AGENDA Working group participation as match for SWG reminder Upcoming meetings: Next meeting on 8/20/2013 (NO meeting in July) Upcoming meetings related to connectivity ICOET: June 23-27, 2013 in Scottsdale, Arizona ICCB: July 21-25, 2013 in Baltimore, MD TRB: July 22 25, 2013 in New Brunswick, NJ Funding opportunities: PPG Conservation & Sustainability Fund: http://www.osiny.org/site/pageserver?pagename=issues_habitat_resilient_landscape_grants2 OSI Resilient Landscape Initiative Fund: http://pittsburghzoo.org/conservation/ppgconservationfund Discuss June 17 th WAConnected webinar: Addressing Habitat Connectivity in Northeast Washington Forest Plan Revisions Review of May core team meetings NJ native terrestrial wildlife species Review draft list Review summary of data availability and species ecology back from species leads Review possible methodologies for defining core areas based on existing methodologies applied in and outside of NJ Next steps: Finish summarizing species information Sub-team to experiment with core mapping methodologies while considering species information Present options at August meeting
RECAP Guidance Document Core Team Meeting Four May 20, 12-2pm Assunpink Wildlife Management Area, Main Building Meeting attendees: Debra Firman, Gretchen Fowles, Paula Scelsi, Joe Sweger, Kelly Triece, Nellie Tsipoura, Charu Vaidya, Brian Zarate Meeting Notes: Quick poll about using core team participation as match for SWG-funded project. Review of past core team meetings and general announcements. Review of Transportation Enhancement Funding awarded to Bedminster Township for turtle tunnels. o ENSP staff will set up meeting with township to schedule additional preimplementation studies, timeline dependent, and post-implementation study. Review of federal transportation funding options to see which are available/applicable to potential NJ projects. Continuation of economic analysis Next steps: NJDOT review of FHWA funding options Continue discussion on economic analysis
RECAP Communication Core Team Meeting Five May 20 th, 2:30-4:30 Assunpink Wildlife Management Area, Main Office Meeting attendees: Gretchen Fowles, MacKenzie Hall, Bill Pitts, Kelly Triece, Audrey Wendolowski, Brian Zarate Discussed possibilities for a public Habitat Connectivity website Brainstormed elements important for the site to have Begin working on pieces and parts for a video snyopsis to post Discussed improving research collaboration aspect of working group site and future public site New, snazzier name for project? Tasks: Think about public site design/elements & research how other, similar projects did it Draft research template and complete for a project to evaluate Think about/research new name possibilities Review ppt script from past Habitat Connectivity presentations and finesse
RECAP Mapping Core Team Meeting Five May 20 th, 9:30 11:30 am Assunpink Wildlife Management Area, Main Office Meeting attendees: Rick Brown, John Cecil, Margaret Conroy, Gretchen Fowles, Dave Jenkins, Kim Korth, Amy Miller, Robert Somes, Kelly Triece, Pete Winkler, Patrick Woerner, Brian Zarate Reviewed draft list of NJ native terrestrial wildlife species for which lack of habitat connectivity could be a problem for the species long-term viability Reviewed list of questions that will be sent out to species experts related to: Data availability Species ecology reflecting movement and habitat needs Review of Natural Landscape metric applied to the Highlands Tasks: Species list and questions finalized and sent out to species lead Reviewed Pinelands Ecological Integrity Index and others to compare to Theobald Natural Landscape Approach Flesh out known/likely mapping variables
SPECIES QUESTIONS PRELIMINARY LOOK Defining terrestrial species: NJ native terrestrial species for which lack of habitat connectivity or isolation of habitat from similar habitat is potentially a significant problem for the species and may jeopardize its long-term viability WA: Focused on species whose movement can be limited by humancreated landscape alterations... Most move on the ground and would be sensitive to barriers Species list review 128 species currently 30 = E, T, SC 81 on Nongame list Data availability Data in Biotics for 44 species on road data collected for 20 species Number of records Taxonomic Class Number of Species Insecta 4 Chelonia 11 Aves 12 Reptilia 25 Amphibia 32 Mammalia 44
