ConPro Spatial is changing! For now, you may view the already existing ConPro spatial application or other spatial information
in a new browser window by clicking on one of the links below. Note that TNC users must log in to see the complete data.
- ecad.tnc.org/ConProSpatial
- Map of TNC's Conservation Projects will open in a new browser window which contains links to detailed project data in ConPro. TNC users must log in to see complete data.
- maps.tnc.org/coredata
- TNC's core conservation datasets including conservation projects dataset.
- maps.tnc.org
- Site that provides links to all of TNC's publically available data resources.
Oops. ConPro encountered an error while trying to fulfill your request. Please refresh this page
and try again.
If the error persists, please notify us using the feedback form.
Edisto Landscape - Aquatics (ID: 1330)
Project last modified by
rneugarten
on
May 14, 2008.
-
- Download Data
- See Associated Info (0)
This conservation project has been locked by a Miradi upload. For more information about Miradi uploads/downloads, please see:
Miradi FAQs.
Miradi FAQs.
Associated Files
No associated links found.
Associated Links
No associated links found.
- Basic
- Viability
- Threats
- Viability Assessment
- Action Plan
- Strategy Effectiveness
- Indicators
- Resources
No objectives found for this project.
| Focal Conservation Target | Target Type | Habitat Type |
|---|---|---|
|
Non-tidal Coastal Plain River
(more info)
|
Ecological System |
|
|
Tidal Coastal Plain River
(more info)
|
Ecological System |
|
|
Coastal Plain Oxbow Lake
(more info)
|
Ecological System |
|
|
Coastal Plain Tributary Streams
(more info)
|
Ecological System |
|
|
Sandhills Rivers
(more info)
|
Ecological System |
|
|
Sandhills Tributary Stream
(more info)
|
Ecological System |
|
|
Piedmont Headwaters
(more info)
|
Ecological System |
|
No threats found for this project.
No strategies found for this project.
| Conservation Targets | Landscape Context | Condition | Size | Viability Rank | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade | Weight | Grade | Weight | Grade | Weight | |||
| 1 | Non-tidal Coastal Plain River | - | 1.0 | Good | 1.0 | - | 1.0 | Good |
| 2 | Tidal Coastal Plain River | - | 1.0 | Good | 1.0 | - | 1.0 | Good |
| 3 | Coastal Plain Oxbow Lake | - | 1.0 | Good | 1.0 | - | 1.0 | Good |
| 4 | Coastal Plain Tributary Streams | - | 1.0 | Fair | 1.0 | - | 1.0 | Fair |
| 5 | Sandhills Rivers | - | 1.0 | Fair | 1.0 | - | 1.0 | Fair |
| 6 | Sandhills Tributary Stream | - | 1.0 | Poor | 1.0 | - | 1.0 | Poor |
| 7 | Piedmont Headwaters | - | 1.0 | Poor | 1.0 | - | 1.0 | Poor |
| Project Biodiversity Health Rank | Fair | |||||||
You might have to scroll to see all of the table's data.
There is not enough data to build a 'Summary of Threats' table.
