1. Forest Fragmentation in Connecticut: What Do We Know and Where Are We Headed? James Hurd, Jason Parent and Daniel Civco Center for Land use Education And Research (CLEAR) Department of Natural Resources Management & Engineering The University of Connecticut U-4087, Room 308, 1376 Storrs Road Storrs, CT 06269-4087 Mary Tyrrell Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies Yale University 205 Prospect St. New Haven, CT 060511 Brett Butler Forest Inventory & Analysis Program USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station 160 Holdsworth Way Amherst, MA 01003

2. Introduction Current Trends - US Forest Service Forest Inventory & Analysis - CLEAR Connecticut’s Changing Landscape Predicting Future Conditions - Yale/SUNY Northeast Connecticut - UConn Master’s Thesis, Salmon River Watershed Closing Remarks Outline

3. Introduction

4. Preaching to the Choir Forest fragmentation is the….

5. I Want to Paint You a Picture… …of Connecticut’s Forests

6. Connecticut’s Landscape In the beginning, there was forest...

7. Connecticut’s Landscape After near total conversion to farmland, much forest has returned...

8. Connecticut’s Landscape Now, farm and forest are being converted to developed land, particularly subdivisions.

9. Connecticut’s Landscape Is this the future for all of Connecticut?

10. Bell, M. 1997. STATE GEOLOGICAL AND NATURALHISTORY SURVEY OF CONNECTICUT. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Connecticut’s Changing Landscape “Connecticut has yielded a complex history of land use. Town settlement, farming, forestry, canals, railroads, highways, mining, gristmills, factory mills, and the growth of cities….” “Today, hardly a five-mile stretch of highway exists anywhere in the state that doesn't run through at least one small village. The rest of southern New England is similar.” “There are a huge number of cities, towns, villages, hamlets, and would-be-hamlets.” Conservation, Development Focus Of New Regional Plan “A recent national study of sprawl found that while the population of metro Hartford grew by 7.6 percent between 1982 and 1997, its urbanized land increased by 20.4 percent.” April 27, 2003 Hartford Courant Solving Suburban Sprawl “Sprawl is consuming thousands of acres of open space each year and destroying the character of the state's countryside.” “Sprawl is increasing property taxes and costs in suburban and rural communities that cannot afford to maintain existing schools and Infrastructure while adding new services.” April 27, 2003 Hartford Courant A Smart Growth Election “The Courant and a number of civic groups, … have urged state leaders to counter the sprawl problem with an agenda that will encourage growth in town centers, job sites and transit corridors, and take pressure off the state's dwindling farms and forests.” Oct. 27, 2006 Hartford Courant

11. Connecticut’s Landscape Connecticut comprised of 169 towns. Each town is responsible for their own land use decisions. GIS capabilities in towns range from highly developed with professional staff to non-existent. There is essentially no form of county government. Regional Planning Agencies exist, but they have no authority to enforce land use decisions.

12. Connecticut’s Changing Landscape 1990 Urban Areas 2000 Urban Areas Census 2000 TIGER/Line® Shapefiles http://arcdata.esri.com/data/tiger2000/tiger_statelayer.cfm 2000 Landsat ETM+ True Color Composite

13. Importance of Forests “ …continued declines and fragmentation of the forestland base may lead to the impairment of our forest ecosystems’ ability to protect water flow and quality, to provide healthy and diverse forest habitat, and to remain a viable economic resource that provides recreation, timber, and other forest products.” Society of American Foresters

14. Forest Fragmentation “The process of dividing large tracts of forest into smaller isolated tracts surrounded by human modified environments.” Society of American Foresters Removing tress and replacing them with another land cover that is not likely to go away anytime soon.

15. Parcelization or Parcellation “…changes in ownership patterns whereby large forested tracts are divided into smaller parcels.” Yale Forest Forum Review (2000) Parcellation does not always result in fragmentation, but does increase the likelihood that the forest will become fragmented.

16. Continuous forest tract, single owner parcel Not Parceled, Not Fragmented Continuous forest tract, multiple owner parcels Parceled, Not Fragmented Discontinuous forest tract, multiple owner parcels Parceled, Fragmented Visualization

17. Parcellation of Marlborough http://resac.uconn.edu/applications/visualizations/images/marlborough_animation.gif Subdivision Animation Marlborough, CT 1940 - present

18. Current Trends in Forest Fragmentation

19. US Forest Service FIA Connecticut Forest Area Source: U.S. Forest Service

20. US Forest Service FIA Forest Ownership In Connecticut (2005)

21. Source: U.S. Forest Service US Forest Service FIA Size of Family Forest Holdings (2004)

22. US Forest Service FIA Forest Patch Size (acres) 126 - 250 < 25 Forest patch size (acres) 26 - 125 251 – 1,250 1,250 – 2,500 2,501 + (17.5 %) (16.9 %) (12.5 %) (33.8 %) (10.1 %) (9.1 %) Nonforested photo point Source: U.S. Forest Service

