back to Planning and Zoning Department page

Funding for this project was provided by the Town of Hanover, the Hanover Conservation Council, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Silvio O. Conte Wildlife Refuge

Acknowledgements

Executive Summary
Overview
Project Goals
Scope and Methods
Limitations
Findings
Field Visits
Rare Plants and Natural Communities
Hanover Overview

Introduction

Methods
Field Site Selection
Field Work

Limitations
Ecological Surveys
Field Sites
Rare Species

Results and Discussion
Landscape and Human Population Context
Neighboring Towns
Rare Plants and Exemplary Natural Communities
Field Inventories
Forests and Wetlands
Current Conservation Lands

Map Descriptions
Hanover Base Map
Hanover Tax Map
Topographic Relief
Hydrologic Features
Composite Field Mapv Forest Blocks
Forest Cover
Regional Forest Blocks
Hanover Forest Blocks with Road Buffer

Site Descriptions
Moose Mountain Site
Moose Mountain
Pressey Brook
Scales Brook
Straw Brook
Central Hanover Site
Water Works Company Lands-West
Velvet Rocks
Lord's Hill

Other Important Forest Blocks
Bottomless Pit and Mink Brook
Mink Brook Watershed
Huntington Hill
Connecticut Riverbank

Honorable mention
Appalachian Trail-Central
Ferson Road-South
Hayes Hill
Blueberry Hill

Next Steps

Literature Cited

List of Figures / Maps
Hanover Base Map, Natural Communities and Rare Plants, Figure 1
Hanover Tax Map, Natural Communities and Rare Plants, Figure 2
Topographic Relief, Natural Communities and Rare Plants, Figure 3
Hydrologic Features, Natural Communities and Rare Plants, Figure 4
Composite Field Map, Natural Communities and Rare Plants, Figure 5
Figure 6. Forest Blocks, Natural Communities and Rare Plants, Figure 6
Forest Cover, Natural Communities and Rare Plants, Figure 7
Regional Forest Blocks, Natural Communities and Rare Plants, Figure 8
Hanover Forest Blocks with Road Buffer, Natural Communities and Rare Plants, Figure 9

List of Tables
Table 1. Conservation lands, acreage, protected acreage and
total acreage per person for fourteen towns surrounding Hanover.

Appendices (Available in print editions at Town Hall and Howe Library)
Appendix 1. List of rare plants, animals, and natural communities,
Hanover, New Hampshire, and state rarity rank explanations.
Appendix 2. Selected photographs from 1999 field inventories,
Hanover New Hampshire.
Appendix 3. Natural Communities in Hanover, New Hampshire.
Appendix 4. Copies of 1999 field forms with topographic field maps.
Appendix 5. Maps of locations of rare plants and natural communities
on and off conservation lands, New Hampshire.
Bedrockand Soils Maps, Natural Communities and Rare Plants, Appendix 6

Thanks to the Town of Hanover's Biodiversity Inventory Committee for contracting for this report. In particular, Shawn M. Donovan provided guidance and support throughout the project. Thanks to Richard Lewin for providing the initial contacts between The Nature Conservancy and Hanover's Biodiversity Inventory Committee. At Dartmouth professors David Peart, and Richard Holmes, and also Craig Lane and Patrick Doran, provided insight and information about potential field sites. Thanks to Jim Stone, Terry Jillson, and Jack Nelson at the Hanover Waterworks Company for permission to visit the protected reservoir lands. Thanks to Jonathan Edwards and Vicki Smith of the Hanover Planning and Zoning Office for assisting with mapping and landowner contacts. Editorial comments by Shawn M. Donovan and David Peart helped tremendously in shaping the final draft of this report. This project was supported with funds from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Town of Hanover, and the Hanover Conservation Council.

Field work for this project was conducted by Mike Stevens, Douglas Bechtel, and Susan Young.

Overview

The Town of Hanover has an opportunity to maintain a healthy and diverse natural environment within the town boundaries, into the indefinite future. This opportunity is unusual, even in New England, where the rate of loss and deterioration of biological diversity is slower than in many other regions of the nation and the world. The unusual potential in Hanover is due to a fortunate combination of:
 the Town's rich natural endowment;
 the current, generally healthy status of its natural resources and biodiversity; and
 the commitment of the citizens of the Town to sustaining the high quality of its natural environment.

Project Goals

The goal of this project was to provide a preliminary report on the status of the rare plant populations and natural communities of the town of Hanover. The purpose of the report is fourfold:

1. to serve as a starting point for the accumulation of a more detailed inventory of habitats and biodiversity;
2. to collect information on species and communities;
3. to provide information useful for conservation planning; and
4. to enhance knowledge and appreciation of Hanover's rich natural endowment.

Scope and methods

This report documents field and existing map information for not only the Town of Hanover, but also for neighboring towns in order to place Hanover in context within the immediate region.

 We integrated data from existing maps (paper and digital) and published land-use and demographic data to generate descriptions of broad (landscape-scale) features for the 15 largest identifiable "blocks" in the town, using GIS analysis.
 Local expertise, map analysis, and aerial photos helped us to identify examples of sites with potential for high conservation value.
 We visited these 18 sites in the summer of 1999, and conducted field work at a total of 63 observation points within them; at those points we documented natural community types and occurrences of rare plants. We used standard, up-to-date methods and classifications that allow direct comparison with statewide surveys of natural communities and biodiversity.
 We hope that our report will provide an organizing framework and a starting point for the development of more complete documentation. Detailed information on rare species and exemplary natural communities is already available for some locations, and future surveys will yield more.

Limitations

Most local variation in species composition and habitat cannot be documented in the landscape-scale mapping. More detailed information was obtained at the local observation points (OPs). However, it is important to emphasize that while the observation points identified in this report may be well chosen examples of rich or unusual sites, they are far from an exhaustive list, which could be obtained only by a comprehensive ground survey of town lands. Rare plant species that flower at times other than our survey dates (e.g. in spring) were likely missed in our survey. In fact, there has not been a comprehensive search of the state for rare species or natural communities. The New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory, the state agency responsible for tracking such information, is frequently finding or learning about previously unknown populations (NHNHI 1999).

We restricted our surveys at each observation point to a broad description of natural community types (generally based on dominant forest species) and observations of rare plant species that could be identified at the time we visited each site. We do not include information on vertebrates (mammals, birds, fish, amphibians and reptiles), insects, mollusks or other invertebrate animals, nor on mushrooms or other fungi. Finally, we did not sample any aquatic habitats (rivers, streams and lakes), or the diverse habitats near the Connecticut River.

Findings

Field Visits
During the 1999 field season, we conducted field work at 18 distinct sites and collected ecological information, using New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory (NHNHI) methodology, at 63 sampling sites ("observation points" or OPs). Our goal was to sample conservation lands (lands under some form of protection), as well as "unprotected" private lands; we sampled 29 observation points on conservation land and 44 OPs outside conservation lands.

Rare Plants and Natural Communities
The NHNHI database currently has eight entries for rare plant species or exemplary natural communities recorded in Hanover since 1979. Natural communities are defined by three attributes:
1. definite plant species composition,
2. a consistent physical structure (grassland, forest, shrubland, etc.),
3. and specific set of physical conditions (nutrients, water regime, climate, etc.).

An "exemplary" natural community is one deemed to be of significantly high quality and particularly representative of its type (NHNHI 1997).

Forty-four additional records are currently considered "state historical," meaning their presence has not been noted in Hanover in the last 20 years; these records date from between 1876 and 1965. We confirmed the presence of four rare plant populations, and three exemplary natural communities. We did not find any previously unrecorded rare plants or exemplary natural communities during our 1999 field work.

Hanover Overview

There is already an abundance of statistical information about Hanover's natural features. The following information was collected from the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory, New Hampshire's Office of State Planning, U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps, and various GIS data layer maps from University of New Hampshire's Complex Systems Research Center.

