HomeMy WebLinkAboutTomp County Unique Natrual Inventory a meeting note survey 1984 and 1990le
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
V
IMPORTANT NOTE!!
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.
AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS,
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
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
Douglas Dimock
John Howell
Kurt J i rka
Barbara Knuth
Bard Prentiss
David Weinstein
C. Other contributors and significant supporters:
Edward Brothers
John Chiment
John Confer
Edward Cope
Betsy Darlington
Herbert Engman
D. Contributing. Agencies:
Cornell Plantations
The Nature Conservancy
Howard Evans
Tony Ingraham
Barbara Peckarsky
Alton Reed
Charles Smith
NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation
NYS Natural Heritage Program
E. Invaluable efforts of the Tompkins County Planning Department Staff:
David Bergstone
Mary DiGiacomo
Nan Kim
Harold Mednis
James Skaley
CONTENTS
IMPORTANT NOTE
AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
INTRODUCTION
Aboutthe inventory .................................................................. I
Uses for the inventory............................................................... I
Methods for identifying candidate sites............................................2
Procedures for surveying............................................................3
Criteria for classification as a Unique Natural Area ..............................5
A guide to the data forms describing the sites.....................................5
List of sites (towns listed alphabetically; sites numerically within a town)...10
SITE DATA FORMS (each with a Site Map)
Town of Caroline
Town of Danby
Town of Dryden
Town of Enfield
Town of Groton
Town of Ithaca
Town of Lansing -
Town of Newfield
Town of Ulysses
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Glossary of Terms .............................................. Al
APPENDIX B: Soil Series Codes ................................................ B 1
County Map of Unique Natural Areas ..... (folded in pocket inside back cover)
UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS OF TOMPKINS COUNTY
1990 Inventory
INTRODUCTION
About the inventory:
The Unique Natural Areas of Tompkins County, 1990 inventory, is a listing of the areas in
the county that have been identified as having outstanding 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 devised
procedures and accumulated data for more than 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 their status. Further, over 100 new sites were identified. In
addition to using information from the previous inventory, data were provided by the State
of New York Wetland Survey, the state Natural Heritage Program, 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, designed the computer forms on which the
data is displayed in this report, and prepared the map of Tompkins County Unique Natural
Areas (folded in the pocket at the back of this volume). The resulting inventory is the
product of a great amount of work by many people, many 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 all sites
in the county identified by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) 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
damage. Information contained in this survey will be provided to the landowners of the
unique natural areas to help them recognize the importance of the resources they hold.
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 varied
landscapes that initially drew many of us here. We hope that methods and plans to help
landowners protect their resources will be formulated.
It is a concern of the committee that the publication of this report 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
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 for
inclusion 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 official DEC -designated wetlands. These sites have been identified as
having outstanding 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. Personnel from DEC and the Office of
Parks and Recreation 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 members of 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 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,
identifying 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 these 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 be
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.
Proeedures 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 natural 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 was a very difficult task since the
field crew did 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.
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. In this volume, an individual site map is included after each site data form and
a folded map showing all sites in the county may be found in the pocket inside the back
cover.
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:
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 species that have been recognized as
rare or scarce at a national, state, or local level?
rd
2. Rare communities: Does the site contain a plant or animal community type that is rare in
the county?
3. Quality of example: Is the site one of the best representatives or examples of an
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 outstanding natural or
scenic beauty as viewed from within or from a distance?
A guide to the data 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 commonly used to refer to the site, usually having
local or historical recognition. These may indicate the
location or name of an owner, former owner, or
nearby resident prefixed 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:
Privatelv owned Publiclv owned
Pr. Private SF. N.Y. state forest
CH Cotton -Hanlon, Inc. SP. N.Y. state park
CU Cornell University TC Tompkins County
LVRR Lehigh Valley Railroad
5
Parcel Vs: The numbers used on town tax maps to refer to each
separately owned section of the site.
Location: Sites may be 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.
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.
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 life 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. A category is
checked if the site meets the criterion.
Rare plants: Does the site contain plants rarely or scarcely found in
Tompkins county (check if yes)?
Rare animals: Does the site contain animals rarely or scarcely found in
Tompkins county (check if yes)?
