HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015_Inventory_Introduction_12-31-15(1) Unique Natural Areas Inventory of Tompkins County
2015 Revision
Introduction
How To Use This Inventory
This 2015 edition of the Unique Natural Areas Inventory of Tompkins County is divided into five parts:
1. Introductory sections: including descriptions of the history of the Inventory,what
characterizes a UNA,methods and procedures used to identify and survey the sites, and a
guide to the data sheets.
2. The UNA index maps showing all UNAs within each municipality in Tompkins County, and
numerical and alphabetical lists of all UNAs in the County.
3. The site data sheets and site maps for each of the 194 UNAs in Tompkins County.
4. The appendices,which give the reader more information about the data sets used to create
the Inventory.
5. A County-wide map showing all UNAs in Tompkins County.
The first thing to do when using this report is to read the introductory sections,which are located before the
site data sheets. They will give readers insight into the purpose of the UNA Inventory,how it was put
together,how sites were chosen for inclusion in the Inventory, and how to interpret the data.
The UNA index maps provide a comprehensive view of the number and size of all UNAs within each
municipality in Tompkins County. The County-wide UNA map provides readers with an overall view of the
area,to help orient themselves to specific UNAs using major roads and surrounding municipalities.
The bulk of the Inventory consists of the site maps and data sheets. Each UNA site report consists of a UNA
site map followed by detailed information about that particular UNA. The data sheets vary in length based
on the amount of information there is about the site. Each datasheet includes eight main categories:
a) Site Name and Code
b) Location
c) Site and Vegetation Description
d) Reasons for Selection
e) Special Land-use Information
f) Conservation of the Site
g) Physical Characteristics of the Site
h) Biological Characteristics of the Site
Finally,readers will gain much information by referring to the appendices,which contain helpful information
concerning definitions of terms, sources of information used in the Inventory, and specific data for all the
plants, animals,and ecological communities found in the Unique Natural Areas.
About the Inventory:
This document is a listing and description of the areas in Tompkins County that have been identified as
having outstanding environmental qualities and deserve special attention for preservation in their natural
1
state. Although every effort has been made to identify all candidate sites in the County,this task must
inevitably be viewed as an ongoing process. Time and resource limitations govern the number of sites that
can be thoroughly surveyed. Furthermore, as time passes and the landscape is altered, it will be important
periodically to revisit and re-evaluate UNA sites. As was stated in the 2000 Inventory, it is expected that the
mere creation of a survey of unique natural areas will act to accelerate the process of identifying unusual
resources deserving protection.
Our hope is that the publication of this survey will alert citizens to the need to protect these valuable
resources,and will inspire some to suggest new sites for future evaluation. It is important to continue the
process of adding and deleting sites to this Inventory when warranted,and adding significant information
about sites as it becomes available.
Purposes of the Inventory:
I. To help municipal boards make informed decisions about what kinds of development should be
allowed in or near these special natural areas.
2. To help make landowners aware of the valuable resources they own so that they may take particular
care in protecting these areas from damage.
3. To help County residents appreciate the natural wonders of our area.
These unique natural areas provide a sanctuary for rare plants and animals, and help to maintain the diversity
of natural communities in our region. They contribute to maintaining the sense of wildness in the County
that many residents 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.
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." The
sites included in this Inventory have been reevaluated since the previous Inventory and described more fully.
Some sites have been dropped from earlier listings because they have been sufficiently degraded and no
longer merit inclusion as a UNA, and other sites have been added. Thus,the classification of a UNA is an
ongoing process.
To be included in the present Inventory, a UNA site had characteristics that fell into one or more of the
following general categories:
1.Important natural community: This broad characteristic includes state-designated wetlands, designated
natural areas/preserves,historical botanical/zoological sites,important teaching sites, old-growth forests,
sites with a plant or animal community type that is rare or scarce in the County,those with diverse flora or
fauna, including birding sites and those having a wilderness character.
2. Quality of example: These sites were considered the best representatives, or examples, of an ecosystem,
plant community,or animal community of high quality within the County. The sites contain especially large
individuals, dense populations,or a particularly diverse mixture of species.
