32planningendangered.pdf

Planning

for

Endangered

Species:

On

the

Possibilities

of

Sharing

a

Small

Planet

Timothy

Beatley

Increasingly

in

the

United

States,

the

preservation

of endangered

species

and

biologicaldiversityconflicts

with

the

mounting

pressures

of urban

growth

and

development.

Here,

Timothy

Beatley presents several

arguments

on

the

importance

of

species

protection.

He

discusses

the

case

_of

the

endangered

fringe-toed

lizard

of

the

Coachella

Valley,

California

to illustrate

the practical

problems of

habitat

conservation that

arise

_from

competing

land-use

interests.

Beatley

asserts

that

planners

can

play a

vitalrole indirecting strategies to

protect

crucial habitats.

Species

Protection as

an

Urban

Planning

Problem

Fortyyears ago, inhis

now

famous

A

Sand

County

Alma-nac

(1949),

Aldo

Leopold

talkedofthe

need

to

embrace

a

new

and

differentethicalposturetowards thenatural

envi-ronment.

Human

beings

must

move

from

thepositionof conquerors of the

environment

to

one

ofbeing"plain

citi-zens" ofit.

To

Leopold,

we

arebut equal

members

of a

complex

and

interconnected

network

oflife. Itistimeto resuscitatehisvision in lightofthe

tremendous

environ-mental

damages

beinginflicted

on

our

planet,

and

on

the

otherinhabitantsofit. It ispreciselythose"other"

inhabi-tantsthat Iwish tofocus

on

here.

It is

my

contentionthat as planners,

we

must

squarely face

up

to

our

obligations to protect other species

from

the

wholesaledestruction

we

would

otherwisesubject

them

to.

Moreover,

this is increasinglywithin thepractical policy

domain

of

urban

planning, in that

many

contemporary

species conflicts revolve

around

disputes

between

land

development

and

protection ofspecieshabitat.

A

number

ofspecificdevelopment-speciesconflictsare

employed

as

examples below. Iwillsuggest thatas"plaincitizens,"

we

havea strong

moral

obligation to reevaluate thewaysin

which

our

urban

settlements

grow and

develop. Planners

must

lead the charge.

There

is

an

unfortunate tendency

on

the partof

many,

perhaps most,

Americans

to

view

the

problem

ofspecies

loss primarily as a

problem

occurring

somewhere

else.

People

are

most

readilyabletoconjure

up

images ofthe

black rhino or

mountain

gorilla

when

they think

about

endangered

species;species thatareobviously not

indige-nous

to the

United

States.

Even

American-based

cam-paigns

seem

tofocusprimarily

on

thesepopularly

recogniz-able

endangered

species. It is interestingthatthe recent jointventure of

Wendy's

restaurants

and

the

World

Wild-life

Fund

(sellingstuffedanimals,withapercentage ofthe

profits going to

World

Wildlife

Fund

projects) placed attention

on

species such as the

snow

leopard

and

the

panda,ratherthantheFlorida panther, black-footedferret,

or other

American endangered

species.

The

unfortunate

factisthatdramaticspecieslossis

an

American

problem,

not simply a

problem

relegated to distant tropical rain-forestsessentially

beyond our

control. It isclearlya

prob-lem

in

our

own

backyards.

There

are

some

five

hundred

plant

and

animalspeciesinthe

United

States thatarelisted as

endangered

or threatened

under

thefederal

Endangered

Species

Act (ESA),

and

several

thousand

additional

spe-cies listedas candidates,

many

of

which

will

soon be

listed as

endangered

orthreatened.1 Thus, the

number

of endan-geredspeciesinthe

United

Stateshas

been

dramatically

on

therise.

Increasinglyin thiscountry,the preservationof endan-geredspecies

and

biologicaldiversityis

bumping

directly

up

againstpressures for

urban growth and

development.

The

examples

of development/speciesconflictsare

numer-ous.

A

recent proposal to build a

shopping

center in

Austin,Texasthreatens the survivaloffivecave-dwelling invertebrates

found

nowhere

else intheworld (a spider,

two

typesofbeetles,apseudo-scorpion

and

a cave-adapted

daddy

longlegs).

New

housingprojectsinwestern River-sideCounty,California,threatenthehabitatofthe endan-gered Stephens'

kangaroo

rat.

Second

home

development

on

Big Pine Key, Florida, threatens the existence ofthe

dwindlingpopulation ofthekeydeer,which,

among

other

things, has fallen victim to road-kills as a result ofthe

dramatic increases in

automobile

traffic

accompanying

Fall1989, Vol.15,No.2 33

the explosive shoreline

development

and

the brightlights typicallyassociatedwithit.

The

least Bell's vireo,awestern

songbird,isthreatenedinthe

San Diego

areaasaresultof

development

in,

and

destructionof,itsriparianhabitats.

A

recentstudybythe

Center

forPlantConservationindicates

that

urban development

isthreatening

hundreds

ofnative

American

plants(Shabecoff,1988). Neither planningtheory

norpractice

have

adequatelytakenthisissue into

consid-eration.

American

planners

have

the opportunity,

and

indeedthe

responsibility,toprovide strong

and

positiveleadershipin

the area ofspecies protection. Indeed, theirleadership

housing, orthe exploitationofnaturalresources

and

habi-tat

where

substantial alternativesexist.

The

U.S.

examples

that

have

been

offered,however,

may

be

ofthe

wrong

sort. Severalrecent

examples

ofresolutions todevelopment-speciesconflictsare discussedbelow;

par-ticular

emphasis

is placed

upon

one

case that has

been

recently offeredasa successfulmodel. Iwillquestionthis

model,highlight the basic obstacles to species protection

illustratedbythisexample,

and

offersuggestionsfora

new

vision. Before doingso, however, itis helpful to briefly

explorethe rationalestypicallyofferedforprotecting

spe-cies.

In theUnitedStates,theconflictisusuallynotone ofdecidingbetweenproviding basicfood andhousingandprotecting speciesand

theirhabitat

could setstandards forprotecting

and

conservingspecies

worldwide.

