iii

Prioritizing Land for Habitat Protection: Using GIS for efficient habitat conservation in Southampton, NY.

By

Jared Margolis

B.A., Colgate University, 1998.

Thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Masters in Environmental Studies At

Brown University

Providence, Rhode Island May 2002

iv

Acknowledgments

This work would not have been possible without the support

of a number of people. I would like to thank Saleem Ali, who has

been incredibly supportive, and whose faith in me has allowed me

to do my best. I could not ask for a better advisor. Jill

Ozarski, my TNC contact, has provided me with an incredible

amount of information, and has been not only supportive of my

work, but has kept my vision of helping the area I love alive.

Lynn Carlson, a.k.a. GIS guru, is without a doubt a

goldmine of information, and she has not only helped me through

the GIS aspect of this project, she has become a wonderful friend

as well. Melanie Harlow started as a great boss, and her

expertise in the GIS field has been a tremendous help. I am proud

to have her help as a reader for my thesis. Barnaby Friedman, GIS

coordinator for TNC, has helped guide me through much of the data

available for this analysis, and has been a wonderful friend and

GIS buddy.

To all those agencies and groups who have sent me data -

Town of Southampton, Suffolk County, Natural Heritage, Army

Corps, and FEMA - many thanks for making this possible.

To my friends, thanks for listening to me drone on and on

about Southampton. My ski buddies in VT, my friends in

Providence, and scattered others all over the world, thanks for

everything.

To my two loves Jobi and Alex. I love you both so much,

and you’ve been here for me every day of the year. I couldn’t

have done it without you. Rock Us.

Finally, my wonderful, supportive parents and sister.

Thanks so much for everything you do for me. I love you guys. The

support you have shown me is unreal, and I can’t thank you

enough.

v

Table of Contents

iii. Acknowledgments v. Tables and Figures vi. Executive Summary 1. Introduction

1.1 Study Area 1.1a Southampton Physical Characteristics 1.1b Land Use and Demographic Trends

1.2 Management Options 1.3 Target Audience 1.3a Private Organizations and Government in Conservation

1.3b Land Protection on LI - Working with The Nature Conservancy

1.3c The Nature Conservancy Approach to Land Protection 1.4 Geographic Information Systems 1.4a GIS Scope and Previous Application

2. Methodology 2.1 Criteria and Coverage’s

2.1a 100 yr. Flood Plane 2.1b Wetlands -Wetland Buffers -Wetland Coverages 2.1c Barrier Beach Overwash 2.1d Protected Land 2.1e Beach Dependent Species 2.1f Coastal Erosion Hazard Area 2.1g Community Preservation Fund Areas 2.1h Parcel Size 2.1I Land Availability

2.2 Prioritization Scheme

3. Results 3.1 Vacant Land Results 3.2 Residential Easement Results 3.2 Structure Relocation Results

4. Discussion 5. Constraints 6. Further Research 7. Conclusions 8. References 9. Appendix A

Criteria Maps Result Maps

vi

Tables

1. The Nature Conservancy Criteria and Related Coverage’s P.41

2. Coverage’s and Sources P.72

3. Table of Results - Vacant Parcels P.80

4. Table of Results - Easements P.82

5. Table of Results - Structure Relocation P.85

6. Summation of Results P.85

Figures

1. Location map of Long Island P.5

2. Prioritization Criteria P.73

3. Map of Results - Vacant Parcels P.81

4. Map of Results - Easements P.83

5. Map of Results - Structure Relocation P.84

vii

Executive Summary

Introduction

Southampton stands at a crossroads in time. With

about one third of available land already built upon,

another third protected, and a third up for grabs, fast

action needs to be taken to accumulate land for habitat

protection. Both local government and private conservation

organizations are involved with this issue, with very

different goals in mind. This case study will show the

possibilities which new technology allows for the

prioritization of land for habitat preservation.

The extensive and important habitat areas in

Southampton are increasingly threatened by human

encroachment. Any activity that would disturb or eliminate

natural beach and dune-land plant communities (or alter the

water quality) would result in a loss of valuable habitat

for a number of important wildlife species. Shorebirds in

particular are very vulnerable to disturbance by humans.

Development of the area for residential or extensive

recreational use would result in a direct loss of valuable

habitats and increased human disturbance impacts on certain

species.

viii

Much of Southampton’s growth has occurred along the

southern and coastal region. Future growth is expected to

occur primarily along the coastal regions as well, focusing

along the bays and estuaries. This will blur the boundaries

between the traditional hamlets and village centers as

build-out occurs away from these now concentrated centers

of activity. A fast growing population, especially within

the seasonal summer residents, has lead to an incredible

increase in housing prices, and a lack of available land.

While density of housing remains low, it is essential to

keep development from taking over the valuable ecosystems

that provide habitat for local species.

A number of questions have surrounded the research

presented here, and have helped me to focus on ways to help

make the conservation effort on Long Island more efficient.

I have looked into what technologies exist for spatial

analysis, and the management options available for habitat

protection, which could benefit from such analysis. I have

researched the different agencies and groups involved, and

looked at which has the most potential to affect change,

and provide goals I agree with and can work with. Finally,

in looking to the actual ground level of prioritizing

lands, I have done extensive research into the criteria and

coverage’s that exist, and have selected those that are the

ix

most relevant for prioritization on the parcel level. This

has lead me to my thesis question, ‘How can Geographic

Information Systems (GIS) be used to prioritize parcels for

efficient habitat protection in a well developed coastal

zone?’

My research has shown that while local government has

a number of protective laws and land management strategies,

development pressure and economic influence makes private

conservation groups role in land acquisition an important

part of habitat protection. Due to the fact That

Southampton is so developed, and contains such a variety of

sensitive and locale specific habitat areas, I feel that

the ability of private groups to work quickly within both

the public and private sector is essential for this

region’s conservation. The Nature Conservancy has worked

extensively within this area, and their goals are

consistent with my own vision of targeted habitat

preservation. TNC expertise has provided me with a platform

on which my methodology is based, and a target audience

that will make use of my results in their continuing effort

to protect land on Long Island.

Previous projects have focused on analyzing land

cover data for the identification of sensitive or habitat

x

rich lands for acquisition. Southampton provides an

important case study, because it involves an extremely

difficult area to test the powers of GIS. Analyzing and

prioritizing on the parcel level in a well-developed and

extremely expensive coastal zone, with very sensitive

habitat, is at the boundaries of what GIS has been used for

in the past. The ability to include a variety of management

options and test the usefulness of GIS within these

alternatives will help to push this technology forward. My

hope is to arm conservation groups with a methodology for

prioritizing parcels in an extreme context, which can then

be applied to a variety of situations.

Methodology

This project will focus on three management options,

outright purchase of vacant lands, targeting residential

land for easements, and relocation of homes from the

Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. These management options have

been chosen because they relate directly to the location of

parcels and structures within the landscape, and are thus

compatible with GIS related techniques of spatial analysis.

The ability to manage a variety of management options

is one of the benefits of using GIS for prioritizing

preservation efforts. While previous similar projects have

xi

focused on identifying those lands that would be most

beneficial for preservation within larger, undeveloped

regions, this case study must take on a new set of options,

due to the high level of development within the town.

Prioritizing residential lots for easements and structures

for relocation are management tools that have not been

extensively analyzed within such a context, making this

project a unique case study that will hopefully open up new

avenues for GIS within the land protection world.

GIS has allowed me to assess the proximity of parcels

to a number of landscape criteria. These criteria were

selected for analysis after extensive research into the

coastal landscape of Southampton, including discussions

with local experts and journal articles concerning coastal

processes. This research has allowed me to select data that

will target the species and processes that are most

essential for protection of habitat in Southampton. The

table below details the coverage’s that were used for the

prioritization process.

xii

Criteria and Coverage’s used for Prioritization

Data Set Source Usefulness Comments

Base Parcel Map Suffolk County Provides the actual parcels to be prioritized.

Some ownership Data needs updating

Wetlands Coverage

Town of Southampton

Target habitat – provides breeding, feeding, and nesting for rare birds.

Town GIS office created coverage from

ground data Protected Land Suffolk County Tax

Map Build on protected land to create larger areas of habitat – reduce

fragmentation

Government ownership very

accurate Community Preservation

Fund

Town of Southampton

Open space habitat areas selected by town for protection – allows for

partnership

Covers forest and grassland areas in

North of study area Coastal Erosion

Hazard Area NY Department of

Environmental Conservation

Indicates natural protective features along coast - dunes

Historic Barrier Beach Overwash

Historic overwash site map in DGEIS

Shows past areas of overwash

Possible Barrier Beach Overwash

Army Corps Digital Elevation Model

Coastal process necessary for dune and estuary health

Needs Bathymetry data and better

modeling Beach Dependent

Species Natural Heritage

Program Target species of birds and plants

found along beach areas. Number of individuals present not associated

Results

Within my study area, there exist 2,531 parcels

listed as vacant and available for development.

Prioritizing these parcels based upon the criteria

described within this paper has yielded a distribution of

scores where a select few parcels have scored very high,

while the majority scored very low. The results of the

prioritization also indicate a few areas where preservation

reserves may be possible due to clusters of high scoring

vacant parcels coinciding.

While only two of the parcels fulfilled all six

criteria, 123 of the parcels received a score of three or

xiii

higher. Those parcels with higher scores represent lands

that contain enough attributes to make them worthy of

immediate attention. Roughly half of the parcels scored a

zero, indicating those parcels that are not in need of

attention at this time.

Groupings of high scoring parcels represent possible

reserve areas that can be established. One such area, at

Tiana beach, is already under investigation by TNC, and

these findings will help TNC staff to present the

conservation needs for this area to raise funds for

acquisition of parcels.

Within the study area there are 13,176 parcels listed

as low, medium, or high density residential built lands.

After selecting out only those parcels with enough un-built

land to warrant easement purchase, 4,552 parcels remained

for prioritization. The distribution of scores indicates a

large number of parcels that do not cover multiple criteria

for preservation, while only a handful scored very high.

Using a score of three as a cutoff for those parcels

that are in need of immediate attention, we can see that

159 of the 4,552 parcels are in need of immediate concern.

As with vacant parcels, roughly half of the parcels scored

xiv

a zero, allowing efforts to be targeted to those that have

significant resource value.

The results show that most high scoring parcels occur

along the waters’ edge, specifically along many of the

tidal creeks that are associated with wetland communities.

This is especially significant, due to the fact that these

are probably the most sensitive areas to human disturbance,

and can benefit greatly from conservation efforts that

would keep density of housing, and associated water and

waste needs, down.

604 structures currently exist within the Coastal

Erosion Hazard Area in the town of Southampton. Of these,

26 scored a three or higher, indicating that very few of

these structures have the possibility of relocation.

Clusters of high scoring parcels do exist, with areas along

specific beaches, and distinct sections along bays showing

promise for management.

Most of these high scoring parcels are associated

with barrier beach overwash sites, and thus the results

indicate not only houses that are ripe for relocation, but

those that are in danger of destruction as well. The

results show large stretches of structures that are in a

xv

precarious straight, and thus can help to target both

preservation and education efforts in the future.

The Table Below summarizes the scores for each

management option. I have categorized the parcel score

results into high, mid, and low ranges, and have indicated

the score that is applicable for each range. Since not all

criteria were pertinent for each management option, these

ranges differ.

Results of Prioritization

(0-1)

364 (2)

214 (3-4)

26 Structure

Relocation (Total:604)

(0-1)

3899 (2-3)

598 (4-5)

55 Residential Easements

(Total: 4,552)

(0-1)

2031 (2-3)

478 (4-6)

22 Vacant Parcels

(Total: 2,531)

Low Range Scoring

(score)

Mid Range Scoring

(score)

High Range Scoring

(score)

xvi

Conclusions

The distribution of scores which occurred, with very

few parcels scoring high and many scoring low, will allow

preservation efforts to be more effective by targeting

those few parcels which contribute greatly to habitat. With

only a handful of parcels fulfilling multiple target goals,

conservation efforts can be proactive, making the land

grabbing tactics of the past obsolete.

Clusters of vacant parcels that obtained high scores,

as well as clusters of high scoring possible easement

parcels and structures for relocation, are of particular

importance because they may allow for the creation of new

reservation sites and targeted community efforts. Clusters

of protected land will help to create corridor areas for

migratory bird species, and reduce fragmentation by

increasing the size of protected habitat. It may also be

possible to work with local, federal or state government on

creating new reservation areas, thus reducing the financial

strain inherent in large-scale acquisition efforts. This

can help build partnerships, and allow for public

participation within a directed campaign.

Clusters of easement areas and structures for

relocation are of significance because of the potential

these areas have for linking landowners together in

xvii

community conservation efforts. These clusters can be

linked to TNC to provide management and technical

information and education so that the landowners in these

areas can learn to protect valuable natural resources. The

results of this study indicate that GIS can target

education and management related projects that will provide

community based support for preservation.

The ability to quickly and efficiently analyze large

amounts of spatial data is now a reality and a necessity

for habitat protection. GIS technology allows for a variety

of preservation methods to be analyzed, and thus arms

preservation minded groups with a whole new array of tools

to target preservation efforts.

The methodology and results of this study are

indicative of the usefulness of GIS for land-use planning.

While my focus is on the Nature Conservancy and habitat

protection, other groups will be able to learn from this

project, and apply it to other aspects of land management.

Other criteria could be applied for different goals, such

as rural character preservation for farmland and purchase

of development rights studies. Likewise, other areas can be

similarly analyzed, such as towns with similar

characteristics to Southampton.

xviii

This study will in fact provide a foundation for

prioritizing conservation efforts, and a methodology that

will allow for more effective allocation of funds for

habitat protection. I am very proud to be able to help the

area that I love so much, and to see the future of GIS and

land protection unfolding in front of me.

1

1. Introduction

Long Island stands at a crossroads in time. With

about one third of available land already built upon,

another third protected, and a third up for grabs, fast

action needs to be taken to accumulate land for protection.

Both local government and private conservation

organizations are involved with this issue, with very

different goals in mind. Protecting biodiversity,

supporting local economies, Protecting rural character, and

providing adequate recreation are just some of the

priorities involved.

The public looks to these government and

environmental groups to work with limited funds to protect

the natural landscape. The rural character of Long Island

depends upon the wetlands, dunes, and other open space

areas of this dynamic region. These areas, in turn, depend

upon the biodiversity that feed, breed, nest, and grow in

the ever-changing coastal zone. The Nature Conservancy sees

this need to protect biodiversity as the key to

preservation on LI. That is why protecting the most diverse

and ecologically significant lands, rather than economic

and recreation concerns, are the focus of TNC efforts.

The question remains how can conservation efforts be

prioritized for more efficient land protection? Landscape

2

scale strategies identify areas that are in need of

protection, but with limited funding can we rely upon land

grabbing strategies that simply target available land for

immediate acquisition? The answer is no, especially when we

are dealing with areas with high land values and heavy

development in sensitive areas.

A number of questions have surrounded the research

presented here, and have challenged me to focus on ways to

help make the conservation effort on Long Island more

efficient. I have looked into what technologies exist for

spatial analysis, and the management options available for

habitat protection, which could benefit from such analysis.

I have researched the different agencies and groups

involved, and looked at which has the most potential to

affect change, and provide goals I agree with and can work

with. Finally, in looking to the actual ground level of

prioritizing lands, I have done extensive research into the

criteria and coverages that exist, and have selected those

that are the most relevant for prioritization on the parcel

level. This has lead me to my thesis question, ‘How can

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) be used to prioritize

parcels for efficient habitat protection in a well

developed coastal zone?’

