Ecolooieal·Pr·otectionb Priorities and.Natural .Communities
at
· Pondir;herry Wildlife Refuge ~ . . and NationaI·Natural Landmark
Prepared by
i\-Iike Tetreault
for
The National Park Service
.. October, 1997 Executive Summary
During July and August of 1997, I inventoried and mapped the natural -·" -- --w·:--c-emfrn:1£it-ies-0 n-a-p-p-~m11tely--1-0ee-h~tares-~on-and-sttrrottn·d:ing-!'Dndrche1 ry \Vrtdtifi;-- ·:----··-··· · · ... --- --· ··-·- · RefiH2:e and National Natural Landmark in Jefferson, NH. The in,;entory, which was fund~ by the National Park Service, sezves several purposes, including generating information for managers to set future land protection priorities. The refuge consists of roughly 13 0 hectares of ponds and \vetlands surroun_ded by a second grov,th northern hardwood-spruce fir forest. Most of the wetlands are o-vmed and managed by the Audubon Society of New Hampshire and the :New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. Most of the upland forest surrounding the Refuge is O\vned by Hancock Timber Resources Group arid Mead Paper Company. . . The landsc~pe is a mosaic of seven natural communities, including an exemplary array of five wetland types, \Vhich support over 130 bird species. The natural communities themselves are not rare in north~rn Ne\.V Hampshire. but the combination of an undammed pond with an undeveloped shoreline and a diverse rni"\.--rure of wetlands is uncommon in the State. \ To protect the ecological processes which have sculpted the current Refuge, and to augment the habitat types presently represented in the Refuge. future protection efforts should focus on three areas: l. '"_fhe matrix of northern h:1rwood-spruce-fir forest that links Little Cherry and Big Cherry Ponds. '? The seepage __ swamp south of Big Cherry Pond. ·3. The John's River Corridors -- i.e. \Vhere the River flows benveen Big and Little Cherry Ponds and "The Deadwater''. Table of Contents
ExecutiYe Summary ...... i -·· · ·· ···· Ac:-kno,, le-dgenrents::... ; ...... ii Table of Contents ...... _ ...... iii I. Introduction ...... 1 Need For Action .... , ...... l Project Objective ...... I
II.·Protection Priorities ...... · ...... : ...... 3
III. Ecological Significance ...... 5
IV. Natural Community Descriptions ...... :...... 8 Northern Hard\','Ood-Spruce-Fir...... S Hardwood Conifer Seepage Swamp ...... :...... S Streamside:1.akeside \f,rsh ...... 9 · Streamside.'1.akeside Swamp ...... 9 Shrub S\vamp ...... I 0 BorealJTransition Acidic Fen ...... I 0 ~lack Spruce-Larch Bas.in Swamp ··· ··············· ·· ·················· ·········:· ··· 10
\·. Natural History...... ·...... ~~ ... 11 Bedrock and Glacial Geology ...... 11 · Soil. ... : ...... : ..... :...... : .... . 13 Climate ...... '...... -..... : ...... ·.. .. 13 Topography and Hydrology ...... l3 1\atural Disturbance ...... ' ...... :...... :...... 14 Human Hi$tory ...... 14
\-1. Conclusion ...... -...... 15 Bibliography ...... '...... · ...... 16 Appendices ...... 17
List of Figures and Tables
Figure l : Pondicherry Refuge Site :\lap and O\'mership Boundaries ...... 2 Figure 2: Priority Protection .-\.reas ...... 4 Figure 3: :,."atural Communities of Pondicherry Refuge ...... 7 Figure 4: Jefferson, Nl-I Regional :\fap ...... -...... : ...... 12
Table I : ?\IDl-II Ranking of :\7atural Communities ...... 6 0.
Acknowledgements
Janice Minushkin of the National Park Service provided financial support for this -Dave"Govatskfgave enthusiasfic guidance· aunng the fielciwork. Bob Qumn -· - .. ··-· supplied th~_result~ from qi~ comprehensive bird inventory. :.tvfike Stev~ns,.Dave Publico~er, Brett Engstrom, and Charles Johnson reviewed drafts of the report_ Thanks to one and all.
11 I. Introduction
The Pondicherry Wildlife Refuge and National Natural Landmark in Jefferson, NH ·· r,revicles--habi-ta-t'·fer-an-in eroiM-t:eiy lar-ge-number ef wildlife s-p eeies--gi-ven-i t-s-sma:I+-size::---···--·· ·--··· -· ·-··-··· Big Cherry and Little Cherry Ponds comprise approximately 53 of the Refuge's 130 hectares. These shallow,·warm ponds contain abundant emergent vegetation and fish which attract myriad water fowl including nesting common loons, black ducks, ring- necked ducks, and great blue herons, which are species of management concern to the NH Fish and Game Department and the U.S. Fish and ·wildlife Service. Big Cherry Pond is one of the few water bodies ofits size in New Hampshire without a developed shoreline. The ecological significance of the area has been recognized via its designation as a National Natural Landmark by the National Park Service and as a Special Focus .Area by the Silvio .Conte N~tional Wildlife Refuge.
