Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Lessons LearnedAll ecoregional planning processes present logistical, technical, and methodologicalchallenges. Perhaps the most challenging aspect of this planning exercise has beencoordinating the process with 13 participating TNC Chapter Offices and HeritagePrograms. The coordination required, among other things:• joining and matching GIS data sets across all states;• creating a new community classification that “cross-walks” state classifications to theNational Vegetation Classification (NVC) and to one-another as the NVC is not thestandard in most eastern states,• coordinating productive meetings and a workable process with more than 100participants.Specifically, we offer the following suggestions for improving future iterations.• Part-time clerical assistance in the team leader’s office is required to maintainfrequent communication with all states, to assist with meeting logistics, and managepaper-flow. Information is often better conveyed by phone as many team members donot find the time to read materials.• Notify Chapter Offices and Heritage Programs, in particular, six to nine months inadvance of initiating the next iteration so that they can incorporate their participationinto their work plans.• Maintain monthly expert team leader meetings or conference calls to evaluateprogress and share best practices and lessons learned.• Provide bi-monthly memos to all core team members on progress to date, imminentdeadlines, next steps, and action items.• Maintain frequent communications to keep team members engaged. Be sure that theirsupervisors have made their participation an annual goal and have allocated sufficienttime to be a team member.• Expert team meetings that require field staff should not be conducted during the fieldseason.• Pick expert team members well: choose more than the number you believe you willneed and extract a commitment to participate for the duration of the planning period.Provide a job description and an approximate time requirement.• Expert team leaders should set aside a month just for communicating with experts orvisiting with less available team members to choose and review targets, to reviewtheir regional distribution, and to research the latest taxonomic contortions forpossible inclusion in the portfolio.• A dedicated budget before work proceeds.• Practice good project management skills and keep everyone to agreed upon deadlinesto minimize rescheduling conflicts.3/2003 NEXT-3
GlossaryThese selective glossary entries are adapted from several sources, including the glossariesin Anderson et al. 1999 and Groves et al 2000.Alliance: A level in the US National Vegetation Classification, defined as a group ofplant associations sharing one or more diagnostic species (dominant, differential,indicator, or character), which, as a rule, are found in the uppermost strata of thevegetation. Aquatic alliances correspond spatially to macrohabitats.Amphidromous: Refers to migratory fish species that may spawn and grow in eitherfreshwater or saltwater, but migrate briefly to the opposite habitat for feeding. See alsoDiadromous, Catadromous, Potamodromous, Anadromous.Anadromous: Refers to migratory fish species that spawn in freshwater and growprimarily in saltwater. See also Diadromous, Catadromous, Potamodromous,Amphidromous.Aquatic Ecological System (AES): Dynamic spatial assemblages of ecologicalcommunities that 1) occur together in an aquatic landscape with similargeomorphological patterns; 2) are tied together by similar ecological processes (e.g.,hydrologic and nutrients, access to floodplains and other lateral environments) orenvironmental gradients (e.g., temperature, chemical and habitat volume); and 3) form arobust, cohesive and distinguishable unit on a hydrography map.Association or Plant Association: The finest level of biological community organizationin the US National Vegetation Classification, defined as a plant community with adefinite floristic composition, uniform habitat conditions, and uniform physiognomy.With the exception of a few associations that are restricted to specific and unusualenvironmental conditions, associations generally repeat across the landscape. They alsooccur at variable spatial scales depending on the steepness of environmental gradientsand the patterns of disturbances.Biological Diversity: The variety of living organisms considered at all levels oforganization including the genetic, species, and higher taxonomic levels. Biologicaldiversity also includes the variety of habitats, ecosystems, and natural processesoccurring therein.Block (or Matrix Block): The method used to delineate matrix community examples inall Northeast plans was based on roads and land cover, using GIS tools and data. Theentire ecoregion was tiled into discrete polygons referred to as blocks. Each blockrepresented an area bounded on all sides by roads, transmission lines, or major shorelines(lake and river polygons) from USGS 1:100,000 vector data. All roads from class 1(major interstates) to class 4 (logging road and hiking trails) were used as boundaries. Seealso Matrix Community.Catadromous: Refers to migratory fish species that spawn in saltwater and grow primarilyin freshwater. See also Diadromous, Anadromous, Potamodromous, Amphidromous.Coarse Filter Approach: The term coarse filter refers to conservation targets at thecommunity or ecosystem level of biological organization. Coarse-filter targets can beused as surrogates for species conservation in areas where little is known about speciesUPDATED 6/2003GLOS-1
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 and 148: Threats AssessmentThe Core Team mad
Page 149: • Work with TNC Eastern Conservat
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?