 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
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
2.0 General Approach 1 3.0 Methods 2-6 4.0 Assessments for Significant Natural Resources ………………………………
6-14 5.0 Resource Maps ……………………………………………………………………… 15 6.0 Conclusions …………………………………………………………………………
15
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 Vermont DEC Biomonitoring Data: Winooski River and Governor Peck
Rd Stream 6
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 Richmond interchange. 2.0. GENERAL APPROACH The first phase of the project consisted of building a GIS database for the study area. The study area was defined as an area of approximately 1.2 square miles about the Exit 11 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 habitats, 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 Richmond 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 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 Richmond 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 Richmond was used to identify the landowners in the approximately 1.2 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 worked in concert with the Richmond 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 57 mailed, responses from 12 landowners were received for a ~21% response rate. The results of the mailing are summarized in the following table. Study Area # Forms Mailed # Respondents Positive Response Negative
Response 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 digital 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 were assessed 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 with 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 Richmond 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 Twenty-eight (28) wetland units were identified in the Richmond 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 10% of the study area (78 acres), ranging in size between 0.2 and 11.5 acres. The majority of the wetlands identified in the study area are characterized by emergent marsh (43%), old field/agricultural field (22%), or floodplain forest (21%). The remainder of the wetland units are a combination of community types including alluvial shrub swamp, alder swamp, red maple/black ash swamp, river cobble shore, and river grassland. The results of the functional assessments are summarized in Table 1 of the Attachment. In general, the functional assessments show that all of the identified wetlands are significant for at least one function and value. The majority of the wetlands were found to be significant for water quality and wildlife habitat. Only two of the wetlands, associated with the Governor Peck Road stream, were found to be potentially significant for fisheries habitat and none of the wetlands were found to be significant for 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 the Winooski River and the Governor Peck Road stream. 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. Winooski River Wetlands (Wetland Units #3,14, 15,16) The wetlands most closely associated with the Winooski River include floodplain forests, river cobble shore, and river grassland community types. The study area includes an approximately 4500 ft section of the River. This segment is generally vegetated with varying widths of buffer to agricultural, commercial and residential activity. The floodplain forests found within the study area are generally characterized as early-successional with dominant vegetation consisting of box elder (Acer negundo), willow (Salix sp.), and reed canary grass (Phalarus arundinacea). The forests are not likely significant natural communities at a local or state level. The forests are generally only one tree wide and likely provide limited habitat for river otter, mink, muskrat and beaver. A mid-successional floodplain forest consisting of silver maple (Acer sacharinum) and ostrich fern (Matteuccia struthiopteris) was identified along Route 2 (Wetland Unit #14). The forest is part of an old oxbow of the Winooski River that is seasonally flooded and associated with an Emergent Marsh. The construction of the railroad between this wetland and the river has altered the hydrology of these communities significantly. These communities, however, still receive runoff from the surrounding upland. The surface and subsurface flow into this wetland is essentially dammed because the railroad was created without a culvert to the River. The site experiences flooding during times of high water flow when the water retained in the wetland slowly seeps back into the ground water. This has created a situation similar to that of a floodplain forest. Large open water/Emergent Marsh areas within the Unit attest to the large amount of flow that the wetland receives. The maintenance of floodplain forest vegetation and water stained leaves attests to the periodic flooding that occurs as well. This unique situation has created a community that appears to contain all of the aspects of a healthy floodplain forest. This combination floodplain forest and seasonally open water wetland may provide important breeding habitat for amphibians, including American toad, wood frog, spring peeper, spotted salamander, and blue spotted salamander. This floodplain forest is considered a locally significant natural community. A Rivershore Grassland community was identified on an island within the study area (Wetland Unit #16). This open wetland community typically forms on relatively stable substrate along stretches of larger rivers. Rivershore grasslands may provide habitat for leopard frogs and green frogs. Wood turtles may use this community when foraging for food, and otter and mink may use this habitat as part of their travel corridors along the River. A River Cobble Shore wetland was identified adjacent to the Rivershore Grassland (Wetland Unit #15). While this community type is generally sparsely vegetated, it may contain rare and uncommon plants. While neither the Rivershore Grassland nor the River Cobble Shore were visited during the