CORE AREAS Possible methods/ideas Definitions of cores used by others: Habitat blocks are areas large enough to sustain healthy wildlife populations and support essential biological processes into the future (Noss 1983, Noss and Harris 1986, Noss 1987, Noss et al. 1996).... make sure adequate size and with low enough levels of human disturbance (important for large, wide ranging, or highly specialized species) (Noess and Harris 1986) A specific type of habitat patch that contains critical habitat, that is unique or rare in its ability to provide all habitat needs (e.g., foraging/prey, cover, reproduction) or area of particularly high productivity (Schwartz et al. 2013)
CORE AREAS Possible methods/ideas * WA habitat connectivity ecoregional analysis landscape integrity Pinelands Ecological-Integrity Assessment TNC Ecological Assessment TNC Terrestrial Resilience local connectedness Landscape Project Garden State Greenways Proposal: Follow WA s landscape integrity methodology, but use methodologies applied previously in NJ to inform how we parameterize variables
NATURAL LANDSCAPE METRIC 4. Housing density 1 = Residential + 100m buffer Theobald, David M. Estimating Natural Landscape Changes from 1992 to 2030 in the Conterminous US. Landscape Ecology 25, no. 7 (May 1, 2010): 999 1011. doi:10.1007/s10980-010-9484-z. This was a 1 st take, making quick and dirty decisions much fine-tuning needed, but wanted to try out the methodology Compute naturalness as a function of 4 factors: 1. Land cover 1 = human-dominated (Urban, Agriculture) 0 = natural (Forest, Wetlands) 2. Presence of roads 1.0 = interstates/state highways 0.5 = secondary roads (500 and 600 series county roads) 0.3 = local roads 3. Effects of traffic volume Convert traffic volume using a quadratic kernel density that assumes the impact declines with distance out to 1km away from road - generates smoothed traffic volume raster 0 = no impact 1 = AADT > 10,000
NATURAL LANDSCAPE METRIC 1. Land cover (10m resolution) 1 = human-dominated (Urban, Agriculture) (Gray) 0 = natural (Forest, Wetlands) (Green)
NATURAL LANDSCAPE METRIC 2. Presence of roads (10m resolution) 1.0 = interstates/state highways 0.5 = secondary roads (500 and 600 series county roads) 0.3 = local roads
NATURAL LANDSCAPE METRIC 3. Effects of traffic volume Convert traffic volume using a quadratic kernel density that assumes the impact declines with distance out to 1km away from road - generates smoothed traffic volume raster 0 = no impact (Black) 1 = AADT > 10,000 (White)
NATURAL LANDSCAPE METRIC 4. Housing density 1 = Residential + 100m buffer (Black)
NATURAL LANDSCAPE METRIC Took the max of each cell value and that was the final naturalness value Values range from 0 (most natural) to 1 (most human modified)
PINELANDS ECOLOGICAL-INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT Goal: The focus of the Pinelands ecological-integrity assessment was the status of the Pinelands Area in 2002, the period for which the most current and detailed land-use data were available. To identify areas of potentially high ecological integrity that were affected by land-use changes and to provide an indication of the cumulative effect of land-use changes in one area on adjacent areas, assessments were also completed using 1986 and 1995 land-use data.
PINELANDS ECOLOGICAL-INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT Ecological Integrity. The overall ecological integrity of the Pinelands is a composite of landscape-, watershed-, and wetland-drainage-integrity measures. An average of all of the integrity scores Landscape Integrity Definition: Landscape integrity is a measure of the extent of Pinelands habitat in an area. Pinelands habitat includes upland forests, water, and wetlands, with the exception of managed wetlands and wetland agriculture. The landscape-integrity assessment included an analysis of separate 10 10-m Pinelands-habitat cells using a window with a 1,000-m (3,281-ft) radius Aquatic Integrity Definition: percentage of land in a watershed that is neither developed land nor upland agriculture. The integrity score assigned to a drainage unit was then assigned to every 10 10-m cell in that drainage unit. Wetlands-drainage Integrity Definition: percentage of land in a wetlands drainage unit that is neither developed land nor upland ag. The wetlands drainage unit is a discrete area of wetlands and the adjacent uplands that contribute surface water and groundwater to the wetlands.
