This is a
compilation of work by Junebug (Mike Duffy) that details the natural history
and ecology of the land. Use the index to skip to a particular topic.
introduction
logistics & locale
human history
natural history
geology
soils
wetlands
vegetation
logging
ecology
natural communities
flora
fungi
fauna
land resources
resources
appendix I
Species lists
Introduction to the `Peck Parcels'
Faerie
Camp Destiny purchased land in the town of Grafton, at the northern edge
of Windham County, Vermont in July of 1997. The property, formerly owned
by the Cronins, consists of two adjoining parcels. They are often referred
to as the "Peck parcels," after the family that used to own
much of the mountain (and still owns land to the north and east). The
larger western parcel covers 114 acres and the eastern parcel 36.5 acres,
for a total of 150.5 acres. They share a common boundary of approximately
a quarter mile. There is a brook along the north side; the land encompasses
it and extends up to the top of the ridge, about 1270 feet (395 meters)
high. Access is by right-of-way: through the Peck property on the north
to Vermont route 103, and through the Clavet property at the southwest
end to Eastman Road (which is called Sylvan Road after it crosses into
Windsor County at the Chester/Grafton town line). These right-of-ways
are connected through the property by what is left of an old road. In
the middle of the property this road is hardly more than a trail. A general
overview of property boundaries, roads and right-of-ways can be found
on page 21. The property is bounded by Eastman/Sylvan Road on the north,
where it follows Hall Brook, except for a small parcel called the Austin
property at the bend in the brook. Besides the Clavet and Peck properties
through which the right-of-ways pass; the land is bounded by the Rounds
property on the south, and on the other side of the ridge to the southeast
is Rockingham Town Forest. The northernmost boundary of the land is also
the Grafton/Chester town boundary, as well as the Windham/Windsor county
boundary. Property boundaries are marked by stone walls, blue blazes cut
into trees, temporary orange flagging, and in some places the remains
of barbed wire fences. Vehicular access from route 103 on the north was
improved in 1998, and presently ends in a small parking area. The access
route from Eastman/Sylvan Road on the south is not yet passable for most
vehicles. The first part of this report is a summary of information about
the natural features of the land, taken from soil reports, geological
maps, forest appraisals, etc., and from observations made on the land
in the past two years. Maps of the general property features, soils, bedrock
geology, wetlands, forest stands and trails begin on page 21 and a list
of resources is found on page 20. A list of plants and animals observed
on the property is found in Appendix I, and photocopies of original maps
are in Appendix II. Part 2 (in preparation) deals with management issues
related to development on the land, and with ethical issues related to
development that are of particular importance to the radical faerie community.
A special note about the maps that are included here: they are taken from
large scale but very general maps. Many map features are rough approximations
based on field data and may not be precise. They are meant as general
guides only. Our own observations on the land will help refine these general
maps. Data sets for the important landscape features used in Geographical
Information Systems are available through the Windham Regional Planning
Office in Brattleboro, Vermont. Their soil coverages, especially, would
provide us with more accurate maps.
Back to Top
sources: The Soil Survey of Windham County, Vermont; Grafton Town Plan
The soil survey book says this area was a hunting ground for the Iroquois
and Algonquin Nations, but does not mention permanent settlement by either
of those groups. Settlement by Europeans happened later in this area than
the rest of New England, due to the resistance of a confederation of the
Western Abenaki, who held fast to their traditional land rights during
the eighteenth century. The first settlement of Europeans near here was
Brattleboro in 1724, eclipsing native use of this area. Present-day Grafton
was at first called Tomlinson, established as a "New Hampshire land
grant" (evidence of that state's claim on the territory) in a 1763
charter. New York also claimed this area, considering it to be a part
of Cumberland County. After Vermont secured its independence from both
Great Britain and the states of New York and New Hampshire, Windham County
was organized in 1781. The town name was changed to Grafton after the
revolution. Grafton became U.S. territory after Vermont gave up its independent
status and entered the union as the 14th state in 1791. Evidence of early
occupation is found everywhere on the property, from the old foundations
near the lower fire circle to the very composition of the forests themselves
(discussed in the vegetation section). There is over a mile of stone walls
on the property, some of them marking the boundary. Stones were removed
from the soil to make it suitable for cultivation, and at first were piled
up anywhere. There are still many small piles of stone visible on the
relatively flat area of "Tea Garden Ridge". There is also one
big boulder with many stones upon it- evidence that the person who moved
the stones didn't want to waste precious agricultural space with a rock
pile, and piled stones on the boulder since it couldn't be moved anyway.
One section of a wall on the western side of the property has many small
stones in it, evidence that the area around it might have been a garden,
since even small stones could make plowing difficult. The walls themselves,
more properly called stone fences, probably date from the 1840's when
pasturing sheep was a major occupation. Pastures did not need to be so
carefully cleaned of stones, and so most of the walls are made of larger
boulders. Laws required that the fences be at least four feet tall to
prevent the sheep from escaping and trampling hayfields and gardens. Few
of the fences have remained that tall, and some sections have been torn
down to allow the passage of heavy machinery. There are walls, south of
the fire pits and house foundations, that are hardly more than lines on
the ground. It is possible that these are the oldest stone walls on the
property; they may even be foundations instead of fences. Some stones
in the fences on the southwestern end appear to have been quarried from
the ledges just over the property line. Several walls have curious squiggles
to them- the points at which poorly surveyed boundary lines were connected,
perhaps? Boundary disputes? Barbed wire, found on a few boundary lines,
was not invented until the late nineteenth century and so these fences
are much newer than any of the walls. There are many areas that still
have barbed wire fences, especially running along the brook. The trees
that the fences were nailed to have grown around the wire, and cutting
these trees with chainsaws and power tools would be very dangerous. Any
cutting of trees must involve careful inspection of the immediate area.
The land was advertised to us as a former orchard, but there do not seem
to be any obvious remains of an orchard. Perhaps this was mere speculation
on the part of the realtor, or maybe the orchard existed long, long ago.
