mountain valley environments

Landscape and Urban Planning, 16 ( 1988 ) 245-252 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

245

PLANNING FOR AVIAN WILDLIFE IN URBANIZING AREAS IN AMERICAN DESERT/MOUNTAIN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTS

CRAIG W. JOHNSON Department of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, Utah State University. Logan, Utah (U.S.A.) (Accepted for publication

12 August 1987)

ABSTRACT

Johnson, C. W., 1988. Planning for avian wildlife in urbanizing areas in American desert/ mountain valley environments. Landscape Urban Plann..

16: 245-252.

Residents in western American states are expressing a growing interest in wildlife-oriented recreation in the urbanized environment. Unfortunately, present development practices which convert rural land to urban use, often under the guidance of landscape architects and planners, have caused the displacement of many wildlife species. Vegetation management in urban areas has produced equally detrimental ej fects on urban wildlife. The net result has been a decline in overall urban wildlife species diversity.

BACKGROUND We find in America a clearly identifiable trend toward the countrified city including a

0169-2046/88/$03.50

0 1988 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

Landscape architects, planners, urban foresters and others involved in land conversion and vegetation management have a tremendous opportunity to improve the quality of urban wildlife habitat and to benefit the growing number of urban wildlife enthusiasts. However, to do so the planning and design professions must appreciate the value of urban wildlife, become aware of wildlife welfare needs and incorporate wildlife as a significant factor in the design process. General wildlife welfare needs are discussed and recommendations regarding ways to integrate wildlife as a factor in traditional planning and management decision making processes are presented. Specific recommendations for wildlife habitat preservation, enhancement and rehabilitation are provided.

preference for wildlife associated with rural landscapes (Leedy and Adams, 1986). Numerous studies of public attitudes toward wildlife in urban areas (particularly avian spe-

‘46

ties which are the focus of this paper) indicate that millions of urban Americans value wildlife in their immediate environment (Seater, 1976: Payne and DeGraaf, 1975; Geist, 1975 ). A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service study ( 1982 ) reported a substantial increase in non-consumptive wildlife-related recreation among the youth of 5-l 5 years of age. Clearly there is an interest in and appreciation of wildlife by urban residents which appears to be growing in younger segments of the population (Gilbert, 1982). Why be concerned about urban wildlife in rural intermountain states with their millions of acres of forest and range, where birds can be observed in the natural landscape and relatively undisturbed wildlife populations can prosper? There are several reasons. First. many intermountain states are not rural. For example, in 1980 Utah was the seventh most urbanized state in the United States and the rate of urban growth has been accelerating (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1982 ) . Seventy-seven per cent of Utah’s population lives in the four-county Wasatch Front megalopolis. Second, familyoriented intermountain urban residents spend much of their time at home, hence opportunities to participate in wildlife-related recreation would be enhanced if wildlife were present in residential and other urban areas. Wildlife is present in intermountain cities and towns, but in most urbanized areas bird diversity is limited to a few species with broad tolerance limits. Diversity is important to urban birdwatchers; birders are interested in seeing a variety of birds, particularly species that are uncommon or rare. My observations have suggested that intermountain urban birdwatchers collect, record and discuss bird observations like coins or stamps: repeated observations of common species are of limited currency. If these observations are correct, then establishing avian species diversity as a goal for planning and design in urban areas would accommodate a preference of many urban residents.

