Sandy Creeks Watershed Inventory and Landscape Analysis

New York Natural Heritage Program i

A Partnership between The Nature Conservancy and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. 625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 (518) 402-8935 Fax (518) 402-8925 www.nynhp.org

This page intentionally left blank.

New York Natural Heritage Program ii

Sandy Creeks Watershed Inventory and Landscape Analysis

Lauren Lyons-Swift, Jeffrey Corser, Richard Ring John Schmid, Timothy Howard, Elizabeth Spencer

A report prepared by the New York Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757

For the

NYS Tug Hill Commission Dulles State Office Building 317 Washington St. Watertown, NY 13601-3782 January 2011

New York Natural Heritage Program iii

Report Summary

The purpose of this project was to provide the NYS Tug Hill Commission and its communities with a clearer picture of the biodiversity and ecological patterns of the 284,000-acre Sandy Creeks Watershed. We wished to help identify natural areas in the watershed that are vital to protecting the landscape character and biodiversity of the region including the relative ecological quality of subwatersheds.

There were four phases to this project: 1. Develop a list of rare species and natural communities known from or with the potential to be found in the Black River and Sandy Creeks watersheds and create their corresponding Element Distribution Models (EDMs); 2. Overlay the EDMs and note where multiple species overlapped, indicating a potential biodiversity “hotspot” in the Black River and Sandy Creeks Watershed; 3. Analyze the quality of the subwatersheds using a suite of GIS layers in the Sandy Creeks Watershed; and 4. Conduct field inventories and document locations of rare plants, rare animals, and significant natural communities in the Sandy Creeks Watershed.

Field inventories from 2009 along with previous known locations resulted in 170 new and updated locations for rare species and significant natural communities: 53 rare plant occurrences, 90 rare animal occurrences, and 27 significant natural community occurrences. Certain areas within the watershed have high concentrations of these rare species and significant natural communities including the Gulf areas (Totman, Shingle, Bear, Inman, and Lorraine), the Lake Ontario shoreline, and the summit forests, streams, and wetlands of the Sandy Creeks Watershed.

The analysis of the overall quality of the subwatersheds within the entire Sandy Creeks Watershed revealed a few high-quality areas (areas with the most intact landscape). These areas include many of those already identified as areas of high biological diversity including the lakeshore, gulfs, and the remote headwaters at the summit of the Sandy Creeks Watershed.

This project identified two new areas that met the criteria as “Special Areas” under the Tug Hill Reserve Act of 1992. These areas were the Plum Tree Road-Pigeon Creek wetlands and the Adams wetland complex. Some of these areas occurred within lower quality landscapes but contained higher quality and/or rare natural community types. One other site, Butterville Alvar, occurs outside the Tug Hill Region boundary and is included here as a distinctive natural community (alvar grassland) due to its status as a state and globally rare natural community type.

A positive outcome of this project was that we identified many areas of high biodiversity on private lands. We were fortunate that we were granted access to many of these areas which resulted in the documentation of new significant natural communities and rare species in the Sandy Creeks Watershed. However, many of these identified areas were not surveyed due to lack of access permission. All landowners who did grant us access received thank-you letters and were notified if something of significance was found on their land.

New York Natural Heritage Program iv

The results from this project including species and natural community modeling, results of field surveys, and the landscape quality assessment, can be used by the Tug Hill Commission, its communities, and other partners to plan and implement conservation strategies for the Sandy Creeks Watershed. This report can also be used as a baseline for future work in the watershed including aquatic studies, fish and fisheries surveys, and additional wetland inventories particularly in areas already designated as high quality landscapes. New alvar grassland locations should also be surveyed to better document the total extent of the community and for populations of grassland bird species.

New York Natural Heritage Program v

Table of Contents

REPORT SUMMARY ...... iv

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Purpose and goals ...... 1

OVERVIEW ...... 2

Definitions of terms used ...... 2

Overview of the Sandy Creeks Watershed ...... 2

Location ...... 2

Landscape/land use/ecoregions/ecozones ...... 3

Bedrock and surficial geology ...... 5

Protected areas in the Watershed ...... 6

METHODS ...... 6

Natural Heritage Methodology ...... 6

The coarse filter/fine filter ...... 7

Element Distribution Modeling ...... 7

Models as a part of the landscape assessment ...... 7

Element Distribution Model Overlays for “Hotspot” analysis ...... 8

Pre-inventory methods: Landowner permissions ...... 9

Rare animal and plant inventory methods ...... 9

Rare animals ...... 9

Rare plants ...... 10

Ecological communities ...... 10

New York Natural Heritage Program vi

Information processing and mapping ...... 11

Watershed Integrity Analysis Methods ...... 12

Analysis units ...... 12

Watershed analysis model development ...... 14

Ecological parameters ...... 14

Ecological data layers ...... 16

Data interpretation ...... 16

Special Area analysis ...... 17

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 17

Priority Species and Selected Survey Sites ...... 17

Landowner Contact ...... 18

Inventory Efforts - Field Inventory ...... 18

Ecology ...... 18

Botany ...... 19

Zoology ...... 19

Inventory, Known Occurrences, Assessment Metrics ...... 20

“Hotspot” analysis using overlays of EDMs ...... 20

Subwatershed analysis ...... 23

Areas of clustering of high-quality subwatersheds ...... 23

1. Sandy Creeks Watershed Summit Forest Cluster ...... 27

2. The Gulfs ...... 30

Inman, Shingle, and Bear Gulfs subwatershed cluster ...... 31

Lorraine and Totman Gulf subwatershed cluster ...... 32

3. The Lake Ontario Shoreline ...... 34

Lake Ontario Shore-North subwatershed cluster ...... 35

New York Natural Heritage Program vii

Lake Ontario Shore-South subwatershed cluster ...... 38

Special Area designation ...... 41

Adams Wetland Complex and adjacent wetlands ...... 43

Plum Tree Road Wetlands-Pigeon Creek ...... 43

Other distinctive natural communities ...... 44

Butterville Hill and adjacent “alvar” natural communities ...... 44

CONCLUSION ...... 45

Biodiversity ...... 45

High-quality subwatersheds ...... 45

Potential Special Area designation ...... 47

Future Needs ...... 47

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 48

REFERENCES ...... 49

APPENDIX 1. New York Natural Heritage Program Methodology ...... 52

APPENDIX 2. Description of the Element Distribution Modeling (EDM)Process and the list of environmental data layers used...... 58

APPENDIX 3. Landscape Analysis – Background Information ...... 61

APPENDIX 4. Element Distribution Models (EDMs) for all rare species and significant natural communities from the Sandy Creeks and Black River Watersheds ...... 65

APPENDIX 5. New York Natural Heritage Program list of Element Occurrences (rare species and significant natural communities) for the Sandy Creeks Watershed and corresponding maps...... 74

APPENDIX 6. Landscape analysis maps for the Sandy Creeks Watershed and corresponding data tables...... 88

New York Natural Heritage Program viii

List of Tables

Table 1. List of rare species and significant natural communities in the Sandy Creeks watershed summit forest cluster. Element type: A= animal, C = natural community, P= plant. Viability Rank refers to the NYNHP quality rank defined in Appendix 1...... 28 Table 2. Subwatershed numbers (SalSa), acreage, landcover index, landcover in stream buffer index, stream barriers/point source pollution index, roads index, biodiversity index, and the overall quality index for the Sandy Creeks Watershed summit forest cluster...... 29 Table 3. Rare species and significant natural communities of the Inman, Shingle, and Bear Gulfs subwatershed cluster. Element type: A= animal, C = natural community, P= plant. Viability Rank refers to the NYNHP quality rank defined in Appendix 1...... 31 Table 4. Subwatershed numbers (SalSa), acreage, landcover index, landcover in stream buffer index, stream barriers/point source pollution index, roads index, biodiversity index, and the overall quality index for the Inman, Shingle, and Bear Gulfs subwatersheds...... 32 Table 5. Rare species and significant natural communities from Lorraine and Totman Gulfs subwatershed cluster. Element type: A= animal, C = natural community, P= plant. Viability Rank refers to the NYNHP quality rank defined in Appendix 1...... 33 Table 6. Subwatershed numbers ( SalSa), acreage, landcover index, land cover in stream buffer index, stream barriers/point source pollution index, roads index, biodiversity index, and the overall quality index for the Lorraine Gulf and Totman Gulf watershed cluster...... 33 Table 7. Rare species and significant natural communities for the Lake Ontario Shore-North subwatershed cluster. Element type: A= animal, C = natural community, P= plant. Viability Rank refers to the NYNHP quality rank defined in Appendix 1...... 35 Table 8. Subwatershed numbers (SalSa), acreage, landcover index, land cover in stream buffer index, stream barriers/point source pollution index, roads index, biodiversity index and the overall quality index for the Lake Ontario Coast-North watershed cluster...... 37 Table 9. Rare species and significant natural communities in the Lake Ontario Shore-South subwatershed cluster. Element type: A= animal, C = natural community, P= plant. Viability Rank refers to the NYNHP quality rank defined in Appendix1 ...... 39 Table 10. Subwatershed numbers (SalSa), acreage, landcover index, land cover in stream buffer index, stream barriers/point source pollution index, roads index, biodiversity index, and the overall quality index for the Lake Ontario Shore-South watershed clusters ...... 41

New York Natural Heritage Program ix

List of Figures

Figure 1. The Sandy Creeks Watershed study area...... 3 Figure 2. Ecozones (top) and Ecoregions (bottom) of the Sandy Creeks Watershed ...... 4 Figure 3. Bedrock geology of the Sandy Creeks Watershed ...... 5 Figure 4. Protected areas in the Sandy Creeks Watershed ...... 6 Figure 5. Black Tern EDM along the Lake Ontario shoreline. Left: continuous prediction. Right: present/absent prediction...... 8 Figure 6. Map of the four larger 10-digit HUC watersheds that comprise the Sandy Creeks Watershed subdivided into the smaller 12-digit HUC subwatersheds (USDA)...... 13 Figure 7. 462 SalSa subwatersheds (Salmon river and Sandy Creeks watersheds) determined by USGS (McKenna 2009) used for landscape quality analysis in this study...... 13 Figure 8. Streams and attached waterbodies in the Sandy Creeks Watershed ...... 15 Figure 9. Survey Sites for rare species and natural communities in the Sandy Creeks Watershed for the 2009 field season...... 19 Figure 10. Locations of all rare species and significant natural communities in the Sandy Creeks Watershed...... 21 Figure 11. Overlaying EDMs for all species (plant and animal) expected to occur within the Sandy Creeks Watershed. Darker red colors indicate a greater number of predicted species. Areas with the predicted highest concentration of species are the Lake Ontario shoreline and the gulfs of the region...... 22 Figure 12. Map showing the overall landscape quality (index) for the entire Sandy Creeks Watershed. The darkest shade of green indicates the highest quality subwatershed while the darkest shade of purple indicates the poorest quality subwatershed ...... 24 Figure 13. Map showing clusters of high-quality subwatersheds in the Sandy Creeks Watershed...... 25 Figure 14. Map of zoomed in section of the larger landscape quality map showing the summit of the Sandy Creeks Watershed...... 26 Figure 15. Map showing zoomed-in section of the larger landscape quality index map. Top map shows Inman, Shingle, and Bear Gulfs. Lower map shows Lorraine and Totman Gulfs...... 30 Figure 16. Map of the zoomed-in section of the Sandy Creeks Watershed along the Lake Ontario Shoreline. The map on the left shows the northern section of the shoreline. The map on the right side shows the southern section of the Lake Ontario shoreline ...... 34 Figure 17. Map showing areas in the Sandy Creeks Watershed that meet certain requirements as Special Areas or distinctive natural community type...... 42 Figure 18. Map of the subwatersheds for the Sandy Creeks Watershed showing their overall quality index. This map was produced using all biodiversity and landscape data created for this report...... 46

New York Natural Heritage Program x

INTRODUCTION

Purpose and goals

The purpose of this project was to provide the Tug Hill Commission, its communities, and partners with a clearer picture of the biodiversity and ecological patterns of the 284,000-acre Sandy Creeks Watershed. We wished to help identify natural areas in the watershed that are vital to protecting the landscape character and biodiversity of the region. In addition, this project provides the initial modeling and analysis for future work in the significantly larger Black River Watershed (see Appendix 5).

There were four phases to this project. The first phase involved developing a list of rare plant and animal species and natural communities known from or with the potential to be found in the watersheds (both Sandy Creeks and Black River watersheds were included in this phase). This phase also included creating Element Distribution Models (EDMs) for these species and natural communities. The second phase involved overlaying the EDMs and noting where predictions for multiple species overlapped, indicating a potential biodiversity hotspot. In the third phase, we analyzed the overall quality of the subwatersheds using a suite of GIS layers to key in on landforms, areas of continuous forest cover, and other physical features such as steep slope areas, indicating ravines or bedrock outcrop areas that are unique to the Watershed. The fourth and final phase consisted of field inventory and documentation of rare plants, rare animals, and significant natural communities in the Sandy Creeks Watershed. In addition to documenting rare species and Waterfall in Totman Gulf natural communities, the final inventory phase allowed us to conduct field work to assess those areas we identified in the third phase as potential “Special Areas” (New York State Tug Hill Commission 2009) within the Watershed, or areas that are vital to protecting landscape character, whether or not they contain NY Natural Heritage tracked rare species or significant natural communities.

This multi-tiered approach to organizing the survey within such a large and diverse landscape was critical in terms of maximizing our search efforts for rare species and natural communities, and ensuring that we gave the area a complete, objective look in identifying critical areas for conservation. This report provides a list and description of areas of high biodiversity, areas with high conservation value, and areas that could be designated as Special Areas by the Tug Hill communities.

New York Natural Heritage Program 1

OVERVIEW

Definitions of terms used

We have applied a consistent terminology appropriate for various landscape scales and biodiversity features.

Element: each plant species, animal species, and unique ecological community type is an element of biodiversity, or element.

Element Occurrence: The documented location of a rare plant, rare animal, or significant natural community.

Element Distribution Model (EDM): A map showing locations where a species or natural community is likely to occur. An EDM is a computer-generated model that uses statistics to examine known species or community locations and then find other, similar locations across the landscape. The final model reports a probability that a location contains a similar habitat to that occupied by the targeted rare species or natural community.

HUC: Hydrologic Unit Code. This term refers to the USGS numbering system of dividing river and steam drainages into Watersheds of varying sizes. The higher the HUC number, the smaller the watershed size. http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html

Natural Community: an assemblage or group of plants and animals that share a common environment (Edinger et al. 2002). These assemblages usually occur repeatedly across the landscape. NY Natural Heritage follows the community classification as defined by Ecological Communities of New York State (Reschke 1990, Edinger et al. 2002).

Significant Community Occurrence: Community occurrences worthy of tracking in NY Natural Heritage Biotics databases because of their state and/or global importance to biodiversity conservation. Each occurrence rank is derived from three ranking factors: size, condition, and landscape context.

Study Area: the primary “study area” or “project area” for this inventory represents the entire Sandy Creeks Watershed (Figure 1).

Subwatershed: Refers to the 462 SalSa subwatersheds (Salmon River and Sandy Creeks watersheds) determined by US Geologic Survey (USGS 2009) and is the main unit of comparison within the basin.

Overview of the Sandy Creeks Watershed

Location This watershed is located in New York State north of the cities of Utica, Rome, and Syracuse and south of the Saint Lawrence Seaway and the Canadian border (Figure 1). It is bordered by Lake Ontario to the west and it extends eastward toward the Tug Hill Plateau to just over the Lewis County line into the town

New York Natural Heritage Program 2

of Pinckney. To the south, the watershed extends just into Oswego County near East Boylston and the towns of Sandy Creek and Richland. The largest population center is the community of Adams Center nearly in the center in the Watershed. The Sandy Creeks Watershed encompasses a series of smaller streams that drain into Lake Ontario including Stony Creek, Sandy Creek, South Sandy Creek, Skinner Creek, Little Sandy Creek, and Deer Creek.

Landscape/land use/ecoregions/ecozones The landscape and land use for the Sandy Creeks Watershed are diverse. Although the entire area can be described as rural, the lake shore consists of marsh lands, dunes, and beaches while the mid-section is

Figure 1. The Sandy Creeks Watershed study area. farmland with agricultural land accounting for about 47% of the total land cover of the Watershed (Cornell IRIS 2008). The easternmost section, at the highest elevation, is largely forested with a long history of logging. Forests here are mid- to late successional and are predominantly beech-maple mesic forests. Higher elevation forests have more red spruce and may be classified as red spruce-northern hardwood forests (Hunt & Lyons-Swift 1999, Muench et al. 1974, Lyons-Swift 2000, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry 1974). The Watershed covers parts of four Sub-Ecozones as described by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) (Dickinson 1983, Will et al. 1982). Starting at the Lake Ontario shoreline in the west and moving to the

New York Natural Heritage Program 3

Tug Hill plateau to the east, the watershed passes through the Eastern Ontario Plain Sub-zone, the Tug Hill Transition Sub-zone, the Black River Valley Sub-zone, and the Central Tug Hill Sub-zone (Figure 2 top). Likewise, the Sandy Creeks Watershed occupies the Eastern Ontario Lake Plain Subsection of the Great Lakes Ecoregion; the Black River Valley Subsection of the St. Lawrence-Champlain Valley Ecoregion; and the Tug Hill Transition and the Tug Hill Plateau Subsections of the Northern Appalachian/Acadian Ecoregions (Bailey 1997, Figure 2 bottom).

