TOWN OF BRISTOL Inventory of Land Use and Land Cover

Prepared for:

Ontario County Water Resources Council 20 Ontario Street, 3rd Floor Canandaigua, 14424

and

Town of Bristol 6740 County Road 32 Canandaigua, New York 14424

Prepared by:

Dr. Bruce Gilman Department of Environmental Conservation and Horticulture Finger Community College 3325 Marvin Sands Drive Canandaigua, New York 14424-8395

2020

Cover image:

Ground level view of a perched white oak forest community (S1S2) surrounding a that was discovered and documented on Johnson Hill north of Dugway Road. This forest community type is rare statewide and extremely rare locally, and harbors a unique assemblage of uncommon plant species. (Image by the Bruce Gilman). Acknowledgments:

For over a decade, the Ontario County Planning Department has supported a working partnership between local towns and the Department of Environmental Conservation and Horticulture at Community College that involves field research, ground truthing and digital mapping of natural land cover and cultural land use patterns. Previous studies have been completed for the Canandaigua watershed, the southern Honeoye Valley, the watershed, the complete Towns of Canandaigua, Gorham, Richmond and Victor, and the woodlots, and riparian corridors in the Towns of Seneca, Phelps and Geneva. This report summarizes the latest land use/land cover study conducted in the Town of Bristol. The final report would not have been completed without the vital assistance of Terry Saxby of the Ontario County Planning Department. He is gratefully thanked for his assistance with landowner information, his patience as the fieldwork was slowly completed, and his noteworthy help transcribing the field maps to geographic information system (GIS) shape files. Sheri Norton, Ontario County Information Services, assisted with map production, shape file maintenance and production of data summary tables. The GIS format of this data will provide ease of retrieval and allow for immediate reference use during site project review, while the written summary report will create a modern plant community analysis for the Town of Bristol’s natural resources database, a vital component for future updates to the Town’s comprehensive plan. Plant species vouchered and identified during this fieldwork will be added to the Finger Lakes Herbarium housed on the FLCC campus and enhance an ongoing update for a second publication of Ontario County Flora book. Funding for this work was provided through a special project grant from the Ontario County Water Resources Council, the water quality coordinating committee for the County. John Palomaki, P.J. Emerick and Russell Welser have served as recent chairpersons for the Council and they are acknowledged for their leadership efforts in overseeing the Council’s activities and the special projects mini-grant selection committee. I am also grateful to the college students that accompanied me on my fieldwork throughout the Town of Bristol over several seasons. And, of course, none of this would have been possible without the cooperation of numerous landowners I met along the way that graciously gave permission to inventory the plant communities on their properties. Project Introduction:

The Town of Bristol, home to the hamlets of Bristol (formerly known as Baptist Hill) and Bristol Center, covers about 37 square miles of land in the west-central region of Ontario County. The town is home to 2315 people (based on 2010 census). This approximates the town’s population in 1820, 2429 people, and the town population has varied widely over the decades since its formation in 1789 from townships 8 and 9 in the 4th range of the Phelps and Gorham purchase (Conover 1893). Historic human land uses likely depended on town population size and lifestyle but little geographic information exists to document shifting human land use patterns. Air photo documentation only became available in the early 20th century. A human land use cycle of original forest conversion to multiple agriculture uses, followed by farm abandonment on marginal sites is most probable.

State Route 20A passes east-west across the town while State Route 64 travels north-south within a broad valley now occupied by Mud Creek (also known as Ganargua Creek). Mud Creek drains north, passing through the towns of Bloomfield, Victor and Farmington before leaving the county. While the Mud Creek watershed serves as the major drainage network for the eastern half of the town, two additional watersheds drain most of the western portion of the town. The Bebee Creek watershed drains the northwestern section of the town, eventually flowing into Honeoye Creek. The Mill Creek watershed drains the southwestern section of the town and has a confluence with Honeoye Creek near its source in the hamlet of Honeoye. The extreme southern corners of the town drain, on the west side, to Honeoye Lake, and on the east side, to . The town of Bristol watersheds comprise part of the larger HUC 12 watershed in New York State. Additional natural resource information is available on the Town of Bristol website (www.townofbristol.org).

The rural town is located 50 minutes south of Rochester, New York, and 15 minutes west of Canandaigua, New York. Geographically, the town is located between the coastal plain to the north and the Appalachian Plateau to the south, and has a terrestrial landscape ranging from ridged glacial moraines to steep, glacially scoured bedrock hills with postglacially, water eroded east-west drainage ravines. One such ravine, Center Gully, has its scenic origin along the 4-H Camp Bristol Hills property, former site of the Ontario County Fairgrounds. Another ravine on the west side of the Bristol Valley is the famous location of the “burning spring”. Methane gas emanating from the shale rocks can be ignited! The Bristol Valley itself is located within a north-south glacial trough extending through the town. At the close of the Wisconsin Stage of the Pleistocene Ice Age, this trough held Glacial Lake Bristol as evidenced by several surficial geologic features including an abandoned lake outlet in the neighboring town of South Bristol that drained southeast to the glacial lake found in the Canandaigua glacial trough at that time. There are also ancient deltaic deposits on the Bristol Valley floor, where streams once drained into the former glacial lake, and elevated strandlines, abandoned beaches part way up the steep hillsides marking shoreline positions of the former glacial lake.

The town of Bristol is located within The Nature Conservancy’s High Allegheny Plateau and Great Lakes Ecoregions. Alternatively, using the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Ecozone classification scheme, the town straddles the Finger Lakes Highlands and the Central Appalachians. Bedrock geology consists primarily of shale, siltstone and sandstone with relatively thin strata of limestone. Rock layers are exposed in ravines and along upper slopes and top edges of the large bedrock hills. Surficial geology varies widely and includes thick lateral moraine deposits along the northern entrance to the Bristol Valley as well as glaciolacustrine varves on the valley floor. The former were deposited along the edge of ice tongues that lingered in the valley during ice front retreat. The latter represent annual couplets of silt and clay that settled out to the glacial lake bottom during summer and winter, respectively. Dropstones released by melting icebergs floating on the glacial lake are also present. And there are innumerable glacial erratics scattered along the hillside slopes, sloughed off the massive, nearly one mile thick ice sheet at various times.

The Town of Bristol can be located on the U.S.G.S. Bristol Center topographic quadrangle map sheet now available on-line their map locator software (www.usgs.gov). Elevations within the town range from approximately 870 to 1940 feet above sea level.

Terrestrial areas within the town of Bristol have a diverse mosaic of cultural land uses and natural land covers that continue to change in response to altered human activities and natural successional processes. These plant community cover types have characteristic botanical assemblages and provide critical habitat for many of the local wildlife species ranging from small chipmunks to large black bears. Classification of plant community cover types reported here follows the protocols established, published and utilized by the New York Natural Heritage Program, a cooperative endeavor between the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and The Nature Conservancy, the world’s largest non-profit conservation organization. Their hierarchical classification scheme begins with broad ecological systems, then subdivisions describing cultural and natural categories, and finally ends with specific plant community cover types. The Heritage Program ranks each plant community cover type for its rarity and vulnerability at two geographic scales: a global scale (G) and a state-wide scale (S). Ranking scores range from one (plant communities with few occurrences that are judged to be rare plant communities) to five (common plant communities presumed to be secure across the geographic scales). State rankings can assist local towns with developing a sense of special significance for certain plant community cover types found within their municipal boundaries. A third scale modeled after the New York Natural Heritage Program approach assigns local significance (L) within the Town of Bristol based entirely on the town occurrences data collected during this field inventory project. At this finest of scales, some plant community types that are rare within the town of Bristol stand out. These plant communities should be considered for local protection efforts like conservation easements or outright fee title acquisition.

This inventory project represents a “snapshot” of the plant community resources within the Town of Bristol. In the future, communities will change due to natural succession and/or altered uses by local residents. Four ecological and broadly defined systems occur within the town: riverine, lacustrine, palustrine and terrestrial. These systems contain both cultural and natural community types and 51 different plant communities and community combinations were detected. Most community types received a global ranking of G4 or G5 and a state ranking of S4 or S5, indicating their common occurrences across the geographic scales. However, seven plant community cover types had state rankings of S2 or S3 suggesting rarer occurrences, and if the plant community has high quality, these sites are recommended for inclusion in the Town of Bristol comprehensive plan update and special consideration in the site plan review process. These plant community types included oxbow lake/ (G4 S3), floodplain forest (G3G4 S2S3), silver maple-ash swamp (G3G4 S2S3), (G4 S3S4), perched swamp white oak swamp (G3G4 S1S2), shale talus slope woodland (G3G4 S3) and maple-basswood rich mesic forest (G4 S3). It is not surprising that most of these plant communities are associated with wetlands, an ecosystem that has historically been abused, altered or destroyed by human activities. Still other natural plant community types have local significance due to their limited occurrence within the Town. These have been assigned a local (L) ranking that mimics the approach of the Natural Heritage Program classification scheme. Having only one occurrence within the town are confined river (G4 S4 L1) and perched swamp white oak swamp (G3G4 S1S2 L1). Having only two town-wide occurrences is the natural plant community of chestnut oak forest (G3G4 S4 L2). All other natural plant communities detected in the fieldwork had multiple occurrences within the Town of Bristol.

The next sections of the report contains an explanation of ground-truthing methodology used for field inventory, GIS shape file creation, town-wide acreage summaries for each community type, and descriptions of characteristic plant and animal species to be expected within each community type. Because these plant community descriptions are taken directly from the updated version of the Natural Heritage Program classification manual (Edinger et al. 2014) and knowing that most plant communities have varying composition across New York State, several descriptions have been amended by the author to better describe the local expression of that plant community type within the Town of Bristol.

Project Description:

Brief History:

When the Finger Lakes Community College Foundation accepted nearly 50 acres of land, including a residential home and small storage building in the southern Honeoye Lake watershed in 1999, college faculty suddenly had an off-campus property that could be used for a variety of educational endeavors. One of the first activities at the newly acquired Muller Field Station was the establishment of an operational walleye hatchery where students could develop their fish rearing skills while also building their résumé for future employment. Attention then turned to the landscape surrounding the field station. Over 2500 acres of conservation lands owned by several organizations could provide a wealth of habitats for student research, but what species were present? To begin to answer this question, the college sponsored a biodiversity survey of the entire southern Honeoye Valley and ultimately a working summary report was prepared (Gilman 2004). One aspect of the report was a description of land use and land cover types, complete with a detailed map. This portion of the project was completed collaboratively with Ontario County Planning Department staff, especially the expertise and effort provided by former Planning Department staff member Kevin Schultz. The impetus for county-wide land use and land cover information and associated mapping of habitats gained momentum, and several additional projects across the county soon followed. Field inventory, attribution of map polygons and report preparation took place in several areas within the county but the Town of Bristol was not initially included except where part of the Honeoye Lake and Canandaigua Lake watersheds.

Work in the town of Bristol is the most recent county-college collaborative land use/land cover project. It began with an informal inquiry and presentation to the town’s Comprehensive Plan Committee in September 2016. By October 2017, the land use/land cover project was created at the community college, funded in part by a $2000 special projects grant from the Ontario County Water Resources Council and a commitment of staff time within the Ontario County Department of Planning. Aerial imagery maps were prepared and field surveys (i.e., “ground-truthing” of the landscape through extensive site visits) began in 2018 and was completed in 2019. GIS shape file creation and spreadsheet data summary continued in 2020. This report updates the New York Natural Heritage staff surveys for part of the town (Olivero and Weldy 2000) and extends mapping coverage across the entire town.

Objectives of the Study:

Discussions among Town of Bristol officials, staff at the Ontario County Planning Department, and Dr. Bruce Gilman at Finger Lakes Community College established the following goals:

1. Inventory the vegetation patterns in the Town of Bristol. These patterns will include natural plant communities (land cover) and cultural plant communities (land use). All patterns will be ground-truthed through field survey except where property access is denied. For those exceptions, interpretation of Pictometry © images will be used to recognize vegetation types and establish boundaries with neighboring features. Plant communities with a spatial extent as small as one acre may be inventoried. Small linear patterns (e.g., hedgerows, intermittent stream, roadways) can provide important connectivity among plant communities, and point features (e.g., springs, cell phone towers) may significantly alter local environmental conditions but both are beyond the scope of this inventory.

2. Using the hierarchal classification scheme developed by the New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP), assign a community cover type name to the vegetation observed during field work or evaluated on Pictometry © images. Three community cover type names not found in the on-line NYNHP classification manual but used by their staff, gravel mine (abandoned), outdoor recreation and parking area, will be used as cover type names in this inventory. Where vegetation is a complex mosaic of community cover types, a combined cover type name (e.g., deep emergent //floodplain forest) will be used.

3. Create maps of the vegetation patterns in the Town of Bristol using ESRI ArcView © geographic information system (GIS) software. With Pictometry © images taken over several recent years as the base map, shape files will be developed by heads-up digitizing at the County Planning Department under the direction of staff member Terry Saxby. Quality control will be assured by using topology to remove inadvertent slivers in the shape files. All vegetation polygons will be color-coded and attributed with the NYNHP community cover type code names. A detailed map illustrating the plant community patterns will be developed and made available electronically and as a large hard copy poster for Town of Bristol display purposes.

4. Evaluate the ecological significance of natural plant communities within the Town of Bristol. Using the global and state ranking approach described in the NYNHP classification manual, a local ranking will also be developed to recognize special natural areas at the smaller scale of the local town geography. The design of the local ranking will incorporate rarity and frequency of occurrence, both derived from this detailed field inventory, into a numerical score of L1 (locally rare), L2 (locally uncommon) and L3 (special concern status).

5. Recommend opportunities to conserve remaining natural areas in the Town of Bristol. Conserving natural land cover types may involve property purchase, easement agreements or other appropriate strategies. Town officials will be encouraged to recognize special natural areas and include them in open space protection guidelines. Public and private landowners should be encouraged to reconnect fragmented natural areas through appropriate management techniques such as establishing riparian buffer strips and maintaining hedgerows.

Results:

Field data was summarized using the classification scheme and cover type categories found in the NYNHP classification manual, Ecological Communities of New York State (2014). This publication is the primary reference for plant community classification in New York State. Its success and acceptance by a wide range of users is driven by its lofty goal to be an all-inclusive classification; it contains small to large natural plant communities as well as plant communities created and maintained by humans. Each plant community belongs to one of seven major systems. The systems are then further divided into subsystems. Within each subsystem are many different plant community cover types. The characteristic species of the plant community cover types are described, and their rarity and vulnerability are presented at a global and state scale. In this organized approach, significant natural communities can be designated as priorities for conservation thereby assuring that future generations can enjoy the full array of biological diversity found within New York State.

