[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
QL 698.9 .P74 1992 0 A PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE SITES IN NORTHAMPTON AND ACCOMACK COUNTIES, VIRGINIA- FINAL REPORT: TASK 3 NETROOPICAL MIGRATIORY SONGBIRD REGIONAL COASTAL CORRIDOR STUDY Prepared by: Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage June 1992 A report of the Virginia Council on the Environment to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration pursuant to NOAA Award No. NA90AA-H-CZ839 A PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE SITES IN NORTHAMPTON AND ACCOMACK COUNTIES,,VIRGINIA FINAL REPORT: TASK.3 A REGIONAL STUDY OF THE COASTAL ZONE HABITAT OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE AS CONCENTRATION AREAS FOR NEOTROPICAL AVIAN MIGRANTS Submitted to: Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program Council on the Environment 903 Ninth Street Office Building Richmond, Virginia 23219 Prepared by: Tad Zebryk and Thomas J. Rawinski Virginia Depratment of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage 1500 East Main Street, Suite 312 Richmond, Virginia 23219 June 1992 Zebryk, T. and T. J. Rawinski, 1992. A preliminary survey o f natural heritage resource sites in Northampton and Accomack counties, Virginia. Natural Heritage Technical Report 92-22, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage,'Richmond. 43pp. PropertY Of CSC LibrarY Pmospo' 4410 This paper is funded in part by a grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the 6- T views of NOAA or any of its sub-agencies. WN I of U 's, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA P" J4 L COASTAL SERVICES CENTER _j 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................ I Virginia's Division of Natural Heritage ........................ ..........1 Elements of Natural Diversity... ........................................... 1 STUDY AREA .................................................................. 4 METHODS ...................................................................... 5 RESULTS ..................................................................... 6 SITE REPORTS ................................................................ 10 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 41 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................... 42 APPENDIX I ................................................................. 43 INTRODUCTION This report describes the findings of the 1991 natural heritage inventory of Northampton and Accomack Counties, Virginia. The inventory was conducted to accomplish Task 3 of a larger study entitled, A Regional Study of the Coastal Zone Habitat of Critical Importance as Concentration Areas for Neotropical Avian Migrants (NONA CRANT # NA90AA-li-CZ839). Task 3 stipulated that the best remaining upland (non-saltmarsh) natural communities-be identified and described, and that the sites containing them be mapped using Natural Heritage Program methodology. Past natural heritage inventories in Northampton and Accomack Counties focused on the off-shore barrier beach islands which are now largely protected by The Nature Conservancy and government agencies. The off-shore islands were therefore excluded from the present inventory to allow a more thorough examination of the largely neglected mainland portion of theregion. Community inventory represents a "coarse filter" approach to biological conservation. This approach protects,a vast number of cryptic or poorly known species, and at the same time brings needed attention to the aesthetic, scientific, and ecosystem function values of natural communities. A classification is necessary when conducting an inventory, and for this study we selected the classification developed by Rawinski (1992) which is currently u@ed state-wide by the Virginia Division of Natural Heritage (Appendix 1). This report should be viewed as preliminary. Only those sites actually visited during the 1991 field season and found to contain exemplary communities are described. Additional field work sustained over a several year period-is certainly needed here, Virginia's Division of Natural Heritage The Virginia Natural Area Preserves Act of 1989 (510.1-209 et s@_q. of the Code of Virginia) directs the Department of Conservation and Recreation to "preserve the natural diversity of biological resources of the Commonwealth." The Act further establishes the Virginia Natural Heritage Program (now called the Division of Natural Heritage) and requires the Department to develop a natural heritage plan, produce an inventory of the Commonwealth's natural heritage resources, maintain a natural heritage data bank of inventory data, and provide for the protection and stewardship of natural areas. The Division of Natural Heritage fulfills this mandate as the Commonwealth 's principal collector and manager of data on natural heritage resources: "the habitat of rare, threatened, or endangered plant and animal species, rare or state significant natural communities or geologic sites, and similar features of scientific interest" (SIO.1-209 of the Code of Virginia). The Division of Natural Heritage is part of a network of 84 natural heritage data centers established throughout much of the Western Hemisphere. Natural Heritage Resources Each natural heritage resource is assigned a rank indicating rarity and status (Table 1). The primary criterion for ranking natural heritage resources is the number of extant occurrences, i.e. the number of known distinct localities or populations. Other important ranking criteria.are the ,number of individuals at each locality, the total number of individuals state- wide, the condition of the occurrences, the number of protected occurrences, and threats to the occurrences. These "S-ranks" apply to Virginia; global ranks, or "G-ranks", reflect species status on a global, or range-wide scale. Subspecies and varieties are assigned "T-ranks", in addition to their C- rank. Taken together, these ranks give an instant picture of the rarity of the natural heritage resource. Ranks for communities are lacking or provisional because the community classification is not yet developed for the individual plant communities. Rarity ranks used by the Division of Natural Heritage are not legal designations, and they are continuously updated to reflect new information. The landscape unit that supports a particular natural heritage resource is called an element occurrence. The Division of Natural Heritage has mapped over 5500 element occurrences in the Commonwealth. Information on the location and quality of these element occurrences is computerized within the Division's Biological and Conservation Databases.(BCD), and additional information is recorded on maps and in manual files. Each element occurrence is ranked to differentiate large, outstanding occurrences from small, vulnerable ones. Species occurrences are ranked in terms of quality, condition, viability, and defensibility. Community occurrences are ranked by their overall natural condition and size. Element ranks and element occurrence ranks form the basis for ranking the significance of entire sites. Site biodiversity ranks (B-ranks) are used to prioritize protection efforts among the sites; each B-rank is defined below: BI Outstanding Significanc e: only site known for an. element, an excellent-occurrence of a GI species, or the world's best example of a community type. B2 Very High Significance: one of the best examples of a community type, good occurrence of a G1 species, or excellent occurrence of a G2 or G3 species. B3 High Significance: excellent example of any community type, good occurrence of a G3 species. B4 Moderate Sip-nificance: good example of a community type, excellent or good occurrence of state-rare species. B5 General BIodiversity Significance: good or marginal occurrence of a community type, or state-rare species. Note: Sites supporting rare subspecies or varieties are considered slightly less significant than sites supporting similarly ranked species. 2 Table 1. Definition of Natural Heritage state rarity ranks (S-ranks). Global ranks (G-ranks) are similar, but are based on range-wide status. Ranks for most community types have not been generated due to on- going community classification efforts. The S and G-ranks should not be Interpreted as legal designations. S1 Extremely rare; usually 5 or fewer occurrences in the state; or may have few remaining individuals; often especially vulnerable to extirpation. S2 Very rare; usually between 5 and 20 occurrences; or with many individuals in fewer occurrences; often susceptible to becoming endange@red. S3 Rare to uncommon; usually between 20 and 100 occurrences; may have fewer occurrences, but with a large number of individuals in some populations; may be susceptible to large-scale disturbances. S4 Common; usually >100 occurrences, but may be fewer with many large populations; may be restricted to only a portion of the state;,usually not susceptible to immediate threats. S5 Very common; demonstrably secure under present conditions. SA Accidental in the state. SH Historically known from the state, but not verified for an extended period, usually >15 years; this rank is used primarily when inventory has been attempted recently. SN Regularly occurring migrants or transients species which are non- breeding, seasonal residents. (Note that congregation and staging areas are monitored separately). SU Status uncertain, often because of low search effort or cryptic nature of the element. Sx Apparently extirpated from the state. NOTE: Sometimes ranks are combined (e.g. SIS2) to indicate intermediate or somewhat unclear status. Elements with uncertain taxonomic validity are denoted by the letter, after the global rank. 3 STUDY AREA The Eastern Shore of Virginia, encompassing Northampton and Accomack Counties, is located on the Mid-Atlantic coastal plain at the southern end of the Delmarva Peninsula. To the west lies Chesapeake Bay and to the east lies an interrupted chain of barrier islands and the Atlantic Ocean. Approximately 70 miles long, the Eastern Shore is about 12 miles wide at its widest point near the Maryland border. Topography is generally flat to undulating, except in the area of Holocene dune ridges and along streams where the underlying marine sediments have been eroded to form small, steep-sided valleys'. Both coasts are deeply embayed by tidal creeks with associated peninsulas and necks. "Delmarva bays", shallow elliptical depressions'of,uncertain geological origin, are rather frequent on the Eastern Shore, though most have been drained for agriculture. Soils are primarily well-drained to poorly-drained sandy loams and loams. The Bojac-Munden-Molena Series'occurs mainly on flatland on the necks along Chesapeake Bay. Sandy loams in this series are characterized by rapid drainage and a seasonally high water table. The Nimmo-Munden-Dragston Series occurs along the eastern region on flats and in depressions. The loams in this series are moderately- to poorly-dr4ined, particularly in depressions, and have a seasonally high water table. The climate on the Eas tern Shore is characterized by mild winters and hot humid summers. The average winter temperature in Painter, Accomack County, is 39.1 F, while the average summer temperature is 75 F. Temperatures in Northampton County average about one degree warmer in winter and summer. The average total annual precipitation 42.7 inches in Accomack County and 40.8 inches in Northampton County. Humidity averages about 60% throughout the region. Vegetation patterns on the Eastern Shore are complex, varying in response to soil conditions, exposure to salt spray, past disturbances, biogeographic phenomena, and subtle differences in climatic conditions existing from south to north along the peninsula.. In both Accomack and Northampton Counties, the L6blolly Pine-Shortleaf Pine forest type encompasses more than 40% of the forest acre#jge (Thompson 1991). The most common hardwoods include Southern Red oa.k, Whfte Oak, Water Oak, Sassafras, Sweet Gum, Black Gum, Red Maple, Beech, and various hickories. Forests in Northampton County usually contain Red Bay and Yaupon, but these predominantly southern species become infrequent farther north in Accomack County. Tulip Poplar is rather frequent in Accomack County, but is virtually absent in Northampton County. (Note: Source for much of the above information is from "Soil Survey of Northampton County, Virginia", USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1989.) 4 METHODS To gain an overview of land use patterns within the two county area Division of Natural Heritage staff first evaluated the extent of the remaining forest land using Forest Survey data generated by the U.S. Forest Service. The natural area inventory then proceeded through the following five.stages: 1) Review of aerial photographs and maps. Aerial photographs of the entire survey area.were reviewed in detail to identify potential natural areas (PNAs) to be studied in the following stages. Where possible, both the oldest available photographs and the most recent ones were studied. Comparing these two sets of photographs provided insights into land use trends and past conditions. Topographic maps, wetlands maps, and soils maps were examined during this stage. 