Contributed Paper Biodiversity Conservation in Local Planning JAMES R. MILLER,��������� MARTHA GROOM,��� GEORGE R. HESS,��� TODDI STEELMAN,��� DAVID L. STOKES,��� JAN THOMPSON,�� TROY BOWMAN,�� LAURA FRICKE,������ BRANDON KING,��� AND RYAN MARQUARDT�� ���Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management and Department of Landscape Architecture, 339 Science II, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-3221, U.S.A. ���Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-8002, U.S.A. ���Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences Program, University of Washington, Bothell, WA 98011, U.S.A. ��Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-3221, U.S.A. ������Policy Studies, Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences Program, University of Washington, Bothell, WA 98011, U.S.A. Abstract: Local land-use policy is increasingly being recognized as fundamental to biodiversity conservation in the United States. Many planners and conservation scientists have called for broader use of planning and regulatory tools to support the conservation of biodiversity at local scales. Yet little is known about the pervasiveness of these practices. We conducted an on-line survey of county, municipal, and tribal planning directors (n = 116) in 3 geographic regions of the United States: metropolitan Seattle, Washington metropolitan Des Moines, Iowa and the Research Triangle, North Carolina. Our objectives were to gauge the extent to which local planning departments address biodiversity conservation and to identify factors that facilitate or hinder conservation actions in local planning. We found that biodiversity conservation was seldom a major consideration in these departments. Staff time was mainly devoted to development mandates and little time was spent on biodiversity conservation. Regulations requiring conservation actions that might benefit biodiversity were uncommon, with the exception of rules governing water quality in all 3 regions and the protection of threatened and endangered species in the Seattle region. Planning tools that could enhance habitat conservation were used infrequently. Collaboration across jurisdictions was widespread, but rarely focused on conservation. Departments with a conservation specialist on staff tended to be associated with higher levels of conservation actions. Jurisdictions in the Seattle region also reported higher levels of conservation action, largely driven by state and federal mandates. Increased funding was most frequently cited as a factor that would facilitate greater consideration of biodiversity in local planning. There are numerous opportunities for conservation biologists to play a role in improving conservation planning at local scales. Keywords: conservation policy, habitat conservation, Iowa, land-use planning, local conservation, North Car- olina, urbanization, Washington Conservaci�� on de la Biodiversidad en la Planificaci�� on Local Resumen: Las pol�� ��ticas locales de uso de suelo cada vez m�� as son reconocidas como fundamentales para la conservaci�� on de la biodiversidad en los Estados Unidos. Muchos planificadores y cient�� ��ficos de la conservaci�� on han hecho un llamado para el uso extendido de instrumentos de planificaci�� on y regulaci�� on para soportar la conservaci�� on de la biodiversidad a escalas locales. Pero, se conoce poco sobre la generalidad de estas practicas. �� Realizamos un muestreo en l�� ��nea de directores de planificaci�� on tribales, municipales y de condados (n = 116) en 3 regiones geograficas �� de los Estados Unidos: Seattle, Washington y Des Moines, Iowa y Research Triangle, Carolina del Norte. Nuestros objetivos fueron estimar la extensi�� on a la que los departamentos locales de planificaci�� on atienden la conservaci�� on de la biodiversidad e identificar factores que facilitan o limitan las acciones de conservaci�� on en la planificaci�� on local. Encontramos que la conservaci�� on de la biodiversidad raramente fue una consideraci�� on importante en estos departamentos. El tiempo del personal ������Current address: University of Illinois, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, N407 Turner Hall, 1102 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801, U.S.A., email: jrmillr@illinois.edu Paper submitted March 17, 2008 revised manuscript accepted May 29, 2008. 53 Conservation Biology, Volume 23, No. 1, 53���63 C 2008 Society for Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01110.x