3. Rare or scarce plants or animals: These sites contain plant or animal species that have been recognized
as rare or scarce at a national, state, or local level,those with critical migration,reproductive, or feeding
habitat for rare or scarce animal species, and those with reports of large mammals.
2
4. Geological Importance: These sites are rare or outstanding examples of geological features or processes,
and paleontological sites.
5.Aesthetic/cultural qualities: These sites contain acknowledged outstanding natural or scenic beauty as
viewed from within or from a distance,have recreational value, sites designated as urban greenspaces and
sites with cultural/historic/archeological significance.
It is the intent and hope of the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council that the identification
of local sites as Unique Natural Areas will serve as an important step towards their protection.
3
What's Improved in This Update
The 1990 edition of the Unique Natural Areas Inventory was a major expansion of the work that Craig Tufts
did in 1976 to survey the important natural areas in Tompkins County. The 2000 revision was an extensive
update of the information. The 2015 revision adds further clarity and detail related to UNA boundaries and
flora and fauna within them. Readers familiar with the 2000 edition will notice similarities in the layout and
content of the report, site maps, data sheets, and appendices. It is the intent of the EMC to make the
Inventory more comprehensive in scope and more helpful for the intended audience of municipal boards,
planners, and interested citizens. Below is a summary of greatly improved information included in this
edition of the Inventory.
Improved Information:
1. UNA Site Designations: Many of the UNAs that had been designated in the 2000 Inventory were
reviewed in this update.Nine sites were inventoried in the field by professional botanists in 2011-2012. Two
entirely new UNAs were also added to the Inventory in 2012 (Salt Road Fen and Hawthorn Orchards)based
on data gathered over the past several years.
2. UNA Site Boundaries: One of the biggest improvements in the 2000 Inventory is that the boundaries of
many UNAs were modified based on advancements in aerial imagery and Geographic Information Services
(GIS). UNA boundaries expanded in some cases,contracted in others, and many simply changed their
shapes to better reflect the unique characteristics of the sites. Overall,the total percent of UNA coverage of
land in Tompkins County increased from 11.30%in the 1990 Inventory to 12.29%in the 2000 Inventory to
13.7%in the 2015 Inventory. For more information on how these boundaries were revised,please see the
Methods and Procedures section of this report.
3. Tax Parcel Numbers: The accuracy of the tax parcel information continues to improve in this update.
The County's GIS was used to overlay the UNA boundaries on the County Assessment Department's tax
parcel data to obtain the list of tax parcels.
4. Plant Species: The flora portion of the"Rare or Scarce Species Present" section of the 2000 Inventory
was updated and corrected to include many plant species that were not included in the previous Inventory.
Additionally,updated information was gathered about each species' global, state, and local rarity, as well as
its federal and state legal status. This information was summarized in checkboxes for easy reference on the
site data sheets,and displayed in a separate appendix.
11. Animal Species: The fauna portion of the"Rare or Scarce Species Present"section of the 2015
Inventory was signficantly updated and corrected to exclude redundant or ambiguous species. The bulk of
the changes made were to the bird species listed on UNAs. The criterion was added that a bird must be listed
as a species of concern by the Partners in Flight(PIF)program to be shown on the species list for a UNA.
Information was also gathered about each animal species' global and state rarity and its federal and state
legal status. This information was summarized in checkboxes for easy reference on the site data sheets, and
displayed in a separate appendix.
12. Miscellaneous: Municipality,USGS Quadrangle,Latitude/Longitude, Size,Elevation, and Slope all
benefited from the use of the County's GIS computer system. All of these data fields,which previously were
interpreted from paper maps,were generated by overlaying the UNAs on the appropriate GIS data layer and
extracting or visually interpreting the information.
4
Guide To the Data Sheets
Site Name and Code
Site Name: The name commonly used to refer to the site,usually having local or historical
recognition. The names may indicate the location,a NYS Freshwater Wetland
Code,or the name of an owner,former owner, or nearby resident. It may also
describe specific features of the site.
Site Code: The code used in this Inventory to identify each site. The code consists of the
first three letters,UNA, followed by a sequential number from the northwest
quadrant of the County across and down, ending in the southwest quadrant.
