An Assessment of

The LaPlatte Nature Park

For the Town of Shelburne & The Nature Conservancy

Created by the UVM SCA LANDS Program

August 2007

2

Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ 2 Program Overview ......................................................................................................... 3 Project Overview ............................................................................................................ 3 History of the Property .................................................................................................. 3 LaPlatte Nature Park in Context................................................................................. 5 Trails and Footpaths...................................................................................................... 6

Table 1. Observed trail conditions .................................................................................. 9 Trail Map....................................................................................................................... 10

Natural Communities and Features ........................................................................ 11 Natural Communities Map.............................................................................................12 Hemlock Forest..............................................................................................................13 Limestone Bluff Cedar-Pine Forest............................................................................... 14 Transition Hardwood Limestone Talus Woodland........................................................15 Mesic Clayplain Forest or Valley Clayplain Forest.......................................................16 Sugar Maple-Ostrich Fern Riverine Floodplain Forest................................................. 17 Silver Maple-Sensitive Fern Riverine Floodplain Forest ............................................. 18 Rivershore Grassland..................................................................................................... 19 Shallow Emergent Marsh.............................................................................................. 20 Vernal Pool ................................................................................................................... 21 Sedge Meadow.............................................................................................................. 22 Black Ash Seepage Swamp........................................................................................... 23 Sand-Over-Clay Forest ................................................................................................. 24 Old Field........................................................................................................................ 25

Invasive Species Report .............................................................................................. 26 Table 2. Invasive species observed in LaPlatte Nature Park ........................................ 26 Invasive Species Map.................................................................................................... 28

Riparian Areas .............................................................................................................. 29 River and Riparian Map.................................................................................................31

Stonecat and Habitat ................................................................................................... 32 Management Recommendations.............................................................................. 33 References ...................................................................................................................... 36

Appendix 1: LaPlatte Nature Park Mapping Proposal.................................................... 37 Appendix 2: National Trail Classes and Standards ........................................................ 39 Appendix 3: Riparian Area Observation......................................................................... 40

3

Program Overview

The 2007 University of Vermont & Student Conservation Association LANDS (LAND Stewardship) Program is a nine week internship designed to train undergraduates in the practice of land conservation in a service-learning framework. Concurrently, interns provide valuable services to land agencies (land trusts & municipalities), from completing yearly monitoring visits to creating management reports for properties. The first half of the program involved a variety of conservation training experiences, with the second portion dedicated to providing service projects to various land conservation organizations. During the program’s seventh week, the interns completed a project documenting the natural resource features of the Town of Shelburne’s LaPlatte Nature Park, and created GIS-based maps of the property. In addition written descriptions and management recommendations where made. The property is unique because it is one of the few undeveloped areas proximate to the Village of Shelburne, and serves as an important town-owned public recreation space.

Project Overview

The purpose of the LANDS Program work was to support the Town of Shelburne’s Natural Resource & Conservation Committee (SNRCC) in developing a management plan for the property. Additionally, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has expressed a strong interest in the eastern-side of the park along the river, which will have a conservation easement placed on it, for perpetual protection. This document will hopefully guide the creation and implementation of management plans by SNRCC and TNC. Another outcome of this project was to provide hands-on field work opportunities for the LANDS Program Crew. The interns began the project by identifying natural communities with Vermont ecologist, Elizabeth Thompson. The interns then visited the property over the course of five days to compile digital GPS & field data. They spent a considerable amount of time on the property and working in the Rubenstein School’s GIS Lab to create the following document and 4 maps, which combine existing electronic and field-checked GPS and GIS data. The end products are electronic files, as well as hard copies, with the originals saved on a hard disk. This final document should not be construed as a survey. We hope this project helps to serve the Town of Shelburne and The Nature Conservancy, and benefits the long-term protection of the LaPlatte Nature Park. The interns appreciate having had the opportunity to access this area to practice their field skills, and deliver the following products to the SNRCC organization.

History of the Property

The LaPlatte River, originally named after the French words for “the plot,” meanders through 15 miles of the town of Shelburne. In the late 18th century the area around LaPlatte Nature Park was very different than it is today. The park lies within what once was the village of Shelburne Falls, which was founded in 1785 by Ira Allen. The first settlers created a bridge across the river, a dam and saw mill on the northern

4

portion of the falls, and a forge on the south side of the stream. By the year 1786, a gristmill and a sawmill had been built just south of the present-day LaPlatte Nature Park. The mills dammed the river and altered the surrounding landscape for years to come. By the early 1800s the village of Shelburne Falls was home to over a dozen families. When the railroad came to the town of Shelburne in 1849 it brought population growth and further development to the area.

Ownership of the lands that the LaPlatte Nature Park now encompasses was traced back to the late 1800’s when Henry N. Newell, who was a clerk of the Vermont House of Representatives from 1878-1882 owned the southern portion. He owned 160 acres of farmland and had 400 fruit trees, according to Hamilton Child’s Gazetteer and Business Directory of Chittenden County, Vermont. The land on the northern boundary was owned by Isaac and Lucinea Smith (who owned a 140-acre property), who leased 28 ½ acres to a farmer named George Pattridge.