Need for Action The Refuge, which is owned jointly by the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department and theAudub~ Society of New Hampshire, includes the ponds and two discontinuous tracts of wetlands separated by privately owned land (Figure I). The ecological integrity of the ponds and wetlands depends on appropriate management of the adjacent upland forest, which is presently owned by the Hancock Timber Resource Group (Hancock) and Mead Paper Company (Mead). While the area has been well managed in the past, its future is uncertain. For example, the forestland has changed ownership three times in the past 3 0 years. The most effective means oflong-term protection for the Pondicherry Refuge is to purchase the connecting uplands from Hancock and Mead and incorporate them into the Refuge. Both landowners have indicated willingness to discuss terms of the purchase. The most efficient protection efforts will be informed by ecological knowledge of the land around the Refuge. This report addresses such a need.
Project Objective The National Park Service recognized the rieed to inventory and map the natural communities and ecological resources on approximately l 000 hectares which include the Refuge and the adjacent upland forest. The inventory serves several purposes. First, and most importantly, it allows land managers to set land protection priorities. Second, it illuminates the natural processes which foster the productive ponds and wetlands. Third, it assesses the condition and rarity of the natural communities, plants, and wildlife on the Refuge. · Finally, it provides the sk;eleton for compiling all existing ecological information about the Refuge.
I / / j' i :· > EJ !'!:~i ..__ ,': ; ~ .. I ~ i ! ~
:,! 'l ('O I j§ --· i; :: ,f c.. I: I ., - ...... l: ·, j 2· :., ;:::: .: ~~ ~ "' .,. ~ I I :., g C: t s r.i ..,5; c.. s.. I \ I \. I I <:., !
~ -~" I -' . L - ~ t '-' <-· I - C > :, ...,., I · '!: j CJ: F -· . I z. ~ x- :::: 2 (': I ;;- i'5 :, f f · j. ~ C: c ;,:- E ~ ?. g $ I -:: ~ ~ r.-,., =- : " I: :- :, ~ ... I. -~ ~i - ,..- ( r. ~ '<: - :: [- I ;; I ;L-r · \ . ~ ! ; 1 r SF, CJ: ~ ... e ·~ ;"' c:;
I I ! _
I ! · .. !•
Ii ; ji I I IL Protection Priorities For reasons outlined below, protection efforts should focus on three areas (Figure 2).:
1. The matrix of northern harwood-spruce-fir forest that links Little Cherry and Big Cherry Ponds. 2. The seepage swamp ~outh of Big Cherry Pond. 3. The John's River Corridors -- i.e. where the River flows between Big and Little Cherry Ponds and The Deadwater.
I. Matrix Forest The· matrix forest between Big and Little Cherry Ponds, which is mvned by Hancock, Js a protection priority. The next section describes the natural history of the study a,rea. One important lesson from that section is that the wetlands are intricately linked to the adjacent upland forest. Among other things, the forest moderates the chemistry and flow of water into the wetlands, controls the addition of nutrients, and provides winterfobd for be&(ers, which in tum alter the ponds' levels. In order to preserve tne integrity of the wetlands, some upland forest must be add'ed to the Refuge. Presently the ratio of wetland to upland m the Refuge is approximately five to one. The John's River Watershed has a 'ratio of wetland to upland. that is roughly one to five. · Though further investigation is required to know the impacts from logging and railroad construction, they are not likely to have permanently altered the processes listed above. Development is a more likely threat to the Refuge. Purchasing an upland buffer around the ponds \vill prevent future shoreline development. ·
2. Seepage Swamp . . . The seepage SWamP. south of Big Cheny Pond, ':Vhich is owned by Mead, is another protecti9n priority. Adding the seepage swamp and a surrounding upland buffer to the Refuge achieves two important protection goals. First, the seepage swamp is the transition from the upland forest to the marshes and fens on the southern edge of Big Cherry Pond. The communities form a hydrologic continuum. Protecting the seepage swamp increases the protection to these other wetlands. Second, the refuge does not presently contain an example of a seepage swamp, so including this one adds habitat diversity.
3. John 's River Corridor The John's River Corridor, which is owned by Hancock, is the third protection priority. The John's River is the main artery through the landscape. In addition to hydrologically linking the two Ponds, it adds aquatic habitat diversity and influences the adjacent wetlands. It can only be protected by including an adequate puffer. The forestry community recommends a 30 meter buffer on first and second order streams 1.
1 This recommendation is from the Forestry Sustainability Standards Workteam. 1997. Good Forestrv in the Granite State.
3 Figure 2: Priority Protection Areas at Pondicherry Wildlife Refuge and Vicinity
Mud Pond
1 1 '\" Priority Protection Areas "Deadwater" ( Linear Features "~. N Powerline ,~',\ \ NRailroad \ \ '\) NRefuge Bdy \ () Stream \\~- ,.. , : ..-. : ' T ra,·1 Matcix .-. 'j -·-._:/ ..l Natural Communities · ___.,,._~r:ii:,;~\ ry - ... / ·-·- ...... ,....._ ___ _
John's Ri~er\ \____ Bt~herryPond :~~~J>
/,,("· , ' , " , · -v ~ · ) · I t "'-- · 1· <;;;// Y \ . - . ·--., ,r-~ ·-,. ..
