourage the local school district to do the same.

• Consider climate change impacts and sustainability when planning for facilities, operations, and programs.66 Action Strategy

The Action Strategy should present techniques and programs for achieving the solid waste and recycling goals and objectives as well as a timetable. Planners can identify solid waste reduction and recycling benchmarks and evaluate progress toward those benchmarks in an annual report on environmental quality. Monitoring should focus on the increase in recycling, new uses for waste products, proper handling of recyclables, changes in trash landfilled, and changes in trash incinerated. Planners should also make sure that full cost accounting is being implemented and is reflected in decisions about the management of solid waste. Education programs about recycling and composting can be helpful, too. The Action Strategy can be part of an overall Environmental Action Plan that lists short-term, medium-term, and long-term actions, funding sources, and who will be responsible for carrying out the actions and when. The Action Strategy might include the following specific recommendations: • Start the recycling of yard waste through composting at the local or regional landfill. • Price the disposal of garbage by volume. • Conduct a GIS analysis of potential landfill sites within the community or region.

• Explore funding for the creation or expansion of recycling businesses.

• Install solar trash compacters that also have recycling bins (see Photo 7.2). • Explore the feasibility of a landfill gas-toenergy project.

Photo 7.2. Solar trash compacter. Solar trash compacters with recycling bins have become popular in Philadelphia. They reduce the number of times that trash needs to be picked up and lower energy costs. Source: Tom Daniels.

CHAPTER 7: PLANNING FOR SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING

Zoning Ordinances

A fundamental purpose of zoning is to separate conflicting land uses in order to protect public health and safety. Landfills are one of the classic locally unwanted land uses. Those communities that do not want a landfill in their jurisdiction can simply not list a landfill as a permitted use, special exception, or conditional use in the zoning ordinance. Some ex-urban or rural communities may want to identify parcels of at least 20 acres in size where a landfill might be appropriate. In those areas, the zoning ordinance can list a landfill as a conditional use. Industrial zoning could be allowed next to a landfill to take advantage of landfill methane gas as an energy source. Incinerators can either be zoned out of a community or be permitted as a conditional use in places well away from residential areas. But incinerators should not be viewed as a long-term solution to solid waste disposal. Local governments can use zoning to encourage recycling by allowing recycling, collection stations, and composting businesses in industrial zones and certain commercial zoning districts. Local governments can also allow composting in these zones as well as in large-lot residential areas. Nuisance Ordinance

One way to discourage the buildup of garbage on a property is through a locally adopted nuisance ordinance. The ordinance can specify that derelict cars or household appliances may not be placed in the front yard and that garbage in the front yard must be removed within 24 hours. Violation of the ordinance typically carries a fine. A nuisance ordinance can help maintain community appearances and minimize threats to public health. Subdivision Regulations

The creation of a landfill must meet federal and state regulations for construction and

237

operation. Developers must have received the necessary state and federal permits. Local subdivision and land-development regulations can require the developer to conduct a full environmental impact assessment. Subdivision and land-development regulations can encourage recycling in the construction, renovation, and replacement of buildings. For new construction, the regulations could require that any scrap wood be recycled. The regulations could require that if more than 5 percent of a building is renovated, the developer must recycle the materials removed from the building. Similarly, for any demolition of buildings, the materials must be recycled. These recycling requirements can be formalized in a developer agreement in which the developer agrees to the recycling requirements and will post a bond to assure that the recycling will be done. Capital Improvements Program

The capital improvements program (CIP) should reflect the goals and objectives of the community facilities section of the comprehensive plan or the local solid waste management plan. Landfill capacity and future needs, siting of new or expanded solid waste facilities or incinerator facilities, and the development and location of these types of facilities (recycling and composting in general) are all important considerations, and decisions should be guided by full cost accounting for each option. Planners can use a CIP to describe the timing, cost, and financing arrangements for a new landfill; the expansion of an existing landfill; the construction of an incinerator; or the development of recycling or composting facilities. The location of any of these disposal or recycling facilities is crucial to the future growth of a community or region, and planners should coordinate the CIP with the future

238

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

land-use map of the comprehensive plan as locations. Local planners may want to contact the regional EPA office for advice. First and well as the zoning ordinance. foremost is the appropriateness of the site: geology, hydrology, aquifers, surface waters, What to Look for in a Development Review wetlands, and existing and planned development must be considered. In reviewing a proposed residential, commercial, or industrial development or a proposed renovation or demolition, planners should ask Summary how solid waste will be disposed of or recycled (see Table 7.3). Residential developments in Solid waste management is a major expense urban and suburban areas should have curb- for local governments. Just more than half of side recycling and, in large-lot areas, the poten- America’s municipal solid waste was disposed tial for on-site composting. in landfills in 2010; 34 percent was recycled or The proposed siting of a regional landfill composted, and 12 percent was incinerated can raise heated emotions. A landfill can take to produce energy. The RCRA of 1976 sets fedup several acres and emit a pungent smell eral standards for the siting, design, operation, over a wide area. Local residents often resent closure, and postclosure management of landthe importing of someone else’s garbage from fills. The number of landfills has decreased to outside the community. State environmen- fewer than 2,000. States have adopted state tal agencies play a major role in deciding the solid waste management plans to promote location of new landfills. But local planners a “reduce, reuse, and recycle” approach to may also be asked to evaluate the alternatives solid waste. Many cities and counties have to a particular landfill, such as an incinera- also created solid waste plans that emphator, expanded recycling, or alternative landfill size increased recycling. Required curbside

Table 7.3. A Checklist of Solid Waste and Recycling Issues in a Development Review 1.

What types of solid waste will the proposed development generate?

2.

Will the proposed development rely on a public or private solid waste hauler?

3.

Where will solid waste be disposed of or recycled?

4.

How will the level of solid waste generated by the proposed development affect the capacity of local landfills?

5.

If a landfill, incinerator, recycling, or collection facility is being proposed, is the site located a safe distance from population concentrations?

6.

If a landfill is proposed, does the area geology and hydrology minimize potential contamination of groundwater and surface waters?

7.

Has the developer obtained all necessary state or federal permits?

CHAPTER 7: PLANNING FOR SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING

239

13. Ibid. recycling and composting of yard waste have 14. U.S. EPA. Municipal Solid Waste Generabeen notable successes. Recycling more plastic, wood, and glass is needed, along with the tion, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: composting of food scraps. Facts and Figures for 2005. EPA530-R-06-011. 2006, p. 13. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/ municipal/pubs/mswchar05.pdf. Retrieved July Notes 9, 2012. 15. Hawken, P., A. Lovins, and H. Lovins. 1. Breyman, S., Director of the Ecological Natural Capitalism. Boston: Little Brown, 1999, Economics, Values and Policy Program, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institution. “Environment p. 176. 16. Owen, D. Green Metropolis. New York: 101 a Lesson on Growth Without All the Conflicts,” Albany (NY) Times Union, July 16, 2000, Riverhead Books, 2009, p. 86. 17. Brown, L. Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save p. B1. Civilization. New York: W. W. Norton, 2009, 2. Humes, E. Garbology: Our Dirty Love Affair p. 102; Viscusi, W., J. Huber, and J. Bell. “AlterWith Trash. New York: Avery, 2013, p. 295. 3. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical native Policies to Increase Recycling of PlasAbstract of the United States: 2012. Washington, tic Water Bottles in the United States.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy. Vol. 6, DC: USGPO, 2012, p. 232. 4. U.S. EPA. Guide for Industrial Waste Man- No. 2 (2012), pp. 190–211. 18. McDonough, W., and M. Braungart. The agement. 2012. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/ nonhaz/industrial/guide/index.htm. Retrieved Upcycle: Beyond Sustainability—Designing for Abundance. New York: North Point Press, 2013, May 28, 2013. 5. Humes, E. Garbology: Our Dirty Love Affair p. 8. 19. U.S. EPA. Municipal Solid Waste GeneraWith Trash. New York: Avery, 2013, p. 5. 6. U.S. EPA. Municipal Solid Waste Gener- tion, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States ation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United Tables and Figures for 2010. Washington, DC: States: Facts and Figures for 2010. EPA-530-F USEPA, 2011. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/ -11-005. Washington, DC: USEPA, 2011. http:// municipal/pubs/2010_MSW_Tables_and_Fig www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/ ures_508.pdf. Retrieved July 9, 2012. 20. Ibid. msw_2010_rev_factsheet.pdf. Retrieved July 9, 21. Ibid. 2012. 22. Solid Waste & Recycling. “US Landfill Tip7. Ibid. ping Fees Reach New Record, Despite Eco8. Ibid. 9. Humes, E. Garbology: Our Dirty Love Affair nomic Downturn.” August 23, 2010. http:// www.solidwastemag.com/news/us-landfill With Trash. New York: Avery, 2013, p. 73. 10. U.S. EPA. Municipal Solid Waste Gen- -tipping-fees-reach-new-record-despite eration, Recycling, and Disposal in the United -economic-downturn/1000382892/. Retrieved States: Facts and Figures for 2010. EPA-530-F July 9, 2012; Ackerman, F. Why Do We Recycle? -11-005. Washington, DC: USEPA, 2011. http:// Markets, Values, and Public Policy. Washington, www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/ DC: Island Press, 1997. 23. City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitamsw_2010_rev_factsheet.pdf. Retrieved July 9, tion. “Recycling.” 2012. http://www.lacitysan 2012. 11. Ibid. .org/solid_resources/recycling/index.htm. 12. Ibid. Retrieved July 10, 2012.

240

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

24. San Francisco Department of the Environment. “Zero Waste.” 2012. http://www.sf environment.org/zero-waste. Retrieved July 10, 2012. 25. Humes, E. Garbology: Our Dirty Love Affair With Trash. New York: Avery, 2013, p. 195. 26. U.S. EPA. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States Tables and Figures for 2010. Washington, DC: USEPA, 2011. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/ municipal/pubs/2010_MSW_Tables_and _Figures_508.pdf. Retrieved July 9, 2012. 27. Sludge News. “The Sludge Industry.” 2012. http://www.sludgenews.org/industry/ sludge.aspx?id=11. Retrieved July 9, 2012. 28. See McDonough, W., and M. Braungart. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. New York: North Point Press, 2002. 29. U.S. EPA. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States Tables and Figures for 2010. Washington, DC: USEPA, 2011. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/ municipal/pubs/2010_MSW_Tables_and _Figures_508.pdf. Retrieved July 9, 2012. 30. U.S. EPA. “Full Cost Accounting.” 2012. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/ tools/fca/index.htm. Retrieved July 9, 2012. 31. U.S. EPA. Making Solid Waste Decisions With Full Cost Accounting. Washington, DC: USEPA, 1996. 32. U.S. EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2010. EPA 430-R-12 -001. Washington, DC: USEPA, 2012, Chapter 8. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Down loads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2012 -Main-Text.pdf. Retrieved July 10, 2012. 33. U.S. EPA. “Landfill Methane Outreach Program: Basic information.” 2014. http:// www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-info/index.html. Retrieved May 2, 2014. 34. U.S. EPA. Turning a Liability Into an Asset: A Landfill Gas-to-Energy Project Development Handbook. Washington, DC: USEPA, 1996.

35. U.S. EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2010. EPA 430-R-12 -001. Washington, DC: USEPA, 2012, Chapter 8. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Down loads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2012 -Main-Text.pdf. Retrieved July 10, 2012. 36. U.S. EPA. “Landfill Methane Outreach Program: Basic Information.” 2014. http:// www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-info/index.html. Retrieved May 2, 2014. 37. Humes, E. Garbology: Our Dirty Love Affair With Trash. New York: Avery, 2013, p. 20, p. 24. 38. Ibid., p. 257. 39. U.S. EPA. PAYT in the United States: A 2006 Update. 2006. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/ conserve/tools/payt/pdf/epa_sera.pdf. Retrieved July 9, 2012. 40. U.S. EPA. “2006 PAYT Programs.” 2006. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/ tools/payt/states/06comm.htm. Retrieved May 2, 2014. 41. Humes, E. Garbology: Our Dirty Love Affair With Trash. New York: Avery, 2013, pp. 148–49, p. 291. 42. Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-508, 42 U.S.C. Sections 13101–13109. 43. Ibid. 44. Easterbrook, G. A Moment on the Earth: The Coming Age of Environmental Optimism. New York: Penguin Books, 1996, p. 117. 45. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, C.F.R. Title 40, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Part 256, Subpart A. 46. Zero Waste America. “The NonEnforcement of the ‘State Plan’ Provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1976.” 2012. http://zerowasteamerica.org/StatePlans.htm. Retrieved July 11, 2012. 47. Chertow, M. “Municipal Solid Waste,” in J. Dernbach, ed., Stumbling Toward Sustainability. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute, 2002.

CHAPTER 7: PLANNING FOR SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING

48. Hawken, P., A. Lovins, and H. Lovins. Natural Capitalism. Boston: Little Brown, 1999, p. 185. 49. City of New York, Department of Sanitation. 2011 Annual Report. 2012. http://www .nyc.gov/html/dsny/downloads/pdf/pubinfo/ annual/ar2011.pdf. Retrieved July 11, 2012. 50. Humes, E. Garbology: Our Dirty Love Affair With Trash. New York: Avery, 2013, p. 7. 51. Waste Management Holdings, Inc. v. Gilmore (Waste Management Holdings III), 87 F. Supp.2d 536, 545 (E.D. Va. 2000). 52. U.S. EPA. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States Tables and Figures for 2010. Washington, DC: USEPA, 2011. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/ municipal/pubs/2010_MSW_Tables_and _Figures_508.pdf. Retrieved July 9, 2012. 53. Humes, E. Garbology: Our Dirty Love Affair With Trash. New York: Avery, 2013, p. 263. 54. City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation. “Recycling.” 2012. http://www.lacitysan .org/solid_resources/recycling/index.htm. Retrieved July 10, 2012. 55. San Francisco Department of the Environment. “Zero Waste.” 2012. http://www.sf environment.org/zero-waste. Retrieved July 10, 2012. 56. Abramovitz, J., and A. Mattoon. “Recovering the Paper Landscape,” in Worldwatch, The

241

State of the World 2000. New York: W. W. Norton, 2000, p. 109. 57. Ibid., p. 108. 58. San Francisco Department of the Environment. “Zero Waste.” 2012. http://www.sf environment.org/zero-waste. Retrieved July 10, 2012. 59. Daigneau, E. “Curbside Composting Added to a Major City: Is It Yours?” Governing, February 2012. http://www.governing.com/ topics/energy-env/gov-curbside-composting -added-to-major-city.html. Retrieved September 4, 2013. 60. Humes, E. Garbology: Our Dirty Love Affair With Trash. New York: Avery, 2013, p. 217. 61. Ibid., pp. 247–48. 62. Ibid., p. 214. 63. Ibid., p. 226. 64. Hawken, P. The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability. New York: HarperBusiness, 1993, pp. 62–63. 65. See http://gei.ucsc.edu/eco-industrial_par ks.html. Retrieved July 11, 2012. 66. King County, WA, Solid Waste Division. Draft 2011 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. 2012, Chapter 2, p. R. http://your .kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/about/Planning/ documents/DRAFT-2011-comp-plan_system -planning.pdf. Retrieved July 11, 2012.

Chapter 8

TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND HAZARDOUS WASTE

The most alarming of all man’s assaults upon the environment is the contamination of air, earth, rivers and sea with dangerous and even lethal materials. —Rachel Carson, Silent Spring1

Times Beach, Missouri, has no residents today. The town was founded in the 1920s when people could buy a piece of real estate near the Meramec River as part of a subscription to the St. Louis Sun Times newspaper. Times Beach grew into a town of 2,400. In the first half of the 20th century, it was a common practice to use oil in the process of resurfacing streets. Unfortunately, oil can soak up toxic chemicals. In 1982, a flood struck Times Beach revealing the presence of severe dioxin contamination. The town was evacuated, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) bought up all the real estate, and a massive cleanup began. Dioxin makes up a class of 75 organic chemicals that contain chlorine. Dioxin is found in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic, paper bleaches, pesticides, and chlorinated solvents. Seven types of dioxin are highly toxic, producing birth defects and cancer and attacking the immune system. Dioxin does not break down easily; it accumulates in the

food chain—especially in fat tissue—and can migrate long distances. It took several years and millions of dollars to remove thousands of tons of contaminated soil from Times Beach. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandated that the soil be burned, a remediation measure that raised considerable controversy about spreading toxic pollution through the air. The disappearance of Times Beach as a town alerted Americans to the serious, even deadly, health threats from exposure to toxics. Nonetheless, on September 11, 1999, the State of Missouri opened a state park on the spot where Times Beach had once stood.2

8.1: The Challenge of Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste Toxicologists say that there are no hazardous substances until people are exposed to certain

244

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

levels of concentration. In other words, anything in a large enough amount can hurt you. But toxic substances do not quickly or easily break down in the environment, and in rather small quantities, they can pose severe health threats including cancer, respiratory and neurological damage, birth defects, miscarriages, and even death. Some toxic substances occur naturally, such as the heavy metals arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc. Other toxic substances are man-made. For example, there are about 500 chemical compounds, mainly from the group of synthetic organic chemicals known as organochlorines, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlordane, dioxin, solvents, fungicides, pesticides, industrial degreasers, chlorofluorocarbons, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers—a flame retardant and a persistent organic pollutant (POP) that bioaccumulates in the food chain. Radioactive waste from nuclear power plants, the manufacture of atomic weapons, and hospital X-ray equipment involves human manipulation of natural uranium. Medical waste, often from contaminated PVC plastics used in intravenous tubes, blood bags, and other instruments can be highly toxic. Other

groups of toxic chemicals include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons—carcinogens released in the burning of fossil fuels—and pharmaceuticals, such as endocrine disruptors that affect sexual reproduction. Since World War II, there has been explosive growth in the production of synthetic toxic substances, amounting to millions of pounds each year.3 Toxic substances may purposely be released onto land or into air or water, such as in the application of pesticides, or by mistake, such as in a chemical spill caused by a train accident. In 2012, 6.634 billion pounds of toxic chemicals were released into the air and water and on land.4 Toxic contamination of groundwater and surface water drinking supplies is a particular concern because large populations may be exposed for long periods without their knowledge. Even when toxic contamination is detected in groundwater, it may be difficult or impossible to clean up. Toxic substances can enter the food chain, killing fish and other wildlife. Soil poisoned by toxic substances is unfit for human habitation or the production of crops and livestock. Toxic releases into the air can turn deadly, as was revealed after several thousand people in Bhopal, India, were killed

Box 8.1. Rachel Carson and Silent Spring Rachel Carson is often hailed as the founder of the modern environmental movement because of her 1962 book, Silent Spring. Carson sounded the alarm that pesticides such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) were devastating wildlife and the environment. Large birds, especially eagles and condors, ingested DDT through their prey; a side effect was a thinning of eggshells causing the eggs to break prematurely, killing the chicks. DDT also traveled up the food chain to humans and was detected

in mothers’ milk. Carson warned that pesticides in food and drinking water could interact with each other and cause cancer in humans. Silent Spring led to the federal ban on DDT in 1972. The number of large birds has since made a dramatic recovery, and the bald eagle—America’s national symbol— which was listed for 30 years as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, was taken off the list in 2007.5 But DDT is still used on crops overseas that are then imported into the U.S.

CHAPTER 8: TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND HAZARDOUS WASTE

or injured in 1984 by a release of toxic gas by the American-based Union Carbide company. Spills of hazardous materials may occur during their transport, such as chemical spills in freight train derailments and trucking accidents. If spills are not contained and cleaned up quickly, pollutants can run off into rivers, streams, and lakes and leach into groundwater. When these spills happen near cities and towns, they can pose hazards to public health and force local residents to be evacuated. Sometimes hazardous materials are released into the air or water from industrial plants and utilities. For example, at times, nuclear plants vent radioactive steam, chemical plants emit high concentrations of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, and the contents of leaking chemical storage barrels, fuel storage tanks, and waste dumps can seep into waterways and groundwater. Toxic Waste Disposal

Toxic waste is very difficult to recycle, and disposal requires careful handling and long-term monitoring. Roughly 35 million pounds of hazardous waste are disposed of in the U.S. each year.6 For much of the 20th century, most hazardous wastes were dumped in wells, mine shafts, landfills, vacant lots, ravines, wetlands, sewers, and ditches and along rural roads or placed in steel drums. Moreover, many toxic dumpsites were abandoned, and the contents not fully known. The preferred method of dealing with toxic substances is to reduce their use in agriculture, manufacturing, and household cleaning products (see Figure 8.1). Toxic waste can be recycled but at a high cost. There are five ways to dispose of toxic waste: (1) burial, (2) deep-well injection, (3) incineration to generate electricity, (4) fly-ash storage, and (5) treatment and storage in liquid form in containers. But each method has drawbacks.

245

Source reduction Recycling Energy recovery Treatment Disposal or other releases

Figure 8.1. Toxic Waste Management Hierarchy Source: U.S. EPA, 2010 Toxics Release Inventory National Analysis Overview, 2012, p. 13. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/ production/files/documents/2010_national_analysis_over view_document.pdf. Retrieved May 2, 2014.

Burial in municipal landfills is not allowed because hazardous waste can leak into the groundwater. Private landfills, licensed to accept toxic waste, must have clay or plastic liners as well as inground monitors to detect leakage. The siting of toxic waste dumps is very controversial. No one wants to be exposed to toxic waste, yet some local governments may see a dumpsite as a source of tax revenue and jobs. Rural areas and places with high concentrations of low-income residents and minorities are often vulnerable to both the siting of hazardous waste landfills and illegal dumping of hazardous waste. In fact, the siting of hazardous waste landfills was a fundamental issue in the origin of the environmental justice movement. Private waste dump operators are attracted to the countryside because land is fairly cheap and there are relatively few people who would be exposed should there be a spill or leak. Illegal dumping will probably continue in rural areas because there is an abundance of territory in which to dump waste without immediate detection.

246

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Deep-well injection runs the risk of putting toxic waste into aquifers used for drinking water or irrigating crops. Incineration of toxic waste raises the possibility of air pollution and dispersing toxics over a large area. For example, burning medical waste, especially contaminated plastic ware, releases dioxins into the atmosphere. Fly ash must be kept from interacting with rain so that the remaining toxins in the fly ash do not wash off into groundwater or surface water. If toxics are kept in secure containers, these containers must be stored in a safe place and monitored for leaks. Storage of toxic liquids in metal containers is vulnerable to corrosion and leakage over time, especially when the containers are buried in the ground. Storage of nuclear waste presents special problems. In 1998, the federal Department of Energy became the“owner”of all commercial nuclear waste and hence responsible for disposing it. The amount of nuclear waste will increase for years to come because of the use of nuclear fuel in power plants. Until additional nuclear disposal capacity is added, especially for high-level waste, thousands of tons of nuclear waste will continue to accumulate in containers at commercial reactor sites. After 14 years and $4.5 billion in studies, the U.S. Department of Energy in 2002 proposed storing much of the nation’s nuclear waste under Yucca Mountain, Nevada.7 But nuclear waste has a “half-life” (i.e., stays dangerous) for about 10,000 years. Opponents of the Yucca Mountain plan raised a number of arguments, from seismic activity that could cause leaks, to corrosion of containers, to a terrorist attack. The federal government stopped work on the Yucca Mountain site in 2009, underscoring the challenges of locating a safe, long-term facility for storing nuclear waste.8 Hazardous waste is difficult but not impossible to recycle. Hazardous waste that can be recycled includes precious and heavy metals, waste fuel (oil and gasoline), and electronics,

among others. But the primary challenges are how to reduce the generation of toxic waste and how to safely dispose of it. One way to reduce toxic waste is to raise both the cost of using toxic substances and fees for disposing of toxic waste through the imposition of a Pigouvian tax, such as discussed in Chapter 2. According to Lois Gibbs, founder of the Citizens’ Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste, “When the cost is high enough, corporations will decide to recycle wastes, reclaim materials, substitute non-toxics in their products and eventually change their processes of production.”9 Toxic substances highlight the challenge of risk assessment: setting exposure and maximum tolerance standards that are scientifically accurate and that everyone can trust. Should certain substances be banned altogether, or can humans tolerate trace amounts? Where is that tolerance threshold, or does the tolerance vary from person to person? Risk assessment is an inexact science. The EPA has established tolerance levels for toxic substances, which are reviewed from time to time. The dilemma is that strict tolerance levels may burden industry and local governments but liberal tolerance levels may expose many people to serious and unnecessary harm. Sometimes, the EPA declares a substance unsafe and bans further production, such as DDT and PCBs. It is commonly believed that all chemicals licensed for use in the U.S. have been tested by the federal government for safety. In fact, the great majority of licensed chemicals have been tested only by the manufacturer, and information about health hazards often comes to light only after the chemical has been used for several years. Risk assessment and tolerance levels are a good example of the precautionary principle, which holds that it is wise to restrict or ban certain substances that may cause harm even though scientific evidence is not yet conclusive.

CHAPTER 8: TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND HAZARDOUS WASTE

247

Box 8.2. Toxic Nightmares: Rocky Flats and Woburn Two of the best-known cases of toxic waste pollution occurred at the nuclear arsenal at Rocky Flats, Colorado, and in the illegal dumping of chemicals over a drinking water aquifer by the W. R. Grace and Company and Beatrice Foods at Woburn, Massachusetts. Rocky Flats Plant, a nuclear Weapons plant located 15 miles northwest of Denver, produced triggers for nuclear bombs from 1952 until it was shut down in 1989. The U.S. Department of Energy operated the plant with the Rockwell International Corporation on the 6,300-acre property. In 1989, EPA investigators found thousands of cubic meters of radioactive and chemical waste, including plutonium and uranium, carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethylene (TCE), and tetrachloroethylene (perc). The waste was scattered over 134 individual sites that were subsequently designated for cleanup. Some toxic chemicals had been dumped on the ground; other toxic waste was stored in corrodible steel drums, and groundwater was contaminated. The Department of Energy hired the Kaiser-Hill Company to do the cleanup work, which took 10 years to complete and cost $7 billion.10 For its role in the illegal dumping, Rockwell International was fined $18.4 million.11 But Rocky Flats is only one of many polluted sites

Brownfields Remediation

The EPA defines brownfields as “real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.”14 Brownfields sites range in size from abandoned gas stations to

that produced nuclear arms. Closing and cleaning up these sites is expected to cost well over $100 billion.12 In Woburn, a suburb north of Boston, an epidemic of leukemia among children was traced to two corporate sites during a protracted legal battle between eight families of the dead children and W. R. Grace and Beatrice Foods. From the 1950s to the 1970s, the toxic industrial solvents TCE and perc were dumped or placed in corrodible drums on the site of the two industrial plants. The chemicals seeped into groundwater that served as part of Woburn’s public drinking water supply. Children are more vulnerable than adults to exposure to hazardous waste, and several children developed leukemia. A multiyear legal battle followed in which the families sought damages from the companies that owned the plants and eventually settled out of court with W. R. Grace but lost the case against Beatrice. Later, the EPA successfully sued the two companies for cleanup costs. But cleanup was not so easy to achieve. As Jonathan Harr explained in his book A Civil Action, “The EPA unveiled a reclamation plan that would take fifty years to complete and would cost an estimated $69.4 million, the largest and most costly environmental cleanup in New England.”13

defunct factory complexes. Many cities of the Rust Belt, which stretches from southern New England through the Mid-Atlantic states and into the industrial Midwest, have lost much of their manufacturing base over the last 50 years. This deindustrialization has left these cities with vast areas of abandoned and decaying buildings and vacant lots. Estimates vary on the number

248

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

of brownfields, but the U.S. General Accounting Office has reported 425,000 sites, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has noted about 5 million acres of abandoned industrial lands within U.S. cities.15 Rehabilitating brownfields for commercial, industrial, and residential space provides an excellent example of how environmental quality is fundamental to economic improvement. Brownfields often have good access to transportation networks, sewer and water facilities, and population concentrations. Former industrial sites have been developed into technology parks, new manufacturing and warehousing operations, museums, restaurants, parks, marinas, and housing through new construction as well as the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of existing buildings. In 2008, the U.S. Conference of Mayors issued its seventh report on brownfields, Recycling America’s Land, in which “106 cities responded that over 191,338 new jobs could be created on brownfields sites with 75 cities reporting that 186,962 jobs have already been created from former brownfields sites.”16 Additional brownfields redevelopment has the potential to bring in an estimated $1.3 billion to $3.8 billion in tax revenues each year.17 The mayors felt that recycling brownfields was essential for attracting new business investment, new jobs, and new places to live. Bringing people back to the cities would revive old neighborhoods and slow or reverse population loss to the suburbs. In fact, according to one study, each acre of brownfields that is redeveloped means that an average of 1.7 acres of suburban greenfields will not be developed.18

toxic substances and regulate their manufacture, transportation, use, and disposal. There are four main laws that regulate the manufacture and use of pesticides and industrial chemicals, track the release of toxic chemicals, and encourage the recycling and reuse of toxic substances. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Amendments of 1972 (also known as the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act) require manufacturers of chemical pesticides to register them with the EPA before they are distributed.19 The pesticides also must be labeled, stored, handled, and applied according to certain standards. For example, farmers who use pesticides are required to have training in the application of pesticides and to keep detailed records of their use. FIFRA also gave the states the authority to regulate the sale and use of pesticides.20 The Toxic Substances Control Act

In 1976, Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that allows the EPA to obtain information from private companies on new and existing chemicals and to control or in some cases ban the manufacture, distribution, importing, and processing of toxic chemicals.21 One of the early results of the TSCA was the EPA’s ban on the use and production of PCBs, a cancer-causing chemical found in many industrial processes (see Box 8.6). But the procedures for controlling or banning a toxic sub8.2: Federal Action on Toxic Substances stance can take years to complete. Legislation by Congress to control or ban a substance is a In the early 1970s, Congress embarked on quicker solution. The EPA can also require testmore than a decade of legislation to identify ing and labeling standards under the TSCA. Yet

CHAPTER 8: TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND HAZARDOUS WASTE

there are more than 80,000 chemicals in use in America, and only a couple hundred of them have been tested for their effects on humans and the environment.22 Moreover, the chemical substances on the TSCA inventory, created in 1979, are deemed safe until proven otherwise. These chemicals account for the overwhelming majority of chemicals sold today.23 The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

249

of toxic substances were recycled, burned to generate electricity, or treated in 2010. More than 40 percent of toxic releases came from metal mining operations (see Figure 8.3). Electrical utilities placed second with 18 percent of all toxic emissions. The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act also set up planning procedures for state and local governments to follow in response to hazardous materials (hazmat) spills. Each state is required to appoint a State Emergency Response Commission, divide the state into emergency planning districts, and appoint a Local Emergency Planning Committee for each district. The local committees should include firemen, health officials, community groups, industrialists, government officials, media, and emergency managers. Each city and county must have an office of emergency management, so if a hazardous materials spill occurs, the response can be coordinated from that office. It is important to note that the state and local governments bear a responsibility only to contain a hazardous materials spill; it is up to the person, company, or government agency that created the spill or owner of the property to pay for cleaning up the spill. FEMA, within the Department of Homeland Security, operates a number of programs to help state and local government emergency management agencies and Native American tribes prepare for and respond to emergencies involving chemical weapons stockpiles, radioactive materials, and other hazardous substances. There is very real concern that hazardous materials emergencies may result from acts of terrorism.

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 was passed by Congress in response to the 1984 accidental toxic chemical release in Bhopal, India, that killed several thousand people.24 The act was designed to help local communities protect public health and safety and the environment from chemical hazards. The EPA can obtain information from private companies on new and existing chemicals under the TSCA of 1976. The Community-Right-to-Know Act goes a step further in requiring companies that manufacture, use, or store hazardous materials to keep records on the location, quantity, use, and any release of those materials into the air, land, or water. The Community Right-to-Know Act requires the EPA to issue an annual toxics release inventory. The 2012 toxics release inventory contained information on the manufacture, use, transportation, treatment, and emissions of more than 650 toxic chemicals. The inventory was compiled from data submitted by 21,024 industrial facilities.25 The inventory reported that 3.63 billion pounds of toxic substances were released into the environment, a reduction of nearly a billion pounds from 2003.26 Most toxic releases involved The Pollution Prevention Act landfill disposal, and nearly one-quarter of all releases were emitted into the air in 2010 (see The 1990 Pollution Prevention Act created the Figure 8.2). An additional 17.85 billion pounds EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

250

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

On-site air releases 22% Total off-site disposal or other releases 10%

On-site surface water discharges 6% On-site underground injection 6%

On-site land disposal or other releases 56%

Figure 8.2. Toxic Release Inventory Disposal or Other Releases, 2010: 3.93 Billion Pounds Source: U.S. EPA, 2010 Toxics Release Inventory National Analysis Overview, p. 4. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/ production/files/documents/2010_national_analysis_overview_document.pdf. Retrieved May 2, 2014.

All others: 8%

Metal mining: 41%

Hazardous waste management: 3% Food, beverages, and tobacco: 4% Paper: 4% Primary metals: 9%

Chemicals: 13%

Electric utilities: 18%

Figure 8.3. Toxic Releases by Industry, 2010 Source: U.S. EPA, 2010 Toxics Release Inventory National Analysis Overview, p. 18. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/ production/files/documents/2010_national_analysis_overview_document.pdf. Retrieved May 2, 2014.

CHAPTER 8: TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND HAZARDOUS WASTE

to promote the reduction, reuse, and recycling of toxic chemicals and waste in general. Businesses must report to the EPA the amounts of toxic substances that they treat, dispose of, recycle, reuse, or release into the environment. The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics is responsible for administering the Emergency Planning and Community-Right-to Know Act, the TSCA, and the toxics release inventory. Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants

251

unwilling or unable to do so. Owners of oil storage facilities, oil barges, and tankers must provide the EPA with plans stating how they will respond to major spills. The act also requires state contingency plans as part of a National Contingency Plan to respond to large spills on a regional basis. States may impose additional liabilities, fines, and penalties on parties responsible for oil spills. Nearly 3,500 oil spills were reported in U.S. waters in 2009.29 While most spills involve fewer than 100 gallons, large spills of more than 100,000 gallons cause serious damage to aquatic life and coastal environments. The Deepwater Horizon oil well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 spewed about 5 million gallons of crude oil, the largest spill in marine history. In 2012, the U.S. government fined BP, the British company that owned and operated the Deepwater Horizon well, a record $4.5 billion.30

In 2001, the U.S. signed the international Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants to ban the production of 10 POPs.27 These substances are highly toxic, do not break down easily, and bioaccumulate in the food chain. POPs include dioxins and furans, PCBs, DDT, and certain pesticides. Some POPs are known carcinogens, and others disrupt the reproductive systems in humans and wildlife. The Hazardous Waste Permit Program Oil Pollution Act

Although the Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of oil and 300 other substances in harmful amounts into surface water and groundwater, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to strengthen the ability of the EPA to prevent and respond to catastrophic oil spills.28 The Oil Pollution Act was enacted in response to the huge oil spill caused when the oil tanker Exxon Valdez hit a reef in Alaskan waters in 1989. But oil spills can also occur when an oil storage tank ruptures, when a pipeline breaks, or in oil truck and train accidents. The act spelled out new rules to reduce the number of oil spills and quantity of oil released. The act also established the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund financed by a tax on oil to clean up spills when the responsible party is

Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments in 1984 to regulate the disposal of hazardous waste.31 The purpose of these laws was to create a “cradle to grave” tracking system for hazardous substances, from their manufacture to their disposal. In this way, Congress hoped that all hazardous substances would be accounted for and properly disposed and that random dumping would be eliminated. The RCRA and its 1984 amendments gave the EPA the power to do the following: 1. Identify, define, and list hazardous wastes. 2. Ban the land disposal of dioxin, PCBs, and other toxic synthetic chemicals. Instead, they must be neutralized and stored in drums or else incinerated.

252

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

3. Set standards for keeping records on the manufacture, use, and disposal of hazardous wastes. 4. Set standards for how private firms handle, package, and transport hazardous waste. 5. Set standards for the operation of hazardous waste disposal sites by private firms, and require treatment of hazardous wastes prior to disposing of them in private, licensed landfills. Hazardous waste disposal sites must have impermeable clay or plastic liners and inground monitors to detect any leakage. Disposal sites must be covered in dirt each time hazardous waste is dumped to minimize airborne exposure. Toxic waste may not be dumped in municipal landfills. 6. License private waste disposal companies through a hazardous waste permit program. 7. Inspect private waste disposal sites. 8. Impose fines and penalties for violations. 9. Set standards for state hazardous waste management programs, though the implementation of these programs is largely controlled by the states.32 In 1985, the EPA closed 1,100 of the nation’s 1,600 licensed toxic waste disposal sites because the operators had not installed wells to monitor for groundwater contamination or the operators lacked insurance or adequate assets to cover the cost of paying for future problems at the sites. In 1994, President Clinton issued an environmental justice executive order, directing federal agencies not to concentrate pollution in general and waste sites in particular in minority neighborhoods. As of 2011, there were 1,389 treatment, storage, and disposal sites for hazardous waste in

the U.S., led by Texas, California, New York, and Washington.33 Under the RCRA, the EPA has set up a leaking underground storage tank program to identify and remove these threats to groundwater (see Box 8.3). The EPA approves state programs for regulating underground storage tanks, and the states are primarily responsible for carrying out the programs. Unlicensed dumping of toxic waste is considered a felony under both the RCRA and the Clean Water Act. For example, in 2011, Honeywell International was convicted of a felony under the RCRA for knowingly storing hazardous waste without a permit. Honeywell was fined $11.8 million.34 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

In 1978, a huge toxic dump was discovered at Love Canal near Niagara Falls, New York. The disposal of toxic substances there had begun in the 1920s, but in the 1940s and 1950s, the Hooker Chemical Company buried more than 20,000 metric tons of hazardous waste, including dioxin and a witch’s brew of more than 80 other chemicals. The City of Niagara Falls bought the property from Hooker, and over time, about 800 single-family homes, 240 apartments, and a school were built on top of the dumpsite. Eventually, toxic waste seeped into basements and bubbled up into yards. Residents experienced miscarriages, birth defects, cancer, and other illnesses until finally the contaminants were discovered. Most of the homes were purchased by the government, the residents were relocated elsewhere, and the school was closed at a total cost of $250 million.35 The Love Canal disaster alerted politicians and policy makers to the reality that the RCRA, though designed to regulate the manufacture and disposal of toxic waste, did not address the

CHAPTER 8: TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND HAZARDOUS WASTE

253

Box 8.3. Cleaning Up Leaking Underground Fuel Storage Tanks Leaking underground fuel storage tanks are a leading cause of groundwater pollution in the U.S. In 1984, Congress amended the RCRA of 1976 to direct the EPA to set up a program for the removal or replacement of leaking underground fuel storage tanks. In 1988, there were an estimated 3 million underground fuel storage tanks, each with a capacity of 1,100 gallons or more. The EPA gave tank owners 10 years to comply with the new regulations. By 2001, the number of underground storage tanks had fallen to 750,000, and in 2013, there were still an estimated 78,000 leaking underground storage tanks.36 The EPA has turned over most of the monitoring and enforcement of the leaking underground storage tank regulations

pressing need to clean up large hazardous waste sites or establish liability for who would pay for remediating the sites. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, better known as CERCLA, or the Superfund law, was passed by Congress in response to Love Canal and the growing awareness that there were potentially thousands of toxic waste sites throughout the nation.39 CERCLA gave the EPA the authority to identify hazardous waste sites, to maintain a National Priorities List of the most polluted sites (also known as Superfund sites), to recover cleanup costs from those responsible for the dumping, and to clean up abandoned sites. In cleaning up Superfund sites, the EPA was empowered to bill individual states for 10 percent of the cost on private land and 50 percent on public land. The strict liability provision of CERCLA made all current and previous owners or waste dumpers potentially liable for cleanup

to the states. Congress set up a Leaking Underground Storage Trust Fund with $1.3 billion. In 2000, the EPA estimated the costs of assessing and cleaning up abandoned and unregistered underground storage tanks at $450 million, half of which would be paid by the states.37 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 enabled the federal government to make grants to states that are required to inspect all underground storage tanks every three years.38 There are databases available for known underground leaking storage tanks and where tanks have been removed. This information can be used to create a GIS database to help in planning the location of future development and public and private water sources.

costs, even if a person or company purchased a property without knowing that it contained hazardous waste. Also, the “joint and several” clause of CERCLA allows the EPA to make one company or individual liable if others cannot be found or if others have no money to pay for cleanup costs. Not surprisingly, businesses and local governments have been reluctant to purchase and rehabilitate property on which any hazardous waste was dumped. Yet the redevelopment of less contaminated brownfields is crucial to the economic health of many cities and older suburbs as well as to curbing sprawl. If brownfields can be successfully remediated and redeveloped for new businesses, jobs, and housing, then there would be less demand for building in the outer suburbs and countryside and less development of farmland, woodland, and wildlife habitat. Congress initially authorized a Superfund of $1.6 billion to pay for the cleanup of

254

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

abandoned toxic waste sites and to track down the businesses, government agencies, and individuals liable for dumping the hazardous substances. From early on, it was clear that billions of dollars of federal money would be needed to adequately clean up the many Superfund sites. In 1986, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act placed another $8.5 billion in the fund. The Superfund also received revenues from state matching funds and the recovered costs of cleanups from polluters. From 1986 to 1995, a Superfund tax was imposed on the sale of petroleum products and corporate income. Since then, the nation’s taxpayers have had to shoulder an increasing burden of the cost of Superfund cleanups. The Superfund received a boost of $600 million as part of President Obama’s economic stimulus package, known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.40 But a dedicated funding

source is needed to ensure that all Superfund sites are cleaned up and in a timely fashion. In 1996, the EPA had identified 12,781 hazardous waste sites in need of cleanup, not including 17,000 hot spots on military bases. In 2001, there were more than 1,200 hazardous waste sites on the National Priorities List, but only 739 sites had been cleaned up at a cost of more than $10 billion, or about $25 million per site.41 Costs ranged from an average of $140 million for a “mega” cleanup site to an average of $12 million for a “nonmega” site.42 In some cases, as much as 60 percent of the cleanup costs have gone toward litigation expenses against the polluters. CERCLA provides no money for the victims of hazardous waste dumping who suffer losses in property values, illness, and the loss of loved ones. To clean up all the hazardous sites identified by EPA, including sites on federal lands, would cost more than a

Box 8.4. Hazardous Waste and the New Economy A very real concern about the new information economy is the use of toxic substances (solvents, acids, and heavy metals) in manufacturing computers and related high-tech equipment. Since Silicon Valley arose as a major computer manufacturing region, 29 properties have been declared Superfund hazardous waste sites.43 This is the highest concentration of Superfund sites in the U.S. Moreover, given the accuracy of Moore’s law of the doubling of computer chip power every 18 months, many computers have rapidly become obsolete. For instance, in 1998, businesses, governments, and individuals retired 20 million computers; only 2.3 million were recycled and 600,000 resold or donated.44 The rest were sent to landfills. In 2009, Americans threw out 47.4 million computers, and the growth in electronic

waste is expected to continue.45 Computers contain a variety of heavy metals, such as lead, mercury, chromium, and arsenic, that can leak into the environment. Electronic waste, or e-waste, also includes millions of cell phones, copiers, and televisions. As of 2013, there was no federal mandate to recycle electronics, including computers. Yet North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia have banned the disposal of computers in landfills.46 And several computer makers have internal recycling programs. By contrast, European Union countries and Japan require electronics companies to take back and recycle obsolete consumer products. A significant portion of U.S.-generated e-waste ends up overseas, especially in China, where it is stripped of recyclable materials.47

CHAPTER 8: TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND HAZARDOUS WASTE

trillion dollars.48 As of 2012, there were 1,319 Superfund sites on the National Priorities List, and 1,158 sites had been remediated.49 The EPA uses a Hazard Ranking System to evaluate contamination sites for possible placement on the National Priorities List. The ranking system includes the following factors: 1. The likelihood that a site has released or has the potential to release hazardous substances into the environment 2. The toxicity and the quantity of the waste 3. The people or sensitive environments affected by the release In addition, the pathways through which hazardous waste can travel off-site are assessed and receive a numerical score. The pathways are (a) groundwater migration, especially in drinking water; (b) surface water migration that affects drinking water, food, and sensitive environments; (c) soil exposure to residents, neighbors, and sensitive environments; and (d) air migration that affects public health and sensitive environments.50 A high score for one pathway may be sufficient to put the site on the National Priorities List. An EPA investigation of a Superfund site consists of three parts: a remedial study, a feasibility study, and a five-year review to evaluate the progress in cleaning up the site. In the remedial investigation, EPA personnel assess the environmental risks posed by the hazardous waste. Are the risks high, moderate, or small, and is cleanup needed sooner or later? The feasibility study involves the selection of cleanup strategies, based on an engineering evaluation and cost estimates. The EPA may take any of several “removal actions” to contain Superfund sites. The EPA may order a polluted site to be fenced off so that no access is allowed for additional dumping and to minimize the chances of exposing the public. The EPA may require

255

the covering of contaminated soils with clay and the installation of impervious liners and pumps to collect runoff and leachate. The EPA can also ban the use of a contaminated water supply, provide a new water supply for nearby residents and businesses, or evacuate the contaminated area, as in the case of Times Beach, Missouri. The EPA may also pursue remedial actions, such as washing contaminated soil, removing the contaminated soil, or treating polluted water, to rehabilitate a site for future commercial, residential, or public use. The EPA has come under criticism for its slow progress in implementing the Superfund law. Questions have been raised about the degree of remediation needed, about whether to burn or bury hazardous waste, and about the future use of dumpsites. Environmentalists worry that the EPA has favored the incineration of toxic waste. Not only does burning release toxic substances into the atmosphere, but also the remaining ash typically contains heavy metals, dioxin, and chlorine compounds. The ash must then be buried in hazardous waste landfills. Finally, the exemption of oil and petroleum waste from CERCLA requirements has kept many potentially hazardous waste sites outside of EPA jurisdiction.51 Brownfields Remediation

Imagine the following scenario. You are the head of a company that purchased an old industrial site and built a new factory. You won the support of your shareholders and the community. Then government workers took soil samples and determined that the property had high levels of hazardous waste. Although your company did not create the hazardous waste, the company now bears the liability and cost for cleanup under CERCLA, the Superfund law. Until the turn of the 21st century, this was a nightmare that kept many businesses from

256

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Box 8.5. A Toxic Cleanup Dilemma General Electric (GE) is one of America’s largest and most successful companies. Between World War II and 1976, GE legally discharged 1.3 million pounds of toxic PCBs into the Hudson River at factories in Fort Edward and Hudson Falls in upstate New York.52 PCBs were first developed in 1929 and were hailed as a miracle chemical because they do not burn and do not dissolve in water. PCBs, like DDT, belong to the group of persistent organic compounds that are highly toxic, accumulate in the food chain, and do not easily break down into lessharmful substances. PCBs, which often came in an oily yellow liquid, were used in a variety of manufacturing processes. GE used PCBs in making electrical insulators and capacitors until Congress banned the chemical after passage of the TSCA of 1976. GE’s releases of PCBs contaminated sediment along a 40-mile stretch of the Hudson River. In the 1980s, the EPA identified the PCB area as one of the nation’s largest Superfund sites but, surprisingly, decided not to compel

a cleanup action at that time. Fishing was banned in the upper Hudson from the late 1970s until 1995, and an advisory against eating fish from the Hudson still applies for children and women of childbearing age. In 2000, the EPA ruled that GE must dredge up and dispose of about 2.6 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments containing some 100,000 pounds of PCBs.53 GE contended that the river’s flow had already flushed out significant quantities of PCBs and would continue to do so. The company argued that dredging the contaminated sediments would actually release more PCBs into the river water, disrupting the river ecology, recreation, and commerce. In 2009, GE began to dredge the PCB hot spots in the Hudson River and bury the PCB-tainted sediment, a process that will cost the company an estimated $561 million.54 Even though the EPA has banned the manufacture of new PCBs, releases of old PCBs into the environment still continue (see Figure 8.4).

Total off-site disposal or other releases 5,000

On-site land disposal or other releases

Thousands of pounds

4,000

2003 value was 21,997,000 pounds

3,000

2,000

1,000

0 2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Figure 8.4. Disposal or Releases of PCBs, 2001–2010 Source: U.S. EPA, 2010 Toxics Release Inventory National Analysis Overview, p. 10

2009

2010

CHAPTER 8: TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND HAZARDOUS WASTE

257

Box 8.6. Mining and Toxic Waste Mining was probably America’s first significant source of hazardous waste and is still one of the leading sources of toxic releases into the environment (see Figure 8.3).55 Today, hard rock mining uses a variety of toxic chemicals, such as cyanide to separate gold ore from rock, as well as mercury and sulfuric acid. Some mine wastes, such as the tailings from lead and uranium mines, are highly toxic. Acid mine drainage can pollute surface water and groundwater, contaminate drinking water supplies, kill fish, and poison soil. There are more than 100,000 active coal, metal, and nonmetal mines in the U.S. But there are also an estimated 500,000 abandoned mines (see Photo 8.1). Monitoring mines once they have been shut down is critical. For instance, the Iron Mountain Mine, which produced copper for a hundred years in Northern California, has been closed since the 1960s. But for many years afterward, the mine leached sulfuric acid and heavy metals into nearby streams and the Sacramento River. In the 1980s, the EPA declared the

rehabilitating abandoned industrial sites in cities, older suburbs, and rural areas. Brownfields sites show a small to moderate amount of contamination from hazardous waste but not high enough levels to be placed on the EPA’s priority list for the Superfund program. Still, brownfields may pose a threat to public health, and the EPA or the state department of environmental protection can require the owner of a brownfield site to clean it up. Brownfields can contaminate water supplies when stormwater washes off polluted land and buildings carrying toxic substances into waterways. Similarly, airborne contaminants

Iron Mountain Mine a Superfund site. After more than 20 years and hundreds of millions of dollars in remediation efforts by the EPA and others, almost all the acid mine drainage has been neutralized and 95 percent of the copper, cadmium, and zinc discharges have been controlled.56 Yet the Iron Mountain Mine will need to be monitored far into the future. From 1997 to 2008, four federal agencies, led by the EPA, spent $2.6 billion to clean up abandoned hard rock mines. In 2004, there were 63 abandoned mines on the Superfund National Priorities List. In a 2011 report, the U.S. Government Accountability Office identified 161,000 abandoned hard rock mines in the western states, of which 33,000 mines were contaminating the environment.57 Earthworks, a nonprofit group, estimated that the cost of treating and removing toxic waste at the nation’s abandoned mines could range from $32 billion to $72 billion.58 The EPA has estimated that cost at up to $35 billion or more.59

can blow from a brownfield site onto nearby properties. Also, brownfields with abandoned buildings can present an attractive nuisance to children and teenagers, drawing them onto the polluted property. Brownfields sites vary greatly according to the level of contamination, size, location, and type as well as the impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. For example, the worst brownfields have been referred to as “temporarily abandoned derelict sites.”60 These may consist of empty lots or abandoned buildings that have reduced property values up to a quarter mile away because of their environmental risks and threats to public health.

258

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Photo 8.1. An abandoned mine remediation site outside of Breckenridge, CO. Source: Tom Daniels.

Four Elements of Brownfields Redevelopment

The successful redevelopment of brownfields sites depends on a reliable assessment of the contamination, risk-based cleanup standards, limits to future cleanup liability, and financial incentives. Brownfields redevelopment occurs as a partnership between public regulatory and funding agencies on the one hand and private investors, developers, and neighborhood groups on the other. Reliable assessment. Lending institutions routinely require an assessment of the possible existence of hazardous waste, leaks

from underground storage tanks, or asbestos in buildings before they will issue a commercial loan involving the purchase of real estate. This process is known as due diligence. If a lender were to make a loan on a property with hazardous waste, the borrower could at some future date be held liable for cleaning up the waste and default on the loan. Also, prior to 1996, a lender who foreclosed a loan on a property with hazardous waste could have been held liable for the cleanup. Environmental assessments are essential to determine whether hazardous substances

CHAPTER 8: TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND HAZARDOUS WASTE

exist on a site and, if so, the types and amounts of pollutants. An environmental assessment should be performed by a professional engineer. A Phase I environmental site assessment is an investigation into the current and previous ownership and uses of a property. The engineer should interview people with knowledge of the property and review databases of hazardous waste sites maintained by the EPA and the state environmental agency. The engineer then conducts a site inspection to look for buried hazardous waste, underground storage tank leaks, asbestos in buildings, discarded drums with chemical waste, and other signs of hazardous waste contamination. If the engineer discovers evidence of hazardous waste or a history of past use of hazardous materials on the property, the engineer must report it to the state environmental agency and the EPA and perform a more in-depth Phase II environmental site assessment.

259

A Phase II assessment involves the taking of soil and water samples and laboratory tests that meet EPA standards. Soil samples will include shallow soils to detect spills and soils below four feet to determine underground leakage. The engineer may take samples of surface water and may install monitoring wells to test for groundwater contamination. If hazardous waste is found, the engineer must notify the EPA and the state environmental agency. They will then determine the necessary remediation actions before any development can proceed. If hazardous substances are found during either assessment, a company or other potential buyer can either avoid purchasing the contaminated property or enter into an agreement with the state to specify cleanup procedures and the future use of the property in order to minimize liability (see Box 8.7). Risk-based cleanup standards. Stringent cleanup standards, in which brownfields

Box 8.7. Notice of Intent to Redevelop a Brownfields Property Pursuant to North Carolina Statute 130A310.34, C. K. Land Development has filed with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) a Notice of Intent to Redevelop a Brownfields Property in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The property consists of tax parcels 123-041-14 through 123-041-21, which comprise 2.84 acres. Environmental contamination exists on the property in groundwater and soil. C. K. Land Development has committed itself to make no other use of the property than for shops, offices, and residences. The Notice of Intent to Redevelop a Brownfields Property includes (1) a proposed Brownfields Agreement between DENR and C. K. Land Development, which in turn includes (a) a legal description of the

property, (b) a map showing the location of the property, (c) a description of the contaminants involved and their concentrations in the media of the property, (d) the earlier stated description of the intended future use of the property, and (e) proposed investigation and remediation; and (2) proposed Notice of Brownfields Remediation. The full Notice of Intent to Redevelop a Brownfields Property may be viewed at __________. Written public comments may be submitted to DENR within 60 days of this Notice. Written requests for a public meeting may be submitted to DENR with 30 days of this Notice at _____________. Note: This notice appeared in the Charlotte Observer on March 26, 2000, in a slightly different form.

260

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

are expected to be fully restored to 100 percent “clean” levels, can discourage voluntary cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields because of the high cost. Assumptions about potential health risks may overstate the actual impact of the contaminants on the public and future onsite workers and residents. Many states have allowed the intended use of a property to guide the level of cleanup necessary to protect public health and the environment. For instance, a contaminated property that will be used for a warehouse with a concrete floor requires less cleanup than a brownfield that is proposed to be turned into a playground (see Photo 8.2).

Photo 8.2. A former brick factory brownfield in Lancaster County, PA, that was made into walking trails. Source: Tom Daniels.

Limits to future cleanup liability. The federal government allows individual states to guide the cleanup of abandoned industrial sites and the recovery of cleanup costs. States can grant relief from liability under the Superfund law to companies and investors that redevelop lightly to moderately polluted properties. States and developers can spell out the conditions of cleanup before any remediation takes place (see Box 8.7). These conditions can include risk-based standards, which allow different levels of cleanup based on different uses. In 1996, Congress limited the liability of lenders who make loans for brownfields redevelopment or foreclose on mortgages on brownfields sites. In 2002, Congress passed the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, which removed the unlimited liability feature of CERCLA for owners of brownfields in order to encourage redevelopment of the sites.61 In addition, state voluntary cleanup programs, begun in the 1990s, have featured agreements stating that as long as the landowner cleans up the hazardous waste to an agreed-on standard, no financial penalty or liability is assessed. Typically, a developer approaches state and local officials with a proposal to investigate, remediate, and redevelop a brownfield site. Ideally, the developer and the local government will elicit public input and assure that the redevelopment is consistent with neighborhood and communitywide plans. Financial incentives for redevelopment of brownfields. Cleaning up brownfields can be expensive. Both the federal government and several state governments have been willing to pay large sums for cleanup. Since 1993, the EPA has funded national and regional brownfields cleanup and redevelopment projects through grants to states, cities, and towns. The grants have enabled communities to assess and inventory brownfields sites as a first step toward redeveloping those properties. The EPA’s Brownfields Cleanup Grants offer

CHAPTER 8: TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND HAZARDOUS WASTE

state and local governments up to $200,000 per brownfield site for the assessment and redevelopment of the contaminated site. A 20 percent match from the state or local government is required.62 The EPA has also established a revolving loan fund to lend money to cities and towns, which in turn lend these funds to developers interested in redeveloping brownfields. In 2002, Congress authorized $1.25 billion over five years in grants to state and local governments for brownfields remediation.63 But a steady, dedicated funding source for brownfields redevelopment has not been put in place. Even so, from the late 1990s to 2013, all of the EPA brownfields programs resulted in the assessment of more than 20,000 brownfields sites and 896 cleanups involving more than 40,000 acres (see Table 8.1). This activity generated more than 90,000 jobs and leveraged more than $20 billion in private and public investment.64

261

monitoring, and redevelopment of brownfields. Nearly all states have enacted legislation establishing brownfields cleanup goals and extending protection to property buyers from future liability involving prior contamination. Though details vary from state to state, new provisions generally include simplified development permitting procedures, government grants and low-interest loans, and corporate income tax credits for redeveloping brownfields sites. For instance, Colorado offers developers a variety of state income tax incentives for cleaning up brownfields.65 Several states have also compiled lists of brownfield sites in addition to the Superfund sites identified by the EPA. Pennsylvania has led the nation in the redevelopment of brownfields. The state’s brownfields laws, passed in 1995, cut through regulatory red tape by setting statewide cleanup standards and offering landowners and developers immunity from liability for previous contamination.66 In addition, Pennsylvania offers grants to local governments and State Efforts in Brownfields Remediation nonprofits for brownfields assessment. From Since 1995, the EPA has turned over to the states 1995 to 2014, more than 5,100 Pennsylvania considerable responsibility for the identification, brownfields sites were redeveloped.67

Table 8.1. EPA Brownfields Program Accomplishments as of October 2013 Performance Measure

Accomplishments

Properties assessed

20,678

Cleanups completed

896

Jobs leveraged

90,363

Acres made ready for reuse

40,659

Dollars leveraged (in billions)

20.3

Source: U.S. EPA, “Brownfields Program Accomplishments,” 2013. http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/overview/bfmonthly-report.html. Retrieved May 2, 2014.

262

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Pennsylvania’s Land Recycling and Environmental Remediation Standards Act exceeds the EPA regulations by establishing three riskbased standards. The standards help officials to determine the level of cleanup necessary before development can begin and to identify appropriate redevelopment projects. The first category refers to the naturally occurring levels of contamination on-site, such as arsenic in soils. Second, statewide health standards apply to soil and water and set limits on the exposure to toxic substances expected from the proposed land use once the brownfield is redeveloped. Third, site-specific standards address the amount of contamination that occurred from previous activities on the property. New Jersey, like Pennsylvania, has an abundance of brownfields sites, a legacy of its industrial heritage. The State of New Jersey has identified brownfields and posted them on an interactive Internet system. Maps show brownfields locations by county and municipality, whether a brownfield is in an economic incentive zone, the proximity of brownfields to transportation networks, and brownfields that are being marketed for redevelopment. In 2003, New Jersey launched a Brownfield Development Area Initiative to help local governments with several brownfields to redevelop those sites through grants and expert advice. As of 2009, 31 communities had participated with 306 sites and 3,289 acres redeveloped.68 Local Brownfields Remediation

Cities have employed a variety of planning techniques to encourage the redevelopment of brownfields. First, it is helpful to have an inventory of brownfields sites, and second, it is helpful to have either an office of brownfields redevelopment or a planner on staff who focuses on brownfields redevelopment. For instance, the City of Baltimore received an EPA grant to set up a GIS identifying available

vacant and underutilized properties, about half of which are brownfields.69 The city’s planning department has successfully used GIS to help developers find, assess, and redevelop properties. From 1996 to 2010, Baltimore completed more than 40 brownfields redevelopment projects, which created or retained more than 7,000 jobs and leveraged more than $500 million in new investment.70 City comprehensive plans or individual neighborhood plans together with supportive zoning can legally promote redevelopment. Several cities have designated planned development districts (PDDs) that give developers flexibility in proposing a mix of land uses and site designs.71 Often PDDs appear in the zoning ordinance as overlay zones. Some cities have zoned brownfields sites for a mix of commercial and residential uses to encourage the creation of walkable neighborhoods. Another option is for a city to adopt a form-based code for a neighborhood with an abundance of brownfields. A form-based code emphasizes the appearance of buildings rather than uses and therefore offers developers an opportunity to mix land uses. Louisville, Kentucky, for example, has used a form-based code to promote the redevelopment of brownfields.72 A key aspect of zoning for brownfields is to streamline the approval process so that cleanup and redevelopment can happen as soon as possible. Public financing through tax increment financing, property tax abatements, state or federal enterprise zones, grants, and loans can provide attractive incentives to brownfields redevelopers. Also, some cities have used their power of eminent domain to take over brownfields sites and either make them into public spaces or clean them up for sale or lease to private developers. Finally, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have played important roles in achieving brownfields redevelopment. By galvanizing neighborhood interest, NGOs have helped transform brownfields into new

CHAPTER 8: TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND HAZARDOUS WASTE

development in such places as New Bedford, Massachusetts, and Pittsburgh.73 In other words, brownfields redevelopment does not require a top-down planning approach but can feature grassroots, bottom-up planning efforts as well. Public involvement is crucial in both cases.

8.3: Local Planning for Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste The use and disposal of hazardous substances raise important issues for local planning. First, what should the role of the public be in making decisions about the location of industries that manufacture or use toxic substances? While some people may feel that scientific issues are beyond the understanding of the general public, an informed public is the foundation of a democratic society and community-level decision making about the environment. Second, the siting of industrial plants that use or dispose of toxic waste is often controversial and contentious. These plants are classic locally unwanted land uses. They are necessary for modern industrial life and hence have to go somewhere. Yet, in the past, many of these plants have been located near low-income and minority neighborhoods. While these plants offer jobs and tax base, they may affect an area far beyond a neighborhood or a single community. The siting of these plants may involve decisions by communities, regions, states, and the federal government.

263

also identify and describe municipal and private landfills and mining sites, both those currently in operation and those that have been closed. The EPA or state environmental agency may have such a database in a GIS format. Commercial vendors may also have such data. Specifically, there should be information on RCRA-permitted sites, Superfund and brownfields sites (known as CERCLIS sites), underground storage tanks, leaking underground storage tanks, oil and gas pipelines, and National and State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that involve point sources (pipe outfalls) from which toxic waste is discharged into rivers, lakes, and streams. Private companies that already report to the federal government on contaminants— used, manufactured, or stored on-site—can be required to provide this information to the local government. It is prudent for planners to have this information for drafting hazmat and other local emergency response plans and for wellhead protection planning (see Chapter 6). Analysis

Information on the location, size, and types of contaminated sites will suggest the responses that are needed and where to plan for growth to avoid the contaminated sites. Planners should note progress in the cleanup of any Superfund sites and brownfields sites as well as the potential for brownfields remediation. Planners can also evaluate threats to public water supplies from nearby use and storage of hazardous substances and contaminated sites, Inventory along with the adequacy of hazmat and emerPlanners must keep accurate and up-to-date gency response plans. records of hazardous waste landfills, contaminated sites, toxic substances stored and used Goals and Objectives in the community, and any spills and leaks in order to plan for safe future growth and devel- The planning commission can draft goals and opment of the community. Planners should objectives for managing hazardous substances

264

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

Box 8.8. Chemical Exposure and Local Governments Children are especially vulnerable to the adverse health effects of hazardous substances. Local governments and school districts can minimize or eliminate pesticide use in school buildings, on playgrounds, and in public parks. At a minimum, local governments and school districts should provide advance warning and signage when school grounds, parks, and classrooms are going to be treated. Several states use a registry system through which private companies inform residents who want to know when pesticides are going to be sprayed in their neighborhood. Several communities also require treated properties to be posted for 24 hours after pesticide applications. Information on the incidence and location of cancer cases in a region should be available from the county health department or state environmental agency. For instance, the State of New York has published county

maps of cancer rates for the three most common cancers: breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and lung cancer. The state has also produced county maps of four rarer cancers: thyroid, brain, bladder, and kidney. The next stage will be to produce neighborhoodlevel maps of cancer cases to identify cancer clusters. Finally, an attempt will be made to link the location of potential toxic sources with cancer clusters. Cancer “clusters” have been identified in Louisiana and New Jersey. But public officials have been reluctant to attribute cancers to the presence of specific industries, although in the Louisiana case, the cancers are clustered in an area with heavy petrochemical industries. If cancer clusters are obvious (as was the case in Woburn, Massachusetts; see Box 8.2), then state and federal officials should be notified to search for the causes.

on potential and known hazards to public and toxic waste as well as remediating contaminated sites (see Table 8.2). The commuhealth and safety and make this infornity facilities, land use, and natural resources mation available to the general public, sections of the comprehensive plan should commercial interests, and governmental address the storage, disposal, and recycling of organizations. hazardous waste. • Objective: Maintain, coordinate, and update The City of Palm Desert, California, has hazardous spills as a result of accident or included a Hazardous Materials Element in its intentional action, and community evac2004 Comprehensive Plan. The plan lists the uation plans. The Fire Department shall following goal and objectives: maintain a citywide Emergency Response Program, which provides for emergency services in the event of a hazardous spill or • Goal: Maintain and promote measures to airborne release. protect life and property in the City of Palm Desert from hazards resulting from human • Objective: The City shall thoroughly evalactivities and development. uate development proposals for lands • Objective: The City shall continue to encourage existing research and studies

directly adjacent to sites known to be contaminated with hazardous or toxic

CHAPTER 8: TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND HAZARDOUS WASTE

265

Table 8.2. Sample Hazardous Waste Goals and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan Section: Community Facilities Goal: Use and store hazardous substances responsibly, dispose of hazardous waste safely, and increase the recycling of hazardous materials. Objective: Organize an annual household hazardous waste pickup day within the community. Section: Land Use Objective: Keep hazardous waste landfills away from sensitive environmental areas, such as steep slopes, thin soils, shorelands, stream banks, floodplains, and wetlands. Objective: Separate areas designated for future growth away from any potential hazardous waste landfill sites. Section: Natural Resources Objective: Protect air quality by avoiding the use of incinerators to dispose of hazardous waste. Objective: Protect drinking water supplies and air quality from contamination through releases of toxic substances.

materials, as well as sites, which use potentially hazardous or toxic materials. The City may require soils testing of the proposed development site and the implementation of mitigation measures, which reduce the adverse effects of any contaminants to insignificant levels. • Objective: A Conditional Use Permit shall be required for all new development that generates, transports, or stores significant hazardous materials.

