Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway
Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway
Many of these were anadromous (alewife, hickory shad) that only migrate a short distance inlandto spawn and thus do not get up into the Middle and Upper Connecticut. Other appear to be fishadapted to the estuarine environment such as striped bass and threespine stickleback. Fourspinestickleback, ninespine stickleback, three spine stickleback, and swamp darter appears to occupylow gradient coastal rivers from Connecticut to Louisiana and although they are not strictlyestuarine, they do not appear to occupy rivers more than 100 miles from a coast. Fish thatoccurred in all EDUs except for the Upper Connecticut EDU include shortnose sturgeon,blueback herring, banded sunfish, American shad, white perch, redfin or grass pickerel, creekchubsucker, and bridle shiner. Again, many of these fish are migratory fish that migrate fromcoastal rivers to spawn and use habitat within the Middle Connecticut but do not migrate furtherup into the Upper Connecticut (shortnose sturgeon, blueback herring, American shad). Thefinescale dace only occurred in the Upper Connecticut EDU, and similar to the northern redbellydace, it prefers cold boggy creeks and lakes that are more common in the more northernwatersheds. No fish occurred in all EDUs except for the Middle Connecticut EDU. TheNatureServe database did show muskellunge and rock bass only occurring in the MiddleConnecticut EDU, but this may be an error in the database as other fish distribution referencesshow muskellunge also in Vermont and rock bass not in New England, but in New York. Troutperch,bluntnose minnow, gizzard shad, and pearl dace occurred only in the Lower ConnecticutEDU. The geographic range of trout-perch, bluntnose minnow, and gizzard lies primarily west ofNew England. No fish species occurred in all 3 Connecticut EDUs and not in the Cape Cod andSaco-Merrimack-Charles EDU.Watershed Classification: Aquatic Ecological SystemsThe watershed classification resulted in following multiple scale watershed Aquatic EcologicalSystem types distributed as follows:Table 4: Watershed Aquatic Ecological System Groups by Size and Ecological DrainageUnitNumber of System Typesby EDU and SizeSaco-Merrimack-Charles EDUUpper CTEDUMiddle CTEDULower CTEDUCape EDUTotalNumber oftypesSize 3: large rivers (200-7 5 3 6 0 191000 sq.mi.)Size 2: medium rivers (30-7 5 5 8 1 24200 sq.mi.)Size 1: headwaters to small9 12 3 14 0 38rivers (0-30 sq.mi.)Note total # of Size 3 types does not equal sum of the individual EDU counts because type 17 and type 15occur in both Upper CT and Middle CTNote total # of Size 2 types does not equal sum of the individual EDU counts because type 5 and 17 occur inboth Upper CT and Middle CTREVISED 6/2003AQUA-RESULTS-9
Figure 2: Size 2 Watershed SystemsREVISED 6/2003AQUA-RESULTS-10
- Page 49 and 50: How much larger than the severe dam
- Page 51 and 52: Scaling factors for Matrix Forest S
- Page 53 and 54: Roads are also source areas for noi
- Page 55 and 56: ungulates. We simply discussed thes
- Page 57 and 58: conservation plan must be done to r
- Page 59 and 60: position, its geology and its eleva
- Page 61 and 62: this block, miles of streams, dams
- Page 63 and 64: Connecting Area or Ecological Backd
- Page 65 and 66: MATRIX SITE:NAME:STATE/S:SIZE:Total
- Page 67 and 68: Block developmentTwo sets of ecoblo
- Page 69 and 70: Table 12. A description of the elev
- Page 71 and 72: There are 27 ELU types entirely mis
- Page 73 and 74: Freshwater Ecoregions and Ecologica
- Page 75 and 76: classes: size 1) headwaters to smal
- Page 77 and 78: Figure 2: Watershed Aquatic System
- Page 79 and 80: targets should also include conside
- Page 81 and 82: have also not been extensively rese
- Page 83 and 84: Table 5: Confidence Code1 High Conf
- Page 85 and 86: TYPECHARACTERISTICSELU signatureSIZ
- Page 87 and 88: Midreach streamentering large lakes
- Page 89 and 90: Major stresses: Using the following
- Page 91 and 92: Aquatic Systems Results for Lower N
- Page 93 and 94: Figure 1: Ecological Drainage Unit
- Page 95 and 96: IV. MiddleConnecticut3450 sq.mi.Riv
- Page 97 and 98: Table 3: Fish and Mussel Distributi
- Page 99: merrlowctcapeupctmidct3E-03100Nativ
- Page 103 and 104: TWINSPAN RelationshipsThe hierarchi
- Page 105 and 106: 13 and 14 split from 15-17 primaril
- Page 107 and 108: Table 5: Size 2 Watershed System Su
- Page 109 and 110: Table 6: Size 3 Watershed System Su
- Page 111 and 112: Figure 7: Reach Gradient ClassesREV
- Page 113 and 114: Of these 480 possible combinations,
- Page 115 and 116: Units supported the distinctiveness
- Page 117 and 118: Condition ResultsGIS ScreeningSize
- Page 119 and 120: Size 2 Watershed: Landscape Context
- Page 121 and 122: Table 10: Size 2 Watershed Landscap
- Page 123 and 124: Table 16: Dams on Size 2, 3,4 River
- Page 125 and 126: Most of the dams in the analysis re
- Page 127 and 128: shallow water fish spawning grounds
- Page 129 and 130: Figure 11: Aquatic PortfolioREVISED
- Page 131 and 132: Table 19: Size 3 Watershed System T
- Page 133 and 134: Table 21: Portfolio Examples by EDU
- Page 135 and 136: Range in Landscape Context Ranking
- Page 137 and 138: Table 25: Upper Connecticut Portfol
- Page 139 and 140: Table 27: Portfolio Size 2-4 Exampl
- Page 141 and 142: 2_24 S2c Assabet River 5.45 18.03 S
- Page 143 and 144: For the medium to large sized river
- Page 145 and 146: tributaries of the Assonet, Namaske
- Page 147 and 148: Threats AssessmentThe Core Team mad
- Page 149 and 150: • Work with TNC Eastern Conservat
Figure 2: Size 2 Watershed SystemsREVISED 6/2003AQUA-RESULTS-10
Change language