The stone foundations and brick chimney near the lower fire circle seem
to be of a small building. This building might have been a shed or sugar
shack, but does not appear to have been a dwelling. Old iron barrel hoops
have been found nearby. An excavation of the site might provide some interesting
clues to the early history of the area, as would a thorough title search.
Back to Top
Natural History
sources: The Roadside Guide to the Geology of Vermont and New Hampshire
The
literal foundation of all the soils, plants, animals and human history
is the mountain itself. The story of the mountain contains two main chapters-
the first is about the formation of the stone itself, an ancient and very
long process. The second chapter is shorter (in geological terms), but
includes our own time period: the modification of that stone by the glaciers,
events which set the stage for the development of the soils and natural
communities we see today. The origin of the bedrock in this whole part
of New England involved the deposition of sediments that eventually solidified
into stone. The different layers of this stone became buckled and warped
due to the movement of ancient continents, which at times spread apart
and at other times collided, piling up and slipping beneath one another.
The timeline here is measured in millions of years. Long before there
was an Atlantic Ocean, there existed an earlier, huge basin which gradually
became smaller as the North American and Afro-Eurasian plates approached
one another and collided. Where they met, the earth rippled into mountain
ranges. When tectonic forces shifted from collision to spreading, the
ocean basin again opened- but this time the rift happened further east
of the old Afro-Eurasian continent's original coastline, leaving a small
chunk stuck on the North American side. The Connecticut River flows along
the original rift zone, and most of New Hampshire and Maine (according
to tectonic theory) was once part of another continent. The result of
all of this slow fury was that Vermont was made mountainous, and its rock
metamorphosed (changed) by all the pressure and heat. Our property is
on the edge of an area that buckled upwards during the collision process,
called the "Cheshire Dome". Although called a dome, it is not
especially higher than the surrounding area because during the slow period
of uplift, erosion was constantly removing what was being pushed up. The
end result, however, is that layers of rock that are well below the surface
for most of this area were exposed in the Cheshire Dome. The central portion
is even called a "basement complex", and represents the deepest
level. The Destiny property is on the southeastern edge of the dome, and
there are three main bands of bedrock exposed, running in a northeast-southwest
pattern. Towards the "center" of the dome (the northern and
western portion of the property) is the "basement complex",
which is a mishmash of gneiss, schist, amphibolite, and some granite.
Higher up the ridge, to the east, is a band of dolomite- a type of rock
related to limestone and marble that has a high calcium content (this
calcium greatly affects the soil and plants that grow upon it). It also
has some lovely quartz interbedded with it. Further east, at the edge
of the property, is a band of gneiss. The geology map is on page 22. The
steepness of the land is an ancient feature predating the glaciers, due
to erosion by Hall Brook. The brook is part of the drainage net of the
Williams River watershed. During the long period of uplift, rivers and
streams constantly carved the valleys deeper. Hall Brook and its tributaries
created the valley that Eastman road follows. The brook empties into the
Williams River, which joins the Connecticut north of Bellows Falls. There
are no year-round creeks on the land, though spring meltwater and runoff
flows down the shallow drainages of the slope to the brook. The more "recent"
history of this area is measured in mere hundreds of thousands of years.
It is the story of the glaciers. There have been many periods of glaciation
in recent geological history- in fact, we are presently in an inter-glacial
warm period. Ice over two kilometers thick completely covered this area
at one time, and greatly modified the previously existing valleys and
peaks. The ice sheet generally flowed in a north-northwest to south-southeast
direction, though in our locale ice flow may have been slightly different.
Many of the glacial modifications are still easily visible. The mountain
itself is a roche-moutonée, a French term describing a mountain
that is steep on one side and rises gently on the other. Our particular
roche-moutonée ascends gradually on its northern side where the
glacier rode over and smoothed it, and has a much steeper and bouldery
southern face where the overriding glacial flow plucked stones as it passed
by. Most of these stones were not carried very far by the ice and are
visible today below the steep outcrops on the south and south east sides,
especially at the bottom of tea garden ridge and beyond the southern boundary.
Glaciers sometimes picked up and carried stones for many miles before
dropping them. They are usually rounded and smooth from being tumbled
within the ice. These stone travelers are called glacial erratics, and
the large boulder on the top of the ridge is one of them. It originated
somewhere further north and was left on the mountain top when the glacier
melted. Large boulder trains originated from Mount Ascutney and Bear Mountain,
and it is possible that it came from one of those areas. Many of the stones
and boulders on the land are erratics. Tons of glacial silt, sand and
rocks (called "till") were also left behind as the glacier wasted
away. Most of our present soils are derived from both the till deposited
here and from the weathering of the bedrock. Till with a high clay content,
compacted by the weight of all that ice, is very dense. It drains poorly,
a condition we observe on many parts of the land today.
Back to Top
source:
The Soil Survey of Windham County, Vermont
The soils immediately adjacent to the brook at the base of the slope are
alluvial- that is, they were formed by stream deposits. But most of the
soils of the property developed from the debris directly left behind by
the glaciers, called till. Compact till drains poorly, and one of the
soil units found on the property has a layer below the surface that is
very compacted. Since that particular area is not too steep, this layer
causes a noticeable sogginess in spring. Snow melt, instead of quickly
draining through the soil into cracks in the bedrock, just sits there.
There's a spot along the road to the parking lot where this layer can
be seen. Most of the soils are very stony, and in several places there
are large glacial erratics. Rock outcroppings are common, especially up
slope, and two areas have boulderfields with hardly any soil at all. The
map on page 23 is taken from the Soil Survey of Windham County, VT., published
by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly known as the Soil
Conservation Service) in 1987. The soils are named after towns in the
New England area. The number part of the soil codes refers to soil types,
and the letter part of the codes refers to steepness (A = 0-3% slope,
B = 3-8% slope, C = 8-15% slope, D = 15-25% slope, E = 25-50% slope).
