SECTION 2. LAND
RESOURCES
Compiled
by Richard Lathrop, David Tulloch, and Colleen Hatfield, Rutgers University
Center for Remote Sensing and Spatial Analysis; and Brett Butler and Margaret
Miller-Weeks, USDA Forest Service
2-1. Introduction
The New York–New Jersey Highlands Regional Study: 2002
Update was coordinated by the USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and
Private Forestry and carried out in cooperation with the State Foresters of New
York and New Jersey, Rutgers University, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the
Regional Plan Association. The Forest
Service provided funding for various components of the Study, including
planning assistance, linkage among Study participants, and coordination of
public outreach and involvement.
The update of the Study was guided by the 1992 Highlands
Regional Study contents in regard to the Vision and Goals for the Highlands
Region. However, the resource
assessment and analysis portions of the Study were expanded based on the
availability of spatial data and improved analytical techniques. The assessment and analysis portions of the
Study, as documented in this Technical Report, were organized around questions
that were developed using available knowledge and listening session input. These questions were:
- 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?
This New York–New Jersey Highlands Regional Study Technical
Report, accompanies the New York–New Jersey Highlands Regional
Study: 2002 Update. The Study Update synthesizes and
provides findings and some interpretation of the analyses conducted, but does
not provide an exhaustive compilation of all possible scenarios for
change. The Technical Report provides greater detail on the data
sources, methodology, and results concerning the assessment and analysis
conducted as part of the Study Update.
The overarching question that the New York–New Jersey Highlands
Regional Study Technical Report addresses is: what are the implications of
continued land use change patterns on Highlands resources? In this respect the report focuses on an
assessment of five main natural resources: water, biodiversity, recreation/open
space, forest land and farmland. Trends
in population and land use/land cover change are analyzed. Several future land change scenarios are
developed and the possible consequences of this projected future land use
change and population growth examined.
The Technical Report focuses on a 1.4 million acres study area covering
the New York and New Jersey portions of the Highlands physiographic province (Figure 2-1).
Figure 2-1. Location map of New York–New
Jersey Highlands study area.
2-2. Resource Assessment
and Conservation Values
Forest and Timber
Introduction
The ridges and uplands of
the Highlands are noted for their rich and diverse forests with the exception
of major farming areas in the lower river valleys of the Delaware, Musconetcong
/ Pohatcong, and Wallkill Rivers. These
forests serve as a great timber resource among many other purposes. The active management of the Highlands
forests as a “working landscape” to produce wood and other forest products was
a major goal of the 1992 New York–New Jersey Highlands Regional Study and is
still an issue of concern today.
Objectives
The primary objective was
to examine the status of forests and timber resources in the New York–New
Jersey Highlands study region. A
secondary objective was to map the lands under active forestry management
through the Forest Stewardship Program, a Federal-State cooperative program
designed to promote responsible forest management and the maintenance of forest
lands in timber production.
The
amount of forest land classified as timberland by the USDA Forest Service is
holding steady in the New York–New Jersey Highlands.
The USDA Forest Service classifies timberland as forested land that is
capable of both sustaining good tree growth, and that is not legally or
administratively reserved from timber harvesting. In New York, the amount of timberland decreased by approximately
7.5 percent from 1980 to 1993 (Table
2-2). In New Jersey, the amount
of timberland increased by over 6 percent during the 1987 to 1999 time period
and the amount of forest land increased by approximately 10 percent over the
same time period (Table 2-2). Some of this increase is likely due to a
change in the definition of forest land in New Jersey’s most recent FIA
inventory (Griffith and Widmann, 2001).
The more recent inventory uses a more inclusive definition of forest
land and therefore small forested areas (e.g., rights-of-way and in certain
urban areas) that were previously classified as nonforest were reclassified as
forest (Widmann, per. comm.). Due to
sampling errors associated with the FIA estimates, the change in timberland may
not be statistically significant. The
FIA estimates that the Highlands have experienced a 24 percent increase in net
volume of total stock between the 1980’s and 1990’s (Table 2-2). The
annual removal is less than half of the net growth of growing stock (16,827
removal vs. 38,046 growth, in thousands of cubic feet) and approximately one
third for sawtimber (43,267 removal vs. 123,000 growth, in thousands of board
feet) (Table 2-3).
A
comparatively small percentage of forest in the Highlands is enrolled in the
Forest Stewardship program (10,867 acres in New York and 5,627 acres in New
Jersey) (Figure 2-2). This represents 1.5 percent of New York
State’s greater Highlands timberland, and less than 1 percent of New Jersey’s
greater Highlands timberland. 180
properties in the New York–New Jersey Highlands are enrolled in the Forest
Stewardship Program with an average size of 90 acres per property.
Discussion
The FIA reports for New York and New Jersey give a somewhat
different picture concerning trends in timberland area as compared to the land
use and land cover analysis undertaken as part of the study and discussed in
Section 2-3. of this report. The land
use and land cover analysis suggests that area of forest land has decreased
during the same 1980’s to 1990’s time period.
We estimate that, between the years of 1995 and 2000, the amount of
forest land (including both upland and wetland forest) in the Highlands
decreased at a rate of 3,400 acres per year.
This is an increase over the estimated loss of 1,534 acres per year
between 1984 and 1995. The FIA reports
suggest that timberland area is holding steady. These differences may be due to a number of reasons, including
differences in definition (i.e., the more inclusive category of forest land vs.
FIA’s more restrictive definition of timberland) and methods (i.e., the FIA’s
sampling methodology vs. “wall-to-wall” land cover mapping).
With the
abandonment of farming and extensive timber harvesting in the late 19th
and early 20th century, Highland forests are continuing to mature
and increase in volume. The FIA data
suggests that the timber stocks between the 1980’s and 1990’s increased by
nearly 25 percent. With annual removals
at less than half of the net growth of growing stock and approximately one
third for sawtimber, it would appear that the Highlands timber resource is
comparatively underutilized and could sustain higher harvesting rates.
The
Forest Stewardship program actively promotes sustainable forest management. It is a preferential assessment program that
gives landowners a reduced tax rate in exchange for their promise not to
develop the land, as well as put their land in active forest management. Whereas a majority of the New York–New
Jersey Highlands forest area is in private ownership only a comparatively small
percentage of the forest land is enrolled in the Forest Stewardship
program. Continued suburban and exurban
development, and increased fragmentation of large contiguous forest tracts and
land ownerships will result in fewer parcels of a size that is efficient for
forestry management. This trend will
make it more difficult for the USDA Forest Service to achieve its goals of
promoting active forest management on private lands and responsible utilization
of timber resources in the New York–New Jersey Highlands region.
Figure 2-2.
Map of forest lands and location of Forest Stewardship properties.
Table 2-1. FIA data for New York and New Jersey Highlands
counties: dominant forest types.