Rare communities: Does the site contain plant or animal communities rarely or
scarcely found in Tompkins county (check if yes)?
Geology: Does the site contain unusual geological features or
geological features rarely or scarcely found in
Tompkins county (check if yes)?
Quality of example: Is the site an excellent example of a type of plant or animal
community or geologic feature (check if yes)?
Esthetic qualities: Does the site have high esthetic qualities (check if yes)?
LIST OF SITES (towns listed alphabetically; sites numerically within a
town)
CA-1
Caroline Pinnacles
DR-8
Woodwardia Bog
CA-2
Middaugh Woods
DR-9
Virgil Creek
CA-3
Brooktondale Gorge
DR-10
Dryden Bogs
CA-4
Ellis Hollow Swamp,
DR-11
Slaterville Wildflower
Thomas Rd.
Preserve
CA-5
Amber Glass Spring
DR-12
Dryden-Slaterville Fir
CA-6
Caroline Swamp (Slaterville
Swamp
Swamp)
DR-13
Cooks Corner Gully
CA-7
White Rock Gorge
DR-14
Ellis Hollow Swamp
CA-8
Shindagin Hollow
DR-15
Pine Woods
CA-9
Bald Hill Mtn. Laurel
DR-16
Tully Limestone Erratic
CA-10
White Church-Willseyville
DR-17
Fringed Gentian Meadow
Swamp
DR-18
Airport Ponds/Wetlands
CA-11
Caroline Depot Woods
(see LA-12)
CA-12
Potato Hill State Forest
DR-19
Wyckoff Swamp
CA-13
Eastman Hill
DR-20
Ringwood Ponds
CA-14
Woods along Six Mile Creek
DR-21
Townly Swamp
CA-15
Willseyville Beaver Ponds
DR-22
Dryden Lake, Marshes &
CA-16
Belle School Road Fen
Swamp
CA-17
Bald Hill Woods
DR-23
McLean Preserve and adj.
CA-18
Gulf Creek Gorge
Wetlands
CA-19
Buffalo Road Rich Woods
DR-24
Beaver Brook Fen
CA-20
The Narrows
DR-25
Beaver Brook Swamp
DA-1
Lick Brook
DR-26
Ed Hill Trillium Woods
DA-2
Danby Fir Tree Swamp
DR-27
Beaver Brook Springs
DA-3
Michigan Hollow Swamp
DR-28
Frost Ravine
and Ponds
DR-29
Poison Tract
DA-4
Thatcher's Pinnacle
DR-30
Gaskill Tract
DA-5
West Danby Morainal
DR-31
Monkey Run
DA-6
South Branch, West Danby
DR-32
Fall Creek Hemlock Grove
Creek
DR-33
Etna Bird Sanctuary
DA-7
Headwater's Swamp
DR-34
Malloryville Fen
DA-8
Durfee Hill Oak Wood
DR-35
Dryden Firehouse Wetland
DA-9
Astronomy Lab.
DR-36
DEC mapped wetland
DA-10
DEC mapped wetland
DR-37
Dryden Sedge Meadow
DA-11
Deputron Hollow
DR-38
DEC mapped wetland
DR-1
Freeville Fir Tree Swamp
DR-39
Mill Dam Marsh, Freeville
DR-2
Peruton Bogs
DR-40
Etna Marsh
DR-3
Malloryville Bog/Swamp/—
DR-41
DEC mapped wetland
Fens/Esker
DR-42
Caswell Road Swamp
DR-4
North Malloryville
DR-43
Wood Road Swamp
DR-5
East Malloryville Tamarack
DR-44
Townley Swamp, East
Swamp
Branch
DR-6
Mud Creek Swamp
DR-45
DEC mapped wetland
DR-7
Woodwardia Woods
DR-46
Dryden -Lansing Swamp
10
-1 IV.st 3. I e"
DR-47
DEC mapped wetland
GR-23
Cemetery Lane Seepy
DR-48
Sheldon Road Wetland
Woods
DR-49
DEC mapped wetland
IT-1
LVRR Right -of -Way
DR-50
DEC mapped wetland
IT-2
The Hog Hole
DR-51
Pleasant Hollow Swamp,
IT-3
Williams Glen s i .