2) Gathering existing information. Museum collections were visited by Natural Heritage staff and specimen label information recorded for rare species. Publications and field notes were assembled and carefully read. Maps of public lands (federal, state'and local) within the survey area were gathered, and the distribution of natural heritage resources examined. Local naturalists, soil conservationists, foresters, and college faculty were consulted for additional information. During this stage, some PNAs were eliminated from further consideration while others were added. 3) Initial Rr und survey. Field work during this stage verified ownership information, documented conspicuous element occurrences, and detected recent land use activities. As necessary, follow-up thorough inventories were planned. 4) Thorough inventory of the PNA. During this stage, detailed information was collected on the rare species or exemplary natural communities present at the site. Portions of a site not visited on foot were evaluated on the basis of aerial photographs and other information. The amount of land needed to protect the special biological features was determined. Threats and disturbances factors were noted. Element occurrence data were transcribed onto Division maps and entered into the BCD databases. 5) ComViiation of results and prevaration of final report. Division biologists reviewed the information gathered and prioritized-the sites on the basis of.biological significance, threats, and defensibility. .Maps were drawn showing conservation planning boundaries. Protection and management recommendations were written, and all information combined into a final report. RESULTS Virginia's Eastern Shore is an area rich innatural heritage resources and an area providing critical stop-over habitat for a large number of neotropical migrant bird species. Many of these species utilize natural vegetation. Thus, the amount of forested land relative to non-forested (primarily agricultural) land in the area was examined first. As of 1991, forest land in Northampton County covered an estimated 30,967 acres, or 21% of all land in the county, while in Accomack County forest land covered 96,630 acres, or 32% of that county's land area (Thompson 1991). Relative to the 1985 forest land statistics .(Brown and Craver 1985), these values represent an apparent net gain of 1,035 acres in Northampton County-and a net loss of 8,085 acres in Accomack County. However, because the sampling procedure used by the Forest Survey was intended primarily to furnish data for the entire Coastal Plain'of Virginia, individual county estimates have limited and variable accuracy (Thompson 1991). Nevertheless, these data suggest that forest land may have declined as much as 2.4% in Accomack County during the si:k-year period between 1985 and 1991. Such a decline was not evident in Northampton County where a slight increase (0.7%) may have occurred. Throughout the 34-county region encompassing Virginia's Coastal Plain, timberland declined 2% from 1985 to 1991 (Thompson 1991). The amount of forested land in Northampton and Accomack Counties indicates, in a general sense, the relative health and integrity of the natural terrestrial ecosystems present. These forests provide sustainable yields of wood products while maintaining biological diversity and providing ecosystem functions beneficial to human society. Unfortunately, the percentage of timberland in these two counties is far below 58%, the.region- wide average for the Virginia Coastal Plain (Thompson 1991).. Figure 1 shows the location of the 11 natural heritage sites identified through the inventory. Each is individually described in site reports using the following standard reporting format: SITE NAME: Most site names reflect a geographical locality or the prevalent type of vegetation. SIZE: The approximate acreage included within the conservation planning boundary for the natural area. BIODIVERSITY RANK: The overall significance of the natural area in terms of the rarity of the natural heritage resources and the quality of their occurrences. As discussed earlier, these ranks range from BI (outstanding significance) to B5 (general biodiversity significance). LOCALITY: The county. QUADRANGLE AND QUADRANGLE CODE: The name of the USGS 7.5' quadrangle(s) 'on which.the natural area occurs. The quadrangle code contains information on latitude and longitude, and identifies the location of the quadra ngle. 6 @7 d S-.d I Latimer Siding 2. Kiptopeke State Park 3. Picketts Harbor-Bay Ridge 4. Steelmans Lending 5. Eastville Forest -Church Neck 6. Wescoat Farm 7. Reedtown Stream Bottom 7 Forest 8. Belle Haven Delmarva Bay 9. Coards Branch Pond 10. Mutton Hunk Fen 11. Assawoman Creek par IMP VIRGINIA EASTERN SHORE CA - - - - - - - - - - - - - Figure 1. Map of Northampton and Accomack Counties showing the location of ,11 natural heritage sites documented during the 1991 inventory. 7 LOCATION.: Specific information on site location and directions to the site. NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE SUMMARY TABLE: A synopsis of the rare species and significant natural communities that occur on the site. SITE DESCRIPTION: A brief narrative describing the site, its significant elements, vegetation, habitat, and current land use. BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION: The preliminary conservation planning boundary delineated in this report includes all known occurrences of natural heritage resources and the adjacent lands required for their immediate protection. This information field explains the basis for particular boundaries. THREATS: Potential and actual threats to the site and its elements. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: A summary of the major is sues and factors that should be considered in management of the site for its natural heritage values. CURRENT STATUS: A summary of ownership and the degree of protection currently afforded the site. PROTECTION RECO14MENDATIONS: The desired level of protection actions needed. SITE MAP: The site map shows the conservation planning boundary which contains all known element occurrences and the land determined to be important for the Ion g-term maintenance of these elements. The following factors are considered when drawing these boundaries: � the extent of current and potential habitat for rare species and exemplary natural communities, � species movement and migration corridors, � maintenance of surface water quality within the site and the surrounding watershed, � maintenance of the hydrologic integrity of the groundwater, e.g. by protecting recharge zones, � land intended to mitigate off-site impacts, � land or,activities necessary.to preclude or minimize invasive exotic species, and land necessary for management activities, such as prescribed burning. The boundaries are intended for conservation planning purposes, and at the very least should prevent the inadvertent destruction of the natural areas.. Many rare species are sensitive to disturbance, or may be sought out by collectors. Precise element locations within site boundaries are therefore not given in this report. Virginia law includes Natural Heritage Resources under a limited exemption to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. 8 Due to the limitations imposed by a one-year inventory , not all of the potential natural areas in the region were field checked. Future discoveries of significant natural areas in the study region are 'to be expected. 9 SITE REPORTS 10 LATIMER SIDING SIZE: ca. 115 Acres BIODIVERSITY RANK: B5 LOCALITY: Northampton County QUADRANGLE: Townsend QUADRANGLE CODE: 3707528 LOCATION: The site is located northwest of the intersection marked, "Latimer Siding", and south of Kiptopeke State Park. NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES SUMMARY TABLE GLOBAL STATE VA ELEMENT RARITY RARITY USFWS LEGAL OCCURRENCE SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME RANK RANK STATUS STATUS RANK communities: Oligotrophic Forest BC SITE DESCRIPTION: This site is significant because it contains an exemplary Loblolly pine - White Oak forest. The pines are nearly 100 feet tall, rising above the lower canopy of hardwood species. American Holly is common in the understory, and one large individual was 35 cm diameter-at-breast-height. The evergreen shrub, Yaupon, is present, which floristically unites this stand with the mixed hardwood forests farther south. The herbaceous layer is quite sparse and consists primarily of Partridge-berry, Strawberry-bush, Greenbrier, and Poison Ivy. BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION: The boundary encloses the oldest stand of trees plus the adjadent stand of younger trees. The young forest serves as a buffer, protecting the old stand from excessive wind-tbrow, invasion by exotics, and other edge effects. THREATS: The primary threat to this community is logging. Old stumps are present in the forest, so the stand was logged in the past.. Development is also a threat. @MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: No active management of the site is needed, although forests such as this probably burned periodically during precolonial times. Prescribed burning might therefore be practiced to simulate the original fire regime and create additional habitat for herbaceous species. CURRENT STATUS: The site is in private ownership and unprotected. PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS: Exemplary forests such as this are rapidly being cut or developed on the Eastern Shore. Therefore it is important to pursue protection action in the very near future. LATIMER SIDING @7, 4 141 0 0 e Tel; -7@ cl J 110 andpit .32 0 A, .-a) 8 m 11 Cedar ve! \j Towerv I @A 8M L 28 w X\l a 32 \X ig inw IV SCALE 0 1 MILE 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET 1 5 0 1 KILOMETER CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL 12 KIPTOPEKE STATE PARK SIZE: ca. 10 Acres BIODIVERSITY RANK: B3 LOCALITY: Northampton County QUADRANGLE: Townsend QUADRANGLE CODE: 3707528 LOCATION: The site is that portion of Kiptopeke State Park located south of the ferry terminal building and fishing pier, approximately 2 miles north-northwest of Kiptopeke. NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES SUMMARY TABLE GLOBAL STATE VA ELEMENT RARITY RARITY USFWS LEGAL OCCURRENCE SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME RANK RANK STATUS STATUS RANK communities: Oligotrophic Scrub B Oligotrophic Herbaceous Vegetation B animals: Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle G4T2 S2 LT B SITE DESCRIPTION: In addi tion to being Virginia's newest state park, this site is noteworthy for its exemplary dune scrub and dune grassland vegetation. These two communities interdigitate, forming a vegetation mosaic which shifts continuo6sly in response to sand movement and dune formation. The dune vegetation covers approximately 5 to 10% of the park property. Common woody species include Bayberry, Black Cherry, and Sassafras. The dune grassland supports Beacb-grass, Seaside Goldenrod, Broomsedge,and Panic-grass. Globally rare Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetles inhabit the beach area adjacent to the'dune field. BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION: The boundary encompasses that section of Kiptopeke State Park known to support the two exemplary communities. THREATS: Threats at this time appear to be minimal. Two proposed boardwalks and an interpretive trail will have little impact on this natural system. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: The primary management prescription for this area is to minimize recreational impacts, thereby maintaining the natural condition of the vegetation. The Kiptopeke State Park Resource Committee has developed special management plans for this sensitive area. Potentially invasive exotic plants will be.monitored and, if necessary, controlled. 13 CURRENT STATUS: Protected within Kiptopeke State Park. PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS: The site has been protected. Monitoring and management activities are planned. 