~- A·o',~ ...... --7,~ ~····· ..... , ...... ~ : ,,·' ' \ ~i\:7·--- •. · · ~·-' ~ ...... 7 ' ·-·---...-...... :' \ .I '- /;~cz'· \, ~J\_~ sfe~~-~~-~1=mp :' ' ~-~---""'-·~..:::::S·- \ ~.;,;;~;;;;,~ ~= -·=- ---./.--... -_--·...... - _.- ·- ..- -·····"------
N
0 1 Miles W*E Fieldwork and Map Prqduction by s JJro1ection Ml I Stale !-'lane (NAD 27) Mike Tclre,rn)t October, 1%:7 Adding the black spruce-larch and streamside swamp communities provides similar protection and habitat diversity to that achieved by protecting the seepage swamp. The --·----_ . Re:fuge-p.resently_ contains only a few he.ctares_.of the the.s_e two_ communities ... Protecting the Deadwater would allow for control of the John's River as it leaves the Refuge. If the River were artificially dammed, the character of the entire upstream · watershed would change., Furthermore, because of its hydro logic regime, the fen along the Deadwater may be a different expression of the acidic fen community than those which surround the ponds. Further botanical investigation would bear this out.
III. Ecological Significance Ecological significance is usually based on rarity and representativeness of landscape pieces such as natural communities and species. Equally important is the landscape context in which these pieces reside. The landscape context integrates the mosaic of natural communities. This section first addresses the landscape context of the Refuge and then evaluates the rarity of the landscape piec_es .. ,. '\ Landscape Context At roughly 45 hectares, Big Cherry Pond is the third largest natural (i.e. undammed) water body in Coos County. The combination of a large undeveloped pond _ \.vith a diverse array of wetlands is uncommon in the State. The. largest water body in Coos County with diverse wetlands is Lake Umbagog (3,200 hectares). Umbagog was dammed in L85 L, but before damming it was roughly 600 hectares. The New Hampshire· _shore ofUmbagog has a few camps, but is relatively undevelope.d. The second largest undeveloped, natural water body is Greenough Pond (100 hectares) in ·wentworth Location_ Greenough is a mountain pond surrounded by high, steep slopes. which do not promote diverse wetland formation. All other large water bodies in Coos "county, such as Success Pond, Akers Pond, the Connecticut Lakes, and Por:i.took Reservoir are either dammed or have developed shorelines. None of these lakes and ponds has an array of wetlands comparable to those at Big and Little Cherry P·onds.
Landscape Pieces Birds The Refuge hosts many rare bird species, including loons, black-backed woodpeckers, palm warblers, and ring-necked ducks. During a 1997 inventory, Robert Quinn identified 130 probable breeding species, 17 of which are tracked by NHNHI (Appendix A) _ Two state-listed threatened species -- common loon and northern harrier - - breed in the study area_ Two other state-listed threatened species -- upland sandpiper and osprey -- were seen but breeding was not determined. The high bird diversity results from at least four factors. First, as mentioned above, Big and Little Cherry Ponds have an undeveloped shoreline. Second, water levels on the pond are naturally controlled_ This means water levels are predictable, which accommodates waterfowl nesting. Third, there is high habitat diversity in a small area. Across the 1000 hectares of the study area, there are six wetland communities totaling 135 hectares and 53 hectares of ponds embedded in the matrix forest. Finally, Pondicherry
5 Refuge is along the Connecticut Ri\·er watershed and flyway. ;\fany migrating birds stage their journeys from Big and Little Cherry Ponds.
P!ams · Though there are historic reports of five rare plant species~ -- thin-leaved pondweed, fem pondv..-eed. spikerush, northern arrow-head, and ciliated aster -- none has been seen recently on or near the Refuge (Da\-id Vanluven, Director l'iH1{HI, personal communication). The status of these plants on the Refuge remains uncertain.
Natural Communities Figure 3 shows the distribution and area of the seven narural communities in the study area. The N~l-Ir3 ranking system is used to evaluate rarity (Table 1). Four of the seven natural communities have not yet been ranked because 01-G1-Il has not yet collected enough information to make an estimation of their rarity. The shrub S\Vamps and streamside11akeside marshes are secure in Nl-I. -The acidic fen is moderately secure. Aquatic natural communiti~s \Vere not evaluated in this study. \. :'{atural Communitv I Total Area (ha) I ~H:--;Hr Rank Water (pond surface area) 53 SU A.cidic Fen I 48 S3 Black Spruce-Larch ' I 34 SU Hardwood-Conifer Seeparre Swamp l 20 SU Northern Hard\vood-Spruce-Fir l undetermined SU Shrub SYvarnp 1.1 S4S5 S treamside/Lakeside :Marsh 8 ' S5 Stream.side/Lakeside.Swamp I 7 SU Table I: Total Area and }..1-!NHI ranking ofnatur.:u.communitics at Pondichen:y Refuge, Jefferson,. N'H.
Though it is difficu,lt to evaluate the magnitude of their impact historic land uses, such as logging and railroad construction, did not likely permanently alter the ecosystem functions (e.g. soil productivity and hydrology) too much. There are two exceptions. First, the abandoned railroad spur along the south margin of Big Cherry may have enlarged the hardwood-conifer seepage s\vamp and bounded the· adjacent natural communities. Second, logging has remo\·ed many large diameter trees. Over time, if the uplands are left unlogged, the forest will develop more habitat diversity and old-grO\vth characteristics. Old-gro\vth forest is very uncommon in the northeast, so additional habitat of this sort would benefit species dependent on structurally diverse stands.