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
thousands of
acres
|
|
County
|
White/Red Pine/ Spruce/Fir
|
Oak/Pine
|
Oak/Hickory
|
Elm/Ash/ Red Maple
|
Northern Hardwoods
|
Totals
|
|
Dutchess
|
9.9
|
25.7
|
109.2
|
30.9
|
79.4
|
264.8
|
|
Orange
|
25.5
|
4.9
|
141.2
|
23.2
|
53.3
|
253.4
|
|
Putnam
|
|
|
49.4
|
8.3
|
23.9
|
90.6
|
|
Rockland/ Westchester
|
|
|
56.0
|
4.6
|
44.7
|
105.3
|
|
Hunterdon
|
|
|
56.4
|
17.2
|
24.5
|
120.8
|
|
Morris
|
|
|
68.9
|
6.1
|
46.5
|
121.5
|
|
Sussex
|
|
5.8
|
109.4
|
29.0
|
44.8
|
193.5
|
|
Warren
|
|
4.1
|
50.4
|
13.3
|
29.1
|
97.0
|
|
Passaic/ Bergen
|
|
|
74.6
|
4.5
|
12.7
|
91.9
|
|
Somerset (Middlesex/Mercer)
|
|
|
78.4
|
32.8
|
20.4
|
155.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NY Total
|
35.4
|
30.6
|
355.8
|
67
|
201.3
|
714.1
|
|
Percent of NY
|
5.0 percent
|
4.3 percent
|
49.8 percent
|
9.4 percent
|
28.2 percent
|
|
|
NJ Total
|
0.0
|
9.9
|
438.1
|
102.9
|
178.0
|
780.3
|
|
Percent of NJ
|
0.0 percent
|
1.3 percent
|
56.1 percent
|
13.2 percent
|
22.8 percent
|
|
|
Totals
|
35.4
|
40.5
|
793.9
|
169.9
|
379.3
|
1494.4
|
|
Percent of whole
|
2.4 percent
|
2.7 percent
|
53.1 percent
|
11.4 percent
|
25.4 percent
|
|
Table 2-2. FIA data for New York and New Jersey Highlands
counties: timberland, total forested and net volume total stock.
|
|
Timberland
|
Total Forested
|
Net Volume Total
Stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thousands of acres
|
Thousands of acres
|
Millions of cubic
feet
|
|
County
|
1980 (NY) 1987
(NJ)
|
1993 (NY) 1999
(NJ)
|
Percent Change
|
1980 (NY) 1987
(NJ)
|
1993 (NY) 1999
(NJ)
|
Percent Change
|
1980 (NY) 1987
(NJ)
|
1993 (NY) 1999
(NJ)
|
Percent Change
|
|
Dutchess
|
298.6
|
264.8
|
-11.3%
|
301.9
|
276.9
|
-8.3%
|
302.4
|
407.3
|
34.7%
|
|
Orange
|
259.0
|
253.4
|
-2.2%
|
290.5
|
286.3
|
-1.4%
|
291.7
|
317.0
|
8.7%
|
|
Putnam
|
89.9
|
90.6
|
0.8%
|
99.4
|
103.0
|
3.6%
|
120.7
|
139.3
|
15.4%
|
|
Rockland/
Westchester
|
125.7
|
105.3
|
-16.2%
|
164.6
|
162.1
|
-1.5%
|
107.9
|
164.0
|
52.0%
|
|
Hunterdon
|
96.7
|
120.8
|
24.9%
|
99.6
|
120.8
|
21.3%
|
148.8
|
212.8
|
43.0%
|
|
Morris
|
122.5
|
121.5
|
-0.8%
|
141.2
|
145.8
|
3.3%
|
232.2
|
278.8
|
20.1%
|
|
Sussex
|
181.8
|
193.5
|
6.4%
|
205.9
|
226.1
|
9.8%
|
237.6
|
356.5
|
50.0%
|
|
Warren
|
95.9
|
97.0
|
1.1%
|
108.9
|
109.2
|
0.3%
|
171.8
|
192.1
|
11.8%
|
|
Passaic/
Bergen
|
103.6
|
91.9
|
-11.3%
|
111.2
|
119.4
|
7.4%
|
190.5
|
189.7
|
-0.4%
|
|
Somerset
(Middlesex/Mercer)
|
134.0
|
155.6
|
16.1%
|
141.6
|
168.8
|
19.2%
|
233.0
|
276.9
|
18.8%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NY by year
|
773.2
|
714.1
|
-7.6%
|
856.4
|
828.3
|
-3.3%
|
822.7
|
1027.6
|
24.9%
|
|
NJ by year
|
734.5
|
780.3
|
6.2%
|
808.4
|
890.1
|
10.1%
|
1213.9
|
1506.8
|
24.1%
|
Table 2-3. FIA data for New York and New Jersey Highlands
counties: net growth and annual
removals of growing stock and sawtimber.
|
|
Net Growth All Groups
|
Annual Removals
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Growing Stock
|
Sawtimber
|
Growing Stock
|
Sawtimber
|
|
|
Thousands of cubic ft.
|
Thousands of board ft.
|
Thousands of cubic ft.
|
Thousands of board ft.
|
|
County
|
1993 (NY) 1999
(NJ)
|
1993 (NY) 1999
(NJ)
|
1993 (NY) 1999
(NJ)
|
1993 (NY) 1999
(NJ)
|
|
Dutchess
|
8,578
|
37,131
|
3,922
|
10,562
|
|
Orange
|
7,486
|
25,371
|
4,293
|
14,472
|
|
Putnam
|
2,459
|
12,046
|
1,252
|
3,739
|
|
Rockland/
Westchester
|
3,148
|
12,623
|
2,721
|
10,356
|
|
Hunterdon
|
6,501
|
20,101
|
785
|
3,256
|
|
Morris
|
8,533
|
23,343
|
10,187
|
32,334
|
|
Sussex
|
6,485
|
27,368
|
1,300
|
0.0
|
|
Warren
|
2,190
|
8,046
|
2,165
|
7,677
|
|
Passaic/
Bergen
|
7,351
|
23,209
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
Somerset
(Middlesex/Mercer)
|
6,986
|
20,933
|
2,390
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
|
|
|
|
|
NY by year
|
21,671
|
87,171
|
12,188
|
39,129
|
|
NJ by year
|
38,046
|
123,000
|
16,827
|
43,267
|
Forest Health
Objectives
The objective of this component of the study was to document
the status of the forest health in the Highlands. The predominant vegetation cover of the Highlands is forest, and
threats to forest health potentially threaten the character and integrity of
the natural setting of the Highlands.
Threats to forest health were identified and discussed.
Methods
Environmental factors and biological agents that threaten
the health of deciduous hardwood forests in the Highlands and northeast were
identified. Concerns and management
efforts at the Federal, State and local levels were documented with information
provided by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division
of Lands and Forest; and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
Division of Parks and Forestry.
Results
A
pest species that threatens the character and health of the Highlands forests
and many forests throughout the east is the hemlock wooly adelgid (Adelges tsugae, HWA). This aphid-like insect was introduced from
Japan and specifically targets hemlocks.
