NATURAL RESOURCES

MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION

TASK FORCE REPORT

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL

ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The views expressed in this report are those of the Task Force members and were not the subject of

endorsement by

the full Council. Many of the federal officials who serve on the Council also serve on the Council’s Task Forces

and participated actively in developing the Task Force’s recommendations, but those recommendations do not

necessarily

reflect Administration policy.
PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK-FORCE-REPORT-ON-NATURAL RESOURCES

To obtain copies of this Report, please contact:

President’s Council on Sustainable Development

730 Jackson Place, NW

Washington, D.C. 20503

1-800-363-3732

(202) 408-5296

Website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/PCSD
TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP

CO-CHAIRS

Richard Barth, Chairman, President, and CEO, Ciba-Geigy Corporation

James R. Lyons, Undersecretary for Natural Resources and the Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Theodore Strong, Executive Director, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

MEMBERS

Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior

James Baker, Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

Carol Browner, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

A.D. Correll, Chairman and CEO, Georgia-Pacific Corporation

Fred D. Krupp, Executive Director, Environmental Defense Fund

Michele Perrault, International Vice President, Sierra Club

John C. Sawhill, President and CEO, The Nature Conservancy
PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK-FORCE-REPORT-ON-NATURAL RESOURCES
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

CHAPTER 1: TASK FORCE APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The Role of the Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Workshops and Case Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

The Water Science and Technology Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Natural Resource Accounting Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

CHAPTER 2: FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Workshop and Case Study Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Water Science and Technology Board Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Natural Resource Accounting Study Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

CHAPTER 3: POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Soil, Air, and Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Accounting for Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Sustainable Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Restore American Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Incentives for Conservation of Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Integrated Land Use Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Integrate Sustainable Design Principles Into Land Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Partnerships for Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Improve Natural Resource Decisionmaking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Finding Consensus Between Stakeholders and the Federal Government . . . . . . 50

Community-Based Multi-Stakeholder Collaborative Watershed Approaches . . . . 52

ENDNOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

APPENDICES

A: Task Force Members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

B: Task Force Meetings and Workshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

C: Eastern Regional Team Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

D: Western Regional Team Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

E: Report of the Water Science and Technology Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

F: Natural Resource Accounting Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

G: President’s Council on Sustainable Development Members . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
CHAPTER 3

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

i

PREFACE

This Task Force report is one of seven prepared for the President’s Council on

Sustainable Development. The Council was established by President Clinton

through Executive Order No. 12852 on June 29, 1993, to:

l Make recommendations to the President to advance sustainable

development, including a national sustainable development action

strategy.

l Expand public awareness of the challenges inherent in moving toward

sustainability, including the need to manage the nation’s natural

resources carefully.

l Institute a Presidential Honors Program recognizing exemplary efforts

that advance sustainable development.

Members of the Council are leaders in industry; the federal government; and

environmental, labor, and civil rights organizations.

Shared responsibility for success was a hallmark of the eight task forces

organized by the Council. Their purpose was to provide advice to the Council

in major issue areas, spur dialogue, and involve the public. The work of the

task forces culminated in policy recommendations for consideration by the full

Council. Individual Council members served on the various task forces,

together with a network of several hundred professionals from throughout the

country.

The eight task forces were: Eco-Efficiency; Energy and Transportation; Natural

Resources Management and Protection; Population and Consumption;

Principles, Goals, and Definition; Public Linkage, Dialogue, and Education;

Sustainable Agriculture; and Sustainable Communities. Each developed a

workplan responding to the challenges posed by the respective sets of issues

and developed recommendations through workshops, demonstration projects,

case studies, regional roundtables, public comment, and other methods.

The task force reports serve as a record of each task force’s deliberations and

contributions to the Council’s deliberations. This report is intended to illustrate

the lessons learned and advice prepared for the Council’s consideration by the

Natural Resources Task Force; it is also intended to stay true to the voices of

the various participants in the task force process. The data and descriptions in

this report reflect the circumstances that prevailed at the time when the

document was written. Because there was a considerable time lag between

the writing of this report and its publication, some of the information and

statistics contained herein are somewhat dated, and, in some cases, the facts

reported have been overtaken by subsequent events.
CHAPTER 3

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Chartered by the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) in

1994, the Natural Resources Task Force was charged with developing a vision

of sustainable management of renewable natural resources in the United

States and with making policy recommendations that will help the nation

realize that vision. To fulfill its task, the Task Force regional teams convened

16 workshops across the country, all focused on grassroots successes,

experiences, and perspectives on sustainable use of natural resources.

Based on these workshops, Task Force discussions, findings from reports

prepared for the Task Force by the National Academy of Sciences’s Water

Science and Technology Board and by the University of Maryland’s Center for

Environmental and Estuarine Studies, and the Bruntland Commission

definition of sustainable development (“development that meets the needs of

the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their

own needs”), the Task Force identified six major themes regarding sustainable

natural resource management:

l Despite progress, unsustainable natural resource management

policies and practices persist.

l To ensure sustainability, economic and social values need to be

balanced against the protection of natural resources.

l By bringing stakeholders together to seek and act on their common

interests, community conflicts regarding natural resource management

can be resolved.

l The burdens placed on natural resources by rapid population growth

mean that human life style choices are an important input to effective

natural resource management.

l Natural resource management by social and legal systems organized

by national, state, county, and municipal boundaries unknowingly

promotes community conflict through the creation of a regulatory

morass.

l Natural systems-based approaches provide a useful framework for

natural resource management and conflict resolution.

These themes comprise the principles upon which the Task Force formulated

its vision of sustainable natural resource management and the policies it

recommends for realizing this vision. The Task Force sees the goal of

sustainable development as preserving and enhancing the natural systems

upon which humans depend for their economic and social well-being. Meeting

this goal means ensuring that human pressures do not exceed each system’s

limited capacity to sustain itself. The policies recommended by the Task Force
PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

iii

are directed toward better management of specific resources (air, water, soil,

forests, fisheries, and biodiversity, among others) and the utilization of more

effective management tools and techniques. Specifically, these policy

recommendations are:

1. Soil, Air, and Water Quality. Revitalize the country’s collective efforts

to secure healthy, high-quality air and water resources and productive

soil—not only for ourselves, but also for our children and their children.

2. Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment. Integrate existing

federal, tribal, and state natural resource inventories and assessments

through the development and use of compatible standards, methods,

and protocols.

3. Accounting for Natural Resources. Link natural resource conditions

and trends to national income accounts and to economic assessments

and analyses. Develop a set of indicators based on the above linkages

that assess the flows, conditions, and trends of natural resource

stocks.

4. Sustainable Forests. Convene a National Forestry Advisory Council

comprised of a representative balance of stakeholders to define and

help achieve sustainable management of forests on a national basis by

the year 2000.

5. Restore American Fisheries. Eliminate over-fishing and rebuild

depleted stocks in U.S. waters; adopt the precautionary principle in

decisionmaking—in the face of scientific uncertainty, err on the side of

resource conservation.

6. Incentives for Conservation of Natural Resources. Create and

promote incentives at all levels of government that will support the selfinterest of corporations, property owners, and resource users to

embrace conservation of natural resources and enlist their knowledge

and skills to work on its behalf.

7. Integrated Land Use Planning. Encourage local governments to

engage their citizens in forging and implementing a vision that

conserves natural resources for their communities.

8. Integrate Sustainable Design Principles Into Land Development.

Initiate a major collaborative public-private effort to integrate sustainable

design principles into all aspects of land development to secure

environmental benefits and mitigate impacts for people and their

communities.

9. Partnerships for Conservation. Create conservation areas through

public-private partnerships at the local level.

10. Improve Natural Resource Decisionmaking. Deploy the resources

of government to improve natural resource decisionmaking, ensuring

that it is well-coordinated; based on high-quality information; and
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

iv

integrated with respect to social, economic, and environmental

aspects.

11. Finding Consensus Between Stakeholders and the Federal

Government. Empower the federal government to play a more active

role in building consensus on difficult issues.

12. Community-Based Multi-Stakeholder Collaborative Watershed

Approaches. Employ voluntary community-based multi-stakeholder

collaborative approaches to protect, restore, and monitor watersheds

and to resolve natural resource conflicts.

In performing its work, the Task Force used the organizing framework of

watersheds. Watersheds provide an excellent frame of reference for gauging

the impact of human pressure because:

l They provide natural boundaries for all the social and economic

activities that take place within them.

l They offer a broad spatial and temporal perspective for assessing the

impact of human activities on natural systems.

l For humans, they are the confluence of cultural, aesthetic, spiritual,

and economic values.

For these reasons, the Task Force felt that by understanding how sustainability

concepts apply to watersheds, it would discover a powerful model for moving

the nation toward a more sustainable future.

Natural resource management on the scale of watersheds will create new

challenges and opportunities. One challenge is improving processes for

resolving conflicts over various uses of natural resources. Another is

overcoming long-standing institutional barriers to coherent management of

these resources. Different components of individual watersheds are usually

administered by various agencies and usually transcend state boundaries,

making the politics and consensus building required for decisionmaking as

complicated as the management of the ecosystems themselves.

Careful management of natural resources is a critical component of

sustainable development. Such management must recognize the limited

capacity of natural systems and the present generation’s obligation to maintain

these systems for future generations. It should be based on precise and

periodic assessments of the condition of natural resources. It should respect

the values of all stakeholders. Finally, it should equitably balance competing

uses of these resources through processes that encourage public

participation, cooperation, and collaboration.
1

INTRODUCTION

As a nation, as individual communities, we are blessed with an abundance of

natural resources that provide the basis for life. Actions that impair the ability of

natural systems to purify water and air, maintain and build soils, provide

nurturing habitats for aquatic and terrestrial species, and maintain the diversity

of life attack the very foundation of support for the human community over

time.

For a community to sustain itself, it must have the requisites of life, including

clean air and water, productive soils, and a sustainable economic base. Thus,

a healthy economy and a healthy community are fundamentally and irrevocably

dependent on the health of the natural environment. To ensure sustainability,

policies that ensure a healthy economy and healthy communities must be

balanced against policies that ensure the protection of natural resource

systems.

Geophysical features in watersheds such as lakes, rivers, mountains, or

forests often are a source of pride and the central focus for people, their

communities, and their activities including employment, recreation, and

spiritual renewal. As cradles of civilization, watersheds have played a pivotal

role in the development of human species—the great cultures of the world

today revolve around many unique, complicated, and beautiful watersheds.

And, throughout human history, people have sought to fulfill their basic physical

needs by residing near water sources. Watersheds are living records of the

cultural, aesthetic, and spiritual values that people have invested in them over

the course of human history. They are an important link with the past and

potentially bountiful legacy to the future.

In performing its work, the Task Force looked to and relied on the organizing

concept of the watershed in analyzing its research and developing its

recommendations.

GOALS AND ASPIRATIONS

In the course of the activities and research conducted by the Natural

Resources Management and Protection Task Force of the President’s Council

on Sustainable Development, we heard from people all across the country.

They articulated a primary ethic that the way we manage our natural resources

will determine the quality of the air we breathe, what we eat, and the vitality of

our economy. People said that sustainability is a fundamental part of this

ethic—an understanding that what we do today should not compromise the

options available for future generations. They told us that sustainability for

natural resources implies high standards of environmental care, productive

functioning of ecosystems, maintaining the viability and diversity of species,

use of natural resources for economic benefits, and sharing our natural
resource endowment widely and equitably.

People spoke with deep frustration regarding today’s tenacious—but failing—

natural resource strategies. However, they spoke with a great sense of hope

as they recognized the importance of seizing opportunities to experiment.

People spoke of a need for improved societal dialogue to discover what has

been lost in the public rhetoric surrounding our environment. They told us of

their struggles to find less acrimonious ways to resolve conflicts revolving

around the multiple use demands we place on natural resources.

People recognized that we all depend on natural resources for our social and

economic well-being. The participants in our various workshops were very

appreciative of the opportunity to help forge a new understanding of the role of

natural resources in sustainability. They were eager to help catalyze coherent,

purposeful action moving the United States toward sustainability in its use and

management of natural resources in the 21st century.

Each workshop participant told a different story about his or her own

community’s unique problems, perspectives, and opportunities. Collectively,

the stories they told about people and natural resources had a remarkable

commonality that seemed to resonate deeply with participants all across the

country. It became apparent to us that, as a nation, we are struggling to build a

conservation ethic—a shared vision and set of aspirations about stewardship

of natural resources—and an understanding of our relationship to the Earth

and the natural resources upon which we depend. The following points were

made during the Task Force workshops.

l Watershed integrity. Every watershed is different; the mix of its

attributes varies. But essential qualities of health for every watershed

include rivers and streams of good quality with sufficient in-stream

water to sustain natural resources and processes, productive riparian

areas, healthy and diverse populations of fish and wildlife, and complex

and interconnected habitats and ecological communities. People

recognized the need to protect and restore watersheds and the

functions of their aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, processes, and

biodiversity because they are crucial to our continued social and

economic well-being.

l Air, water, and soil. People pointed out that we are not fully meeting

standards for air, water, and soil quality and that we need to do so as

quickly as possible because we all have a stake in so doing: We

experience the adverse effects of deteriorated quality, and we all enjoy

the benefits of healthy air, water, and soil.

l Forests and rangelands. People attested to the rich abundance and

variety of benefits arising from our nation’s forests, prairies, and

rangelands and declared the importance of managing, conserving, or

protecting all U.S. forests, prairies, and rangelands to meet the social,
INTRODUCTION

3

economic, environmental, cultural, and spiritual needs of present and

future generations.

l Fisheries. People recognized that many fisheries have been

overexploited and are collapsing, causing loss of jobs and detrimental

effects to industries and communities. People asserted that we must

restore freshwater, marine, and anadromous fisheries to a selfsustaining condition to meet both our present needs and those of the

future.

l Coastal and inland water ecosystems. People affirmed the benefits

of conserving and restoring healthy coastal and inland water

ecosystems and pointed out the importance of ensuring that economic

development is managed in ways that maintain or enhance biodiversity

and long-term ecosystem health and productivity.

l Information for natural resource decisions. Because natural

resources are crucial to our social, economic, and environmental wellbeing, people said that it was of utmost importance that all natural

resource decisions be based on science and high-quality information.

They said that this science and information needs to be credible, easily

understandable, and sufficient to serve as a basis for an integrated

understanding of the social, economic, and environmental effects of

decisions over time and space. Such information should be readily

accessible for use by citizens, corporations, nongovernmental

organizations, and government agencies at all levels.

l Improving governance for natural resources. People told us that

natural systems know no administrative boundaries. Workshop

participants were unanimous in telling us that natural resource policies

and programs, as well as all other policies and programs that affect

natural resources, within and among governments at all levels—

federal, state, tribal, and local—should be coherent and

well-coordinated. They told us that such policies and programs should

be based on full public participation and focused on meeting the needs

of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to

meet their own needs. They also told us that there were legal and

regulatory impediments to meeting this goal and that these

impediments should be identified and rectified.

l Resolving natural resource conflicts. People said that we all need

to change the way in which we resolve natural resource conflicts. They

said that collaborative approaches involving communities and multiple

stakeholders within the framework of watersheds, ecosystems,

bioregions, or other defining land-forms should be a primary

mechanism used in the United States to balance the social, economic,

and environmental uses of natural resources and resolve associated

conflicts.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Communities, individuals, and families, as well as governments, corporations,

and nongovernmental organizations, all have important roles to play in our

quest for sustainability—and particularly in securing the health of the

watersheds in which we live. From the workshops and research that made up

our process of discovery, we have attempted to articulate a vision of

sustainability consistent with the richness and depth of the presentations and

opinions we heard all across the country. We have synthesized this material to

develop conclusions about the essential roles and responsibilities arising from

human actions in concert with the processes of nature.

l Role of individuals. Individuals as citizens or members of business

enterprises who live or operate in watersheds have a responsibility to

the area and its natural resources. Ideally, individuals should know their

watershed, be aware of its condition, and understand the essential links

between the health of the watershed and the long-term interest for

future generations of the community. They should respect the views of

others on the uses of the watershed and participate actively in the

planning, care, and monitoring of the watershed in a civil manner.

l Role of communities. Communities are challenged to protect and

enhance the values of natural resources in the watersheds in which

they reside as an essential part of their business. An important part of

this challenge is for communities to take responsibility for restoring

their watersheds to a healthy state and monitoring their condition over

time.

l Role of state and federal governments. State and federal

governments have two primary responsibilities relating to watershed

planning and management: (1) they implement laws and regulations,

and (2) they manage public lands under their jurisdiction. Ideally, state

and federal governments should facilitate community efforts to protect

watersheds by sharing data and providing technical resources and

funding. They should recognize an obligation to participate as

community or watershed stakeholders, particularly where they own or

manage land within the watershed. They should recognize an obligation

to coordinate multi-agency participation in watershed efforts. They

should advise communities of the legal and regulatory requirements

affecting watershed health and integrate local watershed efforts into

broader regional initiatives.

l Role of tribal governments. Because of their culture, history, and

status as sovereign entities, tribal governments can offer unique

perspectives and authorities in watershed planning for sustainability.

Tribal governments can provide perspectives and tribal management

models and take an active role in watershed health efforts particularly in

the protection of fish, wildlife, and plant resources.
5

CHAPTER 1

TASK FORCE APPROACH

The President’s Council chartered a Natural Resources Management and

Protection Task Force to develop an integrated vision of what constitutes

sustainability for domestic natural resources, considering biodiversity,

ecosystems, and watersheds with a focus on issues in the areas of wetlands,

fisheries, coastal resources, and forestry. The Task Force was charged with:

l identifying barriers to sustainability,

l developing a vision, and

l making recommendations that would help move the country toward

sustainable management and protection of natural resources.

The Task Force designed and implemented an innovative workplan, aimed at

obtaining both theoretical and practical information on natural resources

management and protection issues and experiences. Specifically, it:

l provided a substantial number of opportunities all across the country

for receiving citizen testimony through workshops, case studies, and

regional team activities; and

l commissioned academic reports by leading scientists.

The information obtained through these activities was discussed, analyzed,

and synthesized; the results of this analysis are documented in the next

chapter of this report (“Findings”) and codified as policy recommendations in

chapter 3.

THE ROLE OF THE WATERSHED

Individual natural resource issues cannot be neatly divorced from natural

resource systems. For example, while air quality is compromised by fire,

prescribed burning is a critical tool in land management. It is therefore useful to

take a systemic approach in discussing and analyzing natural resource

management.

In performing its work, the Task Force looked to and relied on the organizing

concept of the watershed.

A watershed is more than a physical landscape that is defined by its

ridges with one outlet for water to flow. A watershed supports a variety

of resources, uses, activities, and values, where everything is linked in

such a way that eventually all things are affected by everything else in

the watershed. Perhaps more importantly, a watershed contains the

history of all that went before, and the spirits of those who touched it remain.
—Definition developed through work with children by George Wingate, Bureau of Land

Management, in Adopt a Watershed Program, Lake Tahoe meeting, October 4-6, 1994

The Task Force used watersheds as a primary organizing principle for several

reasons, including the following:

l Water is an essential element to all life.

l Watersheds provide policymakers with a robust conceptual tool in

grappling with vexing environmental issues.

l People attach cultural, aesthetic, and economic value to healthy

watersheds.

The term “watershed” refers to a geographic area in which water, sediments,

and dissolved materials drain to a common outlet—a point on a larger stream,

a lake, an underlying aquifer, an estuary, or an ocean. As a geographical region

on the Earth’s surface, each watershed has a particular association and

pattern of vegetation cover, land uses, human and animal populations, and

economic activities. Watersheds provide a basic framework as the home of all

living things, and they provide a natural integration of all social and economic

activities that take place within them.

Watersheds provide policymakers with a useful framework within which to

identify comprehensive solutions to complicated environmental problems.

Watersheds are a basic geophysical unit with boundaries defined by

topographic features that dictate natural drainage patterns; for this reason,

watersheds provide a practical means for addressing ecosystem issues which

often do not have easily definable boundaries. Furthermore, watersheds are a

particularly robust conceptual tool for dealing with spatial issues—they come in

all sizes, with smaller watersheds sometimes nested within larger ones—and

temporal issues—changes over time in vegetation, communities, settlement

patterns, and industries are reflected in each watershed.

More importantly, watersheds force scientists and decisionmakers to account

for the fact that environmental processes and human activities in one location

may have far-reaching consequences downstream. The watershed approach

also provides policymakers and industry analysts with a useful framework in

which to apply natural resource accounting methods that measure the effect of

economic activity on communities and their natural resource base. Periodic

assessments of the condition of specified natural resources within a given

watershed will indicate whether a particular economic activity is compromising

the long-term sustainability of those resources and the communities that rely

upon them.

While many human activities that affect the environment seem disconnected,

considering their effects from the perspective of watersheds weaves them

together and often makes visible cause-and-effect relationships and long-term

implications. For example, construction practices designed to keep harmful
CHAPTER 1

TASK FORCE APPROACH

7

sediments from accumulating in rivers and lakes also help protect water

quality for drinking and swimming. Careful planning of a community’s

development along a lake or river waterfront can enhance property values,

increase merchants’ sales, and enhance people’s appreciation of the natural

environment—all the while protecting wildlife habitat. Watershed approaches

enable communities to see environmental and community growth issues

through a kaleidoscope rather than a microscope. They thus allow

communities to make better and more informed decisions.

WORKSHOPS AND CASE STUDIES

The primary input to the Task Force’s work was citizen testimony. Task Force

members heard presentations from hundreds of individuals including

representatives from corporations and associations, farmers, writers,

scientists, and academics. This information was gathered through 16 different

workshops (see appendix B for a complete list) and case studies

encompassing 40 states, through public comment and informal sessions, and

on an informal basis.

Much of the Task Force’s work was achieved through three regional teams—

Eastern, Midwestern, and Western (see appendix A for membership

lists)—each of which created its own agenda of watershed workshops and

case studies to reflect the unique geographic, cultural, and natural resource

diversity of its region. Departing from traditional methodologies, the Regional

Teams’ workplan process involved going into the communities of watershed

regions and listening to the stakeholders—those who live, work, recreate in, and

are committed to the well-being of the particular watershed.

Regional Team members listened to stories about what comprises sustainability,

what processes and policies are working, and what barriers exist in moving

toward sustainability within regional watersheds. The teams held workshops at

the following locations:

l Eastern Team

— Chesapeake Bay, Maryland

— Hudson River, New York

— St. Johns River, Florida

l Midwestern Team

— Baton Rouge, Louisiana

— Chicago, Illinois

— Des Moines, Iowa

— La Crosse, Wisconsin

l Western Team

— Bellevue, Washington

— Las Vegas, Nevada
— San Francisco, California

— Santa Fe, New Mexico

— Stateline, Nevada

— Willapa Bay, Washington

— Yakima, Washington

As noted above, the information gathered through these workshops was

discussed and synthesized by the Task Force as a whole as input to the

present report. Additionally, the teams developed some stand-alone regionally

based reports, as follows:

l The Eastern Regional Team organized a Hudson River Advisory Board

to develop a strategy for achieving sustainable development in the

Hudson River Valley. This board met several times to (1) develop a

vision for the Valley for the year 2045, (2) identify obstacles to achieving

that vision, and (3) make recommendations for overcoming the

obstacles. The resulting report is included in appendix C.

l A group assembled by the Eastern Regional Team prepared a case

study of Florida’s Lower St. Johns River Basin. This study looked at the

history and status of area natural resources, concerns about these

resources, and resource use in the basin and the problems and

solutions associated with this resource use. Policy recommendations

were developed based on this information. The group’s report is in

appendix C.

l The Eastern Regional Team prepared a report on a workshop

convened in the Chesapeake Bay. The workshop brought together

representatives of government agencies, environmental groups, and

industries to review efforts to preserve and restore the Chesapeake

Bay and consider how these efforts are related to the objective of

sustainable development. This report also appears in appendix C.

l The Midwestern Regional Team focused on an economics issue

relevant to natural resource policies; specifically, the team examined

the issue of how to use accounting methods to capture and express

natural resource conditions. To analyze this issue, the team contracted

with the University of Maryland’s Center for Environmental and

Estuarine Studies to prepare a report on natural resource accounting.

This report appears as appendix F.

l The Western Regional Team prepared a report detailing a vision of

natural resource management and recommendations for realizing this

vision. The report, which appears as appendix D, is based on five

workshops that convened representatives of environmental

organizations, business interests, citizen groups, government entities,

and private landowners in five watershed regions—the Puget Sound,

Columbia River, Lake Tahoe, Colorado River, and Rio Grande River

basins.
CHAPTER 1

TASK FORCE APPROACH

9

THE WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD

The Natural Resources Task Force also tapped the expertise of the National

Research Council/National Academy of Sciences. In response, the Water

Science and Technology Board of the National Academy of Sciences

convened a two-day meeting of 14 expert scientists from a range of disciplines

including geomorphology, wetlands ecology, aquatic biology, resource

economics, environmental law and policy, soil science, environmental

engineering, limnology, sociology, hydrology, restoration ecology, and water

chemistry. The objective of this meeting was to provide a better understanding

of watershed sustainability and develop a framework for assessing

sustainability and integration of human activities in watersheds based on a set

of scientifically defensible questions. Specifically, the participants generated a

series of questions (presented in chapter 2, “Findings”) that could be posed to

present and future federal, state, and local decisionmakers who face the

problem of sustaining ecological resources of watersheds under pressure

from human activities and management. The full meeting report is included in

appendix E.

Although the workshop participants were drawn from a wide range of

specialties, they used natural science and engineering perspectives as their

starting point. Social and behavioral sciences, humanities, and policy

perspectives were included as they related to the natural sciences. As a result,

some questions emerged that are best directed to the scientific community as

it attempts to provide guidance to decisionmakers.

The workshop identified the critical questions and, through discussions of

experts in a variety of specialties, offered some indications of the significance

of each question, along with avenues to investigate possible answers.

The workshop participants met only once; the proceedings were documented

by the workshop’s chair and by board staff.

The purpose of the workshop was to formulate questions and create a

framework and context in which to answer them, to point the direction for

future investments of intellectual capital rather than review the results of past

efforts, and to offer a series of starting points rather than conclusions.

NATURAL RESOURCE ACCOUNTING STUDY

The Task Force also initiated a project to link natural resource conditions and

trends to traditional economic accounting. Through the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Dennis M. King and Curtis C. Bohlen, economists from the

University of Maryland’s Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies, and

Pierre R. Crosson, an economist from Resources for the Future in

Washington, D.C., prepared a report for the Task Force on natural resource

accounting (see appendix F). The team used the Upper Mississippi River
Basin as its study area. This watershed was selected for several reasons,

including its economic and social dependence on the natural resource base,

and the availability of relevant comprehensive and accessible data.

In conducting their study, the researchers developed preliminary economic

accounts for agricultural sectors in the Upper Mississippi River watershed as

well as a general set of natural resource accounts for same. The economic

accounts were set up to measure the income received by specific agricultural

sectors—that is, how much the sectors receive from all sources—and the

income they generate—that is, the difference between the value of goods

produced and the cost of goods used in production. The natural resource

accounts were set up in a hierarchical structure that includes high order

resources (timber, fish); intermediate order resources (wetlands, riparian

areas); and low order resources (invertebrates, pollinators). No effort was

made to assign dollar values to these accounts.

The researchers made a “rebuttable presumption” that because of the

sediments, nutrients, and contaminants they release into water bodies,

agricultural sectors in the Upper Mississippi River Basin have a net negative

effect on stocks of natural capital. They then applied criteria to illustrate how

the sustainability of each sector could be judged based on (1) its capacity to

invest in other offsetting forms of capital and (2) whether such offsetting

investments are actually being made.

The research team developed a three-stage test of sector-level sustainability:

l Stage 1. Sectors that generate zero or negative net income are not

contributing to overall economic or environmental sustainability

because they are not producing income that could be invested in other

forms of capital to offset the losses in natural capital they are causing.

l Stage 2. Sectors that generate only enough net income to cover

consumption outlays of income recipients (e.g., farm workers and farm

owners) are not contributing to overall economic or environmental

sustainability because there is no surplus income that could be

invested in other forms of capital to offset the losses in natural capital

they are causing.

l Stage 3. Sectors that generate enough net to provide a surplus over

the consumption requirements of income earners may—or may not—

be contributing to overall economic or environmental sustainability

depending on (1) whether the surplus is sufficient to finance

investments that could offset losses in natural capital; or (2) whether

the surplus, if sufficient, is actually being used for that purpose.

The researchers developed economic accounts for 21 regional agricultural

sectors using 1991 data. Based on Stage 1 criteria, 9 of the 21 sectors in the

watershed and

8 in the floodplain are not sustainable without subsidies at levels of income

generated in 1991.

Study findings are summarized in the next chapter of this report. The complete

research report is included as appendix F.
11

CHAPTER 2

FINDINGS

This chapter summarizes the key findings of the Natural Resources Task

Force for each of its main activity areas—workshops and case studies, and

commissioned research studies. The purpose of this chapter is to convey the

opinions, convictions, and information voiced to Task Force members by

people across the country. To the greatest extent possible, we have tried not to

filter or interpret these findings, but to present them as they were expressed to

us.

WORKSHOP AND CASE STUDY FINDINGS

The Regional Teams of the Natural Resources Task Force listened to

hundreds of people, including scientists, ranchers, irrigation farmers, Indian

tribal members, corn growers, foresters, river barge operators, hydropower

utility representatives, fishermen, homebuilders, recreationists,

environmentalists, federal officials, government representatives at all levels,

tribal leaders, grassroots activists. These individuals most generously shared

their experiences and concerns, and counseled the teams regarding the

nation’s quest for sustainability.

Despite great variety in the way people approached and dealt with their own

issues, six major themes emerged in the workshops and case studies initiated

by the Task Force and its Regional Teams:

l Despite progress, unsustainable natural resource management

policies and practices persist.

l To ensure sustainability, economic and social values need to be

balanced against the protection of natural resources.

l By bringing stakeholders together to seek and act on their common

interests, community conflicts regarding natural resource management

can be resolved.

l The burdens placed on natural resources by rapid population growth

mean that human life style choices are an important input to effective

natural resource management.

l Natural resource management by social and legal systems organized

by national, state, county, and municipal boundaries unknowingly

promotes community conflict through the creation of a regulatory

morass.
l Natural systems-based approaches provide a useful framework for

natural resource management and conflict resolution.

The following discussion clarifies these themes based on citizen input.

CONTINUING POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF UNSUSTAINABILITY

People are proud of the great progress they as individuals and we as a country

have made in recognizing and protecting the many values associated with

natural resources and the environment. However, people cited situations all

across the country where use and management of natural resources over the

last two centuries have resulted in impaired and unsustainable natural

resource conditions and the impaired health of terrestrial and aquatic

ecosystems. For example:

l In the Chesapeake Bay, demographic trends (including increases in

population, the ratio of dwelling units to population, and lot sizes) run

counter to efficient land use and sustainable development. Regions that

restrict themselves to sustainable rates of growth will face a short-term

disadvantage in competing with regions that pursue laissez-fare growth

policies.1

l Scientists told us that past land and water use practices have

damaged natural resources in measurable ways in the Chesapeake,

Klamath, Columbia, Mississippi, Rio Grande, Colorado, Lower St.

Johns, and Tahoe basins. They speculated that this decline would

continue if our policies and practices did not change.

l In the Hudson Valley, wildlife habitats such as boreal bogs, wetlands,

hardwood forests, and meadows are disappearing at an alarming rate.

This serious depletion is due primarily to a pace of land development

that has exceeded the rate of population growth by a ratio of more than

8 to 1.

l Beyond habitat destruction, the natural resource issues raised by

sprawling development in the Hudson Valley are legion. This pattern of

land development is highly inefficient with respect to energy

consumption, has created several air pollution nonattainment areas,

and has degraded surface and groundwater resources. It threatens the

viability of the region’s rivers and streams and the integrity of its scenic

byways.

l The outlook for habitat conservation in the Lower St. Johns River Basin

is, in general, not good from a long-term sustainability viewpoint. The

state of Florida has been, and is continuing to, purchase some of the

best wild areas to make additional parks, state forests, wildlife

management areas, etc. Even so, the threats of pollution, hydroperiod

alteration, and exotic species invasion from beyond public land

boundaries frequently cause habitat degradation.
CHAPTER 2

FINDINGS

13

l Ranchers in New Mexico and Nevada knew that grazing was reducing

the soil’s ability to hold the water to feed streams during the dry

season. Many reported that streamside vegetation “wasn’t the way it

used to be.”

l Tribal members in New Mexico said that, due to pollution, it was no

longer possible to drink directly from the waters of the Rio Grande

below their holdings.

l Tribal members from the Columbia Basin noted that they can no longer

fish for salmon, since their numbers have dwindled because of too

many dams, too much habitat destruction, and too much fishing. And

one participant at the Columbia River workshop noted that “The demise

of Columbia River salmon during this century is truly one of this

nation’s great tragedies. It is not just a story of an exploited resource,

but a story of anguish and sadness to the Indian and non-Indian people

alike whose lives depended historically on Columbia River fisheries.”