2 Scientific names for all plant species are giYen in Appendix B. Appendix C lists plants seen by J.L · Ro:ne, J.P Lortie, and D.D. Sperdute during a 199..J. inventol}· of the Refuge. 3 To ernluate rarity, NH}.;1Il ranks natural communities on a scale from 1 to 5 depending on how many examples are known in NH. SI - 5 or fewer occurrences; S2 -6 to 20 occurrences; S3·-21 to 100 occurrences: S-J. - secure, but may be rare in pans of its range; S5 - secure: SU - possibly in peril, but status uncertain, more information needed.
6 .. r-- . ··----·--·------Natural Communities of Pondicherry Wildlife Refuge and Vicinity, Jefferson, NH · Linear Features f:V.. Powerllri.e Mud Pond 'JV Railroad, · N ASNH Refuge Boundary /v'Stream ,\ /Trail 'Natural Communities Acidic Fen f Blac~ Spruce-Larch . __ Seepag~ Swamp c:::::J Shrub Swamp / D Streamside Marsh c::::J Streams/de Swamp a water " ~ CJ Hardwood/Spruce•Flr
I ,..,,.,-!,-1~ I ?
l I l 1 ,,.. i I /;A{ I ·\
( i\ ...... J''
.\ ...... ·.... :·:·~,,~0 The Har
1:20934 N 0 Miles L------·------~· . -;:i Fieldwork and ~ap Production by PIO)ection: NH State Plane (NAD 27) ---·-···· ·--· ---...... W*fi:; Mike tetreault Octob;er, ·1997 IV. Natural Community Descriptions
The cur~e11t veg~tation in and around the Refuge reflects th~ ge0Jq1:,ry, sqi_l~, __ climate, and human and natural disturbance histories described below. Sites with similar ecological conditions support similar plant assemblages. Within the study are, there is one dominant upland natural community that forms the matrix for the six wetland natural communities (Figure 3) . For each natural community, a brief synopsis, landform and soil, and dominant vegetation is listed. During natural community mapping, complete plant lists were not made, but Appendix C lists the results from a 1993 botanical inventory of the Refuge.
Northern Hardwood-Spruce-Fir Synopsis: This matrix community is transitional between Beech-Birch:-Maple and Lowland Spruce-Fir and is highly variable in species composition. Management and disturbance history have had an effect on current species composition and it is difficult to predict the relative dominanc~ of individual species in the future. \ Landform and Soil: This community occurs on upland, mesic soils on the hills above the \Vet_lands. Parent material is loose till, varying in texture from coarse sand to sandy loam. _ Boulders and cobbles are found on most hills. The soil is moderately well drained.
Vegetation: Dominant hardwoods in this community are yellow birch and red maple in the later seral stages and pin cherry, white birch, and quaking aspen in early seral stages. Among conifers, balsam fir is more prevalent than red spruce and white pine. Along the streambanks there are occasional white spruce. An interesting member_of the canopy is _ black cherry. The cherry and white pine almost certainly colonized the upland slopes following the 1903 fires. Balsam poplar is also scattered among the canopy. There was a noticeable lack of beech, sugar maple, and white ash on upland sites. The area may be too moist to support beech and too poor iri nutrients to support sugar map_le and white ash. Given the prevalence of timber harvesting in the area, few of the trees in this natural community are older than 100 years. The shrub layer is dominated by wild raisin, meadow-sweet, shadbush, and raspberry. Herbs include bracken fern, wild sarsaparilla, wood aster, twisted stalk, bunchberry, blue-bead lily, starflower, goldthread, and haircap moss.
Hardwood-Conifer Seepage Swamp· Synopsis: This community is a forested wetland found between the uplands and ponds and is distinguished by the prevalence of black ash. It is intermediate to high in nutrient enrichment and is distinguished from the lakeside swamp by the height and composition of the canopy. T he canopy in the hardwood-conifer seepage swamp is from 5 to IS meters tall, whereas the canopy in the lakeside swamp is less than 3 meters and dominated by speckled alder and sweet gale. The largest example of the hardwood-conifer seepage swamp is on the southern edge of Pondicherry where the water level is elevated due to the railroad tracks. While the seepage swamp would likely exist in the absence of the railroad tracks, water dammed behind the tracks may have increased the size of the swamp.
8 ~ ..
Landform: This community occurs on the seepy margins of the uplands on primarily ----~~~r.~.-~_':?!.~: .. I~e :Y~t~!'-~~~Ie is_~ig~ :=.n91:1g~_t_~.?;!.~-~!t:r. is_p_Q.~~jjg~~~..QllQ.'!vs amQfilL----·-·-· _____ ---· tree roots and v,ithin a few inches ofhummock surfaces. The \Vater inhibits decomposition, so organic matter has accumulated inthe -hollows, but the-peat is not ·deep. The parent material is primarily till of sandy loam te.'Cture. Because it receives nutrient · input from \Yater seepage, this community is more enriched than the black spruce- tamarack swamps.
f'egetation: The canopy dominants are black ash, red maple, _..\merican elm. _balsam fir, · red spruce, and yellow birch. Shrubs include meadow-s\veet. mountain holly, and · v,interberry holly. Dominant herbs are sensitive fem, cinnamon fem, ostrich fem, spha,gnurri moss, d1varf raspberry, sedges, and goldthread. Purpl~ fringed orchid was common in this community as \Vell.
· . Streamside/Lakeside Mar.sh·,. Synopsis: This community ii':itergrades with the lakeside swamp and the acidic fen. depending on parent material and water level. A good ·example is found along the stream ,vhich feeds into Big Cherry Pond. It is characterized ·by grasses, sedges. and rushes and . lacks woody plants.
