Community-Based

Environmental

United States

Environmental

Protection

Office of Policy,

Planning, and

Evaluation

EPA 230-B-96-003

September 1997

A Resource Book For Protecting

Ecosystems and Communities

EPA

CoverREV.QXD 9/13/00 2:55 PM Page 1
Acknowledgments:

This resource book was prepared by EPA’s Office of Sustainable

Ecosystems and Communities (OSEC), within EPA’s Office of

Policy, Planning, and Evaluation with assistance from the Office

of Cooperative Environmental Management (OCEM). The

following Team members contributed to this report: Gerald Filbin

(Team Leader), Eyvonne Harris, John Moses, Shirley Brauer,

Holly Stallworth, Bill Painter, Lisa A. Harris, Lori Park,

Theresa Trainor, Mark Joyce, Barbara Mandula, Jacolyn Dziuban,

Bob Black, Sarah Malloy, and Margo Burnham. OSEC’s Resource

Book Project Team was managed by Leonard Fleckenstein

(Deputy Director, OSEC). OSEC would also like to acknowledge

the assistance of the Agency’s National Advisory Committee on

Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) CommunityBased Environmental Protection Subcommittee, the Local

Governments Advisory Committee (LGAC), and the following

individuals who contributed to this resource book: Deanna

Mueller-Crispin, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality;

L. Gregory Low, The Nature Conservancy; Megan Gallagher, 

The Center for Compatible Economic Development; Ed Hopkins,

The Nature Conservancy; Maureen Hart, Hart Environmental

Data; Linda Hixon, Friends of the North Chicamauga Greenway,

Inc.; Lillian Kawasaki, City of Los Angeles, Environmental Affairs

Department; Gary Machlis, U.S. Department of Agriculture/

University of Idaho; Kathy Magruder, Queen Anne Co. (MD)

Visitor Services; Robert Neville, U.S. Department of Agriculture;

William Norris, Virginia Lakes and Watersheds Association;

J. Kathy Parker, The Oriskany Institute; Douglas Porter, Growth

Management Institute; Luther Propst, The Sonoran Institute;

Ted Strong, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission; and

Edward Whitelaw, University of Oregon. Valuable editorial

assistance was provided by Roy Popkin of EPA’s Office of

Communications, Education, and Public Affairs. The report was

prepared with the support of Industrial Economics, Incorporated

(IEc) under U.S. EPA contract 68-W4-0041. 

For additional copies of this resource book, call the National

Center for Environmental Publications and Information at (513)

489-8190. Written requests may be sent by fax to (513) 489-8695

or by mail to: NCEPI, 11029 Kenwood Road, Building 5,

Cincinnati, OH 45242. Copies also may be obtained by contacting the Community-Based Environmental Protection

Clearinghouse, Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and

Communities (2184), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW, Washington DC

20460, or by e-mail: cbep.handbook@epamail.epa.gov. 

If you want to cite the resource book in documents you write,

please refer to it as Community-Based Environmental

Protection: A Resource Book for Protecting Ecosystems and

Communities, 1997, U.S. EPA (EPA 230-B-96-003), Washington,

DC. Permission to copy all or part of it is not required. 

Front Cover Photo Acknowledgment:

Photo at lower right, “Young Fisherman, Anacostia River

Watershed, Washington, DC”, by Jamal Kadri.
i

DISCLAIMER 

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Community-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP)

initiative is designed to help people become effective partners in protecting the environment, including the

ecosystems that support the physical and economic health of the places where they live and work. The EPA

Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities has compiled this book to identify practical approaches

and tools to help communities carry out their own ecosystem protection efforts. Mention of organizations or

products in this resource book does not constitute an endorsement by EPA, but is intended to point communities to places where they may look to find information, resources, or assistance and then evaluate for themselves the appropriateness of the resource for their own situations.

Recycled/Recyclable

Printed with Soy/Canola ink on paper that

contains at least 50% recycled fiber

iii

AN OVERVIEW OF COMMUNITY-BASED

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CHAPTER 1

1.1 What Is Community-Based Environmental Protection and

How Does It Support Ecosystem Protection? ................................................................1-1

1.2 Community-Based Environmental Protection Goals Can Address

Ecosystem Protection......................................................................................................1-2

1.3 Basic Approaches for Developing a Local Ecosystem Protection Project —

How to Use This Book....................................................................................................1-4

GETTING STARTED: GOAL-SETTING AND DEVELOPING

AN ORGANIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CHAPTER 2

2.1 Getting Everyone Involved ............................................................................................2-1

2.2 Identifying Goals and Defining an Approach ................................................................2-6

Setting Versatile Goals ............................................................................................2-6

Using Indicators to Measure Progress Toward Goals ............................................2-7

Adapting Goals ........................................................................................................2-8

Making Sure the Goal-Setting Process Involves the Whole Community ................2-8

2.3 Defining Geographic Boundaries....................................................................................2-8

Starting Small ..........................................................................................................2-9

Deciding What to Include ......................................................................................2-17

2.4 Choosing the Best Organizational Structure ................................................................2-20

ASSESSING THE CONDITIONS OF LOCAL ECOSYSTEMS

AND THEIR EFFECTS ON COMMUNITIES: 

TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CHAPTER 3

3.1 Using Indicators..............................................................................................................3-1

What Are Indicators? ..............................................................................................3-1

Why Use Indicators?................................................................................................3-2

Choosing Indicators ................................................................................................3-3

3.2 Assessing Conditions and Trends in Local Ecosystems ................................................3-6

Specific Indicators of Ecosystem Health ................................................................3-6

Developing an Historical Perspective ....................................................................3-9

Gathering Technical Data......................................................................................3-11

Linking Stressors With Impacts..............................................................................3-17

Community-Based Environmental

Protection: A Resource Book For Protecting

Ecosystems and Communities

Contents
iv

3.3 Assessing Links Between Ecosystems and the Local Economy ..................................3-19

Local Economies Depend on Ecosystems..............................................................3-19

Evaluating the Links Between Ecosystems and Local Economies ........................3-26

3.4 Assessing Links Between Ecosystems and Quality of Life ........................................3-31

Healthy Ecosystems Make Life More Fulfilling ....................................................3-31

Evaluating the Links Between Ecosystems and Quality of Life ............................3-32

STRATEGIES TO CONSIDER FOR ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION . . . . . .CHAPTER 4

4.1 Strategies Using Voluntary Activities ............................................................................4-1

Low Cost, Immediate-Result Voluntary Strategies ..................................................4-1

Land Acquisition ......................................................................................................4-3

4.2 Strategies Using Local Laws ..........................................................................................4-6

Zoning Ordinances ..................................................................................................4-6

Property Taxes and Municipal Fees ......................................................................4-10

Performance Standards..........................................................................................4-11

Transfers of Development Rights (TDRs)..............................................................4-12

Growth Planning in Local Communities ..............................................................4-12

4.3 Strategies Based on Federal and State Laws and Programs ........................................4-15

Federal and State Laws Affecting Ecosystems......................................................4-15

Working With Federal and State Laws ..................................................................4-15

EVALUATING AND CHOOSING STRATEGIES FOR

ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION EFFORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CHAPTER 5

5.1 Initial Considerations......................................................................................................5-1

5.2 A Hypothetical Community Choosing Its Strategy........................................................5-4

5.3 Analyzing the Socioeconomic Impacts of Strategies ....................................................5-6

Effects on Key Segments of the Community ............................................................5-6

Ways to Present Options ..........................................................................................5-7

Techniques for Analyzing the Pros and Cons..........................................................5-9

5.4 Adapting Strategies to Changing Situations and New Information ............................5-13

Reasons for Adapting the Ecosystem Protection Plan ..........................................5-13

Stakeholder Participation in Adapting the Plan....................................................5-15

Keeping Everyone Informed ..................................................................................5-15

Staying Aware of Problem Areas ..........................................................................5-15

Expanding the Scope of the Project ......................................................................5-17

Appendix A: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE DIRECTORY

Appendix B: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Appendix C: UNDERSTANDING ECOSYSTEMS — AN ECOSYSTEM PRIMER

Contents (continued)
v

Communities In Action

Story Boxes

Arizona and New Mexico: The Malpai Borderlands Group’s Community-Based

Ecosystem Protection in Action. ..................................................................................................1-3

Flagstaff, Arizona: Soliciting Flagstaff Citizen Involvement. ....................................................2-6

Metropolitan Washington Region: Building Community Support Through the Anacostia

Watershed Restoration Effort ........................................................................................................2-8

Red Lodge, Montana: Small Jurisdiction Enlists Outside Help and Input from Other Small

Communities to Develop a Plan for Sustainable Community Development..............................2-13

Missouri River, Omaha, Nebraska: “Back to the River” Taps Stakeholder Opinions................2-14

Big Sandy Lake, Minnesota: Broadening the Stakeholder Base and Focusing

Attention on a Problem................................................................................................................2-17

Southern California: Defining Geographic Boundaries Through the California Natural

Communities and Conservation Planning Program ....................................................................2-19

The Berkshires of New England: Protective Buffer Zones Along the Westfield River ............2-20

Blackfoot River Valley, Montana: Using Existing Groups as a Springboard for

Organization ................................................................................................................................2-22

Tensas River Basin, Northeastern Louisiana: Ensuring the Sustainability of the Basin ..........2-23

Neponset River Watershed, Massachusetts: Citizen Action Charts a Path for

Massachusetts River Restoration ................................................................................................2-24

Santa Monica Bay, California: Monitoring Ecological Stress......................................................3-4

Seattle, Washington: Involving the Public in Selecting Indicators..............................................3-5

North Park, Colorado: The Owl Mountain Partnership’s Ecosystem Survey ..........................3-10

Keeping Track in Northern Vermont: A Community Effort to Protect Wildlife Habitat ..........3-14

Portland, Oregon: Analytical Tools Protect Greenspace ..........................................................3-16

Upper Great Lakes: Evaluating Ecosystem Stress in the Kakagon and

Bad River Sloughs ......................................................................................................................3-21

Canaan Valley, West Virginia: Identification of Environmental Stressors Helps

Preserve Ecosystem ....................................................................................................................3-22

Northampton County, Virginia: Ecosystem Protection Can Benefit Recreation and

Nature-Based Local Economies..................................................................................................3-23

Southwestern Washington: Innovation in Willapa Bay Helps Community Integrate

Ecological and Economic Goals..................................................................................................3-24

Great Lakes: Native American Perspectives in Great Lakes Land Management ....................3-26
vi

Communities In Action

Story Boxes (continued)

New York City: Recognizing the Value of Central Park’s Open Space ....................................3-28

Eastern Shore, Virginia: Using Easements and Other Compatible Development

Approaches to Protect Virginia’s Barrier Islands..........................................................................4-4

Western Massachusetts: Local River Protection Zoning Bylaws to Preserve the

Westfield River. ............................................................................................................................4-8

New Jersey: Urban Forestry Improves Urban Living..................................................................4-9

The Philadelphia GreenSpace Alliance: Innovative Policy Tools Preserve Open Space

and Concentrate Development ....................................................................................................4-10

South-Central Florida: Bringing the Kissimmee River Basin Back to Life ...............................5-2

Yampa River Basin Partnership of Northwest Colorado: Coordinating Community

Groups for a Common Vision ......................................................................................................5-4

Columbus, Ohio: The Darby Partners Monitor Success. ..........................................................5-14

Nevada County, California: Getting Stakeholder Feedback to Improve a Community

Forest Management Effort ..........................................................................................................5-16
1-1

Over the last twenty-five years, federal and state anti-pollution laws have achieved

many notable environmental successes. Local communities often play a prominent

role in addressing many of the most pressing environmental concerns. Central to

these concerns is the need for clean and vital ecosystems. Healthy ecosystems support

human health, plants, and animals. They also provide recreational opportunities and

support local economies dependent upon fish, game, forests, and other resources. Full

protection of our nation’s ecosystems requires communities and individuals to conserve or restore habitats and solve other environmental problems not specifically

addressed by traditional regulatory approaches.

Over many years, a number of communities in the country have initiated their own

successful community-based environmental efforts. Indeed, the first anti-pollution

laws around the turn of the century were local ones. This publication draws on the

experiences of many different communities to provide examples of community-based

environmental programs and key approaches, information, and other tools that communities are using.

1.1 What Is Community-Based Environmental Protection

and How Does It Support Ecosystem Protection?

Community-based environmental protection is action that local individuals and groups

take to address their own environmental concerns. Ecosystem protection carries such

activity beyond localized environmental issues, such as pollution from a particular factory or lead poisoning from paint in older housing, to consider the ecological health of

the total local environment. This environment often extends beyond municipal borders.

People who work, live, and have businesses in the community (“stakeholders”) have a

common interest in protecting their shared environment and quality of life. The defining element of community-based ecosystem protection is that these people work

together to develop plans and goals. Ecosystem protection plans developed in this

way can be very effective because:

n They take into account local social, economic, and environmental conditions

as well as community values.

n They create a sense of local ownership of issues and solutions and encourage

long-term community support and accountability.

An Overview of CommunityBased Environmental Protection

Chapter 

1
1-2

Because most community-based efforts are initiated locally, they consider the views,

interests, and values of local stakeholders. The Malpai Borderlands Group in Arizona

and New Mexico (see across), is an instructive example of how a core group of local

stakeholders undertook cooperative efforts to preserve local and regional ecological

resources. In some cases, communities launch ecosystem protection efforts in

response to specific concerns of states and federal agencies; this document also

reviews several such programs.

Human activities may create a number of different types of stressors for ecosystems

and the species that live within them. These stressors can be physical, such as erosion

or habitat destruction; chemical, such as toxic chemicals or excessive nutrients; or

biological, such as the introduction of an exotic species or the removal of a predator

that controls pest species. Community initiatives that focus on protecting local

ecosystems take into consideration the complexity of natural systems and the nature of

human relationships with them. It may be difficult for a community to identify its

ecosystems and their natural boundaries (where one ecosystem ends and the next one

begins). Often, ecosystems’ physical boundaries don’t coincide with a community’s

political boundaries or the natural range for species, such as a migratory bird.

Additionally, human activities that harm an ecosystem may be located some distance

away, or may be difficult to change. A community also may contain several ecosystems. Both the relationships among components of an ecosystem, such as water,

plants, animals, and topography, and the interactions among neighboring ecosystems

are important.

1.2 Community-Based Environmental Protection Goals Can

Address Ecosystem Protection

A major goal of many community-based environmental protection efforts is to ensure

that local ecosystems are healthy enough to provide a range of valuable benefits, both

now and in the future. Ecosystem services that benefit humans include:

n Moderating Natural Events and Human Activities — Healthy ecosystems

can make communities safer and more livable by tempering the effects of natural events and human activity. For example, wetlands can absorb water and

thereby help control flooding; they may also remove pollutants from wastewater. 

n Enhancing Social Well-Being — Healthy ecosystems provide services that

make communities more enjoyable and rewarding. For example, a healthy

ecosystem provides opportunities for outdoor recreation. To many people,

it also provides a sense of civic pride and spiritual well-being.

n Supporting Local Economies — In a sustainable economy, people meet the

needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to

meet their own needs. Maintaining healthy ecosystems can help ensure future

generations the economic opportunities enjoyed by current residents. The

interaction between ecosystems and the economy is often the most prominent

issue for local decisionmakers because:
1-3

T

he Malpai Borderlands Group is a

non-profit coalition of private

landowners and ranchers in the border

region of Arizona and New Mexico. The

group provides a good illustration of community-based ecosystem protection. The

group established a clear ecosystem-oriented goal: “To restore and maintain the

natural processes that create and protect

a healthy, unfragmented landscape; to

support a diverse, flourishing community

of human, plant and animal life....” To

pursue this goal, the group developed a

5-year plan for management of the

grasslands, desert scrub, and mountain

forest ecosystem in the region. The plan

targeted three major issues: conservation and land protection, low- impact economic development, and science and

education.

The group employs an open, participatory

process to choose individual ecosystem protection projects. Members explore options,

consider available resources, and maintain

open communication with ranchers and agencies. Their guiding principle is always to consider how a project will lead them toward their objective of restoring and maintaining their ecosystem and community.

The group members are aware that many options exist for achieving their goals. They adopted

a clear 10-step methodology for identifying those options and developing new projects. Board

members, staff members, and volunteers are invited to introduce new ideas. A point person discusses each new idea with the president or executive director and forms a project committee to

explore its feasibility. 

The planning process has resulted in successful initiation of projects in three major issue areas.

“Conservation and land protection” projects include conducting prescribed burns, allowing natural

fires to burn, and reintroducing natural grasses in conservation and land protection areas. In the area

of “science and education”, the group funded field research to determine the effects of fire, grazing, and climate change on lands. “Low-impact economic development” is addressed through

cooperative investigations with local ranchers of ways to market local products. The group also

focuses on endangered species protection by supporting ranchers’ efforts to sustain Chiricahua leopard frog populations on their properties. Many of these successes can be attributed to the group’s

inclusive planning process. In the words of its executive director, “The Malpai Borderlands Group

will never do something to someone — it will be done with them or it won’t be done at all.”

Contact: Wendy Glenn

Malpai Borderlands Group

6226 Geronimo Trail Road

P.O. Drawer 3536

Douglas, AZ 85608

Phone: (520) 558-2470

Fax: (520) 558-2314

Arizona and New Mexico: The Malpai Borderlands

Group’s Community-Based Ecosystem Protection in

“The Malpai Borderlands

Group will never do something to someone – it will be

done with them or it won’t be

done at all.”

– Malpai Borderland Group
1-4

– Many local economies depend on outdoor recreation and tourism. 

– Many communities rely on resources extracted from the environment.

Examples include timber, minerals, building materials, and seafood.

– Ecosystem quality affects the value of property and may influence

local finances. 

The importance of ecosystem quality to sustainability is illustrated by considering

how community members’ economic lives are made possible by healthy ecosystems.

While modern technology has provided many substitutes and supplements to goods

produced by healthy ecosystems, such as farm-grown fish rather than wild fish, the

economy is still dependent upon the environment for basic raw materials like water,

wood, and minerals. For the economy to grow, communities must protect the underlying natural systems on which they are built. For example, if a community harvests

timber in a given region faster than the timber can grow back, or if a local shellfish

bed is over harvested, the industries that depend on these resources will fail. Careful

management of ecosystems such as forests and

estuaries can help avoid this outcome and provide

a continuing supply of products, services, and jobs

for the next generation.

This publication is intended to help you understand

how healthy ecosystems benefit your community

and how recreational, economic, and other activities affect the quality of your ecosystems. It will

show you how other communities have assessed

the interrelationships between their community

goals, such as residential development, and ecosystem quality. As well, it will show you how those

assessments helped communities decide how to

focus their efforts and resources more successfully.

1.3 Basic Approaches For

Developing 

A Local Ecosystem Protection

Project — How To Use This

Book

This publication contains four major sections: 

n Getting Started — Getting an ecosystem protection project off the ground involves setting

goals for the project and establishing an organizational structure for the effort. Chapter 2 of

this book discusses effective approaches to

these tasks.

n Assessing the Conditions of Local Ecosystems and Their Effects on

Communities — Chapter 3 discusses assessment of the current conditions of

Throughout the book you will find special text sections

intended to make community-based ecosystem protection

more understandable. These include:

Community Stories — A state border

symbol identifies summaries of real

community ecosystem protection efforts

throughout the United States. Each one

demonstrates a key principle or tool

discussed in the text. The descriptions

list a contact person from whom you

can obtain additional information.

Information Boxes — These text boxes

are designed to enhance your understanding of key technical concepts.

“To Learn More” Sections — These

sections provide suggestions for further

reading, in case you want more detail

on a particular topic.

Tool Boxes — These sections describe

specific databases, models, or techniques

that may prove useful in your ecosystem

protection efforts.
1-5

local ecosystems. The chapter lists data sources and techniques for identifying ecosystem problems and ways to trace these problems back to their root

causes. In addition, Chapter 3 discusses assessing the linkages among

ecosystems, the local economy, and the quality of life.

n Strategies to Consider for Ecosystem Protection — Chapter 4 explains

local, state, and federal resources that may be useful to ecosystem protection

projects.

n Evaluating and Choosing Strategies for Ecosystem Protection Efforts —

Chapter 5 discusses how communities have evaluated potential ecosystem

protection activities by weighing the potential impacts that they may have on

local business, the local government, and the residents of the community.

The chapter also discusses options for adapting projects as new information

becomes available.

The bibliography at the end of certain chapters lists resources we used in preparing

this book.

Additionally, the book contains three appendices. Appendix A lists sources of technical assistance within the U.S. EPA as well as within nonprofit organizations, other

federal government agencies, and state governments. Appendix B provides a brief

glossary of ecosystem-related terms that may be unfamiliar to some readers. Finally,

Appendix C provides an introduction to how ecosystems work, and how human activity can affect them. This information may prove useful in interactions with environmental professionals in government, academia, and other organizations.

2

Getting Started: Goal-Setting and

Developing An Organization

2.1 Getting Everyone Involved

Community ecosystem protection initiatives often begin at the grassroots level, when

friends and neighbors share a common interest in protecting or restoring the local

environment. These initiatives may be spurred by noticeable air or water pollution, a

development that causes ecosystem damage, some obvious ecological effect such as a

fish kill, the gradual loss of desired species such as songbirds, or some other symptom

of an underlying ecological problem. Alternatively, a community might come tog&

er to protect local ecosystems before they become threatened.

A concerned citizen, local oft?cial, or other project initiator may have some idea of

desired outcomes, or may have identified ecosystems or ecosystem components to

improve or protect. Project initiators in other communities have found it useful to

reach out early to other stakeholders -- meaning, literally, people who have a stake (or

at least an interest) in what the initiator is thinking about -- to begin an exchange of

ideas about the desired outcomes or conditions that sparked their interest. Identifying

possible stakeholders and sharing information stimulates their thoughts and desire to

participate Ultimately, stakeholders develop partnerships by coming to agreement on

issues, vision, and information, leading to the development of a set of community

goals and actions.

The figure on the next page shows one potential progression of a community ecosys

tern protection effort. The illustration begins with the topics found in this chapter --

that isI when a small group in the community alerts potential stakeholders to their cot+

cans and begins to organize. Next, the community as a whole might develop its

vision of the ideal community and, from this vision, develop goals. Finally, the corn

munity might assess the current problems facing ecosystems (discussed in Chapter 3)

and identify and implement strategies to achieve those goals (discussed in Chapters 4

and 5).

Who are possible stakeholders? They include anyone in the community who takes a

natural interest in environmental protection. Groups that might be affected by

changes in commercial activity resulting from ecosystem protection strategies are also

potential stakeholders. Examples may include businesses or labor unions. Local

elected officials and community leaders can help identify potential stakeholders, in

addition to participating themselves.

2-i
r

Figure 2-l.

Protection of Local Ecosystems Is An Inclusive

and Evolving Process

sec1sc r,f Ilam Scw#r nf <hdiii.lna

2-2
Potential stakeholders might include the following organizations and individuals.

n Members of existing organizations that use or are concerned with the

environment or land-use issues, such as:

- Local environmental interest groups such as Audubon Society and

the Sierra Club

Hiking, bicycling, and walking groups

- Boating, canoeing, and white-water rafting organizations

Fishing or hunting clubs such as Trout Unlimited and the Izaak

Walton League

- Local community service organizations such as service clubs, garden

clubs, 4-H Clubs, and Scouts

- Public health organizations

- Land trust organizations such as The Nature Conservancy or local

land trusts

- Condominium or housing development associations

- Church organizations

- Parent-teacher organizations

- Neighborhood community economic development organizations

Student groups at local schools and universities

- Local historical societies

- Environmental justice activist groups

n Private landowners whose property includes habitat areas that the community

wants to protect, including farmers, ranchers, timber companies, and private

residents

n Businesses whose livelihoods depend on local environmental resources,

directly or indirectly, including:

- Canoe rental

- Fishing and hunting guides

- Nature tour guides

Horseback riding stables

- Resorts, local hotels, bed and breakfasts, hunting lodges

- Commercial fishing or other industries dependent on

renewable resources

Landscaping businesses

- Real estate agents

Developers’ and builders’ associations

- Utility companies

Businesses that require clean water for manufacturing

- Local industries with environmental discharges

- Insurers

Lenders

0 Local chapters of relevant national professional organizations, including:

- Ecologists, biologists, and other natural scientists

- Physicians (e.g., the America” or state and county medical

associations)

- Landscape architects (e.g., American Institute of Architecture)

- Attorneys (e.g., American Bar Association) and mediators

(e.g., Society for Professionals in Dispute Resolution)

2-3
- Land use, natural resource, and other planners (e.g., American

Planning Association or International City/County Management

Association)

n OffGzes of state, local, tribal, and federal governments, including:

- Local watershed organizations and conservation districts

- Local parks and recreation departments

- Local planning boards

- Local and state tourism offices

- County or municipal water districts and health departments

- State departments of environmental protection, agriculture,

fish and game, transportation, and commerce

- State economic development, coastal zone management, planning, and

community and urban affairs commissions

- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

- U.S. Department of Agriculture (especially the Extension Service and

the Natural Resource Conservation Service)

- U.S. Forest Service

- U.S. Department of the Interior (especially the National Park Service,

the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management)

Ways to raise community awareness include:

” Using Existing Forums for Public Participation-Communities often have regular public meetings in

which community members can place items for discussion on the agenda.

” Publishing Information in the Newspaper or Running an Ad on a Local Radio Station or on

Community Access TV - Local newspapers can publish notices about ecosystem protection ideas and

include either a date for an open meeting or a telephone number people can call for further information

Alternatively, local radio stations or local cable TV channels can run similar notices.

n Handing Out Leaflets-A booth at a local store, shopping mall, library, or other well-traveled location

can be an outlet for distributing leaflets about the local ecosystem and why people might be interested in

joining an effort to protect it.

” Sending Out Mailings -Participants can drop off leaflets to people directly at their homes or send

brochures via mail.

n Writing Op-Ed Articles Letters to the editor of the local newspaper, or op-ed articles, can effXently

publicize a project.

n Calling Local Talk Shows-Calling radio shows discussing environmental or community themes can raise

awareness about local ecosystem protection.

n Posting a Bulletin Board Notice or Developing a Home Page on the Internet The Internet can be a

direct and very effective way of getting information to certain segments of the community, especially inter

est group members (e.g., environmental activists and academics). Developing a home page that explains

the project is a good way to get exposure.

2-4
- U.S. Department of Commerce (especially the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administrati?n and the Economic Development

Administration)

- U.S. Department of Transportation

- Military bases administered by the U.S. Department of Defense or the

Coast Guard

n Faculty at local schools and universities, especially those in environmental

studies, biology, ecology, geology, and other natural sciences as well as

economics, urban planning, public policy, and other social sciences

81 Labor unions and other workers’ organizations

n Senior citizens’ organizations such as local councils on the aging or the

Environmental Alliance for Senior Involvement (EASI).

Many diverse ethnic, religious, or other groups might be interested in sharing their

points of view and participating. In some cases, communities must actively seek the

involvement of key groups. Stakeholders may exist outside the immediate geographic

area. Often, a community’s ecosystem protection effort will interest people who live in

distant places. For example, a land conservation effort in a rural resort area may cap

hue the interest of city-dwellers who spend summers there. Similarly, a river restor&

tion effort may affect many downstream communities. The economic interests of pee

ple in other areas also may greatly affect communities’ efforts. The following stories

about Flagsta~s Open Spaces and Greenways Committee and the Anacostia Watershed

Restoration Committee illustrate efforts to include new members.

Engaging people from all key stakeholder groups as soon as possible produces many

benefits. People are much more likely to work together successfully if they are

involved from the beginning rather than after decisions are made. For example,

developers may be more willing to discuss alternative development schemes if they

are invited to help plan ecosystem protection strategies. Many community members

gain a sense of well-being from volunteering their time to create a better community;

involvement in the effort can be a source of personal enrichment.

Most communities have found that

communication is vital in getting

stakeholder involvement. For exampie, visiting some of the groups

noted above at one of their meetings

and speaking for five minutes might

The NatiOnal Bwironmental Justice

Adv~isoly Council @WAC) recently

developed a public participation model

that addresses how to include historically

disetifmn&iied groups in community

successfully draw stakeholder partic- &o?ts. The description of the model is

ipation. Likewise, developing a two pages long and can be obtained from Mawa King at

newsletter to document decisions the U.S. Environmental Pmte&ion Agency’s Ofice of

made and activities undertaken Environmental Ju~rice, phone: (202) 5644599.

keeps everyone engaged and abreast

of the latest developments.

2-5
T

his community-based planning initiative illus

trates how an effort can expand and evolve as a

result of the concerns of new members. What began

as a one-issue, one-agency project expanded to an

effective multi-agency coalition with extensive citizen

involvement.

The project began with the City of Flagstaff’s update

of its general plan, Growth Management Guide 2000.

The city brought the U.S. Forest Service and the State

Land Department (which manage properties within the

city boundaries) and the National Park Service (which

was slated to expand its boundaries) to the table to dis

cuss the interface of open space and urban areas. One

of the city’s major problems concerned the movement

of elk and other large mammals across highways and through residential areas. This COD

cem brought the Arizona Department of Game and Fish into the process.

From this one concern over one area of land sprang a host of new issues: development

pressures, quality-of-life concerns, and floodplain protection, among others. As new

voices came forward and problems were clarified, the core group evolved into the Open

Spaces and Greenways Committee to better address the new and original issues.

Although local, state, and federal agencies did much of the preliminary work, the group

quickly opened the process to citizens, encouraged increased city and county representation,

and sought the opinions of under-represented but affected groups, such as the Native

American population.

Ultimately, the committee consisted of six agency representatives and seven local corn

munity members. City planners approached a limited number of organizations to encourage

representatives to participate on the committee, including the Board of Realtors, the Sierra

Club, the Chamber of Commerce, Northern Arizona University, the Parks and Recreation

Commission, and the Beautification Commission. The final slot was offered to a represen

tative of East Flagstaff. As the group grew and opinions were voiced, the actual goals of the

group evolved, incorporating a more complete set of concerns from the community.

2.2 Idenlifjing Goals and Defining An Approach

Other communities have found that when they first embark on an ecosystem proteo

tion project, they do not have a clear idea of goals, other than a general concern about

protecting local ecosystems. Various methods of goal-setting, such as visioning --

forming a concept of what the ideal state of the community’s ecosystems should be --

can help a community develop goals (see following tool box).

Setting Versatile Goals

When thinking about goals, many communities have considered not only ecological

protection, but also the ways in which the environment interacts with quality of life and

the local economy. These three endpoints can guide goal setting. For example, your

primary ecological protection goal might be protecting streamside or woodland habitat.

An associated “sustainable economy” goal might be working with landowners to pre2-6
The committee employed a diverse set of tools to find new members and to engage local and

regional input, including:

n Open houses in elementary schools, fire n Trivia quizzes published on the op-ed

stations, and other community meeting page of the city newspaper

places to review resource maps n Issue presentations on a statewide game

n Newsletters and fish television show

Outreach to populations who are not

residents of Flagstaff, but who use and

highly value many of the natural fea

hres of the Flagstaff area

Maps of the open-space categories, with

their descriptions and applications, posted in places of high public trafftc for

review and comment

n Free fact sheets on greenways initiatives

n Open plan-review sessions

n Videos to be used for community me&

ing outreach and local cable access

n Project posters made available through

panicipating groups and agencies

When the Hopi Tribe heard about the Flagstaff Open Spaces and Greenways Committee’s

mapping project, they became concerned. The committee was mapping significant natural,

historical, and cultural resources to classify priority areas for protection. The Hopis, howw

er, did not want their sacred places identified precisely. The committee therefore simply

flagged a region as culturally important without identifying specific locations that would

have attracted attention to the Hopi sacred sites.

Contact: Ursula MontaRo

Long Range PI&r

City of Flagstaff Planning

Division

2 I I W. Aspen Avenue

Flagstaff, AZ 86001

Phone: (520) 779-7685 ext. 255

Fax: (520) 779-7690

Alan Ragins

Rivers, Trails and Conservation

Assistance Program

U.S. Department of Interior

National Park Service

1220 South St. Francis Street

Santa Fe, NM 87501

Phone: (505) 988.6723

Fax: (505) 986-5225

serve their woodlands by carefully planning and selecting the timber harvest to protect

tree age, size, and species diversity, and replanting species native to the area.

Improving the quality of life might combine protecting wildlife habitat with construction of nature trails to provide hiking and walking benefits. Goals to improve ecosystems can include both present and future generations -- that is, the ecological legacy the

community wants to leave its children and grandchildren.

Using indicators to Measure Progress Toward Goals

Tying goals to indicators, or specific measures of how well the community is achieving its goals, is a concrete way to determine progress. For example, measuring corn

munity progress in protecting aquatic species might involve counting the number of

wading birds in the area. Specifically, the community could seek to double the wading

bird population by the year 2000. Measuring the economic health of the community

might involve tracking employment in eco-tourism businesses with a goal such as 50

percent growth in local eco-tourist business by the year 2000.

2-7
“The sub-basin coordinators have gained an

intimate familiurity

with the strertms, and

have tuken this knowledge to civic and environmentul organizutions, town

officials, and individual residents. ”

By stating goals in concrete, measurable terms, the community ensures that it can

objectively assess the project’s progress. The use of indicators is discussed in more

detail in Chapters 3 and 5.

Adapting Goals

As more and more stakeholders join the effort, the community may need to go

through the goal development process more than once. As Figure 2-1 illustrates, the

period after the assessment, planning, and execution of a particular ecosystem protec

tion project provides an opportunity to reevaluate whether the community is meeting

goals, using indicators, and whether these goals indeed represent the priorities of the

community. If not, then the strategies chosen may not be effective and the underlying

A

s the Anacostia restoration effort found, the most

successful way to build community partnerships is

by reaching out to the entire community, publicizing

goals and efforts, recruiting project volunteers, and

involving citizens in the decision making process.

The Potomac River cleanup in the 1970s drew much

attention, but the Anacostia River (the “other” major

river running through the nation’s capitol) remained

largely ignored. Some residents used the Anacostia for

recreation and appreciated the beauty of the watershed.

but others ignored it, neither feeling any connection to

the river nor realizing its potential as an urban treasure.

In 1987, a regional pamwship, the Anacostia Watershed

Restoration Committee (AWRC), joined the District of

Columbia, two Maryland counties (Prince George’s and

Montgomery), and the State of Maryland in a coalition to

address the basin’s declining health Partnership goals

included pollution reduction, watershed restoration, au&

reach, education, and stewardship.

The AWRC, representing local and state govemment, wanted to develop a new awareness of the

Anacostia River among the 804,500 residents of the

basin. In tam, these residents could serve as ?tream

stewards”. The AWRC chose a range of education and

participation opporhmities, including:

n Newsletters

n Subwatershed information brochures

n Sub-basin coordinators

0 Volunteer restoration projects

n A citizen advisory committee

2-8
!

To support these efforts, the Interstate Commission of the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB)

publishes a quarterly newsletter and subwatershed publications to inspire residents to get

involved. ICPRB packs these publications with local history, information on resources.

easy-to-understand explanations of the restoration effort, and tips for household participa

tion. ICPRB also supports part-time paid sub-basin coordinators recruited through local

newspaper job advertisements. These people are the eyes and ears of the river, spending

IO hours a week walking the streams, talking with neighbors, distributing newsletters.

producing stream-walk videos for local access cable channels, and making community pre

sentanons. Some take on special projects, such as watching for illegal dumping.

Coordinators also promote citizen participation in many private and governmental steward

ship efforts.

Many organizations have helped work toward the citizen stewardship goal. For instance,

the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) provided staff to publish a

handbook that provides step-by-step instructions for planning and conducting community

restoration projects. The Maryland Depxhnent of Natural Resources Forest Service.

MWCOG, the Anacostia Watershed Society, the Earth Conservation Corps, an Americorps

group, and others have planted trees along basin tributaries and throughout the watershed.

Citizens have also planted new wetlands and picked up countless pieces oftrash floating in the

waterways.

Most recently, the AWRC formed a citizen advisory committee to provide input on restora

tion and to ensure interactive community involvement in the restoration efforts.

contact: Curtis M. Dalpra Jim Shell

Public Information Officer Chief, Urban Watershed Planning

Interstate Commission of the Metropolitan Washington Council of

Potomac River Basin Governments

6110 Executive Boulevard, 777 N. Capitol Street NE, Suite 300

Suite 300 Washington, DC 20002-4226

Rockville, MD 20852 Phone: (202) 962.3342

Phone: (301) 984-1908 Fax: (202) 962-3201

Fax: (301) 984-5841

E-mail: cgy@epaibm.rtpnc.epa.gov

goals may not be relevant and realistic. Ultimately, the community may want to

undertake another goals development session.

Making Sure the Goal-Setting Process Involves the Whole Community

Unless key community members participate in setting goals, the goals produced will

not legitimately reflect the wishes of the community as a whole. Goal-setting works

best when participants are an inclusive group.

2-9
(-1 Tools For Group Decision-Making

The Visioning Process - The visioning process involves all interested

community members from the start. In the process, community members

gather in a meeting place and openly discuss plans for the future, similar

to the New England town meeting. Using visioning as a means to dew&

op community goals takes advantage of the breadth and depth of ideas within the commu

nity and ensures that the initial proposals are shaped by all affected members.

