7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
1/31
A Cross-Basin Comparison of the New York City Watershed
by
Ian B. BrentForest Science Intern
Under the Guidance ofDeborah LaytonForest Scientist
New York City Department of Environmental ProtectionWatershed Protection and Planning
Natural Resources Management
Ecological Research and AssessmentsForest Science Program465 Columbus Avenue, Suite 350
Valhalla, NY 10595
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
2/31
Introduction
The New York City DEP is committed to ensuring sustainable eco-system health
and water quality for its citizens and consumers. In order to carry out this primedirective, it is important to constantly measure and study the environment inwhich the water dwells. A strong and diverse forest ecosystem will better filterand protect New York Citys water supply and ensure that it stays pure withoutthe aid of man-made filtration systems.
Baseline Continuous Forest Inventory (CFI) has been implemented on six basinsto date- Ashokan, Boyd Corners/West Branch, Rondout/Neversink, Schoharie,Pepacton and Cannonsville. This practice is necessary to ensure forest health,measure its regeneration from year to year, and to identify the proper times forsaw-timber removal. Using CFI, each watershed will be inventoried
approximately every ten years to eventually develop sound models of New YorkCity watershed forest dynamics which can predict forest growth, regenerationand mortality.
The data gathered from each watershed basin includes tree species, size class,timber quality, DBH (diameter at breast height), and site index (a measure ofheight growth potential as a function of stand age). These overstory observationsalso include: product grade, sawtimber height, pulpwood height, size class, andpercent canopy closure. Comments are recorded on presence of riparian zones,wetlands and interfering species (species that inhibit the regeneration of treeseedlings).
Understory data is also collected. This data includes a count of all saplings overa height of four and one half feet but less than four inches in DBH, percentgroundcover, foliage, rock, and leaf depth. Comments are also included, andmade on observed wildlife, invasive species, presence of insects and diseases,and percent slope and aspect are recorded.
Species richness is affected by the stress conditions to which trees are exposed.Physical features such as site conditions, extreme climate events, drought, andperiodic defoliation impact this important ecosystem. Competition, pathogens andover-grazing by White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) further stress thetrees. Over-grazing of saplings for many years depletes the younger age classes;when mature trees die, there is insufficient replacement, which leads to apopulation crash (Vatovec 2000).
Methods
Plot locations are specified by a grid system placed over a map of City-ownedforest lands. Plots are generally mile apart and each plot represents 160
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
3/31
acres, with exception to the Ashokan Reservoir basin. Ashokan being the pilotproject of the CFI program, its plots are which are only representative of 100acres due to it being a pilot project before regular CFI plots were taken. Stayingon the grid and not arbitrarily establishing plots on the edge of City property isimportant to eliminate bias and provide accuracy in describing site conditions.
Plot centers are located by Global Positioning System; the center stake ishammered into the ground with plot number recorded on the stake with apermanent marker. The plot size is 1/5 of an acre, with a radius of 52.7 feet. Asonar-measuring device is positioned in the plot center; radii are measured out inall directions where pin flags are then positioned. At least seven pin flags arepositioned around the edge of the circular plot to facilitate determining whethertrees are located on or off the plot.
The tree closest due north and to the plot center would be tree number one.Trees are numbered out to the edge of the plot, and then back to plot center in a
clockwise direction. Only live trees that are four inches or over in diameter atDBHare tallied. These trees are measured to the nearest 1/10 of an inch and aremarked with a line at DBH using a paint marker and facing the plot center. Thetrees are numbered on the side facing the center plot with a bright blue aluminumdisk, which is nailed into the base of the tree. For trees on the plots edge,distance is measured by sonar to determine whether individual trees are inside oroutside the 52.7 radius, as necessary.
For each plot, measurements and observations are recorded in a hand heldcomputer. This field computer is equipped with a Windows operating system, andGPS. It is also loaded with NEDLite CE software to eliminate manual data entry
and reduce data entry errors.
