highlands

Stewardship Goals for the
New York – New Jersey
Highlands

This 2002 Update of the 1992 New York – New Jersey Highlands Regional Study embodies the following goals for the long-term stewardship of the Highlands:

1. Manage future growth that is compatible with the region’s ecological constraints;
2. Maintain an adequate surface and ground water supply that meets the needs of local and downstream users;
3. Conserve contiguous forests using management practices that are consistent with private property rights and regional resources;
4. Provide appropriate recreational opportunities; and

5. Promote economic prosperity that is compatible with goals 1-4.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Contents I
List of Figures IV
List of Illustrations VI
List of Tables VII

Acknowledgments IX

Contents

Section 1. Introduction

Background 2
Conservation Successes Since 1992 3
Need to Update the 1992 Study 3
Study Area 4
Study Process 6
Pre-Draft Input 8
Input on the Draft Report 9
About This Report 10

Section 1 References 11

Section 2. Resource Assessment and Conservation Values

Water 14

Ground Water—Aquifers and Wells 15
Aquifer Types 15
Bedrock Aquifers 15
Glacial Aquifers 17
Aquifer Recharge 17
Ground Water Use 19
High-Capacity Wells 19
Domestic Wells 19
Monitoring Ground Water Levels 22
Key Findings 24
Surface Water—Streams, Rivers, and Reservoirs 24
Surface Water Use 26
Reservoir Storage and Transfer 28
Key Findings 30
Water Quality 31
Ground Water 31
Surface Water 32
Biological Indicators 34
Key Findings 38
Water Budget 39
Analysis at a Regional Scale 39
Analysis at a Watershed Scale 42
Watershed Conditions 44

Key Findings 47

Forest 48

Forest Land Ownership and Management 48
Forest Health 49

Key Findings 50

Biodiversity 51
Fish and Wildlife 51
Endangered and Threatened Species 51
Natural Communities 54
Migratory Flyway 58
Invasive Species 58

Key Findings 59

Farmland 60

Key Findings 62

Recreation 63

Key Findings 68

Conservation Values Assessment 70

Key Findings 78

Section 2 References 80

Section 3. Potential Changes and Resources at Risk

Population Growth 84

Key Findings 89

Future Change Scenarios—Build-Out Analysis and Econometric Modeling 92
Build-Out Analysis 93
Limitations of Build-Out Analysis 93
Criteria for the Low-Constraint Scenario 96
Criteria for the High-Constraint Scenario 97
Results of the Build-Out Analysis 98
Econometric Analysis 104
Limitations of Econometric Analysis 105

Results of the Econometric Analysis 106
Key Findings 106

Possible Consequences of Future Change to Resources 108
Changes in Land Use and Land Cover 108
Key Findings 111
Landscape Indicators of Forest and Watershed Integrity 112
Key Findings 119
Changes in Water Resources 121
Water Budget 121
Available Water 122

Key Findings 128

Resources at Risk 129

Key Findings 135

Section 3 References 136

Section 4. Resource Summary and Conservation Strategies

Resource Condition 138

Land Stewardship in the Highlands 140
Land Management Challenges 141

Land Stewardship Opportunities 142

Land Management Framework 143
Existing Partner Roles 143
Potential Partner Roles 145
USDA Forest Service 145
Other Federal Partners 146
State Partners 146
Local Government Partners 146

Organizations and Citizens 147

Conservation Goals and Strategies 148
Stewardship Goals 148
Partnership Model 148

Conservation Strategies 149

Section 4 References 154

Section 5. A Fragile Future

A Fragile Future 156

Appendixes

Appendix A. Legislative Language for the New York – New Jersey
Highlands Regional Study and Update 160
Appendix B. Municipalities and Counties in the Highlands Study Area 163
Appendix C. Ecosystem-Based Management and Ecological
Classification 167
Appendix D. Work Plan and Budget for the Study Update 172
Appendix E. Study Team Members 173
Appendix F. Work Group Members 174
Appendix G. Public Comments on the Draft Report 178
Appendix H. Topics in the New York – New Jersey Highlands
Technical Report 183
Appendix I. Resource Assistance Programs 186
Appendix J. History of Conservation Successes in the Highlands 195
Appendix K. Land Conservation Projects 200

List of Figures

Section 1. Introduction

Study Area

Figure 1-1. Highlands study area 5

Figure 1-2. Areas ecologically similar to the study area 7

Section 2. Resource Assessment and Conservation Values

Water

Figure 2-1. Aquifer types 16
Figure 2-2. Withdrawals from high-capacity wells 20
Figure 2-3. Withdrawals from domestic wells by township 21
Figure 2-4. Trends in ground water levels 23
Figure 2-5. Major reservoirs 25
Figure 2-6. Surface water withdrawals 27
Figure 2-7. Condition of macroinvertebrate communities in streams 35
Figure 2-8. Land use and biological status of streams 37
Figure 2-9. Highlands regional water budget 41
Figure 2-10. Relationship of streamflow and precipitation 43

Figure 2-11. Variations in baseflow by subwatersheds 45

Biodiversity

Figure 2-12. Threatened and endangered wildlife habitat 52
Figure 2-13. Contiguous forest tracts 53
Figure 2-14. Threatened and endangered plant habitat 56

Figure 2-15. Important natural communities 57

Farmland

Figure 2-16. Agricultural resources 61

Recreation

Figure 2-17. Ownership of open space 64

Figure 2-18. Trails, and cultural and historic sites 65

Figure 2-19. Water recreation resources 66

Conservation Values Assessment

Figure 2-20. Water resource values 72
Figure 2-21. Forest resource values 73
Figure 2-22. Biodiversity resource values 74
Figure 2-23. Farmland resource values 75
Figure 2-24. Recreation resource values 76
Figure 2-25. Composite conservation values 77

Section 3. Potential Changes and Resources at Risk

Population Growth

Figure 3-1. Population density in municipalities 86

Figure 3-2. Change in municipality populations 87

Future Change Scenarios—Build-out Analysis and Econometric Analysis

Figure 3-3. Land available for development, low-constraint scenario 94
Figure 3-4. Land available for development, high-constraint scenario 95
Figure 3-5. Population levels, low-constraint scenario 100
Figure 3-6. Population levels, high-constraint scenario 101
Figure 3-7. Population increase, low-constraint scenario 102
Figure 3-8. Population increase, high-constraint scenario 103

Figure 3-9. Likelihood of change 107

Possible Consequences of Future Change to Resources

Figure 3-10. Urban development in the Highlands 110
Figure 3-11. Change in land cover 115
Figure 3-12. Change in impervious surface cover 116
Figure 3-13. Change in riparian zones 117
Figure 3-14. Change in interior forest 118
Figure 3-15. Effect of impervious surfaces on streamflow 124
Figure 3-16. Predicted changes in streamflow 125
Figure 3-17. Sustainable water yield, 1995 126

Figure 3-18. Sustainable water yield, low-constraint scenario 127

Resources at Risk

Figure 3-19. Conservation focal areas 131

Figure 3-20. Conservation priorities 134

Appendixes

Appendix C. Ecosystem-Based Management and Ecological Classification

Figure C-1. Land Type Associations (LTAs) in the Highlands 169

Appendix K. Land Conservation Projects

Figure K-1. Land conservation projects 201
Figure K-2. Water resources in Philipstown 203
Figure K-3. Morris Land Conservancy’s greenways and blueways 205
Figure K-4. Study area for the Spruce Run Initiative 207
Figure K-5. Land preservation and water supply project area 209

List of Tables

Section 2. Resource Assessment and Conservation Values

Water

Table 2-1. Use of Highlands surface water, 1995 26

Table 2-2. Highlands reservoir systems, storage capacity, yield,
and 1995 withdrawals 28

Biodiversity

Table 2-3. Habitat area for imperiled wildlife species in the Highlands,
by conservation status 55
Table 2-4. Habitat area for imperiled plant species in the Highlands,
by conservation status 55

Table 2-5. Important natural community areas in the Highlands,
by ranked biodiversity status 55

Conservation Values Assessment

Table 2-6. Conservation values and area of resources in the Highlands 71

Section 3. Potential Changes and Resources at Risk

Population Growth

Table 3-1. Population change in the Highlands, 1990-2000 84
Table 3-2. Demographic trends in the Highlands, 1990-2000 90

Table 3-3. Housing trends in the Highlands, 1990-2000 91

Future Change Scenarios—Build-Out Analysis and Econometric Analysis

Table 3-4. Highlands population in 2000 and estimates from
the build-out analysis 98

Possible Consequences of Future Change to Resources

Table 3-5. Land cover (acres) in the Highlands, 1972 to 2000 109

Table 3-6. Rates of land cover change in the Highlands, 1984-2000 109

Resources at Risk

Table 3-7. Protected and unprotected land in the Highlands,
by resource and conservation value 133

Section 4. Resource Summary and Conservation Strategies

Conservation Goals and Strategies

Table 4-1. Conservation strategies for the Highlands 152-153

Acknowledgments

The Highlands study update and the writing of this report was a group effort. The compilers thank the dozens of individuals who contributed to the project. If we have inadvertently forgotten to name anyone here, please accept our sincerest apologies and know that we greatly appreciate your help.
Special thanks go to members of the study team, who guided the study process, provided the technical services and skills needed to conduct the study and prepare the report, and tirelessly wrote and rewrote sections of the report:

Otto Zapecza, Don Rice, and Vince dePaul of U.S. Department of the Interior’s Geological Survey, for their contributions to the water resources assessment and analysis sections;
Rick Lathrop, Colleen Hatfield, and David Tulloch of Rutgers University’s Grant F. Walton Center for Remote Sensing and Spatial Analysis, for their contributions to the terrestrial resources assessment and analysis sections;
Mark Buccowich of the USDA Forest Service, for his review of the draft report;
Connie Carpenter of the USDA Forest Service, for compiling information on ecological mapping;
Wayne Zipperer of the USDA Forest Service, for assistance with the resource summary and report conclusions;
Rob Pirani of the Regional Plan Association, for his contribution to the conservation strategies and land conservation project summaries;
Stephanie Diamond of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, for her assistance creating maps; and

Wayne Martin of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for his assistance with the forest and farmland resource sections.

We thank the many work group members who ensured a regional perspective, helped guide the study process, and commented on draft material. Work group members numbered over 100 and are named in Appendix F.
Special acknowledgment is given to the New Jersey and New York Districts of the U.S. Geological Survey and to the following U.S. Geological Survey scientists who provided water resources data and technical assistance:

Leon Kauffman, for watershed model and water budget data;
John Nawyn, for New Jersey water use;
Deborah Lumia, for New York water use;
Andrew Cohen, for New York geographic information systems data;
Margaret Phillips, for New York water quality data;
William Ellis, for technical illustrations;

Gary Firda, for New York surface water data;
Richard Lumia, for New York surface water data;
John Williams, for New York geohydrology information; and

Robert Rogers, for New York hydrologic investigations and research.

Special thanks also go to Stephanie Diamond and Ted Kerpez for serving as our primary liaisons to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and to Wayne Martin for serving a similar role with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
We thank the following individuals and groups who provided access to resource data and shared critical information with us:

Nick Conrad of the New York Natural Heritage Program;
Tom Breden of the New Jersey Natural Heritage Program;
Larry Niles, Mandy Dey, and Jeff Tash of the New Jersey Endangered and Nongame Species Program;
Gerald Rasmussen and Wayne Richter of the Habitat Inventory Unit, New York Department of Environmental Conservation;
Jason Patrick of Environmental Defense;
David Lukens of the Hudson Highlands Lands Trust;
Tom Gilbert and Sean Sullivan of the Appalachian Mountain Club;
Joseph Simoes and Doug Schuetz of Rockland County Planning Department;
Adam Mednick and Ingrid Vandegaer of the New Jersey Conservation Foundation;
Tim Tear of The Nature Conservancy;
Barbara Walsh of the New Jersey Office of State Planning;
Ella Fillipone, Marc Korpus, and Andrew Baumgartner of the Passaic River Coalition;
Terry Spies of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection;
Edward Goodell of the New York-New Jersey Trail Conference;
Sally Dudley of the Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions;
Seth McKee of Scenic Hudson;
Bob Stokes, John Thomas, and Gail Kenney of New Jersey Green Acres;
Sean McGinnis of the North Jersey Resource, Conservation, and Development Council;
Fred Suljic of the Sussex County Department of Planning;
Sarah Love of the Dutchess County Environmental Management Council;
Fred Douthitt of the New Jersey Department of Agriculture;
Jay Beaumont and Daniel Munoz of the Orange County Water Authority;
Lloyd Casey, Brett Butler, Margaret Miller-Weeks, and Tom Luther of the USDA Forest Service; and

Paul Elconin of the Open Space Institute.

We thank the following individuals at the Center for Remote Sensing and Spatial Analysis at Rutgers University who contributed to this project: Peter Parks, John Bognar, Jim Trimble, Kathy Peirano, Scott Haag, Nan Shao, Jim Myers, Joe Geib, and Jennifer Daniels. Special thanks go to Caroline Phillipuk for her patience during numerous rounds of map edits.
Thanks go to Spider Barbour of Hudsonia; Ed Stein of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service; and Ed Hoxsie of the Dutchess County Soil and Water Conservation District for assistance with ecological classification and mapping.
We also appreciate the contributions of our coworkers at the USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry—John Hazel for successfully planning and facilitating two public listening sessions,
Roberta Burzynski for her thoroughness and patience in editing this report,
and Wendy Harding for her flexibility and creativity in designing and producing the layout.
All photographs are by George M. Aronson and are used by permission.
The New York – New Jersey Highlands Regional Study: 2002 Update was accomplished through the cooperation of Federal, State and university natural resource specialists. Logos of the agencies and organizations involved in the study update are displayed below.

Section 1 Introduction

Background

One in nine Americans lives within a 2-hour drive of the Highlands; and its abundant natural and cultural resources provide quality drinking water, recreation, and economic opportunities for millions in the region and in the New York – New Jersey metropolitan area. The initial study of the New York – New Jersey Highlands (Michaels and others 1992) described the area as one of national significance. The study called for the protection of the Highlands as a greenbelt because the forests and farms were at risk of being changed by a growing population, urban decline, and suburban sprawl. These projected changes were likely to adversely affect drinking water quality, wildlife habitat, recreation opportunities, the agriculture and forest products industries, and historic and cultural sites.
The 1992 study report presented an alternative vision for the Highlands that could be achieved by assisting private landowners in managing their natural resources, helping communities manage growth, and preserving the most critical watersheds, wildlife habitats, and forest areas. The report identified conservation strategies, based on the following goals:

1. Manage future growth;
2. Maintain an adequate supply of quality water;
3. Conserve contiguous forests;
4. Provide appropriate recreational opportunities; and

5. Promote economic prosperity that is compatible with goals 1-4.

Various public and private entities have taken actions to achieve the vision and goals that were formulated for the Highlands. Although no specific Federal designation has been provided for the Highlands, agencies have worked within available authorities and guidelines to provide technical and financial assistance to conserve and protect critical resources. State and local interest in the region has increased, and organizations have undertaken new efforts to protect and sustain the region’s forests and farmlands.

Conservation Successes Since 1992

Since the 1992 study was published, a number of steps have been taken to protect land and resources in the Highlands (for more information, see Appendix J):

1. Emphasizing land protection through acquisition of land or conservation easements—20,000 acres protected in Sterling Forest;
2. Utilizing the USDA Forest Service’s Forest Legacy Program—2,600 acres protected in New Jersey, and 847 acres protected in New York;
3. Increasing State, county, local, and private sector support for open space acquisition—80,000 acres protected in New Jersey, and 100 projects completed in New York;
4. Implementing measures to protect drinking water supplies—18,100 acres protected by New Jersey, and the 1997 New York City Watershed Memorandum of Understanding adopted;
5. Implementing greenway projects—Hudson River Valley Greenway established;
6. Increasing support for watershed-based assessment and planning—20 watershed management areas studied in New Jersey;
7. Improving availability of regional resource data—the Treasures of the Highlands report was released;
8. Increasing awareness of sustainability and sustainable development—Highlands designated as a special resource area in the New Jersey
State Plan;
9. Preserving farmland—more than 16,000 acres protected;

10. Recognizing the Highlands’ ecological importance—Highlands designated as a unique physiographic region in the New York State
Open Space Plan.

Need to Update the 1992 Study

Despite the successes and accomplishments in resource conservation since publication of the 1992 Highlands study, population in the region has grown significantly, and land-consuming growth patterns have continued. The population of the 108 municipalities in the Highlands region of New York and New Jersey was 1.4 million in 2000. This represents an 11.5 percent increase since 1990. Land-use change in the region is particularly evident in the decreasing number of large working farms, the increased number of large-lot residential subdivisions, and increased deforestation. The completion of Interstate Highway 287 through northern Bergen County, New Jersey, into Rockland County, New York, created a major new transportation corridor that has spurred additional commercial and residential development in the surrounding communities. Other major regional land-use changes are visible along the Interstate Highway 80 and Interstate Highway 78 corridors in New Jersey, in portions of Orange County in New York, and the area north of New York City.

Changes in land use and land cover in the region continue to be significant and have the potential to affect the environmental and economic factors that sustain a high quality of life. In October 2000, Public Law 106-291 authorized and funded an updated study of the New York and New Jersey Highlands under Section 1244(b) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 3547). Congress appropriated $750,000 for this purpose in Fiscal Year 2001 (Appendix A).
The purpose of this study update is to…

1. Reassess the condition of natural resources in the Highlands region;
2. Analyze land cover change and potential land use;
3. Identify significant areas to be conserved and protected; and

4. Develop strategies to protect the long-term integrity of the region.

This update was guided by the 1992 study in regard to the vision and goals for the Highlands region. The resource assessment and subsequent analyses were expanded, however, taking advantage of the availability of spatial data and improved analytical techniques using Geographic Information System (GIS) technology. GIS allowed for more specific identification of significant land areas in need of protection and provided a more detailed description of future change than were identified in the earlier study.
The Highlands region will continue to face growth pressures if people continue to move out of major population centers into rural and suburban communities. A regional planning approach to coordinate ongoing planning efforts in the Highlands does not formally exist, but recognizing the resources and their geographic scope in the Highlands will assist in finding a proper balance between economic and housing demands, and environmental stewardship. This study update suggests several strategies that might be implemented by Federal, State, and local entities, private organizations, private citizens, and landowners, to protect priority conservation areas while permitting compatible development.

Study Area

The study team adopted the Highlands study area boundaries from the 1992 study and expanded them from the Hudson River eastward to the New York–Connecticut border using topography and geology as key determinants (Figure 1-1). The landscape of the study area is characterized by a series of open high hills and ridges cut by deep narrow valleys that distinguish it from the surrounding rolling plains. The majority of the land is part of a geomorphic province called the Reading Prong, which stretches from northwestern Connecticut across the lower Hudson River Valley and northern New Jersey into east-central Pennsylvania (Van Diver 1992). Jurisdictional realities also

played a part in setting the study area boundaries. In addition to the forested land of the physiographic region, the study area also includes some less developed and agricultural lands. The study area is comprised of 108 municipalities in 12 counties (Appendix B). An entire municipality was included in the study area even if only a portion of it fell within the Highlands physiographic boundary.
The boundaries of the study area could be revised again in the future, as more information is gained about the diverse ecosystems of the Highlands. For example, during implementation of the conservation strategies suggested in this report, the official boundaries could logically be extended to include the contiguous, ecologically similar areas (Figure 1-2) identified through a process known as ecological classification and mapping. Implementation could also be extended to ecologically similar areas in Pennsylvania and Connecticut. More information on ecological mapping is provided in Appendix C.
The current study area encompasses approximately 1.5 million acres of Appalachian ridges and valleys and stretches from the Lower Hudson River Valley in New York to the Delaware River in New Jersey. The area has these attributes:

• The total population is 1.4 million people.
• The Highlands adjoin the Nation’s largest metropolitan area with a population of more than 20 million people.
• More than 11 million people are affected by Highlands water resources.
• Approximately 14 million people visit the Highlands each year for recreational opportunities in State parks and forest lands in 3 of the
12 counties.
• More than 240 species of birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles live, breed, or nest in the Highlands.

• More than 160 historical and cultural sites have been identified.

Study Process

The study was coordinated by the USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry, and was carried out in cooperation with the State Foresters of New York and New Jersey, with Rutgers University, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Regional Plan Association. As a direct result of the Congressional appropriation, the Forest Service was able to fund various components of the study, including planning assistance, linkage among study participants, and public outreach and involvement. The study plan and budget are given in Appendix D.
A 14-person study team guided the process and provided the technical services and skills needed to conduct the study and prepare the report. Members of the

study team frequently communicated and shared information about the status of the resource assessment, mapping, and analyses. A 120-person work group was established including individuals from both New York and New Jersey, who represented a range of resource interests. Work group members ensured a regional perspective, guided the study process, and commented on draft material as potential users of the study results. Study team members are listed in Appendix E, and work group members are listed in Appendix F.

Pre-Draft Input

Five work group meetings and four public listening sessions were conducted during 2001-2002, to develop and refine the scope of the resource assessment and to obtain community and public input. Forty to fifty people attended each work group meeting, including Congressional delegations from New York and New Jersey; and representatives from Federal, State, county, and local agencies, nonprofit groups, and the building community. Meeting minutes, including responses to comments received during the meetings, were prepared and distributed to work group members and interested individuals.
The public was encouraged to attend four listening sessions that were held throughout the Highlands Region in cooperation with the Regional Plan Association. Listening sessions were held in Cold Spring and Bear Mountain, New York; and in Oxford and Mahwah, New Jersey, in May 2001. These sessions were designed to provide an overview of the study components and to obtain comments from the public. Session attendees were asked to fill out a Highlands information sheet that contained these questions concerning the resource assessment:

• What are the natural resources important to the Highlands?
• Where are these resources located?
• How will these resources change in the future?
• How can we measure the impacts of these expected changes?

• Where are the natural resource conservation priority areas?