14 KIPTOPEKE STATE PARK --ce 17- 1 3o-. It it 'v\' %\ N andpit em 2 n6A45 c edar ve Radiod(i If @er; I oweL. L it'I'll it 2f It it 11 It I Xx 32 t 4 Latime Sydin A SCALE 1:24000 0 1 MILE 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET 1 .5 0 1 KILOMETER CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL 15 PICKETTS HARBOR BAY RIDGE SIZE: ca. 140 Acres BIODIVERSITY RANK: B2 LOCALITY: Northampton County QUADRANGLE: Townsend QUADRANGLE CODE: 3707528 Elliots Greek 3707621 LOCATION: The site includes a 2 mile long stretch of bayside shoreline and adjacent uplands extending from Picketts Harbor to Elliots Creek. NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES SUMMARY TABLE GLOBAL STATE VA ELEMENT RARITY RARITY USFWS LEGAL OCCURRENCE SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME RANK RANK STATUS.STATUS RANK communities: Oligotrophic Scrub A Oligotrophic Herbaceous Vegetation AB Oligotrophic Forest AB plants: Cal'ium bispidulum C5 S2 AB animals: Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle G4T2 S2 LT A SITE DESCRIPTION: This site contains outstanding coastal dune vegetation. In addition, a Holocene dune ridge is significant as a rare geologic feature. One of the largest known populations of the Federally threatened Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle occurs here: The dune grassland contains Beach-grass, Panic-grass, and a rare northern colony of Sea-oats. Plants of the dune scrub include Loblolly Pine, Sassafras, Persimmon, Black Cherry, Shining Sumac, Beach Heather, and Greenbrier. The maritime forest occurs along the crest of a high dune ridge behind the dune scrub. Common trees here include Loblolly Pine, Southern Red Oak, White Oak, Black Cherry, Black.Gum, and American Holly. BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION: The boundary encloses the tbree exemplary natural communities. A small amount of upland buffer land is included to mitigate future impacts from adjacent development. THREATS: The primary threat to this beach-front property is intensive development and coincident alteration of the natural vegetation. 16 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: No active management of the site is needed, although in the future recreational impacts may need to be minimized by using additional board walks across the sensitive dune vegetation. CURRENT STATUS: The site is in private ownership. Sara and Cooke Coffigon reside at the site. PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS: This site representsone of the most significant natural areas on the Eastern Shore. It warrants strong protection. 17 PICKETTS HARBOR BAY RIDGE 14 v X t 30 side v. M P"w L)rain 5 6 n46 ko icke arbor --3 10 vi SCALE 1:24000 0 1 MILE 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 40oo 5000 6000 7000 FEET 1 .5 0 1 KILOMETER CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL STEELMAN'S LANDING SIZE: ca. 134 Acres BIODIVERSITY RANK: B4 LOCALITY: Northampton County QUADRANGLE: Townsend QUADRANGLE CODE: 3707528 LOCATION: The site lies east of Townsend, north of Route 646 and south of Walls Landing Creek. NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES SUMMARY TABLE GLOBAL STATE VA ELEMENT RARITY RARITY USFWS LEGAL OCCURRENCE SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME RANK RANK STATUS STATUS RANK community: Oligotrophic Seasonally Flooded Forest 'AB SITE DESCRIPTION: A mature and fairly extensive swamp forest is the primary feature of this site. The swamp was, in fact, the best example of its type encountered on the Eastern Shore during the inventory. Black Cum trees up to 80 cm dbh and 30 meters high dominate. Understory trees include Sweetbay Magnolia and American Holly. The herbaceous layer is rather dense, and is dominated by Virginia Chain-fern, Netted Chain-fern, Lizard-tail, and Cinnamon Fern. The trees in the swamp tend to grow from elevated hummocks, while most of the herbs occupy seasonally flooded mucky hollows. BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION: At present, the boundary includes the wetland and the surrounding upland forest vegetation. However, additional information is needed to describe the hydrologic regime of the wetland. Ideally, the entire drainage basin should be protected from ditching and agricultural impacts. THREATS: Threats appear to be minimal because the area is managesd as a natural area preserve. However, possible impacts, from surrounding agricultural lands should.be assessed. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: No active management is needed. Fire is not necessary or even possible in wetlands such as this. CURRENT STATUS: Protected and owned by The Nature Conservancy. PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS: Determine whether the entire drainage basin is currently contained within Nature Conservancy land. If not, then additional lands may need protection. 19 STEELMANS LANDING % ol"-jI -4em 7-. em; c 7Z@ P. em siktCapeville Diiion :Cove d .- // . - -.-: , l,'. .1 - -Z 20" if 'Ii @ --32 13 646 S te-e I ma 6 Mairotha x 55 c sm mans SCALE 1 24000 0 I MILE 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET 1 0 1 KILOMETER CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL E3 ik llec 20 EASTVILLE FOREST SIZE: ca. 149 Acres BIODIVERSITY RANK: B5 LOCALITY: Northampton County QUADRANGLE: Cheriton QUADRANGLE CODE: 3707538 LOCATION: The site is located north of Route 634, approximately 0.5'mile west of Business Route 13 and 1 mile southwest of Eastville. NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES SUMMARY TABLE GLOBAL STATE VA ELEMENT RARITY RARITY USFWS LEGAL OCCURRENCE SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME RANK RANK STATUS STATUS RANK community: Oligotrophic Forest BC plant: Tillandsia usneoides Spanish Moss G5 S3 D SITE DESCRIPTION: Part of this forested tract was recently cut, but the remaining portion represents one of the better examples of a mature oak-pine forest on the Eastern Shore. Prevalent trees include Lob-Iolly Pine, White Oak, Red Maple, Black Cum, and Sweet Cum. American Holly and Flowering Dogwood form a rather dense sub-canopy in the forest, while Sweet Pepperbush, Highbush Blueberry, and Greenbrier dominate the shrub layer. Herbaceous species are relatively scarce, due perhaps to the dense shade and thick mats of poorly decomposed organic matter on the soil surface. A small population of Spanish Moss is of great interest at this site. This epiphytic plant, so typical of southern forests, occurs here very close .to its natural northern range limit. As such, the few surviving plants afford ,a marvelous opportunity for research and monitoring. The plants did flower in 1991,. but reproduction seems to be restricted to vegetative propagation. The spanish Moss was first documented on this site in 1935. BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION: The boundary encompasses the uncut and recently cut forest tracts. The cut forest may, with time, provide additional habitat.for the Spanish moss. According to Eastville resident Robert Spady, the Spanish Moss was formerly found in the eastern end of the site,before the logging took place. THREATS: Logging is the most immediate threat to the site. Land development may also pope a threat. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: No active management of the site appears needed. 21 CURRENT STATUS: The site is privately owned. Contact Alice D.T. Rawles,' Portsmouth, VA. PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS: This site should be protected as an example of increasingly rare indigenous forest vegetation. Throughout the,Eastern Shore, fine forests such as this are being clear-cut and converted to pine monocultures. 22 EASTVILLE FOREST JM @e- v x23 W A ille % ;t 11 37X Bmi 9, 665 IV /Y W17 If t u* =57 + It It is . .... .. ff 37 kn ter LL w w SCALE 1:24000 0 1 MILE 1 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6" 7000 FEET 0 1 KILOMETER CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL 23 WESCOAT FARM CHURCH NECK SIZE: ca. 520 Acres BIODIVERSITY RANK: B2 LOCALITY: Northampton County QUADRANGLE: Franktown QUADRANGLE CODE: 3707548 LOCATION: The Wescoat Farm on Church Neck is located south of Nassawadox Creek, and north of Westerhouse Creek. NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES SUMMARY TABLE GLOBAL STATE VA ELEMENT RARITY RARITY USFWS LEGAL OCCURRENCE SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME RANK RANK STATUS STATUS RANK communities: Oligotropbic Herbaceous Vegetation - B Oligotrophic Scrub - B animals: Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle G3 S2S3 LE LE C Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle G4T2 S2 LT A SITE DESCRIPTION: The*site contains a mile-long stretch of undeveloped bayside shoreline and two exemplary dune communities. The dune scrub is characterized by scattered shrubs and small trees, namely Eastern Red-ce'dar, Wax Myrtle, Shining Sumac, Lablolly Pine, Southern Red Oak, and Black Cherry. Herbaceous vegetation of the dune is composed of Beach-grass, Seaside Goldenrod, and Sand-spur. A large population of the Federally@threatened Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle occurs along the beach. In 1991 a pair of Bald Eagles nested in a small forest'led tract near agricultural fields. BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION: The site boundary encompasses the undisturbed' section of beach and dune, plus additional land intended to protect the Bald Eagle's nest site(s), roosting area, and, to a certain extent, feeding area. THREATS: Threats are intensive shoreline development and accompanying disruption to the natural dune vegetation. Also, the Bald Eagles are threatened by frequent human contact or outright destruction of the forest habitat. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: The beach and dune communities require little or no active management. The Bald Eagles.should be managed by minimizing human contact during the eagles' critical nesting period. 24 CURRENT STATUS: The site is privately owned. Contact John and SLizanne Wescoat, Ea8tville, VA. PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS: This site is most worthy of protection. 25 WESCOAT FARM CHURCH NECK -<9- fl o Lighl r fl -15 Z. All- if f 2 BM11 7 622 2 M C) A \A, 619 t It % VIP- t% Y A 16 SCALE 1:24000 0 1 MILE 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 -7000 FEET 1 5 0 1 KII C)M;@TER CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL 26 REEDTOWN STREAM BOTTOM FOREST SIZE: ca. 48 Acres BIODIVERSITY RANK: B5 LOCALITY: Northampton County QUADRANGLE: Franktown QUADRANGLE CODE: 3707548 LOCATION: The site is located west of Route 13 approximately 2 miles.north of Eastville. The access point is the roadside park along Route 13. NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES SUMMARY TABLE GLOBAL STATE VA ELEMENT RARITY RARITY USFWS LEGAL OCCURRENCE SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME RANK RANK STATUS STATUS RANK community: Oligotrophic Saturated Woodland SITE DESCRIPTION: This site encompasses an unnamed stream and a stream-side wetland situated in a steep, narrow valley. The wetlandis maintained by continuous seepage of groundwater which profoundly influences the nature of the vegetation. Sweet-bay Magnolia is especially characteristic of the groundwater-saturated soils. Other species include Netted Chain-fern, Virginia Chain-fern, Sweet Pepperbush, Alder, Golden Saxifrage, and various sedges. Wetlands such as this are fairly common alongside stream headwaters on the Eastern Shore, but this example is large and undisturbed. BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION: Upslope land provides the groundwater which seeps out into the wetland.' Therefore, the site boundary encompasses upland as well. as wetland environments. THREATS: Threats include ditching, imponding, and intensive upslope development.,_. Logging of this fragile wetland habitat would also constitute a major ecological perturbation, as would nutrient enrichment or siltation resulting from adjacent agricultural activity. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: The site and its exemplary wetland community require no active management. CURRENT STATUS: the site is privately owned. PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS: The site may warrant protection as one of the Eastern Shore's exemplary natural communities. 27 REEDTOWN STREAM BOTTOM FOREST am "Fa Seywo Disoc K. 6@- 06T 37 10 .p M A, Ma 0 )d r N9 wn 3 C SCALE 1:24000 0 1 MILE 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 '3000 5000 6000 7000 FEET p=:r - I 1 5 0 1 KILOMETER CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET bATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL 28 BELLE HAVEN DELMARVA BAY SIZE: ca. 280 Acres BIODIVERSITY RANK: B5 LOCALITY: Accomack County QUADRANGLE: Exmore QUADRANGLE CODE: 3707557 LOCATION: The site is located immediately west of Route 13, northeast of the village of Belle Haven. NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES SUMMARY TABLE GLOBAL STATE VA ELEMENT RARITY RARITY USFWS LEGAL OCCURRENCE SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME RANK RANK STATUS STATUS RANK community: Oligotrophic Seasonally Flooded Forest C SITE DESCRIPTION: The.sit6 supports a remnant portion of a Delmarva bay swamp. Due to drainage, bay swamps have become extreme ly rare on the Eastern Shore. This wetland once extended east of Route 13, but that area was drained many years ago. The remaining wetland supports both mature pine forest and post-logging coppice.' Loblolly Pine and Red Maple dominate the canopy while lower trees include Black Cum, Water Oak, Sourwood, and Sweetbay Magnolia. Sweet Pepper- bush and Green-brier dominate the shrub layer while Virginia Chain-fern is common in the herb layer. The recently logged coppice is richer in herbaceous species, undoubtedly because of the increased amount of light. Soils in the wetland have a very thick layer of organic duff (ca. 6 which has accumulated over the years in the absence of fire. Despite seasonal wetness, this vegetation is fire prone and past fires undoubtedly had an influence on the structure and composition of the vegetation. BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION: The boundary includes the remaining wetland and a small amount of upland buffer land intended to mitigate off-site impacts to the wetland vegetation. .THREATS: Much of the wetland supports mature Loblolly Pine forest, and consequently, logging is an imminent threat. According to regional extension forester David Halley', wetlands such as this have been drained primarily to facilitate logging operations, rather than to improve the growth characteristics of the pine. Drainage activity should be discouraged here. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: Fires once played a major role in shaping the structure and composition of Delmarva bay swamps, and consequently prescribed 29 burning would likely have a beneficial effect on this community. In particular, fire could create habitat for herbaceous species which presently are scarce and shade-stressed. A possible limitation to prescribed burning management here is the close proximity of Route 13, the major highway along the Eastern Shore. CURRENT STATUS: The site is privately owned and unprotected. PROTECTION RECOMM ENDATIONS: Discourage ditching and promote prescribed burning management. 30 BELLE HAVEN DELMARVA BAY Tf ?6 J i -o-af Ki P 25 TK ven Belle H-4 6 Belle 1-@i@e?V eme er t In W2 .8avage Town bUJ Belle Haven tip BM35 -A 36 A SCALE 1:24000 0 1 MILE 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET 5 0 1 KILOMETER CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL 31 COARDS BRANCH POND SIZE: ca. 92 Acres BIODIVERSITY RANK: B3 LOCALITY: Accomack County QUADRANGLE: Parksley. QUADRANGLE CODE: 3707576 LOCATION: Coards Branch Pond is located 2.1 air miles southwest of Parksley. NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES SUMMARY TABLE GLOBAL STATE VA ELEMENT RARITY RARITY USFWS LEGAL OCCURRENCE SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME RANK RANK STATUS STATUS RANK communities: Oligotrophic Saturated Scrub BC Oligotrophic Saturated Herbaceous Vegetation BC plants@ Eleo.charis equisetoides Horse-tail Spikerush G4 Sl - - B Rhynchospora alba White Beakrush C5 Sl - - A Nymphoides aquatica Big Floating-heart G5 Sl - - CD Utricularia cornuta Horned Bladderwort C5 Sl - - - Wolffia columbiana Columbia water-meal G5 Sl - - - Eriocaulon aquaticum White Buttons C5 Sl - - B SITE DESCRIPTION: Coards Branch Pond supports a bog-like wetland and one of the greatest concentrations of rare plants on the Eastern Shore.. This pond is unlike all other mill-ponds on the Eastern Shore because it is profoundly influenced by groundwater seepage, as well as stream flow. Rare and unusual wildflowers abound at the site, perhaps none more striking than the Rose Pogonia Orchid which grows abundantly along the sphagnous pond margin. The Horse-tail Spikerush is known from no other site in Virginia. The pond was created when the stream was dammed, originally in the 17th century. Presently, the rare plants and noteworthy communities are dependent upon the continued maintenance of the dam. Much of the upland surrounding the pond has been modified by residential and agricultural activities, but the wetland vegetation remains relatively intact. Regular mowing and limited dredging activities currently affect part of the pond shore. To benefit the rare plants present, these activities should be halted, or conducted only on a very limited or very infrequent basis. BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION: The boundary includes the entire pond plus the upstream and upslope lands necessary. to maintain surface water quality and sufficient groundwater seepage. 32 THREATS: Land bordering the west side of the pond is currently for sale, and residential development seems imminent. Such development would likely be accompanied by pond shore perturbations such as boat dock construction, dredging, or clearing of the native vegetation. These activities would have a negative impact on the many rare plant species present at the site. The peat mat is quite fragile and foot travel through the wetland can leave a lasting trail of altered soil and vegetation. At present this appears to have little or no effect on the rare plant populations, but frequent visits by large groups of botanists and wildflower enthusiasts should be discouraged. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: The dam should be monitored and, if necessary, repaired to ensure the continued existence,of the pond'and the rare species. CURRENT STATUS: The site is privately owned. Henry Fuller resides at the site. PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS: Protection is urgently needed. 33 COARDS BRANCH POND -4 Ah @ 77 m, qr 4 - Mon 4@ Mon ".7 Cem.. 9 0 7 it Cem-.'. The Oa 72 eril 41 tit Griffin -@Wise Chapel Rayfield em X 6 Z 20 5 SCALE 1:240M 0 I MILE 1000 0 1000 2000 30M 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET 0 1 KILOMETER CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL 34 MUTTON HUNK FEN SIZE: ca. 121 Acres BIODIVERSITY RANK: B2 LOCALITY: Accomack County QUADRANGLE: Bloxom QUADRANGLE CODE: 3707575 LOCATION: The site lies approximately I mile east-northeast of Metomkin along I Mutton Hunk Branch. NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES SUMMARY TABLE GLOBAL STATE VA ELEMENT RARITY RARITY USFWS LECAL OCCURRENCE SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME RANK RANK STATUS STATUS RANK communities: Oligotrophic Saturated Scrub G2? Sl - - AB Oligotrophic Saturated Herbaceous Vegetation G2? Sl - - CD plants: Erigeron vernus White-top Fleabane G5 S2 - - B Eriocaulon decangulare Ten-angle Pipewort G5 S2 - - B Eleocharis rostellata Beaked Spikerush C5 S2 - - B Eleocharis halophila Salt-marsh Spikerush C4 S1 - - 'A Rhynchospora alba White Beakrush G5 Sl - - BC Utricularia juncea Southern Bladderwort G5 S2 - - C Juncus pelocarpus Brown-fruited Rush G5, Sl - - C SITE DESCRIPTION: This site contains the greatest concentration of rare plants found the Eastern Shore. All of the rarities occur in a linear strip of bog-like vegetation situated between salt marsh and upland forest. The wetland receives a constant supply of cold groundwater seepage, and-muck soils predominate. Such wetlands are referred to as "sea-level fens". They are extremely rore. Mutton Hunk Fen is significant not only for the number of rare species present but because of the site' s biogeographic importance. Prior to 1991 and this inventory, Brown-fruited Rush was not known to occur south of Maryland. Mutton Hunk now represents the new southern range limit for the species. Similarly, Titi is a southern shrub never before documented north of southeastern Virginia. Mutton Hunk Fen marks the new northern range limit for this species; it occurs nowhere else on the Delmarva. BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION: The boundary includes the small significant wetland plus up-slope and upstream lands necessary to protect the supply and quality of groundwater seepage. The adjacent salt marsh and tidal creek are also included. 35 THREATS: Development of upslope land could alter the quality or quantity of the groundwater seepage. Also, over-collection of the rare and interesting plants is a real concern. Botanists should refrain from specimen collection here because several of the species occur as very small populations. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: The wetland and the rare plant populations appear to require no active management. However, storm tides during the growing , season might inundate this area with salt water, the effect of which is not known and should be determined. CURRENT STATUS: The site is privately owned and unprotected. PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS: Protection is urgently needed for this highly significant site. 36 MWON ITUNK FEN 0 71-: mutto-ri. Mink 0 W j- bib 677 29 IV cem.:, 7,4 00 Metornk e 4k" SCALE 1:24000 0 1 MILE 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 '1000 5000 6000 7000 FEET 0 1 KILOMETER CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL 37 ASSAWOMAN CREEK SIZE: ca. 68 Acres BIODIVERSITY RANK: B2 LOCALITY: Accomack County QUADRANGLE: Bloxom QUADRANGLE CODE: 3707575 LOCATION: The site is located along the west side of Assawoman Creek, south of Petit Branch. NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES SUMMARY TABLE GLOBAL STATE VA ELEMENT RARITY RARITY USFWS LEGAL OCCURRENCE SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME RANK RANK STATUS STATUS RANK community: Oligotrophic Saturated Scrub C2? sl - B plants: Sclerolepis uniflora one-flower Sclerolepis G4 Sl - B Eleocharis rostellata Beaked Spikerush G5 S2 - D Eriocaulon decangulare Ten-angle Pipewort C5 S2 - B Erigeron vernus White-top Fleabane G5 S2 - B ,SITE DESCRIPTION: This site supports an extremely rare type of wetland vegetation referred to as a "sea-level fen". The wetland is situated between salt marsh vegetation and upland forest. Groundwater seepage emerges from the base of the upland and flows through the wetland, forming an ecologically stressful, bog-like environment. Rare plants thrive in this wetland, perhaps because they face little competition from larger, more common plants which are poorly adapted to the harsh soil conditions. Trees such as Loblolly Pine and Red Maple, which achieve great stature in other wetlands, are here present as stunted and somewhat chlorotic individuals which fail to form a closed forest canopy. Like the nearby Mutton Hunk Fen site, this site is extremely important from a biological diversity perspective. One-flowered Sclerolepis was not known to occur in Virginia until it was discovered here during the 1991 inventory. Also, this site established a new northern range limit for the southern plant, White-top Fleabane. BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION: The site encompasses the significant wetland, surrounding salt marsh, and the upslope lands necessary to protect the quality and quantity of groundwater seepage entering the wetland. THREATS: Upslope development is the primary threat to the site. 38 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: No active management of this site is needed. However, storm tides during the growing season might inundate this area with salt water, the effects of which are not known and should be determined. CURRENT STATUS: The site is privately owned and is unprotected. PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS: This highly significant site should receive strong protection. 39 ASSAWOMAN CREEK 39 j 25 ! io er u, 8 M, 4 2'% .7. 5 -IL J -4, b, 0/679' 0 immon Point 7 36 r SCALE 1:24000 0 1 MILE 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET 1 5 0 1 LOMETER CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL 40 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Participate fully in the development of local protection tools. Most of the il natural areas described in this report are unprotected. The-Division of Natural Heritage and the Council on the Environment will continue to seek the advice and utilize the expertise of local officials in evaluating practical and effective protection options. Also, continued field work is necessary to refine site conservation planning boundaries and to identify new sites. 2. Include the Division of Natural Heritage in the review of projects in or near natural areas.' The site boundaries contained in this report are provided for planning purposes only, and are not regulatory in nature. As proposed development projects.come before the localities, project maps should be compared with the site maps in this report. The Natural Heritage staff offers its knowledge and expertise in reviewing project proposals that may affect a natural area. Since the early stages of the planning process typically offer the greatest flexibility, it is important to contact the Natural Heritage staff as soon as possible. 3. Expand public awareness of the need for protecting natural areas. Intensified land use activities throughout the Eastern Shore have placed natural lands in jeopardy. Natural areas not only provide biological diversity values, but they also provide recreational opportunities for the public and add to the quality of life in the region. The Nature Conservancy's Virginia Coast Reserve and the recently established Kiptopeke State Park are bringing needed attention to natural area values. A recent public opinion survey of 300 adult citizens in Virginia indicated that 82% were in favor of land conservation. Unprotected natural areas throughout the Eastern Shore can only benefit from the increased awareness of natural area values - citizens are realizing that inappropriate land use activities are steadily destroying their natural heritage. 4. Increase-cooperation among pertinent organizations. Among the many groups and individuals that should be involved are those that own, manage, or have the authority to acquire'natural areas. One goal should be to develop stronger ties among federal, state, local and private interests involved in the protection or management of natural lands. 