The field inventories in the Town of Bristol detected four major systems, nine subsystems and 38 plant community cover types. Thirteen combined cover types were also noted, leading to a summary total of 51 mapping units presented as color-coded polygons. Combined cover types are distinguished where the original plant community is thought to be in the process of changing into another plant community (e.g., an old conifer plantation reverting back to natural forest), or naturally high interspersion (e.g., open patches of shrub swamp dispersed within a floodplain forest). Combined plant cover types were expected within the town. The classification, frequency of occurrence (count), and total acreage for all plant community cover types and combinations is presented in TABLE 1. Full plant community cover type descriptions, a map and descriptive legend displaying spatial occurrences as well as scientific study references are found in the APPENDIX.

The NYNHP ranking system presented in TABLE 1 reflects an element’s rarity and suspected vulnerability. In their approach to biodiversity, an element may be a plant or animal species, or a natural community. Plant community cover type ranks are used in this table. The ranks carry no legal weight but are believed to accurately reflect what is currently known about the rarity of that plant community. In this case, the global rank suggests the rarity of the community throughout the world while the state rank suggests the rarity within New York State. As new data become available, the ranks may be revised to reflect the recently acquired information. The following explanations are used for element (species and communities) rankings by the New York Natural Heritage Program:

GLOBAL RANK G1 = critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences, or very few remaining acres, or miles of stream) or especially vulnerable to extinction because of some factor of its biology.

G2 = imperiled globally because of rarity (6-20 occurrences, or few remaining acres, or miles of stream) or very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range because of other factors.

G3 = either rare and local throughout its range (21-100 occurrences), or found locally (even abundantly at some of its locations) in a restricted range, or vulnerable to extinction throughout its range because of other factors.

G4 = apparently secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery

G5 = demonstrably secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery

GH = historically known, with the expectation that it might be rediscovered

GX = believed to be extinct

GU = status unknown

STATE RANK S1 = typically 5 or fewer occurrences, very few remaining individuals, acres, miles of stream, or some factor of its biology making it especially vulnerable in New York State.

S2 = typically 6-20 occurrences, few remaining individuals, acres, miles of stream, or factors demonstrably making it very vulnerable in New York State

S3 = typically 21-100 occurrences, limited acreage, or miles of stream in New York State.

S4 = apparently secure in New York State.

S5= demonstrably secure in New York State.

SH = historically known from New York State, but not seen in the last 15 years.

SX = apparently extirpated from New York State.

SE = exotic, not native to New York State.

SR = state report only, no verified specimens known from New York State.

SU = status unknown.

TABLE 1 – Land use/land cover data within the Town of Bristol, New York. Data includes classification summaries, number of local occurrences, total areal coverage, and conservation rankings for each plant community cover type.

System Subsystem Community Cover Type Count Acres NYNHP Ranks Riverine Natural streams Confined river 1 58.5 G4 S4

Lacustrine Lacustrine Oxbow lake/pond 19 7.7 G4 S3 Natural Eutrophic pond 14 8.6 G4 S4

Lacustrine Farm pond/artificial pond 433 197.2 G5 S5 cultural Palustrine Open mineral Deep emergent marsh 225 306.8 G5 S5 soil wetlands Deep emergent marsh// 1 4.3 G3G4 S2S3 Floodplain forest Shallow emergent marsh 217 222.7 G5 S5

Shallow emergent marsh// 1 0.6 G3G4 S2S3 Silver maple-ash swamp Shallow emergent marsh// 4 29.2 G5 S5 Shrub swamp Shrub swamp 156 329.6 G5 S5

Shrub swamp// 1 3.2 G3G4 S2S3 Floodplain forest Shrub swamp// 1 3.4 G5 S5 Successional northern hardwoods Forested mineral Floodplain forest 51 94.2 G3G4 S2S3 soil wetlands Silver maple-ash swamp 44 358.3 G3G4 S2S3

Vernal pool 21 9.0 G4 S3S4

Perched swamp white oak 1 4.4 G3G4 S1S2 swamp Terrestrial Open uplands Erosional slope/bluff 7 1.9 G4 S4

Successional old field 669 1714.2 G4 S4

Successional old field// 8 37.6 G4 S4 Conifer plantation

System Subsystem Community Cover Type Count Acres NYNHP Ranks Terrestrial Open uplands Successional old field// 9 22.3 G4 S4 (cont.) Successional northern hardwoods Successional old field// 87 461.7 G4 S4 Successional shrubland Successional shrubland 416 878.3 G4 S4

Successional shrubland// 6 16.5 G4 S4 Conifer plantation Successional shrubland// 113 532.9 G4 S4 Successional northern hardwoods Successional shrubland// 2 2.8 G4 S4 Successional southern hardwoods Barrens and Shale talus slope woodland 12 11.4 G3G4 S3 woodlands Forested uplands Appalachian oak-hickory 68 2693.2 G4G5 S4 forest Chestnut oak forest 2 18.5 G3G4 S4

Appalachian oak-pine 17 195.0 G4G5 S4 forest Maple-basswood rich 11 51.2 G4 S3 mesic forest Hemlock-northern 43 858.5 G4G5 S4 hardwood forest Successional northern 249 7848.2 G5 S5 hardwood forest Successional southern 38 115.1 G5 S5 hardwood forest Successional southern 2 32.8 G5 S5 hardwood forest// Successional northern hardwood forest Terrestrial cultural Cropland 206 2664.3 G5 S5

Pastureland 121 545.1 G5 S5

Flower/herb garden 6 5.0 G5 S5

System Subsystem Community Cover Type Count Acres NYNHP Ranks Terrestrial Terrestrial cultural Orchard 7 1.6 G5 S5 (cont.) Vineyard 4 7.6 G5 S5

Conifer plantation 383 975.9 G5 S5

Conifer plantation// 36 208.3 G5 S5 successional northern hardwoods Mowed lawn with trees 55 76.4 G5 S5

Mowed lawn 784 1705.3 G5 S5

Outdoor recreation 5 32.2 Unranked

Gravel mine 1 2.4 G5 S5

Gravel mine (abandoned) 4 5.7 G5 S5

Construction/road 8 8.9 G5 S5 maintenance spoils Junkyard 4 12.6 G5 S5

Urban structure exterior 72 15.0 G5 S5

Rural structure exterior 148 49.1 G5 S5

Parking area 29 15.7 G5 S5

When ranking combined community cover types, the more sensitive NYNHP ranks of the individual members of the pair were used.

Cultural land uses are occurring in 28.1% of the Town of Bristol, largely in the terrestrial landscape although nearly 200 acres of manmade were mapped. Based on total acreage, the top six most abundant cultural land uses were cropland (2664.3 acres), mowed lawn (1705.3 acres), conifer plantation (975.9 acres), pasture (545.1 acres), combination of conifer plantation being overtaken successionally by young northern hardwood forest (208.3 acres), and farm pond- artificial pond (197.2 acres). Most of the agricultural land uses are located in the Bristol Valley region of the town, and along the watershed of Mud Creek.

Natural land covers are present in 71.9% of the Town of Bristol. Most of the natural land cover falls within the terrestrial landscape with lesser amounts in palustrine sites, lacustrine locations or in riverine settings, respectively. The top six most abundant natural land covers were successional northern hardwood forest (7848.2 acres), Appalachian oak-hickory forest (2693.2 acres), successional old field (1714.2 acres), successional shrubland (878.3 acres), hemlock- northern hardwood forest (858.5 acres), and the combination of successional shrubland- successional northern hardwood forest. Contiguous forest cover types are predominately found along sloping topography with minor coverage along stream corridors.

Among the diversity of plant community cover types in the Town of Bristol, seven are noteworthy for their state-wide significance and have rankings of S1S2 to S3S4 in the New York State Natural Heritage Community Classification system. These communities are uncommon across the state and the fact that there are examples of them in the Town of Bristol speaks to the environmental quality and diversity present in this rural town. TABLE 2 provides further information on these special communities.

TABLE 2 – Land use/land cover data for plant community cover types in the Town of Bristol, New York with state-wide significance, and having rankings of S2 or S3 according to the New York Natural Heritage Classification protocol. Data includes classification summaries, number of local occurrences, total areal coverage, and conservation rankings for each plant community cover type. Combined cover types involving these communities are also present.

System Subsystem Community Cover Type Count Acres NYNHP Ranks Lacustrine Natural lakes and Oxbow lake/pond 19 7.7 G3G4 S2 ponds Palustrine Forested mineral Floodplain forest 51 94.2 G3G4 S2S3 soil wetlands Silver maple-ash swamp 3344 358.3 G3G4 S2S3

Vernal pool 21 9.0 G4 S3S4

Perched swamp white oak 1 4.4 G3G4 S1S2 swamp Terrestrial Barrens and Shale talus slope woodland 12 11.4 G3G4 S3 woodlands Forested uplands Maple-basswood rich 11 51.2 G4 S3 Mesic forest

Oxbow lake/pond communities (S3) are located along cut-off meanders of Mud Creek in the central region of the Town of Bristol. They are intermittently flooded when the creek is at high stage, and may retain water for several weeks before, perhaps, eventually drying down during the heat of summer. They are most often surrounded by shrub and floodplain forest. Biodiversity is probably high in this ecotone community but onsite research would be needed to determine biodiversity. Field collection of specimens and use of trail cameras would be helpful approaches. They are likely an important breeding ground for small aquatic animals. Future field study would also determine plant community quality which might be degraded by the presence of invasive species like purple loosestrife and, especially, Japanese knotweed which is particularly troublesome in the Bristol Valley. The sites are generally in private ownership although town-owned hiking trails are present along sections of the creek just south of the Bristol town hall and highway department building complex. The floodplain forest (S2S3) is located along the riparian corridor of large streams, especially Mud Creek, and is in good condition. Studies of neighboring streams in the Town of Richmond (Bilheimer et al. 2007, Mahar and Landry 2011) corroborate the quality and value of the floodplain forest communities as a buffer along local streams that are critical habitat for native fishes and pearly mussels. These corridors also provide connectivity among fragmented natural areas stretching across the Town of Bristol. Terrestrial wildlife take advantage of these corridors for movement within their home range. Floodplain forests also provide flood resiliency for neighboring landowners and reduce impacts along highway crossings by slowing and spreading out the impacts of high intensity rainfalls and sudden snow melts. Efforts should continue to encourage conservation of stream corridors and especially their intact floodplain forests. Silver maple-ash swamps (S2S3) were observed along the wider stretches of the Mud Creek drainage as well as in poorly drained soils associated with the rolling glacial topography in the northern portion of the Town of Bristol where they typically were fringed by other forested landscapes, and often were fed by artificial ditches associated with modern day and historic adjacent agricultural land use practices. They typically lack connectivity to other natural community types; at best there may be only narrow hedgerows between them. These silver maple-ash swamps ranged in age from young, probably less than 50 years, to rather old, perhaps approaching 150 years, depending on the return frequency for severe storm flooding. In all silver maple-ash swamps, dieback of green ash from the invasive emerald ash borer will produce a younger age class structure in the near future. In some areas, swamp forest decline is already evident. Vernal pools (S3S4) are usually very small in size, and embedded within a larger forest cover type. Despite their small size, they are critically important for amphibian breeding, providing an ephemeral springtime breeding area free of fish predators. Efforts by the Ontario County Soil and Water Conservation District have provided educational workshops on the values of vernal pools and culminated in the construction at a modest cost of vernal. Private landowners should be encouraged to build vernal pools in suitable sites. This will also have the benefit of slowing the overland flow of water across the landscape, mitigating flood peaks in the receiving streams. The perched swamp white oak swamp (S1S2) was an unexpected discovery with the town. Located in a shallow depression near the summit of Johnson Hill, this plant community surrounds a flooded shrub swamp of buttonbush, highbush blueberry and black chokeberry growing in a matrix of Sphagnum moss, sedges and ferns. Associated with the open canopy swamp white oaks was an understory of other ferns and woodland wildflowers including Canada mayflower and an abundance of golden alexanders! The shale talus slope woodland (S3) has scattered occurrences along the steepest and most unstable ravine slopes draining into the Bristol Valley. They are usually found on the south facing ravine slope where evaporation rates are high and vegetative cover is sparse. Soils are minimal or absent due to colluvial loss. The best example of this plant community type visited during these field inventories was on the NYS DEC Stid Hill Wildlife Management Area. It is home to several locally uncommon plant and animal species. The maple-basswood rich mesic forest (S3) is located on high stream terraces within the narrow floor of ravines. At this topographic position, these flat sites are protected from spring flooding, grow in a cooler and more shaded microclimate, and have fertile soils developed from accumulating rock talus mixed with abundant organic matter. Wildflowers, ferns and salamanders are exceptionally abundant and diverse. Canopy tree diversity is also high with some individual tree species attaining their greatest dimensions in this protected habitat. Ancient trees are to be expected. It is unfortunate that the botanical character and wildlife carrying capacity of all forested ravine communities will be negatively impacted by the continuing spread of an invasive insect, the hemlock woolly adelgid that can kill eastern hemlock trees in less than a decade after initial infestation. Some promising biological controls may slow the spread of this invasive insect. Perhaps releases of biocontrol insects in State lands will eventually establish populations that spread to neighboring privately owned ravines.

Wetland cover types dominate these significant rankings of S2 or S3. Nationally, state-wide and locally, these plant communities have and continue to be neglected and abused by human activities. The disregard for the ecological functioning of wetlands (flood control, nutrient absorption, and support of biological diversity) in the past can hopefully be replaced by recognition of the natural capital they provide for modern societies. Efforts using existing wetlands as green infrastructure and restoration/creation is promising. Conservation needs are clear.

Based on local rarity (acreage), frequency of occurrence (count) and ecological value, the natural plant communities in TABLE 3 are ranked as locally special and significant within the Town of Bristol. The confined river is Mud Creek. This stream corridor collects and conveys floodwaters slowly downstream. It is likely negatively impacted by several human activities including farmland runoff, ditching practices, bank destabilization and highway contaminants. Modifying human practices would help to improve stream quality and assure that critical stream functions continue into the future for the benefit of local residents. The perched swamp white oak swamp has been previously discussed in this report for its state-wide rarity and significance. As mentioned before, the fact that there is an occurrence in the Town of Bristol is highly noteworthy. The drier slopes surrounding the Bristol Valley are home to chestnut oak forest, a natural community with southern affinities. Chestnut oak is a slow growing tree with thick blocky bark that has resistance to fast moving surface fires that are occasionally ignited by lightning strikes on the highest elevations in the Town of Bristol. Soils have shallow depth and are strongly influenced by sandstone parent materials that make them more acidic compared to surrounding sites. They often are home to unusual wildflowers including rattlesnake hawkweed and trailing arbutus, and reptiles including timber rattlesnake and black rat snake.

TABLE 3 – Locally significant natural plant communities in the Town of Bristol, New York.

System Subsystem Community Cover Type Count Acres Local Ranks Riverine Natural streams Confined river 1 58.5 L1

Palustrine Forested mineral soil Perched swamp white oak 1 4.4 L1 wetlands swamp Terrestrial Forested uplands Chestnut oak forest 2 18.5 L2

One additional natural plant community is also locally significant (TABLE 4) and ranked L3, equivalent to a special concern status, that is, a watch list for future conservation efforts. The erosional slope/bluff community occurs on the outside bank of sharp meanders in local streams, and is subject to great modification during heavy streamflow events associated with rapid snowmelt and/or unusually large precipitation events. The community is transient by nature but is expected to continue to exist somewhere along the stream corridors. This community harbors pioneering plant and animal species that would not tolerate competition from other organisms found in more ecologically stable sites.