23. US Forest Service FIA Distance to Non-forest Feature (miles) < 0.125 Distance to nearest land use (miles) 0.125 – 0.25 0.25 – 0.50 0.50 – 1.0 1.0 + (67.9 %) (18.3 %) (10.2 %) (3.2 %) (0.3 %) Nonforested photo point Source: U.S. Forest Service

24. Connecticut’s Changing Landscape Land Cover Change Urban Growth Impervious Surfaces Forest Fragmentation clear.uconn.edu/ccl.htm

25. Connecticut’s Changing Landscape 1985 1995 1990 2002

26. Satellite-derived Land Cover Map Long Island Sound Connecticut River Water Wetlands Forest Agriculture/Grass Developed 1985

27. Satellite-derived Land Cover Map Long Island Sound Connecticut River 1990 Water Wetlands Forest Agriculture/Grass Developed

28. Satellite-derived Land Cover Map Long Island Sound Connecticut River 1995 Water Wetlands Forest Agriculture/Grass Developed

29. Satellite-derived Land Cover Map Long Island Sound Connecticut River 2002 Water Wetlands Forest Agriculture/Grass Developed

30. Results Based on land cover at 30-meter spatial resolution, for four dates (1985, 1990, 1995, 2002), what can we say about forest fragmentation in Connecticut? 1985 Land Cover2002 Land Cover

31. Core Forest - all surrounding grid cells are forest. Perforated Forest - the interior edge of a forest tract such as would occur around a small clearing or house lot. Edge Forest - grid cell is on the exterior edge of a forest tract such as would occur along a large agricultural field or urban area. Transitional Forest - about half of the surrounding grid cells are forest. Patch Forest - less than 40% of surrounding grid cells are forest. The Science Behind the Model Definitions

32. The Science Behind the Model 9x9 analysis window27x27 analysis window 81x81 analysis window Analysis windows of different sizes can be applied. Smaller windows (9x9) are more sensitive to finer-scale patterns Larger windows (81x81) are more sensitive to coarser-scale patterns. How It Works

33. Results: Forests in General 1985 to 2002 Forest to Developed66,161 acres Forest to Non-forest61,439 acres 127,600 acres Non-forest to Forest 9,120 acres

34. Results: Forest Fragmentation Core Forest Patch Forest Transitional Forest Perforated Forest Edge Forest 9x9 (0.27 km) Analysis Window 1985199019952002

35. 1985 area (acres) % of Forest % of Conn 1990 area (acres) % of Forest % of Conn 1995 area (acres) % of Forest % of Conn 2002 area (acres) % of Forest % of Conn Core 726,810 36.322.8 664,024 34.120.9 623,264 32.519.6 576,764 30.618.1 Perforated 434,400 21.713.6 441,965 22.713.9 452,795 23.614.2 463,528 24.614.6 Edge 576,993 28.818.1 566,403 29.117.8 561,829 29.317.6 555,765 29.517.5 Transition 173,889 8.75.5 179,555 9.25.6 183,621 9.65.8 189,045 10.05.9 Patch 92,551 4.62.9 96,258 4.93.0 98,592 5.13.1 101,316 5.43.2 Results: Forest Fragmentation 9x9 Analysis Window Core forest is decreasing over time, due to general loss of forest and conversion to other forest fragmentation categories. Perforated forest is increasing over time. Edge is decreasing in area, but slightly increasing in percent contribution. Indicative of a lot of forest conversion occurring away from existing urban centers. SPRAWL!

36. Results: Forest Fragmentation Core Forest Patch Forest Transitional Forest Perforated Forest Edge Forest 27x27 0.81 km) Analysis Window 1985199019952002

37. Results: Forest Fragmentation 1985 area (acres % of Forest % of Conn 1990 area (acres) % of Forest % of Conn 1995 area (acres) % of Forest % of Conn 2002 area (acres) % of Forest % of Conn Core 121,616 6.13.8 98,496 5.13.1 80,216 4.22.5 67,778 3.62.1 Perforated 340,010 17.010.7 331,101 17.010.4 324,851 16.910.2 308,100 16.39.7 Edge 1,192,640 59.537.5 1,149,963 59.036.1 1,134,322 59.135.6 1,115,968 59.235.1 Transition 240,063 12.07.5 249,760 12.87.8 257,289 13.48.1 265,171 14.18.3 Patch 110,273 5.53.5 118,875 6.13.7 123,416 6.43.9 129,405 6.94.1 27x27 Analysis Window A decrease in core forest exists due to the size of the analysis window and the density of non-forest features in Connecticut. In addition, half the existing core forest is lost by 2002. Edge forest dominates, perforated forest is a minor component. Transition and patch forest is increasing. Indicative of forest becoming less dominant in more areas and forest patches becoming smaller.

