Ex<strong>plan</strong>ation of Size 3 Watershed System TWINSPAN Splits9,8,1,10,11,2,3,4 split from 7,12,14,19,5,6,17,15,16,13,18 due to elevation with 9,8,1,10,11,2,3,4all being in the low elevation while 7,12,14,19,5,6,17,15,16,13,18 were all primarily within themoderate to high elevation zone. Within 9,8,1,10,11,2,3,4 group, 9,8,1 split from 10,11,2,3,4because 9,8,1 were all entirely extremely low in elevation and dominated by flats while10,11,2,3,4 were dominated by gentle slopes and although they were low in elevation they didincluded some areas of moderate elevation. 9 split from 8,1 because 9 had less coarse sedimentflats and less wetflats and more gentle slopes, although all three had a large amount of coarsesediment flats and wet flats. 9 also had a greater proportion of acidic granitic bedrock. 8 splitfrom 1 because 8 had more fine grained sediment and less till, more acidic sedimentary bedrock,much fewer gentle slopes, and more moist wet/flats. 10,11 split from 2,3,4 primarily because ofdifferences in landform and drainage position; both had the same elevation and mixture ofbedrocks. 10,11 drained to Long Island Sound directly or through the Connecticut River and hadmore dry flats on till and more wetflats. 2,3,4 drained directly to the Atlantic coast and had moresummits, upper slopes, sideslopes, and slope bottoms. 10 split from 11 as 10 was coastal, morepredominantly in low elevation and had more acidic granitic bedrock. 11 drained to theConnecticut mainstem and had more had more mafic intermediate granitic bedrock, more coarsesediment, and more wet/moist flats. Although 2,3 and 4 all had predominantly acidic graniticbedrock, 2,3 split from 4 because 2,3 also had substantial amounts of calcareous and moderatelycalcareous bedrock while 4 had no moderately calcareous or calcareous bedrock. 2 split from 3as 3 was lower in elevation and had more moderately calcareous and less calcareous bedrock andless coarse sediment.Within 7,12,14,19,5,6,17,15,16,13,18 group, 7,12,14 split from 19, 5, 6, 17,15,16,13,18 as7,12,14 had a larger percentage of area in the low elevation and were dominated by gentle slopeswith substantial flats and little sideslopes and coves. 7 split from 12, 14 as 7 had some areas inhigher elevation zones, more acidic granitic, and more sideslopes/coves. 12 split from 14 as 14had more patchy surficial, less flats, and although both 12 and 14 had small areas of locallymoderately calcareous bedrock, 12.had larger amounts of these small areas. 19, 5, 6, 17 splitfrom 15,16,13,18 because 15,16,13,18 all had substantial large areas of moderately calcareous orcalcareous bedrock. 15, 16 split from 13, 18 again primarily because of the influence ofcalcareous bedrock and its associated features, with 13 and 18 having morecalcareous/moderately calcareous bedrock than 15, 16. 18 split from 13 as 18 had a much higherpercentage of calcareous/moderately calcareous bedrock (80%) than 13 (44%). 18 also had moresummits, steep slopes, sideslopes and coves. 15 split from 16 because 15 had more higherelevation areas and more acidic granitic bedrock while 16 had more moderatelycalcareous/calcareous bedrock and much more summits, steep slopes, and sideslopes.Summary System Physical DescriptionsThe systems were characterized by different landscape characteristics in elevation , geology,gradient, landform, and connectivity. See LNEsize2.xls and LNEsize3.xls for a more detaileddescription of the physical setting of each watershed system. A short textual summary of thephysical characteristics of each watershed system type is provided in Tables 5 and 6.REVISED 6/2003AQUA-RESULTS-15
Table 5: Size 2 Watershed System Summary DescriptionsSize 2SystemsConnectivity toSize 3 System ordirect to oceanPhysical Descriptions1 ocean Low elevation, very low gradient rivers on glacial outwash till and coarse sandysediment over acidic granitic bedrock, significant portion of watershed may be tidaland brackish; numerous wetlands; chemistry acidic2 8(9), some ocean Low elevation watershed dominated by flats; low to very low gradient trunks andtribs; on thin till and acidic metasedimentary bedrock, some coarse sedimentoutwash; numerous wetlands; chemistry acidic3 9,10, some ocean Low elevation watershed dominated by flats and gentle slopes; low gradient riversmeandering over gentle slopes on till, acidic to intermediate granitic bedrock;chemistry acidic; some brackish4 ocean Low elevation watershed dominated by flats and gentle slopes; low gradient riversmeandering over gentle slopes on till, acidic sedimentary bedrock; chemistry acidic;brackish5 12 Low elevation watershed dominated by gentle slopes and flats;low gradient riversystem in central valley on till and coarse grained sediments over acidic sedimentarybedrock; small rivers joining directly to CT mainstem; large areas of fine grainedsediment in valley along CT mainstem; chemistry acidic6 10,11 Low elevation watershed dominated by gentle slopes and flats;low gradient riversystems with some moderate gradient tributaries as the elevation rises on valleymargins; till over acidic sedimentary to granitic metamorphic bedrock w/ someintermediate granitic;7 13 Moderate to low elevation watershed dominated by gentle slopes with somesideslopes/coves along with flats; low gradient trunks with moderate