The primary cause of the continued health problems in Virginia’s rivers can be seen after any major rain event as plumes of brown, sediment-laden water fill

the waterways. Unchecked stormwater runoff can drive the delivery of sediment and other pollutants into our rivers regardless of whether it falls on a farm field, a construction site or a parking lot. The pollution not only includes nitrogen and phosphorus that so often are identified as the main culprits of a degraded Chesapeake Bay but heavy metals, pesticides, bacteria and others. In fact, stormwater runoff is the largest growing pollutant in the Chesapeake Bay region.

For decades Virginia has worked intensely to manage the impact of runoff from farms. As a result, agricultural best management practices developed for environmental protection have become a part of the farming vernacular. The approach for the developed landscape has not focused on the same aspect and the result has had a substantial impact on our rivers and the Chesapeake Bay. The past 50 years has been witness to an ever-increasing amount of land with hardened, impervious surfaces, such as roads and rooftops that increase the volume and velocity of stormwater runoff. Stormwater and impervious landscapes can be a devastating combination for our streams, leading to stream bank erosion and a flush of pollution that collects on the surface. The development that has occurred in the past may well have met the guidance and requirements of the day, but the cumulative impact is now being felt by our rivers.

The Rationale How an area is developed is determined by a broad array of codes, ordinances, and regulations, most of them implemented at the local government level. Recent passage of Virginia stormwater regulations put in place pollution reduction criteria for development by establishing codes and ordinances that remove barriers to and encourage the use

of Low Impact Development (LID) practices. Integration of local and state regulations will allow stormwater regulations to work more efficiently to reduce the amount of polluted runofffrom entering local streams, rivers and ultimately the Chesapeake Bay.

Changing Our Expectations Low Impact Development (LID) as an approach to development is slowly making its way into the vernacular of development related codes and ordinances. This approach emulates the natural landscape through the efficient infiltration of rain water versus forcing it offsite. It is a simple concept.

As citizens of our communities, we need to expect that an approach incorporating LID becomes the norm. Codifying this expectation is an important step in ensuring the health of our rivers.

County AssessmentIn 2011, the James River Association, Potomac Conservancy and Friends of the Rappahannock (the Project Team) conducted an analysis of local development codes and ordinances in Virginia’s nontidal Chesapeake Bay watershed for their incorporation of LID.

June 2012

Promoting Low Impact Development in Virginia: A Review and Assessment of

Nontidal County Codes and Ordinances

The full report and other resource materials are available for download at www.potomac.org, www.thejamesriver.org, and www.riverfriends.org.

Low Impact Development, or LID, is one of the most cost-effective approaches to

address stormwater pollution, and protects the natural landscapes in our region.

Why Use LID?

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

The Project Team rated the localities on 76 LID principles, grouped into the following categories:• Minimization of Land Disturbance – The manner in which

sites are designed can help preserve the natural features of the landscape and reduce stormwater pollution. Clustering homes and buildings or reducing set-backs and frontages can minimize land disturbance.

• Preserving Vegetation – Retaining forests and meadows, particularly along streams and other water bodies, can significantly reduce stormwater runoff and help filter out pollutants before they enter water bodies.

• Minimizing Impervious Cover –The impact of roads and parking lots on water quality can be reduced by minimizing their width and length, reducing the number of parking spaces required, avoiding curbs and gutters, and encouraging stormwater infiltration and treatment areas.

• General Water Quality Protection – In addition to guiding how specific sites are developed, localities also have the ability to guide where development occurs within their jurisdiction. This section of the checklist reviews how a locality manages its land through agricultural or forestal districts, purchase/transfer of development rights programs and other mechanisms that have the ability to protect local waters.

• Nontidal Locality Supplement – In Virginia, local governments play an important role in preventing pollution through

Promoting Low Impact Development in Virginia: A Review and Assessment of Nontidal County Codes and Ordinances

stormwater management programs, erosion and sediment control, and septic regulation. Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act acknowledges this fact, but the Act only applies to localities that touch tidal waters. This section was developed by the Project Team for nontidal localities, to address the elements of Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act.

In recognition of the critical role that local ordinances play in the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay, Virginia’s Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) developed an advisory checklist for use in review of local ordinances. The checklist provides a measure of consistency for identifying the degree to which LID is encouraged and water quality considered in the rules that dictate the nature and character of development in a locality. The checklist was modified slightly and some questions were added to better assess the capacity to implement LID policies and practices.

