38planningandenvironment.pdf

Common

Ground

Randy

Schenck

T-Carolina

Planning

occasionally includes Viewpointarticles which offer

commentary

on planningissues

and

provide a

forum

for personalopinion

and

debate

on

currenttopics_ofinteresttoplanners.

he intent ofthis article is to

examine

the nexus betweenplanningandtheenvironment

—

specifically, to

examine

how

concern fortheenvironmenthas

in-fluenced planning, and

how

planning has played an

increasingly importantrole inassuring protection of

the environment. In this Twentieth Anniversary

Is-sueofCarolinaPlanning.Iwilladdress

how

the role

oftheenvironment inplanning has evolved overthe lasttwentyyears andsuggest

how

planningand

pro-tection of ournatural resources

may

conjoin in the future.

The

Past

Twenty

Years

National Trends

Twenty

years ago

was

atriumphanttime for

en-vironmentalistsandplanners,buttheensuingtwenty

yearswere

marked

by innumerable jolts,bumps, and

grinding halts

At

the federal level,

two

major

suc-cesses for the environment were the passage ofthe

National Environmental PolicyAct

(NEPA)

and the

Endangered Species Act. In addition, other

impor-tant pieces oflegislation were passedthat impacted

landuse. ranging fromthe Alaskan Lands Actto the

setting aside of

many

thousands ofacres ofland in

North Carolinaasprotected wilderness.These legis-lativeachievements

made

significantprogress in

re-forming

many

ofthe worst land use practices that

werethreateningourpublichealthand

damaging

our

Randy

Schenck

is currently

Growth

Management

ChairfortheSierra Club.

He

alsohasbeen working

on establishing a

growth

management

advocacy

group. 1,000Friends

of

NorthCarolina. Inhis

pro-fessionallife, heis

an

organizationdevelopment

con-sultant.

naturalresources.

The

Clean

Water

Act andtheClean

Air Act followed, and they too have

met

many

of

theirpublic policygoals. All ofthese hard

won

vic-tories are threatened today as legislative attempts at

both the federal and state levels seek to roll backor

weaken

environmental regulations and policies

de-signed to protect our public health and ournatural

resources.

InNorth Carolina

In 1974.North Carolinaplaced itselfinthe

fore-frontnationallywithregardstoland use planning with

the passage ofthe Coastal

Area

Management

Act

(CAMA).

CAMA

was

considered

by

many

tobeone

ofthe best piecesofcoastal

management

legislation in the nation. If

we

view the pasttwenty years as a

roller coasterride.

CAMA

represents thehigh point

of ourride. Thatisnotto saythat environmentalists

andplannershavenoother"thrills"tosavor

—

we

can

rightly point to the passage ofthe

Mountain

Ridge

ProtectionActin 1983 andtheWatershed Protection

Act in 1989 as other high points.

The low

point of

our ride

was

the 1995 passage of Representative Nichols" PrivateProperty ProtectionActinthelower

House

ofthe North Carolina General

Assembly,

which would

have

made

effective land use planning

impossible

The

North Carolina Senate prevented

passageofthisbill,

which

was

one ofthe

most

anti-planning. anti-environment pieces of legislation in

the country.

Those

who

believe inprotectingtheenvironment

and planning have been

more

involved in fighting

defensiveactionsandpreventingdefeatsthanin

win-ningvictories.Allisnot

doom

and gloom, however.

Environmentalists have shaped the politics of

envi-ronmental protection.

Much

oftherestofthis article will

examine

the interaction between planning and environmentalism.

The

Shaping

of

an

Environmentalist

and

Planning

Advocate

When

I firstjourneyed to England in the 1980s

and 1990s. Ibegantounderstand theconnection

be-tweenplanningandprotectionof ourresources.Ispent

three days walking from village to village along the

Cotswald

Way,

a 100-mile path from Bathto

Chip-ping

Camden.

This public walking path passes en-tirelythroughprivatelyheldlands.

What

most

aston-ished

me

about this walk

was

the sense one had of

being able to literally step from

the countryside into a village,

walk

through it. and then step

back into the countryside.

Rich-ard Bate, formerly a senior plan-nerwiththe Council forthe

Pro-tection of Rural England, at a

Conference in 1989, stated that

'Englandhas

managed

tosay'this istown; this is country" and

you

cantell

when

you

move

from one

toanother."

The

Englishhaveestablishedthe

objec-tiveofprotecting thecountryside forits

own

sakeas

national policy.