According to Sean MacFaden of the Shelburne Natural Resources and Conservation Committee (personal communication, July 2007), the land was acquired in the 1970’s, and had been in agricultural use prior to that. Copies of the Town of Shelburne Financial and Statistical Report from the early 1970’s show that the lands that comprise the LaPlatte Nature Park belonged to Leland and Nancy Holden and William and Barbara Cleland. The town tried to pass bonds for the acquisition of the properties for open space, park and recreational purposes, but these ballot measures were defeated multiple times before the property was finally acquired in the mid 1970’s (Shelburne Report). According to the 1985 Shelburne Town Plan, the LaPlatte Nature Park was purchased with Federal Outdoor Recreation Funds (Town Plan). These funds were created in the mid-1960’s to “establish a national recreation policy to preserve, develop and make accessible to all Americans the resources needed ‘for individual enjoyment and to assure the physical, cultural, and spiritual benefits of outdoor recreation’” (http://www.nps.gov/lwcf/history.html).

The 1985 Shelburne Town Plan also included, “recommendations for preserving natural features, conservation areas, and unique or fragile areas.” These recommendations included preserving the floodplain area along the LaPlatte “as a greenbelt area for conservation and recreation purposes.” It also stated that “Public access should be maintained to the LaPlatte River.”

5

LaPlatte Nature Park in Context

The LaPlatte River Nature Park is part

of a larger context of important wetland and floodplain forest along the LaPlatte River, flowing into Lake Champlain. The 140 acres of town land along the LaPlatte drains 34,137 acres of Champlain lowlands, and is important for wildlife habitat, rare plants, and unique biotic communities. For example, the seasonally flooded areas along the LaPlatte support a variety of migratory waterfowl. Great blue heron and many types of ducks can be viewed in the marshlands, as well as woodcock and ruffed grouse. In addition, remnants of rare ecosystems which used to dominate the Champlain Valley, but were removed for agriculture can still be found along the river (i.e. Clayplain Forest).

In many ways the LaPlatte Nature Park and the other parcels along the river belonging to the Town of Shelburne and The Nature Conservancy represent an important asset to the human community. Development pressure within the town means that every acre is important to prevent further habitat fragmentation. The Nature Park in particular is quite important in this respect. It is a relatively large, undeveloped site to be located essentially in the center of a township. The LaPlatte Nature Park’s role in maintaining the ecological integrity of the broader LaPlatte River drainage should not be underappreciated.

Image 1 The Nature Conservancy, Vermont

6

Image 2. Trail 3

Trails and Footpaths

The LaPlatte Nature Preserve is a well used natural area. Footpaths weave throughout the property with many trails dead-ending at the river or when the vegetation prevents passage (Trails Map, pg.10). There multiple examples of mountain bike use, campfires and trail modifications. The map shows several of the trails found on the property along with their conditions. Trail 1 starts in the Gardenside Neighborhood off Shelburne Rd. The trail stays just east of the preserve and then weaves in and out of the property boundary until it finally dead ends at the river at the southern end of the property. Trail 2 travels between the loop trail and the back lot of the nearby grocery store. There are several places where this trail is obviously maintained with small wooden planks used for bridges and steps. Even so, this trail is not very wide, and frequently closed over by vegetation (much of it prickly), with only the tread visible. Trail 3 is a mowed path around the edge of the large field on the property. The trail is grassy with little soil erosion. Image 2 shows the view west across the field from the eastern side of the loop. Trail 4 leaves from the loop trail and heads towards the river. The trail is indistinct with narrow passages and becomes even less distinct the closer it gets to the river. Trail 5 comprises several trails that are very wide with smooth and obvious treads. They can also be accessed from the southern boundary from a connector trail through the Falls Road access road. There is a lot of mountain biking evidence along these trails, and in the

7

Image 3. Trail 5 looking west up the trail towards the parking area

Image 4. Mountain biking jump and pit visible from the western portion of trail 5

woods on the southern portion of the property including several jumps. Soil erosion has occurred due to unauthorized trail usage. The trails also lead directly to the river and there is potentia l for some riverbank erosion if foot traffic isn’t managed appropriately.

8

Image 5. Logs across muddy area on the branch of trail 5 that heads to the river

Image 6. Trail 6 recently mowed along the riverbank

Trail 6 was added by an unknown party between site visits by the LANDS crew. It appears to have been mowed and connects some off property trails with Trail 5. The new trail is right along the river (Image 6). A small stream travels down and then crosses the northern end of the trail and may be a concern for erosion.

9

Table 1. Observed trail conditions

National Trail Management Classes and Trail Standards for LaPlatte Nature Park Trail 1 Trail 2 Trail 3 Trail 4 Trail 5

Tread and Traffic flow

Tread obvious and continuous, width accommodates unhindered one-lane travel (occasional allowances constructed for passing)

Tread discernable and continuous, but narrow and rough, passing impossible

Tread obvious and continuous, width accommodates unhindered one-lane travel (occasional allowances constructed for passing)

Tread intermittent and indistinct, may require route finding

Tread obvious and continuous, width accommodates unhindered one-lane travel (occasional allowances for passing)

Obstacles

Obstacles infrequent, vegetation cleared outside of trailway

Obstacles common, narrow passages, brush, rocks and logs present

Few or no obstacles exist, smooth grassy trailway

Obstacles common, narrow passages, brush, steep grades, rocks and log present

Obstacles infrequent, vegetation cleared outside of trailway

Constructed features and trail elements

Minimal to non-existent, drainage is functional, no constructed bridges or foot crossings

Obstacles occasionally present, vegetation encroaches into trailway

Minimal to non-existent, drainage is functional

Minimal to non-existent, drainage is functional, no constructed bridges or foot crossings

Drainage functional, primitive foot crossings and fords

Signs None None None None None

10

11

Natural Communities and Features

“A natural community is an interacting assemblage of organisms, their physical environment, and the natural processes that affect them.”