3

When efficient use of funds is necessary,

prioritizing purchases and management options quickly and

precisely is what conservation groups must strive for. New

technology is allowing us to do just this, with spatial

analyzation methods only possible with Geographic

Information System technology. GIS computer systems allow

conservation-minded organizations to overlay data and

organize their efforts to protect the most beneficial land

possible.

This case study will show the possibilities that GIS

technology allows for the prioritization of land for

habitat preservation. Prioritizing vacant parcels for

acquisition, the more common use of this technology by

private groups, is only the first step. I will apply this

technology to other management options as well including

built parcels for the possibility of easement, and the

management of structures within the sensitive coastal zone

within this heavily developed area.

1.1 Study Area

4

I have chosen to work within the town of Southampton

because it has long been my home and a place that has meant

so much to my career in environmental studies. Paddling

along the green and brown edge of Mecox bay where the swans

hide in the reeds and the mud smells of salt and life, one

can see as many as thirty different birds. Terns, plovers,

osprey, and black backed skimmers whose bills cut through

the glassy surface sending up a spray that catches the

light off the water. Snapping turtles and box turtles poke

their heads up to see who has invaded their tranquil

hunting grounds, while herons and egrets carefully plot

their next move as they so delicately step through the oily

mud without making the slightest ripple. Cormorants pray

to the sun, wings outstretched, as they dry their oil-free

feathers in the breeze, which carries the mosquitoes

towards the waiting fish. Crabs scurry by your toes sending

a shiver of excitement up your spine at the recollection of

being pinched, and thanks for getting away untouched.

I truly love this area, and I hope that the case study

detailed here will aid local conservation groups in the

struggle to protect the dwindling resources that have

defined my childhood.

1.1a Southampton, LI - Physical Characteristics

5

Long Island was formed by the advance and retreat of

glaciers during the last ice age, which deposited glacial

till in moraine ridges that formed this geographically

distinct narrow landform jutting off the eastern coast into

the Atlantic Ocean (see map). Southampton itself lies

towards the eastern end of Long Island, and is surrounded

by water, with the Great Peconic Bay to the North, and the

Atlantic Ocean to the South. The town is comprised of some

102,539.2 acres, and stretches 35 miles from east to west,

and is around 15 miles wide. (Town of Southampton Comp

Plan, 2001)

Fig.1 Location Map of Long Island

The undulating character of the moraine ridges, also

known as kame-and-kettle topography (Town of Southampton

Comp. Plan, 2001), is one of the qualities that add to the

New York

Connecticut

New Jersey

Long Island Suffolk County

Southampton

6

scenic landscape of Southampton. This topography is

characterized by a random series of knolls, mounds, and

ridges interspersed with irregular depressions known as

kettles that are often un-drained, containing numerous

swamps and ponds. The natural habitats created by these

landforms support rich and abundant wildlife (Town of

Southampton Comp. Plan, 2001).

The coastal area consists of low coastal bluffs and

headlands, or barrier islands with sand-spits and inlets. A

predominant east to west drift of sand caused by wave and

wind action steadily eats away at the shoreline (McCormick,

1984). A study of shoreline change conducted by Leatherman

and Allen (1985) concluded that over the period 1834 to

1979 the beaches were eroding at a rate of 1-2ft per year.

More recently a 1995 preliminary beach profile trend study

by the Army Corps has shown that the points down-drift of

the protective features have been eroding from 1979-1995 at

4.8-6.1 ft per year (Town of Southampton DGEIS, 2001).

Surveys conducted by the Army Corps (1997), indicate

that the mean width of the towns ocean beaches (at mean

high tide) varies from less than 50 ft to greater than

200ft. The smaller beach widths were observed down-drift of

the Shinnecock inlet and the groin at Westhampton beach.

Widest beaches were found up-drift of these locations (Town

7

of Southampton DGEIS, 2001). This shows the long-term

detrimental effects that erosion control devices have on

the stability of the beach, and is indicative of the need

to protect parcels along the beach so that no erosion

control is necessary.

The barrier beaches and associated tidal marshes of

the south shore are of relatively recent geological

development, formed by oceanic littoral drift (Town of

Southampton Comp. Plan, 2001). Tidal surface waters

constitute about 19,310 acres of tidal areas alone, which

are distributed among bays, coves, ponds and creeks (Town

of Southampton Comp. Plan, 2001). Estuarine waters within

these tidal areas are among the most productive of natural

environments in Long Island. The estuaries circulate

nutrients and fresh water that combine to create a highly

productive environment (NYDEC Salt Marsh Restoration and

Monitoring Guidelines, 2000).

The salt marshes, which make up about 15% of the

total estuarine acreage, are a significant source of

primary productivity and provide critical foraging, nursery

and nesting habitat for many coastal species (SSER Wetland

Technical Report, 2001). Though greatly reduced and

substantially degraded by development, the salt marshes

8

offer a wealth of opportunities for restoration of

ecological functions and living resource value (NYDEC Salt

Marsh Restoration and Monitoring Guidelines, 2000). Many

Rare or Endangered birds, such as piping plover, roseate

tern, least tern, and common tern, rely upon these marsh

areas, and their presence can be used as indicators of

estuary health (SSER Wetland Technical Report, 2001).

For many of these species, a major consequence of

human disturbance has been a shift in populations to more

isolated or protected locations (US Fish and Wildlife SSER

Coastal Colonial Waterbirds: Draft Technical Report, 1998).

Salt marsh islands or protected areas of the barrier beach

are in need of recognition, protection and management so

that key feeding and nesting areas critical for these

groups of bird species are available for the future. (US

Fish and Wildlife SSER Coastal Colonial Waterbirds: Draft

Technical Report, 1998)

These coastal wetlands and estuaries are an important

part of the Atlantic flyway as well. As many as twenty

species of wintering waterfowl use the open water and

nearby wetland and grassland areas which support thousands

of Canadian Geese, swans, ducks and other waterfowl (SSER

Technical Report on Shorebirds, 1998). These areas are

essential for feeding and resting during the long yearly

9

migrations. Many of these species are susceptible to

disturbance by humans, and need large, protected wetland

areas to be able to congregate and refuel for the long

journey (SSER Technical Report on Shorebirds, 1998).

Tidal wetlands also serve as the buffers between the

coastal waters and the land. Wetlands can act as a filter

for nutrients, and can help to keep local groundwater clean

(NYDEC Salt Marsh Restoration and Monitoring Guidelines,

2000). However, because many of the soil types found in SH

have high water tables and rapid permeability, they are

vulnerable to contamination from septic systems and

leaching fields (Town of Southampton Comp. Plan, 2001).

This makes human encroachment a serious issue, with the

possibility of contamination of groundwater a direct threat

to aquatic life.

The marine ecosystems, while incredibly productive,

are not the only species rich and development threatened

elements of the LI landscape. Maritime beach communities,

with sparse vegetation on unstable sand, are important

nesting areas for shorebirds such as piping plover, and

terns (Town of Southampton DGEIS, 2001; Elias, 2000).

Beachgrass, sandwort and knotweed stands within the

Maritime Dune community, along with higher grasses and low

shrubs on active and stabilized dunes also provide

10

essential habitat areas (Town of Southampton DGEIS, 2001).

Within these areas the composition and structure of the

vegetation is variable and is dependent on the stability of

the dunes, amount of sand deposition, erosion, and distance

from the ocean (Town of Southampton DGEIS, 2001).

The Salt Shrub ecozone between salt marsh and upland

vegetation, with low salinity and higher elevation than

adjacent salt marsh, provides sheltered areas along the

seacoast. These areas are periodically flooded by spring

tides and storm surges (Town of Southampton DGEIS, 2001).

Beyond these lie the extensive back-bay areas of open water

and contiguous tidal wetlands and mud flats. In this

estuary, environmental conditions are less harsh than in

the ocean, and thus provide a considerably more diverse

habitat. Eelgrass beds reduce wave action, and provide food

and shelter for a diverse community of bay plants and

animals (Town of Southampton DGEIS, 2001).

Within the Town of Southampton there exist six

Department of State designated significant coastal fish and

wildlife habitats (Town of Southampton DGEIS, 2001). The

following areas exemplify the diverse ecosystems of the

south shore, and are not directly protected as of yet.

11

• Sagaponack inlet, with 25 acres of sparsely

vegetated dunes, sand beach, and a small channel

connecting sag pond to the ocean, contains

nesting sites for shorebirds, but is greatly

affected by human recreational disturbances.

Mecox bay and beach, with 1,100 acres including

the bay, adjoining wetlands, and beach, provides

slightly brackish, shallow coastal waters with

nesting and feeding areas for terns and plovers.

(Town of Southampton DGEIS, 2001)

• Mecox bay is also one of the key Waterfowl

wintering areas, with average concentrations of

more than 1,500 birds including 1,200 Canada

Goose, 100 Black Ducks, and 100 Scaup. Numbers

can be six times that in peak years, with large

concentrations of Mallards, Goldeneye, Wigeon,

Canvasback, and Mute Swan. (Town of Southampton

DGEIS, 2001)

• Shinnecock bay contains 9,000 acres, including

Tiana bay, Heady creek, Halsey neck pond, and

Shinnecock inlet. Undeveloped salt marsh and

mudflats provide one of the largest estuarine

ecosystems in NYS. This area is another

important waterfowl wintering area with as many

12

as 3,500 birds visiting each year. The bays and

estuarine waters provide essential nursery and

feeding area for fish, and as many 30-40 Harbor

seals can be found there each year. (Town of

Southampton DGEIS, 2001)

• Southampton beach is a three miles stretch of

barrier beach south of Shinnecock bay, which

includes 285 acres. The open beach and extensive

primary dune zone sees heavy disturbance due to

fishing and camping areas (Town of Southampton

DGEIS, 2001). This important segment of the

undeveloped barrier beach ecosystem contains 22

species of breeding birds, 8 mammals, and 1

amphibian (US Fish and Wildlife SSER Coastal

Colonial Waterbirds: Draft Technical Report,

1998).

• Dune road marsh, a 6.5-mile stretch along the

Tiana beach Barrier Island, contains 1,500 acres

of habitat. Undeveloped salt marshes, tidal

mudflats, dredge spoil islands, and shallow open

water areas, provide a large undeveloped coastal

ecosystem with tern nesting on many small

islands in the area. In 1985 nearly 5,000

breeding pairs of common terns nested on this

13

site. Lanes island is also an important black

skimmer nesting site, with as many as 55 pairs

nesting. The bay serves as a nursery and feeding

area for bluefish, winter flounder, fluke,

weakfish, and other finfish. (Town of

Southampton DGEIS, 2001)

• Tiana beach is a 7-mile segment of the Tiana

Barrier Island that forms the southern border of

Shinnecock bay, west of the inlet. The area

contains nearly continuous primary dunes, up to

18ft in elevation, and an open sandy beach, with

extensive back-dune areas. Several small wet

meadows dominated by cordgrass are present in

the inter-dune zone. (Town of Southampton DGEIS,

2001)

Portions of the Tiana area have been

designated as part of the national Coastal

Barrier Resource System. The beaches provide

very important areas for migratory bird species,

and are a significant part of fall migration

corridor for raptors. As many as seven tern

nesting sites, with more than 400 pairs of least

terns, and 15 pairs of piping plovers exist at

Tiana beach. (Town of Southampton DGEIS, 2001)

14

These extensive and important habitat areas are

increasingly threatened by human encroachment. ‘Any

activity that would disturb or eliminate natural beach and

dune-land plant communities (alter the water quality) would

result in a valuable loss of habitat for a number of

important wildlife species’ (Town of Southampton DGEIS,

2001). Development of the area for residential or extensive

recreational use would result in a direct loss of valuable

habitats and increased human disturbance impacts on certain

species (Town of Southampton DGEIS, 2001). This project

will be looking at the parcels surrounding these vital

habitat areas, and will prioritize these parcels in order

to protect the natural processes and target species that

make them special. These specific areas can be seen in the

result maps in the appendix of this work, and I hope to

provide a foundation for protecting these essential habitat

areas of Southampton. In the next section, we will look at

how the Town of Southampton has grown and changed, and why

protecting habitat in this area is a necessity.

15

1.1b Southampton Land Use and Demographic Trends - The Need

for Land Protection

A result of the coming of the railroad in the 1850’s

was the development of the summer resort industry in

Southampton. 70,000 acres of parkland and 986 miles of

shoreline make it an attractive place to visit and summer

(Town of Southampton Comp. Plan, 2001). Beginning in the

1860’s, beach resorts were developed at Westhampton Beach,

Quogue, and Southampton village (Town of Southampton Comp.

Plan, 2001). This summer resort trend has continued to the

present day, resulting in an expansion of the second home

market, along with an economy influenced by weekend

visitors and day-trippers from New York.

Demographics

Southampton is blessed with a very high average

income and low poverty. Low unemployment and good economic

growth are a function of the seasonal wealthy population

that has grown at an incredible rate. Suffolk County

currently has over 12,500 housing units being occupied

seasonally, with this number expected to increase by 43% to

almost 18,000 seasonal units at saturation (Suffolk County

Planning Department Demographic, economic, and development

trend report, 2001). The largest number of potential new

16

seasonal housing units in eastern Suffolk exists in

Southampton, with a projected 5,400 additional units to be

built to saturation (Suffolk County Planning Saturation

Population Analysis, 2001).

Southampton’s year round population is expected to

reach almost 80,000 at saturation, an increase of 44% over

current figures (Suffolk County Planning Saturation

Population Analysis, 2001). This is the largest potential

increase in population in Suffolk County, with a possible

increase of more than 46,000 persons (Suffolk County

Planning Saturation Population Analysis, 2001). A similar

rise is expected to occur in housing, with 51,419 housing

units expected at saturation. This would be a 43% increase

from the present 36,000 that currently exist (Suffolk

County Planning Saturation Population Analysis, 2001).

Current trends indicate that this increase will be seen

mostly in the Senior citizen population, with many retirees

moving in to take advantage of the easy lifestyle and

recreational opportunities (Town of Southampton Comp. Plan,

2001).

Southampton’s population is relatively affluent. The

town’s median household income is 38% greater than that of

the nation as a whole, and its per capita income is 47%

17

higher (Suffolk County Planning Department Demographic,

economic, and development trend report, 2001). Affluent

second homeowners who spend more time in Southampton will

provide support for increased cultural activities and place

a greater demand on local services. Water availability and

waste disposal along the coast will become more salient

issues as the coastal population expands. (Town of

Southampton Comp. Plan, 2001)

The conversion of seasonal homes into primary

residences also tends to create upwards pressure on home

and land prices, which may further the affordability

problem in Southampton. Suffolk County housing prices,

after tripling in the 1980’s, declined by about 12% between

1989 and 1995. Prices have been increasing steadily for the

past 5 years, and as land becomes increasingly scarce,

prices are expected to skyrocket (Suffolk County Planning

Department Demographic, economic, and development trend

report, 2001).

Of those living in the town, most are white, with

small Latino, Black, and Asian populations1 (Town of

Southampton Comp. Plan, 2001). High housing prices have not

1 Percentage data is only available for the county as a whole. The 200 census data indicates: Black population – 6.9%. Asian population – 2.4%. American Indian population – 0.3%. Hispanic population – 10.5%. These numbers are much lower for my study area (based on personal knowledge).

18

allowed middle-income areas to develop a strong presence,

and thus the socio-economic reality of this small expensive

area has led to a racially uniform population.

