FINAL REPORT SOUTHEASTERN ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
FINAL REPORTSOUTHEASTERN ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKSubmitted to thePlanning and Analysis BranchU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 4Atlanta, GeorgiaSubmitted byMargaret H. CarrThomas D. HoctorCrystal GoodisonPaul D. ZwickJessica GreenPatricia HernandezChristine McCainJason TeisingerKaren WhitneyThe GeoPlan CenterDepartment of Landscape ArchitectureDepartment of Urban and Regional PlanningDepartment of Wildlife Ecology and ConservationUniversity of FloridaGainesville, FloridaIn Collaboration withCory BerishJohn RichardsonRick DubrowStacy FehlenbergPlanning and Analysis BranchU.S. EPA Region 4Atlanta, GeorgiaMay 2002
Executive SummaryThe southeastern United States still harbors globally significant biodiversity and otherimportant natural resources despite decades of habitat loss and ecosystem alterations. The Southeastis also the fastest growing region in the United States. The trend appears to be driven by climate,economic stability, cultural attractions and the natural environment. This growth will continue todeplete and degrade the critical ecological resources that remain, and it is imperative thatcomprehensive efforts to efficiently and effectively protect these resources are developed rapidly.This report represents exploration of a regional conservation strategy needed to conserve theintegrity of ecological systems essential for human well-being.The Southeastern Ecological Framework (SEF) is a decision support tool created throughsystematic landscape analysis of ecological significance and the identification of critical landscapelinkages in a way that can be replicated, enhanced with new data, and applied at different scales. Itis intended to provide a foundation for the adoption and implementation of effective and efficientconservation measures to minimize environmental degradation and protect important ecosystemservices. It has been developed for all eight southeastern states contained within the boundaries ofthe Environmental Protection Agency Region 4: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina,Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Kentucky by staff of the Planning and Analysis Branch ofEPA Region 4 and researchers at the University of Florida. Work on the project began in October1998 and was completed in December 2001.The Framework was derived using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), a computermapping technology that links maps and related information. Data on which the work was builtwere acquired for the entire region and from individual states within the region. Data availabilityand consistency is improving rapidly, but is currently somewhat limited for projects of this scale.The land area identified in the Framework represents 43 percent of the land in the eight states. Ofthat 43 percent, 22 percent is in existing conservation lands, 12 percent in open water (rivers, lakesand reservoirs), 14 percent is in wetlands outside existing conservation lands and 52 percent is inprivately held uplands (that include 100 year floodplains).When the SEF was completed, three applications of it were developed to demonstrate itsconservation usefulness at different scales. The first was a region-wide application: prioritization ofthe SEF to identify the most significant conservation priorities for the region. The second wasanalysis of the Mississippi Delta with the goal of developing a planning resource to highlightecological priorities for a variety of natural resource programs, both federal and non-federal. Thefinal application was at the local scale: the development of a conservation plan for Murray County,Georgia that included analysis of the usefulness of the SEF for local conservation purposes.This report includes some valuable tools for use by others: Guide to Resources for RegionalConservation Planning (Section IX), a listing of critical resources used in the development of thisreport and of value to anyone engaged in a similar endeavor; a Data Library (Section X) compiled onthree compact disks that include input data, data analyses and results for the original SEF delineationand the three applications; and a listing of Conservation Tools and Strategies that can be employedin land conservation including both regulatory, incentive-based and voluntary strategies (AppendixH).While the work undertaken was supported by Region 4 of the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, the products developed have potential value for other federal agencies, stateand local agencies and for non-governmental organizations. It is the sincere hope of allinvolved, that the process and work products can be creatively employed to enhance effectiveconservation efforts in the southeastern United States and elsewhere.i
