Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway
Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway
The expert interviews provided critical information regarding the biological diversity andcondition of sites across the region. Although a standardized information form was used tocollect the 452 expert interview site records, the varying background of the interviewees led tovast differences in the level of detail recorded on the interview forms. Many fields were leftentirely blank on most interview forms, including in nearly all cases the ranking fields for size,condition, and landscape context. For example only 38 of the 452 had any landscape contextranks listed. The significant blanks in relation to some of these larger scale condition attributeshighlighted the inability of most interviewees and TNC staff to put the described sites into size,condition, or landscape rank categories given the available information. Ranking requireddetailed knowledge of the desired native natural biotic community vs. the current bioticcommunity, understanding of the current and natural flow regime, the ripairian and watershedcondition around site, and the ability to compare the site to the existing range of quality amongother sites over large spatial watershed scales. Despite these blanks, much useful information onlocal conditions and biological diversity was collected through this interview process. Theinformation on the presence of particular species, biological communities, substrate diversity,temperature, flow, and other key ecological processes at the sites was particularly helpfulbecause this information could not be gathered from GIS. In many cases information on exoticspecies and other local condition information such as dam management, bank stability, smallerlocal water withdrawals/well, and riparian buffer condition were noted.Although exotic species could not be comprehensively evaluated for each size 2 watershed,nonindigenous species are a significant threat to aquatic ecosystems in this analysis area.Nonindigenous species have a number of negative impacts such as competition with indigenousspecies for food and habitat, reduction of natives by predation, transmission of diseases orparasites, hybridization, and habitat alteration. The USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Speciesdatabase (http://nas.er.usgs.gov) that records of all introduced, regardless of whether or not theybecause established, lists 94 introduced fish species in New England, with 25 of those speciesexotic to the region. The most widespread introduced fish species in New England include thebluntnose minnow, brown trout, burbot, cutlips minnow, fathead minnow, lake trout, largemouthbass, pearl dace, pumpkinseed, rainbow smelt, rainbow trout, rock bass, round-whitefish, andtrout-perch. In addition to fish, a large number of nonindigenous species of other taxa such asplants, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, mollusks, crustraceans, and sponges have also enteredaquatic systems and caused significant ecosystem alteration. For example in New England, theUSGS database referred to above reports 9 (7 exotic) amphibians, 1 exotic jellyfish, 8 (2 exotic)crustaceans, 1 exotic byozoan, 15 (10 exotic) mollusks, 17 (5 reptiles), 4 (1 exotic) tunicate, and23 aquatic vascular plants. Although these introductions have not all resulted in establishedpopulations, some of the most problematic and invasive species within the 5 EDUs include theasiatic clam, purple loosestrife, common reed grass, Eurasian water-milfoil, water-chestnut,yellow iris, curly pondweed, two-leaf water-milfoil, European water-clover, Carolina fanwort,watercress, Brazilian waterweed, dotted duckweed, pond water-starwort, and hydrilla. Thesespecies have or can significantly alter physical and biological functions of aquatic systems. Forexample, the water chestnut is a highly invasive species that can out-compete native plants,choke the waterbodies it invades, and reduce oxygen levels that increases the potential for fishkills. Similarly, Eurasian watermilfoil, a stringy submerged plant, can quickly proliferate andaggressively compete with native plant communities to form large dense mats that clogwaterbodies. Purple Loosestrife, an invasive wetland perennial plant, will grow densely inshallow waterbodies or wetlands and can eliminate food and shelter for wildlife includingREVISED 6/2003AQUA-RESULTS-35
shallow water fish spawning grounds. Curly pondweed, a submerged perennia, can tolerate lowlight and low water temperatures, making it competitively superior especially early in the seasonas it forms new plants under ice cover. Mid-summer die offs of this plant may result in a criticalloss of dissolved oxygen and decaying plant matter can increase water nutrients and contribute tosubsequent algal blooms.REVISED 6/2003AQUA-RESULTS-36
- 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 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: Most of the dams in the analysis re
- 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
The expert interviews provided critical information regarding the biological diversity andcondition of sites across the region. Although a standardized information form was used tocollect the 452 expert interview site records, the varying background of the interviewees led tovast differences in the level of detail recorded on the interview forms. Many fields were leftentirely blank on most interview forms, including in nearly all cases the ranking fields for size,condition, and landscape context. For example only 38 of the 452 had any landscape contextranks listed. The significant blanks in relation to some of these larger scale condition attributeshighlighted the inability of most interviewees and TNC staff to put the described sites into size,condition, or landscape rank categories given the available information. Ranking requireddetailed knowledge of the desired native natural biotic community vs. the current bioticcommunity, understanding of the current and natural flow regime, the ripairian and watershedcondition around site, and the ability to compare the site to the existing range of quality amongother sites over large spatial watershed scales. Despite these blanks, much useful information onlocal conditions and biological diversity was collected through this interview process. Theinformation on the presence of particular species, biological communities, substrate diversity,temperature, flow, and other key ecological processes at the sites was particularly helpfulbecause this information could not be gathered from GIS. In many cases information on exoticspecies and other local condition information such as dam management, bank stability, smallerlocal water withdrawals/well, and riparian buffer condition were noted.Although exotic species could not be comprehensively evaluated for each size 2 watershed,nonindigenous species are a significant threat to aquatic ecosystems in this analysis area.Nonindigenous species have a number of negative impacts such as competition with indigenousspecies for food and habitat, reduction of natives by predation, transmission of diseases orparasites, hybridization, and habitat alteration. The USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Speciesdatabase (http://nas.er.usgs.gov) that records of all introduced, regardless of whether or not theybecause established, lists 94 introduced fish species in New England, with 25 of those speciesexotic to the region. The most widespread introduced fish species in New England include thebluntnose minnow, brown trout, burbot, cutlips minnow, fathead minnow, lake trout, largemouthbass, pearl dace, pumpkinseed, rainbow smelt, rainbow trout, rock bass, round-whitefish, andtrout-perch. In addition to fish, a large number of nonindigenous species of other taxa such as<strong>plan</strong>ts, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, mollusks, crustraceans, and sponges have also enteredaquatic systems and caused significant ecosystem alteration. For example in New England, theUSGS database referred to above reports 9 (7 exotic) amphibians, 1 exotic jellyfish, 8 (2 exotic)crustaceans, 1 exotic byozoan, 15 (10 exotic) mollusks, 17 (5 reptiles), 4 (1 exotic) tunicate, and23 aquatic vascular <strong>plan</strong>ts. Although these introductions have not all resulted in establishedpopulations, some of the most problematic and invasive species within the 5 EDUs include theasiatic clam, purple loosestrife, common reed grass, Eurasian water-milfoil, water-chestnut,yellow iris, curly pondweed, two-leaf water-milfoil, European water-clover, Carolina fanwort,watercress, Brazilian waterweed, dotted duckweed, pond water-starwort, and hydrilla. Thesespecies have or can significantly alter physical and biological functions of aquatic systems. Forexample, the water chestnut is a highly invasive species that can out-compete native <strong>plan</strong>ts,choke the waterbodies it invades, and reduce oxygen levels that increases the potential for fishkills. Similarly, Eurasian watermilfoil, a stringy submerged <strong>plan</strong>t, can quickly proliferate andaggressively compete with native <strong>plan</strong>t communities to form large dense mats that clogwaterbodies. Purple Loosestrife, an invasive wetland perennial <strong>plan</strong>t, will grow densely inshallow waterbodies or wetlands and can eliminate food and shelter for wildlife includingREVISED 6/2003AQUA-RESULTS-35