Translation PaperNumber TenOctober 2002

© Copyright 2002 by the Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

Biodiversity and Smart Growth:Sprawl Threatens Our Natural HeritageThis paper was written in collaboration with the Funders’ Network by GloriaOhland, a former journalist who has worked on smart growth and transporta-tion issues for the Surface Transportation Policy Project and now the GreatAmerican Station Foundation*, and by Hank Dittmar, president of the GreatAmerican Station Foundation, a member of the Funders’ Network for SmartGrowth and Livable Communities. This is the tenth in the series of translationpapers published by the Funders’ Network to translate the impact of suburbansprawl and disinvestment on issues of importance to America’s communitiesand to suggest opportunities for progress that would be created by smartergrowth policies and practices. Other issues addressed in the series of transla-tion papers include social equity, workforce development, parks and openspace, civic engagement, agriculture, transportation, aging, education, chil-dren and families, health, arts and energy.

*The Funders' Network for

Smart Growth and Livable

Communities works to inform

and strengthen philanthropic

funders' individual and collec-

tive abilities to support and

connect organizations working

to advance social equity, create

better economies, build livable

communities, and protect and

preserve natural resources.

For more information, visit

www.fundersnetwork.org.

Abstract

In this country there has alwaysseemed to be enough space for bothdevelopment and for nature, but thereis a growing awareness that roads andthe sprawling development they pro-mote have begun to fragment anddegrade habitat in even the wildestplaces. Concerns about habitat lossand the rate at which plant and animalspecies are disappearing are forcingsome wildlife and wilderness organiza-tions and even land trusts to refocustheir efforts and get involved in trans-portation and land use planning.

The greatest threats to biodiversityare habitat loss and degradation andinvasive species, all of which arestrongly correlated with sprawling growth. Smart growth alone will notprovide the solution. But it is believedthat smart growth combined with"smart conservation" can provide for

both more development and morehabitat protection by charting outwhere growth should and should notoccur. This work needs to happenquickly, however, as development pres-sures continue to mount, and oncecritical habitats and linkages betweenthem are lost they cannot beregained.

There is obvious potential in fundingcollaborations between smart growthand wildlife and wilderness activists.The fact that all parties – advocates,developers, property owners, and gov-ernment agencies eager to avoid cost-ly mitigation and lawsuits – want cer-tainty about which lands can be devel-oped and which cannot affordstremendous opportunity for broad-based collaborations. The availabilityof good science and new technologymakes comprehensive planning efforts

Page 2

Introduction: Where the Buffalo Roamed

America has always seemed to be avast country with an abundance ofwild, open spaces. But less than 10percent of the land surface remains ina mostly unchanged state, while only4 percent has been set aside in natu-ral reserves.1 And development is con-suming land at an accelerating pace –the rate doubled from 1992 to 1997compared to the previous ten years.2

Moreover, the nature of developmenthas dramatically changed. In the last50 years the amount of urban landhas quadrupled, and sprawling auto-oriented development has consumeda third of our most productive farm-land, more than half of all wetlands(91 percent in California), and isbumping up against the boundaries ofnational parks, forests and other pro-tected lands.3

Growth has begun to impact even thewildest of wild places. Rural countieswith federally designated wildernessareas grew six times faster than coun-ties without wilderness areas in recentyears.4 A 1994 survey of nationalparks found 85 percent were experi-encing threats from outside theirboundaries.5 A recent survey of NatureConservancy scientists and land man-agers found that roads and utility cor-ridors posed a critical threat to biodi-versity health in 55 of 89 conserva-tion areas.6

If growth continues at the currentpace, the amount of land developed injust the next 25 years will equal the

total amount developed since thiscountry was founded.7 It’s a sign ofthe times that a leading indicator ofsprawl in Florida is the number of pan-thers that are hit by cars. InWashington it is encounters betweencougars and schoolchildren. All acrossthe country it’s the daily battle thatsuburban gardeners wage againstshrubbery-eating deer.

This is a fight the animals alwayslose. Development causes the frag-mentation and degradation of habitatand water resources, interrupts natu-ral processes such as floods andfires, and ushers in an invasion ofnon-native species. Ninety-five percentof species listed under the federalEndangered Species Act are endan-gered by habitat loss, fragmentation orother alteration.8 Exotic plants readilyinvade disturbed habitat, the secondmost pernicious cause of endangerment.9

Part of the problem is that animalsand plants thrive in the same placesthat humans do. Places that are richin biological diversity – Florida,Southern California, the PacificNorthwest, and coastlines, ripariancorridors, valley bottoms and foothillseverywhere – are also those regionsthat are developing most rapidly or arealready developed. Sprawl is the num-ber one cause of habitat loss andfragmentation in California, thenation’s most populous state, where itis threatening 188 of 286 imperiled orendangered species.10

possible. This paper discusses therelationship between biodiversityconservation and smart growth, thework that is being done, and suggests

promising strategies and explicitcollaborations for consideration byphilanthropic and public funders andother key actors.

A recent survey ofNature Conservancyscientists and landmanagers found thatroads and utility cor-ridors posed a criticalthreat to biodiversityhealth in 55 of 89conservation areas.6

Page 3

The Sixth Great Extinction

Historically, the extinction of bothplant and animal species closely fol-lowed the spread of humans fromAfrica and Eurasia. But the rate ofextinctions is increasing so rapidlythat conservation biologists now pre-dict the loss of a third of the world’splant and animal species within thenext 50 years, a phenomenon of suchapocalyptic magnitude they call it "thesixth great extinction."11 Conservationbiology – the protection, maintenanceand restoration of life on this planet –is a relatively young science thatemerged in the ‘70s partly inresponse to this crisis.

Extinction is a natural process thathas shaped the world since the begin-ning of time, but what alarms conser-vation biologists is the speed at whichthis one is occurring. Previous massextinctions were driven by geologicaland astronomical processes over mil-lions of years; this one is takingdecades. And it’s the first to becaused, directly and indirectly, by asingle species – humans.

Smart growth is not the panacea.Neither is simply spending moremoney on land conservation. But con-servationists working to "get ahead of

the extinction curve" believe that usedtogether, smart growth and "smartconservation" can work toward land-scape-scale solutions, delineatingwhere growth should occur and wherehabitat must be protected.

"It’s clear we need to begin planningway upstream -- before speciesbecome endangered," says JessicaWilkinson of the Environmental LawInstitute in Washington D.C. "It’s notjust about smart growth because weneed to know first where the biodiver-sity hotspots are -- so that we canmake sure smart growth is happeningin the right places."

Adds Ed McMahon of theConservation Fund in WashingtonD.C., "We need both smart growth andsmart conservation -- an approachthat is proactive instead of reactive,and that works at a large enoughscale that we can save entire ecosys-tems. Successful land conservationneeds to overcome both land fragmen-tation and land consumption. Thatwork can’t happen in isolation. Wildlifeand wilderness advocates must workin concert with smart growth activists.And they must be ruthlessly strategic."

"We need both smartgrowth and smartconservation -- anapproach that isproactive instead ofreactive, and thatworks at a largeenough scale that wecan save entireecosystems.”

Page 4

As bulldozers advance toward wild-lands, the arenas in which smartgrowth advocates and wildlife andwilderness advocates wage their veryseparate battles are literally converg-ing. Meantime, the limitations of thesmart growth toolbox are becomingapparent -- even in the PacificNorthwest where smart growth hasbeen most successful.