Table of ContentsSectionPage No.Executive SummaryiTable of ContentsiiAcknowledgementsviiList of FiguresviiiList of TablesxSection I: Southeastern Ecological Framework Project: Principles & IntroductionA. IntroductionB. Background Principles & Concepts Used in The SEF Projecta. Conservation Biologyb. Landscape Ecologyc. Conservation Planning ConceptsSection II: Delineation of the Southeastern Ecological FrameworkA. Model BackgroundB. GIS Modeling Techniques and Issuesa. The Use of GIS Modelingb. GIS Basicsc. Vector GISd. Raster GISe. Cell Size & Resolutionf. Data AvailabilityC. Goal and Objectives of the Southeastern Ecological FrameworkD. The Modeling Process to Delineate the Southeastern Ecological Frameworka. Identification of Priority Ecological Areas (PEAs) and SignificantEcological Areas (SEAs)b. Priority Ecological Area Exclusionc. Delineation of Hubsd. Identification of Landscape Linkagese. Integration and Optimization of Framework ComponentsE. Resultsa. Priority Ecological Areas and Significant Ecological Areasb. Hubsc. The EPA Region 4 Southeastern Ecological FrameworkF. 82932ii
SectionPage No.Section III: Applications of the Southeastern Ecological FrameworkA. Introductiona. EPA Applicabilityb. Other Federal Agency Applicabilityc. State and Local Agency Applicabilityd. Applicability for Nonprofit OrganizationsB. Specific Applications of the SEF363641424243Section IV: Regional Application: Prioritization of the SoutheasternEcological FrameworkA. IntroductionB. Types of Prioritizationsa. The Single & Multiple Utility Assignment Ranking Systemb. Reclassification MethodsC. Methodsa. Regional Prioritizationsi. Regional Prioritizations: Ecosystem Servicesii. Regional Prioritizations: Biodiversityiii. Regional Prioritizations: Recreation Potentialiv. Regional Threatsb. Hub Prioritizationsi. Hub Prioritizations Adapted from Regional Prioritizationsii. Hub Prioritizations: Ecosystem Servicesiii. Hub Prioritizations: Biodiversityiv. Hub Prioritizations: Recreational Potentialv. Hub Threatsvi. Hub Structure and Functionc. Linkage Prioritizationsi. Separating Linkages Into Discrete Segmentsii. Linkage Prioritizations: Internal Context Analysesiii. Linkage Prioritizations: External Context Analysesiv. Linkage Prioritizations: Width Analysesv. Linkage Prioritizations: Hub Ranksd. Creation Of Multiple Utility Assignments (MUAs)i. Regional Prioritization MUAsii. Hub Prioritization MUAsiii. Linkage Prioritization MUAiv. SEF Prioritization MUAD. Results and Discussiona. Regional Prioritizationsi. Ecosystem Servicesii. Biodiversityiii. Recreation Potentialiv. Threats To Ecological 758585959606161626263656770iii
SectionPage No.v. Regional MUAs Combinedb. Hub Prioritizationsi. Ecosystem Servicesii. Biodiversityiii. Recreation Potential Analysisiv. Threats Analysisv. Structure and Functionvi. Hub MUAs Combinedc. Linkage PrioritizationsE. ConclusionsSection V: Multi—State Scale Application: The Mississippi DeltaEcological FrameworkA. IntroductionB. BackgroundC. Objective and GoalsD. MethodologyE. ResultsF. ConclusionsSection VI: Local Scale Application: Delineation of an EcologicalNetwork in Murray County, GeorigaA. Introductiona. The Intent of the Local Applicationb. Why should the SEF be utilized at the local level?i.The Importance Of Conservation Scales: The Need For IntegrationBetween Different Scale Conservation Projectsii.Coordination Of Protection Effortsiii. Utilization Of SEF Products, Information, Data, And Analysesiv.Addressing Local Conservation Concerns Not Addressed InThe SEFc. How Can the SEF Products & Regional Data beUtilized at the Local Level?i.Evaluating SEF Data To Utilize In The Local ConservationPlanning Processii.Identification Of Local Priority Ecological Areasiii. Regional Ecological Context: Evaluation And Prioritization OfLocal Ecologically Significant Areas In The Regional Contextiv.Using The SEF Methodology To Create A LocalEcological Networkd. Data Issuesi.Data Availabilityii. Map Scaleiii. Combining Data Of Different 89909090919191929292iv