TABLE 4 – Special concern natural plant communities in the Town of Bristol, New York.

System Subsystem Community Cover Type Count Acres Local Ranks Terrestrial Open uplands Eroding slope/bluff 7 1.9 L3

Potential Next Steps for the Town of Bristol:

Early on in this project, a member of Bristol’s Comprehensive Planning Committee posed several questions to me concerning the protection and management of the town’s natural resources in light of many environmental challenges. This is somewhat related to the project goals of this land use/land cover study, and clearly addresses the need to implement sound environmental policies for the benefit of the town and its residents. Here is my reply from December 2017:

“My land use/land cover mapping project for the Town of Bristol will identify the diversity and spatial patterns of natural and cultural plant communities. Some of these communities have legal status, that is, they are regulated by government agencies (e.g., NYS protected wetlands). It is likely that some communities will only have one or two occurrences within the town, perhaps prioritizing them for conservation through fee title acquisition, easement agreements, transfer of development rights, etc. Several not-for-profit land trusts could play an important role. The conservation and protection of critical habitats and locally rare plant communities would be a good objective for your comprehensive plan.

These plant communities also function as animal habitats, so how they are interconnected is critical for maintaining the wildlife resources within the town. Wildlife home ranges often contain multiple habitats through which animals migrate during the year. Another objective for your plan might be to maintain or enhance (re-establish) connectivity corridors. Riparian zones along floodplain forests would be an important connection to conserve.

The information will be available as a summary report, GIS shape file and as a printed map poster. The deadline is to have materials available in the latter part of 2018. Currently I have been conducting field surveys along the northern portion of the town, and I will continue to survey during the winter and spring.

In regards to recommended policies and strategies that address climate change, I can offer some general suggestions:

In the review of development proposals, consider impacts on surface water quality. There are best management practices for livestock grazing, forest tree harvest, agricultural plowing, etc. I don’t know how or if these are codified within the town or perhaps simply given as guidance. It has been my observation across the Finger Lakes, that watersheds with the strongest regulations have the greatest success with protecting water quality (and quality of life for town residents).

Well-head protection guidelines are in place in neighboring towns like Naples as an attempt to restrict activities that might contaminate aquifer recharge areas and groundwater resources. I don’t have knowledge of where aquifer recharge areas are located in the town, but that information should already be available, perhaps even mapped out, by a government agency.

Flood resiliency is becoming a real concern across our region and should be a goal of your comprehensive plan. It has led other towns to re-examine their roadside ditch cleaning practices (timing and frequency, hydro-seeding, use of rock armoring, etc.), to recognize the value of natural landscapes that provide storm water retention (vernal pools, backwater flood ponds, oxbows), and to protect natural features that reduce runoff and erosion (stable streambanks, natural stream buffers). Where these do not naturally occur, a town might establish another goal of enhancing “natural landscape capital” by creating flood control wetlands, protecting stream channels with set-back requirements, re-establishing streamside vegetation, etc. I believe it is also important to address the mitigation of impermeable surfaces associated with existing and proposed developments that exacerbate flood peaks. Your comments about rain gardens are very relevant here and remind us that individuals as well as the town can collectively contribute to conservation of natural resources and processes.”

I would add to my former comments that maintaining or expanding forest cover is important for combatting climate change. Healthy forests are a carbon “sink”; trees sequester carbon in their tissues and remove CO2 during photosynthesis. The Town of Bristol has many forest resources and the ones I visited were in good condition.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bilheimer, A., J. Foust, and B. Gilman. 2007. Fishes of Honeoye Creek. Fall Scientific Paper Session (poster presentation). SUNY College at Geneseo, Geneseo, New York. Proceedings of the Rochester Academy of Science, Volume 20 (3):136.

Conover, G. (editor). 1893. Chapter XXVI, History of Bristol, New York in: Aldridge, L., History of Ontario County. D. Mason & Company Publishers. Syracuse, New York.

Edinger, G. J., D. J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T. G. Howard, D. M. Hunt, and A. M. Olivero (editors). 2014. Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke’s (1990) Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. 160 p. (available on-line).

Gilman, B. (editor) 2004. Biodiversity of the southern Honeoye Valley. Finger Lakes Community College Technical Report. 78 p.

Mahar, A. and J. Landry. 2011. Imperiled Parasites: New York’s Native Freshwater Pearly Mussels. Speaking of Nature public presentation series. Muller Field Station of Finger Lakes Community College. Canadice, New York.

Olivero, A. and T. Weldy. 2000. Significant natural communities at five selected sites within the High Allegheny Plateau Ecoregion of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Latham, NY. 44 p.

Ontario County Planning Board and Ontario County Environmental Management Council. 1973. Ontario County Open Space Index. Canandaigua, New York. 49 p.

Ontario County Planning Department. No date. Ontario County, Natural Resources Inventory, Vegetation. Preliminary report for discussion purposes only. Canandaigua, New York. 6 p.

Ontario County Planning Department. 1974. County of Ontario, Natural Resources, Progress Report #3. Canandaigua, New York. 82 p.

APPENDIX: TOWN OF BRISTOL

These natural and cultural plant communities occur within the Town of Bristol. The classification scheme and cover type descriptions are based on Edinger et al. (2002, updated online version available). Because their document presents a state-wide perspective, local plant community data may be expected to show some variability from the state-wide information presented below. Where appropriate, modifying comments about the Town of Bristol plant community cover types has been provided in italicized text at the end of descriptive paragraphs.

RIVERINE SYSTEM The riverine system consists of linear aquatic communities of flowing, non-tidal waters with a discrete channel, with persistent emergent vegetation sparse or lacking, but may include areas with abundant submerged or floating-leaved aquatic vegetation. The riverine communities in this classification are distinguished primarily by position of the stream in the watershed and water flow characteristics. These communities are broadly defined, and may include two or more, finer scale habitats (i.e., “microhabitats”), such as riffles (which include waterfalls), runs, and pools; these habitats usually have distinctive species assemblages (i.e., “associations”). A riffle is a part of the stream that is shallow and has a comparatively fast current; the water surface is disturbed by the current and may form standing waves (i.e., it is “turbulent”). A run is a part of the stream that has a moderate to fast current; the water is deep enough that the water surface is smooth and unbroken by the water current (although it may be disturbed by wind). A pool is a part of the stream that is deep and has a comparatively slow current; the water surface is calm unless disturbed by wind. The riverine communities are also distinguished by size of the stream. Large streams have an average width greater than about 30 m (100 ft), medium streams are from about 3 to 30 m (10 ft to 100 ft) wide, and small streams have an average width less than about 3 m (10 ft). This classification of riverine communities is based on a combination of NYNHP field surveys, literature review and discussions with aquatic ecologists. To date about 46 plots have been sampled statewide by NYNHP in riverine communities. Bob Daniels of the New York State Museum provided much of the initial information on fish communities. Although the Heritage program has focused inventory work on streams since 1995; we do not currently have sufficient field data for confidently undertaking any major restructuring of the 1990 riverine classification. However, field work has suggested that this classification works well for representing the coarse scale distinctions between both abiotic and biotic features of river types. Although physically based, it is meant to serve as a coarse filter emphasizing resident stream biota. Two new coarse-scale physical-based types have been added to the classification, segregated out from other more broadly defined types of the 1990 classification: spring and deepwater river, the former a very small perennial stream, the latter a very large stream with profundal areas. Further refinement of the riverine classification to distinguish regional variants will likely be based on additional field surveys and analysis of existing data collected by various aquatic scientists and agencies statewide. Regional variation in many of the designated riverine communities is evident, but we do not currently have enough information or have undertaken analyses to confidently split common and widespread stream types into more specific regional variants. A finer scale classification of streams that distinguishes types according to ecoregion and/or watershed is being evaluated. Preliminary conclusions suggest that vascular plant, bryophyte, algae, fish, mollusk, insect and plankton assemblages may follow different distribution patterns, some more closely correlated with ecoregion boundaries, some more closely with major ecological drainage units. The fish and mollusk assemblages in the riverine communities (especially in unconfined rivers and deepwater rivers) generally vary according to the watershed.

A. NATURAL STREAMS This subsystem includes streams in which the stream flow, morphometry, and water chemistry have not been substantially modified by human activities, or the native biota is dominant. The biota may include some introduced species (for example, stocked or accidentally introduced fishes), however the introduced species are not usually dominant in the stream community as a whole.

1. Confined river: the aquatic community of relatively large, fast flowing sections of streams with a moderate to gentle gradient. The name of this community has been changed from “midreach stream” to better reflect the concept. These streams have well-defined pattern of alternating pools, riffles, and runs. Confined rivers usually have poorly defined meanders (i.e., low sinuosity), occur in confined valleys and are most typical of the midreaches of stream systems. These streams are typically of moderate depth, width and low flow discharge and usually represent a network of 3rd to 4th order stream segments. Most of the erosion is lateral, creating braids, channel islands, and bars, and deposition is moderate with a mix of coarse rocky to sandy substrate. Waterfalls are typically present; these are here treated as features of the more broadly defined community. The predominant source of energy is generated in the stream (these are autochthonous streams). These streams have high water clarity and are well oxygenated. They are typically surrounded by open upland riverside communities including riverside sand/gravel bar, cobble shore or one of the shoreline outcrop communities. Species assemblages’ characteristic of riffles and rocky bottoms dominate the community. Fish diversity is typically high to moderate. Characteristic fishes include creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), common shiner (Luxilus cornutus), and trout-perch (Percopsis omiscomaycus) in pools; rosyface shiner (Notropis rubellus) at the head of pools; tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) or mottled sculpin (C. bairdi), and stonecat (Noturus flavus) in riffles; and bluntnose minnow (Pimephales notatus) and northern hogsucker (Hypentelium nigricans) in runs. Other characteristic fishes may include blacknose dace (Rhinicthys atratulus) and fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare). Common introductions are rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri), brown trout (S. trutta), and (in streams where it is not native) smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui). Characteristic mollusks include eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanta), eastern floater (Pyganodon cataracta), and fingernail clams (Sphaerium spp.). Other macroinvertebrates are diverse; characteristic macroinvertebrates include riffle and rocky bottom specialists as well as algae shredders such as crayfish (Cambaridae), mayflies (Ephemeroptera including Ephemeridae, Heptageniidae, Isonychia sp.), stoneflies (Plecoptera including Chloroperlidae, Acroneuria sp., Neoperla sp.), caddisflies (Trichoptera including Hydropsychidae, Helicopsyche sp., Dolophilodes sp., Rhyacophila sp.), cranefly (Hexatoma sp.), beetles (Oulimnius sp., Psephenus sp.), dobsonflies (Corydalidae), midge (Polypedilum sp.), craneflies (Tipulidae), and blackflies (Simulidae). Odonate (Odonata including Calopteryidae) larvae may be characteristic of runs. True bugs (Gerridae, Vellidae, and Mesovellidae) are characteristic of pools). Epilithic algae are the predominate plant. Aquatic macrophytes are usually sparse; typical aquatic macrophytes include waterweed (Elodea canadensis) and linear-leaved pondweeds such as sago pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus). An additional characteristic vascular plant may be Podostemum ceratophyllum. Bryophytes are often confined to shallows and the intermittently exposed channel perimeter. Four to six variants associated with a combination of ecoregions (including Northern Appalachian, Great Lakes, Lower New England and Alleghany Plateau ecoregions) or major watersheds (including Great Lakes, Hudson River, Alleghany River, Susquehanna/Delaware Rivers) are suspected to differ substantially in dominant and characteristic vascular plants, fishes, mollusks, insects, and algae as well as water chemistry (especially alkalinity and color), water temperature, underlying substrate type, and surrounding forest type. In addition, biota is suspected to differ among streams of moderate size (roughly 3rd to 4th order streams) and large size (roughly 5th to 6th order streams). Aquatic connectivity factors are thought to strongly influence the fish and mollusk composition. Species characteristic of Northern Appalachian streams may include the fishes brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), cutlips minnow (Exoglossum maxillingua), longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus), and white sucker (C. commersoni); and the macroinvertebrates eastern pearlshell (Margaritifera margaritifera), and odonates (Gomphus spp., Progomphus obscurus). Species characteristic of streams in the Saint Lawrence River and Lake Champlain Valley may include a diverse assemblage of mollusks such as heelsplitters (Potamilus sp. and Lasmigona sp.), lampmussels (Lampsilus spp. including L. cariosa), Leptodea sp., triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata), creekmussel (Strophitus sp.), pondmussel (Ligumia sp.), Anodontoides sp., and pea clams (Pisidium spp.). Other macroinvertebrates characteristic of streams in this region may include beetles (Promeresia sp., Stenelmis sp., Dubiraphia sp.), caddisflies (Chimara sp., Phylocentropus sp.), mayfly (Hexagenia sp.), amphipod (Gammarus sp.), and true flies (Sphaeromias sp., Culicoides sp.). Species characteristic of Alleghany Plateau and Great Lakes streams may include the fishes greenside darter (E. blennioides) and rainbow darter (Etheostoma caeruleum), central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum), silverjaw minnow (Ericymba buccata), spotted darter (Etheostoma maculatum), golden redhorse (Moxostoma erythrurum) and shorthead redhorse (M. macrolepidotum); the mollusks mucket (Actinonaias ligmentina), Ohio pigtoe (Pleurobema cordatum), kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus fasciolaris), fluted-shell (Lasmigona costata), lampmussels (Lampsilis fasciola, L. ventricosa), and spike (Elliptio dihtata); and the other macroinvertebrates mayfly (Stenonema spp.), and caddisfly (Cheumatopsyche sp.). More data on regional variants are needed.

Distribution: throughout New York State.

Rank: G4 S4

Examples: French Creek, Chautauqua County; Moose River, Herkimer, Lewis and Oneida Counties; Middle Branch Oswegatchie River, St. Lawrence, Herkimer and Lewis Counties; Hudson River, Essex, Warren and Saratoga Counties; East Branch Fish Creek, Lewis County; Rondout Creek; Ulster County; Shawangunk Kill, Ulster County; Hoosic River, Rensselaer County.

Sources: C. L. Smith 1985; NYNHP field surveys.

The classification of Mud Creek is problematic. Located in the Bristol Valley, the stream originates in the Town of South Bristol as a rocky headwater stream with many riffles and a streambank dominated by large sycamore trees. As it enters the Town of Bristol, the confined river community description seems to fit but as the stream leaves the town, the unconfined river community description seems more appropriate. It becomes a stream with high sinuosity, adjacent floodplain forest, and many oxbow lakes in the widening glacial valley floor.

Other natural riverine cover types within the Town of Bristol were small linear features (e.g., rocky headwater stream, marsh headwater stream, intermittent stream) or small point feature (e.g., spring) that were so small in scale that they were not mapped in this field inventory. Similarly, cultural riverine cover types such as roadside ditches and artificial agricultural channels for drainage or irrigation were also not mapped.

