Green Genesee Smart Genesee

Transcription

1 Green Genesee Smart Genesee Design Priorities and Principles PREPARED FOR: NYSERDA Jessica Waldorf, Associate Project Manager PREPARED BY: CC Environment & Planning 23 Jackson Street, Batavia, NY Town of Batavia Contract #: August 2015

2 This report is part of the Green Genesee Smart Genesee project in Genesee County, New York. For more information and a list of other technical reports visit: Partners Town of Batavia Town of Alabama Town of Oakfield Village of Oakfield Genesee County Planning Department Genesee County Economic Development Center New York Green, Inc. Consultant Team CC Environment & Planning Labella Associates Ingalls Planning & Design

3 Funding was also provided by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) 1 Cleaner Greener Communities Program, Phase II: Category 2. 1 Notice: This report was prepared by CC Environment & Planning in the course of performing work contracted for and sponsored by NYSDERDA. The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of NYSERDA or the State of New York, and reference to any specific product, service, process, or method does not constitute an implied or expressed recommendation or endorsement of it. Further, NYSDERDA, the State of New York, and the contractor make no warranties or representations, expressed or implied, as to the fitness for particular purpose or merchantability of any product, apparatus, or service, or the usefulness, completeness, or accuracy of any processes, methods, or other information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report. NYSERDA, the State of New York, and the contractor make no representation that the use of any product, apparatus, process, method, or other information will not infringe privately owned rights and will assume no liability for any loss, injury, or damage resulting from, or occurring in connection with, the use of information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report. NYSERDA makes every effort to provide accurate information about copyright owners and related matters in the reports we publish. Contractors are responsible for determining and satisfying copyright or other use restrictions regarding the content of reports that they write, in compliance with NYSERDA s policies, and federal law. If you are the copyright owner and believe a NYSERDA report has not properly attributed your work to you or has used it without permission, please print@nyserda.ny.gov.

4 Green Genesee Smart Genesee Design Priorities and Principles Report Contents List of Tables... i List of Figures... i Introduction... 1 Methods... 2 Identification and Ranking of Natural Asset Cores... 2 Connectivity Analysis... 3 Zoning Classes... 4 Compatible Land Use Buffers... 4 Fragmented Agricultural Habitat Islands... 4 Economic Support and Sustainability... 4 Public Meetings and Leadership Team Review... 5 Results... 7 Green Infrastructure Inventory... 7 Connectivity... 7 Zoning Classes... 8 Compatible Land Use Buffers... 8 Fragmented Agricultural Habitat... 8 Discussion and Conclusion... 8 Risks and Opportunities... 8 Next Steps/Priorities... 9 References List of Tables Table 1 Relative Costs on Cost Surface Table 2 Asset Core Area by Zoning Class List of Figures Figure 1 Natural Asset Cores Figure 2 Geometry Ranking Figure 3 Hydrology Ranking Figure 4 Diversity Ranking Figure 5 Overall Ranking Figure 6 Cost Surface Figure 7 Potential Corridors Figure 8 Zoning Analysis Figure 9 Compatible Land Use Buffers Figure 10 Agricultural Natural Asset Cores August 6, 2015 i

