Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway

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