Oregon has the most comprehensiveland-use planning program in the coun-try, and it has slowed urban sprawl:While the population of Portland grewby 31 percent between 1980 and2000, the amount of developed landincreased only 3 percent.12 Contrastthat with other large coastal metropoli-tan areas, which are consuming landten times as fast as they’re addingnew residents.13

But while Oregon’s land use programhas succeeded in protecting forestsand farmland – the purpose for whichit was written – it has not protectedhabitat and species, which have con-tinued to slide toward extinction, afact documented by the OregonBiodiversity Project, a state-of-the-artassessment of habitats and species.14

This disconnect between land useplanning and habitat conservation wasfurther emphasized in a recentDefenders of Wildlife report, the con-clusion summed up in the title -- "NoPlace for Nature."15

At the same time, critics from withinthe smart growth movement are say-ing Portland’s urban growth boundaryis being held too tight and is adverse-ly affecting the flora and fauna inside."We no longer have the luxury of writ-ing off the urban environment," warnsMichael Houck of the Audubon Society

of Portland and also a board memberof 1000 Friends of Oregon. "We’ll losesupport for smart growth if we don’tprovide the green to go along with thehigher densities. Furthermore, if natu-ral areas are not accessible to urban-ites they’ll lose contact with nature.As Robert Michael Pyle writes in hisbook, The Thunder Tree, ‘What is theextinction of the condor to a child whohas never known a wren?’"

Meanwhile, outside Seattle’s urbangrowth boundary, wildlife and wilder-ness advocates have become alarmedat how many 20-acre ranchettes nowdot the 45-mile-wide buffer zone pro-tecting pristine U.S. Forest Servicelands east of rapidly developing Kingand Pierce counties. And they worryabout land in between Seattle andPortland, where timber companies arecutting logging roads in the shape ofcul de sacs to prepare them for even-tual development.

And inside Seattle’s urban growthboundary, King County officials havebeen forced into the unusual positionof having to figure out how to accom-modate an endangered species in theheart of a bustling metropolis. TheChinook or King salmon, once themighty symbol of the PacificNorthwest, has been listed as endan-gered, putting a very different spin onconversations about the proposed$7.8 billion expansion of the I-405freeway, which traverses the city andcrosses dozens of salmon-bearingstreams.

"Perhaps it’s not that we will save thesalmon," says King County ExecutiveRon Sims, sounding a hopeful note,"but rather that the salmon will saveus."

No Place for Nature

"Perhaps it’s not thatwe will save thesalmon ... but ratherthat the salmon willsave us."

Page 5

The Balkanized Non-profit World

The non-profit world is as balkanizedas government, and it wasn’t so longago that even wildlife and wildernessadvocates worked separately. Nowthey work together, mostly on publiclands and with the agencies that man-age them. But increasingly they haveto deal with private lands and a verydifferent set of players – changing cir-cumstances that are ushering theminto the smart growth movement.

The evolution of the work of theGreater Yellowstone Coalition exempli-fies this trend. Founded in 1983 todeal with conservation issues affect-ing the seven national forests and twonational parks within the GreaterYellowstone area, GYC now spendshalf its budget dealing with issuesaffecting the private lands surroundingthese public lands.

"We’ve developed what we call an‘ecosystem approach’ that blends wild-land protection with sustainable devel-opment," says Dennis Glick, who waswith the Greater Yellowstone Coalitionduring the writing of this paper butwho now works for the SonoranInstitute. "Because we found thatgrowth was occurring in critical habitat– the lower elevations through whichelk, deer and grizzly bears travel fromone patch of habitat to another. Werealized we could be successful onpublic lands but still fail if we didn’tmanage growth on private lands -- theweak link in any big picture conserva-tion strategy."

But most of GYC’s 125 member organ-izations are focused on public landconservation issues, leaving GYC tohead up the coalition’s growth man-agement efforts in 20 rapidly develop-ing counties across Montana, Idahoand Wyoming. Glick says he waspleased that to see 400 people showup at a statewide smart growth confer-ence last year, and equally pleased

with the turnout at a subsequent GYCwilderness conference. "But," headds, "it was a totally different audi-ence."

GYC’s investigation into the status ofplanning efforts in the 20 countiesfound that while every county had aplan, there wasn’t much in the way ofimplementation. "That’s the point atwhich we began to get involved in theGrowth Management LeadershipAlliance," says Glick, "and to ratchetup our involvement in land use andtransportation planning." Glick said heunderstands why his growth manage-ment colleagues don’t want the publicto perceive smart growth as an envi-ronmental issue, and agrees it’s prob-ably more effective to talk in terms ofgrowth’s economic, social justice, com-munity development, land use ortransportation impacts.

"But if smart growth campaigns couldalso find a way to quantify the bene-fits of growth management in terms ofbiodiversity conservation – thatthey’ve met conservation goals orsaved important habitat, for example -- they could open up a new universe offunding from foundations and citizensinterested in conservation," saysGlick.

Tim Davis of the Montana SmartGrowth Coalition, a GYC partner, isless sanguine about the prospect ofintegrating the worlds of biodiversityconservation and smart growth.Biodiversity conservation is based inthe natural sciences, and favors com-pensatory strategies like land acquisi-tion, he points out, while smart growthwork is based in the social sciencesand is much more advocacy oriented.Then there is the problem of scale.Conservationists arelooking to save largelandscapes that crosspolitical boundaries, whereas

Page 6

smart growth advocates work withintraditional jurisdictions, such as muni-cipalities, counties, regions or states.

But it has been easy to bring all kindsof people together over concernsabout wildlife, he adds, and theMontana Smart Growth Coalition is abroad one, including wildlife andwilderness advocates as well as localbusinesses, the Montana FarmersUnion, and several local smart growthefforts. "Concern about wildlife is anissue that plays across all politicalboundaries in Montana," says Davis.It doesn’t matter if you’re to the left orright, a Democrat or a Republican. Itallows us to sit down at the table withproperty rights advocates, hunting and

fishing groups, and others who mightotherwise be opposed to growth control."

These two coalitions are together over-laying maps of growth patterns, theroad network, public lands, core habi-tats and the corridors animals use tomove between them in order to deter-mine the most imminent threats tohabitat connectivity. The MontanaSmart Growth Coalition is polling resi-dents to determine how best to talkabout growth control and which growthmanagement tools would be mostacceptable. The intent is to boostplanning efforts to designate growthareas and then direct infrastructurespending into them.

From Rocks and Ice to Rewilding

Current thinking about conservationhas evolved away from a focus on pro-tecting "rocks and ice" and single at-risk species, and toward conservingentire ecosystems that are a mix ofpublic and private lands. It has alsomoved toward a more collaborativeapproach that seeks to involve privatelandowners in voluntary and incentive-based conservation action in additionto the more traditional tools of govern-ment regulation, land acquisition andadversarial action.

There is increasing interest in protect-ing not just species and spectacularscenery but also the natural process-es – floods, fires, disease, nutrientcycling – that keep ecosystems func-tioning and provide important serviceslike water purification and flood con-trol. This new, more comprehensive,"big picture" approach necessitates alot of collaboration.

The most recent current in the conser-vation movement, "rewilding," con-tends we need to conserve "bigwilderness" to provide for fully func-

tioning populations of large carnivoreslike grizzlies, wolves and lynx. Withoutthese large predators, say rewildingproponents, ecosystems undergo dra-matic changes leading to "biotic sim-plification" and species loss.

But maintaining viable populations oflarge carnivores requires healthy genepools, and that requires a very largelandscape extending from west-centralWyoming to mid-British Columbia andAlberta. But here wildlife and wilder-ness advocates again come upagainst transportation and land use:In order for large carnivores to usethis Yellowstone to Yukon landscape,they must cross at least four highwaysin Wyoming, 17 highways in Idaho, 23in Montana, and 17 in BritishColumbia and Alberta.16

With each crossing an animal riskscollision. Road kills are the leadingcause of death for animals;researchers estimate at least a mil-lion are killed each day on U.S. highways.17

Road kills are theleading cause ofdeath for animals;researchers estimateat least a million arekilled each day onU.S. highways.17

Page 7

The North Rockies is the "last of thelast" intact mountain ecosystems onthis continent, and still containsalmost all the large mammal speciesthat existed before Europeans arrived.