Many communities have begun this process by scheduling a meeting that is open to all seg

ments of the community llx same techniques used to interest others in the concept of envi

ronmental protection can be used to publicize the meeting: newspaper advertisements, radio

announcements, flyers, leaflets, and word of mouth through existing organizations such as

civic, church, environmental, and other community groups, and business organizations such as

the Chamber of Commerce. Holding the meetings in schools or other accessible locations

enables people to attend more easily, as does choosing a time that will be convenient to many

people, such as a weekday evening or a weekend morning. Similarly, providing childcare and

transportation enables parents, the elderly, and those without cars to attend.

II

The meetings can have two phases:

I

Generating Ideas -- First, in a group, all ofthe stakeholders brainstorm and share

ideas of what the community ideally would look like. This discussion incorporates a

diverse set of ideas about the desire for specific resource uses (such as using a mead

ow for development of songbird habitat) as well as personal values (for example, ensuring

that development is environmentally friendly). In addition to brainstorming, the group can

use role-playing exercises or other techniques to encourage participation.

,2 Organizing Ideas Into Goals -- Members refme the ideas generated in the first

phase into feasible goals using a consensus process, keeping in mind that these

goals must be measurable and will be assigned indicators later. The outcome of this

phase is a list of goals, both short- and long-term, and the specific activities necessary to

achieve them. Goals produced in Chattanooga. Tennessee’s visioning process are

described on the opposite page (Figure 2-2). You’ll notice that in the Chattanooga initiit

tive, the community built very diverse goals including cleanup of distressed areas, cm

ation of environmental enterprise zones, protection of wilderness areas, commihnent to

waste minimization. and fostering of public awareness and education.

Clearly, this process may not be completed in one meeting or even several meetings. Based

on the number of members involved and the complexity of problems, communities have

found that they need to schedule several meetings before completing the first round of goalsetting. A skilled facilitator can reduce conflict and ensure the best outcome (see discussion

of facilitation below). The community ofRed Lodge, Monrana, as discussed below, used an

outside group both to start the goal-setting process and to ensure that it ran smoothly.

Delphi Technique - The Delphi Technique involves multiple rounds of mail surveys.

The first round asks stakeholders to describe their goals for the community’s ecosystems.

The second and later rounds describe the results of the earlier rounds and ask residents to

respond to them in writing. Residents’ views may change as they react to new information

about others’ goals. An appointed coordinator oversees the process and summarizes the

information in each survey round.

Community Dispute Resolution -Differences of opinion may emerge among participants as

they begin discussing visions and goals for local ecosystems. A variety of techniques exist for

managing conflict. Other communities have found these techniques useful to encourage people to

listen with open minds and understand each othel’s positions. In this way, communities often find

2-10
I

creative solutions that satisfy multiple goals, even when such solutions are not apparent to begin

with.

Shared Values-Although stakeholders’ goals may appear to differ on the surface, they

in fact may share some common ground. For example, an industry that uses water from

a river or discharges permitted effluents into the river would appear to have potentially

competing goals with a community conservation group that wants to protect or improve

the ecological quality of the stream. But the industry also values the clean water as a

resource for their industrial processes. The group (including representatives from the

industries) can start working out goals by focusing on this shared vatue.

Fucilitators - Facilitators are neutral parties who help run meetings by calling on Patti.5

pants, limiting speaking time, recording points made on a whiteboard, easel, or notepad,

and summarizing the discussion periodically. Facilitators help create an ahnosphere of

trust and fairness by ensuring that all groups have equal weight in the discussions. They

keep the discussion focused on the topic at hand and

moiing forward. Finally, in tense situations, a facilitator

can maintain civility and remind participants that a possi

ble solution is to agree to disagree. Facilitators include

clergy, college faculty or teachers, judges or magistrates,

attorneys, and organizations with a facilitation mission,

such as the League of Women Voters. Experienced

mediators also can serve as facilitators. Although any

one can sew? as a facilitator, a tmined, experienced facik

itator will likely bring out the best in the participants,

produce the best outcome, and do the most to minimize

conflict.

Mediators or Conciliators - Mediation or conciliation can

be useful if a group arrives at a point where disagreements

seem unresolvable. in mediation, an expen mediator or

panel of mediators assists the disputing patties by helping

them identify and discuss issues of mutual concern,

explore solutions, and develop mutually acceptable settle

mentS. The disputing parties are responsible for devising

their own solution to the conflict with the help of a sttuo

tired process established by the mediator. Mediators are

often listed on court rosters. In conciliation, a neutral colt

ciliator assists the parties to resolve their conflict by serving as a conduit for information, either by telephone or by

alternating meetings with each side. Community member!

generally do not negotiate face-to-face. Similar to media

tion, the conciliator provides a structured process for corn

ing to a negotiated solution.

Arbitrators-Arbitration is a last resort after the disputants have tried other, more consensus-oriented proce

dures. In arbitration, the disputants present their sides

and the arbitrator imposes a settlement, which may be

binding or nonbinding depending on prior agreement.

The community can give a mediator the authority to arbi

trate if the mediator believes that the disputants have

reached a true impasse.

The Back ro the River effort in Omaha, Nebraska, illustrates

r

11

Figure 2-2.

Sample Goal From the Revision

ZOO0 Plan for Chattanooga,

GOAL: D&w&p and maintain the

greater Chattanooga area as a

world class environmental

center.

how one community used both facilitators and surveys to

”

n promote the cleanup of ett~ironmenrally die

tressed areastbrougb the creation of environ

mental~entelprise ones where public and

priVate,funds ate uSed;te create innovative

sOb&ons.

n Strengthen commitment to clean up our

waterways. Establish a task force to lead,

prioritize, and enforce mandatoty clean-up

of all polluted creeks and other areas.

n Rrotect the natural wilderness areas in

the Chattanooga vicinity, such as North

Chickamauga Creek Gorge. Establish a

task force to protect and maintain environ

mentally significant areas.

n Require area-wide (residential, business,

and industrial) recycling and waste misti

mization programs. Establish and maintain

CotiVenient~ curbside recycling at¢ers

for disposal of household hazardous

wastes.

n Postwpr0fessional education programs io

env~tmmental technology ,and engineering.

Strengthen Chattanooga State’s and the

University of Tennessee - Chattanooga’s

solutionwiented programs.

II

2-1 I
Visioning

Books and Videos -The following materials on visioning are

available from the American Planning Association at Planners

Bookstore, 1313 E. Sixtieth Street, Chicago, IL, 60637-2891,

phone: (312) 955-9100:

- Ames, Stephen C., ed., A Guide to Contmunity Ksioning, 1993, pm%: $25.

- Chandler, Michael, Meeting Management: A Mock Commission Hearing, 1994,

price: $59.95. 90-minute VBS video and workslmp materials.

- Klein, William, Community Waning, 1994, price: $94.95. I2Odminute VHS video

and workshop materials.

- Neless&, Anton C., Ksionrfor a New American Diwm, 1994, price: $50 (paperback); $65 (1iLnty editimi).

Internet -The following World Wide Web sites provide information on the visioning

process, specific case studies, and organizations involved in the process:

- The Atlanta Project:

http://web.cc.emory edu/BUSlN~~Cart~r-Center/TAP~isto~. html

- public Access Network, Seattle, WA: http://www.pan.ci.seanle.wa.us/

- The Grandnet Visioning Process: http://isen?,net:8O/wandnet/

- The Millennium Reportto the Rockefeller Foundation:

ht~://www.cdinet.wm/miltennium/Resource/marter.hfml

- Chattanooga Venture and the Community Vision Project:

http://www.chattanooga.net/SuST~/p~sd-briefing_book/parficihousing_venhr

Dispute Resolution

Fisher, Roger and William Ury, Getting to Yes, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston,

MA, ISBN o-14-00.6534-2, 1981. This book has many tips on negotiating and obtain

ing the best solution to a negotiation.

Miller, Sandra, Craig Shim& and William Bentley, Rural Resource Management, Iowa

State University press, Ames, IA, 1994.

Nortbwest~Renewable Resources Center, Seattle, WA. This organization assists in corn

munity organiziig, ~specificaily in communities in which tribal and non-tribal peoples

have trouble workiig together., :Fiw mere information, contact Betsy Reynolds, phone:

(206) 623-7361.

Saint, &even and James R. Lawson, Rules for Reaching Consensus, Pfeiffer &

Company, Sti Diego, CA, ,1994.

2-12
j&pen Red Lodge, Montana, decided to become

proactwe 8” its development strategy for the

future, it realized it faced a special challenge to be

successful. Small jurisdictions, such as Red Lodge,

&en have neither the local expertise nor the budget

and staff to support a community effort aimed at

maintaining jobs and economic growth without sao

riiicing the environment. They realized that any ini

tiative would likely result from the efforts of only a

few people in the community. Recognizing their

scarcity of resources, Red Lodge residents decided

to draw on the experiences of other small commun;

ties and experts to guide their efforts.

The Red Lodge community began with a workshop led by the Sonoran Institute, which provid

ed a forum to help residents develop a vision of the future. The workshops attracted 160 of the

town’s 2,000 residents and a broad cross-section of the inhabitants of the area: ranchers, develop

ers. business people, educators, and senior citizens.

This workshop was the first step in identifying residents’ shared vision and in creating commit

tees to further explore and implement programs to make their vision a reality. Ultimately the work

shop led to the development of the Beartooth Front Community Forum (BFCF), a non-partisan,

locally-based citizens’ organization that serves as an excellent demonstration of a far-reaching,

inclusive, and long-term process for sustainable community development.

The BFCF represents the community’s diversity and brings people together to find common

ground and develop a vision of the future. The BFCF works to develop and maintain a plan to pre

serve and enhance the quality of life in Red Lodge. The early efforts and successes of the BFCF

include development of a youth center, preservation of the post office, development of a land-use

master plan, and implementation of water quality monitoring.

In addition to forming the BFCF, Red Lodge communicated with other small communities

around the country that had taken on similar land planning efforts. After compiling information on

others’ experiences, the BFCF held a public meeting to share options with Red Lodge residents as

well as catalyze fundraising to hire a professional land-use planner to guide their ongoing efforts.

Ultimately, the BFCF came up with 40 percent of the cost of a land-use planner through fimdrais

ing, and the City Council provided the other 60 percent.

The BFCF’s success is rooted in its ability to draw on all segments of the Red Lodge citizemy,

the experience of similar communities, and the resources of other organizations in forming and

implementing its vision.

The Sonoran Institute has helped extensively with the planning process and was a sponsor of

workshops on sustainable jobs. In addition, the institute has been instrumental in linking this effort

with the efforts of the Corporation for the Northern Rockies. The corporation brings people togeth

er to work toward collaborative problem- solving and to search for ways to meet economic needs

while sustaining the environment.

Contact: Gary Ferguson

Beartooth Front Community

Forum

P.O. Box 1490

Red Lodge, MT 59068

Phone: (406) 446-2388

z-13
T

he communities along the Omaha stretch

of the Missouri River faced some diffkult

questions when organizing their ecosystem

protection effort. How do you repair a damaged river? What initiatives are top priority?

Who is going to take part? And most difficult

of all, how much are you willing to pay for a

healthy river? Through Back to the River, a

cooperative campaign to restore one section of

the Missouri, citizens are getting an opportw

nity to voice their opinions.

The Missouri River corridor, running north

and south through Council Bluffs, Iowa, and a

highly industrialized area of Omaha,

Nebraska, has seriously deteriorated. Levees,

dams, and channelization of the river have changed the rwzr’s hydrology and resulted in the loss

of wetlands and diverse fishery habitat. Conversion of forests and wetlands to cropland and resi

dential uses has led to accelerated habitat loss, and industrial pollution has led to human health con

cans. Back to the River is trying to reverse these trends.

The Back to the River Steering Committee, made up of seven formal partners including repre

sentatives of cities, local, state, and federal natural resource agencies, and a forest association,

established broad restoration and education goals. At the outset, the steering committee dew

mined that community input and support were crucial to success. How would citizens like to use

the river? Wolild the community support increased property or sales taxes to fund projects? Would

citizens be willing to donate time through volunteering?

To gauge community perceptions and values regarding the river, the committee used two metk

ads: surveys and guided discussion groups or focus groups. They also hired independent profes

sionals who were key to the success of both techniques. Selecting a neutral party with no stake in

the outcomes lent credibility to inquiries and encouraged more honest responses.

The steering committee conducted over 1,200 telephone surveys inquiring about the communi

ties’ use of the river, their concerns, and their interest in enhancing the river corridor. The corn

mittee then organized four professionally facilitated discussion groups held in different communi

ties. Each session included an ethnically, economically, and culturally diverse set of I2 citizens

with no professional or personal link to the groups cooperating in the restoration effort Attendees

were unaware of the natllre of the discussions before they arrived, though the facilitator had pre

pared a predetermined set of questions and topics to be discussed.

While the results ofthe focus groups are still being compiled, community members currently are

enjoying a unique opportunity to express their opinions and provide a realistic basis for assessing

their willingness to contribute to the restoration effort.

Contact: Sandra Washington

National Park Service

1709 Jackson Street

Omaha, NE 68102

Phone: (402) 22 l-335 I

Fax: (402) 221-3465

2-14
2.3 Defining Geographic Boundaries

As part of developing goals, outlining problems, and developing solutions, comma

nities have found that they need to consider the boundaries of the ecosystem that

they wish to protect. Determining these boundaries is not always straightforward.

In particular, it involves understanding the complex interactions between people and

their environment.

Starting Small

The boundary-drawing exercise is complicated by the fact that most ecosystems are

not wholly self-contained. A lake, for example, may be a component of a larger na6

oral system of rivers and streams within a watershed. Therefore, the lake may be

affected by runoff, pollutant spills, flooding, and other problems affecting related

water bodies. Some ecosystems are so complicated that it may be difficult to address

the entire system. River deltas, with their networks of fresh and saltwater marshland

and rivers and lakes, are an example of such a system. Furthermore, ecosystems such

as forests or lakes often cross town, county, and even state boundaries.

These considerations may discourage communities from going forward with ecosys

tern protection plans. The community may feel that its ecosystems are so intercom

netted with the larger environment that whatever small steps it takes locally will be

overwhelmed by events occurring in related ecosystems in other towns or states.

Alternatively, the community may keep increasing the area of interest to incorporate

as many ecosystem features as possible, then realize that it will need to reach out to

other communities for their cooperation.

Some communities have found it useful to start small. Considering ecosystems in the

context of the larger environment of which they are part doesn’t require tackling the

entire system at once.

Sometimes, however, retaining a small geographic scope may not be feasible

Expanding the scope can help include the following:

n A Critical Locale -For example, a project may be more effective if it

covers an important tributary to a river or a woodland that contains a crucial

nesting site for birds.

n A Critical Stakeholder - For example, a large landowner may be able to

make a significant contribution to the health of local ecosystems through land

management techniques.

n Special Skills or Resources - The community may want to expand boundaries, for example, to make the project relevant to a nearby university or to

include endangered species habitat that will capture the interest of federal

agencies.

n Special Constituencies - The community may want to expand boundaries in

an explicit effort to include, for example, groups who historically have been

overburdened by environmental degradation or have been systematically left

out of other community decisions.

2-15
The Big Sandy Lake Association, discussed on the next page, shows how one community expanded its ecosystem protection effort.

~ A community can use the boundary-drawing exercise to help in thinking about other

j towns, counties, or even states with which to cooperate. If a community is consider-

~ ing making a river swimmable, for example, the effort will be affected by what goes

on upstream. For this reason, communities often work closely with the watershed

association and state entities, and may also involve other towns.

Obtaining Maps

Organizations from which you can obtain current maps of a particular area include the

following:

n Local Town Hall, County Office, or Planning Board

Local land-use maps that show whether land is used for housing, commercial enterprises,

agriculture, or open space

- Tax maps that show private or public ownership of land

- Flood insurance maps

” State Environmental Agency

Wetland delineation maps that show wetland boundaries

- Watershed maps that show the water bodies, wetlands, and other components of a local watershed

- Land-use maps

Aerial photo maps that show the location of different ecosystems

Aquifer delineation maps

n State Conservation or Land Acquisition Group (within the state department of natural resources

or environmental protection)

- Land-use maps

n State Wildlife and Fisheries Department or Department of Natural Resources

Maps of state and local recreation areas

Maps showing the distribution of different plants and animals throughout the state, including rare

and endangered species, non-native species, and crucial habitats

n Federal Government (Appendix A of this handbook lists the telephone numbers and addresses of

these agencies)

- U.S. Geological Survey (part of the US. Deparhnent of the Interior)has maps showing nahxal

feahlres of all parts of the United States.

The National Oceanic and Ahnospheric Administration (NOAA, part of the U.S. Department of

Commerce) has maps of coastlines and ocean waters.

- The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has maps of floodways and flood

hazard areas

n Geographic Information Systems (GIS)- At a greater level of sophistication, GIS software packages

are available that allow you to model ecosystems on a personal computer. These computerized maps can

show the political and geographic features of your ecosystems. As discussed in Chapter 3, GIS is also a

powerful tool for evaluating ecosystem health and identifying sources of stress on the ecosystem,

although in most instances citizen groups will have to rely on a state or local agency or academic institu

tion to help with the analysis.

2-16
egun B

as a small organization of citizens,

the Big Sandy Lake Association has been

remarkably successful in identifying and

working with stakeholders. In a relatively

short time, the organization formed a partnership with federal, state, and local agencies

that works to improve and maintain the Big

Sandy Lake Watershed.

In the late 1980% local residents began to

see increasing development, ditching, we&

lands alterations, poor timber harvesting prao

tices, and livestock grazing along lakes and

streams as a serious threat to water quality in

the 400. square-mile watershed. Recognizing

the need to protect the ecosystem and its

important fishery and tourism benefits, they formed the Big Sandy Lake Association and

approached county and state agencies for help.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), responsible for the state’s surface-water

quality, in cooperation with the lake association, conducted a study of Big Sandy Lake’s water qua+

ity MPCA’s report confirmed citizens’ concerns and identified the expanded scale of the problem

at the watershed level. Approaching the problem at the watershed level necessitated the participst

don of n variety of additional stakeholders: private landowners; the Army Corps of Engineers,

which manages water levels on Big Sandy Lake; and the State Department of Natural Resources,

which has large, local landholdings and manages fisheries and wildlife.

The Army, concerned about water quality and interested in forming local partnerships, began

monthly water quality testing in 1990. Concerns about timber harvest, livestock practices, and

compatible development attracted the attention of the Soil and Water Conservation Districts.

Additionally, state agency personnel from several different departments became involved in the

project when wetlands and erosion control became part ofthe lake’s management plan. Soon cow

ty-level planning and zoning of&es became the subject of scrutiny for not enforcing the state

shoreland development standards

The combined effort of interested state agencies, county departments, and citizens’ groups led

county planners to address declining watershed health as they realized its potential negative effects

on tourism. Similarly, these organizations’ concerns focused attention on the need for alternative

lakeshore landscaping. In response, a local agent of the University of Minnesota is seeking the

involvement of landscape architecture students to design ecologically sound lakeshore lawns.

The Big Sandy Lake Association has been remarkably successful in attracting the attention and

resources of government agencies. It also has identified support from the M&night Foundation,

an organization that funds Mississippi Corridor environmental projects. Yet another measure of its

success is that the State Department of Natural Resources offered a project coordinator to the steering committee and designated the watershed as one of five ecosystem management pilot projects.

Contact: Chris Freiburger

Project Coordinator

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

1201 East Highway No. 2

Grand Rapids, MN 55744

Phone: (218) 327-4353

Fax: (218) 327.4263

Z-17
A Watershed Is One Way to

Define “Natural” Ecosystem

Boundaries

A watershed is an area where rain and other water

drains to a common location such as a river, lake, or

wetland (see figure). This collection of water may

occur naturally (as with rain running down a hillside)

or with the influence of drainage infrastructure such as

ditches and storm sewers. Watersheds range in size

from a few acres that dmii to a farm pond,to Thor

sands of square miles. Landscapes such as watersheds

may contain many different and interrelat6d &osys

terns (such as forests, streams, wetltids).

Ecosystem managers often use watersheds as a

meaningful way to defie areas of concern.

Watersheds typically cut across political boundaries

like neighborhoods, subdivisions, town lies, and even

state lines. Thus, watershed management often

requires coordination among different governments

and organizations. While such coordination can prove

challenging, watershed-based efforts can ultimately

establish a seamless network of environmental proteo

tion across large regions, a result that is diff%xdt for

traditional government organizations to achieve.

-

Deciding What to Include

Communities often start with the most obvious

ecosystem unit and enlarge the area of interest

by considering related ecosystems. If a community is focusing on a small pond, for example, it may also consider including wetlands,

marsh, or wooded areas around the pond.

Outlining the area on maps clearly shows

topography (for example, elevation, water bodies, and other features) as well as political features (for example, roads and state, county, and

city boundary lines). The California Natural

Communities and Conservation Planning

Program illustrates one group’s efforts to

define the boundaries of a local ecosystem

(see across).

In drawing boundaries, many projects have

considered whether to include a buffer zone

around the ecosystem. Such a zone absorbs

the effects of human activity around the core of

the ecosystem, preventing damage to the sys

tern itself. For example, for a seacoast, a zone

of non-marsh, non-sandy terrain between the

water’s edge and development can prevent ere

sion and protect delicate tidal ecosystems. A

project conducted by a citizens’ group in The

Be&shires ojNw England (see below) is an

example of the successful implementation of a

buffer zone around a river.

2.4 Choosing The Best

Organizational Structure

Many communities function well as an ad hoc

collection of members with shared responsibilities, each participating in tasks or responsible

for implementing a part of the plan. Other

communities decide to implement a formal

organizational structure. Elements of such a

structure might include:

n Steering Committee - The steering committee assumes the day-to-day

responsibilities of the organization, delegates tasks, and may be responsible

for outreach to other organizations. The Blackjoot Challenge and Tensas

River Basin stories, on the following pages, provide examples of groups that

exchanged ad-hoc structures for steering committees.

2-18
he Natural Communities and Conserva- T.tlon Planning Program (NCCP) has

worked to delineate the geographic boundaries

of critical lands within Southern California’s

coastal sage scrub ecosystem. The NCCP is a

voluntary, collaborative effort among

landowners, local governments, and state and

federal agencies to preserve endangered hab;

tats. The program’s first goal is the preserva

tion of the coastal sage scrub habitat in the 1.5

million acre planning area south of Los

Angeles.

The range of California’s coastal sage scrub

habitat, home of the threatened California

gnatcatcher and approximately 90 other poterr

tially threatened OT endangered species, has declined to IX percent of its historical acreage. This

fragmented habitat is scattered over more than 6,000 square miles and encompasses large parts of

three counties (Orange, San Diego, and Riverside) and smaller portions of two others (Los Angeles

and San Bernardino).

Designing a reserve system in the midst of this vast and substantially urbanized area required a

systematic approach that focused on four specific tasks. First, project scientists identified the

remaining undisturbed habitat areas needed to ensure the existence of two birds, the California gnat

catcher and cactus wren, and one reptile, the orange-throated whiptail lizard. These three animals

are considered to be the coastal sage scrub ecosystem’s most endangered organisms. Second, pro

ject scientists identified landscape areas within the urbanized zones that can provide connections

between the critical habitat areas. These “corridors” allow populations to interact with each other,

increasing their chances for survival. Third, scientists identified plant species that we endangered

but not yet protected in the resewe areas and corridor zones. The habitat of these plant species also

was incorporated into the reserve’s design. Lastly, the scientists made sure to include a range of

soils, terrain, slopes, and other landscape features to accommodate a wide variety of species. They

did so by dividing the landscape areas into subunits defined by elevation, slope, latitude, distance

from the coast, and soils. Subunits that were under-represented in the reserve were incorporated by

adjusting the boundaries of the reserve and corridors.

These guidelines have allowed for the design of a viable ecosystem management area that lies in

the midst of a highly urbanized region. Over one million acres have been voluntarily enrolled in

the NCCP. This land includes 31 local jurisdictions, 37 private landowners/developers, and 53

percent ofthe known coastal sage scrub habitat within the planning area. Enrolled landowners have

guaranteed that they will not disturb the scrub habitat and, under the guidance of the NCCP, the

entire planning region has effectively begun work on a habitat conservation plan.

Contact: Mark Luesebrink

California Resources Agency

1416 Ninth Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: (916) 653-5656

Fax: (916) 653-8102

2-19
Rib’ ushmg through the foothills of the Berkshire

ountams in western Massachusetts, the Westfield

River traverses one of New England’s most pristine

wildernesses. Encroaching development catalyzed

local citizens to initiate a grassroots river protection

effort that delineated loo-foot “buffer” zones to pre

serve the natural character of the river. The land with

in the buffer zones would be protected by restrictions

on the development of new shuctures, septic systems,

sand and gravel removal, and commercial timber

removal.

The Westfield River Greenway Plan’s buffer zones

“The primury objective... are designed to:

is the estnhlishment of a

protective river corridor or

n Preserve the aesthetic appeal of the river environment for the enjoyment of current and future gem

erations

‘greennwy ‘... ”

n Provide feeding, nesting, and cover for a wide

variety of wildlife

- Westfield River Greenway Plan n Protect the river’s water quality by maintaining a

natural vegetative filter to prevent erosion, sed;

mentation, and nutrient and pollutant runoff into

the river and by shading the river to prevent

water temperatures from rising to higher than

optimal for fish survival and reproduction

n Help protect the free-flowing condition of the river

n Help protect human life and property from flood damage.

Contact: Chris Curtis

Project Manager

Pioneer Valley Planning Commission

26 Central Street

West Springfield, MA 01089

Phone: (413) 781-6045

Fax: (413) 732-2593

n Task Forces and Work Groups-Task forces within the organization each

address a specific goal, and work groups within the task forces each impls

ment an aspect of that goal.

n Fundraising - Community members often pay for small expenses related to

the project, but communities sometimes need to seek outside funding to avoid

unduly burdening the personal finances of individual community members.

Fundraising may take the form of obtaining grants or in-kind services from

governments or private philanthropies, organizing fairs and festivals, or

becoming part of a larger fund-raising organization, such as the United Way.

n Budgeting - Faced with competing demands for funds, organizations some

times feel the need to develop a formal budget to ensure funds are spent fairly

and effectively.

2-20
r/ Legal Incorporation - Becoming a legal non-profit entity has advantages for

some organizations. They include tax exempt status, access to certain grants,

and protection from personal liability for group members. Incorporation

involves establishing a board of directors and organization bylaws; an attorney generally handles the incorporation process.

To summarize, the following story about the Neponsef River WatershedAssociation illustrates many of the elements involved in initiating a community ecosystem protection plan.

To Learn

aa

e

1

Other Local, State, or National Environmental Organizations - Many of these

groups have been through some or all of these procedures and can provide valuable

information on incorporation, budgeting, and funding sources.

J Attorneys Familiar With Nonprofit Tax Law-An attorney develops bylaws and

may be tible to assist with other legal issues. Some attorneys donate their time for

free to non-profit groups.

Grants From Private Philanthropies: Foundation Clearinghouses - The Foundation Center, located

in New York, New York, phone: (212) 620-4230, and the Grantsmanship Center, located in Los Angeles,

California, phone: (213) 482-9860, both provide information on how to fmd and obtain grants from pri

vate philanthropies, as well as a listing of th~usands:ofgrawpidit~~ organizations.

Environmental Financing Xnformntion Netwotik (Em,- EFIN provides infcmnation on government

and private tinancing sources for enviquwental programs run by comm&y groups, states, and munioi

pal governments. The BFIN’Center inaintaias an online database containiagabstracts of publisations,

case studies, and contacts and operates a hotline. EFlN is managed by Vera,H&migan of the U.S.

Environmental Protectida Agency, and is located in Room 3304,401 M Street SW, Washington, DC

20460, phone: (202) 260-0420, e-mail: efm@epamail.epa.gov.

The Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance-This publication, put out by the federal government,

lists sources of grants from federal agencies and programs.

Publications -Many books dealing with running a non-profit corporation and navigating the tax laws are

available at local libraries. The% iadlude:

* Formalizing an Organizations

- Balling, David M., How to Save upriver: A Handbookfor Citizen Action, Island Press,

Washington, DC, ISBN l-55963-249k6, 1994. This book has a number of suggestions on

fondraising and organizing y&r effort.

- Mancuso, Anthony, How to Form a Nonprofit Corporation, Nolo Press, Berkeley, CA, 1990.

0 Fundraising

- Flanagan, Joan, The Grassroots Fundraising Book: How fo Raise Money in Your

Community, VOLUNTEER: The NationalCenter fix Citizen Involvement, Boulder, CO

- Gurin, Mautiice G., Khat K%@rtsx~s:Sho~ld:Knw for Successful Fun&vising, VOLUNTEER The National Center for Citizen Involvement, Boulder, CO.

2-21
T

he Blackfoot Challenge, a cooperative

resource management initiative in the

Blackfoot River Valley of Montana, has made the

transition from a group of concerned individuals

to a formalized, community-based working group

focused on long-term ecosystem and economic

viability in the valley. A key step in this transition

was the development of a formal organizational

structure that allows for and promotes representa

tion of all interests in the valley.

The Blackfoot Challenge traces its roots to a

meeting sponsored by the Big Blackfoot Chapter

of Trout Unlimited. The meeting brought

together government agencies, industry, conse~

vation groups, and landowners to discuss concerns and ideas for the future of the Blackfoot River

Valley. Many local citizens concerned with the long-term environmental and economic health of

the area were interested in finding a forum in which they could address these issues. Response to

the initial meeting was overwhelmingly positive, and attendees decided that a formal organization

should be created. At a follow-up meeting, the group formed the Blackfoot Challenge, and in the

subsequent year the group reached consensus on a mission statement, goals, and an organization

al Str”Ct”re.

Members of the Blackfoot Challenge designed the group to involve all stakeholder groups at all

levels of decision making. The community group established bylaws that mandated a balanced rep

resentation of stakeholders on all committees. Prescribing equity in interest group representation on

the committees gave the Blackfoot Challenge the credibility needed to attract diverse interests in the

valley and ensure that no group was excluded from the process. Members of the Blackfoot

Challenge note that during the early periods of the initiative, it was especially important to commu

nicate to valley residents that the initiative included all stakeholders in the valley and was not led

purely by environmental or industry groups.

The Blackfoot Challenge’s organizational structure includes an executive committee that sets

policies for the group and a steering committee that makes decisions on projects. Other corn

mittees address specific issue areas such as private lands, information, public relations, and

funding.

Contact: Jack Thomas

Executive Director

Blackfoot Challenge

P.O. Box 307

Lincoln, MT 59639

Phone/Fax: (406) 443-8577

I

2-22
n the I ‘.Tensas (pronounced “ten-saw”) River Basin, a group

of cmzens and agencies has analyzed the sources of envi

ronmental conflicts between fanners and conservationists

and identified potential solutions. The resulting strategy

addresses how to improve water quality, restore wetlands

and wildlife habitats, and implement agricultural and

forestly best management practices. The study also provides

a detailed analysis of how proposed solutions affect the costs

and profitability of farming in the region.

Spreading through the northeast corner of Louisiana, the

bottomland hardwoods of the Tensas River Basin support

some of the richest, most diverse, and most productive ’

ecosystems in the country. This resource also creates conflicts between traditional row crop agri

culture and resource conservation goals.

In 1991, the Tensas Basin Technical Steering Committee formed at a meeting of local, state, and

federal officials, landowners, and conservation organizations to discuss a Soil Conservation Service

river basin study. At the meeting, a core group decided to establish a model demonstration project to

remedy the conflicts between traditional row crop farmers and resource conservationists through

ecosystem restoration that considers economic viability.

Working by consensus so that any one member holds veto power, the 19.member committee

(made up of a true cross-section of basin interests, including the U.S. Army Colps of Engineers,

the local Levee District, The Nature Conservancy, six farmers, the Louisiana Department of

Agriculture and Forestry, and many others) identified seven major watershed problems. Each major

problem was broken down into component problems. These served as the driving forces behind the

three recommended treatment options: best management practices, engineering methods, and hot

tomland hardwood restoration.

Best management practices refer to a set of land-use practices that reduce off-site damages while main

taining or improving productivity on cropland or forestland. According to one representative, “Only those

[practices] deemed to be effective, efficient and acceptable to residents of the basin were considered.”

The Tensas Basin Technical Steering Committee developed a list of seven best management pram

ties and their effectiveness in solving the watershed’s problems (see sample below). Implementation

of the options presented in the study depends heavily on voluntary efforts of local landowners, and

technical and financial assistance.

Selected Best Recovery From Loss or Improvement of Wate Mitigation 01

T =------, ----r--- ------- I -=--.-- -..-.“.-J I Management YraetieeS Fragmentation ofHshitst4 Oualihi hnairment I Sn.-rics nivwdtv

Conservation Cropping Sequence .

Crop Residue Use . .

Filter Strip . . .

Grade Stabilization Structure .

Grassed Waterway . . .

Structure for Water Control . . .

Tree Planting . . .

I I I

Contact: Mike Adcock

Northeast Delta Resource

Conservation and Development Council, P.O. Box 848

Winnsboro, LA 70295

Phone: (318) 435-7328

Fax: (318) 435-7436

2-23
::.:.

..::/ /+//:j:.:

::.:::.:::.:::.:

::::::::i:::::::

: : : : : : :

~

::::: ::::::::: ::,::,

..,..,. ....,,, ::.:::.:. ..:.: :::::::::. ::::

::::::. :::::::: ::.::. ,//:///:/ :::. ::::::::::

::.::. .-:.:::.: :::::::. :::::: ::,:::,:: .::

W’orkmg to protect natural resources in a

watershed that covers parts of I4 different

Massachusetts cities and towns, including

Boston, may seem like a huge task for a commw

nity-based effort. But that is exactly what the

Neponset River Watershed Association

(NepRWA) is doing and, by most accounts.

doing very well. The association’s efforts

demonstrate how clear goals and inclusive,

cooperative management and planning can bring

together individuals, businesses, and govern

ment to support ecosystem restoration and

preservation.

To collect data and monitor conditions in the

l23- square-mile watershed, NepRWA depends on volunteer “stream teams”. These local citizen

groups document both the problem areas and positive aspects of streams and stretches of river

within their own communities. Based on the information they gather, stream teams develop relit

istic action plans with both short- and long-term goals. Stream teams bring problems to the atten

tion of officials within their cities and towns and work with them to address issues such as

degraded habitat, illegal sewer hookups, erosion, dumping, and lack of access to the river for

recreational use. NepRWA combines the observations of the stream teams with those of state and

federal agencies to help develop overall management plans that are consistent with concerns

throughout the watershed.

Although the stream teams work independently, NepRWA supports them by providing training

and forums for communication with experts and with each other. NepRWA trains all the teams to

use shoreline survey techniques developed by the state Department of Fisheries and Environmental

Law Enforcement. When teams encounter especially diff%ult problems, they can turn to technical

advisory groups (made up of industry experts and government officials) and members of other

stream teams.

NepRWA also works at a broader level to make municipal governments and businesses aware of

the value of restoring and preserving the watershed. The greater the awareness of watershed

restoration and protection benefits, the greater the willingness to support the effort Benefits

include protection of a local aquifer that provides 150,000 area residents with drinking water,

preservation of wetlands that slow and disperse the flow of flood waters and protect private prop

eriy, and improvement of local property values resulting from maintaining a healthy river system.

NepRWA is piloting a process of community-based watershed management that will be repli

cated in 27 other river systems throughout Massachusetts. By including residents and businesses

at the local level, and governments at the state, regional, and local levels, NepRWA achieves con

sensus in developing management plans while attracting resources and volunteers. The communi

ty focus of the watershed initiative is helping its residents learn their “ecological address” and

increase their awareness that they are all connected by the waterways around them.

Contact: Ian Cooke

Neponset River Watershed Association

2438 Washington Street

Canton, MA 02021

Phone: (617) 575.0354

Fax: (617) 575.9971

E-mail: NepRWA@aol.com

2-24
A doctor uses blood pressure, body temperature, and other data to monitor a person’s

health. In the same way, communities can assess and monitor the health of their

ecosystems by collecting and analyzing various kinds of “indicator” data. A wide

variety of indicators might be used. The kinds of indicators that are important depend

on the characteristics of a community and its priorities.

This chapter describes what indicators are and explains their relevance to community

ecosystem protection. Most communities have considered three types of baseline

assessments: 

n Assessing the health of local ecosystems and identifying factors (“stressors”)

affecting their quality

n Assessing links between local ecosystems and the local economy

n Assessing links between local ecosystems and the community’s quality of life.

Note that while this chapter is divided into three types of assessments to simplify the

presentation, there is substantial overlap among the three types. Ecosystem stressors

discussed in the first section may be directly related to economic or quality-of-life

indicators discussed later. The boundary between economic and non-economic quality-of-life measures is often fuzzy.

3.1 Using Indicators

What Are Indicators?

Indicators are measures that help you assess the health of local ecosystems, understand what factors are affecting ecosystem quality, and assess the effects of ecosystem

quality on life in your community. Indicators provide insights into the condition,

qualities, interrelationships, or problems of a complex system, such as an ecosystem

or the local economy. Over time, tracking an indicator helps to measure progress

toward a desired goal.

Assessing the Conditions of

Local Ecosystems and Their

Effects on Communities:

Tools and Techniques

Chapter 

3

3-1
3-2

Most indicators are quantitative: they are numeric data based on actual measurement

of the factor being monitored. Qualitative indicators generally attempt to describe a

factor of interest, rather than measure it with precision. An example of a qualitative

indicator would be a description of a local lakefront as “moderately polluted” or “very

polluted”. Qualitative indicators are valuable because they can describe situations that

cannot be measured with a single data series.

