New York Natural Heritage Program

Home , Climaciaceae, Natural heritage, Solidago gigantea, Thuidiaceae, Viburnum acerifolium

Kohler Environmental Center Ecological Community Classification and Mapping

New York Natural Heritage Program The NY Natural Heritage Program is a partnership between the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry. New York Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 (518) 402-8935 Fax (518) 402-8925 www.nynhp.org

Kohler Environmental Center Ecological Community Classification and Mapping

Gregory J. Edinger

A report prepared by the

New York Natural Heritage Program

625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 www.nynhp.org

for

Choate Rosemary Hall

333 Christian Street. Wallingford, CT 06492

January 2014

Please cite this report as follows: Edinger, G.J. 2014. Kohler Environmental Center Ecological Community Classification and Mapping. New York Natural Heritage Program, Albany, NY.

Cover photos: top left: shallow emergent marsh (CEGL006446) at point A06; top right: red maple-hardwood swamp (CEGL006406) at point C03; bottom: coastal oak-beech forest (CEGL006377) at point C02.

New York Natural Heritage Program

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ...... 3 Purpose and Study Area Overview ...... 3 Study Area Physical Setting and Environment ...... 3 Ecoregions ...... 4 Geology ...... 6 Soils ...... 6 METHODS ...... 7 Preliminary Map ...... 7 Field Methodology ...... 8 Classification ...... 8 Final Map ...... 9 Condition Assessment ...... 9 Final Products ...... 10 RESULTS ...... 10 Ecological Communities Overview ...... 10 National Vegetation Associations ...... 12 Lacustrine Associations ...... 12 Palustrine Associations ...... 12 Terrestrial Forest Associations ...... 13 Successional Associations ...... 13 Planted Forests ...... 14 Connecticut Vegetation Types ...... 17 New York Ecological Communities ...... 19 Natural Communities ...... 19 Cultural Communities ...... 19 Preliminary Statistical Analysis ...... 22 Non-metric Multidimensional Scaling Results ...... 22 Cluster Analysis Results ...... 23 Condition Assessment ...... 23 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 27 REFERENCES...... 28

1 New York Natural Heritage Program

APPENDIX A ...... 30 National Vegetation Classification Associations of Kohler Environmental Center ...... 30 APPENDIX B ...... 31 Kohler Environmental Center 2013 Observation Point Plant List ...... 31 APPENDIX C ...... 37 Kohler Environmental Center Study Area PC-ORD Result Graphs ...... 37

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The Study Area of the Kohler Environmental Center...... 4 Figure 2. The Nature Conservancy Ecoregions in southern Connecticut...... 5 Figure 3. Soil Types within the study area ...... 7 Figure 4. New York Natural Heritage Program Observation Points ...... 11 Figure 5. National Vegetation Classification Associations ...... 15 Figure 6. Connecticut Vegetation Types ...... 18 Figure 7. New York Natural Heritage Program Ecological Communities ...... 20

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. National Vegetation Classification Associations at Kohler Environmental Center ...... 16 Table 2. Connecticut Vegetation Types at Kohler Environmental Center...... 17 Table 3. New York Ecological Communities at Kohler Environmental Center...... 21 Table 4. Non-native plant species tally and sum of the percent cover...... 25

2 New York Natural Heritage Program

INTRODUCTION

Purpose and Study Area Overview

In the spring of 2013, with support from Choate Rosemary Hall, the NY Natural Heritage Program initiated a study to create a complete vegetation association and ecological community map of the lands associated with the Kohler Environmental Center in Wallingford, CT.

The New York Natural Heritage Program has over two decades of experience producing ecological community maps for public land managers and private conservation organizations. We have produced such maps for various state lands (e.g., NYS DEC Wildlife Management Areas and OPRHP State Parks) and multi-owner conservation areas (e.g., Wilton Wildlife Preserve and Park in Saratoga County, NY and the Great Swamp in eastern NY). However, it has been our involvement in the National Park Service (NPS) Vegetation Mapping Program that is most responsible for elevating our mapping capabilities to our current high standards. Since 2003 we have produced wall- to-wall vegetation association maps using the National Vegetation Classification (NVC) for six NPS sites and two Nation Wildlife Refuges in New York totaling 44,584 ha (110,169 acres). These vegetation association maps meet rigorous Federal Geographic Data Committee standards for vegetation classification and metadata, and national standards for spatial accuracy and data transfer. We employed the NPS vegetation mapping standards to produce the Kohler Environmental Center vegetation map where feasible.

Accurate vegetation maps are an extremely useful tool for land managers and biological researchers. Baseline information on plant community composition and rarity is critical to developing desired conditions and land management goals relating to native plant communities, non-native plant and insect species, and effects of deer browse and other disturbances. The identification and description of plant communities also provide habitat information important to understanding associated organisms.

Study Area Physical Setting and Environment

The study area includes the lands associated with the Kohler Environmental Center (KEC) located in Wallingford, Connecticut on the Choate Rosemary Hall campus in a suburban setting between New Haven and Hartford, CT. The study area is comprised of over 280 acres of meadows, agricultural fields, second-growth forest, and wetlands bounded by Durham Road to the east and south, Old Durham Road to the north, and extending to Rosemary Lane to the west (Figure 1).

Three small streams add to the geographical and ecological diversity of the site. Wharton Brook is a small perennial stream that flows to the southwest bisecting the study area. The east and west slopes of the Wharton Brook stream valley were the steepest measured in the study area (32-38 degrees). There is an unnamed perennial stream that drains the western half of the study area joining Wharton Brook near the southern property boundary. This stream also has moderately steep east and west slopes, but the stream is lower gradient compared to Wharton Brook allowing muck to accumulate rather than alluvial soils. Catlin Brook is an intermittent stream that originates east of the study area and runs west through the forest along its southern boundary with agriculture fields meeting 3 New York Natural Heritage Program

Wharton Brook west of East Main Street (Figure 1). Most of the topography north and south of Catlin Brook is relatively flat as it passes through open and forested wetlands. However, these slopes become steep near the KEC pedestrian bridge with the north-facing slope approaching 30 degrees just east of the bridge.

Figure 1. The Study Area for this project, generally encompassing the grounds of the Kohler Environmental Center. We collected available background information about the study area and what follows is a summary of the geophysical and landscape features that play an important role in determining what vegetation types can develop. At the landscape level we discuss the study area’s position in the Lower New England/Northern Piedmont Ecoregion and the influence of the underlying bedrock and surficial geology. At the local level we list the dominant soil types and note their correlation to the observed vegetation cover and land use. Ecoregions

The distribution of plant and animal species in Connecticut closely corresponds with ecoregional boundaries. These areas of ecological homogeneity are defined by similarities in soil, physiography, climate, hydrology, geology, and vegetation. The ecoregions are based on The Nature Conservancy (TNC) classifications for the U.S. and are modified from USDA Forest Service ecoregions (Bailey

4 New York Natural Heritage Program

1997). The study area is near the southern boundary of the Lower Connecticut River Valley within the Southern New England Plains Subsection of the Lower New England/Northern Piedmont Ecoregion (Figure 2). This ecoregion extends from southern Maine and New Hampshire, with the formerly glaciated, low-mountain, and lake-studded landscape, through the limestone valleys of western Massachusetts and Connecticut. This ecoregion continues through Vermont and eastern New York and and then south through eastern Pennsylvania to northern Virginia (Bailey 1997). The entire Lower New England/Northern Piedmont Ecoregion is expansive, covering 23.3 million acres of land and water. The ecoregion is 60-70% forested, and includes numerous globally rare species and habitats such as small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medioloides) and pitch pine-scrub oak barrens. Much of the ecoregion is underlain by carbonate-rich, Paleozoic bedrock. In addition, most of the region is situated southeast of the Niagara Escarpment, where the land surface slopes gradually toward the southwest through rolling topography. Bedrock outcrops are limited to only small areas (Bailey 1997).

It is important to note that the North Atlantic Coast Ecoregion is about five miles to the south of the study area with the maritime influence of Long Island Sound less than 14 miles to the south (Figure 2). The proximity of the North Atlantic Coast Ecoregion is relevant and comes into play when classifying vegetation associations not found in the Lower New England/Northern Piedmont Ecoregion classification key (see NVC section below).

