Review of 12/17/2012 meeting and other core team meetings. Review mapping approaches taken by other states

Transcription

1 Review of 12/17/2012 meeting and other core team meetings Core team working structure, future meeting goals, and general project outline Connectivity planning summary overview Review mapping approaches taken by other states Discuss NJ mapping goals/objectives Discuss NJ mapping approach Tasks Draft goals/objectives of NJ Habitat Connectivity Map Draft outline of approach for NJ Habitat Connectivity Map Review of similar mapping in/around NJ

2 Mapping Core Team Meeting One - December 17 th, 10 am - noon Meeting attendees: Rick Brown, Patrick Carr, John Cecil, Margaret Conroy, Karl Figueiredo, Gretchen Fowles, Heidi Hanlon, Rick Lathrop, Gylla MacGregor, Amy Miller, Kristin Munafo, Tanya Nolte, Nick Procopio, Ron Smith, Eric Snyder, Lisa Stern, Nellie Tsipoura, Dane Ward, Joseph Weiss, Pete Winkler, Patrick Woerner, Brian Zarate General questions/comments: What is the scale of the mapping that we re envisioning broad, coarse scale, or useable at a local scale? If we re thinking local scale mapping that is released publicly, there may be some concern among landowners when they see that their property is in or out of the mapped areas. We hope to be able to produce mapping that can be used at the local scale that users can intersect with parcel data to target conservation actions, but we will have to see what is possible given the modeling approach we choose, etc. As a result of recent storm events, many Green Acres dollars are being used for Blue Acres, so there should be a good opportunity to preserve riverine corridors. Need to work closely with Guidance Document team and end-users. It s possible that we might need to find a compromise between science and implementation. We need to be sure that what we produce can be implemented. A 2 nd note taker is needed each meeting. If no volunteers, name will be randomly drawn.

3 Guidance Document Core Team Meeting One - December 17 th, 1-3 pm Meeting attendees: Joe Bilinski, John Cecil, Gretchen Fowles, MacKenzie Hall, Heidi Hanlon, Amy Karpati, Christine Mittman, Kristin Munafo, Paula Scelsi, Ron Smith, Joe Sweger, Larry Torok, Nellie Tsipoura, Charu Vaidya, Dane Ward, Miriam Weeks, Brian Zarate General questions/comments: Review other state/organization guidance documents. What have other s done? Useful to create NJ-specific template. Limit guidance document language related to regulations. This project is a planning tool, not being developed as a regulatory tool. Look at State Wildlife Action Plan as a possible template for organization by regions. A 2 nd note taker is needed each meeting. If no volunteers, name will be randomly drawn.

4 Communications Core Team Meeting One - December 18 th, 10 am noon Meeting attendees: Keri Benscoter, Gretchen Fowles, MacKenzie Hall, Bill Pitts, Jim Sciascia, Brian Zarate General questions/comments: The Communications team needs to work closely with Guidance Document and Mapping teams and end-users. A 2 nd note taker is needed each meeting. If no volunteers, name will be randomly drawn.

5 Core Team Structure Core teams will serve as review/advisory committees. Between meetings, there will be sub-teams tackling a particular question and reporting back to the full core team to discuss and decide how to move forward. We ll "recruit" for these sub-teams across all core teams so that we don't miss out on input from folks with relevant expertise in other core teams. For instance, if we decide to try a focal species approach, we'll reach out to all of the core teams and see who can work on coming up with draft criteria for selecting those focal species. The sub-team findings will then be reported back to their respective core team to receive feedback. At certain steps along the way, we'll run key decisions that the core teams have made by the full working group before proceeding to make sure there is general agreement and no fatal flaws identified.

6 General Project Outline Between now and February core team meetings Core sub-teams work on tasks Goals/Objectives for each core team Communication Team works on project mission statement February core team meetings Presentations from core sub-teams on tasks Review draft goals/objectives and finalize Send project mission statement to core teams for review March Full Working Group Meeting Present project mission statement Present core team goals and objectives Core team tasks

7 Connectivity Planning Summary Overview Action items: Review these two references for important connectivity project background that will help inform our discussion at the next meeting: gning_corridors Beier, P, WD Spencer, R Baldwin, and B McRae Towards best practices for developing regional connectivity maps. Conservation Biology 25:

8 Connectivity Planning Summary Overview Toward Best Practices (Beier et al. 2011) Mapping Steps: Goal of the map Establish collaborations Define the region Delineate natural landscape blocks Expert opinion Areas of high ecological integrity Protected areas Site-optimization algorithms Existing maps of conservation priority Habitat cores for a species or suite of species Linear barriers or block boundaries Determine which pairs of blocks would benefit from connectivity Depict connectivity areas Sticks Hand-drawn polygons Modeled polygons Resistance surface Species specific Naturalness Topographic-soil land facets Least-cost modeling Graph theory Provide guidance to end users

9 Connectivity Planning Summary Overview Most connectivity maps have 2 goals, although a map may emphasize only one. One goal is to identify areas where conservation of connectivity can be addressed by linkage designs and decisions to forego or mitigate projects that would likely reduce connectivity. This was the main goal of connectivity maps for Bhutan, India, Tanzania, and most statewide maps in the United States. The Western Governors Association (2008) refers to these as decision-support maps. Another goal is to express a vision of future ecological connectivity and inspire potential partners to achieve that vision

10 Connectivity Planning in Other States State Area (square miles) Mapping Resolution Notes Arizona 113, km 2 scales California 155, m & 30m 2 scales Colorado 103, Kentucky 39, Maine 30, m Massachusetts 7, m Montana 145, New Hampshire 8, New York 47,126.4 (HV 6,247) 30m to parcels Oregon 95, Utah 82, Vermont 9, Washington 66, m? 2 scales New Jersey 7,354.22

11 Statewide Habitat Connectivity Plan 1 2 Goal: Identify the most important areas and outline the measures needed to maintain and enhance terrestrial wildlife habitat connectivity across the state Products: 1. Connectivity Map 2. Connectivity Guidelines 7 Intact Protected Areas Movement Corridors 8 Implementation Actions: 1. Preserve Corridors 2. Restore & Maintain 3. Mitigate Road Impacts

12 Habitat Connectivity Map Goals & Obj. Examples AZ Identify and map areas (termed potential linkage zones, see Table 4-1) where connectivity between large blocks of publicly owned wildlife habitat has been, or is, at risk of being severed by human activities Identify and map existing potential linkage zones within habitat blocks in need of continued protection Identify and map important riparian areas that function as a habitat as well as a corridor of connectivity CA o Help sustain CA s unique natural heritage o A modeled analysis using the ecological condition or integrity of the landscape to identify areas of essential connectivity o identify, at a gross, statewide scale, areas where maintaining or restoring functional ecological connectivity is essential to conserving the state s biological diversity. o Identify and prioritize linkages that conserve essential biological and ecological processes.

13 Habitat Connectivity Map Goals & Obj. Examples CO identify and prioritize wildlife linkages across the state of Colorado to promote safe passage for wildlife MT Conserve habitat important to maintaining connectivity for vertebrate species in Montana NY identify zones of connectivity places where management agencies might focus attention on maintaining and restoring connections among populations of rare species. WA The goal of the Washington Connected Landscapes Project is to provide a series of scientific analyses and tools that use the best available science to identify important wildlife habitat linkage areas in Washington State and neighboring habitats. Promoting the long-term viability of wildlife populations in Washington State through a science-based, collaborative approach that identifies opportunities and priorities to conserve and restore habitat connectivity.

14 Habitat Connectivity Map Goals & Obj. Examples From FHWA Handbook 2011 (Clevenger) Like wildlife corridors, crossing structures should allow for the following five biological functions: 1. Reduced mortality and increased movement (genetic interchange) within populations; 2. Meeting biological requirements such as finding food, cover and mates; 3. Dispersal from maternal or natal ranges and recolonization after long absences; 4. Redistribution of populations in response to environmental changes and natural disturbances (e.g., fire, drought); movement or migration during stressful years of low reproduction or survival; and 5. Long term maintenance of metapopulations, community stability, and ecosystem processes. These functions encompass three levels of biological organization genes, species/population, community/ecosystem which form the basis for developing natural resource management and conservation plans.

15 Habitat Connectivity Map Goals & Obj. Examples From AZ, Tucson Mountains-Tortolia Mountains Linkage: Linkage Design Goals: Provide move-through habitat for diverse group of species Provide live-in habitat for species with dispersal distances too short to traverse linkage in one lifetime Provide adequate area for a metapopulation of corridor-dwelling species to move through the landscape over multiple generations Provide a buffer protecting aquatic habitats from pollutants Buffer against edge effects such as pets, lighting, noise, nest predation & parasitism, and invasive species Allow animals and plants to move in response to climate change AZ linkage design objective: Our goal was to identify a continuous corridor of land which if conserved and integrated with underpasses or overpasses across potential barriers will best maintain or restore the ability of wildlife to move between large wildland blocks. We call this proposed corridor the Linkage Design.