By

global standards, the

United

States is a

prosperous

and

wealthy nation and,intheory,

ought

to

be

able to effectively protect

from

extinction those species withinitscontrol.

The

United

Statescarries

an

important

responsibilityasaninternational

model

forconservationas

wellas

economic

prosperity. It is difficult forleaders in

developingnationsto effectivelyarguefortheimportance

of protecting

endangered

species

when

many

such U.S.

efforts appear to

be

marginal

and

undervalued. In this

country, theconflictisusuallynot

one

of deciding

between

providing basic food

and

housing

and

protecting species

and their habitat. Rather, the conflicts are

more

often

between

species

and

the provisionofluxurysecond

home

The

Importance

of Protecting Species

There

are

many

selfish reasons for protecting endan-geredplant

and

animalspecies. It isestimatedthatthetotal

number

ofspeciesinthe

world

number

from

fiveto

thirty-million (ofthisthereiseven considerableuncertainty;see

Wilson, 1988).

Each

represents a

tremendous

biological

storehouse,thelossof

which

may

depriveusofsubstantial medical,scientific,

and commercial

benefits.

We

are

now

in

the positionoflosing

many

species

we

haveyettoevenfully

catalog or understand.

A

large portion of

commercial

pharmaceutical products are derived directly

from

wild plants

and

animals,

and

potential scientific

and

medical

speciesdiversity

may

alsohold outthe potentialof discov-ering

new

disease-resistantcrops,or cropsbetter adjusted tochanging climaticconditions (e.g.,the Buffalogourd).

For

instance,a plant native toCentralAfrica (kenaf)is cur-rentlythoughtto

be

a

much

cheaper

and

less

environmen-tallyharmful source of pulp

and

paperfibersthantrees(see

Brody,1988).

Endangered and

threatenedspeciesare also important

indicatorsof

how

healthy

and

sustainable

our

planetreally

is.

The

lossoftheleast Bell's vireo,or othersongbirds,

may

holdlittledirectimpactto

most

people,yet

may

be

indica-tiveoftheoccurrence ofbroader environmental

degrada-tion

and

aharbingerof

more

severeenvironmental

calami-tiesto

come.

BiologistsPaul

and

Anne

Ehrlich usethevivid

analogy ofrivets

popping

out ofthe

wing

of

an

airplane to describe species extinction (seeEhrlich

and

Ehrlich, 1981).

With

each

popped

rivet (lossofaspecies),the structural

integrity of the airplane (earth) is further

undermined,

untilreachingapoint

where

theplanewill

no

longerfly.

Moreover,

we

simply

do

not understand the intricate

waysin

which

thelossofa single specieswill affectother

speciesand,inturn,

human

beings.

Abasic

and

undeniable environmental

axiom

is that everything is connected to everythingelse.

While

thereisconsiderabletruth to this lineofargument,itisoftendifficult,at least inthe short run,

todiscern

any

dramatic impacts ofspecies extinction. It

may

take

many

years to detect the rippleeffectsto

humans

ofthelossof,say,thespotted

owl

inthewest

and

northwest

United

States.Itoftenappearseasier toarguethattheloss

ofthe habitat, ratherthan thespecies,

may

be

ofgreatest

consequence

(e.g.,advocatingthe preservationofBrazilian rainforestsbecausetheyimpactglobalclimate

and

oxygen

levels,ratherthanbecause theyserve as habitatfor,say,the

endangered

golden-liontamarin).

There

are also fairlyconvincing

arguments

that endan-geredspecies

and

theirhabitatsprovide or could provide

substantialrecreational

and

aesthetic benefitsfor

humans.

Thisis

undoubtedly

true,asisapparentto

anyone

who

has witnessed the flight ofa peregrine falcon orthe fishing

behavior ofagrizzlybear.

Even

thosespeciesless"cuddly"

intheir

appearance

holdsubstantial recreational

and

visual

benefits.

The

behavior

and

lifeprocessesofinvertebrates

would

offer to

many

a "fascination value," to use the Ehrlichs'terms(seeEhrlich

and

Ehrlich, 1981).

One

can

envision atimein

which

people mightrefocustheir

curios-ity

and

sense ofintrigue

away from dime

storenovels

and

steamy

television

shows and toward

the

many

otherforms oflifeinhabiting

our

planet.

Asomewhat

more

compelling,

though

still anthropocen-tric (i.e.,

human-centered)

line of argument, lies in the

fundamental

importance

of other creatures in a deeper emotionalsense. It

seems

that asa species

we

must

value

the existence

and

qualitiesof otherforms of life-one needs onlytocasuallylookatthe

names

we

givetoautomobiles

and

other productlines;theimages

we

useinadvertising

and

businessaffairs;

and

theanimal symbols

we

employ

to

represent important societal

and governmental

institu-tions.

What

strikes

me

is theunderstatedimportance of

"otherness"; thatis,the

knowledge

that

we

arenotalone

on

the planet,butrather partof alargerconstellationoflife

forms.

The

qualityof

my

lifeis

enhanced

significantlybythe

knowledge

thatsuchcreatures asthedesert tortoiseexist,

evenif Ihave fewdirectopportunitiestoseethespeciesin

thewild.

Whether

we

admit

it ornot, the loss of each

speciesdiminishes

our

livesinimportantways.

The

pros-pectof

an

increasingly

empty

planetinterms ofthe

number

and

diversityofspeciesisadepressingone. Species

extinc-tionrepresents

innumerable

lostopportunitiesfor

human

enrichment. In

an

1855 letter to Franklin Pierce, chief Sealthofthe

Duwamish

tribeof

Washington

State stated thepointnicely:"Ifallthe beasts

were

gone,

men

would

die

ofgreat lonelinessofspirit"

(Nobokov,

1978,p.109).

While

these

arguments

areconvincingintheir

own

right,

there

seems

to

be an

even

more

fundamental

issuehere.

