Translation Paper
Number Ten
October 2002
*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.
Biodiversity and Smart Growth:
Sprawl Threatens Our Natural Heritage
This paper was written in collaboration with the Funders’ Network by Gloria
Ohland, a former journalist who has worked on smart growth and transporta-
tion issues for the Surface Transportation Policy Project and now the Great
American Station Foundation*, and by Hank Dittmar, president of the Great
American Station Foundation, a member of the Funders’ Network for Smart
Growth and Livable Communities. This is the tenth in the series of translation
papers published by the Funders’ Network to translate the impact of suburban
sprawl and disinvestment on issues of importance to America’s communities
and to suggest opportunities for progress that would be created by smarter
growth policies and practices. Other issues addressed in the series of transla-
tion papers include social equity, workforce development, parks and open
space, civic engagement, agriculture, transportation, aging, education, chil-
dren and families, health, arts and energy.
Abstract
In this country there has always both more development and more
seemed to be enough space for both habitat protection by charting out
development and for nature, but there where growth should and should not
is a growing awareness that roads and occur. This work needs to happen
the sprawling development they pro- quickly, however, as development pres-
mote have begun to fragment and sures continue to mount, and once
degrade habitat in even the wildest critical habitats and linkages between
places. Concerns about habitat loss them are lost they cannot be
and the rate at which plant and animal regained.
species are disappearing are forcing
some wildlife and wilderness organiza- There is obvious potential in funding
tions and even land trusts to refocus collaborations between smart growth
their efforts and get involved in trans- and wildlife and wilderness activists.
portation and land use planning. The fact that all parties – advocates,
developers, property owners, and gov-
The greatest threats to biodiversity ernment agencies eager to avoid cost-
are habitat loss and degradation and ly mitigation and lawsuits – want cer-
invasive species, all of which are tainty about which lands can be devel-
strongly correlated with sprawling oped and which cannot affords
growth. Smart growth alone will not tremendous opportunity for broad-
provide the solution. But it is believed based collaborations. The availability
that smart growth combined with of good science and new technology
"smart conservation" can provide for makes comprehensive planning efforts
© Copyright 2002 by the Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities
 Page 2
possible. This paper discusses the
relationship between biodiversity
conservation and smart growth, the
work that is being done, and suggests
Introduction: Where the Buffalo Roamed
America has always seemed to be a
vast country with an abundance of
wild, open spaces. But less than 10
percent of the land surface remains in
a mostly unchanged state, while only
4 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 1997
compared to the previous ten years.2
Moreover, the nature of development
A recent survey of has dramatically changed. In the last
50 years the amount of urban land
Nature Conservancy has quadrupled, and sprawling auto-
scientists and land oriented development has consumed
managers found that a third of our most productive farm-
land, more than half of all wetlands
roads and utility cor- (91 percent in California), and is
ridors posed a critical bumping up against the boundaries of
national parks, forests and other pro-
threat to biodiversity tected lands.3
health in 55 of 89
conservation areas.6 Growth has begun to impact even the
wildest of wild places. Rural counties
with federally designated wilderness
areas grew six times faster than coun-
ties without wilderness areas in recent
years.4 A 1994 survey of national
parks found 85 percent were experi-
encing threats from outside their
boundaries.5 A recent survey of Nature
Conservancy 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 current
pace, the amount of land developed in
just the next 25 years will equal the
promising strategies and explicit
collaborations for consideration by
philanthropic and public funders and
other key actors.
total amount developed since this
country was founded.7 It’s a sign of
the times that a leading indicator of
sprawl in Florida is the number of pan-
thers that are hit by cars. In
Washington it is encounters between
cougars and schoolchildren. All across
the country it’s the daily battle that
suburban gardeners wage against
shrubbery-eating deer.
This is a fight the animals always
lose. Development causes the frag-
mentation and degradation of habitat
and water resources, interrupts natu-
ral processes such as floods and
fires, and ushers in an invasion of
non-native species. Ninety-five percent
of species listed under the federal
Endangered Species Act are endan-
gered by habitat loss, fragmentation or
other alteration.8 Exotic plants readily
invade disturbed habitat, the second
most pernicious cause of
endangerment.9
Part of the problem is that animals
and plants thrive in the same places
that humans do. Places that are rich
in biological diversity – Florida,
Southern California, the Pacific
Northwest, and coastlines, riparian
corridors, valley bottoms and foothills
everywhere – are also those regions
that are developing most rapidly or are
already developed. Sprawl is the num-
ber one cause of habitat loss and
fragmentation in California, the
nation’s most populous state, where it
is threatening 188 of 286 imperiled or
endangered species.10