5. Properly manage natural areas. The first step is to develop management programs for public and private conservation lands. The Department of Conservation and Recreation can assist local agencies in developing management plans. The Department's Division of Natural Heritage is interested in working with other agencies and organizations to conduct research and develop techniques for maintaining or restoring natural areas. 41 LITERATURE CITED Brown, M.J. and G.C. Craver. 1985. Forest statistics for the Coastal Plain of Virginia, 1985. Resour. Bull. SE-80. Ashville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 53 pp. Rawinski, T.J. 1992. A classification of Virginia's indigenous biotic communities: vegetated terrestrial, palustrine, and estuarine community classes. Natural Heritage Tech. Rep. 92-21, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. 25 pp. Thompson, M.T. 1991. Forest statistics for the Coastal Plain of Virginia. Resour. Bull. SE-122. Ashville, NC: U.S. Depar'tment od Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 52 pp. 42 APPENDIX I 0 0 0 . 1 43 A CLASSIFICATION OF VIRGINIA'S INDIGENOUS BIOTIC COMMUNITIES: VEGETATED TERRESTRIAL, PALUSTRINE, AND ESTUARINE COMMUNITY CLASSES by Thomas J. Rawinski Division of Natural Heritage Department of Conservation and Recreation Main Street Station 1500 E. Main Street, Suite 312 Richmond, VA 23219 Natural Heritage Technical Report 92-21 May 1, 1992 CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ................................................................. I CLASSIFICATION PRINCIPLES AND METHODS ........................................ I The Terrestrial System ...................................................... 3 The Estuarine System ........................................................ 4 The Palustrine System ....................................................... 5 CONCLUDING REMARKS ........................................................... 6 LITERATURE CITED ............................................................... 7 � KEY TO TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITY CLASSES ....................................... 8 � KEY TO ESTUARINE COMMUNITY CLASSES ......................................... 9 � KEY TO PALUSTRINE COMMUNITY CLASSES .......................................... 10 APPENDICES Terrestrial System Tl: Character- species of the eutrophic forest class ........................ 13 T2: Conditional character-species of the permesotrophic forest class ....... 14 T3: Conditional character- species of mesotrophic classes ................... 15 T4: Conditional character -species of submesotrophic classes ................ 16 T5: Conditional character -species of oligotrophic cla:Isses .................. 17, Estuarine Syste El: Character-species of vegetated classes within the estuarine system ..... 18 Palustrine Syste Pl: Character- species of eutrophic saturated classes ....................... 19 P2: Conditional character-species of oligotrophic saturated classes ........ 20 P3: Conditional character-species of eutrophic semipermanently flooded classes ................................................................ 21 P4: Conditional character-species of oligotrophic semipermanently flooded classes .......................... ........... ......................... 22. P5: Conditional character- species of eutrophic seasonally -flooded classes ..23 P6: Conditional character-species of oligotrophic seasonally flooded classes ........... I ..................................................... 24 P7 Conditional character- species of the submergent/floating- leaved class ..25 INTRODUCTION: The goal of this work is to create a framework for understanding and classifying Virginia's indigenous biotic communities. Achieving this goal has direct bearing on the success of the Division of Natural Heritage whose mission is to document the status, distribution, and ecology of native species and their habitats in the Commonwealth, protect these living resources by way of a system of natural area preserves, and provide information and technical advice to individuals, organizations, andagencies. Community classification and inventory represents a "coarse-filter" approach to biological conservation which secures the protection of a vast number of cryptic or poorly known species. Also, it brings needed attention to the aesthetic, scientific, and ecosystem function values of natural communities. The present draft of the classification deals with communities supporting vascular plant species within the Terrestrial, Palustrine and Estuarine Systems. It supplants appropriate sections of an earlier Division of Natural Heritage classification (Rawinski, 1990). CLASSIFICATION PRINCIPLES AND METHODS: A classification system is an organized form of cataloging based on fixed principles. Community classifications vary widely, largely because principles vary in accord with classification purposes. The ultimate purpose of this effort is to name, describe, and differentiate Associations - the basic systematic units. Unfortunately, these units have not yet been identified because of insufficient information. However, the upper levels of a hierarchy, described here, will help partition the great diversity of the natural world into logical units; this in turn will help us identify and understand relationships among the Associations. The hierarchical levels within the final draft of the Virginia classification will likely be: SYSTEM CLASS ALLIANCE ASSOCIATION SUBASSOCIATION. Communities of life are inextricably associated with the physical environment, and ignoring edaphic-ecological factors when constructing a "community" classification is difficult. When classifications use biotic and abiotic factors to differentiate the basic systematic units (e.g. Reschke, 1990; Schafale and Weakley, 1990), these units are best characterized as "ecosystems", or "ecosystem units". In the Virginia classification, the basic systematic units - the Associations - will be differentiated entirely on the basis of their biological characteristics, with edaphic-ecological factors used in a complementary manner. Consequently, this draft of the Virginia community classification does not require any prior formal or ad hoc classification of physiographic region, landform, or habitat. It also avoids the use of terms such as bog, marsh, and fen in community names because such terms tend to vary in meaning, or reflect an ecosystem or landform approach to classification. Judging by my use of edaphic-ecological terms in Class names, one might assume that an ecosystem or landform approach was used; this is not the case. Each Class was defined on the basis of a specified floristic comRosition. Ideally, the Classes should have been named using a few diagnostic plant taxa, but because each Class encompassed many different kinds of vegetation, this was not possible. Unavoidably, this classification focuses on vegetation, but it should not be viewed as simply a plant community classification. Among all forms of life, vascular plants are the easiest to work with because they are large and conspicuous, immotile, and superbly reflect subtle environmental conditions and site history. Classifying plant communities is therefore the key to describing and delimiting a full range of habitats utilized by animal and microbial life, at least within the vegetated Terrestrial, Palustrine, and Estuarine Systems. Principles ofvegetation classification, namely those articulated by Westhoff and van der Maarel (1973) in their discussion of the Braun-Blanquet approach to community classification, are followed in the Virginia classification: 9 "Plant communities are conceived as types of vegetation, recognized by their floristic composition. The.full species compositions of communities better express their relationships to one another and environment than any other characteristic. 9. Amongst the species that makeup the floristic composition of a community, some are more sensitive expressions of a given relationship than others. For practical classification (and indication of environment) the approach seeks to use those species whose ecological relationships make them most effective indicators; these are diaknostic sRecies (character- species, differential- species, and constant companions). 9 Diagnostic species are used to organize communities into a hierarchical classificatio of which the association is the basic unit. The vast information with which phytosociologists deal must, of necessity, be thus organized; and the hierarchy is not merely necessary but invaluable for the understanding and communication of community relationships that it makes possible." Character- species are more or less restricted to the stands of a given abstract community type, and: therefore characterize it and indicate its environment (Westhoff and van der @aarel, 1973). These species may be used to identify syntaxa (named communities) within several levels of a classification hierarchy, from Subassociation to Class. Use of character- species is an extremely powerful tool in community classification, but very few plant species show strong fidelity to a given syntaxon, and this fact has seemed to hinder efforts to apply the Braun-Blanquet classification approach in eastern United States where the influential work of Whittaker (1953, 1962) and others emphasized continuous change in community composition along environmental gradients, resulting from the individualistic nature of species populations. Continuous compositional change along environmental gradients does not, however, preclude the use of the Braun-Blanquet classification approach, and in fact continuous and predictablg compositional change can be used to great 2 advantage. As long as species response along environmental and community gradients is reasonably well understood, character-species and certain dif f erential- species may be used to classify communities. Dif f erential- species are usually used to define only lower syntaxa (Westhoff and van der Maarel, 1973), but I have broadened their use and meaning to define Class-level syntaxa. To reflect the broadened application of the dif f erential.: species concept, I refer to these species as "conditional character- species". These plants closely resemble true character-species in their ability to identify various syntaxa, but their diagnostic ability is conditional on the absence of certain other species. Referring to these plantsas "conditional character-species" and arranging them in a sequence reflecting a communi 'ty gradient bring a more intuitive level of understanding to the classification approach, and facilitate the production of dichotomous keys. The Terrestrial Syste To generate Classes within the Terrestrial System, trophic (nutrient) regime was identified as a major environmental gradient affecting floristic composition and community gradients. Five trophic regime descriptors were selected: 1) eutrophic 2) permesotrophic 3) mesotrophic 4) submesotrophic, and 5) oligotrophic. Using floras, published and unpublished community literature, specimen label data, plot data, personal knowledge of plant habitat preference, and interviews with a number of botanists, I first generated a list of those plants restricted to the richest, soil environments. These,are true character -species and they are, almost without exception, instantly diagnostic of eutrophic communities. This method of selecting diagnostic species was very similar to that used by Reed (1988) who reviewed many floras and consulted with experts to generate lists of plant species diagnostic of wetland conditions. When the eutrophic indicators are not @resent in a give stand, other plants, the "conditional character- species", may become diagnostic of permesotrophic communities. These species have diagnostic qualities only when the eutrophic indicators are absent. Note that permesotrophic indicators may occur within eutrophic communities, but eutrophic indicators cannot occur in permesotrophic communities; the response of species populations along this community gradient is therefore unidirectional. In the absence of both eutrophic and permesotrophic indicators, other plants become diagnostic of mesotrophic communities. Similarly, in the absence of eutrophic, permesotrophic, and mesotrophic indicators, certain plants become diagnostic of submesotrophic communities. Stands lacking the eutrophic, permesotrophic, mesotrophic, and subm 'esotrophic indicators are classified as oligotrophic if any of the oligotrophic indicators are present. Finally, anomalous stands lacking the oligotrophic indicators may be assigned to a given class using other factors, e.g. soils, or simply called "unclassified". 