Amy M. Lerner, M.A., Brown University, May 2006

Transboundary Conservation Planning for Ecological and Human Values:

A Case Study of the Moosup River Watershed

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

A variety of models have been developed to help identify priorities for land conservation. Ecologically-based models emphasize the protection of biological diversity and ecosystem structure and function.  Socially-based conservation models stress human use and enjoyment of the landscape, including utilitarian interests in ecosystem services. I use the Moosup River Watershed, on the Rhode Island and Connecticut border, as a case study to answer the question: Can ecological and social goals for land protection be reconciled to prioritize conservation efforts in the Moosup River watershed? 

 

The Moosup River watershed is part of the Borderlands[1], characterized by a relatively unfragmented forest corridor straddling 20 towns on the Rhode Island and Connecticut border. The Nature Conservancy as well as the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management have recently focused on conserving large tracts of land in the Wood-Pawcatuck watershed which is south of the Moosup watershed.  I developed baseline maps using ArcGIS software showing the spatial distribution of natural and cultural resource attributes in the Moosup watershed and compiled data from the US Census and other sources regarding development pressures from population growth, transportation corridors, and land-use trends. I then produced maps showing alternative conservation strategies based upon: 1) ecologically-important habitat, 2) an overlay of unweighted social and ecological attributes and 3) conservation preferences provided by a survey of 50 local officials from the five towns in the Moosup Watershed.   

 

The survey responses illustrate that 87 percent of respondents think more land should be protected in their towns and 92 percent think that drinking water protection is the highest priority, significantly higher than any other attribute (p< .05).  Additionally, most other landscape attributes were not significantly different from each other in preference, though they were significantly lower than drinking water protection (p< .05). The survey results also showed that town officials prefer fee-simple purchase by state agencies in land protection, although this result was not significantly higher than other management types.  Finally, there was no significant difference between the survey results in Connecticut and Rhode Island towns. 

 

The map of high priority parcels in the Moosup River Watershed and its towns reveal that aquatic habitat (river and pond buffers and wetlands) have a high priority according to all three scenarios.  The greatest threats to the overall health of these areas include future development, interruption of free-flowing streams, sewage discharges, roads and associated road runoff.  The areas of the watershed most valuable to protect given these threats are the Moosup River headwaters and Upper Moosup River in Foster, RI, buffers along Routes 6, 14, and 102, and the headwaters of the Quanduck and Snake Meadow Brooks in Killingly, Connecticut.  I recommend that these areas be prioritized by The Nature Conservancy, municipal land trusts, and the Departments of Environmental Protection/Management.

 

An evaluation of current protected lands in the Moosup River Watershed shows that only seven percent of aquifer or wellhead protection areas and 10 percent of riparian buffers (250 ft) are currently protected from future development.  Town Comprehensive or Conservation and Development Plans in the Moosup Watershed already prioritize the protection of water resources and advocate alternative planning techniques such as Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs), compact subdivisions and mandatory open space requirements in proposed subdivisions.  However, the towns employ differing zoning and subdivision regimes which allow for development to occur along the main stem of the Moosup River and along Routes 14, 6 and Interstate 395.  State agencies could assist conservation planning in the Moosup Watershed by encouraging a bi-state watershed council and working with agencies across state boundaries to enable towns to partner in smart growth strategies across the border. Additionally, the State Department of Transportation can either purchase land along the road buffers, or create incentives or mandates for buffering along the major transportation routes mentioned above. Finally, Statewide Planning agencies can require that these methods be included in town comprehensive plans and framed the context of watershed protection, and create consistent guidelines across state boundaries.

 


[1] The “Borderlands Project” was initiated by The Nature Conservancy in 2001, focusing on the Pawcatuck Borderlands Forest, and expanded to the entire border with the Rhode Island Economic Policy Council in 2003: http://www.borderlandsproject.org/