Old Site Code: The code that was used in the 1990 Inventory to identify each site.
Data Last Updated: The last date that changes were made to the data for a particular site.
Location
Municipality: The town, city, or village in which the site is located.
USGS Quad: The United States Geological Survey map quadrangle name, or names, on
which the site is located.
Tax Parcel Numbers: The tax parcel numbers that are covered by at least a portion of a UNA. If a
UNA covered less than 0.025 ac. of a tax parcel,the parcel was omitted from
the list. The tax parcel data are accurate as of June 1,2015.
Site and Vegetation Description
Site&Vegetation Description:A description of the important plant and animal communities,geological
features, and water bodies that give the site its special character. Particular
emphasis is placed on the extent of particular communities,the general
diversity of species to be found, and the age and structure of the communities.
Please see the Methods and Procedures section for the reasoning behind the
emphasis on vegetation in this Inventory.
Reasons for Selection
Reasons for Selection: A listing of the major reasons why this site is considered unique. Twenty-three
possible reasons were used in this section: area of geologic importance;
birding site; cultural/historic/archeological site; designated natural
area/preserve; diverse fauna; diverse flora;historic botanical/zoological site;
important teaching site; old-growth forest;paleontological site; quality
example of animal community; quality example of plant community;
rare/scarce animals;rare/scarce community type; rare/scarce plants;
recreational value; reports of large mammals; scenic/aesthetic value; site of
local significance; state-designated wetland; suggested by resource
inventories;urban greenspace; and wilderness character.
Special Land-Use Information
Special Land-Use Designation:A listing of whether any of the following twenty-two designations or features
are found on the site: agricultural district;biological corridor; Cornell off-
campus natural area; county reforestry land; critical environmental area
(CEA); cultural site of local importance;Finger Lakes Land Trust preserve;
historic site of local importance;multi-use existing trail; multi-use possible
trail; national natural landmark;Nature Conservancy preserve;NY natural
5
heritage site;NYS DEC wild, scenic, or recreational river; old-growth forest;
other,pedestrian existing trail;pedestrian possible trail; scenic views of local
importance; state forest; state park; and state wildlife management area. These
special land-use designations are described in more detail in Appendix B:
Where To Get More Information.
Water Resources: A listing of whether any of the following five water features are found on the
site:NYS Freshwater Wetlands; wetlands identified on the National Wetlands
Inventory;NYS-protected streams; Flood Zones; and existence of a lake,
pond,or stream on the site. Although most of the data for this section in the
Inventory is very good,the NYS-protected streams information is the weakest
portion of the water resources section. Maps at the DEC offices were
manually interpreted and streams were not re-checked after boundary changes
were made to the UNA sites. These water resource designations are described
in more detail in Appendix B: Where To Get More Information.
Conservation of the Site
Conservation of the Site: Includes information about why a site is unique or vulnerable to change. It
includes information on: adjacent land-use, sensitivity of the site to visitors,
evidence of disturbance to the site,threats to the site, special conservation and
management needs, and any other pertinent information concerning the site's
conservation.
Physical Characteristics of the Site
Size: Acreage of the site.
Elevation: The lowest and highest elevations(in feet above sea level)within the
boundaries of the site.
Aspect: The compass direction toward which the major slope of the site is generally
facing.
Slope%: The percent slope indicates the gradient most commonly typifying the land.
Percent slope is calculated by dividing the rise of the land by the run of the
land and multiplying by 100.
Topographic Position: The type of relief most commonly typifying the site, in relation to the
surrounding landscape.
Topographic Features: A description of the general type of topography,major features, and drainages
found on the site.
Geological Features: Important geological features of the site,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.
Soils Present: A listing of the most extensive soil types found on the site. Information is also
included about each soil's wetness, erodibility, and drainage characteristics.
The soils information was gathered through manual interpretation of the
USDA Soil Survey and therefore,the information is approximate.
Additionally,the soils data were not re-checked after boundary changes were
made to the UNA sites in the 2000 Inventory.
6
Biological Characteristics of the Site
Cover Type: A listing of the general types of major plant communities found covering most
of the land on the site. Fourteen cover types were used in this section:
agricultural field; aquatic vegetation;marsh; old-field forest; old fields,
meadows; open water;peat bog;plantation or orchard;rock outcrops and
gravel banks;upland shrub thicket;upland forest; wetland shrub thicket;
wetland forest; and wet meadow.