Hanover has:
 Rare plants and exemplary natural communities
· 8 Rarities recorded since 1979; a total of 52 records since 1876

 High elevation mountain tops and ridgelines and river valleys
· Moose Mountain rises to above 2300' (700 meters)
· The Connecticut River flows approximately 390' (120 meters) above sea level

 Clean rivers, streams, lakes, bogs, swamps, and other wetlands
· Mink, Coleman, Camp, Slade, and Pete's Brooks flow into the Connecticut River
· Scales, Lovejoy, Pressey, Straw and Marshall Brooks flow south and east into Canaan
· Countless streamside floodplains, marshes, shrub swamps accompany these brooks
· The forested peatland at "Bottomless Pit" is famous statewide as a study area for wetland ecologists

 Large tracts of unbroken "matrix" forest
· Moose Mountain and lands east of Three Mile Road have been identified as part of a Nature Conservancy high priority forest block for the Lower New England Ecoregion
· Lands surrounding Hanover Waterworks, Lord's Hill, Velvet Rocks, and Scales Brook lie within forest blocks between 1,000 and 2,500 acres in size

 High quality wetlands and wildlife habitat
· Mink, Pressey, Scales, and Lovejoy Brooks all have significant, high quality wetlands that provide habitat for waterfowl, moose, bear, mink, otter, and other important wildlife

 Agricultural and timber resources
· Lands east of Moose Mountain, Huntington Hill, and other large forested areas provide opportunities for long-term, sustainable forestry
· High quality agricultural land occurs along the Connecticut River
· Central Hanover is dotted with farm-fields, pastures, and wood-lots

 Abundant recreational opportunities in natural settings
· The Appalachian Trail bisects the town on its way to the White Mountain National Forest
· Abundant wildlife provide ample hunting opportunities
· Other town and informal trail networks are plentiful throughout the entire town

 Sweeping natural and pastoral views
· Ridgelines and roadsides overlook all compass points; to the Green Mountains in Vermont and the White Mountains in New Hampshire
· The Connecticut River Valley provides some of the most beautiful pastoral views in New England during all seasons

 A relatively high percentage of protected land within a 14-town region
· Nearly 20 per cent of Hanover's lands are under some form of conservation protection or current use status, primarily through town and privately protected lands

 Opportunities to expand protection of natural features
· Strategies to connect and expand current conservation lands, and to protect new areas that have important natural features, are both feasible in Hanover

Hanover is a special place. It sits nearly in the center of New Hampshire's stretch of the Connecticut River:

 it hosts one of the nation's best universities;
 it sits at the crossroads of major north-south and east-west interstate highways;
 it is a major rest-stop for hikers of the Appalachian Trail;
 it has forests and fields, wildlife habitat, and rare wetlands;
 it has wilderness.

In short, Hanover exemplifies the best New Hampshire has to offer to its residents and visitors. The balance of human culture and natural landscapes in Hanover provides a model for other towns in our state, and in New England.

In order to protect and enhance that balance, careful thought must be given to how Hanover's lands are managed, now and in the future. This report provides information and context to help guide land protection decisions. We hope it will promote understanding Hanover's natural features.

The goal of this project was to provide a preliminary report on the status of rare plant populations and natural communities in the Town of Hanover. Our hope was to initiate the collection of information for informed land conservation decision-making at the town level.

Staff of the New Hampshire Chapter of The Nature Conservancy collected up to date ecological and mapping data of Hanover's natural features. By combining field work to update biodiversity information, with Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping, TNC hopes to provide both the scientific justification and the visual tools (i.e. maps) to assist planners in making good decisions when adding to Hanover's already solid conservation lands base. Such landscape-scale information should facilitate further surveys and inventories of specific areas to add to the sample of observation points visited in 1999.

Field Site Selection

During the early and mid-summer, 1999, staff of the New Hampshire chapter of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) met with the town residents, town officials, Dartmouth faculty members, and other local experts to prioritize sites for field work within the town. After combining map features with a review of available database information and aerial photographs, field work was focused in those areas most likely to contain significant natural features. Choice of field sites was based on:

 local expertise:
· areas known to be significant from a biodiversity stand-point;
· current "conservation" lands (see below);
· unfragmented forest blocks

 known presence of rare species or significant habitats, based on data from the N.H. Natural Heritage Inventory database;

 topography, hydrology, forest cover types, bedrock, soils, regional contiguous forest "blocks," and landscape diversity, based on review of mapping resources;

 wetlands outlined on National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps;

 other lands thought to have a high potential for the presence of significant natural features, and lands deemed representative of common natural communities and forest types

Field Work

During the 1999 summer growing season, we conducted field visits to selected sites (see above). These were on lands for which we had permission to enter, or lands that were currently open to the public for recreation and nature study. More than thirty private landowners were contacted in writing by the Town of Hanover for permission to visit their land and conduct inventory. None refused access to The Nature Conservancy. We utilized field methods developed by TNC and the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory (NHNHI). In order to describe the dominant natural communities at an observation point or site, we recorded:

 all vascular plant species, with estimates of percent cover
 slope
 aspect
 presence of exposed bedrock
 general soil and hydrologic descriptions
 other descriptive data.

We recorded all information on NHNHI field forms (Appendix 4), and we took photographs at most observation points (Appendix 2).

In addition to field work, we collected a variety of Geographic Information System (GIS) digital mapping information to produce and analyze maps of Hanover. In order to provide a perspective on the regional landscape context, we produced maps of thirteen additional neighboring towns in New Hampshire.

Information compiled included development trends, population statistics, protected lands, and projected loss of natural areas. We compared Hanover's statistics with thirteen neighboring towns in New Hampshire in order to place Hanover within a regional perspective. The towns selected represent a two-town buffer in every direction (except west-Vermont statistics and maps were not available). They include Orford, Wentworth, Rumney, Lyme, Dorchester, Groton, Canaan, Orange, Lebanon, Enfield, Grafton, Plainfield, and Grantham. The source of information for most population and landscape development trends came from New Hampshire's Changing Landscape; Population Growth, Land Use Conversion, and Resource Fragmentation in the Granite State (1999), a report co-produced by the New Hampshire chapter of The Nature Conservancy, and the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire's Forests. A copy is provided with this report.

Ecological surveys

This project does not document all components of biological diversity in Hanover. Rather, we visited representative sites, consulted maps and aerial photography and incorporated as much current information to make informed determinations of lands that could not be visited within the scope of the project. For instance, the observation points on Moose Mountain are not meant to represent or describe a specific spot, rather they may describe the broad forest condition over a large area on the mountain. In addition, the observation points at Pressey Brook may do a good job describing similar kinds of wetlands on the eastern side of Hanover, but should not be considered exhaustive. In all cases, we documented conditions at a certain place at a certain time, and re-visits to ecosystems may yield slightly different results.

Field sites

While the field sites included in this report probably represent the variety of uplands and wetlands throughout the town, it is likely that unique and significant areas exist that were not visited within the scope of the project. This report should be used as a starting point for future work at other sites to confirm or expand the information reported here.

We focused our attention on plants and natural communities in uplands and wetlands. We did not study aquatic habitats, and we made no attempt to document wildlife, non-vascular plants, or fungi.

Rare species

Rare species that we found were not at new locations, rather we confirmed known populations that were previously documented. There is a reasonable potential for finding more rare species in appropriate habitats in Hanover. In addition, due to the timing of our surveys (mid-summer through mid-fall), it is likely that we missed many plants due to variations in flowering time and other life-cycle differences.

Landscape and Human Population Context

The following is a list of statistics that describes Hanover's changing conservation status in New Hampshire. These were compiled for every town in New Hampshire's Changing Landscape; Population Growth, Land Use Conversion, and Resource Fragmentation in the Granite State (1999).

 50 square miles, 32,087 acres
· 638 acres of wetlands
· 117 acres of EPA high value wetlands (26.5 acres of which are under protection)

 1998 population = 9,636
· 54% increase since 1950
· projected population in 2020 = 10,303 (6.9% increase)

 184 people / mi2 (1998); 209 / mi2 projected in 2020

 3.3 acres / person (1998); 3.1 acres / person projected in 2020

 6,154 acres protected in 1998 (19.6% of town, with 0.65 acres protected / person)

 467.2 acres of water supply lands in Hanover

 26,412 acres of forest (84% of Hanover)
· 13,755 acres deciduous forests (43% of town)
· 8,073 acres coniferous forests (25% of town)
· 4,247 acres mixed deciduous/coniferous forests (13% of town)
· The remainder is small or fragmented blocks of forest (3% of town)

 16 contiguous forests blocks in town are greater than 500 acres

 Average forest block size is 606.5 acres

 Predicted loss of forest land by 2020 is 425.7 acres

Neighboring Towns

The thirteen neighboring towns in New Hampshire show two distinct trends in the amount of land and the amount of protected acreage per person (Table 1). Both are influenced by the landscape. The first trend is in population. In general, more people live in the southern and western towns around Hanover. Lebanon, Hanover, Enfield, and Canaan have the fewest acres per person, (i.e. the greatest population density). These towns have smaller forest blocks, have more developed land, and more fragmented landscapes. Towns to the east and north have many more acres per person, larger tracts of unbroken forest, and generally higher, more rugged topography.