North
IT-4
Coy Glen
a
DR-52
Pleasant Hollow Swamp,
IT-5
Fleming Meadow- .
South
IT-6
Larch Meadbw's;
DR-53
Durland Bird Preserve
IT-7
Lick Brook Ithaca Section
DR-54
Sapsucker Woods Bird
IT-8
South Hill. Swamp
Sanctuary
IT-9
Six -Mile "Crldek
DR-55
Mott Road Gravel Quarry
IT-10
Linn St.=Wocids
DR-56
Cornell Experimental Ponds
IT-11
Base of itlyaca Falls
#2
IT-12
Stewart, Patk Woods "
DR-57
Morris Road Woods
(Fuertet Bird Sanctuary)
DR-58
Fall Creek Rd. Moss Seep
IT-13
Mundy: Wildflower Garden
DR-59
Star Stanton Hill
IT-14
Fall Creek Corridor near Flat
EN-1
Enfield Creek Swamp
Rocks,, .
EN-2
_Marl Spring :: - -
IT-1-5 --
Bull Pasture Ponds
EN-3
Enfield Spruce Swamp
1T-16
Eldridge Preserve
EN-4
Enfield Glen
IT-17
Cascadilla Gorge
EN-5
DEC mapped wetland
IT-18
Biol-ogical Station
EN-6
DEC mapped wetland
IT-19
Newman Tract
EN-7
Weatherby Road Meadow
IT-20 _
-Palmer Woods
GR-1
Devil's Den
IT-21
Beebe Lake*'Wo-ods, Gorge
GR-2
Bear Swamp
IT-22
Octopus Cliffs
GR-3
Sanquisorba Swamp
IT-23
Bill Dress' Woods
GR-4
Groton Bank Swallow
IT-24
Creek G-orge
Colony
IT-25
Creek Gorge
GR-5
McLean Fen
IT-26
Indian Creek
GR-6
North McLean Marl
IT-27
Buttermilk Creek Gorge
Meadows
IT-28
Coy Glen Road Hackberry
GR-7
Webster Creek Swamp
Woods
GR-8
Rte. 222 Fen
IT-29
Renwick Slope
GR-9 .
Groton Water Supply Fen
IT-30
DEC mapped wetland
GR-10
Champlin Road Potentilla
IT-31
Fall. Creek Gorge, Beebe L.-
Fen
Ithaca Falls
GR-1-1'
McLean Woods
IT-32
Old City Dump
GR-12
Cemetary Lane Rich Woods
IT-33
Cascadilla Woods and Fish
GR-13
Nubia Swamp
Ponds.
GR-14
Beaver Brook Swamp
IT-34
Negundo Woods
GR-15
Owasco Inlet Valley Swamp
IT-35
McGowen Woods
GR-16
DEC mapped wetland
LA-1
Locke C.reeklGulf::
GR-17
DEC 'mapped wetland
LA-2
Hidden Glens
GR-18
DEC mapped wetland
LA-3
Ludlowville. Falls
GR-19
DE-C mapped wetland
LA-4
Lower Salmon Creek
GR-20
DEC mapped wetland
LA-5
Portland Point Quarry
GR-21
Groton City Fen
LA-6
Shurger Glen
GR-22
Upper Fall Creek Corridor
LA-7
Lake Cliffs,S.of Portland
Point
LA-8
Lake Cliffs-McKinneys to
Boulton Pt
LA-9
Esty's Glen
LA-10
McKinney's Twin Glens
LA-11
Route 13 Island
LA-12
Airport Ponds/Wetlands #1
LA-13
Dryden -Lansing Swamp
LA-14
Hemlock Creek Swamp
LA-15
Lansingville Swamp
LA-16
Ludlowville Woods
LA-17
Waterwagon Road Woods
LA-18
Minnegar Brook Woods
LA-19
Lake Cliffs North of Meyers
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
NE-13
DEC mapped wetland
NE-14
Cayuga Inlet Parnassia Fen
12
UL-1
Hart's Woods
UL-2
Frontenac Creek Glen
UL-3
Smith's Woods
UL-4
LVRR Right-of-way
UL-5
Ulysses Limestone Quarry
UL-6
Willow Creek Glen
UL-7
Diatreme
UL-8
Taughannock Gorge
UL-9
Glenwood Ravine
UL-10
Maplewood Glen
UL-11
DEC mapped wetland
UL-12
DEC mapped wetland
THE TOMPKINS COUNTY UNIQUE NATURAL AREA INVENTORY:
What is the inventory?
