DOCSLIB.ORG

Natural Community Systems of New Hampshire: Terrestrial

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Natural Community Systems of New Hampshire: Terrestrial Natural Community Systems of New Hampshire Daniel D. Sperduto New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau DRED – Division of Forests & Lands PO Box 1856 – 172 Pembroke Road, Concord, NH 03302-1856 (603) 271-2214 The New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau is located within the NH Department of Resources and Economic Development’s Division of Forests and Lands. Primarily an information resource, the bureau finds, tracks, and facilitates the protection of New Hampshire's rare plants and exemplary natural communities. It is not a regulatory agency; instead, the bureau works with landowners and land managers to help them protect New Hampshire's natural heritage and meet their land-use needs. Its mission, as mandated by the Native Plant Protection Act of 1987 (NH RSA 217-A), is to determine protective measures and requirements for the survival of native plant species in the state, to investigate the condition and rarity of plant species, and to distribute information regarding the condition and protection of these species and their habitats. The New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau is an excellent source of information on plants and natural communities in New Hampshire, including their ecology and distribution in the state. It maintains the state’s only comprehensive database of New Hampshire’s exemplary natural communities, rare plants, and rare animals, including their known locations. Rare wildlife locations are maintained in cooperation with the Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program at the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, which has legal authority over all wildlife in the state. The bureau is also a member of the NatureServe network, which connects nearly 80 Natural Heritage Programs throughout the United States, Canada, and several Latin and South American countries. On the web: http://www.nhdfl.org/about-forests-and-lands/bureaus/natural-heritage-bureau/ 2nd edition, June 2011 (1st edition, December, 2005) © 2011, 2005 by the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau. All rights reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary .............................................................................................................................................. iv Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Classification of upland natural community systems .......................................................................... 6 OPEN TO WOODLAND SYSTEMS ON BEDROCK- OR SAND-CONTROLLED LANDSCAPES ............................ 6 Alpine and subalpine habitats.......................................................................................................... 6 • Alpine tundra system ....................................................................................................... 6 • Alpine ravine/snowbank system ....................................................................................... 9 • Subalpine heath - krummholz/rocky bald system .............................................................11 Rocky ridges, cliffs, and talus slopes ...............................................................................................14 • Montane - subalpine cliff system .....................................................................................14 • Montane rocky ridge system............................................................................................16 • Montane talus slope system .............................................................................................18 • Temperate ridge - cliff - talus system ..............................................................................20 Sand plains (with a history of frequent fire) ....................................................................................23 • Pitch pine sand plain system ............................................................................................23 Coastal sand dunes and rocky shores .............................................................................................26 • Coastal sand dune system ................................................................................................26 • Maritime rocky shore system ..........................................................................................29 PRIMARILY FOREST AND WOODLAND SYSTEMS ON TILL, FLUVIAL, TALUS, OR ROCKY SUBSTRATES .....32 Matrix Forests (on till, sand plain, and other fluvial materials with an infrequent fire history) .......32 • Lowland spruce - fir forest/swamp system .......................................................................33 • High-elevation spruce - fir forest system .........................................................................35 • Northern hardwood - conifer forest system ......................................................................38 • Hemlock - hardwood - pine forest system ........................................................................41 • Appalachian oak - pine forest system ..............................................................................44 Rich hardwood forests (on till, rocky, or terrace substrates) ...........................................................46 • Rich mesic forest system .................................................................................................46 • Rich temperate rocky woods system ................................................................................49 • Rich Appalachian oak rocky woods system .....................................................................51 Classification of wetland natural community systems ........................................................................53 PALUSTRINE (NON-TIDAL, NON-RIPARIAN) .........................................................................................53 Peatlands .......................................................................................................................................53 Open oligotrophic peatlands .......................................................................................................54 • Alpine/subalpine bog system ...........................................................................................54 • Kettle hole bog system ....................................................................................................57 • Poor level fen/bog system ...............................................................................................59 Open minerotrophic peatlands (weakly to strongly