RIVERINE REFERENCES

Gilman, B. A. 1976. Wetland plant communities along the eastern shoreline of Lake Ontario. M.S. thesis, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY.

Smith, C. L. 1985. The inland fishes of New York State. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.

LACUSTRINE SYSTEM The lacustrine system consists of ponded waters situated in topographic depressions or dammed river channels, with persistent emergent vegetation sparse or lacking, but including any areas with abundant submerged or floating-leaved aquatic vegetation. The lacustrine communities in this classification are distinguished primarily by trophic state, alkalinity, annual cycles of thermal stratification, circulation, morphometry (size and shape of the lake basin and drainage area; water permanence), and water chemistry (including salinity). The communities are described in terms of the free-floating organisms of the open water, or the limnetic or pelagic zone (including plankton and fish), the aquatic macrophytes and fish near the shore or littoral zone, and the bottom-dwelling organisms or benthos. The limnetic (pelagic) zone may be divided into the (upper lake zone), which is sunny, mixed by the wind, and comparatively rich in oxygen, and the (lower lake zone), which is darker, and comparatively rich in from respiration and decay. The transition between the epilimnion and hypolimnion is called the (or the metalimnion). The lake bottom or may be divided into the peripheral, well-lit shallows or littoral zone, the slightly deeper and darker sublittoral zone, and (in summer-stratified lakes) the deep, cold region where currents are minimal and light is much reduced, called the profundal zone. Benthic zones may each have a distinctive resident biota; however, many of the plankton and fish move between pelagic zones on a regular basis. Deep lakes have an average depth greater than about 60 m (200 ft), moderately deep lakes are from about 6 to 60 m (20 ft to 200 ft) deep, and shallow lakes have an average depth less than about 6 m (20 ft). Large lakes are greater than about 80 ha (200 acres) and small lakes are less than this size. This classification of lacustrine communities is based on a combination of NYNHP field surveys, literature review, and discussions with aquatic scientists. To date about 42 plots have been sampled statewide by NYNHP in lacustrine communities. Although the Heritage Program has focused inventory work on lakes since 1995; we do not currently have sufficient field data for confidently undertaking any major restructuring of the 1990 lacustrine classification. However, field work has suggested that this classification works well for representing the coarsest scale distinctions between both biotic and abiotic features of lacustrine community types. The classification is intended to represent entire lake “macrohabitats”. Although physically based, it is meant to serve as a coarse filter emphasizing resident lake biota. It is recognized that lakes may contain numerous pelagic and benthic associations and that there is often much overlap in association distribution across lake macrohabitat types. For now, NYNHP is maintaining this macrohabitat classification while evaluating the utility and feasibility of replacing or supplementing this classification with an association classification. Further evaluation of the macrohabitat classification is underway to compare trophic state versus alkalinity as a factor more important in driving the distribution of biota and more resistant to human alteration of water chemistry. Tentatively, it is thought that alkalinity is a stronger driving force, thus suggesting a switch of the 1990 classification of common pond types from oligotrophic and eutrophic to acidic and alkaline, and common types from oligotrophic, mesotrophic, and eutrophic to acidic and alkaline, perhaps with trophic state as a secondary modifier. Lastly, addition of three “intermittent pond” types to the 1990 classification is also recommended: vernal pool and pine barrens vernal pond (both previously treated under the palustrine system) and sinkhole pond (split from sinkhole wetland in the palustrine system). Other types under evaluation include “flow-through” or “fluvial pond,” a potential split from the currently recognized oligotrophic pond and eutrophic pond, closely associated with riverine complexes rather than in the typical isolated basin setting. Further refinement of the lacustrine classification to distinguish regional variants will likely be based on additional field surveys and analysis of data collected by various aquatic scientists and agencies statewide. Regional variation in many of the designated lacustrine communities is evident, but we do not currently have in our files enough information or have undertaken analyses to confidently split common and widespread lake types into more specific regional variants. A finer scale classification of lakes that distinguishes types according to ecoregion and/or watershed is being evaluated. Preliminary conclusions suggest that vascular plant, bryophyte, algae, fish, mollusk, insect, and plankton assemblages may follow different distribution patterns, some more closely correlated with ecoregion boundaries, some more closely with major ecological drainage units.

A. NATURAL LAKES AND PONDS This subsystem includes the Great Lakes, and inland lakes and ponds in which the trophic state, morphometry, and water chemistry have not been substantially modified by human activities, or the native biota are dominant. The biota may include some introduced species (for example, non-native macrophytes, stock or accidentally introduced fishes), however the introduced species are not usually dominant in the lake or pond community as a whole.

1. Oxbow lake/pond: the aquatic community of a small, shallow, usually stagnant lake or pond of fluvial origin that occurs in an old river meander or oxbow that has been cut off from an unconfined river or marsh headwater stream by deposition of a natural levee. Typically, the associated river periodically overflows this natural levee, restoring river water and biota to this lake type. Many examples of this lake type may be relatively short-lived in dynamic river complexes, transforming into a backwater through permanent breaching of the downstream natural levee, or into a riverine community through permanent breaching of the upstream natural levee. These are usually eutrophic lakes. Characteristic biota is typically riverine species assemblages. Aquatic vegetation is abundant; characteristic aquatic macrophytes may include species typical of eutrophic ponds such as pondweeds (Potamogeton spp.), white water-lily (Nymphaea odorata), and water-shield (Brasenia schreberi). Four to seven ecoregional variants are suspected to differ in dominant, and characteristic vascular plants, fishes, mollusks, and insects. Up to three morphological variants are known: 1) classical oxbow lakes formed from old river channels, 2) small natural levee lakes formed as pools from natural levee overwash, and 3) floodplain lakes formed, and replenished during high annual water of the associated river. More data on this community are needed.

Distribution: throughout New York State north of the Coastal Lowlands ecozone, usually at low elevations.

Rank: G4 S3

Examples: Raquette River, Franklin County; North Branch Moose River, Herkimer County; Schroon River, Essex County; Little River, St. Lawrence County; Hemp Pond, Livingston County.

Source: NYNHP field surveys.

2. Eutrophic pond: the aquatic community of a small, shallow, nutrient-rich pond. The water is usually green with algae, and the bottom is mucky. Eutrophic ponds are too shallow to remain stratified throughout the summer; they are winter-stratified, monomictic ponds. Additional characteristic features of a eutrophic pond include the following: water that is murky, with low transparency (Secchi disk depths typically less than 4 m); water rich in plant nutrients (especially high in phosphorus, nitrogen, and calcium), high primary productivity (inorganic carbon fixed = 75 to 250 g/m2/yr), and a weedy shoreline. Alkalinity is typically high (greater than 12.5 mg/l calcium carbonate). A name change, and slight conceptual change to alkaline pond is being evaluated. Species diversity is typically high. Aquatic vegetation is abundant. Littoral, and epilimnion species assemblages usually predominate. Characteristic plants include coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), duckweeds (Lemna minor, L. trisulca), waterweed (Elodea canadensis), pondweeds (Potamogeton spp.), water starwort (Heteranthera dubia), bladderworts (Utricularia spp.) naiad (Najas flexilis), tapegrass (Vallisneria americana), algae (Cladophora spp.), yellow pond-lily (Nuphar luteum), and white water-lily (Nymphaea odorata). Characteristic fishes are usually warmwater fishes. Characteristic macroinvertebrates may include several types of odonates (Aeshna spp., Ischnura spp., Gomphus spp., and Basiaeschna spp.), and leeches (Hirundinae). Characteristic, and dominant plankton may include the phytoplankton Chrysosphaerella longispina, and Ceratium spp., and the zooplankton nauplii, rotifers such as Keratella, cyclopoids, and cladocerans. Three to seven ecoregional variants (including Northern Appalachian, Great Lakes, and Lower New England types) are suspected to differ in dominant, and characteristic vascular plants, fishes, mollusks, and insects. Flow-through or fluvial pond might be a distinct variant worthy of recognition as a separate community type, but needs further evaluation. Flow-through ponds are closely associated with riverine complexes (e.g., large natural widenings of rivers or large beaver impoundments of river channels), and have a high flushing rate. Characteristic animals of flow-through ponds may include beaver (Castor canadensis). More data on this community are needed.

Distribution: throughout New York State, and is more common at low elevations, especially in the Great Lakes Plain ecozone, and St. Lawrence River Valley.

Rank: G4 S4

Examples: Black Pond, Jefferson County; Deer Pond, Essex County; Lima Ponds, Livingston County; Rogers Pond, Essex County; Sullivan Pond, Warren County; White Lily Pond, Rensselaer County.

Sources: Gilman 1976; NYNHP field surveys.

Several natural ponds/lakes within the Town of Bristol were not accessible by boat, so water depths could not be measured. Therefore, it was not possible to determine if a few might be classified as a lake (unlikely) or a meromictic lake (also unlikely). At the present time they are all mapped as the more commonly occurring eutrophic ponds.

B. LACUSTRINE CULTURAL This subsystem includes communities that are either created, and maintained by human activities, or are modified by human influence to such a degree that the trophic state, morphometry, water chemistry, or biological composition of the resident community are substantially different from the character of the lake community as it existed prior to human influence.

1. Farm pond/artificial pond: the aquatic community of a small pond constructed on agricultural or residential property. These ponds are often eutrophic, and may be stocked with panfish such as bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and yellow perch (Perca flavescens). The biota are variable (within limits), reflecting the species that were naturally or artificially seeded, planted, or stocked in the pond.

Distribution: throughout New York State.

Rank: G5 S5

The Town of Bristol has a huge number of manmade ponds!

LACUSTRINE REFERENCES

Berg, C. O. 1963. Middle Atlantic States. Chapter 6 (pp. 191-237) in: Limnology in North America. D. G. Frey, ed. Univ. of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.

Clausen, R. T. 1940. Aquatic vegetation of the Lake Ontario watershed. In: A biological survey of the Lake Ontario watershed. Suppl. to the 29th annual report, 1939. NYS Conservation Department, Albany, NY.

Cole, G.A. 1975. Textbook of Limnology. The C.V. Mosby Company. St. Louis, MO.

Eggleton, F. E. 1956. Limnology of a meromictic, interglacial, plunge-basin lake. Trans. Amer. Microscop. Soc. 75: 334-378.

Gilman, B. A. 1976. Wetland plant communities along the eastern shoreline of Lake Ontario. M.S. thesis, SUNY College of Environmental Science, and Forestry, Syracuse, NY.

Maitland, P. S. 1978. Biology of Fresh Waters. John Wiley, and Sons, NY.

Pendl, M. P., and K. M. Stewart. 1986. Variations in carbon fractions within a dimictic, and a meromictic basin of the Junius Ponds, New York. Freshwater Biology 16: 539-555.

PALUSTRINE SYSTEM The palustrine system consists of non-tidal, perennial wetlands characterized by emergent vegetation. The system includes wetlands permanently saturated by seepage, permanently flooded wetlands, and wetlands that are seasonally or intermittently flooded (these may be seasonally dry) if the vegetative cover is predominantly hydrophytic and soils are hydric. Wetland communities are distinguished by their plant composition (hydrophytes), substrate (hydric soils), and hydrologic regime (frequency of flooding) (Cowardin 1979). Peatlands are a special type of wetland in which the substrate primarily consists of accumulated peat (partially decomposed plant material such as mosses, sedges, and shrubs) or marl (organically derived calcium carbonate deposits), with little or no mineral soil. Stable water levels or constant water seepage allow little aeration of the substrate in peatlands, slowing decomposition of plant litter, and resulting in peat or marl accumulation. In this classification, peatlands are characterized by their hydrologic regime; water source and water chemistry are important factors. Minerotrophic peatlands () are fed by groundwater that contains minerals obtained during passage through or over mineral soils or aquifers. Ombrotrophic peatlands () are fed primarily by direct rainfall, with little or no groundwater influence (Damman and French 1987). The vegetation of ombrotrophic peatlands is depauperate; plants in the families Sphagnaceae and Ericaceae are prominent. The vegetation of minerotrophic peatlands is comparatively rich in species; plants in the families Cyperaceae and Poaceae are prominent (Heinselman 1970). In a natural landscape there are continuous gradients from ombrotrophic to strongly minerotrophic wetlands; there are also continuous gradients in soils from mineral soils to peat soils. The boundaries between different types of wetlands are not always discrete. Several different types of wetlands may occur together in a complex mosaic.

A. OPEN MINERAL SOIL WETLANDS This subsystem includes wetlands with less than 50% canopy cover of trees. In this classification, a tree is defined as a woody plant usually having one principal stem or trunk, a definite crown shape, and characteristically reaching a mature height of at least 16 ft (5 m) (Driscoll et al. 1984). The dominant vegetation may include shrubs or herbs. Substrates range from mineral soils or bedrock to well-decomposed organic soils (muck). Fluctuating water levels allow enough aeration of the substrate to allow plant litter to decompose, so there is little or no accumulation of peat.

1. Deep emergent marsh: a marsh community that occurs on mineral soils or fine-grained organic soils (muck or well-decomposed peat); the substrate is flooded by waters that are not subjective to violent wave action. Water depths can range from 6 in to 6.6 ft (15 cm to 2 m); water levels may fluctuate seasonally, but the substrate is rarely dry, and there is usually standing water in the fall. The most abundant emergent aquatic plants are cattails (Typha angustifolia, T. latifolia), wild rice (Zizania aquatica), bur-weeds (Sparganium eurycarpum, S. androcladum), pickerel weed (Pontederia cordata), bulrushes (Scirpus tabernaemontani, S. fluviatilis, S. heterochaetus, S. acutus, S. pungens, S. americanus), arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia), arrowleaf (Peltandra virginica), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), bayonet rush (Juncus militaris), water horsetail (Equisetum fluviatile) and bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis). The most abundant floating-leaved aquatic plants are fragrant water lily (Nymphaea odorata), duckweeds (Lemna minor, L. trisulca), pondweeds (Potamogeton natans, P. epihydrus, P. friesii, P. oakesianus, P. crispus, P. pusillus, P. zosteriformis, P. strictifolius), spatterdock (Nuphar variegata), frog’s-bit (Hydrocharis morus-ranae), watermeal (Wolffia spp.), water- shield (Brasenia schreberi), and water-chestnut (Trapa natans). The most abundant submerged aquatic plants are pondweeds (Potamogeton richardsonii, P. amplifolius, P. spirillus, P. crispus, P. zosteriformis), coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), chara (Chara globularis), water milfoils (Myriophyllum spicatum, M. sibericum), pipewort (Eriocaulon aquaticum), tapegrass (Vallisneria americana), liverwort (Riccia fluitans), naiad (Najas flexilis), water lobelia (Lobelia dortmanna), waterweed (Elodea canadensis), water stargrass (Heteranthera dubia), and bladderworts (Utricularia vulgaris, U. intermedia). Animals that may be found in deep emergent include red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), and painted turtle (Chrysemys picta). Rare species in some deep emergent marshes include American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), Virginia rail (Rallus limicola), and pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps). Marshes that have been disturbed are frequently dominated by aggressive weedy species such as purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and reedgrass (Phragmites australis). Deep emergent marshes also occur in excavations that contain standing water (e.g., roadside ditches, gravel pits).

