a gis approach to habitat restoration site selection …

A GIS APPROACH TO HABITAT RESTORATION SITE SELECTION AND

PRIORITIZATION IN THE NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY

Written by: Kelly Kunert

Date:_____________

Approved:

____________________________ Dr. William Kirby-Smith, Advisor

____________________________ Dr. Larry Crowder, Director, Coastal Environmental Management Program

Masters project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Environmental Management degree in

the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences of Duke University

2005

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project would not have been possible without the help and support of many people. First and foremost, I would like to thank the staff of the EPA Region II, Division of Environmental Science and Assessment, Monitoring and Assessment Brach in Edison, NJ who played an integral role in peaking my scientific interest in the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary. My summers spent working for the EPA were the basis for the development of this project. I am indebted to Carl Alderson at the NOAA Restoration Center in Sandy Hook, NJ who shared with me his incredible knowledge of the region and provided support and guidance. I also owe many thanks to the members of the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program who answered my endless questions. Additionally, I would like to thank my academic advisor, Dr. Bill Kirby-Smith, who provided guidance throughout the research process and read (and re-read) my many drafts. The GIS analysis would never have been completed without the help of the GIS-gurus, Dr. Pat Halpin, Jeff Smith, and Daniel Dunn who saved the day many times with GIS assistance. Thanks is also in order to all those who assisted with data acquisition. Finally, I owe it all to my friends—from New Jersey, the University of Delaware, and the Nicholas School—who have kept me smiling. Thank you to my family for always encouraging me on my adventures and academic endeavors and believing I could do it when I didn’t believe in myself.

ii

ABSTRACT

The New York-New Jersey Harbor is an urban estuary that has suffered the effects of

industrial pollution, urban development, and harbor dredging. One of the most prominent issues

arising from the Harbor’s urban history is the loss of wetland habitat. The New York-New

Jersey Harbor Estuary Program (HEP) has made it a priority to protect and restore habitat in the

Harbor. The current method employed by the HEP to identify and prioritize habitats for

restoration is a consensus decision approach. While this approach has been effective for

identifying approximately 60 acquisition sites and 88 restoration projects, concern has been

expressed by representatives from the agencies that fund these restoration projects that the

current method is not scientifically grounded.

This paper explores an alternate approach to habitat restoration site selection and

prioritization in the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary using a geographic information system (GIS). A set

of habitat restoration criteria was developed and criteria grids depicting the developed

parameters were created and analyzed using ArcGIS 9.0. The analysis results in three maps,

identifying wetland sites, HEP acquisition sites, and HEP restoration sites that are most suitable

for restoration efforts. From the maps, ten sites were identified as recommended sites for

inclusion on the HEP Priority Acquisition and Restoration Sites List. Two accompanying tables

prioritize the HEP acquisition and restoration sites based on their final suitability values

indicated by the maps. Grids of the current HEP restoration and acquisition sites were overlain

on the final wetlands suitability grid to compare the current restoration site selection method with

the GIS approach. The comparison indicates that three wetland sites identified as top priority

restoration sites by the GIS method were also identified by the current HWG consensus planning

method. Seven of the GIS-selected sites are not currently listed on the HEP Priority Acquisition

and Restoration Sites List.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Study Area ........................................................................................................................... 2

1.2. The New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program ......................................................... 4

1.3. The Habitat Workgroup ....................................................................................................... 5

1.4. A GIS Approach .................................................................................................................. 7

2. METHODS ................................................................................................................................ 8

2.1. Development of Restoration Criteria ................................................................................... 8

2.2. Acquisition of Spatial Data................................................................................................ 11

2.3. GIS Suitability Analysis Model ......................................................................................... 14

3. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 20

3.1. Comparison of Site Selection Methods.............................................................................. 32

4. DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................... 32

4.1. Application of the Model ................................................................................................... 32

4.2. Nomination of Restoration Sites........................................................................................ 37

5. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................... 38

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 39

APPENDICES:............................................................................................................................ 42

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: List of Data and Sources.................................................................................................. 2 Table 2: Natural Habitat Types in the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Study Area................................. 13 Table 3: Wetland Size Category Suitability Rank Values ........................................................... 16 Table 4: Harbor Estuary Program Acquisition Site Size Category Suitability Rank Values ...... 17 Table 5: Harbor Estuary Program Restoration Site Size Category Suitability Rank Values....... 17 Table 6: Assigned Criteria Grid Numbers ................................................................................... 19

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Study Area...................................................... 3 Figure 2: GIS Suitability Analysis Model .................................................................................. 15 Figure 3: Buffer Diagram ........................................................................................................... 17 Figure 4: Buffer Ring Class Numbers ......................................................................................... 18 Figure 5: Wetland Size Suitability.............................................................................................. 21 Figure 6: Harbor Estuary Program Acquisition Site Size Suitability ......................................... 22 Figure 7: Harbor Estuary Program Restoration Site Size Suitability ......................................... 23 Figure 8: Natural Land Use/Land Cover Suitability................................................................... 24 Figure 9: Critical Species Habitat Suitability ............................................................................. 25 Figure 10: Opportunity for Public Outreach and Education Suitability ..................................... 26 Figure 11: Protected and Managed Land Suitability .................................................................. 27 Figure 12: Wetland Restoration Site Suitability ......................................................................... 28 Figure 13: Harbor Estuary Program Acquisition Site Suitability ............................................... 29 Figure 14: Harbor Estuary Program Restoration Site Suitability ............................................... 30 Figure 15: Map of Selected Restoration Sites ............................................................................ 31 Figure 16: Comparison of GIS Selected Site Suitability with Current HEP Acquisition and Restoration Sites ........................................................................................................................... 33

vi

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Geographic Information System Suitability Analysis Model ................................ 42 Appendix C: Restoration Site Selection Criteria Maps .............................................................. 48 Appendix D: Detailed Habitat Restoration Suitability Maps at 1:216,462 Scale........................ 54 Appendix E: Harbor Estuary Program Acquisition and Restoration Sites List and Map.......... 104 Appendix F: Prioritized Harbor Estuary Program Acquisition and Restoration Sites .............. 115

1

1. INTRODUCTION

�To those who know it, the Hudson River is the most beautiful, messed up, productive,

ignored, and surprising piece of water on the face of the earth� (Boyle 1969). This river, which

is part of the equally surprising New York-New Jersey (NY/NJ) Harbor Estuary, was once

described as �clear as crystal, and as fresh as milk� (Boyle 1969). The Harbor was teeming with

life; it contained an abundance of fish and 350 square miles of oyster beds. Today, the NY/NJ

Harbor Estuary is seen by many to be an industrial wasteland, with degraded habitat,

contaminated sediments, and polluted water. About 80 percent of the harbor�s original benthic

habitat and tidal wetlands have been lost. This loss accounts for approximately 300,000 acres, or

an area roughly 1.5 times the current area of New York City (Steinberg et al. 2004). Threats to

habitat in the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary are a continuing problem. Recently, plans have been

developed to build a NASCAR track on valuable wetland habitat on the western shore of Staten

Island (Alderson 3/9/05). While it is true that the NY/NJ Harbor has suffered severe

environmental degradation due to industrial pollution, urban development, and harbor dredging,

it should not be written off as a lost cause. Despite its history of environmental problems, the

Harbor continues to serve as a valuable economic, ecological, and recreational resource for the

region. The NY/NJ Harbor Estuary currently supports many competing uses. �It is trout stream

and estuary, water supply and sewer, ship channel and shad river, playground and chamber pot.

It is abused, revered, and almost always misunderstood� (Boyle 1969). The Harbor Estuary

provides habitat for a number of fish and shellfish species. It is located along the Atlantic

flyway, providing feeding and resting areas for both migratory and local bird species (Adams

1998). This diverse ecological habitat also serves as one of the most heavily utilized shipping

ports on the east coast of the United States. The NY/NJ Harbor watershed is located in the most

2

densely populated region of the nation, supporting a population of over 20 million people

(NY/NJ HEP 1996).