3 Superimposed on the above trophic regime gradient is a light regime gradient. For this reason the mesotrophic, submesotrophic, and oligotrophic indicators were arranged by their relative shade tolerance. Stands containing only shade tolerant species will likely be forests, while stands supporting moderately shade tolerant or shade intolerant species will likely be woodland, scrub, or herbaceous -dominated types. The exception to this rule is applied to a short-term successional stage of vegetation resulting from infrequent or unusual episodes of disturbance. For example, a blown-down forest now dominated by blackberry should still be classified as forest despite the absence of trees. While this may seem awkward, it is a pragmatic solution to a difficult classification problem. Open-canopy vegetation maintained over the long-term through frequent disturbance (e.g. frequent fire, seasonal flood scour, repeated exposure to severe winds) should be regarded as distinct structural-floristic Classes. -Implicit in the distinction between infrequent and frequent disturbance is the notion that the history of frequent disturbance has allowed light- demanding plants to persist at the site over a long period of time. There will certainly be instances in which disturbance factors cannot readily be characterized as infrequent or frequent, and in these cases I recommend the recognition of distinct structural- floristic Classes; this is a conservative measure that ensures that poorly known or problematic communities are not dismissed as seral stages. Users of this classification should be aware that the shade tolerant plants identified in the lists can occur in semi-forested and non-forested communities, but the shade intolerant plants will rarely, if ever, be found in forests. This implies another unidirectional gradient. Eutrophic and permesotrophic woodland, scrub, and herbaceous vegetation will most often be the result of infrequent disturbance, such as blow-down. No light-demanding plants faithful to these nutrient regimes could be identified. Open canopy eutrophic and permesotrophic communities are therefore not recognized as distinct Classes at the present time, but rather as seral stages of the forests. If future field work documents naturally occurring open canopy eutrophic and permesotrophic communities in Virginia, the classification can be adjusted accordingly. Lists of character-species and conditional character-species were derived from the Atlas of the Virginia,Flora (Harvill et al., 1986), but nomenclature followed Kartesz and Kartesz (1980). A species was selected for a list only if its habitat preference was reasonably well known, and if it had distinct diagnostic value for the purpose of the classification. Approximately 900 diagnostic species were selected. Species of wide ecological tolerance, such as those growing in both upland and wetland soils, were generally excluded from consideration; they did not meet fidelity criteria at the System level. Some of the excluded species will, however, have diagnostic value in differentiating the lower syntaxa when these are classified in the future. The Estuarine Syste Halophytes were used to define vegetated classes within the Estuarine System. A very few of the species also occur in inland saline wetlands;,such wetlands should be classified within the Palustrine System for the time being and regarded as a rare, or anomalous condition. 4 The Palustrine System: Classes within the Palustrine System were identified throug, h the character- species/conditional character-species approach. I have not supplied detailed instructions for separating the Palustrine System from the Terrestrial because in most cases this difference will be'readily apparent. However, when dealing with problematic transitional zones, I refer the user to Reed's (1988) list of. plant species that occur in Northeaster-n wetlands. Only those plants with, indicator status of Obligate or Facultative Wetland should be regarded as diagnostic of the Palustrine System, for the purpose of the Virginia classification. If necessary, other factors such as soils or flooding regime may also be used to assign stands to the Palustrine System. The Palustrine System of the Virginia classification has a broader definition than that used in Cowardin et al. (1979). The Virginia definition includes all freshwater (to oligohaline) wetland and aquatic environments supporting non-halophytic vascular, plant life, thereby encompassing parts of Cowardin's Lacustrine, Riverine, and Estuarine Systems. Note that the Cowardin definition of the Estuarine System relies upon an average salinity measure (0.5 ppt.), and not halophytic plants, to define the upstream or landward limit of the System. Determining this salinity measure in the field is difficult, and as a consequence, some wetlands classified within Cowardin's Estuarine System support non-halophytic vegetation. Hydrologic regime was identified as a major factor influencing floristic composition at the Class level. Four hydrologic regime descriptors were subsequently identified: 1) saturated, 2) seasonally flooded, 3) semipermanently flooded (including permanently flooded environments supporting emergents), and 4) permanently flooded (lacking emergents). These descriptors were derived from Cowardin et al. (1979), but I've given' numbers 2 and 3 broader meaning. Number 2 encompasses Cowardin's temporarily flooded category, while number 3 includes the intermittently exposed category and any permanently flooded environments supporting emergent vegetation. This was done out of practical necessity; too often the Cowardin hydrologic regime categories cannot be recognized in the field. Description number 4 also deviates from the Cowardin definition in the sense that it is exclusively reserved for those permanently flooded environments lacking emergents, i.e. communities composed entirely of submergents and/or floating-leaved species. Plant species indicative of trophic regime were also used to generate Classes within the Palustrine System. Unlike the Terrestrial System, where five trophic regime levels were identified, only two trophic regime levels were selected for use in the Palustrine System. This difference in approach seemed unavoidable, given the fact that fewer plant species were strictly diagnostic of trophic regime within the Palustrine System. The two trophic regime descriptors were: 1) oligotrophic, and 2) eutrophic. Note that the each of the above terms now connotes a relatively wide range of fertility conditions; use of these terms in the Terrestrial System is much more restrictive. While this might cause some confusion, it maintains a level of nomenclatural continuity between Systems. Lists of character- species and conditional character- species serve to identify and differentiate Classes within the Palustrine System. As with the Terrestrial System, some of the lists are subdivided in "to shade tolerant, moderately shade tolerant, and shade intolerant species to aid in distinguishing the various structural types. Keys to the Classes of the Terrestrial, Estuarine, and Palustrine Systems were developed. The character-species and conditional character-species that ,need to be examined when using the keys are given in appendices. CONCLUDING REMARKS: Character- species and conditional character- species play an important role in the classification of Virginia's indigenous vegetation. Relatively large lists of these species have been generated, and most stands of natural vegetation can be readily classified to the level of Class using this approach. The basic requirement is that a reasonably complete species list from a representative sample of the vegetation is collected and interpreted using the keys. Recommended plot size for forests and woodlands is 400 sq. m., and for scrub and herbaceous communities, 100 sq. m. As stand data sets accumulate and are analyzed, the Associations should become apparent. The lists of character- species and conditional character- species ser-ve another important purpose. They give an indication of the classification and inventory work which lies ahead. Each listed species-needs to be observed in the field, and recorded as a component of a given community. This will ensure complete coverage of the final draft classification. Refinements and suggestions are definitely needed, and in fact, I eagerly await word of any unusual communities that aren't readily classified under the present system. Natural vegetation is exceedingly complex and trying to make sense of it using feeble human constructs will no doubt be a long, frustrating, and humbling endeavor. 6 LITERATURE CITED: Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Dept., of the Interior, Fish and Wildl. Serv. Washington, D.C. 103 pp. Harvill, A.M. Jr., T.R. Bradley, C.E. Stevens, T.F. Wieboldt, D.M.E. Ware, and D.W. Ogle. 1986. Atlas of the Virginia Flora. Second Edition. Virginia Botanical Associates, Farmville. 135 pp. Kartesz, J.T. and R. Kartesz. 1980. A. Synonymized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.'498 pp. Rawinski, T.J. 1990. A classification of Virginia's indigenous biotic communities: Phase 1. Upper levels of the hierarchy. unpublished rep. on file with the Virginia Dept. of Conservation and Recreation,. Division of Natural Heritage. Richmond. 11 pp. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northeast (Region 1). U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 88(26.1). 111 pp. Reschke, C. 1990.. Ecological communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, Latham. 96 pp. Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh. 325 pp. Westhoff, V. and E. van der Maarel. 1973. The Braun-Blanquet approach. In: Handbook of Vegetation Science (Ed. R.H. Whittaker), vol. 5, 616-726. Junk, Den Haag. Whittaker, R.H. 1953. A consideration of climax theory; the climax as a population and pattern. Ecol. Monogr. 23:41-78. Whittaker, R.H. 1962. Classification of natural communities. Bot. Rev. 28:1-239. 7 A KEY TO VEGETATED TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITY CLASSES 010te: ALL Class names are understood to represent the Terrestrial System). a. Eutrophic character-species (Appendix T1) present. . . . . . [EUITROPHIC FOREST] a. Eutrophic character-species absent. b. Permesotrophic conditional character-species (Appendix T present. CPERMESOTROPHIC FOREST] b. Permesotrophic conditional character-species absent. C. Mesotrophic conditional character-species (Appendix T3) oresent. d. Moderately shade tolerant or shade intolerant species (Appendices T3, T4, & TS) present and conspicuous; woodland, scrub and herbaceous communities. e. Trees present (covering at Least 5% of the area), but significant gaps exist among tree crowns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . EMESOTROPHIC WOOOLANDI e. Trees absent or cover less than 5% of the area. f. Woody species between 1 and 6 m tail (scrub) cover more than 5% of the area. . . . . . . . . . . EMESOTROPHIC SCRUB] f. Scrub vegetation absent or c;ver's *Les; th*an*5%*of'the" area; herbaceous species prevalent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EMESOTROPHIC HERBACEOUS VEGETATION] d. Moderately shade tolerant or shade intolerant species absent or inconspicuous; trees form a more or.Less continuous cover; forest. EMESOTROPHIC FOREST] C. Mesotrophic conditional character-species absent. g. Submesotrophic conditional character-species (Appendix T4) present. h. Moderately shade tolerant or shade intolerant species (Appendices T4 & T5) present and conspicuous; woodland, scrub and herbaceous communities. i. Trees present (covering at Least 5% of the area), but significant gaps exist among tree crowns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . [SUBMESOTROPHIC WOODLAND] i. Trees absent or cover less than 5% of the area. Woody species between 1 and 6 m tail (scrub) cover more than 5% of the area. . . . - . . . . . [SUBMESOTROPHIC SCRUB] Scrub vegetation absent o; c;ve;s Les; th*an'5%*of'the a;ea; herbaceous species prevalent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [SUBMESOTROPHIC HERBACEOUS VEGETATION] h. Moderately shade tolerant or shade intolerant species absent or inconspicuous; trees form a more or Less continuous cover; forest. ESUBMESOTROPHIC FOREST] g. Submesotrophic conditional character-species absent. k. Otigotrophic conditional character-species (Appendix T5) Present. L. Moderately shade tolerant or shade intolerant species present and conspicuous; woodland, scrub and herbaceous communities. M. Trees present (covering at Least 5% of the area), but significant gaps exist among tree crowns. - . " . . . . . . . . . . COLIGOTROPHIC WOODLAWDI m. Trees absent or cover Less than 5% of the area. n. Woody species between I and 6 m tail (scrub) cover more than 5% of the area. . . . . * . * - ' ' ' ' ' * COLIGOTROPHIC SCRUB] n. Scrub vegetation absent or covers less than 5% of the ;re;, herbaceous species prevalent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . COLIGOTROPHIC HERBACEOUS VEGETATION] L. Moderately shade tolerant or shade intolerant species absent or inconspicuous; trees form a more or Less continuous cover; forest . . . COLIGOTROPHIC FOREST] k. OLigotrophic indicators absent. Use other factors (e.g. soils) to assign the stand to one of the above classes. If this isn't possible, refer *to the stand as: . . . . . . . . @EUNCLASSIFIED TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITY] 7@ A KEY TO VEGETATED ESTUARINE COMMUNITY CLASSES a. Estuarine character-species (Appendix El) present. b. Woody species between 1 and 6 m. talL.(scrub) cover more than 5% of the area .