Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway
Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway
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 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 161 and 162: Appendix 1Lower New England/Norther
- Page 163 and 164: Appendix 1Lower New England/Norther
- Page 165 and 166: KEY TO TERMS OF FEDERALLY LISTED SP
- Page 167 and 168: Appendix 1Lower New England/Norther
- Page 169 and 170: Appendix 1Lower New England/Norther
- Page 171 and 172: Appendix 1.Lower New England/Northe
- Page 173 and 174: Appendix 1Lower New England\Norther
- Page 175 and 176: Appendix 1Lower New England\Norther
- Page 177 and 178: Appendix 2Lower New England\Norther
- Page 179 and 180: Appendix 3Lower New England\Norther
- Page 181 and 182: Appendix 3Lower New England\Norther
- Page 183 and 184: Appendix 3Lower New England\Norther
- Page 185 and 186: Appendix 3Lower 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\
• Work with TNC Eastern <strong>Conservation</strong> 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 <strong>plan</strong> for how tominimize the potential effects of site isolation.3/2003 NEXT-2
Change language