Farmland
Introduction
Although normally considered a "land use" and not a resource, agricultural land is a major component of the Highlands landscape. Soils adequate for cultivation have always been limited on the rocky, steep slopes of the Highlands. Many hill farms cleared in the 18th century were abandoned and gradually reclaimed by forest in the 20th century. Farming remains an important economic activity in the tillable soils of the lower river valleys of the Delaware, Musconetcong / Pohatcong, Wallkill, Croton and the Fishkill. Agriculture sustains the intrinsic natural character of the working landscape; and provides jobs and a sustained quality of life for many landowners and residents of the Highlands.
Objectives
The primary objective was to examine the status of agriculture and farmland in the New York–New Jersey Highlands region. The land use and land cover assessment was undertaken to map the geographic location of actively cultivated or managed farmland.
Methods
Results
Analysis of historical Agriculture Census records show that farming has been declining in the Highlands counties of New York and New Jersey for more than half a century with a steep decline in farm acreage between the 1940’s and the 1970’s. County level agricultural statistics show that between 1969 and 1987, agricultural land use decreased by 25 percent with almost 90,000 acres abandoned or developed. From 1987 to 1998, farmland decreased by another 39,000 acres or 15 percent. While it appears that the high rate of farmland loss experienced during the decades of the 1940’s to the 1970’s is stabilizing, it is projected that farmland will continue to be converted to other land uses. For example, farmland in Rockland County has all but disappeared with only a few remnant farms among a matrix of suburban residential and commercial land use.
While it would appear a simple task to estimate the area of agricultural land in the Highlands, our research showed that there is a great degree of inconsistency between the various sources of data on agricultural land. While not specific to the Highlands study area, county level agricultural statistics document approximately 161,100 acres of cropland and pastureland in the New York portion of the Highlands, and 240,380 acres in the New Jersey portion of the Highlands (based on 1998 data for New York and 1997 data for New Jersey) (NASS, 1999; NYASS, 2001). Since these figures are at the county scale, they overestimate the area of agricultural land solely within the Highlands study area boundary. The New Jersey Department of Agriculture undertook a study of major agricultural activities within the New Jersey Highlands region and documented approximately 130,265 acres of crop, pasture and equine acres (NJDAG, 2002). A similar study specific to the New York Highlands region was unavailable.
Our analysis of available Farmland Assessment records shows a much lower estimate of farmland area, or at least land assessed as farmland for tax purposes. There are more than 2,000 farms in the New York–New Jersey Highlands with 61,843 acres of assessed farmland in New Jersey and 29,980 acres of assessed farmland in New York for a total of 91,823 acres. Whether this lower area estimate was due to omissions in this database was difficult to ascertain. These assessment records show some interesting patterns concerning land ownership patterns. Most farms were in the 10-49 acre size class and located in Warren, Hunterdon, and the very eastern part of Sussex County in New Jersey, and Orange, Dutchess and Putnam Counties in New York. All farmland was not owned by resident farmers.
The land use and land cover analysis conducted as part of this study mapped more than 143,000 acres of land in the New York–New Jersey Highlands study region as agricultural land use that includes cultivated cropland, orchards, pasture and hay fields (Figure 2-18). These 143,000 acres represents approximately 10 percent of the New York–New Jersey Highlands study region area. The study update land use and land cover analysis estimates for agricultural land are lower since this analysis maps those areas that are actively cultivated or managed for agriculture. Some of the differences between the land use and land cover mapping and the Agriculture Statistics Service area estimates may be the result of discrepancies in the classification and reporting of farmland that is idle or recently abandoned.
Our analysis shows that over 60 percent (87,678 acres) of the actively cultivated land is located on mapped prime farm soils. The greatest concentration of prime farm soils and active agriculture is in the southern unglaciated portion of the Highlands (Figure 2-18). Further north in New York, the largest concentration of agriculture is in the Wallkill Valley area of Orange County. While not mapped as prime farm soils by the USDA NRCS, these muck soils are locally prized for vegetable and sod farming. Figure 2-18 also shows that there has been a significant loss of prime farmland to urban development. Approximately 111,600 acres of prime soils have been developed in the New York–New Jersey Highlands study region.
State and local farmland preservation efforts have been attempting to reverse this trend in farmland loss. Based on New Jersey Department of Agriculture records (as of December 2001), we estimate that more than 9,550 acres of Highlands farmland have been enrolled in the New Jersey Farmland Preservation Program. The vast majority of this acreage is located in Hunterdon and Warren counties. Figure 2-18 shows that while widely scattered through the southern Highlands, that there are some large blocks of contiguous farmland that have been preserved. In July 1991, New York passed a Farmland Protection Trust Fund. Unfortunately, mapped information on the location and acreage of preserved farms was not available for this study.
The Agriculture Census data reveals that farm production is quite varied and includes: livestock and poultry such as beef cows, milk cows, horses and ponies, hogs, sheep, chicken; and crops such as corn (grain, seed, and silage), soybeans, hay, vegetables, orchards, fruits and nuts, berries, nursery and greenhouse crops, mushrooms and sod (NASS, 1999; NYASS, 2001; NDAG, 2002). While not documented in the Agriculture Census, farmland tourism (e.g., vegetable, fruit and pumpkin picking, hayrides, corn mazes) is also becoming a more important source of income for some Highlands farmers.