Basically, we have combinations of four soil types (summaries from the
survey are given below) and a preponderance of steep slopes. The soil
units presented in the survey maps, however, are rough estimates. There
may be a few small inclusions of other types of soil within the units,
such as poorly drained depressions, and sometimes these inclusions can
total nearly a quarter of the unit. They have approximate boundaries and
do not show small areas like the small strip of wet bottomland next to
the brook. Tunbridge-Lyman (20C, 20D and 20E): These units are a combination
of moderately deep, well drained Tunbridge soil, usually found on shoulders
and slopes, where bedrock averages at 27" below the surface, and
the shallow, somewhat excessively drained Lyman soil on summits and shoulders,
which is about 15" deep. These soils are so intermingled they are
not mapped separately. The Tunbridge soil is slightly more common within
the units. They are both fine sandy loams, very rocky, and rock outcrops
average 1-10% of the area. Bedrock is listed as schist and gneiss (and
phyllite for the Tunbridge soil), and the soil is moderately to extremely
acid, pH of 3.6-6.0 (ours being on the less acidic side?) Agricultural
use is very limited due to their slope, stoniness and shallowness. Potential
sugar maple productivity is moderate due to windthrow resulting from the
shallow soils, and seedling mortality in the Lyman soil, which becomes
very dry by late summer. Development is limited by the steep slopes and
shallowness of the soil. Septic tank absorption fields may need special
construction, which includes mounding with suitable fill material to raise
it the required distance above the bedrock. These soils are found mostly
mid-slope, and represent about 40% of the property, or about 60 acres.
Marlow (22D): A very deep, very stony, well drained soil with a compacted
substratum. Depth to bedrock is 60" or more. Although the survey
considers the upper layers well drained, permeability is slow in the lower
portions and the seasonal high water table is perched above this substratum
in the spring, creating very soggy conditions. pH of 4.5-6.0. Agricultural
and development concerns are similar to those for the Tunbridge-Lyman
soils, with the added concern of the seasonal high water table. This soil
is on the mid-to-lower slope of the northern side, and represents about
a quarter of the property, approximately 40 acres. Lyman-rock outcrop
(34E): This unit contains a combination of Lyman soil, described above,
and on average 20% rock outcrops. The available water capacity is very
low due to the shallowness of the soil and the moderately rapid permeability.
It is not suited to development or agriculture, and forestry is difficult
at best. This is the ridge top area, about 5% of the property, or less
than 10 acres. Berkshire-Monadnock (46D, 46E): Another combination of
two similar soils (the main difference between them being that the substratum
of Monadnock soils is more coarsely textured). Berkshire soils predominate,
and both are deep (depth to bedrock 60" or more), fine sandy loams
that are steep and very stony. They are well drained, with available water
capacity high in the Berkshire soil and moderate in the Monadnock. Bedrock
is listed as schist, gneiss, phyllite or granite, and the soil is moderately
to extremely acid, pH of 3.6-6.0 (ours being on the less acidic side?)
The only limitations to agriculture and development are the slope and
stoniness of the soils; white pine productivity is listed as high to very
high, though there is no mention of sugarbush capability. Southwestern
area and the southern right-of-way, a little over 20% of the property,
around 35 acres. Colton (50C): This is a deep loamy fine sand which is
mostly excessively drained, though there are often poorly drained depressions
within it. Depth to bedrock exceeds 60". Permeability is rapid to
very rapid and available water capacity is very low, making this soil
type especially prone to drought (this is mostly an agricultural consideration,
and in our case the unit is so small it should not be a problem). Rapid
permeability also affects its ability to filter any effluent from septic
systems, and therefore limits development. It is good agricultural land
within the limitations of its droughtiness, and offers high potential
productivity for white pine. These soils developed in glacio-fluvial deposits
and are very strongly to moderately acid, pH 3.6-6.0 Located on the lower
slopes and bottomland beside the brook. It covers most of the Austin property
that we border, but we have only 5 or 6 acres of it, less than 5% of our
total acreage. Westbury soils are noted as possible inclusions within
the Tunbridge-Lyman, Marlow and Berkshire-Monadnock units. They are listed
as very deep fine sandy loams, somewhat poorly drained due to a dense
substratum. Its slow permeability causes the seasonal high water table
to be very near the surface, like the Marlow soils, and this affects the
potential for development. pH for these soils is (3.6) 5.1-7.3. Markey
soils developed from decomposing organic matter and are possibly found
in the Tunbridge-Lyman units. They are mucky and wet- the most poorly
drained of all- and would be found in level, low spots, with a fairly
high pH of 5.6-7.3. These would support swamp-like vegetation, but would
be limited to small areas, and I haven't seen anything on the property
yet that really fits this description. The soil survey has a wealth of
engineering indices, with suggestions for everything- from the types of
trees to plant to placement of picnic tables. The soils that rate the
highest are the deep, rich, level, stone-free soils that we have absolutely
none of. Actually, the Grafton Town Plan states that only 3% of the town
is prime farmland. While it's obvious this land is not prime from an agricultural
or development point of view, its soils provide for a rich, fairly diverse
forest and should be adequate for our purposes of gathering on the land.
The main development concerns for us, then, are the conditions of being
on a mountainside: steep slope and rocky, shallow soils, as well as the
seasonal high water table. Here's a summary of the major concerns: Farming:
mostly too steep for large-scale operations
Gardening: stoniness and steep slopes will determine garden potential,
though pretty workable for small plots and crops like flowers and herbs
Septic: shallowness, steepness, permeability (in Colton rapid, in Marlow
slow) are concerns- workable, but would take effort and probably money
Building: steepness, shallowness- workable
Pasture: all soils are pretty reasonable for this, except the fragile
ridge top
Forestry: seasonal high water table, steepness are concerns- workable
Pond: mostly too steep, a big pond would really take effort
Sugarbush: pretty good- wind damage in areas of thin soil is probably
the biggest concern.
Back to Top
source:
The National Wetland Inventory Map
For the most part, our land is all upland (see the map on page 24). The
only wetland on the property identified on the National Wetlands Inventory
map is the brook itself, at the northern boundary. It's listed as a "riverene,
upper perennial, open water/unknown bottom, intermittently exposed/permanent"
wetland, which means that it's a forested stream with clearly defined
boundaries and flows year-round (and, in our case, is rocky-bottomed).