The information sheet was also mailed out to every local government in the Highlands and posted on the project Web site. Approximately 90 responses were received. This information was used to refine the scope of the assessment, specifically to determine which resources to map in the Geographic Information System and what values to place on those resources.
A Web site was established at http://www.fs.fed.us/na/highlands, to provide access to information on the Highlands in general, the 1992 study, and this study update. Local newspapers and newsletters from local environmental organizations also provided information to the public throughout the study process.

In March 2002, before the official release of the draft report, two newspaper articles appeared in the New York Times (Metro Section) and The Record (Bergen County, NJ).

Input on Draft Report

The draft report was released in early April 2002. Four hundred copies were mailed to key stakeholders in the Highlands region, including Congressional representatives, local elected officials, members of the work group, county public libraries, and interested citizens. The draft was also made available online. The Highlands Web site enabled members of the public to view the information on their own and to submit comments on the draft report to a Highlands e-mail address.
Key report findings, proposed conservation strategies, and the public listening sessions were announced in numerous local and regional newspapers in New York and New Jersey. These included daily and weekly newspapers: Journal News (Westchester County, NY), Times Herald-Record (Orange County, NY), Daily Record (Morris County, NJ), Star-Ledger (Morris County, NJ), The Record (Bergen County, NJ), and the New Jersey Herald (Sussex County, NJ).
Two public involvement sessions were conducted to receive comments on the draft report. Total attendance was approximately 200 people: 110 in Morristown, NJ, on April 22, 2002, and 90 in Suffern, NY, on April 23, 2002. In addition to the 68 verbal comments recorded at the two sessions, the study team received a total of 94 written comments and more than 3,000 electronic responses (Appendix G). Citizens, residents, landowners, farmers, builders, conservationists, environmentalists, water supply providers, and government and elected officials from Federal, State, county, and local levels responded. Several comments came from groups representing diverse interests such as the New Jersey Farm Bureau, the New Jersey Builders Association, various chapters of the Sierra Club and Audubon Society, and the Appalachian Mountain Club. The comments are summarized in Appendix G.
Additional feedback on the draft report was received verbally through phone calls to the Highlands office, in one-on-one discussions with interested citizens, and in separate group presentations given during the 30-day public comment period in response to requests.

The comments received on the draft study report were used to revise each strategy and to develop associated actions designed to protect the long-term integrity and traditional uses of lands within the Highlands region. For example, as a result of the comments, general hydrology information was added to
Section 2, under Water.

About This Report

This updated study report builds on the foundation established by the 1992 study. This update focuses on the location and priority of regional natural resources that are most critical, and on strategies that can be implemented by public and private sectors in the stewardship of the Highlands.
Section 2, Resource Assessment and Conservation Values, briefly describes how data on natural resources were collected and provides key findings for five resource types: water, forest, biodiversity, farmland, and recreation. It shows their distribution and provides a range of their conservation values across the region.
In Section 3, Potential Changes and Resources at Risk, regional demographic information is used as a foundation for build-out and econometric analyses that track potential population growth and development in the Highlands. Those results are interpreted to describe the effects that future growth and development might have on land use, water, and forest resources. This information is used to determine which of the high value resource areas identified in Section 2 are currently not protected, and are at the greatest risk for change. Key findings are emphasized.
Section 4, Resource Summary and Conservation Strategies, briefly reviews the Highlands resources at risk that were determined in Sections 2 and 3. It then describes challenges and opportunities associated with land management and stewardship in the Highlands. In the context of this land management framework, Section 4 offers eight alternative conservation strategies to protect resources in the Highlands.
Section 5, A Fragile Future, provides concluding remarks.
This study report synthesizes and provides findings and some interpretation of the analyses conducted, but does not provide an exhaustive compilation of all possible scenarios for change. Any definitions and assumptions used in the resource assessment and analysis portions of the study are documented in this report. Detailed descriptions of the data sources and methodology, including actual data tables used for the assessment, are available as part of the New York – New Jersey Highlands Technical Report. A list of topics that will be covered in the technical report is provided in Appendix H.
The technical report will be available in hard copy, compact disc (CD), and on the Highlands Web site. The hard copy technical report will primarily contain data, methodology, and definitions for technical terms used in the report. The CD and Web site will contain detailed information such as datasets and metadata and supplemental maps, in addition to what is available in the hard copy report. The data presented in this report are intended for regional analyses and discussion;

Section 2 Resource Assessment and Conservation Values

For the resource assessment phase of this study, the study team and work group selected five resource components that provide a comprehensive view of the water and land resources across the Highlands region. These resource components were also chosen to align with the goals for the original 1992 Highlands Regional Study, which were stated in Section 1.
This section describes the status of water, forest, biodiversity, farmland, and recreation resources in the Highlands. It shows their distribution throughout the study area. These resources are then integrated into a Conservation Values Assessment Model to provide a range of conservation values for the resources across the region.

Water

The water resources of the Highlands have long been recognized as the region’s most valuable resource. More than a century ago, before the construction of large-capacity storage reservoirs, water supply reports documented the natural advantages of the region as a collecting ground and as the future source of water supply for rapidly developing urban centers in northeastern New Jersey and New York City (Vermeule 1894, La Forge 1905). These advantages include the Highlands’ many natural storage basins, its elevation, and abundant rainfall. The region’s elevation allowed the economical delivery of water by gravity flow to dense population centers immediately to the east. The Highlands were noted as an area of good water quality because the area was sparsely settled, largely forested, and poorly adapted for agricultural use. For all of these reasons, these early reports emphasized the need for conservation.
The Highlands ground water and surface water are the direct source of water for more than 4.5 million people in New York and New Jersey. Millions more depend on water that is transferred through Highlands reservoirs from Delaware System reservoirs located in upstate New York and by flow augmentation to streams.

The quality of ground and surface water within the region continues to be among the best nationally, and in some areas stream quality and aquatic communities have improved over the last decade owing to increased environmental regulation and improved wastewater treatment facilities. Although less serious water quality problems occur within Highlands watersheds, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1999) considers the watersheds to be highly vulnerable based on indicators such as urban runoff potential, population change, and hydrologic modification.
Land-use activities are major factors in changing hydrologic and environmental conditions within watersheds. The expected continued growth of population and development in the Highlands would have a significant effect on stream and ground water quality and aquatic communities. Declining ground water levels, changes in the natural flow of streams, habitat degradation, reduction in biological diversity, and a shift toward species more tolerant of disturbance are associated with increasing urban and suburban development. Given the prospect for continued development of the Highlands and increased dependence on Highlands water resources both within the Highlands and in adjacent areas, an increased vigilance in terms of adequate monitoring and assessment of water quantity and quality, and biological resources is warranted in the region.

Ground Water—Aquifers and Wells

Ground water is the primary source of water for residents and businesses in the Highlands region. Aquifer characteristics and the function of the ground water flow system are directly related to the underlying geology, which controls the aquifer’s ability to store and transmit significant quantities of water for various uses. Descriptions of aquifer types are provided to aid in understanding the information on ground water use that follows.

Aquifer Types

Five aquifer types within the Highlands study area are classified by the bedrock or surficial materials that are exposed at or near the land’s surface. These include crystalline, carbonate, and clastic rocks typical of Highlands geologic formations (Figure 2-1). The study area also includes sedimentary and igneous rocks of the Newark Basin along the eastern boundary that are typical of the Piedmont physiographic province to the east. Locally, all of these bedrock units are overlain by surficial deposits of glacial origin.

Bedrock Aquifers

The crystalline aquifers are composed of crystalline metamorphosed sedimentary and igneous rocks of Pre-Cambrian age and are exposed over 65 percent of the study area. Rock types consist primarily of coarse-grained gneiss, schist, and granite of various mineral compositions. Fine-grained metamorphic slates such

as phyllite are common in the New York part of the study area. These rock types are the most resistant to erosion. Therefore, they form the upland regions and generally provide the highest elevations, steepest slopes, and relief typical of Highlands topography.
Carbonate aquifers are composed predominantly of Paleozoic age limestones and dolomites and are exposed over 16 percent of the area. These rock types are less resistant to erosion, are subject to dissolution, and therefore are found on the valley floors interspersed between the more resistant crystalline and clastic rocks that form the valley walls.
Clastic aquifers are composed of Paleozoic age sedimentary sandstone, shale, conglomerates, and quartzite, and comprise 7 percent of the study area. These rock types locally overlie carbonates in some valleys; the more resistant rocks form predominant northeast-southwest trending ridges known locally as Green Pond, Bearfort, Kanouse, and Bellvale Mountains.
Newark Basin aquifers of Mesozoic age are exposed over 12 percent of the area. These rocks are predominantly red sandstones and shales. Conglomerates, particularly near the Ramapo border fault, and basalt and diabase units are also present.

Glacial Aquifers

Glacial aquifers are composed mainly of unconsolidated sand, silt, and gravel of Pleistocene age, and form narrow belt-like deposits of small areal extent. The aquifers comprise channels up to 300 feet thick in some places and can provide significant storage and yields of water.

Aquifer Recharge

Recharge to Highlands bedrock aquifers is predominantly through precipitation that percolates downward through the overlying soil to fractures, joints, or solution openings in the underlying bedrock (Illustration 2-1). The ground water moves from upland recharge areas to discharge areas, such as springs and streams at lower altitudes.
Glacial valley-fill aquifers receive most of their recharge from runoff caused by precipitation that falls on the surrounding bedrock uplands. Some recharge is by infiltration from precipitation that falls directly on the valley-fill aquifers, and some is by inflow from adjacent bedrock aquifers. These sources are sufficient to maintain aquifer water levels above those of streams, so that water moves from the aquifer to the stream (Illustration 2-2A). However, during droughts, discharge by seepage to adjacent bedrock, evapotranspiration, and withdrawals from wells can lower aquifer water levels until flow is reversed and water moves from the stream to the aquifer (Illustration 2-2B).

Aquifer recharge can be highly variable because it is determined by local precipitation and is influenced by topographic relief and the capacity of the land surface to accept infiltrating water. The degree to which Highlands aquifers have the ability to store and transmit recharge water is based on the amount and connectivity of openings in the underlying rock or sediment. This is also known as the aquifer’s permeability and has a direct bearing on the aquifer’s ability to yield sufficient quantities of water to wells.

Ground Water Use

High-Capacity Wells

Water-use data for 1995 was compiled for more than 1,200 wells for which owners are required to report water withdrawal data to Federal, State, or local agencies. These wells include those used for high-capacity municipal supply, industrial, commercial, irrigation, and mining uses. Figure 2-2 shows the location of wells operating in 1995 and provides information on the volume of withdrawals per well by aquifer type. Areas of note include the large withdrawals from glacial aquifers in central and eastern Morris County and along the eastern boundary of the study area in Passaic and Bergen counties in New Jersey and in Rockland County, New York. Carbonate aquifers provide the majority of ground water in the southwestern part of the study area in eastern Warren and southern Morris counties. These are areas where overlying glacial deposits provide increased ground water storage and yield to the underlying carbonate rocks.
Figure 2-2 also shows the importance of Newark Basin aquifers to Rockland County and crystalline bedrock aquifers in Putnam County, New York. Also notable are the widespread consistency of low yields of crystalline rock aquifers and the paucity of wells drawing water from clastic rock aquifers.
The graph in Figure 2-2 provides a comparison of total ground water withdrawals by aquifer type within the Highlands study area, differentiated by the amount withdrawn by wells in New York and New Jersey. Glacial aquifers are the most productive with almost 60 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) withdrawn. The combined total withdrawal from the four bedrock aquifers is about 56 Mgal/d.

Domestic Wells

The amount of water supplied by domestic wells across the region was estimated in order to account for this significant source of potable water in rural areas. The number of people in each township in 1995 that depended on water from domestic wells was estimated from the 1990 census data. Each person supplied by a domestic well was assumed to use 85 gallons per day.
Figure 2-3 shows the estimated domestic water use by township. Total domestic withdrawals for 1995 in the Highlands region was estimated to be approximately 30 Mgal/d. Areas with the largest domestic withdrawals in New York are western Dutchess, Putnam, and Westchester counties, and Warwick Township in Orange

County. Areas with the largest domestic withdrawals in New Jersey are Vernon Township in Sussex County, West Milford Township in Passaic County, and Jefferson Township in Morris County.

Monitoring Ground Water Levels

Changes in water levels reflect the general response of the Highlands ground water system to climate changes, changes in recharge patterns, and ground water withdrawals. Water levels typically are highest in winter and early spring as a result of reduced evapotranspiration, low temperatures, snowmelt, and spring rains that recharge the aquifers. Ground water levels typically start to decline as summer begins and continue to decline through late fall. Water use is highest in summer when water is used for irrigation and recreation. More water evaporates from the land surface and transpires from plants also reducing recharge. Water levels are typically lowest in late fall, and they rise again during winter, completing the cycle.
Figure 2-4A shows hydrographs from four selected monitoring wells in Morris County, New Jersey, with 10 years of continuous daily records. These hydrographs show typical fluctuations of ground water levels within the various aquifers of the study area. During periods of prolonged drought, such as from mid-1994 to late 1995 and mid-1998 to mid-1999, water levels fell approximately 5 to 15 feet on average. Shallow wells constructed just below the water table could have problems with water yield or go dry during these prolonged dry periods.
Figure 2-4B shows a water-level hydrograph from a well in East Hanover Township, Morris County, New Jersey. Periodic measurements have been made in this observation well since 1966. This well is used to monitor water levels in the glacial aquifer system within the Whippany River Basin. The declining water levels shown in this well are typical of those from wells located in this part of the Highlands and in wells in municipalities to the east within the basin. The declining water levels are a result of ground water withdrawals from the aquifer exceeding the natural recharge rate of the aquifer.

Key Findings:

• In 1995, more than 145 million gallons of water per day were withdrawn from Highlands aquifers.
• Water use data show that glacial aquifers are the most productive with 60 million gallons per day withdrawn. Crystalline, carbonate, clastic, and Newark Basin aquifers combined produce approximately 56 million gallons per day.
• Total domestic withdrawals for 1995 in the Highlands region are estimated to be approximately 30 million gallons per day.
• Long-term monitoring has recorded water-level declines of about 5 to 15 feet during drought conditions over the last decade.
• Water levels have declined locally as much as 25 to 30 feet since 1965 in the glacial aquifer system within the Whippany River Basin. Declining water levels within the basin are the result of ground water withdrawals exceeding the natural recharge rate of the aquifer.

Surface Water—Streams, Rivers, and Reservoirs

The Highlands streams and rivers are a significant natural resource to communities both within and outside the Highlands. The rivers and streams within the Highlands are contained within seven major drainage basins: the Housatonic, Fishkill/Hudson, Croton/Hudson, Wallkill/Hudson, Passaic, Upper Delaware, and Raritan (Figure 2-5). The Housatonic River basin has only a small part of the river’s upper reaches in the Highlands, and comprises less than 1 percent of the total Highlands area. The Fishkill/Hudson basin contains Fishkill Creek and Moodna Creek, both of which flow into the Hudson River. The Croton River and Peekskill Hollow Creek discharge to the Hudson River in the Croton/Hudson basin, which contains 10 reservoirs. The Wallkill/Hudson basin contains the Wallkill River, which flows northward out of the Highlands, is a Hudson River tributary, and a Highlands boundary. The largest Highlands tributary to the Wallkill River is Pochuck Creek. The Passaic basin has 16 reservoirs and is the largest of the Highlands basins, covering over 29 percent of the Highlands area. The major rivers of the Passaic basin completely or almost completely within the Highlands are the Pompton, Rockaway, Whippany, Pequannock, and Ramapo Rivers. The Hackensack and Passaic Rivers have only short reaches within the Highlands. The Upper Delaware basin has three major Highlands streams that discharge to the Delaware River: the Pequest River, the Musconetcong River, and Pohatcong Creek. The Highlands portion of the Raritan basin contains two reservoirs and parts of the Lamington River, North Branch Raritan River, and South Branch Raritan River.

Surface Water Use

The use of Highlands streams and rivers was studied by collecting data on surface-water withdrawals for 1995, the year with the best available Highlands data. There was one exception to the use of 1995 water-use data: the data for the Croton Reservoir system in New York is from 1990 (Linsey and others 1999), because 1995 data could not be obtained. Withdrawals were categorized as irrigation, commercial, industrial, electric utility plant, mining, public supply, or flow augmentation. Highlands surface-water withdrawals for 1995 are estimated at more than 200 billion gallons (Table 2-1). Public-supply withdrawals accounted for 78.3 percent of total withdrawals, followed by flow augmentation (13.4 percent), and industrial (7.7 percent); the other four categories of use represented 0.6 percent of the total.
The Highlands streams, rivers, and reservoirs are an important water-supply source for many communities outside the Highlands (Figure 2-6). Highlands surface-water withdrawals for water-supply use were estimated to be 430.9 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) in 1995. Of this amount, more than 88 percent (379.3 Mgal/d) was transferred to communities outside the Highlands. New York City and 98 New Jersey communities outside the Highlands use Highlands surface water as part of their drinking water supply.

Reservoir Storage and Transfer

The storage of Highlands surface waters in reservoirs permits the year-round distribution of water for public use. The five major reservoir systems in
the Highlands have a combined storage capacity of 323.6 billion gallons
(Table 2-2). The 379.3 Mgal/d of Highlands surface water transferred in 1995 to out-of-Highlands communities for public water supply use, originated in either the Wanaque, Newark Water Department, Jersey City Water Department, or the Croton reservoir systems. Figure 2-5 shows the location of the major reservoirs within the Highlands study area.
Water withdrawn from the Croton Reservoir system supplies about 10 percent of New York City’s water. Delaware Watershed Reservoir water that passes through the Croton System’s West Branch Reservoir provides an additional 50 percent of the City’s water supply. The Delaware (River) watershed reservoirs are located northwest of the Highlands, but water from these reservoirs is transferred via an aqueduct into the Highlands West Branch Reservoir—a part of the Croton system—which functions as a settling basin (Figure 2-5). The aqueduct delivers water into the northwestern end of the West Branch Reservoir, and after a residence time, an intake at the southern end of the reservoir returns “settled,” less turbid water to the aqueduct on its way to New York City. In 1990, the aqueduct delivered 838 Mgal/d to the West Branch Reservoir (Linsey and
others 1999).

The Raritan Basin reservoirs are used for public water supply and flow augmentation. Flow augmentation is the transfer of water from a reservoir to a stream or river to meet a required minimum passing flow at a specified location or locations on that stream or river. The New Jersey State Water Supply Act of 1958 set minimum passing-flow requirements at three U.S. Geological Survey gauging stations outside the Highlands, but downstream of the Raritan Basin reservoirs: the South Branch Raritan River at Stanton (40 Mgal/d), the Raritan River at Manville (70 Mgal/d), and the Raritan River at Bound Brook (90 Mgal/d). These minimum passing flow requirements were established to ensure adequate flow in the Raritan River to support aquatic life, assure flow to downstream water users, and provide adequate flow to dilute pollution (New Jersey Water Supply Authority 2000).
Flow augmentation of the Raritan River by releases from the Raritan Basin are necessary because of the large quantity of water withdrawn by Elizabethtown Water Company from the Raritan River for public supply use. Elizabethtown Water Company withdrew 117 Mgal/d in 1995 from its intake on the Raritan River (Figure 2-6). The intake is downstream of the Stanton and Manville gauging stations, and upstream of the Bound Brook gauging station. Without flow augmentation, there would be times when Elizabethtown Water Company could not withdraw the amount needed for its public supply needs and still have the required minimum passing flows on the South Branch Raritan River and Raritan River.
A total distance of about 28 miles of the Raritan River has its flow augmented with water from the Raritan Basin reservoirs Spruce Run and Round Valley. Spruce Run Reservoir is filled naturally by Spruce Run Creek. Round Valley Reservoir was excavated on a hilltop above the South Branch Raritan River, has a small natural basin, and is filled mainly by water pumped up to it from the South Branch Raritan River (New Jersey Water Supply Authority 2000). Round Valley Reservoir has the largest storage capacity (55 billion gallons) of any New Jersey Highlands reservoir. Spruce Run and Round Valley reservoirs released an average of 48.2 Mgal/d in 1995 to meet the minimum required passing flows, and the released water was also a part of the 117 Mgal/d withdrawn from the Raritan River by Elizabethtown Water Company in 1995. The large natural drainage basin of Elizabethtown Water Company’s intake and passing flow requirements prevent the quantification of the water released from the Raritan Basin reservoirs that is actually withdrawn for public water supply.
The Highlands reservoirs are especially important because of their ability to store water for use at critical times, such as during a prolonged drought. The ability of reservoirs to have sufficient storage capacity for such critical times is expressed as a reservoir’s “safe yield.” Safe yield is defined as the yield from a reservoir that can be continuously maintained throughout a repetition of the most severe drought of record, after compliance with required passing flows, and assuming no

significant changes in upstream patterns of water use (modified from New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy 1992, p. C-3).
Table 2-2 lists the documented storage capacities and safe yields for the Highlands reservoir systems. The safe yields are greater than the 1995 withdrawals, which indicates these reservoirs could meet public-supply demands even during the drought of record. This assumes the reservoir withdrawals for 1995 are representative of current mean annual withdrawals, and this also assumes that withdrawals during a drought equal to the drought of record would not increase significantly from the mean annual withdrawals. This assumption is reasonable since water-use restrictions during a drought emergency should decrease withdrawals. Reservoir withdrawals in 1995 from the Jersey City, Newark, and Wanaque systems ranged between 77 and 86 percent of published safe yield estimates. Reservoir withdrawals in 1990 from the Croton system were 73 percent of published safe yield estimates.

