Losing Ground:At What Cost? © Mass Audubon 2003 Downloaded from www.massaudubon.org/losingground Summary Report Losing Ground: At What Cost? Third Edition of the Losing Ground Series Changes in Land Use and Their Impact on Habitat, Biodiversity, and Ecosystem Services in Massachusetts Kevin Breunig Advocacy Department John J. Clarke, Director November 2003 © Mass Audubon 2003 - Downloaded from www.massaudubon.org/losingground 1 Losing Ground:At What Cost? and Dr. Austin Troy of the School of Natural TABLE OF CONTENTS ADDITIONAL COPIES AND Resources and Gund Institute at the University of Vermont. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 TECHNICAL NOTES Accompanying technical notes provide more The Appalachian Mountain Club, Environmental CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 2 League of Massachusetts, The Nature Conservancy, Why Land Use Matters detailed data tables and an expanded description in Massachusetts of the methodology used for this report. The Trust for Public Land, and The Trustees of Copies of the technical notes, or additional Reservations all have provided ongoing support CHAPTER 2: Changes in Statewide Land Use 3 copies of this summary report, can be obtained of the Losing Ground series. CHAPTER 3: Housing as a Driver of Land Use 8 by contacting Mass Audubon’s Advocacy Merloyd Luddington and Ginny Welles were CHAPTER 4: The State of Land Protection 13 Department at 781-259-2171, sending email to instrumental in securing funding for this project. [email protected], or writing to Mass in Massachusetts A number of individuals provided invaluable feed- Audubon, Advocacy Department Publications, CHAPTER 5: Land Use Threats to Biodiversity 15 back on this report, either during its development 208 South Great Road, Lincoln, MA 01773. in Massachusetts or by reviewing draft versions. Reviewers included CHAPTER 6: Accounting for the Economic 19 Susan Arnold of the Appalachian Mountain Club, Value of Ecosystem Services in Mark Robinson of The Compact of Cape Cod Massachusetts ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Land Trusts, Bob O’Connor and Kristin Foord of This report draws heavily from Geographic CHAPTER 7: Conclusion and 22 EOEA, Ed Becker of the Essex County Greenbelt Recommendations Information Systems data and tools provided Association, Christian Jacqz of MassGIS, Bernie by MassGIS, an agency of the Massachusetts McHugh of the Massachusetts Land Trust MASS AUDUBON’S LAND PROTECTION STRATEGY 24 Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Coalition, Chloe Stuart, David Szczebak and (EOEA). The level of analysis in this edition Henry Woolsey of NHESP, Loring Schwarz, would have been impossible without this public Andy Finton, and Rob Warren of The Nature ABOUT MASS AUDUBON data source. We also make use of several sources Conservancy, Wes Ward, Peg Wheeler, and The Massachusetts Audubon Society is the largest of data on rare species and natural communities Chris Rodstrom of The Trustees of Reser- conservation organization in New England, con- developed by the Natural Heritage and vations, Whitney Hatch of The Trust for Public centrating its efforts on protecting the nature of Endangered Species Program (NHESP) of the Land, Mark Racicot and Alan Bishop of the Massachusetts for people and wildlife. Mass Department of Fish and Game within EOEA. Metropolitan Area Planning Council. Reviewers Audubon protects more than 30,000 acres of con- The Warren Group provided a custom version and contributors at Mass Audubon include servation land, conducts educational programs for of its real estate database for use in this report. Taber Allison, Susannah Caffry, Jeff Collins, 250,000 children and adults annually, and advo- All maps for this report were created in ESRI Jack Clarke, Gary Clayton, Chris Hardy, cates for sound environmental policies at the local, ArcView at Mass Audubon. Technical assistance Nick Holland, Maura Kelly, Laura Johnson, state, and federal levels. Established in 1896 and and development of intermediate datalayers Ann Prince, Heidi Ricci, Kathy Sferra, supported by 68,000 member households, Mass were provided by Dominique Pahlavan and and Bob Wilber. Audubon maintains 42 wildlife sanctuaries that are Dan Marrier of MassGIS. Graphic design for this report by Rob Levine, open to the public and serve as the base for its The chapter on Ecosystem Services Valuation Levine Design, Cambridge, Massachusetts. conservation, education, and advocacy work across was developed in conjunction with Dr. Matthew the state. For more information or to become a Kevin Breunig is a consultant to Mass Audubon Wilson of the School of Business Administration member, call 800-AUDUBON (283-8266) or and lives in Lexington, Massachusetts. and Gund Institute for Ecological Economics visit www.massaudubon.org. © Mass Audubon 2003 - Downloaded from www.massaudubon.org/losingground At the current rate of development, Massachusetts faces a closing windowLosing Ground:At of opportunity What Cost?to protect critical habitat areas and address sprawling develop- ment before it is too late. We recommend that state EXECUTIVE SUMMARY and local officials take immediate action on the following fronts. L Despite progress in protecting land and a growing Forest loss to development, and therefore habitat L appreciation for the natural resources of the loss, was particularly pronounced on Cape Cod Open Space Protection: We call for the state Commonwealth, Massachusetts continues to lose and in southeastern Massachusetts. Loss of agri- government to restore past land acquisition spend- ground each day to development. While the rate cultural land to development was distributed ing levels through allocation of funds from the of loss may be moderating, the impact of develop- through the I-495 corridor and Connecticut Environmental Bond of 2002 as a step toward ment is being felt in regions of the state contain- River valley. meeting the goals of the Statewide Land Conser- ing some of our most sensitive rare species habitat L Just under one million acres of wildlife habitat vation Plan. The plan has identified one million and natural communities. And what is being built were permanently protected as of May 2003, or acres as priorities for protection. We recommend is becoming less and less sustainable, in terms of 19 percent of the state’s land area. Seventy-one further prioritization to focus short-term efforts larger average house and lot sizes supporting percent of wildlife habitat statewide lacks perma- on protecting critical habitat areas and natural nent protection and is at risk of development. fewer people. The findings are sobering and communities from further development. L should be a call to action for citizens and public While progress has been made in land protection L statewide, many rare species habitat areas, and Land Use and Development: We call for mean- officials to work together to protect the nature ingful zoning and subdivision regulatory reform of Massachusetts. riparian areas surrounding aquatic species habi- tat, have little or no permanent protection. that removes loopholes that bypass local review L Massachusetts continued to lose 40 acres per Fragmentation threatens most rare species habitat of development. We encourage municipalities to day to “visible” development between 1985 and areas. Only 39 percent of terrestrial rare species adopt cluster and conservation subdivision bylaws 1999, as interpreted from aerial photography. habitat and 23 percent of riparian areas near to simultaneously achieve goals of increased open Nearly nine out of ten acres lost were used for aquatic rare species habitat is permanently pro- space protection and affordable housing. residential development; 65 percent of this land tected. Two-thirds of what is permanently pro- was used for low-density, large-lot construction. tected supports multiple uses, including water L Biodiversity: The state should demonstrate its Twenty-four percent of the state’s land area was supply, forestry, and recreation, which may be commitment to endangered species protection and developed as of 1999, compared to 17 percent in conflict with habitat conservation goals. in 1971. recovery by adding permanent matching funds to L Much of the remaining forest in the state is L the voluntary contributions currently supporting When the “hidden” impact of development is highly fragmented, but certain areas offer oppor- the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species taken into account, including most roads and tunities for protecting the large roadless forest Program. We recommend improved protection portions of building lots that appear undevel- blocks needed for natural system functions and of rare species habitat both through land acquisi- oped in aerial photography, the full level of for broad biodiversity conservation. human impact was closer to 78 acres per day. tion and identification of areas where recreational L Undeveloped and recreational land in Mass- L and water supply uses may be in conflict with A review of more recent development between achusetts generates more than $6 billion annually conservation. 2000 and 2002 shows that new residential and in nonmarket ecosystem services—85 percent commercial construction continues to consume of this value is provided by forests, wetlands, L Additional Monitoring and Research: Much forest and agricultural land. We estimate that lakes, and rivers left largely in their natural state. of this report is based on digitized land use data an additional 40,000 acres were impacted by Loss of these “free” services would result in an both visible and hidden development during funded by state