Distribution: throughout New York State.

Rank: G5 S5

Examples: Lake Champlain South Basin, Washington County; Lake Lila, Hamilton County; Chippewa Creek Marsh, St. Lawrence County; Upper and Lower Lakes, St. Lawrence County, Big Bay Swamp, Oswego County.

Sources: Bray 1915; Cowardin 1979; Gilman 1976; NYNHP field surveys.

Where deep emergent marshes border highway corridors and parking lots, disturbances alter the plant composition leading to an abundance of a tall invasive grass, Phragmites australis. This is common along the Route 20A and Route 64 roadways. Often the invasive shrub purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) may be co-dominant. Because these disturbed marshes gradually transition to typical cattail dominated deep emergent marsh, these disturbed areas of invasives were not mapped as a separate cover type.

2. Shallow emergent marsh: a marsh meadow community that occurs on mineral soil or deep muck soils (rather than true peat), that are permanently saturated and seasonally flooded. This marsh is better drained than a deep emergent marsh; water depths may range from 6 in to 3.3 ft (15 cm to 1 m) during flood stages, but the water level usually drops by mid to late summer and the substrate is exposed during an average year. Most abundant herbaceous plants include bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis), cattails (Typha latifolia, T. angustifolia, T. x glauca), sedges (Carex spp..), marsh fern (Thelypteris palustris), manna grasses (Glyceria pallida, G. canadensis), spikerushes (Eleocharis smalliana, E. obtusa), bulrushes (Scirpus cyperinus, S. tabernaemontani, S. atrovirens), three- way sedge (Dulichium arundinaceum), sweetflag (Acorus americanus), tall meadow-rue (Thalictrum pubescens), marsh St. John’s-wort (Triadenum virginicum), arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia), goldenrods (Solidago rugosa, S. gigantea), Joe Pye weed (Eupatorium maculatum, E. perfoliatum), smartweeds (Polygonum coccineum, P. amphibium, P. hydropiperoides), marsh bedstraw (Galium palustre), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), loosestrifes (Lysimachia thyrsiflora, L. terrestris, L. ciliata). Frequently in degraded examples reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and/or purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) may become abundant. Sedges (Carex spp.) may be abundant in shallow emergent marshes, but are not usually dominant. Marshes must have less than 50% cover of peat and tussock-forming sedges such as tussock sedges (Carex stricta), otherwise it may be classified as a sedge meadow. Characteristic shallow emergent marsh sedges include Carex stricta, C. lacustris, C. lurida, C. hystricina, C. alata, C. vulpinoidea, C. comosa, C. utriculata, C. scoparia, C. gynandra, C. stipata, and C. crinita. Other plants characteristic of shallow emergent marshes (most frequent listed first) include blue flag iris (Iris versicolor), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), common skullcap (Scutellaria galericulata), beggar ticks (Bidens spp.), water-horehounds (Lycopus uniflorus, L. americanus), bur-weeds (Sparganium americanum, S. eurycarpum), swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata), water-hemlock (Cicuta bulbifera), asters (Aster umbellatus, A. puniceus), marsh bellflower (Campanula aparinoides), water purslane (Ludwigia palustris), royal and cinnamon ferns (Osmunda regalis, O. cinnamomea), marsh cinquefoil (Potentilla palustris), rushes (Juncus effusus, J. canadensis), arrowleaf (Peltandra virginica), purple-stem angelica (Angelica atropurpurea), water docks (Rumex orbiculatus, R. verticillatus), turtlehead (Chelone glabra), water parsnip (Sium suave), and cardinal flower (Lobelia cardinalis). Shallow emergent marshes may have scattered shrubs including rough alder (Alnus incana ssp. rugosa), waterwillow (Decodon verticillatus), shrubby dogwoods (Cornus amomum, C. sericea), willows (Salix spp.), meadow sweet (Spiraea alba var. latifolia), and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis). Areas with greater than 50% shrub cover are classified as shrub swamps. Amphibians that may be found in shallow emergent marshes include frogs such as eastern American toad (Bufo a. americanus), northern spring peeper (Pseudoacris c. crucifer), green frog (Rana clamitans melanota), and wood frog (Rana sylvatica); and salamanders such as northern redback salamander (Plethodon c. cinereus) (Hunsinger 1999). Birds that may be found include red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris), and common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) (Levine 1998). Shallow emergent marshes typically occur in lake basins and along streams often intergrading with deep emergent marshes, shrub swamps and sedge meadows, and they may occur together in a complex mosaic in a large wetland.

Distribution: throughout New York State.

Rank: G5 S5

Examples: South Branch Grass River Colton, St. Lawrence County; West Branch Oswegatchie River Diana, Lewis County; East Branch Fish Creek, Lewis County; Jordan River, St. Lawrence/Franklin Counties; Lakeview Marshes, Jefferson County.

Sources: Bray 1915; Gilman 1976; Hotchkiss 1932; Hunsinger 1999; Levine 1998; Metzler and Tiner 1992; Tiner 1985; NYNHP field surveys.

3. Shrub swamp: an inland wetland dominated by tall shrubs that occurs along the shore of a lake or river, in a wet depression or valley not associated with lakes, or as a transition zone between a marsh, , or bog and a swamp or upland community. The substrate is usually mineral soil or muck. This is a very broadly defined type that includes several distinct communities and many intermediates. Shrub swamps are very common and quite variable. They may be co-dominated by a mixture of species, or have a single dominant shrub species. In northern New York many shrub swamps are dominated by alder (Alnus incana ssp. rugosa); these swamps are sometimes called alder thickets. A swamp dominated by red osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), silky dogwood (C. amomum) and willows (Salix spp.) may be called a shrub . Along the shores of some lakes and ponds there is a distinct zone dominated by water-willows (Decodon verticillatus) and/or buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) which can sometimes fill a shallow basin. Characteristic shrubs that are common in these and other types of shrub swamps include meadow-sweet (Spiraea alba var. latifolia), steeple-bush (Spiraea tomentosa), gray dogwood (Cornus foemina ssp. racemosa), swamp azalea (Rhododendron viscosum), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), male-berry (Lyonia ligustrina), smooth alder (Alnus serrulata), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), willows (Salix bebbiana, S. discolor, S. lucida, S. petiolaris), wild raisin (Viburnum cassinoides), and arrowwood (Viburnum recognitum). More documentation and research is needed to distinguish the different types of shrub swamps in New York. Birds that may be found in shrub swamps include common species such as common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), and rare species such as American bittern (Botarus lentiginosus), alder flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum), willow flycatcher (E. trallii), and Lincoln’s sparrow (Passerella lincolnii) (Levine 1998).

Distribution: throughout New York State.

Rank: G5 S5

Examples: West Branch Oswegatchie River Diana, Lewis County; West Branch Sacandaga River, Hamilton County; Jordan River, St. Lawrence/Franklin Counties; Shingle Shanty Brook, Hamilton County, East Branch Fish Creek, Lewis County.

Sources: Bray 1915; Levine 1998; McVaugh 1958; Metzler and Tiner 1992; Shanks 1996; Tiner 1985; NYNHP field surveys.

B. FORESTED MINERAL SOIL WETLANDS This subsystem includes seasonally flooded forests, and permanently flooded or saturated swamps. These forests and swamps typically have at least 50% canopy cover of trees. For the purposes of this classification, a tree is defined as a woody plant usually having one principal stem or trunk, a definite crown shape, and characteristically reaching a mature height of at least 16 ft (5 m) (Driscoll et al. 1984).

1. Floodplain forest: a hardwood forest that occurs on mineral soils on low terraces of river floodplains and river deltas. These sites are characterized by their flood regime; low areas are annually flooded in spring, and high areas are flooded irregularly. Some sites may be quite dry by late summer, whereas other sites may be flooded again in late summer or early autumn (these floods are caused by heavy precipitation associated with tropical storms). This is a broadly defined community; floodplain forests are quite variable and may be very diverse. The most abundant trees include silver maple (Acer saccharinum), ashes (Fraxinus pensylvanica, F. nigra, F. americana), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), red maple (Acer rubrum), box elder (Acer negundo), elms (Ulmus americana, U. rubra), hickories (Carya cordiformis, C. ovata, C. laciniosa), butternut and black walnut (Juglans cinerea, J. nigra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), oaks (Quercus bicolor, Q. palustris), and river birch (Betula nigra). Other less frequently occurring trees include hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), basswood (Tilia americana), and sugar maple (Acer saccharum). Introduced trees, such as white willow (Salix alba) and black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia), have become established in some floodplain forests. The most abundant shrubs include spicebush (Lindera benzoin), ironwood (Carpinus carolinianus), bladdernut (Staphylea trifoliata), speckled alder (Alnus incana spp. rugosa), dogwoods (Cornus sericea, C. foemina spp. racemosa, C. amomum), viburnums (Viburnum cassinoides, V. prunifolium, V. dentatum, V. lentago), and sapling canopy trees. Invasive exotic shrubs that may be locally abundant include shrub honeysuckles (Lonicera tatarica, L. morrowii), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). Other less frequently occurring shrubs include meadowsweet (Spiraea alba var. latifolia) and winterberry (Ilex verticillata). The most abundant vines include poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), wild grapes (Vitis riparia, Vitis spp.), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), virgin’s bower (Clematis virginiana), and less frequently, moonseed (Menispermum canadense). Vines may form a dense liana in tree canopy and/or dominate the groundcover. The most abundant herbs include sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), jewelweeds (Impatiens capensis, I. pallida), ostrich fern (Matteuccia struthiopteris), white snakeroot (Eupatorium rugosum), wood nettle (Laportea canadensis), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), goldenrods (Solidago gigantea, S. canadensis, Solidago spp.), lizard’s tail (Saururus cernuus), and jumpseed (Polygonum virginianum). Invasive exotic herbs that may be locally abundant include moneywort (Lysimachia nummularia), garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), dame’s rockets (Hesperis matronalis), and stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum). Other less frequently occurring herbs include skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus), enchanter’s nightshade (Circaea lutetiana ssp. canadensis), bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis), white avens (Geum canadense), clearweed (Pilea pumila), jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), sedges (Carex lacustris, C. intumescens, C. lupulina), and many others. Characteristic birds include yellow-throated vireo (Vireo flavifrons), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), and pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). The composition of the forest apparently changes in relation to flood frequency and elevation of floodplain terraces along larger rivers. Neighboring states recognize several floodplain forest variants based on dominant plants, flood regime, and topographic position (Fike 1999, Kearsley 1999, Sorenson et al. 1998). The composition of floodplain forests in New York State has not been studied in sufficient detail to characterize compositional variations and how they correlate with flood regime and terrace elevation.

Distribution: throughout , north of the Coastal Lowlands ecozone.

Rank: G3G4 S2S3

Examples: Raquette River, Franklin County; Howland Island, Cayuga County; Catskill Creek, Greene County; Doyles Islands, Delaware County; South Bay Creek Wetlands, Washington County.

Sources: Barrett and Enser 1997; Bechtel and Sperduto 1998; Fike 1999; Gordon 1940; Kearsley 1999; Metzler and Damman 1985; Nichols et al. 2000; Sorenson et al. 1998; Veneman and Tiner 1990; NYNHP field surveys.

2. Silver maple-ash swamp: a hardwood basin swamp that typically occurs in poorly-drained depressions or along the borders of large lakes, and less frequently in poorly drained soils along rivers. These sites are characterized by uniformly wet conditions with minimal seasonal fluctuations in water levels. The dominant trees are usually silver maple (Acer saccharinum) and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). American elm (Ulmus americana) is often present and probably was a co- dominant prior to the onset of Dutch elm disease and elm yellows. Other trees include black ash (F. nigra), white ash (F. americana), swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor), red maple (Acer rubrum), and occasionally the silver maple-red maple hybrid “Freeman’s maple” (Acer x freemanii). Many of the canopy trees occur in the subcanopy along with ironwood (Carpinus carolinianus). Characteristic shrubs include winterberry (Ilex verticillata), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), various shrubby dogwoods (Cornus foemina ssp. racemosa, C. amomum, and C. sericea), various viburnums (Viburnum recognitum, V. lentago, and V. cassinoides), speckled alder (Alnus incana ssp. rugosa), gooseberries (Ribes spp.), and sapling canopy trees. Characteristic vines include Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Characteristic herbs include sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), wood-nettle (Laportea canadensis), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), royal fern (O. regalis), marsh fern (Thelypteris palustris), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), manna grasses (Glyceris striata, G. grandis), and various sedges (Carex lupulina, C. crinita, C. bromoides, and C. lacustris). Other herbs in wetter examples include arrow arum (Peltandra virginica), arrowheads (Sagittaria spp.), wild calla (Calla palustris), cattail (Typha latifolia), and duckweeds (Lemna spp.). A few examples are dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and/or lizard’s tail (Saururus cernuus). Silver maple-ash swamps are often underlain by calcareous bedrock and may contain a few calciphilic species, such as northern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis) and alder-leaf buckthorn (Rhamnus alnifolia). Ash-elm dominated swamps with little or no maple are tentatively included here until more data are collected on this variant. Data on characteristic animals are needed.

Distribution: in central and western New York in the Appalachian Plateau ecozone, and in the Champlain Valley sub-zone of the Lake Champlain ecozone.

Rank: G3G4 S2S3

Examples: Kings Bay Wetlands, Clinton County; Beaver Creek Swamp, St. Lawrence County; Black Creek Swamp, Monroe County; Cicero Swamp, Onondaga County; Conesus Wetlands, Livingston County.

Source: Huenneke 1982; NYNHP field surveys.

Dieback of green ash caused by the invasive emerald ash borer has changed the structural appearance of this forest. Today it contains many dead-standing trees, which can be colonized by climbing vines, especially Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia).