Figure 2. NYS DEC Ecozones (top) and TNC Ecoregions (bottom) of the Sandy Creeks Watershed

New York Natural Heritage Program 4

Bedrock and surficial geology

Figure 3. Bedrock geology of the Sandy Creeks Watershed

The bedrock geology of the Sandy Creeks Watershed changes slightly from north to south (Figure 3). The northernmost section near Little Stony Creeks and Sandy Creeks is underlain by the Trenton Group of limestones and shales with a significant occurrence of Galoo limestone at Adams Center. South of that, near South Sandy Creeks, is an area underlain predominantly by Utica Shale, a formation that also contains natural gas. From here to the southern border of the Watershed is underlain by the Pulaski formation consisting of siltstones, shales, and light gray sandstone (New York State Museum 1999a). The limestone in this area results in a richer substrate environment with a higher probability of rare plant species and unique natural communities.

The surficial geology of the Sandy Creeks Watershed is divided into four distinct regions (New York State Museum 1999b). The northwestern part of the Watershed is predominantly lacustrine silt and clay while the southwestern section is mostly lacustrine sand (quartz sand). Inland sand dunes are found in this area. The northeastern section is predominantly glacial till deposited by a terminal moraine that ranges from silt to boulders while the southeastern section, at the top of the plateau, is mostly ablation moraine (deposited by melting glacial ice) that also varies from silt to boulders.

New York Natural Heritage Program 5

Figure 4. Protected areas in the Sandy Creeks Watershed

Protected areas in the Watershed Protected areas in the Watershed occupy a little over 25% of the overall land area. Included in this calculation are conservation easements, NYS DEC lands including Tug Hill and Winona State Forests, Wildlife Management Areas (WMA) including Little John WMA and Lakeview Marsh WMA, county and municipal forests, and New York State Parks such as Southwick and Sandy Beach State Parks (Figure 4).

METHODS Natural Heritage Methodology

The Natural Heritage Methodology was developed by NatureServe, a non-profit conservation organization. They represent an international network of biological inventories—known as natural heritage programs or conservation data centers—operating in all 50 U.S. states, Canada, Latin America, and the Caribbean. The New York Natural Heritage Program is part of this network and operates in New York State as a partnership with the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. NatureServe has spent more than two decades helping to develop and refine the inventory methodology used by Natural Heritage Programs.

New York Natural Heritage Program 6

The coarse filter/fine filter Natural Heritage inventory methodology works by focusing on the identification, documentation, and mapping of all occurrences of rare species and significant ecological communities. We use a “coarse filter/fine filter” approach to identify and prioritize the protection of these significant biological resources. Ecological communities as defined in Reschke (1990) and Edinger et al. (2002) represent a “coarse filter” aggregate of biodiversity at a scale larger than the species level. Their identification and documentation can be used to describe whole assemblages of plant and animal species, both common and rare. The conservation of the best remaining examples of natural communities ensures the protection of most of the common species that make up the biological diversity of the state. Rare animals and plants often have narrow or unusual habitat requirements. These species may fall through the coarse filter, and are sometimes not protected within representative communities. Identifying and documenting viable populations of each of the rare species serves as the fine filter for protecting the state’s biological diversity. This coarse filter/fine filter approach to a natural resources inventory has proven to be an efficient means of identifying the most sensitive animals, plants, and ecological communities of an area. A complete description of NY Natural Heritage methodology including methods for ranking rarity and assessing quality are included in Appendix 1.

Element Distribution Modeling

Element Distribution Modeling is the process that maps the environments predicted to be suitable for occupation by a particular species or natural community (Beauvais et al. 2004). Also described as habitat modeling, this method is receiving more and more attention as desktop computers become more adept at handling large data sets and complex algorithms (Guisan & Zimmerman 2000). A detailed description of element distribution modeling is beyond the scope of this report. Detailed methods were written for NY Natural Heritage’s Salmon River Watershed project and are available online at http://www.tughill.org/SRW_Report_OnscreenViewingVersion_NYNHP.pdf. At their most basic level, Element Distribution Models (EDMs) evaluate a set of environmental variables (e.g., mean summer temperature, percent slope, and surrounding forest cover) at each known location for a particular species or natural community and then use statistical procedures to find other locations with similar environmental characteristics. The resulting map depicts the probability that the habitat at each location is appropriate for the species or natural community. The variables used for this analysis as well as a more detailed description of the EDM process can be found in Appendix 2.

Models as a part of the landscape assessment We used the EDMs as part of the overall landscape assessment. For this assessment, we wanted to split the continuous prediction map into a predicted/not predicted map (see Figure 5). Although turning a continuous surface into only two classes results in a loss of information (and is sometimes considered inappropriate; see Royston et al. 2006), it is not an uncommon task in habitat modeling. For our purposes, the main reason to do this was to synthesize across the many EDMs and create a layer showing the number of predicted species across the landscape. Thus we needed each EDM to show either yes,

New York Natural Heritage Program 7

appropriate habitat for the species is predicted, or no, appropriate habitat is not predicted for the target species.

In order to create a predicted/not predicted EDM map, we needed to determine the appropriate cutoff value for each EDM. To determine the appropriate percentage we used receiver-operator characteristics (ROC) coding in R (R Development Core Team 2005) that assessed the success of the model to correctly predict known present and absent locations. For example, setting the entire study area to “present” would successfully capture all the known present locations (100% correct positives), but also capture all the “absent” locations as present (0% correct negatives). We chose an analytic routine that maximizes correct positives and correct negatives at the same time.

Figure 5. Black Tern EDM along the Lake Ontario shoreline. Left: continuous prediction. Right: present/absent prediction.

Element Distribution Model Overlays for “Hotspot” analysis The EDM overlays are a group of data layers that depict areas of predicted habitat for rare species in New York. The overlays combine the results of multiple Element Distribution Models (see section on Element Distribution Models above). A total of 316 statewide EDMs each representing presence or absence of predicted suitable habitat for individual rare plant and animal species on a pixel-by-pixel basis, were created by NY Natural Heritage between fall 2004 and spring 2009. Then all 316 EDMs were added together (essentially stacked on top of each other) to produce the comprehensive statewide raster dataset. This process aggregates all of the individual rare plant and animal EDMs and retains tabular presence/absence predictions of suitable habitat for each species at the individual pixel level.

New York Natural Heritage Program 8

Pre­inventory methods: Landowner permissions

During the spring of 2009, we identified priority, private landholdings for field inventories. We felt that these private parcels had a high probability of having rare species or rare natural communities based on expert opinion and the EDMs layers described above.

At the Tug Hill Commission (THC) offices in Watertown, we met with regional experts and THC staff to delineate priority areas for field inventory. We used large, printed, base-layer maps of the Watershed with the “hotspot” layer (see above) over the DOT planimetric layer to visually locate priority areas and hand- draw those in on the maps. From these hand-drawn delineations we used GIS to create a list of landowners and their contact information. With the help of the Tug Hill Tomorrow Land Trust, we sent letters requesting permission to conduct inventories to the majority of these landowners. Some of the priority areas that were of higher quality than others where landowners did not initially respond, were sent follow up letters or they were called directly.

Rare animal and plant inventory methods

Rare animals For rare animals, we focused inventory effort on documenting new occurrences as well as updating the status and condition of existing occurrences. To accomplish this we used EDMs, contacts with local naturalists, and other methods of remote assessment (i.e., aerial photos and maps) to identify potential locations of new rare animal occurrences. In addition, we visited some existing occurrences to update their status and condition. Most surveys targeted particular species depending on the habitat type and likelihood of Upland Sandpiper Photo: © Sandra and Frank encounter. The survey methods were appropriate for Horvath.Environment Canada website targeted species and their activity period.

When a rare species was encountered, we recorded location, size, extent, and condition of the population, as well as data on the immediate habitat. Observations on disturbances and threats to the persistence of the species were also recorded. These data were added to the Biotics database maintained by NY Natural Heritage. We photographed rare animals when possible to document their occurrence.

New York Natural Heritage Program 9

Rare plants For rare plants, a NYNHP botanist focused on potential survey sites east of Route 3, prioritizing areas with historical rare plant records, or extant records more than 10 years old. We also made targeted de novo searches in areas that aerial photo interpretation and/or EDM data suggested had high potential for discovery of new rare plant populations.

During each visit, the botanist recorded a list of all plant species identified during the course of the survey. These data were grouped by survey area and GPS points were taken at each survey area and at other points of interest. Species lists for these visits are kept in an in-house observations database. When a rare plant species was discovered or updated, specimens were photographed and/or collected, and additional information about the habitat, surrounding landscape, the health and vigor of the population was recorded. These data were added to the Yellow Mountain Saxifrage. Photo: Troy Weldy Biotics database maintained by NY Natural Heritage.

Ecological communities

General field methodology We conducted natural community inventories within the context of the community classification and community descriptions found in Ecological Communities of New York State (Edinger et al. 2002). Inventories focused on palustrine (wetland) and terrestrial natural communities. Field visits were made to sites where EDMs produced relatively high predictions for rare natural communities and/or where manual GIS assessment indicated a high potential for significant natural communities.

This study used standard inventory methodology developed by The Nature Conservancy, NatureServe, and the Natural Heritage Network, and refined by NY Natural Heritage (Edinger et al. 2000). General survey methodology for natural communities involves collecting data on all or most of the following for each targeted community occurrence: plant species composition and structure in all strata, unvegetated ground and water surfaces, soil properties, slope, aspect, elevation, geology, and hydrology (Edinger et al. 2000). These data allow an accurate identification of each community surveyed. We also collect and record information on occurrence size, maturity, level of disturbance, abundance of exotic species, threats, and landscape context. These data allow us to compare the quality and assess the viability of each community occurrence in relation to others throughout the range of the community, both within and outside of New York State.

New York Natural Heritage Program 10

Plot and observation point sampling For each suspected new Element Occurrence discovered in the field we strove to collect at least one detailed releve plot and additional observation points scattered throughout the occurrence. Plots were placed via a random direction and distance into the natural community. They were typically 20 m × 20 m in forested communities and 10 m × 10 m for wetland and non-forested terrestrial communities. Plot data collection followed Edinger et al. (2000). We also captured a digital photographic record of each plot and for most observation points. These photos are stored in the NY Natural Heritage digital images database and referenced in the observations database at the appropriate locations.

In order to capture the variability throughout a natural community occurrence, we strove to collect observation points throughout the occurrence. These points describe the dominant species in each vegetation stratum with enough information to classify the community and help evaluate the quality and viability of the entire community. Observation points may be completed much more quickly than plots, however, allowing us to visit much more of Bear Gulf. Photo: Jennifer Harvill the site given a defined amount of time.

Information processing and mapping

NY Natural Heritage ecology staff followed standard methods for documenting rare species and natural community occurrences determined to be significant from a statewide perspective. All plot and observation data were collected with digital technology and spatially located using a global positioning system (GPS). More specifically, we have built a data-entry database for use on a hand-held PDA (personal digital assistant). This database is built in VisualCE (Syware Corp.) and greatly speeds data transfer into our in-house observations database and data synthesis and compilation into the Biotics database maintained by NY Natural Heritage. GPS points at plots and observation points were collected with a GPS unit (Garmin 60cx, Magellan or other) or a Trimble Nomad (with a Garmin 10X external antenna). We collected GPS-averaged positions of at least 100 seconds whenever possible. Botanical surveys were also conducted using GPS and, in part, using the electronic handheld data recorders and electronic database.

Zoological site survey forms, rare species forms, and negative survey forms, when appropriate, were completed for all zoological inventories. All botanical and ecological data were uploaded or entered into the Biotics database maintained by NY Natural Heritage. For each botanical survey, we created general

New York Natural Heritage Program 11

survey forms with species lists and rare species forms where appropriate, for each inventory day. For ecological inventories, we completed plots and observation point field forms with associated locator maps and for each significant community we completed community ranking forms that include a community description, ranking analysis, observed disturbances, stresses and anticipated threats, and associated management and protection recommendations. These forms are archived electronically in the NY Natural Heritage office.

We created digital maps of all rare species and significant natural community occurrences. For natural communities, we displayed all observation points and plots in a GIS, with digital topographic images, high-resolution digital ortho-images (from 2000-2006), and other relevant GIS layers. The final delineations were drawn at a scale of 1:24,000 or a finer resolution.

Watershed Integrity Analysis Methods

Analysis units The goal of the integrity analysis was not to compare the Sandy Creeks Watershed to other basins in the state, but to evaluate the relative quality of places within the Watershed. The first step in comparing the relative quality within a single, large watershed is to determine the unit of comparison. There are many different possible ways to split a basin into smaller units for comparison. Rather than using a political (e.g., town) or regular (e.g., the breeding bird atlas grid) set of divisions, we chose to split the Watershed into smaller drainage units.

The Sandy Creeks Watershed is composed of four 10-digit Hydrologic Units, as available from US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (Figure 6), based on the NRCS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) system. The four 10-digit HUCs can be further divided into 17 smaller 12-digit HUCs. These units were still too large for meaningful comparison of the subwatersheds so a new layer from the USGS was used to further divide these watersheds into 462 subwatersheds that USGS refers to as stream segment ‘catchments’ (McKenna 2009). This smaller, stream segment subwatersheds will be referred to as SalSa subwatersheds (Salmon River and Sandy Creeks) in this report because, at the time, they were only completed for these two larger watersheds. The 462 subwatersheds vary from 0.5 acres to 4482 acres. The map showing the delineation of these much smaller subwatersheds is shown in Figure 7. Once subwatersheds were identified as high quality we then looked for areas in the larger watershed where these tended to group or cluster together. These groups or clusters of high-quality areas were then described as focus areas for conservation planning.

New York Natural Heritage Program 12

Figure 6. Map of the four larger 10-digit HUC watersheds that comprise the Sandy Creeks Watershed subdivided into the smaller 12-digit HUC subwatersheds (USDA).

Figure 7. 462 SalSa subwatersheds (Salmon River and Sandy Creeks watersheds) determined by USGS (McKenna 2009) used for landscape quality analysis in this study.

New York Natural Heritage Program 13

Watershed analysis model development We conducted a detailed GIS analysis of the 462 SalSa subwatersheds to help guide conservation efforts in the region. This analysis followed the model initially developed during the Lake Erie Gorges Biodiversity Inventory (Hunt et al. 2002) and further refined for the Tug Hill Stream System Inventory (Hunt et al. 2005). This analysis was further refined in 2005 for the Salmon River project (Howard 2006). This NY Natural Heritage landscape integrity model uses methods for 1) ranking the integrity of watersheds and functional landscapes, and 2) determining the location of relatively unfragmented stretches of water and relatively unfragmented patches of forests, thus comparing the relative conservation importance of watersheds and stream systems across a given area. This prioritization considered parameters with parallels to 1) factors used in the ranking of community occurrences at NY Natural Heritage, and 2) the watershed integrity and diversity indices developed by The Nature Conservancy’s Eastern Conservation Science office.

Ecological parameters We began with the list of parameters selected for the final analyses of Tug Hill stream systems (Hunt et al. 2005) and added additional parameters appropriate for this analysis. The Tug Hill streams assessment was based on earlier work in the Saint Lawrence/Champlain Valley (Hunt 2001), Lake Erie Gorges (Hunt et al. 2002), and Salmon River Watershed (Howard 2006). The final set of parameters used, we believe, contains the most important in ranking landscape integrity among those readily available for GIS analysis. Parameter availability (or ease of parameter creation from available data) is an important component to this assessment for both full transparency of our process and for ease of transfer to other basins. The parameters analyzed in this effort are described in Appendix 3.

Our evaluation of subwatersheds considered several factors related to the distribution and density of natural cover, cultural barriers to native species and ecological processes (e.g., dams, cleared stream buffers), and disturbance corridors for exotic species and anthropogenic processes (e.g., roads, cleared stream buffers). Key ranking parameters sought for the watershed integrity analysis for the study area were classified into five general categories: 1) biological condition, 2) flow alterations (i.e., dams and diversions), 3) land cover, 4) roads, and 5) water quality. Land cover is further divided into Watershed land cover and stream buffer land cover characteristics. When applied, assessment of the condition or integrity of each individual subwatershed and stream system was based on existing data on the number and capacity of dams, percentage of developed or agricultural lands and their distribution relative to streams, the density of roads and their distribution relative to streams (Figure 8), and water quality.