BALANCING NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGAINST

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL VALUES

People recognize that, as a nation, we have derived great wealth from the

development of our rich heritage of natural resources over the last century.

However, there is widespread unwillingness to maintain those resources. A

Nevada official observed that rising tensions between economic development

and the limits of the natural environment arise from decisions made years ago

out of a different perception of the world; he added that change will not be

easy.

l A participant at the Columbia River workshop noted that “Perverse

economic policies have unleashed a torrent of conflicting social,

economic, and political forces that work at cross purposes to

conservation. Many activities are motivated by short-term economic

returns without consideration of the impacts on long-term sustainability.

The failure to adequately capture economic externalities in our public

and private decisions is a major cause for the inability to sustain the

productivity of our natural resources.”

l Environmentalists tend to believe that there are still too few people who

willingly protect environmental values when that protection comes at

some economic cost. They feel that overuse of natural resources has

subsidized the nation’s economy for too long and point out that those

using the resources must share in their protection and bear the costs.

Tribal members told us that Native Americans are tied to natural resources

more than any other U.S. people; consequently, they said, they recognize that
short-term exploitation brings poverty. They also told us that they have always

lived in a changing world, constantly challenged to adapt their culture to new

situations and technologies while maintaining their tribal heritage. Tribal

participants noted that what they have learned about maintaining communities

within natural resource constraints over the thousands of years that they have

lived on this land will serve as a lesson to others facing those problems today.

We also heard “success stories”—accounts of policies and practices that are

successfully, and often innovatively, balancing natural resource management

against economic and social values:

l Local governments are striving to meet the conflicts associated with

balancing environmental protection with economic and social realities

head on. They are addressing them by working to expand economies,

often building on traditional natural resource-based industries; by

encouraging local investment that keeps capital and profits within their

areas; and by seeking to attract new capital.

l The Chesapeake Bay study notes that “The real estate economy is

benefited by the preservation of open space. The value of homes in

Maryland is enhanced by proximity to protected open space. Studies

completed in other states document that the house values adjacent to

such land in the same neighborhood increase by as much as 10

percent to 50 percent. Increased property taxes from homes adjacent

to protected land have been documented to offset costs for

maintenance of the open space” (see appendix C, “Chesapeake Bay

Watershed Workshop Report,” p. 10).

l In the Lower St. Johns River Basin, best management practices in

silviculture were documented; many of these offer solutions to the

maintenance of productive forests and protection of natural resources,

for example:

— special management zones with operational restrictions

designed to protect water quality, protect streambank stability, and

provide wildlife habitat;

— wetland restrictions and limitations to protect soils and

hydrology of wetlands;

— road construction techniques to minimize erosion and

sedimentation; and

— guidelines for application of pesticides and fertilizers.

l The state of Florida has begun to explore an innovative “less-than-fee”

philosophy of resource management. The purchase or transfer of

development rights may be used to protect the land from urban

development while compensating the landowner, thus retaining the land
CHAPTER 2

FINDINGS

15

values for commodity production, wildlife habitat, recreation, and green

space. Other workable incentives are: actively recruiting forestry-based

business into the state, tax incentives that discourage development

from encroaching on timberlands, and aggressively advocating the

positive economic and environmental position of forestry in Florida.

BRINGING STAKEHOLDERS TOGETHER

Many individuals, agencies, tribes, and interest groups told us that they are

learning the hard way that controversy about natural resources and their use and

protection can foster major conflicts within their communities—and, in turn, have

adverse effects on the quality of life that brought them to live there in the first

place. Many people testified that they have found a better way to resolve their

conflicts: bringing stakeholders together in collaborative processes to seek and

act on their common interests.

Those who addressed these basic principles expressed a sense of success

from having improved community dialogue and implemented management

solutions. Although every participant had a different personal or business aim,

these groups arrived at a common set of values and goals for the natural

resources in their area, and an understanding of their relationship to

community and economic values. Respecting each others’ differences was

crucial to keeping participants together. The most successful processes were

broadly inclusive, with all stakeholders at the table.

l A member of the Henry’s Fork Watershed Council in Idaho pointed out

that the council had been born of conflict and polarization. “There was a

basic mistrust of the environmentalists by the irrigators. We felt the

environmentalists were there to take away our water rights; we viewed

them as a threat to our livelihood. We just didn’t trust them at all. At

first, we were meeting out of fear; fear of what the other guy was going

to do to us if we didn’t show up at the meetings. Now the trust level is

building. We’re building lines of communication, and we’re finding there

is common ground between the irrigation interests and the

environmental interests.”

l New Mexico agencies are experimenting with ways to work in

partnership with citizens in cooperative watershed planning efforts—

and discovering that by so doing, they are starting to get “on top” of

problems they thought intractable. Moreover, the agencies are starting

to dispel the distrust of centralized government.

l A Columbia River workshop participant, in explaining the essential

fairness of the collaborative problem-solving process, noted “No one

gets everything they want—not the grazers, the miners, the wood fiber

industry, the irrigators, the developers, or the forest interest and wildlife

advocates.”
IMPORTANCE OF HUMAN LIFE STYLE CHOICES

It was clear to many participants that maintaining the environment is as much

about people and the way we live as it is about animals, plants, or rivers. Our

formal social processes, according to participants, often take us far from the

pathway that leads to sustained communities and healthy environments. They

note that population pressures and rapidly expanding economic development

in many areas are threatening to force us still farther off the track.

For example, the projected disappearance of Hudson Valley’s “green”

character is not due to the influx of additional population, but rather to the high

rate of land consumed to serve these additional people. An 8 percent increase

in population over the next 50 years will yield a population density of about 450

persons per square mile. Ordinary low-density suburbs contain around 1,500

persons per square mile, so it is how people live on the land, not the population

of 450 persons per square mile, that is the issue. If land planners in the Valley

can develop effective strategies to array the population properly on the land,

then the Valley can unite behind a strategy of modest population growth,

support dynamic development projects, and maintain a place with the open,

high-quality character that is in the Hudson Valley tradition.

Many participants told us that they thought they could help restore and maintain

valuable natural resources. They noted that they were willing to commit their

individual and business resources to this end because they personally cared

and because their customers and neighbors cared. In fact, many have

voluntarily changed some of the ways they managed their construction

projects, ranches, farms, and forests.

l A rancher in New Mexico is on a regimen to alter the vegetation on his

ranch from pinyon/juniper to grasslands and ponderosa pine. As he has

done so, the water in the streams has come back—and so have the

fish.

l Timber companies are beginning to plan their activities on a watershed

scale and in coordination with their neighbors and agencies.

l Tree farmers are experimenting with alternative silvicultural and

managerial practices to provide more natural amenities from their

forests.

l Rice and corn growers have improved their farm operations to protect

water quality and support migratory waterfowl along their Western and

Midwestern flyways.

l Landowners in the Midwest said that floodplains could be better used to

temper flood peaks and provide much-needed wetland habitat. Fastgrowing native hardwood species would be especially well-suited to

this task, according to Midwest foresters.
CHAPTER 2

FINDINGS

17

l Farmers in Louisiana are providing habitat for an endangered species

of bear.2

l Farmers are helping improve water quality in Chesapeake Bay,

Maryland, Discovery Bay, Washington, Henry’s Fork, Idaho, and

Tillamook, Oregon.

REGULATORY MORASS

state, and local jurisdictions, authorities, programs, regulations, and laws.

There are many aspects to this problem, including the following:

Overlapping jurisdictions. A complex system of congressional

committees and the distribution of responsibility and authority for

various natural resources among many different agencies (with

inevitable overlaps, gaps, and disagreements) contribute to severe

problems in achieving sustainable resource management.

l Gaps in authority and responsibility. Often, responsibility and

regulatory authority are lodged at an inappropriate level. For example,

the Hudson Valley case study participants noted that comprehensive

planning must measure the impact of local land uses on neighboring

municipalities, yet comprehensive planning is defined as local in nature.

There is no statutory requirement that localities consider the impacts of

their land use decisions on adjacent areas or on the region as a whole.

They further noted that even though New York’s highest court required

local governments to consider regional housing needs in adopting and

amending their zoning ordinances, there is no agreed-upon definition of

what a relevant housing region is, identification of regional housing

needs, or method for defining the share of housing needs that each

municipality should bear. Localities have no practical authority under

this system to create an adequate supply of housing for young and

elderly households and for families of modest means.

l Institutionalized unsustainability. Although significant and

appropriate changes are occurring in federal agencies, managers

continue to work within an agency system that many believe has

inevitably institutionalized nonsustainable policies. Participants in the

Chesapeake Bay case study concurred, noting that obstacles remain

regarding the implementation of ecosystem-based management.

Central to these obstacles, they explained, are difficulties in defining

management units; understanding the biological, physical, economic,

and cultural factors at play; and structuring a management framework

that properly integrates all component parts.
l Financial disincentives. The nation’s legal and social systems are

burdened with financial and operational disincentives, and with

institutions more supportive of destructive behavior than the enabling of

constructive action. Moreover, the growing layering and complexity of

interlocking legal and economic disincentives threatens to—and in

many cases does—compromise the intent of environmental

safeguards. Badly directed subsidies and taxes and the use of public

and private funds to support poorly conceived projects undermine

developers’ and builders’ efforts to move toward sustainability.

l Ambiguous standards. Most of the people at our meetings agreed that

standards should be clearly defined and strictly enforced, and officials

held accountable. They said that governmental ambiguity and

indecision are exacting a heavy toll among the regulated stakeholders

and those concerned about public land, water, and wildlife.

l Distrust and suspicion. Federal actions are instilling uncertainty and

anxiety about the potential impacts of environmental regulation. Many

spoke of their growing distrust of government. In addition, people often

resist change, questioning motives before results are recognized.

Furthermore, state officials—who described their role as one of enabling

actions at local levels of government while coordinating community action and

environmental protection at regional levels—cited many other challenges to

successful accomplishment of that mission, including population growth,

faltering economies, inconsistent funding, conflicting policies, and lack of

structures to coordinate information and dialogue among many jurisdictions.

Some progress has been made, however, in addressing the problems of

regulation:

l A multitude of agencies have renewed or expanded their commitment

to balance resource use with environmental integrity. Although often

underemphasized, this vision exists in such enabling legislation as the

National Forest Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act,

Magnuson Fisheries and Conservation Act, Marine Mammal Protection

Act, Endangered Species Act, and Clean Water Act.3 Agencies are

also expanding the scope and scale of regulation to include ecosystem

protection under the umbrella of existing legislation. However, they

reported that criteria and standards for administering new policies

under old laws and responsibilities remain vague and unspecific.

l Federal agencies told how they are improving their management and

protection of natural resources. They are realigning agency missions

and searching for more efficient organizations. While heading in a

positive direction, agencies were less willing to challenge basic

approaches, such as reliance on regulation. They were not clear on

how they will adapt to a changing world that increasingly seeks

solutions to complex problems through collective decision processes
CHAPTER 2

FINDINGS

19

and partnership arrangements with other public agencies and private

citizens. Some laws and regulations, such as the Federal Advisory

Committee Act, inhibit such dialogue and reinforce agency resistance.4

l Federal agencies told of significant and rapid change in their

governance of natural resources. We heard from officials representing

federal, state, and local government agencies of the difficulties in trying

to meet social expectations within their legal authority, while

encouraging community-supporting economies. We heard all levels of

government voice commitment to protecting environmental values.

However, the more local the government, the greater the awareness

shown for the social and economic effects of public policies on the

community and its members.

USING NATURAL SYSTEMS-BASED APPROACHES

One solution to many of the quandaries of natural resource management that

we heard espoused over and over again—by scientists, representatives of

grassroots organizations, and bureaucrats, among others—was to manage

natural resources on their own terms, that is, based on their own boundaries

rather than in a context of artificial governmental jurisdictions. Organizing

around natural resource boundaries, such as watersheds or geographic areas

having specific physical or biological values, forced communities to transcend

the limitations of traditional governmental jurisdictions. Further, working with

and for a real, specific place helped community members crystallize abstract

concepts into pragmatic expressions of their stewardship values. Moreover,

people told us that a community planning process can be a good vehicle for

starting and maintaining dialogue among individuals.

The concept of taking a natural systems-based (generally, watershed-based)

approach to resource management was expressed by numerous

constituencies.

l Citizens reported positive results from their experiments with

watershed initiatives to create common visions, goals, and values.

These experiments did not increase regulatory constraints. Instead, by

helping to clarify community expectations and acknowledge

performance within existing law, they facilitated the business of land

use and environmental stewardship. We learned that watershed

initiatives cannot replace legal and regulatory systems, for there will

always be choices too hard for the community to make and people who

are unwilling to conform. They also cannot replace government

agencies, because some environmental issues must be addressed at

the regional, national, or international levels. There remains a need to

coordinate and communicate among watersheds to meet larger scale

goals. But participants made it clear that watershed initiatives can be

used to engage public debate about stewardship and sustainability in

pragmatic situations and can provide a vehicle for continual renewal of

those values.
l The Water Science and Technology Board corroborated these findings,

pointing out that natural scientists have long used the geographic

definition provided by watersheds in collecting data, analyzing

problems, and assisting in decisionmaking, so it is logical that we

should address the broader philosophical issues of sustainability in that

context, especially issues related to long-term planning and

management for sustainable resources.

l Rural communities are discovering that the loss of traditional cultures

to population growth and changing economy is perhaps more important

than the loss of jobs to environmental protection. As a community

organizer from Discovery Bay, Washington, noted: “Water may be the

last tool we have to create communities. Water is an issue we can use

to build interdependence in a community.”

l People representing community grassroots organizations explained

that adversarial approaches had not worked and that traditional

jurisdictional boundaries were not appropriate for environmental

decisionmaking. To reconcile community and environmental needs,

they sought new approaches where the definition of problems and

solutions was better matched to ecosystems and natural boundaries.

Each watershed initiative was different in terms of both the issues that

initially provoked the need to come together and in the solutions found.

For example, Tillamook Bay and Puget Sound both became part of the

National Estuary Program; New Mexico created a citizens’ Interstate

Stream Commission; and watershed councils have been formed in

communities all over the West.

People reported making significant progress in natural resource management

by using watershed approaches—which honor their sense of place—and

collaborative processes—which honor both their individual and collective

values. They counseled us that every watershed is unique, but that it is

important to place decisions within a broader ecosystem context. They

cautioned us that nature is constantly changing. We inferred that successful

solutions would be found at local levels informed at larger scales. We also

understood that resource managers must be ever watchful to see nature’s

ways and adapt through time.

WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD

FINDINGS

As stated in the previous chapter, the goal of the Water Science and

Technology Board workshop was to develop a series of questions for

decisionmakers to use in meeting the challenge of managing watersheds. The

key questions developed at the workshop encompass social and economic

well-being; existing scientific institutions and data gathering to assess trends;

the concept of adaptive management and watershed analysis; stakeholders;

relative scales of decisionmaking processes and the scale of natural systems;

dynamics of watersheds; tradeoffs among economic, social, and
CHAPTER 2

FINDINGS

21

environmental considerations; existing monitoring programs; and

communication of environmental information and behavior change.

These key questions are presented within a framework that represents the

step-by-step process for attaining sustainable watersheds. The steps in this

process and related questions are as follow:

1. Identifying Specific Natural Resource Services and Concerns

l What elements of the environment are essential to social and

economic well-being; or, alternatively, what elements of the

environment constrain social and economic well-being?

l What existing data would be useful to assess the current status

and trends of economic, environmental, and social conditions within

a watershed? Can existing programs for data needs and

management be modified, or will new ones be required to fill gaps?

l Are present scientific institutions organized to provide

information that can inform decisionmakers responsible for

sustainable watershed development?

2. Identifying the Stakeholders

l Who will determine whether data are adequate to identify

needs, set priorities, make timely decisions, and measure progress

toward achieving and sustaining goals? What processes and/or

criteria will be employed to determine data adequacy?

l Who has a stake? What are the stakes?

l Are stakes and stakeholders fully accounted for?

3. Linking the Relevant Scale of the Problem to Decisionmaking

l How can we match the scale of decisionmaking processes to

the scale of the natural systems that are the object of our decisions?

4. Specifying the Tradeoffs Among Economic, Social, and

Environmental Considerations

l How can the natural dynamic of watersheds be taken into

account?

l Can scientific information be integrated effectively into

decisionmaking?

l Are metrics and methods available that are capable of

evaluating the tradeoffs among and between the three distinct groups

of economic, social, and environmental considerations?
5. Exploring the Values That Guide Stakeholders in Deciding

Among Tradeoffs

l What can science do to make clear the values that

stakeholders have and want represented in the policymaking

process?

6. Identifying the Best Actions to Achieve the Desired Balance

Among Tradeoffs

l How can science assist in defining and assessing the

consequences of social/economic decisions?

l What can science do to assist adaptive management/

development?

l Will existing programs be adequate to monitor progress toward

achieving desired goals? If not, can they be modified to do so, or will

new ones be required?

l Is knowledge dissemination effective in changing behavior

under current economic circumstances?

l How do equity issues affect human behavior toward

watersheds and their natural resources?

l How does social/economic insecurity affect human behavior

toward natural resources or watersheds?

l Are processes under way to develop institutional/political

mechanisms to better translate scientifically determined costs/

benefits into optimal human behavior regarding watersheds?

The workshop participants believed that watersheds can provide the basis for

assessing many of the resources that contribute to human welfare and wellbeing. A challenge for the future will be to develop a method and related models

to overlay economic and social considerations on the watershed-based

analysis of natural processes.

A further challenge for decisionmakers will be to develop the capacity to predict

the broad range of biological, physical, environmental, social, and economic

consequences of human action impacts in watersheds. Workshop participants

found that scientific knowledge is available to provide some answers and that

cooperative interactive efforts among scientists and decisionmakers will be

required to develop new tools and methods if the nation is to achieve a goal of

truly sustainable watershed resources.

NATURAL RESOURCE ACCOUNTING STUDY FINDINGS

The authors of the natural resource accounting study, described in the

previous chapter, reached three general conclusions.
CHAPTER 2

FINDINGS

23

l Any accounting system that deals with sustainability must cope with

significant uncertainty. This uncertainty arises from the need to make

assumptions about a future that will be affected by environmental,

economic, and technological changes that may not be reflected in

today’s accounts. The researchers note that it is possible to develop a

well-founded accounting system to deal with sustainability on the basis

of what we know about human preferences today. Because of

technological and cultural change, however, the opportunities that

future generations will have—and the mix of natural, built, and human

assets they will require to satisfy their preferences—is certain to

change.

l Accounting for sustainability requires that income be measured with

overall wealth held constant. (Income is the maximum amount that can

be spent on consumption in one period without reducing the wealth

available to support consumption in future periods.) This means that

we must carefully define and measure privately owned, publicly owned,

and—perhaps—unowned wealth as well as establish accounting

conventions that distinguish among the creation of new wealth, the

transfer of wealth from one sector or region to another, and the

conversion of wealth from one form to another. For the purposes of

accounting for sustainability, it is more important for economic

accounts to measure income generated—the economic value of goods

and services produced less the economic value of the goods and

services used up in production—than income received—income

generated plus direct and indirect transfer payments received.

l Contributions to sustainability by economic sectors that are degrading

or depleting natural capital should be analyzed in a particular way. The

researchers point out that where economic sectors are known to be

adversely affecting stocks of natural capital, it is useful to begin judging

their contributions to overall economic and environmental sustainability

with “means tests”—tests that ask whether income generated is

sufficient to potentially invest in offsetting forms of capital—rather than

relying on “ways tests”—tests that ask whether it is possible to replace

or restore the forms of natural capital that are being lost.

With respect to accounting for sustainability in the context of watersheds, the

authors came to the following conclusions:

l Environmental accounts, when used in conjunction with conventional

economic accounts, can be developed into effective tools for evaluating

the sustainability of watershed management and of specific watershed

uses.

l Whatever the goal of watershed management, sustainability should be

defined (at least for accounting purposes) in terms of the stock of

wealth or “social capital” we bequeath to future generations.

l For accounting purposes, wealth or social capital should be defined as

a mix of natural, built, and human capital that includes both

conventional economic assets and environmental and other assets

with more roundabout links to human welfare.

l For purposes of evaluating movements toward or away from
24

CHAPTER 3

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Drawing upon people’s presentations at the workshops, the Natural Resources

Task Force responded to people’s ideas, visions, hopes, and aspirations with

the following policy recommendations.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION 1

SOIL, AIR, AND WATER QUALITY

Revitalize the country’s collective efforts to secure

healthy, high-quality air and water resources and

productive soil—not only for ourselves, but also for

our children and their children.

This recommendation affirms what we heard from people all across the

country—the fundamental importance of our nation’s framework of

environmental laws, regulations, and programs. It acknowledges that despite

existing laws and regulations, there remains a compelling need to make

improvements and better enforce our existing laws at all levels.

DISCUSSION

Citizens all across the country attest to the importance of soil, air, and water

quality to their livelihoods, health, and well-being and to their children’s futures.

Environmental quality is essential to the survival of our planet.

Who

This recommendation is aimed at recognizing and affirming that we all—

citizens, households, communities, corporations, nongovernmental

organizations, and governments at all levels—have a vital interest and a critical

role to play in ensuring soil, air, and water quality. In addition to moral

responsibilities, our nation’s framework of laws and regulations enumerate

specific responsibilities that must be redeemed to secure our collective rights

and interests in soil, air, and water quality.

How

Our framework of laws that provide for soil, air, and water quality are of

fundamental importance and must be preserved. Protecting soil, air, and water
PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

25

quality depends on people who are familiar with their own unique

environmental, social, and economic settings and continued enforcement of

the laws we already have. Actions need to be taken on many fronts. Individual

actions make a crucial difference. In our communities, we can support

planning and decisions that minimize impacts to soil, air, and water.

Corporations can take initiatives that increase efficiency and reduce waste and

pollution. And many actions will require public-private partnerships.

l Soil. Rates of soil erosion from human activities should be reduced to

the point that they do not exceed the rate of soil regeneration.

Agricultural practices that minimize soil losses and pollutant loadings

and that build soils and improve their organic and nutrient composition

should be promoted. Land use practices that prevent adverse effects of

erosion and contamination on downstream beneficial uses should be

implemented.

l Air. In our homes, we can take important actions such as conserving

energy to reduce the total amount of pollution from electricity

generation. Corporations can ensure that emissions harmful to human

health, including smog, toxics, and other emissions, are stopped.

Cleaner fuels, less-polluting vehicles, more efficient modes of

transportation, and more convenient services near transit centers

which reduce unnecessary driving can be encouraged.

l Water. Individuals can recycle automobile oil and make proper use and

disposal of household chemicals to reduce contamination of rivers and

lakes through storm runoff. Communities can ensure that water

sources, systems, and watersheds are free from harmful

contaminants and safe for recreation. Local governments can

emphasize meeting established water quality standards and

discourage growth and development that would degrade water quality.

Water conservation and protection of natural water recharge zones for

aquifers can be encouraged.

Indicators

l Soil:

— Reductions in soil losses through erosion.

— Reduced contamination of air and water from fertilizer and

pesticide uses.

l Air:

— Compliance with air quality standards.

— Reduction in the number of air-related adverse health effects

(e.g., asthma, respiratory infections) in areas with historically poor air

quality.

— Increased visibility.

l Water:
CHAPTER 3

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

26

— Compliance with water quality standards.

— Presence of indicator species for designated water use

categories and other organisms that indicate healthy ecosystems.

— Return of historic wildlife and vegetation communities.

RATIONALE

Soil, air, and water resources are the fundamental building blocks of any

natural system’s basic functions and its ability to provide social, economic, and

environmental benefits. Soil, air, and water quality standards are articulated in

a variety of laws, regulations, and guidelines. This recommendation

acknowledges the importance of soil, air, and water quality to sustainability and

affirms the explicit role of laws, standards, regulations, and guidelines in

achieving sustainability by internalizing environmental factors and providing a

“level playing field” for economic activities.

Soils are the basic medium from which the vegetative component of terrestrial

biological systems arise. Soils grow crops, absorb and filter water, recycle

nutrients, break down or immobilize wastes and pollutants, as well as provide

a place for children to play. Soil degradation from erosion, compaction, loss of

organic matter, nutrient overenrichment, and toxic effects from wastes and

excessive use of pesticides not only impairs long-term productivity and

sustainability of soils, but can also result in adverse air and water quality.

Air quality has a far-reaching effect on the quality of our lives. Our health and

welfare are adversely affected by poor air quality. The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency has established ambient air quality standards to protect

public health, including the health of sensitive populations such as children and

the elderly. In 1995, approximately 80 million people lived in counties where

measured pollutant concentrations were above the national standards—that is,

areas where the ambient air quality is sufficiently poor that the established

margin of health safety is exceeded.5 Additionally, regional haze increasingly

affects scenic vistas throughout the country, particularly our national parks,

where decreased visibility impairs people’s enjoyment of the nation’s natural

wonders.6
PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

27

The public water supply is a major source of exposure to environmental

contaminants. A primary mechanism for sustaining healthy drinking water is

source water protection. Although most of America’s surface waters currently

provide safe recreation, beach closures in the Northeast and outbreaks of

infectious water-borne diseases demonstrate the need to improve water

safety.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION 2

NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY

AND ASSESSMENT

Integrate existing federal, tribal, and state natural

resource inventories and assessments through the

development and use of compatible standards,

methods, and protocols.

This recommendation is aimed toward a comprehensive inventory and

assessment of our nation’s renewable and nonrenewable natural resources

and biodiversity. It is intended to provide a sound comprehensive basis for

informing public and private natural resource decisions. It also provides for the

interchange of information among governments, citizens, corporations, and

nongovernmental organizations.

DISCUSSION

An accurate assessment and inventory of our nation’s biodiversity and natural

resource stocks is critical to understanding the contributions of natural

resources to our country’s sustained economic health.

Who

The inventory should be conducted through a coordinated federal effort. The

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), through the Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS) and Forest Service, and working with state and

local partners, has been conducting statistically reliable National Natural

Resource Surveys for the past 20 years.7 USDA would team up with other

federal agencies in the Departments of Commerce and the Interior, other

bureaus, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, state and local

governments, and the private sector using existing capability to carry out a

systematic National Natural Resource Survey.

How

Common terminology and definitions, along with standard methodologies and

protocols, should be developed by 2000. These should be developed building
CHAPTER 3

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

28

on several efforts already under way to integrate resource inventories in NRCS

and the Forest Service, as these two agencies already are responsible for

collecting natural resource data for almost 90 percent of the nation.8 The

methodologies would be fed by research efforts such as the previous Natural

Resources Inventories of 1982, 1987, and 1992, and should facilitate

information sharing with citizens and governments at all levels.9

Standard methodologies should be pilot tested during the period 1997 through

2002. This effort should build on pilot testing initiated in 1995 to integrate

NRCS’s Natural Resource Inventories and the Forest Service’s Forest

Inventory and Analysis. Methodologies should aim at providing easy electronic

access, with interpretations providing cross-boundary analysis.

Indicators

The ultimate indicator of soil, air, and water quality is the flow of information to

land managers, manufacturers, planners, regulators, and consumers to

provide the basis of information to modify management regimes and

production processes, and effectively influence consumption patterns. The

actual inventory should:

l enable the identification of trends over time;

l feature stable definitions and inventory designs;

l be scientifically defensible and statistically valid;

l be geospatially referenced to integrate with existing socioeconomic,

demographic, and political information;

l enable measurement of results (e.g., soil erosion rates, forest health,

range condition, etc.); and

l facilitate public access.

RATIONALE

As a nation, we are struggling to build a conservation ethic—a shared

aspiration about stewardship of natural resources—and an understanding of

our relationship to the Earth and its natural resources upon which we depend.

The way we manage our natural resources will determine the quality of the air

we breathe, what we eat, and the vitality of our economy. An important part of

this ethic is the notion of sustainability—an understanding that what we do

today should not compromise the options available for future generations.

Sustainability for natural resources implies high standards of environmental

care, productive functioning of ecosystems, maintaining the viability and

diversity of species, using natural resources for economic benefits, and

sharing our natural resource endowments widely and equitably. Being able to

measure and assess our nation’s natural resources is essential to making

informed decisions about them.
PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

29

The relationships between the physical and biological features of various

ecosystems and people’s influence on these systems are highly complex. To

assess these relationships accurately and plot our proper course toward future

economic use of these systems while we protect environmental integrity, we

must first assess the issues and then move forward with carefully crafted

combinations of regulation, incentives, acquisition, land use planning, and

other creative steps to protect natural system integrity.

Consumer consumption is directly related to impacts and demands placed on

natural systems. Although natural systems can be managed with respect to

their environmental integrity, increasing demands and conflicts in multiple uses

make this a proportionally difficult challenge. Consumers need better education

regarding the relative demands that certain products place on natural systems.

Incentives should be further developed to encourage use of renewable natural

resources and other products that place less demand on our natural systems.

Improved productivity will enable us to focus our most intensive management

efforts on fewer acres while targeting certain more environmentally sensitive

lands to be managed less intensively—or, in some cases, placed in a reserve

status. Better understanding of the interrelationships between different sites

and their inherent characteristics, including the influence of management, is

needed to help us make these difficult choices most effectively.

In order to meet the challenges outlined above of protecting environmental

integrity through policy formulation, shaping consumer choices, and improving

management productivity, it is essential that we recognize the fundamental

importance of high-quality information on natural resource conditions and

trends. Current information is often disjointed, not easily accessible, and

incomplete. This recommendation is aimed at providing a solid foundation of

natural resource inventories and assessments from which it will be easy to

draw useful information for decisionmakers, land managers, and consumers.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION 3

ACCOUNTING FOR NATURAL RESOURCES

Link natural resource conditions and trends to

national income accounts and to economic

assessments and analyses. Develop a set of

indicators based on the above linkages that assess

the flows, conditions, and trends of natural resource

stocks.
CHAPTER 3

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

30

DISCUSSION

This recommendation is designed to lay the foundation for eventual full

accounting of natural resource stocks in national income accounts and in the

economic analyses agencies employ to make decisions about natural

resources. This recommendation is ultimately aimed at applying a systems

approach to linking and tracking the social, economic, and environmental

elements of sustainability.

Who

This recommendation has three primary agents for change:

l federal agencies that make natural resource decisions,

l federal agencies with specific responsibilities for collecting and

publishing information for national income accounts, and

l academic institutions that are focusing on this issue.

Successful accounting for natural resources will, in large measure, be

determined by the collaboration of these key players.

How

An implementing mechanism for this recommendation would be an executive

order directed at federal agencies under the Government Performance and

Results Act (GPRA).10 Federal agencies should be directed in their strategic

planning, conducted under GPRA, to collect information on flows, conditions,

and trends of natural resources and link this information to economic

assessments and analysis conducted by their own and other agencies.

Those agencies that have responsibilities for collecting, keeping, and

publishing economic statistics for national income accounts should work with

agencies that collect information on natural resources—as well as with

institutions that have particular expertise in this area—to link information on

natural resource flows, conditions, and trends to conventional economic

statistics. Federal agencies should collaborate, particularly in support of

strategic planning done under GPRA, in the development of a suite of

sustainability indicators that link information on natural resource flows,

conditions, and trends to conventional economic statistics.

Indicators

l By 2000, standard methodologies for accounting for natural resource

stocks should be developed; by 2010, standard methodologies should

be accepted and applied on a pilot basis. By 2025, measurements of

national economic status and trends should fully account for changes

in the nation’s stocks of renewable and nonrenewable resources.

l Accepted methodologies should be developed by 2000 and routinely
PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

31

employed by 2010 to guide decisionmakers at all levels of government

in assessing social and economic values and priorities and measuring

the various demands placed on natural resources.

l By 2000, a suite of sustainability indicators should be in wide use that

link and measure the flows, conditions, trends, and economics of our

country’s stocks of natural resources.

RATIONALE

Natural resources account in large measure for the economic prosperity we

have enjoyed this last century. The United States has a natural resource base

rivaled by few other countries in the world. However, we have used large

portions of our natural capital in ways that are sometimes not sustainable.

Expanding human demands and national and international economic activities

place ever-increasing pressures on our nation’s natural resources, causing

some alarming trends in air, water, and soil degradation. These trends, in turn,

translate to diminished ability of natural resources to provide social, economic,

and environmental benefits. We are compelled to rectify natural resource

accounting and economic assessments to ensure sustainability of our natural

resources and continued prosperity.

