ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We wish to thank all of the participants in the workshop for their valuable contributions before, during and after the workshop. Mark Shaffer, senior vice president for program, Laura Watchman, vice president for habitat conservation, and Sara Vickerman, director west coast office of Defenders of Wildlife provided guidance in the creation of the workshop and this report. Tim Mealey, senior partner at Meridian Institute served as an effective facilitator at the workshop. Chuck Huckelberry, Pima County Administrator, and Sharon McGregor, Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, both gave excellent overview presentations of their planning projects at the workshop. Marc Bonta, Lisa Hummon, Inga Sedlovsky, and Chapman Stewart of Defenders of Wildlife helped with logistics for the workshop. Kathie Cowell and Mitzi Wallace at the Aspen Wye River Conference Center were extremely helpful in arranging the workshop. Maeveen Behan, Pima County, Arizona, and Jessica Patalano, Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program, provided map graphics for the report. The authors especially wish to acknowledge Kassandra Stirling, media production specialist with Defenders' west coast office for bringing the final report together. Any errors or misrepresentations of the various planning efforts described here are ultimately the fault of the authors. Authors Jeffrey P. Cohn, writer, Takoma Park, Maryland Jeffrey A. Lerner, Conservation Planning Associate, Defenders of Wildlife Editor Elizabeth Grossman, writer, Portland, Oregon Project Manager Jeffrey A. Lerner, Conservation Planning Associate, Defenders of Wildlife Production Lisa Hummon, Habitat Program Coordinator, Defenders of Wildlife Kassandra Stirling, Media Production Specialist, Defenders of Wildlife Designer Manda Beckett, Claritas Consortium, Portland, Oregon Maps provided by Oregon Biodiversity Project, West Linn, Oregon; Defenders of Wildlife, Washington D.C.; Willamette Restoration Initiative, Salem, Oregon; Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, Pima County, Arizona; The BioMap Project, Westborough, Massachusetts. Additional copies of this report may be downloaded from the Biodiversity Partnership website at www.biodiversitypartners.org Copyright © 2003 by Defenders of Wildlife, 1101 Fourteenth Street, NW, Suite 1400, Washington, D.C. 20005 All rights reserved. Abstracting is permitted with credit to the source. Printed on recycled paper INTEGRATING LAND USE PLANNING & BIODIVERSITY DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE WASHINGTON D.C. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 7 INTRODUCTION . 9 Biodiversity at Risk Need for Conservation Planning Promoting Comprehensive Conservation Planning CONSERVATION PLANS IN PROGRESS . 15 Massachusetts BioMap Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan Oregon Biodiversity Project Willamette Restoration Initiative WORKSHOP DISCUSSION . 17 Benefits of Adopting Conservation Planning Barriers To Using Conservation Planning at the Local Level Recommendations for Creating State and Regional Conservation Plans Recommendations For Integrating Regional Conservation Plans into Local Planning The Role of Conservation Organizations CONCLUSIONS . 25 CONSERVATION PLANNING MAPS . 27 APPENDIX A: PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS . 33 I. STATEWIDE PLANS . 33 1. Oregon Biodiversity Plan, Oregon; West Eugene Wetlands, Oregon 2. Florida Closing the Gaps Project; Florida Ecological Network 3. Maryland Green Infrastructure and GreenPrint Program; Baltimore Greenways, Maryland 4. New Jersey Landscape Project; New Jersey Pine Barrens 5. Massachusetts BioMap 6. Washington State Growth Management and Ecoregional Conservation II. REGIONAL MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS . 46 1. Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, Pima County, Arizona 2. Southern California Habitat Conservation Plans 3. Placer Legacy Open Space and Agricultural Conservation Program 4. Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan, Clark County, Nevada III. REGIONAL PLANS . 52 1. Chicago Wilderness 2. Metropolitan Conservation Alliance 3. "Beginning with Habitat" Program, Southern Maine 4. Minnesota Metro Greenways 5. Albemarle County, Virginia 6. The Partnership Land Use System, Larimer County, Colorado APPENDIX B: CONSERVATION PLANNING CONTACTS . 58 APPENDIX C: WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS . 60 LITERATURE CITED . 