 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Not available for PDF &
Microsoft Office Documents
|
NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY: INTERSTATE PLANNING PROJECT Prepared by:
Prepared for: Agency of Natural Resources December 31, 2002
INTERSTATE PLANNING PROJECT
Page 1.0 Objectives 1 2.0 General Approach 1 3.0 Methods 2-6 4.0 Assessments for Significant Natural Resources ………………………………
6-14 5.0 Resource Maps ……………………………………………………………………… 14 6.0 Conclusions …………………………………………………………………………
14
INTERSTATE PLANNING PROJECT
Page
Table #2: Streams Summary Data ……………………………………………………. 2 Table #3: Wildlife Habitat Summary Data …………………………………………….. 3 Table #4: Upland Natural Communities Summary Data ……………………………. 3 Wildlife Habitat Summary Data Metadata …………………………………………….. 4-5 US EPA: Listed Water Information for Allen Brook …………………………….. 6 Vermont DEC Biomonitoring Data for Allen Brook ……………………………… 7
INTERSTATE PLANNING PROJECT
The inventory project has two primary objectives: 1. identification and assessment of significant natural resources; and 2. creation of an ArcView shape file and tables for the study area. The project was conducted over a fourteen-month period, October 2001 through December 2002. This report documents the findings of the inventory project at the Colchester interchange. 2.0. GENERAL APPROACH The first phase of the inventory project consisted of building a GIS database for the study area. The study area was defined as an area of approximately 1.6 square miles around the Exit 7 interchange. Existing digital databases (Vermont Significant Wetland Inventory maps, SCS soil surveys, USGS topographic maps, 1999 digital orthophotography, wildlife databases, and Natural Heritage maps) and local knowledge of "special places" were used to preliminarily identify and map potentially significant natural resources in the study area. The identified resource areas were grouped into four categories: wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat, and upland natural communities. The preliminary map of natural resource areas, in the form of an ArcView shape file, was used to focus field investigations. Property owners of parcels containing the potentially significant natural resources were contacted for follow-up field evaluations. Field investigations were conducted on parcels for which landowner permission was obtained. Field data was used to more accurately delineate the boundaries of the natural resource areas for the final ArcView shape files, and to broaden the assessment of the identified resources. Final maps, in the form of ArcView shape files, were created showing the location and approximate boundaries of wetlands, streams, wildlife habitats and upland natural communities in the study area. Assessments were conducted for all of the identified natural resources and narratives included for significant resources. Narratives included functional assessments and discussion of biological condition, noted impairments, and surrounding land uses. 3.0 METHODS The following methods were used to conduct the Natural Resources Inventory. 3.1 Preliminary Identification of Natural Resource Areas: Development of GIS A comprehensive review and interpretation of all available digital and paper databases as well as review of local testimony regarding "special places" was conducted to identify potentially significant natural areas in the Colchester interchange area. The following digital databases were acquired for the study area: · Vermont Significant
Wetland Inventory maps; The digital databases were incorporated in an ArcView platform (GIS) allowing for analysis of multiple data layers at the study location. Natural resource areas, including wetlands, streams, wildlife habitats, and/or upland natural communities, were preliminarily delineated from the GIS analysis. From the preliminary data, potentially significant resource areas were targeted for field investigation. In addition to the GIS review, the preliminary identification process involved meeting with the Colchester Conservation Commission to acquire a local perspective on the natural resources in study area. The meeting with the Conservation Commission took the form of a brainstorming session, with maps used as a note board. The Conservation Commission marked on the maps potentially significant areas based on local knowledge, such as good hunting locations or road crossing locations commonly used by animals. This information was incorporated in the preliminary Inventory Map for the study area. 3.2 Landowner Permission Digital parcel data for Colchester was used to identify the landowners in the approximately 1.6 square mile area around the interchange. Landowners in this area were contacted via a letter and asked permission for field analysis of their property. Arrowwood Environmental, LLC worked in concert with the Colchester Conservation Commission to obtain landowner permission. The landowner permission request forms were mailed in November 2001, with much help from the administrative staff in the State Wetlands Office. Of the 46 mailed, responses from 10 landowners were received for a ~22% response rate. The results of the mailing are summarized in the following table.