But the patches of habitat are becom-ing islands in a sea of developmentand must be reconnected, a missionthat has inspired a coalition of 270conservation organizations called theYellowstone to Yukon ConservationInitiative (Y2Y), which includes GYCand also American Wildlands, which istaking the lead in getting wildlife and

wilderness activists involved in trans-portation planning.

Sophisticated mapping and modelingefforts using satellite imagery and GISdatabases to identify and overlaymaps of important habitat and move-ment corridors with growth projectionsand road networks have aided theseefforts. This has enabled these organi-zations to work with land trusts on pri-oritizing conservation purchases, towork with real estate agents to findconservation buyers, and to determinewhere transportation and land useadvocacy is most critical.

The Metropolitan Wild

Meantime, efforts similar to Y2Y aretaking place on a much smaller geo-graphic scale in Portland, Chicago,and even in the wilds of New YorkCity’s metropolitan region, less than ahundred miles from Central Park. Thereon the suburban-rural frontier, biologistMichael Klemens of the MetropolitanConservation Alliance enjoys takingplanners and politicians into the GreatSwamp of the rapidly urbanizingHarlem Valley, to help him count bogturtles, salamanders and snakes aspart of his biological survey work.

Recent research has demonstratedthat even small, wetland-dependentspecies like these migrate betweenhabitats – just like the big carnivores --and require extensive portions of adja-cent forested upland for portions oftheir life cycles. These species movebetween wetlands, traversing forestsand fields, and in more developedareas crossing roads with frequentlyfatal results. As increasing develop-ment fragments their habitat, thesespecies are no longer able to maintaintheir migration regimes and arebecoming extinct – a third of NorthAmerica’s 86 species of frogs andtoads are extinct or endangered.

These site visits have proven a power-ful advocacy tool, offering a profoundlesson in the Great Swamp’s ecosys-tem, where 90 percent of the land isprivately owned and the pressures todevelop are escalating. Not only havelocal decision-makers come to appre-ciate the Great Swamp’s value, butthey have begun to argue that it mustbe protected by buffer zones, and thatadjacent development must be down-sized and clustered.

Like Michael Houck in Portland,Klemens argues we can’t only protectpristine wilderness. While the tropicsare often said to be the hottest biolog-ical hotspot, he likes to point out, onlythe Mekong and Irrawaddy river catch-ment basins in Southeast Asia boastas many species of turtles as thelower Hudson Valley.

"We need to shed the bi-polar visionof wild versus degraded habitats, andrealize there is a wide spectrum ofchoices between these extremes," hesays. "Obviously we can’t return theregion to pre-Columbian wilderness,but we can improve the potential ofthese ecosystems to support a higherdiversity of native species." The prob-

"We need to shed thebi-polar vision ofwild versus degradedhabitats, and realizethere is a wide spec-trum of choicesbetween theseextremes."

Page 8

lem, he says, is a critical lack of infor-mation on many species and ecosys-tems – the information we have col-lected is mostly about rare and endan-gered species.

Moreover, the ten-county metropolitanregion in which Klemens is working ismade up of 268 local land-use juris-dictions, resulting in what one localofficial has called a "tyranny of smalldecisions." Whereas a particular sub-

division or land use decision may notbe in and of itself harmful, saysKlemens, "the cumulative impacts of268 decision-making bodies operatingwithout a regional framework aredegrading the environment. And byfocusing on the rare instead of theordinary we are missing widespread,dramatic, landscape-scale changesthat are converting the ordinary torare."

The Effect of Roads on Habitat

Many researchers have documentedthe effects of roads on habitat andbiodiversity, but none with the acidtone of conservation biologist ReedNoss, who describes roads as "a clas-sic death-trap phenomenon."18 Animalsare often attracted to them – to travelalong them, bask in the sun, browseroadside vegetation or lick de-icingsalts – and then are killed by them.

Roads usher in an invasion of exoticweeds, pests and pathogens, and pol-lute habitat with noise as well asheavy metals, carbon monoxide anddioxide, and pesticides – which typical-ly end up in nearby aquatic systems.They increase the penetration of sunand wind, make slopes vulnerable toerosion, and increase impervious sur-faces, which concentrate and alterwater flows.

But most importantly: Many largemammals avoid roads entirely, whilesmaller species are afraid to crossthem, which means that roads frag-ment habitat into smaller and smallerpatches, seriously constraining breed-ing populations and thereby posing amajor threat to biodiversity.

This is why wildlife and wildernessadvocates are increasingly turningtheir attention to the transportationand land use planning process. Eventhe venerable Nature Conservancy, the

nation’s first land trust and the first tomake biodiversity conservation a prior-ity, has begun working with state trans-portation officials in both Californiaand in Colorado on advance mitigationfor all transportation projects listed inlong-range transportation plans.

There’s a confluence of interest: TheNature Conservancy worries thepostage-size conservation areasresulting from project-by-project mitiga-tion efforts don’t address the cumula-tive impacts of transportation proj-ects, and contribute little to the viabili-ty of individual species and the habi-tats and ecosystems on which theydepend. Departments of Transpor-tation worry about project deliverydelays – now averaging five-and-a-halfyears -- resulting from the project-by-project approval process.

The Nature Conservancy is increasing-ly becoming involved in both trans-portation and land use planningefforts, says Emily Tibbott of the con-servancy’s San Francisco office,because "There simply isn’t enoughmoney to buy everything that’s biologi-cally important. But if we can getthese lands identified and protected inthe general planning process we canget a lot more bang for the buck thanif we attempt to buy these lands out-right or to purchase conservationeasements."

"There simply isn’tenough money to buyeverything that’s bio-logically important.But if we can getthese lands identifiedand protected in thegeneral planningprocess we can get alot more bang for thebuck than if weattempt to buy theselands outright or topurchase conserva-tion easements."

Concerns about road-building are alsoprompting wildlife and wildernessadvocates to join smart growth advo-cates in asking why it is that the fed-eral government is providing so muchfunding for sprawl-inducing infrastruc-ture – not only roads, but also sewersand water lines, and even flood insur-ance -- in the first place.

"Each year federal and state agenciesprovide billions of dollars for infra-structure in rural areas," states a newreport on Coastal Sprawl for the PewOceans Commission. "These projectsare frequently not reviewed in light ofregional growth plans, yet they havegreat potential to undermine growthmanagement goals and needs."

Coastal Sprawl was written by DanaBeach of the South Carolina CoastalConservation League, who concludes,"land use reform must be at the fore-front of the coastal protection agen-da." Runaway land consumption andexponential growth in automobile usehave the greatest impact along thecoasts," Beach writes, becausecoastal zones comprise 13 percent oftotal U.S. acreage but are home tomore than half the U.S. population.Studies show that when more than 10percent of a watershed is covered byimpervious surfaces -- like roads,rooftops and parking lots -- aquaticecosystems become degraded.

Advocates are also joining local offi-cials in questioning why it is that whilethe majority of gas taxes are paid forby urban drivers, most of the revenuesare used to pay for state and federalhighway systems between cities --thereby facilitating sprawl and habitatfragmentation – instead of the localroads on which they drive.

"This is an equity issue for local gov-ernments, but it also provokes thequestion why are we spending money

that could be used to address press-ing urban transportation problems onbuilding roads that open up new landfor development, fragment habitat andendanger species?" asks JamesCorless of the Surface TransportationPolicy Project. Corless says that about90 percent of gas tax revenues go tostate highway departments and areused mostly for construction andmaintenance of state and federal high-ways, even though these highwayscomprise just 11 percent of all roads.

