Ecoregional Measures Examples from the Eastern US Conservation Region (Anderson 12/12/04) Baseline Measures Targets: Measures 1and 2 address target or.

Ecoregional MeasuresExamples from the Eastern US Conservation Region (Anderson 12/12/04)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1

Ac

res

very good good poor Nonviable

Baseline MeasuresTargets: Measures 1and 2 address target or portfolio related questions. The first measure addresses the overall viability of the target in the ecoregion usually as a percentage of viable occurrences relative to all occurrences. The second measure addresses the adequacy of the portfolio in identiifing all the viable occurrences in the proper amounts and configuration to meet the portfolio goals.

Threats and Constraints: Measures 3 and 4 address specific threats within the ecoregion that are important relative to targets. The measures examine the spatial distribution of each threat and plot its relative strength and severity. Static threat measures (called constraints) refer to an existing stress, such as a fragmenting road. Dynamic threat measures have a forecast component of change over time, such as predicted housing density pressure

Enabling Environment: Measures 5,6, and 7 address specific management action taken in the region that may have relevance to the conservation of the target. They include spatial assessments of protected lands, easements, certification lands etc and indexes of management effectiveness.

Integrated or Reporting MeasuresThreat status of Targets: This metrics reports the correspondence between a threat and a specific target occurrence. It may be reported as a percentage, such as the number of examples under high, moderate or low threat, relative to all examples. Alternatively, it can be rolled-up into an index for the target as a whole.

Protected status of Targets: This metrics reports the relationship between the target and the enabling environment. It may be reported as the number of examples found on reserves, on easement lands, on certification lands or on unprotected private lands

Conservation status of Targets: This metrics combines the threat and protected status in answer to the question “is the target conserved” in the ecoregion.

Progress towards the Conservation of Targets: This metrics tracks progress over time towards conserving targets, abating threats or improving the enabling environment. This measure will always be relative to the initial baseline measures and reporting measures above. It requires a long term commitment to data management to achieve this dynamic picture. Many other metrics relating to partnerships, leverage and cost are possible to estimate.

Housing density pressure on Acidic Fens

RRRR (wt 0)

RRRE

RREE (wt 1)

REEEEEEE ESSS (wt 2)

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

fen: acidic

% o

f O

cc

urr

en

ce

s % of Occurrencesx Rate of Change

INDEX = 11.9

ACIDIC FENS: in the Northern Apps -US)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

fen: acidic

ECOREGION GOAL

Unprotected

GAP 3

GAP 2

GAP 1

Portfolio Adequacy(viable examples yet to be located)

Unprotected viable examples

Initial Minimum Goal

“Protected” viable examples (GAP 1 / 2)

4 / 10%

8 / 21%

6 / 15%

21 / 54%

13

Unprotected viable examples on buffer lands (GAP3)

Is it conserved? Protection status by Threat

ACIDIC FENS: GAP Status by HDI

0

1

2

3

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Threat: HDI

GA

P S

tatu

s

Conserved(24)

Unconserved(115)

Rural Exurban Suburban Urban

1990 2002

TRACKING CONSERVATION PROGRESS

Baseline Measure 1: Target ViabilityThis metric reports the current viability status of the target in the ecoregion

Overall Viability Assessment: Good Viable occurrences were required to meet the following conditions •Size over 20,000 acres• 90% forested with at least 50 acres of old growth or mature forest• Natural or semi natural landscape context

Assessment revealed 215 roadless forest blocks over 20,000 acres. 180 met the other viability goals and ranked good to very good. 36 ranked fair and 31 ranked poor. 55,990 blocks were ranked as non-viable

Viable blocks cover 47% of ecoregion; 53% of the region is fragmented into small non-viable blocks.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1

Ac

res

very good good poor Nonviable

Matrix Forest Ecosystems: a large matrix-scale target

Acidic Fen Ecosystems: a patch-scale target

Overall Viability Assessment: Good Viable occurrences were required to meet the following conditions• Size over 60 acres• Condition A or B or high expert opinion from ground survey.• Landscape context < 20 LCI (LCI = landscape context index based on roads, developed and agricultural lands in surrounding 1000 acres)

Assessments revealed approximately 6000 acidic fens in the region with most of those being under 2 acres.