SectionPage No.B. Murray County, Georgia Case Studya. Introductioni.Murray County Backgroundii.Local Environmental Concernsiii. Georgia’s Greenspace Programiv.Status Of Murray County (as of 12/01)b. Delineating a Local Ecological Network for MurrayCounty, Georgiai.Conservation Goals & Objectivesii.General Modeling Methodologyiii. Specific Modeling MethodologyC. Resultsa. The Murray County Ecological Networkb. Priority Ecological Areasc. Ecological Hubsd. Hub Descriptionse. Landscape Linkagesf. Using Regional Ecological Analysesi.Using Regional Ecological Analyses As Inputs To TheLocal Modelii.Using Regional Ecological Analyses As An Evaluative ToolD. Discussiona. Applicability Of Using Regional Ecological Analysesb. Determining Modeling Parametersi.Choosing Buffer Amounts and Thresholdsii.Scaling Down: Thresholds at Various Scalesc. Recommendations For Linkagesd. Data Gapse. Recommendations for Protection Measures: What this Network Canand Should be Used ForE. 3126127127129131131131131132133134134135Section VII: Literature Cited136Section VIII: Glossary143Section IX: Guide to Resources for Regional Conservation Planning146Section X: Data Library156AppendicesAppendix A: SEF Delineation Methods Flowcharts157v
SectionPage No.Appendix B: Cost Surfaces for Modeling Riparian, Upland, and GeneralHub to Hub Landscape Linkages for SEF DelineationAppendix C: Data Lists of All Region 4 EPA Ecological FrameworkDelineation Data LayersAppendix D: SEF Prioritization Methods SummaryAppendix E: SEF Prioritization Technical MethodsAppendix F: Mississippi Delta Framework Technical MethodsAppendix G: Cost Surface for Modeling Upland Linkages for theMurray County, Georgia Ecological NetworkAppendix H: Conservation Tools and Strategies163166193220277289292vi
AcknowledgementsThis project would not have been possible without a commitment to collaboration betweenpersonnel from the University of Florida and the Planning and Analysis Branch, Region 4 of theUnited States Environmental Protection Agency. The tone for this work was established by thePAB head, Dr. Cory Berish. We thank Cory for the leadership he provided.The collaborative opportunity was created and approved by former EPA Region 4 Administrator,John Hankinson. John recognized the need for EPA to think beyond its immediate charge and toconsider ways in which federal agencies might collaborate to enhance their performance. Thiseffort was but one example of his commitment to conservation and the goals of efficiency andinnovation.Finally, we continue to acknowledge the contribution made by Dr. Larry Harris. Dr. Harris ofthe University of Florida has played an ongoing and instrumental role in describing theecological basis for ecological networks and highlighting specific project sites in Florida whereprotected ecological linkages would compound the benefit and long-term viability of existingconservation lands. Dr. Harris’ lead scientific role in promoting landscape linkages andintegrated habitat systems in Florida and worldwide can be traced back to his pioneering book,The Fragmented Forest: Island Biogeography Theory and the Preservation of Biotic Diversity,which was published in 1984. Dr. Harris presented his thoughts on a statewide strategy forwildlife conservation in the November 1985 issue of ENFO, a periodic publication of the FloridaConservation Foundation. In his article, “Conservation Corridors - A Highway System forWildlife”, Dr. Harris not only provided the scientific rationale for conservation corridors as partof an integrated habitat system, but he also presented specific steps he considered essential to astatewide wildlife conservation strategy. Since that time, Dr. Harris and his students havecontinued to provide scientific support for and technical assistance in the planning of integratedconservation systems in Florida and elsewhere. Most recently, Dr. Harris’ knowledge andparticipation on the Florida Greenways Commission provided the ecological foundation forFlorida’s Statewide Greenways System.vii
List of FiguresFigureFigure I-1.Figure I-2.Figure I-3.Figure I-4.Figure II-1.Figure II-2.Figure II-3.Figure II-4.Figure II-5.Figure II-6.Figure II-7.Figure II-8.Figure II-9.Page No.Model Ecological Reserve NetworkDesign concept for the Florida Greenways SystemDesign concept for the Florida Greenways SystemThe Florida Ecological Network including incorporated existingand proposed conservation lands9Example of a Vector DatasetExample of a Raster DatasetCell Size ExampleCell Size and Total Number of Cells per GridSoutheastern Ecological Framework Modeling ProcessPriority and Significant Ecological AreasPriority Ecological Areas before and after the exclusion processOptimized Hubs and Hubs before