Salmon River Watershed Natural Resources Viability Analysis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Salmon River Watershed Natural Resources Viability Analysis Compiled by Gregory G. McGee State University of New York Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY 6/30/2008 0 This project was supported by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, with funding from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program. SALMON RIVER WATERSHED VIABILITY ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ………………………………………………………………….. 1 Primary Partner Contacts…………………………………………………………… 3 List of Figures………………………………………………………………………. 4 List of Tables……………………………………………………………………….. 8 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Project Scope………………………………………………………………….. 12 1.2 Administrate Background……………………………………………………... 13 1.3 Planning Process………………………………………………………………. 13 2.0 Viability Analysis 2.1 Overview of Salmon River Watershed Study Area…………………………… 16 2.2 Salmon River Freshwater Estuary and Dunes…………………..……… 28 2.2.1 Salmon River Freshwater Estuary Target Definition……………………... 28 2.2.2 Salmon River Freshwater Estuary Viability……………………………… 30 2.2.2.1 Estuary Area…………………………………………………………… 30 2.2.2.2 Plant Communities…………………………………………………….. 30 2.2.2.3 Fish Communities……………………………………………………... 34 2.2.2.4 Populations of Rare and Endangered Species…………………………. 37 2.2.2.5 Hydrology……………………………………………………………... 39 2.2.2.6 Water Quality………………………………………………………….. 42 2.2.2.7 Pathogens……………………………………………………………… 46 2.2.2.8 Toxins…………………………………………………………………. 48 2.2.2.9 Landscape Context…………………………………………………….. 50 2.2.3 Dune Community Viability……………………………………………….. 52 2.2.3.1 Size…………………………………………………………………….. 52 2.2.3.2 Dune Plant Community………………………………………………... 53 2.2.4 Freshwater Estuary and Dunes Viability Summary………………………. 55 2.3 Main Branch Salmon River & Major Tributaries………………………… 58 2.3.1 Main Branch Salmon River & Major Tributaries Target Definition……. 58 2.3.2 Main Branch Salmon River & Major Tributaries Viability………………. 60 2.3.2.1 Area……………………………………………………………………. 60 2.3.2.2 Water Quality………………………………………………………….. 61 2.3.2.3 Macroinvertebrate Communities……………………………………… 72 2.3.2.4 Fish Communities…………………………………………………… 74 2.3.2.5 Toxins…………………………………………………………………. 85 2.3.2.6 Pathogens……………………………………………………………… 89 2.3.2.7 Landscape Context…………………………………………………….. 90 2.3.3 Main Branch Salmon River & Major Tributaries Viability Summary…… 95 2.4 Headwaters……………………………………………………………………. 98 2.4.1 Headwaters Target Definition…………………………………………….. 98 2.4.2 Headwaters Viability ………..……………………………………………. 100 2.4.2.1 Area……………………………………………………………………. 100 2.4.2.2 Water Quality………………………………………………………….. 102 2.4.2.3 Trout Habitat…………………………………………………………... 107 2.4.2.4 Macroinvertebrate Communities………………………………………. 108 2.4.2.5 Fur-Bearing Animals………………………………………………….. 110 2.4.2.6 Landscape Context…………………………………………………….. 111 2.4.3 Headwaters Viability Summary……………………………………………. 113 2.5 Open Waters……………………………………………………………… 116 2.5.1 Open Waters Target Definition…………………………………………… 116 2.5.2 Open Waters Viability……………………………………………………. 116 2.5.2.1 Size…………………………………………………………………….. 116 2.5.2.2 Beaver Dams…………………………………………………………... 119 2.5.2.3 Water Quality………………………………………………………….. 121 2.5.2.4 Toxins………………………………………………………………….. 123 2.5.2.5 Aquatic Plant Communities…………………………………………… 124 2.5.2.6 Fish Community Composition………………………………………… 126 2.5.2.7 Landscape Context…………………………………………………….. 127 2.5.3 Open Waters Viability Summary…………………………………………. 128 2.6 Non-Estuarine Wetlands…………………………………………………… 131 2.6.1 Non-Estuarine Wetlands Target Definition………………………………. 131 2.6.2 Non-Estuarine Wetland Viability…………………………………………. 133 2.6.2.1 Wetland Area………………………………………………………… 133 2.6.2.2 Wetland Community Types………………………………………….. 137 2.6.2.3 Invasive Species……………………………………………………… 137 2.6.2.4 Rare Species Populations…………………………………………….. 138 2.6.2.5 Pests and Pathogens………………………………………………….. 138 2.6.2.6 Sentinel Group Abundance ………………………………………….. 139 2.6.2.7 Hydrology……………………………………………………………. 141 2.6.2.8 Toxins………………………………………………………………… 142 2.6.2.9 Eutrophying Nutrients………………………………………………... 144 2.6.2.10 Landscape Context – Migration Barriers …………………………… 147 2.6.2.11 Generalized Wetland Community Descriptions…………...………… 152 2.6.3 Non-Estuarine Wetlands Viability Summary…………………………….. 159 2.7 Matrix Forests………………………………………………………………. 161 2.7.1 Matrix Forest Target Definition…………………………………………... 161 2.7.2 Matrix Forest Viability……………………………………………………. 163 2.7.2.1 Forest Area and Cover……………………………………………….. 163 2.7.2.2 Forest Fragmentation………………………………………………… 167 2.7.2.3 Distribution of Forest Successional Stages………………………….. 