New York Natural Heritage Program 14

Figure 8. Streams and attached waterbodies in the Sandy Creeks Watershed

We included a new metric that provides a roadless block score that varies with roadless block size. The original metric, which we also include in the analysis, measures the percentage of each watershed occupied by roadless blocks over 300 acres. The value of roadless blocks varies by size, however (e.g., Anderson 1999, Kennedy et al. 2003), and a metric that takes this into account is more meaningful. We outline the method for generating this metric in Appendix 3.

Finally, we include known and predicted estimates of rare species richness (numbers of species) in the analysis. Known rare species occurrences are based on the NY Natural Heritage Biotics database. Estimates of rare species richness are based on the EDMs generated for this project.

New York Natural Heritage Program 15

Ecological data layers NY Natural Heritage staff continued research on GIS data availability for key ecological parameters that were used to produce integrity indices for comparing the subwatersheds of the study area. Information on GIS data that were used in the analyses and map production is detailed in Appendices 2 and 3. We sought consistent and uniform data layers that were feasible to assess comprehensively throughout the study area and also contained appropriate resolution to evaluate at the subwatershed scale. The Breeding Bird Atlas, for example, is an excellent dataset and very useful at small scales, but the blocks are slightly too large to incorporate into an assessment of the targeted subwatersheds in this study.

Most data used in the analyses were available from the NYS DEC, an agency that has acquired a variety of data from multiple sources, with the exception of the Point Source Discharges data layer. This data layer was acquired from EPA’s BASINS (Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Non-point Sources) program. BASINS emphasizes watershed and water quality-based assessment and integrated analysis of pollution sources. It integrates GIS with national watershed data and modeling tools. Land cover, roads, and dams data layers available from the NYS DEC are at a more precise scale, or level of detail, than that available from the EPA.

Much water quality data is available on GIS layers. Examples of water quality parameters found as EPA BASINS data layers, but not considered temporally or spatially uniform for the study area, included toxins, phosphorous, nitrogen, fecal coliform, and pesticides. The one water quality parameter analyzed, number of permitted point source discharges per Watershed, was considered comprehensively available throughout the subwatersheds. This dataset was derived by appending EPA BASINS GIS coverages of Toxic Release Inventory Site for Water Releases (TRI) and Permit Compliance Systems for Permitted Discharges (PCS).

Numerous parameters were available for flow alterations (i.e., land cover, dams and diversions, and road distribution). The land cover data layer used in the preliminary analyses was the NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) dataset (see http://www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/data/ccapregional/). It was the most recent (2005) and most precise (30-meter cell scale) land-cover dataset that covered the entire study area. Land-cover characteristics were assessed for entire watersheds and within 100 meters of streams. The streams data layer is a digital version of the streams shown on USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps. Flow alteration parameters were available only for dams. Road distribution parameters focused on a combination of road density and the proximity of roads to streams.

Data interpretation Raw data on landscape features were converted into ecologically important metrics and indices for broad categories of landscape parameters following the GIS model of the Lake Erie Gorges and Tug Hill Aquatics projects (Hunt et al. 2002, Hunt et al. 2005, Howard 2006). The goal of this analysis was to compare all of the subwatersheds with respect to the parameters available in GIS, and determine the subwatersheds of highest relative integrity within the Sandy Creeks Watershed. For each subwatershed metric (e.g., ‘percent natural land’), raw values were converted to a scale of 0-100 (i.e., the raw value of highest integrity for a given parameter received a 100). Then an Index was created for each subwatershed integrity category by averaging the metrics within that category. For example:

New York Natural Heritage Program 16

Land Cover Index = (Percent Natural Land + Percent within >300ac Natural Blocks) / 2

This was done for each metric and category. Each index was calculated based on one to four parameters. For instances where the metric was considered to affect the subwatershed negatively (such as pollution points and dams), the same 0-100 scale was incorporated except it was reversed so as to scale all indices the same: 0 values had the least integrity, and 100 had the highest integrity. Once this was completed, all categories were averaged into the final Overall Index. The Overall Index is a ranking value that compares subwatersheds with respect to all the parameters studied. There was no weighting of any metrics or indices.

Special Area analysis

In addition to the use of clusters of subwatersheds as conservation areas based on overall landscape quality, this project also looked at those areas that meet the definition of Special Area as outlined by the Tug Hill Commission Special Area Guidelines Workbook (New York State Tug Hill Commission 2009). These areas might actually occur in places in the subwatershed that are of lower quality due to the presence of roads, dams, agriculture, or other features. The Tug Hill Commission uses many criteria to define a Special Area. For the Sandy Creeks Watershed project, we evaluated areas based on the following characteristics: gulf area; important habitat area; large, contiguous forest area; core forest; major river and stream corridors and important headwater wetland areas. Not all of these criteria were applicable to all sites but special consideration was given to those sites where multiple criteria applied.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Priority Species and Selected Survey Sites

A complete list of all rare species (plant and animal) as well as natural communities for both the Sandy Creeks and Black River watersheds is included in Appendix 4 (EDM list). Initially, we focused on 253 rare species and natural communities (59 rare animals, 135 rare plants, and 59 natural communities). Ultimately, we produced over 300 Element Distribution Models (EDMs) representing species and natural communities from all the counties included in the Sandy Creeks and Black River watersheds. Because of the large size of the EDM data, a digital version was supplied to the Tug Hill Commission previously on a portable hard drive. The EDM overlays of rare species and significant natural communities resulted in the selection of about 50 sites for potential field inventory.

New York Natural Heritage Program 17

Landowner Contact

Over 600 parcels of varying sizes overlapped with the selected survey areas. All landowners were sent letters requesting permission for access to their properties. Of these letters, 183 responses were received (57% of total requests), with 104 landowners (17% of the total requests) granting permission to survey their property. As we were also conducting inventories on public land, we had to prioritize our visits into the field. Therefore, field inventories were not conducted on all private properties that gave us access permission.

Marsh and headwater stream at watershed summit Many of the landowners requested a follow-up letter providing information on what we found on their property. Landowners whose property contained occurrences of rare species or natural communities were sent a letter letting them know what was found. Landowners whose property did not contain occurrences were sent a letter notifying them of this and thanking them for their cooperation. The conclusion of this study will be publicized generally in a future edition of the existing Sandy Creeks Watershed newsletter, produced by the Tug Hill Commission.

Inventory Efforts ­ Field Inventory

Combined inventory efforts for rare species and significant natural communities resulted in a total of 161 observation points throughout the entire Watershed (Figure 9). Ecological, zoological, and botanical inventories are discussed in more detail below.

Ecology NY Natural Heritage ecologists spent approximately 18 days in the field conducting inventories throughout the Sandy Creeks Watershed on selected sites. Inventory efforts focused on private lands where permission was granted and public lands. Ecological observation point locations, including detailed plots, are shown in Figure 9. In all 5 plots and 110 observation points were collected during the 2009 field season.

NYNHP ecologist Greg Edinger in Adams Swamp

New York Natural Heritage Program 18

Figure 9. Survey Sites for rare species and natural communities in the Sandy Creeks Watershed for the 2009 field season.

Botany A NY Natural Heritage botanist spent 15 days in the field conducting rare plant inventories (29 survey sites). Four new locations for Hill’s pondweed (Potamogeton hillii, Rare: S2) were found during this survey at Adams Swamp, Barnes Corners wetlands, Plum Tree Road wetlands and Wilder Road Swamp. This rare aquatic plant is usually found in shallow, generally calcareous or high pH wetlands, and populations may respond positively to temporary impoundments and flooding by beaver dams (New York Natural Heritage Program 2009b).

Zoology Heritage zoologists spent 15 days in the field (22 survey sites, Figure 9) primarily looking for tracked grassland birds and odonates (damselflies and dragonflies). Most notably, we found that known breeding locations for state-threatened, grassland-dependent Upland Sandpipers (Bartramia longicauda) near Pleasant Lake, and northern Harriers (Circus cynaeus) in the town of Worth remain extant. We also found significant new locations for the S2S3 Mottled Darner (Aeshna clepsydra) dragonfly and S1S2 Hairy- necked Tiger Beetles (Cicindela hirticollis) at healthy sand dune communities near Renshaw Bay.

New York Natural Heritage Program 19

New and updated locations for the rare species and significant natural communities inventoried as a part of this project are described briefly in the next sections. All these localities were predicted at some level by the computer models.

Inventory, Known Occurrences, Assessment Metrics Many rare species and significant natural community occurrences (Element Occurrences) were already known for the Sandy Creeks Watershed before our inventory efforts for this project. Previous studies have shown that most Element Occurrences were in Oswego County along the Lake Ontario shoreline (Gebauer et al. 2002; Howard 2006, Lyons-Swift 1991, 2000; NY Natural Heritage Program 1993). Appendix 5 provides a complete list of all Element Occurrences with more detailed information about each along with corresponding maps. In all, there are 170 different occurrences of rare species and significant natural communities within the entire basin. Ninety of these are rare animals, 53 are rare plants, and 27 are significant natural communities (Figure 10).

“Hotspot” analysis using overlays of EDMs Figure 11 shows the results of overlaying EDMs for all species (plant and animal) expected to occur within the Sandy Creeks Watershed. Darker red colors indicate a greater number of predicted species. Areas with the predicted highest concentration of species are the Lake Ontario shoreline and the gulfs of the region.

Alvar Grassland at Butterville

New York Natural Heritage Program 20

Figure 10. Locations of all rare species and significant natural communities in the Sandy Creeks Watershed.

New York Natural Heritage Program 21

Figure 11. Overlaying EDMs for all species (plant and animal) expected to occur within the Sandy Creeks Watershed. Darker red colors indicate a greater number of predicted species. Areas with the predicted highest concentration of species are the Lake Ontario shoreline and the gulfs of the region.

New York Natural Heritage Program 22

Subwatershed analysis

Each of the 462 subwatersheds SalSa (determined by McKenna 2009) was given an overall quality rank. These ranks are based on a relative scale of 0-100 with 100 being the highest quality. Figure 12 is a graphical representation of this assessment. The entire data table of raw values, metrics, and rank number and their corresponding maps was too large to be included in this written report. They are supplied in digital format on the DVD that accompanies the report.

Overall index numbers, from best to poorest quality, are shown in the lower left hand corner of the figure. These numbers are represented by color on the map with the darkest shade of green being the highest quality subwatershed and the darkest shade of purple being the lowest quality subwatershed. Since these subwatersheds are small, they can be used to locate areas where there is a high probability of finding good quality headwater streams which are one of the Special Areas described by the Tug Hill Commission (New York State Tug Hill Commission 2009).

We noted that high quality “green” subwatersheds tended to cluster in certain areas of the watershed. These areas will be described individually below.

Areas of clustering of high­quality subwatersheds

As mentioned in the Methods section, we anticipated that high-quality subwatersheds would tend to cluster together and that these clusters could be used as a unit for conservation planning. This clustering is evident on the map of the Sandy Creeks Watershed of the overall quality index for each subwatershed (Figure 13). The highest quality subwatersheds have the highest quality index number and vice versa. The map below shows distinct areas where the good-quality watersheds cluster together with the darkest shade of green indicating the best quality subwatershed and the darkest shade of purple the poorest quality.

These clusters of subwatersheds are described in detail below. Figure 13 is a map of the whole Sandy Creeks Watershed with just those areas highlighted. The clusters of high-quality watersheds can be broadly defined as

1. The Sandy Creeks Watershed Summit Forest 2. The Gulfs Areas a. Shingle, Bear, and Inman gulfs b. Lorraine and Totman gulfs 3. The Lake Ontario Shoreline a. Northern section b. Southern section

New York Natural Heritage Program 23

Figure 12. Map showing the overall landscape quality (index) for the entire Sandy Creeks Watershed. The darkest shade of green indicates the highest quality subwatershed while the darkest shade of purple indicates the poorest quality subwatershed

New York Natural Heritage Program 24

Figure13. Map showing clusters of high-quality subwatersheds in the Sandy Creeks Watershed.

New York Natural Heritage Program 25

Figure 14. Map of zoomed in section of the larger landscape quality map showing the summit of the Sandy Creeks Watershed.

New York Natural Heritage Program 26

1. Sandy Creeks Watershed Summit Forest Cluster

Description The Sandy Creeks Watershed Summit site includes a cluster of 13 high-quality subwatersheds (Figure 14, Map A) in two different 12-digit HUC watersheds (headwaters of South Sandy Creeks and Raystone Creeks). This cluster covers about 8,674 acres at the highest elevation for the Sandy Creeks Watershed. This site has a high forest cover, few roads, and many natural streams (Table 2). On the negative side, this area has a very low biodiversity score which could be due to lack of inventory because of the remoteness of the area. Pitcher Plant at Plum Tree Road Bog, Photo: Richard Ring Much of this area was actively logged and is in a mid-successional forest stage. Some of the area is still actively logged. Forests here are mostly a successional northern hardwood type with deciduous trees dominant in the canopy including American beech, sugar maple, white birch, black cherry and others. Historically though, this area was forested primarily with coniferous trees with red spruce being dominant. Foresters in this area note that the first red spruce trees logged off of here had diameters of over three feet (Munk 2009). Presently, there is a significant amount of red spruce in the understory layers suggesting that this forest may eventually succeed to a spruce-northern hardwood forest type.

Field work in this area found pristine sedge meadows (New York Natural Heritage Program 2009c) along slow flowing marshy headwater streams, kettle hole type bogs (inland poor fen) and a rare plant species, Hill’s pond weed, (Potamogeton hillii). A rare willow (G5S3), balsam willow (Salix pyrifolia), that is currently on the NY Natural Heritage watch list, was also located in this area. A very rare (S1) broad- lipped twayblade (Listera convallaroides) (New York Natural Heritage Program 2009a) is noted from this area but was not found at his time (Table 1). Field work at this site also noted a distinct lack of invasive species.

New York Natural Heritage Program 27

Element Occurrences

Table 1. List of rare species and significant natural communities in the Sandy Creeks watershed summit forest cluster. Element type: A= animal, C = natural community, P= plant. Viability Rank refers to the NYNHP quality rank defined in Appendix 1. Last Viability Element Element EO_ID Observed Rank type Black spruce-tamarack bog 2009-08-27 B C 13408 Inland poor fen 2009-08-27 B C 13409 Sedge Meadow 2009-08-27 A C 13410 Broad-lipped Twayblade 1927-06-29 F P 6150 Hill's pondweed 2009 B P 13387

Inland poor fen near Plum Tree Road

New York Natural Heritage Program 28

Subwatershed analysis

Table 2. Subwatershed numbers (SalSa), acreage, landcover index, landcover in stream buffer index, stream barriers/point source pollution index, roads index, biodiversity index, and the overall quality index for the Sandy Creeks Watershed summit forest cluster. Stream Salmon-Sandy Land Land Cover in Bio- Overall Area in barriers/point Roads Subwatershed Cover Stream Buffer diversity Quality Acres source pollution index number Index index index Index index SalSa_280 1996 100 100 100 94.26 6.15 75 SalSa_90010 240 100 100 100 97.64 4.62 75 SalSa_270 201 100 100 100 95.21 3.08 75 SalSa_249 240 100 100 100 100.00 0.00 75 SalSa_292 275 100 100 100 96.45 0.00 75 SalSa_293 256 100 100 100 100.00 0.00 75 SalSa_295 276 100 100 100 100.00 0.00 75 SalSa_331 939 100 100 100 96.67 3.08 74 SalSa_318 762 100 100 100 88.87 4.62 73 SalSa_238 696 100 100 100 87.21 6.15 71 SalSa_90012 661 100 100 100 90.28 4.62 71 SalSa_267 1298 100 100 100 96.20 3.08 71 SalSa_239 834 100 100 100 93.41 4.62 70

New York Natural Heritage Program 29

2. The Gulfs

Figure 15. Map showing zoomed-in section of the larger landscape quality index map. Top map shows Inman, Shingle, and Bear Gulfs. Lower map shows Lorraine and Totman Gulfs.

New York Natural Heritage Program 30

Inman, Shingle, and Bear Gulfs subwatershed cluster

Description This cluster of subwatersheds includes Inman, Shingle, and Bear Gulfs (Figure 15, Map B). There are seven subwatersheds here totaling 8,205 acres in two different HUC 12 watersheds (Gulf Stream and Fish Creek). Table 4 shows a list of these subwatersheds. For the most part, these subwatersheds have high- quality streams, few dams, low point-source pollution, and few roads. This area also has high biodiversity. The gulfs in and around the Tug Hill have long been known for their unique habitat and relatively high number of rare species. Many of these gulfs have been well surveyed. Earlier studies (Muench et al. 1974) have noted the unstable shale cliffs and the forested slopes. Bird’s-eye Primrose was not found during this survey but was found in 2007 (Table 3). Shingle Gulf had excellent habitat for bird’s eye primrose and yellow mountain saxifrage but there are no historical records for either species there and they were not found during this survey. Field work by NY Natural Heritage Program staff and Tug Hill Commission / Tug Hill Tomorrow Land Trust personnel noted that this group of smaller gulfs is relatively free of invasive Bear Gulf species.

