HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-01-17TOWN OF DRYDEN
PLANNING BOARD
JANUARY 17, 1991
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairwoman Barbara Caldwell, Michael Hattery,
Mitchell LaVine and Claudia Brenner.
Also present: Mr. and Mrs. R. Morse; Ronald Roberts; and Donald
Gilbert,
The
Barbara
January
as published
was read:
7,
1991
meeting
was call to order by Chairwoman
Barbara
last
County
Caldwell
Board
meeting
at
8:00
the
P.M.
CLAUDIA, BREN
minutes as amend
Second by Mi
VOTE YES (4)
CARRIED.
NER MOVED to approve the December 13, 1990
ed.
chael Hattery.
B. Caldwell, M. Hattery, M. LaVine and C.
Brenner.
"Once the actual tax maps (with these sites) for the Town of
Dryden are furnished we might want to familiarize ourselves with
them, while they might not come under the same restrictions as
"Wet Lands" we will want to consider them in any SEOR process
because it might trigger a more definitive review ".
Ms. Caldwell noted she also had a copy of the report
the Travelers Associates which was a summary of the
transportation workshop which Cornell provided if anyone
interested.
from
was
8:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - BEAR CIRCLE ROAD - GENE ROTUNDA
Hearing
Barbara
reported
as published
was read:
that
at
the
last
County
Planning
Board
meeting
the
report
on
Unique
Natural
Areas
of Tompkins
County
was
distributed.
The
detailed
report
on
each Town
Ship
will be
supplied
to that
Town
Ship.
The
report
showed that
there
were
20 unique
areas in
the
Town
of
Caroline;
Danby 11;
Town
of
Dryden
59;
Town of
Enfield
7;
Groton
`3;
Ithaca 35;
Lansing
33;
Newfield
14
and Ulysses
12.
"Once the actual tax maps (with these sites) for the Town of
Dryden are furnished we might want to familiarize ourselves with
them, while they might not come under the same restrictions as
"Wet Lands" we will want to consider them in any SEOR process
because it might trigger a more definitive review ".
Ms. Caldwell noted she also had a copy of the report
the Travelers Associates which was a summary of the
transportation workshop which Cornell provided if anyone
interested.
from
was
8:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - BEAR CIRCLE ROAD - GENE ROTUNDA
Hearing
called
to order and the public notice
as published
was read:
There was general discussion concerning the parcels and
runoff. There was nothing in the file to indicate a short form
EAF had been submitted or approval from the Health Department as
requested at the December 13, 1990 meeting.
c
i
The
• Decision
•
hearing was
reserved.
pB 1 -17 -91 pg.
adjourned until the next planning Meeting,
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Mr. LaVine inquired if the drainage associated with new
roads was checked when he approved the design of the new roads?
Mr.
so to s
accordi
problem
rain th
Gilb
ee wh
ng to
the
en us
ert st
ere th
plans
f irst
ual an
ated he did but
e runoff runs. -
it was in a to
year however, t
d the ground be
didn't
While t
w spot.
hese las
ing hard
go back a half mile or
he drainage was located
They didn't have a
t few months with more
bed rock they were.
This spring he is going to try and correct the situation by
diverting the runoff further down the hill. Mr. Gilbert has
made a temporary solution concerning the runoff and notified the
homeowners involved.
Highway
Superintendent,
asked
ETNA AND
Donald
his opinion
Gilbert
concerning
reported
on
the
runoff
proposal
situation
turn
at
"Hungerford
and in which direction
Hill"
proceed.
Gilbert
stating
stated
the
people
were
not
happy
and
he
had
walked
the
property
and in
the
Snyder
after
the
last
rain and
the
properties
are
not
absorbing
are
the
a
runoff
of them
as speculated
"and
in the
planning
smaller
that
stages.
the
He
suggested
and
may
a thorough
implementing
check
for
to indicate
maintenance.
different
where
the runoff
was
was
going during
subdivision
where
the
approvals.
lots
Mr. LaVine inquired if the drainage associated with new
roads was checked when he approved the design of the new roads?
Mr.
so to s
accordi
problem
rain th
Gilb
ee wh
ng to
the
en us
ert st
ere th
plans
f irst
ual an
ated he did but
e runoff runs. -
it was in a to
year however, t
d the ground be
didn't
While t
w spot.
hese las
ing hard
go back a half mile or
he drainage was located
They didn't have a
t few months with more
bed rock they were.
This spring he is going to try and correct the situation by
diverting the runoff further down the hill. Mr. Gilbert has
made a temporary solution concerning the runoff and notified the
homeowners involved.
DISCUSSION
When
MRS.
asked
ETNA AND
HANSHAW
his opinion
Morse stated
concerning
were
present tonight
long
driveways
proposal
and
turn
arounds
steps necessary
and in which direction
Mr.
proceed.
Gilbert
the existing
stated
was provided
he
didn't
the following
like
noted:
any dead
ends
and in
the
Snyder
Hill
area
where
there
are
a
lot
of them
he needed
"and
used
noted
a
smaller
that
the
truck
Board
and
may
equipment
be
implementing
for
maintenance.
different
It
frontage
was
regulations
where
the
lots
with
"T
"
turn
arounds
are
included.
DISCUSSION
- MR. AND
MRS.
MORSE -
ETNA AND
HANSHAW
Mr. Roger
Morse stated
they
were
present tonight
to obtain
advise on their
proposal
and
to determine
the
steps necessary
and in which direction
to
proceed.
of
the existing
lots
10 The last two lots sold were to the West in 1986.
They are now considering proposing an "L" shaped road
in order to move faster then two buildings every five
years.
In 1960 seventy
acres of
land
was purchased
with two
houses
and
a barn on
the
property.
There
are now seven
buildings
and a
barn.