The second trend is in protected lands. Six of the 14 towns have less than ten percent of their lands under some form of protection (Table 1). All but two towns (Rumney and Orange) have between 10 and 20% protected lands. While Hanover has one of the lowest number of acres per person (meaning high population density), it has nearly 20% of its land base under some form of conservation protection. Hanover stands out in this regard. While Enfield has a similar pattern of population and protected land, much of their land protection is at one site, the Fish and Game Enfield Wildlife Management Area. Overall, towns in this area have low population density and a relatively low percent of protected land, compared to Hanover.

Although the protected area per person in Hanover (0.65 acres) is relatively small (ranking 12th of the 14 towns), Hanover's land conservation record is strengthened by the multiple management strategies and ownerships that make up their conservation lands. The Appalachian Trail (~2,252 acres) and the Hanover Water Works (~1,472 ac) are the largest protected lands, but Goodwin Forest (~505 ac), Huntington Hill (~471 ac), Oak Hill (~254 ac), and the Dana Property (~248 ac), and a variety of other conservation easements add to the diversity and extent of protected land.

Table 1. Conservation lands, acreage, protected acreage and total acreage per person for fourteen towns surrounding Hanover (Sundquist and Stevens 1999).

Town	Total Acres	Conservation land acreage (%)	Protected acres/person	Acres/person 198/2020 projected
Hanover	32,087	6,154 (19.6)	0.65	3.3 / 3.1
Orford	30,577	2,352 (7.9)	2.26	29.4 / 26.2
Lyme	35,216	6,053 (17.6)	3.94	22.8 / 20.6
Wentworth	26,964	4,502 (16.8)	6.78	40.6 / 36.2
Dorchester	28,890	3,527 (12.4)	9.09	75.0 / 62.9
Rumney	27,270	11,820 (44.0)*	8.18	18.9 / 16.5
Groton	26,085	1,903 (7.3)	5.70	76.5 / 67.5
Canaan	35,276	937 (2.7)	0.29	10.7 / 9.5
Orange	14,800	4,813 (32.6) **	19.02	57.6 / 51.2
Lebanon	26,415	1,916 (7.4)	0.15	2.1 / 1.9
Enfield	27,616	4,876 (18.8)	1.16	6.5 / 5.8
Grafton	27,139	2,112 (7.9)	2.2	27.9 / 24.9
Plainfield	33,914	2,679 (8.0)	1.2	15.4 / 13.4
Grantham	17,951	1,796 (10.3)	1.3	12.8 / 10.9

* Most of protected land in Rumney is White Mountain National Forest land
** Most of protected land in Orange is Cardigan Mountain State Forest land

Rare Plants and Exemplary Natural Communities

Rare plants are defined by the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory (NHNHI, see Appendix 1) as imperiled, either within New Hampshire, regionally, or globally. Exemplary natural communities are those ecosystem types that are either (1) rare (such as a silver maple floodplain forest), or (2) are common natural communities, but are represented in Hanover by the best examples of its type in the state (such as an old-growth spruce-fir forest). These determinations are based on years of data analysis and compiled records within the largest database of such information in the state (at NHNHI). State rarity ranks (e.g. S1, S2, etc.) are assigned based on current information on distribution and rarity of a given species or natural community. These records are kept at NHNHI (see Appendix 1).

In the Town of Hanover, there are currently fifty-two known locations of rare species and exemplary natural communities (collectively known as "element occurrences") in NHNHI's database (Appendix 1). However, of these fifty-two, only eight are currently considered viable, that is, recorded within the last 20 years. Each element occurrence is also ranked on whether its location is well documented or not, and of the eight current records, the location of only six can be considered well documented. Of these, we visited four to confirm their location and status. These included the natural communities at Bottomless Pit and Velvet Rocks, and northern waterleaf (Hydrophyllum virginianum, S2) a plant that is rare statewide (Rank S2; see Appendix 2 for rank explanations), which was present at Velvet Rocks (Appendix 1).

We also confirmed two additional rare plant occurrences that had been recorded previously; barren strawberry (Waldsteinia fragarioides, S1), last recorded near the mouth of Mink Brook in 1965; and Goldie's Fern (Dryopteris goldiana, S2), last seen at Velvet Rocks in 1939 (Appendix 1).

We re-visited currently known exemplary natural communities in Hanover as well. Bottomless Pit has exemplary occurrences of two natural communities: an acidic seepage swamp (S3), and a level bog (S2). The rich mesic forest (S1) at Velvet Rocks, along the Appalachian Trail, is also considered one of the best forests of its type in the state (Appendix 1).

During a recent field inventory of the new Mink Brook Nature Preserve, recently acquired by the Hanover Conservation Council, populations of rare northern waterleaf (Hydrophyllum virginianum, S2), and rare meadow horsetail (Equisetum pratense, S2) were also found (Alice Schori, personal communication).

Field Inventories

During the 1999 late-summer growing season (August 11 and October 18, 1999), TNC ecologists visited eighteen specific sites in Hanover, at which sixty-three observation points were recorded (Figure 1, Appendix 6). We recorded twenty-nine different natural community types, seventeen from uplands, twelve from wetlands. Copies of original field forms are in Appendix 4.

We found no new examples of exemplary natural communities, nor new populations of statewide rare plants during our 1999 field work. This may be due to the timing of field inventories and the spatially focused nature of our searches. More field work needs to be done over the growing seasons of rare species to confirm their presence or absence.

Forests and Wetlands

The forest trees and other plant species in Hanover are influenced by a number of ecological, climatic, and physical factors. Much of the Connecticut River Valley is underlain by a bedrock type-Ammonusuc Volcanics-which contributes a relatively high concentration of nutrients to the soil (Appendix 6). Soils in the Connecticut River Valley are also slightly "enriched" due their unique glacial history. As the glaciers receded to the north, large sections of the river became lakes, which allowed fine sediments (clays and silts) to drop out of suspension and provide a slightly richer soil than in other parts of New Hampshire. The high quality of the valley soils, enhanced by past flooding and siltation, is evident in the highly productive agricultural fields in the Connecticut River Valley.

This unique combination of factors that "sweetened" the soil results in a higher diversity of trees and plant species than in many other parts of the state. While most of the forest trees and herbs in Hanover are similar to forests throughout central New Hampshire, trees needing higher concentrations of nutrients (e.g. butternut, white ash, and bitternut hickory) also thrive. Common forest floor wildflowers share the ground with less common maidenhair fern, wild ginger, the rare Goldie's fern and northern waterleaf. Common spring ephemeral wildflowers such as trilliums and spring beauties are joined by the rare squirrel corn. Other rare wildflower species may still exist in Hanover, although their presence has not been recorded, in some cases, since the late 1800's. These include golden corydalis, calypso orchid, ram's-head lady's-slippers and large yellow lady's-slippers. Appendix 1 provides a full list of the current and historical records of rare plants, animals, and natural communities in Hanover.

Forests in Hanover are mixed hardwood (e.g. oak, maple, birches) and softwood (e.g. white pine, hemlock), with ample evidence of post-colonial clearing for agriculture. In other words, most or all the forests in the town are second growth. We did not record any old growth stands, but this does not preclude the possibility that pockets with older trees and old growth conditions exist in Hanover. For this study, we could only visit a small fraction of the total forested area in Hanover. Many of the natural communities in Hanover appear to be in good condition, with surrounding buffers.

The various types of wetlands in Hanover are generally in good condition. Mink Brook's watershed is lined with riverside forests, swamps, and shrub thickets. Pressey Brook and Scales Brook on the eastern edge of town are highly diverse wetland systems with high quality streamside swamps and marshes. These are surrounded by forestland that provides varying amounts of intact buffer and ample wildlife habitat. Bottomless Pit is an impressive level bog, and has provided a long-term research area for Dartmouth College ecologists. While many Hanover wetlands are in good condition, surrounding lands and buffers are not ecologically intact in all locations.