• 184 sites in the county, including 107 new sites, with special
environmental qualities.
• Supervised by Tompkins County Environmental Management
Council.
• Surveyed by two local botanical experts.
• Assisted by local experts in plant and animal biology and
ecology and geologists.
How should it be used?
• Help alert landowners to their valuable environmental
resources.
• Help developers avoid projects in sensitive areas.
• Help communities with comprehensive planning for habitat
protection.
How were potential sites identified?
• Sites from former inventory.
• State parks and designated wetlands.
• Sites identified by field surveyers, local plant, animal, and
geological experts
-- From knowledge of local experts.
-- From site potential based on topographic position.
-- From identification of likely habitats for rare or scarce
species.
-- From field spotting from adjacent roads.
TOMPKINS COUNTY EMC MEETING
October 16, 1984
Informal Report of the Groton Representative
A tentative schedule for the November 20th Groton meeting was distributed,
with route maps to the meeting location in the Village Hall.
The Groton portion of the November 20th meeting has been set for one hour's
duration. It was requested that the planners for the Groton program portion
organize the schedule accordingly. The Groton representative is to report the final
schedule to the November 6th Executive Meeting of the EMC.
Other Items
The Lansing rock quarry question emerged again. Despite the statement at
the last meeting that the quarry may soon close down due to the costs of
removing overburden, it has been observed to be still in operation and approaching
a protected stream gorge. As far as anyone can tell, they are completely ignoring
DEC requirements for quarry operations as well as the directives from a hearing
before a judge last summer. The Land Use & Transportation Committee has been
asked to contact DEC on this, to find out why they aren't moving against the
quarry operator.
A resident on Nemi Road complained to the
to his place revealed that he has 16 acres of pin
of up to 75 deer. A neighbor is also being hit.
Unique Natural Areas
EMC about deer damage. A visit
e that are being ruined by a heard
One of the first things the EMC did when it was created in the early 1970's
was to inventory unique natural areas in the county. A Cornell University student
did his thesis on it. That thesis remains the principal source of information on
unique natural areas in the county.
The student identified 84 unique areas in the county, and 12 additional areas
that needed further study. Maps were prepared for each town, showing the
location and type of unique natural areas that had been identified. Copies of these
maps were sent to each town and village in 1980. Not much has happened since
then.
Copies of the maps were distributed to each town and village representative
- 1 -
on the EMC. The EMC is interested in promoting interest in local protection of
these areas.
Groton has six of these unique areas, and shares a seventh with Dryden. A z
map of the town showing the areas is attached to this report. Most of them are
swamps.
The EMC would like current information on these sites —some may have
changed and are no longer valid, while there may be other sites that now warrant
protection.
Since so many of the unique areas are swamps, many of them are already
protected by the state Freshwater Wetlands Law. A lengthy discussion developed
over various means for individuals with such wetlands on their properties to obtain
tax relief for the restrictions imposed, or for voluntarily giving easements that
would not allow development to occur. The easements laws are complex. One
way would be to set up a private or a county trust that could take easements.
This has been done in some other counties. There's also an association of trusts
that will come and assist the county in setting up such a trust.
If local towns will officially recognize these unique areas, that will make
them subject to the state environmental review law (SEQR) if development permits
are sought.
- 2 -
What criteria were used to select unique sites?
• Rare or scarce plant species.
- Rare or scarce animal species.
Rare plant or animal communities.
• Quality of example.
• Exceptional esthetic qualities.
Future?
• The inventory is an on -going process.
Due to time limitations many sites were left unsurveyed.
More will be added as time permits and information is
made available.
Protection Options
1. declare site a "critical environmental area"
2. develop conservation zoning
3. donate development rights to public or private agency
4. provide tax break for conservation easements
5. municipal land puchase