– Liz Thompson and Eric Sorenson.

The LaPlatte Nature Preserve is a diverse property with at least thirteen different natural communities located in the park (Natural Communities Map, pg.12). The LaPlatte River runs through the property, offering a variety of floodplain forests such as the rare Sugar Maple-Ostrich Fern Riverine Floodplain Forest. The eastern side of the river also features some unique natural communities including a Mesic Clayplain Forest and a Transition Hardwood Limestone Talus Woodland. Near the northeastern side of the river are distinctive natural features including some temperate calcareous cliffs with a Limestone Bluff Cedar-Pine Forest natural community residing above. The property also contains at least two vernal pools, a vital aspect of amphibian breeding.

The natural community data for this section was primarily obtained from Eric Sorenson, who did an inventory of the Laplatte River area; any data, including species and notes, about the communities in this area are from Sorenson. Areas identified by the LANDS Program interns are noted. The general information about the natural communities and conservation considerations are from Liz Thompson and Eric Sorenson’s book Wetland, Woodland, Wildland: A Guide to the Natural Communities of Vermont (2005).

Image 7. A crevasse through the bluffs Image 8. The temperate calcareous cliffs

12

13

Image 9. Hemlock forest

Hemlock Forest

Hemlock forests make up a small portion of the Vermont landscape. This natural

community made up about 10% of forests in Vermont before European settlement; today, it comprises less than 5%. In this forest, Eastern hemlock (Tsuga Canadensis) is the dominant species; it is shade tolerant and long- lived, with a life span of up to 1000 years, making it a late-successional species. These forests are usually dark and hence tend to lack an established understory. There are two examples of this natural community on the property, both are located on the eastern side of the river; one is located just above the Rivershore grassland, in the southeastern end of the property and the other is a smaller, isolated stand, located in the mid-eastern section of the property in the Mesic Clayplain Forest. Conservation Considerations: These forests should be managed considering the late successional trends of this forest. Also, a non-native insect, hemlock wooly adelgid, is a threat to hemlock forests.

14

Image 10. Limestone bluff cedar-pine forest

Limestone Bluff Cedar-Pine Forest

These forests have a dense canopy and consist of mostly coniferous species with

the dominant one being Northern White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis). Due to conditions on the bluffs, these cedars usually grow slowly and their growth rings can be less than 1/16 of an inch wide. This forest is located above the temperate calcareous cliffs, in the northeastern end of the property. The forest is mature and narrow, along with white cedar this forest also contains the following species: Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), Hophornbeam (Ostrya virginia), Red Oak (Quercus rubra), and Blue stemmed Goldenrod (Solidago caesia).

Conservation Considerations: This forest type is rare statewide and is mostly found along Lake Champlain; making this community near the LaPlatte truly unique. Since this forest type occurs on lake bluffs most commonly, it is vulnerable to clearing for aesthetic views and lakefront access. It is also sensitive to encroachment by invasive species, particularly buckthorn and honeysuckle.

15

Image 11. Transition Hardwood Limestone Talus Woodland

Transition Hardwood Limestone Talus Woodland

In this woodland limestone, dolomite, or marble breaks into fragments forming

large rocks that weather causing nutrient rich soils to form around the rocks. This soil helps the rocks become more stable. Caliciphilic species, such as Northern White Cedar, are found in these woodlands. There is one example of a transition hardwood limestone talus woodland on this property; it is a small area and is located on the eastern side of the river near the southern end on the boundary. The following species can be found there: Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum), Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga Canadensis) and Red Elderberry (Sambucus pubens). There is also an example of a transition hardwood limestone forest in the northeastern corner of the property along the boundary. This forest is in mature condition and consists of the following species: Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum), Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Basswood (Tilia), Red Oak (Quercus rubra), Bitternut Hickory (Carya cordiformis), Sharp- lobed Hepactica (Hepatica acutiloba), Wild Leeks (Allium tricoccum), Wreath Goldenrod (Solidago caesis). Conservation Considerations: This natural community is a fairly uncommon one in Vermont. Because of their unique rocky soils they are often left untouched by farmers. This forest is an important aspect of the unique Limestone cliffs found on the property.

16

Image 12. Mesic Clayplain Forest or Valley Clayplain Forest

Mesic Clayplain Forest or Valley Clayplain Forest

Before European settlement, this forest community was prominent on the clay and

silt soils located in the Champlain Valley. Due to conversion of these areas to agricultural land, this forest type is now rare. This forest is a less wet, also known as Mesic Clayplain Forest. This natural community is located along the central eastern border of the property. It is a mature forest occurring both on the slope and the bottom of the valley. The following species can be found in this forest: Red Oak (Quercus rubra), American Basswood (Tilia americana), Musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), American Beech (Fagus grandifolia), Eastern Hemlock, White Oak (Quercua alba), Zigzag Goldenrod (Solidago flexicaulis), and Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum).

