Forest Legacy Assessment of Need Identifying Future Forest Legacy Areas Governors Commission for Protecting the Chesapeake Bay through Sustainable Forestry December 21, 2005

Charge to the Commission Provide guidance and recommendations in the preparation of an updated Forest Legacy Assessment of Need that identifies 1) environmentally important forestlands that are 2) threatened by present or future conversion to nonforest uses

Todays Objectives: Review proposed process to identify and evaluate Forest Legacy Areas Evaluate potential new areas Revisit currently designated Forest Legacy Areas Receive your comments to further refine Assessment of Need

Two Key Components to Consider… Identification of Forest Legacy Areas Evaluation of specific projects Which projects get nominated State-wide? How well will nominations compete at a National level?

Identifying Focus Areas, i.e. narrowing our window of opportunity Use existing Landscape Analysis Tools Strategic Forest Lands Assessment (SFLA) Ecological, Economic and Vulnerability models Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project (SAP) Adopt a regional approach Western, Central, Southern and Eastern forest management regions Distinct management issues within each region

A Review of the Landscape Assessment Tools

Strategic Forest Lands Ecological Assessment The ecological model gives priority or greater weight to large forest blocks, particularly those with: More forest interior conditions Greater diversity of habitat types More stream or erodible soils protection More closely located to other forest blocks vs isolated patches Evaluates the ecological values important to land conservation programs.

Strategic Forest Lands Economic Assessment Biophysical, environmental, socioeconomic and policy factors include: Species composition Soil productivity Environmental constraints on timber harvest operations (wetlands, steep slopes, streams) Population density Parcelization Role of the forest products industry in the local economy Existing working landscape protection initiatives (e.g. Rural Legacy and Forest Legacy Areas) Existing public and private forest land protection Evaluates the potential of forest land to yield economic benefits associated with timber management activities.

Strategic Forest Lands Vulnerability Assessment Factors used to determine how vulnerable an area is include: Current level of protection arising from public ownership, conservation or agricultural easements Development constraints imposed by environmentally sensitive features, including wetlands and riparian areas, steep slopes, and sensitive habitats. Proximity to population centers Road access and density Existing or planned water and sewer service areas Local zoning Evaluates the vulnerability of a given acre of forest to development as well as factors that make its conversion less likely.

Forest Stewardship Spatial Analysis Project (SAP) Higher priorities are given to forest land that are: Ecologically important (similar to SFLA Ecological Model) Near existing protected lands Adjacent to privately owned forests covered by Forest Stewardship Management Plans Evaluates the potential benefits and suitability of privately owned forest land for the Forest Stewardship Program.

Important Public Values Scenic resources Recreational opportunities Public water supply protection Wetlands Interior forest habitat Rare, threatened and endangered species habitat Chesapeake Bay water quality improvement Forest products utilization Threatened by conversion to non-forest uses FLA Eligibility CriteriaAvailable Assessment Tools SFLA Ecological Model Tools to Support Forest Legacy Needs Assessment

FLA Eligibility CriteriaAvailable Assessment Tools Forest Stewardship SAP Important Public Values Scenic resources Recreational opportunities Public water supply protection Wetlands Interior forest habitat Rare, threatened and endangered species habitat Chesapeake Bay water quality improvement Forest products utilization Threatened by conversion to non-forest uses

Important Public Values Scenic resources Recreational opportunities Public water supply protection Wetlands Interior forest habitat Rare, threatened and endangered species habitat Chesapeake Bay water quality improvement Forest products utilization Threatened by conversion to non-forest uses FLA Eligibility CriteriaAvailable Assessment Tools SFLA Economic Model Tools to Support Forest Legacy Needs Assessment

SFLA Vulnerability Model Tools to Support Forest Legacy Needs Assessment Important Public Values Scenic resources Recreational opportunities Public water supply protection Wetlands Interior forest habitat Rare, threatened and endangered species habitat Chesapeake Bay water quality improvement Forest products utilization Threatened by conversion to non- forest uses FLA Eligibility CriteriaAvailable Assessment Tools

Locating Focus Areas IDENTIFY Ecologically and Economically Important Forest Lands Medium and High valued forests (SFLA) FILTER At least 50% forest cover/assessment area Medium to High Stewardship Potential (SAP) Medium to High Vulnerability (SFLA) RELATE to other programs and objectives Marylands Green Infrastructure 1995 Forest Legacy Areas Rural Legacy Areas Existing Protected Lands

Todays Draft Focus Areas are … A starting point only Located through GIS analysis; each step is a map layer Defined through a select set of spatial, or mapped data What else should we consider?