3. Vernal pool: an aquatic community of one or more associated intermittently to ephemerally ponded, small, shallow depressions typically within an upland forest, but also within various palustrine and other terrestrial communities. Vernal pools are typically flooded in spring or after a heavy rainfall, but are usually dry during summer. Many vernal pools are filled again in autumn. Substrate is typically dense leaf litter over hydric soils. Substrate type is known to vary from deep sands to loam to sandstone pavement. Vernal pools typically occupy a confined basin (i.e., a standing waterbody without a flowing outlet), but have an intermittent stream flowing out of it during high water. Several hydrologic types of vernal pools have been identified including natural isolated basins, floodplain basins, in-stream basins, swamp pools, and marsh pools (Barbour 1999). This community includes a diverse group of invertebrates and amphibians that depend upon temporary pools as breeding habitat. Since vernal pools cannot support fish populations, there is no threat of fish predation on amphibian eggs or invertebrate larvae. Characteristic animals of vernal pools include species of amphibians, reptiles, crustaceans, mollusks, annelids, and insects. Vernal pool species can be categorized as either obligate (species that depend upon vernal pool habitat for their survival), or facultative (species that are often found in vernal pools, but are not dependent on them and can successfully reproduce elsewhere) (Colburn 1997). Obligate vernal pool amphibians include spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), blue-spotted salamander (A. laterale), Jefferson’s salamander (A. jeffersonianum), marbled salamander (A. opacum) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica). Fairy shrimp (Anostraca) are obligate vernal pool crustaceans, with Eubranchipus spp. being the most common. Facultative vernal pool amphibians include four-toed salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum), red-spotted newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), gray tree frog (Hyla versicolor), green frog (Rana clamitans), American toad (Bufo americanus), and Fowler’s toad (B. woodhousei fowleri). Facultative vernal pool reptiles include painted turtle (Chrysemys picta), spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata), and snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina). Facultative vernal pool mollusks include freshwater fingernail clams (Sphaerium sp., Musculium sp., and Pisidium sp.) and aquatic amphibious snails (Physa sp., Lymnaea sp., and Helisoma sp.). Facultative vernal pool insects include water scorpions, (), predacious diving beetles (Dytiscidae), whirligig beetles (Gyrinidae), dobsonflies (Corydalidae), caddisflies (Trichoptera), dragonflies (Anisoptera), damselflies (Zygoptera), mosquitoes (Cuculidae), springtails (Collembola) and water striders (Gerris sp.). Leeches (Hirudinea) are a facultative vernal pool annelid. Plants are predominantly hydrophytic, typically with a combination of obligate and facultative wetland species. Floating and submergent plants may be common, but emergent plants should be sparse or lacking. Characteristic vascular plants may include manna grass (Glyceria sp.), spikerush (Eleocharis acicularis), water purslane (Ludwigia palustris), naiad (Najas sp.), duckweed (Lemna minor), and water-hemlock (Cicuta maculata). Characteristic bryophytes may include Brachythecium rivulare, Calliergon sp. and Sphagnum spp. A characteristic rare plant of examples on the coastal plain may be featherfoil (Hottonia inflata). Five to seven ecoregional variants (including Northern Appalachian, Great Lakes, Lower New England, Alleghany Plateau and North Atlantic Coast types) are suspected to differ in characteristic and dominant vascular plants, amphibians and invertebrates, as well as water chemistry, water temperature, substrate type, and surrounding forest type. More data on regional variants are needed.

Distribution: throughout New York State.

Rank: G4 S3S4

Examples: River Road North Creek, Warren County; Shawangunk Mountains, Ulster County; Perigo Hill, Rensselaer County.

Sources: Barbour, S. 1999; Colburn, E.A. 1997; Huth and Smiley 1981; Swain and Kearsley 2000; Williams 2001; NYNHP field surveys.

4. Perched swamp white oak swamp: a hardwood to mixed swamp that occurs in shallow depressions located either on flat hillside steps or flat hilltops where the water table is locally perched above the surrounding groundwater level. The water level fluctuates seasonally; the swamp may be flooded in spring and nearly dry by late summer. The substrate ranges from poorly drained mineral soil to muck over bedrock. The dominant tree is swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor), which may form a nearly pure, open canopy stand in areas that are permanently saturated along with red maple (Acer rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and American elm (Ulmus americana). In better-drained areas and along the margin, where the soil is seasonally dry, trees more typical of upland habitat may be found, such as scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea), white oak (Q. alba), white pine (Pinus strobus), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and pitch pine (P. rigida). The understory is fairly open. Characteristic shrubs include saplings of canopy trees, with scattered ericaceous shrubs including black huckleberry (Gaylussacia baccata), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), lowbush blueberry (V. angustifolium), and pink azalea (Rhododendron periclymenoides). Other shrubs include winterberry (Ilex verticillata) and arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum var. lucidum). Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) is a characteristic vine. The groundcover may be sparse, with scattered patches of peat mosses (Sphagnum spp.) where the canopy cover is closed. In areas with an open canopy and wet soils, peat mosses may form extensive carpets. Characteristic herbs include marsh fern (Thelypteris palustris), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), royal fern (O. regalis), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), Tuckerman’s sedge (Carex tuckermanii), Gray’s sedge (Carex grayi), sedge (Carex stipata), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), and mannagrass (Glyceria striata). Swamp white oak dominated or co-dominated swamps on sandy soils that are underlain by a clay layer are classified red maple-swamp white oak swamps. Data on characteristic fauna are needed.

Distribution: not well known; reported from the Finger Lakes Highlands subzone of the Appalachian Plateau ecozone.

Rank: G3G4 S1S2 Revised: 2014

Examples: Swamp, Tompkins County; Blueberry Patch Swamp, Schuyler County.

Sources: Tufts 1976; NYNHP field surveys.

PALUSTRINE REFERENCES

Andrus, R.E. 1980. Sphagnaceae (Peat Moss Family) of New York State. Contributions to a Flora of New York State III. NY State Museum Bull. No. 422, Albany, NY, 89 pp.

Barbour, S. 1999. Northern Shawangunk Vernal Pools Inventory. Final Report to the Shawangunk Biodiversity Partnership. Unpublished report. Eastern New York Chapter of The Nature Conservancy. Troy, NY.

Barrett, N. and R. Enser. 1997. Alluvial plant communities within the Wood-Pawcatuck major basin, Rhode Island. Unpublished report. Rhode Island Natural Heritage Program, Providence, RI.

Bechtel, D.A. and D.D. Sperduto. 1998. Floodplain forest natural communities along major rivers in New Hampshire. Unpublished report submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency prepared by New Hampshire Natural Heritage Program, Concord, NH.

Bray, W. L. 1915. The development of the vegetation of New York State. NYS College of Forestry, Tech. Publ. No. 3, Syracuse, NY.

Colburn, E.A. 1997. A citizen’s step-by-step guide to protecting vernal pools. Seventh edition. Massachusetts Audubon Society, Lincoln, MA.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of Interior, Washington, DC.

Damman, A. W. H. and T. W. French. 1987. The ecology of peat bogs of the glaciated Northeastern United States: a community profile. US Fish Wildlife Service, Biol. Rep. 85 (7-16) 100 pp.

Driscoll, R.S., D.L. Merkel, D.L. Radloff, D.E. Snyder, and J.S. Hagihara. 1984. An ecological land classification framework for the United States. Miscellaneous Publ. 1439. US Department of Agriculture, Washington DC.

Fike, J. 1999. Terrestrial and Palustrine Plant Communities of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory, Harrisburg, PA. 86 pp.

Godwin, K.S., J.P. Shallenberger, D.J. Leopold, and B.L. Bedford. 2000. Linking landscape parameters to local hydrogeologic gradients and plant species occurrence in New York fens: A hydrogeologic setting (HGS) framework. Unpublished draft manuscript. December 20, 2000. Acad. Science 8: 233-298.

Gordon, R.B. 1937. The primeval forest types of southwestern New York. NYS Museum Bull. No. 321, Albany, N.Y.

Heinselman, M.L. 1970. Landscape evolution, peatland types, and the environment in the Lake Agassiz Peatlands Natural Area, Minnesota. Ecol. Monogr. 40:235-261.

Hotchkiss, N. 1932. A botanical survey of the Tug Hill plateau. NYS Museum Bull. No. 287, Albany, N.Y.

Huenneke, L. F. 1982. Wetland forests of Tompkins County, New York. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 109: 51-63.

Hunsinger, K. C. 1999. A survey of the amphibians and reptiles of the Albany Pine Bush. M.S. thesis submitted to the University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY.

Huth, P. and D. Smiley. 1981. Shawangunk Vernal Pool Report. Daniel Smiley Research Center. Mohonk Preserve, Inc. New Paltz, NY.

Johnson, A. M. and D. J. Leopold. 1994. Vascular plant species richness and rarity across a minerotrophic gradient in wetlands of St. Lawrence County, New York, USA. Biodiversity Conserv. 3:606-627.

Kearsley, J.B. 1999. Inventory and vegetation classification of floodplain forest communities in Massachusetts. Rhodora 101:105-135.

Levine, E. (editor). 1998. Bull’s birds of New York. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

McVaugh, R. 1958. Flora of Columbia County area, New York. NYS Museum and Sci. Service, Bull. No. 360, Albany, NY.

Metzler, K.J. and A.W.H. Damman. 1985. Vegetation patterns in the Connecticut River flood plain in relation to frequency and duration of flooding. Le Naturaliste Canadien 112:535-547.

Motzkin, G. 1994. Calcareous fens of western New England and adjacent New York State. Rhodora. 96(885): 44-68.

Nichols, W.F., D.D. Sperduto, D.A. Bechtel, and K.F. Crowley. 2000. Floodplain forest natural communities along minor rivers and large streams in New Hampshire. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory, Concord, NH.

Olivero, A. 2001. Classification and mapping of New York’s calcareous fen communities. Unpublished report. New York Natural Heritage Program, Albany, NY.

Reschke, C., B. Bedford, N. Slack, and F. R. Wesley. 1990. Fen Vegetation of New York State. A poster presented on July 31, 1990 at the Ecological Society of America Annual Meeting, Snowbird, Utah.

Seischab, F. K. 1984. Plant community development in the Byron-Bergen Swamp: marl-bed vegetation. Can. J. Bot. 62: 1006-1017.

Shanks, R. E. 1966. An ecological survey of the vegetation of Monroe County, New York. Proc. Rochester Acad. Sci. 11: 108-252.

Sorenson, E., B. Engstrom, M. Lapin, R. Popp, and S. Parren. 1998. Northern white cedar swamps and red maple-northern white cedar swamps of Vermont: some sites of ecological significance. Vermont Nongame and Natural Heritage Program, Waterbury, VT.

Sperduto, D.D. 2000. A classification of wetland natural communities in New Hampshire. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory, Concord, NH.

Sperduto, D.D. and B. Engstrom. 1998. Northern white cedar swamps of New Hampshire. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory, Concord, NH.

Swain, P.C. and J.B. Kearsley. 2000. Classification of the Natural Communities of Massachusetts. Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, MA.

Veneman, P.L.M. and R.W. Tiner. 1990. Soil-vegetation correlations in the Connecticut River floodplain of western Massachusetts. Biological report 90(6). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Williams, D.D. 2001. The Ecology of Temporary Waters. The Blackburn Press, Caldwell, NJ.

TERRESTRIAL SYSTEM

These habitats have well-drained soils that are dry to mesic (never hydric), and vegetative cover that is never predominantly hydrophytic, even if the soil surface is occasionally or seasonally flooded or saturated. In other words, this is a broadly defined system that includes everything except aquatic, wetland, and subterranean communities.

A. OPEN UPLANDS This subsystem includes upland communities with less than 25% canopy cover of trees; The dominant species in these communities are shrubs, herbs, or cryptogammic plants (mosses, lichens, etc.). Three distinctive physiognomic types are included in this subsystem. Grasslands include communities that are dominated by grasses and sedges; they may include scattered shrubs (never more than 50% cover of shrubs), and scattered trees (usually less than one tree per acre, or 3 trees per hectare). Meadows include plant communities with forbs, grasses, sedges, and shrubs codominant; they may include scattered trees. Shrublands include communities that are dominated by shrubs (more than 50% cover of shrubs); they may include scattered trees.

1. Eroding slope/bluff: a sparsely vegetated community that occurs on vertical exposures of unconsolidated material, such as small stone, gravel, sand, and clay, that is exposed to erosional forces from rivers or lakes (excluding Great Lakes), such as water, ice, or wind. There are very few woody species present because of the unstable substrate. Most abundant species are usually annual and early successional herbs. More data are needed for this community.

Distribution: not well known; likely occurring along many of the confined rivers throughout the state.

Rank: G4 S2S3

Examples: Chautauqua Gorge, Chautauqua County.

2. Successional old field: a meadow dominated by forbs and grasses that occurs on sites that have been cleared and plowed (for farming or development), and then abandoned. Characteristic herbs include goldenrods (Solidago altissima, S. nemoralis, S. rugosa, S. juncea, S. canadensis, and Euthamia graminifolia), bluegrasses (Poa pratensis, P. compressa), timothy (Phleum pratense), quackgrass (Agropyron repens), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), common chickweed (Cerastium arvense), common evening primrose (Oenothera biennis), old-field cinquefoil (Potentilla simplex), calico aster (Aster lateriflorus), New England aster (Aster novae- angliae), wild strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), Queen-Anne’s-lace (Daucus corota), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), hawkweeds (Hieracium spp.), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), and ox-tongue (Picris hieracioides). Shrubs may be present, but collectively they have less than 50% cover in the community. Characteristic shrubs include gray dogwood (Cornus foemina ssp. racemosa), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), arrowwood (Viburnum recognitum), raspberries (Rubus spp.), sumac (Rhus typhina, R. glabra), and eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). A characteristic bird is the field sparrow (Spizella pusilla). This is a relatively short-lived community that succeeds to a shrubland, woodland, or forest community.

Distribution: throughout New York State.

Rank: G4 S4

Examples: Chippewa Creek Plains, St. Lawrence County; Finger Lakes National Forest, Schuyler County.

Sources: Mellinger and McNaughton 1975; NYNHP field surveys.

The Town of Bristol has many expressions of successional old field with plant composition highly dependent on years since agricultural abandonment and neighboring seed sources. This community type is short-lived, perhaps becoming successional shrubland, or being placed back into active agricultural use, or permanently converted to residential land use.

3. Successional shrubland: a shrubland that occurs on sites that have been cleared (for farming, logging, development, etc.) or otherwise disturbed. This community has at least 50% cover of shrubs. Characteristic shrubs include gray dogwood (Cornus foemina ssp. racemosa), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), raspberries (Rubus spp.), hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), serviceberries (Amelanchier spp.), choke-cherry (Prunus virginiana), wild plum (Prunus americana), sumac (Rhus glabra, R. typhina), nanny-berry (Viburnum lentago), arrowwood (Viburnum recognitum), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). Birds that may be found in successional shrublands brown thrasher, blue-winged warbler, golden-winged warbler, chestnut-sided warbler, yellow-breasted chat, eastern towhee, field sparrow, song sparrow, and indigo bunting (Levine 1998). Distribution: throughout New York State.

Rank: G4 S4

Examples: Chippewa Creek Plains, St. Lawrence County; Finger Lakes National Forest, Schuyler County.

Source: NYNHP field surveys.

B. BARRENS AND WOODLANDS This subsystem includes upland communities that are structurally intermediate between forests and open canopy uplands. Several physiognomic types are included in this subsystem. Savannas are communities with a sparse canopy of trees (25 to 60% cover), and a ground layer that is predominantly either grassy or shrubby (these will be called, respectively, grass-savanna and shrub-savanna). Woodlands include communities with a canopy of stunted or dwarf trees (less than 16 ft or 4.9 m tall), and wooded communities occurring on shallow soils over bedrock with numerous rock outcrops. The term “barrens” is commonly applied to both savannas and woodlands (e.g., pine barrens).