It was first noted in the mid-Atlantic States in the late 1950’s but its
current distribution extends from the southeastern United States up into New
England. Every county in the Highlands
region has reported the presence of HWA on hemlocks. As of 1998, approximately 30 percent of the approximately 20,000
acres of hemlock stands in the New Jersey show evidence of HWA infestation with
approximately 5,000 acres showing severe to complete defoliation (Royle, 2002).
Beech bark disease is another introduced disease that has
been in the New York and New Jersey area for many years. This disease can cause significant mortality
and damage to the American beech and particularly targets older, larger beech
trees. The disease is actually a
complex of an exotic scale insect that punctures the bark, causing an entry
wound for infection by the fungal pathogen Nectria
sp. The appearance of fungal cankers
gives the bark a roughened, pockmarked appearance, and eventually girdle the
tree. Beech bark disease was first
recorded in the Canadian Maritime Provinces in the early 1900’s and has now
spread to Michigan and as far south as North Carolina. The mature forest trees are most affected,
as well as the beech sprouts formed after the tree dies. At the scale of entire forests, there is no
known control for beech bark disease.
It does appear to have a cyclical pattern suggesting that environmental
factors might influence the scale insect (Houston and O’Brien, 1998). There is a ladybird beetle that parasitizes
the scale insect and a fungus that parasitizes the Nectria sp., but their effectiveness as biological control agents
have not been critically evaluated.
Dogwood anthracnose has
essentially eliminated flowering dogwood in many areas of the eastern United
States, both in the natural forests and ornamental plantings (Mielke and
Daughtrey, 1989; Daughtrey and Hibben, 1983).
Southeastern New York and northern New Jersey are included in the
infected area. The origin of the
disease is unknown; it may be an introduced pathogen or it may be a fungus that
is native to North America. Infection
occurs on the leaves or through the shoots, causing leaf blight symptoms and
eventually leading to twig dieback. As
a result of the twig mortality, prolific sprouting can occur on the stem and
main branches. Multiple cankers can
kill the tree after several years of infection.
Whitetail deer (Odocoileus
virginanus) also pose a serious threat to forest health and regeneration as
well as the future vegetation composition of the Highlands forests (Anderson
and Loucks, 1979). 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 species
the competitive advantage to reproduce and spread throughout the area unabated
(Russell, Zippin and Fowler, 2001; Augustine and Frelich, 1998).
Figure 2-3. Map of 2001 gypsy moth
defoliation in the New York–New Jersey Highlands region. Data sources: NJ Dept. of Agriculture–Division of Plant
Industry; NY Department of Environmental Conservation–Division of Lands and
Forests.
Map prepared by: USDA Forest Service–Information Management
and Analysis, Durham, NH.
Map edited by: Center for Remote Sensing and Spatial
Analysis, November, 2002.
Discussion
The magnitude of forest cover in the Highlands requires that
forest health be an important consideration in planning and management related
issues in the region. Recognition of
the importance of forests and the necessity to manage them requires a
collective effort at virtually every level of government. Owners of private forest lands and
environmental groups are also important players in effective forest management
decisions at the local to the regional level.
The fate of the eastern hemlock remains uncertain. The loss of this species will change the
community composition and character of the Highlands forests and would mark the
loss of a keystone species. Keystone
species are those species that have a disproportionate impact on a community
relative to their relative abundance (Power, 1996). The eastern hemlock is a critical member of the forest community,
providing essential cover and protection for many wildlife species. Many bird species utilize the hemlock for
nesting and some species, such as the Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentiles) and
Magnolia warbler (Dendroica magnolia) nest predominantly in
hemlocks. The hemlock will be replaced
with early successional tree species such as red maple and black birch in the
near term and eventually other deciduous hardwood trees including oaks.
The forests of the Highlands experience many different
stressors and the individual impact from a forest stressor is partially
dependent on additional contributing factors.
One of the more recent significant factors is drought related,
especially since the early 1990’s.
Drought stressed trees are more vulnerable to other stressors. For example, the impact and severity of
gypsy moth damage can be exacerbated when a gypsy moth outbreak occurs during a
drought year and which can result in tree mortality when under non-drought
conditions the tree can withstand the moth related damage. Since the forests of the Highlands are more
than 52 percent oak, any increase in gypsy moth populations in combination with
drought, other insects and root disease, could have an increased impact on the
health of the forest. Drought can also
increase the impact on American beech from beech bark disease, causing a higher
incidence of thin crowns and yellowing foliage.
Whitetail deer overpopulation is a widespread problem
throughout the United States and presents one of the greatest challenges that
face wildlife managers (Warren, 1997).
Controlling deer numbers is increasingly more difficult to manage. The combination of reduced hunter access to
deer, local ordinances that prohibit hunting, declining numbers of hunters and
housing patterns are all contributing to a higher deer population than is
sustainable. There has been over a 51
percent drop in the number of hunting licenses sold in New Jersey in the last
25 years. It will require aggressive
deer management to reduce the impact and long-term implications of deer damage
on the Highlands forest ecosystem.
Individual stressors rarely work singly or independently and
forests experience a variety of stressors simultaneously. These stressors may be derived from
anthropogenic sources, from biological agents or from the natural variability
inherent in the environment. The
greatest damage and threat to the forest ecosystem occurs when stressors
coincide. Coincidence of stressors can
be additive or multiplicative but rarely do they cancel each other out. Considering the multiple stressors that the
Highland forests experience, active management to maintain forest health will
require a concerted and collective effort at all levels of government as well
as by the private landowner. The
incidence of forest stressors is monitored and updated on an annual basis
through the Cooperative Forest Health Program and the Forest Health Monitoring
Program in each State (New York Department of Environmental Conservation,
Division of Lands and Forest and New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, Division of Parks and Forestry).
Forest Land Ownership
The forest land of the Highlands region of northern New
Jersey and southeastern New York is owned primarily by individuals as part of
their residences, so that they can enjoy the surrounding green space and
wildlife. These and the other
ownerships in the Highlands region will determine how the land is to be used
and what the rest of society may expect from these lands. Whether the land is to remain in forest to
replenish and purify groundwater or be subdivided and developed into
residential lots with a proliferation of impervious surfaces is ultimately the
decision of the individual owners in the region. But these land holdings do not exist in a vacuum. Market, social, and political forces are
largely determined by the majority of the population that do not own land. In the following section, we provide an
overview of the characteristics of the forest land ownerships of the Highlands
region, discuss some of the factors that influence these individuals and
organizations, and discuss the potential for forest land ownerships in the
future.
A Snapshot of Forest Land Ownerships in the Greater Highlands Region
In the greater
Highlands region, 84 percent
of the forest land is owned by private individuals and organizations; the remainder of the land is owned by public
agencies. Most of the public lands are
owned by State agencies, but a significant area is also owned by various local
and, to a lesser extent, Federal agencies.