A layout
of
the existing
lots
was provided
and reviewed
with
the following
noted:
10 The last two lots sold were to the West in 1986.
They are now considering proposing an "L" shaped road
in order to move faster then two buildings every five
years.
•
0
U
FHB 1 -17 -91 Pq.3
3. The site
first
consist
to
of
20 acres.
built
The
lots
shown
building
on.the
drawing
the
are not
525'
owned
by them
off Etna
only
the
existing
determine
land
shown.
that
They
do
not
own the
first
300
feet
off
Hanshaw
work
face.
proposed.
6.
Would
like
to
develope
Road.
sides
The first
to
be developed
road. It
was
would.be
on the
North
noted
side of
adjustment
Etna
Road.
be
make
where
the
roads
enter
4. The
first
strip
to
on the
be
built
side
before
would
building
Etna
be
the
the
525'
lot
road.
off Etna
Road,
when
unsure
determine
checked
which
that
direction
the
required
the
would
front
would
work
face.
5.
60'
strip
left
on the
the Core
South
side
before
of
building
Etna
Road for
a
the
proposed
road.
In
1986
when
he
determine
checked
that
was the
the
required
footage.
would
work
were
proposed.
6.
Would
like
to
develope
both
sides
of
the
road. It
was
noted
an
adjustment
could
be
make
where
the
roads
enter
on
Etna
Road.
7.
North
West
corner
is
quite
wet
but
is
not
designated
a
wet
land.
A number
of
years
ago
the
Conservation
Dept.
draw
up
plans
for a
five
or
six
acre
pond
and they
have
a letter
from
Cornell
which
states
that
they
don't
object
if
their
land
on
the
West
-is
flooded
by a
proposed
dam.
That
is
a future
plan
and
is not at
this
time
being
considered.
CONCLUSIONS:
A. To contact the Health Department for regulations to
determine lot size.
B. Consider lining.Up the access of the proposed road on
the North and South side of Etna Road.
CO May wish
to
have
the
the Core
of Engineers check the site
before
before
proceeding.
building
D. Consider
the
above
before
building
the
first
home
to
determine
if
the
new
road
would
work
were
proposed.
Claudia Brenn
consideration on
lots. "T" and "L
altered to fit an
er subm
frontag
drawi
y dimen
(small
i
e
n
s
tted propo
dimension
gs could a
ion size a
reproducti
s
s
1
s
0
ed drawings for future
for flag and circle shaped
so be drawn. These Could be
determined in the future.
n on Fig, 4)
LJ
I,
/- /7- 9/ 1 0
/ \ I (0
If
3 �, 2as \,�tl�s
BSI /MS
/ �� 285 • \ /
✓` YAOT
CIrCUnt FIE:nCP.. ° "' Sgrj' �\ /
Y /
62 85'{rU
If
ciHHT
/ �4f \
��+�IL1J6 55'
c,rcuw�teE►ac� GIs'
Lo'ltoAD t2lF,ni oFwA j
206' riun -VAC,C
,1
N 2i3.J F�orlThE�K -400' Deep . 22o'AT eE�,=
A NA lz`,
.0 E
ROAD
yam, .
FX °I-�sGD Lo-�'
CbuFl it VeAii O N
sc4E i '=ico'
2 LviS eo 142.5 �GRor tirEEE I �A' OeEp S50' hT QE AZ= I. I
KFF
1
R
TY-n A1_ FLING -E LOT
COW !C ATKDN.
SCALE: I "= X00'
ld
PB,1 -17 -90 Pg. 5
P. Caldwell said that John Davis would like us to do some
• long term thinking on where we allow or don't allow multifamily
dwellings and duplexes.
R.
Roberts
stated
he would
schedule
-a
meeting
with E.
Bayles
and the
boards
on
Stormwater
Management
issues.
A possible March meeting with the Villages and Towns on the
affordable housing issue.
C. Brenner moved to adjourn.
•
SCS
Second M. Hattery. Adjourned
- -- , 7 is
Ln
\ I
a
h �
Qa o1s 1 11�
VO
o �
f�I
T
*1
0
I
a
1
P
a
r
N
2
a
E
a
c
a
e
t
•tom
.Z
•
•
Q
I1
HRti59Aw rtv�AD
1 I �
� 1
/M/ �f
CL
1�
� � O
v V
d0
Z
C/
.+1
0
a
•
II
�J
•
•
X11
T
\V
Ro6D
0
> �So
do
z
lZ/
Yp
mid
•
i
'
I
i
i
� t
I
I
'
i
I
i
i
'
I
i
'
� t
i
I ,
i
I
I , ,
ROAD 1
C�1u'Fl C�t Ti Q �.1
'SCALE
I
r I
I
I
I
l • , I i
' I
r I
i
i
I
i
I
CAP tC-r UZATK7t�.4
I
� I
I i
I I
Id
1
I
i
1 '
r I i r
\\
i r \
I I j I r
, I
j
i I
I
Rom
I
ohs G-U :LOT
I
c0���cz+��a �►
' SCALE 111- 100
I
I
I
1 , j
I I
I
I � I
I ;
I
' I
I 1 '
I
! � i
i
r
v
•
•
•
i
i
i
i
1
i
I
i
I i
i
I
i
i
i
i
1
I
i
I
i
i
i
1
,
I
' II p�;. '• I yea .,
7 I
OFUY
0
a
A
G�cu wt ErJc�E 3Z,
I
21 -c�t`a 0 14245 � °►i✓ I ; 5t ' /kT ZE APL I, I
' II p�;. '• I yea .,
7 I
OFUY
0
a
A
G�cu wt ErJc�E 3Z,
I
21 -c�t`a 0 14245 � °►i✓ I ; 5t ' /kT ZE APL I, I
•
Y
1
1
' i I
� I 1
� I
1 I r• ti� 1 j
1 I .
i
I
� 1
I ,
i
I �
OF WAY �
. i
i
• Greu►M�EiJc� 3�ySr
40 "SAD V 41, r4fi off " w A
14145 'FeuMTM15 130' ae 55t� � hT ZEAP*4�.
i
1 I
I I
i
I i
1
1
1
1
1
' i I
� I 1
� I
1 I r• ti� 1 j
1 I .
i
I
� 1
I ,
i
I �
OF WAY �
. i
i
• Greu►M�EiJc� 3�ySr
40 "SAD V 41, r4fi off " w A
14145 'FeuMTM15 130' ae 55t� � hT ZEAP*4�.