spatial optimizationThe Southeastern Ecological Framework for EPA Region 4131414151827272831Figure IV-1. Ecosystem Services MUA for EPA Region 4Figure IV-2. Ecosystems Services MUA clipped to the Southeastern EcologicalFramework boundaryFigure IV-3. Biodiversity MUA for EPA Region 4Figure IV-4. Biodiversity MUA clipped to the Southeastern Ecological FrameworkFigure IV-5. Recreation Potential MUA for EPA Region 4Figure IV-6. Recreation Potential MUA clipped to the SoutheasternEcological FrameworkFigure IV-7. Threats to Ecological Integrity MUAFigure IV-8. Threats to Ecological Integrity MUA clipped to the SEFFigure IV-9. All MUAs combined for EPA Region 4Figure IV-10. All MUAs combined clipped to the SEFFigure IV-11. Hub Ecosystem Services PrioritizationFigure IV-12. Hub Biodiversity PrioritizationFigure IV-13. Hub recreation potential analysis.Figure IV-14. Threats analysis summarized by HubsFigure IV-15. Hub Structure and Function PrioritizationFigure IV-16. All Hub MUAs combinedFigure V-1.Figure VI-1.Figure VI-2.Figure VI-3.Figure VI-4.Figure VI-5.78864646767696971717273747576777879Study Area Land Cover and Land Cover within the DeltaEcological Framework85Location of Murray County, GeorgiaMurray County Conservation Lands and RiversDiagram of Modeling ProcessSelection and Optimization of Ecological Hubs Process DiagramMurray County Ecological Network9497103117120viii
List of Figures (continued)FigureFigure VI-6.Figure VI-7.Figure VI-8.Figure VI-9.Figure VI-10.Figure VI-11.Page No.Murray County Priority Ecological AreasMurray County Significant Ecological AreasMurray County Ecological HubsMurray County Landscape LinkagesSoutheastern Ecological Framework within Murray CountyRegional Ecological Context121121124127130130ix
List of TablesTableTable II-1.Table II-2.Table II-3.Table II-4.Table II-5.Table II-6.Table III-1.Table V-1.Table V-2.Table VI-1.Table VI-2.Table VI-3.Page No.Criteria for selecting Priority Ecological Areas for the SoutheasternEcological FrameworkCriteria for selecting Significant Ecological Areas for the SoutheasternEcological FrameworkPEA and SEA Composition for EPA Region 4Hub and Optimized Hub Percentages for EPA Region 4Breakdown of land use categories within the SoutheasternEcological FrameworkPercentage of land use categories within Region 4 and theirrepresentation within the Southeastern Ecological FrameworkThe Southeastern Ecological Framework as a Decision Support Tool toAchieve EPA Goals and ObjectivesPEA data layer descriptions for the delineation of the DEFSummary of land cover types in the Delta study area and in the DeltaEcological FrameworkMurray County Forest Acreage by Ownership ClassData AssessmentMurray County Species of Conservation Interest (for which sufficientdata was available)Table VI-4. Murray County Species of Conservation Interest (for which insufficientdata was available)Table VI-5. State and Global Rarity RankingsTable VI-6. Federal Status ExplanationsTable VI-7. Breakdown of land use types within the Murray County EcologicalNetworkTable VI-8. Priority and Significant Ecological Areas in Murray County andCurrent Percent of Each ProtectedTable VI-9. Areas Significant for Protecting Water ResourcesTable VI-10. Comparison of Total Area Identified in Murray County and SEF 129x
Section I: Southeastern Ecological Framework Project: Principles &IntroductionA. INTRODUCTIONThe Southeastern Ecological Framework (SEF) is a decision support tool created throughsystematic landscape analysis of ecological significance and the identification of criticallandscape linkages in a way that can be replicated, enhanced with new data, and applied atdifferent scales. It is intended to provide a foundation for the adoption and implementation ofeffective and efficient conservation measures to minimize environmental degradation and protectimportant ecosystem services. It has been developed for all eight southeastern states containedwithin the boundaries of the Environmental Protection Agency Region 4: Florida, Georgia,South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Kentucky by staff of thePlanning and Analysis Branch of EPA Region 4 and researchers at the University of Florida.Work on the project began in October 1998 and was completed in December 2001.The states within EPA Region 4 incorporate significant ecoregional diversity rangingfrom the coastal plain, piedmont, parts of the Mississippi Delta, the southern AppalachianMountains, and the interior plateaus of Tennessee and Kentucky. These different ecoregions arealso ecologically