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CESTUARINE SCRU81 b. Scrub vegetation absent or cover Less than 5% of the area. c. Herbaceous species other than submergents present . . . . . . . . .[ESTUARINE HERBACEOUS VEGETATION] c. The only vascular plants present are submergents such as Ruppia maritima and Zostera marina. . . . . . . . . . . . . .[ESTUARINE SUBMERGENT VEGETATION] a. Estuarine character-species absent. Consider whether the stand could be classified using the Patustrine System key, or refer to the stand as: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [UNCLASSIFIED ESTUARINE COMMUNITY] KEYS TO THE VEGETATED PALUSTRINE COMMUNITY CLASSES (Note: ALL Class names are understood to represent the Palustrine System. Also, use of the terms, eutrophic and oligotrophic, is in the broad sense, each term encompassing roughly half of the range of community trophic conditions). .Character-species indicating saturated, eutrophic conditions (Appendix Pl) present. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EUTROPHIC SATURATED Key P1 Conditional character-species indicating saturated, otigotrophic conditJons (Appendix P2) present. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OLIGOTROPHIC SATURATED Key P2 Conditional character-species indicating semipermanently flooded, eutrophic conditions (Appendix P3) present. . . . . . . . . EUTROPHIC SENIPER14ANENTLY FLOODED Key P3 Conditional character-species indicating semipermanentLy flooded, oLigotrophic conditions (Appendix P4) present. . . . . . . . . . . OLIGOTROPHIC SEMIPER14ANENTLY FLOODED Key P4 Conditional character-species indicating seasonally fLooded, eutraphic conditions (Appendix PS) present. . . . . . . EUTROPHIC SEASONALLY FLOODED Key P5 Conditional character-species indicating seasonally flooded, otigotrophic conditions (Appendix P6) present. . . . . . . . . . . OLIGOTROPHIC SEASONALLY FLOODED Key P6 Conditional character-species indicating permanently flooded conditions (Appendix P7) present (submergent/fLoating-teaved vegetation). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ESUBMERGENT/FLOATING-LEAVED VEGETATION] None of the above species present. Use other factors to assign the stand to a Class. If this isn't possible, refer to the stand as: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [UNCLASSIFIED PALUSTRINE COMMUNITY] 10 Key Pl: Eutrophic Saturated a. Moderately shade toterant or shade intolerant species (Appendices PI & P2) present.and conspicuous;-woodtand, scrub, and herbaceous communities., b. Trees present (covering at Least 5% of the area), but significant gaps exist among tree crowns. . . . . . . . . . . . . CEUTROPHIC SATURATED WOODLAND] b. Trees absent or cover Less than 5% of the area. c. Woody species between I and 6 m. tall (scrub) cover more than 5% of the area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (EUTROPHIC SATURATED SCRUB] c. Scrub vegetation absent or covers Less than 5% of the area; herbaceous species prevalent. . . . . . . . ... . . . [EUTROPHIC SATURATED HERBACEOUS VEGETATION] a. Moderately shade tolerant or shade intolerant species absent or inconspicuous; trees form a more or Less continuous cover; forest. (EUTROPHIC SATURATED FOREST] Key P2: Otigotrophic Saturated a. Moderately shade tolerant or shade intolerant species present and conspicuous; woodland, scrub, and herbaceous communities. b. Trees present (covering at Least 5% of the area), but significant gaps exist among tree crowns. . . . . . . . . . . . . COLIGOTROPHIC SATURATED WOODLAND] b. Trees absent or cover Less than 5% of the area. c. Woody species between 1 and 6 m. taLl (scrub) cover more than 5% of the area. . . . . . . [OLIGOTROPHIC SATURATED SCRUB] c. Scrub vegetation absent or covers % f h Less t*han 5' o* t** ;re;, herbaceous species prevalent. . . . . . . . . . . . . COLIGOTROPHIC SATURATED HERBACEOUS VEGETATION] a. Moderately shade tolerant or shade intolerant species absent or inconspicuous; trees form a more or Less continuous cover; forest. COLIGOTROPHIC SATURATED FOREST3 Key P3: Eutrophic SemipermanentLy Flooded a. Moderately shade tolerant or shade intolerant species (Appendices P3 & P4 present and conspicuous; woodland, scrub, and herbaceous communities. b. Trees present (covering at Least 5% of the area), but significant gaps exist among tree crowns. . . . . . . . . . . . CEUTROPHIC SEMIPERMANENTLY FLOODED WOODLAND] b. Trees absent or cover Less than 5% of the area. c. Woody species between 1 and 6 m. tall (scrub) cover more than 5% of the area. . . . . . . . . . CEUTROPNIC SEMIPER14AMENTLY FLOODED SCRUB] c. Scrub vegetation absent ;r ;ov;rs*te;s ;han 5% of the area; herbaceous species prevalent. . . . CEUTROPHIC SE141PERMANENTLY FLOODED HERBACEOUS VEGETATION] a. Moderately shade tolerant or shade intolerant species absent or inconspicuous; trees form a more or Less continuous cover; forest. EEUTROPHIC SEMIPERMAMENTLY FLOODED FOREST] Key P4: Otigotrophic SemipermanentLy Flooded a. Moderately shade tolerant or shade intolerant species present and conspicuous; woodland, scrub, and herbaceous communities. b. Trees present (covering at Least 5% of the area), but significant gaps exist among tree drowns. . . . . . . . . . . . . IOLIGOTROPHIC SEMIPERKANENTLY FLOODED WOODLAND] b. Trees absent or cover less than 5% of the area. c. Woody species between 1 and 6 m. tall (scrub) cover more than 5% of the area. . . . [OLIGOTROPHIC SEMIPERKANENTLY FLOODED SCRUB] c. Scrub vegetation absent or cov;rs*te;s ihan 5%* of the area; herbaceous species prevalent. . . . COLIGOTROPHIC,SEMIPERMANENTLY FLjOODED HERBACEOUS VEGETATION] a. ModerateLy shade tolerant or shade intolerant species absent or inconspicuous; trees form a more or Less continuous cover; forest. COLIGOTROPHIC SEMIPERMANENTLY FLOODED FOREST] Key P5: Eutrophic Seasonally Flooded a. Moderately shade tolerant or shade intoLerant species (AppendicesP5 & P6) present and conspicuous; woodland, scrub, and herbaceous communities. b. Trees present (covering at Least 5% of the area), but significant gaps exist among tree crowns. . . . . . . . . . . . . CEUTROPHIC SEASONALLY FLOODED WOODLAND] b. Trees absent or cover Less than 5% of the area. c. Woody species between 1 and 6 m. tall (scrub) cover more than 5% of the area. . . . . . . [EUTROPHIC SEASONALLY FLOODED SCRUB] c. Scrub vegetation absent or covers Less ;han 5%* of the area; herbaceous species prevalent. [EUTROPHIC SEASONALLY FLOODED HERBACEOUS VEGETATION] a. Moderately shade tolerant or shade intolerant species absent or inconspicuous; trees form a more or Less continuous cover; forest. [EUTROPHIC SEASONALLY FLOODED FOREST3 Key P6: Oligotrophic Seasonally Flooded a. ModerateLy shade toterant or shade intolerant species present and conspicuous; woodland, scrub, and herbaceous communities. b. Trees present (covering at least 5% of the area), but significant gaps exist among tree crowns. . . . . . . . . . . . . [OLIGOTROPHIC SEASONALLY FLOODED WOODLAND] b. Trees absent or cover Less than 5% of the area. c. Woody species between 1 and 6 m. tall (scrub) cover more than 5% of the area. COLIGOTROPHIC SEASONALLY FLOODED SCRUB] c. Scrub vegetation absent or covers Le;, ihan* 5%' of the area; herbaceous species prevalent. . . . COLIGOTROPHIC SEASONALLY-FLOODED HERBACEOUS VEGETATION] a. Moderately shade tolerant or shade intoLerant species absent or inconspicuous; trees form a more or Less continuous.cover; forest. COLIGOTROPHIC SEASONALLY FLOODED FOREST3 12 Appendix Tl Character-species of the eutrophic forest class SHADE TOLERANT Acer nigrum Blephila citiata Carex albursina Carex careyana Carex hitchcockiana Carex plantaginea Diplazium pycnocarpon Dryopteris goldiana Erigenia bulbosa Erythronium albidum FLoerkea proserpinacoides Hydrophyllum macrophyllum Jeffersonia diphylla Matteuccia struthiopteris Meehania cordata Mertensia virginica MiLium effusum Phacelia bipinnatifida SmiLacina stellata Trillium cernuum Trillium sessile UvuLaria grandiflora 13 Appendix T2 Conditional character-species of the permesotrophic forest class SHADE TOLERANT Allium tricoccun Carex pedunculata Carex sparganioides Caulophyllum thalictroides Cherophyllum procumbens Delphiniun tricorne Dirrhena americana Dientra canadensis Dicentra cuculqlarqia Disporum macutatum Gymmoctadus dioica Hepatica nobilis v. acuta Hybanthus concolor Hydrastis canadensis Hyrophytium canadense Panax quinquefolqus Ohlox divaricata Phlox stolonifera Polemonium reptans Shizachne purpurascens Trillium grandiftorum Viola canadensis Viola rostrata Viola striata 14 14 Appendix T3 Conditional character-species of mesotrophic classes SHADE TOLERANT MODERATELY SHADE TOLERANT Acer floridanum Adlumia fungosa Aconitum reclinatum Astragalus canadensis Actaea pachypoda Baptisia australis Adiantum pedatum Blephilia hirsuta Allium canadense Camassia scilloides Aplectrum hyemale Campanula americana Aralia racemosa Carex oligocarpa Aristolochia macrophylla Cassia marilandica Asarum canadense Clematis accidentalis Asimina triloba Eupatorium sessilifolium Astilbe biternata Hackelia virginiana Batrychium virginianum Hexalectris spicata Carex amphibola lathyrus venosus Carex gracillima Liathris spicata Carex jamesii Onosmodium hispidissimum Cimicifuga americana Oryzopsis racemosa Cimicifuga racemosa Pycnanthemum incanum Claytonia caroliniana Salvia urticifolia Claytonia virginica Silphium terebinthinaceum Collinsonia canadensis Solidago rigida Cryptotaenia canadensis Uniola latifolia Dentaria diphylla Zanthoxylum americanum Dentaria laciniata Deparia acrostichoides Desmodium cuspodatum Desmodium glutinosum Diphylleia cymosa Dirca palustris Dryopteris celsa Festuca obtusa Fraxinus quadrangulata Galearis spectabilis Geranium maculatum Helianthis decapetalus Hepatica nobilis v. obtusa Hydrophyllum virginianum Hystrix patula Impatiens pallida Lapatiens canadensis Magnolia tripetala Menispermum canadense Mitella diphylla Monarda clinopodia Osmorhiza claytoni Osmorhiza longistylis Penstemon laevigatus Polymnia canadensis Polymnia uvedalia Rubus odoratus Rudbeckia laciniata Sanguinaria Canadensis Sanicula canadensis Sanicula gregaria Sanicula marilandica Solidago flecicaulis Staphylea trifolia Thalictrum coriaceum Thalictrum dioicum Thelypteris hexagonoptera Trilia heterophylla Trillium sulcatum Triosteum angustifolium Triosteum aurantiacum Triosteum perfoliatum 15 Appendix T4 Conditional character-species of submesotrophic classes SHADE TOLERANT MODERATELY SHADE TOLERANT SHADE INTOLERANT Acer saccharum Agropyron trachycaulum Ageratine altissima Aquilegia canadensis Anemone lancifolia Arabis patens Anemone virginiana Aster infirmus Aster grandiflorus Angelica triquinata Aster oblongifolius Atriplex arenaria Antennaria plantaginifolia Aureolaria flava Buchnera americana Arabis canadensis Berberis canadensis Cakile edentula Arabis laevigata Bouteloua curtipendula Castilleja coccinea Arisaema triphyllum Bromus pubescens Cirsium virginianum Asclepias exaltata Carex cephalophora Coreopsis tripteris Asclepias quadrifolia Carex eburnea Eryngium yuccifolium Asplenium resiliens Carex meadii Helianthus angustifolius Aster macrophyllus Celastrus scandens Helianthus astrorubens Athyrium asplenioides Clematis viorna Polygonum glaucum Betula papyrifera Cornus rugosa Psoralea psoralioides Brachyeletrum erectum Cuscuta rugosa Salsola kali Callicarpa americana Cuscuta coryli Sprorbolus asper Calycanthus floridus Cystopteris fragilis Carex aestivalis Echinacea laevigata Carex digitalis Fragaria vesca Carex laxiculmis Helianthus divaricatus Carex lexiflora Helianthus strumosus Carex nigromarginata Lithospermum canescens Carex platyphylla Lonicera dioica Carex virescens Muhlenbergia sobolifera Carex willdenowii Muhlenbergia tenuifolia Carpinus caroliniana Myosotis verna Carya cordiformis Parthenium auriculatum Chrysogonum virginianum Passiflora lutea Clintonia umbellulata Pellaea atropurpurea Conopholis americana Penstemon calycosus Coreopsis auriculata Penstemon hirsutus Cornus alternifolia Phacelia dubia Cunilla origanoides Polygala senega Cymophyllus fraseri Ranunculus fascicularis Cynoglossum virginianum Ranunculus micranthus Dentaria heterophylla Rhamnus caroliniana Desmodium nudiflorum Rudbeckia triloba Desmodium pauciflorum Silene virginica Desmodium rotundifolium Silphium trifoliatum Dichanthelium latifolium Solidago ulmifolia Dioscorea villosa Tradescantia ohiensis Disporum lanuginosum Viburnum rafinesquianum Galium circaezans Woodsia obtusa Galium concinnum Zizia aptera Galium latifolium Hedyotis purpurea Heracleum lanatum Hieracium paniculatum Hydrangea arborescens Ligusticum canadense Liparis liliifolia Lonicera canadensis Luzula acuminata Magnolia acumianta Obolaria virginiaca Ostrya virginiana Oxalis violacea Phyra leptostachya Platanthera orbiculata Platanthera viridis v. bracteata Poa cuspidata Podophyllum peltatum Polygonatum biflorum Polygonatum pubescens Polystichum acrostichoides Prenanthes alba Pyrularia pubera Scirpus verecundus Sedum ternatum Senecio obovatus Silene stellata Smilacina racemosa Solidago arguta Solidago causia Solidago curtisii Sphenopholis nitida Stellaria pubera Styrax americana Taenidia integerrima Taxus canadensis Thalictrum thalictroides Thaspium barbinode Thaspium trifoliatum Tiarella cordifolia Uvularia perfoliata Viburnum acerifolium Viola hastata Viola rotundifolia