Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway
Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway
Table 7. Progress towards goals for large and small patch community groupsCommunity GroupNo. ofAssociations(community types)Goal forCommunityGroup*Total No. ofOccurrencesin thePortfolioPercentage ofGoalAchievedBogs and acidic fens 6 65 56 86Calcareous fens 11 260 23 9Cliff/outcrops 1 30 66 220Dec. of mixed woodlands 3 34 21 62Floodplain forest and woodland 10 146 16 11Marsh and meadow 4 40 8 20Palustrine Forest and woodland 33 384 47 12Pond and lake 6 75 18 24Ridgetop/rocky summit 11 97 28 29River and stream 7 110 20 18Sandplain 7 162 4 3Serpentine barrens 2 54 3 6Terrest. Conifer forest 7 37 10 27Terrest. Decid. Forest 18 132 71 54Terrest. Mixed forest 8 81 2 3Tidal 8 65 40 62* These goals represent the rarity and distribution goal for each association type multiplied by the numberof associations in the community group.From these data there are several clear trends that reflect the composition of the Heritagedatabases, the current state of the national classification, and their effect on achievinggoals and conservation success in LNE-NP. Some general observations include:• The inventory efforts of the Heritage Programs have been focused primarily on rareand small patch communities. There are abundance of occurrences for bogs, fens, andwhite cedar swamps, but few documented occurrences of palustrine and uplandforests. TNC and Heritage Programs need to inventory and identify high qualityoccurrences of more common community types as these data are lacking.• Many occurrences were eliminated during analysis because they were not consideredviable or their viability was in question. 60% of the 1090 occurrences were notselected for the portfolio. Of these, 324 are classed as “maybe viable” and might beaccepted into the portfolio pending additional information. The majority ofoccurrences (226) are for community associations underrepresented in the portfolio.• Goals were set based on patch size and distribution. The goal for a small patch,restricted community was 30 for the whole ecoregion. Some of the rarestcommunities are well below their goal because there are in fact few occurrences forthese communities. New goals should be set for these targets during the 2 nd iteration.COMM-RESULTS-4
• The National Vegetation Classification is well developed in some areas and onlyroughly sketched out in other areas. For example, there are 11 types of calcareousfens in the classification, but only 7 types of rivers and streams. There are 33palustrine forests and woodlands, but only 4 marsh and meadow types.COMM-RESULTS-5
- 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: Table 6. Minimum conservation bench
- 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
• The National Vegetation Classification is well developed in some areas and onlyroughly sketched out in other areas. For example, there are 11 types of calcareousfens in the classification, but only 7 types of rivers and streams. There are 33palustrine forests and woodlands, but only 4 marsh and meadow types.COMM-RESULTS-5