Many landowners called to inquire about the project as a result of the mailing, providing an opportunity to educate local people about the project. Detailed field assessments of resource areas were limited to properties for which landowner permission was obtained. 3.3 Resource Assessment Criteria The focus of the resource assessments was to determine the extent of the identified natural resource, the value or significance of the resource to the community and potential threats to the resource. In addition to information interpreted from available digital and paper resources, the assessment incorporated data collected from field investigation of the study area. Field investigations of resource areas were restricted to windshield surveys from a car, assessments for parcels for which landowner permission was obtained, and stream walks. A windshield survey was conducted of the entire study area, resulting in general observations made from a car. Select properties were visited and reviewed for each of the four resource categories. Where possible, stream segments were walked. Observations from the windshield survey, field assessments and stream walks were used to help verify information interpreted from maps and digital orthophotography. Assessment criteria used for each of the four resource categories (wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat, and upland natural communities) is detailed below. 3.3.1 Wetlands Wetlands identified in the study area were informally delineated and assessed for their functions and values as wetlands. The boundary determinations of the wetland areas were based on interpretation of 1999 orthophotography, SCS soil survey maps, National Wetland Inventory maps, and field observations when possible. Formal delineations of resource areas were not possible due to limited access. Therefore, boundary lines are meant for planning purposes only. The wetland assessment methodology integrates information about a wetland's soils, vegetation, location in the watershed, shape and size, and habitat diversity to produce a composite picture about a wetland's role in the larger ecosystem. Eight of the ten functional criteria identified in the Vermont Wetland Rules were used in assessing the wetland resources in the study area. Each of the identified wetland areas was evaluated for the presence of factors that would indicate that the wetland was serving a significant function as a productive ecosystem and/or a public resource. The Vermont Wetland Evaluation Form, US Army Corps of Engineers Highway Methodology Handbook and Golet Model Wetland Evaluation Form were used as guides for the functional assessment. Assessments involved field components when possible. Wetlands which landowner permission was not obtained, assessments were conducted remotely utilizing information available from the windshield survey and existing digital and paper databases. The target eight functions and values and functional determination criteria include the following: · Water Quality: Indicators
of nutrient removal and sediment detention were determined by
presence of potential sources of pollution within the watershed,
size of the wetland relative to the overall watershed, and presence
of persistent vegetation. The functional assessment did not include the hydrophytic vegetation habitat or threatened and endangered species habitat functions and values. An accurate assessment of these habitats requires field investigation, which was not possible for the majority of the wetland areas. 3.3.2 Streams The stream assessment criteria included the following: · Stream type (intermittent,
permanent); Field data was collected when possible, but was limited to stream segments with landowner permission and/or safe access. The macroinvertebrate assemblage description is based on a rapid assessment in the field. The field protocol involved using a kick net to collect a representative sample of the stream biota. Samples were reviewed in the field for presence and relative abundance of macroinvertebrate groups (including mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, beetles, true flies, and worms). Specimens were identified to a gross level of classification for general characterization purposes. 3.3.3 Wildlife Habitat The wildlife assessments include the identification of a wide variety of wildlife habitats including streams and riparian zones, ponds and shorelines, forested areas, and possible corridors providing important linkage habitats between forested or other wildlife habitats within the study area. Wildlands were characterized by size, dominant land use, forest type, the presence of roads and housing, foliage height and horizontal diversity, surface waters, structural/ledge features, and observed wildlife sign (where access was available). The following criteria were selected for use in evaluating the resource areas identified as potentially significant wildlife habitat: · Matrix (dominant land