1. Shale talus slope woodland: an open to closed canopy woodland that occurs on talus slopes composed of shale. These slopes are rather unstable, and they are usually very well-drained, so the soils are shallow and dry. The canopy cover is usually less than 50%, due to the instability of the substrate. Characteristic trees include chestnut oak (Quercus montana), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Q. alba), white pine (Pinus strobus), white ash (Fraxinus americana), and eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). Characteristic shrubs and herbs include smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), scrub oak (Quercus prinoides), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), penstemon (Penstemon hirsutus), everlasting (Antennaria plantaginifolia), and Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica). More data on this community are needed.

Distribution: scattered throughout upstate New York, north of the Coastal Lowlands ecozone.

Rank: G3G4 S3

Examples: Chemung Shale Slope, Chemung County; Potic Mountain, Greene County; Whetstone Gulf, Lewis County; Chautauqua Gorge, Chautauqua County.

Sources: McVaugh 1958; NYNHP field surveys.

These are some of the most inaccessible plant communities within the Town of Bristol due to their occurrence along the steeper slopes of privately owned ravine forests. This cover type may represent the oldest plant community within the Town, with some gnarly oak tree ages possibly approaching 400 years.

C. FORESTED UPLANDS This subsystem includes upland communities with more than 60% canopy cover of trees; these communities occur on substrates with less than 50% rock outcrop or shallow soil over bedrock.

1. Appalachian oak-hickory forest: a hardwood forest that occurs on well-drained sites, usually on ridgetops, upper slopes, or south- and west-facing slopes. The soils are usually loams or sandy loams. This is a broadly defined forest community with several regional and edaphic variants. The dominant trees include one or more of the following oaks: red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Q. alba), and black oak (Q. velutina). Mixed with the oaks, usually at lower densities, are one or more of the following hickories: pignut (Carya glabra), shagbark (C. ovata), and sweet pignut (C. ovalis). Common associates are white ash (Fraxinus americana), red maple (Acer rubrum), and Eastern hop hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana). There is typically a subcanopy stratum of small trees and tall shrubs including flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), shadbush (Amelanchier arborea), and choke cherry (Prunus virginiana). Common low shrubs include maple-leaf virburnum (Viburnum acerifolium), blueberries (Vaccinium angustifolium, V. pallidum), red raspberry (Rubus idaeus), gray dogwood (Cornus foemina ssp. racemosa), and beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta). The shrublayer and groundlayer flora may be diverse. Characteristic groundlayer herbs are wild sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis), false Solomon’s seal (Smilacina racemosa), Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica), tick-trefoil (Desmodium glutinosum, D. paniculatum), black cohosh (Cimicifuga racemosa), rattlesnake root (Prenanthes alba), white goldenrod (Solidago bicolor), and hepatica (Hepatica americana). Characteristic animals include red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), whip- poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus), and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo).

Distribution: throughout upstate New York north of the Coastal Lowlands ecozone; most common south of the Adirondacks ecozone.

Rank: G4G5 S4

Examples: Bristol Hills, Ontario County; Finger Lakes National Forest, Schuyler County; Storm King Mountain, Orange County; Long Eddy, Delaware County.

Sources: McIntosh 1972; Ross 1958; NYNHP field surveys.

2. Chestnut oak forest: a hardwood forest that occurs on well-drained sites in glaciated portions of the Appalachians. This forest is similar to the Allegheny oak forest; it is distinguished by fewer canopy dominants and a less diverse shrub layer and ground layer flora. Dominant trees are typically chestnut oak (Quercus montana) and red oak (Q. rubra). Common associates are white oak (Q. alba), black oak (Q. velutina), and red maple (Acer rubrum). American chestnut (Castanea dentata) was a common associate in these forests prior to the chestnut blight; chestnut sprouts are still found in some stands. The shrub layer is predominantly ericaceous; characteristic shrubs are black huckleberry (Gaylussacia baccata), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), and lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium pallidum). Common ground layer plants are Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica), wild sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis), wintergreen (Gaultheria procumbens), and white cushion moss (Leucobryum glaucum). At least three edaphic variants with different understory dominants are known: 1) a tall shrub-dominated understory with 60-90% mountain laurel; 2) a short shrub-dominated understory with dense dwarf heaths, such as black huckleberry; and 3) an herb-dominated understory with Pennsylvania sedge. Chestnut oak forests may include small woodland patches (i.e., tree canopy less than 60%) with similar floristic composition. These embedded woodlands are often associated with summits and rock outcrops. Larger embedded patches may be classified as one of the woodland or summit types in this classification. Data on characteristic fauna are needed.

Distribution: most common on mid-elevation slopes of the ecozone, also occurs in the Manhattan Hills and Coastal Lowlands ecozones, and in the southeastern portion of the Appalachian Plateau ecozone. Reportedly occurs on the eastern slopes of the (M. Corey pers. comm.).

Rank: G5 S4

Examples: Hudson Highlands, Orange and Rockland Counties; Northern Shawangunk Mountains, Ulster County.

Sources: Braun 1950; Conard 1935; Eyre 1980; McIntosh 1972; McVaugh 1958; Ross 1958; NYNHP field surveys.

3. Appalachian oak-pine forest: a mixed forest that occurs on sandy soils, sandy ravines in pine barrens, or on slopes with rocky soils that are well-drained. The canopy is dominated by a mixture of oaks and pines. The oaks include one or more of the following: black oak (Quercus velutina), chestnut oak (Q. montana), red oak (Q. rubra), white oak (Q. alba), and scarlet oak (Q. coccinea). The pines are either white pine (Pinus strobus) or pitch pine (P. rigida); in some stands both pines are present, but white pine should be greater than pitch pine. Red maple (Acer rubrum), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and black cherry (Prunus serotina) are common associates occurring at low densities. The tall shrub layer includes saplings of canopy trees plus witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), serviceberry (Amelanchier arborea), and hazelnuts (Corylus americana, C. cornuta). The short shrub layer is predominantly ericaceous, usually with lowbush blueberries (Vaccinium angustifolium, V. pallidum) and black huckleberry (Gaylussacia baccata), but also includes maple-leaf viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium) and tree canopy seedlings. The groundlayer is relatively sparse, and comprised of Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica), Canada mayflower (Maianthemum canadense), star flower (Trientalis borealis), wild sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis), common hairgrass (Avenella flexuosa), partridge berry (Mitchella repens), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum var. latiusculum), woodferns (Dryopteris intermedia, D. marginalis), and wintergreen (Gaultheria procumbens). Although Appalachian oak-pine forest currently includes white pine forests of the Coastal Lowlands, the latter may be distinctive enough to be designated as “coastal white pine-oak forest.” Appalachian oak-pine forest would be distinguished from a “coastal white pine-oak forest” by the presence of bedrock and large rocks (instead of sand and gravel), and by the presence and dominance of red oak instead of dominance by scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea) with red oak lacking. More data on the coastal variant and characteristic fauna are needed.

Distribution: occurs in the Appalachian Plateau, Hudson Valley, and Taconic Highlands ecozones.

Rank: G4G5 S4 Revised: 2011

Examples: Tongue Mountain, Warren County; Steege Hill, Chemung County; Catskill Escarpment, Greene County; Rome Sand Plains, Oneida County; Wilton Wildlife Preserve & Park, Saratoga County. Sources: Braun 1950; McVaugh 1958; NYNHP field surveys.

4. Maple-basswood rich mesic forest: a species-rich northern hardwood forest that typically occurs on well-drained, moist soils of circumneutral pH. Calcium-rich indicator herbs are predominant in the ground layer and are usually correlated with calcareous bedrock, although bedrock does not have to be exposed. Where bedrock outcrops are lacking, surficial features such as seeps are often present. The dominant trees are sugar maple (Acer saccharum), basswood (Tilia americana), and white ash (Fraxinus americana). Associate tree species can include hop hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), red oak (Quercus rubra), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), butternut (Juglans cinerea), and American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana). Characteristic tall shrubs are alternate-leaved dogwood (Cornus alternifolia), mountain maple (Acer spicatum), and witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana); the shrub layer is typically patchy and can be quite sparse in herb rich areas. Spring ephemerals are usually abundant in the ground layer. Characteristic species are wild leek (Allium tricoccum), troutlily (Erythronium americanum), dutchman's breeches (Dicentra cucullaria), squirrel-corn (Dicentra canadensis), purple trillium (Trillium erectum), nodding trillium (Trillium cernuum), spring beauty (Claytonia virginica), maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum), bulbet fern (Cystopteris bulbifera), Goldie’s fern (Dryopteris goldiana), lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina var. aslplenioides), silvery glade fern (Deparia acrostichoides), glade fern (Diplazium pyncnocarpon), blue cohosh (Caulophyllum thalictroides), herb robert (Geranium robertianum), wild ginger (Asarum canadense), early meadow-rue (Thalictrum dioicum), false Solomon's seal (Maianthemum racemosum), white baneberry (Actaea pachypoda), Virginia waterleaf (Hydrophyllum virginianum), two-leaf toothwort (Cardamine diphylla), bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis), foam flower (Tiarella cordifolia), mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum), and wide-leaved sedges (Carex plantaginea, Carex platyphylla, C. albursina). Maple-basswood rich mesic forest can be distinguished from beech-maple mesic forest by the predominance of calcium-rich indicator plants in the herbaceous layer and the high species diversity of this layer, which often supports a variety of fern species and a strong component of spring ephemerals. A less rich variant codominated by red oak and sugar maple is reported from the lower Hudson Valley (A. Finton, S. Barbour, J. Braden pers. comm.). More data on the variant and characteristic fauna are needed.

Distribution: primarily known from the Great Lakes Plain ecozone.

Rank: G4 S3

Examples: Allegany State Park, Cattaraugus County; Pitcarin Forest, St. Lawrence and Lewis Counties; Great Gully, Cayuga County.

Sources: Braun 1950; Eaton and Schrot 1987; Eyre 1980; NYNHP field surveys.

Raised terraces along the floodplain of ravines draining to the Bristol Valley are the typical landscape position for this plant community. These terraces are typically found close to the valley where slopes are minimal and the postglacial erosion is mature. Sites have a humid microclimate with potentially moist conditions but well-drained soils.

5. Hemlock-northern hardwood forest: a mixed forest that typically occurs on middle to lower slopes of ravines, on cool, mid-elevation slopes, and on moist, well-drained sites at the margins of swamps. In any one stand, eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) is codominant with any one to three of the following: sugar maple (Acer saccharum), red maple (A. rubrum), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), black birch (B. lenta), red oak (Quercus rubra), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), white ash (Fraxinus americana), chestnut oak (Quercus montana), white oak (Q. alba), and white pine (Pinus strobus). Other trees may include hop hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and basswood (Tilia americana). The relative cover of eastern hemlock is quite variable, ranging from nearly pure stands in some steep ravines to as little as 20% of the canopy cover. Striped maple (Acer pensylvanicum) is often prominent as a mid-story tree. The shrub layer may be sparse and typically includes saplings of canopy trees. Characteristic shrubs are witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), hobblebush (Viburnum lantanoides), maple-leaf viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium), lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium pallidum), and raspberries (Rubus spp.). In some ravines, especially in the southern part of the state, rosebay (Rhododendron maximum) forms a dense subcanopy or tall shrub layer. Canopy cover can be quite dense, resulting in low light intensities on the forest floor and hence a relatively sparse groundlayer. Characteristic groundlayer herbs include woodferns (Dryopteris marginalis, D. intermedia, D. campyloptera), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), Canada mayflower (Maianthemum canadense), white wood aster (Eurybia divaricata), sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis), partridge berry (Mitchella repens), common wood-sorrel (Oxalis montana), jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), star flower (Trientalis borealis), lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina var. asplenioides), and Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica). Other plants include Indian cucumber-root (Medeola virginiana), sessile-leaved bellwort (Uvularia sessilifolia), shining fir clubmoss (Huperzia lucidula), foamflower (Tiarella cordifolia), round- leaf violet (Viola rotundifolia), twisted stalk (Streptopus roseus), purple trillium (Trillium erectum), and white cushion moss (Leucobryum glaucum). In forests that have American beech as a codominant tree, beech-drops (Epifagus virginiana) is a common herb. Indian-pipe (Monotropa uniflora) and American pinesap (M. hypopithys) are occasionally found in low light examples. Hay-scented fern (Dennstaedtia punctilobula) and New York fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis) may be common in canopy gaps. Birds frequently found in hemlock forests include Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), blue-headed vireo (Vireo solitarius), black- throated green warbler (Dendroica virens), and Blackburnian warbler (Dendroica fusca) (Ross et al. 2004). These birds are not restricted to this forest type. More data on characteristic fauna are needed. This is a broadly defined and very widespread community, with many regional and edaphic variants. For example, in the Hudson Valley, eastern hemlock is sometimes codominant with red oak (Charney 1980) and is also the case in central and western New York (D. Faber- Langendoen pers. comm.); in the Adirondacks, yellow birch and sugar maple are sometimes codominant, with a relatively small number of eastern hemlocks as well as a few red spruce (Picea rubens). More data on the shrub layer and groundlayer composition are needed before these regional variants can be distinguished as separate types. Distribution: throughout New York State.

Rank: G4G5 S4 Revised: 2004

Examples: , Franklin County; Five Ponds Wilderness Area, Herkimer and Hamilton Counties; Slide Mountain, Sullivan and Ulster Counties; Big Basin in Allegany State Park, Cattaraugus County; Western Rensselaer Plateau Escarpment, Rensselaer County.

Sources: Braun 1950; Charney 1980; Eyre 1980; Heimburger 1934; Leopold et al. 1988; McIntosh 1972; McVaugh 1958; Ross 1958; Ross et al. 2004; Shanks 1966; NYNHP field surveys.

In the Town of Bristol, Center Gully at the Camp Bristol Hills 4-H property is an excellent example of this plant community. Here the shrub also contains an abundance of mountain maple (Acer spicatum).

Note: The following successional forests, and the successional red cedar woodland described earlier (in the NYNHP manual but not found in the Town of Bristol field surveys), develop on sites that have been cleared (for farming, logging, etc.) or otherwise disturbed (by fire, ice scour, wind throw, flooding, etc.). Successional forests generally have the following characteristics: 1) dominated by light-requiring, wind-dispersed species that are well-adapted to establishment following disturbance, 2) lack the reproduction of the canopy species, 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 ground layer, or include species that occurred on or near the site prior to disturbance, 5) comprised of canopy trees with small diameter (generally less 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., stonewalls), and 8) relatively low canopy height with poor tree diversity and poor development of multiple strata.

