ATTACHMENT 1 - Location Maps.pdf

Helping People Help the Land

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Field 1

Field 2

Site 1 (Chester County) This site contains small small, isolated, and fairly scattered habitat areas across the enrolled acres. As a result, there isn’t a single “main” area that considered as prime habitat. This makes managing the area for turtle habitat very difficult, because the upland pockets with woody vegetation are interspersed among the potential turtle habitat. Unlike other sites where the core habitats are larger and more contiguous, where the hydrology itself helps prevent encroachment, this site has very high potential for encroachment.

Site 1 conditions:

The easement occupies the bottom of a relatively small watershed and borders a small creek on its southern boundary. Hydrology and muck soils are apparently decreasing across much of the easement, resulting in many of the eased acres showing upland characteristics and vegetation. The cause of decreasing hydrology is not known at this time.

The field-specific descriptions below will make more sense with reference to the aerial photo of the site.

Field 1 is dominated by upland conditions and has become heavily infested with invasive Callery pear trees. Those pear trees range in size from 1 – 4” diameter and make up virtually 100% of the new woody growth in Field 1. Callery pears cover at least 6 acres out of the 18 acres in Field 1 and show as the dark green shrubby growth in the aerial photo.

In addition, there is a 20’-wide path being mowed NE to SW across Field 1, to provide access to a steam along the southwest edge of Field 1. The path is mowed to about 8” high and being located on high ground has no effect on wetlands. Based on aerial photos, it appears this path is perennial; and on occasion, a second path along the eastern edge of Field 1 was also mowed.

Field 2 historically contained a cattail-dominated wetland that was the main location of bug turtle habitat, but that area has shrunk considerably. The rest of Field 2 appeared to be as dominated by woody vegetation as it has been in the past, with very little change in plant communities. There is a small patch of herbaceous wetland in the northeastern extension of Field 2 (immediately W of the Field 3 label in the aerial photo), which is probably the best location for turtle habitat that I saw. There is some woody plant encroachment in that specific wetland, but not massive amounts.

Field 3 is upland horse pasture, originally enrolled as foraging and basking area for turtles. It would be surprising if turtles ever venture into Field 3: as horse pasture with short vegetation, any turtles there would be exposed and vulnerable. The fence between Field 3 and Field 2 is still in place and has been well-maintained. There were no signs of erosion or nutrients leaving Field 3 to affect any portion of Field 2.

A new house and yard have been established (indicated by yellow arrow) between Field 3 and the easement in the woods to the S of that new house.

Site 1 management recommendations:

Treatment of woody encroachment is the only action needed.

Treatments should focus on immediate control of the Callery pear in Field 1, to prevent further spread both within Field 1 and into adjacent areas. Treatment could include mechanical removal (via a masticator mounted on a skid-loader or similar small equipment), or a purely chemical approach.

Combining the two would be best, doing a mechanical removal followed by chemical treatment of any re- growth.

Additional, very small-scale treatments of new shrubs and trees should be done in the herbaceous wetland in the eastern tip of Field 2. This area had trees killed by EZ-ject before, and this is recommended again.

Site 2 (Monroe County) The easement enrolled a large section of the Cherry Valley stream corridor and abuts the western end of another WRP easement.

The NRCS Biologist site visit was confined to the core wetlands and southern parts of the easement; the northern forested acres adjacent to the northern Road were unreachable because due to access issues on the day of the field visit (site conditions very wet). As a result, NRCS had to make assumptions on management recommendations for the northern portion of the easement based on what could be seen from the northern road, which wasn’t much.

Site 2 conditions:

The easement consists of three main zones, with a distinct plant community occupying each of those zones. Imagine looking at a cross-section of a bowl with the BT habitat in the bottom/center to get a good idea of how things are situated.

The upland portions of the easement represent the upper/outer part of the bowl and are typically high and dry. Unfortunately, these acres are dominated by some large and thick Japanese barberry thickets;

barberry bushes were consistently more than 6’ high and at least 6’ around, and they were thick enough to be mostly impassable on foot. In addition, there were isolated wetland pockets and meandering streams in the southern portion of the easement, which would make access with equipment difficult.

These barberry thickets had little or no value as wildlife habitat, and even deer paths through them were rare. Bird use was minimal, even by shrub-nesters—because the dense nature of the vegetation made flight extremely difficult.

Interspersed among the barberry thickets were small “islands” of mature hemlock trees, under which the barberries didn’t grow. (See photo at right.) However, these spots were rare, relatively small, and isolated enough to provide no real habitat value on their own, because the surrounding barberry has such an overwhelming effect on the plant community.