And wildlife and wilderness are joiningcampaigns for more environmentallyfriendly transportation modes, includ-ing intercity and high-speed rail –which have the potential to concen-trate growth around stations.Transportation advocates point outthat travel patterns have changedsince September 11, as longer waitsat airports have made rail competitivewith air for shorter distance travel.Now is the time, they argue, to beginintegrating our very separate modes oftransportation into seamless systemslike in Europe – where travelers caneasily transfer from plane to train tobus to car and back again -- reducingauto-dependency and the sprawl-induc-ing effects of airport expansion.

Roads further confound conservationefforts by driving up the cost of land,and making landowners resistant toplanning and zoning efforts that couldmake their land less valuable. "Onceyou plan and build transportation linksout into the hinterlands you create anew interface that ripens land fordevelopment," points out Alan Front ofthe Trust for Public Land.

The Trust for Public Land is research-ing the effect of transportation plan-ning and spending on conservation inorder to bolster efforts to better inte-grate open space mitigation into trans-portation planning, and to require

Page 9

Road-Building and the Climate for Conservation

Studies show thatwhen more than 10percent of a water-shed is covered byimpervious surfaces -- like roads, rooftopsand parking lots --aquatic ecosystemsbecome degraded.

Page 10

The "Retail Use" Of Science

Virtually all biodiversity conservationbegins with good science and comesdown to land use, which is why smartgrowth and biodiversity are, asKlemens says, "inherently excellentfor each other." The trick has beenintegrating biodiversity concerns anddata into the land use decision-makingprocess. It’s even trickier convincingdecision-makers to use the information.

In order to get his concerns takenseriously Klemens got himself electedas chair of the local planning board.Klemens is a biologist -- "Everyonethinks of scientists as impractical, butbeing a planning commissioner hasopened doors for me" -- and hebelieves that other scientists have todare to come down from their ivorytowers in academia and get theirhands dirty applying science to day-to-day decisions.

"Scientists need to become the inter-preters and help move this conversa-tion along," Klemens says. "Scientistsneed to be willing to extrapolate, toprognosticate, to raise the awarenessthat there’s a looming biodiversity cri-sis. They think all they have to do isget published to create change, butthat’s not how it works. They have tobe willing to use science in a retailway."

The need to deliver good science andtranslate it into policy promptedDefenders of Wildlife, the NatureConservancy, and the Oregon NaturalHeritage Program to create a $1 mil-lion highly sophisticated database with120 layers of electronically linkedinformation for the Oregon BiodiversityProject.

The computer user can simply click ona map to bring up a table of informa-tion on historic and current vegetationand species, hydrology, landforms,land use, land ownership, roads, landmanagement, population, demography,and even political attitudes. This hasmade it possible to identify whichhabitat and species aren’t represent-ed on lands currently held in conserva-tion, information that can be used toprioritize future conservation land pur-chases and to identify which landscan be developed with minimumimpact.

Now the Nature Conservancy is work-ing to provide planners everywherewith a similarly sophisticated planningtool. The conservancy began inventory-ing biota back in 1974, completingdatabases for all 50 states andCanada by 1989. Called the NaturalHeritage Network, the national data-base contains information on 50,000species and ecological communities,is maintained by state agencies and iswidely used in the environmentalreview process. It is also widely usedin the conservation planning processby developers, consultants, land trustsand advocates.

But it has not been used in the landuse planning process, prompting theNature Conservancy to try to make thedata more usable. The new service,NatureServe, is a collection of desk-top and web-enabled tools and infor-mation resources, including mapping,animation and visualization softwarethat analyzes and presents complexscientific information in a format thatcan be used for routine land andwater decisions.

more rigorous economic and environ-mental analysis – similar to thatrequired for Army Corps of Engineers

projects – on federal aid highway projects.

"Scientists need tobecome the inter-preters and helpmove this conversa-tion along ... to raisethe awareness thatthere’s a loomingbiodiversity crisis.”

To date, habitat conservation plans,required under the EndangeredSpecies Act if development plansresult in the "taking" of an endan-gered species, have been one of theprimary means of integrating biodiver-sity concerns into land use planning.Conservationists support the idea ofHCPs, but say there are serious flaws.

Planning is initiated and paid for bythe landowner and approved withoutindependent scientific review or publicinput, no provisions for ongoing moni-toring, or for adaptive managementshould the conservation plan fail. Thesingle species focus, they say, doeslittle to promote functioning ecosys-tems, and while there’s a trend towardmultiple species habitat conservationplanning across jurisdictional bound-aries, critics say the increased com-plexity only exacerbates the problems.

"Clearly public agencies need to be alot less passive in developing land-scape-scale biodiversity strategies,and these strategies need to be thedriver for land use and transportationplans," says Greg Thomas of theNatural Heritage Institute in SanFrancisco, which is developing a "sci-ence-delivery mechanism" to enableindependent scientists to intervenedirectly in negotiations over HCPs.

"Whereas other areas of environmen-tal protection require those who causethe problem to pay for the solution,the burden of protecting biodiversityfalls on the owners of the remainingundeveloped habitat – even thoughthe species became endangered dueto consumption decisions made bysociety as a whole. Landscape-scaleplanning provides a mechanism forthe public to shoulder some of theconservation burden."

Page 11

Habitat Conservation Plans

In order to ensure applicability for reallife planning, NatureServe’s advisoryboard includes a former president ofthe National Association of Counties,a city manager and several planningcommissioners. The software is to beready in 2004.

"We want to get biodiversity data ontothe same playing field as census data

or information about road and sewer in-frastructure," says NatureServe seniorscientist Bruce Stein. "We consider thisto be a smart growth tool that will allowplanners to determine which areasunder their jurisdiction will present themost regulatory problems and lawsuitsand require costly mitigation, and whichare most suitable for development."

Though it’s not keeping pace with thedevelopment threat, the land trustmovement is burgeoning. In just thelast four to five years state, countyand local governments have passed$20 billion dollars for open spaceacquisition through legislation and ref-erendums. The number of land trustshas almost doubled since 1990, andthe amount of acreage set aside hasincreased 226 percent – for a total ofmore than 6.2 million acres, an areatwice the size of Connecticut.19

Andrew Zepp of the Land TrustAlliance says the 1,200 land trustsexercise a full range of philosophieswhen determining which lands to con-serve – whether it is preservation ofhistoric land uses, or scenic protec-tion, or biodiversity conservation. ButZepp says an increasing number, likethe Nature Conservancy and the Trustfor Public Land, are beginning to workin communities on habitat conserva-tion planning efforts and smart growthcampaigns.

"We used to work in a very reactivemode at the behest of activists or gov-ernment agencies or landowners,"says Alan Front of the Trust for PublicLand. "But there just isn’t enoughmoney or enough of us to respond toall the ‘Oh-my-Gods,’ so we beganlooking for more proactive and strate-gic ways to conserve land. There’s anatural nexus between conservationand smart growth, because every sin-gle urban redevelopment, brownfieldand infill project saves another green-field."

The Conservation Fund has alsosought to promote what it calls"smart conservation" by heavily pro-moting the idea that governmentneeds to plan for and invest in "greeninfrastructure" as systematically as"gray infrastructure" like roads and

sewers."20 Green infrastructure iscomposed of "hubs," or large conser-vation areas, connected by "links,"that can also be large conservationareas, or conservation corridors, ripari-an corridors, greenbelts, trails, andeven utility corridors.

Conservation Fund GreenwaysProgram Director Ed McMahon hasbeen working with a large measure ofsuccess on statewide greenways pro-grams in both Florida and Maryland,two states where government hasactively supported aggressive landconservation programs.

