Conservation Commission

Meeting Minutes of the Montpelier Conservation Commission (Special meeting to prioritize natural communities and wildlife corridors in City) August 30, 2012 Attendees: Jens Hilke (VTDFW), Gwen Hallsmith (City Planning and Community Development), Chris Hilke, Shawn White, Karen Freeman, Alex Hoffmeier, Roy Schiff  Big thank you to Jens for educating us and assisting with the TROD process in Montpelier!  Two methods for map creation o Co-currence (co-location)  Good for identifying target locations for conservation value in least area. For example, where to allocate limited resources for conservation project.  Not best approach for planning purposes as does not take into account spatial context of biological interactions. For example, wetland in and out target area based on co- currence could miss importance of entire wetland area.  Variables can be weighted or not.  Spatial co-location by pixel size. o Tiered Approach  Place values of conservation variable into groups to identify true value of each conservation unit. For example, entire wetland area important.  Union areas and display tiers to dictate conservation value and development incentives via conservation zoning.  Examples showed 3 areas, but could be more. Commission agreed with advice to switch to tiered approach. Our initial ranking for mapping follows.  Tier 1 – High conservation value. No development.  Tier 2 – Moderate conservation value, conservation commission consultation required in City limits.  Tier 3 – Low conservation value, conservation commission consultation recommended outside of growth center.  Can include natural and cultural values such as trails.  Could be called Areas of high public or conservation value.  How best to prioritize natural communities. o Use state listing for rarity – S1 and S2 (rare) = Tier 1. o Use state listing for condition – S3 to S5 and good condition (A and B) = Tier 2.  Vernal pools should be prioritized. o 100-foot buffers around vernal pools = Tier 1. o 600-foot buffers around vernal pools outside of growth center = Tier 2.  Wildlife linkages o Local linkages based on absence / presence of forest along roadways. Crossing is important where forest on both sides. Good approximation in more developed City. May not work as well in areas with large forest tracts.  Top two linkage levels = Tier 1.   Bottom three linkage levels = Tier 3.  Wildlife corridors o Large contiguous habitat block shapes in northwestern part of City = Tier 3. o Looked at Staying Connected data and none really in City as at larger spatial scale. o Looked at TNC (Anderson) network of connected lands algorithm. Elected not to use these data in TROD map development.  Deer Yards o 2010 deer yard layer = Tier 2.  Conserved Lands o Should be removed from analysis as do not need consideration and conservation value may vary. o Add on to TROD map as unique shading after analysis complete.  Trails o Delineated 100-foot corridors. o Trail corridors = Tier 2.  Agricultural Lands o Currently mapped by federal and state listed soils. o Debated other approaches to represent land easily used for agriculture. o May want to retain use of soils since want areas for food production in City. o Listed agricultural soils = Tier 2.  Slopes o Previously divided into three groups (0-14%, 15-25%, > 25%) o > 25% = Tier 1. o 15-25% = Tier 2.  TROD map deadline is Monday September 10th. o Jens to assist with prioritizing linkages and habitat blocks. Data to be ready Wednesday. Jens, if you send me the habitat block layer I can do the analysis this weekend. o Hopefully Dan and Jackie can help us get a revised map out Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday so we can review and make one round of edits before Monday deadline. o MCC members to review table of variables and map and email edits to group ASAP.  Other Assignments o Would be good for one MCC member to attend Planning Commission meetings and report back during MCC meetings as we work together on TROD approval. Let’s check website and make schedule.