HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 03-19-24; 4-a - Eno-New Hope Landscape Conservation Plan Presentation 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 19, 2024
Action Agenda
Item No. 4-a
SUBJECT: Eno-New Hope Landscape Conservation Plan Presentation
DEPARTMENT: Environment, Agriculture, Parks
and Recreation (DEAPR)
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Eno-New Hope Landscape David Stancil, DEAPR Director, 919-245-
Conservation Plan Overview 2522
2. Eno-New Hope Landscape Christian Hirni, Land Conservation
Conservation Group Strategic Action Manager, 919-245-2514
Plan
3. Conservation Plan Map (Data)
PURPOSE: To receive a presentation of the Eno New Hope Landscape Conservation Group's
"Strategic Action Plan" and updated spatial analysis results.
BACKGROUND: Several years ago, a group of experts and staff within the conservation
community from Orange and Durham counties, Duke University's Duke Forest Teaching and
Research Laboratory, Eno River Association, Triangle Land Conservancy, NC Natural Heritage
Program, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, NC Botanical Garden, and other
practitioners/experts began meeting to discuss the need for collaborative conservation planning
across jurisdictional lines for a four-county area (Orange, Durham, Chatham, and Wake counties).
These counties share many of the same watersheds and wildlife corridors/open space networks,
and all have conducted inventories of natural areas and spent significant time and resources
documenting and working to protect conservation lands.
In discussions, the concept of the multi-county plan was centered on the importance of
connections between existing conserved lands for wildlife, natural communities/habitats, and
ecosystem services. The collaborating group met on several occasions and agreed that the focus
of the plan should be built around one of the most important shared areas, the connections of the
New Hope Creek and Eno River conservation networks, and that this plan be made available to
local counties and municipalities, public and private institutions, and nonprofit land conservancies
in the four-county region for use in prioritizing conservation efforts inclusion into local policies and
plans.
The group determined the need for a spatial analysis and mapping effort to demonstrate the most
vital connections between conserved and undeveloped areas for wildlife and the ecosystem types
which support them.
2
Funding was secured from the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, with additional support from
Orange County, to hire a consultant to conduct the spatial analysis, research the data, and create
the analysis layers and associated maps. Through collaborative brainstorming sessions, three
keystone species were identified to best represent their distinctive habitats and other associated
animals, as well as their corridor, or connectivity, requirements. These species and their
respective habitats are as follows:
- Eastern Box Turtle (Dry-Wet Mixed Hardwood-Pine Forests)
- Bobcat (Sparsely Settled Mixed Habitats)
- Four Toed Salamander (Wet-mesic Hardwood Forests)
This effort generated enhanced mapping layers that represented the habitat areas for each animal
and its associated guild, and these layers were combined with land use layers to create a habitat-
corridor analysis. These results and associated recommendations were presented at the 2019
Environmental Summit at the NC Botanical Gardens, hosted by the Commission for the
Environment (CFE). The CFE also requested an additional presentation and opportunity for in-
depth discussion of recommendations, which was conducted at the CFE's March 2020 meeting.
In 2020, the group was awarded a Catalyst Fund grant from the Network for Landscape
Conservation to form a strategic action plan to implement the report findings. A coordinator was
hired, and a steering committee was formed with representatives from Orange and Durham
counties, Eno River Association, Triangle Land Conservancy, Duke University's Duke Forest, NC
Wildlife Resources Commission, and the NC Botanical Gardens. Over the next two years, the
steering committee worked to engage a large group of stakeholders and volunteers from around
the study area to draft a strategic action plan outlining actions necessary for ensuring conservation
connectivity. Four subcommittee groups were separated by specialty and/or direct interest —
Education and Outreach, Land Use, Conservation, and Transportation. The final draft of the action
plan was presented at a celebration event in the Robin Jacobs Pavilion at the Eno River
Association's Confluence Natural Area in October 2022.
The Board of Commissioners received a copy of the report and a cover memorandum in March
2023 as an Information Item. The report attached herein is the same, but an updated map has
been attached to reflect updated and included data.
In 2023, Durham County, utilizing funds from a Burt's Bees grant program, expanded the report
data and mapping area to include the entirety of Durham County, particularly of the Upper Neuse
Watershed. This expansion benefitted Orange County by expanding the data and mapping
analysis to the northern most areas of the County, leaving only a portion of the Cane Creek and
Haw River Watershed as area for an expanded analysis.
The findings of the report have significant implications and potential guidance for local
conservation programs, such as the County's Lands Legacy Program and other upcoming plans.
As such, value was seen in sharing this Strategic Plan with the Board at this time, as local
conservation plans are being updated in coming months.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with this presentation. The plan
itself may offer direction for future conservation efforts and therefore future resource allocation.
3
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goal is applicable to
this item.
• GOAL: ESTABLISH SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE LAND-USE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes,
and educational levels with respect to the development and enforcement of environmental
laws, regulations, policies, and decisions. Fair treatment means that no group of people
should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences
resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The following Orange County Environmental Responsibility Goal
impact is applicable to this item:
• RESULTANT IMPACT ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND AIR QUALITY
Assess and where possible mitigate adverse impacts created to the natural resources of
the site and adjoining area. Minimize production of greenhouse gases.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The Manager recommends that the Board receive the presentation of
the Eno-New Hope Landscape Plan and Strategic Action Plan, provide comments and questions,
and instruct staff to use the findings and incorporate them as appropriate into the County's Lands
Legacy Program and its upcoming triennial Action Plan, as well as future plan efforts.
� r
r �}
r
f
w.
AL
tom``
1. 4� �'•+4 -
Itzi
� � �.. - /� ��:�-' .-".•ate,. ��
rte" .� ,-• � L
1,+ . .' �� � �n�� __moi. r► _
i � ��ay� �' f,• r
��. • . , r - + ^fit`\l��� ��"�?•�'�� � �•t..n'� �
5
Introduct *ion
Our Mission: Conserve and restore
e habitat
connectivity that ensures long-term . . - . . .
resilience of biodiversity and natural resources.
What is Connectivity Conservation?
Connectivity conservation protects
natural areas by creating connected
corridors to maintain
ecosystem functions - -
and processes, sustain
genetic diversity and
natural communities,
enable climate
resilience, and make 1
healthy places to live. :
. lop., ..
6
The History of Eno- New
Hope Efforts
Catalyst Fund Grant to hire a
coordinator and create a
Strategic Action Plan
2020
2015
Initial meetings with 2017
Eno-New Hope
stakeholders Grant from
NCWRC and 2019
Orange County Release of
to create a Eno-New Hope
landscape Landscape Plan
conservation plan
2022
Completion and
release of Strategic
r
Action Plan
e
:, ?�E S'[�E121AIG �OMMIT'TEE
7
Our Approach
This Strategic Action Plan (SAP) aims to achieve
connectivity conservation through collaborative work
between four groups:
•
•
•
Education & Outreach Land Use
Spreading the word about Planning for wildlife habitat
connectivity across communities and corridors
I
I
I
I
I
Transportation Conservation
Designing wildlife-friendly Protecting and restoring
roads and infrastructure crucial wildlife corridors
Cross-Cutting � � � �
�8
Education & Outreach e,
e
communitiesGoal: Ensure that our
_ - theknowledge
needed to
prioritize, and implement connectivity
.
- _ . area.
Engage:. .' ..�,i •fir diverse
Share knowledge
M y
and data
raudiences . •
communities
Facilitate learning Partner with
-.47 and problem- local
solving organizations and
communities
How We' I I Get It Done
Develop our website Provide presentations, Listen, learn, & collaborate
as a resource hub for workshops, field on shared priorities for
connectivity conservation outings, & educational mutual benefit
materials
Am 1:
Goal: Integrate connectivity conservation into inclusive
land use planning and decision-making while
prioritizing equitable outcomes
Amend and �, == = ':-
Update ordinances
update planning to include
a' documents to
connectivity
-� - include '�'
conservation in
connectivity development design
conservation
A
_ Identify barriers to Design open space
` __ to protect highest
connectivity in land
environmental
use plans
values
HOW Wel I Get It Done •
Rrrl�
x 1P 1P
•
•
0
. II
Educate ' • officials, presentations
planners, other local strategies & about corridor status &
government staff, & ordinance language educate the community
developers
i
i
i
i
Transportat 'i9on
i
Goal: Remove barriers and avoid the creation of new
barriers to wildlife mobility caused by transportation
infrastructure along high priority landscape corridors.
k
_ Identify projects in the Transportation
Improvement Plan to work with
stakeholders and accommodate wildlife
crossings
Share the findings
of the Landscape
Conserve lands ► ' ,
- ? Plan with public
adjacent to essential
,; .�:�► agencies and
0 wildlife crossings of elected officials
roadways f ""
and request action
be taken
How Wel I Get It Done
Alf*tiP��O� NORTH cA90L
Work with NCIDOT to Partner with land Incorporate study
o
OF TRAM
findings
Conservat 'i* on
Goal: Identify primary wildlife corridors in the Landscape
Plan, ensure these receive permanent conservation
protection, restore degraded habitat, and manage land
for target species.
Restore degraded
1 I
Protect lands in ° ' - habitat as necessary
identified wildlife ,. �' • and manage for
-. corridors ,. effective wildlife
movement
Partner with conservation groups
- land trusts, state agencies, and
r other organizations - to ensure
long-term habitat management
How Wel I Get It Done
Work with landowners • . - that resources
to get permanent land management plans exist for long-term
conservation protection for wildlife corridor ecosystem management
habitats
12
Contr*lbutors
e
Education & Outreach Land Use
Kyleene Rooks (Chair), Abel Hastings (Asst- Brooke Massa (Chair), Celeste Burns (Asst-Chair),
Chair), Bill Boyarsky, Fred Dietrich, Max Barry Jacobs, Carl Kolosna, Perdita Holtz, Adam
Cawley, Preston Montague, Milo Pyne, Maggie Searing, Pam Hemminger, Bob Healy, Kim Piracci,
Heraty, L.A. Davis-Durante, Gail Boyarsky, Allison Schwarz Weakley, Amy Ryan, Corey Liles,
Michelle Benham, CC King, Kimberly Radewicz Brandon Dawson, Alex Vanko, Sally Greene
Transportation Conservation
Derek Smith (Chair), Ellen Beckmann, Rich Shaw, Olivia Ludington (Co-Chair), Dick Ludington
Ellen Reckhow, Pete Schubert, Travis Wilson, Ron (Co-Chair), Terry Hackett, Robin Jacobs, Rick
Sutherland, Alyson West, Stephanie Trueblood, Savage, Shannon Maness, Deborah Fowler,
Kevin Lindley, Ed Harrison, Andy Henry Rickie White, Marcia Purvis, Olivia Munzer,
Mikayla Renn, Katie Barnhill-Dilling, Medina
Minor, Ramona McGee, Jane Korest, James
Adamson, Misty Buchanan
O
Steering Committee
Celeste Burns, Sara Childs, Chris Hirni, Bo Howes, Kim Visual SAP designed by
Livingston, Brooke Massa, Johnny Randall, Julie Tuttle Richard Yuan, 2022
•j 1
A
' 1
I`T 'i1
Ah
- •� , tom.iy
FmEr
l 1 /^
I' I
C
c.
it
•�� �, RESOURU R I V E R
f - OD11Hn, -ASSOCIATION-
f NORTH CAROLINA
BOTANICAL
" - GARDEN p t IO°NDATIONNC. fJ''
�►$. lic
MKE FOREST / TRIANGLE LAND
CONSERVANCY
4
� .� � •- - r I 1•caching S R—anh IaLurAl
r- � •Y Y.>IANLIf11CO 1931
Natural ORANGE COUNTY
=
Heritage I I N(-)R"TH CAROLINA
f' Program
� T, I ��N�t I+UIJIN4 CONST RYAIION • •
.�4
iFlHIGHWAY
44. V RESEARCH CENTER
L.
, •.' • '��r TOWN OF
�-r �=y IiI HILLSBOROUGH
NORTH CAROLINA
I�
1.� ` northwater
I, FRIENDS OF THE
''• Mountains-to-Sea Trail
I '! NORTH CAROLINA
3• .:, Wildimds
Ste. ;'�• NETWORK FORWARDCITIES
REEK
.�•k`tea ..+� �a� - � - ;;� • • q� o`
o
WAKE 9 p CITY OF
COUNTY DURHAM
OF TRA
Haw River Assembl
"— MUSEUM
.Nn of LIFE+
r
®SOUTHERN SCIENCE
LAW
ENVIRONMENTAL
CEN
CENTER
CHATHHAAMCCOUNIT SOU I HLRN
NORTH �AR°LIN^ Conservation Partners
�y `' I I / I ' 1 I • / I /
A LANDSCAPE
PLAN
FOR
y
WILDLIFE
HABITAT
I
CONNECTIVITY
a�
IN THE
�- ENO RIVER AND
NEW HOPE CREEK
WATERSHEDS
NORTH CAROLINA
4
.y 1ti
COVERING PORTIONS OF
�, ORANGE, DURHAM,
CHATHAM, AND WAKE COUNTIES
w
711
47
,- "
41
40.rtj Y:
r NORTH
CAROLINA
E ,
ES
t �.. .:-.f .. Yi.- NORTH CAROLIN/ NC�I�IF �;'1K�1 �•'
BOTANICAL COMMI�SSOION '' �
�~ GARDEN T
$• •,' _ f �i�.� 9'_ b • _71 GO U N D AT IO N,INC
�{_ [.. 1.�,
+ t
Z �!
�P.,A
r s '.s'4 �-� .P .F .f l'Tic4 - ►.' •",x-;��. ..�`.IJ w'�. 4P s� r.�'�/��"�C!� 3's
15
A Partners for Green Growth project funded by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission and Orange County, NC, and administered by the North Carolina Botanical Garden
Foundation, Inc.
Prepared by
Julie Tuttle,Project Ecologist and Coordinator
Brooke Massa, Olivia Munzer, Rich Shaw, Sara Childs, and Johnny Randall
in collaboration with the steering,policy, and technical committees and members of the
Eno-New Hope Landscape Conservation Group
December 2019
Front and back cover photo credit:David Blevins
16
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge:
The Partners for Green Growth Program of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and
Orange County,North Carolina, for funding this project.
The North Carolina Botanical Garden Foundation,Inc., for administering the project.
The North Carolina Botanical Garden for generous provision of meeting space.
Sara Childs from the Office of the Duke Forest at Duke University for generous provision of virtual space
for storage and sharing of data and documents.
Members of the Eno-New Hope Landscape Conservation Group for sharing their time, expertise,insight,
advice, and collaboration on all aspects of this project, especially:
• Brooke Massa and Olivia Munzer of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
• Johnny Randall of the North Carolina Botanical Garden
• Stephen Hall of the North Carolina Biodiversity Project
• Sara Childs of Duke University
• and members of the steering,technical, and policy committees(Emily Blanchard,Misty
Buchanan, Celeste Burns, Sara Childs,Bo Howes,Kim Livingston,Brooke Massa,Olivia
Munzer,Johnny Randall,Rich Shaw,Ron Sutherland, and Allison Weakley)
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,NatureServe,the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Stephen Hall,Wildlands Network,Triangle Land Conservancy,NC State Parks,Piedmont
Wildlife Center, several iNaturalist citizen observers, and members of this collaborative group for sharing
critical data inputs to this project.
The Counties,Towns, and other participating organizations in the project area for sharing their local GIS
data,which were also important inputs to the project and interpretation of the results.
NatureServe and Michael Lee for consultation on data management for the project.
John Fay and Dean Urban of Duke University for sharing their expertise and tools for landscape corridor
network modeling.
Suzanne Mason of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program for review and helpful comments on two
drafts of this report.
Michelle Benham for generous donation of her expertise and time in the design and creation of
promotional and educational materials for the project.
Blake Tedder from the Office of the Duke Forest at Duke University for assistance with the promotional
and educational materials for the project, and formatting of this report.
Melissa Blackburn of Orange County for graphic design of the cover of this report.
17
Eno-New Hope Landscape Conservation Group Members
Johnny Randall"' Project Administrator;North Carolina Botanical Garden,University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill
Julie Tuttle" Project Ecologist& Coordinator; Consultant; University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill(research affiliate)
Emily Blanchard' Wildlands Network(former)
Misty Buchanan' North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
Celeste Burns" Durham County Open Space&Real Estate
Sara Childs" Office of the Duke Forest,Duke University; Eno River Association Board of
Directors
Deborah Fowler Wake County Parks,Recreation&Open Space
Stephen Hall North Carolina Biodiversity Project;retired North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program
Ed Harrison New Hope Creek Corridor Advisory Committee
Bob Healy New Hope Creek Corridor Advisory Committee; Duke University
Bo Howes" Triangle Land Conservancy
John Kent New Hope Creek Corridor Advisory Committee; StreamWatch
Jane Korest Durham County Open Space&Real Estate
Kim Livingston13 Eno River Association
Brooke Massa"" North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission; Chatham Conservation
Partnership;PlanWake Advisory Committee
Olivia Munzer' North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Milo Pyne NatureServe; Eno River Association Board of Directors
Chuck Roe Southern Conservation Partners; Wake Open Space&Parks Advisory Committee;
PlanWake Advisory Committee
Bradley Saul Orange County Commission for the Environment
Jenna Schreiber Office of the Duke Forest, Duke University
Pete Schubert Eno River Association Board of Directors
Rich Shaw' Orange County Natural&Cultural Resources;New Hope Creek Corridor Advisory
Committee
Tom Struhsaker Conservation Biologist; Duke University
Ron Sutherland' Wildlands Network
Allison Weakley" Town of Chapel Hill Stormwater Management; Chatham County Planning Board;
Chatham Conservation Partnership
Travis Wilson North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
1 =Steering Committee
2=Technical Subcommittee
3 =Policy Subcommittee
18
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Eno-New Hope Landscape Conservation Group members
Table of contents
Introduction 7
Overview and project objectives 7
Project area 9
Background 10
The evolution of landscape corridor planning in the project area 10
Why we need landscape corridors 13
The importance of wildlife crossings 15
Planning for corridors and connectivity: the Green Growth approach 16
Methods 18
Landscape corridor analysis 18
Approach and tools 18
Natural communities: species and habitats 19
Concepts,parameters, and inputs 21
Analysis and interpretation 24
Review of existing policies, ordinances, and protection priorities 25
Results 26
Landscape habitat-corridor network 26
Existing land protection priorities 30
Chatham-Cary 30
Durham-Orange-Chapel Hill 30
Chatham County 31
Durham City-County 31
Orange County 32
Town of Carrboro 32
Town of Chapel Hill 33
Wake County 33
Existing policies and ordinances 34
Chatham-Cary 34
19
Durham-Orange-Chapel Hill 34
Orange-Chapel Hill-Carrboro 34
Chatham County 35
Durham City-County 37
Orange County 39
Town of Carrboro 43
Town of Chapel Hill 47
Town of Hillsborough 48
Wake County 49
Town of Apex 52
Town of Cary 53
Recommendations 55
List of potential conservation partners 60
Local government 60
Private, non-profit land trusts 60
Private educational institutions 61
Interjurisdictional planning organizations and groups 61
State agencies and educational institutions 61
Federal agencies 62
Regional organizations and programs 62
References 63
Appendix A: List of abbreviations
Appendix B: Glossary
Appendix C: List of Landscape/Habitat Indicator Guilds in the project area
Appendix D: List of planning documents and ordinances reviewed
Appendix E: List of resources for landscape connectivity planning
20
INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW AND PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The Eno River and New Hope Creek-Jordan Lake watersheds in North Carolina are home to ecologically
significant forests,wetlands, and other habitats that support a rich diversity of plant and animal species,
including rare species. In these two watersheds,the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program(NCNHP)
has identified over 65 Natural Heritage Natural Areas(NHNAs) (NCNHP 2019c).NHNAs are terrestrial
or aquatic sites"of special biodiversity significance due to the presence of rare species,unique natural
communities, important animal assemblages, or other ecological features"(NCNHP nd,2019d). Around
Jordan Lake alone, 19 NHNAs encompass approximately 8,000 of the more than 40,000 acres of the
Jordan Game Land(NCNHP 2019c,NCWRC 2019).
Movement of animal species within and between
these NHNAs and other priority natural communities
(wildlife habitats) is necessary for their survival. In
the face of increasing habitat loss and fragmentation
from development and other threats,including climate
change,wildlife species require an intact, connected '-
network of habitat and movement corridors that
maintain ecosystem functions and processes(Rudnick
et al. 2012). Connecting wildlife habitats not only 1;
benefits wildlife populations but also benefits water
quality,native plants, our local economy(including
working farms and forests), and public health(MRCS
2004).
Important wildlife habitat anchors, including many
NHNAs and other priority natural communities
identified by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission(NCWRC) (2015),have already been
conserved in the project area by local land trusts,local
government open space programs,state and national
agencies, educational institutions such as Duke
University and the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill (UNC Chapel Hill), and other private and
public landowners.However,the collaborators on this
project recognize that existing conservation lands
(such as in Figure 1) are in danger of becoming
isolated by barriers to wildlife movement, such as Figure 1.A protected upland hardwood forest in the
roads and development. project area.Photo credit David Blevins.
Through discussions that led to the development of
this project, group members articulated the need to identify places important for current and near-future
landscape habitat connectivity,with the intention that results will help inform conservation priorities, land
use decision-making, and transportation infrastructure siting and improvements. This collaboration across
jurisdictions and organizations is also intended to foster coordination on shared landscape conservation
goals that require planning based on ecological systems rather than jurisdictional boundaries.
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 7
21
The goal of this project is to provide an actionable plan for ensuring wildlife habitat connectivity across
the landscape of the Eno River and New Hope Creek-Jordan Lake watersheds in North Carolina. Toward
this aim,the project addresses three related objectives:
• to identify and map priority wildlife habitat and corridors connecting a network of natural
communities and species populations,within and between the two watersheds(landscape corridor
analysis)
• to review existing land protection priorities,policies,and ordinances related to wildlife habitat
and corridor conservation(planning review),and
• to develop recommendations to drive land protection, land-use, and transportation decision-
making across the project area.
This project focuses on the habitat and movement needs of development-sensitive terrestrial wildlife
species that occur in the project area and are indicators of landscape habitat integrity(Hall 2008).
Landscape habitat integrity is defined by Hall(2008) as simply the inverse of the degree of landscape
fragmentation and is part of the broader concept of ecological integrity(ELI 2003,Parrish et al. 2003).
The project species list was derived from:
• species identified in NCNHP's List of Rare Animal Species in North Carolina(NCNHP 2018),
which includes species designated as rare,threatened, endangered, or on NCNHP's watch list,
and
• Species of Greatest Conservation Need(SGCN),as identified by NCWRC in the North Carolina
Wildlife Action Plan(NCWRC 2015),which includes species that are rare or at risk of extinction
as well as species for which there are knowledge gaps and species which have received
inadequate conservation attention in the past.
Planning to ensure landscape habitat connectivity and minimize the impacts of changing land uses is
essential.NCWRC provides scientific guidance for conserving wildlife habitat(NCWRC 2012)and,
through its Green Growth Program, offers strategies for local governance and development to enable
landscape habitat conservation and connectivity. The recommendations in this plan were developed from
strategies in NCWRC's Green Growth Toolbox(NCWRC 2013)and other science-based resources on
best practices for ensuring landscape habitat connectivity for wildlife, and the recommendations were
tailored to the project area and its jurisdictions based on the results of the corridor analysis and planning
review.
8 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
22
PROJECT AREA
The adjacent Eno River and New Hope Creek-Jordan Lake watersheds are located in the Eastern
Piedmont of North Carolina in the Upper Neuse and Cape Fear River basins,respectively(Figure 2).
These watersheds include portions of Chatham, Durham, Orange, and Wake counties, the City of
Durham, and the towns of Apex, Carrboro, Cary, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough.
O — a zs s tv (b)
f
Figure 2. (a)Protected areas(NCNHP 2019b) in the
Eno River and New Hope Creek-Jordan Lake
" -�
;..,, watersheds in (b)the Upper Neuse and Cape Fear
River basins of North Carolina.
Over 20 natural communities recognized by
- 1 NCNHP occur in the project area.Natural
communities are defined as"distinct and
F—IPM10CI
Duer - recurring assemblage[s] of populations of plants,
°" k animals,bacteria, and fungi naturally associated
PwWwdAms with each other and their physical environment"
Watersheds l ,' .� (Schafale 2012).Natural communities in the
Eno Rirr &uihuwnes w.Rt
project area span upland,riparian, and wetland
He 6.4to",H—H pe geek
Hew Hope Lr"*-krdan Lake _ communities, including but not limited to upland
F—i NM HWO R ver-krdan Lakc " 1' depression swamps, several types of oak-hickory
f, e forest,diabase glades,hardpan prairie barrens,
bottomland hardwood forests,rich mesic slopes,
heath bluffs,mesic mixed hardwood forests, and
numerous riparian forest variants(Schafale and Weakley 1990; Schafale 2012). These natural
communities provide habitat for a number of rare plant and animal species (terrestrial and aquatic)and
support a rich fauna of birds,bobcats,mink,weasels,box turtles,numerous amphibian species, (an
overabundance of)white-tailed deer,the relatively recent arrival of coyotes, and many other wildlife
species and taxonomic groups(North Carolina Biodiversity Project 2019).
Local, state, and national agencies,universities, land trusts, and private landowners (such as the North
Carolina Plant Conservation Program,Eno River State Park,Eno River Association,North Carolina
Botanical Garden Foundation, Triangle Land Conservancy,Duke University,UNC Chapel Hill,US Army
Corps of Engineers, county and local governments, and others)hold thousands of acres of wildlands and
natural open space in the project area(Figure 2). Connecting and preserving these areas with landscape
corridors is a primary focus of this project.
Much more detail on the significant biodiversity,natural and environmental features, and history of the
project area may be found in county natural area inventories conducted by NCNHP,ongoing data
collected and managed by NCNHP(current data available from https://www.ncnhp.orvjdatq),the NC
Wildlife Action Plan(NCWRC 2015),county and municipal comprehensive plans, and other
conservation planning and assessment documents for the region or specific sites (see References Cited
section in this report).
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 9
23
BACKGROUND
THE EVOLUTION OF LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR PLANNING IN THE PROJECT AREA
Conservation of natural areas along the two major river corridors in the project area,the Eno River and
New Hope River(now Jordan Lake), originated in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Eno River State Park
was formed in 1973 with an initial purchase of 300 acres, and the Eno River Association has helped
protect nearly 6000 acres along the Eno River corridor since that time (Eno River Association 2019),with
ongoing efforts to complete protection of the entire river corridor. The Jordan Lake Dam on the New
Hope River was completed in 1974, and Jordan Lake was filled by 1982. Greater than 32,000 acres
surrounding Jordan Lake were protected from development when the lake was formed(LeGrand 1999),
with protected lands now totaling more than 40,000 acres(NCWRC 2019); these lands are owned by the
Federal government, administered by the US Army Corps of Engineers(USACE), and managed by
various state agencies for recreation,wildlife-related activities,natural resource conservation, and
education.
NATURAL AREAS INVENTORIES
From the late 1980s onward,natural areas inventories conducted and updated by NCNHP for Durham,
Wake, Orange, and Chatham Counties have provided the foundation for conservation planning in the
project area(Table 1). In addition,NCNHP completed an inventory of Jordan Lake (USACE land and the
lake itself)in 1999 (LeGrand 1999),which includes portions of all four counties. The NCNHP inventories
focus on identifying and surveying natural communities,wildlife habitat, and rare plant and animal
populations throughout each county.NHNAs (formerly called Significant Natural Heritage Areas)
(NCNHP 2019d) are then designed and mapped around these elements and evaluated for their biological
significance based on these comprehensive biological surveys.
Table 1.Natural areas inventories completed by NCNHP for counties in the project area and Jordan Lake lands.
Natural Areas Inventory Author,Year completed Update Author,Year
Durham County Sutter 1987 Hall and Sutter 1999
Wake County LeGrand 1987 LeGrand 2003
Orange County Sather and Hall 1988 Sorrie, Shaw, Sather,Hall 2004
Chatham County Hall and Boyer 1992 n/a
Jordan Lake LeGrand 1999 n/a
Each county inventory report in the project area acknowledges the importance of landscape connectivity
for natural areas and wildlife habitat. The reports highlight important riparian corridors within the county,
and NHNAs can be defined in part by their function as important wildlife corridors. The Durham and
Orange County inventories include a broader focus on landscape-wide connectivity. The 1987 Durham
County inventory(Sutter 1987)is organized"around a network structure of core refuge areas and linking
movement corridors", and the 1999 update to this inventory(Hall and Sutter 1999)incorporates a more
comprehensive zoological survey and assessment of wildlife movement corridors (Hall 1995). The 1999
update organizes the county into eight major riparian core refuge-corridor complexes and provides
mapped corridors between these complexes,in addition to noting connectivity between core areas within
each complex. The 1988 Orange County inventory(Sather and Hall 1988)provides a map showing a
suggested wildlife corridor system for the entire county,organized around five riparian refuge systems
and connected by four upland areas identified in the inventory. The 2004 update to the Orange County
inventory(Sorrie, Shaw, Sather, and Hall 2004) organizes the landscape into macrosites (a concept used
10 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
24
for grouping NHNAs into larger,related conservation priority areas;no longer used by NCNHP)but does
not include the suggested wildlife corridor system from the 1988 report.
REGIONAL LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT
In 2008 NCNHP, in association with the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program(EEP),
produced a"Statewide Assessment of Conservation Priorities at the Landscape Level"(Hall 2008,2009).
This assessment,which consists of a report on riparian habitats (Hall 2008) and a separate report on
Eastern Piedmont upland and inter-basin habitats(Hall 2009), identifies and maps core wildlife habitat
areas and linear habitat connectors between them for natural communities that represent habitat types in
seven geographic regions, including the project area within the Eastern Piedmont region. The maps
encompass NHNAs from the county inventories but include additional habitat areas for a broader set of
indicator wildlife species beyond the rare,threatened, and endangered species tracked by NCNHP.
This statewide assessment introduced Hall's Landscape/Habitat Indicator Guild(LHIG) approach (Hall
2008)to identifying regional conservation priorities,with a focus on protecting a connected network of
core habitats for guilds of indicator species that have similar habitat and movement needs and that
respond in similar ways to landscape fragmentation. These indicator species collectively serve as
indicators of landscape habitat integrity and,as a result, can represent the conservation needs of many
species and natural communities.LHIGs as defined by Hall form the underpinning of the landscape
corridor analysis in this project, and the geographic information systems (GIS)data for Hall's core-
connector maps were updated for the project area in 2017-18 by Hall(unpublished)in support of this
project.
CORRIDOR PLANNING
Three previous planning efforts have focused on landscape or riparian corridors in the project area: the
New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan(Coulter Associates and New Hope Corridor Advisory
Committee 1991),the Durham County Open Space Corridor System plan(Durham City-County Planning
Department 1993), and the Triangle GreenPrint Regional Open Space Assessment(NC Division of Parks
and Recreation et al. 2002).
In 1989 Durham County,the City of Durham, Orange County, and the Town of Chapel Hill
commissioned a detailed plan for protecting open space in the New Hope Creek corridor, extending
northward from the USACE lands around Jordan Lake. Following a survey and mapping of the natural
areas within this corridor(Burger and Harrison 1989,Appendix E in Coulter Associates and New Hope
Corridor Advisory Committee 1991),a consultant and an appointed advisory committee representing each
of the four jurisdictions worked with planning staff to prepare a master plan for preserving the New Hope
Creek corridor. They were charged with: "... creating an open space corridor linking the Eno River State
Park,New Hope Creek, [USACE] Lands,and the growing communities of Durham and Chapel Hill for
aesthetic, environmental, educational,and recreational purposes,and as a means of shaping the urban
form of the area."
The resulting New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan(Coulter Associates and New Hope Corridor
Advisory Committee 199 1)identified potential recreational trails and key wildlife corridors with detailed
recommendations on how to secure those areas over a 20-year period. Further, in 1993 the UNC Chapel
Hill Department of City and Regional Planning worked with the Orange County Planning Department to
develop the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan: Proposals for Linking Duke Forest with Eno
River State Park(UNC Chapel Hill Department of City and Regional Planning 1993). This study
continued the work of the earlier New Hope Creek corridor plan by further defining corridor links in east
central Orange County. The project identified a potential recreational trail and a separate wildlife corridor
(200 feet wide)to link the Durham Division of Duke Forest and Eno River State Park. The New Hope
Creek Corridor Advisory Committee remains in existence,has been active in monitoring conservation and
development efforts in the New Hope Creek Corridor,and has been effective in providing expertise and
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 11
25
recommendations to the four local governments that have enabled the protection of 323 acres along this
corridor since 1991 (Jane Korest,Durham Open Space&Real Estate Division,pers. comm.).
The Durham County Open Space Corridor System plan(Durham City-County Planning Department
1993) set the stage for completion of open space plans for individual"natural area corridors" along major
streams in Durham. This plan also established policies to support the open space corridor system,
including working with landowners to preserve corridor areas, supporting private and public-private
efforts, cooperating with other public agencies, coordinating city and county efforts, encouraging
clustered development away from natural areas,requiring inclusion of open space in new developments,
and educating the public on the value of river and stream corridors.
The Triangle GreenPrint Regional Open Space Assessment(NC Division of Parks and Recreation et al.
2002)was not explicitly a landscape corridor plan. The aim of the project was to"facilitate development
of a regional vision for [connected] open space in the Triangle."The plan produced a map and GIS layer
of"significant open spaces for parks,greenways,historic areas,natural areas, and water quality." The
resulting map represents a system of coarse-scale reserve areas (some of them already protected)
connected by riparian corridors.
COUNTY LAND PROTECTION AND OPEN SPACE PLANNING
The use of NCNHP data(from county inventories and other surveys) for land use decision-making has
been incorporated into county planning documents to some degree for all four counties. In addition, all
four local governments involved in creation of the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan(Coulter
Associates and New Hope Corridor Advisory Committee 199 1) endorsed the plan, and two local
governments,Durham County and Orange County, incorporated the findings into their comprehensive
land use plans.
Orange County specifically incorporated the mapped corridors (each 300 meters wide)from the Orange
County inventory and Hall's(2008,2009)LHIG work for the Eastern Piedmont into the county's
comprehensive land use plan(as part of its Resource Protection Areas overlay) and amended its zoning
and subdivision ordinances to include provisions that would help protect the areas from future
development.
More recently,the Wake County Consolidated Open Space Master Plan(2003,2006) and the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Chatham County(Robert J. Goldstein&Associates,Inc., and
Biocenosis, Inc. 2011)have identified high-priority lands for protection in Wake and Chatham counties,
respectively. The Wake County plan funded and incorporated open space plans from its municipalities.
The plan also maps priority open space corridors and recommends linking protected lands using corridors
wide enough to protect water courses, conserve wildlife habitat,preserve historic landscapes, and beautify
area roadways. Aspects of the Chatham Comprehensive Conservation Plan related to wildlife habitat
conservation and connectivity have been incorporated into Plan Chatham(2017),Chatham County's
recently completed comprehensive plan.
Efforts to implement landscape conservation recommendations and priorities included in the various plans
are carried out by area land trusts (such as the Eno River Association,Triangle Land Conservancy, and
North Carolina Botanical Garden Foundation),local government land conservation programs(such as the
Orange County Lands Legacy Program,Durham County Open Space Program, and Wake County Open
Space Program), and other partner entities including Duke University and UNC Chapel Hill. These land
conservation programs have all worked to conserve lands within the Eno-New Hope project area, and the
results of this report provide new data and a plan to build on past work and existing priorities to conserve
a functional habitat-corridor network across the project area.
12 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
26
WHY WE NEED LANDSCAPE CORRIDORS
Movement of wildlife within and between habitats is essential for the short-term and long-term survival
of individuals, species, and populations. Animals need to move across the landscape to find food, shelter,
water, and mates, as well as to maintain genetic diversity and adapt to climate change (Cosgrove et al.
2018). However, as human population density increases,the natural contiguous landscape is fragmented
by development into smaller, isolated patches or"islands"of natural habitat(Hilty et al. 2006) (Figure 3).
Roads and development can make wildlife travel difficult or impossible(National Research Council
2005),while semi-natural landscapes such as working farms and forests are more conducive to movement
by some species (NCWRC 2013). In North Carolina, as elsewhere,habitat loss and fragmentation are
caused by changing human land uses from natural and semi-natural to developed land uses.
Undeveloped Urban
{ ' fix• I 4-1 11
Figure 3.Reproduced from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(2009): `An aerial depiction of the
undeveloped to urban gradient...The bottom panel highlights how forest habitat(shown here in green)decreases,
and how forest patches become smaller and more dispersed as development intensity increases."
In addition to direct loss of wildlife populations from conversion of habitat to human land uses,
development actions such as land clearing, development, and road-building(along with resulting
increases in traffic volume)can be understood as stressors that negatively affect development-sensitive
wildlife populations, overall biodiversity, and ecosystems (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
2009) (Figure 4).For example, along New Hope Creek in Durham County,habitat fragmentation caused
by US Highway 15-501 creates an artificial edge to the forest that may alter or halt the movement
behavior of wildlife species that are wary of open or developed areas. This habitat edge also contributes
to habitat degradation and increased threats to wildlife (such as predation by other species)through
changes in natural community composition and structure, as the road carries edge-dependent(often non-
native and/or invasive)plant and animal species into the bottomland hardwood forests in the floodplain.
In addition to these and other edge effects of habitat fragmentation(Hilty et al. 2006,2019),US Highway
15-501 is a direct cause of mortality for wildlife that try to cross, and the road creates a behavioral or
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 13
27
physical barrier for less mobile animals that will not cross a paved road or cannot cross a road with curbs
or other structures(National Research Council 2005). Over time, loss and isolation of habitat,blocked
animal movements, and increased mortality contribute to decline of wildlife populations (Haddad et al.
2015).
Connectivity Biological Components:
• Daily movements
--------------------- • Seasonal movementsto breeding,reproductive,
summer,and winter habitats
• Dispersal
Development Action:
• Land clearing
DevelopmentSTRESSORS
1 �
• Roads -
• Traffic
I
I
Habitat Effects Road Effects
---------------------- • Habitat loss • Road corridor barrier
• Habitat change • Road effect zone
• Habitat fragmenta-
tion
Potential Wildlife Effects
• Blocked daily,seasonal,and dispersal
movements
• Increased daily,seasonal,and dispersal mortality
• Species diversity declines because suitable
habitat is no longer available
Potential Wildlife Population Impacts Biodiversity and Ecosystem
• Reduced abundance Effects
• Loss of genetic diversity • Reduced native species
• Increased genetic isolation diversity
• Fragmentation of local populations • Loss of ecosystem functions
• Stochastic(random)small population effects performed by species
• Vulnerability to stochastic environmental events
• Decreased population persistence
Figure 4.Reproduced from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(2009): "Potential impacts to wildlife
from loss of connectivity in developed landscapes.Includes impacts of the `road effect zone,'or area of impact
extending beyond the roadway and including traffic noise and lights."
Ultimately, local wildlife populations and species diversity are not sustainable in a landscape with
isolated patches of habitat(Williams 1998,Haddad et al. 2015). Interconnected networks of habitat are
necessary for maintaining wildlife populations,natural communities,genetic and species diversity, and
natural ecological processes (Bennett 1999, Cosgrove et al. 2018). Maintaining connectivity of natural
communities and ecosystem processes also benefits humans by maintaining ecosystem services, such as
clean water and air,native plant and pollinator diversity, carbon sequestration and climate regulation,
benefits to our local economy(through working farms and forests,recreation, and tourism),benefits to
public health, and more (NRCS 2004, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).
14 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
28
In fragmented landscapes,habitat connectivity can be achieved through naturally occurring or created
habitat corridors(Gilbert-Norton et al. 2010), defined as"patch[es] of habitat(often linear)that link two
or more other natural habitat patches,providing habitat for animals as they disperse or migrate"(NCWRC
2012) (see Appendix B: Glossary for more detailed definition). Corridors can include crossing structures
that enable wildlife to cross barriers such as roads,reducing wildlife collisions with vehicles(Bennett
1999). Corridors allow wildlife populations to move to meet daily and seasonal resource needs,to
interbreed with other populations, and to colonize new or former habitat areas (such as after recovery
from disturbance or disease)by increasing the potential for dispersal from one habitat patch to another
(MRCS 2004,Hilty et al. 2006). Maintaining habitat connectivity reduces the susceptibility of wildlife
populations and species to decline and local extinction that can occur through, for example,the
deleterious effects of increased predation, disease, and natural catastrophes when there are no avenues for
escape or recovery through movement of individuals between populations and habitat areas(Rudnick et
al. 2012).
THE IMPORTANCE OF WILDLIFE CROSSINGS
Roads contribute to wildlife habitat fragmentation and can function as barriers to wildlife movement or
sources of wildlife mortality from wildlife-vehicle collisions (WVC)(National Research Council 2005)
(Figure 5). In the US,over one million vertebrates are killed each day due to WVC(Bissonette and
Cramer 2008 in Ernest and Sutherland 2017). Human safety is also at issue,with more than 61,000
wildlife-related vehicle crashes recorded in North Carolina from 2011 to 2013,causing nearly 20 human
fatalities, greater than 3,400 injuries, and more than$149 million in damages(Oliver 2014 in Ernest and
Sutherland 2017).
Pollution
Barrier effects
Traffic mortality
Corridor/
Dispersal
Corriclorl Habitat transformation
Dispersal
Predation
Disturbancel
/1.ldancel Road effect
Edge effects zone
Figure 5. Schematic showing the primary effects of roads on wildlife species and
populations(reproduced from National Research Council 2005).
Wildlife crossings,including underpasses, overpasses,and wildlife-friendly culverts, can facilitate
wildlife movements and have been shown to reduce WVC (Clevenger et al. 2001 in Ernest and
Sutherland 2017). Indeed,properly designed wildlife crossing structures installed or retrofitted at priority
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 15
29
locations within the landscape are a necessary component of a landscape habitat-corridor network that
functions to maintain wildlife populations. To determine where wildlife crossings should be prioritized
and what type of crossing is most suitable for a given location,knowledge of WVC, species' biological
requirements, and landscape corridor data are required(Huijser et al. 2008). Other road design elements
such as guard rails, fencing, and vegetation barriers are also important considerations for designing
successful wildlife crossings. As our understanding of wildlife movement behavior and wildlife use of
crossing structures improves, detailed structural specifications and implementation guidelines for
effective crossing structures are increasingly available for different wildlife taxonomic groups(such as
mammals,turtles, or salamanders) (Clevenger and Huijser 2011).
North Carolina has over 79,000 miles of roads, and the NC Department of Transportation(NCDOT)has
installed or modified approximately 12 crossings for wildlife statewide(Ernest and Sutherland 2017).
While most of these crossings are located in the mountains or coastal plain(such as in Jones et al. 2010),
the improved US 15-501 bridge over New Hope Creek(Figure 6),installed in 2007, is an example of a
transportation improvement project in the project area that included modification of the bridge height and
length to improve its use as a wildlife underpass. The new bridge has increased safe passage under the
highway for a variety of wildlife species (Ron Sutherland,Wildlands Network,pers. comm.).
u
=i -
y
Figure 6. The improved US 15-501 bridge over New Hope Creek in Durham County,NC.Photo credit Ron
Sutherland, Wildlands Network.
Ernest and Sutherland(2017)recently produced a statewide map of roads that are high-priority candidates
for wildlife crossing structures to mitigate WVC,based on data from NCDOT on traffic volume, WVC,
and road structural characteristics. Their data, in combination with the results of this project and other
conservation data layers,provide an opportunity for NCDOT and local governments to integrate wildlife
crossing structures into transportation improvement projects at selected locations where they will be most
effective for reducing WVC,promoting landscape connectivity, and helping to maintain healthy, diverse
ecosystems.
PLANNING FOR CORRIDORS AND CONNECTIVITY: THE GREEN GROWTH APPROACH
NCWRC's Green Growth Program provides a framework for incorporating conservation data and
principles into land use planning and development. The Green Growth approach to land use planning
requires the recognition of our natural resources as fundamental to the resiliency of communities.
Integrating natural resources into land use planning and policy is a critical step to ensure natural resource
conservation and integrity into the future.NCWRC's Green Growth Toolbox(NCWRC 2013)is a set of
resources that helps communities understand where high-quality natural areas occur and how to protect
them through land use planning tools, such as plans, ordinances,and development review. To help
identify conservation priorities, spatial information on natural areas,rare species locations,wildlife
habitat, and other biological information collected and maintained by NCNHP is made available to
planning departments and the public.
16 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
30
Once conservation priorities are recognized,the Green Growth Toolbox offers guidance using three basic
conservation principles:
• Protect conservation priorities, including large natural areas and sensitive habitats.
• Buffer these areas from suburban and urban development.
• Connect these natural areas across the landscape to reduce habitat fragmentation.
As described in the Green Growth Toolbox manual (NCWRC 2013),the most direct way to maintain
connectivity is to keep important natural areas in a rural context where they are typically surrounded by
working farms and forests,which can act as wildlife corridors. However, in more suburban and urban
environments, connectivity may be maintained for many species by protecting wildlife corridors that are
150-1000 feet wide(depending on species;NC)ATRC 2012),ideally with larger patches of habitat
interspersed along the corridor.
In general,following the three conservation principles above using strategies outlined in the Green
Growth Toolbox will encourage growth and development in areas more suitable for development. For
North Carolina,the Green Growth Toolbox provides a bridge between conservation planning and
development planning and, along with other science-based resources on best practices for landscape
connectivity planning(such as in Appendix E),provides the framework for developing recommendations
to ensure wildlife habitat connectivity across the Eno-New Hope project area.
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 17
31
METHODS
LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
Approach and tools
This project generally followed the steps outlined in NatureServe's Landscope America guide,
"Connecting Landscapes:A Practitioner's Resource for Assessing and Planning for Habitat Connectivity"
(Figure 7) (NatureServe/Landscope America 2019). The project used a spatially explicit, GIS-based
approach to identify corridors and analyze connectivity in the project area. Within this broad approach,a
variety of methods and tools exist to accommodate different objectives and scales of analysis(see
examples at Conservation Corridor: Programs and Tools, https://conservationcorridor.org/corridor-
toolbox/programs-and-tools/).
Roadmap for Assessing Con nectivq Figure 7.An outline of the Landscope America Roadmap for
Assessing Connectivity(Reproduced from NatureServe/
Landscope America 2019).
Based on the scale of the project area,the group's objectives,
and the need for compatibility with other planning tools,this
project used resistance-surface-based connectivity modeling
(Wade et al. 2015)to identify a habitat-corridor network
across the project area, defined as a connected set of discrete
wildlife habitat patches and least cost corridors between them
N (Figure 8a). Least cost corridor mapping(Wade et al. 2015,
Etherington 2016)uses knowledge of species' habitat needs
and movement behaviors to map pathways of different relative
N movement cost for a species across a given landscape,using a
cost surface(or resistance surface)that excludes movement
barriers. Rather than using the single least cost path, a cost
threshold is used to identify the areas of lowest movement cost
0 1-Characterize coals and scope (least cost corridors)connecting pairs of discrete habitat areas
(Wade et al. 2015) (Figure 8b).
2-Identify antl Engage Partners
Least cost corridors are intended to represent areas that, over
0 3-Identity Targets of Connectivity Planning time, are most hospitable or conducive to successful
movement of a species between habitat areas. For example, a
d-Characterize Biology and Ecology spotted salamander living in a moist forest habitat may
0 s-Identify Barriers to Connectivity typically stay within several hundred meters of its breeding
pond;however, its offspring may disperse several kilometers
N 0 &-Choose Modeling Approach and Tool{s} across the landscape to find mates and new breeding ponds
(NatureServe 2019c). For this dispersal to be successful, an
-Develop Model inputs individual salamander must choose a movement path that is
E-Review and Validate Results safe(from predation by other species) and has environmental
conditions it can tolerate(sufficient moisture, sufficient food
3-Interpret and Summarize Results and shelter for the journey, or a relative short journey between
habitat patches). The salamander may actively avoid moving
10-Incorporate Into[decision-Making into or across areas that it perceives as threatening(roads with
traffic) or inhospitable(open fields or dry, sunny conditions),
18 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
32
and will be unable to move across areas that it cannot physically traverse(a barrier across or alongside a
road). A particular least cost corridor will preferentially include any areas similar to the salamander's
habitat(whether small or large) and will exclude movement barriers and minimize expanses of
threatening or inhospitable habitat. Over time, a connected landscape of habitat patches and functional
least cost corridors can promote successful movement of individuals between a network of populations
(Gilbert-Norton et al. 2010),which ultimately supports long-term persistence,health, and resilience of
species and ecosystems.
(a) (b) Least cost path
Habitat
Patch A Habitat
\ Patch B
Least cost corridor
Figure 8. (a)Depiction of a habitat-corridor network with
habitat patches in dark green and corridors in light green
(reproduced from Rudnick et al. 2012). (b) Two habitat
patches connected by areas of lowest movement cost for a
given species across a cost(or resistance)surface, defined by
a threshold of maximum movement cost.
To create the habitat-corridor network, Tuttle used ArcGIS 10.4(ESRI 2014),the GeoHAT Toolbox for
ArcGIS (Geospatial Habitat Assessment Toolkit) (Fay 2012), customized ArcGIS models and Python
scripts developed by Tuttle(unpublished), and NetworkX(software for network analysis using the Python
programming language) (Hagberg et al. 2008). During the analysis process,the Technical Subcommittee
(and later the Policy Subcommittee)reviewed data inputs and intermediate results and provided feedback
in an iterative process of refining the data inputs,parameters, and analytical approach to best represent
landscape habitat connectivity for the project area in the final results.
Natural communities: species and habitats
The project focuses on connectivity for preservation of terrestrial wildlife species(and many aquatic
species by inclusion of riparian areas),natural communities, and existing conservation lands. Building on
biodiversity and habitat assessments developed by NCWRC and NCNHP,the group elected to focus on
priority species and natural communities (or habitat types)identified in the North Carolina Wildlife
Action Plan(SGCN;NCWRC 2015) and in NCNHP's List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina
(Ratcliffe 2018). Hall's previous work on LHIGs(Hall 2008,2009, 2018)helped focus the project on the
function and movement of several focal species groups (indicator guilds)within and between habitat
types in a landscape network. In the LHIG framework, species are grouped into guilds by similar habitat
needs and responses to habitat fragmentation and development. Because of their sensitivity to
fragmentation,these indicator guilds can represent the conservation needs of many species that rely on
these habitats or,put another way,that collectively embody these natural communities. Hall's work on
LHIG for the Eastern Piedmont of NC (Hall 2008,2009,2018) informed the definition of priority habitats
and species guilds for the project area, and the relationships between them.
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 19
33
To identify the indicator species and habitat guilds known to occur in the project area, species occurrence
data were compiled from several sources:
• NCNHP's List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina(Ratcliffe 2018)
• NCWRC's SGCN list for the Eastern Piedmont(NCWRC 2015)
• A database compiled by Hall(2017 unpublished) from various sources,including the NCNHP
county inventories,the NC State Parks Natural Resources Inventory Database(NRID) (NC
Division of Parks and Recreation 2015), and additional field work
• Species Element Occurrence data from NCNHP for the project area(NCNHP 2019a)
• Observation data from the Piedmont Wildlife Center(2018 unpublished), located in the City of
Durham adjacent to the New Hope Creek corridor.
• Observations by Eno-New Hope Landscape Conservation Group members,Allison Weakley
(Town of Chapel Hill) (2018)and Deborah Fowler(Wake County) (through 2017)
• Observations by a number of individuals as recorded on iNaturalist(iNaturalist.org 2019), an
online platform for sharing species observations by date and geographic location,which can be
curated,verified, and used as citizen science data inputs in scientific research projects.
The SGCN list(NCWRC 2015)does not contain specific location data but provides a list of species
known to occur in the Eastern Piedmont of NC. County-level occurrence lists for NCNHP's rare and
watch list animal species (Ratcliffe 2018) are available(https://www.ncnhp.org/data/species-communiiy-
search). These two species lists were combined, and inconsistent species taxonomy was corrected. This
combined species list was used to filter all available georeferenced species occurrences (from the
additional sources listed above)within the project area boundary(with a 5-km buffer),yielding a list of
SGCN,rare, and watch list animal species known to occur in the project area. The final species list
included only terrestrial species known to occur in the project area within the last 30 years and with year-
round resident populations in the project area. Classification of species into habitat guilds followed the
classification designated by Hall in his work on LHIG (Hall 2008,2009).
Fifty-seven terrestrial wildlife species in more than 22 habitat indicator guilds were identified for the
project area(Appendix Q.Based on the group's desire to identify specific corridor areas,the availability
of spatial data for mapping habitat, and other methodological constraints, corridor analysis and mapping
were limited to habitat types for three guilds. The three guilds broadly encompass wet-to-mesic(moist)
hardwood forests (such as in Figure 9), dry-to-wet hardwood/mixed hardwood-pine forests, and sparsely
settled forested areas,including some managed forests. Collectively,they include a total of 14 terrestrial
wildlife indicator species, 8 of which are non-flying species and rely on ground-based habitat
connectivity.
Figure 9.Riparian hardwood forest along the Eno River in North Carolina.Photo credit Kathy Lee.
20 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
34
The three guild habitat types are often spatially nested on the landscape (for example, as floodplain or
riparian areas surrounded by adjacent upland areas) and encompass most of the remaining natural habitat
in the project area as well as some managed forests that can support native wildlife populations.
Additional localized habitat types are further nested within the three selected habitat types, supporting
several additional priority wildlife species. As a result, conserving and maintaining connectivity for the
three selected habitats will likely support persistence of several other embedded natural communities and
many other wildlife species.
Biological and ecological information for species on the final list was compiled from information in
Biotics,NatureServe's web-enabled biodiversity information management system(which includes NC-
specific data from NCNHP) (NatureServe 2019c),the NC Wildlife Action Plan(NCWRC 2015), and the
Fire Effects Information System(FEIS) (Abrahamson nd). Where species-level information was not
available,information was compiled for the Element Group(NatureServe 2019d)to which the species
belongs. Each Element Group represents species that are related taxonomically, functionally, or by habitat
and that have similar habitat needs and movement behaviors.
Concepts, parameters, and inputs
Resistance-surface-based connectivity modeling, a common approach to GIS-based corridor analysis,
involves conceptualizing the landscape as habitat,barriers to movement, and a cost surface (or resistance
surface)intended to represent species' ability to move within and between habitat areas on the landscape.
Types of habitat can be distinguished and assigned higher or lower movement costs, and the cost distance
that species can move on the landscape can be specified,based on knowledge of species' habitat and
movement needs,limitations, and behaviors. Potential corridors can be identified and overall landscape
connectivity can be assessed from this mapping based on the quantity and arrangement of habitat types
and barriers, and the ease, difficulty, or obstruction of movement over the cost surface.
Habitat.For this project,we used the concepts of suitable and unsuitable habitat used by NatureServe
and the Natural Heritage Network(NatureServe 2019a,b). The landscape was divided into habitat
suitable for occupancy(by individuals or populations;suitable habitat),habitat unsuitable for long-term
occupancy but suitable for movement(unsuitable habitat), and barriers to movement.
Suitable habitat was further divided into habitat patches --contiguous areas of suitable habitat above a
size threshold--and smaller fragments of suitable habitat dispersed on the landscape. Habitat patch size
thresholds for each guild(Table 2)were determined from information on home range size, daily and
seasonal movement behaviors, and habitat characteristics for species or Element Groups as compiled in
Biotics(NatureServe 2019c), supplemented by information from FEIS (Abrahamson nd). Where habitat
patch size differed for species or Element Groups within guilds,the more limiting(larger)patch size was
used.
To classify the landscape of the project area into suitable and unsuitable habitat,we used the LANDFIRE
2014 Existing Vegetation Type (EVT)classification(LANDFIRE 2014) as the base land cover layer.
Vegetation types representing suitable or unsuitable habitat for species in each guild in the Eastern
Piedmont were identified from information in reports by Hall (2008, 2009) and in Biotics(NatureServe
2019c)(Table 2). EVT land cover classes(LANDFIRE 2016)were then matched to these vegetation
types. This habitat"crosswalk"was calibrated and validated by Hall's previous mapping of guild habitat
for the project area(from finer-resolution aerial photography than that used for the EVT 30 in x 30 in
classification) and the locations of guild species occurrences compiled for the project area. The resulting
habitat classification was refined and updated using overlays of floodplains from the NC Flood Mapping
Program(2017) and wetlands from the National Wetlands Inventory(NWI) (US Fish and Wildlife
Service 2017). For instance, in areas mapped as floodplain but incorrectly classified as an upland
hardwood forest type(usually because of the relatively coarse scale of the EVT layer),the vegetation type
was updated to floodplain hardwood forest.
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 21
35
Table 2. Guild/species biological and ecological information related to habitat and connectivity needs, derived from
information in Biotics (NatureServe 2019c) or, where noted, FEIS(Abrahamson nd).
Focal Habitat and movement characteristics Sensitivityto
Guild name species
Taxonomic Barriers to development
(habitat (species Primary stressors
groups in guild Separation distance movement and
type) onetworbservatk) Poe Hobitotcomposition Unsuitable Suitable fragmentation
network{ size
Habitat Habitat I=
breeding:boggy streams,ephemeral Large streams Floodplain and
Wet-mesic amphibians, wetlands,usually in floodplains or and rivers, wetland
(riparian Four-toed , uplands near headwater streams roads, modification,
forests
hardwood 5 ha breeding birds salamander on-breeding:mesic hardwood 1 km 3 km suburban and High sensitivity human
and odonates) orests,mixed hardwood/pine near urban disturbances,water
etlands development pollution,roads
Dry-wet reptiles,
reeding:upland mixed 3-5 km High-traffic-
ardwood/pine,successional(herb, plume roads,
mixed amphibians, of 3 km(minimum Moderate
hardwood/ (forest
Box turtle 20 ha hrub,and woody) 1 km large rivers, Roads,habitat loss
pine forests breeding birds) a cessioding:bottomland hardwood, used) ❑even
sensitivity
uccessional development
Sparsely generalist reeding:upland and bottomland
settled species of large ixed hardwood/pine,successional, None; Roads,dense
mixed and small Bobcat 60 ha 50krn` 200 km`
b ith logs,fallen trees,or rock shelters avoidance of Moderate development,
hardwood/ mammals, or denning buildings and sensitivity human
pine habitats reptiles,(birds) on-breeding:upland and bottomland development disturbances
nixed hardwood/pine,successional
aData in Biotics(NatureServe 2019c)indicate home range size of less than 1 ha;however,to avoid including spurious patches
and to avoid excessive GIS computation time,the observed minimum patch size of approximately 5 ha(based on species
observations in the project area)was used.
'Derived from minimum Bobcat home range provided in FEIS(Abrahamson nd).
"Derived from Bobcat dispersal information in Biotics(NatureServe 2019c).Dispersal distances for Timber rattlesnake are lower
(7 and 1 km for suitable and unsuitable habitat,respectively),but species observation data do not conclusively support the current
presence of Timber rattlesnake populations in the project area.
Barriers.By definition, characteristics of barriers are similar for terrestrial species within the same guild.
Information in Biotics indicates that developed areas, some roads, and some water bodies are the primary
barriers to movement for the focal species and habitat guilds in this project(Table 2). Developed areas
were identified from developed land cover classes in the EVT layer(LANDFIRE 2014) and building
footprint layers combined across the project area(Apex 2017, Carrboro 2017, Cary 2018, Chatham
County 2015, Durham City-County 2017, Orange County 2010). Areas of open water(large rivers, lakes,
and ponds)were identified from the EVT and NWI(US Fish and Wildlife Service 2017) layers. Streams
that were not wide enough to be identified as open water in the EVT classification were not considered
barriers. To classify roads as either barriers or non-barriers,the scientific literature(as compiled in Ernest
& Sutherland 2017)provides details on traffic volume,road characteristics, and roadway structures that
likely represent barriers to movement for large-and small-animal species groups(adapted for this project
as in Table 3). Roads, road characteristics,roadway structures,and traffic volume data for the project area
were obtained from NCDOT(2019a, 2017).
To represent known or potential wildlife crossing locations,barrier roads were considered permeable to
wildlife passage via known and presumed crossing structures(such as bridges, culverts, or pipes). Bridge,
culvert, and pipe location data were obtained from NCDOT (2019b). Ultimately,however,potential
wildlife crossings were represented primarily as intersections between barrier roads and permanent
streams from the National Hydrography Dataset(USGS 2018)because of incomplete mapping of bridge,
culvert,and pipe locations throughout the project area. Bridge locations over non-barrier roads were
included as potential crossing locations for the sparsely settled mixed habitats guild.
22 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
36
Table 3. Criteria for identifying barrier roads and potential crossing locations for each habitat guild, slightly
modified from criteria provided in Ernest and Sutherland(2017)based on biological/ecological information for the
species included in this project. Barrier roads were identified from data on road characteristics and roadway
structures(NCDOT 2019a)and traffic volume(NCDOT 2017).Potential crossing locations were identified from
barrier road—stream intersections(USGS 2018)and bridge%ulvert/pipe structure locations(NCDOT 2019b).
Habitat guild Barrier road characteristics Potential crossing locations
Surface width>26 feet
General wet-mesic hardwood forests Shoulder curb present Intersections between barrier
(Four-toed salamander) Median barrier or curb present roads and streams
Striped median present
Traffic volume>2000
Surface width>26 feet
Dry-wet hardwood and mixed forests Shoulder curb present Intersections between barrier
(Eastern box turtle, salamanders) Median barrier or curb present roads and streams
Striped median present
Traffic volume>2000
Sparsely settled mixed habitats Speed limit>60 miles per hour Intersections between barrier
(medium-sized mammals,snake) Median barrier present roads and streams
Traffic volume> 10,000 Bridges over non-barrier roads
Movement cost and distance. Cost distance thresholds and the costs for movement through suitable or
unsuitable habitat were derived from NatureServe's concept of separation distance(NatureServe nd). For
NCNHP mapping of known species occurrences,the distance between two or more occurrences and the
quality of the intervening habitat(suitable or unsuitable) determines whether the occurrences are mapped
as distinct populations or as connected sub-populations. These separation distances for suitable and
unsuitable habitat are determined from knowledge of species' biology and ecology, including typical or
maximum dispersal distances within and between areas of suitable habitat(Table 2).
For each guild, separation distances for suitable and unsuitable habitat were derived from information for
species or Element Groups in Biotics(NatureServe 2019c), supplemented by information from FEIS
(Abrahamson nd). Where suitable or unsuitable separation distance differed for species or Element
Groups within guilds,the more limiting(lower) distance was used. A guild's cost distance threshold was
scaled to the unsuitable separation distance, so that each unit of distance traveled in unsuitable habitat
represented a unit of cost toward the distance threshold for unsuitable habitat. The lower movement cost
in suitable habitat was then calculated as the ratio of unsuitable to suitable separation distance, so that for
the same cost distance threshold,the actual distance on the ground would equal the larger suitable
separation distance.
Cost surface and habitat patches.The cost surface for each guild was derived by first rasterizing(where
necessary),reclassifying, and combining the following GIS layers into a single raster GIS layer:
• habitat(EVT vegetation, floodplains,wetlands, and non-barrier roads)
• barriers(EVT developed areas,building footprints, open water, and barrier roads)
• potential wildlife crossing areas(barrier road—bridge/culvert/pipe intersections and barrier
road—stream intersections)
The combined raster layer was then reclassified so that barriers were removed, and each unique habitat
class was assigned the guild's unit movement cost value for suitable or unsuitable habitat according to a
reclassification table.Potential wildlife crossing areas were also assigned the movement cost value for
unsuitable habitat. Discrete areas of suitable habitat above the threshold patch size were identified and
extracted as a separate habitat patch layer(shown in Figure 10 overlaid on the cost surface).
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 23
37
Non-barrier Roads
r
� Streams
A; habitat
Suitable habitat patch
Suitable habitat<patch size
..a s Unsuitable habitat
Potential crossing
(unsuitable habitat)
_7
Barriers
Barrier road
t'\ % ` Developed area
Open water
Figure 10.A portion of the cost surface for the Dry-Wet Hardwood and Mixed Forests guild in the project area.
Unsuitable habitat areas, including potential crossing locations, are assigned a cost of I distance unit. Suitable
habitat(non patch)areas are assigned a cost of 1/3 distance unit, to reflect the lower cost and species'ability to
move greater distances through suitable habitat.In the modeling approach for this project, movement proceeds from
the edge of one habitat patch to the edge of another patch, such that there is no movement cost associated with the
area occupied by habitat patches.Non-barrier roads and streams are shown for context.
Analysis and interpretation
Using a combination of tools and scripts from ArcGIS 10.4 (ESRI 2014), GeoHAT(Fay 2012),Tuttle's
custom toolbox for this project(Tuttle unpublished), and NetworkX(Hagberg et al. 2008), a network of
habitat patches and least cost corridors was identified for each guild. The relative connectivity
importance value was then calculated for each corridor segment(edge,not to be confused with habitat
edge)between two habitat patches. We used the cost-weighted edge betweenness centrality(EBC)metric
(NetworkX Developers 2019)in NetworkX to represent connectivity importance value for corridor
segments. EBC represents the proportion of least cost paths between all patches in the connected network
that"travel"through a particular corridor segment, and the value ranges from 0 to 1 (Wade et al. 2015).
To assign a connectivity importance value to each patch,the maximum EBC value for all corridor
segments connected to the patch was assigned to the patch. In this way,the most important patch-corridor
pathways for overall landscape connectivity were mapped.
Species occurrence data for one indicator species in each guild(Figure 11)were used to develop a
subnetwork of corridor connections between species occurrences,and the EBC-based connectivity
importance values for these species observation networks were used to refine the priority habitat network
for the project area. Specifically,the maximum connectivity importance value for either the habitat-only
network or the species observation network was applied for each corridor segment and habitat patch.
24 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
38
IVA
&o itJul i e
EASTERN BOX TURTLE BOBCAT FOUR-TOED SALAMANDER
Terrapene corolina carolina Lynx rufus Hemidactylium /
Dry-wet mixed Sparsely settled Wet-mesio
hardwood/pine forests mixed habitats hardwood forests
Figure 11.Indicator species selected from each of the three habitat types for development of the species observation
networks, which were used to refine the priority habitat network for the project area.
The habitat-corridor network for each guild was classified into 4 ranked priority groups based on natural
breaks between connectivity importance values (El3Q,and the guild networks were combined for
viewing in GIS using either a semi-transparent overlay of all three guild networks(as shown in the
Results section of this report)or an intersection of the three guild networks as a single layer in which the
maximum value across the three guilds was assigned to each patch or corridor segment.
The Technical and Policy Subcommittees reviewed the results of analysis in the context of other relevant
GIS layers (such as future land use and zoning districts, existing conservation lands,potential wildlife
crossings, etc.)and,based on their knowledge of the project area,tentatively identified priority locations
for protection(not reported here), such as corridor pinch points,conflicts with land use and zoning
districts, opportunities and gaps in conservation planning areas, and corridor alternatives.
REVIEW OF EXISTING POLICIES, ORDINANCES, AND PROTECTION PRIORITIES
To ensure landscape connectivity within the Eno-New Hope project area and between adjacent
watersheds,project results and recommendations will need to be incorporated into local decision-making.
In addition, successful landscape connectivity conservation will,by definition,rely on interjurisdictional
coordination.
To support these efforts,we synthesized existing policies, ordinances, and protection priorities related to
corridor planning and protection within the two watersheds. Governing documents were reviewed for
each county and municipal jurisdiction within the project area,including comprehensive plans and unified
development ordinances (UDO)as well as separate plans, ordinances, and spatial data layers focused on
land use,natural resources, open space,parks and recreation,trails and greenways,water resources,
hazard mitigation, and small planning areas. In addition to the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master
Plan, several other interjurisdictional plans and agreements were reviewed. Discussion with the Policy
Subcommittee and individual interviews with several group members provided additional insight into
existing governmental structure and processes related to land conservation and natural resource
protection.
The resulting summary of existing policies,ordinances, and conservation priorities related to landscape
connectivity provides a resource for interjurisdictional coordination and, along with the corridor analysis
results, informs the recommendations provided in this report.
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 25
39
RESULTS
LANDSCAPE HABITAT-CORRIDOR NETWORK
Final corridor analysis results for the three habitat guilds combined reveal a backbone habitat-corridor
network running primarily north-south through the project area(Figure 12(a)). Most prominently,results
illustrate the high importance of the central New Hope Creek-Jordan Lake corridor in supporting
biodiversity and maintaining habitat connectivity across the project area. Also prominent are the Eno
River corridor and areas where opportunities exist for protection of corridors across the Eno River-New
Hope Creek watershed boundary,which is also a boundary between the Neuse and Cape Fear River
basins,respectively.
Results also illustrate how the habitat-corridor network connects NHNAs (which may be considered high-
value biodiversity"source nodes") across the project area(Figure 12(b)), and areas where land protection
is needed to keep existing conservation lands,the overall network,and neighboring watersheds connected
(Figure 12(c)). In the review and interpretation of results,members of the project subcommittees
tentatively identified(not shown)protection opportunities,notable gaps, and vulnerable areas in the
priority habitat network, including several pinch points along major corridors where urgent protection or
restoration action is needed.
The GIS layers encompassing the analysis results will be provided to the project participants,natural
resource professionals, and local government planners and decision-makers as a resource for more
detailed and ongoing assessment,prioritization, and update of the landscape habitat-corridor network. In
particular, further assessment of the results with respect to existing land use layers and conservation
planning tools will help shape the integration of these results into an overall landscape conservation
strategy for the project area. Care should be taken when using the results to consider the assumptions and
limitations of the methods of analysis and the data inputs,particularly the 30 m x 30 m resolution of the
base land cover layer,which(for example) cannot effectively identify finer-scale urban vegetation and
riparian corridors.
26 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
40
N
0 2.5 5 10
w��
Miles s
q• I }�
1.to
II 1
�fy
1
k"
sd'
I
Habitat-Corridor Network b�
- Highest Connectivity value +
P
Higher Connectivity Value F
High Connectivity Value
Local or alternative network
i
Unranked v
Not connected
Project Area
County
- River
Lake9i ,:•
Major Road
Figure 12(a).Results of GIS-based corridor analysis for the Eno-New Hope project area, shown here as the priority
habitat-corridor network for the three habitat guilds, combined with a semi-transparent overlay. Each guild's
network is divided into 4 classes based on natural breaks in the connectivity importance values(EBQ. Connectivity
importance value for each patch in a guild represents the maximum of the habitat-only and species observation
network EBC values. Unranked areas represent suitable habitat smaller than the minimum patch size or corridors
with cost distance greater than the guild's cost distance threshold. Disconnected areas represent habitat patches
that are not connected to the overall habitat network, either because of intervening barriers or because the lowest
cost distance to the overall network is greater than the cost distance threshold for the guild.
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 27
41
0 2.5 5 10
w+¢
Miles J. s
LWALA
p
-4
+ �'`'X'r
n �
JIM
r
` f
s,
NHNA Rank
0 Exceptional i a
J Very High
High �. t
x S
�I Moderate -
sa
General
Unranked
Habitat-Corridor Network y .;
Highest Connectivity Value z '
i
Higher Connectivity Value
High Connectivity Values
r
Local or alternative network
Unranked
Not connected
Project Area
County
A ru
y
River
Lake
Major Road
Figure 12(b).Natural Heritage Natural Areas(NHNAs) (NCNHP 2019c)overlaid on the habitat-corridor network
for the project area, depicted as in Figure 12(a).
28 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
42
N
0 2.5 5 10
w+e
Miles s
';s n
• ,I 9L l rt A
r
Protected Areas • _ ____-
Habitat-Corridor Network f l �
- Highest Connectivity values ' # f j
_ Higher Connectivity Value
High Connectivity Value y /}
Local or alternative network
Unranked • '� -Wk'
Not connected }{ ' �•
Project Area
►"`
County
River
Lake
Major Road
Figure 12(c).Protected areas(NCNHP 2019b)overlaid on the habitat-corridor network for the project area,
depicted as in Figure 12(a).
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 29
43
EXISTING LAND PROTECTION PRIORITIES
Many jurisdictions have identified or mapped specific land protection priorities in planning documents,
which we summarize here by jurisdiction. As expected,many of these priorities overlap with the priority
habitat and corridor areas identified in this project(and some priorities from older plans have already
been protected). However, it should be noted that not all priorities suggested in these documents have
been incorporated into formally adopted plans or ordinances. More detailed comparison of this project's
corridor analysis results to existing priorities and other conservation data layers can guide a
comprehensive reassessment of land protection priorities that considers landscape-wide habitat
connectivity within and between jurisdictions.
CHATHAM-CARY
The Chatham County Town of Cary Joint Land Use Plan (2012,last amended 2016)prioritizes a
natural buffer along either side of the American Tobacco Trail(ATT)right-of-way(consistent with the
Town of Cary's Land Development Ordinance)and,where needed, supplemental plantings to achieve an
opaque or semi-opaque buffer. The buffer does not apply to existing development plans.
DURHAM-ORANGE-CHAPEL HILL
Priorities from the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan (199 1) and County/Town resolutions
include(adopted as comprehensive plan amendments by Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill,
and"in concept"by Durham City-County):
• From the resolution: Overland areas between watersheds,the 100-year floodplain of New Hope
Creek and Mud Creek, and a 200-foot-wide corridor between Duke Forest and Eno River State
Park. Corridor areas are shown in a map attached to the resolution.
• From the master plan: The stream course, 100-year floodplain,20%slopes adjacent to
floodplains,the remaining land between the top of a slope and the nearest road or existing
development,the NC 751 Scenic Road, larger tracts of particular historic, educational, or
recreational value (open space anchors), and protection of wildlife via mapped wildlife protection
areas
• The plan further states, "...strict protection of 20% slopes would result in a patchwork of isolated
areas too small to serve as habitat or survive over time. Therefore,it was determined that in
keeping with the environmental,recreational, and educational purposes of this Plan, a buffer 200'
wide should be preserved adjacent to certain floodplains as indicated in the appropriate
components. This buffer includes much of the steep slopes..."
• Specific sites recommended by the plan include:
o New Hope Creek from NC 54 north and west to Erwin Road in Orange County
o Dry Creek from New Hope Creek on the north side of Chapel Hill-Durham Boulevard
west to Erwin Road and the future Chapel Hill greenway
o Mud Creek from New Hope Creek north to NC 751
o Connections between Mud Creek-NC 751 and Eno River State Park along NC 751 and
Orange County roads(to the west)
o Sandy Creek from New Hope Creek on the south side of Chapel Hill-Durham Boulevard
northeast across the Boulevard to NC 751
More detailed recommendations for each site are provided in the plan. The plan lists 1,802 acres to be
protected(1,699 by acquisition or donation,the rest by conservation easement). Maps in the plan show
the areas recommended for protection.
30 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
44
CHATHAM COUNTY
Plan Chatham(2017)
The Conservation Design land use district prioritizes Big Woods NHNA and a connector to the Haw
River. The plan also suggests studying the feasibility of establishing a nature preserve on the county-
owned land along Terrell's Creek adjacent to Crawford-Dairy Road.
Big Woods Conservation Design Guide (2017)
The design guide includes the following recommendations:
• The county should prepare a map of a proposed connected system of conservation space for the
county.
• Chatham County and the Triangle Land Conservancy should partner with interested landowners
to permanently protect wildlife hubs and corridors, such as the Big Woods NHNA.
• Where appropriate,consider the use of bottomless culverts, spanning bridges, or other crossing
structures to enable the movement of wildlife. This may be especially effective in avoiding
impacts to aquatic habitats.Also, consider locating wastewater treatment systems, such as
community septic systems or land application areas,outside of key habitat hubs and corridors.
• Identify areas targeted for improved open space, such as greenways,that provide recreational
opportunities and alternative transportation options while functioning as wildlife corridors. Such
opportunities exist between Bynum,the Big Woods NHNA, and Jordan Lake Game Lands.
• Define the types of resources that should be considered Primary Conservation Areas and
Secondary Conservation Areas.
• Recognize opportunities to protect large,intact open space areas so that as development occurs,
they continue to extend contiguously across property boundaries to maintain wildlife corridors
and connect habitat hub areas.
DURHAM CITY-COUNTY
Durham Comprehensive Plan(2016)
A priority in the comprehensive plan is to restrict uses adjacent to Eno River State Park to those
compatible with recreational uses, such as residential uses and public and private recreation and open
space.
Durham Urban Open Space Plan (2017)
Priorities include:
• For District 4: Better connectivity between planned trails,riparian corridors, and the ATT.
• For District 5: Develop greenways with linear open space connecting NCCU,Hayti Heritage
Center, and Downtown. Foster linear open space connections to Burton Park including stream
restoration and tree canopy along the proposed Burton Creek Trail. Preserve and enhance larger
tracts of forest in stream valley areas. Create larger corridors to connect Burton Creek and
Campus Hills Park. Green connectors could be made to NCCU and Durham Tech that would
allow for flexible use of open space.
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 31
45
ORANGE COUNTY
Lands Legacy Program Action Plan 2018-2020
• Action plan objectives include:
o High-priority Natural Areas(NHNAs) adjacent to existing conservation lands
o Collaboration with towns for open space acquisition, including trails, greenways, and
connecting important open space
• Priority projects include:
o Upper Eno Preserve—lands adjacent to 7-Mile Creek and trail link to Riverwalk
o Farmland easements—priority water supply watersheds and riparian buffers
o Jordan Lake Headwaters Preserve
o Corridors between New Hope Creek and Eno River
• Acquisition objectives include riparian buffers for the Upper Eno River,Upper New Hope Creek,
Bolin Creek, and others
New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan: Proposals for Linking Duke Forest and Eno River
State Park(1993)
Priorities include:
• To protect a 200-foot wildlife corridor running from Eno River State Park to Duke Forest along
Rhodes Creek and parallel to Southern Railway
• A wildlife underpass at the I-85/US-70 interchange
Mountains-to-Sea Trail Route Map (2018)
The Orange County Mountains-to-Sea Trail Route map, adopted in January 2018, shows existing and
proposed sections of the trail through Orange County.
Eno Economic Development District Small Area Plan (2008, amended 2009)
Priorities include:
• Wildlife crossing structure(s)upon redesign of 1-85/US-70 interchange
• To preserve stream corridors and create public trails between developed areas and Eno River
State Park and Duke Forest
Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan(1996)
Priorities include:
• Protection of natural terrain features and sensitive ecological areas, especially Duke Forest,
wildlife corridors along Stoney Creek, and NHNAs identified in inventories
• The Stoney Creek corridor lies 100 meters(328 feet)on each side of Stoney Creek and connects
Duke Forest and the Eno River.
Town of Carrboro
Facilitated Small Area Plan for Carrboro's Northern Study Area(1999)
The Land Use Plan Map for the Northern Study Area proposed potential locations of four new parks (as
recommended in the town's Recreation and Parks Master Plan),three of them accessible from the
proposed Bolin Creek greenway. In particular,the plan focuses on aiming for more than a small 10-acre
park on UNC's Horace Williams Tract,to encompass natural areas within the Bolin Creek floodplain and
a remaining hardwood forest stand.
32 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
46
The plan explicitly requires preservation or strict limitation of development in natural areas along the
Bolin Creek basin, in the Meadow Flats area, and in other sensitive environmental areas identified in the
plan's Environmental Constraints Map.
Conservation Areas in the Upper Bolin Creek Watershed(2005)
The town adopted this map of proposed conservation areas as a guide, stating"Conservation areas shown
on the map will be preserved to the extent required by the Town of Carrboro Land Use Ordinance."The
proposed conservation areas were mapped according to existing conservation lands and open space as
well as conservation areas as defined in the town's Land Use Ordinance.
Recreation and Parks Comprehensive Master Plan Update for the Town of Carrboro (2006)
The recreation and parks action plan suggests a focus on land acquisition for the Bolin Creek and Morgan
Creek greenways and designation of portions of these stream corridors as"Natural Areas"or"Nature
Preserves".
Town of Chapel Hill
Central West Small Area Plan(2013)
A priority in the plan is to maintain(or reestablish if needed)riparian buffers along streams with
sufficient allowance for wildlife corridors.
Chapel Hill 2020 Comprehensive Plan,Future Focus Area 6 (2012)
Priorities include:
• To promote greenways,particularly along and near creeks (Areas 1, 2, 3 on Focus Area map).
• To maximize permanent preservation of open space(Areas 2, 3 on Focus Area map).
WAKE COUNTY
Corridor Acquisition Priorities from the Wake County Open Space Acquisition Corridors map (2008)
include the Beaver Creek Corridor(acquisition priority)with some"partnership"tracts, and a couple of
"partnership"tracts on the tributary north of Beaver Creek
Municipal priorities from the Wake County Consolidated Open Space Master Plan (2006)include:
• For Cary: The planned open space/greenways map. Cary's goal is 12,000 acres of open space
(both public and private).
• For Apex: "acquiring 112 acres of active and 70 acres of passive recreation lands", "acquiring up
to nine specific Resource Conservation Area tracts", and"...developing the Beaver Creek
Greenway and the Lexington Greenway..."
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 33
47
EXISTING POLICIES AND ORDINANCES
Review and synthesis of planning documents, ordinances, and spatial data revealed a set of underlying
elements relevant to landscape corridor planning and protection,which can be organized into four general
categories: natural resources protection, land use and development,planning and collaboration, and
transportation. The results of this review, organized by jurisdiction, are presented as a resource that can be
cross-referenced with other jurisdictions,the corridor analysis results,and the recommendations in this
report,which can help identify opportunities for ensuring landscape habitat connectivity through specific
policies, ordinances, incentives,processes, and collaboration. Official documents should be consulted for
additional information. A list of documents reviewed is provided in Appendix D of this report.
CHATHAM-CARY
The Chatham County Town of Cary Joint Land Use Plan (2012, amended 2016) envisions that the
western Cary/eastern Chatham County area should remain rural and provides for a rural buffer that limits
water and sewer services to help achieve this vision. This plan also calls for the creation of parks and
greenways in this area.
DURHAM-ORANGE-CHAPEL HILL
The New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan and its appendices(199 1)were reviewed.
Appendix B provides a joint resolution"to Preserve a Corridor of Open Space Connecting New Hope
Creek with the Eno River Through Orange and Durham Counties"that was passed by the elected boards
of Orange County,Durham City-County, and the Town of Chapel Hill. This resolution states, "Therefore,
Be It Resolved that the jurisdictions...support the following: 1. The preservation of a corridor of public
open space linking New Hope Creek with the Eno River, including the 100-year floodplain of New Hope
and Mud Creeks and a 200' wide corridor connecting the Duke Forest Divisions to the Eno River State
Park through Orange and Durham Counties, as shown conceptually on the attached map. 2. Each County
and the municipalities within will support and fund the project in a proportionate manner. 3. The
Administration of each jurisdiction is directed to prepare more detailed plans for this project, including
identifying the exact route,the amount and location of land and easements to be preserved, developing a
preservation plan, identifying possible funding sources, and preparing a timetable for completion."
The full plan,which was adopted by Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill and adopted in concept
by Durham, contains more detailed recommendations and protection priorities(see the Existing Land
Protection Priorities section in this report).
This plan established a multi jurisdictional advisory committee,the New Hope Creek Corridor Advisory
Committee,to help guide conservation efforts by the four jurisdictions and to monitor progress
periodically,which has continued to the present day. The presence of this advisory committee since 1991
has provided historical context and continuity that helps the four jurisdictions adhere to the plan's policies
and priorities in a changing environment.
ORANGE-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO
The Orange-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement(1987, last amended 2015) and Joint Land
Use Plan(1986, last amended 2015)were reviewed.
The Joint Land Use Plan indicates that the county's Resource Protection Areas overlay should,in the
Joint Planning Areas, "form the basis for a comprehensive parks and open space system which provides
34 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
48
the framework within which other land use categories are to function."The plan reiterates the New Hope
Creek Corridor Open Space Areas,which are relevant for the county and Chapel Hill. The Facilitated
Small Area Plan for Carrboro's Northern Study Area is"specifically incorporated by reference"in the
Joint Land Use Plan and"...supersedes any provisions of this Plan that are inconsistent with the Small
Area Plan with respect to the...Transition Area."
CHATHAM COUNTY
Chatham County's land use and related ordinances as well as the following plans were reviewed: Plan
Chatham (the Chatham County comprehensive plan) (2017),Land Use Strategic Plan (1999), and
Chatham County, North Carolina Agricultural Land Use Plan (2009).
At the time of this document, Chatham is beginning to revise its ordinances to meet the goals laid out in
Plan Chatham.
NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION
Chatham County has integrated natural resource protection throughout Plan Chatham,the comprehensive
plan,by including open space protection and landscape connectivity in its conservation goals and as part
of its economic, climate resiliency,parks and recreation,transportation,housing,public works/utilities,
and community health goals(open space protection is also a goal in Chatham's earlier Land Use Strategic
Plan and Agricultural Land Use Plan). The county has set a goal to protect an additional 20,000 acres of
land by 2040.Within the goal to "conserve natural resources",multiple strategies that aim to protect and
connect important natural areas are recommended throughout the plan, including:
• Encourage development design that preserves unique natural features on sites. Examples include
wildlife hubs and corridors,mature forest,hedgerows,rare habitats,riparian areas, drainage-ways
(above USGS-defined"blue line"streams).
• Encourage development design to preserve forest cover and additional uplands.
• Protect NHNAs,habitat hubs, and wildlife corridors through voluntary reservation, acquisition
and partnerships with nonprofits and private entities. Study the establishment of a county-led land
acquisition program to assist in local land protection efforts.
• Allow density transfers to protect landscape level green infrastructure(such as greenbelts around
towns and planned activity centers).
• Continue to allow administrative approval for conservation subdivisions up to 15 lots and
consider allowing administrative approval for conservation subdivisions up to a certain size
provided that design criteria are established.
• Allow off-site septic for conservation subdivisions,but discourage for conventional subdivisions
• Website updates and creation of county GIS datasets,including a dataset on wildlife corridors and
hubs.
• Develop open space framework plans for areas with high value natural assets. These plans would
acknowledge the areas identified as valuable natural resources and describe the integration with
public and private development while maintaining the integrity of the resources.Mapped using
GIS,these data could inform decisions about open space preservation in conservation design
(such as in the plan's Natural Resources Element and the Big Woods Concept Plan in the Big
Woods Conservation Design Guide,included as an appendix to Plan Chatham).
o Areas that would be candidate locations for open space framework plans include the Haw
River Corridor, Rocky River Corridor, Southeast Jordan Lake, and other areas
surrounding NHNAs.
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 35
49
• Support well-designed, decentralized wastewater systems in order to support land use goals and
objectives,particularly:
o ...Conservation subdivisions that conserve sensitive natural resources while protecting
property rights
LAND USE& DEVELOPMENT
The Future Land Use and Conservation Map within Plan Chatham shows important natural areas
connected to one another through riparian buffers and/or rural lands. Conservation subdivisions with
connected natural areas and wildlife corridors are the encouraged residential development pattern in rural
and conservation areas identified on the map. Currently, Chatham County has a conservation subdivision
option which provides a density bonus for a natural area set-aside of 40% for the protection of the
following priority natural features:
• NHNAs and Natural Heritage Element Occurrences
• NC Wildlife Action Plan Upland Systems (>_5,000 ft'must exist)
• NC Wildlife Action Plan Lowland Systems (>_5,000 ft2 must exist)
At least 50%of the open space must be configured to be contiguous on-site. Applicants must include a
fragmentation map that helps the applicant configure the open space to be contiguous with important
natural features within 1 mile of the parcel boundaries.
Additionally, Chatham County requires that all developments protect 30-foot, 50-foot, and 100-foot
buffers on ephemeral,intermittent,and perennial streams,respectively. When environmental impact
assessments are required of developments,they must also identify natural communities,wildlife, and
impacts on wildlife.
At the time of this document, Chatham is beginning to revise its ordinances to meet the goals laid out in
the comprehensive plan. The plan has provided specific recommendations to improve the incentives for
conservation subdivisions.Under Strategy 4.4,the plan recommends "modified submittal requirements
for conventional and conservation subdivision design(CSD). Specific amendments to the existing
regulations could include the following:
• Modify procedures to simplify the review and approval steps. The process for designing and
permitting a residential subdivision that adheres to conservation design standards should be no
more arduous or expensive than the process for designing and permitting a conventional
residential subdivision.
• Clarify requirements to eliminate vague language and increase predictability.
• Clearly define specific design criteria to be met.
• Ensure standards are measurable.
• Consider allowing administrative approvals.
• Offer incentives to make CSD a more attractive option than conventional subdivision, especially
for smaller properties (i.e.<50 acres). Consider the following:
o Density bonus adjustments (sliding scale based on parcel size)
o Modifications to street requirements, and/or off-site septic allowances(contingent on soil
survey results).
• Further clarify primary and secondary conservation areas and make datasets available to
applicants to use as a starting point for identifying primary and secondary conservation areas to
be set aside.
• Require conditional use permits for conventional subdivisions in Conservation Areas.
36 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
50
The plan also includes a conservation design guidance document,the Big Woods Conservation Design
Guide, as an appendix.Using the Big Woods Upland Forest NHNA and adjacent wildlife corridors as an
example, the guide outlines how to design conservation subdivisions to ensure priority natural areas are
conserved and connected in ways that minimize habitat fragmentation.
PLANNING &COLLABORATION
Plan Chatham recommends that the county"partner with state and local governments and non-profit
organizations to increase access to protected lands and unique natural features."
TRANSPORTATION
Chatham County does not address habitat fragmentation in the transportation section of its comprehensive
plan,but Policy 7 is to"preserve rural character through appropriately designed transportation
infrastructure in areas designated as Rural,Agriculture and Conservation on the Future Land Use and
Conservation Map."The plan does recommend that greenways connecting open space be a key piece of
the transportation future of the county. Trails and greenways are important components of many
community development goals within the plan.
DURHAM CITY-COUNTY
Durham City-County's unified development ordinance and the following plans were reviewed: the
Durham Comprehensive Plan (2016),Durham County Open Space Corridor System plan(1993),Durham
Urban Open Space Plan(2017), and New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan (1991).
At the time of this report,Durham is beginning an update of its comprehensive plan and is seeking further
information to enhance its environmental protections.
NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION
Durham has several policies in the Durham Comprehensive Plan that aim to identify and protect natural
resources, especially streams,wetlands,and areas identified in the Natural Heritage Inventory or in open
space plans for the county. Strategies to protect these resources include:
• Collaboration with partners to acquire lands
• Use of existing documents,plans, and data, such as NCNHP inventory data,to guide priorities
• Restoration of streams and wetlands
• Development of an open space coordination group, "including the Durham Open Space and Trails
Commission and various organizations and agencies involved in open space preservation", to
improve collaboration in open space preservation. (The Durham Open Space and Trails
Commission also provides open space fund-raising support and matching grants program
assistance.)
In 1993,the Durham County Open Space Corridor System plan set the stage for completion of open space
plans for individual"natural area corridors"along major streams in Durham. The plan established policies
to support the open space corridor system, including:
• Working with landowners to preserve corridor areas
• Supporting private and public-private efforts
• Cooperating with other public agencies
• Coordinating city and county efforts
• Educating the public on the value of river and stream corridors.
In order to coordinate the Durham Comprehensive Plan with open space planning,the city and county
formally adopted(in concept)the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan (199 1) and other open
space plans within the city-county(and any future updates of these plans). The New Hope Corridor Open
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 37
51
Space Master Plan identifies critical environmental areas, including the stream course, adjacent
floodplains, steep slopes(defined as 20%or greater) adjacent to floodplains,larger tracts of particular
historic, educational, or recreational value(open space anchors),and the NC 751 Scenic Road
(designation and some acquisition),and recommends they be protected through easements or fee-simple
acquisition.
LAND USE& DEVELOPMENT
The Durham Comprehensive Plan establishes land use and development policies and strategies to protect
natural resources,including:
• A development review process that encourages developers to choose conservation subdivisions,
infill development,planned developments, cluster developments, and other means to avoid
impacting important natural areas, including NHNAs
• Regular update and maintenance of NCNHP data by the planning department
• Restriction of land uses near protected lands to minimize impacts to recreation. In particular,the
plan restricts uses adjacent to Eno River State Park to those compatible with recreational uses.
• Protection of undisturbed,naturally vegetated stream buffers and prohibition of most
development activities within stream buffers.
The earlier Durham County Open Space Corridor System plan established related policies,including:
• Encouraging clustered development away from natural areas
• Requiring inclusion of open space in new developments
Article 8,Environmental Protection of Durham's UDO provides natural resource protections to minimize
impacts of developments on the environment, including streams and wetlands, steep slopes,and,through
conservation subdivisions,Natural Heritage Inventory sites and defined conservation areas, as follows:
Stream and wetland buffers
Minimally,the UDO requires developments to protect an undisturbed,naturally vegetated,buffer of at
least 50 feet on intermittent and perennial streams, including modified natural streams. In watershed
protection overlay areas, such as Eno River and Jordan Lake,the buffer for perennial streams is widened
to 150 feet in watershed critical areas and 100 feet in watershed protection areas.
While acknowledging the pre-eminence of Federal and State identification and regulation of wetlands,
Durham requires at least 25-foot buffers around the perimeter of wetlands 1 acre or greater in size.
Steep slopes
Except in the Patterson Place Compact Neighborhood Tier,the steep slopes ordinance limits grading to no
more than 15%of the steep slope area on the tract. Land disturbance solely for the purpose of public
right-of-way is exempt from this limit. A residential density credit is provided for the amount of land
designated as steep slopes. Steep slopes are defined as areas with a natural grade of 25% or more, an area
of 5000 square feet or greater, and located within 200 feet of any floodway fringe or perennial stream or
within 100 feet of an intermittent stream.
In the Patterson Place Compact Neighborhood Tier,which is adjacent to and includes portions of the New
Hope Creek Corridor designated in the New Hope Corridor Open Space Plan, grading of any portion of
steep slopes is prohibited. In addition, "The only allowed disturbance shall be unpaved walking paths and
foot trails constructed with minimal disturbance of tree roots and existing vegetation.No tree eight inches
dbh [diameter at breast height] or greater shall be removed for the construction of the trail." Steep slopes
here are defined as areas with a natural grade of 15% or more, an area of 2500 square feet or greater, and
located within 200 feet of any floodway fringe or perennial stream or within 100 feet of an intermittent
stream. Development within this tier must conform to adopted plans,including specifically the New Hope
Corridor Open Space Plan.
38 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
52
Open space within conservation subdivisions
Developments proposed for areas identified in the Natural Heritage Inventory should use by-right
conservation subdivision design to protect significant natural features.
Conservation subdivisions are required to protect 50%of the site as open space. Most of the open space
(80%) should consist of features identified as a primary conservation areas. Secondary conservation areas
and other open space can be included only after primary conservation areas comprise 80% of required
open space.
Primary conservation areas are defined in order of priority as floodplains;riparian buffers;jurisdictional
wetlands and their buffers; other water bodies; slopes greater than 25%and at least 5000 square feet in
size; mature hardwood forests at least 1 acre in size; wildlife corridors,wildlife habitats, and other
important sites.
Secondary conservation areas are defined in order of priority as mature forests at least 12,000 square feet
in size; slopes greater than 20%unless identified as a primary conservation area; large,healthy individual
trees; and some pedestrian trails. Other conservation areas include,but are not limited to,naturally
vegetated areas, or areas re-vegetated to appear naturally vegetated,that are not primary or secondary
conservation areas.
PLANNING &COLLABORATION
The Durham Comprehensive Plan explicitly recognizes the need for the planning department to prevent
habitat fragmentation by"... develop[ing] a plan to interconnect open and green spaces where possible,
including many of the larger areas designated for open space in open space plans and large undeveloped
large tracts to reduce isolation resulting from fragmentation."
The comprehensive plan directs that:
• "The City Parks and Recreation Department and the County Engineering and Environmental
Services Department shall coordinate park development and open space protection programs with
the Eno River State Park and the Eno River Association."
• "The City-County Planning Department, City Parks and Recreation Department and the County
Engineering and Environmental Services Department shall coordinate Durham's open space plans
with other jurisdictions' plans and other regional open space initiatives."
• "The City and County shall continue coordination with the surrounding jurisdictions of Cary,
Chapel Hill,Morrisville,Raleigh, Orange County, and Wake County in planning efforts..."
• "Durham City and County shall support State open space efforts, such as the...Mountains to Sea
Trail,by coordinating their open space preservation efforts with the State."
• "The County Engineering and Environmental Services Department shall work collaboratively
with the Durham Open Space and Trails Commission,local land trusts,the City Department of
Parks and Recreation, and other community organizations to increase the amount of open space
preserved."
TRANSPORTATION
The comprehensive plan supports the need to work with NCDOT to build wildlife passages under or over
roads. The Durham Urban Open Space Plan recommends using riparian corridors as greenways to
increase connectivity across the urban part of Durham.
ORANGE COUNTY
Orange County's unified development ordinance and the following plans were reviewed: Orange County
Comprehensive Plan 2030(Land Use and Natural& Cultural Systems elements) (2008,updated 2012),A
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 39
53
Lands Legacy Program for Orange County(2000),Lands Legacy Program Action Plan 2018-2020, and
Orange County Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2030(2014).
NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION
The Orange County Comprehensive Plan 2030 includes natural area resource preservation as one of the
Board of County Commissioners' 8 Planning Principles. Specifically, "protection of the County's natural
areas, including forests,wildlife habitat, and other important open spaces should be a priority. The
County should work with regional and local organizations,the towns, and private landowners to promote
and achieve preservation of the County's important natural resources."
The Natural& Cultural Systems Element focuses on a systems approach to natural area and natural
resource conservation.
• Goal 7 is a balanced and healthy diversity of plant and animal populations.
• Goal 8 is to establish networks of protected natural, cultural, and agricultural lands.
• The Natural Areas,Wildlife Habitat, and Prime Forests component provides"direction and
guidance for future land protection efforts in the County."The objective was,at the time,to
protect 10%of the county by 2010.
Under Goal 7:
• Objective NA-1 is to"conserve high-priority natural areas and wildlife habitats, including
wetlands,rivers and streams, floodplains, steep slopes,prime forests,wildlife corridors, and other
critical habitats."
• Objective NA-2 is to"conduct more frequent updates to the County's inventory of natural areas,
and include previously unsurveyed areas of the County."
• Objective NA-3 is to"develop a more detailed and consistent methodology for monitoring
changes in forest cover throughout the County, and specifically the extent of mature hardwood
forest."
• Objective NA-5 is to"prohibit development that would cause adverse impacts on highly
significant natural areas and wildlife habitat."
• Objective NA-8 is to"encourage forest management practices on both public and private land
that minimize disruption and fragmentation of intact hardwood forests."
Under Goal 8:
• Objective NA-12 is to"establish a system of nature preserves that protect large areas of
undeveloped land(including significant natural areas) surrounded by low-density development
and working farms and managed forests."
• Objective NA-15 is to"protect land in and around biologically significant areas, and connections
between these areas,to allow for the maintenance of native wildlife and plant populations and
their functional relationships."
To guide natural area resource preservation,the comprehensive plan includes,as appendices,Lists of
Significant Plant and Animal Species in Orange County,Lists of Rare Plant and Animal Species in
Orange County, and a Map of Natural Areas and Macrosites.
The Lands Legacy Program Action Plan 2018-2020 sets and continues the program's land acquisition and
protection priorities (see the Existing Land Protection Priorities section in this report for 2018-2020
priorities).
In the Parks and Recreation Element:
• Objective PR-1.1 is to"acquire and/or retain public ownership of parks,recreation facilities,
open space, and conservation areas that will serve Orange County."
40 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
54
• Objective PR-5.4 is to"encourage development of a system of private open space and
conservation areas, including nature preserves,parks, linear parks, and scenic vistas compatible
with the character of Orange County."
LAND USE& DEVELOPMENT
In the Land Use Element:
• Goal 1 sets the goal of sustainable growth, including environmentally responsible growth.
o Objective LU-1.1 emphasizes locating higher intensity/high density residential and non-
residential development to avoid areas with protected natural and cultural resources.
• Goal 2 is to create land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and features,
and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community character.
o Objective LU-2.2 is to continue to protect valuable resource land such as...natural
areas...through the County's Lands Legacy Program, and by directing incompatible
development away from these areas through land use and zoning policies and regulations.
• Goal 5 is to keep life,health, and property safe from hazards.
o Objective LU-5.1 prohibits new development in special flood hazard areas.
Under Natural& Cultural Systems Element, Goal 8:
• Objective NA-10 is to"require that all major subdivisions...include within their boundaries open
space suitable for low-impact recreation and wildlife habitat."
• Objective NA-13 "promote[s] clustering of residential development and dedication of large areas
of undisturbed land for low-impact recreational use by residents and for wildlife habitat. Where
feasible,these areas should be contiguous to neighboring tracts of undisturbed land."
• Objective NA-14 is to"encourage developers and neighborhood associations to protect
undeveloped community open space through formal conservation agreements."
For the Future Land Use classification map in Appendix G, Land Use Classification and Overlay
Locational Criteria, land was evaluated to determine the suitability of certain locations to contain various
land uses.Areas that are determined to be protected land uses are based on an evaluation of steep slopes,
floodplains,rare species, and historic and cultural features. Resource Protection Areas (as an overlay) are
"located in areas that contain significant and natural areas and wildlife habitats, including connecting
wildlife corridors, as identified by local, state, or federal inventories." The New Hope Corridor Open
Space overlay is designated to contain areas of"great diversity, including regionally rare plant species,
hardwood trees of size and number uncommon for their location, and important wildlife habitat."All
other land use classes are to be purposefully"located away from sites that would,if developed,create a
threat to unique or endangered species as identified by the state or federal government."
Under Section 7, General Design Standards of the Orange County UDO,the Planning Department is
directed to review development proposals to ensure that the land is suitable for the development being
proposed. Suitability criteria include potential for flooding, soil drainage, drainage patterns, slope,historic
sites,maximum anticipated levels of land disturbance for the project and all proposed individual lots, and
unique natural features. Developments proposed for areas identified in Natural Heritage Inventories must
include strategies to minimize impacts to the resources, such as clustering lots, conservation easements,
etc. Open space is required of developments as well. Under Flexible Developments, 7.12,protected
common open space must be set aside at a minimum of 33% and a maximum of 60%of the development
site, depending on minimum residential lot size. The open space layout should provide"connectivity and
compatibility with both existing development and other types of open spaces."The types of common
open space provided in Flexible Developments include Primary Open Space Areas and Secondary Open
Space Areas. Primary Open Space areas must be included toward the 33%minimum open space
requirement, and Secondary areas can be included only after all Primary areas have been included.
Primary Open Space Areas include:
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 41
55
• Wetlands and adjoining land areas identified as part of the NWI map for the county,the county's
USDA soil survey,the county natural areas inventory, a required environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement, and/or a site analysis by a relevant professional using data from
USAGE.
• Areas identified in the Orange County"Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats"
• 100-year floodplains and alluvial soils identified as part of the county's flood map and/or soil
survey.
• Steep slopes, defined as slopes greater than 25% and identified as part of the county's soil survey
or a site analysis by a relevant professional using data from USACE.
• Natural areas and/or wildlife habitats identified as part of the county's natural areas inventory, a
required environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, and/or an independent
study conducted by a trained botanist and/or biologist.
• Wildlife corridors as identified in the county's comprehensive plan.
• Historic and archaeological sites.
Secondary Open Space Areas can be chosen for access or composition, and compositional criteria
include,but are not limited to:
• Woodlands, including lands for production of timber where selective harvesting and wildlife
enhancement practices are used.
• Farmland.
• Slopes of 15%to 25%.
• Greenbelt linkages within an approved county greenbelt program.
Orange County ordinances also require 50-foot buffers on perennial and intermittent streams, although in
protected and critical watershed areas,the buffer will be wider depending on ground cover and slope
steepness,up to 150 feet.
PLANNING &COLLABORATION
The Land Use Element of the comprehensive plan emphasizes intergovernmental coordination of land
use planning to create a sustainable land use pattern, including courtesy review and continuing an active
dialogue with the towns.
The Natural& Cultural Systems Element provides many policies to encourage the county to work with
partners to achieve its natural resources protection goals:
• The Natural Areas,Wildlife Habitat, and Prime Forests component calls for"a comprehensive
natural areas and open space conservation plan"that addresses threats to important natural areas
and rare species, connectivity between protected areas,coordination with neighboring counties
and conservation partners,and the sustainable management of critical natural resources (Goal 8,
Objective NA-11).
• "The goals and objectives are the framework for the County to work with local land trusts,
institutions, and private landowners to preserve a natural network of lands in the County and to
ensure long-term environmental sustainability of its natural systems."
• Interjurisdictional Coordination: "Natural and cultural resources know no political boundaries. As
such, coordination both within Orange County government and with other area jurisdictions is of
paramount importance."
• Intragovernmental: "The Commission for the Environment(CFE)is charged to advise the Board
of Commissioners on matters affecting the environment,particularly the topical areas of air
quality,water resources and natural areas/biological resources, as well as environmental
education."
42 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
56
• Intergovernmental: "Coordination of County policies and decisions affecting natural and cultural
resources with other jurisdictions in Orange County includes working with the Towns...and the
City of Durham,to ensure that the interconnectivity of natural resources is recognized and
planned for...The County's Lands Legacy Program strives for close coordination with the other
adjoining local governments. Interconnectivity of natural resource lands,whether for wildlife or
human uses, is a key component and likely to be an area of emphasis for many years to come."
• "In summary, conservation of the natural and cultural resources within Orange County will
require heightened levels of cooperation and collaboration with the other local governments in the
County and the region in future years."
TRANSPORTATION
Small area plans prioritize implementation or improvement of wildlife crossing structures at particular
locations. Lands Legacy Program staff work with NC DOT to implement these structures when
opportunities arise through transportation improvement projects.
Town of Carrboro
The Town of Carrboro's land use ordinance and the following plans were reviewed: Carrboro Vision
2020:Policies through the Year 2020(2000),Facilitated Small Area Plan for Carrboro's Northern Study
Area(1999), and Recreation and Parks Comprehensive Master Plan Update for the Town of Carrboro
(2006).
At the time of this report, Carrboro is in the process of developing a comprehensive plan to guide
achievement of the vision described in Carrboro Vision 2020.
NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION
The Environmental Protection and Promotion section of Carrboro Vision 2020 includes several policies
that either directly or indirectly support the protection of natural areas and wildlife corridors, including:
• Section 5.2,Water
o Policy 5.22: "Carrboro should adopt a strategy and set of policies to protect all of our
creeks, streams,ponds,and lakes."
• Section 5.3, Open Space, Greenways, and Natural Areas
o Policy 5.31: "Carrboro should work to preserve open space and greenways through all
available means, such as direct purchase, conservation easements, donations, and federal
and state grants."
o Policy 5.32: "The town should map a connected series of greenways that are large
enough to serve as wildlife corridors."
• Section 5.6, Farmland Preservation
o Policy 5.61: "The town should adopt incentives to help limit the conversion of farmland
to developed uses that bridge the transition areas. These incentives should be designed to
preserve small farms, farm co-ops, and organic farming within new conservation
subdivisions and elsewhere."
Recreation and Parks policies in Carrboro Vision 2020 promote a network of greenways that supports
wildlife corridors,including:
• Policy 1.11: "The town should encourage and support the development of greenways and
parklands dedicated to public use along streams and easements. There should be a network of
connected greenways throughout the town. These greenways should serve as nature trails, biking
and walking trails,wildlife corridors. All should protect our natural environment."
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 4
57
• Policy 1.14: "The town should practice and encourage ecologically sound and sustainable
maintenance of open space, including parks and greenways."
The Facilitated Small Area Plan for Carrboro's Northern Study Area explicitly requires preservation or
strict limitation of development in natural areas along the Bolin Creek basin,in the Meadow Flats area,
and in other sensitive environmental areas identified in the plan's Environmental Constraints Map.
Goal 2, Objective 2.B. suggests that the town"Investigate and implement various mechanisms for the
acquisition of land for the purposes of providing open space, creating trail and bikeway linkages, and
preserving environmentally sensitive areas." Similarly, Goal 3,which focuses on"conservation of natural
and environmentally sensitive areas,and the protection of environmental quality,"includes as an
objective the"pursuit of land acquisition or dedication strategies to protect important natural areas."
The action plan for the Recreation and Parks Comprehensive Master Plan Update for the Town of
Carrboro suggests a focus on land acquisition for the Bolin Creek and Morgan Creek greenways and
designation of portions of these stream corridors as"Natural Areas"or"Nature Preserves". The plan
outlines greenway guidelines and development criteria that designate environmentally sensitive areas as
"no facility development"or"low impact uses/limited development"areas.
LAND USE& DEVELOPMENT
The development-related sections of Carrboro Vision 2020 include several policies that support the
protection of natural areas and natural resources. The Development section states, as a value that should
guide development,that"Respect for and protection of the natural environment should be integrated into
the town's policies as a high priority in enriching the quality of life." Several Development section
policies support protection of natural areas,open space, and buffers, including:
• Section 2.1,Adverse Effects on Public Health and Safety
o Policy 2.12: "The town should limit development in sensitive areas such as the
watershed,wetlands, and other areas the development of which could adversely affect
water supplies and habitat. The town's restrictions on development within the University
Lake Watershed should be retained and enforced."
• Section 2.2, Preservation of the Natural Environment
o Policy 2.21: "The town should continue to require the preservation and maintenance of
open space when land is developed,to enforce restraints on clear-cutting, and to require
adequate buffers."
o Policy 2.22: "Where development is deemed acceptable,there should be well defined
dense development with areas of well preserved open space."
o Policy 2.23: "The town encourages the planting of native plant species, as well as non-
native species that are not invasive. Removal of invasive species is encouraged. The town
supports education on this topic and encourages the public to become aware of the list of
invasive plant species found in Appendix E-17 of the Town of Carrboro Land Use
Ordinance."
• Section 2.4, Carrboro's Character
o Policy 2.42: "The town should adhere to policies that...retain unspoiled green spaces and
other natural areas."
Economic Development, Section 3.1,Nature of Development, states, "In the interest of environmental
preservation,new commercial development must minimize negative environmental impact,it must
emphasize appropriate buffers, and it must not compromise the integrity of established neighborhoods."
Housing Policy 6.15 supports"...the development of density bonus provisions for projects incorporating
environmentally sensitive development and building practices."
44 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
58
In the Facilitated Small Area Plan for Carrboro's Northern Study Area, Goal 1 promotes"patterns of
growth which minimize negative impacts and maximize positive impacts on the community and the
natural environment."Objectives for this goal include requiring clustered residential development and
pursuing objectives under the plan's environmental quality goal. Implementation measures for this goal
include:
• setting standards for conservation lands and providing density options based on the percentage of
land conserved
• requiring"that all primary conservation areas be protected and designated as open space,
regardless of the percentage of the development this encumbers,unless the strict provisions
required to obtain a variance apply to a particular piece of property"
• providing density incentives and disincentives to encourage conservation subdivisions
• requiring greater detail about natural and cultural features on plans submitted for review
• establishing interactive site plan review procedures that promote early understanding and
planning to conserve a site's sensitive natural resources and contribute to"interconnected open
space network protection."
Goal 3 focuses on"conservation of natural and environmentally sensitive areas,and the protection of
environmental quality."The objectives for this goal include:
• the use of conservation overlay standards to determine site-specific stream buffer widths
• creation of a resource or open space conservation district to prohibit development of natural and
environmentally sensitive areas
• pursuit of land acquisition or dedication strategies to protect important natural areas
• mitigation of development impacts to streams and creeks
• identification of primary and secondary conservation areas as defined in the town's land use
ordinance
Goal 6,"adequate provision of publicly accessible parks and recreation facilities,"focuses on establishing
a system of connected greenways, including requiring"...developers of new subdivisions to lay out and
construct neighborhood trails through their new developments in such a way that they will connect with
and extend the Town's more formal greenway network." This goal also includes the objective of offering
a de facto density bonus to obtain more than a 10-acre park from the UNC-owned Horace Williams Tract,
to consist of natural areas in the Bolin Creek floodplain and an area of hardwood forest. Implementation
measures for this goal include requiring conservation land, open space, and greenways in new
subdivisions to interconnect.
Goal 10,"encourage active farmland preservation,"describes several strategies that could support the
maintenance of corridors that traverse working lands.
The Carrboro Land Use Ordinance,Article IX,Zoning Districts and Zoning Map establishes a
Conservation District"severely restricting development within and adjacent to certain lakes,ponds,
watercourses, streams, creeks, drainage areas, floodplains,wetlands, and other flood-prone areas within
the University Lake Watershed."Article IX also establishes a Village Mixed Use District that includes
open space protection in two of its 10 required rezoning objectives:
• "The preservation of open space, scenic vistas, agricultural lands and natural resources within the
Town of Carrboro and its planning jurisdiction and to minimize the potential for conflict between
such areas and other land uses."
• "The creation of a distinct physical settlement surrounded by a protected landscape of generally
open land used for agricultural, forest,recreational and environmental protection purposes."
A Village Mixed Use rezoning application for property within the Orange-Carrboro Joint Planning Area
"shall be denied if the application is inconsistent with the approved master plan in any substantial way.
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 45
59
...an application for a conditional use permit is inconsistent in a substantial way with a previously
approved master plan if the plan of development proposed under the conditional use permit application
increases the residential density or commercial floor area permissible on the property or decreases or
alters the location of open space areas."
Article XII,Density and Dimensional Regulations provides for"cluster subdivisions"with reduced lot
sizes in exchange for setting aside the land"saved"by reduced lot sizes as open space.
Article XIII,Recreational Facilities and Open Space directs that open space should serve several
objectives,including:
• preservation of environmentally sensitive lands
• preservation of habitat for wildlife
Residential zoning districts,with a few exceptions,must be developed so that at least 40%of the total
area is preserved as permanent open space. Two additional zoning districts must be developed with at
least 20%of the total area preserved as open space. Carrboro defines primary and secondary conservation
areas that must be identified and prioritized for open space in developments.Where primary open space
exceeds 40%of the total area,the development plan should provide for preservation of these additional
areas even if on privately owned lots.Residential subdivisions of fewer than 15 dwelling units or
consisting solely of multi-family, single-room occupancy units are exempt from the open space
requirements. Primary open space includes:
• steep slopes(greater than 25%)
• hardwood areas designated in the Town's GIS
• wetlands as defined pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
• floodplain
• water quality buffers on perennial and intermittent streams
• lakes and ponds
• road buffers
Secondary open space includes:
• slopes greater than 15%but not more than 25%
• wooded areas other than hardwood areas designated in the Town's GIS
• vistas along entranceways to the town
• other areas containing unusual natural features (such as major rock formations)
• 60-foot buffers for streams on the Town's adopted Stream Classification Map
• other environmentally,historically, archeologically significant, or unique areas,including water
quality buffers on ephemeral streams
Article XVI,Part III requires protection of water quality buffers(with some exempt and allowable
activities)in two zones: Zone 1, a streamside zone, should consist of mature forest. Zone 2 is an
undisturbed area intended to protect Zone 1; grading and revegetating of Zone 2 are allowed provided that
the vegetation of Zone 1 is not compromised. Required total buffer width(split equally between Zones 1
and 2)is 100 feet for perennial streams,ponds, lakes, and reservoirs and 60 feet for intermittent streams
and ponds. In the University Lake Watershed,the entire buffer width should consist of Zone 1 buffer.
Ephemeral streams and ponds with a contributing drainage area of at least 5 acres require 15-foot Zone 2
buffers(30 feet within the University Lake Watershed).
PLANNING &COLLABORATION
The transportation-related goal of the Facilitated Small Area Plan for Carrboro's Northern Study Area
includes in its implementation measures two types of coordination: 1) coordination of transportation
planning with Chapel Hill and other relevant agencies and 2)promotion of coordination between
46 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
60
developers for the planning of routes. The Orange-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement
requires the town to coordinate with Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill in the town's
development transition areas and the county's rural buffer zone.
TRANSPORTATION
The Transportation section of Carrboro Vision 2020 and the transportation-related objectives of the
Facilitated Small Area Plan for Carrboro's Northern Study Area do not address wildlife habitat,habitat
connectivity, or corridors.
Town of Chapel Hill
The Town of Chapel Hill's Land Use Management Ordinance as well as the following plans were
reviewed: Chapel Hill 2020 Comprehensive Plan (2012), Chapel Hill Comprehensive Parks Plan (2013),
Greenways Master Plan (2013), Rogers Road:Mapping our Community's Future(2016), and Central
West: Small Area Plan (2013).
At the time of this report,the town is in the process of rewriting its Land Use Management Ordinance and
refining the Future Land Use Map.
NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION
The Chapel Hill 2020 Comprehensive Plan has several goals that directly aim to protect wildlife corridors
and habitats. Most significantly, Goal NOC.3,to "protect, acquire,and maintain natural/undeveloped
open spaces and historic sites in order to protect wildlife corridor,provide recreation and ensure safe
pedestrian and bicycle connections. These spaces could include,amongst other things Significant Natural
Heritage Areas(SNHA)lands adjacent to and connecting various properties like riparian lands, etc.",
directs the Town to implement many actions that the Eno-New Hope Landscape Conservation Project can
support,including:
• Create a comprehensive conservation plan that includes a green print map, addressing streams,
floodplains,wildlife corridors,natural heritage areas, open space, steep slopes, entranceways and
scenic views,tree cover, and farmland
o Determine priority areas for riparian protection and restoration
o Work with Orange County to develop an inventory of natural/undeveloped spaces,
especially those that serve as wildlife corridors
■ Develop wildlife area map including known endangered species
o Determine vulnerable habitats and spaces/places for preservation such as Significant
Natural Heritage Areas and other areas within the town necessary to maintain and uphold
Chapel Hill's distinct balance between people and the natural landscape
• Protect,acquire, and maintain natural/undeveloped spaces for parks,greenways, and community
gardens and protect the quality of the community's waterways and air resources
o Protect the rural buffer established through the Orange County Land Use plan
o Encourage conservation easements to ensure permanent protection
o Ensure that the spaces identified in the Green Print Map are protected when development
is proposed in surrounding areas
Goals NOC.2 and GPNS.7 also support the protection of wildlife corridors and ecosystems.
Connected parks through natural area greenways(minimum 50-feet wide) are a key piece of parks and
recreation development in Chapel Hill, and the Chapel Hill Comprehensive Parks Plan aims to continue
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 47
61
to expand this network to meet their recreation and transportation needs. The Greenways Master Plan
also emphasizes greenways as natural, linear open spaces that provide travel corridors for wildlife.
LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT
Small area plans in areas of priority wildlife corridors call for the protection of natural resources as the
areas develop.Rogers Road:Mapping our Community's Future guides land use in an area identified by
this project as being part of a priority wildlife corridor. This document calls for action that"balances land
conservation with density to reduce suburban sprawl,minimizes disruption to the natural landscape, &
opens [the] environment to people's use and enjoyment."The Central West:Small Area Plan also calls
for"respecting the environment,protecting wildlife,enhancing the area's natural features,preserving the
area's tree-filled character, and implementing stormwater management standards."It also recommends
the"[maintenance or reestablishment] if needed [of] riparian buffers along streams with sufficient
allowance for wildlife corridors."
The town's Land Use Management Ordinance also supports the protection of natural resources in areas of
new development. In Article 3, Zoning Districts, Uses, and Dimensional Standards,the Resource
Conservation District(RCD) "retain[s] open spaces and greenways and to protect their environmentally-
sensitive character,to preserve urban wildlife and plant life habitats from the intrusions of urbanization,"
among other goals. The RCD:
• requires 150-foot buffers on perennial streams and 50-foot buffers on intermittent streams
• allows landowners to transfer their development rights to receiving parcels in other districts
Article 5, Design and Development Standards provides regulations that serve to minimize the impact of
development on the environment, such as the following:
• 5.3.2. Steep Slopes minimizes degradation of slopes greater than 15%
• 5.5. Recreation requires that recreation areas,whether they be for passive or active recreation,
must be configured to be adjacent to other recreation areas
• 5.7.5 Significant Tree Stands protects mature contiguous woodlands to the extent practicable.
PLANNING &COLLABORATION
The Chapel Hill 2020 Comprehensive Plan, Chapel Hill Comprehensive Parks Plan, and Greenways
Master Plan all identify the importance of collaborating with partners to meet its environmental
protection goals and actions. The Orange-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement requires the
town to coordinate with Orange County and the Town of Carrboro in the town's development transition
areas and the county's rural buffer zone.
TRANSPORTATION
Connected parks through natural area greenways(minimum 50-feet wide) are a key piece of parks and
recreation development in Chapel Hill, and the Chapel Hill Comprehensive Parks Plan aims to continue
to expand this network to meet their recreation and transportation needs.
Town of Hillsborough
The Town of Hillsborough's unified development ordinance and the following plans were reviewed:
Strategic Growth Plan (2006),Hillsborough Vision 2030(2015),Parks and Recreation Master Plan
(2007,updated 2009 and 2014), Community Connectivity Plan (2009,updated 2014 and 2017), Churton
Street Strategic Corridor Plan (2006), and the US 70/Cornelius Street Corridor Plan (2007).
48 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
62
NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION
Hillsborough has made natural resources protection a goal in its Hillsborough Vision 2030 and the
Strategic Growth Plan. To do this,Hillsborough Vision 2030 recommends protection of known resources
and to document new resources. It explicitly states that local regulations should adequately"identify and
protect fragile resources."The Strategic Growth Plan calls for the preservation of natural resources by
ensuring that"land use patterns should take forms that preserve these key resources including corridors
and buffers."
LAND USE& DEVELOPMENT
The Strategic Growth Plan identifies the rural buffer as a place where the"extension of public utilities
would be avoided,and where rural and environmental preservation are the main objectives."In the town's
UDO, Hillsborough provides natural resource protection measures in the"Requirements for Watershed
Protection Districts."
• "Natural areas as identified in the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange
County,NC" are identified as environmentally sensitive areas that should be avoided in the
placement of streets, driveways, and buildings.
Under Article 3, Administrative Procedures, 3.5.5 Conditional Subdivisions, development standards
include:
• The identification and protection of existing"irreplaceable natural features"in the site plan as
designated Open Space.
• A minimum of 35% of the land must be set aside for open space
All developments with a required master plan, conditional use permit, or special use permit are required
to set aside a minimum of 10% open space to protect significant natural features. Importantly,the
ordinance calls for open space to be"arranged for contiguity and connectivity within the development
dedicating the open space and to any surrounding dedicated open space for wildlife."
PLANNING &COLLABORATION
Hillsborough Vision 2030 identifies partnerships with local advocacy and nonprofit agencies as a strategy
for protecting and identifying natural resources.
TRANSPORTATION
Hillsborough does not address habitat fragmentation in its transportation plans,nor the dual use of
greenways as wildlife corridors. However,the Parks and Recreation Master Plan does plan to have
connected trails within Hillsborough to provide connectivity for pedestrians.
WAKE COUNTY
Wake County's unified development ordinance as well as the following plans were reviewed: Wake
County Transportation Plan (2003), Wake County Environmental Stewardship Agenda (2006, 2011),
Southwest Wake Area Land Use Plan (2007), Wake County Land Use Plan (last amended 2006), Wake
County Consolidated Open Space Master Plan (2003,2006), Wake County Greenway System Plan
(2017), Wake County Park Facility Master Plan Updates Final Report(2017),and the Comprehensive
Parks &Recreation Master Plan (2008).
At the time of this report,the county is in the process of updating its comprehensive plan(PlanWake). In
addition,Wake County's Open Space Program staff members are currently interested in updating Wake
County's inventory of natural areas with the help of NCNHP.
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 49
63
NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION
Wake County has many policies, in multiple plans,to address natural resources protection. In some cases,
plans specifically aim to protect wildlife habitats and corridors.
In the Wake County Land Use Plan, Goal 5 "encourage[s] the conservation of historical sites,
environmentally significant areas, and important natural and cultural resources", and the first objective
aims to"identify areas,which provide habitat for significant plant or wildlife species or make a
significant contribution to environmental quality" so that they become protected or the landowner is
encouraged to"maintain"them.
In the Southwest Wake Area Land Use Plan,natural resources protection is prioritized in tiers:
• NHNAs are the highest priority for conservation
• Urban Wildlife Conservation Corridors are a secondary priority for conservation
• Other conservation priorities include the American Tobacco Trail greenway and its noted ability
to function as a wildlife corridor if widened to 300 feet
The Wake County Consolidated Open Space Master Plan 2006:
• Envisions the county's open spaces to be a"series of natural,interconnected landscapes that will
protect vital natural resources"and aims to"Identify key parcels of land and corridors that should
be acquired and protected as open space."
• Aims for 30%of the county to be protected as natural areas
• Uses a GIS-based landscape prioritization model verified by expert review. The prioritization
approach is currently under review in advance of Wake County's 2019 bond funds. Current
prioritization criteria include:
o water quality
o drinking water supply watersheds
o headwater streams
o properties near impaired streams
o biodiversity indices
o connectivity between and proximity to all existing Wake County Open Space preserves
o parcel size
• Uses county bond initiatives to fund land and easement acquisition by the Open Space program in
high-priority areas, following a competitive application process from towns, agencies, and land
trusts for specific projects within the county or municipalities.
o Wake County voters overwhelmingly approved a$120 million parks-greenways-open
space protection bond referendum in November 2018 that will be financed over a six-
year period(beginning November 2019), from which approximately$20 million is
allocated for acquisition and protection of key natural areas/open space lands in the
county.
The Open Space program,which implements and administers the master plan,focuses entirely on natural
open space,which is defined in four categories distinguished by levels and placement of human activity
and infrastructure within the natural area.
The Comprehensive Parks&Recreation Master Plan:
• Sets a goal for greenways as a place to protect wildlife habitat(also in the Wake County
Greenway System Plan 2017).
50 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
64
• Considers the protection of lands that"preserve natural resources,wildlife, and help provide
clean air and drinking water"as a core service of the county.
• Aims, in Goal 6,to"commit resources to a regional park system connected by trails and
greenways."
Protected riparian buffers,which can be used as corridors linking large natural areas, are also identified as
an important natural resource to protect in the Environmental Stewardship Agenda and the Southwest
Wake Area Land Use Plan.
LAND USE& DEVELOPMENT
Similarly, in the county's UDO,Wake County provides natural resource protection measures in many
places, including in the following zoning classifications:
• Residential Watershed Districts
• RCOD-1 Resource Conservation Overlay District,
• RCOD-2,Resource Conservation Overlay District 2
These zoning classifications are mostly aimed at protecting water resources by requiring riparian buffers
on perennial streams of 50 feet and 100 feet depending on the district. In practice,these buffer widths can
provide wildlife passage for many species.
Article 5,Lot and Building Standards:
• Allows Cluster and Open Space Development for the protection of 30%of the project as a natural
area.
• Provides a 20%density bonus for developments that protect 65%percent open space.
• In all subdivisions,recommends preservation for important wildlife habitats such as"woodlands,
steep slopes,rock outcroppings,ponds, streams,rivers,and lakes"in the layout and design phase
of subdivision development.
These natural area set-asides, if configured as large, contiguous blocks of wildlife habitat, could create a
network of wildlife habitats.
PLANNING &COLLABORATION
The Comprehensive Parks&Recreation Master Plan states three times that Wake County will
collaborate with partners to achieve its vision for open space protection.
• Collaboration with other local governments and with non-profits is a key strategy in Goal 2 to
ensure that the county maintains and enhances its core services, including natural area protection.
• Goal#6 aims to use partners to help identify land to protect and pool resources to gain that
protection.
• Goal#7 is"To participate in the planning and collaboration of municipal and regional trail and
greenway plans."
TRANSPORTATION
The Wake County Transportation Plan recognizes the impact that the transportation network has on
wildlife corridors and habitats and aims to develop a transportation network that balances the competing
needs of the county.
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 51
65
Town of Apex
The Town of Apex's unified development ordinance and the following plans were reviewed: Town of
Apex Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update(2011),2045 Updated Future Land Use Map(2019),
Town of Apex 2035 Land Use Plan Update I Economic Study and Market Analysis(2016), and Peak Plan
2030(2013).
NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION
Apex's Peak Plan 2030, the comprehensive plan,recommends encouraging"low impact site development
and more ecologically designed and sustainable sites with functional landscapes."
The Advance Apex: The 2045 Land Use Map Update memo identifies the western portion of Apex,where
buffers around Jordan Lake, floodplains, and other natural lands occur, as low-density rural residential
zoning,where there is only 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres.
LAND USE& DEVELOPMENT
Apex's UDO provides specific purposes for its adoption, including the prevention of adverse
environmental impacts and the discouragement of sprawl,which will help reduce habitat fragmentation.
Tools the UDO provides the community to achieve this include:
• Planned Development Districts: development that encourages protection of natural features and
cluster and compact development to the greatest extent possible
• CB Conservation Buffer District: publicly owned natural lands
• Sustainable Development Conditional Zoning District: development that facilitates the restoration
and enhancement of the environment and natural resources
• Watershed Protection Overlay Districts: to protect public drinking water supplies in the Swift
Creek Watershed and the Jordan Lake Watershed
o Provides 100-foot and 50-foot buffers on perennial and intermittent streams,respectively.
In practice,these buffer widths can provide wildlife passage for many species.
In Article 8 General Development Standards,Resource Conservation standards are applicable to all new
development. These standards aim to"to encourage site design techniques that preserve the natural and
cultural environment and enhance the developed environment;to control erosion, slippage, and sediment
run-off into streams and waterways;to increase slope stability; and to protect wildlife habitat and
migration corridors."Resource Conservation Areas (RCAs) in new developments must be located
adjacent to other existing RCAs or natural features and be composed of the following priority undisturbed
natural areas: riparian or floodplain habitats, forests, steep slopes, significant plant and wildlife habitat,
scenic views,rock outcrops, etc. Measures are included to provide alternative RCAs when these natural
features do not exist. The size of RCAs is determined by the presence of resources and Town Council.
PLANNING &COLLABORATION
There are no policies to encourage planning and collaboration to protect Apex's natural resources.
TRANSPORTATION
The Town of Apex Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update aims to invest in a transportation network
that supports the protection of natural resources. Connected parks and greenways are mentioned many
times as a way to provide multimodal transportation. The plan aims for greater connectivity of collector
streets,while also minimizing impacts to natural resources.
52 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
66
Town of Cary
The Town of Cary's Land Development Ordinance and the following plans were reviewed: the Cary
Community Plan (2017),Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Master Plan (2012), and Parks,
Recreation & Cultural Resources Master Plan (2003).
NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION
Cary has three plans that address natural resources protection. In some cases,plans specifically aim to
protect wildlife habitats and corridors. In addition, in October 2019 more than three-quarters of voters
approved a bond financing referendum that will provide $112 million needed to finance parks-greenways-
open space protection projects.
Cary's comprehensive plan,the Cary Community Plan, under its Natural Resource Goals aims to:
• "Continue to protect areas that are ecologically important and have a high wildlife habitat value."
• "Work with developers to set aside important open space that provides trail connectivity,wildlife
habitat corridors, and water quality protection."
The plan also has a policy statement to:
• "Protect and Restore Open Space and the Natural Environment: Protect and restore
environmentally significant areas and either preserve or create green infrastructure throughout the
Town and within the built environment."
o Notably,the intent of this policy is to manage and protect natural communities,reduce
forest fragmentation, and provide corridors for wildlife. It specifically aims for
"interconnected ecosystems."
The Parks, Recreation & Cultural Resources Master Plan (2003) includes goals related to natural
resources protection:
• Goal 6 is to protect wetlands,woodlands and other natural areas and wildlife habitats as green
infrastructure.
• Goal 7 is to provide facilities that honor and enhance Cary's open space by providing natural
areas and preserves,buffers and linkages to the overall open space system.
o Approximately one-third of lands in new park development should be set aside to be held
in their natural condition and should carry a stewardship plan.
Under Chapter 7: Park Recommendations,the plan recommends that:
• "The town [should] evaluate currently owned property and new acquisitions to preferentially set
aside Conservation Areas(includes Preserves,Natural Areas, and Greenway Corridors)."
The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Master Plan (2012) contains the most comprehensive
natural resource protection policies and actions, especially as it relates to reducing habitat fragmentation:
• Under GOAL 1,regarding types of parks in Cary,the goal calls for the protection of"areas that
are ecologically important and have a high wildlife habitat value (e.g.,riparian corridors, forests,
large sections of early successional habitat)."The following actions are recommended:
"Utilize conservation planning tools to prioritize high value natural resources to acquire for
preservation .... Acquisition criteria include:"
o Broad corridors when possible
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 53
67
o Connectivity and adjacency to larger natural areas(e.g.,Jordan Lake, Lake Crabtree,
Umstead State Park, etc.)
o Connectivity and adjacency to existing parks and greenway corridors
• Under GOAL 2,where Cary specifically addresses greenways,the plan emphasizes the need to
provide"wildlife habitat along corridors in design and vegetation."
The implementation of these policies and actions could create a network of wildlife habitats and protected
natural resources throughout Cary.
LAND USE& DEVELOPMENT
Cary has policies related to how land is developed in order to protect natural areas.
In the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Master Plan (2012)under Goal 1,to have a diverse park
system,the town aims to:
• Evaluate zoning within open space priority areas (e.g.,land within the National Register Historic
District that is zoned as commercial could be rezoned to residential or another designation to
reduce property tax burden).
• Continue to work with developers to set aside important open space that provides trail
connectivity,wildlife habitat corridors, and water quality protection.
Similarly, in the town's Land Development Ordinance, Cary provides natural resources protection
measures in the following zoning classifications:
• RR: Resource/Recreation District
• The Conservation Residential Overlay District,which has the stated goal of"creat[ing] a
contiguous network of open spaces by linking the open space areas within the residential
development to open space on adjoining land wherever possible."
o This overlay requires a 50-foot buffer on the American Tobacco Trail and provides a
density bonus for larger natural area set-asides.
Under Article 8, Standards for Subdivisions and Uses Requiring Site Plans, "All subdivision development
proposals must identify significant natural features on the sketch plan and prioritize them for
conservation, including wildlife corridors."
Open space must be configured to be contiguous within and beyond the project area,to the maximum
extent feasible.
PLANNING &COLLABORATION
Cary encourages collaboration with other entities in its parks planning. In the Parks, Recreation &
Cultural Resources Master Plan (2003)within Goal 7,the town plans to"work in partnership with Wake
County and adjacent municipalities to identify lands that can provide open space linkages to connect open
space systems and to contribute to the overall County Open Space Plan."In the Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Resources Master Plan (2012), an action under Goal 1 is to pursue partnership opportunities
(e.g.,grant writing, acquisition, and stewardship activities)with Triangle Land Conservancy,Wake Soil
and Water Conservation District, and other conservation organizations.
TRANSPORTATION
The Cary Community Plan recognizes the role that greenways play in the transportation network but does
not address the impacts that roads have on wildlife corridors and habitats.
54 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
68
RECOMMENDATIONS
To varying degrees, the jurisdictions within the project area have recognized a need to protect connected
natural areas and have devised different policies and strategies to address this need. Each jurisdiction can
work with its existing policy framework, in coordination with other jurisdictions, agencies, and
conservation partners, to use the new information and data described in this report to help protect a
connected network of priority wildlife habitat and corridors. The objectives and strategies recommended
below are provided to help ensure that protection of the priority wildlife habitat-corridor network identified
in this project is incorporated into county, town, and interjurisdictional planning and decision-making
processes within the project area.
COMMIT • LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION
Objective Ensure that landscape conservation and corridor protection for wildlife
habitat connectivity are explicitly supported and funded as a joint priority
across jurisdictions.
The primary strategy recommended for this objective is for the jurisdictions in the project area to pass a
joint resolution including,but not limited to,the following elements:
• Establish landscape conservation and landscape corridor protection for wildlife habitat
connectivity as an overarching principle,goal, or strategy(see also Plan and Adopt).
o Develop consensus on shared definitions of landscape conservation,landscape corridor,
wildlife habitat, and other terms critical for effective interjurisdictional coordination.
• Acknowledge the necessity of interjurisdictional coordination to achieve protection of a
functional landscape habitat-corridor network.
• Commit to enact and fund intra-and interjurisdictional landscape corridor planning,protection,
and coordination.
• Acknowledge the importance of following the best available scientific guidelines for landscape
conservation and corridor protection,including the implementation of effective wildlife crossing
structures, as outlined in NCWRC's Green Growth Toolbox and other comprehensive corridor
planning and protection resources.
FOLLOW
Objective Formally authorize and, if possible, require consultation and use of Green
Growth Toolbox guidelines and other authoritative resources for landscape
conservation and corridor protection, including best available science on
wildlife crossing structures.
Strategies include, for example:
• Prioritize land conservation efforts in critical habitat areas and corridors (as identified, for
example, in this project and verified with ground surveys), around identified pinch points, and in
priority corridor areas under high development pressure.
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 55
69
• Communicate with landowners about the importance of their properties for conservation.
• Prioritize land conservation efforts for critical habitat areas and corridors that are adjacent to
major roads and highways,to provide the protection needed to incentivize the provision of
wildlife underpasses in future transportation improvement projects.
• Assess bridges and culverts in critical wildlife corridors for suitability as crossing structures, and
actively work with NCDOT to replace or improve unsuitable bridges and culverts.
PRIORITIZE AND DEFINE
Objective Ensure that landscape corridor protection priorities are identified,
recognized, and incorporated into local land conservation programs and
initiatives, including acquisition by open space programs and conservation
partners.
A comprehensive strategy to achieve this objective includes several action items:
• Evaluate corridor maps and priorities identified in this project with respect to existing protection
priorities and conservation planning tools.
• Incorporate priorities identified from this project's results into existing protection priorities,
strategies, and plans.
• Use the GIS layers from this project to incorporate landscape corridor protection into existing
land conservation planning and prioritization approaches.
• Integrate the information from this project into other conservation plans, such as the Jordan Lake
One Watershed plan,which may eventually provide an additional funding mechanism for
conserving these key properties.
• When needed,verify or update the results from this project with ground surveys.
• Regularly update biological inventory data available for use in land protection and open space
planning, including obtaining NCNHP's quarterly updates to NHNAs and Element Occurrences
and updated SGCN species status or data from NCWRC.
• Conduct biological and ecological inventory of poorly known areas or areas in need of updated
inventory.
• Consider conducting a regional biological and ecological inventory that helps refine the results of
this project and promotes interjurisdictional collaboration through shared conservation objectives
and priorities.
56 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
70
PLAN AND , DO .
Objective Ensure that a clear, explicit path to landscape corridor protection and
funding is enabled in existing and new planning documents, with formal
adoption by governing bodies to increase the likelihood of implementation
and funding.
Recommended strategies for new,updated, or existing plans include:
• Adopt landscape conservation and landscape corridor protection as an overall planning principle,
goal, or strategy in comprehensive plans.
• Adopt or develop a landscape conservation or landscape connectivity plan. Actions to consider
include:
o Adopt this document(or a modified version of it) as a landscape connectivity plan.
o Adopt and incorporate elements of this plan into existing or updated plans, such as
comprehensive, open space, land use, small area, and other plans. Elements to adopt or
incorporate can include:
■ Priority landscape corridor maps and GIS layers from this project.
■ Specific landscape corridor protection priorities identified in this project.
■ Specific recommendations provided in this report.
o Update and expand the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan to include the entire
New Hope Creek-Jordan Lake watershed,in collaboration with relevant jurisdictions and
conservation partners.
■ Alternative: Fund an updated progress assessment based on the original plan.
■ Prioritize connectivity between New Hope Creek-Jordan Lake and adjacent
watersheds, especially the Eno River watershed, and synchronize with existing
corridor or watershed plans.
o Develop an Eno River Watershed Open Space Master Plan,in collaboration with relevant
jurisdictions,the Eno River Association,and other conservation partners.
■ Focus on assessment and completion of the Eno River corridor and,where
necessary,restoration and mitigation of pinch points.
■ Prioritize connectivity between the Eno River and adjacent watersheds,
especially the New Hope Creek-Jordan Lake watershed, and synchronize with
existing corridor or watershed plans.
IMPLEMENT AND ADMINISTER
Objective Ensure that landscape conservation and corridor protection principles and
priorities are integral to planning and development.
Critical steps and strategies for achieving this objective through planning departments include:
For governing bodies and planning department leadership:
• Direct planning staff to develop,if needed, and implement a coordinated set of plans,policies,
ordinances, and procedures focused on landscape conservation and corridor protection.
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 57
71
• Incorporate landscape conservation and corridor protection objectives into planning department
strategic plans.
• Educate staff on the importance of landscape conservation and corridor protection and the use of
conservation planning tools and approaches.
• Fund staff with relevant expertise to serve both county and municipal efforts to achieve landscape
corridor protection(see also coordination strategies below).
For integration with existing land use planning and zoning tools, data, and definitions:
• Evaluate corridor maps and priorities identified in this project with respect to existing planning
tools, including:
o Land use and zoning districts or overlays aimed at natural area,natural resource,
environmental, or open space protection.
o Maps of development constraints,whether regulatory, incentivized, or voluntary.
o Defining criteria for districts, overlays, and constraints.
• Where possible,update districts, overlays, and definitions to better incorporate or synchronize
with landscape corridor protection priorities. Examples include:
o Consider formally adding all or part of the priority corridor areas identified in this project
to an existing resource protection overlay, as a separate category defined for corridor
protection.
o Consider revising open space as well as primary and secondary conservation area
requirements and definitions to include high-priority corridor areas and, in general,
natural open space that is contiguous within and between parcels or development project
boundaries.
• Where possible or necessary, create a separate land use or zoning overlay, or protection category
within an overlay,to enable landscape corridor protection.
For integration with development standards and decision-making processes:
• Revise development standards and incentives to promote effective landscape corridor protection
in development proposals.
o Consult the Green Growth Toolbox and other references based on best available science
for recommended standards and incentives.
• Integrate landscape corridor identification and planning into the development proposal and
review process, including in the initial site selection process(or as early as possible).
• Coordinate planning and development review processes with land conservation or open space
programs and priorities. Possible strategies to ensure an effective communication and advisory
structure include:
o Designate a staff liaison to land conservation or open space programs to ensure
consultation, coordination, and efficiency in pursuing landscape corridor protection
objectives.
o Ensure that conservation data are regularly updated, available, and promoted for use
within planning processes.
o Create a development review advisory committee to provide regular input on
development proposals from departments outside planning,including land conservation
or open space programs.
o Empower a citizen/expert advisory board to advise planning staff on landscape
conservation and corridor protection considerations.
58 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
72
COORDINATE
Objective Ensure successful and timely coordination with other jurisdictions,
government agencies, conservation partners, and funding entities in
pursuing landscape conservation and corridor protection goals.
Strategies include:
• Convene and empower a landscape conservation advisory commission or working group (such as
the Eno-New Hope Landscape Conservation Group)to, for example:
o Support landscape conservation and corridor protection efforts
o Establish landscape conservation goals and targets
o Support fund-raising,pursue joint funding opportunities, or jointly encourage funding
entities to support landscape conservation projects
o Evaluate progress across the project area.
• Work with existing interjurisdictional working groups to communicate and collaborate on
landscape corridor protection priorities,including:
o Work with regional metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)and NCDOT to
integrate wildlife crossing structure priorities into transportation planning and NCDOT
projects.
o Provide a landscape conservation liaison to relevant interjurisdictional working groups.
• Share relevant planning data(especially spatial data layers) and priorities between jurisdictions
and agencies, especially for boundary areas,to better incorporate landscape corridor protection
priorities into site-specific planning decisions.
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 59
73
LIST OF POTENTIAL CONSERVATION PARTNERS
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Chatham County Planning Department
Jason Sullivan,Planning Director
Parks and Recreation Department
Durham County Open Space&Real Estate Division
Jane Korest,Division Manager
Celeste Burns, Open Space&Real Estate Coordinator
City-County Planning Department
Orange County Department of Environment, Agriculture,Parks &Recreation
David Stancil,Director
Natural&Cultural Resources Division
Christian Himi,Land Conservation Manager
Lands Legacy Pro ram
Planning and Inspections
Orange Water and Sewer Authority,Resource Management&
Sustainability
Wake County Open Space Program
Wake County Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Chris Snow,Director
Deborah Fowler, Open Space Manager
Planning, Land Use and Zoning
Town of Apex Planning Department
Parks,Recreation&Cultural Resources
Town of Carrboro Planning Zoning and Inspections
Recreation and Parks
Town of Cary Planning and Development Services
Parks, Greenways and Environment
Town of Chapel Hill Planning and Development Services
Parks and Recreation
Town of Hillsborough Planning Department
Public Space Division
PRIVATE, NON-PROFIT LAND TRUSTS
Ellerbe Creek Watershed haps://www.ellerbecreek.org/
Association Rickie White, Executive Director
Eno River Association http://www.enoriver.org/
Kim Livingston, Director of Conservation& Stewardship
60 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
74
NC Botanical Garden Foundation, haps://ncbg.unc.edu/about/north-carolina-botanical-
Inc• garden-foundation/ncbgf-land-trust/
Triangle Land Conservancy https://www.triangleland.org/
Bo Howes,Director of Conservation& Stewardship
PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
Duke Forest Teaching and https://dukeforest.duke.edu/
Research Laboratory,Duke Sara Childs, Director
University
INTERJURISDICTIONAL PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS AND GROUPS
Capital Area MPO https://www.campo-nc.us/
Wake County and portions of other counties
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro http://www.dchcmpo.org/
MPO
Raleigh Clean Water Initiative https://www.triangleland.org/upper-neuse-clean-water-initiative
Triangle J Council of Governments https://www.tjcog.org/
Jordan Lake One Water Initiative
STATE AGENCIES AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
NC Botanical Garden http://ncbg.unc.edu/
Johnny Randall,Direction of Conservation
NCDOT State Transportation haps://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-
Improvement Program policies/Transportation/stip/Pages/default.aspx
NC Division of Land and Water https://www.ncdcr.gov/about/nature/division-land-and-water-
Stewardship stewardship
Walter Clark,Director
NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund
https://cwmtf.nc.gov/
NC Natural Heritage Program
https://www.ncnhp.org/
Misty Buchanan,Director
NC Division of Parks and https://www.ncparks.gov/
Recreation Parks Planning Program
https://www.ncparks.gov/more-about-us/about-parks-_
recreation/park-planning
Dave Head,Planning Program Manager
Land protection/acquisition
https://www.ncparks.gov/more-about-us/about-parks-
recreation/land-protectionacquisition
George Norris,Program Manager for Land Protection
Eno River State Park haps://www.ncparks.gov/eno-river-state-park
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 61
75
NC Wildlife Resources https://www.ncwildlife.org/
Commission Habitat Conservation Program
Green Growth Program& Toolbox
https://www.ncwildlife.org/Conserving/Pro grams/Green-
Growth-Toolbox
Brooke Massa,Land Conservation Biologist
Partners for Green Growth Program& Technical
Assistance
https://www.ncwildlife.org/Conservin /g Programs/Green-
Growth-Toolbox/Technical-Assistance
Olivia Munzer,Western Piedmont Habitat Conservation
Coordinator
https://www.ncwildlife.org/Conservinp/Programs/Habitat-
Conservation-Pro ram
Land Protection/Acquisition
Brooke Massa,Land Conservation Biologist
FEDERAL AGENCIES
US Army Corps of Engineers— https://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Locations/District-Lakes-and-
Jordan Lake Dams/B-Everett-Jordan/
REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND PROGRAMS
Carolina Wetlands Association http://carolinawetlands.org//
Rick Savage,President
The Nature Conservancy—NC https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/where-we-work/united-
Chapter states/north-carolina/
NatureServe—Southeast Region http://www.natureserve.org/about-us/contact-us
South Atlantic Landscape https://www.southatlanticicc.org/
Conservation Cooperative
Southern Conservation Partners https://www.conservationsouth.org/
Chuck Roe,President
Wildlands Network https://wildlandsnetwork.org/
Ron Sutherland, Chief Scientist
62 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
76
REFERENCES
Abrahamson,Ilana.Fire effects information system(FEIS).US Department of Agriculture,Forest Service,Rocky
Mountain Research Station,Fort Collins,CO.Available from https://www.feis-crs.org/feis .
Bennett,AF. 1999.Linkages in the landscape:the role of corridors and connectivity in wildlife conservation.IUCN,
Gland,Switzerland and Cambridge,UK 254pp.
Bissonette,JA,and P Cramer.2008.Evaluation of the use and effectiveness of wildlife crossings.NCHRP Report
615.National Cooperative Research Program,Transportation Research Board,Washington,DC,USA.
Burger,C,and E Harrison. 1989.New Hope Creek corridor vegetation studies,site descriptions,and field maps.
Appendix E in Coulter Associates and New Hope Corridor Advisory Committee,New Hope corridor open
space master plan, 1991.Report prepared for the City of Durham,Durham County,Orange County,and the
Town of Chapel Hill.
Chatham County.2015.Building footprints GIS shapefile. Current data available from http://opendata-
chathamnc gi sop endata.arc gi s.com/.
Chatham County.2017.Plan Chatham comprehensive plan. Chatham County,NC.Available from
https://www.chathamnc.org/govemment/departments-pro rg ams/plannin /g comprehensive-plan.
Clevenger,AP,B Chruszcz, and K Gunson.2001.Highway mitigation fencing reduces wildlife—vehicle collisions.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 29: 646-653.
Clevenger,AP,and MP Huijser.2011.Wildlife crossing structure handbook.Design and evaluation in North
America.Publication No.FHWA-CFL/TD-11-003.US Department of Transportation,Federal Highway
Administration,Central Federal Lands Highway Division,Lakewood,CO.
Cosgrove,AJ,TJ McWhorter,and M Maron.2018.Consequences of impediments to animal movements at different
scales: a conceptual framework and review.Diversity and Distributions 24:448-459.
Coulter Associates and New Hope Corridor Advisory Committee. 1991.New Hope corridor open space master plan.
Report prepared for the City of Durham,Durham County,Orange County,and the Town of Chapel Hill.
Durham City-County.2017.Building footprints GIS shapefile. Current data available from https://live-
durhamnc.opendata.arc isg com/.
Eno River Association.2019.List of conservation lands supported by Eno River Association conservation efforts.
Available from Eno River Association,Durham,NC.
Environmental Systems Research Institute(ESRI).2015.ArcGIS for Desktop Release 10.4.Redlands,CA.
Environmental Law Institute(ELI). 2003.Conservation thresholds for land use planners. The Environmental Law
Institute,Washington,DC.
Ernest,M and R Sutherland.2017.Prioritizing wildlife road crossings in North Carolina. Wildlands Network,
Durham,NC.Available from hgps://wildlandsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Prioritizing-wildlife-
road-crossings-in-North-Carolina-2017-l.pdf.
Etherington TR.2016.Least-cost modelling and landscape ecology: concepts,applications,and opportunities.
Current Landscape Ecology Reports 1(1):40-53.
Fay,John P.2012.Geospatial Habitat Assessment Toolkit(GeoHAT)version 1.0.Available from
https://sites.duke.edu/johnfay/projects/ eg ohat/.
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 63
77
Gilbert-Norton L,R Wilson,JR Stevens,and KH Beard. 2010. A meta-analytic review of corridor effectiveness.
Conservation Biology 24(3): 660-668.
Haddad,NM,LA Brudvig,J Clobert,KF Davies,A Gonzalez et al. 2015.Habitat fragmentation and its lasting
impact on Earth's ecosystems. Science Advances 1(2): e1500052.
Hagberg,Aric A.,Daniel A. Schult,and Pieter J. Swart.2008. Exploring network structure,dynamics,and function
using NetworkX in Gael Varoquaux,Travis Vaught,and Jarrod Millman,editors,Proceedings of the 7th
Python in Science Conference(SciPy2008).Pasadena,CA,USA.
Hall,SP. 1995.Inventory of the wildlife habitats,movement corridors,and rare animal populations of Durham
County,North Carolina.Report prepared for the Durham Inventory Review Committee and Triangle Land
Conservancy.
Hall, S.2008. Statewide assessment of conservation priorities at the landscape level.NCNHP,NC Department of
Natural and Cultural Resources,Raleigh,NC.
Hall, S,with assistance from B Wichmann.2009. Statewide assessment of conservation priorities at the landscape
level.Upland and interbasin habitats,Eastern Piedmont Region.NCNHP,NC Department of Natural and
Cultural Resources,Raleigh,NC.
Hall, S.2017. Species occurrence database for North Carolina.Unpublished.
Hall, S.2018.Use of landscape/habitat indicator species to identify high priority landscapes in the Eno-New Hope
project area.Unpublished report prepared for the Eno-New Hope Landscape Conservation Group Technical
Subcommittee.
Hall,SP,and MW Boyer. 1992.Inventory of the natural areas and wildlife habitats of Chatham County,North
Carolina.Report prepared for Triangle Land Conservancy and Chatham County in cooperation with NCNHP.
Hall,SP,and RD Sutter. 1999.Durham County inventory of important natural areas,plants and wildlife.Edited by
Pullman,E,and AC Simpson.Report prepared for the Durham County Inventory Review Committee and
Triangle Land Conservancy in association with NCNHP.
Hilty,JA,ATH Keeley,WZ Lidicker,Jr,AM Merenlender,editors.2019. Corridor ecology: linking landscapes for
biodiversity conservation and climate adaptation. Second edition.Island Press,Washington,DC.
Hilty,JA,WZ Lidicker,Jr,AM Merenlender.2006. Corridor ecology:the science and practice of linking landscapes
for biodiversity conservation.Island Press,Washington,DC.
Huijser,MP,P McGowen,AP Clevenger,and R Ament.2008.Best practices manual:. wildlife-vehicle collision
reduction study.Report to US Congress.Federal Highway Administration,McLean,Virginia,USA.Available
from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/hconnect/wvc/index.htm.
iNaturalist.org.2019. iNaturalist research-grade observations.Occurrence datasets for selected species in the project
area accessed on multiple dates in 2018 and 2019 at https://www.inaturalist.org/
Jones,MD,FT van Manen,TW Wilson,and DR Cox.2010.Wildlife underpasses on US 64 in North Carolina:
integrating management and science objectives. Chapter 11 in JP Beckmann,AP Clevenger,MP Huijser,and
JA Hilty,editors, Safe passages:highways,wildlife,and habitat connectivity. Island Press,Washington,DC.
LANDFIRE.2014.Existing vegetation type raster GIS layer,LANDFIRE 2.0.0.US Department of the Interior,
Geological Survey.Available from hgp:Hlandfire.er.usgs.gov/viewer/.
LANDFIRE.2016.LANDFIRE/GAP land cover map unit descriptions.Available from
https://www.landfire.gov/documents/LF-GAPMapUnitDescriptions.pdf.
LeGrand,Jr,HE,assisted by CJ Astey. 1987.Inventory of the natural areas of Wake County,North Carolina. Report
prepared for Triangle Land Conservancy in cooperation with NCNHP.
64 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
78
LeGrand,Jr,HE. 1999.B.Everett Jordan Lake project:inventory for rare,threatened,and endangered species and
natural community inventory.Report prepared for the USACE Wilmington District Natural Resource
Management Section in cooperation with NCNHP.
LeGrand,Jr,HE,with assistance from C Wiecek.2003.An inventory of significant natural areas in Wake County,
North Carolina.Report prepared for Triangle Land Conservancy and Wake County Parks,Recreation&Open
Space in cooperation with NCNHP.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.2005.Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis.Island Press,Washington,
DC.Available from ht!ps://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Synthesis.html.
National Research Council.2005.Effects of roads on ecological conditions.Chapter 3 in Assessing and managing
the ecological impacts of paved roads.The National Academies Press,Washington,DC.Available from
hLtps://doi.org/l0.17226/11535.
NatureServe.No date. Separation distance.Available from
hqp://help.natureserve.orL,/biotics/Content/Record Management/Element_Files/EO Specifications/SPECS Se
paration Distance_de£htm)
NatureServe.2019a. Separation distance for suitable habitat. Glossary in NatureServe Explorer: an online
encyclopedia of life[web application].Version 7.0.NatureServe,Arlington,VA.Available from
http://explorer.natureserve.org.
NatureServe.2019b. Separation distance for unsuitable habitat.Glossary in NatureServe Explorer: an online
encyclopedia of life[web application].Version 7.0.NatureServe,Arlington,VA.Available from
http://explorer.natureserve.org.
NatureServe.2019c.Biotics5 database.NatureServe,Arlington,VA.Accessed on multiple dates in 2018.
NatureServe.2019d.Biotics5 online help.NatureServe,Arlington,VA.Available from
http://help.natureserve.org/biotics/#Record_Management/Element Group/EGRP_Introduction to Element Gr
oup.htm.
NatureServe/Landscope America.2019. Connecting landscapes: a practitioner's resource for assessing and planning
for habitat connectivity.Available from htW://www.landscope.or,g/focus/connectivity/.
NC Division of Parks and Recreation.2015. Systemwide plan for North Carolina State Parks.NC Division of Parks
and Recreation,NC Department of Natural and Cultural Resources.NRID data available from
http://www.dpr.nci2arks.gov/nrid/public.php.
NC Division of Parks and Recreation,Triangle J Council of Governments,and Triangle Land Conservancy.2002.
Triangle GreenPrint regional open space assessment.NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Raleigh,NC.
NCDOT.2017.NC Traffic Segments [traffic volume] GIS shapefile. Current data available from
haps://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/State-Mapping/Pages/Traffic-Survey-GIS-Data.aspx.
NCDOT.2019a.NC Routes and NC Road Characteristics GIS shapefiles. Current data available from
haps://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/ ig's/Pa,ges/GIS-Data-Lgyers.aspx.
NCDOT.2019b.NC Structure Locations GIS shapefile.Current data available from
hgps://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/ ig s/Pages/GIS-Data-La. e�px.
NC Flood Mapping Program.2017.Flood hazard GIS shapefiles for Chatham,Durham,Orange,and Wake
Counties,North Carolina.NC Flood Mapping Program,Raleigh,NC.Accessed August 31,2017,now
available from https:Hfris.nc.gov/fris/Home.aspx?ST=NC.
NCNHP.No date.Natural Areas.NCNHP,Department of Natural and Cultural Resources,Raleigh,NC.Available
from haps://www.ncnhp.org/activities/conservation/natural-areas.
NCNHP.2019a.Element Occurrence GIS shapefile(July 2019)from the Biotics database.Division of Land and
Water Stewardship,Department of Natural and Cultural Resources,Raleigh,NC.Data available from
hqs://www.ncnhp.org/data.
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 65
79
NCNHP.2019b.Managed Areas GIS shapefile(October 2019)from the Biotics Database. Division of Land and
Water Stewardship,Department of Natural and Cultural Resources,Raleigh,NC.Data available from
hlt2s://www.ncnhp.or /g data.
NCNHP. 2019c.Natural Areas GIS shapefile(October 2018)from the Biotics Database.Division of Land and
Water Stewardship,Department of Natural and Cultural Resources,Raleigh,NC. Data available from
https://www.ncOp.or /g data.
NCNHP. 2019d.North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas attribute information(October 2019).
Division of Land and Water Stewardship,Department of Natural and Cultural Resources,Raleigh,NC.
Available from https://files.nc.gov/dncr-op/nhna attribute info.pdf.
NCWRC.2012.Conservation recommendations for priority terrestrial wildlife species and habitats in North
Carolina.NCWRC,Raleigh,NC.Available from
https://www.ncwildlife.org/LinkClick.aspx?flleticket=gpdoxi aXTew%3d&tabid=l 7l 9&portalid=0&mid=4866
NCWRC.2013.Green Growth Toolbox:wildlife and natural resource stewardship in planning.Green growth
toolbox handbook second edition.NCWRC,Raleigh,NC.Available from
https://www.ncwildlife.org/Conservin /g Programs/Green-Growth-Toolbox/Download-Handbook
NCWRC.2019.Jordan Game Land map.NCWRC,Raleigh,NC.Available from
https://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/0/Hunting/Game-Land-Maps/P iedmont/Jordan.pdf.
NCWRC.2015.North Carolina wildlife action plan.NCWRC,Raleigh,NC.Available from
http://www.ncwildlife.org/plan.
NetworkX Developers.2019.Networkx.algorithms.centrality.edge_betweenness_centrality.Available from
https://networkx.github.io/documentation/stable/reference/al,gorithms/generated/networkx.algorithms.centraliiy
.edge betweenness_centrality.html#networkx.algorithms.centrality.edge betweenness centrality.
North Carolina Biodiversity Project.2019.North Carolina Biodiversity Project(website). Available from ht s://nc-
biodiversit__co.
NRCS.2004.Part 613: Conservation corridor planning at the landscape level—managing for wildlife habitat.
National biology handbook subpart B—conservation planning.US Department of Agriculture,Natural
Resources Conservation Service,Washington DC.
Oliver,CJ.2014.North Carolina animal related crashes: 2011-2013 county rankings and crash data.Traffic Safety
Unit,Transportation Mobility and Safety Division,NCDOT,Raleigh,NC.Available from
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/pages/crash-data.asp .
Orange County.2010.Building footprints GIS shapefile. Current data available from
hgps://www.oran eg coupiync.gov/2057/Download-GIS-Data.
Parrish,JD,DP Braun,and RS Unnasch.2003.Are we conserving what we say we are?Measuring ecological
integrity within protected areas.BioScience 53(9): 851-860.
Piedmont Wildlife Center.2018. Species occurrence database.Unpublished.
Ratcliffe,J.2018.List of rare animal species of North Carolina.NCNHP,NC Department of Natural and Cultural
Resources,Raleigh,NC.Available from hgps://www.ncnhp.org/references/publications/rare-animal-list.
Robert J.Goldstein&Associates,Inc., and Biocenosis,Inc.2011.A comprehensive conservation plan for Chatham
County,North Carolina.Report prepared for the Chatham Conservation Partnership.
Rudnick,D,P Beier, S Cushman,F Dieffenbach,CW Epps,L Gerber,J Hartter,J Jenness,J Kintsch,AM
Merenlender,RM Perkle,DV Preziosi, SJ Ryan,and SC Trombulak.2012.The role of landscape connectivity
in planning and implementing conservation and restoration priorities.Issues in Ecology.Report No. 16.
Ecological Society of America,Washington,DC.
66 A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
80
Sather,D,and S Hall. 1988.Inventory of the natural areas and wildlife habitats of Orange County,North Carolina.
Report prepared for Triangle Land Conservancy in cooperation with NCNHP.
Schafale,MP.2012.Guide to the natural communities of North Carolina fourth approximation.NCNHP,
Department of Environment and Natural Resources,Raleigh,NC.Available from https:Hfiles.nc.gov/dncr-
nhp/documents/files/Natural-Community-Clas sification-Fourth-Approximation-2012.pdf.
Schafale,MP,and AS Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina third
approximation.NCNHP,Division of Parks and Recreation,Department of Environment and Natural
Resources,Raleigh,NC.Available from htips:Hfiles.nc.gov/dncr-nhp/documents/files/Natural-Community-
Classification-Third-Approximation-1990.pd£
Sorrie,B,R Shaw,D Sather,and S Hall. 2004.Inventory of natural areas and wildlife habitat for Orange County,
North Carolina(updated).Report prepared for the Orange County Environment&Resource Conservation
Department in cooperation with NCNHP.
Sutter,RD,with assistance from E Harrison and D Rettig. 1987. Inventory of the natural areas and rare species of
Durham County. Report prepared for Durham County and Triangle Land Conservancy in cooperation with
NCNHP.
Town of Apex.2017.Building footprints. Currently unavailable on the Town of Apex GIS website:
htWs://www.Lapexnc.or-g/594/GIS.
Town of Carrboro.2017.Building footprints. Current data available from
hLtps://www.townofcarrboro.org/145/Download-Data.
Town of Cary.2018.Building footprints. Current data available from https://data.townofcaiy.org/e"lore.
UNC Chapel Hill Department of City and Regional Planning. 1993.New Hope corridor open space master plan:
proposals for linking Duke Forest and Eno River State Park.Report prepared for the Orange County,NC
Planning Department.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017.National Wetlands Inventory shapefile for North Carolina.US Department of
the Interior,Fish and Wildlife Service,Washington,DC.Accessed June 27,2017 at
hlt2://www.fws.gov/wetlands/.
USGS.2019.National Hydrography Dataset(ver.US Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset Best
Resolution(NHD)for North Carolina(published 2018)).Accessed January 21,2018 at
https://www.us,gs.gov/core-science-systems/ngp/national-hydrogrgphy/access-national-hydrography-products
Wade,AA,KS McKelvey,and MK Schwartz. 2015.Resistance-surface-based wildlife conservation connectivity
modeling: summary of efforts in the United States&guide for practitioners.General Technical Report RMRS-
GTR-333.US Department of Agriculture,Forest Service,Rocky Mountain Research Station,Fort Collins,CO.
Wake County.2006.Wake County consolidated open space plan.Wake County,NC.Available from
http://www.wakegov.cop)Zparks/openspace/Pages/Tlan.aspx.
Walker,RE,and FL Craighead. 1997.Analyzing wildlife movement corridors in Montana using GIS.Proceedings
of the 1997 ESRI User Conference.Available from
hqp://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc97/proc97/to 150/pap 116/p 116.htm.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.2009.Landscape planning for Washington's wildlife: managing for
biodiversity in developing areas.Olympia,WA.Available from
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/00023/wdfw00023.pdf.
Williams,JC. 1998.Delineating protected wildlife corridors with multi-objective programming. Environmental
Modeling&Assessment 3:77-86.
A Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 67
81
Appendix A: List of abbreviations
ATT American Tobacco Trail
CFE Orange County Commission for the Environment
CSD Conservation subdivision design
dbh diameter at breast height
EBC Edge betweenness centrality
EEP Ecosystem Enhancement Program
ELI Environmental Law Institute
EVT LANDFIRE Existing Vegetation Type
FEIS Fire Effects Information System
GeoHAT Geospatial Habitat Assessment Toolkit
GIS Geographic information system(s)
LHIG Landscape/Habitat Indicator Guild
MPO Metropolitan planning organization
NCCU North Carolina Central University
NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation
NCNHP North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
NCWRC North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
NHNA National Heritage Program Natural Area
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRID North Carolina State Parks Natural Resources Inventory Database
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
OWASA Orange Water and Sewer Authority
RCOD-1 Resource Conservation Overlay District
RCOD-2 Resource Conservation Overlay District 2
SGCN Species of Greatest Conservation Need
UDO Unified development ordinance
UNC Chapel Hill University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USGS United States Geological Survey
WAP North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan
WVC Wildlife-vehicle collision
Appendix A: List of Abbreviations
82
Appendix B: Glossary
Connectivity(landscape connectivity,landscape permeability): The degree to which the landscape
facilitates or impedes movement of organisms or processes (Wade et al. 2015). The extent to which a
species or population can move among landscape elements in a mosaic of habitats. This necessitates
linkages among individuals, species, communities, and ecosystems at appropriate spatial and temporal
scales. Corridors are one means of achieving connectivity. (Hilty et al. 2006)A measure of the ability of
organisms, gametes, and propagules to move among separated patches of suitable habitat. Ideally,
corridors serve to facilitate connectivity over time and can operate at a range of spatial scales. (Hilty et al.
2019)
Conservation planning: The process that occurs when a group of stakeholders consider the status of an
area's natural environment and identify goals and strategies for conserving the area's natural heritage and
biological diversity(NCWRC 2013).
Conservation threshold: The minimum level of any characteristic of a species' habitat that is needed in
order for local populations to persist over time(NCWRC 2012).
Corridor(landscape,habitat,or wildlife corridor): Avenues along which wide-ranging animals can
travel,plants can propagate, genetic interchange can occur,populations can move in response to
environmental changes and natural disasters, and threatened species can be replenished from other areas
(The Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals 1997 in Walker and Craighead 1997). Any space that facilitates
the movement of populations, individuals, gametes or propagules, and plant parts capable of vegetative
reproduction in a matter of minutes,hours, or over multiple generations of a species. Corridors may
encompass altered or natural areas of vegetation and provide connectivity that allows biota to spread or
move among habitat fragments through areas otherwise devoid of preferred habitat. Landscape elements
that function as corridors may also serve multiple other purposes,providing aesthetic amenities,
ecosystem service values, cultural heritage protection, and recreational opportunities. (Hilty et al. 2019)
Cost surface(resistance surface): A mapped surface representing the degree to which some landscape
feature impedes or facilitates some movement process,typically represented as a cell(pixel)value in a
grid(raster)within a GIS. Corridors are then modeled in areas with lowest resistance to the movement
process considered. The models are relatively easy to apply given existing data, and the approach offers
the flexibility to develop models ranging from simple to complex,tailored to the specific conservation
needs, and able to be refined as better data become available.A resistance surface is conceptually related
to the idea of travel costs from behavioral ecology, and can therefore be designed to integrate ecological
concepts important to successful wildlife movement, such as an organism's perceptual range and
susceptibility to competition and predation. Resistance-surface connectivity modeling assumes a
relationship between surficial proxy measures (such as habitat type or quality) and ease of animal
movement. It is important that resistance surfaces be considered hypotheses reflecting a solid
consideration of causal biology. (Wade et al. 2015)
Dispersal: Movements that occur within the lifetime of the individual, as, for example, when it leaves its
natal site(NCWRC 2015).
Ecological integrity: A system's wholeness, including presence of all appropriate elements and
occurrence of all processes at appropriate rates,that is able to maintain itself through time (ELI 2003).
The ability of an ecological system to support and maintain a community of organisms that has a species
composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to those of natural habitats within a
region. An ecological system has integrity, or a species population is viable,when its dominant ecological
characteristics (such as elements of composition, structure, function, and ecological processes) occur
within their natural ranges of variation and can withstand and recover from most perturbations imposed
by natural environmental dynamics or human disruptions(Parrish et al. 2003).
Appendix B: Glossary 1
83
Ecosystem: An ecosystem is a community of living organisms (plants, animals, and microbes)in
conjunction with the nonliving components of their environment(air,water, and mineral soil),interacting
as a system. It is a system of environmental conditions,habitats,natural communities, and species that
interact(NCWRC 2015).
Ecosystem services: The benefits people obtain, directly or indirectly, from ecosystems. These include
provisioning services such as food,water,timber, and fiber; regulating services that affect climate,
floods, disease,wastes, and water quality; cultural services that provide recreational, aesthetic, and
spiritual benefits; and supporting services such as soil formation,photosynthesis,and nutrient cycling.
The human species,while buffered against environmental changes by culture and technology, is
fundamentally dependent on the flow of ecosystem services. (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005)
Edge effects: The negative influence of habitat or ecosystem edges on interior conditions of the habitat or
on associated species. Edge effects can include profound modification of biological and physical
conditions. (ELI 2003)
Habitat: The physical features(such as topography, geology, stream flow) and biological characteristics
(such as vegetation cover and other species)needed to provide food, shelter, and reproductive needs of
animal or plant species(ELI 2003).
Habitat edge: The edge of a habitat adjoining incompatible land. Habitat edge causes "edge effects"
whereby species are negatively impacted due to edge conditions, such as a higher number of predators.
The width of edge effects differs for different species. (NCWRC 2013)The portion of a habitat patch near
its perimeter where environmental conditions are more affected by the surrounding matrix as compared to
the patch core(Wade et al. 2015). A boundary between different natural communities, or between a patch
and matrix,along which movement of non-living materials, organisms, and information between the two
areas may occur(Hilty et al. 2006). Edges can naturally occur or can be the result of human activities, and
species responses may differ. (Hilty et al. 2019)
Habitat fragmentation: The breaking up of previously continuous habitat(or ecosystem) into spatially
separated and smaller parcels. Habitat fragmentation results from human land use associated with
forestry, agriculture, and settlement,but can also be caused by natural disturbances like wildfire,wind, or
flooding. Suburban and rural development commonly changes patterns of habitat fragmentation of natural
forests, grasslands,wetlands, and coastal areas as a result of adding fences,roads,houses, landscaping,
and other development activities. (ELI 2003)
Habitat loss: Reduction in total area of habitat(Wade et al. 2015).
Habitat patch: A relatively homogeneous type of habitat that is spatially separated from other similar
habitat and differs from its surroundings (ELI 2003). A discrete area of contiguous habitat, often above a
size threshold representing the habitat needs of an organism or species, or the functional needs of a
natural community.
Habitat-corridor network: A connected set of discrete habitat patches and corridors between them.
Home range: Area used by an animal in its normal daily activities.Not defended. (NCWRC 2015).
Indicator guild: A group of species that show similar patterns of response to specific types of
environmental change (Hall 2008).
Indicator species: A species that is closely associated with a particular habitat type, and whose presence
indicates quality habitat(NCWRC 2012).
Invasive species: Any species that does not occur naturally in North Carolina and poses serious threats to
native ecosystems, due to the species'propensity to spread rapidly and out-compete native species
(adapted from NCWRC 2013).
2 Appendix B: Glossary
84
Landscape: For the scale of this project, a large heterogeneous land area(for example,multiple square
miles or several thousand hectares) consisting of a cluster of interacting ecosystems repeated in similar
form(such as a watershed)(ELI 2003).
Landscape conservation: An approach that brings people together across geographies, sectors, and
cultures to collaborate on conserving our important landscapes and the myriad ecological, cultural, and
economic benefits they provide(Network for Landscape Conservation,
http://landscapeconservation.ore/about/what-is-landscape-conservation
Landscape/Habitat Indicator Guild: A group of species that have similar habitat and movement needs,
respond in similar ways to landscape fragmentation, and collectively serve as indicators of landscape
habitat integrity(Hall 2008).
Landscape habitat integrity: Defined by Hall(2008)as simply the inverse of the degree of landscape
fragmentation.
Least cost corridor: A corridor representing areas of lowest movement cost between two discrete
endpoints(habitat patches), determined by a threshold of total movement cost above the cost of the least
cost path.
Least cost path(shortest path): In cost distance analysis(or shortest path modeling),the single path
with the lowest total sum between two endpoints (habitat patches). In raster-based GIS analysis,the least
cost path is only a single pixel wide,which is unlikely to represent the exact path taken by an organism.
(Wade et al. 2015)
Matrix: A component of the landscape,often altered from its original state by human land use,which may
vary in attributes from human-dominated to natural, and in which corridors and habitat patches are
embedded(Hilty et al. 2019).
Metapopulation: A network of semi-isolated populations with some level of regular or intermittent
migration and gene flow among them, in which individual populations may be extinct but then be
recolonized from other subpopulations (ELI 2003).
Movement barrier: A physical object or environmental condition that obstructs or prohibits animal
movement from one part of the landscape to another.
Natural community: A distinct and recurring assemblage of populations of plants, animals,bacteria, and
fungi naturally associated with each other and their physical environment(Schafale 2012).
Natural Heritage Element Occurrence(NHEO): Occurrences of rare plants and animals, exemplary or
unique natural communities, and important animal groupings, as tracked and documented by NCNHP.
Collectively,these plants, animals,natural communities, and animal assemblages are referred to as
"elements of natural diversity"or simply as"elements."Maps of NHEOs are maintained and distributed
by NCNHP and are updated quarterly(NCWRC 2013).
Natural Heritage Natural Area(NHNA): Terrestrial or aquatic sites that are of special biodiversity
significance as defined by NCNHP. A site's conservation priority rating or significance may be due to the
presence of rare species,rare or high-quality natural communities or other important ecological features.
Maps of NHNAs are updated quarterly. (NCNHP 2019d,NCWRC 2013)
Non-native species: Any species that has been introduced(either intentionally or accidentally)to an area
outside its natural past or present distribution. This includes any part(gametes, seeds, eggs, or
propagules)of such species that might survive and subsequently reproduce.Nonnative species can be
invasive, injurious, or beneficial where they occur. (NCWRC 2015)
Resilience: The ability to retain essential processes in the face of disturbances or expected shifts in
ambient conditions; ecosystem resilience provides the ability to support native diversity(NCWRC 2015).
Appendix B: Glossary 3
85
Separation distance for suitable habitat: Distance of intervening suitable habitat not known to be
occupied that is great enough to effectively separate occurrences by limiting movement or dispersal of
individuals between them(NatureServe 2019a).
Separation distance for unsuitable habitat: Distance of intervening unsuitable habitat that is great
enough to effectively separate occurrences by restricting movement or dispersal of individuals between
them(NatureServe 2019b).
Species of Greatest Conservation Need(SGCN): In North Carolina, SGCN have been defined as
species that are currently rare or have been designated as at-risk of extinction;those for which we have
knowledge deficiencies; and those that have not received adequate conservation attention in the past. In
addition to these species for which there is high conservation concern, SGCN may also include those
species for which we are unable to determine true status in the state and are therefore a priority for
research due to these knowledge gaps. (NCWRC 2015)
Succession: The process of replacement of one community with another,typically after disturbance
(adapted from NCWRC 2015).
Suitable habitat: Habitat capable of supporting reproduction or used regularly for feeding or other
essential life history functions; a habitat in which you would expect to find the species(assuming
appropriate season and conditions) (NatureServe 2019a). Habitat that meets the survival and reproductive
needs of a species, allowing for a stable or growing population over time(ELI 2003).
Unsuitable habitat: In most cases,unsuitable habitat is habitat through which individuals may move,but
that does not support reproduction or long-term survival(NatureServe 2019b).
Wetland: An area of land with soil that is either permanently or temporarily saturated with water
(NCWRC 2012).
4 Appendix B: Glossary
86
Appendix C: List of Landscape/Habitat Indicator Guilds in the project area
Terrestrial(or semi-terrestrial)wildlife indicator species known to occur in the Eno River and New Hope
Creek watersheds, grouped according to Hall's Landscape/Habitat Indicator Guilds (LHIG) (Hall 2008,
2009). The three LHIG habitat types selected for corridor analysis include General Wet-Mesic Hardwood
Forests,Dry-Wet Hardwood and Mixed Forests, and Sparsely Settled Mixed Habitats. The three focal
species selected for additional species occurrence network analysis are marked with an asterisk.
MORE TEXT HERE.
Habitat Guild Taxonomic Group Common Name Scientific Name
Amphibian Four-toed Salamander* Hemidactylium scutatum
General Wet-Mesic Bird Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens
Hardwood Forests Bird Kentucky Warbler Geothlypis formosa
Dragonfly or Damselfly Coppery Emerald Somatochlora georgiana
Amphibian Marbled Salamander Ambystoma opacum
Amphibian Mole Salamander Ambystoma talpoideum
Amphibian Spotted Salamander Ambystoma maculatum
Dry-Wet Hardwood and Bird Eastern Whip-poor-will Antrostomus vociferus
Mixed Forests
Bird Yellow-throated Warbler Setophaga dominica
Moth Straw Besma Besma endropiaria
Reptile Eastern Box Turtle* Terrapene caroling carolina
Mammal Bobcat* Lynx rufus
Sparsely Settled Mixed Mammal Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata
Habitats
Reptile Timber Rattlesnake Crotalus horridus
General Hydric Forests Bird Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea
Bird Louisiana Waterthrush Parkesia motacilla
General Wet Hardwood Bird Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus
Forests Broadly Pectinate Hypomecis
Moth Hypomecis longipectinaria
Moth
Cool Mesic Slopes Amphibian Eastern Red-backed Salamander Plethodon cinereus
Cool Heath Bluffs Butterfly Brown Elfin Callophrys augustinus
General Mesic Reptile Smooth Earthsnake Virginia valeriae
Hardwood Forests
Rich Wet-Dry Moth Franck's Sphinx Sphinx franckii
Hardwood Forests
Piedmont Monadnock Moth A Geometrid Moth Lytrosis permagnaria
Forests
Bird Chuck-will's-widow Antrostomus carolinensis
Dry-Xeric Mixed Butterfly Confused Cloudywing Thorybes confusis
Forests,Woodlands, Butterfly Northern Oak Hairstreak Satyrium favonius ontario
and Barrens
Reptile Scarlet Kingsnake Lampropeltis triangulum
elapsoides
General Semi-Natural
Pine Forests and Bird Brown-headed Nuthatch Sitta pusilla
Woodlands
Wet-Mesic Forest-Field Bird American Woodcock Scolopax minor
Ecotones and Groves
Appendix C: List of Landscape/Habitat Indicator Guilds 1
87
Habitat Guild Taxonomic Group Common Name Scientific Name
Dry-Wet Forest-Field Bird Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus
Ecotones and Groves
Mix of open and Reptile Mole Kingsnake Lampropeltis calligaster
forested habitats
Reservoirs Bird Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Beaver Ponds and Bird Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus
Successional Wetlands Reptile Eastern Ribbonsnake Thamnophis sauritus
Canebrakes Bird Swainson's Warbler Limnothlypis swainsonii
Bird King Rail Rallus elegans
Inland Freshwater Bird Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis
Marshes
Moth Louisiana Owlet Moth Macrochilo louisiana
Bird American Kestrel Falco sparverius
Semi-Natural Bird Barn Owl Tyto alba
Grasslands Bird Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum
Bird Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus
Bird Northern Bobwhite Colinas virginianus
Successional Fields Bird Prairie Warbler Setophaga discolor
Butterfly Monarch Danaus plexippus
Urban Areas Bird Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica
Bird Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor
Amphibian Cope's Gray Treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis
Amphibian Gray Treefrog Hyla versicolor
Bird Gadwall Anas strepera
Dragonfly or Damselfly Blackwater Clubtail Gomphus dilatatus
Habitat guild not yet Dragonfly or Damselfly Septima's Clubtail Gomphus septima
determined Dragonfly or Damselfly Spine-crowned Clubtail Gomphus abbreviatus
Dragonfly or Damselfly Splendid Clubtail Gomphus lineatifrons
Mammal Tricolored Bat Perimyotis subflavus
Reptile Queen Snake Regina septemvittata
Sawfly,Wasp,Bee,Ant American Bumblebee Bombus pensylvanicus
2 Appendix C: List of Landscape/Habitat Indicator Guilds
88
Appendix D: List of planning documents and ordinances reviewed
Additional planning documents not listed below were reviewed for this project. However,only those
documents with protection priorities,policies, or ordinances most relevant to the project objectives are
included in the results.
Last
Jurisdiction Document Year amended/
updated
Chatham County Town of Cary Joint Land Use Plan 2012 2016
Interjurisdictional New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan 1991
Orange-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement 1987 2015
Orange-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Land Use Plan 1986 2015
Land use and related ordinances as of July 2019
Plan Chatham(the Chatham County comprehensive plan) 2017
Chatham County Land Use Strategic Plan 1999
Chatham County,NC Agricultural Land Use Plan 2009
A Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Chatham County,NC 2011
Unified development ordinance as of December 2019
Durham City-County Durham Comprehensive Plan 2016
Durham County Open Space Corridor System plan 1993
Durham Urban Open Space Plan 2017
Unified development ordinance as of July 2019
Orange County Comprehensive Plan 2030(Land Use and Natural 2008 2012
&Cultural Systems elements)
A Lands Legacy Program for Orange County 2000
Lands Legacy Program Action Plan 2018-2020 2018
Orange County Orange County Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2030 2014
New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan:Proposals for 1993
Linking Duke Forest and Eno River State Park
Mountains-to-Sea Trail Route Map 2018
Eno Economic Development District Small Area Plan 2008 2009
Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan 1996
Land use ordinance as of November 2019
Carrboro Vision 2020:Policies through the Year 2020 2000
Facilitated Small Area Plan for Carrboro's Northern Study Area 1999
Town of Carrboro Recreation and Parks Comprehensive Master Plan Update for the 2006
Town of Carrboro
Conservation Areas in the Upper Bolin Creek Watershed 2005
Recreation and Parks Comprehensive Master Plan Update for the 2006
Town of Carrboro
Land use management ordinance as of July 2019
Chapel Hill 2020 Comprehensive Plan 2012
Town of Chapel Hill Chapel Hill Comprehensive Parks Plan 2013
Greenways Master Plan 2013
Rogers Road: Mapping our Community's Future 2016
Central West Small Area Plan 2013
Unified development ordinance as of July 2019
Strategic Growth Plan 2006
Town of Hillsborough Hillsborough Vision 2030 2015
Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2007 2009,2014
Community Connectivity Plan 2009 2014,2017
Churton Street Strategic Corridor Plan 2006
Appendix D: List of planning documents and ordinances 1
89
Last
Jurisdiction Document Year amended/
updated
US 70/Cornelius Street Corridor Plan 2007
Unified development ordinance as of July 2019
Wake County Transportation Plan 2003
Wake County Environmental Stewardship Agenda 2006 2011
Southwest Wake Area Land Use Plan 2007
Wake County Wake County Land Use Plan 2006
Wake County Consolidated Open Space Master Plan 2003 2006
Wake County Open Space Acquisition Corridors map 2008
Wake County Greenway System Plan 2017
Wake County Park Facility Master Plan Updates Final Report 2017
Comprehensive Parks&Recreation Master Plan 2008
Unified development ordinance as of July 2019
Town of Apex Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update 2011
Town of Apex 2045 Updated Future Land Use Map 2019
Town of Apex 2035 Land Use Plan Update I Economic Study 2016
and Market Analysis
Peak Plan 2030(the Town of Apex comprehensive plan) 2013
Land development ordinance as of July 2019
Town of Cary Cary Community Plan(Town of Cary comprehensive plan) 2017
Parks,Recreation and Cultural Resources Master Plan 2012
Parks,Recreation&Cultural Resources Master Plan 2003
2 Appendix D: List of planning documents and ordinances
90
Appendix E: List of resources for landscape connectivity planning
NORTH CAROLINA LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION PLANNING GUIDES, DATA,AND ASSISTANCE
Ernest,M and R Sutherland.2017.Prioritizing wildlife road crossings in North Carolina. Wildlands Network,
Durham,NC.Available from hgps://wildlandsnetwork.org/MM-content/uploads/2017/01/Prioritizing-wildlife-
road-crossings-in-North-Carolina-2017-l.pdf.
NCNHP data. Current data available from https://www.ncOT.org/data.
NCNHP information requests and site review requests.https://www.ncnhp.org/data/request-information.
NCWRC.2012.Conservation recommendations for priority terrestrial wildlife species and habitats in North
Carolina.NCWRC,Raleigh,NC.Available from
https://www.ncwildlife.org/LinkCIiek.aspx?fileticket=gpdoxj aXTew%3 d&tabid=1719&portalid=0&mid=4866
NCWRC.2013. Green Growth Toolbox:wildlife and natural resource stewardship in planning.Green Growth
Toolbox handbook second edition.NCWRC,Raleigh,NC.Available from
https://www.ncwildlife.org,/Conservin /g Programs/Green-Growth-Toolbox/Download-Handbook
NCWRC Green Growth Toolbox workshops,data,technical assistance,and site assessment.
https://www.ncwildlife.org/conservingZpro,grams/Green-Growth-Toolbox.
NCWRC.2015.North Carolina wildlife action plan.NCWRC,Raleigh,NC.Available from
http://www.ncwildlife.org/plan.aspx.
Wildlands Network.2019.Eastern Wildway. https://wildlandsnetwork.org/wildwgys/eastern/.
CORRIDOR ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION
Conservation Corridor: Connecting Science to Conservation. Available from https:Hconservationeorridor.org/."Our
mission is to bridge the science and practice of conservation corridors."
Hilty,JA,ATH Keeley,WZ Lidicker,Jr,AM Merenlender,editors.2019. Corridor ecology: linking landscapes for
biodiversity conservation and climate adaptation. Second edition.Island Press,Washington,DC.
Hilty,JA,WZ Lidicker,Jr,AM Merenlender.2006. Corridor ecology:the science and practice of linking landscapes
for biodiversity conservation.Island Press,Washington,DC.
LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION AND CONNECTIVITY PLANNING
Ament,R,R Callahan,M McClure,M Reuling,and G Tabor.2014.Wildlife connectivity fundamentals for
conservation action. Center for Large Landscape Conservation,Bozeman,MT.Available from
https://Iargelandscqpes.org/resources/.
Beier,P,D Majka, S Newell,E Garding.2008.Best management practices for wildlife corridors.Northern Arizona
University,AZ.Available from htW:Hcoffidordesign.org/dl/docs/corridordesign.org BMPsafor_Corridors.pdf.
Bentrup,G.2008.Conservation buffers: design guidelines for buffers,corridors,and greenways.General Technical
Report SRS-109.US Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, Southern Research Station,Asheville,NC.
Available from https://www.fs.usda.gov/nac/buffers/index.html.
Environmental Law Institute(ELI). 2003. Conservation thresholds for land use planners.The Environmental Law
Institute,Washington,DC.
Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network.2019. Conservation issue: landscape conservation design.Available
from https://lccnetwork.orWissue/landscape-conservation-planning-and-design.
NatureServe/Landscope America.2019. Connecting landscapes: a practitioner's resource for assessing and planning
for habitat connectivity.Available from http://www.landscope.org/focus/connectivity/.
NRCS.2004.Part 613: Conservation corridor planning at the landscape level--managing for wildlife habitat.
National Biology Handbook Subpart B--Conservation Planning.US Department of Agriculture,Natural
Resources Conservation Service,Washington DC.
Appendix E: List of resources for landscape connectivity 1
91
CONNECTIVITY MODELING
Conservation Corridor: Corridor Toolbox.https://conservationcorridor.org/corridor-toolbox/.
NatureServe/Landscope America.2019. Connecting landscapes: a practitioner's resource for assessing and planning
for habitat connectivity.Available from http://www.landscope.org/focus/connectivity/.
Wade,AA,KS McKelvey,and MK Schwartz. 2015.Resistance-surface-based wildlife conservation connectivity
modeling: summary of efforts in the United States and guide for practitioners. General Technical Report
RMRS-GTR-333.US Department of Agriculture,Forest Service,Rocky Mountain Research Station,Fort
Collins,CO.
LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION AND CONNECTIVITY PLANS FROM OTHER STATES
Chisholm,M,A Bates,D Vriend,and D Cooper. 2010.Wildlife passage engineering design guidelines.Report
prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. for the City of Edmonton,Office of Natural Areas.Available from
https://www.edmonton.ca/city government/documents/WPEDG®FINAL_Aug 2010.pdf.
Conservation Corridor: Connectivity Plans Library. https://conservationcorridor.org/connectivityplans-library/.
New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife.2019. Connecting habitats across New Jersey guidance document version
1.0.New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, State of New Jersey.Available from
https://www.njfishandwildlife.com/ensp/chaphtm.
Shilling,F,P Cramer,L Farrell,and C Reining.2012.Vermont transportation and habitat connectivity guidance
document.Report prepared for the Vermont Agency of Transportation.Available from
http:Hstayingconnectedinitiative.or,g/assets/vtrans transport_habitat connectivity guidance_final dec2012.pdf
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.2009.Landscape planning for Washington's wildlife:managing for
biodiversity in developing areas.Olympia,WA.Available from
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/00023/wdfw00023.pdf.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING FOR WILDLIFE
Clevenger,AP,and MP Huij ser.2011.Wildlife crossing structure handbook.Design and evaluation in North
America.Publication No.FHWA-CFL/TD-11-003.US Department of Transportation,Federal Highway
Administration,Central Federal Lands Highway Division,Lakewood,CO.
Defenders of Wildlife.2007.Getting up to speed: a conservationist's guide to wildlife and highways.Defenders of
Wildlife,Washington,DC.Available from
hgps://defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/geaingaup to speed.pdf.
Huijser,MP,P McGowen,AP Clevenger,and R Ament.2008.Best practices manual:wildlife-vehicle collision
reduction study.Report to US Congress.Federal Highway Administration,McLean,Virginia,USA.Available
from http://www.thwa.dot.gov/environment/hconnect/wvc/index.htm.
National Research Council.2005.Assessing and managing the ecological impacts of paved roads.The National
Academies Press,Washington,DC.Available from https://doi.org/10.17226/11535.
Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership.Resources for culvert assessment.htips:Hsoutheastaquatics.net/and
https://southeastaquatics.net/sMs-programs/southeast-aquatic-connectivity-assessment-pro rg am-
seacap/culvert-asse ssments/sarp-culvert-assessment-manual.
Van der Ree,R,DJ Smith,and C Grilo,editors.2015.Handbook of road ecology.John Wiley&Sons,Ltd, West
Sussex,UK.
2 Appendix E: List of resources for landscape connectivity
j
I '4
{o i,ti t e
k. i°f iCh,
6 y
Aj
11 .1re,
,
14,
� V
�t
If ,
{
'
Ti fr
z
At
For more information on this project including
how to support these efforts, please visit:
ncbg. unc. edu/eno- new- hope- plan
may' � 4 ,� N..'.i� „•' �.�"� �: r; V T' �� b � .. �����
�'�r. � '� '•:d�.. G-- _ -,ham� � F . _ 'n' ��r ,� �'n :•_
'fie. t 3,,,r1 •. '� ���` 4-�' •�j k'
p��j�n�"_'�'�." _ � � - '�•.j�yr+.+ � i _ h_ �' �/f�`iP �� _ ,�y'' •s'ti` =�'�/�CJ�'r
NF'C r� - ✓�-�i,P .� �'B r-n� 'L :' j� y1�.. ��
-.r • r
• s � � ,!�� � - � d s 41PWO�
��j� � �1► �`d� .ori
t r'
• if �`1
.r.
�rs-1 •
T 60HL
f