202 acidic fens met the screening criteria for size and landscape context. Of those, 38 had excellent condition and were confirmed as viable portfolio occurrences..

Baseline Measure 2: Portfolio GoalsThis metric reports the adequacy of the portfolio with respect to the target.



0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

212A

a

212A

b

212B

a

M21

2De

212A

b

M21

2De

212B

b

M21

2Ad

M21

2Ae

M21

2Af

M21

2Aa

M21

2Ab

M21

2Ad

M21

2Ae

212A

b

M21

2Ba

M21

2Aa

M21

2Da

M21

2Dc

M21

2Ad

M21

2Cd

M21

2Dc

M21

2Dd

M21

2Cd

M21

2Fa

M21

2Dc

M21

2Ba

M21

2Ad

M21

2Af

M21

2Cd

acid sed calcsed

coarsesed

finesed

acid gran acid sed calc sed coarse sed acid gran acid sedcoarsesed

modcalcsed

acidgran

acid sed

1) 0-800' 2) 800-1700' 3) 1700-2500' 4) 2500-4000'

fen: acidic

3B 4A 4B

GOALS

Large Patch

Small Patch

4 5Restricted 4 16 20

Limited 2 8 10

Widespread 1 4 5

for Patch TypesMinimum stratification level

Adequacy in Meeting Portfolio Goals: Meets All Goals

Viable examples of matrix forests were carefully chosen to form a network that met the following goals: Representation and Distribution Goal: • Identify and conserve a minimum of 1-3 forest sites in each color group*

Abundance goal: • A minimum of 38 sites (1 per group)

Design goals: • Maximize the inclusion of smaller scale targets including patch communities such as wetlands and cliffs, aquatic stream networks, especially headwater systems and rare species sites.• Design coverage to include critical flows and pathways in the region such as source areas for lynx, marten and moose

*color groups represent all forest types and all landscape settings – based on vegetation, geology, elevation, landform and climate Each forest-landscape combination is shown on the map as a different color.

Adequacy in Meeting Portfolio Goals: Below GoalsThis target has a deficit of 14 occurrences and is currently biased towards bedrock examples and higher elevations.

Goals for patch-scale ecosystems and species were set based on the scale of the target (regional, matrix, large-patch, small-patch, fine) and the relative restrictedness of the ecosystem to the ecoregion (endemic, limited, widespread).

The chart shows the distribution of viable acidic fens across elevation, bedrock, subsection and climatic zones. It reveals deficits in the portfolio in locating viable fens in low elevations and in coarse and fine sediment.

Over all there is a deficit of 14 occurrences needed to meet our objective of protecting 52 in the ecoregion. Inventory is being performed to locate those examples

Baseline Measures 3 & 4: Threats These metrics measure the distribution, severity and trajectory of target-relevant threats

Global Climate Change: Expected changes in climatic norms and extreme events are expected to cause major shifts in the distribution and abundance of species and greatly alter current hydrologic cycles. Numerous dynamic models exist for estimating change.

Historic and current extraction patterns

0

20

40

60

80

100

1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000Year

Pe

rce

nt

Maine

Vermont

Massach usetts

New Hampshire

Rhode Island

Connecticut

New Englandp opulat ion, % o f 1990pop'n.

Fore s t Cov e r and Popu lation Trends in Ne w E ngla ndForest Cover and Population Trends in New England

Changes in wood harvesting

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1800 1850 1900 1925 1950 1975

Year

Dia

me

ter

in c

en

tim

ete

rsPine

Spruce

Fir

Hardwood

Threat 2: Fragmentation

1960

Forest pests and pathogens: Newly introduced insects and diseases are threatening the health of many dominant tree species. The current distributions and the rates / directions of spread have been modeled.

Static Measures (Constraints)

Historic clearing and over-extraction: The region is recovering from early 19th century clearing and harvesting that left the forest devoid of the structure and biological legacies that stabilize these ecosystems. In most places, these features need to be restored.

Fragmentation: As the forests have re-grown an increasingly extensive network of roads has developed fragmenting aquatic networks and landscape functions and allowing access to forest interior regions.

Acid deposition: The northeast is recognized as having elevated amounts of sulfur, nitrogen and ozone in its soils and streams The map shows acid deposition susceptibility patterns based on bedrock geology.