These

contentions,while containing considerablevalidity,

are unnecessarilyanthropocentric

and

utilitarianin their focus.

Need

one

justifyallowing aspecies toexist simply because it holds

some

instrumental value or benefit to

humans?

Thisattitude,Ibelieve,epitomizes

our

arrogance

asa species(what

some

have

called"speciesism")

and

fails

to perceivetheintrinsicvalue ofotherforms oflife. Iagree with

David

Erhenfield's

"Noah

Principle,"

which

holds

that species

have

a basicright to exist: "theyshouldbe conservedbecause theyexist

and

becausethisexistenceis itselfbut the present expression ofacontinuedhistorical

processof

immense

antiquity

and

majesty. Long-standing

existencein nature is

deemed

to carrywith it the

unim-peachable right tocontinued existence" (1978, pp. 207-208).

Other

environmentalethicists

have

soughtto refine

and

expand

thisbasicnotion. PaulTaylor'stheoryof"Respect

forNature,"forexample,is

one

ofthe

more

philosophically sophisticated (see Taylor, 1986). Hisethicofrespectfor

otherforms oflifeis

grounded

on

a "biocentric outlook," consistingofseveralkeybeliefs,

among

them: that

humans

arebut

members

ofthe "Earth's

community

oflife"; that

human

and

non-human

speciesare"integratedelementsin

asystem of interdependence";thatallorganismsare

"tele-ologicalcentersoflife,"witheach representinga"unique

individualpursuingits

own

good

inits

own

way";

and

that

humans

"arenotinherentlysuperiortootherlivingthings" (Taylor, 1986, pp. 99-100).

These

beliefs, Taylorargues, lead to an ethic of respect for other forms of life, not

becausetheyhold value orbenefitfor

humans,

but because

theyhave inherent

worth and

a

good

oftheirown.2

Fall1989, Vol.15,No. 2 35

species

and

a

solemn

dutyto minimize,to the extent

pos-sible,man'sspecies-threatening impacts.

Such

aviewisnot aneasy

one

forplanners

and

policymakerstoimplement,as the case

examples and

discussion

below

will indicate.

The

Realities

of Species Protection

As

compellingas

arguments

to protect

endangered

spe-ciesmight

be

intheabstract,therealitiesofsuchprotective

programs in the field suggest a

number

ofpractical

and

politicaldifficulties. Conflicts

between

species

conserva-tion

and urban development

typically involve different

community

factions with different perspectives

on what

constitutesfair

and

reasonableresults.

Even

when

thereis

agreement about the

need

to protect

an endangered

spe-cies,thereisoftenconsiderabledisagreementabout

how

it

shouldbe done. Ifplannersare to

be

effective at

promoting

species conservation, they should

be

ready

and

able to foreseethese practical obstacles

and

torespondtothem.

To

illustratethesepracticalrealities,itwill

be

useful to focusattention

on

aspecificdevelopment-speciesconflict

anditseventualresolution. Iobtainedsubstantial insight

intothe case through interviewswith key participantsin

thisdispute.3

The

recentconflict

upon

which

Iwill focus,

which

oc-curredinCoachellaValley, California,illustrates

many

of

the pointsIwishto

make.

CoachellaValley, locatedabout one

hundred

miles east of

Los

Angeles, is

home

to nine

rapidly-growingcities, including

Palm

Springs. It isalso

home

totheCoachella Valleyfringe-toedlizard,placed

on

the federal

endangered

species list in 1980after tremen-dous reductionsinitshabitat

and

range (SeeU.S.Fish

and

Wildlife Service, 1985). Its habitat formerly extended

throughout the Valley,but in recent years ithas

had

to

compete

forlimitedlandarea with

booming

countryclub

and

resortdevelopment.

The

lizardrepresentsthe

quintes-sential

example

of evolutionary adaptation. It lives in

blowsand

habitat

and

has developeddistinctive

morpho-logicalfeaturesinresponse.

The

most

notablefeaturesare the fringetoes~a

row

ofelongatedscales

on

theedge ofthe toe

which

providesextratraction

and

allows thelizardto

"skate"alongthesand (and

under

it)athighspeeds.

Other

blowsandadaptations includea

wedged-shaped

snout which

facilitatesdiving into the sand; fringedeyelids;alooseflap

ofskin

which

coversthelizard'searwhiledivinginthe sand;

and

theabilityto partiallycloseitsnostrils,also toprevent

theentrance ofsand.

In 1983, the conflict

between

the preservation of the

lizard

and development

pressures

came

to a

head

when

local environmentalists objected to the

proposed

Palm

Valley

Country

Club-a

project that

was

to

consume

more

than four

hundred

acres ofhabitat.

To

opponents, the project

was

clearly illegal

under

the federal

Endangered

Species

Act (ESA), which

prohibitsthekillingor

harming

ofa listedspecies.

For

their part,thedevelopers

seemed

poised for a protracted legal

and

political battle, even threateningtoseekchangesto

ESA

shouldthe U.S.Fish

and

WildlifeServiceattempttoshut

down

development

in

the Valley. It

was

agreedthataHabitatConservation Plan

(HCP)

shouldbe prepared.

Under

the 1982

amendments

to

ESA,

the U.S. Fish

and

Wildlife Servicecan issuean

"incidental take" (Section 10(a)) permit

when

it can

be

shown

that through the

implementation

of

an

HCP

a

species'chances ofsurvival

and

recoverywillnot

be

dimin-ished.

The

plan

was

prepared by a steering

committee

consistingofrepresentativesofthe

major

groupsinvolved,

including the tenlocaljurisdictions(ninecities

and

River-side County), the

development and

environmental

com-munities, U.S.Fish

and

WildlifeService

(FWS),

California

Department

of Fish

and

Game,

and

the

Bureau

of

Land

Management.

The

group

was

chairedbythe

Nature

Con-servancy

and

much

of the technical

work

was done

by

consultants (see Coachella Valley Steering

Committee,

1985).