Landform and soil: Marshes at Pondicherry are found on mineral or shallow organic soil . ne:\.'t to open water. \Yater levels fluctuate across seasons, but roots are nearly always at or belmv the water level. The plants are regµIarly bathed in pond or streamwater. Floating _in Big Cherry Pond are several small (<1 he~tare) islands which have marsh vegetation.
1egetation: .Dominant vegetation varies ,vith average .water depth. In the detpest water. emergent \·egetation such as cattail and pickerehveed and floating vegetation such as arrow arum, \v-hite water lily, and yellow pond-lily dominate. In shallower water, blue- joint, tussock sedge, lake sedge, wool-grass, blu~ fiag and tall meadow rue dominate.
Streamside/Lakeside Swamp S_y11opsis: This community intergrades with the streamsideilakeside marsh and acidic fen. A good example is found along the John;s River between Big and Little.Cherry Ponds. It
is characterized. by a prevalence of speckled. alder and sweetgale, but lacks typical bog and acidic fen plants like leatherleaf, laborador tea, and sun dew.
Lcmdform and Soil: This community is on mineral or shallow organic soil in permanently flooded pond and streamshores. It receives more nutrients than the acidic fen because it retains a conilectibn to the'Water and mineral soil.·
J, egetation: Dominant plants are speckled alder and sweetgale intermixed with various sedges. This community may succeed to a bog mat as organic ~aterial accumulates and plant roots no longer reach the mineral soil.
9 Shrub Swamp S,vnopsis: This community resembles the previous one in its dominant plants, but differs in landscape position. Most examples are found adjacent to the railroad tracks. It may be an early successional variant of the hardwood-conifer seepage swamp, but lacks the black ash and red,maple canopy. It is intermediate in nutrient availability.
Landjorm and Soil: Shrub swamps occur on shallow organic soils or mineral soils in seeps at the margins of uplands. They have ponded water most of the year. In some cases, the deep water slows decomposition and allows the accumulation of organic soil. However, the seeping water supplies nutrients at levels higher than in basin swamps.
Vegetatfon: Speckled alder is the dominant shrub. Common herbs include sensitive fern, jewelweed, and several sedge species.
Borealffransition Acidic Fen Synopsis: This community ~ccurs on organic pondshore mats where the peat has filled in above the \:vater level. Good(examples surround Big and Little Cherry Ponds. It is dominated by typical bog plants including leatherleaf, Laborador tea, and sun dew. The pondshore mats are somewhat more enriched than typical boreal basin bogs, and therefore tend toward fens.
Lpndform and Soil: The community grows on organic soil adjacent to the ponds. Several feet ofpeat have accumulated and the water rarely overtops the bog mats. Nutrient enrichment is less than in the lakeside marsh and lakeside swamp communities.
Vegetation: Dominant plants include leatherleaf, Laborador tea, sun dew, pitcher plant, sheep laurel, bog laurel, bog cranberry, various species of sphagnum moss, bog rosemary, and cotton grass. The mats near the "Deadwater''._have rose pogonia and swamp rose.
Black Spruce-Larch Basin Swamp s_vnopsis: Black spruce and larch grow in the peat-filled basins that are vestigial kettle ponds. A good example is found south of Mud Pond. This community intergrades with the acidic fen, and is likely a later successional stage on the same landscape position.
Landform and Soil: The low-lying basins are filled with several feet of organic soil. Water is not evide.nt on the surface of the peat mats. Some of the b~sins are adjacent.to the existing ponds, but because of the deep peat that has accumulated, they probably receive less through.flow than the shrub swamp and marsh. ·
Vegetation: Black spruce and larch are the canopy dominants. White cedar is an occasional member of the swamp to the east southeast of Pondicherry. Common shrubs are mountain ho.Uy, creeping snowberry, and velvet-leaved blueberry. Dominant herbs are goldthread, sphagnum moss, and three-seeded sedge.
10 ,,
Y. Natural Histon-·
Bedrock and Glacial Geologv . - Pondicherry ·Refuge ii~~ !fl a three-srcied"basrn: ·surroundecffo north, and···- ...... ---- south· by peaks rising from 1400 m (Pliny Range) to-1700 m (Presidential Range) above the pond (Figure 4). To the west, lovv hills separate the basil). from the Connecticut.River Valley. The bedrock u'nder the basin is part of the Jefferson Dome, roughly 450 million 4 year old gneiss that intruded into the older volcanic rack of the Bronson Hill Complex • The high surrounding peaks. the Pilot, Pliny, and Crescent Ranges as well as Cherry · Mountain, are granites that intruded the Jefferson Dome benveen 200 and 150 million years ago. Because these granites are so much younger than the Jefferson Dorne. they. · have not eroded as much.· To the northv.:est lie rocks of the A.mmonoosuc Formation, metamo'rphosed v'Olcanic rocks that are roughly the same age as the Jefferson Dome but comprised of green$chist and amphibolite rather than gneiss. The shape of the basin·\YaS instrumental in determining the sequence of glacial e\·ents that shaped the lanqscape in the Pondicherry vicinity. Ice advanced from northvtest, scouring rocks lnd smearing sediments as it moved. Betv,·een 12,000 and I 0.000 years arrn as the climate \Varmed the ice melted back. blocked the low v,:estem edge of~he ba;n_ and formed a bO\\.f. The bO\vl filled \Vith ·meltv,:ater and formed glacial Lake Israel. v;hose outlet was east m·er the notch to the Moose Ri\·er Valley. The surface of the lake.was at approximately 457 meters elevation. At that time, Pondicherry was under 150 meters of water. Water_ flo\ved into Lake Israel and deposited silt, sand, and gravel on the lakebottom. 'When the ice melted past the north edge of Prospect ;\fountain near Lancaster, the . lake's outlet shifted to its present course, ;,.vhich drains west into the Connecticut River. Additional lakeshore deposits around Jefferson, N1I at 335 meters elevation suggest a lo\ver, second stage of glacial Lake Israel (the Bailey's stage). During this stage. Pondicherry \vould have been about lake level and may have received additional deposits of sand; gravel, and boulders from the Israel River. As the \Vater level dropped, icebergs became imbedded in the dry .lakebottom and were surrounded by deposits of sand. \Vhen the icebergs melted, the depressions formed kettle lakes, which are nov1 Mud Pond, Little Cherry Pond, and Big Cherry Pond. The boulders and cobbles rising up to 2 :meters above Big Cherrf-Porid-may be ice pressure ridges which were sorted andtransported by the severe freeze-thaw after deglaciation (Govatski, personal communication).