minerotrophic) ..............................................61 • Medium level fen system ................................................................................................61 • Montane sloping fen system ............................................................................................64 • Patterned fen system .......................................................................................................66 NH Natural Heritage Bureau i • Calcareous sloping fen system.........................................................................................68 Oligotrophic peat swamps ..........................................................................................................70 • Black spruce peat swamp system .....................................................................................70 • Coastal conifer peat swamp system .................................................................................72 • Temperate peat swamp system ........................................................................................74 Minerotrophic peat swamps ........................................................................................................76 • Montane/near-boreal minerotrophic peat swamp system ..................................................76 Primarily mineral soil wetlands ......................................................................................................79 Minerotrophic mineral swamps (weakly to strongly minerotrophic) ............................................79 • Temperate minerotrophic swamp system .........................................................................79 • Forest seep/seepage forest system ...................................................................................82 Open-basin and streamside wetlands ...........................................................................................84 • Drainage marsh - shrub swamp system ............................................................................84 Sand plain pond shore and basin marshes ...................................................................................87 • Sandy pond shore system ................................................................................................87 • Sand plain basin marsh system ........................................................................................89 RIPARIAN (NON-TIDAL) ......................................................................................................................91 River channels (and associated riverbanks and open floodplains) ...................................................91 • Low-gradient silty-sandy riverbank system .....................................................................92 • Moderate-gradient sandy-cobbly riverbank system ..........................................................94 • High-gradient rocky riverbank system .............................................................................96
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 45Th Anniversary Year
    VOLUME 45, NO. 1 Spring 2021 Journal of the Douglasia WASHINGTON NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY th To promote the appreciation and 45 conservation of Washington’s native plants Anniversary and their habitats through study, education, Year and advocacy. Spring 2021 • DOUGLASIA Douglasia VOLUME 45, NO. 1 SPRING 2021 journal of the washington native plant society WNPS Arthur R. Kruckberg Fellows* Clay Antieau Lou Messmer** President’s Message: William Barker** Joe Miller** Nelsa Buckingham** Margaret Miller** The View from Here Pamela Camp Mae Morey** Tom Corrigan** Brian O. Mulligan** by Keyna Bugner Melinda Denton** Ruth Peck Ownbey** Lee Ellis Sarah Reichard** Dear WNPS Members, Betty Jo Fitzgerald** Jim Riley** Mary Fries** Gary Smith For those that don’t Amy Jean Gilmartin** Ron Taylor** know me I would like Al Hanners** Richard Tinsley Lynn Hendrix** Ann Weinmann to introduce myself. I Karen Hinman** Fred Weinmann grew up in a small town Marie Hitchman * The WNPS Arthur R. Kruckeberg Fellow Catherine Hovanic in eastern Kansas where is the highest honor given to a member most of my time was Art Kermoade** by our society. This title is given to Don Knoke** those who have made outstanding spent outside explor- Terri Knoke** contributions to the understanding and/ ing tall grass prairie and Arthur R. Kruckeberg** or preservation of Washington’s flora, or woodlands. While I Mike Marsh to the success of WNPS. Joy Mastrogiuseppe ** Deceased love the Midwest, I was ready to venture west Douglasia Staff WNPS Staff for college. I earned Business Manager a Bachelor of Science Acting Editor Walter Fertig Denise Mahnke degree in Wildlife Biol- [email protected] 206-527-3319 [email protected] ogy from Colorado State Layout Editor University, where I really Mark Turner Office and Volunteer Coordinator [email protected] Elizabeth Gage got interested in native [email protected] plants.
    [Show full text]
  • Apn80: Northern Spruce
    ACID PEATLAND SYSTEM APn80 Northern Floristic Region Northern Spruce Bog Black spruce–dominated peatlands on deep peat. Canopy is often sparse, with stunted trees. Understory is dominated by ericaceous shrubs and fine- leaved graminoids on high Sphagnum hummocks. Vegetation Structure & Composition Description is based on summary of vascular plant data from 84 plots (relevés) and bryophyte data from 17 plots. l Moss layer consists of a carpet of Sphag- num with moderately high hummocks, usually surrounding tree bases, and weakly developed hollows. S. magellanicum dominates hum- mocks, with S. angustifolium present in hollows. High hummocks of S. fuscum may be present, although they are less frequent than in open bogs and poor fens. Pleurozium schre- beri is often very abundant and forms large mats covering drier mounds in shaded sites. Dicranum species are commonly interspersed within the Pleurozium mats. l Forb cover is minimal, and may include three-leaved false Solomon’s seal (Smilacina trifolia) and round-leaved sundew (Drosera rotundifolia). l Graminoid cover is 5-25%. Fine-leaved graminoids are most important and include three-fruited bog sedge (Carex trisperma) and tussock cottongrass (Eriophorum vagi- natum). l Low-shrub layer is prominent and dominated by ericaceous shrubs, particularly Lab- rador tea (Ledum groenlandicum), which often has >25% cover. Other ericads include bog laurel (Kalmia polifolia), small cranberry (Vaccinium oxycoccos), and leatherleaf (Chamaedaphne calyculata). Understory trees are limited to scattered black spruce. l Canopy is dominated by black spruce. Trees are usually stunted (<30ft [10m] tall) with 25-75% cover . Some sites have scattered tamaracks in addition to black spruce.
