Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Hill, M.O. 1979. TWINSPAN—A FORTRAN program for arranging multivariate data inan ordered two-way table by classification of the individuals and attributes. Ithaca, NY:Ecology and Systematics, Cornell University.Hodson, N.L. 1966. A survey of road mortality in mammals (and including data for theGrass snake and Common frog). Journal of Zoology (London) 148:576-579.Hudson, P.L., R.W. Griffiths, and T.J. Wheaton. 1992. Review of habitat classificationschemes appropriate to streams, rivers, and connecting channels in the Great Lakesdrainage basin. Pages 73-108 in Busch, W.D.N. and P.G. Sly eds. The development ofan aquatic habitat classification system for lakes. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Huey, L.M. 1941. Mammalian invasion via the highway. Journal of Mammalogy 22:383-385.Hunter, M.L. Jr. 1996. Fundamentals of Conservation Biology. Blackwell Science,Cambridge, MA. 482 pp.Jackson, D.A. and H.H. Harvey. 1989. Biogeographic associations in fish assemblages:Local vs. regional processes. Ecology 70: 1472-1484Jensen, M.E., I. Goodman, N.L. Poff, P.Bourgeron, J.R. Maxwell, C.J. Edwards, and D.Cleland. In Press. Use of ecological classification and mapping units in thecharacterization of aquatic systems for ecosystem management. Water ResourcesBulletin.Johnson, R.K. 2000. Spatial congruence between ecoregions and littoralmacroinvertebrate assemblages. Journal of North American Benthological Society19:475-486.Jones, R. and C. Clark. 1987. Impact of Watershed Urbanization on Stream InsectCommunities. American Water Resources Association. Water Resources Bulletin.15(4).Keys, Jr.,J., C.Carpenter, S. Hooks, F. Koenig, W.H. McNab, W. Russell, M.L. Smith.1995. Ecological Units of the Eastern United States: first approximation. Atlanta, GA:U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. CD-ROM.Klein, D.R. 1971. Reactions of reindeer to obstructions and disturbances. Science173:393-398.Lammert, M., and J.D. Allan. 1999. Assessing biotic integrity of streams: Effects of scalein measuring the influence of land use/cover and habitat structure on fish andmacroinvertebrates. Environmental Management 23: (2) 257-270.Lande, R.1988. Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science 241: 1455-1460.Langdon, R., J. Andrews, K. Cox et al. 1998. A Classification of The AquaticCommunities of Vermont. Prepared by The Aquatic Classification Workgroup for TheNature Conservancy and the Vermont Biodiversity Project.Langton, T.E.S. (ed.). 1989. Amphibians and Roads. AOC Polymer Products LTD.Shefford, Bedsfordshire, England.UPDATED 7/2003BIB-5
Leopold, L.B. and Wolman, M.G. 1957. River channel patterns: braided, meandering,and strait. U.S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper 282-B.Lorimer, C.G. 1977. The presettlement forest and natural disturbance cycle ofnortheastern Maine. Ecology 58: 139-148.Mader, H.J. 1984. Animal habitat isolation by roads and agricultural fields. Biol. Cons.29:81-96.Mader, H.J. 1988. The significance of paved agricultural roads as barriers to grounddwelling arthropods. In K-F. Schreiber (ed.), Connectivity in Landscape Ecology,Ferdinand Schoningh, Paderborn Germany.Marchant, R., F. Wells, and P. Newall. 2000. Assessment of an ecoregion approach forclassifying macroinvertebrate assemblages from streams in Victoria, Australia. Journalof the North American Benthological Society 19:497-500.Maxwell, J.R., C.J. Edwards, M.E. Jensen, S.J. Paustian, H. Parrott, and D.M. Hill. 1995.A Hierarchical Framework of Aquatic Ecological Units in North America (NeararcticZone). General Technical Report NC-176. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. 72 pp.Maybury, Kathleen P. (ed.). 1999. Seeing the Forest and the Trees: EcologicalClassification for Conservation. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VAMeffe, G.K., and C.R. Carroll. 1994. Principles of Conservation Biology. SinauerAssociates, Sunderland, MA.Meixler, M.S. and M.B. Bain, 1999. Application of GAP Analysis to New York WatersFinal Report. New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Department ofNatural Resources Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Mello, R.A. 1987. Last stand of the red spruce. Island Press. Washington, DC.Minshall, G.W., R.C. Petersen, K.W. Cummins, et al. 1983. Interbiome comparisons ofstream ecosystem dynamics. Ecological Monographs. 53:1-25Missouri Gap Valley Segment Classification. 2000. http://www.cerc.cr.usgs.gov/morap/Moyle, P.B., and P.J. Randall. 1998. Evaluating the biotic integrity of watersheds in theSierra Nevada, California. Conservation Biology 12(6): 1318-1326.Nightengale, E., G. Podniesinski, T. Davis, et al. 2001. Aquatic Ecosystem Classificationand Identification of Reference Systems: A comparison of Methodologies. EPA 2001-STAR-LI Grant Proposal. Pennsylvania Science Office of The Nature Conservancy.Noss, R.F. 1987. Protecting natural areas in fragmented landscapes. Natural AreasJournal 7: 2-13.Odum, E.P. 1985. Trends expected in stressed ecosystems. BioScience 35:419:422.Oliver, C.D. and E.P. Stevens. 1977. Reconstruction of a mixed-species forest in centralNew England. Ecology 58(3)562-572.UPDATED 7/2003BIB-6
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 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: Gerritsen, J., M.T. Barbour, and K.
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?