Present-day accounting and economic assessments do not fully account for

the fundamental importance of natural resources to our economy. This

problem is exacerbated by the long time horizons necessary for assessing

natural resource conditions and the complexity caused by the fact that

productivity of natural resources is often directly linked to the functioning of

natural systems—that is, the health of ecosystems. Society, in addition, places

great value on many nonmarket aspects of natural resources. These

nonmarket values are not adequately addressed by present-day accounting

and economic assessment practices.

Efforts to develop natural resource accounts are under way. For example, the

Bureau of Economic Advisors in the U.S. Department of Commerce has made

significant strides in adjusting national income accounts to reflect natural

resource conditions.11 These efforts, however, have not reached the point of

being fully accepted. Important strides have also been made in incorporating

natural resource considerations into economic assessments, but their use and

efficacy remain controversial.

Good-quality information on the conditions and trends of natural resources

does, however, reside within many federal, tribal, and state agencies. This

recommendation takes the logical next step in the evolution toward full

accounting for natural resources by forging links between existing natural

resource inventories and existing economic accounts and assessments. This

recommendation charges those agencies that have first-hand knowledge of

natural resource conditions or economic accounts to be the same agencies to

forge the links.
CHAPTER 3

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

32

Academia has an important role to play in these next steps for two reasons:

l Basic economic theory and accounting practices need to be fortified

with respect to giving full consideration for natural resources.

l Academia can be a rich source of ideas for agencies about how

actually to make and use the linkages called for in this

recommendation.

Taking these next steps of implementation at the agency level will ensure

relevance to current issues.

A set of indicators for sustainability and natural resource accounts, when used

in conjunction with conventional economic accounts, can be developed into

powerful tools for evaluating the sustainability of natural resource policies and

management. Integrated accounting and assessment, when fully developed,

can deal with sustainability at the scale of an eco-region or watershed and can

provide insights into broader national and global concepts of sustainability.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION 4

SUSTAINABLE FORESTS

Convene a National Forestry Advisory Council

comprised of a representative balance of

stakeholders to define and help achieve

sustainable management of forests on a national

basis by the year 2000.

This recommendation is aimed at fostering a continuing dialogue on a national

basis to consider the sustainability of both public and private forests. It is

intended to build on, bring together, and synthesize public and private initiatives

that are already under way.

DISCUSSION

Important public and private initiatives regarding sustainability of forests have

taken place over the last few years. This recommendation is designed to bring

together these initiatives on a national basis and to establish positive dialogue

in the debate over sustainable forestry and implementation of sustainable

forestry practices. Its ultimate aim is to move forward in the implementation of

sustainable forestry practices on public and private forestlands as we

approach the new millennium.
PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

33

Who

Key stakeholders would form a federal advisory committee. Members would

be selected to represent a balance and full range of views. The balance should

be similar to that achieved by the President’s Council on Sustainable

Development (PCSD) and would draw upon participants from current

initiatives such as the American Forest & Paper Association’s (AF&PA’s)

Sustainable Forestry Initiative,12 as well as key stakeholders representing

constituencies such as small, private, nonindustrial landowners.

How

A variety of international and domestic initiatives, such as the 7th American

Forest Congress, AF&PA’s Sustainable Forestry Initiative, the Forest

Stewardship Council, U.S. efforts in international negotiations, and the Society

of American Foresters’ Forest Health and Productivity Initiative, among others,

would provide the basis for discussions. The National Forestry Advisory

Council would review issues surrounding sustainable forestry, develop its own

terms of reference, and examine avenues of cooperation aimed at

implementing sustainable forestry practices on all forestlands.

The initiative, among other things, would aim at ensuring, by 2000, that all

landowners are aware of and have information easily available that allows each

to recognize how they can make significant contributions to achieving a

national goal of sustainable management of all forests. It also would focus on

fully implementing sustainable forestry on public lands by the year 2000, using

the principles of ecosystem management. In addition, this recommendation

would include reviewing the possible classification of public and private

forestlands in states by management goal categories. Some precedents have

been set for such a categorization through existing programs such as the

Stewardship Incentive Program, Conservation Reserve Program, National

Forest Land Management Planning, and industry forestland programs.

Indicators

l Increased health and sustainability of American forests.

l Multi-stakeholder consensus on definitions and criteria.

l Agreement by all key stakeholders, on a national basis, that good

progress is being made in achieving sustainable forest management.

RATIONALE

benefits. Forests cover about 30 percent of the United States, or 648 million

acres. Nearly two-thirds of U.S. forests are productive as timberland. More

industries own about 15 percent; the balance of 28 percent is in public

ownership, most of which is contained in national forests administered by the

13
CHAPTER 3

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

34

The United States has a rich fabric of laws, policies, regulations, and

institutions at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels that guide the

management of public and private forests, prairies, and rangelands toward

sustainability in its social, economic, and environmental dimensions. The goal

for forests represents U.S. policy developed in response to the United Nations

Conference on Environment and Development. This recommendation is

intended to apply on a national basis to our nation’s forests:

l industrial forests,

l nonindustrial woodlands,

l federal forests,

l tribal lands forests,

l state and other public forested lands, and

l urban forests.

The United States announced its commitment to implement ecosystem

management on all federal forestlands at the Earth Summit in June 1992 at

Rio de Janeiro.14 The United States also made a commitment to a national

goal of achieving sustainable management of U.S. forests by the year 2000 at

the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in June 1993 at

Helsinki, Finland.15

Industrial forest landowners have also made an unprecedented commitment to

sustainable forestry by adoption of a Sustainable Forestry Initiative through

AF&PA. AF&PA represents more than 90 percent of the nation’s forestland

base.16

Many of the member organizations of PCSD have a demonstrated interest in

the outcome of these debates over forest sustainability. As many players have

taken initiatives to make progress in forest sustainability, key PCSD

stakeholders in this area could be instrumental in helping establish a

framework for an approach to this complex issue. In this way, PCSD could

play an instrumental role in meeting the goal of implementing sustainable

forestry on America’s forestlands by the year 2000.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION 5

RESTORE AMERICAN FISHERIES

Eliminate over-fishing and rebuild depleted stocks

in U.S. waters; adopt the precautionary principle in

decisionmaking—in the face of scientific
PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

35

uncertainty, err on the side of resource

conservation.

DISCUSSION

Individuals, families, communities, regions, and the country have all

experienced significant adverse economic and social impacts due to a

precipitous decline, and sometimes complete collapse, in freshwater, marine,

and anadromous fisheries. This recommendation is aimed at reversing this

trend and restoring American fisheries to a self-sustaining condition by 2010.

Who

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine

Fisheries Service, in conjunction with regional fisheries management councils,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Native American tribes, and state fisheries

management agencies are responsible for implementing this

recommendation. Native tribes, industry, and private citizens all participate in

the development and implementation of fishery management plans through

which this recommendation will be carried out.

How

l Where over-capitalization exists, pursue limited-entry management

programs while taking active measures to reduce harvesting capacity.

l Improve the precision of science for fishery management

decisionmaking.

l Generate quantitative assessments of social and economic effects

associated with limited-entry management and develop impact

assessment models for specific U.S. fisheries.

l Pursue public and private mitigating actions aimed at offsetting

socioeconomic impacts of management decisions.

l Reduce bycatch by fostering public and private development of

conservation gear, modifying fishing practices, and incorporating

quantified bycatch data into stock assessments.

l Foster environmentally sound marine aquaculture and associated

standards for sustainability.

l Improve cooperation and coordination among fisheries and land

management agencies, private industry, hydropower agencies, and

other stakeholders involved in anadromous fish conservation and

management.

l Strengthen programs to prevent accidental introduction of exotic

aquatic species, and screen intentional introductions for adverse
CHAPTER 3

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

36

unintended economic and environmental impacts.

Indicators

l Our nation’s rivers, lakes, and estuaries are fully restored to provide

self-sustaining, healthy, and diverse aquatic life by 2025: 2,000 square

miles of estuaries, 20,000 river miles, and 1.5 million acres of lakes are

restored by 2000; 3,000 square miles of estuaries, 30,000 river miles,

and 3.0 million acres of lakes are restored by 2010.

l National marine and freshwater fisheries policies and management

have a prime focus of restoring fisheries to a self-sustaining basis by

2025.

l The scientific basis of information for marine fisheries is sufficient to

establish a firm basis for determining and measuring sustainability of

marine fish resources by 2010.

l Impaired anadromous and freshwater fisheries are fully restored by

2025: one-third restored by 2000; two-thirds restored by 2010. The

quality of waters that currently produce contaminated fish and shellfish

fully restored by 2025: one-third restored by 2000; two-thirds restored

by 2010.

l All vessels operating in U.S. waters are required to use effective ballast

management practices by 2002. A system for screening and evaluating

introduced species is up and running by the year 1999.

RATIONALE

The nation’s economic health and the quality of life for tens of millions of

Americans can be greatly increased through wise use of its fishery resources.

Much of the prevailing controversy regarding marine fisheries can be reduced

or eliminated by applying sound, comprehensive scientific information to the

development of national fishery policy. Implementation of science-based

fishery management plans will help resolve the multifaceted problems facing

marine fisheries, including:

l over-fishing and resource depletion,

l uncontrolled participation in commercial fishing,

l over-capitalization,

l loss of crucial spawning and nursery habitat,

l controversial allocation decisions, and

l incidental harm to other marine resources due to imprudent harvesting

practices.
PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

37

By coordinating these sorts of efforts in marine fisheries with similar actions

targeting freshwater fisheries, tremendous national economic and societal

gains can be realized—particularly in the revitalization of commercial fishing

industries—providing recreation for millions of Americans, increasing net

fishery values, and meeting treaty obligations to Native American tribes.

While an important segment of our economy is tied to the health of our nation’s

marine and freshwater fisheries, there is an equal responsibility to protect

highly valued protected species and their associated fragile freshwater and

coastal habitats. Fishery resources and protected species are interactive

members of the same ecosystem, and, in some cases, protected species are

taken in fishing operations. Two hundred and fourteen salmon runs are

considered at risk, two of which are endangered, due to commercial

exploitation and habitat degradation.17 By taking a stewardship role over our

living resources and balancing exploitation of natural resources with the

management of protected resources, we will ensure that future generations of

Americans will have a rich diversity of freshwater and marine life for both their

consumptive and nonconsumptive enjoyment.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION 6

INCENTIVES FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURAL

RESOURCES

Create and promote incentives at all levels of

government that will support the self-interest of

corporations, property owners, and resource users

to embrace conservation of natural resources and

enlist their knowledge and skills to work on its

behalf.

Executive and legislative bodies at the federal, tribal, state, and local levels that

establish tax, economic, and other policies that directly influence natural

resources are challenged to examine those policies that lead toward natural

resource degradation or depletion and redirect them toward conservation. This

recommendation intends to relieve and redirect pressures that are leading to

degradation or depletion of the natural resource base upon which our country’s

social, economic, and environmental vitality depends. A prime example would

be for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to integrate an environmental

restoration mission fully into its management of the Mississippi River.

DISCUSSION
CHAPTER 3

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

38

The United States is at risk of degrading natural resources that are critical to

our national social, economic, and environmental well-being. Pressures

leading to degradation and potential exhaustion of natural resources are often

due to perverse effects of public economic policy in three distinct areas:

subsidization, public expenditures, and taxation. Tax policy can be used to

create a set of powerful economic incentives and disincentives to promote

sustainability. By integrating tax policy with market-driven economic incentives

and appropriate regulatory prohibitions, private property interests and users of

public lands can be encouraged to make socially desirable and beneficial

decisions that promote resource conservation.

Who

Executive and legislative bodies at the federal, tribal, state, and local levels that

are charged with establishing economic, tax, and other policies that directly

influence natural resources.

How

Use tax policies and incentives programs to encourage and reward industry,

businesses, communities, and individuals for shifting to sustainable practices

and efficient use of natural resources. Review current policies and tax

programs to identify and eliminate deterrents to sustainable practices. Develop

a matching fund program to encourage local, regional, state, tribal, and

national investment in sustainable programs and projects.

Economic incentives and disincentives that encourage conservation of natural

resources can include, where appropriate:

l property tax reductions for those who commit to managing property

for species of concern;

l tax credits for expenses incurred in improving degraded habitat or

creating new habitat for target species;

l tax deduction for income derived from economic activity on lands

managed fully and perpetually for species of concern;

l inheritance tax reform to promote conservation by ensuring that large

tracts of habitat do not have to be liquidated, broken apart, or devoted to

more economically intensive use as a consequence of inheritance

taxes (or their avoidance);

l capital gains tax deferral on land transfers that facilitate or continue

to provide for conservation;

l denial of direct and indirect subsidies (e.g., farm commodity price

supports, federally defrayed costs of water, energy, and timber sales)

to individuals engaged in practices that are averse to sustainability and

resource conservation; and

l exploration of the use of conservation credits as a mechanism to
PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

39

create a market for environmentally protective actions.

Indicators

l By 2025, the nation’s incentives and disincentives fully reflect a

commitment to sustainable management and use of natural resources.

l Landowners and business owners utilize tax incentives to conserve

natural resources and implement environmentally sound activities.

l The government and the private sector should collectively offer an

engineering prize for the best proposal for a future transportation

system for agricultural products that best achieves economic and

environmental objectives on the Upper Mississippi River.

RATIONALE

Perverse public policies have unleashed a torrent of conflicting social,

economic, and political forces that work at cross purposes to conservation of

natural resources. Currently, the beneficiaries of conservation have little

incentive to pay, while those who can provide sustained benefits are unable to

profit from their conservation actions. Private lands are critical to achieving

sustainability and resource conservation, because only about 20 percent of the

lands in the contiguous United States (rising to about 30 percent if Alaska is

included) are owned by the federal government.18 Of the 728 species listed as

endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, 50 percent are

found exclusively on nonfederal lands (including private, tribal, state, and local

government land, as well as land protected by groups such as The Nature

Conservancy).19 Laws and regulation alone have not been satisfactory in

achieving positive results. Adding conservation incentives through economic

and other policies can create a powerful combination of economic self-interest

and necessary regulatory controls to promote sustainability. Public economic

policies that are perverse to concepts of sustainability are apparent in three

distinct areas: subsidies, expenditures, and taxation.

Subsidies

Many subsidies encourage consumptive rather than conservation-based

behavior by obscuring the real costs of decisions. Examples of subsidies that

are in direct conflict with other laws and policies include the following:

l Subsidized overgrazing by permit practices for public lands is leading

to the destruction of habitat for endangered species such as the desert

tortoise.20

l Cheap hydropower and subsidized diversion of water for irrigation

jeopardize the continued existence of Columbia River salmon and other

endangered species.21

l Price supports for sugar producers encourage habitat loss and result in

pollution of waterways in Florida.22
CHAPTER 3

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

40

Expenditures

Public expenditures on economic infrastructure such as roads, dams,

schools, and industrial parks can encourage investment and induce

development in areas that might not be attractive in contravention of

sustainability values in that, for instance, they encourage sprawl which

requires new costly infrastructure or agriculture which requires costly

subsidized electricity.

Taxation

Tax codes and policies can promote sustainability and resource conservation

because tax policy can be used to create a set of powerful incentives and

disincentives to promote sustainability and can transfer value among various

segments of society. These tools do not eliminate costs of sustainability and

conservation, but rather transfer costs from the private to the public sector.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION 7

INTEGRATED LAND USE PLANNING

Encourage local governments to engage their

citizens in forging and implementing a vision that

conserves natural resources for their communities.

This vision can be realized through the exercise of a locality’s land use

authorities and expenditure of its fiscal resources. Federal, tribal, and state

governments should support communities in their efforts to realize

conservation in land use. Taxpayers, municipalities, and endangered species

all currently suffer from the adverse effects of urban sprawl; and all would

benefit from integrating the conservation of natural resources into planning and

zoning. This recommendation is intended to encourage and support

community planning processes to develop and take steps to achieve a

common vision for their locality that will result in economically sound land use

and environmental conservation.

DISCUSSION

One of the principal causes of environmental degradation and failing regional

marketplaces is urban sprawl. In many parts of the country, development

patterns consume land and natural resources at several times the rate of

population growth.23 This pattern of land development is neither

environmentally conserving nor economically sound. Taxpayers suffer as

much as endangered species. An integrated land use planning system needs
PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

41

to be created that encourages more compact and conservation-oriented

patterns of growth. Reforms are needed at the local level that are encouraged

and supported by regions, states, and federal agencies working together in

setting policies and coordinating programs.

Who

This recommendation calls for support and integration of planning processes

at the local, regional, state, and federal levels. Hence, agencies at all levels

that have an interest in development and conservation of particular lands

should be involved. This includes agencies at the federal and state levels; their

regional administrative offices; and local zoning, planning, and conservation

boards as well as the general public.

How

Local governments, with the inputs of their citizens, should adopt and

implement land use plans and programs in patterns that conserve land and

resources. These plans and programs should be coordinated with those of

their neighbors to accommodate current growth, as well as plan for future

development needs. State governments should adopt and implement land use

planning acts that create state land use plans. States should find ways to

advocate and encourage local action that leads toward conservation of natural

resources. The federal government should establish a mechanism to provide a

coordinated, well-focused federal effort in support of local planning where there

is a federal interest. The effort would also include exercise of federal

authorities in conjunction with state and local authorities to assist in meeting

common goals.

Incentives should be provided to encourage localities within the same region to

coordinate their community visions or plans with one another, ensuring that

they are compatible rather than competitive. Regional, state, and federal

agencies should streamline the approval and development of projects that

conform to the intermunicipal plans. Where these plans envision conservation,

federal, state, and regional agencies should join in actions to protect resources

for the future. Local, regional, state, federal, and tribal agencies should

collaborate in creating a network to exchange information related to land use

and conservation.

Indicators
CHAPTER 3

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

42

l Reversed trend of urban sprawl.

l Increase in intermunicipal and intergovernmental land use planning

efforts.

l Increase in the number of local land use plans that are purposefully

oriented toward reducing urban sprawl and increased integration of the

social, economic, and environmental dimensions of sustainability.

RATIONALE

This recommendation envisions a locally initiated process of policy

development, planning, and implementation to achieve cost-effective

conservation in land development patterns. The locally initiated process would

be supported by intergovernmental cooperation. The issues and interests

involved in resource use and conservation are interdependent. However, this is

the basis from which a successful strategy for sustainable land development

patterns can emerge, since mutual dependence is the essence of

sustainability, in general. Yet for disparate interests to unite in seeking mutually

beneficial solutions, they first must be encouraged to cooperate. Strategies

that provide incentives, rather than coercion, are better at facilitating

compromise.

Systems adopted to achieve sustainability need to be responsive systems,

listening and reacting to a variety of interests, open to innovation, and

encouraging collaboration—yet patient enough to achieve incremental

success. Importantly, these systems need to be grounded at the local level to

encourage patterns to emerge from the unique qualities and contributions each

community can offer. For order to emerge among these local patterns of

thought and development, however, these systems must ensure that local

communities communicate and collaborate with their neighbors so that their

influences on one another, on balance, are positive.

The original system of land use control, created over 80 years ago and

designed primarily for cities, was relatively simple and effective.24 Since then,

however, it has been augmented in a piecemeal fashion in reaction to new

pressures from population growth, technology development, and

environmental research. The result is an uncoordinated, disconnected morass

of regulations, processes, and financial incentives administered by disparate

public agencies at various levels of government. Rather than constituting an

organized and efficient legal system aimed at compatible objectives, it has

become a complicated tangle of influences that collide and produce highly

inefficient land use patterns.

Growing discontent with the results of this system has led to even greater

regulation and litigation, lengthier processes of approval, and a pervasive

caution about where and when development should occur. This greatly

disadvantages land developers and expanding business interests as well as
PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

43

the urban poor and the environmental quality of many developing regions. That

the land use system needs to be reinvented is clear; this proposal is an

integrated method of beginning that process.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION 8

INTEGRATE SUSTAINABLE DESIGN PRINCIPLES

INTO LAND DEVELOPMENT

Initiate a major collaborative public-private effort to

integrate sustainable design principles into all

aspects of land development to secure

environmental benefits and mitigate impacts for

people and their communities.

The scope of this recommendation includes siting, site and building design,

land development, landscaping, construction practices, sources and choices

of materials, technology, and policy. This recommendation focuses on

efficiency in use of land, energy, water, and materials. Attention would be given

to life cycle impacts and durability; nontoxic materials; use of recycled and

recyclable materials and buildings; and reduced reliance on fertilizers,

pesticides, and landscaping water demand. This initiative would result in

demonstrations, guidelines, and model building codes that would inspire and

guide designers, engineers, and builders.

DISCUSSION

This recommendation is intended to shape design and construction practices

by demonstrating that design and construction can be conducted in ways that

provide environmental benefits and reduce undesirable environmental impacts.

Who

This recommendation would be initiated by a professional association, such as

the American Institute of Architects, which would invite collaboration among

other professional and trade associations, environmental groups, and

agencies with particular interest at the federal, state, and local levels.

How

A professional association would initiate a multi-stakeholder national steering

group with corollary groups at state or local levels to identify, publicize, and

build on successes in using building codes to secure environmental benefits.

The scope of this effort would include:
CHAPTER 3

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

44

l Construction—incentives for developers to use life cycle approaches

to costing construction and demolition practices; certification of

construction companies, the use of sound land management practices

such as erosion and sediment control; building on environmentally

sensitive lands.

l Design—energy-efficient building designs; incentives for open space,

saving existing natural resources like trees and wetlands; siting and

design considering the path of the sun.

l Landscaping—education of landowners, developers, and golf course

managers about planting trees for shade and energy savings; edible

landscaping, reduction of water-intensive landscaping in drought areas;

recycling of water from the home for gardens.

l Policy

limiting urban sprawl, in-fill development and open space preservation;

development around public transportation nodes to lessen reliance on

federal highway aid; revenue sharing to encourage compact

development, use of existing infrastructure, and mixed-use

l Technology

efficiency.

Indicators

Existence of state and federal incentives to use environmentally friendly

building codes.

Availability and use of information on sound land use planning and

development practices.

Existence and use of standards and building codes for the

environment.

Demonstrations.

Land development and the construction industry are extremely important

elements of our national economy and the well-being of our families.

responsible for where we live, work, and play in our daily lives. Both industries

provide great opportunities to enrich each of our lives through providing

Energy bills keep climbing, and people want to know what they can do to save

money. On a national basis, we are challenged to find energy sources for the
PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

45

future. Many utilities are finding the highest returns on investments are in

increasing efficiency rather than increasing production of energy. Energyefficient buildings, using sound construction materials, solar energy, and tree

shading, can result in savings for consumers and our nation as a whole.

Our nation’s landfills are rapidly reaching capacity. Recycling, composting, and

removing yard waste reduces the waste stream significantly.

Water is in short supply in the West. If people were to use water wisely by

conserving, recycling, and using efficient technologies, the problem could be

significantly reduced.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION 9

PARTNERSHIPS FOR CONSERVATION

Create conservation areas through public-private

partnerships at the local level.

This recommendation is intended to capture important biodiversity values on

those lands that lie somewhere between densely populated urban lands and

protected wildlands. The recommendation is aimed at conserving biodiversity

while securing social, economic, and environmental benefits from lands that

are still largely in their native vegetated state. These voluntary partnerships are

formed within a framework that provides opportunities for individuals and

corporations to make important contributions to biodiversity while still making a

living from their lands. The networks of conservation areas arising from these

partnerships will complement the nation’s existing system of public and private

protected areas, conservation areas, and preserves, which provide an

important web of biodiversity across the country.

DISCUSSION

A large percentage of the American landscape is in a semi-natural condition

where people make a living on land that is still largely in its native vegetated

state. Extremely important contributions to biological diversity can arise from

the interactions between people and their environment in these semimanaged, semi-natural environments on private lands. Many individuals,

communities, corporations, governments, and nongovernmental organizations

desire to make contributions toward biodiversity. This recommendation is

intended to take advantage of that desire; and, in so doing, contribute to the

protection and restoration of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, processes,

and biodiversity upon which we depend.

Who
CHAPTER 3

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

46

Private individuals, corporations, and nongovernmental organizations that

desire to make contributions to biodiversity would be afforded the opportunity

through a framework created by collaborative effort among multiple

stakeholders. The White House, working through the U.S. Departments of

Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior; tribal, state, and local governments;

conservation groups; and industry would initiate and facilitate a collaborative

effort creating a framework for public-private partnerships for biodiversity in

each major bioregion of the country.

How

Creating a network of conservation areas based on public-private partnerships

requires a collaborative effort among key stakeholders to forge a commonly

shared vision for these landscapes and to craft a set of widely accepted goals

and priorities for each major bioregion of the country. The next step is to

develop an implementing mechanism that would foster voluntary partnerships

among individuals, governments, corporations, and nongovernmental

organizations to meet these goals. The partnerships could include preserves,

easements, agreements, trusts, and other arrangements on public and private

lands. One possible implementing mechanism could be a quasi-public entity

chartered by Congress to support and facilitate the building of this locally

based network of conservation areas.

Indicators

l By Earth Day 1997, establish a multi-stakeholder entity to create a

network of conservation areas through “Partnerships for Conservation.”

l By Earth Day 2000, achieve consensus on an implementing

mechanism for “Partnerships for Conservation” which has a wide basis

of support among Congress, the executive branch—including

agencies; tribal, state, and local governments; conservation groups;

and industry.

l By Earth Day 2001, celebrate the establishment of a national network

of conservation areas for each major bioregion in the country.

RATIONALE

We are losing the elements and functions of biodiversity in our country and on

the Earth at an alarming rate. From the fossil record, scientists conclude that

the background rate of extinction is one species per century to one species per

year. The extinction rate today is between one species per day to one species

per hour.25 As populations and species drop out of the natural communities of

which they are a part, the communities begin to decay. There are three

principle causes of loss of biological diversity:

l habitat loss (the main cause of species extinction),

l pollution, and
PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

47

l exotic species.

Habitat fragmentation is closely related to habitat loss in that it breaks up

habitats into smaller pieces which do not function as they did when they were

larger and connected.

Just as families, their houses, neighborhoods, shopping centers, and the

roads that connect them make up the basic building blocks of communities, so

it is that biological diversity provides the basic building blocks of ecosystems.

Biological diversity has basic elements of genes; species; their interactions;

and important functions such as the natural processes of fire, nutrient, and

water cycling—including droughts, floods, and annual fluctuations in stream

flows.

Thomas Lovejoy of the Smithsonian Institution suggests that 4.5 percent of the

U.S. gross domestic product was attributable to wild species in 1986.26 He

also recognizes the economic benefits of biodiversity in the areas of

agriculture and pest management, pharmaceuticals, environmental

applications, and products generated from naturally occurring molecules.27 It

is important to recognize that almost all of the species in trouble are going

extinct incidental to some economic pursuit—that is, as an unintended

consequence. In manufacturing jargon, we would call this waste.

A large percentage of the American landscape is in a semi-natural condition

where people make a living on a landscape that is still largely in its native

vegetated state. Protection of biological diversity and securing environmental

benefits for future generations will, in large part, be determined by how the

interactions between people and their environment takes place in these semimanaged, semi-natural environments. Individuals, communities, corporations,

governments, and nongovernmental organizations all have essential roles to

play in protecting biodiversity and securing environmental benefits.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION 10

IMPROVE NATURAL RESOURCE DECISIONMAKING

Deploy the resources of government to improve

natural resource decisionmaking, ensuring that it is

well-coordinated; based on high-quality information;

and integrated with respect to social, economic, and

environmental aspects.

Strategic decisions should be made by government agencies at all levels to

better manage the collection and use of natural resource information and
CHAPTER 3

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

48

improve natural resource decisionmaking by (1) making available the best

possible natural resource information based on science, and (2) using this

information to make open and transparent decisions about natural resources

that are coordinated among agencies and levels of government and wellintegrated in social, economic, and environmental aspects. This

recommendation is intended to provide a firm basis in knowledge to encourage

adaptive management in applying sustainable development principles in the

face of uncertainty rather than refraining from action until certainty is achieved.

An implementing mechanism would be an executive order directed at federal

agencies under the Government Performance and Results Act.

DISCUSSION

Because natural resources are crucial to our social, economic, and

environmental well-being, people all across the country said it was of utmost

importance that all natural resource decisions should be based on science and

high-quality information and that decisions by government agencies at all levels

should be coherent, coordinated, and well-integrated.

Who

The President should issue an executive order directing federal agencies to

implement this recommendation through their strategic planning under GPRA.

The President should also call on the nation’s governors and tribal leaders to

take up this recommendation at the state level.

How

Agencies, in the strategic planning mandated under GPRA, should make

strategic decisions focused on making available the best possible natural

resource information based on science and using this information to make

open and transparent decisions about natural resources that are coordinated

among agencies and levels of government and well-integrated in social,

economic, and environmental aspects.

To focus such strategic planning efforts in federal agencies, the White House

should develop a collaborative mechanism to set the Administration’s national

natural resource goals and priorities and establish a related common
PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

49

accessible database for natural resource management at all levels of

government by 2000; by 2010, changes should be instituted in agency

authorities, programs, and priorities to reflect national goals and priorities.

Indicators

l Decisionmakers communicate interrelationships of natural resource

systems and sustainability in terms simple enough to fully inform public

participation in decisionmaking.

l Federal agencies use adaptive management to apply sustainable

development principles in the face of uncertainty rather than refraining

from action until certainty is achieved.

l Integrated, collaborative decisionmaking within and among

governments is the norm.

RATIONALE

Because natural resources are crucial to our social, economic, and

environmental well-being, people said that it was of utmost importance that all

natural resource decisions should be based on science and high-quality

information. They said that the science and information needs to be credible,

easily understandable, and sufficient to serve as a basis for an integrated

understanding of the social, economic, and environmental effects of decisions

over time and space. Such information should be readily accessible for use by

citizens, corporations, nongovernmental organizations, and government

agencies at all levels.

People told us that natural systems know no administrative boundaries.

Workshop participants were unanimous in telling us that policies and

programs that affect natural resources should not be dictated by administrative

boundaries, but should be coherent and well-coordinated at all levels—federal,

state, tribal, and local. They told us that such policies and programs should be

based on full public participation and focused on meeting the needs of the

present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their

own needs.

The workshops have pointed out that challenges for improving natural

resource decisionmaking to achieve sustainable development are threefold:

l Overcome conflicting and incoherent goals between jurisdictions

and set national, regional, state, tribal, and local goals linking

protection and development of natural resources with

measurement of progress in meeting those goals. Unless we set

measurable goals, the old adage will apply: “When you don’t know

where you’re going, any road will get you there.”
CHAPTER 3

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

50

l Establish institutional arrangements that are sufficiently robust to

manage the tradeoffs and resolve conflicts between multiple

uses and demands at various scales. Air pollution, for example,

created in one region of the country that causes damage to forestry or

agriculture in another region needs to be addressed. It is much simpler

and more politically expedient to maintain a narrow focus, but nature

brutally reminded us of this inefficiency during the 1993 Midwest flood.

In trying to shape and subdue the Mississippi River, we ended up

paying tremendous social, economic, and environmental costs. In

south Florida, California, and other places across the United States,

industries, governments, and private interests alike are discovering

that—particularly within watersheds—the way one manages natural

resources can set off a chain reaction that has significant economic,

environmental, and social consequences within and beyond the

immediate area.

l Understand the interrelationships between different resources

and the interaction with social and economic forces. This

challenge includes understanding how the health of one resource

affects or is affected by the health of others. Important linkages

between resources and policies are often overlooked. Sometimes

detrimental effects to particular natural resources occur when attention

is focused separately on individual resources or policies through

different regulatory agencies or different federal or state laws, or by

oversight from different congressional committees.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION 11

FINDING CONSENSUS BETWEEN STAKEHOLDERS

AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Empower the federal government to play a more

active role in building consensus on difficult issues.

Create flexibility in Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA)

procedures that, while still achieving the underlying goals of the act—integrity

and honesty of government—encourage more collaboration in resolving

conflicts between federal officials and local, regional, state, and tribal

stakeholders.28 This recommendation is intended to provide the authority for

the federal government to play an active role in forging common visions, finding

common interests, building consensus, and finding ways for stakeholders to

work together toward common goals.

DISCUSSION
PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

51

Conflicts related to the protection and management of multiple uses of natural

resources are increasingly exceeding the capacity of existing institutions,

processes, and mechanisms to resolve them. FACA requires rigorous

procedures that often hinder federal officials in their efforts to resolve conflicts

and help stakeholders find common ground. FACA currently takes a “one-sizefits-all” approach.

Who

Flexibility in FACA can be created by the President through executive order, by

agency heads through the promulgation of regulations, and by Congress

through FACA amendments.