The authority and regulations used to purchase and manage these lands
makes the fate of these lands more predictable, although not immutable, than
that of the lands owned by private individuals and organizations. These public lands are predominately owned to
provide the general public with clean drinking water and recreational
opportunities.
There were between 50,000 and 75,000 private forest land
ownerships in the greater Highlands region in 1991. The average private forest land ownership
controlled approximately 20 acres of forest land. Well over half of the forest land ownerships owned less than 10
acres and over 90 percent owned fewer than 50 acres (Figure 2-4). But
nearly 60 percent of the forest land in the area was controlled by the 8
percent of the forest land ownerships that each owned 50 or more acres. In 1991, the average forest land ownership
had owned forest land for approximately 30 years, but over 30 percent had owned
forest land for fewer than 10 years.
The newer forest land ownerships tended to own less forest land than the
forest land ownership that had owned forest land for longer. The vast majority of the private forest land
ownerships, over 80 percent, were individual and joint ownerships with the next
most common ownership types being partnerships and corporations that collectively
controlled one-third of the forest land.
The average forest land owner was 50 years old and nearly 40 percent of
the forest land owners were retired.
The predominant reasons for these people to own forest lands
was that the forests were a part of their residences and for the enjoyment that
they gained from owning “green space” (Figure
2-5). The importance of forest
land as part of a residence makes sense because nearly 90 percent of the owners
lived on or near their forest land. But
the average amount of land owned was greater for people that did not live on
their land (44 versus 17 acres).
Although enjoyment of green space is the major expected benefit for
owning forest land, nearly a quarter of the owners expressed increase in land
value as a primary expected benefit (Figure
2-6).
Many of the goods and services that will be provided by
these forest lands cannot be easily quantified. Two of the major services provided, water purification/recharge
and aesthetics are very difficult to quantify and assess their values. Some of the more traditional services and
products supplied can be more easily assessed.
For example, over two-thirds of the ownerships that own nearly 80
percent of the forest land have at least part of their land posted to restrict
access and/or recreational uses. Nearly
a third of the ownerships that own about half of the forest land have harvested
some type of forest products from their land, predominately fire wood for their
own use, and an even larger percentage plan to harvest in the future.
Trends in Forest Land Ownership
Although the information presented above is somewhat dated,
the general trends will still hold true today because of the relatively slow pace of change in
ownership characteristics and land use conversions. Changes will invariably occur, but most of these changes will be
continuations of the trends that have already been observed. The land will continue to be parcelized–a
reduction in the average size of the land held per ownership–and more and more
land will be held because it is a part of a residence and for the aesthetic
enjoyment that it provides to the owner.
These trends will occur as long as the population pressures continue to
increase, the urban fringe continues to expand, and the goal of a “house in the
country” continues. These trends will
have direct impacts on what the general public can expect from these lands–a
gradual reduction in the lands’ ability to supply clean water and green space.
Additional Information
Forest land ownerships in the region are currently being
surveyed again and information on these on-going surveys can be found on the
National Woodland Owner Survey website (http://www.fs.fed.us/woodlandowners). Additional information on forest land
ownerships can be obtained from this website or from the following
publications:
Best, C., Wayburn, L.A. 2001.
America's private forests: status and stewardship. Island Press, Washington,
DC.
Birch, T.W., Butler, B.J., 2001.
Private Forest Land Ownerships of New York: 1980 and 1994. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station Resource Bulletin
NE-153, 75 p.
Birch, T.W., 1996. Private forest
land owners of the Northern United States, 1994. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station Resource
Bulletin NE-136, 293 p.
Kingsley, N.P., 1975. The forest
land owners of New Jersey. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Northeastern Forest Experiment Station RB-NE 39, 24 p.
National Research Council. 1998.
Forested landscapes in perspective: prospects and opportunities for sustainable
management of America's nonfederal forests. National Academy Press, Washington,
DC.
Figure 2-4. Distribution of private forest land
ownerships and forest land by size of landholdings in the greater Highlands
region of New Jersey and New York, 1991.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Figure 2-6. Expected benefits of private forest
land ownerships in the greater Highlands region of New Jersey and New York
by a) number of ownerships and b) area, 1991.
|
|
Biodiversity
Introduction
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 as well as the ecological diversity within the biological
systems. Biodiversity also encompasses
the variety of different systems and the linkages across the systems at the
regional scale. The Highlands is rich
in the variety of biological systems that support high local biodiversity
including freshwater wetlands, swamps and bogs, glades, ravines and ridges, and
large contiguous forest tracts and grasslands.
It is the rich diversity of different community types as well as
variability within the community types that allows the Highlands to support
high levels of biodiversity throughout the region. The value of this rich biodiversity resource base is amplified as
well as vulnerable due to its proximity to urban growth centers and
suburbanization trends.
Objectives
The primary objective was to examine the current status of
biodiversity of the Highlands and examine geographic patterns of how
biodiversity is distributed in the Highlands.
A secondary objective was to map the spatial distribution of areas
important to maintaining threatened and endangered species and natural communities
that support and maintain the high biodiversity of the Highlands.
Biodiversity is presented as three different sections
reflecting the way in which biodiversity was measured. The faunal or animal biodiversity is
presented first, followed by floral or plant biodiversity. Plants and animals collectively are
important components in what is defined as natural communities and there are a
number of important and significant natural communities in the Highlands. The biodiversity and spatial distribution of
important natural communities are presented as the third portion of this
section on biodiversity.
Animal diversity
Methods
The New Jersey Department of Fish, Game and
Wildlife–Endangered and Non-game Species Program (FGW-ENSP) Landscape Project (2001) was used as a
model for evaluating critical wildlife resources in the Highlands. The Landscape
Project identifies critical species habitat based on land cover
classification and rare species locations.
Land cover categories including forest, grassland, forested wetland and
emergent wetland are extracted from satellite derived land use and land cover
data. Viable habitat within each land
cover class is identified by use of criteria appropriate to the class (i.e.
forest cover unbroken by roads). Endangered
and threatened species location data are used to model species-specific habitat
(See the Landscape Project web site:
www.njfishandwildlife.com/ensp/landscape/).
The models are then intersected with the appropriate, viable land cover
types, and each patch is ranked according to the conservation status of the
associated species (Table 2-4).
Table 2-4.
Rank of animal species based on Federal and State protection status.
Ranking
|
Status
|
|
5
|
Federal threatened and endangered species
|
|
4
|
State endangered species
|
|
3
|
State threatened species
|
|
2
|
State species of concern
|
|
1
|
No ranked species
|
New York State does not have an equivalent program as the Landscape Project, and so the New York
portion of the Highlands was ranked for habitat value for New York relevant
species by implementing the NJ FGW-ENSP methodology. Forest, forested wetland, emergent wetland, and grassland land
cover classes in the New York study area were extracted from 2000 land use and
land cover data. Viable habitat within
each land cover class was identified by use of criteria appropriate to the
class as per the Landscape Project.