inventory, they appear to be intact communities in good condition. They are also the largest examples of these communities in the general area and for these reasons are considered locally significant. The ecological integrity of the riverside communities found in the study area is inextricably connected to the integrity of the Winooski River itself. Alteration of flow regimes through river channelization, rip-rapping, and loss of forested buffers and floodplains are all factors that can alter natural river dynamics and, in turn, affect shoreline and floodplain communities. Like most rivershore communities with exposed mineral soils, rivershore communities are threatened by the spread of invasive exotic plants. Increased buffer widths and development restrictions along the Winooski River will provide space for these dynamic rivershore communities to exist. (Thompson and Sorenson, 2000) Governor Peck Road Wetland (Wetland Unit #5) The wetland complex located along the east side of Governor Peck Road is a Class II wetland and encompasses an area of ~11.5 acres within the study area. The wetland complex is associated with a perennial stream (Stream Unit #3), tributary of the Winooski River. The wetland is bordered by Governor Peck Road, scattered residential development and white pine/northern hardwood forest. There are varying widths of naturally vegetated buffer along the wetland/stream corridor. The wetland complex consists of several wetland community types, including shallow emergent marsh, cattail marsh, alder swamp, alluvial shrub swamp, and hardwood swamp. The Alluvial Shrub Swamp comprises the most area in this wetland and is considered locally significant. The wetland maintains a low topographic position relative to
adjoining uplands, and provides storage, treatment and slow release
of surface water, rain, snowmelt, groundwater and floodwaters
before reaching the Winooski River. The wetland has dense, persistent,
emergent and dense woody vegetation throughout that impedes the
movement of floodwaters and distributes them more slowly over
the floodplain of the stream. This water storage and slowing action
likely lowers flood heights and reduces erosion downstream and
on adjacent developed lands. The wetland is readily observed by public traveling along Governor Peck Road and has prominence as a distinct feature in the surrounding landscape. The upland areas surrounding the wetland to the west are rapidly developing into residential dwellings and the wetland provides a unique contrast to this burgeoning land use. Streamside wetlands are very important movement corridors for many wildlife species. Continued fragmentation of these wetlands and corridors threatens the long-term integrity of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife populations (Thompson & Sorenson, 2000). The most immediate threats to the Governor Peck Road wetland are related to residential development and resulting fragmentation of habitat. The western boundary of the wetland is comprised of single-family residential dwellings and Governor Peck Road. The eastern boundary of the wetland is still primarily uninterrupted forestland. Maintenance and reestablishment of a minimum of 50' buffer to the wetland and the stream along the western boundary would protect the wetland/stream corridor. Encroachments related to lawn expansion should be discouraged. 4.2 Streams The Richmond study area contains one river, Winooski River, and two significant streams, the Kenyon Road Stream and the Governor Peck Road Stream, both of which terminate at the Winooski River. The streams provide examples of degraded and relatively un-degraded stream habitat. Each of the streams is discussed in detail below. In addition to the significant streams discussed below, numerous intermittent drainages were identified in the study area. Data collected for each of these segments is included in the Attachment, Table 2: Streams Summary Data. Winooski River (Stream Unit # 15) The Winooski River is by far the largest surface water resource within the study area. All of the other streams in the study area flow into this River. The Winooski River has its headwaters nearly 50 miles upstream of the study area in northwestern Washington County. It flows west and eventually feeds Lake Champlain. Within the study area, this river is a wide (approximately 190
ft) river bordered mostly by agricultural land. Small patches
of upland forest and floodplain forest still exist, but these
are mostly fragmented by roads, agricultural land, and residential
and commercial development. The canopy cover over the river is
negligible. There is a moderate amount of stream bank erosion
along the river within the study area. Outside of the study area,
the river experiences more serious erosion problems. Kenyon Road Stream (Stream Unit #1) The stream is located in the southwest quadrant of the study area, flowing in a general southwest to northeast direction to the Winooski River. The stream headwaters are in close proximity to an active sand pit located on Kenyon Road. The stream appears to meander through the sand pit and along Kenyon Road. The stream has been culverted under the Interstate, and then straightened as it flows through an agricultural field to its confluence with the Winooski River. The Kenyon Road stream provides an example of a degraded aquatic system. The stream was surveyed downgradient of the sand pit, south of the Interstate. In this location, the stream is relatively high gradient, shallow and narrow, with a predominately cobble substrate that has been covered with silt and sand deposits. The stream is well buffered in this location, surrounded by mature pine/hardwood forest. The macroinvertebrate assemblage was found to be Poor in this location, consisting of only Diptera species. The stream takes the form of an agricultural drainage ditch on the north side of the Interstate. The stream is a straight, low gradient channel, moderately wide and deep as it flows through the agricultural field to its confluence