Conservation Considerations:

According to Liz Thompson and Eric Sorenson in their book Wetland, Woodland, Wildland, “Mesic Clayplain Forests are one of the most severely altered communities in Vermont. Its present size is a small fraction of its pre-settlement extent and the exact nature and composition of the pre-settlement clay plain forest are not known. The remaining examples are all less than 100 acres and separated from one another by large areas of agricultural land, making plant and animal dispersal between sites very difficult. The long term protection of the clayplain landscape will require not only protection of the remaining examples but also restoration of some agricultural land back to clayplain forest.” The Mesic Clayplain stand found on the LaPlatte property is an important aspect of Vermont’s forests and more specifically the Town of Shelburne and should be managed as such. Some mature trees are also found throughout the stand, including some very large Red Oaks.

17

Image 13. Sugar Maple-Ostrich Fern Riverine Floodplain Forest

Sugar Maple-Ostrich Fern Riverine Floodplain Forest

This floodplain forest is typically found along higher energy, higher gradient rivers but can also be found on former floodplains above lower gradient rivers. There is an example of this natural community on the property along the northeastern side of the river. Sugar maple is the dominant tree species in this natural community; the following species were also found in this forest: Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American Basswood (Tilia americana), Ostrich Fern (Matteuccia struthiopteris), Wood Nettle (Laportea canadensis) and Wild Leeks (Allium tricoccum). Conservation Considerations:

According to Liz Thompson and Eric Sorenson, in their book Wetland, Woodland, Wildland, “Intact examples of this community are rare in Vermont. Due to the rich, productive soils, most examples were cleared for agricultural use long ago. Alterations in flooding regime, scouring and sediment deposition associated with dams pose a significant threat to this and other rivershore and aquatic communities. There are only a few, small protected floodplains in the state that include this natural community type.”

18

Image 14. Silver Maple-Sensitive Fern Riverine Floodplain Forest

Silver Maple-Sensitive Fern Riverine Floodplain Forest

Silver Maple-Sensitive Fern Riverine Floodplain Forests tend to be the wetter of

Vermont’s floodplain forest type. This floodplain forest is found along the lower gradients of rivers. This natural community is flooded annually, sometimes in both the spring and fall.

There are three examples of this natural community on the property. The first, and most intact, is in the northwestern area of the property. This forest is located on a levee along the river, and is mature. The species present in this forest are: Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoids), Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American Elm (Ulnus americana), Ostrich Fern (Matteuccia struthioptheris) and Moneywart (Lysimachia numularia). The second forest is located to the west of the mature example. This forest is young and not very established and is also filled with invasives. Due to these factors, this has the potential to become this natural community type. The third silver maple-sensitive fern riverine floodplain forest is located on the southwestern side of the river and is fairly young. Conservation Considerations:

As had been the case with other floodplain forests, this natural community has mostly been converted for agriculture; leaving few large examples of this floodplain forest in Vermont. Also, invasive plants adapted to riverine areas are a threat to this community throughout the property.

19

Image 15. Rivershore grassland

Rivershore Grassland

These are wetland communities that are located along high-gradient reaches of

larger rivers and are on fairly stable substrates. They tend to occur in an area containing a rise in topography bordering the river channel. These communities are kept open by spring flooding and summer storms. During winter and spring, ice scouring also prevents woody plants from becoming established. As the river channel changes and alluvium is deposited, this natural community could potentially develop into a floodplain forest. On the property, this community is located on the southwestern end of the property along the river. Conservation Considerations :

The integrity of this community is connected to the integrity of the LaPlatte; changes in the flow regime of the river and presence of forest buffers can all impact this natural community. Also, this natural community, due to its exposed mineral soils, is fairly sensitive to invasive plants.

20

Image 16. Shallow Emergent Marsh

Shallow Emergent Marsh

This natural community consists of herbaceous plants emerging from shallow

water. In the springtime, the water may reach depths of 2 feet or more, but by summer the water level usually drops, leaving only a few inches of water or exposed soil. The dominant vegetation in this community consists of grasses, sedges and herbs. There is one example of this natural community on the property located on the western side of the river near the northern corner. Conservation Considerations:

Shallow Emergent Marshes are considered small wetlands that provide important ecological functions; since they are small, many of these marshes are not protected under the Vermont Wetland Rules, making parcel specific protection important. In addition the marsh found on the property contains a unique and well established Black Ash stand along with some other mature tree stands.