The Sixth Great Extinction
Historically, the extinction of both
plant and animal species closely fol-
lowed the spread of humans from
Africa and Eurasia. But the rate of
extinctions is increasing so rapidly
that conservation biologists now pre-
dict the loss of a third of the world’s
plant and animal species within the
next 50 years, a phenomenon of such
apocalyptic magnitude they call it "the
sixth great extinction."11 Conservation
biology – the protection, maintenance
and restoration of life on this planet –
is a relatively young science that
emerged in the ‘70s partly in
response to this crisis.
Extinction is a natural process that
has shaped the world since the begin-
ning of time, but what alarms conser-
vation biologists is the speed at which
this one is occurring. Previous mass
extinctions were driven by geological
and astronomical processes over mil-
lions of years; this one is taking
decades. And it’s the first to be
caused, directly and indirectly, by a
single species – humans.
Smart growth is not the panacea.
Neither is simply spending more
money on land conservation. But con-
servationists working to "get ahead of
Page 3
the extinction curve" believe that used
together, smart growth and "smart "We need both smart
conservation" can work toward land- growth and smart
scape-scale solutions, delineating
where growth should occur and where conservation -- an
habitat must be protected. approach that is
"It’s clear we need to begin planning proactive instead of
way upstream -- before species reactive, and that
become endangered," says Jessica works at a large
Wilkinson of the Environmental Law
Institute in Washington D.C. "It’s not enough scale that we
just about smart growth because we can save entire
need to know first where the biodiver-
sity hotspots are -- so that we can ecosystems.”
make sure smart growth is happening
in the right places."
Adds Ed McMahon of the
Conservation Fund in Washington
D.C., "We need both smart growth and
smart conservation -- an approach
that is proactive instead of reactive,
and that works at a large enough
scale that we can save entire ecosys-
tems. Successful land conservation
needs to overcome both land fragmen-
tation and land consumption. That
work can’t happen in isolation. Wildlife
and wilderness advocates must work
in concert with smart growth activists.
And they must be ruthlessly strategic."
 Page 4
No Place for Nature
As bulldozers advance toward wild-
lands, the arenas in which smart
growth advocates and wildlife and
wilderness advocates wage their very
separate battles are literally converg-
ing. Meantime, the limitations of the
smart growth toolbox are becoming
apparent -- even in the Pacific
Northwest where smart growth has
been most successful.
Oregon has the most comprehensive
"Perhaps it’s not that land-use planning program in the coun-
try, and it has slowed urban sprawl:
we will save the While the population of Portland grew
salmon ... but rather by 31 percent between 1980 and
that the salmon will 2000, the amount of developed land
increased only 3 percent.12 Contrast
save us." that with other large coastal metropoli-
tan areas, which are consuming land
ten times as fast as they’re adding
new residents.13
But while Oregon’s land use program
has succeeded in protecting forests
and farmland – the purpose for which
it was written – it has not protected
habitat and species, which have con-
tinued to slide toward extinction, a
fact documented by the Oregon
Biodiversity Project, a state-of-the-art
assessment of habitats and species.14
This disconnect between land use
planning and habitat conservation was
further emphasized in a recent
Defenders of Wildlife report, the con-
clusion summed up in the title -- "No
Place for Nature."15
At the same time, critics from within
the smart growth movement are say-
ing Portland’s urban growth boundary
is 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," warns
Michael Houck of the Audubon Society
of Portland and also a board member
of 1000 Friends of Oregon. "We’ll lose
support for smart growth if we don’t
provide the green to go along with the
higher densities. Furthermore, if natu-
ral areas are not accessible to urban-
ites they’ll lose contact with nature.
As Robert Michael Pyle writes in his
book, The Thunder Tree, ‘What is the
extinction of the condor to a child who
has never known a wren?’"
Meanwhile, outside Seattle’s urban
growth boundary, wildlife and wilder-
ness advocates have become alarmed
at how many 20-acre ranchettes now
dot the 45-mile-wide buffer zone pro-
tecting pristine U.S. Forest Service
lands east of rapidly developing King
and Pierce counties. And they worry
about land in between Seattle and
Portland, where timber companies are
cutting logging roads in the shape of
cul de sacs to prepare them for even-
tual development.
And inside Seattle’s urban growth
boundary, King County officials have
been forced into the unusual position
of having to figure out how to accom-
modate an endangered species in the
heart of a bustling metropolis. The
Chinook or King salmon, once the
mighty symbol of the Pacific
Northwest, has been listed as endan-
gered, putting a very different spin on
conversations about the proposed
$7.8 billion expansion of the I-405
freeway, which traverses the city and
crosses dozens of salmon-bearing
streams.
"Perhaps it’s not that we will save the
salmon," says King County Executive
Ron Sims, sounding a hopeful note,
"but rather that the salmon will save
us."

The Balkanized Non-profit World
The non-profit world is as balkanized
as government, and it wasn’t so long
ago that even wildlife and wilderness
advocates worked separately. Now
they work together, mostly on public
lands and with the agencies that man-
age them. But increasingly they have
to deal with private lands and a very
different set of players – changing cir-
cumstances that are ushering them
into the smart growth movement.
The evolution of the work of the
Greater Yellowstone Coalition exempli-
fies this trend. Founded in 1983 to
deal with conservation issues affect-
ing the seven national forests and two
national parks within the Greater
Yellowstone area, GYC now spends
half its budget dealing with issues
affecting the private lands surrounding
these public lands.
"We’ve developed what we call an‘
ecosystem approach’ that blends wild-
land protection with sustainable devel-
opment," says Dennis Glick, who was
with the Greater Yellowstone Coalition
during the writing of this paper but
who now works for the Sonoran
Institute. "Because we found that
growth was occurring in critical habitat
– the lower elevations through which
elk, deer and grizzly bears travel from
one patch of habitat to another. We
realized we could be successful on
public lands but still fail if we didn’t
manage growth on private lands -- the
weak link in any big picture conserva-
tion strategy."
But most of GYC’s 125 member organ-
izations are focused on public land
conservation issues, leaving GYC to
head up the coalition’s growth man-
agement efforts in 20 rapidly develop-
ing counties across Montana, Idaho
and Wyoming. Glick says he was
pleased that to see 400 people show
up at a statewide smart growth confer-
ence last year, and equally pleased
Page 5
with the turnout at a subsequent GYC
wilderness conference. "But," he
adds, "it was a totally different audi-
ence."
GYC’s investigation into the status of
planning efforts in the 20 counties
found that while every county had a
plan, there wasn’t much in the way of
implementation. "That’s the point at
which we began to get involved in the
Growth Management Leadership
Alliance," says Glick, "and to ratchet
up our involvement in land use and
transportation planning." Glick said he
understands why his growth manage-
ment colleagues don’t want the public
to perceive smart growth as an envi-
ronmental issue, and agrees it’s prob-
ably more effective to talk in terms of
growth’s economic, social justice, com-
munity development, land use or
transportation impacts.
"But if smart growth campaigns could
also find a way to quantify the bene-
fits of growth management in terms of
biodiversity conservation – that
they’ve met conservation goals or
saved important habitat, for example -
- they could open up a new universe of
funding from foundations and citizens
interested in conservation," says
Glick.
Tim Davis of the Montana Smart
Growth Coalition, a GYC partner, is
less sanguine about the prospect of
integrating the worlds of biodiversity
conservation and smart growth.
Biodiversity conservation is based in
the natural sciences, and favors com-
pensatory strategies like land acquisi-
tion, he points out, while smart growth
work is based in the social sciences
and is much more advocacy oriented.
Then there is the problem of scale.
Conservationists are
looking to save large
landscapes that cross
political boundaries, whereas
 Page 6
smart growth advocates work within
traditional jurisdictions, such as muni-
cipalities, counties, regions or states.
But it has been easy to bring all kinds
of people together over concerns
about wildlife, he adds, and the
Montana Smart Growth Coalition is a
broad one, including wildlife and
wilderness advocates as well as local
businesses, the Montana Farmers
Union, and several local smart growth
efforts. "Concern about wildlife is an
issue that plays across all political
boundaries in Montana," says Davis.
It doesn’t matter if you’re to the left or
right, a Democrat or a Republican. It
Road kills are the allows us to sit down at the table with
property rights advocates, hunting and
leading cause of
death for animals;
researchers estimate
at least a million are From Rocks and Ice to Rewilding
killed each day on Current thinking about conservation
U.S. highways.17 has evolved away from a focus on pro-
tecting "rocks and ice" and single at-
risk species, and toward conserving
entire ecosystems that are a mix of
public and private lands. It has also
moved toward a more collaborative
approach that seeks to involve private
landowners in voluntary and incentive-
based conservation action in addition
to the more traditional tools of govern-
ment regulation, land acquisition and
adversarial action.
There is increasing interest in protect-
ing not just species and spectacular
scenery but also the natural process-
es – floods, fires, disease, nutrient
cycling – that keep ecosystems func-
tioning and provide important services
like water purification and flood con-
trol. This new, more comprehensive,
"big picture" approach necessitates a
lot of collaboration.
The most recent current in the conser-
vation movement, "rewilding," con-
tends we need to conserve "big
wilderness" to provide for fully func-
fishing groups, and others who might
otherwise be opposed to growth
control."
These two coalitions are together over-
laying maps of growth patterns, the
road network, public lands, core habi-
tats and the corridors animals use to
move between them in order to deter-
mine the most imminent threats to
habitat connectivity. The Montana
Smart Growth Coalition is polling resi-
dents to determine how best to talk
about growth control and which growth
management tools would be most
acceptable. The intent is to boost
planning efforts to designate growth
areas and then direct infrastructure
spending into them.
tioning populations of large carnivores
like grizzlies, wolves and lynx. Without
these large predators, say rewilding
proponents, ecosystems undergo dra-
matic changes leading to "biotic sim-
plification" and species loss.
But maintaining viable populations of
large carnivores requires healthy gene
pools, and that requires a very large
landscape extending from west-central
Wyoming to mid-British Columbia and
Alberta. But here wildlife and wilder-
ness advocates again come up
against transportation and land use:
In order for large carnivores to use
this Yellowstone to Yukon landscape,
they must cross at least four highways
in Wyoming, 17 highways in Idaho, 23
in Montana, and 17 in British
Columbia and Alberta.16
With each crossing an animal risks
collision. Road kills are the leading
cause of death for animals;
researchers estimate at least a mil-
lion are killed each day on U.S.
highways.17