Wildlife biologists have suggested that a variety of habitat types is required to support a diversity of avian species in cold desert/ mountain environments of the intermountain area. Thomas et al. ( 1974) reported that vegetation may be the single most important habitat component for all species of wildlife. It is precisely in the areas of vegetation planning and management that urban foresters and landscape architects can have a significant influence on both the quantity and quality of wildlife habitat and hence on wildlife populations in urban areas. The challenge for designers is to make urban wildlife more visible while providing protection from disturbance (Seater, 1976). PRESENT

PRACTICE

Each year thousands of acres of raw land in the intermountain states are converted to urban uses. Land conversion to urban use is generally accompanied by significant disturbance of site resources, loss of wildlife habitat on sites where it existed and ultimately the displacement of avian species with narrow tolerance limits (Geis. 1974). Present-day practitioners of urban forestry and landscape architecture, often involved in the land conversion process, have paid little attention to wildlife welfare. Indeed many of the basic principles that guide design and management decisions in these professions are detrimental to wildlife. Designers have typically replaced the complex pattern and structure of existing vegetation and topography on many sites with the simplicity of the greensward; designing and building parks and open spaces that reflect the landscape aesthetic of eighteenth century England. The greensward planting approach has also been employed on sites which prior to conversion were of limited value as wildlife habitat with the subsequent loss of opportunities to create new habitat. Typically, trees used in urban settings are specified by landscape architects and urban

247

foresters to be of moderate height, flowerless and fruitless; they are most often exotic, planted at the same time, at the same size and are spaced on regular center settings. Large trees, small trees, large shrubs and ground covers are seldom used except to embellish building foundations. The resulting pattern and structure has been one of limited vegetative diversity, trees of uniform size, even age stands and little or no understory planting. Vegetation patches are typically small and discontinuous. Management practices employed to maintain these artificial greenswards have been equally detrimental to wildlife. Bessinger and Osborne ( 1982) have reported that these Savannah-like landscapes are of limited value as wildlife habitat. Geis ( 1974) reported that only a few species (principally those with broad tolerance ranges) occupied the new niches created by urban development. Thus, overall avian species diversity has typically declined on sites developed for urban use. PROPOSED PRACTICE A cursory look at the welfare needs of wildlife illustrates why present design and planning practices are detrimental to wildlife and how these practices can be restructured to benefit avian species. The basic needs of urban wildlife are not different than those of wildlife in undeveloped areas; they include food, cover, water and sites for reproduction. Each of these needs can be expressed as an important component of wildlife habitat. However, of equal importance is the juxtaposition (interspersion) of these individual components. MacMahon ( 1983) has argued that the structural diversity, both horizontal and vertical, provided by vegetation has been the key to maintaining diverse and stable wildlife populations in desert environments. Gies and Van Druff ( 1978 ) recommended that preservation, maintenance and creation of tracts of natural and ornamental vegetation in all stages of eco-

logical succession interconnected by corridors for escape, foraging and exploratory movements comprise the essentials of urban wildlife habitat. If we accept the need to change present-day practice, then the way to begin is by reassessing our planning and design process. Johnson ( 1984) reported that by utilizing the traditional site planning process, modified to consider wildlife welfare, existing habitat could be preserved and disturbed areas restructured to meet the habitat requirements of an array of wildlife species. Although modest, the modi% cations made to the traditional planning process must be substantive and focussed on wildlife habitat needs. He noted that resource data, gathered as part of the planning process, must be evaluated not only for potential impact on development but also for its relevance to wildlife welfare. Similarly, the potential impacts of development on existing wildlife habitat must also be examined. There appear to be three broad approaches that the design professions can pursue to increase wildlife species diversity in urban areas: habitat preservation, rehabilitation and enhancement (MacMahon, 1983). These approaches are applicable at all scales of professional involvement and reflect the findings of Gies and Van Druff ( 1978). HABITAT PRESERVATION Landscape architects and urban foresters are often asked to lend their expertise to the preparation of plans and policies for community forests, open space systems and other community improvements of a regional scale. Research by Thomas et al. ( 1979 ) reported that riparian areas (lineal vegetative systems) and wetlands are among the most important habitat components in desert and mountain valley landscapes typical of the intermountain area. Consequently, to benefit intermountain urban wildlife, plan and policy recommendations should establish as a first priority preservation