Restoring the degraded habitat of NY/NJ Harbor is important to ensure that the harbor

can continue to be used as an economic, recreational, and ecological resource. The NY/NJ

Harbor Estuary Program (HEP) has been working with government agencies, non-governmental

organizations (NGOs), and the public since 1996 to protect and restore habitat (Mandarano

2004). This paper discusses the measures presently being taken by the New York-New Jersey

Harbor Estuary Program to restore habitat in the harbor and explores a method to improve the

scientific rigor of current restoration site selection efforts using a geographic information system

(GIS).

Concern has been expressed by representatives of agencies that fund and undertake

habitat restoration efforts in the harbor, that restoration site selection by the HEP is not

scientifically grounded (Mandarano 2004). Incorporation of a GIS into the site selection process

would serve to address this issue. Moreover, the exploration of an alternate approach to habitat

restoration site selection provides the opportunity to analyze and assess the current methods.

1.1. Study Area

The NY/NJ Harbor Estuary is a 41,128 square kilometer estuarine system located

between the states of New York and New Jersey (Matsil 2001). The Harbor Estuary, as defined

by the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program�s Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan

(CCMP), �encompasses the waters of the New York Harbor and the tidally influenced portions

of all rivers and streams which empty into the Harbor� (1997). The estuary�s core area stretches

from Piermont Marsh in New York State to the mouth of the Harbor, located between Sandy

Hook, New Jersey and Rockaway Point, New York (NY/NJ HEP 1996). These boundaries

4

correspond to the summertime location of the 30ppt salinity isopleth, which delineates estuarine

waters (Mandarano 2004). The NY/NJ Harbor Estuary contains waters under the jurisdiction of

both New York and New Jersey, including: Upper and Lower New York Bay, Jamaica Bay,

Raritan Bay, Newark Bay, Sandy Hook Bay, Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, Hudson River, East

River, Hackensack River, Passaic River, Raritan River, Shrewsbury River, Navesink River, and

Rahway River (NY/NJ HEP 1996) (Fig. 1). The lands that drain into the harbor are also

managed by the HEP as part of the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary. This results in a management area

that contains 21,070 square miles of water and 10,206 square miles of land (Mandarano 2004).

Historically, the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary contained about 80,000 acres of tidal wetlands

and 224,000 acres of freshwater wetlands. Today, these numbers are significantly lower. The

estuary�s core area currently contains about 20,000 acres of tidal wetlands (Steinberg et al.

2004). Almost 99% of New York City�s freshwater wetlands have been lost (NY/NJ HEP 1996).

The remaining habitat in the Harbor Estuary provides habitat for approximately 400 special

interest species, including 27 federally listed endangered species and 278 state listed species.

This listing accounts for more species than any other estuary in the nation (Mandarano 2004).

1.2. The New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program

Policy and management of NY/NJ Harbor habitat restoration efforts is carried out by the

NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program, which is overseen by the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA). The HEP relies on data from a number of federal and state government agencies,

NGOs, and educational institutions when selecting sites for restoration. The integration of

federal and state governments, NGOs, educational institutions, and the general public makes

habitat restoration in NY/NJ Harbor an interesting and challenging policy issue.

5

The nomination of the NY/NJ Harbor to the National Estuary Program (NEP) originated

from the EPA Region II office, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

(NYSDEC) and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). The NEP

nomination package for the HEP was prepared by individuals from these agencies. Upon its

completion in November 1987, NJ Governor Thomas Kean, NY Governor Mario Cuomo, and

both state environmental commissioners endorsed the nomination package and submitted it to the

National Estuary Program. In 1988, the EPA approved the nomination and designated the

Harbor Estuary an Estuary of National Significance (Mandarano 2004). A Management

Conference, referred to as the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program was formed and given

responsibility for developing a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for

the Harbor (NY/NJ HEP 1996).

In 1996, the Harbor Estuary Program Management Conference completed the Final

CCMP, and the plan was approved by the EPA Administrator in 1997 (NY/NJ HEP 2001). The

NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program�s CCMP identified the management of habitat and living

resources, toxic contamination, dredged material, pathogenic contamination, floatable debris,

nutrients and organic enrichment, rainfall-induced discharges, and public involvement and

education as primary areas of concern for the NY/NJ Harbor. Workgroups were formed to

implement recommended actions identified by the CCMP for each of these areas of concern

(NY/NJ HEP 1996).

1.3. The Habitat Workgroup

�Habitat is the central focus of the CCMP because of its critical importance to the

environmental health of the region� (Matsil 2001). Two specific objectives regarding habitat

restoration addressed in the CCMP are to �identify significant coastal habitats warranting

6

enhanced protection and restoration� and to �develop and implement plans to protect and restore

significant coastal habitats and impacted resources� (NY/NJ HEP 1996).

A Habitat Workgroup (HWG) was formed to carry out the habitat restoration goals of the

CCMP. To meet these goals, the HWG has put together a working Priority Acquisition and

Restoration Sites List (priority list) to identify target areas for habitat restoration. The HWG

uses a consensus decision approach to select sites to be added to the priority list. The HWG

developed a nomination process in which stakeholders can fill out an application to nominate

sites for inclusion on the Priority Acquisition and Restoration Sites List (Nyman 2004, Welsh

2004). An application is available online that any individual or group may complete and submit

to the HWG Chair. The person or group who submits a nomination packet is then invited to

make a presentation to the HWG about the site they have nominated for restoration and the

reasons for the nomination. A decision on whether or not to accept the site is reached by majority

vote within the HWG. Once a site is approved by the HWG, it must also be approved by the

HEP Management Committee and finally by the HEP Policy Committee. Once approved by the

Policy Committee, the site is added to the priority list (Nyman 2005, Yuhas 2004). This

hierarchical approval process lends additional weight to the inclusion of sites on the list (Nyman

2005).

The HEP does not have a large budget or staff to carry out restoration projects. The list is

used as a means to steer other agencies in their restoration efforts (Nyman 2004). The priority

list is looked to by local politicians and fund managers when planning restoration projects

because it represents agreement between federal, state, and local agencies on which sites are a

priority for restoration. However, the use of the HEP priority list to influence restoration efforts

of other agencies has become problematic. Representatives from federal and state agencies that

7

fund restoration projects express frustration with the consensus decision approach to site

selection. These representatives believe that stakeholder presentations should not carry more

weight than the scientific information included on the site nomination form when making

decisions on whether or not a site should be added to the priority list. Additionally, they feel that

sites should be ranked sequentially based on their ecological value (Mandarano 2004).

1.4. A GIS Approach

A National Strategy to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat (National Strategy), a

collaborative effort between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and

Restore America�s Estuaries (RAE), found that in the Northeast Atlantic region, which includes

the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary, the use of a GIS for the selection of restoration sites was identified as

an element of a successful restoration (2002). �In NYC and across the Nation, GIS and other

GeoData Systems are critical planning tools for enhanced spatial visualization and data analysis�

(OASIS Cooperative 2005). RAE�s National Strategy further supports the use of GIS for habitat

restoration planning by encouraging the application of �the best appropriate restoration science

and technology in project design and implementation� (RAE and NOAA 2002). The NOAA

Coastal Services Center also recommends GIS as a useful tool in the restoration planning process

(NOAA CSC 12/30/04).

The use of a GIS to select and prioritize sites for acquisition and restoration would help to

alleviate the concerns expressed by federal and state agency representatives over the scientific

rigor of the current HWG nomination process. The incorporation of a GIS site suitability

analysis into the HWG�s restoration site selection process, would allow proposed restoration

sites to be evaluated based on all of the restoration criteria the HWG wished to consider (USEPA

2000). Additionally, a GIS would provide a standardized method for evaluating restoration sites.

