New York New Jersey Highlands Technical Report. Farmland

Transcription

1 Farmland Introduction Although normally considered a "land use" and not a resource, agricultural land is a major component of the Highlands landscape. Soils adequate for cultivation have always been limited on the rocky, steep slopes of the Highlands. Many hill farms cleared in the 18 th century were abandoned and gradually reclaimed by forest in the 20 th century. Farming remains an important economic activity in the tillable soils of the lower river valleys of the Delaware, Musconetcong / Pohatcong, Wallkill, Croton and the Fishkill. Agriculture sustains the intrinsic natural character of the working landscape; and provides jobs and a sustained quality of life for many landowners and residents of the Highlands. Objectives The primary objective was to examine the status of agriculture and farmland in the New York New Jersey Highlands region. The land use and land cover assessment was undertaken to map the geographic location of actively cultivated or managed farmland. Methods In addition to the land use and land cover analysis undertaken as part of this study, reports produced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Statistical Services and the New York and New Jersey Departments of Agriculture provided the basis for an updated assessment of farmland and agriculture in the New York New Jersey Highlands study region. Census of Agriculture reports for New York counties were available for the years (NYASS, 2001) and for New Jersey for the year 1997 (NASS, 1999). Data on historical trends in farmland area were acquired from an earlier Census of Agriculture. These reports document county-level agricultural statistics and are not specific to the Highlands study area. The counties included in our analysis for New York were Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland and Westchester and for New Jersey were Bergen, Hunterdon, Morris, Passaic, Sussex and Warren. The NJ Department of Agriculture undertook a study of major agricultural activities within the New Jersey Highlands region (NJDAG, 2002). A similar study specific to the New York Highlands region was unavailable. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP) Department of Parks and Forestry and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) compiled information about properties under Farmland Assessment. The New Jersey Department of Agriculture provided GIS data on the farmlands preserved through New Jersey s Farmland Preservation Program. No comparable GIS data was available for New York. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service s (USDA NRCS) county soils GIS data were analyzed to extract the location of prime farm soils. Prime farm soils were defined as those soils classed as having Statewide and local significance for farming. 93

2 Results Analysis of historical Agriculture Census records show that farming has been declining in the Highlands counties of New York and New Jersey for more than half a century with a steep decline in farm acreage between the 1940 s and the 1970 s. County level agricultural statistics show that between 1969 and 1987, agricultural land use decreased by 25 percent with almost 90,000 acres abandoned or developed. From 1987 to 1998, farmland decreased by another 39,000 acres or 15 percent. While it appears that the high rate of farmland loss experienced during the decades of the 1940 s to the 1970 s is stabilizing, it is projected that farmland will continue to be converted to other land uses. For example, farmland in Rockland County has all but disappeared with only a few remnant farms among a matrix of suburban residential and commercial land use. While it would appear a simple task to estimate the area of agricultural land in the Highlands, our research showed that there is a great degree of inconsistency between the various sources of data on agricultural land. While not specific to the Highlands study area, county level agricultural statistics document approximately 161,100 acres of cropland and pastureland in the New York portion of the Highlands, and 240,380 acres in the New Jersey portion of the Highlands (based on 1998 data for New York and 1997 data for New Jersey) (NASS, 1999; NYASS, 2001). Since these figures are at the county scale, they overestimate the area of agricultural land solely within the Highlands study area boundary. The New Jersey Department of Agriculture undertook a study of major agricultural activities within the New Jersey Highlands region and documented approximately 130,265 acres of crop, pasture and equine acres (NJDAG, 2002). A similar study specific to the New York Highlands region was unavailable. Our analysis of available Farmland Assessment records shows a much lower estimate of farmland area, or at least land assessed as farmland for tax purposes. There are more than 2,000 farms in the New York New Jersey Highlands with 61,843 acres of assessed farmland in New Jersey and 29,980 acres of assessed farmland in New York for a total of 91,823 acres. Whether this lower area estimate was due to omissions in this database was difficult to ascertain. These assessment records show some interesting patterns concerning land ownership patterns. Most farms were in the acre size class and located in Warren, Hunterdon, and the very eastern part of Sussex County in New Jersey, and Orange, Dutchess and Putnam Counties in New York. All farmland was not owned by resident farmers. The land use and land cover analysis conducted as part of this study mapped more than 143,000 acres of land in the New York New Jersey Highlands study region as agricultural land use that includes cultivated cropland, orchards, pasture and hay fields (Figure 2-18). These 143,000 acres represents approximately 10 percent of the New York New Jersey Highlands study region area. The study update land use and land cover analysis estimates for agricultural land are lower since this analysis maps those areas that are actively cultivated or managed for agriculture. Some of the differences between the land use and land cover mapping and the Agriculture Statistics Service area estimates may be the result of discrepancies in the classification and reporting of farmland that is idle or recently abandoned. Our analysis shows that over 60 percent (87,678 acres) of the actively cultivated land is located on mapped prime farm soils. The greatest concentration of prime farm soils and active agriculture is in the southern unglaciated portion of the Highlands (Figure 2-18). Further north 94