Figure 2. The Nature Conservancy Ecoregions in southern Connecticut. The Southern New England Plains is a Subsection of the Lower New England/Northern Piedmont Ecoregion.

5 New York Natural Heritage Program

Geology

The bedrock geology of the study area is entirely comprised of Triassic age New Haven Arkose: red, pink, and gray coarse-grained to conglomerate arkose interbedded with brick-red siltstone and fine- grained arkosic sandstone (Robinson and Luttrell 1985). Vegetation composition, especially the herbaceous layer, has been reported to be strongly related to bedrock geology, as is the case for New Haven Arkose in the Connecticut River Valley in Massachusetts (Searcy et al. 2003). The surficial geology of the study area is entirely comprised of glacial till. The bedrock and surficial geology also influence topographic aspect, water drainage, and soil development.

Soils

A soil map of the Kohler Environmental Center is shown in Figure 3. The soil types are generally reflected by the vegetation; these associations are noted below. The six major soil units, drainage, and their distribution within the study area are as follows:

Cheshire fine sandy loam (well drained) – predominant in the central and western portions of the study area. This type is associated with uplands including agricultural fields, upland forests, and developed areas.

Ludlow silt loam (moderately well drained) – predominant in the western portion of the study area with small patch inclusions in the eastern portion. It is associated with upland forests.

Saco silt loam (very poorly drained) – predominant within the Wharton Brook stream valley in the central portion of the study area. It is associated with floodplain forest.

Wilbraham and Menlo soils, extremely stony (poorly drained) – predominant in the eastern portion of the study area with small patch inclusions in the western portion and is associated with the forested wetlands.

Wilbraham silt loam (poorly drained) – occurs in moderate-sized patches along the south boundary of the study area and is associated with the marshes within agricultural fields.

Yalesville fine sandy loam (well drained) – predominant in the eastern and central portion of the study area. It is associated with upland forests.

6 New York Natural Heritage Program

Figure 3. Soil Types within the study area, with ecological communities depicted with light gray lines.

METHODS

This study used the New York Natural Heritage Program system of data collection, mapping, and data synthesis. NY Natural Heritage is a partnership between the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry. It is also part of NatureServe (www.natureserve.org), a cooperative network of 82 Natural Heritage programs and conservation data centers throughout the Western Hemisphere. These programs specialize in compiling biodiversity information by conducting inventories of rare plants, rare animals, and ecologically significant natural communities aimed at identifying the most sensitive resources in a defined geographic area.

Preliminary Map

Using GIS (ArcMap 10) we created a preliminary wall-to-wall ecological community map of the study area. We obtained the following GIS data layers from the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) website: digital ortho-imagery, soils, hydrography, contours, bedrock and surficial geology, critical habitat, natural diversity database area, etc. We screen digitized NY Natural Heritage ecological communities (Edinger et al. 2002) onto the following digital orthoimagery: USGS 2008 High Resolution Orthoimagery for the Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven, 7 New York Natural Heritage Program

Connecticut Urban Areas (U.S. Geological Survey 2008) and U.S. Geological Survey 2012 Multispectral Color Orthophotography at 1 foot GSD (U.S. Geological Survey 2012). The preliminary map was completed mid-June 2013. Field Methodology

In this study we used standard inventory methodology developed by The Nature Conservancy, NatureServe, and the Natural Heritage Network, and refined by NY Natural Heritage (Edinger et al. 2000). General survey methodology for natural communities involves collecting data on all or most of the following for each targeted community polygons: plant species composition and structure in all strata, unvegetated ground and water surfaces, slope, and aspect (Edinger et al. 2000). Taxonomic nomenclature followed the NY Flora Atlas (Weldy et al. 2013). These data allow an accurate identification of each community surveyed. Specifically, for this project we collected detailed observation points (i.e., NY Natural Heritage Natural Community Form 1: Transect Observation Points). The location of each observation point was recorded with a Garmin 60Cx GPS unit. The datum on the GPS unit was set to North American Datum 1983 (Conus) and the coordinate system was set to Universal Transverse-Mercator (UTM) zone 18N. Observation point data were collected digitally in the field using a Trimble Nomad hand-held computer with data entry software (NY Natural Heritage Hand-Held Database - HHDB) and imported to the NY Natural Heritage Field Form Database (FFDB) upon return from the field. A digital photograph was taken at most observation point locations. Classification

After we completed the field surveys, we quality-checked and labeled each observation point data record with the appropriate community name from The Vegetation of Connecticut (Metzler and Barrett 2006) and association name and code from the National Vegetation Classification (NVC) (as defined by NatureServe: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/index.htm). We also corrected the NY ecological community name (Edinger et al. 2002) as needed if the type was misidentified in the field.

We used the following NVC keys to classify observation points: National Vegetation Classification, Vegetation of the Lower New England (LNE)/Northern Piedmont Ecoregion: A key to the types (Sneddon and Neid 2004a); and National Vegetation Classification, Vegetation of the North Atlantic Coast (NAC): A key to the types (Sneddon and Neid 2004b).

We used the following publications to crosswalk the Connecticut Classification to the NVC: The Vegetation of Connecticut (Metzler and Barrett 2006) and International Ecological Classification Standard: Terrestrial Ecological Classifications. Associations of Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont (NatureServe 2013b). The latter publication includes Connecticut in the crosswalk tables for each type despite the state name not being in the title.

Since we collected nearly complete vegetation cover data at each observation point we ran preliminary statistical analyses of the final dataset using PC-ORD version 5.0 Multivariate Analysis software (McCune and Mefford 2007). We grouped and classified the observation points using Non- metric Multidimensional Scaling (NMS) and Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (CA). Observation points with cover data were exported into an Excel spreadsheet format compatible with PC-ORD. The Field Form Database export program automatically assigns standardized codes based on the 8 New York Natural Heritage Program

taxonomic nomenclature followed the NY Flora Atlas (Weldy et al. 2013). A comprehensive list of plants observed during the observation point sampling at the Kohler Environmental Center are listed alphabetically by family in Appendix B.

We ran the following two analyses with indicated settings from the PC-ORD software package: 1. NMS: Non-metric Multidimensional Scaling, Autopilot mode, Medium Speed vs. Thoroughness, and Sorensen (Bray-Curtis) distance measure. 2. CA: Hierarchical Cluster Analysis, Relative Euclidian linkage method, and Ward’s Method distance measure.

We included selected results graphs from PC-ORD in Appendix C. These analyses were useful in classifying types that did not key out easily in the LNE or NAC keys mentioned above. Final Map

After the observation points were correctly labeled with the closest NY, CT, and NVC type name in the Field Forms Database (FFDB) we corrected the names of the corresponding polygons on the ecological community map in the GIS attribute table. We did this by systematically navigating to each observation point in GIS and confirming that each polygon classification matched the observation point classification. We split, merged, and otherwise corrected polygons as needed.

Using ArcMap 10, we revised polygon boundaries and labeled the remaining unsurveyed polygons by extrapolating information gained from the detailed field observation points, classification, aerial photography signatures, and other GIS data layers. The report highlights the types documented from the three classifications in the results section and we stored supporting data in the Field Forms Database (FFDB). We provide a KEC subset of the FFDB with observation point data and corresponding pdfs of all NY Natural Heritage Natural Community Form 1 Observation Point Transects with this report.

Where appropriate we recorded brief notes on the maturity of the natural community, anthropogenic and natural disturbances influencing the community, and the condition of the surrounding landscape.

Condition Assessment

The presence of non-native invasive plant species in a natural community generally lowers the condition ranking factor and the overall element occurrence rank using Heritage Methodology. This may reduce the conservation value of the community relative to those in better condition, but may be used to identify areas needing invasive species management or restoration. We assessed each observation point and tallied the number of non-native plant species and summed the percent cover of all exotics present at each point. In addition, we recorded anthropogenic disturbances observed in the study area, such as garbage and yard waste dumping, ATV trails, and dredge spoils.

