Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway

Table 20: Size 3 Portfolio Network ExamplesEDUDownstreamLower Connecticut EDU connectivityPortfolioCodeSize 3SystemTypeLower Connecticut EDU Chicopee Connecticut Sxc 11Lower Connecticut EDU Farmington Connecticut S1c 12Lower Connecticut EDU Westfield Connecticut S1c 12Lower Connecticut EDU Blackstone Ocean Sxc 9Lower Connecticut EDU Pawcatuck Ocean S1c 9Lower Connecticut EDU Quinebaug Thames S1c 10Lower Connecticut EDU Shetucket Thames S1c 10Lower Connecticut EDU Tauton Ocean S1c 8Middle Connecticut Ashuelot Connecticut S1c 14Middle Connecticut Sugar Connecticut Sxc 17Upper Connecticut Ammonoosuc Connecticut Sxc 17Upper Connecticut Passumpsic Connecticut Sxc 18Upper Connecticut Upper Ammonoosuc Connecticut Sxc 19Upper Connecticut West Connecticut S1c 15Upper Connecticut White Connecticut S1c 16Saco/Merrimack/Charles Concord Merrimack Sxc 1Saco/Merrimack/Charles Contoocook Merrimack Sxc 7Saco/Merrimack/Charles Nashua Merrimack Sxc 2Saco/Merrimack/Charles Pemigewasset Merrimack S1c 6Saco/Merrimack/Charles Piscataquog Merrimack S2 4Saco/Merrimack/Charles Ossipee Saco S1c 5Saco/Merrimack/Charles Saco River Saco S1c 5Network were also identified for all size 2 system types except for system 2_7 which occurred inupper section of the Housatonic drainage. The team felt the large number of problems breakingthe connectivity of the upper Housatonic from the lower Housatonic (dams, reservoir,contamination) make it unrealistic for the team to target this as a connected system in the nearfuture. Note that the size 1 connected network has not been fully defined as the size 1 portfoliowas not fully addressed in this analysis.Threats Across the PortfolioImpact from Non-Point Point PollutionThe portfolio examples varied significantly in overall landscape context rank within and betweenEDUs (Table 21, Figure 12). The data show that 13% of portfolio examples fall in the overalllandscape context categories of very good (1) category, 22% fall in the good (2) category, 23%fall in the moderate/fair (3) category, 35% fall in the poor (4) category, and 8% fall in the verypoor (5) category. The portfolio examples for size 1-3 rivers ranged across all landscape contextranking from very good (1) to very poor (5). The portfolio examples for size 4 rivers ranged fromcategory 2-4. The Upper Connecticut and Middle Connecticut have no portfolio examples fallingin the very poor category. The Cape Cod EDU and Lower Connecticut EDU have no examplesfalling in the very good (1) category. See PortfolioOccurrences.txt or .xls for a list of all portfolioexamples by their Landscape Context Ranks.REVISED 6/2003AQUA-RESULTS-41