3 in New York, the largest concentration of agriculture is in the Wallkill Valley area of Orange County. While not mapped as prime farm soils by the USDA NRCS, these muck soils are locally prized for vegetable and sod farming. Figure 2-18 also shows that there has been a significant loss of prime farmland to urban development. Approximately 111,600 acres of prime soils have been developed in the New York New Jersey Highlands study region. State and local farmland preservation efforts have been attempting to reverse this trend in farmland loss. Based on New Jersey Department of Agriculture records (as of December 2001), we estimate that more than 9,550 acres of Highlands farmland have been enrolled in the New Jersey Farmland Preservation Program. The vast majority of this acreage is located in Hunterdon and Warren counties. Figure 2-18 shows that while widely scattered through the southern Highlands, that there are some large blocks of contiguous farmland that have been preserved. In July 1991, New York passed a Farmland Protection Trust Fund. Unfortunately, mapped information on the location and acreage of preserved farms was not available for this study. The Agriculture Census data reveals that farm production is quite varied and includes: livestock and poultry such as beef cows, milk cows, horses and ponies, hogs, sheep, chicken; and crops such as corn (grain, seed, and silage), soybeans, hay, vegetables, orchards, fruits and nuts, berries, nursery and greenhouse crops, mushrooms and sod (NASS, 1999; NYASS, 2001; NDAG, 2002). While not documented in the Agriculture Census, farmland tourism (e.g., vegetable, fruit and pumpkin picking, hayrides, corn mazes) is also becoming a more important source of income for some Highlands farmers. Discussion Farms and the agricultural production sector contribute significantly to the health of the region s economy, and promote a broader base of economic activity. All residents benefit from the quality and abundance of locally grown products as well as the opportunity to connect with farm life through the growing industry of farming tourism. While it appears that the high rate of farmland loss experienced during the decades of the 1940 s to the 1970 s is stabilizing, it is projected that farmland will continue to be converted to other land uses without aggressive farmland preservation programs. In New Jersey, the Farmland Preservation Program, which funds farmland easements on a willing seller-willing buyer basis, has been overwhelmingly supported by voters. To protect the Garden State s agricultural heritage, New Jersey has a goal of preserving 500,000 acres of farmland through the Farmland Preservation Program (NJ Green Acres, 1999b). Similar farmland preservation programs are operating in New York but up-todate information on the location of preserved properties was not readily available, making it difficult to assess the progress of these efforts. The maintenance of large contiguous blocks of farmland are necessary to ensure that the productivity and economic health of agriculture will be sustained over the long-term. Preserving large contiguous blocks of farmland will help to preserve the character and quality of the region s rural landscape. 95