21

Image 17. Vernal Pool

Vernal Pool

Vernal pools are small, seasonal, bodies of water that can be found in soil

depressions in the forest. Under the depressions is usually an impermeable layer composed of basal till or bedrock; this causes runoff from snow and rain to fill the depression and remain into summer. Typically, there are not any inlet or outlet streams to the pool. Rich organic surface soils are typical of vernal pools. Vernal pools are used by amphibians for breeding habitat. There is one prominent vernal pool on the property located on the western side. There could potentially be more examples of this natural community type, but the timing of our field work did not correspond with the seasonality of its existence. Conservation Considerations: According to Liz Thompson and Eric Sorenson, in their book Wetland, Woodland, Wildland, “Vernal pools are threatened by activities that alter the hydrology and substrate of individual pools, as well as significant alteration of the surrounding forest. Construction of roads and other developments in the upland forests around vernal pools are known to affect salamander migration and to result in mortality associated with road crossings. Logging in the vicinity of the vernal pools can also have significant effects, including direct alteration of the vernal pool depression, changes in the amount of sunlight, leaf fall, and coarse woody debris in the pool, and disruption of amphibian migration routes by the creation of deep ruts. In general, it is recommended that there be no activity within the vernal pool depression or the adjacent 50 feet.” The Vernal pool found on the property is a unique and interesting addition to the property. It is well established and standing water lasts well into the summer months.

22

Sedge Meadow

Sedge Meadows are considered a wetland type community and are permanently saturated, with seasonal flooding. There is one example of this natural community on the property; it is located mid property directly on the western shore of the river. The main species of sedge is hairy sedge (Carex lacustris).

Conservation Considerations:

This sedge meadow contains lo ts of exotics, such as Morrow’s honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii), European barberry (Berberis vulgaris) and Yellow Iris (Iris pseudacorus), and is in fairly poor condition.

23

Image 18. Black Ash Seepage Swamp

Communities not listed in Wetland, Woodland, Wildland:

Black Ash Seepage Swamp

Eric Sorenson classified this natural community as a Black Ash Seepage Swamp. It could also probably be considered a variant of a Red Maple-Black Ash Swamp in Wetland, Woodland, Wildland. This swamp is small and in good condition. It is located in the southeastern end of the property. It contains 2 feet deep peat and the following species: Black Ash (Fraxinus nigra), Speckled Alder (Alnus incana), Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), Basswood (Tilia), Hairy Sedge (Carex lacustris) and Large leaved Aster (Aster macrophyllus).

24

Image 19. Sand-Over-Clay Forest

Sand-Over-Clay Forest

Eric Sorenson classified this forest and it cannot be found in Wetland, Woodland, Wildland. It is located in the southwestern end of the property. The following species can be found in this forest: Beech (Fagus americana), Sweet birch (Betula lenta), Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga canadnesis) and Red Oak (Quercus rubra).

25

Image 20. Old field

Old Field

There are multiple areas on the property that are old fields. They are categorized by being close to the open field and being relatively young and undeveloped. The majority of them contain a lot of invasive species. Sorenson classified four areas as old field. The most southern old field site, on the western size, is an active floodplain. This site, along with the two other sites on the eastern side of the river is expected to become silver maple-sensitive fern floodplain forests.

The LANDS interns classified the areas surrounding the open field as old field. These areas contain a lot of invasive species such as Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) and Honeysuckle (Lonicera sp.). These sites contained some of the following species: Boxelder (Acer negundo), Staghorn Sumac (Rhus typhina), Red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), Quacking Aspen (Populus tremuloides) and White Pine (Pinus strobus).

26

Invasive Species Report

The LaPlatte Nature Park is an interesting parcel and the invasive species present are part of what comprises this unique landscape. The UVM LANDS interns undertook this aspect of the LaPlatte property with both the Shelburne Natural Resource Conservation Committee (SNRCC) and The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC) objectives in mind. The focus was on the location of TNC’s conservation easement, which covers about 80 acres on the 137-acre parcel. Our approach to mapping the invasive species present was to work our way through the majority of the parcel under the TNC easement by using the Natural Communities map that Eric Sorensen had provided. This was a way to break the landscape down in an effort to manage the size when looking for such a range of non-natives, each also having variant presence where it occurred.

Wetland, Woodland, Wildland characterizes the establishment of non-native or exotic species as a threat to remaining floodplain forests (248). “Typically, invasive exotics colonize areas of disturbed soils and then may spread into less disturbed areas. In this respect, floodplain forests are an ideal site for colonization by this group of plants. Exposed soils are a characteristic and natural condition of floodplains because of the annual erosion and deposition of the alluvial soils. In addition, many floodplain forests have an open canopy or occur as narrow strips, both conditions that allow additional sunlight to reach the forest floor and contribute to the establishment of invasive exotics.” We took GPS points at all locations where an invasive species was found (Invasive Map, pg. 28). The concentration of infestation is represented on the map by circular points and polygons of varying size. The circular points represent a smaller infestation while the polygons represent an even more concentrated infestation of the species common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) and honeysuckle (Lonicera sp.). Each species found is represented by a different color on the map.

There were 39 GPS points taken on the easement property, and the majority of them included R. cathartica and Lonicera sp. We also came to discover some interesting patterns. Most of the invasive species found were on the low-land area, and the upland area only had a handful of species present. The species present are compiled in the table below:

Table 2. Invasive species observed in LaPlatte Nature Park Autumn olive Elaeagnus umbellata Barberry sp. Berberis sp. Bell's honeysuckle Lonicera x. bella Bittersweet nightshade Solanum dulcamara Common buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica Dame's rocket Hesperis matronalis Dwarf honeysuckle Lonicera xylosteum

Garlic mustard Alliana petiolata Goutweed (Bishop’s Weed) Aegopodium podagraria Morrow's honeysuckle Lonicera morrowii Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria

27

Additional information can be seen on each species’ location using the detailed legend located on the map of LaPlatte Nature Park’s invasives.

