FINAL REPORT SOUTHEASTERN ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK Submitted to the Planning and Analysis Branch U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 Atlanta, Georgia Submitted by Margaret H. Carr Thomas D. Hoctor Crystal Goodison Paul D. Zwick Jessica Green Patricia Hernandez Christine McCain Jason Teisinger Karen Whitney The GeoPlan Center Department of Landscape Architecture Department of Urban and Regional Planning Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation University of Florida Gainesville, Florida In Collaboration with Cory Berish John Richardson Rick Dubrow Stacy Fehlenberg Planning and Analysis Branch U.S. EPA Region 4 Atlanta, Georgia May 2002 Executive Summary The southeastern United States still harbors globally significant biodiversity and other important natural resources despite decades of habitat loss and ecosystem alterations. The Southeast is also the fastest growing region in the United States. The trend appears to be driven by climate, economic stability, cultural attractions and the natural environment. This growth will continue to deplete and degrade the critical ecological resources that remain, and it is imperative that comprehensive efforts to efficiently and effectively protect these resources are developed rapidly. This report represents exploration of a regional conservation strategy needed to conserve the integrity of ecological systems essential for human well-being. The Southeastern Ecological Framework (SEF) is a decision support tool created through systematic landscape analysis of ecological significance and the identification of critical landscape linkages in a way that can be replicated, enhanced with new data, and applied at different scales. It is intended to provide a foundation for the adoption and implementation of effective and efficient conservation measures to minimize environmental degradation and protect important ecosystem services. It has been developed for all eight southeastern states contained within the boundaries of the Environmental Protection Agency Region 4: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Kentucky by staff of the Planning and Analysis Branch of EPA Region 4 and researchers at the University of Florida. Work on the project began in October 1998 and was completed in December 2001. The Framework was derived using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), a computer mapping technology that links maps and related information. Data on which the work was built were acquired for the entire region and from individual states within the region. Data availability and consistency is improving rapidly, but is currently somewhat limited for projects of this scale. The land area identified in the Framework represents 43 percent of the land in the eight states. Of that 43 percent, 22 percent is in existing conservation lands, 12 percent in open water (rivers, lakes and reservoirs), 14 percent is in wetlands outside existing conservation lands and 52 percent is in privately held uplands (that include 100 year floodplains). When the SEF was completed, three applications of it were developed to demonstrate its conservation usefulness at different scales. The first was a region-wide application: prioritization of the SEF to identify the most significant conservation priorities for the region. The second was analysis of the Mississippi Delta with the goal of developing a planning resource to highlight ecological priorities for a variety of natural resource programs, both federal and non-federal. The final application was at the local scale: the development of a conservation plan for Murray County, Georgia that included analysis of the usefulness of the SEF for local conservation purposes. This report includes some valuable tools for use by others: Guide to Resources for Regional Conservation Planning (Section IX), a listing of critical resources used in the development of this report and of value to anyone engaged in a similar endeavor; a Data Library (Section X) compiled on three compact disks that include input data, data analyses and results for the original SEF delineation and the three applications; and a listing of Conservation Tools and Strategies that can be employed in land conservation including both regulatory, incentive-based and voluntary strategies (Appendix H). While the work undertaken was supported by Region 4 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the products developed have potential value for other federal agencies, state and local agencies and for non-governmental organizations. It is the sincere hope of all involved, that the process and work products can be creatively employed to enhance effective conservation efforts in the southeastern United States and elsewhere. i Table of Contents Section