Understory observations collected and recorded include saplings by species andsize class, including all trees and shrubs 4.5 feet or taller and with a diameterless than 4 inches. On denser and younger plots, the understory plot size isreduced in area to 1/10th of an acre (37.2 radius) to improve count accuracy. Allsaplings are tallied by one-inch diameter class.
Ground observations are also recorded. These include: percent groundvegetation coverage, leaf depth, slope shape, percent coverage of rock, ferns,interfering or invasive species, comments and presence of wildlife. Adjacency toriparian or wetland zones, and accessibility to stand and haul distance is alsorecorded.
Baseline data was summarized and initial analysis performed using the U.S.Forest Service NED-2 software as well as Microsoft Excel for basic statistics andcreation of charts and graphics. MiniTab statistical software was used to performcomparisons between basins.
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
4/31
The baseline data for the Ashokan, Cannonsville, Neversink, Rondout,Westbranch, Boyds Corners, Pepacton and Schoharie Reservoir Basins issubject to change. Additional information will be provided following any impacts,extreme climate conditions, or urgent concerns.
Tables
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
5/31
Table 1 (above.) Forest types of the NYC watershed system, with their respective total
acreages.
Forest
Type
Ashokan Boyds/West Cannonsville Neverond Pepacton Schoharie Totals
HemlockHardwood
200 160 2400 1440 1280 1120 6600
NorthernHardwoods
700 960 1920 800 1600 160 6140
AppalachianHardwood 300 1120 1120 160 640 0 3340
Oak
Northern
Hardwood
200 640 320 0 320 0 1480
pine-HW 300 0 160 0 0 960 1420Bottomland
Hardwood
0 320 640 160 160 0 1280
Allegheny
Hardwood
0 0 960 160 160 0 1280
maple 0 0 1120 0 0 0 1120PIST 600 0 160 0 0 160 920Oak 100 0 320 0 320 0 740
Hemlock 0 0 320 0 160 0 480Oak-
hickory
200 0 0 0 0 160 360
Other
Hardwood
0 0 0 160 160 0 320
Pine 100 0 0 0 160 0 260spruce-
northernHW
100 0 160 0 0 0 260
Pure PIRE 200 0 0 0 0 0 200Aspen-
Birch
0 0 0 0 160 0 160
beech-birch 0 0 160 0 0 0 160birch 0 0 160 0 0 0 160Pine-
hemlock0 0 160 0 0 0 160
aspen
northern
HW
0 0 0 160 0 0 160
Mesic
mixed pine-hardwoods
0 0 0 160 0 0 160
Pure ACRU 0 0 0 160 0 0 160Pure
QUPR2
100 0 0 0 0 100
Total 3,100 3,200 10,080 3360 5120 2,560 27, 420
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
6/31
Basin DBH
(in.)
Basal
Area
Stems/Acre Slope
(%)
Wetland
(%)
Leaf
Litter
(%)
Ashokan 5.39 271.4 1152.6 10.23 2.26 4.60
Boyds/West 4.78 192.9 797.4 16.45 10.00 0.00
Cannonsville 6.25 207.3 1290.4 29.98 8.17 74.00Neverond 6.66 188.3 546.4 10.50 6.05 0.00
Pepacton 6.89 131.9 409.69 24.48 10.69 64.69
Schoharie 6.44 184.4 523.8 20.93 18.00 0.00
Table 2 (above.) Snapshot of averages across the NYC watershed system.
Figures and Charts
Section I: Totals and Snapshots
Cannonsville
Pepacton
Neverond
Boyds/West
Ashokan
Schoharie
Basin
9.3%
11.3%
11.7%
12.3%
18.7%
36.8%
Percentage of NYC Watershed by Basin
Figure 1-1: (Above) Percent Acreage of the NYC watershed broken down by Basin.
