Habitat Protection Planning for States - a new tool to combat global warming

A Wild Landscape Protected

The road winds, nearly spiraling downhill only to climb upward again, over and over through a vast landscape of California grassland pine and live oak. Above golden eagles soar over a wilderness of mountain lions, burrowing owls and 15 other rare wildlife and plants. We drove through this wild place as devoid of people as any other in the US. After a series of harrowing switchbacks, the road ended and we found ourselves in one of the most economically vibrant and densely populated areas in the world. Before us the human spectacle of the Santa Clara Valley, the city of San Jose blending into San Francisco and Oakland. Silicon Valley vibrated inside a dull fog that ran north and out of sight. The contrast could not be more stark.

Ironically the wild landscape and sprawling economic engine depend on each other. In a feat of modern-day conservation, California and US natural resource agencies conceived of and implemented a conservation plan, the Santa Clara Regional Conservation Plan, that smoothed a clear path for natural resource protection and development in this bustling center of the digital era. The plan is one of 22 in the state all collectively known as the Natural Communities Conservation Program or NCCP. They facilitate the conservation of habitat by designating areas best suited for people - areas serviced by roads, water and sewer - and those best suited to rare species - large unbroken patches of undeveloped habitat. They combine the habitat needs of all rare species and outline the area best suited for them. Agencies streamline complicated permitting for developers who pay fees that compensate rural landowners for the loss of their right to develop. The planning avoids lengthy and costly battles over the destruction of natural land and provides rural landowners income to compensate the loss of land value that comes with protection.

NCCP plans are one reason the bay area economy hums with minimal natural resource conflicts, rural landowners get paid for their loss of development rights and rural communities glow with the reflected glory of the untrammeled countryside. It’s a win-win for people and wildlife.  The plans have their weaknesses, funding and inadequate monitoring for example but one cannot deny the successful preservation of a vast land of natural beauty in landscapes of enormous economic value. It’s a far cry from most other states including NJ.

This landscape is part of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan created to facilitate development in Silicon Valley and San Jose while minimizing encumbering endangered species battles. In the distance, the smoggy haze of San Jose rims the southern shore of San Francisco Bay. The mountains on the west side of the bay are protected by one of California's first HCP's, San Bruno Mountain. Both Habitat Conservation Plans are shown on the map below along with the locations of the other 32 plans in various stages of completion. Photo Larry Niles, Map from California NCCP site

A Far Cry From Land Use Planning in NJ and most States

Here in the Garden State, natural lands disappear almost without restraint, despite having one of the most restrictive land use regulations in the country.   In their day the Wetlands Act, the Pinelands Commission, Coastal Management Program (CAFRA), the Highlands Council, were innovative and promised great protection decades ago. Thirty years later one cannot ignore the sprawl devouring the state’s natural areas. Satellite imagery comparing 40 years of land use ( see image below) shows almost no change in the rate of destruction since the start of the regulations.

One could argue it could have been worse. But considering the cost one wonders what would have happened if people had to face the ugly truth sooner than later. Natural NJ is disappearing fast and it's hurting all citizens in one way or another.

How did this happen after the promising beginnings of the 1970's and 80's? Because in the end, the rules were unfair to many landowners and they did their best to undermine them. Fundamentally the restrictions attempt to prevent landowners from cashing in on the development value of their land so the agencies can create environmental safeguards from flooding, forest fire, the threat of contaminated water as well as preserving access to the water while using the protection of rare wildlife species habitat as a useful guide. Regulatorily protected open space provides many benefits to a community. But the sometimes heavy-handed approach has been met with a mountain of lawsuits, and administrative law courts have made the regulations a swiss cheese of legal exceptions. Adding insult to injury to most landowners, the exceptions could only be exploited by employing costly consultants or lawyers thus allowing the wealthy and powerful avenues to bypass protections. Lesser mortals suffered the full brunt of the rules.

So the best areas, like the shoreline of the Atlantic Coast, or sites with good views over rivers, or estates surrounded by public land were developed. And not with many reasonably priced houses but fewer giant ones built only for the exclusive few. Overtime ecologically valuable habitats melted away into an unsmart growth patchwork of protection and development. It’s the worst case scenario – a costly system of protection that does not protect and prevents access to public trust resources.

