1. Notice: The views expressed here are those of the individual authors and may not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Scientists in EPA have prepared the EPA sections, and those sections have been reviewed in accordance with EPA’s peer and administrative review policies and approved for presentation and publication. The EPA contributed funding to the construction of this website but is not responsible for it's contents. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

2. Protecting Our Land, Our Communities & Our Future

3. Mission Goal: PROACTIVELY protect the most significant “natural” lands in our region But what are they? And where are they? How can we speed the process up? How can we best leverage our resources?

4. A ‘Bottom-Up’ Scientifically-Valid Process for Setting Conservation Priorities - A Work in Progress TM

5. Conservation Science Forum ~ 50 + + REGIONAL CONSERVATION ORGANIZATIONS WITH ~ 85 + REPS ♦ Natural Lands Trust ♦ The Nature Conservancy - PA ♦ Audubon Society of PA ♦ Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia ♦ Morris Arboretum ♦ Heritage Conservancy ♦ Villanova University ♦ Delaware River Basin Commission ♦ CH2M Hill ♦ Drexel University ♦ West Chester University ♦ Temple University ♦ Brandywine Conservancy ♦ The University of Pennsylvania ♦ Swarthmore College ♦ University of the Sciences ♦ U.S. EPA Region III ♦ Pa. DEP ♦ Widener University ♦ Philadelphia Zoo ♦ DVRPC ♦ PEC ♦ Society of Conservation Biology ♦ Bucks County Open Space ♦ Montgomery County Land Trust

6. SMART CONSERVATION CONCEPT – TIERED APPROACH Step 1 Step 2 “PHASE 1” or the WEB TOOL Step 3 “PHASE 2” Rapid Site Assessment Step 4 WHO? Ecological Module “hot spots” map Review Communit y Module (votes for nominated sites) NLT “confirms” resource value Agriculture Module “hot spots” map “infers” resource value “confirms” resource value Review Community Module (votes for nominated sites) PECPHILA & BRANDYW INE “infers” resource value - using publically available GIS data & establishes relative development “threat” Recreation Scenic Cultural & Historical Module “hot spots” map “infers” resource value “confirms” resource value Review Community Module (votes for nominated sites) PEC PHILA ? Restoration Module “hot spots” map “infers” resource value “confirms” resource value Review Community Module (votes for nominated sites) Consortium ? “hot spots” map Brownfield Module “infers” resource value “confirms” resource value Review Community Module (votes for nominated sites) Consortium? Consortium ? (NLT guided?) Hydrologic Module “hot spots” map “infers” resource value “confirms” resource value Review Community Module (votes for nominated sites) Consortium? Community Module “nomination” site inputs “ VOTE ” - shows community interest provides database of activities & contacts for coordination community profiling (to inform final decisions for the other modules) Smart Conservation Model User- Tracking

10. Draw Boundary Around Your Site

16. Ranking County Natural Area Inventory & PNDI Polygons This is an early example of the Smart Conservation Ranking system for PNDI/CNAI data by polygon to reveal where the rarest and most viable populations of rare species and communities are found in a geographic region. This ranking takes into account the number of rare elements, their rarity globally and state-wide, as well as the quality of the population and the date the population quality score was assigned Since these early maps were generated with this process in 1998-9, NLT has improved the process so that a numeric 0-10 scoring class system can also be used to make this ranking process compatible with all the other 0-10 score ranking processes in the Smart Conservation project.

17. Development Threat Assessment for 5-county region in SE PA – could be a model for threat assessment for a broader region if data is available.

18. View Results: Composite Site Score

19. View Scores by Taxon

20. Search Database for other Sites

21. View Search Results Select Sites to Compare

22. Compare Site Values For Searched Sites

23. Benefits ♦ Establishes approximate relative values for targeting scarce resources ♦ Reveals key resource information, in a consistent way ♦ For resource or site manager, gives site and regional context ♦ Builds regional database assessed sites  Higher Value  Protection  Lower Value  Restoration ♦ Can work at multiple scales ♦ Future: database of related information?  Species lists  Name of field assessor  Organization undertaking protection activities