Clearly R. cathartica and Lonicera sp. are already densely infesting the western side of the LaPlatte River from the field edge to the river’s edge. Both species are present in large, dense clusters. However the eastern side of the LaPlatte is less densely infested and many of the specimens there are younger and smaller. Control could be more easily achieved on the eastern portion of the easement.

Also present and of concern are Berberis thunbergii (Japanese barberry) and Aegopodium podagraria (goutweed or Bishop’s weed). B. thunbergii is present in conjunction with Lonicera and R. cathartica but in much lesser density. A. podagraria is present in small patches near the river but has enormous potential to spread. Close proximity to the water make this species a special management concern, due to the difficulty in eradicating it as well as the need to use herbicides.

Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife) is present in very limited and isolated quantities and has the potential for early control. Likewise Solanum dulcamara (bittersweet nightshade) only appears to be present at one site, and the potential for early control is high. Elaeagnus umbellata (autumn olive) is only present in single stands and has the potential for removal.

The most important thing to note is the absence of Polygonum cuspidatum (Japanese knotweed). Keeping a watchful eye out for this invasive will be important to the health and future of the LaPlatte Nature Park. Another species to watch for is Phragmites australis (Common reed) which also has the potential to spread. Additionally, Eric Sorensen noted the presence of Iris pseudacorus (yellow iris) in his natural communities mapping project. We were not able to identify the exact species, but did note several clumps of Iris species, notably along the levee in the northwestern side of the river and along the river on the southeastern side. Monitoring earlier in the season when flowering would be needed to determine exact species.

28

29

Riparian Areas

Observations of the riparian area were taken from walking through the river channel and on portions of the bank. All data points refer to both left and right banks, looking downstream and progressing in a northern direction. Looking at past historical information as well as current maps allowed for a better understanding of the observed readjustment of the river on this particular section. There are three sharp bends in which the stream has incised into the outer bank of the corner. This can be a natural process or the result of increased stormwater flows. The existing floodplain seems to be dominantly covered in herbaceous vegetation in the present summer season. Most of the river was an open canopy channel with very little shade cover over the river. Due to the river’s lateral movement, sediment degradation has occurred on portions of the river bank and has left exposed roots and tree falls (Stream 2004). The southern portion of the river exhibits higher amounts of bedrock, boulder, and cobble deposit than the northern parts. This portion of the river also exhibits riffle reaches more frequently. Moving downstream, there is a transition from coarse and sandy deposit to more silt and clay banks. The northern river channel in this area generally has more plane bed geomorphology. Sand bars were observed toward the inner floodplain and tapered out to a finer deposit in the outer flood plain (Guidence 2005, Stream 2004). The vegetative cover along the immediate bank is mostly herbaceous. The length of areas with little to no vegetative cover and showing a bare bank were measured. Most of the annual floodplain regions were dominated by tall sedges and herbaceous plant species with interspersed hard and soft woody species. In floodplain and slope areas of the northern portion of the river, an array of rich wetland species such as sensitive fern, common arrowhead, and ostrich fern were observed. Moving from the bank into the floodplain area, more deciduous, shrub-sapling vegetative cover was observed. Some fauna species showed habitation and use of the LaPlatte river resources. These include freshwater clams, crayfish, blue heron, king fisher, and a wood turtle (which has been designated a Species of Greatest Conservation Need (high priority) in Vermont’s Wildlife Action Plan). Also seen were tracks from deer and river otter. The state endangered fish called the Stonecat (Noturus Flavus) was spotted and photographed (VFWD 2003). Invasive species such as honeysuckle, buckthorn, and purple loosestrife were found within 5ft of the bank and are indicated on the Invasive Species Map. In some areas along the immediate bank of the river, honeysuckle shrub clusters are playing a key role in delaying sediment erosion into the river bed. This is especially prominent on the first erosive bank indicated on the map at the southern end of the river. Data was collected in areas which exhibited moderate, steep, and undercut bank slopes. Such regions are a function of the amount of vertical migration of the LaPlatte River in its evolution process (Stream 2004). By examining the natural history of the river and its past human use, we can infer that one explanation for the LaPlatte’s incisive nature into portions of the surrounding landscape is due to its recourse from a pre-existing route. The river seems to be moderately stable considering there is an existing floodplain and the water flow route is creating new bends rather than a straight, deep channel (Guidence 2005). This allows for water flow velocity to be more dispersed though the surrounding area and less concentrated and intense, especially during periods of high precipitation (Stream 2004). We found that most of the riparian area was forested,

30

with the exception of some of the existing floodplain. Possible explanations for observed erosion of the current embankment include the release of a pre-existing mill dam, increases in impervious cover of surrounding area, and increase in runoff into the surrounding watershed. If any active management of these eroded areas is undertaken, careful consideration of the inevitable evolution of the river course is encouraged. The Riparian and River Map includes GPS waypoints of areas along the river. These are labeled A-H and coordinates and observations can be seen in the Appendix. The map also includes the major erosive areas as well as a ranking of their severity. Descriptions of these ratings can be seen in the Appendix Table 3.