4 Figure Map of agricultural resources in the New York New Jersey Highlands. 96

5 Conservation Values Assessment Objectives Based on the results of the assessments described above, a GIS-based model was developed to map the coincidence of resource values across the New York New Jersey Highlands region. The objective of the conservation values assessment (CVA) was to integrate various sources of information to provide a coherent picture of relative resource conservation value across the region, highlighting areas that are a priority for conservation management. This assessment updates and expands an earlier Priority Area Assessment conducted by the Regional Plan Association. Methods 1. Conservation Values Assessment (CVA) overview Preliminary to developing the CVA model, conservation priorities were identified during the resource assessment and public input phases of the study Update. The GIS-based CVA model was developed to weight the conservation value of these various resources based on a number of criteria. The CVA model is based on achieving five resource protection goals: 1) Maintain an adequate supply of high quality water; 2) Conserve areas of high biodiversity and habitat value; 3) Provide adequate recreational opportunities for natural, historic and cultural resourcebased uses; 4) Conserve productive farmlands; and 5) Sustain forest resource base. Individual resources within each of the five general resource areas (e.g., water, biodiversity, recreation, farm, forest) are assigned a value ranging from 0 (No Value for that Particular Resource) to 5 (highest value) based on following rules: 1) The degree to which conservation of the landscape would directly protect a resource or reduce the likelihood of negative impacts; 2) Lands that protect human health (e.g., drinking water) were ranked higher than lands that protect ecosystem health (e.g., trout production waters) which were ranked higher than lands that provide a resource for human use (e.g., trout maintenance waters); and 3) Lands for which a significant public investment (e.g., publicly owned park land) has been made were ranked higher than lands for which no public investment has been made. Input on the weighting scheme used was provided by both the study team members and the work group. GIS Overlay Analysis The necessary data concerning the pertinent resources or related environmental phenomena was acquired and mapped for integration into the Highlands GIS. Great effort was expended on developing a comprehensive and regionally consistent database across the entire bi-state region. GIS data were acquired from a number of Federal, State and local sources (Table 2-12). In almost all cases, the original data were mapped to a scale of 1:24,000 or better or to a corresponding grid cell size of 30 meters. The one input GIS data layer that was mapped at a significantly coarser scale was the aquifer type map (i.e., 1:100,000 to 1:250,000 scale). For the 97

6 GIS overlay operations as part of the CVA, the data were all compiled to a standard spatial scale and GIS data format consisting of raster grid cells that were 30 meters on a side, which was deemed to be an appropriate scale that held true to the input data. While the aquifer data were mapped at a coarser scale, as the aquifer type is generally consistent over large areas, we gridded these data to the same 30 meter cell size. GIS cartographic modeling techniques (i.e., overlay analysis) were then used to combine and integrate the data as part of the CVA. Each 30 m by 30 m grid cell was assigned a value of 0 to 5 for each individual component for each resource area. For example, as part of the water resources CVA, a number of components, such as sensitive aquifer recharge areas, wetlands/riparian zones, and public water supply wellhead zones, etc., were included. The weights for the individual components were combined using a maximum value priority rule. For example, for an individual grid cell, if the aquifer parameter was ranked a 2, the riparian zone parameter a 2, and the wellhead zone parameter a 3, then the grid cell would receive the maximum score of that of any single parameter, which in this case is a 3 (from the wellhead zone parameter). This maximum value priority rule was adopted to reduce the double-counting that can occur when individual components are highly correlated, which may be the case here. A final composite analysis was then conducted that combined all the 5 resources areas (e.g., water, biodiversity, recreation, farm, forest) to provide a synopsis of the important conservation areas across the New York New Jersey Highlands region. This was done by summing the class values for the five CVA resource maps. This summation technique was used rather than the maximum value priority to 1) give higher weight to those areas where there was a higher coincidence of values; and 2) there was lower redundancy between the 5 resource area themes. The composite analysis was then re-ranking into 5 class values of approximately equal area using the following classification scheme: class 1=values 1 to 5; class 2=values 6 to 8; class 3=values 9 to 11; class 4=values 12 to 14; and class 5=values 15 to 25. This classification scheme was used to show the relative, rather than the absolute distribution, of the composite values. Alternative classification schemes were examined. These alternative schemes highlighted slightly different aspects of the results, though the overall spatial pattern of high ranked lands was consistent throughout. 98