The

solution

proposed

bythe plan,

and

ultimately imple-mented,

was

to establishthreeseparatefringe-toed lizard

preserves,thelargestcomprisingan area of approximately

thirteen

thousand

acres.

The

Nature Conservancy

actedas

the projectcoordinator

and

land acquisition agent.

The

totalcostofestablishingthe preserves

was

approximately $25 million, to

be

obtained

from

a variety of sources, including

some

$7million

from

developermitigationfees.

Alldevelopers of landlyingwithinadesignatedmitigation

zone

(thehistoricrange ofthelizard)arerequiredtopaya

feeof

$600

peracre, until$7millionisaccumulated,after

which

the mitigation feewill

drop

to

$100

per acre.

As

Table 1 indicates, large

sums

have also

come

from

the

Federal

Bureau

of

Land

Management

inthe

form

of land swaps,

and from

the federal

Land

and

Water

Conservation Fund.

As

thesefunds

have

become

available, the

Nature

Conservancy

has repaid itself for its initial acquisition

costs.

Table1. Projected

Funding

SourcesforCoachella ValleyFringe-Toed Lizard Preserves (InMillions)

Funding Source

Amount

Federal

Land

and

Water

Conservation

Funds

$10.0

BLM

land

exchange

(cash value) 5.0 State WildlifeConservation

Board

1.0

Nature

Conservancy

2.0

Developer

MitigationFees. 7.0

Total $25.0

Source: CoachellaValleyFringe-Toed Lizard Habitat

Conservation Plan,June1985

While

the

FWS

has

approved

the

HCP,

and

hasissueda

Section10(a) incidentaltakepermit,thereisanythingbut

universalconsensusthat thelizard'slong

term

survivalis

assured.

To

most, evenintheenvironmental

community,

this is acalculated risk, but a better

outcome

than

one

generated through confrontation.

From

the developers' perspective,the

FWS

permit has

opened up

theremaining

areasofthe valley for

development and

relievedany

need

to

be

concerned

aboutthelizard'sfate inareas outsideofthe

preserve boundaries. All told, the preserves

manage

to protectapproximately

7800

acresofthelizard'soccupiable

habitat. This constitutes only about ten percent ofthe

habitatremainingatthetimetheplan

was

prepared,and aboutsixteenpercentofthe

amount

of unshieldednatural

blowsand

habitat.

On

the

one

hand, the Coachella case

illustrates the considerable merits of

compromise

over confrontation.

On

theotherhand,

one

invariably

wonders

whether

itisthelizard

who

isultimatelythe loser

under

an

arrangement

which

deprivesitof

some

ninetypercent ofits

existing habitat.

The Problem

of

Cost

The

Coachella Valley case illustrates

many

ofthe

ob-staclesthatplannerswillface

when

attemptingtominimize

the "footprint"of

man.

An

initial

and

obviousobstacleto

the strategy

undertaken

in theCoachellacaseisthe cost factor.

An

acquisition costof$25million

was

no

small

sum

and

led

many

to

wonder

whether

the preservationofalizard

was

really

worth

theexpense.

To

many,

sucha

sum

seemed

awasteful use oflimited societal resources. Indeed, the

attorneyrepresentingthe

development

community

inthe

Coachellacasespeculatedin

an

interview thatperhapsthis

money

would be

betterspent helping

needy

familiesin

Los

Angelesbarrios. Thisattitudeis, Ibelieve,afairly

common

one. If

we

attemptto assess

our

obligations toother forms of life in terms of the conventional

economic

metric, I

suspect the

endangered

specieswill lose out

more

often

thannot.

RestorationactivityintheCoachellaValley Reserve

Even

forthose

who

would

see$25million as areasonable

societal investment, there is considerable disagreement

about

how

these funds should

be

derived. Inthe case of

Fall1989, Vol.15,No. 2 37

To

the

development community,

thiscontribution

seems

high. Since

ESAis

a federal law,in their

minds

itisentirely

fairtoaskthatthebroaderpublic

be

requiredtopayforall

or thelion'sshareof thecostofsuchpreserves.

To many

others,myselfincluded, thefees

seem

rather low,

particu-larly

when compared

to mitigationrequirements

found

in

otherenvironmentalareas. Developers wishingtodevelop andfillwetlands,forinstance,willtypically

be

requiredto createorrestoreat least

one

acreofwetlandsforeveryacre

lost(often the

compensation

ratiois

much

higher). Inthe

CoachellaValleycase,landsellsfor inexcessof $4,000to $5,000peracre. Thus, a

$600

peracrefee

would

perhaps buy one-tenth of

an

acreofreplacementhabitat.Thisisnot

avery

good

bargain, especiallyin lightofthe speculative

development

profitsto

be

had

by developers

and

landown-ersoftakingcareof the"lizardproblem."

Such

feesareoftencriticizedbecause oftheirimpact

on

the priceof

new

housing.This

argument

isspuriousatbest

intheCoachella Valleycase,giventhe typesofhousing

and

development

beingconstructed.

The

issuehas

been

raised

in another development-species confrontation currently heating

up

inwestern Riverside County,California,

where

new

housing construction is rapidly encroaching

on

the habitatofthe

endangered

Stephens'

kangaroo

rat. Here,

new

development

is being asked to pay

an

emergency

mitigation feeof

$1950

peracre (the

HCP

hasnotyet

been

prepared)

and

the affordablehousingspectreis

more

legiti-matelyraised.

The

priceeffectsofsuchfees

must

be keptin

perspective,however.

Even

inwestern Riverside County, about60 miles

from

Los

Angeles,the

median

home

value

isalready

around

$110,000.

The Problem

of Conflicting Rights

Invery

fundamental

ways,development/speciesdisputes

liketheCoachella Valleycaseareconflicts

between

rights-therightsofspecies toexist

and

flourish versustheproperty

rightsof landowners

and

developers. Thisis perhapsthe single

most

difficultobstacleforplannersto

overcome

in

protecting

endangered

species. This isconsequently the

areain

which concerned

planners

and

policymakers

must

direct

much

oftheir intellectual

and

political energiesin

thenearfuture.

