Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway

More documents

Recommendations

Info

connected networks fits well with these recent developments in aquatic landscape ecology. Byusing a multiple scale watershed classification, this assessment attempted to include aquaticbiological characteristics that are fully representative of an area. Watersheds and their network ofstreams, wetlands, and lakes were used as the conservation targets because many scientificstudies have documented that riverine systems are intimately coupled with and created by thecharacteristics of their catchment basins or watersheds. For example, watersheds integrateprocesses that connect the longitudinal (upstream-downstream), lateral (floodplain-u<strong>plan</strong>d), andvertical (groundwater zone-stream channel) dimensions. This assessment also set initialminimum conservation goals to define the number and spatial distribution/connectivity of theexamples needed in a conservation <strong>plan</strong>.Although the identified conservation portfolio met representation goals for all evaluated size 2and 3 systems and identified current or restorable connected networks for all except the size 2and 3 systems in the upper Housatonic drainage, the current condition of the portfolio examplesvaries widely. Portfolio examples in the Upper Connecticut and Middle Connecticut haveconsistently better overall landscape context rankings than the Saco/Merrimack/Charles andLower Connecticut and Cape EDU. For example, among the 60 size 2 and 3 portfolio examplesin the Cape and Lower Connecticut EDU, only 2 had an overall landscape context rank of 2 or 1and these were both in system 2_9 (Westfield River Middle Branch, Farmington River WestBranch). By looking at the landscape context rankings by system type, one can see the portfolioexamples in certain system types are more heavily impacted. For example, all portfolio currentlyoccur in our lowest two landscape context categories (4,5) for systems 2_1, 2_2, 2_4, 2_5, 2_24,3_2, 3_4, 3_8, 3_10, 3_13, 3_16, 3_18. Systems where all our portfolio examples occur in theoverall landscape context categories 3 and 4 include 2_3, 2_6, 2_7, 2_8, 2_10, 2_5, 2_20, 2_22,2_23, 3_7, 3_14, 3_17. Reviewing the components of landscape context responsible for theoverall landscape context ranks of size 2-4 portfolio examples, shows a large number of portfolioexamples fell in our lower two landscape context agriculture categories (53% of portfolioexamples) and lower two developed/road impact categories (57% of portfolio examples), againhighlighting the pervasive human settlement within the analysis region. Although we have yet todetermine where the biological thresholds for agriculture and roads/development lie for ouraquatic systems in lower New England, the data allows us to begin by highlighting whereimpacts from agriculture and development might be larger problems within our portfolio riversystems.Review of the current level of fragmentation among the portfolio sites in terms of dams, yields asimilar sobering result. 72% of all portfolio river examples had National Inventory of Dams damwithin their upstream network. Of the 5 non-size 1 (headwater) portfolio examples without NIDdams in their upstream network all 5 had a NID dam downstream before reaching the ocean.Considering just the medium to large portfolio rivers and just dams across their mainstemsections (instead of also counting dams fragmenting headwaters that connect to these largerrivers), of the 151 Size 2-4 portfolio river examples, 69 (46%) had no dams on their mainstemsections. However, 78% of these 69 examples had a dam downstream before reaching the ocean.This left only 14 portfolio examples, 9-10% of all portfolio size 2-4 rivers, where all the size 2,3, 4 portions of their portfolio mainstems were not interrupted by a dam before the ocean. Thefew portfolio rivers whose mainstems were not represenative of all river system types. Forexample, the 14 mainstem unfragmented dams include the direct to coast connected size 2 riversexamples of the North, Slocums, West Port, Palmer, Hammonasset, Niantic, Mill, and Parker.Only the Eightmile tributary of the Connecticut and the size 3 Taunton River and its size 2REVISED 6/2003AQUA-RESULTS-53
tributaries of the Assonet, Namasket, and Winnetuxet were unfragmented larger size 3 or 4 riversection networks. The 82 size 2-4 portfolio examples having dams on their size mainstems werefragmented by a total of 272 mainstem dams. 23 portfolio examples had dams over 50ft high.The most frequent type of mainstem dam was a hydro dam, with 39 portfolio examples have ahydro dam on them (138 dams). Although the National Inventory of Dams does not even includeall of the small dams of less than 6 feet high, many of which also occur in New England, thisreview at least highlights where some of the lesser fragmented portfolio examples currently exist.In conclusion, this assessment shows1. There are a diversity of aquatic ecosystem types within and between EDUs in Lower NewEngland. These types represent different aquatic environmental settings and are likely tohave or develop different aquatic habitats and biotic assemblages over time given theirunique environmental setting.2. Threats to aquatic systems are enormous. Agriculture, development, roads, point sources, anddams have significant and pervasive impacts in the region, with some higher elevation andnon-coastal systems being less impacted.3. Few free flowing rivers exist in this region. The region has an average National Inventory ofdam density was .79 dams per 10 stream miles, and this density would be significantly higherif all the smaller (
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 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: For the medium to large sized river
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 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?