The accuracy and reliability of qualitative indicators depends on the knowledge and

biases of the people providing information. Qualitative indicators can be difficult to

interpret and may mean different things to different people. In contrast, quantitative

indicators are less subject to conflicting interpretations.

Three general kinds of indicators are discussed in this chapter:

n Indicators That Characterize Environmental

Health — For example, the number and variety of

grass species is an indicator of a prairie’s ecological

health. Because people are part of the ecosystem too,

indicators of their health and safety are also useful.

n Indicators That Reflect the State of the Local

Economy — These indicators track the economy as

it is affected by the quality of ecosystem resources

and services; for example, the number of people

employed in commercial fishing or in industries that

depend on a clean water supply (such as breweries

and food processing).

n Indicators That Reflect the Community’s Quality

of Life —These indicators track quality of life as it

depends on ecosystem quality, such as the number

of visitors to a public beach or levels of traffic congestion and vehicle miles traveled.

Why Use Indicators?

Using indicators is a shorthand method for obtaining

representative information on the overall system.

Each single indicator reflects only a part of the complex system. When indicators that measure key

aspects of the system are looked at as a set, however,

they reveal trends and interrelationships that might

not otherwise be apparent. For example, declines in bird populations on a lake shoreline in combination with data showing increased boating activity on the lake might

suggest a cause for the reduced bird counts. Note, however, that comparing two data

series does not prove a cause-and-effect relationship between them. 

Indicators provide a relatively objective basis for discussion, planning, setting goals,

and measuring progress. They help avoid the misdirected effort that might result

Why is species

biodiversity imporInformatio

Ecologists often emphasize the concept of

species biodiversity — that is, the number and

variety of different species of plants and animals that naturally populate a given place.

Because of the interdependence among these

organisms, the loss of natural diversity can

throw an ecosystem out of balance. For example, destruction of bat colonies can result in

huge increases of insect-caused crop damage.

Bats are one of nature’s most efficient insect

predators. When bat populations are eliminated, insect populations soar and often overrun

crops, forests, and other types of groundcover

(such as suburban vegetable gardens). Natural

biodiversity is often considered as a measure of

an ecosystem’s sustainability, as well as its current health. In addition, species diversity is

important because of the potential commercial

value of rare species, such as drugs derived

from rainforest plants. Finally, many people

agree that biodiversity is intrinsically valuable,

regardless of human uses for the species.
3-3

from simply reacting to the most obvious trends or relying on a few people’s untested

opinions about what actions should be taken. 

Choosing Indicators

Some indicators address the community as a whole system — ecological, social,

and economic. For example, while the amount of fish taken by a commercial or

sports fishery may be of interest, this indicator may say little about the health of the

aquatic ecosystem. Some more targeted indicators would include information on

the presence of tumors in fish, the numbers of fish within age classes in the population, and the availability of their food resources — as overall indicators of the fishery’s health. These indicators help to measure the sustainability of the local fishery,

thus measuring both economic security and ecosystem stability and quality. For the

Santa Monica Bay Restoration Program (see story on following page), citizens

developed a list of potential indicators when evaluating what types of data were

needed to create a comprehensive monitoring system for the bay. Their list illustrates the many characteristics different people considered when they thought about

the health of one specific ecosystem.

Often, indicators need to be understandable and useful to a range of audiences, including the general public, public officials, and scientists. In communicating with the general public, less technical measures are often preferable. On the other hand, communications with public officials or scientists, perhaps when seeking future funding,

often benefit from the use of more technical language. The difference may simply be

in the wording of the indicator. For example, scientists wanting to protect water quality might find it useful to know specific bacteria levels in water. The general public,

however, may find more useful the percentage and location of rivers and streams considered unsafe for swimming because of high bacteria levels.

One way to select indicators is by brainstorming with all interested parties to identify

an ideal set, keeping in mind what is being measured. Ways to narrow down a list of

possible indicators include looking at data sources, investigating sources of help, and

deciding what information is most useful. Generally, monitoring a few key indicators

well provides more useful information than monitoring a wide variety of indicators

poorly. For example, a community may want to measure the recovery of an aquatic

ecosystem by sampling the number of different types of benthic organisms (bottomdwelling species such as worms and shellfish). Such a field survey may require a large

budget, however. Instead, the community could track fish abundance or water quality

as a proxy for ecosystem recovery. Also, data may already be available for developing

certain indicators but not others; a less than perfect indicator supported by available

data may be more practical than an ideal one that requires extensive data gathering.

In summary, good indicators will reflect stakeholder concerns, be readily understandable to their audience, be responsive to change in the ecosystem or community, and be

appropriate for highlighting emerging ecosystem problems before they become irreversible. The Sustainable Seattle Program below provides a good example of effective community involvement in indicator development and selection.
3-4

Santa Monica Bay, California: Monitoring Ecological

T

he Santa Monica Bay Restoration Program (SMBRP)

proposes a comprehensive monitoring system to measure the ecological effects on the bay and its human,

wildlife, and plant populations. In 1988, concerned about

the condition of the bay, local citizens joined with state

and federal agencies to form the SMBRP. This coalition

took on the responsibility of assessing the bay’s problems,

developing solutions, and putting them into action. The

SMBRP has developed a plan of action that involves a

diverse group of citizens and members of the government,

scientific, and industrial communities.

One component of the SMBRP’s activities is coordinating and integrating the existing monitoring programs

in the bay and its watershed. As part of this program, the

SMBRP has prepared a “Comprehensive Monitoring

Framework” that suggests what types of data should be

compiled. The following list groups SMBRP’s potential

measurements under headings that correspond to the

three main public concerns:

Natural Stressors and Processes

n Chlorophyll a

n Salinity and temperature

n Water clarity

n Currents and hydrology

n Precipitation

n Storm duration, location, severity

n Regional sediment characteristics

n Site-specific sediment characteristics

Human Stressors and Processes

n Outfall effluent characteristics

n Storm-drain/river effluent characteristics

n Contaminant mass loadings

n Regional sediment contamination

n Site-specific sediment contamination

n Regional water quality

n Dredging location, timing, characteristics

n Shoreline habitat loss and modification

n Sport fishing locations and catch

n Kelp harvesting

n Oil spill location, timing, characteristics

n Human swimming patterns

n Human seafood consumption patterns

n Beach warnings and closings

n Sewage spills

Human and Biotic Response Indicators

n Catch per unit of effort (by species)

n Fish abundance (by species)

n Fish egg and larval abundance (by species)

n Fish contaminant burdens (by species)

n Fish diseases

n Benthic invertebrate contaminant burdens

n Beached bird survey

n Bird survey in coastal habitats

n Bird counts and nesting success

n Migrant bird counts

n Bird birth defects

n Return of one-year-old birds and fish

n Wetland habitat type maps

n Exotic vs. native species

n Kelp bed location and extent

n Mammal abundance (by species)

n Number and cause of mammal beachings

Contact: Marianne Yamaguchi

Program Manager

SMBRP

101 Centre Plaza Drive

Monterey Park, CA 91754

Phone: (213) 266-7572

Fax: (213) 266-7626

“The power of humans

to destroy an ecosystem is awesome, but it

is matched by the

power of humans to

protect and restore it.”
3-5

Seattle, Washington: Involving the Public in Selecting

S

ustainable Seattle began in 1990 as a multiyear effort

to make the greater Seattle region into a more ecologically and economically sustainable community.

Project organizers recognized that the well-being of

Seattle residents would play a key role in making sound

policy choices. Therefore, the organizers placed a major

emphasis on development of indicators that could measure community well-being.

The Sustainable Seattle group used a multistep process

that emphasized community involvement to develop

indicators. A core group of 25 trustees defined the scope

of the project and served as advisors in the indicatordevelopment process. A task team then was formed to generate an initial set of draft indicators in

preparation for community participation. A final set of indicators was chosen at a series of civic

forums where over 250 members of the community participated. At the first meeting, community

members were introduced to the project, reviewed the task team’s initial indicator suggestions, and

identified additional indicators. Four more meetings were held over a period of five months, leading to the identification of nearly 100 sustainability indicators. Of these, 40 have been selected for

publication in two groups. The first set of 20 indicators, published in Indicators of Sustainable

Community (1993), included:

Environment

n Wild salmon runs through local streams

n Number of good air quality days per year

n Percentage of streets meeting

“pedestrian-friendly” criteria

Population and Resources

n Total population of King County

n Gallons of water consumed per capita

n Tons of solid waste generated and

recycled per capita

n Vehicle miles traveled and gasoline

consumption per capita

n Renewable and nonrenewable energy (Btus)

consumed per capita

Economy

n Percentage of employment by top 10 employers

n Percentage of children living in poverty

n Housing affordability for medium- and

low-income households

n Per capita health expenditures

Culture and Society

n Percentage of infants born with low

birth weight

n Juvenile crime rate

n Percent of youths participating in some form

of community service

n Percent of population voting in local

primary elections

n Adult literacy rate

n Library and community center

usage rates

n Participation in the arts

Each indicator was classified as moving

toward, away from, or neither toward nor away

from sustainability. Sustainable Seattle is now

using the indicators and the development

process to influence urban planning and implement programs that promote sustainable homes

and businesses. 

Contacts: Richard Conlin or

Kara Palmer

Sustainable Seattle

c/o Metrocenter YMCA

909 Fourth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98104

Phone: (206) 382-5013

Fax: (206) 382-7894
3.2 Assessing Conditions and Trends in Local

Ecosystems

Your community may have begun its ecosystem protection effort in response

to some actual or potential threat. Perhaps you have observed a decline in the

number or diversity of birds that inhabit a local forest, or have grown concerned that open space in your town is disappearing due to sprawling residential development. This section describes some processes and tools for understanding and communicating information on the health of ecosystems.

Indicators of ecosystem health serve two purposes. First, they define the

problems you are trying to address. Second, they track progress over time

from a starting point or “baseline”. Collecting consistent data over time and

comparing them to the baseline data enables an evaluation of whether the

actions taken to protect ecosystems are actually working.

Specific Indicators of Ecosystem Health

Community characteristics (such as urban vs. rural, coastal vs. inland) and

environmental problems affect the choice of ecosystem health measures. For

example, a community may be interested in determining the degree of biodiversity in local ecosystems. A specific indicator would be the number of bird

species found in an annual bird count. This number could be compared to

counts from previous years to evaluate the trend in biodiversity. The first two

columns in Table 3-1 provide several examples of broad ecosystem assessment objectives and some specific indicators that could be used to address

these objectives.

Florida State University, State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project, in cooperative

agreement with U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, August 1995, available from the U.S. EPA

Community-Based Ecosystem Protection Clearinghouse, phone: (202) 260-5339 (see

Appendix A). This report describes prospective environmental indicators that could be used

in agreements that U.S. EPA negotiates with state environmental agencies. It is written for a

technical audience, but contains a large number of indicators (with data sources) that could

be useful for communities interested in assessing local environmental conditions.

Hart, Maureen, Guide to Sustainable Community Indicators, QLF/Atlantic Center for the Environment, Ipswich,

MA 01938, May 1995, phone: (508) 356-0038, fax: (508) 356-7322, e-mail: atlantictr@igc.apc.org, price:

$12.50 (includes postage). This user-friendly guidebook is an excellent resource for those interested in assessing the ecological/environmental and socioeconomic quality of their community. The guidebook describes the

process of developing, evaluating, and using indicators at the community level in a step-by-step approach. It

contains a set of sample indicators, evaluated by the author, as well as a list of other community sustainability

projects, potential data sources, and references.

Hren, Ben, Nick Bartolomeo, and Michael Singer, Monitoring Sustainability in Your Community, The Carrying

Capacity Project, The Izaak Walton League of America, 707 Conservation Lane, Gaithersburg, MD 20878,

1995, phone: (301) 548-0150, e-mail: general@iwla.org, price: $2.00 (includes postage). This brief, easy-toTo Learn

More

3-6
3-7

use handbook presents 12 indicators, compiled from projects across the nation, to assess a community’s quality of life, consumption of natural resources, and the condition of local ecosystems. Each indicator is

described, including reasons for selection and ways to obtain and use source data.

MacLaren, Virginia, Developing Indicators of Urban Sustainability, Intergovernmental Committee in Urban

and Regional Research (ICURR), 150 Eglinton Avenue East, Suite 301, Toronto, ON M4P 1E8, Canada,

May 1995, phone: (416) 973-1376, fax: (416) 973-1375, price: $31.75 Canadian (approx. $25.00 US). This

report is a comprehensive review of indicator characteristics, frameworks (including state-of-the-environment, quality of life, and healthy city reporting), and selection criteria. It is well-illustrated with examples of

community indicators used throughout the United States and Canada.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Process for Selecting Indicators and Data and Filling Information

Gaps - Final Report, Washington, DC, July 1994, available from the U.S. EPA Community-Based Ecosystem

Protection Clearinghouse, phone: (202) 260-5339 (see Appendix A). This report presents a process for

selecting indicators and data sets to measure the current status, patterns, or trends of environmental quality.

It is written for technical managers within EPA who are responsible for specifying and quantifying such indicators. 

To start defining ecosystem assessment objectives, it

might be useful to consider the physical, biological, or

chemical changes the system has undergone. Relevant

questions may include:

n Physical Changes to the Ecosystem — How

has the structure of the system changed? Has

the number and/or kind of habitat types in the

area changed? Has the size of a forest area

declined? Has the amount of water flowing

through a river changed? Are wetland areas

shrinking? How much low-density development of “greenfields” (such as farmland,

forests, meadows, open space) is occurring?

How much development is occurring on

parcels of land not adjacent to existing urban

areas? How much habitat remains of the original area? Is the remaining habitat fragmented?

n Presence of Harmful Chemicals — Are toxic

chemicals, excessive nutrients, or other pollutants present in the soil, air, or

water, or in the plants and animals living in the ecosystem?

n Biological Damage to the Ecosystem — Physical and chemical changes to

the ecosystem are likely to produce changes in the plants and animals that are

Habitat

Fragmentation

Informatio

Many species of wildlife require habitat of

certain minimum size to survive. Residential or

commercial development, forestry, farming,

road building, and other land use practices can

break up continuous habitat into smaller sections less capable of supporting the species.

For example, if patches of unharvested natural

forest are small or isolated, some species may

disappear, threatening the long-term sustainability of the overall forest ecosystem

(Freedman, 1995). Many land conservation

efforts attempt to protect large areas, avoiding

fragmentation, or to provide corridors connecting separate areas to allow wildlife to move

among them.
Information Sources For Assessing Ecosystem Health

Table 3-1

Sample 

Indicators

Possible Sources of Information

Measure

changes in

species 

biodiversity 

Assess trends

in abundance

of various

ecosystem

components

and habitat

areas 

Assess air

quality 

(current and

trends)

Investigate

presence 

of toxic

pollutants in

various media

(current and

trends) 

Assess trends

in surface

water quality

Number of species

in an annual bird

count 

Ratio of abundant

species to those

classified as

endangered 

Acreage of

grassland 

Acreage of

wetlands

Number of days

each year that air

quality standards

are met

Soil: Percentage of

samples above U.S.

EPA/state standards

for health and

ecological risk

Ground water:

Percentage of

samples above U.S.

EPA/state standards

for health risk

Drinking water:

Location and

condition of drinking water wells

Percentage of

samples from

surface waters

meeting U.S. EPA/

state water quality

standards 

Percentage of tissue

samples from fish

or shellfish showing

unsafe toxics

concentrations 

Number of health

warnings issued

to anglers and

swimmers 

n Local chapter of National Audubon Society

n The Nature Conservancy and state governments have developed Natural Heritage Programs

that collect and record site-specific information on the location of rare, endangered, and

threatened species (see Appendix A)

n State fish and wildlife agencies (see Appendix A)

n Biology/ecology departments at state colleges and universities

n Gordon, Rue E., ed., 1996 Conservation Directory, National Wildlife Federation, 1400

Sixteenth Street NW, Washington, DC, 1996, ISBN 0-945051-60-3, phone: (202) 797-6800,

Internet Website: http://www.nwf.org.nwf

n State environmental agencies (see Appendix A), conservation division

n Agencies with photomaps and computerized land-use data include the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, phone: (202) 720-2791, and the U.S. Geological Survey, phone: (703) 648-4000

n U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, documents developed for each

state; see Internet Website: http://www.nwi.fws.gov/ for more information

n U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating

Jurisdictional Wetlands, Washington, DC, 1989

n The Association of State Floodplain Managers, Madison, WI, phone: (608) 274-0123

n State environmental and public health agencies (see Appendix A)

n EPA’s Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) contains data from stations across

the country. U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, AIRS Database, Internet Website:

http://www.epa.gov/airs/airs.html 

n Property Inspections: Many states require that commercial property owners perform environmental assessments before selling property. These assessments generally include sampling

for toxic chemicals in soil and ground water. Contacts include state environmental agencies

(see Appendix A) and local real estate boards. - Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service), National Resources Inventory, phone: (202) 720-4530

n State and local municipal public works departments

n U.S. Geological Survey, phone: (703) 648-4000 and state geological surveys

n Regional water supply authority

n U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Federal Reporting Database System,

phone: (202) 260-7276

n Property inspections (see above)

n State office responsible for wellhead protection programs

n State 305(b) Reports on Water Quality - U.S. Geological Survey, National Water Information

Clearinghouse 

n U.S. Department of Agriculture, Water Quality Information, phone: (202) 426-9000

n EPA’s Storage and Retrieval database (STORET) contains information on surface water,

ground water, soil, and fish tissue quality. U.S. EPA, STORET, phone: (202) 260-7030

n U.S. Geological Survey maintains the National Stream Quality Accounting Network

(NASQAN), collecting data at specified sites across the country. U.S. Geological Survey,

NASQAN, phone: (703) 648-6870

n Citizens’ monitoring program (see text); U.S. EPA, Office of Water, National Directory of

Voluntary Environmental Programs, phone: (202) 260-7018; listing of citizen-based water

monitoring programs by state at Internet Website: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/sec5/dir.html

n State public health agencies - State fish and wildlife agencies 

n National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Shellfish Register, phone:

(703) 487-4650

n U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program, phone: (703)

358-2148 

n U.S. EPA, Office of Water, National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Consumption Advisories,

phone: (513) 489-8190, Internet Website: http://www.epa.gov/OW/OST/Tools

n Consumption advisories and data on beach closures from state fish and wildlife agencies

n Swimming advisories from state public health agencies

Overall 

Assessmen

t Objective

3-8
3-9

part of the ecosystem. Among the questions these changes raise are: Has the

number or type of species inhabiting the ecosystem changed? Are the species

present healthy and flourishing? Are the types of species present typical of a

healthy ecosystem? Are there any rare or endangered species present and at

risk? Are there any invader or exotic species present? The ecosystem survey

conducted by the Owl Mountain Partnership in North Park, Colorado (see

following page) is a good example of how resources can be pooled to develop

an inventory of species present in a given ecosystem.

Developing an Historical Perspective

Analyzing the historical condition of an ecosystem

helps assess its current health. Identifying man-made

and naturally occurring forces that have affected the

ecosystem also can help set sensible project goals, providing reference points for measuring progress.

For example, publicizing that a severely degraded local

ecosystem once supported a large number and variety

of birds and other wildlife can act as an incentive for

local officials, business people, environmentalists, and

the general public to restore it. Moreover, by understanding the system’s history and the ways in which it

was exposed to different stressors, communities can

help evaluate the relative impact posed by these stressors. For example, a decline in wildlife populations

may be caused more by a dam placed on a major river

than by pollution associated with industrial activity.

Understanding how events led to the current condition

helps communities weigh alternative actions for restoring and protecting the ecosystem.

Other communities have found the following information sources useful in seeking out historical information

on local ecosystems:

n Surveys of the Community and Anecdotal Information — Other communities have found a survey of the community to be very valuable. A survey not

only will gather the public’s ideas on how the quality of the ecosystem has

declined, but will help publicize your project. In addition, informal conversations with older residents can be an excellent source of anecdotal historical

information. 

n Local Historical Information — Depending on the size and location of the

community, a number of institutions may be able to provide information on the

community’s history and the evolution of the ecosystem. Possible examples

include the local library, town or regional historical societies, colleges and universities, and local non-profit organizations such as land trusts. If useful local

histories do not already exist, a local high school or college student may be able

to develop a project on ecosystem history. Deeds and maps from the county

registry of deeds or municipal offices also may provide historical information.

Erosion and Its

Effects

Informatio

Agriculture, timber harvesting, real estate or

other land development, and other land-clearing activities are often the source of physical

stress on ecosystems. The most visible consequence is often erosion, which occurs when

trees and other vegetation that hold soil in

place are removed, letting wind, waves, rainfall, and other forces eat away at the topsoil.

Erosion may prevent regrowth of plants and

may threaten the stability of houses, roads, and

other construction.

One of the major ecological problems associated with erosion is siltation. Siltation

results when excess soil is deposited in slow

moving streams and rivers, smothering plants

and bottom-dwelling organisms and covering

important fish habitat. Some fish, such as

salmon, require clean gravel streambeds in

which to spawn. For these fish, siltation could

result in the loss of critical breeding habitat.
n Newspaper Archives — Old newspaper articles, often accessible through

microfiche or online services available at the local library, can provide a great

deal of historical information about an ecosystem.

n Local, State, and Federal Land Management Agencies — Agriculture,

forestry, mining, fish and wildlife, grazing (such as the U.S. Bureau of Land

Management), and biological agencies (such as the U.S. Biological Service)

may have historical maps or other descriptions of the numbers, types, and

range of native flora and fauna for the area. For other sources of information

(for example, hunting/fishing records, homestead records), you can contact

the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, railroad archives, the Library of Congress,

the U.S. National Archives, and the Smithsonian Institution. 

n Natural Heritage Programs — The Natural Heritage Programs operated by

the states may have information on the characteristics of unspoiled natural

areas in your region; these areas may serve as useful “reference points” that

show the former condition of the ecosystem. Appendix A provides a phone

listing for the Natural Heritage Programs.

n GIS Maps — A geographic information system (GIS) is a computer technology that develops maps of a specific geographic area. These maps can depict a

North Park, Colorado: The Owl Mountain Partnership’s

Ecosystem Survey

T

he Owl Mountain Partnership in north-central

Colorado has undertaken a comprehensive

survey of the area’s natural resources. The inventory is being used to define the desired future condition of the area and to support the establishment

of resource management plans in the region. 

Local citizens formed the Owl Mountain

Partnership to address natural resource management issues in the North Park area of north-central

Colorado. The partnership is composed of local

citizens, landowners, associations, and federal,

state, and local government agencies. Its goal is to

serve the economic, cultural, and social needs of

the community while developing adaptive longterm landscape management programs, policies,

and practices that ensure ecosystem sustainability. 

During the first three years of the partnership, the partners conducted a comprehensive

inventory of the area. An inventory of vegetation, soils, wildlife (including large mammals

and neotropical birds), and aquatic systems began in 1994. Members of the Partnership,

including the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and other interested

groups and agencies, conducted the inventory. The Partnership relied on grants, in-kind services, and borrowed materials, such as vehicles and equipment, to complete portions of the

survey. Before the inventory began, existing information from all agencies in the area was

3-10
3-11

compiled and analyzed for gaps in data. These gaps became the focus of the inventory, so

that the result would be a comprehensive inventory of the area. 

A major challenge of the project was to have the different agencies adopt a standard

method of surveying vegetation. The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management

typically use different methods, yet it was important to survey the region employing a common technique so that data would be consistent and easily shared. Several meetings with the

involved parties were held and a single vegetation inventory method was developed.

The survey provided a comprehensive inventory of federal, state, and private lands. While

some land owners remain wary of the project, several ranchers realized a benefit from opening their gates to the survey. As part of their participation, they received assistance from the

partnership to improve their land management practices.

The survey is now complete, and the partners are using the results to develop individual

and small-group management plans that integrate the partnership’s landscape approach to

managing the area’s resources on a sustainable basis.

Contact: Steve Porter

Manager

Owl Mountain Project

Colorado Division of Wildlife

P.O. Box 737

Walden, CO 80480

Phone: (970) 723-0020

Fax: (970) 723-0021

range of both man-made and natural features. The information box on the

next page provides information on GIS analysis.

Gathering Technical Data

Once you have a good idea of how the ecosystem arrived at its current state, you can

assemble a more detailed and rigorous evaluation of current conditions. This assessment will allow your community to identify those components of local ecosystems

that currently are degraded or at risk and evaluate the extent of the problem. This will

provide a baseline “snapshot” of ecosystem health against which protection measures

can be evaluated.

Local, state, and national agencies collect an enormous amount of environmental

data. The information ranges from observations about the general appearance of an

ecosystem to detailed analyses of emissions of toxic compounds from industrial

sources. Table 3-1 (on a preceding page) presents suggestions for data sources that

may help in assessing the health of an ecosystem. Appendix A to this resource book

provides additional phone and Internet listings for many relevant organizations. The

information in Table 3-1 and Appendix A is by no means intended as an exhaustive

list; rather, the sources identified are provided as potential starting points for your

data search.
Many of the data sources suggested in Table 3-1 can be difficult to use and understand

without proper training. Many databases require special technical knowledge and are

not especially “user-friendly”. A private consultant or a faculty member or student

volunteer from a local college or university can provide expertise needed to help identify, collect, and interpret the desired information.

Many of the information sources will fall into one of several categories: government

agencies; non-governmental organizations; local resources; and reports, databases, and

computer models.

Government Agencies

State or federal environmental agencies can help locate data to assess ecosystem health.

While the workings of the agencies devoted to environmental protection may be unfaA geographic information system (GIS) is a technology that

stores, analyzes, visually displays, and maps data about a geographic

area. GIS can be used to define ecosystem boundaries, assess

ecosystem health, and identify sources of ecosystem stress. A GIS analysis can graphically display different types of information, such as soils and habitat types, locations

and concentrations of different species, roads, industrial facilities, and other man-made

features. For example, a GIS analysis might show where industrial facilities discharging toxic compounds are located relative to contaminated sections of streams and

rivers. In this way, a GIS can help link sources of ecosystem stress with observed

impacts, and help develop strategies to alleviate those impacts. Some commercial GIS

programs are simple enough to run on a personal computer; however, their use often

requires special training and expertise. GIS consultants or GIS services available

through state or local planning authorities can provide assistance. The most expensive

and difficult part of a GIS analysis is obtaining data in “digitized” form so it can be

used with GIS software; therefore, it’s helpful to locate data before embarking on

an analysis.

For more information, you may want to consult the following sources of GIS

information:

– U.S. Geological Survey, National Mapping Program, phone: (800) USAMAPS, Internet Website: http://www-nmd.usgs.gov

– URISA, GIS: World Source Book, 1996, phone: (800) 447-9753

– American Planners Association, GIS: Assessing Your Needs and Choosing a

System, APA No. 433

– U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Conference on

Problem Solving with Geographic Information Systems, Cincinnati, Ohio,

September 21-23, 1994, EPA/625/R-95/004, September 1995

– U.S. EPA, National GIS Program, Internet Website: http://www.epa.gov/ngispr/

– Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), Internet Website:

http://fgdc.er.usgs.gov

– Your state department of environmental protection (see Appendix A) or planning agency.

To Learn

More

Geographic Information

Systems

3-12
miliar, a few strategic phone calls may take you far. State environmental agencies often

have published reports on statewide environmental conditions. These “environmental

indicators” or “state of the environment” reports provide a useful overview of trends in

the state and may point to other data sources. The state agency is also likely to be familiar with the local area and should be able to offer guidance on other regulatory agencies

(such as federal organizations or other state and local agencies) that can help further. 

As reflected in Table 3-1, the choice of other governmental agencies to contact

depends on the type of ecosystems you are assessing. For example, for investigating

pollution effects on waterfowl, state or federal departments of fish and wildlife may

be helpful. Likewise, surface water quality issues are addressed by a variety of organizations, including state environmental protection agencies, the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Geological

Survey. Addresses and phone numbers for many of the major federal organizations

are included in Appendix A.

Non-Governmental Organizations

In addition to government agencies, a large number of non-government organizations

provide information to assess ecosystem quality. For example, conservation groups

such as The Nature Conservancy and the National Audubon Society and state

Audubon societies may be useful in assessing the quantity and quality of local

wildlife habitat. Grant programs administered through universities may also be an

important source of information.

While Table 3-1 offers a few examples of relevant non-governmental organizations,

the general information directories in the “To Learn More” listings provided at the

end of this section give more general listings.

Local Resources

A variety of local resources also may prove helpful in searching for ecosystem assessment information. For example, local public health agencies may have information

on swimming advisories associated with local beaches, and may even keep more

detailed water quality data. Data on soil and/or ground-water quality may be available through real estate transaction

records that require environmental

inspections prior to property sales.

The results of such inspections may

be available from the local registrar

of deeds or real estate board.

Likewise, the local Audubon chapter

may conduct bird counts.

In addition, the community can gather its own data. Numerous citizenbased monitoring programs exist

throughout the United States. For

example, some groups gather water

samples and submit them to centralized testing facilities operated by the

state or federal government. As discussed in the story, Keeping Track in

3-13

Communities can collect data to evaluate

their own ecosystems. Many volunteer organizations monitor physical, biological, or

chemical conditions in the environment. Many of these groups

also provide assistance to others who want to learn how to conduct their own ecosystem monitoring programs. For example,

communities monitor water quality through programs such as the

Izaak Walton League of America’s Save Our Streams Program,

phone: (301) 548-0150. Likewise, you can contact EPA’s Office

of Water and ask for the National Directory of Voluntary

Environmental Monitoring Programs, phone: (202) 260-7011.

EPA’s Internet home page also lists existing citizen monitoring

programs by state; for information see Internet Website

http:// www.epa.gov/OWOW/sec5/dir.html.

To Learn

More

Monitor Your Own Ecosystem
Northern Vermont, citizens there and elsewhere track wildlife populations and other

aspects of environmental quality.

In addition to formal monitoring organizations, communities have assembled information on ecosystem quality by enlisting the help of local schools or youth programs

such as AmeriCorps.

Reports, Databases, and Computer Models

All of the organizations discussed above may have materials that can be of use in a

community’s ecosystem assessment effort. These materials may include reports,

databases, or computer models that already contain information on the ecosystems

you are trying to evaluate. For example, the U.S. EPA requires that each state

develop a biannual report on water quality. These reports — referred to as “305(b)”

reports for the section of the federal Clean Water Act which mandates them — characterize water quality statewide and classify individual water bodies according various use categories such as “swimmable” and “fishable”. You can obtain your state’s

305(b) report through the water quality office in the state environmental protection

agency.

Numerous environmental assessment databases are available on diskette and often via

the Internet. Table 3-1 provides just a few examples. For instance, environmental

agencies have developed numerous databases reporting the results of environmental

monitoring for various media (air, water, soil). Likewise, the Natural Heritage

Programs have compiled data on the location of rare and endangered species. The

“To Learn More” references at the end of this section provide listings of available

Keeping Track in Northern Vermont: A Community Effort to

Protect Wildlife Habitat

I

f you find yourself hiking in northern Vermont,

don’t be surprised if you see teams of curious

people searching the countryside for clues.

They’re citizen volunteers, dispatched by community conservation groups to look for tracks, fecal

matter, and other evidence (referred to collectively as “sign”) of wild animals in the area.

By gathering data on where animals live and the

routes along which they travel, these trackers are

helping their communities make informed decisions about ecosystem protection, land-use planning, and development. Trackers report their findings back to local conservation commissions that

analyze the data to determine habitat areas that

require protection — especially narrow corridors

of land through which the animals travel from one large block of habitat to another.

To ensure that the volunteers possess all the required skills and knowledge to do the job,

the eight townships involved in the process have called on Keeping Track, a Vermont-based,

non-profit organization that provides training and support. Volunteers must complete a training program that consists of six days of instruction in the field and two evening “classroom”

sessions. After completing the training program, citizen-volunteers perform track and sign

3-14
3-15

surveys — a scientific observation method that ensures accurate data collection.

Part of the Keeping Track program is helping community groups choose which species to

track. In northern Vermont, the program gathers data on five area-sensitive species: bobcat,

black bear, fisher, river otter, and mink. Protecting these animals is important because they

are particularly susceptible to habitat loss and degradation. Furthermore, safeguarding the

habitat of these species ensures that habitat is protected for myriad plant and animal species

within the ecosystem.

Citizen involvement in the process has brought together people from diverse backgrounds,

including birders, hunters, anglers, farmers, and foresters. The diversity within these volunteer groups has helped to build a broad base of support for ecosystem protection among

northern Vermonters.

Contact: Susan Morse

KeepingTrack

Wolfrun, RFD 1 Box 263

Jericho, VT 05465

Phone: (802) 899-2023

Keeping Track is active across the United States in consulting and advocating for community-based habitat protection. It currently is working on projects in Arizona, California,

and throughout northern New England.

databases. An Internet search on concepts relevant to your ecosystems (for example,

“Alabama wetlands”) may also provide information on databases.

Geographic information may be especially helpful in ecosystem assessment. Many

state and county governments collect information and aggregate it by ecosystem or

other geographic indicator. In addition, many federal agencies, including the U.S.

EPA, U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey, have developed computerized geographic information systems to display various types of information

(including ecological information) on electronic maps. The Metropolitan

Greenspaces Program in Portland, Oregon used aerial photography and GIS technology to inventory open space in and around the city (see following page).

Finally, more sophisticated tools are available for assessing ecosystem health.

Government officials and academic researchers have developed computer models that

evaluate whether ecosystems are functioning properly. Local university researchers

can help in performing these types of analyses. Examples include:

n Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) — This model, designed by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), allows the user to assess habitat quality

based on the habitat’s ability to support a specific species or group of species.

The model typically is used to evaluate proposed projects and determine mitigation steps needed following oil spills or other pollution events. For more

information, contact FWS’s National Ecology Center, 2627 Redwing Road,

Fort Collins, CO 80526-2899.
n Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) — The WET model provides a broad

assessment of ecosystem health and can be applied to a wide variety of wetland assessment needs. It provides replicable, consistent results describing the

ecological functions supported by a wetlands area. This information can be

used to inform planners about the local, regional, and national significance of

the area. For more information, contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

phone: (202) 761-0660.

n Gap Analysis — Gap analysis is a method for identifying high priority areas

for conservation efforts. It uses maps to compare ecosystem types with current

land ownership and management status. Where important landscape types or

species habitats currently are not included in protected areas (such as parks,

refuges, or preserves), areas representing those landscapes or species might be

selected as targets for conservation efforts. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

is conducting a large-scale state-by-state Gap Analysis Project using satellite

imagery, other data on vegetation, and GIS mapping. This project is described

Portland, Oregon: Analytical Tools Protect

Greenspace

T

he Metropolitan Greenspaces Program

(encompassing the Portland, Oregon, and

Vancouver, Washington, metropolitan region) has

a well-defined vision: “To maintain the urban

region as a place where nature is valued as an

important element of livability.” The program

planners (non-profit organizations and local agencies working on greenspace and wildlife protection) joined together to address a critical next step

in translating that vision into a visual analytical

tool — a single greenspace map covering the fourcounty, bi-state metropolitan region. Making the

map required a thorough inventory and analysis of

natural areas that could be woven together to form

a single greenspace portrayal.

Just what are natural areas? The inventory

team had to define “natural areas” before making

the maps. They recognized that a natural area

may be viewed as a self-sustaining area that

would not change dramatically if all human influences were removed. For this inventory, however, they needed a clearer definition and decided on

the following: “a landscape unit (a) composed of

plant and animal communities, water bodies, soil,

and rock, (b) largely devoid of man-made structures, and (c) maintained and managed in such a

way as to promote or enhance populations of

wildlife.” This eliminated landscapes such as golf

courses and agricultural land.

The geography department of Portland State

University carried out the inventory, which

involved: 

“The analysis relied

heavily on... geographic information system

technology... to determine which [lands] are

already protected and

constitute potential

components of

a larger interconnected

system.”

3-16
3-17

n Obtaining aerial photographs at a cost of $109,000, paid for by contributors

who received discounts when purchasing aerial photos

n Using color infrared aerial photographs to identify and map natural areas, and

collecting onsite data through field surveys for a sample cross-section of

natural areas

n Digitizing maps and entering field data into a geographic information system

(GIS) spatial database.

Once the maps were complete, analysis of the data established criteria for evaluating the

ecological functions of, and connections between, these natural areas. Human values (such

as access or distance from residential populations), as well as wildlife values (such as the

interconnectedness of sites by stream or ridge line corridors), were considered in developing criteria. The analysis relied heavily on the GIS as a tool to relate natural area patterns

to land uses, zoning, utility rights-of-way, and soil and slope information. This type of evaluation helped to focus the program on priority land acquisition sites.

Contact: Ron Klein

Public Affairs Specialist

Metro Regional Parks & Greenspaces

600 Northeast Grand Avenue

Portland, OR 97232-2736

Phone: (503) 797-1774

Fax: (503) 797-1849

in Noss, Reed F. and Allen Y. Cooperrider, Saving Nature’s Legacy, Defenders

of Wildlife and Island Press, Washington, DC, 1994.