8

All sites would be measured against the same criteria and personal bias would be minimized

from the process. GIS suitability maps would provide clear evidence as to why a site should or

should not be added to the HWG Priority Acquisition and Restoration Sites List. �GIS

technology helps manage the complex issue of landscape mapping, allowing land-use planning

decisions to be made more effectively� (Andree 1998).

I chose to employ a geographic information system to select sites for wetlands restoration

and to prioritize current restoration sites in the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary to demonstrate GIS as a

useful complement to the consensus decision approach and to explore its applicability for the

NY/NJ HEP. While the goal of the HWG is to protect and restore all habitat types in the harbor,

data availability and time constraints limited this project to the analysis of only one habitat type.

Wetlands were chosen because they �are among the most productive and important habitat types

in the estuary, providing essential nursery, feeding, spawning, and nesting grounds for a variety

of fish and wildlife species� (Steinberg et al. 2004).

2. METHODS

A GIS suitability analysis was conducted to identify wetland patches most suitable for

habitat restoration and to prioritize previously identified restoration and acquisition sites. The

suitability analysis is a four part process, comprised of the following steps:

1. Development of a set of restoration site selection criteria. 2. Acquisition of spatial data representing each criterion. 3. Creation of a suitability analysis model in ArcGIS 9.0. 4. Prioritization and selection of sites for restoration.

2.1. Development of Restoration Criteria

Wetlands restoration site selection criteria were developed and modified based on the

current nomination form (NY/NJ HEP 2005) used by the HWG to select sites for restoration, as

9

well as the Long Island Sound Habitat Restoration Initiative (2003). The Long Island Sound

Habitat Restoration Initiative provided the criteria used by the Long Island Sound Estuary

Program (LISS) to prioritize sites nominated for habitat restoration and served as an important

resource, as the HWG used the Long Island Sound Estuary Program�s site nomination form as a

starting point in the development of their own restoration site nomination packet (Mandarano

2004). Consultation with restoration specialists at the NOAA Restoration Center in Sandy Hook,

NJ, allowed me to compare my criteria with habitat restoration criteria commonly used in the

NY/NJ region to verify that my selected criteria were appropriate for this study (Alderson

1/26/05, Woolcott 2005). The wetlands restoration site selection criteria include:

1. Size 2. Proximity to Natural Land Use/Land Cover 3. Proximity to Critical Species Habitat 4. Opportunity for Public Outreach and Education 5. Proximity to Protected and Managed Areas

Criterion 1: Size

For the purpose of this study, the largest wetland patches in the study area are considered

most suitable for restoration efforts. Favoring habitat patches with the largest area when

prioritizing and selecting sites for restoration ensures that the greatest amount of suitable habitat

is being restored.

Criterion 2: Proximity to Natural Land Use/Land Cover

Wetlands that are surrounded by �similar or complementary� natural areas have greater

potential to be restored, as they are less threatened by anthropogenic sources of pollution than

wetlands adjacent to commercial, residential, or agricultural land (Alderson 26 Jan. 2005, LISS

2003). Polluted runoff into wetlands from paved surfaces or industrial effluent can negate

10

restoration efforts. Natural habitat areas provide restoration sites with a buffer from

disturbances.

Additionally, the Long Island Sound Habitat Restoration Initiative suggests that,

�restoration should be completed with the context of the habitats surrounding the wetland

addressed to help correct fragmentation that has already occurred� (2003). Some species require

different habitat types at various stages of their life cycles. For example, amphibians require

both wetland and upland habitats for their complete life cycle. If a population becomes isolated

in only one of its required habitats, then the population cannot survive (LISS 2003). For these

reasons, wetlands that are in close proximity to undisturbed, natural habitat areas are most

suitable for restoration.

Criterion 3: Proximity to Critical Species Habitat

The New York-New Jersey Harbor provides habitat for 27 federally listed and 278 state

listed endangered and threatened species (Mandarano 2004) including the bald eagle and

peregrine falcon (Adams 1998). In fact, the NY/NJ metropolitan area is home to ten percent of

the nesting population of peregrine falcons on the East Coast. These regionally and nationally

significant populations are especially vulnerable to human disturbances and habitat degradation

(U.S. FWS 1997). It is important that these critical species habitats are protected or restored to

ensure that viable populations of key species can continue to persist in the Harbor. Therefore,

wetland sites that include, or are in close proximity to critical species habitat are most suitable

for restoration efforts.

Criterion 4: Opportunity for Public Outreach and Education

One of the goals of the Harbor Estuary Program�s Habitat Workgroup, as stated in the

CCMP, is to �increase public access, consistent with maintaining the Harbor/Bight ecosystem.�

11

With the large population of this region, �there is a demand for open space opportunities along

the coastline. Providing public access can meet this need while building a constituency for

enhanced protection of natural habitat and species populations� (NY/NJ HEP 1996). Identifying

restoration projects near pre-existing nature trails, greenways, and fishing piers will increase

public awareness of restoration projects and will insure recreational use of these restored

wetlands by birdwatchers, educators, and other members of the public. Moreover, undertaking

habitat restoration projects in easily accessible areas will allow the HEP to �increase public

education, stewardship, and involvement on issues related to the management of habitat and

living resources� (NY/NJ HEP 1996). Informational signs can be posted at restoration sites

along trails or in parks to educate the public on NY/NJ Harbor restoration efforts. Easily

accessible restoration sites are also an excellent opportunity to involve school and community

groups in restoration projects.

Criterion 5: Protected and Managed Areas

Wetland patches located near pre-existing protected or managed areas are most suitable

for restoration. Managed or protected areas may provide a restoration site with protection from

pollution and other anthropogenic disturbances by providing buffer zones (Fisher 2004).

Additionally, siting restoration projects within or close to managed areas may encourage the

agencies or non-governmental organizations in charge of these areas to fund the restoration of a

site.

2.2. Acquisition of Spatial Data

Spatial data from the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary core area was obtained from a variety of

government agencies and non-governmental organizations (Table 1) and projected into the

12

Table 1: List of Data and Sources

Data Source Website WETLANDS NY/NJ Harbor Tidal and Freshwater Wetlands

Regional Plan Association http://www.rpa.org

MISCELLANEOUS NJ County Boundaries US EPA, Region 2 http://www.epa.gov/region02/gis/atlas/cnty_bnd.htm

NY County Boundaries US EPA, Region 2 http://www.epa.gov/region02/gis/atlas/cnty_bnd.htm CONTIGUOUS HABITAT NY LULC NY GAP http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/Projects/FTP.htm NJ LULC NJ GAP http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/Projects/FTP.htm CRITICAL HABITAT

Significant Habitats and Habitat Complexes of the NY Night Region US FWS http://www.fws.gov/r5snep/ HEP SITES Restoration Sites NY/NJ HEP http://www.harborestuary.org Acquisition Sites NY/NJ HEP http://www.harborestuary.org PUBLIC ACCESS/ AWARENESS

TIGER Data US Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/ MANAGED AND PROTECTED LAND

NY Land Stewardship NY GAP http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/Projects/FTP.htm

NJ Land Stewardship NJ GAP http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/Projects/FTP.htm

13

Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone

18 North American Datum (NAD83). All

raster grids have a 30m cell size.

Data identifying the location of

wetland patches in the Harbor Estuary were

obtained from the Regional Plan Association

(RPA). This dataset is compiled from U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National

Wetlands Inventory data. The RPA data

provide information on both tidal and

freshwater wetlands for the entire estuary.

Land use/land cover (LULC) grids were

obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS) Gap Analysis Program (GAP).