    [Show full text]
  • Maine's Endangered and Threatened Plants
    University of Southern Maine USM Digital Commons Maine Collection 1990 Maine's Endangered and Threatened Plants Maine State Planning Office Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usm.maine.edu/me_collection Part of the Biodiversity Commons, Botany Commons, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, Forest Biology Commons, Forest Management Commons, Other Forestry and Forest Sciences Commons, Plant Biology Commons, and the Weed Science Commons Recommended Citation Maine State Planning Office, "Maine's Endangered and Threatened Plants" (1990). Maine Collection. 49. https://digitalcommons.usm.maine.edu/me_collection/49 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by USM Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maine Collection by an authorized administrator of USM Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BACKGROUND and PURPOSE In an effort to encourage the protection of native Maine plants that are naturally reduced or low in number, the State Planning Office has compiled a list of endangered and threatened plants. Of Maine's approximately 1500 native vascular plant species, 155, or about 10%, are included on the Official List of Maine's Plants that are Endangered or Threatened. Of the species on the list, three are also listed at the federal level. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. has des·ignated the Furbish's Lousewort (Pedicularis furbishiae) and Small Whorled Pogonia (lsotria medeoloides) as Endangered species and the Prairie White-fringed Orchid (Platanthera leucophaea) as Threatened. Listing rare plants of a particular state or region is a process rather than an isolated and finite event.
    [Show full text]
  • A Thesis by TESA MADSEN-MCQUEEN Submitted To
    ENVIRONMENTAL NICHE DIVERGENCE IN THE KALMIA LINEAGE; INTEGRATING PHYLOGENY, COMMUNITY COMPOSITION AND ECOLOGY TO UNDERSTAND PATTERNS OF REGIONAL PLANT DIVERSITY A Thesis by TESA MADSEN-MCQUEEN Submitted to the Graduate School at Appalachian State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE August 2018 Department of Biology ENVIRONMENTAL NICHE DIVERGENCE IN THE KALMIA LINEAGE; INTEGRATING PHYLOGENY, COMMUNITY COMPOSITION AND ECOLOGY TO UNDERSTAND PATTERNS OF REGIONAL PLANT DIVERSITY A Thesis by TESA MADSEN-MCQUEEN August 2018 APPROVED BY: Zack E. Murrell, Ph.D. Chairperson, Thesis Committee Emily L. Gillespie, Ph.D. Member, Thesis Committee Michael D. Madritch, Ph.D. Member, Thesis Committee Zack E. Murrell, Ph.D. Chairperson, Department of Biology Michael J. McKenzie, Ph.D. Dean, Cratis D. Williams School of Graduate Studies Copyright by Tesa Madsen-McQueen 2018 All Rights Reserved Abstract ENVIRONMENTAL NICHE DIVERGENCE IN THE KALMIA LINEAGE; INTEGRATING PHYLOGENY, COMMUNITY COMPOSITION AND ECOLOGY TO UNDERSTAND PATTERNS OF REGIONAL PLANT DIVERSITY Tesa Madsen-McQueen B.S., Missouri State University M.S., Appalachian State University Chairperson: Zack E. Murrell The ongoing synthesis of the formerly disparate fields of ecology and evolution is resulting in a proliferation of insights, highlighting the interdependence and feedback between ecological and evolutionary processes. There is increasing evidence that evolutionary processes can influence community dynamics through geographic patterns of speciation, mutualist interactions, and other processes governing community phylogenetic patterns (Weber et al., 2017; Weeks et al., 2016). Here we adopt a clade-focused perspective to understand patterns of niche evolution in a single lineage, and subsequently address the regional community context of habitats which have facilitated the persistence and diversification of members of the genus.