7 Table Input GIS data layers to the conservation values assessment: source and scale. Layer Name Data Source Scale Aquifer type U.S. Geological Survey 1:100,000-1:250,000 Wellhead protection zone U.S. Geological Survey 1:24,000 Riparian zones Wetlands: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory; NJ DEP, NYS DEC 1:24,000 Floodplains: Federal Emergency Management Agency 1:24,000 Hydric soils: USDA Natural Resources 1:24,000 Conservation Service Hydrological network U.S. Geological Survey 1:24,000 Steep slopes Derived from U.S. Geological Survey DEM 30m grid Wetlands U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetland 1:24,000 Inventory; NJ DEP; NYS DEC Watersheds HUC 14: U.S. Geological Survey 1:24,000 Land cover Rutgers University CRSSA 30 m grid Animal threatened and NJ DEP; NYS DEC/NY NHP 30 m grid endangered habitat Plan threatened and NJ NHP; NY NHP 1/100 quad block endangered habitat Significant plant NJ NHP; NY NHP; TNC 1:24,000 communities Recreational trails Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC); 1:24,000 other mapped sources Viewsheds Derived from U.S. Geological Survey DEM 30 m grid Visible ridgetops Derived from U.S. Geological Survey DEM 30 m grid Public land Various State and local sources 1:24,000 or better Historic/cultural sites Various State and local sources 1:24,000 Recreational waters Hydrology: U.S. Geological Survey 1:24,000 Canoeing waters: AMC 1:24,000 Trout streams: NJ DEP; NYS DEC 1:24,000 Cultivated lands Rutgers University CRSSA land cover 30 m grid Prime farm soils County level soil survey: USDA Natural 1:24,000 Resources Conservation Services Preserved farms NJ Dept. of Agriculture 1:24,000 or better Forest Stewardship lands NJ DEP; NYS DEC 1/100 quad block Forest lands Rutgers University CRSSA land cover 30 m grid 99

8 Water resources conservation values assessment One of the highest priorities identified in the public input and planning stages of this study update was the importance of maintaining adequate supplies of high quality water. Accordingly, the objective for the water resource component of the CVA was to identify those key locations on the landscape that play a critical role in protecting water quality through either minimizing point or non-point sources of pollution and/or soil erosion. This objective translated into a set of rules designed to identify sensitive aquifer recharge areas, wetlands and riparian zones, headwater streams, public water supply wellhead zones, and the receiving basins for drinking water supply reservoirs. Certain landscape features may be especially sensitive to pollution, such as aquifers, wellhead zones, drinking water supply basins and headwater streams. Maintaining these areas in forest cover helps to protect the quality of either the groundwater or surface water from point or non-point source pollution. Other areas kept in forest cover, such as steep slopes, riparian buffers and wetlands; help to reduce runoff, soil erosion and non-point source pollution. These rules and rationale are enumerated in Table The landscape features associated with the water resources CVA were mapped. Figure 2-19 shows the spatial distribution of the various aquifer types. Figure 2-20 shows the location of the public drinking water supply wellheads and the 2,500 foot buffer zone. This width buffer zone was based on input from the U.S. Geological Survey members of the study team. Figure 2-21 shows the location of the mapped riparian zones. Figure 2-22 shows the spatial distribution of steep slopes and their ranking depending on location within the reservoir receiving basins. 100

9 Table 2-13.Weighting scheme and criteria for water resources conservation values assessment. Weight Parameter Rationale Aquifer Provides groundwater for drinking water supply wells, also feeds surface water supply system 4 Valley fill aquifer Coarse gravels most sensitive to pollution infiltration and movement 3 Carbonate aquifers Porous bedrock sensitive to pollution infiltration and movement 1 Other bedrock aquifer Crystalline bedrock least sensitive to pollution infiltration and movement, though bedrock cracks and joints may channel flow Add 1 With forest cover Forest cover helps filter runoff, promotes infiltration and provides clean source of groundwater Public water supply wellhead protection zone Immediate source zone of groundwater for drinking water supply wells 2 Public water supply wellhead and 2500 buffer Sensitive to point and nonpoint sources of pollution infiltrating groundwater system Add 1 With forest cover Forest cover helps filter runoff and provides clean source of groundwater Riparian zones includes streams with 150 buffer Riparian zones in natural vegetation buffers surface water systems from nonpoint source pollution, overland runoff and control soil erosion 1-5 Water quality ranking of Higher priority to protect existing high quality waters adjacent stream Add 2 In surface water supply Higher priority for protection of human health watersheds Headwater streams Sensitive to nonpoint source pollution due to low volumes and feed into downstream aquatic systems 3 Headwater stream itself To protect the headwater stream channel buffer on headwater streams To buffer nonpoint source pollution, overland runoff and control soil erosion Add 2 In surface water supply Higher priority for protection of human health watersheds Steep Slopes: > 15 Steeper slopes are a greater source of soil erosion percent 3 In surface water supply Higher priority for protection of human health watersheds 2 In other watersheds Lower priority but still valuable for protecting aquatic ecosystem health Wetlands (not already included in riparian zones) Wetlands help to absorb peak storm runoff and filter polluted runoff 2 In surface water supply Higher priority for protection of human health watersheds 1 In other watersheds Lower priority but still valuable for protecting aquatic ecosystem health 101