InNorth Carolina

where

the distinctionbetween

town

andcountry has

become

increasingly blurred.I

began tosee sprawl with very different eyes. I

knew

that

we

had analternative. Iunderstood that

we

must

move

beyond, as Richard Bate put it. the idea of

conservation as an issue ofprotecting oases in a sea

ofmediocrity."

Over

thepasthundredyears,

most

of

the environmental

movements

initiatives relatedto land protection inthe U.S.have beendesignedaround

the need to preserve lands with special beauty or

unique natural features. Unfortunately, our national

parksandforestsare increasingly

becoming

oases

sur-rounded by

Bates

seaofmediocrity.

As

our cities

and towns

consume

our land resourcesatever increas-ing rates,

we

are losing scenic countryside as well.

This is

where

planning meets protectionofour

natu-ral resources.

We

know

that

we

cannot protect our

countrysidewithout planning.

We

arealsostarting to

realizethat

we

will ultimatelyfail toprotectour

wil-dernessareaswithoutcomprehensiveplanningatthe

local, regional, and state level.

We

know

that

we

cannot

protect

our

countryside

without

planning.

The

Impacts

of

Unplanned

Growth

on

the

Environment

Sprawl.

We

know

it

when

we

see it

—

strip

shop-ping malls, traffic congestion, low-density residen-tial development.

While

our cities have

grown

tre-mendously

in size,the

number

ofpeople peracrehas

fallen.

With

each

new

census report

we

learn that

fewer people occupy an acre ofland than ever be-fore. Thisdecline inpopulation density has not been

limited to ourmajormetropolitanareas but can also

be observed in smaller

towns

like Fayetteville and

Hickory. North Carolina. Ifthe current population

density inCharlotte equaledthe levelofdensitythat

existedin 1940.the city

would

occupy about

40%

of

the land it does

now.

Similarly, ifthe current population density

of Raleigh equaledthatof 1900,

thatcity

would

occupy

30%

ofits

currentarea

The

mral

Piedmont

is

rap-idly disappearing in responseto

the intensely land consumptive

patterns of developmentthat

we

havetoday.

Walking

inthe

Pied-mont

threehundredyearsago

we

probably

would

have encountered "chestnuts,white

oaks,mokernuthickoriesandtulip trees

immense

and widelyspaced . . .

many

more

than fourfeetin

diam-eter. . .

[Now]

the Piedmontiseitherplowed, paved

orin succession"" (Godfrey. 1980. 25).

The amount

oflandthatispaved orotherwisecovered by

imper-meablesurfaceshasreachedthepointwherethe

Pied-mont was

recently identified as the fifth

most

threat-ened agricultural zone in the country

(Busby

and Schenck, 1994,27).

The most

dramaticfeatureofthe

Piedmont today isthe sprawling urbanizationofthe region.

This has had

many

ugly consequences, one of

theforemost beingthe lossoftrees

—

grandoaks and

tulippoplars,hickoriesandbeeches. Bulldozers push

thegrandtreesoverandtheyarehauledoffinpieces.

In their place are erected one story buildings

sur-rounded byvasttractsofasphalt. Landscaping crews

then descend andplant Bradford Pears and other

or-namental treesthat willneverreplace the

sweep

and grandeur ofmature, full bodied hardwoods.

And

so

the landscape is reduced and diminished, and

we

in

return arediminished as well

John Muir.founderofthe SierraClub, recognized

how

easily

we

canlose thatwhichaddsso

much

value

IllustrationbyRogerLewis, courtesy

ot'MSM

RegionalCouncil. Reprinted

with permission

from

Developmentsnewsletter.

ago,

"Any

foolcan destroy trees . . .

God

has cared

for these trees, saved

them

from drought, disease,

avalanches, and athousand straining, leveling

tem-pestsandfloods;buthe cannot save

them

fromfools."

(Muir, quoted inTeale. 1954, 231) Today, one

hun-dred years later,

we

have fools

who

still recklessly

destroytrees and, in the process, reduce the quality

ofour communities.

The

Costs

of

Sprawl

Unfortunately, sprawlisnot recognized asa

prob-lem

by

many

citizens, since they think that

we

still

have plentyof undeveloped land.

While

we

do have

undevelopedlandand

room

for

more

sprawl, the costs tothe environment andto ourquality oflife are se-vere, and it is here that

we

find the nexus between environmentalism and planning. Planners

must

ad-dress the environmentally adverse consequences of

sprawl.

Sprawl leads to increased dependence and

reli-anceontheautomobile.

The

number

ofvehiclemiles

traveled, along with the percentage ofsingle

occu-pancyvehicles, increases significantlywith dispersed

developments as people

become

ever

more

car

de-pendent, resulting insignificantly higher useof

fos-silfuels.

