Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 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 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 165 and 166: KEY TO TERMS OF FEDERALLY LISTED SP
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:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Appendix 4.Lower New England\Northe
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
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
show all

Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?