Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Opportunities, Needs, Lessons, and Next StepsPreparation for a Second IterationThis document represents the first iteration of what is expected to be an ongoing planningprocess with additional iterations forthcoming. In the near term, there is a need for thecore team to work with chapter offices and Heritage Programs to prepare for futureiterations by completing the following tasks:• New portfolio occurrences may be submitted via BCD download to EasternConservation Science. The ecoregional planning team leader will determine whichoccurrences will be accepted based on viability criteria, conservation goals, andstratification goals. A review of proposed occurrences should be conducted twice ayear or when there are sufficient submissions to warrant a review.• Conduct a region-wide follow-up meeting to identify cross-border action sites andcross-site threats and abatement strategies (accomplished, 11/29/00)• Refine the aquatic community classification, and identifying and incorporatingaquatic target occurrences. Finer filter aquatic targets need to be identified andconserved within matrix forest occurrences where the landscape context and waterquality is presumably better. Inventory should focus on watersheds selected throughthe EDU process.• Identify a new team leader (Winter, 2000 – 2001).• The number of occurrences accepted for the portfolio for timber rattlesnake andcliff\outcrop communities should be culled so that they do not exceed theirconservation goal.• The conservation goal for bog turtle should be reviewed in light of the new USFWSRecovery Plan for this species. The number of occurrences selected for the portfolioshould meet but not exceed the goal. Currently, the goal has been exceeded.• Review progress towards goals for karner blue butterfly once standard sites have beenlumped into functional metapopulation sites in BCD by state Heritage Programs.• Obtain a data-sharing agreement with the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Programthat includes all target species element occurrences. Incorporate data from theMassachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program and reevaluate allof the occurrences in the portfolio in relation to this new information.• Conduct additional inventory for all species and community occurrences to help meettarget goals. Focus special attention on the Reading Prong ( 221Am) and Worcester –Monadnock Plateau (221Ah) within which no viable community EOs were identifiedusing current datasets. Heritage programs and relevant state agencies should receivelists of the planning targets that need inventory work.• Draft EO specifications for all target species and communities with assistance fromHeritage Programs and others.• Incorporate all new data and ranks in Heritage Program BCD systems.3/2003 NEXT-1
• Work with TNC Eastern Conservation Science on a multi-region target analysis todetermine if target goals have been met across regions.• Complete the LNE – NVC community classification and determine communitydistribution within subregions to better evaluate success towards stratification goals.Natural community occurrences currently contained in BCD need to be tagged at theassociation level once the classification is complete to determine whether allassociation types are adequately represented in the portfolio. A number of communitytypes were recognized as needing more classification work including floodplaincommunities, river and stream communities, and rich forest and woodlandcommunities.• Identify forest community types that formerly occurred in the more developed valleysand lowlands and that were not adequately captured during the first iteration.• Identify potential restoration sites for lowland forests and other targets for whichviable occurrences can not be located.• Determine the within-region distribution of all species targets by sub-section toevaluate success towards stratification goals. Create stratification goals for all species.• Establish a methodology for updating and maintaining the database and the portfolio.• Additional review of the portfolio is required to ensure that an adequate number ofsuitable habitats have been selected throughout the region for Blue-winged Warbler,Golden-winged Warbler, Prairie Warbler, and Bicknell’s Thrush.• Secondary target species require additional evaluation and occurrence selection forthe LNE-NP portfolio. Targets that are not represented or under-represented in theportfolio need additional occurrences selected. This will require inventory and thedevelopment of provisional target and stratification goals.• Extensive inventory is required for the majority of invertebrate targets as 50 speciesdid not meet their goals.• Species and communities for which an excessive number of occurrences wereselected for the portfolio during the first iteration should be re-evaluated with a goalof reducing the number of portfolio occurrences to meet the goal.• Determine which matrix forest types should be captured as large patch communitiesin certain area of the ecoregion. This will be less of an issue if the two regions aretreated separately.• A number of the valley ELU types are poorly represented in the LNE-NP portfolio,especially all of those on dry flats. A special effort should be made during the 2 nditeration to capture more of these ELU types.• Serpentine or ultramafic ELUs are not well represented in the portfolio. SerpentineELUs and communities may need to be added during the next iteration.• Look at issues of site linkage and species movement and develop a plan for how tominimize the potential effects of site isolation.3/2003 NEXT-2
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 and 144: For the medium to large sized river
Page 145 and 146: tributaries of the Assonet, Namaske
Page 147: Threats AssessmentThe Core Team mad
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 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?