Discussion
Farms and the agricultural production sector contribute significantly to the health of the region’s economy, and promote a broader base of economic activity. All residents benefit from the quality and abundance of locally grown products as well as the opportunity to connect with farm life through the growing industry of farming tourism. While it appears that the high rate of farmland loss experienced during the decades of the 1940’s to the 1970’s is stabilizing, it is projected that farmland will continue to be converted to other land uses without aggressive farmland preservation programs. In New Jersey, the Farmland Preservation Program, which funds farmland easements on a willing seller-willing buyer basis, has been overwhelmingly supported by voters. To protect the Garden State’s agricultural heritage, New Jersey has a goal of preserving 500,000 acres of farmland through the Farmland Preservation Program (NJ Green Acres, 1999b). Similar farmland preservation programs are operating in New York but up-to-date information on the location of preserved properties was not readily available, making it difficult to assess the progress of these efforts. The maintenance of large contiguous blocks of farmland are necessary to ensure that the productivity and economic health of agriculture will be sustained over the long-term. Preserving large contiguous blocks of farmland will help to preserve the character and quality of the region’s rural landscape.
Figure 2-18. Map of agricultural resources in the New York–New Jersey Highlands.
Conservation Values Assessment
Objectives
Based on the results of the assessments described above, a GIS-based model was developed to map the coincidence of resource values across the New York–New Jersey Highlands region. The objective of the conservation values assessment (CVA) was to integrate various sources of information to provide a coherent picture of relative resource conservation value across the region, highlighting areas that are a priority for conservation management. This assessment updates and expands an earlier Priority Area Assessment conducted by the Regional Plan Association.
Methods
1. Conservation Values Assessment (CVA) overview
Preliminary to developing the CVA model, conservation priorities were identified during the resource assessment and public input phases of the study Update. The GIS-based CVA model was developed to weight the conservation value of these various resources based on a number of criteria. The CVA model is based on achieving five resource protection goals:
1)
Maintain an
adequate supply of high quality water;
2)
Conserve areas of
high biodiversity and habitat value;
3)
Provide adequate
recreational opportunities for natural, historic and cultural resource-based
uses;
4)
Conserve productive
farmlands; and
5)
Sustain forest
resource base.
Individual resources
within each of the five general resource areas (e.g., water, biodiversity,
recreation, farm, forest) are assigned a value ranging from 0 (No Value for
that Particular Resource) to 5 (highest value) based on following rules:
1)
The degree to which
conservation of the landscape would directly protect a resource or reduce the
likelihood of negative impacts;
2)
Lands that protect
human health (e.g., drinking water) were ranked higher than lands that protect
ecosystem health (e.g., trout production waters) which were ranked higher than
lands that provide a resource for human use (e.g., trout maintenance waters);
and
3)
Lands for which a
significant public investment (e.g., publicly owned park land) has been made
were ranked higher than lands for which no public investment has been made.
Input on the weighting
scheme used was provided by both the study team members and the work group.
GIS Overlay Analysis
The necessary data concerning the pertinent resources or related environmental phenomena was acquired and mapped for integration into the Highlands GIS. Great effort was expended on developing a comprehensive and regionally consistent database across the entire bi-State region. GIS data were acquired from a number of Federal, State and local sources (Table 2-12). In almost all cases, the original data were mapped to a scale of 1:24,000 or better or to a corresponding grid cell size of 30 meters. The one input GIS data layer that was mapped at a significantly coarser scale was the aquifer type map (i.e., 1:100,000 to 1:250,000 scale). For the GIS overlay operations as part of the CVA, the data were all compiled to a standard spatial scale and GIS data format consisting of raster grid cells that were 30 meters on a side, which was deemed to be an appropriate scale that held “true” to the input data. While the aquifer data were mapped at a coarser scale, as the aquifer type is generally consistent over large areas, we gridded these data to the same 30 meter cell size.
GIS
cartographic modeling techniques (i.e., overlay analysis) were then used to
combine and integrate the data as part of the CVA. Each 30 m by 30 m grid cell
was assigned a value of 0 to 5 for each individual component for each resource
area. For example, as part of the water
resources CVA, a number of components, such as sensitive
aquifer recharge areas, wetlands/riparian zones, and public water supply
wellhead zones, etc., were included. The weights for the individual components
were combined using a maximum value priority rule. For example, for an individual grid cell, if the aquifer parameter
was ranked a 2, the riparian zone parameter a 2, and the wellhead zone
parameter a 3, then the grid cell would receive the maximum score of that of
any single parameter, which in this case is a 3 (from the wellhead zone
parameter). This maximum value priority
rule was adopted to reduce the ‘double-counting’ that can occur when individual
components are highly correlated, which may be the case here.
A final composite analysis was then conducted that combined all the 5 resources areas (e.g., water, biodiversity, recreation, farm, forest) to provide a synopsis of the important conservation areas across the New York–New Jersey Highlands region. This was done by summing the class values for the five CVA resource maps. This summation technique was used rather than the maximum value priority to 1) give higher weight to those areas where there was a higher coincidence of values; and 2) there was lower redundancy between the 5 resource area themes. The composite analysis was then re-ranking into 5 class values of approximately equal area using the following classification scheme: class 1=values 1 to 5; class 2=values 6 to 8; class 3=values 9 to 11; class 4=values 12 to 14; and class 5=values 15 to 25. This classification scheme was used to show the relative, rather than the absolute distribution, of the composite values. Alternative classification schemes were examined. These alternative schemes highlighted slightly different aspects of the results, though the overall spatial pattern of high ranked lands was consistent throughout.