Key Findings:

• Surface-water withdrawals from Highlands reservoirs and streams were approximately 550 Mgal/d in 1995. Public-supply withdrawals account for about 78 percent of the total withdrawals or 431 Mgal/d. Industrial use and streamflow augmentation comprise much of the remaining 22 percent.
• Highlands surface water reservoirs are the major water-supply source for numerous communities outside the Highlands. Approximately 88 percent (379 Mgal/d) of the 431 million gallons per day of surface water withdrawn for public supply use is transferred out of the Highlands region to supply parts of New York City and 98 New Jersey municipalities.
• In addition to water that originates in the Highlands, more than 838 million gallons per day is transferred from Delaware System reservoirs via aqueduct through the West Branch Reservoir within the Highlands on its way to the New York City area. This water accounts for approximately 50 percent of New York City’s water supply.
• The major reservoir systems in the Highlands including the Croton, Wanaque, Newark, Jersey City, and Raritan Basin have a combined storage capacity of 324 billion gallons and a combined safe yield of about 679 million gallons per day. Total water withdrawals from these reservoirs was about 464 Mgal/d in 1995.
• Highlands reservoirs are especially important because of their ability to store water for use during critical times, such as prolonged drought. Withdrawals from the Jersey City, Newark, and Wanaque reservoir systems in 1995 ranged between 77 and 86 percent of published safe yield estimates. Withdrawals from the Croton system in 1990 were 73 percent of published safe yield estimates.

Water Quality

Ground Water

Although the ground water within the Highlands is generally of good quality for most uses, in local areas individual constituents may exceed accepted standards as established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Secondary Drinking Water Regulations that primarily regulate aesthetic quality. Based on analytical results from more than 300 wells within the study area, 16 percent of all wells sampled exceeded the limit of 50 parts per billion (ppb) for manganese. Samples from 12 wells exceeded the limit of 300 ppb for dissolved iron. Manganese and iron usually occur together especially where dissolved oxygen is low. Median values of dissolved oxygen were lowest in the clastic and glacial aquifers; consequently, values of dissolved iron and manganese were usually highest. Dissolved arsenic was detected in several samples; only 1 of 205 samples exceeded the proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant level of 10 ppb for arsenic. Occasional detectable levels of dissolved lead were also observed. Other constituents that occasionally did not meet the standards include dissolved sodium, dissolved chloride, and total dissolved solids. Dissolved solids are generally highest in samples from the glacial and carbonate aquifers, while dissolved chloride values were typically highest in samples from the glacial aquifers.
Most ground water samples had pH values within the acceptable range of 6.5 to 8.5 units, with values typically highest in the carbonate and glacial aquifers.
Elevated concentrations of naturally occurring radon-222 are common in Highlands ground water, particularly from crystalline aquifers, where uranium deposits are common in the rocks. A comprehensive examination of New Jersey radon data by dePaul and others (2000) found that more than 90 percent of 565 samples from within the Highlands exceeded the proposed maximum contaminant level of 300 picocuries per liter.
Dissolved nitrate analyses were available for 307 sites. Dissolved nitrate was present in detectable amounts in 80 percent of all samples; however, only one sample exceeded the maximum contaminant level of 10 parts per million (ppm). Nitrate was detected most frequently and in highest concentrations from water in wells open to the carbonate and glacial aquifers, with median values of 1.3 milligrams per liter (mg/L) in carbonate aquifers and 0.9 mg/L in glacial aquifers. This is consistent with the rapid transport of water from the land surface down to well intakes in these aquifers.
Volatile organic compounds as well as some pesticides were also detected in ground water samples. Data from known regulated sites were excluded. The most commonly detected volatile organic compounds in ground water samples were chloroform, methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), trichloroethene (TCE),

tetrachloroethene (PCE), and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA). MTBE is a fuel additive, and TCE, PCE and TCA are chlorinated solvents used extensively in commercial and industrial applications. Most detections were at or below 1 ppb; however, three samples did not meet drinking water criteria. Pesticides were detected in ground water samples, although less frequently and in lower concentrations than in surface water. Most occurrences were in trace amounts, and drinking water criteria were not exceeded. Deethylatrazine, a degradation product of atrazine, was most frequently detected. Identified contaminants are of particular concern to domestic well owners because current regulations do not address the routine sampling of these types of wells.
Although these data were not evaluated with respect to land use within the recharge area at each well, the premise that human activities can affect the quality of ground water has been tested and validated in numerous studies. Elevated ground water nitrate concentrations have been attributed to application of nitrogen-bearing fertilizers and septic-system effluent. In a detailed study of the effects of land use on water quality in the Croton Watershed, elevated nitrate levels were related to density of unsewered housing (Heisig 2000). Elevated chloride concentrations have been attributed to road deicing but may also occur from septic-system effluent. Pesticide occurrence in ground water is more frequent in agricultural or urban areas than in areas that are undeveloped. Volatile organic compounds have been associated with urban and industrial development.

Surface Water

In order to assess changing conditions in Highlands surface water quality over time, trends analyses were conducted at 23 sites within the region for selected constituents from 1986 to 1995 (Hickman and Barringer 1999). Most Highlands streams showed decreases (improving conditions) in total ammonia, phosphorus, and nitrogen, attributable to sewage treatment plant upgrades; however, nitrates are increasing at several sites. Highlands waters are generally well oxygenated and have appropriate temperatures to sustain aquatic life. Results of trends’ tests indicate relatively stable conditions with respect to temperature and stable to improving conditions for dissolved oxygen. Bacterial (fecal coliform) levels were also found to be stable. Total dissolved solids, sodium, and chloride, however, were found to increase at most sites.
To assess current conditions, water quality data were examined from a network of stations within the Highlands that were routinely sampled from 1995 to 2001. As a basis of comparison, median values of selected constituents were examined with respect to New Jersey surface water criteria (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 1998) and median values of all established surface water status sites for the same period. These status sites are a randomly selected population of New Jersey streams from each of the 20 Watershed Management Areas. These streams represent a current condition of waterways Statewide and

can serve as a point of comparison for the water quality of Highlands streams. Most streams within the Highlands are typically higher in dissolved oxygen and pH than those at status sites (higher quality) but also contain higher median concentrations of total nitrogen, dissolved nitrate, total phosphorus, as well as total dissolved solids, sodium, and chloride (lower quality).
Nitrogen and phosphorus are essential elements for plant and animal growth; however, elevated concentrations in streams can promote excessive growth of algae and other nuisance plants. Although concentrations of dissolved nitrate do not exceed surface water quality standards, concentrations are elevated with respect to status sites and are increasing in several Highlands waterways. Although total phosphorus concentrations are decreasing in many of the Highlands streams, elevated levels of this nutrient are still a concern. Fifteen percent of all samples exceed the phosphorus criterion of 0.1 ppm, and more than half of the samples were observed at two stations.
The fecal coliform count is an indicator of the sanitary quality of water. Fecal coliform contamination can originate from point and nonpoint sources. The primary point source is sewage treatment plant outfalls; nonpoint sources include runoff from manure-treated fields, septic system failure, sewer overflow, and wildlife waste. Fecal coliforms do not necessarily cause illness, but high levels may indicate the presence of other pathogens that can cause waterborne diseases. Although they have stabilized, levels of fecal coliform bacteria remain somewhat elevated in streams within the Highlands. In fact, fecal coliform count was the measure that most frequently did not meet instream standards. Forty-one percent of all samples at the evaluated sites exceeded the reference level of 400 coliforms per 100 milliliters of water. This criterion is based on a 10 percent exceedance rate for samples taken during a 30-day period; exceedances here are attributed to all samples taken from 1995 to 2001. Most individual sites examined had more than 10 percent of samples above this reference level, with several sites at more than 70 percent. Fecal coliform counts were generally higher than those at status sites.
Pesticides (herbicides and insecticides) were detected more frequently and in higher concentrations in Highlands surface water than in ground water, but rarely did levels approach drinking water standards or health advisories. All detections were less than 1 ppb. The most commonly detected pesticides in study area surface waters were herbicides such as atrazine and prometon and an insecticide, diazinon. The most frequently detected volatile organic compounds in streams and ground water are compounds used in gasoline or for commercial and industrial purposes. Volatile organic compounds were detected in surface waters, but less frequently and in lower concentrations than in ground water. Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), a gasoline additive, was the most frequently detected in nearly 50 percent of 42 samples at 28 sites. Occasional detections of chlorinated solvents in surface water were also observed, but in low concentrations.

Many of the routinely sampled sites in the Highlands are located within large watersheds of mixed land uses and therefore reflect the cumulative effects of those various land uses as well as point discharges into the streams. Studies that are designed to examine the effects of land use on stream water quality, such as the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Water Quality assessment (NAWQA) Program, have found that nutrient concentrations in surface water are related to urban and agricultural activities. Concentrations in streams that drain urban and agricultural watersheds tend to be significantly higher than those that drain predominantly forested watersheds. Pesticide occurrence was related to both agricultural and urban settings. In general, volatile organic compound occurrence in streams is directly correlated to the percent of urban land use within a watershed, increasing as an area becomes more urban.

Biological Indicators

Aquatic communities such as benthic macroinvertebrates and algae are used as biological indicators of stream health because their condition enables the discrimination of human influences on the environment in a predictable way. These communities respond to changes in stream quality from a variety of factors that modify habitat or other environmental features such as land-use, water chemistry, and streamflow.
The primary factors related to degradation of benthic communities are the percentage of urban land use within the associated drainage basin as well as the amount of upstream wastewater discharges (Kennen 1999). Hydrologic factors such as reduced baseflow and increased peak discharges commonly associated with urbanization can substantially alter stream habitat by scouring the streambed, increasing siltation, and transporting contaminants. Conversely, the total amount of forested land within a drainage basin is the best predictor of an unimpaired community.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s Ambient Biomonitoring Network (AMNET) is a Statewide network of sampling sites designed to monitor the condition of benthic macroinvertebrate communities in New Jersey streams. The network incorporates more than 800 sites, of which 138 are within the Highlands study area. The initial round of sampling was conducted from 1992 through 1996 with a second round to be completed in 2002. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation (Bode and others 1993) operated a similar network from 1986 to 1992, although data within the Highlands area are limited.
Macroinvertebrate community sampling sites shown in Figure 2-7 are classified as nonimpaired, moderately impaired, and severely impaired. (New Jersey data depicted are from the second round of sampling.) Impairment may be indicated by the absence of sensitive species, such as mayflies, stoneflies, and caddis flies;

Figure 2-7. Condition of macroinvertebrate communities in streams. Sampling of macroinvertebrate communities—predominantly aquatic insects—in surface water shows comparatively healthy populations and good water quality. Nonimpaired sites (highest quality) have diverse, well-balanced communities; moderately impaired sites have less diverse communities, and severely impaired sites are dominated by a few tolerant species. (New Jersey data was collected from 1997 to 1999; New York data from 1986 to 1992. Adapted from New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Freshwater Biological Monitoring 2001, and Bode and others 1993).

by the dominance of more tolerant species such as aquatic worms and midges; or by an overall reduction in community diversity. Nonimpaired sites have diverse, well-balanced macroinvertebrate communities comparable to those of other undisturbed streams with similar characteristics. Moderately impaired sites show alterations of the community from a pristine state, with a reduction in species diversity and in the number of sensitive species present. Severely impaired sites are dominated by a few tolerant invertebrate species.
Data from the first round of sampling indicated comparatively healthy aquatic invertebrate populations within Highlands waters (Kennen 1999). Streams within the Upper Delaware drainage basin as well as those south of the Wisconsin terminal moraine were least likely to exhibit an impaired macroinvertebrate community. Of the sites within the study area, 38 percent exhibited some degree of impairment (5 percent severely impaired) and 62 percent showed no impairment. Of non-Highlands sites, 70 percent indicated some degree of impairment (14 percent severely impaired) while only 30 percent were considered nonimpaired.
The second round of sampling showed that 3 percent of the sites within the study area exhibited impairment (1 percent severe impairment) while 67 percent were nonimpaired, indicating stable to slightly improving conditions. Of the non-Highlands sites that have been sampled, 67 percent retain some degree of impairment. Some of the major waterways having impaired communities at more than one sampling site include the Whippany River, the Rockaway River, the Wallkill River, the Musconetcong River, the upper reaches of the Pequannock River, and the Pohatcong Creek. Within New York, waters identified as having impaired communities include the Ramapo River and Wawayanda Creek.
The U.S. Geological Survey’s National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program compared the aquatic community status of 36 northern New Jersey stream sites to 140 selected NAWQA sites nationwide. Invertebrate and algal status are related to an urban land use gradient (Figure 2-8). Generally, highest scores (most degraded sites) occur where percentage of urban land use is greatest within a basin. The Rockaway River at Boonton, Lamington River near Pottersville, South Branch Raritan River at Arch Street, Spruce Run at Glen Gardner, and Pequannock River at Riverdale had some of the lowest scores (least degraded sites) nationally for algae and invertebrates (Ayers and others 2000). Land use in the basins of these sites is less than 34 percent urban and greater than 41 percent forested.

Key Findings:

• The natural ground water within the Highlands is of good quality for most uses. Exceedances of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Secondary Drinking Water Regulations, which primarily regulate aesthetic quality, may be encountered locally and include manganese, iron, sodium, chloride, and dissolved solids.
• Elevated concentrations of naturally occurring radon-222 are common in Highlands ground water, particularly from crystalline aquifers. More than 90 percent of 565 ground water samples from within the Highlands exceed the proposed maximum contaminant level of 300 picocuries per liter.
• Elevated ground water nitrate concentrations have been attributed to application of nitrogen bearing fertilizers, septic-system effluent, and unsewered housing density. Elevated chloride concentrations in ground water have been attributed to road de-icing but may also occur from septic-system effluent. Pesticide occurrence in ground water is more frequent in agricultural and urban areas than in areas that are undeveloped. Volatile organic compounds have been associated with urban and industrial development.
• Over the past decade, many Highlands streams show improving conditions. Decreases in total ammonia, phosphorus, and nitrogen are attributable to sewage treatment plant upgrades. Fecal coliform levels are generally stable, however elevated levels remain a concern. Dissolved solids, sodium, and chloride were found to increase at most sites, possibly due to road deicing or upstream point discharges.
• Pesticides (herbicides and insecticides) were detected more frequently and in higher concentrations in Highlands surface water than in ground water; but levels rarely approached limits for drinking water standards or health advisories.
• The most frequently detected volatile organic compound in Highlands streams was methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), a gasoline additive.
• Sampling of macroinvertebrate communities in Highlands streams indicate comparatively healthy aquatic invertebrate populations. In the most current sampling, 67 percent of Highlands macroinvertebrate sites was nonimpaired, 33 percent exhibited some degree of impairment, and 1 percent was severely impaired.

Water Budget

A water budget is a valuable tool in understanding how human activities
can alter the natural cycle and availability of water in the Highlands. The
water budget considers all water, both surface and ground, entering, leaving,
or stored within a watershed. Each component of the hydrologic cycle (Illustration 2-3)—precipitation, infiltration, overland runoff, evapotranspiration, and ground and surface water withdrawals—can be assigned a value in order to create a water budget.

Analysis at a Regional Scale

A water budget for the entire New York – New Jersey Highlands region provides a basis for understanding the function and magnitude of the various components (Figure 2-9). The primary source of water is precipitation, which totals about 50 inches annually when averaged over the entire study area. This is the equivalent of receiving 5,300 Mgal/d of water over the 2,218 square miles of the study area. Of the total precipitation, an estimated 2,153 Mgal/d evaporates from land or water surfaces and transpires from vegetation; these processes together are referred to as evapotranspiration. The remainder of the precipitation either infiltrates into the ground (1,958 Mgal/d) and recharges ground water or runs off the land surface (707 Mgal/d) to streams and rivers during storms and snowmelt. The ground water in turn discharges to streams, which is known as stream baseflow, and generally equals the amount of water infiltration or recharge into the ground (1,958 Mgal/day). Stream baseflow is responsible for maintaining flow in streams even during prolonged dry periods. Therefore, natural streamflow out of the Highlands region is a combination of baseflow (1,958 Mgal/d) and runoff (707 Mgal/d) and totals 2,665 Mgal/d.
Human activities can add to or subtract from evapotranspiration, infiltration, baseflow, and runoff. Consumptive use of surface and ground water amounts to an estimated 482 Mgal/d removed from the overall Highlands water budget. This amount is based on the 427 Mgal/d transferred out of the region from Highlands reservoirs to supply major urban areas to the south and east in New York City and New Jersey, plus 20 percent of the region’s ground water use (29 Mgal/d), and 20 percent of surface-water withdrawals (26 Mgal/d) for use within the Highlands.

Analysis at a Watershed Scale

The amount of precipitation that falls on Highlands watersheds varies geographically based mainly on topography, and generally averages 44 to 52 inches per year. The areas of highest elevation generally receive the most precipitation. On a year-to-year basis over the past century, annual precipitation has varied from these averages locally as much as 10 to 20 inches. An example of how the major water budget components are influenced by annual fluctuations of precipitation in the Highlands region is shown graphically in Figure 2-10. Annual mean streamflow for a period of 80 years, recorded at a gauging station on the Pequest River at Pequest in Warren County, New Jersey, is compared with local annual precipitation for the period. Approximately half of the precipitation that falls on the watershed leaves the watershed as stream discharge. Most of the remainder that does not discharge as streamflow leaves the basin as evapotranspiration. A similar relationship exists over most of the Highlands region.
The annual variability in precipitation a watershed receives can significantly affect annual totals of stream discharge, particularly during very dry and very wet periods. These variations in turn affect the quantity and quality of water available to downstream users. Total annual stream discharge averages about 20 inches per year at the Pequest gauge. During the drought of record (1961-1966) total annual stream discharge averaged 40 to 70 percent less than long-term averages. During unusually wet years, such as 1952, 1975, and 1996, total annual stream discharge was 70 to 90 percent greater than long-term averages. Other stream gauging stations in the Highlands indicate similar ranges of departure from average streamflow conditions during extremely dry and wet periods including the Whippany River at Morristown, Ramapo River at Mahwah, and the South Branch Raritan River near High Bridge (Bauersfeld and Schopp 1991).
Floods and droughts can affect the quality of surface water. During floods, large quantities of pollutants are washed into streams, but because of the large volume and velocity of the water, the pollutants are diluted and move quickly downstream. During droughts, however, streamflows may not be sufficient to dilute effluents from industries and sewage treatment plants, and contaminants that may be in the ground water that is discharging to streams.
Changing streamflow characteristics are strong indicators of changing watershed conditions. Of particular importance in water budget analyses are the two components of streamflow, which are baseflow and runoff. At the Pequest stream gauge, baseflow makes up about 83 percent of total stream discharge and runoff makes up the remaining 17 percent (Figure 2-10). There is only a slight variation in the percentage of these two components over the period of record. However, baseflow and runoff characteristics of streams vary from watershed to watershed and are important indicators of dependable ground water and surface-water yields and of changing hydrologic conditions. Land use that reduces

evapotranspiration (by deforestation, for example) and reduces infiltration (by creation of impervious surfaces) consequently increases the amount of runoff, thereby contributing to increased flood levels. The percentage of streamflow that is composed of baseflow and runoff can be modified by land-use changes that reduce recharge to ground water by increasing surface runoff. These changes can include new buildings, paving, soil compaction, and results of other human activities.

Watershed Conditions

To evaluate existing conditions on a watershed scale and potential changes to watershed hydrology based on future change scenarios (Section 3, Changes in Water Resources), a computer simulation model was used. The model used was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the New Jersey Office of State Planning, for the purpose of defining streamflow characteristics associated with 820 biologic monitoring sites in New Jersey. The watershed model incorporates long-term climate, topography, soils, impervious surface, and water withdrawal data and is calibrated to existing long-term stream gauge data (Kauffman 2001).
The model is suitable for use in the Highlands regional study because it provides water budgets for a large part of the study area including all of the New Jersey Highlands and the New York part of the Passaic River Basin. Because sufficient data were unavailable for the rest of the New York portion of the Highlands, the modeled area was limited to 1,456 square miles or 932,141 acres of the 1.4 million-acre Highlands study area. Water budgets were analyzed at watershed and subwatershed scales related to previously defined Hydrologic Unit Codes (Ellis and Price 1995). Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC) are used to identify the boundaries and the geographic area of watersheds for the purpose of water-data management. The largest drainage area is HUC 8, which corresponds to the entire surface water drainage area for major river basins as shown in Figure 2-5. These large drainage basins have been further subdivided into smaller watersheds (HUC 11) and subwatersheds (HUC 14) that drain specific reaches of streams and tributaries within the larger basin. The model was used to predict water budgets for HUC 11 and HUC 14 basins within the modeled area. HUC 11 watersheds within the Highlands region have an average area of about 50 square miles and a maximum area of 150 square miles. There are 30 HUC 11 watersheds that are wholly or partially within the modeled area of the Highlands. In contrast, HUC 14 subwatersheds have an average area of 8 square miles and a maximum area of 20 square miles. There are 182 HUC 14 subwatersheds in the modeled area.
Figure 2-11 shows the regional difference in baseflow characteristics of HUC 14 subwatersheds and provides a basis for the evaluation of existing hydrologic conditions. Baseflow is a good indicator of the water-yielding capacity of the underlying aquifer and the stream’s ability to sustain flow. The percentage of streamflow composed of baseflow for streams within each subwatershed was

calculated from model-generated water budgets using 1995 water withdrawals and impervious surface data. The percentage of baseflow to total streamflow calculated from long-term streamflow data is also provided for larger watershed areas in New York where gauging data were available.
Model results and calculations indicate that, on average, baseflow comprises 73 percent of streamflow over the Highlands study area. The amount of baseflow in a stream depends mainly on the geology and type of development in the watershed. In rocky areas with little or no soil cover, the ground water contribution to streamflow is small because ground water storage capacity is minimal. In areas with thick glacial deposits or carbonate rocks with solution channels that can store large amounts of water, or both, the ground water contribution to streamflow is large. Figure 2-11 shows that baseflow accounts for more than 80 percent of total streamflow in many of the watersheds along the western boundary of the study area. These watersheds are underlain by a high percentage of carbonate and glacial aquifers (Figure 2-1) and include areas of highest aquifer recharge as noted in the 1992 Highlands Regional Study report (Michaels and others 1992). Areas where baseflow accounts for less than 50 percent of streamflow occur in some of the most urbanized areas of the study area with documented large ground water withdrawals, including parts of Rockland County, New York, and eastern Morris County, New Jersey.
In addition to providing an evaluation of existing conditions, water budget analyses are an important tool in evaluating the effect of future land use change, development, and water withdrawals on Highlands water resources. This evaluation is provided in Section 3, under Changes in Water Resources.