Element Occurrences

Table 3. Rare species and significant natural communities of the Inman, Shingle, and Bear Gulfs subwatershed cluster. Element type: A= animal, C = natural community, P= plant. Viability Rank refers to the NYNHP quality rank defined in Appendix 1.

Last Viability Element EO_ID Element Observed Rank type Shale Cliff and Talus Community 1993-08-29 AB C 2166 Bird's-eye Primrose 2007-05-24 AB P 1637 Hill's Pondweed 2009-08-06 B P 13386 .

New York Natural Heritage Program 31

Subwatershed analysis

Table 4. Subwatershed numbers (SalSa), acreage, landcover index, landcover in stream buffer index, stream barriers/point source pollution index, roads index, biodiversity index, and the overall quality index for the Inman, Shingle, and Bear Gulfs subwatersheds. Stream Salmon-Sandy Land Land cover Bio- Overall Area in barriers/point Roads subwatershed cover in Stream diversity quality Acres source index number index buffer index index index pollution index SalSa_90 1675 92 97 100 95.27 56.92 75 SalSa_78 1970 86 90 100 93.15 46.15 71 SalSa_64 795 98 99 100 91.72 33.85 71 SalSa_101 318 100 100 100 93.37 29.23 71 SalSa_84 1735 92 93 100 90.17 41.54 70 SalSa_85 889 77 90 100 90.59 33.85 67 SalSa_76 1107 77 84 100 86.84 44.62 66

Lorraine and Totman Gulf subwatershed cluster

Description Although separated by a lower quality subwatershed, these two gulfs were clustered together because of their proximity to one another (Figure 15, Map C). The streams flowing through these two gulfs ultimately join downstream from the gulf areas. All together, the six subwatersheds here occupy about 2,780 acres in two different HUC 12 watersheds (South Sandy Creeks and Raystone Creeks) (Table 6). Similar to the other cluster of gulfs described above, this group of subwatersheds has good landcover values. Indices for stream buffers, roads, and dams also indicate a high-quality landscape. In addition, these gulfs also have a high biodiversity. Lorraine Gulf, in particular, has been well surveyed and documented over the years with the first documented rare plant occurrence in 1927 (Table 5). Unfortunately, a substantial amount of invasive species were noted in these gulfs. In particular, Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) has become the dominant streamside vegetation in many places. Midstream rocky islands as well as the cliff walls are seeing an increase in coverage of this species. It has spread far up of the steep riversides until the instability of the rock and talus make further advances impossible. Cliffs in Totman Gulf area

New York Natural Heritage Program 32

Element Occurrences Table 5. Rare species and significant natural communities from Lorraine and Totman Gulfs subwatershed cluster. Element type: A= animal, C = natural community, P= plant. Viability Rank refers to the NYNHP quality rank defined in Appendix 1.

Last Viability Element Element EO_ID Observed Rank type Calcareous Cliff Community 2009-09-13 B C 13384 Shale Cliff and Talus Community 1993-09-20 A C 5479 Bird's-eye Primrose 2007-06-28 A P 1126 Yellow Mountain-saxifrage 2007-06-28 AB P 1451

Subwatershed analysis

Table 6. Subwatershed numbers ( SalSa), acreage, landcover index, land cover in stream buffer index, stream barriers/point source pollution index, roads index, biodiversity index, and the overall quality index for the Lorraine Gulf and Totman Gulf watershed cluster. Salmon-Sandy Area Land Land cover in Stream barriers/point Bio- Overall Roads subwatershed in cover steam buffer source diversity quality index number Acres index index pollution index index Index SalSa_176 666 99 99 100 100 44.62 75 SalSa_224 424 83 98 100 94.35 47.69 72 SalSa_185 788 72 97 100 94.17 53.85 71 SalSa_227 404 86 93 100 83.75 49.23 70 SalSa_178 252 95 97 100 70.09 36.92 69 SalSa_189 343 69 94 100 93.85 23.08 65

New York Natural Heritage Program 33

3. The Lake Ontario Shoreline

Figure 16. Map of the zoomed-in section of the Sandy Creeks Watershed along the Lake Ontario Shoreline. The map on the left shows the northern section of the shoreline. The map on the right side shows the southern section of the Lake Ontario shoreline

New York Natural Heritage Program 34

Lake Ontario Shore­North subwatershed cluster

Description Because of previous, intensive surveys of this area, very little additional field inventory of this part of the Sandy Creeks Watershed was conducted for this project (Figure 16 Map D). This area has a very high overall quality index score (Table 8). For the most part, the subwatersheds in this cluster have a good landcover index, good quality stream, few dams and barriers, few roads, and very high biodiversity as evidenced by the high number of rare species and significant natural communities (Table 7).

Table 7. Rare species and significant natural communities for the Lake Ontario Shore-North subwatershed cluster. Element type: A= animal, C = natural community, P= plant. Viability Rank refers to the NYNHP quality rank defined in Appendix 1. Last Viability Element Element EO_ID Observed Rank type A Noctuid Moth 1992-09-27 E A 11294 Black Tern 1991-07-15 CD A 6938 Black Tern 1992 CD A 1545 Black Tern 2007-06 BC A 4750 Blackchin Shiner 1997-07-12 CD A 11389 Common Tern no date H A 7687 Fawn Brown Dart 1988-08-22 AB A 2600 Indiana Bat 2006-08-19 A A 11657 Indiana Bat 2006-08-19 A A 11657 Iowa Darter 2004-11-20 BC A 11296 Iowa Darter 2001-04-14 E A 12433 Least Bittern 1992-07-15 BC A 11011 Least Bittern 2007-06-13 BC A 11012 Least Bittern 2009-05-19 C A 13362 Northern Harrier 2006-05-17 C A 6567 Northern Harrier 1992-06-04 E A 467 Western Pirate Perch 2003-07-16 E 11241 Calcareous Pavement Barrens 1997-08-22 D C 2498 Calcareous Shoreline Outcrop 1995-08-04 C C 3097 Great Lakes Dunes 2001-07-17 B C 6727 Great Lakes Dunes 1995-06-03 B C 1675 Sand Beach 2001-07-17 AB C 3037 Shallow Emergent Marsh 1994-08-01 AB C 4306 Silver Maple-Ash Swamp 1992-08-27 AB C 535 Champlain Beachgrass 2000 E P 2669 Champlain Beachgrass 2000-su E P 9190 Cork Elm 1995-06-03 CD P 1835 Houghton's Sedge 1992-08-14 B P 3779

New York Natural Heritage Program 35

Longstalk Starwort 2003-07-15 AB P 13087 Low Sand-cherry 1995-06-03 A P 160

Marsh Horsetail 1932-08-16 H P 10488 Ram's-head Ladyslipper 2007-05-29 C P 13086 Rough Avens 1991-08-13 E P 6931 Sand Dune Willow 1994-07-06 BC P 379 Sand Dune Willow 1995-06-03 AB P 7610 Sand Dune Willow 2001-06-13 A P 10089 Sand Dune Willow 1982-08-25 E P 7264 Troublesome Sedge 1997-08-22 C P 6375

New York Natural Heritage Program 36

Subwatershed analysis

Table 8. Subwatershed numbers (SalSa), acreage, landcover index, land cover in stream buffer index, stream barriers/point source pollution index, roads index, biodiversity index and the overall quality index for the Lake Ontario Coast-North watershed cluster.

Salmon-Sandy Land Land cover in Stream Bio- Area in Roads Overall subwatershed cover stream buffer barriers/point source diversity Acres index quality number index index pollution index index Index SalSa_328 158 100 100 100 100.00 61.54 85

SalSa_90018 393 100 100 100 100.00 56.92 84

SalSa_182 115 100 100 100 100.00 53.85 84

SalSa_303 318 98 100 100 98.99 49.23 82

SalSa_306 116 98 98 100 100.00 47.69 82

SalSa_90008 428 96 99 100 87.33 63.08 79

SalSa_90014 616 74 100 100 89.50 53.85 76

SalSa_181 546 93 95 100 89.51 50.77 76

SalSa_158 1241 78 95 100 88.19 60.00 71

SalSa_254 825 59 100 100 78.39 52.31 70

SalSa_219 114 73 84 100 83.84 10.77 60

New York Natural Heritage Program 37

Lake Ontario Shore­South subwatershed cluster

Description The clusters of subwatersheds along the southern section of the Lake Ontario shoreline have long been known to contain a wide variety of diverse habitats from marshes to dunes (Figure 16 Map E). Because of the previous, intensive surveys of this area, very little additional field inventory was conducted for this project. This southern section alone has 70 known occurrences of rare species and significant natural communities (Table 9). Many of the areas are under some type of public/conservation protection as a wildlife management area or other designation as NYS DEC lands. The subwatersheds are also of good quality with a good landcover index, few roads, good stream quality, and very high biodiversity (Table 10).

Deer Creek Marsh.Photo: Troy Weldy

New York Natural Heritage Program 38

Element Occurrences

Table 9. Rare species and significant natural communities in the Lake Ontario Shore-South subwatershed cluster. Element type: A= animal, C = natural community, P= plant. Viability Rank refers to the NYNHP quality rank defined in Appendix 1.

Last Viability Element Element EO_ID Observed Rank type Black Tern 2007-06 BC A 10414 Black Tern 2009-06-17 BC A 7366 Black Tern 2002-06-05 D A 352 Blackchin Shiner 2000-03-05 A A 11387 Blackchin Shiner 1997-06-07 CD A 11388 Blackchin Shiner 1939-06-27 H A 11432 Blackchin Shiner 1939-06-13 H A 11433 Bog Turtle 2005-06-25 AC A 3077 Bogbean Buckmoth 2007-09-30 A A 5393 Bogbean Buckmoth 2003-fa F A 270 Bogbean Buckmoth 2007-09-30 AB A 3559 Bogbean Buckmoth 2007-09-30 A A 10393 Bogbean Buckmoth 2007-09-22 CD A 39 Common Tern 2001-07-15 D A 5079 Common Tern 1957 H A 3309 Iowa Darter 2000-09-18 E A 12391 Least Bittern 2000-07-12 BC A 2139 Least Bittern 1984-su E A 9882 Mottled Darner 2009-09-02 E A 13364 Northern Harrier 2005-08-26 C A 2779 Northern Harrier 1978 E A 5687 Northern Harrier 2002-05-18 E A 533 Pied-billed Grebe 1976-su F A 8720 Piping Plover 1984-su E A 8937 Sedge Wren 2002-05-25 E A 5327 Waterfowl Winter Concentration Area 1992-01-12 E A 3394 Western Pirate Perch 1962-08-05 F A 3835 Dwarf Shrub Bog 2002-06-04 B C 953 Great Lakes Dunes 1996-11-01 BC C 3184 Great Lakes Dunes 2004-09-22 C C 1398 Medium Fen 1997-09-13 AB C 3944 Medium Fen 2002-06-04 B C 1220 Medium Fen 2002-06-04 A C 3777

New York Natural Heritage Program 39

Last Viability Element Element EO_ID Observed Rank type Medium Fen 1998-07-30 A C 8756 Medium Fen 2002-07-09 A C 3030 Red Maple-Hardwood Swamp 1994-09-20 A C 4827 Red Maple-Hardwood Swamp 2002-07-09 B C 429 Red Maple-Tamarack Peat Swamp 1994-09-20 A C 8173 Red Maple-Tamarack Peat Swamp 2002-09-02 AB C 5671 Champlain Beachgrass 2000 E P 7805 Champlain Beachgrass 2000 E P 1442 Creeping Sedge 1994-06-21 AB P 7588 Creeping Sedge 1996-10-01 C P 8803 Creeping Sedge 2001-06-09 A P 8598 Creeping Sedge 2006-05-30 A P 711 Dragon's Mouth Orchid 1994-06-22 A P 7714 Dragon's Mouth Orchid 2002-06-04 A P 9409 Dragon's Mouth Orchid 2006-05-30 C P 661 Houghton's Sedge 2001-06-09 A P 9456 Houghton's Sedge 1985-06-06 B P 1388 Large Twayblade 1994-06-22 C P 758 Livid Sedge 2000-07-12 A P 8812 Livid Sedge 2006-05-30 A P 291 Low Sand-cherry 1991-05-20 CD P 3620 Low Sand-cherry 2001-06-09 CD P 6551 Low Sand-cherry 2001-06-14 CD P 4349 Low Sand-cherry 2001-06-14 CD P 4349 Low Sand-cherry 2001-06-14 CD P 4349 Low Sand-cherry 2001-06-14 CD P 4349 Northern Bog Aster 1996-09-20 A P 58 Northern Bog Aster 1996-10-01 C P 9832 Northern Bog Aster 1996-09-14 B P 3982 Pod Grass 1998-07-28 BC P 3687 Sand Dune Willow 2001-06-09 BC P 6608 Sand Dune Willow 1996-05 CD P 767 Sand Dune Willow 2001-06-14 CD P 136 Slender Bulrush 1928-08-10 H P 4499 Sparse-flowered Sedge 2006-05-30 E P 12323 Swamp Smartweed 1902-08-23 H P 686 Woodland Bluegrass 1992-08-25 BC P 8291

New York Natural Heritage Program 40

Subwatershed analysis

Table 10. Subwatershed numbers (SalSa), acreage, landcover index, land cover in stream buffer index, stream barriers/point source pollution index, roads index, biodiversity index, and the overall quality index for the Lake Ontario Shore-South watershed clusters Sandy-Salmon Area Land Land cover Stream Bio- Overall Roads subwatershed in cover in stream barriers/point source diversity quality index number Acres index buffer index pollution index index Index SalSa_647 932 98 100 100 88.18 93.85 87 SalSa_90028 4332 94 98 100 84.26 93.85 85 SalSa_648 1712 87 99 100 86.26 95.38 84 SalSa_90030 675 95 100 100 84.11 83.08 84 SalSa_475 394 99 100 100 89.80 72.31 81 SalSa_671 1041 67 100 90 74.85 100.00 73

Special Area designation

The Tug Hill Reserve Act of 1992 established guidelines for the designation of Special Areas within the boundaries of the Tug Hill region (New York State Tug Hill Commission 2009). Some of the categories used for Special Area designation include headwater steams and areas of unique habitat. The small subwatersheds that were used in this study will be useful as an overlay on topographic or planimetric maps to locate (relative) high-quality headwater streams within a given municipal boundary. The other category, unique habitat, can be used to designate areas within the watershed that may have been missed in the overall landscape quality assessment.

These potential Special Areas are described below and may occur within a subwatershed of fairly low quality because of the presence of roads, agricultural areas or other factors that would result in a lower “overall quality” score in the landscape analysis. Areas that were already discussed in detail previously in this report will not be included here. There are two new sites that will be discussed. Their locations are shown in Figure 17. All have unique habitats and meet more than one of the Adams Swamp successional swamp forest with black ash dominant criteria for Special Area designation.

New York Natural Heritage Program 41

Figure 17. Map showing areas in the Sandy Creeks Watershed that meet certain requirements as "special areas" or distinctive natural community type.

New York Natural Heritage Program 42

Adams Wetland Complex and adjacent wetlands This swamp is a large, recovering, northern white cedar swamp. The diameter of some of the old stumps found deep in the swamp exceeded 32 inches. Detailed geology maps show that this swamp and many in the surrounding area are underlain by limestone. These swamps are therefore richer and more diverse than other types of swamps in the Sandy Creeks Watershed. An EDM overlay did indicate the presence of a “richer” swamp type in these areas. Nearby Northern white cedar swamp with large cedar stump Lyons Swamp was surveyed by the NY Natural Heritage botanist and found to be similar to Adams Swamp but at an earlier successional stage. A similar swamp at Sanford Corners was not surveyed but personal communication with area experts indicate that this is the same type of recovering, northern white cedar swamp. All of these swamps were historically logged for the valuable timber and all appear to be early to mid-successional. The dominant canopy tree species in Adams Swamp is black ash but understory trees, saplings, and seedlings are primarily northern white cedar. Adams Swamp is included as a potential Special Area because it is an “important habitat area” containing a significant natural community and a rare plant species, Hill’s pondweed, as described by NY Natural Heritage.

Plum Tree Road Wetlands­Pigeon Creek The description of the Plum Tree Road wetlands and surrounding forest can be found in the landscape-Watershed analysis of the Tug Hill Summit watershed cluster discussed previously in this report. This is a smaller area within that larger subwatershed cluster that contains good-quality wetlands including very high-quality marsh headwater stream flowing through a pristine sedge meadow. As a Special Area it meets the “important habitat” qualification by having significant natural communities and a rare plant species, Hills Pondweed. It also qualifies for Special Area status as a high quality headwater Sedge meadow bordered by red spruce stream and as a large, contiguous forest area (successional northern hardwood with some red spruce).