Table 2-12. Input GIS
data layers to the conservation values assessment: source and scale.
Layer Name
|
Data Source
|
Scale
|
|
Aquifer type |
U.S. Geological Survey |
1:100,000-1:250,000 |
|
Wellhead protection zone |
U.S. Geological Survey |
1:24,000 |
Riparian zones
|
Wetlands: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory; NJ DEP, NYS DEC Floodplains: Federal Emergency Management Agency Hydric soils: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service |
1:24,000 1:24,000 1:24,000 |
|
Hydrological network |
U.S. Geological Survey |
1:24,000 |
|
Steep slopes |
Derived from U.S. Geological Survey DEM |
30m grid |
|
Wetlands |
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory; NJ DEP; NYS DEC |
1:24,000 |
|
Watersheds |
HUC 14: U.S. Geological Survey |
1:24,000 |
|
Land cover |
Rutgers University CRSSA |
30 m grid |
|
Animal threatened and endangered habitat |
NJ DEP; NYS DEC/NY NHP |
30 m grid |
|
Plan threatened and endangered habitat |
NJ NHP; NY NHP |
1/100 quad block |
|
Significant plant communities |
NJ NHP; NY NHP; TNC |
1:24,000 |
|
Recreational trails |
Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC); other mapped sources |
1:24,000 |
|
Viewsheds |
Derived from U.S. Geological Survey DEM |
30 m grid |
|
Visible ridgetops |
Derived from U.S. Geological Survey DEM |
30 m grid |
|
Public land |
Various State and local sources |
1:24,000 or better |
|
Historic/cultural sites |
Various State and local sources |
1:24,000 |
|
Recreational waters |
Hydrology: U.S. Geological Survey Canoeing waters: AMC Trout streams: NJ DEP; NYS DEC |
1:24,000 1:24,000 1:24,000 |
|
Cultivated lands |
Rutgers University CRSSA land cover |
30 m grid |
|
Prime farm soils |
County level soil survey: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services |
1:24,000 |
|
Preserved farms |
NJ Dept. of Agriculture |
1:24,000 or better |
|
Forest Stewardship lands |
NJ DEP; NYS DEC |
1/100 quad block |
|
Forest lands |
Rutgers University CRSSA land cover |
30 m grid |
Water resources conservation values
assessment
One of the
highest priorities identified in the public input and planning stages of this
study update was the importance of maintaining adequate supplies of high
quality water. Accordingly, the
objective for the water resource component of the CVA was to identify those key
locations on the landscape that play a critical role in protecting water
quality through either minimizing point or non-point sources of pollution
and/or soil erosion. This objective
translated into a set of rules designed to identify sensitive aquifer recharge
areas, wetlands and riparian zones, headwater streams, public water supply
wellhead zones, and the receiving basins for drinking water supply
reservoirs. Certain landscape features
may be especially sensitive to pollution, such as aquifers, wellhead zones,
drinking water supply basins and headwater streams. Maintaining these areas in forest cover helps to protect the
quality of either the groundwater or surface water from point or non-point
source pollution. Other areas kept in
forest cover, such as steep slopes, riparian buffers and wetlands; help to
reduce runoff, soil erosion and non-point source pollution. These rules and rationale are enumerated in Table 2-13.
The landscape features associated with the water
resources CVA were mapped. Figure 2-19 shows the spatial
distribution of the various aquifer types.
Figure 2-20 shows the
location of the public drinking water supply wellheads and the 2,500 foot
buffer zone. This width buffer zone was
based on input from the U.S. Geological Survey members of the study team. Figure
2-21 shows the location of the mapped riparian zones. Figure
2-22 shows the spatial distribution of steep slopes and their ranking
depending on location within the reservoir receiving basins.
Table 2-13.Weighting scheme and criteria for
water resources conservation values assessment.