10 Figure Map of aquifer sensitivity with higher ranked areas denoting greater sensitivity and resource importance. 102

11 Figure Map of public water supply wellhead protection zones. 103

12 Figure Map of riparian areas ranked by environmental quality. 104

13 Figure Map of steep slopes. 105

14 Biodiversity conservation values assessment The next highest priority identified in the public input and planning stages of this study update was the importance of maintaining regional biodiversity and conserving critical wildlife habitat. Accordingly, the objective for the biodiversity resource component of the CVA was to identify those habitat areas that play a critical role in promoting regional biodiversity and protecting endangered and threatened species habitat. This objective translated into a set of rules designed to identify and rank critical habitat for endangered and threatened fauna (animals), flora (plants) and natural communities (Table 2-14). See the Biodiversity section above for more information on the development of these data. Table Weighting scheme and criteria for biodiversity conservation values assessment. Weight Parameter Rationale Critical animal habitat 5 Significant habitat areas containing federally listed threatened and endangered animal species 4 Significant habitat areas containing State listed endangered animal species 3 Significant habitat areas containing State listed threatened animal species 2 Significant habitat areas containing State listed animal species of concern 1 Other significant habitat areas for animal species Critical plant habitat 5 Significant habitat areas containing federally listed threatened and endangered floral species 4 Significant habitat areas containing State listed endangered floral species 3 Significant habitat areas containing State listed threatened floral species 2 Significant habitat areas containing State listed floral species of concern Significant natural vegetation communities 5 Significant Natural Heritage Program priority biodiversity sites with B1 listing 4 Significant Natural Heritage Program priority biodiversity sites with B2 listing 3 Significant Natural Heritage Program priority biodiversity site or TNC matrix site with B3 listing 2 Significant Natural Heritage Program priority biodiversity site or TNC matrix sites with B4 listing 1 Other significant natural vegetation community areas Provides habitat for important animal populations These species threatened and endangered nationally These species endangered within the states of New York and/or New Jersey These species threatened within the states of New York and/or New Jersey These species are of special concern within the states of New York and/or New Jersey Suitable wildlife habitat but does not presently contain known occurrences of threatened and endangered listed species Provides habitat for important plant populations These species threatened and endangered nationally These species endangered within the states of New York and/or New Jersey These species threatened within the states of New York and/or New Jersey These species are of special concern within the states of New York and/or New Jersey Prime examples of intact or rare communities of native vegetation Only known or excellent occurrence of an element ranked critically imperiled globally Most outstanding occurrences of any natural community Viable occurrence of an element that is globally imperiled or concentration of elements that critically imperiled in the State Viable occurrence of an element that is critically imperiled in the State Of general biodiversity interest 106

15 Recreation and open space conservation values assessment The Highlands serve as a major source of outdoor recreation and open space for the New York City metropolitan region. The objective for the recreation and open space resources component of the CVA was to identify those areas that are important for a diversity of different of outdoor recreation pursuits or serve as open space. The weighting scheme ranks areas more highly if they: 1) have public access or are adjacent to public access; 2) protect resources associated with publicly owned lands (i.e., a public investment has already been made); and 3) are valuable to the public but there is no existing public access. This objective translated into a set of rules designed to identify and rank lands for their value for outdoor recreation, historical or cultural resources, and scenic sensitivity (Table 2-15). 107

