Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway

More documents

Recommendations

Info

BibiliographyElement Occurrences: All primary and secondary LNE target species and all communities that occur within theLNE Ecoregion. Provided by State Heritage programs.Waterbodies: USGS National Hydrography Dataset 2000.Streams (single line): EPA Reach File 3 (RF3) 1:100K.Dams: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1998 National Inventory of Dams from EPA Basins dataset 1999.Cultural and Natural Features: USGS Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) database 1998.Political boundaries: ESRI ArcData 1:100K 1998.Elevation: From USGS 1:250k Digital Elevation Model (90m).Landforms: Landforms were modeled using land position, slope, and relative moisture from UGS 1:250k DEM.Wetlands from the 1991-1993 EPA MRLC 30m classified Landsat TM imagery Draft for New England dataset werealso integrated into the wet flat landform feature. Lakes and wide river polygons and streams are from the NationalHydrography Dataset 1:100k. Surficial sediments were integrated into the dry flats and gently sloping flat landformclasses. Created by TNC Eastern Conservation Science, 1999.Surficial Geology: from USGS DDS-38 Digital Representation of a Map Showing the Thickness and Characterof Quaternary Sediments in the Glaciated United States East of the Rocky Mountains. 1:1M 1998.Bedrock Geology: Formations classified into simplified 8 categories by TNC Eastern Conservation Science.Maine: Digital map based on Osberg,P.H., Hussey,A.M.,II, and Boone,G.M., 1985, Bedrock Geologic Map ofMaine, 1985, scale 1:500:000.Maryland: 1968 Geologic Map of Maryland (blueline). 1:250,000 scale. Maryland Geological Survey; compiled andedited by Cleaves, E.T., J. Edwards, Jr., and Glaser, J.D.; supervised by K.N. Weaver.Massachusetts and Connecticut: MA data compiled by USGS-WRD Connecticut River NAWQA (1:125,000) andUSGS - New England Coastal NAWQA (1:250,000).The USGS is the originator of dataset. Based on Zen, E-an,Goldsmith, Richard, Ratcliff, N.L., Robinson, Peter, and Stanley, R.S., [compilers], 1983, Bedrock geologic map ofMassachusetts: U.S. Geological Survey, 3 map sheets, scale 1:250,000.New Hampshire: Digital map based on Lyons,J.B., Bothner,W.A., Moench,R.H., and Thompson,J.B.,Jr., 1997,Bedrock Geologic Map of New Hampshire, scale 1:250,000.New Jersey: Digital version originated from 3 USGS and NJ Geological Survey 1:100,000 scale sheets; Northern,Central and Southern NJ.New York: NY State Geological Survey, 1:250,000.Pennsylvania: Geologic Map of Pennsylvania, 1980, 1:250,000 scale. (Berg et al.) PASDA distributed.Rhode Island: RI data compiled and USGS - WRD - New England Coastal NAWQA (1:250,000). Hermes, O.D.,Gromet, L.P., and Murrey, D.P. (compilers), 1994, Bedrock geologic map of Rhode Island:Kingston, R.I., University of Rhode Island, Rhode Island Map Series No. 1, scale 1:100,000.Vermont: Digital map based on Doll,C.G., Cady,W.M., Thompson,J.B.,Jr., and Billings,M.P., 1961, Centennialgeologic map of Vermont: Vermont Geological Survey, scale 1:250,000. Geologic classes grouped by VTGS 1998.Virginia: Berquist, C.R., Jr., and Uschner, N. E., 1999, Spatial data of the digital geologic map of Virginia: VA Div.of Mineral Res. Digital Pub. 14B. Based on 1993, Geologic map of Virginia: Virginia Division of MineralResources, scale 1:500,000.USGS-WRD: NEW ENGLAND COASTAL NAWQA LITHOLOGY: The USGS is the originator of dataset. Theoriginal sources of data were the individual Bedrock maps produced for each state: New Hampshire, Massachusetts,Maine, and Rhode Island. The references for the state bedrock maps are as follows: Lyons, J.B., Bothner, W.A.,Moench, R.H., and Thompson, J.B., Jr., eds., 1997, Bedrock geologic map of New Hampshire: U.S. GeologicalSurvey, 2 map sheets, scale 1:250,000 Zen, E-an, Goldsmith, Richard, Ratcliff, N.L., Robinson, Peter, and Stanley,R.S., [compilers], 1983, Bedrock geologic map of Massachusetts: U.S. Geological Survey, 3 map sheets, scale1:250,000 Osberg, P.H., Hussey, A.M., and Boone, G.M., eds., 1985, Bedrock geologic map of Maine: MaineGeological Survey, Department of Conservation, 1 sheet, scale 1:500,000 Hermes, O.D., Gromet, L.P., and Murrey,9/20/2000 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT 2
BibiliographyD.P. (compilers), 1994, Bedrock geologic map of Rhode Island: Kingston, R.I., University of Rhode Island, RhodeIsland Map Series No. 1, scale 1:100,000.USGS-WRD: CONNECTICUT RIVER NAWQA LITHOLOGY: The USGS is the originator of dataset. The originalsources of data were the individual Bedrock maps produced for each state. Scale 1:125,000 1997.Ecological Land Units: Combination of elevation, landform, bedrock geology, and surficial geology grids. Seelneelu.doc for more information regarding the development and use of this dataset. Created by TNC EasternConservation Scinec, 1999.9/20/2000 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT 3
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 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 197 and 198: DRAFT LNE-NP Ecoregional Plan 9\20\
Page 199: BibiliographyLower New England GIS
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?