As far as policy goes, it's probably governed more by Waters of the U.S.
policy (Army Corps of Engineers) than by wetland policies. The N.W.I.
map shows a small section of the Austin property to be a "palustrine,
forested, needle-leaved evergreen, intermittently flooded/temporary"
wetland (in this case, seasonally swampy hemlock forest), probably a low
spot around the brook that floods in spring. Although not mapped as such,
our property probably has some similar spots in the small strip of bottomland
adjacent to the brook. There are certainly some areas of poor drainage
there, and one very soggy, scrubby open area. Because of its proximity
to the stream and the wet low spots, activity in this area should be well
planned. Many spots in the mid-slope area have a seasonally high water
table due to the slow drainage of the Marlow soils. Though they are moist
for most of the spring and support some species adapted to wet conditions
(especially in drainages and seeps), they do not fit federal definitions
of wetlands. However, wet conditions will likely impact development and
use of these areas.
Back to Top
source:
Huffer Forestry Associates' Management plans for Cronin Properties; observations
General Introduction to forest stands
There
are many ways to look at the vegetation of this property- as stands of
timber, as ecological zones, and as wildlife habitats, for example. Huffer
Forestry Associates surveyed the properties in 1985 and made recommendations
for their management according to the Vermont Use Value Appraisal Program
(sometimes referred to as the "current use" program). Two reports
were produced for the property- one for each parcel. Eight forest stand
types were described, called stands A-F on the larger parcel and AR1 and
AR2 on the smaller (one stand occurs on both parcels and the information
for each is the same. It is treated separately in both reports, as stand
D and stand AR1 respectively, but it is really only one type of forest;
so there are actually only seven types). The recommendations were conservative
and called for careful thinning during several 5-year periods, and the
eventual harvest of the trees once they had reached between 100 and 150
years of age. Here is a summary of what was written in those reports,
with a brief history of logging derived from observations made on the
land. Management recommendations in the stand descriptions are from the
reports, and are not necessarily the courses that we want to pursue. The
forest cover falls into three categories:
1. The northern hardwood dominated middle slopes (about 96 acres).
2. Conifer-dominated forest stands, which are found in two belts at the
upper and lower parts of the mountain (about 50 acres).
3. The small bit at the top of the mountain, which is a more open kind
of hardwood forest (4 acres).
Northern Hardwood Forest
The
two-thirds that is hardwood consists mostly of maples and birches, with
a nice representation of many other species like red oak, white ash, black
cherry and basswood. There are small groups of conifers scattered throughout
the middle slopes. The conifer belts are almost all hemlocks. Besides
hemlock, other softwoods present are white pine (in small quantities)
and red spruce (rarely more than an inch or so in diameter, but a few
large trees make it up into the canopy). Very uncommon on the property
are red pine (restricted to cliffs) and red cedar (a lone remnant of former
open pasture, now being shaded out). There a are a few balsam fir trees
along the southwest right of way, and they may yet be found on that side
of the property. The average tree diameter is 9.5 inches, though some
individuals measure over 2 feet across. Average stand age is around 60
years.The map on page 25 includes a table with average diameter, age,
extent, and species composition of the various stand types. Much (probably
all) of the property was open pasture at one time. When it grew back into
forest, much of it was then cut at least once. Many of the trees are shade
tolerant, such as sugar maple and hemlock, whose seedlings can survive
even in shade. Some are moderately tolerant of shade, like black birch,
yellow birch and black cherry. The shade-intolerant species like the aspens,
white pine and white birch need open areas in which to regenerate. They
are, for the most part, remnants of the time just after the pastures were
abandoned, like the red cedar. The steepest upper slopes have been forested
for a long time, and only hemlock and sugar maple seedlings can grow there
in the dense shade. Each stand is summarized in detail below. The different
stands:
Stand A
7 acres A small stand of northern hardwoods with a high percentage of
hemlock (25%) on the lower slope, west of the Austin property. It's
mostly a steep area that extends down to the brook. The trees average
about 9" in diameter and are approximately 40 years old. The species
are (in decreasing order of abundance) red maple, hemlock, sugar maple,
yellow birch, paper birch, black birch, and black cherry. This area
was once pasture that grew up into forest when grazing was discontinued.
Forest Report Recommendation: Management should favor the hardwoods
of this stand, since they dominate it and there are adequate stands
of hemlock for deer yards elsewhere on the property. Thinning was recommended
to favor the growth of sugar maple, all the birches, and black cherry
for eventual harvest. Any cutting, however, must be done carefully because
of the potential for erosion on this steep slope, and the report suggests
single tree or small group selection for thinning operations.
Stand B
22 acres Another former pasture area, this section grew into a stand
of hemlock, with a high percentage of hardwoods (40%). It covers the
mid-slope of the western end of the property; the old road passes through
a bit of it before leaving the property along the southern right-of-way.
The average diameter of the trees is 9.5", and the approximate
age of the stand is 65 years. The hardwood component is mostly red maple,
with small percentages of beech, paper birch, red oak, aspen, black
birch, sugar maple, and white pine. Forest Report Recommendation: This
stand was recommended for management as a deer yard, with any thinning
favoring the hemlock, which was recommended not to fall below 70% canopy
cover. (it is less than that - 59% - now). Of the hardwoods, red oak
and beech should be favored for their production of mast (nuts). Thinning
on this stand would not be commercially profitable until the turn of
the millennium.
Stand C
8 acres This is another hemlock stand, like stand B but with a higher
percentage of hemlock (71%). It has been forested for a longer period
of time- the average diameter of trees 10", and approximate age
is 62 years. Hardwoods include small amounts of red maple, yellow birch,
paper birch, sugar maple, and hop hornbeam. It is located along the
southeastern boundary of the Austin property, and goes from the middle
of the slope down to the brook. Forest Report Recommendation: The recommendations
for this stand are the same as for stand B- keep it as a mature hemlock
stand for deer wintering habitat. Since it is older, it would be possible
to thin it sooner than stand B.