Action Strategy

The Action Strategy should present techniques and programs for achieving the hazardous waste goals and objectives as well as a timetable. Hazardous release and cleanup benchmarks should be identified and progress toward those benchmarks evaluated in an annual report on environmental quality. The Action Strategy might include the following specific recommendations:

• Objective: Encourage and facilitate the adequate and timely cleanup of existing and future contaminated sites within the City of Palm Desert and its sphere-of-influence.

• Inform the county Emergency Management Agency of the location of any wellhead protection areas, which should be given priority consideration for protection in the event of a hazardous materials spill.

• Objective: The City shall designate appropriate access routes to facilitate the transport of hazardous and toxic materials.74

• Post signs with spill response contact numbers on roads at the boundaries of wellhead protection areas.

266

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

• Apply for federal and state funding to assess the condition of brownfields sites for potential redevelopment. • Locate new businesses that use, store, manufacture, or dispose of hazardous substances in heavy industrial zones with long setbacks from neighboring properties. • Require new development within one mile of a landfill to connect to a public water system. Zoning Ordinance

Many communities do not want a hazardous waste landfill in their jurisdiction. The local zoning ordinance can state that a hazardous waste landfill is not permitted in any zoning district. Remote rural communities may want to identify sparsely settled areas with suitable geology where a hazardous waste landfill might be appropriate. In those areas, the zoning ordinance could list such landfills as a conditional use, subject to the applicant conducting a thorough environmental impact assessment. Although the local elected governing body may approve the landfill as a conditional use, state and federal approval and licensing will also be necessary. Hazardous waste incinerators can be either prohibited through the zoning ordinance or permitted only as a conditional use in rural places far away from residential areas. But incinerators should not be viewed as a long-term solution to hazardous waste disposal. Again, state and federal approval will be necessary. Heavy industry that would manufacture, use, store, or dispose of hazardous substances can be limited to heavy industrial zones. The zoning ordinance can encourage the redevelopment of brownfields sites by allowing for a wide array of uses, depending on the necessary level of cleanup for each use. Also,

promoting the cleanup and adaptive reuse of existing buildings with some contamination rather than requiring demolition can minimize development expenses and protect historic buildings. Subdivision Regulations

The subdivision ordinance can require buffering berms and vegetation between hazardous waste disposal sites and neighboring properties. Stormwater runoff should be contained on-site through the use of vegetation, swales, and retention basins. Capital Improvements Program

Capital improvements programs can address hazardous waste landfill capacity and future needs as well as the siting of new or expanded hazardous waste facilities, incinerator facilities, and recycling facilities. The location of any of these disposal or recycling facilities should be coordinated with the location of current and future public drinking water supplies and existing and future planned development areas. New developments within one mile of a hazardous waste facility should be required to use public water systems rather than private wells. What to Look for in a Development Review

In reviewing a proposal for a development that could generate, store, use, or transport hazardous materials, planners can consider how the toxic materials will be handled and disposed (see Table 8.3). If a proposed development will generate large amounts of waste, participation in a recycling program could be required as a condition of approval. Proposed projects that

CHAPTER 8: TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND HAZARDOUS WASTE

267

Table 8.3. A Checklist of Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste Issues in a Development Review 1.

What is the location and size of the proposed development?

2.

What hazardous substances will be used, stored, or disposed of on the site?

3.

What is the geology and hydrology of the site?

4.

What are the adjacent land uses?

5.

Where are public water supplies located in relation to the site?

6.

How does the site fit with community hazmat and emergency response plans?

7.

Has the developer obtained any necessary state and federal permits?

8.

If a residential development or commercial eating establishment is proposed near a known hazardous waste landfill or industry that uses hazardous materials, will public water be provided?

involve the use, storage, or disposal of toxic chemicals should be kept away from drinking water supplies and wellhead protection areas (see Chapter 5). Once a project that involves the use, manufacture, or disposal of toxic substances is approved, planners should make sure that the owners of the business comply with the toxic release reporting requirements of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.

or manufacture toxic substances to make their activities known to local governments. The federal Superfund law was enacted to create a process for cleaning up the nation’s worst hazardous waste sites. Brownfields are contaminated sites that require an assessment of the contamination before remediation can begin. Brownfields redevelopment is an important component of urban revitalization and the adaptive reuse of former industrial sites. The liability issues with brownfields cleanup have been resolved through voluntary agreements Summary between states and developers and the federal Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Toxic substances present major problems for Revitalization Act. public health. The federal RCRA requires cradleto-grave tracking of the manufacture, use, and disposal of toxic substances. Through the toxics release inventory, businesses that release toxic Notes substances must report their annual emissions, 1. Carson, R. “Silent Spring,” in D. Ravitch, discharges, and disposal of toxic substances to the U.S. EPA. The Community-Right-to-Know ed., The American Reader: Words That Moved a Act requires businesses that use, dispose of, Nation. New York: HarperCollins, 1990, p. 323.

268

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

2. U.S. EPA Region 7. Times Beach Site, Missouri. 2010. http://www.epa.gov/region7/clean up/npl_files/mod980685226.pdf. Retrieved May 1, 2013. 3. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2012. Washington, DC: USGPO, 2012, p. 235. 4. U.S. EPA. 2012 Toxics Release Inventory National Analysis Overview, 2014, p. 2. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 2014-01/documents/complete_2012_tri_na _overview_document.pdf. Retrieved May 2, 2014. 5. Roman, J. Listed: Dispatches from America’s Endangered Species Act. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011, p. 108. 6. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2012. Washington, DC: USGPO, 2012, p. 235. 7. Wald, M. “Nevada Site Urged for Nuclear Dump.” New York Times, January 11, 2002, pp. A1, A19. 8. Huffington Post. “Yucca Mountain Project Looms as Issue in Nevada Ahead of 2012 Presidential Election.” February 1, 2012. http://www .huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/yucca-mountain -project_n_1247573.html. Retrieved November 2, 2012. 9. Dowie, M. Losing Ground: American Environmentalism at the Close of the Twentieth Century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995, p. 134. 10. Associated Press. “Rocky Flats Cleanup Is Declared Complete.”New York Times, October 14, 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/14/ national/14rocky.html. Retrieved November 28, 2012. 11. Pankratz, H. “Grand Jury Could Change Much—Many Observers Uneasy.” Denver Post, July 2, 1997. http://www.constitution.org/jury/ gj/rocky_flats/19970702_denver_post_jrp .rckyflts.htm. Retrieved May 2, 2014. 12. Janofsky, M. “Pact Signed to Clean Up Nuclear Sites.” New York Times, September 11, 1999, p. A7.

13. Harr, J. A Civil Action. New York: Vintage Books, 1996, p. 491. 14. U.S. EPA. “Brownfields Definition.” Last modified October 4, 2011. http://www.epa.gov/ brownfields/overview/glossary.htm. Retrieved November 2, 2012. 15. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Brownfields Frequently Asked Questions.” 2012. http://portal.hud.gov/hud portal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm _planning/economicdevelopment/programs/ bedi/bfieldsfaq. Retrieved November 2, 2012. 16. U.S. Conference of Mayors. A National Report on Brownfields Development: Recycling America’s Land. Volume 7. January 2008, pp. 9–10. http://www.usmayors.org/brownfields/library/ brownfieldSURVEY08.pdf. Retrieved November 2, 2012. 17. Ibid., p. 9. 18. Deason, J., G. Sherk, and G. Carroll. Public Policies and Private Decisions Affecting the Development of Brownfields: An Analysis of Critical Factors, Relative Weights and Areal Differentials. Washington, DC: USEPA and George Washington University, 2001. 19. 7 U.S.C. Section 136 et seq. 20. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972.” http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/fedenvp .html. Retrieved May 9, 2013. 21. 15 U.S.C. Sections 2601–2629. 22. League of Conservation Voters. “Toxic Chemicals.” 2012. http://www.lcv.org/issues/ toxics/. Retrieved October 31, 2012. 23. Lowell Center for Sustainable Production. The Promise and Limits of the United States Toxic Substances Control Act. Lowell, MA: University of Massachusetts at Lowell, 2003. 24. 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq. 25. U.S. EPA. 2012 Toxics Release Inventory National Analysis Overview, 2014, p. 2. http:// www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-01/ documents/complete_2012_tri_na_overview _document.pdf. Retrieved May 2, 2014.

CHAPTER 8: TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND HAZARDOUS WASTE

26. Ibid., p. 4. 27. McGinn, A. “Reducing Our Toxic Burden,” in L. Starke, ed., for the Worldwatch Institute, State of the World 2002. New York: W. W. Norton, 2002. 28. 33 U.S.C. Sections 2702–2761. 29. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2012. Washington, DC: USGPO, 2012, p. 235. 30. Krauss, C., and J. Schwartz. “BP Will Plead Guilty and Pay Over $4 Billion.” New York Times, November 15, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/ 2012/11/16/business/global/16iht-bp16.html ?pagewanted=all&_r=0. Retrieved November 19, 2012. 31. 42 U.S.C. Sections 6901–6991. 32. 40 C.F.R. Section 272. 33. U.S. EPA. The National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (Based on 2011 Data). 2012, p. 2-1. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/info resources/data/br11/national11.pdf. Retrieved May 2, 2014. 34. U.S. Department of Justice. “Honeywell Pleads Guilty in Illinois to Illegal Storage of Hazardous Waste.” March 11, 2011. http://www .justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/March/11-enrd-314 .html. Retrieved November 12, 2012. 35. Gibbs, L. “Learning from Love Canal: A 20th Anniversary Retrospective.” May 10, 2001. http://arts.envirolink.org/arts_and_activism/ LoisGibbs.html. Retrieved October 31, 2012. 36. U.S. EPA. “Cleaning Up UST System Releases.” January 13, 2003. http://www .epa.gov/swerust1/cat/index.htm. Retrieved November 12, 2012. U.S. EPA. “The National LUST Cleanup Backlog: A Study Of Opportunities.” http://www.epa.gov/swerust1/cat/back log.html. Retrieved May 2, 2014. 37. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. Liquid Assets 2000: America’s Water Resources at a Turning Point. Washington, DC: USEPA, 2000. 38. U.S. EPA. “Inspecting USTs.” 2012. http:// www.epa.gov/swerust1/fedlaws/inspectn .htm. Retrieved May 2, 2014.

269

39. 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601–9675. 40. U.S. EPA. “Superfund Program Implements the Recovery Act.” Last modified August 9, 2011. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/epa recovery/index.html. Retrieved November 12, 2012. 41. Probst, K., and D. Konisky. Superfund’s Future: What Will It Cost? Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 2001. 42. Ibid., p. xxv. 43. Adams, J. “Silicon Valley’s Tech Waste Problem.” Chicago Tribune, January 28, 2003. http://www.mail-archive.com/bdnow@enviro link.org/msg06694.html. Retrieved November 12, 2012. 44. Schuessler, H. “All Used Up With Somewhere to Go.” New York Times, November 23, 2000, p. G1. 45. Economist. “The Politics of E-Waste: A Cadmium Lining.” January 26, 2013. http://www .economist.com/news/international/21570 678- growing- mounds- electronic- scrap- can - mean- profits- or- scandals- cadmium- lining. Retrieved May 2, 2014. 46. Nicholas County, WV, Solid Waste Authority. “Computers, Monitors, and TVs Are Now Banned from Disposal in WVA Landfills.” 2011. http://www.ncwvswa.org/index.php?option =com_content&view=article&id=73:computers -monitors-and-tvs-are-now-banned-from-dis posal-in-wv-landfills&catid=39:ncwvswa -in-the-news&Itemid=59. Retrieved November 12, 2012; City of Raleigh, NC. “Curbside Collection—Unique Items: Computers, Electronics, and Cell Phones.” 2014. http://www .raleighnc.gov/services/content/SolidWaste/ Articles/UniqueItems.html. Retrieved May 2, 2014. 47. Humes, E. Garbology: Our Dirty Love Affair With Trash. New York: Avery, 2013, pp. 153–57. 48. Ibid., adjusting for inflation from 2001 dollars. 49. U.S. EPA. “National Priorities List.” 2014. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/ queryhtm/npltotal.htm. Retrieved May 2, 2014.

270

PART 2: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH

50. U.S. EPA. “Introduction to the Hazard Ranking System (HRS).” Last modified February 15, 2012. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/ programs/npl_hrs/hrsint.htm. Retrieved November 26, 2012. 51. Mintz, J. “Hazardous Waste and Superfund,” in J. Dernbach, ed., Stumbling Toward Sustainability. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute, 2002. 52. Johnson, K. 2001. “E.P.A. to Proceed on Dredging Plan for Hudson PCB’s.” New York Times, August 1, 2001, p. A1. 53. Ibid. 54. DePalma, A. “Superfund Cleanup Stirs Troubled Waters.” New York Times, August 13, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/ science/superfund-efforts-to-clean-water ways-come-with-a-risk.html?pagewanted =all&_r=0. Retrieved January 4, 2013. 55. U.S. EPA, 2010 Toxics Release Inventory National Analysis Overview. 2012, p. 18. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ documents/2010_national_analysis_over view_document.pdf. Retrieved May 2, 2014. 56. U.S. EPA. Abandoned Mines Case Study: Iron Mountain Mine. 2006. http://www.epa .gov/aml/tech/imm.pdf. Retrieved November 19, 2012. 57. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Abandoned Mines: Information on the Number of Hardrock Mines, Cost of Cleanup, and Value of Financial Assurances. Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives, July 14, 2011. http://www .gao.gov/new.items/d11834t.pdf. Retrieved November 19, 2012. 58. Earthworks. “Abandoned Mines.” 2012. http://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/ detail/abandoned_mines#.UKpAjmepNI4. Retrieved November 19, 2012. 59. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. Liquid Assets 2000: America’s Water Resources at a Turning Point. Washington, DC: USEPA, 2000.

60. Hollander, J. Polluted and Dangerous: America’s Worst Abandoned Properties and What Can Be Done About Them. Burlington: University of Vermont Press, 2009, p. 2. 61. Eisen, Joel B. “Brownfields Redevelopment,” in J. Dernbach, ed., Stumbling Toward Sustainability. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute, 2002. 62. U.S. EPA. “Brownfields and Land Revitalization: Cleanup Grants.” 2014. http://www .epa.gov/brownfields/cleanup_grants.htm. Retrieved May 2, 2014. 63. New York Times. “Money to Clean Up Polluted Sites Is Authorized.” January 12, 2002, p. A10. 64. U.S. EPA. “Brownfields Program Accomplishments,” 2013. http://www.epa.gov/brown fields/overview/bf-monthly-report.html. Retrieved May 2, 2014. 65. U.S. EPA. Colorado: State Incentives for Achieving Clean and Renewable Energy on Contaminated Lands. 2008. http://www.epa .gov/renewableenergyland/incentives/co _incentives.pdf. Retrieved November 26, 2012. 66. Pennsylvania Act 2 of 1995; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Code. Chapter 250: Administration of Land Recycling Program. 2012. http://www.pacode.com/ secure/data/025/chapter250/chap250toc .html. Retrieved November 26, 2012. 67. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. “Land Recycling Program, Sites Completed.” 2014. http://www.dep reportingservices.state.pa.us/ReportServer/ Pages/ReportViewer.aspx?/LRP/LandRecycling _Sites_Complete. Retrieved May 2, 2014. 68. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. “Site Remediation Program.” 2013. http://www.state.nj.us/dep/srp/brown fields/bda/sites/. Retrieved May 2, 2014. 69. Ryan, K. “Toxic Turnabouts.” Planning, December 1998, p. 22. 70. Baltimore Development Corporation. Brownfields. http://baltimoredevelopment.com/

CHAPTER 8: TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND HAZARDOUS WASTE

271

brownfields, 2010. Retrieved November 26, 72. Ibid., p. 50. 2012. 73. Ibid., p. 238. 71. Hollander, J. Polluted and Dangerous: 74. City of Palm Desert, CA. General Plan/ America’s Worst Abandoned Properties and What Hazardous Materials Element, 2004. http://www Can Be Done About Them. Burlington: University .cityofpalmdesert.org/Index.aspx?page=166. of Vermont Press, 2009, pp. 48–49. Retrieved May 2, 2014.

Part 3

PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

Chapter 9

PROTECTING THE NATION’S LANDSCAPE TREASURES

In wildness is the preservation of the world. —Henry David Thoreau1

There can be no greater issue than that of conservation in this country. —Theodore Roosevelt2

Conservation without money is conversation. —James Gustave Speth3

America is blessed with a wealth of outstanding, irreplaceable natural landscapes consisting of wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, scenic vistas, geologic formations, and cultural and historic landscapes. These national treasures along with state, regional, and local significant landscapes provide important recreational areas, ecological functions, and educational opportunities as well as economic activity(see Photo 9.1). America’s natural landscapes are part of its distinct character and link

the nation’s past, present, and future. Careful planning, stewardship, regulations, and protection are needed to ensure that future generations can also enjoy and benefit from these special landscapes. The U.S. has been a global leader in preserving its landscapes. The U.S. covers about 6 percent of the earth’s land area and accounts for 15 percent of world’s permanently protected lands.4 Federal, state, and local governments as well as private landowners and nonprofit groups have been active in

276

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

Photo 9.1. The mountains known as the Flatirons are within the City of Boulder, CO, open space and mountain parks system. Source: Tom Daniels.

CHAPTER 9: PROTECTING THE NATION’S LANDSCAPE TREASURES

conserving these special landscapes. Often, partnerships have been forged to stretch available funding and to foster cooperation among landowners, local residents, visitors, nonprofits, and government agencies. Planning in America emerged in the last decade of the 19th century and coincided with the Progressive Era, which sought to bring good government to bear on a wide array of society’s problems. In the latter half of the 19th century, America had a laissez-faire economy that featured the unfettered exploitation of the nation’s abundant natural resources, especially forests, minerals, and wildlife. Cities choked on air pollution, and contaminated water led to periodic outbreaks of typhus and cholera. In response, this first era of environmental planning featured federal policies that promoted both the wise use of natural resources and the preservation of wilderness areas.5 But a debate arose between those advocating wilderness protection and those who wanted to conserve natural resources for human use. President Theodore Roosevelt, widely acknowledged as America’s most conservation-minded president, created the National Wildlife Refuge System in 1903 and the U.S. Forest Service in 1905. However, these two acts also showed Roosevelt’s ambivalence toward the federal government’s role of determining how much of the environment to set aside in its natural state and how much to use to support human wellbeing. This long-standing debate culminated in the struggle over whether to build a dam in the Hetch Hetchy Valley of Yosemite National Park. The dam was approved in 1913 and completed in 1923, but it marked the first of many arguments over damming western rivers. The debate about the use of natural resources pitted the wilderness preservationists, led by John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, against conservationist Gifford Pinchot, the first head of the Forest Service, who believed that natural resources should be managed for sustained

277

yields and used wisely for human benefit.6 This debate continues to this day, especially over planning the multiple uses of the 191 million acres of national forests (see Chapter 15).

9.1: The Challenge of Landscape Protection Decisions about how to use America’s outstanding natural landscapes have important implications for the economy, environment, and social well-being of nearby communities and regions. This is especially true in the western states where the federal government owns more than half of the land area of Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming and large amounts of California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Washington. A 2000 study by the World Wildlife Fund and the Oregon Natural Resources Council suggested that in the western counties with more protected land, growth in service-related jobs, especially tied to tourism, were able to more than offset the decline in employment in timber, ranching, and mining.7 A 2013 study found that among the 286 nonmetro counties in the West, those with a higher percentage of federally protected land also had higher per capita incomes and higher per capita income growth.8 Commercial recreation areas are often tied to natural features, such as beaches, lakes, mountains, or wilderness. Recreation businesses can contribute significantly to local economies. In 2007, a report for the outdoor recreation industry estimated that outdoor recreation generated $730 billion in economic activity and provided almost 6.5 million full-time jobs.9 The National Park Service faces three challenges in its role as a manager of many of America’s landscape treasures. First, the number of visitors to the national parks soared from just over 200 million in 1979 to 287 million

278

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

visitors in 1987.10 Since then, annual visitor numbers have been down only slightly, tallying 282 million in 2012.11 The crowds of visitors are jeopardizing the ability of the Park Service to keep some parks in their natural conditions. Second, tracts of privately owned land or “inholdings” within national parks and especially within national seashores and national preserves could be developed for residential or commercial uses with negative impacts on the wildlife, ecosystems, and scenic values of Park Service lands. Another threat is the development of private lands in communities adjacent to national parks.12 The Park Service has found that “the loss of biodiversity at the species level in national parks of the American West was directly correlated with both the size of the parks and their age . . . rais(ing) the specter of long-term depletion of the national park’s [sic] ecological assemblages and functions. . . . This raised new questions about how the ‘sea’ of surrounding land was being managed as well as the viability of any biodiversity conservation strategy focused primarily on protected area refugia.”13 National parks, national forests, state parks, state forests, and local parks are popular recreational areas for many Americans and often act as magnets for nearby second homes and retirement homes, condominium complexes, and commercial recreation facilities. The type and amount of recreation can have significant impacts on the environment. For example, a large majority of western ski areas are on U.S. Forest Service lands. Ski areas are built in areas with sensitive environments, including steep slopes, thin soils, and narrow streams and headwaters. Soil erosion, pollution of headwaters, and destruction of wildlife habitat are potential problems. Equally problematic are adequate water supplies and sewage disposal. Ski areas often use large amounts of water to make snow, mainly because the ski areas prefer the consistency and reliability

of man-made snow to natural snow. Also, the excessive use of fireplaces in ski areas can cause air pollution. Ski areas attract thousands of visitors for a day, a weekend, or a weeklong stay, virtually turning a rural environment into an urban one. Colorado, for example, logged more than 12 million skier days in the 2010– 2011 season, accounting for more than onefifth of the national skier-days.14 Another pressing landscape issue is the apparent decline in understanding of and appreciation for nature among children. Richard Louv, in his book Last Child in the Woods, points to “nature-deficit disorder” among children because they lack access to nature.15 Part of this problem is due to the expanding developed areas of metropolitan America, and part is due to the popularity of electronic games, computers, and television. There may indeed be a link between the rise in childhood obesity and the lack of time in nature. Landscapes can provide physically healthy recreation and psychic benefits as well as educational experiences about the workings of nature.

9.2: Federal Planning for Protecting the Nation’s Landscape Treasures The federal government owns almost 650 million of America’s 2.2 billion acres, mainly in the western states and Alaska.16 A large majority of these lands are managed by the U.S. Forest Service and four agencies in the Department of the Interior—the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). At the start of the 20th century, the federal attitude toward the natural environment was mostly utilitarian. Landscapes could be useful to humans if they were properly managed. In a few instances, areas of unique natural beauty,

CHAPTER 9: PROTECTING THE NATION’S LANDSCAPE TREASURES

geologic wonder, or historic value gained protection as national parks. But other federal lands were managed primarily for the production of timber, minerals, and livestock. Since the 1960s, the federal government has been taking on a greater stewardship role, and natural resource production has become more balanced with recreation, wildlife, watershed management, and ecological values. Wilderness Areas

The U.S. Forest Service is responsible for managing 191 million acres in 155 national forests in 40 states. The national forests cover more than one-quarter of all public lands, and more than 160 million acres are located in the western states and Alaska. The Forest Service is required to draft management plans for each forest that incorporates the principles of “multiple use and sustained yield.” The multiple uses include timber harvesting, watershed management, recreation, grazing, wildlife habitat, and wilderness areas. Some of these uses may conflict with each other, and balancing them is no small challenge. Sustained yield means that the natural resource production and ecosystem services of these lands should not diminish over time. The American Antiquities Act of 1906 empowers the president to designate federal lands as national monuments for “the protection of objects of historic and scientific interest.”17 But in some cases, presidents have used the Antiquities Act to create wilderness areas when Congress would not take action. For instance, President Carter used the Antiquities Act in 1978 to deem 56 million acres of Alaska as wilderness in national monuments.18 And in 1996, President Clinton created the 1.9-million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah, the largest national monument in the lower 48 states.

279

The Wilderness Act of 1964 allows Congress to designate wilderness areas of at least 5,000 acres in national forests. Commercial timber operations and permanent roads are banned in wilderness areas, and these areas must be managed for the preservation of their wilderness character, which the act defines as “areas where the earth and its community of life are untrammelled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. And wilderness is further defined to mean an area of undeveloped federal land returning its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.”19 Since the 1960s, about 34 million acres of national forests have been protected as part of the wilderness system. Other wilderness areas include national wildlife refuges managed by the U.S. FWS, parts of national parks under the National Park Service, and some lands managed by the BLM. The single largest area of wilderness was set aside when the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 preserved about 56 million acres.20 By 1996, the Council on Environmental Quality listed more than 103 million acres in the entire National Wilderness Preservation System.21 In 2001, as one of his last acts in office, President Clinton issued an order—the Roadless Area Conservation Rule—which designated an additional 58.5 million acres of national forests in 39 states as “roadless areas.” This designation made these lands effectively off-limits to timber harvesting, mining, and grazing and qualified them for possible future addition to the wilderness system. The additional roadless areas resulted in a total of more than 92 million acres of national forest—almost half of the entire national forest acreage— being protected from development. In 2011, the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Roadless Rule.22

280

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

Adding land to wilderness areas, either through a change in the designation of federal lands or through the federal purchase of land, is controversial, particularly in western states where the federal government already has huge landholdings. On the other hand, conservation biologists warn of the rising pressures on ecosystems and have argued for the expansion of wilderness areas to protect wildlife habitats, especially for large carnivores (see Chapter 10). National Parks and Monuments

The National Park Service was created in 1916 and manages more than 84 million acres in 401 separate units, including 61 national parks, national seashores, national monuments, national recreation areas, national preserves, and national rivers and trails.23 Many of the larger sites are found in the western states and Alaska, while smaller sites—often with historic significance—are more common in the eastern U.S. Examples of Park Service lands include Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona, Canaveral National Seashore in Florida, Gettysburg National Military Park in Pennsylvania, and the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve in Kansas. The creation of a national park requires an act of Congress and the president’s signature, but national monuments can be declared by the president without congressional approval on lands that are already in federal ownership. National seashores and preserves are created by Congress. The role of the Park Service is “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife therein as will leave them unimpaired for future generations.”24 In other words, Park Service lands are to be maintained mostly as natural environments. In the national parks, no hunting is allowed, but some grazing is permitted, as is mining under very strict conditions.

The Park Service has worked with state and local governments and private landowners to discourage incompatible development on private inholdings surrounded by Park Service lands. There are an estimated 2.7 million acres of private inholdings within the national parks, and the Park Service would like to protect 1.8 million acres of inholdings through fee simple purchase or the purchase of conservation easements.25 Techniques have included zoning, acquisition of conservation easements, and most recently, management agreements. A conservation easement is a voluntary sale or donation of development rights by a landowner to a government agency or a qualified private nonprofit organization, usually a land trust or land conservancy. Management agreements are less formal than conservation easements but can limit incompatible development on private lands near Park Service lands. Management agreements between private landowners and the Park Service have proven successful in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area in California and along the New River Gorge National River in West Virginia. The National Park Service has formed “partnership parks” in which there is little or no federal acquisition of land but management cooperation involving the park service, state and local governments, nonprofits, and private landowners. This effort allows for the protection of larger areas than would be possible with just federal land acquisition. Examples include the 49 National Heritage Areas and Corridors, such as the Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor, formed in 1984. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

The BLM manages about 245 million acres of federal land.26 Most of the BLM lands are in Alaska, and nearly all the rest are in 11 western states. As the population in the West has grown

CHAPTER 9: PROTECTING THE NATION’S LANDSCAPE TREASURES

over the last half century, BLM lands have become increasingly important for recreation uses and as cultural and historic attractions. The Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 requires BLM lands, like the national forests, to be managed according to the principle of “multiple-use-sustained yield” for a variety of uses: timber harvesting, recreation, mining, wilderness preservation, fish and wildlife habitat, and livestock grazing. The BLM operates a National Landscape Conservation System that consists of national conservation areas, including some wilderness areas, and 16 national monuments. The national conservation areas are designated by Congress and cover more than 4.4 million acres, including the Red Cliffs in Utah, Gunnison Gorge in Colorado, and Red Rock Canyon in Nevada.27 The national monuments managed by the BLM cover more than 6 million acres. During his two terms in office, President Clinton used the Antiquities Act of 1906 to designate five new national monuments and expand another, adding a total of 3.1 million acres. Monument status means that these federal lands cannot be developed or logged but can continue to be grazed and used for recreation. Included in these newest monuments were more than 300,000 acres of California’s giant sequoias, the world’s largest trees that can grow to 40 feet in diameter and 300 feet tall.28 Wild and Scenic Rivers

Congress created the Wild and Scenic Rivers System in 1968 to protect free-flowing rivers and their surroundings, which provide scenic beauty, recreational opportunities, wildlife habitat, and historic and cultural values. As of 2012, the system consisted of just more than 12,600 miles of 203 rivers in 39 states.29 Designated rivers may not be dammed or diverted, and commercial and industrial uses of the riverbanks are prohibited. Any other development

281

must abide by federally determined acreage, setback, and frontage limitations. The Department of the Interior oversees the national Wild and Scenic Rivers System, except in the national parks where the Department of Agriculture is responsible. An additional 60,000 miles of rivers could qualify for the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. To be added, a river must be free flowing and neither diverted nor channeled. The riverbanks must contain historic sites or important natural features, such as scenic areas, geological formations, and wildlife habitat. A river may be classified as one of three types, and different stretches of the same river can be classified differently: 1. A wild river is free of dams and is generally inaccessible except by trail. Waters are unpolluted and shorelines primitive, representing America’s natural past. 2. A scenic river is free of dams but is accessible in places by roads. Shorelines are largely primitive and undeveloped. 3. A recreational river may have undergone some diversion or water impoundment in the past. The river is readily accessible by road, and shorelines may have experienced some development. An act of Congress or an act of the legislature of the state or states the river flows through is needed to bring a river into the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. State-level legislation means that the state or states will manage the river at no cost to the federal government, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. American Heritage Rivers

In 1997, President Clinton launched the American Heritage Rivers Initiative to help communities with historically “working rivers” protect

282

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

the water quality and natural habitats of their rivers as well as restore historic buildings, spur new commercial and residential development, and foster local recreation and arts activities along waterfronts. In 1998, 14 rivers were selected as American Heritage Rivers, including the Connecticut River in New England, the St. Johns River in Florida, the Upper Mississippi River from Minnesota to Missouri, and the Willamette River in Oregon. Each heritage river has a designated River Navigator who helps communities receive better access to technical and financial assistance from federal agencies. Whereas the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is designed to protect remote and undeveloped rivers, the American Heritage Rivers approach emphasizes economic development and environmental, historic, and cultural protection for working rivers. The program highlights the important link between a quality-built environment and a quality natural environment.

The National Park Service provides technical assistance as well as financial support for a few years following the creation of the heritage area. A heritage area remains privately owned, and no federal land-use regulations are imposed. The manager of the heritage area sponsors tours, interpretive programs, museums, and festivals as “heritage tourism” to promote understanding of the area’s natural, cultural, and historic significance. National Trails System

The National Trails System Act of 1968 had a goal to create 25,000 miles of trails. As of 2012, the National Trails System includes 11 national scenic trails, 19 national historic trails, and about 1,150 national recreation trails. The scenic and historic trails total almost 54,000 miles. The recreational trails cover nearly 8,000 miles and are found in all 50 states.31 The National Trails System Act provided funding to create the Pacific Crest Trail on the West Coast and to secure land in public ownership along the National Heritage Areas Appalachian Trail, which stretches from GeorThe National Heritage Areas program was gia to Maine.32 begun in 1984 as a way to promote partnerCreating a national trail involves four steps: ships among federal, state, and local governments and the private sector to conserve 1. An amendment to the National Trails Syscultural resources and historic landscapes. As tem Act requesting a feasibility study of 2012, Congress had created 49 National Heritage Areas in 31 states.30 A heritage area 2. A feasibility study, which is usually conducted by the National Park Service can be local, such as America’s Agricultural Heritage Partnership in Iowa, or regional, such 3. An act of Congress adding the trail to the as the Blackstone River Valley National HerNational Trails System itage Corridor in Massachusetts and Rhode 4. A comprehensive management and use Island. plan, describing the roles of the federal, Congress designates a “management state, and local governments, nonprofentity”—a local government, nonprofit, or fedits, and private landowners and usually eral commission—to coordinate the operation drafted by the agency managing the trail of each heritage area. The management entity drafts a management and protection plan for The process to create a national trail has projects in the heritage area, such as walking trails or the rehabilitation of historic buildings. taken anywhere from 6 to 15 years.33

CHAPTER 9: PROTECTING THE NATION’S LANDSCAPE TREASURES

The Land and Water Conservation Fund

The federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, established in 1965, has been a major source of funding for the purchase of natural environments and recreation lands. The fund receives royalties from federal offshore oil and gas leases in the continental shelf. These revenues have been used to add land to the national parks, national forests, and the National Wildlife Refuge System (see Chapter 10) as well as to create state and local parks and recreation areas. As of 2011, the Land and Water Conservation Fund had helped preserve nearly 7.6 million acres in more than 40,000 park, recreation, and wildlife habitat projects.34 The annual allocation of funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund is divided into 40 percent for federal land acquisition (the Land Resources Program) and 60 percent for state and local projects (the state and local grants program). The Land Resources Program has targeted private inholdings within federal lands through either fee simple purchase or the acquisition of conservation easements. State and local projects must be devoted to outdoor recreation. To receive funding, a state must draft a Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan for approval by the Department of the Interior describing how the state will spend the federal money to meet its outdoor recreation needs. The federal funds may be used to cover half the cost of purchasing or improving recreational land, and matching can come from state or local governments or nonprofit groups. Land acquired with funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund must remain forever in outdoor recreation use. Much of the money to states has gone to expand state parks, which now cover about 14 million acres.35 Congress may authorize up to $900 million a year from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for land acquisitions. But funding has averaged less than $300 million a year. Even so,

283

by 2012, Congress had authorized more than $3 billion to federal agencies and $3.6 billion in matching grants to state and local governments for the purchase of private lands. State and local governments provided another $3.6 billion in matching funds. Yet in 2011, states reported a need for $18.4 billion in funding for public outdoor recreation facilities and parkland acquisition.36 Natural Resources Conservation Service Landscape Conservation Initiatives

In 2009, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) launched an effort to protect landscape-scale regions where the science indicated that lands, water resources, and wildlife habitats were most valuable and vulnerable (see Figure 9.1). Key to this effort is a series of partnerships with state and local conservation programs. As of 2013, there were 16 project areas, including the Bay Delta Initiative in California to improve water quality, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, the Everglades Initiative in Florida, and the New England/New York Forestry Initiative.37 The NRCS can offer a variety of programs to improve soil and water conservation, such as the Agricultural Land Easement program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and the Conservation Stewardship Program. For a description of these programs, see Chapter 14.

9.3: State Programs to Protect Landscape Treasures State governments have several agencies and programs that help protect important landscapes. The leading agencies are the departments of state parks and natural resources. There are about 14 million acres of state parks

284

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

Figure 9.1. NRCS Landscape Conservation Initiatives Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2014. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/detail/national/home/?cid=stelprdb1042113. Retrieved May 3, 2014.

in the U.S., many of which contain important scenic, geologic, historic, and wildlife resources. Every state has one or more programs designed to protect specific natural landscapes, such as floodplains, wetlands, or the coastal zone. Many states have programs that designate and protect state scenic rivers and scenic byways and purchase land for wildlife and watershed protection or make grants for land conservation to local governments and nonprofit organizations. In the 23 states west of the Mississippi River, there are some 400 million acres of state trust lands. These lands were given to the states by the federal government. They are supposed to be managed to produce income for the good of the states’ citizens. Most of these lands are rural and can be managed for

timber harvesting or grazing. Yet the cultural, historic, and wildlife habitat resources on these lands are often significant. More than 20 state governments have State Environmental Quality Review Acts that require state agencies to perform reviews of state projects or approvals that would affect the environment, including water and air quality and important scenic, geologic, historic, and wildlife resources. Areas of Critical State Concern

Some states have designated areas of critical state concern to protect fragile environments and natural areas of statewide significance, such as mountains, lakes, wildlife habitats,

CHAPTER 9: PROTECTING THE NATION’S LANDSCAPE TREASURES

wetlands, and coastal areas. The designation of critical areas is proactive state planning that puts communities, landowners, and developers on notice that sensitive environmental areas can support only very limited development. Four of the leading examples of areas of critical state concern are the New Jersey Pinelands, Florida’s 1972 land-use law, the Lake Tahoe region between California and Nevada, and New York’s 6-million-acre Adirondack Park. The Pinelands, known for its cranberry bogs, cedar swamps, and small villages, covers a seven-county area of more than 900,000 acres in southern New Jersey, overlying one of the largest aquifers along the East Coast. In 1978, the U.S. Congress passed legislation calling for the protection of the Pinelands, and in 1979, the State of New Jersey responded by establishing the Pinelands Commission. The commission then drafted a comprehensive plan that designated most of the Pinelands as a “preservation” area with only very limited development. The plan included a “protection” area where more development could occur. A crucial part of this plan was a transfer of development rights (TDR) program, established in 1983, to compensate landowners in the preservation area and to move potential development into the protection area. As of 2011, more than 58,600 acres of land had been preserved through the TDR program.38 Under Florida’s 1972 land-use law, the state government may declare up to 5 percent of the state as critical areas. Regulations are drafted and responsibility shared by the state and local governments.39 Most of the designated critical areas are wetlands and coastal areas. The protection of critical areas was strengthened by the passage of the Preservation 2000 and subsequent Florida Forever funding programs, each of which authorized $300 million a year over 10 years for the purchase of sensitive environmental lands or conservation easements on those lands. A total of

285

more than 2.5 million acres were permanently protected by the two acts.40 The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency was jointly established in 1969 by California and Nevada. A prime concern of the agency is regulating development so that runoff from septic systems and roads does not pollute Lake Tahoe, known for its clear blue waters. The lake and the surrounding scenic vistas are major tourist attractions. In the 1980s, the agency evaluated all lands within the 320,000-acre basin and set categories for how much impervious surface would be allowed to cover a property. The agency also established a quota of about 300 new dwellings per year. In 1987, the agency created a TDR program to allow the transfer of underused impervious surface from environmentally sensitive properties to buildable properties. Also, the TDR can be used to enable property owners to remove existing structures. The agency’s TDR program was unsuccessfully challenged as a taking under the Fifth Amendment in 1997.41 Today, about 87 percent of the Lake Tahoe watershed is in federal ownership or managed by public agencies.42 New York’s Adirondack Park covers 6.1 million acres, slightly more than the neighboring State of Vermont, and is a combination of 42 percent state-owned land and 58 percent private land. The state land is generally offlimits to development—even logging. According to a clause placed in the state constitution in 1895, state lands must be kept “forever wild.” Since 1973, the private lands have been regulated by the Adirondack Park Agency, except for development within designated hamlets where local control prevails. The Adirondack Park Agency has established six zones: hamlet, industrial, moderate intensity, low intensity, rural use, and resource management. Any development proposal in each of these zones must receive a permit from the agency before construction can commence. The resource management zone covers more than 1 million

286

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

acres.46 That same year, Oregon voters passed a constitutional amendment that dedicated 15 percent of state lottery revenues for parks, beaches, wildlife, and watershed protection; the measure is expected to raise $1.74 billion.47 In total, from 1988 through 2012, voters across America approved more than 1,700 local and state ballot measures containing more than $57 billion for public land acquisition and socalled smart growth programs.48 Commenting on the overwhelming support for these ballot measures, Russ Shay of the Land Trust Alliance observed, “People are looking at the size of the challenge of dealing with development in their communities. Sooner or later they come to the Acquisition of Land and conclusion that they need help, that they can’t Conservation Easements do it by themselves, and that the broader the Many states, often with voter approval, have community involvement, the more likely it is provided substantial funding to buy outright that there will be success.”49 or purchase conservation easements on environmentally important open space, land for parks, farmland, buffers for drinking water 9.4: Local and Regional sources, and natural areas. In 2000, California voters approved more than $4 billion in state Acquisition of Open Space bonding for purchasing land for parks to pro- Many communities have chosen land acquisitect watersheds, drinking water supplies, and tion as a powerful addition to the comprehencoastal areas. In 1992, Colorado voters passed sive planning and land-use regulation process. a citizen’s initiative, earmarking $35 million The acquisition of land and conservation easea year in state lottery proceeds for the Colo- ments helps clarify where development should rado Open Space Program (known as Great or should not go. It is a way to keep sensitive Outdoors Colorado, or GOCO) to purchase environmental features from being developed parkland, natural areas, wildlife habitat, and while providing open space, parkland, trails, conservation easements on farms and ranch and recreational benefits. Land acquisition can lands. In 2001, voters allowed the State of Colhelp a community maintain a balance between orado to borrow up to $115 million against development and open land, keep its options future lottery proceeds in order to speed up open for the future, protect air and water qualthe purchase of these lands. As of 2014, GOCO ity, and minimize the need for costly public infrahad spent $825 million for the preservation of more than 1 million acres.45 The Land for structure investments to serve development. Maine’s Future was created in 1987 to preserve environmentally important lands throughout Public Efforts to Protect Special Landscapes the state. In 2012, Maine voters approved a $10.4 million bond to continue to fund the pro- Land acquisition is often necessary because gram, which has preserved more than 560,000 of impending development pressures and

acres of privately owned land and allows only one dwelling per 42 acres.43 Logging is still a viable industry, and most private forestlands are in the resource management zone. The power of the Adirondack Park Agency has caused considerable controversy and resentment among local landowners. On the other hand, the Adirondacks are one of the premier recreation areas in the Northeast, with 200,000 seasonal residents and up to 10 million visitors a year, many times the 137,000 year-round residents.44 The region has more than 3,000 lakes and 46 mountains above 4,000 feet.

CHAPTER 9: PROTECTING THE NATION’S LANDSCAPE TREASURES

because zoning and other land-use regulations are either politically vulnerable or unacceptable. Simply put, zoning is not permanent; it can change and often is changed by local elected officials. Moreover, strict zoning often faces opposition from landowners. One way around the opposition is the purchase of open space and environmentally important lands by county, township, and city governments. Usually, these purchases are voluntary between the government agency and landowners. Eminent domain can be used if the government agency pays just compensation (an amount often determined by a judge) to the landowner and puts the land to a public use, such as a park. But eminent domain stirs up fears among landowners of the government taking their land and at a low price.

287

Purchases of land and conservation easements by local governments can be expensive, running into the millions of dollars (see Table 9.1). For instance, in 2010, voters in San Antonio, Texas, passed an increase in the local sales tax to cover the cost of up to $90 million in bonds to purchase environmentally sensitive lands over the Edwards Aquifer, the city’s main water source. Fee simple purchase is preferable if the government wants to minimize the development of environmentally important lands and actively manage them for recreation, water quality, or nature preserves. Conservation easements are especially attractive for protecting working farm- and forestlands that also have environmentally valuable features. Conservation easements cost less than fee simple purchase, and landowners manage the land, subject to guidance from the easement holder.

Table 9.1. A Sample of Local Land Preservation Ballot Measures Passed in 2010 Jurisdiction

Funding Amount (in Millions of Dollars)

How Financed

Funds to Purchase

106

Sales tax

Open space

Madison, CT

9

Bonds

Open space

Belmont, MA

6.323

Property tax

Open space

Washtenaw County, MI

34.92

Property tax

Open space and farmland easements

Tigard, OR

13.6

Bonds

Parkland

East Coventry Township, PA

7.65

Local income

Open space, farmland, recreation lands

90

Sales tax

Watershed protection

Boulder County, CO

San Antonio, TX

Source: Trust for Public Land and Land Trust Alliance, Land Vote 2010. http://cloud.tpl.org/pubs/confin-LandVote2010 -rpt.pdf. Retrieved May 3, 2014.

288

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

Local opposition to public land acquisition typically focuses on tax increases and the loss of property tax base, because public lands and lands owned by nonprofit land trusts are exempt from property taxes. However, several studies have shown that permanently preserved land tends to increase the value of nearby private land.50 This in turn expands the tax base. In addition, most residential development today requires a greater expenditure in public services than it generates in property tax revenues.51 In the long run, land preservation can end up costing residents less than they would pay to provide public services to developed land. Greenways and Trails

Greenways and trails are an excellent way to provide public access to special landscapes and create linkages within and between communities. Greenways and trails are linear open space areas through woods, fields, and along highways, rail or utility corridors, and waterways. While trails usually allow public access, greenways may or may not. Greenways and trails can link residential areas with schools, parks, and commercial areas to encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel and minimize the use of cars. The creation of regional trails and greenways can be a catalyst for counties and municipalities to undertake other beneficial regional planning efforts such as water planning, habitat conservation, floodplain management, and recreation plans. Trail and greenway projects have generally enjoyed widespread public support. Funding to buy land to form trails and greenways has come from the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, some state programs, many communities, and several nonprofit organizations. Trails offer a variety of recreational and even commuting options, such as walking, running, biking, and horseback riding. Many

communities have taken advantage of established rights-of-way along utility corridors to create trail networks. Waterways make especially attractive locations for trails because of their scenic and recreational qualities and because most other types of development are not permitted within floodplains. Abandoned railroad corridors make excellent rails-to-trails projects because of the established rights-ofway and linkages among neighboring communities. At least 1,600 rails-to-trails projects covering more than 20,000 miles have been developed nationwide.52 The Transportation Equity Act of 1998 required 10 percent of its surface transportation funds to be set aside for transportation enhancements such as greenways and trails, as did its successor transportation act, SAFETEA-LU of 2004. But the 2012 transportation act, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, ended the transportation enhancements allocation; instead, trail and greenway projects must compete for funding with other transportation alternatives. A total of $800 million was available through 2014.53 Greenways along waterways provide important buffers to keep development at a distance from water resources, to intercept and filter stormwater runoff, and to absorb floodwaters and thus protect built-up areas. Greenways along highways help absorb fumes, exhaust, noise, and bright lights. Greenways also break up monotonous roadsides and can reduce the number of curb cuts for commercial or residential areas. Greenways can provide important wildlife habitat corridors and promote a variety of recreational pursuits, such as boating, canoeing, fishing, and bird watching. Oregon’s Willamette River Greenway, which runs more than 100 miles from Eugene to Portland, began through state legislation in 1967. In rural areas, no new development is allowed within 100 feet of the river, and in urban areas, the Greenway provides a walking trail, adding

CHAPTER 9: PROTECTING THE NATION’S LANDSCAPE TREASURES

to the local quality of life. The Willamette Valley is a major farming region, and the Greenway helps filter runoff before it reaches the river. The Willamette River Greenway has been credited with significantly improving the water quality of the Willamette River.54 In 1991, the New York legislature created the Hudson River Greenway Conservancy to work with local communities to coordinate the efforts of local governments and nonprofit groups in developing trails on both sides of the Hudson from Battery Park in New York City to the confluence of the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers and even as far north as Whitehall, New York, on the edge of the Adirondack Park. To date, the Hudson River Greenway Conservancy has helped build or improve nearly 750 miles of trails.55 Since 1998, Florida has been a leader in the creation of a statewide greenway system including recreational trails, with more than 2,700 miles of national recreation trails.56 The system connects natural areas and landscapes to support the “ability of these ecosystems to function as dynamic systems.”57 Boulder, Colorado, has spent more than $207 million since the late 1960s to purchase land and conservation easements to create a 45,000-acre greenbelt, which separates the city and Boulder County.58 New York City has more than 100 miles of greenways, and as of 2012, the city was looking to add 41.6 miles at a cost of $133 million.59 Starting in the late 1980s, greater Chattanooga, Tennessee, has been working to create a 100-mile riverside greenway and trail system. The 20 miles of greenways and trails in the city are credited with spurring the redevelopment of Chattanooga from one of the worst polluted cities in the late 1960s to one of the greenest today. The city is a prime tourist destination.60 The San Francisco–based Greenbelt Alliance not only drafted a greenbelt plan for the greater San Francisco Bay area but also worked with local governments to help preserve

289

600,000 acres of greenspace.61 Since 1997, the Trust for Public Land has been working with landowners and local governments to create a 180-mile greenway along Georgia’s Chattahoochee River. By 2011, more than $250 million had been raised and 75 miles of shoreline and 16,000 acres preserved.62 The Washington, DC– based Conservation Fund has a goal to help create a nationwide network of greenways connecting natural areas, historic sites, parks, and open spaces. Through its American Greenways Program, the fund makes seed grants for local greenway efforts and serves as an information clearinghouse on the development of greenways.63 Private Nonprofit Efforts to Protect Special Landscapes

In the early 1980s, the Reagan administration made deep funding cuts in the Department of Interior, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Since then, private nonprofit organizations have more than quadrupled in number and have preserved tens of millions of acres. These organizations have also expanded as a result of frustrations with the rapid pace of growth in many communities and the ineffectiveness of local land-use planning to protect important landscapes and natural resources. Nonprofit organizations that protect land include land trusts, river and watershed protection groups, sports groups, and private wildlife preserves. Often, local groups have been formed to complement larger and better-financed national organizations. Private, nonprofit groups apply to the Internal Revenue Service to receive a taxexempt “charitable organization” status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. As a charitable organization, a nonprofit may accept donations of land, conservation

290

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

easements, and money, and donors may claim donations as income tax deductions. But nonprofits are not allowed to endorse political candidates or engage in partisan politics. Nonprofits have stood out for their creativity in accomplishing land-protection projects both on private land and in conjunction with government agencies to expand public landholdings. Innovations have included the purchase of land with several funding sources; gifts of land from companies, families, and individuals; the purchase and donation of conservation easements; joint purchases of land or conservation easements with government agencies; land trades; mitigation banking; and the attraction of conservation buyers. Land Trusts

Land trusts work directly with private landowners to preserve land through purchasing land or conservation easements, accepting donations of land or conservation easements, or doing bargain sales of conservation easements that involve part cash and part donation. A conservation easement (technically, a deed of easement) is a legally binding document that a landowner and land trust sign when the landowner is selling or donating a conservation easement to the land trust. The deed of easement spells out the permitted and forbidden uses of the property. Typically, no additional commercial or industrial development is allowed and residential development is either tightly restricted or forbidden. The restrictions in the deed of easement run with the land, meaning that all future landowners are bound by the terms of the deed of easement. The large majority of conservation easements are perpetual, and federal tax law requires a perpetual conservation easement if a landowner wants to claim an income tax deduction or reduced estate value for donating a conservation easement. The federal government

offers term conservation easements of 30 years through the Agricultural Land Easement Program administered by the NRCS. Land trusts sometimes partner with government agencies to preserve land. Land trust staff and volunteers often have a good understanding of the extent of sensitive lands and wildlife habitat in a community or region and the need to protect large blocks of land and migration corridors to maintain ecosystems (see Photo 9.2). Land trusts began in 1891 when the Trustees of Reservations was formed in Massachusetts. By 1960, there were about 400 land trusts nationwide, but the numbers soared in the 1980s and 1990s. As of 2010, there were more than 1,700 land trusts, according the Land Trust Alliance, a national organization devoted to promoting the creation and development of land trusts.64 The alliance serves as a clearinghouse of information about land trust practices, publishes a variety of books and reports, and sponsors an annual national conference. Many land trusts are located in the densely populated Northeast where public lands are rather scarce. But land trusts have become popular in California, Colorado, and in parts of the Midwest where development pressures have become intense. Some land trusts operate nationally, such as the Nature Conservancy and the Trust for Public Land. Some have a statewide focus, such as the Vermont Land Trust, which has preserved more than 500,000 acres of mostly farmland and forests, and the Montana Land Reliance, which has preserved more than 800,000 acres.65 Many land trusts have a regional presence; the Maine Coast Heritage Trust has preserved more than 130,000 acres of the state’s shoreline and islands, the Peninsula Open Space Trust has preserved more than 70,000 acres on the San Francisco Peninsula of California, and the Brandywine Conservancy has preserved more than 44,000 acres in the Brandywine River Valley

CHAPTER 9: PROTECTING THE NATION’S LANDSCAPE TREASURES

291

Photo 9.2. A former ranch, known as the Konza Prairie, was preserved for buffalo habitat by the Nature Conservancy and Kansas State University. Source: Tom Daniels.

of southeast Pennsylvania and northern Delaware.66 In total, land trusts have protected more than 50 million acres nationwide. The large land trusts have professional staff and use GISs and strategic planning to identify and evaluate important environmental areas and resource lands and to monitor properties they own or on which they hold conservation easements. The 2010 National Land Trust Census reported that land trusts with strategic conservation plans protected twice as much land as land trusts without plans.67 Moreover,

large land trusts have become serious players in local and regional land-use planning efforts; there are many examples of joint public-private easement purchases and the transfer of land preserved by land trusts to public ownership.68 Most land trusts are small and work locally at the township or county level. They often are staffed by volunteers and have preserved only a few thousand acres. The shortcomings of most land trusts are a lack of staff and financial resources and the ability to create only “islands” of protected land, often amid

292

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

encroaching development. Islands of preserved land are often insufficient to protect entire ecosystems or special landscapes. In any conservation easement donation or purchase, the land trust takes on a long-term responsibility for monitoring the property to ensure that the landowners abide by the terms of the deed of easement, especially the permitted and forbidden uses of the property. Monitoring takes time and staff and is expensive; most land trusts ask easement donors to give a stewardship endowment to help pay for monitoring. A shortage of funds means that most land trusts rely primarily on conservation easement donations rather than pursue easement purchases. Conservation easement donations. The main technique that land trusts use to protect land is the donation of conservation easements. Some large land trusts are able to purchase conservation easements either at full value or in a bargain sale of part cash and part donation. (For an example of a conservation easement sale, see Table 14.4 in Chapter 14.) Many federal agencies have also acquired conservation easements by purchase or donation, including the National Park Service, the FWS, the NRCS, the Farm Service Agency, and the U.S. Forest Service. Several state conservation agencies also have programs to acquire conservation easements. Many landowners love their property. They do not wish to see it become part of the built environment. But the rising value of real estate in recent decades has put pressure on families wishing to keep land in the family. Transferring land intact to heirs has become more difficult, partly because it has been difficult for families to agree on what to do with the land. In 2013, Congress raised the individual estate tax exemption to $5 million (and indexed for inflation).69 The permanent conservation easement is a legal contract restricting the use of the land to open space and possibly farming or forestry

uses (see Figure 9.1). The easement is signed by the landowner and the land trust and recorded at the county courthouse. The easement “runs with the land,” meaning that it applies to future owners as well as the landowner who donates the easement. The land trust that holds the conservation easement has a legal responsibility to monitor the property and enforce the terms of the easement. Monitoring should consist of an annual on-site visit and written report. Monitoring is an excellent way for the land trust to maintain a good relationship with landowners. The value of a conservation easement is determined by a professional appraiser in a written appraisal. The value is the difference between the estimated fair market value of the property if it were sold today and the estimated value of the property subject to the restrictions of the conservation easement. There are several potential tax benefits from donating a permanent conservation easement. The landowner may use the value of a perpetual conservation easement as an income tax deduction, subject to certain limits defined in Section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code. There may be estate tax benefits depending on the size of the landowner’s estate. A landowner can reduce the value of an estate by donating a permanent conservation easement to a land trust or government agency. A few states, most notably Colorado and Virginia, offer state income tax credits for people who donate a conservation easement on their land. Finally, in some states, the landowner may receive a reduction in the assessed value of the property for property tax purposes. For instance, the Maryland Environmental Trust, as state agency, has the authority to grant a 13-year property tax abatement on any property on which it receives a conservation easement donation. Some landowners feel that they cannot afford to donate an easement but want to find

CHAPTER 9: PROTECTING THE NATION’S LANDSCAPE TREASURES

a way to keep most of their land intact while getting some cash out of a portion of their land. On occasion, land trusts have been involved in “limited development” projects in which a few to several house lots are subdivided and excluded from a conservation easement while the remaining open land is restricted by a conservation easement. Land trusts need to be careful when considering a limited development project, however. They need to ask themselves, Will the project really further the conservation purposes of the land trust, or is the landowner trying to use the conservation easement on part of the property to increase the value of the house lots that can be sold? As a general rule, the fewer house lots and the more land area placed under a conservation easement, the more likely that the land conservation purposes of the easement will be achieved. Ad Hoc Citizens Groups

Not all land protection takes place through government agencies or formal private organizations. Ad hoc citizens groups are often formed to try to protect a property with scenic views, wildlife habitat, or other natural features that is threatened with development. These lastditch efforts often fail because development permission has already been granted by the local government, or the citizens are unable to amass enough money to take the case to court or to buy the property outright. Ad hoc in Latin literally means “toward this” or “for this purpose,” reflecting the specific interest of a group. One shortcoming of ad hoc groups is that they are often formed around a single issue, and once that issue is resolved, the groups disband. This is reactive planning. Yet there are several nonprofit organizations that began as ad hoc groups and evolved into land trusts or land-use watchdog organizations. For instance, in 1991, plans to dam the Locust Fork River in Alabama brought on a crisis that

293

compelled a group of citizens to form the Friends of the Locust Fork River. The Friends were able to defeat the dam and have kept the Locust Fork a free-flowing river. The Friends evolved into a nonprofit organization, currently with more than 900 members, and undertake public awareness programs, river cleanup days, and recreational outings on the river.70 National Land Conservation Organizations and Private Foundations

There are several national organizations that protect significant landscapes; participate in debates over environmental legislation; enter lawsuits against government agencies, polluters, and developers; or fund the preservation of important land and water environments. These national organizations typically have large amounts of money, and their land acquisitions can have major impacts on local communities. Local planners should be aware of these organizations and forge a working relationship with them, just as with state, local, and regional land trusts. Information on how to contact these and other national environmental organizations is listed in the Contacts section at the end of the book. The Sierra Club is the nation’s oldest environmental organization, founded in 1892 by the pioneering conservationist John Muir. Unlike many other environmental groups, the Sierra Club does not have a nonprofit status because of its lobbying efforts and endorsement of political candidates. The Sierra Club also takes legal action. The Sierra Club has been instrumental in protecting some of America’s greatest natural treasures, such as the Grand Canyon. There are Sierra Club chapters that are active in state and local land conservation issues. The Wilderness Society was formed in 1935 to preserve, protect, and expand wilderness areas. The Wilderness Society does

294

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

economic and ecological evaluations of federal policy, purchases property for wilderness areas, and takes legal action to protect wilderness areas. The Wilderness Society has helped create almost 110 million acres of wilderness areas in 44 states.71 The mission of the Nature Conservancy is to conserve land and water resources that benefit humans, ecosystems, and wildlife. Since 1951, the Nature Conservancy has protected more than 119 million acres around the world,72 including an estimated 15 million acres in the U.S. The Nature Conservancy is known for its science-based preservation work and owns and manages almost 1,500 nature preserves worldwide. The Trust for Public Land, founded in 1972, protects land for greenways and recreation areas, urban parks, water quality, scenic vistas, and historic and working landscapes. As of 2012, the Trust for Public Land had helped protect more than 3 million acres in 4,250 park and land conservation projects nationwide.73 The Conservation Fund was established in 1985 to protect land and water resources. The Conservation Fund seeks to “conserve open space, parklands, water resources, wetlands, wildlife and waterfowl habitat in cooperation with others.” As of 2012, the Conservation Fund had helped protect more than 7 million acres in all 50 states.74 The Conservation Fund also works with developers to demonstrate that sensitive development design is good for business and can enhance community character. American Rivers was founded in 1973 with a mission to increase the number of rivers protected through the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. American Rivers works with government agencies and local watershed organizations to restore wildlife habitat and water quality and has helped protect more than 22,000 miles of river and more than 5.5 million acres of riverside lands, an area about equal to the State of Vermont. Each year, American

Rivers names the 10 most endangered rivers in the U.S. (see Table 9.2). There are several private foundations that actively support land trusts and national land conservation organizations. These foundations are important sources of funding, and the competition for their grants is intense. Leading foundations that support land conservation efforts include the following foundations: • Doris Duke Charitable Foundation • John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation • Andrew W. Mellon Foundation • Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation • National Fish and Wildlife Foundation • Rockefeller Foundation • David and Lucile Packard Foundation • Pew Charitable Trusts • Surdna Foundation • Ford Foundation The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, for instance, has provided more than $240 million in grants to support environmental projects and land preservation efforts.75 The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation has contributed significantly toward the preservation of battlefield sites. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation has provided more than $200 million for the purchase of conservation easements in California. There are also many local and regional foundations that support conservation projects within their vicinity. For example, the William Penn Foundation in Philadelphia has provided substantial funding to land trusts operating in the greater Philadelphia region.

CHAPTER 9: PROTECTING THE NATION’S LANDSCAPE TREASURES

295

Table 9.2. America’s 10 Most Endangered Rivers, 2014, According to American Rivers River

States Included

1. San Joaquin River

California

2. Upper Colorado River

Colorado

3. Middle Mississippi River

Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee

4. Gila River

New Mexico

5. San Francisquito Creek

California

6. South Fork Edisto River

South Carolina

7. White River

Colorado

8. White River

Washington

9. Haw River

North Carolina

10. Clearwater/Lochsa Rivers

Idaho

Source: American Rivers. “2014 America’s Most Endangered Rivers,” 2014. https://www.americanrivers.org/ endangered-rivers/. Retrieved May 3, 2014.

9.5: Local Planning for Landscape Treasures Cities, towns, and counties have recognized that both long-term residents and newcomers appreciate the open space, wildlife habitats, scenic vistas, and water-quality protection that natural landscapes provide. At the same time, there are demands on the land for working farm, forestry, and mining uses and for residential and commercial development. Striking a balance among the natural environment, the working landscapes, and the built environment is one of the biggest challenges that local governments face. Balance requires cooperation and long-term commitment from politicians, landowners, the building

industry, land conservation groups, and the public-at-large. Politicians both within and across jurisdictions will have to agree to protect important environmental features and implement effective regulations, financial incentives, and land acquisition programs. Landowners and developers must be able to live with the regulations and incentives. Land conservation groups can help supplement public funds for land conservation and land protection efforts. The public will need to support the politicians and spending programs at the ballot box. Finally, some states, such as Pennsylvania, require that local governments incorporate planning for the protection of natural resources and historic areas in their comprehensive plans.

296

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

Inventory

educational, and economic value. Planners can identify related goals and objectives in the community facilities, land use, and economic base sections of the comprehensive plan. From these goals and objectives come specific strategic actions. Boulder County, Colorado, lies 25 miles north and west of Denver along the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains and is home to the City of Boulder and Rocky Mountain National Park. The county has been a leader in growth management and the protection of its landscapes. The county has expressed a number of goals and policies for landscape protection, including the following goals and policies:

The natural resources inventory of the comprehensive plan can include data and maps of the environmental treasures of the community, including their location, type, and importance. These treasures might consist of environmental features recognized at the federal, state, regional, or local level, such as mountain ridges and other geologic formations, scenic vistas, historic and cultural landscapes, parks, and scenic rivers and highways. Information sources include the state environmental department or department of natural resources, the state historic preservation office, the state transportation department, and local land trusts. It is also a good idea to survey local residents and • Goal: Unique or distinctive natural fealand conservation groups to ask them what tures and ecosystems, and cultural feathey consider to be the community’s landtures and sites should be conserved and scape treasures. The planning commission can preserved in recognition of the irreplacealso undertake a viewshed analysis to identify able character of such resources and their scenic vistas that are worthy of protection. importance to the quality of life in Boulder County. Natural resources should be managed in a manner that is consistent with Analysis sound conservation practices and ecological principles. In the analysis of landscape treasures, planners can rank natural and cultural landscapes by • Goal: Unique or critical environmental their importance. Planners can use the comresources shall be conserved and preserved munity’s future population projection to evalin a manner that assures their protection uate potential impacts on special landscapes from adverse impacts, with the private secand to estimate the need for future parks, rector, noncounty agencies and other governreation areas, and trails. This analysis forms the mental jurisdictions being encouraged to basis for natural resource protection goals and participate. objectives, the action strategy, and drafting • Policy: Areas that are considered as valuthe future land-use map and the zoning map. able scenic vistas, such as the foothills portion of Boulder County, shall be preserved as much as possible in their Goals and Objectives natural state. Planners must set realistic goals and objectives • Policy: The county shall use its open space program as one means of achieving its for special landscapes (see Table 9.3). The overenvironmental resources and cultural presall goal should be to protect important landervation goals.76 scape features that have aesthetic, recreational,

CHAPTER 9: PROTECTING THE NATION’S LANDSCAPE TREASURES

297

Table 9.3. Sample Special Landscapes Goals and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan Section: Natural Resources Goal: Protect important and unique natural and historic landscape features that provide aesthetic, recreational, educational, and economic opportunities. Objective: Put an open space bond measure on the ballot. Objective: Nominate unique natural features for state or federal designation and protection. Section: Community Facilities Objective: Complete a community open space plan. Objective: Add additional lands to community and regional parks, greenways, and trails. Section: Economic Base Objective: Protect important and unique natural landscape features that are important to local tourism and recreation businesses as well as to the quality of life of local residents. Section: Land Use Objective: Keep commercial recreational development away from unique natural landscape features, such as ridgelines and viewsheds. Objective: Encourage compact development to avoid the loss or degradation of important and unique natural landscape features and vistas.