Linking Stressors With Impacts

After characterizing the current state of the system and noting areas of concern (such as

wetland loss, decline in plant or wildlife species), it is possible to identify the sources of

those problems. For example, natural fish populations may be in decline, but why? Is it

due to chemicals from industrial dischargers, over-fishing, or the damming or channelization of the river? Stress on an ecosystem can come from a wide range of sources,

including industrial and municipal sources discharging toxic chemicals, agriculture and

livestock feedlots, petroleum and chemical storage tanks, mining (for instance, acid

mine drainage), recreational activities (such as stream bank erosion caused by boats and

jet skis), water withdrawal by industry and utilities, septic tanks and other development

impacts, and waste management. Appendix C of this resource book discusses stressors

in more detail.
Proving precise cause-and-effect relationships can be difficult when identifying stressors and their sources. You can identify stressors using scientific data or even computer modeling techniques, but these options may be beyond your resources or technical

capabilities. Often, careful observation of local land-use conditions, and interviews

with experts or those in other communities that have faced problems

similar to yours, are all that’s needed. You can then verify your initial

hypotheses using more precise data.

Both localized sources (e.g., a specific pollution source or local activity) and broader area- or region-wide

trends may affect local ecosystems.

Some stressors come from outside

the local area — such as long-range

transport of air pollutants. State

officials involved in the voluntary

Ozone Transport Assessment Group

can provide information about these

sources. In addition, data on

regional and local trends in population, vehicle use, business activity,

home construction, and power generation provide useful background that may point to stressors, which then might be

investigated through more direct data sources such as those identified in Table 3-2.

Reviewing the stressors identified by other community efforts gives an idea of what

stressors might exist in your community. General publications on environmental protection programs also provide useful lists of potential stressors. (See, for example,

U.S. EPA Office of Water, Wellhead Protection Program: Tools for Local

Governments, EPA 440/6-89-002, April 1989.)

Gale Research, Inc., Encyclopedia of Environmental Information Sources, Gale

Environmental Library, Detroit, MI, ISBN 0-8103-8568-6, price: $125. Arranged by subject

matter, this reference guide provides listings of relevant agencies, online databases, and

research centers.

Gordon, Rue, E., ed., 1996 Conservation Directory, National Wildlife Federation, 1400

Sixteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20036-2266, ISBN 0-945051-60-3, 1996, phone: (202) 797-6800,

Internet Website: http://www.nwf.org.nwf.

Harker, Donald, and Elizabeth Ungar Natter, Where We Live: A Citizen’s Guide to Conducting a Community

Environmental Inventory, Island Press, Covelo, CA, ISBN 1-55963-377-8, 1994. This guide describes sources

and effects of contamination in simple terms, and suggests methods for collecting and mapping local environmental information. It includes definitions of technical terms and useful worksheets for organizing your data.

U.S. EPA, Access EPA, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9328, ISBN 0-16-037989-X,

Internet Website: http://www.epa.gov. Developed for citizens and other EPA partners, this guide provides a

roadmap to EPA information services, contacts, and products. 

To Learn

More

Fertilizers and Eutrofication

Informatio

Fertilizers used on residential lawns in agriculture, home gardening, and golf course maintenance are often washed by rain to rivers

and lakes. Once in the water, the fertilizer can cause algae to grow

quickly. This growth can prevent sun from reaching water plants

that are an important part of the aquatic ecosystem. Furthermore,

the algae can use up the available oxygen in the river or lake, causing unpleasant odors and killing animals that need oxygen to live.

Ultimately, the ecosystem will be undermined and the population of

fish and other species will dwindle. This entire process is called

eutrophication. For example, runoff to Chesapeake Bay has caused

eutrophication, damaging shellfish beds and eelgrass meadows that

young fish use as nurseries. In turn, commercial fin-fishing and

shellfishing revenues have declined.

3-18
Two communities that have performed comprehensive stressor evaluations are

discussed in the stories on the Upper Great Lakes and West Virginia (see 

following pages).

3.3 Assessing Links Between Ecosystems and the Local

Economy

Local Economies Depend on Ecosystems

The Federal Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force has said that sustaining

the health, productivity, and biological diversity of ecosystems, “is essential to maintain the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, and to sustain natural

resources for future populations.” As this quote indicates, our lives are greatly influenced by the healthy functioning of ecosystems.

Ecosystem Components May Have Direct Commercial Value 

Much of our country’s wealth is the result of an abundant supply of natural resources

and the ecosystems that sustain them. The link between ecosystems and the economy is

clearest in communities that extract renewable resources from the environment. For

example, the economy of many communities in southeast Louisiana is highly dependent

upon shellfish beds and the larger system of wetlands that surrounds and protects them.

The issue of “jobs versus the environment” often arises when discussing ecosystem

protection. Controversies such as limiting forestry to protect endangered species

have led many people to believe that black-and-white choices must be made between

resource extraction or land development and ecosystem protection. In fact, ecosystem protection is often pursued when a community is looking for ways to manage its

resources and sustain local industries. While this may sometimes result in short-term

reductions in economic activity (such as limitations on the commercial fishing catch),

the resource may be maintained for the long run, making the local economy more

U.S. EPA, National Center for Environmental Publications and Information, 11029 Kenwood Road,

Cincinnati, OH 45242, phone: (513) 489-8190.

U.S. EPA also has developed outreach and assistance materials designed to help communities learn about and

analyze the local environment. In conjunction with Purdue University, EPA Region 5 has developed software

packages for use on personal computers. These software packages allow users to analyze a variety of topics.

For example, one program helps users understand and assess water pollution risks from local livestock

management. Another program discusses how toxic pollutants affect fish and explains fish collection

and survey methods. In all, a total of 43 programs are offered on disk from Karen Reshkin, U.S. EPA 

Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604-3590, phone: (312) 353-6353, e-mail: 

reshkin.karen@epamail.epa.gov, Internet Website: http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/seahome.

3-19
Explanation/Use Potential Information Source

Data on septic

tanks and other

underground

tanks 

Residential and

commercial

development

trends

Water 

discharges from

industrial and

municipal point

sources 

Data on

pesticide use

Industrial

releases 

of toxic

compounds 

Land-use 

and other

geographic

information

Data on solid

and hazardous

waste

Data on mine

location and

operation 

status

Information on location and failure of septic and

other underground storage tanks can help identify

sources of nutrients and toxic pollutants.

Development can have direct impacts on an

ecosystem, such as eliminating or fragmenting

habitat, but can also have less obvious effects,

such as contributing to non-point source pollution.

Data on volume and characteristics of discharges

from local treatment facilities can provide information on discharges of metals or other toxic pollutants, nutrients, biological oxygen demand, pH,

and pathogens that pose risks to humans, plants,

and animals and affect surface water quality.

Pesticide use data can help pinpoint the causes of

non-point source pollution and ground-water contamination. 

EPA maintains a database containing information

on toxic emissions from certain industrial facilities to air, land, and water.

Maps enable you to get a comprehensive look at

the ecosystem. A geographic information system

can generate these maps. Data available from

remote sensing operations and other sources can

also help provide an overview of the ecosystem

and the stressors affecting it.

Waste storage, treatment, and disposal sites

(active or inactive) may fragment habitat and contaminate local wildlife, air, soil, surface water, or

ground water.

Acid mine drainage from active or abandoned

mines can be transported to surface water and

harm aquatic ecosystems.

n Local land-use planning offices and health

departments 

n State underground storage tank offices

n Local land-use planning office

n U.S. Census of Population and County Business

Patterns data

n Municipal public works departments

n State department of environmental protection (water

office) 

n U.S. EPA’s Office of Water Enforcement and

Permits, Permit Compliance System Database,

phone: (202) 475-8323 

n Agricultural Extension Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture 

n U.S. EPA Drinking Water Hotline, National

Pesticide Survey, phone: (800) 426-7491

n U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research

Service, Agricultural Chemical Usage Database,

phone: (800) 999-6779

n State department of agriculture, state management

plans 

n U.S. EPA, Toxics Release Inventory Database, available through National Library of Medicines

TOXNET System, phone: (301) 496-6531 or the

Emergency Planning and Community Right-toKnow Information Hotline, phone: (800) 535-

0202, Internet Website: http://www.epa.gov/ enviro/html/ef_home.html 

n State department of environmental protection

n State department of environmental protection

n U.S. Geological Survey, National Mapping Program,

phone: (800) USA-MAPS, Internet Website:

http://www-nmd.usgs.gov/

n Local planning/zoning departments

n U.S. EPA, RCRA/Superfund Hotline, phone:

(800) 424-9346

n State agencies in charge of permitting hazardous

waste management facilities (branch of environmental protection department)

n U.S. EPA’s Envirofacts website provides access to

data on abandoned and active hazardous waste sites,

Internet Website: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/

ef_home.html

n U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Surface

Mining, phone: (202) 208-2553, Internet Website:

http://www.osmre.gov/osmhome.html 

Data Item

Table 3-2 

3-20

Data For Identifying Stressors
3-21

Upper Great Lakes: Evaluating Ecosystem Stress in

the Kakagon and Bad River Sloughs

T

he Wisconsin Chapter of The Nature

Conservancy (TNC) and the Bad River

Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa

Indians are cooperating on a watershed project

funded by the U.S. EPA. The Kakagon and

Bad River Sloughs are the largest, healthiest,

fully-functioning estuarine systems remaining

in the upper Great Lakes Basin. The sloughs

(swamps or stagnant waters along the river)

are located on the Bad River Reservation in

northwestern Wisconsin and are the ancestral

home and cultural base of the Bad River Band

of Lake Superior Chippewa. The Bad River

watershed and its swamp lands are home to

rare species such as lake sturgeon, wood turtle, bald eagles, nesting goshawks, ram’s-head lady slippers, and black tern. They also support significant wild rice beds, which produce 20,000 pounds of green rice annually. The tribe is committed to maintaining the nearly pristine nature of these freshwater wetlands. 

The health of the area has been affected by environmental stresses throughout the 1,421-square-mile

watershed. The stressors include logging, farming, mining, and recreational activities. Effects in the

watershed include excessive erosion and sedimentation, hydrologic changes, toxic contamination,

habitat loss and fragmentation, excessive nutrient runoff, and displacement of native species by exotic species. The decline in upstream water quality could eventually degrade the downstream wetlands.

The cooperative watershed project focuses on identifying ecological stressors and working with

a variety of stakeholders to mitigate and prevent negative impacts. Activities include conducting

inventories to determine the current level of knowledge about the ecosystem, setting future

research priorities, developing management and protection plans, promoting sustainable economic activity that is compatible with the natural environment through education and public relations, and building partnerships for cooperation on all these activities.

The Bad River Band and the Wisconsin Chapter of TNC are cooperating to address the health

of the entire Bad River watershed and wetland ecosystem, with help from the Great Lakes National

Program Office of the U.S. EPA.

Contacts: Maria Lavey

Watershed Project Coordinator

Bad River Band of Lake Superior

Tribe of Chippewa Indians

P.O. Box 39

Odanah, WI 54861

Phone: (715) 682-7123

Fax: (715) 682-7118

Matt Dallman

Watershed Conservation Coordinator

The Nature Conservancy

618 Main Street West, Suite B

Ashland, WI 54806

Phone: (715) 682-5789

Fax: (715) 682-5832

Karen Holland

Great Lakes National Program Office

U.S. EPA, G-9J

77 W. Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, IL 60604-3590

Phone: (312) 353-2690
Canaan Valley, West Virginia: Identification of

Environmental Stressors Helps Preserve Ecosystem

A

n early inventory of environmental stressors in Canaan Valley jump-started efforts

to preserve the integrity of this ecosystem. 

Canaan Valley, in West Virginia, is a popular destination for Washington, DC, and

Baltimore vacationers. The valley, approximately 14 miles long and five miles wide, is

one of the best examples of a northern, coniferous ecosystem in the United States. 

The Canaan Valley Task Force, a private

sector-government partnership created by

EPA Region 3 in July 1990, promotes longterm environmental protection of the valley

while allowing for reasonable and sustainable

economic vitality. As a first step in guiding

protection efforts, the partnership produced an inventory of environmental stressors (see the table

below) by identifying ecosystem problems and their associated causes, determining whether the

problems are getting worse, and developing solutions.

The task force identified two priorities: advancing the delineation of wetlands, and developing

a geographic information system (GIS) of land use/land cover and property boundaries. As a result

of this early identification of stressors, three Department of the Army permits were suspended and

the surveillance of illegal wetland fills was increased. The task force also produced and disseminated a series of fact sheets and informational brochures; completed a study of off-road vehicle

impacts; studied ground-water, surface-water, and wildlife habitats; and initiated the first phase of

an economic impact analysis of a proposed wildlife refuge. 

Canaan Valley Environmental Stressors

AFFECTED FEATURE

Wetlands 

Unique 

vegetation 

Brook trout

Woodcock 

Aesthetics 

EVALUATION TOOL

GIS, Observed landuse change, Photo

GIS, Photo

West Virginia, USGS

GIS, Habitat survey

Observation 

TREND

Loss of acreage

Loss of

diversity 

Decreased 

population 

Decreased 

population 

Loss of

natural views

SOURCES OF STRESS

Power generation, Second home development, Recreation, Highway,

Off-road vehicles

Off-road vehicles, Recreation, Second

home development, Power generation

Off-road vehicles, Septic, Acid mine

drainage 

Second home development, Power

generation, Off-road vehicles, Recreation

Wind power, Second home development,

Recreation 

Contact: John Forren

Environmental Assessment Branch

U.S. EPA Region 3

841 Chestnut Street

Philadelphia, PA 24210

Phone: (215) 566-2705

Fax: (215) 566-2782

3-22
3-23

C

itizens in Northampton County, Virginia, recognize the value of their natural assets to their economic future. Northampton County is located at the

southern tip of the Delmarva peninsula and occupies

the southern half of Virginia’s Eastern Shore. The

county is bounded by 225 miles of shoreline, enclosing some 134,000 acres of prime cropland, saltmarsh,

and forest.

Despite its natural gifts, Northampton has severe

problems. Historically, it has been the poorest county

in the Commonwealth of Virginia, with a declining

population and steep job losses resulting from reversals in its dominant seafood and agricultural industries. In 1993, Northampton County formed a

Sustainable Development Task Force composed of

Northampton citizens to address these challenges.

Development of “heritage tourism” is a direct expression of the community’s collective determination to

ensure a more prosperous and hopeful future for all its

citizens.

Promising opportunities exist for Northampton

County to develop new industries and reinvigorate

existing industries, such as heritage tourism, which

provide well-paying jobs and a diversified tax base,

improve the quality of life of the county’s people, and retain its young people as they enter the work

force. Heritage tourism is defined as “recreation travel activities which depend on the appreciation,

interpretation and protection of the community’s authentic natural, scenic, recreation, historical, and

cultural assets.” Fishing and boating on the Chesapeake Bay are the primary attractions for tourists

and recreationists visiting Northampton County.

The First Annual Eastern Shore Birding Festival, held in October 1993 during the peak of fall

migration, demonstrated the potential of birding tourism to the county. Heritage trails are also being

planned to meet the sustainability objectives of the community.

In the past, Northampton industries have failed when they chose an unsustainable course. In the

most notable instance several years ago, Northampton’s fishing and canning industry collapsed as a

result of overfishing. Citizens of Northampton recognize that no industry or development activity

can be considered sustainable in and of itself. Even heritage tourism must account for long-term

preservation goals along with near-term financial reward. Citizens of Northampton are convinced

they can achieve both. 

Ultimately, the community is taking responsibility for wise development and stewardship of its

assets. County leaders are committed to sustainable development, but the community’s dedication

to active participation through town meetings, community task forces, and non-profit grassroots

organizations ensures continued success.

Contact: Tim Hayes

Sustainable Development, Coordinator

Northampton County

P.O. Box 66

Eastville, VA 23347

Phone: (804) 678-0477

Fax: (804) 678-0483

Northampton County, Virginia: Ecosystem Protection Can

Benefit Recreation and Nature-Based Local Economies

“...the true value of the

[birding] festival is clearly its potential for generating future tourism and

related economic benefits.”
Southwestern Washington: Innovation in Willapa Bay

Helps Community Integrate Ecological and Economic

Willapa Bay, in the southwestern corner ofWashington State, has long been considered one of

the cleanest coastal ecosystems in the nation. The natural richness of the bay is maintained through the creativity of local businesses, citizens, and government officials.

Communities and businesses in Willapa Bay know that

their ecological and economic goals are interdependent.

Ecosystem management efforts have engaged local and

county governments, private non-profit organizations,

and regional public agencies.

One collaborative effort, spearheaded by a non-profit

conservation organization called Ecotrust, was established to address troubling new issues, including declining timber yields, fish populations, and job opportunities.

In a unique partnership, Ecotrust and a development

bank in Chicago began to offer capital and technical

assistance to environmentally responsible businesses that

integrate ecological and economic goals.

To begin, Ecotrust went to the local community.

Members convened a small group of residents to discuss

environmental protection through economic development. The group — farmers, oyster growers, fishermen,

Native Americans, and small business owners — formed

the Willapa Alliance. One of the alliance’s activities is to sponsor studies examining the

region’s natural resources and economic opportunities. Right away, the group discovered

that some of its economic problems were based on a pattern of exporting unprocessed natural resources. In addition, ecologically friendly businesses were not familiar with how to

reach expanding and profitable “green markets”. The trick was providing resources and

expertise to this community in need.

Ecotrust approached the Shore Bank Corporation of Chicago for help, and the two groups

decided to collaborate. The partnership evolved into the locally based ShoreTrust Trading

Group, which provides management services, marketing strategies, and financial support to

local businesses focusing on sustainable practices such as the following:

sustainable. Northampton County, Virginia provides one example of how ecosystem

protection can support nature-based business as a source of jobs and economic activity in an economically depressed area. Ecosystem management efforts in Willapa

Bay, Washington (see below) focus on coordinating ecological and economic goals

where the regional economy depends heavily on natural resource extraction.

Similarly, the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (see following pages)

helps Native Americans in the Midwest preserve resources that support commercial

fishing and wild rice harvesting.

If properly managed, ecosystems may support recreation-based businesses. 

Many local economies in the United States, particularly those in more rural areas,

depend on the commercial activity generated by outdoor recreation. Expenditures by

tourists, anglers, hunters, birdwatchers, boaters, hikers, and other recreational enthusiasts contribute significantly to the regional economy and support jobs in the community. These expenditures include not only the purchase of recreational equipment and

3-24

“It would only be

ourselves we

would 

be hurting if we

lose the bay.”
3-25

Contacts: Alana Probst

Vice President

Ecotrust

1200 Northwest Front Avenue

Suite 470

Portland, OR 97209

Phone: (503) 227-6225

Fax: (503) 222-1517

E-mail: alana@ecotrust.org

John Berdes

Managing Director

ShoreTrust Trading Group

P.O. Box 826

Ilwaco, WA 98624

Phone: (360) 642-4265

Fax: (360) 642-4078

E-mail: john@ecotrust.org

n Owners of a family-owned lumber mill business knew there was a demand for timber grown from sustainably managed forests. The local North American red alder

is a hardwood species that regenerates rapidly on its own and can easily be managed as a renewable resource. Nevertheless, many landowners kill the plants with

herbicides to grow conifers instead. The ShoreTrust Trading Group helped the family develop a market for the alder and expand its business.

n The Trading Group introduced a local oyster fisherman to a natural foods grocery

chain with strict health and environmental standards. These stores are willing to pay

a premium for oysters harvested in the clean Willapa Bay. This has provided an

incentive to protect the local environment that sustains the oysters. In the fisherman’s words, “It would only be ourselves we would be hurting if we lose the bay.”

n A cranberry farmer runs a small business that processes local cranberries into relishes, mustards, and scone mixes. The Trading Group introduced the owner to new

markets and helped her redesign her jars to emphasize the products’ natural qualities.

By helping resource managers meet their economic goals, local groups are ensuring that

ecologically responsible businesses can continue to thrive and protect Willapa Bay. Further

analysis of the bay may be needed to monitor environmental change.

In addition, the collaboration with Shore Bank has entered a new phase, with creation of

ShoreTrust Bank, the first commercial bank in the country designed to focus primarily on

loans to environmentally responsible businesses.

supplies (such as boats, fishing rods, bait), but also spending at local hotels and

restaurants. If ecosystems break down and populations of key wildlife species dwindle, many local economies would be undermined.

Ecosystems May Influence Property Values and Local Finance

Well-functioning ecosystems also help communities avoid expenditures on projects

needed to replace the services that the ecosystems naturally provide. Examples

include the following:

n Storm Protection — Wetlands may reduce wave action, slow winds, and

absorb water. Preservation of wetlands can help communities avoid spending

money on such expensive structural protection as levees and sea walls.

n Filtration and Purification — Wetlands and forested areas are capable of
Great Lakes: Native American Perspectives in Great

Lakes 

H

istorically, the tribes of the Great Lakes area

depended on fishing, hunting, and harvesting

wild rice for their subsistence. Currently, these

activities are still economically significant

because the tribes engage in commercial fishing

and the sale of wild rice.

The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife

Commission (GLIFWC), formed in 1984, is an

intertribal, natural resource management organization representing the concepts and interests of 11

Chippewa Bands in Michigan, Minnesota, and

Wisconsin. GLIFWC’s primary mission is to

assist members in implementing treaty rights and

in managing resources in the off-reservation,

ceded territories.

The natural resources of primary concern to the member bands include fisheries, wildlife,

wild rice, and waterfowl. Jon Gilbert, a GLIFWC wildlife biologist, was involved in a project

with state and federal agencies to study the survival rate and habitat use of re-introduced pine

martens and fishers. According to Gilbert, “These are animals that are part of the natural

treating municipal or industrial wastewater and filtering runoff from city

streets and farmland. Plants absorb nutrients that might otherwise stimulate

algal blooms, while toxic pollutants settle to the bottom of wetland areas where some may

decompose. While not a replacement for man-made wastewater

treatment capacity, these filtration

services may, to a limited degree,

reduce the need for towns to build

additional treatment capacity.

Wetlands and forests may also help

protect drinking water supplies.

Many communities have instituted

wellhead or watershed protection

programs that avoid the costs of

additional water treatment and the

cost of cleaning up contaminated

ground water by protecting the

areas around water sources.

Finally, open space may create

economic benefits in urban and

suburban communities. For example, research shows that real estate

values increase if property is near

open spaces, waterways, and other

Practical Benefits From Open

Space Preservation

Informatio

Economic studies have shown that some kinds of development

impose greater costs on local communities than others. An analysis

of the costs of sprawl (Frank, 1989) revealed that lower-density

developments built on former farms, forests, wetlands, or unoccupied lands away from existing urban areas cost considerably more in

local taxes than higher-density developments built within or adjacent

to existing urban areas. For instance, each house built in a mediumdensity development (seven to eight residences per acre) will cost an

average of $12,000 more in local government expenditures than it

will contribute, while each house built in a low-density development

(one residence for every four to five acres) will cost $92,000 more in

local government expenditures.

In contrast, another study showed that for every dollar of tax revenue collected from residential land, $1.25 is spent on public services. For each dollar generated from an open space tax, 19 cents is

spent on services (Vance, 1988).

Of course, these are examples only. Cost and tax differences for

low- and high-density development will depend on the unique service costs and tax structure of your community, and on how development is designed.

3-26
ecosystem. The tribes are interested in seeing that the ecosystems are preserved, protected,

and enhanced.” GLIFWC also works on conservation enforcement in cooperation with

Wisconsin wardens

The Chippewa Bands rely on the fish resources of Lake Superior, as they have for generations. Therefore, GLIFWC undertakes numerous activities to protect and enhance this

resource. These activities include harvest management, controlling foreign species that threaten the ecosystem, research and development, enhancement of resources, and technical assistance to members.

The participation of GLIFWC in state and federal ecosystem management projects ensures

that tribal members’ historical perspectives and values about land are represented and that

important economic resources are sustained.

Contact: James Schlender

Executive Administrator

Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission

P.O. Box 9

Odanah, WI 54861

Phone: (715) 682-6619

Fax: (715) 682-9242

natural areas. This is illustrated in the story about New York City’s Central Park (see

below). These increases bring more property tax revenues to municipalities. In addition, both real estate developers and local governments have found that the costs of

clustered housing, including land clearing, road building, providing water and sewer

service, and other costs, are significantly less than those of sprawling developments. 

Evaluating the Links Between Ecosystems and Local Economies

As with ecosystem assessment, specific indicators can track the relationship between

ecosystems and the economy. Table 3-3 provides several examples of specific economic indicators. For instance, a local economy may be dependent upon a resourcebased industry such as commercial fishing. A relevant indicator in this case would be

employment in each of these economic sectors as a percentage of employment in all

local industries. Alternatively, a community that wants to assess how ecosystems

influence tax revenues could investigate total tax collections through park and beach

admission fees.

The following sources may be able to provide information on how ecosystems influence the local economy:

n State and Community Planning Documents — Many states have published

statewide plans or growth strategy documents that address a range of economic and environmental issues. Some states (such as Florida) require that communities prepare comprehensive planning documents, as well. These sources

provide useful background on the major economic trends in your area that

may be affecting or affected by local ecosystems.

3-27
n Local Merchants — Local business owners may be able to provide information on the importance of certain ecosystem-based activities to their business.

For example, recreational fishing may be critical to a local boat rental business.

n Local Parks and Recreation Departments — These local agencies may have

information on the revenue collected from parks, beaches, and other city- or

county-operated areas.

n Chamber of Commerce — The local Chamber of Commerce may be able to

provide information about economic uses of ecosystems, whether for recreation, research, commercial fishing, forestry, or other uses.

New York City: Recognizing the Value of Central Park’s

Open Space

D

evelopers and city governments have discovered that urban open-space preservation can

have a positive effect on property values, urban

economies, and the general quality of life. As a

result, cities around the country have initiated openspace preservation programs. One of the earliest and

most dramatic examples of the economic benefits of

urban parks and open space is New York City’s

famous Central Park.

An 1860 census of New York City’s population

indicated an increase from 4,302 to 814,524 inhabitants in 60 years. In response to this rapid urbanization, Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux prepared a design for Central Park and attached a report

which suggested that, “The whole of the island of New York would, but for such a reservation,

before many years be occupied by buildings and paved streets...[and] all its inhabitants would

assuredly suffer, in greater or less degree, according to their occupations and the degree of their confinement to it, from influences engendered by these conditions.”

Much of the park was purchased by 1859, but the Board of Commissioners, worried about excess

valuation, was reluctant to purchase additional acres. Olmsted responded to cost concerns by

tracking the increase in the value of properties adjacent to the park. In an 1875 report to the board,

he detailed the total cost of Central Park and then calculated the increase in tax revenue from the

surrounding properties.

Olmsted’s report noted that property not directly adjacent to the park had appreciated only 100

percent over the previous 20 years. However the three wards adjacent to the park had appreciated

500 percent. While the City had spent $13.9 million to acquire and build the park, the land surrounding the park was worth $180 million more because of the purchase. In 1873 alone, the city’s

property tax income was $3,746,880 more than the tax that the city would have received if the park

had not been established. In effect, New York City’s Central Park paid for itself just three years

after park construction was completed.

Contact: Dave Lutz

The Neighborhood Open Space Coalition

72 Reade Street

New York, NY 10007

hone: (212) 513-7555

Fax: (212) 385-6095

3-28
Information Sources For Assessing the Linkages Between

Ecosystems and the Local Economy

Table 3-3

Sample Indicators Possible Sources of Information

Assess 

dependence of

local tax revenues

on ecosystems

Assess 

dependence 

of local economy

on nature-based

recreation

Assess need for

clean water for

industrial use

Assess impact of

ecosystem health

on residential

property 

values

Assess trends in

commercial and

residential development

Assess local

dependence on

“extractive” natural resource-based

industries

Assess 

sustainability of

local resourcebased 

industries

n Annual revenue from fees for use of

parks and beaches

n Annual revenues and/or employment in

local outdoor recreational businesses

(e.g., boat rentals, nature tour guides,

birdwatching, and cross-country ski centers)

n Annual number of fishing or hunting

licenses issued in the county

n Annual number of “activity days” for

various categories of outdoor recreation

(e.g., fishing, hunting)

n Use of water by food processors, breweries, etc.

n Relative cost of otherwise similar houses located near and several blocks away

from a local park

n Qualitative indicator based on home buyer

and realtor opinions on premium paid for

properties located near environmental

amenities (e.g., clean rivers, parks)

n Urban Sprawl Index: rate of conversion

of open land to suburban/urban development 

n Percentage of building permits in downtown/urban core vs. non-urban or suburban areas

n Revenues of local forest products industry relative to revenue in all industries

n Employment in local forest products

industry relative to employment in all

industries

n Revenues of local commercial fishery

relative to revenue in all industries 

n Employment in local commercial

fishery relative to employment in all

industries

n Ratio of the amount, health, and diversity of timber regrowth to timber cut

n Stability in numbers of juvenile and

young-of-year in fish population over time.

n Local parks and recreation department, local revenue department

n Local merchants 

n Local Chamber of Commerce

n State fish and wildlife department

n State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans (contact state

tourism and recreation agency)

n U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,

and Wildlife Associated Recreation, published every six years 

n Local Chamber of Commerce

n Local water authority

n Local Chamber of Commerce

n Local business leaders or representatives of relevant companies

n Local registry of deeds

n Survey of recent home buyers in the area

n Local realtors 

nMunicipal/county/state land-use planning offices

n Local building and permits office

n U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, County

Business Patterns, phone: (301) 457-4100

n U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis,

Regional Economic Information System, phone: (202) 606-9900

n U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Statistics,

by state 

n U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, County

Business Patterns, phone: (301) 457-4100

n U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis,

Regional Economic Information System, phone: (202) 606-9900

n National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the U.S. Department

of Commerce maintains county-level data on landings and value of

catch

n Local Chamber of Commerce

n U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Statistics,

by state

n NMFS data (see above)

Overall 

Assessment

Objective

3-29
n Local Realtors — Realtors often understand what people value about a community and can help you understand how healthy ecosystems influence home prices.

Sources of Technical Information

Apart from local sources, more general data sources may prove useful in characterizing how the local economy is tied to ecosystem quality. One set of resources includes

economic data gathered by economic research organizations in the federal government, including:

n County Business Patterns Data — Compiled by the U.S. Department of

Commerce, Bureau of the Census, these data cover revenues and employment

associated with various industries in each county. The data are summarized in

a series of documents (one for each state), but also can be obtained in electronic form. Contact the Bureau of the Census, County Business Patterns

Branch, phone: (301) 457-4100, or check the library at a local university.

n Regional Economic Information System — This data system contains county-based employment and income information similar to the County Business

Patterns, but at a greater level of detail and across multiple years. Therefore,

the data may be useful for assessing trends in various resource-dependent

industries. The data are available on CD-ROM and can be obtained through

the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the U.S. Department of Commerce,

phone: (202) 606-9900.

While technical in nature, these data sources may prove helpful in characterizing the

amount of commercial activity dependent upon ecosystem quality. These data are the

basis for more sophisticated regional economic modeling that you may explore when

you implement ecosystem protection strategies (see Chapter 5). An economist in the

community or at a local university can help acquire and analyze these data.

In addition to general economic information, numerous databases and reports exist

for assessing the local importance of specific industries. For example, detailed inforThe Ecosystem Approach: Healthy Ecosystems and Sustainable Economies, Report of the

Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force, June 1995. Prepared by representatives of

several federal agencies, this report uses information from several case studies to define the

“ecosystem approach” for protecting the environment and how this approach helps ensure

healthy, sustainable economies.

Fox, Tom, Urban Open Space: An Investment That Pays, Neighborhood Open Space Coalition, 72 Reade

Street, New York, NY 10007, 1990. This report describes the contribution that open space makes to the

economies of large cities, highlighting impacts on real estate values, public health, city image, and other factors.

Hustedde, Ronald, et al., Community Economic Analysis: A How To Manual, North Central Regional Center for

Rural Development, Iowa State University, Iowa State University Printing Services, Ames, IA, August 1995,

phone: (515) 294-8321.

National Park Service, Economic Impact of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors: A Resource

Book, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, 1995. This resource book provides

To Learn

More

3-30
3-31

mation on commercial fishing activity is available from both state and federal agencies. Typically, state natural resource agencies maintain records on shellfishing in

local estuaries. These data may include information on annual shellfish harvests by

location as well as information on the number of commercial shellfishing licenses

issued to area residents. Similarly, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

maintains data on annual finfish landings by county and by major port.

The economic development agency in your state government may be able to assist you

in locating key data, and may also know of regional studies that already have been

performed for ecosystem-related sectors of the economy.

3.4 Assessing Links Between Ecosystems and Quality of

Life

Healthy Ecosystems Make Life More Fulfilling

Healthy ecosystems make our communities more rewarding places to live in ways that

are unrelated to economic conditions. Many of these benefits are subtle, and different

communities may emphasize different aspects of well-functioning ecosystems depending on their values. They include:

n Natural Beauty — Natural areas provide a sense of well-being for the community. In particular, protecting habitats in urban areas gives citizens an

opportunity to “leave the city behind”, view local animal and plant life without having to travel, and gain a sense of inspiration and renewal.

n Protection of Human Health and Safety — Clean air and water and healthy

ecosystems ensure that the community is free from health problems associated

with pollution. In addition, community members have the peace of mind of

knowing that they are safe from these threats.

examples of how greenways and parks benefit local economies and gives practical guidance on how to estimate these benefits in your community.

The Nature Conservancy Center for Compatible Economic Development, A Citizen’s Guide to Achieving a

Healthy Community, Economy and Environment, The Nature Conservancy, Leesburg, VA, May 1996. This

guidebook provides a comprehensive framework for understanding links among community, economy, and the

environment, and illustrates the concepts using Virginia’s Eastern Shore as an example.

Niemi, E. and E. Whitelaw, Integrating Economics and Resource Conservation Strategies, ECONorthwest,

Eugene, OR, May 1995.

The Wilderness Society, Measuring Change in Rural Communities: A Workbook for Determining

Demographic, Economic, and Fiscal Trends, The Wilderness Society, 900 Seventeenth Street NW,

Washington, DC 20006-2596.
n Sense of Community — A healthy natural environment enhances feelings of

civic pride and may instill a stronger sense of kinship among residents.

Natural spaces can be used for community gatherings such as annual festivals, picnics, graduation

ceremonies, and community gardens. The collective action necessary to protect ecosystems can

itself be a bonding force and source of pride to residents who share a common goal and work together to make their community a better place to live.

n Spiritual Value — Many people feel spiritually

connected with the ecosystems around them. The

beauty of nature gives them an opportunity to contemplate their relationship with the world. Many

religious denominations have organizations (see

Appendix A) that promote environmental stewardship because of the belief that humans have a special responsibility to protect and pass on a healthy

world. Many of these groups see the principle of

sustaining the health and benefits of the natural

world for future generations as a moral obligation.

Native American cultures have often been identified as placing a particular spiritual and religious

significance on nature and the harmony in natural

systems. Many people in the United States share

these values.

n Educational Value — Rivers, wetlands, forests, and other elements of community ecosystems all provide learning opportunities. Certain areas may be

designated public learning centers by the town or by conservation groups.

Local colleges and universities also may use ecosystems for teaching and scientific research. For schoolchildren, healthy ecosystems may provide a sense

of wonder and encourage further learning. Many parks and forests make

learning easy by posting illustrations and names of local plants and animals at

park entrances or on placards along trails.

n Recreational Opportunities — Healthy ecosystems support wildlife and

other natural resources that are often central to outdoor recreational activity.

For example, wetlands may provide breeding and spawning areas for fish

sought by recreational anglers and may support bird species popular with

birdwatchers or hunters. In addition to the commercial value of recreational

resources, the intrinsic value of the recreational experience is an important

part of life in many communities.

Evaluating the Links Between Ecosystems and Quality of Life

Table 3-4 provides some examples of indicators that characterize the link between

ecosystems and quality of life. For example, your community may be interested in

measuring the extent to which development has reduced the availability of open land.

Community Gardens

Informatio

Community gardens are an effective and sustainable way of building community involvement

while at the same time transforming unused space

into something productive. More than 300

vacant, and in some cases littered and desolate,

spaces in Newark, New Jersey, have been converted into 2,000 lively and productive neighborhood

gardens through the Rutgers Urban Gardening

Program. The program is a state and federally

funded project of Rutgers University Cooperative

Extension. Gardeners benefit in many ways, such

as improved nutrition, savings on grocery bills,

increased sense of self-reliance, and relaxation.

Gardens also can become settings for social interaction and discussion of local problems.

3-32
Alternatively, you may want to characterize the importance of ecosystems to education

by reporting the number of visitors to a local arboretum or the number of school field

trips to local nature areas.

Local sources are often most relevant in assessing the link between ecosystems and

quality of life. Table 3-4 provides several examples of information sources that may

prove useful. These information sources include local, state, and federal

governments. 