New York Natural Heritage Program 43

Other distinctive natural communities

Butterville Hill and adjacent “alvar” natural communities Alvar grassland is a distinctive natural community that occurs on shallow soils over level outcrops of calcareous bedrock (limestone or dolomite), and is restricted to areas that are seasonally flooded in spring or after heavy rainfall, and seasonally dry by late summer. NY Natural Heritage ranks alvar grassland as rare, not only in New York, but globally as well (G2 S1). Presently, all documented occurrences of alvar grassland are from a small area northwest of Watertown near Lake Ontario. This summer, during a survey of the Sandy Creeks Watershed, we found previously Alvar grassland with exposed bedrock undocumented locations of alvar grassland. The Galoo limestone formation, and the corresponding soil types that are necessary for the occurrence of alvar grassland, is quite widespread in the Sandy Creeks Watershed. Here, it occurs as hills or “plateaus” of un-eroded limestone which were used primarily for grazing animals because of the very shallow soils. One of these hills near Butterville in the town of Henderson appears to be recovering from historic grazing. Although most areas are still dominated by pasture species, some areas have a number of the native species typical to alvar grasslands, including troublesome sedge, flatstem rush, bluebell bellflower, Philadelphia panic grass, upland white aster, and the moss Abietinella abietinum. Eastern red cedar is also scattered throughout.

Alvar grasslands are also considered excellent habitat for upland sandpipers and other species of grassland birds. The physical features typical of alvars are also present, including areas of open bedrock and the deep, vertical fissures in the bedrock known as “grykes.” Other areas of alvar exist in the Sandy Creeks Watershed but were not surveyed during this project. This includes a large area near Adams Center known as Pine Hill. Landowners were contacted for these sites but we did not receive access permission.

Characteristic fissure or "gryke" in the Galoo limestone

New York Natural Heritage Program 44

CONCLUSION

Biodiversity Field surveys for rare species and natural communities resulted in the discovery of new locations for rare plants and animals and significant natural communities. Presently, the watershed has 170 documented locations of these elements of biodiversity. It is highly likely that there are additional locations for Element Occurrences throughout the Sandy Creeks Watershed on private land and other locations we did not have time or the permission to survey. In addition, some taxonomic groups, such as aquatic species (fish, mussels, etc.) were excluded from this survey because they require more intensive field surveys, or the optimal season for field surveys conflicted with the project schedule. Figure 10, on page 21, shows all the known locations of rare animals, plants, and significant natural communities for the entire Sandy Creeks Watershed. A complete list of all rare species and natural communities can be found in Appendix 4. Clusters of these elements can be found in the Gulf areas, the Lake Ontario shoreline, and at the summit of the watershed. The overlays of individual species Element Distribution Models (EDMs) also show the “hotspots” of biodiversity within the watershed (Figure 11, page 22).

High­quality subwatersheds Figure 18 (below) is a simplified version of the landscape quality map (Figure 12) found on page 24. The subwatersheds used in this project are the smaller subwatersheds developed by McKenna (2009) for the U.S. Geological Survey. They can be singled out on an individual basis to help locate high-quality headwater stream areas or they can be clustered together to form larger areas for conservation purposes. The clusters singled out in the report are the summit forest of the watershed, the Gulfs, and the Lake Ontario Shoreline. This map also shows distinctive landscape quality patterns. The easternmost part of the watershed has low development (low population) and shows up as a high- quality landscape. The westernmost section also shows up as high quality primarily because of its high biodiversity. The middle section, in contrast, appears as lower quality Cotton Grass growing in a red maple-tamarack peat swamp near Plum Tree because of its land-use history. Road

New York Natural Heritage Program 45

Figure 18. Map of the subwatersheds for the Sandy Creeks Watershed showing their overall quality index. This map was produced using all biodiversity and landscape data created for this report.

New York Natural Heritage Program 46

Potential Special Area designation EDM and landscape analysis and field surveys during the summer of 2009 discovered two areas that the Tug Hill communities could designate as Special Areas within the Sandy Creeks Watershed (Figure 17). These areas are the Adams wetland complex and the Plum Tree Road-Pigeon Creek wetlands. These sites contain good examples of significant natural communities as well as rare species. In addition to these specific locations, landscape analysis of the small subwatersheds revealed many high-quality subwatersheds that could be considered for Special Area (New York State Tug Hill Commission 2009) consideration as headwater steams.

Although not within the boundaries of the Tug Hill region, the alvar grassland communities at Butterville Alvar and adjacent alvar (Galoo limestone cap) areas could be considered as potential conservation sites. This distinctive natural community is rare both in New York and globally. Other areas of alvar exist in the Sandy Creeks Watershed, but were not surveyed during this project due to lack of access permission.

Future Needs This report provides a foundation for future surveys in the Sandy Creeks Watershed. The streams, creeks, and rivers of this watershed have been known for high-quality fisheries. Future work, therefore, should include aquatic surveys of fish populations (game species as well as rare species), other vertebrate species, and invertebrate species using the high-quality subwatersheds documented in this report as a focus for research. Inventory work should also focus on the larger creeks and rivers that flow through the lower quality landscape found in the middle section of the Sandy Creeks Watershed. The extent of natural riparian areas, particularly floodplain forests, should be documented.

Other research priorities documented in this report include the newly discovered alvar grassland sites. The total acreage of this globally rare natural community as well as species composition needs additional documentation. Since these areas occur as natural open grassland areas they also serve as good locations to document new populations of grassland bird species. In addition to the alvar grassland areas, the wetlands around the Adams Center area should also be surveyed in greater detail. These wetlands are considered rich and are underlain by limestone bedrock.

In addition to research, landowner communication remains a critical issue for the Tug Hill area. Much of the area is in private ownership so access to private land is necessary to continue to document the biodiversity of the region.

New York Natural Heritage Program 47

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Sandy Creeks Watershed landscape analysis and inventory was conducted and compiled by New York Natural Heritage Program staff. Special thanks go to others who have helped with this project including Linda Gibbs, Katie Malinowski, and Jennifer Harvill of the Tug Hill Commission and Linda Garrett of the Tug Hill Tomorrow Land Trust.

New York Natural Heritage Program 48

REFERENCES

Anderson, M. G. 1999. Viability and spatial assessment of ecological communities in the Northern Appalachian Ecoregion. Ph.D. University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH. 224 pp.

Bailey, R. Map: Ecoregions of North America. [revised]. 1997. Washington, DC, UDSA Forest Service in cooperation with The Nature Conservancy and the U. S. Geological Survey.

Beauvais, G. P., D. A. Keinath, P. Hernandez, L. Master, and R. Thurston. 2004. Element distribution modeling: a primer.

Bryce, S. A., G. E. Griffith, J. M. Omernik, D. Carlson, G. J. Edinger, S. Indrick, and O. Vargas. 2010. Ecoregions of New York (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). Reston, VA, U.S. Geological Survey.

Edinger, G. J., D. J. Evans, A. D. Finton, D. M. Hunt, L. Lyons-Swift, and A. Olivero. 2000. Community field form instructions: Community Forms 1, 2, & 3. New York Natural Heritage Program, Latham, NY.

Edinger, G. J., D. J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T. G. Howard, D. M. Hunt, and A. M. Olivero. 2002. Ecological communities of New York State, Second Edition (Draft for review). A revised and expanded edition of Reschke, C. 1990. Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, Albany, NY. 136 pp.

Gebauer, S., G. Edinger, T. Howard, J. Jaycox, andT. Weldy. 2002. Oswego County coastal wetlands. New York Natural Heritage Program, Albany, NY.

Guisan, A. and N. E. Zimmerman. 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecological Modelling 135:147-186.

Howard, T. G. 2006. Salmon River Watershed Inventory and Landscape Analysis. A report prepared for The Tug Hill Commission. New York Natural Heritage Program, Albany, NY. 177 pp.

Hunt, D. M. 2001. Saint Lawrence/Champlain Valley (STL) known or suspected, extirpated or extant lacustrine macrohabitats/alliances. New York Natural Heritage Program, Latham, NY.

Hunt, D. M., G. J. Edinger, A. L. Feldmann, J. J. Schmid, and C. N. Voight. 2005. Tug Hill: Stream System Inventory & Watershed Integrity Analysis. A report prepared for Central/Western Chapter of The Nature Conservancy. New York Natural Heritage Program, Albany, NY. 141 pp.

Hunt, D. M., G. J. Edinger, J. J. Schmid, D. J. Evans, P. G. Novak, A. M. Olivero, and S. M. Young. 2002. Lake Erie Gorges Biodiversity Inventory & Landscape Integrity Analysis. A report prepared for the Central/Western New York Chapter of The Nature Conservancy. New York Natural Heritage Program, Albany, NY. 100 pp.

New York Natural Heritage Program 49

Hunt, D. M. and L. Lyons-Swift. 1999. Biodiversity Inventory of the John Hancock Lands on Tug Hill. A report prepared for Central/Western New York Chapter of The Nature Conservancy. New York Natural Heritage Program, Latham, NY. 90 pp.

Kennedy, C., J. Wilkinson, and J. Balch. 2003. Conservation thresholds for land use planners. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C. 55 pp.

Lyons-Swift, L. A. 2000. Oswego County: rare species and significant natural communities. A report prepared for The Oswego County Environmental Planning Commission. Oswego, NY. 26 pp.

Lyons-Swift, L. A. 1991. Historical records of rare plants and animals and significant natural communities of the Tug Hill region of New York. A report prepared for Temporary Commission of the Tug Hill. Watertown, NY. 176 pp.

McKenna J. 2009. Rules for defining boundaries of the spatial unit constituting each spatial scale: the riverine scaling framework. McKenna, Jim. U.S. Geological Survey, Tunison Laboratory, Cortland, NY.

Muench, P. S., J. L. Osinski, and T. G. Pfleeger. 1974. Unique and important natural areas in the Tug Hill region: further analyses and recommendations. Syracuse, New York.

New York Natural Heritage Program. 2009a. Online conservation guide for Listera convallarioides. http://guides.nynhp.org/guide.php?id=9701. Accessed: 4-7-0010a.

New York Natural Heritage Program. 2009b. Online conservation guide for Potamogeton hillii. http://guides.nynhp.org/guide.php?id=9799. Accessed: 4-7-0010b.

New York Natural Heritage Program. 2009c. Online conservation guide for Sedge meadow. http://guides.nynhp.org/guide.php?id=9925. Accessed: 4-7-0010c.

New York Natural Heritage Program. 1993. Deer Creek Marsh Wildlife Management Area Biodiversity Inventory Final Report. Prepared for New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. New York Natural Heritage Program, Albany, NY.

New York State Museum. 1999a. New York State bedrock geology GIS layer.

New York State Museum. 1999b. New York State surficial geology GIS layer.

New York State Tug Hill Commission. 2009. Special Area guidebook for the Tug Hill region. New York State Tug Hill Commission, Watertown, NY.

R Development Core Team. 2005. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2005. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

Reschke, C., B. L. Bedford, N. Slack, and F. R. Wesley. 1990. Fen Vegetation of New York State. Ecological Society of America Annual Meeting, Snowbird, Utah.

Royston, P., D. G. Altman, and W. Sauerbrei. 2006. Dichotomizing continuous predictors in multiple regression: a bad idea. Statistics in Medicine 25:127-141. New York Natural Heritage Program 50

State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry. 1974. Resources of the Tug Hill Region. A report prepared for The Temporary State Commission on Tug Hill. State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY.

New York Natural Heritage Program 51

APPENDIX 1. New York Natural Heritage Program Methodology

Overview of the New York Natural Program

NY Natural Heritage is a partnership between the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) and The Nature Conservancy. Our mission is to facilitate the conservation of rare animals, rare plants, and significant natural communities. We accomplish our mission by combining thorough field inventories, scientific analyses, expert interpretation, and the comprehensive databases on New York’s flora and fauna to deliver high quality information to partners working in natural resource conservation. The NY Natural Heritage database contains information on the status and location of 174 natural community types, 714 rare plant species, and 432 rare animal species across New York. NY Natural Heritage is an active participant in NatureServe – a nonprofit organization that links an international network of biodiversity data centers. The Natural Heritage Network includes Natural Heritage Programs in all 50 states and several interstate regions. There are also 21 Conservation Data Centres, the international equivalent of Natural Heritage Programs, in Canada, Latin America, and the Caribbean. These programs work with NatureServe to develop biodiversity data, maintain compatible standards for data management, and provide information about rare species and natural communities that is consistent across many geographic scales – from ¼-acre wetland sites to the North American continent.

Heritage Methodology

The Natural Heritage Network specializes in compiling biodiversity information through conducting surveys for rare species and significant natural communities and delivering the resultant data to facilitate conservation. Natural Heritage Programs, NatureServe, and The Nature Conservancy have spent more than two decades developing and refining the inventory methodology used internationally by the Natural Heritage Network. The Natural Heritage Network considers each plant species, animal species, and natural community type to be an “element” of biodiversity. The documented locations of rare plants, rare animals, and significant natural communities are called “element occurrences.” These terms are used throughout this report. We used our database of element occurrences as one component of the remote GIS assessment in this project.

The coarse filter/fine filter

Heritage inventory methodology works by focusing on the identification, documentation, and mapping of all occurrences of rare species and significant ecological communities. We use a “coarse filter/fine filter” approach to identify and prioritize the protection of these significant biological resources. Ecological communities represent a “coarse filter” aggregate of biodiversity at a scale larger than the species level as defined in Reschke (1990) and Edinger et al. (2002). Their identification and documentation can be used to describe whole assemblages of plant and animal species, both common and rare. The conservation of the best remaining examples of natural communities assures the protection of most of the common species that make up the biological diversity of the state. Rare animals and plants often have narrow or

New York Natural Heritage Program 52

unusual habitat requirements. These species may fall through the coarse filter, and are sometimes not protected within representative communities. Identifying and documenting viable populations of each of the rare species serves as the fine filter for protecting the state’s biological diversity. This coarse filter/fine filter approach to a natural resources inventory has proven to be an efficient means of identifying the most sensitive animals, plants, and ecological communities of an area.

Element rarity and vulnerability

The NY Natural Heritage statewide inventory efforts revolve around lists of rare species and all types of natural communities known to occur, or to have historically occurred, in the state. These lists are based on a variety of sources including museum collections, scientific literature, information from state and local government agencies, regional and local experts, and data from neighboring states. As with all state Heritage Programs, the NY Natural Heritage ranking system assesses rarity at two geographic scales. Each community and rare species is assigned a global rank and a state rank. The global rank reflects the rarity of the species or community throughout its range, whereas the state rank indicates its rarity within New York State. Both of these ranks are usually based on the range of the species or community, the number of occurrences, the viability of the occurrences, and the vulnerability of the species or community around the globe or across the state. As new data become available, the ranks may be revised to reflect the most current information. Infraspecific taxa (e.g. subspecies and varieties) are also assigned a taxon rank that indicates the infraspecific taxon’s rank throughout its range. Individuals who are knowledgeable about the range-wide status of each particular species or natural community typically assign global ranks. These knowledgeable individuals may come from either within or outside the Heritage Network. State ranks are assigned by biologists of NY Natural Heritage, with the assistance of other knowledgeable individuals from within or outside the state government. NY Natural Heritage ranking criteria are enumerated in Table 1 and used throughout this report.

New York Natural Heritage Program 53

Table 11. Explanation of ranks and codes used in Natural Heritage database reports. Each element has a global and state rank as determined by NY Natural Heritage. These ranks carry no legal weight but are believed to accurately reflect the relative rarity of the species. The global rank reflects the rarity of the element throughout the world and the state rank reflects the rarity within New York State. Infraspecific taxa are also assigned a taxon rank to reflect the infraspecific taxon’s rank throughout the world. The Taxon or T-ranks (T1 - T5) are defined like the Global ranks (G1 - G5), but the T-rank only refers to the rarity of the subspecific taxon of the species.