Page No. Executive Summary i Table of Contents ii Acknowledgements vii List of Figures viii List of Tables x Section I: Southeastern Ecological Framework Project: Principles & Introduction A. Introduction 1 B. Background Principles & Concepts Used in The SEF Project 3 a. Conservation Biology 3 b. Landscape Ecology 4 c. Conservation Planning Concepts 5 Section II: Delineation of the Southeastern Ecological Framework A. Model Background 11 B. GIS Modeling Techniques and Issues 12 a. The Use of GIS Modeling 12 b. GIS Basics 13 c. Vector GIS 13 d. Raster GIS 13 e. Cell Size & Resolution 14 f. Data Availability 15 C. Goal and Objectives of the Southeastern Ecological Framework 16 D. The Modeling Process to Delineate the Southeastern Ecological Framework 17 a. Identification of Priority Ecological Areas (PEAs) and Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) 18 b. Priority Ecological Area Exclusion 24 c. Delineation of Hubs 24 d. Identification of Landscape Linkages 25 e. Integration and Optimization of Framework Components 26 E. Results 26 a. Priority Ecological Areas and Significant Ecological Areas 26 b. Hubs 28 c. The EPA Region 4 Southeastern Ecological Framework 29 F. Discussion 32 ii Section Page No. Section III: Applications of the Southeastern Ecological Framework A. Introduction 36 a. EPA Applicability 36 b. Other Federal Agency Applicability 41 c. State and Local Agency Applicability 42 d. Applicability for Nonprofit Organizations 42 B. Specific Applications of the SEF 43 Section IV: Regional Application: Prioritization of the Southeastern Ecological Framework A. Introduction 44 B. Types of Prioritizations 44 a. The Single & Multiple Utility Assignment Ranking System 45 b. Reclassification Methods 46 C. Methods 46 a. Regional Prioritizations 46 i. Regional Prioritizations: Ecosystem Services 46 ii. Regional Prioritizations: Biodiversity 48 iii. Regional Prioritizations: Recreation Potential 50 iv. Regional Threats 51 b. Hub Prioritizations 51 i. Hub Prioritizations Adapted from Regional Prioritizations 51 ii. Hub Prioritizations: Ecosystem Services 52 iii. Hub Prioritizations: Biodiversity 53 iv. Hub Prioritizations: Recreational Potential 54 v. Hub Threats 54 vi. Hub Structure and Function 54 c. Linkage Prioritizations 56 i. Separating Linkages Into Discrete Segments 57 ii. Linkage Prioritizations: Internal Context Analyses 57 iii. Linkage Prioritizations: External Context Analyses 57 iv. Linkage Prioritizations: Width Analyses 58 v. Linkage Prioritizations: Hub Ranks 58 d. Creation Of Multiple Utility Assignments (MUAs) 59 i. Regional Prioritization MUAs 59 ii. Hub Prioritization MUAs 60 iii. Linkage Prioritization MUA 61 iv. SEF Prioritization MUA 61 D. Results and Discussion 62 a. Regional Prioritizations 62 i. Ecosystem Services 63 ii. Biodiversity 65 iii. Recreation Potential 67 iv. Threats To Ecological Integrity 70 iii Section Page No. v. Regional MUAs Combined 71 b. Hub Prioritizations 73 i. Ecosystem Services 74 ii. Biodiversity 75 iii. Recreation Potential Analysis 76 iv. Threats Analysis 77 v. Structure and Function 77 vi. Hub MUAs Combined 78 c. Linkage Prioritizations 79 E. Conclusions 80 Section V: Multi—State Scale Application: The Mississippi Delta Ecological Framework A. Introduction 81 B. Background 81 C. Objective and Goals 82 D. Methodology 82 E. Results 85 F. Conclusions 86 Section VI: Local Scale Application: Delineation of an Ecological Network in Murray County, Georiga A. Introduction 88 a. The Intent of the Local Application 88 b. Why should the SEF be utilized at the local level? 88 i. The Importance Of Conservation Scales: The Need For Integration Between Different Scale Conservation Projects 88 ii. Coordination Of Protection Efforts 89 iii. Utilization Of SEF Products, Information, Data, And Analyses 89 iv. Addressing Local Conservation Concerns Not Addressed In The SEF 89 c. How Can the SEF Products & Regional Data be Utilized at the Local Level? 90 i. Evaluating SEF Data To Utilize In The Local Conservation Planning Process 90 ii. Identification Of Local Priority Ecological Areas 90 iii. Regional Ecological Context: Evaluation And Prioritization Of Local Ecologically Significant Areas In The Regional Context 91 iv. Using The SEF Methodology To Create A Local Ecological Network 91 d. Data Issues 91 i. Data Availability 92 ii. Map Scale 92 iii. Combining Data Of Different Scales 92 iv Section Page No. B. Murray County, Georgia Case Study 93 a. Introduction 93 i. Murray County Background 94 ii. Local Environmental Concerns 97 iii. Georgia’s Greenspace Program 99 iv. Status Of Murray County (as of 12/01) 100 b. Delineating a Local Ecological Network for Murray County, Georgia 100 i. Conservation Goals & Objectives 100 ii. General Modeling Methodology 101 iii. Specific Modeling Methodology 103 C. Results