4 For a good treatment of geologic history of Vermont and New· Hampshire. see Vandi'ver, B.B. 1987. Roadside Geology ofVermont and ~ew Hampshire. Mountain Press Publishing Company. h-lissoula, .:.:ff. 230 pp. 5 Information on the glacial geology is excerpt from Lougee, R.J. 1930. The origin and occurrence of glacial ,vashed deposits in the \\'hite Mountain Region. Dartmouth College Library. Hanover, NH.
11 .. ,.,· ;f \ ..
Soil The sand, gravel. and boulders that \\·ere deposited during the glacial events form
the major component of upland.soils near Pondicherry. Silt is a minor. c0mpon~i:it0 --=f-he----- . -----· · ... - -- - higher elevations are \Veil-drained, but the lower uplands are close to the water table and are occas.ionally flooded.: -· ~ · · · ·· -· · According to th~ Natural Resources Conservation Sef\ice, the dominant upland soil series are the Sunapee-~Ioosilauke-t-.Ionadnock Association and the Peacham Ossipee-Pillsbury Association (Appendix D). Both associations are very stony and have sandy loam parent material. The Sunapee-~foosilauke-~Ionadnock Association is looser and better drained than the Peacham-Ossipee-Pillsbury .-\ssociation \vhich has a hardpan and is considered a hydric soil.
Climate Northern Ne\v Hampshire has a coritinenral polar climate. with occasional storms from the Adantic Ocean. Approximately 115 cm of precipitation fall annually. spread throughout the year6. :\ver,ge annual temperature is approximately 7 degrees C, ranging from about -12 degrees C in Januarv to about :o de!.!rees C in Jtilv and Ammst. \Vith . - - - .. - bet\veen I 00 and 130 frost free days. Because Pondicherry is in the bottom of a basin, it is a cold-air sink. and has a slightly lo\ver a\·erage temperature than the county average. Being in the snO\vshadow of the Franconia and Presidential Ranges, the area receives - . . - slightly less precipitation than the county average (Govatski, personal communication).
Topography arid Hydrology · The surface of Big Cherry is 338 meters above sea-level. Little Cherry Pond is approximately 3 meters 10\ver. Bet\veen the two ponds, the Johns River is roughly 3 meters wide, l to 2 meters deep, and dammed by bea\-·ers. The riverbottom is sand and gravel near Big Cherry and organic near Little Cherry Pond. In the Dead\vater that drains Little Cherry; the River averages IO meterS:\\ide and varies in depth from approximately I meter to l O cm \vhere the River is occluded by boulders. -The outlet draining ?-.fud Pond tlo\vs into the north side of Little Cherry Pond. Several small brooks flo,v into Big . Cherry, including one that flO\VS through a cuh·ert under the abandoned railroad tracks on the southern edge of the pond. As is passes through the culvert. the \Vater drops approximately I meter from the backwater to Big Cherry, suggesting construction of the · railroad track raised the \Vater level in the bacbvater by as much. This impoundment may have influenced the natural community boundaries, which are discussed above. The John· s River \Vatershed is bounded to the east by Big Cherry pond and its small tributaries (Figure 4). The southern and northern boundaries are Cherry \[ountain and Bray Hill respectively. Downstream, the Johns River flo\VS through Whitefield, 1\r{ and reaches the Connecticut River near South Lunenberg, VT.
" Weather data are from the Carroll County Soil Sun·e:,·. which used Conway data. The Coos County Soil Sur.-ey is not completed. In general, the temperatures near Jefferson, Nl-l would be seYeral degress colder than· those in Conway and the precipitation would be a few inches more per year in Jefferson than in Conway.
13 r.
Uplands within the study area are low hills which range from I to 15 meters above Big Cherry Pond. The larger mountain ranges surrounding the Basin are described in the bedrock geology section.
