NATURAL RESOURCES WORKING GROUP
INTERIM REPORT – OCTOBER 2009

INTRODUCTION

Below you will find our collective vision, indicators, and how the two might be applied to natural resources in the Southcoast region.  In the Results section (below), you will also find examples of how the stated indicators might be applied to specific categories of natural resources, and also a discussion of potential barriers to reaching stated sustainability goals.  At the end of this report, you will find natural resource sub-group reports, giving detailed information answering the major questions posed by the Council for each sub-category.  These sub-reports should be read to supplement the main points discussed in this report.

VISION

Natural resources are primarily defined by three considerations, or ways of seeing: scarcity (supply/demand), equity (distributional issues), and value (a consideration of all relevant values implicit in any given natural resource).  These three primary considerations are interrelated.  For instance, the value of a natural resource is measured, in part, based on its scarcity (its relative availability), and its equitable distribution (forces such as privatization can act to increase value at the expense of limiting access).

The current vision articulated is to have a general policy developed around natural resource use that integrates three primary considerations: scarcity, equity, and value.  These three considerations are guiding principles that should be used to evaluate the manner in which natural resources are being used in the Southcoast region.  In addition, where sufficient information exists, we suggest the following guidelines to be applied to specific natural resource areas:

1. Identify those natural resources in the South Coast area that are most critically threatened with depletion, destruction or severe damage, or conversely most in need of special efforts to achieve long term sustainability.  These will most likely be natural resources, such as potable water, that people cannot live without, or that would seriously impact the quality of life of large segments of the population if they were significantly diminished.

2. Research whether any standards have already been established by governments or scientific bodies for protecting these natural resources and what programs, if any, are already in place for trying to achieve those standards.

3. Evaluate whether these standards and programs appear to be sufficient to achieve sustainability of the critical natural resources for the foreseeable future.

4. If not, consider what we might do to promote the protection of those resources.

5. If there are some critical natural resources for which no accepted standards or protective measures exist, consider what we might do to try to encourage appropriate groups to determine and set such standards and design programs to achieve them.

6. Work with the other groups of the Sustainability Council to help them understand the critical limits on scarce natural resources, and explore ways in which their interests and agendas might be modified to minimize the adverse impact on critical resources.

The initial work of the committee has focused on answering the “what” question of natural resources (what do we have in the Southcoast?, what is the current condition of these resources?, and what are the current trends of these resources?).  Based on what has been identified above, it is apparent we also need to move towards identifying and choosing what might be considered “critical natural resources” in the Southcoast region.  It is recommended we use, where applicable, objective third-party information in indentifying “critical” natural resources, and ensure such identification is based on well-established scientific factors.  We believe the Council should consider establishing a council-level “implementation” group that is charged with the “six-step” process above, as well as monitoring how activities and trends in the Southcoast might impact the three categories of values or indicators identified above.  We recommend ultimately building a regional policy plan focusing on sustainable factors, similar to that recently developed by the Cape Cod Commission – plan can be downloaded here: http://www.capecodcommission.org/RPP/home.htm.

INDICATORS

The “thematic” indicators we have established are “categorical” in nature, representing a way in which sustainable thinking is applied to human interactions with natural resources.  The categorical indicators, taken from our vision, above, are as follows:

• Scarcity
• Equity
• Value

These indicators are explained within the context of specific natural resource categories immediately below in the Results section.

In addition to these thematic indicators, we also can immediately identify specific indicators based on an assessment of “critical and threatened natural resources.” We can use this language (critical and threatened) as an indicator itself.  For example, if we determine certain resources in the Southcoast exhibit qualities of critical and/or threatened natural resources (say a specific groundwater system for drinking water purposes), then we can identify this resource as a priority area for protection purposes.  We can then assess various human activities that might impact this resource (land development, extraction rates, other land uses within the area, etc.), and make recommendations on how to limit negative impacts.  These recommendations can include “best management practices,” and other means of education to local governing bodies.

RESULTS

Initial results indicate responses to our natural resources are categorized as reactionary in nature.  This suggests most policies and practices identified under each natural resource category (possibly with the exception of education) do not fully articulate a proactive approach to the three considerations identified in our vision (scarcity, equity, value).  A true “sustainable” approach to natural resource “management” needs to adopt a more holistic and proactive approach.  This can begin with a clearer consideration and adoption of the three indicators as core principles in any policy-related endeavor.  A discussion of how this might be done follows below.