Between

1980and 1990inRaleigh-Durham,

the Triad, andinCharlotte,

traf-ficcongestionandtraveltimeto

work

increased over 16%.

Fur-thermore, automobile exhaust

has long been recognized as a

majorsource ofairpollution in

our metropolitan areas.

Nine

counties

—

all in the

Piedmont

and

all heavily

urban

—

were

cited for

non-attainment

for

ozone underthe 1990 Clean Air

Act.

Low

density developments

use our land resources

ineffi-ciently, forcing

more

miles of

roads,storm drainage,pipes,

fi-beropticcables,electricalwires,

and other

networks

to be

ex-tended across the landscape, at

increasing costtothe taxpayers.

One

study

documented

that a

typical houselocated onalarge lotandfarfromcentralfacilities costs $24,000

more

forservices

than one centrally located in a

denserhousing development(Frank, 1989).Also,in

terms ofhousing costs, land and site preparation is

typically

more

expensiveforlargelots.

A

South

Caro-linastud}

-estimatedthat higher densitydevelopment

would

reducethe costsofahouseby $10,000inland

andsitepreparationcosts(Busbv and Schenck, 1994,

17).

Sprawl impacts water quality as well. Increas-ingly,

many

North Carolinacommunities are

need-ing to expand their wastewater treatment plants in

responseto increased

demand

for servicesfrom

new

residents, but oftenthe costs are prohibitive. During heavyrains, stormwaterinfiltrates sewerlines, often

overloadingthe capacityofthe plantand forcing the

releaseof

raw sewage

intothewatersupply. In

addi-tion,

many

ofNorth Carolina's rivers have

experi-enceddegradationasaresultof urbanrunoffand

con-struction.

Between

1986 and 1991. forexample,

ur-ban development degraded an additional

500

plus

miles of the Catawba, the French Broad, and the

Yadkin-Pee

Dee

Rivers

(Busbv

and Schenck, 1994,

25).

Another

example

concerns estuaries and shell-fish.

A

1988studybythe state'sShellfishSanitation

Program

concluded that population growth and its

associated land use problems

—

urban runoff,

ero-sion

—

posedthe single greatest threat to shellfish

re-sources in years to come. In the 1980s, population

growth and development

was

the majorcause of

in-creased shellfish bedclosuresincounties which

ex-perienced increased closures (Busby and Schenck.

1994. 33).

Sprawl also impacts wildlife by contributing to forest loss. AccordingtotheU.S. Forest Service,over

1.2 million acres offorest land were urbanized in

NorthCarolinabetween 1

964

and 1990.

Most

ofthat

was

in the Piedmont. At the

same

time 59 of 153

species ofbirdsdeclinedin North Carolina,

some by

as

much

as

27%

peryear.

The

loss offorests and old fields to urbanization, particularly in eastern and

northernNorth Carolina,

was

cited as amajorcause

ofthe decline (Busby and Schenck. 1994. 28).

Finally, sprawl entails a loss ofour

communi-ties' distinctiveness. In place of natural areas and neighborhoodswith diversearchitectureandinviting

landscapes

we

increasingly see cookie-cutter

neigh-borhoods and strip shopping malls with chainstores that resemblethoseinany other

American

city.

The Dominant Paradigms

of the

Past

Fifty

Years:

Environmentally

Unfriendly

To

the extent that theysupport sprawl, the plan-ning paradigms ofthe past fifty years have notbeen

environmentally friendly.

Most

currentzoning

regu-lations are recipes forincreased sprawl.

Some

plan-nersandenvironmentalistswith long-rangevision are

beginning to identify the connections between the

human

community

and the land

community

and to

advocate forchanges in our dominantland

develop-ment

patterns. Others in the planning

community,

however, havenotyetrecognizedthisundeniable

con-nectionbetween

human

andlandcommunities.

Fail-ure to adequately valuethe natural environment and

the need for biological diversity risks harming the

human

community

in the long run. Chief Joseph

Seattlerecognizedthisconnectioninhis 1854speech

when

he said.

"The

earth does not belong to

man;

man

belongs to the earth. This

we

know.

All things

are connected like the blood

which

unites one

fam-ily.. . .Whateverbefalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth.

Man

did not

weave

the

web

oflife, he is

merely astrand in it.

Whatever

he does to the web.

he doesto himself"'

This insight identifiesanother

dilemma

facedby

today's planners

—

thatofartificial boundaries

drawn

aroundcities,counties,andstatesthatgenerallyhave

little orno connectionto the natural featureswithin.

