Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway
Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway Full ecoregional plan - Conservation Gateway
Good, Fair, Poor) for each of the three components and provide written justification foryour assessment.Size: (e.g., describe the species and specific life history stages (if known) that use the site and any information aboutspecific life history stages):____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Condition: (e.g., describe aspects of biotic composition, local anthropogenic impacts, degree ofinvasive species, etc.):____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Landscape (Waterscape?) Context: (e.g., describe the altered flow regime, connectivity withother aquatic habitats, watershed impacts, unique or notable physical features, landscape setting,etc):____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Additional Comments not captured by this survey:______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________REVISED 7/2003AQUA-19
Aquatic Systems Results for Lower New EnglandCLASSIFICATION RESULTS......................................................................................................................................................... 1Geographic Framework for Aquatic Assessments .......................................................................................................... 1Zoogeographic Regions..................................................................................................................................................1Ecological Drainage Units (EDUs)..............................................................................................................................1Physical Descriptions .................................................................................................................................................... 3Characteristic Fish and Mussels (from NatureServe Database, 2002) .......................................................................... 4Watershed Classification: Aquatic Ecological Systems ................................................................................................. 9TWINSPAN Relationships............................................................................................................................................12Explanation of Size 2 Watershed TWINSPAN System Splits.................................................................................... 13Explanation of Size 3 Watershed System TWINSPAN Splits.................................................................................... 15Summary System Physical Descriptions....................................................................................................................15Reach Level Classification: Macrohabitats .................................................................................................................... 18CLASSIFICATION DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................. 22CONDITION RESULTS................................................................................................................................................................ 26GIS Screening...................................................................................................................................................................... 26Size 2 Watershed: Within System Relative Analysis................................................................................................26Size 2 Watershed: Landscape Context Non-Relative Ranking ..............................................................................28Dam Impacts...................................................................................................................................................................31Expert Interviews ................................................................................................................................................................ 32CONDITION: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................ 32PORTFOLIO ASSEMBLY RESULTS............................................................................................................................................ 37Portfolio Number and Miles.............................................................................................................................................. 37Representation Goals .......................................................................................................................................................... 39Connectivity Goals .............................................................................................................................................................. 39Threats Across the Portfolio .............................................................................................................................................. 41Impact from Non-Point Point Pollution ....................................................................................................................41Range in Landscape Context Ranking within EDU by Ecosystem Type ..............................................................44Heavy Agricultural Impacts.........................................................................................................................................47Heavy Development and Road Impacts.....................................................................................................................48Impact from Dams..........................................................................................................................................................50PORTFOLIO ASSEMBLY: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 52
- 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 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: Major stresses: Using the following
- 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
Aquatic Systems Results for Lower New EnglandCLASSIFICATION RESULTS......................................................................................................................................................... 1Geographic Framework for Aquatic Assessments .......................................................................................................... 1Zoogeographic Regions..................................................................................................................................................1Ecological Drainage Units (EDUs)..............................................................................................................................1Physical Descriptions .................................................................................................................................................... 3Characteristic Fish and Mussels (from NatureServe Database, 2002) .......................................................................... 4Watershed Classification: Aquatic Ecological Systems ................................................................................................. 9TWINSPAN Relationships............................................................................................................................................12Ex<strong>plan</strong>ation of Size 2 Watershed TWINSPAN System Splits.................................................................................... 13Ex<strong>plan</strong>ation of Size 3 Watershed System TWINSPAN Splits.................................................................................... 15Summary System Physical Descriptions....................................................................................................................15Reach Level Classification: Macrohabitats .................................................................................................................... 18CLASSIFICATION DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................. 22CONDITION RESULTS................................................................................................................................................................ 26GIS Screening...................................................................................................................................................................... 26Size 2 Watershed: Within System Relative Analysis................................................................................................26Size 2 Watershed: Landscape Context Non-Relative Ranking ..............................................................................28Dam Impacts...................................................................................................................................................................31Expert Interviews ................................................................................................................................................................ 32CONDITION: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................ 32PORTFOLIO ASSEMBLY RESULTS............................................................................................................................................ 37Portfolio Number and Miles.............................................................................................................................................. 37Representation Goals .......................................................................................................................................................... 39Connectivity Goals .............................................................................................................................................................. 39Threats Across the Portfolio .............................................................................................................................................. 41Impact from Non-Point Point Pollution ....................................................................................................................41Range in Landscape Context Ranking within EDU by Ecosystem Type ..............................................................44Heavy Agricultural Impacts.........................................................................................................................................47Heavy Development and Road Impacts.....................................................................................................................48Impact from Dams..........................................................................................................................................................50PORTFOLIO ASSEMBLY: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 52
Change language