Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Quercus rubra / Polypodium virginianum Woodland (CEGL006320 ECS) — G3G5LNP SUGGESTED NAME: Quercus rubra – Betula alleghaniensis / Polypodium virginianumWoodlandRed Oak / Eastern Rockcap Fern Woodland[Red Oak Talus Slope Woodland]Description: Open, bouldery, acidic talus slope woodlands in the Northern Appalachian and Lower New England /Northern Piedmont ecoregions. Habitat (large talus and boulders) rather than geography differentiates this associationfrom Quercus rubra / Vaccinium spp. / Deschampsia flexuosa Woodland (CEGL006134). Ericads generally lacking, vinesand ferns more characteristic. Common associates are species of Corydalis, Woodsia, Dryopteris as well asParthenocissus quinquefolia, Polypodium virginianum, Tsuga canadensis, Pinus strobus. 6/98 NAP Very open tomoderately closed canopy, heterogeneous composition of Quercus rubra, Acer saccharum, Betula nigra, Betulaalleghaniensis, Betula papyrifera, Betula populifolia, Fagus grandifolia, Acer rubrum. Scattered and clumped tallshrubs/small trees include Acer spicatum, Acer pensylvanicum, Rubus spp., Viburnum acerifolium (occasional), Ribesspp. Prevalent component of vines are Parthenocissus quinquefolia, Parthenocissus vitacea, Toxicodendron radicans,Celastrus scandens, Polygonum cilinode. Scattered ferns and herbs are Dryopteris marginalis, Polypodium virginianum,Pteridium aquilinum, Carex pensylvanica, Corydalis sempervirens (localized), Solidago bicolor, Solidago caesia, andothers. Acidic talus slopes of low-elevation valleys. Substrate is bouldery talus derived form acidic bedrock. Elevationrange is roughly 500-2000 feet. Groundcover is exposed talus, moss-covered boulders and deciduous litter.LNP Scale: Small to large patch Distribution: LimitedTNC Ecoregions: 61:C, 62:C, 63:CReferences:State SRank State NameCT S?MA S4 Acidic Talus Forest / Woodland+ME S3 Acidic Talus+NH S? Red oak-black birch/marginal woodfern talus forest/woodlandNJ? SPNY S? Acidic talus slope woodlandVT S3 Transition Hardwood Talus Woodland+Quercus rubra / Vaccinium spp. / Deschampsia flexuosa Woodland (CEGL006134 ECS) — G3G5LNP SUGGESTED NAME: Quercus rubra – Quercus prinus / Vaccinium spp. / Deschampsia flexuosaWoodlandRed Oak / Blueberry species / Wavy Hairgrass Woodland[Central Appalachian High Elevation Red Oak Woodland]Description: Dry, open, rocky slope or summit woodlands in the Northern Appalachian, Lower New England / NorthernPiedmont and Central Appalachians ecoregions. Open, stunted to somewhat closed canopy of Quercus rubra. Quercusprinus may be codominant. Common associates are Quercus alba, Betula lenta and Acer rubrum with minor componentof Quercus velutina, Betula populifolia, Betula papyrifera and Pinus rigida. Tall-shrub layer is often lacking but may includeAcer spicatum, Sambucus racemosa, Rhus typhina, Kalmia latifolia, Hamamelis virginiana, Viburnum nudum var.cassinoides, Rhododendron spp. Ericaceous shrubs and graminoids are characteristic. Well-developed low-shrub cover ofVaccinium angustifolium, Vaccinium pallidum, Gaylussacia baccata, Kalmia angustifolia. Scattered grasses includeDeschampsia flexuosa, Danthonia spicata, Carex pensylvanica, and herbs include Gaultheria procumbens, Aralianudicaulis. Herbs: Pteridium aquilinum, Aralia nudicaulis, Maianthemum canadense, Aster acuminatus, Corydalissempervirens, Deschampsia flexuosa, Carex pensylvanica, Polypodium virginianum. Environmental setting: Talus slopes,rocky slopes and summits of low, moderate or high elevations. Soils are shallow, well-drained, nutrient-poor acidic gravelsand coarse sands. Exposed bedrock prominent. Grades into Quercus prinus Forest, Pinus rigida woodlands or sparselyvegetated rocky summits (Pinus strobus, Quercus rubra) / Danthonia spicata Sparsely Wooded Herbaceous VegetationCEGL005101.LNP Scale: Small patch or large patch?Distribution: WidespreadTNC Ecoregions: 59:C, 61:?, 62:C, 63:CReferences: Thompson and Sorenson 2000State SRank State NameCT S?DE S?MA S4 Ridgetop Chestnut oak Forest / WoodlandME S1 chestnut oak woodland=NH S? Appalachian oak – pine Forest+ and Red oak – pine / heath rocky ridge woodland+NY S? pitch pine oak heath rocky summit+PA S? Dry oak-heath woodlandVA? SPVT S2 Dry oak woodlandWV S?REVISED 7/2003COMM-16
Results for Terrestrial Communities and Systems *Modification to Standard MethodThe selection and exact spatial arrangement of the target element occurrences was left tothe understanding and judgment of the state Heritage Programs, TNC Field Offices, andother partners with guidance offered by the community working group. However, it isnoteworthy that this has also allowed states to select for the portfolio occurrences that donot appear to meet established size, condition, or landscape context criteria. Theconsequence has been that the portfolio contains an excess number of occurrences forsome community types, some of which do not meet their minimum viability criteria.Occurrences with questionable viability were also selected for community associationsthat did not meet their goals, with the understanding that 1) the database records be editedto reflect the new and improved viability information, and 2) certain portfolio sites mayneed to be removed in the future if the portfolio goal can be met with better, more viable,occurrences. In short, there is a mixed degree of confidence that all the community sitesselected should or will remain in the portfolio. An improved process is required tomaintain suitably conservative viability standards and a scientifically rigorous portfoliowhile still allowing states the opportunity to select which occurrences should become apart of the portfolio.Community classificationIn developing the Lower New England – Northern Piedmont Classification (Lundgren etal, 2000) an initial list of approximately 200 vegetation associations was selected aspotentially occurring in the ecoregion based on known or suspected ranges of eachassociation. Following review, a number of types were determined not to occur in theecoregion or were not deemed as recognizable or distinct associations. One addition wasdescribed and several new types were proposed for further study. The result was a total of153 NVC (National Vegetation Classification) associations currently described withinthis ecoregion with an additional 7 more to be defined with additional classification andinventory in the future. A total of 107 NVC Alliances (broader than association level)were represented: 40% Forests (>60% cover of trees), 14% Woodlands (30-60% treecover), 12% Shrublands, and 34% Herbaceous types.The revised National Vegetation Classification associations were not available for theanalysis of documented community occurrences in LNE-NP during this stage of theassessment process. Therefore, to coordinate community occurrences across state lines,conduct an assessment of occurrence viability, and set goals, all community occurrencesin the database were assigned to one of seventeen ecological groups which are listed inTable 4.* Anderson, M.G. and S.L. Bernstein (editors). 2003. Results for terrestrial communities and systems .Based on Barbour, H. 2001. Lower New England – Northern Piedmont Ecoregional <strong>Conservation</strong> Plan;First Iteration. The Nature Conservancy, <strong>Conservation</strong> Science Support, Northeast & Caribbean Division,Boston, MA.COMM-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 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: The minimum goals based on generic
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?