The North Rockies is the "last of the
last" intact mountain ecosystems on
this continent, and still contains
almost all the large mammal species
that existed before Europeans arrived.
But the patches of habitat are becom-
ing islands in a sea of development
and must be reconnected, a mission
that has inspired a coalition of 270
conservation organizations called the
Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation
Initiative (Y2Y), which includes GYC
and also American Wildlands, which is
taking the lead in getting wildlife and
The Metropolitan Wild
Meantime, efforts similar to Y2Y are
taking place on a much smaller geo-
graphic scale in Portland, Chicago,
and even in the wilds of New York
City’s metropolitan region, less than a
hundred miles from Central Park. There
on the suburban-rural frontier, biologist
Michael Klemens of the Metropolitan
Conservation Alliance enjoys taking
planners and politicians into the Great
Swamp of the rapidly urbanizing
Harlem Valley, to help him count bog
turtles, salamanders and snakes as
part of his biological survey work.
Recent research has demonstrated
that even small, wetland-dependent
species like these migrate between
habitats – just like the big carnivores --
and require extensive portions of adja-
cent forested upland for portions of
their life cycles. These species move
between wetlands, traversing forests
and fields, and in more developed
areas crossing roads with frequently
fatal results. As increasing develop-
ment fragments their habitat, these
species are no longer able to maintain
their migration regimes and are
becoming extinct – a third of North
America’s 86 species of frogs and
toads are extinct or endangered.
Page 7
wilderness activists involved in trans-
portation planning.
Sophisticated mapping and modeling
efforts using satellite imagery and GIS
databases to identify and overlay
maps of important habitat and move-
ment corridors with growth projections
and road networks have aided these
efforts. This has enabled these organi-
zations to work with land trusts on pri-
oritizing conservation purchases, to
work with real estate agents to find
conservation buyers, and to determine
where transportation and land use
advocacy is most critical.
These site visits have proven a power-
ful advocacy tool, offering a profound "We need to shed the
lesson in the Great Swamp’s ecosys-
tem, where 90 percent of the land is bi-polar vision of
privately owned and the pressures to wild versus degraded
develop are escalating. Not only have
local decision-makers come to appre- habitats, and realize
ciate the Great Swamp’s value, but there is a wide spec-
they have begun to argue that it must trum of choices
be protected by buffer zones, and that
adjacent development must be down- between these
sized and clustered. extremes."
Like Michael Houck in Portland,
Klemens argues we can’t only protect
pristine wilderness. While the tropics
are often said to be the hottest biolog-
ical hotspot, he likes to point out, only
the Mekong and Irrawaddy river catch-
ment basins in Southeast Asia boast
as many species of turtles as the
lower Hudson Valley.
"We need to shed the bi-polar vision
of wild versus degraded habitats, and
realize there is a wide spectrum of
choices between these extremes," he
says. "Obviously we can’t return the
region to pre-Columbian wilderness,
but we can improve the potential of
these ecosystems to support a higher
diversity of native species." The prob-
 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 metropolitan
region in which Klemens is working is
made up of 268 local land-use juris-
dictions, resulting in what one local
official has called a "tyranny of small
decisions." Whereas a particular sub-
The Effect of Roads on Habitat
Many researchers have documented
"There simply isn’t the effects of roads on habitat and
enough money to buy biodiversity, but none with the acid
tone of conservation biologist Reed
everything that’s bio- Noss, who describes roads as "a clas-
logically important. sic death-trap phenomenon."18 Animals
are often attracted to them – to travel
But if we can get along them, bask in the sun, browse
these lands identified roadside vegetation or lick de-icing
and protected in the salts – and then are killed by them.
general planning Roads usher in an invasion of exotic
process we can get a weeds, pests and pathogens, and pol-
lute habitat with noise as well as
lot more bang for the heavy metals, carbon monoxide and
buck than if we dioxide, and pesticides – which typical-
attempt to buy these ly end up in nearby aquatic systems.
They increase the penetration of sun
lands outright or to and wind, make slopes vulnerable to
purchase conserva- erosion, and increase impervious sur-
faces, which concentrate and alter
tion easements." water flows.
But most importantly: Many large
mammals avoid roads entirely, while
smaller species are afraid to cross
them, which means that roads frag-
ment habitat into smaller and smaller
patches, seriously constraining breed-
ing populations and thereby posing a
major threat to biodiversity.
This is why wildlife and wilderness
advocates are increasingly turning
their attention to the transportation
and land use planning process. Even
the venerable Nature Conservancy, the
division or land use decision may not
be in and of itself harmful, says
Klemens, "the cumulative impacts of
268 decision-making bodies operating
without a regional framework are
degrading the environment. And by
focusing on the rare instead of the
ordinary we are missing widespread,
dramatic, landscape-scale changes
that are converting the ordinary to
rare."
nation’s first land trust and the first to
make biodiversity conservation a prior-
ity, has begun working with state trans-
portation officials in both California
and in Colorado on advance mitigation
for all transportation projects listed in
long-range transportation plans.
There’s a confluence of interest: The
Nature Conservancy worries the
postage-size conservation areas
resulting 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 they
depend. Departments of Transpor-
tation worry about project delivery
delays – now averaging five-and-a-half
years -- resulting from the project-by-
project approval process.
The Nature Conservancy is increasing-
ly becoming involved in both trans-
portation and land use planning
efforts, says Emily Tibbott of the con-
servancy’s San Francisco office,
because "There simply isn’t enough
money to buy everything that’s biologi-
cally important. But if we can get
these lands identified and protected in
the general planning process we can
get a lot more bang for the buck than
if we attempt to buy these lands out-
right or to purchase conservation
easements."