Action Strategy

such as scenic rivers and highways, ridgelines, and viewsheds within and adjacent to important public landscapes.

The Action Strategy should present techniques and programs for achieving the landscape goals and objectives according to benchmarks and a • Explore state and federal funding for the purchase of environmentally sensitive lands timetable. The Action Strategy might include and conservation easements on those the following specific recommendations: lands. • Create a separate open space plan to identify the community’s landscape treasures and list the ways that these landscapes could be protected. • Explore the use of zoning overlay districts to protect sensitive environmental features,

• Create partnerships with nonprofit groups for the preservation of important and unique natural and cultural resources. • Add acreage to the county and municipal park systems to include sensitive environmental areas over the next five years.

298

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

• Discuss creating a regional trail network with neighboring municipalities and counties. Zoning Ordinance

Some communities use conservation zoning to limit the amount of development that can occur on private land in an attempt to protect natural features. Typically, conservation zoning employs a large minimum lot size, such as 10 acres, for each house that can be built. Yet even this type of zoning must leave a landowner with a viable economic use of the property. State courts vary in their interpretation of when a conservation zoning ordinance goes too far and results in an unreasonable loss of a property’s economic use. The success of large-lot zoning often depends on the minimum lot size that is required. For example, a conservation zone with a five-acre minimum lot size will simply encourage the subdivision of land into five-acre “estates” and “ranchettes.” The larger the lot size, the more likely the zoning will keep land in contiguous open blocks that are beneficial to wildlife and plant life and provide open space for the community. Often, public officials hope that timber and agricultural zones with large minimum lot sizes of 40 acres or more will also help protect natural features and wildlife habitats. Alternatively, a community can promote lower development densities and more open space through density-based zoning, such as one building lot per 10 acres with the building lot no more than two acres in size. Siting standards in the zoning ordinance can require minimum setbacks from scenic rivers and roads. Zoning overlay districts are common tools to protect significant environmental areas that have public value. An overlay zone is a special zoning district created to protect a specific resource, such as a scenic corridor. These

resources often have irregular boundaries that do not coincide with private property lines. The overlay zone is drawn on the zoning map on top of a base zone—such as a residential zone—to include the selected features for protection and thereby create a double zone. A landowner who proposes to develop property in an overlay zone must meet the provisions of both the base zone and the overlay zone. Take, for example, an area that has a base zone R-1 single family residential, but part of the area lies within the viewshed of a scenic highway. A scenic viewshed overlay zone “SV” could be placed on top of part of the R-1 zone to create tighter building restrictions, such as requiring that all new buildings be at least 100 feet from the highway, have landscaping, and be no more than 30 feet tall. A proposed development would have to meet the zoning requirements of both the R-1 zone and the SV zone. Overlay zones have been used to protect a variety of environmental features, such as mountain ridges and unique geologic formations; areas with steep slopes (greater than 15 percent slope); wetlands; floodplains; scenic rivers, highways, and viewsheds; historic and cultural landscapes; aquifers, wellhead areas, and watersheds; historic buildings and districts; and important plant and wildlife habitats. Subdivision Regulations

Many communities have adopted mandatory dedication standards for parks, open space, and trails in their subdivision and landdevelopment ordinances. Developers of residential subdivisions are required to set aside land or fees in lieu of land for these amenities. Developers can be required to set aside land for parks, trails, and greenways where communities have identified desired future locations of trails and greenways in a strategic open space plan. An open space plan has the advantage of

CHAPTER 9: PROTECTING THE NATION’S LANDSCAPE TREASURES

facilitating the interconnection of several individual trail and greenway segments. The subdivision and land-development ordinance is an important tool for regulating developments that are proposed near significant natural features. The ordinance can include standards for an environmental impact assessment for major residential subdivisions and for commercial and industrial projects of more than one acre. Stormwater runoff should be contained on-site as much as possible through vegetation, swales, and retention basins. Roads and impervious surfaces should be tightly controlled. The subdivision ordinance can require buffering berms and vegetation to protect neighboring special landscapes. Another important issue is archaeological sites and artifacts. Boulder County, Colorado, requires, “For each historical site listed in the Boulder County Historic Sites Survey, the archaeological potential of the site is evaluated. The exact location of sensitive archaeological sites may be withheld from the public in order to prevent artifact gathering and other forms of destruction. Additionally, archaeological sites must be addressed in a manner that is sensitive to the cultural beliefs of the affected population.”77 Capital Improvements Program

Planners can use the capital improvements program to direct growth and development away from environmentally and culturally important landscapes. Major roads, schools, and extensions of central sewer and water lines should generally be kept out of these areas in order to discourage intensive growth and development that would degrade the quality of these landscapes. A capital improvements program may include funding for the public acquisition of privately held environmentally important lands or the purchase of conservation easements to those lands. Land and easement purchases are

299

often expensive, require long-term financing, and hence are considered capital investments. Such land preservation is often referred to as “green infrastructure” and can be as important as traditional gray infrastructure, such as sewer and water facilities, for attracting economic development and providing a good quality of life in a community. What to Look for in a Development Review

Planners can evaluate development proposals according to a map and database of significant natural, cultural, and historic sites in the community. If the development is likely to have an adverse impact on these sites, the development may need to be scaled down or reconfigured to provide needed protection. For larger developments, the local government can use the subdivision regulations to require the developer to conduct an environmental impact assessment identifying potential conflicts with sites of importance to the community (see Table 9.4). Planners can determine whether the proposal would preserve open space, maintain acceptable vegetative cover, or create trail and greenway linkages with neighboring parcels, consistent with a community open space plan. The development should have a minimal impact on viewsheds and other scenic resources. The better a development fits ecologically and blends in aesthetically with the natural and cultural environment, the more of an asset it will be to the community.

9.6: Case Study: Antietam Battlefield Protection The Battle of Antietam marked the bloodiest day in the history of the United States, September 17, 1862. More than 23,000 Union and

300

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

Table 9.4. A Checklist of Natural and Scenic Environment Issues in a Development Review 1.

What are the size, location, and land uses of the proposed development?

2.

How close is the proposed development to any important natural and cultural sites and environmental features?

3.

Is the proposed development within a scenic viewshed?

4.

Will trail linkages and greenways be provided consistent with a local or regional open space plan?

5.

Are conservation easements being donated to a government agency or private nonprofit organization to protect open space?

6.

Has the developer obtained any necessary state or federal permits?

Confederate soldiers were killed or wounded. The battle took place near the western Maryland village of Sharpsburg, and the battleground remained a quiet area until the late 1980s when a shopping center and motel were proposed on the nearby Grove Farm. Maryland Governor William Donald Schaefer and Transportation Secretary O. James Lighthizer formed the Civil War Heritage Commission, and Lighthizer helped win $10 million in federal transportation funds to protect the private lands that made up the Antietam viewshed. The land protection strategy featured four main elements: (1) setting a priority of lands for preservation, (2) combining several public and private funding sources, (3) working with private landowners, and (4) offering full-appraised conservation easement value in cash and no eminent domain (see Figure 9.2). The funders included the State of Maryland (Program Open Space, the Maryland Environmental Trust, the Rural Legacy Program, and the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation), federal transportation funds, and nonprofits—the Conservation Fund, the Civil War Preservation Trust, and the Richard King Mellon Foundation. In all, the protection

of Antietam battlefield viewshed resulted in the preservation of 7,600 acres at a cost of just under $16 million. Summary

America is blessed with an abundance of landscape treasures. The federal government has emphasized both the protection of wilderness areas and the use of national forests and BLM land for mining, grazing, and timber production. The Wilderness Act of 1964 marked the designation of millions of acres of national forest as wilderness. The addition of Alaska lands by President Carter in 1980 and President Clinton’s 2001 Roadless Rule on 58 million acres of national forest land boosted the effective wilderness acres to more than 100 million. The Land and Water Conservation Fund of 1965 marked the start of dedicated federal funding for adding private lands to federal ownership and for federal grants to states to acquire land for public recreation. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 created a system for protecting free-flowing rivers.

CHAPTER 9: PROTECTING THE NATION’S LANDSCAPE TREASURES

Figure 9.2. Viewshed Protection Strategy and Land Preservation Results, Antietam Battlefield Source: Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Program Open Space, 1994 and 2001.

301

302

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

Figure 9.2. Viewshed Protection Strategy and Land Preservation Results, Antietam Battlefield (continued)

CHAPTER 9: PROTECTING THE NATION’S LANDSCAPE TREASURES

A number of states have provided special protection to critical environmental areas, such as New York’s Adirondack region, the Lake Tahoe Basin between California and Nevada, and the New Jersey Pinelands. Local governments and nonprofit organizations have preserved many special landscapes. Land trusts most often acquire conservation easements, which keep the land in private ownership. Land trusts have preserved more than 50 million acres nationwide. Local governments can incorporate the protection of special landscapes in the comprehensive planning process, such as through an open space plan, conservation zoning, subdivision regulations, and the acquisition of land and conservation easements as part of the capital improvement plan. The goal is to strike a balance among natural areas, working landscapes, and the built environment.

Notes 1. Thoreau, H. D. (text), and E. Porter (photos). In Wildness Is the Preservation of the World. San Francisco: Sierra Club, 1962. First published 1862. 2. Roosevelt, T. “Confession of Faith Speech.” Progressive National Convention, Chicago, August 6, 1912. 3. Speth, J. G. Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis of the Global Environment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004, p. 42. 4. Roman, J. Listed: Dispatches from America’s Endangered Species Act. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011, p. 61. 5. Hays, S. P. Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive Conservation Movement, 1890–1920. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959. 6. Ibid.

303

7. Natural Resources Defense Council. Amicus Journal, Winter 2001, p. 11. 8. Rasker, R., P. Gude, and M. Delorey. “The Effect of Protected Federal Lands on Economic Prosperity in the Non-Metropolitan West.” Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy. Vol. 43, No. 2 (2012), pp. 110–122. 9. Outdoor Industry Foundation. The Active Outdoor Recreation Economy: A $730 Billion Annual Contribution to the U.S. Economy. 2006. http://www.outdoorindustry.org/images/ researchfiles/RecEconomypublic.pdf?26. Retrieved April 5, 2012. 10. Walls, M. Parks and Recreation in the United States. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 2009, pp. 5–6. http://www.rff.org/ RFF/Documents/RFF-BCK-ORRG_National%20 Park%20System.pdf. Retrieved May 2, 2014. 11. Becker, K. National Park Service. “National Park Service Releases 2012 Attendance Numbers,” April 4, 2013. http://www.gadling .com/2013/04/04/national-park-service-releases -2012-attendance-numbers/. Retrieved May 2, 2014. 12. Howe, J., E. McMahon, and L. Propst. Balancing Nature and Commerce in Gateway Communities. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1997. 13. Duane, T. P. Shaping the Sierra: Nature, Culture and Conflict in the Changing West. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. 14. Club Colorado. “Colorado Ski Country USA Sees Skier Visits Increase in 2010/11” (press release). June 8, 2011. http://blog.coloradoski .com/2011/06/13/colorado-ski-country-usa -sees-skier-visits-increase-in-201011/. Retrieved April 6, 2012. 15. Louv, R. Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. New York: Workman, 2008, p. 10. 16. National Atlas.gov. “Federal Lands and Indian Reservations.”2011. http://www.national atlas.gov/printable/fedlands.html. Retrieved April 8, 2012. 17. 16 U.S.C. Sections 431–433.

304

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

18. National Park Service. “National Monument Proclamations Under the Antiquities Act.” Last modified January 16, 2003. http://www .cr.nps.gov/history/hisnps/npshistory/monu ments.htm. Retrieved February 11, 2013. 19. 16 U.S.C. Section 1131(a). 20. Egan, T. “Alaska Changes View on Carter After 20 Years.” New York Times, August 25, 2000, p. A14. 21. Council on Environmental Quality. Annual Report, 1996. Washington, DC: USGPO, 1996, p. 260. 22. Wyoming v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (09-8075), 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (October 21, 2011). 23. National Park Service. “Frequently Asked Questions.” 2014. http://www.nps.gov/faqs .htm. Retrieved May 3, 2014; National Park Service. “National Parks by State.” 2006. http:// www.nationalparkservice.org/national-parks -by-state.html. Retrieved April 8, 2012. 24. 39 U.S.C. Section 535. 25. National Park Service. Land Resources Program: Accomplishments, 2008–2010. 2011. http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/lwcf/fed/ images/LR_Repor t_Final_SPREADS.pdf. Retrieved April 17, 2012. 26. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. “Lands and Realty.” Last modified March 29, 2011. http://www.blm .gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/lands/land_tenure .html. Retrieved April 8, 2012. 27. BLM. “National Landscape Conservation System National Conservation Areas and Similar Designations.” 2010. http://www.blm.gov/ pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Law_Enforce ment/nlcs/online_electronic.Par.98422.File .dat/NCAs%20and%20similar%20designation s%20detail%20table%20December%202010 .pdf. Retrieved April 8, 2012. 28. BLM. “National Landscape Conservation System National Monuments.” 2010. http:// www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/ Law_Enforcement/nlcs/online_electronic

.Par.98873.File.dat/NM%20detail%20table%20 December%202010.pdf. Retrieved April 8, 2012. 29. Rivers.gov. “River Mileage Classification for Components of the September 2012 National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.” 2013, p. 25. http://www.rivers.gov/documents/rivers -table.pdf. Retrieved May 3, 2014. 30. National Park Service. “What Are National Heritage Areas?” 2012. http://www.nps.gov/ history/heritageareas/FAQ/. Retrieved April 16, 2012. 31. National Park Service. National Trails System Annual Report for FY 2011. 2012. http:// www.nps.gov/nts/2011%2006MOU%20RPT% 205%20Final%20Version.pdf. Retrieved May 3, 2014. 32. Bryson, B. A Walk in the Woods. New York: Broadway Books, 1999, p. 112. 33. National Park Service. “How to Establish a National Trail.” 2011. http://www.nps.gov/ nts/national_trail_more.html. Retrieved May 3, 2014. 34. National Park Service. Land Resources Program: Accomplishments, 2008–2010. 2011. http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/lwcf/fed/ images/LR_Repor t_Final_SPREADS.pdf. Retrieved April 17, 2012; National Park Service. “Land and Water Conservation Fund.” 2012. http://www.nps.gov/lwcf/. Retrieved May 3, 2014. 35. Walls, M. Parks and Recreation in the United States: State Park Systems. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 2009. http:// www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-BCK-ORRG _State%20Parks.pdf. Retrieved April 16, 2012. 36. National Park Service. “Land and Water Conservation Fund.” 2012. http://www.nps .gov/lwcf/. Retrieved May 3, 2014; National Park Service. State and Local Assistance Program, Annual Report 2011. 2012, p. 15. http://www .nps.gov/lwcf/LWCF%20Annual%20Report%20 2011_final.pdf. Retrieved April 16, 2012. 37. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. “Landscape

CHAPTER 9: PROTECTING THE NATION’S LANDSCAPE TREASURES

Initiatives.” http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/main/national/programs/initiatives/. Retrieved May 10, 2013. 38. New Jersey Pinelands Commission. “New Jersey Pinelands Development Credit Program.” 2012. http://www.state.nj.us/pinelands/ infor/fact/PDCfacts.pdf. Retrieved May 3, 2014. 39. Healy, R., and J. Rosenberg. Land Use and the States. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, pp. 134–44. 40. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. “Florida Forever.” 2014. http://www .dep.state.fl.us/lands/fl_forever.htm. Retrieved May 3, 2014. 41. Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (96-243), 520 U.S. 725 (1997); Pruetz, R. Saved by Development. Burbank, CA: Arje Press, 1997, pp. 12–13. 42. Tahoe Fund. “Protecting Lake Tahoe.” 2011. http://www.tahoefund.org/about-tahoe/ help-protect-lake-tahoe/. Retrieved April 17, 2012. 43. Healy, R., and J. Rosenberg. Land Use and the States. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, p. 187. 44. Adirondack Park Agency. “Maps and Geographic Information Systems (GIS).” 2014. http://apa.ny.gov/gis/index.html. Retrieved May 3, 2014. 45. Great Outdoors Colorado. “About Us.” 2014. http://www.goco.org/about-us. Retrieved May 3, 2014. 46. Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry. “Land for Maine’s Future.” 2013. http://www.maine.gov/dacf/lmf/. Retrieved May 3, 2014. 47. Trust for Public Land. States With Dedicated Funding Sources for Land Conservation. 2013. http://www.conservationalmanac .org/National_Overview/NM_Handout.pdf. Retrieved May 3, 2013. 48. Trust for Public Land. LandVote Database. 2012. https://www.quickbase.com/db/

305

bbqna2qct?a=dbpage&pageID=10. Retrieved April 17, 2012. 49. Quoted in Cook, E. “Land Trusts’ Role in Procuring Public Funding for Conservation.” 2002. www.greenumbrella.org/sites/default/files/ Public-Funding.doc. Retrieved May 3, 2014. 50. Lerner, S., and W. Poole. The Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space. San Francisco, CA: Trust for Public Land, 1999. http://ntl .bts.gov/lib/10000/10800/10801/index.html. Retrieved May 22, 2014. 51. Daniels, T., and D. Bowers. Holding Our Ground: Protecting America’s Farms and Farmlands. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1997, p. 55. 52. Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. “About Railsto-Trails Conservancy.” 2007. http://www.rails totrails.org/aboutUs/index.html. Retrieved April 18, 2012. 53. American Bikes. Analysis of the New Transportation Bill, MAP-21. 2012. http://www .americabikes.org/analysis_of_the_new_trans portation_bill_map_21#TE. Retrieved May 3, 2013. 54. Oregon State Marine Board. Willamette River Recreation Guide. December 2007. http:// www.oregon.gov/OSMB/library/docs/WillametteRiverGuidePDF.pdf. Retrieved May 3, 2013. 55. State of New York, Hudson River Valley Greenway. “Hudson River Valley Greenway Annual Report 2012,” 2013. http://www .hudsongreenway.ny.gov/Libraries/PDF_s/2012 _Greenway_HRVNHA_Annual_Report.sflb .ashx. Retrieved May 3, 2014. 56. American Trails. “Florida Trails Resources.” 2014. https://www.americantrails.org/resources/ statetrails/FLstate.html. Retrieved May 3, 2014. 57. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Plan for a Statewide System of Greenways: Five Year Florida Greenways System Implementation. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 1998, p. 11. 58. City of Boulder, CO. “Land Acquisition Program.” 2014. https://bouldercolorado.gov/ osmp/land-acquisition-program. Retrieved May 3, 2014.

306

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

59. City of New York, Parks and Recreation Department. “Parks Cuts Ribbon on $20 Million Rehabilitation Of Shore Parkway.” 2007. http:// www.nycgovparks.org/parks/shoreroadpark/ pressrelease/19914. Retrieved May 3, 2014. 60. Bowen, J., and C. Davis. “Tennessee Riverwalk Helped Spur Revitalization in Chattanooga.” American Trails Magazine, Spring 2010. http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ greenways/Tennessee-Riverwalk-Greenway -Chattanooga.html. Retrieved April 18, 2012. 61. Platt, K. “Going Green.” Planning, August 2000, p. 21. 62. Trust for Public Land. “Chattahoochee Land Protection.” 2011. http://www.tpl.org/ what-we-do/where-we-work/georgia/Chatta hoochee-Land-Protection.html. Retrieved April 18, 2012. 63. The Conservation Fund. “The Kodak American Greenways Program.” 2009. http:// www.ohiorivertrail.org/attachments/097 _The%20Kodak%20American%20Greenways %20Program%20_%20The%20Conservation %20Fund.pdf. Retrieved May 3, 2014. 64. Land Trust Alliance. “2010 National Land Trust Census.” 2012. http://www.landtrust alliance.org/land-trusts/land-trust-census. Retrieved April 20, 2012. 65. Vermont Land Trust. “About the Vermont Land Trust.” 2012. http://www.vlt.org/ about-vlt. Retrieved April 20, 2012; Montana Land Reliance. “Private Land Protection.” 2012. http://www.mtlandreliance.org/achieve.htm. Retrieved April 20, 2012. 66. Maine Coast Heritage Trust. “About Maine Coast Heritage Trust.” 2009. http://www .mcht.org/about/index.html. Retrieved April 20, 2012; Peninsula Open Space Trust. “Who We Are.” 2012. http://www.openspacetrust.org/ about/index.html. Retrieved April 20, 2012; Brandywine Conservancy. Brandywine Conservancy 2010 Annual Report. 2011. http://www

.brandywineconservancy.org/pdfs/BC2010 AnnualReport.pdf. Retrieved April 20, 2012. 67. Land Trust Alliance. “2010 National Land Trust Census.” 2012. http://www.landtrust alliance.org/land-trusts/land-trust-census. Retrieved April 20, 2012. 68. Amundsen, O. Strategic Conservation Planning. Arlington, VA: Conservation Fund, 2011. 69. Sullivan, P. “Estate Planning Remains a Moving Target Under the New Tax Law.” New York Times, April 26, 2013. http://www .nytimes.com/2013/04/27/your-money/estate -planning-under-the-new-tax-law.html?_r=0. Retrieved May 8, 2013. 70. Friends of the Locust Fork River. “History of Friends of the Locust Fork River.” 2014. http:// www.friendsofthelocustforkriver.org/History/ Hisstory.html. Retrieved May 22, 2014. 71. Wilderness Society. “About Us.” 2012. http://wilderness.org/content/about-us. Retrieved April 22, 2012. 72. Nature Conservancy. “About Us.” 2012. http://www.nature.org/aboutus/index.htm. Retrieved April 22, 2012. 73. Trust for Public Land. “About Us.” 2012. http://www.tpl.org/about. Retrieved April 22, 2012. 74. Conservation Fund. 2012 Annual Report. 2013. http://www.conservationfund.org/who -we-are/annual-report-2/. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 75. The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. “Environment.” 2013. http://www.ddcf.org/ Programs/Environment/. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 76. Boulder County, CO. “Boulder County Comprehensive Plan: Goals, Policies & Maps Element,” 2009, Goals: p. 2; ER: pp. 3 and 4. http://www.bouldercounty.org/property/ build/pages/bccp.aspx. Retrieved May 3, 2014. 77. Ibid., p. CR-1.

Chapter 10

PLANNING FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT

Nothing is more priceless and more worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. —President Richard M. Nixon, upon signing the Endangered Species Act 1

“To conserve and restore natural ecosystems, focusing on birds, other wildlife, and their habitats for the benefit of humanity and the earth’s biological diversity.” —Mission statement of the National Audubon Society2

Americans derive significant benefits from wildlife. For instance, in 2006, they spent in excess of $120 billion on hunting, fishing, and observing wildlife.3 Yet wildlife are struggling to survive, and the primary reason is the loss of habitat. America’s metropolitan areas are dominated by a mix of built environments and working landscapes and make up more than one-fifth of the land area of the lower 48 states. About half of the U.S. can be considered native habitat in varying degrees of quality. Most of the native habitat is found on privately owned farms, ranches, and forests. Federal, state, and local governments as well as private nonprofit

groups have created programs to protect important plant and animal habitats. But cooperation from private landowners is crucial. An overarching question is whether government and private-sector efforts can protect enough land and water resources to sustain entire ecosystems. Also important is steering development away from sensitive environments that are more suited to wildlife than humans, such as wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, and estuaries. Although habitat destruction is the most widely recognized cause of wildlife loss, climate change, air and water pollution, diseases, overharvesting of forests, and invasive species

308

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

that compete with native plants and animals animals, such as frogs and salamanders, act as also pose major threats (see Table 10.1). “indicator species” of the health of local and regional ecosystems, not just for wildlife but for humans as well. In addition, “keystone species,” such as the beaver and sea otter, have a larger10.1: Pressures on Wildlife Habitat than-average impact on their ecosystems and At the turn of the 21st century, plant and ani- are very important to the functioning of the mal species worldwide were becoming extinct ecosystem. The U.S. has more than 200,000 native at a rate not seen since the disappearance of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Over the species of plants and animals (about 10 perlast 120 years, some 70 vertebrate and 200 cent of the world’s known species) and conplant species have become extinct in North tains 21 of the world’s 28 different types of 6 America. In passing the Endangered Species ecosystems. More than 1,300 species of plants Act in 1973, Congress recognized that “various and animals in the U.S. are listed as threatened species have been rendered extinct as a con- or endangered, and wildlife habitat dwindles sequence of economic growth and develop- as the nation’s population continues to grow. ment untempered by adequate concern and As of 2000, most of the nation’s ecosystems conservation.”4 Moreover, Congress stated that had suffered losses of three-quarters of their threatened and endangered species “are of original area.7 The outward growth of metropolitan aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation areas is increasing the interaction between and its people.”5 Biologists note that certain humans and wildlife. Consider greater Miami

Table 10.1. 10 Causes of Wildlife Loss 1.

Land conversion to suburbs, exurbs, and roads

2.

Land degradation, such as soil erosion and overgrazing

3.

Freshwater shortages and droughts

4.

Dams, diversions, and water withdrawals

5.

Invasive species

6.

Overharvesting and poaching

7.

Climate change—global warming

8.

Polluted air and water and toxic chemicals

9.

Ozone depletion

10.

Loss of genetic variation (inbreeding)

CHAPTER 10: PLANNING FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT

eating into the Everglades, Los Angeles creeping up the San Gabriel Mountains, and greater Denver stretching along the Front Range of the Rockies. For example, author David Baron chronicled the return of mountain lions and their attacks on humans around Boulder, Colorado.8 Large animals are usually the first species driven out by suburban sprawl, but sometimes they linger in their former habitats. Deer frequently invade suburbs looking for something to nibble on. Bear rummage in garbage cans. Many animals, such as squirrels, raccoons, pigeons, and skunks, often find ecological niches in which they can survive and even thrive around humans. Climate change poses a severe long-term threat to wildlife and their habitats. If, over the next 50 years, global temperatures rise to 4 degrees Celsius over preindustrial levels, scientists predict that more than one-third of all plant and animal species could go extinct.9 Some animals will migrate across distances or upslope in search of cooler weather. Invasive species will expand their territory and compete with native species. Diseases and insects will also broaden their reach. In short, protecting plant and animal species requires a long-term investment in ecosystems, but even then, climate change could make for uncertain outcomes. Biodiversity, Landscape Ecology, and Wildlife Habitat

Ecologists and biologists speak of biological diversity, or biodiversity, as a measure of the variety of plant and animal species, the populations of each species, the interaction among those species, and the overall health of an ecosystem. Species variety and populations provide choices in food and habitat selection, insulating ecosystems with high biodiversity against major disturbances caused by disease,

309

fire, heavy rainfall, or drought. The higher the level of biodiversity, the more resilient the ecosystem is and the more likely that new species will evolve. High biodiversity is correlated with ecosystems that generate substantial environmental services, such as climate moderation, nutrient recycling, water purification and recharge, oxygen production, and assimilation of waste and pollutants. Yet habitats with low biodiversity—such as cattail marshes, woodland pools, and sand plains—may support species of plants and animals that are not found in species-rich habitats. Especially important are indicator species, such as owls and frogs, which reflect the health of the ecosystem. If owls or frogs are not found, then the ecosystem is unbalanced and perhaps shows the effects of pesticides, pollution, or habitat destruction. A loss of biodiversity changes how an ecosystem functions and the ecosystem services it provides. Loss of biodiversity occurs when the variety of species declines, the population of one or more species decreases or vanishes, or habitats become fragmented and there is less interaction among species and hence less genetic diversity. It is often difficult to predict the effects of a reduction or loss of a particular species on an ecosystem. Changes may be slow and subtle or rapid and profound. For example, Dutch elm disease wiped out most of the elm trees in the eastern U.S. Most of the trees were planted in the late 19th century as shade trees along streets and as windrows in farm fields. The loss of the elm trees is mostly aesthetic. By contrast, the eradication of traditional deer predators, especially mountain lions and wolves, has led to a sharp increase in deer numbers and has caused a deer herd management problem in much of the U.S. Deer hunting has become essential for keeping the number of deer under control. In the mid-1990s, Reed Noss and two other biologists reported on the condition of more than 400 specific American ecosystems.

310

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

They found that declines in biodiversity had left 30 ecosystems critically endangered with a loss of more than 98 percent of species; 58 endangered ecosystems had declines of 85 to 98 percent; and 38 threatened ecosystems had lost 70 to 84 percent of species.10 Most of the loss in biodiversity occurred in the Northeast, South, Midwest, and California—areas with significant population and development. Terrestrial ecosystems comprised 57 percent of the losses, wetlands ecosystems 33 percent, and aquatic ecosystems 10 percent. Loss of biodiversity can result from the following events: 1. Direct habitat destruction, such as filling wetlands, plowing, overgrazing, or paving grasslands, fragmenting habitat and migration routes with roads, and siting sprawled and scattered development 2. Qualitative changes that degrade habitat such as the transition from a forest to a tree farm 3. The invasion of nonnative plants, insects, diseases, and animals The mix of plants and animals in an ecosystem can and does change over time. But the rate and degree of change are important. It used to be thought that ecosystems proceeded through stages, called successions, from a pioneer stage of rocks and lichens until they reach the forest stage, also known as the climax stage. For example, the Douglas fir forests of the Pacific Northwest are called latesuccession forests and take a long time to evolve. However, recent thinking about ecosystems describes them as constantly in a state of disequilibrium.11 Noss et al. called for ecosystem conservation to complement species-level conservation.12 Yet scientists cannot accurately estimate how

much of an ecosystem must be maintained to support ecosystem processes or a certain number of species. Environmental planner Timothy Beatley has argued that more “proactive, bolder, and larger-scale conservation strategies” are needed to protect and preserve biodiversity, and that “biodiversity preservation must be redefined as [human] self-preservation.”13 Planners need to seek the aid of scientists in devising wildlife habitat and ecosystems protection strategies that incorporate principles of landscape and aquatic ecology, conservation biology, restoration ecology, and watershed management (hydrology). Fundamental for habitat and ecosystem protection and resilience are the degree of land connectivity and the spatial pattern of landscape features, even in developed areas. Landscape and development patterns affect the ecological processes, such as food production, biological energy flows, and the recycling of nutrients, that in turn influence how well an ecosystem functions for a diversity of wildlife. Landscape Ecology

Landscape ecology is the study of how multiple ecosystems fit together into a regional landscape mosaic. Eugene Odum, who coined the term “ecology,” described landscape ecology as a patchy landscape of human and natural systems.14 The patch size and shape, as well as the quality of the patches and their connectivity, are important for determining the kinds of species that are able to live there.15 For instance, irregular-shaped patches have more edge area than rounder shaped patches; an ideal patch shape looks like an amoeba with a circular core and corridors connecting to nearby patches to enhance species movement between patches and species diversity.16 Small patches of green space usually have a greater diversity of edge species, as opposed to core species that require large areas for feeding

CHAPTER 10: PLANNING FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT

and breeding. Large patches, such as forests, have greater populations and diversity of interior species and lower probabilities of species extinctions than small patches. A high-quality, nutrient-rich ecosystem is more resilient and can support a greater diversity and greater populations of species than a nutrient-poor ecosystem. Connectivity enables the migration of species as well as the maintenance of adequate populations of species and the health of the gene pool. Fragmentation of wildlife habitat from roads and developments is a major cause of wildlife habitat loss. A key concept in maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem health is critical mass. A critical mass is the minimum land or water area needed to support a healthy number of a species and species types. A particular concern among biologists, ecologists, and environmental planners is the degree of resilience of natural environments to disruption. Disruption can occur either from a natural event, such as fire, flood, or heavy rainfall, or from human intrusion, such as hiking, all-terrain vehicles, forestry, farming, or residential and commercial development. Resilience is likely to be greater where there is a critical mass of plant and animal species. In general, for a decline of 70 percent of ecosystem area, about one-third of the species will be lost. But large animals, especially carnivores, need a large critical mass of land. For instance, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has estimated that a single grizzly bear needs 17,510 acres, or about 27 square miles.17 Also, many animals are territorial both in defending their space and in their reluctance to move. This territorial imperative can make some species especially vulnerable to habitat loss. The loss of critical mass can happen in different ways. A natural event, such as a flood or fire, can devastate a large area, destroy habitat, and isolate or kill numerous plants and animals. However, natural habitats will regenerate from the effects of such events. Human actions,

311

on the other hand, are more likely to encroach permanently on habitat, resulting in the loss of a critical mass of habitat and the disappearance of certain species of plants and animals that cannot adapt to the change. The transformation of a forest into a suburban residential subdivision or the filling of wetlands to create cropland reduce the necessary critical mass of land for habitats and species. The development of roads, houses, and commercial areas causes fragmentation of wildlife habitat into smaller and often unsustainable sizes. Wildlife nesting and feeding grounds and migration corridors are often bisected or destroyed. Development brings pollution from stormwater runoff, pesticide use, soil erosion, illegal dumping, and accidental spills, which can destroy habitat and kill wildlife. Cars and trucks often kill or injure animals trying to cross roads. As people settle near or next to natural areas, there are edge effects. Edge effects occur where two ecosystems overlap in what is called an ecotone, an area of transition from one biological community to another. The edges of two ecotones can support a rich diversity of species, to some extent including those species of the neighboring ecosystems. For instance, an ecotone can usually accommodate a large number of species in fields between hedgerows and tree rows. But human encroachment can create a different type of ecotone. The edge of natural areas can become exposed to pesticides and herbicides sprayed on lawns. Dogs, cats, and children foray into the edge of the natural area and hunt small animals and trample plants. Nonnative plants may start to intrude into the edge as well. This is common along roadways where long-distance trucks can disperse the seeds of plants they have carried from several hundreds of miles away. Some plants and animals can thrive in the edge, such as thistle, squirrels, and sparrows. But the ecosystem changes as more of it becomes developed. Edges become less clearly defined,

312

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

wildlife habitats become fragmented, migration becomes more difficult, and some species become locally extinct.18 Through the comprehensive planning process, site planning, and development reviews, communities should seek to protect distinct natural edges. The protection of core wildlife feeding and breeding habitats along with wildlife migratory routes and corridors that connect the core habitats is a necessary planning strategy for migratory species and to provide access to water. Isolated species run the risk of losing genetic diversity and resilience through inbreeding. Most mammal species require a population of about 500 animals to remain genetically healthy. The corridors approach often meshes nicely with the creation of greenways along rivers and streams to protect water quality and keep development away from floodplains and wetlands. The following questions are worth asking: Are wildlife corridors enough? And, if so, how wide and how long do the corridors have to be? Will they connect to core habitat breeding and feeding areas and adequate water supplies? Ideally, there will be adequate intact core habitat area (see Figure 10.1). The core habitats will be protected by hubs, lands that have some development but mainly serve as a buffer between the core areas and developed areas. And, finally, wildlife corridors connect the hubs and core areas, enabling a continuous flow of wildlife between core areas. Finally, special concern often exists for the iconic endangered species, such as the California condor and the grizzly bear. Yet the loss of flora and fauna on the lower end of the food chain may actually be more important for the health of ecosystems and regional landscapes. Still, the protection of wildlife “hot spots,” with a wide variety of species in a relatively small area, can be an effective strategy to maintain important and biologically rich ecosystems.

Hub

Core

Corridor

Hub

Core

Corridor Corridor Core Hub

Figure 10.1. The Core Habitat, Hub, and Corridor Strategy for Wildlife Conservation Source: Lancaster County, PA, Planning Commission, Greenscapes, 2009, p. 78.

Bioregionalism

A bioregion is a distinct collection of plant and animal ecosystems that function in certain ways and have particular needs for survival. Temperature and precipitation primarily determine most bioregions with elevation, soils, watersheds, and microclimates as contributing factors. There may be several bioregions within a single state and more than one bioregion within a county. A bioregion may consist of up to several local ecosystems with differing types and numbers of plants and animals. The U.S. Forest Service has identified four general ecosystem domains: Polar (Alaska), Dry Temperate (between the 100th meridian west to the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Mountains), Humid Temperate (the Pacific Coast region and from the 100th meridian east to the Atlantic Ocean), and Humid Tropical in Hawaii and South Florida. Within these domains there are 14 ecological divisions, 52 ecological provinces, and 190 ecological subregions.19 Land bioregions can be identified by vegetation. For instance, temperate coniferous forests are found in Northern

CHAPTER 10: PLANNING FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT

New England, the coastal Southeast, the Pacific Northwest, and the Southern Rocky Mountains. Temperate grasslands cover the Great Plains from Montana to Texas, and tundra and boreal forest cover much of Alaska. Water bioregions consist of river and lake systems. Land and water bioregions can be combined, as the U.S. Geological Survey has done in California (see Table 10.2). The concept of bioregionalism has two components: protecting native plant and animal species from nonnative species and maintaining native habitat in the face of human development pressures. Some native plants thrive in particular microclimates and cannot simply be replanted to other locations. Travelers both intentionally and unwittingly have introduced exotic plants, seeds, insects, and animals to the U.S. that have overtaken native species. Partly due to increased international trade, over the past 40 years, Florida has been the “Ellis Island” of invasive species, including Brazilian pepper, three dozen types of lizards, and the Burmese python—which many Floridians bought as pets and then released into the Everglades where the pythons have no natural enemy and have been rapidly consuming the native wildlife. The kudzu vine was introduced in the South

313

in the 1940s and has vigorously proliferated. In the 1990s, the zebra mussel emigrated to the U.S. in the hulls of ships and spread throughout the Great Lakes and smaller lakes such as Lake Champlain and Lake George in upstate New York. This freshwater mussel has done billions of dollars of damage, including clogging water supply and power plant intake pipes, cutting swimmers with its sharp shells, and absorbing nutrients needed by other aquatic life. The Asian long-horned beetle arrived in America in 1996 and has the ability to literally eat trees from the inside out. The beetle has no known predator. Infected trees have been cut down, and pesticides have to be used.20 Fire ants, with their nasty stings, came to Alabama from South America in the 1920s. They have since spread throughout the Southeast. Mosquitoes carrying the potentially deadly West Nile virus killed 7 people and sickened 55 in greater New York City in 1999. In 2011, the virus was reported in 44 states, involving more than 712 cases and 43 deaths.21 In 1999, invasive plants and animals cost the U.S. an estimated $123 billion.22 As exotic plants and wildlife displace native species, entire ecosystems may be affected and natural environmental processes disrupted. One emerging strategy is to concentrate habitat

Table 10.2. Bioregions of California 1.

Southern California Coast

6.

Sierra Nevada Mountains

2.

Sonoran Desert

7.

Northern California Coast

3.

Mojave Desert

8.

Southern Cascade Range and Modoc Plateau

4.

Central Valley

9.

San Francisco Bay

5.

Central California Coast

10.

Intermountain Desert

Source: U.S. Geological Survey, “Bioregions of the Pacific Southwest,” http://www.werc.usgs.gov/researchtopic page.aspx?id=20. Retrieved May 10, 2013.

314

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

and species protection efforts on so-called hot spots where there are large numbers of plant and animal species. California and Hawaii have the greatest diversity of plants and animals of all the states as well as the largest number of threatened and endangered species. Both states have inspection personnel at entry points checking for exotic plants and, in the case of Hawaii, exotic animals as well. The area along California’s Pacific Coast to about a hundred miles inland has the highest concentration of plant and animal diversity in the U.S. This is also the area where most of California’s more than 37 million people live and where millions more are expected to reside by 2035.

10.2: Federal Efforts to Protect Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat In 1993, the Council on Environmental Quality drafted a set of principles for preserving biodiversity in federal management programs and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental impact reviews: • Take an ecosystem view. Sites do not exist in isolation but as part of local and regional ecosystems. •

•

• •

• Maintain or mimic natural ecosystem processes. • Restore ecosystems, communities, and species. • Monitor for biodiversity impacts. Be willing to learn and manage adaptively as a substitute for lack of information.23 The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

The loss of marine mammals, including whales, seals, sea lions, dolphins, and porpoises, compelled Congress to impose a moratorium on hunting, harassing, capture, or killing them in U.S. waters. The Marine Mammal Protection Act also introduced the concept of optimal sustainable populations based on healthy ecosystems. This replaced the maximum sustainable yield approach that featured an acceptable level of hunting and killing marine mammals. The act also directed the National Marine Fisheries Service in the Department of Commerce and the U.S. FWS to pursue international agreements to protect marine mammals.24 The Endangered Species Act of 1973

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 has become perhaps the most far-reaching enviProtect communities and ecosystems. Look ronmental law in America. It applies to all land in beyond individual species to the commuthe U.S., both public and private. An estimated nity and ecosystem relationships and natu- 70 percent of threatened and endangered speral processes that sustain the species. cies live on privately owned lands, and roughly Minimize habitat fragmentation. Connected 19 percent of threatened and endangered species are found only on private land.25 The purhabitats allow for a wider distribution of pose of the Endangered Species Act is to avoid species than isolated pockets. the extinction of any plant or animal species Promote native species as well as native in the U.S. and to give these species the right biological and genetic diversity. to exist.26 The act prohibits any willful “taking” Protect rare and ecologically important of threatened or endangered species, defined plants and animals, especially keystone as killing, hunting, harming, capturing, or colspecies. lecting a threatened or endangered species,

CHAPTER 10: PLANNING FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT

or destroying its habitat without a permit. Violations of the Endangered Species Act may be met with stiff penalties. The Secretary of Interior may levy fines ranging from $500 to $25,000, and the Justice Department may impose fines of $25,000 to $50,000 and up to 12 months in jail. Any citizen may file suit against any person, business, or agency for violations of the Endangered Species Act.

315

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service are responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act. It is the job of both agencies to identify plants and animals that are in danger of extinction and to ensure that private and government actions do not harm these species (see Table 10.3). The agencies are required to identify critical habitat areas and draft and

Table 10.3. Federal Information Sources on Wildlife Habitat Program

Sponsor

Coverage

National Wetlands Inventory

Department of Interior, FWS

Information on wetlands resources

Gap Analysis

U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division

Maps of vegetation, terrestrial vertebrates, and endangered species

Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends

U.S. Geological Survey’s Biological Resources Division

Temporal and geographic trends in contaminants that may threaten fish and wildlife

North American Breeding Bird Survey

U.S. Geological Survey’s Biological Resources Division

Long-term trends in bird populations

Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey

Department of Interior, FWS

Estimates of breeding numbers and habitat

Status and Trends

U.S. Geological Survey’s Biological Resources Division

Data on biological populations and habitats

Public Land Statistics

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

BLM natural resource management programs

National Stream Quality Accounting Network

U.S. Geological Survey

Trends in water quality

Hydrologic Benchmark Network Source: Council on Environmental Quality, Annual Report, 1996, pp. 387–88.

Trends in waters with little human influence

316

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

implement recovery plans that will enable a threatened or endangered species to recover to a sustainable population. The FWS may also reintroduce species into former habitat, such as the release of wolves into Yellowstone National Park in the early 1990s. Other federal agencies are required to consult with the FWS or the National Marine Fisheries Service if they are contemplating actions that could harm or destroy critical habitat of any threatened or endangered species. The FWS is often the lead agency in NEPA reviews of federal projects that could affect threatened or endangered species habitat. The Secretary of Interior may declare a plant or animal species as endangered if the species “is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its [habitat] range.” A threatened species “is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future.”27 Specifically, a species must be at risk for at least one of the following reasons:

Alabama (see Table 10.4). North Dakota had the fewest listed species at only 10. The Secretary of the Interior must publish the intention to list a species as threatened or endangered in the Federal Register, and a public comment period is advertised. The Secretary then identifies critical habitat—the critical mass of land and water composed of public or private holdings necessary for the survival and recovery of the threatened or endangered species (see Figure 10.2). The critical habitat designation also involves a public comment period. Critical habitat plans are typically written to exist for 40 years or more.29

Table 10.4. Listed Threatened and Endangered Plant and Animal Species by Top 10 States, 2013 State

Number of Species Listed

Hawaii

431

California

318

Alabama

137

2. Overuse of the species for commercial, scientific, educational, or recreational purposes

Florida

128

Texas

106

3. Disease or predation

Tennessee

104

4. Lack of regulations to prevent a decline in population

Georgia

76

5. Other natural or man-made factors threatening survival

Virginia

70

Arizona

66

As of 2014, there were 598 animals and 794 plants listed as threatened or endangered in the U.S.28 The number of threatened and endangered species has more than tripled since 1980. In 2013, Hawaii had the most listed species at 431, followed by California and

Oregon

61

1. Destruction or threatened destruction of habitat

Note: A species may be found in more than one state. Source: U.S. FWS, “Listings and Occurrences for Each State.” 2013. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/ stateListingAndOccurrence.jsp. Retrieved May 4, 2014.

CHAPTER 10: PLANNING FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT

317

Figure 10.2. Critical Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl, Covering 8.6 Million Acres of Federal Land in 52 Units Source: U.S. FWS, “Mexican Spotted Owl: Designated Critical Habitat,” last modified November 13, 2013, http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/MSO_critical_habitat.html#overview. Retrieved May 4, 2014.

Listings of threatened and endangered species may also occur as the result of lawsuits. Any U.S. citizen may file a legal suit against the federal government over endangered species. This provision has enabled nonprofit environmental organizations to make legal challenges to compel the federal government to list a species as threatened or endangered. About onethird of all listed species have made the list as the result of lawsuits.30 Private landowners are often wary of a critical habitat designation. But critical habitat

does not necessarily restrict new or existing development. Activities that involve a federal permit, license, or funding and are likely to destroy or harm the critical habitat will be subject to closer review, and ways will be sought to protect the habitat. As of 2012, critical habitats had been designated for 613 endangered species, or less than half of the total listed species.31 The FWS and National Marine Fisheries Service must also draft and implement species recovery plans based on conservation biology that include ways to reduce threats to the

318

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

species, population targets to reach for delisting, and the funding and personnel necessary for the species to recover.32 As of 2013, habitat recovery plans have been drafted for 475 animals and 672 plants that are threatened or endangered.33 The FWS is required to produce a report on the progress of species recovery every two years. The FWS has about 7,000 employees who are responsible for the nation’s wildlife refuges and monitoring and enforcing the Endangered Species Act. According to the U.S. FWS, 30 species have recovered to the point of being “delisted,” 18 have been removed because of data errors, and 10 listed species have gone extinct.34 Most notably, the bald eagle, America’s national bird, was removed from the endangered list in 2007. But between 1973 and 2010, more than 40 species went extinct while waiting to be placed on the endangered list.35 In 2008, the polar bear was listed as threatened as the result of a legal challenge against the U.S. Department of the Interior.36 Climate change has been melting sea ice, causing polar bears to swim farther from floe to floe and resulting in an increase in polar bear drownings. Climate change poses the major long-term threat to wildlife habitat and food chains. But as of 2014, the federal government had not cited its authority to protect the polar bear or other wildlife under the Endangered Species Act as a justification for addressing climate change. The FWS has the authority to give emergency endangered status to a plant or animal species for a period of 240 days. During that interval, the FWS can begin the regular process for listing the species as endangered. The FWS did this, for example, in early 2000 in the case of the California tiger salamander in Santa Barbara County. The purpose of the emergency rule is to prevent a species from becoming extinct by affording it immediate protection while the normal listing process is being followed.37

Many landowners fear that they will lose the ability to use or sell their land as they wish if their land is declared a necessary habitat for rare and endangered species. For example, responding to the emergency protection given to the tiger salamander, Santa Barbara County, California, rancher Jim Campbell said, “I’ve seen exactly one [tiger salamander] in my 65 years here. It’s the way they [the FWS] can shut you down with so little information. They treat you like a criminal on your own land.”38 Some private landowners opposed to the Endangered Species Act have even advocated a policy of “shoot, shovel, and shut up” to avoid the risk of having threatened or endangered species found on their property. Other landowners have destroyed habitat, such as cutting down longleaf pine trees that could become homes for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker.39 There have been only a few cases in which a court ruled that a taking of private property had occurred under the Endangered Species Act. In the 1997 case of Bennett et al. v. M. Spear, ranchers were restricted from drawing irrigation water in order to protect two endangered species of fish.40 The U.S. Supreme Court reversed two lower court decisions and ruled unanimously that enforcement of the Endangered Species Act had caused the ranchers unreasonable economic harm. But in 2000, a federal court ruled that 170,000 acre-feet of Rio Grande water must be used to support the habitat of the endangered silvery minnow.41 This lack of legal consistency only heightens the controversy surrounding the Endangered Species Act. Shortcomings of the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act has two major shortcomings: 1. It is reactive rather than proactive, serving as an emergency room type of treatment

CHAPTER 10: PLANNING FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT

for species that have been allowed to decline to the brink of extinction. 2. It is not comprehensive; it targets specific species and their habitats yet tends to overlook the need to protect entire ecosystems and biodiversity. A National Academy of Sciences study of the performance of the Endangered Species Act reported, “There is no doubt that [the Endangered Species Act] has prevented the extinction of some species and slowed the decline of others.”42 And “the committee concludes that the ESA’s inclusion of species and subspecies is soundly justified by current scientific knowledge and should be retained.”43 The report cited the protection of habitats as crucial but found that the FWS needed to draft and implement recovery plans more swiftly: “Because habitat plays such an important biological role in endangered species survival,

319

some core amount of essential habitat should be designated for protection at the time of listing a species as endangered as an emergency stop-gap measure. . . . Despite increased attention from Congress, recovery plans are developed too slowly and recovery planning remains handicapped by delays in its implementation, goals that are sometimes not scientifically supported, and the uncertainty of its application to other federal activities. No recovery plan, however good it might be, will help prevent extinction or promote recovery if it is not implemented expeditiously.”44 Environmentalists would prefer to see long-term land conservation strategies implemented through a combination of large core areas connected by wildlife corridors with buffered land areas or transition areas adjacent to human developments (see Figure 10.1, Box 10.1, and Box 10.2). To create and maintain both core areas and corridors requires a mix of

Box 10.1. Gap Analysis for long-term maintenance of In the 1990s, the U.S. Geological Survey biodiversity. began a Gap Analysis Program (GAP) to provide regional assessments of the conservaFederal, state, and local government tion status of native plant and vertebrate agencies and private environmental groups species. The Gap Program includes can use this information to set priorities in plant and wildlife protection, such as identia. mapping of the vegetative land cover fying additional land to acquire, designating of the U.S. by remote sensing satellite rare or endangered species habitat areas, imagery (Landsat) and GISs; or adopting changes in land management. b. creating GIS maps with layers of preGap analysis has been completed in several dicted distributions of vertebrate spestates, and some local governments and pricies, land ownership, and management vate land trusts are using gap analysis in their status; and land acquisition strategies. For example, the c. documenting the gaps in biodiverFive Valleys Land Trust in Montana has used sity in vertebrates and vegetative GAP information to identify land cover types and priority areas for conservation.45 land cover types in areas managed

320

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

Box 10.2. The Wildlands Network In 1991, a nonprofit organization called the Wildlands Project (now known as the Wildlands Network) was formed by conservation organizations, conservation biologists, and concerned citizens to look 100 years into the future to determine needed actions to protect the ecological integrity and biological diversity of North America. At the heart of the Wildlands Network is an effort to create large interconnected areas of wilderness to promote the recovery of wildlands in which

land acquisition and regulations on new development. Wildlife managers agree that it is preferable to own the land to be managed rather than rely on other landowners. The federal government makes grants to states through the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund for land acquisition and planning. Funding for the acquisition of wildlife refuges under the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund helps expand protected habitat. Many state departments of natural resources are active in purchasing land for wildlife habitat. But land-use regulations that protect wildlife habitats on private lands are crafted mainly by local governments. Habitat Conservation Plans

The Endangered Species Act has raised concerns that it could stifle economic growth, not just hinder the activities of private property owners. The act places the burden of proof on property owners and developers who want to use their land for economic gain to show that listed species will not be harmed. The need for a compromise arose in the wake of the Tellico Dam case in which environmentalists tried to

native plant and animal species can thrive, especially in the West. Specific protection goals include connecting wildlife corridors, buffering wildlife areas on public lands from nearby human development, reducing habitat fragmentation, and controlling the invasion of exotic species. In addition, the Wildlands Network sponsors research and educational programs about the importance of biodiversity.

block the completion of the dam by claiming it would harm a small, listed fish called a snail darter. In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that just because the dam was already under construction did not mean that it could be completed because of the threat to the habitat of the snail darter and listed endangered species.46 It took an act of Congress to exempt the Tellico Dam from the Endangered Species Act. Although the Tellico Dam was eventually completed and additional snail darters found in other locations, it was clear that the confrontation between economic development and species protection was not an obvious either-or situation. Maybe the two could coexist. A compromise was struck in 1982 when Congress added provisions for Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) to the Endangered Species Act to clarify where development would be allowed and where habitats should be protected.47 An HCP is a voluntary contract for large-scale ecosystem management usually between the federal government and private landowners. The FWS often takes the lead role in negotiating HCP agreements. HCPs also involve state and local governments in their planning, regulation, and funding.

CHAPTER 10: PLANNING FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT

321

Box 10.3. Fisheries and Extinction The federal Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 established a 200mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and regional fishery management councils to draft plans for managing the fish within the EEZ.48 But these plans have not guaranteed the survival of all fish species. Scientists have long thought that ocean fish have a good ability to recover from heavy harvesting by commercial fishermen. But, as of 2012, a total of 12 ocean fish were listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, including five species of salmon.49 A 2000 study of North American ocean fisheries reported that 82 species and stocks were at risk of extinction.50 As much as 90 percent of some species have already been lost. The study cited three hot spots in U.S. waters—the Puget Sound of Washington State, the northern coast of the Gulf of Mexico, and parts of South Florida—where fishing has decimated stocks and species. Professor John A. Musick, lead author of the study, commented, “Now we’re beginning to realize we can drive these fish out of existence.”51 Species cited as at risk included five species of sharks, five species of anadromous sturgeon, and

HCPs designate critical habitats that are essential for the survival and recovery of threatened and endangered species and hence are off-limits to development. At the same time, HCPs identify lands where development is allowed. An HCP may apply to a single species or several species. A plan may cover less than one acre of land or up to millions of acres and can influence forestry, ranching, farming, and urban and suburban

popular food fish, such as the Atlantic cod and Atlantic halibut. In 1996, Congress passed the Sustainable Fisheries Act to maintain fish stocks and to protect fish that are in danger of extinction. The act is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) through its Office of Sustainable Fisheries. In 2006, the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act was reauthorized, which gave NOAA the power to set annual catch limits, restrict entry into fisheries, and establish harvest quotas for individual fishermen. NOAA must also submit an annual report to Congress on the status of U.S. fisheries. In its 2012 report, NOAA noted that 2012 was the first year that all U.S. fisheries operated under annual catch limits to prevent overfishing. The report found that 10 fish stocks were no longer subject to overfishing, but three were added. Four stocks were taken off the overfished list and one was added. Six stocks had been rebuilt to enable sustainable fishing—bringing the total number of rebuilt stocks to 32 since 2000. But of the 230 stocks that make up 90 percent of U.S. fish harvests, 85 percent were being overfished, and 77 percent were already overfished.52

settlements. HCPs for large areas can run to more than 1,000 pages. HCPs are usually set up for 30, 50, or 100 years and are approved by the Secretary of Interior or the Secretary of Commerce. But most HCPs have been created on fewer than 1,000 acres.53 In a HCP, the landowner agrees to minimize the “take” of listed and as yet unlisted endangered species to the maximum extent possible. The landowner in turn receives an

322

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

“incidental take permit” from the FWS and “No Surprises” treatment, which absolves the landowner of responsibility for habitat and species conservation on land designated for development so long as a recovery plan for the species is in place. A further incentive is the “Safe Harbor agreement.” This agreement allows a private landowner, who voluntarily “creates, restores, or improves” threatened or endangered species habitat to a certain biological standard, freedom from additional Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations if a new threatened or endangered species is attracted to the property. In agreeing to an HCP contract, a landowner or developer avoids jeopardy with the law and gets assurances that no additional land or funding will be required in the future to protect endangered species on the owner’s property. The HCPs may allow development to occur on habitat if the development is offset by the protection, restoration, or relocation of threatened and endangered plants and animals elsewhere. For example, the International Paper Company agreed to relocate 16 pairs of the endangered red cockaded woodpecker from its forestlands in southeast Georgia to an actively managed habitat area in southwest Georgia.54 A particular strength of the HCP approach is that it is a negotiated compromise that avoids costly and time-consuming litigation. It is a departure from the “command and control” approach to environmental regulation in which the government sets strict standards, and then monitors activities and enforces the law through fines and sanctions. The HCP approach was remarkably popular under the Clinton Administration as a way to try to strike a balance between property development and the protection of wildlife habitats. From 1982 to 1993, only 14 HCPs were implemented. But as of 2014, there were 693 HCPs covering more than 43 million acres.55

The National Wildlife Refuge System

The U.S. FWS manages the National Wildlife Refuge System, which was created to “conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including species that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered . . . [to] develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds perpetuate the migratory bird resource . . . [and to] provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation.”56 The system was started in 1903 at Pelican Island, Florida, and now contains more than 560 wildlife refuges and game ranges, covering more than 150 million acres.57 Funding for the acquisition of wildlife refuges has come from the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (see Chapter 9), the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act, and the Pittman-Robertson Act. At the start of the waterfowl hunting season, hunters must purchase a Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp, the proceeds from which are used to purchase and maintain wildlife refuges. The Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937 placed an excise tax on the sale of sporting guns and ammunition. Revenues from this tax are dispersed to the states to purchase wildlife habitat and to conduct wildlife research and management. From 1973 to the early 2000s, more than 60 new refuges were created covering 375,000 acres to protected listed species.58 The Organic Act of 1997 requires conservation plans for each wildlife refuge and an updated plan every 15 years.59 Still, the refuge system alone is not large enough to enable most threatened and endangered species to fully recover.60 Private lands will continue to provide important habitat. Technically, a wildlife refuge can be put to any use as long as it will not interfere with wildlife conservation. For example, hunting and fishing are allowed on some refuges. In 2006, the general public spent an estimated $1.6 billion visiting the refuges.61 One of the

CHAPTER 10: PLANNING FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT

best-known yet least visited refuges is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northern Alaska. The refuge is a breeding ground for caribou, a summer habitat for migratory birds, and a year-round home to the musk ox. Since the discovery of oil on Alaska’s North Slope and the construction of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline in the 1970s, oil companies have pressured Congress to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for energy exploration. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 clarified that hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and research are allowed in the refuges only if they are compatible with the conservation of species in the refuge. The act placed responsibility on the Secretary of the Interior to maintain the “biological integrity, diversity and environmental health of the system . . . for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”62 National Estuarine Research Reserves and Marine Sanctuaries

Estuaries are rich wildlife breeding grounds in waters where freshwater and saltwater mix. Most of the nation’s fish breed in estuarine waters, which are also popular habitats for migratory birds and waterfowl. NOAA in the Department of Commerce manages the National Estuarine Research Reserve System covering 1.3 million acres of estuaries in 28 reserves.63 NOAA also operates the National Marine Sanctuary Program, which was authorized in the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Fourteen national marine sanctuaries protect more than 150,000 square miles of ocean, Great Lakes, and coasts.64 The sanctuaries are selected for their biodiversity, ecosystem stability, and cultural heritage. For example, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary encompasses the entire marine ecosystem of the islands, including the world’s

323

third-largest barrier reef. The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary protects whale habitat in the shallow waters of Hawaii. Sanctuaries may be designated by the Secretary of Commerce, subject to review by Congress, or by an act of Congress. The strength of the sanctuaries approach is that it attempts to protect entire ecosystems rather than just specific species. Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (Now Part of Environmental Quality Incentives Program [EQIP])

The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) was created under the 1996 Farm Bill to provide cost-share money to landowners who improve wildlife habitat. Four types of habitat were targeted: (1) upland grasslands, shrub and scrub lands, and forests; (2) wetlands and salt marshes (including those that are newly created or enhanced), wild rice beds, and winter flooding of crop fields; (3) riparian and in-stream habitats that can benefit from tree plantings to stabilize stream banks, fencing out livestock, and alternative watering facilities; and (4) threatened and endangered species habitats. WHIP is a voluntary program that provides 75 percent cost-share payments to landowners for up to 10 years to undertake habitat improvement activities. The 2014 Farm Bill placed WHIP within the EQIP administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Bureau of Land Management

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages more than 245 million acres of federal land and more plant and wildlife habitat than any other federal agency.65 The BLM has a responsibility to balance wildlife needs with demands for recreation, wilderness, mining, timbering, and grazing. The grazing of privately owned

324

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

livestock on public lands administered by the BLM in the West has been allowed since the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. Ranchers pay a fee called an Animal Unit Monthly (AUM) based on the rangeland feed consumed by a cow and calf over a month. The level of the AUMs has been hotly debated because the rates are below the cost of renting private rangeland for grazing. The BLM has been criticized for allowing its rangeland to be overgrazed by cattle. This reduces habitat and food available for native wildlife. Also, cattle trampling stream banks have caused soil erosion and stream sedimentation, and cattle defecating in streams have further reduced water quality and fish habitat. Grassland Reserve Program (Now Agricultural Conservation Easement Program)

The 2002 Farm Bill created the Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) to protect grasslands that are important wildlife habitat, especially for migratory waterfowl. These grasslands are mainly found in the Upper Midwest states of Iowa and Minnesota and the Plains states from Texas to North Dakota. Landowners may voluntarily enter into rental agreements for 10, 15, 20, or 30 years. Or landowners may sell either term conservation easements on their land for 10 to 30 years or perpetual easements. For land under conservation easements, no disturbance of the land, such as plowing, is allowed, and participants must enter into a grazing management plan. As of 2012, landowners had placed 1 million acres of grassland under rental agreements and nearly 250,000 acres under conservation easements at a total cost of more than $250 million.66 The 2014 Farm Bill combined the GRP, the Wetlands Reserve Program, and the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program into a single Agricultural Conservation Easement Program.

10.3: State Planning for Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Forty-six states have state-level endangered species acts (excluding Alabama, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming as of 2012).67 Several states have created their own lists of threatened and endangered plants and animals, separate from the federal list. For example, Vermont had only three species of plants on the federal list but 158 plant species on the state list.68 Certain native species may be found over a wide range for the nation as a whole but in dwindling numbers in particular states. Developers can be required to take steps to protect important habitat of state-listed species. The Nature Conservancy has worked with many state environmental agencies to identify and compile biological diversity and habitat types in a computer database. Ecosystems can then be rated according to their rareness and fragility. Local planners can use these ratings in their county or community comprehensive planning process to identify areas that should be protected from development. This information could also be useful for drafting an environmental impact statement under NEPA or one of the state environmental protection acts. Sometimes, state agencies are reluctant to release site-specific data about threatened and endangered species for fear of poaching or intentional damage. A persistent local planner may be able to persuade the state agency to share the data on the condition that it not be revealed to the public. Through the federal State Wildlife Grants Program, which began in 2000, and the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program, each state has a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) or Wildlife Action Plan. These plans and strategies were developed by state fish and wildlife agencies in consultation with local stakeholders and reviewed by a national advisory panel to set a vision and

CHAPTER 10: PLANNING FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT

a plan of action for wildlife conservation and funding in each state. The Wildlife Action Plan identifies priority wildlife species and habitats, threats to those species and habitats, and actions necessary to restore those species and habitats. States should review their Wildlife Action Plans at least every 10 years.69 A state CWCS is created along the guidelines set out in the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program and helps direct the State Wildlife Grants Program. Funding comes from the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund together with state matching funds. Before 2000, most states had never done a comprehensive wildlife plan. Because habitat loss is the main problem for wildlife, the Wildlife Action Plans can map out habitat areas to conserve and help inform land-use decisions and conservation investments to protect habitats. For instance, North Carolina assessed and mapped six interrelated natural resources to create a GIS-based conservation planning tool showing the conservation value of a parcel or a region based on biodiversity or wildlife habitat, open space and conservation lands, water services, agricultural lands, marine or estuarine ecosystems, and forestlands. States can adopt green infrastructure plans that combine information from several specific functional and area plans to identify lands that are best kept open and undeveloped for wildlife habitat, water conservation, recreation, and other environmental goals. The green infrastructure plans can consist of information from State Wildlife Action Plans, State Forest Assessments (required under the 2008 Farm Bill), State Recreation Plans (required for states to receive federal Land and Water Conservation Fund grants for recreation projects), Public Land Management Plans, and Watershed Plans. The State of Maryland’s Greenprint program has mapped out open space areas for the entire state.70

325

A few states have mandated that local governments proactively plan for the protection of plant and animal habitats. Florida’s 1972 Environmental Land and Water Management Act gave the state government the power to declare up to 5 percent of the state as “critical areas” of statewide importance. Such areas have included wildlife habitat, and local governments must draft regulations to protection these areas or the state will do it for them. Oregon’s 1973 Land Use Act requires city and county governments to draft comprehensive plans that include 19 statewide goals that carry the force of law. Local comprehensive plans must be approved by the state for compliance with all the goals. Goal five requires local governments to “conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources,” such as “fish and wildlife areas and habitats” and “wilderness areas.” Moreover, “fish and wildlife areas and habitats should be protected and managed in accordance with the Oregon Wildlife Commission’s fish and wildlife management plans.”71 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has produced a BioMap indicating areas that are considered crucial to the state’s rare and endangered species (see Figure 10.3). The map designates more than 1 million acres of core habitats for 246 plants species and 129 animal species. The map also identifies nearly 1 million additional acres that can serve as buffer areas between the core habitats and developed areas. Local planners can use the map as a guide for land conservation and where to direct development. State fish and game departments set hunting and fishing seasons, stock waterways with fish, and manage wildlife refuges. State forestry departments regulate forest practices and thus have a direct effect on wildlife habitat and watersheds. State environmental agencies make judgments about protecting wildlife habitat in administering wetlands permits as part of the Clean Water Act. States may include

326

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

BioMap Guiding land conservation for biodiversity in Massachusetts

BioMap core habitat BioMap supporting natural landscape

Figure 10.3. Massachusetts BioMap Showing Core Habitat and Supporting Natural Landscapes Source: Massachusetts Department of Energy and Environmental Affairs.

provisions for protecting wildlife habitats in drafting coastal zone management plans (see Chapter 11) and may require the protection of wildlife habitat in state environment protection acts as part of state and local government environmental impact assessments of proposed developments. Some states protect plant and animal habitats in state parks, in state refuges, and through the purchase of land and the purchase of conservation easements on private lands. For example, the Great Outdoors Colorado program, started in 1992 through a citizen initiative, receives tens of millions of dollars each year in state lottery proceeds to

purchase parkland, natural areas, wildlife habitat, and conservation easements to farm and ranch lands. An extra benefit of state funding programs is that they encourage local governments to plan for the protection of plant and animal habitats and to raise local funds to participate in land and conservation easement acquisition efforts.

