Prioritizing Agricultural Lands for Riparian Buffer Placement in the Raritan Basin: A Geographic Information System (GIS) Model Project Partners: North Jersey Resource Conservation & Development (RC&D) NJ Water Supply Authority (NJWSA) NJ Institute of Technology - NJIT Raritan Watershed Agricultural Committee (RWAC) USDA - NRCS

North Jersey Resource Conservation & Development  6 county Non-profit 1. Land Conservation - Protects the resource base and 2. Community Development - Improves economic and community development in rural areas. 3. Water Management - Helps local people conserve, utilize and improve the quality and quantity of available water. 4. Environmental Enhancement - Improves the environment.  Hunterdon, Morris, Somerset, Sussex, Warren, and Union Counties  Check us out on the Web!

Background  32% of historic riparian areas within the Raritan Basin have been converted to urban and agricultural uses  Riparian Areas: transitional zones between stream and terrestrial habitats located parallel to the stream corridor.

Purpose The Raritan Watershed Agricultural Committee (RWAC) recognized riparian restoration as a much needed best management practice (BMP) and supports the installation of stream corridor management practices on agricultural lands. In response, funding was sought to determine where BMPs could help the most. Objectives: 1)Develop riparian restoration plan for agricultural lands in the Raritan Basin 2)Prioritization of ag lands for restoration projects 3)Identification and evaluation of available funding sources and institutional needs and methods for implementation of riparian projects

Geographic Information System (GIS)  Raritan Basin was divided into grids at a 10-meter resolution based on the best available Digital Elevation Model (DEM).  Agricultural lands were extracted based on land use data from NJ DEP.  Project partners classified 4 components which best represent need for riparian buffers  All available data was collected and applied to the GIS-grid system of the Raritan Basin

Model Components  Soil Erodibility USDA-NRCS Soil Erodibility Index (EI)  Hydrologic Sensitivity/Runoff Potential Modified Topographic Index (TI) from USDA- NRCS  Wildlife Habitat NJ-DEP Non-game and Endangered Species Program’s Landscape Project  Impervious Surface NJ-DEP Land Use/Land Cover Data

Soil Erodibility  A Erodibility index (EI) score was calculated for each 10 m 2 grid  These scores were split into 5 ranks  Ranks 1 – 5 demonstrate the severity of soil erodibility  Higher rank indicates greater erodibility

Hydrologic Sensitivity/Runoff Potential  USDA-NRCS Topographic Index (TI) was modified to incorporate Variable Source Area (VSA) hydrology  A modified TI was calculated for each 10 m 2 grid.  These scores were split into 10 ranks  Ranks demonstrate the differing hydrology's  Higher rank indicates greater sensitivity or runoff potential

Wildlife Habitat  Ranks 1 – 5 based on NJ DEP Landscape Project categories Rank 5 = Areas containing one or more occurrences of at least one wildlife species listed as threatened or endangered on the Federal List Rank 4 = Areas with one or more occurrences of a least one State endangered species. Rank 3 = Areas containing one or more occurrences of at least one State threatened species. Rank 2 = Areas containing one or more occurrences of species considered to be species of concern. Rank 1 = Areas that meet habitat-specific suitability requirements such as minimum size criteria for endangered, threatened, or priority wildlife species, but do not intersect with any confirmed occurrences of such species.  Higher rank indicates a greater need to protect.

Impervious Surface  Based on % Impervious Cover from NJ DEP Land Use/Cover Data Rank 1 = 0% Rank 3 = 5% Rank 5 = 10% Rank 7 = 15% Rank 9 = > 20%  Greater impervious surface indicates a greater need for BMPs

Prioritizing ALL Ag  All four components were summed to establish a FINAL score  Scores ranged from 3 – 27 for all ag land  These were split into Low/Medium/High (approximately equal)

Prioritizing Riparian Ag  All four components were summed to establish a FINAL score  Scores ranged from 3 – 24 for riparian ag  These were split into Low/Medium/High (approximately equal)

Results  9,003 acres of riparian agriculture are classified as high priority for buffer placement  32,958 acres of all agriculture are classified as high priority for BMPs.  Implementation is dependent on producer cooperation  Suitable funding sources must be available for the greatest impact Low Medium High

Funding Opportunities  Agriculture Water Enhancement Program (AWEP) Currently being used as criteria  USDA-NRCS: WHIP, AWEP  Farm Service Agency (FSA):CREP, CRP  US Fish & Wildlife, NJDEP, US EPA  How can we make these better?

Have Questions? Contact Us: Kathy Hale New Jersey Water Supply Authority 74 East Main Street Somerville NJ ext. 228 Jen House North Jersey RC&D 54 Old Hwy 22 Suite 201 Clinton NJ ext. 107