How

FACA, its implementing regulations, and any associated executive orders

should be amended to create a better match between procedures and scope

of issues/decisions at hand. Agencies should promulgate regulations that

delegate authorities and streamline procedures, particularly to allow for

flexibility in FACA’s application. The President should revisit Executive Order

No. 12838, Termination and Limitation of Federal Advisory Committees, to

allow agencies to work more closely with stakeholders on an informal basis.29

Changes should be aimed at:

l facilitating meetings between officials of the federal government and

representatives of any combination of one or more state, county, or

local governments, or Indian tribes;

l encouraging federal agencies to convene stakeholders to forge

consensus around particular natural resource issues and find ways to

work together toward commonly shared goals;

l empowering federal, state, tribal, and local agencies to employ a

watershed (or other defining landform) approach using collaborative

multi-agency, multi-stakeholder processes; and

l fostering use of alternative dispute resolution techniques.

Indicators

l Increase in the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques for

natural resource conflicts.

l Increased federal, tribal, state, and local government collaboration and

increased citizen and corporate support for government actions.

l Decreased litigation on natural resource issues.

RATIONALE
CHAPTER 3

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

52

The key to successful resolution of natural resource conflicts often lies in being

able to forge a common vision and goals and collaborate in activities aimed

toward meeting those common goals. FACA sets high standards and requires

rigorous procedures that often hinder collaborative decisionmaking between

federal agencies and other governments including states, tribes, and local

governments. The stringent provisions of the act have also become a barrier to

developing support or consensus among stakeholders for contemplated

government actions.

As a nation, we are struggling to build a conservation ethic—a shared

aspiration about stewardship of natural resources—and an understanding of

our relationship to the Earth and its natural resources upon which we depend.

The way we manage our natural resources will determine the quality of the air

we breathe, what we eat, and the vitality of our economy. An important part of

this ethic is the notion of sustainability—an understanding that what we do

today should not compromise the options available for future generations.

Sustainability for natural resources implies high standards of environmental

care, productive functioning of ecosystems, maintaining the viability and

diversity of species, use of natural resources for economic benefits, and

sharing our natural resource endowment widely and equitably.

The development and implementation of watershed approaches to sustainable

development will require collaborative approaches by governments and

stakeholders. Permitting such meetings will require an amendment of FACA.

Collaborative decisionmaking requires that all governmental bodies should be

able to communicate with stakeholders in order to develop supportable

decisions. FACA specifies procedures by which federal agencies may accept

advice from nonfederal entities and individuals. Because FACA’s standards

are highly formalized, the statute may hinder collaborative decisionmaking

between citizens, federal agencies, and other governments including states,

tribes, and local governments. For example, because the experts were not

properly organized under FACA, a federal court ruled that FACA prevented the

federal government from utilizing a committee composed of state and tribal

technical experts in the implementation of the President’s Forest Plan for the

Pacific Northwest.

Communities and citizens across the country are discovering that

collaborative watershed-based approaches involving communities and all

stakeholders are a powerful tool for resolving natural resource conflicts.

People are discovering that such approaches are capable of providing a

reliable means for balancing competing interests; taking a broad view of the

problems; integrating the social, economic, and environmental aspects;

moving beyond boundaries in jurisdictions and agency authorities; and

reflecting community interests as well as the interests of individual citizens.

Sustainability ultimately cannot be decided by the government for people—

people will have to decide it for themselves. In order to ensure that all interests

are represented, it is important that all stakeholders are at the table, including,

but not limited to, private citizens, local representatives of government, national
PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

53

nongovernmental organizations, federal agencies, in addition to members of

the local community.

COMMUNITY-BASED MULTI-STAKEHOLDER

COLLABORATIVE WATERSHED APPROACHES

Employ voluntary community-based multistakeholder collaborative approaches to protect,

restore, and monitor watersheds and to resolve

natural resource conflicts.

These approaches should be open and inclusive; based on existing laws; and

conducted within a framework of natural systems—watersheds, ecosystems,

bioregions, or other defining landforms—using the best available science. This

recommendation is patterned after successful approaches used all across the

country. It is intended to provide impetus for stakeholders and communities to

work together in searching for common goals, resolving conflicts, becoming

aware of and using best available science, meeting legal requirements for

protecting the environment, monitoring natural resources, and redeeming

collective responsibility for conditions and trends of natural resources.

DISCUSSION

This recommendation is intended to reduce conflict and enable stakeholders,

communities, and governments to redeem their responsibilities for

stewardship to protect the crucial contributions that natural resources make to

our collective social and economic well-being.

Who

Public and private leaders, communities, governments, and their agencies at

all levels—local, state, tribal, and federal—should embrace a new way of doing

business using voluntary collaborative approaches based on the framework of

natural systems, whereby stakeholders:

l search for common goals, values, and interests;

l work together in resolving conflicts and directing energies and

investments; and

l take collective responsibility for actions and monitoring outcomes.

How

In recognition of the importance of natural resources, communities all across

the country should, individually and working together with stakeholders and

communities, employ collaborative approaches. These efforts would be aimed

toward the protection and restoration of natural resources and systems;

implementation of applicable laws; resolution of natural resource conflicts;
0

APPENDIX C

EASTERN REGIONAL TEAM REPORTS

ENDNOTES

1. This report contains many statements made by public workshop participants. Most

of these statements are taken from the regional workshop reports (in appendices C,

D, and F) and represent the recorded recollections of the workshop organizers and

workshop report authors. The President’s Council on Sustainable Development does

not hold minutes of the workshops and has not verified the factual accuracy of these

statements.

2. From Lower Mississippi Basin Workshop, Summary Report, Baton Rouge,

Louisiana, January 5-6, 1995, pp. 3-4.

3. National Forest Management Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94-588, 90 Stat 2949; National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 (1988); Magnuson Fisheries and

Conservation Act of 1976, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. (1985); Marine Mammal

Protection Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. (1985); Endangered Species Act, 16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq. (1982); and Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. (1982).

4. Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 (1976) and 41 C.F.R.

101-6.10.

5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards, National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1995, EPA 454/r-96-

005 (Research Triangle Park, NC, 1996).

6. See National Research Council, Protecting Visibility in National Parks and

Wilderness Areas (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993); and Ned

Burks and Chris Fordney, “Battle for the Blue Ridge,” The Washington Post,

October 31, 1993: mag. p. 14 (air pollution in Shenandoah National Park).

7. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1992

National Resources Inventory Backgrounder (Washington, DC, 1995).

8. Ibid.

9. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Summary

Report 1992 National Resources Inventory (Washington, DC, 1995).

10. Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, 31 U.S.C. 1115-1119 (1995).

11. See Carol S. Carson et al., “Integrated Economic and Environmental Satellite

Accounts,” Survey of Current Business, April 1994: 33-49. The article reviews work

by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce.

12. Scott Wallinger, “A Commitment to the Future: American Forest and Paper

Association Sustainable Forestry Initiative,” Journal of Forestry 93, no. 1 (January

1995): 16-19.

13. Douglas S. Powell et al., Forest Resources of the United States, 1992, no. 234

(Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experimentation Station, 1994), p. 132; Richard W. Haynes, An

Analysis of the Timber Situation in the United States: 1989-2040, Forest Service

Report RM-199 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1990), p. 174,

table 126; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service,

Summary Report 1992 National Resources Inventory (Washington, DC, 1995), p. 5,
0

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

55

fig. 1; and Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality: The TwentyFourth Annual Report (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993), p.

451, table 45, and p. 462, table 57.

14. See Daniel Sitarz, ed., Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet

(Boulder, CO: Earth Press, 1993).

15. Information presented by Elson Ross, Associate Deputy Chief for Research for the

U.S. Forest Service, to the Second Ministerial Conference on the Protection of

Forests in Europe, Helsinki, Finland, 16-17 June 1993, p. 4.

16. Wallinger, p. 17.

17. See W. Nehlsen, J.E. Williams, and J.A. Lichatowich, “Pacific Salmon at the

Crossroads: Stocks at Risk From California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington,”

Fisheries 16, no. 2 (1991): 4-21.

18. U.S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States 1995

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995), p. 227, table 364, and p.

228, table 365.

19. Bruce A. Stein et al., “Significance of Federal Lands for Endangered Species,” in

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service, Our Living Resources—

A Report to the Nation on Distribution, Abundance, and Health of U.S. Plants,

Animals, and Ecological Systems (Washington, DC, 1995), pp. 398-401.

20. For further information on overgrazing and grazing reform on federal lands, see U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ecosystem Management in

the BLM: From Concept to Commitment, BLM/SCGI-94/005-1736 (Washington, DC,

1994), p. 2; National Research Council, Rangeland Health: New Methods to

Classify, Inventory, and Monitor Rangelands (Washington, DC: National Academy

Press, 1994); and Rick Weiss, “Tracking a Dwindling Desert Denizen,” The

Washington Post, March 18, 1996: p. A-3.

21. For further information, see U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, Proposed Recovery Plan for Snake River Salmon

(Washington, DC, 1995) (this addresses salmon runs in the Columbia and Snake

Rivers); and Tom Kenworthy, “Agency Outlines Salmon Protection Plan: Costly

Measures Could Send Shock Waves Through Northwest Economy,” The

Washington Post, March 21, 1995: p. A-3.

22. For newspaper accounts, see William Booth, “Sweet Progress in Everglades:

Florida Sugar Farmers Send Less Phosphorus Into Marsh,” The Washington Post,

September 4, 1996: p. A-1; and William Booth, “Sugar Growers Stuck in Everglades

Battle: Opposition Pushing Tax to Pay for Cleanup,” The Washington Post, January

12, 1996: p. A-3.

23. For example, while Greater Los Angeles increased its population by 45 percent

between 1970 and 1990, its geographical reach expanded by nearly 300 percent.

Henry L. Diamond and Patrick F. Noonan, Land Use in America (Washington, DC:

Island Press, 1996), p. 88.

24. New York City enacted the country’s first zoning ordinance in 1916. In 1926, the

U.S. Supreme Court upheld the basic constitutionality of zoning in the landmark

decision Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co, 272 U.S. 365 (1926). See Charles

M. Haar and Jerold S. Kayden, eds., Zoning and the American Dream: Promises
0

APPENDIX C

EASTERN REGIONAL TEAM REPORTS

56

ENDNOTES

Still to Keep (Washington, DC: Planners Press, 1989), p. ix.

25. Estimating extinction rates is difficult, but scientists agree that rates of extinction

have accelerated several times over background rates. See John H. Lawton and

Robert M. May eds., Extinction Rates (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995),

pp. 1-4.

26. See World Resources Institute, Global Biodiversity Strategy: Guidelines for Action

to Save, Study and Use Earth’s Biotic Wealth Sustainably and Equitably, prepared

in collaboration with the U.N. Environment Program and the World Conservation

Union (Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 1992), p. 2, citing C. PrescottAllen, The First Resource (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986).

27. Regarding the economic value of biodiversity, see Walter V. Reid et al., Biodiversity

Prospecting: Using Genetic Resources for Sustainable Development (Washington,

DC: World Resources Institute, 1993); and Norman Myers, A Wealth of Wild

Species: Storehouse for Human Welfare (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1983).

28. Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 (1976) and 41 C.F.R.

101-6.10.

29. Executive Order No. 12838, February 10, 1993, 3 C.F.R. 590 (1994), requires that

the number of advisory committees be reduced by one-third, that all remaining

committees be justified in detail, and that new committees be created only when

compelling considerations necessitate their creation.
0

APPENDIX C

EASTERN REGIONAL TEAM REPORTS

57

APPENDIX A

TASK FORCE MEMBERS

PRINCIPAL TASK FORCE LIAISONS

Marcia Aronoff, Deputy Director for Programs, Environmental Defense Fund

John Bullard, Director, Office of Sustainable Development, U.S. Department of Commerce

David Gardiner, Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S.Environmental Protection

Agency

Glynn Key, Special Assistant to the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior

Michael McCloskey, Chairman, Sierra Club

John Mincy, Vice President, Safety and Environmental Affairs, Ciba-Geigy Corporation

John Platt, Special Assistant to the Director, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

Jody Thomas, Director of Community Relations, The Nature Conservancy

Russell Van Herik, Vice President, Special Projects, The Nature Conservancy

Susan Vogt, Director, Environmental Policy Training and Regulatory Affairs, Georgia-Pacific Corporation

WORKING GROUP LIAISONS

Terry D’Addio, Special Assistant to the Undersecretary for Natural Resources and the Environment, U.S.

Department of Agriculture

Margaret Delp, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

Nancy Foster, Deputy Assistant Administrator of Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Services, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

Ted Lillestolen, Special Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of Fisheries, National Marine

Fisheries Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

Robert Olszewski, Manager, Forest Resources, Georgia-Pacific Corporation

Tim Searchinger, Environmental Defense Fund

David Taylor, Vice President, Public Affairs & Communications, Ciba-Geigy Corporation

EASTERN REGIONAL TEAM

Hudson River Case Study

Co-Chairs

Richard Barth, Chairman, President, and CEO, Ciba-Geigy Corporation

Edward Skloot, Executive Director, Surdna Foundation

Case Study Manager

John R. Nolon, Professor of Law, Pace University School of Law

Members

Peter Bienstock, President, Mid-Hudson Land Corporation, and Trustee, Friends of the Hudson Valley

Hooper Brooks, Program Officer for the Environment, Surdna Foundation

Nancy Campbell, Vice Chairman, National Trust for Historic Preservation

Audrey Carey, Mayor, City of Newburgh

Jayne Daly, Pace University School of Law

Lawrence E. Dwyer, President, Westchester County Association

Christopher J. Elliman, President, Open Space Institute
Frances S. Gibbs, Mayor, City of Peekskill

William T. Golden, Chairman Emeritus, American Museum of Natural History

Shelby Green, Professor of Law, Pace University School of Law

Alistair Hanna, Director, McKinsey & Co., Inc.

Tony Hiss, Institute of Economic Analysis, New York University

Tim Idoni, Mayor, City of New Rochelle

Kenneth T. Jackson, Barzun Professor of History and the Social Sciences, Department of History,

Columbia University

James B. Joyce, Division Vice President, The Bank of New York

Andrew Lawrence, Atlantic Chapter, Sierra Club

Olivia Millard, Executive Director, Lower Hudson Chapter, The Nature Conservancy

Sheila Newman, Mayor, City of Poughkeepsie

Michael F. Northrop, Rockefeller Brothers Fund

P. Lynn Oliva, Commissioner, Westchester County Department of Planning

Frederick Osborn III, Vice Chairman, Scenic Hudson

Robert Osborne, Chief Operating Officer, Carl C. Icahn Foundation

Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff, Former Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II

Albert Smiley, Smiley Brothers, Inc.

St. Johns River Case Study

Co-Chairs

A.D. Correll, Chairman and CEO, Georgia-Pacific Corporation

Mike Branch, Fernandina Region Manager, Jefferson Smurfit Corporation, Container Corporation of

America

Linda Bremer, Florida Chapter Member, Sierra Club

Case Study Manager

Rob Olszewski, Manager, Forest Resources, Georgia-Pacific Corporation

Members

Dennis Auth, Environmental Consultant, Auth and Associates

John Flowe, Director of Water Quality, Jacksonville Regulatory and Environmental Services

Judy Hancock, Chairman, State Public Lands Committee, Sierra Club

Brad Hartman, Director of Environmental Services, Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission

Herb Kale, Vice President, Florida Audubon Society

Kraig McLain, Intergovernmental Coordinator, St. Johns River Water Management District

Dawson McQuaig, Developer, north Florida

Bob Simons, Member, Florida Defenders of the Environment

Special Advisors

David Bruderly, Bruderly Engineering Associates, Inc.

Bruce Hill, Florida Division of Forestry

Charles Kibert, University of Florida

Chesapeake Bay Case Study

Co-Chairs

A.D. Correll, Chairman and CEO, Georgia-Pacific Corporation

Jean Packard, Sierra Club
APPENDIX A

TASK FORCE MEMBERS

59

Participants

Elizabeth Bauereis, Director, Environmental Affairs, Baltimore Gas & Electric Company

Donald Boesch, President, University of Maryland, CEES

Nick Carter, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Tidewater Administration

Edwina H. Coder, Board of Directors, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc.

Glenn Eugster, Chesapeake Bay Program Office

Frances H. Flanigan, Executive Director, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc.

John M. Flynn, Manager, Public Policy, Corporate Relations Department, Ciba-Geigy Corporation

Patricia Hill, Manager, Federal Regulatory Affairs, Georgia-Pacific Corporation

Robert Kaufman, National Vice President, Michael T. Rose Corporation

Stella Koch, Virginia Conservation Associate, Audubon Naturalist Society

William Matuszeski, Director, Chesapeake Bay Program

Debi Lee Osborne, Project Manager, The Trust for Public Land

Ann Pesiri Swanson, Executive Director, Chesapeake Bay Commission

Betty Spence, National Wildlife Federation

MIDWESTERN REGIONAL TEAM

Co-Chairs

Richard Barth, Chairman, President, and CEO, Ciba-Geigy Corporation

Fred D. Krupp, Executive Director, Environmental Defense Fund

John C. Sawhill, President and CEO, The Nature Conservancy

Members

Robert P. Bringer, Staff Vice President, 3M Corporation

Michael O’Keefe, Executive Vice President, The McKnight Foundation

Dan Ray, Program Oficer for the Environment, The McKnight Foundation

Duane Sand, Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation

Richard E. Sparks, Director, River Research Laboratories

Evan G. Stadlman, Executive Director, Iowa Corn Growers Association

WESTERN REGIONAL TEAM

Chair

Theodore Strong, Executive Director, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

Members

Lori Bodi, Co-Director, Northwest Regional Office of American Rivers

Emory Bundy, Director, Bullitt Foundation

Gershon Cohen, Executive Director, Alaska Clean Water Alliance

Bonnie Colby, Associate Professor, Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics, University of

Arizona

Paul Dolan III, President, Fetzer Vineyards

Bob Doppelt, Executive Director, Pacific Rivers Council

Jim Enote, Project Leader, Zuni Conservation Project

Lill Erickson, Northern Rockies Representative, Sonoran Institute

Katrina Florez Fitt, President and CEO, Fitt Environmental, Inc.

Terry Flores, Hydro Policy Administrator, Pacificorp

Lawrence J. MacDonnell, Director, Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of

Law

Mary Lou Soscia, Manager, Oregon Watershed Health Program
Kate Sullivan, Forest Hydrologist, Weyerhauser Corporation

Sara Vickerman, Director of State Conservation Programs, Defenders of Wildlife

Brooke Williams, Consultant, Plateau Innovation

President’s Council on Sustainable Development Staff and Associates

Gary Larsen, Coordinator, Natural Resources Task Force

Lois Morrison, Policy Advisor, President’s Council on Sustainable Development

Peggy Duxbury, Policy Advisor, President’s Council on Sustainable Development

Alissa Schmeltz, Research Associate, President’s Council on Sustainable Development

Stewart Schwartz, Research Associate, President’s Council on Sustainable Development

Patricia Sinicropi, Administrative Officer, President’s Council on Sustainable Development

Nita Congress, Editor
61

APPENDIX B

TASK FORCE MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS

TASK FORCE

Seattle, Washington January 12-13, 1994

Chicago, Illinois July 22, 1994

Washington, D.C. October 27, 1994*

Chattanooga, Tennessee January 12-13, 1995

San Francisco, California April 26, 1995

*The Task Force also met in Washington, D.C., in conjunction with meetings of the full President’s Council on

Sustainable Development.

EASTERN TEAM

Chesapeake Bay, Maryland October 30-November 1, 1994

Hudson River, New York May 22, 1994

St. Johns River, Florida October 17, 1994

October 31, 1994

November 7, 1994

MIDWESTERN TEAM

La Crosse, Wisconsin July 18-20, 1994

Chicago, Illinois July 22, 1994

Des Moines, Iowa November 28-29, 1994

Baton Rouge, Louisiana January 5-6, 1995

WESTERN TEAM

Willapa Bay, Washington January 15, 1994

Bellevue, Washington September 29-October 1, 1994

Stateline, Nevada October 3-6, 1994

Yakima, Washington November 2-3, 1994

Santa Fe, New Mexico November 20-22, 1994

Las Vegas, Nevada December 12-14, 1994

San Francisco, California April 26, 1995
0

APPENDIX C

EASTERN REGIONAL TEAM REPORTS

62

APPENDIX C

EASTERN REGIONAL TEAM REPORTS

This appendix contains three separate reports of the Eastern Regional Team of the Natural

Resources Task Force:

l Report of the Hudson River Advisory Board on Sustainable Development,

l Lower St. Johns River Basin Regional Team Report, and

l Chesapeake Bay Watershed Natural Resources Task Force Workshop Report.

These reports represent the work of the authors of those reports and have not been subjected

to fact-checking by the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. HUDSON

RIVER ADVISORY BOARD

ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

December 29, 1994

I. President’s Council on Sustainable Development

Assembling the Advisory Board

The Hudson River Advisory Board was organized in August 1994 to develop a strategy for

achieving sustainable development in the Hudson River Valley for a report to the President’s

Council on Sustainable Development. As part of that process and because much groundwork

had already been done, it was hoped that the Board would focus a significant part of its effort

on advising the Land Use Law Center of Pace University School of Law to refine its study of

the obstacles to achieving sustainable land development patterns in the Valley and

recommendations to overcome them.

Membership of the Board

The Advisory Board is co-chaired, as are all the committees and boards of the President’s

Council, by a private sector leader and an environmentalist. Richard Barth, CEO and Chairman

of Ciba, and Edward Skloot, Executive Director of the Surdna Foundation, occupy these

leadership posts. The full membership of the Board is listed at the end of this report. It includes

business and environmental leaders, four city mayors, social service providers, planners,

academics, preservationists, nonprofit executives, and writers. The Board does not represent,

nor does it speak for all groups in, the Hudson Valley, but it brings vast experience from varied

interests to the job of evaluating the future of the Hudson Valley as a sustainable region.
The Process

The Board has met on four occasions. One of these meetings was held in conjunction with

an Economic Summit on Sustainable Development, cosponsored by the Westchester County

Association and Pace University. At these meetings, the Board has reviewed the results of

numerous studies, heard from the staff of the President’s Council, and listened to a variety of

experts speak on various aspects of sustainable development. This report is a product of

those activities. It will be presented at a citizens’ conference in May 1995 and revised to

reflect input received at that event. Subsequently, a final report on the sustainability of the

Hudson River Valley Region will be submitted to the President’s Council.

At the request of the President’s Council, the Advisory Board is to take a long view with

regard to the subject of sustainable development in the Valley. We were asked “What would the

Hudson Valley look like 50 years from now, in the year 2045, if it were developed in a sustainable

fashion?” We were then asked to identify the obstacles to achieving that vision and, finally, to

make recommendations for overcoming them. The President’s Council uses this approach to

encourage representatives from all sides of the issue to look beyond their short-term disputes

and arrive at a vision of the future that unites them in effective problem solving.

The Focus

The Hudson River Advisory Board identified many issues that must be addressed in

shaping a comprehensive strategy for sustainable development, but determined that its initial

focus should be the pattern of land development that is occurring throughout the Valley. This

issue was selected because it is urgent and because it was possible for the Board to develop

useful recommendations, in time for a report to the President’s Council, based on a large body

of background work already accomplished by the Land Use Law Center. If the Board decides

to extend its activities past the spring of 1995, it may broaden its scope of concern.

The land use pattern is characterized by low-density, dispersed development moving

gradually away from urban and village centers along inadequate transportation corridors and

into the unsettled countryside. The pace of land development, configured in this way, outstrips

population growth by a ratio of about 8 to 1.

Our projections show that, over the next several decades, while population will increase by

a modest 4 to 8 percent per decade, if current land development patterns continue, the Valley

will be transformed from predominately open space to predominately developed land.1 The

consequences of this pattern of development, if not reversed, will be an increasingly

uncompetitive economy, greater urban poverty and injustice, and a severely threatened

natural environment.

The Larger Context

This land development pattern describes just one threat to a sustainable future for the

Valley and is but one aspect of the concept of “sustainable development.” The President’s

Council has adopted the following definition of the term: “Sustainable development is

development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their own needs.” Under this broad banner march a host of issues no

less important than land development patterns. They all bear on how we use material and

1

APPENDIX C

EASTERN REGIONAL TEAM REPORTS

63
2

1Some members of the Board expressed concern with the accuracy of these population projections. As a

result, the Board intends to investigate alternative projections and readdress this issue and its effect on open

space depletion in the Board’s final report to the Council.

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

64

natural resources. Are these uses compatible with the resource needs of future generations

or even of today’s urban and rural poor? Are we using our creativity and technology and

common business sense as effectively as we can to conserve these resources for the

difficult challenges that lie ahead?

Among the other critical concerns of sustainable development are energy efficiency,

renewable resources, best manufacturing and industrial practices, recycling in all its

applications, preserving historic and cultural resources, full-cost accounting of resource

utilization, pricing that reflects these full costs, transportation and transit facility construction,

building design and siting, personal responsibility for consumption, forest, watershed, and

habitat management, and the grand issue of preserving biological diversity, among others.

Interdependence of Issues

Many of these issues are inseparable. Compact and integrated land development patterns

are more energy efficient and tend to have less impact on resources such as forests,

watersheds, and habitats. However, these more efficient patterns are dependent on the

availability of transit facilities and excellent building and landscape design for their viability as

alternatives to current development practices. In addition, citizens who demand conservation

and cost efficiency in land development are more likely to require it, as consumers, of their

manufacturers and service providers.

Key Principles of Sustainability

One of the essential attributes of sustainability, in fact, is mutual dependence. This is the

basis from which a successful strategy for sustainable land development patterns can emerge,

since it is the essence of sustainability in general. The issues and interests involved in all

aspects of resource use and conservation are interdependent. However, for disparate interests

to unite in seeking mutually beneficial solutions, they first must be encouraged to cooperate.

Strategies that provide incentives, rather than coercion, are better at facilitating compromise.

Systems adopted to achieve sustainability need to be responsive systems, listening to and

reacting to a variety of interests, open to innovation, and encouraging collaboration, yet patient

enough to achieve success incrementally. Importantly, these systems need to be grounded at the

local level, to encourage patterns to emerge from the unique qualities and contributions each

community can offer. For order to emerge among these local patterns of thought and

development, however, these systems must ensure that local communities communicate and

collaborate with their neighbors so that their influences on one another, in balance, are positive.

These principles seem broadly applicable to the achievement of sustainable development

in all its dimensions; they have guided our thinking as we have worked through our vision of

the Hudson Valley, and the obstacles to its sustainable future, toward recommendations for
3

APPENDIX C

EASTERN REGIONAL TEAM REPORTS

65

moving forward.

II. Visions of a Sustainable Hudson River Valley–2045

The River

The river that runs through the Hudson River Valley compels us to understand how

organically we are connected. In its relatively short length, as great rivers are measured, it

flows out of ancient, glacier-worn mountains that are as old as any rock in the world. From its

source west of Lake Champlain in Essex County, it runs through the heart of the Adirondack

Park, plunging every way but north, gathering in the force of other streams and rivers as it

emerges from near wilderness before being harnessed. After such indecisive coursing, the

Hudson seems to take on a purpose at Fort Edward as it heads south to become a

commercial thoroughfare before passing Albany.

From the state’s capital, which it connects to the global commercial center of New York

City, the Hudson gradually takes on the character of a fjord; as an estuary that is tidally

influenced from Manhattan to Troy, the river becomes one of the most diverse and productive

ecosystems in the world. Atlantic tides push north as they are resisted, and periodically

overcome, by the growing force of freshwater that pours from the Hudson’s upper branches

and the kills, creeks, and springs that perpetually fill its ancient banks. This mix of high

mountain freshwater with the saline tides of the deep Atlantic gives the river its dynamic

fertility.

From Greene and Columbia counties, until just before the waters pass by New York City

on the south, the Hudson defines the region of our study: one that is organically and

historically connected by the river that runs through it.

The Region

The study region encompasses the 7,283 square miles included in the counties of

Westchester, Putnam, Dutchess, and Columbia that lie to the east of the Hudson River, and

Rockland, Sullivan, Orange, Delaware, Ulster, and Greene to the west. This region is

bounded roughly by the Delaware River on the west, the Catskill Park on the northwest,

Connecticut and Massachusetts on the east, and New Jersey on the southwest. In addition to

being the southern watershed of the Hudson, this region constitutes a significant portion of a

larger ecoregion, generally referred to as Central Appalachia, which includes Pittsburgh,

Trenton, Springfield, Albany, and Binghamton.

Natural Resources

The environmental issues raised in the Hudson Valley are typical of those affecting most

areas in Central Appalachia where 35 million residents and a variety of economic pressures

threaten the region’s still abundant farmland, meadows, backcountry areas, and wildlife.

Habitats here shelter countless species of wildlife, some of which are threatened or

endangered, including the great blue heron, the bog turtle, and the bobcat. They, along with

nearly 100 species of migrating neotropical birds, rest and feed here each year.

The habitats of this wildlife, such as boreal bogs, wetlands, hardwood forests, and meadows,
are disappearing at an alarming rate. This serious depletion is due primarily to one

phenomenon: The pace of land development has exceeded that of population growth by a

ratio in excess of 8 to 1. Beyond habitat destruction, the natural resource issues raised by

sprawling development in the Hudson Valley are legion. This pattern of land development is

highly inefficient with respect to energy consumption, has created several air pollution

nonattainment areas, and has degraded surface and groundwater resources. It threatens the

viability of the region’s rivers and streams and the integrity of its scenic byways. Over 85

percent of the most productive farmland in the Hudson Valley is directly adjacent to

developing areas, precipitating a dramatic decrease in the number of fields, forests, and

meadows that are devoted to agricultural uses.

The Economy

Like the cross currents of tidal and freshwater coursing in the Hudson, environmental and

economic pressures have agitated public policy and private action in the Valley. The steady

push of development into the region has spawned dozens of conservation groups that resist

significant development projects while the recent loss of tens of thousands of jobs in the region

has heightened public pressure for economic expansion of any kind, wherever located.

In this agitated state, the region collectively does not seem to know which way to grow.

Some see a Hudson Valley region standing somewhat apart from the New York metropolitan

area, retaining its rural character as it grows slowly, resisting successfully the development

forces of metropolitan commerce. Others envision a continuation of past trends and assume

that the Valley will continue to develop as a suburban area servicing the greater metropolitan

area. A third view is that the Hudson region can take on its own economic character as a

high-technology market functioning more or less independently of the New York City market.

Whether in fact the Valley can stand aloof, will be appended, or can become independent

of metropolitan commercial pressures, there is little evidence yet of any effective strategy

emerging to change the current pattern of development. With 268 municipalities, 10 counties,

and a host of state agencies influencing development decisions, the contours of a clear policy

are hard to identify. In its absence, our assumption is that the region will remain heavily

influenced by the metropolitan area economy and continue to develop in an unpredictable,

sprawling pattern.

Current Trends Projected

The vision of the Hudson Valley that emerges if current development trends and patterns

are projected forward to the year 2045 is not a happy one. The population of the region has

grown over the past four decades at a rate exceeding 8 percent. In the current period, the

growth rate per decade is around 5 percent. Projections contained in several current studies

of development occurring in the New York City watershed, around Stewart airport, in Sterling

Forest, and on David’s Island, for example, indicate that a growth rate of 5 to 8 percent could

easily continue in the region.

Using the higher 8 percent population growth rate projection, which will be attained if

current development projections are realized, the look and feel of the Hudson Valley by the

year 2045 will be changed significantly. Based on the past rate of land committed to

4

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

66
5

APPENDIX C

EASTERN REGIONAL TEAM REPORTS

67

development to serve population growth, the region will be transformed from one

characterized by open space to one characterized by developed land. Today, the majority of

the land in the region is undeveloped. At the current rate of land consumption (a ratio of 8 to 1)

and with an 8 percent increase in population over the next 50 years, significantly less than half

of the region’s land will be undeveloped in the year 2045.

Measures of Sustainability

This projected disappearance of the region’s green character is not due to the influx of

additional population, but rather to the high rate of land consumed to serve these additional

people. An 8 percent increase in population over the next 50 years will yield a population

density of about 450 persons per square mile. Ordinary low-density suburbs contain around

1,500 persons per square mile, so it is how people live on the land, not the population of 450

persons per square mile, that is the issue. If land planners in the Valley can develop effective

strategies to array the population properly on the land, then the Valley can unite behind a

strategy of modest population growth, support dynamic development projects, and maintain a

place with the open, high-quality character that is in the Hudson Valley tradition.

The vision of the Hudson Valley and its communities that allows the cost-effective

integration of this population growth is not difficult to sketch. The future population of the Valley

would be accommodated principally in communities that are relatively self-contained, with a

variety of jobs, diverse housing stock, and basic services located within relative proximity of

one another. These communities of the future, of various sizes and shapes, in fact, would

look a great deal like traditional Hudson River villages. They would have clearly identifiable

centers, parks and squares, and well-defined edges; and be surrounded by greenbelts

featuring recreation, productive agriculture, and very low-density development. The largest of

these, the region’s central cities, would resume their historical roles as centers for economic,

cultural, governmental, educational, and civic activity.