Long Island has a very high percentage of owner

occupied housing. In 2000, 80% of LI’s housing units were

occupied by their owners, far above the nationwide average

of 66% (Suffolk County Planning Department Demographic,

economic, and development trend report, 2001). LI also has

one of the lowest housing vacancy rates in the country. The

homeowner vacancy rate in Suffolk was 0.9% in 2000 and the

vacancy rate in rented housing units was 3.4% indicating a

tight housing market. (Suffolk County Planning Department

Demographic, economic, and development trend report, 2001)

Of 3,141 counties in the United States, Suffolk ranks

22nd highest in population. In fact, from 1950-1970 the

population quadrupled, making it the most populated

suburban county in the US. Suffolk County has a larger

population than 12 US states. (Suffolk County Planning

Department Demographic, economic, and development trend

report, 2001) This concentration of people means housing is

very dense throughout the county. 2,292 people per square

mile exist in western Suffolk. Eastern Suffolk is much less

dense and built up, with only 362 persons per square mile

19

(Suffolk County Planning Department Demographic, economic,

and development trend report, 2001). The goal of

conservation groups is to keep this number stable, and not

allow the dense development that has destroyed habitat in

other parts of LI. Previous plans have identified needs to

place limits on net density as the key goal for future land

use. (Town of Southampton Comp. Plan, 2001)

There is some good news however for the struggle to

protect this area. The saturation population2 for Suffolk is

1.6 million, which may be reached by 2020. This has changed

dramatically since conservation efforts have begun. In 1962

the saturation population was projected at 3.4 million, but

due to zoning changes, land preservation efforts, and

declining household sizes, a much lower saturation

population is now expected. (Suffolk County Planning

Saturation Population Analysis, 2001)

Land use trends

Southampton is comprised of some 102,539.2 acres,

only 34% of which is unused or undeveloped (Suffolk County

Planning Saturation Population Analysis, 2001). The amount

2 A Saturation Population Analysis models population and building trends to estimate the total population and number of structures that the area will have at total build out. It is an estimate of the full extent of possible development in the region.

20

of undeveloped land has dropped significantly, down from

73% in 1960. From 1980 to 1994 the amount of residentially

developed land doubled, and today residential land accounts

for nearly 24% of the total land area of the town. (Suffolk

County Planning Saturation Population Analysis, 2001)

Construction activity peaked between 1984 and 1990,

and has had a resurgence since 1994 (Suffolk County

Planning Saturation Population Analysis, 2001).

Agricultural land now only occupies 8% of the total acreage

of the town and represents less than 2% of the individually

owned properties. Even a slight change in land use or

ownership on an individual parcel basis from agriculture to

residential or commercial can have a tremendous impact on

the overall balance between developed land and the rural

character of Southampton. (Suffolk County Planning

Saturation Population Analysis, 2001)

Much of this growth has occurred along the southern

and coastal region, in and around the many bays. Future

growth is expected to occur primarily along the coastal

regions, as well, focusing along the bays and estuaries

(Suffolk County Planning Saturation Population Analysis,

2001). This will blur the boundaries between the

traditional hamlets and village centers as build-out occurs

away from these now concentrated centers of activity

21

(Suffolk County Planning Saturation Population Analysis,

2001). This is one of the reasons why this project will

focus on the coastal area for prioritizing preservation

efforts in the region.

Within this coastal area, there is no land type more

endangered than the wetland ecosystem. The direct physical

loss of wetlands has long been associated with LI’s

eastward expansion of residential and commercial

development (SSER Wetland Technical Report, 2001). Since

the 1950’s, thousands of acres of wetland have been

obliterated by canal excavation, roadway construction, and

channel dredging. Huge amount of spoil were disposed by

directly filling wetlands, much of which was subsequently

developed (SSER Wetland Technical Report, 2001). The sum of

these activities is a staggering loss of wetlands, which

has been documented by USDOI (1965) and Smith et al.

(1970). The Regional Marine Resources Council in its early

report on wetland loss (RMRC, 1973) estimated that wetlands

in 1954 took up at least 20,590 acres of Suffolk County,

whereas in 1971 only 12,725 acres remained.

Wetlands associated with creeks that drain to the

south shore bays are of particular concern, due to these

areas being centers of human activity. The altered

22

geography caused by development, including an increase in

impervious surfaces and removal of erosion controlling

vegetation, has led to an increasingly destructive invasion

of human induced hardships on the local systems. With the

humans come invasive species, such as common reed and

phragmites australis, which alter habitat, making some

small areas of protected land useless. (SSER Wetland

Technical Report, 2001)

Market demand and high prices for waterfront and

water-view homes have driven the filling of marshes for the

creation of real estate. Not yet built-out areas hold many

acres of wetland interspersed among dredge spoil sites on

creeks and shorelines with much privately owned land in

danger of development. (RMRC 1973) Fill in development has

been fought with CR-200 category zoning (4.5 acre plots)

and cluster zoning which forces open space retention, but

these have not as of yet played a forceful role in the

protection of sensitive areas (Town of Southampton DGEIS,

2001). These wetland areas continue to be threatened by

development and growth.

1.2 Management Options

23

A number of strategies exist for preserving habitat

on Long Island. Purchasing land outright, while a popular

method of protecting habitat in perpetuity, is not the only

way to protect valuable land. Laws at both the local and

Federal level may be employed to protect specific natural

features, or control the density and distribution of

development through zoning ordinances and overlay

districts. This, however, has not proved effective for

Southampton. The wetland overlay district, in direct

opposition to wetland protection laws, states that 10% of a

wetland may be filled for development if title can be

proven (Southampton Town Code Ch. 330). This opens the door

for the destruction of areas that should otherwise be

unbuildable.

Purchase of development rights and easements may

also limit growth in sensitive areas, and provide a means

of community involvement in land protection efforts.

Stricter interpretations of laws and enforcement and

management of protected land will also serve to more

efficiently protect habitat within Southampton. Lobbying

government for stricter laws, more complete enforcement,

and increased funding for conservation are tools that

private groups employ to work towards their goals. (Hall,

1999)

24

Within this coastal zone an additional management

option exists, the relocation of structures from sensitive

areas to protect both habitat and natural processes.

Dwelling relocation is an approach that can be applied at

each individual site. Its principal purpose is to provide a

wider buffer between development and the ocean through

inland relocation of existing structures where development

is at risk, or to raise the structure on piles above the

flood zone. Using hydraulic lifts, a house can be raised

off the existing foundation, put on rollers, and moved

landward. This option has been identified within the Town’s

Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement3 (DGEIS) as

being one of the least invasive and costly methods of

dealing with the erosion issue, and is seen as worthy of

consideration (Town of Southampton DGEIS, 2001).

In areas already heavily impacted by human use,

restoration and protection from further encroachment is

necessary. Replanting useful vegetation may not be enough,

however, if invasive species have been introduced.

(Safford, 1998) Direct acquisition is the most biologically

appealing strategy for the small acres that support most

3The Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Southampton’s Atlantic Coastline is not a project specific EIS, but rather was conceived within the Town’s Comprehensive Plan as a necessity for establishing a best management policy for the highly sensitive and overdeveloped coastline. It details methods for structure protection, and outlines erosion control, structure relocation, and beach nourishment options.

25

rare species. Especially in small tight areas, edge effects

and human encroachment become serious issues, and

controlling access is essential. (Press, 1996)

Politically, acquisition is also ideal because

protected areas are permanent and not open for discussion

as to use. Purchase of land can also be more cost effective

than continual easement payments and monitoring costs.

(Hall, 1999) Other conservation options, such as special

area zoning with regulated development rights, transferable

development rights where development options are spatially

shifted, and easements donated by landowners may be subject

to change or sold when development pressure builds. (Press,

1996)

This project will focus on three management options;

Outright purchase of vacant lands, working with landowners

for easements, and relocation of homes from the Coastal

Erosion Hazard Area. These management options have been

chosen because they relate directly to the location of

parcels and structures within the landscape, and are thus

compatible with GIS related techniques of spatial analysis.

As will be discussed in greater detail in the section

on GIS, the ability to manage a variety of management

26

options is one of the benefits of using GIS for

prioritizing preservation efforts. While previous similar

projects have focused on identifying those lands that would

be most beneficial to set aside within larger, undeveloped

regions, this case study must take on a new set of options

due to the high level of development within the town.

Prioritizing residential lots for easements and structures

for relocation are management tools that have not been

extensively analyzed within such a context, making this

project a unique case study that will hopefully open up new

avenues for GIS within the land protection world.

1.3 Target Audience

The methodology and results of this study will be

useful to a variety of organizations at both the state,

local, and private levels. Similar methods may be employed

to aid in the permit process, or to prioritize other areas

for land protection. My focus, however, and thus my target

audience will be private preservation groups, specifically

The Nature Conservancy. The Next sections will discuss the

role of private organizations and local government, and

specifically the reasons why I chose to use The Nature

Conservancy as my focal audience.

27

1.3a Private Organizations vs. Government in Conservation

For many, centralizing authority at the State or

regional level is seen to provide stronger tools and

greater authority to shape growth and deal with

environmental impacts. According to porter (1992) all state

growth management laws have set more rigorous standards for

growth management by local governments than have localities

themselves. While I doubt this is the case throughout the

entire country, regional regulations do provide protection

for open access resources by stipulating use, and providing

solid protection from development, which can stand strong

in the face of development pressure. (Steelman, 2000)

Within the Long Island Coastal area, the Federal

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) has lead to some very

effective regulatory measures. Through CZMA the state has

established the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, which provides

a zone of enforcement for coastal protection laws, and a

number of policies relating directly to coastal resource

protection (Ozarski - CEHA Overview, 2000). The laws

controlling development and access to the LI coastline have

been necessary due to the fact that so much land is

privately owned (Town of Southampton DGEIS, 2001).

Shoreline setbacks, protecting critical habitat, regulation

of stabilization projects, restricting pedestrian and

28

vehicle use, designated protected areas, and controlling

beach nourishment projects have been key to protecting

habitat through regulatory measures. (Bernd-Cohen, 1999)

Regional programs can also promote easements through

tax deductions, and establish zoning and tax laws to

promote management goals and protect habitat (Green, 1999).

Many areas also look to regional government for education

programs, and other public outreach to provide technical

assistance for those wishing to protect land. Large amounts

of money, especially funds from bond measures, allow State

and regional programs to buy large or expensive land, and

having an area of concern included in State management plan

may be the only way for many areas acquisition needs to be

met. (Purdue, 1994)

In addition, areas that have large amounts of land

dedicated to agriculture have found conservation efforts

not possible without long-term political support. Working

landscape owners depend upon land for a living. A clear

challenge to protecting working landscapes is enabling

landowners to continue to realize a profit from the land,

along with meeting preservation goals (Peconic Land Trust,

2001). This way, landowners will be able to better resist

the temptation to sell land for development, particularly

29

in the face of significant development pressure. Some of

the tools that local government may employ to overcome this

are lowering property taxes for farmers, and zoning laws to

protect commercial land, along with purchase of development

rights (Daniels, 2000)

Many States, however, have had trouble raising money

for areas that are not charismatic, are too small to engage

the grassroots community, or are in areas too far from

donors to be of significance to them. (Flicker, 1984)

Centralized laws have the problem of not being specific to

certain unique locations, and incentives for private

landowners are sometimes not adequate to provide regional

protection in heavily developed areas. Local land

acquisition projects can be more effective in ensuring

long-term protection in these areas.

Groups like TNC can pursue its goal of protecting

natural places without statutory homogenization that can

hobble public agency efforts (Committee on Scientific and

Technical Criteria for Federal Acquisition of Lands for

Conservation, 1993). Private organizations have the ability

to work with landowners that do not wish to deal with

government agencies due to time or monetary constraints.

They can respond to sudden crises by acting quickly,

30

without red tape, to arrange complicated transfers of land,

and even provide services to the agencies that may

eventually manage the land. (Committee on Scientific and

Technical Criteria for Federal Acquisition of Lands for

Conservation, 1993)

Private individuals are also more apt to work with

private groups on conservation efforts. Landowners utilize

groups such as TNC for tax deductions from land donations,

land purchases, easements, and land swaps (Grove, 1992;

Weeks, 1997). People and corporations work with non-

profit/non-government organizations such as TNC on joint

holdings, and look to them to provide technical assistance

for land management (Decker, 1991). Overcoming the all or

nothing vision that separated environmental groups and

corporations has been a success that the hindrances of

government red tape would not be able to overcome. Land

trusts can work faster than government, and can apply

different tactics to different situations. Even though much

land eventually ends up in the hands of government through

transferring of ownership, many corporations would rather

deal with NGO’s than government directly. (Patney, 2000)

Private groups working within the community may also

be more willing to take the time to work with local

residents on easement acquisition. Easements are important

31

because they may provide somewhat permanent protection, and

are suitable for landowners that wish to retain title and

use of property in combination with protection (Hall,

1999). Easements restrict land use and can be very cost

effective in saving important marginal habitat. Regional

government, in most cases, does not have the means or

programs in place to establish easements, and the marginal

or edge property which easements may protect are not

commonly included in Statewide protection plans. Private

groups like TNC are more able to dedicate funds and

personnel to monitoring of easement property, and see these

areas as important for buffering areas for habitat

protection. (Hall, 1999)

My research has shown that while local government has

a number of protective laws and land management strategies,

development pressure and economic influence makes private

conservation groups role in land acquisition an important

part of habitat protection. (Weeks, 1997; Beatley, 1994;

Decker, 1991; Poiani, 1998) Due to the fact That Southampton

is so developed, and contains such a variety of sensitive

and locale specific habitat areas, I feel that the ability

of private groups to work quickly within both the public

and private sector is essential for this region’s

32

conservation. In the following section I will go into

further detail concerning The Nature Conservancy, and why I

have chosen to work with them on this project.

1.3b Land Protection on LI - Working with the Nature

Conservancy

In the preceding section, I discussed the benefits

and hindrances that both large-scale and small-scale,

public and private, conservation efforts may face. The

immediate need for land protection, due to increasing

development pressure and limited remaining open space in

Southampton (discussed earlier) make the local, privately

funded ability of TNC a true necessity if we hope to save

habitat in this region. While regulatory measures are

indeed necessary to ensure the long-term protection of many

of LI’s wetlands and barrier beaches, it is only through

immediate conservation minded purchasing and management

that enough land can be set aside to preserve biodiversity.

I have aligned my goals with TNC’s for these reasons,

and I have woven their concept of conservation into my

prioritization methodology. The Nature Conservancy has the

expertise to provide information on funding, partnership,

outreach, and research, and will make use of my projects

results as it looks to protect more land in this region.

33

The Nature Conservancy, while having State offices

that act as local environmental groups, has a monetary

advantage over other small-scale NGO’s. TNC has a national

Land Preservation Fund that state offices can borrow from

and eventually pay back when immediate action is necessary

(O’brien, 2000). This allows TNC to be flexible in that in

the absence of state agency cooperation, they can work on

their own from private funding. When dealing with an area

such as Southampton, where property values are high and

availability of land for purchase is scarce, having a large

amount of money available quickly may mean the difference

between a successful purchase and loss of essential land to

continued development. (O’Brien, 2000)

The Nature Conservancy, however, does not rely solely

on funding from its main office. Fund raising campaigns,

including a large dinner event every summer held at the

Easthampton office, are important because they not only

provide funding for land management and acquisition, but

they are used to educate the public and get local residents

involved in preservation efforts.