These datasets were created using the

National Vegetation Classification System

(NVCS). Natural habitat cover (Table 2) was

selected and extracted from the LULC grids

to create a natural habitat grid. Natural

habitats were considered to be areas where

human activity is limited to non-destructive

activities, such as nature observation,

forestry, and recreational fishing (Tiner

Table 2: Natural Habitat Types in the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Study Area

New York Natural Habitat Types Spruce-fir Evergreen plantation Sugar maple mesic Oak Successional hardwoods Appalachian oak-pine Pitch pine-oak Evergreen-northern hardwood Successional shrub Alpine krummholtz Dwarf shrub bog Alpine meadow/rock/heath summit Sand flats/slope

New Jersey Natural Habitat Types Tidal herbaceous beach community Lowland pine woodland Mixed grasses/Low Shrubs Coastal lowland pine forest Bare sand Cultivated trees Virginia pine forest Virginia pine-mixed oak forest

Coastal plain pine-mixed hardwood lowland forest Coastal plain beech-oak forest Sweetgum forest Sycamore-mixed hardwood riverside forest Lowland mixed oak forest Beachgrass shrublands Dwarf beachgrass shrublands Mixed pines forest Red oak-white oak forest Sparsely vegetated beach alliances Chestnut oak forest Mixed oak-sugar maple forest Rich northern hardwood forest Red cedar woodland Piedmont beech-oak forest Tidal Atlantic white-cedar forest Short needled pine-mixed dry oak forest Pitch pine woodland Hemlock-mixed hardwood forest Dune grassland Non-tidal maritime shrublands Non-tidal Atlantic white-cedar forest

14

2002). The FWS habitat characterization study, The Significant Habitat and Habitat Complexes

of the NY Bight Region (1996), provided data on critical species habitat in the harbor. The study

was commissioned by the HEP and is currently used by the HWG as the scientific foundation for

the priority habitat acquisition and restoration program. Additionally, the Bight Habitat Study

provides the most comprehensive study of critical habitat in the NY/NJ Harbor watershed

(Mandarano 2004). Opportunity for public outreach and education, while an important criterion

considered by the HWG when adding sites to the Priority Sites list, is difficult to analyze

spatially. A nominated site could have a planned visitors� center, which would be included in the

nomination form and considered using the consensus planning method. However, a planned

outreach program cannot be incorporated as spatial data for analysis by GIS. For this reason,

public outreach opportunities were measured by potential for public outreach planning. Wetland

patches within close proximity to recreational areas provide the greatest opportunities to raise

public awareness and develop outreach programs. The best available data on the location of

recreational areas was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau TIGER data. The Census Bureau

maps areas of recreational significance, including national, state, and county parks. Data on

protected land in the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary core area was obtained from the GAP. The GAP

land-stewardship datasets delineate the boundaries of federal, state, and municipal protected land

and unprotected areas.

2.3. GIS Suitability Analysis Model

A GIS suitability analysis was used to identify priority sites for habitat restoration. This

analysis incorporated geographic data along with user-defined, restoration criteria to identify and

prioritize wetland restoration sites. A four step suitability analysis model (Figure 2) was created

15

Figu

re 2

: GIS

Sui

tabi

lity

Ana

lysi

s Mod

el

16

using ArcGIS 9.0 in which the datasets identifying each restoration criterion were combined and

manipulated, as follows, to create a final suitability map:

1. Classify wetland patches, HEP acquisition sites, and HEP restoration sites by area. 2. Determine proximity to natural land cover, critical species habitat, recreational areas, and protected and managed areas. 3. Assign suitability rank values to each criteria grid. 4. Add rank grids together to produce final suitability and priority maps.

STEP 1: Classify Current and Potential Restoration and Acquisition Sites by Area To classify wetlands by area, the model divided wetland patches into ten size categories

using natural breaks in the data. Size categories were assigned category numbers (r) from 0-9,

with 0 being the largest size class and 9 being

the smallest size class (Table 3). A linear

algorithm (Eq. 1) was used to assign rank

values (V) to each habitat size class, where c =

number of size categories:

Equation 1: Vr = 10c � 10r

All land area that was not classified as

wetland habitat was assigned a value of

�NoData� to exclude these areas from the

analysis. Size classification was repeated by

the model to classify HEP acquisition sites

(Table 4) and again to classify HEP

restoration sites (Table 5).

Table 3: Wetland Size Category Suitability Rank Values

Wetland Area (km2) Rank Value

4601.871 � 8579.577 100

2424.111 � 4601.871 90

1443.056 � 2424.111 80

815.935 � 1443.056 70

433.380 � 815.935 60

245.835 � 433.380 50

132.733 � 245.835 40

60.714 � 132.733 30

18.941 � 60.714 20

.576 � 18.941 10

17

STEP 2: Determine Proximity

The model applied a multiple ring buffer to each of the

four proximity criterion grids to evaluate distance away from

natural LULC, critical species habitat, recreational areas, and

managed and protected areas. The buffer creates rings around

the feature being analyzed at specified intervals to identify

areas within a given threshold distance from the outside edge

of each criteria feature (Fig. 3).

Buffer Distances:

Proximity to Natural Land Use/Land Cover Buffer: The

natural land use areas buffer was created at 100m intervals, up to a maximum distance of 1000m

away from the outside edge of each natural area patch. A maximum distance of 1000 meters was

chosen, because a study by Finlay and Houlahan (1996) indicates that the removal of 20% of the

Table 4: HEP Acquisition Site Size Category Suitability Rank Values HEP Acquisition Site Area (km2) Rank Value 4557.457 - 7595.477 100 1501.079 � 4557.457 90 969.531 - 1501.079 80 675.508 - 969.531 70 427.988 - 675.508 60 280.256 - 427.988 50 187.828 - 280.256 40 95.348 - 187.828 30 62.140 - 95.348 20 22.780 - 62.140 10

Table 5: HEP Restoration Site Size Category Suitability Rank Values HEP Restoration Site Area (km2) Rank Value 1366.031 � 2875.041 100 807.950 � 1366.031 90 582.487 � 807.950 80 412.465 � 582.487 70 249.892 � 412.465 60 146.379 � 249.892 50 112.278 � 146.379 40 58.867 � 112.278 30 23.474 � 58.867 20 .633 � 23.474 10

Figure 3: The buffer function creates a ring around the feature being analyzed at a user-specified distance (Bolstad 2002).

18

forest within 1000 meters of a wetland may have the same effects on the wetland habitat as

destroying 50% of that wetland (Tiner 2002).

Proximity to Critical Species Habitat Buffer: Proximity to critical species habitat was measured

at a distance of 46 meters from the perimeter of each critical species habitat patch and at a

distance of 300 meters. These distances were chosen based on NJ state endangered species

regulations, which state that a 46m conservation area buffer should be applied to areas that

contain endangered or threatened species. A 300m buffer is recommended by the state for

sensitive species (NOAA CSC 4/6/04)

Opportunity for Public Outreach and Education Buffer: The public outreach and education

buffer was set at 10m intervals, up to 100m from core outreach areas. A maximum distance of

100 meters was applied, because this is a reasonable distance for the public to travel from a

recreational area to view or to learn about a restoration site.

Proximity to Protected Land and Managed Areas Buffer: A buffer of 100m intervals, up to

1000m was applied to data on protected and managed lands. A maximum distance of 1000m

was chosen, because sensitivity analyses indicated that the

application of a buffer larger than 1000m weighted this

criterion too heavily in the analysis.

STEP 3: Assign Suitability Rank Values

Each buffered distance ring was assigned a buffer

ring class number (n). The first ring away from the feature

was assigned class number zero; the second ring was class

one. Classification continued in this manner until all buffer

rings were assigned a distance class value (Fig. 4). A linear

equation (Eq. 2) was used to reclassify each criteria buffer

Figure 4: Buffer ring class numbers reflect distance away from the feature being analyzed. The first ring, 0, is adjacent to the feature.

0 1

2 3

4

19

grid to assign suitability rank values (V), where x = number of buffer ring classes.

Equation 2: Vn = 10x � 10n

STEP 4: Additive Overlay of Criteria Grids The final step in the GIS suitability analysis model is to add the five ranked criteria grids

together to determine the overall suitability value (S). Each of the ranked criterion grids (Z) was

arbitrarily assigned a criterion number (k) (Table 6). The five grids were assigned equal

importance and added together using equation 3, where Q = the total number of criteria to

produce a final suitability map (Eq. 3).