Condition and size are important attributes of wetland quality. However, the surrounding lands also determine the integrity of these ecological systems, by influencing the ecological processes that sustain them. Development and excessive (or poorly managed) logging operations within a watershed are two factors that could impact wetland quality as Hanover continues to grow.

A note about forest management:
While the removal of timber from forests may alter natural patterns and ecological processes, careful timber harvesting in appropriate areas does not necessarily reduce the biodiversity value of a particular landscape. Good Forestry in the Granite State: Recommended Voluntary Forest Management Practices for New Hampshire (NH-FSSWT 1997) presents a description of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that can help protect natural resource values in managed forests (e.g. buffers, low-impact harvest practices, utilization of principles of sustainability, etc.). While most rare species and exemplary natural communities occur in habitats with little human alteration, managed timber lands can also contain viable populations of rare species if their presence is known and understood by foresters. On the other hand, inappropriate or incompatible forestry practices (i.e. those that do not follow known BMPs) can threaten biodiversity and reduce the future productivity of forest stands.

Current Conservation Lands

One of the many Geographical Information System (GIS) data layers for the state of New Hampshire that is housed with the GRANIT database at the University of New Hampshire catalogs and displays current conservation lands. This data layer originates from mapping by the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire's Forests. These lands are currently recognized as being under some form of protection, whether formally on informally. While these data are updated regularly, the current information may not include all lands under such protected status.

Conservation status is divided into three levels of protection and one Developed Public Lands category (GRANIT 1999; Figure 1):
1. Permanent conservation land: Land protected from development through conservation easement, restrictions, or outright ownership by an organization or agency whose mission includes protecting land in perpetuity; more than 50% of the area will remain undeveloped;
2. Unofficial conservation land: Owned by an agency or organization whose mission is not conservation, but whose intent is to keep the land for conservation, water supply protection, passive recreation, or educational purposes. Not permanently protected.
3. Unprotected open space land
4. Developed public land; including land having active recreational use on more than 50% of its area, e.g. beaches and picnic areas.

Map Descriptions

This section provides a brief description of each map included in this report. It follows the sequence of maps that were developed and used to prioritize field sites. Each map provided crucial preliminary information that guided our summer 1999 field work. The sites chosen for field work, as well as additional sites within the town that have important landscape features, are described briefly in the section on site descriptions.

Hanover Base Map
Other maps in this report follow the same general format as this Base Map. Surface features that help people familiar with the town to find specific locations are presented, including major roads and trails, surface waters, and the town boundary. The Conservation Lands layer was mapped by the Society of Protection of New Hampshire Forests, and was last updated by Complex Systems Research Center (University of New Hampshire) in 1998. It includes all lands under some form of protection, ranging from active Developed Public Land to Permanent Conservation Lands. Also on the base map are the locations of 1999 Observation Points.

Hanover Tax Map
Provided by the Hanover Planning Office, this map shows the current ownership patterns. This map is projected differently than other state data layers depicted in this report, and could not be overlain with other data layers.

Topographic Relief
The top map is the National Elevation Database digital elevation model shaded relief map from the U.S. Geologic Survey. The bottom map depicts meter elevation topography lines, from a statewide hypsography (elevation) data layer, distributed by Complex Systems Research Center (UNH).

The highest elevations in Hanover, along the Moose Mountain ridgeline, contain several of the town's least common natural community types. Rocky ridgelines with spruce and fir occur there, with other plant species, though not rare statewide, are found nowhere else in Hanover (e.g. pink corydalis, Corydalis sempervirens). Moose Mountain is also the only place in Hanover with significant evidence of the January 1998 ice storm. Trees in both the heavy and light damage areas are still broken, bent, and difficult to hike through. While this storm event substantially changed the character of the forest, trees and other vegetation are already recovering. Salvage timber operations since the ice storm will also have an effect on recovering forests and wildlife patterns. It may be years until the full effect of this region-wide storm is understood.

Hydrologic Features
This composite maps shows the distribution of important hydrological features in and around Hanover. It combines both surface and groundwater features, hydric soils, ponded waters, and hydric soils. Of particular note is the diversity of hydrologic features at Pressey, Mink, and Scales/Lovejoy Brooks.

Composite Field Map
This composite map combines the features that we used to prioritize field sites. These include:

· Topography
· Aquifers
· Wetlands
· Hydric soils
· Surface waters
· Current conservation lands

Hydrologic diversity (e.g. multiple features within one wetland complex) was important in selecting sites around Mink, Pressey, Scales and Lovejoy Brooks as targets for field work. We visited Bottomless Pit due to its uniqueness in the town. Greensboro Road Wetland, and Three Mile Wetland provided good examples of the more common beaver flowage wetlands in the town.

We chose high elevation sites, occasionally with steep slopes, because they also have a tendency to support unusual natural communities and plants. The Moose Mountain ridgeline was the obvious choice, but we also visited sites with relatively high elevation and steep slopes west of Moose Mountain, including Lord's Hill, Oak Hill, and hills north of Greensboro Road.

Conservation lands that have already protected unique areas or important town land management areas also provided important field sites. The Hanover Waterworks land is managed for timber, but provides a large, unbroken swath of forest land important for wildlife, forest buffer, and maintenance of high water quality. The Appalachian Trail lands traverse some of the most beautiful and intact forest land in the town, and harbor several known locations of rare plants and exemplary natural communities. Huntington Hill, Mink Brook lands (including the Dana Property), and Bottomless Pit, although already under current protection, could serve as core areas around which more conservation lands could be added.

Forest Blocks
Large tracts of contiguous forest blocks are a current focus for protecting common, large forests that harbor both common and rare species, habitats and natural communities. These help maintain ecological processes (such as nutrient cycling and water filtration) within these common forest types that are essential for the long-term protection of biodiversity. This map uses roads to break forest tracts into large blocks that are color coded by size of the specific block. This Hanover map is a portion of a statewide forest block map produced by the University of Vermont's Spatial Analysis Laboratory (1998). While many forest blocks in Hanover are larger than 1,000 acres, none are larger than 10,000 acres, although a nearby forest block larger than 25,000 acres extends to the northeast from Hanover's extreme northeastern corner. Conservation planning at a regional level has recognized these large landscapes, and multi-town efforts to protect large forest blocks may be an effective means of conserving such extensive contiguous blocks.

Forest Cover
While producing a complete habitat map for the entire town of Hanover is beyond the scope of this project, this forest cover type map may provide a useful framwork for such an effort. This is a portion of a statewide forest cover map produced by the UVM Spatial Analysis Laboratory using Landsat TM satellite imagery from 1992-1993. It is currently fairly coarse, but it depicts deciduous, coniferous, and mixed forest cover types, and several non-forested cover types as well. These kinds of maps are growing increasingly accurate and should soon be excellent tools for habitat mapping in towns.
The information on this map combined with aerial photographs and 1999 field data (Appendix 3 and 4) would provide good base-line for additional field inventories and timber stand information.

Regional Forest Blocks
At a broader landscape scale than the town, forest blocks reflect patterns in historical population trends, which have been strongly influenced by topography. East and north of Hanover the foothills of the White Mountains provide vast tracts of forested wilderness. The southwestern corner of the White Mountain National Forest, in Rumney and Wentworth, represents a tiny corner of New Hampshire's larger central forests. South of Hanover, forests are more fragmented by higher population density and agricultural land-use patterns.

Hanover Forest Blocks with Road Buffer
It is useful to identify forest blocks at the town level, as well as the regional level, in order to provide guidance for town planning. The constraints of political boundaries are artificial with respect to natural communities and species distribution. Of course, Hanover must focus on its own lands, but it is important to keep neighboring communities in mind.

In order to assess Hanover's forest blocks, TNC used ArcView (a geographic information system-GIS-software package) to create a one hundred meter (approximately 300 feet) buffer around current roads to define contiguous blocks of land left within the roaded perimeters. (Although the scientific literature varies in its conclusions about buffer width, 100 meters is often a standard distance from roads necessary to ensure natural conditions.) While a road may encroach into a block, it actually defines a block only if the land is completely surrounded (for example, Moose Mountain Road climbs the mountain from the west, but does not bisect the entire mountain to divide it into two forest blocks).

There are 19 forest blocks greater than 250 acres, and fourteen of these serve as the basis for the following site descriptions. Due to limited information and the limitations of current field data, we felt we could not comment on five of the nineteen blocks at this time. Parcel size can help focus land management decisions on the important landscapes for recreation, timber management, protection of biodiversity, and other values.