1 r 1
1
V I i
W
1 r
1
I 1 /
WO
000'
IN
� 1
lelth HT
OFWA`( \ /
CC I /
Grv.Um refice = two
1
lCO Lt v 280 Fson r op f ' v •-
AZE
I i
�o
for
I
! C
op
do
OFWAY!
CCC
\ ! /
CADItfS
"'
rteiA
! l0 j A` ti 28.x' lFrarrr rE Aco DC I 2, F iACT E.tA' —
•
•
40
TOWN OF DRYDEN • DRYDEN, NEW YORK
65 EAST MAIN STREET, DRYDEN, NEW YORK 13053
607 - 844 -8619
OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR
To. Henry Slater
Subject: Communications
From. J
In the Heart of the Finger Lakes Region
It has been brought to
advantageous for the Town
forwarded an agenda for each
Board of Appeals). Everyone
and if there is anything of
they would know the date, time
January 9, 1991
my
attention
that
it
would
be
Officials,
Attorney,
etc.
to
be
of the
Boards
(Planning
and Zoning
would
then
know what
is
coming
up
interest
on
these board's
agendas,
and
place.
Thank you for your cooperation in fulfilling this request.
cco Jean Ryan/
Town Board
Mahlon Perkins
Jack Baker
Barbara Caldwell
•
_•
Unique .Natural
Areas
of
Tompkins County
An inventory initiated and conducted by:
Tompkins County Environmental Management Council
in conjunction with
Cornell Plantations
Sponsored and funded by:
Tompkins County Board of Representatives
Printed on Recycled Paper
.., F
This study contains data on environmentally sensitive areas
throughout the County. It was funded, researched and developed
primarily for use as a specialized land use planning tool. Its initial
issuance will be limited to the various municipalities and
governmental agencies in Tompkins County.
The 180 individual sites are considered outstanding examples of
their type. It is our intent that their identification, here -in, will
serve as an important step towards their protection. Each site
possesses characteristics that define it as environmentally
sensitive. These include rare or scarce flora or fauna, unusual
habitat or community types, exceptional aesthetic qualities and
unique geology.
Much of the data was gathered with the consent of private
landowners. It must be understood that the release of this
data, in the form of a public document, in no way implies,
grants or encourages public access to any private lands.
Anyone wishing to visit a site on private lands, must
obtain permission from the owner or owners. Further, it
should be remembered that many of the sites are highly vulnerable.
Overuse, even in the form of appreciation, could cause permanent
damage.
C7
4
•
C�
AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS AND A.CKNOWLEDGEIv1ENTS
A. Field Investigators contracted through Cornell Plantations:
Nancy L. Ostman F. Robert Wesley
B. Members of the Unique Natural Areas Subcommittee. as part of the
Plant and Animal Life Committee of the Tompkins County EMC:
Robert M. Beck
Doug Dimock
John Howell
Kurt Jirka
Barbara Knuth
Bard Prentiss
Dave Weinstein
C. Other contributors and significant supporters:
John Chiment
John Confer
Ed Cope
Betsy Darlington
Herb Engman
D. Contributing Agencies:
Howie Evans
Tony Ingraham
Barbara Peckarsky
Alton Reed
Charlie Smith
Cornell Plantations NYS DEC
E. Invaluable efforts of the Tompkins County Planning Department
Staff:
Dave Bergstone
Mary DiGiacomo
Nan Kim
Harold Mednis
Jim Skaley
UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS OF TOMPKINS COUNTY
1990 Inventory 0
About the inventorv.
The Unique Natural Areas of Tompkins County, 1990 inventory, is a listing of the areas in
the county that have been identified as having special environmental qualities and deserve
special attention for preservation in their natural state. This new inventory completely
updates and expands the previous one that was completed in 1976 by Craig Tufts as his
Masters Thesis work at Cornell University. The Plant and Animal sub - committee of the
Tompkins County Environmental Management Council supervised this new inventory.
Under the leadership of Chairman. John Howell this committee accumulated data deliberated
over procedures for over two years. Two botanists, Robert Wesley and Nancy Ostman,
were hired with funds provided by the Tompkins County Board of Representatives to
conduct a field survey of sites within Tompkins County that qualified for inclusion. All
sites identified in the former Inventory were reviewed and revisited to identify any changes
in the status of the site. Further, over 100 new sites were identified. In addition to using
information from the previous inventory, data was provided by the State of New York
Wetland Survey, the Cornell Plantations, and the Nature Conservancy.
Members of the Tompkins County Planning Department staff, under the supervision of Jim
Skaley, entered the data into a computer file, and designed the computer forms on which
the data is displayed in this report. The resulting inventory is the product of a great amount
of work by many people, all of whom donated their time and energy to this project. This
document is an expression of their strong feelings about the need to protect our rare and
vanishing environmental resources. However, it must be emphasized that without the
excellent stewardship of John Howell this inventory would never have been completed.
A total of 213 sites were considered to be candidates for inclusion in the new inventory. Of
these, 74 of the 84 sites from the former survey were found to still be of sufficiently high
environmental quality to warrant continued inclusion in the inventory. In addition to these
sites, 107 new sites were added to the inventory. The new inventory now includes
sites identified by the Department of Environmental as official state wetlands.