10.4: Nonprofit Organizations and Wildlife Habitat Protection Private nonprofit organizations have long been active in preserving land for wildlife habitats.

CHAPTER 10: PLANNING FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT

There are several well-known national organizations as well as hundreds of local land trusts active in purchasing land, acquiring conservation easements, and partnering with government agencies. Environmental Organizations and Land Trusts

The National Audubon Society, founded in 1905, has 467 chapters around the U.S. Named for the naturalist and artist John James Audubon, the National Audubon Society owns and operates a network of 2,544 important bird areas to protect flyways between the U.S. and foreign countries, especially to the south. The National Audubon Society is most closely associated with bird-watching and warns that about 12 percent of bird species in the Western Hemisphere were threatened with extinction as of 2011.72 It is interesting to note that birders spend more money on their hobby than hunters and fishermen combined. The National Wildlife Federation (NWF), founded in 1936, is the nation’s largest member-supported conservation organization with more than 4 million members and 48 state affiliate organizations.73 The purpose of the NWF is to draw together individuals, private groups, businesses, and government to protect wildlife, wilderness, and environmental quality. The NWF works with Congress on federal wildlife issues, occasionally takes legal action, and emphasizes environmental education to stimulate public interest in the management of wildlife resources. The Nature Conservancy, founded in 1951, is the leading private protector of wildlife habitat and natural areas. The Nature Conservancy has protected more than 119 million acres around the world,74 including an estimated 15 million acres in the U.S. The Nature Conservancy often transfers land it has purchased to

327

state and local governments. As an example of its domestic land preservation work, in 2010, the Nature Conservancy purchased more than 310,000 acres in Montana from Plum Creek Timber to protect wildlife habitat as part of the greater Crown of the Continent land preservation effort.75 The Nature Conservancy is known for its science-based preservation work and owns and manages almost 1,500 nature preserves worldwide. The Nature Conservancy also enters into voluntary habitat management agreements with private landowners and local governments. The Nature Conservancy initiated a national heritage inventory in partnership with state environmental agencies. The inventory is a database of the location, type, importance, and scarcity of indigenous ecosystems and their plant and animal species. In addition to the acquisition of land and conservation easements, a number of land trusts have undertaken limited development in which a landowner agrees to donate or sell development rights to the land trust and retains the right to develop a portion of the land at a density below what the zoning would allow. Limited development should be used sparingly. If several limited developments are built fairly close together, low-density sprawl might result in destroying or fragmenting nearby wildlife habitats. Several land trusts are becoming active in mitigation banking for wildlife habitat, wetlands, and natural areas (see Chapter 11). A good example is the Center for Natural Lands Management based in Southern California where development pressures are intense. The center manages more than 34,000 acres throughout California. In the late 1990s, the center acquired the 123-acre Manchester property on the southwestern edge of the City of Encinitas in San Diego County. The site contained several threatened and endangered plants species associated with sage scrub and maritime chaparral, the habitat of the

328

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

endangered California gnatcatcher. The center then established the Manchester Mitigation Bank from which to sell credits to developers to mitigate for habitat losses associated with their nearby developments. The Manchester reserve also has hiking trails for recreational opportunities.76 Sports Groups

Hunters and fishermen play an important role in support of the protection of wildlife habitat, wetlands, and the natural environment. Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, the Izaak Walton League, and rod and gun clubs, among other sportsmen’s organizations, have a strong interest in protecting wildlife habitat, primarily watersheds, wetlands, stream banks, and forests. For example, Trout Unlimited stocks streams with fish and stabilizes stream banks to minimize erosion and sedimentation that could harm fish. One group that straddles the hunting and conservation camps is the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, founded in 1984. The foundation acts to protect elk and other wildlife habitat but is not opposed to hunting. In fact, the foundation has protected 600,000 acres for hunting and outdoor recreation. The foundation has more than 180,000 members and has conserved or enhanced habitat on a total of 6 million acres.77

10.5: Local Planning for Plant and Wildlife Habitat Local governments have traditionally had little direct involvement with plant and wildlife protection. But this is rapidly changing, as it is becoming clear that local planning efforts can influence the size, location, and quality of wildlife habitats on private land. Local planning

and land acquisition programs can also complement the habitat protection efforts of state and federal governments and private nonprofit groups. One of the shortcomings of the comprehensive planning approach is that it usually has a time horizon of no more than 10 to 20 years. This is not enough time to take a truly long-term view of a community or region. A particular problem for plant and wildlife protection is that successive comprehensive plans can easily result in what is known as “death by halves”—that is, in the first 20-year comprehensive plan, half of the community may be planned for development. The next comprehensive plan for the following 20 years may target half of the remaining open land for development, and so on. Eventually, what little habitat remains becomes so limited and fragmented as to be unable to sustain certain plant and wildlife communities. Table 10.5 lists six principles for wildlife habitat protection. Planners can incorporate these principles into goals and objectives in the natural resources inventory of the comprehensive plan as well as in implementation strategies in an Action Plan. Because wild animals are mobile, planners should coordinate their land-use planning efforts for wildlife habitat with neighboring communities. Intergovernmental agreements are a good way to coordinate the location and pace of future growth. These agreements can address future annexations of land by cities, sensitive areas of regional significance, regional wildlife corridors and trail systems, and the funding of land acquisition and conservation easement programs. Inventory

Planners should compile an inventory and maps of plant and animal species types and numbers, and the location, extent, and quality of habitats. Threatened and endangered

CHAPTER 10: PLANNING FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT

329

Table 10.5. Biological Principles for Local Habitat Protection 1.

Maintain large, intact areas of native vegetation needed to support animal wildlife by preventing fragmentation through development.

2.

Set priorities for species and habitats to support and improve the numbers and diverse locations of those species.

3.

Protect critical landscapes, and regulate the use of vegetation in new developments to minimize the invasion of exotic plants.

4.

Identify and protect wildlife corridors to connect habitats and provide uninterrupted movement.

5.

Protect rare species habitats and ecological processes in those habitats.

6.

Balance the opportunity for recreation by the public with the habitat needs of wildlife.

Source: Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund (GOCO).

plant and animal species and their habitats are especially important to note. The state fish and game department, a land-grant university, the biology departments of local colleges and universities, hunting and fishing groups, and even inventories by local, state, and national nonprofit organizations can be helpful. Analysis

Wildlife habitats are usually identified on maps as a combination of cores or home territory and corridors for migration. Planners should set priorities for the wildlife species that are of most concern, especially threatened and endangered plants and animals. Habitats should then be ranked in priority with the largest and most intact habitats rated the most valuable. Planners can then evaluate minimum habitat needs necessary to sustain healthy populations of wildlife. Planners may want to consult with a botanist and a wildlife biologist in conducting the inventory and especially in

analyzing the data on threatened and endangered species and their habitats. The analysis will be helpful in drafting the future land-use map, such as delineating core wildlife habitats and migration corridors where development should be kept to a minimum. Goals and Objectives

Planners can incorporate goals and objectives that promote the protection of important plant and animal habitats into the local comprehensive plan (see Table 10.6). Planners can include objectives to achieve the goals in the Natural Resources, Economic Base, and Land Use sections of the comprehensive plan. From these goals and objectives should come specific recommendations for strategic actions. Yamhill County, Oregon, expressed the following wildlife habitat goal and objectives in their comprehensive plan section on fish and wildlife:

330

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

Table 10.6. Sample Plant and Wildlife Protection Goals and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan Section: Natural Resources Goal: Maintain populations of all native species by preserving habitats and ecosystems necessary to support viable populations of these species. Goal: Minimize human impacts that harm the number and distribution of native species. Objective: Cooperate with state and federal agencies and other local governments as well as nonprofit groups and private landowners to protect important plant and animal habitats. Objective: Monitor the type and number of plant and animal species and changes to their habitats over time. Section: Economic Base Objective: Protect important plant and animal habitats that are important to local tourism and recreation businesses. Section: Land Use Objective: Locate developments away from important plant and animal core habitats and migration corridors. Objective: Encourage compact development to avoid the loss or degradation of important habitats. Objective: Explore the use of Voluntary Environmental Agreements with landowners and developers to protect wildlife habitats.

• Goal: Conserve the fish and wildlife habitat of Yamhill County with a view to maintaining an optimum ecological balance, enhancing the sport fishing and hunting resource of the county, and protecting endangered species. • Objective: Cooperate with the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Department, the Yamhill County cities, the U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the soil and water conservation districts of the region to identify, conserve, and protect fish and

wildlife habitat; determine areas of critical imbalance and threats to particular species; and formulate and implement measures for the improvement of existing habitat and the creation of new habitat where needed. • Objective: Conserve and protect fish and wildlife habitat in the county’s comprehensive plan implementation measures. Classify all identified sensitive wildlife areas as exclusive agriculture, forestland, or open space. No major land-use change, including but not limited to road construction and recreational developments, will be

CHAPTER 10: PLANNING FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT

331

permitted without approval of measures to limit undesirable impacts on sensitive wildlife areas.

• Explore state and federal funding for the purchase of plant and animal habitat areas and conservation easements.

• Objective: Preserve habitat of all species indicated as endangered, threatened, or vulnerable. Nesting sites of endangered bird species will be protected and buffered from conflicting uses.

• Create partnerships with nonprofit groups for the preservation of important habitat areas. • Add 200 acres of nature preserves to the county park system over the next five years.

• Discuss habitat protection efforts with • Objective: Recognize and support waterneighboring municipalities and counties. shed storage projects in the Yamhill River • Require major subdivisions to include wildBasin where stream flow maintenance life corridors, where appropriate. benefits improve water quality for enhance78 ment of sport fisheries and native species. • Participate in HCPs where appropriate to balance habitat protection with economic growth. Action Strategy The purposes of a local wildlife action strategy are to minimize conflicts between humans and wildlife and to protect a critical mass of core habitat and migration corridors. Often, sensitive design can allow for some development while maintaining the integrity of wildlife habitats. But regulations and financial incentives must be carefully crafted. Future growth and development should be directed away from critical habitat. Local habitat protection efforts should mesh with federal land-management programs and state game-management programs to ensure a critical mass of habitat and migration corridors. Hunting and fishing are important local industries in many rural areas. Ecotourism has been increasing in popularity as well. The Action Strategy should include benchmarks for the retention of wildlife and their habitats. The Action Strategy might include the following specific recommendations: • Use zoning overlay districts to protect plant and animal habitats.

Zoning Ordinance

Local planners and governments can use the zoning ordinance in several ways to protect wildlife habitat (see Table 10.7). First, communities can use zoning to promote compact growth, curb sprawl, and thus reduce the fragmentation of habitats. Second, a common zoning technique is a wildlife habitat overlay zone, applied over the base zone. Summit County, Colorado, has a habitat protection overlay zone that “seeks to fully protect wildlife habitats within the wildlife overlay zone from significant adverse effects of development.”79 The overlay zone can also be a multipurpose conservation zone that protects sensitive areas, such as floodplains, wetlands, and steep slopes, along with wildlife habitat. Overlay zones should spell out the permitted density of development in an area and minimum setbacks for development from wildlife habitat. For example, along a river or stream corridor, a setback of 100 feet is fairly common, such as along much of Oregon’s Willamette River Greenway. These buffer lands can help protect wildlife corridors and habitats by keeping houses separate from migration

332

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

Table 10.7. Wildlife Habitat Protection Tools Regulations

Financial Incentives

Conservation zoning

Preferential property tax assessment

Habitat overlay zoning

Transfer of development rights

Agricultural zoning

Purchase of development rights

Cluster zoning

Fee simple acquisition

Adequate public facilities ordinance

Limited development

Urban or village growth boundary

Land trades

Subdivision and land-development ordinance

Conservation easement donation

Tree regulations Developer agreements Ridge and steep slope ordinance Intergovernmental agreements Mitigation agreements (on-site: wildlife underpasses; off-site: replacement of disturbed habitat with habitat of equal or greater size and quality)

routes and core habitat areas. Finally, communities can require most, if not all, proposed development in an overlay zone to be treated as a conditional use. Large minimum lot sizes or very low development densities in farming and forestry areas can help protect wildlife by limiting the fragmentation of habitat and exposure to domestic animals, people, and vehicles. For example, several western and midwestern counties use a 40-acre minimum lot requirement for new dwellings. Oregon counties have designated about 16 million acres of farm and ranch lands

in agricultural zones with minimum lot sizes of 40 to 320 acres and 10 million acres of forestland in timber conservation zones, which have minimum lot sizes of 40 to 160 acres. Some communities in the Northeast use low-density standards of one dwelling per 25 acres or one dwelling per 50 acres, with the dwelling placed on a lot of no more than two acres. Subdivision Regulations

Local governments can employ subdivision regulations to minimize the impacts of new

CHAPTER 10: PLANNING FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT

development on wildlife habitat areas (see Table 10.7). A certain percentage of a tract proposed for development can be required to remain open space. Proponents of cluster development have argued that clustering homes on part of the site while leaving a significant amount of open space will foster compatibility with wildlife. The problem is that when people move to the countryside, they bring dogs, cats, and kids with them. Dogs are frequently unleashed, cats are hunters by nature, and kids like to roam. For these reasons, clustering is not the ideal approach to wildlife protection (see Chapter 20 for an in-depth discussion of cluster development). In general, the fewer people living near wildlife habitat, the fewer the conflicts. For this reason, the use of clustering or density bonuses near important wildlife habitat is not as desirable as long setbacks and buffer areas together with very low-density development. Subdivision regulations can include the mandatory dedication of parkland or open space to buffer wildlife habitats near the new development. A steep slope requirement can limit the removal of vegetation in steep areas that support wildlife. Floodplain regulations can restrict development along river and stream corridors, which are also prime habitat areas. Stormwater management regulations can reduce harmful runoff into wildlife habitats. Subdivision regulations can include provisions for the protection, replacement, or cutting of trees and vegetation, which wildlife use for food, nesting, and cover. Tree regulations have been gaining in popularity. Some prohibit the removal of trees above a certain height or diameter; others require the replanting of trees removed in the land-development process. Landowners sometimes attempt to circumvent this requirement by clear-cutting their properties prior to submitting a landdevelopment or subdivision proposal. Such

333

actions can be avoided by requiring that a certain percentage of a property be planted or replanted. Vegetation regulations specify the types of plants that may be removed or planted. For instance, most regulations favor native trees, shrubs, and grasses, which provide the best habitat for native wildlife and which reduce the likelihood of the introduction of aggressive nonnative species. The removal or clear-cutting of existing trees and shrubs may be prohibited along wildlife corridors and streams and in steep slope areas. Vegetation may also be required for creating buffers between developed areas and wildlife habitat, especially ponds and streams. Fencing may be necessary to separate developed areas from wildlife habitats. Limiting access to wildlife areas, especially by motorized vehicles, can be very important in the protection of habitats. One of the greatest threats to wildlife habitats and mobile animals is new roads. The roads are often built to specifications of 24 feet or more across. They fragment habitat and create a setting for roadkill. Shorter, narrower roads and streets can help protect wildlife. Capital Improvements Program

The location, capacity, and timing of public facilities can have important consequences for wildlife protection. The phasing of development through an adequate public facilities ordinance reduces leapfrog development that can quickly fragment and destroy habitats. The adequate public facilities ordinance reflects the principle of concurrency: Developments cannot be built until there are adequate public facilities (schools, roads, sewer and water, fire and police protection) to service those developments. Urban growth boundaries are also an effective way to phase growth and limit the extension of sewer and water lines into the countryside.

334

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

Financial Incentives for Protecting Wildlife Habitats

Financial incentives for protecting wildlife habitats include preferential property tax assessment, purchase of conservation easements, fee simple acquisition, and land trades (see Table 10.7). Local governments can reduce property tax assessments on specific private lands that have high-quality wildlife habitats. This results in lower property taxes as a way to encourage landowners not to sell their land for development. If a local government uses such an incentive, there should be a provision to recapture the forgone property taxes if the land or part of it does become developed. A property tax stabilization contract can be used in which a landowner agrees not to develop the property for a certain number of years in return for preferential property tax assessment. Local governments can offer to purchase development rights (conservation easements) from private land with wildlife habitats. Local governments may also have to develop partnerships with private land trusts to put together enough funds to purchase development rights.

Fee simple acquisition of wildlife habitats is more expensive than purchasing development rights but gives the local government more control over the management of the property. Land trades between government agencies and private developers have been popular, especially in western states. The developers acquire land that is more suited to development, and the government agencies take title to lands that fit with existing holdings to create larger, more viable wildlife habitats. What to Look for in a Development Review

Planners should evaluate a proposed development according to the current zoning and subdivision and land-development regulations and any other relevant ordinances. Especially in the subdivision process, there may be room for negotiation and agreements about siting buildings and open space buffers to protect wildlife habitat. The place to start is to determine the location of the development in relation to identified wildlife habitats (see Table 10.8). Properly crafted subdivision regulations enable the local government to ask the developer to provide

Table 10.8. A Checklist of Plant and Wildlife Habitat Issues in a Development Review 1.

What are the size, location, and land uses of the proposed development?

2.

Has the developer conducted an environmental impact assessment on the proposed development site?

3.

Are there any known threatened and endangered plant or wildlife species on the proposed development site?

4.

Is part of the development site in a wildlife corridor?

5.

Could the impact on plant and wildlife habitat be reduced through a different design, such as the use of buffer areas?

6.

Has the developer obtained all necessary state or federal permits?

CHAPTER 10: PLANNING FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT

an environmental impact assessment of the impacts of the proposed development on wildlife. If the proposed development is above a certain size and near known wildlife habitats, the planning commission may want to contact the state department of fish and game (or wildlife) for comments. Of particular concern is the presence of any threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Planners should check their maps and databases for the location of these species. If these species are found on the proposed development site, the applicant will have to work with state and federal agencies through the Endangered Species Act. Also, local and state officials have an interest in preventing populations of plants and animals from declining to levels that would trigger the application of the Endangered Species Act. Finally, the planning commission should assess the cumulative impact of the proposed development, together with existing development, on wildlife habitats. Issues of critical mass, edge effects, migration routes, and fragmentation are important to identify and evaluate. 10.6: Case Study: Species Conservation in San Diego County

San Diego County in California is a biodiversity hot spot, with more threatened and endangered plant and animal species than any other county in the U.S. From 2000 to 2020, the county was projected to add more than 1 million inhabitants and 408,000 new housing units and develop more than 600,000 acres.80 By contrast, environmentally sensitive development patterns based on transit-oriented development would consume only 200,000 acres. The compact, “smart growth” scenario is aimed at saving wildlife habitat, farmland, and open space while reducing traffic congestion and improving air quality. The county government

335

has worked with 18 cities within the county to put the smart growth strategy into practice. The smart growth scenario features a Multiple Species Conservation Program designed to protect more than 85 plant and animal species and their habitats (see Figure 10.4). The plan sets aside 172,000 acres stretching from the Mexican border north to the San Dieguito River Valley and east from the Pacific Ocean to national forest lands. The plan includes lands within the City of San Diego and 10 other cities as well as San Diego County lands. As of 2012, the city had preserved more than 33,000 acres.81 The goal is to provide a regional open space and habitat preservation system. This can be achieved by combining the habitat protection of the smart growth plan with the more than 160,000 acres protected through an HCP in northern San Diego County. In the mid-1990s, federal, state, and local governments and private developers agreed on an HCP to protect the endangered coastal gnatcatcher. The county reserved 82,000 acres of state and federal land; the State of California and local governments purchased 27,000 acres of private land for $300 million, and developers agreed to set aside 63,000 acres in exchange for being able to develop elsewhere.82 Summary

Planning for wildlife habitat occurs at all levels of government, through several private, nonprofit organizations, and with private landowners. About 70 percent of America’s threatened and endangered species are found on private land. The federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 applies to all land in the U.S. Threatened and endangered species are listed, and the U.S. FWS identifies critical habitat and species recovery plans. All states have wildlife conservation plans as well as state-listed threatened and endangered species. Local governments

336

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

Figure 10.4. San Diego County, Multiple Species Conservation Program Source: County of San Diego, “Multiple Species Conservation Program,” http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/pds/mscp/. Retrieved October 15, 2013.

can plan to protect wildlife habitat through the comprehensive plan, zoning, subdivision regulations, and capital improvements program. Large minimum lot sizes, vegetation requirements and buffers, the location of public infrastructure investments away from wildlife habitats, and habitat preservation through the acquisition of land and conservation easements are all helpful.

Notes 1. Nixon, R. 93 Cong. Rec. 21,848 (1973). 2. National Audubon Society. “About Us.” 2012. http://www.audubon.org/about-us. Retrieved May 3, 2012. 3. Roman, J. Listed: Dispatches from America’s Endangered Species Act. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011, p. 204.

CHAPTER 10: PLANNING FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT

4. The Endangered Species Act. 1973. 7 U.S.C. § 136, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. 5. Ibid. 6. Stevens, W. “U.S. Found to Be a Leader in Its Diversity of Wildlife.” New York Times, March 16, 2000, p. A16. 7. Stein, B., L. Kutner, and J. Adams. Precious Heritage: The Status of Biodiversity in the U.S. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. 8. Baron, D. The Beast in the Garden: A Modern Parable of Man and Nature. New York: W. W. Norton, 2004. 9. Roman, J. Listed: Dispatches from America’s Endangered Species Act. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011, p. 3. 10. Noss, R., E. LaRoe III, and M. Scott. Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation. Denver: U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources, 1995. 11. Rissman, A. “Evaluating Conservation Effectiveness and Adaptation in Dynamic Landscapes.” Law and Contemporary Problems. Vol. 74 (2011), pp. 145–74. 12. Noss, R., E. LaRoe III, and M. Scott. Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation. Denver: U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources, 1995. 13. Beatley, T. “Preserving Biodiversity: Challenges for Planners.” Journal of the American Planning Association. Vol. 66, No. 1 (Winter 2000), p. 5, p. 8. 14. Odum, E. Ecology: A Bridge Between Science and Society. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer, 1997, p. 60. 15. See Forman, R. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995. 16. Dramstad, W., et al. Landscape Ecology Principles in Landscape Architecture and

337

Land-Use Planning. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1996. 17. Easterbrook, G. A Moment on the Earth: The Coming Age of Environmental Optimism. New York: Penguin Books, 1996, p. 381. 18. Lidicker, W., Jr. “Responses of Mammals to Habitat Edges: An Overview.” Landscape Ecology. Vol. 14 (1999), pp. 333–43. 19. Bailey, R. “Description of the Ecoregions of the United States.” Compiled 1995. Last modified August 22, 2008. http://www.fs.fed .us/land/ecosysmgmt/index.html. Retrieved May 10, 2013; McNab, W., et al. “Description of ‘Ecological Subregions: Sections of the Conterminous United States.’” Washington, DC: USDA, U.S. Forest Service, 2005. http://na.fs.fed.us/ sustainability/ecomap/section_descriptions .pdf. Retrieved May 10, 2013. 20. Stout, D. “A Battle Over Beetles Takes on an Urgency.” New York Times, March 20, 2000, p. 28. 21. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “West Nile Virus Disease Cases and Presumptive Viremic Blood Donors Reported to ArboNET, United States, 2011.” 2012. http:// www.cdc.gov/westnile/statsMaps/finalMaps Data/data/2011WNVHumanInfectionsbyState .pdf. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 22. McNeil, J. Something New Under the Sun. New York: W. W. Norton, 2000, p. 254. 23. Council on Environmental Quality. 1993 Annual Report on Environmental Quality. Washington, DC: USGPO, 1993, p. 18. 24. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. “Office of Protected Resources and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.” http://www.nmfs.noaa .gov//pr/pdfs/mmpa_factsheet.pdf. Retrieved May 9, 2013. 25. U.S. FWS. “Nation Marks 25 Years of Endangered Species Protection” (press release).

338

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

December 23, 1998; Wilcove, D., et al. Rebuilding the Ark: Toward a More Effective Endangered Species Act for Private Land. Washington, DC: Environmental Defense Fund, 1996. 26. Roman, J. Listed: Dispatches from America’s Endangered Species Act. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011, p. 48, p. 62. 27. Endangered Species Act, Pub. L. No. 93205, Section 3 (1973). 28. U.S. FWS. “Summary of Listed Species Listed Populations and Recovery Plans.” 2014. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/box Score.jsp. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 29. Humes, E. Eco Barons: The New Heroes of Environmental Activism. New York: Ecco, 2009, p. 124. 30. Roman, J. Listed: Dispatches from America’s Endangered Species Act. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011, p. 182–83. 31. U.S. FWS. “Listed Species With Critical Habitat.” 2012. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/ CriticalHabitat.do?nmfs=1. Retrieved April 26, 2012; Jehl, D. “Rare Arizona Owl (All 7 Inches of It) Is in Habitat Furor.” New York Times, March 17, 2003, p. A1, p. A18. 32. Roman, J. Listed: Dispatches from America’s Endangered Species Act. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011, p. 53. 33. U.S. FWS. “Summary of Listed Species Listed Populations and Recovery Plans.” 2014. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/Boxscore .do. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 34. U.S. FWS. “Delisting Report.” 2013. http:// ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/delisting Report.jsp. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 35. Roman, J. Listed: Dispatches from America’s Endangered Species Act. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011, p. 132. 36. Humes, E. Eco Barons: The New Heroes of Environmental Activism. New York: Ecco, 2009, p. 156. 37. U.S. FWS, Pacific Region. “Emergency Protection Given to Santa Barbara County

Population of California Tiger Salamander” (press release). January 19, 2000. 38. Sternold, J. “California Wine Region Torn by Debate Over Use of Land.” New York Times, April 3, 2000, p. A14. 39. Roman, J. Listed: Dispatches from America’s Endangered Species Act. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011. 40. 520 U.S. 154 (March 19, 1997). 41. The Economist. “The Rio Grande: Not Big Enough Any More.” August 19, 2000, p. 25. 42. National Academy of Sciences. Science and the Endangered Species Act. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1995, p. 3. 43. Ibid., p. 5. 44. Ibid., p. 5, p. 6. 45. U.S. Geological Survey. “Five Valleys Land Trust.” 2013. http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/blog/ five-valleys-land-trust/. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 46. Murchison, K. The Snail Darter Case: TVA Versus the Endangered Species Act. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2007. 47. Endangered Species Act, Pub. L. No. 93205, Section 10(a)(1)(B) (1973). 48. U.S. FWS. “Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976.” http://www.fws.gov/ laws/lawsdigest/FISHCON.HTML. Retrieved May 9, 2013. 49. U.S. FWS. “Species Ad Hoc Search.” 2012. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/Species Report.do?groups=E&listingType=L&mapstatus =1. Retrieved May 1, 2012. 50. Musick, J., et al. “Marine, Estuarine, and Diadromous Fish Stocks at Risk of Extinction in North America (Exclusive of Pacific Salmonids).” Fisheries. Vol. 25, No. 11 (November 2000), p. 19. 51. Balzar, J. “Extinction of Fish Species Possible, Experts Now Warn.” Los Angeles Times, November 23, 2000. 52. NOAA. Status of Stocks 2012: Annual Report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries. 2012. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusof fisheries/2012/2012_SOS_RTC.pdf. Retrieved November 11, 2013.

CHAPTER 10: PLANNING FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT

53. U.S. FWS. “Habitat Conservation Plans.” 2002. http://nctc.fws.gov/Pubs9/hcp_section10 .pdf. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 54. Associated Press. “Plan for Woodpecker Habitat Approved.” Los Angeles Times, February 20, 1999. http://articles.latimes.com/1999/feb/ 20/news/mn-9833. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 55. U.S. FWS. “Habitat Conservation Plans.” 2014. http://ecos.fws.gov/conserv_plans/Plan Report. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 56. U.S. FWS. “National Fish and Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals and Refuge Purposes.” 2006. http://www.fws.gov/policy/ 601fw1.html. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 57. U.S. FWS. “National Wildlife Refuge System Overview.” 2013. http://www.fws.gov/ refuges/about/pdfs/Over viewFactSheet April2013.pdf. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 58. Czech, B. “The Capacity of the National Wildlife Refuge System to Conserve Threatened and Endangered Animal Species in the United States.” Conservation Biology. Vol. 19 (2005), pp. 1246–53. 59. Roman, J. Listed: Dispatches from America’s Endangered Species Act. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011, p. 97. 60. Ibid., p. 99. 61. Carver, E., and J. Caudill. The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. Washington, DC: USFWS, 2007. 62. Quoted in U.S. FWS. “National Fish and Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals and Refuge Purposes.” 2006. http://www.fws.gov/ policy/601fw1.html. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 63. NOAA. “National Estuarine Research Reserve System.” 2012. http://nerrs.noaa.gov/ Doc/PDF/Background/NERRSOnePager.pdf. Retrieved May 1, 2012. 64. NOAA, National Marine Sanctuaries. “About Your Sanctuaries: Frequently Asked Questions.” 2011. http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/ about/faqs/welcome.html. Retrieved May 1, 2012.

339

65. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. “Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Conservation.” 2012. http://www.blm.gov/wo/ st/en/prog/more/fish__wildlife_and.html. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 66. Natural Resources Conservation Service. “Grassland Reserve Program.” 2011. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/ national/programs/easements/grassland. Retrieved May 1, 2012. 67. Michigan State University College of Law, Animal Legal and Historical Center. “Map of State Endangered Species Law.” 2012. http:// www.animallaw.info/articles/armpstateesa .htm. Retrieved May 3, 2012. 68. Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department. “Threatened and Endangered Plants of Vermont.” 2012. http://www.vtfishandwildlife.com/ library/Reports_and_Documents/NonGame _and_Natural_Heritage/Rare_Threatened _and_Endangered_Species%20%20- - - %20 lists/Endangered%20and%20Threatened%20 Plants%20of%20Vermont.pdf. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 69. U.S. Department of Transportation. EcoLogical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects. Washington, DC: USDOT, 2006. http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecological/ ecological.pdf. Retrieved May 3, 2012. For individual state Wildlife Action Plans, see http:// www.teaming.com/state-wildlife-action-plans -swaps. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 70. See http://www.greenprint.maryland.gov. 71. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals. Salem, OR: DLCD, 1985, p. 7. 72. National Audubon Society. 2011 Annual Report. 2012. http://www.audubon.org/2011-an nual-report. Retrieved May 3, 2012. 73. National Wildlife Federation. “Our History and Heritage.” 2012. http://www.nwf.org/ About/History-and-Heritage.aspx. Retrieved May 3, 2012.

340

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

74. Nature Conservancy. “About Us.” 2012. http://www.nature.org/aboutus/index.htm. Retrieved April 22, 2012. 75. Nature Conservancy. The Montana Legacy Project. 2011. http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/ regions/northamerica/unitedstates/montana/ mlp.pdf. Retrieved May 3, 2012. 76. Center for Natural Lands Management. “Preserve—Manchester Mitigation Bank.” 2004. http://www.cnlm.org/cms/index.php?option =com_content&task=view&id=60&Itemid =105. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 77. Rocky Mountain Elk Mountain. “RMEF Mission Statement & Fast Facts.” 2012. http:// www.rmef.org/AboutUs/FoundationFacts/. Retrieved May 3, 2012.

78. Yamhill County, OR, Department of Planning and Development. Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 1996. http://www2.co.yamhill.or.us/ plan/planning/ordinance/comp_plan_02.asp ?#FISH AND WILDLIFE. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 79. Summit County, CO. Zoning Ordinance. Adopted 1994. Chapter 4, p. 24. 80. San Diego Association of Governments (Sandag). Region 2020. San Diego: Sandag, March 2000. 81. City of San Diego. Final 2012 MSCP Annual Report. 2013. http://www.sandiego.gov/ planning/programs/mscp/pdf/2012_mscp _annual_report.pdf. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 82. Natural Resources Defense Council. Amicus Journal, Summer 1997, p. 38.

Chapter 11

PLANNING AND MANAGING WETLANDS

Ecological damage is easier to prevent than it is to reverse. —Michael Grunwald1

Wetlands are vital natural resources that provide a variety of environmental services: flood and storm surge protection; erosion control; stormwater absorption; filtering of sediment, chemicals, and nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen; aquifer recharge; fish and wildlife habitat; carbon sinks; and open space. Wetlands hold enormous amounts of carbon and thus are important in regulating climate as well as recycling carbon. Wetlands act as a buffer between land and waterways and stabilize shorelines. Wetlands remove significant amounts of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), which leaves more oxygen available for fish and wildlife. By acting as reservoirs or sponges, wetlands accumulate water then slowly release the water, either into streams and rivers or into groundwater to recharge aquifers. This process is especially helpful in maintaining water supplies during times of drought. Wetland ecosystems provide essential habitats for waterfowl, beavers, muskrats, fish, shellfish, cranberries, wild rice, and small organisms at the bottom of the food chain. Many of the federally listed

threatened and endangered species rely on wetlands for their survival. Wetlands serve as stopover spots for migrating birds and waterfowl and provide valuable recreational benefits, as evidenced by the more than $900 million a year hunters spend harvesting waterfowl.2 Wetlands vary in their size, location, type, plant and animal species, and value to the environment. Wetlands can be identified according to three criteria: 1. Plant life: Wetlands support special hydrophytic plant communities, such as Brookside alder, royal fern, and switchgrass. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued an updated list of national wetland plants in 2012.3 2. Surface water: Wetlands are subject to permanent or periodic flooding or wet soils at a depth of 18 inches for at least a week during the growing season. 3. Soils and groundwater: Wetlands contain wet (hydric) soils that are poorly drained

342

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

and have a high water table—less than half a foot from the surface for at least one week of the growing season.4

wetlands are referred to as freshwater wetlands, and 95 percent of America’s wetlands are freshwater wetlands.5 Lacustrine wetlands are found along the shores of lakes and ponds. RivThere are two general types of wetlands, erine wetlands exist along rivers and streams inland and coastal (see Figure 11.1). Inland (riparian wetlands). Palustrine wetlands do not contain flowing water and include marshes and depressions surrounded by dry land in System Subsystem Class the Midwest (prairie potholes), in areas of high Rock bottom Unconsolidated bottom Subtidal Aquatic bed water tables that reach to the earth’s surface Reef Marine (fens), and where soils are made wet for a seaAquatic bed Reef Intertidal son or longer by precipitation (bogs; see Photo Rocky shore Unconsolidated shore 11.1). Coastal wetlands are known as tidal or Rock bottom Unconsolidated bottom estuarine wetlands, such as salt marshes. These Subtidal Aquatic bed Reef are found along the Atlantic, Pacific, Alaskan, Estuarine Aquatic bed Reef and Gulf Coasts. Streambed

Wetlands and deepwater habitats

Intertidal

Tidal

Rock bottom Unconsolidated bottom Aquatic bed Streambed Rocky shore Unconsolidated shore Emergent wetland

Lower perennial

Rock bottom Unconsolidated bottom Aquatic bed Rocky shore Unconsolidated shore Emergent wetland

Upper perennial

Rock bottom Unconsolidated bottom Aquatic bed Rocky shore Unconsolidated shore

Intermittent

Streambed

Limnetic

Rock bottom Unconsolidated bottom Aquatic bed

Littoral

Rock bottom Unconsolidated bottom Aquatic bed Rocky shore Unconsolidated shore Emergent wetland

Riverine

Lacustrine

Palustrine

Rocky shore Unconsolidated shore Emergent wetland Scrub-shrub wetland Forested wetland

Rock bottom Unconsolidated bottom Aquatic bed Unconsolidated shore Moss-lichen wetland Emergent wetland Scrub-shrub wetland Forested wetland

Figure 11.1. Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats Source: L. Cowardin, V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe, Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1979, http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Documents/ Classification-of-Wetlands-and-Deepwater-Habitats-of-the -United-States.pdf. Retrieved May 4, 2014.

Photo 11.1. Freshwater palustrine wetland, New Hartford, NY. Source: Tom Daniels.

CHAPTER 11: PLANNING AND MANAGING WETLANDS

11.1: Pressures on Wetlands Historically, most Americans viewed wetlands as swamps, wasteland, or cheap land that could be drained, dredged, and filled and either farmed or developed for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes. More than half of the original wetlands in the lower 48 states, some 117 million acres, have been filled in. Freshwater wetlands account for 95 percent of all wetland losses, and more than threefourths of the freshwater wetland losses have been for agricultural uses.6 Twenty-two states have lost more than half of their original wetlands. In the major farming states of California, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, and Ohio, roughly ninetenths of the original wetlands have been lost, mostly for cropland.7 In addition, more than a million acres of wetlands have been dredged to become open water to allow for better navigation.8 According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which has been monitoring the nation’s wetlands since 1954, an estimated 110 million acres of wetlands remain in the lower U.S., of which about 104 million acres are freshwater wetlands and 5.8 million acres are tidal wetlands. Also, 20 million acres of freshwater wetlands are isolated wetlands, such as prairie potholes, and not part of navigable waterways. In 1989, President George H. W. Bush declared a national policy of no net loss of wetlands, a policy that has been maintained in subsequent presidential administrations. The rate of loss of wetlands has slowed considerably since the 1980s, and wetland acreage actually increased by 32,000 acres between 1998 and 2004. But these gains were somewhat offset by 13,800 acres in wetland losses between 2004 and 2009 (see Figure 11.2).9 The main causes of recent wetland losses have been timber harvesting and urban and rural development of freshwater wetlands and the erosion of coastal wetlands. On the other hand, gains in wetlands have occurred from changes in agricultural

343

practices, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Conservation Reserve Program, land placed under conservation easements, and natural processes. Suburban and exurban sprawl. As people and development spread farther into the countryside and along coastal areas (see Chapter 12), wetlands are often disturbed or filled. On the one hand, it is important for new development to be sited a certain minimum distance from a wetland, usually at least 100 feet. On the other, water withdrawals from wells can deplete nearby wetlands, and wetlands can be polluted by effluent from on-site septic systems and runoff from roads and parking lots. Valuing the environmental services of wetlands. Only in the last quarter of the 20th century did wetlands become recognized as valuable resources, performing environmental services that by some estimates are worth tens of thousands of dollars per acre each year.10 It is important to accurately value wetlands to help a local, state, or federal government agency determine whether a wetland should be filled. Wetlands do not necessarily work in isolation. Often, they connect to groundwater and other surface water and help filter water across a watershed. Moreover, as wetlands become fewer and farther between, entire wildlife migration routes can be threatened. Waterfowl stop to feed and rest at regular intervals along their routes. But when wetlands at key intervals are lost, flocks may not be able to bridge the distance to the next wetland. Destruction of wetlands results in the release into the atmosphere of large amounts of carbon dioxide and methane gases, which contribute to climate change.11 Weighing the dollar value of the environmental services of a wetland and the potential value as developed real estate is not easy. But if cost-benefit analysis is going to be used in the decision-making process, the benefits of wetlands and the cost of their destruction must be carefully estimated.

344

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

32,000 0 –13,800

–50,000

–58,550

–100,000

Acres

–150,000 –200,000 –250,000 –300,000

–290,000

–350,000 –400,000 –450,000

–458,000

–500,000 1950s–1970s

1970s–1980s

1980s–1990s

1998–2004

2004–2009

Figure 11.2. Average Annual Net Wetland Loss and Gain for Lower 48 States, 1954–2009 Source: T. Dahl, U.S. FWS, Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Coterminous United States, 2004–2009, Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, USFWS, 2011, Figure 19, http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Documents/Status-and-Trends -of-Wetlands-in-the-Conterminous-United-States-2004-to-2009.pdf. Retrieved August 7, 2012.

11.2: Federal Wetland Protection Efforts process for the review of projects that would involve the dredging or filling of wetlands.13 As of 2012, about 75 percent of the remaining The Clean Water Act defines wetlands as “areas wetlands in the lower 48 states were privately that are inundated or saturated by surface or owned.12 Federal wetlands protection efforts groundwater at a frequency and duration suffeature the regulation of the dredging and filling of wetlands, land acquisition, and a com- ficient to support a prevalence of vegetation bination of voluntary financial incentives and typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.”14 But the differing interpretations of agreements with landowners. this definition and the actual identification and delineation of wetlands have created shifting Section 404 Federal Wetlands Permits standards, uncertainty, and considerable fricSection 404 of the Clean Water Act Amend- tion between landowners and state and fedments of 1972 and 1977 established a permit eral agencies.

CHAPTER 11: PLANNING AND MANAGING WETLANDS

Section 404 is administered by both the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Corps of Engineers derives its authority from Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, which gives the corps responsibility for any action that affects the course, location, or condition of the waters of the U.S. The EPA drafts guidelines for the corps to follow in administering Section 404 permits, and the EPA may override a corps decision. Section 404 referred to dredging and filling “in the waters of the United States,” leaving it unclear whether this meant all waters or only navigable coastal and riparian waters. In 1986, the corps began regulating the dredging and filling of isolated freshwater wetlands under the Section 404 permit review process. In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court rescinded federal authority over these isolated wetlands, ruling that the jurisdiction of the corps applies only to wetlands that are part of “navigable waters.”15 The Court upheld the right of states to regulate isolated freshwater wetlands, because they do not involve interstate commerce. In the case of Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the corps did not have jurisdiction over the filling of a wetland that was not part of or connected to navigable waters. Michigan developer John Rapanos had filled 22 acres of wetlands without a permit to build a shopping center and condominiums. But the nearest navigable waters were several miles away. As much as one-fifth of the nation’s wetlands—about 20 million acres—are isolated freshwater wetlands, and the continuing loss of these wetlands has been cited as a threat to migratory birds and drinking water supplies. The corps has issued two types of wetland permits: general and individual. Individual permits tend to involve large development projects where compliance with other federal laws and regulations must be reviewed. Most corps

345

permits are general permits that may be either nationwide permits or regional permits. Nationwide permits refer to more than 50 outcomes, including impacts of wetland filling on navigation, flood control, utilities, energy development, and highway crossings.16 From the 1970s until 1996, nationwide permits allowed for the filling of up to 10 acres of isolated wetlands. Environmentalists claimed that developers used this permit to fill too many wetlands and to avoid the expense of the longer and more intensive individual permit review. A 1996 lawsuit by the Natural Resources Defense Council compelled the corps to reduce the threshold size for nationwide permits from 10 to 3 acres and to reassess this standard. In 2000, the corps adopted a much stronger standard, requiring a project that would fill more than half an acre of wetland to be reviewed as an individual permit. To receive an individual permit, the corps must determine whether the applicant’s project is in the public interest and complies with a variety of federal laws including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); the Coastal Zone Management Act; the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act; and the Endangered Species Act. Under NEPA, the corps must consider alternative sites for the proposed development project. The EPA may also review any permit application submitted to the corps and may prohibit permits in certain wetlands. Obtaining an individual permit can take up to several months, but nearly all applications are approved. Yet conditions are attached to about half the permits granted, and many applications for individual permits are withdrawn before they are processed (see Table 11.1). Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires a landowner to obtain a state Section 401 certification before the landowner can acquire a Section 404 permit from the corps. The Section 401 certification stipulates that the state has done a preliminary review of the project. If the wetland to be filled is in a coastal area,

346

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

Table 11.1. Section 404 Approval Process for Federal Wetlands Permit 1.

At a preapplication meeting between the U.S. Corps of Engineers district office and landowner, the conceptual design of the project is discussed, and the corps makes suggestions about improving the design of the project and on-site or off-site mitigation measures. This meeting is similar to a sketch plan meeting between a subdivider and a local planning commission.

2.

The landowner submits a formal application to the district office. The project manager reviews the application, including whether the corps has jurisdiction. A public notice is published, and a public comment period of 15–30 days begins. A public hearing may be held.

3.

The project manager decides whether the activity meets one of the 40 nationwide permit categories. If so, the project manager makes a recommendation to grant or not to grant a permit to the district engineer, who sends the applicant a letter verifying approval or denial of the permit. A letter granting a permit may include specific conditions about construction, best management practices, and mitigation.

4.

If the project will have major impacts, the district engineer may require an individual permit, which involves a more detailed review. The review invokes NEPA, Section 404(b)(1)—calling for the consideration of practicable alternatives to the proposal, a determination of public interest, and compliance with other federal resource protection laws.

5.

The EPA has the power to veto a permit granted by the corps, but this has happened only very rarely.

6.

The district office bears the responsibility for monitoring and enforcement of the terms of the nationwide and individual permits.

a landowner must also provide evidence that the proposed project complies with the state coastal zone management program before a Section 404 permit will be issued. Section 404 allows individual states to approve general permits for minor dredging and filling actions that affect a half-acre or less of wetlands. These permits along with state permits for isolated wetlands are processed through the state department of natural resources or environmental conservation. An important concern is monitoring and enforcing the terms of the Section 404 permits. The corps investigates alleged violations of

Section 404 permits. If a violation is found, the corps can issue a cease and desist order. Remediation of the violation may involve voluntary compliance by the landowner or legal action. Wetlands permits involve a significant investment of time and money on the part of developers. A 2002 study estimated that the average applicant for an individual permit spent 788 days and $271,596, and the average applicant for a nationwide permit spent 313 days and $28,915, not counting costs of mitigation or design changes. The public and private sectors spent a total of more than $1.7 billion a year to obtain their permits.17

CHAPTER 11: PLANNING AND MANAGING WETLANDS

Wetlands Mitigation

In deciding whether to issue a permit, the corps must consider the water dependency of the proposed project and proposed mitigation efforts designed to minimize or replace the loss of water quality, wildlife habitat, and recreational use from dredging or filling. When evaluating water dependency, the corps must determine whether the particular use can be sited away from the wetland. For example, a marina requires access to water; a restaurant does not. Mitigation involves minimizing the environmental impacts of dredging or filling the wetland on fish and wildlife, recreation, flood damage prevention, water supply and quality, navigation, and public safety. Key issues for on-site mitigation include the wetland site characteristics, the location of any fill, materials used as fill, and the control of fill materials. Section 404 guidelines allow for off-site mitigation, defined as the “restoration of alternative degraded sites”—that is, if a development project will unavoidably dredge or fill a wetland, the developer can submit a mitigation plan along with the 404 permit application. The developer can restore a wetland, construct a new wetland elsewhere, or pay a third party, such as a land trust, to do the work. Since the 1990s, mitigation has been popular among developers as a way to obtain a 404 permit. Between 1993 and 1998, the corps gave permission for the filling of 63,144 acres of wetlands in exchange for 72,542 acres of created or restored wetlands.18 States may also require mitigation in return for a permit to fill or dredge an isolated wetland. For instance, in 2010, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency issued 40 permits to fill 25.86 acres of isolated wetlands but required the mitigation of 58.7 wetland acres.19 A challenge for the corps and state environmental departments is to verify that the mitigation has actually been completed.

347

Off-site wetlands mitigation is decided on a case-by-case basis. It is important that the mitigation create, restore, or protect a wetland of equal size and quality to the wetland being lost, and preferably in the same watershed. It is possible for constructed wetlands to function as successful ecosystems (see Photo 11.2 and Box 11.1). But some constructed wetlands have been known to fail where sites are poorly chosen. In a 2001 study, the National Academy of Sciences found that artificial wetlands do not come close to re-creating the functions of a natural wetland.20 The report also contended that the corps has done little monitoring of developers’ compliance with constructed wetlands requirements. Constructed wetlands alter the existing soil, hydrology, and plant life in an area. This in turn affects the larger ecosystem, creating new wildlife habitat while displacing existing habitat. A cheaper, quicker, more beneficial, and more successful solution is to restore wetlands that have been previously drained or filled.21 For long-term protection of restored or constructed wetlands, a developer may be required to donate a conservation easement to a land trust or government agency on the new or restored wetland mitigation site. The developer should also be required to provide a stewardship fund to the land trust or government agency for proper long-term monitoring and maintenance of the wetland. A mitigation bank can be set up by a government agency, a land trust, or other private, nonprofit organization to preserve wetlands through the sale of mitigation credits to developers seeking a 404 permit.22 In 1995, the federal government issued guidance for state and local governments and the private sector for creating and operating mitigation banks. By 2005, there were 450 mitigation banks. Since 2007, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has favored mitigation banks over developers restoring or creating new wetlands.23 In 2008,

348

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

Photo 11.2. Constructed wetland to absorb stormwater runoff. Source: Tom Daniels.

the corps and the EPA published the Final Compensatory Mitigation Rule to promote nationwide consistency in the creation and operation of mitigation banks.24 Today there are an estimated 1,800 mitigation banks.25 A mitigation bank can be established on public or private land and may be operated by a for-profit business or nonprofit organization. A mitigation bank can also involve an agreement or partnership between a government agency and private organization. The operator of a mitigation bank either will have already created

or restored wetlands and banked mitigation credits or will use the payment from the developer to create or restore additional wetlands. Thus mitigation banking relieves the developer of having to physically create mitigating wetlands as part of the development proposal and can speed the development approval process. Moreover, a mitigation bank may consist of large parcels with more valuable wetland resources than those slated to be dredged or filled, and the larger wetlands can be better managed and protected.

CHAPTER 11: PLANNING AND MANAGING WETLANDS

349

Box 11.1. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment have been popular mainly in rural areas that do not have access to central sewer systems. Unlike “enhancement” wetlands that attempt to serve the many functions of natural wetlands, wastewater treatment wetlands attempt to replicate the plants, soils, and microorganisms found in natural wetlands to remove contaminants from municipal or private residential, commercial, or industrial wastewater. Constructed treatment wetlands come in a variety of sizes to meet the needs of a few residences, individual businesses, or large housing subdivisions. Constructed wetlands can work well for secondary and tertiary wastewater treatment. The City of Davis, California, has incorporated wetlands with ponds and lagoons to receive stormwater and tertiary-treated wastewater. The water is then further cleansed before being released into the Sacramento River.26 Treatment wetlands are also being used to handle dairy wastewater, stormwater runoff, and even acid mine drainage. As of 2001, more than 500 wastewater and stormwater treatment wetlands had been built around the U.S. Treatment wetlands usually feature either subsurface flow or a free-water surface wetland, though it is possible to combine both types in a single treatment system. A free-water system most resembles a natural wetland, and the wastewater flows over the soil at a shallow depth. In subsurface flow systems, wastewater is run through a channel or cell containing gravel or crushed rock. There is a lining or

barrier at the bottom of the wetland to limit seepage. The flow rate is regulated so that untreated water does not rise to the surface. Plants filter out the contaminants, and microorganisms digest organic material, all of which settle to the bottom of the wetland as sludge. The treated water is then held as surface water or used as spray irrigation onto land, often farmland. The effectiveness of a constructed treatment wetland depends on the design, operation, pollutant types and loadings, and climate. A well-designed and managed wetland can remove about 80 percent of the BOD, nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended solids in wastewater.27 One limitation of treatment wetlands is they are unable to remove heavy metals, which can gradually accumulate in the sediment. However, their use for rural and residential uses makes heavy metals less of an issue. Most treatment wetlands are found in the warmer climates of the U.S., where freezing temperatures that would interfere with the treatment function of the wetland are brief or rare. Attractive features of treatment wetlands are little odor, low maintenance and operating costs, aesthetic benefits, and wildlife habitat. On the other hand, liability remains an important concern for home owners’ associations, municipal treatment operators, and owners of private systems. Wetlands should be fenced to keep out small children and trespassers. Periodically, the sludge from the bottom of the wetland needs to be removed and properly disposed of to minimize odors and the buildup of heavy metals.

350

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

A state agency or local government should review and certify the ability of a business or nonprofit organization’s ability to maintain a new or restored wetland, consistent with state and federal statutes. A private business, nonprofit organization, or government agency that is proposing to create a mitigation bank must submit a prospectus to the corps. A mitigation bank proposal that involves filling wetlands to create cropland is made to the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The public has an opportunity to comment on a proposed mitigation bank. A proposal to create a mitigation bank must describe (a) the physical wetlands aspects of all the sites to be included in the bank, (b) a method to determine mitigation credits at the sites and debits from wetlands to be filled by the developers seeking 404 permits, (c) management and maintenance of the wetlands in the mitigation bank, and (d) reporting and monitoring policies. In sum, a landowner or developer proposing to develop a wetland has three choices: (1) purchase wetlands mitigation credits from a mitigation bank and then fill and develop the wetland, (2) apply for a permit to fill a wetland and agree to create a new wetland somewhere else, or (3) pay an in-lieu fee for mitigation in which the developer pays a fee to a government agency or nonprofit organization. The government agency or nonprofit will pool fees from several developers to purchase or restore a wetland. This provides mitigation for the wetlands that the developer is proposing to fill. Buying credits from a mitigation bank or paying a government agency enables the developer to shift the burden for mitigation onto someone else. A major challenge with mitigation is that oversight and monitoring are needed to ensure that wetlands are properly restored or preserved to offset the loss of the wetlands that were allowed to be developed.

Federal Wetlands Acquisition, Incentives, and Restoration

Most freshwater wetlands have been filled for agricultural purposes. Two federal acts are designed to discourage the conversion of wetlands for farming. The Swampbuster provision of the 1985 Farm Bill made farmers who plow up wetlands ineligible for federal farm subsidies. The 1990 Farm Bill created the Wetlands Reserve Program, administered by the NRCS within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to protect privately owned wetlands and adjacent farmlands from development. The program has three voluntary strategies: 1. Cost-sharing agreements between the federal government and landowners to restore existing wetlands; the federal government pays 75 percent of the cost 2. The purchase of 30-year-term conservation easements by the federal government at 75 percent of the value of a permanent easement; the federal government also pays 75 percent of the cost of restoration 3. The purchase of permanent conservation easements by the federal government along with the federal government paying 100 percent of the cost of restoring the wetland As of 2012, more than 2.3 million acres of wetlands had been protected through the Wetlands Reserve Program.28 Louisiana had the most acreage enrolled in the program, which is not surprising, given that Louisiana has more wetlands than any other state in the continental U.S. Yet Louisiana is also losing its wetlands at a fairly rapid rate.29 The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), begun in 1996 and managed

CHAPTER 11: PLANNING AND MANAGING WETLANDS

by the NRCS, makes payments to farmers to plant riparian buffers of trees and grass near rivers and streams and to restore wetlands. This helps reduce soil erosion, improve water quality, and provide wildlife habitat. Farmers and ranchers voluntarily enter 10- to 15-year contracts, and state money can be used to match federal funds. As of 2010, almost 1.2 million acres were enrolled.30 In 1989, Congress passed the North American Wetlands Conservation Act to provide federal cost-share grants to implement the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The purpose of the plan is to restore, protect, and manage wetlands for migratory birds and other wildlife. Federal grants are matched by state and local governments and nonprofit organizations on a dollar-for-dollar basis. As of 2009, more than 25 million acres of wetlands had been restored in almost 1,900 projects in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico at a total cost of $4 billion.31 The U.S. FWS administers the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990. The FWS gives priority to wetlands that are included in the National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan.32 Through 2012, the FWS has made $183 million in grants to 25 states for the conservation of more than 250,000 acres of coastal wetlands.33 States, local governments, and nonprofits have contributed 50 percent matching funds and are responsible for the management of the wetlands. For example, in fiscal year 1999, a $940,000 federal grant helped the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources purchase forested wetlands in the Mobile-Tensaw Delta adjacent to Mobile Bay, one of the largest wetland ecosystems in the U.S.34 The FWS also maintains a national wetlands inventory that includes digital wetlands data available in map form and viewable over the Internet. Like the NRCS soil survey maps, the wetlands inventory maps are not meant for regulatory use.

351

The EPA’s Wetlands Program Development Grants offers grants to states, tribes, and local governments for wetlands restoration and protection projects. Grant funds can be used for wetlands conservation plans, creating or updating a wetlands database, physically restoring wetlands, and ecological monitoring and assessment of wetlands. A total of $290 million in federal grants had been approved through 2012.35 Finally, federal Land and Water Conservation Funds have been used to purchase wetlands to create wildlife refuges (see Chapter 10). So far, phosphorus levels have declined significantly but are still above the goal of 10 parts per billion, which is seen as the level needed to ensure sustainable water quality in the Everglades.36 Meanwhile, the official cost of the CERP has risen to at least $10.5 billion.37 At best, the CERP would restore the water flows into the Everglades to 70 percent of their historic levels.38 But rising sea levels could pose an even larger threat to the Everglades.39

11.3: State Wetlands Management State governments, through their departments of natural resources or the environment, have been active in identifying and delineating wetlands, in reviewing and issuing wetlands permits, and in requiring wetlands mitigation before issuing a permit. Many states have published handbooks on how to identify and delineate wetlands. Like many other federal environmental programs, wetlands regulation has gradually shifted to state control. For example, in 1994, New Jersey gained formal control of the Section 404 permit program within its borders. States have long exercised review of proposed development of wetlands through the Coastal Zone Management Act, Section 401 of the Clean Water Act,

352

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

Box 11.2. Big-Time Wetlands Restoration: The Florida Everglades Florida has lost the more acres of wetland than any other state, 9.3 million acres.40 Much of that loss has occurred in the Everglades, a swampy region at the southern end of Florida that has shrunk from 4,000 square miles to about 2,700 square miles due to water diversions, farming, and development.41 About half of the wetlands in the Everglades have been lost.42 Still, the Everglades remains the world’s second-largest wetland and is famous as the habitat for alligators, the American crocodile, and many species of fish and water birds. The landscape is a mix of saw grass, open water, clumps of trees, and mangrove forest. The Everglades are best thought of as “a river of grass,” a description that conservationist Marjory Stoneman Douglas used as the subtitle of her famous book, The Everglades. She began her book with the statement, “There are no other Everglades in the world.”43 Historically, the Kissimmee River emptied into Lake Okeechobee, and the overflow from the lake supplied the Everglades where the water flowed at a gentle rate of about two feet per minute (see Figure 11.3). The unique and diverse ecology of the region became widely recognized when 2,190 square miles of the Everglades were declared a national park in 1947. But, ironically, in 1948, after two hurricanes had put much of South Florida underwater, Congress directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to drain half a million acres south of Lake Okeechobee, and north of the lake, the Kissimmee River was rerouted in a series of canals, levees, and pumping stations. About 1.7 billion gallons of freshwater

a day, or about four-fifths of the freshwater supply, were diverted from the Everglades and out to sea, to the detriment of native fish, plants, and wildlife.44 The main beneficiaries of the water control projects were sugarcane growers and the residents along Florida’s south Atlantic Coast. The Everglades began to dry out. In addition, agricultural and urban runoff created water pollution problems, especially an excess of nitrogen and phosphorus, which led to algae blooms and loss of saw grass marshes.45 In 2000, Congress agreed to work with the State of Florida to restore the Everglades. The estimated cost would be nearly $8 billion over 36 years, with the federal government covering most of the expense but the State of Florida also contributing.46 Part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) involves returning the Kissimmee River to much of its old, winding course. The CERP also calls for 35,000 acres of new filter wetlands to improve water quality. But the centerpiece is the construction of 20 huge reservoirs to store rainfall and then release the water southward into the Everglades through redesigned canals (see Figure 11.3). The water storage proposal is an attempt to satisfy the water demands of sugarcane producers and urban residents while providing an adequate water supply to the Everglades ecosystem. As a result, much less water would be diverted eastward into the Atlantic Ocean and much more water would be directed into the Everglades to restore wetlands, aquifers, and hopefully, the entire ecosystem.

CHAPTER 11: PLANNING AND MANAGING WETLANDS

Historic flow

Flow as of 2010

353

Planned flow

Figure 11.3. Water Flow in South Florida: Historic, Present, and Planned Source: CERP Adaptive Management Integration Team, The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, 2010, http://www.evergladesplan.org/pm/pm_docs/adaptive_mgmt/100410_am_brochure_low.pdf. Retrieved May 4, 2014.

and Section 404 review of general permits for filling or dredging small wetlands of less than half an acre in navigable waters. Also, the federal government and individual states can regulate wetlands under the Endangered Species Act if rare and endangered species are found in a wetland (see Chapter 10) or under the Safe Drinking Water Act if the wetland influences surface drinking water (see Chapter 5). Some states have even declared certain wetlands to be of statewide importance and hence worthy of extra protection. For instance, in 1988, the Maine legislature passed a Natural Resources Protection Act establishing state regulatory authority over wetlands. The size of nonnavigable wetlands under state authority varies from state to state. For example, in Michigan, the state has authority over the filling and development of nonnavigable wetlands of five or more acres; wetlands of fewer than five acres are under local control. In

New Hampshire, the state reviews all wetlands proposals that would impact more than 3,000 square feet; projects affecting 3,000 to 20,000 square feet are treated as minor projects, and those above 20,000 square feet are considered major projects and also require a review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A number of states have drafted State Wetland Conservation Plans to integrate and expand wetland protection and management programs. A main thrust of these plans is educating landowners and the general public about the importance of wetlands. Voluntary stewardship is part of the plans in Texas and Maine. Tennessee maintains a list of priority wetlands for acquisition or restoration. Maryland has both tidal and a nontidal wetlands programs. State tidal wetlands are those below the mean high-water line; private wetlands are those above the mean highwater line and in private ownership. Mitigation

354

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

is required for unavoidable impacts, with a preference toward on-site mitigation.47 The nontidal wetlands program protects isolated wetlands by requiring a 25-foot buffer from proposed developments. The buffer requirement increases to 100 feet for nontidal wetlands of state concern. The nontidal wetlands program also requires mitigation for any wetland losses. Finally, the nontidal wetlands program provides for the development of watershed management plans, which can be used as a basis for regulatory decisions to protect wetlands.

Inventory

11.4: Local Planning for Wetlands

Analysis

Even though there are state and federal requirements governing the development of wetlands, local governments should be prepared to take an active role in protecting wetlands. This is especially true given the 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision limiting the authority of the corps to regulate wetlands only in navigable waters (see Solid Waste Agency v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 99-1178). Also, some states only regulate large, nonnavigable wetlands. For example, in New York State, the state regulates isolated wetlands of 12.4 or more acres, leaving the local governments to regulate smaller, isolated wetlands. But many local governments do not regulate the development of wetlands at all. Local wetlands provide a variety of important environmental services, and local governments should identify important wetlands in determining the location, type, and density of future development through the comprehensive planning process. The comprehensive plan serves as the legal basis for local zoning and subdivision regulations to protect wetlands.

A land-suitability analysis based on a GIS can indicate limitations for development in areas with wetlands or hydric soils. Wetlands can be evaluated and rated for significance by size and by the environmental services they provide, such as wildlife habitat or aquifer recharge. Planners can also assess the potential for wetlands mitigation and banking.

Local governments can identify wetlands as part of the natural resources inventory section of the comprehensive plan. National wetlands maps and GIS databases are available from the U.S. FWS. County soil survey maps from the NRCS identify hydric soils, some of which include wetlands. State environmental agencies and many county planning offices have wetlands maps as well. Local mapping of smaller wetlands not included in the state or federal databases should be encouraged.

Goals and Objectives

Local planning officials can draft goals and objectives to protect wetlands as part of the comprehensive plan (see Table 11.2). The protection of wetlands can be listed as a goal in the natural resources section of the comprehensive plan. Objectives to achieve this goal can be included in the economic base section, given the valuable benefits and economic activity that arise from wetlands. Also, the land use and the community facilities sections can have objectives to direct development away from wetlands.

CHAPTER 11: PLANNING AND MANAGING WETLANDS

355

Table 11.2. Sample Wetlands Goals and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan Section: Natural Resources Goal: Protect important wetlands that provide water recharge, flood protection, wildlife habitat, aesthetic, and educational benefits. Objective: Adopt local wetlands protection standards for isolated freshwater wetlands and all wetlands of less than half an acre in navigable waters. Section: Economic Base Objective: Protect wetlands that are important to local hunting, fishing, and birding businesses. Section: Land Use Objective: Direct development away from important wetlands. Section: Community Facilities Objective: Avoid locating growth-inducing community facilities near wetlands.

