LONGER VIEW
Preserving Biodiversity challenges for Planners
Timothy Beatley Lyn Sedlak-Ford's The Great Return reflects both the beauty of salmon and their plight in finding it increasingly difficult to return to their spawning grounds each year (rep- resented by their swimming in opposing ow that the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973—the centerpiece directions). Several species of salmon of eflbrts in the U.S. to preserve biodiversit)'—has passed the 25-year throughout the Pacific Northwest are mark, it is perhaps an especially appropriate time to take stock of the threatened or endangered. Timothy Beat- N effectiveness of our current conservation strategies. This commentar)' does ley's article proposes a new approach to helping these and other endangered spe- that and suggests that we need a new consen'ation paradigm—one using cies survive. more proactive, bolder, and larger-scale consei-vation strategies. This new agenda must focus on land use planning as well as on redefining the role of The artist, who holds degrees in psychol- ogy and art therapy, has been creating cities and communities in protecting and preserving biodiversic)'. works in clay since 1989 after working 9 years as an art therapist. She resides on Lacamas Lake m Camas, Washington, and The Trends are Not Encouraging her works can be seen in gallenes through- out Washington and Oregon and in pnvate To begin, there is considerable consensus now that we are indeed in the collections across Nonh and South Amer- midst of an unprecedented spasm of species extinction and biodiversit)' loss. ica. Thanks to the Riversea Gallery in Asto- While there is a tendency to view this problem as occurring largely outside ria, Oregon, for their help in putting us in the U.S. (e.g.. the loss of tropical rain forests), it is also taking place verj' much touch with this artist. in our own American backyards. The trends in this countr\' are disturbing, to say the least. In 1999, there were 1181 species on the federal list of endan- Preserving biodiversity represents a gered and threatened species, and the number continues to grow (U.S. Fish major challenge for American plan- and Wildhfe Semce, 1999a). The Nature Conser\'anc\''s (1997) species status ners, as threats co biodiversity are in- report card, monitoring the condition of over 20,000 U.S. plant and animal creasingly the result of urbanization species, concluded that about one third are imperiled or vulnerable.' Ac- and land use change. Present and past cording to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1999a), every state contains conservation strategies, including the listed species, but the highest numbers tend ro be found in states with hitjh federal Endangered Species Act, have population growth. The states with the greatest number of listed plants and not been successful; new, bolder stra- animals are Hawaii (298), California (260), Florida (102). Alabama (97). Ten- tegies are needed. Long-range land use nessee (88), and Texas (73). By contrast, Alaska has only 7 listed species, and planning, aimed at creating large-scale the less populated states o\ North and South Dakota have only 10 and 11 integrated ecological systems of con- nected greenspace and habitat, is the listed species, respectively. key. Nested approaches in which re- Whi le there are many types of threats to biodiversity in this country', de- gional systems of protected green- struction of habitat has become the most significant, In one of the first quan- space connect with and link to larger titative analyses of the types of throats to listed species, Wilcove et al. (1997) statewide and continental systems are concluded that some 85% of the species they examined were threatened by
APA Journal • Winter 20U0 • Vol. 66, No. I 5 TIMOTHY »HATLKV
necessary. Habitat conservation goals h.ihiuu dcgr.id.uion and loss. This habitat loss takes a number of forms, but must be more ambitious and waste- much of it is the direct result of urbanization, as when a wetland is filled for ful development patterns must be a new home or a prairie converted to a subdivision, Urbanization patterns checked if biodiversit)- is to be pre- and rrcnd.s cronrc serious problems of hahit.it fragmentation, as well, as when served. Other elements of the conser- h.ilntats become splintered by roads and other forms of development. In- vation strateg>' must include new ap- creasingly, this habitat loss is the result of wasteful patterns of low-density proaches to funding acquisition, creative incentives for conservation on di'velopmont. These threats place biodiversity loss squarely and undeniably private lands, envisioning new roles for in the re.ilm of planning. cities in restoring and conserving bio- hi this splintered and fragmented natural landscape, it is especially dif- divereicy, and giving greater attention ficult to sustain larger species such as wolves, grizzly bears, or Florida pan- to blodiversit)' conservation in plan- thers. We continue to tr\' to reintroduce populations of certain species in nint; cumcuU areas where they have been extirpated, but this also becomes increasingly difficult in the face of scattered human populations and development pres- Bcadcy is an associate proiessc"' m the De- sures. Examples include reintroduction of the lynx in Colorado, the red wolf partment of Urban and Environmental in North Carolina, and the Mexican wolf in Arizona. Planning ai the Unu«rsit>' or\^rginia. Much of his research has focused on land use Biodiversit)' by definition requires greater diversit)' in ecosystems and planning strategies ro preser\-e biodr\-ersity. biological communities, and here the news is equally disturbing. Noss. He IS the author of HjbitatConservaton Plan- LaRoe, and Scott {1995) documented significant losses of biodiversit)' at the ning EnJanptrd Sptaes and Urban Growth ecosystem level. Specifically, they identified 30 critically endangered ecosys- (UnivefSityofTcxas Press. 1994). tems {98% or greater decline). 58 endangered ecosystems (85-98% decline),
journal of the Amencan Planning Asioaation, and more than 38 threatened ecosystems (70-84% decline). The losses were Vol. 66, No. 1, Winter 2000. ® Amencan particularly evident in those parts of the nation where population and land Planning Associacion, Chicago, )L use pressures have been the greatest: the Northeast, South. Midwest, and California. The t)'pes of ecosystems in decline ranged from sea grass mead- ows in Florida, to tall grass prairies in the Midwest, to coastal sage scrub in California. A more recent extensive study of North American ecosystems under- taken by the World Wildlife Fund—the North American Conservation As- sessment—reached similar troubling findings. While concluding that there is tremendous biological diversity here, a large number of ecoregions (broad- scale groupings ot habitat t)'pes)and a largo area of the continental U.S. were found to be in critical or endangered condition. A large number of these ecoregions, including southeastern conifer forests, central tall grasslands, and northern California forests, among others, were found to be globally outstandmg (having great biological diversity and uniqueness compared with similar habitats around the world) yet in need of immediate protection or restoration (World Wildlife Fund. 199'7a, 1997b; Louma, 1997;AbeIletal., 1999). In part, planners must face up to the biodiversit)' challenge because in- creasingly, and in so man\' metropolitan areas around the country*, habitat loss and fragmentation are the direct results of urbanization and suburban and exurban growth pressures. E\idence can be seen throughout the coun- try (Lassila, 1999). In the Seattle. Washington, region, decades of habitat de- struction have culminated in the federal listing of the Puget Sound chinook and several other species of salmon. Southern California, a region of high species endemism (species existing nowhere but there), is home to a number of endangered species, and major conflicts between habitat conservation and urban development have been occurring there. In the Texas hill countr)', housing developments and shopping malls have threatened habitat for two species ofmigrator)'songbird, a number of cave-adapted invertebrates, and a unique subterranean archipelago (see lieatley, 1994). In the 1-Iorida Key^, second home and resort development has had both severe direct elTects (loss of habitat) and indirect etTects (mortality from increased tratlic) on the en-
6 APA Journal • Winter 2000 • Vol. 66, No. 1 Mli;SI-:UVING BIODIVERSITY
dangcrcd Key deer .ind orhi'r species. Other animals, natives. To be truly effecti\'e in tlie long run. our efforts such as chc I'lorid.i hl.ick he.ir. have been heavily im- must be intentionally multispecies in emphasis and pacted by tralTic kills, as now roads and hard surfaces muse seek to protect the integrity and health of the crisscross and dissect that state's landscape. Along the broader habitats and ecosystems that support biodiver- Colorado Front Range, suhtirban grow th is decimating sity—those of species that are endangered and threat- the habitat of the black-tailed prairie dog, currently ened and of ones that are not. We need more integrated, under consideration for federal listing as a consequence comprehensive biodiversity conservation strategies that of precipitous declines in population and restricted are long-range, proactive, and preventive in nature. We habitat (now estimated to be 1% of what it had been; need to got ahead of the cur\'e of decline and preserve Eddy. 1999). Everj'whcre, it seems, species and ecosys- species before their numbers and habitats are so reduced tems are under siege from urbanization. that emergency-room conservation is our only option.