GLOBAL RANK

G1 = Critically Imperiled—At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors. G2 = Imperiled—At high risk of extinction or elimination due to very restricted range, very few populations, steep declines, or other factors. G3 = Vulnerable—At moderate risk of extinction or elimination due to a restricted range, relatively few populations, recent and widespread declines, or other factors. G4 = Apparently Secure—Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. G5 = Secure—Common; widespread and abundant. GH = Possibly Extinct (species), Eliminated (ecological communities and systems)—Known from only historical occurrences but still some hope of rediscovery. There is evidence that the species may be extinct or the ecosystem may be eliminated throughout its range, but not enough to state this with certainty. Examples of such evidence include (1) that a species has not been documented in approximately 20-40 years despite some searching or some evidence of significant habitat loss or degradation; (2) that a species or ecosystem has been searched for unsuccessfully, but not thoroughly enough to presume that it is extinct or eliminated throughout its range. GX = Presumed Extinct (species)—Not located despite intensive searches and virtually no likelihood of rediscovery; Eliminated (ecological communities)—Eliminated throughout its range, with no restoration potential due to extinction of dominant or characteristic taxa and/or elimination of the sites and disturbance factors on which the type depends. G#G# =Range Rank—A numeric range rank (e.g., G2G3, G1G3) is used to indicate the range of uncertainty about the exact status of a taxon or ecosystem type. Ranges cannot skip more than two ranks (e.g., GU should be used rather than G1G4). GU = Unrankable—-Currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends. NOTE: Whenever possible (when the range of uncertainty is three consecutive ranks or less), a range rank (e.g., G2G3) should be used to delineate the limits (range) of uncertainty. GNR = Unranked—Global rank not yet assessed. GNA = Not Applicable—A conservation status rank is not applicable because the species is not a suitable target for conservation activities.

New York Natural Heritage Program 54

STATE RANK

S1 = Critically Imperiled—Critically imperiled in the jurisdiction because of extreme rarity or because of some factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from New York State. S2 = Imperiled—Imperiled in the jurisdiction because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations, steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from New York State. S3 = Vulnerable—Vulnerable in New York State due to a restricted range, relatively few populations, recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. S4 = Apparently Secure—Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. S5 = Secure—Common, widespread, and abundant in New York State. SH = Possibly Extirpated— Known from only historical records but still some hope of rediscovery. There is evidence that the species or ecosystem may no longer be present in New York State, but not enough to state this with certainty. Examples of such evidence include (1) that a species has not been documented in approximately 20-40 years despite some searching or some evidence of significant habitat loss or degradation; (2) that a species or ecosystem has been searched for unsuccessfully, but not thoroughly enough to presume that it is no longer present in the New York State. SX = Presumed Extirpated—Species or ecosystem is believed to be extirpated from New York State. Not located despite intensive searches of historical sites and other appropriate habitat, and virtually no likelihood that it will be rediscovered. S#S# = Range Rank — A numeric range rank (e.g., S2S3 or S1S3) is used to indicate any range of uncertainty about the status of the species or ecosystem. Ranges cannot skip more than two ranks (e.g., SU is used rather than S1S4). SU = Unrankable—Currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends. SNR = Unranked—National or subnational conservation status not yet assessed. SNA = Not Applicable—A conservation status rank is not applicable because the species or ecosystem is not a suitable target for conservation activities.

TAXON RANK

T1-T5 = indicates a rank assigned to a subspecies following the Global Rank definitions above. Q = indicates a question exists whether or not the taxon is a good taxonomic entity. ? = indicates a question exists about the rank.

New York Natural Heritage Program 55

Element occurrence viability

Individual occurrences of rare plants, rare animals, and natural communities are ranked according to their quality, or perceived viability, based on factors such as size, condition, and landscape context in which they are found. All occurrences of the elements documented in this report have been assigned a quality rank of A to F, H, or X (Table 2). Combinations of letters, or intermediate ranks, such as AB, BC, and CD are also possible.

Table 12. Explanation of element occurrence quality ranks used in Natural Heritage database reports.

Element Occurrence Rank Definition

A Excellent

B Good

C Marginal

D Poor

E Extant. Existing, but not enough information to rank A-D

F Failed to Find. Not found at the previously documented site, but potential habitat was observed and /or a more thorough searching needed.

H Historical. No recent field information. For animals this means the particular population has not been seen or, in the case of a nest, has not been active within last 15 years. For plants a “historical” rank means that the population has not been observed in greater than 20 years.

X Extirpated. Believed to no longer exist. In many cases, habitat has been significantly altered and is believed no longer suitable for maintenance of the element.

Significant natural community occurrences may be assigned any of the ranks listed above, which are based on quality and are evaluated within the context of the known or hypothesized distribution of that particular community. Several ecological and spatial factors must be considered when determining the element occurrence rank of a community. These include the occurrence size, maturity, evidence and degree of unnatural disturbance, continued existence of important ecological processes, overall landscape context, and existing and potential threats. A-ranked community occurrences are among the largest and highest quality of their type. These community occurrences should be large enough to provide reasonable

New York Natural Heritage Program 56

assurance for long-term viability of component ecological processes. They are essentially undisturbed by humans or have nearly recovered from past human disturbance, typically exhibiting little or no unnatural fragmentation. Exotic or particularly invasive native species are usually absent in high quality community occurrences, or, if present, are observed at very low levels.

Heritage data collection priorities

Significant examples of natural communities are determined using occurrence quality ranks in conjunction with global and state rarity ranks (Table 3). In this way, communities are documented and mapped in NY Natural Heritage databases if they are either rare in New York State or are an outstanding example of a more common natural community. Cultural communities (as defined in Edinger et al. 2002) are not considered significant and are therefore not tracked by NY Natural Heritage. Table 13. Criteria used by Heritage Programs to determine significant natural communities.

Element Rarity Rank Element Occurrence Rank

G1, G2 or S1 all occurrences ranked A-D

G3 or S2 all occurrences ranked A-C

G3, G4 or S3 all occurrences ranked A-BC

G4, G5 or S4, S5 all occurrences ranked A-B

Reschke (1990) developed the first comprehensive ecological community classification for New York State. This classification and the subsequent draft revision (Edinger et al. 2002) have been the basis of natural community inventories conducted by NY Natural Heritage since 1985. One of the objectives of this effort is to assess the rarity of each perceived natural community type in New York State. To date, there is no comprehensive legislation at the federal or state level providing legal protection to rare natural communities or high quality examples of more common community types. Federal, state, and local laws protect certain types of wetlands, streams, and beaches, but most terrestrial communities have no legal status.

New York Natural Heritage Program 57

APPENDIX 2. Description of the Element Distribution Modeling (EDM)Process and the list of environmental data layers used.

Our approach to EDM involved five steps: 1) select species and communities and refine their locations; 2) prepare environmental data; 3) generate and attribute presence and absence points; 4) run models; and 5) merge, display, and evaluate models for inventory. For this project, we elected to create models for every rare species or natural community we might expect to find within the Sandy Creeks watershed . Although the focus area of this study encompassed only the Sandy Creeks watershed, we generated statewide element distribution models. Our method required this because we needed to use all known locations for each species, whether or not these locations occurred within the focus area.

First, we compiled occurrences from the NY Natural Heritage Biotics database and made certain the polygons representing those occurrences were accurate and had appropriate resolution (mapped at 1:24,000 or larger). The number of records for each species varied considerably from a single polygon to dozens of polygons.

Next, we prepared 36 environmental data layers to use in characterizing “presence” and “absence” locations, represented by points. “Presence” points were derived from occurrence polygons. Inside every polygon describing a known location for a species or natural community we placed a set of points, randomly distributed and in proportion to the size of the polygon for small polygons and asymptoting at around 400 points per polygon. Because Heritage data sets generally lack any robust “absence” data, we generated a set of 1000 randomly located “available” or “pseudo-absence” points to use as our contrast to presence points (Beauvais et al. 2004, Engler et al. 2004, Zaniewski et al. 2002). We used the same 1000 random points for every model. We attributed each presence and absence point with its corresponding value from each environmental layer used in the model.

We used the Random Forests procedure, an extension of classification and regression tree (CART) statistical modeling (Breiman et al. 1984). In classic CART modeling for EDM, a single classification tree is built in the following manner. The program evaluates all the variables and decides which variable is most effective at splitting the dataset into two groups (target species present or absent). The algorithm repeats the procedure with each subgroup, building a “tree” that ends with subgroups fully classified as present or absent. This classification tree is then essentially a set of rules for modeling where appropriate habitat exists for our target species. A benefit of CART (and random forests) is that there may be many solutions to model. Thus, the model may predict a species at higher elevation, north-facing slopes at one portion of its range and at lower, south-facing slopes at another portion of its range. One drawback of classic CART involves a pruning routine that is somewhat arbitrary. Random Forests requires no pruning.

The basic method for this procedure is to choose a random subset of records (presence and absence points) as well as a random subset of environmental variables to build a classification tree. This is repeated for many trees (we generally used 600 trees), each with new random subsets of the data and environmental variables. To predict whether an unknown location should be classified as present or absent for a target species, the program sends the conditions of the location down all the trees and tallies votes of how predictions are made on each tree (Breiman et al. 1984, Liaw & Wiener 2002). Although rules can vary, we simply used a “majority wins” rule.

After building an EDM, we converted each ARC GRID file to integer (from floating-point) and then merged the files using a simple summation command in the Spatial Analyst extension of ArcGIS. Each model is then represented in GIS as a color range from low prediction of habitat suitability (e.g., green) to

New York Natural Heritage Program 58

a high prediction (e.g., red) (Figure 1). We also wished to create a predicted/not predicted EDM map to be able to synthesize across the many EDMs and create a layer showing the number of predicted species across the landscape. In order to create a predicted/not predicted EDM map, we needed to determine the appropriate cutoff value for each EDM. To determine the appropriate percentage we used receiver- operator characteristics (ROC) coding in R (R Development Core Team 2005) that assessed the success of the model to correctly predict known present and absent locations. For example, setting the entire study area to “present” would successfully capture all the known present locations (100% correct positives), but also capture all the “absent” locations as present (0% correct negatives). We chose an analytic routine that maximizes correct positives and correct negatives at the same time.

Figure 1. Map of the statewide element distribution model for least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis).

New York Natural Heritage Program 59

Environmental data layers used in the production of element distribution models (EDM). 1 Environmental Data Layer Source % clay in surface layer, area weighted (% * 10) MB % organic matter in surface layer, area weighted (% * 10) MB Absolute maximum of regional percent pH ranges *10 MB Absolute minimum of regional percent pH ranges *10 MB Annual record minimum temperature (°C/10) MB Available water holding capacity, area weighted median (mm) MB Average annual minimum temperature (°C/10) MB Average minimum temperature (°C/10) in July MB Average minimum temperature (°C/10) in June MB Average minimum temperature (°C/10) in May MB Calcium carbonate in surface layer, area weighted median (% MB * 10) Calcium carbonate in surface layer, maximum (% * 10) MB Cation exchange capacity (CEC) in surface layer, area MB weighted median (value * 10) Class of bedrock, based on acidity and calcareousness TNC Class of surficial soil layer grouped to 22 classes NYNHP Class of surficial soil layer grouped to 35 classes NYNHP Cumulative annual solar radiation (kJ/m2) MB Distance to nearest soil polygon containing calcium carbonate MB (m) Elevation (m) MB Mean number of frost free days per year MB National land cover data MB Permeability of top layer (inches of water per hour * 10) MB pH of top layer (pH * 10), area weighted average of median MB values Potential evapotranspiration independent of vegetation, AET + MB D, (mm) Precipitation (mm) in July MB Precipitation (mm) in June MB Precipitation (mm) in May MB Site water balance - cumulative annual water surplus or deficit MB (mm) Slope (degrees) MB & NYNHP Slope aspect MB & NYNHP Topographic index at multiple radii MB & NYNHP Topographic index in a 540 m radius (index) MB & NYNHP Topographic index in a 90 m radius (index) MB & NYNHP Topographic index in a 990 m radius (index) MB & NYNHP Topographic wetness index MB & NYNHP Total annual growing degree days MB Total annual precipitation (mm) MB 1 MB = Matt Buff, NYNHP = NY Natural Heritage, MB & NYNHP = original layer from Matt Buff updated, fixed, or otherwise re-created by NY Heritage, TNC = geology layer based on classes developed by The Nature Conservancy Conservation Science Support, Boston, MA.

New York Natural Heritage Program 60

APPENDIX 3. Landscape Analysis – Background Information

Sandy Creek Landscape Analysis

Maps - Background Information: John J. Schmid, GISP, GIS Specialist, 518-402-8930

Notes on GIS maps, GIS data, and analysis:

• All maps were created by the NY Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP) on contract with the Tug Hill Commission. These maps are intended for planning purposes only and shall not be used for engineering, survey, legal, or regulatory purposes. • GIS software used: ArcGIS 9.3 (including ArcMap, Spatial Analyst, and Geostatistical Analyst) • The GIS project files used to create the maps in this report are not portable because of network paths. However, all maps are in image format (PDF) and may be obtained upon permission from NYNHP and the Tug Hill Commission.

Maps and Tables: I. Subwatershed Reference Map Background Image: Source: NYS DEC USGS 1:250,000 Topographic Mosaic Subwatersheds: Source: USGS USGS calls this dataset the “Stream Segments” Description (from USGS): “The smallest and most basic spatial scale for our work is the confluence-to-confluence reach as detected on the 1:100,000 scale NHD. This is the scale at which our finest habitat and biological data are attributed. This corresponds to the zero step of our spatial scale framework, using the general relationship between area drained and stream order: Ak = 4(k-1)*A1, where k is the stream order of interest, Ak is the average area drained by a Subwatershed ending in the stream of order k, and A1 is the average area drained by streams of order 1 within that Subwatershed.” Rules for Defining Boundaries of the Spatial Unit Constituting each Spatial Scale, Great Lakes Regional Aquatic Gap Analysis Project. Contact: Jim McKenna, USGS Tunison Laboratory, Cortland, NY The Riverine Scaling Framework

II. Inset (locus) Map State Boundary: Source: NYS Department of Transportation (DOT) and NYS DEC Description (per NYS DEC metadata): “NYSDOT, before 1989, limited documentation now available. This coverage was originally made by the NYS Department of Transportation and came to DEC via the Division of Equalization and Assessment. DEC made other modifications including the additions of items for county name and DEC

New York Natural Heritage Program 61

regions. Documented changes made by the Habitat Inventory Unit are available by contacting the Unit. This coverage was originally made by the DOT and modified by the DEC.” Subwatersheds: (see Section I)

III. Index Maps For all maps: Subwatersheds, see Section I 1) Stream Barriers/Pollution Points: Number (density) of dams and pollution points occurring in each subwatershed. Pollution Points: Source: EPA BASINS Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Reporting in EPA Region 2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Permits in EPA Region 2 Permit Compliance System (PCS) Facilities in EPA Region 2 Permit Compliance System (PCS) Pipes in EPA Region 2 Aerometric Information Retrieval System/AIRS Facility Subsystem (AIRS/AFS) Permits in EPA Region 2 Dams: Source: NYS DEC

2) Natural Land Cover: The percentage of natural land within the subwatersheds, and the percentage of each subwatershed that was within a >300 acre block of natural land cover. Land Use/Land Cover: Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): Coastal Change Analysis Program (CCAP) 2005 Codes considered ‘natural’: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, and 22 See: http://www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/lca/ccap.html

3) Natural Land Cover within 100 m of Streams: The percentage of natural land within 100m of streams and percentage of stream length that courses through natural land. Land Use/Land Cover: (see Section III.2) Streams: Source: NYS DEC (originally developed through many agencies including local, state, and federal – including EPA, USGS, and USDA): National Hydrography Dataset (NHD): 1:24K

4) Roads: Distance of roads per watershed acre and the number of road/stream crossings. The road/stream crossings, is the roads (ALIS Roads, see below) and streams (NHD streams, see above), intersected. Roads: Source: NYS DEC: The Accident Location Information System (ALIS) project is a multi- agency project that the NYS Office of Cyber Security & Critical Infrastructure Coordination (CSCIC) is jointly developing with the NYS Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and the NYS Department of Transportation (DOT).A major component of the ALIS Project is the creation of an up-to-date statewide Geographic Information System (GIS) street map file containing all public roads, along with their street names, alternate/alias street names, route numbers, and address ranges on each street segment.

New York Natural Heritage Program 62

5) Roadless Block: The roadless blocks were created by creating polygons from the roads dataset described above. The goal of developing this scoring method was to give greater credit to bigger blocks and some (but lesser) credit to smaller blocks. NY Heritage developed the following score:

Roadless block score = 100*((2/(1+EXP(-(D2/100)*0.0045))-1)) The score asymptotes at approximately 125,000 acres (the range of bobcat) and increases steeply from about 1000 acres. Small blocks still receive some points (as these blocks still support species), but much fewer than larger blocks, as in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1. Roadless block score (Y-axis) as a function of roadless block size (X-axis, log transformed) in acres.

After each block is assigned a score, we calculated an area-weighted mean of roadless block scores for each subwatershed.

6) Biodiversity: This was the number of rare animal and rare plant NYNHP element occurrences, and Element Distribution Model (EDM) predictions occurring within each subwatershed. Element Distribution Modeling: Element distribution modeling (EDM) is the process that maps the environments predicted to be suitable for occupation by a particular species or natural community. It can also be described as habitat modeling.

7) Overall: This is the ‘Quality’ of each subwatershed, relative to each other, with regard to the previous six indices.

See the Sandy Creek Landscape Analysis Tables for how this value was calculated.