with the Winooski River. Along this reach, stream bank vegetation consists of an approximately 10' wide zone of scrub shrub, reed canary grass and goldenrod (Solidago sp.) species assemblage. This stream has likely been impacted by commercial activity related to the sand pit, agricultural activity and road construction. The stream has been impacted to such a degree that it does not likely provide significant habitat for aquatic or wildlife species. The high sediment load associated with runoff from the sand pit may also be having an impact on the Winooski River. New threats to the stream, such as residential development, appear to be limited due to steep slopes in the upper watershed and active farming in the lower watershed. The current impacts may be lessened by reestablishment of a 50-100' naturally vegetated buffer along the entire stream reach. Sediment discharges may be reduced or eliminated with appropriate erosion control measures in the sand pit area. Governor Peck Road Stream (Stream Unit #3) This stream runs through the northeast quadrant of the study area, flowing generally north to south and ending at its confluence with the Winooski River. The stream runs through the Governor Road wetlands described in the previous section. The stream segment located north of the Interstate was walked as a component of this study. The stream segment located to the south of the Interstate was not accessible for field reconnaissance. The stream has a low gradient, moderate width and moderate depth, and predominately gravel and sand substrate. The stream channel generally maintains a natural meander pattern along Governor Peck Road. Review of USGS topographic maps and SCS soil survey for the area indicates that soils in this section are not highly erodible, as evidenced by only minor signs of erosion of the stream banks. The stream is generally buffered by natural vegetation of varying widths along its flow path. The alluvial alder swamp, alluvial shrub swamp, and hardwood swamp wetland communities found along the stream provide sections of dense shade, add leaf litter, keep water temperature low and provide cover for wildlife. A diverse macroinvertebrate community assemblage was observed in the stream both to the north and the south of the Interstate, including stonesflies, mayflies, caddisflies, beetles and minnows. The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation found that in 1998 the stream contained a good community of fish as well. The stream currently evidences signs of degradation due to surrounding land uses. Evidence of silt deposits can be observed in discrete locations, likely associated with runoff from Governor Peck Road. There are breaks in the natural buffer along the stream, taking the form of road, lawns and commercial yards. The stream has been culverted and straightened in sections associated with an existing commercial facility on Governor Peck Road. The stream has been further culverted under the Interstate and railroad tracks, and straightened for the remainder of its path to the Winooski River. At this point in time, impacts from existing land uses do not appear to have substantially diminished the aquatic habitat for wildlife and fish in the stream. The reestablishment of a continuous 50'-100' vegetated corridor along the stream would further improve the quality of habitat. It is important to maintain the existing quality of water and habitat in this stream, as it is a direct tributary of the Winooski River. Further degradation of this stream can have direct impacts on the water quality of the Winooski River. Potential threats to this stream include further residential
and commercial development along Governor Peck Road. If further
development occurs here, a minimum 50' wide buffer should be retained
along the border of the stream. Nine (9) Wildlife Habitat Units were identified in the Richmond study area. These areas comprise only 182 acres or approximately 24 % of the total study area. The Units largely consist of conifer forest, floodplain areas (sometimes forested) and wetland habitats. Wildlife Habitat Unit #3 Unit # 3 is the largest and most substantial wildlife habitat area in the study area. The Unit is located to the East of Governor Peck Road and comprises an area greater than 80 acres. The Unit is contiguous to extensive forest areas to the northeast outside of the study area. The Unit consists of coniferous forest cover, with a smaller component of hardwood forest. Most of the Unit has been mapped as a deer yard by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. In the areas surveyed, the forest was comprised largely of white pine (Pinus strobus). White pine is one of the least favorable conifers for over-wintering deer and the Unit's actual value as a deer yard is yet to be determined. This area certainly receives non-winter use by deer and moose. Predators such as the fisher, coyote, bobcat and owls likely utilize the Unit. This area also appears to contain early successional forest areas that fox and ruffed grouse favor. Black bear may utilize this area especially if mast producing tree species are present. Extensive wetlands (especially along Governor Peck Road) are located within the Unit at the base of the hills. The site likely provides habitat for amphibians and reptiles, fish, woodcock, and riparian species. The most significant threat to this Unit is habitat fragmentation. The Unit currently consists of large, uninterrupted expanses of forest habitat interspersed with wetlands and other forest openings. The diversity and quality of the Unit provides excellent wildlife habitat for a multitude of species. Preservation of the Unit and its connectivity with surrounding forests to the northeast is vital to the ongoing presence and use by wildlife. Fragmenting this connection will endanger the wilder species in the Unit causing them to retreat to habitats deeper in the northeastern woods. Development that might fragment these forests such as roads, housing or other development should be avoided.