The New York Natural Heritage Program (2001) provided animal
observations as point location and polygon data. Species were selected for inclusion according to Federal and
State protection status, locational precision, and temporal resolution. No records that predate 1970 were
included. The species-specific habitat
models were either adapted from New Jersey FGW-ENSP or developed in close
collaboration with the New York Natural Heritage Program (Table 2-5).
Completed habitat models were overlain on appropriate land cover types
(forest, forest wetland, emergent wetland and grassland) and the habitat was
ranked according to the species protection status. Both the New York and New Jersey Landscape Projects were merged
to form to a single, 30-meter resolution raster coverage for the
Highlands. The higher rank was assigned
to cells in places of overlap.
Results of animal diversity
The
importance and value of the Highlands region may be demonstrated by the number
and type of wildlife species that are found there. There are more than 100 species of nesting birds, large mammals
including bobcat (Lynx rufus), black
bear (Ursus americanus) and river
otter (Lutra canadensis), and wild
trout fisheries in the Highlands. The
Highlands is also part of a major east coast migratory flyway for many bird
species. There are a number of species
found in the Highlands that have special status due to low or declining
population numbers. There are a number
of endangered species found in the Highlands.
Endangered species are in immediate peril of survival 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 endangered
species represent those species that are in peril at the national level and
State listed endangered species are those that are not nationally at risk but
are locally rare. Species listed as
threatened are those that are at risk of becoming endangered if trends continue
and management efforts are not successful in increasing population numbers. Species of concern are of State level
interest and represent those species where population trends suggest that if
left unabated, they will become threatened and potentially endangered. Endangered or threatened species within the
Highlands region include: the timber
rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus), bog
turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii), red‑shouldered
hawk (Buteo lineatus), barred owl (Strix varia), great blue heron
(breeding) (Ardea herodias) and
eastern wood rat (Neotoma magister).
Almost
50 species of vertebrate animals are listed on State inventories for species
that are endangered, threatened, or are of concern (Table 2-6). Roughly
62 percent, or 872,639 acres, of the Highlands is considered important wildlife
habitat with over 35 percent of the Highlands supporting Federal or State
endangered species (Table 2-7,
Figure 2-7).
Large,
unbroken tracts of forest (greater than 500 acres in size), which comprise
nearly 25 percent (or nearly 350,000 acres) 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 (Figure
2-8). There are only 11
tracts of forest that are greater than 5,000 acres in size and these largest
tracts comprise approximately 60 percent of the New York–New Jersey Highlands, or 416,000 (29 percent)
acres of core forest interior habitat.
Just as important as the sheer amount of habitat in the Highlands is its
location and contiguity. Protected open
space, located in key locations, provide feeding and migration corridors, critical
to the survival of large animals such as the black bear, and furbearers such as
bobcat, and river otter.
Table 2-5.
Species with special status in New York State for which specific models have
been created as part of the Landscape Project.
|
Species
|
New York Species Status
|
Habitat
|
Model Specifics
|
|
Northern cricket frog
(Acris crepitans)
|
SE
|
EW,FW,F
|
300 m buffer around siting
|
|
Upland sandpiper
(Bartramia longicauda)
|
ST
|
G
|
ENSP Colonial waterbird model
|
|
Bog turtle
(Clemmys muhlenbergii)
|
FE
|
EW
|
ENSP Bog turtle model
|
|
Timber rattlesnake
(Crotalus horridus)
|
ST
|
FW, F
|
1.5 mile buffer around siting
|
|
Blanding’s turtle
(Emudoidea blandingii)
|
ST
|
EW, FW, F
|
300 m buffer around siting
|
|
Peregrine falcon
(Falco peregrinus)
|
SE
|
F, EW
|
1 Km buffer around nest site
|
|
Bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
|
FE
|
F, FW, EW, G
|
ENSP Bald Eagle Model
|
|
Least bittern
(Ixobrychus exilis)
|
ST
|
EW
|
ENSP Great Blue Heron model
|
|
Eastern small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii)
|
S-SC
|
F, FW
|
2 Km buffer around siting
|
|
Kentucky warbler
(Oporornis formosis)
|
SP
|
FW, F
|
500 m buffer around siting
|
|
Fence lizard
(Sceloporus undulates)
|
ST
|
F, G
|
500 m buffer around siting
|
|
Gray petaltail
(Tachopteryx thoreyi)
|
S-SC
|
EW, F
|
2 Km buffer around siting
|
Species Status: FE–Federal
Endangered, SE–State Endangered, ST–State Endangered, S-SC–State species of
concern, SP–State Protected.
Habitat: F–Forest,
FW–forested wetland, EW–emergent wetland, G–grassland
Table 2-6. Number of listed
animal and plant species by State for the Highlands region.
Threatened and Endangered
Species of the Highlands
|
|
|
Animal
|
Plant
|
|
Status
|
New Jersey
|
New York
|
New Jersey
|
New York
|
|
Federal
endangered
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Federal
threatened
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
|
State
endangered
|
14
|
2
|
104
|
41
|
|
State
threatened
|
12
|
5
|
0
|
47
|
|
Unprotected
species of concern
|
0
|
9
|
0
|
4
|
Table 2-7. Acreage in the
Highlands region that provides animal habitat for listed species in peril.
Animal Habitat
|
|
Status:
|
Acreage
|
Percent of Study Area
|
|
Federal threatened and endangered species
|
196,436.6
|
13.8 percent
|
|
State endangered
|
310,093.9
|
21.9 percent
|
|
State threatened
|
201,305.9
|
14.2 percent
|
|
Unprotected species of concern
|
14,973.6
|
1.1 percent
|
|
Suitable habitat
|
149,829.2
|
10.6 percent
|
|
Total study region area
|
1,418,825.0
|
---
|
Figure
2-7. Map of threatened and endangered animal species habitat.
Figure 2-8. Map of contiguous forest tracts
classed by size distribution.
Plant diversity
Methods
The Natural Heritage Programs of New Jersey and New York
provided plant data as post-processed and direct products of the Natural
Heritage Network Biological Conservation Database. Information about Federal and State-listed endangered, threatened
and plant species of concern was used to generate a data layer that depicts the
geographic distribution of protected and rare plant species.
The data provided by the New Jersey Natural Heritage Program
consisted of a polygon coverage of 7.5’ topographic quadrangles that cover the
New Jersey portion of the study area.
Each of the quadrangles is divided into 100 approximately equal-area
sections (10 rows, 10 columns). The
geographic data link to an external database file that contains information
regarding plant species found in associated quadrangle hundredths.
The data provided by the New York Natural Heritage Program
consisted of a polygon coverage with associated attribute information. The polygons depicted locations of tracked
plant species observations. The
resolution of New York plant data required coarsening for consistency across the
Highlands region. The geography and
attribute data were converted to a network of quadrangle hundredths similar to
that of the New Jersey data.
All plant observations with precise location information
were retained in the analysis. Historic
records were also included since lack of recent observations does not
necessarily preclude species presence.
