The Importance of Plannning for Wildlife Habitat Protection

  Ralph Willmer, AICP
  Session: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 - 8:45a.m. Author Info 

ABSTRACT

Many communities around the country prepare comprehensive plans that carefully examine local conditions that may have some bearing on future land use decision-making. This paper advocates that communities incorporate wildlife habitat preservation into this planning process and describes the principles that govern how it could be accomplished. The underlying purpose for this is to ensure that human activities and land use decisions have a minimal impact on efforts to preserve wildlife habitat and the diverse wildlife populations they support. APA's policy on endangered species and habitat protection also is described.

INTRODUCTION

Wildlife habitat preservation has historically been achieved through federal regulation of animal and plant species once a decision has been made that they have become threatened or endangered. This after-the-fact protection falls short of the planning principles espoused over the years by planners and the American Planning Association (APA). A better approach is to incorporate wildlife habitat preservation into the planning process on a local and regional level. This is done in an effort to identify key habitat areas, important environmental resources to support the habitat, the threatened and endangered species, and the corridors in which they travel.

There are numerous reasons to elevate wildlife habitat considerations in the planning process, which will be elaborated on in this paper. One need only see the local newspaper or television news broadcast to see sensationalized stories about foxes, coyotes, moose, and other unexpected visitors encountering humans in their backyards. Sensationalism aside, some of these meetings result in injuries. However, they illustrate a larger concern, which is that new development continues to encroach on and fragment wildlife habitat, further increasing the opportunities for conflict.

APA has recognized the need to address wildlife habitat as part of the planning process on the local and regional basis. In April 1999, the Board of Directors ratified a Policy Guide on Endangered Species and Habitat Protection after adoption by the Chapter Delegate Assembly. The policy guide recommends specific planning initiatives to enhance protection of wildlife habitat. The guide further dictates APA's policy regarding the pending re-authorization of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). APA's policies will be elaborated on in this paper as well.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WILDLIFE HABITAT

It is important to note that environmental policy and development standards cannot preserve wildlife without protecting habitat. When habitat is threatened or disappears, wildlife is threatened as well. Wildlife habitat regardless of whether it is upland or wetland habitat, is significant because of a number of functions it performs to support wildlife.

Wildlife needs adequate space and habitat for the following basic life requirements:

The amount of viable wildlife habitat has been declining at a fairly rapid pace over the years. Although scientists can point to a number of individual reasons for the decline, it is the cumulative impact of these environmental stresses that has exacerbated the problem. Among the most significant reasons for the decline in wildlife habitat is the effect of urbanization. As urban and suburban boundaries expand, and as available open space is consumed, there is an obvious decrease in the quantity and quality of habitat and its ability to perform the life sustaining functions identified above.

It is not only the development pressures that has had an impact, but also agricultural operations that reduce cover, the draining of wetlands for development or agriculture, and the construction of new infrastructure that has combined to reduce productive habitat lands. The result of the patchwork left from such development and supporting activities is the fragmentation of wildlife habitat and the disruption of wildlife corridors.

These are the pressures that necessitate the call for planners to recognize identification and protection of wildlife habitat as one of the outcomes of a local and regional planning process, just as transportation, infrastructure, or housing would be integral elements.

There are a number of reasons why habitat protection is gaining more attention at the local and regional level. They are described in a recent Planning Advisory Service report, Habitat Protection Planning — Where the Wild Things Are, which served as the basis for the APA Policy Guide. Many people believe that the presence of abundant wildlife represents an improvement in the quality of life. Although this feeling can be difficult to quantify, anecdotal evidence suggests that homes located adjacent to open spaces where wildlife may flourish tend to sell faster and at higher prices than those sited within the more developed areas. Similarly, there appears to be an ethical and moral obligation to protect wildlife and minimize the impacts of development.

The recreational, tourism, and economic benefits of preserving wildlife diversity are easier to quantify. Passive recreational activities such as hiking and birdwatching, or active recreational opportunities including hunting and fishing are obviously dependent upon wildlife. These activities translate into direct and secondary expenditures by participants for equipment, lodging, food, and licenses that fueled the tourism industry in those locations.

Finally, if local and regional government takes action on its own accord to protect wildlife habitat, it was thought that the potential for federal intrusion could be minimized. The listing a species as either endangered or threatened under the federal ESA results in federal jurisdiction in the decision-making process involving wildlife habitat. This creates an incentive for local and regional entities to plan for wildlife habitat protection in an effort to minimize the chance of federal efforts to list species. Local and state plans to address wildlife issues also can be more flexible than the provisions of ESA, which only protects wildlife species once they are listed — after there has already been degradation of the habitat.