    [Show full text]
  • Floristic Quality Assessment Report
    FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT IN INDIANA: THE CONCEPT, USE, AND DEVELOPMENT OF COEFFICIENTS OF CONSERVATISM Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) the State tree of Indiana June 2004 Final Report for ARN A305-4-53 EPA Wetland Program Development Grant CD975586-01 Prepared by: Paul E. Rothrock, Ph.D. Taylor University Upland, IN 46989-1001 Introduction Since the early nineteenth century the Indiana landscape has undergone a massive transformation (Jackson 1997). In the pre-settlement period, Indiana was an almost unbroken blanket of forests, prairies, and wetlands. Much of the land was cleared, plowed, or drained for lumber, the raising of crops, and a range of urban and industrial activities. Indiana’s native biota is now restricted to relatively small and often isolated tracts across the State. This fragmentation and reduction of the State’s biological diversity has challenged Hoosiers to look carefully at how to monitor further changes within our remnant natural communities and how to effectively conserve and even restore many of these valuable places within our State. To meet this monitoring, conservation, and restoration challenge, one needs to develop a variety of appropriate analytical tools. Ideally these techniques should be simple to learn and apply, give consistent results between different observers, and be repeatable. Floristic Assessment, which includes metrics such as the Floristic Quality Index (FQI) and Mean C values, has gained wide acceptance among environmental scientists and decision-makers, land stewards, and restoration ecologists in Indiana’s neighboring states and regions: Illinois (Taft et al. 1997), Michigan (Herman et al. 1996), Missouri (Ladd 1996), and Wisconsin (Bernthal 2003) as well as northern Ohio (Andreas 1993) and southern Ontario (Oldham et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Bryology with Dr. Robin Wall Kimmerer Ologies Podcast June 30, 2020
    Bryology with Dr. Robin Wall Kimmerer Ologies Podcast June 30, 2020 Oh Heeey, it’s the guy on Nextdoor who’s like, “Does anyone want some zucchinis?” because no one warned him that unattended zucchinis can grow to be the size of a human baby, Alie Ward, back with an instant classic episode of Ologies. This is an episode you’re going to listen to more than once, I’m gonna tell you right now. Not because the subject matter demands it for comprehension, but because it is the very ethos of Ologies all wrapped up in the most soothing, mellow audio hug you will ever lay ears on. It’s overlooked beauty. It’s following bliss. It’s myth-busting. [grunt of there being no words in the English language to encapsulate how amazing this episode is] Let me just run through the thanks and get to the show. Thank you to all the supporters at Patreon.com/Ologies. You can join for as little as a buck a month and submit questions - perhaps hear yours asked in future episodes. Thanks to everyone wearing Ologies shirts, hats, bikinis, and new face coverings at OlogiesMerch.com. Link is in the show notes. Tag yourself in #OlogiesMerch on Instagram. We’ll repost you. Thanks to everyone who rates, subscribes, and leaves reviews. I read all of them. They help Ologies stay at the top of the science charts. Thank you, ilikecheeserich, who wrote: Not only is information put in accessible language, but it also opens up your eyes to all the wonderful things there are to know and do in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Perennials for Winter Gardens Perennials for Winter Gardens
    TheThe AmericanAmerican GARDENERGARDENER® TheThe MagazineMagazine ofof thethe AAmericanmerican HorticulturalHorticultural SocietySociety November / December 2010 Perennials for Winter Gardens Edible Landscaping for Small Spaces A New Perspective on Garden Cleanup Outstanding Conifers contents Volume 89, Number 6 . November / December 2010 FEATURES DEPARTMENTS 5 NOTES FROM RIVER FARM 6 MEMBERS’ FORUM 8 NEWS FROM THE AHS Boston’s garden contest grows to record size, 2011 AHS President’s Council trip planned for Houston, Gala highlights, rave reviews for Armitage webinar in October, author of article for The American Gardener receives garden-writing award, new butterfly-themed children’s garden installed at River Farm. 12 2010 AMERICA IN BLOOM AWARD WINNERS Twelve cities are recognized for their community beautification efforts. 42 ONE ON ONE WITH… David Karp: Fruit detective. page 26 44 HOMEGROWN HARVEST The pleasures of popcorn. EDIBLE LANDSCAPING FOR SMALL SPACES 46 GARDENER’S NOTEBOOK 14 Replacing pavement with plants in San BY ROSALIND CREASY Francisco, soil bacterium may boost cognitive With some know-how, you can grow all sorts of vegetables, fruits, function, study finds fewer plant species on and herbs in small spaces. earth now than before, a fungus-and-virus combination may cause honeybee colony collapse disorder, USDA funds school garden CAREFREE MOSS BY CAROLE OTTESEN 20 program, Park Seed sold, Rudbeckia Denver Looking for an attractive substitute for grass in a shady spot? Try Daisy™ wins grand prize in American moss; it’ll grow on you. Garden Award Contest. 50 GREEN GARAGE® OUTSTANDING CONIFERS BY RITA PELCZAR 26 A miscellany of useful garden helpers. This group of trees and shrubs is beautiful year round, but shines brightest in winter.