The comprehensive plan of the Town of Action Strategy Avon, Indiana, lists the following goals and The Action Strategy should present techniques objectives for wetlands: and programs for achieving the goals and objectives for wetlands protection as well as • Goal: Preserve and enhance green space in specific timetables and benchmarks. the community. The Action Strategy might include the following specific recommendations: • Objective: Identify and preserve existing wetlands and floodplains from development through the use of zoning (e.g., over- • Use a zoning overlay district to protect large contiguous areas of wetlands. lay district), voluntary easements, and land • Explore the use of constructed wetlands for acquisition. wastewater treatment. • Goal: Explore long-term financing for strate• Explore the creation of a wetlands mitgic parks and recreation expenses. igation bank with private nonprofit organizations. • Objective: Consider using bonds for acquisition of parkland for future development • Protect wetlands through outright puror acquisition of floodplains/wetlands for chase and the purchase of conservation 48 easements. preservation.

356

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

Zoning Ordinances

Subdivision Regulations

The main purpose of local regulations that affect wetlands is to control land uses near wetlands to ensure that they do not discharge pollutants and sediment into the wetlands, to ensure that proposed buildings are set far enough from wetlands so that high water tables and hydric soils do not cause flooding in basements, and to minimize the dredging and filling of wetlands. A setback requirement from the edge of identified and delineated wetlands is appropriate in the zoning ordinance, such as no dwellings may be erected within 100 feet of a wetland of more than one acre. Some communities use a wetlands protection overlay zone to direct development away from areas with large amounts of wetland where on-site septic systems could cause water pollution and on-site wells could dry up the wetlands. An overlay zone may be specific for the protection of wetlands or may be a multipurpose conservation zone that protects a range of natural features, including wetlands. For instance, riparian wetlands are typically protected through a floodplain overlay zone. Other zoning standards include limiting development density and hence the likely impacts of development on wetlands. This can be done through rural residential zoning in three- to five-acre minimum lot sizes, density and siting standards, or agricultural or forestry zoning in 20-acre or more minimum lot sizes. Local governments may choose not to allow the dredging and filling of wetlands, even where the state or federal government would permit it. For example, in the famous Wisconsin case of Just v. Marinette County, the court upheld a county wetlands protection zoning ordinance with the following opinion: If you pay swamp prices, you get swamp uses.49

The subdivision and land-development ordinance should spell out conditions under which on-site septic systems and wells are acceptable. Otherwise, the local government can mandate that new development hook into central sewer and water systems. The subdivision ordinance can require that the first inch of stormwater for a 24-hour storm be contained on-site through vegetation, swales, filter strips, and retention basins. A limit on impervious surfaces can also help minimize runoff into wetlands. The subdivision ordinance can call for buffering berms, filter strips, and vegetation between development and nearby wetlands. For large developments, the subdivision ordinance can require the developer to conduct an environmental impact assessment, including an evaluation of likely impacts on wetlands. Wetlands mitigation requirements should be spelled out in the subdivision ordinance, unless the state standards are considered to be adequate. The ordinance may also allow constructed wetlands as wastewater treatment systems according to specific design and management standards. Capital Improvements Program

Local planning officials should use the capital improvements program (CIP) to direct growth and development away from large wetlands or groupings of smaller wetlands. Major roads, schools, and extensions of sewer and water systems should generally be kept out of these areas in order to discourage intensive growth and development. If appropriate, the CIP could include plans for constructed wetlands to service the community, its schools, or other public uses. The CIP can also include funding programs for the public purchase of wetlands or

CHAPTER 11: PLANNING AND MANAGING WETLANDS

the acquisition of conservation easements. Partnering with land trusts and sports groups can be pursued. For instance, since 1937, Ducks Unlimited has helped protect more than 4.5 million acres of America’s wetlands.50 What to Look for in a Development Review

357

Planners should ascertain the existence and size of wetlands on the property and on adjacent properties. Planners then can evaluate the design of the proposed development project for mitigating impacts to wetlands on-site and on neighboring properties. Finally, planners should review any wetlands permit the developer has received from the relevant state agency or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

What a community can look for in a development review involving wetlands depends on the goals and objectives in the comprehen- Summary sive plan and, more important, the standards and requirements spelled out in the zoning Wetlands provide many valuable environand subdivision regulations (see Table 11.3). mental services, such as water recharge, water

Table 11.3. A Checklist of Wetlands Issues in a Development Review 1.

Are there wetlands on or adjacent to the site proposed for development?

2.

Does the applicant describe these wetlands and potential impacts to the wetlands from the proposed development?

3.

Have these wetlands been identified in the natural resources inventory of the comprehensive plan?

4.

Should the applicant be required to conduct an environmental impact assessment, including impacts on wetlands?

5.

Is the proposed use permitted in the existing zone, especially if it is within an overlay zone?

6.

Are the minimum distances of proposed buildings, on-site septic systems, and wells from wetlands met?

7.

Is filling, dredging, or drainage of part or all of a wetland proposed?

8.

Is there a wetlands mitigation plan?

9.

Will stormwater runoff from the proposed project affect nearby wetlands?

10.

If a wetland is proposed for treating wastewater, should the design of the wetland be reviewed by the municipal or county engineer?

11.

Has the developer obtained all necessary wetlands permits from the state or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers?

358

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

filtration, flood control, and carbon sinks. More than half of the original wetlands in the lower 48 states have been filled to create farmland and land for development. The U.S. officially has a policy of no net loss of wetlands. Permission to fill a wetland may be granted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. State governments also issue permits, particularly for the filling of nonnavigable wetlands. Local governments can regulate the filling of wetlands through zoning. The federal Wetlands Reserve Program has provided funds for the preservation and restoration of wetlands. Wetlands mitigation has become a favored policy to ensure that new wetlands will be created or old wetlands restored when a developer receives permission to fill a wetland.

Notes 1. Grunwald, M. The Swamp: The Everglades, Florida, and the Politics of Paradise. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007, p. 366. 2. Mueller, G. “Waterfowl Hunters Are the Big Spenders.” Washington Times, April 19, 2009. http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/ inside-outside/2009/apr/19/waterfowl-hunters -are-the-big-spenders/. Retrieved August 8, 2012. 3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “National Wetland Plant List.” 2012. http://rsgisias.crrel .usace.army.mil/apex/f?p=703:1:0. Retrieved August 10, 2012. 4. Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Washington, DC: USFWS, 1979. http://www.npwrc.usgs. gov/resource/wetlands/classwet/index.htm. Retrieved May 22, 2014. 5. Dahl, T. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Coterminous United States 2004 to 2009.

Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, USFWS, 2011. http://www.fws.gov/wet lands/Documents/Status-and-Trends-of -Wetlands-in-the-Conterminous-United-States -2004-to-2009.pdf. Retrieved August 7, 2012. 6. Platt, R. H. Land Use and Society: Geography, Law, and Public Policy. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1996, p. 437. 7. Council on Environmental Quality. Annual Report, 1996. Washington, DC: USGPO, 1996, pp. 304–5. 8. Platt, R. H. Land Use and Society: Geography, Law, and Public Policy. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1996, p. 437. 9. Dahl, T. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Coterminous United States 2004 to 2009. Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, USFWS, 2011, pp. 40–43. http://www.fws.gov/ wetlands/Documents/Status-and-Trends-of -Wetlands-in-the-Conterminous-United-States -2004-to-2009.pdf. Retrieved August 7, 2012. 10. Maltby, E. Waterlogged Wealth: Why Waste the World’s Wet Places. Washington, DC: International Institute for Environment and Health, 1986. 11. Bridgham, S., C. Johnston, J. Pastor, and K. Undegraff. “Potential Feedbacks of Northern Wetlands on Climate Change.” BioScience. Vol. 45, No. 4 (1995), pp. 45–65. 12. U.S. EPA. “Partnerships With Landowners.” Last modified January 28, 2013. http://water .epa.gov/type/wetlands/outreach/fact30.cfm. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 13. 33 U.S.C. 1344. 14. U.S. EPA. “Wetlands Definitions.” 2013. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wet lands/definitions.cfm. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 15. Solid Waste Agency v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (99-1178), 531 U.S. 159 (2001). 16. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “2012 Nationwide Permit Program.” 2013. http:// www.usace.army.mil/missions/civilworks/ regulatoryprogramandpermits/nationwide permits.aspx. Retrieved May 4, 2014.

CHAPTER 11: PLANNING AND MANAGING WETLANDS

17. Sunding, D., and D. Zilberman. “The Economics of Environmental Regulation by Licensing: An Assessment of Recent Changes to the Wetland Permitting Process.” Natural Resources Journal. Vol. 42, No. 1 (2002), pp. 59–90. 18. Realty Times. “Wetlands Not Likely to Make Any Rain for Builders.” February 14, 2000. http:// www3.realtytimes.com/rtnews/reu2pages/ 20000214_wetlands.htm?open&vol=02&id =sample. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 19. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Isolated Wetland Permits and 401 Water Quality Certifications in Ohio State Fiscal Year 2010. http://www.epa.state.oh.us/portals/35/401/ IWP_Rep_2010.pdf. Retrieved August 10, 2012. 20. National Academy of Sciences. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2001. 21. Hunt, R. Do Created Wetlands Replace the Wetlands That Are Destroyed? Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Service, 1998. 22. 40 C.F.R. Part 1508.20 and 40 C.F.R. Part 230. 23. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. “Mitigation Banking Factsheet.” 2014. http://water.epa.gov/ lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/mitbanking.cfm. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 24. U.S. EPA. “Compensatory Mitigation.” 2014. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/ wetlands/wetlandsmitigation_index.cfm. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 25. U.S. EPA. “Mitigation Banking Factsheet: Status of Mitigation Banking.” 2014. http:// water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/ mitbanking.cfm. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 26. Beatley, T. “Preserving Biodiversity: Challenges for Planners.” Journal of the American Planning Association. Vol. 66, No. 1 (Winter 2000), pp. 5–20. 27. Moshiri, G. Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement. New York: Lewis, CRC Press, 1993.

359

28. NRCS. “Wetlands Reserve Program.” 2012. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ main/national/programs/easements/wetlands. Retrieved August 13, 2012. 29. Tercek, M., and J. Adams. Nature’s Fortune: How Business and Society Thrive by Investing in Nature. New York: Basic Books, 2013, p. 122. 30. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. Conservation Reserve Program Annual Summary and Statistics, Fiscal Year 2010. 2010. http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/ annual2010summary.pdf. Retrieved August 13, 2012. 31. U.S. FWS. North American Wetlands Conservation Act Progress Report, 2008–2009. 2009. http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/ NAWCA/files/nawca.progrpt.08-09.pdf. Retrieved August 13, 2012. 32. U.S. FWS. “National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan.” 1989. http://www.gpo.gov/ fdsys/pkg/CZIC- qh76- u85- 1989/html/CZIC -qh76-u85-1989.htm. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 33. U.S. FWS.“National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program.” 2013. http://www .fws.gov/coastal/coastalgrants/. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 34. U.S. FWS. “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Awards $9.4 Million for Wetland Restoration Projects in 1999” (press release). October 2, 1998. 35. U.S. EPA. “Wetland Program Development Grants Funding History.” Last modified August 28, 2012. http://water.epa.gov/grants _funding/wetlands/history.cfm. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 36. Grunwald, M. The Swamp: The Everglades, Florida, and the Politics of Paradise. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007, p. 359. 37. Ibid., p. 360. 38. Ibid., p. 361. 39. See Gore, A., Jr., An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press, 2006.

360

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

40. U.S. Geological Survey. “Wetlands Losses in the United States 1780’s to 1980’s, Executive Summary.” 2006. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/ resource/wetlands/wetloss/summary.htm. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 41. McCormick, A. Vanishing Wetlands. San Diego: Lucent Books, 1995. 42. Grunwald, M. The Swamp: The Everglades, Florida, and the Politics of Paradise. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007, p. 372. 43. Douglas, M. The Everglades: River of Grass. Sarasota, FL: Pineapple Press, 1997, p. 1. Originally published in 1947. 44. New York Times. “An Everglades Action Plan.” July 13, 2000, p. A28. 45. Grunwald, M. The Swamp: The Everglades, Florida, and the Politics of Paradise. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007, p. 284.

46. Schmitt, E. “Everglades Restoration Plan Passes House, With Final Approval Seen.” New York Times, October 20, 2000, p. A21. 47. Maryland Department of Environment. “Maryland Water Permit Applications and Other Forms.” 2014. http://www.mde.state.md.us/pro grams/Permits/WaterManagementPermits/ WaterDischargePermitApplications/Pages/Per mits/WaterManagementPermits/water_per mits/index.aspx. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 48. Town of Avon, IN. Comprehensive Plan 2005–2025. 2005. http://www.avongov.org/egov/ docs/1122907146_368469.pdf. Retrieved August 15, 2012. 49. Just v. Marinette County, 210 N.W. 2d 761 (1972). 50. Ducks Unlimited. “Land Protection Programs.” 2012. http://www.ducks.org/conservation/land-protection. Retrieved August 7, 2012.

Chapter 12

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

To conserve, protect, where appropriate develop and where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of all coastal shorelands, recognizing their value for protection and maintenance of water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, waterdependent uses, economic resources and recreation and aesthetics. —State of Oregon, Goal 17: Coastal Shorelands1

There are several ways to define the coastal zone of the U.S. Broadly, the coastal zone consists of lands within 50 miles of seacoasts and the Great Lakes. This definition accounts for 17 percent of America’s land area. Another definition uses coastal watersheds, the land area that drains into coastal waterways and makes up 13 percent of the U.S. Also, individual states narrowly define the coastal zone under the federal coastal zone management program as three miles out to sea and up to 1,000 yards inland from the mean high tide.2 Some states have expanded the area designated as coastal zone. In California, the coastal zone extends up to three miles from shore and as far as five miles inland. States own and control the ocean resources in the first three miles from shore. The federal government owns and manages the remaining territorial waters for up to 12 miles offshore through the U.S. Department of the Interior. Under the United Nations Law of

the Sea, the U.S. and other nations are allowed to manage ocean resources for up to 200 miles offshore, in what is known as their exclusive economic zone. America’s coastal areas have remarkably rich and diverse land and water resources. Coastal waters consist of bays, estuaries, marshes, lagoons, and ocean or Great Lakes waters stretching from the high-water mark to three miles offshore. Coastal lands have “a direct and significant impact on coastal waters”3 and include more than 72,000 miles of shoreline.4 These shorelines vary from headlands and pocket beaches along the Pacific Coast to coastal wetlands in Louisiana to the rocky coast of Maine. America’s shorelines include such varied ecosystems as the coral reefs and mangrove swamps of Florida and the bluffs and coastal plains along the Great Lakes as well as dunes, mud flats, tidal wetlands, forests, farmland, and built-up cities and towns.

362

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

Estuaries are coastal water bodies where freshwater from rivers and ocean saltwater meet and mix the nutrients from the land and the sea. These oxygen- and nutrient-rich estuarine environments support aquatic life that provides essential links in the food chain. The nation’s 90,000 square miles of estuaries along with coastal waters provide the main spawning grounds for more than three-quarters of America’s commercial fish and shellfish and more than four-fifths of the recreational fish catch.5 Fishing is a nearly $200 billion a year industry and supports 1.7 million jobs.6 Commercial fishermen harvest more than 9 billion pounds of seafood a year.7 In addition, estuaries provide temporary or permanent habitat for many of the nation’s threatened and endangered species.8 Coastal and estuarine salt marshes and tidal wetlands provide important nesting, resting, feeding, and breeding habitat for 75 percent of U.S. waterfowl and other migratory birds.9 Americans make about 2 billion visits to the beach each year and spend billions of dollars in beach communities.10 Beaches are popular recreation spots for swimming, surfing, and sunbathing. Sport fishing, boating, snorkeling, and scuba diving are also popular pastimes. Publicly owned coastal areas include 10 national seashores and two national recreation areas under the authority of the National Park Service, parts of the national wildlife refuge system under the management of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), several coastal military installations, and state and local parks and beaches.

past two centuries. Today, most Americans live within 100 miles of the ocean or Great Lakes, and 14 of America’s largest cities hug the coast. Moreover, the majority of the nation’s population growth to 2050 is expected to occur in coastal areas, especially in California, Florida, and Texas.11 According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), coastal counties are growing three times faster than the rest of the nation.12 But the growth is far from even. The population of the Southeast’s coastal areas grew by 78 percent between 1980 and 2006, whereas the coastal regions of the Great Lakes added only 1 percent to their population.13 The EPA has rated the general condition of the nation’s coastal waters as fair.14 But the coastal waters of the Northeast, Great Lakes, and Gulf Coast were rated between poor and fair, while the waters of the West Coast and Southeast were rated between fair and good.15 Many coastal wetlands have been dredged and filled to make farmland, residential space, and commercial sites, such as ports, marinas, and offices. Increased impervious surfaces direct polluted stormwater runoff to coastal waters, threatening aquatic life. Industrial, residential and agricultural uses along waterways leading to the ocean and Great Lakes have acted as both point and nonpoint sources of coastal water pollution, contributing toxic substances, sediment, and nutrient loadings, which result in algae blooms. Estuaries. Estuaries are nutrient-rich breeding grounds for aquatic life and waterfowl and are especially vulnerable to toxic pollution from urban stormwater runoff, factories, and sewage treatment plants. The configuration and shallow depth of estuaries limits tidal 12.1: The Challenge of flushing action that could help aerate water and assimilate pollution. In addition, upstream Coastal Zone Management water withdrawals slow down stream flow and, Population growth and development. hence, the cleansing and flushing action. EstuCoastal areas have absorbed much of America’s aries also receive rivers and streams at their population growth and development over the dirtiest downstream point. Estuaries are prone

CHAPTER 12: COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

to nutrient pollution from stormwater runoff from farm fields, forestry operations, on-site septic systems, air pollution, and sewage treatment plants. Even so, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program of the Clean Water Act allows several thousands of industrial and municipal discharges into estuarine waters each year.16 Between 2004 and 2009, the U.S. lost 84,100 acres of coastal wetlands.17 The Gulf Coast continues to suffer the greatest loss of coastal wetlands, which is also a problem in the Chesapeake Bay, San Francisco Bay, and

363

Great Lakes. Restoring coastal wetlands and aquatic habitats is essential to support healthier fisheries. Reefs. Reefs serve a number of important purposes. They mitigate the impact of waves and storm surges and protect shorelines from damage and erosion. Oyster reefs filter water as well as offer habitat for fish and other shellfish. The restoration of reefs is a key strategy in the Gulf Coast and the Chesapeake Bay where the seafood industry is still vibrant. Managing coastal recreation. Coastal recreation activities involve going to a beach or

Photo 12.1. Millions of Americans visit coastal beaches every year, like this one on the Delaware coast. Source: Tom Daniels.

364

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

lakeshore to swim, surf, snorkel, fish, sail, motorboat, or simply sunbathe. More than half of all Americans visit coastal areas each year (see Photo 12.1). The construction of hotels, motels, and second homes has heightened the competition for coastal lands and has created a number of pollution problems, such as leaking septic tanks and stormwater runoff into coastal waters. The EPA examined the environmental impacts of several kinds of commercial recreation and found that the degree of hotel use was the main factor in energy and water consumption. Coastal recreation used the most water and had the highest biochemical oxygen demand and total suspended solids release rates. Coastal recreation had the highest energy use for transportation because of the distance traveled and high number of trips. Car trips to coastal recreation areas and the use of motorboats produced more air pollution than other types of recreation. Visitors to coastal areas also generated large amounts of municipal waste.18 Improving water quality. A particular challenge facing residents of estuarine watersheds, such as the Chesapeake Bay region, is how to accommodate new population growth and development while improving, not just maintaining, water quality. Water quality is essential to the commercial success of waterside-related businesses and communities. Experts agree that when more than 10 percent of a watershed is converted to impervious surfaces, water-quality problems become chronic (see Chapter 6). Motorboating and sailing are usually organized around marinas and boat clubs. This concentration of activity can increase the stress on the local environment. Proper pumping out of wastes and disposal of garbage are important to maintain water quality. The dredging of wetlands to create or expand marinas should be carefully controlled to limit impacts to wildlife and water quality.

Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and stormwater outfall pipes can discharge dangerous levels of bacteria and other pollutants into coastal waterways and result in beach closings. Reducing CSOs and stormwater runoff is essential for improving water quality and the health of beach areas. Beach erosion. Residential and commercial developments too close to the shoreline contribute to beach erosion. As Ian McHarg pointed out in his book Design With Nature, the first and second line of dunes are very fragile and should not be built on, whereas the area behind the second dune with its scrub timber can actually accommodate a fair amount of development.19 Beaches and low-lying barrier islands are especially vulnerable to storm damage. Because upstream dams block sediment flow to beaches and storms wash away sand, state and local governments face spending millions of dollars each year on sand to replenish beaches.20 Climate change and sea level rise. Climate change poses the greatest long-term threat to coastal areas. Scientists predict that rising air and water temperatures from climate change will expose coastal areas to more frequent and more intense storms. Storm surges are expected to produce greater coastal flooding and property damage. Rising oceans resulting from the melting of polar ice caps will also threaten America’s coastal communities, especially in the latter half of the 21st century. A study by the National Research Council estimated that seas would likely rise by 42 to 167 centimeters along the California coast south of Cape Mendocino and 10 to 143 centimeters north of Cape Mendocino and along the Oregon and Washington coasts by 2100.21 If the high end of those estimates actually happens, then the Pacific coastline will be dramatically reshaped along with damage to property. Another study estimated that 3.7 million Americans live within one meter of the mean high

CHAPTER 12: COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

tide and are at increasing risk from flooding caused by rising sea levels.22 The study also predicted the likelihood of increased coastal flooding, especially in Florida, New Jersey, New York, Louisiana, and California. Yet another study noted that a five-foot rise in sea level would inundate most of New Orleans and Miami and displace 6 million people.23 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has developed a digital coast software program that states, communities, and the public can use to visualize potential increases in sea levels, marsh migration, tidal flooding frequency, and the impact of sea level rise on barrier islands and shorelands.24 The National Flood Insurance Program will probably shoulder much of the financial burden for the property damage caused by coastal flooding (see Chapter 13). But a more immediate concern is how coastal communities can adapt to rising sea levels. The options include regulatory measures, such as longer building setbacks from mean high tide, a buyout of vulnerable properties, and soft and hard infrastructure. Soft infrastructure includes the restoration of dunes and wetlands and replenishing beaches with sand. Hard infrastructure can consist of a large barrier (such as the Thames Barrier), sea walls, bulkheads, groins, jetties, and levees and more resilient utilities, such as steel utility poles. Elevating and retrofitting buildings to better withstand coastal storms and locating new development away from coastal areas are prudent measures. Linking coastal protection with hazard mitigation planning is essential (see Chapter 13). Waterfront redevelopment. Many of America’s urban waterfronts were first developed as commercial and industrial districts. Public access to waterfronts has long been limited in urban areas as water-related businesses, such as oil terminals, warehouses, and lumberyards, freeways, and shipping and railroad networks have taken precedence over public recreation.

365

But with the decline of heavy manufacturing, many urban waterfronts have become blighted and underused. Waterfront renewal efforts have become popular in many coastal cities. Success stories of revitalization range from Boston’s Quincy Market to Baltimore’s Inner Harbor to Seattle’s Pike Place Market area. Energy exploration and development. The U.S. has long depended on oil to power motor vehicles, heat homes, and operate factories. Natural gas is a leading fuel for home heating and electrical generating plants. Technological advances have enabled oil and natural gas companies to explore for new supplies in deeper and deeper waters off the U.S. continental shelf. Such exploration, however, is not without risk. In 1969, an oil platform blowout off Santa Barbara, California, fouled the coastline for several miles. The 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico released the equivalent of 5 million barrels of oil over a three-month period and devastated marine life and waterfowl.25 There are also an estimated 27,000 abandoned oil and gas wells in the Gulf of Mexico that may be leaking oil and natural gas into the ocean.26 Florida has banned drilling off most of its Gulf Coast because of a desire to keep beaches clean for residents and tourists. Protection from oil spills is a prime concern for coastal communities and should be part of their emergency management planning.

12.2: Federal Planning and Management of Coastal Resources The federal role in the management of coastal areas and resources is largely spelled out in three laws: the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (PL 92-583, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (better known as the Ocean Dumping Act; PL 92-532), and the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 (PL 97-348).

366

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to address the rising threats to coastal areas: “The increasing and competing demands upon the lands and waters of our coastal zone occasioned by population growth and economic development . . . have resulted in the loss of living marine resources, wildlife, nutrient-rich areas, permanent and adverse changes to ecological systems, decreasing open space for public use, and shoreline erosion.”27 The CZMA was designed to offer federal funding, guidelines, and technical help for the 30 coastal and Great Lakes states (and 5 territories) that voluntarily agree to draft plans and manage development in their coastal areas. The CZMA is administered by NOAA, which was created through the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. The CZMA is unique among federal environmental laws in that it has no power to mandate state compliance and has no set requirements. The act was meant to promote a true partnership between the federal government and the states. States can receive federal grants for up to two-thirds of the cost of drafting and implementing coastal zone plans. The states then submit plans for review by NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. All the eligible states and territories have applied for grants from NOAA to create coastal plans. As of 2012, 29 of the 30 states (all but Alaska) had approved coastal zone plans. The purpose of the CZMA initially seems very broad in allowing states to provide for industrial and commercial development, public beach access, mineral and energy resource extraction, the protection of cultural and natural landmarks, waste disposal, and the harvesting of fish and shellfish. State plans must include the following items:

1. The boundaries of the coastal zone: the extent of the zone both into the water and onto land. The zone extending three miles into the water from the mean highwater mark is the same for all states. Each state sets the inland extent of the coastal zone. For example, California designated a minimum 1,000 yards inland from the Pacific shore but up to five miles in undeveloped areas. 2. Land and water uses permitted in the coastal zone and priority uses in different areas of the zone. States also must create a system to resolve conflicts among competing uses. 3. Identification of areas of planning concern, including an inventory of sensitive environmental areas, such as habitats of rare and endangered species, flood and landslide hazard areas, and a designation of areas of particular concern, such as “transitional or intensely developed areas where reclamation, restoration, [and] public access . . . are especially needed; and those areas especially suited for intensive use or development.”28 4. A description of state controls to implement the coastal zone plan, including direct regulation by the state or local regulation with state standards and review, and the acquisition of land, water, and buildings through condemnation, fee simple purchase, or purchase of conservation easements. 5. An inventory of public access to beaches and waters and plans for public acquisition. 6. Coordination of federal, state, regional, and local government agencies in administering federal water and air pollution laws, especially permits for filling wetlands.

CHAPTER 12: COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

The state plans must also take into account national interests in the siting of large developments such as electrical generating plants, national seashores, harbors and ports, interstate highways, and military installations. The national interest also includes fisheries; prime farmland; mineral resources; and historic, scenic, and cultural sites. Finally, any federal agency activity must be consistent with the CZMA if it affects natural resources, land uses, or water uses in the coastal zone.29 This means that federal decisions must be consistent with the state plans and that, remarkably, the state plans take precedence over federal decisions. Congress passed the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization in 1993. Section 6217 requires each state with an approved coastal zone management plan to develop a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control program, which must then be approved by NOAA and the EPA. Congress amended the CZMA in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The amendments provided additional funds for the drafting of coastal zone plans, grants to states to acquire estuarine shorelands, and closer coordination between state and federal coastal zone management agencies and state and wildlife agencies. The amendments also enabled the Secretary of Commerce to study and create plans in response to sea level rise.30 Although the amendments do not directly tie sea level rise to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, the implication is clear. Sea level rise together with storm surges and water pollution are the primary challenges to planning in coastal areas.

367

America’s obligations under the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping signed in 1972 by 80 countries. The act bans the ocean dumping of high-level radioactive waste and nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. A 1988 amendment banned the dumping of sewage sludge, industrial waste, medical waste, and all municipal dumping operations. The Marine Protection Act also established the Office of Coastal Zone Management within NOAA to provide grants and technical assistance to states in implementing the CZMA. The act also created a marine sanctuaries program that allows NOAA to designate certain coastal and ocean regions off-limits to development. By 2012, NOAA had established 15 national marine sanctuaries.31 In late 2000, President Clinton created by executive order the world’s largest ecosystem reserve under the waters of the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The 84 million acres of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve contain extensive coral reefs and more than 7,000 bird, fish, and marine mammal species.32 The preserve forbids oil and gas drilling or changes to the seabed or coral. Fishing is allowed to continue but only at 2000 harvest levels. In 2006, President George W. Bush declared the area a national monument, providing greater protection through the joint management of the U.S. FWS and NOAA.33 Further additions in 2009 brought the total area protected in national monuments to nearly 125 million acres.34 Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982

Barrier islands in the Gulf of Mexico and off the Atlantic coast are low-lying, sandy stretches of land that provide important wildlife habThe Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctu- itats. Many of the islands are still undevelaries Act, often referred to as the Ocean Dump- oped. Barrier islands are ever shifting, as sand ing Act, was enacted by Congress to meet is washed away from the ocean-facing side The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972

368

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

and redeposited on the leeward side. Barrier islands are especially vulnerable to storms and hurricanes. In 2012, Superstorm Sandy damaged or destroyed thousands of houses on the New Jersey barrier islands, as the storm surge flooded the islands and even pushed ocean water over the barrier islands and into the bays behind. The construction of structures to hold sand and the replacement of dunes and beaches with new sand can reduce damage to barrier islands. Yet many barrier islands have only a single line of dunes rather than two lines of dunes behind which construction might occur. Also, the narrowness of the barrier islands makes them vulnerable to flooding from the leeward side as well as the ocean side. A key protection component in coastal areas is more stringent setback requirements. In fact, 13 states have already adopted special setback requirements from beaches for new construction. North Carolina includes an erosion setback in its Coastal Area Management Act. Of America’s 1.6 million acres of barrier islands, about 53 percent, or 840,000 acres, are in public ownership or are under private protection; another 29 percent, or 454,000 acres, have been designated as part of the Coastal Barrier Resources System; and another 18 percent, or 287,000 acres, are privately held and unprotected.35 The Coastal Barrier Resources Act was designed to keep both private and publicly owned barrier islands largely undeveloped. The act set up the Coastal Barrier Resources System, under the management of the National Park Service, to designate certain barrier islands for protection. In order to discourage development, the Coastal Barrier Resources System made the owners of designated barrier islands ineligible for the National Flood Insurance Program, federal sewer and water funds, federal road and bridge money, and federal funds for beach restoration. But local regulations may still allow development on islands within the Coastal Barrier Resources

System. The lands included in the Coastal Barrier Resources System are maintained by the U.S. FWS. Private land may be donated to the barrier system as well as surplus federal land. Congress may also add or delete lands from the barrier system.36 National Estuarine Research Reserve System and National Estuary Program

Estuaries are rich spawning grounds for fish, shellfish, other aquatic life, and waterfowl. There are three kinds of estuaries. In a positive estuary, the rate of evaporation from the surface is less than the volume of freshwater entering the estuary from rivers, streams, and direct land drainage. A neutral estuary has a rate of evaporation equal to the rate of incoming freshwater. An inverse estuary has little or no freshwater entering and is often cut off from the sea in tidal pools. Section 315 of the CZMA authorized the Secretary of Commerce to establish the National Estuarine Research Reserve System and gave the Secretary the power to “acquire, develop, or operate estuarine sanctuaries, to serve as natural field laboratories in which to study and gather data on the natural and human processes occurring within the estuaries of the coastal zone,” and to “acquire lands to provide access to public beaches and other public coastal areas of environmental, recreational, historical, aesthetic, ecological, or cultural value.”37 NOAA manages the Estuarine Research Reserve System and offers cost sharing money for land acquisition and management on a 50-50 matching basis to the states with laws that protect estuarine resources. As of 2012, the system covered 28 estuaries.38 The National Estuary Program was created in 1987 under amendments to the Clean Water Act. The purpose of the program is to identify, restore, and protect important estuaries by

CHAPTER 12: COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

involving federal, state, and local government agencies and the general public. For each estuary in the program, a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan is drafted and specific actions taken for restoration and protection. As of 2012, there were 28 estuaries in the program. The EPA administers the National Estuary Program and provides grants and technical assistance to local governments, watershed groups, and private citizens who are responsible for carrying out the actions. For instance, the estuary program in Buzzards Bay in southeastern Massachusetts has identified nutrients, pathogens, contaminated seafood, and habitat loss as major management issues. The program has implemented beach testing and stormwater analysis and has compiled an inventory of coastal wetlands. The program published a brochure for landowners and local officials about land-use options to manage nitrogen inputs. From 2000 to 2012, the National Estuary Program helped protect and restore more than 1.2 million acres of habitat.39 The Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program

Congress created the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) in 2002 to protect coastal and estuarine lands that have important ecological, conservation, recreational, historic, or aesthetic values. The program provides matching funds to state and local governments to purchase coastal and estuarine lands or conservation easements on those lands. Lands or conservation easements acquired with CELCP funds are protected in perpetuity. Only coastal states and territories with Coastal Zone Management Programs or National Estuarine Research Reserves approved under the CZMA and that have submitted a CELCP plan to NOAA are eligible to compete for CELCP funding. Each state ranks properties

369

for acquisition. For example, Delaware’s CELCP plan gives priority to “Tier 1” pristine estuary lands threatened by significant development pressure, ahead of Tier 2 areas.40 Nationwide, from 2002 to 2012, the CELCP protected more than 90,000 acres of land.41 Natural Resource Damage Assessment

NOAA follows three steps in responding to a natural disaster or a human-caused disaster, such as an oil spill. First, NOAA makes an assessment of the damage to natural resources, especially beaches and marine life. Next, NOAA plans for the restoration of those impacted natural resources through replacing beaches, creating shellfish habitat, and undertaking species recovery and monitoring programs. Then, NOAA implements and monitors the restoration plan through a variety of projects such as removal of shoreline debris and invasive species and restoration of wetlands, reefs, and sea grasses. The restoration plans emphasize ecosystem-based management. NOAA has worked directly with several local governments on restoration projects. The most widely known example is the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion, which released 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico and devastated wildlife along coastal areas of Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, and Florida. NOAA responds to up to 150 oil spills every year under the authority of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.42 The Great Lakes Program

The Great Lakes Basin is home to more than 30 million people. The five Great Lakes contain about 20 percent of the world’s freshwater and compose the largest freshwater system in the world. In 1972, the U.S. and Canada created the Great Lakes Program to restore and maintain

370

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the lakes. The EPA administers the Great Lakes National Program. The program initially focused on building and upgrading municipal sewage treatment plants to reduce nutrient loads, especially phosphorus. Recently, the program has featured an ecosystem approach aimed at restoring and protecting the health of the entire 200,000-square-mile drainage basin. The program added minimum water-quality standards and has worked to coordinate the efforts of the many state and local governments within the basin.43 In 2010, the U.S. federal government issued a four-year Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan, addressing such topics as toxic substances and polluted areas of concern; invasive species (Asian carp in particular); nonpoint-source water pollution; wildlife habitat protection and restoration; and education, monitoring, and evaluation.44

states, U.S. territories, and tribes to perform regular testing of water quality at beaches and to notify the public of health hazards. Each year, the EPA produces a report on coastal water quality and beach closings. In 2011, more than 55 percent of beach closures lasted only a day or two. A total of 6,237 public beaches exist in the U.S., but only 3,650 beaches (58 percent) were monitored. Of the monitored beaches, 43 percent (1,575) had a swimming advisory or a beach closing at least once during the 2011 swimming season. The good news is that beaches were declared safe and open more than 95 percent of the time.45 Although beach advisories or closings were issued for a number of different reasons (e.g., elevated bacterial levels in the water, preemptive reasons associated with rainfall events or sewage spills), storm-related runoff was the single most common reason.

Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000 (BEACH Act)

Coordinating Federal Coastal Protection Efforts

Public beach closings because of polluted runoff and sewage carrying fecal coliform bacteria are fairly common in the summer months when stormwater runoff is heavy and rainstorms cause sewers and drains to overflow, sending raw sewage into coastal waters. The sewage carries a variety of bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and parasites that can cause illnesses ranging from diarrhea to hepatitis. Beach contamination can last up to several days after each overflow. In 2000, Congress amended the Clean Water Act with the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act, better known as the Beach Bill. The law requires states to develop water-quality standards for pathogens that cause infectious diseases in coastal recreational waters and to set water-quality standards for public beaches. The Beach Bill also authorized the EPA to make grants to

Coordination of federal coastal protection efforts is an ongoing challenge because of the large number of federal laws and agencies involved in the management of coastal resources. • Coastal flood management is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, through the National Flood Insurance Program, the Flood Disaster Protection Act, and the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. • Coastal wildlife habitats are managed by the FWS in wildlife refuges and through the Endangered Species Act. • Coastal wetlands development is regulated by the Section 404 permitting program of the Clean Water Act administered by

CHAPTER 12: COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA. Also, the Department of Agriculture’s Swampbuster program of the 1985 Farm Bill discourages the filling of wetlands for farming, and the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program enables the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to purchase conservation easements on farm wetlands. The NRCS also has programs for wetlands restoration. • Coastal water-quality standards and control of nonpoint pollution are the responsibility of the EPA through the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. • The National Park Service manages national seashores and national parks in coastal areas as well as barrier islands through the Coastal Barrier Resources System created under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act. • The EPA monitors beach water quality under the BEACH Act. • The planning and management of the coastal zone and estuary protection are the responsibility of NOAA under the CZMA and the National Estuary Program. • Grants for the preservation of estuarine lands are managed by NOAA. • Restoration and recovery from natural and human-made disasters in coastal areas are overseen by NOAA. Performance of Federal Coastal Protection Programs

Evaluations of the performance of the CZMA have been sketchy. On the one hand, the CZMA has improved the management of coastal areas, especially through the passage of new state laws, regulations such as setbacks from coastlines for new development, and land acquisition to limit coastal developments.46

371

Compared to the pre-1972 era, researchers found that “coastal development patterns and practices are more respectful of protecting coastal resources and reducing exposure of people and property to coastal risks.”47 The application of coastal development controls has varied considerably among the states. The 2005 amendments to the CZMA are a step toward better state and federal coordination, but there still needs to be a stronger system of monitoring state performance and compliance with the goals of the CZMA. Development along parts of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts has been particularly heavy. Despite extensive and expensive damage and loss of life from Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy, coastal development remains popular. Coastal erosion is expected to continue from rising sea levels and more frequent and severe storm surges related to climate change. Recent increases in National Flood Insurance rates could discourage new development in coastal areas. Water quality remains a problem in many coastal areas. In 2012, the EPA rated the overall condition of the nation’s coastal waters as fair.48 Although this is a major improvement from 1990, the quality of the nation’s coastal waters has improved only slightly since the previous report in 2008. The EPA based its assessment on five factors: a water-quality index, a sedimentquality index, a benthic index, a coastal habitat index, and a fish tissue contaminants index. The most common pollution sources were industrial plants, urban runoff and storm sewers, and municipal sewage treatment plants. The number of beach closings has declined slightly since the BEACH Act of 2000. But public access to beaches has become a major problem as populations increase and most coastal areas remain privately owned. The nation’s estuaries continue to be vulnerable to nutrient pollution from nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers. Agricultural runoff

372

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

in keeping with the federal CZMA. California, North Carolina, Oregon, and Hawaii have taken the CZMA the most seriously and have devoted considerable personnel and state funding to manage coastal resources. By contrast, the Great Lakes states have generally lagged. Oregon, Maryland (see Box 12.1), and California (see the case studies in Section 12.5) have gone beyond the federal standards and incorporated coastal planning into statewide programs as well as local land-use planning. Oregon’s Pacific Coast varies from sandy beaches to jutting headlands, to the rock “haystacks” of Cannon Beach, to estuaries where rivers and streams from the Coast Range empty into the ocean. Coastal areas offer fishing, boating, logging, and tourism. About one-third of the Oregon coast is state parkland, and the public has the right of access and use to all dry sand beaches—both public and private. Oregon’s 1973 Land Use Act led to the adoption of 19 statewide planning goals, which carry the force of law. Counties and municipalities are required to incorporate these goals into their comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances. 12.3: State and Regional Coastal Four of the goals relate to the protection of Protection Programs coastal resources: estuarine resources, coastal Several states have enacted land-use manage- shorelands, beaches and dunes, and ocean ment programs to protect coastal resources resources.49 is still a major problem. The leading example is the enormous “dead zone” of 7,500 square miles of oxygen-depleted water that stretches from the mouth of the Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico. The Chesapeake Bay, thanks to a pollution diet established by the EPA for Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, appears to be slowly improving, though dead zones still cover a significant portion of the bay in summer months. Federal coastal land and water protection programs need to be more clearly consistent with each other. State coastal protection plans and local land-use ordinances need to be better coordinated with the federal programs. State and local governments, landowners, developers, and the general public could benefit from “one-stop shopping” for information on federal flood insurance, coastal zone management development and protection plan requirements, water quality, and funding opportunities for coastal and wetlands protection.

Box 12.1. Protecting the Chesapeake Bay The 200-mile-long Chesapeake Bay is America’s largest estuary, with a watershed that covers 64,000 square miles, and contains more than 17 million people in Delaware, New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The Chesapeake Bay has been famous for its oysters and blue crabs. But the oyster

harvest has sharply declined to just over 250,000 bushels a year, far from its peak in the early 1900s of 20 million bushels annually.50 Crabs, too, have become harder to find. Over recent decades, considerable residential and commercial development has occurred adjacent to the bay. Meanwhile, farms in the watershed consist mainly of

CHAPTER 12: COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

dairy and chicken operations along with the production of feed corn, contributing to nutrient runoff that enters tributaries and eventually the bay. The federal government approved Maryland’s coastal zone management program in 1978. But it quickly became apparent that the coastal program alone would not be sufficient to stem the deterioration of the bay’s water quality. In the early 1980s, the Chesapeake Bay was placed on the EPA’s list of impaired waters in part because of low levels of dissolved oxygen. In 1980, Maryland and Virginia established the Chesapeake Bay Commission to cooperatively manage the bay and coordinate land and water resource planning to improve the bay’s water quality. Pennsylvania and Washington, DC, joined the commission a few years later. In 1983, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. EPA entered into the historic Chesapeake Bay Agreement, aimed at improving the water quality and restoring aquatic life in the bay. Since 1984, Maryland’s Critical Areas law has required new development within 1,000 feet of the high tide to meet standards designed to mitigate adverse effects on water quality and wildlife habitat. Also, Maryland requires retention of a large portion of vegetation and replantings of vegetation in new developments to intercept runoff. Maryland has also promoted tree planting along riparian areas to absorb runoff before it reaches streams and is washed into the bay (see Chapter 6). Since 1997, Maryland’s “Smart Growth” laws have created incentives for more compact development and rural land preservation to limit sprawl. According to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, a private nonprofit

373

organization working to improve the bay’s water quality, sprawl results in five to seven times more sediment and phosphorus runoff than a forest and nearly twice as much sediment and nitrogen runoff as compact development.51 In 2000, the three states, the District of Columbia, and the EPA revised the Chesapeake Bay Agreement to include specific antisprawl goals (a) reducing the loss of farmland and forestland by 30,000 acres by 2012 and (b) permanently preserving 20 percent of the watershed land by 2010.52 In 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13508 for cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay. The 2010 Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed featured the EPA placing the six watershed states and the District of Columbia on a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) “pollution diet” for nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment (see Table 12.1). The overall goal is to fully restore the Bay and its tidal rivers by 2025, with at least 60 percent of the actions completed by 2017.53 Other goals of the strategy include wildlife habitat recovery, sustaining fish and wildlife, conserving land, and increasing public access. Each year, the EPA publishes a report on progress. The federal government committed more than $400 million to restore the Chesapeake in 2012 alone.54 The pollution diet seems to be working. From 2009 to 2012, according to the Chesapeake Bay Program, nitrogen loads in the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed decreased by 16 million pounds, phosphorus loadings declined by nearly 1 million pounds, and sediment loads have fallen by 367 million pounds.55 In addition, crab populations have recovered to sustainable levels.56

374

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

Table 12.1. Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Six States and the District of Columbia in the Chesapeake Watershed, 2010 Jurisdiction

Nitrogen (Million Pounds per Year)

Phosphorus (Million Pounds per Year)

Sediment (Million Pounds per Year)

Pennsylvania

73.93

2.93

1,983.78

Maryland

39.09

2.72

1,218.10

Virginia

53.42

5.36

2,578.90

District of Columbia

2.32

0.12

11.16

New York

8.77

0.57

292.96

Delaware

2.95

0.26

57.82

West Virginia

5.45

0.59

310.88

Atmospheric deposition

15.70

—

—

201.63

12.54

6,453.61

TOTAL

Source: U.S. EPA. Chesapeake Bay TMDL Executive Summary, 2010, p. ES-7. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/ pdf_chesbay/FinalBayTMDL/BayTMDLExecutiveSummaryFINAL122910_final.pdf. Retrieved August 6, 2012.

economic resources and recreation and aes• Goal 16: Estuarine Resources: “To recogthetics. The management of these shoreland nize and protect the unique environmental, areas shall be compatible with the characeconomic, and social values of each estuary teristics of the adjacent coastal waters.” and associated wetlands; and to protect, maintain, where appropriate develop, and • Goal 18: Beaches and Dunes: “To conserve, where appropriate restore the long-term protect, where appropriate develop and environmental, economic, and social values, where appropriate restore the resources and diversity and benefits of Oregon’s estuaries.” benefits of coastal beach and dune areas; and to reduce the hazard to human life • Goal 17: Coastal Shorelands: “To conserve, and property from natural or man-induced protect, where appropriate develop and actions associated with these areas.” where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of all coastal shorelands, recog- • Goal 19: Ocean Resources: “To conserve nizing their value for protection and mainthe long-term values, benefits, and natural tenance of water quality, fish and wildlife resources of the nearshore ocean and the continental shelf.”57 habitat, water-dependent economic uses,

CHAPTER 12: COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

For each goal, the local city or county government must conduct an inventory of the appropriate resources. The inventory must identify areas that are suitable for waterdependent uses, such as boat ramps and aquaculture. In general, development must be limited to existing urban areas or built-up rural areas. The inventory must also identify sensitive coastal areas with natural hazards, wetlands and wildlife habitat and designate them for long-term protection in the local comprehensive plan. Finally, the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) reviews the local comprehensive plans for compliance with the statewide goals. The DLCD monitors development activity along the coast, and every five years, the DLCD reviews local comprehensive plans to ensure continuing compliance with the statewide goals. In 2008, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-1308, charging state agencies to plan for sea level rise and the impacts to the California coast. The executive order also called for an assessment of local and global sea level rise, which was conducted by the National Research Council and warned of further sea level rises of up to 1.5 meters along most of the California coast by 2100.58 In 2009, North Carolina adopted a building code that includes specific standards for buildings in coastal areas, such as “Structures in coastal high hazard areas and ocean hazard areas must utilize the appropriate corrosionresistant materials for their level of exposure,” and “development or land disturbing activity shall only be authorized landward of the reach of mean high tide. The use of fill for structural support of buildings is prohibited.”59 Land Trusts and Coastal Area Protection

375

wildlife habitat. The Nature Conservancy and the National Audubon Society are acknowledged national leaders. But several regional land trusts have preserved thousands of coastal acres. For instance, the Lowcountry Open Land Trust in South Carolina has worked with state and local governments to protect nearly 250,000 acres in the Ashepoo Combahee Edisto Basin.60

12.4: Local Planning for Coastal Resources Although much attention has focused on the role of federal and state governments in managing coastal resources, local government planning and land-use controls are very important. Local governments make day-to-day decisions about development that both individually and cumulatively affect the environmental quality of the coastal zone. Local communities should recognize that as more people move to the coast, they not only bring development but also drive up land values and heighten the financial and development expectations of landowners. This situation makes regulatory approaches to managing coastal land politically more difficult and also raises the cost of purchasing coastal land for public use or purchasing conservation easements to keep private lands in large blocks. Nonetheless, a local comprehensive plan or a separate coastal zone plan along with land-use controls and a capital improvements program can address stormwater runoff, beach erosion, exposure to storms, rising sea levels, dredging of wetlands, and developments on fragile coastal lands. Environmental planner Timothy Beatley offers nine key elements for enhancing coastal resilience:

Several land trusts are active in preserv- • Avoiding development in 100-year flood zones ing coastal lands for their scenic beauty and

376

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

• Building into the existing pattern of municipalities • Designing for walkability • Preserving surrounding ecological systems and wetlands that can buffer storms and flooding • Providing direct access to these natural areas; providing significant public realm spaces such as parks, plazas, and sidewalks • Locating critical facilities such as hospitals, police, and fire stations outside of high-risk areas • Minimizing exposure of essential infrastructure by elevating roads, burying power lines, and decentralizing power systems • Promoting green infrastructure over conventional infrastructure that may be more likely to fail during a disaster61 Inventory

plan. In particular, the hazard mitigation plan may include an evacuation plan and a reconstruction plan in the case of a catastrophic storm. The hazard mitigation plan may contain useful information for the comprehensive plan or coastal plan, and vice versa. Analysis

The land-suitability analysis should indicate priority sites for water-dependent uses as well as sensitive lands where development should be limited. Future growth and development should be directed away from coastal areas in general, and specifically those areas subject to natural hazards and with low ability to support development (see Table 12.2). Goals and Objectives

North Carolina’s Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) of 1974 established a cooperative program between local governments and the state. The state adopted Land Use Planning Guidelines to help local governments draft local coastal plans. The Town of Duck, North Carolina, located on the Outer Banks, adopted its plan in 2005, and the plan was also reviewed and certified by the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission. The town’s CAMA CORE Land Use Plan contained the following goal and objectives for coastal resources:

Communities can conduct an inventory and assessment of coastal resources in the natural resources inventory section of the comprehensive plan or in a separate coastal zone plan. Including coastal resources in the comprehensive plan is preferred because the plan provides the legal basis for zoning and subdivision regulations. The state’s coastal zone management plan, state department of natural resources, and the coastal zone office of the NOAA can provide ample information on local coastal zone resources. The county planning office or regional planning agency may • Goal: “Preserve, protect, and enhance the Atlantic Ocean Shoreline and ensure future also have useful information. Planners should generations are able to enjoy its beauty and describe and map beaches, headlands, estuarbounty and can continue to use the beach ies, tidal wetlands, dunes, soils, slopes, wildlife and water for active and passive recreation habitat, water bodies, and water quality. and leisure activities.” It is wise to tie the coastal section of the comprehensive plan or separate coastal plan • Objective: “Develop policies that minito the local government’s hazard mitigation mize threats to life, property, and natural

CHAPTER 12: COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

377

Table 12.2. Sample Coastal Resources Goals and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan Section: Natural Resources and Environment Goal: Protect important and unique coastal resources and features, which provide aesthetic, recreational, wildlife, and educational opportunities. Objective: Cooperate with state and federal agencies and other local governments as well as nonprofit groups and private landowners to protect important and unique coastal areas. Section: Economic Base Goal: Protect important and unique coastal resources and features that are important to local tourism and recreation businesses and to the quality of life of local residents. Section: Land Use Objective: Direct development away from natural hazards and sensitive environments in coastal areas, such as steep slopes, dunes, beaches, and wetlands.

resources resulting from development located in or adjacent to hazard areas, such as those subject to erosion, high winds, storm surge, flooding, or sea level rise.” • Objective: “Develop location, density, and intensity criteria for new, existing development and redevelopment including public facilities and infrastructure so that they can better avoid or withstand natural hazards.”

• Use zoning overlay districts to protect sensitive environmental features, such as floodplains, wetlands, headlands, and viewsheds. • Explore state and federal funding for the purchase of environmentally sensitive lands or conservation easements on those lands. • Create partnerships with nonprofit groups for the preservation of important coastal areas.

• Objective: “Develop, adopt, and enforce, and • Explore the use of financial incentives, such amend as necessary, a shoreline overlay as transfer of development rights, to reduce zoning district to address development, development in hazardous areas. redevelopment, and uses along shorelines • Retrofit public buildings to mitigate potenand in adjacent waters.”62 tial damage from coastal storms. Action Strategy

The Action Strategy should present techniques and programs for achieving the goals and objectives for coastal resources, along with specific benchmarks and timetables to achieve results. The Action Strategy might include the following specific recommendations:

• Coordinate the comprehensive plan with the local or state hazard mitigation plan. Zoning Ordinance

Communities can adopt either a conservation zone or a coastal overlay zone to limit and appropriately site development in coastal areas.

378

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

Either zone can be used to protect areas with slopes of greater than 15 percent, wetlands, beaches and dunes, and scenic viewsheds. A key feature to include is a long setback from beaches, dunes, and the mean high tide. This will place new buildings on firmer ground and protect them from storm surges. It is important to note that the famous U.S. Supreme Court Lucas case involved the invalidation of zoning provisions that would have deprived a landowner of all reasonable use of a beachfront property.63 While zoning is one way to limit the development of fragile environments, it cannot ban all development. Ordinances must be carefully crafted in keeping with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan to demonstrate that limitations on development protect public health, safety, and welfare. Subdivision Regulations

Subdivision regulations can assist planners in the siting of new development in coastal areas. For example, Perquimans County, North Carolina, uses the following language in their subdivision regulations to discourage development on unsuitable lands: “Land subject to flooding, improper drainage, erosion, or that is for topographical or other reasons unsuitable for residential use as determined by the Planning Board, shall not be platted for residential use nor for any other uses that will continue or increase the danger to health, safety, or property unless the hazards can be and are corrected.”64 On-site septic use should be very limited in coastal areas because of the potential for sewage to leach into water bodies. Sandy soils are especially permeable. Wells should also be limited because of the threat of saltwater intrusion. The subdivision ordinance should spell out conditions under which on-site septic systems and wells are acceptable. Otherwise, central sewer and water can be required to serve new developments. Stormwater management

and vegetative cover are essential to minimize runoff into water bodies. Roads and impervious surfaces should be strictly controlled. The subdivision ordinance can require buffering berms and vegetation between developed areas and estuaries or tidal wetlands. Finally, for larger developments, an environmental impact assessment describing and analyzing potential effects on coastal resources should be required. The environmental impact assessment should especially address potential development impacts on soil erosion, runoff, water quality and supply, wildlife habitat, and natural hazards (see Table 12.3). Capital Improvements Program

Local governments should use the capital improvements program to direct growth and development away from largely undeveloped shorelines. Major roads, schools and other public buildings, and extensions of sewer and water systems should be kept out of these areas in order to discourage intensive growth and development. Capital spending may be needed to maintain public beaches and marinas and to acquire land or conservation easements to provide public access to the shore and to keep sensitive wetlands, headlands, and dunes from becoming building sites. What to Look for in a Development Review

Proposed developments in the coastal zone must be closely scrutinized because of the potential environmental impacts and risks to human life and property (see Table 12.3). Minimizing stormwater runoff and erosion from building sites is important to protect the quality of waterways that empty into the ocean, and hence the quality of water along the shore. Developments should be set back a safe distance from beaches to avoid storm surges and to be protected from high winds.

CHAPTER 12: COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

379

Table 12.3. A Checklist of Coastal Resource Issues in a Development Review 1.

Is the development consistent with current state-level coastal zone plans or with a stateapproved local coastal zone plan?

2.

Is the proposed development consistent with the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations?

3.

Will the development require any public infrastructure investment?

4.

Is the development located on beaches and dunes, or is it set back a safe distance away from beaches and dunes to avoid damage to the development from beach erosion and storm surges?

5.

Does the proposed development have a stormwater management plan and erosion and sedimentation control plan?

6.

Are any wetlands proposed to be dredged or filled?

7.

Has the developer obtained all necessary state and federal permits?

12.5: Case Study: The California Coastal Commission and the California State Coastal Conservancy California stands out for its variety of planning programs for coastal resources. In 1972, voters created the California Coastal Commission (CCC) to oversee development along California’s 1,100 miles of Pacific Coast through a permit development system. In 1976, the California Legislature passed the Coastal Act, which required coastal counties to adopt plans and regulations, known as the Local Coastal Program, to manage the conservation and development of coastal resources. The California State Coastal Conservancy, created in 1976, has actively acquired shoreline property as well as funded local government and nonprofit land conservation efforts in the coastal zone. The mission of the CCC is to ensure that residential, commercial, industrial, and public developments in coastal areas are properly

planned and constructed. The CCC also seeks to promote public access to the coast and protect sensitive coastal and marine resources. The CCC defines the coastal area as all lands below mean high tide and three miles out to sea and generally about 1,000 yards inland. The inland area is usually fewer than 1,000 yards in urban places and may be up to five miles in undeveloped rural stretches. The CCC, along with the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), administers the CZMA in California, requiring each of the 73 cities and counties in the coastal zone to draft a local coastal program for review and approval by the regional commissions and the CCC. The CCC has 16 members, 12 of whom are voting members appointed by the governor and legislature, and four cabinet secretaries. The CCC appoints an executive director who, as of 2010, had a staff of 125.65 The CCC has a Strategic Plan and holds meetings once a month. The CCC also has six

380

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

regional commissions, each with six local officials and six appointed members. Each local government coastal program must include a land-use plan, maps, zoning ordinances, and other plan implementation measures. The regional commissions and the CCC review each local coastal program every five years to ensure that it is consistent with the Coastal Act and to consider amendments to local programs. Once a local program is approved, local governments make their own decisions about whether to approve developments in coastal areas. These decisions can be appealed to the regional commission and the CCC. The regional commissions and the CCC also issue permits for development in tidal and submerged lands. These permit decisions supersede local zoning, subdivision, and building permit actions. In a typical year, the CCC issues hundreds of permit-related decisions. Permit approvals are usually granted for the large majority of development applications. But the commissions often attach specific conditions to the permits. Enforcement of permits and conditions is an ongoing challenge because of the large number of developments approved each year and limited CCC monitoring staff. The CCC and the BCDC have the authority to review federal actions that could affect California’s coastal resources, such as oil and gas leases, military installations, and the filling of wetlands under Section 404 permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The CCC also reviews all port master plans and amendments. The CCC has drafted a Coastal Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Program under amendments to the CZMA. The CCC has been aggressive in its efforts to provide more public access to the California coast and works with the California State Coastal Conservancy and the State Lands Commission to implement the Coastal Access

Program. In 1987, the CCC became embroiled in a famous U.S. Supreme Court case, Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825, over public access to the coast. The Nollans sought permission to replace a smaller house with a larger one in the coastal zone, and the CCC conditioned approval on the Nollans giving the public access to the beach. The Nollans appealed to the California courts and eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court found in favor of the Nollans, stating that there was no clear link between the permit to build and the required public beach access and that the access sought was out of proportion to the proposal to build a house. The CCC has raised the awareness of the coast as a critical environmental area. The development permit process has discouraged poor projects and improved other projects, such as by requiring buildings to be sited so as not to block scenic views of the coast. The review and approval of local coastal plans by the regional commissions and the CCC have no doubt raised the quality of planning and land-use controls in coastal communities and counties. Despite the Nollan decision, the CCC has helped increase public access to the coast in a state where coastal real estate is at a premium. But with California’s population expected to increase by 13 million between 2010 and 2050, both the regional commissions and the CCC will have their hands full in reviewing development permit applications, ruling on local coastal plan amendments, and protecting coastal resources.66 The purpose of the California State Coastal Conservancy is to purchase, protect, restore, and enhance coastal resources through working with local governments, other state agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private landowners. As of 2012, the conservancy had spent more than $1.5 billion on more than 1,800 projects along California’s coastline and preserved 300,000 acres of wetlands, dunes, wildlife habitat, recreational lands, farmland,

CHAPTER 12: COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

and scenic open space.67 The conservancy has a staff of 75 and an annual budget of $50 million. The conservancy coordinates its efforts with the CCC and the BCDC. The conservancy has no regulatory authority; instead, it was created as a separate agency from the CCC to work directly with landowners and land trusts in public-private partnerships to preserve and protect coastal lands. The conservancy has the following goals: • Improving public access to the coast by acquiring land and easements and building trails and stairways. Beach access projects have been completed in several counties in addition to stairways and trails. • Protecting coastal wetlands, streams, and watersheds. Projects include the Los Angeles River Plan, Santa Ana River Mouth in Orange County, and the Santa Clara River watershed in Ventura County. • Restoring urban waterfronts for public use and coastal dependent industries, such as the Pier 1 Plan and Pier 7 public access in San Francisco. • Acquiring and holding environmentally sensitive lands for public access, open space, and habitat protection, such as the Suisun Marsh acquisition in Solano County. • Protecting agricultural lands. In the early 1980s, the conservancy made grants to the Marin Agricultural Land Trust that enabled the trust to purchase easements on thousands of acres of farm and ranch land in Marin County. The California State Coastal Conservancy brings financial muscle to the protection of coastal resources as a complement to the CCC’s regulatory approach. This model combines the preservation of coastal resources with state land-use planning and regulation of development.

381

Summary

Coastal areas feature abundant wildlife and fragile ecosystems. Coastal areas are attractive places for people to live and visit for recreation. Rising sea levels and more frequent and violent storms associated with climate change portend increased risks to existing developments and suggest the need to locate new development away from shorelands. The federal government has a number of programs aimed at planning for and protecting the coastal zone, especially the CZMA. Twenty-nine states have adopted coastal zone management plans. Local governments can include planning for coastal areas in their comprehensive plan or in a separate coastal zone plan. Local governments can employ coastal zoning overlays and capital improvements programs to limit new development near the coast.

Notes 1. OAR 660-015-0010(2). State of Oregon, Goal 17: Coastal Shorelands. 2. Beach, D. Coastal Sprawl: The Effects of Urban Design on Aquatic Ecosystems in the United States. Arlington, VA: Pew Oceans Commission, 2002. 3. 16 U.S.C. Section 1453(a). 4. U.S. EPA. National Water Quality Inventory, 1998. Washington, DC: US EPA, 1998. 5. National Park Service. “Vital Signs: Estuarine Enrichment.” 2012. http://science.nature.nps .gov/im/units/netn/monitor/vitalSigns/Estuarine NutrientEnrichment/estuarine.cfm. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 6. Restore America’s Estuaries. “More Habitat Means More Fish.” 2013. http://www.habitat .noaa.gov/pdf/RAE_fisheries.pdf. Retrieved October 9, 2013.

382

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

7. NOAA. “NMFS Landings Query Result, 2011–2012.” 2012. http://www.st.nmfs.noaa .gov/pls/webpls/MF_ANNUAL_LANDINGS .RESULTS. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 8. NOAA, National Estuarine Research Reserve System. “Species Factsheets.” 2012. http:// estuaries.noaa.gov/About/FishHome.aspx. Retrieved July 30, 2012. 9. U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development/Office of Water. National Coastal Condition Report IV. EPA-842-R-10-003. Washington, DC: USEPA, April 2012, pp. 1–2. http:// water.epa.gov/type/oceb/assessmonitor/nccr/ upload/NCCR4-Report.pdf. Retrieved May 4, 2014. 10. U.S. EPA. “Basic Information.” 2012. http:// water.epa.gov/type/oceb/beaches/basicinfo .cfm. Retrieved July 30, 2012. 11. Beach, D. Coastal Sprawl: The Effects of Urban Design on Aquatic Ecosystems in the United States. Arlington, VA: Pew Oceans Commission, 2002, p. 2. 12. U.S. EPA. “Basic Information about Estuaries.” 2012. http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/ nep/about.cfm#important. Retrieved July 30, 2012. 13. U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development/Office of Water. National Coastal Condition Report IV. EPA-842-R-10-003. Washington, DC: USEPA, April 2012. http://water.epa.gov/ type/oceb/assessmonitor/nccr/upload/ NCCR4-Report.pdf. Retrieved May 5, 2014. 14. Ibid. 15. Ibid. 16. Svarney, T., and P. Barnes-Svarney. The Handy Ocean Answer Book. Canton, MI: Visible Ink Press, 2000, p. 431. 17. Restore America’s Estuaries. “More Habitat Means More Fish.” 2013. http://www.habitat .noaa.gov/pdf/RAE_fisheries.pdf. Retrieved October 9, 2013. 18. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. Liquid Assets 2000: America’s Water Resources at a Turning Point. Washington, DC: USEPA, 2000.

19. McHarg, I. Design With Nature. New York: Doubleday, 1971, pp. 7–13. 20. Jehl, D. “Federal Money Is Following Rebuilt Beaches Out to Sea.” New York Times, July 1, 2001, p. 14. 21. National Research Council. Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2012. http:// www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13389. Retrieved July 31, 2012. 22. Strauss, B., R. Ziemlinski, J. Weiss, and J. Overpeck. “Tidally Adjusted Estimates of Topographic Vulnerability to Sea Level Rise and Flooding for the Contiguous United States.” Environmental Research Letters. Vol. 7, No.1(2012).http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/ 7/1/014033/article. Retrieved August 8, 2012. 23. Strauss, B., and R. Kopp. “What Could Disappear.” New York Times, November 25, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/ 24/opinion/sunday/what-could-disappear .html?smid=tw-share. Retrieved January 24, 2013. 24. NOAA. “Digital Coast: Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding Impacts Viewer.” 2013. http:// www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/slrviewer. Retrieved April 26, 2013. 25. U.S. Department of the Interior. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Draft Phase I Early Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment. 2011. http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/ upload/OilSpill_Dec2011_EarlyRestoration _ExecutiveSummary.pdf. Retrieved March 18, 2012. 26. Donn, J., and M. Weiss. “Gulf Awash in 27,000 Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells.” Huffington Post, July 7, 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost .com/2010/07/07/gulf-abandoned-oil-wells -gas_n_637315.html. Retrieved March 16, 2012. 27. 16 U.S.C. Section 1451(c). 28. Federal Code of Regulations. Chapter IX, Section 920.13. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974, p. 419.