CURRENT TRENDS

As a result of the current dispute in Congress regarding the re-authorization of ESA, the topic of endangered species and habitat protection has been the subject of rancorous and sometimes emotional debate. To date, Congress has yet to pass new legislation as a great deal of attention is spent on the issue of whether protection of endangered species is equivalent to a taking without compensation. Thus, the federal role in habitat preservation continues to be after-the-fact protection of only those species deemed to be endangered or threatened, whose listing may be subject to political as well as scientific considerations.

Although the federal role seems to be diminishing, some states and local governmental entities are taking the initiative to enact habitat protection laws and regulations that seek to preclude the need for listing species as threatened or endangered. The rationale for these efforts were described earlier.

An oft-cited example is the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program prepared by the California Department of Fish and Game and the California Resources Agency for southern California in 1991, which served in part as a model for the APA Policy Guide. The primary objective of this program, in contrast to ESA, is to preserve habitat before it becomes necessary to protect a resident species under ESA. Thus, the program seeks to incorporate habitat planning so that land uses compatible with that plan can be accommodated. The key to success is the necessary public-private partnerships that allow public agencies to base land use decisions upon the voluntary conservation plans prepared by private landowners.

Specifically, there are a number of ways in which the NCCP program complements and improves on traditional approaches such as ESA, including

It is important to remember that land use decision-making occurs on the local level. This is the basis for incorporating habitat protection into the local comprehensive planning process. At the same time, coordination between local entities within a region is essential since wildlife habitat does not coincide with political boundaries. Harmful, irreversible impacts can occur without regional cooperation if only a portion of an animals range is protected or if wildlife corridors are interrupted.

PLANNING FOR HABITAT PROTECTION

In order to ensure adequate consideration of habitat planning into the comprehensive planning process, there are several points to keep in mind. Habitat protection ideally should be integrated into the planning document as a stand-alone element, similar to housing, transportation, or open space. It also can be included as part of the natural resources/environmental analysis that is usually made part of such plans. In doing so, it is important to think of habitat in the regional environmental context and not just at a local level because wildlife habitat does not confine itself to political boundaries. Therefore, it will be necessary to thoroughly identify and evaluate important resource areas such as rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands, for example, to determine their value as wildlife habitat to meet the basic life functions described above.

The PAS report cited above, Habitat Protection Planning — Where the Wild Things Are, (2) lists seven biological principles for habitat protection (pp. 11 — 16). Comprehension and consideration of these principles is important for the ultimate success of the habitat planning effort. These principles are supported by biological studies, many of which are cited in the report. The assistance of a wildlife biologist will be useful in understanding how these principles should be applied.

Principle 1. Maintain Large, Intact Patches of Native vegetation by preventing Fragmentation of those Patches by Development.

As part of the inventory of natural resources, vegetated open spaces should be identified and mapped. The larger patches of native vegetation support habitat for food, shelter and breeding for a greater number and diversity of wildlife species. Knowledge of the location of these resources assist in adopting land use policies that attempt to minimize development in those areas. The size of the vegetated patches influences wildlife population size, which also determines the persistence of the population within the habitat.

Principle 2. Establish Priorities for Species Protection and Protect Habitats that Promote the Distribution and Abundance of those Species.

It is recommended that some thought be given as to the ranking of habitat priorities for conservation. To do so, it will be necessary to understand the habitat needs of the identified species. Generally, individual species have specific requirements that must be met if a particular habitat can support it. This may include a specific food source or shelter type for breeding.

Principle 3. Protect Rare Landscape Elements. Guide Development Toward Areas with More Common Landscape Elements.

This inventory encompasses more than just identifying the vegetative features described in Principle 1. Environmental resources such as old growth forests, topographic features, wetlands, and water bodies that support threatened or endangered species need to be identified so that development can be steered away from these sensitive resources. Therefore, development can be encouraged in areas where the habitat does not contain features that are particular to the rarer wildlife species.

Principle 4. Maintain Connections among Wildlife Habitats by Identifying and Protecting Corridors for Movement.

Ideally, wildlife corridors should be identified and mapped, along with the smaller patches of vegetation that provide cover, breeding and food for wildlife as it moves, either at different times of the year for seasonal migration or travel within its range. Fragmentation of habitat and blockage of existing corridors may reduce the area of available habitat and can create problems associated with isolation and inbreeding.

Principle 5. Maintain Significant Ecological Processes such as Fires and Floods in Protected Areas.

It is recognized that certain ecological processes perform important functions in maintaining the balance necessary to support plant and animal populations. Planners can work with wildlife experts to identify those processes that are important in ensuring the long-term viability of the priority species within a given habitat.

Principle 6. Contribute to the Regional Persistence of Rare Species by Protecting Some of their Habitat Locally.

Wildlife habitat may be mapped at the regional or state level for those species that may be threatened or endangered. Such areas should be included in local habitat planning efforts to ensure a more coordinated approach to habitat protection.

Principle 7. Balance the Opportunity for Public Recreation with the Habitat Needs of Wildlife.