Dynamic measures and Forecast models

Housing Density Pressure: The maps show measured and predicted changes in the distribution of urban (dk. grey), suburban (lt. grey),exurban (lt. green) and rural (dk. green) housing densities from the 1960s to 2050.

2050

Baseline Measure 5,6 &7: Enabling Environment:These metrics report the distribution, degree of protection and relative permanence of managed areas, easements, certification and other practices.

Summary of Land Protection in NAP/ACADIA

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Protected Buffer Unprotected

Unprotected 59,198,120

Buffer 15,799,386

Protected 5,961,839

1

Protected Lands (Gap 1 or 2) by Organization Type

FED MUN PROV PVT STA UNK

Unprotected

Buffer

Protected

State47%

?

Private5%

Prov.24%.

Fed18%

0 - 20' (Coastal)20' - 800' (Very

low) 800' - 1700'(Low) 1700' - 2500'

(Mid) 2500' - 4000'(High) 4000' + (Alpine)

PROTECTED

TOTAL

1

51

38

8

1 01

2532

30

11

1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Per

cen

t

PROTECTED TOTAL

Protection status of Land Tracts:

GAP Status 1 indicates permanent protection for biodiversity with a management plan and natural processes intact –TNC reserves or Research Natural areasGAP Status 2 are permanently protected areas with some intervening management and suppression of processes - national wildlife refugeGAP Status 3 indicates permanent easements with various levels of regulated extraction (e.g. buffer land). Gap Status 4 (not shown) areas of forest certification, or non-permanent

land owner agreements

Aci

d S

ed

Aci

d G

rani

te

Inte

rmed

iate

Gra

nite

Mod

Cal

c

Cal

care

ous

Coa

rse

sed

Fin

e se

d

Ultr

amaf

ic

Aci

d S

hale

PROTECTED

TOTAL

57

17

97 5 4

21 0

25

50

19

1 1 30 0 0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Per

cen

t

PROTECTED TOTAL

Current Protected areas were often chosen for scenic reasons or because they were not productive lands for agriculture or timber.

The upper chart reveals that the current protected area network in the Northern Appalachians is strongly biased towards high elevations . Mid elevations spruce-hardwoods zone (1700 – 2500’), high elevation spruce-fir zone (2500’-4000’) and the alpine zone (over 4000’) constitute 42% of the protected areas although it is only 9% of the total ecoregion. The lower chart reveals that the protected area network is also biased towards acidic granitic bedrock settins that constitute 79% of the protected lands in spite of being only 25% of the total ecoregion. Sedimentary environments, particularly those with rich calcareous soils are poorly represented.

Managed and Protected Areas

Ownership assessment of Management EffectivenessMeasures of owner based effectiveness in enforcing or compliance with regulations aimed at biodiversity protection. In the Eastern US, where the legal system is very well developed and enforced, the measure is not as revealing as in some parts of the world.

Bias in the Protected Area Distributions

Integrated Reporting Measure: Threat Status of Target

These metrics measure the distribution, severity and trajectory of target-relevant threats

Predicted Housing Density 2050

Housing Density Pressure on Acidic Fens: This metric measures of the rate and intensity of housing density changes from the 1960s to the 1990s and then forcast those changes into 2020 and 2050. Maps show Urban (dk. grey), Suburban (lt. grey), Exurban (lt. green) and Rural (dk. green). The rate of change and the severity of the threat may be evaluated for each occurrence by using a spatial overlay analysis.

Housing density pressure on Acidic Fens

RRRR (wt 0)

RRRE

RREE (wt 1)

REEEEEEE ESSS (wt 2)

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

fen: acidic

% o

f O

ccu

rren

ces

% of Occurrencesx Rate of Change

INDEX = 11.9

INDEX100

fen: patterned

swamp: mixed

swamp: atlantic white cedar

bog: maritime

tidal swamp

sea level fen

tidal flatatlantic white cedar swamp

coastal dune

inland floodplain forest

bog: acidic

swamp: seepage: calc

fen: acidic

salt flat

swamp: conif: spruce-fir

bog: alpine

swamp: cedar: calc

swamp: acidicswamp: seepage: acidic

rivershore: calc

swamp: shrubfen: inter

bog: forested

fen: calc

forest: outwash

coastal floodplain forest

shale cliff

salt marsh

tidal marsh

red maple swamp

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

fen:

pat

tern

ed

swam

p: co

nif: s

pruc

e-fir

swam

p: d

ecid

bog:

alpi

ne

bog:

dom

ed

mar

sh

fen:

acid

ic

bog:

acid

ic

swam

p: ce

dar:

calc

swam

p: se

epag

e: ca

lc

swam

p: a

cidic

swam

p: sh

rub

swam

p: se

epag

e: a

cidic

fen:

inte

r

river

shor

e: ca

lc

bog:

fore

sted

inlan

d flo

odpla

in fo

rest

swam

p: m

ixed

fen:

calc

fore

st: o

utwas

h

swam

p: a

tlant

ic whit

e ce

dar

bog:

mar

itime

coas

tal fl

oodp

lain

fore

st

tidal

swam

p

atlan

tic w

hite

ceda

r swam

p

tidal

mar

sh

red

map

le sw

amp

tidal

flat

shale

cliff

salt m

arsh

sea

level

fen

coas

tal d

une

salt f

lat

Housing Density 1960 Acidic Fen Targets

The chart on the left shows the distribution of housing density pressure on each acidic fen occurrence in the portfolio. Those with no housing pressure are shown in dark green (labeled RRRR. e.g. rural from 1960-1990-2020-2050) and constitute 65% of the portfolio. Highest threat pressures are on occurrences that were Exurban in 1960 and are now in suburban settings (top rows in red – labeled ESSS).

The line graph on the right illustrates the relatively low amount of housing pressure on acidic fens compared with other ecosystems such as salt marshes (upper right). It is a whole system metric based on the % of target occurrences falling into each housing pressure category. Further roll-ups, across sytems or across the ecoregion, are possible.

Integrated Reporting Measure: Current State of Conservation: This metric reports the current state of conservation relative to a target

Block-by-Block summary of Forest Protection: In the Northern Appalachians a protected network of 73 critical core forest areas, representing all forest-landscape types in the US is 36% complete. One million acres of

strategically placed land protection would complete a network of core reserves in every block.

complete

partial

unprotected

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Matrix Forest Sites

Forest blocks that meet core area goals (shown in green)

Summary of forest block protection


A Summary of Forest Protection: In the Northern Appalachian ecoregion, forest blocks are considered protected if they contain a designated core reserve area over 25,000 acres surrounded by an equal or grater amount of easement lands. The easements may allow for extractive activities, such as selective logging using best management practices, but the lands are prevented from direct conversion to development.

Integrated Reporting Measure: Current State of Conservation This metric reports the current state of conservation relative to a target

Acidic Fens Protection Summary: Sixteen acidic fens currently have some form of protection and 21 are unprotected (left chart). Inventory work, primarily through partner organizations or deeper assessment of TNC martix forest lands, have identified the 13 new viable fens to add to the portfolio (right chart, column 2). This metric allows us to track changes and measure our progress along the trajectory shown in the latter chart

Current Status of Acid fen protection Trajectory of protection for fens over time

ACIDIC FENS: in the Northern Apps -US)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

fen: acidic

ECOREGION GOAL

Unprotected

GAP 3

GAP 2

GAP 1

Portfolio Adequacy(viable examples yet to be located)

Unprotected viable examples

Initial Minimum Goal

“Protected” viable examples (GAP 1 / 2)

4 / 10%

8 / 21%

6 / 15%

21 / 54%

13

Unprotected viable examples on buffer lands (GAP3)

Acid Fens in the Northern Apps (US)

CURRENT STATE DESIRED FUTURE STATE

Current Inventory Partial Protection Full Protection

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4

# o

f v

iab

le o

cc

urr

en

ce

s

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

GAP 1 GAP 2 GAP 3 Unprotected Unfilled Goal Ecoregion Goal

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

fen:

acid

ic

bog:

acid

ic

bog:

alpi

ne

bog:

mar

itime

fen:

calc

fen:

inte

r

swam

p: se

epag

e: a

cidic

bog:

fore

sted

lakes

hore

swam

p: ce

dar:

calc

mar

sh

river

shor

e: ca

lc

swam

p: a

cidic

swam

p: a

tlant

ic whit

e ce

dar

swam

p: co

nif: s

puce

-fir

swam

p: m

ixed

fen:

pat

tern

ed

flood

plain

fore

st

swam

p: se

epag

e: ca

lc

swam

p: sh

rub

Nu

mb

er o

f O

ccu

rren

ces

GAP 1 GAP 2 GAP 3 Unprotected Unfilled Goal


Wetland Ecosystem Target-by-Target Protection Summary: Acidic fens have some of the highest levels of protection in the ecoregion (far left in chart below). At the other extreme floodplain forests and calcareous seepage swamps are largely unprotected. No system is fully protected relative to the goals set by the ecoregional plan (dashed lines)