| Categories & Measures | Score | |
|---|---|---|
| People | ||
| Staff Leadership | - | |
| Multidisciplinary Team | - | |
| People Average | - | |
Internal Resources |
||
| Institutional Learning | - | |
| Funding | - | |
| Internal Resources Average | - | |
External Resources |
||
| Social/Legal Framework for Conservation | - | |
| Community and Constituency Support | - | |
| External Resources Average | - | |
| Overall Project Resource Rank | ||
| Conservation Target | Key Attribute (Category) |
Indicator | Current Indicator Measurement | Rating Comments: (Poor, Fair Good Very Good) |
Current Rating and Date | Desired Rating and Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-tidal Coastal Plain River |
Hydrologic regime
(Condition) |
IHA 1 | No alteration |
Poor:
-
Fair: Base flow within 30% of historic levels Good: - Very Good: No alteration |
Very Good
|
-
|
| Non-tidal Coastal Plain River |
In-stream complexity
(Condition) |
Density of CWD 2 |
-
|
Poor:
-
Fair: 0.6 Good: - Very Good: 1.0 |
Good
|
-
|
| Non-tidal Coastal Plain River |
Riparian buffer
(Condition) |
Mean buffer width 3 | 30m |
Poor:
-
Fair: 30m forested buffer Good: - Very Good: 100m forested buffer |
Good
|
-
|
| Non-tidal Coastal Plain River |
Water quality
(Condition) |
Dissolved oxygen, temp, turbidity, biotic index 4 |
-
|
Poor:
-
Fair: - Good: - Very Good: - |
Good
|
-
|
| Tidal Coastal Plain River |
Hydrologic regime
(Condition) |
IHA | No alteration |
Poor:
-
Fair: Base flow within 30% of historic levels Good: - Very Good: No alteration |
Very Good
|
-
|
| Tidal Coastal Plain River |
In-stream complexity
(Condition) |
Density of CWD |
-
|
Poor:
-
Fair: 0.6 Good: - Very Good: 1.0 |
Good
|
-
|
| Tidal Coastal Plain River |
Riparian buffer
(Condition) |
Mean buffer width | 30m |
Poor:
-
Fair: 30m forested buffer Good: - Very Good: 100m forested buffer |
Good
|
-
|
| Tidal Coastal Plain River |
Water quality
(Condition) |
Dissolved oxygen, temp, turbidity, biotic index |
-
|
Poor:
-
Fair: - Good: - Very Good: - |
Good
|
-
|
| Coastal Plain Oxbow Lake |
Hydrologic regime
(Condition) |
IHA | No alteration |
Poor:
-
Fair: Base flow within 30% of historic levels Good: - Very Good: No alteration |
Very Good
|
-
|
| Coastal Plain Oxbow Lake |
In-stream complexity
(Condition) |
Density of CWD |
-
|
Poor:
-
Fair: 0.6 Good: - Very Good: 1.0 |
Good
|
-
|
| Coastal Plain Oxbow Lake |
Riparian buffer
(Condition) |
Mean buffer width | 30m |
Poor:
-
Fair: 30m forested buffer Good: - Very Good: 100m forested buffer |
Good
|
-
|
| Coastal Plain Oxbow Lake |
Water quality
(Condition) |
Dissolved oxygen, temp, turbidity, biotic index |
-
|
Poor:
-
Fair: - Good: - Very Good: - |
Good
|
-
|
| Coastal Plain Tributary Streams |
Hydrologic regime
(Condition) |
IHA |
-
|
Poor:
-
Fair: - Good: - Very Good: - |
-
|
-
|
| Coastal Plain Tributary Streams |
In-stream complexity
(Condition) |
Density of CWD |
-
|
Poor:
-
Fair: 0.6 Good: - Very Good: 1.0 |
Good
|
-
|
| Coastal Plain Tributary Streams |
Riparian buffer
(Condition) |
Mean buffer width | 30m |
Poor:
-
Fair: 30m forested buffer Good: - Very Good: 100m forested buffer |
Fair
|
-
|
| Coastal Plain Tributary Streams |
Water quality
(Condition) |
Dissolved oxygen, temp, turbidity, biotic index |
-
|
Poor:
-
Fair: - Good: - Very Good: - |
Good
|
-
|
| Sandhills Rivers |
Hydrologic regime
(Condition) |
IHA | within 20% |
Poor:
-
Fair: Base flow within 30% of historic levels Good: - Very Good: No alteration |
Good
|
-
|
| Sandhills Rivers |
In-stream complexity
(Condition) |
Density of CWD |
-
|
Poor:
-
Fair: 0.6 Good: - Very Good: 1.0 |
Fair
|
-
|
| Sandhills Rivers |
Riparian buffer
(Condition) |
Mean buffer width | 15m |
Poor:
-
Fair: 30m forested buffer Good: - Very Good: 100m forested buffer |
