occurring in all EDUs and 28-32 of the 33 watersheds include common shiner, longnose dace,tessellated darter, banded killifish, redbreast sunfish, American eel, blacknose dace, and fallfish.These fish are associated with the widespread and common aquatic habitats of the region andappear to tolerate the ranges of climate and stream temperature that normally occurs across theregion. Although all these fish occur throughout the analysis area, some species such as whitesuckers, yellow perch, golden shines, and common shiners appear to be aquatic habitatgeneralists. They use a wide range of local habitats from creeks to small and medium rivers tolarge lakes and have ranges that extend significantly outside the region (Page and Burr 2001).Other species such as brown bullhead, brook trout, dace, fallfish, and tessellated darter preferspecific habitats that although specific, are widespread throughout the analysis region. Forexample, Brown bullheads need the deep water of large lakes and rivers, that occur in everyEDU (Williams 2002). Brook trout need cool, oxygen-rich creeks to medium rivers that are alsocommon habitats throughout the region. Blacknose dace, fallfish, and longnose dace prefer fastercurrent streams with gravel to rocky substrate. Blacknose and longnose dace prefer springs andcool, clear creeks with moderate to swift currents over gravel or rocks, with longnose dacepreferring slightly faster currents. Fallfish avoid small streams but prefer gravel, rubble bottomedpools and runs of small to medium rivers and lake margins. Certain widely distributed fish in thisregion such as banded killifish and tessellated darter prefer slower current waters that are alsocommonly found in this region. American eels are fish with a unique catadromous life historythat are widely distributed throughout the region. Non-native fish that occur in the regionincluded the bluntnose minnow, brown trout, cutlips minnow, fathead minnow, largemouth bass,pearl dace, pumpkinseed, rainbow trout, rock bass, round-whitefish, and trout-perch. Lake trout,rainbow smelt, and burbot were native in some of the watersheds and non-native in others.The increased numbers of species present in the Lower Connecticut EDU and Saco-Merrimack-Charles EDU in comparison to the Middle Connecticut, Upper Connecticut, and Cape EDUlikely represents the increased diversity of aquatic habitat niches within these EDUs, particularlytheir direct connection with the ocean. The Lower Connecticut and Saco-Merrimack-CharlesEDU have both diverse u<strong>plan</strong>d areas of habitat as well as significant sections of large, medium,and small coastal rivers where estuarine habitat is abundant and where there are access points foranadromous and catadromous species. The Cape Cod EDU has direct connection with the oceanand estuarine habitat; however, the sizes of rivers in the Cape Cod EDU are quite small; there areno size 3 rivers and only 5 examples of size 2 rivers. The Cape Cod EDU is also quite uniform inits physical habitat diversity that may also limit the number of species that can find adequatehabitat in this EDU. The dominance of higher gradient stream systems, higher elevations andcolder temperatures, and the lack of estuarine habitat limits the aquatic habitat niches available inthe Middle and Upper Connecticut EDUs. Certain species likely experience physiological limitsto the colder climate in these EDUs which may explain the lower number of species in theseEDUs.REVISED 6/2003AQUA-RESULTS-7