Community members often have opinions about the value of different ecological

resources. Surveys can be conducted to ask community members what resources are

important to them. They can serve as a way to set priorities among different

resources that need attention. However, surveys sometimes do not indicate why people care about one ecological resource or other community characteristic more than

Characterize

importance of

ecosystem to

local education

Assess 

flood control

services 

provided by

local wetlands

Characterize

dependence of

town on local

surface and

ground water

Assess 

availability 

of land for

recreation

Characterize

level of

recreational

activity 

dependent upon

ecosystems 

n Number of school field trips to natural areas

n Number of visitors to local arboretum, bird

sanctuary, or state and national parks

n Qualitative indicator based on flooding history

of area with wetlands and similar areas where

wetlands have been lost to development

n Percent of household water supply from local

sources 

n Acres of land/open space available for recreation per 1,000 people in the community

n Annual number of “activity days” for various

categories of outdoor recreation (e.g., rafting

and kayaking, fishing, hunting, and visitor days

to local resorts and campgrounds)

n Trends in beach closures or fishing advisories

n Fate and effects of sanitary waste and refuse on

ecosystems

n Local schoolteachers

n Management office of relevant organization (e.g.,

arboretum) 

n Newspaper archives

n Local land-use officials

n Local emergency management officials

n Local public works department

n Regional water supply authority

n Local land use officials

n Local or state parks and recreation officials

n U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Survey of

Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated

Recreation, published every six years 

n State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans,

contact state tourism and recreation agency

n County or municipal records for sanitary treatment

and waste removal from recreation site

Information Sources For Assessing the Linkages Between

Ecosystems and Local Quality of Life

Sample Indicators Possible Sources of Information

Overall 

Assessment

Objective

Table 3-4

3-33
Corson, Walter H., Defining Progress: An Inventory of Programs

Using Goals and Indicators to Assess Quality of Life, Performance,

and Sustainability at the Community and Regional Level, George

Washington University, Washington, DC, October 1995, phone:

(703) 683-5730. This report provides a useful overview of quality

of life indicators, some of which are related to local ecosystem characteristics, as well as descriptions of community efforts to compile and track these

indicators.

Engel, J.R. and P. Bakken, Ecology, Justice and the Christian Faith: A Guide to

Literature 1960-1990, Center for the Scientific Study of Religion, Chicago, IL, 1990.

Kempton, Willett, et al., Environmental Values in American Culture, The MIT Press,

Cambridge, MA, ISBN 0-262-11191-8, 1995. Written by a team of anthropologists,

this book relies on surveys of American citizens to help people understand how

Americans view environmental issues.

Salant, Priscilla and Don A. Dillman, How to Conduct Your Own Survey, John Wiley

& Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1994.

To Learn

More

3-34

References

Caputo, Darryl F. Open Space Pays: The Socioenvironomics of Open Space

Preservation, New Jersey Conservation Foundation.

Community Environmental Council, Sustainable Community Indicators: Guideposts

for Local Planning, CEC, 1995.

Fox, Thomas, Urban Open Space: An Investment That Pays, Neighborhood Open

Space Coalition, New York, NY, 1990.

Frank, James E., The Costs of Alternative Development Patterns: A Review of the

Literature, the Urban Land Institute, ISBN 0-87420-695-2, 1989.

Freedman, Bill, Environmental Ecology: The Ecological Effects of Pollution,

Disturbance, and Other Stresses, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, ISBN 0-12-

266542-2, 1995.

Hart, Maureen, Guide to Sustainable Community Indicators, QLF/ Atlantic Center for

the Environment, Ipswich, MA, May 1995.

Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force, The Ecosystem Approach: Healthy

Ecosystems and Sustainable Economies, Report of The Interagency Ecosystem

Management Task Force, Volume 1, June 1995.

another. Reasons may include concerns about effects on the local economy, desire to

preserve one’s own recreational resources, or a desire to be a good steward of the

earth’s resources for the benefit of future generations. While not precise and perhaps

difficult to interpret, surveys do provide insight into what issues are most important

to the community.
3-35

Kempton, Willett, et al. Environmental Values in American Culture, The MIT Press,

Cambridge, MA, ISBN 0-262-11191-8, 1995.

Kline, Elizabeth, Sustainable Community Characteristics, Consortium for Regional

Sustainability, Tufts University, Medford, MA, 1993.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Planning for Small

Communities: A Guide for Local Decisionmakers, EPA/625/R-94/009, Washington,

DC, September 1994.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Guidance on Use of Habitat Evaluation Procedures

and Suitability Index Models for CERCLA Application, Report Number PB88-100151,

June 1987.

Vance, Tamara A. and Arthur B. Larson, Fiscal Impact of Major Land Uses in

Culpeper County, Virginia, Piedmont Environmental Council, 1988.

Wilson, E.O., Biodiversity, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, ISBN 0-309-

03739-5, 1994.

4-1

Strategies for protecting the ecosystem likely will affect all other segments of the

community — businesses, residents, tourists, and others. As a result, the strategies

produce positive results not only for the ecosystem, but also for the local economy

and the community’s quality of life. For most communities, a wide range of ecosystem protection strategies is available. For example, should a local effort to protect

endangered plant species proceed by regulating development? Buying conservation

easements? Curbing off-road vehicles? Encouraging better land management practices? 

Because it is likely that most of the projects the community undertakes will concentrate on local activities, strategies that call upon volunteers to protect or restore the

ecosystems are potentially useful. Working through the laws and programs that affect

the ecosystem and are administered by the city, town, county, or other local government is another option. Finally, certain programs and laws administered by the state

and federal governments provide ecosystem protection and may provide a basis for a

local protection effort.

4.1 Strategies Using Voluntary Activities

Many communities have found voluntary non-regulatory ecosystem protection strategies, including volunteer cleanups, land acquisition, and public education efforts, to be

useful. Other voluntary strategies involving financial incentives require changes in

tax policies, and are discussed in Section 4.2.

Low Cost, Immediate-Result Voluntary Strategies

A number of simple voluntary activities are available to achieve ecosystem protection

goals (Greenfield and LeCouteur, 1994). These activities encourage community pride

and may produce immediate, visible results. These activities include:

n Tree, Grassland, or Wetland Planting or Reforestation — These activities

involve planting trees, shrubs, or flowers in urban areas to improve aesthetics,

or undertaking a reforestation or wetland planting program in more rural areas

to improve forests that have been clear-cut or wetlands that have been damaged. These activities produce additional benefits such as lowering urban

temperatures, purifying air, and controlling storm-water runoff.

Strategies To Consider For

Ecosystem Protection

Chapter 

4
4-2

n Stream, Beach, or River Cleanups — Many communities have organized

efforts to pick up trash and debris from rivers, beaches, or streams, either once

or on an ongoing basis.

n Storm Drain Stenciling — Many people do not realize that runoff collected by

storm drains may pass untreated into a river or harbor. Stenciling “Do Not

Dump” or other instructions on storm drains alerts community members that they

should not use storm drains to dispose of used oil or other hazardous liquids.

n Pollution Prevention — Recycling programs, car pooling networks, and public transportation improvements all reduce pollution at its source.

n Education — Seminars at local schools can educate students about their

local environment and encourage stewardship. Pamphlets encouraging

recycling and explaining proper disposal of household hazardous materials

or showing maps of local greenways and bike paths can increase interest

in local natural resources. Some groups, such as farmers, may benefit

from information on ecosystem issues specific to their occupations (for

example, the importance of not filling in wetlands or benefits from reducing pesticide runoff). Community organizations and individuals also can

find out more about the presence of hazardous materials in their neighborhoods through the community-right-to-know provisions that are part of

the Superfund remediation program.

n Amending Covenants Governing Condominium and Homeowners’

Associations — Covenants governing condominium or homeowners’ associations can address items like reducing the use of fertilizer and pesticides on

lawns or prohibiting the removal of native vegetation.

n Instituting Integrated Pest Management (IPM) on Farms and in Gardens

— IPM minimizes pesticide use in favor of natural forms of pest control.

These include introducing insects and animals that prey on the pests, rotating

crops, planting two or more crops in the same field (making it harder for pests

to find their targets), and many other techniques.

n Encouraging and Assisting Businesses to Conduct Environmental Audits

— Audits involve examining business practices to see if they are environmentally friendly (for instance, does the business recycle paper and other waste

products). Often, programs to reduce waste also improve business efficiency

and cost effectiveness. Small businesses may be able to get assistance

through the EPA Information Hotlines listed at the end of this section or

through their EPA regional office.

Land Acquisition

Land acquisition, which involves the purchase of land or a land easement, can be one

of the most effective ways to preserve an ecosystem. Land conservation encompasses

a number of activities, not all of which involve purchasing property outright.

Who Is Involved in Land Purchases?

The state or local government can purchase land or easements (defined below) from
4-3

voluntary sellers (as opposed to exercising eminent

domain) to be set aside for conservation purposes.

However, many communities also have formed land

trusts for this purpose. Land trusts are private nonprofit corporations that acquire land or easements.

They often can move more quickly than governments,

and also can interact more freely with private

landowners who might be wary of working with a

government agency. Large land trusts that already are

established, such as The Nature Conservancy, usually

focus their efforts on acquiring land with rare or highly

valued species and habitat.

Local governments and land trusts may have programs

to make local landowners aware of these options.

Landowners may not realize that they can sell some of

their property rights as easements without forfeiting

the land itself. Similarly, developers may not be aware

of land banking (see below) or other tools for mitigating ecosystem damage.

Tools for Land Acquisition

One way to ensure that land is protected or developed

according to conservation principles is to purchase it

outright (called fee simple acquisition). However, this

is often very expensive. There are a number of other

ways to acquire an interest in or influence over the

management of a tract of land without making an outright purchase (Mantell, et al., 1990).

n Easements — Through an easement, a landowner voluntarily gives up or sells

specific land-use or development rights but continues to hold title to the land.

The easement “runs with the land”, meaning that it remains in force even

when the property changes hands. Generally, the local, state, or federal government or private land trust buys the right to build on the land, which it will

never exercise, thereby preventing development. Purchases of development

rights are often made in areas adjacent to urban areas, where the pressure to

develop land is greatest. The government or land trust also can purchase the

rights to use the land for a conservation-related purpose, such as for hiking

trails. In both cases, the owner retains the rights to use the land for other purposes consistent with the easement, such as for agriculture.

n Options and Rights-of-First-Refusal — Both of these tools allow a purchaser

to gain time before buying land or an easement. A potential buyer can purchase an option that allows the purchase of land for a specific price within a

specified period of time, during which the current landholder cannot accept

any other offers to buy. Similarly, a buyer can purchase a right-of-first-refusal

to a tract of land, which requires the current landholder to notify the rightsholder of any other offers made. The potential buyer then has the option of

matching that offer and buying the land.

Virginia Beach’s

Agricultural Reserve

Program

Informatio

The economy of the coastal community of

Virginia Beach, Virginia is based on tourism,

agriculture, and military installations. As a

result of recent urban growth, farms in the area

face increased pressure to sell land for development. To protect the agricultural base of the

area against urban sprawl, the municipality

developed the Agricultural Reserve Program

(ARP). Under the ARP, the municipal government purchases the development rights to working farms and holds them in a public trust. Not

only do the proceeds from the sale of development rights enable farmers to reinvest in their

farms, the purchase ensures that the farm is no

longer a potential development site. In addition, the program provides for resale of the

development rights back to the farmer after a

minimum period of 25 years, if circumstances

at that time indicate that the land should no

longer be held back from development.

(Southern Watersheds Committee, 1994)
4-4

Eastern Shore, Virginia: Using Easements and Other Compat

Development Approaches to Protect Virginia’s Barrier Islands

n Leases and Cooperative Management Agreements — These tools allow a

government or land trust to exercise control over the land without purchasing

anything. Landowners either lease the land for a specified time and purpose

or manage it under certain terms and conditions. The federal Conservation

Reserve Program and the Wetland Reserve Program use this technique to

allow farmlands to lie fallow for a period of years (usually five).

Landowners may also donate easements, options, and rights-of-first-refusal to land

trusts or federal, state, or municipal governments. Such donations can improve a

landowner’s tax position and can be a good estate planning strategy. The Virginia

Coast Reserve illustrates the use of land acquisition and conservation easements in

protecting ecosystems (see below).

Working with current and future landowners,The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has successfully combined conservation easements with

other ecosystem preservation tools to protect part

of Virginia’s Eastern Shore and the Virginia Coast

Reserve, the last intact coastal wilderness on the

Atlantic coastline. Although federal and state

agencies and TNC protect the barrier islands of

Virginia’s eastern shore themselves, they have

concerns about the effects of development on surrounding lands. In response, they have begun to

use several innovative methods for protecting the

traditional resource-based economy, thus meeting

the goals of this small community struggling

through an economic recession while also preserving a valuable and distinct ecosystem. Two of the

most innovative approaches developed are the creation of the Virginia Eastern Shore Corporation

and the use of a community-based conservation

easements program.

With $2.7 million, a variety of investors including foundations, private companies, local businesses, and individuals founded the corporation.

Focusing on meeting sustainable development

goals, the corporation is helping identify and support viable businesses compatible with the area’s resources. The corporation consists of

three companies with specific missions:

n Eastern Shore Products — This company develops, licenses, and markets a

range of products. The company develops and markets nature-based tourism programs, local crafts, and specialty agricultural products grown through sustainable

means. 

“Protecting the watershed protects economically important

species such

as hardshell clams.”

– The Nature Conservancy
4-5

ible 

s

n Eastern Shore Venture Fund — This company provides short-term business

loans, guarantees, and venture capital to local, emerging, and ongoing enterprises

that are ecologically sound.

n Eastern Shore Lands — This company helps implement sustainable development

of the shore’s landscape, just as the other two companies will help develop a sustainable economy. Eastern Shore Lands acquires and leases seaside farm and village properties, applies conservation easements and development restrictions, and

then resells the land. It also provides farmland for sustainable agriculture and

works to ensure that affordable housing and commercial facilities are available for

local families and workers.

In the Virginia Coast Reserve region of the islands, conservation easements are used in

cooperation with landowners to protect the watersheds adjoining the reserve. 

Easements are valuable community tools because they bring value not only to the conservationists but also the landowner. As a result, they often allow for land uses that yield financial returns (such as agriculture, forestry, and limited residential development) consistent with

the long-term health of the watershed. TNC is working with existing landowners and with

future seaside farmers who are interested in purchasing TNC lands that already have conservation easements attached.

Contact: John M. Hall

Director

The Nature Conservancy

Virginia Coast Reserve

P.O. Box 158

Nassawadox, VA 23413

Phone: (804) 442-3049

Fax: (804) 442-3050

Funding for Land Trusts

Acquiring easements or fee simple land is usually expensive. Land trusts often seek

grants and donations from private charities. Some land trusts have found other funding sources, including (Mantell, et al., 1990):

n Limited Development — The land trust can borrow to finance a purchase,

and then sell off a small portion of the land for development to repay the

loan. The trust can impose requirements, such as clustering or open-space

allotments, to ensure that the development is appropriate.

n Conservation Investment — Trusts can sell a part of the land to a buyer who

is willing to build an ecologically friendly vacation home as an investment.

The trust also can seek investors who want to purchase an interest in a working farm or fishery, from which they get a percentage of profits. This enables

land to be kept in open-space uses.
4.2 Strategies Using Local Laws

Some communities have found that achieving their goals requires more than volunteer

strategies. Communities often turn to local laws as a means of ecosystem protection.

Zoning Ordinances

A zoning ordinance describes the ways in which a parcel of land may be used and the

intensity of that use (such as the density of development). Land is zoned for industrial, commercial, or residential development or can be set aside as farmland, forest, pasGreenfield, Jennifer and Brian M. LeCouteur, Chesapeake Bay Community Action Guide,

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC, May 1994. This book

contains step-by-step instructions on how to organize and carry out voluntary activities.

The National Wildlife Federation, Backyard Habitat Program, 1400 Sixteenth Street NW,

Washington, DC, phone: (202) 797-6800, can provide information on how individuals can

create and improve local habitat.

The Land Trust Alliance, 900 Seventeenth Street NW, Washington, DC, phone: (202) 638-4725, provides

technical assistance and services to local and regional land trusts and conservation groups. Some documents

published by this group include:

– Starting a Land Trust: A Guide to Forming a Land Conservation Organization,1990.

– National Directory of Conservation Land Trusts, 1989.

– National Directory of Local and Regional Land Conservation Organizations, Annual Report.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hotlines provide information for voluntary action. Some of the most

useful for citizen action include:

n Green Lights and Energy Stars Programs, phone: (800) 782-7937, Internet Website:

http://www.epa.gov/docs/gcdoar/energystar.html, provide information and technical support on energy

efficient lighting to U.S. businesses and governments.

n Hazardous Waste Ombudsman, phone: (800) 262-7937 in U.S. except metropolitan Washington, DC

and (202) 260-9361 in metropolitan Washington, DC, assists the public and regulatory community in

resolving hazardous waste issues. The ombudsman handles complaints from citizens, conducts

investigations, undertakes site reviews, and issues reports relating to hazardous waste sites.

n Office of Environmental Justice, phone: (800) 962-6215 in U.S. except metropolitan Washington, DC

and (202) 260-6359 in metropolitan Washington, DC, coordinates public communication and provides technical and financial assistance to outside groups on environmental justice issues.

n Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse, phone: (202) 260-1023, provides answers and referrals in response to questions from the public concerning pollution prevention.

n Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Hotline, phone: (415) 744-2074, responds to

requests for information on hazardous waste identification, generators, transporters; treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; and recycling sites.

To Learn

More

4-6
4-7

n RCRA/Underground Storage Tank, Superfund, and Emergency Planning and Community-Right-toKnow Hotline, phone: (800) 424-9346 in U.S. except metropolitan Washington, DC and (703) 412-

9810 in metropolitan Washington, DC, provides information about the title programs and referrals

for obtaining documents about these programs. Translation is available for Spanish-speaking

callers.

n Small Business Ombudsman Clearinghouse/Hotline, phone: (800) 368-5888 in U.S. except metropolitan Washington, DC and (703) 305-5938 in metropolitan Washington, DC, TDD: (703) 305-

6824, disseminates regulatory and other environmental information to help small businesses

enhance voluntary regulatory compliance and pollution abatement and control.

n Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Assistance Information Service, phone: (202) 544-1404,

TDD: (202) 544-0551, furnishes TSCA regulation information.

n WASTEWI$E Helpline, phone: (800) EPA-WISE, provides information about EPA’s voluntary program encouraging businesses to reduce solid waste.

n Wetlands Information Hotline, phone: (800) 832-7828 in U.S. except metropolitan Washington,

DC and (703) 525-0985 in metropolitan Washington, DC, disseminates information about the

Wetlands Protection Program; answers questions; provides referrals concerning the value, function,

and protection of wetlands; and accepts requests for certain wetlands publications.

Other useful publications include:

Diehl, Janet, The Conservation Easement Handbook, American Planning Association, Chicago, IL, 1988.

Mantell, Michael A., Stephen F. Harper, and Luther Propst, Creating Successful Communities, The

Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC, ISBN 1-55963-014-0, 1990. In particular, Appendix A contains

a primer on land acquisition.

Porter, Douglas R., ed., Growth Management: Keeping on Target?, Urban Land Institute, in association with

the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Washington, DC, 1986. In particular, this book discusses land acquisition for conservation by the City of Boulder, CO.

Small, Stephen, Preserving Family Lands, Landowner Planning Institute, Boston, MA, ISBN 9624557-1-7,

1992.

ture, open space, or habitat for wildlife and recreation. Zones can encompass a small

parcel of land, such as a shoreline, or can be extended to an entire watershed. 

Many zoning techniques are available for protecting an ecosystem. Bonus and incentive zoning award developers supplemental development rights, such as allowing construction of more buildings, in exchange for public benefits, such as developing within urban areas instead of in outlying areas. Buffer zones restrict activities on areas

surrounding key ecosystems to minimize damage. Floodplain protection districts,

located near rivers or other flood-prone areas, generally prohibit residential and commercial development. The Westfield River Greenway Plan in Massachusetts presents
Western Massachusetts: Local River Protection Zoning

Bylaws to Preserve the Westfield River

A

s described in Chapter 2, a citizen group

in Massachusetts developed the Westfield

River Greenway Plan to ensure a regional

approach to river protection.

A 100-foot, no-development buffer zone

along the river is the most critical part of the

plan. The plan recommends that management

of land use along the Westfield River remain

primarily a local responsibility, and that the six

communities along the upper river branches

adopt river protection bylaws as the mechanism for protection. The Pioneer Valley

Planning Commission, directed by 43 member

communities, worked with the six communities along the river to pass these bylaws at

town meetings. The bylaws establish a river corridor to protect the river’s natural and scenic values by prohibiting roads, public recreation facilities, and development inconsistent with the river’s

wilderness character.

Each municipality also has the option to tailor its conservation efforts through its zoning bylaws.

Towns are encouraged to expand the buffer to include important natural features. The degree of

restrictiveness of zoning within the protected corridor can be tailored to meet resource protection

needs. This flexibility allows towns to implement more stringent measures if the community places

a relatively higher value on a particular area.

Deciding on a 100-foot buffer required considerable research and investigation of other communities’ experiences. Minimum septic system distance from the river, distances needed to filter out non-point source pollution, and buffer strips adopted by other communities were a few of

the factors considered. All the communities adopted the bylaws over four years ago, and the

buffer appears to be working well, with no legal challenges to date.

Contact: Chris Curtis

Project Manager

Pioneer Valley Planning Commission

26 Central Street

West Springfield, MA 01089

Phone: (413) 781-6045

Fax: (413) 732-2593

The Role of Wetlands

in Flood Protection

Informatio

Scientists have just begun to understand the

role of wetlands in protecting developed areas

from flooding. Floods occur in peaks; that is,

they do not occur along the entire stretch of a

river simultaneously. As high water moves

downstream, it spills over the stream’s original

banks, flooding everything in its wake and often

damaging property. Wetlands allow flood

waters to spread out over a wide area, slow the

flow of the water, and temporarily store it. This

decreases the size of floodpeaks and slows their

movement. If wetlands are filled in and the

banks are altered (a process called channelization), developed areas can suffer more severe

flood damage.

4-8
a good example of an ecosystem protection plan that uses floodplain (and buffer) zoning to preserve a river ecosystem (see across). Overlay, open-space, and conservation

zones can be applied to a specific resource with defined boundaries, such as a wetland, that is already bound by a zoning ordinance. These zones apply additional

restrictions on development and other activities, over and above those in the underlying ordinance, to ensure that a resource or ecosystem is protected from damage. The

Urban Forestry Demonstration Project in New Jersey illustrates one New Jersey

county’s use of overlay zones.

Other zoning approaches include cluster zoning and interim development controls.

Applied to a subdivided tract, cluster zoning ensures that development is concentratNew Jersey: Urban Forestry Improves Urban Living

A

n innovative demonstration project in

New Jersey has allowed five communities to assess their unique environmental conditions and to involve citizens in improving

the quality of city life through natural resource

management.

The Urban Forestry Demonstration Project

includes Mercer, Middlesex, and Passaic

counties, and the urban communities of

Newark and East Orange. Demonstration projects in the three counties focused on longterm resource protection, while in the urban

areas, neighborhood revitalization and

improved resource management are highlighted.

Mercer County’s Green Links Project has inventoried the interconnected network of streams, wetlands, woodlands, and open spaces remaining in the county. The project has identified these

resources as vulnerable to development and has targeted them for future protection as a component

of the county’s comprehensive natural resource map. Middlesex County has devised a strategy to

protect a large percentage of the remaining forest land in the county through a model protection and

management overlay zone covering 250 miles of continuous stream corridors. Passaic County has

completed a comprehensive natural resource management plan to provide a framework to guide the

open-space and development plans for the 16 municipalities that make up the county. These planning efforts have revealed a multitude of high- priority projects at the local level for ecological

restoration and enhancement.

Newark and East Orange, as adjacent municipalities, share some common problems associated

with neighborhood revitalization, restoration of vacant land, enhancement of riparian areas and city

streets, and re-creation of neighborhood pride through community forestry activities.

Contact: Bob Neville

Program Manager

USDA Forest Service

State and Private Forestry

Durham, NH 03824

Phone: (603) 868-7688

Fax: (603) 868-7604

4-9
ed within a small portion of the tract, leaving large areas as open space. The

GreenSpace Alliance in metropolitan Philadelphia is an example of a group using

cluster zoning to encourage the preservation of green space (see below). Interim

development controls

include temporary ordinances, such as a moratorium on building permits or

water and sewer connections, to slow growth in the

short term.

Property Taxes and

Municipal Fees

Taxes or fees for services

can affect the behavior of

residents and developers in

The Philadelphia GreenSpace Alliance: Innovative Policy Tool

Preserve Open Space and Concentrate Development

B

y encouraging cluster development as a means of preserving open space, Philadelphia is melding land conservation and development. Although the population of

southeastern Pennsylvania dropped 3.6 percent in the last

20 years, over 175,000 acres of additional land was developed. Without intervention, prospects for the future are

discouraging. Experts predict that an additional 173,000

acres of now open land — an area more than twice the size

of Philadelphia — will be developed by the year 2020.

Metropolitan Philadelphia has responded to this threat

by forging the GreenSpace Alliance (GSA). The alliance

is working to foster coordinated planning among neighboring municipalities as one way to foster its goal of a

linked, regional system of protected green spaces that

preserve key agricultural, natural, and historic resources in the region.

Land-use laws in the Philadelphia region require that individual townships zone to allow

for all possible uses (such as industrial, residential, commercial) while also accepting a “fair

share” of projected growth in the region. One method to achieve the GSA’s goal is to use

“zoning jointures” that allow neighboring municipalities to develop a single comprehensive

plan and zoning ordinance. This allows participating communities to account for all necessary uses, and to control future development for combined territories, allowing communities

to maximize open space by clustering development. Jointures are allowed under the metropolitan planning code (MPC) but are seldom used in southeastern Pennsylvania. The following figure compares typical development patterns under the MPC with land use under zoning

jointures, where each square represents a township and each circle represents development.

One GSA pilot project with the Federation of Northern Chester County has developed a

joint comprehensive plan with nine municipalities, laying the groundwork for joint zoning

in the future. Other GSA projects include the Buckingham Township Project, which is

using the transfer of development rights (TDR) to “transfer” the right to develop certain lots

Pittsburgh’s Split Tax

A highly successful example of a preferential assessment

is Pittsburgh’s “split tax”, which taxes owner- or tenantoccupied downtown buildings, as well as buildings under

active renovation, at lower rates than abandoned and deteriorating buildings. Pittsburgh’s “split tax” has revitalized the city by reducing the number of abandoned or deteriorating buildings while increasing the

city’s overall property tax revenues. In addition, as abandoned or deteriorating buildings are renovated, they provide valuable new commercial and residential space within the city, thereby reducing pressure to build structures

outside the downtown business district and community neighborhoods.

Informatio

4-10
4-11

ways that encourage ecosystem protection. For example, property tax breaks can be

given in return for agreements from landowners to protect habitat on their property or

to leave their property’s shoreland in a natural state. Alternatively, localities can preferentially assess properties for taxes at a portion of their value if used in a manner

consistent with conservation goals (such as farming) or if left in a natural state (such

as a forestland). Increases in building permit processing fees can discourage building

or help fund conservation activities.

Performance Standards

Some localities have begun to enact standards that not only control general uses, such

as commercial or industrial development, but also establish strict guidelines for how

tracts of land can be developed, regardless of use. For example, some towns regulate

the placement or servicing of septic systems. Alternatively, localities can assign a

tract of land with an impervious surface ratio that limits the amount of space that can

be covered by roads, sidewalks, parking, and other impenetrable surfaces. This is

intended to limit runoff and other environmental problems and to encourage the use of

s 

in agricultural areas to areas more appropriate for development. Developers buy development rights from local farmers in an agricultural “sending area” and then build on land in a

designated “receiving area” adjacent to existing development.

The alliance also works with the five counties in the region to promote open-space protection. In two counties, over $150

million has been committed to the

purchase of green spaces, but in

Delaware County voters rejected a

$100-million proposed open-space

program over the issue of taxes.

Recently, the GSA completed a

comprehensive GreenPlan for

southeastern Pennsylvania that

describes its agenda for the creation of a linked regional system of

green spaces and the building of

green communities. The GSA now

is seeking endorsement from a

wide variety of organizations and

interests to make this plan a reality.

Contact: Patrick Starr

Director

GreenSpace Alliance

1211 Chestnut Street, Suite 900

Philadelphia, PA 19107

Phone: (215) 563-0250

Fax: (215) 563-0528

Typical Jointures

Townships Planning

Separately.

Townships Zoning

Together. Development is

Concentrated, Open Space

& Farmland Preserved.
gravel driveways or reduce the size of parking lots. Finally, municipalities can require

developers and other parties to purchase performance bonds, which insure the locality

against damage caused to ecosystems. Developers, for example, would purchase

these bonds from the local government. If ecosystems are damaged, the municipality

can use those funds to repair the damage.

Transfers of Development Rights (TDRs)

TDRs involve transferring the rights to develop a site or building, or a portion of a site

or building (including the “air rights” above it), to another site or building. The state

or county separates the rights to build on a site from the deed, and allows the

landowner to sell these rights to a developer looking to develop in a predesignated

“receiving” area where the community wants to concentrate growth. This often

allows the developer to exceed a zoning limit on the new site or building. TDRs can

be used to protect farms, forests, and other areas by shifting development from one

area and concentrating that development elsewhere. (See the earlier description of the

Philadelphia GreenSpace initiative.)

Growth Planning in Local Communities

Many communities are developing comprehensive growth management plans that

combine a number of land-use strategies in an effort to concentrate development within the city limits. Growth management techniques include:

n Development of “Brownfields” Sites — Using cluster or bonus zoning, communities can encourage re-development of “brownfields” sites, underutilized

or abandoned areas such as railroad yards, warehouses, docks, or industrial

sites. Because these areas are usually near or in the urban core of the community, this type of development both revitalizes urban areas and curbs sprawl by

reducing pressure to develop industrial areas outside of town.

n Infill and Minimum-Density Requirements — Infill development targets

existing but underused urban or suburban areas for development. If pockets of

undeveloped or less developed land exist in these areas, communities can set

infill or minimum-density requirements to increase development there. This

reduces pressure to build in undeveloped areas.

n Urban Service Limits and Urban Limit Lines — These techniques mark the

farthest reaches of city services as well as the edges of the city itself. To

restrict development to city areas, planners can limit the degree to which utility extensions (such as sewer lines) are granted beyond the city boundaries.

n Adequate Public Facilities Requirements — These requirements limit development to levels that the infrastructure currently can support and mandate that future

funding sources for infrastructure be identified in all plans for new development.

n Increasing Public Transportation — Primarily intended to mitigate air pollution, this technique involves increasing bus and subway service, implementation of high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) designations for commuter traffic,

installing bike lanes and paths, creating pedestrian walkways, and designing

other measures to reduce the use of personal automobiles.

4-12
4-13

American Planning Association, 1313 E. Sixtieth Street, Chicago,

IL 60637-2891, phone: (312) 955-9100, offers many services and

publications. For example:

n Planners Bookstore sells hundreds of useful guides, books,

reports, analytical tools, and bibliographies on a wide range of

planning topics, including land use, growth management, transportation, zoning, geographic information systems, economic

analysis and development, and habitat protection. The association

can also provide you with model conservation zoning ordinances.

n Planners Advisory Service is a fee-based research service that can assist in

developing strategies related to regional planning, land use, growth management, sustainable development, and most other planning topics.

n Recommended publications available through the American Planning Association

include:

– Journal of the American Planning Association, a scholarly journal published quarterly on a wide range of planning topics.

– Planning, a monthly magazine published for a general audience and professional planners.

– APA Planning Advisory Service, Performance Controls for Sensitive

Lands, 1975.

– Beatley, Timothy, Habitat Conservation Planning, University of Texas

Press, 1994.

– Butler, Kent, Protecting Wildlife and Open Space, 1992. 90-minute VHS

video.

– Endicott, Eve, Land Conservation through Public/Private Partnerships,

Island Press, Washington, DC, 1993.

– Nelessen, Anton, Visions for a New American Dream, 1994.

– Smith, Herbert H., A Citizen’s Guide to Zoning, American Planning

Association Planners Press, Chicago, IL, 1993.

– Steiner, Frederick, The Living Landscape: An Ecological Approach to

Landscape Planning, McGraw Hill, 1990.

The following publications from other sources also might be useful:

n Arendt, Randall, Designing Open Space Subdivisions - A Practical Step-by-Step

Approach, Natural Lands Trust, Media, PA, 1996.

n Beatley, Timothy and Greg Low, Planning for Tomorrow, The Nature

Conservancy, Washington, DC, 1989.

n Collins, Beryl R. and Emily W. B. Russell, eds., Protecting the New Jersey

Pinelands, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, ISBN 0-8135-1267-

0, 1988. This book discusses the transfer-of-development-rights system set up

to preserve the New Jersey Pinelands.

To Learn

More

(continued)
n Diamond, Henry L. and Patrick F. Noonan, Land Use in America: The Report

of the Sustainable Use of Land Project, Island Press, Washington, DC, 1996.

This publication summarizes the major trends and controversies in land use,

including the impact of urban sprawl on habitat.

n Einsweiler, Robert C. and Deborah Miness, Managing Community Growth and

Change, Volume I: Managing Growth and Change in Urban, Suburban, and

Rural Settings, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA, October 1992. 

n Ewing, Reid, et al., Best Development Practices: Doing the Right Thing and

Making Money at the Same Time, Florida Department of Community Affairs,

Tallahassee, FL, May 1995. This guidebook provides recommendations for

growth management that take into account financial interests of developers and

the general public. It also includes an excellent annotated bibliography.

n Little, Charles E., Greenways for America, The Johns Hopkins University

Press, Baltimore, MD, 1990.

n Mantell, Michael A., Stephen F. Harper, and Luther Propst, Creating Successful

Communities, The Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC, ISBN 1-55963-

014-0, 1990. In particular, Chapter 1 discusses conservation of agricultural

land, Chapter 2 discusses rivers and wetlands, and Chapter 5 discusses the

value of open space.

n McHarg, Ian L., Design with Nature, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY,

ISBN 0-471-55797-8, 1992. This book discusses the effects of development

on various ecosystems and offers suggestions about how to minimize ecosystem damage from development.

n Miness, Deborah and Robert C. Einsweiler, Managing Community Growth and

Change, Volume II: Bibliography of Academic and Professional Literature on

Growth and Growth Management, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy,

Cambridge, MA, October 1992.

n Porter, Douglas R. and David A. Salvesen, Collaborative Planning for

Wetlands and Wildlife, Island Press, Washington, DC, ISBN 1-55963-287-9,

1995. This book provides case studies in protecting sensitive lands from

development.

n Templin, Elizabeth E., Managing Community Growth and Change, Volume III:

Bibliography of Educational Material for Local Officials on Growth

Management, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA, October 1992.

n U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Protecting Coastal

and Wetlands Resources: A Guide for Local Governments, EPA 842-R-92-

002, Washington, DC, 1992. In particular, Chapter 3 addresses zoning tools,

Chapter 4 addresses land acquisition, and Chapter 5 addresses the use of taxes,

fees, and other incentives.

To Learn

More

(continued from previous page)

4-14
4-15

4.3 Strategies Based On Federal and State Laws and

Programs

Federal and state laws address a wide range of environmental issues. Regulations

issued under federal and state laws set limits on releases of toxic substances, require

cleanup of contaminated sites (sometimes with government funding), or control specific practices (such as the management of underground storage tanks). Many laws

require public notice and comment, offering communities a way to participate in the

regulatory process. Some laws provide for citizen law suits to enforce their provisions

or impose penalties for violations. This section

describes relevant federal and state laws and discusses how to work with them.

Federal and State Laws Affecting

Ecosystems

Federal and state lawmakers have introduced an

extensive set of laws designed to protect the environment. A complete discussion of these laws would be

far too lengthy for this resource book. However,

Table 4-1 presents a brief discussion of some federal

laws that may be applicable to your ecosystem.

Phone numbers for the suggested contact organizations are included in Appendix A.

State laws complement and expand upon many of the

federal laws. They often are enacted when states

want more stringent environmental requirements than

those called for by the federal government, where the

state has been delegated responsibility for implementation of a federal program, or when there is a specific, unique ecosystem or problem area that the state

government wishes to regulate. For example, state

laws may address coastal management issues, severe

air pollution (California), or widespread hazardous

waste contamination (New Jersey).

In addition, statewide growth management laws have been enacted by Florida,

Georgia, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and

Washington. Of these, seven have policies for curbing urban sprawl that require or

encourage contained development and strive to protect rural and natural areas (Maine,

Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington); two

(Georgia and Vermont) provide for special review and approval of large-scale projects; and two (New Jersey and Washington) have criteria for assessing new community proposals (Ewing, et al., 1995).

Working With Federal and State Laws

The following are examples of how federal and state laws and regulations may interact with communities’ ecosystem protection efforts:

EPA’s Community

XL Project

Informatio

To give communities the opportunity to

implement their own ideas for improving their

ecosystems, the U.S. EPA has developed the

Community XL program. Communities accepted into the program have developed innovative

environmental protection plans that promise

superior environmental protection to what

would be achieved under the current regulatory

system. EPA then works with state and local

agencies to grant the community regulatory

flexibility to try the plan.

To learn more about Community XL, contact

the Information Line, phone: (703) 934-3241,

fax: (202) 260-8590, Internet Website:

http: //www.epa.gov/Project XL. To submit a

proposal for your community, submit four

copies of the proposal to Regulatory

Reinvention Pilot Projects, FRL 5322-9, Water

Docket, Mailcode 4101, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW,

Washington, DC 20460.
Statute Description Contacts/Opportunities for Local

Clean Water Act

(CWA) Section 402

Coastal Zone

Management Act

of 1972

Coastal Barrier

Resources Act

National

Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA)

National Flood

Insurance Program

Endangered

Species Act (ESA)

National Wild and

Scenic Rivers Act

(NWSRA)

North American

Waterfowl

Management Plan

Conservation

The CWA covers a number of regulatory, funding,

and education programs aimed at protecting and

restoring the nation’s surface waters. These

include a permitting system that limits the amount

and type of pollution that facilities and other individual sources can discharge. Dischargers must

obey national discharge guidelines, as implemented to achieve state water quality standards.