If this vision were realized, the tension between economic development and environmental

conservation would abate. Such development patterns would be economically strong,

defended by economic diversity and a high quality work-force, and environmentally sound,

with an open quality of the type celebrated in the Hudson Valley by poets, painters, and

ordinary citizens throughout its modern history.

III. Obstacles to Sustainable Development

The Land Use System

This vision will be difficult to realize. To the extent that it requires a change in land

development patterns, its success depends on the efficacy of the public system of controlling

land use. For seven decades in New York state, local governments have shaped land

development patterns by enacting comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances, approving

subdivision and site plan applications, and paying for capital infrastructure. The pattern of land

development sketched by municipal ordinances and actions has been influenced, in turn, by

state and federal actions such as highway funding, low-cost mortgage financing, and

environmental regulation.

These local, regional, state, and federal actions that direct, influence, or react to the use of
6

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

68

the land, make up our “land use system.” The deficiencies in this system are the principal

reason that we are not developing in a sustainable fashion in the Hudson River Valley and

may not in the future.

The region that is codified in the laws of local and state agencies is quite different from our

vision of a sustainable Hudson Valley. If the land in the region is developed as locally zoned,

the current pattern of sprawling, low-density development will become even more

pronounced. The 130 economic stimulus programs of the state’s economic development

department will be available to assist that development wherever it occurs. The capital

budgets of local, county, and state governmental agencies will be stretched to build roads,

water and sewer systems, and schools and libraries to keep up with this spread-out

development pattern.

Meanwhile, a variety of statutes administered by the state departments of state,

environmental conservation, agriculture and markets, and public health will resist that

development, to the extent that it affects negatively publicly protected natural resources. One

effect of these regulations will be to discourage, and increase the cost of, development that

the market is prepare to absorb.

The Route 28 Scenic Byway Example

In the ebb and flow of these contrary forces, a sustainable pattern of efficient and livable

communities is unlikely to emerge. Consider, for example, the threat to the environment and

economy that is occurring along the Route 28 corridor, 50 miles of rural highway that

stretches from Kingston, in Ulster County, to Delhi, in Delaware. This roadway was recently

designated, by Scenic America, as one of the most threatened scenic byways in the country.

The economy of this area is defined by tourism, recreational activity, and agriculture. The

threat to these is random and strip development occurring along Route 28 which is gradually

eroding the high quality of the environment that brings tourists, skiers, hunters, fishermen, and

weekend visitors to the area.

A cohesive management plan is needed in this short corridor that allows development to

happen, but in accordance with the measures of sustainability described above. For such a

plan to be developed, the agencies and boards that control land use decisions along Route 28

must be integrated and aimed at similar objectives. This task is daunting, since over 50 major

governmental jurisdictions, one for each mile of the roadway, control these decisions. They

include three regional agencies of the state department of transportation, three regional

agencies of the state department of economic development, the regional office of the state

department of environmental conservation, three regional councils, 14 town or village

legislative bodies and their separate planning and zoning boards, and three county

governments.

The Regulatory Morass

In the Hudson Valley region there are 268 cities, towns, and villages that adopt zoning

ordinances and other land use controls. Their jurisdictions are cross hatched by a dizzying

array of county, regional, state, and federal agencies whose activities are uncoordinated,

except in unusual circumstances. These jurisdictional contradictions are compounded by a
7

APPENDIX C

EASTERN REGIONAL TEAM REPORTS

69

variety of other inconsistencies. Here are a few illustrations:

1. Local zoning, according to state law, must be in accordance with a local

comprehensive plan. The law, however, does not go on to require local governments

to adopt comprehensive plans, so many do not have up-to-date land use plans with

which zoning can conform.

2. Comprehensive planning must measure the impact of local land uses on neighboring

municipalities, according to the state’s highest court, yet comprehensive planning is

defined as local in nature. There is no statutory requirement that localities consider the

impacts of their land use decisions on adjacent areas or on the region as a whole.

3. Federal law requires state transportation and air quality planning to consider and

coordinate with land use planning, yet no land plan exists in our region at a level that is

helpful to transportation and air quality planning which are areawide in scope.

Meanwhile, the Hudson Valley region is experiencing air pollution and now contains

several air quality nonattainment areas; this has resulted in inexpensive mandates on

large employers to provide for more efficient employee commuting arrangements and

other costly mandates on economic development in the region.

4. The state’s highest court has required local governments to consider regional housing

needs in adopting and amending their zoning ordinances. Yet, there is no agreed-upon

definition of what the relevant housing region is. There is no identification of regional

housing needs. Further, there is no method employed to define the share of housing

needs that each municipality should bear. As a result, local officials who want to meet

their share of the need for affordable housing are frustrated. Since housing demand is

areawide, they fear that local plans to develop affordable housing will result in a

disproportionate burden on them since there is no general scheme under which all

municipalities will act. Localities have no practical authority, under this system, to act

to create an adequate supply of housing for young and elderly households and for

families of modest means.

5. This practical erosion of local control is paralleled by the preemption of local land use

authority by a growing list of state statutes. Acting to protect legitimate “statewide”

concerns advocated by important constituent groups, the state legislature has

preempted local land use control in the interest of protecting freshwater and tidal

wetlands; coastal ecosystems; wild, scenic, and recreational streams and rivers;

agricultural lands; safe drinking water; regional aquifers; the purity of lakes and

reservoirs; air quality; and forest areas, to name a few.

6. The complex and time-consuming land use approval system that has resulted from

this thicket of regulations is recognized officially as discouraging, and increasing the

cost of needed economic development. The response of a prestigious advisory

committee was to recommend 56 methods of streamlining the development approval

process, many of which involve local and areawide planning to integrate development

decisions and to measure their intermunicipal impacts.

7. The essence of the current local land use system is local competition for tax ratables.

It is a competition in which there are no clear winners. The most dramatic losses are
8

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

70

suffered by the cities that have lost taxable assets, affluent people, jobs, and

commercial activity to outlying communities. The victory won by the developing suburb

is a questionable one, for with new development comes the responsibility for new

schools and libraries, commercial centers, roads, sewers and water systems—all

expensive to provide. Tax rates in developing areas in the region have not been

stabilized by the pattern of development achieved. Our older suburbs are beginning to

experience the asset and human resource drain that the cities have suffered for years.

8. Eighty-five percent of the productive agricultural land in the Valley is directly adjacent

to developing lands and is at risk of disappearing. While the policy of the state is to

protect agricultural lands from nonagricultural uses, much of the farmland in the Valley

is zoned for low-density residential or commercial development. The tax incentives

and other relief provided to production farmers by a variety of state programs are no

match for the development pressures nipping at their heels. Public programs that

encourage development often contradict public policies that seek to protect productive

farms.

Dissatisfaction with the Land Use System

Few people are satisfied by the result of this “regulatory morass,” including local officials,

developers, environmentalists, and experienced professionals such as architects, planners,

and lawyers intimately involved in the land use system. According to a statewide survey

conducted in the spring of 1993 by McKinsey and Company, international business

consultants, these individuals rated the performance of the land use system unacceptable by

a ratio of three to one. The system’s performance, according to this survey, was rated very

poor 10 times more frequently than it was rated outstanding. If this system were a private

product, McKinsey reported, it would recommend pulling it from the market.

Conclusion: The Need to Reinvent the Land Use System

The McKinsey survey evaluates, and the above examples illustrate, the principal obstacle

to achieving sustainable land development patterns in the Hudson Valley region. The many

and overlapping jurisdictions, the cross currents of countless programs and regulations, and

the heavy competition among municipalities for increased tax base constitute a regulatory

morass that is good neither for business, the environment, or the quality of life of the Valley’s

residents and workers.

The original system, created over 70 years ago and designed primarily for cities, was

relatively simple and effective. Since then, however, it has been augmented in a piecemeal

fashion in reaction to the new realities of population growth, technology development, and

environmental research. The result is an uncoordinated morass of regulations, processes,

and financial incentives administered by unconnected public agencies at various levels of

government. Rather than constituting an organized and efficient legal system aimed at

compatible objectives, it has become a complicated tangle of influences that collide and

produce highly inefficient land use patterns.

Growing discontent with the results of this system has led to even greater regulation,

lengthier processes of approval, and a pervasive caution about where and when development
9

APPENDIX C

EASTERN REGIONAL TEAM REPORTS

71

should occur. This greatly disadvantages land developers and expanding business interests

as well as the urban poor and the environmental quality of all regions in the state. That the

land use system needs to be reinvented is clear; to date, there has been little agreement

about how to proceed toward this goal. What we have learned about sustainable development

guides us in making the recommendations contained in the final section of this report.

IV.Recommendations

Strategic Principles

As mentioned above, in the section on key principles of sustainability, we found that one of

the essential attributes of sustainability is mutual dependence. This is the basis from which a

successful strategy for sustainable land development patterns can emerge, since it is the

essence of sustainability in general. The issues and interests involved in all aspects of

resource use and conservation are interdependent. However, for disparate interests to unite

in seeking mutually beneficial solutions, they first must be encouraged to cooperate.

From this we have concluded that strategies that are based on incentives are better than

those that coerce. Systems adopted to achieve sustainability need to be responsive systems,

listening to and reacting to a variety of interests, open to innovation, encouraging collaboration

and patient enough to achieve success incrementally. Importantly, these systems need to be

grounded at the local level, to encourage patterns to emerge from the unique qualities and

contributions each community can offer. For order to emerge from these local patterns of

thought and development, however, these systems must ensure that local communities

communicate and collaborate with their neighbors so that their influences on one another, in

balance, are positive.

Three Key Ingredients

Moving from these principles toward specific recommendations, three key ingredients of a

reinvented land use system appear. First, local governments must be encouraged to adopt

comprehensive land use plans. Second, these plans must be coordinated with those of their

neighbors. Third, these intermunicipal land use plans must define sustainable patterns of

development, indicating where development is to be encouraged and where land conservation

is to be encouraged.

If these three recommendations were instituted, a reinvented system would be possible.

The capital budgets of local, county, state, and federal agencies could be aligned with these

intermunicipal plans for cost efficiency. Land investors and developers would know where to

invest and, in those areas, pruning of the thicket of regulations would be possible. From this

cost-effective beginning, competitive patterns of development could emerge. Funds available

for acquiring land or easements to protect open space and achieve natural resource

conservation could be directed to areas designated for those purposes without suffering

expensive competition with development pressures. Local officials could expect assistance

from all relevant state and federal agencies in implementing their plans, reducing

intergovernmental tension and competition.

Keynote Recommendations: The Economy and the Environment
10

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

72

Paul Tippett, former chairman of American Motors and the keynote speaker at our second

Advisory Board meeting, encouraged business leaders to take a leadership role in developing

and supporting such a strategy. He called this approach “Listening to the Echo.” Mr. Tippett

commented that his phrase has three meanings. First, it encourages us to listen to all the

voices of the Hudson Valley, including the echoes and wisdom of the past and the interests of

future generations, and to account for all interests in land use planning. Second, it integrates

“eco-logical” thinking into the economic development planning of private sector leaders. Third,

it requires environmentalists to respect “eco-nomic” objectives. In this regard, the Advisory

Board noted with interest the recent report of the Institute for Southern Studies that suggests

that states and regions that do the most to protect their natural resources develop the

strongest economies and best jobs.

James Gilbert, chairman of the New Jersey State Planning Commission, also spoke at this

second meeting about the enthusiasm of local officials in New Jersey over the State

Development and Redevelopment Plan. The notion in New Jersey is that concentrating

growth is more efficient than allowing it to sprawl. Their studies show that low-density sprawl

is five times more expensive for municipalities to service than more compact forms of growth.

The guidelines allow every single town in the state to grow if it wishes. But the plan says that

growth or redevelopment should be concentrated in centers in those municipalities. Those

units of government that grow in accord with the plan move up in priority for discretionary

state funding. He reported that local officials support this plan because they believe in cost

efficiency and incentives for municipalities that create efficient patterns of development.

Regional Strategies and Recommendations

1. The Advisory Board will hold a regional citizens’ conference on this report and its

recommendations to listen to and incorporate their ideas. This input will shape the final

report of the Board to the President’s Council.

2. The Advisory Board will organize one or more meetings between local officials and

state elected leaders representing the Hudson River Valley and local officials in New

Jersey to determine the features of that reinvented land use system that are attractive

to political leaders in this region.

3. The Advisory Board will consider how the following studies and exercises can be

undertaken:

a. A problem-solving exercise focusing on a key land use issue in the Hudson

Valley. This exercise will be designed to contrast the outcome of the conflict under

the current land use system with the result likely under a program that encourages

cooperative solutions. From this, the strategic principles for reinventing the land

use system should become clearer and more support developed for them. This

exercise is to be conducted with the technical expertise of the Santa Fe Institute

and McKinsey and Company, internationally recognized experts on the behavior of

natural and business systems.

b. An inventory of the legal tools and techniques that municipalities can use

immediately to create cost-effective land use patterns. This inventory must be a
11

APPENDIX C

EASTERN REGIONAL TEAM REPORTS

73

practical guide for local citizens, officials, and their advisors to illustrate specifically

how such patterns can be created by local governments. Where deficiencies in

state law obstruct the effective use of these techniques, proposals for changes in

those laws should result.

c. A strategic plan for revitalizing the central cities in the Hudson Valley. The four

mayors on the Advisory Board report that New York state has no recognizable

urban revitalization strategy, while evidence mounts that strong economic regions

do not evolve unless they are organized around strong economic centers.

d. A process for supporting, reinforcing, and coalescing the institutional

leadership of the Hudson Valley region, including municipal, environmental, and

private sector leadership, so that an effective consensus can be achieved to

support strategies that are capable of resulting in sustainable patterns of land

development.

4. The Advisory Board further recommends that the regional directors of all state

agencies operating in the Hudson Valley whose activities affect land use form a task

force to accomplish the following objectives:

a. Develop a set of policies and implementation mechanisms that ensure that

state resources available in the Hudson Valley are employed on a priority basis to

support municipal efforts to create sustainable patterns of land development.

b. Develop a plan for realigning the jurisdictions of these agencies so that they

are as coterminous as possible, so that the delivery of services to local agencies

is more efficient, and so that their budgets and staff resources can be harmonized

and used principally to encourage and support inter-local land use efforts that

identify where land development and land conservation activities are to be

encouraged.

c. Develop a program for delivering to local governments and agencies all

available land-linked data gathered by all state agencies and for integrating these

data on a digitized geographic map of each municipality, working through the 10

county governments in the region to create an extensive base of land-linked data

that makes effective land planning possible in the Hudson River Valley.

State Recommendations

In order that these strategic principles may guide the conduct of state agencies in the

region, the Advisory Board recommends that the state of New York:

1. Study the statewide land policies adopted in nine other states for guidance in

preparing and adopting a set of principles to influence the expenditure of its resources

and the conduct of its regulators so that they support sustainable land use patterns

and intermunicipal planning that achieves such patterns.

2. Coordinate the activities of all of its departments and offices that influence land use
12

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

74

and develop a rationale for integrating the administrative jurisdictions of those

agencies so that they can be coordinated at the regional level and become more

friendly to, and supportive of, the policies and programs of local officials and agencies.

3. Develop a program for delivering to local governments and agencies all available landlinked data gathered by all state agencies and for integrating these data on a digitized

geographic map of each municipality, working through county governments to create

an extensive base of land-linked data that makes effective intermunicipal land planning

possible in the Hudson River Valley and the entire state.

4. Develop a plan for making technical and financial assistance available to local

governments to enable them to develop intermunicipal plans for sustainable

development and for rewarding local governments that develop such plans by giving

them a priority in the distribution of state aid and local governments.

V. Implementing the Recommendations

In making these recommendations, we recognize the limits of the Advisory Board’s ability

to carry them forward and its dependence on a coalition of local officials, environmentalists,

and business leaders to support and advance them. For this reason, we offer these

recommendations for the further consideration of the residents of the region and their

business and environmental leaders whose interests we have tried to represent as our Board

was assembled and in its deliberations.

We are indebted to the President’s Council for its emphasis on this coalition-building

approach and for encouraging us to look beyond the existing controversies and institutional

complexities toward a vision of a sustainable Hudson River Valley in the year 2045. It is our

hope that this vision will have the intended result of uniting all constituent groups in the region

in an effort to realize the objective of sustainable land development patterns for the benefit of

the current and future generations of the Valley that is so gracefully defined by the river that

runs through it.

LOWER ST. JOHNS RIVER BASIN REGIONAL TEAM REPORT

Charge to the Regional Team: Regional teams will analyze key problems and successes

of sustainable management and protection of specific resources and their interrelationship

within the boundaries of selected individual or representative watersheds.

The Lower St. Johns River Basin Team’s goals are to:

l identify what sustainability means in the context of managing the natural resources

that exist within the watershed of the St. Johns River in Florida;

l identify steps that must be taken to achieve these goals with particular attention to

impacts on forestry, mining, and urbanization; and

l identify public policy options to help reach those goals.
13

APPENDIX C

EASTERN REGIONAL TEAM REPORTS

75

Definition: Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present

without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Description: The Lower St. Johns River Basin is an area dominated by the northward-flowing

St. Johns River, and characterized by a mix of natural areas, agricultural lands, forestry lands,

and urban uses. The basin consists of 2,780 square miles, which is about 22 percent of the

land area of the St. Johns River Water Management District. Included within the boundaries of

the Lower St. Johns River watershed are 12 major tributaries. The area consists of portions

of six northeast Florida counties and the municipalities of Crescent City, Palatka, Hastings,

Green Cove Springs, Orange Park, and Jacksonville. The economy of the watershed is

diverse, with urban markets, industrial manufacturing, deepwater ports, and military bases of

Jacksonville; commercial and private forestlands and paper mills, sawmills, etc., of Putnam

and Duval counties; potato and cabbage farms of St. Johns and Putnam counties; and waterdependent industries of the St. Johns River (e.g., fisheries, shipping, and recreation).

Team Members:

Dennis Auth, environmental consultant on mining and paper companies, Auth and Associates

Mike Branch, Team Co-Chair, Regional Manager of Container Corporation and Jefferson

Smurfit Paper Companies

Linda Bremer, Team Co-Chair, State and National Wetlands Committee, Sierra Club

John Flowe, Director of Water Quality, Jacksonville Regulatory and Environmental Services

Judy Hancock, State Public Lands Chairman, Sierra Club

Brad Hartman, Director of Environmental Services, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish

Commission

Herb Kale, ornithologist and Vice President, Florida Audubon Society

Kraig McLain, Intergovernmental Coordinator, St. Johns River Water Management District

Dawson McQuaig, consultant and developer in north Florida

Rob Olzsewski, coordinator

Bob Simons, private forester, Florida Defenders of the Environment

Special Advisors:

David Bruderly, Bruderly Engineering Associates, Inc.

Bruce Hill, Florida Division of Forestry

Charles Kibert, University of Florida

1. Natural Resources Discussion (History, Status, Needs)

Air

Overall, air quality is good in the region with the exception of the Jacksonville/Duval County

urban area. The city has corrected problems associated with odor and volatile organic

compounds and is developing strategies to handle ozone.

Jacksonville developed a unique solution to odor problems in the late 1980s following a

buildup of resentment by the community against the sources of the emissions within the

urban center. The emissions were caused by two Kraft paper mills, two organic chemical

manufacturing facilities, and a municipal sewage treatment plant—all located close to the
15

population centers. By 1987, there were 200 odor complaints per 100,000 population; the

national average is 29 per 100,000. These complaints turned into political action when the

new mayor’s election platform included mitigating the city’s odor problem.

An odor ordinance was enacted, which received broad support from the community and the

city council. The ordinance provides for large civil penalties for air, water, odor, and noise

pollution; adds a nuisance provision with civil penalties; and creates an “odor nuisance

standard” which subjects violators to civil as well as criminal action. Enforcement requires

inspectors to investigate each complaint using a methodical approach. Additionally, the new

law provides for development of ambient odor standards and development of industry-specific

emission/work practice standards. A special task force of industry representatives and

agency personnel worked together to identify reasonable abatement measures and specific

steps to be undertaken by each industry within one year.1

Important areas that still need to be addressed in the basin’s urban areas are: source

reduction strategies for industry (pollution prevention) and automobiles (clean alternative fuels

and mass transit emphasis to integrate into everyday life), and education and proper land use

planning.

A major conflict regarding the maintenance of air quality is the use of prescribed burning as a

land management tool. Because prescribed fires reduce the frequency and severity of

wildfires and produce much less smoke than wildfires, they have an environmental benefit.

Moreover, prescribed—as opposed to wild—fires occur during daylight hours, when smoke is

less dangerous for highways; when weather conditions are favorable for smoke dispersion;

and when wind directions are away from highly smoke-sensitive areas.

In recent years, prescribed burning has been recognized as a key component in maintaining

healthy ecosystems that contain populations of rare, threatened, and endangered plant and

animal species. In fact, nearly all of the plant and animal communities in Florida have evolved

with and depend upon periodic fires for their existence. Examples of fire-dependent species

include Bartram’s ixia, wiregrass, red-cockaded woodpeckers, fox squirrels, and gopher

tortoises. Additionally, prescribed fire continues to be the most effective tool for protecting

timber resources from the devastating effects of wildfires. Cessation of the practice would

thus have certain adverse economic, as well as ecological, impacts.

Unfortunately, population growth in Florida has created an environment in which few land

managers can burn without exposing populated areas and public roadways to smoke. Public

health is always important with regard to prescribed burning; in order to prevent incompatible

situations, we should strive to gain public understanding and support.

Water

The St. Johns River Water Management District separates water resources into two areas:

surface water and groundwater. Surface waters may have minimal structural improvements,

such as dams and related control structures or systems of canals, ditches, etc. Many of

these water bodies have experienced degradation associated with urbanization and

agricultural uses. While sources of pollution continue to be addressed, stormwater runoff

from agriculture and urban areas developed prior to stormwater management regulations

APPENDIX C

EASTERN REGIONAL TEAM REPORTS

76
16

have together created a backlog of needed infrastructure improvements. These areas

contribute significantly to water quality and flooding problems and have yet to receive

stormwater management for quantity or quality. Funding to improve the stormwater

infrastructure of urban and rural areas is a significant problem for communities and

individuals.

Groundwater systems are generally in good condition because of an abundant supply of clean

water from the Floridian Aquifer. Surficial aquifer contamination causes localized problems.

Leaking fuel storage systems have contaminated soils and groundwater. Urban water system

impacts and seasonal agricultural pumping have contributed to declining water quality,

especially along coastal communities where chloride levels are rising in some wellfields.

Excessive withdrawals from public wellfields and agricultural irrigation have damaged nearby

wetland ecosystems. Measures needed to protect the water supply include wellfield

protection area designations and regulations, wellfield pumping management, and water

conservation.

Water management districts have been created to manage and regulate water resources in

five state regions. Flooding associated with the hurricanes of the 1940s and l960s and a

drought in the early 1970s provided the impetus for their creation. In 1972, the Florida

Legislature passed the Water Resources Act that provided the framework for the present

water management system. With this authority and a 1976 voter-approved referendum, the

water management districts could levy ad valorem taxes to support water management. The

districts implement programs within their areas of responsibility, which include water supply,

flood protection, water quality, and natural systems. Through land acquisition, planning,

restoration, regulation, and public education, these water resources are managed. The

districts’ ability to manage with a regional perspective and authority has afforded local

governments and other agencies valuable information and services. Besides these districts,

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection is also involved in many aspects of water

management.

Land

Wetlands. Within the Lower St. Johns River Basin, wetlands are generally intact and have not

received the vast alterations of the wetlands in the Upper St. Johns River marshes

(headwaters). Dominant impacts have been attributed to urbanization. Current protection is

afforded by state and federal regulations, local comprehensive planning policies, and land

acquisition programs. Larger wetlands are closely regulated; wetlands of less than one-half

acre in size are not. Thus, these small isolated wetlands are receiving the least protection

from regulatory and acquisition efforts. Protection efforts need to focus on maintaining viable

isolated wetlands in the landscape based on their value to wildlife and in flood containment

and groundwater recharge.

Uplands. Uplands in northeast Florida provide space for human development and use,

1Source: K. Mehta and James Manning, “Hatching an Environmental Battle Plan in Jacksonville,” EPA Journal

May 1988.
17

habitat for wildlife, water recharge, mineral resources, and soil resources for agriculture and

silviculture.

Agricultural use of uplands is declining within the state, and many of the former agricultural

lands are being converted to urban development. Those lands left to agriculture are being

more intensively managed, and, as more acreage is irrigated, water resource use is

increasing statewide.

Silviculture is by far the largest and least intensive commercial land use. This use maintains

high-quality watershed and water recharge values and air quality. It also maintains a major

proportion of the region’s wildlife habitat. Loss of productive forestlands to urban development

is significant—and accelerating. This loss is compensated for by an increase in the intensity

of management for forest products on the remaining lands. However, the losses of watershed

quality, air quality, wildlife habitat, and recreation are not compensated.

Although the state passed a Comprehensive Growth Management Act, rapid and uncontrolled

growth remains a major environmental problem in Florida. Community attitudes toward growth

are unfocused, and political action favors continuation of traditional zoning practices. Impacts

to other resources from this land use include those to water resources, which have declined

significantly because of damage from persistent chemicals, overuse of water, and the

compaction and paving of water recharge areas found on many north Florida uplands.

Biodiversity. Biological diversity is “the variety and variability among living organisms and the

ecological complexes in which they occur.” Because “items are organized at many biological

levels, biodiversity encompasses different ecosystems, species, genes and their relative

abundance.”2

In discussing the concept of biodiversity, one must also include biological integrity. This term

refers to the wholeness of a system, “including the presence of all appropriate elements and

occurrences of all processes at appropriate rates.”3

The Lower St. Johns River watershed includes most of the area of five counties in the

northeast Florida region: Flagler, Putnam, St. Johns, Clay, and Duval. This region contains a

diverse mixture of land-cover types which support several rare species of birds and

mammals. The region’s proportion of conservation areas—that is, the public and private lands

devoted to some extent to conservation—is 11.9 percent, considerably below the statewide

average of 19.6 percent. This gap is especially notable in Putnam, Duval, and Flagler

counties.4

Lands recommended for additional protection—called Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas—

include those that could be purchased by the county, state, or federal governments, or

protected by incentives such as cooperative agreements, conservation easements, etc.

These areas include wetlands in Flagler and St. Johns counties; forested areas of Flagler,

Putnam, St. Johns, and Duval; coastal areas in Flagler, St. Johns, and Duval; and sandhill

and xeric uplands in Clay County.

2. Economic Use Discussion (Use, Problems, and Solutions)

APPENDIX C

EASTERN REGIONAL TEAM REPORTS

78
18

2Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity, OTA-F-330 (Washington, DC:

Congress of the United States, 1987).

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

79

Urbanization

With a population expected to reach 19.4 million by the year 2020, Florida is one of the four

fastest growing states in the nation. Moreover, its population boom has made Florida the

fourth most populous state. This rapid growth and large numbers of new residents have

placed a strain on the state’s ability to manage growth and maintain environmental quality.

Most of Florida’s growth has occurred away from the central cities in communities located

on the fringes of metropolitan areas. Of Florida’s 13.4 million residents in 1992, most lived in

unincorporated areas of the state. During the 1980s, 17 of Florida’s 21 metropolitan areas

experienced much higher population growth in suburban communities and outlying areas

than in the central cities. Thirteen of the nation’s 25 fastest growing suburban areas are in

Florida.

The construction industry has responded to this growth in Florida and the rest of the nation,

and consequently has recorded unprecedented gains in employment and share of gross

national product (GNP). Nationwide, the construction industry employs 7.5 million people and

accounts for 9.5 percent of GNP. The industry is a major consumer of resources and has

been significantly affected by environmental regulations.

Members of the Lower St. Johns River team found uncontrolled, sprawling growth in the state

and population pressures from immigration and migration to be the greatest cause of

unsustainability of Florida’s natural resources. Current practices in the billion dollar

construction industry are notably unsustainable. They are reinforced by embedded zoning

codes; building standards; federal and state infrastructure (roads, drainage projects, schools)

funding practices; and myriad regulations designed to discourage reuse and redesign of

urban communities.

Much of the blame for the failure of growth management in the state must be attributed to a

lack of understanding about Florida’s environment (especially among new residents) and the

tradeoff between regulatory constrictions and environmental consequences. This public

ignorance translates into a laissez-faire attitude among political officials who demonstrate little

foresight regarding the state’s future. This attitude will lead to a collapse of Florida’s

ecosystems in the near future. America, as a land-rich country, is paying the price for its

frontier attitude toward growth in terms of destroyed ecosystems, loss of community spirit,

and waste of public infrastructure.

Recently, a nonprofit collaborative effort has sprung up among construction professionals in

the north Florida region to foster sustainable principles in all phases of the building life cycle.

The Sustainable Development and Construction Initiative Inc., formed in May 1994, is working

to provide the necessary technology, techniques, information, and training to move the

construction industry toward “greener” practices. The principles of sustainable construction

are:5
19

3P.L. Angermeir and J.R. Karr, “Biological integrity versus biological diversity as policy directives. Protecting

biotic resources.” Bioscience 44 (1994): 690-97.

4J. Cox, R. Kautz, M. MacLaughlin, and T. Gilbert, Closing the Gaps in Florida’s Wildlife Habitat Conservation

System (Tallahassee: Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1994).

APPENDIX C

EASTERN REGIONAL TEAM REPORTS

80

l Conserve. Minimize resource consumption. Design for passive efficiency in heating,

cooling, and lighting. Use durable materials.

l Reuse. Maximize resource reuse. Reuse materials in reconstruction and new

construction. Recapture water. Create new buildings in previously occupied spaces or

“gray zones.”

l Reuse/recycle. Reuse renewable and recyclable materials. Some European

countries are requiring that much of a building’s materials be recyclable and reusable

when deconstructed.

l Protect nature. Protect the natural environment. Scrutinize impacts of materials

acquisition, and minimize environmental damage by reducing the need for fertilizers

and pesticides.

l Eliminate toxins. Create a healthy environment inside and outside buildings.

Eliminate toxins in paint, landscaping, and lighting fixtures.

l Plan for quality. Plan communities to reduce automobile trips and to enhance quality

of life. Use existing infrastructure. Design buildings to last many generations.

Silviculture

Forestry is the single largest land use element in the Lower St. Johns watershed. The pressures

on this resource are enormous and include demands from urban developers for more land and

high management costs. Commercial forests are also under great pressure to meet increased

commodity production demands. Purchase of public lands also eliminates the land available for

forest use, thereby placing a greater strain on remaining forestry lands, which consequently must

be managed more intensively. Total forestland area in Florida in 1950 was 67 percent of the state.

In 1994, total forestland area had been reduced to 42 percent.

Solutions to issues regarding the maintenance of productive forests and protection of natural

resources are documented in the 1993 Silviculture Best Management Practices manual. This

manual was prepared by such diverse interests as industrial and individual forestry operators,

state and federal agency staff, environmentalists, and educators, all of whom worked together

to produce a document that would help ensure better protection of the environment through

techniques and approaches such as the following:

l Special management zones with operational restrictions designed to protect water

quality, protect streambank stability, and provide wildlife habitat.

l Wetland restrictions and limitations to protect wetlands soils and hydrology.

l Road construction techniques to minimize erosion and sedimentation.
0

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

20

5Charles J. Kibers, “Establishing Principles and a Model for Sustainable Construction,” Sustainable

Construction: Proceedings of the First International Conference of CIB TG 16 (University of Florida, 1994).

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

81

l Guidelines for the application of pesticides and fertilizers.

In addition, several incentives have been proposed that will help keep Florida’s forests green

and productive. For example, the state of Florida has begun to explore an innovative “lessthan-fee” philosophy of resource management. The purchase or transfer of development

rights may be used to protect the land from urban development while compensating the

landowner, thus retaining land values for commodity production, wildlife habitat, recreation,

and green space. Other workable incentives include actively recruiting forestry-based

business into the state, a state tax structure promoting a positive forest business climate, and

aggressively advocating the positive economic and environmental position of forestry in

Florida.

Mining

Within the St. Johns River Basin, the primary types of surface mining that are currently

operational include heavy mineral sands (rare earth minerals, titanium, and zircon); fuller’s

earth; and limestone, sand, and fill dirt. No shaft mines exist in the study area.

The sustainability of these mining operations depends on the normal interplay between the

quality and character of the deposit and the internal efficiencies brought to bear in the

management of production costs and marketing versus externalities beyond the control of the

mining operator such as capital equipment, labor, environmental monitoring, reclamation, and

mitigation costs. Sustainability is also dependent on successful exploration for new reserves;

technological advances in mining, extraction, processing, and reclamation; and the creation of

new uses in the marketplace.