16 Table Weighting scheme and criteria for recreation and open space conservation values assessment. Weight Parameter Rationale Recreational trails with buffer Trails represent an important way for people to access and enjoy open space, often enjoyed by those looking for a wilderness experience 5 Trail itself Immediate trail corridor foot buffer Provides sight and sound buffer foot buffer Provides sight and sound buffer Scenic viewsheds Provides aesthetic enjoyment and scenic beauty from publicly accessible viewpoints 5 High visibility Highest sensitivity to scenic impairment 3 Medium visibility Moderate sensitivity to scenic impairment 1 Low visibility Lower sensitivity to scenic impairment Visible ridgetops Provides aesthetic enjoyment and scenic beauty from valley roadways 5 High visibility Highest sensitivity to scenic impairment 3 Medium visibility Moderate sensitivity to scenic impa irment 1 Low visibility Lower sensitivity to scenic impairment Existing parks/preserves and buffer Public investments already made zone 5 Dedicated parkland Lands already set aside for public access and recreation 4 Conservation easements or watershed management lands Lands though not dedicated for public recreation may still serve as valuable recreation and open space foot buffer Provides sight and sound buffer foot buffer Provides sight and sound buffer foot buffer Provides sound buffer Add 1 If connects parklands Provides connectivity of access Historic, cultural or recreational resource areas or sites with 150 foot buffer Specific locations that contain significant historical or cultural features or have established recreation developments (e.g., ski areas) 3 Feature and immediate locale Site and protective buffer Recreational waters and shoreline Fishing/boating waters are a major recreational resource buffers 5 Lakes/reservoirs with public access Major lakes/reservoirs popular for fishing/boating where there is public access with ramps 4 Adjoining 300 foot shoreline buffer Provide sight, sound and water quality protective buffer 5 Canoeable river/stream Low impact recreational activity, often enjoyed by those looking for a wilderness experience foot buffer Provide sight, sound and water quality protective buffer buffer Provide sight, sound and water quality protective buffer 4 Trout production stream Highest quality trout fishing waters foot shoreline buffer Provide sight, sound and water quality protective buffer 3 Trout maintenance stream Put-and-take trout fishing waters foot shoreline buffer Provide sight, sound and water quality protective buffer 3 Other lakes Locally important waters for fishing/boating foot shoreline buffer Provide sight, sound and water quality protective buffer 108

17 Farmland conservation values assessment Agriculture is an important economic, as well as cultural activity in some sections of the Highlands. The objective for the productive farmland resources component of the CVA was to identify those areas that have the highest value for maintaining agriculture as a viable activity. This objective translated into a set of rules designed to identify and rank lands for their value for productive farmland (Table 2-16). The weighting scheme ranks areas more highly if they: 1) have prime farm soils; 2) protect lands associated with already preserved farms (i.e., a public investment has already been made); and 3) maintain larger contiguous tracts of farmland. The larger rationale is that if private landowners can receive income from their properties from productive agriculture (i.e. those farms with the richest soils), then they will be less likely to sell and subdivide the land for development. Maintaining larger areas of contiguous farmland enhances the efficiency of farm operations and reduces conflicts with adjacent landowners, helping to sustain longer term viability of agricultural activities and the integrity of the rural landscape. This was accomplished in the CVA by weighting tracts of contiguous farmland greater than 500 acres in size with a higher ranking. To compensate for smaller areas with a high density of cultivated land, each USGS topographic quadrangle was subdivided into 100 area blocks (10 blocks by 10 blocks, approximately 385 acres in size) and the percentage of farmland calculated for each block. Blocks with greater than 25 percent farmland were also given a higher weight. Table Weighting scheme and criteria for farmland conservation values assessment. Weight Parameter Rationale Cultivated lands Lands with active agriculture 3 On prime farmland soils Most productive soils should be protected 1 On non-prime soils Less productive soils Add 1 In large contiguous area of farmland: Enhance farm operations, reduce conflicts tract > 500 acres or block >25 percent farmland Preserved farms with buffer Public investment has already been made 5 Preserved farm itself foot buffer To reduce adjacent land owner conflicts Add 1 In large contiguous area of farmland: tract > 500 acres or block >25 percent farmland Enhance farm operations 109

18 Forest land conservation values assessment Maintaining productive forests and active forest management on both public and private lands in the New York New Jersey Highlands is critical to the maintenance of a healthy sustainable forest. The objective for the productive forestland resources component of the CVA was to identify those areas that have the highest value for maintaining forestry as a viable activity in the Highlands. This objective translated into a set of rules designed to identify and rank lands for their value for productive forestland (Table 2-17). The weighting scheme ranks areas more highly if they: 1) are presently part of the Forest Stewardship program; and 2) maintain larger contiguous tracts of forestland. The larger rationale is that if private landowners can receive income from their properties from the harvesting of timber resources, then they will be less likely to sell and subdivide the land for development. Exact boundary locations of Forest Stewardship properties were not available in a GIS form. To map these properties, each USGS topographic quadrangle was subdivided into 100 area blocks (10 blocks by 10 blocks, approximately 385 acres in size) and the percentage of Forest Stewardship land calculated for each block. Each block was then ranked into a high density (>50 percent Forest Stewardship land), moderate density (26-50 percent Forest Stewardship land) and low density (11 percent-25 percent Forest Stewardship land). In addition, the contiguous forest tracts were ranked by their size with larger tracts receiving a higher weight. Maintaining larger areas of actively managed timberland and/or large tracts of contiguous forestland enhances the efficiency of forestry operations and reduces conflicts with adjacent landowners. Results While all of the New York New Jersey Highlands serves as watershed lands to some extent, the conservation values assessment ranked nearly 50 percent (685,632 acres) of the New York New Jersey Highlands areas as having medium to high values deserving of special consideration for water quality (Table 2-18, Figure 2-23). High-quality water is a Highlands resource of critical value to both Highlands residents and millions of residents of New York City, and northern and central New Jersey. A number of factors are important to conserving the quality and quantity of Highlands water including: restricting development and maintaining natural vegetation cover over sensitive aquifers, wellhead protection zones, reservoir catchments, steep slopes (>15 percent) and riparian zones. 110