However, size is not the only consideration. For example, rare plants near the mouth of Mink Brook do not occur in a large forest block, but their protection is desirable at the local scale in which they grow. The Mink Brook Nature Preserve and Mink Brook Wetlands Area should protect these plants. On the other hand, the Connecticut River Block may be large, but because of its linear shape, extensive edge, and narrow buffer areas it does not qualify as a high priority large forest block.

The following site descriptions (Figure 9) provide a summary of key landscape features in areas that were included in our field surveys (Appendix 3 and 4). Additional research will be needed to more fully document the biodiversity in each forest block. The following descriptions are presented in order of priority, with those we considered most ecologically significant listed first. Forest blocks less than 250 acres were generally not considered, but this does not mean they do not harbor rare species, exemplary natural communities, or other important natural features as noted above. Only those forest block less than 250 acres that were already known to contain significant features are included here.

It is important to remember that a forest block need not necessarily be the target unit for conservation activities. Rather, it should be viewed as a zone in which certain natural features exist so that planning can balance economic, social, development, and ecological priorities. Landowners who wish to learn whether their land contains rare species or exemplary natural communities should contact the N.H. Natural Heritage Inventory directly at (603) 271-3623.

Each description provides information on the following parameters:

 Forest block size
· Acreage
· Notes on block shape

 Ecological features
· List of Site Names and Observation Points from 1999 field work
· Known rare plants and/or natural communities
· Brief site description (See Appendix 3 for natural community names by observation points (OPs))
· Likely forest cover types (based on Forest Cover Map, Figure 7)
· Research needs

 Notes on feasibility of protection
· Suspected threats to biodiversity
· Potential protection strategies

Moose Mountain Site

Several large wetland complexes that drain east, together with the large forested area around Moose Mountain contribute to this area's topographic, hydrologic, and biological diversity. While the descriptions here can be taken separately, the entire suite of five blocks should be considered together as one high priority site. These five blocks include Moose Mountain (North and South), Pressey Brook, Scales Brook, and Straw Brook.

Moose Mountain
 Forest block size
· 7,436 acres
· Block is broad and irregular, stretching north-south, with considerable interior forest.
· Although functionally a single block, this appears as two blocks, separated by Old Wolfeboro Road that runs east-west near the center of the block. However, the class VI road does not functionally split the block in half. The data layer depicting roads for this area needs to be updated to reflect the Class VI status of Wolfeboro Road.

 Ecological features
· Three-Mile Road Wetland (OP 62); Moose Mountain North (OP 56-60); and Moose Mountain South (OP 1,2).
· Squirrel Corn (Dicentra canadensis, S2S3) was recorded in this forest block in 1993.
· Moose Mountain is heavily forested with deciduous, mixed and coniferous woods. Red spruce and balsam fir trees increase in prevalence with increasing elevation, but the dominant forest cover is red oak and northern hardwood species (sugar maple, beech, and yellow birch). Areas of pine and hemlock woods also exist throughout the block. This block also contains areas in Hanover most influenced by the January 1998 ice storm. Some areas on Moose Mountain have been logged in salvage operations since the ice storm.
There are relatively few wetlands in this block, with the exception of intermittent mountain streams, occasional forest seeps, and "Three-Mile Road Wetland," a series of beaver ponds with alluvial shrub thickets, open water, and shallow emergent marshy vegetation. This block also connects large unbroken tracts of forest with similar wilderness in Lyme and Canaan, and provides important habitat for some of New Hampshire's larger wildlife species, including bear, moose, bobcat, ravens, and other species.
· Research needs include further inventory of forest cover types, current timber management practices, and feasibility to expand currently protected forest tract.

 Notes on feasibility of protection
· Incompatible logging practices and development are potential threats.
· The Appalachian Trail lands provide considerable protection along the northern ridge of Moose Mountain. Connecting or expanding current conservation lands would be a good strategy in this block. Opportunities to connect currently protected land include gaps between Appalachian Trail land and the Goodwin Forest in the north; and the gap between the Dana property and the Karl Conservation Easement in the south. Protection efforts should also focus on mountain stream corridors.

Pressey Brook
 Forest block size
· 793 acres
· Trapezoid shaped; defined by town boundary; block extends into Canaan and Lyme

 Ecological features
· Pressey Brook Wetlands (OP 28-31)
· Pressey Brook's natural communities combine to create a diverse wetland complex that includes sedge meadows, graminoid marshes, alluvial shrub thickets, open flowing water and aquatic communities, and upland timber managed forest. Although timber management has reduced forest cover, the wetland complex is currently in good condition.
· Forest cover likely includes white pine, red oak and northern hardwood forest types. This area provides abundant wildlife habitat for deer, moose, bear, beaver, wetland dependent birds, and many other species.
· Forest inventory would help evaluate forest natural communities.

 Notes on feasibility of protection
· Threats to biodiversity include inappropriate forestry practices and development.
· Increasing the size of the Marshall Brook Wetlands Area would protect more wetland and wildlife habitat.

Scales Brook
 Forest block size
· 1,162 acres
· Roughly rectangular

 Ecological features
· Scales / Lovejoy Brook (OP 38,61)
· No known rare plants and/or exemplary natural communities.
· Scales Brook wetland is similar in character to Pressey Brook. Tall shrub thickets mix with open aquatic areas and graminoid and sedge marshes. The uplands of this block appear more fragmented, with more open fields and developed areas.
· Forest cover types likely include red oak and northern hardwood forests, with more pine and hemlock stands in lower elevations. Like Pressey Brook, this site provides abundant wildlife habitat.
· Forest inventory would help evaluate forest natural communities.

 Notes on feasibility of protection
· Threats to biodiversity include inappropriate forestry practices and development.
· This block currently has no known protected lands. Protection efforts should focus on the wetland complex for its wildlife habitat value, and on buffering forestlands.

Straw Brook
 Forest block size
· 616 acres
· Triangular. This block also extends into Canaan.

 Ecological features
· No inventories were conducted in 1999. No known rare species or exemplary natural communities occur in this block.
· Forests appear primarily deciduous, with mixed forests and conifers primarily associated with wetland edges. Straw Brook appears to have a fairly diverse wetland complex, likely similar to Pressey Brook, however no field inventories have been completed to date.
· Base-line field inventories are needed in this block.

 Notes on feasibility of protection
· This block currently has no known protected lands. Protection efforts should focus on the wetland complex for its wildlife habitat value, and on buffering forestlands.

Central Hanover Site

The following three large forest blocks occur near the center of the town, and although surrounded by residential housing development and open fields, represent the second priority for landscape level biodiversity protection. Much of Hanover's drinking water comes from these blocks, and several rare plant species and natural communities are known from these areas. The block names given here are Water Works Company Lands West, Lord's Hill, and Velvet Rocks.

Water Works
 Forest block size
· 2,387 acres
· Irregular and broad, with extensive interior forest space

 Ecological features
· Storrs Pond (OP 35, 36); Rinker Tract (OP 37); Oak Hill (OP 32-34); Water Works (OP 3-13).
· Arethusa (Arethusa bulbosa, S1), a rare orchid, was recorded on this block in 1893.
· This block contains a rich diversity of natural community types and topographic variation. On the western edge, the block sits on Ammonusuc Volcanics bedrock, which contributes important enriching nutrients to the soil. Forest natural communities reflect this enrichment with a relatively higher species richness than most other New Hampshire forests. Semi-rich hemlock-beech-oak-pine with ironwood in the understory stretch from the summit of Oak Hill to the Rinker Tract's towering pine and hemlocks. Signs of enriched soils include the presence of white ash and butternut trees, with maidenhair fern and foamflower in the understory. The majority of the Waterworks forests are managed for timber, and have been converted into row tree plantations. Although these forests are not "natural," some of the ecological functions for forests and wildlife habitat are likely intact.
· Research needs include working with Waterworks timber managers to understand rotation schedules and logging history.

 Notes on feasibility of protection
· Biodiversity should be encouraged as a management goal in at least some of the forests in this block. Approximately 1,922 acres of this block are already under some form of protection (nearly 80%), but this includes timber management and recreation as primary management goals. Protecting the southeastern-most corner between the Appalachian Trail and Partridge Road would broaden the Trail's corridor.
· Threats to this block include fragmentation from residential development and inappropriate timber harvesting.