Road-Building and the Climate for Conservation
Concerns about road-building are also
prompting wildlife and wilderness
advocates to join smart growth advo-
cates in asking why it is that the fed-
eral government is providing so much
funding for sprawl-inducing infrastruc-
ture – not only roads, but also sewers
and water lines, and even flood insur-
ance -- in the first place.
"Each year federal and state agencies
provide billions of dollars for infra-
structure in rural areas," states a new
report on Coastal Sprawl for the Pew
Oceans Commission. "These projects
are frequently not reviewed in light of
regional growth plans, yet they have
great potential to undermine growth
management goals and needs."
Coastal Sprawl was written by Dana
Beach of the South Carolina Coastal
Conservation League, who concludes,
"land use reform must be at the fore-
front of the coastal protection agen-
da." Runaway land consumption and
exponential growth in automobile use
have the greatest impact along the
coasts," Beach writes, because
coastal zones comprise 13 percent of
total U.S. acreage but are home to
more than half the U.S. population.
Studies show that when more than 10
percent of a watershed is covered by
impervious surfaces -- like roads,
rooftops and parking lots -- aquatic
ecosystems become degraded.
Advocates are also joining local offi-
cials in questioning why it is that while
the majority of gas taxes are paid for
by urban drivers, most of the revenues
are used to pay for state and federal
highway systems between cities --
thereby facilitating sprawl and habitat
fragmentation – instead of the local
roads on which they drive.
"This is an equity issue for local gov-
ernments, but it also provokes the
question why are we spending money
Page 9
that could be used to address press-
ing urban transportation problems on Studies show that
building roads that open up new land
for development, fragment habitat and when more than 10
endanger species?" asks James percent of a water-
Corless of the Surface Transportation shed is covered by
Policy Project. Corless says that about
90 percent of gas tax revenues go to impervious surfaces -
state highway departments and are - like roads, rooftops
used mostly for construction and
maintenance of state and federal high- and parking lots --
ways, even though these highways aquatic ecosystems
comprise just 11 percent of all roads. become degraded.
And wildlife and wilderness are joining
campaigns for more environmentally
friendly transportation modes, includ-
ing intercity and high-speed rail –
which have the potential to concen-
trate growth around stations.
Transportation advocates point out
that travel patterns have changed
since September 11, as longer waits
at airports have made rail competitive
with air for shorter distance travel.
Now is the time, they argue, to begin
integrating our very separate modes of
transportation into seamless systems
like in Europe – where travelers can
easily transfer from plane to train to
bus to car and back again -- reducing
auto-dependency and the sprawl-induc-
ing effects of airport expansion.
Roads further confound conservation
efforts by driving up the cost of land,
and making landowners resistant to
planning and zoning efforts that could
make their land less valuable. "Once
you plan and build transportation links
out into the hinterlands you create a
new interface that ripens land for
development," points out Alan Front of
the Trust for Public Land.
The Trust for Public Land is research-
ing the effect of transportation plan-
ning and spending on conservation in
order to bolster efforts to better inte-
grate open space mitigation into trans-
portation planning, and to require
 Page 10
more rigorous economic and environ-
mental analysis – similar to that
required for Army Corps of Engineers
The "Retail Use" Of Science
Virtually all biodiversity conservation
begins with good science and comes
down to land use, which is why smart
growth and biodiversity are, as
Klemens says, "inherently excellent
for each other." The trick has been
integrating biodiversity concerns and
data into the land use decision-making
process. It’s even trickier convincing
decision-makers to use the information.
In order to get his concerns taken
"Scientists need to seriously Klemens got himself elected
as chair of the local planning board.
become the inter- Klemens is a biologist -- "Everyone
preters and help thinks of scientists as impractical, but
move this conversa- being a planning commissioner has
opened doors for me" -- and he
tion along ... to raise believes that other scientists have to
the awareness that dare to come down from their ivory
towers in academia and get their
there’s a looming hands dirty applying science to day-to-
biodiversity crisis.” day decisions.
"Scientists need to become the inter-
preters and help move this conversa-
tion along," Klemens says. "Scientists
need to be willing to extrapolate, to
prognosticate, to raise the awareness
that there’s a looming biodiversity cri-
sis. They think all they have to do is
get published to create change, but
that’s not how it works. They have to
be willing to use science in a retail
way."
The need to deliver good science and
translate it into policy prompted
Defenders of Wildlife, the Nature
Conservancy, and the Oregon Natural
Heritage Program to create a $1 mil-
lion highly sophisticated database with
120 layers of electronically linked
information for the Oregon Biodiversity
Project.
projects – on federal aid highway
projects.
The computer user can simply click on
a map to bring up a table of informa-
tion on historic and current vegetation
and species, hydrology, landforms,
land use, land ownership, roads, land
management, population, demography,
and even political attitudes. This has
made it possible to identify which
habitat and species aren’t represent-
ed on lands currently held in conserva-
tion, information that can be used to
prioritize future conservation land pur-
chases and to identify which lands
can be developed with minimum
impact.
Now the Nature Conservancy is work-
ing to provide planners everywhere
with a similarly sophisticated planning
tool. The conservancy began inventory-
ing biota back in 1974, completing
databases for all 50 states and
Canada by 1989. Called the Natural
Heritage Network, the national data-
base contains information on 50,000
species and ecological communities,
is maintained by state agencies and is
widely used in the environmental
review process. It is also widely used
in the conservation planning process
by developers, consultants, land trusts
and advocates.
But it has not been used in the land
use planning process, prompting the
Nature Conservancy to try to make the
data 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 software
that analyzes and presents complex
scientific information in a format that
can be used for routine land and
water decisions.