5 Green Genesee Smart Genesee Design Priorities and Principles Report Introduction The Green Genesee/Smart Genesee Phase 1 (GGSG) project is an innovative sustainable land use and energy conservation effort in Genesee County, NY. Phase I of the GGSG is supported by a partnership that includes Genesee County Planning, Genesee County Economic Development Center, New York Green, and four municipalities: Towns of Batavia, Oakfield, Alabama, and the Village of Oakfield. In addition to the local support, a grant from New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) was obtained under their newly developed Cleaner Greener Communities grant program. The primary goal of the program is to encourage communities to create public-private partnerships and develop regional sustainable growth strategies in such areas as emissions control, energy efficiency, renewable energy, low-carbon transportation, and other carbon reductions. There are two parts to GGSG: Green Genesee: A county-wide road map (Green Genesee Road Map) that supplies a science-based, community-based tool for making sustainable land use decision in Genesee County. Smart Genesee: Integrating sustainability through green infrastructure and energy conservation strategies into municipal comprehensive planning and land use regulation codes. A green infrastructure approach is being infused into the process to ensure the character of the county and abundant natural resources will be part of our economic prospect for current and future generations. Since mid-2014, the Consultant Team lead by CC Environment & Planning has been collating a comprehensive baseline of information about natural resources within Genesee County. This report reviews the design principles and priorities that were used to analyze spatial information and ecological data to develop ecological asset maps. Ecosystem services such as water filtration, stormwater mitigation, and pest and disease control are provided by green infrastructure such as forests, wetlands, and waterways. In many cases, providing for these services through artificial means is more expensive than simply maintaining the presence of naturally-occurring green infrastructure (Holzman 2012). Agricultural production is not self-sufficient. It depends on contributions from clean water, pollinators, predator species that feed on pests, and numerous microbial species. Maintenance of a diverse assemblage of these species is vital as agricultural production increases to meet the demands of a growing and changing human population. Presence of natural habitat types can also inhibit the spread of agricultural pests; connected tracts of agricultural landscapes can facilitate the movement of pest species across agricultural landscapes, whereas the presence of non-crop habitat can increase habitat for insect predators, increasing levels of pest regulation (Mitchell et al. 2013). Though Genesee County is largely agricultural, remnant habitat patches within largely agricultural areas can provide important habitat for many species (Duelli and Obrist 2003, Hendrickx et al. 2007). Generalist species such as deer and turkeys, which can better use more disturbed habitat, use features such as woodlots and hedgerows as refuges, and can thrive in agricultural landscapes. If managed appropriately, agricultural landscapes can also provide protection for natural assets, as agricultural preservation initiatives can decrease the likelihood of more damaging land uses becoming established near high quality natural assets (Weber et al. 2006). Conversely, assets located close to land use or zoning classes such as August 6,

6 Green Genesee Smart Genesee Design Priorities and Principles Report commercial, industrial, or residential may be at greater risk from the impacts of more intensive land use, both existing and future. For example, an asset core located in an area zoned for industrial use is likely to be affected if currently vacant land is converted to industrial cover. The purpose of this analysis is to use available data to locate and rank natural assets within Genesee County and investigate location, connectivity, and possible risks to asset cores. This is a first step in the development of a science-based, community-based green infrastructure plan for Genesee County. The results of this analysis will be used by community residents and stakeholders to refine locations and prioritization of natural asset cores and corridors. Methods Identification and Ranking of Natural Asset Cores An inventory and analysis of the current conditions of natural resources in Genesee County were used to create Natural Assets Maps. This process is based on the green infrastructure approach reviewed in the New York Guide to Green Infrastructure (Green Infrastructure Center 2013; the Guide). Natural asset cores were identified based on natural cover classes extracted from the United States Department of Agriculture s 2013 Cropland Data Layer and combined with federal and state wetland data. These areas of natural cover were then buffered 50 meters from non-natural cover areas to remove edge effects. Asset cores larger than five acres were retained and ranked as described below. The method outlined in the Guide was changed slightly to better reflect the landscape and conditions specific to Genesee County. First, in the Guide s method asset cores were buffered inward 100 m to account for edge effects; because Genesee County has less natural cover than Ulster County, NY, the county for which the Guide was developed, we instead buffered natural habitat patches inward by 50 m from asset edges. Asset edges were defined as areas where space classified as natural assets abutted nonnatural asset areas such as roads, towns, and agricultural cover. We based this change on the conclusions of Murcia (1995), who found in a review of papers on edge effects in forests that issues associated with edge, including increased predation of songbirds, invasive species colonization, and pollution, disappear within 50 m of the forest s edge. Second, though the ranking system used in The Guide was not designed to rank asset cores smaller than 10 acres, we were interested in the location of smaller cores of natural cover within Genesee County; therefore, we retained cores if they were at least five acres in our analysis. We were interested in cores between 5 and 10 acres because remnant agricultural patches have been shown to be important for biodiversity and provide significant ecosystem services (Duelli and Obrist 2003, Hendrickx 2007). Three broad categories, geometry, hydrology, and diversity, were used to identify key resource areas. The results of the analysis are provided in more detail for each below. Natural asset cores were identified based on the United States Department of Agriculture s (USDA) 2013 Cropland Data Layer, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) state regulated wetlands. Natural asset core geometry was scored by ranking asset cores based on size and shape, with higher quality patches being larger and having more interior area and less edge. Natural asset core geometry was scored by ranking asset cores based on: August 6,