9 New York Natural Heritage Program

Final Products

The following materials are included with this report: • GIS data layer depicting the natural communities for three classifications (National Vegetation Classification [NVC], CT, NY) throughout the study area. • GIS data layer showing the locations of all observation points. • Electronic data containing all vegetation data collected, in tabular (or database) format. • Electronic copies of all photographs taken for documentation. • A list of plants observed in the study area during observation point sampling. • PC-ORD result graphs from preliminary statistical analysis. • LNE (Lower New England ecoregion) and NAC (North Atlantic Coast ecoregion) NVC keys and NVC regional classifications used for this project. • A final report with appendices containing field data.

RESULTS

Ecological Communities Overview

We surveyed a total of 63 observation points over five days (August 12-16, 2013) within the study area (Figure 4). We collected detailed vegetation cover data at 46 of these observation points. The remaining 17 points were used as reference points to confirm a community type, simply list species, confirm community boundaries, document the location of notable features (e.g., invasive plant populations, dredge spoils, yard waste piles, etc.). We took digital photos at most observation points; however a camera malfunction on the second survey day resulted in the corruption of nine image files (B05-B13). The thumbnail images survived and are included with the final set of digital images. The final map of the study area covers 284.33 acres. A summary of the distribution of types for each classification follows.

10 New York Natural Heritage Program

Figure 4. New York Natural Heritage Program Observation Points 11 New York Natural Heritage Program

National Vegetation Associations

We identified 26 NVC associations at the Kohler Environmental Center, a detailed classification of these types is provided in Appendix A (NatureServe 2013a). This classification is a subset of the NVC and includes descriptions, lists of similar associations, global rarity ranks, and distribution information for each type found in the study area. We included a representative photograph of each association when available with a caption containing the observation point number and GPS coordinates. The classification includes a summarized description of the vegetation structure and composition derived from observation point data for each type. A list of observation points for each type is also included.

The 26 NVC associations identified within the study area are listed in Table 1. The NVC does not include many cultural types (e.g., croplands, mowed lawns, developed areas, etc.), thus there are 86 acres (30%) of the study area labeled as “No NVC Association” (Table 1) and depicted as a gray color on the NVC association map (Figure 5). A summary of the associations follows.

Lacustrine Associations

We encountered only one small pond community within the study area (point B17). It is reported to be an artificial pond and appears impounded, but since it is dominated by duckweed (Lemna spp.) it is classified as a Duckweed Pond (CEGL003059) in the NVC.

Palustrine Associations

We documented ten wetland associations within the study area (Table 1). Three were forested and seven were open wetlands (i.e., tree canopy <50%). By far the largest wetland association was the Southern New England / Northern Piedmont Red Maple Seepage Swamp (CEGL006406) covering 36 acres (13% of the study area). The best examples were found at points B05, C03, and E05 (Figure 4). The swamp patches are dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), and skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus). We observed several small Skunk-cabbage - Mixed Forbs Seepage Meadow (CEGL002385) patches within the swamp, but only two were large enough to map from air photos (e.g., point B08). One Riverine Floodplain Forest (CEGL006036) association was surveyed along Wharton Brook at points D03 and D05 (Figure 4). We measured several large characteristic floodplain trees, such as a 30 m tall cottonwood (Populus deltoides) with 133 cm dbh and a 97.5 cm dbh sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). We recorded one Eastern Woodland Vernal Pool (CEGL006453) association at point B15. We recommend that this sparsely vegetated community be surveyed in early spring to document characteristic vernal pool fauna.

Most of the open wetland associations encountered were less than one acre (Table 1). The two largest were the colorful Mixed Forb Marsh (CEGL006446) at nearly nine acres (points A06, C10, and D08) and the Dogwood - Arrow-wood Successional Wet Shrubland (CEGL006576) at 2.5 acres. We observed the dogwood shrub swamp around the margins of the marshes at points B02 and C10. Unfortunately, we were unable to collect observation point data from this association. Three other open marsh associations were strongly dominated by single graminoid species as follows: Reed Canarygrass Eastern Marsh (CEGL006044) by Phalaris arundinacea (points A01 and A03), Eastern 12 New York Natural Heritage Program

Cattail Marsh (CEGL006153) by Typha latifolia (points A02 and B02), and Cutgrass Marsh (CEGL006461) by Leersia oryzoides (point B12). Lastly, we sampled a small Hazel Alder Swamp (CEGL005028) at point A07 dominated by tall hazel alder (Alnus serrulata). Terrestrial Forest Associations

Upland forest associations cover about 118 acres in the study area. Of that total, 82 acres (70%) are relatively mature and in better condition (i.e., larger/older trees in the canopy, low evidence of human disturbance, low cover of invasive non-native plants, etc.) and 35 acres (30%) are younger successional forests. The five mature associations intergrade with each other and share several characteristic species. The largest was the Northeastern Dry Oak-Hickory Forest (CEGL006336) covering nearly 36 acres of the study area (13%). We classified this association based on the codominance of mixed oaks (Quercus spp.) and hickories (Carya spp.). Large patches of this type serve as the “bookends” of the study area with points B14 and A09 near the east boundary and points E01 and E03 to the west. If we encountered forest patches codominated by mostly red oak (Quercus rubra) and sugar maple (Acer saccharum) then we classified it as Red Oak - Northern Hardwood Forest (CEGL006173). We found this association in the southeast corner of the study area surrounding the vernal pool (points B16 and F02) and on the cool, steep, north-facing slopes near the pedestrian bridge (point E11). If we found a stand where the oak species were mostly red oak and white oak (Quercus alba) with significant cover of tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera) in the canopy and abundant spicebush (Lindera benzoin) in the shrub layer, then we classified it as High Allegheny Rich Red Oak - Sugar Maple Forest (CEGL006125). We documented the best example of this association at point C08 where tulip tree comprised nearly 50% of the canopy. One of the most impressive forest patches we surveyed was the Northeastern Atlantic Coastal Oak - Beech Forest (CEGL006377) at point C02. Together the tree canopy and subcanopy had nearly 75% cover of large (40-45 cm dbh) American beech (Fagus grandifolia) along with large (55 cm dbh) scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea). This point was challenging to classify using the Lower New England NVC key (Sneddon and Neid 2004a), but keys out easily to the coastal oak-beech forest association (CEGL006377) in the North Atlantic Coast NVC key (Sneddon and Neid 2004b). Lastly, we documented only one polygon with eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) codominant (45%) in the tree subcanopy. The Hemlock - Beech - Oak Forest (CEGL006088) association was found on a steep east-facing slope along Wharton Brook at point D01 near the northern boundary of the study area. It is interesting to note that we did not find large eastern hemlock in the tree canopy layer at any of our observation points. It was only found in the tree subcanopy at low percent cover and in declining health at two points (e.g., B09 at 8% and D04 at 3%). The decline of hemlock in the study area may be a result of past hemlock wooly adelgid (Adelges tsugae) infestation. Successional Associations

In general, successional forests develop on sites that have been cleared (for farming, logging, etc.) or otherwise disturbed (by fire, ice scour, wind throw, flooding, etc.) in more natural settings. Successional forests generally have the following characteristics: 1) dominated by light-requiring, wind-dispersed species that are well-adapted to establishment following disturbance, 2) lacking seedlings and saplings of species occupying the canopy, 3) comprised of tree seedlings and saplings that are more shade-tolerant than the canopy species, 4) dominated by species characteristic of successional old fields in the shrub layer and groundlayer, or including species that occurred on or near the site prior to disturbance, 5) comprised of canopy trees with small diameter (generally less

13 New York Natural Heritage Program

than 10 to 15 cm dbh), 6) comprised of canopy trees of young age (generally less than about 25 to 50 years old), 7) show evidence of recent logging (e.g., presence of stumps, brush, and multi-trunked trees) and other human disturbances (e.g., stone walls), and 8) relatively low canopy height with poor tree diversity and poor development of multiple strata. In addition, the successional forests that we identified in the study area had a greater number and more cover of non-native and invasive plant species than the forest associations described in the previous section. We provide more information on the distribution of non-native plants in the study area in the Condition Assessment section below.