In order to ensure applicability for real
life planning, NatureServe’s advisory
board includes a former president of
the National Association of Counties,
a city manager and several planning
commissioners. The software is to be
ready in 2004.
"We want to get biodiversity data onto
the same playing field as census data
Habitat Conservation Plans
To date, habitat conservation plans,
required under the Endangered
Species Act if development plans
result in the "taking" of an endan-
gered species, have been one of the
primary means of integrating biodiver-
sity concerns into land use planning.
Conservationists support the idea of
HCPs, but say there are serious flaws.
Planning is initiated and paid for by
the landowner and approved without
independent scientific review or public
input, no provisions for ongoing moni-
toring, or for adaptive management
should the conservation plan fail. The
single species focus, they say, does
little to promote functioning ecosys-
tems, and while there’s a trend toward
multiple species habitat conservation
planning across jurisdictional bound-
aries, critics say the increased com-
plexity only exacerbates the problems.
Page 11
or information about road and sewer in-
frastructure," says NatureServe senior
scientist Bruce Stein. "We consider this
to be a smart growth tool that will allow
planners to determine which areas
under their jurisdiction will present the
most regulatory problems and lawsuits
and require costly mitigation, and which
are most suitable for development."
"Clearly public agencies need to be a
lot less passive in developing land-
scape-scale biodiversity strategies,
and these strategies need to be the
driver for land use and transportation
plans," says Greg Thomas of the
Natural Heritage Institute in San
Francisco, which is developing a "sci-
ence-delivery mechanism" to enable
independent scientists to intervene
directly in negotiations over HCPs.
"Whereas other areas of environmen-
tal protection require those who cause
the problem to pay for the solution,
the burden of protecting biodiversity
falls on the owners of the remaining
undeveloped habitat – even though
the species became endangered due
to consumption decisions made by
society as a whole. Landscape-scale
planning provides a mechanism for
the public to shoulder some of the
conservation burden."
 Page 12
Smart Conservation
Though it’s not keeping pace with the
development threat, the land trust
movement is burgeoning. In just the
last four to five years state, county
and local governments have passed
$20 billion dollars for open space
acquisition through legislation and ref-
erendums. The number of land trusts
has almost doubled since 1990, and
the amount of acreage set aside has
increased 226 percent – for a total of
more than 6.2 million acres, an area
twice the size of Connecticut.19
Andrew Zepp of the Land Trust
Alliance says the 1,200 land trusts
exercise a full range of philosophies
when determining which lands to con-
“There’s a natural serve – whether it is preservation of
historic land uses, or scenic protec-
nexus between con- tion, or biodiversity conservation. But
servation and smart Zepp says an increasing number, like
growth, because every the Nature Conservancy and the Trust
for Public Land, are beginning to work
single urban redevel- in communities on habitat conserva-
opment, brownfield tion planning efforts and smart growth
campaigns.
and infill project
saves another green- "We used to work in a very reactive
field." mode at the behest of activists or gov-
ernment agencies or landowners,"
says Alan Front of the Trust for Public
Land. "But there just isn’t enough
money or enough of us to respond to
all the ‘Oh-my-Gods,’ so we began
looking for more proactive and strate-
gic ways to conserve land. There’s a
natural nexus between conservation
and smart growth, because every sin-
gle urban redevelopment, brownfield
and infill project saves another green-
field."
The Conservation Fund has also
sought to promote what it calls
"smart conservation" by heavily pro-
moting the idea that government
needs to plan for and invest in "green
infrastructure" as systematically as
"gray infrastructure" like roads and
sewers."20 Green infrastructure is
composed of "hubs," or large conser-
vation areas, connected by "links,"
that can also be large conservation
areas, or conservation corridors, ripari-
an corridors, greenbelts, trails, and
even utility corridors.
Conservation Fund Greenways
Program Director Ed McMahon has
been working with a large measure of
success on statewide greenways pro-
grams in both Florida and Maryland,
two states where government has
actively supported aggressive land
conservation programs.
McMahon says his smart conserva-
tion philosophy was shaped by his
experience as vice chair of Maryland’s
Greenways Commission, where he
watched the state spend millions of
dollars on conservation easements to
preserve Maryland’s farms. Hundreds
of farms now dot the landscape, sur-
rounded by subdivisions. A recent
story in the Washington Post docu-
mented the state’s last livestock auc-
tion, sounding the death knell for
farming in Maryland. "That wasn’t
smart conservation," says McMahon.
"The state wasn’t coordinating its
efforts with local decisions about
planning and zoning."
In response, the Conservation Fund
helped create Maryland’s Rural Legacy
Program, which seeks to maintain
landscapes and direct growth by pre-
serving large, contiguous blocks of
countryside and nature preserves, cre-
ating greenbelts around small towns
to constrain sprawl, and creating
greenways to link conservation lands.
The Conservation Fund also encour-
ages the purchase of lands that pro-
tect important ecological services like
flood control and water purification,
meanwhile serving to conserve impor-

tant habitat. New York City, for exam-
ple, made the decision to purchase
watershed lands in the Catskill
A Community-based Movement
Smart growth and conservation are
explicitly linked in a community-based
movement that’s growing in the West
and the Southwest, where even the
most conservative property-rights
advocates are concerned about the
rate at which condos are replacing
cows. Leaders of this movement are
helping communities find a way to bal-
ance nature with commerce, and to
maintain community character despite
the influx of new residents.
The Sonoran Institute takes the
approach that conservation only works
when it enhances economic well being
and reflects a community’s common
values – which are typically tied to the
land.21 The Sonoran Institute provides
technical advice to dirt-rich-cash-poor
ranchers and farmers about how they
can maintain working landscapes, con-
serve habitat and generate income
and/or reduce taxes all at the same
time – through conservation ease-
ments, estate planning, limited devel-
opment, voluntary zoning districts, and
collaborative planning.
In partnership with the National
Association of Counties, the Sonoran
Institute also trains county planning
commissions and their staff about the
connections between transportation,
land use and sprawl. Planners learn
zoning and regulatory techniques, how
Page 13
Mountains for $1.5 billion, and avoid-
ed spending $8 billion on a filtration
and treatment plant.
to do a local socio-economic profile, a
build-out analysis and a cost-of servic- "We’re wildlife advo-
es study, and about public financing
campaigns to fund the purchase of
cates, but we don’t
development rights. start out talking
about grizzly bear
The Sonoran Institute then helps staff
these county planning efforts for up to migration corridors,"
three years, because much of the Rasker says. "We talk
problem is that rural counties don’t
have fulltime planners to deal with the
about the fiscal effects
demands of rapid growth. It’s a bril- of growth on the
liant tactic. "We figured why deal with county budget, and
this from around the edges?" asks
Ray Rasker in the Sonoran Institute’s the conversion of
Montana office. "Who makes the deci- ranchland into sub-
sions that are most important when it
comes to growth? The planning com-
divisions, and that
missioners. But they’re unprepared to gets us in the door.
deal with sprawl, and they’re looking But still the commis-
for help.
sioners sometimes sit
"We’re wildlife advocates, but we don’t in the back of the
start out talking about grizzly bear
migration corridors," Rasker says. "We
room with their arms
talk about the fiscal effects of growth crossed. It’s only
on the county budget, and the conver- when they start to
sion of ranchland into subdivisions,
and that gets us in the door. But still believe this is really
the commissioners sometimes sit in going to be about
the back of the room with their arms
crossed. It’s only when they start to
their values that they
believe this is really going to be about begin to take us seri-
their values that they begin to take us ously. Because they
seriously. Because they hate sprawl
as much as we do." hate sprawl as much
as we do."
 Page 14
Tremendous Challenge And Tremendous Opportunity
Harvey Locke of the Kendall
Foundation, a founding member of the
“People who want Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation
improved quality of Initiative, is among those who see
tremendous opportunity in this conflu-
life cause sprawl. ence of growth, economic and conser-
They’re not thought- vation issues -- if only because it’s
bringing people together to work col-
less people. They don’t laboratively on the problems.
want to ruin the very
thing they came here "It all comes down to quality of life,"
he says. "Which is why people are
for.” moving out toward wilderness areas
and national parks in the first place.
People who want improved quality of
life cause sprawl. They’re not thought-
less people. They don’t want to ruin
the very thing they came here for.
"It’s going to bring about a paradigm
shift," he continues. "Intrinsically peo-
ple understand that everything is con-
nected. A lot of synergy will happen
around this confluence of smart
growth, transportation, wildlife and
wilderness issues. This is where peo-
ple will have to put it all together. And
I have faith that they will."
Locke points to Florida as a place
where there has been tremendous col-
laboration in the face of tremendous
challenge, though because of politics
Florida’s success has waxed and
waned over the past 10 years. Florida
had to think about growth and conser-
vation early. Population grew from
300,000 in 1960 to more than 15
million in 1990, prompted by the cli-
mate, the absence of a state income
tax, and the development of the
Space Coast and then Disney World.
Florida developed the first-ever
statewide biodiversity assessment
and plan in 1994 and backed it up
with an aggressive conservation pro-
gram – half of the priority conservation
lands identified in a recent study by
the University of Florida have already
been set aside.
Unfortunately, the pressures to devel-
op are intense, and the plight of the
Florida panther has made it the
"poster child" of the conservation
movement: Panther habitat has dimin-
ished so rapidly there are less than
80 adults left, and the big cats are
killed with alarming frequency along a
stretch of road so notorious it’s called
"Slaughter Alley."22
But in the southwestern part of the
state where development pressures
are most overwhelming and threaten
the integrity of the Everglades and Big
Cypress Swamp, developers them-
selves have begun initiating broad-
based smart growth visioning efforts.
"They’re just tired of butting heads
over every single development per-
mit," says Mike Bauer of the Audubon
Society.