Q

Equation 3: S = (1/Q) Σ Zk k=1

The size-ranked HEP acquisition sites grid (A) and the size-ranked HEP restoration sites grid (R)

were combined with the ranked natural LULC, critical species habitat, public outreach and

education, and protected and managed areas grids using equations 4 and 5, respectively.

Q

Equation 4: S = (1/(1+Q)) Σ Zk + A k=1

Q

Equation 5: S = (1/(1+Q)) Σ Zk + R k=1

Table 6: Assigned Criteria Grid Numbers

Criterion Number (k) Size 1

Proximity to Natural LULC 2

Proximity to Critical Species Habitat 3

Opportunity for Public Outreach and Education 4

Proximity to Managed and Protected Land 5

20

Average rank values were taken for each wetland patch and HEP acquisition and restoration site

to determine final priority and suitability rank values. The zonal statistics function in ArcGIS

calculated the mean values across each site, resulting in a single priority or suitability number for

each site. Final average priority and suitability rank values were divided into 10 equal-interval

categories to identify areas most suitable for restoration.

3. RESULTS

Individual restoration criteria suitability maps (Figs. 5-11) identified areas with suitability

rank values ranging from 0-100. On this scale, a value of 100 indicates that a site is most

suitable for restoration and 0 indicates that a site is not suitable.

The GIS suitability analysis resulted in three final suitability maps, depicting overall

suitability values for potential wetland restoration sites (Fig. 12), HEP acquisition sites (Fig. 13),

and HEP restoration sites (Fig. 14). Equations 3, 4, and 5 produced suitability rank values for

potential restoration sites, HEP acquisition sites, and HEP restoration sites, respectively, with a

potential range from 0-100. A suitability value of 0 indicates that a site did not meet any of the

restoration criteria. A value of 100, means that a site met all of the restoration criteria to the

fullest extent. Overall suitability for wetland patches ranged from 2.000 to 86.183, indicating

that no sites fully satisfied all restoration criteria. Wetland patches that received 80% or more of

the possible 100-point suitability value were recommended for inclusion on HEP Priority

Acquisition and Restoration Sites List. Recommended restoration sites contain one or more

wetland patches with suitability values of 80 or greater. Patches located in close proximity to

one another are grouped together as one site. Figure 15 shows that ten sites contained wetland

32

patches with suitability value of 80 and above. These sites include three in Staten Island, NY,

four in Jamaica Bay, NY, two in Brooklyn, NY and one in Sandy Hook, NJ.

HEP acquisition and HEP restoration sites were prioritized separately, based on overall

restoration suitability values. Prioritized lists of the HEP acquisition and restoration sites can be

found in Appendix E. HEP acquisition site suitability ranged from 8.000 to 68.788. Site

suitability for the current HEP restoration sites ranged from 7.000 to 89.061. The highest

priority rank of 1 was assigned to the site with the highest overall suitability value; priority 2 was

assigned to the site with the next highest average suitability value. Priority rankings continued in

this manner until all HEP acquisition and restoration sites were prioritized.

3.1. Comparison of Site Selection Methods

A map (Fig. 16) comparing the GIS selected sites to the current HWG sites shows that

the two approaches identify some similar areas as important for habitat restoration. Three of the

GIS-recommended sites have been identified by the HWG�s consensus decision approach and

listed as priority acquisition and restoration sites. However, seven sites with GIS-calculated

suitability values of 80 points or above are not currently listed on the HEP�s Priority Sites List.

4. DISCUSSION

4.1. Application of the Model

The NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program Habitat Workgroup has made significant progress in

identifying sites for habitat restoration in the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary. As of 2001, the HWG had

identified 60 acquisition sites and 88 restoration projects. Representatives from federal and state

agencies that fund restoration projects feel that the method used to select these acquisition and

restoration sites should be more scientifically based to ensure that the most ecologically critical

34

sites are restored. Others argue that all habitat is important in an urban estuary and that any

restoration project is valuable to the Harbor. �If the Habitat Workgroup increased the scientific

rigor of the nomination process many of these projects would fall through the cracks and the

Habitat Workgroup would miss the opportunity to support local stakeholder projects that would

contribute to the Habitat Workgroup�s goal: increasing habitat in the estuary� (Mandarano 2004).

The consensus method also involves local stakeholders in the environmental decision making

process. Collaboration between government agencies, NGOs, and the public is an important part

of the National Estuary Program.

A GIS site selection method, like the one demonstrated in this paper, should not replace

the current site selection method, but rather can act as a complement to consensus decision

planning to create a comprehensive site selection and prioritization process that incorporates

stakeholder input with scientific modeling. The GIS suitability analysis model approach to

habitat restoration site selection and prioritization can serve as a useful tool for improving the

current HWG consensus decision site selection approach. The GIS method can incorporate all

criteria that the HWG wishes to consider when selecting and prioritizing sites for the priority list.

It can identify remote areas of critical ecological importance that may get overlooked by the

consensus decision approach.

To incorporate GIS into the restoration site selection process of the HWG, spatial data

availability for the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary must be considered. Based on the data collection

methods implemented by this demonstration of GIS habitat restoration site selection, spatial data

for the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary is incomplete and disparity exists between data availability for

NY and NJ. Spatial datasets do not exist, are incomplete, or are not available for interagency or

public distribution for many of the restoration criteria the HWG may wish to consider, including:

35

land ownership, parks and recreation, and managed areas. Datasets encompassing the entire

NY/NJ HEP study area are not available for many of the criteria. Spatial data must be patched

together from multiple federal, state, and county agencies to create complete datasets. Problems

with data combining are encountered, because differences in data availability exist between

states. NJ provides GIS datasets on tidal and freshwater wetlands on the NJ Department of

Environmental Protection website, while the NY Department of Environmental Conservation

will not release tidal wetlands data1. If the HEP decides to incorporate GIS into their restoration

site selection method, more complete spatial data for the NY/NJ region must be collected. The

HEP should work with government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and universities

to collect and compile all available spatial data for the study area. Complete, up-to-date data are

necessary for a GIS analysis to produce the most useful results.

The role of stakeholders must also be considered when incorporating GIS into the

restoration site selection process of the HWG. Stakeholder involvement is an important part of

the HEP. Increasing the scientific rigor of the restoration site selection process by using GIS,

does not need to come at the cost of losing stakeholder involvement in the restoration site

selection process. �A common, free, open space inventory � really a web-based GIS mapping

resource � is invaluable to NYC�s greening and planning communities� (OASIS Cooperative

2005). A web-based, open space mapping application has been developed for New York City

called the New York City Open Accessible Space Information System (OASIS). OASIS is a

community-based undertaking that involves a partnership between federal, state, and local

agencies, private companies, academic institutions, and NGOs. The goal of OASIS is �to create

a one-stop, interactive mapping and data analysis application via the Internet to enhance the

stewardship of open space for the benefit of New York City (NYC) residents� (OASIS 1 Request for tidal wetlands data was refused by the NYSDEC.

36

Cooperative 2005). OASIS will allow the public to perform spatial analyses previously only

available to those with training in geospatial analysis. Using technology developed by the New

York Public Interest Research Group�s (NYPIRG) Community Mapping Assistance Project

(CMAP), users will be able to view spatial data for the New York City region, create maps,

identify open space resources within a user-defined area, perform geographic-based searches,

calculate statistics based on open space patterns, and use other mapping and data analysis tools.

Users will also be able to perform scenarios that allow them to see how land-use changes would

impact their community (OASIS Cooperative 2005). Incorporating a user-friendly online

restoration site selection program into the OASIS website that would allow the public to select

criteria and input parameters for restoration site selection would help to integrate GIS with

consensus planning. The HEP should work with the NYPIRG CMAP to develop ways to

provide this type of application to the public; the technology and resources are available and the

demand for this resource is there, as evidenced by the OASIS website. A web-based GIS

restoration site selection program would provide local stakeholders with the opportunity to make

more scientific decisions when nominating sites to the HWG. This would increase the scientific

rigor of the restoration nomination process, while still allowing for significant public

involvement.