Conditions that negatively affect the future of mining include:

l A general absence of appreciation for the role of mining in providing the materials

necessary to support the American economy.

l Land use regulations that effectively “sterilize” already-identified mineral reserves by

creating prohibitions against mining.

l Escalation of different types of taxes unique to mining.

l Duplicative and multijurisdictional state and federal permitting programs administered

by agency personnel unfamiliar with the mining industry.

l A lack of comprehensive efforts by government to develop and improve mining

operations with new technology or methods.

Habitats

Habitat is usually defined as a requirement for a specific species. The study region features

about 2,000 vascular plant species, thousands of insect species, over 200 bird species,
0

APPENDIX C

EASTERN REGIONAL TEAM REPORTS

82

21

about 50 mammal species, about 70 fish species, about 60 reptile species, and over 30

amphibian species—each with its own set of habitat requirements.

Some species are very adaptable, making use of a broad range of habitats. White-tailed deer,

raccoons, opossums, cardinals, common grackles, yellow rat snakes, green anoles, and

southern toads are examples of animals that make use of a very wide range of habitats—

ranging from human suburbs and upland pine and hardwood forests to pine flatwoods and

hardwood swamps. However, most species, both plant and animal, are far more specific in

their habitat requirements. Many occur only in scrub, or in pine flatwoods, hardwood forest,

open marsh, or open water.

There is also a wide range in the size of the area needed to maintain viable populations of

these species. The area of the habitat under some form of protection needs to be increased

to protect many species. For some species, connections need to be made to additional areas

of habitat.

The quality of habitat is also important; this involves many factors. Changes in hydroperiod

and fire regimes are the dominant factors affecting quality. Other factors include air pollution,

water pollution, and exotic plant invasion.

Another factor in habitat quality is an area’s dominant land use. Some places have been set

aside as public lands and are managed—to a significant extent—to maintain good-quality

habitat for native species. However, a much larger percentage of the habitat area for most

native species is on private land used for commercial forestry. There are also large areas of

pasturelands, row crop agriculture, and low-density residential development. All these areas

provide wildlife habitat for many species and are currently much greater in size and overall

importance for most species than are public lands.

The outlook for habitat conservation, in general, is not good from a long-term sustainability

viewpoint. The state of Florida has been purchasing, and is continuing to purchase, some of

the best wild areas to make additional parks, state forests, wildlife management areas, etc.

Even in these areas, however, the threats of pollution, hydroperiod alteration, and exotic

species invasion from beyond public lands boundaries frequently cause habitat degradation.

3. Public Policy Recommendations

Air

 1. Establish policies and programs to address source reduction strategies to reduce air

pollution from industry and automobile use. Encourage incentives to use clean alternative

transportation fuels especially in government vehicles. Develop strategies and incentives

for reducing automobile use via mass transit, car pooling, etc.

 2. Establish policy that reflects the importance of prescribed burning to manage native

ecosystems and protect private and public lands and property from wildfires. Work

cooperatively with governments and community groups to lessen the impact of

prescribed fires and to promote public understanding.

 3. Continue cooperative efforts with industry to control emissions, and maintain a strong
0

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

22

regulatory program to enforce air quality standards.

 4. Pass federal legislation to encourage state utility regulators to approve programs for

regulated utilities to finance and promote active and passive solar technologies for

residential and commercial customers. Allow state regulators to decouple rates so utilities

can make a profit on aggressive energy conservation measures. Support and fund

research, development, and demonstration programs for renewable energy technologies.

Water

 1. Establish policy and funding to address the backlog of needed stormwater

infrastructure for urban and agricultural uses, while maintaining existing regulatory

programs to prevent future backlogs. Continue and enhance water quality improvement

activities, such as monitoring, research, and education.

 2. Establish policy that links the availability of groundwater resources to consumption, so

that monitoring and modeling are used to allocate resources to ensure they are

maintained in good condition and that existing residents, businesses, and industries have

an adequate and clean water supply.

 3. Establish government incentives for “gray water” reuse and reduction of impervious

surfaces within urban developments.

Land

 1. Work within the regulatory framework to develop incentives for protection of on-site

wetlands, especially isolated wetlands. Educate landowners and the public on the values

of isolated wetlands to unique Florida species and in on-site flood containment.

 2. Retain private ownership of forestlands to ensure the maintenance of Florida’s timber

industry. Keep land values low to discourage conversion to urbanization through use of

greenbelt tax exemptions and other incentives. Design and implement a combination of

regulatory enforcement and financial incentives to help pulp mills with outdated

equipment and practices to become more community acceptable and more protective of

natural resources.

 3. Protect biological diversity on commercial forestlands through the use of silviculture

best management practices and through conservation easements to protect threatened

species identified by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission.

 4. Encourage the establishment of an independent private organization to develop

standards and apply them to developments that meet the criteria for sustainable

construction using the latest known technology and methods of construction. Amend

national appliance manufacturing rating systems, criteria, and standards to be more

appropriate for states like Florida that have hot, humid climates.

 5. Work with financial institutions to offer “resource-efficient mortgages” to homeowners

and developers who meet sustainable construction standards. Develop life-cycle costing

and techniques for evaluating construction and deconstruction practices.

 6. Educate local governments on establishing zoning codes and public-funded incentives

for the redevelopment of urban areas as mixed-used neighborhoods using the existing

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

83
0

APPENDIX C

EASTERN REGIONAL TEAM REPORTS

84

23

infrastructure and thereby avoiding consumption of undeveloped land. Modify revenuesharing formulas to provide priority funding to communities that encourage compact

development through local ordinances.

 7. Institute regulatory procedures for mining that emphasize land reclamation rather than

limiting or restricting extraction zones to non-wetland or specific upland habitat. Initiate a

national effort to research, perfect, and publish a set of land reclamation technologies

applicable to all wetland and upland habitat types in all geographic regions of the United

States. Establish university curricula to develop mine reclamation specialists.

 8. Institute and promote an initiative devised to research, develop, and implement a

national and global strategy for extending the life of nonrenewable mineral resources.

 9. Divert state severance taxes for solid minerals, petroleum, and gas for use as

matching funds to federal support of reclamation technology, conservation of

nonrenewable mineral resources, public education efforts, etc.

10. Design and establish a national mine registry program which will maintain a current

inventory of all operational mines and have the authority to license individual mines and

track the interrelationship of mine owners, holding companies, consortia, etc., for the

purpose of quantifying mineral reserves, production data, and other sustainability issues.

The registry should have the authority to revoke or suspend mine licenses for failure to

perform satisfactory land reclamation at a single mine.

11. Encourage all states to implement programs such as Florida’s Preservation 2000 for

state land acquisition. Encourage landowners to practice good stewardship on large

tracts of land held for agriculture, silviculture, ranching, and mining. Organizations such

as the Nature Conservancy and Trust for Public Lands are exploring and implementing

creative techniques and incentives for protection of private lands. These incentives need

to be used by each federal agency with land use oversight, where maintenance of

biological diversity is a critical issue.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Natural Resources Task Force Workshop Report

August 18, 1995

Prepared by Workshop Sponsor/Participants

“Plan for and manage the adverse environmental effects of human population growth and land

development in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.”

—Mission Statement

Subcommittee on Land, Ground and Stewardship

Chesapeake Bay Agreement

I. Introduction

From October 30 to November 1, 1994, the Eastern Team on Natural Resources

Management and Protection, President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), held
0

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

85

24

a workshop on the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

The workshop was convened by the Chesapeake Bay Program and included local

environmental, government, academic, and industry representatives experienced in Bay

activities. Most of the workshop attendees represented affected federal and state government

agencies, researchers, and nonprofit environmental groups. Of the four representatives of

private industry, one represented forestry, one utilities, one chemicals, and one residential

development. Efforts were made to reach consensus.

The purpose of the workshop was to bring together Chesapeake watershed interests to

review the region’s history, ecology, economy, and resource management strategies. The

Chesapeake Bay seemed a natural choice for investigation as part of the PCSD effort, since

the Bay has been recognized as one of the first successful regional watershed activities.

While the array of Bay activities is broad, the goal continues to be focused on the Bay’s

preservation and restoration to ensure that its resources are maintained for future

generations—thus continuing the “Chesapeake Bay way of life.” Restoration success is

viewed in terms of restored abundance of living (nonhuman) resources.

The workshop was designed to explore Bay accomplishments and consider their applicability

to the PCSD objective of sustainable development. Reflecting on Bay successes and pending

issues served to strengthen the body of information the Natural Resources Task Force had to

draw upon in developing its recommendations. Major themes and lessons of the Chesapeake

Bay Program and recommendations expressed in the workshop are summarized below.

II. Major Theme of Workshop—Elements of Ecosystem Management

The level of commitment of Chesapeake Bay citizens is high. Although the actions that have

occurred in the Bay often involve expenditures of public money and changes to law and

regulation, the Chesapeake Bay Program is voluntary. No law required its establishment. The

importance of general public’s understanding and support in ensuring the continuation of Bay

activities cannot be overstated.

Referenced repeatedly throughout the workshop was the fact that the initial focus was limited

to very local situations. This focus has broadened to a wider scope—without losing this

important local perspective—as Bay residents have come to realize that in order to protect

their local situations, they must become involved in the wider area as well.

Four major themes emerged in the workshop as essential components of Bay restoration:

l sound problem identification and goal setting;

l integration and cooperation among many levels of government, with agreement on

goals at the highest level;

l private sector participation—with incentives provided to it and accountability oversight

provided by it; and

l the role of public awareness, participation, and accountability in maintaining sustained

focus.

Critical elements for successful ecosystem management of the Bay which may be equally
0

APPENDIX C

EASTERN REGIONAL TEAM REPORTS

86

25

applicable to sustainable development include the following:

l setting goals and standards for restoration;

l managing nutrient loadings;

l ensuring livable communities and healthy urban areas;

l ensuring healthy natural systems;

l understanding ecological values;

l predicting, identifying, researching, communicating, and solving problems;

l ensuring a self-correcting market system;

l establishing ecosystem goals and management; and

l ensuring citizen identification with stewardship roles.

To achieve sustainable development:

l apply restoration science;

l motivate scientists and managers to ensure the use of up-to-date information;

l understand degradation of soil, water, air, plant, and animal resources;

l implement visioning processes for all citizens in all areas;

l understand the role of markets in achieving sustainable development;

l monitor and model living resources and actions based on them;

l understand market externalities; and

l emphasize non-auto-based transportation.

III. Background: Concerns That Led to the Chesapeake Bay Program

The EPA Study, 1977-82

In the 1970s, there had been no agreement that the Bay’s problems were systemic and

cumulative. Many believed that the perceived problems were only the downward-trending

phases of cycles or isolated situations.

Maryland Senator Charles Mathias vacationed in the Chesapeake Bay in the early 1970s.

During his vacations, he spoke with many Bay users: watermen, yachtsmen, estuarine

scientists, marina owners—people whose lives led them to observe the Bay at first hand.

After 1972’s Hurricane Agnes, Sen. Mathias became convinced that things in the Bay, and the

Bay itself, were changing. Too many people were telling the same tales of zones of depleted

oxygen, declining seagrasses, disappearing fish stocks, and increases in turbidity for the

assertion that “it was just another cycle” to be persuasive.

Sen. Mathias introduced legislation that, in 1976, resulted in a budget for a five-year

comprehensive study of the Bay by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The
0

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

87

26

study ran from 1977 through 1982. Concomitantly, in the early 1980’s, Maryland’s Governor

Hughes—dealing with increasing growth, sewage, eutrophication, and degradation in the

Patuxent River—gave real and sustained support to his natural resources management

agencies for moving toward cleaning up that river. That support carried over into efforts on the

Chesapeake Bay as a whole.

After some early false starts, the EPA study coalesced in examination of eutrophication, toxic

materials, and the decline of submerged aquatic grasses. Every major academic research

institution in the Bay area took part, with much of the work being done by the University of

Maryland, Johns Hopkins University, and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

The findings were that point- and nonpoint-source eutrophication, by stimulating excessive

phytoplanktonic alga growths, was resulting in deoxygenation of large areas of deeper waters

as the alga died, sank, and decomposed. The increased water fertility also aggravated

epiphytic alga growths on the seagrasses themselves, leading to additional competition for,

and blockage of, light. These growths added mechanical stressing to the grasses, causing

them to break more frequently under wave action. Toxic materials, both metals and organics,

were delivered from both point and nonpoint sources, and were widely distributed among all

ecological compartments in the Bay—although concentrated in loci of sediment deposition,

especially the sediments near industrialized areas such as Baltimore and Hampton Roads.

The project thus identified severe systemwide problems, many of which were

attributable to or exacerbated by numerous and widespread human activities that

affected everyone in the basin and their lifestyles. This finding by a consensus of

respected scientists confirmed the observations of many concerned citizens, and the

combination of scientific evidence and public concern forced governmental action.

Moreover, it led to unprecedented cooperation among state and federal

governments, academic, and the public: Government, science, and the citizenry at

large all moved toward agreement and action.

Being able to tie together the oxygen deficits, algal blooms, and depression of the submerged

aquatic grasses as different facets of the same eutrophication problem was of great

importance, for it had the effect of showing that problems in many different geographic parts

of the Bay were closely related. This meant that many people from different areas could

support correction efforts aimed at this single problem. Subsequently, that realization was

linked to the losses of habitat—through the grass decline and barren bottoms due to

deoxygenation—and to shifts in abundance of harvestable fish and wildlife. It was understood

that those habitat shifts led to decreases in wintering redheads and canvasbacks, losses of

deep oyster bars, crab kills, and—tentatively—depressions of striped bass and blue crab

abundance. That linkage created a climate powerfully conducive to mobilizing public opinion

and commitment.

Government Processes

The result was that in 1983, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia

signed the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, thereby pledging to restore and protect the Bay. The

agreement called for the preparation and implementation of coordinated plans to improve and

protect water quality and living resources; this in turn resulted in the July 1985 Chesapeake

Bay Restoration and Protection Plan. The plan specifies goals and objectives for carrying out

the 1983 agreement. Goal statements cover nutrients; toxics; living resources; related
0

APPENDIX C

EASTERN REGIONAL TEAM REPORTS

88

27

matters (sludge, dredging, groundwater, atmospherics, public access, recreation); and

institutional arrangements (public input, educational opportunities, data management,

monitoring, and research. The implementation of these goals has generated about 12 major

committees and 30 working task forces.

Although the actions taken under the agreement can involve expenditures of

substantial public money and changes to law and regulation, the Bay Program is

voluntary. No law required its establishment; the fact that this cooperative agreement

and program came about without a mandating statute is one of its remarkable

features. And the Bay Program’s ability to deal with concepts like watershed

management and ecosystem approaches in the face of the numerous separate legal

entities participating in the program sets it apart from other efforts aimed at managing

multijurisdictional problems.

In 1987, the agreement was renewed and updated. Time tables for accomplishment that

allow and require accountability were added, including 29 specific major commitments

addressing goals for living resources, water quality, and four other categories. Most

specifically, a commitment based on state-of-the-art water quality modeling was made to

reduce the nutrient loading to the Bay by 40 percent. A goal was added to plan for and

manage the adverse effects of population growth and development; this ultimately resulted in

the 2020 Panel and subsequent commissions and laws.

In addition, goals involving public involvement and participation in decisionmaking were

broadened. The agreement was amended to state specifically that the understanding and

support of the business community and general public were essential to sustaining long-term

commitment to Bay restoration and protection. Information and education programs were

committed to, public review of all implementation plans was adopted, and a general

communication plan adoption date was specified. Finally, a formal, working arrangement for

federal and state interjurisdictional management coordination vis-ˆ-vis data, monitoring, and

research was adopted; as were specific provisions for the inclusion of local government

participation.

Because the 1987 agreement anticipated improvements in modeling technology, it built in a

1991 reevaluation of the commitment to reduce controllable nutrient inputs by 40 percent. By

that time, data generated by eight years of monitoring, and advances in understanding the

estuary produced by continuing research, allowed for modeling work that confirmed that a 40

percent nutrient inflow reduction would materially improve the Bay’s oxygen-depletion

problem.

This led to the 1992 amendment that states that, in order to address the problems of the Bay

as a whole, both point and nonpoint sources of nutrients in the watersheds of each of the

many tributaries feeding the Chesapeake would have to be reduced.

The beginning of that tributary strategy is where matters stand today. All three states and the

District have target load reductions. Pennsylvania has passed an agricultural nutrient

management law, and Virginia is formulating its river-specific strategies. Maryland has

developed a tentative list of practices for each of 10 aggregate watersheds, covering point

sources, urban and agricultural nonpoint source best management practices, and resource

protection techniques. Maryland’s tributary strategy team has been through two phases of
0

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

89

28

discussions with the public including over 20 meetings and exchanges with the county

planning staffs in the 10 watersheds. Proposed tributary-specific implementable strategies

were presented to the public in spring 1994, with adoption in October 1994. Tributary teams in

each region/watershed are charged with implementation, with aid from various governments

(as of this writing, these last are not yet guaranteed).

Chesapeake Bay Agreement Goal

In supporting the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the Land Use, Growth and Stewardship

Subcommittee is responsible for identifying growth and land use issues of a Bay-wide nature,

addressing development topics, and forging alliances with other organizations and interests to

l promote sound land management decisions,

l provide growth projections and assess the impacts of existing growth on the Bay and

its tributaries, and

l encourage public and private actions to reduce the impacts of growth.

These activities will be pursued in support of the 1992 Chesapeake Bay Agreement which

commits the signatories to, among other things, implement tributary-specific strategies that

meet mainstream nutrient reduction goals and achieve water quality requirements necessary

to support living resources in both the mainstream and the tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay.

Furthermore, the 1992 amendments commit the signatories to explore opportunities to

reduce airborne sources of nitrogen which enter the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries

beyond the requirements of the 1990 amendments to the federal Clean Air Act.

Objectives

l Create public forums for the exchange of ideas and strategies on land conservation,

sound growth, development, and stewardship.

l Provide local governments with the technical and information assistance to continue

and expand their management efforts to reduce the negative impacts of growth.

l Develop and analyze Bay-wide information to measure trends and patterns in

population growth and development and to better understand its impacts on the Bay

and its watershed tributaries.

l Enhance public access in and around the Bay and its tributaries.

l Promote stewardship among local, state, and federal governments and the private

sector. Encourage partnerships with land conservation groups, land trusts, or other

efforts promoting land conservation.

l Evaluate the potential growth and development impacts of local, state, and federal

government policy decisions.

IV. Supporting Nongovernmental Organizations
0

APPENDIX C

EASTERN REGIONAL TEAM REPORTS

90

29

The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay

The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay is a federation of citizen organizations, businesses,

scientists, user groups, and citizens. It is funded by grants from government, foundations,

and individuals as well as corporate contributions.

The Alliance coordinates citizen water chemistry and biological monitoring efforts in several

tributaries. It has organized conferences on Bay issues, provides speakers, and operates a

regional information service. It serves as staff for the Citizens Advisory Committee, the

citizens’ official input organ to the Chesapeake Bay Program. It publishes a news journal on

Bay issues 10 times a year. A nonadvocacy organization, the Alliance’s role in protecting the

Bay is through citizen education and involvement. Its excellent Bay Journal and issues

papers; broad citizen monitoring program; and extremely energetic, dedicated, and capable

director give the citizenry an active role in the Bay Program.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation

lThe Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) combines advocacy with educational efforts. It

lobbies for passage of Bay-protective legislation, joins in lawsuits on pollution issues, and is

active in land trust development. Members of its staff sit on various management advisory

committees, such as for striped bass, in Maryland. CBF frequently serves as a sort of “loyal

opposition gadfly,” generally urging government and user groups to go farther in their efforts to

preserve and restore the Bay. CBF sees itself as a catalyst, watchdog, and constructive

critic. Most recently, CBF prepared a “report card” on how well the Bay Program is carrying

out its 1987 commitments—and whether these commitments are adequate to meet

restoration goals.

The outstanding CBF program, though, is its environmental education effort. Through a mixture

of canoes, island reserves, farms, stream conservation efforts, boat trips, and curriculum

development workshops, CBF annually exposes some 35,000 educators, students, and

concerned citizens to hands-on, in-the-field learning about the Chesapeake ecosystem.

Chesapeake Research Consortium

The Chesapeake Research Consortium (CRC) is an organization of the six most active

research institutions in the region: the Academy of Natural Sciences, College of William and

Mary, Johns Hopkins University, Old Dominion University, Smithsonian Institution, and

University of Maryland. CRC has served as a cohesive force to bring together the scientific

community for research and assessment dealing with the Chesapeake Bay restoration. Much

as the Alliance staffs the Citizens Advisory Committee, CRC staffs the Scientific and

Technical Advisory Committee of the Bay Program. It holds conferences and workshops on

critical issues and publishes targeted syntheses of the scientific and technical literature. CRC

also provides interns and fellows who work within the management agencies for fixed terms.

This regional organization has played a central role in providing a scientific “compass” to

guide Bay restoration.

Other Supporting Organizations

Additional organizations involved in Bay efforts include the local Sierra Club chapter, the

Maryland Conservation Council, Save-Our-Streams, Trout Unlimited, the Maryland Saltwater
0

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

91

30

Sportsmen’s Association, and the Maryland and Virginia Watermen’s Association. Also

involved are the charterboatmen, advisory committees such as the State Water Quality

Advisory Committee and the Coastal/Watershed Advisory Committee, and numerous local

focus groups in geographic areas. Many of their members are also members of the Alliance,

which serves to bring local concerns into the larger Bay context. This dual membership thus

helps foster the recognition that much of the overall Bay problem is the cumulative effect of

many local area ones. All of these groups have their own points of view and make themselves

heard through their various contacts and mechanisms.

In addition to the education and advocacy organizations within the Bay watershed, the region

has a growing number of local and regional land conservation organizations. These groups

conserve a variety of natural areas, recreational open space, and rural resources that are a

critical component of the sustainable community and growth management equation. These

groups use an array of mechanisms to conserve open space and working landscape:

conservation easement, transfer of development rights, agricultural purchase of development

rights programs, and fee acquisition. Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania have enacted

several model funding programs that support the land protection efforts of land trusts. While

many of these programs began before the Bay Program, they have been strengthened and

expanded because of the growing concern for the protection and restoration of the

Chesapeake Bay and the recognition of the interrelationship of land use and water quality.

The Citizens and the Government

Formation of the Alliance, CBF, and other groups dates back to the 1960s and early 1970s.

Many of the members of these various citizen groups have now been environmental activists

for several years. Many activists became involved early on because of perceptions that

government was not aggressive enough in protecting the environment. Others became

involved because of some local area degradation of the natural environment, such as new

developments, a pollution of nearby waters, forest losses, or disturbance of tranquility.

Clashes between the rights of private property and a presumed, but ill-defined, right to

common resources aroused citizens.

Few citizens understood, early on, that the government environmental management agencies

did not see themselves principally as environmental preservers. The hard facts of

conservation politics, theretofore experienced primarily by fish and wildlife interest factions,

subsequently had to be learned by the broader, environmentally concerned citizenry. Very few

realized that government resource agencies were far from monolithic or single-purpose

conservation-oriented, especially where constraining the exploitation of natural resources was

involved. Discovering that government agencies were generally reluctant to say “no” to

polluting activities—activities that historically had been considered perfectly normal exercise

of property rights—was a shock to many citizens.

Many of the management agencies were slow to change in response to growing citizen

environmental concern. They frequently wished to avoid controversy, especially regarding

exploitation of private property. While justified in some cases, government agencies frequently

saw environmental protestations as simply “Don’t do it in my back yard,” or as unjustified

efforts to keep a little bit of “paradise” sacrosanct to the protesters, with little regard to the rest
0

APPENDIX C

EASTERN REGIONAL TEAM REPORTS

92

31

of the world.

In defense of the government agencies, though, there has been, in this country, a historical

tradition of noninterference with individual rights unless a public interest could be strongly

shown. Thus, laws frequently were written requiring an agency to give equal weight to rights

to direct use of resources. In the Bay region, even after the 1972 Water Pollution Control Act,

there was great difficulty in obtaining satisfactory proof that a significant environmental

problem existed. In fact, change had to wait, to a large degree, for completion of the EPA

program studies documenting the degradation.

In addition, the scientific community—many of whose members are part of these same

management agencies—led the effort to push for adequate research and data collections. The

results of that push often served as the example or basis for further citizen action. The scientific

work that identified nutrients as the most significant problem in the Bay is an excellent example.

Volunteer Monitoring

The Chesapeake Bay Program began supporting volunteer monitoring in 1985 by giving a

grant to the Alliance to set up a pilot program. From a fledgling effort of 35 volunteers, the

program has grown, expanded, and been copied by groups all over the country. Today, there

are 200 volunteers in the Alliance program and hundreds of others in similar programs

throughout the watershed. And the number of similar programs around the country continues

to expand. Volunteers take water samples in a variety of ways, but a hallmark of the

Chesapeake effort has been quality assurance. Training is provided to all volunteers, and

quality control sessions are held semi-annually. Data that do not meet standards are not

used. In this way, volunteers have developed a high level of credibility.

New programs are being developed to involve volunteers in other kinds of monitoring,

including wetland monitoring, buffer surveys, and assessments of resources such as

submerged vegetation.

V. What Was Learned

Basis for Preservation Programs

Maintaining elements of the natural, rural, historical, and cultural environment of the Bay is

essential to maintaining the quality of life for all its inhabitants—human and otherwise. The

aim of protecting and restoring the Chesapeake Bay is based on a desire to maintain the way

of life for the people around the Bay. The watermen not only provide a symbol of Chesapeake

Bay life, but are a major economic force in the region. Further up the tributary, on the

Susquehanna, we see a similar example: The Amish are a symbol of the rural and agricultural

life of Lancaster County. The ability to sustain their way of life is bound up with the efforts of

the Bay Program to keep farming a viable occupation in the county.

The Bay’s economy is largely dependent on the maintenance of its environmental assets.

Agriculture, forestry, and tourism are the primary industries; these depend on natural and

historical resources for their continued viability. The fishing industry, while declining, depends

on the quality of Bay waters, which are affected by the use of its land. New businesses and
0

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

93

32

residents move to and remain in the area in large part because of its environmental

amenities—the loss of which could cause a decline in jobs and tax revenues. The costs and

benefits of new development to the citizens are directly related to the location and pattern of

this development as it affects the natural, rural, and historical resources of the area.

Therefore, the following principles have been recognized and supported by state and local

governments, and serve as a basis of preservation programs.

l Open space, including farmland, forests, and natural areas, is less expensive for local

governments to service than most alternative forms of land use, particularly the lowdensity residential sprawl that constitutes the fastest growing form of land use.

Permanent protection of farmland and open space also encourages compact growth,

lowering costs of public services and infrastructure and the need for new taxes.

l Agriculture is the Bay’s largest industry, accounting for about 14 percent of Maryland’s

gross product. This industry depends on the retention of productive farmland at

reasonable costs to the farmer.

l Tourism is one of the leading industries, and is likely to become the largest industry in

the state of Maryland before the turn of the century. Historical structures, landscapes,

and villages are essential to the continued growth of this sector of the economy; these

should be preserved.

l Rural and urban historical and cultural sites, and residential and commercial historical

districts throughout the region, also help maintain diversity and improve quality of life

for all citizens. Preservation and enhancement of these special assets help ensure

community vitality, making these places more attractive and dynamic. Keeping

existing communities attractive and livable helps prevent suburban sprawl by retaining

existing residents and businesses.

l Forest-based recreation and tourism continue to grow in importance to the area

economy. Forestland is also most beneficial to the health of the Chesapeake Bay and

the continued viability of fisheries. As an example, Maryland’s forest products industry

remains the fifth largest industry in the state and continues to be the primary employer

in western counties and the second most important on Maryland’s Eastern Shore.

l Recreation and park use are essential to citizens of all incomes and ethnic

backgrounds. The right to a safe, accessible, and pleasant place to play is a right

every bit as important as jobs and housing; and the citizens of Maryland have learned

to expect it and to pay for it through the transfer tax on real estate transactions.

Proceeds go into Program Open Space for land acquisitions by public entities.

l The real estate economy benefits from the preservation of open space. The value of

homes in Maryland is enhanced by proximity to protected open space. Studies

completed in other states document that house values adjacent to such land increase

by as much as 10 percent to 50 percent. Increased property taxes from homes

adjacent to protected land have been documented to offset costs for maintenance of

open space.

Thus, protecting natural, recreational, agricultural, and historically significant open space is

critical to the sustainability of the region. Besides using local and state regulations to protect

open space, purchasing critical properties is essential. Public agencies have been acquiring
0

APPENDIX C

EASTERN REGIONAL TEAM REPORTS

94

33

recreational and natural lands for decades. More recently, creative partnerships between

public agencies and land conservation organizations have increased both groups’ ability to

protect key resources. Following are examples of such efforts.

l Maryland’s Program Open Space was established in 1969 to expedite the acquisition

of recreation and conservation lands by the state and counties. The program is funded

through a 0.5 percent real estate transfer tax. The program has been expanded over

the years to assist with the state’s purchase of development rights on prime

agricultural land, a revolving loan fund for land trusts (through the Maryland

Environmental Trust—MET), and—most recently—direct grants to land trusts.

l In 1993, Pennsylvania created a permanent Recreation, Park and Conservation Fund.

There will be a bond issue of $19.5 million in 1994; and, beginning in FY 1995, a realty

transfer tax will be instituted which is anticipated to provide $10 million annually. Much

of the money is available on a matching basis to local governments. However, about

$3 million annually will be used to provide grants to qualified land trust organizations to

assist the state and local governments in land acquisition, primarily natural resources

protection.

l The Maryland Environmental Trust, a quasi-public statewide conservation easement

holding organization (with easements of over 40,000 acres) has creatively used

Coastal Zone Management Act money to facilitate land conservation. This money is

used to provide a statewide land trust coordinator as well as small operating grants

made available to land trusts on a competitive basis.

l Calvert County, Maryland, has established a $1.0 million no-interest revolving loan

fund for land trusts. The county also has a very successful transfer of development

rights program protecting natural resource and agricultural areas.

l Maryland has provided additional incentives for the donation of conservation

easements: land covered by easements held by MET or jointly by MET and local trusts

receive a 15-year property tax abatement. Anne Arundel County recently implemented

a similar law, and related efforts are under way in several other counties.

l Both Pennsylvania and Maryland have successful purchase of development rights

programs for agricultural land using a combination of funding sources. Many counties

supplement the funding with additional funds, tax abatements, etc. Local trusts are

actively encouraging landowners to enroll in the programs. Howard County, Maryland,

enacted an extremely innovative program of installment sale purchase of development

rights using tax-exempt bond installment sales. Fitch Investment Service actually

increased Howard County’s bond rating to AAA because of its efforts to control

development and protect the county’s quality of life.

Steps Toward Sustainable Development—Comments by Workshop Participants

Following is a sampling of comments made by workshop participants regarding steps that

have been, or should be, taken toward sustainable development.

l “Chesapeake Bay restoration benefits from regionwide public support; the high

socioeconomic status of surrounding population; a large scientific capacity and
0

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

95

34

database; and special federal funding, which has helped unify actions.”

l “Bird hunting is a significant recreation industry in the Bay area, requiring property

owners to preserve and manage open land.”

l “Recovery efforts responsible for restoration of striped bass population included

fishing bans by Maryland and Virginia, threat of federal government action, and large

base of scientific data.”

l “Advocates of controlling the flow of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) into the Bay

used computer models that simulated this contamination to convince government to

intervene.”

l “Some jurisdictions (for example, Prince George’s County) have established flexible

performance-based zoning that encourages clustering and high density in exchange

for public benefits . . . Some jurisdictions have experimented with transferring

development rights.”

l “Everything we’ve talked about is prologue. It relates to the ecosystem, which perhaps

is the basis for moving toward sustainability. [There is a] continuing need for more

outreach, education. People still don’t understand they are the problem . . .”

l “Find new ways to expand involvement in the process of protecting the Bay and

organize state, county, and local partnerships to protect the Bay against nutrient

loading.”

l “Involve a broader range of groups and tie sustainable development to the economic

health of the regions . . . Establish some scientific evidence of problems with rational

solutions . . . Amend existing legislation—tax code, zoning and master plans,

subdivision standards—that encourages sprawl and discourages high-density

development to encourage more efficient use of land and transportation . . . Bring

together social and natural scientists to discern community sustainability . . . Set

broad but measurable goals.”

l “Sustainable development is not a matter of esthetics or ethics, but of enlightened

self-interest and survival—of economics, costs, benefits, and problems of

quantification. The major issues are accommodating population growth, public

regulation, and loss of property rights.”

l “Ecosystem management cannot be measured by the health of a single plant or animal

species. A comprehensive review of all natural resources in the watershed is needed . . .