This statute helps coastal states manage and protect coastal resources from threats such as development, erosion, and pollution. States must develop programs to control polluted runoff from farms,

storm sewers, and other sources that affect coastal

waters. 

This statute provides federal funding for protection of barrier islands.

All federally funded projects and activities as well

as projects built on federal property (including

highways, ports, dams, power plants, airports,

drinking water plants and pipes, and sewage treatment plants and pipes) must comply with NEPA,

which requires the submission of an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) describing

the project’s effect on the local ecosystem as compared to other alternatives.

This statute provides federally subsidized flood

insurance for those communities that have adopted

floodplain management regulations (e.g., wetlands

protection) that will minimize future flood damage.

Generally, flood insurance is required before federally guaranteed mortgages or loans can be issued.

This statute provides for the protection of endangered wild plants and animals.

This statute protects extraordinary rivers from

damming and other forms of development.

This program was started in 1986 to enhance

waterfowl populations and habitats. The plan stipulates the use of subsidies, financial incentives,

and tax adjustments favorable to landowners to

promote conservation.

Usually, the Office of Water within the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency delegates this program to the states. Communities can ask the state

department of environmental protection for a review

of how well local industries are complying with pollution discharge limits. Also, the CWA has a number

of funding programs to help municipalities build

wastewater facilities and control polluted runoff from

farms, storm sewers, and other sources.

Administered by the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration within the U.S.

Department of Commerce, this program provides technical assistance and grants to states in developing

coastal management plans. Communities can ask their

state for an evaluation of whether development in

coastal areas is consistent with their state’s plan, and

can seek state funding for projects in the community.

Administered by the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration within the U.S.

Department of Commerce.

This program is administered by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. The community

can examine previous EISs to determine the effects

of similar projects on its ecosystems and can participate in public hearings on proposed development

projects. 

This program is administered by the Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). By

incorporating floodplain management regulations

into local zoning ordinances and building codes,

communities can become eligible for floodplain

insurance. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers the

ESA. As part of the process of determining which

plants and animals should be considered endangered,

the FWS conducts hearings to obtain public input.

Communities also can participate in the development

of Habitat Conservation Plans, which developers

must design if their proposed development affects an

endangered or threatened species.

The National Park Service, which administers the

NWSRA, manages all rivers that are protected.

Through its Rivers and Trails Assistance Program,

the Park Service also provides technical assistance to

states and localities in developing conservation plans

for rivers and river segments.

Management of the plan is delegated to state and

regional levels, which work with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service as well as over 40 conservation

organizations. Communities can get involved by asking authorities to assess whether local habitat is eligible for protection under the plan.

Federal Laws Relevant to Ecosystem Protection1

Table 4-1 

4-16
Statute Description Contacts/Opportunities for Local

Reserve

Program/Wetlands

Reserve Program

Clean Water Act

(CWA) Section 404

Swampbuster

Program 

Resource

Conservation and

Recovery Act

(RCRA)

Clean Air Act

(CAA) 

Congestion

Mitigation and Air

Quality Program

under the

Intermodel Surface

Transportation and

Efficiency Act

(ISTEA) 

Cooperative

Forestry Assistance

Act 

Emergency

Preparedness and

Community RightTo-Know Act

(EPCRA) 

Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act

(FIFRA)

The Conservation Reserve Program uses financial

incentives to encourage farmers to leave sensitive

lands, such as riparian zones and steep slopes, out

of agricultural production. The Wetland Reserve

Program is similar, focusing on wetlands.

This section of the CWA regulates the discharge of

dredged material (silt excavated from the bottom

of a waterway) and fill into U.S. waters, including

wetlands, and establishes a permit program to

ensure compliance with environmental requirements. 

This statute discourages the conversion of wetlands

into farmland by making persons who raise crops on

wetlands ineligible for most federal farm benefits.

RCRA regulates the design, location, operation,

and monitoring of new and old municipal landfills

and facilities that manage hazardous waste (e.g.,

landfills, recyclers, and incinerators). It also regulates the generation and transport of hazardous

waste, requires cleanup of contaminated hazardous

waste facilities, and requires inspection and

cleanup of underground storage tanks at gas stations and other sites.

CAA regulations include permits to businesses

and industries to limit the amount of pollution

they emit to the air. Development that would

increase air pollution is limited in areas that do not

meet federal air quality standards.

ISTEA promotes mass transit, rails-to-trails programs, and regional transportation land-use planning. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

Program provides grants for projects aimed at

reducing transportation-induced congestion, safety

hazards, and pollution.

This Act provides technical and financial assistance for both urban and rural forest management

and community development activities that protect

and restore ecosystems.

EPCRA requires facilities using hazardous chemicals to notify the community of chemical spills or

leaks. It also requires facilities to publish lists of

the hazardous chemicals used or stored on site and

to develop spill response plans.

This statute regulates the application of pesticides

and other pest control substances to crops.

The programs are administered by the Natural

Resource Conservation Service within the U.S.

Department of Agriculture. Local farmers can

enroll in the grant program, which involves signing 10-year agreements with the government for

the receipt of grant funds.

This program is administered by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water

and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. As a part

of the permitting process, the Corps holds hearings on proposed dredge or fill discharge permits.

Communities can use these hearings as a forum

for expressing concerns about potential projects.

This program is administered by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture. 

This program is administered by the Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response within the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in conjunction with state waste management agencies.

Permitting of hazardous waste management facilities includes provisions for public participation;

communities may wish to take part in these

forums. 

The CAA requires that states develop plans for

maintaining air quality and reducing air pollution.

Emissions permitting includes provisions for public participation; communities may wish to take

part. 

This program is administered by the Federal

Highway Administration and Federal Transit

Administration under the Department of

Transportation. Communities can apply for

grants for projects that reduce traffic congestion

and improve air quality. 

This program is administered by the USDA

Forest Service in cooperation with the state

forester in each of the 50 states.

At the local level, EPCRA is administered by a

Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC).

Through the LEPC, communities can find out what

hazardous chemicals are present in the area and

can participate in developing spill response plans.

Through a system of review and permitting, FIFRA

provisions can ban the application of substances

that may harm sensitive ecosystems. Communities

can take part in this permitting process.

1 Federal statutes not discussed here include a number of laws that regulate federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service,

the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service.

Federal Laws Relevant to Ecosystem Protection1

Table 4-1 (continued)

4-17
n Public Disclosure and Community Involvement Laws — Many laws have

been enacted in recent years to promote the public disclosure of information.

These include, for example, the Toxic Release Inventory, the Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) process described above, the Freedom of Information

Act, which provides citizens the right to access to all types of federal government information (except national security or confidential business information), and requirements under the Intermodel Surface Transportation and

Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and the Clean Air Act (CAA) for government evaluation of the impacts of development.

n Land-Use Planning — The many land-use requirements and grant programs

in federal laws (e.g., the Clean Air Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act,

and the Flood Insurance Act) support growth management and protection and

restoration of habitats, farms, forests, wetlands, and open space.

n Supplemental Enforcement Program — The U.S. EPA’s Supplemental

Enforcement Program (SEP) is a compliance agreement program whereby the

EPA requires public or private groups that have violated an EPA-administered

law to restore or protect habitats or to modify their operations in an environmentally beneficial way, rather than paying a fine. Communities can be

involved in negotiating a SEP agreement.

You can contact federal and state governments through their public information

offices, or you can contact the office in the relevant state agency that administers the

program you’re interested in. The offices can provide you with information on the

specific requirements and resources of their programs, information on how to obtain

Diamant, Rolf, J. Glenn Eugster, and Christopher J. Duerksen, A

Citizen’s Guide to River Conservation, The Conservation

Foundation, Washington, DC, ISBN 0-89164-082-7, 1984. Pages

27-68 address laws and economic tools that apply to conservation

efforts.

Eugster, J. Glenn, Riverwork Book, Mid-Atlantic Regional Office, Division of Parks

and Resource Planning, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior,

Washington, DC, 1988.

Porter, Douglas R. and David A. Salvesen, Collaborative Planning for Wetlands and

Wildlife, Island Press, Washington, DC, ISBN 1-55963-287-9, 1995. In particular, this

book discusses Special Area Management Plans, Habitat Conservation Plans, and other

alternatives for working with federal and state laws.

Stevenson, Jane H., Managing Community Growth and Change, Volume IV: Directory

of Federal Data Sources and Overview of State Data Needs and Activities in Growth

Management, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA, October 1992. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Planning for Small

Communities, Appendix B: What Environmental Regulations Affect Your Community?,

Office of Regional Operations and State/Local Relations, Washington, DC, September

1994. This appendix contains a summary of federal laws applicable to ecosystems and

describes how you can work with these laws to protect your ecosystem.

To Learn

More

4-18
4-19

References

Collins, Beryl R. and Emily W. B. Russell, eds., Protecting the New Jersey Pinelands,

Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, ISBN 0-8135-1267-0, 1988.

Diamant, Rolf, J. Glenn Eugster, and Christopher J. Duerksen, A Citizen’s Guide to

River Conservation, The Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC, ISBN 0-89164-

082-7, 1984.

Diamond, Henry L. and Patrick F. Noonan, Land Use in America: The Report of the

Sustainable Use of Land Project, Island Press, Washington, DC.

Endicott, Eve, Land Conservation Through Public/Private Partnerships, Island Press,

Washington, DC, 1993.

Ewing, Reid, et al., Best Development Practices: Doing the Right Thing and Making

Money at the Same Time, Florida Department of Community Affairs, May 1995.

Greenfield, Jennifer and Brian M. LeCouteur, Chesapeake Bay Community Action

Guide, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC, May

1994.

Mantell, Michael A., Stephen F. Harper, and Luther Propst, Creating Successful

Communities, The Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC, ISBN 1-55963-014-0,

1990.

McHarg, Ian L., Design with Nature, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, ISBN

0-471-55797-8, 1992.

Porter, Douglas R., ed., Growth Management: Keeping on Target?, Urban Land

Institute, in association with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Washington, DC,

1986.

Southern Watersheds Committee, Proposal for Virginia Beach Agricultural Reserve

Program, 1994.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Planning for Small

Communities, Office of Regional Operations and State/Local Relations, Washington,

DC, September 1994.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Protecting Coastal and

Wetlands Resources: A Guide for Local Governments, Washington, DC, 1992.

An understanding of the interaction between community life and ecosystems, coupled

with knowledge of ecosystem protection strategies, provides the foundation for selecting ecosystem protection strategies appropriate for a given community. This chapter

discusses this selection process.

5.1 Initial Considerations

The following criteria can be used to narrow down the choices of strategies and identify the best ones for addressing specific ecosystem problems.

n The Advantages of Voluntary Strategies and Local Activities — Projects

based on voluntary action and local activities may be easier to control and

implement, and may achieve results faster.

n Environmental Justice — The benefits and burden of ecosystem management

decisions may or may not be distributed equitably among community members. Certainly, you would want to avoid a decision that might put the bulk of

the burdens on an area or group that is poorly equipped to shoulder them, particularly if the majority of the benefits would go somewhere else in the community. Therefore, principles of fairness say that “environmental justice” be

considered in community-based projects and goals. The broadest possible

stakeholder participation will ensure that all groups within a community are

treated fairly regardless of race, religion, gender, or economic position.

n Addressing Stressors and Achieving Community Goals — In some cases,

preventing a detrimental activity from occurring is not by itself enough to

enable an ecosystem to recover. The affected resource may have to be

restored. For example, reducing or stopping development near a nesting site

may not necessarily cause birds to repopulate; the community may need to

plant certain trees or build nesting sites as well. In this case, multiple strategies may be appropriate.

n The Legal Feasibility of the Strategies — Local, state, and federal officials

are a good source of advice on how to create protection strategies that will

work within the requirements and restrictions of all applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations.

n Monetary Expense and Time Commitments — The best strategies are those

Evaluating And Choosing

Strategies For Ecosystem

Protection Efforts

Chapter 

5

5

Fnlchap5.qxd 9/13/00 3:19 PM Page 5-1
5-2

that cost the least money to achieve a given goal. However, some strategies

that seem less costly may cost participants a lot of time. For example, acquiring land initially may seem too expensive, yet finding a donor may require

less effort than trying to change a land-use ordinance. Both the initial level of

effort to get a program in place and the continuing effort required to run it are

potential considerations.

n Cosmetic or Temporary Solutions or the Big Picture — Often communities

find it helpful to combine short-term projects with efforts to find longer term

solutions to environmental problems — such as encouraging recycling and

composting while working with other local communities to find additional

space for the disposal of materials that can’t be recycled. The Kissimmee

River Basin restoration initiative in Florida is an example of an ecosystem

protection effort in which participants focused on reversing fundamental problems rather than making superficial changes (see below).

n Stakeholders Outside the Community — A community’s ecosystem may

have significance to people living in other parts of the country or world, especially if it is home to rare and endangered species or extraordinary habitat

South-Central Florida: Bringing the Kissimmee

River Basin Back to Life

T

he Kissimmee River restoration highlights the

importance of focusing on the root causes of

ecosystem degradation. Historically, a 103-mile stretch

of the Kissimmee River meandered along its natural

path through south-central Florida without the constraints of man-made levees, channels, and dams controlling its flow. In the 1960s, the river was channelized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Areas that

periodically had received the floodwaters of the

Kissimmee in the past (approximately 40,000 acres of

wetlands) were drained to allow massive commercial,

residential, and resort development in the Orlando area

and surrounding agricultural regions.

The broadleaf marsh and wet prairie communities of

the floodplain were converted to pasture lands, resulting in significant loss of fish and wildlife

habitat and destruction of the wetlands’ food webs and hydrologic cycles. Waterfowl use of

the lower basin decreased by over 90 percent. Suitable habitats for wading birds, forage fish,

and larger riverine fish also were sharply reduced. Since channelization, the river has lower

dissolved oxygen levels and poorer water quality due to nutrient loading from agricultural and

urban runoff and discharges. Consequently, these nutrients are reaching Lake Okeechobee

and increasing the rate of eutrophication.

In the early 1970s, soon after the river was channelized, public concern and support

increased for restoration of lost environmental benefits associated with the river and its former natural floodplain. By the early 1980s, fast- paced development and greater understanding of adverse environmental impacts led to the creation of the Kissimmee River Resource

Planning and Management Committee (KRRPMC) in 1984. The committee was comprised of

35 constituencies, including landowners as well as agricultural, environmental, municipal,

Fnlchap5.qxd 9/13/00 3:19 PM Page 5-2
5

(such as estuaries or marshes). These resources may have value beyond what

that community assigns to them directly. Similarly, communities may be

stakeholders in areas down stream or down wind if their actions have impacts

in those places.

n Existing Institutions and Programs — Rather than starting from scratch,

communities often can build on the efforts of other local, state, or federal programs. Some of the stakeholders already participating in a community’s effort

may be members of these organizations and can provide firsthand information

on relevant projects already under way. Examples of some types of organizations that may have similar programs include:

– Watershed Associations – These work to ensure water quality in

a region.

– Cooperative Extension Services – These are sponsored by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture and assist farmers in protecting their land

and preventing pesticide runoff and erosion.

– Land Trusts – These organizations purchase land to be preserved in its

county, state, and federal authorities. Restoration of the Kissimmee River has hinged largely upon the support and strength of the KRRPMC, with funding coming largely from federal and state sources. 

To carry out the proposed restoration, the state of Florida, with support from the

KRRPMC, developed a phased approach to backfilling channelized stretches of the river.

The first phase of the plan calls for increasing the storage capacity of upper basin lakes to

provide continuous and more naturally variable downstream river flow. The second phase

will start by backfilling three to five miles of the canal, then creating one to three miles of

new river channel and removing levees.

By diverting river flow and restoring natural wetland flooding, water quality will be

improved as wetlands filter out sediments and nutrients, enhancing fish and wildlife habitat

quality and diversity. By re-creating natural ecological interactions, the river system’s environmental, recreational, and cultural functions will be reestablished. Once complete, nearly two thirds of the original 50,000 acres of floodplain wetlands in the Kissimmee River system will be restored. The effort required to reach this level of restoration is proving to be

an admirable accomplishment. It is important to note that, even after adjusting for inflation,

restoring the ecosystem is costing far more than the actions that caused the damage in the

first place.

Contact: Patricia Strayer

South Florida Water Management District

P.O. Box V

West Palm Beach, FL 33042

Phone: (561) 687-6496

Fax: (561) 687-6729

Fnlchap5.qxd 9/13/00 3:19 PM Page 5-3
natural state for public enjoyment. They include national organizations

such as The Nature Conservancy and the Conservation Fund, as well

as local land trusts.

– Conservation and Environmental Organizations – These include the

Sierra Club, National and state Audubon Societies and the American

Water Resources Association.

These organizations already may be working on a strategy your community has identified. They may offer key resources such as experts on staff that you can use to further

your effort. Communities also have formed umbrella organizations that help keep different organizations informed of each other’s actions and help them work with each

other. The Yampa River Basin Partnership in Northwest Colorado is an example of

such an organization (see above).

5.2 A Hypothetical Community Choosing Its Strategy

To get a clearer picture of what a final strategy might look like, consider a hypothetical community that wants to improve the quality of its harbor, called “Sunrise Bay”.

Rapid growth in this community has led to development of coastal areas and pollution

Yampa River Basin Partnership of Northwest Colorado: 

Coordinating Community Groups for a Common Vision

B

efore organizing a new community-based

ecosystem protection initiative, some communities have chosen to tap into other existing local

groups that have interests in conservation, economic development, or planning. The Yampa River

Basin Partnership succeeded in its efforts by drawing on existing groups and encouraging them to

undertake a comprehensive and coordinated effort

to create a sustainable ecosystem and community.

The Yampa Valley in northwest Colorado faces

many growth, development, and natural resource

issues. The area is home to the resort town of

Steamboat Springs and the Yampa River watershed. The Yampa River, a relatively undisturbed

river in the region, is a source of pride and concern

for the community. The region has experienced rapid population growth, creating concern

about the river’s habitat. Air pollution is also an issue in the region, affecting wilderness

areas and scenic vistas.

For many years, groups such as Trout Unlimited, the Bureau of Land Management, and

local city councils worked independently to address single issues, such as economic development, fish conservation, or recreation. Organizations acted without knowledge of the

other groups’ actions or even existence. Lack of coordination among groups meant that they

duplicated efforts and tangible progress on development and natural resource issues was limited. Furthermore, these issues are deeply interrelated, and long-term solutions could not

be accomplished without coordination. For instance, preserving water quality in the Yampa

5-4

Fnlchap5.qxd 9/13/00 3:19 PM Page 5-4
5-

River could not be ensured without the creation of a county-wide development plan for riverfront property.

As a result, local mayors and city council members recognized the advantage of merging

all groups into a single cohesive partnership. To further this effort, community leaders convened a conference to discuss the idea. Over 260 members of the business, non-profit, and

government community attended the conference where the Yampa River Basin Partnership

was created. Attendees also developed an organizational structure and set goals for the partnership.

Today, the Yampa River Basin Partnership is a successful effort that works to preserve the

watershed and the quality of life in the region through coordinated natural resource conservation.

Contacts: Wendy DuBord, Co-coordinator

Yampa River Basin Partnership

P.O. Box 775088

Steamboat Springs, CO 80477

Phone: (970) 879-2060

Ben Beall, Co-coordinator

Routt County

P.O. Box 775398

Steamboat Springs, CO 80477

Phone: (970) 879-0108

Fax: (970) 879-3992

of inshore waters by runoff. The community’s overarching goals are to reduce pollution and prevent further loss of key ecosystems. In the category of voluntary activities, community members have decided to:

n Organize a beach cleanup every six months, where volunteers spend a

day picking up trash

n Organize biannual household hazardous waste pickups and a storm drain stenciling project to reduce hazardous waste pollution of the bay

n Organize a wetland planting day, where volunteers plant grasses to provide

stability to the bay’s wetlands

n Organize a festival that highlights the recreational activities provided by the

bay to boost nature-based tourism

n Encourage owners of beachfront property to donate or offer for sale to a land

trust the development rights (easements) to their property between their buildings and the waterfront.

In the category of local government tools, the community is implementing:

Fnlchap5.qxd 9/13/00 3:19 PM Page 5-5
n Regulations to reduce septic tank leaks

n Improvements to the storm sewer system to reduce runoff to the harbor

n Zoning ordinances that require clustering of residential developments within or

next to existing urban residential or commercial development.

5.3 Analyzing the Socioeconomic Impacts of Strategies

Various ecosystem protection strategies have different effects on economic and social

conditions. Some strategies or combinations of strategies will likely yield the best

overall future conditions for the ecosystems in your region and the human communities that are a part of them. This section discusses how local business, government,

and residents might be affected and how to analyze the outcomes of your strategy.

Effects on Key Segments of the Community

Businesses

Analysis of effects on the business community includes not only short-run effects, but

also longer term effects. For example, one strategy may call for reducing the rate of

harvesting local shellfish, which could hurt local shellfishers in the short run.

However, this strategy would leave the shellfish beds

in much better condition in 10 or 20 years than

would a strategy of harvesting all of the shellfish

quickly. 

Likewise, ecosystem protection strategies affect both

businesses that profit from extracting resources as

well as companies that benefit from healthy ecosystems. For example, a company that rents sailboats

likely would be helped by elimination of floating

mats of algae on the local lake. Other businesses that

depend on tourist revenues, such as restaurants and

hotels, also would benefit.

Healthy ecosystems can benefit local business in less

obvious ways as well. For example, some companies

give serious consideration to local environmental

amenities when making decisions about where to

locate new operations. In many instances, employees

consider an attractive location to be an important feature of their job. 

Finally, strategies have “ripple effects” through the

local economy. In addition to industries directly

affected by your plan (for example, commercial

harbor tour or “dinner tour” operators), there are

secondary impacts on businesses that sell to, or buy

from, directly affected businesses (for instance, boat

Nature-Based

Tourism

Informatio

Nature-based tourism is travel and recreation

for the appreciation of nature. The fastest

growing segments of this industry include bird

and other wildlife watching, hiking and backpacking, photography, boating, camping, and

picnicking. In 1991, Americans spent $4.4 billion for food and lodging on wildlife viewing

trips, $198 million for guide services, and $88.6

million for equipment rentals. 

Properly managed, nature tourism can

enhance the economic well-being of residents.

Communities can promote nature tourism by

researching the special environmental amenities

provided by the community and highlighting

them — through printed material, festivals, or

other events.

For more information about nature tourism

and how to get your community involved, contact the Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and

Communities (OSEC), phone (202) 260-5339, at

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for a

copy of OSEC Issue Brief #1: Nature-Based

Tourism and for other informative reports.

5-6

Fnlchap5.qxd 9/13/00 3:19 PM Page 5-6
5

builders, local marinas, restaurants, and other service industries). Later in this chapter we discuss analytic tools for assessing this kind of ripple effect.

Local Government

Most local governments rely upon a combination of property taxes, sales taxes, and

fees to fund schools, roads, parks, utilities (including water, sewer, and recycling), and

other city services. Changing zoning laws and tax policies to limit sprawl and protect

wildlife habitats can reduce the cost of municipal services. Providing services and

infrastructure to support lower-density developments, particularly those located far

from a community’s center, costs considerably more than providing infrastructure and

services to higher-density development near the community (Bank of America, 1995).

They also cost communities significantly more than farmland — one study estimates

that for every tax dollar collected from low-density development, municipalities spend

$1.36 on services, whereas for each tax dollar collected on farmland, municipalities

spend 21 cents on services (American Farmland Trust, 1991). Discouraging low-density development, such as strip malls, on the edge of your community while encouraging medium-density townhouse development in the middle of your community can

reduce the cost of providing schools, roads, parks, water, recycling, sewage, and other

city services. Under certain conditions, medium- to high-density developments built

in the center of a town can even yield greater profits to the developer and landowners

than low-density developments built on the edge of town or in rural areas.

Local Residents and Quality of Life

The most direct effect on quality of life stems from new activities that can be

enjoyed as a result of protecting local ecosystems. Local residents may have more

opportunities for recreation such as swimming, boating, hiking, picnicking, hunting

and fishing, or cross-country skiing. Even if they don’t engage in recreational

activities, people may enjoy the improved appearance of the community. People

who don’t use or even see protected natural resources may still place value on preserving them for future generations or derive value simply from knowing that they

exist. In particular, some people are concerned with extraordinary ecosystems (such

as coral reefs and hot springs), endangered species, and the diversity of species. In

addition, steps that a community takes to reduce risks to local ecosystems may also

improve human health.

Ways to Present Options

All of the considerations described above can make for a complex decision when

looking at options for ecosystem protection. A simple way to present these options to

capture all the various implications they have for the community is to make a chart

summarizing the pros and cons of each strategy. Table 5-1 presents an example for

the strategy chosen by the hypothetical community introduced above that wants

to improve the quality of “Sunrise Bay”. The community has filled out Table 5-1

for each set of strategies it considered. This effort included asking different businesses and residents what they themselves consider the pros and cons of the plan. Our

hypothetical community determined that:

n Some businesses will profit from increased shellfishing harvests, but other

businesses will have to pay for the increased costs of complying with sewer

regulations. Developers will be restricted in their choice of development

plans (which will reduce the value of some properties), but may incur savings

Fnlchap5.qxd 9/13/00 3:19 PM Page 5-7
in some development costs through clustering.

n The municipality may spend less to provide city services to new residents

because of cluster developments. The conservation of open space also may

enhance property values and increase property tax revenues. On the other

hand, the town will have to pay for storm sewer improvements.

Protecting the “Sunrise Bay” Ecosystem:

Volunteer Cleanups, Replanting, Easements, Septic Tank Regulations, 

Storm Sewer Improvements, and Clustered Residential Development Regulations

Table 5-1

Effects on

Economic Effects on

Municipality or State

n Increased revenues and

employment associated

with commercial

enterprises related to

nature-based tourism,

recreation, and

commercial shellfishing 

n New jobs created in sewer

design and

installation 

n Decreased residential

development costs (such

as the reduced cost of

building roads) 

n Increased value of land

near habitat and protected

open space

Effects on Residents’

Quality of Life

n Decreased capital construction and

service costs associated with

reduced sprawl 

n Potential tax revenue increases

from property value increases 

n Increased revenues from fees

for beach attendance and boat

launching

n Increased opportunity for water- and

land-based recreation 

n Decreased health risk for swimmers

n Aesthetic value 

n Intrinsic value placed on harbor

cleanliness among those not

directly using the bay

n Monetary, time, and

paperwork costs of compliance with sewer regulations 

n Costs for infrastructure

improvements to support

nature-based tourism

n Cost of storm sewer improvements,

including capital costs as well as

hiring inspectors and holding hearings 

n Cost of implementing septic tank

requirements 

n Cost of developing and implementing new zoning ordinances

n Reduced private space 

n Cost of compliance with septic tank

regulations 

n Time and effort involved in beach

cleanup, wetland planting, and

festivals 

Pro

s

Con

s

5-8

Fnlchap5.qxd 9/13/00 3:19 PM Page 5-8
n Residents’ quality of life will improve

because of increased recreational opportunities, reduced health risks for swimmers,

improved aesthetics as a result of the volunteer activities, and because people take pleasure in knowing that the harbor is healthy

and that it will be available for their children

to enjoy. On the other hand, residents will

have to make do with smaller lots on which

to build houses and will have to pay to

upgrade their septic systems.

Techniques for Analyzing the Pros and Cons

Beyond considering who is affected by an ecosystem

protection strategy, communities can evaluate the

magnitude of the impacts on different community

members. Getting a sense of just how much people

will be affected by your plan allows you to decide

whether it should be modified somehow to ensure

community stability. For example, our hypothetical

community might determine that the benefits for

charter boat businesses are not large, and that the

sewer regulations will be extremely expensive and

would put a great strain on the municipality’s ability

to provide other services. This information may lead

the community to improve the sewer system to

accommodate new development. Alternatively, the

community may decide that the benefits of this kind

of business do not outweigh the costs of improved

infrastructure and decide against steps that stimulate

this kind of ecotourism.

Economic issues such as effects on local business or city tax revenues lend themselves to more quantitative types of analyses. The analyses communities pursue

depend on the strategies under consideration; it is impossible to describe the full

range of analyses here. However, two types of analyses stand out as potentially useful for assessing the magnitude of the impacts: municipal fiscal analysis and regional

economic impact modeling.

Municipal Fiscal Analysis

Municipal fiscal analysis involves determining how local strategies may affect the

finances of the municipality. Some ecosystem protection strategies will have clear,

direct effects on municipal funds. For example, in our hypothetical community, the

municipality would have to pay to make improvements to the sewer system. Another

community’s plan might call on the municipality to purchase land or easements for

conservation purposes. Your strategies might have less obvious effects on municipal

finances, some of which have been mentioned above. These may include changes in

the cost of providing services and in property tax revenue. Some of these costs may

be reduced by acquiring low-cost loans for the development of publicly owned sani5

The Cost of Growth

in New Hampshire

Like many other states experiencing significant growth, New Hampshire is finding that

while much of its new development increases

tax revenues for towns, a significant portion of

new development drains more funds from

municipal budgets than it gives back in taxes.

Municipalities are finding that they have to

spend too much for roads, schools, and other

infrastructure projects.

These circumstances led authors David

Harrigan and Kathy Morse to outline a method

for towns to determine the cost of new residential development. This involves adding the

prospective property tax and auto registration

fees to develop a total revenue estimate per

household. Then, the authors subtract total

prospective school and non-school expenditures

per household, as well as the property taxes that

would have been paid on the undeveloped land.

If this final figure is negative, the development

will cost the municipality more than it will contribute in tax revenue.

For more information, see: Harrigan,

David and Kathy Morse, The Cost of Growth,

Economic Benefits of Land Protection, Land

Trust Alliance, Washington, DC, April 1994.

Informatio

Fnlchap5.qxd 9/13/00 3:19 PM Page 5-9
tary treatment plants through the EPA’s State Revolving Fund. Likewise, costs for

public education on remediation of hazardous waste sites may be partially covered

through an EPA Technical Assistance Grant (for more information on TAG grants you

can contact the EPA’s RCRA Hotline listed in Appendix A or your EPA Regional

office). Your community also may receive increased revenue from access fees.

Cleaning up a harbor or a lake or preserving public land may lead to an increase in

attendance at public parks and beaches. If the municipality charges admission to these

areas, an increase in attendance means that revenues will go up.

Our hypothetical community could apply municipal fiscal analysis to estimate the

change in service costs associated with reduced sprawl, including time spent on

garbage pickup and miles of pipeline laid to hook up to town water supplies. The

community also may want to estimate potential increases in property values and the

resulting increase in property tax revenues. Officials in your town assessor’s or public works offices can provide guidance on potential municipal fiscal impacts of

Jackson, Ted and Rosemary Infante, eds., Economic Benefits of

Land Protection, Land Trust Alliance, 900 Seventeenth Street NW,

Washington, DC, April 1994, phone: (202) 785-1410. This publication includes the following articles:

n Brabec, Elizabeth, On the Value of Open Spaces, Scenic America Technical

Information Series, Volume 1, No. 2, 1992. This article discusses how open

space can increase the value of existing developments because residents want

to be near undisturbed natural areas.

n Harrigan, David and Kathy Morse, The Cost of Growth, Forest Notes, Spring

1989. This article provides a simple method for estimating how much a development will cost the municipal government, and how to compare that estimate

to the costs of keeping the land undeveloped.

n Miller, Stephen, The Economic Benefits of Open Space, Isleboro Islands Trust,

ME, May 11, 1992. This article discusses how open space can increase the

value of existing developments because of the appeal of undisturbed natural

areas.

n Nantucket Land Council, Inc., Balancing Today’s Development & Tomorrow’s

Taxes, 1989. This article discusses how Nantucket, an island in Massachusetts

heavily dependent on nature-based tourism, is controlling development to

ensure the health of the tourism industry.

n Smith, Van, Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenways Reaps Economic

Returns, (Exchange, Summer 1991). This article discusses the many ways that

protecting ecosystems can provide direct economic benefits to the community.

n Thomas, Holly L., The Economic Benefits of Land Conservation, Technical

Memo of the Dutchess County Department of Planning and Development,

February 1991. This article discusses the reasons why land conservation is

often less expensive for local governments than development.

American Farmland Trust, Alternatives for Future Urban Growth in California’s

Central Valley: The Bottom Line for Agriculture and Taxpayers, American Farmland

Trust, Washington, DC, 1995. This publication discusses how urban sprawl would

reduce agriculture in California’s Central Valley and estimates the additional costs that

taxpayers would bear.

To Learn

More

5-10

Fnlchap5.qxd 9/13/00 3:19 PM Page 5-10
5-

American Farmland Trust, Making a Positive Contribution, American Farmland, pp. 2-

3, Fall 1991. This article discusses the difference in tax revenue from developed and

agricultural land.

Burchell, Robert W., et al., Development Impact Assessment Handbook, Urban Land

Institute, Washington, DC, ISBN 0-87420-743-6, 1994. This document provides a

comprehensive discussion of how to analyze the environmental, social, fiscal, and economic effects of real estate development. A computer model is provided on diskette.

Doucette, Robert, et al., The Comparative Economics of Residential Development and

Open Space Conservation, Allagash Environmental Institute, University of Maine,

Portland, ME, 1977.

Fox, Tom, Urban Open Space: An Investment That Pays: Real Estate Values, The

Neighborhood Open Space Coalition, New York, NY, 1990. This report describes the

contribution that open space makes to the economies of large cities, highlighting

impacts on real estate values, public health, city image, and other factors.

Frank, James E., The Costs of Alternative Development Patterns: A Review of the

Literature, Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC, ISBN 0-87420-695-2, 1989. This

publication reviews a number of studies showing that low-density, sprawling development is more expensive than compact development.

Freedgood, Julia, Is Farmland Protection a Community Investment? How to Do a

Cost of Community Services Study, American Farmland Trust, Washington, DC, 1993.

Hulsey, Brett, Sprawl Costs Us All: How Uncontrolled Sprawl Increases Your

Property Taxes and Threatens Your Quality of Life, Sierra Club Midwest Office,

Madison, WI, 1996. This publication gives estimates of the cost of urban sprawl to

resident taxpayers and provides advice on how community members can work to

reduce sprawl.

strategies you are considering.

Regional Economic Impact Modeling

As noted earlier, your plan may affect a number of sectors indirectly (such as farmers selling produce to restaurants), as well as having direct impacts. A technique

called regional economic impact modeling can provide estimates of both direct and

indirect effects.

Regional economic impact modeling uses computer programs (models) to track the

effects of a single economic change on the larger economy — like the ripples on a

pond when you throw in a stone. Our hypothetical community, for example, can use

regional economic impact modeling to estimate the total effect on the regional economy of an increase in commercial shellfishing. The estimate includes both the

increased revenues enjoyed by commercial fishermen as well as the increased revenues of local shipbuilders and ship repair shops, net manufacturers, and other related

Fnlchap5.qxd 9/13/00 3:19 PM Page 5-11
industries. If you want to implement the model, economists in your city government

or at a local college or university can help.

5.4 Adapting Strategies to Changing Situations and

The Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG), located in Stillwater,

Minnesota, has designed a regional economic impact modeling program called IMPLAN. MIG licenses the software and can be hired

to perform regional economic impact analyses.

Useful publications include:

n Byrum, Oliver, Old Problems in New Times, American Planners Association

Press, Chicago, IL, 1992.

n Coughlin, Cletus C. and Thomas B. Mandelbaum, A Consumer’s Guide to

Regional Economic Multipliers, Review of the Federal Reserve Bank of St.

Louis, Vol. 73, No. 1, pp. 19-32, January/February 1991. This article provides a

short description of regional economics in language that can be understood by

non-economists.

n Hustedde, Ronald, Ron Shaffer, and Glen Pulver, Community Economic

Analysis: A How To Manual, North Regional Center for Rural Development,

Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 1995. This manual provides instructions for

making calculations using local economic data that can help communities understand their economies.

n National Park Service, Economic Impact of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and

Greenway Corridors: A Resource Book, National Park Service, Department of

the Interior, Washington, DC, 1995. This resource book provides examples of

how greenways and parks benefit local economies and gives practical guidance

on how to estimate these benefits in your community.

For more information on sustainable communities:

n Scruggs, Patricia, Guidelines for State Level Sustainable Development, Center

for Policy Alternatives, Washington, DC, September 1993. This document surveys various international, national, and state programs to promote sustainable

development. It suggests ways in which various activities do and do not promote sustainability and provides examples of programs, some of which are relevant at the local level as well.

n Region 3 of the U.S. EPA is beginning an effort to develop a “Green

Communities Assistance Kit”, which would be available to communities seeking

to become economically and ecologically sustainable. This assistance kit will

provide instruction on public outreach, visioning, socioeconomic analysis, environmental planning, implementation, and indicators. For more information, contact Susan McDowell, U.S. EPA Region 3, 841 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia,

PA, 19107, phone: (215) 566-2739.

To Learn

More

5-12

Fnlchap5.qxd 9/13/00 3:19 PM Page 5-12
5-

New Information

Chapters 2 and 3 discussed the importance of indicators in setting goals and

assessing ecosystem health. Indicators show whether the strategies the community has chosen are having the desired effects on ecosystems, the economy,

and the quality of life. In particular, effective indicators can:

n Tell the community how well its strategies are working; namely, what

is going well or what might need to be changed

n Help the community see the full effects of ecosystem planning and

management on the ecosystem itself as well as on the quality of life

and the economic health of the community

n Help the community decide how to focus community efforts and

resources more efficiently and equitably.