Key Findings:

• Regionally, the Highlands study area receives about 5,300 Mgal/d of water from precipitation. The Highlands loses about 50 percent or 2,665 Mgal/d from river and stream outflows and about 9 percent or 428 Mgal/d from consumptive water use. An estimated 41 percent or 2,153 Mgal/d is lost by evapotranspiration.
• On a watershed scale, the amount of precipitation varies geographically across the region and ranges from about 44 to 52 inches per year. Annual precipitation has varied from these averages by as much as 10 to 20 inches during unusually wet or dry periods.
• Total streamflow recorded by long-term gauging stations within the Highlands show that during periods of prolonged drought, total annual streamflow can be as much as 40 to 70 percent less than long-term average annual totals. During unusually wet years, streamflow can be as much as 70 to 90 percent greater than long-term averages. These climatic variations have an effect on the quantity and quality of water to downstream users.
• Baseflow and runoff characteristics of streams are two of the most important components of the water budget analyses of Highlands watersheds. Changing streamflow characteristics are strong indicators of changing watershed conditions.
• A watershed model used to simulate streamflow characteristics and provide water budgets for 182 HUC 14 subwatersheds indicates, that on average, baseflow comprises 73 percent of streamflow over the Highlands study area. The percentage of baseflow to total streamflow depends mainly on the geology and degree of development in the watershed. Baseflow accounts for more than 80 percent of streamflow in many watersheds underlain by a high percentage of carbonate and glacial aquifers that have relatively high recharge rates and water storage capacity. Areas where baseflow accounts for less than 50 percent of streamflow occur in some of the most urbanized areas within the Highlands with documented large ground water withdrawals, including Rockland County, New York and eastern Morris County in New Jersey.

Forest

While the Highlands contain a diversity of land uses, more than half of the study area is forest land. Most of the Highlands forest land is dominated by oak-hickory forest with northern hardwoods, hemlock, and swamp hardwoods being of secondary importance. The most recent USDA Forest Service Inventory and Assessment reports suggest that the amount of forest land classified as timberland is holding steady and that the total net volume of timber stock is growing as Highlands forests continue to mature (Alerich and Drake 1995, Griffith and Widmann 2001).

Forest Land Ownership and Management

The most current data on forest land ownership in the Highlands region comes from surveys conducted by the USDA Forest Service in New York and New Jersey in the early 1990s. There were between 50,000 and 75,000 private forest land ownerships in the counties of the Highlands region in 1991. A majority of Highlands forest land is owned by private individuals and organizations, with the remainder owned by public agencies. The diversity of reasons for owning forest land in the Highlands matches the diversity of people that own it. While many owners have forest land simply because it is a part of their residence, a significant proportion of forest land is owned as a real estate investment. These individuals and other owners in the Highlands region will determine how the land will be used and what the rest of society may expect from these lands: whether they will remain forested and replenish and purify ground water, or will be subdivided and developed into house lots with increased impervious surface cover. Decisions to change land use will depend on landowners’ goals and whether they can afford these goals, given their property taxes and ability to generate income from
the land.
Surveys found that these landowners value the forest land more for its green space than for its ability to produce timber products (Birch 1996). Most forest land ownerships are quite small with more than 50 percent of them smaller than 10 acres, and more than 90 percent smaller than 50 acres in size. Nearly a third of the owners have harvested some type of forest product from their land—predominately firewood—for their own use, and an even larger portion plan to harvest in the future. Approximately 10,900 acres in New York and 5,600 acres in New Jersey are enrolled in the USDA Forest Service’s Forest Stewardship Program that provides forest management plans for multiple forest resources (Appendix I). Forest tax laws in New York and New Jersey require that a forest management plan be prepared by a professional forester and that the plan be followed. New Jersey requires that at least $500 of income must be generated from the forest per year.

Most of the public lands are owned by State agencies, but a significant area is also owned by various local and Federal agencies. The authority and regulations used to purchase and manage the public lands makes the fate of these lands more predictable than that of the lands owned by private individuals and organizations. The publicly owned forest lands are predominately owned to provide the general public with clean drinking water and recreational opportunities and to provide habitat for wildlife and rare species, and are unlikely to be converted to other land uses.

Forest Health

The Highlands forests are negatively impacted by a number of forest pests and diseases. One of the more critical biological threats to the forest resources of the Highlands is the presence of the introduced pest, the hemlock woolly adelgid. A significant percentage of the Highlands eastern hemlock forest stands have been infested and have died. As the primary evergreen tree in the Highlands, hemlock represents an irreplaceable component of Highlands forests. Defoliation caused by the gypsy moth has been impacting Highlands forests for many years, with oak forest types being the most affected. Several years of repeated defoliation leave the trees vulnerable to other insects and diseases that can eventually lead to tree mortality. This may ultimately lead to the reduction of the larger mature oak species in a particular area.
The incidence of many forest pests is monitored and updated on an annual basis through the USDA Forest Service’s Cooperative Forest Health Program and the Forest Health Monitoring Program in each State. Efforts are underway on a variety of fronts to understand and mitigate the impacts of forest pests. Considerable effort is being focused on the use of biological agents to control some of the pest species including hemlock woolly adelgid and the gypsy moth. Other possible avenues include spray programs to abate the impacts of several of the pests including the gypsy moth.
Deer also pose a serious threat to forest health and regeneration as well as to the future vegetation composition of the Highlands forests. Deer actively browse tree seedlings and saplings and understory shrubs and herbs. Deer overpopulation and lack of adequate forage have resulted in low regeneration for native trees and herbaceous plants throughout the region. In many instances, preferential browsing on native species has given invasive plant species the competitive advantage to reproduce and spread unabated throughout the area.
The individual impact from various forest stressors is partially dependent on additional contributing factors. One of the more recent significant factors is drought, especially since the early 1990’s. Drought-stressed trees are more vulnerable to pests and diseases, and multiple stressors increase the probability of tree mortality. For example, the coincidence of drought and gypsy moth

outbreaks could significantly affect the oaks that make up a majority of the Highlands forests.
For more information on timberland, forest land ownership, and forest health, refer to the New York – New Jersey Highlands Technical Report.

Key Findings:

• Of the forest land in the New York – New Jersey Highlands counties, 84 percent is privately owned, half of it in small lots (10 acres or less). Nearly 90 percent of owners live on or near their forest land; however, the larger the tract, the more likely it was that the owner lived farther away from their land.
• The overwhelming majority of Highlands landowners mentioned aesthetics, enjoyment, or increased property value as the primary reason for owning forest land. Although timber harvesting was not the primary reason for ownership, more than one-third of the owners have harvested timber products from their land. Approximately 50 percent plan harvests in the future.
• Approximately 16,500 acres (10,867 acres in New York and 5,627 acres in New Jersey) is managed under the USDA Forest Service’s Forest Stewardship Program.
• The amount of forest land classified as timberland by the USDA Forest Service is holding steady in the New York – New Jersey Highlands. In New York Highlands counties, the amount of timberland decreased by approximately 7.5 percent from 1980 to 1993. In New Jersey Highlands counties, the amount of timberland increased by more than 6 percent during the 1987 to 1999 time period. This is due primarily to the gradual and increased conversion of farm and grassland to forest land over the period.

• Of the timberland, 53 percent is in the oak-hickory forest type, followed by 25 percent in northern hardwoods.
• The net timber volume grew by more than 24 percent during the 1980’s and 1990’s. The annual removal is less than half of the net growth of sawtimber and growing stock.
• As of 1998, about 30 percent of the approximately 20,000 acres of hemlock stands in New Jersey showed evidence of hemlock woolly adelgid infestation, with approximately 5,000 acres showing severe to complete defoliation (Royle 2002).
• In 2001, more than 100,000 acres of forest land (12 percent) were defoliated by gypsy moths, primarily in the New Jersey portion of the Highlands with less damage in New York.

Biodiversity

Biological diversity, or biodiversity, is the variety as well as variation of all living organisms in the context of their habitats and ecological systems. Components of biodiversity include individual species and the genetic variation within and between species, ecological diversity and the variety of different systems, and the linkages at the regional scale. The Highlands are rich in the variety of biological systems that support high local biodiversity including freshwater wetlands, swamps and bogs, glades, ravines and ridges, large contiguous forest tracts, and grasslands. The rich diversity of different community types as well as variability within the community types allows the Highlands region to support high levels of biodiversity.

Fish and Wildlife

The Highlands represent a rich habitat resource for fish and wildlife. The combination of relatively large tracts of forest and the variety of habitat types in the Highlands support a wide diversity of fish and wildlife. There are more than 100 species of nesting birds, large mammals including bobcat, black bear, and river otter, and wild trout fisheries in the Highlands. The Highlands is also part of a major east coast migratory flyway for many bird species.
About 874,000 acres or 62 percent of the Highlands is considered to be important wildlife habitat (Figure 2-12). Large forest tracts are one of the critical habitat types for Highlands wildlife. Just as important as the sheer size of this habitat are its location and contiguity (Figure 2-13). Large, unbroken tracts of forest (larger than 500 acres), which comprise about 350,000 acres or nearly 25 percent of the Highlands, support habitat requirements of far-ranging mammals such as bear and bobcat, and provide interior forest habitat critical to the survival of many nesting neotropical songbirds. In addition, protected open space areas in key locations provide feeding and migration corridors that are critical to the survival of large animals with extensive range requirements. Streams provide a critical resource base for trout fisheries. There are 1,861 miles (or 45 percent) of streams in the Highlands that provide the necessary habitat requirements to support trout.

Endangered and Threatened Species

The Highlands region harbors over 200 species of plants and almost 50 species of vertebrate animals that are listed on Federal or State inventories for species that are endangered, threatened, or of concern. Over 50 percent of the land within the Highlands provides habitat for wildlife species that have special status at the State or Federal level, while another 10 percent of the Highlands provides

important wildlife habitat (Table 2-3). In addition, over 100,000 acres or 7.5 percent of the Highlands provides habitat for plant species that are listed as imperiled at the State or Federal level (Figure 2-14, Table 2-4).
Endangered species are in immediate peril due to low population numbers as a result of one or several reasons including habitat loss, over-exploitation, predation, competition, disease, disturbance, or contamination. Federally listed endangered species represent those species that are in peril at the national level. State listed endangered species are those that are not nationally at risk but are rare within the State. Species listed as threatened are those at risk of becoming endangered if trends continue and management efforts are not successful in increasing population numbers. Species of concern are of interest at the State level and represent those species whose population trends suggest that if they continue, they will become threatened and potentially endangered.
Endangered or threatened species within the Highlands region include Federally listed species such as the bog turtle, bald eagle, Indiana bat, and swamp pink. State listed endangered and threatened species in the Highlands include the timber rattlesnake, wood turtle, red-shouldered hawk, barred owl, great blue heron (breeding), and eastern wood rat. There are also several globally rare species in the Highlands including Torrey’s mountain mint, New England bluet, and the triangle floater. For detailed methodology on mapping of biodiversity in the Highlands, see the New York – New Jersey Highlands Technical Report.

Natural Communities

There are a number of unique and exemplary natural communities in the Highlands region (Table 2-5). Analyses show that approximately 282,350 acres (19 percent) of the Highlands have State and Federal status recognition as priority sites for preservation or role-model examples of relatively intact vegetation community types that are in good condition, relatively undisturbed, and generally lack invasive species (Table 2-5, Figure 2-15). These communities are important biodiversity components of the Highlands, as in many cases they are habitat to sensitive or rare species found in only a few locations throughout the region. Special community types include calcareous fens, glacial bogs, rocky summit or outcrop plant communities, talus slope woodlands, swamps including Atlantic white cedar and spruce-fir, and prime examples of chestnut oak forests and hemlock-northern hardwood forest.
Large contiguous tracts of relatively natural habitat provide critical habitat and movement corridors for wide-ranging species (Figure 2-13). In 2001, The Nature Conservancy identified seven of these tracts of contiguous forest as their regional priority for conservation.1 These so-called matrix sites of exceptional biodiversity and integrity comprise 200,000 acres.

Migratory Flyway

The Highlands represent a vital link in a major bird migratory flyway connecting wintering habitat in Central and South America with breeding grounds in northern latitudes. One-quarter of all neotropical bird species found in the United States are found in the Highlands, and half of the total number of species that breed in the Highlands are neotropical migrants. Many of these species are forest-interior breeding species, and the 416,182 acres of interior forests in the Highlands provide critical habitat for species including the red-eyed vireo, American redstart, and eastern pewee.
Two-thirds of the migrant birds that use the eastern migratory flyways are believed to be in serious decline. Several species including the wood thrush, Kentucky warbler, black-throated blue warbler, and cerulean warbler are on the Audubon Watch List for species in rapid decline (National Audubon Society 2001). Population declines have been primarily attributed to the loss of habitat through forest fragmentation and development pressure. Additional causes of bird population declines in the Highlands include exposure to human-derived contaminants, increased competition with nonnative bird species, increased predation from domesticated animals, and collision with structures.

Invasive Species

Invasive species can dramatically affect species diversity and ecosystem function. Some of the more common invasive plant species in the Highlands include Norway maple, tree-of-heaven, Japanese barberry, Japanese honeysuckle, purple loosestrife, garlic mustard, and stilt grass. In addition, the soil community has been impacted by the invasion of exotic earthworms throughout the region. Range expansion of cowbirds exacerbates the effects of forest fragmentation on forest interior breeding birds. The hemlock woolly adelgid, an insect pest that specifically targets eastern hemlocks, has spread throughout the Highlands. As the Highlands’ primary evergreen tree, hemlocks represent a keystone species providing habitat diversity for nesting birds and dense shade to maintain cool stream water temperatures for trout. Little scientific evidence is available as to how many of these invasive species are altering the biodiversity of the Highlands; however, the community structure and ecosystem function will inevitably change in the presence of these invaders.

Key Findings:

• There are over 250 species of plants and animals in the Highlands that are considered to be in peril due to declining population numbers. There are 3 Federally listed endangered species in the New York – New Jersey Highlands and 118 State listed endangered species.
• The diversity and arrangement of different habitat types in the Highlands creates an important mosaic that supports the high species biodiversity of the Highlands region.
• Large contiguous forest tracts (greater than 500 acres) provide critical habitat resources for many species. These large forest tracts cover approximately 350,000 acres (25 percent) of the Highlands. There are only 11 tracts of forest that are greater than 5,000 acres. These largest tracts comprise approximately 60 percent of the New York – New Jersey Highlands core forest interior habitat. The survival of large mammals, such as black bear, and furbearers, such as bobcat and river otter, depends on maintaining contiguous habitat throughout the Highlands. Contiguous habitat provides migration corridors, and extends the feeding and breeding range of these populations.
• Over 280,000 acres of the Highlands have received special status for containing important natural community or high biodiversity areas or both. These communities contribute significantly to the biotic integrity of the New York – New Jersey Highlands. Protection of important natural communities extends beyond protection at the species level and protects multiple factors at the community and regional level.
• The Highlands serve as a major migratory flyway for many neotropical bird species, many of which populations are in decline. Of particular concern to ornithologists are the 70 to 75 species of interior nesting neotropical migrants such as the red-eyed vireo, American redstart, Kentucky warbler, and eastern pewee. These species require large undisturbed forest patches.
• Fragmentation and alteration of habitat continue to pose the greatest threat to the biological communities in the Highlands. The rapid expansion of urbanization encroaches on and fragments habitat, destroys individuals as well as populations, and potentially threatens the continued existence of many biological communities. Degradation of habitat by direct destruction or indirectly through pollution, erosion, introduction of invasive species, or fragmentation threatens the existence of species, diminishes natural communities, and reduces genetic variability.

Farmland

Although normally considered a “land use” and not a resource, agricultural land within the Highlands is essential to the area’s future. Approximately 10 percent of the Highlands is in agricultural land use such as cultivated cropland, orchards, nurseries, pasture, and hay fields (Figure 2-16). 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 occurring between the 1940s and the 1970s. 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 steep decline in acres of farmland is stabilizing, it is projected that farmland will continue to be converted to other land uses without aggressive farmland preservation programs.
Agriculture sustains the intrinsic natural character of the working rural landscape and provides jobs and a sustained quality of life for many landowners and residents of the Highlands. Farms and the agricultural production sector contribute to 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 the farming life through the growing industry of farming tourism (e.g., vegetable, fruit, and pumpkin picking; hayrides; corn mazes). To protect the Garden State’s agricultural heritage, New Jersey has a goal of preserving 500,000 acres through the Farmland Preservation Program (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Green Acres Program 1999b). In the New York Highlands, approximately 6,500 acres of productive farmand have been protected through the Farmland Protection Trust Fund. The maintenance of large contiguous blocks of farmland is necessary to ensure the productivity and economic health of agriculture over the long term. Preserving large contiguous blocks of farmland will help to preserve the character and quality of the region’s rural landscape. For more information on farmland, refer to the New York – New Jersey Highlands Technical Report.

Key Findings:

• Approximately 10 percent of the New York – New Jersey Highlands region or more than 143,000 acres of land is in agricultural land use. Approximately 74 percent (over 106,000 acres) of this agricultural land was in New Jersey and 26 percent (over 37,000 acres) was in New York.
• The size of most farms is in the 10-49 acre size class, and they are primarily located in Warren, Hunterdon, and the very eastern part of Sussex County in New Jersey, and Orange, Dutchess and Putnam Counties in New York. Not all farmland is owned by farmers.
• Farm production is varied and includes these products: 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, nuts, berries, nursery and greenhouse crops, mushrooms and sod (National Agricultural Statistics Service 1999; New York Agricultural Statistics Service 2001).
• In New Jersey the Farmland Preservation Program, which funds farmland easements on a willing seller-willing buyer basis, has been overwhelmingly supported by voters and more than 9,550 acres have been protected. In New York through the Farmland Protection Trust Fund, approximately 6,500 acres of productive farmland have been protected. Additional farmland in both States has been protected by private nonprofit land trusts through outright purchase or through conservation easements.
• Over 60 percent (87,678 acres) of the actively cultivated land is located on mapped prime farm soils. There has been a significant loss of prime farmland with approximately 111,600 acres of prime soils that are now in developed land uses.

Recreation

Open spaces in The New York – New Jersey Highlands provide numerous opportunities for both passive and active outdoor recreation. The Highlands hills, forests, lakes, and streams give the metropolitan region’s 20 million citizens a chance to escape to nature within a 1- to 2-hour drive from home. There are more than 311,000 acres of local, county, State, and Federal parks in the Highlands (Figure 2-17). The attendance at Highlands major outdoor recreational venues is over 14 million visitor days per year. This level of visitation is greater than the visitation at such famed national parks as Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Grand Canyon. The region’s parks and trails provide outdoor enthusiasts everything from short walks to long-distance excursions (Figure 2-18).
The Highlands extensive network of rivers, streams, lakes, and reservoirs makes it one of the more popular fishing destinations in the region. In addition to the Highlands’ publicly accessible waters, private lakes and beaches provide opportunities for boating and swimming (Figure 2-19). While hunting has decreased slightly in popularity, public participation in nonconsumptive uses of wildlife such as bird-watching and wildlife viewing is on the rise, and both New York and New Jersey have established a network of wildlife viewing sites open to the public. Developed recreational facilities such as downhill skiing areas and golf courses are another important component of the outdoor recreational picture.
Population projections to the year 2010 indicate that the demand and need for open space and outdoor recreation opportunities will remain high (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Green Acres Program 1999a). It is estimated that an additional 47,000 acres of public parkland are needed to meet the Balanced Land Use Guidelines suggested by the New Jersey model for the six core counties in New Jersey alone (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Green Acres Program 1999a). These calculations were based on the assumption of no additional development. New Jersey’s projected Statewide deficit for the year 2010 is 270,000 acres. However, New Jersey looked beyond these figures and set the ambitious goal of preserving an additional 1 million acres within the next 10 years (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Green Acres Program 1999b). The Highlands region is identified as a high priority area for meeting these open space demands (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Green Acres Program 1999a).
Similarly, in New York State, the Highlands are a focal point of open space and greenway planning and protection. The Hudson River and Highlands area of New York were designated as part of the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area in 1996, recognizing the importance of the history and the resources of the Hudson River Valley to the nation. In 1991, the State of New York passed the Hudson River Valley Greenway Act of 1991 to create a regional planning process to promote the protection of the region’s natural and cultural resources.

The Hudson River is also a designated American Heritage River, a Presidential Initiative to help communities revitalize their rivers and the adjacent shoreline. This is an umbrella initiative designed to more effectively use the Federal government’s many resources through a plan that is designed and driven by local communities.
During the 1990’s, a number of ambitious open-space efforts were initiated:

• Of special note was the acquisition of Sterling Forest Park through a partnership of Federal, State (both New York and New Jersey), and private entities. The initial purchase in 1998 of 15,280 acres has been supplemented by additional purchases, with more on the horizon. The park consists of nearly 20,000 acres of forest, lakes, streams and wetlands and contains significant historical and cultural resources.
• Through its Land Acquisition and Stewardship Program (initiated in 1997), the City of New York embarked on an ambitious campaign to purchase additional watershed lands to protect the water quality in the Croton Reservoir system. More than 4,500 acres have been protected to date. Where possible, compatible recreational uses such as hiking, fishing, and hunting will be allowed.

• The Pequannock Watershed lands (32,800 acres) in New Jersey, owned and managed by the City of Newark, provide important recreation and scenic values to the region. Since the 1992 Highlands Regional Study, New Jersey has purchased conservation easements to more than 15,500 acres of this land, protecting it from future development.