Elsewhere in this zone, there was little or no native regeneration and no understory or mid-level canopy.

The mid-slope portions of the easement, representing the middle section of the bowl-shaped easement, were typically transition zones from upland to wetland. The ground here was flatter and slightly rocky, but could be crossed pretty easily either on foot or with equipment.

Unfortunately, much of the mid-slope acreage was dominated by hay-scented fern. Closer to the wetland (center) portion of the easement, there was interspersed skunk cabbage and small hardwood seedlings, but the plant community was still dominated by ferns. There was no understory or mid-level canopy in this area.

The wetland/turtle habitat portions of the easement, forming the bottom of the imaginary bowl, are extremely wet. There were many pockets of muck soils which were easily more than 24” deep. Crossing the wetlands on foot was very difficult and even somewhat dangerous (especially alone), and operating machinery in the wetlands would be impossible—even if the surface was frozen.

But because of the hydrology and muck soils, these acres are some of the best bog turtle habitat in the area. The plant community is dominated by skunk cabbage, sedges, rushes, and native wetland ferns over large areas.

Understory and overstory plants are scattered and don’t seem to be casting too much shade on the wetland areas. Canopy density is likely maintained by the hydrology and soils themselves:

New canopy openings are being constantly made because trees fall over so regularly. On this site, hydrology and soils are naturally preventing encroachment by woody plants.

Site 2 management recommendations:

Since the wetland portions of the easement are essentially maintaining themselves, NRCS efforts should focus on the mid-slope and upland acres of this easement. Maintenance should focus on the control of Japanese barberry and hay-scented fern wherever they occur on this site. A rough estimate of maintenance amount is ~35 acres. It may be possible to access the south side of the easement with machinery IF the landowner to the immediate south of the WRP easement will grant access along the wooded edge of the adjacent cropfield. If no machine access is possible, the southern ~15 acres will have to be treated by hand. Field 2 may make up about 20 acres of possible treatment, possibly less depending on varying site conditions, and will probably need to be treated by hand. (Again, these recommendations for Field 2 are my best guess based on observations from Faulstick Road.)

If possible, the southern barberry population should be mowed or cut in the first year of treatment, to make follow-up treatments easier and more effective. In the following year, treat all affected mid-slope and upland acres with appropriate herbicides for fern and barberry.

Site 2 Summary:

April – July of either 2021 or 2022: mow/cut ~10 acres(?) of Japanese barberry in southern spur of Field 1. Herbicide treatments are not necessary at this time.

April – July of either 2022 or 2023: treat all acres (~35 ac?) affected by Japanese barberry and hay-scented fern with appropriate herbicide(s). Presence and density of both species is not completely known for Field 2, as access was significantly limited during the site visit. For treatment of Field 2, contractor should pre-arrange for parking along the northern road.

Much of the work in both years will have to be done by hand, and that it will not be an easy— or quick—task.

Site 2 Map

Site 3 (Berks County) On this site, much of the original habitat remains in good condition.

Site 3 conditions:

The easement occupies the floodplains of XXXX Run and one of its tributaries. The wetlands appear to be fed by side-flow/ground saturation from the streams, so good hydrology is present and presumably ongoing. The easement and surrounding area host a wide variety and amount of wildlife, from songbirds to raptors to mammals. Many species were observed onsite.

Field 1 is dominated by herbaceous wetland conditions that seem favorable to turtles. Very little appears to have changed in this field, with little to no woody encroachment. No maintenance is needed here for now.

Field 2 is a narrow, wooded valley containing long, narrow wetlands along the tributary to XXXX Run.

This valley has a slightly steeper slope than the valley in Field 1, which limits the horizontal width of wetlands to ~70 – 100 feet.

There are skunk cabbage and sedge areas scattered throughout this valley; however, woody plant encroachment has occurred (photo at right) and is shading the valley. Maintenance here should focus on EZ-jecting at least 75% of the shrubs here and 100% of the trees. The treatment area would be approximately 75’ wide x 700’ long (1.2 acres); the 700’ measurement would begin about 50’ off the NW easement boundary and extend 700’ downstream.

Field 3 was mostly upland forest.

The only other maintenance to consider is the visibility of the easement boundary signs. Signs were present, but often covered by vines and other perennial plants which made them difficult to locate. In the photo at left, plants were cleared around the sign before the picture was taken. Herbicide applications around the boundary signs would greatly improve their visibility and probably reduce future maintenance work on the same signs.

For this, backpack spraying with a systemic broad-spectrum herbicide or a strong systemic broad-leaf herbicide is recommended.