Ways That Funders Can Make A Difference
1) Create incentives for smart
growth advocates and conservation-
ists to work together, and fund col-
laborations that can help communi-
ties decide where and where not to
build. Document work that has
already been done and fund communi-
cations efforts about the benefits of
"biodiversity friendly communities"
that protect ecological resources by
pursuing smart growth strategies.
Smart growth and conservation fun-
ders should fund explicit collaborations
between decision-makers, land trusts,
advocates, scientists, planners and
developers. Impressively broad-based
efforts have begun to integrate biodi-
versity concerns into the land use
planning process across the U.S. -- in
states and in cities, in the pristine wild
and the metropolitan wild. Collabora-
tive campaigns should tap into the
considerable expertise that is develop-
ing to deliver good science into the
decision-making process, and should
utilize the policy analysis that’s been
done by organizations like the Environ-
mental Law Institute, Natural Heritage
Institute and Defenders of Wildlife.
Tim Davis of the Montana Smart
Growth Coalition emphasizes that con-
cerns about wildlife and wilderness –
or, in more urban areas, concerns
about open space -- can bring every-
one to the table to talk about growth
management, even property rights
advocates. Alan Front of the Trust for
Public Land and Emily Tibbott of the
Nature Conservancy point out that pro-
tecting lands by working through the
transportation and land use planning
process – through advance mitigation
for transportation projects and in gen-
eral plans – is much cheaper than out-
right acquisition.
There is tremendous hunger among
advocates for information about how
other advocates are working together
Page 15
on these issues. The Environmental
Law Institute’s Jessica Wilkinson says
some splashy success stories are
needed to help inspire a
biodiversity/smart growth movement.
ELI is part of the Consortium on
Biodiversity Conservation and Land
Use Planning (along with Defenders of
Wildlife, Nature Serve and Island
Press), which is researching the barri-
ers to integrating biodiversity data into
the land use planning process with
the intent of publishing a best prac-
tices manual that also profiles com-
munities where this is being success-
fully done. A group of funders might
also commission papers for a confer-
ence on smart growth and biodiversity,
use the conference to bring the
authors together with advocates, and
then edit the papers and conference
proceedings into a book.
2) Support analysis and education to
help decision-makers and the public
better understand the benefits of
smart growth and biodiversity conser-
vation and, conversely, the costs of
unplanned growth. This work can
also foster collaborations by translat-
ing the benefits of smart growth into
biodiversity conservation terms.
There are several excellent sources of
biodiversity information, but the data
still isn’t used in the land use plan-
ning process because planners don’t
know the resources exists, don’t know
how to use them, and have little incen-
tive to do so. Funders can help make
this information more usable, and to
foster collaborations between conser-
vation and smart growth advocates,
who can demand that biodiversity is
considered.
Dana Beach, in Coastal Sprawl, writes
about how important it is for munici-
palities and regions to understand
their growth patterns and to assess
alternatives to conventional sprawl.
 Page 16
GIS technology makes it possible to
Not only does the tra- overlay maps of growth projections
ditional project-by- with maps of road networks, and to
integrate information about air and
project [transporta- water quality, terrestrial and aquatic
tion] approval process habitats and other regional resources.
This kind of visual analysis of different
slow down project growth scenarios and their impacts –
delivery, it also results and the kind of planning and zoning
in a piecemeal changes necessary to create them --
is invaluable for communities faced
approach to environ- with important land-use decisions.
mental protection that Beach notes that during research for
his report he could locate only two
doesn’t address the coastal regions that had utilized digi-
cumulative impacts of tized images to project future land-use
projects and con- patterns.
tributes little to the Analysis of the costs and benefits of
viability of species and growth has been skewed heavily
toward development that, according to
habitats and ecosys- conventional wisdom, increases local
tems. An integrated property tax revenues and fuels eco-
mapping and compre- nomic expansion. Conservation, on
the other hand, is thought to be
hensive planning expensive, especially when it inhibits
effort involving all economic activities. Only recently have
the costs of development been more
stakeholders is the key, carefully documented. The aesthetic,
and these efforts recreational, ecological and other non-
should be showcased. market values of conservation have
yet to be quantified in a manner that
presents local decision-makers with
reliable and balanced information
upon which to base decisions.
3) Showcase collaborative planning
efforts illustrating that better and
more comprehensive up-front plan-
ning can reduce costly delays, mitiga-
tion measures and lawsuits.
Collaborations around the country
show 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 costly
project delivery delays. The Nature
Conservancy’s collaborations with
state departments of transportation
show particular promise, as does a
community-based comprehensive plan-
ning effort being mounted in Portland,
Oregon to design a biodiversity-sensi-
tive expansion of the urban growth
boundary that actually improves habi-
tat and especially salmon-bearing
streams. Another effort to watch is
the ambitious attempt to integrate a
general plan update, long-range trans-
portation plan and a multiple-species
habitat conservation plan in Riverside
County, California.
The traditional approach to transporta-
tion and land use planning and envi-
ronmental protection invites conflict
and lawsuits at the back-end because
there isn’t enough up-front planning to
address issues before a particular
project or course of action has been
selected. Not only does the traditional
project-by-project approval process
slow down project delivery, it also
results in a piecemeal approach to
environmental protection that doesn’t
address the cumulative impacts of
projects and contributes little to the
viability of species and habitats and
ecosystems. An integrated mapping
and comprehensive planning effort
involving all stakeholders is the key,
and these efforts should be show-
cased.
4) Support informed analysis, educa-
tion and debate on critical public
policy and spending issues - such as
transportation, coastal zone manage-
ment, and water - at the national,
state, metropolitan and local levels.
For example, philanthropic support
will be crucial to assurethat neces-
sary information analysis, education
and public debate occursregarding
the outcomes that will be advanced
by the reauthorization ofTEA21.
Federal law has special influence over
transportation because so many proj-
ects include federal funding. For this
reason, federal transportation funding
is perhaps the most important deter-
minant of regional growth patterns.
Passage of the watershed Intermodal