Recreation and open space are affected by the changes in population and land use in the Highlands. Land development, especially along major roadways and within the viewshed, can significantly affect the outdoor experience and its recreational economic value. Continued subdivision of land will make parkland acquisition more costly and access to private land less likely, and reduce the buffer that private open space provides to public parks.

Key Findings:

• More than 20 percent of the Highlands is in publicly or privately protected open space. Of these 311,700 acres 5 percent is in Federal ownership, 56 percent in State parks, forests, and wildlife management areas; 19 percent is in watershed management or other conservation easements; 10 percent is in county parkland; 5 percent is in local parkland; and 5 percent is in nonprofit land trusts. These figures are based on best available data and may underestimate the amount of open space in local parks and land trusts.
• More than 23,500 acres of military lands including the Picatinny Arsenal, West Point, and Camp Smith Military Reservations are in the Highlands. Although a percentage of these areas are not physically accessible, these lands provide scenic and wildlife values.
• More than 14 million people visit the Highlands each year for outdoor recreational opportunities. This total is for attendance at State parks and forests in Morris, Orange, and Westchester counties, and Morristown National Historic Park, and does not include other county parks or Federal or State wildlife management areas. The total visitation for these parks rose steadily during the 1990’s (from approximately 8 million to more than 14 million).
• Almost 350 miles of linear recreational features including such notable regional hiking trails as the Appalachian Trail, Highlands Trail, and Long Path are located in the Highlands. Many of the region’s long-distance rail-trails and county greenways are multiple-use trails supporting bicycling, cross country skiing, and horse-back riding—in addition to walking. There are also more than 620 miles of local hiking trails. Approximately 25 percent of local hiking trails are on private lands.
• The Highlands contains numerous historical and cultural resources including Revolutionary War sites, such as the Morristown National Historical Park, West Point and Stony Point Battlefields, remnants of an earlier industrial past such as the Morris Canal and iron forges, along with historic farms, homes, and villages. While 165 sites were documented, many more sites remain to be catalogued and mapped.
• With 1,860 miles of trout streams in the Highlands, fishing is a popular recreational sport. The extensive network of cold-water trout fisheries throughout the Highlands makes it one of the more popular fishing destinations in the region. The region is also well-known for the warm and cold-water fisheries opportunities that the area’s numerous lakes and reservoirs provide.

• The Highlands contain 535 miles of canoeable rivers. In addition, there are dozens of lakes and reservoirs with public boat ramps and a spectacular stretch of the Hudson River that provide fishing and boating opportunities to the general public.
• Hunting has been a very popular recreational activity in the Highlands. There are approximately 25,000 acres of public open space accessible for both small game and deer hunting. Additional lands are owned and managed by private individuals and gun clubs with the primary purpose of recreational hunting. However, in recent years the number of hunting licenses sold has been on the decline and there is concern that as the primary deer control mechanism, continued decline of hunting will result in increased deer overpopulation problems.
• Golf is an increasingly popular outdoor recreational activity. There are more than 40 golf courses in the Highlands. Golf courses can have negative environmental impacts and must be carefully planned to minimize conflicts with other resource values.
• More than 140,000 acres of the Highlands’ ridges and valleys, including the nationally significant Hudson Valley, have exceptional scenic value. There are more than 170 recreational trail viewpoints and lookout towers available for scenic viewing of the Highlands.

Conservation Values Assessment

A Conservation Values Assessment model was developed to translate conservation priorities into geographic information. The geographic locations of the natural resources described above were mapped using geographic information system (GIS) technology. This GIS-based model was used to integrate these 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 of conservation values updates and expands on a 1999 Priority Area Assessment conducted by the Regional Plan Association (2001).
The GIS-based Conservation Values Assessment model weighed the conservation value of these various resources in two ways. First, the model was based on achieving the following goals for each of the five general resource types:

Maintaining an adequate supply of high quality water;
Conserving productive forest lands;
Conserving areas of high biodiversity and habitat value;
Conserving productive agricultural land; and

Providing adequate recreational opportunities for natural, historic and cultural resource-based uses.

Second, individual resources within each of the five general resource areas were assigned a value ranging from 0 to 5 (highest value) based on the following rules:

1. The greater degree to which conservation of the landscape would directly protect a resource or reduce the likelihood of negative impacts was ranked higher.
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).

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.

Figures 2-20 to 2-24 show the results of the analysis for each resource type, and Table 2-6 lists the corresponding acres. The values for all five resource types were mapped together to determine where the resource values overlap, that is, where the values for the different resources are the same (Figure 2-25). For example, areas with the highest resource value are where all the resources have a conservation value of 5. The total number of acres for each conservation value are as follows:

Key Findings:

• While all of the Highlands serves as watershed land, nearly 50 percent (685,632 acres) has medium to high values deserving special consideration. 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 catchment areas, steep slopes (greater than 15 percent), and riparian zones.
• Thirty-three percent (474,378 acres) of the Highlands has medium to high value as productive forest land. Many of the resources 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 supported through the actions of private landowners and the conservation programs of private nonprofit land trusts and publicly owned forest lands.
• Nearly 55 percent (748,723 acres) of the Highlands consists of habitat that supports State or Federally listed threatened and endangered species. 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. Large tracts of contiguous forests and accompanying wetland systems 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.
• Seven percent (100,548 acres) of the Highlands has medium to high value as productive farmland. While comparatively small 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 rivers in the south; and the Wallkill and Fishkill rivers in the north.
• Sixty percent (850,917 acres) of the Highlands has medium to high value for recreation and open space. As the New York City metropolitan area’s backyard, the 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.

• When all resource types were combined, 38 percent (542,456 acres) of the Highlands has exceptional conservation value (ranked Higher or Highest value). These highest ranked areas include the central core of the 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.

Section 2 References

Alerich, C.L.; Drake, D.A. 1995. Forest statistics for New York: 1980 and 1993. Resource Bulletin NE-132. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station; 249 p.
Ayers, M.A.; Kennen, J.G.; Stackelberg, P.E. 2000. Water quality in the Long Island – New Jersey coastal drainages, New York and New Jersey, 1996-98. Circular 1201. Philadelphia, PA: U.S. Geological Survey; 40 p.
Bauersfeld, W.R.; Schopp, R.D. 1991. New Jersey floods and droughts. In National water summary 1988-89, Hydrologic events and floods and droughts. Water-Supply Paper 2375. Philadelphia, PA: U.S. Geological Survey; 401-408.
Birch, T. W. 1996. Private forest landowners of the Northern United States, 1994. Resource Bulletin NE-136. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station; 293 p.
Bode, Robert W.; Novak, Margaret A.; Abele, Lawrence E. 1993. 20 year trends in water quality of rivers and streams in New York State based on macroinvertebrate data 1972-1992. Albany: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; 196 p.
dePaul, V.T.; Gardner, P.L.; Kopera, A.J.; Roy, H.C.; Szabo, Z. 2000. Use of ground water radon-222 occurrence data in combination with indoor-air radon potential to maximize benefits of the multimedia radon-mitigation program in New Jersey. [abs] In: National Ground Water Association, Emerging Issues Conference; 2000 June; Minneapolis, MN; 34. (Note: this is a published abstract of a proceedings, no paper is ever intended to be produced or published)
Ellis, W.H., Jr.; Price, C.V. 1995. Development of a 14-digit hydrologic coding scheme and boundary data set for New Jersey. Water Resources Investigations Report 95-4134. Denver, CO: U.S. Geological Survey; 1 sheet.
Griffith, D.M.; Widmann, R.H. 2001. Forest statistics for New Jersey: 1987 and 1999. Resource Bulletin NE-152. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station; 70 p.
Heath, R.C. 1980. Basic elements of ground-water hydrology with reference to conditions in North Carolina. Water-Resources Investigations Open-File Report 80-44. U.S. Geological Survey; 86 p.
Heath, R.C. 1983. Basic ground-water hydrology. Water Supply Paper 2220. U.S. Geological Survey; 84 p.
Heisig, P. 2000. Effects of residential and agricultural land uses on the chemical quality of baseflow of small streams in the Croton Watershed. Water Resources Investigations Report 99-4173. Denver, CO: U.S. Geological Survey; 16 p.
Hickman, R.E.; Barringer, T.H. 1999. Trends in water quality of New Jersey streams, water years 1986-95. Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4204. Denver, CO: U.S. Geological Survey; 174 p.
Kauffman, L.J., U.S. Geological Survey, written communication, unpublished text on description of watershed model, November 2001.

Kennen, J.G. 1999. Relation of benthic macroinvertebrate community impairment to basin characteristics in New Jersey streams. Fact Sheet FS-057-98. Denver, CO: U.S. Geological Survey; 6 p.
La Forge, Laurence. 1905. Water resources of the central and southwestern highlands of New Jersey. In: Contributions to the hydrology of the eastern United States, 1904. Water-Supply Paper 110. Denver, CO: U.S. Geological Survey; 141-155.
Linsey, K.A.; Wolcott, S.W.; Schoonmaker, N.B. 1999. Identification of potential water-resources monitoring sites in the Croton Reservoir System, southeastern New York. Open-file Report 97-638. Troy, NY: U.S. Geological Survey; 36 p.
Michaels, Joseph A.; Neville, L. Robert; Edelman, David; Sullivan, Tim; DiCola, Leslie A. [1992.] New York – New Jersey Highlands Regional Study. [Radnor, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry]; 130 p.
National Agricultural Statistics Service. 1999. 1997 Census of agriculture: New Jersey state and county data. Volume 1, Geographic Area Series Part 30. Washington, DC; 530 p.
National Audubon Society. 2001. [Partners in Flight] http:www.Audubon.org/bird/watch (23 August 2002).
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 1998. Surface water quality standards. Trenton: Office of Environmental Planning; 122 p.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Freshwater Biological Monitoring. 2001. NJDEP Ambient Biomonitoring Network (AMNET). 2000. [Digital data]. http://www.state.nj.us/dep/gis/digidownload/zips/statewide/biopts2k (19 February 2002).
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy. 1992. New Jersey Statewide water supply master plan Task 2 report: Water supply baseline data development and analyses. Trenton, NJ; 200 p.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Green Acres Program. 1999a. New Jersey’s common ground: 1994-1999 New Jersey open space and outdoor recreation plan summary. Trenton: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; 34 p.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Green Acres Program. 1999b. Meeting the challenge: Preserving one million more acres of New Jersey’s open space. Trenton: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; 15 p.
New Jersey Water Supply Authority. 2000. Water supply availability in the Raritan River Basin. A technical report for the Raritan Basin watershed management project; 23 p. http://www.raritanbasin.org/technical_reports.htm (8 August 2002).

New York Agricultural Statistics Service. 2001. New York agricultural statistics: 2000-2001. Albany, NY; 101 p.
New York City Department of Environmental Protection. 2002. New York City’s water supply system. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/maplevels.html. [Date accessed unknown].
Regional Plan Association. 2001. NY/NJ Highlands Priority Area Assessment. Unpublished paper supplied by the association; 12 p.

Rosenshein, Joseph S. 1988. Region 18, Alluvial valleys. In: Back, William; Rosenshein, Joseph S.; Seaber, Paul R., eds. Hydrogeology. Geology of North America, vol. O-2. Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America; 165-175.
Royle, D.D. 2002. A landscape analysis of hemlock decline in New Jersey. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Unpublished PhD thesis.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Overall watershed characterization: September 1999. IWI Release (Note: IWI stands for Index of Watershed Indicators). http://www.epa.gov/iwi/1999sept/catalog.html (28 February 2002).
Vermeule, C.C. 1894. Water supply. Geological Survey of New Jersey, vol. 3. Trenton, NJ; 352 p.
Zimmerman, P. 2001. Sustainable design at New York City Department of Environmental Protection. Clearwaters 31(3). http://www.nywea.org/313090.html (14 February 2002).

Section 3 Potential Changes
and Resources at Risk

This section uses past population growth to model future population growth and development in the Highlands, to determine how they could affect natural resources. By looking at these possible changes, the resource conservation values from Section 2, and land that is already protected, this section identifies land in the Highlands that is most in need of conservation. All population numbers, density, and growth, and demographic and housing trends in this section are from the U.S. Census Bureau (2001).

Population Growth

The 2000 census found that the 108 municipalities in the New York and New Jersey portions of the Highlands have approximately 1,372,000 residents. Of that number, 46 percent live in New York and 54 percent in New Jersey. When compared with the 1990 figure of about 1,230,000 people, the region’s population has grown by more than 11 percent (Table 3-1). The overall population density

for the entire region was just below one person per acre (Figure 3-1). The region currently averages 2.76 persons per household. New York’s Highlands have a slightly higher average of 2.9 compared with New Jersey’s average of 2.6. The nine most densely populated municipalities in 2000 were these:

Municipality Persons per acre

Pompton Lakes borough (New Jersey) 5.27
Washington borough (New Jersey) 5.36
Boonton town (New Jersey) 5.38
Butler borough (New Jersey) 5.54
Peekskill city (New York) 6.41
Phillipsburg town (New York) 7.10
Morristown town (New Jersey) 9.65
Dover town (New Jersey) 10.52

Victory Gardens borough (New Jersey) 16.55

The region’s 10-year growth rate of 11 percent is lower than that of the United States (13 percent) but higher than that of either State (New Jersey grew 8.9 percent, while New York grew 5.5 percent). The fastest growing municipality in the New York – New Jersey Highlands, Greenwich Township, was also the fastest growing in New Jersey. Greenwich was the only municipality in the region to double its size between 1990 and 2000, with a population increase of 130 percent. Greenwich’s rapid growth is due, in part, to having a small population in a relatively large area, so that a few new subdivisions caused a significant population increase. The next fastest growing municipalities were these:

Municipality Growth rate (percent)

Mahwah Township, NJ 34
Montville Township, NJ 34
Chester Borough, NJ 35
Monroe Town, NY 36

Independence Township, NJ 42

A total of 21 municipalities had more than a 20 percent growth in population.
New Jersey also had the only two municipalities that lost more than 10 percent of their population during that period: Netcong Borough (22 percent loss) and Harding Township (13 percent loss). A total of 13 municipalities in the Highlands lost population. The growth and loss of population by municipality is shown in Figure 3-2.

For the 108 municipalities included in the study, the average population was 12,708 while the median population was 7,471. Only three municipalities had more than 50,000 residents as shown in the following list of the nine largest municipalities:

Municipality 2000 Population

Warwick town (New York) 30,764
Monroe town (New York) 31,407
Carmel town (New York) 33,006
Haverstraw town (New York) 33,811
Yorktown town (New York) 36,318
Cortlandt town (New York) 38,467
Parsippany-Troy Hills township (New Jersey) 50,649
Clarkstown town (New York) 82,082

Ramapo town (New York) 108,905

The smallest municipality had less than 1,000 residents:

Municipality 2000 Population

Far Hills borough (New Jersey) 859
Bloomsbury borough (New Jersey) 886
Califon borough (New Jersey) 1,055
Lebanon borough (New Jersey) 1,065

Milford borough (New Jersey) 1,195

Due to the limited availability of the 2000 census data, some analyses were conducted at a county scale and, therefore, include data for the entire 12-county area (not just for the 108 municipalities formally regarded as the Highlands in the rest of this report). The Highlands region’s population is representative of the overall populations of the larger New York and New Jersey State region in terms of gender ratio, population under 15 years of age, and population over 65 years of age (Table 3-2). Likewise, these figures have not changed significantly since 1990. The median age of the population in 2000 varied significantly across the various counties, ranging from 34.7 to 39.1 years, but was similar to the median age for New York and New Jersey (Table 3-2).
The Highlands counties have a less racially diverse population than that of the larger New York and New Jersey region. In 2000 the Highlands counties were 78.5 percent white, while the State of New York was 67.9 percent white and the State of New Jersey was 72.6 percent white (Table 3-2). There is great variability in racial diversity across the Highlands region. Counties with major urban centers with large minority and recent immigrant populations, such as Passaic County in New Jersey, which is 62.3 percent white, have more racially diverse populations than many of the more rural counties that are more than 90 percent white.

Occupied housing, at 96.1 percent, was slightly higher in the Highlands counties than in the larger New York and New Jersey region in 2000 (Table 3-3). There was a slight increase in the percent of occupied housing from 1990 to 2000. Owner-occupied housing was 67.9 percent versus 32.1 percent renter-occupied in 2000. The New York Highlands counties have a somewhat lower owner occupancy (65.2 percent) than New Jersey (69.9 percent). From 1990 to 2000 in New Jersey the more urban counties, such as Bergen and Passaic, showed a slight decrease in owner-occupied housing, while the more rural counties such as Hunterdon and Warren showed an increase. The various counties in New York showed no significant pattern over the decade.

Key Findings:

• According to the 2000 census, the population of the Highlands
region grew 11.5 percent between 1990 and 2000 to a total of
1,372,423 residents.
• A total of 21 municipalities in the Highlands grew more than
20 percent between 1990 and 2000. Greenwich Township was the fastest growing municipality, doubling its population between 1990 and 2000, according to the 2000 census.
• A total of 13 municipalities in the Highlands lost population between 1990 and 2000.
• Ramapo, New York was the largest municipality with 108,905 residents. Far Hills, New Jersey was the smallest municipality with less than 1,000 residents.
• The Highlands counties’ population was representative of the overall population of the larger New York and New Jersey State region based on gender ratios and age breakdowns in 2000.
• The Highlands counties had a less racially diverse population than that of the New York and New Jersey State region in 2000.

• The percent of occupied housing, at 96.1 percent, was slightly higher in the Highlands counties than in the States of New York and New Jersey in 2000.

New Jersey

Bergen 884,118 825,380 7.1 48.1 48.0 0.1 19.3 20.4 15.2 15.3 -0.1 39.1 N/A 78.4 87.0 -8.6
Hunterdon 121,989 107,776 13.2 49.4 49.9 -0.5 21.8 24.1 10.0 9.5 0.6 38.8 N/A 93.9 96.3 -2.4
Morris 470,212 421,353 11.6 48.9 48.8 0.1 21.2 22.9 11.6 10.5 1.1 37.8 N/A 87.2 91.8 -4.6
Passaic 489,049 453,060 7.9 48.5 48.2 0.3 22.1 24.0 12.1 12.9 -0.8 34.8 N/A 62.3 71.9 -9.5
Somerset 297,490 240,279 23.8 48.8 49.1 -0.3 22.0 22.0 11.2 10.8 0.4 37.2 N/A 79.3 88.0 -8.6
Sussex 144,166 130,943 10.1 49.5 49.6 -0.1 23.4 27.8 9.1 8.9 0.2 37.1 N/A 95.7 97.6 -1.9
Warren 102,437 91,607 11.8 48.7 48.3 0.4 21.9 24.7 12.9 13.3 -0.4 37.6 N/A 94.5 97.2 -2.6

Total*** 2,509,461 2,270,398 10.5 48.6 48.5 0.1 21.0 22.5 12.8 12.7 0.0 N/A N/A 79.4 86.4 -7.0

New York
Dutchess 280,150 259,462 8.0 50.0 50.3 -0.3 20.9 23.9 12.0 11.4 0.6 36.7 N/A 83.7 88.3 -4.7
Orange 341,367 307,647 11.0 50.1 50.3 -0.2 24.4 27.6 10.3 10.4 -0.1 34.7 N/A 83.7 88.9 -5.2
Putnam 95,745 83,941 14.1 49.9 49.9 0.0 22.3 25.8 9.6 9.0 0.5 37.4 N/A 93.9 97.5 -3.6
Rockland 286,753 265,475 8.0 48.8 48.6 0.2 23.5 26.0 11.8 10.1 1.7 36.2 N/A 76.9 83.9 -7.0
Westchester 923,459 874,866 5.6 47.8 47.5 0.4 21.2 21.7 14.0 14.4 -0.4 37.6 N/A 71.3 79.4 -8.0

Total*** 1,927,474 1,791,391 7.6 48.8 48.6 0.2 22.1 23.9 12.5 12.4 0.1 N/A N/A 77.3 83.8 -6.6
Highlands
county
total 4,436,935 4,061,789 9.2 48.7 48.6 0.1 21.5 23.1 12.6 12.6 0.1 N/A N/A 78.5 85.3 -6.8

New Jersey
(Statewide) 8,414,350 7,730,188 8.9 48.5 48.3 0.2 20.9 23.3 13.2 13.4 -0.1 36.7 34.4 72.6 79.3 -6.8
New York
(Statewide) 18,976,457 17,990,455 5.5 48.2 47.9 0.3 20.7 23.7 12.9 13.1 -0.2 35.9 33.9 67.9 74.4 -6.5

Housing units Percent occupied Percent owner occupied

Percent Percent Percent

State and County 2000 1990 change 2000 1990 change 2000 1990 change

New Jersey
Bergen 339,820 324,817 4.6 97.4 95.1 2.3 67.2 67.9 -0.8
Hunterdon 45,032 39,987 12.6 97.0 94.8 2.2 83.6 80.5 3.1
Morris 174,379 155,745 12.0 97.3 95.5 1.8 76.0 74.0 2.0
Passaic 170,048 162,512 4.6 96.4 95.5 0.8 55.6 55.8 -0.2
Somerset 112,023 92,653 20.9 97.3 95.4 1.9 77.2 75.3 1.9
Sussex 56,528 51,574 9.6 89.9 86.2 3.7 82.7 82.3 0.4
Warren 41,157 36,589 12.5 93.9 92.9 1.0 72.7 69.5 3.2

Total* 938,987 863,877 8.7 96.5 94.6 1.9 69.9 69.0 0.9

New York
Dutchess 106,103 97,632 8.7 93.8 91.7 2.1 69.0 69.1 -0.2
Orange 122,754 110,814 10.8 93.5 91.6 1.9 67.0 67.5 -0.4
Putnam 35,030 31,898 9.8 93.4 88.1 5.3 82.2 81.9 0.4
Rockland 94,973 88,264 7.6 97.6 96.2 1.4 71.7 72.1 -0.5
Westchester 349,445 336,727 3.8 96.5 95.0 1.4 60.1 59.7 0.5

Total* 708,305 665,335 6.5 95.6 93.8 1.8 65.2 65.0 0.3

Highlands
county total 1,647,292 1,529,212 7.7 96.1 94.3 1.8 67.9 67.2 0.6
New Jersey
(Statewide) 3,310,275 3,075,310 7.6 92.6 90.9 1.7 65.6 64.9 0.7
New York
(Statewide) 7,679,307 7,226,891 6.3 91.9 91.9 0.0 53.0 52.2 0.8

Future Change Scenarios—Build-out Analysis
and Econometric Modeling

One of the major trends in the Highlands is the increasing amount of development and the number of people who live there. Since this study is meant to assist with decisions about the future of land resource changes in the New York – New Jersey Highlands, it needs to first consider some possible future changes in the human population and the associated changes in developed areas.
We used two techniques to assess ways in which the landscape might change in the future: build-out analysis and econometric modeling. We chose these techniques for different purposes. Neither technique actually forecasts future change or predicts whether individual properties will be developed, but both techniques illustrate potential consequences of policy and market forces.
A simple way to consider future change would be to simply answer the question, “How much could be built today under the existing zoning and environmental constraints?” Basically, that is the question that build-out analysis seeks to answer. The analysis was expanded to include a few different future policy scenarios to demonstrate different future population distributions.
For the area being analyzed, the process begins by removing from consideration places that would not realistically be developed in the future. These areas might include lands that are rendered unbuildable due to natural features, areas in which an existing policy prohibits development, urban areas already developed to their fullest legal extent, and permanently protected properties (including public lands). The remaining areas are analyzed to find out how many houses could be built on them under the current zoning regulations, with some recognition of additional infrastructure needs.
Many different factors impact whether land is developed. In many areas, lands closer to existing built areas are more likely to be developed. Planners often assume that sewered areas are more likely to develop than other areas. Since the Highlands is a unique region, these broad assumptions were not seen as entirely reliable. Therefore, an econometric analysis was done to determine which factors were most important in driving change between 1995 and 2000, and—by reapplying them—to identify areas more likely to change in the future. An econometric model considers the many different factors that might impact property values that lead to decisions about whether to develop properties. The model assumes that past development has been a reflection of market forces, and that future change will be determined by those same forces.
The econometric analysis looks at two past moments in time (for example, Year A and Year B) and compares the change between the two. It also looks at many different known conditions in Year A, such as whether places are near urban areas or whether they are in sewered areas. The analysis then examines whether

any conditions were more closely related to the points that changed between Year A and B than they were related to the conditions that did not change. Finally, a statistical process helps to discard irrelevant conditions and provides measures of impact for the remaining factors. This final product of the analysis can be applied to the current factors as a measure of the likelihood of future change. While this analysis is informed by economic theory, it should not be confused with an economic analysis of the region.