Records that lack location information or where species are considered
extirpated were excluded from the analysis.
The data were provided by both states during August and September of
2001 and were representative of the most comprehensive information available as
of those dates.
The grid square coverages of both New York and New Jersey
were ranked by presence or absence of tracked plant species. Integer values were assigned according to
the Federal or State status of the observed species. The highest value was assigned in instances where several ranked
species occur in the same location. The
ranked plant polygon coverages were then converted to raster (30 meters/pixel)
and merged for use in the biodiversity model.
Results of plant diversity
The Highlands region harbors over two hundred species of
plants that have protection status or are species of concern. Approximately 111,952 acres (close to 8
percent) of the Highlands have reported instances of plant species that are in
peril with State listed endangered species representing by far the greatest
percentage of over 5 percent of the New York–New Jersey Highlands (Table 2-8, Figure 2-9).
|
Plant Presence
|
|
Status:
|
Acreage
|
Percent of Study Area
|
|
Federal threatened and endangered species
|
2878.7
|
0.20
|
|
State endangered
|
72,345.0
|
5.10
|
|
State threatened
|
29,902.2
|
2.11
|
|
Unprotected species of concern
|
6,827.0
|
0.48
|
Figure 2-9.
Map of threatened and endangered plant species habitat.
Community diversity and exemplary communities
Methods
Information pertaining to important, unique or rare natural
communities in the Highlands region was gathered from the New Jersey and New
York Heritage Programs, The Nature Conservancy and the US Fish and Wildlife
Service. The data included natural
heritage priority sites from the New Jersey Office of Natural Lands Management,
natural communities from the New York Natural Heritage Program, matrix sites
from The Nature Conservancy (TNC 2001), and areas in the Highlands identified
in the US Fish and Wildlife Service Significant
Habitats and Habitat Complexes of the New York Bight Watershed (1997). Priority sites in New Jersey are those
considered to be “critically important natural areas” (Office of Natural Lands
Management, 1999) of varying interest for biodiversity. Natural communities as derived from the New
York Natural Heritage data set are those that are comparatively large, intact
vegetation community types that are in good condition, relatively undisturbed
and generally lack invasive species (exemplary communities) as well as those of
interest for biodiversity. Areas of
interest for biodiversity in the US Fish and Wildlife Service New York Bight
watershed study (1997) were also included in the community data. These areas were coincident with New Jersey
priority sites in many instances.
Finally, TNC matrix sites in the Highlands are representative of large
tracts of land that have contiguous cover; tend to be influenced by large-scale
processes; and provide habitat for wide-ranging or large-area dependent
animals. They include both areas of
general and specific interest for biodiversity.
All data was provided in the form of polygon GIS
coverages. All databases were ranked
according to their biodiversity rankings as defined by the Natural Heritage
Programs of each State (Table 2-9). Community types are ranked by their relative
endangerment to determine their relative conservation priority (Breden et al.,
2001). Biodiversity ranks were not
resident in the New York natural community data. Therefore, biodiversity ranks were assigned to the data according
to the global rank of each community, as per the New Jersey Natural Heritage
Priority Sites metadata (Office of Natural Lands Management, 1999).
The individual ranked coverages for community data were
converted to 30-meter resolution raster format, and merged to create a single
Highlands coverage for community data.
In cases where there was an overlap in coverages or rankings, preference
was given to the highest-ranking cells.
Table 2-9. Biodiversity
ranks for vegetation community data.
|
GIS Ranking
|
Biodiversity Ranking
|
Description
|
|
5
|
B1
|
Outstanding significance for biodiversity
|
|
4
|
B2
|
Very high significance for biodiversity
|
|
3
|
B3
|
High significance for biodiversity
|
|
2
|
B4
|
Significant for biodiversity
|
|
1
|
B5
|
Of general biodiversity interest
|
Results of Community Diversity
There
are a number of unique and exemplary natural communities in the Highlands
region (Table 2-10, Figure 2-10). Approximately 20 percent (283,150 acres) of
the Highlands received State and Federal status recognition being listed as
priority sites (rank B1-B5) for preservation or role-model examples of
relatively intact vegetation community types that are in good condition,
relatively undisturbed and generally lack invasive species. These communities are important biodiversity
components of the Highlands since in many cases they are habitat to many
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 (Chamaecyparis thyoides) and spruce-fir, and prime examples of
chestnut oak (Quercus prinus) forests
and hemlock-northern hardwood forest.
The Nature Conservancy identified seven tracts of contiguous forest,
called matrix sites, comprising more than 200,000 acres that have high
biodiversity value and are represented in their regional priority for
conservation. Protection of important
natural communities extends beyond species protection and protects valuable
biodiversity elements at the community and regional level.
Table 2-10. Acreage of the
Highlands region that comprises important ecological communities.
Natural Communities Ranked by Biodiversity Ranking
|
|
Biodiversity Rank
|
Acreage
|
Percent of Study Area
|
|
B1
|
0
|
0
|
|
B2
|
50,974
|
3.6
|
|
B3
|
30,250
|
2.1
|
|
B4
|
63,399
|
4.5
|
|
B5
|
138,527
|
9.8
|
|
Total (B1-B5)
|
283,150
|
20.0
|
Note:
Natural Heritage Program biodiversity rank of B1 is rated as the highest
biodiversity value; a biodiversity rank of B5 is lowest.
Discussion
A significant percentage of the New York–New Jersey
Highlands provides critical resources to a wide variety of species. Indeed, approximately 62 percent (or 873,996
acres) of the Highlands provides important habitat for many species of plants
and animals that have some status of concern at either the State or Federal
level. The wide variety of habitat
types and the juxtaposition of habitat types helps to maintain the rich
biodiversity of the region. However,
there are serious threats to the region.
Fragmentation and alteration of habitat continue to pose the greatest
threat to the biological communities in the Highlands. Rapid 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 all threatens the existence of species, diminishes natural
communities, and reduces genetic variability.
The presence of invasive species in many systems, including
the Highlands, has altered community structure and ecosystem function. Some of the more common invasive plant
species in the Highlands include Norway maple (Acer platanoides), tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Japanese barberry (Berberis thumbergii), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), garlic mustard (Alliaria officinalis) and stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum). In
addition, animals that live in the soil have been impacted by the invasion of
exotic earth worms (Kalisz 1993) throughout the region while range expansion of
cowbirds exacerbate the effects of forest fragmentation on forest interior
breeding birds (Moorman et al., 2002).
Little scientific evidence is available as to how these invasive species
are altering the biodiversity of the Highlands. However, the community structure and function will inevitably
change in the presence of the host of the invaders (Lodge, 1993, Drake et al.,
1989).
High whitetail deer populations are changing the forest
plant communities. Deer selectively
graze on native seedlings and tend to avoid many invasive species. Preferential grazing ultimately alters
regeneration pathways of the native forests.