A number of model development principles were identified by the Project Team. The checklist was used to identify whether a locality’s ordinances touched on, required, or encouraged each of these principles. The locality received points if language in the codes supported the identified principles. Points were tallied for each locality and divided by total points possible resulting in a percentage of achievement of ordinance language identifying and supporting all 76 principles.

ng

Augusta

Bath

Louisa

Fauquier

Albemarle

Rockingham

Nelson

Loudoun

Page

Amherst

Rockbridge

Craig

Botetourt

Amelia

Highland

Buckingham

Frederick

Orange

Alleghany

Culpeper

Shenandoah

Madison

Fluvanna

Warren

Clarke

Goochland

PowhatanCumberland

Prince Edward

Greene

Appomattox

Rappahannock

Bedford

CampbellLynchburg

ty

City of Richmond

N s

RoanokeGilesMontgomery

City of Staunton

City of Harrisonburg

City of Waynesboro

Buena VistaCovi ton

Campbell

City of Winchester

City of Charlottesville

Lexi tonClifto Forge

0-14%

15-29%

30-44%

45-59%

60+%

Not assessed

Locality Scores (%)

ngn

Scores for local adoption of Low Impact Development codes and ordinances in nontidal Virginia counties within the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Augusta

Bath

Louisa

Fauquier

Albemarle

Rockingham

Nelson

Loudoun

Page

Amherst

Rockbridge

Craig

Botetourt

Amelia

Highland

Buckingham

Frederick

Orange

Alleghany

Culpeper

Shenandoah

Madison

Fluvanna

Warren

Clarke

Goochland

PowhatanCumberland

Prince Edward

Greene

Appomattox

Rappahannock

Bedford

CampbellLynchburg

ty

City of Richmond

N s

RoanokeGilesMontgomery

City of Staunton

City of Harrisonburg

City of Waynesboro

Buena VistaCovi ton

Campbell

City of Winchester

City of Charlottesville

Lexi tonClifto Forge

ngn

Promoting Low Impact Development in Virginia: A Review and Assessment of Nontidal County Codes and Ordinances

Locality Score Classification Characteristics and Recommendations

Madison County 38%

Characteristics: Limited development with relatively low development pressure. Population growth is projected to be minimal and in several localities, a significant amount of acreage is already under some form of local, state, or federal protection.

Recommendations:· Local conservation easement program or partnership· Natural resource protection in open space · Septic pump-out requirements

Rappahannock County 25%

Appomattox County 21%

Buckingham County 5%

Highland County 3%

Rockbridge County 20%

Botetourt County 14%

Amherst County 22%

Craig County 5%

Alleghany County 9%

Bath County 18%

Page County 7%

Nelson County 18%

Locality Score Classification Characteristics and Recommendations

Orange County 18%

Characteristics: Limited existing development and have experienced moderate development pressure to date. Population growth projections often indicate future growth.

Recommendations:· Cluster ordinance including resource protection · Conservation corridors· Adoption of maximum road width standards

Shenandoah County 30%

Fauquier County 67%

Fluvanna County 25%

Prince Edward County 13%

Cumberland County 21%

Amelia County 13%

Albemarle County 46%

Augusta County 30%

Rockingham County 37%

Locality Score Classification Characteristics and Recommendations

Louisa County 29%Characteristics: Limited existing development and have experienced moderate to high development pressure to date. Popula-tion projections indicate significant future growth.

Recommendations:· Strong erosion and sediment control requirements, such as a lower threshold for compliance · Stream buffer requirements · Integration of natural drainage patterns in site design

Powhatan County 30%

Greene County 12%

Goochland County 36%

Frederick County 24%

Culpeper County 72%

Warren County 30%

Locality Score Classification Characteristics and Recommendations

City of Waynesboro 24%

Characteristics: Exhibit a moderate level of existing development and a moderate level of current development pressure. Population projections often indicate future growth.

Recommendations:· Purchase or Transfer of Development Rights programs · Maximum parking requirements · Construction footprint requirements

Campbell County 13%

City of Staunton 33%

Clarke County 51%

City of Charlottesville 67%

Bedford County 36%

City of Lexington 14%

Locality Score Classification Characteristics and Recommendations

City of Lynchburg 37% Characteristics: Top population gainers between 2000 and 2010, with significant development pressures likely continuing into the future.

Recommendations:· Tree protection ordinance and/or tree canopy goal · Natural resource assessment as a part of development pre-application process · Shared parking requirements

Loudoun County 42%

Locality Score Classification Characteristics and Recommendations

City of Winchester 30%Characteristics: Significant amount of existing development combined with projections for continued development.