61 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY prawl now has such a large and permanent importance of the natural environment to their communi- impact on every aspect of the landscape that to achieve ties' quality of life, and realize that their decisions can their goals for wildlife and ecosystem protection, conser- affect human society and wildlife habitats far into the vationists must become involved in land use planning. future. Despite this understanding and land use planning's Development is encroaching on parks and protected influence on the landscape, conservationists have tradi- areas. For every new acre protected, many more are lost tionally made little use of the local planning process in to poorly planned development. The Natural Resources working toward biodiversity protection. Inventory estimates that in the United States, 2.2 million acres are now being converted to development each year. With funding from the Doris Duke Charitable Roads have an ecological impact on an estimated 20 per- Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife brought together land cent of the U.S. landscape. Of the 6,700 species in the use planners and conservationists from around the coun- U.S. considered at risk of extinction, 85 percent suffer try at a workshop held in the spring of 2002. The work- primarily from habitat loss. Although federal wildlife shop's goal was to begin a national dialogue about the agencies list only approximately 1,300 of these species integration of biodiversity and land use planning. This under the Endangered Species Act, implementing the act report attempts to summarize that discussion and draw remains controversial. If such ecological problems are to attention to the numerous fledgling efforts at conserva- be solved, conservationists and land use planners must tion planning currently underway in communities work together. Yet how can the planning community throughout the country. make use of the vast quantity of available conservation information and the tools of their trade to improve the The workshop emphasized large-scale conservation plan- prospects for the preservation of biodiversity? ning: the networks of conservation lands that are being planned at state and regional levels across the country. Land use planning occurs at many different scales across Ideally, this approach will help preserve the country's the country. At its best, it is progressive, democratic, rich biodiversity by protecting its most viable habitats timely and responsive to change. When it works, commu- and species populations. This strategy represents current nities thrive and enjoy a high quality of life. When land theories on the application of conservation biology use planning fails, communities struggle for years with principles to wildlife preservation, and is conservation the consequences. Many planners understand the biologists' recommendation for curtailing loss of habitat 7 LAND USE PLANNING AND BIODIVERSITY and biodiversity. Workshop organizers felt it was crucial isolation. Property owners, government agencies and spe- to understand how local land use planners view such cial interest groups will all want to be involved in mak- plans. ing decisions that affect land use. For years, the conser- vation community has discussed the need to include part- Among the messages repeated at the workshop was that nerships and multiple stakeholders in their projects. This existing land use planning tools can be used to protect is especially true in the local land use planning process, biodiversity. The conservation plans presented at the particularly in urban areas with large, diverse popula- workshop showed how a variety of incentive-based pro- tions. A conservation plan can only succeed when a com- grams and regulations can be applied locally to protect munity understands and accepts the plan's methodology, biodiversity. These presentations also indicated that plan- goals and results. ners can and do make efforts to assemble networks of conservation lands but that land acquisition — by conser- Large-scale conservation plans work best when used as vation organizations and/or federal agencies — is not the guidelines and should not be confused with specific, pre- only solution to protecting lands of conservation value. scriptive land use plans. Large-scale conservation plans can be used to steer development away from ecologically The lack of political will among community leaders can, significant areas, but this also requires many more however, hamper planners' efforts to use conservation detailed site-specific decisions than such large-scale information or make creative use of planning tools. plans provide. To ensure that they satisfy local needs for Developing political support for biodiversity protection open space, large-scale conservation plans may have to may be one of the more significant hurdles for large- be modified. scale conservation planning efforts to overcome. Planners are not the only people with whom conservationists need Land use planning can determine how — or even if — to communicate effectively. Members of local planning the country's urban areas expand, how they affect the sur- boards and commissions are tremendously influential, rounding landscape, and health of our environment. The and must be educated and kept informed about workshop discussion