Ecological Communities: A listing of the types of forest,field,and wetland communities found on the
site. The use of community types provides a convenient way of categorizing
the common species of trees, shrubs,herbaceous plants,and mosses that
dominate an area. The dominant species usually give the ecological
community type its name;however,many more species are to be found
associated with each ecological community type. Information was gathered
about each community's global, state, and local rarity, and is displayed on the
data sheets. The information is also summarized in checkboxes for easy
reference. The entire list of ecological communities in Tompkins County may
be reviewed in Appendix F: Ecological Communities Rarity Codes. The
appendix also includes definitions of all of the codes used in the data sheets.
Plant Species: A listing of significant plant species known to be present on the site, followed
by global, state, and local rarity codes for each plant species,local comments
indicating the nature of the species' rareness(e.g.,rare, scarce,etc.), and its
state legal status. This information is also summarized in checkboxes for easy
reference on the site data sheets. The entire list of plant species may be
reviewed in Appendix D: Plant Species Rarity Codes and Legal Status. The
appendix also includes definitions of all of the codes used in the data sheets.
Animal Species: A listing of animal species known to be present on the site, followed by global
and state rarity codes for each animal species, its federal and state legal status,
and comments indicating the nature of the species' rareness(e.g.,rare,
scarce,Partners in Flight Species of Concern,etc.). The rarity and legal status
information is summarized in checkboxes for easy reference on the site data
sheets. The entire list of animal species may be reviewed in Appendix E:
Animal Species Rarity Codes and Legal Status. The appendix also includes
definitions of all of the codes used in the data sheets.
7
History of the Inventory
The 1976 Tufts Inventory
In the summer of 1973,the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council(EMC), in cooperation
with the Tompkins County Department of Planning,undertook a program designed to identify and inventory
the County's unique natural areas. This initial attempt,by EMC Coordinator Dennis Winters and EMC
volunteers,yielded preliminary information on 26 natural areas in the County. Building on this work,Craig
Tufts,then a graduate student at Cornell University in the Division of Science and Environmental Education,
volunteered to conduct and coordinate this work. During 1974 and early 1975,he conducted a thorough
literature search, studied available maps, soil survey and air photo resources,and held conversations
concerning the Inventory with many County residents. He developed a new list of 84 natural areas. During
the spring of 1974 and spring/summer of 1975,he visited 80 of these 84 sites. During his field work,he
collected data on the exact location,man-made changes, and a wide variety of natural features for each site.
In the time between when he finished his field work and when he published his masters thesis(January,
1976, "A Preliminary Inventory of Some Unique Natural Areas in Tompkins County,New York"),he
received recommendations on 12 additional sites that should be inventoried and included in any future
updates of the report. He noted the names and locations of those sites,bringing the total number of sites to
96.
The 1990 UNA Inventory
In late 1987,the Plant and Animal sub-committee of the EMC, again in cooperation with the Department of
Planning,began work to update and expand the 1976 Inventory produced by Craig Tufts. Two botanists,F.
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 the County that qualified for inclusion in the
Inventory. All sites identified in the 1976 Tufts Inventory were reviewed and revisited to identify any
changes in their status. Furthermore, over 100 new sites were identified using the procedures outlined below.
In addition to using information from the 1976 Tufts Inventory,data were provided by the State of New York
Wetland Survey,the New York Natural Heritage Program,Cornell Plantations,and The Nature
Conservancy.
For the 1990 Inventory, a total of 213 sites were considered to be candidates for inclusion. Of these, 74 of
the 84 sites from the 1976 Tufts Inventory were found still to be of sufficiently high environmental quality to
warrant continued inclusion in the 1990 Inventory. In addition to these sites, 107 new sites were added to the
1990 Inventory. Part of the reason for the increased number of UNAs was that a decision was made at that
time to include in the Inventory all designated State wetlands(NYS Freshwater Wetlands)identified by the
Department of Environmental Conservation.