    [Show full text]
  • Beechwood Gardens Bog Rosemary
    Bog Rosemary* Andromeda polifolia Height: 24 inches Spread: 3 feet Sunlight: Hardiness Zone: 1b Description: A very small shrub for detail use in gardens, with bluish needle-like foliage and pink urn-shaped flowers in spring; very fastidious as to growing conditions, needs ample consistent moisture and highly organic soils, will not tolerate alkaline soil Ornamental Features Bog Rosemary flowers Photo courtesy of NetPS Plant Bog Rosemary features dainty nodding white bell-shaped flowers with Finder shell pink overtones at the ends of the branches from mid to late spring. It has bluish-green foliage. The needles remain bluish-green throughout the winter. The fruit is not ornamentally significant. Landscape Attributes Bog Rosemary is a multi-stemmed evergreen shrub with a more or less rounded form. It lends an extremely fine and delicate texture to the landscape composition which should be used to full effect. This is a relatively low maintenance shrub, and usually looks its best without pruning, although it will tolerate pruning. It has no significant negative characteristics. Bog Rosemary is recommended for the following landscape applications; - General Garden Use Planting & Growing Bog Rosemary will grow to be about 24 inches tall at maturity, with a spread of 3 feet. It tends to fill out right to the ground and therefore doesn't necessarily require facer plants in front. It grows at a slow rate, and under ideal conditions can be expected to live for approximately 20 years. 361 N. Hunter Highway Drums, PA 18222 (570) 788-4181 www.beechwood-gardens.com This shrub does best in full sun to partial shade.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vermont Statutes Online Page 1 of 15
    The Vermont Statutes Online Page 1 of 15 The Vermont Statutes Online Title 10 Appendix: Vermont Fish and Wildlife Regulations Chapter 1: GAME Sub-Chapter 1: General Provisions 10A V.S.A. § 10. Vermont endangered and threatened species rule § 10. Vermont endangered and threatened species rule 1.0 Authority This rule is adopted pursuant to 10 V.S.A. §§ 5402, 5403, and 5408 which provides that the Secretary "shall adopt by rule a state-endangered species list and a state threatened species list," and may "adopt rules for the protection and conservation of endangered and threatened species." 2.0 Purpose The purpose of this rule is to identify and list species of wild plants and animals that have been determined by the Secretary to be endangered and threatened in Vermont so that they may be protected under the law. The rule also sets out a process for Takings and Possession permits. 3.0 Definitions 3.1 "Endangered Species" means those species whose continued existence as viable components of the state's wild flora or fauna is determined to be in jeopardy or determined to be an "endangered species" under the federal Endangered Species Act. 3.2 "Listed Species" means any species that appears on the List in Section 5.0 this or has been determined to threatened or endangered by other relevant law. 3.3 "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources except where otherwise specified. 3.4 "Take and taking" means: pursuing, shooting, hunting, killing, capturing, trapping, snaring and netting fish, birds and quadrupeds and all lesser acts, such as disturbing, harrying or worrying or wounding or placing, setting, drawing or using any net or other device commonly used to take fish or wild animals, whether they result in the taking or not; and shall include every attempt to take and every act of assistance to every other person in taking or attempting to take fish or wild animals, provided that when taking is allowed by law, reference is had to taking by lawful means and in lawful manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation Classification and Mapping Project Report