We documented five successional forest associations that make up about 30% of the upland forest cover in the study area. The top two largest successional forests are Northeastern Oak - Red Maple Successional Forest (CEGL006506) and Northeastern Modified Successional Forest (CEGL006599). We found examples of the former at points B13 and E06 and the latter at A05 and C01. Three other successional forest associations were strongly dominated by a single tree species as follows: Successional Tree-of-Heaven Forest (CEGL007191) by Ailanthus altissima (point D09), Semi-natural Norway Maple Forest (CEGL006407) by Acer platanoides (point C04), and Successional Black Locust Forest (CEGL007279) by Robinia pseudoacacia (point A04).

We made an interesting anecdotal observation regarding the correlation of tree hedgerow width and the established vegetation association. We noticed that narrower tree hedgerows (8-10 m) tended to be the younger successional types dominated by non-native plants (e.g., CEGL006599 at point A05 and CEGL007279 at point A04), whereas slightly wider hedgerows (26-30 m) were a bit older with more native species (e.g., CEGL006506 at point B04). In a few examples where the hedgerow was widest (~38 m) a more mature natural forest association could be established and recognized (e.g., CEGL006336 at point E03). This correlation is probably related to edge effect and light penetration into the hedgerow. One conclusion that could be made is that it may be possible to restore tree hedgerows to a more native plant dominated association by maximizing the width of the forested strip.

We also documented two open upland associations in the study area: Northeastern Successional Shrubland (CEGL006451) and Northeastern Old Field (CEGL006107). We generally found these associations in abandoned agricultural fields and post-construction areas with successional shrubland at points C09 and E02 and old field near the KEC building at point B01 (solar panel array). Planted Forests

We mapped three conifer plantations in the study area that fell into the following associations: Mixed Pine Conifer Plantation (CEGL006313) dominated by mixed pine and Norway spruce at point C05, White Pine Plantation (CEGL007178) dominated by Pinus strobus at point C06b, and Red Pine Plantation (CEGL007177) co-dominated by Pinus resinosa at point D06. These plantations appeared unmaintained and are undergoing the slow process of conversion to native forest types. This was most apparent in the red pine plantation where the red pine canopy was declining and its fallen trunks made up most of the down coarse woody debris at point D06. Forest management practices, such as thinning planted conifers, can facilitate conversion of plantations to native forest types (e.g., Parker et al. 2001).

14 New York Natural Heritage Program

Figure 5. National Vegetation Classification Associations 15 New York Natural Heritage Program

Table 1. National Vegetation Classification Associations at Kohler Environmental Center

Number of Number of NVC Association NVC Code Polygons Acres % of Total Obs. Points

LACUSTRINE

Lacustrine Cultural Duckweed Pond CEGL003059 1 0.06 0.02% 1

PALUSTRINE

Forested Mineral Soils Southern New England / Northern Piedmont Red Maple Seepage Swamp CEGL006406 11 36.32 12.78% 10 Riverine Floodplain Forest CEGL006036 5 5.50 1.93% 2 Eastern Woodland Vernal Pool CEGL006453 1 0.36 0.13% 1

Open Mineral Soils Cutgrass Marsh CEGL006461 1 0.18 0.06% 1 Dogwood - Arrow-wood Successional Wet Shrubland CEGL006576 2 2.57 0.91% 0 Eastern Cattail Marsh CEGL006153 2 0.92 0.33% 2 Hazel Alder Swamp CEGL005028 1 0.21 0.07% 1 Mixed Forb Marsh CEGL006446 9 8.98 3.16% 4 Reed Canarygrass Eastern Marsh CEGL006044 2 0.99 0.35% 2 Skunk-cabbage - Mixed Forbs Seepage Meadow CEGL002385 2 0.36 0.13% 1

TERRESTRIAL

Forested Uplands Hemlock - Beech - Oak Forest CEGL006088 1 1.61 0.57% 1 High Allegheny Rich Red Oak - Sugar Maple Forest CEGL006125 4 19.85 6.98% 3 Northeastern Atlantic Coastal Oak - Beech Forest CEGL006377 3 14.49 5.10% 3 Northeastern Dry Oak-Hickory Forest CEGL006336 6 35.95 12.65% 8 Red Oak - Northern Hardwood Forest CEGL006173 5 10.41 3.66% 4 Northeastern Modified Successional Forest CEGL006599 8 12.91 4.54% 4 Northeastern Oak - Red Maple Successional Forest CEGL006506 5 16.56 5.82% 4 Semi-natural Norway Maple Forest CEGL006407 2 1.34 0.47% 2 Successional Black Locust Forest CEGL007279 2 1.26 0.44% 1 Successional Tree-of-Heaven Forest CEGL007191 2 3.19 1.12% 1

Open Uplands 0.00% Northeastern Old Field CEGL006107 7 7.92 2.78% 1 Northeastern Successional Shrubland CEGL006451 6 3.89 1.37% 2

Terrestrial Cultural 0.00% Mixed Pine Conifer Plantation CEGL006313 1 3.94 1.38% 1 Red Pine Plantation CEGL007177 1 5.72 2.01% 1 White Pine Plantation CEGL007178 1 2.62 0.92% 1 No NVC Association NA 76 86.20 30.32% 1 Total 167 284.33 100.00% 63 16 New York Natural Heritage Program

Connecticut Vegetation Types

We documented eight Connecticut vegetation types (Metzler and Barrett 2006) totaling 101 acres (36% of the study area). The Connecticut classification closely mirrors the NVC and most types described in Metzler and Barrett (2006) have only one association listed in the “NatureServe cross- reference” field. However, the classification is incomplete and includes only selected types that were known at the time of publication (see History and Development of the Classification in Metzler and Barrett 2006). It is also possible that the NVC associations we identified in this study might be classified to an existing CT type using a broader concept. For example, we confidently classified the Northeastern Atlantic Coastal Oak - Beech Forest (CEGL006377) at point C02, but that NVC association is not crosswalked to a type in Metzler and Barrett (2006). However, if we were to exclusively use the CT classification, then C02 would likely be classified as an American beech - White oak - Northern red oak - Tuliptree community. For this study we only included a CT type if we found a specific cross-reference in a publication (e.g., Metzler and Barrett 2006 or NatureServe 2013b). In addition, the CT classification excludes all cultural (e.g., mowed lawns, plantations, orchards) and semi-natural types (e.g., successional forests and fields), as well as aquatic types (e.g., streams and ponds). This explains why CT types only cover a little over one-third of the study area (Figure 6).

Since all of the Connecticut vegetation types are direct one-to-one equivalents with NVC associations in this study, it would be redundant with the previous section to summarize their descriptions and distributions here. Please refer to the NVC code in Table 2 and look for relevant information about the matching association in the previous section or in the NVC KEC classification in Appendix A.

Table 2. Connecticut Vegetation Types at Kohler Environmental Center.

Number Number of NVC Code of % of Obs. Connecticut Vegetation Types Cross-reference CT Group Polygons Acres Total Points American beech - White oak - Northern red oak - Tuliptree community CEGL006125 Forests 4 19.85 6.98% 3 American sycamore - Boxelder temporally flooded forests CEGL006063 Forests 5 5.50 1.93% 2 Eastern hemlock forests CEGL006088 Forests 1 1.61 0.57% 1 Northern red oak / Mapleleaf viburnum community CEGL006336 Forests 6 35.95 12.64% 8 Red maple / Northern spicebush community CEGL006406 Forests 11 36.32 12.77% 10

Speckled alder - Willow community CEGL005082 Shrublands 1 0.21 0.07% 1 Broadleaf cattail semipermanently flooded Herbaceous grasslands CEGL006153 Vegetation 2 0.92 0.32% 2 Reed canarygrass temporarily flooded Herbaceous grasslands CEGL006044 Vegetation 2 0.99 0.35% 2

No CT Vegetation Type NA NA 135 182.97 64.35% 34

167 284.33 100.00% 63

17 New York Natural Heritage Program

Figure 6. Connecticut Vegetation Types 18 New York Natural Heritage Program

New York Ecological Communities

We documented 33 NY ecological communities (Edinger et al. 2002) within the study area totaling 284 acres covering 100% of the study area (Figure 7, Table 3). Of those, 18 were natural communities (189 acres, 67%) and 15 were cultural communities (95 acres, 33%). Natural Communities

The study area is mostly comprised of forested uplands (117 acres, 40%) with the top five largest being Appalachian oak-hickory forest (45 acres), oak-tulip tree forest (20 acres), successional northern hardwoods (18 acres), successional southern hardwoods (17 acres), and coastal oak-beech forest (15 acres). The top three largest wetland communities in the study area are red maple- hardwood swamp (37 acres), floodplain forest (6 acres), and shallow emergent marsh (11 acres). Cultural Communities

Croplands are the largest cultural community (59 acres) in the study area followed by mowed lawns (13 acres) and various plantations (12 acres).