Stand D
(and stand AR 1, in the eastern parcel, which has the
same composition) 66 acres. This is a beautiful stand of hardwoods,
consisting of sugar maple, red maple, paper birch, hemlock, beech, white
ash, yellow birch, red oak, aspen (both trembling and big tooth), and
bitternut hickory. Black walnut is listed in the forest report, though
I have found only white walnut. It is the largest stand on the property,
and is also the area we spend the most time in during gatherings. The
average diameter of trees is 9", and the stand is approximately
50 years old. This stand used to be the main pasture of the property.
The really big maples along the stone fences and around the foundations
were fairly big trees even back then, and may have been tapped for sap.
The pasture grew into a mixed northern hardwood forest, and has been
selectively logged in the past. Traces of logging roads, and the breaks
in the walls through which they went, can still be seen. Smooth-topped
stumps that have not completely rotted away are still visible and are
evidence of single-tree cutting; in several places it is possible to
see the remains of group selection cutting, where all the trees were
harvested. The trees are noticeably younger in these spots and many
of the red maples stump sprouted and are now growing in clusters. Forest
Report Recommendation: Favor the northern hardwoods, especially sugar
maple, white ash, yellow birch and northern red oak. Only a few sections
need thinning. Some have been thinned adequately already, in the remainder
the less desirable species and individuals not suited to saw timber
can be removed.
Stand E
7 acres A steep hemlock stand, the oldest on the property. It's located
on the upper section of the mountain (though not including the top).
It has not been recently logged due to the slope, and the only record
of logging they could find was on the lower portion of the stand. Average
diameter of trees 10", with some much bigger than that, and approximately
86 years old on average. Other major species include red oak and paper
birch. The harsh conditions here- cool north aspects, thin soil which
is exceedingly well drained and therefore droughty- result in the trees
being very slow growing and stunted. Many have battered and gnarled
tops. Forest Report Recommendation: This is the only stand that has
the recommendation "no management", which of course means
manage it for its wildlife habitat and for erosion control by not logging
any part of it.
Stand F
4 acres This is located at the top of the mountain, a northern red oak-northern
hardwoods stand. It is a very poor site as far as forestry goes. The
soil is thin and dries quickly, and the trees are even shorter and more
stunted than in stand E. The average diameter of the trees is 9",
and the approximate age is given as 60 years. Red oak dominates, with
white ash, sugar maple, hemlock, beech, black walnut (again- I've seen
white walnut and hickory), and black cherry. Not counted as a tree by
the report is hop hornbeam, which is a small understory tree that is
very common on the upper slope and ridge top. It says there is no record
of harvest, and its inaccessibility for machines is the main cause,
but even the gnarled and stunted trees would have been harvested for
firewood and charcoal. Logging probably did happen long ago, using winches
and draft animals, and the ridge top was probably pastured. There is
a small section of stone fence and remnants of a barbed wire fence coming
up the steep slope. Forest Report Recommendation: The report considers
this "non-productive" land. None of the trees are suitable
for saw timber (the trunk must have a 16' length that is straight and
clear for saw timber) but the report recognizes that the area is extremely
valuable as wildlife habitat, and recommends managing it as such, only
cutting ash and hemlock to release the oak and beech components should
their percentage of the canopy ever fall too low. These mast (nut-producing)
species are very important to the deer and turkey (and possibly bear
and moose) populations in the area, and the hop hornbeam seeds are important
to songbirds. Deer yard up in the hemlock below and come to feed in
this stand.
Stand AR 1 (continuation of stand D in the western parcel)
23.5 acres The information and recommendations for this stand are the
same as stand D.
Stand AR 2
13 acres A hemlock stand that has a high percentage of hardwoods (40%).
The average diameter of the trees is 10", and the report says it
is approximately 55 years old, though it goes on to say that this stand
has been forested for a long time, so parts of it may be older than
55 years. It used to run into stand E, which is a lot steeper and has
fewer hardwoods, but the bit that joined them was outside our property
and has been logged. Species here are hemlock, red maple, beech, sugar
maple, yellow birch, and paper birch. Forest Report Recommendation:
Keep this area as a deer yard. Any thinning should favor hemlock, which
should not cover less than 70% of the total cover.
Back to Top
source: observations (see Reading the Forested Landscape and Changes
in the Land)
Although the forest report refers to some of the stands never having been
cut, we really don't have anything on the land that could be considered
truly "old growth forest". There are probably no records of
early logging, but we can assume that all of the land was cut at one time
or another for lumber or fuel wood. Although Vermont is now roughly 80%
forested and 20% cleared land, 100 years ago that ratio was reversed and
most everything was open. The history of the forest in this century is
recorded not only in documents like the forest report, but on the landscape
itself. Really big maples can be seen on the path to the fire circle,
especially near stone fences. These were shade trees for the animals and
grew out in the open, their branches spreading out luxuriously in all
that open space. When the pastures grew into forest, these giants (maybe
100-150 years old, or more?) became surrounded by younger trees whose
side branches were shaded out and are tall, thin, and fairly straight.
In places the remains of cleanly-cut stumps are visible, and we know they
are fairly recent because they are so low to the ground (before chain
saws, trees were cut higher up where a hand saw could be easily worked).
These stumps rot fairly quickly, too. Some of the former pasture, especially
where the old road is nothing but a trail, has a lot of stump sprouted
trees- several trunks coming from a single base. After the pastures fell
into disuse, hardwoods grew in and many were later cut. The stumps sprouted
and the trees grew back, giving those woods a kind of clumped look. According
to the report, this was probably around the mid 1940's. The stands that
received the least attention are, predictably, the ones most difficult
to access- the steep mountain slope and ridge top. Because these areas
are rocky with fairly thin soil, the trees there are of lesser value as
well. But some are really big- a few hemlocks on the slope have a diameter
of over two feet (the upper slope hemlock forest is probably closest to
what "virgin forest" in this area may have looked like long,
long ago). American chestnut may have been present on the ridgetop, before
the blight earlier this century that forever changed our eastern deciduous
forests. Very little cutting has been done in the immediate past. The
report says a diameter-limit cut (a thinning operation) was done in the
seventies in stands AR1/D and AR2. The old logging roads are just barely
noticeable, especially where they broke through the stone walls. Stumps
that have not yet rotted away can still be seen. For comparison, the cleared
areas along the northern right of way were cut around 1993-94, according
to the guy who worked on our road, and appear to be much more than a thinning.