    U.S. Geological Survey-National Park Service Vegetation Mapping Program Acadia National Park, Maine Project Report Revised Edition – October 2003 Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U. S. Department of the Interior, U. S. Geological Survey. USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program Acadia National Park U.S. Geological Survey-National Park Service Vegetation Mapping Program Acadia National Park, Maine Sara Lubinski and Kevin Hop U.S. Geological Survey Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center and Susan Gawler Maine Natural Areas Program This report produced by U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center 2630 Fanta Reed Road La Crosse, Wisconsin 54603 and Maine Natural Areas Program Department of Conservation 159 Hospital Street 93 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333-0093 In conjunction with Mike Story (NPS Vegetation Mapping Coordinator) NPS, Natural Resources Information Division, Inventory and Monitoring Program Karl Brown (USGS Vegetation Mapping Coordinator) USGS, Center for Biological Informatics and Revised Edition - October 2003 USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program Acadia National Park Contacts U.S. Department of Interior United States Geological Survey - Biological Resources Division Website: http://www.usgs.gov U.S. Geological Survey Center for Biological Informatics P.O. Box 25046 Building 810, Room 8000, MS-302 Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225-0046 Website: http://biology.usgs.gov/cbi Karl Brown USGS Program Coordinator - USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program Phone: (303) 202-4240 E-mail: [email protected] Susan Stitt USGS Remote Sensing and Geospatial Technologies Specialist USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program Phone: (303) 202-4234 E-mail: [email protected] Kevin Hop Principal Investigator U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary
    A Guide to the Natural Communities of the Delaware Estuary June 2006 Citation: Westervelt, K., E. Largay, R. Coxe, W. McAvoy, S. Perles, G. Podniesinski, L. Sneddon, and K. Strakosch Walz. 2006. A Guide to the Natural Communities of the Delaware Estuary: Version 1. NatureServe. Arlington, Virginia. PDE Report No. 06-02 Copyright © 2006 NatureServe COVER PHOTOS Top L: Eastern Hemlock - Great Laurel Swamp, photo from Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Top R: Pitch Pine - Oak Forest, photo by Andrew Windisch, photo from New Jersey Natural Heritage Bottom R: Maritime Red Cedar Woodland, photo by Robert Coxe, photo from Delaware Natural Heritage Bottom L: Water Willow Rocky Bar and Shore in Pennsylvania, photo from Pennsylvania Natural Heritage A GUIDE TO THE NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF THE DELAWARE ESTUARY Kellie Westervelt Ery Largay Robert Coxe William McAvoy Stephanie Perles Greg Podniesinski Lesley Sneddon Kathleen Strakosch Walz. Version 1 June 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ................................................................................................................................11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................. 12 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 13 CLASSIFICATION APPROACH..................................................................................................... 14 International Terrestrial Ecological Systems Classification
    [Show full text]
  • Northfield Open Space and Recreation Plan 2021 – 2028
    FINAL DRAFT NORTHFIELD OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PLAN 2021 – 2028 FINAL DRAFT Prepared by the Northfield Open Space Committee with assistance from the Franklin Regional Council of Governments This project was funded by a Direct Local Technical Assistance Grant provided by the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development FINAL DRAFT TOWN OF NORTHFIELD OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PLAN 2021 – 2028 Prepared by the Northfield Open Space Committee (OSC): Julia Blyth, Chair Joanne McGee Jerry Wagener Jennifer Tufts Robin Conley Susan Space With technical assistance provided by the Franklin Regional Council of Governments Planning Department Peggy Sloan, Planning Director Kimberly Noake MacPhee, Land Use and Natural Resources Program Manager Helena Farrell, Land Use and Natural Resources Planner Ryan Clary, Senior GIS Specialist Tamsin Flanders, Planning Intern This project was funded by a Direct Local Technical Assistance Grant provided by the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 – Plan Summary……………………………………….………………1-1 Section 2 – Introduction………………………………………………………….2-1 A. Statement of Purpose.…………………………………………………………….……..2-1 B. Planning Process and Public Participation.………………………………………….….2-2 Section 3 – Community Setting………………………………………………….3-1 A. Regional Context…………………………………………………………………..……3-1 B. History of the Community………………………………………………………………3-9 C. Population Characteristics……………………………………………………...……...3-13 D. Growth and Development Patterns……………………………………………...……..3-20 Section
    [Show full text]