New York Natural Heritage Program 63

ANALYSIS REFERENCES

Howard, Timothy G. 2006. Salmon River Watershed Inventory and Landscape Analysis. A report prepared for The Tug Hill Commission. New York Natural Heritage Program, Albany, NY. 177 pp.

Hunt, D. M., G. J. Edinger, A. L. Feldmann, J. J. Schmid, and C. N. Voight. 2005. Tug Hill: Stream System Inventory & Watershed Integrity Analysis. A report prepared for Central/Western Chapter of The Nature Conservancy. New York Natural Heritage Program, Albany, NY. 141 pp.

Hunt, D. M., G. J. Edinger, J. J. Schmid, D. J. Evans, P. G. Novak, A. M. Olivero, and S. M. Young. 2002. Lake Erie Gorges Biodiversity Inventory & Landscape Integrity Analysis. A report prepared for the Central/Western New York Chapter of The Nature Conservancy. New York Natural Heritage Program, Albany, NY. 100 pp.

New York Natural Heritage Program 64

APPENDIX 4. Element Distribution Models (EDMs) for all rare species and significant natural communities from the Sandy Creeks and Black River Watersheds

• The actual EDMs for the Sandy Creeks and Black River Watersheds were too large to be included in this Appendix. All EDMs have been supplied to the Tug Hill Commission on a portable hard drive. • This appendix does contain a list of all rare animals, plants, and significant natural communities that had EDMs created for them.

New York Natural Heritage Program 65

Appendix 4a. List of rare animals species from the Sandy Creeks and Black River Watersheds used for Element Distribution Models (EDMs).

______

Scientific Name Common Name Abagrotis barnesi A noctuid moth Aeshna clepsydra Mottled Darner Aeshna subarctica Subarctic Darner Ammocrypta pellucida Eastern Sand Darter Ammodramus henslowii Henslow’s Sparrow Apalone spinifera Spiny Softshell Aphredoderas sayanus Pirate Perch Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl Bartramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper Charadrius melodus Piping Plover Chlidonias niger Black Tern Cicindela ancocisconensis Appalachian Tiger Beetle Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier Cistothorus platensis Sedge Wren Cordulegaster obliqua Arrowhead Spiketail Dendroica castenea Bay-breasted Warbler Dendroica tigrina Cape May Warbler Emydoidea blandingii Blanding’s Turtle Epitheca semiaquea Mantled Baskettail Etheostoma exile Iowa Darter Euchloe olympia Olympia Marble Euphagus carolinus Rusty Blackbird Euxoa pleuritica A noctuid moth Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon Gavia immer Common Loon Glyptems muhlenbergii Bog Turtle Gomphus fraternus Midland Clubtail Gomphus quadricolor Rapids Clubtail Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Hemileuca sp. 1 Bogbean Buckmoth Hydroprogne caspia Caspain Tern Ichthomyzon fossor Northern Brook Lamprey Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern Lampsilis cariosa Yellow Lampmussel

New York Natural Heritage Program 66

Scientific Name Common Name Lanius ludovicanius Loggerhead Shrike Laterallus jamaicensis Black Rail Ligumia nasuta Eastern Pondmussel Ligumia recta Black Sandshell Margaritifera margaritifera Eastern Pearlshell Myotis leibii Eastern Small-footed Myotis Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Notropis heterodon Blackchin Shiner Ophiogomphus anomalus Extra-striped Snaketail Ophiogomphus aspersus Brook Snaketail Ophiogomphus colubrinus Boreal Snaketail Oeneis jutta Jutta Arctic Picoides dorsalis Three-toed Woodpecker Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed Grebe Rallus elegans King Rail Somatachlora forcipata Forcipate Emerald Somatachlora incurvata Incurvate Emerald Somatachlora linearis Mocha emerald Somatachlora minor Ocellated Emerald Spizella pallida Clay-colored Sparrow Sterna hirundo Common Tern Tachopteryx thoreyi Gray Petaltail Vermivora peregrina Tennessee Warbler Williamsonia fletcheri Ebony boghaunter

New York Natural Heritage Program 67

Appendix 4b: Rare plants from the Sandy Creeks and Black River Watersheds used for Element Distribution Models (EDMs).

______

Scientific Name Common Name Agrimonia rostellata Woodland Agrimony Amerorchis rotundifolia Round-leaved Orchis Ammophila breviligulata ssp. champlainensis Champlain Beachgrass Anemone multifida var. hudsoniana Cut-leaf Anemone Aplectrum hyemale Puttyroot Arethusa bulbosa Dragon's Mouth Orchid Asplenium trichomanes-ramosum Green Spleenwort Betula pumila Swamp Birch Boechera grahamii Purple Rock-cress Boechera shortii Toothed Rock-cress Boechera stricta Drummond's Rock-cress Botrychium rugulosum Rugulose Grape Fern Bouteloua curtipendula var. curtipendula Side-oats Grama Calamagrostis stricta ssp. inexpansa New England Northern Reedgrass Callitriche hermaphroditica Autumnal Water-starwort Calypso bulbosa var. americana Calypso Carex aggregata Glomerate Sedge Carex arcta Northern Clustered Sedge Carex atherodes Awned Sedge Carex backii Back's Sedge Carex buxbaumii Brown Bog Sedge Carex capillaris Hair-like Sedge Carex chordorrhiza Creeping Sedge Carex conjuncta Soft Fox Sedge Carex crawei Crawe's Sedge Carex cumulata Clustered Sedge Carex decomposita Cypress-knee Sedge Carex formosa Handsome Sedge Carex frankii Frank's Sedge Carex haydenii Cloud Sedge Carex houghtoniana Houghton's Sedge Carex jamesii James' Sedge Carex livida Livid Sedge Carex lupuliformis False Hop Sedge Carex molesta Troublesome Sedge

New York Natural Heritage Program 68

Scientific Name Common Name Carex nigra Black Sedge Carex schweinitzii Schweinitz's Sedge Carex sychnocephala Many-head Sedge Carex tenuiflora Sparse-flowered Sedge Carex tincta Tinged Sedge Carex wiegandii Wiegand's Sedge Carya laciniosa Big Shellbark Hickory Castilleja coccinea Scarlet Indian-paintbrush Ceanothus herbaceus Prairie Redroot Collinsia verna Blue-eyed-Mary Corallorhiza striata var. striata Striped Coralroot Corydalis aurea Golden Corydalis Cynoglossum virginianum var. boreale Northern Wild Comfrey Cyperus schweinitzii Schweinitz's Flatsedge Cypripedium arietinum Ram's-head Ladyslipper Desmodium ciliare Little-leaf Tick-trefoil Dichanthelium scabriusculum Rough Panic Grass Diphasiastrum complanatum Northern Running-pine Draba arabisans Rock-cress Draba reptans Carolina Whitlow-grass Dracocephalum parviflorum American Dragonhead Eleocharis diandra Wright's Spikerush Eleocharis quadrangulata Angled Spikerush Eleocharis uniglumis var. halophila Salt-marsh Spikerush Epilobium hornemannii ssp. hornemannii Alpine Willow-herb Equisetum laevigatum Smooth Scouring Rush Equisetum palustre Marsh Horsetail Erigeron hyssopifolius Daisy Fleabane Galium kamtschaticum Northern Wild-licorice Geum triflorum var. triflorum Prairie-smoke Geum virginianum Rough Avens Hackelia deflexa var. americana Northern Stickseed Halenia deflexa Spurred Gentian Harrimanella hypnoides Moss-heather Hedeoma hispida Mock-pennyroyal Hippuris vulgaris Common Mare's-tail Hydrastis canadensis Golden-seal Hylotelephium telephioides Live-forever Jeffersonia diphylla Twin-leaf Juncus stygius ssp. americanus Moor Rush

New York Natural Heritage Program 69

Scientific Name Common Name Lilium michiganense Michigan Lily Liparis liliifolia Large Twayblade Lipocarpha micrantha Dwarf Bulrush Listera auriculata Auricled Twayblade Listera australis Southern Twayblade Listera convallarioides Broad-lipped Twayblade Littorella uniflora American Shore-grass Lygodium palmatum Climbing Fern Lysimachia hybrida Lance-leaved Loosestrife Myriophyllum farwellii Farwell's Water-milfoil Neobeckia aquatica Lake-cress Omalotheca sylvatica Woodland Cudweed Panicum flexile Wiry Panic Grass Pellaea glabella ssp. glabella Smooth Cliff Brake Persicaria setacea Swamp Smartweed Phlox maculata ssp. maculata Wild Sweet-william Physalis virginiana var. virginiana Virginia Ground-cherry Platanthera ciliaris Orange Fringed Orchid Platanthera hookeri Hooker's Orchid Platanthera leucophaea Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid Poa paludigena Slender Marsh Bluegrass Poa sylvestris Woodland Bluegrass Podostemum ceratophyllum Riverweed Polemonium vanbruntiae Jacob's-ladder Polygonum aviculare ssp. buxiforme Small's Knotweed Potamogeton alpinus Northern Pondweed Potamogeton hillii Hill's Pondweed Potamogeton ogdenii Ogden's Pondweed Potamogeton pulcher Spotted Pondweed Potamogeton strictifolius Straight-leaf Pondweed Primula mistassinica Bird's-eye Primrose Prunus pumila var. depressa Dwarf Sand-cherry Prunus pumila var. pumila Low Sand-cherry Pterospora andromedea Giant Pine-drops Pycnanthemum verticillatum var. Whorled Mountain-mint verticillatum Pyrola asarifolia ssp. asarifolia Pink Wintergreen Rhododendron canadense Rhodora Salix cordata Sand Dune Willow Saxifraga aizoides Yellow Mountain-saxifrage

New York Natural Heritage Program 70

Scientific Name Common Name Saxifraga oppositifolia ssp. oppositifolia Purple Mountain-saxifrage Scheuchzeria palustris Pod Grass Schoenoplectus heterochaetus Slender Bulrush Solidago simplex var. monticola Rand's Mountain Goldenrod Sparganium natans Small Bur-reed Sphenopholis obtusata Prairie Wedgegrass Sporobolus heterolepis Northern Dropseed Stellaria longipes Longstalk Starwort Stuckenia filiformis ssp. occidentalis Sheathed Pondweed Symphyotrichum boreale Northern Bog Aster Symphyotrichum ciliolatum Lindley's Aster Symphyotrichum oolentangiense Sky-blue Aster Trichophorum clintonii Clinton's Clubrush Triglochin palustre Marsh Arrow-grass Triphora trianthophora Nodding Pogonia Trisetum melicoides Melic-oats Trollius laxus Spreading Globeflower Ulmus thomasii Cork Elm Valeriana uliginosa Marsh Valerian Woodsia glabella Smooth Cliff Fern Zigadenus elegans ssp. glaucus Mountain Death Camas

New York Natural Heritage Program 71

Appendix 4c: Significant natural communities from the Sandy Creeks and Black River Watersheds used for Element Distribution Models (EDMs).

______

Community Name

Alvar grassland Appalachian oak-hickory forest Appalachian oak-pine forest Balsam flats Beech-maple mesic forest Black spruce-tamarack bog Boreal heath barrens Calcareous cliff community Calcareous pavement barrens Calcareous shoreline outcrop Calcareous talus slope woodland Cliff community Cobble shore wet meadow Deep emergent marsh Dwarf shrub bog Floodplain forest Great Lakes bluff Great Lakes dunes Hemlock-hardwood swamp Hemlock-northern hardwood forest Highbush blueberry bog thicket Ice cave talus community Inland calcareous lake shore Inland non-calcareous lake shore Inland poor fen Limestone woodland Maple-basswood rich mesic forest Medium fen Mountain fir forest Mountain spruce-fir forest Northern white cedar rocky summit Northern white cedar swamp Patterned peatland Pine barrens vernal pond

New York Natural Heritage Program 72

Community Name Pine-northern hardwood forest Pitch pine-blueberry peat swamp Pitch pine-heath barrens Pitch pine-oak-heath rocky summit Red maple-hardwood swamp Red maple-tamarack peat swamp Rich graminoid fen Rich hemlock-hardwood peat swamp Rich shrub fen Rich sloping fen Riverside ice meadow Riverside sand/gravel bar Sand beach Sandstone pavement barrens Sedge meadow Shale cliff and talus community Shale talus slope woodland Shallow emergent marsh Shoreline outcrop Shrub swamp Silver maple-ash swamp Sinkhole wetland Spruce flats Spruce-fir swamp Spruce-northern hardwood forest Successional blueberry heath Successional fern meadow Successional northern hardwoods Successional northern sandplain grassland Vernal pool

New York Natural Heritage Program 73

APPENDIX 5. New York Natural Heritage Program list of Element Occurrences (rare species and significant natural communities) for the Sandy Creeks Watershed and corresponding maps.

New York Natural Heritage Program 74

Appendix 5: Rare plant, animal, and significant natural community element occurrences from the Sandy Creeks Watershed and the corresponding location maps.

State Global Type of Scientific Name Common Name Location Group Rank Rank County Town Element EO ID # Invertebrate Abagrotis barnesi A Noctuid Moth El Dorado Beach Animal S1 G5 Jefferson Ellisburg A 11294 Invertebrate Aeshna clepsydra Mottled Darner Renshaw Bay Animal S2S3 G4 Oswego Sandy Creek A 13364 Aphredoderus sayanus Vertebrate gibbosus Western Pirate Perch South Pond Animal S1 G5T5 Oswego Sandy Creek A 3835 Aphredoderus sayanus Vertebrate gibbosus Western Pirate Perch Lakeview Pond Animal S1 G5T5 Jefferson Ellisburg A 11241 Vertebrate Bartramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper Pleasant Lake Fields Animal S3B G5 Jefferson Champion A 10945 Vertebrate Charadrius melodus Piping Plover North Pond Sand Beach Animal S3B G3 Oswego Sandy Creek A 8937 Vertebrate Chlidonias niger Black Tern Southwick Marsh Animal S2B G4 Jefferson Ellisburg A 6938 Vertebrate Chlidonias niger Black Tern Black Pond Ellisburg Animal S2B G4 Jefferson Ellisburg A 1545 Vertebrate Chlidonias niger Black Tern Lakeview Marshes Animal S2B G4 Jefferson Ellisburg A 4750 Vertebrate Jefferson Chlidonias niger Black Tern North and South Ponds Animal S2B G4 , Oswego Ellisburg, Sandy Creek A 7366 Vertebrate Chlidonias niger Black Tern Deer Creek Marsh Animal S2B G4 Oswego Richland A 352 Vertebrate S3B, Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier El Dorado Beach Animal S3N G5 Jefferson Ellisburg A 6567 Vertebrate S3B, Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier Deer Creek Marsh Animal S3N G5 Oswego Richland A 2779 Vertebrate S3B, Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier South Pond Marsh Animal S3N G5 Oswego Sandy Creek A 5687 Vertebrate S3B, Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier Lakeview Marshes Animal S3N G5 Jefferson Ellisburg A 467

New York Natural Heritage Program 75

State Global Type of Scientific Name Common Name Location Group Rank Rank County Town Element EO ID # Vertebrate S3B, Jefferson Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier Worth Fields Animal S3N G5 , Lewis Pinckney, Worth A 12694 Vertebrate Cistothorus platensis Sedge Wren Deer Creek Marsh Animal S3B G5 Oswego Richland A 5327 Vertebrate Etheostoma exile Iowa Darter Lakeview Pond Animal S2 G5 Jefferson Ellisburg A 11296 Vertebrate Etheostoma exile Iowa Darter Crystal Lake Animal S2 G5 Jefferson Henderson A 11299 Vertebrate Etheostoma exile Iowa Darter South Pond Animal S2 G5 Oswego Sandy Creek A 12391 Vertebrate Etheostoma exile Iowa Darter Black Pond Ellisburg Animal S2 G5 Jefferson Ellisburg A 12433 Invertebrate Euxoa pleuritica Fawn Brown Dart El Dorado Beach Animal S2S3 G4 Jefferson Ellisburg A 2600 Vertebrate Glyptemys muhlenbergii Bog Turtle Brennan Beach Fen Animal S2 G3 Oswego Richland A 3077 Invertebrate Hemileuca sp. 1 Bogbean Buckmoth Deer Creek Marsh Animal S1 G1Q Oswego Richland A 5393 Invertebrate Hemileuca sp. 1 Bogbean Buckmoth Rainbow Shores Bog Animal S1 G1Q Oswego Sandy Creek A 270 Invertebrate Hemileuca sp. 1 Bogbean Buckmoth South Pond Fen Animal S1 G1Q Oswego Sandy Creek A 3559 Invertebrate Hemileuca sp. 1 Bogbean Buckmoth Brennan Beach Fen Animal S1 G1Q Oswego Richland A 10393 Invertebrate Hemileuca sp. 1 Bogbean Buckmoth Deer Creek Marsh Animal S1 G1Q Oswego Richland A 39 Vertebrate S3B, Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern Deer Creek Marsh Animal S1N G5 Oswego Richland A 2139 Vertebrate S3B, Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern North and South Ponds Animal S1N G5 Oswego Sandy Creek A 9882 Vertebrate S3B, Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern Lakeview Marshes Animal S1N G5 Jefferson Ellisburg A 11011 Vertebrate S3B, Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern Black Pond Ellisburg Animal S1N G5 Jefferson Ellisburg A 11012 Vertebrate S3B, Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern Southwick Marsh Animal S1N G5 Jefferson Ellisburg A 13362 Vertebrate Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Stony Creek Adams Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Adams, Watertown - Town A 11647