The 2000 UNA Inventory
In 1994,work began to update the 1990 UNA Inventory. Once again,the Unique Natural Areas Committee
of the EMC worked closely with the Planning Department to review and update the 1990 report.
Many of the UNAs that had been either designated as"Future Sites,"or had been identified in the past ten
years by local scientists or citizens as deserving of UNA designation,were reviewed for this update. At the
end of 1994,the County Board of Representatives authorized funds to be used to hire two botanists,F.
Robert Wesley and Nancy Ostman,to conduct limited additional field work to update the 1990 Inventory.
Nine sites were visited during the summer of 1995. Additionally,NYS Freshwater Wetlands were reviewed
and,two wetlands,which had been previously omitted,were added to the UNA Inventory. Two sites were
deleted from the Inventory because they were degraded. Two entirely new UNAs were added to the
Inventory based on data gathered over the past ten years. Eight sites from the 1990 Inventory were combined
to form four sites in this update. Once all of the field work was conducted and the boundary revisions made,
192 UNA sites were included in the 2000 Inventory.
8
hi addition to the field work conducted for the update,work was done to collect supplementary data for each
UNA. Additionally, other information in the report was standardized and brought up to date,to reflect better
the common scientific terms used to describe natural resources.
Two other factors that were critical to this update were bringing the UNA site boundaries into the County's
GIS, and putting the information into a relational database. Incorporation into the GIS allowed Planning
Department staff to determine better the characteristics of the land within each UNA, and allowed the
consultants to define better the boundaries of each UNA. Creation of the database allowed the staff to more
easily retrieve and analyze the data.
The 2015 UNA Inventory
The most substantial change for the 2015 Inventory is the update of the UNA boundaries. The 2015
Inventory features updated boundaries on 77 sites. Several of the originally draw boundaries were found to
be inaccurate based on the availability of quality maps and data. The revisions are based primarily on
updated aerial photography and GIS technology,which greatly facilitates conforming these new boundaries
to the edge of vegetation patterns and/or land contours,and/or changes in land cover observed,during,or
since the last analysis of the site. These revisions are also based on the inclusion of National Wetland
Inventory data. Where available revisions also include the addition of avian information based on the Ebird
dataset,herpefauna censuses, large mammal census data and updated plant rarity status.
9
Methods and Procedures Used to Identify and Survey the Sites
Methods for identifying candidate sites:
When the EMC's Plant and Animal subcommittee began the process of updating the work of Craig Tufts,
members used the following sources of information to compile a list of sites to be considered for inclusion in
the 1990 Inventory. These sources continue to be used today.
1. Sites from the 1976 Tufts Inventory. Each of the 84 sites included in the 1976 Tufts Inventory
automatically became candidates for the 1990 Inventory. Prior to the publication of the 1976 Tufts
Inventory,these sites had been identified in books about local geology and flora,in newspaper feature
articles, and through word of mouth. These sites were reviewed and revisited between 1987 and 1989 to
ascertain whether any change in their environmental quality had occurred during the years since the
completion of the 1976 Tufts Inventory. Additionally, all of the information collected by Tufts, including the
location description,vegetation types, and rare species,was rechecked in the field.
2. State parks and official DEC-designated(NYS Freshwater) wetlands. Since researchers for New York
State had already identified these sites as having outstanding and important environmental characteristics,
they were automatically included in the 1990 Inventory. Some of these sites were also identified in the 1976
Tufts Inventory. In 1988, all available data concerning these sites were collected from the Department of
Environmental Conservation(DEC) and the Office of Parks,Recreation, and Historic Preservation. State
Parks personnel supplied descriptions of the State parks of concern, and NYS Freshwater Wetland
information was obtained from the wetland survey maps and descriptions,created as part of the 1982 State
Wetland Inventory. Due to time limitations when preparing the 1990 Inventory, only NYS Freshwater
Wetlands sites that had been included in the 1976 Tufts Inventory were revisited in the field.
3. Sites identified by the consulting botanist field team. The consultants,F. Robert Wesley and Nancy
Ostman,have worked in Tompkins County as professional botanists for many years and have extensive
knowledge of the distribution of plant species and vegetation communities in the County. Many of the
suggestions for new sites were made by the botanists,based on their knowledge of the County. Their
understanding of the ecology and the vegetation in the County enabled them to pinpoint potential UNA sites
from topographic maps, and identify sites during roadside surveys.