Current Approaches Have Not Land Use Planning is the Key Worked WeU Long-range land use planning must be the linchpin For the most part, biodiversit)' conservation in the of our new biodiversity conservation strategies. Increas- U.S. has been driven by the requirements of the federal ingly, this challenge must be faced by planners, as it will Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA has accom- be a necessar)' part of any successful conservation strat- plished much, and still represents one of the most im- eg\' in the future. Those states and regions experiencing portant pieces of environmental legislation ever enacted. the greatest population and development growth pres- Once listed, species are afforded unprecedented legal sures, moreover, also tend to be home co extensive num- protection, includmg prohibitions on their "take" by bers of species and diverse ecosystems. These clashes will public agencies and private landowners alike (Mfef is de- continue and indeed become more intense in the future, fined broadly to include notonly killing, harming, or ha- and consequentl)' finding ways to preserve biodiversity rassing a species, but also destroying essential habitat). in [he face of these pressures will become an even greater But the approach of the ESA has many limitations challenge. and is in many ways not up to the present and future Many of the current clashes between urban devel- challenges we face. It has been largely a reactive law, an opment and biodiversit)'—what Secretar)' of the Interior example of what some have called "emergency-room Babbitt has aptly called "train wrecks" (Reinhold, 1993, conservation": by the time species have gone through the p. A1)—could have been avoided through careful, etTec- federal listing process and receive protection, their eco- tue land use planning and grow th guidance. In Austin, logical condition is often dire. While the ESA has been ef- Texas, for instance, a forward-looking plan c:i\\cd Austin fective at stabilizing or improving the populations of Toynorrow used an impressive series of ecological analyses many listed species {about 40%),' only a small number to chart a growth corridor that would have minimized (11 species) have recovered sufficiently to be removed the ecological damage there (Cit)' of Austin, 1977). For a from the list (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I999d). variety of political and other reasons, the plan was nor While protection of habitat is mentioned prominently implemented, and the booming grow th that followed in the law, the protections under the ESA have been happened in some of the most ecologically sensitive driven by the condition of individual species. areas of the region. While this plan would not have pro- Also alarming is that many of the conservation ac- vided a complete solution, the region's need for an ex- tions and solutions undertaken are fragmented and pensive habitat conservation etTort^ might have been piecemeal. Small-scale mitigation projects typically re- avoided had effective land use planning taken place quired under federal and state environmental mandates early. often produce only minor improvements. Project-by- The stor)' is much the same in many other parts of project environmental analysis and mitigation will not the country where ecological "train wrecks" have oc- solve our environmental problems and will not ensure curred. The threats to biodivetsit)' in the Pacific North- that we will be able to maintain healthy ecosystems or west and the tremendous protection and restoration biodiversity in the long run. costs to be incurred from salmon and sceelhead listings As the new millennium approaches, we must funda- might have been substantiall) avoided if more stringent mentally rethink our conservation strategies. We need a and demanding land use controls had been in place ear- new conservation vision and a redefined role for plan- lier on. It is, of course, not coo late in such places. In a ners. As habitat loss continues and the number of species press release, Mike lUirton. e.vecutive director of Ore- in jeopardy continues to rise, we must explore new alter- gon's Metropolitan Sen-ice District (Metro), emphasized
APAJoiiiii.il • Winter 2000 • Vol. 66, No. I 7 - llE.ATLliV
the importance of a now land use resoKc which he be- churning out of open pipes, farmland being eaten lieves the region must now be willing to accept: "We will up by runaway sprawl and the last nearby woods not succeed at recovering salmon in the metropolitan beingclearcutand paved over for a strip mall-this area unless we change our dewlopmenr patterns and is not what we want for our children, and we know, change our transportation patterns." And, he puts it both in our guts and from the work of scientists, even more bluntU"; "We must stop building stupid build- that it's hurting not only the salmon but the health ings in stupid places" (Btirton, 1999). This means, of our whole region. (Steffen, 1999, p. B5) among other things, avoiding riverbanks and riparian areas, and requiring better and more etVective storm In many situations, the loss of habitat results in water management measures for new development. other substantial and significant societal costs. Clear Comprehensive land use policies which protect es- cutting and developing in sensitive, steep-slope areas of sential habitat corridors and linkages must be at the core the Northwest—major causes of the present plight of en- of these strategies. Land use and growth guidance tech- dangered salmon there—have also been instrumental in niques may steer development awa)' from inappropriate the extremely costly flooding and flood damage that and damagmg locations, and prevent land use patterns have occurred in recent years (e.g.. Mazza, 1996). The and practices that fragment and isolate habitat. In the connections between biodiversity consen'ation and Puget Sound region, recover)'of species such as the Chi- other important local goals, such as economic develop- nook salmon will be undeniably linked to more sensible ment and enhancement of quality of life, will increas- and sustainable patterns of land use. It will require more ingly need to be made if comprehensive networks of stringent controls on logging and development along habitat are to be preserved. stream banks, and more stringent restrictions on filling Much political power has been gained recently from wetlands and building in sensitive and damaging loca- an emphasis on green infrastructure, the idea that pre- tions. ser\ing forests, wetlands, and rivers is as essential as A land use planning approach to biodiversity con- building roads, power lines, and airports—indeed, more servation will require more than simply redirecting fu- important in the human life-support functions they pro- ture grow th aw ay from a few ecological hot spots or sav- vide. These elements of the natural environment are not ing a small amount of habitat. Indeed, what will also be expendable or optional, but essential, as the term infra- required is a fundamental rethinking of types and forms structure \mpUes.'* of urban growth. One of the most troubling aspects of many of our recent habitat conser\'arion initiatives has been the acceptance of pre\ ailing low-densit)', scattered New Tools for Conservation development patterns and the belief that all that is New biodiversit)' conservation tools are available to needed to presence biodiversity is to set aside a few areas communities that will protect habitat and species, and of protected habitat. Biodiversit)' presen'ation will also greatly aid in efFective land use planning. Several are wor- require that we reevaluate the ways in which our com- thy of special mention. One of these tools is the habitat munities and regions grow and develop. Containing ur- conservation plan (HCP). a balancing tool that dates ban growxh in a compact urban form will be essential in from the early 1980s. This tool has been used with much protecting biodiversit)'. greater frequency in the last 5 years and has become a Part of the agenda must also be how such compre- major plank in the conser\'ation platform of the Clinton hensive strategies are characterized in the regions in administration. HCPs allow "incidental take" of feder- which they are envisioned. New land use planning re- ally listed species and contain conservation measures, strictions and initiatives must be viewed as contributing habitat acquisition, and the creation of one or more substantially to the qualit)' of life of residents (and thus habitat preserves. More than 200 HCPs have been ap- to the economy). Perhaps at the deepest levels, biodiver- proved and another 200 are in some stage of develop- sity preservation must be redefined as self-preservation. ment (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sen'ice. 1999c).' More than an idea we have not yet been willing to accept. In an op- 6 million acres of land, in 16 states, are now covered by ed article in the Seattle Times, Alex Stcff^n puts it well: HCPs. While the early HCPs tended to focus on one or a We know that what's bad for wild salmon is bad few species and covered fairly limited geographical areas, for us. Polluted waters, eroding land, wetlands many of the more recent ones have taken broader, multi- which protect our communities from flooding species- and ecosystem-oriented approaches. These are being dredged and filled, lakes and bays whose bot- certainly positive trends, though the biological adequacA' toms are coated with toxic sludge, raw sewage of these plans remains in question (see Beatley, 1994).