Integrated Reporting Measure: Conservation Progress over Time:These metrics report the distribution, degree of protection and relative permanence of managed areas, easements, certification and other practices.

1990 2002

A comprehensive strategy of forest protection has been developed based on the ecoregional assessment of targets ant threats. The strategy has 4 major components: • Protect a network of large sites across all environmental gradients especially bedrock types and elevation zones –met through portfolio. • Develop Core Areas for restoration of complete biodiversity and biological legacies. • Embed the core areas in Buffer Regions targeted at maintaining forest structure.• Surround core/buffer focal sites with managed forest that adhere to Best Management Practices.

Core reserve Forest Easement Certification

Portfolio Matrix Forest Blocks

Matrix Forest Ecosystems: ten year protection sequence

Critical forest areas identified by The Nature Conservancy and others (outlined in gray) were mostly unprotected in 1990 (left chart). By 2002, many critical forest areas had a core reserve and buffer. Forest certification around the cores/buffer areas add an additional level of upgrading to un-protected lands that may be important to many species.

For more information on the ecological approaches to forest conservation described here, go to www.sweetwatertrust.org/forestreserves

Integrated Reporting Measure: Conservation status of the Target

This metric estimates the overall conservation status of the target

Is it conserved? Protection status by Threat

ACIDIC FENS: GAP Status by HDI

0

1

2

3

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Threat: HDI

GA

P S

tatu

s

Conserved(24)

Unconserved(115)

Rural Exurban Suburban Urban

GAP status of Acidic fens in LNE/NAC

GAP1

GAP2

GAP3

Unprotected

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Acidic Fens

Per

cen

t o

f o

ccu

rren

ces

GAP1 GAP2 GAP3 Unprotected

Acidic Fens in LNE/NAC Ecoregion

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1

Housing Density Pressure

Per

cen

t o

f O

ccu

rren

ces

Conservation Status of Acidic Fens in NAC/LNE

Conserved

Unconserved

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Acidic Fens

Per

cen

t o

f O

ccu

rren

ces

Conserved Unconserved

Threats + Enabling Environment = Conservation Status

Conservation Status of Acidic Fens in Lower New England: For this type of ecosystem, a target occurrence with a low to moderate threat status and high protection status may be considered to be conserved. Those with high threats are vulnerable even under high protection status. The chart below shows, in dots, the distribution of occurrences along two axes: protection status, as measured by GAP status, and threat status, as measured by housing density pressure. Other systems may need different variables or combined sets of variables to assess status.

