How Communities Can Stop Habitat Fragmentation

Habitat fragmentation accelerates through incremental planning decisions. Here’s what two Wildlands Network team members recommend for incorporating wildlife corridors and connectivity into general plans, zoning, and development strategies.

Over the past several years, Wildlands Network has started to consider how to address and maintain wildlife migration and habitat connectivity at a local level. Much of our work in the United States remains focused on protecting wide-open spaces that wildlife occupy throughout most of the year across the country. More recently, we have started to examine interstitial spaces within developed and residential communities, and work to improve how those areas can be managed to benefit wildlife.

In 2023, we released a wildlife habitat connectivity model that offers detailed insights about connected habitats within Whatcom County in Washington State. In 2024, we helped pass the Room to Roam Act (AB 1889) in California, which requires cities and counties to protect wildlife connectivity in their land use plans by directing local officials to minimize harm to wildlife movement and offering guidelines for doing so. Earlier this year, we released Planning for Habitat Connectivity, which provides model language that can be incorporated into general, resource management, open space, and transportation plans for Utah communities.

Mari Galloway, California Program Director, and Kasey Lindstrom, Utah Project Manager, are leading these efforts. We invited them to talk more about the work, why it’s important, and what kinds of positive impacts they hope to have on wildlands and wildlife.

“More often than not, connectivity is lost through the cumulative impact of many small decisions over time, resulting in ‘death by a thousand cuts.'”

Wildlands Network: When thinking about wildlife connectivity, we typically think of wildlands and large landscapes. How much of an impact can city and county plans have on wildlife?

Kasey: Surprisingly, city and county plans can have a huge impact on wildlife, especially as communities grow and development expands across landscapes that wildlife have depended on for generations. Decisions about where and how we build homes, roads, and other infrastructure can either support movement or fragment pathways for wildlife. It’s important for local governments to consider wildlife connectivity early in the planning process. When they do, communities can avoid potential conflicts and costly fixes, and make informed decisions that benefit both people and wildlife. In a rapidly growing state like Utah, local planning is one of the most important tools we have to make sure that communities can grow while still giving wildlife room to move freely across the landscape.

Mari: At first glance, it might seem like a contradiction to focus on city and county planning while working toward a continental-scale vision for wildlife connectivity. But the reality is that many of the decisions that ultimately influence large-scale connections happen at the local level. More often than not, connectivity is lost through the cumulative impact of many small decisions over time, resulting in “death by a thousand cuts.”

WN: Is this only something for new and growing communities, or is this something that established communities whose footprint isn’t growing substantially can also be doing?

Kasey: Established communities can absolutely make a difference. An important part of connectivity is taking advantage of opportunities to improve how wildlife move through communities that already exist. We can evaluate how existing roads, fencing, subdivisions, and even nighttime lighting are impacting wildlife movement and can identify ways to reduce any impacts. For example, a road improvement project might be a good opportunity to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions. An update to an open space plan could help reconnect city parks to rangelands and the surrounding wildlands. These small, targeted improvements add up when they help restore connections between larger habitat areas.

Mari: For wildlife and people to thrive together, it is critical that new development avoids fragmenting landscapes that animals rely on to reach food, water, and mates. But established communities have a role to play, too. Most already contain infrastructure that can isolate wildlife populations, increase mortality, and impact their long-term survival. General plans can help address these challenges by incorporating design decisions to promote safe wildlife passage in future transportation projects, connect open space, and incentivize practices like wildlife-friendly fencing.

WN: Earlier this year, you put out Planning for Habitat Connectivity. What’s your goal for the report and how do you hope that it’s used?

Kasey: We developed Planning for Habitat Connectivity to help bridge the gap between understanding why wildlife connectivity matters and knowing how to address it at the local level. We know that planners are balancing a lot of competing interests, and that they might not always have the resources or expertise they need to address wildlife connectivity effectively.

Our toolkit is designed to make it easier to do so. It provides Utah communities with adaptable model language for incorporating wildlife connectivity in general plans, resource management plans, open space plans, and transportation plans. It also highlights examples from across Utah that demonstrate how communities can incorporate wildlife connectivity into local land-use decisions.

Ideally, it becomes a practical resource that communities use, giving local leaders the tools to make wildlife connectivity a more consistent and deliberate part of the planning process.

