Landscape-scale Strategies

Linking Local Conservation Efforts to Broader Landscape Biodiversity Plans

Protecting biodiversity in and around developed areas is a difficult task. Disturbed and fragmented habitat blocks remain; there may be less viable natural communities of plants and animals; non-native species may have replaced native species; land values are high; and development threatens to consume unprotected habitat. However, developed areas are important elements of a biodiversity program because they may contain important habitat remnants, provide buffers and links to conservation areas, and are part of the general landscape that affects aspects of ecosystem health, such as water quality and properly functioning ecological processes. In addition, protected urban areas provide opportunities for people to enjoy and connect with nature close to home. While these areas provide some ecological benefits, it is the larger, intact habitats that are connected to one another and to their associated ecological processes that are most important to biodiversity. Planning for such protection requires a landscape-scale perspective. Therefore, important conservation goals of local efforts should be to steer development away from ecologically sensitive areas identified by a broad, landscape scale biodiversity plan and identify and conserve unique habitats within developed areas, even if they are small. Another important goal should be to connect and integrate large-scale biodiversity plans with local comprehensive plans.

Large-scale biodiversity planning identifies the most important natural habitats that, if protected, represent the diversity of wild animals and plants in a particular area. It provides a proactive approach to protecting areas large enough to preserve whole communities of wildlife and properly functioning ecological processes. If developed and implemented properly these plans may prevent species from becoming endangered or threatened, thus avoiding costly recovery efforts. Landscape-scale planning works across jurisdictional boundaries, so it can help make acquisition of land for conservation strategic rather than haphazard. These plans can also help organize, streamline and inform the process through which natural resource management agencies evaluate and set priorities for sites under consideration for conservation, restoration, and residential or commercial development (Cohn and Lerner 2003). Preserving entire ecosystems would give landowners, wildlife biologists, and land use managers greater flexibility and more assurances, reduce the conflicts between conservation and economic interests, and ultimately cost less.

The methods and tools used to steer development away from ecologically sensitive areas may vary. However, creating a conservation plan at the local level and incorporating it into a local comprehensive plan is one of the most strategic ways to protect biodiversity in urban areas. Ideally, the local conservation plan would serve as an extension of the larger regional or state biodiversity plan, using a similar methodology. Like the larger plan, a local plan would bring the community together to set goals and guidelines for the process and create a set of informational maps. The plan should utilize existing species data, identify ecologically sensitive areas, especially those identified by regional or state plans, and include multiple tools to protect sensitive areas. It may also provide mitigation when habitat is destroyed or altered and be integrated with other local planning, such as transportation and comprehensive land use plans. Local planning can help identify where to locate new housing developments, transportation corridors, and business sites while protecting natural habitats, conserving aquatic resources, and promoting wildlife conservation.

Ecologically sensitive areas identified by state or regional conservation plans are usually large in scale, and smaller habitat blocks in urbanized and developed areas are at times overlooked by these broader plans. Therefore, the role of local communities could be to identify and protect remaining ecologically sensitive areas on a finer, more detailed scale. If these areas are not large enough to contain viable populations of native biodiversity and properly functioning ecosystems, they can provide other valuable services, such as linking habitat blocks, providing some ecological processes, and connecting local communities of people with nature. In these situations, broader state and regional biodiversity plans can provide general guidance through planning and technical assistance, funding, education and marketing strategies, and implementation tools, while local plans can include detailed refinement for ultimate implementation.

Below is a list of recommendations for improving the linkage between landscape scale biodiversity plans and local planning (Cohn and Lerner 2003):

Provide technical assistance. Dedicate state/regional staff to work with local communities on the assessment, strategy and implementation of the state/regional plan and the development of a local plan.

Provide state/regional funding for local planning and local implementation of the state/regional plan.

Create plans at multiple scales (state, region, local) with similar methodology. State/regional staff could produce a manual describing the large-scale plan methodology to assist local planners, or, if possible, provide customized municipal maps.

Involve multiple stakeholders in the planning process from the beginning (for state/regional plans make sure to involve local agencies, for local plans involve state and regional agencies).

Clarify the roles of local, regional, and state governments and all agencies involved in state/regional and local plans.

Develop local pilot projects derived from state/regional planning.

Create long-term implementation of state/regional plans and site specific conservation strategies.

Develop a variety of incentives and regulations specifically for areas identified in state/regional conservation plans.

Encourage state officials, federal agencies, and political leaders to support local land use planners in carrying out state/regional conservation plans.

Establish a mechanism for state approval of state, regional, or local biodiversity plans.

Information, tools, and funding are abundant enough for each state to develop a conservation plan in the near future. State Natural Heritage Programs and The Nature Conservancy's ecoregional plans are good information sources for regional and statewide biodiversity plans. State Natural Heritage Programs catalogue inventories of each state's wild animals, plants and plant communities. The Nature Conservancy has developed ecoregional conservation plans for most of the 80 identified ecoregions in the U.S. Each ecoregional plan identifies conservation sites, containing native plant and animal communities that are at risk of disappearing and representative of the ecoregion's biodiversity. Also, the emergence of technologically sophisticated ways to present and analyze biodiversity information, such as satellite imagery and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) (powerful computer programs in which data can be analyzed and presented spatially on maps), has made landscape level planning easier.

The U.S. Department of Interior's State Wildlife Grants Program provides funds for state fish and wildlife agencies to develop and implement statewide conservation plans. For fiscal year 2002, the program was appropriated $80 million. To be eligible for these grants, each state fish and wildlife agency must agree to complete a comprehensive wildlife conservation plan by October 2005. With the information provided by the State Natural Heritage Programs and The Nature Conservancy, the widespread use of GIS, and funding available through the State Wildlife Grants Program, state and local land use planners are now in a good position to undertake conservation planning.