McMahon says his smart conserva-tion philosophy was shaped by hisexperience as vice chair of Maryland’sGreenways Commission, where hewatched the state spend millions ofdollars on conservation easements topreserve Maryland’s farms. Hundredsof farms now dot the landscape, sur-rounded by subdivisions. A recentstory in the Washington Post docu-mented the state’s last livestock auc-tion, sounding the death knell forfarming in Maryland. "That wasn’tsmart conservation," says McMahon."The state wasn’t coordinating itsefforts with local decisions aboutplanning and zoning."

In response, the Conservation Fundhelped create Maryland’s Rural LegacyProgram, which seeks to maintainlandscapes and direct growth by pre-serving large, contiguous blocks ofcountryside and nature preserves, cre-ating greenbelts around small townsto constrain sprawl, and creatinggreenways to link conservation lands.

The Conservation Fund also encour-ages the purchase of lands that pro-tect important ecological services likeflood control and water purification,meanwhile serving to conserve impor-

Page 12

Smart Conservation

“There’s a naturalnexus between con-servation and smartgrowth, because everysingle urban redevel-opment, brownfieldand infill projectsaves another green-field."

Page 13

tant habitat. New York City, for exam-ple, made the decision to purchasewatershed lands in the Catskill

Mountains for $1.5 billion, and avoid-ed spending $8 billion on a filtrationand treatment plant.

Smart growth and conservation areexplicitly linked in a community-basedmovement that’s growing in the Westand the Southwest, where even themost conservative property-rightsadvocates are concerned about therate at which condos are replacingcows. Leaders of this movement arehelping communities find a way to bal-ance nature with commerce, and tomaintain community character despitethe influx of new residents.

The Sonoran Institute takes theapproach that conservation only workswhen it enhances economic well beingand reflects a community’s commonvalues – which are typically tied to theland.21 The Sonoran Institute providestechnical advice to dirt-rich-cash-poorranchers and farmers about how theycan maintain working landscapes, con-serve habitat and generate incomeand/or reduce taxes all at the sametime – through conservation ease-ments, estate planning, limited devel-opment, voluntary zoning districts, andcollaborative planning.

In partnership with the NationalAssociation of Counties, the SonoranInstitute also trains county planningcommissions and their staff about theconnections between transportation,land use and sprawl. Planners learnzoning and regulatory techniques, how

to do a local socio-economic profile, abuild-out analysis and a cost-of servic-es study, and about public financingcampaigns to fund the purchase ofdevelopment rights.

The Sonoran Institute then helps staffthese county planning efforts for up tothree years, because much of theproblem is that rural counties don’thave fulltime planners to deal with thedemands of rapid growth. It’s a bril-liant tactic. "We figured why deal withthis from around the edges?" asksRay Rasker in the Sonoran Institute’sMontana office. "Who makes the deci-sions that are most important when itcomes to growth? The planning com-missioners. But they’re unprepared todeal with sprawl, and they’re lookingfor help.

"We’re wildlife advocates, but we don’tstart out talking about grizzly bearmigration corridors," Rasker says. "Wetalk about the fiscal effects of growthon the county budget, and the conver-sion of ranchland into subdivisions,and that gets us in the door. But stillthe commissioners sometimes sit inthe back of the room with their armscrossed. It’s only when they start tobelieve this is really going to be abouttheir values that they begin to take usseriously. Because they hate sprawlas much as we do."

A Community-based Movement

"We’re wildlife advo-cates, but we don’tstart out talkingabout grizzly bearmigration corridors,"Rasker says. "We talkabout the fiscal effectsof growth on thecounty budget, andthe conversion ofranchland into sub-divisions, and thatgets us in the door.But still the commis-sioners sometimes sitin the back of theroom with their armscrossed. It’s onlywhen they start tobelieve this is reallygoing to be abouttheir values that theybegin to take us seri-ously. Because theyhate sprawl as muchas we do."

Page 14

Harvey Locke of the KendallFoundation, a founding member of theYellowstone to Yukon ConservationInitiative, is among those who seetremendous opportunity in this conflu-ence of growth, economic and conser-vation issues -- if only because it’sbringing people together to work col-laboratively on the problems.

"It all comes down to quality of life,"he says. "Which is why people aremoving out toward wilderness areasand national parks in the first place.People who want improved quality oflife cause sprawl. They’re not thought-less people. They don’t want to ruinthe very thing they came here for.

"It’s going to bring about a paradigmshift," he continues. "Intrinsically peo-ple understand that everything is con-nected. A lot of synergy will happenaround this confluence of smartgrowth, transportation, wildlife andwilderness issues. This is where peo-ple will have to put it all together. AndI have faith that they will."

Locke points to Florida as a placewhere there has been tremendous col-laboration in the face of tremendouschallenge, though because of politicsFlorida’s success has waxed andwaned over the past 10 years. Floridahad to think about growth and conser-vation early. Population grew from

300,000 in 1960 to more than 15million in 1990, prompted by the cli-mate, the absence of a state incometax, and the development of theSpace Coast and then Disney World.

Florida developed the first-everstatewide biodiversity assessmentand plan in 1994 and backed it upwith an aggressive conservation pro-gram – half of the priority conservationlands identified in a recent study bythe University of Florida have alreadybeen set aside.

Unfortunately, the pressures to devel-op are intense, and the plight of theFlorida panther has made it the"poster child" of the conservationmovement: Panther habitat has dimin-ished so rapidly there are less than80 adults left, and the big cats arekilled with alarming frequency along astretch of road so notorious it’s called"Slaughter Alley."22

But in the southwestern part of thestate where development pressuresare most overwhelming and threatenthe integrity of the Everglades and BigCypress Swamp, developers them-selves have begun initiating broad-based smart growth visioning efforts."They’re just tired of butting headsover every single development per-mit," says Mike Bauer of the AudubonSociety.

Tremendous Challenge And Tremendous Opportunity

“People who wantimproved quality oflife cause sprawl.They’re not thought-less people. They don’twant to ruin the verything they came herefor.”

Page 15

1) Create incentives for smartgrowth advocates and conservation-ists to work together, and fund col-laborations that can help communi-ties decide where and where not tobuild. Document work that hasalready been done and fund communi-cations efforts about the benefits of"biodiversity friendly communities"that protect ecological resources bypursuing smart growth strategies.

Smart growth and conservation fun-ders should fund explicit collaborationsbetween decision-makers, land trusts,advocates, scientists, planners anddevelopers. Impressively broad-basedefforts have begun to integrate biodi-versity concerns into the land useplanning process across the U.S. -- instates and in cities, in the pristine wildand the metropolitan wild. Collabora-tive campaigns should tap into theconsiderable expertise that is develop-ing to deliver good science into thedecision-making process, and shouldutilize the policy analysis that’s beendone by organizations like the Environ-mental Law Institute, Natural HeritageInstitute and Defenders of Wildlife.

Tim Davis of the Montana SmartGrowth Coalition emphasizes that con-cerns about wildlife and wilderness –or, in more urban areas, concernsabout open space -- can bring every-one to the table to talk about growthmanagement, even property rightsadvocates. Alan Front of the Trust forPublic Land and Emily Tibbott of theNature Conservancy point out that pro-tecting lands by working through thetransportation and land use planningprocess – through advance mitigationfor transportation projects and in gen-eral plans – is much cheaper than out-right acquisition.