8 APA Journal • Winter 2000 • Vol. 66, No. 1 PRESIiRVING mODIVERSITY
Tlu'\' do allow for the pott'iiti.il to risi* iihovo rlu' projccc- National Center for Ecological Analysis (1999) has raised b\'-projccr conservation standards and the more hag- a number of concerns about them. In particular, there menceci mitigation and conscivation measures that typ- are serious questions about the lack of information ically result. Regional HCPs have the potential to about the biology of the species covered by the plans, the generate significant financial and political support for failure of plans to estimate the numbers of species to be securing and nianagmgsubstantial blocks of habitat and affected by take permits, and the lack of clear monitor- protected land, often in close proximit)' to metropolican ing provisions. The report includes several key recom- areas. mendations for improving habitat conservation plans, One of the most ambitious regional and multi- mcluding greater use of "explicit scientific standards"; species HCP efForts to date is underway in southern Cai- inclusion of biological goals and the likely number of ifornia. one of the most significant biodiversit)' hot spots species to be taken; and the establishment of scientific in the countiy. California's Natural Community Con- advisor}'committees and greater use ofscientific peer re- servation Planning (NCCP) program began in 1991 with view in evaluating the adequacy of plans (see National its pilot application in the coastal sage scrub ecosystem. Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, 1999; Stimulated largely by the impending federal listing of Schoch.1998). the California gnatcatcher, the NCCP was intended to For such plans to be truly effective, they will need to support a scientifically-based, ecosystem-oriented habi- cover larger geographical areas and protect broader eco- tat protection strateg)'. Under the program, a five-mem- system functions. These plans need to be much more ber scientific review panel was convened to prepare con- cautious in content, more ambitious in their habitat pro- servation guidelines. Choosing to focus on three target tection goals, and guided considerably less by political species (including the gnatcatcher), the panel delineated and legal expedience than they currently are. Moreover, a series of "subregional focus areas," around which more while the best HCPs may lead to the setting aside of sig- detailed protection schemes have been focused (Murphy nificant amounts of habitat, they also result in opening et al.. 1999; Natural Resources Defense Council, 1997). up for new development much larger areas of habitat. Multispecies plans have now been prepared (and ap- And the form and densit)' of this new development—t\'p- proved locally) for two subareas: the Orange Count)' ically ver)'-low-density residential—is rarely questioned Central/Coastal Plan and the San Diego Multiple as to the habitat it destroys. Species Conservation Program Plan. The San Diego Plan Many in the environmental communit)' have also is ambitious in scope, covering some 582.000 acres, been understandably concerned that too many HCPs are 172,000 of which are included in a preser\'e network in developed and negotiated behind the scenes, and that the southwestern portion of the county {see Murphy et insufficient opportunities for input by scientists and al., 1999).'^ citizens have been provided (e.g., see Kost)'ack. 1997a, There are many admirable attributes about the 1997b). For HCPs to be a credible conservation tool, NCCP, includmg its collaborative, regional, multijuris- planners and others must ensure that they are developed dictional approach and its attempts to look at the habi- and reviewed in an open, public process, in which all par- tat needs of a number of species {the San Diego plan in- ties and perspectives are allowecl input. cludes 85 species. man\' of which appear on both federal Some of these concerns and criticisms will be ad- and state endangered species lists). But the results to dressed by a newset of HCP guidelines, released m draft date also point out the difficulties in doing such regional form in March, 1999. The guidelines w ill, among other habitat conservation and the challenges ahead for plan- things, require each plan to clearly delineate biological ners. Many environmental groups have been under- goals and objectives. The guidelines also address and standably critical of the adequacy of the results—plans clarif)'adaptive management strategies (in the many sit- that have not been subjected to scientific peer review. uations in which biological data for species covered bv a have not stopped continued habitat destruction, and, plan is inadequate) and public review requirements (stip- despite the obviously impressive land area involved, do ulating minimum periods of public review and com- not at all appear to provide sufficient habitat or adequate ment). These guidelines, then, as addenda to the U.S. levels of funding (e.g.. Vogel. 1999; Tansey, 1998). The Fish and Wildlife Service HCP handbook, should serve southern California example, furthermore, while argu- to strengthen and clarif)' the HCP process. Noss, O'Con- ably setting aside important pieces, does not create or nell, and Murphy (1997) have aJso put forth a set of prin- even envision an integrated ecosystem and habitat pro- ciples for habitat conser\'ation that if followed could tection framework. substantially strengthen the resulting plans. A recent comprehensive study of HCPs cosponsored Other tools help in an.ily/ing and organizing infor- by the American Institute of Biological Sciences and the mation about species and ecosystems m need of protec-
APA Journal • Winter 2000 • Vol. 66, No. I 9 TIMOTHY BliATLIiY
tion. One of the more powerful tools is Ciap Analysis Preserving Larger Ecosystems and (Scott iS:Jciiiimgs, l'->'-)S), I hstorically, the.ihseiue of ac- curate biological data and inadequacy of mapping tech- Landscapes niques that pcrniir the identification of key aiTas in ncod I hiML' IS considfiahlc biological virtue to rediscov- of protection and manajiemcnt h.i,s substantially limited ering Daniel Burnham's exhortation to make no little etTecti\ e land use planning. Gap Analysis is an important plans (Hines. 1979). Indeed, while biodiversity conserva- technique for identihing these areas. By overla)'ing maps tion can and must happen at every scale, long-run effec- of land cover, vejjetation, .-[n<\ \ertebrate distribution tiveness will require thinking on increasingly larger eco- onto maps of cxistiiij; parks and protected areas (and logical scales. Too much effort in the past has been with the heaNA' use of GIS). "gaps" in the existing protec- directed at presenting isolated patches of habitat, post- tive system can he identified. Since the late 1980s, the age stamps that will eventually be surrounded by devel- U.S. Gap Anah SIS Program has Lx'en spearheaded by the opment, with questionable long-term ecological viabil- Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Ser- it). What IS ultimatel)' needed are integrated, large-scale Nice (formerly the National Biological Resources Semce). systems of protected natural green space and habitats, Gap analx^ses have been completed in eight states and are nested approaches in which regional systems connect underwav in a number ot others (Scott & Jennings. with larger statewide and continental systems. 