Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway
Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway
Connecticut and Middle Connecticut Ecological Drainage Units see the Appendix of the AquaticMethods section.REVISED 6/2003AQUA-RESULTS-25
Condition ResultsGIS ScreeningSize 2 Watershed: Within System Relative AnalysisA “Within System” Analysis was run to highlight the highest ranked watershed within eachsystem type. A subset of the related condition variables were used in a Principle ComponentsAnalysis (PCA) Ordination within each of 3 relatively non-correlated impact categories. PCAOrdination runs were made separately within each EDU for the Land Cover/Road Impact and forthe Dam/Drinking Water Supply Impact. The 1 st output axis, which explained most of thevariance of watersheds in terms of that impact area, was used to create a single reduced “rankvariable” to rank the watersheds from best to worst in terms of that impact area. Simple ranking,instead of ordination, was ultimately used to create a summary rank for the Point Source Impactbecause all the input point source response variables were extremely highly correlated with thevariable total point sources / stream mile.The input variable set for PCA Ordination/Ranking Analysis was as follows:Land Cover/Road Impact Ordination Variables:P_imp - % impervious surfacesP_nat - % nat land coverRdx_pstmi - # road stream crossings per stream mileRdtot_psqmi - total miles of roads per square miles of the watershedDam / Hydrologic Alteration Impact Ordination Variables:Damst_stmi - total NID dams per stream mileLdam_stmi - # large dams ([Nid_height] >= 20 or storage > 1000 if NID height was lessthan 20 feet)Tsto_pstmi = total storage in acre/feet per stream mileDwspmi - # drinking water supply per stream milePoint Source Impact (simple ranking):TPS_pstmi - total point sources per stream mile (CERCLIS, IFD, PCS, TRI, MINES)Figure 9 displays the size 2 watersheds that ranked high within their system type. This maphighlighted watersheds that had scored 1 st –4 th within the system type in terms of land cover/roadimpacts as a solid, those that had scored 1 st or 2 nd in dam/drinking water supply impacts as ahatch, and those that had scored 1 st in point source impacts as a dot.REVISED 6/2003AQUA-RESULTS-26
- 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 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: Units supported the distinctiveness
- 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
Condition ResultsGIS ScreeningSize 2 Watershed: Within System Relative AnalysisA “Within System” Analysis was run to highlight the highest ranked watershed within eachsystem type. A subset of the related condition variables were used in a Principle ComponentsAnalysis (PCA) Ordination within each of 3 relatively non-correlated impact categories. PCAOrdination runs were made separately within each EDU for the Land Cover/Road Impact and forthe Dam/Drinking Water Supply Impact. The 1 st output axis, which explained most of thevariance of watersheds in terms of that impact area, was used to create a single reduced “rankvariable” to rank the watersheds from best to worst in terms of that impact area. Simple ranking,instead of ordination, was ultimately used to create a summary rank for the Point Source Impactbecause all the input point source response variables were extremely highly correlated with thevariable total point sources / stream mile.The input variable set for PCA Ordination/Ranking Analysis was as follows:Land Cover/Road Impact Ordination Variables:P_imp - % impervious surfacesP_nat - % nat land coverRdx_pstmi - # road stream crossings per stream mileRdtot_psqmi - total miles of roads per square miles of the watershedDam / Hydrologic Alteration Impact Ordination Variables:Damst_stmi - total NID dams per stream mileLdam_stmi - # large dams ([Nid_height] >= 20 or storage > 1000 if NID height was lessthan 20 feet)Tsto_pstmi = total storage in acre/feet per stream mileDwspmi - # drinking water supply per stream milePoint Source Impact (simple ranking):TPS_pstmi - total point sources per stream mile (CERCLIS, IFD, PCS, TRI, MINES)Figure 9 displays the size 2 watersheds that ranked high within their system type. This maphighlighted watersheds that had scored 1 st –4 th within the system type in terms of land cover/roadimpacts as a solid, those that had scored 1 st or 2 nd in dam/drinking water supply impacts as ahatch, and those that had scored 1 st in point source impacts as a dot.REVISED 6/2003AQUA-RESULTS-26