TNC also taps into federal funds, such as wetland

protection money, as well as funds allocated for protection

of endangered species. These are used for direct

34

acquisition and easement purchase (Weeks, 1997). Even when

TNC uses their own money for a property acquisition they

can get their money back from the purchase with a transfer

of land to Fish and Wildlife or local government, with

accompanying tax breaks or outright monetary compensation

(Weeks, 1997). This allows TNC to work quickly without

having to worry too much about funding when extremely

essential land becomes available for purchase.

Within Southampton, TNC very often acts as a broker,

purchasing land for local government and utilizing town and

county funds for habitat protection (Ozarski – personal

communication, 2002). This partnership process can be seen

at many levels of TNC’s work, including not only funding

and acquisition, but sharing of research, management

techniques and personnel, as well as education programs

(Grove, 1992).

The Nature Conservancy cannot possibly accomplish its

landscape scale goals on its own. While their broad vision

of habitat and biodiversity protection is more eco-

centrally focused than most other land protection groups

and government programs, they must still rely on partnering

with these other entities to achieve their ends. As David

Weekes put it, ‘Our triumphs are only as great as our

35

partnerships, be they multi-faceted alliances with foreign

organizations or voluntary agreements with local

landowners.’ (Weekes, 1990)

The Nature Conservancies partnerships include all

levels of government. In some cases TNC gets lobbied by

government to purchase land that the state may want

protected but which do not fall within purchase plans

(Weeks, 1997). TNC not only buys land, it leases and

manages land owned by others for preservation, and buys

easements for development. Working with universities,

museums, botanical gardens, corporations, as well as

government agencies and private landowners allows for many

levels of public and private involvement. (Weeks, 1997) The

Department of Defense has even allowed TNC to identify,

document, and maintain biological diversity on 900 DOD

installations throughout the world. (Grove, 1992)

TNC is seen as a clearinghouse for information, and

has expert staff concerning negotiations with landowners on

large easement or purchase projects (Decker, 1991). TNC can

connect conservation minded landowners with local

conservation efforts, and provides education and

stewardship opportunities to energize the local population.

TNC develops cooperative programs with local civic groups,

county planning commissions, and board of supervisors to

36

promote balanced growth management and to work towards

improving local zoning ordinances. (Decker, 1991)

Specifically within New York State, TNC works with

New York State Department of Environmental Control (NYSDEC)

and the NY Natural Heritage Program to identify rare and

endangered species communities. In NY a public/private land

trust network facilitates cooperation between NYDEC, TNC,

and the Trust for Public Lands on land protection issues.

(Decker, 1991) These cooperative species protection

efforts, with support from local, state and federal

government, have been essential to large-scale projects.

Working with foundations for fund raising, as well as local

wildlife and recreation coalitions and other NGO’s has

allowed TNC to match grants from corporations and the US

Fish and Wildlife Service Foundation to make these

preservation efforts possible. (Weekes, 1990)

These cooperative agreements are not solely centered

around funding. Sharing of data, as well as management

planning techniques, is central to a solid relationship

between TNC and government. For example, TNC’s preserve

selection and design criteria are often used by government

agencies for management plans. (Committee on Scientific and

Technical Criteria for Federal Acquisition of Lands for

37

Conservation, 1993) US Fish and Wildlife utilizes data,

such as the Natural Heritage Site coverages, for habitat

analysis studies, and local governments are constantly in

contact with the local biology and planning experts

employed by TNC. (Grumbine, 1994)

TNC does not limit its cooperative efforts to local

and regional government. Working with the community is just

as necessary to find success in preservation projects.

‘Local communities hold the key to conservation success;

without their support, we can never achieve our goals.’

(Sawhill, 1999) Making the projects a community effort

allows TNC to tap into a community’s love of place, and get

local landowners involved in the future of their land.

The Nature Conservancy is involved in a variety of

community related projects. Their land protection and

stewardship experts:

• Work with landowners around reserves to educate

and attempt to manage land use.

• Provide technical support and educational

materials to local landowners, working to rally

them to join together for land protection

efforts.

38

• Host workshops, sometimes in conjunction with

NYDEC Endangered Species Unit, for example

Species-specific propagation and planting

programs.

• Work with local areas to support local

economies. The Conservancy Center for Compatible

Economic Development (CCED) tries to tie

together community, economy, and environment.

(Sawhill, 1998)

Because of the above advantages and expertise which

TNC has established over its history, this project is being

undertaken in cooperation with, and using many of their

guidelines of habitat protection. Besides being my primary

target audience, TNC literature and past work within this

project area, as well as their work in other regions, has

provided a framework for preservation, from which I have

borrowed to a degree. From journal articles written about

TNC’s procedures (conservation blueprint) to in-house

publications such as ‘Conservation by design’ and

‘Designing a Geography of Hope’ TNC has provided a concrete

and very logical approach to preservation.

1.3c The Nature Conservancy Approach to Land Protection

39

TNC advocates a systematic approach to designating

sites for preservation. These areas, called Action Sites,

are selected using the following key criteria:

• The areas current conservation Status (how threatened)

• Complimentarity to other sites (more efficient

preservation)

• Diversity and viability of target species

• Urgency and degree of threat to targets

• Feasibility or opportunity to abate threats.

This allows TNC to move away from an opportunistic, land-

grabbing mentality, to a ‘conservation by design’ approach.

(Valutis, 2000)

The Conservation by Design approach is summed up by

TNC in what it refers to as the five S’s. Once the

blueprint described above identifies areas of concern, the

five ‘S’ approach provides a framework for thinking through

conservation within an action site. The five S’s are as

follows: (TNC Conservation by Design, 2000)

• Systems: Identify the key conservation targets and

supporting ecological processes.

• Stresses: ID the most serious types of destruction or

degradation affecting the targets.

• Source of stress: What are the causes or agents of the

stress.

• Strategies: Go through the full array of actions

necessary to abate the threats, or enhance the viability

of the conservation targets.

40

• Success Measures: Monitor the processes and improve upon

plan.

Both States and private organizations have discovered

the concept of critical area campaigns, which group areas

together as consolidated conservation efforts. (Flicker,

1984) The Nature Conservancy was a forerunner in developing

these regional campaigns, and this has lead to the

development of large reserves that protect biodiversity

more securely.

My study site is of importance to TNC because it fits

into the Atlantic Ocean Beaches and Bays (AOBB) critical

area defined by TNC as a significant action site (Ozarski -

Personal Communication, 2002). Using the TNC approach of

defining conservation targets (wetlands, rare birds etc.)

and protecting the specific parcels that provide the most

protection for these targets is exactly what this project

attempts to do. The following section will look at GIS

technology, which will make this type of analysis over a

large area more efficient than any tool previously

available to conservation groups.

Table 1 outlines the Nature Conservancy Criteria that

I utilized to focus my efforts, and details the coverage’s

that are essential to implementing this strategy.

41

Table 1. The Nature Conservancy Criteria and Related Coverage’s

The Nature Conservancy Criteria Data to be used Comments

Key criteria for Action Sites Complimentarity to other sites (more efficient preservation)

Protected land coverage – part of zoning map. Community Preservation Fund Areas

Not completely updated – some errors have been identified as to

TNC lands. Diversity and viability of target

species Beach dependent species habitat;

Wetlands coverage. Only covers target species.

Numbers not associated with site locations

Urgency and degree of threat to target

Elevation model – Bathymetry – for washover sites. Structure

Inventory.

Waste disposal, pollution from houses.

Feasibility or opportunity to abate threats

Zone map (area size, connectivity)

Census data (still being figured out) Other social data.

The areas current conservation Status (how threatened)

Beach dependent species habitat, coupled with zoning (roads, protection status), structure

inventory.

Future plans for development not included

The Conservation by Design approach

Systems: Identify the key conservation targets and

supporting ecological processes

Wetland coverage; Overwash coverage; beach dependent

species coverage; CEHA coverage

Criteria for prioritization

Stresses: ID the most serious types of destruction or

degradation affecting the targets

Zoning map; Structure inventory; CEHA and Overwash Coverages

Identify those areas where development will have greatest

impact – reduce Army Corps need for erosion control projects

Source of stress: What are the causes or agents of the stress

Zoning map; Structure inventory, overwash sites (blocked)

Septic systems, non point sources not included.

Strategies: Go through the full array of actions necessary to

abate the threats, or enhance the viability of the conservation

targets

All Coverages Utilize multiple management options – purchase vacant land,

easements, and structure relocation.

42

1.4 Geographic Information Systems

This project aims to take one of the most powerful

tools available to land protection efforts, Geographic

Information Systems, and to use this tool to analyze the

landscape for a variety of management options. Geographic

Information System technology is a spatial organization

program that allows the user to organize, compile and

analyze relevant data to provide a medium for working with

many layers of data. This section will provide some insight

as to why GIS is necessary to perform these tasks, what

such a system is capable of, and previous work that shows

the accomplishments that GIS has made possible.

By definition, a geographic information system (GIS)

is a tool for organizing and analyzing data, both spatial

and tabular. It can improve data quality by allowing

multiple layers of data to be analyzed simultaneously,

making it easier to find patterns, look at the proximity of

specific features, and document this information for

management decision-making. (US Fish and Wildlife, 2001 -

GIS Strategic Plan, 2001) GIS is a powerful tool for

analyzing spatial patterns, helping to organize large

databases, and presenting results in a manner not otherwise

possible. GIS can greatly assist managers in the decision-

43

making process regarding the disposition of natural

resources. (US Fish and Wildlife Service: GIS Update, 2001)

According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, ″In the

near future, GIS will be so prevalent in natural resource

management, that those organizations without some

capability in this area will be extremely handicapped.″ (US

Fish and Wildlife - GIS Overview, 2001) This is because of

the incredible variety of data that can be utilized within

GIS, and the specific tools available in software packages

for data analyzation.

Types of data which can be worked with in GIS include

coverages of protected areas, elevation, land-cover, roads,

Census data layers, zoning maps, water bodies, watersheds,

political boundaries, geology, species and habitat

occurrences, soil types, and demographics. Other coverages

can be created from these maps in conjunction with other

data, including hazardous sites, species range, and change

detection. (US Fish and Wildlife Service: GIS Update, 2001;

TNC GIS Strategic Plan, 2001)

GIS also allows land management at a variety of

levels. Large-scale projects that are meant to analyze land

use at a regional scale can utilize satellite imagery,

aerial photos, and coverages containing data over a large

area. For this project, the ability of GIS to focus in on

44

the parcel level allows for the precise identification of

features and analyzation of data that can indicate the

actual plots that would be useful for protection. This

would be impossible without the benefit of GIS software,

which has allowed government to create coverages of parcels

for tax purposes.

One of the most powerful aspects of using GIS for

preservation efforts on the part of private environmental

groups is the ability of these groups to analyze government

issued data. Coverages created by US Fish and Wildlife,

NOAA, and local Departments of Environmental Management are

readily available for analysis. This allows the results to

be consistent with both local and regional government, and

allows for more efficient lobbying and use of funds.

(Friedman - Personal Communication, 2002)

Without GIS technology the visualization of multiple

layers of data is not possible. Early efforts to overlay

data using drawings on clear plastic paper were extremely

difficult, inefficient, and imprecise. GIS has indeed

changed the face of land protection by providing even

small, local environmental groups with a tool that can map,

analyze, and display information to manage protection

efforts.

45

There are a number of benefits in implementing GIS

technology for landscape scale analysis, including cost

reduction by improving map and database management,

improved efficiency in spatial analysis methods, improved

credibility by using accurate spatial data, and improved

habitat and land-cover information (US Fish and Wildlife

Service - GIS Update, 2001). GIS can also be used to

communicate with other public and private groups, as well

as improve and make internal communication more efficient,

as well as allow for more sharing of data within

organizations. (US Fish and Wildlife - GIS Update, 2001)

The Nature Conservancy itself has big plans for

incorporating GIS into every level of their work. TNC’s GIS

enterprise plan outlines the role of GIS in their Site

Conservation Planning and Implementation Model, which is

the corps of their planning methodology. GIS will be used

to map the location of conservation targets, analyze

natural processes, and find correlations between targets

and features. Nature Conservancy will utilize GIS to

analyze habitat destruction, including fragmentation,

pollution, and invasive species. (TNC GIS Strategic Plan,

2001)

GIS will also be used to locate Sources of stress.

Historic and current land use, ownership, zoning and

46

political boundaries that affect placement of sources of

stress will be used to effectively target management

practices. By pinpointing generating areas, TNC can create

management plans that are more effective, and protect areas

that will provide for higher levels of biodiversity. (TNC

GIS Strategic Plan, 2001)

Finally, TNC will use GIS to strategize and map out

conservation activities. One such project, taking place in

North Carolina, will similar methodology to this study to

identify areas worthy of protection, specifically for

easement purchases and vacant land acquisition. Using GIS,

protection specialists are able to prioritize action sites,

and show different plans that may be possible by estimating

the costs and benefits of potential activities. As they

move forward, they will measure progress and use GIS to

create maps for continued fund requests and grant writing.

(TNC GIS Strategic Plan, 2001; Ozarski – personal

communication, 2002)

1.4a GIS Scope and Application

GIS technology has been put to the test in a variety

of situations. There are numerous projects in existence

that utilize GIS for land management and habitat

protection. This section will briefly discuss some of the

47

previous applications of GIS, and the role it has played in

making large-scale spatial analysis possible.

Beginning in the late 70’s and early 80’s, GIS was

used for refuge planning, and wetland mapping by the US

Fish and Wildlife Service. Since then USFWS, as well as

many other government, private, and university groups

involved in land management have used GIS for endangered

species and critical habitat decisions. (US Fish and

Wildlife Service - GIS strategic plan, 2001)

The US Fish and Wildlife Service currently uses GIS

in a variety of fashions. Within many National Wildlife

Reserves, GIS has been used in recording and mapping

nesting sites and tracking endangered species movement

through the reserve, helping to protect specific vulnerable

sites, and reduce the effects of human disturbance on

sensitive species. Global Positioning Systems allow for the

mapping of specific locations that provide landscape needs

of specific species, which can be viewed and analyzed using

GIS technology. (US Fish and Wildlife Service - GIS

strategic plan, 2001)

Wetlands mapping from sat imagery as well as health

and landscape change analysis has played a significant role

in managing the Delaware Bay region. Land cover mapping and

48

species distribution have been used to create an Endangered

species database that can be used for planning efficient

protection efforts. Similar projects in Florida assessed

species distribution within wetland environments for

planning efforts. (US Fish and Wildlife Service - GIS

strategic plan, 2001)

Most current GIS projects within USFWS are concerned

with specific species and range of habitat studies. GIS

coverages, such as land cover maps, zoning maps, DEC

wetland maps, rare element, and biotic communities maps,

have been used to assess the proximity of land to important

natural features. Land purchasing is then based upon

habitat needs, and thus funds are utilized more

efficiently. (US Fish and Wildlife - GIS Applications,

2001)

My research indicates that this is the most common

use of GIS data in the land protection field. The

identification of areas that are in need of protection, and

thus should be acquired or protected under law is a very

powerful and useful tool that GIS makes readily accessible

to both government agencies and private groups. Land cover,

elevation, roads and streams, animal and plant locations,

protected land, zoning and every aspect of the landscape

available can be mapped and used for this purpose.