merrlowctcapeupctmidct3E-03100Native Fish and G1-3 Mussels by EDUDistance (Objective Function)4.4E-028.6E-021.3E-01Information Remaining (%)7550251.7E-010A Sorensen Similarity Distance Index analysis using all native fish and G1-G3 musseldistribution (current and historical presence/absence) showed the distribution of species withinthe Saco-Merrrimack-Charles EDU and Lower Connecticut EDU are extremely similar. TheLower Connecticut EDU and Saco-Merrimack-Charles EDU shared 40 of 47 species. The onlydifferences was that satinfin shiner, gizzard shad, rainwater killifish, sheepshead minnow did notoccur in the Saco-Merrimack-Charles and lake trout, lake whitefish, and northern redbelly dacedid not occur in the Lower Connecticut. The satinfin shiner, rainwater killifish, sheepsheadminnow, and gizzard shad appear to be at the northeastern limit of its range. The satinfin shineroccurs in only the Saugatuck watershed within the Lower Connecticut EDU, but its distributionextends extensively south to North Carolina. The sheepshead minnow, rainwater killifish, andgizzard shad occur in coastal estuarine areas from Cape Cod to Texas but do not appear to havebeen able to colonize north of the Cape (Williams 2002). Lake trout and lake whitefish are likelyabsent from the Lower Connecticut EDU as they prefer cold deep lakes and cold large rivers thatare lacking in the Lower Connecticut EDU. Northern redbelly dace prefer colder boggy waterand sluggish mud bottom creeks and boggy ponds that are also absent in the Lower ConnecticutEDU.The next most similar EDU to the Lower Connecticut and Saco-Merrimack-Charles is the CapeCod EDU. These three EDUs share 29 of the total 53 fish species . All fish in the Cape Cod EDUalso occured in the Lower Connecticut EDU, and 27 of the 29 Cape fish also occurred in theSaco-Merrimack-Charles EDU (Sheepshead minnow and rainwater killifish were missing fromthe Saco-Merrimack-Charles, per above distribution limit discussion.) The fish fauna of the Capethus appears to be a subset of the fauna of the Lower Connecticut and Saco-Merrimack-Charlesedu. Native Fish that occurred in all EDUs except for the Cape Cod EDU included lake trout,spottail shiner, lake chub, longnose sucker, atlantic salmon, slimy sculpin, creek chub, longnosedace, redbreast sunfish, and blacknose dace. As mentioned previously, the Cape Cod EDU lacksany rivers greater than size 2 and has quite uniform low gradient physical habitat throughout andthis limited physical habitat diversity likely limits the number of species that can find adequatehabitat in this EDU.The Upper Connecticut EDU and Middle Connecticut EDU show greater divergence from theCape, Lower Connecticut, and Saco-Merrimack-Charles EDUs. The Upper Connecticut andMiddle Connecticut EDUs share 26 species of their 38 total species. One species, eastern silveryminnow, occurred in both the Middle Connecticut and Upper Connecticut but was missing fromthe Lower Connecticut, Cape, and Saco-Merrimack-Charles. Eight fish species (alewife,American brook lamprey, fourspine stickleback, hickory shad, ninespine stickleback, stripedbass, swamp darter, and threespine stickleback) occurred in the Lower Connecticut, Cape, andSaco-Merrimack-Charles but did not occur in either the Upper or Middle Connecticut EDU.REVISED 6/2003AQUA-RESULTS-8
- 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 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: Table 3: Fish and Mussel Distributi
- 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:
Appendix 1Lower New England/Norther
- Page 163 and 164:
Appendix 1Lower New England/Norther
- Page 165 and 166:
KEY TO TERMS OF FEDERALLY LISTED SP
- Page 167 and 168:
Appendix 1Lower New England/Norther
- Page 169 and 170:
Appendix 1Lower New England/Norther
- Page 171 and 172:
Appendix 1.Lower New England/Northe
- Page 173 and 174:
Appendix 1Lower New England\Norther
- Page 175 and 176:
Appendix 1Lower New England\Norther
- Page 177 and 178:
Appendix 2Lower New England\Norther
- Page 179 and 180:
Appendix 3Lower New England\Norther
- Page 181 and 182:
Appendix 3Lower New England\Norther
- Page 183 and 184:
Appendix 3Lower New England\Norther
- Page 185 and 186:
Appendix 3Lower New England\Norther
- Page 187 and 188:
Appendix 4.Lower New England\Northe
- Page 189 and 190:
Appendix 5Lower New England\Norther
- Page 191 and 192:
Appendix 5Lower New England\Norther
- Page 193 and 194:
Appendix 6.Lower New England\Northe
- Page 195 and 196:
Appendix 6.Lower New England\Northe
- 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