1998). While the technique has its limitations, it does The vision of large-scale ecosystem prcttection and represent a powerful tool for planners and land man- restoration is certainly not new. The Wildlands Project, a agers in designing biodi\ersit)' consen'ation strategies. nonprofit grassroots organization ofconseivation biol- While more common!)' de\'eloped fc>r states, gap- ogists and environmentalists, has pushed for such a SC)'le analyses have been undertaken on regional and vision for years. Working to develop holistic visions of metropolitan scales, as w ell. and w ill be important tools presen'e systems in different parts of the countr)', their for planners workmg at these levels (e.g.. see map pre- explicit goal is to set aside 50% of the nation's land base pared for southern California |Crowe, 1996]). Such as "wildlands," organized into core areas (from 100,000 analyses have been used in the preparation of regional to 25 million acres in size), buffer zones, and corridors HCPs. A notable example is the Balcones Canyonlands connecting habitat blocks (see Wildlands Project, 1999). Consen'ation Plan, a regional multispecies plan pre- This IS similar to the concept of biosphere reseives, pared for the hill countr)' near Austin. Texas (see Beatley, which have been established around the world (includ- 1994). Extensive mapping there of the habitat for two ing in the U.S.) under the UNESCO Man and the Bio- species of songbird, karst invertebrates, and other species sphere Program (sec U.S. Man and the Biosphere Pro- were overlaid onto maps of existing parks and areas oth- gram. 1999). While in practice biosphere resen'e status envise protected (i.e., areas off limits under the Cit)''s has tended not to result in the land use planning and comprehensive watersheds ordinance). This was a use- management envisioned, there are now a number of ful process in designing the present system, a nenvork them around the world, including the 47 in the U.S. of more than 30.000 acres, in six primaiy habitat blocks. One veiy positive example of the biosphere resen'e Such techniques can be useful in guiding regional-scale concept can be seen in Ontario's Niagara Escarpment comprehensive consen'ation strategies, and planners can Biosphere Resen'e. This 725 km-long protected area en- and should be better versed in their use. compasses nearly 200,000 hectares (about 500.000 acres) Deciding what to protect will, of course, be more ot land and represents an effective balance between heav- complex and involve more considerations than Gap ily protected core areas, essentially off limits to develop- Analysis t)'pically address. There are a host of other im- ment, and buffer and transitional areas, where some de- portant data layers that must also be considered in craft- velopment and other activities are permitted but are ing consen'ation strategies. For instance, hydrologic. ge- severely limited (e.g.. one new building lot per 40 hec- ologic, and biologic features are as essential as patterns tares in Escarpment Rural Areas, a transitional zone; see of biodiversit)' and biodiversit)' hot spots. FfForts to map Borodczak, 1995; Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment. and preserv'e the ecological processes and the dynamic 1998). The Niagara Escarpment Plan, furthermore, pro- functions of ecosystems and landscapes are as important vides a provmcial-level ecological template that 37 local as species distribution patterns. Nevertheless, tech- municipalities respect and work within. The plan does niques such as Gap Analysis represent significant new other important things as well, such as linking o\er 100 tools for land use planners. existing parks and public v>pen spaces. It also contains the explicit goal of steering development into existing urban areas, and thus provides a regional land use strat- egy for biodiversity protection. There is much merit to a
APA Journal* Winter 2000 • Vol. 66, No. 1 PRESERVING lilODIVERSITY
view of our ecological future in which large blocks of Lammers. 1995, p, 80). Nature development areas SLXQ areas land and habitat are consenrd, connected by corridors SLiitable for ecological regeneration or restoration, often and surrounded by transitional areas of compatible farmlands that can be converted back to wetlands or urban and rural development. woodlands. About 10%ofthenerwork will be madeupof A number of promising tangible examples of even land currently in agricultural use (Van den Brink, 1994). larger-scale land conservation strategies are now begin- Ecological corridors 2LVC intended to provide connections ning to emerge. One such strateg)' is the Yellowstone to and migration opportunities between core areas. In prac- Yukon Consen'ation Initiative (Y2Y), Here, a coalition tice, these corridors are likely to be such things as of some 120 environmental and scientific organizations "hedgerows, dikes, banks of waterways and roads" (Van have developed a comprehensive straceg)' for consenting Zadelhoff & Lammers, 1995, p. 84). Buffer zones are also large blocks of habitat into a coherent, large-scale eco- viewed as an important part of the network, but are not logical mosaic. The vision is of a "bright green thread, delineated on the map. uncut by political boundaries, stitching together 1800 For each category, the map delineates more land or contiguous miles of the Rocky, Columbia and Macken- area than the final network will include, as its creators zie Mountains, all the way from Yellowstone to Yukon" understood that not every parcel will actually be secured (Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative, 1999). This strateg)' and protected. This allows flexibility in acquiring or re- builds onto existing national parks and protected areas, developing lands, and anticipates the working out of and seeks to overcome the fragmenting effects of the ex- greater detail at the provincial and local levels. For na- isting highways and infrastructure through, among ture development areas, about three times the actual tar- other things, the building of road overpasses to permit get is contained on the map; for core areas, about twice wildlife movement (Locke, 1997)7 as much land is indicated. Under this Nature Policy Plan, most development An Emphasis on Integrated or alteration of lands within core areas or development areas is prohibited. Implementation of the plan and re- Ecological Networks alization of the national ecological network will require We must begm to think in terms of comprehensive, a variet)' of public actions and projects, including acqui- multiscale ecological networks. What is especially needed sition of lands and agreements with farmers willing to are integrated strategies, in which local habitats connect support nature values. The national ecological network with and are meshed into regional systems, which are in places clear spatial parameters on planning and devel- turn woven into larger continental-scale systems. And opment at lower jurisdictional levels. In the Dutch sys- here, as well, there are inspiring examples. tem, decisions about which lands will actually be secured At national and continental levels. Europe provides and restored and about specific boundaries are made at some important examples of efforts to visualize and cre- the provincial level. Each provincial government must ate broader ecological networks. The most developed of work out the more precise details in its own Nature Pol- these initiatives can be seen in the Netherlands' Nature \C)' Plan, and local municipal planning must build upon Policy Plan (see Van Zadelhoff & Lammers, 1995). As a these regionally-specified networks. densely populated nation, the Netherlands has experi- There are considerable political benefits from the enced tremendous stresses on its natural environment comprehensive, integrated approach the Dutch have and indigenous biodiversity. As a result it has devised taken. For instance, delineating an ecological network and adopted a national ecological network based on pre- on a map and providing defined ecological targets allows ser\'ing and connecting large blocks of the remaining the public to understand and rally behind a coherent vi- natural lands and representative sets of ecosystem types, sion of what will be protected and created. The network, which are of regional, national, and international signifi- moreover, ser\'es as a logical framework within which to cance. Based on extensive background studies, a map coordinate and integrate a whole variec)- of conser\'ation (see Figure 1) was prepared delineating a "coherent and and management decisions, not the least of which is the robust" ecological network. This map setA'es as the spatial organization of housing, infrastructure invest- framework for national, regional, and local conservation ments, and other t)'pes of development decisions. actions. The United States generally lacks and desperately In the Dutch scheme, several categories of designa- needs such organizing ecological frameworks to guide tion are included on the map. Corcdrcij^generally are ex- planning and policy, and to ensure that the consen-ation isting natural areas of at least 500 hectares that are con- investments we make (at a number of levels) will in the sidered biological "hot spots, capable of recolonizing end protect hiodi\visit)'. Perhaps the most direct transfer surrounding smaller ecosystems" (Van Zadelhoff & of the Dutch experience in the U.S. could occur at the
APA Journal • Winter 2000 • Vol. 66, No. 1 TIMOTHY HHATLHY
North Sea
Germany
Nt 0 10 20 30 km
Core areas Ecological corridors
il Nature development areas to be developed or reinforced Core areas and rature development transboundary nature areas areas m fluvial region to be developed or reinforced
FIGURE 1. The Dutch National Ecological Network (courtesy Oienst Landelijk Gebied).