7 Green Genesee Smart Genesee Design Priorities and Principles Report Total core area, with larger patches being considered better ; Ratio of core perimeter to area, with a lower perimeter to area ratio considered better. Geometry of asset cores is important because larger cores with more core area and less edge will provide more ecosystem services (for example, water filtration) and be less subject to edge effects. Edge effects occur as a consequence of being near non-natural cover types; examples of edge effects are increased erosion from urban runoff and increased exposure pollution from human activities. Natural asset core hydrology was ranked by quantifying hydrological features within each asset core. Features considered include: Surface waters such as ponds, lakes, and reservoirs; Wetlands; Length and water quality class of streams and rivers. For all hydrologic features, asset cores with greater length or area were considered higher quality. Natural asset core diversity was ranked by quantifying: Number and rarity of state and federally listed threatened and endangered species; Number of New York Natural Heritage significant natural communities. Cores with more, rarer species and with more significant natural communities were considered higher quality. Final core rating was calculated by combining the geometry, hydrology and diversity asset scores. For more information on the location of asset cores and calculation of core rankings, see the New York State Green Infrastructure Guide. Connectivity Analysis As a first step in identifying potential corridors, connectivity was analyzed in ArcGIS 10.2 using a cost surface created by overlaying asset cores, land cover, barrier (roads, railroads), and feature datasets (waterways). In ArcGIS, a cost surface is a raster surface with a cost associated with each cell. Because we are interested in general landscape connectivity and not specific focal species, the cost surface was generated based on land cover as a proxy for general ecological connectedness as in Spencer et al. (2010). The value of each cell assumes a relative cost of crossing that cell. In this model, lower costs are associated with natural cover types such as forests, wetlands, and streams, while higher costs are associated with non-natural cover types such as development. Cover types such as agriculture and edge forest, which have a lower cost than development but a higher cost than natural cover types, were assigned an intermediate cost. Once the cost surface was created, connectivity between the highest quality asset cores was analyzed using first the cost distance tool, which creates a raster dataset of the cumulative cost from a source in this case high quality asset cores and then the corridor tool, which analyzes two cost distance rasters to find the lowest-cost routes of traveling between two sources. August 6,

8 Green Genesee Smart Genesee Design Priorities and Principles Report Table 1: Relative costs on cost surface. Element Weight/cost Roads 40 Natural habitat edge 10 Natural habitat core 7 Active Railroads 40 Developed cover high intensity 30 Developed cover - medium 30 Developed cover - low 30 Developed cover open space 20 Agriculture 20 Barren 20 The results of this analysis may be used by municipalities to select potential corridors for further investigation and development. Zoning Classes Natural asset cores within different zoning classes were identified in ArcGIS 10.2 by extracting zoning classes from Genesee County Planning s GIS shapefile of local zoning classes, then overlying these zoning areas onto the natural asset core layer. Compatible Land Use Buffers Weber et al. (2006) identified compatible land use buffers around areas of green infrastructure that had been identified in Maryland. These compatible buffers were defined as existing natural land, agriculture, or lawns. These buffers were identified under the assumption that agricultural preservation will protect natural assets by making conversion to more damaging cover types, such as development or major roadways, less likely. Compatible land use buffers were identified in ArcGIS 10.2 by extracting natural and agricultural cover types from the Cropland Data Layer, then buffering asset cores to identify compatible land use close to asset cores. Fragmented Agricultural Habitat Islands Islands of fragmented habitat within agricultural landscapes provide valuable ecosystem services and were identified in ArcGIS 10.2 by identifying natural asset cores at least partially occurring within majorityagricultural tax parcels. Majority agricultural tax parcels were identified by using the zonal statistics tool in ArcGIS to identify parcels that were largely agricultural, and then overlaying asset cores onto the agricultural parcels. Economic Support and Sustainability In addition to the natural resource data reviewed above, stakeholder representatives on the Leadership Team provided information and guidance regarding the economic goals and strategies of the Genesee County. The Genesee County Economic Development Center (GCEDC) provides staff to participate on the Leadership Team and have shared extensive data and planning documents to help guide and lend perspective to the development of the Genesee County sustainability maps and Green Genesee Road Map. Targeted industries in Genesee County include agri-business and food processing, life sciences and August 6,