Sustainable development efforts must be made comprehensible to the public.”

l “Work [is needed] by the various states [in] recognition [of the fact] that population in

[the] region [is] greatly increasing. [It is] necessary to take steps to ensure that urban

sprawl [is] limited if possible [and to recognize the] importance of [the] element of

planning.”

l “Support existing state and locally led, place-based sustainable use efforts with

technical, information, and financial assistance.”
0

APPENDIX C

EASTERN REGIONAL TEAM REPORTS

96

35

l “Examine ways to improve the delivery of existing federal programs and services to

help people and organizations help themselves achieve sustainable development.”

l “Housing demand can be met with less impact on the environment through creative

zoning solutions such as performance-based zoning and clustering options.”

l “Document and publicize existing examples of local sustainable development—i.e.,

Lower Rappahannock River Valley, Virginia, Project; International Countryside

Stewardship Exchange Case Studies; Lackawanna Heritage Valley, Pennsylvania,

Project; Annapolis, Maryland, ‘Toward a Community Vision’ Project; Northampton

County, Virginia, Sustainable Development Plan).”

Barriers to Sustainable Development—Comments by Workshop Participants

The workshop participants cited the following barriers to meeting sustainable development

goals.

l “National transportation policies, including low fuel taxes, support [of] commuter

systems centered on automobiles.”

l “Regulation of surface water does not protect the Bay from transported agricultural

materials. Recent research shows that groundwater carries most of the harmful

agricultural materials (such as nitrogen) into the Bay.”

l “There are numerous examples of ecosystem degradation resulting from excessive

demands on natural resources.”

l “Population growth, and its associated demands on the system, is the major problem

facing efforts at sustainability. What we don’t yet seem to know is how to implement a

halt or a reversal of these trends.”

l “Sufficient scientific data to understand the significance of the decline in blue crabs

[are] lacking. Has the stock collapsed or merely returned to normal levels?”

l “Demographic trends—including increases in population, the ratio of dwelling units to

population, and lot sizes—run counter to efficient land use and sustainable

development. Regions that restrict themselves to sustainable rates of growth will face

a short-term disadvantage in competing with regions that pursue laissez-fare growth

policies.”

l “U.S. land use policies have not effectively applied the English common law doctrine

of public trust.”

l “It is difficult for a local government to support policies helpful for the region if they

impact negatively on local constituents. Projects that are imposed on local

communities by regional jurisdictions compound this problem.”

l “Gaps include minority participation, scientific information that can lead to measurable

goals, large lot zoning as an environmental policy, and economic impact analyses

concerning jobs and cost benefits.”
0

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

97

36

l “Government policy inadvertently exacerbated the land use impacts with overly

burdensome road requirements, grading requirements, and density caps. Trees

especially were the victim in meeting state and local grading standards. Large lot

zoning has led to further sprawl. And restrictions against multifamily and attached

housing in many areas has led to sprawl and unnecessary grading.”

VI. Guidelines for Sustained Ecosystem Management: Threshold for

Sustainable Development

A report prepared by the Chesapeake Bay Commission in 1993 summarizes the lessons

learned from the Bay experience. These lessons offer some guidelines for structuring a

national ecosystem management approach and could serve as the critical threshold for

moving toward sustainable development.

 1. Begin with comprehensive studies that are multidisciplinary in scope,

combining theory, detailed knowledge, and integrative monitoring and modeling.

The EPA Bay Program study presented the region’s public and political leadership with a

solid, scientific foundation for decisionmaking. The information was comprehensive and

multidisciplinary. It determined clear linkages among land, water, and living resources.

Since the release of the EPA report in 1983, highly sophisticated monitoring, modeling,

and targeted research have continued to serve as the backbone for policy decisions in

the region.

 2. Test scientific theories and management approaches on a small scale and then

transfer the results to the whole watershed. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, a

number of scientific investigations concerning ecosystem processes were

comprehensively studied in smaller watersheds within the Bay ecosystem. The

effectiveness of various nonpoint source controls and approaches to public involvement

were evaluated. In the Bay region, testing research methodologies and pollution control

strategies on a smaller scale, using demonstration or pilot projects, has led to increased

success when those techniques were applied more broadly.

 3. The highest levels of leadership possible must embrace clear, strong, specific,

and comprehensive goals for the management effort, based on the best science

available at the time. There is strength in strong leadership, clear goals, and

accountability. The Bay Agreements, and the high-level leaders who have signed them,

provide an outstanding and enduring commitment to the restoration of the Bay

ecosystem. A set of highly specific goals has been adopted that is unmatched

nationwide. These goals cover a comprehensive array of issues including water quality,

living resources, growth management, public information and education, research and

monitoring, and public access. They include such specific goals as achieving a 40

percent reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus reaching the Bay by the year 2000 and

eliminating fish blockages throughout the Bay’s tributaries. Goals that are quantifiable

make progress measurable and leaders accountable.

 4. The success of ecosystem management lies in the diversity of the participants.

Ecosystems are extraordinarily complex. A framework to manage them must involve a

complex array of players representing all levels of government, the private sector,
0

APPENDIX C

EASTERN REGIONAL TEAM REPORTS

98

37

scientists, and citizens. In the Bay region, these players are represented by 3 governors,

40 members of Congress, hundreds of state legislators and local elected officials, 13

federal agencies, 4 interstate agencies, and more than 700 citizen groups—all of whom

play a role in the restoration effort. Together, these players bring immense political

leadership and financial support to the program.

The formal Bay Program has established more than 50 subcommittees and workgroups

to ensure that all of these interests are represented and that the goals of the program are

ultimately achieved. Over time, no part of the ecosystem or any stakeholder in it is

omitted. Strong communication is the primary vehicle for integrating all of these parts,

thus ensuring the success of the ecosystem management approach.

 5. Incentives and methods for institutional cooperation must be in place. In the

Bay region, the principal incentives are either money or public pressure. The active,

financial involvement of EPA and other federal agencies has leveraged hundreds of

millions of state and local dollars. Cost share and technical assistance programs have

been established to address a range of management issues.

 6. An informed public is key. The citizenry of the Bay region is remarkably

knowledgeable. While there is a naturally high public sentiment toward “saving our Bay,”

at least some of the credit should go to the Bay leaders’ extensive educational and

technical assistance efforts. Survey after survey reveals overwhelming public support for

the restoration efforts and a growing understanding of concepts such as “watersheds”

and “ecosystems.” Ecosystem management involves complex political decisions. An

informed public can be an ecosystem manager’s greatest ally.

 7. Mandatory to any ecosystem management approach is a willingness of the

players to constantly reassess. A cornerstone of the Chesapeake Bay Program has

been a constant commitment to “pulse taking” and tracking progress. The health and

vitality of the living resources serve as one important measure of success. In addition,

routine water quality trends and assessments of pollution loading reductions track

progress in achieving the goals. These measures serve as “canaries in the mine shaft.”

Periodic research to assess progress toward goals provides new information that, in

turn, leads to improved ways of controlling pollution, managing fisheries, and restoring

habitat. Regardless of the commitments that have been made in the past, Bay

community leadership has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to alter course if new

knowledge dictates a new approach. This dynamic approach to management has

contributed to the program’s integrity.

 8. Ecosystem management requires a balanced approach. In a program that spans

land use policy to fisheries management to recreational boating to airborne toxics, a

diversity of implementation tools is critical. When managing an ecosystem, no one

approach works best in all ecological, political, and economic situations. If ecosystem

management is to work, management scenarios must take into account the varying

ecological, economic, cultural, and political forces involved in the various reaches of the
0

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

99

38

ecosystem.

The Bay Program involves three states and several thousand empowered local

governments of markedly different orientation. As a result, management tools range from

legislative mandates to voluntary efforts. Strong laws and regulations ensure effective

pollution control and resource stewardship in the region, while broad public education and

technical assistance programs provide incentives.

 9. Integration is the ultimate key to an ecosystem management approach. Despite

the existence of theory, practice and tools that support the implementation of ecosystembased management remain. Central to these obstacles are difficulties in defining

management units; understanding the biological, physical, economic, and cultural factors

at play; and structuring a management framework that properly integrates all the

component parts. Achieving proper integration is highly complex, challenging the

boundaries of traditional resource management. It requires the cooperation of diverse

players whose educational, philosophical, and professional orientations are often worlds

apart. It involves constant communication and collaboration of multiple agencies at

multiple levels of government. It often crosses traditional areas of management, forcing

fisheries scientists to work with land planners, sewage treatment plant operators to

coordinate with farmers, and so on.

10. The success of any program rests in its ability to demonstrate results. The Bay

Program was officially launched in 1983. Since that time, its efforts have held the line on

nitrogen and have achieved a 20 percent reduction in phosphorus in the Chesapeake

Bay. Participants are hopeful of achieving their goals by the year 2000. There have been

demonstrable gains in the way we manage land, provide fish passage, restore

seagrasses, manage fisheries across state lines, and ban the use of toxic chemicals

known to have an impact on the ecosystem. Measuring and publicizing tangible results

are key to sustaining leadership commitment and public support. They are also essential

to maintaining the trust and commitment of the stakeholders involved in any management

decisions made.

VII. The Chesapeake Bay: Is Sustainable Development Achievable?

In spite of the tremendous efforts under way to preserve the Bay, the Chesapeake isn’t what it

used to be. Many of the Bay’s historic natural resources—its legendary herring and shad

runs, oyster beds, and luxuriant grassbeds—have declined seriously.

People’s activities sometimes hundreds of miles away have had the greatest effect on Bay

resources. With more than 15 million people in the Chesapeake watershed—and 2 million or

more to be added by the year 2020—how will vital natural resources survive?

The issues of quality of life and stewardship, issues that indirectly affect economic issues,

must be made tangible and real to everyone. Preservation activities must be integrated into

economic activities. Pollution reduction—proactive initiatives, not restrictive regulations—

must be made part of everyday activities.
0

APPENDIX C

EASTERN REGIONAL TEAM REPORTS

100

The workshop participants concluded that we don’t know yet if we can protect our natural

resources, fulfill our economic objectives, and provide a high quality of life for all people in the

watershed. Fortunately, the Chesapeake Bay is blessed with a large number of citizens

dedicated to continuing to work constructively in addressing these issues.

39
APPENDIX D

WESTERN REGIONAL TEAM REPORT

Following is the report of the Western Regional Team. This report represents the work of the

authors of the report and has not been subjected to fact-checking by the President’s Council

on Sustainable Development.

101
APPENDIX E

REPORT OF THE WATER SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY BOARD

Following is the report of the Water Science and Technology Board. This report represents

the work of the authors of the report and has not been subjected to fact-checking by the

President’s Council on Sustainable Development.

CRITERIA FOR WATERSHED SUSTAINABILITY:

PROCEEDINGS OF A WORKSHOP

Held on

December 6 and 7, 1994

at the

National Academy of Sciences

Washington, D.C.

Water Science and Technology Board

Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources

National Research Council

102
August 1995

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board

of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the

National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of

Medicine. The members of the workshop responsible for the report were chosen for their

special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.

This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures

approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of

Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.

APPENDIX E

REPORT OF THE WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD

103
Support for this project was provided by the President’s Council on Sustainable Development.

This report is available from the

Water Science and Technology Board, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418.

Copyright © 1995 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America. WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS

WILLIAM GRAF, Chair, Arizona State University, Tempe

J. DAN ALLEN, Chevron USA, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana

PETER BISSON, Weyerhauser Co., Tacoma, Washington

JOHN BOLAND, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

PATRICK BREZONIK, University of Minnesota, St. Paul

WILLIAM EICHBAUM, The World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.

WILFORD GARDNER, University of California, Berkeley

WILLIAM LEWIS, JR., University of Colorado, Boulder

WALTER R. LYNN, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

CAROLYN OLSEN, Brown and Caldwell, Pleasant Hill, California

MAX PFEFFER, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

RICHARD SPARKS, Illinois Natural History Survey, Havana

CATHERINE VANDEMOER, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, D.C.

HENRY VAUX, JR., University of California—Riverside, Oakland

STAFF

STEPHEN D. PARKER, Director

SHEILA D. DAVID, Senior Program Officer

ANGELA F. BRUBAKER, Senior Project Assistant

INVITED GUESTS

GARY LARSEN, Policy Advisor for Natural Resources, President’s Council on

Sustainable Development

LOIS MORRISON, Policy Analyst for Natural Resources, President’s Council on

Sustainable Development

EILEEN SHEA, NRC, Board on Sustainable Development

WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD

DAVID L. FREYBERG, Chair, Stanford University, Stanford, California

i

APPENDIX E

REPORT OF THE WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD

104
BRUCE E. RITTMANN, Vice Chair, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois

LINDA M. ABRIOLA, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

J. DAN ALLEN, Chevron, USA, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana

PATRICK BREZONIK, University of Minnesota, St. Paul

WILLIAM E. EICHBAUM, The World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.

WILFORD R. GARDNER, University of California, Berkeley

WILLIAM GRAF, Arizona State University, Tempe

THOMAS M. HELLMAN, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, New York, New York

CHARLES C. JOHNSON, JR., U.S. Public Health Service, Washington, D.C. (retired)

WILLIAM M. LEWIS, JR., University of Colorado, Boulder

CAROLYN H. OLSEN, Brown and Caldwell, Pleasant Hill, California

CHARLES O’MELIA, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

IGNACIO RODRIGUEZ-ITURBE, Texas A&M University, College Station

HENRY VAUX, JR., University of California—Riverside, Oakland

STAFF

STEPHEN D. PARKER, Director

JEANNE AQUILINO, Administrative Specialist

ANGELA BRUBAKER, Senior Project Assistant

SHEILA D. DAVID, Senior Staff Officer

CHRIS ELFRING, Senior Staff Officer

ETAN GUMERMAN, Research Associate

ANITA A. HALL, Administrative Assistant

GARY KRAUSS, Staff Officer

JACQUELINE MACDONALD, Senior Staff Officer

MARY BETH MORRIS, Senior Project Assistant

GREGORY NYCE, Senior Project Assistant

COMMISSION ON GEOSCIENCES, ENVIRONMENT, AND RESOURCES

M. GORDON WOLMAN, Chair, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

PATRICK R. ATKINS, Aluminum Company of America, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

JAMES P. BRUCE, Canadian Climate Program Board, Ottawa, Ontario

WILLIAM L. FISHER, University of Texas, Austin

EDWARD A. FRIEMAN, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California

GEORGE M. HORNBERGER, University of Virginia, Charlottesville

W. BARCLAY KAMB, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

PERRY L. MCCARTY, Stanford University, California

S. GEORGE PHILANDER, Princeton University, New Jersey

ii

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

105
RAYMOND A. PRICE, Queen’s University at Kingston, Ontario, Canada

THOMAS A. SCHELLING, University of Maryland, College Park

ELLEN SILBERGELD, University of Maryland, College Park

STEVEN M. STANLEY, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL, Landers and Parsons, Tallahassee, Florida

EDITH BROWN WEISS, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C.

STAFF

STEPHEN RATTIEN, Executive Director

STEPHEN D. PARKER, Associate Executive Director

MORGAN GOPNIK, Assistant Executive Director

JAMES MALLORY, Administrative Officer

SANDI FITZPATRICK, Administrative Associate

SUSAN SHERWIN, Project Assistant

CONTENTS

SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

GENERAL COMMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

KEY QUESTIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1. Identifying Specific Natural Resource Services and Concerns

2. Identifying the Stakeholders

3. Linking the Relevant Scale of the Problem to Decision-Making

4. Specifying the Tradeoffs Among Economic, Social, and Environmental Considerations

5. Exploring the Values That Guide Stakeholders in Deciding Among Tradeoffs

6. Identifying the Best Actions to Achieve the Desired Balance Among Tradeoffs

SUMMARY

In response to a request from President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development

(PCSD), the Water Science and Technology Board held a workshop to assist the PCSD in its

charge to develop bold new approaches to integrating economic and environmental resource

policies organized according to watershed boundaries. Workshop participants generated a

iii

APPENDIX E

REPORT OF THE WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD

106
series of questions that could be posed to present and future federal, state, and local

decision-makers who face the problem of sustaining ecological resources of watersheds

under pressure from human activities and management. Some questions are directed to the

watershed scientists who supply decision-makers with information and knowledge.

The workshop adopted the council’s concept of sustainability as an ethical concept

meaning the characteristic of resource management that “meets the needs of the present

without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Workshop

participants agreed that the term “sustainable development” is problematic because it implies

that the purpose of resource management is to preserve continuous economic development

and expansion within a system that obviously has limits. Participants observed that the term

“sustainable” should be used in association with specific things, objects, or services that can

be defined, identified, mapped, and measured. The objective of sustainability is, therefore, to

preserve the productive integrity of the natural and human resources that form the base upon

which stable economic conditions depend.

Workshop participants emphasized the importance of an overall conceptual framework

for dealing with the sustainable resources of watersheds. Such a framework includes

identifying specific natural resource problems and concerns; identifying stakeholders; defining

the relevant scale of the problems; specifying tradeoffs among economic, social, and

environmental considerations; exploring the values of stakeholders in deciding among the

tradeoffs; and identifying the best actions in achieving the desired balance among competing

interests. The workshop concluded that watersheds can provide the basis to assess many of

the resources that contribute to human welfare and well-being. A challenge for the PCSD will

be to develop a method and related models to overlay the economic and social

considerations on the watershed-based analysis of natural processes.

The key questions developed at the workshop encompass social and economic wellbeing; existing scientific institutions and data gathering to assess trends; the concept of

adaptive management and watershed analysis; stakeholders; relative scales of decisionmaking processes and the scale of natural systems; dynamics of watersheds; tradeoffs

between economics, social, and environmental considerations; existing monitoring programs;

and communication of environmental information and behavior change.

The purpose of the workshop was to formulate the questions rather than answer them, to

point the direction for future investments of intellectual capital rather than review the results of

past efforts, and to offer a series of starting points rather than conclusions. A

challenge for the PCSD and for decision-makers will be to develop the capacity to predict the

broad range of biological, physical, environmental, social, and economic consequences of

human actions impacts in watersheds. Workshop participants found that scientific knowledge

is available to provide some answers and that cooperative interactive efforts among scientists

and decision-makers will be required to develop new tools and methods if the nation is to

achieve a goal of truly sustainable watershed resources.

BACKGROUND

At the request of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), the Water

Science and Technology Board (WSTB) of the National Research Council (NRC) convened a

two-day workshop in December 1994 to develop a list of key questions to be posed to future

decision-makers as a basis for determining the sustainability of watershed activities.

The PCSD was created by President Clinton in 1993 and was charged with developing

bold new approaches to integrate economic and environmental policies. It was chartered with

iv

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

107
meeting three specific objectives:

l to recommend a national sustainable development action strategy to foster economic

vitality and protect our cultural and natural resources,

l to increase public awareness about the need for sustainable development, and

l to institute a presidential honors program to recognize exemplary efforts that advance

sustainable development.

Sustainable development as defined by the PCSD is development that meets the needs

of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

This concept was put forward by the Brundtland Commission (WCED, 1987). It means

maintaining our nation’s economic prosperity in a way that does not compromise the integrity

of our natural resources.

The PCSD is made up of 25 leaders from industry, government, environmental, labor, and

civil rights organizations. The council created eight task forces to address major issues

dealing with sustainable development. The request for the NRC’s involvement came from the

Natural Resources Management and Protection Task Force, which is developing a vision of

sustainability as it relates to biodiversity, ecosystems, and watersheds. The PCSD will submit

a final report integrating all eight reports from its task forces to President Clinton in 1995.

A watershed is a unit of the Earth’s surface defined by the flow of water: if all other

aspects of the Earth-surface system are equal, all surface flow with a watershed flows

downslope into channels that form a network to conduct the water to a single exit point from

the watershed. The drainage basin that combines slopes and channels to form the watershed

is more, however, than a simple conduit for water. As a geographical region on the Earth’s

surface, each watershed has a particular association and pattern of vegetation cover, land

uses, human and animal populations, and economic activities. The natural and human

environments within a watershed include rural and urban areas with a variety of resources

with human values that include commodities (water, timber, agricultural produce) and

services (dispersion of pollution, service as habitat for wildlife, opportunities for recreation).

A watershed-scale approach to environmental management takes into consideration the

entire watershed, including the land mass that drains into an aquatic ecosystem (NRC,

1992a). Because watersheds provide a natural integration in assessing and analyzing the

social, environmental, and economic sustainability of people’s activities, the PCSD chose to

use watersheds as its primary organizing framework in the task force investigations. The

PCSD believes that a clear understanding of the application of sustainability concepts to

watersheds is essential for policy development.

The PCSD requested that the NRC assist in its task by developing questions that could

be posed to present and future federal, state, and local decision-makers as they face the

necessity of sustaining the ecological resources of watersheds in relation to the variety of

human activities that will continue to occur within them. This report responds to that request

from a scientific perspective. Although the workshop participants were drawn from a wide

range of specialties, this proceedings uses natural science and engineering perspectives as

a starting point. Social and behavioral sciences, humanities, and policy perspectives were

included as they related to the natural sciences. As a result, some questions emerged that

are best directed to the scientific community as it attempts to provide guidance to decisionv

APPENDIX E

REPORT OF THE WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD

108
makers.

The workshop identified the critical questions and, through discussions of experts in a

variety of specialties, offered some indications of the significance of each question, along with

avenues to investigate possible answers. In some cases, potentially useful answers are

briefly explored by way of illustration and by necessity certain value judgments are made.

The workshop participants met only once and contributed written comments after this

meeting for the proceedings. The chair of the workshop and the WSTB staff then prepared

this document. The purpose of the workshop was to pose the questions rather than answer

them, to point the direction for future investments of intellectual capital rather than review the

results of past efforts, and to offer a series of starting points rather than conclusions. This

proceedings is intended to be attached as an appendix to the PCSD’s final report and thus

differs from the more typical reports generated by NRC committees. Participants met only

during the workshop session itself and did not reconvene to negotiate the final form of the

report. This report therefore represents an overview of opinions expressed by the workshop

participants rather than a committee consensus.

GENERAL COMMENTS

Natural science has long used the geographic definition provided by watersheds in

collecting data, analyzing problems, and assisting in decision-making, so it is logical that

scientists address the broader philosophical issues of sustainability in that context, especially

issues related to long-term planning and management for sustainable resources. As stated

by Weiss in her paper, “Intergenerational Fairness and Water Resources” (NRC, 1993), the

challenge before us is to ensure that the interests of future generations are represented in the

decisions we make today. Her paper also points out that water resources are critical to both

economic development and the maintenance of natural systems. While technically water

does not disappear but only changes form, the quality and quantity of water resources in any

one place can be degraded or improved by a variety of human activities. Weiss states that

every generation must, therefore, be concerned about the supply and quality of water and its

management and who has access to it and at what cost. Sustainable development is

inherently intergenerational because it implies that we must use our environment in a way that

is compatible with maintaining it for future generations.

Before generating the questions, the workshop participants discussed the concept of

sustainability for natural resources in watersheds with some analysis of the general

descriptive definition for sustainable development: “to meet the needs of the present without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Sustainability is an

ethical concept, directed toward defining acceptable modes of human behavior. Sustainability

as a term and a concept is most useful when applied to some object, such as watershed

resources or watershed services. The goal of “sustainable development” is problematic

because it seems to imply that the purpose is to preserve continuous economic development

rather than the integrity of the natural resource that supports economic development.

Therefore, in this proceedings we use the term “sustainable” in association with specific

things, objects, or services that can be defined, identified, and measured. It is especially

important to use measurable attributes of resources, because without measurements it is not

possible to determine if the resource is being sustained or not. Scientific explanation of

processes depends on measurements, and without such explanation prediction of the

consequences of policy and management decisions is impossible. A convincing example of

the application of these general principles is PCSD Goal 2, Watershed Integrity, as outlined by 1

APPENDIX E

REPORT OF THE WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD

109
the President’s Council. The goal specifies the objects to be sustained (functions of the

aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and processes) and specifies which ones are most

important (those upon which we depend for our social and economic well-being). This general

statement is a useful model for other goals.

Fundamentally, the ethical concept of sustainability refers to the sustainability of human

well-being. The sustainability of natural resources and the environment is one important and

critical component of human well-being, from the perspectives of economics, collective social

welfare, and individual welfare. The attachment of values to the various watershed services

(economic, social, and environmental) to be sustained is a political judgment. The weighting

of the various components, measuring them, explaining how they interact, and predicting

likely futures are scientific activities that can be carried out in support of the sustainability ethic

within the context of political judgments.

Effective decision-making requires a conceptual framework to capture the linkages and

tradeoffs among the different assets that contribute to human welfare. Each asset must be

described, measured, and related to other assets in a rigorous fashion. Thus, the framework

for sustainability of natural resources should be seen as distinct from but complementary to

the various decision processes by which alternatives are identified and courses of action are

selected. Watersheds provide a basis to assess many of the environmental assets that

contribute to human welfare. However, one challenge for the PCSD is to develop a framework

and related models that will overlay economic and social considerations on the watershedbased analyses of environmental assets.

The challenge is to develop the capacity to predict at least the boundaries or limits to the

broad range of biological, physical, environmental, social, and economic consequences of

human actions in development. The NRC workshop participants identified the following

questions as crucial ones that should be addressed by the Natural Resources Task Force of

the PCSD and decision-makers. The workshop participants were divided into groups that

focused on general philosophy, environmental issues, information/data problems, and human/

social issues, but in this proceedings the key questions are presented in a framework

representing the step-by-step process of achieving sustainable watersheds. That general

process is as follows:

1. Identifying specific natural resource services and concerns

2. Identifying the stakeholders

3. Linking the relevant scale of the problem to decision-making

4. Specifying the tradeoffs among economic, social, and environmental considerations

5. Exploring the values that guide stakeholders in deciding among tradeoffs

6. Identifying the best actions to achieve the desired balance among tradeoffs

Each of the key questions posed for decision-makers is connected to one of the steps in this

process.

KEY QUESTIONS

1. Identifying Specific Natural Resource Services and Concerns

2

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

110
1A. What elements of the environment are essential to social and economic well-being; or,

alternatively, what elements of the environment constrain social and economic well-being?

Elements of the environment essential to social and economic well-being include (1)

those natural resources from which societies extract useful products and services or from

which they may extract such products and services in the future and (2) environmental

elements that form the basis of environmental values and aesthetics that enrich human

existence. Sometimes the environmental and aesthetic values are themselves marketable

resources. Natural resources that are environmental assets directly utilized by society are

plants and animals, soils and minerals, clean water, and clean air. Important characteristics

of natural resources include ecological services necessary for sustainability: production,

recycling, assimilation, and recovery. Elements of the environment essential to values and

aesthetics include “wildness” (the absence of significant human impacts), natural processes

that generate the full range of successional ecosystems, biodiversity, and certain species that

inspire spiritual values and beliefs. Environmental values include “human life support

services” and therefore have implications for human health.

The traditional view of an inherent conflict between ecology and economics is giving way

to a new viewpoint that recognizes that bad economics is bad ecology and that bad ecology is

bad economics. The notion that we can be rich by wanting and using less, as opposed to

having more, is at the heart of a debate about social values about the natural world that has

become a potent force in virtually all advanced industrial societies. Across the political

spectrum, conservation is recognized as an essential societal asset rather than an economic

constraint. A conservation ethic is particularly important for certain natural resources that are

not renewable over human time scales. Some environmental assets may not be stable over

time scales important to people and do not easily lend themselves to management regimes

that depend on continuous stable supplies. Long-term cycles of scarcity and abundance, on

the order of decades to centuries, are often the rule in nature. Natural resource managers

have historically failed to adequately consider these cycles, resulting in resource use that

tends to increase during periods of abundance in many cases but that responds only slowly

when resources become scarce. The most obvious failures of resource management (e.g.,

the recent collapse of the North Atlantic cod fishery) show an inability or an unwillingness of

society to respond quickly to warning signs of resource depletion in favor of short-term

economic stability. It is essential that resources not be overexploited or otherwise reduced to

a point where they cannot recover after periods of stress or scarcity.

Recognition of the fact that our perspective on resources and their uses is inherited from

a time when the United States appeared not to be approaching true limits in the balance

between resource demand and supply implies that a strengthened and more purposeful

strategy is required. Uncertainty, conservatism, and adaptive management may provide a

much more successful social and economic framework for natural resource management.

Management for uncertainty places constraints on short-term economic development with

attending costs, but its rewards may be long-term sustainability of the resource base with

high cumulative payoffs in the long run.

Social and economic constraints imposed by regulating development and resource use

differ from constraints imposed by environmental degradation. Constraints imposed by social

and economic forces include zoning and land-use controls as well as commodity and service

prices. Constraints imposed by degradation frequently magnify resource variation, further

reducing long-term predictability. Degradation in this sense includes the introduction of exotic

3

APPENDIX E

REPORT OF THE WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD

111
species and diseases that disrupt established biological communities and natural ecological

processes. Degraded watersheds not only impair the long-term quantity and quality of

resources along with the associated economic systems, but they also reduce opportunities

for the public to appreciate the natural beauty of the landscape.

1B. What existing data would be useful to assess the current status and trends of economic,

environmental, and social conditions within a watershed? Can existing programs for data

needs and management be modified or will new ones be required to fill gaps?

Existing data in federal, state, and local repositories can be useful in characterizing the

economic, environmental, and social conditions within watersheds, and much of these data

remain to be fully exploited. Although many data are not intentionally collected to serve the

needs of watershed analysis, the data are often geographically referenced to small areas that

can be aggregated to larger units that are similar to drainage basins. Economic data,

collected and published by the federal government as the Census of Business, and social

data for the general population are readily available through the Bureau of the Census. These

data are on a county-by-county basis, but in many cases medium to large-scale watersheds

can be closely approximated by groups of counties, so that with minimal processing the

economic and social data are readily compatible with physical and chemical environmental

data collected from watersheds. Environmental conditions in watersheds, reflected in

streamflow data and hydrochemistry information collected and stored by the U.S. Geological

Survey, and information collected by the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers are all organized on the basis of watersheds. Finally, the climatologic component

of the environmental data collected and stored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration is organized according to climatological regions, which, like counties, can be

aggregated to geographic forms similar in outline to medium and large-scale watersheds.

These existing data and the continued collection of them can adequately inform decisions

regarding management of watershed resources.

Sound decision-making depends not only on data, however, but also on the use of those

data to understand the nature of changes in watersheds and to elucidate the interaction

between human and environmental systems. Multiple demands on watershed resources

(e.g., water, scenery, open space, habitat) further complicate the issue, and early attempts at

managing watersheds with more than one demand on the principal resources have often

been ineffective. Problems associated with identifying appropriate spatial and temporal scales

for management, cumulative effects from multiple users, lack of realistic modeling

approaches, and a lack of indices and integrative measures of dynamic socio-environmental

systems have all contributed to the difficulties in making effective use of available data. A

promising array of quantitative approaches for assessing complex issues with several

causes and competing solutions is beginning to appear. Empirical techniques for watersheds

that require more sophistication include quantitative assessments of watershed condition and

integrated risk assessment models. The following paragraphs outline the promise of adaptive

management and watershed management, problems with quantitative measures, and the

issue of integrated socio-environmental models in more detail.

Adaptive Management. Adaptive management is an important avenue to cooperative efforts

toward sustainable development of watershed resources. This concept implies constantly

changing management practices that reflect fluctuating conditions of the resource. In the

4

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

112
abstract, adaptive management monitors the resource in question to determine whether

stability is occurring, or perhaps unfavorable change. If unfavorable change is detected,

administrators adjust the management of the resource to improve conditions. In reality,

adaptive management requires a scientifically designed monitoring program for comparison

of present conditions to a base-line condition, along with a cooperative arrangement among

resource users to accommodate management changes. The management experience of the

Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam (located in the Grand Canyon National Recreation

Area), built and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, illustrates the usefulness of adaptive

management for water and related drainage basin resources (NRC, 1987).

The operation of the dam directly influences a variety of resources related to the river,

including storage of irrigation water, generation of hydropower, and provision of recreation on

the upstream reservoir as well as downstream on the river. Wildlife management was also to

be part of the benefits of the structure. When the dam was ready to begin operating in 1963,

its monthly operations were designed to store and deliver water to seven states according to

the “Law of the River,” which specifies that a certain amount of water is to be passed through

the dam every 10 years. The daily operations were designed to maximize the production of

hydroelectric power, mostly by rapidly increasing and decreasing production to serve

demands for power during peak periods of the day. These artificial fluctuations of flow,

sometimes causing changes of flow in the river of up to 13 feet in a single day, had

unexpected negative impacts that became apparent by the early 1980s. The flows changed

the habitat for endangered native fishes, particularly the humpback chub and Colorado River

squaw fish, and reduced their reproductive capabilities. Radical changes in flow, along with

the entrapment of sediment by the dam, caused the erosion of beaches along the 277-mile

length of the river below the dam, severely impacting the white-water rafting industry in the

canyon. During some floods, however, the conditions of the beaches improved, and spawning

of endangered fishes improved under some spring-time conditions, when a favorable

combination of main stream and tributary flows occurred.