Site 3 management recommendations:

Treatment of woody encroachment in Field 2 is the main action needed. EZ-ject treatment of 75% or more of the shrubs and 100% of the trees in 1.2 acres of Field 2 should be done in Spring 2022, to greatly reduce the canopy coverage over the streamside wetlands in that area. Trees within 50’ of the western boundary of the easement should NOT be killed, to prevent them from falling onto the neighbor’s driveway after they die. Mechanical manipulation of woody vegetation in this area isn’t recommended because machinery in the wetland would probably cause significant changes to hydrology and flow patterns.

If possible, the vegetation around boundary signs along XXX Rd and XXX Rd should be controlled to increase visibility and prolong effectiveness.

Site 3 Map

Site 4 (York County)

Site 4 conditions:

The easement occurs in a very wet valley and is crossed by unused railroad tracks which separate Field 1 from Field 3. The easement abuts the XXXXXXXX Creek to the south and XXXXXX Road to the north.

East and west edges adjoin private properties. Boundary markers were present and very visible.

The easement contains a large amount—nearly 13 acres—of wetland habitat. While not all wetland acres appeared to be potential bog turtle habitat, the turtle habitat could be maximized with some vegetation management. The wetlands contain skunk cabbage, blue flag irises, jewelweed and various other herbaceous plants;

there are also reed-canary grass and alders present. Alders are scattered across roughly 5 acres of Field 1 and roughly 3 acres of Field 3.

Many of the alders were previously treated (October 2016) but have regrown, mostly from stump sprouts. Photo at left shows comparison of herbaceous vs shrubby wetlands.

The easement also contains 7.4 acres of upland forest in Field 2, which is located between XXXXXXX Road and the wetlands in Field 1. These forested acres buffer the wetlands but provide very little value for any bog turtles present, due to their shading and steepness. However, as part of the easement, their management is still necessary.

Mile-a-minute vine and Japanese stiltgrass dominate the understory of the forested areas, to the exclusion of virtually everything else. Control of those invasives, while not easy from a physical labor standpoint, is needed to encourage the regrowth of more desirable herbaceous and woody plants. Once the invasive species are controlled, management of the forest overstory should be considered. Manipulation to create a more uneven-aged stand would greatly improve the habitat value of the forests, and would visually block the easement from Old Forge Road.

Site 4 management recommendations:

Remove all woody shrubs in the wetlands to improve sun exposure and encourage conditions that favor bog turtles. All alders and other shrubs should be controlled, probably with a cut-stump treatment or basal bark spray treatment; estimated amounts of treatment are 5 acres of Field 1 and 3 acres of Field 3.

Treatment of all woody shrubs is needed because subsequent regrowth is very likely. Leaving 10% or 20% of the existing shrubs in place (As was done in the past to preserve turtle hibernation sites) will only increase the rate at which the wetland becomes overrun again. Inevitable regrowth of some shrubs will quickly provide hibernation sites being used by bog turtles.

Removal of all foreign objects (barrels, etc.) from Field 1 would also greatly benefit turtles by removing refugia for possible nest predators.

Control herbaceous invasives in the forest understory of Field 7. Backpack spraying with systemic burn-down herbicides AND pre-emergent chemicals is needed, and possibly two years of treatments covering the entire acreage. The contracting process should consider the difficulty of this activity because this field will be difficult and time-consuming to treat.

Site 4 Map

Site 5 (Lancaster County)

Site 5 conditions:

This easement is primarily a corridor, rather than bog turtle habitat. It was mostly a heavily forested stream corridor that contained one small area of herbaceous wetland in the southwest corner of Field 2. Unfortunately, that herbaceous wetland was dominated by reed canary grass, similar to the photo at right, but with dense forest around it.

The forested riparian corridor was shaded by dense mature trees, with significant amounts of invasive shrubs (mostly autumn olive) present along all edges of Field 1. Field 2, with less edges exposed to sunlight, had less invasive plants than Field 1.

Site 5 management recommendations:

Because this site appears to be functioning as a corridor, rather than stand-alone habitat, management recommendations focus on maintaining that connectivity rather than trying to establish turtle nesting or hibernating habitat.

The small wetland should probably be left as-is, as there would probably be little benefit gained from trying to control the reed canary grass and establish another type of herbaceous vegetation. Given the difficulty of controlling and replacing reed canary grass, only the simultaneous management of the adjacent property to the west for herbaceous cover would create enough potential habitat to warrant work on this small spot.

Instead, maintenance efforts should focus on invasive shrub control throughout the riparian corridor, focusing on Field 1 but including Field 2 as needed. Cut-stump or basal bark treatments are recommended, since autumn olives can be fairly resilient. A second treatment in the following year may be needed but could feasibly have half the original acreage contracted.

Site 5 Map