use) The study area was divided into Wildlife Habitat Units that were un-fragmented by roads (including paved and or well-traveled dirt roads), as these features are often barriers to wildlife movement. Each Unit was thus a patch of varying size, some containing streams, wetlands and/or other natural features. Within each of the Units, existing digital databases were used to identify habitat features that are directly associated with high wildlife species diversity or indirectly associated the presence of certain species. This assessment included looking at known deer wintering areas, the presence of surface water, wetlands, and the potential for wildlife movement corridors. Field evaluations were conducted for resource areas with landowner permission. 3.3.4 Upland Natural Communities An overall ecological inventory was conducted for upland natural communities identified for field evaluation. This inventory included the identification of the dominant plant species, and an explanation of the development of the community. The condition of the community was assessed based on the amount of, and time since major human disturbances, the size of the parcel and the current condition of the community. Using these factors the community was ranked based on the Nongame and Natural Heritage Program (NNHP) criteria for the statewide ranking of significant natural communities. Historical locations of rare plants and animals in the town of Colchester were obtained from the NNHP. Sites found within the study area were targeted for a field visit to determine the current status of the population in question. In addition, areas that contain potential habitat for these species were targeted for a field visit to determine if other populations of these species exist. Field visits were limited to areas where landowner permission was obtained. The following three criteria were selected for use in evaluating the resource areas identified as potentially significant natural communities: · Landscape Context; The Landscape Context criterion was used to evaluate the condition of the landscape around the site in question. Intact natural communities that are surrounded by agricultural or developed land have the potential to have more edge habitat, contain more exotic species and to experience disturbances than sites surrounded by 100+ acres of forested land. The landscape context can therefore be used as a remote ranking factor for the quality of the community. The Ecological Significance criteria was used to remotely evaluate the resource using three broad parameters: 1) presence of a rare, threatened or endangered element as recognized by NNHP; 2) site potentially harboring an S1, S2 or S3 ranked natural community; and 3) site a non-matrix forming community type. Finally, the ownership of the land (public vs. private), the ease of access from a public road, and the presence of trails or proximity to an urbanized area were used to evaluate the potential of the resource to support educational or recreational endeavors. Due to difficulty in acquiring landowner permission, field assessments were limited. 4.0 Assessments for Significant Natural Resources The resource assessments for significant wetland, stream, wildlife habitat and upland natural community resources are detailed in this section. The assessments include determination of resource unit boundaries (shown on the attached Resource Map and ArcView shape files), functional assessment, and noted impairments and/or potential threats to the resource. Assessments for all identified natural resources are provided in the form of summary tables in the Attachment. 4.1 Wetlands Fifteen (15) Wetland Units were identified in the Colchester study area. The wetlands consist of both Class II and Class III wetlands, as defined by the State of Vermont Wetland Rules. Wetlands occupy approximately 5% of the study area (47 acres), ranging in size between 0.2 and 19 acres. The majority of the wetlands identified in the study area (twelve units) are characterized as Emergent Marsh (53%) or Cattail Marsh (27%). The remaining three wetlands consist of a Red Maple-Black Ash Swamp, a beaver pond (which includes an emergent marsh) and an agricultural field. In general, the functional assessments show that all of the identified wetlands are significant for at least one function and value, with the exception of an agricultural field which is not likely significant for any of the eight functions and values. The majority of the wetlands were found to be significant for water quality, flood protection and open space. None of the wetlands were found to be significant for education or recreation. The results of the functional assessments for all of the Wetland Units are summarized in Table 1 of the Attachment. The most significant wetlands in the study area, as related to ecological function, are those associated with Allen Brook and those associated with the stream near Walnut Ledge. These systems are described below. The Wetland Units described below correspond to the polygon ID's in the ArcView shape file. See attached Resource Map for Wetland Unit locations. Red Maple-Black Ash Swamp (Wetland Unit #1) The Colchester study area contains one wetland that is considered to be a locally significant natural community type. This wetland is a Red Maple-Black Ash Swamp (Wetland Unit #1). This swamp is at the headwaters of the largest wetland complex in the study area. This site was not visited due to lack of landowner permission. Therefore, the natural community name assigned above and on the map is provisional. From remote sources, however, this swamp appears to be in good