Our property was slated for logging just before we bought it, and from
the looks of all the blue paint that was used to mark trees, the process
would have disregarded recommendations in the reports and would have been
just as catastrophic as what happened off the eastern boundary. Ecological
and botanical aspects of the property
sources: observations (see reports from The Vermont Natural Heritage Program)
Back to Top
Like glacial history, there is an ecological history of the land. As the
glaciers receded in the warming global climate, vegetation began to slowly
cover the landscape. Tundra-like communities were later replaced by northern
boreal conifer forests, and then the northern variant of the Eastern deciduous
forest. Warming continued and exceeded present temperatures about 5,000
years ago, and the southern variant of the eastern deciduous forest predominated
with more oak and chestnut and fire activity. Recent climate cooling,
beginning with the "little ice age" of the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries B.C.E., returned the northern type of eastern deciduous forest
we see today (with some elements of the northern boreal forest, which
occurs in northern Vermont and Maine). On a shorter time scale, change
within the eastern deciduous forest occurs as the property succeeds from
open pasture to closed forest (discussed in the previous section). Although
they are changing, our forests are fairly healthy, although waves of tree
diseases continue to wash over New England. The chestnut blight of the
early twentieth century removed that important species from prominence.
There are some diseases that will probably affect us in the future, like
the hemlock-wooly adelgid blight. Right now, however, beech blight is
in full swing on the property. The usually smooth bark of infected trees
turns rough and warty, and it's not difficult to spot diseased trees.
But there are still many healthy beeches. In fact, 1996 appeared to be
a mast year for beech. Many trees will store up energy for a while and
then, when conditions are right, release phenomenal numbers of seeds,
hoping to flood the market. This is called a mast year, and there were
so many beech seedlings in 1997, that 1996 was probably a mast year for
beech. 1998 appeared to be a mast year for sugar maple.
Back to Top
The forest report gives an excellent overview of the tree populations
on the land. Though definitely slanted towards viewing trees as marketable
commodities (stands are referred to as "productive" and "non-productive"),
it does makes some reference to wildlife habitat. But it does not really
view the entire natural community. The natural community is defined not
only by its dominant tree species but includes all living features such
as the understory shrubs, herbs, fungi and animals; it also includes physical
features such as soil, hydrology and even the local topography. It represents
our understanding of the entire ecosystem and how it functions. The names
are still taken from the dominant vegetation because this is the community's
most obvious aspect. The Vermont Natural Heritage Program is preparing
a classification of the natural communities of the state. They are similar
to the forest stand descriptions and give us a general overview, but are
in some ways more specific because they describe more than just the trees.
Why two classifications? Community classifications are just a different
way of viewing the land, using somewhat different terminology, and are
not primarily economic in focus. Herbaceous plants, among other things,
are used to help differentiate stands that appear to be the same but may
in fact be ecologically different. These indicator plants help clue us
in to forest dynamics: maidenhair fern grows in richer soils, yew grows
in cooler sites, haircap moss in poor, drier sites, bluebead lily in acidic
spots, and so on. Although a nearby maple forest in New Hampshire may
appear the same as one of our stands, it may be a very different natural
community due to the differences in soil and topography. Understory indicator
plants can help us to observe this difference. For example, on our property
the hemlock stands on the upper slopes and those just above the stream
appear to be the same- both are dense, shady and rocky. But the presence
of rock cress and bush honeysuckle up high indicate that the thin soils
are poorer and warmer than the cool, rich, moist soils of the steep slopes
above the brook, which support yew, dwarf scouring rush and hobblebush.
From this information we can begin to make guesses about wildlife in the
area, and ask more specific questions about the ecology of the two sites
that will help us understand them better. In the community classification
model, most of our land, except the very top of the mountain, is considered
northern hardwood forest. Three more specific divisions of this community
type can be identified on the land. The hemlock forest, corresponding
to the hemlock stands described above, is slightly cooler and more acidic
than the hardwood areas. Mesic northern hardwood forest (beech-birch-maple
forest) corresponds roughly to the hardwood stands (mesic refers to conditions
Goldilocks would like: neither wet nor dry, just right). Within this community
we have pockets of rich northern hardwood forest, which is similar but
with more nutrients in the soil. Indicators of this rich community are
greater percentages of basswood and herbs like maidenhair fern, blue cohosh
and hepatica. Our forest seems to be on the moist side of mesic, especially
in areas of Marlow soil, as indicated by corn lily and lots of jack-in-the-pulpit.
Within the northern hardwood forest there may be micro-communities like
the woodland seep/ spring run community (corresponding to some areas at
the toe of the slope, near the brook), which is important salamander habitat.
The very top of the mountain is a distinct community. Because of its thin
rocky soil and position, it is drier and warmer, although also exposed
to harsh extremes like wind. Overgrazing probably contributed to the poor
soil conditions. The forest is very open, and in the more open areas shrubs
become thick. This area, corresponding to stand F, does not fit into the
Vermont community classification very well. It seems to fit best into
the transition hardwood forest/woodland group, having the elements of
both dry oak-hickory-hop hornbeam forest (though not as dry and more open)
and the transition hardwoods talus woodland communities.
Back to Top
Botanically, there are few distinct zones, since the property is completely
forested. But within the forests, there is a nice variety of wooded habitats,
ranging from dry to wet, giving us a diverse flora. The rich soil of the
middle slopes derives from the dolomite bedrock, but there are some slightly
poorer and more acidic sites as well, and these sites have different assemblages
of species. The interplay of rich to poor soil, shade to partial sun,
wetness to dryness, and other factors produces distinct plant habitats.
Subtly defined botanical zones might be described as follows: 1. The riparian
zone of Hall Brook (which is subdivided into the wide streambed zone of
the area just east of the Austin property, and the narrow streambed zone,
located on the west and east).
2. The steeply sloped, mesic forested slopes (subdivided into coniferous
and deciduous sections).