248

of contiguous patches of existing riparian vegetation and wetlands in public or private ownership. Such lands provide the refugia necessary to attact and maintain a diversity of avian species within the urban fabric. Through the efforts of enlightened elected officials and the active participation of landscape architects and urban foresters, several intermountain cities have recently implemented metropolitan open space plans to the benefit of wildlife. Pima County, Arizona has completed a strategic plan for conserving wildlife habitat in the rapidly developing Tucson area (Shaw et al., 1986). The recently completed plan for a one-mile section of the Jordon River in Murray City, Utah by the author and a team of graduate students is another example (Johnson et al., 1986, Fig. 1 ). The design professions should also become actively involved in drafting and supporting public policies which either encourage or require developers to cluster development, minimize land coverage and convert the land saved into open space/wildlife habitat. Community master plans and subdivision ordinances which permit cluster housing, zero lot line plotting, transfer of development rights to less sensitive areas, planned unit development and other innovative land use concepts are one of the few ways habitat preservation and enhancement can be encouraged on private property. Planners and designers of planned unit developments such as Loews Ventana Canyon in Tucson, Arizona have made use of these practices to minimize land coverage, preserve habitat and thus benefit wildlife. HABITAT REHABILITATION Plans and policies which promote the rehabilitation of abused or overlooked sites within urban areas can also benefit wildlife. Consider, for example, the urban wildlife habitat potential of rehabilitated river corridors sadly neglected in virtually every major intermountain city. Sand and gravel mines, dumps and other

abused or unbuildable urban sites can also be incorporated into a comprehensive urban land rehabilitation plan to benefit wildlife. In 1970, the city of Edmonton Alberta initiated a longrange program for rehabilitation of the North Saskatchewan River Valley for public open space use. After 16 years the positive impact of this program on wildlife populations has been nothing short of spectacular. Deer, beaver, waterfowl and a variety of birds now inhabit former dumps, gravel pits and warehousing yards within one quarter mile of the city center. The Ogden Nature Center in Ogden, Utah rehabilitated a gravel mine on their property for wildlife habitat (Johnson et al., 1984). A pair of Canada geese has taken up residence on the newly-created wetland and Willets, Sandpipers and other wading birds never before seen at the Nature Center are now annual spring visitors. The number of waterfowl utilizing the nature center during the spring migration has increased substantially. HABITAT ENHANCEMENT At a project site scale the landscape architect and urban forester can have a direct beneficial impact on wildlife welfare. Johnson ( 1984) suggested that identification of existing vegetation with wildlife habitat value is the essential first step on site scale projects. Cottam and Curtis (1956), Cain and Castro (1959) and Baxter and Wolfe ( 1972) describe techniques useful in assessing the wildlife value of plants and plant communities. Design development phases of the planning process should emphasize preservation of existing vegetation within the constraints of the design program. On sites devoid of vegetation, opportunities exist to design new habitat for wildlife. Proposed plantings in the final design phase should be planned to maximize vertical and horizontal structural diversity, lineal edge, patchiness and linkages with maximum interspersion of plant associations. Seater ( 1976) recommended that proposed plant choices include trees and shrubs

Fig. 1. Plan of Murray City Nature Park.

B

both deciduous and evergreen with an emphasis on native species. Trees and shrubs which bear fruit, especially if fruits persist through the winter, are particularly valuable as a food source which can carry some species of wildlife through the intermountain winter bottleneck (Gies. 1974). Several design techniques can be utilized to comply with Gies’s ( 1974) recommendation for providing vegetation in various stages of succession. Planting trees of varying species (in plant associations) in a variety of sizes and spacings would eliminate the problem of even aged monocultures so often associated with urban plantings. Planting a nurse crop of fastgrowing “weedy” trees (many species in the Popz~l~.c, C~lmz~s,Elaeugnzls and Acer genera, for example) underplanted with slower, more desirable species can provide immediate vertical and horizontal structure of value to wildlife. This planting approach can also reduce the overall long-term costs of park planting. Portions of the “weedy” nurse crop can be incrementally removed as desired species mature. Numerous authors including Gies ( 1974) have recommended the establishment of no-mow zones. By limiting the amount of manicured lawn. natural succession can occur in uncut areas. In addition, growth and survival rates of many western trees including Populzts tremu1oidc.s. Quaking Aspen and Acer grandidentaturn.. Big Tooth Maple are increased by this practice. The cumulative effect of implementing these recommendations can provide the variety of plant successional stages essential to a diverse wildlife population on both private and public projects such as residential developments, industrial parks, public parks, golf courses and cemetaries. HABITAT