Reduced hunting pressure and the encroachment of suburbia exacerbates
the problem. In addition, the presence
of pest species such as the wooly adelgid selectively removes one of the
potential keystone species of the Highlands forests and threatens the continued
integrity of the region’s biodiversity.
Figure
2-10. Map of significant natural communities.
Recreation
Introduction
The New York–New Jersey Highlands represents a green belt of
open space defining the outer fringe of the New York metropolitan region. This open space provides numerous
opportunities for both passive and active outdoor recreation. The Highlands hills, forests, lakes and
streams give the metropolitan region’s 15 million citizens a chance to escape
to nature within a short drive from home.
Objectives
The objective of this component of the study was to document
the importance of the Highlands as a recreational resource of regional
importance. Lands and waters important
for various outdoor recreational pursuits were identified and mapped.
Methods
Outdoor recreation opportunities within the Highlands that
are available and open to the public were identified. Federal, State, county and local park, and travel and tourism
authorities were queried for information on properties and facilities. Available information on visitation to the
region’s various county, State and Federal parks were compiled to document the
region’s importance for outdoor recreation.
Major purchases and open space initiatives since the 1992 USDA Forest
Service Highlands study were examined.
Using available data and information sources, we developed a
digital GIS database of important outdoor recreational areas. The following information was compiled and
digitized: parks, gardens, hiking and
biking trails, campgrounds, trout streams, canoeable streams, fishing lakes,
boating areas, hunting areas, wildlife viewing areas, swimming areas, ski
areas, and golf courses. Digital mapped
information on hiking trails maintained by the New York–New Jersey Trail
Conference, as well as canoeable streams in the Highlands study region was
provided by the Trail Conference and the Appalachian Mountain Club. An extensive GIS database of publicly and
privately owned conservation or open space land was compiled from a number of
sources, including the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection’s Green Acres Program, the New Jersey
Department of Agriculture, North Jersey Resource Conservation and Development,
Orange County Water Authority, Rockland and Westchester County planning
departments, Dutchess County Environmental Management Council, the New Jersey
Conservation Foundation, the Passaic River Coalition, the Regional Plan
Association, Scenic Hudson Inc., the Hudson Highlands Lands Trust, and the Open
Space Institute. In many cases, there
were inconsistencies in property boundaries between the various mapped sources;
where possible the boundaries were matched and corrected, though some
inconsistencies may remain.
To examine the scenic qualities of the Highlands landscape,
a viewshed analysis was conducted.
Nearly two hundred hiking trail viewpoints, fire towers and scenic
overlooks were digitized from New York–New Jersey Trail conference hiking maps,
State and county park maps and existing GIS data on fire tower locations. Using a digital elevation model and GIS
analysis software, the landscape areas viewable on a direct line of sight from
these viewpoints were delineated. Using
a similar methodology, ridge-top areas viewable from the surrounding landscape
were delineated. The first procedure
was designed to simulate the view from someone at a high elevation location
looking down and out across the landscape.
The second procedure simulates the view of someone in the valleys
looking up at the higher ridges and mountains of the Highlands. In addition, the area in the Hudson River
valley and adjacent New York Highlands that has been designated as a Scenic
Area of Statewide Significance by the New York State Department of State was
included in our analysis. The various
viewshed analyses were aggregated and rescaled, using an equal area option, to
a ranking scheme of 1 to 5 with 5 being the most visible. It is our contention that these highly
visible areas contain the highest scenic values and may be sensitive to
aesthetic degradation due to incompatible land use change.
Results
Open Space
An
extensive GIS data base of publicly and privately owned open space and other
conservation lands was compiled from a large number of different sources (Figure 2-11). There is no single comprehensive up-to-date
source of data, whether mapped or tabular, concerning publicly owned open space
for either New Jersey or New York.
Up-to-date GIS data on open space lands were generally more available in
New Jersey. Digital GIS or hard copy
mapped data on some types of ownership categories such as preserved farmland
were not readily available for New York and represent an outstanding data
gap. Mapped information on municipal
parkland, non-profit land trust, privately owned conservation lands (e.g.
hunting clubs) or privately owned open space (e.g., Scout camps) is not
consistently or comprehensively available for either State.
Based
on the best available data (as of January 2002), we estimate that more than 20
percent of the Highlands is presently in public or privately protected open
space. Of these 311,700 acres, 5
percent is in Federal ownership, 56 percent in State parks, forests, wildlife
management areas, 19 percent in watershed management or other conservation
easements, and 10 percent in county parkland, 5 percent in local parkland and 5
percent in non-profit land trusts (Table
2-11). In addition, there are
more than 23,500 acres of military lands including the Picatinny Arsenal, West
Point and Camp Smith Military Reservations.
Although a percentage of these areas are not physically accessible,
these lands provide scenic and wildlife values. An additional 27,000 acres are in watershed lands managed by various water
authorities and are not explicitly considered open space. As stated above, we may have underestimated
the amount of open space in local parks and land trusts.
The
last decade has seen the addition of new open space. Of special note was the acquisition of Sterling Forest Park
through a Federal, State (both New York and New Jersey) and private sector
partnership. The initial purchase in
1998 of 14,400 acres has been supplemented by additional purchases with more on
the horizon. The park consists of more
than 17,700 acres of forest, lakes, streams and wetlands and contains
significant historical cultural resources.
Through its Land Acquisition and Stewardship Program (initiated in
1997), the City of New York has 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
purchased 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 study, the State of New Jersey has
purchased conservation easements for more than 15,500 acres of this land,
protecting it from future development.
Table 2-11. Area of public and
privately owned conservation and other publicly owned lands.
Ownership
|
Acres
|
|
Federal: parks, wildlife refuges
|
|
|
State: parks, forests, wildlife management, multi-use
areas
|
174,628
|
|
County: parks, reserves, greenways
|
32,427
|
|
Local: parks, reserves
|
14,751
|
|
Preserved farm: conservation easement (New Jersey only)
|
9,551
|
|
State: conservation easement (New Jersey only)
|
29,945
|
|
New York City Dept. of Environmental Protection watershed
lands
|
19,460
|
|
Other open spaces
|
474
|
|
Total protected open space
|
311,708
|
|
|
|
|
Military
|
23,570
|
|
Watershed Management Areas: no conservation easement (NJ
only)
|
26,983
|
The
Highlands represent a major outdoor recreational resource for the citizens of
the New York City metropolitan region.
The attendance at major outdoor recreational venues in the Highlands is
over 14 million visitor days per year.
This total is for attendance at State parks and forests, Morris, Orange
and Westchester County Parks, and the Morristown National Historic Park, and
does not include other county parks or Federal or State wildlife management
areas (Figure 2-12). The total visitation for these parks has
shown a steady rise over the past decade (from approximately 8 million to more
than 14 million). This level of
visitation is greater than the visitation at such famed national parks as
Yellowstone, Yosemite or Grand Canyon (Figure
2-13).