This animation vividly describes the outcome of decades of NJ politically controversial land use regulations. Despite enormous costs, most wild areas have been damaged, some irreparably. Most protections can be overcome, usually with expensive professional fees afforded only by a few. Ironically the regulations hurt rural communities struggling to remain rural because even small infrastructural improvements require expensive permitting.

A New System of Habitat Conservation Planning For NJ and other States

But NJ could do better. Over the last eight years, Dr. Richard Lathrop who leads Rutgers Center for Remote Sensing and Spatial Analysis and this author have developed an approach to Habitat Conservation Plans better suited to a smaller state like NJ. Our planning invokes satellite-mapping models used to estimate the ecological value of all the state’s open space. Using five widely accepted measures of habitat integrity for most of the state's 80 rare species, we can estimate the ecological value of a place and the value lost through development. This objective framework allows learning to take place, so like financial market models, they can become more accurate with experience. Our models can be used to plan a development so it has the least impact on a species by comparing sites or reorganization buildings on site. We developed it so it could be used by any qualified consultant, landowner or conservation professional in the state to estimate the best path to development and at the least ecological cost.

This is the first step. The second is to replace the lost value so there is no-net-loss of habitat value. Using the estimated ecological cost from our models onw can develop an objective basis for replacing lost value. It may be the purchase new land that links other protected land, giving them all added value. Or managing an existing protecting land to become more suitable or productive, like thinning a dense forest for Barred Owls or restoring beach productivity for horseshoe crabs and red knots.

To know more about how to better regulate state land use protections for rare species read this report by R. Lathrop and this author.

Disrupting State Land Use Regulatory Systems Can Help Both Developers, Rural Landowners, and Wildlife

The third step would transform conservation in NJ. Rather than requiring each landowner or developer to find habitat to replace lost habitats, we propose a new conservation banking system, not unlike that used by California agencies. If a development must take place, a landowner, a real estate developer or a local community can pay the equivalent to replace it to a designated conservation land bank who can use the money to pay landowners to do the work. The bank can be run by a local community, a nonprofit community or conservation group, who has already formed a network of landowners willing to make money doing the protection, management or restoration work. Fees and replacement costs would go mostly to rural land landowners: farmers, conservation groups or agencies who wish to improve the natural value of their lands.

This new system of regulating the development of wildland can be formed around a single principle - no net loss of ecological value. In other words, land will be lost to development but its value to wildlife could be replaced and the net effect would be zero. Over time we can improve the values with experience in the study of estimated value and the monitored outcomes of replacing it. Development and long-term ecological cost would not be inevitable.

Benefits for Landowners and Encouraging Entrepreneurial Conservation

There are more reasons to protect wild land and wildlife than saving God's creation. The current system costs landowners, developers, and communities great amounts of money but has failed to stop the loss of wildlife and their habitat. A no-net-loss vision would allow land to be lost in places where it should, inside towns or cities, adjacent to already placed infrastructure like roads and sewers for example. 

It's not always the case that an endangered species habitat needs to be defended in areas of great development if better land can be saved or damaged land restored. Even when conservationists successfully preserve ecologically important land, the impact of surrounding development often destroys the parcel's ecological integrity. NJ is littered with protected lands no longer useful to the wildlife that once inhabited them or are ecological islands surrounded by development and associated threats.

Imagine predictable and more efficient permitting that creates new funding for landowners to restore and protect habitat while creating a more attractive vision of the Garden State's future.. The system can offset the ecological loss inevitable in development while creating a new market in entrepreneurial habitat restoration that seeks innovative methods of increasing ecological value through smart restoration and management projects. The increased economic value conferred to rural landowners through no-net-loss planning and conservation banking can help struggling rural communities instead of punishing them as the current rules often do.

A New Tool to Combat Impact of Global Warming

And why not create a new vision for state-based wildland protection? With the failure of our national government to take on the task of reducing carbon in our atmosphere, the states must now become ground zero in the fight against climate change. The preservation, management, and restoration of natural lands are among the essential tools in the battle. Land, well managed for wildlife, absorbs and stores carbon. This goes for progressive forest stewardship, less intensively managed farmland, and repairing damaged marsh to full productivity, all work that can bring new value for wildlife, communities resilancy, and increased carbon sequestration.

With this plan, we can spur development, protect and restore natural places and take a meaningful role in the struggle to save our planet. It takes only bold leadership to put it into action.

Protecting our wild lands not only saves wildlife it also helps contain carbon and creates one solution to the problem of climate change.