12 APA Journal • Winter 2000 • Vol. 66, No. 1 PRESERVING BIODIVERSITY
State level. Developing (and officially adopting) scace- ofa collaborative process to develop a similar green wide ecological networks or integrated, connected sys- spaces program has been underway since 1996 (Pfeifer tems of habitat would do much to provide such an im- & lialch, 1999). Spearheaded by the Minnesota Depart- portant ecological planning framework. ment of Natural Resources Metro Region Office, sub- Some progress has been made in the U.S., and sev- stantial analysis of animal and plant communities in eral important initiatives point the way. Few states have consultation with scientists and resource professionals progressed as far in this thinking as Florida, which has has led to the preparation of a Metro Area Nature Re- been seriously working toward developing a compre- sources Map. Adding greenway corridors and habitat hensive statewide greenways system since the early linkages has resulted in a "concept map of opportuni- 1990s. In 1998 the state Greenways Coordinating Coun- ties" (Pfeifer & Balch. 1999). cil,^ in collaboration with six regional greenway task To be sure, these efforts are impressive steps towards forces, completed a 5-year Florida Greenways Imple- implementing a regional land protection vision, and mentation Plan (Florida Department of Environmental these examples should be followed in other regions of Protection, 1998). Among other things, the plan pro- the country. Yet, despite these promising beginnings, vides an impressive "vision" of a protected system of most such efforts are meager in scope and limited in as- greenways "that interconnects fragmented or isolated piration, resources, and "land use resolve" applied (to elements of green infrastructure, and that connects peo- use Burton's 11999| terms). In the Twin Cities, the pro- ple with their natural, historic and cultural heritage" (p. posed nature resources system would include only 4% of 9). The system emphasizes providing ecological connec- the region's 2 million acres.'" And in Portland, 6000 tions between different habitats and landscapes, and, im- acres set aside through new acquisition (in addition to portantly, has the goal of ensuring the "abilit)' of these acreage already included in parks and protected areas) is ecosystems to function as dynamic systems and to main- a modest accomplishment. As Howe (1998) notes, open tain the evolutionar)' potential that will allow them to space and natural areas continue to be lost in the region adapt to future environmental changes" (p. 11). The sys- at a fast clip, and despite this region's desen'ed kudos for tem integrates both an ecological network component regional growth containment, there has been too little and a trail/recreational network component."' A "vision consideration of the ecological and natural conditions map" of the general contours of the resulting statewide and resources in planning for this growth." system will be issued as well. Already, through its 10-year Preservation 2000 Initiative, the state has purchased some 900,000 acres (about 365.000 hectares) of land Land Acquisition and Beyond (Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The biodiversit)' challenges facing planners will re- 1998). In 1999 the Florida Legislature chose to support quire the creative use ofa panoply of land use tools to even further acquisition through a new 10-year program implement the broad, large-scale conservation strategies Florida Forever (Florida Department of Communit)' Af- I've advocated here. Land acquisition will remain a highly fairs. 1999). This level of land acquisition is commend- desirable approach, particularly for core protected areas able but strongly suggests the need for a comprehensive in any ecological network. The high cost, however, espe- statewide framework in which to coordinate and guide cially for parcels in close proximit)' to urban areas., w\\\ many acquisition decisions. make acquisition difficult. Planners advocating more A number of regional or metropolitan green space comprehensive ecosystem protection strategies will need conservation programs around the country are also to find creative, new (and steady) funding sources. moving in the right direction. In the Portland. Oregon. Higher levels of government, especially federal and state area, the Metro Geenspaces program is one such exam- governments, will continue to play an essential funding ple. Adopted by the Portland Metropolitan Services Dis- role. Part of the answer must surely be expanded fund- trict (Metro) in 1992, the regional greenspaces master- ing assistance at the federal level. Many conservationists plan calls for the creation ofa "regional system of parks, have called for full funding, for instance, of the federal natural areas, greenways and trails for fish, wildlife and Land and Water Consen'ation Fund; the Clinton-Gore- people" (Portland Metropolitan Service District, 1999b. proposed S1 billion (in F\' 2000) Lands Legac)' Initiative 1999c). Eventually 57 urban natural areas and 34 trails is a step in the right direction. What would be especially and greenway corridors will be included. A bond mea- helpful is a federal revolving fund to support habitat con- sure passed in May 1995 is providing about $135 mil- sei-vation planning and acquisition, which could make lion to acquire 6000 acres (4400 has already been ac- large amounts of seed capital available to regions and lo- quired; Portland Metropolitan Service District, 1999b). calities, perhaps conditioned upon the development of In the Twin Cities region of Minnesota, another example regional, integrated conseivation plans. The existing Co-
APAJournal • Winter 2000 • Vol. 66, No. 1 TIMOTHY IU:ATLKY
Operative Endangered SpeciesCA-msi'ivation I uiul. whicli posed on society by sucli building patterns. Another tool provides tyrants ro states for acquisition and other con- is conservation banking—aWowm^ landowners or organi- sen'ation activities under t;SA (and which would receive zations to undertake habitat protection or restoration expanded fundinj; under the Lands Lej^acy Initiative), and then to bank these credits, making them available could perhaps sene as the loijual loundation ot such for purchase by others (developers, companies) in situa- an idea. tions where some form of environmental mitigation is States, of course, have special roles here as well. In required. Such a mechanism could be useful in circum- this regard, few states have gone as far as I-lorida. which stances where these resulting consen'ation actions are has set a clear standard for other states (ever)' state) to coordinated within and contribute to the implementa- follow. Under its Preser\'ation 2000 Initiative, the state tion of a comprehensive regional conser\'ation vision. has sold bonds sufficient to generate S300 million per Land acquisition, of course, is not the only imple- year, fora 10-year total of S3 billion (I-'lorida Department mentation strateg)' needed. Indeed, it simply can't be. Im- of Environmental Protection. 1998. p. 40). Debt sen'ice plementation will require a package of other tools, on the bonds is paid through a statew ide documentar)' mcluding land use regulation, fiscal and financial incen- stamp tax (a tax on the recording of documents such as tives, transfer of development rights, and others. Espe- deeds, stocks and bonds, and mortgages; see Florida De- cially for ecological buffers and transition areas, land use partment of Revenue. 