Velvet Rocks
 Forest block size
· 1,422 acre
· Roughly rectangular, with high quality forest interior

 Ecological features
· Velvet Rocks (OP 14-15); Greensboro Road wetland complex (OP 16-21, 44-46)
· Three rare plants are currently known to occur in this forest block: Northern waterleaf (Hydrophyllum virginianum, S2), Goldie's fern (Dryopteris goldiana, S2), and squirrel corn (Dicentra canadensis, S2S3), all grow at Velvet Rocks along the Appalachian Trail. One exemplary natural community, a rich mesic forest (S3), also occurs at Velvet Rocks
· This forest block, by virtue of the Velvet Rocks area on the Appalachian Trail, has some of the rarest plant populations in Hanover. The forest condition is excellent along the Trail corridor, and good quality forest cover extends beyond the trail boundaries as well. Forests and wetlands south of the Trail corridor ("Greensboro Road wetland complex") also have some surprisingly high quality forests and wetlands. The Greensboro Road Slope forests, primarily semi-rich hemlock-beech-oak-pine forests, are diverse and similar in character to the Oak Hill forests. Logging activity in the past lowers their present value with respect to biodiversity, but they provide a buffer function for the Greensboro Wetland site.
The Greensboro Road wetland complex extends upslope to the north and includes high quality emergent marshes and streamside swamps. Greensboro Hill, at Observation Point 18, has hemlock-spruce-northern hardwood forest in good to excellent condition, especially on the north and west facing slopes.
· Most of this block is forested, except along the surrounding roads on the eastern and western ends, where there are considerable open fields. Mixed woods occur along wetland edges, and the steepest slopes around Velvet Rocks and Greensboro Hill are dominated by hemlock and other conifers. These forests are influenced by the steep and repetitive north-south trending ridgelines, with conifer trees growing on the steepest slopes and thinner soils.
· Velvet Rocks and wetland areas should be inventoried for rare spring ephemeral wildflowers to confirm their presence or absence.

 Notes on feasibility of protection
· Likely threats to biodiversity include continued residential development, especially along Greensboro and East Wheelock Roads.
· Broadening the current Appalachian Trail corridor, especially along wetlands and streams flowing into Mink Brook, and between Hanover Waterwork's southern boundary and the northeast corner of the block (near Trescott Road's sharp turn), would considerably expand current conservation land and protect these resources.

Lord's Hill
 Forest block size
· 1,058 acres
· Irregular / rectangular shape with extensive forest interior

 Ecological features
· Lord's Hill (OP 52-55)
· No known rare plants and/or exemplary natural communities
· Lord's Hill block features a relatively large unbroken forest block on and around Lord's Hill. Relatively species rich hemlock-beech-oak-pine forests attest to the slight enriched bedrock and "sweet" soils forming the hill. These forests are mostly mixed, with a white pine ridge at the highest elevation. Extremely steep slopes on the west side of the hill have talusy, shallow soils, with dead and down woody debris.
· A tributary of Mink Brook originates in this block and flows south. Although this wetland was not inventoried in 1999, it is most likely similar in character to other drainages with riverside swamp thickets and shallow marshes.
· While deciduous forests are the dominant cover type, there is considerable acreage in open fields, especially on the southern and eastern sides of the block, along Dogford and Two Mile Roads, respectively.

 Notes on feasibility of protection
· Threats to biodiversity include continued fragmentation from residential development and inappropriate timber harvesting.
· Steps should also be taken to protect wetland resources in this tract, especially those that flow into Mink Brook. Connecting protected lands to the north (Huntington Hill) and south (Waterworks Land) would create a second substantial north-south corridor (with Moose Mountain) for wildlife habitat and biodiversity protection.

Other Important Forest Blocks

Bottomless Pit
 Forest block size
· 634 acres
· Roughly rectangular with some high quality interior forest and wetlands

 Ecological features
· Bottomless Pit (OP 63); Mink Brook (OP 22-25, 26, 39-43)
· Bottomless Pit has exemplary level bog and acidic seepage swamp natural communities; at the mouth of Mink Brook, on Mink Brook Wetlands Area land, barrens strawberry (Waldsteinia fragarioides S1), a State Threatened rare plant was re-located in 1999
· This forest block has a unique blend of rare elements of biodiversity, and good quality forests. However, industrial development along its edges on Route 120 and Great Hollow Road, may pose a future threat to biological integrity. Several streams drain north into Mink Brook, and the steep slopes and stream edges harbor hemlock talus forests and mixed hardwood-deciduous forests. Some of the most diverse Hanover forests stands we sampled in 1999 also occur here (at OP 41-43), with up to 14 tree species sharing the canopy, including species indicating enriched conditions, (e.g. ironwood, basswood, bitternut hickory, and white ash). High wildflower species richness, including maidenhair fern, Christmas fern, and wild ginger also attest to the enriched soils. Streamside alluvial thickets and narrow floodplain corridors are also important elements of this block.
Further downstream (Observation Points 22-24), near the mouth of Mink Brook, streamside alluvial thickets and variable wetland vegetation are bordered by mixed forests while steep, eroding hillslopes with hemlock, pine, and various hardwoods occur on the south bank at OP 23. These forests are essential to maintaining bank stability and forest buffer for Mink Brook, especially on such steep slopes. Although this site is not within the larger forest block, it contains significant natural communities and rare plants that require protection.
· This block features mostly deciduous woods, with mature conifer forest at Bottomless Pit, hemlock talus forests on steep slopes, and mixed hardwood/softwoods along drainages.
· Recommended research includes continued monitoring of Bottomless Pit as a statewide significant level bog and seepage swamp.

 Notes on feasibility of protection
· Rich deciduous forests are uncommon in the state, and these forests could be degraded by fragmentation associated with development. Intermittent streams flowing into Mink Brook could also be impacted without careful remediation planning.
· This medium size block has development on nearly all sides. While its location may be conducive to further development, all efforts should be made to protect forest resources, forest buffers around Bottomless Pit, and stream water quality. Protecting Mink Brook further upstream than current conservation lands would provide forest buffer, and would help maintain high water quality in Mink Brook.

Mink Brook
 Forest block size
· 837 Acres
· Roughly oval, with interior forest and roadside agricultural fields

 Ecological features
· Mink Brook (OP 27)
· No known rare plants and/or exemplary natural communities
· This Observation Point contained a mature, high quality streamside / floodplain forest with high species richness, especially in the ground-cover herbs; multiple age forest structure; coarse woody debris; and other features of a mature streamside forest.
· Most of this forest block appears deciduous, with mixed and coniferous forests along drainages flowing into Mink Brook. Substantial areas of open fields occur along surrounding roads.
· Upland forests and tributary streams should be inventoried.

 Notes on feasibility of protection
· Fragmentation from development would impact natural features
· Expanding protected areas adjacent to the Dana Property would increase protected forestlands and watershed quality of Mink Brook

Huntington Hill
 Forest block size
· 678 Acres (with the block to the east, size increases to approximately 920 acres)
· Irregular, with substantial forest interior and roadside agricultural fields

 Ecological features
· Huntington Hill (OP 47-51)
· No known rare plants and/or exemplary natural communities
· This block is split into two pieces by Goodfellow Road and Old Spencer Road (Class VI). It is questionable whether the old road actually affects ecological processes that are more influenced by major paved roads. Huntington Hill Wildlife Management Area (WMA) is managed for recreation, timber, and wildlife habitat currently, and has highly variable forest condition throughout. Semi-rich hemlock-beech-oak-pine forests are the dominant natural community, indicating common forest species with slight soil enrichment.
· Forests and vegetation cover appear highly variable, with deciduous, mixed, and coniferous forest types. Slade Brook and its associated wetlands flow west to the Connecticut River.
· Research needs include more field inventory beyond the WMA.

 Notes on feasibility of protection
· Fragmentation from development is a potential threat
· Huntington Hill Wildlife Management Area provides protected land for the majority of land within this block (approximately 420 acres). Expanding that protected area, especially if tied to protected land in the Lord's Hill area, would increase wildlife habitat, and provide a longer corridor that could stretch to the Water Works Land.