9 Green Genesee Smart Genesee Design Priorities and Principles Report medical devices, advanced manufacturing and nanotechnology, warehouse and distribution These targets and the land use planning challenges that must be addressed to successfully support a vital economy are similar throughout the Genesee/Finger Lakes Region. Principles of sustainable economic development outlined in the Finger Lakes Regional Sustainability Plan ( along with economic development goals, broad strategies, sub-strategies, and project ideas are utilized by the GGSG project to further guide economic considerations in land use planning. This includes, most appropriately, broad strategy ED5 Protect, enrich and market the unique natural, cultural, agricultural, and destination assets of the region. Public Meetings and Leadership Team Review The spatial analysis conducted above was guided by input from the public in each of the four participating municipalities and by stakeholder representatives on the Leadership Team. Five Leadership Team meetings were held in September and November, 2014 and January, March, and May, 2015 along with six public meetings in the Towns of Batavia, Alabama, and Oakfield (Village of Oakfield) in the months of March, April, June, and July, During these meetings information was provided to develop an overall community vision for GGSG. Information presented at these public meetings included a current context report providing an overview of the current conditions in Genesee County and the participating municipalities regarding natural resources, cultural and historical resources, community, and economy. During the first three meetings a vision and purpose statement were developed as shown in the text box below. Community Vision: Green Genesee/Smart Genesee safeguards our air, soil, and water in support of a growing economy and a high quality of life today and tomorrow. - The purpose of GGSG is to create tools and provide resources that help guide land and energy use in Genesee County. This will allow continued development of viable and lasting economies and strong and vital communities. - The GGSG project is supported by community and science, guided by a group of diverse stakeholders including municipal leaders, farmers, businesses, lawmakers, residents, environmental professionals, and students. - Ours will be among the strong and vital communities of the future where people will want to live, where businesses will want to locate, and where others will want to visit. Subsequent meetings focused on review of the priority natural assets based on spatial analysis, facilitating stakeholder review and feedback to guide prioritization and review of fragmentation analysis and development of risks/opportunities assessment based on the following public meeting questions: August 6,

10 Green Genesee Smart Genesee Design Priorities and Principles Report Assess Risks: What Assets Are Most at Risk and What Could Be Lost If No Action Is Taken? Which areas are zoned for development and do they overlap key natural assets? Where are new roads or subdivisions planned will they fragment key assets? Which streams are impaired and need restoration or, which streams are in good condition but may decline in the future? Which historic structures are in danger of destruction if no action is taken? Are there impaired areas where habitat can be restored? What viewsheds are threatened? Is any mining, drilling or quarrying planned for your region that might affect air or water quality? Which assets are most impacted by present zoning and currently planned developments? Determine Opportunities: Determine Opportunities For Protection or Restoration. Based On Those Assets and Risks Identified; Determine Which Ones Could or Should Be Restored or Improved? And Which Need the Attention Soonest? Which forests or woodlands that are most threatened, or that offer the most value for forestry, recreation and wildlife habitat, are at risk? Specify why. Which historical structures are most important and most under threat? Again, specify why. Which recreational areas are of most value and are most threatened? (Perhaps an important hunting area is threatened by a new housing development, or is zoned for industrial purposes, or a trout steam is at risk of pollution from expanded land development and runoff). Explore the extent to which current zoning adequately addresses your county s or region s land assets. Where should towns or developments be located in the future, so as to allow retention of key resources or to take advantage of access to outdoor recreation? Where are new roads or transportation projects likely to impact your assets should those projects be modified to minimize or prevent impacts? Stakeholder responses to these questions are being used to refine goals, projects, and priorities to inform the comprehensive plan updates and final Green Genesee Road Map Plan currently being developed as part of project tasks 4 and 5. August 6,