The use of a GIS to prioritize acquisition and restoration sites requires specific,

standardized restoration criteria to be set. A framework must be developed so that all selected

sites are measured against the same standards. Slight changes in parameters such as buffer

distance or parameter weight can significantly alter the results of the GIS analysis. The HEP

Habitat Workgroup should work with restoration specialists and stakeholders to set restoration

site selection standards if they plan to implement a prioritization scheme using GIS. This

37

standardized set of criteria could be altered, based on the needs of the HEP, and site

prioritizations could be recalculated, and shifted accordingly. The prioritized Acquisition and

Restoration Sites List could serve as a working list, with flexibility to shift priorities as new sites

are added, updated data is collected, and restoration needs change.

4.2. Nomination of Restoration Sites

As previously discussed, the use of a GIS to select sites for habitat restoration requires

complete, up-to-date, spatial data for the study area to produce the most useful results. The GIS

suitability analysis described in this paper was conducted using the best available data for the

NY/NJ Harbor region, but missing information in the datasets has been identified using local

knowledge of the study area. Parks data were especially incomplete, leaving out large recreation

areas, including Cheesequake State Park and Liberty State Park in NJ2 (Alderson 2005). The

analysis was based on criteria and parameters developed specifically for this study, and not

necessarily reflecting criteria used by the HWG to approve sites for inclusion on the priority list.

The criteria were developed based on the current HWG site nomination form (NY/NJ HEP 2005)

and the basis for this form, the L.I. Sound Habitat Restoration Initiative (LISS 2003) to ensure

that they would most accurately reflect the restoration goals of the CCMP. Additionally, buffer

distances and criteria weights were selected specifically for this study and not based on HEP

standardized site selection parameters. Any alteration of these parameters could potentially

result in different sites being selected by the GIS for restoration. The GIS analysis demonstrated

in this study accurately selected restoration sites that should be considered by the HEP, given the

constraints of limited data availability and use of non-standardized criteria. The GIS analysis has

laid the groundwork for further investigation of these sites. Information about these sites

gathered from site visits would complement this study and confirm or deny that these sites 2 This observation was made based on personal knowledge, having lived in Monmouth County, NJ for 24 years.

38

should be added to the priority list. I propose that, pending the collection of additional

information on each of the GIS-identified sites, the HWG should consider the addition of the

seven new sites identified by this analysis to the Priority Restoration and Acquisition Sites List.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a GIS-based approach to habitat restoration site selection that works in

conjunction with the current consensus decision method would require the commitment of the

HEP to collect additional spatial data for the Harbor Estuary region, develop standardized criteria

by which to select restoration sites, and educate the public about the availability of this tool.

Although such a change in restoration planning would require significant time and effort,

integrating GIS with consensus planning would prove beneficial to the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary

Program. This method would meet the goals of the National Estuary Program by ensuring

collaboration between government agencies, NGOs, and the public (USEPA 2004). It would

allow the Habitat Workgroup to continue to achieve their goal to �identify significant coastal

habitats warranting enhanced protection and restoration� (NY/NJ HEP 1996). Additionally, the

incorporation of GIS into the Habitat Workgroup restoration site selection process would ease

the concerns of government representatives that fund restoration projects by increasing the

scientific rigor of the nomination process.

39

REFERENCES

Adams, D.A., J.S. O�Connor and S.B. Weisberg. 1998. Sediment Quality of the NY/NJ Harbor System: An investigation under the Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (REMAP). New York: United States Environmental Protection Agency. Alderson, Carl. 26 January 2005. NOAA Restoration Center. Personal Communication. Alderson, Carl. 9 March 2005. NOAA Restoration Center. Personal Communication. Andree, Holly. 1998. Development of an interactive GIS model for wetlands protection and

restoration: breaking the barriers to consensus planning. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference: 135-146.

Bolstad, Paul. 2002. GIS Fundamentals: A First Text on Geographic Information Systems. White Bear Lake, MN: Eider Press. 412 p. Boyle, Robert H. 1969. The Hudson River: A Natural and Unnatural History. New York: W.W.

Norton & Company, Inc. 304 p. Finlay, C.S. and J. Houlahan. 1996. Anthropogenic correlates of species richness in southeastern

Ontario. Conservation Biology. 11(4): 1000-1009. Fisher, Arthur. 2004. A Site Selection Analysis for the Placement of Oyster Sanctuaries in Pamlico Sound. Masters Project. Duke University, Nicholas School of the Environment. Long Island Sound Study. 2003. Long Island Sound Habitat Restoration Initiative: Technical

Support for Coastal Habitat Restoration. Stamford, CT: United States Environmental Protection Agency Long Island Sound Office. Mandarano, Lynn A. 2004. Protecting Habitats: New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program, collaborative planning, and scientific information [dissertation]. Philadelphia (PA): University of Pennsylvania. 231 p. Available from: UMI ProQuest Digital Dissertations; AAT 3125866. Matsil, M. 2001. Habitat Workgroup 2001 Status Report: A Regional Model for Estuary and

Multiple Watershed Management. Introduction. New York: New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program.

New York City Open Accessible Space Information System (OASIS) Cooperative. Accessed:

20 April 2005. < http://www.oasisnyc.org/resources/about_oasis/About_OASIS.asp> New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program. 1996. Final Comprehensive Conservation and

Management Plan. New York: New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program.

40

_____. 2001. Habitat Workgroup 2001 Status Report: A Regional Model for Estuary and

Multiple Watershed Management. New York: New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program.

_____. 2005. New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program Habitat Workgroup Site Nomination Form. Available from: http://www.seagrant.sunysb.edu/hep/pdf/SiteNominationForm.pdf NOAA Coastal Services Center. 30 Dec. 2004. Land Cover Analysis: Selection Conservation Areas. Accessed: 28 Jan. 2005 <http://www.csc.noaa.gov/cra/lca/app_nj.html > _____. 6 Apr. 2004. For the Expert: National Review of Innovative and Successful Coastal Habitat Restoration. Accessed: 19 Sept. 2004. <http://www.csc.noaa.gov/coastal/expert/natreview/natreview05.htm> Nyman, Robert. 8 Nov. 2004. Director, NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program. Personal Communication. _____. 22 Apr 2005. Director, NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program. Personal Communication. Restore America�s Estuaries and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2002. A National Strategy to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat. Available from: http://www.estuaries.org/downloads.php Steinberg, N., D.J. Suszkowski, L. Clark and J. Way. 2004. Health of the Harbor: The First

Comprehensive Look at the State of the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary. A report to the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program. Hudson River Foundation, NY, NY. 82 pp.

Tiner, R.W. 2002. Remotely-sensed Natural Habitat Integrity Indices for Assessing the General

Ecological Condition of Watersheds. Hadley, MA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Environmental Planning for Communities: A

Guide to the Environmental Visioning Process Utilizing a Geographic Information System (GIS). Cincinnati, OH: U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development.

_____. 27 Sept. 2004. The National Estuary Program: A Ten Year Perspective. Accessed: 7 Nov. 2004. <http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/aniv.htm> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Significant Habitats and Habitat Complexes of the New

York Bight Watershed. Charlestown, R.I.: US Fish and Wildlife Service. Welsh, Nancy. 22 Sept. 2004. New York State Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources. Personal Communication.

41

Woolcott, Craig. 2005. Coastal Restoration Specialist, NOAA Restoration Center, NMFS Sandy Hook Field Office. Personal Communication.

Yuhas, Cathy. 5 Nov. 2004. NJ Sea Grant Extension Program, NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program Office. Personal Communication.