condition. Similar swamps in this area often harbor rare plant species. Being situated at the headwaters of the wetland complex, this swamp is important for water quality and wildlife habitat. It has a forested buffer (~50' width) surrounding it, outside of which is agricultural field. Development around this important headwaters swamp should be kept to a minimum. Nutrient influx from lawns, septic systems and agricultural runoff can have the potential of disrupting the nutrient balance in the swamp and in the wetlands downstream. An increase in nutrients can also lead to the invasion of weedy, non-native plant species which, in suitable environments, have the ability to choke out native vegetation and degrade the quality of the plant community. This site should be surveyed for rare plants prior to any development that may affect it. Walnut Ledge Stream Wetlands (Wetland Units #4, 5 and 6) This is a series of wetlands that are hydrologically connected
and ecologically similar, and therefore, treated as one unit for
the functions and values assessment. These wetlands are associated
with the headwaters of an intermittent stream that eventually
flows into Niquette Bay, outside of the study area. Within the
study area, the wetland complex consists mostly of Emergent Marsh
with some smaller areas of open water. The wide variety of habitats in this wetland complex are likely significant for wildlife habitat. The wetland likely provides important food, water, shelter and nesting habitat for species such as black bear, raccoon, otter, mink, woodcock, meadow vole, beaver, and muskrat. Songbirds likely feed, nest and/or raise their young in this wetland complex. Many parts of this wetland are readily observable by the public traveling along the busy Route 2 corridor and also local side streets. These wetlands have prominence as a distinct feature in the surrounding landscape because they contrast with the matrix upland forests and the development that is taking place all around them. These wetlands are associated with a stream. From remote sources and from the windshield survey conducted during this inventory, it was determined that these wetlands are likely significant for erosion control. The persistent vegetation along this stream acts to bind and stabilize the soil along the stream banks. In addition, the sinuous nature of the stream channel through these wetlands acts to dissipate the energy in the stream and prevent unwanted erosion. Residential and commercial development appears to be the biggest threat posed to this wetland complex. For the most part, this wetland is currently buffered from surrounding land uses, including limited residential and commercial development in the western part of the study area. There are, however, residential lots for sale that may abut these wetlands. If further development were to occur near this wetland complex, maintenance of a minimum 50' naturally vegetated buffer around the wetland would protect many of the important functions and values outlined above. Allen Brook Wetlands (Wetland Unit # 15) The wetland associated with Allen Brook consists mostly of an Emergent Marsh with areas of Alluvial Shrub Swamp. There are also small inclusions of River Shore Grassland community within this Unit. This wetland complex has been influenced by beavers, and while there were no significant flooded areas at the time of the site visit, evidence suggests that some areas may have been flooded in the past. The wetland comprises approximately 8 acres and is currently well buffered by the surrounding Red Spruce-Northern Hardwood Forest. This wetland occupies a low topographic position relative to adjoining uplands, and provides storage, treatment and slow release of surface water, rain, snowmelt, groundwater and floodwaters. The wetland has dense, persistent, emergent and dense woody vegetation in areas that impedes the movement of floodwaters. For these reasons, this wetland is considered significant for floodwater protection. The dense emergent vegetation along the banks of the Brook also acts to bind and stabilize the soil. This coupled with the sinuous nature of the Brook through the wetland, acts to dissipate the stream energy and provide important erosion control. There remains some erosion problems along sections of the Brook where the sandy banks are eroding. Without the effect of the wetlands, however, this erosion would likely be much more widespread and severe. This wetland is one of the only ones in the study area to be rated significant for fisheries habitat. Some areas of this wetland provide woody shrubs that overhang the stream. This overhanging vegetation provides cover for fish as well as reduces water temperatures by shading the Brook. In addition this wetland likely provides important food, water, shelter and nesting habitat for wildlife including black bear, raccoon, otter, mink, woodcock, meadow vole, white-tailed deer, beaver and muskrat. Songbirds likely feed, nest and/or raise their young in this wetland complex. The most significant potential threat to this wetland is development along its borders and within its buffer zone. This can often lead to an increase in nutrients into the wetland, and introduction of heavy metals and toxic compounds from runoff of parking lots and roads. Increasing the