Recommendations:· Redevelopment incentives · Impervious surface reduction with redevelopment · Rainwater harvesting

City of Harrisonburg 21%

RU

RA

L L

OW

GR

OW

TH

RU

RA

L V

UL

NE

RA

BL

ER

UR

AL

HIG

HLY

V

UL

NE

RA

BL

ES

UB

UR

BA

N

VU

LN

ER

AB

LE

SU

BU

RB

AN

H

IGH

LY

VU

LN

ER

AB

LE

UR

BA

N

HIG

HLY

V

UL

NE

RA

BL

E

ResultsWithin Virginia, many localities allow the use of LID practices for stormwater management. In fact, most local ordinances do not promote LID and many contain hurdles to its implementation. With the Commonwealth’s adoption of new stormwater regulations that call for the implementation of LID, local ordinances need to be amended to incorporate LID into site design. The results of this assessment provide the information necessary for localities to begin incorporating LID into their ordinances and helps prepare them for the implementation of the new stormwater regulations.

Local review results are presented on the previous page. Scores ranged from 3% to 72%, with an average score of 27%. Each locality did well in at least one area and each had room for improvement.

• All of the 76 LID principles were met by at least one locality, demonstrating that the incorporation of LID into local codes is achievable.

• Open space provisions that protect sensitive lands were the most widely adopted standard• The protection of vegetation is the largest challenge in protecting local water quality.• Reducing street widths to Virginia Department of Transportation minimum standards can

improve the scores of a vast majority of localities. • Low scoring localities are generally rural, which reflects current and historically low development

pressure.

By increasing awareness and understanding of LID principles at the local level, the results of the local assessment will hopefully assist localities in their preparedness for the new stormwater regulations and increase the adoption of LID into local codes and ordinances.

Benefits of Implementing LID Codes Potential benefits to the natural environment, the economy, and the community at large include:

• Protection of water quality of local streams, lakes, and estuaries1

• Reduced pollutant loads in stormwater• Reduced erosion during construction• Reduced development costs2

• Increased property values3 • Creation of more pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods• Provision of open space for recreation• Allowance for more sensible locations for stormwater facilities• Protection of sensitive forests, wetlands, and habitats from clearing• Increased local property tax revenues• Jobs4

To help localities that would like to improve their score and encourage conservation, the ProjectTeam has assembled a database of LID ordinance provisions from across Virginia’s Bay watershed, and developed recommendations, based on implemented ordinances from a reviewed locality, for each focus area of the checklist. The database provides examples of codes and ordinances that meet the principles and criteria of this report’s analysis. The database is available on the websites listed on page 1.

1 http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/agecon/WECO/transylvania/WECO_LID_econ_factsheet.pdf2 http://www.stormh2o.com/SW/Articles/CostEffective_LID_in_Commercial_and_Residential_De_13839.aspx?cpsys_redirect=404 )3 see: MacMullan, Ed; Sarah Reich. The Economics of Low-Impact Development: A Literature Review. ECONorthwest. November 2007.www.econw.com4 http://www.cbf.org/document.doc?id=1023

PROJECT TEAM

PARTNERSUniversity of Virginia

Virginia Commonwealth University

George Mason University

Virginia Department of Conservation and

Recreation

Center for Watershed Protection

SUPPORTERSThe research on which this report

is based was funded in part by:

Resources Center for Watershed Protection (1998). Better Site Design: A Handbook for Changing Development Rules in Your Com-munity. Available online: http://www.cwp.org/Resource_Library/Better_Site_Design/#guidebooks. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status_bayhealth.aspx

James River Association (2009). Low Impact Development Policy Manual. James River Association (2008). State of the James River 2007. Available online: http://www.jamesriverasso-ciation.org/what-we-do/Publications/state-of-the-james.pdf

Promoting Low Impact Development in Virginia: A Review and Assessment of Nontidal County Codes and Ordinances

James River Association (2007). Building a Cleaner James River: Improving Local Building Codes and Ordinances to Protect the James River and its Tributaries. Available online:http://www.james-riverassociation.org/dynamic/dyn_file.asp?id=491

Kloss, Christopher and C. Calarusse (2006). Rooftops to Rivers: Green Strategies for Controlling Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows. Natural Resource Defense Council. Available online: http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/rooftops/rooftops.pdf

Potomac Conservancy (2011) State of the Nation’s River Report: One River, Two Worlds. Available online: http://www.potomac.org/site/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sonr11_fi-nalreport.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General (2007). Development Growth Outpacing Progress in Watershed Efforts to Restore the Chesapeake Bay (Report No. 2007-P-00031). Available online: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2007/20070910-2007-P-00031.pdf

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (2008). Final 2008 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report. Available online: http://www.deq.state.va.us/wqa/ir2008.html