42

APPENDIX A:

Geographic Information System Suitability Analysis Model

43

E

xpla

natio

n of

GIS

Sui

tabi

lity

Ana

lysis

Mod

el S

teps

STE

P 1:

Cla

ssify

Wet

land

Pat

ches

and

HEP

Res

tora

tion

and

Acq

uisi

tion

Site

s by

Are

a.

Inpu

t crit

eria

shap

efile

s are

repr

esen

ted

in th

e m

odel

by

blue

ova

ls.

Thes

e in

put s

hape

files

are

con

verte

d to

rast

er g

rids b

ased

on

area

by

the

yello

w �

feat

ure

to ra

ster

� bo

xes.

The

gre

en o

vals

repr

esen

t the

suita

bilit

y-ra

nked

out

put r

aste

r grid

s.

44

E

xpla

natio

n of

GIS

Sui

tabi

lity

Ana

lysis

Mod

el S

teps

STE

P 2:

Det

erm

ine

Prox

imity

to N

atur

al L

and

Are

as, C

ritic

al S

peci

es H

abita

t, R

ecre

atio

nal A

reas

, and

Man

aged

/Pro

tect

ed L

and.

In

put c

riter

ia ra

ster

grid

s are

repr

esen

ted

in th

e m

odel

by

blue

ova

ls.

Thes

e in

put g

rids a

re c

onve

rted

to sh

apef

iles b

y th

e ye

llow

�ra

ster

to

poly

gon�

box

es.

This

is a

nec

essa

ry st

ep, b

ecau

se th

e A

rcG

IS b

uffe

r fun

ctio

n do

es n

ot w

ork

with

rast

er g

rids.

The

firs

t set

of g

reen

ova

ls

repr

esen

ts th

e co

nver

ted

outp

ut sh

apef

iles.

The

yel

low

�M

ultip

le R

ing

Buf

fer�

box

es a

pply

a b

uffe

r to

each

pol

ygon

with

in th

e ou

tput

shap

efile

to

det

erm

ine

dist

ance

aw

ay fr

om e

ach

crite

ria fe

atur

e. T

he re

sult

is a

shap

efile

con

tain

ing

a us

er-s

peci

fied

num

ber o

f dis

tanc

e rin

gs, r

epre

sent

ed

by th

e se

cond

set o

f gre

en o

vals

.

45

E

xpla

natio

n of

GIS

Sui

tabi

lity

Ana

lysis

Mod

el S

teps

STE

P 3:

Ass

ign

Suita

bilit

y R

ank

Val

ues.

The

outp

ut b

uffe

r rin

g sh

apef

iles f

rom

Ste

p 2

are

inpu

t for

Ste

p 3.

The

se sh

apef

iles a

re c

onve

rted

back

to ra

ster g

rids b

y th

e ye

llow

�fe

atur

e to

ra

ster

� bo

xes s

o th

at th

ey m

ay b

e re

clas

sifie

d to

ass

ign

suita

bilit

y ra

nk v

alue

s by

the

yello

w �

Rec

lass

ify�

boxe

s. T

he g

reen

ova

ls re

pres

ent t

he

suita

bilit

y-ra

nked

out

put r

aste

r grid

s.

46

E

xpla

natio

n of

GIS

Sui

tabi

lity

Ana

lysis

Mod

el S

teps

STE

P 4:

Add

itive

Ove

rlay

of S

uita

bilit

y G

rids.

All

rank

ed c

riter

ia su

itabi

lity

grid

s, re

pres

ente

d by

the

gree

n ov

als,

are

adde

d to

geth

er b

y th

e ye

llow

�Si

ngle

Out

put M

ap A

lgeb

ra�

boxe

s.

Equa

tion

3 is

use

d to

add

eac

h ra

nked

pro

xim

ity c

riter

ia g

rid to

geth

er w

ith th

e ra

nked

wet

land

are

a gr

id.

Equa

tions

4 a

nd 5

are

use

d to

add

the

rank

ed p

roxi

mity

crit

eria

grid

s tog

ethe

r with

the

area

-ran

ked

HEP

Acq

uisi

tion

Site

grid

and

Res

tora

tion

Site

grid

, res

pect

ivel

y.

47

E

xpla

natio

n of

GIS

Sui

tabi

lity

Ana

lysis

Mod

el S

teps

STE

P 4A

: Det

erm

ine

Ave

rage

Ove

rall

Suita

bilit

y R

ank

Val

ues.

The

�Zon

al S

tatis

tics�

func

tion

is ru

n in

the

mod

el to

det

erm

ine

the

aver

age

suita

bilit

y va

lue

for e

ach

wet

land

pat

ch, H

EP a

cqui

sitio

n si

te, a

nd

HEP

rest

orat

ion

site

. Th

e ov

eral

l sui

tabi

lity

grid

(gre

en o

val)

and

the

size

crit

eria

shap

efile

(blu

e ov

al) s

erve

as i

nput

s for

this

func

tion.

The

fin

al g

reen

ova

ls re

pres

ent t

he a

vera

ge o

vera

ll ha

bita

t res

tora

tion

suita

bilit

y gr

ids.

48

APPENDIX B:

Restoration Site Selection Criteria Maps

54

APPENDIX C:

Detailed Habitat Restoration Suitability Maps at 1:216,462 Scale

104

APPENDIX D:

Harbor Estuary Program Acquisition and Restoration Sites List and Map

115

APPENDIX E:

Prioritized Harbor Estuary Program Acquisition and Restoration Sites

116

Prioritized List of NY-NJ Harbor Estuary Program Acquisition Sites

RANK SITE

ID NAME PRIORITY

VALUE 1 LI04 POWELLS COVE 8.0002 AK17 OUTERBRIDGE PONDS & WOODS 13.8643 AK11 CANADA HILL FOREST 17.5604 RR01G SILVER LAKE 19.1745 AK08 ADDITIONS TO ARDEN WOODS 19.4496 AK14 MOUNT LORETTO WOODS 20.6077 LI05 HUCKLEBERRY ISLAND 23.1748 HR01 HUDSON COUNTY MALL 25.5689 AK20 MERRILLS CREEK 26.22910 RB17 MANY MIND CREEK 28.15811 JB01 SEAGIRT AVENUE WETLANDS 29.78612 AK01 MORSES CREEK 30.09913 RB01 PAW-PAW HYBRID OAK COASTAL WOODS 31.07614 NYH01 SOUTH BEACH WETLANDS, NORTHERN SECTION 31.65015 LI01 SOUTH BROTHER ISLAND 32.00016 AK05 ALFIERI SITE 33.21617 AK13 LITTLE FRESH KILLS 34.28618 HR06 EMERSON 35.89119 RB07 FLAT CREEK 38.10220 RB10 TREASURE LAKE 38.14521 AK21 SAW MILL CREEK PARK ADDITION 39.20022 NS01 CLAYPIT CREEK 40.14823 LI02 CITY ISLAND WETLANDS 40.28124 AK12 CHARLESTON/KREISCHER HILL WOODS 40.31525 HR04 HAWORTH 41.76326 AK04 RANGE ROAD FOREST 42.82727 AK16 NORTHERN SEA VIEW 42.86228 RB06 EAST CREEK 42.86529 AK02 PILES CREEK 44.29730 AK09 ARLINGTON MARSH 44.57031 RB11 WHALE CREEK/LONG NECK CREEK 45.10032 RB05 NATCO LAKE/THORNS CREEK 45.78133 HUR01 LIBERTY STATE PARK 46.09434 AK19 CAMP POUNCH 46.15135 HR03 OVERPECK CREEK 46.28536 RB12 MARQUIS CREEK 47.09837 RB04 COMPTONS CREEK 47.85738 HR02A HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS/BELLMANS CREEK 47.91739 RB09 MATAWAN CREEK 49.70640 HR02B HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS/PENHORN CREEK 50.66841 RB08 CONOSKONK POINT 50.68042 RR01 RARITAN RIVER, MULTIPLE SITES 50.769