19 Table Weighting scheme and criteria for forest land conservation values assessment. Weight Parameter Rationale Forest Stewardship lands Both public and private investment has been made in active forest management 4 High density Forest Stewardship High concentration of actively managed forest lands zone: >50 percent 3 Moderate density Forest Stewardship Moderate concentration zone: percent 2 Low density Forest Stewardship Low concentration zone: percent Add 1 On prime soils More fertile soils enhance timber growth Contiguous forest tracts Enhance efficiency of forest management 5 > 5000 acres in size The largest tracts with highest value for maintenance as forests and potential for forestry operations acres in size High values acres in size Moderate values acres in size Low values acres in size Lowest values Table Highlands conservation values assessment for five resource types: water, biodiversity, recreation, farmland and forest; in area (acres) and percent of total New York New Jersey Highlands area. Rank* Water Biodiversity Recreation Farmland Forest Total Combined Not Ranked 2,466 ac 480,242 ac 175,744 ac 1,278,043 ac 670,751 ac Lowest 1 195,217 ac 13.8 percent 166,500 ac 11.7 percent 152,747 ac 10.8 percent 23,279 ac 1.6 percent 103,390 ac 7.3 percent 314,195 ac 22.1 percent Lower 2 534,919 ac 37.7 percent 20,502 ac 1.4 percent 239,206 ac 16.9 percent 17,012 ac 1.2 percent 170,049 ac 12.0 percent 267,491 ac 18.8 percent Medium 3 304,662 ac 21.5 percent 210,296 ac 14.8 percent 375,089 ac 26.4 percent 50,722 ac 3.6 percent 104,615 ac 7.4 percent 294,410 ac 20.7 percent Higher 4 237,789 ac 16.8 percent 342,153 ac 24.1 percent 138,557 ac 9.8 percent 39,107 ac 2.8 percent 211,978 ac 14.9 percent 261,316 ac 18.4 percent Highest 5 143,181 ac 10.1 percent 198,888 ac 14.0 percent 337,271 ac 23.8 percent 10,629 ac 0.7 percent 157,785 ac 11.1 percent 280,687 ac 19.8 percent *Note: Rank 1 in the composite analysis = combined score of 1 to 5; Rank 2 in the composite analysis = combined score of 6 to 8; Rank 3 in the composite analysis = combined score of 9 to 11; Rank 4 in the composite analysis = combined score of 12 to 14; Rank 5 in the composite analysis = combined score of 15 to 23; There were no combined scores of greater than