Connecticut River Bank
 Forest block size
· 683 acres
· Long linear block defined by river and Route 10

 Ecological features
· No field work in 1999
· No currently known rare plants or exemplary natural communities
· This site includes the white pine floodplain forests at Pine Park.
· The Connecticut River harbors some of the rarest plant species and natural communities in New Hampshire. Even though there are no new records of rare species or exemplary natural communities along the Connecticut River in Hanover, riverside conservation is essential for the protection of these natural features, particularly downstream. Rare species are likely, especially along riverside bedrock outcrops.
· Open fields, development, and mixed woods are the most prevalent cover types in this block.
· Riverside and floodplain inventory work would confirm the presence or absence of rare plants in this block.

 Notes on feasibility of protection
· Residential and commercial development are constant threats to the ecological integrity of this block.
· Expanding current protected land, and managing for fish and wildlife habitat with conservation easements along riverbanks is a high priority to increase habitat and the likelihood of rare species establishment.

Honorable mention

The following abbreviated descriptions are of medium size forest blocks that were not visited by TNC staff in 1999, but deserve mention for their ecological and landscape value. They either contain significant biodiversity values (i.e. wetlands), or are lands with the potential for linking or expanding current conservation lands.

Appalachian Trail
 Forest block size
· 713 acres

 Ecological features
· This forest block contains highly diverse forest types, wetland complexes, large open agricultural fields, and the western-most reservoir in the Hanover Waterworks network.

 Potential protection strategies
· Connecting the northern edge of the Appalachian Trail corridor with the Hanover Waterworks land would increase forest interior and protect wetlands and buffer forest area for the reservoir.

Ferson Road
 Forest block size
· 678 acres

 Ecological features
· This medium sized block contains mostly deciduous forest cover with open fields along roadsides, and a diverse wetland complex that flows west to the Connecticut River. The wetlands originate at the height of land near the Three-Mile Wetland Site, just at the watershed break. A secondary wetlands complex also flows across Two Mile Road and into the Huntington Hill WMA.

 Potential protection strategies
· Protecting land in this block would expand on the Huntington Hill WMA land, and form a closer connection with the Appalachian Trial corridor to the south

Hayes Hill
 Forest block size
· 522 acres

 Ecological features
· Mostly deciduous woods, with some open lands and in the along roadsides.

 Potential protection strategies
· Fragmentation is already occurring in this block. Wetlands draining south through the middle of this block should be evaluated.

Blueberry Hill
 Forest block size
· 532 acres

 Ecological features
· Mostly deciduous woods, with some open lands in the northwest corner. Steep forest slopes and wetlands along Ruddsboro Road may contain significant features.

 Potential protection strategies
· Fragmentation is already occurring in this block. Expansion of the King Conservation Easement (northwest corner) to the east to connect with the Karl Conservation Easement would help expand protected land adjacent to the southwestern slopes of Moose Mountain

This report provides background information and context for the entire area of the town, and some more detailed evaluation of a selection of known ecologically significant sites. Protecting lands in and around a site depends on awareness of site attributes combined with outreach to key landowners. Next steps include identifying specific tracts for protection. The feasibility of protection depends on the willingness of current landowners to contribute to protection efforts, and the resources of local land trusts, conservation commissions, and other conservation organizations. Protection tools include outright purchase, conservation easements, management agreements, or other creative land protection strategies that take into account current and desired land management goals.

This report provides a first step for defining potential sites for conservation planning. Additional research would enrich our knowledge of the town's biological resources and help focus protection activities. For example, the timing of The Nature Conservancy's 1999 field surveys came too late to identify all vegetation, particularly rare plant species-such as spring ephemerals-that only appear early in the growing season. In addition, not all potentially important sites could be visited during the limited time span and resources for this project.

We recommend that the Town of Hanover find every opportunity to extend this preliminary survey to include other areas, and to other aspects of biodiversity beyond the partial assessment of natural community types and rare plants included in this report.

Dartmouth College and local conservation organizations could provide additional research, specifically long-term monitoring at significant sites with currently known rare species or exemplary natural communities. Mink Brook, Velvet Rocks, Bottomless Pit, and other areas identified in this report would be good starting places for the public to become involved in stewardship of important sites, including those with rare species and high quality or exemplary natural communities.

Working with large landowners that have the opportunity to manage for biodiversity on protected land would add to the quality of current management strategies. Hanover Waterworks Company land, Huntington Hill, Oak Hill, Storrs Pond, Rinker Tract, and the Goodwin Forest are examples of sites where options for biodiversity management might be explored.

Protecting new lands that currently support significant natural features, such as wetland complexes, high elevation sites, and large tracts of common forest land would add to Hanover's extensive conservation land-base.

Finally, connecting currently protected lands to other nearby conservation lands not only adds protected areas, but also increases the value and integrity of already protected lands. Such projects build on existing core lands and represent an outstanding investment in the future environmental quality of the town.

The Town of Hanover has an unusual opportunity to maintain the rich and diverse natural environment within the town boundaries. This is a consequence of its natural endowment, the current status of town lands and the commitment of the townspeople to conservation. Wise choices now and in the near future (i.e. when opportunities arise) may enable Hanover to avoid the long-term loss and deterioration occurring in biodiversity and natural communities world-wide.

Employing the services of the following non-profit organizations, and state and federal agencies, would continue to add to Hanover's conservation information:

 The New Hampshire Chapter of The Nature Conservancy, for ecological site evaluations and land protection assistance;

 N.H. Natural Heritage Inventory, for comprehensive biodiversity inventories and ecological information;

 Local and statewide Land Trusts for assistance with land protection
· Upper Valley Land Trust
· Hanover Conservation Council
· Trust for Public Land;

 UNH (Grafton County) Cooperative Extension, for forest and timber inventories, timber management, Natural Resource Inventory Guides for New Hampshire Communities, Community Conservation Assistance programs, and Forest Land Evaluation and Site Assessment projects;

 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service for managing and restoring native ecosystems;

 N.H. Office of State Planning for natural resource outreach planning;

 N.H. Non Game Program (N.H. Fish and Game) for wildlife habitat identification and protection for towns and conservation groups;

 The Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests for land protection, timber management, and well-water protection strategies;

 Audubon Society of New Hampshire for wildlife habitat protection and environmental education;

 New Hampshire Wildlife Federation for community-based open space conservation planning

Literature Cited

Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System (GRANIT). 1999. Data Catalog. Available from Complex Systems Research Center, Morse Hall, University of New Hampshire. Durham, NH 03824-3525.

New Hampshire Forest Sustainability Standards Work Team (NH-FSSWT). 1997. Good Forestry in the Granite State: Recommended Voluntary Forest Management Practices for New Hampshire. Available from New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands, DRED; and the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire's Forests, Portsmouth Street, Concord, NH 03301

New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory (NHNHI). 1999. Rare plants, rare animals, and exemplary natural communities in New Hampshire Towns. Unpublished document. Available from NHNHI, Department of Resources and Economic Development, Concord, NH 03301. (See Appendix 1).

Sperduto, D.D. 1994. A Classification of the natural communities of New Hampshire. April 1994 Approximation. Unpublished document. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory. Department of Resources and Economic Development, Concord, N.H.

Sperduto, D.D. 1996. A Guide to the natural communities of New Hampshire. Review draft, Parts I, II, and upland forest portion of Part III. Unpublished document. New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory. Department of Resources and Economic Development, Concord, N.H.

Sperduto, D.D. 1997. A preliminary classification of natural communities in the New England Coastal Lowlands Ecoregion. Unpublished document. Available from NHNHI, Department of Resources and Economic Development, Concord, NH 03301.

Sundquist, D., and M. Stevens. 1999. New Hampshire's changing landscape; population growth, land use conversion, and resource fragmentation in the Granite State. Society fo the Protection of New Hampshire's Forests (SPNHF), and the New Hampshire Chapter of The Nature Conservancy. Available from SPNHF office; 54 Portsmouth St., Concord, NH 03301; (603) 224-9945.

Map Layers

Statewide coverages available from Complex Systems Research Center. Morse Hall, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03624. (603) 862-1792

Town coverages from Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission (UVLSRPC). 199 Heater Road Suite 1, Lebanon, NH 03766. (603) 448-1680.

Other coverages created at the New Hampshire Chapter of The Nature Conservancy. 2 Π Beacon St. Suite 6, Concord, NH 03301. (603) 224-5853.
Appendix 1. List of rare plants, animals, and natural communities, Hanover, New Hampshire, and state rarity ranks explanations. State rank determined by, and list managed by the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory, Division of Forests and Lands, DRED, Concord, NH.