nutrients significantly into wetlands such as this can often lead to the invasion of non-native, weedy plant species. Many of these species have the ability to choke out native vegetation, decrease plant diversity, decrease the value of the wetland for wildlife and decrease the overall condition of the natural community. Most of the development likely to occur within the study area will take place along Route 7. There is currently a Red Spruce-Northern Hardwood Forest on either side of the wetland and Brook within the study area. This forest is a crucial element in the health of this wetland in that it provides as a naturally vegetated buffer zone. If development is to occur on the east side of Route 7 in this area, it is strongly recommended that this forest remain intact and development be restricted to the open field along the road. 4.2 Streams The Colchester study area contains three significant streams, Allen Brook, an unnamed tributary near Walnut Ledge, and an unnamed stream along Niquette Bay Road, all of which flow into Mallets Bay. Each of the streams is discussed in detail below. Allen Brook (Stream Units # 3 and 4) Within the study area, Allen Brook flows through a Red Spruce-Northern Hardwood Forest, and an Emergent Marsh and Alluvial Shrub swamp wetland complex that have been affected by beavers. Outside of the study area, Allen Brook runs through agricultural fields and upland forests. A number of tributaries of this Brook, both within and outside of the study area, have their headwaters in agricultural fields. Where the stream runs through the Emergent Marsh and Alluvial Shrub swamp wetland in the study area, there were no significant flooded areas at the time of the site visit. Evidence suggests, however, that some areas may have been flooded in the past. The stream running through this long thin wetland complex meanders significantly. Stream bank erosion is common on this stretch of the Brook with the banks being vertical and 3-4' below the flow of the Brook. The channel substrate is deep sands through most of the wetland area and gravel and silt in the forested areas. The macroinvertebrate assemblage consisted of only Diptera larvae and Coleoptera adults in the stream just south of the study area. Allen Brook is on the EPA list of Impaired Waters because of pathogens, increase in nutrient loads, increase in sediment deposits, toxic compounds and metals. Many of these factors are likely attributed, directly or indirectly, to agricultural practices around and within the Brook. A significant portion of this stream and its tributaries drain through agricultural fields. Another potential threat to the health of this Brook is development along its stream banks. This can often lead to an increase in nutrients into the stream system, and introduction of heavy metals and toxic compounds from runoff of parking lots and roads, and a degradation of the buffer zone surrounding the Brook. Most of the development likely to occur within the study area will take place along Route 7. There is currently a Red Spruce-Northern Hardwood forest on either side of the Brook within the study area. This forest is a crucial element in the health of this steam in that it provides a naturally vegetated riparian zone. If development is to occur on the east side of Route 7 in this area, it is strongly recommended that this forest remain intact and development be restricted to the open field along the road. Stream near Walnut Ledge (Stream Unit # 1) This stream runs through the most significant wetlands in the study area. Its headwaters are in a Red Maple-Black Ash Swamp and an Emergent Marsh. The channel in this area is not very well defined except where it is culverted to flow beneath roadways. South of Route 2, the stream flows through a beaver influenced wetland before it becomes more channelized and enters an upland hardwood forest. Before it leaves the study area, the stream once again flows through a beaver influenced wetland. Just outside the study area, the stream turns south and flows into Niquette Bay. At the time of the survey, this stream contained no flow. There were scattered stagnant pools of water that contained water striders and Diptera larvae. The substrate is predominately sand and silt with occasional boulders and areas of cobble. Stream bank erosion is considerable in this section of the stream. Canopy cover is approximately 90% where the stream flows through the upland forest area, but when it flows through the wetlands, canopy cover is negligible. This stream is a low gradient, slow moving, intermittent stream that contains significant sediment deposits and warm temperatures. The character of the stream changes significantly outside of the study area where it flows mostly through a forested matrix and the gradient increases. The greatest threat to this stream in the study area is an increase in development along its banks and within its riparian zone. Wherever residential lawns, parking lots or other impervious surfaces abut this stream course, there is the potential impact of increasing the nutrient load into the stream system. This potential threat already exists in many places along this stream. Ideally, naturally vegetated buffers will be maintained between any development (including lawns) and the stream. This