For example, our hypothetical community can use the following indicators to

measure its progress toward revitalizing “Sunrise Bay”:

n Assess the health or abundance of local wetlands by calculating

increases in the number of acres of wetlands and the abundance and

diversity of wetland-dependent species

n Assess the impact of the plan on the local fishing industry and the

health of local fisheries by examining the change in pounds of fish

landed per unit of effort (such as hours of fishing) compared to a base

year

n Assess the plan’s impact on the local quality of life by calculating

increases in beach attendance.

The Darby Partners in Columbus, Ohio (discussed on following page) chose a

number of different indicators to measure their progress.

Community changes and new information may require changes in the ecosystem protection plan as well. The changing visions and desires of stakeholders

can provide information needed to fine-tune the ecosystem protection plan.

Continuous monitoring of the ecosystem protection project and its results

indicates which goals the plan is not meeting so that new strategies can be

developed, and highlights goals that should be changed to meet the needs of a

changing community.

Reasons for Adapting the Ecosystem Protection Plan

Responding to New Information

Projects aimed at improving environmental, ecosystem, social, and economic

conditions deal with very complex and interrelated systems. New information

may become available that enhances your understanding of the system. The

following types of information could affect your ecosystem protection plans:

n New technologies may be developed that can better solve environmenFnlchap5.qxd 9/13/00 3:19 PM Page 5-13
Columbus, Ohio: The Darby Partners Monitor Success

Monitoring allows citizens concernedabout the Big Darby Creek system to

track the results of their efforts. Big Darby

Creek is located outside of Columbus, Ohio

and consists of 86 miles of main stem river and

245 miles of tributaries. The system drains six

counties in central Ohio and is considered to

be the healthiest aquatic system of its size in

the Midwest and one of the healthiest warmwater habitats in the nation. In 1991, The

Nature Conservancy named Big Darby Creek

one of the “Last Great Places”. 

Although little industrial or municipal

wastewater has been discharged into the

watershed, it has been subjected to stress from

non-point source pollution generated by local farming. Eighty percent of the watershed’s 580

square miles is farmland. A decrease in water quality poses a threat to aquatic species, as does

increasing development and resulting erosion. 

In response, local citizens organized the Darby Partners, a partnership that consists of more than

40 private and public organizations. The group measures its success by tracking benchmarks:

n Over 2,900 individuals have been involved in Darby protection activities

n One-third (284) of all local farms are working to reduce sediment and nutrient runoff

n 18 new wetlands have been created

n 32,056 acres are now in conservation tillage

n 312 acres of trees have been planted

n Sediment transport has been reduced by 35,500 tons

n A number of further studies and research projects have been initiated.

Contact: Teri Devlin

Project Director

The Nature Conservancy

1504 W. First Avenue

Columbus, OH 43212

Phone: (614) 486-4194

Fax: (614) 486-9772

tal problems. For example, a new treatment process at the local sewage treatment plant might reduce harmful releases to surface water, eliminating the

need for ongoing monitoring efforts.

n New government regulations or court decisions may change how the community can address environmental problems. For example, newly created state

regulations for septic systems might replace local ordinances developed as

part of your ecosystem protection plan, or court decisions may limit governments’ ability to regulate the use of private property.

n New scientific and monitoring data sources may be discovered or created. For

5-14

Fnlchap5.qxd 9/13/00 3:19 PM Page 5-14
example, a study of local wetlands by a nearby university may shed new light

on the consequences of wetlands loss.

Responding to Changes in the Community

Changes within your community, such as rapid growth or the loss of a key industry, can affect the plan. As communities change, goals may change. Community

growth also may cause unforeseen problems that require new or revised solutions, or it may allow you to implement solutions that were too expensive for a

smaller community. In addition, stakeholders’ priorities may change as some

problems are addressed successfully and resources become available to address

new problems.

Stakeholder Participation in Adapting the Plan

Changes in the plan imply changes in its effects on stakeholders, who likely will

want to discuss any proposed alterations. The community may wish to undergo

another visioning process to accomplish this. This process can reaffirm or adjust the

project’s basic direction and confirm whether or not the community in general

believes that its priorities have changed. Visioning is also an opportunity to revitalize the community’s commitment to the project, recruit new participants, and take on

new challenges.

A community effort to manage a local forest in Nevada County, California, illustrates

the importance of getting feedback from affected stakeholders — in this case, a timber

sales contractor (see following page).

Keeping Everyone Informed

Some communities have used written progress reports as a means of keeping everyone informed about the project. These reports can describe progress toward community goals. To this end, a checklist with completed actions can be a useful part of the

progress report. Communities have distributed reports as an easy-to-read pamphlet

or a series of articles in the local newspaper. Finally, the community can make these

reports the focus of community events, keeping the project in the public eye. As

mentioned in Chapter 2, newsletters that document the history of the project help

everyone keep progress in mind and serve as a resource to educate newcomers.

Staying Aware of Problem Areas

No matter how much thought the community has put into its ecosystem protection

project, some of the chosen strategies may not work out. Your indicators will help to

pinpoint problem areas. Indicators yield data necessary for assessing results periodically and comparing them to your goals. When solutions do not meet expectations, it

may be time to reevaluate the plan. Communities often must change strategies to

adjust for unexpected results. For example, the ecosystem protection plan may rely

on voluntary action, such as the use of erosion control practices by farmers and

developers to reduce sedimentation of streams. If sedimentation problems continue,

the community may want to consider more direct measures, such as ordinances

requiring maintenance of streamside buffer zones, which protect the forest, fields,

and wetlands adjacent to local waterways.

Expanding the Scope of the Project

5-

Fnlchap5.qxd 9/13/00 3:19 PM Page 5-15
T

he 1995 forest timber harvest on Bureau of

Land Management (BLM) land in Nevada

County, California, was unique from the very

beginning. Communities normally have an

opportunity to voice their opinions during

development of timber harvest plans on public

land, but this local community participated

from the start. The residents living in and

around the “inimim forest” (a Native

American word for Ponderosa Pine, pronounced “IN-I-mim”) now have an integrated

role in the management of neighboring public

lands. They were involved during the inventory process, through the marking of trees, the

felling, and the subsequent sale. While some

stages of the process were slowed down by involving volunteers in the work (trained and supervised

by BLM foresters throughout), other stages went smoothly because of the extent of community

involvement.

After putting the timber sale out to bid three times, the BLM finally found a contractor willing to

involve local residents. To evaluate the effectiveness of the sale, the forest management committee

analyzed the process with the contractor. The committee was trying to assess how much the constraints imposed by citizen involvement reduced the value of the timber sale, if at all. The contractor’s response was mixed. While he disagreed with the way some trees were marked, he did say that

he would work with the group again — that it was worth it for him, economically, to manage the

sale.

The timber sale took a “light on the land approach”, according to BLM Area Manager, Deane

Swickard. The team chose to protect wildlife habitat by leaving dead standing trees and selected

individual trees with the intention of producing a high quality, value-added product. The BLM then

arranged for local mills to process and sell the wood to the Timber Framer’s Guild (for milled timber-framed houses) and local craftspeople at a premium price.

Evaluation and adaptation is in progress on other features of this innovative partnership. One

management prescription included controlled burns. This technique maintains a healthy understory of vegetation for wildlife habitat while simultaneously removing forest debris that may otherwise

accumulate to be a serious fire hazard. Prescribed burns, as they are called, are allowed during a

small window of time, when it is neither too wet nor too dry. In this fully democratic decisionmaking process, community members had to be located and quick decisions needed to be made.

Project leaders are currently attempting to identify a speedier notification and concurrence system

for making more timely decisions about prescribed burns.

Contact: Deane Swickard

Area Manager

Bureau of Land Management

Folsom Resource Area

63 Natoma Street

Folsom, CA 95630

Phone: (916) 985-4474

Nevada County, California: Getting Stakeholder

Feedback to Improve a Community Forest

5-16

Fnlchap5.qxd 9/13/00 3:19 PM Page 5-16
5-

In tracking the progress of the project, the community may see opportunities to

expand the scope of its activities. You may be able to build on existing successes to

achieve better protection of your ecosystem or to reinforce a commitment to community sustainability. A re-visioning process may identify further goals and tasks that

you could tackle. For example, if the community has succeeded in restoring riverbanks in your town, it could consider forming partnerships with towns up- or downriver to show them how they might do the same. Ultimately, this effort might grow

into a watershed management project. Likewise, if a goal to reduce erosion is succeeding, the community

might consider a broader

goal to increase soil productivity so that less

chemical fertilizer is

needed, or implement

integrated pest management practices to reduce

the use of chemical pesticides.

References

American Farmland Trust, Alternatives for Future Urban Growth in California’s Central

Valley: The Bottom Line for Agriculture and Taxpayers, American Farmland Trust,

Washington, DC, 1995.

American Farmland Trust, Making a Positive Contribution, American Farmland, pp. 2-3, Fall

1991.

Bank of America, et al., Beyond Sprawl: New Patterns of Growth to Fit the New California,

Bank of America, Environmental Policies and Programs, #5800, P.O. Box 37000, San

Francisco, CA 94137, phone: (415) 622-8154.

Coughlin, Cletus C. and Thomas B. Mandelbaum, A Consumer’s Guide to Regional Economic

Multipliers, Review of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Vol. 73, No. 1, pp. 19-32,

January/February 1991.

Doucette, Robert, et al., The Comparative Economics of Residential Development and Open

Space Conservation, Allagash Environmental Institute, University of Maine, Portland, ME,

1977.

Fox, Tom, Urban Open Space: An Investment That Pays: Real Estate Values, The

Neighborhood Open Space Coalition, New York, 1990.

Frank, James E., The Costs of Alternative Development Patterns: A Review of the Literature,

Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC, ISBN 0-87420-695-2, 1989.

Freedgood, Julia, Is Farmland Protection a Community Investment? How to Do a Cost of

Community Services Study, American Farmland Trust, Washington, DC, 1993.

Hulsey, Brett, Sprawl Costs Us All: How Uncontrolled Sprawl Increases Your Property Taxes

and Threatens Your Quality of Life, Sierra Club Midwest Office, Madison, WI, 1996.

Hustedde, Ronald, Ron Shaffer, and Glen Pulver, Community Economic Analysis: A How To

USDA Forest Service and Center for Urban Forestry, An

Ecosystem-Based Approach to Urban and Community

Forestry, Center for Urban Forestry, Philadelphia, PA,

December 1994. This workbook presents practical information on community-based ecosystem protection, with

a focus on urban forestry. In addition to describing steps

for monitoring and evaluating ecosystem protection strategies, it provides

an excellent overview of all the steps involved with ecosystem protection

— from forming a project team to selecting strategies.

To Learn

More

Fnlchap5.qxd 9/13/00 3:19 PM Page 5-17
5-18

Manual, North Regional Center for Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames, IA,

1995.

Jackson, Ted and Rosemary Infante, eds., Economic Benefits of Land Protection, Land Trust

Alliance, Washington, DC, April 1994. 

National Park Service, Economic Impact of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway

Corridors: A Resource Book, National Park Service, Department of Interior, Washington, DC,

1995.

Fnlchap5.qxd 9/13/00 3:19 PM Page 5-18
A-1

Technical Assistance Directory

Appendix A

This directory is provided as a starting point for your information and technical assistance needs. This listing is by no means comprehensive, but provides representative

examples of organizations that can assist you in or provide information for your community ecosystem protection effort. The technical assistance directory is divided by

topic into eight sections:

General Information Directories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-2

Ecosystem Assessment Data (Federal Agencies) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-3

EPA Hotlines and Regulatory Dockets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-5

Ecosystem Protection/Land Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-7

Sustainable Development/Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-9

Program Organization and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-10

State Environmental Protection Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-11

Natural Heritage Programs and Related Data Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-17

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page A-1
A-2

GENERAL INFORMATION DIRECTORIES

In addition to the major organizations referenced in the rest of this appendix, the directories listed below can lead

you to useful organizations and data resources.

1) National Wildlife Federation, 1996 Conservation Directory, 1996, phone: (800) 432-6564.

A list of organizations, agencies, and officials concerned with natural resource use and management.

Published annually. Check your local public library.

2) Balachandran, Sarojini, ed., Encyclopedia of Environmental Information Sources, Gale Research

Inc., Washington, DC, 1993, available also from Gale Research Inc., 853 Penobscot Building, Detroit, MI

48226-4094. A subject guide to print and other sources of information on all aspects of the environment.

Sources include government organizations, online databases, research centers, and trade organizations,

among others. Check your local public library.

3) U.S. EPA, Access EPA, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9328, ISBN 0-16-

037989-X, Internet Website: http://www.epa.gov. Developed for citizens and other U.S. EPA partners,

this guide provides a roadmap to EPA information services, contacts, and products.

4) Leadership Directories, Inc., State, Federal, and Municipal Yellow Books, phone: (212) 627-4140.

Listings of government agencies at the federal, state, and local levels. Includes addresses, telephone numbers, and names of administrative heads. Available at public libraries, or can be purchased by calling

Leadership Directories.

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page A-2
A-3

ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT DATA (FEDERAL AGENCIES)

1) U.S. EPA — 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, phone: (202) 260-2080, Internet Website:

http://www.epa.gov

n CBEP Clearinghouse — U.S. EPA Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities, 401 M

Street SW, Washington, DC 20460-2134, phone: (202) 260-5339. The Community-Based

Ecosystem Protection Clearinghouse has a number of U.S. EPA documents pertaining to ecosystem

protection. 

n Office of Water — 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, phone: (202) 260-7018. 

n Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) — Research Triangle Park, NC 27111,

phone: (919) 541-5616.

n Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) — 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC

20460, phone: (202) 260-4610.

n Regional Offices

— Region 1, John F. Kennedy Federal Building, 1 Congress Street, Boston, MA 02203-2211,

phone: (617) 565-3400. CBEP Contacts: Deb Hartstedt and Rosemary Monahan (ME, NH,

VT, MA, CT, RI)

— Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866, phone: (212) 637-3000. CBEP

Contact: Rabi Kieber (NY, NJ, PR)

— Region 3, 841 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107, phone: (215) 566-5000. CBEP

Contacts: Dominique Lueckenhoff and Susan McDowell (PA, WV, VA, MD, DE)

— Region 4, 100 Alabama Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30365, phone: (404) 562-8327. CBEP

Contact: Grace Deatrick (KY, TN, NC, SC, MS, AL, GA, FL)

— Region 5, Robert E. Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL

60604-3590, phone: (312) 353-2000. CBEP Contact: Marylou Martin (MI, OH, IN, IL,

WI, MN)

— Region 6, First Interstate Bank Tower at Fountain Place, 1445 Ross Avenue, 12th Floor,

Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, phone: (214) 665-2100. CBEP Contacts: Shirley

Bruce and Cindy Wolf (NM, TX, LA, AR, OK)

— Region 7, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101, phone: (913) 551-7000. CBEP

Contacts: Cathy Tortorici and John Houlihan (NE, KS, IA, MO)

— Region 8, 999 Eighteenth Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2466, phone: (303) 312-

6308. CBEP Contacts: Karen Hamilton and Nat Miullo (MT, ND, SD, WY, UT, CO)

— Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, phone: (415) 744-1305. CBEP

Contacts: Denise Zvanovec, Debbie Schechter, and Stephanie Valentine (CA, NV, AZ, HI)

— Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101-1128, phone: (206) 553-1200. CBEP

Contact: Eric Winiecki (WA, OR, ID, AK)

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page A-3
2) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240, phone: (202) 208-3171,

Internet Website: http://www.fws.gov 

n National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program — phone: (703) 358-2148. This group can provide information on contaminant concentrations in fish, waterfowl, and other wildlife.

n National Wetlands Inventory — Internet Website: http://www.nwi.fws.gov. The U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service began the National Wetlands Inventory in 1977 to systematically classify and map

America’s remaining wetlands. This website has information on where to find maps of wetlands, as

well as contacts for regional wetlands coordinators.

3) Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service) — U.S. Department of

Agriculture, National Resources Inventory, phone: (202) 720-4530. The NRCS can provide information

on soil quality and soil erosion control measures.

4) United States Geological Survey — U.S. Geological Survey National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley

Drive, Reston, VA 22092. Public Information, phone: (703) 648-4000, National Mapping Division,

phone: (800) USA-MAPS, Internet Website: http://www-nmd.usgs.gov/. The National Mapping Program

Website contains information about land mapping programs throughout the country, as well as a guide to

obtaining USGS earth science information and services.

5) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — Casimir Pulaski Building, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW,

Washington, DC 20314-1000, phone: (202) 761-0660.

6) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — U.S. Department of Commerce, Silver Spring

Metro Center 3, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282, phone: (202) 482-6090,

Internet Website: http://www.noaa.gov

n National Marine Fisheries Service — Internet Website: http://www.kingfish.ssp.nmfs.gov

n National Weather Service — Internet Website: http://www.nws.noaa.gov

7) Federal Emergency Management Agency — Center Plaza 500 Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,

phone: (202) 646-4600.

A-4

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page A-4
A-5

EPA HOTLINES AND REGULATORY DOCKETS

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hotlines provide information for voluntary action. Some of the most

useful include:

1) Green Lights and Energy Stars Programs, phone: (800) 782-7937, Internet Website:

http://www.epa.gov/docs/gcdoar/energystar.html, provide information and technical support on energy

efficient lighting to U.S. businesses and governments.

2) Hazardous Waste Ombudsman, phone: (800) 262-7937 in U.S. except metropolitan Washington, DC

(202) 260-9361 in metropolitan Washington, DC, assists the public and regulatory community in resolving

hazardous waste issues. The ombudsman handles complaints from citizens, conducts investigations,

undertakes site reviews, and issues reports relating to hazardous waste sites.

3) Office of Environmental Justice, phone: (800) 962-6215 in U.S. except metropolitan Washington, DC

(202) 260-6359 in metropolitan Washington, DC, coordinates public communication and provides technical and financial assistance to outside groups on environmental justice issues.

4) Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse, phone: (202) 260-1023, provides answers and referrals

in response to questions from the public concerning pollution prevention.

5) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Hotline, phone: (415) 744-2074, responds to requests

for information on hazardous-waste identification, generators, transporters, treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, and recycling sites.

6) RCRA/Underground Storage Tank, Superfund, and Emergency Planning and Community-Right-to-Know

Hotline, phone: (800) 424-9346 in U.S. except metropolitan Washington, DC (703) 412-9810 in metropolitan Washington, DC, provides information about the title programs and referrals for obtaining documents about these programs. Translation is available for Spanish-speaking callers.

7) Small Business Ombudsman Clearinghouse/Hotline, phone: (800) 368-5888 in U.S. except metropolitan

Washington, DC (703) 305-5938 in metropolitan Washington, DC, TDD: (703) 305-6824, disseminates

regulatory and other environmental information to help small businesses enhance voluntary regulatory

compliance and pollution abatement and control.

8) Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Assistance Information Service, phone: (202) 544-1404, TDD:

(202) 544-0551, furnishes TSCA regulation information.

9) WASTEWI$E Helpline, phone: (800) EPA-WISE, provides information about EPA’s voluntary program

encouraging businesses to reduce solid waste.

10) Wetlands Information Hotline, phone: (800) 832-7828 in U.S. except metropolitan Washington, DC

(703) 525-0985 in metropolitan Washington, DC, disseminates information about the Wetlands Protection

Program; answers questions and provides referrals concerning the value, function, and protection of wetlands; and accepts requests for certain wetlands publications.

The EPA regulatory dockets provide information about regulations, permitting, and hazardous waste

cleanup decisions.

1) Air Docket — Office of Air and Radiation (6102), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460,

phone: (202) 260-7548

2) Water Docket — Office of Water (4101), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, phone:

(202) 260-3027

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page A-5
3) Wetlands Docket — Office of Water (4101), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, phone:

(202) 260-1799

4) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Docket — Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

(5305), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, phone: (202) 260-9327

5) Superfund Docket — Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5201G), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street

SW, Washington, DC 20460, phone: (703) 603-8917

6) Underground Storage Tank Docket — Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5305), U.S. EPA,

401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, phone: (202) 260-9720

7) Pesticides Docket — Office of Pesticides (7506C), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460,

phone: (703) 305-5919

8) Toxic Substances Control Act Docket — Office of Toxic Substances (7407), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW,

Washington, DC 20460, phone: (202) 260-7099

A-6

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page A-6
A-7

ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION/LAND CONSERVATION

1) U.S. Department of Interior — 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240, phone: (202) 208-3171.

n U.S. Bureau of Land Management, phone: (202) 208-3171. The BLM manages 300 million acres

of land, most of which is in the Midwest and western United States.

n National Biological Service — Ecosystem Monitoring Division, phone: (202) 482-3774, Internet

Website: http://www.nbs.gov/. This agency seeks to enhance scientific understanding and sustainable

management of our nation’s biological resources. The website provides access to a range of data, as

well as an excellent list of linked servers.

n National Park Service — phone: (202) 208-3171.

n U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — phone: (202) 208-3171, Internet Website: http://www.fws.gov/.

The FWS manages the National Wildlife Refuge System — over 100 million acres of land devoted to

conservation of plant and wildlife species.

2) U.S. Department of Agriculture — Fourteenth Street and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC

20250, phone: (202) 720-2791.

n The U.S. Forest Service, phone: (202) 720-2791, Internet Website: http://www.fs.fed.us/. This

agency manages approximately 200 million acres of forestland in the United States

3) Trust for Public Land — 116 New Montgomery Street, 4th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105, phone:

(415) 495-4014, Internet Website: http://www.igc.apc.org/tpl/. This national non-profit organization is

dedicated to the conservation of land for parks, gardens, natural areas, and open space. The website

includes information on the organization s Green Cities Initiative, as well as an excellent list of linked

servers.

4) American Farmland Trust — 1920 N Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036, phone: (202) 659-

5170, Internet Website: http://farm.fic.niu.edu/aft/afthome.html. This non-profit organization is dedicated to the conservation of land for agricultural use. AFT has also developed an economic model of urban

sprawl and its fiscal impacts with the University of California-Berkeley. The website contains updates on

federal, state, and local farm policies, extensive research material, and information on obtaining AFT publications. 

5) The Nature Conservancy — 1815 N. Lynn Street, Arlington, VA 22209, phone: (703) 841-5300,

Internet Website: http://www.tnc.org. This non-profit organization identifies ecologically significant

lands and protects them through gifts, purchase, cooperative management agreements with governments

or public agencies, or through voluntary arrangements with private landowners.

6) The Conservation Fund — 1800 N. Kent Street, Suite 1120, Arlington, VA 22209, phone: (703) 525-

6300. This organization helps to protect ecosystems, develop greenways, develop economic assessments

for conservation objectives, and promote other environmental protection activities.

7) The Sierra Club — 730 Polk Street, San Francisco, CA 94109, phone: (415) 776-2211, Internet

Website: http://www.sierraclub.org. This environmental group was founded to explore, enjoy, and protect natural areas. Work includes lobbying, litigation, publishing, and arranging conferences.

8) The National Audubon Society — 700 Broadway, New York, NY 10003-9501, phone: (212) 979-3000,

Internet Website: http://www.igc.org/audubon/contents. This environmental group’s mission is to protect

the air, water, land, and habitat that are critical to the health of the planet.

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page A-7
9) National Wildlife Federation — 1400 Sixteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20036-2266, phone (202)

797-6800, Internet Website: http://www.nwf.org/nwf. A non-profit organization whose mission is to educate, inspire, and assist individuals to conserve wildlife and other natural resources.

10) The Wilderness Society — 900 Seventeenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, phone: (202) 833-2300.

Promotes protection of public (especially federal) lands.

11) Natural Resources Defense Council — 40 W. Twentieth Street, New York, NY 10011, phone: (212)

727-2700. Dedicated to sound management of natural resources through research, education, and development of public policies.

12) Environmental Defense Fund — 257 Park Avenue S., New York, NY 10010. Dedicated to the improvement of environmental quality and public health through responsible reform of public policy.

13) Defenders of Wildlife — 1244 Nineteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, phone: (202) 659-9510.

Promotes the preservation and protection of wildlife and habitat.

14) Native Ecology Initiative — Lillian Wilmore, Director, P.O. Box 470829, Brookline Village, MA

02147-0829, phone: (617) 232-5742. This Native American organization is devoted to cultural and ecological preservation.

15) League of Women Voters — 1730 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, phone: (202) 429-1965. The

league has an educational branch that conducts research and publishes newsletters on topics such as safe

drinking water, nuclear waste issues, and pesticides in food and water.

16) The following religious organizations have ecological protection or environmental justice missions:

n Episcopal Church Center, Peace and Justice Ministries — 815 Second Avenue, New York, NY

10017, phone: (800) 334-7626.

n Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Environmental Stewardship and Hunger Education

— 8765 W. Higgins Road, Chicago, IL 60631, phone: (312) 380-1485.

n Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, Church and Society — 8-10 E.

Seventy-Ninth Street, New York, NY 10021, phone: (212) 570-3500.

n Jewish Theological Seminary of America, Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life —

3080 Broadway, New York, NY 10027, phone: (212) 678-8996.

n National Council of the Churches of Christ, USA, Environmental Justice — 475 Riverside

Drive, New York, NY 10115, phone: (212) 870-2141.

n Presbyterian Church (USA), Office of Environmental Justice — 100 Witherspoon Street, Room

3046, Louisville, KY 40202, phone: (502) 569-5809.

n Progressive National Baptist Convention, Home Mission Office — 601 Fiftieth Street NE,

Washington, DC 20019, phone: (202) 396-0558.

n Roman Catholic Church, U.S. Catholic Conference, Office of International Justice and Peace

— 3211 Fourteenth Street NE, Washington, DC 20017, phone: (202) 541-3140.

n United Church of Christ, Office for Church Society — 700 Prospect Avenue, Cleveland, OH

44115, phone: (216) 736-2174.

n United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society Resources — 100 Maryland

Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20002, phone: (202) 488-5617.

A-8

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page A-8
A-9

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT/ECONOMICS

1) U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis — 1441 L Street NW, Washington, DC

20230, phone: (202) 606-9900. Publishes regional economic data such as employment and revenues of

various industries.

2) U.S. Department of Energy, Center of Excellence for Sustainable Development — 1617 Cole

Boulevard, Golden, CO 80401, phone: (303) 275-4830, e-mail: sustainable.development@hq.doe.gov,

Internet Website: http://www.sustainable.doe.gov.

3) National Park Service, Economics Clearinghouse, — 600 Harrison Street, Suite 600, San Francisco,

CA 94107-1372, phone: (415) 744-3975. Encourages up-to-date information exchange on the economic

impacts of rivers, trails, and greenways. Included are case studies, economic impact analyses, benefit and

cost estimation techniques, and other reference materials. 

4) The Ecotourism Society — P.O. Box 755, North Bennington, VT 05257, phone: (802) 447-2121. The

Ecotourism Society is an international nonprofit organization dedicated to finding the resources and building the expertise to make tourism a viable tool for conservation and sustainable development.

5) Lincoln Institute of Land Policy — 113 Brattle Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-3400, phone: (617) 661-

3016. Publishes reference materials on land use, public policy, and sustainable development.

6) The Nature Conservancy, Center for Compatible Economic Development — 7 East Market Street, Suite

210, Leesburg, VA 22075. This group within The Nature Conservancy evaluates and promotes opportunities for communities to pursue tourism and other businesses that are compatible with the conservation of

biodiversity and environmental protection.

7) Rocky Mountain Institute — 1739 Snowmass Creek Road, Snowmass, CO 80164, phone: (970) 927-

3851. Many publications and reference materials on sustainable economic development, energy efficiency, agricultural policy, and other community development issues.

8) Corporation for Enterprise Development — 777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 410, Washington, DC

20002, phone: (202) 408-9788. Conducts economic assessments for communities and helps assemble

community development plans. Variety of publications, including case studies.

9) Heartland Center for Leadership Development — 941 O Street, Suite 920, Lincoln, NE 68508, phone:

(402) 474-7667. Programs and publications to help rural communities develop local leadership, including

practical resources and policies for the survival of small towns.

10) United States Tourist Council — Drawer 175, Washington, DC 20013-1875. A non-profit association of

conservation-concerned individuals, industries, and institutions who travel or cater to the traveler.

Emphasis is on historic and scenic preservation, wilderness and roadside development, ecological protection through sound planning and education, and support of scientific studies of natural wilderness.

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page A-9
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND FUNDING

1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Comptroller, Environmental Financing

Information Network — 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, e-mail: efin.@epamail.epa.gov.

This network can provide information on financing alternatives for state and local environmental

protection.

2) Foundation Center — 79 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10003, phone: (212) 620-4230. This organization publishes summary information about charitable foundations and their grant-making policies and

practices. There are regional offices in San Francisco, CA, Cleveland, OH, Washington, DC, and

Atlanta, GA.

3) The Grantsmanship Center — P.O. Box 17220, Los Angeles, CA 90017, phone: (213) 482-9860. This

organization publishes information on how to obtain grants and raise other funds.

4) Land Trust Alliance — 900 Seventeenth Street NW, Suite 410, Washington, DC 20006, phone: (202)

638-4725. The Land Trust Alliance provides a broad range of technical assistance and services to local

and regional land trusts and land conservation groups.

A-10

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page A-10
A-1

Alabama

Conservation and Natural Resources Department

P.O. Box 301450

Montgomery, AL 36130-1450

Phone: (800) 262-3151

Fax: (334) 242-1880

Environmental Management Department

1751 Cong. W.L. Dickinson Drive

P.O. Box 301463

Montgomery, AL 36130-1463

Phone: (334) 271-7700

Fax: (334) 271-7950

Alaska

Environmental Conservation Department

410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105

Juneau, AK 99801-1795

Phone: (907) 465-5010

Fax: (907) 465-5097

TTY: (907) 465-5010

Natural Resources Department

3601 C Street, Suite 858

Anchorage, AK 99503

Phone: (907) 269-8400

Fax: (907) 269-8901

TTY: (907) 269-8411

Agriculture Revolving Loan Fund: (907) 745-7200

Arizona

Environmental Quality Department

3033 N. Central Avenue

Phoenix, AZ 85012

Phone: (602) 207-2300

Fax: (602) 207-2218

TTY: (602) 207-4829

Arkansas

Pollution Control and Ecology Department

8001 National Drive

P.O. Box 8913

Little Rock, AR 72219-8913

Phone: (501) 682-0744

Fax: (501) 682-0798

California

Environmental Protection Agency

555 Capitol Mall, Suite 525

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: (916) 445-3846

Fax: (916) 445-6401

Resources Agency

Resources Building, Suite 1311

1416 Ninth Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: (916) 653-5656

Fax: (916) 653-8102

Colorado

Natural Resources Department

1313 Sherman Street, Room 718

Denver, CO 80203

Phone: (303) 866-3311

Fax: (303) 866-2115

Public Health and Environment Department

4300 Cherry Creek Drive, South

Denver, CO 80222

Phone: (303) 692-2000

Fax: (303) 782-0095

TTY: (303) 691-7700

Connecticut

Environmental Protection Department

79 Elm Street

Hartford, CT 06106

Phone: (860) 424-3000

Fax: (860) 424-4053

Delaware

Natural Resources and Environmental

Control Department

89 Kings Highway

P.O. Box 1401

Dover, DE 19903-1401

Phone: (302) 739-4506

Fax: (302) 739-6242

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCIES

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page A-11
District of Columbia

Environmental Regulation Administration

2100 Martin L. King Avenue SE

Washington, DC 20020

Phone: (202) 645-6617

Fax: (202) 645-6622

Florida

Environmental Protection Department

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000

Phone: (904) 488-1073

Fax: (904) 921-6227

Georgia

Natural Resources Department

205 Butler Street SE, Suite 1252

Atlanta, GA 30334

Phone: (404) 656-3500

Fax: (404) 656-0770

Hawaii

Land and Natural Resources Department

Kalanimoku Building

1151 Punchbowl Street

Honolulu, HI 96813

Phone: (808) 587-0406

Fax: (808) 587-0360

Idaho

Environmental Quality Division

450 W. State Street

P.O. Box 83720

Boise, ID 83720

Phone: (208) 373-0502

Fax: (208) 373-0417

Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794

Phone: (217) 782-2829

Fax: (217) 782-9039

TTY: (217) 782-9143

Natural Resources Department

Lincoln Tower Plaza

524 S. Second Street

Springfield, IL 62701-1787

Phone: (217) 782-6302

Fax: (217) 785-3150

TTY: (217) 782-9175

Indiana

Environmental Management Department

105 S. Meridian Street

P.O. Box 6015

Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015

Phone: (317) 233-6894

Fax: (317) 232-5539

TTY: (317) 233-6087

Natural Resources Department

402 W. Washington Street

Indianapolis, IN 46204

Phone: (317) 232-4200

Fax: (317) 233-6811

Iowa

Natural Resources Department

Wallace Building

Des Moines, IA 50319-0034

Phone: (515) 281-5145

Fax: (515) 281-6794

TTY: (515) 242-5967

Kansas

Health and Environment Department

Landon State Office Building

900 S.W. Jackson Street

Topeka, KS 66612-1290

Phone: (913) 296-1500

Fax: (913) 296-6247

Kentucky

Natural Resources and Environmental

Protection Cabinet

Capital Plaza Tower, 5th Floor

500 Mero Street

Frankfort, KY 40601

Phone: (502) 564-5525

Fax: (502) 564-3354

A-12

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page A-12
A-1

Louisiana

Environmental Quality Department

P.O. Box 82231

Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2231

Phone: (504) 765-0741

Fax: (504) 765-0045

Natural Resources Department

P.O. Box 94396

Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9396

Phone: (504) 342-4500

Fax: (504) 342-2707

Maine

Conservation Department

22 State House Station

Augusta, ME 04333-0022

Phone: (207) 287-2211

Fax: (207) 287-2400

TTY: (207) 287-2213

Environmental Protection Department

17 State House Station

Augusta, ME 04333-0017

Phone: (207) 287-7688

Fax: (207) 287-2814

Maryland

Natural Resources Department

Tawes State Office Building

Annapolis, MD 21401

Phone: (410) 974-3195

Fax: (410) 974-5206

TTY: (410) 974-3683

Environment Department

2500 Broening Highway

Baltimore, MD 21224

Phone: (410) 631-3000

Fax: (410) 631-3888

TTY: (410) 631-3009

Massachusetts

Environmental Affairs Executive Office

100 Cambridge Street, Room 2000

Boston, MA 02202

Phone: (617) 727-9800

Fax: (617) 727-2754

Michigan

Environmental Quality Department

P.O. Box 30473

Lansing, MI 48909-7973

Phone: (800) 662-9278

Fax: (517) 241-7401

Pollution Emergency Alerting System: 

(800) 292-4706

Natural Resources Department

P.O. Box 30028

Lansing, MI 48909

Phone: (517) 373-1214

Fax: (517) 335-4242

TTY: (517) 335-4623

Minnesota

Natural Resources Department

500 Lafayette Road

St. Paul, MN 55155-4001

Phone: (612) 296-6157

Fax: (612) 296-3500

TTY: (612) 296-5484

Environmental Assistance Office

520 Lafayette Road, 2nd Floor

St. Paul, MN 55155-4100

Phone: (612) 296-3417

Fax: (612) 297-8709

Mississippi

Environmental Quality Department

P.O. Box 20305

Jackson, MS 39289-1305

Phone: (601) 961-5650

Fax: (601) 354-6965

Missouri

Natural Resources Department

P.O. Box 176

Jefferson City, MO 65102

Phone: (573) 751-3443

Fax: (573) 751-7627

Montana

Environmental Quality Department

P.O. Box 200901

Helena, MT 59620-0901

Phone: (406) 444-2442

Fax: (406) 444-1804

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page A-13
Natural Resources and Conservation Department