Image 21: Undercut erosion on Southern left bank

Image 22: Eddy on right bank

31

32

Stonecat and Habitat

Image 23. Stonecat http://www.biosci.ohiou.edu/faculty/white/stonecat.jpg

In Vermont the Stonecat is an endangered species meaning that it is in immediate

danger of becoming extirpated from state waters. The LaPlatte River is one of the only remaining areas where the Stonecat can be found (TNC 2004). The LANDS interns observed the Stonecat in the LaPlatte River while working on the parcel.

The Stonecat (Noturus Flavus) belongs to the genus Noturus, commonly known as madtoms. Of the 25 species, the Stonecat is the smallest only reaching an average of three to six inches in length (ODNR 2005). Its name comes from its tendency to hide beneath flat rocks along river beds. They prefer riffle areas composed of gravel, cobble, and bedrock. It has a catfish type of body with a very long, low and inconspicuous adipose fin. The adipose fin is separated from the tail by a tiny notch. The tail is square with the upper and lower margin whitish in color. Stonecats have a yellowish brown color that is faintly mottled with darker brown (ODNR 2005).

The stonecat is native to Vermont and can be found in moderate gradient rivers. Stonecats are intolerant of excessive current as well as extremely slow currents. The female lays a gelatinous round mass containing about 500 eggs on the underside of flat stones. One of the parents guards the eggs until hatching. Stonecats are active during the night and usually hide under rocks during the day. They detect their prey of insect larvae, small crustaceans, and small fish by smell and taste (ODNR 2005).

33

Management Recommendations Invasives It is the suggestion of the LANDS program crew that the Shelburne Natural Resources & Conservation Commission work closely with the Nature Conservancy to control invasives at the LaPlatte Nature Park. Removal methods will depend on the species being removed. In the case of Aegopodium podagraria (Goutweed or Bishop’s weed), herbicide application may be needed and utmost care should be taken due to its close proximity to the river. Removal of the younger Rhamnus cathartica (Common buckthorn) and Lonicera (Honeysuckle) species on the eastern side of the river could also be undertaken by the partnering agencies. Focus on the eastern portion is due to a lesser density of these species, making removal and containment more feasible.

It is encouraged that efforts be focused on preventing the spread of the species listed above, likewise with the species that are present in a lower density. Lythrum salicaria (Purple loosestrife) and Solanum dulcamara (Bittersweet nightshade) have the potential for early control to prevent their spread.

The LANDS Program’s strongest suggestion is for frequent monitoring to watch for Polygonum cuspidatum (Japanese knotweed). This fast moving and hardy invasive blankets river shores and is already present at other sites in Chittenden County. Another concern for the area is the variety and quantity invasive species found in the natural areas of the park. Also important to consider is their proximity to the river and species composition on the entire landscape. Trail One objective of the LANDS project was to map existing trails found within the parcel and rate their condition. There are a few areas which the LANDS program crew would like to address and offer suggestions for future management.

A sign indicating prohibited uses should be posted. Tracks and signs of current mountain bike use were found along some trails. Trails are currently unofficial and have no trail markers. Trails that cross fragile areas such as small streams and vernal pools could be rerouted. Creating bridges over wet areas would also be beneficial, especially on trail 5. A new path was mowed along the southern end of the river on the western side. The seasonal elimination of this riparian vegetation could result in future erosion as seen upriver and should be addressed. There is a good lookout over the river on part of the trail that is experiencing severe erosion (refer to coordinate “A” on Riparian Map). This spot may not exist in a few years as the river continues to erode the bank. Perhaps visitors should be directed away from this spot and a more suitable lookout established. Also, along trail 3, the most western portion of the trail along the road is fairly indistinguishable from the rest of the field and would probably benefit from a clearer delineation.

The Forest Service website offers a matrix for trail management classes and trail standards. Attached in Appendix 2 is the matrix. Most of the trails are of a trail class 2 under simple/minor development. General criteria for upgrading to a developed/improved trail class would include: clearing vegetation from trailways, Improving trail structures such as bridges and waterbars and reinforcing steep banks or rerouting trails away from those areas.

34

Stability of the Riparian Vegetation Another area of concern was the current riparian buffer region consisting of about 80 acres of the total LaPlatte Nature Park. As a result of many factors, the LaPlatte River is changing in shape and route, adjusting vertically on the landscape. The active bank erosion and the bare deposit banks are indications of the rate of the channel evolution process. The shape of the pre-existing channel is important to consider when determining whether to actively manage areas with bank erosion. If re-vegetation is being considered for current erosive banks, further research is needed to in determine if such methods will help prevent future erosion. When looking at invasive species present on the immediate banks of the LaPlatte, it is important to consider their role in the retention of sediment as well as the method of removal and its impact on water quality.

