Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway

More documents

Recommendations

Info

assessment area should be an order of magnitude larger than the mean size of the patchcommunities. Based on an sample of 1300 patch-forming ecosystem occurrences wecalculated 10 time the mean size (101 acres x 10) or two orders larger than the modal size(which was 10 acres) and rounded this to 1000 acres. This value was subsequently usedto approximate the landscape scale for all occurrences. However, in a few cases,particularly for small patch, globally rare systems, 1000 acres was considered to be toolarge to assess context. These occurrences were evaluated more critically using thejudgment of the ecologists.Combining the viability criteriaAn algorithm was used to assess viability for patch-forming ecosystems based on thepossible combinations of size, condition, and landscape context (see Table COMM6).Different size standards were used for large patch systems of various types (generally>100 acres), and small patch systems(generally > 25 acres, but variable). Thecombinations were intended to maximize the probability that an occurrence was viable,functional as a coarse filter, and associated with a reasonably intact site. Occurrences thatranked low for one criterion had to be ranked high for one or both of the other criteria inorder to be considered viable. Where there was uncertainty about the classification of acommunity to patch type (e.g., large vs. small), generally the more conservative criteria(in parentheses) were applied.Table COMM6. Generalized table of qualifying criteria combinations for patchformingecosystems.CurrentConditionLandscapeContextSize: Large Patch(acres)Size: Small Patch (acres) ViabilityEstimate(1-3) (1-4) Forest/WoodlandShrub/HerbForest WoodlandShrub Herb1 1 100 50 20 10 5 5 (1) Yes2 1 100 50 20 10 5 5 (1) Yes3 1 100 50 20 10 5 5(1) Maybe1 2 100 50 20 10 5 5 (1) Yes2 2 100 50 20 10 5 5 (1) Maybe3 2 100 50 20 10 5 5 (1) Maybe1 3 200 100 50 50 10 10 Yes2 3 200 100 50 50 10 10 Maybe3 3 200 100 50 50 10 10 No4 Any Any Noany 4 Any NoAddressing Gaps in the DataFuture field inventories and analyses of existing data sets will supply additional detail onsubregion distribution of ecosystems. These components can be added to future versionsof the classification and will further our understanding of how many of the ecosystemsoccur across the entire region. Our assumption is that the large matrix forests willencompass many of the associations within the ecoregion even where ground-verifiedinventory, which would confirm their presence, is lacking. Other sites will be added infuture revisions of the plans where significant gaps in representation have been identified.REVISED 7/2003COMM-14
The minimum goals based on generic ecosystem types were intended to provide guidancefor conservation activity over the next few decades. They should serve as benchmarks ofconservation progress until more accurate goals can be developed for each target. Thegeneric goals were not intended to replace more comprehensive restoration plans. On thecontrary, ecosystems that do not meet the ecoregional minimum goals should beprioritized for receiving a restoration plan including an exhaustive inventory if such doesnot already exist.REVISED 7/2003COMM-15
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: systems. Conversely, high elevation
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?