|
Weight |
Parameter |
Rationale |
|
|
Aquifer |
Provides groundwater for drinking water
supply wells, also feeds surface water supply system |
|
4 |
Valley fill aquifer |
Coarse gravels most
sensitive to pollution infiltration and movement |
|
3 |
Carbonate aquifers |
Porous bedrock sensitive to
pollution infiltration and movement |
|
1 |
Other bedrock aquifer |
Crystalline bedrock least sensitive to pollution
infiltration and movement, though bedrock cracks and joints may channel flow |
|
Add 1 |
With forest cover |
Forest cover helps filter runoff, promotes
infiltration and provides clean source of groundwater |
|
|
Public
water supply wellhead protection zone |
Immediate source zone of groundwater for
drinking water supply wells |
|
2 |
Public water supply wellhead and 2500’ buffer |
Sensitive to point and nonpoint sources of
pollution infiltrating groundwater system |
|
Add 1 |
With forest cover |
Forest cover helps filter runoff and provides clean
source of groundwater |
|
|
Riparian
zones includes streams with 150’buffer |
Riparian zones in natural vegetation
buffers surface water systems from nonpoint source pollution, overland runoff
and control soil erosion |
|
1 - 5 |
Water quality ranking of adjacent stream |
Higher priority to protect existing high
quality waters |
|
Add 2 |
In surface water supply watersheds |
Higher priority for protection of human health |
|
|
Headwater streams
|
Sensitive to nonpoint source pollution due
to low volumes and feed into downstream aquatic systems |
|
3 |
Headwater stream itself |
To protect the headwater stream channel |
|
2 |
300’ buffer on headwater streams |
To buffer nonpoint source pollution,
overland runoff and control soil erosion |
|
Add 2 |
In surface water supply watersheds |
Higher priority for protection of human health |
|
|
Steep Slopes: > 15 percent
|
Steeper slopes are a greater source of
soil erosion |
|
3 |
In surface water supply watersheds |
Higher priority for protection of human health |
|
2 |
In other watersheds |
Lower priority but still valuable for
protecting aquatic ecosystem health |
|
|
Wetlands
(not already included in riparian zones) |
Wetlands help to absorb peak storm runoff
and filter polluted runoff |
|
2 |
In surface water supply watersheds |
Higher priority for protection of human health |
|
1 |
In other watersheds |
Lower priority but still valuable for
protecting aquatic ecosystem health |
The next
highest priority identified in the public input and planning stages of this
study update was the importance of maintaining regional biodiversity and
conserving critical wildlife habitat.
Accordingly, the objective for the biodiversity resource component of
the CVA was to identify those habitat areas that play a critical role in
promoting regional biodiversity and protecting endangered and threatened
species habitat. This objective
translated into a set of rules designed to identify and rank critical habitat
for endangered and threatened fauna (animals), flora (plants) and natural
communities (Table 2-14). See the Biodiversity section above
for more information on the development of these data.
Table 2-14. Weighting scheme and criteria for
biodiversity conservation values assessment.
|
Weight |
Parameter |
Rationale |
|
|
Critical animal
habitat
|
Provides
habitat for important animal populations |
|
5 |
Significant
habitat areas containing federally listed threatened and endangered animal
species |
These
species threatened and endangered nationally |
|
4 |
Significant
habitat areas containing State listed endangered animal species |
These
species endangered within the states of New York and/or New Jersey |
|
3 |
Significant
habitat areas containing State listed threatened animal species |
These
species threatened within the states of New York and/or New Jersey |
|
2 |
Significant
habitat areas containing State listed animal species of concern |
These
species are of special concern within the states of New York and/or New
Jersey |
|
1 |
Other
significant habitat areas for animal species |
Suitable
wildlife habitat but does not presently contain known occurrences of
threatened and endangered listed species |
|
|
Critical plant
habitat
|
Provides
habitat for important plant populations |
|
5 |
Significant
habitat areas containing federally listed threatened and endangered floral
species |
These
species threatened and endangered nationally |
|
4 |
Significant
habitat areas containing State listed endangered floral species |
These
species endangered within the states of New York and/or New Jersey |
|
3 |
Significant
habitat areas containing State listed threatened floral species |
These
species threatened within the states of New York and/or New Jersey |
|
2 |
Significant
habitat areas containing State listed floral species of concern |
These
species are of special concern within the states of New York and/or New
Jersey |
|
|
Significant natural
vegetation communities |
Prime
examples of intact or rare communities of native vegetation |
|
5 |
Significant
Natural Heritage Program priority biodiversity sites with B1 listing |
Only
known or excellent occurrence of an element ranked critically imperiled
globally |
|
4 |
Significant
Natural Heritage Program priority biodiversity sites with B2 listing |
Most
outstanding occurrences of any natural community |
|
3 |
Significant
Natural Heritage Program priority biodiversity site or TNC matrix site with
B3 listing |
Viable
occurrence of an element that is globally imperiled or concentration of
elements that critically imperiled in the State |
|
2 |
Significant
Natural Heritage Program priority biodiversity site or TNC matrix sites with
B4 listing |
Viable
occurrence of an element that is critically imperiled in the State |
|
1 |
Other
significant natural vegetation community areas |
Of
general biodiversity interest |
Recreation and open space conservation values assessment
The Highlands serve as a major source of outdoor recreation and open space for the New York City metropolitan region. The objective for the recreation and open space resources component of the CVA was to identify those areas that are important for a diversity of different of outdoor recreation pursuits or serve as open space. The weighting scheme ranks areas more highly if they: 1) have public access or are adjacent to public access; 2) protect resources associated with publicly owned lands (i.e., a public investment has already been made); and 3) are valuable to the public but there is no existing public access. This objective translated into a set of rules designed to identify and rank lands for their value for outdoor recreation, historical or cultural resources, and scenic sensitivity (Table 2-15).