54 Conservation in Local Planning se dedico�� principalmente a mandatos de desarrollo y se invirtio�� poco tiempo en la conservaci�� on de la biodiversidad. Las reglamentaciones que requer�� ��an acciones de conservaci�� on que pudieran beneficiar a la biodiversidad fueron poco comunes, excepto reglas referentes a la calidad del agua en las 3 regiones y la protecci�� on de especies amenazadas y en peligro en la regi�� on de Seattle. Los instrumentos de planificaci�� on que podr�� ��an incrementar la conservaci�� on de habitat �� no fueron usados frecuentemente. La colaboraci�� on entre jurisdicciones fue extensa, pero raramente enfocada a la conservaci�� on. Los departamentos con un especialista en conservaci�� on tend�� ��an a estar asociados con mayores niveles de acciones de conservaci�� on. Las jurisdicciones en la regi�� on de Seattle tambi�� en reportaron mayores niveles de acciones de conservaci�� on, conducidas principalmente por mandatos estatales y federales. El incremento del financiamiento fue citado con m�� as frecuencia como un factor que podr�� ��a facilitar mayor consideraci�� on de la biodiversidad en la planificaci�� on local. Hay numerosas oportunidades para que los biologos �� de la conservaci�� on jueguen un papel en la mejor�� ��a de la planificaci�� on a escalas locales. Palabras Clave: Carolina del Norte, conservaci�� on local, conservaci�� on de h�� abitat, Iowa, planificaci�� on del uso de suelo, pol�� ��ticas de conservaci�� on, urbanizaci�� on, Washington Introduction In North America the largest populations and highest di- versity of native species tend to occur in the most produc- tive portions of the landscape, where humans also reach their highest densities (Scott et al. 2001 Miller & Hobbs 2002 Huston 2005). As a result urbanization has emerged as a leading cause of species imperilment in the United States (Wilcove et al. 1998 Czech et al. 2000 Brown & LaBand 2006). Commercial and residential development also threaten biodiversity on more marginal lands, includ- ing the landscapes in which many of our large national parks and wilderness areas are embedded (Hansen et al. 2005 Huston 2005). Decisions regarding urban, suburban, and exurban development are typically made at relatively low lev- els of government, such as the county or municipality (Duerksen et al. 1997 Lawrence 2005). Consequently, efforts to stem habitat loss and declines in native species have increasingly turned to land-use planning at lo- cal scales (Steelman 2002). In recent years numerous authors have called for greater integration of ecolog- ical principles in land-use planning to improve biodi- versity conservation (e.g., Babbitt 1999 Beatley 2000 Groves 2003 Radeloff et al. 2005). Ecologists and other environmental professionals have proposed a variety of guidelines for land-use planners aimed at protect- ing habitat and minimizing negative effects of develop- ment on biodiversity (e.g., Duerksen et al. 1997 Dale et al. 2000 Steiner 2000 Nolan 2004). To implement these guidelines, there exists a wide array of planning and land-protection tools, including zoning ordinances, subdivision- and land-development regulations, growth- management programs, and conservation-development frameworks (Bengston et al. 2004 McElfish 2004 Milder 2007). A growing number of publications detail the ap- plication of these tools in the context of biodiversity con- servation and describe case studies that are considered models of effective practice (McElfish 2004 Duerksen & Snyder 2005 Michalak & Lerner 2007). Aside from a handful of examples, it is unknown how pervasive recommended conservation practices are among local jurisdictions. To what extent do local plan- ning departments address biodiversity conservation in their plans and policies? Do planners follow the guide- lines offered by academics, natural resource agencies, and nongovernmental organizations? How widespread is the implementation of land-use planning tools to achieve conservation goals? To address these and other questions concerning the role of biodiversity conservation in lo- cal land-use planning, we surveyed planning personnel in 3 regions of the United States that have experienced high levels of population growth in recent years: the Re- search Triangle, North Carolina greater metropolitan Des Moines, Iowa and greater metropolitan Seattle, Washing- ton. Our objectives were to gauge the extent to which local planning departments address biodiversity conser- vation and to identify factors that facilitate or hinder con- servation actions in local land-use planning. Methods Study Regions and Sample Frame We used Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA), as de- fined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, to delineate our 3 study regions. An MSA consists of an urban core (population ���50,000) and adjacent commu- nities that have a high degree of social and economic integration with that core (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). All of these MSAs experienced substantial popula- tion growth from 1990 to 2005 (U.S. Census Bureau 2007): Seattle-Tacoma-Bellvue (hereafter, Seattle) 25.2%, Raleigh-Cary and Durham (hereafter, Research Triangle) 58.2%, and Des Moines���West Des Moines (hereafter, Conservation Biology Volume 23, No. 1, 2009