These artificial boundaries, along with planning's

focus on local as opposed to regional areas, act as

significantconstraints to effectivelanduse planning.

The Need

for a Biocentric Perspective

One

ofthemajorinsights developed bythe

envi-ronmental

community

overthe pastten years is the

need to view the world around us as a network of

bioregions. Bioregions are defined by the nature of

the landscape, the land's natural features, and the

plantsandanimalsthatlivetogetherinparticular habi-tats. Watersheds are the

most

readily observable

ex-ample. IntheResearchTriangleregion, battles have

been raging for

many

years over protection ofthe

Falls Lake Watershed. Simple truths emerge.

Water

and the waste itcarries flow downhill.

Why

should upstream residentscareabout

downstream

residents?

They

are governed by different governmental units

andhaveno mutualobligations.

Towns

located

down-streamhavelittlerecoursetoassure protectionoftheir

water resourcesif

much

ofthewatershedliesoutside

of their jurisdiction. Although

many

now

recognize

theneedfora bioregional approachtoenvironmental

protection, the planners are severely constrained by

boundariesthatarenonsensicalfromabiocentric

per-spective.

Plannersalsoneedtoconsiderthe landethic laid

outby

Aldo

Leopoldin

A

Sand

County Almanac.

"A

thing is right," he wrote,

"when

ittends to preserve

the integrity, stability and beauty ofthe biotic

com-munity. It is

wrong

when

it tends to do otherwise"

(Leopold. 1966. 262). Leopold recognized that the

dominantanthropocentricview

was

leadingus

away

from preservation ofthe biotic

community.

We

may

imaginethat

we

areseparatefrom the biotic

commu-nity, but

we

separate ourselves from it atour peril. Certainly,

we

cannot sustain quality life in the long term if

we

plan for the

human

community

while

ig-noringthe biotic

community.

This tension betweenthe needs ofthe bioticand

human

communities is difficult to resolve.

While

many

reasonsexistforourinabilityor.truthfully, our

unwillingnesstotry toeffectively addressthis issue,

the primary reason is the

dominance

ofthe

assump-tion that growth is good.

Growth

is given asthe

an-swerto our myriad problems. But

we

cannot

grow-forever.

We

can

grow

until ouropenspacesare

gone

and

we

are dependent on bottled water because our

water supply watersheds have been densely

devel-oped andthewaters within irrevocablypolluted.

We

prob-lems areas frequentas the

common

coldandtraffic

congestion has reducedthe average carspeed to

be-low tenmiles an hour. But

we

cannot

grow

forever.

We

risk

consuming

ourhost, this remarkable planet

Earth.

We

have finally

begun

to consider issues of

sustainability and carrying capacity.

How

much

growthcanourair, water,andlandresourcessustain

and stillprovide us with ahighquality oflife? This

seemsto

me

the

most

important questionthat

we

must

answer, or

we

risk irrevocably losing the qualityof

life inNorth Carolinathat has attracted so

many

to this stateand

which

hasretainedso

many

ofthestate's natives as residents. Without planning,

we

will not

be able to protect ourair, water, and land resources

and ensureanacceptable qualityoflife.

The

Need

to

Manage Growth

In

my

opinion,plannershavea nearly Sisyphean

task

—

to educate the public on the severe costs of

sprawl

and

ofthe absolute necessity to

manage

growth. In the present political climate, embracing

growth

management

isaboutastempting as

embrac-ing a porcupine. Planners, however,

must

recognize

that

many

citizens live in a black and white world

and failto understand

how

valuing both

community

and freedom

may

conflict

Some

citizens carry images in their

minds

that

inadequately represent

complex

and often

conflict-ing realities. For example, while

many

people feel that restrictions suchas landusecontrols and zoning

are to be feared, they do not realize that they will

faceincreasingtrafficcongestion,pollutedrivers,and

the possibility oflandfills, hazardous waste

dumps,

and

hog

farmsneartheirproperties without these re-strictions.

What

isthe

way

outofthis

dilemma?

Un-fortunately, no simple answer exists. All

who

care

abouttheircommunities andthe naturalenvironment

must

work

togetherto findingenious solutions. Itis

said that

99%

ofgeniusispersistence, and

unrelent-ing persistence will be required on the partof

plan-ners, environmentalists, and

most

importantly, an

aware, reflective citizenry.

We

willneedpersistence

in

communicating

with and involving ourcitizenry;

persistence in acknowledging the results ofa land

useparadigmthat results in

more

stripmalls,

sprawl-ing developments, traffic congestion, pollution, and

damage

to the natural beauty ofourmountains and

coast.

