Local government policies toward environmentally sensitive areas in British Columbia,Canada; Washington and Oregon,USA

While there has been sustained debate on the issue of provincial and state versus local government environmental planning, maintaining privately owned natural resources in the public interest is increasingly viewed as beyond the scope of local governments alone. This paper describes and compares province- and state-level mandates and options for local governments (i.e., city, county, or district) to regulate land uses of environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs) in British Columbia in Canada and in Washington and Oregon in the United States. We define ESAs as landscape elements or places that are vital to the long-term maintenance of biological diversity, soil, water, and other natural resources, especially as they relate to human health, safety, and welfare, both on-site and in a regional context. Underlying similarities are that all three jurisdictions legally express the need for land-use planning by local governments in managing ESAs. Although all three jurisdictions exhibit similar problems in their attempt to accomplish this, ESA planning by local governments is an optional process in British Columbia and Washington but mandatory in Oregon. Furthermore, actual processes prescribed by each of the three jurisdictions are quite different. The information base upon which local regulation of privately held ESAs depends is variable, both within and between the province- and statelevel jurisdictions. Other than for some specific water-related resources, standard definitions and inventory methods for ESAs are lacking, as is coordination among local governments or among the province- and state-level governments. This study concludes that there is a need for a regional environmental information system in the Pacific Northwest based upon an integrated and scientific approach toward ESA structures and functions.     

Policy and reality of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Whitman County,Washington, USA

The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) promotes the conservation of natural resources through procedural review of proposed actions which may impact natural systems. There are, however, many actions specifically exempt from the SEPA review process. Since many exempt actions could have significant adverse effects on natural resources at one location and not another, the SEPA statute contains a provision that enables local governments to designate Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs). Within the ESAs, these potentially adverse activities are subject to SEPA review. Local governments have complete control over the exact definition of the ESA criteria and the types of local projects exempt from SEPA. Whitman County, the most productive wheat-producing county in Washington, has recognized the need for conservation of its natural resources in its comprehensive plan but has not implemented the ESA provision. A representative watershed within Whitman County was used as a case study to identify areas which would qualify for ESA status. In these areas, specific soil, water, and biological characteristics or resources were identified as sensitive to certain common land uses. Significant differences were found between state and county policies regarding ESAs and actual conditions within the watershed. It may be more effective for the state to manage ESAs on a consistent and regional basis.     

Effective monitoring of agriculture: a response

The development of effective agricultural monitoring networks is essential to track, anticipate and manage changes in the social, economic and environmental aspects of agriculture. We welcome the perspective of Lindenmayer and Likens (J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 1559) as published in the Journal of Environmental Monitoring on our earlier paper, "Monitoring the World's Agriculture" (Sachs et al., Nature, 2010, 466, 558-560). In this response, we address their three main critiques labeled as 'the passive approach', 'the problem with uniform metrics' and 'the problem with composite metrics'. We expand on specific research questions at the core of the network design, on the distinction between key universal and site-specific metrics to detect change over time and across scales, and on the need for composite metrics in decision-making. We believe that simultaneously measuring indicators of the three pillars of sustainability (environmentally sound, social responsible and economically viable) in an effectively integrated monitoring system will ultimately allow scientists and land managers alike to find solutions to the most pressing problems facing global food security.