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.
Figure 3-19. Conservation
focal areas. Regional conservation focal areas
are places in the Highlands where three conditions coincided: large contiguous
tract or major cluster of land, a composite resource value of
4 or 5 from the Conservation Values Assessment, and absence of permanent protection.
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.
Figure 3-20. Conservation priorities. Land that had a value of 3 or more in the Conservation Values Assessment and the highest probability of change in the Econometric Analysis are considered priorities
for conservation.
• 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.
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.