buffer can act not only to filter out the increase in nutrients but also can stabilize the stream bank and provide a travel corridor for wildlife. For these reasons, a minimum buffer zone of 50' should be maintained between this stream and any further development that is to take place near the stream channel. Niquette Bay Road Stream (Stream Unit #2) This stream was not visited during this inventory due to lack of access. Based on available information, it appears to be an intermittent stream that runs through an old-field and Hemlock-Northern Hardwood Forest. It drains into a large Red Maple-Black Ash Swamp and eventually into Niquette Bay. The potential threat to this stream is development, most likely residential, along the private Niquette Bay Road. At the time of this study, one residential dwelling exists near the stream. If further development is to occur, a buffer zone of 50 feet should be maintained between any development (including lawns) and the stream. 4.3 Wildlife Habitat Six (6) Wildlife Habitat Units were identified in the Colchester study area. These areas comprise an area of approximately 550 acres, roughly 54% of the entire study area. Each of the Units was assessed and summary data is provided in Table 3 of the Attachment. The significant Wildlife Habitat Units are described below. Wildlife Habitat Unit # 6 The most significant wildlife habitat in the study area is the 200-acre State-owned land around Niquette Bay, Wildlife Habitat Unit # 6. This parcel is bound to the east by Niquette Bay Road, to the west by Raymond Road, to the north by Route 2 and to the south by Niquette Bay. The Unit contains significant areas of forest dominated by mast species such as oak and hickory, good cover for wildlife, access to lakeshore wetlands, rock/ledge structure, and the warm microclimate of nearby Lake Champlain. This large and vegetatively diverse Unit likely provides wildlife habitat for a multitude of species, including a variety of bird life. Sign of deer and fox were observed in the large forest during field investigation. Ledges located near the Lake provide den and cover sites for porcupine, snowshoe hare, raccoons, and possibly bobcat and fisher. Amphibians and water-dependent wildlife likely utilize the small wetlands found throughout the Unit. Wildlife Habitat Unit # 5, located to the east of Niquette Bay Road, has many of the same characteristic habitat elements as Unit #6, and is very important wildlife habitat as well. Potential threats to this area include State Park development. New facilities and activities should be directed to the areas of lesser wildlife value in the Park. In particular, the forest interior should remain intact, streams and wetlands should be given adequate protective buffers, and ledge areas (potential den habitat) should remain wild. Wildlife Habitat Unit # 1 Wildlife Habitat Unit # 1 is located to the east of Route 7 and extends in a north/south direct within the southeast corner of the study area. The Unit comprises the forested and wetland area that is associated with Allen Brook. The riparian area is largely spruce and hemlock forest and provides good cover for resident and migrating wildlife. Songbirds along the stream area are likely varied and abundant. The site may be used by deer for over-wintering in the conifer forest. Amphibians and other water-dependent wildlife are likely found here as well. Raccoons, fox and possibly mink are likely found along Allen Brook. It is possible that fish are found there as well, although Allen Brook's water quality impairment may limit fish production or diversity. Beaver sign are located along the Brook. The area may serve as a corridor for wildlife moving between larger forested patches to the northeast and to the south. This wildlife habitat would be negatively impacted by development encroachments upon this area. The riparian buffer should be protected by large buffers (>50') of un-developed land. The riparian zone is already impacted by residential and commercial buildings. The planting of trees to enhance the value of the buffer should be conducted where existing development is in close proximity to the riparian zone. Wildlife Habitat Units # 3 and # 4 Wildlife Habitat Units # 3 and # 4 are relatively large areas, approximately 50 acres each, but are isolated from large forested habitats by roads. Unit #3 is bound to the east by the Interstate, to the south by Jasper Mine Road and residential development, to the west by Mayo Road and residential development, and to the north by Chimney Hill Drive and scattered residential development. Unit #4 is bound to the east by Mayo Road and residential development, to the south by Jasper Mine Road and residential development, and to the west and north by Watkins Road and residential development. Both Units contain mixed hardwood and softwood forests, wetland habitats, good foliage height diversity, good overall cover, the potential for hard mast species and moderate horizontal diversity. Unit #4 contains large areas of wetland and the potential for ledge structure. This area is likely to have deer, a good variety of bird life, water-dependent wildlife, and predators. Field visits to these sites were limited to the windshield survey due to lack of landowner permission. Wildlife Habitat Units #3 and 4 are already fragmented and vulnerable to further human encroachments. Any further development to the north of these units would further isolate these units and their wildlife value would be diminished substantially. 