CHAPTER 12: COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

29. Godschalk, D. “Implementing Coastal Zone Management: 1972–1990.” Coastal Management. Vol. 20, No. 2 (1992), p. 110. 30. Public L. No. 109-58 (2005); 16 U.S.C. Sections 1451–1465. 31. NOAA, National Marine Sanctuaries. Home page. http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/. 32. NOAA, Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument. “About.” 2014. http://www .papahanaumokuakea.gov/about/. Retrieved May 5, 2014. 33. NOAA. Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument. “About Management.” 2014. http://www.papahanaumokuakea.gov/about/ management.html. Retrieved May 5, 2014. 34. Brown, L. Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization. New York: W. W. Norton, 2009, p. 207. 35. Platt, R. Land Use and Society: Geography, Law, and Public Policy. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1996, p. 433. 36. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Coastal Barrier Resources Act.” 2012. http://www.fws .gov/CBRA/. Retrieved August 1, 2012. 37. 16 U.S.C. Section 1461 (1972). 38. NOAA, National Estuarine Research Reserve System. Home page. http://nerrs.noaa.gov/. 39. U.S. EPA, National Estuary Program. Habitat Protection and Restoration. 2012. http:// www.epa.gov/owow_keep/estuaries/pivot/ habitat/pdf/nep_booklet_print.pdf. Retrieved August 1, 2012. 40. State of Delaware. Draft Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program Plan. 2007. http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/swc/Site CollectionDocuments/Soil/Draft%20CELCP %20Plan%20v1-2%20July%202007.pdf. Retrieved August 7, 2012. 41. NOAA, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. “Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program Fact Sheet.” 2013. http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/resources/ docs/celpfactsheet.pdf. Retrieved May 5, 2014.

383

42. NOAA. “Damage Assessment.” 2012. http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/ assessment/. Retrieved August 3, 2012. 43. Beatley, T., D. Brower, and A. Schwab. Introduction to Coastal Zone Management. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2002. 44. White House Council on Environmental Quality et al. Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan, FY 2010–2014. Washington, DC: CEQ, 2010. http://glri.us/pdfs/glri_actionplan .pdf. Retrieved August 3, 2012. 45. U.S. EPA. EPA’s BEACH Report: 2011 Swimming Season. EPA 820-F-12-006. Washington, DC: USEPA, 2012. http://water.epa .gov/type/oceb/beaches/upload/national _facsheet_2011.pdf. Retrieved August 3, 2012. 46. Platt, R. Land Use and Society: Geography, Law, and Public Policy. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1996, p. 418. 47. Beatley, T., D. J. Brower, and A. K. Schwab. An Introduction to Coastal Zone Management. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1994, p. 127. 48. U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development/Office of Water. National Coastal Condition Report IV. EPA-842-R-10-003. Washington, DC: USEPA, April 2012, pp. 1–2. http://water .epa.gov/type/oceb/assessmonitor/nccr/up load/NCCR4-Report.pdf. Retrieved May 5, 2014. 49. Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 197. OAR 660-015-0010(1) to OAR 660-015-0010(4). 50. NOAA, Chesapeake Bay Office. “Oysters.” 2012. http://chesapeakebay.noaa.gov/fish-facts/ oysters. Retrieved August 6, 2012. 51. Negative Population Growth. “Effects of Overpopulation: Sprawl and Development.” 2013. http://www.npg.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2013/07/effects_of_overpopulation_sprawl .pdf. Retrieved May 5, 2014. 52. Chesapeake Bay Program. “Chesapeake 2000.” 2000. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/ documents/cbp_12081.pdf. Retrieved May 5, 2014. 53. U.S. EPA. Chesapeake Bay TMDL Executive Summary. 2010. http://www.epa.gov/

384

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

reg3wapd/pdf/pdf_chesbay/FinalBayTMDL/ BayTMDLExecutiveSummaryFINAL122910 _final.pdf. Retrieved August 6, 2012. 54. Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay. Action Plan: Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, FY 2012. Executive Order 13508. March 30, 2012. http://executiveorder.chesa peakebay.net/file.axd?file=2012%2f4%2fFY12 _Action_Plan-FY2012-508-reduced.pdf. Retrieved August 6, 2012. 55. Domenech, D. “No Doubt: The Chesapeake Bay Is Improving.” Richmond (VA) Times-Dispatch, July 29, 2012. http://www2 .timesdispatch.com/news/commentary/2012/ jul/29/tdcomm04-no-doubt-the-chesapeake -bay-is-improving-ar-2090342/. Retrieved August 9, 2012. 56. Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee. 2012 Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Advisory Report. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/docu ments/CBSAC_Final_Advisory_Report_2012 _July_20th_2012.pdf. Retrieved August 9, 2012. 57. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals. Salem, OR: DLCD, 1985. 58. National Research Council. Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2012. http://www .nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13389. Retrieved July 31, 2012. 59. State of North Carolina. Coastal Regulations. 2012, p. 5. http://www.ncfloodmaps .com/pubdocs/fact_sheets/coastal_regs.pdf. Retrieved May 5, 2014.

60. Peterson, B. “ACE Basin at 20.” Post and Courier (Charleston, SC), December 14, 2009. http://www.postandcourier.com/article/ 20091214/PC1602/312149921. Retrieved August 6, 2012. 61. Beatley, T. Planning for Coastal Resilience: Best Practices for Calamitous Times. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2009. 62. Town of Duck, NC. Duck 2003–2004 CAMA CORE Land Use Plan. 2005, pp. ix-6 and ix-7. http://www.townofduck.com/pzi.landuseplan .pdf. Retrieved August 6, 2012. 63. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 112 S. Ct. 2886 (1992). 64. Perquimans County, NC. Ordinance 85, Subdivision Regulations, as amended, 2012. Article IV, Section 401, p. 29. http://www.co .perquimans.nc.us/county-information/ordinances .html. Retrieved May 5, 2014. 65. Ellison, K. “Leading the Coastal Commission for 25 Years, a Crusader and Lightning Rod.” New York Times, May 8, 2010. http:// www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/us/09sfcoastal .html?_r=0. Retrieved May 5, 2014. 66. California Department of Finance. “State and County Population Projections by Age, Race/Ethnicity, and Gender, 2010–2060.” 2013. http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/ reports/projections/view.php. Retrieved May 5, 2014. 67. California State Coastal Conservancy. “Accomplishments.” 2012. http://scc.ca.gov/about/ accomplishments/. Retrieved August 6, 2012; California State Coastal Conservancy. “About.” 2012. http://scc.ca.gov/about/. Retrieved August 6, 2012.

Chapter 13

PLANNING FOR NATURAL HAZARDS AND NATURAL DISASTERS

It used to be we’d never see a house or structure when we were on a fire, but these days it’s rare that you have a fire where you’re not trying to save buildings and people. —Bobby Kitchens, U.S. Forest Service1

The areas that had natural stable dune systems are the areas that survived the best. The areas that didn’t have dune systems are the areas that really got wiped out. —Katie Barnett, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, commenting on the coastal destruction caused by Superstorm Sandy in October 20122

13.1: The Challenge of Planning for Disaster-Resistant Communities Natural disasters include floods, wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, snow and ice storms, avalanches, downpours, landslides, beach erosion, earthquakes, drought, and volcanic eruptions. In an average year, natural disasters affect millions of Americans and cause billions of dollars in damage and a loss of lives. In 2011, natural disasters in the U.S. cost $55 billion in economic

losses.3 In October 2012, Superstorm Sandy and its powerful ocean storm surge wreaked more than $60 billion in devastation along the New Jersey coast and in greater New York City and claimed more than 115 lives (see Box 13.1).4 Natural disasters demonstrate time and again the folly of people who think they can subject nature to their will or build wherever they want to with impunity. While not all disasters can be avoided, careful planning for the location, type, and durability of development

386

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

Box 13.1. Superstorm Sandy In late October of 2012, the largest storm ever recorded on the Atlantic Seaboard at 900 miles across roared onto the New Jersey shore and through greater New York City.5 Record low atmospheric pressure and 80-mile-per-hour winds combined with a full moon and high tide to produce a storm surge of 12 to 14 feet. Total property damage was estimated as high as $71 billion, and more than 100 people perished.6 Coastal New Jersey lost much of its beachfront as Sandy swept across barrier islands and shorelands, damaging or destroying more than 340,000 homes. Lower Manhattan was flooded along with Staten Island and parts of Brooklyn, Queens, and Long Island. In all, 6 million people lost power, and hundreds of thousands lost power for weeks. An estimated 360,000 people evacuated their homes. FEMA responded in a timely fashion that partly redeemed the agency’s image after its poor performance in the wake of Hurricane Katrina (see the case study in Section 13.5). But Congress dragged its collective feet for two months before approving $9.7 billion for the NFIP. Otherwise, the program would have run out of money to pay up to 120,000 Sandy-related claims.7 Congress soon followed with an additional $50.7 billion in aid.8 Coastal communities in New Jersey and greater New York City faced difficult choices about whether to simply rebuild, retreat farther inland, or add some combination of soft and hard infrastructure to protect against future storm surges. The risk with reconstruction at damaged sites is that it potentially puts people back in harm’s way. On the other hand, much of the real estate that Sandy damaged was in valuable locations,

especially in Lower Manhattan. Eminent environmental planner and landscape architect Ian McHarg predicted with about 80 percent accuracy the damage a major storm could cause on Staten Island. In his famous book, Design with Nature, McHarg recommended that coastal communities should build behind the second line of sand dunes. Such advice if applied along the New Jersey coast would result in a strategic retreat from places where construction had occurred either close to the water or behind the first line of dunes. But in some parts of the New Jersey shore—especially on the barrier islands—there is only one line of dunes to break incoming waves, limit shore erosion, and absorb storm surges. Even so, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie proposed the construction or reconstruction of a single dune along the New Jersey shore. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg backed a $20 billion plan with barrier dunes, flood walls, and more stringent building codes.9 The City of New York followed up the mayor’s plan with specific examples of blending hard and soft infrastructure to increase coastal resilience.10 To conduct a strategic retreat of development from the New Jersey and New York coastlines would require a government buyout program such as the one FEMA has used to buy out flood-prone properties. The cost of a buyout program would surely run into the billions of dollars. Soft infrastructure includes restoring wetlands, adding parks, and replenishing sand along shorelines to absorb storm surges. The New Jersey beaches lost on average about 30 to 40 feet of sand from Superstorm Sandy.11 The federal government has traditionally covered about two-thirds of the cost of replacing sand on beaches. And the sandy beaches are

CHAPTER 13: PLANNING FOR NATURAL HAZARDS AND NATURAL DISASTERS

an important draw for New Jersey’s tourism industry. Hard-edge infrastructure features levees and sea walls. A sea barrier to protect Lower Manhattan from storm surges, similar to the Thames Barrier that protects London, would cost an estimated $10 billion to $17 billion and still require at least an additional $10 billion to protect other shorelands in the city.12 As part of hard infrastructure, local

in and near hazard-prone areas can reduce property losses, save lives, and speed recovery. Natural disasters range from routine events, such as summer wildfires in the western states, to episodic occurrences that happen every few years, as in the case of major earthquakes in California and rare but highly destructive events such as Superstorm Sandy. Communities are more likely to respond effectively to natural disasters if they have planned from the bottom up rather than simply reacted to state or federal requirements. Involving the entire community in drafting disaster-related plans and organizing neighborhoods are two important ways to increase the capacity of the community to proactively deal with natural disasters. All major cities and counties have emergency managers who are trained in evacuation plans and emergency operations and who often have responsibility for drafting hazard mitigation plans. It is essential that planners work together with emergency managers in creating and implementing hazard mitigation plans and help communities to work through the cycle of mitigation and adaptation to increase resilience, preparedness, response, and recovery from natural disasters. Mitigation involves reducing risks of damage, and adaptation is changing planning and development practices in anticipation of future natural disasters. Resilience is “the capacity to absorb

387

building codes could be strengthened to require buildings to withstand a high storm surge. This would mean elevating and floodproofing buildings, a considerable expense and one that might be required by FEMA in exchange for affordable flood insurance.13 Increased protection for transportation networks and telecommunications and gas, water, and electric systems are also needed.

severe shock and return to a desired state following a disaster.”14 Hazard mitigation is “any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risks to human life and property from hazards.”15 More specifically, mitigation involves reducing the likelihood of damage and loss of life through retrofitting buildings to better withstand storms, fires, and earthquakes as well as locating or relocating public infrastructure and private developments out of harm’s way as much as possible. A 2009 national study found that each dollar spent on mitigation resulted in four dollars in avoided losses.16 Even so, it is often difficult for a community to determine what degree of resilience to natural disasters is appropriate and how much to spend on mitigation and adaptation efforts. A hazard mitigation plan can help a community achieve greater resilience to natural disasters. A hazard mitigation plan should include an assessment of risks, needed building retrofits, increased protection of critical public infrastructure (such as water treatment plants), and restrictions on development in hazard-prone areas. For instance, the plan might recommend conservation overlay zoning to limit the construction of houses in fireprone areas or near the seacoast. Preparedness means having an evacuation plan in place before the natural disaster strikes, along with

388

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

communications and a chain of command, stores of food and water, and emergency shelters. A response plan directs police, fire, and emergency personnel as well as residents on how to provide food, water, shelter, medical treatment, and further evacuation. A recovery plan spells out how to restore basic utilities, transportation, schools, and medical services, and begin the process of rebuilding the community. Having these disaster-related plans along with efforts to implement them is likely to increase a community’s overall resilience in the face of natural disasters. Proactive planning to avoid and minimize damage from natural disasters is a far superior strategy than merely reacting to disasters. It is also important to plan for postdisaster recovery: deciding how best to rebuild a neighborhood or community. A guiding principle is to make the community more resilient to natural disasters. For example, in 2008, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, experienced a greater than 500-year flood that covered 10 square miles and caused $7 billion in damage. Housing and business assistance were the most immediate needs. But next, the city had to determine where and how to rebuild and where to locate flood protection infrastructure and new development. To guide its decision making, the city adopted a flood recovery and reinvestment plan. The short-term flood management strategy included seven and a half miles of flood walls and levees and an expanded floodplain to absorb floodwaters. The longer-term neighborhood reinvestment plan focused on urban design guidelines, public facilities, parks and recreation areas, and implementation.17 The federal government has established a National Disaster Recovery Framework to coordinate postrecovery efforts among federal agencies and state and local governments. The key federal agencies are the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Commerce, and the Interior.18 President Carter created FEMA in 1979 to respond to natural disasters and to help mitigate natural disasters. FEMA also oversees the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). As a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, FEMA was placed under the Department of Homeland Security in 2003. Large natural disasters. Large natural disasters such as Superstorm Sandy and the Cedar Rapids flood bring special challenges to creating sustainable and resilient communities. Yet most of the annual losses from natural disasters occur in smaller, local events. It is difficult to predict where large natural disasters will happen, for how long, and at what intensity. Their impacts are often swift and brutal. Cleanups, though urgently needed, are often slow. Memories of disasters fade, and it can be difficult to convince people to prepare for catastrophes that may not occur again in their lifetimes. Evacuation plans are often not kept up to date or readily available. Hazard mitigation programs, building retrofits, and development restrictions are often expensive and unpopular. By contrast, the benefits of disaster preparedness accrue gradually over time. The number of major natural disasters has been increasing over the last 35 years. In the 1980s, the federal government declared fewer than 25 federal disaster areas each year. In the 1990s, the number rose to more than 40 each year.19 In the 2000s, on average, 53 major disaster areas were declared each year.20 Moreover, the risk of damage from natural disasters will likely increase over the next several decades because most of the nation’s population growth is expected to continue to be concentrated in states that have historically high exposure to natural hazards—such as California (earthquakes, wildfires, and landslides), Florida (hurricanes and wildfires), North Carolina (hurricanes),

CHAPTER 13: PLANNING FOR NATURAL HAZARDS AND NATURAL DISASTERS

and Texas (hurricanes, tornadoes, and drought). Most of the easily developable areas in these states are already built up, forcing new development onto more hazardous terrain. As more people choose to live in coastal areas, in lowlying and flood-prone areas, and in places subject to earthquakes, wildfires, and landslides, greater property damage and loss of life can be expected. Continued suburban sprawl into the hinterlands will heighten the vulnerability of people and property to natural disasters. Sensitive natural environments should act as buffers and boundaries to suburban growth; not respecting these boundaries can and will expose people and property to natural disasters. Floods. Floods are the most common natural disaster.21 Over the past 100 years, floods have caused more loss of life and property damage in the U.S. than any other type of natural disaster. More presidential disaster declarations are made for floods than for any other natural hazard. Each year, floods cause more than 2 billion dollars’ worth of property damage and kill about 100 people.22 Property damage from floods became much more costly in the latter half of the 20th century as America’s population increased and more development took place near seacoasts and waterways. The 1993 floods in the Missouri and Mississippi River systems overtopped hundreds of levees, inundated millions of acres of farmland, killed at least 50 people, left thousands homeless, caused an estimated $16 billion in damage, and cost the federal government about $5.5 billion.23 Floods have traditionally been rated by their magnitude and frequency, such as the 100-year flood or 500-year flood. But recently, major floods have become more common. For instance, after the devastating 1993 Mississippi River flood, major floods in the region followed in 2007, 2008, and 2011. In the future, scientists are predicting more frequent storm surges because of more common coastal storms and sea level rise as a consequence of climate change.

389

Carefully designed low-impact development can retain one inch to one and a half inches of rain in a 24-hour storm. Capturing and infiltrating stormwater on-site is essential for flood control, to reduce both peak runoff volume and speed. Managing rivers as a system is also essential. A highly resilient river has open floodplains and wetlands to absorb stormwater and minimize damage. A low-resilient river has been channeled and constrained by levees, which makes the river flow faster and carry a higher volume of water. The reason for many damaging floods is that buildings were placed in floodplains and on top of wetlands that were dredged and filled. Relying on hard infrastructure, such as levees, for flood protection is not a complete solution. Wildfires. Wildfires are part of nature’s cycles and serve important functions in ecosystems. Forests, chaparral, and prairie are often set ablaze by lightning strikes. These fires burn off competing trees, grasses, and shrubs and provide better access to nutrients and sunlight for the remaining vegetation. For example, ponderosa pine cannot reproduce without fire. Although more than $126 million was spent trying with little success to control wildfires in Yellowstone National Park in 1988, the forest grew back all the more healthy and the wildlife thrived.24 The chaparral of Southern California regularly catches fire and later comes back to life. The Konza Prairie, owned and jointly managed by Kansas State University and the Nature Conservancy, is periodically subject to controlled burns. Controlled burns have been used successfully to manage pests and diseases and aid in regenerating prairie and forests. For instance, from 1996 to 2000, there were 31,200 federally approved burns.25 But a controlled burn got out of hand in Los Alamos, New Mexico, in the spring of 2000 and burned more than 400 homes and nearly 50,000 acres. Still, in recent years, the majority of America’s wildfires have been caused by careless people or arsonists.

390

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

The greater incidence and severity of wildfires underscores the reality that forests cannot be left unmanaged.26 Wildfires pose severe threats to property and human life because of their size and the swift pace at which they can spread. In 2011, wildfires destroyed more than 1,000 homes in drought-stricken Bastrop, Texas, near Austin.27 In 2012, the Waldo Canyon fire outside Colorado Springs, Colorado, destroyed 346 homes and burned 18,000 acres, making it the most destructive wildfire in Colorado history.28 The number of wildfires that destroyed more than 1,000 acres increased from 25 in 1984 to about 80 a year in the late 1990s.29 Between 2001 and 2010, an average of 76,000 wildfires occurred each year and burned 6.5 million acres.30 In 2012, wildfires consumed 9.3 million acres of federal lands.31 Most wildfires happen in the western states, and since 1990, the Intermountain West between the Sierras and the Rockies has experienced the fastest rate of population growth of any region in the U.S. In the first decade of the 21st century, more than one-third of all American homes were built in the so-called wildland-urban interface where development is adjacent to forests or grasslands.32 Protecting these private homes is a major reason behind the increasing federal firefighting costs.33 Few counties or municipalities require homes to be built with nonflammable materials or home owners to clear vegetation within a certain distance of their homes. Also, local governments have made relatively little effort to limit or discourage new home development in the wildland-urban interface. Higher temperatures associated with climate change and the earlier melting of the mountain snow packs are expected to contribute to drier conditions and greater wildfire risks in the western states. Drought. Drought is an abnormally dry climatic condition caused by a lack of rain or snowfall. Droughts are part of the natural climate cycle. In an average year, about 10 percent

of the U.S. suffers from drought conditions.34 In July of 2012, 63 percent of the continental U.S. experienced moderate to exceptional drought conditions, the most widespread drought in 56 years.35 The drought was centered in the Corn Belt where most of the nation’s corn crop and much of the soybean crop was severely damaged. As a result, worldwide corn and soybean prices soared.36 It is questionable whether to attribute a particular drought to climate change. But the 2012 Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research report for the World Bank argued that “extreme summer temperatures can now largely be attributed to climatic warming since the 1960s.”37 Scientists have predicted that climate change and rising temperatures would tend to make tropical and arctic regions wetter and temperate regions drier. Given this scenario, longer, hotter summers and more droughts are likely in the American heartland where the large majority of the nation’s agricultural production is located. Since 1980, droughts have been the fourth most common and the second costliest natural disasters in the U.S.38 Droughts raise the risk of wildfires, can cause billions of dollars in damage to crops and livestock, threaten drinking water supplies, and hurt water-related businesses, such as ski areas and marinas. For example, in 2011, a severe and prolonged drought cost Texas agriculture nearly $8 billion in losses.39 There are two options for dealing with droughts: emergency response and water management. Emergency response features water use advisories and restrictions on water use (see Chapter 5). Water management emphasizes water storage in reservoirs and aquifers and interconnections between public water systems in addition to water conservation measures, such as low flow showerheads, low flush toilets, and minimum watering of lawns. The federal government has several droughtrelated programs, most of which involve crop and livestock payments to farmers and ranchers

CHAPTER 13: PLANNING FOR NATURAL HAZARDS AND NATURAL DISASTERS

who have suffered drought-related losses. The most relevant program for western planners is the snow survey and water supply forecasting program operated mainly by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Hurricanes and tornadoes. The hurricane season in the U.S. runs from June 1 to November 30. Hurricanes form off the west coast of Africa and travel eastward across the Atlantic. Areas vulnerable to hurricanes include the Atlantic coast from Florida to New England and the Gulf Coast from Florida to Texas. Especially since 1990, these coastal areas have experienced considerable development that is often at risk from hurricane damage (see Chapter 12). Hurricanes are measured by wind velocity, but the rain from hurricanes combined with ocean storm surges can also bring devastating flooding to coastal areas. A Category 1 hurricane has sustained wind speeds of at least 74 miles per hour. To some degree, hurricanes can be tracked, but ultimately where they will strike and with what force cannot be predicted with great accuracy. About a dozen hurricanes impact the U.S. in an average year.

391

In 1992, Hurricane Andrew, a Category 5 hurricane packing winds of up to 165 miles per hour, slammed into South Florida, destroyed thousands of homes, and caused a total of $44.9 billion in damage—at the time, America’s costliest hurricane.40 In 2005, Hurricane Katrina, a Category 3 hurricane, became the costliest U.S. natural disaster in terms of property damage at an estimated $120 billion.41 The Galveston, Texas, hurricane of 1900 was the single deadliest natural disaster in U.S. history with at least 6,000 dead.42 On average, about 1,100 tornadoes strike the U.S. each year.43 In 2012, 939 tornadoes were reported, which caused an estimated $1.6 billion in property damage.44 Tornadoes are formed by severe supercell thunderstorms when an updraft of air turns into a spinning air column with powerful force. Most tornadoes happen in the spring in the Great Plains and Midwest when warm moist air flowing in from the Gulf of Mexico slides under cool dry air. Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, and Arkansas make up an area known as “Tornado Alley” and suffer the most tornadoes (see Box 13.2).

Box 13.2. Greensburg, Kansas: Recovering from a Tornado On May 4, 2007, an EF5 tornado struck the Town of Greensburg (population 1,389) in south-central Kansas.45 Town residents had only 20 minutes of warning. Eleven people were killed, and more than 90 percent of the town’s buildings were destroyed.46 Rebuilding Greensburg would not be easy. In August 2007, Greensburg adopted a Long-Term Community Recovery Plan prepared through FEMA’s Long-Term Community Recovery program. In May 2008, the town adopted a new comprehensive plan that emphasized social, economic, and environmental sustainability. The Greensburg Sustainable Comprehensive

Plan set forth principles and community values to guide the reconstruction of the town. The speed and quality of the rebuilding effort were key to retaining population. Still, in 2010, only 777 people were living in the town, only slightly more than half of the population at the time of the tornado disaster. On the other hand, as of 2012, Greensburg boasted the most LEED-certified buildings per capita of anywhere in the world.47 FEMA contributed $80 million for the construction of a new school, city hall, and health center, which take advantage of wind turbines and geothermal heating systems.48

392

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

Even in the southeastern states and Southern California tornadoes are not uncommon.49 Homes without basements and mobile homes are especially vulnerable to a tornado strike. Tornadoes are rated according to the Enhanced Fujita Scale, or EF Scale, an update to the original Fujita Scale. A common weak tornado (EF0 or EF1 on the Fujita Scale) has winds from 65 to 110 miles per hour. A strong twister rates EF2 or EF3 and has winds from 111 to 165 miles per hour, while a rare violent tornado in the EF4 and EF5 ratings can carry winds of 166 to more than 200 miles per hour.50 Tornadoes often form and hit with very little warning, and it is difficult to predict the extent of damage, particularly for strong and violent tornadoes. Given the observed phenomenon of climate change, violent storms, including tornadoes, are likely to occur more frequently and become more destructive in their intensity. Coastal erosion. Each year, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and individual states and communities spend tens of millions of dollars to replace sand on coastal beaches. Normally, sand is naturally replenished by local streams that flow into the sea. But numerous dams have blocked the downstream movement of sand, thus depleting the ocean beaches. Attempts to limit coastal erosion with seawalls actually accelerate erosion, and groins—structures extended out into the seabed—may keep sand from shifting for only a short while. Coastal erosion is caused by storms and, especially along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, by rising sea levels. The average annual erosion rate on the Atlantic coast is two to three feet a year; on the Gulf Coast, the average erosion rate is six feet a year. Major storms can erode as much as 100 feet inland in a single day.51 In 2012, Superstorm Sandy erased an average of 30 to 40 feet of beach along the New Jersey shoreline.52 In 2010, about 87 million people, or 29 percent of the U.S. population, were living in coastal areas.53 Nearly half of these people

lived in either California or Florida. Development activity in Florida and along the Gulf Coast has been driven by a strong demand for second homes and retirement homes. The loss of beaches and rising sea levels resulting from warmer weather brought on by climate change mean that coastal ecosystems and thousands of homes, second homes, and commercial establishments will be at risk of damage and destruction over the coming decades (see Chapter 12). Landslides. Landslides are sudden descents of earth, rock, and debris that cause between $1 billion and $2 billion in property damage and more than 25 deaths each year.54 Most landslides are mudslides; tons of heavy, water-saturated soil plunge down bluffs, hillsides, and mountain slopes. Landslides can be caused by intense rainfall, rapid snowmelt, earthquakes, or volcanic eruptions. Landslides are most likely to occur when there are weak clay soils on steep slopes or where fill has been added to steep slopes to reduce the degree of slope. A swollen river or stream at the base of a hill can eat away earth and rock, producing a landslide. Human actions can also make landslides happen. For example, a road cut at the base of a hill can destabilize the hillside. For this reason, retaining walls are often used along interstate highways that run through hilly terrain. Depositing fill on top of a hill can also have a destabilizing effect. The combination of loading the top of the hill and cutting away at the bottom creates maximum instability. Other human actions that contribute to landslides include clear-cutting of forests and removal of vegetation on steep slopes. The Pacific coast is especially vulnerable to landslides because of heavy winter rains combined with construction on hillsides and forest clear-cutting. The Northeast and narrow valleys in Appalachia have experienced numerous landslides because of a combination of clay soils, steep slopes, rainstorms, and snowmelt.

CHAPTER 13: PLANNING FOR NATURAL HAZARDS AND NATURAL DISASTERS

Monitoring likely landslide areas; planning to avoid landslide areas such as implementing a steep slope overlay zone; installing building mitigation measures; and creating preparedness, public warning, and emergency response programs can all help limit potential damage from landslides. Since the mid-1970s, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has operated the National Landslide Hazards Program to conduct research and to respond to landslide disasters. For instance, the USGS drafted three types of maps to improve landslide mitigation, preparedness, and response in greater Seattle: (a) a landslide inventory map of the regional transit authority route corridors, (b) a map of landslide susceptibility, and (c) landslide probability maps, based on rainfall and earthquakes.55 Land subsidence. Land subsidence can occur naturally or from mining activities (see Chapter 16) or water withdrawals. Natural land subsidence happens where there are sinkholes and closed depressions in the ground. Sinkholes are common in limestone (karst) and carbonate geology and can suddenly open up and literally swallow buildings, tractors, cars, and people. Sinkholes are direct conduits to the underlying groundwater. Closed depressions may become sinkholes if they receive too much stormwater. A first step is to identify areas vulnerable to land subsidence. For instance, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has produced maps of sinkholes and closed depressions and shares the maps with local governments. Avalanches. An avalanche is a sudden release of snow in a mountainous area. The force of an avalanche is similar to a flash flood—a powerful wall of rapidly moving snow and debris that flattens virtually everything in its path. Avalanches are fairly common in Alaska and in the Rockies and occasionally occur in the Sierra Nevadas and the Cascade Range. On rare occasions, they can happen in the Appalachian Mountains. Avalanches are a

393

particular threat near ski resorts. Between 2000 and 2010, about 25 people a year were killed in avalanches.56 Avalanche areas and incidents should be noted on local and regional hazardous area maps as part of a natural resources inventory. Some avalanches are predictable. The State of Alaska has even bombed or dynamited avalanche areas to release snow before a buildup can strike. Avalanche warnings should be posted to keep people away. An avalanche overlay zone may be a good idea to restrict development from mountainous areas with a history of avalanches. Earthquakes. In October 1989, Americans switched on their TV sets to watch the third game of the World Series between the Oakland Athletics and the San Francisco Giants. Suddenly, the upper decks of San Francisco’s Candlestick Park began to sway. An earthquake measuring 6.9 on the Richter scale was shaking the Bay Area. The game was canceled without serious incident. But other parts of the Bay Area were not so fortunate. A span of the Oakland Bay Bridge collapsed, as did Oakland’s Nimitz Freeway. Many apartment buildings in San Francisco’s Marina District were severely damaged, and some caught fire. In all, 63 people were killed, and the bill to repair property and infrastructure reached $6 billion.57 The 1994 Northridge earthquake in greater Los Angeles took 72 lives, injured 9,000 people, and caused an estimated $42 billion in damage.58 Freeways buckled, 25,000 people were made homeless, and an estimated 5,600 schools were damaged; federal disaster relief came to $13 billion.59 Even though the Northridge quake measured 6.7 on the Richter scale, slightly less than the Loma Prieta earthquake, the epicenter of the Northridge quake was closer to urban areas. It is difficult to predict where an earthquake will strike, when it will hit, and the magnitude of the quake. But FEMA estimates that 40 states are at moderate to high risk for

394

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

earthquakes. Earthquakes occur most frequently along the West Coast, and earthquakes in California are a daily event (see Figure 13.1). Note that the Richter scale is based on a logarithmic scale, so a 6.9 earthquake is far more

powerful than a 5.8 earthquake. Major earthquakes have hit San Francisco (1906) and Alaska (1964), but the most powerful quakes recorded in the continental U.S. were along the New Madrid Fault in Missouri in the winter of

Figure 13.1. Map of California and Nevada Earthquakes, July 16, 2012 Source: U.S. Geological Survey. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/.

CHAPTER 13: PLANNING FOR NATURAL HAZARDS AND NATURAL DISASTERS

1811 and 1812. The New Madrid earthquakes measured 7.7 on the Richter scale and shook buildings up to 1,000 miles away.

Table 13.1. Average Funding for Disaster Relief, FY 2001–FY 2011 (in Millions of Dollars) Fiscal Year

13.2: Federal Planning for Natural Disasters and Hazard Mitigation FEMA is the leading federal agency for responding to natural disasters and planning to minimize damage from natural hazards. FEMA was formed in 1979. In 2003, FEMA became part of the federal Department of Homeland Security. FEMA’s mission is “to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards.”60 FEMA is mostly thought of in its role of providing financial and material relief to victims of federally declared disaster areas. Between 1990 and 2000, FEMA spent $25 billion to help people rebuild their communities after natural disasters struck.61 From 2001 to 2011, the U.S. spent an average of more than $12 billion on disaster relief each year (see Table 13.1).62 FEMA also operates several programs to improve state and local planning efforts to prepare for disasters and minimize the loss of property and lives. In 2011, FEMA made $2.9 billion in planning grants to state and local governments to “prevent, protect, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards.”63 In recent years, there have been an increasing number of fairly small declared disasters. This trend has hindered FEMA from preparing for major catastrophes and compelled states to rely heavily on the federal government for disaster relief funds. Moreover, declared disasters take on average 10 years for FEMA to close the accounting work, about double the time to complete the actual brick-and-mortar repair

395

Budget Authority ($)

2001

4,203

2002

12,454

2003

1,852

2004

7,558

2005

37,157

2006

31,944

2007

5,451

2008

21,365

2009

2,743

2010

6,029

2011

2,475

Source: Office of Management and Budget, “OMB Report on Disaster Relief Funding to the Committees on Appropriations and the Budget of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate,” 2011, p. 6.

work. As a result, a considerable amount of FEMA funds languish until the paperwork is finished and the funds can be shifted to another disaster relief project.64 This situation has not helped FEMA’s image as a slow, cumbersome agency. FEMA’s sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina and the housing of refugees in trailer parks is still vivid in the minds of many Americans. FEMA Planning for Natural Disasters

A key lesson from Hurricane Katrina was that FEMA needed much better planning to

396

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

prepare for and respond to natural disasters. In 2008, the Department of Homeland Security produced a National Response Framework for coordinating responses to natural disasters by federal, state, and local governments as well as nonprofits and the private sector (see Figure 13.2).65 Specific topics include transportation, communications, medical care, housing, public safety, and long-term recovery. FEMA has produced Comprehensive Preparedness Guides that federal and state agencies and local governments can use in drafting Emergency Operations Plans to address potential natural disasters and emergencies. These plans include an analysis of natural hazard risks, an assessment of resource requirements, and coordination across governments. The

overall purpose of the emergency plans is to build a National Preparedness System. A strategic national risk assessment (SNRA) describes the greatest risks to the U.S. The 2011 SNRA reported that “natural hazards, including hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados, wildfires, and floods, present a significant and varied risk across the country.”66 Ultimately, a National Preparedness Goal describes needed actions for prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery.67 Hazard Mitigation Assistance Programs

The Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1973 and the 1988 amendments enable the president of the U.S. to

Figure 13.2. National Response Framework to Respond to a Natural Disaster Source: Department of Homeland Security, 2008. “National Response Framework.” http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/ nrf/nrf-core.pdf. Retrieved May 8, 2014.

CHAPTER 13: PLANNING FOR NATURAL HAZARDS AND NATURAL DISASTERS

contribute up to 75 percent of the cost of hazard mitigation measures along with both predisaster and postdisaster assistance. Predisaster financial and technical assistance is available for the drafting of disaster preparedness plans for mitigation, hazard warnings, response, and recovery. Postdisaster assistance involves providing food, clothing, and shelter and financial aid to disaster victims. In addition, the act provides funds for property acquisition and the cost of relocating the former property owners. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program makes grants to states to draft comprehensive hazard mitigation plans after a major disaster has occurred. The plans then serve as the basis for actions to avoid and minimize damage and to speed disaster cleanup and relief. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is available to state and local governments, Native American tribes, and certain nonprofit organizations within a presidentially declared disaster area. The grant program is intended to reduce or eliminate losses from future disasters. Mitigation projects include purchasing and relocating buildings from hazard-prone areas, strengthening buildings to protect against future damage, raising buildings above the 100-year flood level, and drafting local and state ordinances and standards to protect new buildings from damage. To improve planning for natural hazards before disasters strike, Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, which requires states and communities to draft hazard safety and mitigation plans to be eligible for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds as well as all FEMA project mitigation grants.68 There are two levels of plans that the states can draft, and the plans must be approved by FEMA. A standard state mitigation plan must (a) describe the process used to create the plan; (b) present risk assessments and evaluations of natural hazards; (c) include a mitigation strategy for reducing losses identified in the risk assessment;

397

(d) spell out the state process to support and coordinate local mitigation plans; and (e) include a mitigation plan maintenance process to monitor, evaluate progress, and update the state mitigation plan. An enhanced state mitigation plan includes all the elements of the standard state mitigation plan but shows that the plan is integrated with other state and regional planning programs as well as FEMA programs. The Disaster Mitigation Act provides grants to state and local governments to draft the plans and emphasizes increased planning coordination between state and local governments.69 All states and local governments must have approved hazard mitigation plans in order to be eligible for all FEMA mitigation project grants and assistance. The plans are supposed to be updated every five years. Still, there remains a general lack of consistency and coordination between local and state hazard mitigation plans.70 Also, local hazard mitigation plans do not have the legal basis for local governments to make land-use decisions, such as zoning, or infrastructure investments through a capital improvements program. For these reasons, it is a good idea to include hazard mitigation planning as part of the comprehensive plan, which does provide a legal basis for landuse regulations and a guide for infrastructure investment. Technical assistance programs. FEMA offers three programs that support state and local hazard mitigation planning efforts before a disaster occurs and provide advice on construction, engineering, and floodplain management improvements after a disaster has struck: the Hazard Mitigation Technical Assistance Program, the National Earthquake Technical Assistance Program, and the Wind and Water Technical Assistance Program. In addition, FEMA administers the National Hurricane Program and publishes hurricane evacuation maps based on data from the National Weather Service’s National Hurricane Center. FEMA also

398

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

undertakes studies of evacuations from hurri- in their path. Coastal flooding varies by location and season and in intensity and impact. The canes and damage risk analysis. hurricane season of late summer and early fall in the Southeast and Gulf Coast states can proFloods and Floodplains duce strong tidal surges. On the Pacific coast, winter and spring storms cause mudslides and FEMA defines a flood as “a general and tempo- beach erosion. In the Northeast, winter storms rary condition of partial or complete inundation frequently cause beach erosion. of two or more acres of normally dry land areas Flood hazard areas consist of two parts. from overflow of inland or tidal waters or from The floodway is the channel of the waterway the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff and the normal area of a 1 percent flood and of surface waters from any source, or from mud- indicates where destructive flooding will most flow.”71 There are three main types of flooding: likely occur. The perimeter zone, or flood fringe, shallow-river flooding, flash floods, and coastal defines the outer edge of the floodplain, which flooding. Shallow-river flooding usually happens will experience backup water or occasional in the early spring when rainstorms and melt- moving water. Most flood hazard areas are ing snow cause rivers to overflow their banks. defined as the area submerged by the highest These floods are common in most northern flood likely to occur over a 100-year period, states. Heavy downpours from thunderstorms known as the 100-year floodplain (see Figure produce flash floods in the narrow valleys of 13.3). Yet the 100-year flood standard is far Appalachia and the canyons of the Southwest. from perfect. For instance, in 2001, the MissisThese storms result in swift, powerful walls of sippi River produced its fourth 100-year flood water that can sweep away virtually anything within just eight years.72

100-year floodplain Flood fringe

Floodway

Figure 13.3. Floodplain With 100-Year Floodway

Flood fringe

CHAPTER 13: PLANNING FOR NATURAL HAZARDS AND NATURAL DISASTERS

Some 94 million acres, or about 7 percent of the U.S., are located within 100-year floodplains.73 European settlers preferred to build cities and towns close to waterways, which provided drinking water, water power for mills, and a means of transportation. Often, they located homes and businesses in floodplains. Floodplains absorb and dissipate floodwaters. But for centuries, people did not well understand the extent and function of floodplains and the changes in river courses. Those who were flooded out typically repaired the damage or built new homes and businesses on the same site. This resistance to resettlement away from floodplains still remains, often abetted by federal flood insurance and disaster aid as well as local planning and zoning. Floodwaters increase in speed and volume as more impervious surface is added upstream, contributing additional stormwater runoff into waterways. The channeling of rivers and streams destroys wetlands along the river and stream banks, reducing the ability of waterways to absorb floodwaters. About 6 percent of the nation’s rivers have been straightened for shipping or to protect developments and farmland in floodplains, especially along the Mississippi River.74 Floodplains often have highly fertile soils for farming because of the rich deposits of silt. But floods can sweep chemical fertilizers, manure, and pesticides into waterways. Beginning in the 1990s, the State of Vermont banned the farming practice of spreading cow manure during the winter because melting snow and spring runoff routinely washed tons of manure into rivers and streams. Similarly, the location of industrial buildings in floodplains increases the risk of chemical pollutants leaking into waterways during flood events. For years, Americans embraced the construction of flood control dams and levees as the best way to minimize flood damage. But flood control dams are expensive and have

399

submerged thousands of acres behind them. Levees require maintenance and can break, such as happened along the Mississippi River in the flood of 1993 and during Hurricane Katrina in 2005, with disastrous results. Levees, like channelization, displace natural floodplains, increasing downstream flooding. Federal Flood and Floodplain Programs

In 1968, Congress passed the NFIP, which was followed by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 and the National Flood Insurance Reform Act in 1994. The federal approach to reducing flood losses has two main components: (1) the identification of flood hazard areas and (2) the availability of federal flood insurance for home owners and business owners in communities that have adopted and enforced a floodplain management ordinance to reduce risks to new construction in Special Flood Hazard Areas (within the 100-year floodplain). To identify flood hazard areas, FEMA has produced • Flood Hazard Boundary Maps that show the likely extent of flooding in the flood fringe district; • Flood Insurance Rate Maps that show NFIP rates according to locations in the floodway and flood fringe district; • Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps; and • Special Flood Hazard Areas maps indicating lands that generally have a 1 percent chance of being flooded in any given year, also known as the 100-year flood, or base flood. Put another way, these lands are likely to be flooded once every 100 years. In inland areas, these maps identify both the floodway and the flood fringe. Along coasts, the maps indicate high-hazard areas where a three-foot breaking wave will reach during a 100-year storm. The Special Flood

400

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

Hazard Area maps are the basis for the federal flood insurance and flood management programs. FEMA has come under criticism for not updating flood hazard and boundary maps on a regular basis. Waterways change course, and upstream and upslope development can increase flooding; hence, the old maps do not always accurately indicate up-to-date flood risks. New technologies, such as GIS and remote sensing, are now being used to update the maps. Good maps are essential for effective local land-use planning as well as informing property owners and prospective buyers of flood risks and potential losses. Another criticism is that the flood insurance program has enabled landowners in flood-prone areas to pass much of the financial risk of living in a hazardous area onto federal taxpayers and has allowed those landowners to rebuild in flood-prone areas instead of preventing losses of property and life in the first place.75 Moreover, because the federal government has subsidized the flood insurance rates, the flood insurance program has plunged into the red when major flooding disasters occur, such as in the case of Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy. The NFIP. FEMA administers the NFIP. Community participation in the NFIP is voluntary. About 20,000 communities—nearly all of those eligible—have chosen to participate in the NFIP. Through the NFIP, FEMA works with communities on a four-step approach to floodplain management: 1. Mitigation: Minimizing potential flood damage to existing buildings. 2. Risk reduction: Keeping most new construction out of identified and mapped floodplains.

3. Prevention: Promoting land-use planning and building codes that reduce the likelihood of flood damage to buildings. 4. Preparedness: Making communities able to respond to flood disasters. The Flood Disaster Prevention Act of 1973 required flood insurance for any building or personal property in a 100-year flood area before a lending institution could make a loan to the owner. Any written property appraisal for lending purposes, such as a mortgage or a construction loan, must indicate whether any part of a property is located in the 100-year floodplain. Communities that do not participate in the NFIP are not eligible for federal funding such as Small Business Administration grants and loans, financing through an FDIC guaranteed lender, or federal hazard mitigation grants. The NFIP allows private insurance companies, as well as the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, to write, sell, and service the Standard Flood Insurance Policy. Private insurers are paid for writing policies and processing claims, but the federal government is responsible for covering property losses. As of 2012, FEMA and private insurance companies held some 5.5 million policies on nearly $1.3 trillion in property value.76 The NFIP takes in about $3.5 billion a year in premiums. The NFIP paid out $17.7 billion in flood insurance claims in 2005 because of Hurricane Katrina and other major storms, and the flood insurance program fell into deficit.77 Between 2001 and 2010, the NFIP paid an average of $2.6 billion a year and a per-claim average of $48,000, compared to an average cost of $400 a year for a home owner’s flood insurance policy.78 In 2013, Congress authorized $9.7 billion for the NFIP to cover more than 100,000 insurance claims from Superstorm Sandy.79

CHAPTER 13: PLANNING FOR NATURAL HAZARDS AND NATURAL DISASTERS

The rates for federal flood insurance vary according to the community status, Emergency Phase or Regular Phase, and the level of flood risk. The Emergency Phase is the first step in joining the NFIP. A community in this phase may or may not have a Flood Hazard Boundary Map but lacks a local floodplain management ordinance. A community in the Regular Phase has a Flood Insurance Rate Map, a Flood Insurance Study, and an adopted and implemented floodplain management ordinance qualifying the community for federal flood insurance coverage. As of 2012, insurance coverage was limited to a maximum of $250,000 for a home and $100,000 for the contents of the home, or $500,000 for nonresidential structures and $500,000 for the contents of the structures. FEMA categorizes floods according to their risk and severity. For instance, Zone AE has a 1 percent chance of flooding without wave action in any given year, or a 26 percent chance of flooding over the course of a 30-year mortgage. If a community participates in the NFIP, property owners in Zone A must purchase flood insurance. The same requirements apply in Zone VE, which is a one flood in 100 years flood zone with wave action in coastal communities where the risk of a storm surge adds to potential flood damage.80 A community may still allow the construction of buildings within the 100-year floodplain and in coastal high-hazard areas according to a local floodplain management ordinance that meets the standards of the federal Standard Flood Insurance Policy. In turn, building owners are supposed to purchase federal flood insurance. Yet there has been a low rate of property owner participation, which has meant a low amount of insurance premiums to cover federal disaster relief.81 In 1990, FEMA started the Community Rating System (CRS) to offer discounts on federal flood insurance according to the level of community flood mitigation efforts above the

401

minimum federal standards. To meet the minimum FEMA requirements, local regulations must mandate that the lowest floor of any new building be at or above the 100-year flood level. Also, usually no fill is allowed in the floodway or flood fringe, and no development may occur in the floodway. The NFIP CRS offers discounts of 5 to 45 percent off property owners’ insurance premiums if the community has adopted additional floodplain management measures. Additional local measures may include public information programs, updates to floodplain maps and more rigorous management regulations, the elevation of structures in the floodplain (notice the many houses on stilts along the North Carolina coast), retrofits to structures to withstand floods, and the acquisition and relocation of structures from the floodplain. Some states and communities have prudently chosen to prohibit all new development in floodways to minimize the risk of property losses and the loss of life. In 1995, major flooding hit Roseville, California. The community then created a comprehensive hazards program that became the first to receive the highest rating, Class 1, in FEMA’s CRS. Local flood insurance policyholders were able to save 45 percent on their flood insurance premiums. The hazards program includes educating residents about flooding, changing zoning and building regulations to mitigate flood damage, and preserving floodplains as open space.82 The NFIP has come under criticism for allowing people who own property in floodplains to file damage claims more than once. Also, people can apply for flood insurance after a flood has already damaged their property. In short, the NFIP has relied heavily on American taxpayers to subsidize those who purchase federal flood insurance and knowingly choose to live and work in floodplains.83 In an attempt to change the subsidy situation and to make the flood insurance program pay for itself, Congress in 2012 passed

402

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012.84 The act calls for FEMA to raise flood insurance rates to reflect the true risks and costs of flood insurance. About 80 percent of home owners and businesses covered by the federal flood insurance program do not pay subsidized rates. But subsidized insurance premiums on the remaining 20 percent of policies will increase until they reach a risk-based level. This is particularly the case for properties located in Special Flood Hazard Areas that were built before their community adopted a Flood Insurance Rate Map, and these properties have not been elevated to minimized flood damage.85 A key measure in determining the risk-based premium is the location of the home or business in relation to the Base Flood Elevation. The higher the home or business is above the Base Flood Elevation, the lower the change of flooding and the lower the risk-based premium. In some cases, the new flood insurance rates could run to more than $10,000 a year and perhaps force the sale, if not the abandonment, of some flood-prone properties. The BiggertWaters Act also extended the NFIP to late 2017. Greenways to Mitigate Flood Damage

Wildlife and energy professionals, policy makers, and the public are increasingly moving away from structural solutions to flooding problems and instead linking flood hazard mitigation with the ecological restoration of floodplains. Floods replenish habitat for fish and wildlife. Wetlands that are periodically flooded do not dry up and hence are better able to absorb floodwaters and filter contaminants. Agricultural soils benefit from the silt deposited by floods. Floods also tend to keep away invasive plants and maintain native plant species. There is also a growing movement to remove larger dams from some rivers to return fish runs and restore wetlands and floodplains. State and local governments, nonprofit

organizations, businesses, and citizens groups can comment on the relicensing of dams by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Overall, the joining of floodplain restoration and flood hazard mitigation makes sense as part of a regional watershed management plan, not just a community-by-community or county-by-county planning effort. FEMA’s Flood Mitigation Assistance program makes grants through the states to communities to buy up floodplains for permanent greenways. All purchases are made on a willing buyer–willing seller basis; local governments cannot use their powers of eminent domain. The riparian greenways create buffers between waterways and built-up areas and filter runoff before it reaches the waterways. For example, Lincoln County, Montana, used a Flood Mitigation Assistance grant to purchase 30 acres of floodplain to act as a buffer between Parmenter Creek and the local high school and a housing subdivision. “The land will be left in a natural state, allowing the annual runoff from Parmenter Creek to continue to spread out and dissipate naturally,” said Rick Weiland, director of FEMA Region VIII. “If the area had been developed, it might have meant trying to control the water by forcing it into a restricted channel, which would have posed a significant flood threat.”86 Some states and communities have used FEMA grants to demolish structures in floodplains to avoid future property damage and risks to human life. After the 1993 floods in the Midwest, FEMA and state governments spent hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase and take down almost 13,000 houses and businesses damaged by floodwaters or likely to be damaged by future flooding.87 By 2000, FEMA and the State of North Carolina had authorized $254 million to “retire” 4,200 homes damaged by flooding from Hurricane Floyd in 1999. James Lee Witt, the FEMA director at the time, said, “Every dollar we spend saves $2 or $3 in future losses.”88

CHAPTER 13: PLANNING FOR NATURAL HAZARDS AND NATURAL DISASTERS

403

Americans have built an estimated 100,000 miles of levees to keep water out of natural floodplains and make the land available for farming and residential and commercial development. In some, cases, levees provide a false sense of security. When they break, hundreds if not thousands of acres are often flooded. Taking down levees is controversial, but maintaining them is also expensive. One option is to buy out landowners. For example, in 2009, the U.S. Department of Agriculture offered $145 million to farmers who agreed to place permanent conservation easements on their floodplains and leave it as open space to absorb floodwaters.89

wildfires.90 One of the reasons for this widespread risk is the long-standing federal policy to suppress wildfires. As a result, fuel for future fires has been allowed to accumulate. In 2012, for example, the federal government spent more than $1.4 billion on fire suppression.91 The U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are the two main federal agencies that deal with wildfires. Both agencies draft fire preparedness plans and estimate funding needs to respond to wildfires, mainly on federal land, before the fire season begins. In both agencies, the forest management plans and practices have long emphasized fire suppression. Unfortunately, fire suppression only builds up the number of trees and brush for a larger conflagration sometime later. Congress passed the Healthy Forests ResWildfires toration Act of 2003 to reduce fuel reduction An estimated 75 million acres of federal land on federal lands and encourage local governare at high risk of ecological damage from ments to adopt Community Wildfire Protection Box 13.3. California Wildfires California experiences about 6,000 wildfires each year, and in an average year, more than 200,000 acres burn.92 Having a Mediterranean climate, coastal California is usually very dry in the summer and receives most of its rainfall in the winter months. Droughts of several months are not uncommon, drying up grasses, trees, and shrubs and turning them into fuel for wildfires. Oak savannas, consisting of oak trees and grassland, and scrub chaparral rely on wildfires to germinate seeds and recycle nitrogen. Author Mike Davis has called Malibu, California, on the coast of Los Angeles County, “the wildfire capital of North America,” because from 1970 to 1995, five major fires in Malibu resulted in more than $1 billion in property damage.93 In 2007, wildfires in

Malibu destroyed some 75 homes, damaged dozens of homes, and burned more than 250 acres.94 A typical burn cycle occurs when heavy winter rains cause landslides, disrupting the landscape so that chaparral becomes the dominant plant. The chaparral proliferates, and when a drought occurs, the dry chaparral becomes highly flammable and is touched off by a lightning strike or arson. The Malibu area has long been a favorite abode of movie stars and boasts some of the priciest real estate on the West Coast. After the fires die out, people almost always rebuild, thanks in part to federal disaster relief and low-interest loans.95 California does require that home owners clear the vegetation within 100 feet of their homes to minimize the spread of wildfires.96

404

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

Plans. Approaches to reducing the risk of wildfires include discouraging development in forested areas, using firebreaks around homes, using nonflammable roofing materials, and thinning trees. Since 2004, federal spending on wildfires has averaged more than $3 billion a year, including fiscal year 2008, when the federal government spent a record $4.46 billion on planning for and responding to wildfires.97 The Forest Service and the BLM have entered into numerous agreements with other federal, state, and local firefighting organizations. The Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act of 2009 called for the development of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy for wildfire planning, response, and recovery.98 The National Interagency Fire Center, a consortium of federal agencies, is based in Boise, Idaho, and mobilizes firefighters and equipment to respond to wildfires. Coastal Erosion

The National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 called for an assessment of coastal erosion and property losses along the nation’s seacoasts and Great Lakes shoreline. A 2000 study prepared for FEMA predicted that “within the next 60 years approximately 25 percent of homes located within 500 feet of the coast (excluding those located in most urban centers) will fall victim to the effects of erosion. Erosion-induced losses to property owners during this time are expected to be half a billion dollars annually.”99 The report noted that there are an estimated 350,000 buildings located outside of major cities and within 500 feet of the open ocean and Great Lakes. The report estimated that over the next 60 years, about 1,500 homes each year would be lost to coastal erosion, and the estimated cost to the NFIP would be $80 million or more

each year.100 Some of these heavy property losses are expected to come from changing weather patterns. A 2012 study projected that sea levels along U.S. coasts could increase by as much as 19 inches by 2050 (see Figure 13.4).101 A separate study of sea levels on the U.S. Pacific coast observed that most coastal damage is caused by a combination of large waves, storm surges, and high tides during a strong El Niño weather pattern. The study noted that most sea level rise was the result of melting ice on land and that storms and sea level rise were eroding coastal cliffs, beaches, and dunes from a few centimeters a year to several meters a year. Finally, the study estimated that, globally, seas could rise between 50 and 140 centimeters by 2100.102 Earthquakes

The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (PL 95-124) established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, a joint effort of FEMA, the USGS, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The activities of the earthquake reduction program include (a) identifying earthquake hazards; (b) developing earthquake-resistant design and construction standards; (c) developing plans for earthquake mitigation, preparedness, and response to earthquake events; and (d) educating the public about earthquake hazards. FEMA shoulders the overall responsibility for earthquake planning and coordinates the earthquake damage reduction efforts with other federal agencies. Through state, county, and city emergency management offices, FEMA oversees state and local earthquake mitigation, preparedness, and response measures. The USGS identifies and evaluates areas with earthquake potential, assesses risks of earthquakes, and issues earthquake predictions. The

CHAPTER 13: PLANNING FOR NATURAL HAZARDS AND NATURAL DISASTERS

405

Figure 13.4. Low-Lying Coastal Areas in the Southeastern U.S. Source: U.S. Geological Survey, http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1386a/gallery2-fig84.html. February 6, 2013.

National Science Foundation funds research on the impacts of earthquakes and improving the design and durability of buildings and structures to withstand earthquakes. The National Institute of Standards and Technology tests earthquake-resistant design and construction and advises on national earthquake building standards and state and local earthquakerelated regulations. Communities should determine the likelihood and possible locations and intensity of earthquakes. Earthquake incidents should be mapped for location, intensity, and dates. For example, Seattle experienced two major earthquakes in the 20th century, a quake measuring 7.1 on the Richter scale in 1949 and a 6.5 quake in 1965. The USGS has mapped the major faults of the Seattle region as well as earthquake hazards such as the risk of liquefaction (mudflows) and landslides.103 A quake of 6.8 on the Richter scale hit greater Seattle in February of 2001,

causing $2 billion in damage but no loss of life. The quake prompted the City of Seattle to increase its efforts at retrofitting buildings and preparing for earthquake cleanup.104 Local governments can coordinate their land-use plans and capital improvements plans with state and local emergency management plans for earthquake mitigation, preparedness, and response. The goals are to direct new development away from areas of high-earthquake risk and to upgrade public infrastructure (roads, bridges, and major public buildings) to withstand most quakes. For example, New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority makes seismic-resistant retrofits part of its renovation of bridges.105 But retrofitting thousands of existing buildings carries an enormous price tag. Earthquake insurance, unlike federal flood insurance, is very expensive, running to several thousands of dollars a year in California.

406

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

Volcanic Eruptions

Mitigation Grant Program between FEMA and local governments. In 1980, Mount St. Helens, a 9,677-foot volcano North Carolina’s state hazard mitigation in southern Washington State, erupted with plan addresses 9 areas of natural disasters: the force of an atomic bomb, killing 57 people and devastating an area of 200 square miles. Mount St. Helens blew more than 1,300 feet off 1. Flooding its top, leaving an 8,363-foot peak. Mudflows 2. Hurricanes and Coastal Hazards choked Spirit Lake and the Toutle River. Volca- 3. Severe Winter Weather nic ash rained on Portland, Oregon, as well as 4. Earthquakes on places dozens of miles to the east. In 1982, Congress created the 110,000-acre Mount St. 5. Wildfires Helens National Volcanic Monument. Slowly, 6. Dam Failures the land came back to life. 7. Drought American volcanoes are found in Northern California (Mt. Shasta and Mt. Lassen), 8. Tornadoes/Thunderstorms Oregon (Mt. Hood), Washington (Mt. Rainier), 9. Geological (Sinkholes, Landslides/Debris, Alaska (Katmai), and Hawaii (Kilauea). ErupAcidic and/or Expansive Soils)106 tions produce ash, lava, and toxic gases and often mudflows. The USGS has created maps North Carolina requires all cities and of mudflow hazards, volcanic ash hazards, and counties to have an approved hazard mitigaeducational materials for local officials and tion plan in order to qualify for state funds in educators. State and local emergency manthe event of state-declared disasters.107 Local agement plans, including evacuation plans, are governments are directed to include the folprudent within several miles of a volcano. lowing items in their plans: • hazard identification and analysis by type, frequency, strength, and likely location of occurrence and a multihazard map of the community, especially showing flood-prone Several state agencies are involved in planareas ning for natural disasters and the mitigation of natural hazards. State emergency manage- • a vulnerability assessment of residential, commercial, industrial, and public strucment agencies are responsible for drafting and tures and an estimate of the potential updating hazard mitigation plans, which idencost of damage to those structures; maps tify areas of the state at risk for natural disasof vulnerable populations, structures, or ters and recommend actions to reduce risks areas—especially those that have expeof damage and loss of life. The plans are also rienced repeated damage over the years; used to evaluate proposed projects in presan inventory of projected population and identially declared disaster areas for receipt development in vulnerable areas if current of federal funds under the Hazard Mitigation development trends continue; and an estiGrant Program. The State Hazard Mitigation mate of potential future damage costs Officer coordinates the mitigation plan and the

13.3: State Planning for Natural Disasters and Hazard Mitigation

CHAPTER 13: PLANNING FOR NATURAL HAZARDS AND NATURAL DISASTERS

• a community capability assessment with an inventory of the community’s existing and proposed policies, programs, and ordinances that may affect vulnerability to natural hazards and an analysis of the community’s technical and fiscal capabilities to implement hazard mitigation efforts • community goals that support or hinder hazard mitigation efforts and the need to modify goals or adopt new goals for hazard mitigation • a mitigation strategy with a list of new or revised goals, objectives, plans, capital improvement programs, and zoning and subdivision ordinances to mitigate hazards; public participation in the process; a hazard mitigation plan for local adoption by the community’s governing body with regular review and updating of the plan Nearly all eligible states have drafted land-use plans and regulations as part of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Nineteen of the 30 coastal states consider erosion risks in reviewing proposals for new construction near the shore. But the majority of land-use regulations are under the authority of local governments. Here, implementation is spotty. Better coordination in the mitigation of coastal erosion is clearly needed. Longer setbacks from beaches for new construction from shorelines and no development on the ocean side of barrier islands are prudent regulations to minimize the risk of storm and erosion damage.108 The Association of State Floodplain Managers works to reduce the risk of flooding and educate the public about the benefits of floodplains. Planners involved in drafting floodplain regulations should contact their state floodplain manager. Although Utah has not experienced a major earthquake in more than 150 years, the chances of a powerful quake sometime in

407

the future are fairly high. In response, Utah has approved a state earthquake building code and created the Utah Seismic Safety Commission to advise on earthquake safety and draft a longterm plan for earthquake safety. State emergency management agencies coordinate emergency services, contingency planning, and evacuation planning, as well as local, state, and federal government responses to natural disasters and releases of hazardous materials (so-called hazmat incidents; see Chapter 8). State emergency management agencies also work with city and county emergency management agencies to educate the public about preparing for and mitigating impacts of natural disasters. Some states require local governments to include hazard mitigation elements in their local comprehensive plans, and these communities are making the greatest improvements in safety.109 California mandates local plans to address earthquake safety and a variety of other natural hazards. Florida and North Carolina require local comprehensive plans to identify and mitigate hurricane hazards.

13.4: Local Planning for Natural Disasters and Hazard Mitigation Natural disasters are not avoidable, but communities can minimize damage to property and loss of life through careful local land-use planning and hazard mitigation plans, together with state and federal assistance. Local governments must strictly limit the amount and location of development in hazardous areas and require rigorous construction standards to reduce the chances of major damage. Unfortunately, most local governments do not include planning for natural hazards and disasters in their comprehensive plans, area plans (such as for neighborhoods or transit corridors), or even

408

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

functional plans (such as transportation plans), nor do local building codes and subdivision regulations require that hazard mitigation features be included in new construction, much less in strengthening existing buildings. Some states require local governments to adopt comprehensive plans that address natural hazards. These range from earthquake and wildfire threats in California to floods and wildfires in Colorado to coastal flooding in North Carolina. Local governments can adopt a separate hazard mitigation plan or incorporate hazard mitigation planning into the comprehensive plan. A section on natural hazards in the comprehensive plan can alert citizens to the risks of building in hazardous areas and serve as the legal basis for land-use regulations to restrict development in those areas. Some hazardous areas attract development because of scenic views or remoteness, such as mountainsides, ridge tops, and beachfront sites. But not all land can or should be built on. Areas subject to natural hazards either are usually unbuildable or have the capacity to support development only at very low densities and for low-impact uses. No major public services should be sited in hazardous areas. In 2010, Davidson County, Tennessee, experienced a greater than 500-year flood, which caused almost $1.2 billion in damage to 11,000 properties.110 In 2011, the Metropolitan Government of Nashville worked with nonprofit groups to produce the Nashville: Naturally plan. The plan advocated increasing the city’s parkland and greenways by 6,000 acres, protecting 10,000 acres of floodplain, doubling the tree canopy in downtown Nashville, and reducing impervious surfaces over the next 10 years. By 2035, another 6,000 acres of parkland would be added. Local governments should recognize that climate change is expected to intensify natural disasters such as drought, wildfires, hurricanes, and flooding from more frequent and violent

storms. Local governments must be prepared to take an adaptive management approach to natural disasters. This means that hazard mitigation plans, comprehensive plans, land-use regulations, and infrastructure investment programs may need to be revised and updated more often than before. Inventory

An inventory and mapping of past natural disasters as well as current hazard-prone areas is essential in drafting the comprehensive plan. State environmental agencies can provide data on the location and intensity of past natural disasters and hazard-prone areas. FEMA flood area maps should be used with care. As much as one-third of federal flood insurance claims come from property outside of high-risk flood areas. The location, magnitude, and date of each flood should be mapped as well as the 100-year and 500-year floodplain (see Figure 13.5). Local planning offices can map areas at risk of wildfires, landslides, land subsidence, earthquakes, or volcanic activity according to location, topography, vegetation, and proximity to existing development (see Figure 13.6). Planners with GIS expertise can use the FEMA Hazus program to analyze risks from a variety of natural hazards. Planners can also estimate steep slopes from NRCS county soil survey maps and USGS topographic maps. Analysis

The data collected in the inventory should enable planners and qualified consultants to assess the potential for damage in hazardprone areas. This information and analysis will be helpful in drafting the future land-use map of the comprehensive plan, indicating where new development should or should not be

CHAPTER 13: PLANNING FOR NATURAL HAZARDS AND NATURAL DISASTERS

Figure 13.5. Flood Hazards in Greenville, North Carolina Source: City of Greenville, NC, Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2010, p. 64.