Fair
|
-
|
| Sandhills Rivers |
Water quality
(Condition) |
Dissolved oxygen, temp, turbidity, biotic index |
-
|
Poor:
-
Fair: - Good: - Very Good: - |
Good
|
-
|
| Sandhills Tributary Stream |
Hydrologic regime
(Condition) |
IHA | within 20% |
Poor:
-
Fair: Base flow within 30% of historic levels Good: - Very Good: No alteration |
Good
|
-
|
| Sandhills Tributary Stream |
In-stream complexity
(Condition) |
Density of CWD |
-
|
Poor:
-
Fair: 0.6 Good: - Very Good: 1.0 |
Fair
|
-
|
| Sandhills Tributary Stream |
Riparian buffer
(Condition) |
Mean buffer width | 15m |
Poor:
-
Fair: 30m forested buffer Good: - Very Good: 100m forested buffer |
Poor
|
-
|
| Sandhills Tributary Stream |
Water quality
(Condition) |
Dissolved oxygen, temp, turbidity, biotic index |
-
|
Poor:
-
Fair: - Good: - Very Good: - |
-
|
-
|
| Piedmont Headwaters |
Hydrologic regime
(Condition) |
IHA | within 20% |
Poor:
-
Fair: Base flow within 30% of historic levels Good: - Very Good: No alteration |
Good
|
-
|
| Piedmont Headwaters |
In-stream complexity
(Condition) |
Density of CWD |
-
|
Poor:
-
Fair: 0.6 Good: - Very Good: 1.0 |
Fair
|
-
|
| Piedmont Headwaters |
Riparian buffer
(Condition) |
Mean buffer width | 15m |
Poor:
-
Fair: 30m forested buffer Good: - Very Good: 100m forested buffer |
Poor
|
-
|
| Piedmont Headwaters |
Water quality
(Condition) |
Dissolved oxygen, temp, turbidity, biotic index |
-
|
Poor:
-
Fair: - Good: - Very Good: - |
Good
|
-
|
COMMENTS:
1
Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) is a statistical package developed by TNC for the purpose of quantifying hydrologic change in lotic systems.
3
Forested buffer should consit of 30m "no cut" zone immediately adjancent to river and a "selective cut zone beyond 30m with no chemical treatments. The mean buffer width is calculated along stream streches counting forested buffer out to 500m.
Nested Attributes:
Water Quality
Faunal Communities
Hydrologic Regime
There is not enough information to produce this report.
There is not enough information to produce this report.
| Methods | Objectives | Key Indicator References by Target (w/Current Indicator Measurement) | Threat References by Target (w/Current Indicator Measurement) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Indicator: Density of CWD |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Dissolved oxygen, temp, turbidity, biotic index |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: IHA |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Mean buffer width |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
The CAP data pack, available for download using the download link below, has been modified. You will need to use CAP Excel Workbook version 6b
(or later) to import the CAP data pack. The data pack is an Excel 97/2003 formatted file with an extension of .xls. So, if you are using Excel 2007,
please remember to save all CAP files in the Excel 97-2003 Workbook format.
Help regarding this issue can be found in the CAP Workbook instructions and on ConserveOnline at:
http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/cbdgateway/cap/resources
- Download the latest CAP Excel Workbook.
- Download the ConPro Data Pack now!
Notes:
Help regarding this issue can be found in the CAP Workbook instructions and on ConserveOnline at:
http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/cbdgateway/cap/resources
- Download the latest CAP Excel Workbook.
- Download the ConPro Data Pack now!
Notes:
- It is always a good idea to use the latest CAP Excel workbook!
- You may see a "File Error: Data may have been lost" message when opening a Data Pack that was downloaded from ConPro. Please ignore this warning.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License