Private recreation areas tend to be used less often than those areas open to the public. To the extent feasible, some protected wildlife habitat areas should remain within private recreational lands. On public lands, some recreational uses may need to be regulated in order to minimize the impact of intrusion by human activities on the resident wildlife.

APA'S POLICY GUIDE ON ENDANGERED SPECIES AND HABITAT PROTECTION

In April 1999, the APA Chapter Delegate Assembly adopted a new policy guide on endangered species and habitat Protection.(3) The impetus for the policy guide is the ongoing debate over the re-authorization of ESA, which has languished in Congress over a number of issues. It is recognized by the organization that pro-active habitat planning as described in this paper is a better overall approach to wildlife protection than listing species as threatened or endangered, which then may result in efforts to preserve the habitat of the listed species.

At the same time, APA understands the need to have that strategy as a "safety net" for those listed species. However, APA believes that a planning approach is far more appropriate than merely listing species after they have become threatened. Thus, the policy guide attempts to demonstrate that such an approach should be incorporated into ESA, but also is written to encourage planners to adopt wildlife habitat protection principles into local and regional planning efforts.

The findings of the policy guide conclude that wildlife preservation is a core function of government and that protecting natural systems functions is critical to the support of human, animal and plant populations. All levels of government need to act cooperatively in order to achieve effective wildlife habitat planning and protection. Although it helps to avoid extinction, most laws tend to focus on after-the-fact protection of endangered species rather than on prevention.

Despite ESA's stated purpose "to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved...", there are no mechanisms in the statute to accomplish this. Moreover, regional implementation of ESA varies.

ESA requires a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) be prepared when an "incidental take permit" is issued that allows an activity to proceed even though it may negatively impact a listed species. The HCP must describe the potential impacts of the proposed action; the steps taken to minimize and mitigate the impacts; the funding available to implement those steps; the alternatives considered; and the reasons why the alternatives were not adopted. While HCP's encourage private-public partnerships, the findings to the policy guide state that more incentives are needed to protect additional habitat. ESA has a provision called the "no surprises" rule that provides assurances to landowners that the HCP will not change over the life of the plan. APA believes this can create static plans that may fail and cannot be corrected.

APA's Policy Guide includes the following specific policies:

CONCLUSION

It is critical that efforts are made to incorporate natural resource protection at all levels of government in order to protect natural communities prior to species or their habitats becoming endangered or extinct. This concept of natural community planning should be an integral and required element of local government comprehensive plans. As local units of government and state and federal agencies voluntarily work to protect habitats using their authorities in their areas of jurisdiction, there is reduced need for a regulatory approach.

REFERENCES
1. California Department of Fish and Game, Innovation in Multi-Species Protection in the Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat of Southern California, Report to the Legislature on the NCCP, August 1995
2. Duerksen, Christopher J. et al, Habitat Protection Planning — Where the Wild Things Are, American Planning Association Planning Advisory Service Report Number 470/47, Chicago, IL, May 1997, pp. 1 - 3.
3. For a full copy of the Policy Guide, please call APA's Washington office at (202) 872-0611 or check the web site at www.planning.org.

Author and Copyright Information

Copyright 2000 By Author

Author and Copyright Information

Copyright 2000 By Author

RALPH R. WILLMER, AICP, is the Director of Environmental Planning at McGregor & Associates in Boston, MA. He has received a B.S. in Resource Management from the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry at Syracuse and a Masters Degree in Urban and Environmental Policy from Tufts University. He has 20 years of experience in the fields of environmental impact assessment, land use planning, hazardous and solid waste management, citizen participation, policy formulation, environmental advocacy, and wetlands and water resource protection. He has rewritten zoning codes, health rules, and subdivision regulations and has worked on project teams to prepare master plans and open space plans for many municipalities. As project manager for private development projects, he has coordinated the environmental impact review and permitting processes before all federal, state, and local agencies. Similarly, he has reviewed projects on behalf of municipalities and citizen groups. Mr. Willmer also works to oversee complicated remediation and waste management projects where he acts as a liaison between the clients, consultants, and agencies to ensure timely completion of projects.

Mr. Willmer recently taught a seminar at the Harvard Graduate School of Design on growth management and smart growth. He has authored numerous reports and articles on land use and environmental topics.

Mr. Willmer is a member of the American Planning Association (APA) National Board of Directors, the Immediate Past-President of the Massachusetts Chapter of APA, and is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP). He is an active member of the Massachusetts Solid Waste Advisory Committee, Massachusetts Association of Consulting Planners, New England Association of Environmental Professionals and other organizations.

Mr. Willmer won the 1998 Distinguished Contribution Award from APA for his efforts on planning legislation and policy. A cost of community services and build-out analysis project conducted for the Southern New England Forest Consortium has won awards from the MA and RI chapters of APA.

 Mr. Willmer can be reached at (617) 338-6464 x26 or at rwillmer@mcgregorlaw.com