409

410

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

Figure 13.6. Pitt County, North Carolina, Multihazards Map Source: Pitt County, NC, Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2010, p. A-69.

encouraged. Future growth and development should be directed away from hazard-prone areas as much as possible. Perhaps the biggest challenge in analyzing hazard-prone areas is factoring in the impact of climate change over time. Goals and Objectives

to natural hazards and responding quickly and effectively to natural disasters. Objectives to achieve these goals should emphasize cooperation with state and federal agencies in planning and emergency response. The City of Greenville, North Carolina, expressed the following goals and objectives in their 2010 hazard mitigation plan:

Local governments can use the comprehen- • Goal: Decrease the community’s vulnerabilsive plan to set realistic goals and objectives for ity to future hazard events. hazard-prone areas and responses to natural disasters (see Table 13.2). The local emergency • Objective: Preserve open space in floodplain and environmentally sensitive areas. management office should be asked to help Explore ways that the City of Greenville draft the goals and objectives. Two general might acquire additional properties in goals in the natural resources section include protecting property and lives from exposure flood-prone areas.

CHAPTER 13: PLANNING FOR NATURAL HAZARDS AND NATURAL DISASTERS

411

Table 13.2. Sample Natural Disaster Response and Hazard-Prone Areas Goals and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan Section: Natural Resources Goal: Respond swiftly and effectively to natural disasters, and protect local residents and their property from natural hazards. Objective: Cooperate with state and federal agencies on emergency management response planning. Objective: Monitor the condition of hazard-prone areas over time. Objective: Mitigate stormwater and flood hazards to make the community more resilient. Section: Land Use Objective: Keep development away from natural hazards and sensitive environments, such as steep slopes, sinkholes, dunes, beaches, floodplains, wetlands, and fault lines. Section: Community Facilities Objective: Avoid locating community facilities in hazard-prone areas. Objective: Upgrade and retrofit community facilities to minimize potential damage from natural disasters. Section: Transportation Objective: Ensure that transportation networks are adequate to withstand natural disasters and to evacuate residents in case of a natural disaster.

• Objective: Improve education and outreach to the community regarding flood hazards and flood mitigation, targeting areas that include properties in the repetitive losses inventory. • Goal: Reduce loss of life and personal injury from natural hazards.

new residential development to provide 1-year flood ponds, instead of 10-year flood ponds. • Goal: Expedite post disaster reconstruction. • Objective: Develop a comprehensive post disaster recovery and reconstruction plan for the City.111

• Objective: Avoid subdivision development that is dependent on one or few streets that Action Strategy are susceptible to flooding. • Objective: Strengthen the City’s existing stormwater control ordinances to require

The Action Strategy should present techniques and programs for achieving the goals and

412

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

objectives of minimizing damage from natural hazards and promote effective emergency response. The Action Strategy should include measurable benchmarks and a timetable. The Action Strategy might include the following specific recommendations:

include siting standards with appropriate setbacks from waterways, wetlands, steep slopes, and coastal areas. Planners can draft a conservation zone or an overlay zone to limit development in hazard-prone areas. Development and fill-in floodplains should be prohibited in order for the community residents to obtain the lowest• Use zoning overlay districts to protect cost federal flood insurance and the highest hazard-prone features, such as floodplains, protection from flood damage. For example, steep slopes, sinkholes, and wildfire areas. Greenville, North Carolina, requires “structures • Explore state and federal funding for the built in the 100-year floodplain shall be conpurchase of hazard-prone lands and constructed so their lowest finished floor elevaservation easements on those lands. tion is at or above the 500-year flood elevation level.”112 In coastal areas with a history of hur• Create partnerships with nonprofit groups for the preservation of hazard-prone areas. ricanes, a long setback from beaches, dunes, and the mean high tide will protect buildings • Explore the use of financial incentives, such from storm surges and place buildings on as transfer of development rights, to reduce firmer ground. development in hazardous areas. The City of Sanibel, Florida, is a barrier • Target purchases of greenway and parkisland off Florida’s Gulf Coast and is connected lands in flood-prone areas. to the mainland by a causeway. The city was concerned that if growth and development • Locate public buildings away from hazardcontinued without limit, there could be serious areas. ous problems in evacuating the island during a • Review fire service and building codes and hurricane. As a precaution, the city changed its strengthen them if need be. zoning to reduce the number of dwelling units • Add a flood warning district for land adjaallowed and thus limited the number of people cent to the flood fringe. who would need to be evacuated.113 In 2004, Hurricane Ivan flooded the causeway between Sanibel and the mainland for two weeks. HowZoning Ordinances ever, there was no loss of life and because the people on the island were evacuated, accordDevelopment limitations and risks from natu- ing to plan. ral hazards are important for communities to understand when drafting zoning regulations to guide the location, intensity, and design of Building Codes development. Most buildings and land uses are not suited to hazard-prone areas. In areas Buildings codes vary from state to state and with the most severe building constraints, such among communities, and codes change over as steep slopes more than 25 percent, commu- time. Local officials should ensure that existnities may choose to prohibit all development. ing and new buildings meet building codes In other areas prone to hazards, zoning should (see Box 13.5). It is also wise to retrofit major allow only very low densities and should public buildings to withstand major storms

CHAPTER 13: PLANNING FOR NATURAL HAZARDS AND NATURAL DISASTERS

413

Box 13.4. Local Recovery Ordinance The least costly disaster is the one that never strikes. But when a natural disaster hits, a community can speed recovery efforts by adopting a Local Recovery Ordinance. This ordinance establishes the community’s legal authority to make interventions to modify future development rather than accept the default policy of “rebuild as before.” The ordinance can authorize a recovery management organization, headed by the mayor or city manager, to help with the immediate needs of housing for residents and business assistance. The organization can also prepare recovery plans and adopt temporary regulations. The recovery plan can address transportation and land use,

economic development, temporary and permanent housing, infrastructure and utilities, and hazard mitigation. The ordinance can also spell out a process for the community to work with state and federal agencies and include citizens, business owners, and stakeholder groups in recovery planning. It is important for communities to be proactive in their recovery efforts, rather than simply wait for federal aid to arrive. In fact, a community recovery plan is a good way to leverage state and federal recovery funds. But keep in mind that recovery takes time. For instance, in 2008 Hurricane Ike damaged three-quarters of the buildings in Galveston, Texas. In 2013, the city was still rebuilding.

Box 13.5. National Model Building Codes There are several model building codes from the International Code Council that can help communities promote resilient buildings both in new construction and by retrofitting existing buildings: 1. The 2012 International Building Code is the overall standard for the U.S.

or earthquakes. But often, storm and earthquake events are more destructive because of the large number of poorly sited or inadequately constructed buildings. For instance, when Hurricane Andrew struck Florida in 1992, considerable property damage was attributed to poorly constructed houses that did not meet local building codes. Finally, local emergency management offices should

2. The International Green Construction Code is designed to promote energy efficiency.114 3. The 2012 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code is especially useful for minimizing wildfire risks.

coordinate with state emergency offices on plans for evacuation and emergency shelter facilities. To minimize potential flood damage, the City of Sanibel Island, Florida, adopted a building code requiring the first floor of a home to be 14 feet above sea level.115 Major commercial buildings must be constructed or retrofitted to withstand hurricane-force winds.

414

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

areas through standards for sewerage, water supply, roads, stormwater management, vegetative cover, and an environmental impact assessment. On-site septic systems should be limited in hazard-prone areas, especially on steep slopes, floodplains, and sinkholes, because of the high potential for sewage to leach into surface water and groundwater. Wells also should be limited, and it makes little sense to extend central sewer and water service and public roads that would encourage development into hazard-prone areas. Stormwater management and vegetative cover are essential to minimize runoff from steep slopes and into areas prone to sinkholes. Any permitted development in the floodplains should have a certain percentage of vegetative cover to absorb water and hold the soil. The subdivision ordinance can require buffering berms and filter strips to control runoff. Finally, for larger developments, a developer should be Subdivision Regulations required to submit an environmental impact Subdivision and land-development regulations assessment describing and analyzing potential can address development in hazard-prone risks of developing in a hazard-prone area.

California has Seismic Building Codes that apply to all existing buildings as well as earthquake-resistant standards in the California Building Code for new buildings.116 Salt Lake County, Utah, which includes Salt Lake City and more than 1 million people, passed an ordinance that requires a study of geologic hazards before a building can be built in areas identified as most at risk for earthquakes. Many major buildings, including fire stations, hospitals, and hundreds of schools, have been strengthened or replaced with earthquakeresistant structures. The San Francisco Department of Emergency Management has helped train thousands of citizens for emergencies, especially earthquakes, in their neighborhoods. The city also required exterior decorations to be removed from many buildings, fearing that in the event of a quake, the decorations could fall, harming pedestrians.

Box 13.6. Local Water Ordinances and Drought Local governments can use the capital improvements program to help create backup water supplies in case of drought. But a more immediate and cost-effective solution is a local ordinance that gives the local government authority for issuing water restrictions during times of drought. The water shortage ordinance of Perquimans County, North Carolina, has four stages of restricting water supplies. The first stage is a declaration of voluntary conservation by the county. Next, is a declaration of mandatory conservation if the county finds water supplies in stream flows, reservoir levels, or

groundwater levels below seasonal averages and declining. The third stage is a declaration of a water shortage emergency, when the county determines that water supplies cannot meet normal needs and serious shortages exist. Finally, the county may make a declaration of rationing if the water shortage emergency persists. For instance, a household would be limited to 40 gallons a day for each resident, and a single person household would be allowed 55 gallons a day. These restrictions, however, may be difficult to enforce.

CHAPTER 13: PLANNING FOR NATURAL HAZARDS AND NATURAL DISASTERS

Capital Improvements Program

The capital improvements program can help the community prioritize hazard mitigation projects and identify ways to finance those projects. In particular, the capital improvements program process can help a community evaluate and balance structural (concrete) and nonstructural (green) investments in mitigating natural hazards. Local governments can use the capital improvements program to direct growth and development away from hazardprone areas. For instance, it has not been uncommon for communities to locate sewage treatment plants in floodplains close to waterways. Treatment plants should be elevated wherever possible to avoid flooding that would wash raw sewage into waterways. Similarly, water treatment plants should be retrofitted so as to minimize the likelihood of flood damage. Green infrastructure, such as rain gardens and green roofs, can absorb and infiltrate stormwater on-site in order to reduce the likelihood and severity of flooding. Other major public capital

415

investments, such as schools and roads, should be kept away from hazard-prone areas. Existing public buildings can be retrofitted to withstand potential hazards. Public acquisitions of greenways and parkland are appropriate capital expenditures in floodplains, along coastlines, and in areas with steep slopes. What to Look for in a Development Review

A rule of thumb in reviewing development plans in hazard-prone areas is “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Developers and landowners should be required to indicate any hazard-prone areas on a map and describe them (see Table 13.3). Local and state building codes should require strict construction standards for new buildings and renovations.

13.5: Case Study: Hurricane Katrina On the afternoon of Monday, August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina, a Category 3 hurricane,

Table 13.3. A Checklist of Hazard-Prone Areas Issues in a Development Review 1.

What are the size, location, and land uses of the proposed development?

2.

Are there any hazard-prone areas on the property or on adjacent properties?

3.

What is the history of natural disasters in the general vicinity?

4.

Has the developer conducted an environmental impact assessment?

5.

Are any public facilities required for the proposed project?

6.

Is the proposed project consistent with the zoning ordinance and future land-use map?

7.

What steps has the developer taken to minimize potential damage from natural disasters both on-site and downstream or downslope?

8.

Has the developer obtained all necessary state or federal permits?

416

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

slammed into the U.S. Gulf Coast and whirled toward the City of New Orleans. Over the next few days, Katrina ravaged 90,000 square miles of the Gulf Coast, causing $81 billion in damage and 1,836 deaths in the single most expensive natural disaster ever to happen on U.S. soil.117 New Orleans could not have been less prepared for Katrina’s heavy rains and powerful 20-foot storm surge. Many parts of New Orleans are below sea level. One million acres of wetlands that could have helped absorb the storm surge had been lost to oil and gas pipelines and the dredging of shipping channels between 1930 and 2005.118 The city’s 2000 emergency management plan recommended evacuation 72 hours before any catastrophic storm event, but a mandatory evacuation order for New Orleans was not issued until Sunday, August 28, the day before Katrina struck.119 In short, the plan was ignored.120 The New Orleans emergency management plan called for city buses to be ready to evacuate residents, because more than 100,000 residents, nearly one-quarter of the city’s population, did not own cars.121 But the city buses never arrived. Levees constructed to protect the city failed along Lake Pontchartrain. The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Canal, a man-made shipping channel, acted as a pipeline to concentrate Katrina’s storm surge on the Industrial Canal. The canal was breached, flooding the Lower Ninth Ward, where the population was heavily African American and impoverished. At the peak of the flooding, 80 percent of New Orleans was underwater.122 On the entire Gulf Coast, an estimated 284,000 homes were destroyed along with 350,000 cars and 35,000 boats.123 One million people lost electricity, and public drinking water supplies were knocked out; 400,000 people were forced from their homes.124 Katrina’s devastation was made worse by the slow and inept response by FEMA. In responding to any natural disaster, speed is of

the essence to provide transportation, medical care, food, water, clothing, and shelter. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security had to declare a disaster “an incident of national significance” in order to give FEMA the authority to override state and local authorities and coordinate with other federal agencies.125 By declaring Katrina “a catastrophic event,” the Secretary would have enabled more relief efforts, such as requests for military help.126 These declarations were slow in coming, and meanwhile, 30,000 people ended up huddled in the New Orleans Superdome for days, before eventually being evacuated.127 In the aftermath of Katrina, 1.5 million people registered for assistance with FEMA.128 But FEMA was simply unprepared to react quickly to a disaster of Katrina’s proportions. The population of New Orleans fell by more than 200,000 in the wake of Katrina and eventually added more than 100,000 residents to reach 344,000 by 2010, or slightly less than three-quarters of its preKatrina population of nearly 500,000.129 The federal government spent more than $122 billion to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast and help residents regain control over their lives.130 A key piece of the restoration effort was $14.5 billion to restore and upgrade 133 miles of levees, flood walls, and pumps to protect New Orleans.131

Summary Natural hazards pose special problems for environmental planning. While the risks of some hazards, such as landslides, may be rather easily assessed, predicting where and when hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes will strike is very difficult. Federal hazard mitigation and disaster relief are managed primarily by FEMA within the Department of Homeland Security. The Stafford Act provides funds for state and

CHAPTER 13: PLANNING FOR NATURAL HAZARDS AND NATURAL DISASTERS

local hazard mitigation planning and disaster recovery. FEMA also oversees the NFIP and coordinates the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction program. States can adopt a hazard mitigation plan and require local governments to draft plans in order to receive state funding for mitigation planning. Local governments can incorporate hazard mitigation into their comprehensive plan or draft a separate hazard mitigation plan. Assessing risks and mapping hazardous areas are essential. Zoning, subdivision regulations, and the capital improvements program can direct development and public infrastructure away from hazard-prone areas and require stringent standards for any new development in those areas. Overall, a key to successful hazard mitigation planning and disaster response is coordination among all levels of governments and with the private sector to minimize property damage and the loss of life.

Notes 1. Quoted in Milloy, R. “Population Trends Heighten West’s Fire Woes.” New York Times, August 10, 2000, p. A10. 2. Quoted in Cole, A. “After Sandy, Not All Dunes Are Created Equal.” National Public Radio, February, 15, 2013. http://www.npr.org/ 2013/02/15/170459890/after-sandy-not-all -sand-dunes-are-created-equal. Retrieved February 18, 2013. 3. Committee on Increasing National Resilience to Hazards and Disasters. Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2012. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record _id=13457&page=R1. Retrieved August 9, 2012. 4. Gillis, J. “Not Even Close: 2012 Was Hottest Ever in U.S.” New York Times, January 8, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/science/ earth/2012-was-hottest-year-ever-in-us.html ?_r=0. Retrieved January 10, 2013.

417

5. Economist. “Hurricane Sandy: Wild Is the Wind.” November 3, 2012, p. 27. 6. Time. December 10, 2012, p. 11. 7. Brune, T. “Congress OKs $9.7 Billion in Superstorm Sandy Aid.” Newsday, January 4, 2013. http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/ congress-oks-9-7-billion-in-superstorm-sandy -aid-1.4405211. Retrieved January 23, 2013. 8. Hernandez, R. “House Approves $50.7 Billion in Emergency Aid for Storm Victims.” New York Times, January 15, 2013. http://www .nytimes.com/2013/01/16/nyregion/house -passes-50-7-billion-in-hurricane-aid.html ?_r=0. Retrieved January 23,2013. 9. Gregory, K. “Bloomberg Storm Plan Praised, But Faces Obstacles.” New York Times, June 12, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/ 2013/06/13/nyregion/bloomberg-storm-plan -praised-but-faces-obstacles.html?_r=0. Retrieved September 23, 2013. 10. City of New York. Coastal Climate Resilience: Urban Waterfront Adaptive Strategies. New York: City of New York, 2013. http://www .nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/sustainable_commu nities/urban_waterfront_print.pdf. Retrieved September 23, 2013. 11. Parry, W. “Superstorm Sandy: New Jersey Beaches 30–40 Feet Narrower After Storm, Survey Finds.” Huffington Post, November 20, 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ 2012/11/20/superstorm-sandy-nj-beaches -storm_n_2162798.html. Retrieved January 23, 2013. 12. Navarro, M. “Weighing Sea Barriers as Protection for New York.” New York Times, November 7, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/ nyregion/after-hurricane-sandy-debating -costly-sea-barriers-in-new-york-area.html ?pagewanted=all&. Retrieved January 23, 2013. 13. Navarro, M. “After Storm, Dry Floors Prove Value of Exceeding City Code.” New York Times, November 23, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/ 2012/11/24/science/earth/new-york-reassessing

418

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

-building-code-to-limit-storm-damage.html. Retrieved January 23, 2013. 14. FEMA. Integrating Hazard Mitigation into Local Planning: Case Studies and Tools for Community Officials. Washington, DC: FEMA, 2013, pp. 1–2. 15. Title 44 Emergency Management and Assistance, 44 C.F.R. 201.2, Section 201: “Mitigation Planning.” 16. Godschalk, D., A. Rose, E. Mittler, K. Porter, and C. West. “Estimating the Value of Foresight: Aggregate Analysis of Natural Hazard Mitigation Benefits and Costs.” Environmental Planning and Management. Vol. 502, No. 6(2009), pp. 739–56. 17. Cedar Rapids, IA. “Flood Recovery Plans.” 2013. http://www.cedar-rapids.org/city-news/ flood-recovery-progress/floodrecoveryplans/ pages/default.aspx. Retrieved April 26, 2013. 18. FEMA. “National Disaster Recovery Framework.” 2013. http://www.fema.gov/na tional-disaster-recovery-framework. Retrieved April 26, 2013. 19. Burby, R. et al. “Unleashing the Power of Planning to Create Disaster-Resistant Communities.” Journal of the American Planning Association. Vol. 65, No. 3 (Summer 1999), pp. 247–58. 20. FEMA. “Disaster Declarations by Year.” 2014. http://www.fema.gov/disasters/grid/year. Retrieved May 8, 2014. 21. NFIP. “NFIP Statistics.” 2014. http://www .floodsmart.gov/floodsmart/pages/media _resources/stats.jsp. Retrieved May 8, 2014. 22. USGS. “Floods and Floodplains.” 2013. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1993/ofr93-641/. Retrieved May 8, 2014. 23. Platt, R. Land Use and Society: Geography, Law, and Public Policy. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1996, p. 418. 24. Wright, J. Montana Ghost Dance. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1998, p. 159. 25. Wilkinson, T. “Prometheus Unbound.” Nature Conservancy. Vol. 51, No. 3 (2001), p. 16.

26. Schwab, J., and S. Meck. Planning for Wildfires. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 529/530. Chicago: American Planning Association, 2005. 27. Vertuno, J., and M. Graczyk. “Bastrop Wildfires Destroy 1,000-Plus Homes.” Associated Press, September 6, 2011. http://www.chron .com/news/article/Bastrop-wildfires-destroy -1-000-plus-homes-2157848.php. Retrieved July 13, 2012. 28. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Climatic Data Center. “Wildfires—Annual 2012.” 2012. http:// www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/fire/2012/13. Retrieved May 8, 2014. 29. Jehl, D. “Population Shift in the West Raises Wildfire Concerns.” New York Times, May 30, 2000, p. A1. 30. NOAA, National Climatic Data Center. “State of the Climate: Wildfires, Annual 2011.” December 2011. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ sotc/fire/2011/13. Retrieved July 14, 2012. 31. Best, A. “In the Path of the Inferno.” Planning, July 2013, p. 14. 32. Oldham, J. “Colorado’s Fire Danger Grows as Residents Occupy High-Risk Areas.” Bloomberg News, July 17, 2012. http://www .bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-17/colorado -s-fire-danger-grows-as-residents-occupy -high-risk-areas.html. Retrieved July 18, 2012. 33. Best, A. “In the Path of the Inferno.” Planning, July 2013, p. 15. 34. Economist. June 29, 2002, p. 29. 35. NOAA, National Climatic Data Center. “National Overview—July 2012.” 2012. https:// www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2012/7. Retrieved May 8, 2014; Associated Press. “Drought Is the Worst in 56 Years.” New York Times, July 17, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/us/ drought-is-the-worst-in-56-years.html?_r= 1&hpw. Retrieved July 18, 2012. 36. Economist. “Corn on the Cusp.” August 4, 2012, p. 66.

CHAPTER 13: PLANNING FOR NATURAL HAZARDS AND NATURAL DISASTERS

37. Quoted in the Economist. “Cloud Nein. ”December 1, 2012. http://www.economist.com/ news/science- and- technology/21567313 - global- drought-really- getting-worse- cloud -nein. Retrieved May 8, 2014. 38. Planning. “Hot, Broke, and Hungry.” December 2012, p. 44. 39. Austin (TX) Statesman. “Drought Cost Texas Close to $8 Billion in Agricultural Losses in 2011, Study Finds.” March 21, 2012. http:// www.statesman.com/news/texas/drought -cost-texas-close-to-8-billion-in-2252881.html. Retrieved July 14, 2012. 40. Brinkley, D. The Great Deluge: Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, and the Mississippi Gulf Coast. New York: HarperCollins, 2006, p. xxii. 41. Economist. “Hurricane Sandy: Wild Is the Wind.” November 3, 2012, p. 28. 42. NOAA. “Galveston Storm of 1900.” 2004. http://www.history.noaa.gov/stories_tales/ cline2.html. Retrieved July 14, 2012. 43. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2012. Washington, DC: USGPO, 2012, p. 236. 44. Von Drehle, D., and J. Kluger. “16 Minutes. For the People of Moore, Okla., That Was the Difference Between Life and Death.” Time, June 3, 2013, p. 31. 45. City of Greensburg, KS. Sustainable Comprehensive Master Plan. 2008, p. 2. http://www .greensburgks.org/residents/recovery-planning/ sustainable-comprehensive-master-plan/view. Retrieved May 19, 2013. 46. Ibid., p. 3. 47. City of Greensburg, KS. Home page. http://www.greensburgks.org/. 48. Murphy, K. “Kansas Town Rises Green from Tornado Rubble.” Reuters, June 25, 2011. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/25/ us-tornado-rebuild-kansas-idUSTRE75O1Z220 110625. Retrieved July 14, 2012. 49. Davis, M. Ecology of Fear. New York: Vintage Books, 1999, p. 157.

419

50. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Enhanced F Scale for Tornado Damage.” 2007. http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/ tornado/ef-scale.html. Retrieved May 8, 2014. 51. Heinz, H. J., III, Center for Science, Economics and the Environment. Evaluation of Erosion Hazards. Washington, DC: FEMA, 2000, p. 5. 52. Parry, W. “NJ Beaches 30–40 Feet Narrower After Sandy: Study.” NBC News New York, November 20, 2012. http://www.nbcnew york.com/news/local/Jersey-Shore-Beach -Erosion-Sandy-Superstorm-Damage-180134271. html. Retrieved May 19, 2013. 53. Yen, H. “Gulf Coast Population Surged Since 1960.” Associated Press, May 26, 2010. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37359821/ns/ us_news-life/t/gulf-coast-population-surged/# .UAHnQZGpNI4. Retrieved July 14, 2012. 54. USGS. “Landslide Hazards Program: About Us. 2014.” http://landslides.usgs.gov/ aboutus/. Retrieved May 8, 2014. 55. USGS. “Landslide Hazards of Seattle, WA and Vicinity.” 2014. http://landslides.usgs.gov/ state_local/seattle.php. Retrieved May 9, 2014. 56. Colorado Avalanche Information Center. “US Fatalities by Season, 1950/51–2012/13.” 2013. http://avalanche.state.co.us/accidents/ statistics-and-reporting/. May 9, 2014. 57. USGS. “Historic Earthquakes.” 2012. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/ states/events/1989_10_18.php. Retrieved July 14, 2012. 58. Davis, M. Ecology of Fear. New York: Vintage Books, 1999, p. 7. 59. Ibid., p, 11, p. 47. 60. FEMA. “About FEMA.” 2013. http://www .fema.gov/about/index.shtm. Retrieved May 9, 2014. 61. FEMA. Project Impact: Building Disaster Resistant Communities. Washington, DC: FEMA, 2000. 62. U.S. Office of Management and Budget. OMB Report on Disaster Relief Funding to the Committees on Appropriations and the Budget of

420

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. September 1, 2011. http://www.whitehouse .gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative _reports/disaster_relief_report_sept2011.pdf. Retrieved July 18, 2012. 63. FEMA. 2012: The State of FEMA. 2012, p. 4. http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/state_of _fema/state_of_fema.pdf. Retrieved May 9, 2014. 64. Frank, T. “‘Disasters’ Strain FEMA’s Resources.” USA Today, October 24, 2011. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/ story/2011-10-23/disasters-strain-fema-funds/ 50886370/1. Retrieved July 18, 2012. 65. FEMA. “National Response Framework.” 2014. http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nrf/. Retrieved May 9, 2014. 66. Department of Homeland Security. National Preparedness Goal. September 2011, p. 3. http://www.fema.gov/pdf/prepared/npg.pdf. Retrieved July 18, 2012. 67. Ibid. 68. Schwab, J., ed. Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices Into Planning. PAS Report No. 560. Chicago: American Planning Association, 2010, p. 18. 69. Steinberg, M., and R. Burby. “Growing Safe.” Planning, April 2002, p. 23. 70. Schwab, J., ed. Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices Into Planning. PAS Report No. 560. Chicago: American Planning Association, 2010, p 19. 71. FEMA. “Definitions: Flood.” 2012. http:// www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance -program/definitions. Retrieved July 24, 2012. 72. Grunwald, M. “Disasters All, But Not as Natural as You Think.” Washington Post, May 6, 2001, p. B1. 73. FEMA. A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management. Washington, DC: FEMA, 1994. 74. McNeil, J. Something New Under the Sun. New York: W. W. Norton, 2000, p. 183.

75. Burby, R. et al. “Unleashing the Power of Planning to Create Disaster-Resistant Communities.” Journal of the American Planning Association. Vol. 65, No. 3 (Summer 1999), pp. 247–58. 76. NFIP. “Flood Facts.” 2012. http://www .floodsmart.gov/floodsmart/pages/flood _facts.jsp. Retrieved July 24, 2012. 77. Lipton, E., F. Barringer, and M. Walsh.“Flood Insurance, Already Fragile, Faces New Stress.” New York Times, November 12, 2012. http:// www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/nyregion/fed eral-flood-insurance-program-faces-new-stress .html?_r=0. Retrieved January 30, 2013. 78. FEMA. “NFIP Statistics.” 2012. http://www .floodsmart.gov/floodsmart/pages/media _resources/stats.jsp. Retrieved July 24, 2012. 79. Brune, T. “Congress OKs $9.7 Billion in Superstorm Sandy Aid.” Newsday, January 4, 2013. http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/ congress-oks-9-7-billion-in-superstorm-sandy -aid-1.4405211. Retrieved January 23, 2013. 80. FEMA Map Service Center. “Definitions of FEMA Flood Zone Designations.” 2013. https:// msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ info?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&lang Id=-1&content=floodZones&title=FEMA% 2520Flood%2520Zone%2520Designations. Retrieved April 26, 2013. 81. FEMA. Mandatory Purchase of Flood Insurance Guidelines. Washington, DC: FEMA, 1999. 82. FEMA. “FEMA Names First-Ever Class 1 Floodplain Management Community” (press release). October 3, 2006. http://www.fema .gov/news-release/fema-names-first-ever -class-1-floodplain-management-community. Retrieved July 24, 2012. 83. Burby, R. et al. “Unleashing the Power of Planning to Create Disaster-Resistant Communities.” Journal of the American Planning Association. Vol. 65, No. 3 (Summer 1999), pp. 247–58. 84. FEMA. “Flood Insurance Reform.” 2014. http://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance-reform. Retrieved May 9, 2014.

CHAPTER 13: PLANNING FOR NATURAL HAZARDS AND NATURAL DISASTERS

85. FEMA. “Questions About the BiggertWaters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012.” http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/ 20130726-1912-25045-5235/bw12_qa_04 _2013.txt. Retrieved September 25, 2013. See also, the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014. http://www.fema.gov/media - library- data/1396551935597- 4048b68f6d6 95a6eb6e6e7118d3ce464/HFIAA_Overview _FINAL_03282014.pdf. Retrieved May 8, 2014. 86. FEMA, Region VIII. “Acquisition Means Flood Prone Area Will Not Be Developed, Area Will Become Park Land” (press release). April 13, 1999. 87. Jehl, D. “Mississippi Flooding Is Reviving a Debate on Government Role.” New York Times, April 27, 2001, p. A1. 88. Planning. “Government Buys 1,700 More Homes Flooded by Hurricane Floyd.” October 2000, p. 30. 89. Tercek, M., and J. Adams. Nature’s Fortune: How Business and Society Thrive by Investing in Nature. New York: Basic Books, 2013, p. 57. 90. Gorte, R. Federal Funding for Wildfire Control and Management. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, April 22, 2010. http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/10May/ RL33990.pdf. Retrieved May 9, 2014. 91. Best, A. “In the Path of the Inferno.” Planning, July 2013, p. 15. 92. California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention. “Incident Information.” 2012. http://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/incidents/incidents _stats?year=2011. Retrieved May 9, 2014. 93. Davis, M. Ecology of Fear. New York: Vintage Books, 1999, pp. 97–98. 94. Malibu Complete. “Malibu Fires.” 2012. http://www.malibucomplete.com/mc_hazards _fires.php. Retrieved July 24, 2012. 95. Davis, M. Ecology of Fear. New York: Vintage Books, 1999, p. 108. 96. Oldham, J. “Colorado’s Fire Danger Grows as Residents Occupy High-Risk Areas.” Bloomberg News, July 17, 2012. http://www

421

.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-17/colorado -s-fire-danger-grows-as-residents-occupy -high-risk-areas.html. Retrieved July 18, 2012. 97. Ibid. 98. Forests and Rangelands. “National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy.” 2014. http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/ strategy/. Retrieved May 9, 2014. 99. Heinz, H. J., III, Center for Science, Economics and the Environment. Evaluation of Erosion Hazards. Washington, DC: FEMA, 2000, p. x. 100. Ibid., pp. 3–4. 101. Strauss, B. et al. “Tidally Adjusted Estimates of Topographic Vulnerability to Sea Level Rise and Flooding for the Contiguous United States.” Environmental Research Letters Vol. 7 No.1 (2012). 102. National Research Council. Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future. Washington, DC: National Academic Press, 2012. http://dels .nas.edu/Report/Level-Rise-Coasts/13389. Retrieved July 24, 2012. 103. USGS. “Seattle Seismic Hazard Maps and Data Download.” 2012. http://earthquake.usgs .gov/regional/pacnw/maps/seattle/. Retrieved July 24, 2012. 104. City of Seattle. Earthquake Preparedness: A Brief Summary of Progress and Planning at the City of Seattle. June 2010. http:// www.seattle.gov/emergency/docs/Cityof SeattleEarthquakePreparednessActivities CompletedandFutureEffortsJune2010v2.pdf. Retrieved July 25, 2012. 105. Chang, K. “Agency Projects Economic Risks of Earthquakes Across U.S.” New York Times, September 21, 2000, p. A27; Gajer, R., R. Dobry, W. Silva, T. Thomann, K. Kishore, J. Patel, A. Razzaq, and S. Jain. “2008 New York City DOT Seismic Design Guidelines for Bridges Considering Local Site Conditions.” Sixth National Seismic Conference on Bridges and Highways: Seismic Technologies for Extreme Loads,

422

PART 3: PLANNING FOR NATURAL AREAS

Charleston, SC, July 2008. http://trid.trb.org/ view.aspx?id=1120944. Retrieved July 24, 2012. 106. North Carolina Department of Public Safety. North Carolina Hazard Mitigation Plan, Mitigation Strategy. Raleigh, NC: Department of Public Safety, 2013, p. 1. https://www .nccarimecontrol.org/Index2.cfm?a=000003, 000010,001623,000177,002107. Retrieved May 8, 2014. 107. Ibid. 108. See Beatley, T. Planning for Coastal Resilience: Best Practices for Calamitous Times. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2009. 109. Steinberg, M., and R. Burby. “Growing Safe.” Planning, April 2002, p. 22. 110. Peterka, A. “A Year After Floods, Nashville Looks to Heal ‘Naturally.’” New York Times, April 15, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/ 04/15/15greenwire-a-year-after-floods-nash ville-looks-to-heal-na-55339.html. Retrieved April 26, 2013. 111. City of Greenville, NC. Hazard Mitigation Plan. Greenville, NC: City of Greenville, 2010, pp. 69–71. 112. Ibid., p. 73. 113. City of Sanibel, FL. Sanibel Plan. Sanibel, FL: City of Sanibel, 1997. 114. International Code Council. “International Green Construction Code.” 2012. http:// www.iccsafe.org/cs/IGCC/Pages/default.aspx. Retrieved July 25, 2012. 115. Hampson, R. “Where Nature Is an Immovable Object.” USA Today, July 28, 2000, p. 4A. 116. California Department of Housing and Community Development. Notice of Proposed Action to Building Standards. 2010. http://www .documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/prpsd_chngs/ documents/erm_files/HCD-EF-02-10-NOPA .pdf. Retrieved July 25, 2012. 117. Brinkley, D. The Great Deluge: Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, and the Mississippi Gulf

Coast. New York: HarperCollins, 2006, p. xx; Guarino, M. “For New Orleans, Katrina Anniversary Is Both Solemn and Festive.” Christian Science Monitor, August 30, 2010. http://www.cs monitor.com/USA/2010/0830/For-New -Orleans-Katrina-anniversary-is-both-solemn -and-festive. Retrieved July 24, 2012; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Service Assessment: Hurricane Katrina August 23– 31, 2005. 2006, p. 1. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/ om/assessments/pdfs/Katrina.pdf. Retrieved July 24, 2012. 118. Brinkley, D. The Great Deluge: Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, and the Mississippi Gulf Coast. New York: HarperCollins, 2006, p. 9. 119. Ibid., p. 87. 120. Ibid., p. 19. 121. Ibid., p. 24, p. 359. 122. Ibid., p. 230. 123. Ibid., p. 159, p. 341. 124. Ibid., p. 179, p. 620. 125. Ibid., p. 269. 126. Ibid., p. 412. 127. Ibid., p. 438. 128. Ibid., p. 254. 129. Robertson, C. “Smaller New Orleans After Katrina, Census Shows.” New York Times, February 3, 2011. http://www.nytimes .com/2011/02/04/us/04census.html?page wanted=all. Retrieved July 24, 2012. 130. Wolf, R. “Katrina Cost Continues to Swell.” USA Today, August 22, 2006. http://usatoday30 .usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-21 -katrina-costs_x.htm. Retrieved May 17, 2013. 131. Schwartz, J. “Vast Defenses Now Shielding New Orleans.” New York Times, June 14, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/us/ vast-defenses-now-shielding-new-orleans .html?ref=hurricanekatrina&_r=0. Retrieved May 17, 2013.

Part 4

PLANNING FOR WORKING LANDSCAPES

Chapter 14

PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WORKING LANDSCAPES Farmland and Ranchland

For many communities, preserving open space and farmland is integral to planning for and managing growth. —U.S. General Accounting Office1

The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support a comprehensive food planning process at the community and regional levels. —American Planning Association, Policy Guide on Community and Regional Food Planning2

Farmers and ranchers own most of the privately held land in the U.S., about 915 million acres, or more than 40 percent of the entire nation (see Figure 14.1).3 Farmland and ranchland are renewable natural resources that have the potential to produce food and fiber year after year. But the productivity of these lands can decline or disappear if they are overused, abandoned, polluted, or converted to housing subdivisions, office complexes, and shopping malls. Working

agricultural landscapes provide a rich variety of environmental services: essential food and fiber, wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge, air pollution and carbon dioxide absorption, and scenic viewsheds (see Photo 14.1). Agriculture is a big industry. In 2012, American farmers produced $394 billion in food and fiber products.4 In 2012, the U.S. exported $141 billion worth of farm products and imported $102 billion; farm exports accounted

426

PART 4: PLANNING FOR WORKING LANDSCAPES

Surface area by land cover or use, 2007

Millions of acres and percentage of total surface area

Federal land 402 21%

Cropland 357 18%

Water 51 3%

Pastureland 119 6%

Developed land 111 6% Other rural land 50 2%

CRP land 33 2%

Forestland 406 21%

Rangeland 409 21%

Total surface area = 1,938 million acres Figure 14.1. Ownership of Land and Land Uses in the Lower 48 States, 2007 Note: CRP = Conservation Reserve Program. Total private land = 1,485,000,000 acres. Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, Summary Report, National Resources Inventory, 2007, p. 6.

for more than 10 percent of all U.S. exports that year.5 Nationwide, the average farm size is nearly 500 acres. Although there are slightly more than 2.1 million farms, many farms can be called “hobby farms” because they produce less than $10,000 a year in gross sales, and the owners rely mainly on off-farm jobs. The top 250,000 commercial farms produced about 89 percent of all farm output in 2012.6

14.1: Challenges to Maintaining Working Agricultural Landscapes The Business of Farming and Ranching

Farmers and ranchers face five challenges in managing their businesses: maintaining profitability, ensuring a safe and environmentally

CHAPTER 14: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WORKING LANDSCAPES

427

Photo 14.1. Agricultural landscapes provide a rich array of environmental services. Source: Tom Daniels.

responsible management of their operations, passing the farm or ranch on to the next generation, resisting the temptation to sell land for development, and protecting the farm or ranch from conflicts with nonfarm neighbors. Profitability. Commercial farms and ranches are businesses. Businesses change over time, and owners need to innovate and adapt. If farmers and ranchers can earn a

decent living, they usually will stay on the land. Typically, the farm or ranch is the largest single asset the family owns. The land serves as a bank account, an insurance policy, and a retirement fund. Sooner or later, every farmer or rancher faces three choices of what to do with the land: (1) sell it to the highest bidder, often for development; (2) pass it on to a family member through sale, gift, or will; or (3) sell it to another farmer or rancher.

428

PART 4: PLANNING FOR WORKING LANDSCAPES

Box 14.1. The Agricultural Productivity Boom and Federal Farm Subsidies At the start of the 20th century, about one out of every three Americans, roughly 25 million people, lived on farms. Today, fewer than 5 million people live on farms, or less than 2 percent of the nation’s population. The reasons for this demographic shift were led by scientific breakthroughs in crop yields thanks to hybrid seed varieties, fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides; also, mechanization in the form of tractors, combines, and milking machines enabled one person to do the work of many. Livestock production increased through better breeding and nutrition, resulting in more quickly marketable meat and greater milk production per cow. Expensive public irrigation projects combined with subsidized water for farms boosted crop output. Also important were the federal farm credit

Which choice the landowner makes will depend on several factors, including (a) age, health, and financial condition of the owner; (b) if any children want to take over the farm or ranch; (c) how much money the farm or ranch would be worth as a development property; (d) the number of farms or ranches nearby; and (e) personal goals and values. The trend toward larger commercial farms is likely to continue; this is especially true for dairy and livestock production and for farms growing corn, soybeans, wheat, and cotton. Yet the number of small commercial farms is increasing. These farms typically raise vegetables, fruits, nursery crops, and livestock for niche markets. Caught in the middle are the traditional family farms with annual gross sales of $100,000 to $400,000. They are facing a financial squeeze that will force some

system, which helps finance farm operations; the land-grant university system, which conducts agricultural research and education; and the Cooperative Extension Service, which transfers information to farmers. Federal farm payments and commodity price supports have been important for keeping farmers in business and keeping land in farming. But because the payments are mostly based on volume of production, the larger farms have reaped most of the subsidies. In fact, the top 10 percent of farms received three-quarters of the subsidies between 1995 and 2011, while nearly twothirds of all farmers received no subsidies at all.7 While farm subsidies vary from year to year, they have averaged more than $15 billion a year from 1995 to 2011.8

farmers to expand, some to become producers for niche markets, and others to leave farming altogether. Safe and environmentally sound management. Farming is a leading source of water pollution (see Chapter 6). Minimizing soil erosion and careful application of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and manure are essential to protect the quality of surface water and groundwater. Careful use of water sources for irrigation is necessary for sustainable water supplies (see Chapter 5). Good management of soil and water resources costs money, and federal or state funding is often available to help cover much of the farmer’s costs. Soil and water management pays dividends in land productivity in the long run. Passing on the farm. The average age of America’s farmers and ranchers is about

CHAPTER 14: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WORKING LANDSCAPES

58 years old.9 This means that in the next few decades, millions of acres of farm and ranch land will change hands. What happens to that land will have long-term effects on working landscapes, environmental quality, and development patterns in communities throughout the U.S. In suburban areas and near rural resorts, the increased value of farm or ranch land as potential development sites has made passing the farm on to the next generation more difficult. In a few cases, heirs were compelled to sell the land, usually for development, in order to pay the estate taxes. The 2012 federal estate tax law provided substantial estate tax relief.10 Starting in 2013, each person has a $5.25 million lifetime estate tax exemption, indexed to inflation. A couple who own a farm or ranch can pass on to heirs up to $10.5 million of value without triggering the estate tax. With this large exemption, passing on the farm or ranch will affect very few landowners. For landowners who will pass on a taxable estate, they can lower the value of their land for estate tax purposes by selling or donating a perpetual conservation easement (see Table 14.4). Resisting the temptation to sell land for development. In metropolitan areas, the price of farmland for farming is generally much lower than it is for housing lots and commercial sites. As development pressures mount, farmers become tempted to sell lots for development or else sell the entire farm for development. When farmland is subdivided and developed, the land base becomes fragmented and land prices increase. The remaining farmers have a harder time finding land to rent or buy to expand their operations. Conflicts with nonfarm neighbors tend to increase over farm smells, dust, noise, and slow-moving farm machinery on roads. Also, property taxes increase as new residents demand more public services—schools, roads, police and fire protection, and central sewer and water facilities.

429

Farm support businesses have fewer customers and may be forced to close. Some remaining farmers may reduce their investments in their farms as they perceive the sale of their land for development to be inevitable. This “impermanence syndrome” means that the local agricultural industry is likely headed for a decline.11 Protecting farmland from conflicts with nonfarm neighbors. Farming today is an industrial activity that is not compatible with most residential and commercial development. Farmers apply chemicals that can drift onto neighboring properties. Dust from plowing can also blow onto adjacent properties. Livestock farming generates large amounts of manure, and the unpleasant odors can cross property boundaries. Farm machinery and large trucks from food processing firms can produce loud noise as well as slow local traffic. Nonfarm developments may compete with farms over local water supplies that farmers rely on for irrigation and watering livestock. Chapter 10 discussed the importance of a critical mass of land to support wildlife habitat and plant species and the threat to habitats from the fragmentation of the land base. Critical mass in the working landscape means that a minimum number of acres and farms or ranches are needed to sustain the local agricultural industry. Like wildlife, once farming leaves a community, it is very difficult to bring it back in any significant way. Thus it is important for communities to avoid the fragmentation of the working landscape and to support their local agricultural industry. The popularity of farmers markets, for example, has been a boon to local farmers. Ultimately, the protection of farmland in metropolitan areas will succeed only if America’s cities and older suburbs can be redeveloped to accommodate much of the nation’s anticipated population growth (see Chapter 19).

430

PART 4: PLANNING FOR WORKING LANDSCAPES

Farmland Loss

Good-quality farmland is a limited resource. Prime farmland has highly productive soils, a slope of 8 percent or less, and adequate rainfall or access to water for irrigation and requires less fertilizer and erosion control than nonprime farmland. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) rates prime farmland as Class I or Class II soil types (see Table 14.1). Agricultural soils of statewide importance are rated Class III, and some unique soils, such as for orchards, are rated Class IV. The U.S. has about 326 million acres of prime farmland, of which 202 million acres were used for crop production in 2007.12 Developers of housing, office parks, and shopping centers are drawn to prime farmland because it is the easiest land to develop. According to the NRCS, about 40 million acres of land were developed in the U.S., mainly for urban use, between 1982 and 2007.13 These 40 million acres accounted for more than onethird of the 111 million acres of developed land in the U.S. More than 23 million acres of farm and ranch lands were developed from 1982 to 2007, about half of which was prime farmland and mainly in metropolitan areas.14 Metropolitan areas produce about onequarter of the nation’s food. Counties adjacent to metropolitan counties contain produce around one-third of total farm output. About half of the nation’s 600 leading agricultural counties are either within or adjacent to major metropolitan areas, including Fresno County, California, the nation’s leading agricultural county, which produced nearly $5 billion in farm products in 2012.15 The 2007 National Resources Inventory reported that, on average, more than 600,000 acres a year of prime cropland were removed from production between 2002 and 2007; however, adding in rangeland and pastureland pushes the annual total conversion of farmland to more than 1.4 million acres a year, equal to

the acres of land that was developed from 2002 to 2007.16 State- and county-level information on farmland acreage is provided in the Census of Agriculture, published every five years. But the Census of Agriculture numbers are based on sampling and surveys and do not indicate what uses the farmland is converted to. From a national perspective, the loss of farmland is not yet a threat to America’s overall food supply. Yet a number of key agricultural areas produce a large proportion of America’s food, and many of these areas are experiencing strong development pressures. The Central Valley of California is the nation’s premier source of fruits and vegetables, but by the year 2040, urban sprawl could convert 1 million acres of valley farmland. Already, commuters to the San Francisco Bay Area and Silicon Valley have settled in the Central Valley 80 miles away. New York and Pennsylvania are leading dairy states, but they have large urban populations that have been leaving the central cities and moving into the countryside. Florida and Texas have important farming industries and continue to attract new residents. The growth of urban agriculture is a positive trend for greater urban sustainability (see Chapter 19). Yet it is important to note the limitations of urban agriculture. Urban farms are forbidden from keeping livestock, except chickens in some cases. Also, crops that require large acreages, such as wheat and soybeans, are not likely to be found in cities. Connections between urban food consumers and local growers just outside the city are especially important to create and maintain. Planners can help with protective agricultural zoning and by allowing farmstands, U-pick operations, bed and breakfast establishments, and even agri-tainment activities, such as hayrides, petting zoos, and special events on farms. Farmers close to the cities can take the produce to sell at farmers markets in the cities or sell directly to restaurants, consumers, and food companies.

CHAPTER 14: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WORKING LANDSCAPES

431

Table 14.1. Farmland Capability Ratings Soils Class

General Slope

Erosion Factor

Limitations

Class I (prime)

Slight

Slight

Class II (prime)

3%–8%

Moderate

Class III (statewide importance)

8%–15%

High

Many limitations; use special conservation practices

Class IV

15%–25%

Severe

Many limitations; very careful management required

Few limitations that would restrict use Some limitations; use conservation practices

Class V

Very low productivity: pasture, range, woodland, wildlife uses

Class VI

Severe limitations; few crops, pasture, woodland, wildlife uses

Class VII

Very severe limitations; no crops; use only for range, pasture, wildlife

Class VIII

Most limited; use only for range, woodlands, wildlife, aesthetics

Also, there are four subclasses that describe particular soil limitations: e for erosion, w for wetness, i for internal soil problems, and c for climate. For example, a Class IIe soil is at risk for erosion and a Class IIIw soil has poor drainage or a high water table. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS. “Soils.” http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_054226. Retrieved May 9, 2014.

in planning for farmland protection. According to a 2000 report by the General Accounting Office (GAO), there is no general federal policy on the protection of farmland.17 The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 was intended to have federal agencies avoid projects that would convert prime farmland. So far, most of 14.2: Federal Planning the federal projects have involved highways. for Farmland Protection A weakness of the act is that it does not give The federal government has provided relatively private citizens any authority to oppose the little direction for state and local governments federal projects. Few, if any, projects have been In sum, food-systems planning combines farmland protection, economic and community development, and improved nutrition to make stronger communities and healthier people.

432

PART 4: PLANNING FOR WORKING LANDSCAPES

Box 14.2. Urban Food Systems and Food Systems Planning Providing adequate supplies of healthy, nutritious food to urban dwellers has become a nationwide issue. Cities, such as Chicago, have identified “food deserts” where neighborhoods have no grocery stores. Also, corner stores often do not carry fresh fruits and vegetables. Several cities, such as Baltimore and Philadelphia, have thousands of abandoned lots that could be reclaimed for community gardens. Milwaukee has been a leader in urban farming, and in New York City, urban farms are sprouting on rooftops. Community gardens and urban farms provide fresh fruits and vegetables as well as recreation. They also

Photo 14.2. Farmers market in Burlington, VT. Source: Tom Daniels.

beautify neighborhoods and are a source of community pride. The number of farmers markets nationwide more than quadrupled from about 1,700 in 1994 to an estimated 7,800 in 2011 (see Photo 14.2).18 Increasingly, consumers want to know where their food comes from and who is producing it. For farmers, direct sales to consumers help bolster their bottom line. Planners can help promote community gardens and farmers markets through zoning. Several nonprofit organizations, such as the Food Trust based in Philadelphia, work on turning vacant lots into urban farms and setting up farmers markets.

CHAPTER 14: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WORKING LANDSCAPES

denied because of the act. The GAO study commented that the act has been “ineffective” and a “toothless tool” because federal agencies can convert farmland with impunity.19 In fact, federal spending on highways and sewer and water facilities, along with the federal home mortgage interest subsidy, have encouraged the conversion of millions of acres of farmland to suburban development. In 1996, Congress created the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP) to make grants to state and local governments and land trusts to buy conservation easements (development rights) to farmland. The initial $35 million in funding helped leverage state and local funds that resulted in the preservation of about 67,000 acres, according to the American Farmland Trust.20 To build on this success, Congress authorized $985 million over 10 years for farmland preservation grants in the 2002 Farm Bill, and in the 2008 Farm Bill, Congress authorized another $893 million over five years.21 The 2002 Farm Bill funding resulted in the preservation of about 466,000 acres in 49 states.22 The 2008 Farm Bill resulted in the preservation of more than 575,000 acres in 42 states.23 As of 2013, the FRPP program had spent $1.2 billion to preserve 1.1 million acres of agricultural land.24 State and local governments apply for the federal funds through the state office of the NRCS. The national office of NRCS then decides how the grant funds will be allocated among the states. The 2002 Farm Bill created the Grassland Reserve Program to provide funding to provide a voluntary way for ranchers and other landowners to protect and restore rangeland and grazing land. Since 1830, more than 90 percent of the original tall grass prairie has disappeared.25 The program offers a yearly rental payment based on a contract period of 10, 15, or 20 years or permanent conservation easements. In the case of easements, the federal government puts up half of the cost with state and local governments or

433

nonprofit land trusts. As of 2011, landowners had placed permanent conservation easements on more than 300,000 acres.26 The 2014 Farm Bill combined the FRPP, the Grassland Reserve Program, and the Wetland Reserve Program into a single Agricultural Conservation Easement Program and funded the program at $400 million a year over five years. The Secretary of Agriculture has discretion over how much of the authorized spending to allocate to each of the three land conservation programs.

14.3: State Farmland Protection Programs Farmland protection programs exist in every state. Most states have passed enabling legislation that allows county and municipal governments to use a variety of planning tools, such as agricultural zoning, the purchase of development rights, and the transfer of development rights to help direct growth away from farming areas. States can enhance local efforts by offering farmland owners property tax incentives, legal protection, and financial incentives to keep their land in farming. Preferential Property Taxation

Forty-eight states offer preferential assessment on farmland by assessing the land for tax purposes at its use-value as farmland rather than its “highest and best use” as potential residential, commercial, or industrial property. Thus the farmer’s property tax bill is much less than what it would be if the farm were assessed as a development property. There are three varieties of preferential assessment: (1) simple preferential assessment, in which a landowner voluntarily enrolls the land and can withdraw

434

PART 4: PLANNING FOR WORKING LANDSCAPES

the land at any time without a penalty; (2) preferential assessment with a “rollback” provision (also known as deferred taxation) to recapture tax benefits along with an interest penalty if farmland is withdrawn from the preferential assessment program or sold for development; and (3) preferential assessment based on a contract that lasts for 10 to 25 years. Preferential farmland assessment programs alone have not been successful in keeping farmland from being developed. The tax breaks are small compared to the prices that developers routinely offer farmers. Many farmers have benefited from preferential taxation as they wait to sell their farms for development. Moreover, because eligibility requirements are often minimal (e.g., 10 acres and at least $1,000 a year in gross farm sales), preferential assessment programs have been widely abused by land speculators and hobby farmers who earn nearly all their income away from the farm. In these cases, the property tax break is subsidizing the speculator’s holding costs while the land appreciates in value or is subsidizing the hobby farmer’s rural lifestyle. Preferential assessment programs need to be reworked to target tax benefits to commercial farm operations that contribute significantly to the local and regional farming industry. Most states require local governments to conduct a new assessment of property value about every five years, which usually results in increased assessments. While use-value taxation of farmland in growing communities provides some protection against soaring tax bills based on highest and best use, the property tax rate may still rise to pay for additional public services demanded by the growing population. Preferential assessment does not place a limit on the property tax rate. In most places, the tax rate is consists of two parts: the real estate tax and the school tax. School taxes make up half to three-quarters of the local tax burden. As more people move into an area

and new schools must be built, the school tax can increase sharply. The State of New York has addressed the school tax issue by giving a credit against state income taxes to farmers based on the amount of school taxes they pay. Preferential assessment is an important ingredient in a package of farmland protection programs. It makes sense to link preferential assessment to land zoned for farming as is done in Maryland and Oregon. Preferential assessment is also important for farmers who sell development rights or donate conservation easements. These farmers want some assurance that if they preserve their land for farming, they will not eventually be taxed off the land. Harford County, Maryland, even exempts preserved farmland from the county property tax.27 Right-to-Farm Laws

A right-to-farm law is designed to reduce conflicts between farmers and nonfarm neighbors. Often, people from urban and suburban areas move to the countryside to enjoy the open spaces and what they perceive to be a safer, calmer, and cleaner way of life. But most farming operations involve heavy machinery and chemical sprays, and many others raise livestock and handle large amounts of manure. Newcomers are not accustomed to the noise, dust, odors, and slow-moving farm machinery on local roads. In some cases, newcomers have tried to enact nuisance ordinances that would restrict farming activities to certain times of the day. In other cases, nonfarm neighbors have taken farmers to court over farming practices. Right-to-farm laws exist in every state except Iowa. Some county and township governments have enacted their own right-tofarm laws as well. The laws generally mean that a farmer cannot be found to create a nuisance if the farmer is following standard

CHAPTER 14: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WORKING LANDSCAPES

farming practices. Right-to-farm laws do not make farmers exempt from state and federal pollution and safety laws. And in some states, farmers may be vulnerable to legal challenges if they attempt to dramatically expand their operations, such as from 150 dairy cows to 900, or if they change the type of operation, such as from grain farming to raising hogs. Right-to-farm laws do not prohibit a neighbor from taking a farmer to court. Michigan acted to minimize the vulnerability of farmers to frivolous nuisance suits by allowing a judge to require the neighbor to pay the farmer’s court costs and attorney’s fees if the judge rules against the neighbor’s complaint.28 Rightto-farm laws have not been widely tested. They are sure to come under more scrutiny in the future given the changing perceptions of what is a farm and what is a standard farming practice (see the case study in Section 14.6). On the one hand, farmers must operate their farms as good neighbors. On the other, people who move to the countryside need to be aware that farming is a business and, in most cases, the farmers were there first. Agricultural Districts

Agricultural districts are a voluntary way to offer farmers limited protection without land-use restrictions such as zoning. The provisions of agricultural districts vary somewhat from state to state. But in general, farmers must enroll a certain minimum amount of land, usually 250 acres, and receive approval from a local township or county government. The benefits of a district may include • use-value property tax assessment; • exemption from local nuisance laws that would restrict normal farming practices;

435

• greater protection from eminent domain actions by governments; • exemption from sewer and water line assessments; • limits on the extension of public sewer and water lines and roads into the district; and • eligibility to apply to sell development rights to a county or state government. Farmers in 21 states have enrolled more than 30 million acres in agricultural districts. Most districts are formed in rural areas under little development pressure. When a farmer withdraws land from an agricultural district, a rollback of property taxes may be due. Agricultural districts make the most sense when combined with agricultural zoning and preferential property tax programs. This way, the farmers in agricultural districts receive lower property taxes and some protection from nonfarm development. Purchase of Development Rights

The purchase of development rights (PDR; also known as a conservation easement) is a voluntary transaction in which a farmer receives a cash payment in return for signing a contract, called a deed of easement, that restricts the use of the land to farming and open space. Most sales of development rights are permanent, though a deed of easement may specify a fixed term, such as 30 years. PDR programs have gained in popularity since the first one was created in Suffolk County, New York, in the 1970s. As of 2012, 27 states, dozens of counties, and many townships had enacted PDR programs and spent about $5 billion in public funds to preserve 2.7 million acres farmland (see Tables 14.2 and 14.3).29 Forty-six states allow local governments to spend public dollars to acquire development rights to private

436

PART 4: PLANNING FOR WORKING LANDSCAPES

Table 14.2. Leading State Programs in Farmland Preserved, 2012 State

Acres Preserved

Dollars Spent (State and Local Funds)

Delaware

104,960

187.3 million

Maryland

279,223

588.6 million

Massachusetts

68,000

238.5 million

New Jersey

199,858

1.5 billion

New York

45,541

113.4 million

Ohio

54,143

51.5 million

Pennsylvania

465,953

1.1 billion

Vermont

170,000

83.0 million

1,387,678

3.8623 billion

Total

Source: D. Bowers, Farmland Preservation Report, September 2012. Street, MD: Bowers Publishing. http://www .farmlandpreservationreport.com/. Retrieved October 30, 2012.

property. In smaller states, such as in New England, the statewide PDR program has not involved local funding. In larger states, state PDR funds have been used to match local funds, creating an incentive for the creation of county and township PDR programs. In America, a landowner actually owns a bundle of rights to the land. These rights include water rights, air rights, mineral rights, the right to sell the land, the right to pass it along to heirs, the right to use the land, and the right to develop it. Any one of these rights can be separated off from the bundle and sold, donated, or otherwise encumbered. When a landowner sells development rights to a local or state government, the landowner gives up only the right to develop the land. The landowner retains all other rights and responsibilities that go with land ownership, such as the

right to sell the property and the responsibility for property taxes. Despite the government’s investment, the land remains private property and no public access is allowed. But the landowner must practice good stewardship, and every year or two, the property will be visited and inspected by the agency holding the development rights. Preserved farms can be passed on to heirs or sold, though the restrictions spelled out in the deed of easement also apply to future landowners. The value of the development rights of a farm is determined by an appraisal, based on comparable sales of (a) farms with development rights to determine a market value and (b) farms with development rights sold off to determine a restricted agricultural value. The difference between the market value of the subject farm and the restricted agricultural

CHAPTER 14: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WORKING LANDSCAPES

437

Table 14.3. Leading Counties in Farmland Preserved, 2011 County

Acres Preserved

1. Lancaster County, Pennsylvania

90,280

2. Montgomery County, Maryland

71,865

3. Berks County, Pennsylvania

69,227

4. Carroll County, Maryland

61,807

5. Chester County, Pennsylvania

60,493

6. Baltimore County, Maryland

54,620

7. Burlington County, New Jersey

52,287

8. Marin County, California

46,640

9. Harford County, Maryland

45,404

10. Sonoma County, California

43,128

Total

595,751

Note: Includes farmland preserved by state and local governments and private land trusts. Source: Farmland Preservation Report, October 2011. Street, MD: Bowers Publishing. http://www.farmland preservationreport.com/. Retrieved October 30, 2012.

value is the value of the development rights (see Table 14.4). The development rights payment is taxed as a capital gain. This means that a seller can deduct any basis (cost of buying the farm plus improvements minus depreciation) in the farm ($170,000 in Table 14.4) from the payment to determine the taxable capital gain. Selling development rights enables farmers to get cash out of their land without actually having to sell the land. Farmers have used the cash payment to invest in the farm operation, establish a retirement fund, and pay down mortgages. The sale of development rights reduces the value of the farm for federal estate tax purposes and

thus can help in passing the farm on to heirs. Finally, many farmers love their land and never want to see it converted to nonfarm uses. PDR programs can be expensive. Communities and counties will have to decide whether they want to spend millions of dollars to preserve farmland. In areas with heavy development pressure, farmers have sold development rights for more than $10,000 an acre. At that cost, governments can save little farmland. Instead, the preserved farmland will likely become “islands” of open land amid a suburban landscape. On the other hand, there may be no compelling reason to spend public money to preserve farmland that is remote

438

PART 4: PLANNING FOR WORKING LANDSCAPES

Table 14.4. Purchase of Development Rights Example 250-Acre Farm $1,200,000 appraised fair market value $700,000 appraised value restricted to farming or open space ________ $500,000 appraised easement value and cash paid Subtract

$170,000 landowner’s basis in farm (basis is the cost of the land and buildings plus improvements minus depreciation) _______ $330,000 taxable capital gain

Gains tax due at 15% federal and 5% state = $66,000 Net return on sale of development rights = $434,000

Box 14.3. Land Trusts and Farmland Preservation In the 1990s, private land trusts expanded their land-saving role by preserving significant amounts of farmland. By 2010, more than 550 land trusts listed farmland preservation as one of their goals, but about 50 land trusts have focused on preserving agricultural land and have permanently protected nearly 3 million acres.30 Land trusts may buy a perpetual conservation easement (development rights), accept donations of conservation easements, or do a bargain sale of part cash and part donation. The Marin Agricultural Land Trust has preserved

more than 46,000 acres in Marin County, California, just north of San Francisco. The Vermont Land Trust has worked closely with the State of Vermont to help preserve more than 140,000 acres of farmland. The Colorado Cattlemen’s Agricultural Land Trust (CCALT), created in the early 1990s, is a fascinating example of ranchers forming their own land trust to work on preserving land with their fellow ranchers. By 2013, the CCALT had preserved more than 400,000 acres of ranchlands, primarily through the donation of conservation easements.31

CHAPTER 14: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WORKING LANDSCAPES

from development. Areas of moderate growth pressure are ideal for PDR programs because the costs to the public are reasonable, yet the PDR prices are usually high enough to interest farmers. PDR programs are attractive because they offer a more permanent solution than zoning and provide private landowners with financial compensation in return for giving up the right to put developments. PDR programs avoid the Fifth Amendment takings challenge that can hamper agricultural zoning. But PDR programs

439

can make agricultural zoning more palatable because they offer compensation to landowners for land-use restrictions. A good practice is to preserve farmland in large contiguous blocks of several hundred acres or more (See Photo 14.3). Such sizable areas help reduce land-use conflicts by keeping development at a distance and channeling development to appropriate locations. For example, PDR programs can help create urban and village growth boundaries (see Photo 14.4). Finally, as more farmland is preserved, the more

Photo 14.3. Part of a contiguous block of 9,000 acres of preserved farmland in northwestern Lancaster County, PA. Source: Tom Daniels.

440

PART 4: PLANNING FOR WORKING LANDSCAPES

likely it is that the farm support businesses will Inventory remain in operation and sustain agriculture as The first step is to identify agricultural resources, a local and regional industry. including the number of farms, acres in farming, location of farms, land ownership patterns, soil quality, types of agriculture, annual value 14.4: Local Planning for of farm production, and agricultural-related Farmland Protection employment and any agricultural-related industries in the community. Most of this information The guiding document in any farmland protec- is available at the county and state level from tion effort should be the county or township the federal Census of Agriculture. State departcomprehensive plan. Yet some comprehensive ments of agriculture also publish annual reports plans fail to mention farmland protection or on county farming. The state land-grant univerthe importance of farming to the community. sity and the county cooperative extension serFarmland protection can be a key ingredient vice can also be of help. in managing and directing community growth The NRCS has published soil surveys of all over the next 20 years or more. Members of the counties in the U.S. The NRCS has digitized the farm community can be included in the many of these surveys for use in GISs. County comprehensive planning process by being and municipal property tax maps can also help appointed to the planning commission, serv- identify farms; most tax maps are digitized as ing on a citizens’ advisory committee to the well. The tax map layer superimposed on the planning commission, or participating in pub- soils layer can provide good information on farm locations as well as land quality. Additional GIS lic hearings on the plan. If agriculture is part of the local economy, data layers can include sewer and water lines, planners can discuss it in the natural resources waterways, roads, and the location of nonfarm inventory, economic base, and land use sec- development. These data indicate potential tions of the comprehensive plan. In the past, conflicts between farms and nonfarm developmany local governments listed farmland as ment as well as where it makes sense to locate “vacant” on their current and future land-use future development to minimize conflicts. Finally, the inventory could include a surmaps. This indicates an intention to see this land developed into nonfarm uses. In reality, vey of farmers about whether they are interested in staying on the farm or passing it on to farmland is “developed” land; farmers make the next generation. Farmland protection does substantial investments in the land to mainnot work without the support of a sizable segtain and enhance its productivity. Local govment of the farming community. If farmers in ernments must make a conscious decision a community or region do not see a future in whether they want to have agricultural operafarming, there is no way the public can force tions as part of the future of their communities. them to continue farming. Above all, it is essential that local governments not confuse farmland protection with open space protection. Farming is a business that Analysis provides open space. To keep the land open, farming must provide farmland owners with a Communities and regions must determine how much of a farming industry there is to protect. decent income.