Special efforts were made to identify locations that might provide habitat for rare or endangered species.
Sites added to the list of candidate sites by the botanists were divided into two categories: 1)potentially
important sites requiring immediate survey(those sites with potentially superior environmental qualities,
such as rare and endangered plants,or those sites which were considered imperiled by possible
development), and 2) sites that might qualify for the Inventory,but needed more study. All sites in the first
category were surveyed and evaluated for the 1990 Inventory. Many of the sites in the second category were
also surveyed;however,time did not allow the consultants to visit all of those sites that might qualify. The
sites that were not surveyed prior to publishing the 1990 Inventory were identified in the Inventory as
"Future Site,"meaning that they should be surveyed in the future.
4. Sites identified by local animal scientists. Local scientists were surveyed about the distribution of animals
(mammals,birds,insects, fish, etc.)in the County and asked about important animal sites. The information
provided comprised the bulk of the animal data used for the evaluation of sites. Information collected
included: location of the site, animals of concern, and the reasons why the habitat was considered unique.
When warranted,the sites were surveyed for their ecological and vegetation characteristics.
5. Sites identified by local geologists. Local scientists were surveyed about important geological sites in the
County and were asked to identify those sites. If the information provided was considered sufficient for the
10
evaluation of the sites,a field survey was not conducted unless there were other features known to be of
interest.
6. Other sites. A few sites were brought to the attention of the EMC's Plant and Animal subcommittee by
committee members,the EMC, or other concerned citizens. Where possible,these sites were field surveyed.
Although every effort has been made to identify all UNA sites in the County,this task must inevitably be
viewed as an ongoing process. Surveying for environmental quality is a very time consuming task. Because
of time and funding limitations,not all of the sites that should be field visited have yet been visited(although
the 2000 Inventory addressed many of those sites).
Procedures for surveying in the field and gathering information about sites:
1990 UNA Inventory
Since the 1990 Inventory is the basis for the 2000 Inventory, it is important to recall how the candidate sites
were surveyed and documented in the field. The first step was to locate the site on USGS 1:24000
topographic maps. USGS topo maps and 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 during the field survey. Special efforts were made
to identify nationally, statewide or locally rare, scarce, or endangered plant species. Extensive notes were
taken on field survey forms designed by the committee. The notes included: listing the vegetation types,
rare and scarce species, evidence of past disturbance,likelihood of future disturbance, and general remarks
about the uniqueness of the natural characteristics of the site.
The field crew made every attempt to cover the diversity of topography and habitats on a site. Often,not all
areas of large sites could 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 scarce 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 to identify 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.
The 1976 Tufts Inventory,the 1990 Inventory(and now the 2000 Inventory, as well)places a greater
emphasis on vegetation characteristics than on other natural features for many reasons. The vegetation of the
Cayuga Lake Basin has been extensively studied and monitored, and changes in the characteristics of the
vegetation, such as numbers of rare plants, are good measures of site quality and environmental change. The
condition,diversity, and abundance of plant species also indicate a great deal about the usefulness of the area
for wildlife habitat. Since animals depend on their habitats, sites with high quality vegetation will likely
have diverse animal populations as well.Vegetation also reflects the underlying soil types and
microclimates. Therefore,the extent, diversity, and maturity of plant communities provides valuable
11
information for evaluating the quality and uniqueness of a site and determining whether it warrants
preservation. Plant and ecological communities are also emphasized in this report because a single field visit
permits a more rapid and accurate inventory and assessment of the vegetation than it would of fauna, since
animals may flee,hide,or migrate according to the time of day or season. Finally, vegetation is emphasized
because this is where the expertise of the EMC's UNA Committee lies. The EMC welcomes any additional
information about other natural features, especially animal data,to add to this database and to display in
future editions of the UNA Inventory.