Appendix 2. Selected photographs from 1999 field inventories, Hanover New Hampshire. Photographs taken by Douglas Bechtel and Susan Young, New Hampshire chapter of The Nature Conservancy. "OP" refers to observation point number, see Figure 1).

Photograph Key:

1. Greensboro Meadow, Observation Point (OP) 16
2. Greensboro Hill, OP 18
3. Greensboro Meadow, OP 16
4. Greensboro Meadow, OP 16
5. Greensboro Wetland, OP 20
6. Mink Brook West, OP 24
7. Mink Brook West, OP 23
8. Mink Brook West, OP 23
9. Moose Mountain South, OP 2
10. Moose Mountain South, OP 2
11. Moose Mountain South, OP 2
12. Moose Mountain South, OP 2
13. Moose Mountain North, OP 57
14. Moose Mountain South Peak, OP 56
15. Moose Mountain, beaver pond and emergent marsh, OP 1
16. Moose Mountain log landing
17. Pressey Brook, OP 29
18. Pressey Brook otter(?) tracks
19. Scales Brook, OP 38
20. Logged land upslope from Pressey Brook
21. Three Mile Wetland, OP 62
22. Hanover Waterworks Reservoir
23. Northern waterleaf (Hydrophyllum virginianum S2), Velvet Rocks, OP 14
24. Goldie's fern (Dryopteris goldiana S2), Velvet Rocks, OP 14
25. Hanover Waterworks, OP 15
26. Hanover Waterworks, OP 15
27. Hanover Waterworks, OP 11
28. Hanover Waterworks, OP 6
29. Hanover Waterworks reservoir outlet
30. Hanover Waterworks reservoir outlet

Appendix 3. Natural Communities in Hanover, New Hampshire. Natural community types at the specific observation points within sites sampled in Hanover, New Hampshire, 1999. Names of natural community types follow New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory (1994-97). Natural community types with quotation marks or parentheses are not NHNHI names, but are ad hoc names given to observation points that do not currently correspond to natural community types currently named by NHNHI. Bolded sites represent the rare or exemplary natural communities. Rank explanations are in Appendix 1.

Site OP Natural Community name State Rank
Moose Mt, South 1 Shallow emergent graminoid marsh S5
Moose Mt, S Ridge 2 "Red spruce-red oak rocky summit woodland" S?
Water Works 3 (Semi-rich) hemlock-beech-oak-pine forest S5?
Water Works 4 Shallow emergent graminoid marsh S5
Water Works 5 Shallow emergent graminoid marsh S5
Water Works 6 Foamflower-graminoid seep S3S4
Water Works 7 Semi-rich mesic forest; sugar maple-beech-red oak variant S3S4
Water Works 8 Semi-rich mesic forest; sugar maple-beech-red oak variant S3S4
Water Works 9 (Dead) red maple basin swamp S5
Water Works 10 "Semi-rich oak-maple forest" S?
Water Works 11 Hemlock-beech-oak-pine forest S5
Water Works 12 "Semi-rich oak-maple forest" S?
Water Works 13 "Streamside/floodplain forest" S?
Velvet Rocks 14 Rich mesic forest S3
Velvet Rocks 15 Foamflower-graminoid seep S3S4
Greensboro Meadow 16 Shallow emergent marsh S5
Greensboro Slope 17 Hemlock-beech-oak-pine forest S5
Greensboro Hill 18 Hemlock-spruce northern hardwood forest S3S4
Greensboro wetland 19 Streamside forest/swamp S5
Greensboro wetland 20 Shallow emergent marsh S5
Greensboro wetland 21 Deep emergent marsh S5
Mink Brook West 22 Floodplain thicket SU
Mink Brook West 23 Hemlock riverbluff forest SU
Mink Brook West 24 Hemlock-beech-oak-pine forest S5
Mink Brook 25 Streamside forest/swamp S5?
Mink Brook 26 "floodplain/streamside forest" S?
Mink Brook 27 "floodplain/streamside forest" S?
Pressey Brook 28 Shallow emergent graminoid marsh S5
Pressey Brook 29 Tussock sedge meadow S5
Pressey Brook 30 Riverside alluvial tall shrub thicket S5
Pressey Brook 31 "old meadow" S?
Oak Hill 32 (Semi-rich) red oak-white pine/ironwood forest S5?
Oak Hill 33 Hemlock-beech-oak-pine forest S5
Oak Hill 34 (Semi-rich) hemlock-beech-oak-pine forest S5?
Storrs Pond 35 (Semi-rich) hemlock-beech-oak-pine forest S5?
Storrs Pond 36 Hemlock-beech-oak-pine forest S5
Rinker Tract 37 (Semi-rich) red oak-white pine/ironwood forest S5?
Scales / Lovejoy Brook 38 Riverside alluvial tall shrub thicket S?
Mink Brook South Slope 39 Hemlock talus forest SU
Mink Brook South Slope 40 Hemlock talus forest SU
Mink Brook South Slope 41 Mesic Appalachian oak-sugar maple-beech-hemlock forest S2S3
Mink Brook South Slope 42 (Rich) sugar maple-ash-oak-hickory forest S1
Mink Brook South Slope 43 Semi-rich mesic forest; sugar maple-beech-red oak variant S3S4
Greensboro Slope 44 (Semi-rich) hemlock-beech-oak-pine forest S5?
Greensboro Slope 45 (Semi-rich) dry red oak-white pine/ironwood forest S3S4?
Greensboro Slope 46 (Semi-rich) hemlock-beech-oak-pine forest S5?
Huntington Hill 47 Hemlock-beech-oak-pine forest S5
Huntington Hill 48 (Semi-rich) hemlock-beech-oak-pine forest S5?
Huntington Hill 49 (Semi-rich) hemlock-beech-oak-pine forest S5?
Huntington Hill 50 Hemlock-beech-oak-pine forest (moist) S5
Huntington Hill 51 (Semi-rich) hemlock-beech-oak-pine forest S5?
Lord's Hill 52 (Semi-rich) red oak-white pine/ironwood forest S3S4?
Lord's Hill 53 (Semi-rich) hemlock-beech-oak-pine forest S5?
Lord's Hill 54 (Semi-rich) hemlock-beech-oak-pine forest S5?
Lord's Hill 55 (Semi-rich) red oak-white pine/ironwood forest S3S4?
Moose Mt, N 56 Red oak-pine/heath rocky ridge woodland S?
Moose Mt, N 57 Foamflower-graminoid seep S3S4
Moose Mt, N 58 Northern hardwood-spruce-fir forest S4
Moose Mt, N 59 Foamflower-graminoid seep S3S4
Moose Mt, N 60 Sugar maple-beech-yellow birch forest S5
Scales / Lovejoy Brook 61 Riverside alluvial tall shrub thicket S?
Three Mile Wetland 62 Riverside alluvial tall shrub thicket S?
Bottomless Pit 63 Level bog / Conifer seepage swamp S2 /S3

Appendix 4. Copies of 1999 field forms, with topographic field maps. Observation point numbers are circled at the top. Refer to Appendix 3 for natural community names associated with each observation point, and Figure 7 for potential forest cover patterns surrounding each observation point. In some cases, preliminary natural community boundaries are depicted by dotted green lines, while National Wetland Inventory boundaries are depicted by a solid green line. Forest natural community boundaries were not drawn for this report; more complete forest stand cruises and timber inventories would be needed to provide such detailed information.
Appendix 5. Maps of locations of rare plants and natural communities on and off conservation lands, New Hampshire.
Appendix 6. Bedrock and Soils Maps
These maps are essential for predicting potential vegetation patterns on a landscape scale (bedrock), and at the site scale (soils). They are presented to show the diversity of bedrock and soil types represented in Hanover. The mapping is not detailed enough to represent soil conditions at particular locations (e.g. the observation points included in this report).

Of particular importance is the prevalence of Ammonusuc Volcanic bedrock in Hanover. This bedrock type, primarily found in the Connecticut River Valley, tends to contribute more nutrients than other bedrock types to the overlying soils. The forests in the north central and western side of town tend to reflect this nutrient enrichment with high agricultural and timber productivity, higher species richness, and a higher probability of finding rare plant species. In the eastern and southwestern sides of town, the underlying granitic bedrock releases nutrients more slowly, if at all, and the soils tend to be more acidic. Forests under these conditions are less likely to hold rare species, although the bedrock and soils in this regions may still be productive for timber and agriculture.