Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway

More documents

Recommendations

Info

species, dam operation management techniques, and local water withdrawal. TNC field officeshosted a series of expert workshops to engage aquatic experts with land or resource managementagencies, academic institutions, private consulting firms, and/or non-profit organizations basedin the region. At these meetings experts provided input on previous work conducted by TNCsuch as the aquatic classification, GIS condition screening, and conservation <strong>plan</strong>ning approach.Experts were also specifically asked to delineate areas of aquatic biological significance on mapsand provide descriptions of these areas by filling out a description form (see Appendix 2) oneach area of aquatic biological significance.Assembling the PortfolioA portfolio assembly meeting was held with one or two representatives from each of the TNCstate offices in the ecoregion. Prior to this meeting, each state had prioritized Size 2, 3, and 4Aquatic Ecological System examples within their state for each watershed system group. Eachoffice ranked occurrences based on the GIS screening analysis and expert information, such asbest example of an intact system, presence of rare species, presence of native fish community,presence of excellent stream invertebrates, great condition, or free from exotics.At the portfolio assembly meeting, field office representatives discussed and compared examplesof given system groups that crossed state boundaries to select examples for the portfolio. Theteam was asked to identify the Portfolio Type Code categories for selected examples (Table 4and 5). The team also identified the regional connected focus networks that would be part of the<strong>plan</strong>.A considerable amount of professional judgement was exercised in assembling the conservationportfolio. In relatively intact landscapes where there were many high quality examples of eachAquatic Ecological System type, we included more than one instance of each watershed systemin the conservation portfolio. In these cases, priorities for conservation action may depend onopportunity and imminence of threat. Conversely, in some degraded landscapes, there were fewor no high quality examples of certain system types. In these areas, we recognize that restorationmay be necessary to elevate the condition of systems included in the portfolio.Table 4: Portfolio Type CodePORT-S1cPORT-S1PORT-S2cPORT-S2PORT-SxcBest available example of a stream/river system type and part of a regional orintermediate scale connected stream networkBest available example of a stream/river system type but disjunct/not part of afocus connected stream networkAdditional good example of a stream/river system type and part of a regional orintermediate scale focus connected stream network, but not the best example ofits system typeAdditional good example of a stream/river system (often included theheadwaters in all matrix sites) but disjunct from larger focus connected networkConnector. Not an excellent or additional good best example of a stream/riversystem. It is considered as part of the portfolio as a connector segment in afocus connected stream network. These connectors usually are the lowermainstem reaches in a focus network that are highly altered but needed forconnectivity. This connector occurrence is necessary to meet regionalconnectivity needsREVISED 7/2003AQUA-11
Table 5: Confidence Code1 High Confidence. We have high confidence that these expert recommended systems areboth important and viable as aquatic conservation targets. Confidence 1 AESs often fallwithin the optimal condition analysis (% natural cover, road density, dams) as well.2 Lower Confidence. These occurrences are only conditionally in the portfolio. Confidence 2occurrences require more evaluation before we would take conservation action at thesesites. They appear to be good aquatic conservation areas and appear to be necessaryadditions to the portfolio, but we need more information on these sites.REVISED 7/2003AQUA-12
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 and 80: targets should also include conside
Page 81: have also not been extensively rese
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?