Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway

More documents

Recommendations

Info

landscape context that a generic estimate of occurrence viability may be ascertained fromthe heritage records.The synthesized priority ranks (EO rank) currently assigned by the state HeritageProgram staff reflected evaluations conducted using standard field forms and rankingcriteria that were in use at the time that the occurrence was first documented by a fieldbiologist. These ranks, while informative, were somewhat variable for similaroccurrences across state lines. Thus for viability estimation the EO rank wassupplemented by the raw tabular information on size, condition and landscape context.Additionally, several ecoregion teams further augmented this with a spatial GISassessment of the land cover classes and road densities located in a 1000 acre proximityof the occurrence’s central point. The latter served as an objective measure of landscapecontext.All known occurrences for each primary target species were assembled at ECS from thestate Heritage Programs through data sharing agreements. The occurrences were sortedby species, and spreadsheets for the species targets were prepared for group discussion,using the information described above. Further data included: a unique occurrenceidentification number, the species name, global rank, site name, and date of lastobservation. Tables of all occurrences were provided to each technical team memberalong with ecoregional distribution maps of the occurrences. Final decisions on theestimated viability of each local population was provided by the technical team andreviewed by the appropriate state and divisional scientists.REVISED 6/2003SPP-7
RESULTS FOR SPECIES *Modification to Standard MethodMost of the data used for assembling the portfolio was derived from participating NaturalHeritage programs. The analyses were based on data received before August 1, 2000.Massachusetts element occurrence data were assembled manually by TNC staff frompublished reports and expert interviews and placed in an interim database, as official datawas not available from the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered SpeciesProgram. All element occurrences ranked A (excellent), B (good), or C (fair) by Heritageprograms were included in the portfolio, provided their rank was supported by expertreview – both by the expert teams and again by state teams comprised of HeritagePrograms and Chapter Offices. In many cases, occurrences of species had either not beenassigned an EO Rank or had been given a rank of “E,” meaning that the occurrence isextant but has not been given a rank. In both cases these occurrences were reviewed bythe expert teams and appropriate Heritage program or TNC staff.The LNE-NP plan does include some species EOs that do not meet the minimum viabilitycriteria. They were included because state participants assured the team that betterinformation supporting a higher viability rank was available but had not yet found its wayinto the databases. The remaining unranked and “E” ranked occurrences were notaccepted into the portfolio. EOs for which there was insufficient documentation andknowledge, but where there was reason to suspect that the EO was viable, were given aprovisional viability rank of maybe (M) and placed on a list for further inventory andevaluation pending future inclusion in the portfolio.In the LNE-NP plan, some species targets with Restricted distributions but larger numberof known meta-populations were assigned a larger than standard numerical goal of 30.Summaries of Results for SpeciesA total of 3,317 Element Occurrences were considered by the planning team for inclusionin the portfolio (Map 9. Element Occurrence Viability). Appendix 1 contains thefollowing lists and tables:• Table: List of all Primary and Secondary Targets• Table: Distribution and Viability of EOs across Subsections• Table: Success towards Conservation GoalsAppendix 2 contains the following lists and tables:• Table: List of Secondary Targets• Table: Portfolio Sites that Capture Viable Secondary Target EOs• Table: Secondary Targets with EOs in Portfolio Sites and 10 Year Action SitesA short list of migratory birds were also included as secondary targets. The birds chosenas secondary targets all had Partners in Flight risk scores of 19 or more. Additionally, theExpert Team considered whether the LNE-NP ecoregion provided habitat for a* Anderson, M.G. and S.L. Bernstein (editors). 2003. Results for species. Based on Barbour, H. 2001.Lower New England – Northern Piedmont Ecoregional Conservation Plan; First Iteration. The NatureConservancy, Conservation Science Support, Northeast & Caribbean Division, Boston, MA.SPP-RESULTS-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: iteration ecoregional plans, specie
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 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
KEY TO TERMS OF FEDERALLY LISTED SP
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Appendix 1.Lower New England/Northe
Page 173 and 174:
Appendix 1Lower New England\Norther
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Appendix 4.Lower New England\Northe
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
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?