20 The conservation values assessment mapped nearly 55 percent (i.e., 751,336 acres) of the New York New Jersey Highlands as consisting of habitat that supports State or Federal threatened and endangered species (Table 2-18, Figure 2-24). The Highlands support a diverse ecological system that is still largely intact and is home to a number of endangered and threatened animal and plant species. Of critical importance is the maintenance of the large tracts of contiguous forests and accompanying wetland systems that support a number of forest interior dependent species. Large tracts of grassland and farmland in the southern Highlands, as well as tracts interspersed elsewhere across the region, are home to rare grassland nesting birds. The region s large lakes, reservoirs and rivers also provide critical habitat for a number of species, including our national symbol, the bald eagle. The conservation values assessment mapped 60 percent (850,917 acres) of the New York New Jersey as having medium to high recreational and open space value (Table 2-18, Figure 2-25). As the New York City metropolitan area s backyard, the New York New Jersey Highlands supports a variety of outdoor recreational pursuits, scenic landscapes for aesthetic enjoyment, and contains a wealth of important historical and cultural sites. An extensive network of public open space areas provides recreational and cultural experiences to millions of visitors annually. The conservation values assessment mapped 7 percent (100,458 acres) of the New York New Jersey Highlands as having medium to high productive farmland value (Table 2-18, Figure 2-26). While comparatively smaller in overall area, farmland is still an integral component of the Highlands landscape, especially in the major river valleys of the Delaware, Musconetcong, Pohatcong, Pequest and Raritan in the south and the Wallkill and Fishkill in the north. Sustaining productive farmland in large contiguous tracts and existing agricultural districts with prime soils and in proximity to existing preserved farms should receive special consideration. The conservation values assessment mapped 33 percent (474,378 acres) of the New York New Jersey Highlands as having medium to high value as productive forestland (Table 2-18, Figure 2-27). Many of the resources listed above rely on the maintenance of intact productive forest systems. Management of Highlands forests to sustain this resource base for continued production of forest products such as timber, wildlife, water and recreation is greatly enhanced through the actions of private landowners enrolled in the Forest Stewardship program and the conservation programs of private non-profit land trusts and publicly owned forest-lands. Maintaining large contiguous tracts of forest land, whether in public or private ownership, is critical to sustaining the forest resource base and overall character of the Highlands landscape. The combined conservation values assessment mapped 38 percent (542,003 acres) of the New York New Jersey Highlands as having exceptional conservation value (ranked as higher or highest value) (Table 2-18, Figure 2-28). Due to the re-ranking of the composite analysis using an equal area thresholding, it is to be expected that approximately 40 percent of the area was in the top two categories (i.e. two out of five categories, or 40 percent). These highest ranked areas include the central core of the New York New Jersey Highlands stretching from Green Pond/Mase Mountains in the southwest up through the Pequannock watershed, Sterling Forest, Harriman and Bear Mountain and then across the Hudson River through the Breakneck Ridge/East Mountain area to the Clarence Fahnestock State Park. There are several notable outlying areas including forested ridges and farmed valleys of the Musconetcong/Scott Mountain area in the southwest, the west end of the New Croton Reservoir in New York, and the Depot Hill/Pawling Mountain area in the northeast. 112

21 Discussion As with any map-based assessment, including computer-assisted GIS overlay analysis, the end results are sensitive to the quality of the input data. While great care was taken to assemble a high quality input data set that was of consistent scale and quality across the study region, no map is perfect and without error. There may be errors in mapped boundaries as well as in the mapped attributes. These errors can be compounded when multiple data layers are combined in an overlay analysis will affect the resulting outcome. By having consistency in the scale of our input data, our overlay analysis and output map (i.e., 1:24,000 scale or 30 meter grid size), we have tried to limit the error and spatial inaccuracies. However, there are some inconsistencies (i.e., the coarser scale of the aquifer, plant threatened and endangered habitat, and Forest Stewardship lands) that may introduce error in localized areas (e.g., along the borders of different aquifer types). This potential error was not quantified. Based on our professional judgment, we believe that the CVA, while not suitable for site-specific decisions (i.e., on the scale of individual grid cells), is useful for its intended purpose of displaying the regional scale patterns in resource value and highlighting local areas of high or low resource value. We would be remiss if we did not also include several caveats concerning the interpretation of the CVA results. Protecting only the higher ranked CVA lands (e.g., classes 3-5) is not necessarily sufficient to achieving the stated goals of maintaining Highlands water resources, biodiversity, recreational opportunities, productive farmland and forestland. Lower ranked lands should still receive consideration in future land use planning, natural resource and watershed management decisions. We do not presently know how much land and of what characteristics are necessary to sufficiently protect the Highlands natural resources. While important, this question was outside the scope of the New York New Jersey Highlands Regional Study: 2002 Update. 113

22 Figure Map of water resources conservation values assessment. 114

23 Figure Map of biodiversity conservation values assessment. 115

24 Figure Map of outdoor recreation and open space resources conservation values assessment. 116

25 Figure Map of agricultural resources conservation values assessment. 117

26 Figure Map of forest resources conservation values assessment. 118

27 Figure Map of overall composite conservation values assessment. 119