11 Green Genesee Smart Genesee Design Priorities and Principles Report Results Green Infrastructure Inventory A total of 769 natural asset cores totaling approximately 60,000 acres (Figure 1) were identified within Genesee County. Most of these cores were relatively small, with 184 of the 769 cores between 5 and 10 acres. Cores were located throughout the county, with notably high densities of cores occurring in the northwest corner of the county, where state wildlife management areas and Iroquois National Wildlife Refuge maintain large areas of relatively undisturbed cover. Natural cover is also located in the privatelyowned Bergen Swamp Preserve and Darien Lake State Park. The results of the core ranking are shown in Figures 2-5. Cores with high geometry, water, and diversity rankings are large cores with relatively little edge area, high concentrations of water resources, and relatively high diversity. These include areas of natural cover in and around Bergen swamp, and in the state wildlife management areas and Iroquois National Wildlife Refuge. Cores with significantly high scores are also located outside of protected areas, notably in the Town of LeRoy to the south of Oatka Creek and in the Town of Pembroke, in large, relatively high-scoring natural asset cores that are privately-owned. 400 Histogram of Asset Core Area Count >1000 Area Range Connectivity The cost surface shown in the connectivity analysis is illustrated in Figure 6. Potential corridors between highly-ranked cores in varying areas of the county are shown in Figure 7. In the cost surface shown in Figure 6, cells with a high cost are assumed to be more difficult to cross than cells with a low cost. As an organism crosses the landscape, it accrues cost based on (a) distance and (b) August 6,

12 Green Genesee Smart Genesee Design Priorities and Principles Report land cover, so that the lowest cost to cross a landscape will be the shortest path through the best possible land cover. The corridors shown in Figure 7 often travel along waterways, which, in a fragmented landscape, are often the best remaining options for sustaining or improving connectivity (Spencer et al. 2010). Zoning Classes The results of the zoning analysis (Figure 8) indicate that the majority of asset core area is within land zoned for agriculture, though a significant minority lies within land zoned for conservation or recreation. Only 2,656 acres of asset cores are located within land zoned for commercial, residential, and industrial use. Table 2: Asset Core Area by Zoning Class Zoning Class Acres Natural Asset Cores Within Zoning Class Agricultural, Agricultural Residential 40,895 Commercial, Residential, Industrial 2,656 Land Conservation, Recreation 13,271 Tonawanda Reservation 3,420 Compatible Land Use Buffers The vast majority of asset core area is surrounded by land that, if current land use is preserved, has the potential to protect natural assets from the effects of more damaging cover types such as industrial development (Figure 9). Fragmented Agricultural Habitat Approximately 14,050 acres of natural asset cores exist within parcels that are majority agricultural (Figure 10). Discussion and Conclusion Risks and Opportunities Valuable natural asset cores within Genesee County are often not directly connected by core habitat; instead, the most valuable habitats are connected by covers such as open space and agriculture. Areas of natural or semi natural cover that are important for the overall connectivity of the landscape can and should be assessed, mapped, and explicitly valued, so that any land use change can be made with an appropriate understanding of the benefits provided by green infrastructure and the possible effects of a probable change. Asset cores within areas zoned for incompatible uses may be at higher risk of being lost than cores within areas zoned for other uses, such as agriculture, conservation, or recreation. Decision makers have the opportunity to assess the value of asset cores within these areas and make decisions on whether or not their ecosystem services value outweighs the value of future development. Agricultural cover both provides benefits and negatively affects natural assets. Though agriculture may be usable by some species, agricultural cover can negatively affect sensitive species. The opportunity to appropriately manage farmland to maintain natural assets gives landowners and managers opportunities August 6,