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA) in 1991 began requiring public
participation in the planning process,
mandated consideration of land use
plans and funding constraints,
required Clean Air Act conformity, and
made funding available for projects
that mitigated the impact of trans-
portation systems. The Transportation
Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-
21) made more funding available for
environmentally friendly projects, creat-
ed a special program to link trans-
portation and land use, and asked for
a study of road density on habitat.
Transportation activists and wildlife
and wilderness advocates are putting
together a wish list for TEA-3, and
state departments of natural
resources are making TEA-3 a top leg-
islative priority because of their con-
cerns. Environmental streamlining, as
mentioned above, is a key concern,
but there will also be opportunity to
increase funding for mitigation meas-
ures and to provide for more compre-
hensive planning that includes consid-
eration of biodiversity.
Other federal legislation provides
other opportunities, and should be
monitored. 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’s
Farm Bill. The Coastal Zone
Management Act could provide funds
for regional land-use analysis, and
work has begun on a water bill that
will, like ISTEA, make funding available
for environmentally friendly projects, or
green infrastructure, including open
space protection, acquisition of con-
servation easements and buffer
zones, and that will recognize the
water quality/land use connection by
encouraging low-impact development
and smart growth.
Page 17
5) Provide incentives for interaction
between science, policy and
activism. Fund fellowships for early
career scientists at non-profit institu-
tions that work on conservation and
smart growth.
Michael Klemens is both a scientist
and chair of a local planning commis-
sion, allowing him to bridge the worlds
of science and policy. He believes it’s
critical that other scientists be willing
to help interpret data for informed
decision-making. Unfortunately, he
says, scientists are typically detached
from the worlds of policy and advoca-
cy, preferring to do only the kind of
work that gets them published or
other traditional academic rewards.
The biggest problem with science as
an institution, he says, is that it refus-
es to come to terms with the need to
apply what has been learned. "The
degree of certainty now required is a
disincentive for scientists to apply
what they know," says Klemens.
"Scientists believe they can’t be advo-
cates. They can document extinction
but they can’t use that information to
become actors for change."
Funders ought to encourage academic
institutions to reward those who work
on applied science instead of only
those who get their work published,
Klemens says. "We need to develop a
cadre 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 the
answer, and communicate those find-
ings by actively engaging decision-
makers."
Page 18
6) The biggest challenge to conserv-
ing biodiversity is on private lands;
support strategies, like the purchase
of development rights, that result in
non-regulatory, voluntary or incentive-
based stewardship and help maintain
working landscapes. Unless rural
economies are maintained, ranchers
and farmers have no choice but to sell
to developers.
Since 1997 more than 20 states have
enacted laws that provide state funds
for acquisition of development rights
(PDR) or that encourage the donation
of conservation easements through
income tax credits. PDR programs
enable land conservation at greatly
reduced expense because the cost of
PDR is less than the outright purchase
of lands, and costs associated with
The most politically subsequent land management remain
successful PDR pro- the responsibility of the landowner. As
grams provide match- a component of growth management
strategies, PDR programs can also
ing grants to local provide a hedge against sprawl, and
governments in prevent the loss of prime farmland
and ranchland and the fragmentation
partnership with of habitat.
nonprofit groups,
further emphasizing These cooperative, public-private part-
nerships are especially valuable in the
local, private land West, where property rights protection
stewardship. has stalled the protection of open
lands, and where acquisitions are
expensive due to the large size of land
parcels. The most politically success-
ful PDR programs provide matching
grants to local governments in partner-
ship with nonprofit groups, further
emphasizing local, private land stew-
ardship.
PDR programs keep farmers and
ranchers on the land, contributing to
the local tax base. Moreover, PDR pro-
grams enable landowners to exercise
their personal choice, make financially
advantageous decisions and preserve
an important legacy for future genera-
tions. (Since property values are typi-
cally reduced by 40-75 percent when
development rights are extinguished,
PDR programs help with inheritance
tax dilemmas.)
PDR programs report their biggest
challenge is meeting demand. The
American Farmland Trust reports that
for every landowner who sold ease-
ments in 1995, six were turned away.
By showcasing these strategies, fun-
ders can help build political support
for more funding.
7) Help to bridge the rifts that are
developing between environmental-
ists and New Urbanists, and those
that already exist between environ-
mentalists and traditional land-based
cultures. If shared values can be
identified and differences overcome,
the potential for powerful collabora-
tions can be realized instead.
The watersheds of New Mexico and
Southern Colorado are a stronghold of
land-based culture and traditional envi-
ronmental knowledge. "Acequia"
means irrigation ditch but also the
community of farmers who own them
in common and manage them as a
participatory democracy. These hand-
dug earthen canals are important to
local ecology, and they have supported
a land-based way of life over genera-
tions and indigenous farming methods
that have enhanced agro-ecological
biodiversity.
But in recent years the demand for
water has reached unprecedented lev-
els, and efforts to maintain sufficient
water levels in rivers to support
endangered fish have pitted environ-
mentalists against land-based vil-
lagers who need the water to irrigate.
The real problem is the transfer of
water rights to large irrigation district
that support agribusiness interests to
the south. Neither environmentalists
nor land-based villagers want to see
the kind of rampant growth and frag-
mentation of habitat that is occurring
all over the West. A facilitated process
would help all parties realize their