Unit #5 is a relatively small (approximately 23 acres) isolated site along the Winooski River. The Unit is bordered to the north by the Interstate, to the east by agricultural land, to the south and west by the Winooski River. The Unit is comprised of patches of hemlock forest within a northern hardwood forest matrix. Resources within the Unit that contribute to its value as wildlife habitat include the presence of surface waters, including the Governor Peck Road stream (Stream Unit #2) in the northern portion of the Unit and the Winooski River, coniferous cover, and ledge and cave cover. The Unit provides the only significant forest riparian zone to the Winooski River in the study area. While the Unit is bordered by agricultural lands and the Interstate,
the banks of the Winooski River remain forested, relatively wild
and undisturbed. The shores are likely utilized by shore birds,
riparian species such as fox, raccoon and kingfisher as well as
riverine species such as mink, otter, and muskrat. This section
of shoreline has the highest potential wildlife value of areas
along the Winooski River within the study area. Wildlife Habitat Units #7 and #8 Units # 7 and 8 are located within the southwestern portion of the study area. These areas are some of the larger (approximately 30 acres each) and potentially significant wildlife habitats in the Richmond study area. Unit #7 is bordered to the north by the Interstate, to the east by the Winooski River, to the south by larger forested areas and scattered residential development, and to the west by Kenyon Road. The Unit is comprised of a mix of hardwood and pine forest community types with a moderate foliage height diverisity. Surface waters are present in the Unit, Kenyon Road stream (Stream Unit #1) to the west, an unnamed tributary (Stream Unit #5) to the east, and a small alluvial shrub swamp (Wetland Unit 22) to the northeast. This area probably harbors deer, ruffed grouse, fox, coyote, small mammals, and song birds. Habitat fragmentation is the most likely threat to this Unit. Scattered residential development along the southern boundary has the effect of fragmenting this habitat from the larger forested areas to the south of the study area. Recent development of a residential structure in the northern section of this Unit further decreases the value of the overall Unit to wildlife. Unit #8 is bordered to the north by the Interstate, to the east by Kenyon Road, to the south by a sand pit and larger forested regions to the south, and to the west by old field. Unit #8 is similar to Unit #7 in that it is connected to larger forested regions to the southwest. This Unit is dominated by coniferous forest community type. A
large deer yard, mapped by the Department of Fish and Wildlife,
is located adjacent to this Unit to the southwest. The actual
extent of the deer yard likely extends into the study area. Adding to the area's significance as wildlife habitat, the Unit contains a stream (Stream Unit #4) and an alder swamp (Wetland Unit #21). Amphibians and a wide variety of song birds and small mammals most likely utilize this area as well. The primary threat to the continued value of this Unit to wildlife is habitat fragmentation from the larger forested areas to the southwest of the study area. Encroachments into this forest area from roads, housing or other developments will have the effect of isolating this area and decreasing its significance for wildlife habitat. Wildlife Habitat Unit #9 Unit #9 is located in the central portion of the study area, along the Winooski River and adjacent to the railroad tracks and Route 117. The Unit is characterized as a small, isolated forested (but relatively open) floodplain. Within the unit is contained a small emergent meadow wetland (Wetland Unit #25). This area has little value for fully terrestrial wildlife species. However, it is probably utilized by riverine species such as mink and otter, and riparian species such as raccoon, kingfisher and other birds. Floodplain habitats along the Winooski River become relatively scarce as one progresses downstream from Richmond towards Burlington. Maintenance of a 50'-100' riparian zone along the River should be encouraged. 4.4 Upland Natural Communities A large part of the study area in Richmond, especially in the Winooski River lowlands, has been converted to agriculture. There are many interesting wetlands in these lowlands. While no state significant natural communities were discovered, three locally significant communities were found within the study area and are described above in Section 4.1. The upland forests within the study area are generally small, though in some cases are connected to much larger forests outside of the study area. The Hemlock-Northern Hardwood Forest (Upland Natural Community Unit #3) for example, appears to be in good condition and occupies a fairly large area, but without a detailed site visit, its significance cannot be determined. All of the upland communities in the study area are communities that are fairly common throughout the State and rarely harbor rare plant species. While these communities are important for their aesthetic quality, wildlife habitat and for the local economy and recreation, their significance from a natural community perspective is minor.
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 Richmond 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 the Richmond study area are those associated with the Winooski River. These include floodplain forests, river shore communities, wetlands and wildlife habitat along the river corridor. Resources along the stream which parallels Governor Peck Road are also important. They contain locally significant natural communities, significant wildlife habitat and wetlands that perform essential functions and values. As development in this area increases, the importance of these features, especially the functions of the wetlands, will undoubtedly increase. Protective buffers afforded these resources are, in many cases, the best way to mitigate the effects of development. The integrity of these ecological systems, natural communities, and their wildlife habitats, will only be maintained through careful planning that identifies and protects important landscape features that are essential to the well-being of these resources. |