13 Green Genesee Smart Genesee Design Priorities and Principles Report to assess ways in which changes in farmland management could affect ecosystem services provided by natural assets. Remnant asset cores within largely agricultural areas provide an opportunity for landowners to maintain and improve diversity within the county. They also provide ecosystem services valuable to agricultural managers: natural assets provide habitat for pollinators, mitigate water and air pollution, absorb stormwater, and provide goods such as firewood, all of which can be valuable, though perhaps not obvious, to property owners. Next Steps/Priorities Community-Based Planning The data produced in this analysis could be combined with input from local planning officials and stakeholders to prioritize areas for conservation, development, agriculture, and other land uses. Informed decision making on the location of different land use has the potential to create a landscape that protects natural assets, maintains landscape connectivity, and provides for the economic and social needs of residents. Ground Truthing The purpose of this analysis is to provide a starting point for community-development of refined green infrastructure plans. The analysis relies on relatively large scale datasets that have varying levels of error. Ground truthing and reclassification of data may be used to address these sources of error and to improve the accuracy of the analysis and therefore the utility of the tool. The use of available wetland and buildings data provide examples of refinement opportunities. The original natural habitat layer was created by combining natural cover types extracted from the USDA s cropland data layer with wetland datasets released by the NYSDEC and the USFWS. We created the layer by simply overlaying these datasets, with the result that any areas in which they disagree disappeared. One example of this occurs in the north part of the County; an area that, based on satellite imagery, appears to be an agricultural field, is classified as a wetland in the National Wetlands Inventory. Even though the Cropland Data Layer does not classify this area as natural cover, it is carried into the natural cover and asset cores datasets by the National Wetlands Inventory. In the absence of a county-level point or polygon GIS dataset of building locations, we relied in part on a point shapefile of county address points to extract developed areas from areas of natural cover. Even parcels that are undeveloped are assigned an address point, creating some areas in which address points make asset cores appear to be both smaller than they are and with more edge area than they have in reality. Connectivity Analysis This analysis helps identify regions within Genesee County that are important for overall connectivity. A next step is to identify how single asset cores are important for connectivity. For example, if a single core bridges a large gap between two other cores, if the connecting patch were eliminated the effect to overall connectivity would be greater than if a patch between two patches with multiple connections were removed. Future analyses based on these results could include the assessment of asset cores based on their importance to connectivity, as in Rubio and Saura (2012). Rubio and Saura assessed the importance of individual cores to connectivity between other cores, categorizing cores as irreplaceable connecting elements or as stepping stones. Identification of important asset cores within Genesee County would August 6,

14 Green Genesee Smart Genesee Design Priorities and Principles Report allow decision makers to prioritize planning decisions based on the importance of individual asset cores to the maintenance of landscape connectivity. Valuation of Natural Asset Cores Additional future analyses could also attempt to quantify the green infrastructure value of each natural asset core. Especially for cores not located on protected lands, assigning a numeric value to the services provided by natural cover would increase decision makers ability to discuss tradeoffs. As Economic decisions are often based on concrete numbers for example, number of jobs created, or money injected into the local economy and being able to compare like with like would go a long way toward opening up a conversation about the value of natural assets. Specific values would also aid in the development of proposals for policies such as conservation tax incentives. Development of Usable Information and Tools Though refinement and extension of the data presented in this report would increase the utility of the tool, it will have no effect if the information provided in this and future analyses isn t used to inform the planning process and identify areas where municipal priorities and the benefits of natural assets intersect. An important next step, therefore, is conducting outreach activities to communicate both the benefits of natural assets and the ways in which decision makers can balance economic development and green infrastructure benefits to make science-based, well-informed policy decisions. Utilizing the results of this information to develop usable, accessible mapping tools and land use information is a critical piece to the success of developing resilient landscapes. August 6,

15 Green Genesee Smart Genesee Design Priorities and Principles Report References Benton, T.G., J.A. Vickery, and J.D. Wilson Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18(4): Blann, K Habitat in Agricultural Landscapes: How much is enough? A state of the science review. Defenders of Wildlife. Carroll, C., B. McRae, and A. Brookes Use of linkage mapping and centrality analysis across habitat gradients to conserve connectivity of gray wolf populations in Western North America. Conservation Biology 26: Duelli, P. and M.K. Obrist Regional biodiversity in an agricultural landscape: the contribution of semi natural habitat islands. Basic and Applied Ecology 4: Green Infrastructure Center Evaluating and Conserving Green Infrastructure across the Landscape: a Practitioner s Guide. Hendrickx, F. et al How landscape structure, land-use intensity and habitat diversity affect components of total arthropod diversity in agricultural landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology 44(2): Holzman, D.C Accounting for nature's benefits: the dollar value of ecosystem services. Environmental Health Perspectives 120(4): a152-a157. Mitchell, M.G.E., E.M. Bennett, and A. Gonzalez Linking landscape connectivity and ecosystem service provision: current knowledge and research gaps. Ecosystems 16: Spencer, W.D., P. Beier, K. Penrod, K. Winters, C. Paulman, H. Rustigian-Romsos, J. Strittholt, M. Parisi, and A. Pettler California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration. Theobald, D.M A note on creating robust resistance surfaces for computing functional landscape connectivity. Ecology and Society 10(2). Weber, T. et al Maryland s Green Infrastructure Assessment: development of a comprehensive approach to land conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning 77: August 6,