common interests, and to collaborate
instead of fight.
Rifts have also developed between
New Urbanists and environmentalists,
who argue that nature is being sacri-
ficed on the altar of urbanism. Andres
Duany, co-founder of the Congress for
New Urbanism, is fond of saying we
couldn’t build Olmsted’s necklace of
parks along the Chicago Lakefront or
create Barcelona’s Ramblas because
environmentalists would insist on leav-
ing the lakefront undisturbed and the
creek under the Ramblas exposed.
Duany’s hyperbole has an element of
truth, but it’s no less true that even in
environmentally sensitive cities like
Portland there’s a tendency to write-off
habitat and species in order to solve
other problems.
Significant biodiversity exists in cities
and suburbs, and proper design and
planting makes a difference. The
Congress for New Urbanism, the
Natural Resources Defense Council
and the U.S. Green Building Council
are all meeting to better understand
how new urbanism interacts with the
natural environment. A key part of this
collaboration should be to develop a
better understanding of the ways
designers can integrate habitat into
Page 19
urban and suburban design without
sacrificing urbanism.
8) Fund the creation of models and
communication efforts that distill and
disseminate the benefits of "biodiver-
sity friendly communities" that pro-
tect ecological resources and pursue
smart growth strategies.
Communities and regions all over the
U.S. are attempting to integrate con-
cerns about biodiversity conservation
into land use planning efforts – in the
Willamette Valley in Oregon, in Pima
County, Arizona, in Massachusetts.
The planning of a biodiversity-sensitive
expansion of the urban growth bound-
ary in Portland is one such effort;
another is the discussion in the
Willamette Valley that should be care-
fully watched.
The Consortium on Biodiversity
Conservation and Land Use Planning –
which includes the Environmental Law
Institute, Defenders of Wildlife, Nature
Serve and Island Press – is conduct-
ing research into why this work is so
difficult, with the intent of creating a
toolbox that will help advance these
efforts.
Page 20
Conclusion: The Tipping Point?
Could this be the tipping point?
Developers, landowners, advocates
and government agencies all want cer-
tainty about which lands can be devel-
oped and which cannot. Notes the
Sonoran Institute’s Ray Rasker, "We
don’t want to conserve it all – and
“We’d have to spend that’s the perfect message for devel-
some money. And opers."
provide real incen- Back in Oregon, a team of scientists
tives to landowners to has recently concluded that habitat
manage for ecological and environmental quality in the
Willamette Basin around Portland
value. We’d have to could be improved even if population
engage the public in doubles in the next 50 years.23
Oregon Biodiversity Project Director
a dialogue about the Sara Vickerman ponders what it would
future. And articu- take:
late a bold new
"More regulations aren’t politically
vision. But I’m untenable. We’d have to spend some
convinced we could money. And provide real incentives to
landowners to manage for ecological
do it.” value. We’d have to engage the public
in a dialogue about the future. And
articulate a bold new vision. But I’m
convinced we could do it – in Oregon
and elsewhere."
Meantime, in Portland, as Metro, the
regional government, contemplates
expanding the urban growth boundary,
a community-based comprehensive
planning effort is taking place, to
design an urban growth expansion
area that will actually improve habitat
and salmon-bearing streams. Mounted
by 1000 Friends of Oregon and the
Coalition for A Livable Future, the
design process will consider issues
regarding water, transportation, biodi-
versity, aesthetics, a sense of commu-
nity, food production, the economy -- to
cite just a few of the goals and objec-
tives – in one planning process.24
It’s a textbook example of the ideal
process outlined by Harvard planner
and author Richard Forman, who
acknowledges the looming crises of
sprawl and biodiversity loss but con-
cludes development and nature are
not incompatible. What it does, he
writes, is put land use at center
stage, and positions land planners in
key roles to effect change.
"Indeed a spatial solution is emerging
. . .," he writes in Landscape Ecology.
But we must plan and manage the
urban landscape as only one of sever-
al linked landscapes that must be
considered together, he writes, in an
approach that demands a willingness
to address all environmental and
human issues in one comprehensive
planning process.
"We plan for the short term but rarely
plan over human generations,"
Forman writes in Land Mosaics.
"Landscapes and regions . . . are a
surrogate for long-term . . . when we
make wise decisions for landscapes,
and especially regions, we manifest
sustainable thinking and act for
human generations."
 Page 21

Resources
People who helped with preparation of this report (in addition to those quoted):
American Farmland Trust, John McCall
American Rivers, Betsy Otto
American Wildlands, Kim Davitt
Biodiversity Project, Cindy Coffin
Defenders of Wildlife, Laura Hood Watchman, Trisha White
Endangered Habitats League, Dan Silver
Florida Wildlife Federation, Manley Fuller
National Wildlife Federation: Kevin Doyle, Jan Hasselman, John
Kostyak, Brad Nunley and Caron Whitaker
Natural Resources Defense Council, Deron Lovaas
The Nature Conservancy, Steve McCormick , Michael O’Connell
New Mexico Acequia Association, Paula Garcia
Smart Growth America, Don Chen
Surface Transportation Policy Project, David Burwell and Kevin
McCarty
1000 Friends of Washington, Tim Trohimovich
The Wilderness Society, Thea Levkowitz and Janice Thompson
Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads, Bethanie Wilder
University of California at Davis, Institute for Transportation Studies,
Dan Sperling
Books
Balancing 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 22

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 23

Websites
American Farmland Trust, www.aft.org
American Wildlands, www.wildlands.org
Biodiversity Project, www.biodiverse.org
Center for Transportation and the Environment,
www.itre.ncsu.edu/cte (for information on the International
Conference on Ecology and Transportation on ecologically sound
transportation practices)
Conservation Fund, www.greeninfrastructure.org
Craighead Environmental Research Institute, www.grizzlybear.org
Defenders of Wildlife, www.defenders.org
Environmental Law Institute, www.eli.org
Gap Analysis Program, www.gap.uidaho.edu
Greater Yellowstone Coalition, www.greateryellowstone.org
Land Trust Alliance, www.lta.org
Metropolitan Conservation Alliance, www.wcs.org
Montana Smart Growth Coalition, www.msgc.org
The Nature Conservancy, www.tnc.org
NatureServe, www.natureserve.org.
National Wildlife Federation, www.nwf.org
Oregon Biodiversity Project, www.biodiversitypartners.org
Sierra Business Council, www.sbc.org.
Sonoran Institute, www.sonoran.org
Trust for Public Land, www.tpl.org
Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads, www.wildlandscpr.org
Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative, www.rockies.ca/y2y
Endnotes (continued)

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.html
18. 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.

Hooper Brooks, Chair

L. Benjamin Starrett, Executive Director
Working to strengthen funders’
individual and collective abilities to
support organizations promoting smart
growth and creating livable communities
Collins Center for Public Policy, Inc.
150 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 709
Miami, Florida 33131
Phone: 305-377-4484, ext. 15
Fax: 305-377-4485
Email: bstarrett@collinscenter.org
www.fundersnetwork.org