PINELANDS ECOLOGICAL-INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT
PINELANDS ECOLOGICAL-INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT
TNC ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT We defined matrix blocks within New Jersey as areas of 10,000 acres or larger, comprised of at least 75% natural lands cover, that are bounded by major roads (county, state, or federal roads) We defined umbrella blocks as areas 4,250 acres or larger, comprised of at least 75% natural lands cover, that are bounded by major roads (county, state, or federal roads) Rare species: we selected blocks of land which contain EOs, are 250 acres or larger in size, are comprised of more than 50% natural land, and are located within three miles of an umbrella or matrix block Secondary natural blocks: We defined these secondary natural blocks as roadbounded polygons of 250 acres or larger, comprised of at least 50% natural land cover, and are located within three miles of a matrix block or are touching a rare species block
TNC ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
TNC ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
TNC ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
TNC TERRESTRIAL RESILIENCE LOCAL CONNECTEDNESS Local connectedness: started with a focal cell and looked at the resistance to flows outward in all directions through the cell s local neighborhood.
TNC TERRESTRIAL RESILIENCE LOCAL CONNECTEDNESS
LANDSCAPE PROJECT
GARDEN STATE GREENWAYS
GARDEN STATE GREENWAYS a map-based vision for a potential statewide system of parks, natural areas, farmland and historic sites, linked together by greenways and trails Garden State Greenways sets forth eight broad goals towards achieving this vision: 1. Establish parks, trails or other protected lands within walking distance of every New Jersey resident. 2. Permanently protect New Jersey s critical natural resource lands: those contributing to groundwater or aquifer recharge, surface water quality, rare and endangered species habitat, and prime soils. 3. Permanently protect large, contiguous tracts of natural land for the long-term survival of native plant and animal species. 4. Permanently protect large, contiguous tracts of farmland for the long-term viability of agriculture and the maintenance of scenic and cultural landscapes. 5. Permanently protect parks, natural lands and farmland surrounding historic sites, in order to maintain their historic character, visual context and interpretive value. 6. Link together New Jersey s protected natural, agricultural, historic and recreation lands via trails and greenway connectors. 7. Grant public access and trail rights-of-way, where appropriate, across green infrastructure lands to allow the public to benefit from the scenic, recreational and interpretive opportunities provided therein. 8. Coordinate state, local and private preservation as well as land use planning efforts, around common maps and shared GIS data, towards achieving goals one through seven.
GARDEN STATE GREENWAYS Hubs: classified all undeveloped land in New Jersey according to land cover type, using roads to partition the different land cover types into potential hub polygons Hubs had to one or more of the following nine landscape features: (1) contiguous forest, (2) unmodified wetlands, (3) 300 ft. buffers around environmentally sensitive water bodies, (4) critical habitat, according to the NJDEP-ENSP Landscape Project, (5) critical habitat, according to NJDEP-ONLM Natural Heritage Priority Sites, (6) currently preserved land, (7) agricultural/ grassland, (8) vegetated dunes and upper beach zone, and (9) land identified as hubs in regional Garden State Greenways mapping charrettes. Once selected, greenway hubs were assessed according to the degree to which each polygon captured various resource values. 22 assessment categories included: hub size, extent preserved/unpreserved, estimated groundwater recharge, buffers around environmentally sensitive water bodies, floodplains, prime soils, and concentrations of rare, threatened and endangered species. Greenway connectors were routed between source/destination hubs; those ranking in the top 10% area-wise among all hubs in each assessment region, for at least one assessment category.
GARDEN STATE GREENWAYS Greenway connectors: First, greenway suitability/impedance values were mapped by assigning impedance values to selected landscape features and combining them through weighted overlay. Results were then used as inputs to cost-distance and least-cost path analyses, which in turn were used to route optimal riparian/wetland and upland connectors, respectively, between hubs. Connectors were buffered, converted to fuzzy lines of uniformly spaced points, and assessed according to their underlying per-point and average greenway suitability values.
NEXT STEPS Finish summarizing species information Sub-team to experiment with core mapping methodologies while considering species information Present options at August meeting
REGIONS