There is tremendous hunger amongadvocates for information about howother advocates are working together

on these issues. The EnvironmentalLaw Institute’s Jessica Wilkinson sayssome splashy success stories areneeded to help inspire abiodiversity/smart growth movement.ELI is part of the Consortium onBiodiversity Conservation and LandUse Planning (along with Defenders ofWildlife, Nature Serve and IslandPress), which is researching the barri-ers to integrating biodiversity data intothe land use planning process withthe intent of publishing a best prac-tices manual that also profiles com-munities where this is being success-fully done. A group of funders mightalso commission papers for a confer-ence on smart growth and biodiversity,use the conference to bring theauthors together with advocates, andthen edit the papers and conferenceproceedings into a book.

2) Support analysis and education tohelp decision-makers and the publicbetter understand the benefits ofsmart growth and biodiversity conser-vation and, conversely, the costs ofunplanned growth. This work canalso foster collaborations by translat-ing the benefits of smart growth intobiodiversity conservation terms.

There are several excellent sources ofbiodiversity information, but the datastill isn’t used in the land use plan-ning process because planners don’tknow the resources exists, don’t knowhow to use them, and have little incen-tive to do so. Funders can help makethis information more usable, and tofoster collaborations between conser-vation and smart growth advocates,who can demand that biodiversity isconsidered.

Dana Beach, in Coastal Sprawl, writesabout how important it is for munici-palities and regions to understandtheir growth patterns and to assessalternatives to conventional sprawl.

Ways That Funders Can Make A Difference

GIS technology makes it possible tooverlay maps of growth projectionswith maps of road networks, and tointegrate information about air andwater quality, terrestrial and aquatichabitats and other regional resources.This kind of visual analysis of differentgrowth scenarios and their impacts –and the kind of planning and zoningchanges necessary to create them --is invaluable for communities facedwith important land-use decisions.Beach notes that during research forhis report he could locate only twocoastal regions that had utilized digi-tized images to project future land-usepatterns.

Analysis of the costs and benefits ofgrowth has been skewed heavilytoward development that, according toconventional wisdom, increases localproperty tax revenues and fuels eco-nomic expansion. Conservation, onthe other hand, is thought to beexpensive, especially when it inhibitseconomic activities. Only recently havethe costs of development been morecarefully documented. The aesthetic,recreational, ecological and other non-market values of conservation haveyet to be quantified in a manner thatpresents local decision-makers withreliable and balanced informationupon which to base decisions.

3) Showcase collaborative planningefforts illustrating that better andmore comprehensive up-front plan-ning can reduce costly delays, mitiga-tion measures and lawsuits.

Collaborations around the countryshow great potential for yielding win-win situations both for advocates con-cerned about smart growth and/or bio-diversity conservation and for govern-ment agencies concerned about costlyproject delivery delays. The NatureConservancy’s collaborations withstate departments of transportationshow particular promise, as does acommunity-based comprehensive plan-

ning effort being mounted in Portland,Oregon to design a biodiversity-sensi-tive expansion of the urban growthboundary that actually improves habi-tat and especially salmon-bearingstreams. Another effort to watch isthe ambitious attempt to integrate ageneral plan update, long-range trans-portation plan and a multiple-specieshabitat conservation plan in RiversideCounty, California.

The traditional approach to transporta-tion and land use planning and envi-ronmental protection invites conflictand lawsuits at the back-end becausethere isn’t enough up-front planning toaddress issues before a particularproject or course of action has beenselected. Not only does the traditionalproject-by-project approval processslow down project delivery, it alsoresults in a piecemeal approach toenvironmental protection that doesn’taddress the cumulative impacts ofprojects and contributes little to theviability of species and habitats andecosystems. An integrated mappingand comprehensive planning effortinvolving all stakeholders is the key,and these efforts should be show-cased.

4) Support informed analysis, educa-tion and debate on critical publicpolicy and spending issues - such astransportation, coastal zone manage-ment, and water - at the national,state, metropolitan and local levels.For example, philanthropic supportwill be crucial to assurethat neces-sary information analysis, educationand public debate occursregardingthe outcomes that will be advancedby the reauthorization ofTEA21.

Federal law has special influence overtransportation because so many proj-ects include federal funding. For thisreason, federal transportation fundingis perhaps the most important deter-minant of regional growth patterns.Passage of the watershed Intermodal

Page 16

Not only does the tra-ditional project-by-project [transporta-tion] approval processslow down projectdelivery, it also resultsin a piecemealapproach to environ-mental protection thatdoesn’t address thecumulative impacts ofprojects and con-tributes little to theviability of species andhabitats and ecosys-tems. An integratedmapping and compre-hensive planningeffort involving allstakeholders is the key,and these effortsshould be showcased.

Page 17

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act(ISTEA) in 1991 began requiring publicparticipation in the planning process,mandated consideration of land useplans and funding constraints,required Clean Air Act conformity, andmade funding available for projectsthat mitigated the impact of trans-portation systems. The TransportationEquity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21) made more funding available forenvironmentally friendly projects, creat-ed a special program to link trans-portation and land use, and asked fora study of road density on habitat.

Transportation activists and wildlifeand wilderness advocates are puttingtogether a wish list for TEA-3, andstate departments of naturalresources are making TEA-3 a top leg-islative priority because of their con-cerns. Environmental streamlining, asmentioned above, is a key concern,but there will also be opportunity toincrease funding for mitigation meas-ures and to provide for more compre-hensive planning that includes consid-eration of biodiversity.

Other federal legislation providesother opportunities, and should bemonitored. A concerted effort by advo-cates helped double funding for con-servation programs, including the pur-chase of development rights and con-servation easements, in this year’sFarm Bill. The Coastal ZoneManagement Act could provide fundsfor regional land-use analysis, andwork has begun on a water bill thatwill, like ISTEA, make funding availablefor environmentally friendly projects, orgreen infrastructure, including openspace protection, acquisition of con-servation easements and bufferzones, and that will recognize thewater quality/land use connection byencouraging low-impact developmentand smart growth.

5) Provide incentives for interactionbetween science, policy andactivism. Fund fellowships for earlycareer scientists at non-profit institu-tions that work on conservation andsmart growth.

Michael Klemens is both a scientistand chair of a local planning commis-sion, allowing him to bridge the worldsof science and policy. He believes it’scritical that other scientists be willingto help interpret data for informeddecision-making. Unfortunately, hesays, scientists are typically detachedfrom the worlds of policy and advoca-cy, preferring to do only the kind ofwork that gets them published orother traditional academic rewards.

The biggest problem with science asan institution, he says, is that it refus-es to come to terms with the need toapply what has been learned. "Thedegree of certainty now required is adisincentive for scientists to applywhat they know," says Klemens."Scientists believe they can’t be advo-cates. They can document extinctionbut they can’t use that information tobecome actors for change."

Funders ought to encourage academicinstitutions to reward those who workon applied science instead of onlythose who get their work published,Klemens says. "We need to develop acadre of scientists who have the tech-nical ability to frame research ques-tions that have both ecosystem man-agement and public policy implica-tions, develop the research to find theanswer, and communicate those find-ings by actively engaging decision-makers."

6) The biggest challenge to conserv-ing biodiversity is on private lands;support strategies, like the purchaseof development rights, that result innon-regulatory, voluntary or incentive-based stewardship and help maintainworking landscapes. Unless ruraleconomies are maintained, ranchersand farmers have no choice but to sellto developers.

Since 1997 more than 20 states haveenacted laws that provide state fundsfor acquisition of development rights(PDR) or that encourage the donationof conservation easements throughincome tax credits. PDR programsenable land conservation at greatlyreduced expense because the cost ofPDR is less than the outright purchaseof lands, and costs associated withsubsequent land management remainthe responsibility of the landowner. Asa component of growth managementstrategies, PDR programs can alsoprovide a hedge against sprawl, andprevent the loss of prime farmlandand ranchland and the fragmentationof habitat.