Uses for the inventory
The principle reason for the survey is to help make landowners aware of the valuable
resources they own so that they may take particular care in protecting these areas from
future damage. Information contained in this survey will be provided to the landowners to
help them recognize the importance of the resource they hold. We hope that methods and
plans to help landowners protect their resources will be formulated. Most areas described
in the inventory are in private ownership and may be entered only after permission is
granted by the landowner. Nevertheless, these areas provide the community with a
valuable resource, providing a sanctuary for rare plants and animals, and helping to
maintain the diversity of natural communities in our region. They contribute to maintaining
the sense of wildness in the county that many residents. highly treasure. Unless we know
where not to locate new development we will begin to lose the vaned landscapes that
initially drew many of us here.
It is a concern that with the publication of this. report, the committee will not only improve
the ability of the community to plan for and protect these sites, but will also increase the
amount of visitation areas may receive. Many of these sites cannot withstand much
visitation. However, it is much more likely that without planning many of these sites will is
be destroyed because of careless development. Often with simple planning we can redirect
development so that it can proceed without costing the community a rare resource. We
view the importance of this task to be worth the risk of publicizing these resources. We
hope that the users of the information in this inventory will have an increased sensitivity for
the fragile nature of these sites.
Methods for identifying candidate sites:
The first step in updating the inventory was to construct a list of sites that might qualify to
be included in the list of unique natural areas of the county. These sites came from the
following sources:
1. Sites from the former inventory. Each of the 84 sites included in the former inventory
automatically became candidates for the updated survey. These sites, identified by Craig
Tufts, had been identified in books about local geology and flora, in newspaper feature
articles, and through word of mouth. All of these sites were revisited to ascertain whether
any change in their environmental quality had occurred during the 14 years since the
completion of the 1976 inventory. The information about the site contained in the former
inventory, including the description of its location, vegetation types, and rare species was
rechecked.
2. State parks and DEC officially designated wetlands. These sites have been identified as
having special and important environmental characteristics by other groups of researchers.
Therefore, these were automatically included in the updated inventory. Some of these sites
already had been identified in the former inventory. We collected whatever information
was available from the state offices. DEC personnel supplied descriptions of the state
parks of concern, and DEC wetland information was obtained from the wetland survey
• maps and descriptions created as part of the state wetland inventory of 1982. Due to time
limitations, only state - designated wetland sites that had been included in the former
inventory were revisited.
3. Sites identified by the consulting botanist field team. The field team, Robert Wesley
and Nancy Ostman, have worked in this county as professional botanists for many years
and have extensive knowledge of the distribution of plant species and vegetation
communities in Tompkins County. Many of the suggestions for new sites were made by
these botanists from their knowledge of the county. In addition, their understanding of the
ecology of the vegetation of the county enabled.them to pinpoint potential sites from
topographic maps and from roadside spotting as they drove by during general
reconnaissance trips. Special efforts were made to identify locations that might provide
habitat for rare or endangered species. Sites added by these botanists were divided into
two categories: (1) sites requiring immediate survey; those sites potentially with superior
environmental qualities, rare and endangered plants, or which were imperiled by
development, and (2) sites that the team might not have time to visit; sites that the team was
uncertain would qualify for the inventory. All sites in the first of these categories were
surveyed and evaluated. As many of the sites that fell into the second category were
surveyed as possible, with the remainder being identified in this document as deserving
further study for possible inclusion in the future.
4. Sites identified by local animal scientists. Local scientists known to have information
about the distribution of animals (mammals, birds, insects, fish, etc.) in the county were
asked about information on important animal sites. The information from these scientists
identified the location of the site, the animals of concern, and the reasons why the habitat
• was unique, comprised the bulk of the data used for the evaluation of these sites. When
warranted, sites were also surveyed by the field team for their ecological and vegetation
characteristics.
5. Sites identified by local geologists. Local scientists known to have information about
important geological sites in the county were asked to identify important geological sites.
The information provided by these scientists was sufficient for the site evaluation and a
field survey was not conducted unless there were other features of the site known to be of
interest.
6. Other sites. A few sites were brought to the attention of the committee by members of
the committee, the council, or other concerned citizens. Where possible these sites were
surveyed.
Although the committee made every effort to identify all candidate sites in the county, this
task must inevitably be viewed as an ongoing process. Our hope is that the.publication of
this survey will alert many citizens to the need for protection of these valuable resources
and will inspire some to suggest new sites for future evaluation. Surveying for
environmental quality is a very time consuming task. Because of time limitations several
sites that deserved to be surveyed and evaluated for inclusion in the inventory could not
visited and will have to be studied at some future date. We should not be discouraged by
that fact. Instead, we should continue the process of adding new sites to this inventory
when warranted. It was stated in the introduction to the previous inventory report, "The
unique characteristics of Tompkins County are not limited to the original 84 which have
been described in the inventory, so additional areas are expected to be added to the
inventory." We expect the present survey to accelerate the process of identifying unusual
resources deserving protection.
Procedures for surveying.
Candidate sites were first located on USGS 1:24000 topographic maps.- The USGS maps
and the Tompkins County Soil Survey maps were used to determine topography, slope,
orientation, bedrock and soil type. Landowners of each site were identified using county
tax maps, and permission was obtained for the field crew to visit the site. In rare cases
where permission was not granted or where the owners could not be reached, the survey
was conducted from�the road or from adjacent parcels where access was granted.
The field crew verified the general topography and slope data during the field survey.
Special efforts were made to find rare,scarce, or endangered plant species that might inhabit
the site.. Plants identified as such could be nationally rare, rare in the state, or locally rare.