WN: In 2024, you were instrumental in the passage of AB 1889, the Room to Roam Act. What’s the status of that legislation, and what actions can California residents take to improve wildlife connectivity within their communities?

Mari: We’re working with state agencies, planners, and conservation partners to identify and address the gaps in information and tools needed to make Room to Roam meaningful for wildlife and communities across California.

One of the most effective things California residents can do is get involved in local planning processes and vote for wildlife champions in local elections. General plan updates, transportation projects, and development proposals all create opportunities for the public to advocate for wildlife-friendly policies before decisions are made.

WN: Is there a good example of a community that has been really proactive in adopting codes that consider wildlife migration and habitat connectivity?

Kasey: Eagle Mountain is without a doubt one of the fastest-growing cities in the state of Utah, and a great example of planning for connectivity. It has increased from a small town of about 250 residents in 1996 to over 65,000 today, with development expanding into rangelands and previously undeveloped areas. In response to rapid growth, the city established a Wildlife Corridor Overlay Zone that maps out an important 1,300-acre mule deer migration corridor across the city and imposes certain regulations on new development, including requiring animal-friendly fencing and minimal artificial lighting, and restricting construction during deer migration and bird nesting seasons.

Eagle Mountain demonstrates how any community can translate an understanding of local wildlife into something concrete that helps guide growth and development. Really, there’s no one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to wildlife connectivity in local planning, but cities and counties can always identify the movement areas that matter most in their landscapes and can develop policies tailored to the unique context of their community, and this is exactly what we’re hoping to encourage through our local planning efforts across Utah.

Mari: Here in California, Ventura County is another leading example of proactive planning for wildlife movement, and served as a major inspiration for the Room to Roam Act. The county lies within a critical network of mountain lion habitat and movement routes, which was recognized through the designation of a Wildlife Corridor Overlay Zone. Within this zone, development must meet species-specific standards for lighting, landscaping, and site design to help mountain lions move safely through the landscape, disperse to new territories, and find genetically diverse mates. The result is a planning framework that supports both community growth and the long-term health of mountain lion populations.

WN: How do you balance private property rights with the needs of migrating or residential wildlife?

Kasey: I’d say it begins with recognizing that wildlife connectivity and private property rights don’t have to compete. In Utah, landowners are essential partners in supporting connected landscapes, and success depends on finding solutions that work for the people who live, work, and recreate on those landscapes. In some cases, relatively simple measures – like retrofitting fencing to let wildlife pass through or reducing unnecessary outdoor lighting – can make a meaningful impact without fundamentally changing how a property is used. Supporting wildlife doesn’t necessarily require major changes to private property. Often, it simply means finding creative ways to accommodate wildlife alongside existing property uses. In short, balancing private property rights with the needs of migrating or residential wildlife requires identifying opportunities where even small changes can have meaningful impacts while also always understanding that every property, landowner, and situation is different.

Mari: Balancing private property rights with the needs of wildlife starts with good science. We use GPS collar data, camera monitoring, habitat models, and other tools to recommend targeted and evidence-based policies rather than applying unnecessary restrictions across an entire community.

We then work with communities to incorporate that information into local planning through practical measures such as protecting key bottlenecks, improving fencing, or reducing lighting in the areas where wildlife are most affected. It’s not always easy, but our goal is to find solutions that are proportionate, science-driven, and respectful of private property rights while still maintaining the habitats and movement routes wildlife depend on.

WN: What would the ideal outcome be for a city or county that wants to protect wildlife migration?

Kasey: Ideally, wildlife connectivity becomes an integral part of how each and every community plans for the future, rather than a standalone issue that only comes up when a new project is proposed. Success is about being intentional about how and where growth and development happen, not about stopping growth and development outright. This means making sure that wildlife is considered consistently and early alongside other community priorities rather than being something that only comes up when there’s already a conflict. The vision is that wildlife connectivity becomes a routine part of local decision-making, not an afterthought.

Mari: Ultimately, the ideal outcome is that communities thrive while wildlife can move to access the resources necessary to maintain healthy populations. Achieving that requires cities and counties to understand which species depend on connected habitats within their boundaries, how their communities fit into the broader landscape, and incorporate that information into policies and planning frameworks that govern future development and regulatory decisions.