We

willalsoneedpersistence inincreasingthe

acceptanceofavery-differentvisionofthe future that

includes mixed-use developments, transit oriented

developments,high-density

new

communities, "open

space" developments, and greater reliance on

mass

transitand bicycling.

Planning

and

the

Environment:

The

Next

Twenty

Years

Change

is noteasy. Just as one cannot stop an

ocean linerinstantly, neithercan the

dominant

land

developmentpatternofthe pastfiftyyearsbebrought

to an abrupthalt. Setting a

new

course takes energy

and, as with an ocean liner, course corrections are

oftenrequiredtoavoidobstacles, eventhosethat are

well overthehorizon andthus unseen.

If

we

want

ourcommunitiesto

grow

ina sustain-able

way

and if

we

want

to maintain the quality of ourair, water, and land resources,

we

must

change

our landdevelopmentpriorities.

We

cannotaffordto

treatlandas

we

treatedairand waterahundredyears

ago, sothat

we

only

acknowledge

the needtoprotect

our

common

resources

when

they

became

sopolluted

thattheythreatenourhealthandthatofourchildren.

We

needtobegincomprehensive andsystematic

plan-ning

now

so that

we

canprotectouropen spaces and

countryside, and ensure the specialness of

where

we

live.

Only

then will

we

have viable

towns

and effi-cient, livablecities

which

enhance thequalityofour

lives and

which

restoreoursenseof

community

and

senseofplace.

The most

difficult challenge planners and

envi-ronmentalists face in the future is that offorging a

consensus

among

public officials and citizens that

excessive and unplannedgrowth degrades our

qual-ity oflife and is notsustainable. Planners and

envi-ronmentalistswill needto take the leadinshaping a

new

vision for the future

which

restson afewsimple

principles:

1.

Comprehensive

planning needsto occurin each

city and county. Plans should describe each

community'svisionofitsdesired futuretogether withimplementationstrategiesforachievingthat

desiredstate. Local plansarenot enough,

how-ever. Regionalplansensurecooperationand

co-ordination across multi-jurisdictionalboundaries

andensureconservationanddevelopment of

re-gional land,air,and waterresources. State

plan-ningassures coordination

among

all state

agen-cies while also addressing elements that cross

regional boundaries like transportation

and

2. Assessments ofthe carrying capacity ofthe air, Teale, Edwin Way. The Wilderness World of John Muir,

water,and land resources

must

be conductedin HoughtonMifflin Co.,Boston, 1954.

each planningarea. Plans forland conservation

anddevelopmentshould beconsistentwith pro-tection ofpublichealth andthe resourcebase

3. Rural characterneedstobe protectedbyensuring

asignificant percentage ofland is kept in

pro-duction oras a working landscape for

agricul-ture,forestry,or sustainable tourism. Inorderto

dothis,

new

developmentshouldbe concentrated

inexistingtowns.

The

creationof compact, effi-cienttransitand pedestrian-oriented

communi-tieswillcreate truly livablecitiessurrounded by

productive farms, forestlands, and open space.

Urban growthboundaries areneededto set lim-itsto theextensionof waterand sewerservices.

Development

oftransit, homes, and businessat

urban densities should then occur inside the

growth boundaries while strong development

restrictions

would

existon lands outside ofthe

boundaries. Additionally, public assets such as

scenic roads, waterways, and viewsheds

must

beprotectedthrough well-conceivedlanduseand

design standards

4.

Most

ofall, there

must

be a highly involved, re-flective citizenry.

Twenty

yearsfrom

now,

will

we

lookbackwith

prideand

wonder

at

how we

wereable to protectour

natural resourceswhile building livable, sustainable

communities?

Or

will

we wonder

why we

never changedcourseandregretourfailuretoensure a high

qualityoflifeforourselvesand ourchildren7 I hope

we

will havethe

wisdom,

the courage, andthe per-sistenceto buildatrulv sustainable future <33>

References

Busby.Josh,andRandy Schenck. QualityGrowthinNorth

Carolina. North Carolina Chapter ofthe Sierra Club. 1994.

Frank, JamesE. TheCost ofAlternativeDevelopment Pat-terns:

A

ReviewoftheLiterature.UrbanLandInstitute,

Washington,D.C., 1989.

Godfrey, Michael.

A

SierraClubNaturalist's Guideto the Piedmont. SierraClub Books, SanFrancisco. 1980. Leopold,Also.

A

SandCounty Almanac.Ballantine Books,