NE Resilience Report - Conservation Gateway

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 3.2: An 11-unit landform model mapped for Mount Mansfield, VT. This graphic shows how the landforms lie across on the landscape. 18 Resilient Sites for Terrestrial Conservation in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region The Nature Conservancy • Eastern Conservation Science • Eastern Division • 99 Bedford St • Boston, MA 02111
Figure 3.3: The underlying slope and land position model used to create the mapped landform grids. Adapted from Fels and Matson 1997 Resilient Sites for Terrestrial Conservation in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region 19 The Nature Conservancy • Eastern Conservation Science • Eastern Division • 99 Bedford St • Boston, MA 02111
Page 1 and 2: Resilient Sites for Terrestrial Con
Page 3 and 4: Table of Contents Chapter 1 - Intro
Page 5 and 6: CHAPTER Introduction 1 Climate chan
Page 7 and 8: CHAPTER Defining Sites and 2 Geophy
Page 9 and 10: Landform Types (Map 3.3) The landfo
Page 11 and 12: Map 3.2: The nine geology classes u
Page 13 and 14: Grouping Hexagons into Geophysical
Page 15 and 16: Descriptions of the Settings. The d
Page 17 and 18: Mid Elevation: Settings from 800’
Page 19 and 20: CHAPTER Estimating Resilience 3 A c
Page 21: Figure 3.1: Topographic position an
Page 25 and 26: Map 3.1: Landform variety. This map
Page 27 and 28: Figure 3.4 a-d: A three-dimensional
Page 29 and 30: Map 3.3: Wetland density. This map
Page 31 and 32: Section 2: Landscape Permeability T
Page 33 and 34: oak forest to spruce forest) have b
Page 35 and 36: Figure 3.6: Detailed look at Kernel
Page 37 and 38: Figure 3.8: A gallery of satellite
Page 39 and 40: Section 3: Combining Resilience Fac
Page 41 and 42: through nodes or across edges. Unli
Page 43 and 44: Integration with Other Metrics: The
Page 45 and 46: CHAPTER Results: 5 Scores for the S
Page 47 and 48: Results by Setting: This section pr
Page 49 and 50: Map 5.1: Resilience scores for L-CO
Page 51 and 52: Map 5.2: Resilience scores for L-GR
Page 53 and 54: Map 5.3: Resilience scores for L-GR
Page 55 and 56: Map 5.4: Resilience scores for L-FI
Page 57 and 58: Map 5.5: Resilience scores for L-MA
Page 59 and 60: Map 5.6: Resilience scores for L-SE
Page 61 and 62: Map 5.7: Resilience scores for LSED
Page 63 and 64: Map 5.8 Resilience scores for L-CAL
Page 65 and 66: Map 5.9 Resilience scores for L-MOD
Page 67 and 68: Map 5.10: Resilience scores for LGR
Page 69 and 70: Map 5.11: Resilience scores for L-S
Page 71 and 72: Map 5.12: Resilience scores for L-
Page 73 and 74:
LOW ELEVATION COASTAL SETTINGS Sett
Page 75 and 76:
Map 5.13: Resilience scores for L-C
Page 77 and 78:
Map 5.14: Resilience scores for L-C
Page 79 and 80:
Map 5.15: Resilience scores for LCO
Page 81 and 82:
MID ELEVATION SETTINGS Settings tha
Page 83 and 84:
Map 5.16: Resilience scores for MGR
Page 85 and 86:
Map 5.17: Resilience scores for M-M
Page 87 and 88:
Map 5.18: Resilience scores for M-S
Page 89 and 90:
Map 5.19: Resilience scores for M-C
Page 91 and 92:
Map 5.20: Resilience scores for M-M
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Map 5.23: Resilience scores for L-
Page 99 and 100:
HIGH ELEVATION SETTINGS Settings, u
Page 101 and 102:
Map 5.24: Resilience scores for H-G
Page 103 and 104:
Map 5.25: Resilience scores for H-S
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Map 5.27: Resilience scores for H-C
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Map 5.29: Resilience scores for ALP
Page 113 and 114:
Map 5.30: STEEP- SED Resilient Site
Page 115 and 116:
Figure 6.1. Estimated resilience an
Page 117 and 118:
To account for the inherent differe
Page 119 and 120:
Partial Ecoregions: Several other e
Page 121 and 122:
Ecoregion Results For each wholly c
Page 123 and 124:
Overlaying the ecoregional portfoli
Page 125 and 126:
Map 6.2: Central Appalachians: Resi
Page 127 and 128:
Map 6.4: Central Appalachians: Foca
Page 129 and 130:
Map 6.6: Central Appalachians: Foca
Page 131 and 132:
Map 6.7: Chesapeake Bay Lowlands: R
Page 133 and 134:
Map 6.9: Chesapeake Bay Lowlands: F
Page 135 and 136:
Map 6.11: Chesapeake Bay Lowlands:
Page 137 and 138:
Map 6.12: High Allegheny Plateau: R
Page 139 and 140:
Map 6.14: High Allegheny Plateau: F
Page 141 and 142:
Map 6.16: High Allegheny Plateau: F
Page 143 and 144:
Map 6.17: Lower New England: Resili
Page 145 and 146:
Map 6.19: Lower New England: Focal
Page 147 and 148:
Map 6.21: Lower New England: Focal
Page 149 and 150:
Map 6.22: North Atlantic Coast: Res
Page 151 and 152:
Map 6.24: North Atlantic Coast: Foc
Page 153 and 154:
Map 6.26: North Atlantic Coast: Foc
Page 155 and 156:
Map 6.27: Northern Appalachian: Res
Page 157 and 158:
Map 6.29: Northern Appalachian: Foc
Page 159 and 160:
Map 6.31: Northern Appalachian: Foc
Page 161 and 162:
The amount of resilient area (the g
Page 163 and 164:
Map 6.32: The highest scoring areas
Page 165 and 166:
Map 6.34: Focal areas with high est
Page 167 and 168:
Map 6.36: Networks of resilient sit
Page 169 and 170:
Map 6.38: The highest scoring areas
Page 171 and 172:
References Anderson M.G. and A. Oli
Page 173 and 174:
NLDC 2001 National Landcover Databa
Page 175 and 176:
Map I1.1: Geophysical Settings of t
Page 177 and 178:
Map I1.3: Elevation Range in the No
Page 179 and 180:
Map I1.5: Landscape Complexity of t
Page 181 and 182:
Map I1.7: Regional flow patterns of
Page 183 and 184:
Table 1. Ranges for elevation class
Page 185 and 186:
attributes a simple matter. Compoun
Page 187 and 188:
Recognizing the ecological importan
Page 189 and 190:
Fig. 2: Landforms in Pawtuckaway St
Page 191 and 192:
within the state. The data was expo
Page 193 and 194:
APPENDIX Species Names IV Species N
Page 195 and 196:
Clayton'S Copper Lycaena claytoni I
Page 197 and 198:
Kirtland'S Snake Clonophis kirtland
Page 199 and 200:
Ringed Bog Haunter Williamsonia lin
Page 201:
Wild Calla Calla palustris Monocot
show all

NE Resilience Report - Conservation Gateway

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?