MANAGEMENT

If preserved, rehabilitated or enhanced wildlife habitat is to remain diverse and productive, it must be properly managed. Most current management concepts and techniques

for urban environments are oriented toward maintaining the “clean and green” aesthetic. Numerous authors including Gies ( 1974), Bessinger and Osborne ( 1982) and G. McPherson in personal correspondence ( 1986) have discussed the negative impacts of these management practices on urban wildlife. It is clear that if the design professions are concerned about wildlife welfare, they must rethink present maintainenance policies and practices. A review of wildlife management literature suggests a number of management alternatives. Rachel Carson was the first to recommend minimizing the use of herbicides and pesticides in vegetation management; many researchers have since supported her position. Where practical dead snags and tree limbs, deadfall and organic litter should be left undisturbed. These special niches provide essential foraging, roosting and nesting sites for many avian species. Numerous researchers have also noted the value of periodically disturbing the forest/meadow edge. Disturbance sets back succession to earlier seral stages and helps both retain habitat diversity and productivity. Recommended techniques for disturbing the site include tilling, grazing, brushing and controlled burning. Obviously several of these techniques have limited application in an urban environment. Research into alternative, publicly acceptable management practices that produce desired results is clearly needed. Public acceptance of the “unkept” visual appearance resulting from these maintenance procedures is a serious question (Cooper and Shaw, 1979). R. Linder ( 1983) reported in a personal correspondence that habitat modification to improve productivity which resulted in significant visual change received intense public opposition. He recommended that such efforts be preceded by an educational campaign which would stress the benefits of site modification. Although Linder was referring to pheasant habitat in a rural landscape. his ob-

251

servation may be equally ban setting.

applicable

in an ur-

CONCLUSIONS No doubt there are many planning and design situations in the urban environment where wildlife welfare will not be a major concern; urban plazas, pedestrian malls, sports complex parks and median strip plantings, for example. In these settings, function, aesthetics, public safety, ease of maintenance and other more traditional design criteria must dictate design and plant choices. Indeed in some urban settings, the challenges for designers may be control of nuisance avian species. However, there are numerous opportunities within cities and towns in the intermountain west where wildlife and people could benefit from sensitive policies, plans and designs. Developing a more sensitive and scientific approach to planning for wildlife as an integral part of the site planning process for urban development offers an exciting challenge to design professionals. Modifications to traditional site and urban forestry planning processes are necessary to adequately address wildlife welfare issues. Although modest, those modifications to the planning process are substantive and will increase project planning time and cost. However, time and cost factors should decrease as landscape architects and urban foresters in the intermountain states become familiar with and further refine the process. Both an increased awareness of wildlife management concepts and consultation with wildlife biologists are necessary for development of reliable urban wildlife habitat plans. Designer courage to embrace a new set of aesthetic concepts that move away from the greensward and toward greater vegetative, structural and pattern complexity at both a macro and micro scale is also required. In addition, habitat management research specific to urban environments is necessary if planned habitats are to remain diverse and productive.

If design professionals are persistent in their effort to increase habitat diversity, they can enrich the lives of intermountain urban residents by attracting and retaining a variety of avian species in urban neighborhoods. Our efforts can go a long way toward meeting the special recreational needs of intermountain west’s growing number of urban wildlife enthusiasts. We can do what in the words of Aldo Leopold is ethically and aesthetically right. “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends to do otherwise.” (Leopold, 1949, p. 224).