Viola triloba Appendix 15 Conditional character-species of oligotrophic classes SHADE TOLERANT Acer pensylvaicum Amianthuium muscaetoxicum Antennaria virginica Asimina parviflora Aster acuminatus Aster divaricatus Betula lenta Buckleya distichophylla Carex brunnescens Carex debilis Carex pensylvanica Carya glabra Castanea dentata Castanea pumils Chamaelirium luteum Chimaphila maculata Chimaphila umbellata Clethra acuminata Clintonia borealis Comandra umbellata Convallaria montana Corallorhiza odontorhiza Coreopsis major Cypripedium acaule Deschampsia flexuosa Draba ramosissima Dryopteris campyloptera Dryopteris marginalis Epigaea repens Galax urceolata Gaultheria procumbens Goodyera pubescens Gymnocarpium dryopteris Hamamelis virginiana Hexastylis virginica Ilex vomitoria Isotria medeoloides Isotria verticillata Lycopodium annotinum Lycopodium clavatum Lycopodium digitatum Lycopodium obscurum Lycopodium obscurum v. dendroideum Lycopodium tristachym Lysimachia quadrifolia Malaxis unifolia Medeola virginiana Melampyrum lineare Melanthium hybridum Menziesisa pilosa Oxalis acetosella Oxydendrum arboreum Pieris floridbunda Polypodium virginanum Prenanthes trifotlata Pteridium aquillnum Quercus coccinea Quercus marilandica Quercus montana Quercus velutina Rhododendron calendulaceum Rhododendron periclymenoides Rhodeodendron prinophyllum Sassafras albidum Symplocos tinctoria Tiputaria discolor Trillium undulatum Tsusga caroliniana Uvularia pudica Uvularia sessilifolia Vaccinium arboreum Vaccinium elliottii Vaccinium erythracarpum Vaccinfum stamineum Vaccinium tenellum Viburnum tantapoides MODERATELY SHADE TOLERANT Ageratina aromatica Allium cernuum Angelica venenosa Arabi serotina Aristida lanosa Aster linariifolius Aster undulatus Aureolaria laeviagta Aureolaria pedicularia Baptisia tinctoria Calamagrostis porteri Calystegia spithamaea Campanula divaricate Carex emmonsii Carex polymorpha Carex umbellata Carya pallida Centrosema virginianmu Cheilanthes lanose Chrysopsis gossypina Clematis albicoma Clematis ochroleuca Clematis viticaulis Cnindoscolus stimulosus Comptonia peregrina Coreopsis verticillata Danthonia compressa Desmodium paniculatum Dicentra eximia Diervilla lonicera Eriogonum alleni Euphorbia ipecacuanhae Galactia regularis Gaylussacia dumosa Gymnopogon ambiguus Helianthemum canadense Heuchera americana Iris verna Kuhnia eupatoriodies Liatris graminifolis Lilium philadelphicum Lupinus perennis Lycopodium prophilum Lycopodium selago Ophioglossum engelmannii Paronychia canadensis Paxistima canbyi Pinus echinata Pinus palustria Pinus pungens Pinus virginiana Pityopsis graminifolia Polyopsis graminifolia Polygonum cilinode Prenanthes roanensis Pseudotaenidia montana Pyxidanthera barbulata Quercus ilicifolia Quercus incana Quercus laevis Quercus margarettae Quercus virginiana Rhus aromatica Saxifrage michauxif Sedum telephioides Selaginella rupestris Senecio antennariifolius Senecio pauperculus Silene caroliniana Smilax tamnoides Solidago bicolor Solidago odora Solidago roanensis Sorbus americana Spiraea betulifolia ssp. corymbosa Sporobolus clandestinus Stipa avenacea Stylosanthes biflora Tephrosia virginana Tradescantia rosea v. graminea Trifolium virginicum Vaccinium angustifolium vaccinium crassifolium Vaccinium myrtilloides Viburnum rufidulum Viola pedata Woodsia ilvensis Woodsia scopulina Zigadenus glaucus Zigadenus leimanthoides SHADE INTOLERANT Agrostis elliottiana Ammophila breviligulata Anaphalis margaritaccea Andropogon gerardii Arabis lyrata Aralia hispida Arctostaphylo uva-usi Aristida curtissii Aristida dichotoma Aristida purpurascens Aristida tuberculosa Asclepias amplexicaulis Asclepias verticillata Asplenium montanum Aster spectabilis Bulbostylis capillaris Bulbostylis ciliatifolia Carex silicea Carphephorus bellidifolius Carphephorus tomentosus Cenchrus tribuloides Cirsium horridulum Corydalis sempervirens Cyperus granitophilus Cyperus grayi Danthonia sericea Danthonia spicata Desmodium sessilifolium Desmodium strictum Diamorpha smallii Eragrostis hirsuta Eragrostis refracta Eragrostis spectabilis Euphorbia ammannioides Euphorbia polygonifolia Festuca octoflora Haplopappus divaricatus Helianthemum bicknellii Helianthus hirsutus Hudsonia tomentosa Isanthus brachiatus Juncus secundus Juniperus communis Krigia biflora Krigia montana Krigia virginica Lechea maritima Lechea racemulosa Lechea villose Leptoloma cognatum Liatris aspera Liatris turglde Manfrede virginica Minuartis glabra Minuartis groenlandica Minuartis michauxii Minuartia patula Muhlengbergia capillaris Muhlenbergia cuspidate Oenothera humifusa Opuntia humifusa Panicum amarulum Panicum amarum Paniucm flexile Paronychia argyrocoma Paronychia fasitgiate Paronychie riparia Polygale verticillata Polygonella articulata Polygonella polygame Portulaca smallii Potentilla tridentata Ruellia humilis Salis tristis Schizachyrium scoperium Scuteelaria parvule Silphium copositum Sisyrinchium albidum Solidago racemosa Solidago spathulata ssp. randii Spiranthes tuberose Sporoboulus vaginiflorus Stipulicida setacea Stylisma humistrate Talinum teretifolium Triplasis purpurea Unionla paniculata Zanthoxylum clav-herculis 17 Appendix El Character-species of vegetated classes within the estuarine system Agalinis maritima Aster tenuifolius Borrichia frutescens Distichtis spicata Fimbristylis castanea Iva frutescens Juncus gerardii Juncus roemerianus Kosteletzky virginica Lythrum Lineare Puccinellia fasciculata Ruppia maritima Salicornia bigelovii Salicornia europea Salicornia virginica Scirpus maritimus Scirpus robustus Sesuvium maritimum Spartina alterniflora Spartina cynosuroides Spartina patens Spergularia marina Suaeda linearis Suaeda maritima Zostera marina 18 Appendix Pl Character-species of eutrophic saturated classes SHADE TOLERANT MODERATELY SHADE TOLERANT SHADE INTOLERANT Caltha palustris Acorus caliamus Carex scabrata Carex stipata Carex Lacustris Hexastylis Lewisii Carex trichocarpa Carex Lanuginosa Ranunculus septentrionaLis Iris versicolor Carex tetanica Lobelia siphilitica Cyperus haspan Myosotis taxa Eleocharis rostellata Veronica americana Juncus balticus Veronica anagallis-aquatica Lathyrus palustris Lysimachia quadriflora Lythrum alatlum mentha arvensis Pedicularis Lanceolata Sabatia dodecandra 19 Appendix P2 Conditional character-species of oligotrophic saturated classes SHADE TOLERANT Cardamine butbosa Cardamine rotundifolia Carex collinsii Carex laevivaginata Carex leptalea Carex prasina Carex styloflexa Chamaecyparis thyoides Chrysosplenium americanum Cyrilla racemiflora Dalibarda repens Fraxinus nigra Hedyotis michauxii Listera smallii Lyonia lucida Ophioglossum vulgatum Parnassia asarifolia Platanthera clavellata Platanthera psycodes Poa paludigena Saxifraga micranthidifolia Saxifraga pensylvancia Solidago patula Symplocarpus foetidus Thalictrum clavatum Thelypteris simulata Toxicodendron vernix Veratrum viride Vibunum nudum Viola walteri MODERATELY SHADE TOLERANT Ainus incana ssp. rugosa Asclepias rubra Aster radula Campanula aparinoides Carex atlantica Carex bullata Carex trisperma Carex venusta Chelone cuthbertii Cirsium muticum Conioselinum chinense Cypripedium reginae Drosera rotundifolia Elecharis tortilis Equisetum sylvaticum Parnassia grandifolia Platanthera ciliaris Poa paulstris Rhamnus alnifolia Sanguisorba canadensis Sarracenia purpurea Selaginella apoda Solidago uliginosa Sphenopholis pensylvancia Zenobia pulverulenta SHADE INTOLERENT Aletris aurea Calamagrostis cinnoides Calopogon tuberosus Carex buxbaumil Carex conoidea Carex hystericina Carex interior Carex prairea Centella asiatica Cladium mariscoides Cleistes divaricata Dichromena colorata Drosera brevifolia Drosera capillaris Epilobium leptophyllum Equisetum fluviatile Eriocaulon decangulare Eriophorum virginicum Eryngium aquaticum Filipendula rubra Fimbristylis puberula Iris prismatica Juncus abortivus Juncus nodosus Juncus catesbaei Lobelia georgiana Lycopodium alopecurodies Lycopodium appressum Lycopodium inundatum Menyanthes trifoliata Muhlenbergia glomerata Nasturtium officinale Platanthera blephariglottis Platanthera cristata Pogonia ophioglossoides Polygala cruciata Rhynchospora alba Rhynchospora capillacea Sabatia calycina Sarracenia flava Scirpus expansus Scleria reticularis Scleria verticillata Sclerolepis uniflora Tofiedlia glutinosa Tofieldia racemosa Utricularia conruta Utricularia juncea Xyris ambigua Xyris difformis Xyris jupicai Xyris torta Zigadenus densus Zigadenus glaberrimus 20 Appendix P3 ConditionaL character-species of Eutrophic semipermanentLy flooded classes SHADE TOLERANT MODERATELY SHADE TOLERANT SHADE INTO LERANT Cardamine tongii AzoLa caroliniana Aeschynomene virginica Fraxinus caroliniana Carex deconposita Amaranthus cannabinus Nyssa aquatica Carex hyalinoLepis Asclepias Lanceotata Peltandra virginica Echinodorus cordifoLius Aster subuLatus Ranuncutus fLabettaris Heteranthera reniformis Bacopa inominita Ranuncutus Laxicaulis Hydrocotyie ranuncuLoides Bidens coronata Rumex verticiLLatus Limnobiun spongia Carex aLata TriaderiLan waLteri Pontederia cordata Carex torta RanuncuLus sceLeratus, CLadium jamaicense S iUM suave Cyperus brevifoLioides Echinochloa waLteri ELatine minima ELatine triandra ELeacharis haLophila EriocauLon parkeri Isoetes riparia Juncus acuminatUs Justicia americana Lemna trisuLca Lilaeopsis caroLinensis LiLaeopsis chinensis. Lobetia elongata NeLumbo Lutea Nuphar Luteum ssp. sagittifoLium Physostegia purpurea SaccioLepis striata Sagittaria caLycina v. spongiosa Sagittaria rigida Sagittaria subuLata Scirpus acutus Sparganium eurycarpum SpirodeLLa polyrhiza WolfieLLa gladiata Zizania aquatica 21 Appendix P4 ConclitionaL character-species of otigotrophic sernipermanentLy fLooded cLasses SHADE TOLERANT MODERATELY SHADE TOLERANT SHADE INTOLERANT Itea virginica Carex comosa Bidens taevis Taxodium Distichun Hottonia infLata Brasenia schreberi HydrocotyLe umbeLLata Carex canescens Hydrocotyle verticiLLata DuLichium arunclinaceum OrontiLmn aquaticun ELeocharis equisetoides ELeocharis quadranguLata ELeocharis robbinsii EriocauLon septnguLare Glycerla acutifLora Gtyceria septentrionatis Isoetes engeLmannii Panicum hemitomon Polygonum amphibium Polygonum hydropiperoides Sagittaria graminea Scirpus ancistrochaetus Scirpus subterminaLis Scirpus tabernaemontanii Scirpus torreyi 22 Appendix P5 Conditional character-species of eutrophic seasonally flooded classes SHADE TOLERANT MODERATELY SHADE TOLERANT SHADE INTOLERANT Arisaema dracontium Carex gigantea Axonopus furcatus Carex crus-coryi Hibiscus moscheutos Cyperus erythrorhizos Carex frankii Justicia ovata v. tanceoLata Cyperus filicinus Carex grayi Penthorm sedoides Cyperus strigosus Carex oxytepis Salix caroLiniana EcLipta aLba Carex squarrosa SaLix nigra Eragrostis frankii Carex typhina Eragrostis hypnoides Carya aquatica Glyceria grandis Commelina virginica Juncus torreyi Cornus foemina Lippia Lanceolata Mimulus aLatus Phalaris arundinacea Poputus heterophyLLa Rorippa paLustris Quercus bicoLor Scirpus atrovirens Quercus lyrata Scirpus fluviatiLis Saururus cernuus, Scirpus pendutus Scirpus divaricatus 23 Appendix P6 Conditional character-species of otigotrophic seasonally flooded classes SHADE TOLERANT MODERATELY SHADE TOLERANT SHADE INTOLERANT Carex crinita Carex gtaucescens Bottonia asteroides Carex Louisianica Carex joori CaLamagrostis canadensis Carex lupuLina Carex waLteriana Carex alboLutescens Cinna arundinacea Glyceria melicaria Carex barrattii Cornus; amomun Iris virginica Cyperus dentatus uercus paLustris Juncus. effusus Drosera intermedia Scirpus cyperinus Eleocharis baldwinii ELeocharis flavescens Eteocharis melanocarpa Eleocharis tricostata Eteocharis, tuberculosa Erigeron vernus; Eupatorium Leucotepis Eupatorium recurvans Fimbristy(is annua Fimbristylis autumnalis Fuirena pumiLa GLyceria canadensis v. laxa HeLenium virginicum Juncus brevicaudatus Juncus caesariensis, Juncus canadensis Juncus repens Juncus scirpoides LachnocauLan anceps Lindernia anagaLLidea Lipocarpha macuLata LobeLia puberuLa Ludwigia brevipes Ludwigia sphaerocarpa Lysimachia hybrida Panicum rigidutum Proserpinaca patustris Proserpinaca pectinata Pycnanthemum fLexuosum Rhynchospora caduca Rhynchospora cephalantha Rhynchospora corniculata Rhynchospora macrostachya Scirpus purshianus 24 0 Appendix P7 Conditionat character-species of the submergent/fLoating-leaved cLass Cabomba caroLiniana Catlitriche heterophyLLa Ceratophyllum demersun CeratophyLLum muricatLan Eodea canadensis ELodea nuttaLLii Heteranthera dubia MyriophyLLum heterophyLum MyriophyLLum humiLe MyriophyLlum spicatum Najas fLexilis Najas graciLLima Najas guadaLupensis Nymphoides auatica Podostemon ceratophylun Potamogeton crispus Potamogeton diversifoLius Potamogeton epihydrus Potamogeton foLiosus Potamogeton foLinoensis otamogeton nodosus Potamogeton oakesianus Potamogeton pectinatus Potamogeton perfoLiatus Potamogeton puLcher Ptamogeton pusiLLus Potamogeton spiriLus Potamogeton tennesseensis Potamogeton zosteriformis UtrcuLaria biflora UtricuLaria fibrosa UtrcuLaria infLata UtricuLaria purpurea, UtricuLaria radiata UtricuLaria vuLgaris VaLLisneria americana ZannichelLia palustris 25 DATE DUE @@AYLORDIN.. 2333 1111111111 @111001111 3 6668 14107 224