Natural Disturbance Though fire is uncommon in northeastern forests, the Refuge burned intensely in 1903, which was a drought year in northern New England. The fire was likely induced by humans who logged the area and left slash as fuel. The most common natural disturbance in the wetland natural communities is beaver dam construction. The pond levels are currently controlled by beaver impoundments and water levels rise and fall up to a meter as dams are built and then abandoned. Behind impoundments, sediments and nutrients collect, altering the physical and chemical characteristics of the strearnbottoms and banks. Beavers were extirpated from NII by 1888 as the trade in pelts grew (Silver, I 974). Beaver populations rebounded by the early 20th century, and are now relatively robust throughout the northeast. ~ ,/ Another, more recenf\disturbance is the introduction of purple loosestrife into the area. This plant is an aggressive exotic species which can dominate a wetland within a decade. It has been found at the outlet of B!g Cherry. Pond and on a logging road near r,,fod Pond.
Human History· Evidence of prehistoric and historic occupation has been found on the banks of Big Cherry Pond. Preliminary analysis of test pits suggests humans used the area some time during the \Voodland era. There is currently an archaeological group excavating 5 kilometers north of Pondicherry in the viIIage of Jefferson, which is roughly 75 meters higher in elevation. The site is a former Iakeshore ofGiacial Lake Israel. Further analysis is necessary to determine the relationship between human use at the two sites. · Historic photographs and current forest composition suggest that a five to ten hectare field was cleared just south of\Vaumbek Junction. It was probably a garden or pasture used by the inhabitants of the Railroad Junction House in the early 20th century." No barbed i.vire or stone walls have been found. The late 19th century timber barons constructed the \Vhitefield and Jefferson Railroad line along the banks of Pondicherry in 1878 and subsequently cut logs in the basin. The upland forest has been in private timber . company ownership for over a century and has been logged two or three times.
14 1·
VI. Conclusion
In aninterview _published in U.S. News and_Wodd_Re2ort (November 30 1992),______--···- E.O. ·wilson was quoted,
A vital reason to protect biodiversity is to preserve the ecosystems that \Ve depend on to enrich the soil, modify the climate, even create the air we breatµe. Turning over a stump. Wilson pointed out the profusion of small obscure life forms - a metallic blue beetle, a centipede, mites, a crane fly, slugs galore, and a riot of orange, white, and yellow fungi. topped by green and eggplant hued colonies of algae. These, he said, are the organisms that hold the world steadv.
Natural scientists have given· names to most species aqd attempted to understand hO\V they survive and reproduce. As a result of these endeavors, we know a bit about how· nature works. but ulti~arely, the integrity of Pondicherry Refuge depends on things that are difficult to fathom ...\.things tha.t hold the world steady. \,\Tilson, in conjunction \Vith Robert I\.facArthur, demonstrated a salient relationship in nature -- the larger a refuge ( or island), the more species it sustains. Adding 200 hectares to the Refuge \\11T help hold it a bit more steady so that.several thousand years from now, curiou~ people \Vill be able to paddle on the ponds and listt;n to loons. 1vfaybe they'll even leave some charcoal. E\idence of preshitonc acfrvity on the shores of Big Cherry Pond suggest humans have been lured for thousands of years by the contrast of serene, shallow \Vaters reflecting majestic mountains.
15 Bibliography
... .. __ ED.s.s,-C.-R. _e_di tor._L994 .. .Ihe __ Atlas_o.fBr:e.eding.B.irds...in N e:w: Hampshir.e. .AudubGn------·-- -··-··- -- Society of New Hampshire. Concord, NH.
Johnson, C.W. 1985. B9gs of the Northeast University Press of New England. Hanover, NH. 269 pp.
- Lougee, R.J. 1930. The Origin and Occurrence of Glacial Washed Deposits in the \Vhite Mountain Region. Dartmouth College Library. Hanover, NH.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. Unpublished. Soil Survey for Coos County. USDA. L.incaster, NH.
Pe·ase, A.S. J964. Flora of Northern New Hampshire. New England Botanical Club. Cambridge, MA. 278 pp. l \ Quinn, R. Unpublished. Birds of Poridicherry Refuge and Vicinity. Audubon Society of New Hampshire. Concord, NH.
Royte, TL and J.P. Lortie. 1993. _Plant and Natural Community Survey of the Pondicherry Wildlife Refuge. \Vhitefield and Jefferson, NH.
Silyer, H. 1974. A History of New Hampshire Game and Furbearers, 2nd edition. NH Fish and Game Department. Survey Report, Number 6.
Smith, S.D. 1993. Lakes and Ponds ofthe White Mountains. Backcountry Public;ations,. Woodstock, VT. 352 pp.
Sperdute, D.D. 1994. A Classification of the Natural Comm11;nities of New Hampshire ( I 994 Approximation). New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory; Concord, NH. 48 pp.
Vandiver, B.B. 1987. Roadside Geology of Vermont and New Hampshire. Mountain Press Publishing Company. :rvfissoula, MT. 230 pp.
16 . { "'·.