These cooperative, public-private part-nerships are especially valuable in theWest, where property rights protectionhas stalled the protection of openlands, and where acquisitions areexpensive due to the large size of landparcels. The most politically success-ful PDR programs provide matchinggrants to local governments in partner-ship with nonprofit groups, furtheremphasizing local, private land stew-ardship.

PDR programs keep farmers andranchers on the land, contributing tothe local tax base. Moreover, PDR pro-grams enable landowners to exercisetheir personal choice, make financiallyadvantageous decisions and preservean important legacy for future genera-tions. (Since property values are typi-cally reduced by 40-75 percent whendevelopment rights are extinguished,

PDR programs help with inheritancetax dilemmas.)

PDR programs report their biggestchallenge is meeting demand. TheAmerican Farmland Trust reports thatfor every landowner who sold ease-ments in 1995, six were turned away.By showcasing these strategies, fun-ders can help build political supportfor more funding.

7) Help to bridge the rifts that aredeveloping between environmental-ists and New Urbanists, and thosethat already exist between environ-mentalists and traditional land-basedcultures. If shared values can beidentified and differences overcome,the potential for powerful collabora-tions can be realized instead.

The watersheds of New Mexico andSouthern Colorado are a stronghold ofland-based culture and traditional envi-ronmental knowledge. "Acequia"means irrigation ditch but also thecommunity of farmers who own themin common and manage them as aparticipatory democracy. These hand-dug earthen canals are important tolocal ecology, and they have supporteda land-based way of life over genera-tions and indigenous farming methodsthat have enhanced agro-ecologicalbiodiversity.

But in recent years the demand forwater has reached unprecedented lev-els, and efforts to maintain sufficientwater levels in rivers to supportendangered fish have pitted environ-mentalists against land-based vil-lagers who need the water to irrigate.The real problem is the transfer ofwater rights to large irrigation districtthat support agribusiness interests tothe south. Neither environmentalistsnor land-based villagers want to seethe kind of rampant growth and frag-mentation of habitat that is occurringall over the West. A facilitated processwould help all parties realize their

Page 18

The most politicallysuccessful PDR pro-grams provide match-ing grants to localgovernments inpartnership withnonprofit groups,further emphasizinglocal, private landstewardship.

Page 19

common interests, and to collaborateinstead of fight.

Rifts have also developed betweenNew Urbanists and environmentalists,who argue that nature is being sacri-ficed on the altar of urbanism. AndresDuany, co-founder of the Congress forNew Urbanism, is fond of saying wecouldn’t build Olmsted’s necklace ofparks along the Chicago Lakefront orcreate Barcelona’s Ramblas becauseenvironmentalists would insist on leav-ing the lakefront undisturbed and thecreek under the Ramblas exposed.Duany’s hyperbole has an element oftruth, but it’s no less true that even inenvironmentally sensitive cities likePortland there’s a tendency to write-offhabitat and species in order to solveother problems.

Significant biodiversity exists in citiesand suburbs, and proper design andplanting makes a difference. TheCongress for New Urbanism, theNatural Resources Defense Counciland the U.S. Green Building Councilare all meeting to better understandhow new urbanism interacts with thenatural environment. A key part of thiscollaboration should be to develop abetter understanding of the waysdesigners can integrate habitat into

urban and suburban design withoutsacrificing urbanism.

8) Fund the creation of models andcommunication efforts that distill anddisseminate the benefits of "biodiver-sity friendly communities" that pro-tect ecological resources and pursuesmart growth strategies.

Communities and regions all over theU.S. are attempting to integrate con-cerns about biodiversity conservationinto land use planning efforts – in theWillamette Valley in Oregon, in PimaCounty, Arizona, in Massachusetts.The planning of a biodiversity-sensitiveexpansion of the urban growth bound-ary in Portland is one such effort;another is the discussion in theWillamette Valley that should be care-fully watched.

The Consortium on BiodiversityConservation and Land Use Planning –which includes the Environmental LawInstitute, Defenders of Wildlife, NatureServe and Island Press – is conduct-ing research into why this work is sodifficult, with the intent of creating atoolbox that will help advance theseefforts.

Page 20

Could this be the tipping point?Developers, landowners, advocatesand government agencies all want cer-tainty about which lands can be devel-oped and which cannot. Notes theSonoran Institute’s Ray Rasker, "Wedon’t want to conserve it all – andthat’s the perfect message for devel-opers."

Back in Oregon, a team of scientistshas recently concluded that habitatand environmental quality in theWillamette Basin around Portlandcould be improved even if populationdoubles in the next 50 years.23

Oregon Biodiversity Project DirectorSara Vickerman ponders what it wouldtake:

"More regulations aren’t politicallyuntenable. We’d have to spend somemoney. And provide real incentives tolandowners to manage for ecologicalvalue. We’d have to engage the publicin a dialogue about the future. Andarticulate a bold new vision. But I’mconvinced we could do it – in Oregonand elsewhere."

Meantime, in Portland, as Metro, theregional government, contemplatesexpanding the urban growth boundary,a community-based comprehensiveplanning effort is taking place, todesign an urban growth expansionarea that will actually improve habitatand salmon-bearing streams. Mountedby 1000 Friends of Oregon and the

Coalition for A Livable Future, thedesign process will consider issuesregarding water, transportation, biodi-versity, aesthetics, a sense of commu-nity, food production, the economy -- tocite just a few of the goals and objec-tives – in one planning process.24

It’s a textbook example of the idealprocess outlined by Harvard plannerand author Richard Forman, whoacknowledges the looming crises ofsprawl and biodiversity loss but con-cludes development and nature arenot incompatible. What it does, hewrites, is put land use at centerstage, and positions land planners inkey roles to effect change.

"Indeed a spatial solution is emerging. . .," he writes in Landscape Ecology.But we must plan and manage theurban landscape as only one of sever-al linked landscapes that must beconsidered together, he writes, in anapproach that demands a willingnessto address all environmental andhuman issues in one comprehensiveplanning process.

"We plan for the short term but rarelyplan over human generations,"Forman writes in Land Mosaics."Landscapes and regions . . . are asurrogate for long-term . . . when wemake wise decisions for landscapes,and especially regions, we manifestsustainable thinking and act forhuman generations."

Conclusion: The Tipping Point?

“We’d have to spendsome money. Andprovide real incen-tives to landowners tomanage for ecologicalvalue. We’d have toengage the public ina dialogue about thefuture. And articu-late a bold newvision. But I’mconvinced we coulddo it.”

ResourcesPeople who helped with preparation of this report (in addition to those quoted):American Farmland Trust, John McCallAmerican Rivers, Betsy OttoAmerican Wildlands, Kim DavittBiodiversity Project, Cindy CoffinDefenders of Wildlife, Laura Hood Watchman, Trisha WhiteEndangered Habitats League, Dan SilverFlorida Wildlife Federation, Manley Fuller National Wildlife Federation: Kevin Doyle, Jan Hasselman, John

Kostyak, Brad Nunley and Caron WhitakerNatural Resources Defense Council, Deron LovaasThe Nature Conservancy, Steve McCormick , Michael O’ConnellNew Mexico Acequia Association, Paula GarciaSmart Growth America, Don ChenSurface Transportation Policy Project, David Burwell and Kevin

McCarty1000 Friends of Washington, Tim TrohimovichThe Wilderness Society, Thea Levkowitz and Janice ThompsonWildlands Center for Preventing Roads, Bethanie WilderUniversity of California at Davis, Institute for Transportation Studies,

Dan Sperling

BooksBalancing Nature and Commerce in Gateway Communities, by Jim

Howe, Ed McMahon, and Luther Probst, the Conservation Fund and the Sonoran Institute, Island Press, 1997.

Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions, by Richard Forman, Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Landscape Ecology: Principles in Landscape Architecture and Land Use Planning, Wenche Dramstad, James Olson and Richard Forman, Island Press, 1996.

Oregon’s Living Landscape: Strategies and Opportunities to Conserve Biodiversity, by the Oregon Biodiversity Project, a Defenders of Wildlife Publication, 1998.

Toward a Sustainable Future: Addressing the Long-Term Effects of Motor Vehicle Transportation on Climate and Ecology, Transportation Research Board Special Report 251.

Page 21

Reports and Papers"A Citizen’s Guide to Transportation Planning and Wildlife Issues in the U.S. Northern

Rockies," by Kim Davitt, American Wildlands, September 2001."Coastal Sprawl: The Effects of Urban Design on Aquatic Ecosystems in the U.S.," by

Dana Beach of the South Carolina Coastal Commission for the Pew Oceans Commission, 2001.

"The Ecological Effects of Roads," by Reed Noss for Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads.

"The Forgotten Landscape: Ecosystem Conservation at the Suburban-Rural Frontier," by Michael Klemens, Metropolitan Conservation Alliance.

"A Fragile Cornucopia: Assessing the State of U.S. Biodiversity," by Bruce Stein, Environment, September 2001.

"Frayed Safety Nets: Conservation Planning Under the Endangered Species Act," by Laura Hood for Defenders of Wildlife.

"The Global 200: A Representative Approach to Conserving the Earth’s Distinctive Ecoregions," the World Wildlife Fund-U.S. Conservation Science Program, October 2000.

"Humans and Other Catastrophes: Perspectives on Extinction," the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation at the American Museum of Natural History

"Innovative State Strategies for Biodiversity Conservation," Environmental Law Institute First State Biodiversity Symposium Research Report, 001.

"Measures Across Sites: A Preliminary Summary," The Nature Conservancy, September 2000.

"National Stewardship Initiatives: Conservation Strategies for U.S. Landowners," by Sara Vickerman, Defenders of Wildlife.

"Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical Review of the Interactions between Land use, Transportation, and Environmental Quality, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000.

"No Place for Nature: The Limits of Oregon’s Land Use Program in Protecting Fish and Wildlife Habitat in the Willamette Valley," by Pam Wiley for Defenders of Wildlife and the Oregon Biodiversity Project, 2001, at www.Biodiversity partners.org/Wiley.

"Paved Over and Pushed Out," by Eddie Nickens, in the National Wildlife Federation National Wildlife magazine, August/September 2001.

"Paving Paradise: Sprawl’s Impact on Wildlife and Wild Places in California," National Wildlife Federation, February 2001.

"Preserving Working Ranches in the West," The Sonoran Institute, 1997."The Purchase of Development Rights," Western Governor’s Association, Trust for

Public Land, National Cattleman’s Beef Association."Restoring a River of Life: The Willamette Restoration Strategy," the Willamette

Restoration Initiative, February 2001."Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities, by

Stephen Trombulak and Christopher Frissell, Conservation Biology, Vol. 14, No. 1, February 2000.

"State Biodiversity Strategies," by Susan George, State Biodiversity Clearinghouse, Defenders of Wildlife, January 2001.

"The Value of Agriculture and Agricultural Land in Maintaining Biodiversity," James McDougal and Michael Klemens, Metropolitan Conservation Alliance.

"Where Property Rights and Biodiversity Converge: Lessons From Experience in Habitat Conservation Planning," by Greg Thomas, the Natural Heritage Institute, March 2000.

Page 22

WebsitesAmerican Farmland Trust, www.aft.orgAmerican Wildlands, www.wildlands.orgBiodiversity Project, www.biodiverse.orgCenter for Transportation and the Environment,www.itre.ncsu.edu/cte (for information on the InternationalConference on Ecology and Transportation on ecologically soundtransportation practices)Conservation Fund, www.greeninfrastructure.orgCraighead Environmental Research Institute, www.grizzlybear.orgDefenders of Wildlife, www.defenders.orgEnvironmental Law Institute, www.eli.orgGap Analysis Program, www.gap.uidaho.eduGreater Yellowstone Coalition, www.greateryellowstone.orgLand Trust Alliance, www.lta.orgMetropolitan Conservation Alliance, www.wcs.orgMontana Smart Growth Coalition, www.msgc.orgThe Nature Conservancy, www.tnc.orgNatureServe, www.natureserve.org.National Wildlife Federation, www.nwf.orgOregon Biodiversity Project, www.biodiversitypartners.orgSierra Business Council, www.sbc.org.Sonoran Institute, www.sonoran.orgTrust for Public Land, www.tpl.orgWildlands Center for Preventing Roads, www.wildlandscpr.orgYellowstone to Yukon Initiative, www.rockies.ca/y2y

Page 23

Hooper Brooks, Chair L. Benjamin Starrett, Executive Director

Working to strengthen funders’ individual and collective abilities to support organizations promoting smartgrowth and creating livable communities

Collins Center for Public Policy, Inc. 150 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 709 Miami, Florida 33131Phone: 305-377-4484, ext. 15Fax: 305-377-4485Email: bstarrett@collinscenter.orgwww.fundersnetwork.org

1. Edward O. Wilson, Harvard University, in his introduction to colleague and planner Richard Forman’s book, Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions, Cambridge University Press, 1995.

2. "Our Built and Natural Environment: A Technical Review of the Interactions Between Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Quality," The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000, publication # EPA 231-R-01-0002, available at www.smartgrowth.org.

3. Ibid., except for the statement that " development has consumed a third of our most productive farmland," which is from "Farming on the Edge: A New Look at the Importance and Vulnerability of Agriculture Near American Cities," 1994,American Farmland Trust.

4. "Gateway Communities," by Edward T. McMahon, Planning Commissioners Journal, No. 34, spring 1999.5. Ibid.6. "Measures Across Sites: A Preliminary Summary," the Nature Conservancy, Site Conservation Program, Conservation

Science Division, September 25, 2000.7. "Coastal Sprawl," prepared for the Pew Oceans Commission by Dana Beach of the Southern California Coastal

Conservation League, 2001.8. "Our Built and Natural Environment," EPA.9. Ibid.10. "Paving Paradise: Sprawl’s Impact on Wildlife and Wild Places in California," National Wildlife Federation, February 2001.11. "Humans and Other Catastrophes: Perspectives on Extinction," prepared by the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation at

the American Museum of Natural History. The report is a summary of presentations and discussions at a two-day symposium on extinction at the center in April 1997.

12. Mike Houck, Audubon Society of Portland, speech at the "Grow Smart Washington" conference sponsored by 1000 Friends of Washington and the National Wildlife Federation.

13. "Coastal Sprawl," Pew Oceans Commission.14. Oregon Biodiversity Project, www.biodiversitypartners.org/obp.html. 15. "No Place for Nature," by Pam Wiley for Defenders of Wildlife, www.biodiversitypartners.org/Wiley/.16. "A Citizens Guide to Transportation Planning and Wildlife Issues in the U.S. Northern Rockies," 2001, by Kim Davitt for the

Wildlands Project, www.wildlands.org.17. "The Ecological Effects of Roads," by Reed Noss for Wildlands CPR, www.wildlandscpr.org/resourcelibrary/reports/

ecoleffectsroads.html18. Ibid.19. The Land Trust Alliance, www.lta.org.20. The Conservation Fund, www.conservationfund.org.21. The Sonoran Institute, www.sonoran.org.22. Defenders of Wildlife "Habitat and Highways" campaign, www.defenders.org/habitat/highways.23. The Willamette Restoration Initiative, www.oregonwri.org.24. Damascus Community Design Workshop Goals and Objectives, March 2002, 1000 Friends of Oregon.

Endnotes (continued)