16 Figures

17 Made by Liza Norment 5/20/2015 Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Miles Green Genesee Smart Genesee Natural Asset Cores Principles and Priorities Report Genesee County, NY Data Sources: USDA, Green Genesee Smart Genesee. Natural Asset Cores CC Environment & Planning Natural Cover Figure 1 Genesee County Prepared by: CC Environment & Planning, 05/20/2015

18 Made by Liza Norment 5/20/ Miles Data Sources: Green Genesee Smart Genesee, Genesee County Planning. Green Genesee Smart Genesee Geometry Ranking Priorities and Principles Report Genesee County, NY CC Environment & Planning Genesee County Core Rank 2: Higher 3 4 5: Lower Figure 2 Prepared by: CC Environment & Planning, 05/20/2015

19 Made by Liza Norment 5/20/ Miles Data Sources: Green Genesee Smart Genesee, Genesee County Planning. Green Genesee Smart Genesee Water Ranking Priorities and Principles Report Genesee County, NY CC Environment & Planning Genesee County Core Ranking 1: Higher Value : Lower Value Figure 3 Prepared by: CC Environment & Planning, 05/20/2015

20 Made by Liza Norment 5/20/ Miles Data Sources: Green Genesee Smart Genesee, Genesee County Planning. Green Genesee Smart Genesee Diversity Ranking Priorities and Principles Report Genesee County, NY CC Environment & Planning Genesee County Core Ranking 1: Higher : Lower Figure 4 Prepared by: CC Environment and Planning, 05/20/2015

21 Made by Liza Norment 5/20/ Miles Data Sources: Green Genesee Smart Genesee, Genesee County Planning. Green Genesee Smart Genesee Overall Ranking Priorities and Principles Report Genesee County, NY CC Environment & Planning Genesee County Core Ranking 1: Higher Value : Lower Value Figure 5 Prepared by: CC Environment & Planning, 05/20/2015

22 Made by Liza Norment 5/20/ Miles E, DeLorme, Map Data Sources: Green Genesee Smart Genesee. Green Genesee Smart Genesee Cost Surface Priorities and Principles Report Genesee County, NY CC Environment & Planning Relative Cost Low High Figure 6 Prepared by: CC Environment & Planning, 05/20/2015

23 Made by Liza Norment 5/20/ Miles Data Sources: Green Genese Smart Genesee, Genesee County Planning. Green Genesee Smart Genesee Least Cost Corridors Priorities and Principles Report Genesee County, NY CC Environment & Planning Natural Asset Cores Least Cost Corridors Genesee County Figure 7 Prepared by: CC Environment & Planning, 05/20/2015

24 Made by Liza Norment 5/20/2015 Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Miles Data Sources: Genesee County Planning, Green Genesee Smart Genesee. Natural Asset Cores within Incompatible Zoning Green Genesee Smart Genesee Zoning Analysis Priorities and Principles Report Genesee County, NY CC Environment & Planning Natural Asset Cores Incompatible Zoning Classes Genesee County Figure 8 Prepared by: CC Environment & Planning, 05/20/2015

25 Made by Liza Norment 8/6/ Miles Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Data Sources: USDA, Genesee County Planning, Green Genesee/Smart Genesee. Green Genesee Smart Genesee Compatible Land Use Buffers Priorities and Principles Report Genesee County, NY CC Environment & Planning Genesee County Major Roads Streets Natural Asset Cores Compatible Land Use Buffer Figure 9 Prepared by: CC Environment & Planning, 08/06/2015

26 Made by Liza Norment 8/6/2015 Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Miles Data Sources: USDA, Genesee County Planning, Green Genesee Smart Genesee. Agricultural Natural Asset Core Islands Green Genesee Smart Genesee Agricultural Natural Asset cores Priorities and Principles Report Genesee County, New York CC Environment & Planning Nonagricultural Natural Asset Cores Majority Agricultural Tax Parcels Parcel Boundaries Genesee County Figure 10 Prepared by: CC Environment & Planning, 08/06/2015