2000 UNA Inventory
Although most of the above description applies to how the UNA sites were surveyed for the 2000 Inventory,
there are some differences that should be noted. First of all,the County GIS was used to create maps to
assist in the field work(from finding the sites to identifying landowners to contact)and in locating the
boundaries of the UNAs. These maps were used in conjunction with USGS topographic maps and the Soil
Survey maps to help researchers in the field. Also,while many site characteristics were noted in the field,
such as size, elevation, and slope,these were also verified, and/or corrected through the use of the GIS and
associated databases, once the data were brought back to the office.
The UNA boundaries were determined by F. Robert Wesley and Nancy Ostman,two professional field
botanists who are very familiar with the natural resources of the County. Each UNA boundary was reviewed
using the UNA site maps that appear in this report. The majority of the UNAs were then further reviewed at
a more intensive level of detail,using various tools to better interpret the actual site conditions. The tools
that were used included: paper aerial photographs and paper topographic maps; digital aerial photographs
and digital maps of roads,20 foot contours, streams,and building footprints; and data from field work
conducted between 1990 and 2000.
Sites that were selected for review in the 2000 Inventory came from many sources.
1. Of the nine sites that were field surveyed, six had been identified as"Future Sites"in the 1990 Inventory;
two were inventoried in 1990,but re-surveyed in 1995; and one was a new site that had been inadvertently
omitted from the 1990 Inventory.
2. NYS Freshwater Wetlands were reviewed and two wetlands that had been previously omitted were added
to the UNA Inventory.
3. Two entirely new UNAs were added to the Inventory based on data gathered over the past ten years.
4. Two sites were deleted from the Inventory because they were degraded and no longer deemed to be of
UNA quality.
5. A portion of one site,which was identified as a"Future Site"in the 1990 Inventory,was visited when it
was obtained by the County through the 1998 foreclosure process.
6. UNA Committee members tried to honor requests that came in from landowners and planning board
members to review lands that they felt should or should not be included in the updated inventory.
In addition to the field work, information was gathered for each UNA using a host of data sets. The idea
behind much of the data collection was to give the public and local decisionmakers more information about
each UNA, and to give them information that would help them answer the questions posed on the forms used
to implement the State Environmental Quality Review Act. These data sets are described in detail in the
Guide to the Data Sheets section of the report and in Appendix B: Where To Get More Information.
Information from the field surveys and these other data collection efforts was entered into the UNA database,
which is now in the software Microsoft Access'.
12
2015 UNA Inventory
Although most of the above description applies to how the UNA sites were surveyed for the 2015 Inventory,
there are some differences that should be noted. First of all,the County GIS was used to create maps to
assist in the field work(from finding the sites to identifying landowners to contact)and in locating the
boundaries of the UNAs. These maps were used in conjunction with USGS topographic maps and the Soil
Survey maps to help researchers in the field. Also,while many site characteristics were noted in the field,
such as size, elevation, and slope,these were also verified, and/or corrected through the use of the GIS and
associated databases, once the data were brought back to the office.
The UNA boundaries were determined by F. Robert Wesley, a professional field botanists who are very
familiar with the natural resources of the County along with Karen Edelstein a local GIS analyst. Each UNA
boundary was reviewed using the UNA site maps that appear in this report. The majority of the UNAs were
then further reviewed at a more intensive level of detail,using various tools to better interpret the actual site
conditions. The tools that were used included: updated digital aerial photographs and digital maps of roads,
2 foot contours, streams, and building footprints; and data from field work conducted between 2011 and
2012. Site visits were only conducted on private land when written permission was obtained from the
landowner.
Since the 2000 Inventory an additional Amendment Process has been development by the EMC to help guide
and adjust suggestions for updates. That Amendment Process is as follows:
UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS INVENTORY
AMENDMENT PROCESS
The Tompkins County Unique Natural Areas Inventory represents a longstanding effort to
document the notable natural features and habitats within the county, to better aid local officials
and property owners in making sound environmental planning decisions. Despite the impressive
work that has gone into the inventory, environmental and landscape conditions are dynamic,
sometimes necessitating updates and modifications to existing document.