Current
population projections (to the year 2010) indicate that the demand and need for
open space and outdoor recreation opportunities will remain high (NJ DEP Green
Acres, 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
the New Jersey Highlands alone (NJ DEP Green Acres, 1999a). (These calculations were based on the assumption
of no new development). New Jersey’s
statewide deficit projection for the year 2010 is 270,000 acres. However, New Jersey looked beyond these
figures and set the ambitious goal of preserving an additional one million
acres within the next ten years (NJ DEP Green Acres, 1999b). The Highlands region is identified as a high
priority area for meeting these open space demands (NJ DEP Green Acres,
1999a). The New Jersey Green Acres
Program and the New Jersey Conservation Foundation are presently coordinating
an open space visioning effort to highlight potential open space hubs and
connecting greenway corridors (Mednick, 2002).
The pilot project for this effort has focused on the Highlands and
adjacent ridge and valley region.
In
New York State, the Hudson River valley and adjacent Highlands are a focal
point of open space and greenway planning and protection. The Hudson River Estuary Program was
established as part of the National Estuary Program in 1987. 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 and Highlands area of New
York State was designated as part 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 1998, the Hudson River was also designated a National American
Heritage River under Executive Order 13061.
This designation directed the various Federal agencies to cooperate with
State and local agencies to enhance the historic, cultural, recreational,
economic and environmental value of the Hudson River and to improve the health
of the adjacent communities.
Figure
2-11. Map of public and privately owned open space in the New York–New
Jersey Highlands.
|
|
|
|
|
Visitor Days to Highlands vs. National Parks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 2-13. Comparison of
visitor attendance at selected State and county parks in the New York–New
Jersey Highlands vs. selected national parks.
Outdoor Recreation and Cultural Resources
In order to assess the New York–New Jersey Highlands
historical and cultural resources, data was compiled from a number of
sources. Unfortunately, there is no
comprehensive source of GIS-ready information on historical sites in the New
York–New Jersey Highlands region.
National Register Information System (NRIS) of the National Register of
Historic Places lists hundreds of sites within the New York–New Jersey
Highlands study area (NPS, 2001).
However, based on closer examination of the locational coordinates
stored as attributes in the NRIS, we concluded that the information was not of
sufficient accuracy to incorporate in the Highlands GIS.
The Highlands contains numerous historical and cultural
resources including nationally significant 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. The historic data included sites designated
as National Historic Landmarks, sites listed on the National Historic Registry,
as well as the individual State's registry and those provided by historic
societies. While 165 sites were
documented and geo-located for inclusion in the Highlands GIS, many more sites
remain to be catalogued and mapped (Figure
2-14).
The New York–New Jersey Highlands are a favorite hiking
destination for New York City metropolitan area residents. There are approximately 855 miles of
recreational trails that cross both public and private land (Figure 2-14). Some of these trails represent linear
recreational features that traverse large sections of the Highlands
countryside. These long distance trails
include such notable regional hiking trails as the Appalachian Trail, Highlands
Trail, and Long Path. Many of the
region’s long-distance rail-trails and county greenways are multi-use trails
supporting bicycling, cross country skiing and horseback riding in addition to
walking. There are approximately 343
miles of long distance trail. In
addition, there are more than 620 miles of local hiking trails. Many of these local hiking trails are
concentrated in the larger sections of State parkland such as Harriman, Bear
Mountain, Ringwood/Ramapos, and Clarence Fahnestock State parks. A volunteer organization, the New York–New
Jersey Trail Conference, maintains many of these trails. Approximately 25 percent of local hiking
trails exist on private lands. These
trails are much more susceptible to incompatible neighboring development,
closure and/or rerouting. The
unauthorized use of motorized all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) on recreational
trails is an area of concern by both land managers and trail users, alike. The issue of managing ATV use is receiving
increasing scrutiny on the part of State and county land use management
agencies.
One
of the biggest draws of the Highlands is their scenic beauty. The Bear Mountain and the Hudson Highlands
have long been nationally renowned for their scenic splendor. Automobile touring on the Highlands scenic
highways and byways is popular activity.
The autumn months during the height of the autumnal leaf color are
especially popular and often combined with a trip to farm markets or cider
mills. Ecotourism is increasing with 28
sites officially designated in the Highlands region by the states of New York
and New Jersey. There are more than 170
recreational trail viewpoints and lookout towers available for scenic viewing
of the Highlands. Based on our viewshed
analysis, more than 140,000 acres of the Highlands ridges and valleys,
including the nationally significant Hudson Valley, can be considered as having
exceptional scenic value (Figure 2-15).
Fishing is a popular recreational sport in the
Highlands. The extensive network of
cold-water trout fisheries throughout the Highlands makes it one of the more
popular fishing destinations in the region (Figure 2-16). There
are approximately 1860 miles of streams that have been mapped by New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation and New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection as trout streams.
These trout streams have been classed as either trout production or trout
maintenance. Trout production streams
have the highest water quality and have suitable habitat characteristics such
that they support trout reproduction.
Trout maintenance streams generally do not support trout reproduction
but do support a put-and-take trout fishery.
The region is also well known for the warm and cold-water fishing
opportunities that the numerous lakes and reservoirs provide. While some of these waters have limited
public access, many of the largest water bodies such as Round Valley, Spruce
Run, Greenwood Lake, Lake Hopatcong, and the Hudson River have public boat
ramps. Other lakes, most notably in
Harriman State Park, have hand carry boat launch sites open to the public.
In addition to fishing, Highlands waterways also provide numerous
opportunities for canoeing, pleasure boating and sailing. The Appalachian Mountain Club has mapped 535
miles of canoeable rivers (Figure
2-16). The larger lakes and
reservoirs as well as a spectacular stretch of the Hudson River are popular for
sailing and pleasure boating.
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 (Figure 2-17). 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, a continued decrease of hunting
pressure will result in increased deer overpopulation problems. Public participation in non-consumptive uses
of wildlife such as birdwatching 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.
Camping is a popular recreational activity in the
Highlands. Harriman, Clarence
Fahnestock, Spruce Run, Round Valley and Stephens State Parks all have public
campgrounds open to families or organized groups (Figure 2-17). There
are also over 30 private campgrounds as well as numerous Y, church and Scout
camps.
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 recreational and open space values.
The Highlands also supports downhill skiing at seven downhill ski areas. Golf courses and ski areas can have negative
environmental impacts and must be carefully planned to minimize conflicts with
other recreational and open space values.
The
New York–New Jersey Highlands represent the closest area of extensive open
space to the New York City metropolitan area.
It is a heavily used resource and meets a diverse set of needs from
semi-wilderness backpacking to Saturday morning soccer games. The approximately 20 percent of the
Highlands already set aside as parks, forests or refuges, represents a sizeable
area of permanently protected open space.
Continued population growth in the region suggests that the demand for
outdoor recreational experiences will continue to grow. All levels of government have responded to
this demand as evidenced by the many proactive open space policies that have
been adopted. Recent years have shown
some significant tracts of preserved open space through either fee simple
purchase or conservation easements.