Appendix A: Bird Species at Pondicherry and Vicinity during Robert Quinn's 1997 Inventory
Note: "B" denotes breeding behavior was observed
Common Loon B Do·wny \Voodpecker ' American Bittern Hairy Woodpecker Least Bittern B [ack-backed Woodpecker B Great Blue Heron B Northern Flicker Green Heron Pileated \Voodpecker Canada Goose B Olive-sided flycatcher Wood Duck B Eastern Wood Peewee Black Duck B Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Green-\vinged Tea! Alder Fh-catcher Mallard \Villow Flycatcher Ring-necked Duck B \ Least Flvcatcher Hooded :\ferganser \. Eastern Phoebe B Common ?vferganser B Great Crested Flycatcher Turkey Vulture Eastern Kingbird Osprey Tree S\vallow Northern Harrier B North.em Rough-v,inged Swallow Sharp-shinned Ha"\vk B Bank Swallow Broad-v,inged Hawk Cliff Swallow Red-tailed Hawk Barn Swallow American Kestrel Gray Jay Ruffed Grouse Blue Jav \.Vild Turkey American Crow Virginia Rail B Common-Raven Sora Black-capped chickadee Common rvfoorhen Red-breasted Nuthatch Killdeer B \.\-bite-breasted AUthatch spotted .sand piper Brown Creeper Upland Sandpiper Winter \Vren Common Snipe Marsh \\"reh American \Voodcock B Golden-cro\vned Kinglet Mourning Dove Ruby-cro,vned Kinglet Black-billed Cuckoo Eastern Bluebird Great Horned Owl B Veery Barred Owl Swainson Thrush Saw-whet Owl Hermit Thrush B Long-eared Owl (not definitive) Wood Thrush Chimney Swift American Robin B Ruby-throated Hummingbird Gray Catbird Belted Kingfisher B Brown Thrasher Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Cedar \Va..x:wing
17 European Starling Scarlet Tanager Solitary Vireo Rose-breasted· Grosbeak ··warblmgV1reo ·Inoig,r Bunrmg· - -- ·· Red-eyed Vireo Eastern Towhee Tennesse Warbler Chipping Sparrow Nashville Warbler Savannah Sparrow Northern Parula Song Sparrow Yellow Warbler Lincoln Sparrow Chestnut-sided ·warbler Swamp Sparrow B Magnolia Warbler White-throated Sparrow Cape May Warbler Dark-eyed Junco Black-throated Blue Warbler Bobolink Yellow-rumped Warbler Red-\.vinged Blackbird Black-throated Green Warbler Eastern Meadowlark Blackburnian ·warbler Rusty Blackbird Palm Warbler \. Common Grackle Bay-breasted ·warbler Brown-headed Cowbird Black-and-white ·warbler Northern Oriole American Redstart Purple Finch Ovenbird Red Crossbill Northern Waterthrush White-winged Crossbill Mourning ·warbler Pine Siskin Common Y ellowthroat American Goldfinch Canada Warbler Evening Grosbeak House Sparrow
Migratorv Bird Species at Pondicherry and Vicinity during 1997_ Inventory
Blue-winged Teal Norhtern Shoveler Greater Y ellowlegs Solitary Sandpiper Semi-palmated Sandpiper Least Sandpiper "Gray-cheeked" Thrush (could not detemine if it was Gray-cheeked or Bicknell's) Philadelphia Vireo · · · Orange-crowneGi ·warbler Prairie Warbler B14ckpoll Warbler 'Wilson's Warbler
18 ;; '
Appendix B: Common and Scientific Names of Plants Listed in Text
Trees ash~ black Frd:xiJ uis"1T( Shrubs alder, speckled A/nus rugosa blueberry, ;veh·et-leaved Vaccinium mJTty!!oides bunchberry Comus canadensis cranberry, bog f, accinium oxycoccus holly, mountain Nemopanthus mucronatus holly, 1.vinterberry !lex i·erticillata Laborador tea Ledum groenlandicum laurel, bog Kalmia po!ifolia laurel, sheep Kalmia angustifolia leatherleaf Chamaedaphne calyc.ulata meadow-s1.veet Spirea latifo!ia rnisin, 1.vild Viburnum cassinoides raspberry Rubus .strigosus raspberry, dwarf Rubus pube.scens rose, swamp Rosa palustris rosemary, bog Andromeda glacuophylla shadbush Ame!anchier sp. snowberry, creeping· Gau!theria hispidula si.veetgale Myricagale 19 Herbs arrow arum .. F_eltandra virginica "·-··- -•«•~.. •• >K• • m -· o••• • •• • arrowhead, northern Sagittarfo cuneata aster, wood Aster jp. aster, ciliated Aster ciliolatus blue flag Iris versicolor blue-joint Calamagrostis canadensis cattail Typha latifolia fern, bracken Pteridium aquilinum fem, cinnamon Osmunda cinnamomea fern, ostrich fvfarteuccia struthiopteris fem, sensifiv~ Onoclea sensibilis gold thread Cop tis groenlandicum grass~ cotton Eriophrum jpfssum grass, wool " Sdrpus cyperinus jewelweed \. l mpatiens capensis lily, blue-bead Clintonia borealis lily, white water Nymphaea ::-p. lily, yellow pond Nupharsp. Ioosestrife, purple · Lythmm salicaria meadowrue, tall Thafyctrcum pubescens moss, haircap Po{vtriclmm sp. moss, sphagnum Sphagum sp. orchid, purple fringed Habenaria pjycodes pickerel weed Pontederia cordata pitcher plant Sarracenia pwpm:ea pogonia, bog Pogonia ophioglossoides pondweed, thin-leaved Potomogeton alpinus pondweed, fem Potomogeton robbinsii sarsaparilla, wild . Aralia·nudicaulis sedge, la.ke Carex lacustris sedge, three-seeded Carex trisperma sedge, tussock Carex stricta sedges Carex sp. spikerush Eleocharis robbinsii starflower Trientalis borealis Rf sundew Drosera rotzmdifolia twisted-stalk Streptopus roseus 20