Table 2-15. Weighting scheme and criteria for recreation and open
space conservation values assessment.
|
Weight |
Parameter |
Rationale |
|
|
Recreational trails with
buffer
|
Trails represent an important way for people to
access and enjoy open space, often enjoyed by those looking for a
‘wilderness’ experience |
|
5 |
Trail itself |
Immediate trail corridor |
|
4 |
0-150 foot buffer |
Provides sight and sound buffer |
|
3 |
150-300 foot buffer |
Provides sight and sound buffer |
|
|
Scenic
viewsheds |
Provides aesthetic enjoyment and scenic beauty
from publicly accessible viewpoints |
|
5 |
High visibility |
Highest sensitivity to scenic impairment |
|
3 |
Medium visibility |
Moderate sensitivity to scenic impairment |
|
1 |
Low visibility |
Lower sensitivity to scenic impairment |
|
|
Visible
ridgetops |
Provides aesthetic enjoyment and scenic beauty
from valley roadways |
|
5 |
High visibility |
Highest sensitivity to scenic impairment |
|
3 |
Medium visibility |
Moderate sensitivity to scenic impairment |
|
1 |
Low visibility |
Lower sensitivity to scenic impairment |
|
|
Existing
parks/preserves and buffer zone |
Public investments already made |
|
5 |
Dedicated parkland |
Lands already set aside for public access and
recreation |
|
4 |
Conservation easements or watershed management
lands |
Lands though not dedicated for public recreation
may still serve as valuable recreation and open space |
|
3 |
0-1000 foot buffer |
Provides sight and sound buffer |
|
2 |
1000-2000 foot buffer |
Provides sight and sound buffer |
|
1 |
2000-3000 foot buffer |
Provides sound buffer |
|
Add 1 |
If connects parklands |
Provides connectivity of access |
|
|
Historic,
cultural or recreational resource areas or sites with 150 foot buffer |
Specific locations that contain significant
historical or cultural features or have established recreation developments
(e.g., ski areas) |
|
3 |
Feature and immediate locale |
Site and protective buffer |
|
|
Recreational
waters and shoreline buffers |
Fishing/boating waters are a major recreational
resource |
|
5 |
Lakes/reservoirs with public access |
Major lakes/reservoirs popular for fishing/boating
where there is public access with ramps |
|
4 |
Adjoining 300 foot shoreline buffer |
Provide sight, sound and water quality protective
buffer |
|
5 |
Canoeable river/stream |
Low impact recreational activity, often enjoyed by
those looking for a “wilderness” experience |
|
4 |
0-150 foot buffer |
Provide sight, sound and water quality protective
buffer |
|
3 |
150-300 buffer |
Provide sight, sound and water quality protective
buffer |
|
4 |
Trout production stream |
Highest quality trout fishing waters |
|
3 |
0-150 foot shoreline buffer |
Provide sight, sound and water quality protective
buffer |
|
3 |
Trout maintenance stream |
Put-and-take trout fishing waters |
|
2 |
0-150 foot shoreline buffer |
Provide sight, sound and water quality protective
buffer |
|
3 |
Other lakes |
Locally important waters for fishing/boating |
|
2 |
0-300 foot shoreline buffer |
Provide sight, sound and water quality protective
buffer |
Farmland conservation values assessment
Agriculture is an important economic, as well as cultural activity in some sections of the Highlands. The objective for the productive farmland resources component of the CVA was to identify those areas that have the highest value for maintaining agriculture as a viable activity. This objective translated into a set of rules designed to identify and rank lands for their value for productive farmland (Table 2-16). The weighting scheme ranks areas more highly if they: 1) have prime farm soils; 2) protect lands associated with already preserved farms (i.e., a public investment has already been made); and 3) maintain larger contiguous tracts of farmland. The larger rationale is that if private landowners can receive income from their properties from productive agriculture (i.e. those farms with the richest soils), then they will be less likely to sell and subdivide the land for development. Maintaining larger areas of contiguous farmland enhances the efficiency of farm operations and reduces conflicts with adjacent landowners, helping to sustain longer term viability of agricultural activities and the integrity of the rural landscape. This was accomplished in the CVA by weighting tracts of contiguous farmland greater than 500 acres in size with a higher ranking. To compensate for smaller areas with a high density of cultivated land, each USGS topographic quadrangle was subdivided into 100 area blocks (10 blocks by 10 blocks, approximately 385 acres in size) and the percentage of farmland calculated for each block. Blocks with greater than 25 percent farmland were also given a higher weight.
Table 2-16. Weighting scheme and criteria for farmland conservation values assessment.
|
Weight |
Parameter |
Rationale |
|
|
Cultivated
lands |
Lands with active agriculture |
|
3 |
On prime farmland soils |
Most productive soils should be protected |
|
1 |
On non-prime soils |
Less productive soils |
|
Add 1 |
In large contiguous area
of farmland: |
Enhance farm operations, reduce conflicts |
|
|
Preserved
farms with buffer |
Public investment has already been made |
|
5 |
Preserved farm itself |
|
|
3 |
0-1000 foot buffer |
To reduce adjacent land owner conflicts |
|
Add 1 |
In large contiguous area
of farmland: |
Enhance farm operations |
Forest land conservation values assessment
Maintaining productive forests and active forest management on both public and private lands in the New York–New Jersey Highlands is critical to the maintenance of a healthy sustainable forest. The objective for the productive forestland resources component of the CVA was to identify those areas that have the highest value for maintaining forestry as a viable activity in the Highlands. This objective translated into a set of rules designed to identify and rank lands for their value for productive forestland (Table 2-17). The weighting scheme ranks areas more highly if they: 1) are presently part of the Forest Stewardship program; and 2) maintain larger contiguous tracts of forestland. The larger rationale is that if private landowners can receive income from their properties from the harvesting of timber resources, then they will be less likely to sell and subdivide the land for development. Exact boundary locations of Forest Stewardship properties were not available in a GIS form. To map these properties, each USGS topographic quadrangle was subdivided into 100 area blocks (10 blocks by 10 blocks, approximately 385 acres in size) and the percentage of Forest Stewardship land calculated for each block. Each block was then ranked into a high density (>50 percent Forest Stewardship land), moderate density (26-50 percent Forest Stewardship land) and low density (11 percent-25 percent Forest Stewardship land). In addition, the contiguous forest tracts were ranked by their size with larger tracts receiving a higher weight. Maintaining larger areas of actively managed timberland and/or large tracts of contiguous forestland enhances the efficiency of forestry operations and reduces conflicts with adjacent landowners.