Increasing the amount of riparian area around the LaPlatte will only encourage habitat for greater biodiversity as well as maintain existing life. Species such as the blue heron may require up to 600ft of buffer habitat for nesting and roosting. Also wood turtles have a close affiliation with riparian areas and should be considered when determining trail location along the river. Therefore it is advised that the current riparian area does not decrease in total acreage and or be significantly altered. Potential Birding Habitat The LANDS program would also like to offer recommendations involving the two existing hay fields on the Western portion of the LaPlatte Nature Park. Recently, grassland bird populations such as savannah sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, bobolinks, and Eastern meadowlarks have been declining due to development and haying. LANDS would suggest exploring the use of the field management method which allows for haying but also works with field-nesting bird habitat. There are certain requirements for the method to be successful including 20 acres of uninterrupted habitat with at least 50%- 75% grass coverage. There is also a specific cutting schedule that must be followed which involves an early seasonal cut before May 31 followed by a 65 day undisturbed period. This allows for sufficient breeding for the grassland birds. For more information, refer to; EQIP New Incentives for Grassland Bird Conservation. Natural Resources Conservation Services, January 2007. The contact for Chittenden County is 1193 South Brownell Road, Williston VT (802)865-7895.

35

The UVM LANDS interns would like to thank the Town of Shelburne’s Natural Resource & Conservation Committee and The Nature Conservancy for the opportunity to explore the LaPlatte Nature Park and hope the materials provided will help the continued success of the organizations. For further information or extra copies of this document please contact Delia Delongchamp (ddelongc@uvm.edu) or James Barnes (jbarnes@uvm.edu).

2007 LANDS interns

Corbett Tulip, Jessica DeBiasio, Kai Starn, Jaime Recore, James Barnes, Diane Nadon Delia Delongchamp, Kyla Bedard, Patricia Brousseau, Emily Lord

36

References

"Guidance for Agency Act 250 and Section 248 Comments Regarding Riparian Buffers." 2005. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. 25 July 2007 <http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/rivers/htm/rv_geoassess.htm>.

“National Park Service Land and Water Conservation Fund”. National Park Service, US

Department of Interior. <http://www.nps.gov/lwcf/history.html> 25 July 2007 Ohio Division of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife. Life History Notes: Stonecat.

2005. <http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/wildlife/Fishing/aquanotes- fishid/stonecat.htm>

The Nature Conservancy. A Guide to The Nature Conservancy’s Natural Areas and

Projects in Vermont. 2004. http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/vermont/files/preserve_guide_easy_to_print_format.pdf

Shelburne, Vermont Comprehensive Plan, Draft 2. April 1985. Special Collections,

Bailey Howe Library, University of Vermont. 25 July 2007. "Stream Geomorphic Assessment Protocol Handbook 2004." 2004. Vermont Agency of

Natural Resources. 25 July 2007 <http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/rivers/docs/assessmenthandbooks/rv_aprgmintro.pdf>.

"Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department." 2003. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources.

26 July 2007 <http://www.vtfishandwildlife.com/>. Town of Shelburne “Financial and Statistical Reports” (7/01/1970-6/30/1974, vols. 184-

187). Town of Shelburne.

37

Appendix 1: LaPlatte Nature Park Mapping Proposal

Introduction The 2007 University of Vermont & Student Conservation Association LANDS Program Interns propose the creation of a mapping project and report, documenting natural resource features for the Town of Shelburne’s LaPlatte Nature Park. The purpose of the work is to assist the Shelburne Natural Resources & Conservation Commission as they create a management plan for the LaPlatte Nature Park. A secondary outcome of this project is to provide hands-on field work opportunities for the LANDS Program Crew. Results of the mapping project will also be provided to The Nature Conservancy, as they have an interest in the property. This mapping project will combine existing electronic data, while also integrating field-checked GPS & GIS data. A short description will accompany each of the maps. In addition, management recommendations may potentially be included. The final document should not be construed as a survey. The deliverable products will be produced into electronic files, as well as hard copies, to be delivered to the Town of Shelburne and The Nature Conservancy before August 1st. A draft document will be delivered before July 25th. We hope this project helps to serve the Town of Shelburne and benefits the long-term protection of the LaPlatte Nature Park. We look forward to working for the town to produce these maps and documents. Sincerely, The LANDS Crew & Instructors Maps These are potential maps the LANDS program could create for the LaPlatte Nature Park. Trail/Access Map: A GIS map of the trails, both official and social, of the LaPlatte property, along with an assessment of the trail conditions and potentially management recommendations. A hard copy of the map will be provided, along with digital GIS files. This information will help document where current use is concentrated, and also help keep track of the development and use of new trails. Invasive Species Map: A GIS map of concentrated invasive species locations, along with an inventory of species, per The Nature Conservancy’s Weed Management Plans. This information will be useful for noting the spread of invasive species and potentially working toward control or management of problem areas. Riparian Zone/Erosion Map:

38

A GIS map of the LaPlatte riparian area within the parcel with erosion concerns noted and marked, including potential management recommendations such as areas that might need re-vegetation. The Nature Conservancy is particularly interested in this piece as the LaPlatte provides habitat for a state endangered fish called the Stonecat (Noturus Flavus), which is a type of catfish. Controlling erosion and improving riparian buffers may improve habitat quality for the Stonecat. Natural Features/Communities: This map would expand upon Eric Sorenson’s natural communities report for The Nature Conservancy. We envision this map as depicting interesting natural features and building on the natural communities inventory conducted by Sorenson in 2006. This map would be accompanied by a list of species observed, as well as a list of species that would be expected in various habitats.

39

Appendix 2: National Trail Classes and Standards

40

Appendix 3: Riparian Area Observation