connected in a variety of ways, including obvious watershed relationshipswhere the headwaters in the Appalachians become rivers that run to either the Atlantic or Gulf ofMexico. Many of these riparian ecosystems, especially in the western half of Region 4, harboraquatic biodiversity of international significance (Chaplin et al. 2000). Historically, wideranging species including the Florida panther/eastern cougar, black bear, red wolf, bison, andeven elk occurred throughout all or significant portions of the region. Forest biodiversity washistorically important, with vast old growth forests once ranging from the longleaf pine forestsand forested swamps of the southeastern coastal plain to the spruce-fir forests on the tops of theAppalachians, and remaining and regenerated forests in the southeast still harbor significantbiodiversity (Echternacht and Harris 1993). Florida contains other unique landscapes andnatural communities including ancient scrub and the Everglades that harbor extremelysignificant components of the region’s biodiversity (Harris et al. 2001). In a resent assessmentof biodiversity in the United States (Chaplin et al. 2000), EPA Region 4 was identified ascontaining two of the five most significant biodiversity hotspots in the country: the SouthernAppalachians and the Florida panhandle.Over the past 300 years there have been many significant landscape and ecosystemalterations. Silvicultural activities and clearing for agriculture have removed essentially all ofthe old-growth forest characteristics (Davis 1996) and millions of acres of forest cover. Mostwide-ranging species are completely gone or severely reduced through a combination of historicover-har
The Southeastern Ecological Framework (SEF) is a decision support tool created through systematic landscape analysis of ecological significance and the identification of critical landscape linkages in a way that can be replicated, enhanced with new data, and applied at different scales.
4.3.1 Age and the Ecological Footprint 53 4.3.2 Gender and the Ecological Footprint 53 4.3.3 Travelling Unit and the Ecological Footprint 54 4.3.4 Country of Origin and Ecological Footprint 54 4.3.5 Occupation, Education, Income and the EF 55 4.3.6 Length of Stay and Ecological Footprint 55 4.4 Themes of Ecological Resource Use 56
Social-ecological systems are complex and adaptive systems defined by feedbacks and interactions between nature and people. Here, we adopt Nobel Prize Winner Elinor Ostrom’s social-ecological systems framework that that depicts the essential elements of social-ecological systems and was designed for analyzing outcomes in social-ecological
The Ecological Health Framework encapsulates Metro Vancouver’s collective efforts around ecological health and provides guiding principles, goals, and strategies to help achieve the vision of a beautiful, healthy, and resilient environment for current and future generations. Specifically, the Ecological Health Framework:
Nova Southeastern University. Retrieved from NSUWorks, College of Nursing. (67) . Requirements for the Degree of . Doctor of Philosophy in Nursing Education . Nova Southeastern University . Elizabeth S. Azutillo . 2019 . NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY. HEALTH PROFESSIONS DIVISION .
A recently published framework for organizing, synthesiz-ing, and applying ecological knowledge to land management consists of fi ve elements3 (Fig. 1). Ecological sites are at the core of this framework because they are based on long-term ecological potential (i.e., climate, soils, and topographic
Final Exam Answers just a click away ECO 372 Final Exam ECO 561 Final Exam FIN 571 Final Exam FIN 571 Connect Problems FIN 575 Final Exam LAW 421 Final Exam ACC 291 Final Exam . LDR 531 Final Exam MKT 571 Final Exam QNT 561 Final Exam OPS 571
Ecological Appraisal for a baseline survey of the site. Potential ecological constraints and opportunities identified within the Ecological Appraisal. Review of national and local policies which include the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2019) and Stroud District Local Plan (SDLP, 2015).
The external evaluation of the National Plan on Drugs and Drug Addiction 2005-2012 is taking place now and the final report will be presented in December 2012, which will include recommendations for the next policy cycle. The final report of the internal evaluation of both Plans (Drugs and Alcohol) will be presented by the end of 2012 for approval of the Inter-ministerial Council. Drug use in .
