Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table COMM4. Example of stratification table for the Northern Appalachians(Anderson 1999). Acres are shown in parentheses.Northern Appalachian / Boreal EcoregionNorthern Appalachian Mountains (16.8M)Adirondacks / Tug Hill(6.7M)Tug HillPlateauM212F(700K)AdirondackMountainsM212D(5.9M)White and Green Mountains(10.2M)White MountainsM212A(6.8M)GreenMountainsVermontPiedmontM212CM212B(3.4M)Boreal Hills and Lowlands (15.4M)NorthernBoreal Hills(5.3M)NorthernBoreal HillsM212Aa,b212Aa(5.3M)Southern Boreal Hills(10.1M)CentralMaineLowland212A,B212C,D(6.9M)SouthernMaineCoastal212C212D(3.1M)Based on the two preceding tables, examples of a Restricted ecosystem in the NAPecoregion would be protected across four subregions: the Adirondack/Tug Hill, the Whiteand Green Mountains, the Northern Boreal Hills and the Southern Boreal Hills (assumingit occurred in all four). Ecosystems with a Limited distribution would be protected acrosstwo subregions: the Northern Appalachian Mountains and the Boreal Hills and Lowlands.The conservation goal was met for a ecosystem target when we were able to identifyenough viable examples (see below) distributed across the ecoregion such that both thenumerical and stratification standards were met. For most targets we were not able to dothis. The plans not only highlight a set of places for conservation attention but alsoidentify gaps in our knowledge in a very precise manner.In addition to the scientific assumptions used in setting conservation goals, the goalscontain institutional assumptions that will require future assessment as well. For example,the goals assume that targets in one ecoregion are targets in all ecoregions in which theyoccur. After the completion of the full set of first iteration ecoregional plans, target goalsshould be assessed, reevaluated and adjusted.Assessing the Viability of Individual Ecosystem ExamplesThe conservation goals discussed above incorporate assumptions about the viability ofthe ecosystem type across the ecoregion. The goals assume that instances that are of lowquality or too small have been screened out through an analysis of local viability factors.This section, concerns the evaluation of viability of each ecosystem example or“occurrence” at a given location.Ideally, the local occurrences of each ecosystem selected for inclusion in a conservationportfolio should exhibit the ability to persist over time under present conditions. Ingeneral, this means that the observed occurrence is in good condition, has sufficientresilience to survive occasional natural and human stresses, and is of a size that isadequate to contain multiple breeding populations of the characteristic species associatedwith the ecosystem.REVISED 7/2003COMM-10
Locating examples of patch-forming communitiesFor most patch-forming ecosystems, the factors that define an example have been thoughtthrough and are documented in state Natural Heritage databases. Whenever Heritageprogram “occurrence specifications” were available we adopted them for use.In the Northeast, a variety of mapping and predictive modeling techniques have beenrecently developed for locating examples of ecosystems. However, the examples of patchcommunities that were incorporated into the ecoregion portfolios were almost exclusivelythose documented by Natural Heritage element occurrence records and thus groundverified.There are several reasons for this. First, the information needed to assess theexample and determine whether an occurrence passed the viability screening criteria wasreadily available in the record. Second, the Heritage element occurrences databases in theEast are extensive, selective and have matured to the point where the best examples ofmost ecosystem types are already well documented—particularly the small patchecosystems. Third, we believe that ground verification is a wise step before anyconservation action takes place.To coordinate community occurrences across state lines, assess the viability ofoccurrences, and set goals, all community occurrences in the database were assigned toone of several ecological groups. Each of these occurrences was initially identified withintheir respective state classifications, and thus needed to be linked (“crosswalked” or“tagged”) to the NVC classification developed for the ecoregion. Each occurrence, withits state name, was crosswalked to an NVC name by the state Heritage ecologist, or bystaff from ECS with review by the state ecologist.Viability screening criteriaPrior to examining ecosystem occurrences, we developed a set of qualifying criteria (arough estimate of viability) through a succinct assessment of three attributes historicallyused by Natural Heritage programs to evaluate occurrences: size, condition andlandscape context.Size: Size of an occurrence was considered fundamental for predicting both the stabilityand the resilience of an ecosystem occurrence and the diversity of plant and animalspecies within the occurrence. Size criteria for ecosystems integrated three independentsources of information. The first was the actual size range of the system in the ecoregion.This measure was highly correlated with the specific landscape setting and conditionsthat define the ecosystem. Second was the scale and extent of the disturbance processesthat affect the ecosystem. In particular, we used the size of severe damage patches toestimate the minimum dynamic area of an ecosystem. Third, we examined the breedingterritory or minimum area requirements of the associated species we expected to beconserved through the protection of this ecosystem type. For example, breeding territorysizes of bitterns and rails were used to inform freshwater marsh conservation, andterritory sizes for Lincoln’s sparrow, palm warblers, and bog lemmings were importantfor dwarf shrub bogs. The chapter on Matrix-Forming Ecosystem Targets includes anextensive discussion of size.The size of an ecosystem occurrence was a standard field in the Heritage elementoccurrence database; however, over the many thousand of occurrences we examined,only about two-thirds included a value for the field. When size data was included we usedREVISED 7/2003COMM-11
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: to that ecoregion alone. Those syst
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?