24. Smart Conservation - Phase 1 Screening Criteria by Taxa Group Model Component MAMMALS GAP - Potential Species Richness GAP habitat data – endemic species compiled to Taxon Map GAP - Potential Species “Conservation Value” GAP habitat data - weighted Potential Habitat Size (from Satellite data -- Landcover --> habitat value assessment) Potential Habitat Shape (from Satellite data -- Landcover --> habitat value assessment) Special Habitat (from Phase 1 fieldwork) Landscape Matrix (from Satellite data -- Landcover --> habitat value assessment) Presence of an IMA (Until complete, a qualitative assessment of value of the site for mammals given some standard guidelines for assessment) Habitat Structure (from Phase 1 fieldwork) PLANTS Community Diversity (from Phase 1 fieldwork) Coefficients of Conservation (from Phase 1 fieldwork) Potential Habitat Size (from Satellite data -- Landcover --> habitat value assessment) Potential Habitat Shape (from Satellite data -- Landcover --> habitat value assessment) Non-disturbance (from Phase 1 fieldwork) - Human - Invasive Plants - Deer browse Landscape Matrix (from Satellite data -- Landcover --> habitat value assessment)

25. AQUATICS Watershed Land Use - Ratio of "quality" - (from Satellite data -- Landcover --> habitat value assessment) - between all upstream from site within the watershed vs. 2 miles upstream from site within the watershed GAP - Potential Species Richness (i.e FISH by watershed area and/or by watershed stream) GAP - Weighted Potential Species Richness/Cons Value (i.e FISH by watershed area and/or by watershed stream) Riparian Corridor Cover & Continuity (from Satellite data -- Landcover --> habitat value assessment) by: - 1st & 2nd Order - 3rd, 4th & 5th Order - 6th + Order 303 (d) Water Quality Assessment %1st Order Streams compared with % Forest Cover by PA Small Watershed Location of the Site in Watershed Steep slopes (0/5/10 = 0-15/15-25/25+) Wetlands (by type, size and shape) & Hydric Soils (by size and shape) Floodplains (would like to also include Foodways, FEMA?PEMA zones, etc, but unavailable due to 'security issues)) Dams Point Source Discharges Road-Stream Crossings &/OR Road density &/OR Culverts

26. BIRDS Potential Species Richness GAP habitat data – endemic species compiled to Taxon Map Potential Species “Conservation Value” GAP habitat data - weighted Landscape Matrix (from Satellite data -- Landcover --> habitat value assessment) Potential Habitat Size (from Satellite data -- Landcover --> habitat value assessment) Presence of an IBA (GIS data) Interior Forest Habitat (from Satellite data -- Landcover --> habitat value assessment) Habitat Structure (from Phase 1 fieldwork) RARITY (presented in the analysis as only one "rarity" for data security reasons) Rare Plant and Animal Species & Communities Onsite (as of date of published CNAI for animals and March 2002 for plants) Rare Plant and Animal Species & Communities Offsite (as of date of published CNAI for animals and March 2002 for plants) Areas of Local Concern HERPS Potential Species Richness GAP habitat data – endemic species compiled to Taxon Map Potential Species “Conservation Value” GAP habitat data - weighted ADDITIONAL CRITERIA UNDER DEVELOPMENT (THIS IS NOT A COMPLETE LIST….OTHER CRITERIA MAY YET BE ADDED) Landscape Connectivity (based on landscape conservation/conservation biology principals) Including: Protected Lands ranked by type (based on level of protection and ecological management implementation)**

27. Smart Conservation - online at PASDA http://cegis4.cas.psu.edu/scm Overview at www.smartconservation.orgwww.smartconservation.org Clare Billett cbillett@natlands.org

28. Conservation Approaches ♦ Rarity actors on the stage TNC, WWF, Conservation International ♦ Representation actors on the stage - high quality examples of common species/communities/a full compliment of representative regional biodiversity – not just rarity, but also the best of the rest…. TNC, WWF, Conservation International, Aubudon ♦ Landscape & Watershed Conservation the stage; places of the heart; visual or process conservation …. Watershed Groups, Riverkeeper, Water Departments, DEP, EPA, Land Trusts, Conservancies, TPL, other Open Space organizations, Agricultural Easement programs, etc ♦ Buffers (expand existing protected lands) State & Federal Agencies, Land Trusts ♦ Ecological Network/Course Filters (coarse filter; habitat for large charismatic mega fauna - nodes & corridors; connectivity ) TWP, Sky Islands, PWRP, The Conservation Fund, (Green Infrastructure), State Agencies (Greenways, GreenPrint, BioMap, etc)