While

asystem ofprivatepropertyrights inlandholds

many

benefits

and seems

essentialina

market

economy,

itisalso evident thatsuchrightsarebadlyin

need

ofredefinition.

Should

aproperty owner, landdeveloper,

ora

lumber

company

have such

complete

rightsofcontrol

and

usethat theiractivitiesarepermittedtojeopardizethe existenceof

one

or

more

species?

Our

ethicofrespecting therightsof otherspecies suggests to

me

that

when

private

property rights

and

species existence rights conflict, the

latter

must

prevail.Indeed,this

seems

the original intentof

the federal

Endangered

SpeciesAct.

There

are at least

two

theoretical

and

legal tacts that

could

be

takento

modify

privatepropertyinlandtobetter

takeaccount ofspecies protection.

One

approach

istoview

seriousimpactsto

an endangered

species as equivalentto

the creationofapublicharm. This theory has

been

usedin

the past as a defense against the unconstitutional taking

challenge(i.e.,thatregulationisso

onerous

thatit

amounts

to

governmental

expropriation without just

compensa-tion). Just asa

landowner

may

have

no

right to use

and

profit

from

his landwhere, say, substantial airor water

iijiiiidlrV 'iIt

.a .mM.<

pollutantsare created,soalsodoesthe

landowner

nothave an automaticrighttouse the land

where

itjeopardizesthe

existence of

an endangered

species.

A

second, related

approach

might

be

toextend the Public Trust doctrine,

which

asserts that certain natural resources (navigable waters, beaches,

and

shorelines) are so essential to the public that private partiescannot usurp orcloseoff their

use (see Hunter, 1988).

Endangered

species could

be

legitimatelyandconvincinglyviewedasthe objectsofpublic

trust.

Both

of theselinesof reasoning have

an

anthropo-centricbent,ofcourse. Ifiteverdoes,it

may

be

many

years

before ourlegalsystemwill

acknowledge

the veryrightof

thespecies,irrespectiveof

human

rights

and

interests(e.g.,

seeStone,1974, 1987).

The

dynamic

and

changing nature of the

endangered

species

problem

certainlyalso createsperceivedinequities

from

the perspectiveofa

landowner

ordeveloper. Isitfair

toseverelyrestricttheuse ofalandowner's property of land

after discovering for the first time the existence of

an

endangered

speciesinthatparticulararea?Or,isitfairthat

one

daya speciesisnotendangered,

and

the nextit

becomes

listed,withthelandowner's ordeveloper'spermitteduses

ofthelandseverely

changed

inthat

one

day'stime?

While

the plightofthe

landowner

or developer

may

be

causefor

some

sympathy, land

development

isbydefinition

ariskyenterprise.

Changes

inour understanding of endan-geredspeciesshould

be

consideredasyetanother

element

in thisriskequation,

and

certainlynotgroundsforspecial

treatment or compensation. Ifalandowner's propertyis

substantially devalued because ofa decision to locate a

highway

or

some

other

major

publicorprivatefacilityina

different, lessfavorable location, that

landowner

does not

usually expect, nor

do

we

offer,

compensation

orspecial treatment.

The same

principle should apply

when

it is

discoveredthata propertyowner's landcontains the

habi-tat of an

endangered

species. (For a contrary view see Carlton, 1986.)

Thisdoes not

mean,

ofcourse, thatplanners providing

for

endangered

speciesprotectionshould

be

insensitive to theexpectations

and

financial investments of developers

and

landowners.

The

planning processcurrently

underway

fortheStephens'

kangaroo

rat

may

be an

example

ofsuch

sensitivity.

Through

thepreparation ofaninterim habitat

conservation plan (not yet

approved

by the

FWS),

large areasofthecountyhave

been

identifiedin

which

fewrats

arelikelyto

be

found,

where development

will

be

allowed

to proceed while the full

HCP

is beingprepared (i.e., a section 10(a)permitwill

be

issuedfortheseareas).

Devel-opment

willnot

be

allowedtoproceed,

on

theotherhand,

indesignated studyareas,

where

the vastmajorityof kanga-roorathabitat is

found

(thatis,unlessdevelopers obtain

10(a)permitsindividually).This "separatingout" of

major

habitatstudyareas

from

minor, mostly non-habitatareas

may

prevent the county

from

coming

to a

development

standstill.

While

some

very small

amount

ofhabitat

may

be

lostoutsideofthestudyareas(perhapsfivepercent),

this

approach

seems

areasonable

way

toallow

develop-ment

toproceed.

Also,thelocalfinancial

and

political realities

may

be

suchthat

some

degree of

development

isnecessaryto

fundthe speciesrecovery

and

protection

program

(e.g.,

inthe caseoftheCoachellapreserves,providing

monies

to put

up

fences, to police habitat areas, to establish speciesmonitoring programs,etc.).

Of

course,

many

of

theserecoveryactivities

would

not

be

necessaryinthe

firstplacewithoutthe severe

encroachment

ofpeople

and

development.

The Problem

of

Scientific

Uncertainty

There

isatendency

among

those ofus

who

arenot

sci-entiststoplace substantialfaith inthe abilitiesof

sci-ence

and

scientiststo

answer

those questions necessary

for

making

publicpolicy. In the

endangered

species

area,thereare serious

and

perennial

problems

associ-atedwiththe lackofscientificdata

and

knowledge.

Among

otherthings,

our knowledge

of

what

actions

arenecessarytopreservea species,forinstancethesize

ofpreserves

and

the habitatacreagethatshould

be

set aside,isquitelimited. Inthe caseof CoachellaValley,

although

an

effort

was

made

to polla

number

of

biologi-calexperts

about what

the

minimum

preserve acreage shouldbe, scientificunderstandingremainsimperfect.

Lizard populations have

been

shown

to rise

and

fall

dramatically

from

year to year,

and

while there are certaintheories that

might

explain this

phenomenon,

no

one

isentirely certainofthe cause.