3. The gently sloped, deciduously forested central plateau (subdivided
into seasonally wet and mesic sections, with a third section that is mesic
but has a high percentage of conifers)
4. The ridgetop and southwest facing slopes
5. Disturbed areas (such as the Eastman/Sylvan road margin and the parking
lot)
By
the winter of 1999/2000, 257 species of vascular plants had been observed
(not including species planted after the property was bought). The blooming
period here is slightly later than other areas due to its northern exposure.
The draft list of species observed (Appendix I) is excerpted from a database
that groups plants by life form: tree, shrub/vine, herbaceous seed-bearing
plants, fern and fern-like spore producing plants, and mosses and lichens.
Within these groups, the plants are sorted alphabetically by scientific
name, but common names are also given. Most observations have been carried
out in spring, early summer and winter, so many summer flowering species
may have been missed. Many mosses and lichens have been observed, although
less than two dozen have been identified. No voucher collection has been
attempted, so some species are marked with a question mark and these identifications
are best guesses (especially grasses and sedges). A full species inventory
could be the next level of inquiry. Useful guidebooks for the wild flowers
are included in the resources section. So far, no rare plants have been
observed, although there are a few uncommon species like squirrel corn
and showy orchis. Species-rich areas include the wet pools down by the
brook, the seasonally wet deciduous forest on the central plateau, and
the southwest-facing slopes of the very southern boundary (home to many
spring ephemerals). The least species-rich areas are the dense conifer
stands. Most non-native species were probably introduced by pasturing,
and are restricted to sunnier spots like the ridgetop. A notable exception
is the introduced orchid helleborine, which is found throughout the forest.
The margin of Eastman/Sylvan Road is especially rich in alien species,
as would be expected. Road work done during 1999/2000 may have obliterated
some species from the road margin- natives such as bluebead lily, bog
candle and maple-leafed viburnum were seen only there, as well as many
aliens.
Back to Top
As of winter 1999/2000, 89 species of fungi have been observed on the
land (see Appendix I, they are presently grouped by observation date).
They range from from the barely noticeable pinwheel marasmius to the eye-catching
Phallus impudicus and the glow-in-the-dark foxfire and luminescent panella.
Some fungi are parasites, like the beech bark fungus (Nectria coccinea
var. faginata), which is spread by scale insects. But other fungi have
what we'd consider beneficial ecological roles. Many are saprophytes:
resin polypore and the huge artist conk fungi break down logs and stumps.
Mycorrhizal symbionts like the ash bolete live around and within the roots
of vascular plants and enable them to take up nutrients from the soil.
There are many edible species, like puffballs, but there are some very
poisonous mushrooms as well (Cortinarius spp.) While many species of fungi
on the land are known to be parasitic on plants, there are two plants
that are thought to be parasitic on mycorrhizal fungi: Indian pipe (Monotropa
uniflora) and pinesap (Monotropa hypopithys).
Back to Top
The property is home to a variety of animals, both resident and migratory.
The rural character of the neighborhood contributes to making this area
an excellent place for wildlife. Relatively undisturbed forest continues
beyond the property boundaries through Rockingham Town Forest and the
land of several neighbors. The Peck property, on the north and northeast
sides, was logged probably in 1993 or 1994. It appears to have been nearly
clear cut in places, though because of this it provides good forage for
deer and moose that yard on our land. Charismatic megafauna seen on the
property include moose, black bear, white-tailed deer, great horned owls,
Cooper's hawks and red-tailed hawks. Chipmunks, red and grey squirrels,
flying squirrels and mice are common. Common garter snake, wood frog,
American toad and spotted salamanders have all been seen, and the red
eft form of the eastern newt is abundant. Birds seen on the property include
blue jays, robins, hermit thrushes, chickadees, nuthatches, rufous-sided
towhee, catbird, blue-grey gnatcatcher, oven bird, several species of
warbler, including the black-throated blue, turkey vulture, hairy woodpecker,
barred owl, and dark-eyed junco. Nests and young of the last three species
have been observed. A flock of about a dozen wild turkey were observed
on the southern end, and gobblers have been heard gobbling in the spring.
Tiger swallowtails, mourning cloaks, little blue butterflies, land snails,
centipedes, millipedes and slugs are among the numerous invertebrates
observed, not to mention blackflies and mosquitoes. Evidence of other
animals that have not yet been seen includes the excavations of pileated
woodpeckers, gnaw marks of porcupine, and coyote (or fox) scat. Coyote,
or possibly coy-dogs, were heard howling during the summer of 1998. Don't
know about the brook- there's a good chance of some trout down there,
I'd say. There are definitely beaver, which is a surprise since the brook
is fast-flowing and rocky-bottomed. Several saplings were gnawed down
and removed from near the eastern boundary of the Austin property. Perhaps
the beaver were scouting for new opportunities, coming up from the Williams
River area, or perhaps coming down from further upstream (there appears
to be acceptable habitat further up on Eastman Road).
Back to Top
The
land provides many resources besides timber, especially edible resources.
"Edibles", for our purposes, refers to plants and mushrooms
and we have some of both that we can harvest (deer, moose, and turkey
are all traditional foods but are not on our menu, and neither is escargot,
although we have plenty of snails). We have not posted the land, so some
hunting may go on in season. The boundary runs for about 2.25 miles, and
posting it would be a labor-intensive project. Other consumption-related
resources (not including the commercial timber resources discussed above,
which we could use for camp fires and building) include plants useful
as medicine, plants that would look beautiful in a garden, and stone for
building. There are probably other traditional or medicinal uses of plants
which grow on the land that are not noted here but that someone can teach
us about.
Abundant enough to use right now:
sugar
maples- a reasonable sugarbush already exists and could be improved
upon easily.
trees in general- source of firewood.
sheep sorrel- abundant weed up top, good in salad and in sour
soup (like schav). Not quite enough to go around at a gathering, but
enough to provide gorgeous garni:
hazelnut- a few nut bearing bushes grow at the brook and on the
roadside.
butternut- a few trees, but I haven't seen a lot of nuts.
beech- toasted nuts for food, and dark roasted for a brewed coffee-like
beverage.
black cherry- bitter fruit as a flavoring and medicinal.
witch hazel- medicinal.
wild grape- nice fruit but I don't know if they will bear anything
without intense modification.