The amount of time required to complete the survey of each site varied from one to many
hours, based on the size of the area, the complexity of the vegetation communities, and the
diversity of habitat. The search for rare or endangered species took a considerable. amount
of time and effort. Extensive notes were taken on field survey forms designed by the
committee, listing the vegetation types, rare and endangered species, evidence of past
disturbance, likelihood of future disturbance, and general remarks about the uniqueness of
the natuial characteristics of the site. These notes were used later to complete the site
descriptions on the forms contained in this volume.
The field crew made every attempt to cover the diversity of topography and habitats in a
site. Often all areas of large sites could not be explored, but the crew could achieve a sense
of whether they had documented most of the variation in characteristics they were likely to
observe.
Each site was visited by the field crew only once. The visits to.sites of floral importance
were timed so that rare and endangered species expected at the site would be in fruit or
flower to facilitate locating and identifying them. This is a very difficult.task since the field
crew does not know entirely which species to expect to find on a given site. Consequently,
the survey reports only what was observed during the site visit. Ideally, each site should
be visited at several times during the year with an eye out for plants of interest.
U
It
Finally, the boundaries of each site were drawn on a topographic map. The boundaries
were based on personal observation from the site visits and information on hydrology, soil
types, and vegetation cover. The boundaries reflect the need to include all unique features
of the area as well as those features that must be protected to avoid damaging fragile
sections within the site (such as highly erodible steep hillsides that if logged, could wash
down into the gorge below). In many cases boundaries are based on topographic features,
such as the pattern of drainage. Ownership lines were not considered in the creation of
boundaries.
As in the Tufts inventory, this inventory places a greater emphasis on vegetation than other
natural features for most sites. One reason for this emphasis is the fact that much is known
about the distribution of rare, scarce, and endangered plants in this county. Consequently,
these plant species can be used as indicators of changes in habitat quality throughout the
county. Secondly, single visits can be much more accurate in inventorying vegetation than
fauna. The condition of the vegetation can indicate a great deal about the usefulness of the
area for wildlife habitat. Finally, legislation such as the Endangered Species Act of 1972 or
the New York State Freshwater Wetlands Act of 1975 utilize vegetation as a tool to identify
threatened habitats and can be used for protecting these habitats.
Criteria for classification as a unique natural area,
Proposition One of the Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1972 defines unique natural
resources as "...areas of great natural beauty, wilderness character and ecological or
geological significance (and may include) ..... beautiful streams and gorges, virgin tree
stands, rare plant life, scarce animal habitat or unusual geological formations." It is
difficult to define strictly what qualities a site must have to be included in the Inventory.
We relied on the collective wisdom of the committee and the field crew in assessing
whether the site, as described on the inventory forms, had enough characteristics to warrant
its inclusion. If any of the following characteristics were found to pertain to a particular
site it was included in the inventory.
1. Rare or scarce plants: Does the site contain plant or animal species that have recognized
as rare or scarce at a national, state, or local level?
2. Rare communities: Does the site contain a plant or animal community type that is rare in
the county or is a remnant of a community type that has become rare in the county?
3. Quality of example: Is the site one of the best representatives or examples of a more
common ecosystem or vegetation or animal community within the.county? Does the site
contain especially large individuals, dense populations, or a particularly diverse mixture of
species?
4. Rare or scarce animals: Does the site contain rare or scarce animal species or critical
migration, reproduction, or feeding habitat for rare or scarce animal species
5. Unique geology: Does the site contain rare or outstanding examples of geological
features or processes? Does the site contain an outstanding collection of fossils?
6. Esthetic qualities: Does the site contain an area of acknowledged scenic beauty within
easy access to urban locations?
0
Unique Natural Areas Sites
CA -1 Caroline Pinnacles
CA -2 Middaugh Woods
CA -3 Brooktondale Gorge
CA -4 Ellis Hollow Swamp, Thomas
Rd,
CA -5 Amber Glass Spring
CA -6 Caroline Swamp ( Slaterville
Swamp)
CA -7 White Rock gorge
CA -8 Shindagin Hollow
CA -9 Bald Hill. Mtn. Laurel
CA -10 White Church - Willseyville
Swamp
CA -11 Caroline Depot Woods
CA -12 Potatoe Hill State Forest
CA -13 Eastman Hill
CA -14 Woods along Six Mile Creek
CA -15 Willseyville Beaver Ponds
CA -16 Belle School Road Fen
CA -17 Bald Hill Woods
CA -18 Gulf Creek Gorge
CA -19 Buffalo Road Rich Woods
CA -20 The Narrows
DA -1 Lick Brook
DA -2 Danby fir tree swamp
DA -3 Michigan Hollow Swamp and
Ponds
DA -4 Thatcher's Pinnacle
DA -5 West Danby Morainal
DA -6 South Branch, West Danby
Creek
DA -7 Headwater's swamp
DA -8 Durfee Hill Oak Wood
DA -9 Astronomy Lab.
DA -10 DEC Mapped Wetland
DA -11 Deputron Hollow
1. 011-1 Freeville Fir Tree Swamp.
DR -2 Peruton Bogs
DR -3 Malloryville
Bog /Swam /Fens /Esker
DR -4 North Malloryville
DR -5 East Malloryville tamarack
swamp
DR -6 Mud Creek Swamp
DR -7 Woodwardia Woods
DR -8 Woodwardia Bog
DR -9 Virgil Creek
DR -10 Dryden Bogs
DR -11 Slaterville Wildflower Preserve
DR -12 Dryden - Slaterville fir swamp
DR -13 Cooks Corner Gully
DR -14 Ellis Hollow Swamp
DR -15 Pine Woods
DR -16 Tully Limestone Erratic
DR -17 Fringed Gention Meadow
DR -18 Airport Ponds wetlands
DR -18 Ithaca East/West Groton
DR -19 Wyckoff Swamp
DR -20 Ringwood Ponds
DR -21 Townly Swamp
DR -22 Dryden Lake, Marshes &
Swamp
DR -23 McLean Preserve and adj.