1625 Eleventh Avenue

P.O. Box 201601

Helena, MT 59620-1601

Phone: (406) 444-2074

Fax: (406) 444-2684

TTY: (406) 444-2074

Nebraska

Environmental Quality Department

1200 N Street, Suite 400

P.O. Box 98922

Lincoln, NE 68509-8922

Phone: (402) 471-2186

Fax: (402) 471-2909

Nevada

Conservation and Natural Resources Department

123 W. Nye Lane

Carson City, NV 89710

Phone: (702) 687-4360

Fax: (702) 687-6122

New Hampshire

Environmental Services Department

6 Hazen Drive

Concord, NH 03301

Phone: (603) 271-3503

Fax: (603) 271-2867

TTY: (800) 735-2964

New Jersey

Environmental Protection Department

401 E. State Street, CN 402

Trenton, NJ 08625-0402

Phone: (609) 777-3373

Fax: (609) 292-7695

New Mexico

Environment Department

1190 St. Francis Drive

P.O. Box 26110

Santa Fe, NM 87502

Phone: (505) 827-2855

Fax: (505) 827-2836

New York

Environmental Conservation Department

50 Wolf Road

Albany, NY 12233

Phone: (518) 457-5400

Fax: (518) 457-7744

North Carolina

Environment, Health and

Natural Resources Department

P.O. Box 27687

Raleigh, NC 27611

Phone: (919) 733-4984

Fax: (919) 715-3060

North Dakota

Environmental Health Section

1200 Missouri Avenue

P.O. Box 5520

Bismarck, ND 58506-5520

Phone: (701) 328-5150

Fax: (701) 328-5200

Ohio

Natural Resources Department

Fountain Square

Columbus, OH 43224-1387

Phone: (614) 265-6565

Fax: (614) 261-9601

Environmental Protection Agency

1800 WaterMark Drive

P.O. Box 1049

Columbus, OH 43216-0149

Phone: (614) 644-3020

Fax: (614) 644-2329

TTY: (614) 644-2110

Oklahoma

Environmental Quality Department

1000 NE Tenth Street

Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1212

Phone: (405) 271-8056

Fax: (405) 271-8425

Complaints Hotline: (800) 522-0206

A-14

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page A-14
A-1

Oregon

Environmental Quality Department

811 S.W. Sixth Avenue

Portland, OR 97204-1390

Phone: (503) 229-5696

Fax: (503) 229-6124

TTY: (503) 229-6993

Pennsylvania

Environmental Protection Department

P.O. Box 2063

Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063

Phone: (717) 783-2300

Fax: (717) 783-8926

TTY: (800) 654-5984

Rhode Island

Environmental Management Department

235 Promenade Street, Suite 425

Providence, RI 02908

Phone: (401) 277-6800

Fax: (401) 277-6802

TTY: (401) 831-5508

24-Hour Hotline: (401) 277-3070

South Carolina

Health and Environmental Control Department

2600 Bull Street

Columbia, SC 29201

Phone: (803) 734-5000

Fax: (803) 734-4777

Natural Resources Department

Rembert C. Dennis Building

P.O. Box 176

Columbia, SC 29202

Phone: (803) 734-3888

Fax: (803) 734-6310

South Dakota

Environment and Natural Resources Department

Joe Foss Building

523 E. Capitol Avenue

Pierre, SD 57501-3181

Phone: (605) 773-3151

Fax: (605) 773-6035

Tennessee

Environmental and Conservation Department

Life & Casualty Tower

401 Church Street, 21st Floor

Nashville, TN 37243-0435

Phone: (615) 532-0109

Fax: (615) 532-0120

Texas

Natural Resource Conservation Commission

12100 Park 35 Circle

P.O. Box 13087

Austin, TX 78711-3087

Phone: (512) 239-1000

Fax: (512) 239-5533

Utah

Environmental Quality Department

168 N. 1950 West

Salt Lake City, UT 84116

Phone: (801) 536-4400

Fax: (801) 536-4480

TTY: (801) 536-4414

Natural Resources Department

1594 W. North Temple, Suite 3710

Box 145610

Salt Lake City, UT 84116-5610

Phone: (801) 538-7200

Fax: (801) 538-7315

TTY: (801) 538-7458

Vermont

Natural Resources Agency

State Complex

103 S. Main Street

Waterbury, VT 05671

Phone: (802) 241-3600

TTY: (800) 253-0191

Virginia

Natural Resources Secretariat

733 Ninth Street Office Building

Richmond, VA 23219

Phone: (804) 786-0044

Fax: (804) 371-8333

TTY: (804) 786-7765

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page A-15
Washington

Ecology Department

P.O. Box 47600

Olympia, WA 98504-7600

Phone: (360) 407-6000

Fax: (360) 407-6989

TTY: (360) 407-7155

Natural Resources Department

1111 Washington Street SE

P.O. Box 47000

Olympia, WA 98504-7001

Phone: (360) 902-1000

Fax: (360) 902-1775

TTY: (360) 902-1125

West Virginia

Environment Bureau

10 McJunkin Road

Nitro, WV 25143-2506

Phone: (304) 759-0515

Fax: (304) 759-0526

TTY: (800) 637-5893

Wisconsin

Natural Resources Department

P.O. Box 7921

Madison, WI 53704

Phone: (608) 266-2621

Fax: (608) 267-3579

TTY: (608) 267-6897

Wyoming

Environmental Quality Department

Herschler Building, 4th Floor

122 W. Twenty-Fifth Street

Cheyenne, WY 82002

Phone: (307) 777-7937

Fax: (307) 777-7682

Puerto Rico

Natural and Environmental Resources Department

P.O. Box 9066600

San Juan, PR 00906-6600

Phone: (787) 723-3090

Fax: (787) 723-4255

Environmental Quality Board

P.O. Box 11488

San Juan, PR 00940-1119

Phone: (787) 723-6200

Fax: (787) 724-3270

A-16

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page A-16
A-1

State Natural Heritage

Programs

Alabama Natural Heritage

Section

Department of Conservation &

Natural Resources

Division of Lands

Folsom Administration Building

64 N. Union Street, Room 421

Montgomery, AL 36130

Phone: (334) 242-3484 

Fax: (334) 242-0098

Director: vacant

Alaska Natural Heritage Program

707 A Street, Suite 208

Anchorage, AK 99501

Phone: (907) 257-2702 

Fax: (907) 258-9139

Program Director: David Duffy

Arizona Heritage Data

Management System

Habitat Branch

Arizona Game & Fish Department

2221 W. Greenway Road

Phoenix, AZ 85023

Phone: (602) 789-3612 

Fax: (602) 789-3928

Coord. Data Mgmt. System:

Barry Spicer

Arkansas Natural Heritage

Commission

Suite 1500, Tower Building

323 Center Street

Little Rock, AR 72201

Phone: (501) 324-9150 

Fax: (501) 324-9618

Chief of Research: Tom Foti

California Natural Heritage

Division

Department of Fish & Game

1220 S Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: (916) 322-2493 

Fax: (916) 324-0475

Director: Ken Hashagen

Colorado Natural Heritage

Program

College of Natural Resources

Colorado State University

254 General Services Building

Fort Collins, CO 80523

Phone: (970) 491-1309 

Fax: (970) 491-3349

Coordinator: Chris Pague

Connecticut Natural

Diversity Database

Natural Resources Center

Department of Environmental

Protection

79 Elm Street, Store Level

Hartford, CT 06106-5127

Phone: (860) 424-3540 

Fax: (860) 424-4058

Coordinator: Nancy Murray

Delaware Natural Heritage

Program

Division of Fish & Wildlife

Department of Natural Resources &

Environmental Control

4876 Hay Point Landing Road

Smyrna, DE 19977

Phone: (302) 653-2880 

Fax: (302) 653-3431

Coordinator: Lynn Broaddus

District of Columbia Natural

Heritage Program

13025 Riley’s Lock Road

Poolesville, MD 20837

Phone: (301) 427-1354 

Fax: (301) 427-1355

Coordinator: Olin Allen

Florida Natural Areas Inventory

1018 Thomasville Road

Suite 200-C

Tallahassee, FL 32303

Phone: (904) 224-8207 

Fax: (904) 681-9364

Acting Coordinator: Gary Knight

Georgia Natural Heritage Program

Wildlife Resources Division

Georgia Department of

Natural Resources

2117 U.S. Highway 278 SE

Social Circle, GA 30279

Phone: (706) 557-3032 

Fax: (706) 557-3040

Coordinator: Jonathan Ambrose

Hawaii Natural Heritage Program

The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii

1116 Smith Street, Suite 201

Honolulu, HI 96817

Phone: (808) 537-4508 

Fax: (808) 545-2019

Coordinator: Dan Orodenker

Idaho Conservation Data Center

Department of Fish & Game

600 South Walnut Street, Box 25

Boise, ID 83707

Phone: (208) 334-3402 

Fax: (208) 334-2114

Coordinator: Bob Moseley

Illinois Natural Heritage Division

Department of Resources

524 South Second Street

Springfield, IL 62701-1787

Phone: (217) 785-8774 

Fax: (217) 785-8277

Division Chief: Carl Becker

Indiana Natural Heritage

Data Center

Division of Nature Preserves

Department of Natural Resources

402 West Washington Street,

Room W267

Indianapolis, IN 46204

Phone: (317) 232-4052 

Fax: (317) 233-0133

Coordinator: Cloyce Hedge

NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAMS AND RELATED DATA

CENTERS

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page A-17
Iowa Natural Areas Inventory

Bureau of Preserves &

Ecological Services

Department of Natural Resources

Wallace State Office Building

Des Moines, IA 50319-0034

Phone: (515) 281-8524 

Fax: (515) 281-6794

Coordinator: Daryl Howell

Kansas Natural Heritage

Inventory

Kansas Biological Survey

2041 Constant Avenue

Lawrence, KS 66047-2906

Phone: (913) 864-3453 

Fax: (913) 864-5093

Coordinator: Craig Freeman

Kentucky Natural Heritage

Program

Kentucky State Nature Preserves

Commission

801 Schenkel Lane

Frankfort, KY 40601

Phone: (502) 573-2886 

Fax: (502) 573-2355

Director: Robert McCance, Jr.

Louisiana Natural Heritage

Program

Department of Wildlife & Fisheries

P.O. Box 98000

Baton Rouge, LA 70898-9000

Phone: (504) 765-2821 

Fax: (504) 765-2607

Coordinator: Gary Lester

Maine Natural Areas Program

Department of Conservation

(FedEx/UPS: 159 Hospital Street)

93 State House Station

Augusta, ME 04333-0093

Phone: (207) 287-8044 

Fax: (207) 287-8040

Coordinator: Molly Docherty

Maryland Natural Heritage

Program

Department of Natural Resources

Tawes State Office Building, E-1

Annapolis, MD 21401

Phone: (410) 974-2870 

Fax: (410) 974-5590

Coordinator: Lynn Davidson

Massachusetts Natural Heritage

& Endangered Species Program

Division of Fisheries & Wildlife

Route 135

Westborough, MA 01581

Phone: (508) 792-7270 ext. 200

Fax: (508) 792-7275

Coordinator: Henry Woolsey

Michigan Natural Features

Inventory

(FedEx/UPS: 530 W. Allegan.

48933)

Mason Building, 5th Floor,

Box 30444

Lansing, MI 48909-7944

Phone: (517) 373-1552 

Fax: (517) 373-6705

Director: Leni Wilsmann

Minnesota Natural Heritage &

Nongame Research

Department of Natural Resources

500 Lafayette Road, Box 7

St. Paul, MN 55155

Phone: (612) 297-4964 

Fax: (612) 297-4961

Coordinator: Bonita Eliason

Mississippi Natural Heritage

Program

Museum of Natural Science

111 North Jefferson Street

Jackson, MS 39201-2897

Phone: (601) 354-7303 

Fax: (601) 354-7227

Coordinator: Ken Gordon

Missouri Natural Heritage

Database

Missouri Department of

Conservation

P.O. Box 180

(FedEx: 2901 West Truman

Boulevard)

Jefferson City, MO 65102

Phone: (314) 751-4115 

Fax: (314) 526-5582

Database Coordinator:

Dorothy Butler

Montana Natural Heritage

Program

State Library Building

1515 E. Sixth Avenue

Helena, MT 59620

Phone: (406) 444-3009 

Fax: (406) 444-0581

Coordinator: David Genter

Nebraska Natural Heritage

Program

Game and Parks Commission

2200 N. Thirty-Third Street

P.O. Box 30370

Lincoln, NE 68503

Phone: (402) 471-5421 

Fax: (402) 471-5528

Co-coordinators: Mike Fritz and

Gerry Steinauer

Nevada Natural Heritage

Program

Department of Conservation &

Natural Resources

1550 E. College Parkway, Suite 145

Carson City, NV 89710

Phone: (702) 687-4245 

Fax: (702) 885-0868

Coordinator: Glenn Clemmer

New Hampshire Natural Heritage

Inventory

Department of Resources &

Economic Development

172 Pembroke Street

P.O. Box 1856

Concord, NH 03302

Phone: (603) 271-3623 

Fax: (603) 271-2629

Coordinator: vacant

New Jersey Natural Heritage

Program

Office of Natural Lands

Management

22 S. Clinton Avenue, CN404

Trenton, NJ 08625-0404

Phone: (609) 984-1339 

Fax: (609) 984-1427

Coordinator: Tom Breden

A-18

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page A-18
A-1

New Mexico Natural Heritage

Program

University of New Mexico

2500 Yale Boulevard SE, Suite 100

Albuquerque, NM 87131-1091

Phone: (505) 277-1991 

Fax: (505) 277-7587

Director: Pat Mehlhop

New York Natural Heritage

Program

Department of Environmental

Conservation

700 Troy-Schenectady Road

Latham, NY 12110-2400

Phone: (518) 783-3932 

Fax: (518) 783-3946

Coordinator: Kathryn Schneider

North Carolina Heritage Program

NC Department of Environment,

Health & Natural Resources

Division of Parks & Recreation

P.O. Box 27687

Raleigh, NC 27611

Phone: (919) 733-7701 

Fax: (919) 715-3085

Coordinator: Linda Pearsall

North Dakota Natural Heritage

Inventory

North Dakota Parks & Recreation

Department

1835 Bismarck Expressway

Bismarck, ND 58504

Phone: (701) 328-5357 

Fax: (701) 328-5363

Coordinator: Kathy Armstrong

Ohio Natural Heritage Program

Division of Natural Areas &

Preserves

Department of Natural Resources

Fountain Square, Building F-1

Columbus, OH 43224

Phone: (614) 265-6453 

Fax: (614) 267-3096

Division Chief: Guy Denny

Oklahoma Natural Heritage

Inventory

Oklahoma Biological Survey

111 East Chesapeake Street

University of Oklahoma

Norman, OK 73019-0575

Phone: (405) 325-1985 

Fax: (405) 325-7702

Coordinator: Caryn Vaughn

Oregon Natural Heritage Program

Oregon Field Office

821 S.E. Fourteenth Avenue

Portland, OR 97214

Phone: (503) 731-3070, 230-1221

Fax: (503) 230-9639

Coordinator: Jimmy Kagan

Pennsylvania Natural Diversity

Inventory - East

PNDI-East

The Nature Conservancy

34 Airport Drive

Middletown, PA 17057

Phone: (717) 948-3962 

Fax: (717) 948-3957

Coordinator: Julie Lundgren

Pennsylvania Natural Diversity

Inventory - West

Western Pennsylvania Conservancy

Natural Areas Program

316 Fourth Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Phone: (412) 288-2777 

Fax: (412) 281-1792

Coordinator: Paul Wiegman

Pennsylvania Natural Diversity

Inventory - Central

Bureau of Forestry

P.O. Box 8552

Harrisburg, PA 17105-8552

Phone: (717) 783-0388 

Fax: (717) 783-5109

State Coordinator: Kathy McKenna

Rhode Island Heritage Program

Department of Environmental

Management

Division of Planning &

Development

83 Park Street

Providence, RI 02903

Phone: (401) 277-2776 x 4308

Fax: (401) 277-2069

Coordinator: Rick Enser

South Carolina Heritage Trust

SC Wildlife & Marine Resources

Department

P.O. Box 167

Columbia, SC 29202

Phone: (803) 734-3893 

Fax: (803) 734-6310 (call first)

Coordinator: Steve Bennett

South Dakota Natural Heritage

Database

SD Department of Game,

Fish & Parks

Wildlife Division

523 E. Capitol Avenue

Pierre, SD 57501-3182

Phone: (605) 773-4227 

Fax: (605) 773-6245

Coordinator: Dave Ode

Tennessee Division of Natural

Heritage

Department of Environment &

Conservation

401 Church Street

Life and Casualty Tower, 8th Floor

Nashville, TN 37243-0447

Phone: (615) 532-0431 

Fax: (615) 532-0614

Director: Reggie Reeves

Texas Parks and Wildlife

Department

Endangered Resources Branch

3000 IH-35 South, Suite 100

Austin, TX 78704

Phone: (512) 912-7011 

Fax: (512) 912-7058

Heritage Coordinator: vacant

Utah Natural Heritage Program

Division of Wildlife Resources

1596 West North Temple

Salt Lake City, UT 84116

Phone: (801) 538-4761 

Fax: (801) 538-4709

Coordinator: Doug Stone

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page A-19
Vermont Nongame & Natural

Heritage Program

Vermont Fish & Wildlife

Department

103 S. Main Street, 10 South

Waterbury, VT 05671-0501

Phone: (802) 241-3700 

Fax: (802) 241-3295

Heritage Coordinator: Bob Popp

Virginia Division of Natural

Heritage

Department of Conservation &

Recreation

Main Street Station

1500 E. Main Street, Suite 312

Richmond, VA 23219

Phone: (804) 786-7951 

Fax: (804) 371-2674

Division Director: Tom Smith

Washington Natural Heritage

Program

Department of Natural Resources

(FedEx: 1111 Washington

Street SE)

P.O. Box 47016

Olympia, WA 98504-7016

Phone: (360) 902-1340 

Fax: (360) 902-1783

Coordinator: Mark Sheehan

West Virginia Natural Heritage

Program

Department of Natural Resources

Operations Center

Ward Road, P.O. Box 67

Elkins, WV 26241

Phone: (304) 637-0245 

Fax: (304) 637-0250

Coordinator: Brian McDonald

Wisconsin Natural Heritage

Program

Endangered Resources/4

Department of Natural Resources

101 S. Webster Street, Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707

Phone: (608) 266-7012 

Fax: (608) 266-2925

Coordinator: Betty Les

Wyoming Natural Diversity

Database

1604 Grand Avenue, Suite 2

Laramie, WY 82070

Phone: (307) 745-5026 

Fax: (307) 745-5026 (call first)

Coordinator: George Jones

Regional Heritage Data

Centers

Navajo Natural Heritage

Program

Navajo Fish & Wildlife

P.O. Box 1480

Window Rock, AZ 86515-1480

Phone: (520) 871-6472 

Fax: (520) 871-7069

Coordinator: Jack Meyer

TVA Regional Heritage

Division of Land Management

Tennessee Valley Authority

Norris, TN 37828

Phone: (423) 632-1593 

Fax: (423) 632-1795

Coordinator: William H. Redmond

National Park Data Centers

National Park Service

75 Spring Street SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

Phone: (404) 331-4916

Regional Data Manager:

Teresa Leibfreid

Florida and Caribbean Marine

Conservation Science Center

c/o Biology Department

P.O. Box 249118

University of Miami

Coral Gables, FL 33124-0421

Phone: (305) 284-3013 

Fax: (305) 284-3039

Marine Ecologist: Kathleen Sullivan

Great Smoky Mountains

National Park

c/o Janet Rock/Keith Langdon

1314 Cherokee Orchard Road

Twin Creeks Natural

Resources Center

Gatlinburg, TN 37738

Phone: (423) 436-1264 

Fax: (423) 436-5598

Coordinator: Keith Langdon

Gulf Islands National Seashore

1801 Gulf Breeze Parkway

Gulf Breeze, FL 32561

Phone: (904) 934-2605

Research Mgmt. Specialist: vacant

Mammoth Cave National Park

Division of Science & Resource

Management

Mammoth Cave National Park

Mammoth Cave, KY 42259

Phone: (502) 758-2238

Chief, Science & Research Mgmt:

Jeff Bradybaugh

National Capital Region

Conservation Data Center

District of Columbia Natural

Heritage Program

13025 Riley’s Lock Road

Poolesville, MD 20837

Phone: (301) 427-1354 

Fax: (301) 427-1355

Resource Biologist: Olin Allen

National Forest Data Centers

National Forest in Florida

Department of Agriculture

227 N. Bronough Street, Suite 4016

Tallahassee, FL 32301

Phone: (904) 681-7329 

Fax: (904) 681-7144

Coordinator: Guy Anglin

National Forest in North Carolina

P.O. Box 2750

Asheville, NC 28802

Phone: (704) 257-4810

Forest Botanist: Steve Simon

Ouachita National Forest

P.O. Box 1270

Hot Springs, AR 71902

Phone: (501) 321-5323

Virginia Coast Reserve

The Nature Conservancy

P.O. Box 158

Brownsville Road

Nassawadox, VA 23413

Phone: (804) 442-3049 

Fax: (804) 442-5418

Director: John M. Hall

A-20

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page A-20
B-1

Glossary of Terms

Appendix B

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page B-1
GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Biodiversity: The number and variety of different species that populate a given place and contribute to the balance

of ecological forces.

Biological Stressors: Organisms that are introduced (intentionally or accidentally) to habitats in which they do not

evolve naturally. Examples include gypsy moths, certain tree diseases, certain types of algae, and some bacteria.

Chemical Stressors: Chemicals released to the environment through industrial waste, auto emissions, pesticides,

and other human activity. These chemicals can cause illnesses and even death in plants and animals.

Consumers: Organisms such as people, other mammals, birds, and reptiles that take energy and materials from

producers (plants) through the food web.

Decomposers: Microscopic organisms that break down matter such as fallen trees and dead animals into basic

chemicals such as carbon dioxide, oxygen, water, and minerals.

Ecosystem: A community of plants and animals (including people) interacting with each other and their physical

environment. Ecosystems include places as diverse as urban parks, wetland areas, lakes, prairie potholes, and

major forests.

Food Web: The set of feeding relationships by which energy and materials are transferred from one species to

another.

Ground Water: Underground water, often pumped and used for drinking, irrigation, and other purposes.

Habitat: The environment that supports plant or animal species. Examples include terrestrial (land) habitats such

as forests and marine (ocean) environments.

Nutrients: Basic elements that plants and animals need to survive, including carbon, nitrogen, calcium, oxygen,

phosphorus, sulfur, and magnesium.

Photosynthesis: The process by which plants combine sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide to make carbohydrates,

proteins, and sugars necessary for all life.

Physical Stressors: Activities that directly remove or alter habitat, including logging, road construction, and land

development.

Producers: Plants that perform photosynthesis and provide food to consumers.

Stressors: Man-made factors that can undermine the proper functioning of ecosystems.

Surface Water: Ground-level water bodies such as rivers, lakes, reservoirs, bays, and oceans.

Watershed: An area where rain and other water drains to a common location such as a river or lake.

Wetlands: Areas between land-based and surface-water ecosystems, including swamps, bogs, and marshes.

Wetlands help control floods, filter pollutants, and serve as spawning and nursery areas for fish.

B-2

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page B-2
C-

Understanding Ecosystems —

An Ecosystem Primer

Appendix C

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page C-1
Understanding Ecosystems —

An Ecosystem Primer

Appendix C

From urban settings to rural land, the landscape is alive with the beauty and detail of nature.

The ecosystems that you see support you with resources (timber, water, components of pharmaceuticals, and food, just to name a few) and services (water purification and erosion control, for example), making your survival possible and your life more enjoyable. While anyone can enjoy ecosystems for their resource value or essential beauty, knowledge of their

underlying complexity yields a deeper appreciation for them. Being successful in protecting

this life support system means understanding how ecosystems work and how they can be

threatened. This appendix provides some basic information to help you succeed. Appendix

B provides a glossary of ecosystem terms used in this appendix.

What Is An Ecosystem?

An ecosystem is a community of animals and plants interacting with one another and with

their physical environment. Ecosystems include physical and chemical components, such as

soils, water, and nutrients, that support the organisms living there. These organisms may

range from large animals to microscopic bacteria. Ecosystems also can be thought of as the

interactions between all organisms in a given habitat; for instance, one species may serve as

food for another.

People are part of the ecosystems where they live and work. Human activities can harm or

destroy local ecosystems unless actions such as land development for housing or businesses

are carefully planned to conserve and sustain the ecology of the area. An important part of

ecosystem management involves finding ways to protect and enhance economic and social

well-being while protecting local ecosystems.

Ecosystem Structure and Function

Most ecosystems consist of four basic components: producers, consumers, decomposers, and

non-living matter. Most producers are green plants that use light energy from the sun, carbon dioxide, and water to make simple sugars. These sugars are the building blocks for the

other complex molecules necessary for life.

Consumers are organisms that consume producers (plants). Consumers include humans,

other mammals, birds, fish, and insects. When consumers eat producers or other consumers, they break down, store, and use the food through the processes of digestion and

respiration. When an animal eats a plant or another animal, it is obtaining not only the

matter contained in that food source, but also the energy stored there. Producers also

absorb mineral nutrients from soil and water. Animals that consume lower level plants or

animals obtain the nutrients necessary for growing and reproducing. When plants and

animals die or release organic material to the environment (for example, when leaves fall

C-2

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page C-2
C-3

—

from trees), bacteria and fungi in the soil decompose this material and return its

original mineral components to the soil.

A “food web” or a “food chain” is one way, then, of describing how plants and animals

interact in an ecosystem. An ecosystem also is described by cycles of component materials — minerals, energy or heat, carbon — that result in the interdependence of humans,

other animals, plants, and the environment.

A variety of environmental problems result when the cycles are disrupted. For

instance, farming and forestry operations can significantly deplete nutrients (nitrogen,

phosphorus) in soil. Likewise, rain and soil erosion can wash nutrients away.

In the case of threatened and endangered plants or animals, loss of even a few individuals is significant, because the species is at or near the point of no return. When the

population of a given plant or animal species dwindles, food chains may be broken

and biodiversity is lost.

Types of Ecosystems

Living organisms interact with their environment to create many varieties of ecosystems. Understanding the different types of ecosystems helps to identify aspects of the

local environment that need protection.

Some major types of natural ecosystems include the following:

n Surface Water Ecosystems — These include rivers, lakes, reservoirs, ponds,

and bays. These aquatic environments support fish and other organisms such

as worms, crustaceans, aquatic plants, and microscopic organisms.

n Estuaries — Estuaries are coastal areas where freshwater drains from the land

and mixes with ocean saltwater in swamps, marshes, lakes, and bays.

Examples include the Mississippi Delta, Chesapeake Bay, and San Francisco

Bay. Estuaries are biologically diverse and provide spawning and nursery

grounds for the majority of the nation’s fisheries.

n Wetlands — Wetlands are transitional areas between land-based and aquatic

ecosystems where ground water is at or near the surface or the land is covered

by shallow water. This definition would include swamps, bogs, marshes, and

a variety of other wet environments. Whether coastal (such as salt marshes)

or inland (such as fresh water), wetlands are critical to water flow control,

water supply, water quality, and wildlife habitat.

n Forests — Forests are ecosystems dominated by large woody plants, particularly trees. In North America, forests are home to wildlife as diverse as bear,

moose, deer, rabbits, birds, toads, and worms.

n Grasslands — Grasslands cover much of the plains of the central and western

United States and represent important feeding areas for wild animals and

domestic livestock.

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page C-3
n Deserts — Deserts are arid regions that support a unique system of plants

(such as cacti), mammals, reptiles, and birds.

Sometimes local ecosystems will be part of a last remaining area that has many of its

original and natural attributes. In other cases, ecosystems will be heavily influenced

by humans. For example, a city is an urban area that combines elements of the

“green” environment (such as parks) with the “built” environment (such as houses,

skyscrapers, and roads). Cities are different from natural ecosystems because they

need large imports of energy, water, and other materials; that is, they are not self-sustaining. Likewise, agricultural land, while cleared and planted by humans, must retain

certain natural features (such as healthy topsoil) to be productive and may be bordered

or interspersed with wooded or wetland habitat.

It may be difficult for a community to identify its ecosystems because:

n The physical boundaries of ecosystems don’t always coincide with a community’s political boundaries or developed area.

n The natural range for species of concern may move beyond one ecosystem.

For example, songbirds that nest in your backyard may have a migratory

range of thousands of miles.

n “Natural” ecosystem boundaries (where one ecosystem begins and the next

one ends) are often not easily identified.

n Human activities that harm an ecosystem are sometimes located far from that

ecosystem. For example, air pollutants from power plants in the Midwest

may travel hundreds of miles and contribute to acid rain in the Northeast.

A specific community’s environment may contain several ecosystems. Both the relationships of components within ecosystems (such as water, plants, and animals) and

the interactions among neighboring ecosystems are important. Communities concerned with ecosystem protection often consider both man-made and natural boundaries, including geographic and political boundaries of the neighborhood, village, or

city. A community that manages the area in which it lives can be said to be taking a

“place-based” approach to protecting its environment. A community that takes it one

step further and looks toward managing the ecological structure and integrity of the

place around it is taking an ecosystems approach.

Ecosystem Stress

Both natural and man-made factors can put the structure and healthy function of

ecosystems under stress. Scientists refer to these influences collectively as “stressors”.

Even healthy ecosystems change over time. Ecologists refer to a process of ecosystem change as “ecological succession”. There are gradual successions where the

aging of soils or changes in regional climate make the landscape inhospitable to some

species but appropriate for others. Succession can also result from sudden, drastic

change. For instance, soon after a forest fire, shoots of pioneering grasses and wildflowers sprout from the charred earth. Within a year or so, bushes begin to replace

the pioneers. Over time, the first wave of trees becomes higher than the shrub layer

and shades out some of the shrubs. Finally, decades after the fire has occurred, a forC-4

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page C-4
C-5

est community emerges that is virtually indistinguishable from nearby areas not affected by the fire.

Ecosystems may be able to absorb many natural processes such as forest fires and

floods because these events usually occur infrequently or at a low level of intensity.

Indeed, efforts to protect ecosystems from these natural processes have recently been

found to be damaging rather than helpful. For example, preventing small, periodic

forest fires can lead to a buildup of debris on the forest floor that fuels major, destructive fires. In fact, the smaller fires sometimes have a specific ecological purpose, as

with Scotch Pines that require heat to drop their seeds.

In contrast, an ecosystem is less able to recover from stresses induced by humans

when those stresses are constantly applied or occur at high levels of intensity.

Human activity also may cause novel stresses that ecosystem processes are not adapted to handle, such as spills of synthetic chemicals that do not degrade over time. The

ecosystem may have insufficient time to recover or adapt to the rapid changes

imposed by human activities.

This section briefly reviews the types of ecosystem stressors — physical, biological,

and chemical — and the problems they can cause. 

n Physical Stressors — Physical stressors include changes that remove or alter

habitat. For instance, erosion of topsoil that results from land disturbance can

result in loss of habitat for vegetation on land and accumulation of sediment

in streams and lakes. In addition, physical stressors can undermine ecosystems by fragmenting habitats. Physical disturbance — such as the excessive

destruction of nesting habitat for birds or the alteration of in-stream fish habitat such as swift water, pools, and rapids — can result in major losses of these

organisms. Wildlife that need more space or access to multiple areas (such as

lakes and forests) will disappear.

Because the sources of physical stress tend to be visible and well known in

the community (for example, land development), they are often the object of

community-based ecosystem protection efforts. However, obvious physical

stressors are often not the only influences on the ecosystem.

n Biological Stressors — Biological stressors are organisms or microorganisms

that are introduced (released), intentionally or accidentally, to habitats in

which they did not evolve naturally. These organisms are often called

“exotics”, because they did not occur naturally along with the native plants or

animals. They may be difficult to control if they reproduce rapidly in the new

environment. Examples include infestations of insects such as the gypsy

moth, plants such as kudzu, and tree diseases such as chestnut blight.

Biological stressors become a concern when they compete against native

species, replace them, and become pests. The result often can be loss of habitat or disruption of established food chains.

The bacteria, parasites, and viruses that occur in human sewage and animal

waste are common biological stressors. These microscopic organisms are

released to the environment by sewage treatment plants, farm runoff, or other

means. The result can be contaminated drinking wells that cause illness in

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page C-5
humans or contamination of rivers

and lakes, sometimes resulting in

fish kills and waterfowl deaths.

n Chemical Stressors —

Technology and industrialization

have resulted in the introduction

of increasing quantities of chemicals into the environment.

Chemical stressors include hazardous waste, industrial chemicals, pesticides, and fertilizers.

Depending on the physical and

chemical properties of contaminants, they can be incorporated

into the cycles of the atmosphere, soil, and water, where

plants and animals become

exposed. Chemical stressors can

hurt individual organisms in a

variety of ways, ranging from

rapid death to non-lethal effects

(such as impairment of reproductive capability).

Table C-1 provides several examples

of stressors and their impacts.

Ecosystems Provide Key Services

Ecosystems Make the Human Environment Livable

One function of ecosystems can be described as “infrastructure services”. This refers

to the ways that ecosystems, when properly functioning, can make the human environment more habitable. These services include the following:

n Water Supply — Ecosystems provide fresh water for household uses (such as

drinking and bathing) and for agricultural and industrial uses. Surface water

sources (such as lakes, reservoirs, and rivers) and underground water sources

both play a vital role in the maintenance of human and animal life.

n Control of Water Movement — Wetlands control floods, serving as a sponge

that absorbs water from heavy rains or snowmelt. Similarly, coastal dune systems and wetlands help protect against storms, absorbing the effect of waves

and other storm surges. This storm protection limits flooding and reduces

erosion of coastal areas. The salt marshes and barrier islands from Cape Cod

to Florida, the delta system of Louisiana, and the mangroves of the Florida

keys are all examples of coastal wetlands that provide protective services.

n Erosion Control — Soil is held in place by the root systems of trees, grasses,

and other vegetation, preventing erosion by rain, wind, and waves. All terresC-6

Ecological Society of America, The

Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management -

An Assessment by the ESA, Washington, DC,

1995, e-mail: esahq@esa.org. Developed by

a committee of ecologists, this document

defines ecosystem management and explains

how ecological science can be applied to improve ecosystem

management.

Freedman, Bill, Environmental Ecology: The Ecological Effects

of Pollution, Disturbance, and Other Stresses, Academic Press,

San Diego, CA, ISBN 0-12-266542-2, 1995. This environmental science text provides a detailed explanation of the ecological

effects of human activity, with chapters on air pollution, acidification, forest declines, oil pollution, eutrophication, pesticides,

and other topics.

Miller, G. Tyler, Living in the Environment, Wadsworth

Publishing, Belmont, CA, ISBN 0-534-00684-1, 1979.

Noss, R.F. and A.Y. Cooperrider, Saving Nature’s Legacy:

Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity, Defenders of Wildlife,

Island Press, Washington, DC 20009, ISBN 1-55963-248-8,

1994.

To Learn

More

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page C-6
C-7

trial plants, especially healthy forest and grassland ecosystems, promote soil

formation, enrichment, and stabilization. Soil erosion can lead to increased

sedimentation of streams, rivers, and lakes, which can harm or destroy aquatic

habitats, such as trout streams, oyster beds, or salmon spawning grounds.

Sedimentation also can impair water transportation, possibly requiring dredging or other expensive measures to correct the problem.

n Pollution Control — Soil and plant life are essential to the storage and

control of toxics in the environment. For example, wetlands and soil

ecosystems in rural areas are the first line of defense against pesticide runoff,

breaking organic contaminants down before they reach sensitive areas and

slowing the movement of inorganic pollutants. Organisms in water can break

down sewage, oil, and other pollutants. Vegetation also plays a role in reducing air pollution. Trees can trap dust and dirt particles that transport pollutants. Their leaves also absorb gases like ozone and sulfur dioxide. Of

course, ecosystems’ ability to absorb pollutants is limited; humans must also

control the release of pollutants to the environment.

n Local Climate Control — Trees and shrubs, particularly in densely forested

areas, can affect local climate. They absorb and give off water to the atmosphere. Removing trees can make affected areas drier and hotter. In addition,

trees cool by shading. Finally, trees and plants absorb carbon dioxide and

release the oxygen needed by most living things.

Ecosystems Influence a Community’s Economic and Social Well-Being

Ecosystems play a major role in economic life as well as the community’s social wellHow Ecosystems Are Affected

Loss of topsoil; siltation of rivers and

lakes

Decline in animal abundance and diversity

Crowding out of native species in affected

surface waters

Illness in humans through drinking water;

fish kills, waterfowl deaths

Eutrophication of surface water

Contamination of air, water, and soil;

health and reproductive effects in humans

and wildlife

Stressor

Category

Physical

Biological

Chemical 

Stressor

Erosion

Habitat removal

and fragmentation

Zebra mussels

Bacteria, 

parasites

Nutrients 

Toxic Chemicals

Sources

Logging, agriculture, surface

mining, construction

Residential and commercial

development, logging

Transported on hulls of foreign

ships and spread by small boats

Human sewage,

animal waste

Fertilizers, animal waste

Automobiles, factories,

pesticides

EXAMPLES OF STRESSORS

Table C-1 

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page C-7
C-8

being. See Chapter 3 of this resource book for a detailed discussion of how ecosystems affect local economies and the quality of life. 

Ecosystems Are Needed by Other Species

Humans are only one member of the ecosystem. Every ecosystem also includes a

multitude of other plants and animals. Some species depend on more than one habitat. This is most obvious with amphibians and migratory birds. Frogs and salamanders develop in the water but spend much of their adult lives on land. A wood duck

may winter in the Everglades, feed and rest in a Virginia pond, and nest in an upstate

New York swamp. The survival of such species is dependent on the availability and

environmental condition of all the required habitats — at the right time and place.

Other species’ reliance on local ecosystems is important when evaluating the benefits

these ecosystems provide your community.

REFERENCES

Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program (BTNEP), Estuary Facts, 1995.

Barth, S., et al., Exploring the Theory and Application of Ecosystem Management,

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 1994. 

Cairns, J., Jr. and B.R. Niederlehner, Estimating the Effects of Toxicants on Ecosystem

Service, Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 102, Number 11, pp. 936-939.

Ecological Society of America, The Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management - An

Assessment by the ESA, Washington, DC, 1995.

Horwitz, Elinor L., Our Nation’s Wetlands, Council on Environmental Quality,

Washington, DC, 1978.

Kusler, Jon A., Our National Wetland Heritage: A Protection Guidebook,

Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC, 1983.

Spurr, Stephen H. and Burton Barnes, Forest Ecology, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 0-

471-04732-5, 1980.

Terrene Institute, Handle with Care: Your Guide to Preventing Water Pollution,

Washington, DC, 1991.

University of Colorado, Natural Resources Law Center, The Watershed Source Book:

Watershed Based Solutions to Natural Resource Problems, no date.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cooling and Communities, Washington DC,

1992.

Vance, Tamara A. and Arthur B. Larson, Fiscal Impact of Major Land Uses in

Culpeper County, Virginia, Piedmont Environmental Council, 1988.

Fnlappen.qxd 9/13/00 3:01 PM Page C-8
CoverREV.QXD 9/13/00 2:55 PM Page 2
CoverREV.QXD 9/13/00 2:55 PM Page 3