Requests for Amendments
Any person or organization can request that the Environmental Management Council (EMC)
amend the Tompkins County Unique Natural Areas Inventory. Requested amendments could
include: the deletion of an existing UNA from the Inventory, the addition of a new UNA to the
Inventory, or a revision of an existing UNA such as a change to a UNA's boundaries. Such
requests, if not generated by, or originating from, the Environmental Management Council, are to
be made in writing to the Tompkins County Department of Planning and should identify the reasons
for the proposed change(s).
The Planning Department promptly notifies the Committee responsible for reviewing and maintaining the
UNA Inventory(hereinafter called the"UNA Committee")of the request. The UNA Committee reviews the
requested amendment, as well as information available about the property in question. The UNA
Committee may invite the proponent of the amendment to meet with the Committee to discuss the requested
amendment and the basis for the request.
The UNA Committee determines whether the request has sufficient merit to be explored further. The UNA
Committee will consider the criteria for establishing a UNA,their own knowledge of the area, and any
information provided by the proponent in making their recommendation. If the UNA Committee determines
the request has sufficient merit,the Committee reports their recommendation to the EMC and, if the EMC
concurs,the process continues. If the UNA Committee determines that the request does not have sufficient
13
merit to proceed,the Committee notifies the proponent of the amendment of their decision and the reasons
therefore.
Researching the Proposal
Once the EMC concurs that the amendment should be considered further,the UNA Committee appoints a
Review Team. The Review Team should be comprised of at least one member of the UNA Committee and
may include other members of the EMC,outside experts, and staff. The Review Team may be the entire
UNA Committee.
The UNA Committee may arrange to contract with appropriate professionals to assist the Review Team. The
EMC must agree on the need for this contract. The staff of the Tompkins County Planning Department must
be consulted to ensure that there are sufficient funds in the budget to hire a contractor and that the contracting
policies and procedures of Tompkins County are followed. Likewise,if the UNA Committee seeks outside
funds to support the work of the consultant or contractor,the Planning Department will be apprised of this.
The Review Team collects and reviews available data concerning the requested amendment. This may
include a review of recent and historic aerial photography, information from the County's GIS system, and
property records; and/or communication with some or all owners of the parcels included in the proposed
UNA amendment.
If any site visits of private property are conducted, the UNA Committee will contact the
landowner(s) of the parcel(s). In this correspondence, the UNA Committee will brief them on the
status of the request, inform them of the Review Team's activities, and request written permission to
conduct one or more site visits. A permission form, signed by the landowner and mailed back to the
Planning Department is necessary before any site visits to private property occur.
The Review Team conducts site visits or,if landowner permission is not received,relies on roadside
observations and remote sensing data to evaluate the site(s).Upon completion of their research and of the site
visits,the Review Team compiles a written report to the UNA Committee.
Based on the Review Team's report and recommendations,on any input received from the property owner(s),and on
any follow-up by the Review Team,the UNA Committee determines whether to proceed with a formal amendment to
the UNA Inventory.If the Committee decides to proceed,the process continues.If not,the UNA Committee notifies the
EMC and,if the EMC concurs,the Planning Department notifies the proponent of the amendment,the property
owner(s)of the EMC's decision not to continue with the process.
Adopting an Amendment
If the UNA Committee decides to proceed with the amendment,the Review Team works in conjunction with
the Planning Department to develop detailed geographic boundaries of the site, as well as all the information
required to update the database of the UNA Inventory for that site.
The UNA Committee updates the review team's report to develop a written justification for the amendment.
Next,the UNA Committee drafts a resolution supporting the amendment(s) and submits the resolution for
consideration by the EMC,along with appropriate written reports and supporting documentation from the
Review Team.
The EMC determines whether to amend the UNA Inventory. If the EMC decides to amend the UNA
Inventory,the process continues. If not,the Planning Department notifies the proponent of the amendment
and the property owner(s)of the EMC's decision not to amend the UNA Inventory.
14
After the Amendment
If the EMC amends the UNA Inventory,the Planning Department notifies the original proponent of the
amendment, all affected landowners, all affected municipalities, libraries and relevant organizations, and the
Tompkins County Legislature of the amendment. This notification comes in the form of a revised UNA
listing that can be added to the UNA binder,and the out-of-date chapter removed. The Planning Department
updates its relevant GIS maps,databases,and websites to reflect the amendment adopted by the EMC.
15