Build-Out Analysis

The build-out analysis for the Highlands first removed from consideration places where population would not change. In order to show potential patterns of varying impacts, two different scenarios were constructed:

• Low-constraint scenario of areas that presumably would develop if existing policies (including zoning) were continued unchanged indefinitely (Figure 3-3), and

• High-constraint scenario of areas that presumably would develop if some policies (excluding zoning) were changed to increase the constraints on future development (Figure 3-4).

For both scenarios, areas that are already built as densely as allowed by current zoning were removed from consideration. Commercially and industrially zoned areas were also removed as places for future population change.
A map of areas where population could change was developed. These areas were then analyzed to compare the number of households allowed by zoning and the number of persons that might live in each household. In areas where new development was calculated, 20 percent of the area was removed to account for future infrastructure necessary to support the new development. The final numbers were summarized to describe the ultimate population that could inhabit the area.

Limitations of Build-Out Analysis

Although zoning and associated policies will certainly change in the future, the build-out analysis of the Highlands provides a meaningful measure of the capacity of an area under an assumed set of constraints. To understand the results of the analysis, it is important to recognize some of the limitations, including problems related to:

• The temporal nature of the data assumptions;
• Generalized zoning data; and
• The scale of analysis.

One of the basic problems with this type of analysis is that it relies heavily on current zoning data. Each of the 108 municipalities in the Highlands has the opportunity to change zoning for individual properties each month. Almost as quickly as a zoning map can be compiled, it begins to fade in its ability to reflect the zoning of the region. While some of the zoning adjustments are insignificant, a municipality could adopt a new plan for a new town center or apartment complexes that will lead to dramatic increases in population. This change would not be reflected in the build-out analysis and would result in an underestimate of future population. Also, additional properties will inevitably be bought or protected as open space, reducing the final built area and population numbers as compared with the build-out analysis. More dramatic policies and projects that were not included in this analysis such as new highways, environmental regulations, and land acquisition can all work to change the future of the Highlands.
A build-out analysis is based on a series of assumptions that are fairly limiting. Aside from the temporal assumption described previously, a build-out analysis assumes that all buildable properties will be built to their fullest capacity and that the houses built will hold the area’s average number of people per household. These assumptions may reflect large regional trends but can be problematic in areas with unusual patterns of change, such as a sudden shift to two-person households, i.e., “empty nesters.”
In order to analyze the entire region, the zoning ordinances from more than 100 different municipalities were generalized to make them comparable. Local variations and distinctions in the zoning ordinances get lost in this sort of analysis. The build-out analysis for the Highlands was conducted with an awareness of these issues in an attempt to minimize their impact, but many subtleties and complex mechanisms suffered from this necessary generalization.
Finally, because the build-out analysis for the Highlands was conducted at a large regional scale, it was impossible to include some of the careful intertwining of development and constrained areas. For example, a 100-acre parcel with 50 acres of wetlands and wetlands buffer might sometimes be carefully subdivided into 5-acre lots in a spatial arrangement that still achieves the maximum 20 houses, without infringing upon the wetlands. The build-out analysis would calculate the area as having room for only ten 5-acre lots.

Criteria for the Low-Constraint Scenario

The intent of the low-constraint scenario was to map those areas that presumably would develop if existing policies remain unchanged indefinitely. The following areas were excluded from this scenario:

• Known public lands and protected lands (this includes State parks, local parks, Federal properties, and known conservation easements);
• Open water with 50-foot distance buffers;
• Wetlands with 50-foot distance buffers;
• Slopes over 33 percent;
• Areas zoned for nonresidential use; and

• Residential areas already built to their zoning capacity.

The known public lands included only those water supply lands that were known to the study team to be permanently protected lands. For example, portions of the Newark water supply areas that are not protected by New Jersey’s Green Acres Program (Appendix I) were considered eligible for development under the low-constraint scenario. For this scenario, wetlands were delineated based on the existing maps from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection delineation of regulated fresh water wetlands.
These constraints are based on a series of assumptions designed to reflect realistic patterns of future development. The 33 percent limitation on slope does not reflect existing zoning limitations in most places, but is meant to approximate a significant reduction of housing density on particularly steep slopes. The distance buffers do not generally reflect existing policies, but reflect that a limited amount of housing would be built directly on streambanks and edges of wetland areas.

Criteria for the High-Constraint Scenario

The intent of the high-constraint scenario was to map those areas that presumably would develop if current policies and conditions were modified to provide additional environmental protections. The following areas were excluded from this scenario:

• Known public lands and protected lands (this includes State parks, local parks, Federal properties, known conservation easements, and all water supply lands);
• Open water with 200-foot distance buffers;
• Wetlands with 150-foot distance buffers;
• Slopes over 15 percent;
• Areas zoned for nonresidential use; and

• Residential areas already built to their zoning capacity.

The known public lands included all water supply lands as permanently protected lands. The wetlands for the high-constraint map differed for each State. For New Jersey, the Department of Environmental Protection’s delineation of wetlands was combined with the National Wetlands Inventory. For New York, Department of Environmental Conservation data were combined with the National Wetlands Inventory (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000).

Potential future constraints are difficult to determine, but the existing constraints were expanded based on patterns in other areas. The buffers used reflect some of the more restrictive buffers in forestry and planning regulations. The 15 percent limitation on slope reflects some of the more recent zoning ordinances in the greater New York – New Jersey region. These constraints help to compensate for other future constraints that are not plausible to include, such as private deed-restricted properties, sewer-related limitations, and future zoning changes.

Results of the Build-Out Analysis
Comparison of the low-constraint population density (Figure 3-5) with the high-constraint population density (Figure 3-6) illustrates significant differences. The low-constraint scenario, perhaps a more realistic reflection of the current regulatory limitations, showed a population increase of 47.6 percent (Figure 3-7, Table 3-4). Under the high-constraint model, the population for the Highlands as a whole could increase by about 26.3 percent (Figure 3-8). Under both scenarios, rates of growth would be similar.
While the build-out analysis is a temporal measure of potential change, it can offer a glimpse of the existing problem. Under the assumptions of the build-out scenarios and the assumption that the Highlands population continues to grow at the same rate as it did between 1990 and 2000 (an average annual rate of about 1.1 percent), build-out would be reached by the next generation; however, these assumptions do not reflect the more complex growth patterns that would surely occur. Under the high-constraint scenario, build-out would be reached in 2021, and under the low-constraint scenario, build-out would be reached in 2035. These numbers suggest that the bulk of available lands will be committed within only a few decades (20-30 years).

Under the low-constraint scenario, six different Highlands municipalities were already zoned in a manner that would allow more than a tripling of the population:

• Patterson Town (Putnam County, NY);
• Hardystown Township (Sussex County, NJ);
• Franklin Township (Warren County, NJ);
• Greenwich Township (Warren County, NJ);
• Harmony Township (Warren County, NJ); and

• White Township (Warren County, NJ).

Thirteen municipalities appeared to already be at or near build-out, with less than a 1 percent population increase under the low-constraint scenario. While this may mean that these municipalities have limited growth potential, it might instead reflect local zoning practices.

Econometric Analysis

The goal of the econometric analysis was to identify the forces involved in market-driven change and use those forces to identify lands most likely to change.
More than 4,000 randomly sampled points were compared across the Highlands. These points were selected from properties that were identified as undeveloped in 1995 and that were subject to market forces between 1995 and 2000. The analysis separated the points from properties that developed over that time period from those that did not.
The Highlands, as defined for this analysis, includes some extremely different areas. The unglaciated river valley farmlands of Hunterdon County are not subject to the same combination of market forces as are the ridgetops of the East Hudson Highlands. To reflect local processes, the Highlands was divided into four subregions, to reflect both policy differences (particularly across State lines) and physical patterns. The analysis did achieve a better “fit” for the regression curve using the subregions than for the total Highlands region.
A number of spatial variables were identified as being possible factors, with each sample point being evaluated for each variable. These factors were ultimately considered as part of the analysis:

• Distance to nearest existing developed lands;
• Participation in the Forest Stewardship Program (Appendix I);
• Floodprone areas;
• Prime farmland soils;
• Slope (angle of terrain);
• Distance to the nearest water body;
• Census measures of population density (by block group);
• Census measures of housing density (by block group);
• Census estimates of home value (by block group);
• Travel distance to employment centers;
• Travel distance to train stations;
• Travel distance to New York City;
• Zoning type (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial); and

• Zoning density (based on minimum lot sizes).

The randomly selected points and the full list of factors were analyzed using a statistical technique called multinomial logit regression. The analyses (run once for each of the four regions) identified the degree to which each factor was related to the change that occurred. Based on this past history of change from 1995 to 2000, these factors were updated and reevaluated to identify the current likelihood of change.

Limitations of Econometric Analysis

While the econometric analysis is a useful tool, it is easily misinterpreted if the assumptions are not fully understood. Limitations include issues relating to:

• Specific factors,
• Limited history,
• Scale, and

• Economic assumptions.

One simple limitation is that the model is limited by the factors that it provides. Several important factors, like prior home sale values, were simply unavailable at a consistent level across the Highlands region.
Another important limitation is that some of the forces determining future development are almost impossible to model. Recent history is insufficient to predict how the more unusual parcels, like the larger, privately held tracts within Sterling Forest, might develop. It is also worth noting that the model is based on patterns of development over the years 1995-2000. Any short-term anomalous trends during that period could affect the model. An example might be a town that had a short building moratorium due to a problem with infrastructure, such as sewers or schools. Even though the circumstance no longer exists, the reduced development rate would still be reflected in the analysis.
The final likelihood of change analysis was performed at a regional scale resulting in data in a grid cell format (approximately 100- by 100-foot grid cells). However, the actual development pattern will occur at a resolution determined by existing property lines. For regional analysis, parcel maps are unavailable, so the grid cell approach is necessary. This approach provides a meaningful representation of market pressures at the regional scale, but it may not match well with individual parcels or provide the detail needed for local decisionmaking.
The econometric analysis is appropriate only for considering lands for which market forces can be considered to be in effect. This means that a property (such as a municipal property) that is being held for development is understood to have decisions about its development determined by more than simple free market economics. This does not mean that the property is not available for development, but it does suggest that the property is not affected by the same forces as other properties.

Results of the Econometric Analysis

After analyzing past change, the model produced a complex formula for each of the four sub-regions describing the interaction of the factors impacting development. The formula was then applied to produce a map of likelihood of change (Figure 3-9). The map shows several areas as being most likely to change. The Interstate Highway 78, Interstate Highway 80, and Interstate Highway 87 corridors all appear as areas more likely for future development. The map also shows areas in which change is less likely to occur, or perhaps in which development will occur less intensely. Included are some of the northernmost and southernmost parts of the Highlands.

Key Findings:

• In the build-out analysis, the low-constraint scenario identified areas that would develop if existing policies (including zoning) were continued unchanged. Under this model, the Highlands population could increase by 47.6 percent.
• The high-constraint scenario identified areas that would develop if some policies (excluding zoning) were changed to increase constraints on future development. Under this model, the Highlands population could increase by 26.3 percent.
• The econometric analysis divided the Highlands into four subregions to reflect policy differences and physical patterns, especially across State lines. Results showed that the Interstate Highway 78, Interstate Highway 80, and Interstate Highway 87 transportation corridors are most likely to be developed in the future, while the northernmost and southernmost areas of the Highlands are least likely to change.

Possible Consequences of Future Change
to Resources

Changes in Land Use and Land Cover

As continued human activity is the primary factor shaping the New York – New Jersey Highlands region, a better understanding of past and present trends in land use and land cover change was a critical component of this study. Accordingly, a land use and land cover analysis was undertaken with a twofold objective: (1) to provide a consistent assessment of present day (2000) land use and land cover across the two-State Highlands study area; and (2) to perform an analysis of land cover changes since 1972. A combination of Landsat Thematic Mapper and Multispectral Scanner satellite imagery, digital orthophotography, and existing State and county level data sets were used for the analysis. While the best possible effort was made to map land use and land cover with a high accuracy and consistent manner across the various time periods and entire study area, some error was inevitable. Due to the lesser reliability of the 1972 data set, more detailed change analyses excluded the 1972 data. Thus the land use and land cover data should be considered estimates with some margin of error. For more details of the analysis, see the New York – New Jersey Highlands Technical Report.
The Highlands contain a diversity of land uses and land covers. While extensive areas of the Highlands consist of large contiguous tracts of semiwilderness forest and watershed lands, the Highlands study area also contains other landscape types including river valley agricultural areas with scattered villages; rural areas with a mix of housing, woods, and fields; suburban towns; and small cities. The land use and land cover analysis shows that while forest land still dominates, human development has increased steadily from 1972 to 2000 (Table 3-5). Typical of the spatial patterns associated with urban sprawl, the tracts of new development are widely dispersed throughout the New York – New Jersey Highlands region (Figure 3-10). Both farm and forest land have been converted to residential and commercial land uses to meet the demands of a growing regional population. Analysis of the change during 1995 to 2000 indicates that the annual rate of forest loss to development is increasing, while the amount of farmland loss is decreasing (Table 3-6). This shift may reflect the amount of readily available land close to the New York City metropolitan area with farmland developed first and a more recent shifting to developing forested tracts.

Landscape Indicators of Forest and Watershed Integrity

There has been a great push by Federal land-management agencies to develop land cover data sets and indicators that are suitable for measuring and monitoring land cover and associated environmental change across broad landscape regions. A suite of landscape-level indicators were chosen to quantify important components of the Highlands land use and land cover as one means of measuring the condition of the New York – New Jersey Highlands forests and watersheds:

1. Percentages of altered and unaltered land cover;
2. Indices of forest fragmentation;
3. Percentage of impervious surface cover; and

4. Percentage of the riparian areas of permanent streams that is in a vegetated, as compared to developed, condition.

The land use and land cover mapping, described under Changes in Land Use and Land Cover earlier in this section, served as the basis for the development of these landscape indicators. They were analyzed on a watershed basis, aggregating results to the level of Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 11 watersheds, which have an average area of about 50 square miles. There are 51 complete or partial HUC 11 watersheds within the New York – New Jersey Highlands study area. The four indicators were calculated for each of the 51 watersheds for each of the 3 years for which land use and land cover were established—1984, 1995, and 2000. This was done to permit analysis of existing trends and to estimate possible future conditions (low- and high-constraint buildout scenarios). The relationships between the selected landscape indicators and independently measured environmental parameters were examined to assist in identifying thresholds that may signify high potential for environmental degradation.
The amount of altered land within a watershed provides a useful indicator of watershed condition and the likelihood of degraded water quality. Altered land includes the following land use and land cover types that have minimal native vegetation (e.g., forest and wetlands): developed, farmland/grassland, and barren land cover types. Developed land represents land that is in some form of urban land use (i.e., commercial, industrial, residential). Developed land may actually have several different types of land covers, e.g., development or impervious surface (buildings, roads, driveways, parking lots, sidewalks), lawns, and bare soil.
Analysis of altered versus unaltered land was conducted to evaluate the percentage of the watershed that is or might be in land cover types that would likely have a negative impact on water quality, due to factors such as point and nonpoint source pollution and soil erosion (see Changes in Water Resources later in this section). No watershed with more than 50 percent of its area in developed land had high quality surface waters, based on New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation State stream water classification data. The basins with the most degraded aquatic biological communities were those with approximately 50 percent developed land cover. The indicator analysis shows a general trend towards increasing altered land cover between 1984 and 2000 (Figure 3-11). Depending on the build-out scenario, the number of watersheds with more than 50 percent altered land cover could more than double (Figure 3-11). This increase in altered land indicates that threats to Highlands water quality are expected to increase. For more information, see the New York – New Jersey Highlands Technical Report.
Impervious surface cover is increasingly being used as a landscape level indicator of nonpoint source pollution and watershed health. Impervious surface cover reduces the amount of infiltration of water into the soil and increases runoff directly to stream systems, exacerbating stream “flashiness” and flooding problems. The amount of impervious surface within each HUC 11 watershed basin was estimated based on the land use and land cover data. Watersheds with more than 10 percent impervious surface were flagged as likely showing negative impacts on water quality and stream flashiness. A 10 percent impervious surface threshold is widely used in the water resources literature (Arnold and Gibbons 1996, Schueler 1998) and is backed up by our findings in the Highlands. The indicator analysis shows a general trend towards increasing impervious surface cover between 1984 and 2000 (Figure 3-12). Depending on the build-out scenario, the number of watersheds with greater than 10 percent impervious surface cover could more than triple or quadruple (Figure 3-12). This increase in impervious surface cover indicates that negative impacts to Highlands water quality are expected to increase. For more information, see the New York – New Jersey Highlands Technical Report.
Protecting wetlands and floodplains and establishing riparian buffer strips around lakes and streams where human development is excluded or minimized are “best management practices” that are often advocated as a means of reducing the impact of developed land uses on surface water quality. In addition to reducing nonpoint source pollution, soil erosion, and flooding impacts, riparian buffer zones serve as vital habitat for both upland and wetland-dependent species.
The percent of the riparian zones in altered and unaltered land covers was estimated on a HUC 11 watershed basis in the study area. The indicator analysis shows that alteration of riparian zones increased between 1984 and 2000 (Figure 3-13). The two build-out scenarios show a very different response in relation to riparian zone protection. The low-constraint scenario shows a large increase in riparian zone development and alteration, while the high-constraint scenario (which incorporates wider wetland buffers) remains largely unchanged from the present situation. The results of the high-constraint build-out scenario suggest that increasing the wetland buffer width will help to protect sensitive riparian zones (and thereby surface water quality), even with increasing development (Figure 3-13).

Large expanses of contiguous forest are one of the notable characteristics of the Highlands. These upland and wetland forests serve to protect the integrity of ground water and surface water supplies as well as serve as critical habitat to a number of plant and animal species. Two parameters were analyzed as indicators of forest integrity: (1) the amount of interior or core forest habitat (i.e., the forest that is unfragmented with minimal “edge”) in each watershed basin, and (2) the percent of overall forest cover by breeding bird atlas survey blocks (Andrle and Carroll 1988, Walsh and others 1999). The indicator analysis shows that the amount of overall forest and the unfragmented interior forest decreased between 1984 and 2000 (Figure 3-14). Under the build-out scenarios, the amounts of these indicators would continue to decline, suggesting that the integrity of the Highlands forests would be further compromised (Figure 3-14). For more information, see the New York – New Jersey Highlands Technical Report.
The analysis of landscape indicators coupled with the build-out analysis was developed to serve as a planning tool to provide a way to analyze “what if” scenarios. It is not an “absolute” prediction of future conditions at any particular point in time. Rather, it suggests what might be expected to happen based on existing patterns and trends and under the various assumptions contained in the build-out analyses.
The build-out scenarios suggest a very different picture of the Highlands region than what currently exists. After build-out, large areas of presently rural landscape would be replaced with tract-style development and dispersed large-lot housing, leading to a more suburban-mixed rural landscape. Extensive areas of river valley farms would be converted to large lot development and “farmettes,” further isolating “working” farms that are presently part of New York and New Jersey’s Farmland Preservation Programs (Appendix I). Existing public open space areas would provide a remnant core of forested upland in the north-central Highlands but would become further isolated as the existing forest matrix undergoes continued conversion and fragmentation.