117

Prioritized List of NY-NJ Harbor Estuary Program Acquisition Sites (continued)

RANK SITE

ID

NAME PRIORITY

VALUE 43 LI03 UDALLS COVE RAVINE 51.019

44 HR02C HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS/EMPIRE TRACT/MOONACHIE CREEK 51.127

45 HR02D HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS/BERRYS CREEK 51.66146 RB16 GREAT KILLS HARBOR PARK 51.72347 AK18 PORT MOBILE SWAMP FOREST & TIDAL FLATS 52.50348 RB02 LEONARDO 54.97449 JB02 ARVERNE URBAN RENEWAL AREA 55.363

50 AK07 GRANITEVILLE SWAMP WOODS 55.57151 AK15 NECK CREEK 55.66452 AK10 CABLE AVENUE WOODS 56.58053 RB03 WARE CREEK 58.18554 AK07B GARCON PROPERTY 58.35955 HR02E HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS/KEARNY MARSH 59.00756 RB15 OLD MORGAN LANDFILL/RARITAN COUNTY PARK 59.58157 AK07C TELEPORT MAGNOLIA FOREST 61.00358 RB14 SOUTH AMBOY 61.66259 AK07A WILPON POND 65.58260 RB13 CHEESEQUAKE MARSH 68.788n/a HR05 OLD TAPPAN n/an/a HR07 RIVER VALE n/a

*Note: Sites HR05 and HR07 fell outside the study area for this project

118

Prioritized List of NY-NJ Harbor Estuary Program Restoration Sites

RANK SITE ID NAME PRIORITY

VALUE 1 LI08 PUGSLEY CREEK 7.0002 LI10 SOUNDVIEW PARK 8.0003 LI04E BRONX RIVER/SHOELACE PARK 8.7064 PR02 THIRD RIVER 9.6795 NYH01 BUSH TERMINAL 10.0006 AK03M RAHWAY RIVER/CRANFORD 12.0007 LI04D BRONX RIVER/CEMENT PLANT 15.5008 LI07 POWELLS COVE 16.0009 RB07 LONG POND PARK 17.87810 AK03H RAHWAY RIVER/ESSEX STREET, RAHWAY 19.88211 AK03J RAHWAY RIVER/UNION/ALLEN STREETS 20.00012 AK03I RAHWAY RIVER/WEST GRAND AVENUE, RAHWAY 22.00012 AK03B CENTRAL AVENUE A 22.00012 AK03C CENTRAL AVENUE B 22.00012 PR01 DUNDEE DAM 22.00012 LI09 SETON FALLS PARK /KETTLE PONDS 22.00017 LI15 LITTLE HELLGATE WETLANDS 23.84718 HUR03 LIBERTY STATE PARK 24.51019 RB06 ARDEN HEIGHTS WOODS 25.26620 HR03 VAN BUSKIRK ISLAND 26.00010 LI04C BRONX PARK 26.65522 NS02 SHREWSBURY RIVER WATERSHED (MULTIPLE SITES) 27.17423 LI04B SETON FALLS PARK 28.00024 LI02 BOWERY BAY 28.66925 AK03N RAHWAY RIVER/VAUXHALL CREEK 28.80626 AK11 WEEQUAHIC LAKE 30.15427 RB03 MATAWAN CREEK/KEYPORT HARBOR MOUTH 31.26228 HR04 ORADELL DAM 31.77429 AK03F RAHWAY RIVER/POTTERS ISLAND 32.00029 LI01 AURORA POND 32.00031 AK04 WOODBRIDGE RIVER RESTORATION 32.86232 HUR01A HUDSON RIVER/RIVERDALE PARK 33.77733 AK03D RAHWAY RIVER/MADISON/MAPLE AVENUES, RAHWAY 34.00034 LI03 FLUSHING CREEK 34.72935 JB10 HAWTREE BASIN 37.30336 LI12 TWIN BALLFIELDS, FOREST PARK 37.79037 AK01B MORSES CREEK 37.86838 HUR01C HUDSON RIVER/FORT WASHINGTON PARK 38.20039 AK02 ELIZABETH RIVER 38.39740 AK03K RAHWAY RIVER/RAHWAY RIVER PARKWAY LAKE 38.52341 AK03L RAHWAY RIVER/RAHWAY RIVER PARKAY THE LAGOON 38.53842 NS01 SHADOW LAKE DAM 38.58843 NYH02 CONEY ISLAND CREEK/DREIER-OFFERMAN 39.394

119

Prioritized List of NY-NJ Harbor Estuary Program Restoration Sites (continued)


VALUE 44 RR01 RARITAN RIVER 39.43945 AK08 PRALLS ISLAND 42.38246 AK03A RAHWAY RIVER/DRI-PRINT FOIL PRINTING CO. 43.07047 HUR02 SPUYTEN DUYVIL 43.25048 HUR01E HUDSON RIVER/RIVERSIDE PARK 44.06749 AK10 RANGE ROAD FOREST 45.05750 LI11 TURTLE COVE 45.15851 AK05D ARLINGTON MARSH 46.50552 JB15 MOTT BASIN 46.52753 HR05 TEANECK CREEK 47.60254 HUR01D HUDSON RIVER/FORT TRYON PARK 48.28055 HR02B HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS/MILL CREEK 49.45856 HR01 LINCOLN PARK WEST 49.62457 HUR04 LIBERTY STATE PARK 50.09458 JB02 BERGEN BASIN 50.11359 LI14 MEADOW LAKE 50.15160 RB04 CHEESEQUAKE STATE PARK (HOOKS LAKE) 50.17761 AK03E RAHWAY RIVER/MILTON LAKE 51.29262 AK01A PILES CREEK 51.45263 AK05G CHELSEA ROAD BRIDGE 51.50663 AK05A SAW MILL CREEK 51.50665 LI13 ALLEY POND PARK 52.87066 JB12 JFK SHORELINE 53.20567 JB22 WHITE ISLAND 53.82768 AK03G RAHWAY RIVER/JOSEPH MEDWICK PARK 54.22269 JB06 CONCH BASIN 54.72470 JB18 SOMERVILLE BASIN 55.36871 JB07 DUBOS POINT 55.49372 HUR01B HUDSON RIVER/INWOOD HILL PARK 55.55573 AK05E MARINER'S MARSH 55.83474 JB24 IDLEWILD PARK 55.98575 LI05 PALMER INLET 58.09776 HR02A HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS/NJ TPK WESTERN SPUR 58.16677 AK05C GULFPORT MARSH 58.30378 JB11 HEALY AVENUE 59.14379 JB03 BRANT POINT 59.51280 LI16 PELHAM BAY PARK/TALLAPOOSA WEST 60.84781 JB20 VERNAM BARBADOES A 61.39282 RB05 CHEESEQUAKE STATE PARK (WHITE CEDAR FOREST) 61.75883 JB01 BAYSWATER PARK 62.06884 AK05B OLD PLACE - GOETHALS COMPLEX 63.22585 JB13 MARINE PARK 65.71086 JB19 SPRING CREEK 65.823

120

Prioritized List of NY-NJ Harbor Estuary Program Restoration Sites (continued)


VALUE 87 LI06 PELHAM BAY LAGOON 66.34888 AK05F WILPON POND - GOETHALS COMPLEX 67.61489 AK03O RAHWAY RIVER/ORANGE RESERVOIR 69.36190 JB08 FOUR SPARROW MARSH 69.91491 RB01 LEMON CREEK 70.44492 JB21 VERNAM BARBADOES B 70.58893 JB14 MILL BASIN 73.55194 JB19A HENDRIX CREEK 76.75595 JB05 CANARSIE BEACH 82.94996 JB17 SHELLBANK BASIN 83.16797 JB23 BERGEN BEACH 83.84198 JB04 BREEZY POINT 84.20599 JB09 GERRITSEN INLET 85.850100 RB02 RICHMOND CREEK 89.061

a gis approach to habitat restoration site selection …

Documents