The Bureau of Reclamation supported more than 10 years of research and

experimentation in the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies to learn how dam operations

influence all the resources of the river. By the mid-1990s, the bureau designed a long-term

monitoring plan to provide measures of key attributes of the Grand Canyon ecosystem on a

continuous basis. If those measures indicate excessive erosion of beaches, for example,

dam operators can simulate a beach-building flood by releasing a large flow. By assessing

the amount of water in storage in the reservoir, requirements of the “Law of the River” for

water delivery, electrical power demands, and the availability of sediment in the canyon from

undammed tributaries, the operators can select the timing of the flood flow to minimize its

collective cost to all users of the river’s resources. Dam operations were modified during

certain seasons to create favorable conditions for endangered fishes, again in such a way

that minimized the cost to other resource users.

Adaptive management on the Colorado River takes into account the fact that watershed

resources are complex and interconnected; management of one resource alone is not likely

to be effective. Management of many resources together imposes costs on some users, but

with a collective approach the costs can be determined fairly and distributed equitably.

Adaptive management accounts for change—first, by recognizing that the resources change

and, second, by allowing informed change in the use of the resources. Adaptive management

depends on continuing assessments, monitoring, and measuring of the resources coupled

with an insightful scientific understanding of the interplay among the various system

components. With this sort of powerful support for decision-making, management options 5

APPENDIX E

REPORT OF THE WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD

113
can be assessed by all stakeholders on the same basis. While the stakeholders may have

differing objectives or even different value systems, they can collectively agree on the likely

outcomes of their joint decisions.

Watershed Management. There is an increasing need to understand the cumulative effects

of human activities on watersheds. Only through a broad geographic perspective can the

unique qualities of each watershed and their spatial and temporal effects on natural resources

be understood. A recent development in forest management planning has been the use of

“watershed analysis” to evaluate resources and the potential environmental impacts of land

management proposals. A watershed-scale or management approach to decision-making

takes into consideration the entire watershed, including the land mass that drains into the

aquatic ecosystem. A watershed management approach would identify opportunities for

habitat restoration at somewhat larger geographical scales than are normally used.

As stated in Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems (NRC, 1992a), fragmentation of

ecosystem management is common in U.S. governmental organizations and in industry.

Watershed and political boundaries are not often aligned. Furthermore, different components

of a watershed are usually administered by different agencies. Thus, the politics and

consensus building required for watershed management are often as complicated as the

management of the ecosystem itself.

Watershed analysis is a perspective or point of view—it is a way of organizing and

integrating a view of the complex human and natural systems. In this view the interactions of

the elements of each system are taken in the context of the functional boundaries of a

drainage basin. Alternative schemes for organization may use airsheds, ecosystems, or

political regions. Watershed analysis, however, offers a distinct advantage for the

management of environmental resources because of the central role of water, and water

organizes itself on the Earth’s surface according to drainage basins. From the standpoint of

physical science, watershed approaches force the analyst to account for the fact that

environmental processes in one location on the landscape may have far-reaching

consequences downstream. Application of fertilizers on fields in Iowa, for example, results in

varying contaminant loadings in the Mississippi Delta, several hundred miles downstream.

Land management has definable implications for water quality. From the policy standpoint,

watershed analysis implies that the scale of policy is critical—if decisions focus on very small

areas, unforeseen consequences may be transmitted to other populations downstream. If the

scale of the policy is too large, it may fail to account for the internal yet connected variation

within the watershed. A successful example of watershed analysis is the management

system currently used in the state of Washington, where policy defined in a drainage basin

context successfully promotes efficient regulation, continued timber production, and

protection for the physical integrity of forest ecosystems.

Watershed-scale management may provide a relatively clear understanding of existing

resources and factors affecting them. However, social preferences, institutional constraints,

and other human factors may preclude use of certain solutions to existing problems. For

example, dewatering a stream by irrigation diversions could be solved by shifting to irrigation

techniques that are more efficient and less consumptive. Any water savings might be retained

in the stream. Alternatively, improved water efficiencies may instead allow a land owner to

increase the amount of area under irrigation with no net change in water diverted. Or, if the

water is no longer used by the land owner, it may be sold to another land owner with junior

water rights. What seemed like a relatively simple approach to problem solving begins to

6

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

114
involve important institutional barriers. The notion of “use it or lose it,” so firmly etched in

western water law, precludes what in some instances might be a simple solution to an

environmental problem. No institutionally sanctioned means exist whereby environmental

resource conditions can be assessed and opportunities for restoration identified over multiple

ownerships encompassing a variety of land uses. New programs may be needed to extend

this analytical approach from forested headwaters to other types of land use.

Quantitative measures of watershed attributes are the foundation of understanding and

prediction when dealing with drainage basin resources. Most simply, the total area and

proportion of the watershed occupied by each vegetation or habitat type can be identified and

its area and perimeter recorded. Analyses of the total number of patches and their spatial

arrangement can be easily computed using geographic information systems. In addition to

metrics describing individual patch types, edges between patches (likely zones of

management conflicts and areas of sensitive measures of habitat fragmentation) can be

calculated as the length of edge between each pair of land cover classes or as edge-to-area

ratios. These relatively simple measures can provide valuable insight into changes in

watersheds and thus contribute to more effective management and conservation.

Although the development of quantitative measures of watershed condition has taken

place rapidly, empirical studies that test for significant relationships between watershed

metrics and ecological conditions (e.g., the presence or abundance of species or water

quality) are still infrequent. There is a clear need to identify the most important watershed

measures as well as the levels beyond which socio-environmental conditions change

significantly. In addition, it is essential to be aware of the assumptions and constraints that are

implicit in the metrics. For example, selection of land cover categories to be used in the

analysis constrains the type of results, and the spatial resolution of the data—both the total

extent of the area and the resolution—can strongly influence numerical findings.

The integration of sociological and environmental measures and models is a more

pressing need than the need for more data. The risk of undesirable conditions within a

watershed can be assessed by using such models to explore alternative land management

scenarios. An example of such a model is the Land-Use Change and Analysis System

(LUCAS). LUCAS is a spatial simulation model at the large river basin scale in which the

probability of an area converting from one land use to another depends on a variety of social,

economic, and ecological factors. Conditional transition probabilities are estimated empirically

by comparing land use at different times (decade to decade) and projecting future watershed

conditions.

1C. Are present scientific institutions organized to provide information that can inform

decision-makers responsible for sustainable watershed development?

Watershed boundaries rarely match political boundaries—rivers rather than drainage

divides often serve as boundaries between counties or states, so aggregates of county units

provide useful watershed approximations, but subdivisions of the basins may not always be

possible. While data may be reorganized to approximate watershed boundaries, political

jurisdictions may not be handled so easily. The problem may be complicated where state or

other significant jurisdictional boundaries transect the watershed. Furthermore, the biology of

some natural resources, e.g., migratory waterfowl and the Pacific salmon, transcend the

jurisdictions of local research and management organizations. The result is a fragmented and

7

APPENDIX E

REPORT OF THE WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD

115
disjointed approach to watershed management and data gathering. Attempts at basin-scale

cooperation have met with only limited success. Attempts during the 1930s to duplicate the

economic development successes of the Tennessee Valley Authority in other basins failed,

most notably in the Missouri and Rio Grande watersheds. In a more recent example, the

Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC) was formed to develop policies for sustainable

power generation through the Bonneville Power Authority. This was an attempt to deal with

complex natural resource issues in the Columbia River Basin which is highly impacted by

hydroelectric dams. NPPC had a broad mandate from the federal government and the

northwestern states to operate under the principles of adaptive bioregional comanagement.

Yet one of the most important charges given the council—to assemble a plan to halt the

decline of salmon in the Columbia River—has not been fulfilled despite a budget exceeding a

billion dollars over the past two decades. Part of the reason for the admitted failure of many of

the NPPC programs has been the reluctance of major interest groups (federal, tribal, and

state governments; cities; forestry concerns; power utilities; and anglers) to cooperate in a

meaningful way. As a result, to restore the Snake River sockeye and chinook salmon, the

Columbia Basin now faces a very costly recovery plan.

The Columbia example illustrates a breakdown in the use of scientific methods by political

entities. At least some of the problems experienced by the NPPC could have been avoided if

an aggressive cooperative research and monitoring program had been undertaken at the

inception of the program. For example, even after more than 15 years of awareness of the

problem of restricted fish migration in the rivers, the relative merits of barging young salmon

to sea versus speeding their downstream passage by drawing the reservoirs down is not

understood with certainty, and scientific consensus on the issue does not exist. Scientists

have known what tests would be necessary to evaluate these two strategies, but the political

will to carry out these experiments has been lacking. Institutional turf battles have too often

prevented critical studies from occurring, and this problem may be symptomatic of a

widespread mismatch between the research and monitoring agendas of organizations often

in competition for limited research dollars. Given this sort of political climate—competitive

rather than cooperative, exclusive rather than inclusive—adaptive management becomes

virtually impossible. Science in these matters is therefore a necessary but insufficient

condition for sound management.

2. Identifying the Stakeholders

2A. Who will determine whether data are adequate to identify needs, set priorities, make

timely decisions, and measure progress toward achieving and sustaining goals; what

processes and/or criteria will be employed to determine data adequacy?

If sustainable development is grounded in ethical considerations, the determination of

values attached to various environmental, resource, social, and economic components of

sustainable development must be based on acceptable principles. The most widely accepted

principle of political behavior in the United States is democratic decision-making. This

principle demands that all citizens with a stake in the outcomes of political decisions are able

to represent their interests either directly or through duly elected political representatives.

Historically, in the United States the question of democratic representation has been

handled by drawing political boundaries based on a number of contingent and often arbitrary

criteria. However, environmental problems that are of increasing concern do not respect

8

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

116
these boundaries. The sources of environmental problems are often in one location, while the

consequences appear in another. Industrial production of the constituents of acid rain occur in

one region, for example, but the damaging consequences for forestry and inland fisheries

occur in different areas. Under such circumstances, citizens of the latter jurisdiction have

limited or no control over the actions that create the problem.

Environmental concerns also expand the stakes involved in natural resource

management. Those stakes are no longer limited to the costs and benefits directly associated

with production and consumption activities. The indirect consequences of these activities that

degrade other resources require more comprehensive cost/benefit accounting than

previously. Such accounting would include not only externalities associated with economic

activities but also the monetary valuation of intangibles considered essential to a high quality

of life, such as scenic beauty, lack of congestion, and access to nature. A more

comprehensive cost/benefit accounting better identifies the stakes involved in sustainable

development and in doing so extends the range of stakeholders. Ecologically informed

accounting also creates a need for more meaningful political units that better approximate

natural boundaries, encompassing the relevant stakes and stakeholders, and establishing the

basis for effective democratic decision-making in sustainable development.

2B. Who has a stake; what are the stakes?

Watersheds are useful natural entities that, in principle, can serve as practical political

units in determining sustainable development. They have flexible additive boundaries in the

sense that the political entities they define can range from micro- to macro-scale. Because

watersheds are nested hierarchically, they establish a natural base for linking local with

regional, or upstream with downstream, concerns. Flexibility in choosing the relevant

watershed scale allows for more accurate identification of both the stakes and stakeholders

involved in sustainable development issues. The limitation of using watersheds as political

entities is that occasionally stakeholders may also be outside the boundaries of the

watershed directly in question. Hydropower customers, water users, or wilderness users

might reside far from the basin where the resources lie. Decisions about resource

management in one basin may have a ripple effect on other watersheds. For example,

solutions to the problem of the Pacific Northwest salmon might reduce hydroelectric

generation in that basin, placing greater demand on power generation in nearby basins.

2C. Are stakes and stakeholders fully accounted for?

Whether or not stakeholders are accounted for often becomes a question of information

dissemination, because in order to participate in democratic decision-making citizens must

be well educated and fully informed about the issues. The information made available to the

public should help make citizens aware of the interconnections between private and public

economic activities and their environmental and social consequences. Likewise, the public

must be made aware of the economic costs associated with economic development.

Because of the complexities involved in sustainable development, data collection and

dissemination by scientists must be intensified and reoriented to identify the full range of

stakes and stakeholders. These data collections in a watershed context must: (1)

approximate the watershed boundaries; (2) be available for micro-watersheds, which can

then be aggregated for more macro-analysis while taking into account the process changes

accompanying scale changes; (3) include measures useful in guiding and measuring

9

APPENDIX E

REPORT OF THE WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD

117
sustainable development; and (4) result in informational products that are readily accessible

to planners and public officials at the appropriate levels. Data needs will change as new

problems emerge, and scientists will need to be flexible in meeting those needs. Public

resources will need to be available to finance this data collection and dissemination as well as

to maintain the scientific capacity to do so.

3. Linking the Relevant Scale of the Problem to Decision-Making

3A. How can we match the scale of decision-making processes to the scale of the natural

systems that are the object of our decisions?

Matching the scales of decision-making with the variable scales of natural processes is

difficult because not all natural systems operate on the same scale. A medium-scale

drainage basin (e.g., the Upper Rio Grande above Albuquerque) has within it many smaller

natural systems that might reasonably be the objects of decision-making on their own. The

artesian groundwater basin of the San Luis Valley would have different concerns than the

alpine areas of the San Juan Mountains upstream or the diversion-irrigation lands of northern

New Mexico. Yet all these concerns are intertwined through the basin processes connected

to water, so that at some point decision-making must account for the entire Upper Rio Grande

Basin. None of these natural resource regions corresponds to a political or jurisdictional

region, but rather they transcend two states, several tribal lands, several counties, and public

as well as private lands.

The only obvious method of matching decision processes with the scale of the resource

base is to aggregate small political and jurisdictional units into larger commissions or councils

that correspond roughly to the watershed area. These commissions or councils do not fit into

the established political framework, however, and their actions would likely require ratification

by the entities that participate in them. Nonetheless, such aggregations offer the opportunity to

reorganize the democratic process without disrupting established structures. The Northeast

Ozone Commission exemplifies such successful arrangements.

Fragmentation of watershed management among a myriad of federal, state, tribal, and

local agencies is an impediment to sustainable development because of competing and

contradictory mandates for the various agencies. Sometimes, individual units within agencies

have contradictory objectives, as illustrated by the various units of the U.S. Department of the

Interior. The River Basin Planning Commissions authorized by the Water Resources

Planning Act of 1965 were not as effective as they might have been because of competing

agendas. An exception was the New England Basin Commission, which succeeded in

developing large-scale watershed plans. This was successful in part because of a relative

absence of interagency competition and because it had strong leadership. The resolution of

conflicts by cooperative participation in regionally defined commissions or councils is possible

but only with aggressive leadership from agency directors who view the sustainable

development objective as a national goal that supersedes more limited objectives.

Another consideration with regard to scale is the definition of the watershed itself and the

recognition that there are other important ways to partition the resource base. Airsheds are

becoming increasingly important in understanding and managing the quality of life, and

regional power grids are a way of viewing a resource critical to both economic development

and environmental resource conservation and maintenance. The meshing of these other

regions with watersheds is an important consideration that probably needs to be addressed

10

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

118
on a case-by-case basis.

4. Specifying the Tradeoffs Among Economic, Social, and Environmental

Considerations

4A. How can the natural dynamics of watersheds be taken into account?

Natural watershed processes have many characteristics and attributes that are

maintained by disturbance, so in using watersheds for human purposes it is necessary to

preserve these natural disturbances insofar as possible. Natural fires are required for the

regeneration of many forest ecosystems, and fire suppression results in the development of

unnatural and (more importantly) unstable conditions. Many riparian ecosystems depend on

periodic flood events for maintenance, so if these flood events are eliminated by upstream

dams, radical and undesirable adjustments follow. Successful sustainable development

strategies must include mechanisms for ensuring the continuation of such events that bring

about change within the system. This represents a departure from previous management

strategies that have sought to impose rigid stability on resource systems.

Change in watersheds responds to both natural and human forcing functions. Variations

in precipitation, tectonic instability, sea-level changes, and changes in land cover are natural

adjustments that are to be expected. Human-induced changes through the building of dams,

channelization, and changes in land use are also aspects of watershed change that are

worldwide. From a management standpoint, recognition of these changes is often difficult

because the adjustments in the forcing function are hard to measure and predict and the

response of the watershed may operate on time scales that are much beyond conventional

planning horizons. Decade- or century-long plans seem lengthy in human terms, but they

may be conventional for watershed changes. Therefore, sustainable development needs to

be viewed against a backdrop of a changing resource base rather than a static one that is

consistent and dependable in its dimensions and location.

4B. Can scientific information be integrated effectively into decision-making?

The principle contributions of the physical and biological sciences in furthering the goals of

sustainable development of watershed resources lie in their capacity to predict the

consequences and effects of human actions and natural events. Decisions to construct a

second-home development in a particular basin will have undeniable consequences for land

use, runoff, surface water processes, groundwater quality, and a variety of connected

ecosystems. The scientific means exist to predict at the very least the direction of these

changes and in many cases the probable magnitude of change to be expected. Similarly, the

social and behavioral sciences can add significantly to our understanding of the human

impact of choosing varying levels of resource usage. Internal population shifts and migrations

that stimulate and are stimulated by resource development have far-reaching consequences,

ranging from the need for transportation facilities and housing to expanded school systems

and social services. The social and behavioral sciences can predict the nature of these

changes and provide at least broad estimates of the magnitude of the needs.

4C. Are metrics and methods available that are capable of evaluating the tradeoffs among

and between the three distinct groups of economic, social, and environmental

11

APPENDIX E

REPORT OF THE WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD

119
considerations?

Generally, the methodologies for considering tradeoffs among economic, social, and

environmental considerations in watershed resource sustainability do not exist at the level of

sophistication required for informed decision-making. The metrics for assessing economic

activity, social well-being, environmental quality, and resource stocks or services are available

in some cases but not all. Models that blend these disparate measures into a cohesive

intellectual whole are in their infancy and will require considerable improvement if they are to

provide an information base for public and private policy decisions that are part of a

sustainable development ethic.

5. Exploring the Values That Guide Stakeholders in Deciding Among Tradeoffs

5A. What can science do to make clear the values that stakeholders have and want

represented in the policy-making process?

An underlying assumption of the conduct of scientific research in the logical positivist tradition

is that the effort is as valueless and dispassionate as possible, so that the results reflect a

reality that is “true,” untainted by cultural or political biases. This ideal is open to question,

however, and ways need to be found to incorporate people’s values into the formation of

scientific research questions (Norton, 1992).

Social behavioral science can, however, contribute understanding to the values held by

stakeholders in the policy-making process. Survey research is a sophisticated methodology

widely used to plumb the opinions of various segments of populations. While values probably

cannot be quantified, the number of people adhering to given values and the strength of their

convictions can certainly be measured by a variety of social and economic measures that

have been used previously. The social value that human populations place on various

environmental resources, including certain nonuse values, can frequently be converted in

rough terms to economic equivalents and then compared to other costs or benefits.

6. Identifying the Best Actions to Achieve the Desired Balance Among Tradeoffs

6A. How can science assist in defining and assessing the consequences of social/economic

decisions?

The consequences of social and economic decisions include impacts on resource stocks

and services as well as on environmental quality. The physical, chemical, and biological

sciences have the ability to identify and quantify many of the threats to resources and the

environment based on investigations of past experiences. Information about these

experiences can be developed into models of various scenarios that imitate the consequences of possible policy decisions. Provision of electrical power by the Tennessee Valley

Authority, for example, can be examined for a variety of possible future conditions to test the

effects of supplementing hydropower with coal-fired or nuclear generating plants or making

efforts at reducing demands. The impacts that have variable effects include the impact of

increased demand for coal or uranium, stress on transportation networks to get the fuel to

generating sites, the economic outcomes of attempting to reduce demands, and pollution

potential of increased fossil fuel use in the Southeastern United States. Physical, social, and

economic scientists have the tools in hand to provide such information. Ecosystem

perturbations in other examples are sometimes more subtle and difficult to evaluate. For

12

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

120
example, the downstream effects of dam operation on the Platte River in Nebraska include

subtle but ecologically significant changes in the temperature of the river water, which in turn

have far-reaching but little-known effects on fish and wildlife.

Science can also provide useful information on the “pulse” of the sustainable resources in

question. Established methods can provide a reading of the present status of resource

stocks, for example, and can establish the present trends of change in those stocks or

services. There is no mystery about the lumber resources of the nation, for example, nor

about the economic value of transportation services provided by the inland barge system on

rivers and in coastal waterways. Reasonable policy decisions should take advantage of these

data to make and defend rational choices. Statisticians can also inform decision-makers

about the degree of uncertainty involved in predicting outcomes or in estimating the behavior

of present resource, environmental, or human systems (NRC, 1994). Our knowledge about

resource stocks, environmental system behavior, economic processes, and social attributes,

including values, is about probabilities. Decisions that rely only on the average or so-called

normal condition inevitably will be wrong at least sometimes. Statistical understanding of

variability and uncertainty can prepare populations and decision-makers for these real

uncertainties and may lead to more conservative and cautious projections for future

scenarios. Understanding of Midwestern droughts is a case in point—rather than considering

them to be interruptions in an otherwise beneficent climate, we now know they are expectable

events in this climate system, with a particular probability of occurring each year. Stable

agribusinesses can build this probability into their long-term planning and account for it before

droughts occur.

Finally, the physical, chemical, and biological sciences can contribute to sustainable

development by identifying thresholds of natural system behavior when the system begins

rapid change or degradation. Beneficial wildlife populations provide a case in point.

Management of black-tailed deer and important game species on public lands in northern

Arizona at the beginning of this century assumed that there were virtually no limits on the deer

population. Predators and other population controls were removed, only to discover that the

carrying capacity of the land and its vegetation imposed a ceiling to the deer population that

was enforced through starvation. Definition of the threshold of carrying capacity by scientific

means can serve as a guide to natural resource management.

6B. What can science do to assist adaptive management/development?

Science can contribute to sustainable development by improving the society/environment

connection, by suggesting ways of either adapting development to natural features, or by

changing environmental resources to foster a particular type of development. Drought- and

disease-resistant crops have been produced through agricultural research—an example of

adapting crops to their environment. The engineering of highly efficient irrigation systems that

transport water great distances and use it sparingly but efficiently in growing imported

nonnative crops shows that it is possible to modify local environmental conditions to make an

area economically productive. Science can also provide insights into the relative costs and

benefits of either adapting human activities to the environment or changing the environment.

Economic and social measures of efficiency and human well-being can be useful input for

decision-making in the management of watersheds, and such techniques already exist.

13

APPENDIX E

REPORT OF THE WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD

121
6C. Will existing programs be adequate to monitor progress toward achieving desired goals?

If not, can they be modified to do so or will new ones be required?

American government at all levels has numerous monitoring agencies that measure

resources, environmental attributes, and economic performance. Any objective related to

sustainable development of watershed resources will require monitoring of resource

attributes such as agricultural productivity, streamflow characteristics, ecosystem integrity,

and human social well-being. Communications among these monitoring agencies is

important to ensure that measures are compatible with each other and to make the data

available not only to a select few decision-makers or researchers but also to the affected

public, who must collectively reach value-based decisions about the resources in question.

6D. Is knowledge dissemination effective in changing behavior under current economic

circumstances?

No matter how effective monitoring agencies are in the collection and processing of

measurements related to resource stocks, services, environmental integrity, or human wellbeing, these data are not useful unless they reach the decision-makers and the general

public. Perhaps the poorest performance of American science has been in the area of

communicating its information and conclusions to decision-makers and the public. American

society appears to have a widespread mistrust of science, as evidenced by recent public

doubts about the evidence in issues ranging from the effects of Agent Orange to breast

implants, endangered species, and global warming. The problem is made even worse when

the scientific community fails to generate a consensus among its own members.

Therefore, fundamental changes will be necessary because our institutions are structured in

a way that virtually precludes watershed-scale planning and management. Financial

resources will have to be spent on the development of data and models, and strong political

leadership will be required, if sustainable watershed management is to become a reality. The

dissemination of scientific knowledge in understandable and convincing ways needs to be

improved before managers can hope to change public behavior toward an emphasis on

sustainable development. The experience of the USDA Cooperative Extension Service in

disseminating information related to agriculture may serve as an example of how scientific

knowledge related to sustainability can be transmitted to decision-makers and stakeholders.

6E. How do equity issues affect human behavior toward watersheds and their natural

resources?

The end of the Cold War and the absence of an external competitor have brought about a

more inward-looking perspective in American society. Concerns about equity are becoming

more focused on watersheds (often in the form of questions related to the allocation of water

resources), and future management schemes dealing with watersheds will certainly have to

deal with equity questions. In the western states, for example, upstream residents in

watersheds frequently have an abundance of water but lack arable lands for productive

agriculture. They often rely on resource extraction for minerals or lumber and emphasize a

rural lifestyle in an area dominated by public lands. Downstream residents have more arable

land but lack a dependable flow of water for productive agriculture with extensive water

14

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

122
storage and distribution facilities. They tend to emphasize an urban lifestyle in an area

dominated by private lands. Ethnic diversity in each of these regions also requires equitable

distribution of resources, so that Native Americans and Hispanic residents can share in the

benefits of resource management. All these disparate groups share the same watershed,

however, and must come to some equitable agreement about behavior toward the watershed

resources. An NRC report, Water Transfers in the West (NRC, 1992b), states that

reallocation of water among users will be a principal feature in a new era of western water

management, along with increased conservation, increased use efficiency, and improved

reservoir operation.

6F. How does social/economic insecurity affect human behavior toward natural resources or

watersheds?

Social and economic insecurity leads to emphasis on short-term strategies in natural

resource use, because such strategies offer the promise of relief from financial or social

stress. In the case of extractive resource use, emphasis on the short term leads to a brief

period of prosperity but long-term decline in economic and social conditions. A recent NRC

report, Wetlands: Characteristics and Boundaries (NRC, 1995), suggests that functional

assessment of wetlands could be most useful in the context of watershed or landscape-level

planning. This approach facilitates consideration of the interaction between wetlands and the

surrounding landscape features, as well as the location of the wetland in the watershed.

Landscape-level planning provides a framework for incorporating the interests of all affected

parties. Creation of such a framework increases the likelihood that regulatory activities will be

acceptable to all parties.

The degradation of almost all the major fisheries in the United States illustrates the

following point. If watershed resources are managed so as to be sustainable on a long-term

basis, the result can contribute to social and economic security, which will have the feedback

effect of giving watershed managers more options in maintaining resources.

6G. Are processes under way to develop institutional/political mechanisms to better translate

scientifically determined costs/benefits into optimal human behavior regarding

watersheds?

Existing institutions in the United States are not well suited to encourage optimal human

behavior regarding watersheds. The jurisdiction of local, regional, and state governments

rarely, if ever, coincides adequately with meaningful watershed boundaries (though they could

if counties were more routinely aggregated for the specific purpose of approximating

watershed boundaries). This problem means that land-use planning and zoning activities are

rarely based on or account for the functions or values of watersheds. Similarly, private land

holdings infrequently encompass watershed or subwatershed units. The result is that

individual land owners rarely have any incentive to account for the impacts of their activities

on the larger watershed. For the most part, collective action to maintain and enhance the

functions of watersheds is largely absent.

Water quality provides an example of this private versus public interest. Despite

compelling evidence that watershed management is one of the least expensive ways to

maintain water quality, interest in developing institutional and political mechanisms that will

15

APPENDIX E

REPORT OF THE WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD

123
foster optimum human behavior regarding watersheds has been slow to develop. Indeed,

current concerns about government encroachment on private property rights may be eroding

some efforts to account for watersheds in planning and development. This trend toward an

absence of effective institutions or political mechanisms that adequately account for

watershed processes is symptomatic of an underlying lack of national will and interest. The

costs of further subjugating private land-use decisions to collective action may be perceived

as too high and may reduce action in many areas. In some regions, especially New England,

local organizations may step in to the watershed planning process and assume roles once

thought of as the federal domain.

Although a national will appears to be lacking, the tools to achieve watershed sustainability

through collective action already exist. Zoning, building codes, land-use rules, and taxation are

all mechanisms that might be employed to regulate activities on watersheds or to provide

incentives for desired actions if there were widespread support for them. REFERENCES

National Research Council. 1987. River and Dam Management: A Review of the Bureau of

Reclamation’s Glen Canyon Environmental Studies. National Academy Press,

Washington, D.C.

National Research Council. 1992a. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. National Academy

Press, Washington, D.C.

National Research Council. 1992b. Water Transfers in the West. National Academy Press,

Washington, D.C.

National Research Council. 1993. Sustaining Our Water Resources: A Proceedings of the

Water Science and Technology Board. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

National Research Council. 1994. Assigning Economic Value to Natural Resources. National

Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and Boundaries. National

Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Norton, B. 1992. “A New Paradigm for Environmental Management,” pp. 23-41 in R.

Costanza, B. Norton, and B. Haskell, eds., Ecosystem Health: New Goals for

Environmental Management, Island Press, Washington, D.C.

The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our Common

Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.

16

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

TASK FORCE REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES

124
APPENDIX F

NATURAL RESOURCE ACCOUNTING

REPORT

Following is the report on natural resource accounting commissioned by the Midwestern

Regional Team. This report represents the work of the authors of the report and has not been

subjected to fact-checking by the President’s Council on Sustainable Development.

APPENDIX G

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPMENT MEMBERS

CO-CHAIRS

David T. Buzzelli, Vice President and Corporate Director, The Dow Chemical Company

Jonathan Lash, President, World Resources Institute

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Molly Harriss Olson

MEMBERS

John H. Adams, Executive Director, Natural Resources Defense Council

Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior

Richard Barth, Chairman, President, and CEO, Ciba-Geigy Corporation

Ronald H. Brown, Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce

Carol M. Browner, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Benjamin F. Chavis, Jr., National Chairman, National African-American Leadership Summit

Richard A. Clarke, Chairman and CEO, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Retired)

A.D. “Pete” Correll, Chairman and CEO, Georgia-Pacific Corporation

Kenneth T. Derr, Chairman and CEO, Chevron Corporation

Dianne Dillon-Ridgley, Co-Chair, Citizens Network for Sustainable Development

Thomas R. Donahue, Former President, AFL-CIO

Judith M. Espinosa, Former Secretary of the Environment, State of New Mexico

Jay D. Hair, President Emeritus, National Wildlife Federation

William E. Hoglund, Executive Vice President, General Motors Corporation (Retired)

Samuel C. Johnson, Chairman, S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.

Fred D. Krupp, Executive Director, Environmental Defense Fund

Kenneth L. Lay, Chairman and CEO, Enron Corp.

Hazel R. O’Leary, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy

Michele A. Perrault, International Vice President, Sierra Club

125
William D. Ruckelshaus, Chairman, Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.

John C. Sawhill, President and CEO, The Nature Conservancy

Theodore Strong, Executive Director, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

EX OFFICIO MEMBERS

D. James Baker, Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce

Madeleine M. Kunin, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Education

Richard E. Rominger, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Timothy E. Wirth, Undersecretary for Global Affairs, U.S. Department of State

LIAISON TO THE PRESIDENT

Kathleen A. McGinty, Chair, Council on Environmental Quality

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Private sector contributions to support the Natural Resources Task Force were administered

by four nonprofit organizations: the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Pace

University, the Tahoe-Douglas Chamber of Commerce, and the University of Nevada-Las

Vegas. Through a Memorandum of Understanding, these organizations raised, received, and

spent funds on behalf of the Task Force under the authority of Take Pride in America.

The following organizations contributed financial and in-kind support to the Columbia River

Inter-Tribal Fish Commission:

Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.

Bullitt Foundation

Ciba-Geigy Corporation

Georgia-Pacific Foundation

Jennifer Altman Foundation

Navaho Tribal Utility Authority

Northwest Power Planning Council

Pacific Power

Seafirst National Bank

Weyerhauser Foundation

The following organizations contributed financial and in-kind support to Pace University:

Ciba-Geigy Corporation

Surdna Foundation

The following organizations contributed financial and in-kind support to the Tahoe-Douglas

Chamber of Commerce:

Heavenly Ski Resort

Lake Tahoe Community Trust

Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance

League to Save Lake Tahoe

Park Cattle Company

126
The following organizations contributed financial and in-kind support to the University of

Nevada-Las Vegas:

Harrah’s Las Vegas

Nevada Power Company

Nevada State Energy Office

Southern Nevada Water Authority

In addition, Ciba-Geigy Corporation made direct contributions to the Task Force.

127