Results
While all of the New York–New Jersey Highlands serves as watershed lands to some extent, the conservation values assessment ranked nearly 50 percent (685,632 acres) of the New York–New Jersey Highlands areas as having medium to high values deserving of special consideration for water quality (Table 2-18, Figure 2-23). High-quality water is a Highlands resource of critical value to both Highlands residents and millions of residents of New York City, and northern and central New Jersey. A number of factors are important to conserving the quality and quantity of Highlands water including: restricting development and maintaining natural vegetation cover over sensitive aquifers, wellhead protection zones, reservoir catchments, steep slopes (>15 percent) and riparian zones.
Table 2-17. Weighting scheme and
criteria for forest land conservation values assessment.
|
Weight |
Parameter |
Rationale |
|
|
Forest
Stewardship lands |
Both public and private
investment has been made in active forest management |
|
4 |
High density Forest
Stewardship zone: >50 percent |
High concentration of
actively managed forest lands |
|
3 |
Moderate density Forest
Stewardship zone: 26-50 percent |
Moderate concentration |
|
2 |
Low density Forest
Stewardship zone: 11-25 percent |
Low concentration |
|
Add
1 |
On prime soils |
More fertile soils enhance
timber growth |
|
|
Contiguous
forest tracts |
Enhance efficiency of
forest management |
|
5 |
> 5000 acres in size |
The largest tracts with
highest value for maintenance as forests and potential for forestry
operations |
|
4 |
1000-5000 acres in size |
High values |
|
3 |
500-1000 acres in size |
Moderate values |
|
2 |
100-500 acres in size |
Low values |
|
1 |
25-100 acres in size |
Lowest values |
Table 2-18. Highlands conservation values assessment for five resource types: water, biodiversity, recreation, farmland and forest; in area (acres) and percent of total New York–New Jersey Highlands area.
|
Rank* |
Water |
Biodiversity |
Recreation |
Farmland |
Forest |
Total Combined |
|
Not
Ranked 0 |
2,466
ac |
480,242
ac |
175,744
ac |
1,278,043
ac |
670,751
ac |
--- |
Lowest
1 |
195,217
ac 13.8 percent |
166,500
ac 11.7 percent |
152,747
ac 10.8 percent |
23,279
ac 1.6 percent |
103,390
ac 7.3 percent |
314,195
ac 22.1 percent |
|
Lower 2 |
534,919
ac 37.7 percent |
20,502
ac 1.4 percent |
239,206
ac 16.9 percent |
17,012
ac 1.2 percent |
170,049
ac 12.0 percent |
267,491
ac 18.8 percent |
|
Medium 3 |
304,662
ac 21.5 percent |
210,296
ac 14.8 percent |
375,089
ac 26.4
percent |
50,722
ac 3.6 percent |
104,615
ac 7.4 percent |
294,410
ac 20.7 percent |
|
Higher 4 |
237,789
ac 16.8 percent |
342,153
ac 24.1 percent |
138,557
ac 9.8 percent |
39,107
ac 2.8 percent |
211,978
ac 14.9 percent |
261,316
ac 18.4 percent |
|
Highest 5 |
143,181
ac 10.1 percent |
198,888
ac 14.0 percent |
337,271
ac 23.8 percent |
10,629
ac 0.7 percent |
157,785
ac 11.1 percent |
280,687
ac 19.8 percent |
Rank 2 in the composite analysis = combined score of 6 to 8;
Rank 3 in the composite analysis = combined score of 9 to 11;
Rank 4 in the composite analysis = combined score of 12 to 14;
Rank 5 in the composite analysis = combined score of 15 to 23;
There were no combined scores of greater than 23.
The conservation values assessment mapped nearly 55 percent (i.e., 751,336 acres) of the New York–New Jersey Highlands as consisting of habitat that supports State or Federal threatened and endangered species (Table 2-18, Figure 2-24). The Highlands support a diverse ecological system that is still largely intact and is home to a number of endangered and threatened animal and plant species. Of critical importance is the maintenance of the large tracts of contiguous forests and accompanying wetland systems that support a number of forest interior dependent species. Large tracts of grassland and farmland in the southern Highlands, as well as tracts interspersed elsewhere across the region, are home to rare grassland nesting birds. The region’s large lakes, reservoirs and rivers also provide critical habitat for a number of species, including our national symbol, the bald eagle.
The conservation values assessment mapped 60 percent (850,917 acres) of the New York–New Jersey as having medium to high recreational and open space value (Table 2-18, Figure 2-25). As the New York City metropolitan area’s backyard, the New York–New Jersey Highlands supports a variety of outdoor recreational pursuits, scenic landscapes for aesthetic enjoyment, and contains a wealth of important historical and cultural sites. An extensive network of public open space areas provides recreational and cultural experiences to millions of visitors annually.