Rubus
berries- there are a lot of raspberries on top of the hill and they
may provide a reasonable amount of fruit; our several species of blackberries
are not so abundant in the forest shade but are found in profusion along
the north right-of-way; other species like dwarf raspberry and dewberry
are too small to consider for food. gooseberry and the stinky skunk
current- same as for the dwarf raspberries.
yarrow- tea, medicinal. Not too many plants.
sweet vernal grass- can be dried and used as a smudge.
spring beauty- blossoms and/or leaves for salad.
St John's Wort- oh-so-chic medicinal, but I don't know how to
prepare it, or if we even have the right kind- we may have several different
species.
jewelweed- mucilaginous balm for poison ivy reactions (so I've heard).
spearmint- tea, flavoring.
nettles- potherb; haven't seen that many.
ostrich fern- fiddleheads; common but not abundant (and remember
about the 2 meal limit).
violets- many species; the yellow, blue, white and violet blossoms
are edible, as are the leaves (which are not only tasty but high in
vitamin C).
rock tripe- emergency food just in case somebody can't find the
trail off the ridge top. Probably won't want seconds on this one.
edible mushrooms in general- I've found a few, though none seem
to grow in abundance, or even commonly: puffballs, lobster fungus, oyster,
honey mushrooms, aborted entolomas, scaber stalks, boletes, and chanterelles.
medicinal mushrooms- turkey tail (immune booster).
Plants
that are too few or too puny to consider:
highbush
blueberry, lowbush blueberry- the few plants we have don't seem to bear
any fruit (our soil is probably not acidic enough for them to be really
happy).
wild strawberry- a few plants here and there, no report on fruitage; more
out on the roadsides.
shadbush- delicious fruit, though I'm not sure if our plants will bear
any.
hawthorn, red elderberry and barberry all offer marginal fruit and are
pretty small populations anyway- the tree at the brook is pretty big and
may provide some haws.
rose mandarin- it's relative, twisted stalk, is known as watermelon berry
in Alaska and is really good, but I don't know if the few plants we have
will bear any edible fruit.
willow- medicinal, the original source of aspirin (from the bark); not
likely to stock our medicine chest since I only spotted one plant, and
can't find it anymore anyway. There are more along the north right of
way, though.
Red oak acorns are bitter and would need an enormous amount
of processing to make them edible- it's white oak acorns, which we don't
have, that are sweet; bitternut hickory, though edible, lives up to its
name.
There are numerous poisonous plants- poison ivy is a skin irritant
to those with a sensitivity to it. It's found mostly at the top of the
ridge and down by the brook. Corn lily, baneberry and buttercups, as well
as Gyromitra, Amanita and Cortinarius mushrooms are all famously poison,
as are some frogs and salamanders (red efts produce poisonous secretions
on their skin, which can be wiped off if they are picked up or otherwise
handled. This is not a major danger for us, but since salamanders absorb
so much through their own skin, handling them can be detrimental to their
health if you're wearing perfume, bug dope, etc. They're also pretty fragile
critters to begin with).
The land can support some agricultural activities
that may provide not only food and other raw materials, but also fresh
produce that may be sold outside of the community. The maple stand contains
many vigorous trees that could be tapped immediately (well, in the proper
season) for sap. This is a labor intensive project: one gallon of sweet
syrup is derived from boiling down around forty gallons of sap. With careful
management, the sugar bush could be developed so that maple syrup, or
even just the sap itself, could be sold. The best sugaring area happens
to be in the area we use most intensively for gatherings. Other suggestions
for agricultural activities on the land include growing mushrooms like
shiitake, small-scale fruit orchards, small-scale organic garden specialties
(like herbs, vegetables and flowers) and medicinals for local markets,
and raising sheep or goats. Some gardens have already been planted. The
parking lot area has been seeded with erosion control and wildflower mixes.
Perennials like narcissus, lily of the valley, arbor-vitae, fir, Norway
spruce, daylily and others have survived several winters. Special care,
however, should be given to avoiding some plant species that are too aggressive
and considered pests (especially purple loosestrife, lesser celandine,
celandine poppy, reed grass). Although some of these might be delightfully
pretty, or useful as landscape screening, they can be serious problems.
Some plants are even specifically prohibited in certain states. More information
on management and development issues is being researched, and will be
found in Part 2.
Back to Top
__________,
1997. Town plan, Grafton Vermont. Available from town clerk's office, Grafton Vermont.
Arora, D. 1986. Mushrooms demystified. Ten Speed Press, Berkeley.
Cronon, W. 1983. Changes in the land: Indians, colonists and the ecology of New England.
Hill and Wang, New York.
Huffer Forestry Associates, 1985. UVA management plan for the Alexander R.
Cronin property (Peck parcel). Unpublished report.
Huffer Forestry Associates, 1985. UVA management plan for the Edward and
Susan Cronin property (Peck parcel). Unpublished report.
Jorgenson, N. 1978. A Sierra Club naturalist's guide to southern New England.
Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, CA.
Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's wildflower guide. Little, Brown and Company, Boston
MA Seymour, F. C. 1993. The flora of New England, second edition with
supplement. Privately published.
Sheehan, W. J. 1987. Soil survey of Windham County, Vermont.
USDA Soil Conservation Service.
Stewart, D.P. 1975. Geology for environmental planning in the Brattleboro-Windsor
region, Vermont. Vermont Geological Survey, Environmental Geology report #7.
Thompson, E. 1996. Natural communities of Vermont: uplands and wetlands.
Unpublished report, Nongame and Natural Heritage Program, Vermont Agency
of Natural Resources, Waterbury VT.
Van Diver, B.B. 1987. Roadside geology of Vermont and New Hampshire.
Mountain Press, Missoula, MT.
Wessels, T. 1997. Reading the forested landscape: a natural history
of New England. The Countryman Press, Woodstock, VT.
Woodward, H. W. and H. W. Rickett. Common wildflowers of the northeastern
United States. New York Botanical Garden/Barron's, Woodbury, NY.
Back to Top |