Since most of the NY ecological communities are direct one-to-one equivalents with NVC associations in this study (Table 3), it would be redundant with the NVC section above to summarize their descriptions and distributions here. Please refer to the NVC code in Table 3 and look for relevant information about the matching association in the NVC section above or in the NVC KEC classification in Appendix A.

19 New York Natural Heritage Program

Figure 7. New York Natural Heritage Program Ecological Communities 20 New York Natural Heritage Program

Table 3. New York Ecological Communities at Kohler Environmental Center.

New York Number Number of Community NVC Code of % of Obs. NYNHP Ecological Community Name Code Cross-reference Polygons Acres Total Points

RIVERINE

Intermittent stream IS NA 2 1.78 0.63% 0

Rocky headwater stream RHS NA 3 1.70 0.60% 0

LACUSTRINE

Lacustrine Cultural

Farm pond/artificial pond FP/AP CEGL003059 1 0.06 0.02% 1

PALUSTRINE

Forested Mineral Soil Wetlands

Floodplain forest FF CEGL006036 5 5.50 1.93% 2

Red maple-hardwood swamp RM-HS CEGL006406 11 36.32 12.78% 10

Vernal pool VP CEGL006453 1 0.36 0.13% 1

Open Mineral Soil Wetlands CEGL002385 CEGL006044 CEGL006153 CEGL006446 Shallow emergent marsh SEM CEGL006461 11 8.84 3.11% 9 CEGL006446 Shallow emergent marsh//Shrub swamp SEM//SS CEGL006576 5 2.60 0.91% 1 CEGL005028 Shrub swamp SS CEGL006576 3 2.79 0.98% 1

TERRESTRIAL

Forested Uplands CEGL006173 Appalachian oak-hickory forest AO-HF CEGL006336 9 45.43 15.98% 11

Beech-maple mesic forest B-MMF CEGL006173 2 0.93 0.33% 1

Coastal oak-beech forest CO-BF CEGL006377 3 14.49 5.10% 3

Hemlock-northern hardwood forest H-NHF CEGL006088 1 1.61 0.57% 1

Oak-tulip tree forest O-TTF CEGL006125 4 19.85 6.98% 3 CEGL006407 Successional northern hardwoods SNH CEGL006506 7 17.90 6.30% 6 CEGL006599 CEGL007191 Successional southern hardwoods SSH CEGL007279 12 17.37 6.11% 6

Open Uplands

Successional old field SOF CEGL006107 6 7.55 2.66% 1 CEGL006107 Successional old field//Successional shrubland SOF//SUC.S CEGL006451 1 0.36 0.13% 0

Successional shrubland SUC.S CEGL006451 6 3.89 1.37% 2

Terrestrial Cultural

Cropland/field crops C/FC NA 16 50.47 17.75% 0

Cropland/row crops C/FC NA 4 8.43 2.97% 0 21 New York Natural Heritage Program

New York Number Number of Community NVC Code of % of Obs. NYNHP Ecological Community Name Code Cross-reference Polygons Acres Total Points

Orchard O NA 1 0.27 0.09% 0 CEGL007177 Pine plantation PP//SNH CEGL007178 2 8.34 2.93% 2

Conifer plantation CP CEGL006313 1 3.94 1.38% 1

Mowed lawn ML NA 2 3.81 1.34% 0

Mowed lawn with trees MLWT NA 10 8.76 3.08% 0

Mowed roadside/pathway MR/P NA 1 0.03 0.01% 0

Paved road/path PR/P NA 1 3.03 1.07% 0

Unpaved road/path UR/P NA 8 3.17 1.12% 0

Unpaved roads/pathway UR/P NA 1 0.70 0.25% 0

Building B NA 25 1.68 0.59% 0

Water Tower B NA 1 0.18 0.06% 0

Dredge spoils DS NA 1 2.19 0.77% 1

167 284.33 100.00% 63

Preliminary Statistical Analysis

We edited 46 observation points with cover data for accuracy and exported them into an Excel spreadsheet format compatible with PC-ORD version 5.0 Multivariate Analysis software (McCune and Mefford 2007) as described in the Methods section above. We removed species only identified to the genus level (e.g., Carex sp., Eleocharis sp.) from the dataset. We also removed plants labeled to broad categories, such as “mosses” or “grasses.” All species were kept separated by strata. For example, if red maple (Acer rubrum) occurred in the canopy and subcanopy it was treated as a unique “species” in PC-ORD. The final dataset was comprised of 46 plots (=observation points) and 262 species. We include selected result graphs from PC-ORD in Appendix C. Non-metric Multidimensional Scaling Results

NMS results divided the full dataset evenly into two main groups: forested and non-forested (Appendix C, Figures 1, 2, 3) with red maple-hardwood swamps points noticeably clustering on one graph (Appendix C, Figure 1). Extreme outliers with only one observation point include the successional old field (B01) and vernal pool (B15) in Appendix C on Figures 2 and 3 respectively.

We removed the open communities, such as mashes and fields, from the dataset and ran NMS on the forested communities only. The NMS results show a tighter grouping of red maple-hardwood swamp, floodplain forest, and the various successional forest points (Appendix C, Figures 4, 5, and 6). One point (D02) is intermediate between floodplain forest and successional forest groupings (Appendix C, Figure 5) reflecting its very disturbed condition at the top of the stream drainage on alluvial soils near the road. Another point (C03) is intermediate between floodplain forest and red maple-hardwood swamp (Appendix C, Figure 6) and is located on a small stream floodplain, but classified as the latter given the lack of characteristic floodplain species.

22 New York Natural Heritage Program

Lastly, we removed the forested wetlands and successional forests in order to classify the remaining upland forests (Appendix C, Figures 7, 8, and 9). This left only 14 points to classify. However, this exercise confirmed the following NVC vegetation associations: Red Oak - Northern Hardwood Forest (CEGL006173) with red oak and sugar maple codominant in the canopy; Northeastern Atlantic Coastal Oak - Beech Forest (CEGL006377) with mixed oak and American beech in the canopy; High Allegheny Rich Red Oak - Sugar Maple Forest (CEGL006125) with oak and tulip tree in the canopy. The remaining points were classified as Northeastern Dry Oak-Hickory Forest (CEGL006336) with mixed oak and mixed hickory in the canopy. The only point (D01) with a significant amount of hemlock in the subcanopy was classified as Hemlock - Beech - Oak Forest (CEGL006088).

Cluster Analysis Results

CA results grouped observation points into groups with strong similarities, such as shallow emergent marsh, red maple-hardwood swamp, and floodplain forest while upland forests with more species overlap tended to be mixed together (Appendix C, Figure 10). Reducing the dataset as was done for NMS above did not significantly change the initial result dendrogram, thus those graphs were excluded. The CA result dendrogram was particularly helpful in classifying closely related pairs at the far left of the graph.

Since we sampled relatively quick (15-20 minute) observation points and did not lay out measured, time-consuming (2-3 hour) plots it is likely that some species were overlooked. Thus, these results should be considered preliminary. We used these results in combination with the published classifications and NVC keys mentioned earlier to help identify association membership and mapping boundaries.