The conservation values assessment mapped 7 percent (100,458 acres) of the New York–New Jersey Highlands as having medium to high productive farmland value (Table 2-18, Figure 2-26). While comparatively smaller in overall area, farmland is still an integral component of the Highlands landscape, especially in the major river valleys of the Delaware, Musconetcong, Pohatcong, Pequest and Raritan in the south and the Wallkill and Fishkill in the north. Sustaining productive farmland in large contiguous tracts and existing agricultural districts with prime soils and in proximity to existing preserved farms should receive special consideration.
The conservation values assessment mapped 33 percent (474,378 acres) of the New York–New Jersey Highlands as having medium to high value as productive forestland (Table 2-18, Figure 2-27). Many of the resources listed above rely on the maintenance of intact productive forest systems. Management of Highlands forests to sustain this resource base for continued production of forest products such as timber, wildlife, water and recreation is greatly enhanced through the actions of private landowners enrolled in the Forest Stewardship program and the conservation programs of private non-profit land trusts and publicly owned forest-lands. Maintaining large contiguous tracts of forest land, whether in public or private ownership, is critical to sustaining the forest resource base and overall character of the Highlands landscape.
The combined conservation values assessment mapped 38 percent (542,003 acres) of the New York–New Jersey Highlands as having exceptional conservation value (ranked as higher or highest value) (Table 2-18, Figure 2-28). Due to the re-ranking of the composite analysis using an equal area thresholding, it is to be expected that approximately 40 percent of the area was in the top two categories (i.e. two out of five categories, or 40 percent). These highest ranked areas include the central core of the New York–New Jersey Highlands stretching from Green Pond/Mase Mountains in the southwest up through the Pequannock watershed, Sterling Forest, Harriman and Bear Mountain and then across the Hudson River through the Breakneck Ridge/East Mountain area to the Clarence Fahnestock State Park. There are several notable outlying areas including forested ridges and farmed valleys of the Musconetcong/Scott Mountain area in the southwest, the west end of the New Croton Reservoir in New York, and the Depot Hill/Pawling Mountain area in the northeast.
We would be remiss if we did not also include several caveats concerning the interpretation of the CVA results. Protecting only the higher ranked CVA lands (e.g., classes 3-5) is not necessarily sufficient to achieving the stated goals of maintaining Highlands water resources, biodiversity, recreational opportunities, productive farmland and forestland. Lower ranked lands should still receive consideration in future land use planning, natural resource and watershed management decisions. We do not presently know how much land and of what characteristics are necessary to sufficiently protect the Highlands natural resources. While important, this question was outside the scope of the New York–New Jersey Highlands Regional Study: 2002 Update.
Figure 2-23. Map
of water resources conservation values assessment.
Figure 2-24. Map
of biodiversity conservation values assessment.
Figure 2-25. Map
of outdoor recreation and open space resources conservation values assessment.
Figure 2-26. Map of agricultural resources conservation values
assessment.
Figure 2-27. Map
of forest resources conservation values assessment.
Figure 2-28. Map
of overall composite conservation values assessment.
2-3. Potential Changes and Resources at Risk
Population Growth
Introduction
Since human land use is one of the major factor
shaping the Highlands region, a better understanding of trends in human
population and projected growth is critical.
U.S. Census data for the years of 1990 and 2000 were analyzed to better
understand the population and socio-demographic picture of the Highlands.
Methods
The population and socio-demographic analyses were
performed using 1990 and 2000 data from the U.S. Census Bureau. These data were, and can be, downloaded from
www.census.gov. Two separate analyses were undertaken: 1) population trends of
Highlands municipalities; and 2) socio-demographic trends in Highlands
counties. The population trend data were
compiled using municipal level data available from the U.S. Census Bureau. The
socio-demographic data were compiled at a county scale due to the limited
availability of the 2000 Census data at finer levels of resolution at the time
of the study. It, therefore, includes
data about the population of entire Highlands counties (not just Highlands
municipalities). The counties include
Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland and Westchester in New York and Bergen,
Hunterdon, Morris, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex and Warren in New Jersey. Basic trends in the gender, age, racial
make-up, and housing characteristics of the Highlands population were examined.
Results
Population Characteristics of Highlands Region’s Municipalities
The 2000 U.S. Census revealed that the New York and New Jersey portion of the Highlands has approximately 1,372,423 residents (Table 2-19). Fifty-four percent of those live in New Jersey and 46 percent in New York. The region experienced an 11.5 percent increase in population by comparison to the 1990 population estimate of 1,230,324.
Population density for the entire region is estimated at slightly less than one person per acre (Figure 2-29). The region averaged 2.76 persons per household in 2000. The New York portion experienced a slightly higher average of 2.9 persons per household compared with New Jersey's average of 2.6 persons per household.
The vast majority of Highlands municipalities increased in population between 1990 and 2000 (Figure 2-30). Greenwich Township was both the fastest growing municipality in the New York–New Jersey Highlands from 1990-2000, and the fastest growing in New Jersey during the same period. Greenwich was the only municipality in the region to double in size, showing a 130 percent population increase between 1990 and 2000. The next fastest growing municipalities were Independence Township, NJ (42 percent), Monroe Town, NY (36 percent), Chester Borough, NJ (35 percent), Mahwah Township, NJ (34 percent), and Montville Township, NJ (34 percent). A total of 21 (of 108) municipalities experienced more than 20 percent population growth during this time.