REFERENCES Baxter, W.L. and Wolfe, C.W., 1972. The interspersion index as a technique for evaluation of bobwhite quail habitat. Proc. First Nat. Bobwhite Quail Symposium, pp. 158-t 65. Bessinger, S.R. and Osborne, D.R., 1982. Effects of urbanization on avian communities. Condor, 84: 75-83. Cain, S.A. and deoliveira Castro, G.M., 1959. Manual of Vegetation Analysis. Harper Bros., New York, 325 pp. Cooper, T. and Shaw, W.W., 1979. Wildlands management for wildlife viewing. Proc. Our Nat. Landscape, Conf. on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Manage. of the Visual Resource. USDI, FS, Tech. Report PSW-35, pp. 700705. Cottam, G. and Curtis, J.T., 1956. The use of distance measures in phytosociological sampling. Ecology, 37: 45 l-460. Geis, A.P., 1974. Effects of urbanization and types of urban development on bird populations. In: J.N. Noyes and D.R. Progulske (Editors), Wildlife Ecology in an Urbanizing Environment: A Symposium. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 97-107. Gies, A.P. and Van Druff, L.W., 1978. Developing wildlife habitat in urban areas. U.S. Fish Wild. Serv. Laurel. MD, unpublished manuscript. Geist, V., 1975. Wildlife and people in an urban environment - the biology of cohabitation. In: D. Euler, F. Gilbert and G. McKeating (Editors), Proceedings of the Symposium - Wildlife in ‘Urban Canada. University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, pp. 365-47. Gilbert, F.F., 1982. Public attitudes toward urban wildlife: a pilot study in Guelph, Ontario. Wildl. Sot. Bull., IO: 245253. Johnson, C.W., Graves, G., Krogh, K., Mitchell, K., Schueler, S., Theis, K. and Woodward, G., 1984. Ogden nature center propose master plan. Project report, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, 150 pp. Johnson, C.W., Kwang, K., Crook, S., Lasko, R., Pando, Mazurski, M. and Perelli, L., 1986. Murray City Nature Park

252

Plan. Project master plan, Utah State University. Logan, Utah. ’ Leedy, D. and Adams, L., 1986. Wildlife in urban and developing areas - an overview and historical perspective. Unpublished manuscript, Nat. Inst. for Urban Wild. Columbia, MD. Leopold, A., 1949. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press, New York. pp. 224-225. MacMahon. J.A., 1983. Nothing succeeds like succession: ecology and the human lot. Faculty Honor Lecture, Utah State University Press, Logan, Utah, 31 pp. Payne. B.R. and DeGraaf. R.M., 1975. Economic values and recreational trends associated with human enjoyment of nongame birds, pp. 6-10 In: Proceedings of the Symposium of Management of Forest and Range Habitat for Nongame birds. USForest Ser.Gen.Tech. Report WO-I, Seater. S.R.. 1976. Saving wildlife through better planning. Mainstream. 1: 9-l 1. Shaw, W.W., Burns, J.M. and Stenberg, K., 1986. Wildlife habitats in Tucson: a strategy for Conservation. School of

Renewable Natural Resources, University of Arizona. Tucson, 17 pp. Thomas. J.W., DeGraaf. R.M. and Mawson, J.C.. 1974. A technique for evaluating bird habitat. pp. 159- I62 In: J.N. Noyes and D.R. Progulske (Editors), Wildlife Ecology in an Urbanizing Environment: A Symposium. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, I82 pp. Thomas, J.W., Maser, C. and Rodiek, J.E.. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands - the great basin of southeastern Oregon. USDA For. Serv. PNW. For. and Range Ex. Stn. Gen. Tech. Report PN-80. LaGrande. Oregon, 18PP. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1982-83. Statistical Abstracts. U.S. Govt. Printing Office. Washington DC, IO 15 pp. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. and U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1982. I980 National Survey of fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation. U.S. Govt. Printing Office. Washington, DC, 75 pp.