Moreover,

while

the protection ofa species requires careful

and

pro-tractedscientificstudyinordertounderstanditsmating

and

foraging behavior,thisprocessclashesdramatically

withthe short

timeframe

of

landowners

and

developers wishingtoutilizetheirland(andlocal officialsdesirous

of expandingtheir jurisdiction'staxbase

and

economic

activity).

While

the lackoffull

and

accuratescientific knowl-edgepresents a

major problem

toeffectiveplanningfor

species protection, itsuggests certainstrategies.

One

strategy,ofcourse,istoensurethatthe best biological studiespossibleinthe short

term

have

been

prepared,

and

thatallprevailingscientificopinion

and

expertiseis

tapped.

Moreover,

the pressure of landowners

and

developersto

move

ahead

withtheir projectsshould not be allowedtoobstruct certain basic studies(e.g.,

trap-ping

and

otherstudiesdesigned to

gauge

the size

and

locationofspecies, studies to understand patterns of

blowsand

movement,

etc.).

Any

effective

HCP

must

also incorporate provisions forthe long

term

analysis

Fall1989, Vol.15,No.2 39

necessary fundsfor theseactivities. Finally, given these inherentscientificuncertainties,itonly

makes

senseto err

on

the sideof caution

and

conservatism

when

developinga habitat conservation plan or other protective strategies.

Retaining

much

largerundisturbedareasofhabitat

may

be

more

appropriateforspeciesof

which

much

lessis under-stood aboutitslifecycleorhabitatneeds,forexample.

The

Problem

of "Inequality"

Among

Species

When

endangered

species

and urban development

con-flict,questions areimmediatelyraisedabout

how

impor-tant the particularcreature injeopardy is to the public,

relativeto otherspecies.

A

successfuleffort toprotect a species requires at least tacitconsent

on

the part ofthe

public,

and

oftengenuinepublicconcernaboutitsplight.

Several factorscanserve to

undermine

thesenseof concern

felt

and

expressedboth bypublicofficials

and

the

commu-nity at-large. Certain

endangered

species are put at a

marked

disadvantage because they are not "cute,"

"cud-dly,"or otherwisevisually attractive or appealing to the

public. Thisexplains

why

peopleexpress a

disproportion-atelyhighlevelofconcern

and

affectionforbears,but not

bats,lionsbutnotlizards,tigersbut nottigersalamanders.

The

bias

seems

particularlyevidentinfavoroflarge

terres-trial

mammals,

especiallythose

which

arein

some way

an-thropomorphic.

The

Coachellacaseillustrates thispoint,

inthatit

was

(andis)extremelydifficulttogetcitizens

and

publicofficialsveryexcitedaboutalizard.

Advocates

ofthe

lizardpreserves

found

it

was

often

more

effectivetoargue

infavorof

more

parks

and

open

space,ratherthaninterms

of the

need

toprotect thelizarditself. This

problem

iseven

more

evidentinthe recent caseoftheStephen's

kangaroo

rat-acreaturefor

which

people have developed consider-abledisdain.

Stephen

Kellertof

Yale

hasconductedextensivesurveys of public attitudesabout suchwildlife issues.

Not

surpris-ingly, he

found

that people consistently attach a

much

greaterimportance

on

preservingandprotectingthelarger,

more

attractiveanimalspecies.

Of

substantiallyless

impor-tance are unattractive,even repugnant,specieslikesnakes and insects. Kellert gave respondents a list ofdifferent

animal

and

plant species

and

asked

them

which

they

would

favor protectingifitresultedinhigherenergycosts.

While

89 percent favored protecting the baldeagle,only43 per-cent favored protecting theEastern Indigosnake

and an

evensmaller

34

percent favoredprotecting the

Kauai

wolf

spider4(seeKellert,1979).

The

psychologicalimportance

attributed to, orconnected with, certain species in turn

translates into a willingness to

make

greater sacrifices

(monetary

and

otherwise)inordertopreserve

and

protect

them.

These

kinds of biases are troubling, of course,

becausethe attractivenessor"cuddle-ability"ofa species

does notnecessarily correlate toitsecologicalimportance.

And,

more

fundamental

yet,

no

speciesshouldhaveto rely

on

itsvisual attractiveness to

humans

as a

measure

ofits

worth

orrighttoexist.

Another

aspectofthisinequality issuehasto

do

with

how

distinctiveathreatenedspeciesisas

compared

with other

similarspecies. Isa"sub-species"oflesservalue

and

lesser priority in preservationeffortsthan atrue species? This

issue has clearly

come

into play in several of the local

endangered

speciesconflicts

under

study. IntheCoachella Valleycase,

some

arguedthat savingtheCoachella Valley

fringe-toed lizard

was

not as pressingor ofgreat impor-tancebecausethere

were two

other verysimilarsub-species

indigenoustothe U.S.(the

Mojave

and Colorado

Desert

fringe-toedlizards).

The

casualobserver

would

have

diffi-culty distinguishing

between

the three.

As

another

ex-ample, whilethe

County

ofSanta

Cruz

has

an endangered

speciesordinance

which

imposesspecial

development

stan-dardsin

salamander

habitatareas,theseeffortsto savethe

Santa

Cruz

long-toed

salamander

could

be

criticized

be-causetheanimalisbut

one

offivesubspeciesoflong-toed

salamander

(others include thewestern, central, eastern

and

southern long-toed salamanders).

Attempting

to"value"a speciesaccordingtoitsrelative

distinctivenessor "uniqueness"isfollyforseveral reasons.

First,at

any

given pointintime,thescientific

community

disagreesaboutthe extent to

which

speciesare similaror

dissimilar.

More

importantly, though, species evolve in

many

ways,

and

for

many

reasons

we

simply

do

not

suffi-cientlyunderstand.

Two

subspecieswith only

minor

differ-ences in coloring

and morphology

may

be

distinctive in

many

ways

beyond

our

comprehension.

In this article, I have focused entirely

on

endangered

species tothe neglectof other

non-endangered

species that

may

also be negatively

impacted

by urban

growth and

development. This in itself raises another question of

equality. Speciesextinctioneliminates forever achain of

lifethathas evolved

and

developed overmillionsofyears.