38. Results: Forest Fragmentation Core Forest Patch Forest Edge Forest 81x81 (2.43 km) Analysis Window 1985199019952002 Transitional Forest Perforated Forest

39. Results: Forest Fragmentation 81x81 Analysis Window 1985 area (acres % of Forest % of Conn 1990 area (acres) % of Forest % of Conn 1995 area (acres) % of Forest % of Conn 2002 area (acres) % of Forest % of Conn Core 2,2870.1 3480.0 2960.0 2610.0 Perforated 78,6283.92.569,0103.52.257,1823.01.845,6322.41.4 Edge 1,543,06677.048.51,470,37075.546.21,438,53374.945.21,396,20374.043.9 Transition 273,26513.68.6289,95814.99.1299,86915.69.4313,93616.69.9 Patch 107,4165.43.4118,5616.13.7124,2646.53.9130,4336.94.1 Very little core forest exists due to the size of the analysis window and the density of non-forest features in Connecticut. Perforated and edge forest is decreasing over time, again due to the density of non-forest features in Connecticut. Transition and patch forest is increasing. Indicative of forest being converted to smaller and more isolated patches. Urban centers coming together.

40. Results: Core Forest Based on 9x9 Analysis Window 1985 1990 1995 2002 Core Forest 725,955 663,172 622,422 575,928 ave. area 114.1 104.8 98.8 92.1 Other Forest 1,278,669 1,285,035 1,297,683 1,310,498 Acres 1985199019952002 Excludes core forest areas < 1 acres

41. Results: Road Impacts 2002 (excluding forest patches < 1 acre) Connecticut Roads 108,312 acres 3.4% of CT Forests within 100ft 132,803 acres 7.2% of forest Forests within 600ft 930,205 acres 50.2% of forest Forests over 5300ft 854 acres 0.05% of forest

42. Results: Road Impacts All Connecticut surface area All Connecticut forest area A study conducted on a section of Rte. 2 in Massachusetts identified that a direct ecological effect extended, on average, 300m (1,000 ft) from the road edge.

43. Predictions of Future Forest Loss and Fragmentation

45. Prediction of Land Use Change Northeast Connecticut All Land Private Land (not protected) 79% forested 74% forested 69% forested 1985 2002 Plus 9 Massachusetts towns

46. Prediction of Land Use Change Northeast Connecticut Towns have lost from 1% to more than 15% of their 1985 Forest Cover 1985199019952002

47. Factors with Highest Predictive Power Distance from 1985 Agricultural Lands Soil Type Distance from 1985 Developed Lands Population over age 65 Density of Housing Units Evaluated 34 different factors to assess their ability to predict future development

48. Thames Watershed Forest Change Actual 2022 Projected

49. Forest Fragmentation Potentiality/Risk Map for the Thames Watershed

50. Salmon River Watershed Jason Parent, M.S. Thesis Research, Completed August 2006. Modeling Future Forest Fragmentation in the Salmon River Watershed of Connecticut Towns: Bolton, Hebron, Marlborough, Colchester, East Hampton, East Haddam Prediction of Land Use Change

51. Build-out Analysis – places points at potential building sites. Uses zoning information to determine lot sizes, building separation distance, etc… Uses constraint areas (no building allowed) hydrology buffers wetland buffers flood zones protected land steep slopes Factors in soils and roads Hydrography (50’ buffer) Wetlands (50’ buffer) Floodzones (50’ buffer) DEP land Slope > 20% distance from roads Build-out Analysis

52. Building growth was assumed to parallel population growth. Census data indicates that population growth has been linear over the past 40 years. –Population extrapolated out to 2036 by linear regression of past census data Estimated Population and Building Growth Population and Housing

53. East Hampton Build-out

54. Marlborough Time Scale

55. East Haddam Forest Fragmentation

56. Six Town Study Area Another Potential Future?

57. 3% of forest cover will be converted to non- forested land cover Core forest will decline by 28% Perforated, transitional, and patch forest will increase by 67%, 10%, and 8% respectively Edge forest will decline by 15.5% Results

58. Closing Remarks

59. - It is clear that we have had a dramatic impact on Connecticut’s forest resource. - Development and other land conversion will continue, but we can do a better job at guiding these land use decisions. Natural resource-based community planning and design. Land conservation. Wise management of conservation land and developed land. - As a group and as individuals, we can help reduce the impacts of fragmentation.

60. Connecticut’s Changing Landscape All is not lost, yet!

61. Forest Fragmentation in Connecticut: What Do We Know and Where Are We Headed?