wetlands
DR -24 Beaver Brook Fen
DR -25 Beaver Brook Swamp
DR -26 Ed Hill Trillium Woods
DR -27 Beaver Brook Springs
DR -28 Frost Ravine
DR -29 Poison Tract
DR -30 Gaskill Tract
DR -31 Monkey Run
DR -32 Fall Creek Hemlock Grove
DR -33 Etna Bird Sanctuary
DR -34 Malloryville Fen
DR -35 Dryden firehouse wetland
DR -36 DEC mapped wetland
DR -37 Dryden Sedge Meadow
DR -38 DEC mapped wetland
DR -39 Mill Dam marsh, Freeville
DR -40 Etna Marsh
DR -41 DEC mapped Wetland
DR -42 Caswell Road Swamp
DR -43 Wood Road Swamp
DR -44 Townley Swamp, East branch
DR -45 DEC mapped wetland
El
I❑
v
• DR -46 Dryden- Lansing Swamp IT -2
DR -47 DEC mapped wetland IT -3
DR -48 Sheldon Road Wetland IT -4
DR -49 DEC mapped wetland IT -4
DR -50 DEC mapped wetland IT -5
DR -51 Pleasant Hollow Swamp, North IT -6
DR -52 Pleasant Hollow Swamp, South IT -7
DR -53 Durland Bird Preserve IT -8
DR -54 Sapsucker woods bird IT -9
sanctuary IT -10
DR:-55 Mott Rd, Quarry IT -11
DR -56 Cornell Experimental Ponds #2 IT -12
DR -57 Morris Road Woods
DR -58 Fall Creek Rd., moss seep IT -13
DR -59 Star Stanton Hill IT -14
EN -1 Enfield Creek Swamp
EN -2 Marl Spring IT -15
EN -3 Enfield Spruce Swamp IT -16
EN -4 Enfield Glen IT -17
EN -5 DEC mapped wetland IT -18
EN -6 DEC mapped wetland IT -19
EN -7 Weatherby Road meadow IT -20
• GR -1 Devil's Den IT-21
GR -2 Bear Swamp IT -22
GR -3 Sanquisorba Swamp IT -23
GR -4 Groton Bank Swallow Colony IT -24
GR -5 McLean Fen IT -25
GR -6 North McLean Marl meadows IT -26
GR -7 Webster Creek Swamp IT -27
GR -8 Rte. 222 Fen IT -28
GR -9 Groton Water Supply Fen
GR -10 Champlin Road Potentilla Fen IT -29
GR -11 McLean Woods IT -30
GR -12 Cemetary Lane Rich Woods IT -31
GR -13 Nubia Swamp
GR -14 Beaver Brook Swamp IT -32
GR -15 Owasco Inlet Valley Swamp IT -33
GR -16 DEC mapped wetland
GR -17 DEC mapped wetland IT -34
GR -18 DEC mapped wetland IT -35
GR -19 DEC mapped wetland LA -1
GR -20 DEC mapped wetland LA -2
GR -21 Groton City Fen LA -3
GR -22 . Upper Fall Creek corridor LA -4
• GR -23 Cemetery Lane Seepy Woods LA -5
IT -1 LVRR Right -of -way LA -6
The Hog Hole
Williams Glen
Coy Glen
Coy Glen
Fleming Meadow
Larch Meadows
Lick Brook - Ithaca sect.
South Hill Swamp
Six -Mile Creek
Linn St. Woods
Base of Ithaca Falls
Stewart Park Woods (Fuertes
Bird Sancturary)
Mundy Wildflower Garden
Fall CreekCorridor near
flatrocks
Bull Pasture Ponds
Eldridge Preserve
Cascadilla Gorge
Biological Station
Newman Tract
Palmer Woods
Beebe Lake Woods, Gorge
Octopus Cliffs
Bill Dress' Woods
Creek Gorge
Creek Gorge .
Indian Creek
Buttermilk Creek Gorge
Coy Glen Road Hackberry
Woods
Renwick Slope
DEC Mapped wetland
FaII.Creek Gorge, Beebe L.-IT
Falls
Old City Dump
Cascadilla Woods and Fish
Ponds
Negundo Woods
McGowen Woods
Locke Creek Gulf
Hidden Glens
Ludlowville Falls
Lower Salmon Creek
Portland Point Quarry
Shurger Glen
LA -7 Lake Cliffs,S.of Portland Point NE -13 DEC Mapped Wetland
LA -8 Lake Cliffs- McKinneys to NE -14 Cayuga Inlet Parnassia Fen
Boulton Pt. UL -1 Hart's Woods
LA -9 Esty's Glen UL -2 Frontenac Creek Glen
LA -10 McKinney's Twin Glens UL -3 Smith's Woods
LA -11 Route 13 Island UL -4 LVRR Right -of -way
LA -12 Airport ponds/Wetlands #1 UL -5 Ulysses Limestone Quarry
LA -13 Dryden- Lansing Swamp UL -6 Willow Creek Glen
LA -14 Hemlock Creek Swamp UL -7 Diatreme
LA -15 Lansingville Swamp UL -8 Taughannock Gorge
LA -16 Ludlowville Woods UL -9 Glenwood Ravine
LA -17 Waterwagon. Road Woods UL -10 Mapelwood Glen
LA -18 Minnegar Brook Woods UL -11 DEC mapped wetland
LA -19 Lake Cliffs North of Meyers UL -12 DEC mapped wetland
Point
LA -20 Salmon Creek Woods
LA -21 DEC mapped wetland
LA -22 DEC mapped wetland
LA -23 DEC mapped wetland
LA -24 DEC mapped wetland
LA -25 DEC mapped wetland
LA -26 DEC mapped wetland
LA -27 Salmon Creek Rd. Marl Spring
LA -28 DEC mapped wetland
LA -29 DEC mapped wetland
LA -30 DEC mapped wetland
LA -31 Cornell Ponds #1 and DEC
Wetland
LA -32 South Salmon Creek
Woods
LA -33 Head Corners Wetland
NE -1 Swamp West of Key Hill
NE-2 Key Hill Swamp; Seven
Springs
NE -3 West Branch, Cayuga Inlet
Gorge
NE -4 Van Buskirk's Glen
NE -5 West Branch, Dry Run
NE -6 Cornish Hollow Swamp
NE -7 Auger Hole
NE -8 Pony Hollow Creek Marshes
and Swamp
NE -9 Carter Creek
NE -10 Connecticut Hill
NE-11 Piper Road Sundew Fen
NE-12 Murphy Tract
0
•
•
A guide to the forms describing the sites:
N. A. Site Code: The code used in this inventory to identify each site. The
code consist of the first two letters of the town name
followed by a sequential number arbitrarily chosen.