1999). The newF/on^ii Forever pro- regulations (in combination with mechanisms that allow gram extends this exemplar)'acquisition effort for an ad- landowners to transfer densit)' to other less-sensitive ditional lOyears. a: the same S300 million per year level sites) will be essential elements of biodiversit)' conser\'a- (thus providing another S3 billion over 10 years). Each tion. And, for many areas of high biodiversit)'—wetlands, state should take up the Florida challenge and work to riparian areas, beachfronts, canyons, and high-slope match or exceed these ambitious funding levels. areas, among others—there are public safety concerns Local (and regional) governments can and must be and other legitimate reasons for restricting development more ambitious in setting their own acquisition and and growth. protection targets and in coming up with the monies to There is no doubt as well that we will need to find pay for them. Acquisition now rather than later will al- more efFective strategies for enlisting the help and posi- most certainly be the least-cost option, A variet)' of spe- tive participation of private landowners in the biodiver- cific funding tools have been used around the countr)' sit)' conser\'ation challenge. It is frequently observed that to provide steady acquisition monies, including dedi- a relatively high percentageof federally listed species are cated sales taxes, land-transfer taxes, and ad-\alorem found entirely or partial!)' on privately-owned lands taxes through open space districts. Invoking the notion (lkan& Wilcove, 1997). This suggests both the need for of green infrastructure, local governments may need to new, creative landowner incentive programs and the become more effective at making the pitch of value for need to work towards fostering a new land ethic that val- money. The 1995 open space bond measure in Portland ues biodiversit)'and recognizes the responsibilit)'to use illustrates the modest level of personal investment re- land without undue threat or harm to species and habi- quired. There tt has been estimated that the S135 mil- tat. Here, indeed, is a major role for planners. There are lion bond will cost the average owner of a SlOO.OOO some federal incentive programs, including the Depart- home a mere S12 per year (Portland Metropolitan Ser- ment of Agriculture's (1999) Conser\'ation Resen-e En- vices District, 1999a). This represents about what the hancement Program, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- average person pays for a haircut. Without trivializing vice's (1999c) P^artners for Fish and Wildlife Program, the political difficulties, should not our funding and but they are limited in scope, resources, and effectiveness land acquisition targets be extended and expanded sub- at preser\'ing biodiversit)'. Perhaps we can learn again stantially? Should they not be as visionar}' as our con- from the Netherlands, where programs have been in servation paradigm needs to be? place for some time that compensate landowners when Mitigation /ccj—typically a per-acre assessment on they find endangered species on their land. Farmers in new development within historic habitat —have been fact look for and take positive steps to protect, for in- used extensively to fund habitat conservation plans, and stance, critical bird nesting sites, because they are finan- should remain an important implement in the funding cially rewarded for doing so. tool kit. W^ile affordable housing advocates worry'about A significant new tool for encouraging consen'ation theefTect they have on housing costs. I believe such fees among landowners is safe harbor a^rcmctits. Now possible can and do send appropriate price signals about the under the ESA, they have been heralded by some as a problems of building in ecologically sensitive places, ap- "significant breakthrough." and an option that converts propriately reflecting the high environmental costs im- landowners into "allies, not adversaries" (Bean. 1999).
14 APAJournal* Winter 2000 •Vol. 66, No. 1 PRKSf-RVING IlIODIVERSITy
Throueh this mechanism. landowners can enter into the integrated conservation strategies advocated here agreements with tlie U.S. h'ish and Wildlife Service to apply to both sides of the urban growth boundary or undertake a variet)' of habitat restoration actions while limit line. Wilderness habitat and green spaces can and shielding themselves from future legal liability. Land- should penetrate into the ver)' core of our cities. Com- owners are also now able to enter into candidate conser- pact urban form can occur (and indeed is made more fea- vation agreements. In similar fashion, landowners who sible) in the presence of large and extensive tentacles and undertake conseivation measures for candidate species wedges of greenspace entering into the core of urban or species proposed for listing are shielded from future areas. Indeed, many Scandinavian cities exemplify this restrictions or requirements should these species even- urban form (e.g., Beatley, in press). tually be listed. Getting private landowners on the side of Another essential role of cities is more restorative. biodiversit)' consen'ation represents a challenge for plan- There are a tremendous number of ways in which habitat ners. Our profession has a major contribution to make can be protected, restored, and replaced in and around in helping to develop new strategies for educating pri- urban developments. A number of recent positive exam- vate landowners about and involving them in conserva- ples can be cited. More compact urban form will make tion efforts, and in identifying new mechanisms (finan- such opportunities more plentiful, but they will exist in cial and otherwise) for encouraging biodiversit)'-friendly any metropolitan area. One is the new wastewater/ forms of private land ownership and stormwater treatment wetlands system in Davis, Cali- fornia. The Davis Wetlands Project is an exemplary effort to restore and replace habitat (see Figure 2). The result of Rethinking the Role of Cities a collaboration between the City, the U.S. Army Corps There are often profoundly important ways in which of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, UC-Davis, cities can be part of the solution to the biodiversit)'crisis, and others, the project entailed the creation ofa400-acre and here as well, planners can seiTe an important lead- system of wetlands, ponds, and lagoons that receives the ership role. They can promote more sustainable, cau- City's stormwater and treated wastewater (at tertiar)' lev- tious patterns of land use, as already discussed. It is my els), providing further treatment before the wastewater is view that more compact, land-efficient forms of urban discharged (eventually into the Sacramento River). In ad- growth and growth directed to infill, reurbanized, and dition to new permanent wetlands, the project also cre- brownfield sites will do much to preser\'e the integrity of ates significant seasonal wetlands, new riparian wood- our biodiversit)' stock. Planners can also begin to see and lands, and grasslands habitats. Only native vegetation understand cities more organically, as places u'here na- has been planted. Water levels in the lagoon system are ture can and does reside. Indeed, an ecological view of managed seasonally to maximize their habitat potential. cities recognizes that they can be homes to extensive bio- During the winter months, higher water levels are main- diversit)'. We know, for instance, that peregnne falcons tained to support winter waterfowl, and during the successfully nest in city-center environments, that kit spring, water levels are lowered to increase habitat for foxes use urban flood plains as movement corridors, and wading shorebirds. The Davis Wetlands Project repre- that ecological rooftops (with grass and flowers) can sents an effort to replace some of the nearly 95% of the ser\'e as important habitat for birds, butterflies, and wetlands lost to agriculture in the Central Valley. In the other invertebrate life, We must become mote capable past, portions of this region would seasonally flood, pro- and sophisticated at understanding and promoting viding important habitat for waterfowl, many of which urban biodiversit)' and begin to see the potential posi- were migrating along the Pacific Fl)^vay. tive roles urban environments might play. Here are im- What is significant about projects like this one is portant new areas of research for better understanding that they recognize important roles for cities in restoring the ecological functions of urban forests, stream corri- and enhancing habitat and biodiversity. Such projects, dors, and other more fragmented urban environments. moreover, can enhance biodiversit)' while they creatively The designation by the National Science Foundation of treat and recycle urban wastes, helping to mo\'e us in the tu'o explicitly-urban Long Term Ecological Research direction of creating circular waste streams and balanced (LTER) sites—Phoenix and Baltimore—represents a urban metabolisms. "Re-naturalizing" urban environ- promising recognition of the need for additional knowl- ments should become a more central planning mission edge about urban biodiversity and the ecological dy- in the future. This means daylighting streams, desealin^ namics and functioning of cities (Jensen, 1998). and deconstructing (literally) heavily engineered water- Furthermore, while there is an understandable tend- fronts and river channels passing through cities, and ency to view the mission of developing green networks many other actions to enhance and restore nature in and and habitat areas as one focused outside of urban areas, around developed envuonments.