Condition Assessment

We assessed each observation point and tallied the number of non-native plant species and summed the percent cover all exotics present at each point. There were 46 points with species cover data with 33 (70%) having at least one non-native plant species present (Table 5). Non-native species were reported from four additional points (B10, C04, F04, F05), but cover data were not recorded. The number of non-native species per point ranged from zero to eight (avg. 2.3). The percent cover of non-natives ranged 0-100% (avg. 26.1%). The following 14 (30%) points had zero non-native plants: A02, A06, B05, B08, B09, B12, B15, B16, B17, C02, C03, D01, D08, and E03. These points tended to fall in polygons classified as shallow emergent marshes, red maple-hardwood swamp, and the mature forest types.

Although we did not conduct an exhaustive invasive species inventory of the study area, the observation point cover data can provide a spatial estimate of what species are currently present at high levels. The most frequently encountered non-native, invasive species with the highest percent cover in the study area are as follows:

• Multiflora Rose (Rosa multiflora) recorded at 18 points (39% of all points sampled) with an average cover of 14% (range <1 to 80% at point A04).

23 New York Natural Heritage Program

• Asiatic Bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus) recorded at 16 points (35% of all points sampled) with an average cover of 15% (range <1 to 55% at points A04 and C01). • Norway Maple (Acer platanoides) recorded at 10 points (22% of all points sampled) with an average cover of 11% (range <1 to 24% at point B04 and dominant at C04). • Japanese Barberry (Berberis thunbergii) recorded at 9 points (20% of all points sampled) with an average cover of 15% (range <1 to 100% at point B13).

Other invasive species with high percent cover, but limited to a few observation points include the following: Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) at points A01 and A03; Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima) at points A04 and D09; Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata) at point D03; and Lesser Celandine (Ranunculus ficaria) at point C08.

24 New York Natural Heritage Program

Table 4. Non-native plant species tally and sum of the percent cover.

Observation Number of non- Percent Cover Sum Most abundant non-native plant species at point Point native species of all non-natives A01 1 95 Phalaris arundinacea (95%)

A03 1 92 Phalaris arundinacea (92%)

A04 6 100 Rosa multiflora (80%), Celastrus orbiculatus (35%) A05 5 100 Rosa multiflora (45%), Acer platanoides (24%) A07 1 2 Rosa multiflora (2%) A08 2 5 Rosa multiflora (5%) A09 2 1 Rosa multiflora (1%) B01 8 72 Poa pratensis (45%), Trifolium repens (15%) B02 1 1 Solanum dulcamara (<1%) B03 1 5 Rosa multiflora (5%) B04 5 58 Acer platanoides (24%), Rosa multiflora (15%) B06 1 10 Rosa multiflora (10%) B10 1 - Rosa multiflora present B11 2 42 Rosa multiflora (41%)

B13 5 100 Berberis thunbergii (100%)

B14 3 22 Acer platanoides (20%)

C01 6 75 Celastrus orbiculatus (50%) C04 1 - Acer platanoides dominant C07 5 12 Celastrus orbiculatus (10%) C08 5 5 Acer platanoides (4%), Ranunculus ficaria present C09 7 33 Rosa multiflora (20%) C10 1 1 Solanum dulcamara (<1%) Acer platanoides (17%), D02 6 46 Rosa multiflora (9%) D03 5 57 Alliaria petiolata (40%) Aesculus hippocastanum (4%)*

D04 1 1 Euonymus sp. (1%)

D05 4 23 Rosa multiflora (23%), Fallopia japonica (<1%)* D06 1 20 Pinus resinosa (20%)* Ailanthus altissima (40%), Celastrus orbiculatus (25%), D09 6 100 Lonicera japonica (25%), Rosa multiflora (11%) D10 2 34 Acer platanoides (18%), Celastrus orbiculatus (16%) E01 2 6 Acer platanoides (4%), Celastrus orbiculatus (2%) E02 2 75 Artemesia vulgaris (60%), Elaeagnus umbellate (15%) Betula pendula (6%)*, Rosa multiflora (3%), E04 3 11 Berberis thunbergii (2%) E09 4 17 Rosa multiflora (15%), Berberis thunbergii (1%) E11 3 1 Celastrus orbiculatus (1%) F02 3 3 Celastrus orbiculatus (2%), Berberis thunbergii (1%) F04 1 - Rosa multiflora and Celastrus orbiculatus dense F05 1 - Berberis thunbergii dense

*Recorded at only one observation point in study area during 2013 field sampling.

25 New York Natural Heritage Program

We noted the incidence of garbage and yard waste in the study area. For example, we found old tires, discarded furniture, concrete forms, and a 55 gallon drum near point D02 and a black corrugated pipe near point C07. An abandoned truck was observed near point E04. In addition, we discovered piles of yard waste clippings near point F03. We noted ATV trails at points B16 and F02 with an average of 4% cover of the forest floor. These anthropogenic disturbances also lower the community condition rank. We recommend that future surveys include collecting information on other components of community condition: • Measure the age of large dbh trees using an increment borer (e.g., points A09, B09, B10, B14, C02, C08, D01, D03, D04, D05, E01, E11, and F02). • Measure the volume, species, and decay class of the coarse woody debris in suspected mature forest patches. • Conduct a floristic quality assessment of similar community patches or plots. • Measure the affect of deer browse on canopy tree recruitment in the understory using enclosures. • Document the presence of forest pests and diseases in the study area. • Use GIS to conduct a remotely-sensed landscape condition analysis to identify the areas that under the greatest stress from the surrounding developed landscape. • Survey for invasive species at different times of the year, since this study missed the ephemeral spring flora.

26 New York Natural Heritage Program

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the following people for making this project a successful and enjoyable experience:

Joe Scanio, Program Director, Kohler Environmental Center – for field assistance, project logistics, and providing accommodations.

Mary J. Russo, Ecology Data Manager, NatureServe – for producing the subset of the International Ecological Classification Standard of the vegetation associations of the study area in Appendix A (NatureServe 2013a).

NY Natural Heritage Program Staff

Greg Edinger (Chief Ecologist) – community inventory and mapping, report writing

Aissa Feldmann (Ecologist) – final editing of the Kohler Environmental Center 2013 Observation Point Plant List in Appendix B

Tim Howard (Director of Science) – project development, technical support, report editing

John Schmid (GIS Specialist) – GIS support, map quality control, report map production

Steve Young (Chief Botanist) – plant specimen identification

David Marston (Database Manager) – database programming and support, plant species list production, and producing the Access database subset for the study area.

27 New York Natural Heritage Program

REFERENCES

Bailey, R. Map: Ecoregions of North America. [revised]. 1997. Washington, DC, UDSA Forest Service in cooperation with The Nature Conservancy and the U. S. Geological Survey.

Edinger, G. J., D. J. Evans, A. D. Finton, D. M. Hunt, L. Lyons-Swift, and A. Olivero. 2000. Community field form instructions: Community Forms 1, 2, & 3. New York Natural Heritage Program, Latham, NY.

Edinger, G. J., D. J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T. G. Howard, D. M. Hunt, and A. M. Olivero. 2002. Ecological communities of New York State, Draft Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Reschke, C. 1990. Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, Albany, New York. 136 pp.

McCune, B. and J.B. Mefford. 2007. PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data, Version 5.0 MjM Software Design. Gleneden Beach, OR.

Metzler, K., and J. Barrett. 2006. The vegetation of Connecticut: A preliminary classification. State Geological and Natural History Survey, Report of Investigations No. 12. Connecticut Natural Diversity Database, Hartford.

NatureServe. 2013a. International Ecological Classification Standard: Terrestrial Ecological Classifications. Associations of Kohler Environmental Center, Choate Rosemary Hall, Connecticut. NatureServe Central Databases. Arlington, VA. Data current as of 8 November 2013.

NatureServe. 2013b. International Ecological Classification Standard: Terrestrial Ecological Classifications. Associations of Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. NatureServe Central Databases. Arlington, VA. U.S.A. Data current as of 15 May 2013.

Parker, C. P., K. A. Elliot, D. C. Dey, E. Boysen, and S. G. Newmaster. 2001. Managing succession in conifer plantations: converting young red pine (Pinus resinosa Ait.) plantations to native forest types by thinning and underplanting. The Forestry Chronicle 77(4): 721-734.

Robinson, P. and Luttrell, G.W. 1985, Revision of some stratigraphic names in central Massachusetts, In Stratigraphic notes, 1984: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin, 1605-A, p. A71- A78.