The

preservationofa species, then,

must

necessarilytake

precedence over

any

singleorganism.

To

ensure thelong

term

survival

and

recovery of the least Bell's vireo, for

example, it

may

be

necessary to

harm

or kill the

non-endangered brown-headed

cowbird,a

major

habitat

com-petitor.

On

theother hand,theconcept ofasharedplanet

would

seem

to require that

when

our

urban

areas

expand

and

when

we

permitthe

development

ofland,otherforms oflife,particularlysentientlife,should notbe unnecessar-ily

harmed.

A

recentcasein

Colorado

illustrates this point.

In Julyof1988,

an

exterminator, using

aluminum

phos-phate, destroyed

an

150-member

prairie

dog

colony in

Boulder,

Colorado

(see Zales, 1988).

The

exterminator

had

been

hired by a developer

who

was

about to break

ground

on

a

new

commercial

complex.

The

destruction of the colony

was

unnecessary, in that it could have

been

relocated,

and

indeed

was

actually slated tobe relocated.

Such

unnecessary violence

seems

contraryto

an

ethicof

The

Vision

of

a

Shared

Planet

Perhaps the

most

disturbing aspect ofthe Coachella Valleycaseisthesheerextentofthe resulting habitatloss. Is itnotthe

epitome

of

human

arrogancetodestroy

some

ninety percent ofa species' habitatin the

name

of addi-tionalresort housing

and

countryclub amenities-hardly

things thatcould

be

considered

human

"essentials?" This

lossisalsodisturbingin lightofthe history

and

intentions

ofthe federal

Endangered

SpeciesAct.

The

Secretaryof

the Interiorispermittedtoissueanincidentaltakepermit only

when

itis

found

thatthe taking"willnot appreciably reducethe likelihood ofthe survival

and

recovery ofthe speciesinthewild"(seeSection10(c)(2)(B)). It isdifficult toimagine

how

such a drasticreduction ofhabitat

would

not reducethechances ofsurvival,

and

certainlyof

recov-ery.

While

itisnot inconceivablethatif

ESAwere

aggres-sivelyenforced thepolitical

powers

thatbe

might

seekto

modify orseverelygutit, I thinkit unlikely.

Although

in

recent years the

ESA

has

been

gainingin politicalstrength,

plannerscontinueto havea responsibilityto

push

forits

strident

and

aggressiveenforcement.

More

generally,planners

and

policymakershave

respon-sibilities to consider the impacts that the projects they review,

and

theland use

and

otherplansthey prepare,will

have

on

endangered

species.

The

ethicofasharedplanet requiresit.

Not

only

must

direct impacts

be

considered,

suchastheobviousdestructionofcriticalhabitat,but

more

indirect effects as well.

For

instance, in Big Pine Key,

Florida,road-killsofthe

endangered

key deerwillcontinue

tomultiply as

development

inthefarnorthern

end

ofthe islandisallowedtoproceed,increasingtrafficlevelsalong

Key Deer

Boulevard.

As

another example, the desert tortoiseisthreatened bythe introduction of

power

lines

into the desert.

These

lines provide nesting areas for ravens,

which

inturnprey

on

young

deserttortoise.

Plan-ners

must

find

ways

to

minimize

theimpacts

and

interfer-ence of

humans on

endangered

species,

however

they

might

result.

We

must

be

aware

of

and

manage

these indirect

effectsof urbanization

and must be

particularlysensitiveto steer clearofthosehabitat areas especiallyrich in

biodiver-sity.

But

if

we

are serious as a societyabout sharing

our

small

planet

and an

ethic ofrespect forotherspecies, thelong termimplications areeven

more

profound.

They

suggest a substantial rethinking of ourlifestyles

and our

consump-tion patterns.

For

planners, there arefundamental changes implied in the types of

human

settlement patterns

and

strategies that areappropriate

and

permissible. Perhaps

the

most

basic

change

isthe rejectionofunnecessary land consumption. Sharingthe planet implies a responsibility to

minimize our

"footprint"

and

a responsibility not to

squanderthe limited

common

habitat.

Among

thespecific

landuse

and

planningpoliciesthat

seem

requiredby such

an

ethic include: higher

urban

and suburban

densities

and

more

compact and

contiguous

development

patterns;the redirectionof

growth back

into existing

urban

centers

and

therevitalizationofdecliningareas; infilling

and

utilizing

alreadydegraded

and

committed

lands for

new

develop-ments

before encroaching

on

environmentally-sensitive habitat areas;

and

restricting the extent to

which

second

homes

and

other less-essentialforms of

development

are subsidizedorpermittedatall.

The

vision ofa shared planet

may

also call forother changesinlifestylethatextend

beyond

simplythe

amount

ofland

we

directly

consume

fordevelopment.

For

example,

a

number

of

contemporary

threats to speciesin thiscountry

involve water projects (e.g., dams, reservoirs, diversion systems,etc.).

Thevisionofashared

planet

may

necessitate sharply curtailing the extent to

which

we

wastefully

con-sume

a scarce resourcesuchaswater-particularlyinthe

West.5

_{The same}

_could

be

saidabout energy consumption,

the consequences of

which

can severely

and

irreparably

damage

the habitat of

endangered

and non-endangered

species (e.g., thedestructionofa riparianecosystem asa

resultofa hydro-electric project;the creationofacid

depo-sition as a result of coal-burning

power

plants;

and

the

tremendous

damage

done

bythe recent

Alaskan

oil spill).

Human-induced

global

warming

due

toexcessive carbon

dioxide emissions is a particularly serious threat inthat

many

specieswill

be

unabletoadaptto

new

climatic condi-tions largely as a result of

human

settlement patterns.6

There

are

many

ways

in

which

beinga "plain citizen"

may

require rethinking basic lifestyle

and consumption

pat-terns.