New York Natural Heritage Program 76

State Global Type of Scientific Name Common Name Location Group Rank Rank County Town Element EO ID # Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657

New York Natural Heritage Program 77

State Global Type of Scientific Name Common Name Location Group Rank Rank County Town Element EO ID # Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657

New York Natural Heritage Program 78

State Global Type of Scientific Name Common Name Location Group Rank Rank County Town Element EO ID # Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657

New York Natural Heritage Program 79

State Global Type of Scientific Name Common Name Location Group Rank Rank County Town Element EO ID # Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Adams, Brownville, Clayton, Ellisburg, Vertebrate Hounsfield, Leray, Orleans, Pamelia, Rodman, Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Jefferson County Animal S1 G2 Jefferson Watertown - Town A 11657 Eastern Lake Ontario Ponds Ellisburg and Sandy Vertebrate Jefferson Notropis heterodon Blackchin Shiner Creek Animal S1 G5 , Oswego Ellisburg, Sandy Creek A 11387 Vertebrate Notropis heterodon Blackchin Shiner Cranberry Pond Ellisburg Animal S1 G5 Jefferson Ellisburg A 11388 Vertebrate Notropis heterodon Blackchin Shiner Black Pond Ellisburg Animal S1 G5 Jefferson Ellisburg A 11389 Vertebrate Notropis heterodon Blackchin Shiner Crystal Lake Animal S1 G5 Jefferson Henderson A 11390 Vertebrate Notropis heterodon Blackchin Shiner Little Stony Creek Animal S1 G5 Jefferson Adams, Ellisburg, Henderson A 11431 Vertebrate Notropis heterodon Blackchin Shiner South Pond Animal S1 G5 Oswego Sandy Creek A 11432 Vertebrate Notropis heterodon Blackchin Shiner Selkirk Pond Animal S1 G5 Oswego Richland A 11433 Vertebrate S3B, Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed Grebe Deer Creek Marsh Animal S1N G5 Oswego Richland A 8720 Vertebrate S3B, Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed Grebe Honeyville Swamp Animal S1N G5 Jefferson Adams A 10673 Vertebrate Sterna hirundo Common Tern Southwick Beach Animal S3B G5 Jefferson Ellisburg A 7687 Vertebrate Sterna hirundo Common Tern Carl Island Animal S3B G5 Oswego Sandy Creek A 5079 Vertebrate Jefferson Sterna hirundo Common Tern North Pond Sand Beach Animal S3B G5 , Oswego Ellisburg, Sandy Creek A 3309 Waterfowl Winter Waterfowl Winter Animal Concentration Area Concentration Area Lakeview Marshes Assemblage S3S4 GNR Jefferson Ellisburg A 3394 Waterfowl Winter Waterfowl Winter Animal Concentration Area Concentration Area Henderson Pond Assemblage S3S4 GNR Jefferson Henderson A 2848

New York Natural Heritage Program 80

State Global Type of Scientific Name Common Name Location Group Rank Rank County Town Element EO ID # Alvar grassland Alvar Grassland Community S1 G2 Jefferson Henderson C 13407 Black spruce-tamarack Black Spruce- bog Tamarack Bog Community S3 G4G5 Lewis Montague C 13408 Calcareous cliff Calcareous Cliff community Community Totman Gulf Community S3 G4 Jefferson Lorraine C 13384 Calcareous pavement Calcareous Pavement barrens Barrens El Dorado Beach Community S1S2 G3 Jefferson Ellisburg, Henderson C 2498 Calcareous shoreline Calcareous Shoreline outcrop Outcrop El Dorado Beach Community S2 G3G4 Jefferson Ellisburg C 3097 Dwarf shrub bog Dwarf Shrub Bog Rainbow Shores Bog Community S3 G4 Oswego Sandy Creek C 953 Great Lakes dunes Great Lakes Dunes Deer Creek Dunes Community S1S2 G3G4 Oswego Richland C 3184 Great Lakes dunes Great Lakes Dunes Southwick Beach Community S1S2 G3G4 Jefferson Ellisburg C 6727 Great Lakes dunes Great Lakes Dunes El Dorado Beach Community S1S2 G3G4 Jefferson Ellisburg C 1675 Jefferson Great Lakes dunes Great Lakes Dunes North and South Ponds Community S1S2 G3G4 , Oswego Ellisburg, Sandy Creek C 1398 Inland poor fen Inland Poor Fen Community S3 G4 Lewis Montague C 13409 Medium fen Medium Fen Cranberry Pond Community S2S3 G3G4 Jefferson Ellisburg C 3944 Medium fen Medium Fen Rainbow Shores Bog Community S2S3 G3G4 Oswego Sandy Creek C 1220 Medium fen Medium Fen South Pond Fen Community S2S3 G3G4 Oswego Sandy Creek C 3777 Medium fen Medium Fen Deer Creek Marsh Community S2S3 G3G4 Oswego Richland C 8756 Medium fen Medium Fen Brennan Beach Fen Community S2S3 G3G4 Oswego Richland C 3030 Northern white cedar Northern White Cedar swamp Swamp Community S2S3 G4 Jefferson Adams C 13406 Red maple-hardwood Red Maple-Hardwood swamp Swamp Deer Creek Marsh Community S4S5 G5 Oswego Richland C 4827 Red maple-hardwood Red Maple-Hardwood swamp Swamp Brennan Beach Fen Community S4S5 G5 Oswego Richland C 429 Red maple-tamarack peat Red Maple-Tamarack swamp Peat Swamp Deer Creek Marsh Community S2S3 G3G4 Oswego Richland C 8173 Red maple-tamarack peat Red Maple-Tamarack swamp Peat Swamp Brennan Beach Fen Community S2S3 G3G4 Oswego Richland C 5671 Sand beach Sand Beach Southwick Beach Community S3 G5 Jefferson Ellisburg C 3037 Sedge meadow Sedge Meadow Community S4 G5 Lewis Montague C 13410

New York Natural Heritage Program 81

State Global Type of Scientific Name Common Name Location Group Rank Rank County Town Element EO ID # Shale cliff and talus Shale Cliff and Talus community Community Lorraine Gulf Community S3 G4 Jefferson Lorraine, Worth C 5479 Shale cliff and talus Shale Cliff and Talus Jefferson community Community Inman Gulf Community S3 G4 , Lewis Pinckney, Rodman C 2166 Shallow Emergent Shallow emergent marsh Marsh Lakeview Marshes Community S5 G5 Jefferson Ellisburg C 4306 Silver Maple-Ash Silver maple-ash swamp Swamp Black Pond Ellisburg Community S3 G4 Jefferson Ellisburg C 535 Ammophila breviligulata Champlain G5T2T ssp. champlainensis Beachgrass El Dorado Beach Vascular Plant S1 3Q Jefferson Ellisburg P 2669 Ammophila breviligulata Champlain G5T2T ssp. champlainensis Beachgrass North and South Ponds Vascular Plant S1 3Q Oswego Sandy Creek P 7805 Ammophila breviligulata Champlain G5T2T ssp. champlainensis Beachgrass Deer Creek Dunes Vascular Plant S1 3Q Oswego Richland P 1442 Ammophila breviligulata Champlain G5T2T ssp. champlainensis Beachgrass Southwick Beach Vascular Plant S1 3Q Jefferson Ellisburg P 9190 Dragon's Mouth Arethusa bulbosa Orchid Brennan Beach Fen Vascular Plant S2 G4 Oswego Richland P 7714 Dragon's Mouth Arethusa bulbosa Orchid Rainbow Shores Bog Vascular Plant S2 G4 Oswego Sandy Creek P 9409 Dragon's Mouth Arethusa bulbosa Orchid Deer Creek Marsh Vascular Plant S2 G4 Oswego Richland P 661 Carex chordorrhiza Creeping Sedge Rainbow Shores Bog Vascular Plant S2 G5 Oswego Sandy Creek P 7588 Carex chordorrhiza Creeping Sedge Brennan Beach Fen Vascular Plant S2 G5 Oswego Richland P 8803 Carex chordorrhiza Creeping Sedge South Pond Fen Vascular Plant S2 G5 Oswego Sandy Creek P 8598 Carex chordorrhiza Creeping Sedge Deer Creek Marsh Vascular Plant S2 G5 Oswego Richland P 711 Carex houghtoniana Houghton's Sedge Deer Creek Dunes Vascular Plant S2 G5 Oswego Richland P 9456 Carex houghtoniana Houghton's Sedge Brennan Beach Fen Vascular Plant S2 G5 Oswego Richland P 1388 Carex houghtoniana Houghton's Sedge El Dorado Beach Vascular Plant S2 G5 Jefferson Ellisburg P 3779 Carex livida Livid Sedge Brennan Beach Fen Vascular Plant S1 G5 Oswego Richland P 8812 Carex livida Livid Sedge Deer Creek Marsh Vascular Plant S1 G5 Oswego Richland P 291 Carex livida Livid Sedge Adams Fen Vascular Plant S1 G5 Jefferson Ellisburg P 9560 Carex molesta Troublesome Sedge El Dorado Beach Vascular Plant S2S3 G4 Jefferson Ellisburg, Henderson P 6375

New York Natural Heritage Program 82

State Global Type of Scientific Name Common Name Location Group Rank Rank County Town Element EO ID # Carex sychnocephala Many-head Sedge Adams Vascular Plant SH G4 Jefferson Adams P 7957 Sparse-flowered Carex tenuiflora Sedge Deer Creek Marsh Vascular Plant S1 G5 Oswego Richland P 12323 Ram's-head Cypripedium arietinum Ladyslipper El Dorado Beach Vascular Plant S2 G3 Jefferson Ellisburg P 13086 Equisetum palustre Marsh Horsetail Southwick Beach Vascular Plant S2 G5 Jefferson Ellisburg P 10488 Geum virginianum Rough Avens El Dorado Beach Vascular Plant S2 G5 Jefferson Ellisburg P 6931 Liparis liliifolia Large Twayblade Brennan Beach Fen Vascular Plant S1 G5 Oswego Richland P 758 Broad-lipped Listera convallarioides Twayblade Worth Center Vascular Plant S1 G5 Jefferson Worth P 6150 Persicaria setacea Swamp Smartweed Selkirk Vascular Plant S1S2 G5 Oswego Richland P 686 Poa sylvestris Woodland Bluegrass Lakeview Marshes Vascular Plant S1 G5 Jefferson Ellisburg P 8291 Adams Marshes and Potamogeton hillii Hill's Pondweed Streams Vascular Plant S2 G3 Jefferson Adams P 5632 Potamogeton hillii Hill's Pondweed Barnes Corners Wetlands Vascular Plant S2 G3 Lewis Pinckney P 13386 Potamogeton hillii Hill's Pondweed Plum Tree Road Wetlands Vascular Plant S2 G3 Lewis Montague P 13387 Potamogeton hillii Hill's Pondweed Wilder Road Pond Vascular Plant S2 G3 Jefferson Ellisburg P 13388 Potamogeton hillii Hill's Pondweed Adams Swamp Vascular Plant S2 G3 Jefferson Adams P 13389 Primula mistassinica Bird's-eye Primrose Lorraine Gulf Vascular Plant S2 G5 Jefferson Lorraine, Worth P 1126 Primula mistassinica Bird's-eye Primrose Inman Gulf Vascular Plant S2 G5 Lewis Pinckney P 1637 Prunus pumila var. pumila Low Sand-cherry El Dorado Beach Vascular Plant S1 G5T4 Jefferson Ellisburg P 160 Prunus pumila var. pumila Low Sand-cherry North and South Ponds Vascular Plant S1 G5T4 Oswego Sandy Creek P 3620 Prunus pumila var. pumila Low Sand-cherry Deer Creek Dunes Vascular Plant S1 G5T4 Oswego Richland P 6551 Prunus pumila var. pumila Low Sand-cherry Selkirk Shores Vascular Plant S1 G5T4 Oswego Richland P 4349 Salix cordata Sand Dune Willow El Dorado Beach Vascular Plant S2 G4 Jefferson Ellisburg P 379 Salix cordata Sand Dune Willow Deer Creek Dunes Vascular Plant S2 G4 Oswego Richland P 6608 Salix cordata Sand Dune Willow El Dorado Beach Vascular Plant S2 G4 Jefferson Ellisburg P 7610 Salix cordata Sand Dune Willow Southwick Beach Vascular Plant S2 G4 Jefferson Ellisburg P 10089 Salix cordata Sand Dune Willow North and South Ponds Vascular Plant S2 G4 Oswego Sandy Creek P 767

New York Natural Heritage Program 83

State Global Type of Scientific Name Common Name Location Group Rank Rank County Town Element EO ID # Salix cordata Sand Dune Willow Jefferson Park Vascular Plant S2 G4 Jefferson Ellisburg P 7264 Salix cordata Sand Dune Willow Selkirk Shores Vascular Plant S2 G4 Oswego Richland P 136 Yellow Mountain- Saxifraga aizoides saxifrage Lorraine Gulf Vascular Plant S2 G5 Jefferson Lorraine P 1451 Scheuchzeria palustris Pod Grass South Pond Fen Vascular Plant S3 G5 Oswego Sandy Creek P 3687 Schoenoplectus heterochaetus Slender Bulrush Little Sandy River Vascular Plant S1 G5 Oswego Sandy Creek P 4499 Stellaria longipes Longstalk Starwort El Dorado Beach Vascular Plant S2 G5 Jefferson Ellisburg, Henderson P 13087 Symphyotrichum boreale Northern Bog Aster Deer Creek Marsh Vascular Plant S2 G5 Oswego Richland P 58 Symphyotrichum boreale Northern Bog Aster Brennan Beach Fen Vascular Plant S2 G5 Oswego Richland P 9832 Symphyotrichum boreale Northern Bog Aster South Pond Fen Vascular Plant S2 G5 Oswego Sandy Creek P 3982 Ulmus thomasii Cork Elm El Dorado Beach Vascular Plant S2S3 G5 Jefferson Ellisburg P 1835

New York Natural Heritage Program 84

Rare animal occurrences in the Sandy Creeks Watershed and EDM hotspot predictions for rare animal species.

New York Natural Heritage Program 85

Rare Plant Occurrences in the Sandy Creeks Watershed and EDM hotspot predictions for rare plant species.

New York Natural Heritage Program 86

Significant natural community occurrences in the Sandy Creeks Watershed and EDM hotspot predictions for natural communities.

New York Natural Heritage Program 87

APPENDIX 6. Landscape analysis maps for the Sandy Creeks Watershed and corresponding data tables.

• The landscape analysis data tables for the Sandy Creeks Watershed are too large to be included with this report. These tables are provided on the accompanying DVD.

New York Natural Heritage Program 88

Appendix 6: Landscape Analysis maps

a. Biodiversity index b. Dams and pollution points c. Stream barrier and pollution point sources index d. Natural land index e. Percent of land in natural cover f. Subwatershed in >300 acre natural block g. Natural land – continuous blocks > 300 acres h. Natural land within 100-meter buffer of streams i. Natural land in stream buffer – index j. Percentage of natural land within 100 meters of streams k. Percentage of streams within Natural land l. Roads per watershed acre (relative) and road-stream intersections (points) m. Roadless blocks > 300 acres n. Roadless block score o. Roads – index

New York Natural Heritage Program 89

a. Biodiversity index

New York Natural Heritage Program 90

b. Dams and pollution points

New York Natural Heritage Program 91

c. Stream barrier and pollution point sources index

New York Natural Heritage Program 92

d. Natural land index

New York Natural Heritage Program 93

e. Percent of land in natural cover

New York Natural Heritage Program 94

f. Subwatershed in >300 acre natural block

New York Natural Heritage Program 95

g. Natural land – continuous blocks > 300 acres

New York Natural Heritage Program 96

h. Natural land within 100-meter buffer of streams

New York Natural Heritage Program 97

i. Natural land in stream buffer – index

New York Natural Heritage Program 98

j. Percentage of natural land within 100 meters of streams

New York Natural Heritage Program 99

k. Percentage of streams within Natural land

New York Natural Heritage Program 100

l. Roads per watershed acre (relative) and road-stream intersections (points)

New York Natural Heritage Program 101

m. Roadless blocks > 300 acres

New York Natural Heritage Program 102

n. Roadless block score

New York Natural Heritage Program 103

o. Roads – index

New York Natural Heritage Program 104