Searcy, K.B., B. F. Wilson, and J. H. Fownes. 2003. Influence of bedrock and aspect on soils and plant distribution in the Holyoke Range, Massachusetts. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 130(3): 158-169.

28 New York Natural Heritage Program

Sneddon, L. and S. Neid. 2004a. National Vegetation Classification, Vegetation of the Lower New England (LNE)/Northern Piedmont Ecoregion: A key to the types. NatureServe, Boston, MA.

Sneddon, L. and S. Neid. 2004a. National Vegetation Classification, Vegetation of the North Atlantic Coast (NAC): A key to the types. NatureServe, Boston, MA.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2008. USGS 2008 High Resolution Orthoimagery for the Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven, Connecticut Urban Areas. Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP): http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2698&q=322898&deepNav_GID=1707

U.S. Geological Survey. 2012. 2012 Multispectral Color Orthophotography at 1 foot GSD, State Plane Zone 0600 (CT) projection, GeoTIFF file format for the entire state of Connecticut. Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP): http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2698&q=322898&deepNav_GID=1707

Weldy, T., D. Werier, and A. Nelson. 2013 New York Flora Atlas. [S. M. Landry and K. N. Campbell (original application development), Florida Center for Community Design and Research. University of South Florida]. New York Flora Association, Albany, New York.

29 New York Natural Heritage Program

APPENDIX A

National Vegetation Classification Associations of Kohler Environmental Center

30 New York Natural Heritage Program

APPENDIX B

Kohler Environmental Center 2013 Observation Point Plant List

31 New York Natural Heritage Program

Table B-1: All plant species encountered during field surveys within the study area, August 2013.

Family Scientific Name Common Name Aceraceae Acer negundo Box Elder Aceraceae Acer platanoides Norway Maple Aceraceae Acer rubrum Red Maple Aceraceae Acer saccharum Sugar Maple Alismataceae Sagittaria latifolia Broadleaf Arrowhead Alliaceae Allium tricoccum Small White Leek Anacardiaceae Rhus glabra Smooth Sumac Anacardiaceae Rhus typhina Staghorn Sumac Anacardiaceae Toxicodendron radicans Poison Ivy Aquifoliaceae Ilex verticillata Common Winterberry Araceae Arisaema triphyllum Jack-in-the-Pulpit Araceae Lemna sp. Duckweed Araceae Symplocarpus foetidus Skunk Cabbage Asclepiadaceae Asclepias incarnata Swamp Milkweed Asclepiadaceae Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed Asteraceae Ambrosia artemisiifolia Annual Ragweed Asteraceae Artemisia vulgaris Common Wormwood Asteraceae Conyza canadensis Canadian Horseweed Asteraceae Erigeron annuus White-top Fleabane Asteraceae Eupatorium perfoliatum Common Boneset Asteraceae Eurybia divaricata White Wood-aster Asteraceae Euthamia graminifolia Flat-top Fragrant Goldenrod Asteraceae Eutrochium purpureum Sweet-scented Joe-Pye Weed Asteraceae Rudbeckia hirta Black-eyed Susan Asteraceae Solidago caesia Bluestem Goldenrod Asteraceae Solidago canadensis Harger's Goldenrod Asteraceae Solidago gigantea Giant Goldenrod Asteraceae Solidago patula Roundleaf Goldenrod Asteraceae Solidago rugosa Rough-leaf Goldenrod Asteraceae Symphyotrichum laeve Smooth Blue Aster Asteraceae Symphyotrichum puniceum Purplestem Aster Asteraceae Vernonia noveboracensis New York Ironweed Balsaminaceae Impatiens capensis Spotted Jewelweed Berberidaceae Berberis thunbergii Japanese Barberry Betulaceae Alnus incana ssp. rugosa Speckled Alder Betulaceae Alnus serrulata Brook-side Alder Betulaceae Betula alleghaniensis Yellow Birch Betulaceae Betula lenta Sweet Birch 32 New York Natural Heritage Program

Family Scientific Name Common Name Betulaceae Betula pendula European Weeping Birch Betulaceae Carpinus caroliniana American Hornbeam Betulaceae Corylus americana American Hazelnut Betulaceae Ostrya virginiana Hophornbeam Brachytheciaceae Brachythecium salebrosum Brachythecium Moss Brassicaceae Alliaria petiolata Garlic Mustard Brassicaceae Hesperis matronalis Dame's-rocket Caprifoliaceae Lonicera japonica Japanese Honeysuckle Caprifoliaceae Lonicera tatarica Tartarian Honeysuckle Caprifoliaceae Viburnum acerifolium Mapleleaf Viburnum Caprifoliaceae Viburnum dentatum Southern Arrowwood Caprifoliaceae Viburnum lentago Nannyberry Celastraceae Celastrus orbiculatus Oriental Bittersweet Celastraceae Euonymus alatus Winged Burning Bush Celastraceae Euonymus sp. Spindletree Clethraceae Clethra alnifolia Coast Pepper-bush Climaciaceae Climacium dendroides Tree Climacium Moss Convolvulaceae Cuscuta gronovii Gronovius Dodder Cornaceae Cornus alternifolia Alternate-leaf Dogwood Cornaceae Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Cornaceae Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood Cornaceae Cornus racemosa Gray Dogwood Cornaceae Cornus sericea Red Osier Dogwood Crassulaceae Penthorum sedoides Ditch-stonecrop Cupressaceae Juniperus virginiana Red Cedar Cyperaceae Carex bromoides Bromelike Sedge Cyperaceae Carex crinita Fringed Sedge Cyperaceae Carex glaucodea Blue Sedge Cyperaceae Carex lurida Shallow Sedge Cyperaceae Carex pensylvanica Pennsylvania Sedge Cyperaceae Carex rosea Rosy Sedge Cyperaceae Carex scabrata Rough Sedge Cyperaceae Carex scoparia Pointed Broom Sedge Cyperaceae Carex sp. Sedge Cyperaceae Carex squarrosa Squarrose Sedge Cyperaceae Carex stipata Owlfruit Sedge Cyperaceae Carex stricta Tussock Sedge Cyperaceae Cyperus strigosus Straw-colored Flatsedge Cyperaceae Eleocharis sp. Spikerush Cyperaceae Scirpus atrovirens Woolgrass Bulrush 33 New York Natural Heritage Program

Family Scientific Name Common Name Cyperaceae Scirpus cyperinus Cottongrass Bulrush Dryopteridaceae Polystichum acrostichoides Christmas Fern Elaeagnaceae Elaeagnus umbellata Autumn Olive Ericaceae Chimaphila maculata Spotted Wintergreen Ericaceae Monotropa uniflora Indian-pipe Ericaceae Pyrola elliptica Shinleaf Ericaceae Rhododendron periclymenoides Pink Azalea Ericaceae Vaccinium corymbosum Highbush Blueberry Fabaceae Lotus corniculatus Birdfoot Deervetch Fabaceae Robinia pseudoacacia Black Locust Fabaceae Trifolium pratense Red Clover Fabaceae Trifolium repens White Clover Fagaceae Fagus grandifolia American Beech Fagaceae Quercus alba White Oak Fagaceae Quercus bicolor Swamp White Oak Fagaceae Quercus coccinea Scarlet Oak Fagaceae Quercus palustris Pin Oak Fagaceae Quercus rubra Red Oak Fagaceae Quercus velutina Black Oak Geraniaceae Geranium maculatum Wild Crane's-bill Hamamelidaceae Hamamelis virginiana American Witch-hazel Hippocastanaceae Aesculus hippocastanum Horse Chestnut Iridaceae Iris versicolor Blueflag Juglandaceae Carya cordiformis Bitternut Hickory Juglandaceae Carya glabra Pignut Hickory Juglandaceae Carya ovata Shagbark Hickory Juglandaceae Carya sp. Hickory Juncaceae Juncus effusus Common Rush Lamiaceae Mentha arvensis Corn Mint Lamiaceae Prunella vulgaris Self-heal Lauraceae Lindera benzoin Spicebush Lauraceae Sassafras albidum Sassafras Liliaceae Erythronium americanum Yellow Trout-lily Liliaceae Maianthemum canadense Canada May-flower Liliaceae Maianthemum racemosum Large False Solomon’s-seal Liliaceae Polygonatum biflorum Common Solomon's-seal Liliaceae Polygonatum pubescens Downy Solomon's-seal Liliaceae Trillium erectum Wake Robin Liliaceae Uvularia grandiflora Large-flowered Bellwort Liliaceae Uvularia sessilifolia Sessile-leaved Bellwort 34 New York Natural Heritage Program

