Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway

Table 10: Size 2 Watershed Landscape Context Ranking by Ecological Drainage Unit andNumber and Percentage of Watersheds# Size 2 Watersheds Falling into each category % of Size 2 Watersheds Falling into each categorySummaryLower Middle Upper Cape Grand SummaryLower Middle UpperRankCT CT CT Cod Total RankCT CT CTSaco-Merrimack-CharlesSaco-Merrimack-CharlesCapeCodGrandTotal1 (very1 1 5 7 1 2 0 5 15 0 4good)2 (good) 11 4 1 12 28 2 18 6 5 36 0 153(moderate) 17 9 11 5 42 3 28 13 50 15 0 224(fair-poor) 19 36 8 11 3 77 4 31 51 36 33 60 405 (very13 22 1 2 38 5 21 31 5 0 40 20poor)Grand Total 61 71 22 33 5 192 Grand Total 100 100 100 100 100 100Table 11: Size 2 Watershed Percent Developed Ranking by Ecological Drainage Unit andNumber and Percentage of Watersheds# Size 2 Watersheds Falling into each category % of Size 2 Watersheds Falling into each category%Developed Saco- Lower Middle Upper Cape Grand %Develope Saco- Lower Middle Upper CapeMerrimack- CT CT CT Cod Total d Merrimack- CT CT CT CodCharles(61_2)(61_6) (61_7) (63_2) (62_3)CharlesGrandTotal1: 15% 13 22 1 2 38 5 21 31 5 0 40 20Total 61 71 22 33 5 192 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100Table 12: Size 2 Watershed Road Density Ranking by Ecological Drainage Unit andNumber and Percentage of Watersheds# Size 2 Watersheds Falling into each category % of Size 2 Watersheds Falling into each categoryRoad Saco- Lower Middle Upper Cape Grand Road Saco- Lower Middle Upper CapeDensity (mird/sq.mi.watershedMerrimack-CharlesCT CT CT Cod Total Density Merrimack- CTCharlesCT CT CodGrandTotal1: 3.5 19 37 3 4 63 4 31 52 14 0 80 330 0 0 0 0 0Total 61 71 22 33 5 192 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100REVISED 6/2003AQUA-RESULTS-30