Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 26: Saco-Merrimack-Charles Portfolio Landscape Context By System And PortfolioCodeSum of countLCR_SUMSIZESYS PORTCODE 1 2 3 4 5 Grand Total1 S1c 1 1S2m 5 6 1 2 141 Total 5 7 2 2 152_18 S1c 2 22_18 Total 2 22_19 S1c 2 2 4S2c 1 12_19 Total 2 3 52_20 S1c 2 2S2c 1 12_20 Total 3 32_22 S1c 2 2S2c 1 1 22_22 Total 1 3 42_23 S1c 2 2S2c 1 12_23 Total 2 1 32_24 S1c 1 1S2c 4 42_24 Total 1 4 53_1 Sxc 1 13_1 Total 1 13_2 Sxc 1 13_2 Total 1 13_4 S2c 1 13_4 Total 1 13_5 S1c 2 23_5 Total 2 23_6 S1c 1 13_6 Total 1 13_7 Sxc 1 13_7 Total 1 14 S1c 2 1 34 Total 2 1 3Grand Total 7 16 9 10 5 47Saco/Merrimack/Charles portfolio examples range from landscape context ranking 1-5, with thehighest percentage in category 2 (34%). System types 1 and 2_19 have examples in category 1.System types 2_18, 3_5, and 3_6 have examples in category 2. System types 2_20, 2_22, 2_23,and 3_7 have examples in category 3. System types 2_24, 3_1, 3_2, and 3_4 have examples onlyon category 4 or 5, with the only portfolio example for system 3_1, the Concord, occurring incategory 5.Heavy Agricultural Impacts136 (53%) portfolio examples fell within the Landscape Context Agricultural Impact Rankcategory 3 or 4. Of the 100 size 2+ portfolio examples in Landscape Context Agricultural ImpactRank category 3 or 4, 52 fell in category 3 and 48 fell in category 4. The 48 examples falling incategory 4 are listed below. They occur in every EDU.REVISED 6/2003AQUA-RESULTS-47
Table 27: Portfolio Size 2-4 Examples falling in Category 4 Heavy Agricultural ImpactsPortfolio Examples for Size 2-4 Rivers with Landscape Context Agricultural Rank 4 (> 10% agriculture in the watershed)SIZESYS PORTCODE EXAMPLENAME PTOT_AGR EDUNAME CT MA NH VT2_1 S1c Slocums River 12.03 Cape Cod x2_1 S1c West Port River 12.82 Cape Cod x4 S1c Thames River 13.36 Lower Connecticut x4 Sxc Housatonic River 14.73 Lower Connecticut x3_13 S1c Housatonic River 15.54 Lower Connecticut x x3_11 S1c Quaboag River 14.33 Lower Connecticut x3_11 Sxc Chicopee River 10.25 Lower Connecticut x3_10 S1c Quinebaug River 12.95 Lower Connecticut x3_10 S1c Hop River / Willimantic River 12.90 Lower Connecticut x3_10 S1c Shetucket River 13.56 Lower Connecticut x3_10 S2c Naugatuck River 11.33 Lower Connecticut x2_8 S1 Shepaug River 19.73 Lower Connecticut x2_8 S2 Pomperaug River 20.37 Lower Connecticut x2_8 S2c Naugatuck River 12.98 Lower Connecticut x2_7 S1 Blackberry River 10.51 Lower Connecticut x2_7 S1 Green River 14.20 Lower Connecticut x2_7 S1 Salmon Creek 17.62 Lower Connecticut x2_7 S1 Williams River 12.47 Lower Connecticut x2_7 S1 Schenob Brook 16.76 Lower Connecticut x2_6 S1c Salmon River 12.98 Lower Connecticut x2_6 S1c Quaboag River 15.03 Lower Connecticut x2_6 S1c Ware River 10.95 Lower Connecticut x2_6 S1c Hop River 11.76 Lower Connecticut x2_6 S1c Shetucket River 11.80 Lower Connecticut x2_5 S1c Coginchaug River 20.68 Lower Connecticut x2_5 S1c Scantic River 26.55 Lower Connecticut x2_5 S1c East Branch Salmon Brook 15.15 Lower Connecticut x2_4 S2c Mill River (Saugatuck Drainage) 10.60 Lower Connecticut x2_4 S2c Quinnipiac River 12.95 Lower Connecticut x2_3 S1c Queens River 10.35 Lower Connecticut2_3 S2c Pachaug River 10.24 Lower Connecticut x2_2 S1c Palmer River 14.44 Lower Connecticut x2_2 S2c Winnetuxet River 10.19 Lower Connecticut x2_5 S1c Fort River 18.72 Middle Connecticut x2_10 S1 Green River 10.58 Middle Connecticut x x2_10 S1c Manhan River 11.82 Middle Connecticut x2_10 S1c Roaring Brook 16.79 Middle Connecticut x3_4 S2c Piscataquog River 10.13 Saco-Merrimack-Charles x3_2 Sxc Nashua River 10.34 Saco-Merrimack-Charles x x2_24 S2c Assabet River 10.90 Saco-Merrimack-Charles x2_22 S1c Baboosic Brook 11.22 Saco-Merrimack-Charles x3_18 Sxc Passumpsic River 10.43 Upper Connecticut x x3_16 S1c White River 12.78 Upper Connecticut x2_17 Sxc White River, Third Branch 12.40 Upper Connecticut x2_16 Sxc Passumpsic River 10.47 Upper Connecticut x2_16 Sxc White River, First Branch 18.82 Upper Connecticut x2_16 Sxc White River, Second Branch 23.36 Upper Connecticut x2_14 Sxc Mohawk River 15.92 Upper Connecticut x21 18 5 7Heavy Development and Road Impacts146 (57%) portfolio examples fell within the Landscape Context Road Density or DevelopmentRank categories 3, 4, or 5. Of the 97 size 2+ portfolio examples falling within the LandscapeContext Road Density or Development Rank categories 3, 4, or 5, 51 fell in category 4 or 5 and42 fell in category 3. The 51 examples falling in category 4 or 5 are listed below. They occur inall EDUs except the Upper Connecticut.REVISED 6/2003AQUA-RESULTS-48
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 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: Table 25: Upper Connecticut Portfol
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 187 and 188: Appendix 4.Lower New England\Northe
Page 189 and 190:
Appendix 5Lower New England\Norther
Page 191 and 192:
Appendix 5Lower New England\Norther
Page 193 and 194:
Appendix 6.Lower New England\Northe
Page 195 and 196:
Appendix 6.Lower New England\Northe
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?