In addition to this general reactionary nature of policies when it comes to sustainable thinking, we also have a suggested approach to implementing the specific indicators outlined above (those identifying critical and threatened natural resources).   After the discussion of implementing the three thematic indicators, this report includes a summary of how these critical and threatened natural resources might be identified and managed within a sustainable context.  The relationship between thematic and specific indicators is shown below in the following diagram:

Thematic Indicators

Principle #1: Scarcity

A true sustainable (proactive) understanding of scarcity requires some identified “yardstick” from which ongoing human interactions may be measured against.  For instance, best practices might include the Southcoast measuring its “ecological capacity” to endure development.  This may include the mapping of ecological zones and corridors based on a best scientific assessment of what may be considered a “healthy ecosystem.”  Some quantity of total development for each “eco-region” can then be determined (even if this number is somewhat arbitrary – many policies are developed an enacted not because they are the most efficient choice, but because they are the most expedient choice).  This “ecological capacity” would then be integrated (de-centralized) into the town-management level.  Each town then, as part of its zoning and land use planning, would use this new metric (total development within each zone) as a maximum for development purposes.  In this way, we have established a proactive, if not precise, measure from which “scarcity” can then be determined (normal economic principles of supply and demand).

Although the example above focuses on land use, it is easy to extrapolate how proactive quantification can work in other natural resource areas.  For example, determining a minimum quantity of potable water sources, or a total carbon intensity limit for climate change considerations.  The point is to understand the principle itself as a driver of establishing, implementing, and maintaining sustainable goals.

The Natural Resources group has identified a number of instances where this principle is being practiced at the federal, state, and local levels, as well as by non-governmental entities.  For example, in education, the Massachusetts Curriculum frameworks directly address natural resources education (http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/current.html).  This is also true under the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2009.[1] (It can be reasonably assumed environmental and natural resource literacy of children is a proactive measure in establishing a sustainable “mindset” when it comes to the utilization of these resources)

In other areas, policies have been developed to establish “limits” (quantities).  For example, traditional policies surrounding clean air have been implemented since the 1970s limiting the total amount of criteria pollutants for a particular area (airshed).  However, these policies are not truly proactive (as required by our definition), and also focus more on human health considerations as the main impetus or driver of regulation.  Still, recent policies have been identified that show greater levels of promise.  A number are summarized below:

• The Global Warming Solutions Act, (GWSA).  Signed into law in 2008 by Gov. Patrick.  This is a comprehensive regulatory program focusedon greenhouse gases and climate change.
• Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA) and the state’s Office of Technical Assistance (OTA).  The Act and the technical assistance offered by OTA over the past two decades have helped to reduce the amount of toxic air pollutants through improved Industrial practices and pollution mitigation measures from stationary sources.
• Smart Growth initiatives promoted by the state, including efforts to address mobile and stationary sources of pollution (transportation and localized).
• DEP/EEA grants to cities and towns for work related to waste reduction, greenhouse gas emissions, energy saving measures, etc.
• Green Communities Act (GCA), was signed into law by Gov. Patrick in 2008, focuses on energy efficiency and development of renewable energy resources.
• Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), is a cooperative effort of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (a cooperative venture along these lines is extremely important as MA air quality is impacted by wind/weather in the northeast corridor from Penn. to MA).

It is suggested that any policy above which encourages Southcoast governments to implement sustainable planning principles (establish a total quantity or measure) should be highlighted and exploited as a means of obtaining overall support towards the Council’s objectives.

Principle #2: Equity

As stated above, equity is a distributional consideration.  When it comes to natural resources, we tend to find greater levels of distribution amongst resources when those resources are publicly held (national parks, public trust doctrine, etc.).  Where resources are privately held (land for example), it can be hard to consider proactive policies focusing on sustainable outcomes (especially where redistribution is required).  For instance, the establishment of new land restrictions is limited by constitutional considerations (takings under the 5^th Amendment).  However, commitments to planning efforts can limit any potential negative outcomes (for example, focusing land use planning around public nuisance considerations as a means of “side-stepping” regulatory takings claims).

A separate distributional question is temporal in nature.  While we may focus on the needs of today’s generation, sustainability requires us to consider future generations, requiring our “planning” for distributional questions to be somewhat extended beyond normal government timeframes.  Water resources is a prime example of this temporal component.  Current trends in water resources for the Southcoast identified by our group include:

• Move toward protection of Aquifers by enacting laws to restrict removal of soil so that there’s a minimum of 4 to 10 feet of soil depth to the top of any aquifer.
• Nitrogen problem at this time has its major sources from; surface runoff – lawn fertilizers, buildings, nature, agriculture farming.
• The Plymouth Carver Aquifer covers 140 sq. miles and at present is not in any danger from nitrogen or pollutants. The warning is to watch for development that could cause contamination to the Aquifer.

Suggested policy questions surrounding distributional issues for the Council’s consideration include:

• Will we have enough with out controlled growth?
• Will the water resources we have allow sustainability of our population, plants, and manufacturing for the future?
• How do we protect it?
• Can we find a substitute or can it be reproduced/synthesized?  Thru education and legislation can we provide sustainability of water?