to high gradienttributaries in the "marble valley"; till over calcareous bedrock; chemistry calcareousneutral8 12 Moderate to low elevation watershed dominated by gentle slopes along with largeareas of flats and some sideslopes/coves; low gradient trunks and more moderategradient trunks along sideslopes and coves; till on acidic sedimentary and moderatelycalcareous bedrock; chemistry: calc/neutral9 12,13 Moderate elevation river systems over mainly gentle slopes with some area ofsideslopes and coves along with pervasive flats; low to moderate gradient trunks withmoderate to very high gradient tribs; till over acidic sed/metased and graniticbedrock; chemistry acidic10 15 Low to moderate elevation watershed dominated by sideslopes and coves with somegentle slopes and steep slopes; low to moderate gradient river trunks with moderateto high gradient tributaries; till over on acidic sedimentary bedrock with large areasof locally calcareous to moderately calcareous sediments;11 14 Moderate to low elevation watershed dominated by gentle slopes with substantialsideslopes and coves; acidic sedimentary/metasedimentary and acidic granitic till.Moderate gradient trunks with moderate to high gradient tribs12 17 Moderate to high elevation watershed dominated by sideslopes and coves withsubstantial steep slopes and gentle hills; high gradient headwaters flowing into lowergradient trunks; primarily acidic granitic, acidic sedimentary/ metasedimentary, andsome mafic/intermediate granitic till.13 17 Moderate to high or very high watershed dominated by sideslopes with substantialareas of steep slopes and gentle hills; high gradient headwaters flowing into lowergradient trunks; primarily acidic granitic till (with some areas of mafic/intermediategranitic till).14 19 High elevation watershed dominated by sideslopes; acidic sedimentary/metasedimentary till. Swath of mafic-intermediate granitic till across CT Lakes, withscattered wet/moist flats.REVISED 6/2003AQUA-RESULTS-16
- Page 1 and 2:
Lower New England - Northern Piedmo
- Page 3 and 4:
TABLE OF CONTENTSCOVERINTRODUCTIONA
- Page 5 and 6:
IntroductionEcoregional Planning in
- Page 7 and 8:
AcknowledgementsEdited Version and
- Page 9 and 10:
combinations based on surficial geo
- Page 11 and 12:
Priorities and Leadership Assignmen
- Page 13 and 14:
Portfolio SummaryA total of 1,028 s
- Page 15 and 16:
each local population with respect
- Page 17 and 18:
potential target list for future co
- Page 19 and 20:
iteration ecoregional plans, specie
- Page 21 and 22:
RESULTS FOR SPECIES *Modification t
- Page 23 and 24:
documented in BCD making analysis v
- Page 25 and 26:
PLANNING METHODS FOR ECOREGIONAL TA
- Page 27 and 28:
sandy outwash and forested swamps a
- Page 29 and 30:
and distribution pattern for each e
- Page 31 and 32:
disproportionately large percentage
- Page 33 and 34:
to that ecoregion alone. Those syst
- Page 35 and 36:
Locating examples of patch-forming
- Page 37 and 38:
systems. Conversely, high elevation
- Page 39 and 40:
The minimum goals based on generic
- Page 41 and 42:
Results for Terrestrial Communities
- Page 43 and 44:
Table 6. Minimum conservation bench
- Page 45 and 46:
• The National Vegetation Classif
- Page 47 and 48:
of ecoregions, from the Northern Ap
- 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 and 100: merrlowctcapeupctmidct3E-03100Nativ
- Page 101 and 102: Figure 2: Size 2 Watershed SystemsR
- Page 103 and 104: TWINSPAN RelationshipsThe hierarchi
- Page 105: 13 and 14 split from 15-17 primaril
- 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
- Page 151 and 152: GlossaryThese selective glossary en
- Page 153 and 154: Ecological Land Unit (ELU):Mapping
- Page 155 and 156: Integration: A portfolio assembly p
- Page 157 and 158:
Representativeness: Captures multip
- Page 159 and 160:
Appendix 1Lower New England/Norther
- Page 161 and 162:
Appendix 1Lower New England/Norther
- Page 163 and 164:
Appendix 1Lower New England/Norther
- Page 165 and 166:
KEY TO TERMS OF FEDERALLY LISTED SP
- Page 167 and 168:
Appendix 1Lower New England/Norther
- Page 169 and 170:
Appendix 1Lower New England/Norther
- Page 171 and 172:
Appendix 1.Lower New England/Northe
- Page 173 and 174:
Appendix 1Lower New England\Norther
- Page 175 and 176:
Appendix 1Lower New England\Norther
- Page 177 and 178:
Appendix 2Lower New England\Norther
- Page 179 and 180:
Appendix 3Lower New England\Norther
- Page 181 and 182:
Appendix 3Lower New England\Norther
- Page 183 and 184:
Appendix 3Lower New England\Norther
- Page 185 and 186:
Appendix 3Lower New England\Norther
- Page 187 and 188:
Appendix 4.Lower New England\Northe
- Page 189 and 190:
Appendix 5Lower New England\Norther
- Page 191 and 192:
Appendix 5Lower New England\Norther
- Page 193 and 194:
Appendix 6.Lower New England\Northe
- Page 195 and 196:
Appendix 6.Lower New England\Northe
- Page 197 and 198:
DRAFT LNE-NP Ecoregional Plan 9\20\
- Page 199 and 200:
BibiliographyLower New England GIS
- Page 201 and 202:
BibiliographyD.P. (compilers), 1994
- Page 203 and 204:
Bailey, R.G., P.E. Avers, T. King,
- Page 205 and 206:
Gerritsen, J., M.T. Barbour, and K.
- Page 207 and 208:
Leopold, L.B. and Wolman, M.G. 1957
- Page 209 and 210:
Pulliam, H.R., 1988. Sources, sinks
- Page 211 and 212:
Steedman, R.J. 1988. Modification a