49

GIS is often used before development occurs to plan

for habitat areas which should be set aside. One such

project by Weber (2000) in Maryland used GIS to identify

large blocks of intact habitat, sometimes referred to as

Hubs, that contain sensitive plant or animal species and

provide enough viable habitat to support large enough

populations of species to be significant for long-term

preservation. GIS allows planners to delineate these areas

prior to development occurring, thus creating corridors and

habitat areas to support large populations. (TNC GIS

Strategic Plan, 2001; Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources,

2001)

Other projects have dealt with GIS in similar

fashions. In a study by Xiang (1996) which aimed to utilize

GIS for riparian buffer analysis, GIS made the

identification of inadequately regulated areas within the

buffer zone possible, and allowed for the estimation of

land acquisition costs. By implementing scientifically

tested models on generally available data sets in a GIS

framework, the study accomplished a series of tasks that

would have been extremely difficult if done in a

conventional way. After identifying areas in need of

protection (based on identifying unprotected areas within

50

the buffer zone) they assessed a average land value ($/KM)

based on tax parcels and land value appraisals provided by

county tax office. (Xiang, 1996)

Other studies have focused on satellite imagery, and

using GIS in creating coverages that depict landscape

features such as wetlands. An excellent example of this is

the work by Ramachandran (1998) on Andaman and Nicobar

Islands in the Indian Ocean. Visual interpretation, looking

at tone, texture, color, pattern, and location of features

created a key used to identify each habitat type. This

information was then Ground-truthed to establish a

classification scheme to perform a digital analysis.

The results of this study clearly demonstrate the use

of satellite-based sensors in the mapping and monitoring of

coastal ecosystems. ‘This study also shows that remote

sensing and GIS could be used effectively in mapping,

monitoring and management of natural resources’.

(Ramachandran, 1998)

Another good example of a project using a GIS system

for data analysis is the work by Cummiskey (2001) that used

GIS to plan land acquisition strategies for a Cape Cod land

bank. This project stemmed from a county vote that provided

funds to establish a land bank to protect public drinking

water supplies, acquire open space and conservation lands,

51

and provide recreational opportunities for Cape Cod

residents. Maps of agricultural land, wetlands, aquifer

recharge areas, protected land, and recreational activities

were created from aerial photographs and ground-truthed

data. This project also suggested a system of hotel tax

payments so that local tourist moneys could be put toward

land acquisition. (Cummiskey, 2001)

Adopting GIS in the land preservation field has been

a bottom up procedure, with no GIS program really in place.

Data sharing and standards for data have not yet been

established, and professional GIS users have a tendency to

work separate from other less computer savvy protection

experts. (US Fish and Wildlife, 2001 -GIS Strategic Plan)

Many methodology sections of GIS technical papers are not

telling of the true methods used, but rather provide only a

rudimentary outline of procedures used. This is due to both

a lack of standardization in the technical language, but

also to the fact that much of this is very new, and

researchers are staking a claim to methods they invent.

In contrast, this study aims to make explicit one of

the many ways GIS can be used to help private preservation

efforts. As my research has indicated, previous efforts

have focused on using GIS to analyze large, undeveloped

52

regions for protection of vital habitat. This case study is

important because it involves an extremely difficult area

to test the powers of GIS. Analyzing and prioritizing on

the parcel level in a well-developed and extremely

expensive coastal zone, with very sensitive habitat, is at

the boundaries of what GIS has been used for in the past.

The ability to include a variety of management options and

test the usefulness of GIS within these alternatives will

help to push this technology forward. My aim is to arm

conservation groups with a methodology for prioritizing

parcels in an extreme context, which can then be applied to

a variety of situations.

53

2. Methodology

2.1 Criteria and Coverages

The following section describes the criteria that

were used to prioritize parcels within my study area, and

discusses the associated GIS coverages used. A map

displaying these criteria is included, and for more

information on the sources of these data please see the

matrix at the end of the section.

2.1a 100 Year Flood Plain

The focus of this study is the fragile and habitat

rich coastal zone of Southampton’s south shore. In order to

target those parcels that contribute to the coastal area,

and encompass the entire coastal region including the

coastline, back bays, and tidal wetlands, the study area

has been defined using flood plain maps. The Federal

Emergency Management Act (FEMA) uses flood plain maps to

delineate insurance rates for the National Flood Insurance

Program. Zones V and A encompass the 100-year flood plain,

and extend past the Back Bay areas to include parcels

susceptible to coastal processes. This creates a natural

limit to my study area, and ensures that all coastal

attributes and the parcels affecting them are considered

for prioritization.

54

Using these flood plain maps as a guide, I have

created an outline of my study area that conforms to the

natural barriers of the coastal region. In some areas the

100-yr. flood plain goes beyond major roads, due to the

fact that the flood plain coverage is created from

elevation models and does not take into account man made

features. In these cases, I have used the roads as a limit

to my study area.

2.1b Wetlands

The proximity of parcels to wetlands is a key factor

in how a parcel may contribute to the overall Biodiversity

of this region. Wetlands and salt marshes have been shown

to be ecologically significant as nurseries for young

aquatic life, and to provide habitat for native and

migratory bird species. (Hoel, 1986; Hecht, 1990; Kaufman,

1979; Kopper, 1979; Teal, 1969; Elias, 2000) The Target

species that have been identified for this region by TNC

(Terns, Plovers) rely on coastal wetland areas as feeding

and nesting grounds. There are many other NYS listed animal

species dependent on salt marshes for food, shelter,

breeding, rearing of young, or other critical life stage

needs. (Hoel, 1986; Hecht, 1990; Kaufman, 1979; Kopper,

55

1979; Teal, 1969; Elias, 2000; US Fish and Wildlife SSER

Coastal Colonial Waterbirds Technical Report, 1998)

According to the South Shore Estuary Reserve technical

report on wetlands, (SSER, 2001) attention should be

focused on those species listed as endangered, threatened

and of special concern in NY. These species include black

rail (endangered), least tern (Threatened), common tern

(threatened), least bittern (threatened), and osprey

(special concern), all of which rely on fragile wetland

areas. Also, a number of rare and protected plants

including saltmarsh loostrife, slender marsh-pink, and

swamp sunflower exist in LI salt marshes.

The states Coastal Management program has several

specific charges to restore degraded habitat for the

purposes of maintaining the health and viability of fish

and wildlife populations (ECL title 3, 0301.1(n); title 11,

0303.2(b)(1); title 13, 0105.1, Executive Law Article 42,

913). Tidal wetlands, including salt marsh habitats, are

protected in the State of New York under article 25 of

Environmental Conservation Law, the Tidal Wetlands Act.

This requires permits for any changes, and a 100-ft setback

for building. This, however, has not kept people from

filling and developing wetlands, both illegally and with

valid permits given under intense development pressure.

56

In order to protect the commonly recognized functions

of salt marshes, such as food chain production, provision

of fish and wildlife habitat, barrier to waves and erosion,

storm and floodwater storage, and nutrient and chemical

uptake, wetland and wetland buffer areas need to be

protected. Wetlands data will thus be key to prioritizing

parcels for habitat protection.

Wetland Buffers

The necessary buffer width will vary according to

individual site by type of wetland, sensitivity to

disturbance, intensity of adjacent land use, slope and soil

characteristics, species present, and surrounding

vegetation types (Brown et al 1990; North Carolina State

University, 1998). Brown et al (1990) recommend varying

buffer widths for wetlands in different landscapes of east

Central Florida. The distance to minimize groundwater

drawdown varied from 20 to 550 ft, to control

sedimentation, 75 to 375 ft, and to protect wildlife 322 to

732 ft. A buffer of 550 ft is recommended for forested

wetlands. A literature search of studies on specific buffer

performance found that for species distribution and

diversity protection, 3 to 110 m was required (North

Carolina State University, 1998). I will be using a buffer

57

of 500 ft, which is adequate to protect all functions of

wetland areas, and provide enough land to provide viable

habitat for the large numbers of wetland dependent bird

species within the coastal region.

Wetland Coverages

The importance of wetlands for habitat and commercial

needs has made the study and documentation of wetland areas

a widespread practice. In fact, this is the only situation

within my study where a variety of coverages exist, and

choosing the most apt data source will be important for

efficient habitat protection. All available coverages have

their limitations as well as advantages, including scale

differences and inclusion issues.

The first options comes from the National Wetlands

Inventory (NWI) which is put together by the US Fish and

Wildlife Department, and is considered by most other

institutions to be extremely imprecise, but contain the

best evaluation of wetland types. The 1:24,000 scale maps

from which these wetland areas are devised make local

small-scale analyses almost impossible. The next option is

a wetlands coverage that is put together by the NYDEC,

which is at a much more locally significant scale of

1:2,400. While this scale makes local analysis possible,

58

the wetlands on these maps are derived from 1974 data, and

are extremely out of date. These coverages also do not

include all of the wetland types that occur along the

coast, with reed marsh and other marginal marshlands not

included.

Southampton has gone beyond what other towns have

been capable of. When GIS was allocated for in the town

budget, a huge amount of money was set aside to create a

land-type coverage, which used ground crews to survey the

town for mapping. The resulting coverage is a very concise

and up-to-date map of all of the habitat types in

Southampton, including wetland information. While most

towns would rely on the NWI or other state level data

sources, Southampton is very lucky to have a habitat

complex map of such precision. I have chosen to use this

Southampton habitat complex map for my wetland coverage,

due to the fact that it is extremely precise and locally

significant.

2.1c Barrier Beach Overwash

Overwash and breaching of barrier islands plays an

important role in maintaining the health of this region’s

ecosystems. (Hecht, 1990; Dunn, 2000; Luoma, 1998) Beach

59

migration is a natural occurrence, which is hindered by

human influence, and the protection of private property.

Overwashing of barrier beaches has been shown to be an

important factor in maintaining piping plover habitat, one

of the targets for this region. ‘(Areas) preferred by

piping plovers are naturally created or maintained by

overwash and/or scouring by waves. Additionally, without

overwash, dense vegetation may grow between beach nesting

habitats and bay tidal flats, preventing broods from

walking to these foraging areas.’ (Elias, 2000)

Tern, plover, and shorebird areas created by the

breach at Pikes Beach in 1993 illustrate the importance of

this natural process for establishing habitat. The lack of

plover habitat on the undeveloped Wilderness Area of Fire

Island is thought to be due in part to lack of inlets and

suitable overwash feeding and brooding areas (Elias-Gerken,

1994)

Besides being important for salt marsh habitat

protection, overwash plays a vital role to other coastal

processes. ‘Overwash allows sand to be shunted into the

interior of the barrier beach, which builds the secondary

dunes, providing shelter from the salt spray so that swales

and maritime forest can develop.’ (Hoel, 1986)

The consensus in the scientific literature is that

60

overwashing is a natural and important process in beach

migration and the formation of viable habitat, and houses

should be moved out of zones of overwash. (Hoel, 1986;

Hecht, 1990; McCormick, 1984) The real issue is that, ‘No

erosion problems exist until people lay out property lines

and build. Beach changes only trouble people who have a

strong attachment to immovable objects and fixed lines.

Shoreline engineers are rarely, if ever, called in to

stabilize a wild beach.’ (Kaufman, 1979)

Creating a coverage of overwash sites to be used for

prioritizing parcels has proved extremely difficult.

Sophisticated modeling dealing with Bathymetry and

elevation data is necessary to produce useful information.

These two data types are often both difficult to obtain,

and can be significantly different due to methodologies in

data collection and temporal changes in coastal areas. My

attempts to use a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) for

watershed modeling (flow accumulation and direction) were

not successful. This may be due to the rough DEM data, or

the Arcview watershed modeling functions, which are not

designed for coastal areas.

The grid model produced from the DEM did however help

me to identify visually those sites that appear low enough

for overwash to occur. I was able to digitize these areas,

61

and combine them with a map of historic overwash sites, to

provide a data set of possible overwash sites. While this

may not be the best methodology, it does provide a useful

set of low elevation and susceptible sites, and I believe

will serve its purpose to select parcels that should be

kept free from development so that overwash of barrier

beaches can occur.

2.1d Protected Land

Literature on coastal wetlands and the associated

barrier islands suggests that landscape fragmentation is

one of the greatest threats to the long-term health of

coastal biota. (Teal, 1969) Experts at TNC agree that

protecting large areas is the key to effective habitat

protection. (TNC Conservation by Design, 2001) The focus of

TNC’s efforts is to identify and reduce the stresses that

face a region. With the target species in this area being

mostly birds, large intact and even corridor areas are

necessary to maintain viable habitat. Thus protecting areas

close to already protected sites will increase the

viability of sites that already have a vested interest and

a role in habitat protection.

Many studies have shown that larger patches support a

larger variety of habitats, contain larger populations of

62

species and are less vulnerable to disturbance. (Brown,

1990; Hanski, 1997) Small patches in fragmented landscapes

may act as ecological traps by concentrating populations of

birds in areas with insufficient resources. (Heske, 1999)

Landscapes with a few, small, isolated patches can be

dominated by edge effects, and provide little viable

habitat for interior species. (With and King, 1999) The

fact is, species become extinct faster in small patches

than larger ones (MacArthur and Wilson, 1967; Harris, 1984;

Hanski, 1997.) The Southampton Town Plan echoes these

sentiments by indicating that the proximity to existing

protected land (in order to establish continuity) was

considered an important aspect of land protection efforts

for the town. (Town of Southampton Community Preservation

Fund Project Plan, 1998)

For all of these regions, building upon already

protected land will be a vital aspect to prioritizing land

for management in my study area. Coverages of Federal,

State, Local, as well as TNC protected land have all been

created using the tax parcel map, which lists these lands

separately, by ownership. Discussions with TNC and other

area experts has shown that priority should not be given to

land adjacent to any specific type of protected land (Fed,

63

State, Local). All of these groups have been partners with

TNC in the past, and all protected areas are important due

to the fragmented nature of the landscape. (Ozarski

Personal Communication, 2002)

2.1e Habitat and Target Areas - Beach Dependent Species

Part of TNC’s approach to land protection is to

identify target species, and then to protect the land that

those species depend upon. Colonial nesting marine birds

and wading birds are important and conspicuous components

of coastal ecosystems (US Fish and Wildlife Colonial

Waterbirds Technical Report, 1998). Nineteen species of

colonial Waterbirds nest in the South Shore Estuary

Reserve. Two species of shorebirds are considered of

special importance, the threatened piping plover, and the

endangered American Oystercatcher. Colonial nesters usually

concentrate in small areas and are vulnerable to

disturbance and habitat destruction that can eliminate

large numbers of birds. (US Fish and Wildlife Colonial

Waterbirds Technical Report, 1998)

Because shorebirds concentrate in just a few areas

during migration, loss or degradation of key sites could

devastate these populations. Many species have in fact been

declining due to losses of these sensitive lands (US Fish

64

and Wildlife Colonial Waterbirds Technical Report, 1998).

Shorebird habitat use directly competes with human

activities that often result in destruction, degradation,

and disturbance of wetlands, beaches, estuaries, and

grasslands. (Town of Southampton Comp Plan, 2001)

In an effort to document the distribution of

sensitive shorebirds, the NY Natural Heritage Program has a

data set, which it calls Beach Dependent Species Habitat,

which delineates Breeding and nesting sites for target bird

species. The proximity of parcels to these sites is key for

efficient habitat protection.

Another facet of the Beach Dependent Species Study is

the location of sites where seabeach amaranth and seabeach

knotweed exist, both being beach dependent rare plant

species identified as targets for protection by the Natural

Heritage Program. Their status as threatened endemic

species makes the proximity of parcels to these stretches

of beach a necessary component of the prioritization study.