New Jersey is also home to the only two municipalities to experience population losses greater than 10 percent during the 10-year period: Netcong Borough (22 percent), and Harding Township (13 percent). A total of 13 (of 108) municipalities in the Highlands study region experienced population loss.
The 2000 population average for the 108 study-area municipalities was 12,708 while the median population was 7,471. The most populous municipality was Ramapo, NY with 108,905 residents. Only three municipalities had more than 50,000 residents. The smallest municipalities were Far Hills, NJ and Bloomsbury, NJ, both with less than 1,000 residents. Tables 2-20, 2-21, and 2-22 list the smallest, largest, and most densely populated municipalities in the New York–New Jersey Highlands.
Table 2-19. Highlands population change: 1990 to 2000. Source: U.S. Census data.
|
Region |
Population 1990
|
Population 2000 |
Percent Change |
|
New Jersey |
665,257 |
743,680 |
+11.8 |
|
New York |
565,067 |
628,743 |
+11.3 |
|
Total |
1,230,324 |
1,372,423 |
+11.5 |
Table 2-20. Smallest municipalities in the New York–New Jersey Highlands.
Name 2000 Population
Far Hills borough 859
Bloomsbury borough 886
Califon borough 1,055
Lebanon borough 1,065
Milford borough 1,195
Table 2-21. Largest municipalities in the New York–New Jersey Highlands.
Name 2000 Population
Warwick town 30,764
Monroe town 31,407
Carmel town 33,006
Haverstraw town 33,811
Yorktown town 36,318
Cortlandt town 38,467
Parsippany-Troy Hills township 50,649
Clarkstown town 82,082
Ramapo town 108,905
Table 2-22. Most densely populated municipalities in the New York–New Jersey Highlands.
Name Persons per acre
Pompton Lakes borough 5.27
Washington borough 5.36
Boonton town 5.38
Butler borough 5.54
Peekskill city 6.41
Phillipsburg town 7.10
Morristown town 9.65
Dover town 10.52
Victory Gardens borough 16.55
Figure 2-29. 2000 population density by municipality.
Figure 2-30. Percent change of population from
1990 to 2000 (by municipality).
Socio-demographic Characteristics of the Highlands
Region’s Counties
In many respects, the population of the Highlands
region is representative of the overall populations of New York and New
Jersey. The gender ratio of males to
females in the Highlands (48.7 percent male, 51.3 percent female) is similar to
the overall New York and New Jersey State totals of 48.2 percent male to 51.8
percent female and 48.5 percent male to 51.5 percent female, respectively (Table
2-23). This gender ratio does not represent a
significant change since the 1990 Census when the Highlands experienced a 48.6
percent male to 51.2 percent female ratio.
Similarly, the percentage of the 2000 Highlands population under 15
years of age is 21.5 percent, and is similar to the overall New York and New
Jersey State figures of 20.7 percent and 20.9 percent, respectively (Table
2-24). Likewise, the percentage of the 2000
Highlands population over the age of 65 is 12.7 percent. This figure is similar to the overall New
York and New Jersey State figures of 12.9 percent and 13.2 percent,
respectively. The 1990 percentage of
the population over the age of 65 is 12.6 percent, which represents no significant
change over the 10-year period. The
2000 median ages of population vary significantly across the Highlands
counties, ranging from 34.7 to 39.1 years.
Despite the variations, these are not radically different from the
median ages for New York and New Jersey, 35.9 and 36.7 years of age,
respectively (Table 2-23).
The Highlands region has a less racially diverse population than that of the states of New York and New Jersey. In the year 2000, the Highlands counties showed a white to nonwhite ratio of 78.5 percent white and 21.5 percent nonwhite, while the states of New York and New Jersey showed white to nonwhite ratios of 67.9 percent to 32.1 percent and 72.6 percent to 27.4 percent, respectively (Table 2-24). The Highlands, like the larger New York–New Jersey bi-State region, have become more racially diverse over the past decade, showing a white to nonwhite ratio of 85.3 percent white to 15.4 percent nonwhite in 1990 (as compared to 78.9 percent white 21.1 percent nonwhite in 2000). There is, however, great variability in racial diversity across the Highlands region. Counties that house major urban centers with large minority and recent immigrant populations, such as Passaic County in New Jersey (62.3 percent white to 37.7 percent nonwhite ratio), have more racially diverse populations than many of the more rural counties that are greater than 90 percent white.
The percentage of occupied housing, at 96.1 percent, is slightly higher in Highlands counties than in the larger New York and New Jersey regions (91.9 percent and 92.6 percent, respectively) (Table 2-24). There has been a slight increase in the percentage of occupied housing over the past decade from 94.3 percent in 1990 to 96.1 percent in 2000. The percentage of housing that is owner occupied is 67.9 percent versus 32.1 percent renter occupied. The New York Highlands counties have a somewhat lower percentage of owner occupied housing than New Jersey, with 65.2 percent and 69.9 percent, respectively. Over the past decade from 1990 to 2000, the more urban counties in New Jersey (e.g., Bergen and Passaic counties) showed a slight decrease in owner occupied housing, while the more rural counties such as Hunterdon and Warren counties showed an increase. The various counties in New York showed no significant pattern over the decadal time period.