Family Scientific Name Common Name Magnoliaceae Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree Nyssaceae Nyssa sylvatica Blackgum Oleaceae Fraxinus americana White Ash Oleaceae Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Onagraceae Circaea lutetiana Intermediate Enchanter's Nightshade Onagraceae Epilobium coloratum Purple-leaf Willow-herb Onagraceae Ludwigia palustris Marsh Seedbox Onocleaceae Matteuccia struthiopteris Ostrich Fern Onocleaceae Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive Fern Osmundaceae Osmunda cinnamomea Cinnamon Fern Osmundaceae Osmunda claytoniana Interrupted Fern Oxalidaceae Oxalis sp. Wood-sorrel Papaveraceae Chelidonium majus Greater Celadine Phytolaccaceae Phytolacca americana Common Pokeweed Pinaceae Pinus resinosa Red Pine Pinaceae Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine Pinaceae Pseudotsuga menziesii Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir Pinaceae Tsuga canadensis Eastern Hemlock Plantaginaceae Plantago major Nipple-seed Plantain Platanaceae Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Poaceae Cinna latifolia Slender Wood Reedgrass Poaceae Dactylis glomerata Orchard Grass Poaceae Elymus repens Creeping Wild Rye Poaceae Glyceria striata Fowl Mannagrass Poaceae Grasses Grasses Poaceae Leersia oryzoides Rice Cutgrass Poaceae Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canary Grass Poaceae Phleum pratense Meadow Timothy Poaceae Poa pratensis Bluegrass Poaceae Poa trivialis Scribner Bluegrass Polygonaceae Fallopia japonica Japanese Knotweed Polygonaceae Persicaria arifolia Halberd-leaf Tearthumb Polygonaceae Persicaria hydropiperoides Opelousa Smartweed Polygonaceae Persicaria maculosa Spotted Lady's-thumb Polygonaceae Persicaria sagittata Arrow-leaf Tearthumb Polygonaceae Persicaria virginiana Jumpseed Polygonaceae Rumex crispus Curly Dock Polygonaceae Rumex obtusifolius Broad-leaf Dock Polytrichaceae Atrichum angustatum Atrichum Moss Ranunculaceae Actaea pachypoda White Baneberry 35 New York Natural Heritage Program

Family Scientific Name Common Name Ranunculaceae Ranunculus ficaria Fig Buttercup Ranunculaceae Ranunculus sceleratus Cursed Crowfoot Ranunculaceae Thalictrum pubescens Tall Meadow-rue Rhamnaceae Rhamnus cathartica Buckthorn Rosaceae Geum canadense White Avens Rosaceae Malus coronaria Sweet Crab-apple Rosaceae Malus sylvestris European Crabapple Rosaceae Prunus avium Sweet Cherry Rosaceae Prunus serotina Wild Black Cherry Rosaceae Rosa multiflora Rambler Rose Rosaceae Rubus allegheniensis Allegheny Blackberry Rosaceae Rubus flagellaris Northern Dewberry Rosaceae Rubus hispidus Bristly Dewberry Rosaceae Rubus occidentalis Black Raspberry Rosaceae Rubus sp. Blackberry Rubiaceae Galium palustre Marsh Bedstraw Rubiaceae Mitchella repens Partridgeberry Salicaceae Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Scrophulariaceae Mimulus ringens Square-stem Monkeyflower Simaroubaceae Ailanthus altissima Tree-of-heaven Smilacaceae Smilax rotundifolia Roundleaf Greenbrier Solanaceae Solanum carolinense Carolina Horsenettle Solanaceae Solanum dulcamara Climbing Nightshade Thelypteridaceae Thelypteris noveboracensis New York Fern Thelypteridaceae Thelypteris palustris Marsh Fern Thuidiaceae Thuidium delicatulum Delicate Thuidium Moss Typhaceae Typha latifolia Broad-leaf Cattail Ulmaceae Ulmus americana American Elm Ulmaceae Ulmus rubra Slippery Elm Urticaceae Boehmeria cylindrica False Nettle Urticaceae Laportea canadensis Wood Nettle Urticaceae Pilea pumila Canada Clearweed Verbenaceae Verbena hastata Swamp Verbena Violaceae Viola cucullata Marsh Blue Violet Vitaceae Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper Vitaceae Vitis riparia Riverbank Grape Woodsiaceae Athyrium filix-femina Lady Fern

36 New York Natural Heritage Program

APPENDIX C Kohler Environmental Center Study Area PC-ORD Result Graphs

Figure C-1. NMS Axes 1 and 2 with 46 points by 262 species. Open palustrine and open terrestrial communities are above the red line and forested uplands and wetlands communities are below. Forested wetlands cluster in green circle. Key to observation point codes: first and second character “KE” for Kohler Environmental, third character for transect letter, fourth and fifth characters for two digit observation point number, last three characters for community acronym. For example, KEDO2FF represents observation point number 02 on transect D and was classified as a floodplain forest (FF) in the field.

37 New York Natural Heritage Program

Figure C-2. NMS Axes 1 and 3 with 46 points by 262 species.Most palustrine communities are to the right of red line and most upland communities are to the left. Single example of successional old field outlier is located to the left indicated by arrow.

38 New York Natural Heritage Program

Figure C-3. NMS 46 points vs. 262 species. Forested uplands and wetlands are to the left of red line. Open palustrine and open terrestrial communities are to the right. A single example of vernal pool outlier is to the left indicated by arrow.

39 New York Natural Heritage Program

Figure C-4. NMS Axes 1 and 2 with 31 points by 207 species. Successional forests cluster in blue circle. Disturbed floodplain forest at point D02 (KED02FF) reclassified as a successional type. Red maple-hardwood swamps cluster in green circle.

40 New York Natural Heritage Program

Figure C-5. NMS Axes 1 and 3 with 31 points by 207 species. Successional forests cluster in blue circle. Red maple-hardwood swamps cluster in green circle. Floodplain forest cluster in yellow circle. Disturbed floodplain forest at point D02 (KED02FF) is intermediate between floodplain and successional types (indicated by arrows).

41 New York Natural Heritage Program

Figure C-6. NMS Axes 2 and 3 with 31 points by 207 species.Coastal oak-beech forests cluster in blue circle. Red maple-hardwood swamps cluster in green circle. Floodplain forest cluster in yellow circle. Red maple-hardwood swamp at point C03 (KEC03RM-) is intermediate between floodplain forest and red maple swamp types (indicated by arrows). C03 classified as red maple swamp based on muck soils and lack of characteristic floodplain forest species.

42 New York Natural Heritage Program

Figure C-7. NMS Axes 1 and 2 with 14 points by 121 species. Coastal oak-beech forests (CEGL006377) cluster in blue circle. Red Oak – Northern Hardwood Forest (CEGL006173) cluster in purple circle. Oak-tulip tree forest (CEGL006125) point C07 (KEC07O-T) outlier is indicated by arrow.

43 New York Natural Heritage Program

Figure C-8. NMS Axes 1 and 3 with 14 points by 121 species. Red Oak – Northern Hardwood Forest (CEGL006173) points cluster in purple circle. Appalachian oak-hickory forest (CEGL006336) point A09 (KEA09AO-) outlier is indicated by arrow.

44 New York Natural Heritage Program

Figure C-9. NMS Axes 2 and 3 with 14 points by 121 species. Coastal oak-beech forests (CEGL006377) cluster in blue circle. Oak-tulip tree forests (CEGL006125) cluster in red circle.

45 New York Natural Heritage Program

Figure C-10. Cluster Analysis 46 points vs. 262 species.

46 New York Natural Heritage Program

47 New York Natural Heritage Program