5. Successional northern hardwoods: a hardwood or mixed forest that occurs on sites that have been cleared or otherwise disturbed. Characteristic trees and shrubs include any of the following: quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), big-tooth aspen (P. grandidentata), balsam poplar (P. balsamifera), paper birch (Betula papyrifera), or gray birch (B. populifolia), pin cherry (Prunus pensylvanica), black cherry (P. serotina), red maple (Acer rubrum), white pine (Pinus strobus), with lesser amounts of white ash (Fraxinus americana), green ash (F. pensylvanica), and American elm (Ulmus americana). Northern indicators include aspens, birches, and pin cherry. This is a broadly defined community and several seral and regional variants are known. Characteristic birds include chestnut-sided warbler (Dendroica pensylvanica), Nashville warbler (Vermivora ruficapilla) in young forests with aspen and birch seedlings, and yellow- bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius) in mature aspen forests.

Distribution: throughout upstate New York north of the Coastal Lowlands ecozone.

Rank: G5 S5

Example: Chase Lake Sandplain, Lewis County.

Source: Mellinger and McNaughton 1975; NYNHP field surveys.

This broad classification of successional forests needs further refinement. The sites in the Town of Bristol often are dominated by a mixture of shade intolerant trees including black walnut, pignut hickory and white ash along with some of the tree species listed in this generic description.

6. Successional southern hardwoods: a hardwood or mixed forest that occurs on sites that have been cleared or otherwise disturbed. Characteristic trees and shrubs include any of the following: American elm (Ulmus americana), slippery elm (U. rubra), white ash (Fraxinus americana), red maple (Acer rubrum), box elder (Acer negundo), silver maple (A. saccharinum), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), gray birch (Betula populifolia), hawthorns (Crataegus spp.), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and choke-cherry (Prunus virginiana). Certain introduced species are commonly found in successional forests, including black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia), tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), and buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica). Any of these may be dominant or codominant in a successional southern hardwood forest. Southern indicators include American elm, white ash, red maple, box elder, choke-cherry, and sassafras. This is a broadly defined community and several seral and regional variants are known. A characteristic bird is chestnut-sided warbler (Dendroica pensylvanica).

Distribution: primarily in the southern half of New York, south of the Adirondacks.

Rank: G5 S5 Revised: 2001

Example: Chippewa Creek Plains, St. Lawrence County.

Sources: Eyre 1980; NYNHP field surveys

C. TERRESTRIAL CULTURAL This subsystem includes communities that are either created and maintained by human activities, or are modified by human influence to such a degree that the physical conformation of the substrate, or the biological composition of the resident community is substantially different from the character of the substrate or community as it existed prior to human influence.

1. Cropland/row crops: an agricultural field planted in row crops such as corn, potatoes, and soybeans. This community includes vegetable gardens in residential areas.

Distribution: throughout New York State.

Rank: G5 S5

2. Cropland/field crops: an agricultural field planted in field crops such as alfalfa, wheat, timothy, and oats. This community includes hayfields that are rotated to pasture. Characteristic birds include grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), bobolink (Dolichonys oryzivorous), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda).

Distribution: throughout New York State.

Rank: G5 S5

Note: No distinction between cropland/row crops and cropland/field crops was made during the field survey work. In any given year, based on crop rotation patterns, row crops or field crops may be the cultural land use present. Cropland was the mapping attribute used for naming these sites within the Town of Bristol.

3. Pastureland: agricultural land permanently maintained (or recently abandoned) as a pasture area for livestock. Characteristic birds include grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), and upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda).

Distribution: throughout New York State.

Rank: G5 S5

4. Flower/herb garden: residential, commercial, or horticultural land cultivated for the production of ornamental herbs and shrubs. This community includes gardens cultivated for the production of culinary herbs. Characteristic birds include American robin (Turdus migratorius) and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura).

Distribution: throughout New York State. Rank: G5 S5

5. Orchard: a stand of cultivated fruit trees (such as apples, cherries, peaches, pears, etc.) often with grasses as a groundcover. An orchard may be currently under cultivation or recently abandoned. Staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina), goldenrods (Solidago spp.), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) may be common in abandoned orchards. Characteristic birds include American robin (Turdus migratorius), eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and in mature orchards with a minimum dbh of 10 in (about 25 cm), yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius).

Distribution: throughout New York State at low elevations.

Rank: G5 S5

6. Vineyard: a stand of cultivated vines (such as grapes, or raspberries), often with grasses as a groundcover.

Distribution: throughout New York State at low elevations.

Rank: unranked cultural

Hop vineyards were also placed in this classification category.

7. Conifer plantation: a stand of softwoods planted for the cultivation and harvest of timber products, or to provide wildlife habitat, soil erosion control, windbreaks, or landscaping. This is a broadly defined community that excludes stands in which pine, spruce, or fir are dominant, although they may be present at low densities. These plantings may be monocultures, or they may be mixed stands with two or more codominant species. Softwoods that are typically planted in these plantations include European larch (Larix decidua), Japanese larch (Larix kaempferi), and northern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis). Groundlayer vegetation is usually sparse, apparently because of the dense accumulation of leaf litter. Speedwell (Veronica officinalis) is a characteristic groundlayer plant. More data on this community are needed.

Distribution: throughout New York State.

Rank: G5 S5

For the Town of Bristol, all conifer stands including those dominated by Scotch pine, eastern white pine, European larch, white spruce and spruce, were categorized as conifer plantations.

8. Mowed lawn with trees: residential, recreational, or commercial land in which the groundcover is dominated by clipped grasses and forbs, and it is shaded by at least 30% cover of trees. Ornamental and/or native shrubs may be present, usually with less than 50% cover. The groundcover is maintained by mowing. Characteristic animals include gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), American robin (Turdus migratorius), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos).

Distribution: throughout New York State.

Rank: G5 S5

Pioneer and modern cemeteries are typical of this classification category.

9. Mowed lawn: residential, recreational, or commercial land, or unpaved airport runways in which the groundcover is dominated by clipped grasses and there is less than 30% cover of trees. Ornamental and/or native shrubs may be present, usually with less than 50% cover. The groundcover is maintained by mowing. Characteristic birds include American robin (Turdus migratorius), upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), and killdeer (Charadrius vociferus).

Distribution: throughout New York State.

Rank: G5 S5

10. Gravel mine: an excavation in a gravel deposit from which gravel has been removed. Often these are dug into glacial deposits such as eskers or kames. Vegetation may be sparse if the mine is active; there may be substantial vegetative cover if the mine has been inactive for several years. Near-vertical slopes are used by bank swallows (Riparia riparia) for nesting sites.

Distribution: throughout New York State.

Rank: G5 S5

10a. Gravel mine (abandoned)

11. Construction/road maintenance spoils: a site where soil from construction work and/or road maintenance materials have been recently deposited. There is little, if any, vegetation.

Distribution: throughout New York State.

Rank: G5 S5

12. Junkyard: a site that has been cleared for disposal or storage of primarily inorganic refuse, including discarded automobiles, large appliances, mechanical parts, etc. Small pockets of water that collect within the junk piles and in discarded tires provide abundant breeding sites for mosquitoes.

Distribution: throughout New York State.

Rank: G5 S5

13. Urban structure exterior: the exterior surfaces of metal, wood, or concrete structures (such as commercial buildings, apartment buildings, houses, bridges) or any structural surface composed of inorganic materials (glass, plastics, etc.) in an urban or densely populated suburban area. These sites may be sparsely vegetated with lichens, mosses, and terrestrial algae; occasionally vascular plants may grow in cracks. Nooks and crannies may provide nesting habitat for birds and insects, and roosting sites for bats. Characteristic birds include common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) on rooftops, American robin (Turdus migratorius) on porches or under shelter, and exotic birds such as rock dove (Columba livia) and house sparrow (Passer domesticus).

Distribution: throughout New York State.

Rank: G5 S5

14. Rural structure exterior: the exterior surfaces of metal, wood, or concrete structures (such as commercial buildings, barns, houses, bridges) or any structural surface composed of inorganic materials (glass, plastics, etc.) in a rural or sparsely populated suburban area. These sites may be sparsely vegetated with lichens, mosses, and terrestrial algae; occasionally vascular plants may grow in cracks. Nooks and crannies may provide nesting habitat for birds and insects, and roosting sites for bats. Characteristic birds include American robin (Turdus migratorius), on porches or under shelter, barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) under shelter, and exotic birds such as rock dove (Columba livia), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris).

Distribution: throughout New York State.

Rank: G5 S5

Note: The following cover types are NOT from the NYNHP classification manual about are utilized here due to their ease of recognition and obvious environmental values.

15. Outdoor recreation: a land parcel devoted to active or passive recreational activities. The land may be a public park or commercial enterprise.

Distribution: throughout New York State.

Rank: not ranked

16. Parking area: a land parcel used for the purpose of intermittent vehicular parking. The surface may be gravel or lawn, but typically is impermeable asphalt pavement that enhances surface runoff. The runoff often contains hydrocarbon contaminants from the vehicles. Characteristic birds include ring-billed gull (Larus delawarensis), rock dove (Columba livia), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris).

Distribution: throughout New York State.

Rank: not ranked

TERRESTRIAL REFERENCES

Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, D.C.

Gordon, R. B. 1937. The primeval forest types of southwestern New York. N.Y.S. Mus. Bull. No. 321, Albany, N.Y.

Heimburger, C. C. 1934. Forest-type studies in the Adirondack Region. Cornell Univ. Exp. Sta. Memoir 165, Ithaca, N.Y.

Leopold, D. J., C. Reschke, and D. Smith. 1988. Old-growth forests of Adirondack Park, New York. Natural Areas Journal 8(3): 166-189.

McIntosh, R. P. 1972. Forests of the Catskill Mountains, New York. Ecol. Monogr.42: 143-161.

Mellinger, M. V. and S. J. McNaughton. 1975. Structure and function of successional vascular plant communities in central New York. Ecol. Monogr. 45: 161-182.

Ross, P. 1958. Microclimatic and vegetational studies in a cold-wet deciduous forest. Black Rock Forest Papers No. 24, Harvard Black Rock Forest, Cornwall-on-the-Hudson, N.Y.

Shanks, R. E. 1966. An ecological survey of the vegetation of Monroe County, New York. Proc. Rochester Acad. Sci. 11: 108-252.

Acronyms for community cover type names displayed on previous map legend:

AO-HF Appalachian Oak-Hickory Forest AO-PF Appalachian Oak-Pine Forest C Cropland C/RMS Construction/Road Maintenance Spoils COF Chestnut Oak Forest CP Conifer Plantation CP//SNH Conifer Plantation mixed with Successional Northern Hardwoods DEM Deep Emergent Marsh DEM//FF Deep Emergent Marsh mixed with Floodplain Forest EP Eutrophic Pond ES/B Eroding Slope/Bluff F/HG Flower/Herb Garden FF Floodplain Forest FP/AP Farm Pond/Artificial Pond GM Gravel Mine GM(A) Gravel Mine (Abandoned) H-NHF Hemlock-Northern Hardwood Forest J Junkyard M-BRMF Maple-Basswood Rich Mesic Forest ML Mowed Lawn MLWT Mowed Lawn With Trees Mud Creek (approximates the description for confined river in report text) O Orchard OL Oxbow Lake OR Outdoor Recreation P Pasture PA Parking Area PSWOS Perched Swamp White Oak Swamp RSE Rural Structure Exterior SEM Shallow Emergent Marsh SEM//SM-AS Shallow Emergent Marsh mixed with Silver Maple-Ash Swamp SEM//SS Shallow Emergent Marsh mixed with Shrub Swamp SM-AS Silver Maple-Ash Swamp SNH Successional Northern Hardwoods SOF Successional Old Field SOF//CP Successional Old Field mixed with Conifer Plantation SOF//SNH Successional Old Field mixed with Successional Northern Hardwoods SOF//SUC.S Successional Old Field mixed with Successional Shrubland SS Shrub Swamp SS//FF Shrub Swamp mixed with Floodplain Forest SS//SNH Shrub Swamp mixed with Successional Northern Hardwoods SSH Successional Southern Hardwoods SSH//SNH Successional Southern Hardwoods mixed with Successional Northern Hardwoods STSW Shale Talus Slope Woodland SUC.S Successional Shrubland SUC.S//CP Successional Shrubland mixed with Conifer Plantation SUC.S//SNH Successional Shrubland mixed with Successional Northern Hardwoods SUC.S//SSH Successional Shrubland mixed with Successional Southern Hardwoods USE Urban Structure Exterior V Vineyard VP Vernal Pool

Qualifications of project staff: Dr. Bruce Gilman

Dr. Gilman had taught in the Department of Environmental Conservation and Horticulture at Finger Lakes Community College for the past 42 years, retiring in August 2018. His teaching expertise included aquatic ecology, field botany and environmental planning. He continues working with the college in several capacities. He serves as the Director of the Muller Field Station located in the southern Honeoye Valley. He also curates the Finger Lakes Herbarium, a collection of over 16,000 sheets containing plants representative of western New York, and is author of the Ontario County Flora. His wealth of botanical knowledge is regularly shared with general public through walks, garden club presentations, and lectures sponsored by The Nature Conservancy, The Finger Lakes Land Trust, the Canandaigua Botanical Society, Ontario Pathways, the Rochester Academy of Science, and the college. Dr. Gilman received his B.S. degree from St. John Fisher College in Rochester, NY. He completed his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees at the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse, NY.

While completing his M.S. degree in the mid-1970s, Dr. Gilman conducted extensive research in wetland plant communities along the eastern shoreline of Lake Ontario. This New York State SEAGRANT sponsored project involved aquatic macrophyte mapping, biomass sampling, water analyses and sediment characterization. He has completed and published similar work in the aquatic macrophyte communities in Honeoye Lake, Canandaigua Lake, , Canadice Lake and . Dr. Gilman has also completed an inventory of the macrophyte communities in the three major Wayne County Bays of Lake Ontario. Prepared for the New York State Federation of Lake Associations, Inc., and sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency, Dr. Gilman completed research and published A History of Distribution in Upstate New York in 1992. The occurrence of 78 taxa in 70 water bodies was examined. From 1996 to 2018, he was the principal investigator in limnological studies monitoring the health of Canandaigua Lake and sampling the quality of its tributary streams. Lake water is monitored April through November with a Yellow Springs Instrument Company water quality probe, and tested for chlorophyll a abundance and total phosphorus concentrations. Following storm events, streams are sampled for sediment loads, nutrient levels and bacterial contamination. In 2003, Honeoye Lake deep water sediment was collected by core sampling and its potential role in the phosphorus budget of the lake was determined. From 2016 to 2018, he conducted research regarding climate change effects on thermal regimes and harmful algal blooms in Honeoye Lake. Dr. Gilman has served as a scientific advisor to the Honeoye Lake Watershed Taskforce, and on two Ontario County Boards, the Water Resources Council (the County’s water quality coordinating committee) and the Intermunicipal GIS Coordinating Committee.

Dr. Gilman has authored 26 technical reports that include taxonomically broad natural resource inventories and planning recommendations. Of interest is research conducted in old growth forests in the Town of Webster, work on an international conservation initiative to conserve globally rare alvar plant communities in the Great Lakes Ecoregion, and biodiversity investigations of all organisms living in the southern Honeoye Valley. These reports demonstrate his ability to complete field research and provide relevant information that is critical to the environmental decision-making process of management groups.