Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Connectivity GoalsConnectivity of aquatic ecological systems is based on the absence of physical barriers tomigration or water flow. Connectivity is of critical importance for viable regional andintermediate-scale fish and community targets and for maintaining processes dependent on watervolume and flooding. The regional scale connectivity goal was to provide at least one “focusnetwork” of connected aquatic ecological systems from headwaters to large river mouth for eachsize 3 river type where a regional wide-ranging species was present. A secondary intermediatescale connectivity goal was to provide the best pattern of connectivity for intermediate-scalepotadromous fish, intermediate scale communities, and processes. The goal for theseintermediate scale targets was to provide at least one connected suite of headwaters to mediumsized river. Again, here the focus was on functional connections at the mouth of a size 2 riverand some functional connections from the size 2 to its size 1 tributaries.Assessing ViabilityViability refers to the ability of a species to persist for many generations or an AquaticEcological System to persist over some specified time period. In aquatic ecosystems, viability isoften evaluated in the literature by a related term “biotic integrity”. Biotic integrity is defined asthe ability of a community to support and maintain a balanced, integrated, adaptive communityof organisms having species compositions, diversity, and functional organization comparable tothat of a natural habitat of the region. 19A myriad of anthropogenic factors contribute to lower viability and biologic integrity of aquaticsystems. Dams and other hydrologic alteration, water quality degradation from land use change,and introduced species all have well documented negative impacts on the structure andfunctioning of aquatic ecosystems. Dams alter the structure and ecosystem functioning by 1)creating barriers to upstream and downstream migration, 2) setting up a series of changesupstream and downstream from the impoundment including changes in flow, temperature, waterclarity; and 3) severing terrestrial/aquatic linkages critical for maintaining the riparian andfloodplain communities. The spread of human settlement has intensified agriculture, roadbuilding, timber harvest, draining of wetlands, removal of riparian vegetation, and released manyharmful chemicals into the environment. This land use alteration has led aquatic habitats tobecome fragmented and degraded through increased sedimentation, flow and temperature regimealteration, eutrophication, and chemical contamination. Introduced nonindigenous species havealso had negative impacts as they compete with indigenous species for food and habitat, reducenative populations by predation, transmit diseases or parasites, hybridize, and alter habitat.Introductions and expansions of nonindigenous species are causing an increasing threat toaquatic systems and are usually extremely difficult if not impossible to undo.Quality AssessmentAssessing the viability and condition of the coarse scale watershed system targets presented aunique challenge. In the Northeast U.S., State level Index of Biotic Integrity ranks and datasetsonly exist in Pennsylvania and Maryland, and even these focus only on wadeable rivers.Although some water quality and biomonitoring data existed in various states, this informationwas not readily available or in a standardized comparable format across states. Viabilitythresholds for condition variables related to the biological functioning of aquatic ecosystems19 Moyle and Randal 1998REVISED 7/2003AQUA-9
have also not been extensively researched and developed, with the exception of impervioussurface thresholds. There was also limited time and funding to compile and analyze existinginstream sample data and its relation to the intactness and functioning of aquatic ecosystems.Given these challenges, a two phase approach was taken. First, available spatial data was used toperform a GIS condition screening analysis to rank all watersheds and individual streamsegments according to landscape factors that previous research has shown are correlated withbiological integrity of aquatic communities. 20 Second, this preliminary assessment was refinedand expanded during a series of expert interviews conducted with scientists and resourcemanagers across the <strong>plan</strong>ning region. Experts were asked to comment on the TNC aquaticclassification, identify threats and local conditions that were not modeled in the GIS screening,and highlight location of best examples of high-quality aquatic sites in the ecoregion.The GIS screening analysis was used as a surrogate, but standardized, method of evaluatingcurrent condition of the aquatic ecosystems. It used landscape variables such as percentdeveloped land, road density, density of road/stream crossings, percent agriculture, dam density,dam storage capacity, drinking water supply density, and point source density. These variableswere divided into three generally non-correlated impact categories 1) Land cover and RoadImpact to represent changes in permeable surfaces and other threats from roads, urbanization, oragriculture; 2) Dam and Drinking Water Supply Impacts to represent changes in hydrologicregime and migration barriers from dams; and 3) Point Source Impact to represent potential pointsource chemical alteration threats.Ordinations were run on a subset of variables in the Land cover and Road Impact, Dam andDrinking Water Supply Impact, and Point Source Impact categories to develop a rank for eachsize 2 watershed in each impact category. The ordination ranks were used to highlight the mostintact watershed examples within each watershed system type. Three variables, percentdeveloped land, percent agriculture land, and total road density per watershed area, were alsoused to develop a simplified overall “landscape context” rank for each size 2 watershed. SeeTable 3 for the landscape context component rank criteria. The overall Landscape Contextwatershed rank was determined by worst individual component category score. 21Table 3: Watershed Landscape Context RankingLandscape Context RankingsRank %Developed % Agriculture Road Density(mi.rd./sq.mi. watershed1 15%At the aquatic expert interviews, experts at the state level were engaged for information on localconditions that could not be modeled in a GIS such as stocking, channelization, introduced20 Fitzhugh 200021 For more information on the reach and watershed level condition variables and statistical ranking analysis, seeOlivero 2003.REVISED 7/2003AQUA-10
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 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: targets should also include conside
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?