APAJournal • Winter 2000 • Vol. 66, No I TIMOTHY Bl-ATLL-Y
N.ii I C.is Well (Typ ) v Mnliiirnunci* Ynrd ^ Riparian WoodLind Wasifwater Lagoon Grassland (Tvp.) FIGURE 2. The Davis Wedands Project (courtesy City of Davis, CA). Numbers 1 -7 and dotted arrows refer to a guided waJking tour. Scill another new role for cities involves recognizing vious thing about cities is that they are like organisms, and directly addressing the impacts on biodiversity chat sucking in resources and emitting wastes" {Tickell. 1997, result from the metabolic flows of energy and resources p.vi). needed to support urban populations. Thanks especially Considerable pressures on biodiversity result from to concepts such asecologicalfootpnntanalysis, we now ap- the water, energ)', and other demands of urban popula- preciate the extent to which cities (and their popula- tions. Understanding more fully the ecolog)'-dam.iging tions) exert pressures on local and global environments and habitat-destroying implications of satisf)'ing urban and resources, manyofthem resulting in direct destruc- needs and lifestyles would be an important first step. We tion and loss of habitats (Wackernagel & Rees. 1997). As then need to explore ways of reducing those demands one recent commentator noted, 'The first and most ob- and/or the impacts associated with them. For example, 16 APA Journal • Winter 2000 • Vol. 66, No. I PRESERVING BIODIVERSITY controversy has emerged around plans to expand the build strong community partnerships, bringing differ- water holding capacit)' of Roosevelt Dam in the Phoenix ent groups and organizations together to address bio- area, the result of which may be the loss of nesting habi- diversity protection (see London Biodiversity Partner- tat for the Saltwater Willow Flycatcher, an endangered ship, 1996). To be sure, even in the most urban of cities songbird.'-^ —American or British—significant species and habitats There are many direct and indirect effects of satisfy- will exist, and opportunities for preservation and ing urban demands that require careful and concerted restoration will be present. consideration to find those alternatives that would im- pose the least ecological damage. In Phoenix, for example, facilities could be designed to minimize impact or alter- The Education of Planners natives could be explored in which the energy and water Planners can and must play an integral role in creat- demands can be sufficiently reduced or rechanneled. ing and implementing these larger-scale, comprehensive Cities caji facilitate less environmentally destructive conservation strategies. Community land use planning ways of satisf)'ing local needs and demands. Commu- will play an important role in protecting corridors, nit)'-supported agriculture is one example, pro\'iding lo- buffer lands, and transitional areas, and in steering fu- cally- or regionally-produced food, ideally through or- ture growth away from important habitat and ecologi- ganic and low- or no-pesticide means. Local production cally fragile land, and into already urbanized areas. of energ)' and promotion of the reuse and rec)'cling of To be effective participants in these new proactive water, energ)'. and material flows in cities would do conservation approaches, planners will need new skills much to reduce these pressures on biodiversit)' region- and new forms of knowledge. This new conser\'ation ally and globally, as well as locally. agenda has significant implications for how and what we Cities, towns, and other local governments can also teach planners in graduate programs. Notably, graduate begin to address these impacts by setting positive exam- planning programs—especially those with environmen- ples. Adopting procurement policies, for instance, which tal planning concentrations—will need much more cov- stipulate the purchase of nondestructive or less destruc- erage of the technical concepts and ideas of consen'ation tive products and services, would help. As ecolabeling biolog)' and landscape ecology. Planners will need to be programs grow in credibility and sophistication, local conversant with a range of important terms, concepts, governments can, with modest effort, reduce their own and analytic techniques: concepts such as island bio- habitat-destroying impacts and encourage similar deci- geography, edge effects and connectivity, minimum vi- sions among their citizens. Any wood used to construct able populations, and population viability analyses; city facilities, for instance, could be certified sustainably adaptive management techniques; and principles of pre- har\'ested (e.g., by the Forest Stewardship Council; see serve or protected area design, to name a few (see Peck, Forest Stewardship Council, 1999). Beef ser\'ed in city 1998). Especially important are an understanding of the and school cafeterias could be certified habitat friendly (evolving) science of preserve design and the biological and fish certified as coming from sustainably-managed (and management) issues involved in the configuration fisheries (e.g., by the Marine Stewardship Council; see of preserve systems and protected areas (Dramstad et al., Marine Stewardship Council, 1999). Cit)' governments 1996). Planners will often be in the best position to serve and other public agencies can make a tremendous differ- an organizing and convening role in regional ecosystem ence through these conscientious purchasing decisions. conser\'ation efforts. They have played a key liaison and Biodiversity conser\'ation must, then, be viewed as coordinating function already in the preparation of habi- an important component in all local planning, whether tat conservation plans, and this role will likely become in the form of an element in the local comprehensive even more important in the future, if the conservation plan, an addendum to the local budget (the biological paradigm shifts advocated here are at all advanced. health ofa community ought to be at least as important A review of the most recent Guide to Graduate Fduca- as its fiscal health), or a stand-alone strategic plan. Per- tion in Urban and Regional Planning (Fisher et al., 1996) is haps American communities should take the lead of alarming in that it contains but a handful of planning British local authorities, which must now prepare Local scholars with expertise and training in these areas. There Biodiversity Actions Plans, as a main implementation mea- will, of course, be opportunities to link with landscape sure under the U.K.'s National Biodiversity Action Plan architecture and environmental science departments in (U.K. Department of the Environment, 1994). These providing the necessar)' technical training, but the scant plans typically incorporate biodiversity audits, the iden- attention within planning departments is troubling, to tification of vulnerable species and habitats, and a pri- say the least. Planners will need to be comfortable with oritization of conservation actions. They also strive to the technical information and be able to effectively com- APA Journal • Winter 2000 • Vol. 66, No. 1 TIMOTHV UBATLliV municatc wicli ccologists, wildlilc ^ll.lloJ;l.st^, .iiul otlu-r extinction of life on the planet is what future generations scicncisrs and members of the resource management would least forgive us for. In many parts of our country community who will by neccssit)'be involved in crafting and in many ways, we have startling opportunities to comprehensive biodivcisin'strategies. save and restore our biological and natural legacy. To do so, though, will require movingyl(rbeyond conservation business as usual. Concluding Thoughts The passage of rhc tndanj^cred Species Act in 1973 was a remarkable event m our en\ iionmental and social NOTES histoF)'. Itwasavisionar)'ace without precedent, and, as 1. Freshwater aquatic species, such as mussL-ls and amphib- one recent commentator notes, has resulted in a "pro- ians, were found to