Key Findings:

• The analysis of Highlands watersheds by the U.S. Geological Survey demonstrates that watersheds with more than 50 percent altered land show compromised water quality.
• The number of watersheds with more than 50 percent altered land cover could more than double in the future. There was a general trend toward increasing altered land cover during the 1980s and 1990s, with a third of watershed basins dominated by altered land covers (i.e., greater than 50 percent developed, cultivated, or barren land) in the year 2000. Approximately 50 percent of basins in the high-constraint scenario and more than 70 percent of basins in the low-constraint scenario have more than 50 percent altered land cover.
• As impervious surface cover increased above 10 percent, the overall stream water quality fell from a high water quality standard. A comparison of stream water quality classification and the percentage of impervious surface cover on a HUC-11 watershed basis for New Jersey basins showed that those basins that were ranked as having the highest water quality had an impervious surface cover of 10 percent or less.
• The number of watersheds with more than 10 percent impervious surface cover could more than triple to quadruple. Analysis shows a general trend towards increasing impervious surface cover, with more than 15 percent of the watershed basins in the year 2000 surpassing the 10 percent threshold. More than 50 percent of basins in the high-constraint scenario to more than 70 percent of basins in the low-constraint scenario had more than 10 percent impervious surface cover.

• The alteration of riparian zones increased between 1984 and 2000. In 2000 approximately 75 percent of watersheds had riparian zones with more than 25 percent altered land cover. A smaller subset of watersheds (approximately 13 percent), primarily those in agriculture-dominated landscapes, had more than 50 percent of the riparian zone
in altered land covers.
• The two build-out scenarios show different responses in relation to riparian zone protection. In the high-constraint scenario (which incorporated wider wetland buffers), riparian zone development and alteration increased only slightly (to 20 percent) from the situation in 2000, while the low-constraint scenario showed a large increase (to 47 percent). The results of the high-constraint build-out scenario suggest that increasing the buffer distance will help to protect sensitive riparian zones and thereby enhance surface water quality.
• A threshold of 70 percent or more forest cover was identified as prime habitat for interior nesting birds and raptor species. Analysis of the 1995 New Jersey breeding bird atlas survey block data in relation to the Highlands land use and land cover indicates a significant decline

in the number of observed forest interior species at both the 70 percent and 25 percent levels of forest cover. In the year 2000, 22 percent of the survey blocks were considered prime forest habitat for forest interior nesting birds or raptors. Under the low-constraint scenario, the number
of prime forest habitat blocks decreased by 38 percent to where only
13 percent of the Highlands were considered prime forest habitat.
• Analysis of interior forest cover shows a steady decline from
15 watersheds in 1984 to only 9 watersheds in 2000 that have more
than 40 percent interior forest cover. Under the build-out scenarios,
the amount of interior forest habitat further decreased, especially in
the low-constraint scenario, in which only 5 watersheds had more than
40 percent interior forest.

Changes in Water Resources

Land use can affect the quality, quantity, and distribution of water recharging an aquifer or running overland to streams. An increase in impervious surfaces, such as parking lots, buildings, and roads, decreases the amount of land through which precipitation can infiltrate and recharge an aquifer. Water that does not infiltrate the ground increases the amount of runoff, with potential increases in soil erosion, flooding, and surface-water contamination. The loss of recharge water also changes the timing of streamflow. Less ground water flows to streams as baseflow during dry periods and more surface water flows to streams as immediate runoff during wet periods. These changes in the hydrology of a watershed are accompanied by ecological and hydrological impacts: increased flooding during high-intensity rain storms, stressed ecosystems, decreased water-supply storage during droughts, and degraded water quality.

Water Budget

The effect of the high- and low-constraint scenarios on Highlands water budgets were evaluated using the watershed model described in this section. In this model, projected increases in impervious surfaces and ground water withdrawals drive the change in water budget components between 1995 and the build-out scenarios. Model simulations show little change in water budgets between high- and low-constraint scenarios. Therefore, the low-constraint scenario was used because it represents the worst-case conditions.
Model-simulated differences in runoff, baseflow, total streamflow, and evapotranspiration between 1995 conditions and the low-constraint scenario are shown in Figure 3-15 for 182 HUC 14 subwatersheds plotted in order of increasing impervious surface cover. (Subwatersheds that are designated by HUC 14 have an average area of about 8 square miles.) Trend lines clearly show the relationship of increasing impervious surface to each water budget component. As the percentage of impervious surface in a subwatershed increases, direct runoff increases, baseflow decreases, total streamflow increases (runoff increases more than baseflow decreases), and evapotranspiration decreases.
The increased rate at which the components deviate from 1995 conditions for watersheds with a projected increase of 15 percent or more impervious surface cover is also significant. The degree of change is measured in inches per year over a drainage area. To bring this into perspective, note that average mean annual streamflow for Highlands watersheds is about 25 inches per year, average baseflow is about 18.5 inches per year, and average runoff is about 6.75 inches per year. Figure 3-15 suggests a potential 50 percent or more increase in runoff in watersheds that are projected to have an increase in impervious surface of 15 percent or greater. The trend line for baseflow suggests about a 10 percent decrease in baseflow.

Figure 3-16 shows the degree to which streamflow characteristics of runoff and baseflow are predicted to change at the subwatershed scale based on the change between the simulated water budgets for 1995 and the low-constraint scenario. The areas of moderate and greatest change are directly related to the increase in impervious surface (Figure 3-15) and water withdrawals. These areas include subwatersheds drained by the Wallkill, Lamington, Musconetcong, Pequest, Rockaway, Pequannock, Ramapo, and Pompton Rivers, and Lopatcong and Pohatcong Creeks. The greater the degree of change in streamflow characteristics, the more these watersheds would show increases in runoff, decreases in ground water recharge, and decreases in stream baseflow. Increased monitoring of ground- and surface-water quality and quantity is warranted in areas expected to undergo significant development, particularly in areas where there is little existing data.

Available Water

A water budget analysis provides an estimate of how water moves through a watershed, but cannot directly determine the amount of water available to meet increased water-supply needs without overstressing the resource. Safe yield, which indicates how much water a surface water reservoir can provide based on the drought of record, has been calculated for all surface water reservoirs in the Highlands, as was discussed in Section 2 under Surface Water—Streams, Rivers, and Reservoirs. Ground water resources also have sustainable or dependable yields (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy 1992). Continuous declines in ground water levels, adverse impacts upon other wells, and unacceptable depletion of streamflow within a watershed are indicators that the sustainable yield of ground water is being exceeded.
Quantifying the sustainable yield from a ground water source is difficult. For planning purposes, the New Jersey Statewide Water Supply Plan (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 1996) assumed that 20 percent of ground water recharge is available for human use with no acceptable regional impacts in noncoastal plain aquifers. There are concerns, however, with using the 20 percent threshold for watershed-specific management decisions (New Jersey Water Supply Authority 2000). Taking these concerns into account, and for the purpose of analysis, both a 20 percent and 10 percent threshold of ground water recharge was used to determine Highlands watersheds that are the most sensitive to current and forecasted increases in ground water withdrawals.
Model-calculated baseflow within a HUC 11 watershed was assumed to equal ground water recharge within that watershed. Ground water withdrawals from the 1995 and the low-constraint development simulations were subtracted from 20 percent and 10 percent of the total ground water recharge for each watershed. The results are displayed for 1995 in Figure 3-17 and for the low-constraint scenario in Figure 3-18. For 1995 conditions, ground water withdrawals exceeded 20 percent of ground water recharge in the HUC 11 watershed drained by the Whippany

River. This result is consistent with long-term water-level declines in the Whippany River basin that indicate ground water withdrawals are exceeding the rate of recharge to the aquifer (Illustration 2-2B, page 18). Using the 10 percent threshold of ground water recharge to represent sustainable yields, HUC 11 watersheds drained by the Ramapo River in New York and New Jersey, the upper Musconetcong River, the Pequest River, and tributaries of the upper Delaware River in Warren County, New Jersey—in addition to the Whippany—are the most sensitive to ground water withdrawals.
Based on the predicted population increase for the low-constraint scenario and water use of 85 gallons per day per person, an estimated additional 52.4 million gallons per day of ground water was assumed to be withdrawn from aquifers underlying the watersheds in the modeled area. The results of taking the difference of the total withdrawals from 20 percent and 10 percent of model calculated baseflow for the low-constraint scenario is shown in Figure 3-18. Ground water withdrawals exceeded 20 percent of aquifer recharge for this scenario in watersheds drained by the Ramapo, Whippany, and Pequest Rivers, upper Delaware tributaries, and Lopatcong Creek. Using a sustainable yield threshold of 10 percent, watersheds drained by the Rockaway and Upper Musconetcong Rivers were added to the watersheds previously mentioned as being the most sensitive to ground water withdrawals.

Key Findings:

• Water budget analysis of 182 Highlands subwatersheds shows that as impervious surface cover increases, direct-runoff increases, baseflow decreases, and evapotranspiration decreases.
• The predicted rate of change in runoff, baseflow, and evapotranspiration increased significantly for subwatersheds with a projected increase of 15 percent or more impervious surface cover over conditions existing in 1995.
• Water budget calculations indicate a potential 50 percent or more increase in runoff, and a 10 percent or more decrease in baseflow,
in subwatersheds with increases of impervious surface greater than 15 percent.
• The increase in impervious surface, as projected by the high- and low-constraint build-out scenarios, had a greater impact on changing Highlands water budgets than did the estimated increase in ground water withdrawals by the projected larger population. However, both were predominant factors driving the change in water budgets.

• Streamflow characteristics would be most affected in HUC 14 subwatersheds drained by the Wallkill, Lamington, Musconetcong, Pequest, Rockaway, Pequannock, Ramapo, and Pompton Rivers, and Lopatcong and Pohatcong Creeks, owing to the increase in impervious surface cover and water withdrawals projected by the future development and population growth scenarios.
• Loss of recharge water for aquifers, increased flooding during high-intensity rain storms, stressed ecosystems, decreased water-supply storage during droughts, and degraded water quality have been attributed to increases in impervious surface cover. Increased monitoring of ground and surface water quality and quantity is warranted in areas expected to undergo significant development particularly in areas where there may be little existing data.
• For 1995 conditions, ground water withdrawals exceeded 20 percent of ground water recharge only in the HUC 11 watersheds drained by the Whippany River. Using the 10 percent threshold to represent sustainable yields, HUC 11 watersheds drained by the Ramapo River in New York and New Jersey, the upper Musconetcong River, the Pequest River, and tributaries of the upper Delaware River in Warren County, New Jersey—in addition to the Whippany—are the most sensitive to ground water withdrawals.
• Based on the predicted population increase in the low-constraint scenario, and water use of 85 gallons per day per person, an estimated additional withdrawal of 52.4 million gallons per day was assumed from aquifers underlying the watersheds within the watershed model area. Ground water withdrawals exceed 20 percent of aquifer recharge for this scenario in watersheds drained by the Ramapo, Whippany, and Pequest Rivers, upper Delaware tributaries, and Lopatcong Creek. Using a sustainable yield threshold of 10 percent, watersheds drained by the Rockaway and Upper Musconetcong Rivers are added to the watersheds previously mentioned.

Resources at Risk

To identify areas with high resource conservation value that are not presently protected from land conversion or development, results of this study were evaluated in two ways. First, the mapped results of the Conservation Values Assessment (Figure 2-25, page 77) were overlaid on maps of the existing network of publicly and privately owned lands that are in some type of “permanent” conservation protection, such as Federal, State, county and local parks, forests and wildlife management areas, watershed and agricultural lands in conservation easement, and nonprofit land trust holdings (Figure 2-17, page 64). Military and watershed management lands serve as quasi-open space but were considered unprotected.
Major clusters and large contiguous tracts that are unprotected and had values of 4 or 5 from the Conservation Values Assessment were identified as “conservation focal areas” that deserve special consideration for protection through land purchase, conservation easements or other means (Figure 3-19). These conservation focal areas include high value lands that serve to connect existing publicly or privately owned conservation lands into larger local networks of open space as well as provide regional scale connectivity along the northeast-southwest axis of the broader Highlands area. The letters in the following list correspond to the locations shown in Figure 3-19.

A. Depot Hill/Pawling/West Mountain/Great Swamp area in Putnam and Dutchess counties, New York. This forested upland and rich riverine wetlands complex anchors the northeast corner of the study area and continues north further into Dutchess County and northeast into Connecticut. This focal area was ranked highly in the Conservation Values Assessment due primarily to its value for water resources, productive forest land, and biodiversity.
B. East Hudson Highlands in Dutchess and Putnam counties, New York. There are large tracts of forested ridges and valleys that could be connected to provide a contiguous expanse between Hudson Highlands State Park on the west to Breakneck Ridge on the north to Clarence Fahnestock State Park on the east and along the Appalachian Trail corridor to Camp Smith in the south. This focal area was ranked highly due to its value for productive forest land, biodiversity, and recreation.
C. Fort Defiance Hill and Canopus Valley, Putnam and Westchester counties, New York. This corridor of upland ridges and forested valley connects Anthony’s Nose and Camp Smith in the south with Clarence Fahnestock State Park in the north and includes the Appalachian National Scenic Trail corridor. This focal area was ranked highly due to its value for biodiversity and recreation.
D. West end of New Croton Reservoir, Westchester County, New York. There are large tracts of forested uplands (Dickerson Mountain, Salt Hill to Prickly Pear Hill) that would serve to connect Blue Mountain

Reservation on the west and Franklin D. Roosevelt State Park on the north and Teatown Lake Reserve in the south. This focal area was ranked highly due to its value for water resources and biodiversity, and secondarily for recreation.
E. Tuxedo and Arden Farms area, Orange County, New York. There are some major unprotected lands in high resource value zones adjacent to the existing Sterling Forest and Harriman State parks. This focal area was ranked highly due to its value for water resources, productive forest land, and biodiversity.
F. Ramapo Mountains and Torne Valley, Bergen County, New Jersey, and Rockland County, New York. There are some major unprotected lands in high resource value zones surrounding the Wanaque Reservoir that would connect existing State and county parks and forests in these two heavily utilized recreational areas. This focal area was ranked highly due to its value for water resources, biodiversity, and recreation.
G. Wyanokie and Farny Highlands, Passaic and Bergen counties, New Jersey. There are some major unprotected lands in nearby Wanaque and Split Rock reservoirs that would connect existing State and county parks and forests in these two heavily utilized recreational areas. This focal area was ranked highly due to its value for water resources and recreation, and secondarily for biodiversity and forest land.
H. Pequannock Watershed area in Morris, Passaic, and Sussex counties, New Jersey. This critical watershed area serves as the core of the northern New Jersey Highlands and serves as a major hub connecting existing open space areas. Major gaps in conservation protection include the adjacent areas of Sparta Mountain and the Farny Highlands. This focal area was ranked highly due to its multiple values for water resources, forest land, biodiversity, and recreation.
I. Sparta Mountain/Lubber’s Run area in Morris and Sussex counties, New Jersey. The wooded ridges of Sparta Mountain and Lubber’s Run valley provide an important greenway corridor connecting Mahlon Dickerson Reservation in the north and Allamuchy Mountain State Park in the south. Major gaps in conservation protection include the nearby areas of Mase Mountain. This focal area was ranked highly due to its value for productive forest land, biodiversity, and recreation.
J. Upper Pohatcong/Pequest area in Warren County, New Jersey. These forested ridges and wetlands centered around the Pequest Wildlife Management Area serve as an important ground water recharge, wildlife habitat, and outdoor recreation area. This focal area was ranked highly due to its value for water resources and recreation and secondarily for its productive forest and farm land.

K. Scott Mountain/Musconetcong Ridge area in Warren and Hunterdon counties, New Jersey. These forested ridges and the neighboring productive farmland of the Delaware, Pohatcong, and Musconetcong valleys form a large contiguous area of high-quality rural landscape. This focal area was ranked highly due to its value for biodiversity and productive farmland, and secondarily for forest land and recreation.

Table 3-7 lists the acreages of protected and unprotected lands by resource and conservation value. Additional high value lands in need of protection that were not identified as conservation focal areas are scattered throughout the Highlands. Protecting only the higher ranked lands with a conservation value of 4 or 5 is not necessarily sufficient to achieve the stated goals of maintaining Highlands water resources, biodiversity, recreational opportunities, and productive farmland and forestland. Lower ranked lands should also receive consideration in future land use planning, and in natural resource and watershed management decisions. This analysis does not provide an exhaustive compilation of all possible conservation focal areas in the Highlands. The data presented are intended for regional analyses and discussion; however, local-level data will be accessible through an interactive mapping Web site being developed by Rutgers University’s Center for Remote Sensing and Spatial Analysis as part of the New York – New Jersey Highlands Technical Report.
As a second means of evaluating conservation priorities, we used the results of the econometric analysis to highlight those areas with the highest probability of change in the short term and then cross-tabulated them with the results of the conservation values assessment (Figure 3-20). The results were reclassed into four categories:

Category* Acres Percent**

I High likelihood of change, high conservation value 98,114 14.9
II Low likelihood of change, high conservation value 338,462 51.4
III High likelihood of change, low conservation value 86,531 13.1

IV Low likelihood of change, low conservation value 135,786 20.6

*Lands given a value of 3 or more in the Conservation Values Assessment were classified as having a high conservation value.
**Percent figures are based on the area of land determined to be available for future development in the study area.

Approximately 100,000 acres of the New York – New Jersey Highlands region was categorized as having a high likelihood of change and higher conservation value, and represents those areas that should be considered priorities for future open space purchases and land use planning. These Category I lands might also be expected to have higher per acre land purchase or easement costs due to high development pressure. This higher land cost as well as smaller parcel sizes are expected to complicate open space protection efforts. A much larger area of approximately 340,000 acres was categorized low likelihood of change, high conservation value in the short term (Category II). Many of the large tracts of high conservation value lands identified as conservation focal areas fall into this category and therefore represent opportunities for open space protection at a potentially lower cost per acre.

Quality water supply
1 Lowest value 10,367.56 5.31 184,849.17 94.69 195,216.73
2 Lower value 140,774.02 26.32 394,145.43 73.68 534,919.45
3 Medium value 71,587.05 23.50 233,074.62 76.50 304,661.67
4 Higher value 37,248.98 15.66 200,540.17 84.34 237,789.15
5 Highest value 51,642.76 36.07 91,538.45 63.93 143,181.21

Totals 311,620.37 -- 1,104,147.84 -- 1,415,768.21

Productive forest
1 Lowest value 12,015.72 11.62 91,374.11 88.38 103,389.83
2 Lower value 22,994.42 13.52 147,054.43 86.48 170,048.85
3 Medium value 23,009.10 21.99 81,605.45 78.01 104,614.55
4 Higher value 97,719.23 46.10 114,259.11 53.90 211,978.34
5 Highest value 87,894.75 55.71 69,889.96 44.29 157,784.71

Totals 243,633.22 -- 504,183.06 -- 747,816.28
Contiguous interior
forest habitat*** 197,527.62 47.46 218,654.82 52.54 416,182.44

Biodiversity
1 Lowest value 25,136.74 15.10 141,362.92 84.90 166,499.66
2 Lower value 3,731.10 18.20 16,770.50 81.80 20,501.60
3 Medium value 33,158.94 15.77 177,136.77 84.23 210,295.71
4 Higher value 125,781.56 36.76 216,371.28 63.24 342,152.84
5 Highest value 89,321.63 44.91 109,566.60 55.09 198,888.23

Totals 277,129.97 -- 661,208.07 -- 938,338.04

Productive farmland
1 Lowest value 2,129.42 9.15 21,149.66 90.85 23,279.08
2 Lower value 510.17 3.00 16,502.07 97.00 17,012.24
3 Medium value 4,347.13 8.57 46,375.14 91.43 50,722.27
4 Higher value 1,190.25 3.04 37,916.61 96.96 39,106.86
5 Highest value 9,586.07 90.19 1,042.81 9.81 10,628.88

Totals 17,763.04 -- 122,986.29 -- 140,749.33

Recreation
1 Lowest value 597.35 0.39 152,149.70 99.61 152,747.05
2 Lower value 1,778.26 0.74 237,427.76 99.26 239,206.02
3 Medium value 2,291.99 0.61 372,797.39 99.39 375,089.38
4 Higher value 26,210.68 18.92 112,346.74 81.08 138,557.42
5 Highest value 280,132.73 83.06 57,138.34 16.94 337,271.07

Totals 311,011.01 -- 931,859.93 -- 1,242,870.94

Conservation values assessment
1 Lowest value 745.24 0.24 313,449.57 99.76 314,194.81
2 Lower value 14,448.04 5.40 253,042.93 94.60 267,490.97
3 Medium value 39,367.51 13.37 255,042.92 86.63 294,410.43
4 Higher value 62,041.46 23.74 199,274.75 76.26 261,316.21
5 Highest value 195,073.06 69.50 85,614.10 30.50 280,687.16

Totals 311,675.31 -- 1,106,424.27 -- 1,418,099.58

Key Findings:

• Of the land that ranked higher (value of 4) and highest (value of 5) in the Conservation Values Assessment, the following amounts were determined to be unprotected:

• Water—77 percent of the land most valued for water resources or 292,000 acres are unprotected. If all watershed purveyor lands are considered “protected,” then this amount is lowered to 73 percent.
• Productive forest—50 percent of the land most valued as productive forest or 184,000 acres are unprotected.
• Contiguous interior forest habitat—53 percent of all interior forests or 219,000 acres are unprotected.
• Biodiversity—60 percent of the land most valued for biodiversity or 326,000 acres are unprotected.
• Productive farmland—78 percent of the land most valued as productive farmland or 39,000 acres are unprotected.
• Recreation—36 percent of the land most valued for recreation or 169,500 acres are unprotected.
• Of the land that is highly valued for all five resources (water, productive forest, biodiversity, productive farmland, and recreation) 53 percent or 285,000 acres are unprotected.

• Combining the results of the Conservation Values Assessment and the Econometric Analysis shows that 15 percent or 98,000 acres of the
New York – New Jersey Highlands has a high conservation value
and a high likelihood of change.