And,

perhaps

most

fundamentally, the notion of

sharingthe planetwill require seriousefforts

on

a global scale to control population growth.

Such

strategies as

higherdensities,

urban

infilling,

and

energy conservation can

do

onlyso

much

toreducethe

human

impact

when

the quantity ofpeople, activities,

and

resource

demands

are

expandingatexponentialrates.

At

the veryleast,

we

must,asaspecies,enteraperiod of

reflectionabout

our

positionhere

on

Earth

and

the

respon-sibilities

we

havetoitsotherinhabitants, aswell as toour

own

descendants. Plannersare in the

unique

position to

initiate

and

lead the discussion

and

provide practical

in-sightinto

how

the visionof asharedplanetcan

be

trans-latedinto actions,laws,

and

policies.

TimothyBoa(leyisanAssistant ProfessorintheDepartmentofUrbanand Environmental Planningatthe Universityof Virginia.

He

receivedaPh.D.

intheDepartmentof Cityand Regional Planningfromthe University of

Fall1989, Vol.15,No.2 41

Notes

1. Thereareapproximately1500 animalsand2500plantscurrently clas-sifiedascandidatespecies.

2. Taylorgoesontoconstructafairlydetailedsetofethicalstandards for treatingotherlifeforms,which he arguesfollowsdirectlyfromthe attitudeof respect.Theseincludefourbasicrulesofconduct(theRule

ofNonmaleficience,theRuleofNoninterference, theRuleofFidelity,

andtheRuleof Restitutive Justice)andfive priorityprinciplesfor decidingconflictsbetweenhumanandnon-humaninterests(the prin-cipleof self-defense, the principle of proportionality, the principle of

minimumwrong,the principleofdistributive justiceandthe principle ofrestitutive justice).

3. Theobservationsin thisarticlealsodraw frominterviewsconducted

withkeyparticipantsinthreeother HabitatConservation Planning

processes: theNorthKeyLargo, Florida

HCP

(involvingthe Ameri-can Crocodile, the Schaus swallowtail butterfly, the Key Largo

woodrat andtheKey Largocottonmouse);theSan DiegoleastBell's vireoHCP;andtheRiversideCountyStephens'kangarooratHCP.

Fora general overviewof several of these

HCP

experiences, see

Webster,1987.

4. Thephrasingoftheresponsecategorieswasactually: "Abird.suchas

theBaldEagle";"

A

snake,suchas theEasternIndigoSnake";and"A

spider,suchastheKauai wolfspider."

5. Itmayalsosuggest thatwerethink the extent towhichweallow current nationaldevelopmentpatterns to continue. Doesitmakesense to

continuetoallow explosivepopulationgrowthin aridareaslike

South-ern Californiawhich necessitateenvironmentally (and financially) costlywaterdiversion projects?Shouldweseekwaystodirectgrowth

at a national scale to those areaswhich have the greatest natural carrying capacitiesand wherethehumanspeciescanbe

accommo-datedwith the fewestimpacts?

6. Theglobalwarming problemdoessuggestcertainconservation strate-giessuchasprotecting largecontiguousblocks of habitatandensuring thatmovementcorridorsare preserved. SeeHarrisandGallagher, 1989, for instance.

Ehrenfeld, David. 1978. The Arrogance ofHumanism,Oxford: Oxford

UniversityPress.

Ehrlich, Pauland Anne Ehrlich. 1981. Extinction: The Causesand

Consequences oftheDisappearance ofSpecies,

New

York: Ballantine

Books.

Harris, Carry D.andPeterB. Gallagher. 1989. "New Initiativesfor WildlifeConservation: TheNeedforMovementCorridors,"in

Pre-servingCommunities andCorridors,Washington,D.C.:Defendersof Wildlife.

Hunter, DavidB. 1988. "AnEcological PerspectiveonProperty:

A

Call for JudicialProtectionof the Public's InterestinEnvironmentally

CriticalResources,"HarvardEnvironmental

Law

Review, Vol.12, pp. 311-383.

Kellert, Stephen. 1979. Public Attitudes TowardCritical Wildlifeand

NaturalHabitatIssues,Washington,D.C: U.S.FishandWildlife Service,October.

Leopold, Aldo. 1949.

A

SandCountyAlmanacandSketchesHereand

There,Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Myers,Norman. 1979. TheSinkingArk:

A

New

Lookat theProblem of DisappearingSpecies,

New

York: PergamonPress.

Nobokov,Peter. 1978. NativeAmericanTestimony,

New

York: Harper

andRow.

Shabecoff,Philip. 1988."Survey Finds NativePlantsinImminentPeril,"

The

New

YorkTimes,December6.

Stone,Christopher. 1974. ShouldTreesHaveStanding? TowardsLegal

Rights forNaturalObjects,LosAltos, California: WilliamKaufman.

Stone,Christopher. 1987. EarthandOtherEssays: The CaseforMoral

Pluralism,

New

York: HarperandRow.

References

Taylor, Paul. 1986.Respectfor Nature:

A

Theory ofEnvironmentalEthics,

Princeton,

New

Jersey: PrincetonUniversity Press. Brody,JaneE. 1988. "ScientistsEyeAncientAfrican PlantAsBetter

SourceofPulpforPaper,"

New

YorkTimes,December10. Carlton,RobertL. 1986. "Property RightsandIncentivesinthe

Preser-vation of Species," in Bryan G. Norton ed. ThePreservation of

Species: TheValueof BiologicalDiversity,Princeton,

New

Jersey: Princeton UniversityPress.

Coachella ValleyFringe-ToedLizard

HCP

SteeringCommittee, 1985.

Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, Riverside, California, June.

U.S. FishandWildlife Service. 1985.CoachellaValleyFringe-Toed Lizard RecoveryPlan, Portland,Oregon.

Webster, Richard E. 1987. "Habitat ConservationPlans Underthe

EndangeredSpeciesAct,"SanDiego

Law

Review,Vo\.24: 243-271.

Wilson,EdwardD,ed. 1988. Biodiversity,Washington,D.C: National

AcademyPress.