Demonstration Western Region example Step through the process Illustrate the Regional approach High, Medium, Low rankings determined on regional basis vs Statewide basis Results for remaining regions

SFLA Ecological Rank Low Medium High Mapping unit = 30 m 2 (~1/3 acre) grid cell Very Fine Grained Resolution Difficult for isolating significant Focus Areas IDENTIFY: Ecologically Important Forest Lands Western Region

SFLA Ecological Rank Low Medium High IDENTIFY: Ecologically Important Forest Lands Western Region Mapping unit = 2.5 km hexagons Summarizes fine grained information for broader Focus Area evaluation hexagon vs grid cell By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks)

SFLA Economic Rank Low Medium High IDENTIFY: Economically Important Forest Lands Western Region

SFLA Economic Rank Low Medium High IDENTIFY: Economically Important Forest Lands Western Region By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks)

SFLA Ecologic and Economic Composite Score Low Medium High IDENTIFY: Ecologically AND Economically Important Forest Lands Western Region Focus Areas By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks)

SFLA Ecologic and Economic Composite Score Medium High Removing watersheds with low composite SFLA score IDENTIFY: Ecologically AND Economically Important Forest Lands Western Region Focus Areas By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks) IDENTIFY: Ecologically AND Economically Important Forest Lands

Percent Forest Cover (2002) FILTER: At least 50 % Forest Cover Western Region By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks)

SFLA Ecologic and Economic Composite Score Medium High Removing watersheds with forest cover <50% FILTER: At least 50 % Forest Cover Western Region Focus Areas By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks) IDENTIFY: Ecologically AND Economically Important Forest Lands FILTER: At Least 50% Forest Cover

Spatial Analysis Project (SAP) Score Low Medium High FILTER: Medium to High Stewardship Potential Western Region

Spatial Analysis Project (SAP) Score Low Medium High FILTER: Medium to High Stewardship Potential Western Region By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks)

SFLA Ecologic and Economic Composite Score Medium High Removing watersheds with low stewardship potential FILTER: Medium to High Stewardship Potential Western Region Focus Areas By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks) IDENTIFY: Ecologically AND Economically Important Forest Lands FILTER: At Least 50% Forest Cover FILTER: Medium to High Stewardship Potential

SFLA Vulnerability Rank Not at Risk Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk FILTER: Medium to High Vulnerability Western Region

SFLA Vulnerability Rank Low Medium High FILTER: Medium to High Vulnerability Western Region By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks)

FILTER: Medium to High Vulnerability Western Region Focus Areas SFLA Ecologic and Economic Composite Score Medium High By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks) IDENTIFY: Ecologically AND Economically Important Forest Lands FILTER: At Least 50% Forest Cover FILTER: Medium to High Stewardship Potential FILTER: Medium to High Vulnerability Removing watersheds with low vulnerability

Reviewing the process…

SFLA Ecologic and Economic Composite Score Medium High Removing watersheds with low composite SFLA score IDENTIFY: Ecologically AND Economically Important Forest Lands Western Region Focus Areas By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks) IDENTIFY: Ecologically AND Economically Important Forest Lands

SFLA Ecologic and Economic Composite Score Medium High Removing watersheds with forest cover <50% FILTER: At least 50 % Forest Cover Western Region Focus Areas By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks) IDENTIFY: Ecologically AND Economically Important Forest Lands FILTER: At Least 50% Forest Cover

SFLA Ecologic and Economic Composite Score Medium High Removing watersheds with low stewardship potential FILTER: Medium to High Stewardship Potential Western Region Focus Areas By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks) IDENTIFY: Ecologically AND Economically Important Forest Lands FILTER: At Least 50% Forest Cover FILTER: Medium to High Stewardship Potential

FILTER: Medium to High Vulnerability Western Region Focus Areas SFLA Ecologic and Economic Composite Score Medium High By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks) IDENTIFY: Ecologically AND Economically Important Forest Lands FILTER: At Least 50% Forest Cover FILTER: Medium to High Stewardship Potential FILTER: Medium to High Vulnerability Removing watersheds with low vulnerability

SFLA Ecologic and Economic Composite Score Medium High RELATE: Rural Legacy Areas Western Region Focus Areas Rural Legacy Areas By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks)

SFLA Ecologic and Economic Composite Score Medium High Green Infrastructure Hubs and Corridors RELATE: Green Infrastructure Western Region Focus Areas By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks)

Acquisitions Easements Protected Land SFLA Ecologic and Economic Composite Score Medium High RELATE: Existing Protected Lands Western Region Focus Areas By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks)

Medium High Central Region Focus Areas By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks) SFLA Ecologic and Economic Composite Score Deer Creek FLA Elk Neck FLA

Forest Legacy Areas Rural Legacy Areas Medium High By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks) SFLA Ecologic and Economic Composite Score Deer Creek FLA Elk Neck FLA RELATE: Forest Legacy Areas and Rural Legacy Areas Central Region Focus Areas

Green Infrastructure Hubs and Corridors Medium High By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks) SFLA Ecologic and Economic Composite Score Deer Creek FLA Elk Neck FLA RELATE: Green Infrastructure Central Region Focus Areas

Acquisitions Easements Protected Lands Medium High By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks) SFLA Ecologic and Economic Composite Score Deer Creek FLA Elk Neck FLA RELATE: Existing Protected Lands Central Region Focus Areas