Section 3 References

Andrle, Robert F.; Carroll, Janet R., eds. 1988. The atlas of breeding birds in
New York State. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; 551 p.
Arnold, Chester; Gibbons, Jim. 1996. Impervious surface coverage. American Planning Association Journal 62: 243-258.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy. 1992. New Jersey Statewide water supply master plan Task 2 report: Water supply baseline data development and analyses. Trenton, NJ; 200 p.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 1996. New Jersey Statewide water supply plan—The vital resource. Trenton: Office of Environmental Planning; 173 p.
New Jersey Water Supply Authority. 2000. Water budget in the Raritan River Basin. A technical report for the Raritan Basin watershed management project; 21 p. http://www.raritanbasin.org/technical_reports.htm
(8 August 2002).
Schueler, T.R. 1998. Rapid watershed planning handbook—A comprehensive guide for managing urbanizing watersheds. Ellicott City, MD: Center
for Watershed Protection.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. American FactFinder. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet. (23 August 2002).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. National Wetlands Inventory. [Database]. http://www.nwi.fws.gov. (23 August 2002).
Walsh, J.; Elia, V.; Kane, R.; Halliwell, T. 1999. Birds of New Jersey. Cape May: New Jersey Audubon Society; 704 p.

Section 4 Resource Summary and
Conservation Strategies

This section presents resource information from Section 2, conservation focal areas and priorities from Section 3, the land management framework and stewardship goals for the Highlands, and strategies for increasing protection of resources.

Resource Condition

The natural resources in the Highlands make it a region of national significance. Approximately 40 percent of the New York – New Jersey Highlands—540,000 acres—are considered to have significant overall conservation values. But less than half of that land is currently protected. Moreover, other lands that may not be highly ranked on an overall basis are still critical to the sustainability of the specific resource values that people currently enjoy. For example, about half the large interior forests—approximately 200,000 acres—that both define the Highlands landscape and protect many of its highest quality watersheds and rare ecosystems are not protected and are vulnerable to further fragmentation and urbanization (Table 3-7, page 133).
The quality of ecosystem services and benefits directly affect human health and well-being. When ecosystems are degraded, the services and benefits also are degraded. Benefits affected are water quality and quantity; habitat viability; resilience of the ecosystem to withstand native pests and invasive exotic species; recreational opportunities; and the productivity and management opportunities of forest and agricultural lands.
Through the use of a Conservation Value Assessment model in this study, significant habitats and ecosystems were identified for conservation and protection. This assessment also identified the following existing conditions, projected changes, and environmental risks that would occur without additional conservation measures:

Water:

About 64 percent of the highest value water resource lands were identified as unprotected areas deserving further protection.

Projected changes: Increased dependence on Highlands water; increased storm runoff, decreased infiltration, and decreased stream baseflow and ground water availability.

Potential risks: Less water for a growing population; additional water treatment costs.

Productive Forests:

About 44 percent of the most productive forest lands were identified as unprotected areas deserving further protection.

Projected changes: Conversion of forest land to nonforestry uses, decreased parcel size, changed landowner objectives, lost productive forest land.

Potential risks: Loss of timber resources, greater restrictions on forest management operations.

Biodiversity:

Exactly 55 percent of the lands ranked highest for biodiversity were identified as unprotected areas deserving further protection.

Projected changes: Increased habitat loss, increased habitat fragmentation, increased number of exotic species.

Potential risks: Local extirpation of threatened and endangered species; loss of regional biodiversity.

Farms:

About 10 percent of the highest value productive farmlands were identified as unprotected areas deserving further protection.

Projected changes: Conversion of farm land to nonfarm uses, decreased parcel size, changed landowner objectives, lost productive farmland.

Potential risks: Loss of prime farm soils, greater restrictions on farm management operations.

Recreation:

About 17 percent of the highest value recreation lands are identified as unprotected areas deserving further protection.

Projected changes: Decreased recreational opportunities.

Potential risks: Fewer recreational areas, fewer recreational access points, decreased recreational opportunities, and diminished scenic beauty.

While the significance of Highlands natural and cultural resources are perhaps most evident when viewed from a regional perspective, stewardship of these resources is more likely to be the result of decisions made at the local level. Whether management considerations are made by public or private landowners or through local government’s land-use planning and regulatory powers, the thousands of individual decisions made every day across the Highlands are the largest determinant of the future of this landscape.
Traditionally, these decisions first reflect local and site-specific concerns. But, as shown by the Conservation Values Assessment in Section 2 and future change analyses in Section 3, cumulatively, these decisions have a regional effect on water, biodiversity, and recreational resources. Reconciling the gap between local decisions and regional effects is a critical challenge if the resources of the Highlands are to be sustained for future generations.
The analysis of current trends underscores the potential situation faced by the residents of the Highlands and others who also care about the future of its natural resources. About 100,000 acres (out of 285,000 acres) of these highest value areas have a high likelihood of being changed; 340,000 additional acres have high conservation value but a lower likelihood of being changed. Using current and projected population growth, the Highlands population could increase from
1.7 million to 2 million people in the next several decades, a growth rate of 26 to 48 percent from 2000 census figures. Based on the changes since 1990, more than 5,000 acres of forests, wetlands, and grasslands in the Highlands are affected each year—a rate that has accelerated since 1997.
The analyses in Section 3 described the likely effects caused by land use change. Perhaps most important are the expected effects on water resources. The number of watersheds in the Highlands likely to have high quality surface waters (less than 15 percent impervious cover) could be reduced by half in the next several decades. The number of watersheds with the exceptional water quality needed to sustain wild trout populations (less than 10 percent impervious cover) could be reduced by more than 75 percent. Expected ground water withdrawals are likely to exceed local supply in a number of the Highlands watersheds, including the Ramapo, Whippany, Pequest, Upper Delaware, and Lopatcong. The Rockaways and Upper Musconetcong basins could also show similar shortages.

Land Stewardship in the Highlands

The Highlands region is a complex mix of private and public ownerships. Within each ownership group, a range of objectives, interests, and concerns exists, which poses considerable challenges and opportunities to conserve and protect critical resources.

Land Management Challenges

Even in a static ownership environment, the diversity of private ownership in the Highlands would be a complex picture. In fact, we expect private landownership will become increasingly complicated, posing additional challenges to the stewardship of natural resources. In the future, an increasing percentage of the Highlands will probably be owned and managed by more people, which would further parcelize existing ownerships and fragment existing forest cover. Based on the most recent land ownership survey, 84 percent of the forest land in the greater Highlands was privately owned. The number of acres owned has steadily declined over the past decades to less than 12 acres per owner. Likewise, more than 50 percent of the Highlands forest tracts are smaller than 10 acres. At this tract size, forest management becomes economically prohibitive, and there is insufficient contiguous forest to sustain native species that inhabit the forest interior.
For farmland, ownership patterns are similar. In addition, with an increase of residential and recreation/vacation homes adjacent to agricultural lands, farming activities become increasingly difficult as new neighbors complain about the smells and sounds of an operating farm.
Another problem is that landowners have little or no incentive to provide public benefits, such as clean water and wildlife and fish habitat. In many cases, tax laws and local ordinances actually serve as a disincentive for continued stewardship or even continued ownership of large contiguous blocks of land. For example, minimum lot size for residential housing has increased; however, local laws and zoning ordinances still encourage land subdivision and fragmentation of large tracts of forest cover.
Many of the same concerns, challenges, and constraints associated with multiple owners of private land occur with public land. Many public entities are involved, with diverse management objectives, different levels of funding for management and maintenance, and a mix of missions and authorities that may have competing objectives.
Three significant challenges have slowed progress towards regional and coordinated open space planning in the Highlands:

• Inadequate coordination among States, counties, and municipalities;
• The lack of a consistent regional view of environmental issues among Highlands decisionmakers; and
• Insufficient financial and technical resources available to natural resources agencies and private landowners to manage lands and pursue conservation strategies, including acquisition of lands.

Land Stewardship Opportunities

The parcelization of the landscape highlights the importance of those unfragmented, high value areas, including forests, that still remain. The analyses in Section 3 identified 11 such areas, comprising about 86,000 acres of the Highlands region, as Conservation Focal Areas (Figure 3-19, page 131):

A. Depot Hill/Pawling/West Mountain;

B. East Hudson Highlands;
C. Ft. Defiance Hill and Canopus Valley;
D. West end of New Croton Reservoir;
E. Tuxedo and Arden Farms area;
F. Ramapo Mountains and Torne Valley;
G. Wyanokie and Farny Highlands;
H. Pequannock Watershed;
I. Sparta Mountain/Lubber’s Run;
J. Upper Pohatcong/Pequest area; and

K. Scott Mountain/Musconetcong Ridge area.

Another means of identifying conservation priorities was to use the results
of the econometric model of land use change (Section 3) to highlight those
areas with the highest probability of change in the future and then to cross-tabulate those areas with the results of the Conservation Values Assessment in Section 2. Approximately 15 percent, or 100,000 acres of the New York – New Jersey Highlands region, had a high conservation value and a high likelihood of change. This analysis is useful as a tool for open-space purchase and land-use planning. Assumptions made during the analysis may change over time.
The areas identified in these analyses offer the best opportunity to sustain the Highlands resources and to ensure the quality of life for people who depend on benefits and services provided by those resources. The identification of these areas will help to inform decisionmakers of the resources that need to be protected, managed, or restored.
In addition, conservation opportunities need to include concerted complementary action throughout the region. One example is creating and maintaining forested riparian buffers. Riparian buffer areas play a crucial role in protecting aquatic systems and water quality. Development in these sensitive areas increased dramatically between 1984 and 2000. The future of remaining riparian buffers in the Highlands is uncertain. Establishing a minimum forested riparian buffer width of 150 feet (Section 3, Criteria for the High-Constraint Scenario) will reduce development in this sensitive area despite a large increase in population. Protection and creation of buffers throughout the region can have a ripple effect—both in terms of additional on-the-ground improvement, and in terms of broader education and awareness of natural resource issues and solutions.

The stewardship capability of all landowners will determine the amount and condition of natural resources found in the Highlands. Landowners’ awareness, commitment, and ability to protect and manage resources are critical to sustaining the derived ecosystem benefits. One program that serves forest landowners is the Forest Stewardship Program of the USDA Forest Service. The program provides technical expertise to nonindustrial private forest landowners to ensure that environmental and economic resource management principles are applied on their forest lands. Only a relatively small percent of private forest land (16,000 acres) is enrolled in the program. Similarly, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service has two programs: the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to serve farmers and help protect natural resources.
The 2002 Farm Bill and the associated Conservation and Forestry Title programs, including a new Forest Land Enhancement Program, will provide funding to land owners for stewardship activities, and offers the opportunity for increased protection and conservation of natural resources in the region.
For more information on assistance programs for various resources, see
Appendix I.

Land Management Framework

Because land in the Highlands is owned by many private and public interests, land and resource management and planning involves a complex network of heterogeneous private, local, county, State, and Federal organizations. In New York, there is less focus on the Highlands as an entity, and more attention on the area of the Highlands in the Hudson River Valley, also known as the Hudson Highlands. In New Jersey, the Highlands physiographic province has been recognized as an area of national significance by Federal, State, county, and nonprofit organizations.
The following section briefly summarizes ways that several public and private organizations have protected the natural resources of the Highlands and outlines potential future roles for these organizations. Appendix J provides a list of conservation activities and successes in the Highlands region.

Existing Partner Roles

The Palisades Interstate Park Commission (PIPC) was established by bi-State compact and approved by the U.S. Congress more than 60 years ago. This bi-State agency could participate in land acquisition and land management within the New York – New Jersey Highlands region. In 1995, the New

Jersey State legislature expanded the jurisdiction of PIPC. In 1997, PIPC was directly involved in purchase of portions of Sterling Forest in New York, and is responsible for management of the Sterling Forest State Park.
The need to protect critical open space parcels in the Highlands has also been documented in a number of important Federal and State studies including the New Jersey Development and Redevelopment Plan, the New York State Open Space Plan, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s New York Bight Restoration Study. (Note: “Bight” in this context refers to the ocean area extending approximately 100 miles offshore from the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point Transect to the Continental Slope.)
Specifically, the New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan recognizes the Highlands region as the first Special Resource Area in New Jersey. According to the State Plan, a Special Resource Area is a region with unique characteristics or resources of Statewide importance that are essential to the sustained well-being and function of its own region and other regions or systems—environmental, economic, and social—and to the quality of life for future generations. The State Plan recommends some planning and implementation strategies in the Highlands.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s Draft Open Space Plan (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 2001) identifies the Highlands as a unique physiographic region. This “unique area” category provides for the inclusion of several types of conservation of natural resources that do not fit neatly under the “significant ecological area” category. These areas do, however, meet the definition of significant ecological area, notably lands of natural beauty, of geological significance, and some wilderness character lands. The plan recommends developing a greenway corridor comprised of State parks, Department of Environmental Conservation forests, and other lands that span the length of the New York Highlands. In addition, the biodiversity assessment manual for the Hudson River estuary corridor (Kiviat and Stevens 2001) cites the need for additional inventory work to prevent continued conversion and fragmentation of Highlands area forests and wetlands. In addition, State watershed level assessment and planning at the county level in both New York and New Jersey provide a more regional perspective and foster cooperative action.
Demonstration of these approaches and others through Land Conservation Projects and pilot programs offer opportunities to showcase the potential for collaborative land-use decisionmaking and natural resource management (Appendix K).

Potential Partner Roles

Because the Highlands and their resources are nationally significant, the Federal government has an important responsibility to protect this landscape. One way to meet these challenges is through a partnership approach that involves Federal, State, and local governments, nongovernmental organizations, and individual citizens. Appendix I provides detailed information on Federal and State assistance programs for private landowners and organizations and how they might be effective in the Highlands region. As previously stated, often these programs work independently of each other. By acting in a coordinated manner, however, these agencies could provide complementary and shared approaches and avoid duplication of efforts in protecting and conserving the valuable resources of the Highlands.

USDA Forest Service

The USDA Forest Service envisions its role in the Highlands as one of convener, catalyst, and coordinator in supporting and implementing resource protection and management.
The Forest Service can act as a convener by bringing together various interests from across the Highlands region for purposes of education, stewardship, research, and coordination of conservation actions. The 1992 Highlands regional study and this 2002 update are part of the process of increasing the shared knowledge of natural resources, providing better and more consistent information across the entire Highlands region, and creating public forums to discuss and use these data. The Forest Service can continue to serve a Highlands-wide role in the future by establishing an on-going Highlands resource assessment process to initiate and coordinate studies in the Highlands and to create forums, including local compacts and bi-State roundtables, to help coordinate the use of natural resources information in land-use decisionmaking.
The Forest Service can also be a catalyst for specific conservation actions through its Cooperative Forestry Programs and by providing technical assistance to land use planners and natural resource managers in cooperation with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection. Existing Federal programs such as Urban and Community Forestry, Forest Legacy, and Forest Stewardship are ways in which the Forest Service already provides financial and technical assistance through the State agencies. The local Land Conservation Projects (Appendix K) funded as part of this study update serve as additional examples of support for local conservation actions.
The Forest Service can further help to implement these conservation strategies by acting as a coordinator among Federal agencies in protecting priority open space parcels, while providing tools for effective stewardship of existing lands.

Other Federal Partners

Several other Federal agencies have natural resource protection and conservation programs that can make significant contributions to the management of the Highlands.
Federal partners, such as USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service; the Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Geological Survey; National Park Service; the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have programs that can be implemented or expanded in the Highlands region to protect priority open space areas, work with public and private landowners on the proper stewardship of their lands, identify lands for open space acquisition, improve local land-use planning practices, and encourage regional planning for data management and open space protection.

State Partners

State partners, such as the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, have several programs that can be implemented or expanded in the Highlands region. State partner agencies work closely with regional, county, and watershed-level entities in natural resource protection and planning. In New Jersey, the Department of Environmental Protection funds planning activities for watershed management areas. Planning activities in several Highlands watersheds include education and outreach, watershed characterization and assessment, and open space and farmland preservation. In New York, the Department of Environmental Conservation has assisted in numerous land acquisitions in the Highlands region, funded by the Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act and the Environmental Protection Fund.

Local Government Partners

While the significance of Highlands natural and cultural resources are perhaps most evident when viewed from a regional perspective, stewardship of these resources is more likely to be the result of decisions made at the local level. Land use planning and zoning are local governments’ primary activities for protecting important natural resources and lands. Effective open space protection usually involves an appropriate mix of planning, regulation, and acquisition. Planning identifies important natural resources, protected lands, and linkages between those spaces. Regulation uses local ordinances and State laws to protect important areas, such as steep slopes, stream corridors, and wetlands. Finally, land acquisition involves obtaining important lands through purchase or donation, either through acquisition of full fee title, or purchase of development rights through a conservation easement.

Land acquisition activities at the local level have been successful in almost 200 municipalities across New Jersey through the establishment of local open space taxes. Local open space committees work with land trusts, environmental organizations, elected officials, planning boards, and citizens to protect open space. In Morris County, the Open Space Farmland Preservation Trust Fund has helped in the acquisition of approximately 7,000 acres in the Highlands since 1993. In Sussex County, the Farmland Preservation program protected the first farm—121 acres in Green and Andover Townships—in 1990. To date, New Jersey’s Farmland Preservation Program has permanently preserved 625 farms totaling over 85,000 acres.
The master planning process is another way for local governments to identify and protect important natural resources. The residents of Philipstown (Putnam County), New York are in the midst of a 2-year comprehensive planning process, and the town has focused attention on protecting important open space parcels. A grant from the USDA Forest Service has helped to ensure that the comprehensive resource information presented in the New York – New Jersey Highlands Regional Study: 2002 Update as well as other data from a variety of partners will be used to inform Philipstown’s comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance update (Appendix K).

Organizations and Citizens

Private, nongovernmental, and citizen organizations can play an important role in the protection of open space lands. Private organizations such as corporations and foundations can provide financial support to aid in land acquisition and planning activities. Nongovernmental organizations such as housing, economic development, and environmental groups can provide information to citizens on important natural resource issues that might not be fully addressed by Federal, State, or local government agencies. Also, land trusts and river basin organizations are important nonprofit groups that help acquire forests and farmlands by working with public officials to develop applications for State and county open space acquisition programs. Organizations such as the Trust for Public Land, Passaic River Coalition, New Jersey Conservation Foundation, Orange County Land Trust, and Scenic Hudson have been instrumental in fostering the relationships between property owners and public officials in several Highlands communities for land protection.
The individual citizen role can also be powerful in protecting natural resources. Citizens can work on a grassroots level to garner support for an issue and can be active in neighborhood associations and community boards, as well as gathering support for an issue at the local, county, State, or Federal level. Other examples include grassroots groups such as environmental commissions and homeowners associations; organizations such as watershed associations and soil and water districts; and regional entities such as river basin commissions and environmental

coalitions. Whether management considerations are made by public or private landowners or through local governments’ land-use planning and regulatory powers, the thousands of individual decisions made every day across the Highlands significantly influence the future of this landscape.
The growth of public and private partnerships has significantly led to the protection of many areas in the Highlands; however, many challenges still exist. To address these challenges, strategies to conserve and protect areas essential to maintaining the quality of life of millions who use and depend on the Highlands’ natural resources are outlined below.

Conservation Goals and Strategies

Stewardship Goals

The 1992 Highlands Study report set out five goals that are still considered vital for the long-term stewardship of the Highlands:

5. Promote economic prosperity that is compatible with goals 1-4.

Success in meeting the goals for the Highlands and implementing conservation strategies is a shared responsibility. All levels of government, landowners, businesses, citizens, and conservation organizations must be involved to ensure the goals are achieved.

Partnership Model

The House Conference Report for Fiscal Year 2002 recommended that the approach that has been used to protect Sterling Forest be considered as a model for the rest of the Highlands (Appendix A). The Sterling Forest partnership is nurtured through existing authorities and programs at the Federal, State, and local levels, and leadership at each of these levels brings the partners together. Participation by nongovernmental organizations and private citizens is vital to this partnership.

Through this partnership in Sterling Forest, nearly 20,000 acres have been protected since 1990:

• In 1990, 2,000 acres—all within New Jersey—were purchased from the Sterling Forest Corporation by Passaic County with $9.2 million from the New Jersey Green Acres Program.
• In 1998, 15,280 acres were purchased from a Swiss investment group for $55 million. Congress provided $17.5 million (Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund); New York provided $16 million; New Jersey provided $10 million; and various foundations and the public donated $11.5 million. Major private contributions included $2.5 million from the Open Space Institute; $2.5 million from Scenic Hudson; $1 million from the Lila Acheson and DeWitt Wallace Fund for the Hudson Highlands and the Victoria Foundation Fund; and $5 million from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation.
• In 2000, 1,350 acres were purchased from Sterling Forest Corporation for $7.89 million. The Federal government contributed $2 million through the USDA Forest Service’s Forest Legacy Program; New York contributed $4 million; and New Jersey contributed $1 million. The Palisades Interstate Park Commission, North Jersey District Water Supply Commission, foundations, and private individuals contributed $890,000.
• Later in 2000, 659 acres were purchased from New York University for $860,000. New York contributed $360,000; the Trust for Public Land contributed $250,000; and the Palisades Interstate Park Commission contributed $250,000.

• Also in 2000, 209 acres were purchased from the B. Sears Hunter and Lawrence W. Copans Trust for $610,000 using funds from New York.

As of September 2002, the total acreage in Sterling Forest was 17,988 acres in New York and 2,000 acres in New Jersey.

Conservation Strategies

Eight strategies have been identified to improve the stewardship of the Highlands’ resources. Additional ideas were suggested during the public comment period and at the public listening sessions. These ideas were considered during the development of the conservation strategies, but some were not deemed practical or viable means for protecting the Highlands due to land ownership patterns and established policies for land-use decisionmaking. Such ideas included the establishment of a Highlands National Forest and the creation of a council or commission to guide natural resource decisionmaking in the Highlands. While these suggestions are not specifically included, the eight strategies do provide an array of choices and associated actions that should address most of the concerns raised through public comments.