Site name: Name used to commonly refer to the site. These may
indicate the location or name of a former owner or
nearby resident prefix ed to the type of area represented.
by the site. It may describe specific features of the
area.
USGS Quad. Name: The United States Geological Survey map quadrangle name..
Surveyor: Persons who conducted the field visit and recorded the field
notes.
Date: Date on which the field visit was made.
Town: The town in which the site is located.
Ownership: A listing of the major or largest landowners of each parcel.
This is not always a complete listing. Most sites are in
multiple ownership and there may be too many owners
to list. In some cases, specific information on private,
corporate, or municipal ownership is indicated. The
following abbreviations have sometimes been used to
indicate ownership:
Pr. Private SF,
CH. Cotton - Hanlon, Inc. SP,
CU. Cornell University TG
LVRR Lehigh Valley Railroad
N.Y. state forest
-N.Y. state parks
Tompkins County
Parcel Ws: The numbers used on town tax maps to refer to each
separately owned. section of the site.
Location: Sites are delineated by the roads forming their periphery or
surrounding their boundaries. In some cases, contour
lines from the USGS topographic quadrangles 7 1/2 °
series were used as boundaries. Road names are
generally those noted by USGS maps. Access points
are given as distances in a certain direction from the
closest junction of roads, a named stream, or nearby
road.
Cover type General types of major plant communities found covering
most of the land on the site.
Site description: A description of the important plant and animal communities,
geological features, and water bodies that give the site
its special character.
Reason for significance: A listing of the major reasons why this area is unique or why
it is vulnerable to alteration.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SITE
Size (ac): Approximate acreage of the site if known.
Elevation (ft): Lowest and highest elevations within the boundaries of the
site are given in feet above sea level.
Aspect:: The compass direction toward which the major slope of the
site is generally facing.
Topographic features: A description of the general type of topography, major
features, and drainages found on the site.
Names of water bodies: Lists of names and drainages of springs, streams, creeks,
and ponds within, flowing through, or contiguous to
each site. Some information concerning the size of
water bodies, impoundments present, water depth, and
general clarity may be included.
Geology: Important geological features of the.site are listed, including
those depicting the structure, geomorphology,
stratigraphy, and paleontology of rocks from the
Devonian period which underlie the county, and those
illustrating the modifications made to the landscape by
glaciation.
Slope: The percent gradient most commonly typifying the slope of
the land on the site (multiple categories can be found
on one site and will be checked).
Topographic position: The type of relief most typifying this site in relation to
surrounding landscape (multiple categories can be
found on one site and will be checked).
Moisture: The most common soil condition with respect to water
saturation found on the site throughout the year
(multiple categories can be found on one site and will
be checked).
Soils: A listing of the most extensive soil types to be found on the
site, using the most recent Tompkins County Soil
Survey maps and descriptions. A soil types legend is
included in the appendix of this report.
r-El
-I
L- --A
n
VEGETATION
A greater emphasis in the inventory is placed on vegetation than on any other natural
features. This is because the vegetation of Cayuga lake basin has been
extensively studied and monitored, and changes in features of the vegetation,
such as numbers of rare plants, are good measures of environmental change.
Since animals depend on plant communities, changes in the nature of vegetation
can be used to predict impacts on animal populations. Therefore, a complete
understanding of the extent, diversity, and development of plant communities can
prove to be a valuable information base for identifying the uniqueness and needs
for preservation of a particular site.
Plant communities: Types of forest, field, and wetland communities found on
the site are listed. The use of these types provide a
convenient way of indicating in short -hand form the
common species of trees,. shrubs, and mosses that
dominate an area. Although the dominant species
usually give the type its name, many more species are
to be found associated with each type.
Description of vegetation: A more complete discussion of the details of the vegetation
found on this area, noting the extent of particular
communities, the general diversity of species to be
found, and the age and structure of the communities.
RARE OR SCARCE SPECIES PRESENT
Flora: A list of any rare plants known to be present on the site,
followed by comments identifying the nature of
rareness (rare or scarce).
Fauna: A list of any rare animals known to be present on the site,
followed by comments identifying the nature of
rareness (rare or scarce).
CONSERVATION
Evidence of disturbance: A list of human activities that have occurred or appeared to
have occurred on the site, and the potential for or
evidence of recovery from these activities. Of special
concern are those activities that have altered the natural
environment during the last 150 years.
Adjacent land use: A list of the activities being conducted on adjacent land that
might impact this site.
Threats to site: Activities potentially endangering the natural development
and functioning of plant and animal activities on the
site.
Vulnerability to visitors: An estimate of the potential for human- induced change.
Special conservation needs: Comments on activities that could help maintain the site in its
present natural state.
Protective ownership: Does the land presently have conservation protection (yes,
no, or unknown)?
Adequate buffer: Does the land presently have an adequate buffer protecting it
from changes that would occur if adjacent land is
developed (yes, no, or unknown)?
DEC wetland protection: Is the land listed by the DEC as a designated state wetland
area (yes or no)?