CHAPTER 14: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WORKING LANDSCAPES

Many local governments, especially in rapidly suburbanizing areas, decide to undertake a farmland protection program when there are only a few remaining farms. In these cases, the best that can be done is protecting some open space that will give some feel of what the area was like when it was rural. But this is very different from protecting a working landscape. The location, size, and types of farm operations will suggest the potential for farmland protection and the appropriate techniques to use. Ideally, a community will have several contiguous farms that are separated from residential and commercial areas. In these cases, agricultural zoning of only one dwelling per 20 or more acres and the purchase and transfer of development rights are valid farmland

441

protection options. But in many metropolitan areas, nonfarm residences are often scattered throughout farming areas and few farms are contiguous to other farms. Agricultural zoning will be a tough sell in these places because farmers can see the increased value of their land for development. Transfer or purchase of development rights may not work effectively because the farms and developing areas are not clearly separated. Goals and Objectives

Planners can state goals and objectives for agriculture and farmland in the natural resources, economic base, and land use sections of the comprehensive plan (see Table 14.5). In

Table 14.5. Sample Goals and Objectives for Farmland and the Farming Industry in the Comprehensive Plan Section: Natural Resources Goal: Encourage the sustainable use of valuable agricultural land while maintaining environmental quality. Objective: Separate commercial farming operations from residential and commercial development. Objective: Coordinate with state governments on right-to-farm laws, agricultural districts, and use-value property tax assessment. Section: Economic Base Goal: Promote the development of individual farming businesses and the growth of agriculture as a local industry. Objective: Revise the zoning ordinance to allow farmstands on farms and bed and breakfast operations. Pursue funding for the creation of farmers markets. Section: Land Use Goal: Avoid conflicts between farm operations and nonfarm development. Objective: Use the zoning ordinance to separate areas designated for future growth from commercial agricultural areas.

442

PART 4: PLANNING FOR WORKING LANDSCAPES

economic development to help farmers earn a decent living and afford to keep farming.

particular, planners should recognize agriculture as a valid form of economic development, providing incomes, jobs, and tax base (see Box 14.4).

• Place commercial livestock operations in agricultural zones, and require farm buildAction Strategy ings to have long setbacks from neighborThrough the Action Strategy, planners can recing properties. ommend techniques and programs for achiev- • Conduct a build-out scenario showing the ing the goals and objectives for farmland and number of nonfarm dwellings that could the local agricultural industry. The Action Stratbe built in farming areas under the current egy should include measurable benchmarks zoning. and a timetable for reaching those benchmarks. • Explore local, state, federal, and private land The Action Strategy might include the foltrust funding for preserving valuable agrilowing specific recommendations: cultural lands. • Create a farmland protection package of techniques, such as use-value property taxation, agricultural zoning, purchase or transfer of development rights, and

Zoning Ordinances

Hundreds of local governments use agricultural zoning to protect farmland. The purposes of

Box 14.4. Agricultural Economic Development Most local governments overlook the poten- • local value-added food manufacturing, tial of agricultural-related economic develsuch as bakeries opment. More jobs are created in processing • direct delivery of milk and transporting farm products than on the farm. And there is considerable potential • greenhouse produce for linking farmers directly with consumers, The more profitable farming is, the more such as the following possibilities: likely farmland will stay in production. Local zoning ordinances and land-development • community-supported agriculture in and subdivision regulations can balance which nonfarmers buy shares in what a support for these enterprises with standards farmer produces to ensure that they are operated in environ• farm markets, farmstands, and U-pick mentally friendly ways. For example, zonoperations ing can allow farm-based businesses, such • farm festivals and farm vacations at bed as farmstands up to a certain size. Landand breakfast operations development and subdivision standards • wineries can ensure that additional buildings will not cause stormwater runoff problems. • organic produce

CHAPTER 14: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WORKING LANDSCAPES

agricultural zoning are to protect high-quality soils, separate conflicting farm and nonfarmland uses, slow the conversion of farmland to other uses, and prevent the fragmentation of the farmland base into parcels too small to farm. It is important to differentiate between effective agricultural zoning that protects farmland from development and weak agricultural zoning that allows a large number of nonfarm residences. Many communities employ what they call agricultural-residential or rural zoning, but typically these zones have one- or two-acre minimum lot sizes that fragment the land base, permit many new homes in the countryside, and raise land prices. These zones are really rural residential zones that will eventually lose most of the farms. The State of Oregon has allowed counties to designate rural residential zones with three- to five-acre minimum lot sizes generally on lower-quality soils and away from commercial farming areas. Some local governments allow the clustering of houses and the retention of some open space in an attempt to maintain rural character (see Chapter 20). But it is clear that rural residential zones are not meant to protect agricultural land over the long run. Effective agricultural zoning regulations strictly control (a) the land uses allowed in the zone, (b) the number and size of new farm parcels, (c) the number of nonfarm dwellings allowed, (d) the minimum or maximum lot size and siting standards for building nonfarm dwellings, and (e) setbacks for farm buildings from property lines. Outright permitted uses typically include farm buildings and structures (but not including large confined animal feeding operations, or CAFOs) and farmhouses that will not be subdivided off the farm. A few California counties use exclusive farm zones in which only farm-related development is allowed. Conditional-use review usually applies to large projects such as airports, landfills, or CAFOs. A controversial issue is whether

443

to allow golf courses in agricultural zones. Golf course developments almost always bring additional residential development. At a minimum, golf courses should be allowed only as conditional uses and probably not at all in agricultural areas where livestock are prevalent. There are three main types of agricultural zoning: (1) large minimum lot size, (2) fixedarea ratio, and (3) sliding scale. Several major agricultural counties in California and the Midwest employ minimum lot sizes of 40 acres or more. Oregon has required all its counties with commercial farming operations to zone farmland for minimum lot sizes of 40 acres or more. This large lot size discourages nonfarm buyers and helps maintain a critical mass of farmland to support farm-related supply, processing, and transportation businesses. Counties and communities that use minimum lot sizes of 5 or 10 acres do not protect commercial agriculture but instead may cause more land to be taken out of farming than is necessary and may run the risk of having the zoning invalidated by the courts as an “exclusionary” form of residential zoning. Fixed-area ratio zoning is density based, such as one dwelling per 25 acres with the dwelling sited on a lot of no more than two acres. In this case, if a landowner owned 125 acres, the landowner would be allowed to subdivide five two-acre building lots and would retain 115 acres for the farm operation. Fixed-area ratio zoning is used effectively in more than 30 townships in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Sliding-scale agricultural zoning allows nonfarm dwellings according to the sizes of farm parcels but not on a fixed ratio. For example, a sliding scale might allow one additional dwelling on parcels of 2 to 25 acres, another dwelling on 25.1 to 60 acres, another dwelling on 60.1 to 100 acres, and another dwelling on farms more than 100 acres. In this case, the sliding scale limits the total number of new nonfarm dwellings subdivided from a farm

444

PART 4: PLANNING FOR WORKING LANDSCAPES

more than 100 acres to no more than four. In addition, siting standards should require that nonfarm residences be sited on lower-quality soils and in locations where they will not conflict with neighboring farm operations. Setbacks for farm buildings from property lines and for nonfarm residences from property lines are important for limiting conflicts between neighbors. Setbacks can vary from a few hundred feet to a quarter of a mile for farm buildings; the longer setback is recommended for CAFOs that produce large amounts of manure and odors. Setbacks for neighboring nonfarm residences should be at least 100 feet, and screening in the form of trees, shrubs, and earth berms is recommended to intercept dust, odors, and noise from adjacent farm operations. Some farmers oppose agricultural zoning because they fear it restricts their ability to sell land for development. But agricultural zoning provides commercial farmers with a stable land base and a minimum of intrusion of nonfarm development. Moreover, agricultural zoning is often critical to the success of PDR and TDR programs. Once a farmer has sold development rights, the farmer does not want to see dozens of new houses built next door. Many local government officials are concerned about potential legal challenges based on Fifth Amendment takings if they downzone land to agricultural use. But agricultural zoning is legal and defensible if it is tied to the goals, objectives, inventory, and analysis of the comprehensive plan, furthers a public purpose, is reasonable, and does not remove all economic use of the property.

structures and manure storage facilities may affect stormwater management and groundwater and surface water quality and should be reviewed according to the local landdevelopment regulations. An environmental impact assessment is appropriate for the proposed construction or significant expansion of a CAFO. Similarly, an environmental impact assessment can be done for any proposed major residential subdivisions in farming areas. At a minimum, the subdivision ordinance can require buffering berms and vegetation between residences and commercial farm operations. Capital Improvements Program

Communities can use the capital improvements program to direct growth and development away from commercial farming areas and to maintain compact development. Major roads, schools, and extensions of public sewer and water systems can be kept out of farming areas—especially land zoned for agriculture and agricultural districts—in order to discourage intensive residential and commercial development. Public PDR programs to preserve farmland should be seen as investments in green infrastructure and part of the capital improvements program. Urban and Village Growth Boundaries

Accommodating nonfarm development in a compact style that minimizes sprawl is important for protecting farmland. Perhaps the single best technique for promoting compact development is the urban growth boundary (UGB) Subdivision Regulations and its smaller variation, the Village Growth Many states do not allow local governments Boundary (VGB). A growth boundary is based to directly regulate farm-related development. on an agreement between a city and county or Still, the construction of animal confinement city and township. The agreement designates

CHAPTER 14: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WORKING LANDSCAPES

a boundary line outside a city or village that includes within the boundary enough buildable land to support development over the next 10 to 20 years, based on population projections and land-use needs to support that population (see Figure 14.2). The agreement stipulates that urban services, especially sewer and water lines, will not be extended beyond the growth boundary (see Photo 14.4). Thus the capital improvements program is crucial to keeping infrastructure within the growth boundary. The boundary may be reviewed for needed changes every five years or so. Outside the boundary, the land should be zoned at low densities, such as for farming or forestry. Oregon cities and counties have done just that. Otherwise, if rural zoning allows a house every acre or two, residential development will simply jump over the growth boundary and sprawl across the countryside. America’s first growth boundary was established by the City of Lexington and Fayette County, Kentucky, in 1958. In the 1970s, the State of Oregon mandated that its 36 counties

445

and 236 cities agree on growth boundaries. In the 1990s, 22 growth boundaries were voluntarily created in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Also in the 1990s, a dozen cities in Northern California voted to adopt 20-year growth boundaries. By 2003, nearly 150 cities around the nation had adopted formal growth boundaries or urban service areas that had much the same effect on limiting sprawl and the extension of public services.32 Transfer of Development Rights

The transfer of development rights (TDR) is another method local governments have used to protect farmland yet provide the landowner with financial compensation. The TDR is a way to move development potential from one parcel of land to another. By contrast, the PDR results in the retirement of development potential. A municipal or county government creates a market in transferable development rights through the comprehensive planning

Figure 14.2. The Metropolitan Service District Growth Boundary of Greater Portland, Oregon

446

PART 4: PLANNING FOR WORKING LANDSCAPES

Photo 14.4. Preserved farmland reinforces an urban growth boundary, stopping the extension of residential development in East Donegal Township, Lancaster County, PA. Source: Tom Daniels.

process and particularly through careful zoning and location of infrastructure. The local government first identifies, maps, and zones areas for long-term protection. These are called the “sending” areas. The local government then issues development rights “credits” to landowners in the sending areas. Next, the government identifies, maps, and zones “receiving” areas that are suitable for development and requires developers, who wish to build at higher densities than the zoning ordinances usually allow in the receiving areas, to first purchase development rights credits from the landowners in

the sending areas. The prices of development rights are determined through negotiations between developers and landowners, just as in a private market. The number of development rights credits that the local government gives to landowners in the sending area must correlate closely with the increased development potential the government allows on parcels in the receiving areas in order for the TDR market to operate effectively. The increased development potential must be great enough to motivate developers to purchase TDRs. Generally, densities

CHAPTER 14: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WORKING LANDSCAPES

within receiving areas must be allowed to increase by one to two units per acre to make the TDR work. More than 100 counties and municipalities have adopted TDR programs to protect farm- and forestlands, scenic areas, historic properties, and wetlands.33 TDRs enable local governments to do the following: 1. Increase density in designated growth areas to make full use of public infrastructure and minimize sprawl. 2. Let private developers pay landowners for the TDRs so that public money is not needed. This means a TDR program can be cheaper to taxpayers than a PDR program. 3. Compensate landowners for restrictions placed on their land. 4. Preserve a significant amount of land, and channel new development into desired growth areas. This can help the local government achieve a balanced growth strategy. The TDR works best in places where working landscapes and natural areas are clearly separated from existing and planned development areas. This enables the creation of distinct sending and receiving areas. But there also must be an active real estate market and a growing population to ensure that developers are willing to purchase TDRs and to build more intensively in the receiving areas. TDRs do not work well in rural areas with little development pressure. There are two major types of TDR programs. Mandatory TDRs have dual zones: a separate sending area and a separate receiving area. Mandatory TDRs depend on downzoning to at least one dwelling per 20 acres in the sending area and bonus zoning in the

447

receiving area to create landowner incentives to sell TDRs and developer incentives to buy TDRs. Voluntary TDRs involve a single zone for both sending and receiving TDRs. In the single zone, landowners have the choice of developing either some or all of their land— usually according to a fairly permissive zoning of between two- and five-acre minimum lot sizes—or selling some or all the development rights to other landowners or developers. The single-zone TDR program can lead to a large number of rural residences amid farming areas. The mandatory, dual-zone approach is clearly preferable for managing growth and protecting important farmland. Montgomery County, Maryland, a suburban area northwest of Washington, DC, has operated one of the nation’s most successful TDR programs to preserve farmland. Since 1982, the county has preserved more than 52,000 acres in more than 7,000 transactions. Developers have paid landowners more than $115 million for their TDRs.34 The county first created a 93,000-acre sending area by downzoning the land from one dwelling per five acres to one dwelling unit per 25 acres. The county then issued landowners one TDR credit for every five acres of land they owned. At the same time, the county designated receiving areas in which developers could build one extra dwelling unit per acre by purchasing one TDR credit. Initial TDR prices in Montgomery County were about $3,000 per TDR credit but more recently have averaged between $20,000 and $45,000 per TDR.35 When the TDRs are transferred from a property in the sending area, a permanent conservation easement is placed on the deed, restricting development to agricultural and open space uses. But a landowner need not sell all the TDRs. Some can be retained to develop the land in the sending area at the allowed zoning. For example, many landowners in Montgomery County, Maryland, have sold off most

448

PART 4: PLANNING FOR WORKING LANDSCAPES

of their TDRs and retained the right to build one dwelling per 25 acres allowed by the zoning by retaining some of the TDRs. For instance, the owner of 100 acres could sell off 16 TDRs and keep 4 TDRs to develop the property at one dwelling per 25 acres. The TDR has not enjoyed as much popularity as the PDR because of the complexity in establishing well-defined sending and receiving areas. In receiving areas, residents may oppose having the density of development increase. Also, developers may not perceive a real benefit in purchasing TDRs if they feel they can make a good profit by building according to the existing zoning in the receiving areas. Landowners may be reluctant to have their property placed in a sending area because of the uncertainty as to the market value of their TDRs. But a TDR program can be used together with a PDR program, as Montgomery County, Maryland, has done since the early 1990s.

What to Look for in a Development Review

There are three types of development projects that affect agricultural areas: (1) farmrelated buildings; (2) the rezoning of farmland from agriculture to residential, commercial, or industrial uses; and (3) the subdivision and development of house lots and commercial and industrial sites. Farm-related buildings most often involve worker housing, the construction or expansion of barns and confinement buildings for livestock, and the construction of machinery sheds, silos, feed bunkers, greenhouses, and manure storage facilities. Some types of farmrelated buildings are treated as accessory uses and do not involve a subdivision review. Some states have laws that preclude a local review of the construction of farm buildings. The planning commission should ask about the size, location, and type of farm structures that are involved in the proposed development (see Table 14.6). The commission

Table 14.6. A Checklist of Farm-Related and Non-farm-Related Development Issues in a Development Review 1.

What are the size, location, and land uses of the proposed development?

2.

Is the proposed development a farm-related development or a nonfarm development that involves farmland?

3.

Is the proposed development allowed under the zoning ordinance?

4.

Does it have the proper setbacks from property lines?

5.

Is it within the height limitations?

6.

What are the land uses on the neighboring properties?

7.

Does the proposed development require a zoning change?

8.

How will sewer and water service be provided?

9.

Has the developer obtained all necessary state or federal permits?

CHAPTER 14: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WORKING LANDSCAPES

should ask if the proposed project would create problems with the neighbors especially if the development involves a CAFO. If the answer is yes, a determination must be made whether these problems can be remedied through the design of the project, as provided for in the zoning ordinance or the subdivision and landdevelopment regulations. For example, if a farmer presents a plan for a bunker feedlot for cattle and has 15 nonfarm houses on three sides, the planning commission might recommend that the farmer plant trees and shrubs or erect an earth berm to intercept noise and odors that would otherwise spill over onto neighboring properties as well as set back the feedlot as far as possible from the property lines. If the proposed project involves the construction or expansion of livestock facilities, the planning commission should ask how the manure will be handled. If the expansion will qualify the farm as a CAFO, the landowner may be required to draft a “nutrient” (manure) management plan and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) water pollution permit from the state environmental agency. The planning commission may require a stormwater management system for a proposed CAFO. Nonfarm development proposals in farming areas are common. The size, type, and location of these proposals are important to consider. The planning commission should determine whether the proposed development is allowed under the current zoning or whether a zone change is needed. The planning commission must keep in mind the cumulative impact of nonfarm development over time on the farmland base and farming operations. In general, zoning changes should be discouraged unless there is a compelling public need, such as the expansion of a city or village (see the next section, A Note on Rezonings). Planners can check proposed nonfarm developments for proper setbacks from property lines

449

and how sewage and water will be provided. The extension of sewer and water lines into farming areas should be discouraged as this infrastructure will only increase development pressure on nearby farms. If on-site septic systems and wells are proposed, the planning commission should require a test of the quality and yield of the groundwater the development will use. Other important issues to review under the subdivision and land-development regulations are the amount of impervious surface and stormwater runoff. Poorly sited and designed nonfarm development can result in serious stormwater runoff and soil erosion problems on neighboring farms. Finally, the planning commission should determine if any state or federal funds or approvals are involved in the development project. In some states, governors have issued executive orders requiring the state department of agriculture to review the development projects and actions of other state agencies to minimize the conversion of prime farmland. Likewise, the federal Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 called for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to review proposed federal loans, permits, and projects that could result in the conversion of prime farmland. Other federal agencies notify the USDA of such projects. These projects may also be subject to a review under the National Environmental Policy Act environmental impact statement process. A Note on Rezonings and the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment System

Ruling on requests to rezone farmland to a nonfarm use is often difficult for planning commissions and elected officials. The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system was developed by the NRCS in 1983 to help local communities identify lower-quality farmland for future development and to protect highly productive

450

PART 4: PLANNING FOR WORKING LANDSCAPES

farmland with long-term economic viability. The LESA system consists of two parts: a land evaluation rating of the quality of land for farming and a site assessment rating of the surrounding economic, social, and geographic features that measure development pressures on the farm and that indicate farm viability. Both the land evaluation and the site assessment ratings include several factors and point scores (see Tables 14.7 and 14.8). When the points for each factor are added up, they produce a total score for a farm.

This total is then compared to a threshold level; if the total points are below the threshold, then development tends to be appropriate; if the total points are above the threshold, then the land should remain in farm use. Information for the land evaluation process is available from a county soil survey. Land capability ratings indicate potential for crops, such as the yield of corn in bushels per acre. Information for the site assessment rating can be gathered from U.S. Geological Survey

Table 14.7. Determining the Land Evaluation Score Based on Soil Productivity Soil Class

Corn Yield in Bushels per Acre for Soil Class Divided by the Highest Soil Class Yield

Ratio

Multiplied By

Land Evaluation Rating

I

150/150

1.00

100

100

II

130/150

0.87

100

87

III

110/150

0.73

100

73

IV

100/150

0.67

100

67

V

70/150

0.47

100

47

VI

50/150

0.33

100

33

VII

45/150

0.30

100

30

VIII

0/150

0

100

0

Sample 300-acre farm has 80 acres of Class I soils, 180 acres of Class II soils, and 40 acres of Class III soils 80 acres × 100 rating =

8,000

180 acres × 87 rating =

15,660

40 acres × 75 rating =

3,000

Total =

26,660

26,660 points divided by 300 acres = 86.67 land evaluation score

CHAPTER 14: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WORKING LANDSCAPES

451

Table 14.8. LESA System Site Assessment of Sample 300-Acre Farm Site Assessment Factors Points

Weight Assigned

Sample Farm Points

Total of Points Times Weight Assigned

Maximum Possible

1. Percentage of land in agriculture within 1.5-mile radius

2.0

9

18.0

20

2. Percentage of land in agriculture adjacent to the farm site

1.5

8

12.0

15

3. Percentage of farm site in agriculture

1.5

9

13.5

15

4. Percentage of farm site zoned for agriculture

2.0

10

20.0

20

5. Distance from a city or village

1.5

8

12.0

15

6. Distance to public sewer or water

1.5

5

7.5

15

7. Size of farm vs. average farm size in county

2.5

8

20.0

25

8. Road frontage of site

1.5

8

12.0

15

9. Farm support services available

1.5

8

12.0

15

10. Historic, cultural, and environmental features on farm site

1.0

6

6.0

15

11. Consistency with county plan

1.0

15

15.0

15

12. Consistency with municipal plan

1.0

15

15.0

15

163.0

200 maximum

Site assessment subtotal Land evaluation subtotal

86.67

Total points possible

300 maximum

Threshold points for development

175 or below

Total actual points

249.67

100 maximum

Recommendation: Do not rezone farm to nonfarm uses. Source: Adapted from the National Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Handbook, USDA, Soil Conservation Service. 1983. Washington, DC: USDA, and T. Daniels and D. Bowers, Holding Our Ground: Protecting America’s Farms and Farmland, Washington, DC: Island Press, 1997, p. 79.

452

PART 4: PLANNING FOR WORKING LANDSCAPES

quad maps, the current land-use map of the comprehensive plan, the zoning map, a map of local sewer and water lines, and the county conservation district and county extension office. Consistency of a development proposal with municipal and county comprehensive plans is a judgment call that should be made by the planning staff or the planning commission (see Table 14.8). The site assessment score is then added to the land evaluation score to give an overall score for the property (249.67 in Table 14.8). The planning commission or elected officials must then set a threshold level of points to help decide whether the property should be protected or developed. The threshold in Table 14.8 is 175 points. A property that scores 175 or fewer points is a reasonable candidate for a nonfarm development; for instance, if a rezoning proposal from agriculture to residential use were pending on the farm, then the planning commission should recommend that the rezoning be allowed. In Table 14.8, the farm scored 249.67 points, indicating a valuable property for farming that should not be converted to a nonfarm use. The LESA system has the advantages of being objective, numerically based, and flexible. There is often some trial and error involved in setting the point scores and weights, however. Especially important is how farmland quality (land evaluation) is weighted against development potential (site assessment). The original NRCS handbook weighted farmland quality one-third of the total potential 300 points and development potential two-thirds. But local officials could put a heavier weighting on farmland quality, such as 150 points out of 300 total points, to balance the protection of high-quality soils against other factors. Many communities have modified the LESA system by adding or removing factors and weightings to use the system in ranking applications for the PDR.

14.5: Environmentally Responsible Farming Operations Farmers and ranchers have often found themselves at odds with environmentalists. Most farmers and ranchers pride themselves on being good stewards of the land. Yet the level of stewardship varies from farm to farm and ranch to ranch. Farms and ranches can generate large amounts of soil erosion and water pollution. Good management of soil, water, manure, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides can increase agricultural productivity as well as sustain a quality environment for local residents and wildlife. Ultimately, protecting the farmland base, ensuring profitable farming, and implementing environmentally responsible farming methods are all necessary for sustainable agricultural operations. Soil Management

With proper management, soil can produce consistent crop yields or be used as grazing land for a long time. But it takes several hundred years for nature to create just one inch of topsoil. Soil losses in some places are alarming. For instance, about half of the rich prairie topsoil in Iowa—the nation’s second leading farm state—has washed or blown away over the last 150 years.36 Soil erosion occurs from wind blowing away soil and rainfall washing away soil (known as sheet and rill erosion). Earth disturbance from construction and livestock are other causes of soil erosion. Soil exposed during plowing or after harvesting corn is vulnerable to wind erosion. Rainstorms can carry soil into rivers and streams where it can reduce water quality and threaten aquatic life. Pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers, and livestock manure can bind to soil particles and wash into waterways, ponds, and lakes. This runoff

CHAPTER 14: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WORKING LANDSCAPES

can contaminate drinking water, cause eutrophication (algae blooms) in ponds and lakes, and poison fish. Soil erosion also increases the release of carbon into the atmosphere, adding to the greenhouse effect and climate change. Soil erosion rates depend on the type of soil, slope, microclimate, and vegetative cover. Grasslands typically have lower erosion rates than cropland. The general standard for measuring soil erosion is called tolerance, or T. In most cases, cropland can withstand the loss of up to five tons per acre per year without experiencing a major loss in productivity. Scientists use the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation to calculate the rate of soil loss (see Table 14.9). Federal Soil Management Programs

In 1982, slightly more than 3 billion tons of America’s soil were blown or washed away. But by 2007, erosion losses had dropped to 1.73 billion tons.37 The reasons for this dramatic improvement can be traced to a combination of federal programs and the efforts of private landowners (see Table 14.10). The 1985 Farm Bill required owners of 120 million acres of highly erodible land to draft

and implement conservation plans. The bill’s Sodbuster clause made farmers who plowed up highly erodible soils ineligible for federal farm subsidy payments. The Farm Bill also created the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which pays farmers a per-acre fee not to grow crops on highly erodible land for 10 to 15 years. In 2013, almost 26 million acres (equal to the size of Virginia) were enrolled in the CRP.38 The CRP has the added benefits of increasing wildlife habitats, restoring wetlands, and improving air quality. Through fiscal 2013, the CRP had cost a total of about $35 billion, or more than $1 billion a year.39 The Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) was created in 2002 as a voluntary stewardship incentives program, administered by the NRCS. The CSP pays farmers, ranchers, and forestry producers to maintain and add to their conservation practices that result in clean water, better soil management, and improved wildlife habitat. In 2010, nearly 21,000 landowners were enrolled in the CSP and had implemented additional conservation practices on 25.2 million acres. The cost of the program is more than $1 billion a year.40 In their efforts to reduce soil erosion and the use of chemicals, many farmers have

Table 14.9. Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation A = RKLSCP, where A = average annual soil loss in tons per acre

S = slope

R = rainfall erosivity factor

C = cropping factor

K = soil erodibility factor

P = conservation practices factor

L = slope length

453

454

PART 4: PLANNING FOR WORKING LANDSCAPES

Table 14.10. Conservation Programs of the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Conservation Technical Assistance

Environmental Quality Incentives Program

Soil Surveys

Resource Conservation and Development

Conservation Farm Option

Conservation Plant Materials

Forestry Incentives Program

Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program

Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative

Watershed Surveys and Planning

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Operations

Snow Surveys and Water Supply Forecasting

Wetlands Reserve Program

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program

Rural Abandoned Mine Program Conservation Stewardship Program For more information on these programs, contact the local NRCS office.

adopted no-till practices, planting seeds in slits in the soil without plowing. Cropland planted using no-till increased more than six times from 14 million acres in 1989 to 88 million acres in 2009.41 The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program began through the 1996 Farm Bill and makes payments to farmers to plant former cropland in trees and grass to create riparian buffers and to restore wetlands. This helps reduce soil erosion, improve water quality, and provide wildlife habitat. Farmers and ranchers voluntarily enter into 10- to 15-year contracts, and state money can be used to match federal funds in some cases. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) of the USDA, also created in the 1996 Farm Bill, provides financial, technical, and educational help for landowners to install filter strips, riparian tree buffers, and

management plans to address soil erosion and water-quality problems. As of 2011, there were 13 million acres enrolled in the program costing nearly $900 million that year.42 Federal Water Management Programs

Agriculture is the leading user of water in many states. Farming and ranching account for 34 percent of America’s surface water and groundwater consumed each year to irrigate crops and feed livestock.43 In the Great Plains and the Southwest, access to water is the difference between productive agricultural land and wasteland. And given the high rate of population growth in the Southwest, the competition over water will become more intense in the near future. Water used to irrigate farmland declined by 22 billion gallons a day from 150 billion gallons a day in 1980 to 128 billion gallons in

CHAPTER 14: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WORKING LANDSCAPES

2005.44 Severe and prolonged droughts may lead to concerns about surface water and groundwater withdrawals in areas that rely on irrigation. Climate change may lead to longer periods of drought and more severe droughts, such as the one that occurred in Texas in 2011, which cost farmers in that state a record of more than $5.2 billion in lost crops and livestock.45 Agriculture has great potential for water conservation. For instance, the replacement of flood irrigation with surge irrigation, which alternates water between crop rows, and drip irrigation long used successfully in Israel could cut agricultural water needs by more than half. There are several farming practices that farmers can adopt to reduce water pollution. The county conservation district and the NRCS can provide technical assistance. Stream bank fencing to keep cows out of rivers and streams can be extremely helpful in lowering pollution from manure. Grass waterways in fields can intercept runoff that may contain chemicals or manure. Balancing manure application with the ability of land to absorb it is crucial. On large farms where manure is stored in pits and lagoons, manure is commonly applied on land in large doses a few times a year. More frequent and smaller applications would give the land better ability to absorb the nutrients and minimize runoff and groundwater pollution. Manure management plans drafted by a certified agronomist are required for large livestock farms and are recommended for smaller livestock operations as well, especially on small acreages. In 2007, Americans used 1.1 billion pounds of pesticides and herbicides on crops and lawns, and some of these chemicals have caused drinking water problems in several states.46 Integrated pest management (IPM) is a good way for farmers to reduce and tailor the amount of pesticides used to respond to pest problems rather than try to use them on a preventive basis. The county cooperative

455

extension service can assist farmers with the development of IPM plans. Wetlands on farms and ranches vary from prairie potholes in the Midwest to marshes, swamps, and bogs on the East and West Coasts and throughout the South. Wetlands are important for migratory wildlife and groundwater recharge and serve as buffers against flooding. But in the past, millions of acres of wetlands were filled or drained to create cropland and pastureland. Federal attempts to regulate and discourage the filling of wetlands for agricultural uses have met with considerable resistance from farmers and ranchers. One source of controversy involves defining what a wetland is. Is it land that is permanently underwater, underwater at certain times of the year, or hydric (wet) soils? The Wetlands Reserve Program was created as part of the 1990 Farm Bill. As of 2012, landowners had sold permanent or 30-year conservation easements covering 2.3 million acres.47 The program has three voluntary strategies: (1) cost-sharing agreements with landowners to restore wetlands in which the federal government pays 75 percent of the cost, (2) the purchase of 30-year term easements at 75 percent of the value of a permanent easement and with the federal government paying 75 percent of the cost of restoration, and (3) the purchase of conservation easements in perpetuity with the federal government paying 100 percent of the cost of restoring the wetland. Most landowners have chosen to sell permanent conservation easements. In the 2014 Farm Bill, the Wetlands Reserve Program was combined with the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program and the Grassland Reserve Program into the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program. Federal Rangeland Management

Just more than half of the nation’s rangelands are privately owned, 43 percent are owned by

456

PART 4: PLANNING FOR WORKING LANDSCAPES

the federal government, and the rest are owned by state and local governments. Ranchers in the western states often use federal rangelands for grazing cattle or sheep. Some federal rangeland is within national forests or national parks, but the large majority is on land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Like the national forests, BLM lands are supposed to be managed according to the principle of “multiple-use sustained yield.” These uses include rangeland, recreation, mining, timber production, fish and wildlife habitat, industrial development, and wilderness areas. The BLM has been criticized for favoring livestock grazing ahead of other uses. Overgrazing has been cited as a major cause of the expansion of deserts in the West. Overgrazing depletes native grasses and vegetation and leads to soil erosion from wind and rain. Cattle trampling stream banks adds sedimentation to streams and destroys rich wildlife habitat. Cattle defecating in streams also degrade water quality and harm fish habitat. The BLM has also been criticized for subsidizing the cattle and sheep industries. The BLM typically charges a grazing fee, called an Animal Unit Month, for one cow plus a calf or five sheep to graze on BLM lands for a month. The BLM fee is often less than half of the comparable private grazing rates. But more important, only a small percentage of the U.S. cattle supply is raised on BLM land, leading some people to wonder if the environmental damage is worth it.

14.6: Case Study: Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) One of the most emotional environmental issues that has emerged in the working landscape over the past 30 years is CAFOs. The economics of livestock and dairy farming have resulted in lower profit margins per animal

or gallon of milk. Farmers have responded by increasing the size of herds and flocks or going out of business. CAFOs are defined as having 1,000 or more animal units, with a unit equal to 1,000 pounds. This translates to at least 1,000 head of cattle, 2,500 hogs, or 30,000 chickens. These large complexes can produce as much waste as a small city, yet they are not required to have wastewater treatment plants. Instead, the manure is most often stored in lagoons until it can be pumped out and spread on farmland, usually two or three times a year. But the volume of manure can easily exceed the ability of the land to absorb the nutrients for crops. Rainfall can wash manure off fields into groundwater and surface water. In North Carolina, torrential rains from Hurricane Floyd in 1999 flooded dozens of hog manure lagoons, contaminating water supplies, killing fish, and creating enormous cleanup problems. The North Carolina legislature responded by banning the construction of any new hog lagoons.48 The 1972 Clean Water Act exempted nonpoint sources of pollution, such as runoff from farm fields, from the federal NPDES permit program. But since then, livestock farming has changed dramatically, especially in the size of the operations. Many farms raise thousands of cattle or hogs or millions of chickens each year. Many dairy farms have expanded to several hundred cows. And more animals have meant more manure to handle. In 1994, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that large livestock farms are point sources of pollution under the 1972 Clean Water Act and owners of these farms must obtain an NPDES permit (Concerned Area Citizens for the Environment v. Southview Farms, 34 F.3d 14 [2d Cir. 1994]). CAFO operators must also draft and implement a manure management plan and submit an annual report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). CAFO operators can apply for EQIP funding from the

CHAPTER 14: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WORKING LANDSCAPES

federal government to improve their conservation and nutrient management practices. Nationwide, there are about 17,000 CAFOs.49 Some local governments have moved to limit the size or location of livestock operations. Rice County, Minnesota, limits the size of feedlots to 750 animal units with a cow or steer counting as one unit and a hog as .75 units. A variance could allow a maximum of 1,500 units on a farm.50 Elkhart County, Indiana, took a different approach by establishing three agricultural zones; two allow CAFOs, and one does not. In Illinois, new large livestock operations may face setback requirements of up to a half a mile from the nearest residence. Increasingly, the burden will be on livestock farmers rather than nonfarmers to be good neighbors. Summary

Farmers and ranchers own most of the privately held land in the U.S. Agriculture is a major industry, producing food crops, livestock, and fiber worth nearly $400 billion a year. Farmland protection and preservation are important elements of growth management and sustainable environment efforts. A variety of techniques exist to maintain land in farming: preferential property taxation, agricultural zoning, purchase of development rights, transfer of development rights, and urban growth boundaries. But farming is a business, and the profitability of the business is key. Farms in general are a leading source of water pollution from soil erosion, manure, pesticides, and herbicides. The federal government offers several soil and water conservation programs to help farmers improve their conservation practices.

Notes 1. U.S. General Accounting Office. Community Development: Local Growth Issues—Federal

457

Opportunities and Challenges. GAO/RCED-00 -178. Washington, DC: GAO, 2000, p. 10. 2. American Planning Association. Policy Guide on Community and Regional Food Planning. Chicago: American Planning Association, 2007. http://www.planning.org/policy/guides/ pdf/foodplanning.pdf. Retrieved May 20, 2013. 3. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2012 Census of Agriculture. “Land 2012 and 2007.” 2014. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/ 2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/ st99_1_008_008.pdf. Retrieved May 9, 2014. 4. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2012 Census of Agriculture. “Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold Including Landlord’s Share and Direct Sales 2012 and 2007.” 2014. http:// www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/ Full_Repor t/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/ st99_1_002_002.pdf. Retrieved May 9, 2014. 5. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. “Value of U.S. Agricultural Trade, by Calendar Year.” 2014. http://ers .usda.gov/data-products/foreign-agricultural -trade- of-the-united-states-(fatus)/calendar -year.aspx#.U2zRXPldWoM. Retrieved May 9, 2014. 6. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2012 Census of Agriculture. “Economic Class of Farms by Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold and Government Payments: 2012 and 2007.” 2014. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/ 2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/ st99_1_003_003.pdf. Retrieved May 9, 2014. 7. USDA. The Census of Agriculture, 2007. Washington, DC: USGPO, 2009; Environmental Working Group, EWG Farm Subsidies. “The United States Summary Information.” 2012. http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=00000. Retrieved May 20, 2013. 8. Ibid. 9. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2012 Census of Agriculture. “Preliminary Report Highlights: U.S. Farms and Farmers.” 2014. http:// www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/

458

PART 4: PLANNING FOR WORKING LANDSCAPES

Preliminary_Report/Highlights.pdf. Retrieved May 9, 2014. 10. See the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112–240, 126 Stat. 2313 (2013). 11. Coughlin, R., and J. Keene, eds. National Agricultural Lands Study, The Protection of Farmland: A Reference Book for State and Local Governments. Washington, DC: USGPO, 1981. 12. NRCS. Summary Report, National Resources Inventory, 2007. Washington, DC: NRCS; Ames: Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology, Iowa State University, 2009, p. 84. 13. NRCS, USDA. Summary Report: 2007 National Resources Inventory. Washington, DC: USDA; Ames: Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology, Iowa State University, 2009, p. 7. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOC UMENTS/stelprdb1041379.pdf. Retrieved May 9, 2014. 14. American Farmland Trust. Impacts of the Federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program: An Assessment Based on Interviews With Participating Landowners. Washington, DC: American Farmland Trust, 2013, p. 1. http:// farmlandinfo.gravityswitch.com/sites/default/ f i l e s / A F T _ I M PA C T % 2 0 o f % 2 0 F E D % 2 0 FARM%20RANCH%20PRO_FINAL_singles%20 %284%29_0.pdf. Retrieved September 16, 2013. 15. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2012 Census of Agriculture. California by County. Table 2: “Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold Including Direct Sales: 2012 and 2007.” http:// www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/ Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County _Level/California/st06_2_002_002.pdf. Retrieved May 9, 2014. 16. NRCS, USDA. Summary Report: 2007 National Resources Inventory. Washington, DC: USDA; Ames: Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology, Iowa State University, 2009, pp. 58, 70. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/

FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1041379.pdf. Retrieved May 9, 2014. Ibid., Table 4. 17. U.S. General Accounting Office. Community Development: Local Growth Issues—Federal Opportunities and Challenges. GAO/RCED-00 -178. Washington, DC: GAO, 2000, p. 10. 18. Jekanowski, M. “Updated Food Environment Atlas Provides Rich Data on Local Foods.” USDA Blog, October 2, 2012. http:// blogs.usda.gov/2012/10/02/updated-food -environment-atlas-provides-rich-data-on-local -foods/#more-42774. Retrieved October 30, 2012. 19. Ibid., pp. 135–36. 20. American Farmland Trust. “Congress Commits $1 Billion to Farmland Protection Program.” American Farmland, Spring 2002, p. 9. 21. American Farmland Trust. Farmland Information Center. “Farm and Ranchland Protection Program.” 2013. http://www .farmlandinfo.org/sites/default/files/FIC _FRPP_09-2013.pdf. Retrieved May 9, 2014. The Farm Foundation. “Issue Report: Farmland Preservation.” 2004. http://www.farm foundation.org/news/articlefiles/105- April 2004FarmlandPreservation.pdf. Retrieved May 9, 2014. 22. NRCS. Farm Bill at a Glance: Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program. Washington, DC: NRCS, 2008, p. 1. http://www.nrcs.usda .gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/ easements/farmranch/. Retrieved May 9, 2014. 23. USDA, NRCS. “Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program.” 2012. http://www.nrcs .usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/pro grams/easements/farmranch/. Retrieved May 21, 2013. 24. American Farmland Trust. Impacts of the Federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program: An Assessment Based on Interviews With Participating Landowners. Washington, DC: American Farmland Trust, 2013, p. 2. http:// farmlandinfo.gravityswitch.com/sites/default/

CHAPTER 14: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WORKING LANDSCAPES

f i l e s / A F T _ I M PA C T % 2 0 o f % 2 0 F E D % 2 0 FARM%20RANCH%20PRO_FINAL_singles%20 %284%29_0.pdf. Retrieved September 16, 2013. 25. NRCS. Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Grassland Reserve Program (GRP). 2010. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/ nrcs143_007508.pdf. Retrieved February 20, 2012. 26. NRCS. “Summary Cumulative GRP Easement Enrollment Data.” 2012. http://www.nrcs .usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stel prdb1048282.pdf. Retrieved May 9, 2014. 27. Daniels, T., and D. Bowers. Holding Our Ground: Protecting America’s Farms and Farmland. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1997, p. 98. 28. Ibid., p. 91. 29. American Farmland Trust. Status of State PACE Programs and Status of Local PACE Programs. Northampton, MA: American Farmland Trust, 2012. 30. Land Trust Alliance. 2010 National Land Trust Census Report. Washington, DC: Land Trust Alliance, 2010, p. 11. http://www.landtrust alliance.org/land-trusts/land-trust-census/ national-land-trust-census-2010/2010-final -report. Retrieved May 21, 2013; American Farmland Trust, A Nationwide Survey of Land Trusts That Protect Farm and Ranch Land. Washington, DC: American Farmland Trust, 2013, p. 1. 31. Colorado Cattlemen’s Agricultural Land Trust. Home page. http://www.ccalt.org/. 32. Avin, U., and M. Bayer. “Rightsizing Urban Growth Boundaries.” Planning, February 2003, pp. 22–26. 33. Nelson, A. C., R. Pruetz, and D. Woodruff. The TDR Handbook: Designing and Implementing Transfer of Development Rights Programs. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2011. 34. Montgomery County Department of Economic Development, Agricultural Services Division. Montgomery County Farmland Preservation Annual Report FY1980–FY2010. 2011.

459

http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/ content/ded/agservices/pdffiles/2010annual report.pdf. Retrieved February 19, 2012. 35. Ibid., p. 10. 36. Eisenberg, E. The Ecology of Eden. New York: Vintage Books, 1999, p. 31. 37. NRCS. “Soil Erosion on Cropland, 2007.” 2009. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/technical/nra/nri/?& cid=stelprdb1041887. Retrieved February 20, 2012. 38. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Farm Service Agency. “Conservation Reserve Program: Status—End of December 2013.” 2013. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/ dec2013aonepager.pdf. Retrieved May 9, 2014. 39. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Farm Service Agency. “Conservation Programs: Statistics: CRP Enrollment and Rental Rates by State, 1986–2013.” 2013. https://www.fsa.usda .gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr &topic=rns-css. Retrieved May 9, 2014. 40. NRCS. “Fact Sheet: Conservation Stewardship Program.” 2011. http://www.nrcs .usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stel prdb1046181.pdf. Retrieved February 20, 2012. 41. Horowitz, J., R. Ebel, and K. Ueda. “No-Till” Farming Is a Growing Practice. Economic Information Bulletin No. 70. Washington, DC: USDA, Economic Research Service, 2010. 42. NRCS. “FY 2011 EQIP Total Acres Treated, Contracts, Dollars Obligated.” 2012. http://www .nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/ national/programs/financial/eqip/?&cid=stel prdb1046218. Retrieved February 20, 2012. 43. NRCS. “Water.” 2012. http://www.nrcs .usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/ water. Retrieved February 20, 2012. 44. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012. Washington, DC: USGPO, 2012, p. 228.

460

PART 4: PLANNING FOR WORKING LANDSCAPES

45. Fanin, B. “Texas Agricultural Drought Losses Reach Record $5.2 Billion.” AgriLife Today, August 17, 2011. http://agrilife.org/ today/2011/08/17/texas-agricultural-drought -losses-reach-record-5-2-billion/. Retrieved February 20, 2012. 46. U.S. EPA. Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage: 2006 and 2007 Market Estimates. 2011. http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/pestsales/ 07pestsales/table_of_contents2007.htm. Retrieved February 20, 2012. 47. NRCS. “Restoring America’s Wetlands: A Private Landowner Success Story.” 2012. http://

www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/ stelprdb1045079.pdf. Retrieved May 9, 2014. 48. National Hog Farmer. “North Carolina Finalizes Swine Lagoon Ban.” September 20, 2007. http://nationalhogfarmer.com/news/news flash/north-carolina-finalizes-lagoon-ban/. Retrieved February 19, 2012. 49. U.S. EPA. “Fact Sheet: Managing Manure at Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.” 2004. http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/cafo_ manure_guidance_fs.pdf. Retrieved May 9, 2014. 50. Daniels, T. When City and Country Collide. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1999, p. 249.

Chapter 15

PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WORKING LANDSCAPES Forestry

The forests are the “lungs” of our land, purifying our air and giving fresh strength to our people. —Franklin D. Roosevelt1

Forests are highly valuable renewable resources and diversified ecosystems that provide a variety of environmental services besides wood and paper products. The headwaters of most of America’s water supplies are found in forests; the U.S. Forest Service has estimated that more than 180 million Americans rely on forests for their water supplies.2 Forests have a great ability to absorb rain and snowmelt and hold soils in their root systems. These features enable forests to protect watersheds by limiting flooding, filtering runoff, and controlling soil erosion and sedimentation. Trees serve as carbon sinks by taking in carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen, thus mitigating climate change. According to the U.S. Forest Service, one acre of forest absorbs six tons of carbon dioxide and produces four tons of oxygen.3 Trees also filter air pollution by intercepting dust, soot, ozone, and carbon monoxide. Trees moderate temperatures by providing shade and windbreaks.

They also mitigate the urban heat island effect caused by the huge amount of paved surfaces that radiate heat long into the night and compel a greater use of air-conditioning. In addition, forests provide crucial wildlife habitat and offer a range of recreational experiences, from hunting to hiking. Forestry is an important part of the working landscape in many rural communities and some suburbanizing areas. The U.S. has 5 percent of the world population and consumes 27 percent of the world’s industrial wood products. The U.S. domestic timber supply makes up only 8 percent of the world total, and yet 76 percent of U.S. consumption of industrial wood comes from domestic supplies.4 A forest is defined as land that has at least 10 percent of its area in trees.5 Some 751 million acres—about one-third of the entire U.S.—is covered in forests (see Figure 15.1).6 Just more than two-thirds of these forests, about

462

PART 4: PLANNING FOR WORKING LANDSCAPES

Figure 15.1. Forest Cover of the Lower 48 States Note: Alaska has 126 million acres of forest, of which 72 percent are publicly owned, and Hawaii has 1.7 million acres, of which 34 percent are publicly owned. Source: S. Oswalt, M. Thompson, and B. Smith, eds. U.S. Forest Resource Facts and Historical Trends. Washington, DC: U.S. Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, 2009, p. 9.

514 million acres, are considered timberland, capable of producing wood and paper products. More than 40 percent of U.S. forests are publicly owned as state forests, national forests, national parks, public parks, and Bureau of Land Management lands mainly in the western states and Alaska. About 56 percent of U.S. forests covering 423 million acres are privately owned. Two-thirds of the private land is in noncorporate ownership, and one-third is owned by timber companies (see Table 15.1). The majority of private forests are concentrated in the Upper Midwest, Northeast, and South (see Figure 15.1).

15.1: Forest Types Forest types are distinguished by the age of the trees, the tree species, public or private ownership, and private corporate or noncorporate ownership. Old growth forests are ecosystems that include mature trees have never been harvested. Old growth generally produces the most board feet per harvested tree and is highly prized by timber companies. But only 5 percent of the nation’s original old growth forests remain.7 The old growth that remains is primarily in the Pacific Northwest, Northern California, and Alaska. Second- or third-growth

CHAPTER 15: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WORKING LANDSCAPES

463

Table 15.1. Forest Landownership in the U.S. by Region, 2007 (in Millions of Acres) Region

Private Corporate

Private Noncorporate

National Forest

Public Forest

Total Other

North

28

100

11

33

172

South

57

129

13

16

215

West

52

57

123

133

365

Total acres

138*

285*

147

181*

751*

*Totals do not add up exactly due to rounding. Source: S. Oswalt, M. Thompson, and B. Smith, eds. U.S. Forest Resource Facts and Historical Trends. Washington, DC: U.S. Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, 2009, p. 10.

forests grow on land that has been cut over once or twice already. These trees are typically smaller than old growth trees. Commercial timber companies also plant seeds and sprouts to reforest land, and to create pine plantations like crops in rows, usually in the Southeast. Tree species vary across climates, soils, age, location, and elevation. Eastern hardwood forests comprise just more than half of all timberland in the lower 48 states. The oak-hickory forest is the most common eastern hardwood forest, found from southern New England throughout the South and into the Upper Midwest. These woods are often used to make furniture. Maple-beech-birch forests are the next most common, especially in the North Central and Northeast regions where they are known for their splendid fall colors. Oak-gum-cypress forests exist exclusively in the South. Elm-ashcottonwood forests typically grow on bottomlands in the North Central and Northeast regions. Aspen-birch forests take over after other species are harvested; these forests produce pulpwood and provide important habitat for deer.

Eastern softwood forests are the most important source of forest products in the South and Southeast where longlash-slash and loblolly-short leaf pine forests are dominant. These pines are used for paper pulp, chip board, and some furniture. Spruce-fir and white-redjack pine forests are located in the Northeast. Spruce-fir forests produce pulpwood for paper, and jack pine forests are harvested for saw logs. Softwoods make up about 85 percent of the forests in the western states. Douglas fir, the most abundant and commercially important timber species, is prized as structural lumber. Ponderosa pine is a major source of lumber from the Rocky Mountains and the Southwest, and lodgepole pine grows mostly in the Rocky Mountains (see Photo 15.1). Fir-spruce forests are found at medium to high elevations, particularly in California. Hemlock-Sitka spruce forests are most common in the Coast Range of western Oregon and Washington and along the Alaskan coast. Western hardwoods consist mainly of three species: California oaks, aspens in the Rockies, and red alder in the Pacific Northwest.

464

PART 4: PLANNING FOR WORKING LANDSCAPES

Photo 15.1. Colorado timberland. Source: Tom Daniels.

Publicly owned forests serve a variety of purposes besides timber production, such as recreation areas, water storage, wildlife habitat, and wilderness. The western states and Alaska contain most of the public forests (see Table 15.1). In 2007, public forests accounted for only 2 percent of the wood used by the forest products industry.8 Privately owned forests account for more than 90 percent of the wood harvested each year. There are two types of private forests: industrial and nonindustrial. Industrial forests are owned by timber companies, have access to lumber and paper mills

within the forests, and generally exist in large, contiguous blocks. These managed forests usually produce a higher amount of wood per acre than nonindustrial forests. But soil, climate, topography, insects, disease, and acid deposition are other important factors that influence forest productivity. Industrial forestry requires a long-term investment in land, trees, mills, and equipment. Just as a local farming industry needs a critical mass of farms and farmland to sustain farm support businesses, the forest industry requires ownership of or access to a large minimum number of harvestable trees in

CHAPTER 15: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WORKING LANDSCAPES

order to keep local lumber and paper mills in operation. Newly planted commercial forests take from 20 years to 40 years or more to reach harvestable size, depending on the species. The primary industrial forest areas are the Pacific Northwest, Northern California, the Alaskan coast, the Upper Midwest, the Southeast, and the northern tier of New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. There are more than 11 million owners of private forestland in America, and most private owners have fewer than 50 acres of forestland.9 Nonindustrial forests are owned by rural residents, second home owners, farmers, and others. Nonindustrial forests made up two-thirds of all private timberland in 2007 and produced most of the hardwood harvested that year.10

15.2: Pressures on Forests Pressures on forest resources come from several sources. 1. The demand for wood and virgin paper products is likely to continue to grow, despite increases in recycling. The volume of timber products rose from about 12.5 billion cubic feet in 1976 to more than 15.5 billion cubic feet in 2007.11 New homes contain an average of 10,000 board feet of lumber, and the U.S. continues to add more than 2 million people a year. The paperless office that computers and the information age were supposed to create has yet to become a reality. In the Northeast, wood chip–burning power plants have become popular, as has home heating with wood. 2. The demand for wilderness areas, wildlife habitat, and recreation activities in the national forests competes with the use

465

of these lands for timber production. In 1980, about 15 percent of the nation’s timber came from national forests, mainly in the Pacific Northwest. In 1994, the Northwest Forest Plan reduced harvests in the national forests in Oregon and Washington to comply with a court order to protect the endangered northern spotted owl. As of 2000, national forests accounted for less than 5 percent of the nation’s timber production.12 In addition, just before leaving office in 2001, President Clinton designated 58.5 million acres of national forests as roadless areas, making them effectively off-limits to logging. 3. Metropolitan areas expanding into the countryside have converted woodlands to housing sites, shopping malls, and office parks. In 2007, more than 200 million acres of forestlands were located in counties with a central city of more than 20,000 people.13 Between 2005 and 2030, up to 44 million acres of private forestland could be converted to housing developments, according to a U.S. Forest Service study.14 4. Pressures to develop forestland for vacation homes, retirement homes, resorts, or rural residences exist in many rural areas. The owners of private nonindustrial forests are on average more than 60 years old. Many owners of family-held industrial forests and nonindustrial forests are nearing retirement age or have already retired. Millions of acres of privately owned forestland will change hands over the coming few decades. Decisions about transferring land within the family or selling the land for development will have important consequences for local communities. Corporate timber companies are primarily interested in earning a profit for their shareholders. These companies usually have a real estate development

466

PART 4: PLANNING FOR WORKING LANDSCAPES

division that keeps a close eye on the nonforest value of company holdings. If the price of land rises well above what the land is worth for producing wood and paper, developing the land for residential or commercial uses becomes an attractive option. For example, in the late 1990s, the St. Joe Paper Company decided to develop 800,000 acres of forestland it owned in the Florida Panhandle, an area with a growing number of vacation homes and an abundance of diverse of wildlife. The U.S. Forest Service has noted that “parcelization of private ownerships will continue to be a management challenge with landscape-level planning becoming more difficult and habitat associated with edge effects becoming more plentiful because of increased fragmentation of forest cover.”15 When forestland is subdivided into residential and recreational lots, surrounding land values increase and further reduce the attractiveness of harvesting timber over a large area. As more lots are created, conflicts between timberland managers and neighbors over noise, herbicides, pesticides, and slashburn are likely. As more people move to forested areas, the risk of forest fires rises as well. Finally, as more forestland is converted to housing sites, a critical mass of available timber may be lost, making harvesting uneconomic and resulting in the closure of local mills. 5. Forests are vulnerable to insects, diseases, and acid deposition in the form of acid rain, snow, and fog. In the Smoky Mountains, nearly all the Fraser fir trees have been damaged by acid rain and the balsam woolly adelgid, a type of moth.16 The American chestnut was virtually wiped out between 1904 and the early

1930s by an Asian fungus. Ponderosa pine trees in Southern California continue to suffer ozone injury from motor vehicle– generated smog.17 Since arriving in America in 1869, gypsy moths have stripped the leaves from about 60 million acres of trees in the East and Midwest and continue to do significant damage.18 Since the late 1990s, the mountain pine beetle has eaten its way through more than 1.5 million acres of Colorado forests and more than 22 million acres of Canadian forests.19 With the rise in temperatures brought on by climate change, the pine beetle has been able to survive the winters in northern climes. 6. Each year, fires burn millions of acres of forest (see Chapter 13). Fires caused by human negligence and arson have resulted in more damage than fires that occur naturally through lightning strikes. Forest fires are part of a natural forest cycle. Fires clear underbrush and return nutrients to the soil. But the dominant federal and state forest management policies have been to suppress forest fires, even though these policies may in fact add to the buildup of undergrowth that will more readily ignite in dry years. 7. Competition from foreign timber production can affect the economics of domestic forest production. Imports of lower-priced foreign timber can undersell Americanproduced timber, causing some U.S. timber mills to fall idle. In 2010, the U.S. imported more than 6 billion board feet (mainly from Canada), which made up 15 percent of total U.S. consumption.20 All of these pressures combine to take forestland out of productive timber use and reduce ecosystem services. In addition, forest

CHAPTER 15: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WORKING LANDSCAPES

landowners need to employ practices and stewardship that ensure sustainable production. Timber harvesting and the construction of logging roads, especially on steep slopes, can cause soil erosion and the siltation of rivers and streams and can fragment and destroy wildlife habitat. The use of chemical herbicides and pesticides in forests can contaminate water supplies and harm humans and wildlife. The U.S. Forest Service has been criticized for allowing large clear-cuts in the national forests.

15.3: Federal Forestland Programs Managing the National Forests

The federal government has influenced the use of the nation’s forestlands primarily through the management of the National Forest System. America’s national forests contain about 192 million acres in 155 national forests in 39 states. But only 147 million acres of national forests are actually covered in trees. The large majority of national forest lands are located in the western states and Alaska. The national forests were created under the Organic Act of 1897, which defined the purposes of the forests as “securing favorable conditions for water flows and a continuous supply of timber.”21 The planning and management of the national forests is authorized in three federal laws: the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, and the National Forest Management Act of 1976. The 1960 act established the concept of multiple use and sustained yield, which has since been the guiding principle for the management of the national forests. The act requires the use of a national forest to be balanced among managed timber harvesting, recreation, wildlife habitat, wilderness, watershed protection, and

467

soil conservation. By striking the right balance, forest managers may sustain the flow of wood products and recreational and environmental benefits over time. The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act called for the U.S. Forest Service to make projections of timber supplies and the demand for timber from the national forests. The National Forest Management Act amended the Renewable Resources Planning Act by adding requirements for Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) that indicate how the various uses of each national forest will be balanced. The LRMPs help the Forest Service to identify and evaluate proposed timber harvests. The National Forest Management Act also affirmed the legality of clearcutting on national forest lands. Citizens can offer input into the LRMPs to determine planning objectives, inventory the forest resources, assess current management, evaluate alternative management strategies, and select a management approach. After a national forest management plan is approved by the U.S. Forest Service, citizens can participate in the monitoring and evaluation of the plan. In 2012, the Forest Service adopted a new federal forest planning rule. The purpose of the new rule is to focus national forest plans on science, land management, and outcomes. A key goal is to make the forest plans more responsive to local communities, forest conditions, and the impacts of climate change. While the emphasis remains on managing the multiple uses of the national forests, the new planning rule underscores the need to manage water resources and sustainable recreation. In addition, the rule recognizes the need to restore the ecosystems of forestlands and water resources to generate ecosystem services over the long run.22 About half of the national forests are authorized for logging, and the U.S. Forest Service has constructed more than 370,000 miles of logging roads to give private timber

468

PART 4: PLANNING FOR WORKING LANDSCAPES

companies access to timber stands.23 There are also hundreds of mines, oil and gas wells, condominiums, and 137 ski areas on national forest lands.24 By contrast, about 34 million acres, or 17 percent, of national forests have been designated as wilderness areas where no logging or development is allowed. In 2001, President Clinton issued an executive order declaring another 58.5 million acres of national forests as roadless areas, off-limits to logging. The Forest Service does not pay property taxes to local governments on national forest lands within their jurisdiction. Instead, the Forest Service makes “payments in lieu of taxes,” known as PILTs. The PILTs are based on the annual revenues produced from the harvesting of timber, grazing, or recreation uses. Often, the PILTs system creates an incentive for local communities to encourage timber harvesting. But with the decline in timber harvests in national forests since the 1990s, rural counties and communities have become vulnerable to reductions in PILTs. Preserving Forestland

America’s publicly owned forests and private forests restricted by conservation easements make up an estimated 9 percent of the world’s protected forestlands.25 Historically, the federal government has played a very limited role in the protection of privately held forestland. But this role is increasing because of mounting development pressures on private timberlands. In 1990, Congress enacted the Forest Legacy Program, which authorized the U.S. Forest Service to purchase permanent conservation easements on private forestland, purchase private forestland, or make grants to states for acquisitions of private forestland or easements (see the case studies in Section 15.7). Grants to states to purchase conservation easements have been the overwhelmingly preferred

option. To qualify for the Forest Legacy Program, a state forester must draft an assessment of need—identifying forestlands with important commercial timber or ecological values that are threatened by development—for approval by the U.S. Forest Service. A state must provide at least 25 percent of project costs. As of 2012, the Forest Legacy Program had spent nearly $600 million and leveraged more than $630 million to purchase conservation easements on 2.2 million acres in 42 states.26

15.4: State Forestland Programs State involvement in the management of private forestlands has mainly focused on forest practices acts and preferential taxation for forestlands. State Forest Practices Acts

Careful management of private forests is important for maintaining water quality for drinking water supplies and wildlife habitat. About three-quarters of the states have enacted forest practices laws to regulate the management of private forestland. These laws are intended to ensure the regeneration of forests; to provide environmental safeguards for soils, water, and wildlife; and to prevent nuisances that would harm neighboring landowners or the general public. Most states regulate timber harvesting practices through restrictions on logging on steep slopes and near stream banks, limits on clear-cutting, required replanting of harvested sites, and disposal of slash. Road construction standards are aimed at minimizing soil erosion and sedimentation in waterways. Timber harvesting may be required to avoid important wildlife habitats and wetlands.

CHAPTER 15: PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE WORKING LANDSCAPES

Forestry practices often raise heated debate because of the trade-off between harvesting methods and environmental damage. There are three general ways to harvest timber: clear-cutting, selective cutting, and highgrading. Clear-cutting results in the removal of nearly all the trees in a specific area. From an industry standpoint, this practice is attractive if the trees are of similar age and diameter. For instance, in the Southeast, pine trees are often grown in a monoculture “plantation” on private land. The trees reach maturity at the same time and are harvested together. Clear-cutting is necessary for some species, such as Douglas fir, that will not grow in the shade of other trees. But clear-cutting tends to emphasize current income and the quantity of timber output rather than a long-term sustainable yield. Removing all the trees destroys wildlife habitat. Runoff from clear-cut sites can lead to siltation of rivers and streams and destroy fish spawning grounds. Moreover, to gain access to timber and to bring in logging equipment and trucks, roads must be built. Poorly constructed roads are a major source of soil erosion and sedimentation in streams. Logging roads also create edges, which invite invasive plant, animal, and insect species and fragment wildlife habitat. Some state forest practices acts require harvesters to leave a screen of trees along public roads to mask, at least somewhat, the ugliness of the stumps and tangle of slash left behind. Similarly, a row or two of trees may be required to be left along a stream bank to stabilize soils and prevent erosion. A forest management plan and a permit may be required before a harvest can occur. For example, since 1997, the State of Vermont has required foresters to obtain a permit to clear-cut more than 40 acres.27 Selective cutting makes sense in a forest where the trees have a mix of ages and “pole sizes” (diameters). Selective cutting is well suited to hardwoods, such as oak, ash, maple, and cherry, because the individual trees are

469

often valuable for making furniture. On the other hand, gaining access to and harvesting individual trees is usually more difficult and expensive than clear-cutting. Selective cutting does not mean just taking the trees with the highest market value. In many cases, a forest stand needs to be thinned not only of some mature trees but of small, low-value trees as well. Thus selective cutting enables the remaining trees to grow faster, healthier, and straighter. Selective cutting is often associated with sustainable yield forestry and balancing timber harvesting with recreation, wildlife, and soil and water conservation. Selective cutting generally has much less impact on wildlife and the environment than clear-cutting. High-grading is a form of selective cutting in which loggers harvest the best trees and leave the lower-quality trees. This practice, though not as disruptive as clear-cutting, can reduce the health of the forest and defeats the purpose of sustainable yield, especially in an even-aged forest. High-grading can involve taking one species at a time, such as high-value oak, which diminishes the diversity of the remaining forest. High-grading can also mean the cutting of all trees above a certain pole size. States in the Pacific Northwest require a timber harvest plan and a permit for commercial harvesting from the state department of forestry. Companies must give notice to the state forester for precommercial thinning, road construction and maintenance, harvest setbacks from bodies of water, the disposal of slash other than by burning, and the use of pesticides and herbicides. The Oregon Forest Practices Act establishes riparian management area widths for streams of different sizes and uses (see Table 15.2).28 Loggers must meet vegetation retention and water-quality protection standards within riparian management areas. The State of Maryland enacted a farreaching forest conservation law in 1991 to minimize the loss of forestland to development

470

PART 4: PLANNING FOR WORKING LANDSCAPES

Table 15.2. Riparian Management Areas for Logging in Oregon Stream Type Type F (fish-use stream)

Type D (domestic water–use stream)

Type N (all other streams)

Large average annual flow of >10 cubic feet per second

100 feet

70 feet

70 feet

Medium average annual flow of >2 but 20% Affordable Units or CPAN

4 or more Market Rate Units (including Hotels)

4 or more Townhomes

Market Rate SF, TH, Multi-units (