Doncaster FLA Crownsville FLA By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks) SFLA Ecologic and Economic Composite Score Medium High Southern Region Focus Areas Battle/ Parkers FLA

Forest Legacy Areas Rural Legacy Areas Doncaster FLA Crownsville FLA By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks) SFLA Ecologic and Economic Composite Score Medium High RELATE: Forest Legacy Areas and Rural Legacy Areas Southern Region Focus Areas Battle/ Parkers FLA

Doncaster FLA Crownsville FLA Battle/ Parkers FLA By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks) SFLA Ecologic and Economic Composite Score Medium High RELATE: Green Infrastructure Southern Region Focus Areas Green Infrastructure Hubs and Corridors

Doncaster FLA Crownsville FLA By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks) SFLA Ecologic and Economic Composite Score Medium High RELATE: Existing Protected Lands Southern Region Focus Areas Acquisitions Easements Protected Lands Battle/ Parkers FLA

By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks) SFLA Ecologic and Economic Composite Score Medium High Eastern Region Focus Areas Wye River FLA Chincoteague FLA

By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks) SFLA Ecologic and Economic Composite Score Medium High RELATE: Forest Legacy Areas and Rural Legacy Areas Eastern Region Focus Areas Wye River FLA Chincoteague FLA Forest Legacy Areas Rural Legacy Areas

By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks) SFLA Ecologic and Economic Composite Score Medium High RELATE: Green Infrastructure Eastern Region Focus Areas Wye River FLA Chincoteague FLA Green Infrastructure Hubs and Corridors

By 2.5 km hexagons (natural breaks) SFLA Ecologic and Economic Composite Score Medium High RELATE: Existing Protected Lands Eastern Region Focus Areas Wye River FLA Chincoteague FLA Acquisitions Easements Protected Lands

Todays Objectives: Review proposed process to identify and evaluate Forest Legacy Areas Evaluate potential new areas Revisit currently designated Forest Legacy Areas Receive your comments to further refine Assessment of Need

Two Key Components to Consider… Identification of Forest Legacy Areas Evaluation of specific projects Which projects get nominated State-wide? How well will nominations compete at a National level?

Parcel Ecological Value Ecological Score of GI within Parcel Acres of Green Infrastructure (GI) Percent of Parcel in GI Acres of Protected Land within 1 Mile Contribution to Protection of Hub or Corridor Composite Score

Parcel Economic Value Economic Score of Forest within Parcel Parcel Size (acres) Percent of Parcel Forested Forest Patch Size Proximity to Existing Forest Stewardship Plans Composite Score

Important Public Values Scenic resources Recreational opportunities Public water supply protection Wetlands Interior forest habitat Rare, threatened and endangered species habitat Chesapeake Bay water quality improvement Forest products utilization Threatened by conversion to non-forest uses FLA Eligibility CriteriaAvailable Assessment Tools SFLA Ecological Model Tools to Support Forest Legacy Needs Assessment Are there any criteria that we need to consider that arent on this list?

Focus Areas to …Forest Legacy Areas Are there areas that didnt show up as focus areas in our model that you think are important? What is the correct size threshold for Forest Legacy Areas (currently 30,000 to 100,000 acres)? Are there underlying ecological or economic elements that we missed? What is the most appropriate way to delineate precise area boundaries based on physical and/or jurisdictional features? County boundaries Property boundaries Water bodies Roads

Forest Legacy Areas to …Projects Do you agree with our State Review and Prioritization Process as explained, including the Regional approach? Do you have comments on the Evaluation Criteria for individual parcels? Parcel Evaluation Tools Ecological, Economic and Stewardship Values Degree of Risk/Vulnerability to conversion Should we begin to develop specific nomination thresholds? Establish Value Thresholds Example: minimum ecological value = High

Do you think our approach is an objective and defensible one that… Allows a rigorous, scientifically defensible approach for delineating Forest Legacy Areas and evaluating potential properties; Improves Marylands ability to compete at a National level?

Are there other criteria or programs that need to be more prominent in our approach? The Nature Conservancy Matrix Forest Blocks Local Land Preservation, Parks and Recreation Plans (LPRP) Local Land Use Controls MDP parcelization studies Zoning Targeted Soil, Water and Air quality benefits

Matrix forest blocks: characteristics: dominant native forest vegetation type covers extensive areas (80% rule) occurs over broad range of environmental conditions structure & function driven by regional-scale processes important habitat for wide-ranging species embedded small & large patch communities (multiple matrix forest types per ecoregion, at all scales)

Matrix Forest Blocks TNC Prioritized Conservation Areas Guiding conservation site selection

Your Final Thoughts… Do you have additional comments on the proposed process? How should we treat the existing Forest Legacy Areas created in the 1995 AON? Are there specific geographic areas or additional criteria we need to consider? Should we move forward and continue to refine this process as described? Where do we go from here?

Forest Cover Forest Legacy Areas Rural Legacy Areas 2002 Forest Cover

Forest Cover 2002 Forest Cover Acquisitions Easements Protected Lands