DEC wetland code: If the land is listed as a designated state wetland area, the
code assigned it by the DEC, if known.
DEC mapped acreage, If the land is listed as a designated state wetland area, the
acreage mapped in the designation by the DEC, if
known.
Other comments on
conservation: Comments on the needs and possibilities for conservation.
EVALUATION: These six categories represent the main criteria for inclusion
on the list as a unique natural area. Each category is
checked if the site contains unique characteristics in
that area.
Does the site contain plants rarely or scarcely found in
Tompkins county (check if yes)?
Does the site contain animals rarely or scarcely found
in Tompkins county (check if yes)?
Does the site contain plant or animal communities
rarely or scarcely found in Tompkins county (check if
yes)?
Does the site contain unusual geological features or
geological features rarely or scarcely found in
Tompkins county (check if yes)?
Is the site an excellent example of a type of plant or
animal community or geology (check if yes)?
Does the site have high esthetic qualities (check if yes)?
I]
•
r�
Unique Natural
Areas
Town of Caroline
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
CA -1
Caroline Pinnacles
Tompkins County
Unique Natural Area
S1teCode CA -1 Surveyor INLO,FRW Town lCaroline..
Ownership
USGS Quad
rivate
Willseyville —� Lat /long 0420 020' N 0760 023' W
Parcel Number
24 -1- 14,17. 2,16,23,18,22.2,22.1_,24,25;21;
25 -1- 18,19920,21 ,22.2,22.1,23924,28.1930,28.3; 26 -1 -11.1
Location
Two ridge peaks E of White Church Road. North pinnacle lies NW White Church
hamlet. South Pinnacle SE of hamlet. Access by foot from White Church Road.
Also accessible on foot from Bald Hill Road.
Cover Type
upland forest, rock outcrops
Site Description
• Ridge tops; wooded W slopes; wooded band atop ridge; rock outcrops; intermittent
streams. Natural forest, forest brush, conifer plantations.
Significance
Known for over 90 years as a very important floral area in . Central New York.
Physical Characteristics of Site
Size (A) 470 Elevation 1100 to 1600 Aspect JW -SW
To o Feature
very steep slope, overlooking Willseyville Creek Valley
Water Bodies
Geology
Bedrock is exposed in a series of huge steps. Best example of glacially
oversteepened valley walls in county. Slopes 35 -70% and greater. Small
outcropping of highly fossiliferous upper Sonyea or lower West Falls shales.
Slope( %) Topographic Moisture
❑ Flat ® Crest ❑ Inundated (Hydric)
❑ 0 to 10 ® Upper Slope ❑ Saturated (Wet - mesic)
❑ 10 to 35 ® Mid -slope ❑ Moist (Mesic)
® Over 35 ® Lower Slope ® Dry -mesic
® Vertical ® Bottom ® Dry (Xeric)
Site Code: CA -1
Page 2
Soils (see appendix for list of soil names)
Soil type:
% area
LnC
5%
LnD
.5%
LnE
10%
Lof
80%
Vegetation
chestnut oak forest, mixed oak forest
Description of vegetation. (Communities, Signiflcant /Unusual Features,
Species, Age, Structure, etc.)
overstory: Quercus prinus, Quercus rubra, Amelanchier arborea
understory: Viburnum acerifolium, Vaccinium vacillans, Vaccinium angustifolium
herb layer: Deschampsia flexuosa, Aster macrophyllus, Helianthus divaricatus
40 % bare ground, 10 -20% evergreens
trees: 40% cover 30ft
tall shrubs: .30% cover 2 -4 ft
herbs: 40% cover 1 -2 ft
Rare or Scarce Species Present
Presence of Rare or Scarce Species: Yes
Flora
Genus & species
Rare \Scarce Comments
Deschampsia flexuosa
Rare
Lonicera hirsuta
Rare
Arabis .lyrata
Rare
Pinus rigida
Scarce
Panicum xanthophysum
Rare reported by Tufts
Woodsia ilvensis
Scarce reported by Tufts
Viola fimbriatula
Scarce
Kalmia latifolia
Scarce
Fauna
Genus &
species
Rare \Scarce
Comments
Eumeces
anthracinus
Scarce
Coal Skink
.®
•
A
•
is
Site Code: CA -1
Page 3
Conservation
Evidence of Disturbance and Potential for Recovery
Area has been cut to open view or for hang gliding
Adiacent Land Use
farming, natural area, forest
Threats to Site
Vulnerability of Site to Visitors
Steep slopes are subject to erosion and will not withstand much foot traffic
Special Conservation /Management Needs
Protective Ownership ® Adequate Buffer
DEC Wetland ® DEC Wetland DEC Mapped
Protection Site Code Acreage
Other Comments on Conservation
Summary of Special . Features
® Rare \Scarce Plants
® Rare \Scarce Communities
® High Quality of Example
Comments
❑ Rare \Scarce Animals
® Unique Geology
® HIgh Esthetic Qualities
0
����1V{a"�'V`�1��'� ;d.- -�'.��-•. -� y��•..'�p,A�1 �I.��.JG�'1__- ��.:Gl:. —� - .,•,� -�.
' -. }Y {��t)��_y�.':-�r��� s�' � � �.� ; +iItIL,•T_' ±S��I�S`1 = '�C:'_ -?]C'. E ET
i? I
IL
-i
,,Cerr..':�
% ;1` yr'
fit
Id
'�,,' '.:• � / /��; I.T. � \'..��,��= —;; ' _�
•7' - .t '. /,r: 1.01 � ' .. }
------ II
Syr \
to
in
ff
—� 1 i
NV
\` \c ` _i, / /J /!. °,% /i i- -rte '� l•
a1;
1•
`il'.
J
1 �. ,1/
Ce
\l FI
_
all
li : :` %�'�,
C &e