173 2.7.2.4 Forest Structural Diversity…………………………………………… 180 2.7.2.5 Nutrient Cycling Processes: Nitrogen Deposition…………………… 183 2.7.2.6 Nutrient Cycling Processes: Acidification…………………………… 186 2.7.2.7 Toxins………………………………………………………………… 188 2.7.2.8 Forest Understory Community Composition and Diversity…………. 188 2.7.2.9 Forest Tree Regeneration…………………………………………….. 192 2.7.2.10 Forest Overstory Composition……………………………………….. 194 2.7.2.11 Forest Pests and Pathogens…………………………………………... 196 2.7.3 Matrix Forest Viability Summary…………………………………… 201 2.8 Salmon River Gorge and Steep Slopes………………………………….. 205 2.8.1 Gorge and Steep Slope Target Definition………………………………… 205 2.8.2 Salmon River Gorge Viability Analysis………………………………….. 207 2.8.2.1 Water Flow…………………………………………………………….. 207 2.8.2.2 Fish Communities……………………………………………………... 209 2.8.2.3 Plant Communities…………………………………………………….. 210 2.8.3 Other Steep Slope Communities Viability Analysis……………………… 213 2.8.3.1 Attributes, Indicators and Ranking for Steep Slopes………………….. 221 2.8.4. Steep Slope Communities Viability Summary…………………………... 222 3.0 References……………………………………………………………………. 223 4.0 Appendices…………………………………………………………………… 233 Appendix 1 – Proceedings of Workshop One: Natural Resource Targets, Salmon River Watershed Natural Resource Assessment Appendix 2 – Working Group Participants Appendix 3 – Source Data for Map Production and GIS Analyses ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This Salmon River Watershed Viability Analysis represents the collective work of numerous individuals, agencies and organizations. Several local citizens, private and Acknowlegdments government resource managers, elected officials, and scientists attended a day-long workshop to identify the conservation targets that were the objects of this analysis. The participants of that workshop are included in Appendix 1. Several others participated in expert working group sessions to help inform the viability analysis component for the matrix forest, wetlands and aquatics conservation targets. Working group participants are listed in Appendix 2. These meetings included many fair, but candid, discussions of the condition and management of the Salmon River watershed’s natural resources, oftentimes with divergent points of view being expressed. It should be noted that a person’s participation in the process of preparing this report does not imply their individual or institutional agreement with all or any of the findings of this report. Funding for this project was provided by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program, and obtained through a grant proposal submitted by Tracey Tomajer, NYSDEC Watershed Coordinator. The following agencies and organizations cooperated with NYSDEC to complete this project: NY Tug Hill Commission, Tug Hill Tomorrow Land Trust, The Nature Conservancy, NY Sea Grant, Oswego County Environmental Management Council, NY Natural Heritage Program, Salmon River Fish Hatchery, SUNY-Oswego, SUNY-ESF. The following individuals provided oversight and guidance in the development of this report: John Bartow, New York Tug Hill Commission Paul Baxter, Salmon River Council of Governments Kristin France, Nature Conservancy, Central and Western New York Chapter Linda Garrett, Tug Hill Tomorrow Land Trust Linda Gibbs, New York Tug Hill Commission Jennifer Harvill, New York Tug Hill Commission Dave Hertzler, Oswego County Environmental Management Council Tim Howard, New York Natural Heritage Program Jane Jones, Tug Hill Cooperative Council Amy Mahar, New York Dept. Environmental Conservation Katie Malinowski, New York Tug Hill Commission Michelle Peach, Nature Conservancy Eastern Lake Ontario-Tug Hill Office Mary Penney, New York Sea Grant Peter Rosenbaum, SUNY-Oswego Dan Sawchuck, NY Dept. Environmental Conservation Doug Thompson, Nature Conservancy Eastern Lake Ontario-Tug Hill Office Molly Thompson, New York Sea Grant Tracey Tomajer, New York Dept. of Environmental Conservation David VanLuven, NY Natural Heritage Program Fran Verdoliva, NY Dept. Environmental Conservation 1 John Bartow and Linda Gibbs of the New York State Tug Hill Commission administered the grant and facilitated the public participation and governmental outreach. Michelle Peach also provided valuable guidance in organizing public input throughout the process. Acknowlegdments Deborah Forester, Engaging People, facilitated the public workshop to identify conservation targets. Mapping and geographic analyses were conducted by Michelle Peach; Jennifer Harvill and Linda Gibbs, Tug Hill Commission; Michelle Henry, USGS Tunison Laboratory of Aquatic Science; and Gregg Sargis, The Nature Conservancy. James McKenna, USGS Tunison Laboratory, provided raw data, and generously conducted GAP analyses of fish communities and aquatic conditions in the watershed specifically for this project. The datasets used for completing the geographic analyses within this report are listed in Appendix 3. Several NY State DEC offices provided