A Science-Based Approach to Regional Conservation Planning



Although single-species approaches have played an important role in conservation in the United States, the Endangered Species Act provides a mechanism for conservation at larger scales through Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs). HCPs not only offer the potential for comprehensive conservation planning for a wide range of species across broader geographic scales but also provide assurances that eliminate risks related to endangered species concerns for nonfederal landowners, developers, and planners. Given their benefits, dozens of municipalities have adopted HCPs to address planning issues related to rare and vulnerable species. The challenge, however, is to develop conservation plans that reliably meet broader-scale conservation and planning objectives while not increasing risks posed to vulnerable species. Consequently, we designed a science-based framework from which to develop regional conservation plans, including HCPs. We designed a rigorous process that classifies areas based on their relative conservation value as part of a conservation strategy for more than 20,000 km2 of Sonoran desert in Pima County, Arizona. This chapter describes our approach including the fundamental planning elements selected, the process used to quantify the relative biological importance of each landscape unit, and how we assembled landscape elements into units that form the framework of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan.


Target Species Conservation Plan Planning Area Potential Habitat Landscape Unit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Baker, M. B. Jr., Ffolliott, P. F., DeBano, L. F., and Neary, D. G. 2004. Riparian Areas of the Southwestern United States. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers/CRC Press.Google Scholar
  2. Benedict, M., Drohan, J., and Gravely, J. 2005. Sonoran desert conservation plan, Pima County, Arizona. Green Infrastructure – Linking Lands for Nature and People: Case Study Series # 6. Arlington, VA: The Conservation Fund.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, D. E., Lowe, C. H., and Pase, C. P. 1980. A Digitized Systematic Classification for Ecosystems with an Illustrated Summary of the Natural Vegetation of North America. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-73. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.Google Scholar
  4. ESI Corporation. 2003. Pima County Economic Analysis. Report to Pima County. Available at: http://www.pima.gov/cmo/sdcp/reports.html. Accessed November 10, 2008.
  5. Haufler, J. B. 1999. Strategies for conserving terrestrial biological diversity. In Practical Approaches to Conservation of Biological Diversity, eds. R. Baydeck, H. Campa III, and J. B. Haufler, pp. 17–34. Washington, D.C: Island Press.Google Scholar
  6. Kareiva P., Andelman, S., Doak, D., Elderd, B., Groom, M., Hoekstra, J., Hood, L., James, F., Lamoreux, J., LeBuhn, G., McCulloch, C., Regetz, J., Savage, L., Ruckelshaus, M., Skelly, D., Wilbur, H., Zamudio, K., and NCEAS HCP working group. 1999. Using Science in Habitat Conservation Plans. Santa Barbara, CA: National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
  7. Noss, R., and Cooperrider, A. 1994. Saving Nature’s Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  8. Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77:118–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pressey, R. L., Cowling, R. M., and Rouget, M. 2003. Formulating conservation targets for biodiversity pattern and process in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Biological Conservation 112:99–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Svancara, L. K., Brannon, R., Scott, J. M., Groves, C. R., Noss, R. F., and Pressey, R. L. 2005. Policy-driven versus evidence-based conservation: A review of political targets and biological needs. BioScience 55:989–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Warshall, P. 1995. The Madrean sky island archipelago: a planetary overview. In Biodiversity and Management of the Madrean Archipelago: The Sky Islands of Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico, eds. L. F. DeBano, G. J. Gottfried, R. H. Hamre, C. B. Edminster,P. F. Ffoliott, and A. Ortega-Rubio, pp. 6–18. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Experimental Station General Technical Report RM-GTR-264.Google Scholar
  12. Wilhere, G. F. 2002. Adaptive management in habitat conservation plans. Conservation Biology 16:20–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Zaimes G. N. 2007. Understanding Arizona’s Riparian Areas. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Cooperative Extension, Publication No. AZ1432.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert J. Steidl
    • 1
  • William W. Shaw
    • 2
  • Paul Fromer
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Natural Resources, University of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.School of Natural Resources, Biological Sciences East 216, University of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  3. 3.RECON Environmental, Inc., 1927 Fifth Avenue, San DiegoCaliforniaUSA

Personalised recommendations