be in the most dire condition. found change in how we view and creat the land" (He- 2. Out of 960 species listed in 1996, 352 were classified as bert, 199S, p. AH). Vet the primar\- strateg)' of this law either having populations stabilizing or improving (U.S. and others like it has been largely reactive, single-species Fish and Wildlife Sen-ice. 1999d). driven, piecemeal in focus, and fragmented m geographi- 3. The cost of implementing the Balcones Canyonlands caJ scope. Planners, on the other hand, are taught to Consen'ation Plan has been estimated at Si60 million. Though focused at a tairly large geographical area, it think comprehensive!)'and in integrative fashion. It is should be rL'nicmbcrcd chat che Balcones Canyonlands rime to rethink and redesign our conserx'ation strategies Consen'ation Plan does not address biodiversit)' protec- to emphasize these qualities. In particular, large-scale tion for the entire Austin region. Sec Beatley (1994). ecological consen'ation strategies and bolder plans must 4. An important example of the use of the term^irn fn/rti- be the starting points. A nested, hierarchical strateg)' is stnutitre can be seen clearly in the recent inaugural speech required, in which large-scale conser\'ation strategies ofMar)'land Go\'ernorGleiidening. Here GovcrnorGlen- provide the template and framework for planning and deningdescnbes presen-ation of the natural environment actions at lower (smaller) geographical levels, tiach state in terms of securing important (jrirn tnjrjstnutiirc: should prepare (or be required to prepare?) a plan that Just as wo must carefully plan for and invest in our cap- delineates a comprehensive ecological netAvork, and each ital in infrastructure-our roads, our bridges, and region or metropolitan area a plan which fits within and water lines—we must also invest in our environment, further reinforces these larger ecological structuie.s. It is our green infrastructure-our forests, our wetlands, only through such an approach that the many smaller our streams and our rivers. And just as we carefully plan for and invest in the human infrastructure-edu- actions of conser\'ation and mitigation add up to any- cation, health sen'ices, care for the elderly and disabled thing ecologically meaningful. —we must also invest m our green infrastructure. A key approach is to redefine the role of cities. These (Glendening, 1998.p.AI2) new biodiversity conser\'ation strategies include con- 5. There were 255 mcidental take permits issued as of June taining and guiding growth within regional ecological 1999 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Semce, 1999b). networks, but also acknowledge the duties of cities to 6. Most recently, a draft of a second plan prepared by San reduce direct and indirect impacts on biodiversit)', and Diego Count)'-its so-called Multiple Habitat Conserva- to take actions to enhance and restore it. The new bio- tion Plan (MHCP)-has been released. It would presen'c diversit)' paradigm musr include cities and urban areas 19.840 acres of habitat over a 30-year period, providing habitat for 77 different species. as key players. 7. The jur)' is still out on the ecological effectiveness of such To be sure, the political waters associated with measures; clear!)' the best strateg)' remains one of resisting broader, larger-scale consen-'ation strategies will be diffi- new roads that dissect and isolate in the firstplace . See Noss cult to navigate. This problem merits some thinking and Cooperrider (1994) for a discussion of these issues. about themost convincing ways in which to sell the pub- 8. The Florida Greenways Coordinating Council was re- lic and politicians on the need for such actions. Staring placed in 1999 with a new Florida Greenways and Trails down the barrel of the Endangered Species Act has cer- Council. tainly helped. Another tack is arguing that the long-term 9. Steps in modeling the ecologica! network !iave included costs associated with continuing the current scattered, identifying important eco!ogical features in t!ie state; fragmented, and ineffectual conservation approach will identif)'ing priorit)'ecologica! areas wit!iin t!iem (e.g., em- be much greater than the short-term burdens of proac- ploying .-icreens lequinng minimum 5000-acie parce!s); tive, comprehensive strategies. In the end, perliaps it is and identifying !inkages between ecologica! hubs. Fora iiKirr t!eini!ed exp!aiiati(in of [lie GlS-b.ised decision rime for communiries and regions to begin a dialogue nunle! used lo dcve!op t!ie statewide greenways system, about their serious ethical roles and responsibilities in see Florida Department of [environmental Protection the world. E. O. Wilson (1980) is fond of saying that the (1998). APA Journal • Winter 2000 • Vol. 66, No. 1 PIIHSBRVING BIODIVLRSITY 10. Meager funding has been .ipproprinrcd hy the .sratc legis- Eddy. M. (1999, March 24). Prairie dogs target of study: Pro- lature to begin miplenienting [he pl.iti, and estimates have tection of black-taiied species being considered. Denver been made tliac some $20 billion would be needed to pur- Post, p. Ii4. chnse all of the lands idedtilied in the system's "green in- l-isher. P. S.. Contant. C. K., Moraski, J. M., Vorhes. J, A., & frastructure." Graduate Program in Urban and Regional Planning, Uni- 11. Howe (1998) refers to what has actunll)' happened in the vcvs\x:)'oHowa..{\99€i). Guide to Graduate Education in Urban Portland region as an inwrting ot McHarg's ecological and Regional Planning {IQzh ed.). Association of Collegiate planning process, i.e.. "natural lesources considered last Schools of Planning. and not firsc" (p. 70). Florida Department of Communit}' Affairs. (1999). Ourcapi- 12. There is an active debate and extensive literature arguing tot communities: A legislative update from the Florida Depart- for the need for greater financial incentives for pnvare land- ment of Community Affairs. Tallahassee: Author. owner conser\'ation. Suggestions include relief from inher- Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (1998). Plan itance taxes and the provision of tax credits and tax reduc- for a statewide system of^eenways: Ewe year Florida greenways tions for biodiversit)' conservation measures and practices. system implementation. Tallahassee: Author. See, for instance. WLlcove et al. (1997) and Noss. O'Connell, Florida Department of Revenue. (1999). Documentary stamp and Murphy (1997) fora discussion of incentives. tax lOn-line]. Available: APA Journal • Winter 2000 • Vol. 66, No. 1 19 TIMOTHY liKATLHY sessments: Science at the cntsswads nf m.may^cment and potuy Tickell. c;, (1997). Introduction. In R. Rogers. Cities for a small (pp. 229-268). Washington. UC: Island i'less. planet (pp. vi-xi). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. National Center for licological Anah'.sis and Svnthesi.s, (1999). U.K. Department of the Fnvironnienc, (1994), Biodiversity: The Usmgscicncein habitat consenationplans. Santa Uaibara.CA: UK action plan. London: Fler Majesty's Stationery Office. Author. U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1999). Conservation reservecn- Natural Resources Defense Council, (199"), I eapoffaith: South- hancementprogram lOn-line). Available: ^http://www.fsa. en\ Cahfoniu's e.xpenment in natural community conservation usda.gov/dafp/cepd/crep/crephome,htm'". plannmg. New York: Author. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1999a). Boxscore lOn-linel- Nature Conser\-ana\ (1997). 77v }^*i~fpecits rvportcard: Vie state Available: ^http://www.fws.gov/r9endspp/boxscore. of U.S. plants and animab. Arlington. VA: Author. html-. Noss, R.. & Cooperrtder. A, (1994), Saving natuirs legac^•: Pro- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1999b). Ust of habitat conservation tecting and restoring biodiversity. Washington, DC: Island plans [On-line], Available: • 20 APA Journal • Winter 2000 • Vol. 66, No. 1