Pro

tect

ion

GAP 1

GAP 3

GAP 2

Un-protected

Low Threats High

Low

High

Unconserved

0

25000

50000

75000

Ba

ldp

ate

Ba

xte

r

Big

Re

ed

Bu

nn

ell/

Na

shS

tre

am

Ca

md

en

/L

inco

lnvi

lleD

ep

ot

La

ke-

29

we

st

Ea

gle

La

ke

Fiv

e P

on

ds

Gia

nt

Mo

un

tain

Hig

h P

ea

ks

Hu

dso

n R

ive

rG

org

eIn

de

pe

nd

en

ceR

ive

r

Ind

ian

Str

ea

m

Jab

e P

on

d

Jay

Ra

ng

e

Jord

an

Riv

er

Na

hm

aka

nta

Nu

llhe

ga

n

Ph

aro

ah

La

ke

Pig

eo

n L

ake

Sa

nd

wic

h

St

Re

gis

Tu

g H

ill

We

st C

an

ad

aL

ake

sW

est

Mo

un

tain

Wh

ite F

ace

Wild

Riv

er

TNC

NAP

1

3

2

1

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

Baldpa

te

Baxte

r

Big Ree

d

Bunne

ll/Nash

Stre

am

Camden /

Linco

lnville

Sou

th

Depot L

ake-2

9 west

merg

ed w

ith 1

77

Eagle

Lake

Five P

onds

Giant M

ount

ain

High P

eaks

Hudson

River G

orge

Inde

pende

nce R

iver

India

n Stre

am

Jabe

Pon

d

Jay R

ange

Jord

an Rive

r

Nahmak

anta

Nullheg

an

Pharo

ah L

ake

Pigeon

Lake

Sandw

ich

St Regis

Tug H

ill

West

Canad

a La

kes

West

Mou

ntain

White

Fac

e

Wild

Rive

r

Acr

es

GAP 3

GAP 2

GAP 1

LNE: ANDORA MATRIX BLOCK

Audubon Society of New Hampshire

Sweetwater Trust

The Nature Conservancy

Private: Wildlife sanctuary

Society of Preservation of New Hampshire Forests

NH Dept of resources and economic development

New England Forestry Foundation

Society of Preservation of New Hampshire Forests

Private: King & Faulkner

TNC protection work in 27 critical forest blocks

When Partner contributions are accounted for, the amount of protection in the same 27forest blocks increases over 10-fold

Other Integrated Reporting Measures:Measuring Leverage and Partner Contributions

This metric quantifies the contribution of partners to the protection of the target

Forests: The protection of one forest site can involve 2 or more partners. The chart above show the protection status of lands owned by various partner organizations within one forest site.

Acidic fens: As with the forest sites, the protection of fens in the ecoregion is a collective effort of many organizations. The chart above illustrates the ownership pattern of the fens currently in a protected status of GAP 1,2,or3.

Other Integrated Measures: There are numerous ways to combine the baseline measures to obtain useful metrics. In the figures above the left chart illustrates the Nature Conservancy’s work in protecting well over 100,000 areas of critical forest blocks in the Northern Appalachians. The chart on the right illustrates the contributions of other organizations (federal, state and private) to the protection of those same blocks highlighting the way the Conservancy’s work has enhanced or leveraged almost 10 times as much protection work on these targets. Accounting for the work of other organizations is a powerful way to build consensus and a necessary step in measuring success.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Nas

h S

trea

mF

ores

t

ISLE

AU

HA

UT

SU

NK

HA

ZE

NW

R, M

ILF

OR

D

GM

NF

- L

YE

BR

OO

KW

ILD

ER

NE

SS

GR

EE

NM

OU

NT

AIN

NA

TIO

NA

LW

HIT

EM

OU

NT

AIN

NA

TIO

NA

LA

ppal

achi

anT

rail

Tra

ct 1

61-

01K

atah

din

For

est:

GN

PE

asem

ent

AY

ER

SB

RO

OK

PR

ES

ER

VE

Fou

rth

Con

nect

icut

Lake

Pre

serv

e

Upp

er S

t. Jo

hnR

iver (b

lank

)

AN

RC

HA

MP

ION

LAN

D

LIT

TLE

SQ

UA

WT

WP

.

SA

LMO

NB

RO

OK

LA

KE

BO

G

TE

LOS

LA

KE

,T

6 R

11 W

ELS

Pro

file

Rec

reat

iona

lT

rail

LAK

E G

EO

RG

EW

ILD

FO

RE

ST

MO

OS

E R

IVE

RP

LAIN

S W

ILD

FO

RE

ST

PIG

EO

N L

AK

EW

ILD

ER

NE

SS

AR

EA

ST

EA

M M

ILL

BR

OO

KW

ILD

LIF

E

NHDRED US NATIONALPARK SERVICE

USFS USNPS/ATGREATNORTHERN

PAPER

TNC (blank)CHAMPION MAINE BUREAU OFPARKS AND LAND

NHDRED STATE OF NEW YORK VTSTATE

F P S

Nu

mb

er

of

Oc

cu

rre

nc

es

3

2

1

Ecoregional Measures Examples from the Eastern US Conservation Region (Anderson 12/12/04) Baseline Measures Targets: Measures 1and 2 address target or.

Documents

target viability

baseline measures targets

dynamic threat measures

address target

static threat measures

conservation of targets

ecoregional measures

protected status of