(Ozarski Personal Comm., 2002)

These data sets have been digitized by The Natural

Heritage Group, and indicate stretches of beach where team

members doing site analysis have recorded target species as

present. The data is thus ground-truthed, and very

reliable. It should be noted, however, that large stretches

65

are indicated as having target species present, but are not

associated with numbers of species. However, because the

data represents rare or endangered species, any number of

individuals may be considered significant and worthy of

protection. Because of the reputation of Natural Heritage,

and the experts they employ in this area, this data set may

be considered very applicable for prioritization efforts.

2.1f Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CEHA)

The CEHA area, which extends up the coast of Long

Island and encompasses the barrier islands, beaches and

dunes, will be used to identify those parcels along the

coast that have been designated as worthy of protection

under state law. The state coastal policies are directly

descended from the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act

(CZMA) of 1972, which mandates that states develop state

coastal policies about land and water uses, and the CEHA

designation creates an area of enforcement for the state

coastal policies under state law. (Ozarski CEHA Overview,

2001)

While CEHA is a State administered act enforced by

the New York Department of Environmental Control (NYDEC),

it can be handed over to municipalities for implementation

if so desired. (Ozarski CEHA Overview, 2001) Southampton

66

has an approved community enforcement program, which allows

the municipality to enforce CEHA laws. This includes

defining regulated activities, and applying a permit

process to enforce minimum standards and restrictions for

the CEHA area. (Ozarski CEHA Overview, 2001)

CZMA was designed to balance and protect a broad

range of land uses on the coast, specifically:

‘...Industry, commerce, residential

development, recreation, extraction of

mineral resources and fossil fuels,

transportation and navigation, waste

disposal, and harvesting of fish,

shellfish, and other living marine

resources, wildlife...’ (Ozarski CEHA

Overview, 2001 – from CZMA section 1)

The CEHA act, which was signed in 1981, attempts to

spatially identify the region necessary to protect these

aspects of the landscape. The area is determined by a 40-

yr-erosion study, and aims to protect natural protective

features, such as dunes and bluffs, and identifies

structural hazard areas, which are areas landward of the

natural protective features that may be endangered.

(Ozarski CEHA Overview, 2001)

67

While CEHA contains strong regulatory language

specific to the placement of structures within the zone and

the fact that structures damaged by coastal flooding or

erosion by 50% or more are not to be rebuilt, variances are

available if there is no reasonable, prudent, alternative

to a site. Because CEHA does allow for hard erosion control

structures (dikes, jetties) as a means of stabilization,

there are ways for permits to be given even when the

prudent course of action would be to deny development

rights within the fragile coastal zone. ((Ozarski CEHA

Overview, 2001; Article 34 CEHA law, 2002; Ozarski CEHA

enforcement sheet, 2001; Ozarski CEHA Permit Process Sheet,

2001)

Because this sensitive area is still susceptible to

development pressure, I have chosen to use the CEHA zone as

a component of my prioritization strategy. The digitized

line, which has been supplied to me by the NYDEC, will

indicate those parcels that are in need of protection under

New York State law, but due to development pressure will

surely be built upon in the future if not protected.

I will also use the line to indicate those structures

that are in front of the CEHA line, and target those

structures for relocation from the area. The Town of

Southampton Draft Generic EIS for the south shore has

68

indicated that tax incentives for relocation of structures

from the CEHA are a recommended solution to the growing

problems surrounding development in the coastal area. This

allows me to efficiently focus my efforts on the CEHA zone

for a prioritization of those structures that could be

relocated by providing an incentive framework at the town

level. Without this endorsement, this management option

would be impossible.

2.1g Community Preservation Fund Areas

In June 1998, Governor Pataki established state

legislation that provides revenues from a 2% real estate

transfer tax for preservation of lands in the Peconic Bay

region to protect open space and rural character (Peconic

Bay Region Community Preservation Act – State Assembly law

#9696). The town of Southampton has established a list of

parcels for which this money can be used, based upon the

contribution that the parcels play in maintaining

agricultural lands, open space and greenbelts, wetlands,

and recreational areas throughout the town.

The areas deemed worthy of this protection money were

identified using a similar GIS inventory to what I am

attempting. Town land-cover maps, along with Natural

Heritage, protected land, DEC wetlands maps, and other

69

historical and cultural coverages were utilized to assess

the conditions and evaluate individual parcels. A total of

28,668 acres have been included in the preservation plan. I

have chosen to include the Open Space areas selected from

these coverages as part of my prioritization scheme.

The Open Space areas selected for preservation will

serve as large protected intact natural areas and

ecological core preserves. The plan is to protect, buffer,

and link these areas to provide a functional network of

interconnected reserves for the South Shore region. The

headwaters, tidal marshes, ponds, and woodlands that these

areas contain are vital to providing habitat to the many

rare and endangered species living in the fragile coastal

area.

I am including the CPF areas as part of my

prioritization scheme for another, more economically minded

reason. The National Fund that The Nature Conservancy can

use for timely land acquisitions may allow land that

becomes available in the CPF area to be bought by TNC

without the red tape that can stall a government purchase.

The land can then be transferred to local government and

TNC can reclaim their funds, a common practice within the

field of preservation. This makes the CPF areas ideal sites

for TNC to use their speed of acquisition in order to

70

partner with local government and support local land

preservation efforts.

2.1h Parcel Size - Easements

According to the Peconic Land Trust and the Town of

Southampton Community Preservation Fund, properties

selected for easements should be of sufficient size such

that significant features are likely to remain intact in

spite of adjacent development. Thus one-acre plots that

contain structures are not likely to provide any useful

habitat, and are susceptible to nearby development

pressure.

For this reason I have chosen to focus my efforts for

prioritizing easements on those parcels which contain at

least 1.5 acres of open space, not including the structure

itself. This will remove any parcels that will most

certainly not provide the necessary amount of land for

easements to be effective, and will allow for a more

efficient analysis of the possibilities that exist for

easement purchase in my study area.

2.1I Land Availability - Structure Relocation

In order to efficiently prioritize structures for

relocation from the CEHA zone, the location of the

71

structure within the parcel and the availability of land on

which to move these structures behind the CEHA line must be

ascertained. Some structures may be prime for relocation.

They could be in a possible overwash area, and within a

dune or breeding bird site. However, if there is no space

behind the CEHA line to remove the structure to, then the

possibility of any changes occurring drops sharply.

Of course the lack of immediate land does not

entirely rule out relocation of the structure. Damage of

the house by more than 50% requires the structure to be

discarded and house moving technology does allow houses to

be moved significant distances, making it important to

still keep structures without significant room directly

behind them in mind when analyzing the situation. Thus I am

not throwing out parcels that do not have room behind the

CEHA line or vacant land behind them for structures to be

removed to, but will be visually analyzing each structure

to assess the room for relocation as a criterion for

prioritization.

72

Table 2. Coverage’s and Sources

Data Set Source Data Type Accuracy Comments

Base Parcel Map Suffolk County Digitized from county tax maps

Last updated Winter 2001

Some ownership Data needs updating –TNC inf. not exact

Wetlands Coverage Town of Southampton

Ground crew GPS Very accurate Unique to SH Most rely on NWI

or DEC Protected Land Suffolk County Tax

Map Parcel level

ownership data Mostly accurate –

some inconsistencies on TNC owned land

Government ownership very

accurate

Community Preservation Fund

Town of Southampton

Parcels delineated by town within CPF

project plan

Exact parcel level data

Coastal Erosion Hazard Area

NY Department of Environmental Conservation

Digitized line delineates sensitive

coastal area – ie. Dunes

Perfectly accurate – digitized by

NYDEC

Historic Barrier Beach Overwash

Historic overwash site map in Draft

Generic Environmental

Impact Statement

Digitized from Paper map

High accuracy – paper map was very

accurate, thus digitized points

should be as well

Possible Barrier Beach Overwash

Army Corps Digital Elevation Model

Digital Elevation Model (DEM) from Satellite Imagery

Not accurate enough

Needs Bathymetry data and better

modeling Beach Dependent

Species Natural Heritage

Program Beach expanses

based upon digitized maps of

survey results

Very Accurately digitized – lack of data association

Number of individuals present not associated with

maps

73

Table 2. Prioritization Criteria

74

2.2 Prioritization Scheme

The above criteria are being applied to my study area

in order to prioritize parcels in three distinct layers of

analysis. Using arcview software, I assess the location of

parcels relative to the target areas and natural processes

my research has deemed pertinent to habitat protection

within the coastal zone. The three layers include

prioritizing vacant land for acquisition, identifying those

residential lots with structures that may be suitable for

easements, and looking into the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area

to ascertain structures that may be removed from this

sensitive area. (See the section on management options). I

will now go into some detail as to how this was

accomplished.

In order to prioritize vacant lots for acquisition, I

first selected out from the Southampton Tax Map all vacant

parcels that exist within the study area. Arcview provides

a number of tools for selecting out certain components of

coverages, and allows the user to query for attributes that

may be of interest. One such tool is the ‘select by theme’

function, which allows the user to ask the computer to

display all vacant lots which may intersect, be contained

within, or be a certain distance from the criteria

75

discussed above. This allows my to score the parcels based

upon their location in the landscape.

There exist two types of scoring techniques that have

been employed in similar studies. A linear scoring gives

each parcel 1 point if they fall within the designated

limits of a particular criterion. For example, parcels that

are adjacent to already protected land would receive 1

point for that category. The alternative method would be to

weight the criteria so that parcels adjacent to already

protected land might receive 1 point each, while parcels

buffering wetlands might receive 2 points, depending upon

the importance one gives to wetlands versus protected land.

I have decided to go with the former approach for two

reasons. The first being that the expertise needed to

decide upon weighting scales is not within my immediate

grasp, and the local experts and literature I have

consulted with are not in agreement on which aspects of the

landscape are of more import than others. The second reason

is that this is the first such study being done within this

area. I hope that this prioritization and the results I get

continue to grow and influence local land protection

efforts. A linear scoring rule allows for enhancement in

the future, when more is known about specific areas and

landscape characteristics. As the use of this technology

76

matures, weighted scoring may play a role in future

planning efforts, but for now it seems pertinent to keep it

simple and allow for room to grow.

Points were allocated to parcels that provide the

most protection to the habitat they may contain, the areas

they might border, or the ecosystem functions that in

protecting the land will be allowed to continue. Those

parcels within 500 ft of wetlands were given a point

because buffering these fragile areas will protect the

habitat they contain and allow them to move and change as

conditions shift. One point was awarded to the parcels

bordering already protected land, so that we may reduce

fragmentation, and provide larger intact habitat areas.

Likewise, 1 point was given to those parcels that fall

within the beach dependent species habitat coverage areas,

and 1 point for those parcels that fall within the intact

dune area. One point was also awarded to those parcels that

fell within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, and an

additional point to parcels in possible barrier beach

overwash areas.

Residential lots with structures on them were

prioritized in much the same fashion, except analyses of

77

these lots was limited to those which contain at least 1.5

acres excluding the structures themselves. This was

accomplished by selecting out the residential lots from the

tax map, and unioning the structure inventory to the

residential lot coverage. This allows the structures area

to be subtracted from the lot, and I was then able to query

for those areas bigger than 1.5 acres, with the structure

area removed. The result was a coverage containing only

those residential lots which provide enough land for an

easement to be warranted, due to the ability of landowners

to develop or sell off at least 1 acre of their owned land.

These lots were prioritized in the same fashion as

the vacant lands, with a linear scoring rule that assessed

their spatial role in the landscape, and awarded points

based on their proximity to the aforementioned criterion.

For easement prioritization, barrier beach overwash was not

used as a criteria, as these areas are being singled out

for structure removal, and thus would not be beneficial for

easements.

Parcels containing structures within the Coastal

Erosion Hazard Area were then analyzed for the possibility

of relocation from the coastal zone. The CEHA line cuts

through most of the ocean front properties, with many

78

parcels containing adequate room for structures on either

side of the limit. The prioritization of these structures

focused not only on their proximity to overwash areas,

dunes, and habitat, but also included a visual analysis of

the room that may or may not exist for structures to be

moved to. Structures that were in front of the CEHA line

but had room enough behind the line on the same property,

as well as those structures that had vacant land behind

them, were given a point.

79

3. Results

In this section, I will describe the results of the

prioritization process, and provide maps displaying some

exemplary findings. A complete set of maps detailing the

results can be found in Appendix A.

3.1 Vacant Land

Within my study area, there exist 2,531 parcels

listed as vacant and available for development.

Prioritizing these parcels based upon the criteria

described within this paper has yielded a distribution of

scores where a select few parcels have scored very high,

while the majority scored very low. The results of the

prioritization also indicate a few areas where preservation

reserves may be possible due to clusters of high scoring

vacant parcels coinciding.

Table 3. shows the number of parcels for each score

0-6. As can be seen, while only two of the parcels scored a

six, 123 of the parcels received a score of three or

higher. Those parcels with higher scores represent lands

that contain enough attributes to make them worthy of

immediate attention. Roughly half of the parcels scored a

zero, indicating those parcels which are not in need of

attention at this time.

80

Table 3. Results Vacant Parcels Score Number of

Parcels 6 2

5 6

4 14

3 101

2 377

1 726

0 1305

Groupings of high scoring parcels, such as the one

shown below, represent possible reserve areas that can be

established. This area, at Tiana beach, is already under

investigation by TNC, and these findings will help TNC

staff to present the conservation needs for this area to

raise funds for acquisition of parcels.

81

Figure 3. Map of Results – Vacant Parcels

3.2 Residential Easement Results

Within the study area there are 13,176 parcels listed

as low, medium, or high density residential built lands.

After screening those for size as was discussed earlier,

4,552 parcels remained for prioritization. The distribution

of scores can be seen in Table 4., showing the large number

of parcels that scored low, while only a handful scored

very high.

82

Table 4. Results Easement Parcels Score Number

of Parcels

0 2307

1 1592

2 494

3 104

4 52

5 3

Using a score of three as a cutoff for those parcels

that are in need of immediate attention, we can see that

159 of the 4,552 parcels are in need of immediate concern.

As with vacant parcels, roughly half of the parcels scored

a zero, allowing efforts to be targeted to those that have

significant resource value.

The figure below shows the results of prioritizing

residential parcels for easements within this region. As

can be seen, most high scoring parcels occur along the

waters’ edge, specifically along many of the tidal creeks

that are associated with wetland communities. This is

especially significant, due to the fact that these are

probably the most sensitive areas to human disturbance, and

can benefit greatly from conservation efforts that would

83

keep density of housing, and associated water and waste

needs, down.

Figure 4. Map of Results - Easements

3.3 Results Structure Relocation

604 structures currently exist within the Coastal

Erosion Hazard Area in the town of Southampton. Of these,

26 scored a three or higher, indicating that very few of

these structures have the possibility of relocation.

Clusters of high scoring parcels do exist, (fig. 8) with

areas along specific beaches, and even distinct sections

along bays showing promise for management.

84

Figure 5. Map of Results – Structure Relocation

Most of these high scoring parcels are associated

with barrier beach overwash sites, and thus the results

indicate not only houses that are ripe for relocation, but

those that are in danger of destruction as well. The

results show large stretches of structures, see below, that

are in a precarious straight, and thus can help to target

both preservation and education efforts in the future.

85

Table 5. Results Structure Relocation Score Number

of Parcels

0 131

1 233

2 214

3 24

4 2

Table 6 summarizes the scores for each management

option. I have categorized the parcel score results into

high, mid, and low ranges, and have indicated the score

that is applicable for each range. Since not all criteria

were pertinent for each management option, these ranges

differ.

Table 6. Summation of Results

(0-1)

364 (2)

214 (3-4)

26 Structure

Relocation (Total:604)

(0-1)

3899 (2-3)

598 (4-5)

55 Residential Easements (Total: 4,552)

(0-1)

2031 (2-3)

478 (4-6)

22 Vacant Parcels

(Total: 2,531)

Low Range Scoring

(score)

Mid Range Scoring

(score)

High Range Scoring

(score)

86

4. Discussion

At this time Southampton, as with Long Island as a

whole, has about one third of its land protected, one third

developed, and one third up for grabs. The oversimplified

goal of The Nature Conservancy is to see half of that last

third preserved within the next ten to fifteen years. The

results of this study provide not only some direction as to

how to achieve this, but also the order in which lands

should be dealt with. It will allow funds and attention to

be focused on those lands deemed most valuable in order to

protect them in a timely manner. Interestingly enough,

about half of the vacant lands available received a score

of zero, indicating that these are the parcels that can be

sacrificed to development as long as efforts to protect the

remaining half continue.

The distribution of scores which occurred, with very

few parcels scoring high and many scoring low, will allow

preservation efforts to be more effective by targeting

those few parcels which contribute greatly to habitat. With

only a handful of parcels fulfilling multiple target goals,

conservation efforts can be proactive, making the land

grabbing tactics of the past obsolete.

87

Since very few structures within the CEHA zone were

indicated as worthy of possible relocation, purchasing

vacant land along the coast becomes essential to habitat

protection. The Army Corps of Engineers will continue to

work within this area to protect houses and human lives,

with little thought given to habitat and long term erosion

issues. If we do not want to see Southampton become the

Jersey shore, we must limit the need for hard erosion

control structures by not allowing development along the

coast. Removing structures from harms way may prove to be

an effective means for reducing the need for erosion

control in the future, but the natural coastal processes

that maintain the health of this area necessitate more than

can be achieved by these means. Purchasing coastal land,

where parcels remain vacant, seems to be the only way to

truly protect the coastal area.

Clusters of high scoring structures within the

Coastal Erosion Hazard Area can be of significance for

other reasons beyond lobbying for relocation landward.

Since these areas are in the most danger of flooding, and

are thus targeted for erosion control by the Corps,

education programs must be employed so that the residents

can be informed as to the drawbacks of hard erosion

control. These areas, through TNC, can be formed into

88

community action groups, where the community as a whole can

then have a say in the protection of the natural resources

that surround them. A community level program such as this

will hopefully garner local landowner support because

citizens may feel more involved in a large-scale

preservation effort if the other homeowners are partners

with them. By providing a neighborhood feel to the project,

TNC can work for strong opposition to needless destruction

of the environment.

Clusters of vacant parcels that obtained high scores,

as well as clusters of high scoring possible easement

parcels, are of importance as well, because they may allow

for the creation of new reservation sites. Clusters of

protected land will help to create corridor areas for

migratory bird species, and reduce fragmentation by

increasing the size of protected habitat. It may also be

possible to work with local, federal or state government on

creating new reservation areas, thus reducing the financial

strain inherent in large-scale acquisition efforts. This

can help build partnerships, and allow for public

participation within a directed campaign.

Clusters of easement areas can also be of

significance because of the potential these areas have for

89

linking landowners together in community conservation

efforts. These clusters, where adequate open space exists

for habitat value, can be linked to TNC to provide

management and technical information so that these areas

are continue to provide valuable natural resources. Even if

easement purchase does not become a widespread reality, GIS

has allowed for targeted education and management related

projects that will provide community based support for

preservation.

One of the lessons that I would like TNC and other

conservation groups to take from this study concerns the

types of data available for GIS analysis. While government

issued data, at both local and regional scales, is readily

available and allows for consistency in analysis, GIS

allows users to create data sets, which can provide

valuable information beyond that which is available from

agencies. A perfect example of this is the possible Barrier

Beach Overwash Site coverage that I created from the Army

Corps Digital Elevation Model. Further watershed modeling

would allow for a more accurate pinpointing of locations,

but with limited technology and software packages I was

still able to make a useable coverage not available

anywhere else.

90

This is only an example of what can be done to create

new data sets for analysis. Satellite and aerial photo

imagery could help private groups to actually check the

validity of government data, and create newer, more

accurate coverages for analysis. Thus in areas where the

town does not have an accurate land cover data set like

Southampton, groups like TNC no longer have to rely on

coarse National Wetland Inventory or outdated DEC

coverages. New software allows these other coverages to be

updated, or simply replaced by GIS staff.

91

5. Constraints

When relying on government and private organizations

for data, the acronym BAD, which stands for Best Available

Data, is not simply a GIS related play on words. The

creation of coverages from aerial photographs, as well as

from paper maps, requires resource intense ground-truthing,

as well as constant updating. The tax maps on which I am

relying for parcel level data are quite possibly filled

with errors, especially when one considers the speed at

which land changes hands in Southampton. Ground-truthing

this large data set is a job for which resources simply do

not exist, an aerial photographs are not consistently

available for updating such a large area. Therefore, many

of the vacant lots that I am prioritizing may no longer be

vacant, and recent changes in ownership will not be

reflected in this study.

This holds true for much of the data that is

available to GIS users. When dealing specifically with a

well-developed coastal zone, these delays in updated data

availability can mean extreme shifts in coastal processes

will not be noted in the study. This is especially true in

elevation and wetland depiction. While this does not

undermine the process I am establishing here, it creates

92

more work on the part of the land protection groups, which

need to recheck specific parcels for true availability and

their role within the landscape once the overall

prioritization has been done. For this study, I must assume

that the most up-to-date data available from the town and

local government and environmental groups is as accurate as

can be, and correctly depicts all aspects of the landscape.

Available data may have some shortcoming due to

resources and landscape changes, but this is much less of a

hindrance than when data that could be very useful is

simply not available. For example, barrier beach overwash

is one of the most important aspects of the coastal

landscape, and is vital to my prioritization criteria. It

is also one of the most difficult data sets to create, with

Bathymetry as well as elevation data needed to form a

precise view of the processes that lead to overwash. These

data need to be from a similar point in time, as the

conditions are continually changing along the coast. Even

if these data sets are available, it takes complicated

watershed modeling to identify overwash sites correctly.

This, unfortunately, was not possible for this

project. Bathymetry data was not available to match the

only Digital Elevation Model I could obtain. An attempt to

93

model the watershed using the DEM was undertaken, but this

proved extremely difficult, and the software package used

was not designed for the slight elevation changes of a

coastal area, and thus concrete flow information was not

generated. I was able to use the DEM to look for points

that were indicated as low enough to be susceptible to

overwash, and this combined with a digitized map of

historic overwash sites provided some information on

possible overwash sites. This limitation could be overcome

in the future with better data and software packages.

The high density, value and pressure of development

in this region have proved many forms of protection

obsolete. Wetland laws are routinely ignored, and permits

are granted to build on lands that may be unsuitable for

development within the sensitive coastal zone. Lands that

may be listed as vacant but are truly undevelopable should

in fact be removed from the list of available vacant land.

This, however, would be a mistake because so much of this

land has succumbed to development in the past. This is a

difficult balancing act. One does not wish to waste funds

on lands that are not buildable if they are listed as

necessary for protection within a prioritization scheme.

The experts from The Nature Conservancy and The Group for

the South Fork recommend keeping these lands listed as

94

available for my prioritization. While this may help to

adequately include all lands that are susceptible to

development, it means more ground-truthing will have to

occur on those lands that are marginal for development.

One possible criticism of this methodology is that

double counting may occur when coverages displaying similar

types of information provide multiple points for a parcel.

The beach dependent species coverage and the dune coverage

exhibit much the same information. In many areas the dunes

are providing the breeding habitat or the land type

necessary for rare plant species. Thus while dunes are also

necessary for beach protection and health, and do not

always directly coincide with the species coverage, overlap

in use of these data sets is most definitely occurring.

This cannot be truly corrected for, because of the

multi-faceted roles that these coverages play. I would not

want to discount the role of a parcel just because of

possible overlap, and the coverages themselves are not

completely dependent upon each other. The possibility of

double counting will only add points to already important

parcels, allowing those parcels to receive more scrutiny in

the future.

95

One of the other areas that could be improved upon is

in the social prioritization of developed land being

targeted for management. Age and income data available from

the census bureau provide a framework for identifying

certain segments of the population that may be interested

in working with private organizations or government on

easements or structure relocation. However, a more precise

set of data could be employed for identifying those

households with specific economic concerns that may make

them willing to cooperate. I am referring to tax

delinquency and debt information, which could be employed

by government agencies to target households for

preservation efforts. Tax incentive and purchase programs

could provide much needed economic relief to these

households, and allow for more efficient use of

conservation funds.

96

6. Further Work

While Southampton is far beyond many other similarly

sized towns in its use of GIS for planning, and its

attention to the natural resources which make it special,

more can be done on both fronts to further preservation

efforts. Programs providing incentives for homeowners to

transfer development rights or remove their homes from the

CEHA area are only possible through precise and up-to-date

data, as well as public education programs.

Precision data is the key to efficient management

techniques. Data such as the structure inventory can be

very well displayed, with little or no spatial errors, but

can limit the analysis if the associated information for

the structures is lacking. Future work could focus creating

more data layers associated with the structures, including

the type of structure, how long it has been in its place,

the foundation type, and the building materials (brick,

wood etc.) so that a more detailed analysis of potential

for relocation may be considered.

Other types of data could lead to prioritization

schemes for different management techniques. Enforcing the

CEHA laws, which deal with limiting the ability of

97

landowners to reconstruct damaged structures, could be

dealt with by mapping storm events and using the structure

inventory to prioritize site visits for inventorying and

enforcement.

This type of time and resource intensive field

checking would improve upon other aspects of the study as

well, and should be undertaken for future efforts. Ground-

truthing residential lots listed as priority for easements

may be time consuming, but a worthy endeavor for efficient

allocation of resources. The creation of more precise land

cover maps, and using aerial photos and satellite imagery

to determine potential corridor networks and the usefulness

of specific lots for easements will be the next steps in

creating a precise prioritization of management potential.

There are a number of homeowners whom may be interest

in working with TNC or local government on easements or

relocation of land from the sensitive coastline. There are

also a number of areas where wealthy landowners may wish to

form a community preservation fund, in order to jointly

purchase land for preservation, thus saving it from

development and a possible overcrowding or loss of value of

their own land. These people need to be connected and

informed of the possibilities that exist, and an extensive

98

education program will be key for the future of land

protection in this region.

The data that I have collected here would be a good

start in the effort to educate the public as to both the

coastal processes which make this area special, and the way

their own home may affect the future of habitat in this

area. ArcIMS, which allows for interactive viewing of

arcview coverages on the Internet, would allow homeowners

to take a broad look at the wetlands, breeding areas, and

protected land that exist on Long Island. It would also

allow them to focus in on their homes to see what they can

do to help protect these fragile areas. Such a website

could act as a clearinghouse for GIS data, and a forum for

discussion on land protection along the coast. This is the

future of land protection on LI.

The further uses of the data, methodology and results

of this study have a variety of outlets that will enhance

land preservation efforts in this region. This study

itself, however, can be worked on to create a more precise

and up-to-date model for preservation. As I have discussed,

other data sets can be employed and new technology will

allow for better watershed modeling and coverages that are

more accurate. Beyond that, the study can be replicated

99

using a variety of different criteria, or leaving certain

criteria out, so that data needs can be better analyzed.

Performing this study using other data or secluding

certain data sets would allow for a more precise view of

those parcels that provide high levels of habitat

significance, even when prioritization criteria are more

limited. If a parcel scores high under a variety of

circumstances, it can be accepted as worthy of conservation

on a more rigorous statistical level. This may allow for

better interaction between private groups and government,

where the accuracy of the data may be questioned. The next

steps that TNC might undertake for this study include a

preliminary ground-truthing of results with a randomly

selected set of parcels to be checked for validity of

findings.

While the above bio-geographic data are essential to

prioritizing parcels in respect to the natural coastal

processes and biota that are the focus of this study, it

must be noted that management options such as easements and

structure relocation rely upon individual landowners

willingness to work with government or local environmental

groups. It may be possible to utilize census data in a

similar manner to bio-geographic coverages to further

100

prioritize parcels based upon relevant household

information.

For this area, it may be useful to use census data to

prioritize residential parcels for easements based upon

whether or not the residence is occupied by the owner, or

rented out. Research and discussions with local

environmental advocates including TNC staff has shown that

landowners are more willing to work with conservation

groups on projects such as easements if they live on the

land, and are thus more closely linked to their

environment. (Ozarski personal communication, 2002;

Friedman personal communication, 2002; Kitchell, 2000)

Absentee owners, who make money from the land already and

have little direct association with it, would be less

likely to make the effort to see land protected by

conservation groups.

Other types of data that were available from the

Census Bureau include information on age, race, income, and

education. While my research indicates that there are

certain types of people more willing to work with groups

like TNC, such as higher income, well educated, older

people, this characterizes such a large percentage of the

population within my study area that analyzing this data

101

would not be particularly useful. (Solecki, 1998; Elconin,

1998; Kitchell, 2000; Chawla, 1999)

102

7. Conclusions

Southampton is blessed with a variety of incredible

habitat complexes that support a myriad of local Flora and

Fauna, and provide essential habitat for incredible numbers

of birds, mammals, amphibians, and aquatic life. An ever-

changing sensitive coastal area, the results of human

encroachment are direct and obvious. Wetland areas have

decreased, colonial nesting birds have been forced into

smaller, more isolated areas, and coastal development has

lead to hard erosion control structures that aggravate

erosion problems.

Development in this area is not expected to taper any

time soon. The older, wealthy population of the Hamptons’

continues to expand, with most development occurring along

the coastal areas that are the focus of this study. Housing

prices are increasing rapidly, with land becoming scarce.

Development pressure is thus intense, with local government

unable to effectively stem the flood of seasonal users who

are apt to fill wetlands or build on sensitive habitat.

Protecting land through public and private efforts is thus

essential for the long-term preservation of habitat in this

area.

103

A variety of methods and technologies exist for

confronting this issue, and I hope to have shown

conservation-minded groups a methodology for prioritizing

their efforts. This project is about moving beyond the more

obvious uses of GIS to include multiple forms of management

possibilities, and to introduce new data for prioritizing

preservation efforts. Parcel level data and the ability to

work with structure databases and precise local land-cover

information allows GIS to be used for easement and

structure relocation as viable management options.

Working with The Nature Conservancy has provided key

expertise, and a sound structure for examining this issue.

The conservation by design approach has allowed me, through

extensive research, to identify the criteria that are most

prudent for prioritizing land based upon protecting target

aspects of the local ecosystems. The results of this study

indicate that GIS does indeed allow groups such as TNC to

prioritize preservation efforts, and target those parcels

that are in need of protection.

The ability to quickly and efficiently analyze large

amounts of spatial data is now a reality and a necessity

for habitat protection. GIS technology allows for a variety

of preservation methods to be analyzed and thus arms

104

preservation minded groups with a whole new array of tools

to target preservation efforts.

Previous projects have focused on analyzing land

cover data for the identification of sensitive or habitat

rich lands for acquisition. Southampton provides an

important case study, because it involves an extremely

difficult area to test the powers of GIS. Analyzing and

prioritizing on the parcel level in a well-developed and

extremely expensive coastal zone, with very sensitive

habitat, is at the boundaries of what GIS has been used for

in the past. The ability to include a variety of management

options and test the usefulness of GIS within these

alternatives will help to push this technology forward. My

hope is to arm conservation groups with a methodology for

prioritizing parcels in an extreme context, which can then

be applied to a variety of situations.

The methodology and results of this study are

indicative of the usefulness of GIS for land-use planning.

While my focus is on the Nature Conservancy and habitat

protection, other groups will be able to learn from this

project, and apply it to other aspects of land management.

Other criteria could be applied for different goals, such

as rural character preservation for farmland and purchase

105

of development rights studies. Likewise, other areas can be

similarly analyzed, such as towns with similar

characteristics to Southampton.

The Southampton Town Board performs a similar

balancing act of information when they consider building

permits within sensitive areas. I hope to go before the

town board and present my findings in order to communicate

the power of such analysis when defining the proximity of

parcels to specific landscape concerns. The town board can

use my methodology along with their own criteria to aide in

the permit process, and hopefully this will allow them to

take into account landscape and habitat concerns when

deciding on development of sensitive areas.

This study will in fact provide a foundation for

prioritizing conservation efforts, and a methodology that

will allow for more effective allocation of funds for

habitat protection. I am very pleased to help the area that

I love so much, and to see the future of GIS and land

protection unfolding before me.

106

Bibliography

1. Antenen, S. AOBB Project description - in house. 2000.

2. Art, H. Ecological Studies of the sunken forest Fire

Island. National Sea Shore Program, NY. National Park

Service Scientific Monograph Series. 1976.

3. Bateson, Emily. Just buy it: Sweet Water Trust saves

wildlands in New England. Wild Earth, V8 N2. Summer, 1998.

4. Beatley, Timothy. Habitat Conservation Planning: Endangered

Species and Urban Growth. University of Texas Press,

Austin. 1994.

5. Breese, Gregory. Natural Habitat Focus Area Study by the

Habitat and Living Resources Implementation Team. US Fish

and Wildlife Service, 7/12/99.

6. Bernd-Cohen, T. State coastal program effectiveness in

protecting natural beaches, dunes, bluffs, and rocky

shores. Coastal Management:27. December, 1999.

7. Chawla, L. Life Paths into effective environmental action.

The Journal of Environmental Education. Vol 31 N 1. 1999.

8. Committee on Scientific and Technical Criteria for Federal

Acquisition of Lands for Conservation. Setting Priorities

for Land Conservation. National Research Council,

Washington DC. 1993.

9. Cook, J. The Least Tern; The Conservationist V49 June 1995

107

10. Cornforth, IS. Selecting indicators for assessing

sustainable land management. Journal of Environmental

Management, V56 N1. 1999.

11. Cummiskey, J. The Cape Cod land bank: the use of a land

acquisition strategy to preserve a Massachusetts coastal

region. Ocean and Coastal Management, V44. 2001.

12. Daniels, Tom. Integrated working landscape protection: the

case of Lancaster County, Penn. Society and Natural

Resources, V13. 2000.

13. Decker, Daniel. Challenges in the Conservation of

Biological Resources. Westview Press, San Francisco. 1991

14. Dunn, Steve. Coastal Erosion: evaluating the risk;

Environment V42 N7 Sept 2000.

15. Elconin, P. Landowner Satisfaction with Conservation

Easements. Wild Earth. Summer, 1998.

16. Elias, S. Piping plover nesting and habitat threats;

Journal of Wildlife Management V64 N2 April 2000.

17. Fink, Richard. Public land acquisition for environmental

protection: Structuring a program for the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Ecology Law Quarterly, V18 N3. 1991.

18. Flicker, John. A state by state protection strategy. The

Nature Conservancy News, V34 N6. 1984.

19. Gomes, Glynn. The Review of the NOAA National Coastal Zone

Management Programs for Estuary and Coastal Wetland

Protection. www.ocrm.nos.noaa.gov/pdf/efwet.pdf accessed

12/3/01.

108

20. Governors Coastal Erosion Task Force Findings. September,

1994.

21. Green, Martha. A less taxing approach. The Nature

Conservancy, V49 N4. July, 1999.

22. Grove, Noel. Preserving Eden. Harry N. Abrams Publisher,

New York. 1992.

23. Grumbine, Edward. Environmental Policy and Biodiversity.

Island Press, Washington DC. 1994.

24. Hall, David. Incentives and land acquisition: key tools for

restoring fish and wildlife habitat. Endangered Species

Update, V16 N3. 1999.

25. Halsey, J. The 2001 Private Land Conservation Incentive

Program. www.peconiclandtrust.org/fall2001/private.htm

Accessed 1/17/02.

26. Handmer, J.W. Guidelines for floodplain acquisition.

Applied Geography, V7. 1987.

27. Hecht, J. Shifting Shores – rising seas, retreating

coastlines. Charles Scribners sons, NY. 1990.

28. Hoel, M. Land’s Edge – A natural history of barrier

beaches. Little Book Publishers. Newbury, MA. 1986.

29. Kaufman, W. The Beaches are Moving. Anchor Press. Garden

City, NY. 1979.

109

30. Kavenagh, K. Vanishing Tidelands: Land use and the law in

Suffolk County 1650-1979. Sea Grant Institute. Albany, NY.

1980

31. Kitchell, A. Identities and actions within environmental

groups. Research in Human Ecology. V7 N2, 2000.

32. Klyza, CM. Land protection in the United States, 1864-1997.

Wild Earth, V8 N2. Summer 1998.

33. Kopper, P. The wild edge – life and lore of the great

Atlantic beaches. Times Books. New York, NY. 1979.

34. Kruckenberg, Larry. Public perceptions of land acquisition.

Renewable Resources Journal, V3 N4. 1985.

35. Leadon, Christopher. Land acquisition criteria for the

Sawannee river estuary, Florida. Coastal Zone Management

Journal, V14 N3. 1986.

36. Long Island South Shore Estuary Reserve – Comprehensive

Management Plan. www.estuary.cog.ny.us accessed 11/10/01.

37. Long Island South Shore Hazard Management Program. LI

Regional Planning Board. Happague, NY. 1989.

38. Luoma, J. Shoreline preservation; Audobon V100 N4 July/Aug

1998.

39. Maddock, Ant. Identification of conservation worthy areas

in northern Zululand, South Africa. Conservation Biology,

V14 N1. 2000.

40. Maryland’s GreenPrint Program: Summary of Methods to

Identify and Evaluate Maryland’s Green Infrastructure.

110

Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Chesapeake and

Coastal Watershed Services. Spring, 2001.

41. McCormick, Steve. Mapping a new geography of hope. The

Nature Conservancy, V51 I3. May, 2001.

42. McCormick, L. Living with Long Island’s south shore. Duke

University Press. Durham, NC. 1984.

43. McDonald, A. A socio-economic-ecological simulation model

of land acquisition to expand a national wildlife refuge.

Ecological Modeling V140, 2001.

44. Medlin, Kim. Where to build. Builder (National Association

of HomeBuilders) V21 N9. July 1998.

45. Menon, Shaily. Identifying conservation priority areas in

the tropics: A land use change modeling approach. The

Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology. 15(2)

2000.

46. Murali, N.S. Application of information technology in plant

protection in Denmark: From vision to reality. Computers

and Electronics in Agriculture, V22. 1999.

47. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

New York State Salt Marsh Restoration and Monitoring

Guidelines. New York State DOS Division of Coastal

Resources. December 1, 2000.

48. New York Department of State. Long Islanders and the

Environment of the South Shore: A Survey of Public Opinion.

www.state.ny.us/DOS accessed 1/15/02.

111

49. O’brien, Anne. Purchasing Power: Why we still buy land.

Nature Conservancy. V49 N6 Nov/Dec, 2000.

50. O’Neill, Michael P. Identifying sites for riparian wetland

restoration: Application of a model to the upper Arkansas

River basin. Restoration Ecology, V5 N45. December 1997.

51. Ozarski TNC in-house documents: 2000

52. CEHA Information: CEHA Law (complete)

53. CEHA Overview

54. CEHA Authority Sheet

55. CEHA Permit Sheet

56. Patney, Arjun. Saving lands and wildlife: Corporations and

conservation groups in partnership. Corporate Environmental

Strategy. V7 N4, 2000.

57. Peconic Land Trust: Criteria for Conservation Projects

58. Personal Communication with:

59. Friedman, B. TNC-LI GIS Technician. All summer.

60. Ozarski, J. AOBB projects director. All Year.

61. Poiani, Karen. A scale-independent, site conservation

planning framework in The Nature Conservancy. Landscape and

Urban Planning 43 (1998) 143-156.

62. Poiani, Karen. Identifying conservation priority areas in a

fragmented Minnesota landscape based on the umbrella

species concept and selection of large patches of natural

vegetation.

63. Press, Daniel. The role of local government in the

conservation of rare species. Conservation Biology, V10 N6.

December 1996.

112

64. Pressey, RL. Opportunism in acquiring land for reserves –

why it’s a bad idea. National Parks Journal, V36 N4. August

1992.

65. Purdue, Richard B. Land Acquisition in the Adirondacks.

Adirondack Journal of Environmental Studies, V1 N2. 1994.

66. Ramsey, Christine. Facilitating a multiparcel land

acquisition project in western big cypress region of

collier county Florida. Natural Areas Journal. V16 N1,

1996.

67. Ramachandran, S. Application of remote sensing and GIS to

coastal wetland ecology of Tamil Nadu and Andaman and

Nicobar groups of islands with special reference to

mangroves. Current Science. V75 N3, August 1998.

68. Safford, RJ. Strategies for land-bird conservation on

Mauritius. Conservation Biology, V12 N1. February 1998.

69. Sawhill, John. The Good-Neighbor Policy: Working people to

people, we make conservation happen. Nature Conservancy,

V48 N1. 1998.

70. Sawhill, John. Conservation in the commons. The Nature

Conservancy, V49 N6. November 1999.

71. Scheberle, Denise. Moving toward community based

environmental management. American Behavioral Scientist,

V44 N4. December 2000.

72. Smardon, Richard. Pixels and Plovers: Using Remote Sensing

and GIS Technology for CZM. Great Lakes Research Consortium

113

and SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry,

Syracuse, New York. 2001.

73. Solecki, W. Local attitudes on regional ecosystem

management: A study of New Jersey Pinelands residents.

Society and Natural Resources. V11, 1998.

74. South Shore Estuary Reserve. Technical report series:

Shorebirds. NYS Department of State and US Fish and

Wildlife Service, coastal ecosystems program. July 1998.

75. SSER Wetland report

76. SSER inventory of lands identified for acquisition.

77. Steelman, T. Innovation in land use governance and

protection. American Behavioral Scientist, V44 N4. December

2000.

78. Suffolk County Planning Department. Demographic, economic

and development trends in Suffolk County, New York. July

31, 2001.

79. Suffolk County Department of Planning. Saturation

Population Analysis: Eastern Suffolk County. June, 2001

80. Suffolk County Planning Department. Suffolk County Land

Acquisition Programs.

www.co.suffolk.ny.us/PLANNING/PUBLICATIONS/SC_LAND_ACQ_PROG

S accessed 1/21/02.

81. Swinn, B. Keeping sand on your favorite beach; The

Conservationist V49 Feb 1995.

114

82. Teal, J. Life and Death of the Salt Marsh. Atlantic Monthly

Press. Boston, MA. 1969.

83. The Nature Conservancy Preserving our natural heritage:

Vol. III Private, academic and local government activities.

Prepared for the United States Department of the Interior.

1982.

84. The Nature Conservancy. Designing a Geography of Hope.

Volume 1 Second Addition. April 2000.

85. TNC GIS Strategic Plan. www.tnc.gis.org Accessed 11/10/01

86. Town of Southampton Community Preservation Fund. Community

Preservation Project Plan 1998-2001. Department of Land

Management, August 25, 1998.

87. Town of Southampton. Shinnecock Canal.

www.town.soutampton.ny.us accesses 11/15/01.

88. Town of Southampton. Town of Southampton Comprehensive

Plan. www.town.southampton.ny.us/comprehensive accessed

11/15/01

89. Town of Southampton. Atlantic Ocean Shoreline Draft Generic

Environmental Impact Statement. February 2001.

90. UNESCO. Ensuring Wise Practices in Coastal Management: Role

of Remote Sensing. Environment and Development in Coastal

Regions and Small Islands. www.unesco.org/csi/wise3.htm

Accessed 1/17/02.

91. US Army Corps of Engineers. Fire Island to Montauk Point:

Breach Contingency Plan. NY District. August 1995.

115

92. US Census Bureau: Introduction to Census 2000 data

products. US Department of commerce, Economics and

Statistics Administration. June, 2001.

93. US Fish and Wildlife. South Shore Estuary Reserve Coastal

Colonial Waterbirds: Draft Technical Report. USFWS Southern

New England – New York Bight Coastal Ecosystems Program;

NYDOS Division of Coastal Resources, 1998.

94. US Fish and Wildlife Service. GIS strategic plan for

managing GIS and spatial data in the US Fish and Wildlife

Service, with the focus on 2001-2004. www.fws.gov accessed

11.27.01

95. US Fish and Wildlife Service: GIS Applications - abstracts.

www.fws.gov accessed 11/15/01.

96. US Fish and Wildlife Service: GIS Success Stories.

www.fws.gov accessed 11/15/01.

97. US Fish and Wildlife Service: GIS Update. www.fws.gov

accessed 11/15/01.

98. US Fish and Wildlife Service. GIS Overview in FWS (where

are we know and where are we going)

www.fws.gov/data/gisback.html accessed 11/20/01.

99. Valutis, L. The Nature Conservancies Approach to

Prioritizing Conservation Action. Environmental Science and

Policy. V. 3, 2000.

100. Weatherly, Mark. Save what you can, when you can: A reply

to Bob Pressey. National Parks Journal, V37 N1. February

1993.

116

101. Weber, Theodore. Maryland’s green infrastructure - using

landscape assessment tools to identify a regional

conservation strategy. Environmental Monitoring and

Assessment, V63. 2000.

102. Weekes, David. Of partnerships and protection. The Nature

Conservancy Annual Report. V40 N6 Nov/Dec 1990.

103. Weeks, William. Beyond the Ark. Island Press. Washington,

DC. 1997.

104. Wenig, J. The ecology of LI. Environmental Publications

Associates. Plainview, NY. 1976.

105. Xiang, Wei-Ning. GIS-based riparian buffer analysis:

injecting geographic information into landscape planning.

Landscape and Urban Planning, V34 1996.

Personal Communications

1. Annette DesRochers. GIS Coordinator. Town of Southampton –

Division of Information Services. 631-283-6030 ext. 296.

2. Barnaby Friedman. Land Preservation Specialist -

Geographic Information Systems. The Nature Conservancy,

Easthampton Office. bfriedman@tnc.org

3. Jill Ozarski. Coastal Policy Specialist. The Nature

Conservancy, Long Island Chapter Office. 631-367-3384

ext33. jozarski@tnc.org

4. Kirsten Saleen. New York State GIS Coordinator. The Nature

Conservancy. ksaleen@tnc.org

117

5. Lynn Carlson. GIS Guru. Brown University.

Lynn_Carslon@brown.edu

6. Melanie Harlow. Affiliated Research Center, Brown

University. 401-863-3825. Melanie_Harlow@brown.edu

118

Appendix A

Criteria and Result Maps

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128