4.4 Upland Natural Communities The Colchester study area contains one locally significant and one State significant upland natural community, described below. The study area also contains one locally significant wetland that is described above in Section 4.1. Most of the other upland communities in the study area are White Pine-Northern Hardwood and Hemlock-Northern Hardwood forests. These communities are very common in the State and rarely harbor rare plant species. The examples of these communities within the study area appear to be in Good to Fair condition. The large Hemlock-Northern Hardwood forest just south of Route 2 (Natural Community Unit # 16) is the largest upland natural community in the study area. Its size is somewhat impressive given its proximity to development. Locally Significant Upland Natural Communities: Warm Calcareous Cliffs (Upland Natural Community Unit #17) These cliffs stretch for about 1500 feet along the Niquette Bay Road. The full condition and composition of the cliffs is not known due to lack of access. The lower portions of the cliffs have been affected by the construction of the Niquette Bay Road, which resulted in the opening up of the area to the sun. The upper parts of the cliffs, however, likely remain unaffected. The condition of these cliffs is therefore moderate. The extent of the cliffs is, however, quite impressive. No rare plant survey was conducted at this site. However, many species of rare plants are found in other examples of this community in the State. The Hemlock-Northern Hardwood Forest above these cliffs also harbors similar, albeit smaller cliffs. The potential threats to this natural community are minimal,
since the Niquette Bay Road has already been constructed. The
steep slopes likely prevent any direct impacts from development.
Development pressure in the forest above these cliffs is more
probably. These cliffs should be surveyed for rare and endangered
plants prior to any development in this vicinity. Mesic Maple-Ash-Hickory-Oak Forest (Upland Natural Community Units #3 and #5) The forest contained in the study area is the northern end of a very large forest (approximately 300 acres) mostly located on State land. Only the portion within the study area and on State land was visited during the survey. This is an impressive forest in both size and condition. Recent logging pressure seems to have been minimal, resulting in many large trees. Bedrock outcrops and ledges are frequent in this community and harbor a diverse flora. This site contains inclusions of the Transitional Hardwoods Limestone Forest community. This community differs from the Mesic Maple-Ash-Hickory-Oak Forest in that it contains signs of mineral enrichment. At these sites, the flora tends to be more diverse and contains plants that are dependent on enriched conditions. This forest is home to at least 7 rare or tracked plant species (both within the study area and immediately outside the study area). This is a State significant example of an interesting natural community. If possible, development should be focused elsewhere to avoid impacts on this resource. Development pressure is likely minimal given that this is in part owned by the State and managed as a State park. Development to the north of the State park is more likely. This site should be monitored for rare elements and a buffer zone should be established between development and the State land. 5.0 Resource Map Individual ArcView shape files were created for the four resource groupings: wetlands, streams, wildlife habitats and upland natural communities. The GIS platform provides a versatile tool for ongoing analysis of the resource areas. Resource Maps are provided in the Attachment. ArcView shape files are provided on the attached CD Rom. 6.0 Conclusions The Colchester study area contains a wide variety of significant resources that play an important role in both the aesthetics of the area and the healthy functioning of the ecological landscape. Some of the most significant resources in this area include a State significant hardwood forest, locally significant cliffs and a hardwood swamp. The wetlands along Allen Brook and those along the stream near Walnut Ledge also are significant for the many functions and values that they provide. The State land within and just south of the study area offers valuable habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species. The forests and wetlands along Allen Brook also provide important habitat for wildlife, which is dependent upon the stream and extensive wetlands there. Overall, the habitats found in the Colchester study area largely
continue to function despite encroachment by residential and commercial
development. Further development, however, could be very detrimental
to these ecological systems. An inventory such as this can therefore
play an important role in the planning process. By understanding
the significant resources in this area, development can be managed
in such as way as to have the least possible impact on the ecological
integrity and rural character of the area.
|