Principle #3: Value

In discussing value, we have adopted the following equation (adapted from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx):

Total Use Value = Direct Use Value + Indirect Use Value + Non-use Value

or

Total Ecosystem Services = Provisioning Services + Regulating Services + Cultural Services

The concept suggests, for sustainability considerations, human interactions should contemplate, proactively, how the human interaction potentially affects all categories of values identified above.  Ideally each category is given equal weight.  Decisions should be made only after a full consideration (including tradeoffs) of the likely impacts/benefits of human actions towards each category.

For natural resource purposes, land use decisions are a prime example of how value might be proactively considered from a sustainability standpoint.  For example, an ideal scenario might be a state statute (or state constitutional requirement as in California) that requires local land use decisions to fully consider the impacts of such decisions on the basis of relevant factors (for our purposes, we can say these factors might represent the consideration of the different categories of values in a particular land use decision – planning and zoning board level for instance).  Any proposed plan seeking development of an area would have to fully consider the categorical impacts of the plan (how does the proposed development affect the direct, indirect, and non-use values of the immediate area?).  If the immediate area, for example, was within an identified aquifer “zone” (meaning the area was an important buffer zone for a resource), then the particular “support” services of the land (for the provisioning of water, the regulating of water quality, and the cultural importance as it links water with the larger social fabric of the community) would all have to be evaluated and considered by the regulating entities prior to issuing a development right.

Temporally, these same categories might affect development considerations by implicating the long-term effects of development decisions.  For instance, intensive development might impact the provisioning services of an area (removing all farmland to provide sub-divisions make the local community dependant on food cultivation from other regions).  It may also impact long-term regulating services (developing along the coastal Southcoast can impact nutrient enrichment of coastal inlets, leading to water quality impacts – reducing shellfish viability, impacting groundwater quality, etc.).  Finally, intensive development, over time, can also erode the cultural uniqueness of a particular area, and this is especially true of the Southcoast, which derives a good amount of its value from its historical and cultural identity.

Thus, value is an important consider, if evaluated correctly, that can add to the overall sustainable assessment and policy implementation in the Southcoast region.  Natural resources are available to provide the various categories of values identified (provisioning, regulating, and cultural), but sustainable policies must take full account of these various categories, and they must do so before natural resource decisions are made.

Specific Indicators – Critical and Threatened Natural Resources

To initiate this process of establishing specific indicators, the committee would suggest a focus on one or two critical and threatened natural resources and see how we might work through the 6 steps listed above in the “vision” and  section of the report.  Once such resource might be water in Buzzards Bay, or water in the estuaries of Buzzards Bay, for which there are already well established federal and state standards and programs.  Another possible resource could be potable water for human consumption, where, again, there are existing standards and programs.  In both these cases, the standards are scientifically set and the main questions may be whether those standards are sufficient and whether the existing programs are appropriate and adequate for achieving them.  A third possibility could be air quality especially in proximity of existing power plants and industrial facilities.  In each of these cases we would be trying to determine the importance of the natural resource for all, or parts, of this Southcoast area, and whether the existing or proposed programs for protecting them are both sufficient and efficient ways of achieving the sustainability objective.

CONCLUSION

The committee believes the sustainable management of natural resources requires a commitment to sustainable principles in general, and a need to see the implementation of those principles in specific areas where possible.  The thematic indicators represent a set of principles that should guide sustainable decisionmaking, and should be applied to any potential human action that utilizes natural resources of the Southcoast.  Continued efforts to identify general categories of resources (potentially similar to those categories identified in the Cape Cod Commission’s Regional Policy Plan) should be one focus of the Council.  A second concurrent focus should be the identification of specific natural resource areas that are currently under threat.  These specific indicators should be identified, and action plans created to stem further deterioration.  Ultimately, these specific plans would be integrated into a larger regional policy plan.  We have given an example of a specific indicator, in the form of nitrogen management, above.  Finally, the committee recommends the Council establish some specific goals pertaining to natural resource use, in-line with the recommendations made in this interim report.

END OF REPORT.

[1] No Child Left Inside Act of 2009 - Amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require states, as a prerequisite to receiving implementation grants, to develop environmental literacy plans, approved by the Secretary of Education, for pre-kindergarten through grade 12 that include environmental education standards and teacher training. Directs the Secretary to award Environmental Education Professional Development Grants to states and, through them, competitive subgrants to partnerships that include an LEA and, permissibly, institutions of higher education (IHE), other educational entities, or federal, state, regional, or local natural resource or environmental agencies, for activities involving, among other things, teacher training and the development of more rigorous environmental education curricula that advance the teaching of interdisciplinary courses. Authorizes the Secretary to award competitive matching grants to partnerships that include an LEA and, permissibly, IHEs, other educational entities, federal, state, regional, or local natural resource or environmental agencies, or park and recreation departments, for activities to improve and support environmental education that include:
(1) advancing content and achievement standards;
(2) developing or disseminating innovations or model programs; and
(3) research.

NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES

NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES