CCLLIIPP - Florida Natural Areas Inventory · 2017. 6. 28. · (Benedict and McMahon 2006). Maps...

CCLLIIPP CCrriittiiccaall LLaannddss && WWaatteerrss IIddeennttiiffiiccaattiioonn PPrroojjeecctt

PPhhaassee II RReeppoorrtt ttoo tthhee CCeennttuurryy CCoommmmiissssiioonn ffoorr aa SSuussttaaiinnaabbllee FFlloorriiddaa

JJoonn OOeettttiinngg FFlloorriiddaa NNaattuurraall AArreeaass IInnvveennttoorryy

TToomm HHooccttoorr UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff FFlloorriiddaa GGeeooPPllaann CCeenntteerr

MMaayy 22000077

CLIP Phase I Report May 2007 1

The analysis, maps, and data in this report were developed for statewide conservation planning purposes and

should not be used for regulatory decisions.

List of Acronyms Used in this Report

CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan

CLIP Critical Lands & Waters Identification Project

COBRA Coastal Barrier Resources Act

DEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection

DOF Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Division of Forestry

FAVA Florida Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment (FGS report/data)

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FGS Florida Geological Survey

FLUCCS Florida Land Use/Land Cover Classification System

FNAI Florida Natural Areas Inventory

FNAIHAB FNAI Rare Species Habitat Conservation Priorities model

FWC Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission

FWRI FWC Florida Wildlife Research Institute

GIS Geographic Information Systems (computer mapping/modeling software)

NWI National Wetlands Inventory

OFW Outstanding Florida Water

OGT DEP Office of Greenways & Trails

PNA FNAI Potential Natural Areas data

SHCA FWC Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas model

TAG Technical Advisory Group

TNC The Nature Conservancy

UF University of Florida




INTRODUCTION

This report details the development of Phase I of the Critical Lands and Waters Identification

Project (CLIP) for the Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida. The Century Commission

was created by the Florida Legislature in 2005 and is tasked with the following:

envisioning Florida’s future by looking out 25 and 50 years,

making recommendations to the Governor and Legislature regarding how they should

address the impacts of population growth, and

establishing a place where the “best community-building ideas” can be studied and

shared for the benefit of all Floridians.

CLIP represents part of a set of analyses that are planned to be conducted for the Century

Commission to identify natural resource, agriculture, transportation, development, and other

relevant priorities for informing the development of recommendations to achieve sustainability

in Florida into the future.

Over the last twenty years, various agencies and groups have developed a wealth of GIS data in

Florida that identify various significant natural resources. An essential element of sustainability

is the identification of important ecosystems needed to protect various natural resource values.

A relevant concept is "green infrastructure", which can described as protected networks of

"natural areas and other open spaces that conserves natural ecosystem values and functions,

sustains clean air and water, and provides a wide array of benefits to people and wildlife"

(Benedict and McMahon 2006). Maps identifying opportunities to protect functioning

ecosystems and biodiversity are essential for conservation design, planning, and management to

sustain healthy ecosystems and human communities.

The Florida Natural Areas Inventory, the University of Florida, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission have developed CLIP Phase I to assess available GIS data for

identifying statewide areas of interest for protecting biodiversity and other natural resource

values. The available data were collected and assessed with the help of a diverse team of

advisors collectively called the Technical Advisory Group (TAG). Any important data gaps

were also discussed. Then, the best available data were combined in various example scenarios

depicting areas of opportunity for protecting biodiversity, landscapes, and water resources across

the state.

CLIP Phase I is the first step in a process to develop a statewide, decision support database for

identifying important opportunities to protect Florida's essential ecosystems. Phase I is focused

on statewide criteria that are already available in a suitable format. Planned future iterations of

CLIP will likely increase the number of statewide criteria as other data are developed to address

additional natural resource categories. CLIP may also incorporate regional data to identify local

greenspace protection priorities in regional workshops. This information can be used as a

decision support tool for informing the work of the Century Commission and it may also be

suitable as a resource planning guide for various state, regional, and local entities interested in

effective natural resource protection and management.




Other planning efforts have focused on particular resources whereas CLIP is intended to provide

a broad synthesis of natural resource GIS data to support comprehensive identification of

statewide conservation opportunities. CLIP offers a transparent incorporation and prioritization

of available data, a credible process using well documented data and based on expert consensus,

and the flexibility to incorporate new data as it becomes available to develop enhanced

identification of natural resource conservation opportunities. Ultimately, CLIP represents a set

of data and tools to inform decision makers, rather than a single map or conservation plan.

PROCESS

The CLIP Phase I process began in June 2006 with an initial meeting with Century Commission

staff and representatives from Florida Natural Areas Inventory, University of Florida, and The

Nature Conservancy. Available GIS data were discussed along with methods for integrating

data. The group decided that the three lead organizations for developing CLIP Phase I should be

the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI), the University of Florida GeoPlan Center (UF), and

the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). These three organizations have

been responsible for developing many of the statewide GIS data identifying areas important for

biodiversity, ecosystem services, and other natural resource values. FNAI and UF began

preliminary efforts to collect relevant data during July 2006.

Staff for FNAI, UF, and FWC met again in August 2006 to develop a complete list of potentially

relevant GIS data and worked through September 2006 to collect additional data and conduct

preliminary analysis. In October 2006, two meetings were held with members of the Technical

Advisory Group (TAG) to assist development of CLIP Phase I. The first meeting was held at the

University of Florida and focused on water resource data. The second meeting held in

Tallahassee included a discussion of all available data, data gaps, potential resource categories

for organizing data, and methods for integrating data into prioritization scenarios.

Based on the recommendations of the TAG, additional data were collected and testing of various

data integration methods was conducted during November and December 2006. An additional

TAG meeting was held in January 2007 to present prioritization scenarios and develop a final set

of recommendations for creation of the CLIP Phase I process and to identify additional needs

and potential steps in the next phase of CLIP. The final set of GIS criteria and integration

methods were developed in February and March 2007.

The TAG is an essential part of the CLIP process providing review and an expert consensus for

selecting, prioritizing, and integrating the available GIS data. The TAG has two sub-groups, the

general group and a water resources group. Members of the general group include:

• Beth Stys, FWC

• Mark Endries, FWC

• Alex Rybak, FWC

• Greg Brock, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)

• Dennis Hardin, Division of Forestry (DOF)




• Stephen Mulkey, UF

• Doria Gordon, The Nature Conservancy (TNC)

• Richard Hilsenbeck, TNC

• Gary Knight, FNAI

• Henry Norris, FWC

• Shannon Whaley, FWC

• Mike McManus, TNC

• Amy Knight, FNAI

• Jim Wood, DEP Office of Greenways and Trails

• Peggy Carr, UF

• Doug Shaw, TNC

Members of the Water Resource group include:

• Wendy Graham, UF

• Kathleen McKee, UF

• Pierce Jones, UF

• Peggy Carr, UF

• Aaron Podey, FWC

• Alex Rybak, FWC

• Mark Clark, UF

• Greg Kiker, UF

• Richard Hamann, UF

• Matthew Cohen, UF

• Doug Shaw, TNC

• Mike McManus, TNC

It is intended that the TAG will continue to serve to review and help develop additional iterations

of CLIP in the future.

DATA

We began by compiling a list of existing statewide natural resource GIS data that might be

relevant to the CLIP analysis (Table 1). Although a large number of data layers are available,

many were deemed less preferable for various reasons (not statewide in scope, insufficient

resolution, redundant with existing data, only available as raw data, etc.). Therefore, we

determined to focus on a set of core statewide resource data that represent a broad range of

natural resource values (Table 2; Figs. 1-9). These nine core data layers were chosen because

they were developed at a statewide scale using rigorous, peer-reviewed, and well-documented

methods (Cox et al. 1994; DEP & FGCC 1998; Cox & Kautz 2000; Hoctor et al. 2000; DEP &

FGCC 2004; Hoctor et al. 2005; Knight & Oetting 2006). Future phases of the CLIP process

will likely incorporate additional resource data to fill any gaps identified in the Phase I analysis

(see Next Steps section in this report).




Note that in all maps for this report, existing conservation lands are shown in gray, and resource

priorities are shown only on remaining private lands. Conservation lands include federal, state,

local, and private lands that are managed for conservation, including national parks and military

bases, state forests and parks, local and private preserves. Those lands are not evaluated in this

report, since the focus of CLIP is considered to be additional conservation needs on private

lands. For many types of natural resources, conservation lands are assumed to be a high priority

for continued conservation.

Following is a brief summary of the nine core data layers:

Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas (SHCA)

Source: Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission

This data layer was created by FWC to identify gaps in the existing statewide system of wildlife

conservation areas, and to inform ongoing land acquisition and conservation efforts (Fig. 1).

FWC modeled areas of habitat that are essential to sustain a minimum viable population for focal

species of terrestrial vertebrates that were not adequately protected on existing conservation

lands.

SHCAs were originally developed in 1994, with additional species modeled in 2000. FWC is

currently completing a comprehensive update of SHCAs based on updated landcover and

modeling methods. The revised SHCA data were made available in draft form for the CLIP

Phase I analysis and were used in all models for this report. However, Figure 1 shows the

original SHCAs developed in 1994, as FWC has not yet approved the revised data for public

distribution. FWC anticipates that the revised report and data will be available in Summer 2007.

For the original analysis, individual species potential habitat models were developed from FWC

1985-89 Landsat satellite imagery landcover overlaid with FNAI element occurrences, FWC

wildlife observations, and FWC breeding bird atlas data. Individual SHCAs for each species

were identified as the additional areas beyond existing conservation lands that were needed to

ensure a minimum viable population for that species. The final SHCA data layer is an

aggregation of the individual species SHCAs.

For CLIP, SHCAs were divided into three priority classes based on the State Rarity Rank (S-

rank) assigned to each species by FNAI. The first priority includes all SHCAs for species ranked

S1 (critically imperiled in the state of Florida). The second priority includes all SHCAs for

species ranked S2 (imperiled) that are not already identified by the first priority areas. The third

priority includes all SHCAs for species ranked S3 (rare and/or vulnerable) that are not already

identified by the first and second priority areas. In theory, five classes could be identified that

identify SHCAs for species ranked S1 through S5 (secure species), however all species in the

current SHCA analysis are ranked S1, S2, or S3. Note that the SHCA priorities do not account

for species richness—multiple species occurring in the same location. If a location is identified

as a SHCA for a single species with the appropriate S-rank, it is grouped with that S-rank,

regardless of the presence or absence of SHCAs for additional species.




Biodiversity Hotspots

Source: Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission

Because SHCAs do not address species richness, FWC also developed Biodiversity Hotspots to

identify areas of overlapping species habitat (Fig. 2). FWC created a statewide potential habitat

model for each species included in their analysis. In some cases only a portion of the potential

habitat was ultimately designated as SHCA for each species. The Biodiversity Hotspots layer

includes the entire potential habitat model for each species and provides a count of the number of

species habitat models occurring at each location. The highest number of focal species co-

occurring at any location in the model is 13.

As part of FWC’s comprehensive update of the SHCA analysis, a revised Biodiversity Hotspots

layer is being developed. The revised Hotspots data were made available in draft form for the

CLIP Phase I analysis and were used in all models for this report. However, Figure 2 shows the

original Biodiversity Hotspots developed in 1994, as FWC has not yet approved the revised data

for public distribution. FWC anticipates that the revised report and data will be available in

Summer 2007.

Unlike SHCAs, the Biodiversity Hotspots layer does not address species rarity, rather it is a

simple additive overlay of species habitat models. For CLIP, Biodiversity Hotspots are

prioritized by the species count, with higher species counts given higher priority over lower

species counts.

Rare Species Habitat Conservation Priorities (FNAIHAB)

Source: Florida Natural Areas Inventory

This data layer was created by FNAI specifically for the Florida Forever statewide

environmental land acquisition program. It is intended to show areas that have a high statewide

priority for acquisition to protect habitat for Florida’s rarest plant and animal species (Fig. 3).

The FNAIHAB model was designed explicitly to identify areas important for species habitat

based on both species rarity and species richness.

FNAI mapped occurrence-based potential habitat for 248 species of plants, invertebrates, and

vertebrates, including aquatic species. Because land acquisition was the focus, species were

included according to their need for additional habitat placed in conservation. All federally

listed species were included, as well as many state listed species and several species not listed at

either the federal or state levels. Suitable habitat was mapped only in the vicinity of known

occurrences, so that if the state acquires lands based on these priorities they will be assured of

protecting a known population of the species.

Species’ habitat was mapped based on remotely sensed vegetation data (FWC Landsat satellite

imagery landcover and aerial photography classed into FLUCCS codes by Florida’s Water

Management Districts), as well as information from various species experts. Each species

received a Conservation Needs score based on rarity (FNAI Global rank), total habitat area, and

percent of habitat protected on existing conservation lands. Species were then grouped into five




Conservation Needs Weighting Groups (A through E). Individual species habitat maps were

weighted by Conservation Needs group and then overlaid (added together) to create the final

model. The overlay model was then grouped into six priority classes based on both species rarity

and species richness. The top priority can include habitat for a single very rare species, or

habitat for several moderately rare species if they overlap.

The CLIP analysis is based on the same six priority classes, with an additional top priority class

that includes the habitat of highest suitability for species in Conservation Needs Weighting

Group A.

Under-Protected Natural Communities


This data layer was created by FNAI specifically for the Florida Forever statewide

environmental land acquisition program. It is intended to map natural communities that are

under-represented on existing conservation lands (Fig. 4). FNAI mapped the statewide range of

11 natural community types: upland glades, pine rocklands, seepage slopes, scrub, sandhill,

tropical hardwood hammock, upland hardwood forest, pine flatwoods, dry prairie, coastal

uplands, and coastal wetlands.

The natural communities were mapped based on a combination of remotely sensed vegetation

data (FWC satellite imagery landcover and aerial photography classed into FLUCCS codes by

Florida’s Water Management Districts) and field observations. The natural communities are

mutually exclusive types (any given location can be classed as only one community type), so

there is no overlay model of the communities. For the CLIP analysis, the natural communities

were classed by State rarity rank (S-rank).

Florida Ecological Greenways Network

Source: University of Florida GeoPlan Center and Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection

(DEP), Office of Greenways & Trails

The Florida Ecological Greenways Network model was created to delineate the ecological

component of a Statewide Greenways System plan developed by the DEP Office of Greenways

and Trails, under guidance from the Florida Greenways Coordinating Council and the Florida

Greenways and Trails Council. This plan guides OGT land acquisition and conservation efforts,

and promotes public awareness of the need for and benefits of a statewide greenways network. It

is also used as the primary data layer to inform the Florida Forever conservation land acquisition

program regarding the location of the most important conservation corridors and large, intact

landscapes in the state.

This data layer is intended to represent a statewide network of ecological hubs and linkages

designed to maintain large landscape-scale ecological functions throughout the state (Fig. 5).

The model started with an aggregation of a variety of existing habitat models including FWC

SHCAs, FWC Biodiversity Hotspots, FWC Priority Wetlands for Listed Species, FNAI Potential




Natural Areas, FNAI Areas of Conservation Interest, existing and proposed conservation lands,

and vegetation from FWC satellite imagery landcover. These data were used to identify a series

of hubs, or core areas, of large, landscape-scale ecological significance, and a network of

corridors connecting the hubs into a statewide ecological greenways system. The entire model

was updated in 2004 to include newly identified areas of ecological significance (including the

FNAI Rare Species Habitat Conservation Priorities and High Quality Watersheds models) and to

remove recently developed areas.

Hubs were identified as aggregations of important ecological areas from the habitat layers listed

above. Corridors were identified based on a suitability surface with least-cost path analysis to

find an optimal connector route between hubs. The suitability surface was based on a variety of

landcover features such as natural vegetation and road-less landscapes.

The final model was prioritized by assigning individual corridors into six priority classes, based

on contribution to the statewide ecological network. The top priority is called Critical Linkages,

which are considered most important for protecting the Florida Ecological Greenways Network.

Critical Linkages were identified based on both ecological value and threat from development

pressure. Priority 2 areas are also very significant and together with Critical Linkages they

represent the best opportunities to protect large, connected landscapes throughout Florida from

the Everglades to the western tip of the Florida panhandle.

For the CLIP analysis, a subset of the top two Greenways priorities was identified for further

prioritization as “critical parcels”. These parcels represent the best opportunity for making a

corridor connection in each Critical Linkage (“critical parcels 1”) or in each Priority 2 corridor

(“critical parcels 2”).

Significant Surface Waters


This data layer was created by FNAI, in consultation with state water resource experts,

specifically for the Florida Forever statewide environmental land acquisition program. It is

intended to show areas that have statewide significance for land acquisition to protect significant

surface waters with good water quality (Fig. 5). This data layer is not intended to address

surface waters with substantial restoration needs, only surface waters that are currently in a

relatively natural condition and are a priority for protecting Florida's water resources.

The Significant Surface Waters model is a combination of a seven water resource submodels:

Special Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) rivers as defined by DEP, Other OFWs (on

conservation lands), OFW lakes and Aquatic Preserves, coastal surface waters, the Florida Keys,

springs, and rare fish basins. For each resource category, drainage basins that contributed to the

resource were selected and buffers to water bodies applied. The final model was grouped into

six priority classes, which were also used for the CLIP analysis.




Natural Floodplain


Like the Surface Waters model, the Natural Floodplain data layer was created by FNAI, in

consultation with state water resource experts, specifically for the Florida Forever statewide

environmental land acquisition program. It is intended to show areas that have statewide

significance for land acquisition to protect natural floodplain (Fig. 6).

This model includes natural riverine floodplain identified from FWC Landsat satellite imagery

landcover vegetation types. Bottomland hardwoods, hardwood swamp, freshwater marsh, and

mixed wetland forest vegetation types that were adjacent to major river systems were included.

The model was prioritized into three classes: 1) floodplain in FNAI Potential Natural Areas

(PNA) priorities 1-4; 2) floodplain in PNA priority 5; and 3) floodplain outside PNAs. For the

CLIP analysis, a fourth priority class of floodplain was added that included all areas of the

vegetation types listed above beyond areas near major river systems.

The FNAI PNA data layer represents areas of intact natural vegetation as determined by

interpretation of aerial photography. Potential Natural Areas were assigned ranks of Priority 1

through Priority 5 based on size, perceived quality, and type of natural community present.

Wetlands

Source: Florida Natural Areas Inventory, based on National Wetlands Inventory

The Wetlands data layer used for the CLIP analysis was developed by FNAI specifically for the

Florida Forever statewide environmental land acquisition program (Fig. 7). It is based on the

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) dataset developed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The

NWI layer was modified by removing all recently developed areas and prioritizing the remaining

wetlands into four classes: 1) wetlands in FNAI PNA priorities 1-4; 2) wetlands in PNA priority

5; 3) wetlands in FLUCCS natural landcover categories; and 4) any remaining wetlands.

Aquifer Recharge

Source: Florida Natural Areas Inventory and Florida Geological Survey

The Aquifer Recharge model was developed by FNAI in collaboration with the Florida

Geological Survey (FGS) for use by the Florida Forever statewide environmental land

acquisition program. It is based on the FGS’ recent Florida Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment

(FAVA) model. Because FAVA provides only three priority classes for aquifer vulnerability

(high, medium, and low), FNAI and FGS further prioritized the model based on features such as

closed topographic depressions, springsheds, swallets, caves, and public water supply wells,

resulting in seven priority classes, which are also used for the CLIP analysis.




ANALYSIS METHODS

One of the primary recommendations of the CLIP Technical Advisory Group (TAG) was to

group the nine core data layers into three major resource categories: Biodiversity, Greenways,

and Water resources. TAG members felt that these categories of resources are sufficiently

distinct that developing separate models for each category would be useful. Consequently, all

CLIP model scenarios were developed separately for each resources category, as well as an

overall “Combined” version consisting of all three categories. SHCAs, Hotspots, FNAIHAB, and

Natural Communities were grouped into Biodiversity; Surface Waters, Floodplain, Wetlands,

and Recharge were grouped into the Water category; the Greenways category consists solely of

the Ecological Greenways model.

Because the scope of CLIP Phase I is to identify and explore different alternatives for prioritizing

statewide natural resource values, we have pursued three different modeling methods for

combining the core data layers into resource categories and into an overall “combined” model.

Each of these modeling methods is briefly described as follows:

Rule-Based Models

A rule-based approach allows modelers to use expert knowledge in identifying resource

priorities. Modelers assign rules for determining how each component or priority class of each

resource data layer is included in the model. For example, the modeler could decide that the first

(highest) priority of the Water category model will include all areas identified as highest priority

for Surface Waters, Floodplain, or Recharge, but not Wetlands. This approach generally focuses

on the relative values of each resource data layer individually, without much consideration for

the value of combinations of resources. Although it is possible to include combinations in the

rules (e.g. “include all areas that are Priority 1 for BOTH Surface Waters AND Floodplain”),

this can quickly become more complicated than the modeler can intuitively grasp, and is more

efficiently handled using a formal overlay method (such as the Weighted Overlay method

described below). The rule-based approach is most effective when modelers have a clear

understanding of both the relative value of priorities across resource data layers, and of resource

values that should stand out in any combination of those layers.

Table 3 outlines the criteria or rules used to assign priorities for each of the core data layers into

model classes for the Biodiversity and Water categories and an overall Combined model (no

separate model is required for the Greenways category since it consists of only one data layer).

For simplicity, values were assigned to five priority classes in each Rule-Based model.

Weighted Overlay Models

A weighted overlay model multiplies the values of each resource data layer by a weight factor

that reflects the importance of that resource relative to the others, and then adds the weighted

layers to achieve an overall score. The range of scores is then often grouped into priority classes

to simplify mapping and interpretation. The FNAIHAB model (described in the Data section of




this report and shown in Fig. 3) is an example of a weighted overlay model. While the weighted

overlay method is simple in concept, there are several steps needed to ensure model validity.

First, the values for each input data layer should be normalized (translated to the same numeric

scale) to avoid implicit biases in scoring. Second, weights should be assigned to each resource

layer in a consistent and standardized method. Weights are often assigned using the consensus

of a group of experts, and there are a variety of formal methods for achieving group consensus.

For this analysis we employed the Analytical Hierarchy Process (described further below) using

Expert Choice software to determine weights. Finally, if overlay scores are grouped into classes,

a formal method should be used to identify the class cut-off points. Several such methods are

available in GIS software (we used the “natural breaks” method for all models in this analysis).

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

In brief, AHP is a formal process for assigning relative values to any group of items or concepts.

The process starts by asking a user (or group of users) to score the relative value of each possible

pair of items in the group. A formal algorithm is used to translate those pairwise scores into

weights for each item. If multiple users score the items, AHP can generate consensus values (as

well as measures of the degree of consistency across users).

Table 4 lists the normalized scores assigned to each priority class for each of the core data layers,

as well as the weights assigned to each data layer in the overlay. Because the Phase I models are

intended as examples or demonstrations of alternatives for CLIP, the weights were determined

using the input of only the two principal investigators (Jon Oetting and Tom Hoctor) into the

Analytical Hierarchy Process. Any final version of a CLIP model should rely on a larger group

of experts (and possibly a broad range of stakeholders) for input. All Weighted Overlay models

were grouped into nine priority classes using natural breaks. Note that some input data layers

have additional priority classes at the low end—SHCAs, FNAIHAB, Natural Communities, and

Floodplain. The data in the low priorities were added to achieve a more comprehensive view of

those data layers, so that they would more closely correspond to layers such as wetlands and

recharge that already identify the full extent of the resource.

Hybrid Approach

Both the Rule-Based and Weighted Overlay modeling approaches have strengths and

weaknesses. Rule-based models are inherently subjective, with modelers’ (or experts’) opinions

having a direct outcome on the results. As noted above, rule-based models are also not as

effective at handling combinations. In contrast, weighted overlays are more objective, since the

results of weights chosen are not as intuitive. Weighted overlays effectively handle large

numbers of model combinations by reducing them to a simple mathematical formula. However,

weighted overlays can tend to have an averaging effect where high priority areas for any one

input layer are overwhelmed by areas with moderate value for several input layers. Areas that

are known to be important for particular resources can therefore fail to rise to the top in the

weighted overlay.

In order to take advantage of the strengths of these two approaches while counterbalancing their

weaknesses, we combined the two into what we will call Hybrid models. These models start




with a weighted overlay model, but assign rules for the modification of that model based on

expert opinion. For demonstration purposes in the CLIP Phase I models, we assigned simple

rules as follows: for each Hybrid model, areas identified as highest priority in the corresponding

Rule-Based model were promoted two classes from the Weighted Overlay model; areas

identified as second highest priority in the Rule-Based model were promoted one class from the

Weighted Overlay model. For example, if a location was assigned to the 4th priority class in the

Weighted Overlay model, and highest priority in the Rule-Based model, it was promoted two

classes from its position in the Weighted Overlay model to be assigned to the second highest

priority in the Hybrid model. This is just one example of how a hybrid model can be created: a

variety of rules could be identified to achieve alternative Hybrid approaches.

RESULTS

Our modeling approaches resulted in a total of nine overlay models: a Rule-Based, Weighted

Overlay, and Hybrid model each for: 1) the Biodiversity category; 2) the Water category, and 3)

a Combination of the Biodiversity, Greenways, and Water categories. No overlay models were

required for the Greenways category since it consists of only one data layer. Statewide maps for

each of these models are shown in Figures 10-18. Table 5 lists the amount of land in acres found

in each priority class of each model. Note that these figures are for private lands only (outside of

conservation lands).

For the purposes of CLIP Phase I, it is not our intent to identify any one of these

alternatives as a preferred model, rather we present them for comparison as examples of a

broad range of alternatives. In general, the maps and acreage tables serve to demonstrate the

effect of the three model approaches, with the hybrid models tending to fall between Rule-Based

and Weighted Overlay models in terms of spatial distribution of priorities across the state as well

as acreage in each priority class.

As just one example, note the effect of aquifer recharge on the three Water category models. An

area of relatively high priority for recharge in north central Florida (in the vicinity of Gainesville

and Ocala, Fig. 9) shows up as fairly high priority in the Rule-Based Water model (Fig. 13), but

fairly low priority in the Weighted Overlay Water model (Fig. 14), due to the low weight

assigned to recharge in the latter model. The Hybrid model promotes this area to moderate

priority.

The rules we chose for the Hybrid models are fairly conservative (promoting areas one or two

priority classes). An alternative approach might be to identify certain resource categories as

critical (similar to the critical parcels identified for Greenways) and assign them to the top

priority of the Hybrid model regardless of other values. We anticipate evaluating several

alternatives in the next phases of the CLIP process.




Conservation and Population Growth

As a demonstration of the utility of CLIP in planning for Florida’s future, we compared the

Combined Hybrid Model (Fig. 18) with a model of future development in Florida created by the

University of Florida GeoPlan Center for 1000 Friends of Florida (Zwick & Carr 2006). The

model identifies projected land development for the years 2020, 2040, and 2060. We grouped

the top three priorities of the CLIP Combined Hybrid Model and overlaid them on the growth

projections for 2020 and 2060 (Fig. 19, Table 6). The results show several areas in the vicinity

of urban centers around the state that are projected to convert from high natural resource values

to development. THIS ANALYSIS IS VERY PRELIMINARY—results could change

significantly based on the CLIP model methodology as well as the methods used to overlay CLIP

onto the projected development model.

NEXT STEPS

A. Data Gaps

Data Gaps were discussed at various stages during CLIP Phase I in meetings between FNAI, UF,

FWC and with the TAG. Using the major category structure developed in CLIP Phase I,

biodiversity, landscapes/greenways, and water resources are well represented with current data.

However, there are some gaps that could be addressed in future iterations of CLIP. First, the

most important biodiversity gap is representation of aquatic ecosystems including freshwater,

estuarine, and marine. Although some data exist identifying aquatic biodiversity, none are

currently in a suitable form for representing statewide priorities consistently. FWC is working

on an assessment of freshwater aquatic biodiversity that will likely serve to fill this gap in the

future. These data will indicate locations of watersheds and water bodies important for

freshwater focal species and natural communities. Estuarine and marine aquatic biodiversity is

another challenge. The FWC Florida Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) has developed a

variety of GIS data that identifies sensitive coastal natural resources. Some of these layers,

including seagrass, mangroves, and coral reefs can serve as important surrogates for estuarine

and marine biodiversity. However, discussions with FWRI about how best to incorporate these

data into CLIP are ongoing. Issues with the current data include lack of a consistent

methodology for identifying seagrass beds statewide and the potential need for methods to

identify higher priority seagrass, mangrove, and reef areas to be consistent with current CLIP

methodology. Because these data will largely include new spatial areas currently unrepresented

in CLIP, methods for integrating estuarine and marine data with existing CLIP data will have to

be developed. FWRI also has an Environmental Sensitivity Index for coastal areas but we are

discussing potential modifications of the data for use in CLIP as well as what resource category

it may best represent. In addition, The Nature Conservancy developed an estuarine/marine

reserve design analysis for FWC as part of the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy

process that might also be useful. However, since this analysis was based on limited data for

coastal aquatic biodiversity there are questions about whether it serves as a useful depiction of

priority areas for estuarine and marine biodiversity.




Other data gaps include water resources and potential additional resource categories addressing

various ecosystem services. An important information source that has yet to be fully developed

is detailed analysis of springsheds, defined as the recharge zones for springs that can be

negatively impacted by both reduced recharge and nutrient and pollutant loading. Although such

analyses have been conducted for some springs (and those springsheds are included in the

Aquifer Recharge model used for CLIP), it has yet to be done for all important springs

throughout the state. Another aspect of water resources that could be addressed in future

iterations of CLIP involves hydrologic restoration. Potentially the best examples are

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) projects in south Florida as part of

Everglades restoration. We are still working to determine whether such information is suitable

for inclusion in CLIP and what specific data might be incorporated. Finally, whether additional

data depicting water quality should be incorporated into CLIP is still being determined.

Other ecosystem service values that could be included in future CLIP iterations include flood

control, storm protection, carbon sequestration, scenic resource or "viewsheds", resource-based

recreation, etc. Flood control is the only additional ecosystem service currently addressed to

some extent in CLIP Phase I through the inclusion of FNAI's Floodplain layer. However, more

detailed analyses of priority areas for providing flood storage could be incorporated in the future.

Storm protection is partially addressed through high-velocity zones in FEMA data and Coastal

Barrier Resource Act (COBRA) lands administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Issues with these data include a lack of complete FEMA data for all coastal areas across the state

and the political manipulation of COBRA lands through frequent petitions to get COBRA

designations removed from coastal lands sought for development. The Century Commission

should work with partners to determine whether these data and any additional data or analysis

could be integrated to provide a useful identification of important lands providing coastal storm

protection. For now, COBRA lands and high-velocity zones could be used as "overlay" data to

identify overlap with current CLIP criteria. Such overlay criteria will be discussed in more detail

below.

Carbon sequestration will likely become a critical issue in expanding efforts to reduce carbon

levels in the atmosphere as part of a strategy to curb global climate change. Carbon

sequestration involves the restoration of vegetation, especially trees, or protection of forest lands

in large tracts to provide long term storage of carbon that would otherwise end up in the

atmosphere. It is likely that some areas across the state may be more suitable for providing

carbon storage than others. Determining whether meaningful, spatially explicit criteria can be

developed for identifying carbon sequestration potential should be a priority for the Century

Commission and its partners.

Scenic resources and natural resource-based recreation can also be considered ecosystem

services. Scenic resources might include "viewsheds" such as the Orange Lake overlook in

Marion County or the Apalachicola River ravines (among many other potential examples) that

provide outstanding, nature or rural-based scenic resources. Whether there is sufficient criteria

and data to identify such resources and whether they are significant enough for inclusion in CLIP

should be evaluated. Resource-based recreation can include a variety of activities that are

problematic for inclusion in CLIP due to various issues for identifying priority areas. FNAI has

considered such data as part of the Florida Forever evaluation process but consistent criteria have




been elusive. Probably the most clearly defined recreation data is the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection Office of Greenways and Trails proposed trail network. Though the

development of additional data for identifying spatial priorities for resource-based recreation

may be valuable for a variety of uses, whether such criteria are relevant for the goal of CLIP

should be discussed.

B. Data Overlays

Based on discussions with TAG, various data overlays are another proposed element of CLIP.

These overlays are additional GIS data that can be compared with core CLIP data. These

comparisons would help identify areas important for additional specific natural resource

objectives that are also important for CLIP. Current examples of proposed overlay data include

303(d) Impaired Basins, COBRA lands, FEMA high velocity zones, climate change impacts,

agriculture, and silviculture. Significant areas within CLIP that overlay 303(d) Impaired Basins

(and especially the Water Resource category) may be focal areas for maintaining and restoring

water quality. Significant areas within CLIP that overlay COBRA and FEMA high velocity

zones likely indicate high priorities for providing storm protection from coastal storms. There

are likely additional natural resource layers that can be used in this manner in future iterations of

CLIP. As data and CLIP evolves some overlay layers may become core CLIP data.

At this point, comparisons of CLIP with potential climate change impacts might be limited to

exploring potential sea level rise. Determining which CLIP priority areas might be most

threatened by rising sea level might help in developing recommendations for policy and

management actions. This exploration might also result in using climate change impacts as a

core part of the CLIP process in order to potentially modify priorities.

Another category of overlay data are agricultural and silvicultural lands. These working lands

are an important part of rural lands that provide a variety of natural resource values in Florida.

In many cases, these lands provide very significant natural resource values as currently managed,

and their loss to residential, commercial, or industrial development would result in important

negative impacts. These overlays with CLIP are intended to show where agricultural and

silvicultural lands may be most important for providing multiple natural resource benefits.

C. Buffers/Land Use Context/Ecological Integrity Indices

Buffer or context analysis is another supporting assessment discussed in TAG meetings. The

intent of buffer/context analysis is to identify additional areas adjacent or near either existing

conservation lands or high CLIP priorities that may be important for maintaining ecosystem

functions and land management activities such as prescribed fire or watersheds. In the case of

prescribed fire, information on prevailing wind directions, smoke drift, and other potentially

relevant data to identify areas most prone to smoke impacts and where intact rural buffers would

be important.




In addition, context or landscape ecological integrity analysis could also indicate CLIP priority

areas that may be higher or lower in significance based on whether they are embedded within

landscape with higher or lower threats from existing human land uses or activities. Such an

analysis was conducted by the University of Florida as part of the Comprehensive Wildlife

Conservation Strategy process in 2005 for the The Nature Conservancy and the Florida Fish and

Wildlife Conservation Commission. These analyses could include criteria such as human

population densities, road densities, habitat fragmentation, roadless areas, land use intensity,

impervious surface, and any other indicators of ecological integrity at a landscape scale. This

information could be used to refine CLIP priorities or to identify potential management actions

that could address various ecological integrity issues in priority areas.

D. AHP with TAG

The Analytic Hierarchy Process is a robust methodology for calculating defendable weightings

when combining resource data layers into combined prioritizations. The version of AHP

weightings used in this report were calculated based on preference inputs from FNAI and UF

staff. In the next phase of CLIP, we intend to work with the TAG to calculate AHP weightings

that represent the cumulative preferences of all TAG experts. These weights would represent the

cumulative "consensus" of all experts to identify the most important conservation opportunities.

E. Exploring Preference within Core Data Layers

Another potential application of AHP methodology is the development of ranks within individual

core data layers. In CLIP Phase I we have developed ranks within each core data layer based on

the informed opinion of the organization responsible for creating the original data (e.g., either

FNAI, UF, or FWC at this point). Although AHP still involves the use of expert opinion, it may

provide a useful alternative for systematically calculating preference ranks within each core data

layer. We want to explore this approach as another potential refinement in the next phase of

CLIP.

F. Sensitivity Analysis

There are several relevant aspects of sensitivity analysis that have been discussed from CLIP.

First, we intend to explore multi-variate statistical analysis to identify relationships between

CLIP data that could influence weightings and data integration. Second, the use of AHP to

combine core CLIP data and resource categories allows sensitivity analysis to determine how

much weighting affects the data combination results. Such sensitivity analysis can be conducted

and presented to the TAG in the near future to help determine what data integration methods are

the most robust.




G. Comparison of CLIP Results with Development Proposals, Growth Projections, and

Proposed Transportation Corridors

Development and transportation data is another type of overlay with CLIP data that should

provide integral information for the Century Commission. Determining where CLIP priorities

are most threatened by future development projects will help inform efforts to minimize the

impacts of future development on important natural resource conservation goals. Various data

should be considered including existing Developments of Regional Impacts (DRI) and any other

relevant development proposal information, growth projection modeling, and proposed

transportation infrastructure projects. DRIs are current development proposals that may conflict

with natural resource conservation priorities. Overlay with DRIs may inform future

modifications in the DRI process as well as potentially modify CLIP priorities based on

resources that might be lost within existing DRIs.

As noted in the Results section above, growth projection modeling has recently been conducted

for the state by the UF GeoPlan Center for 1000 Friends of Florida (Zwick and Carr 2006) and is

being conducted in various Florida regions as well (Margaret Carr, University of Florida,

personal communication). We have provided one example in this report of an overlay of CLIP

on growth projections, and we intend to explore this issue further in the next phases of CLIP. In

addition, regional growth projection modeling could be done in conjunction with CLIP next

phase(s) to assess the impacts of various development (such as more or less density of residential

development) and conservation (such as protection of more or less CLIP priorities) scenarios.

This is alternative futures modeling that could be combined with community priorities at the

regional scale to determine the potential impacts of future growth and how various growth

management and conservation policies would affect development impacts.

Proposed transportation infrastructure is another critical aspect of potential future development

that should be compared with CLIP. Proposed new highway corridors that traverse priority

landscapes for protecting multiple natural resource values should receive special evaluation to

determine the nature of potential impacts and how they can be avoided, minimized, or mitigated.

CLIP offers the opportunity to provide a comprehensive natural resource priority context for all

transportation decisions including both proposed new roads and road widenings.

H. Regional Workshops

Future phases of CLIP may also incorporate regional workshops to identify local greenspace

protection priorities. Regional workshops could include presentation of statewide CLIP

priorities and various overlays, opportunities to propose modifications to the statewide database

for use either at the state or regional scale, the incorporation of additional natural resource and

other data for identifying regional and local conservation priorities, and identification of regional

growth priorities and development of growth projection modeling to identify regional strategies

for managing growth to promote healthy, sustainable ecosystems and human communities.




CONCLUSION

CLIP Phase I provides a set of examples of how currently available, consistent statewide

conservation planning GIS data can be combined to identify statewide conservation priorities. It

is not a final product and should not be used in its current form to make planning decisions at

any scale. CLIP will be a spatial database of statewide conservation priorities for protecting

biodiversity and other ecosystem and natural resource services that can be used as a decision

support tool by the Century Commission to inform the development of strategies for promoting a

sustainable Florida. CLIP should serve as an essential and flexible data organization tool to

facilitate the identification of conservation constraints and opportunities when compared to other

data including working landscapes, development proposals and projections, and transportation

infrastructure. The primary value of CLIP rests in the variety of analyses that can be conducted

to address different questions and issues faced by decision makers, rather than any single model

scenario or map produced as an outcome of such analyses.

CLIP Phase I is a starting point indicating what data are currently available to provide useful,

consistent statewide information on conservation priorities. It can serve to foster discussions

regarding the nature of future phases of CLIP including research priorities, stakeholder

involvement in the CLIP and Century Commission process, and the relationship between

statewide and regional priorities for conservation and development. Florida is in the fortunate

situation to have a wealth of high quality GIS data, and CLIP Phase I indicates how this

information can be integrated into a data support framework to inform and support the decision-

making process.




Citations

Cox, J., and R. Kautz. 2000. Habitat conservation needs of rare and imperiled wildlife in Florida.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Office of Environmental Services,

Tallahassee, Florida.

Cox, J., R. Kautz, M. MacLaughlin, and T. Gilbert. 1994. Closing the gaps in Florida's wildlife

habitat conservation system. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Office of

Environmental Services, Tallahassee, Florida.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Florida Greenways Coordinating Council.

1998. Connecting Florida’s Communities with Greenways and Trails: The Five-Year

Implementation Plan for the Florida Greenways and Trails System. Florida Department of

Environmental Protection, Office of Greenways and Trails. Tallahassee, Florida.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Florida Greenways Coordinating Council.

2004. 2004 Update and Prioritization of Florida’s Trail Network. Florida Department of

Environmental Protection, Office of Greenways and Trails. Tallahassee, Florida.

Hoctor, T. S., M. H. Carr, and P. D. Zwick. 2000. Identifying a linked reserve system using a

regional landscape approach: the Florida ecological network. Conservation Biology 14:984-

1000.

Hoctor, T., M. Carr, and J. Teisinger. 2005. Reprioritization of the Florida Ecological Greenways

Network based on the New Base Boundaries Adopted in 2004. Final Report. Office of

Greenways and Trails, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee.

Knight, A. L., and J. B. Oetting. 2006. Florida Forever conservation needs assessment technical

report. Version 2.1. Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Tallahassee, Florida (available online as

of April 2007 at www.fnai.org).

Zwick, P. D. and M. H. Carr. 2006. Florida 2060, A population distribution scenario for the state

of Florida. Report to 1000 Friends of Florida, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.




FIGURE 1

The data displayed on this map were developed for statewide conservation planning purposes and may not be of sufficient precision for use at local scales. The map products in this CLIP Phase I report are examples of how statewide conservation GIS data could be used to inform broad-scale planning and are not intended to be used for regulatory decisions at any scale.




FIGURE 2





FIGURE 3





FIGURE 4





FIGURE 5





FIGURE 6





FIGURE 7





FIGURE 8





FIGURE 9





FIGURE 10

THIS IS NOT A FINAL CONSERVATION PLAN. This map is an example. See full report for details. The data displayed on this map were developed for statewide conservation planning purposes and may not be of sufficient precision for use at local scales. The map products in this CLIP Phase I report are examples of how statewide conservation GIS data could be used to inform broad-scale planning and are not intended to be used for regulatory decisions at any scale




FIGURE 11





FIGURE 12





FIGURE 13





FIGURE 14





FIGURE 15





FIGURE 16





FIGURE 17





FIGURE 18





FIGURE 19

THIS IS NOT A FINAL ANALYSIS. This map is an example. See full report for details. The data displayed on this map were developed for statewide conservation planning purposes and may not be of sufficient precision for use at local scales. The map products in this CLIP Phase I report are examples of how statewide conservation GIS data could be used to inform broad-scale planning and are not intended to be used for regulatory decisions at any scale




Table 1

Existing Data Layers Considered

for Inclusion in CLIP

FNAI Potential Natural Areas

FNAI FF Rare Species Habitat Conservation Priorities

FNAI FF Under-represented Natural Communities

FWC SHCAs

FWC other layers—Biodiversity Hotspots, Pr. Hab. For Wetland-Dependent Species, Integrated

Wildlife Habitat Ranking System, Freshwater Species Analysis

UF/OGT Ecological Greenways

UF/OGT Recreational Trails

FNAI FF Surface Water

FNAI FF Wetlands

FNAI FF Natural Floodplain

FNAI/FGS FF Recharge

FNAI FF Coastal

TNC Ecoregional Planning

FWRI Environmental Sensitivity Index for coastline

TNC CP-ACI Map

USFWS Panther Habitat Zones

USFWS Critical Habitat

Existing Conservation Lands (FNAI MAs data)

Other Existing protected areas (Federal or other easements such as NRCS if available)

Wetland mitigation banks

Florida Forever projects

WMD Save Our Rivers projects

FWC CWCS terrestrial ecological integrity layers (land use change, road-less, edge effects, fire

condition, fragmentation/intactness, growth pressure, road density, land use intensity,

major road distance, patch size)

FWC CWCS aquatic ecological integrity layers (ditch density, distance from dairies/feedlots,

percent impervious surface, intact land cover density)

FNAI 2004 intensive development land use update

FWC CWCS estuarine/marine analysis data layers

Class 1 and Class 2 Surface Waters

National Estuarine Research Reserves

National Marine Sanctuaries

COBRA

Indian Reservations

Prime Farmland layer in ETDM

Cultural and Historic sites data

(FF = Florida Forever data layers)




Table 2.

Core Data Layers

Included in CLIP Phase I

1. FWC Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas

2. FWC Biodiversity Hotspots

3. FNAI Rare Species Habitat Conservation Priorities

4. FNAI Under-protected Natural Communities

5. UF/OGT Ecological Greenways

6. FNAI Significant Surface Waters

7. FNAI Natural Floodplain

8. FNAI/NWI Wetlands

9. FNAI/FGS Aquifer Recharge




Table 3.

Criteria for Rule-Based Models

BIODIVERSITY MODEL

Class SHCA Hotspots FNAIHAB NatCom

1 - High S1 species

Group A species S1 coms

2 S2 species 7+ species Pr 1-3 S2-S3 coms

3 S3 species 5-6 species Pr 4-5 S4 coms

4

2-4 species Pr 6 S5 coms (FLUCCS natural)

5 - Low

WATER MODEL

Class Surface Water Floodplain Wetlands Recharge

1 - High 1st mag. Springs

2 Pr 1-2 Pr 1 Pr 1 Pr 1-2

3 Pr 3-4 Pr 2 Pr 2-3 Pr 3-4

4 Pr 5-6 Pr 3 Pr 4 Pr 5-7

5 - Low

COMBINED MODEL

Class Biodiversity Greenways Water 1 - High rb model cls 1 crit. Parcels 1 rb model cls 1 2 rb model cls 2 Pr 1-3 rb model cls 2 3 rb model cls 3 Pr 4-5 rb model cls 3 4 rb model cls 4 Pr 6 rb model cls 4 5 - Low rb model cls 5

rb model cls 5




Table 4.

Weighted Overlay

Input Scores and Weights

BIODIVERSITY MODEL

SHCA

weight: 0.345

Hotspots

weight: 0.054

FNAIHAB

weight: 0.432

Nat Com

weight: 0.169

S1 species 10

13 species 10

Priority 1 10

S1 coms 10

S2 species 8

12 species 9.9

Priority 2 8

S2 coms 9

S3 species 6

11 species 9.8

Priority 3 6

S3 coms 8 rem. pot. hab. 3

10 species 9.7

Priority 4 5

S4 coms 6

no data 1

9 species 9.5

Priority 5 4

rem. nat. landcvr 3

8 species 9

Priority 6 3

no data 1

7 species 8.5

rem. non-dev. 2

6 species 8

no data 1

5 species 7.25

4 species 6.5

3 species 5.5

2 species 4

1 species 2.5

no data 1

WATER MODEL

Surface Water

weight: 0.614

Floodplain

weight: 0.132

Wetlands

weight: 0.194

Recharge

weight: 0.060

Priority 1 10

Priority 1 10

Priority 1 10

Priority 1 10

Priority 2 8

Priority 2 8

Priority 2 7

Priority 2 9

Priority 3 6

Priority 3 6

Priority 3 6

Priority 3 8

Priority 4 4

rem. fldpln. veg. 3

Priority 4 5

Priority 4 7

Priority 5 3

no data 1

no data 1

Priority 5 6

Priority 6 2

Priority 6 4

no data 1

Priority 7 2

no data 1

COMBINED MODEL

Biodiversity

weight: 0.661

Greenways

weight: 0.208

Water

weight: 0.131

Class 1 - High 10

Crit. Parcels 1 10

Class 1 - High 10

Class 2 9

Crit. Parcels 2 9.5

Class 2 9

Class 3 8

Priority 1 8

Class 3 8

Class 4 7

Priority 2 7

Class 4 7

Class 5 6

Priority 3 6

Class 5 6

Class 6 5

Priority 4 5

Class 6 5

Class 7 4

Priority 5 4

Class 7 4

Class 8 3

Priority 6 3

Class 8 3

Class 9 2

no data 1

Class 9 2

Class 10 - Low 1

Class 10 - Low 1




Table 5.

Acres of Private Lands

For Each Model Priority Class

BIODIVERSITY

Rule-Based Model

Weighted Overlay Model

Hybrid Model

Class Acres

Class Acres

Class Acres

1 - High 1,831,029

9 - High 194,036

9 - High 1,200,057

2 3,693,003

8 528,283

8 497,379

3 7,417,776

7 610,110

7 538,095

4 5,699,179

6 760,165

6 832,669

5 - Low 6,397,070

5 1,111,601

5 894,660

4 1,564,371

4 2,316,567

Total: 25,038,057

3 4,712,685

3 3,477,317

2 9,022,391

2 8,805,591

1 - Low 6,361,673

1 - Low 6,394,532

Total: 24,865,315

Total: 24,956,867

GREENWAYS

Class Acres Critical Parcels 1 2,126,570 Critical Parcels 2 999,405 1 - High 947,683 2 1,840,899 3 946,092 4 802,023 5 913,234 6 3,397,763 7 - Low 12,891,665

Total: 24,865,333

WATER

Rule-Based Model


Hybrid Model

Class Acres

Class Acres

Class Acres

1 - High 1,234

9 - High 343,430

9 - High 781,135

2 6,358,866

8 437,386

8 706,763

3 10,384,819

7 738,330

7 1,317,804

4 5,940,308

6 1,509,960

6 726,174

5 - Low 2,352,830

5 1,192,461

5 1,368,306

4 4,920,769

4 5,244,779

Total: 25,038,057

3 4,219,527

3 4,134,158

2 6,361,150

2 5,756,093

1 - Low 5,142,320

1 - Low 5,002,846

Total: 24,865,333

Total: 25,038,057

(continued)




Table 5 cont.

COMBINED

Rule-Based Model


Hybrid Model

Class Acres

Class Acres

Class Acres

1 - High 3,546,230

9 - High 291,305

9 - High 291,305

2 9,800,575

8 655,463

8 655,463

3 7,307,672

7 792,163

7 792,163

4 2,800,309

6 962,505

6 962,505

5 - Low 1,583,271

5 1,770,410

5 1,770,410

4 3,119,530

4 3,119,530

Total: 25,038,057

3 3,905,540

3 3,905,540

2 6,888,753

2 6,888,753

1 - Low 6,479,647

1 - Low 6,479,647

Total: 24,865,315

Total: 24,865,315




Table 6.

Overlay of Combined Hybrid Model

with Growth Projections

Areas Projected Developed by 2020 Acres

High Resource Value 27,446

Medium Resource Value 80,104

Low Resource Value 348,807

No Resource Value 5,779

Areas Projected Developed by 2060 Acres

High Resource Value 169,543

Medium Resource Value 384,401

Low Resource Value 980,740

No Resource Value 11,670

Date post:	19-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

CCLLIIPP - Florida Natural Areas Inventory · 2017. 6. 28. · (Benedict and McMahon 2006). Maps...

Documents