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
7/31
PIST
Oak
Hemlock
Oak-hickory
Other Hardwood
Pine
spruce-northern HW
Pure PIRE
Hemlock Hardwood
Northern Hardwoods
Appalachian Hardwood
Oak Northern Hardwood
pine-HW
Bottomland HardwoodAllegheny Hardwood
OTHER
maple
Category
0.7%
0.9%0.9%
1.2%
1.3%1.8%
2.7%
3.4%
4.1%
4.4%
4.7%
4.7%
5.2%
5.4%
12.2%
22.4%
24.1%
NYC Watershed Diversity by Forest Type
Figure 1-2. Watershed-wide diversity analysis broken down into percent forest type. (Forthe purpose of clarity, forest types constituting less than 200 acres of the watershed were
condensed into category: OTHER. See table 1 for details.)
Boyds/WestAshokanCannonsvilleSchoharieNeverondPepacton
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Basin
DBH
Average Overstory DBH (in) by Basin
Figure 1-3 (above). Comparison of average DBH in inches across NYC watershed basins.
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
8/31
SchoharieCannonsvilleNeverondAshokanBoyds/WestPepacton
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Basin
MerchDBH
Average Merchantable DBH (in)in the NYC Watershed by Basin
Figure 1-4, Comparison of Merchantable DBH in inches, across all six studied Basins.
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
9/31
271.4
207.3
192.9 188.3 184.4
131.9
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
BasalArea(Sqft/Acre)
Asho
kan
Cann
onsville
BoydsC
orners/W
estbr
anch
Neversi
nk/Ron
dout
Scho
harie
Pepa
cton
Basin
Basal Area by Basin
Basal Area
Figure 1-5 (above). Comparison of average basal area (square feet/acre) across selected
NYC watershed basins.
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
10/31
3005.010025
4716.2066
2823.04267
1270.763325
3150.060485
4671.841985
2650.66354
3451.9268
4169.631115
6701.5871
3774.5097
1996.432155
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
Biomass (Tons)
Basin
Biomass Totals (tons) for Lesser Basins
lg saw
med saw
sm saw
poles
lg saw 1270.763325 3451.9268 1996.432155
med saw 2823.04267 2650.66354 3774.5097
sm saw 4716.2066 4671.841985 6701.5871
poles 3005.010025 3150.060485 4169.631115
Neversink/Rondout Boyds Corners/Westbranch Ashokan
Figure 1-6- Snapshot of biomass in tons across the 3 lesser basins. (Lesser = Basins less
massive than 20,000 tons)
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
11/31
355861.1882
394480.599
231840.3598
121917.0585
111069.7302
147513.7576
98249.55548
120777.3544
78916.04254
122559.0911
44142.58299
11654.92735
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
Biomass(tons)
Basin
Biomass Totals (tons) for Major Basins
lg saw
med saw
sm saw
poles
lg saw 121917.0585 120777.3544 11654.92735
med saw 231840.3598 98249.55548 44142.58299
sm saw 394480.599 147513.7576 122559.0911
poles 355861.1882 111069.7302 78916.04254
Cannonsville Pepacton Schoharie
Figure 1-7 Snapshot of biomass in tons across the 3 major basins. (major = Basins
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
12/31
Average Age across Basins
78 77
7068
66
56
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Asho
kan
BoydsC
orners
/Westbr
anch
Neversink
/Ron
dout
Pepa
cton
Cann
onsville
Scho
harie
Basin
Age
Averag
Figure 1-8 (above) - Snapshot of average ages (years) across studied basins.
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
13/31
0
2
4
6
8
1 0
1 2
1 41 6
1 8
A
verag
e
W
etlan
d
(%
C
o
ver
)
B a s i n
A v e r a g e P e r c e n t W e t l a n d A c r o s s S e l e c t e d
B a s i n s
% W e t l a n d
% W e t l a n d 1 8 1 1 1 0 9 6 2
S c h o h a r i
eP e p a c t o n B o y d s / w
e s t
C a n n o n s v
i l l eN e v e r o n d A s h o k a n
Figure 1-9 (above) Snapshot of Average Wetland coverage by Basin.
Section II: Breakdown of Top Six Forest Types by Basin
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
14/31
Cannonsville
Neverond
Pepacton
Schoharie
Ashokan
Boyds/West
Category160, 2.4%
200, 3.0%
1120, 17.0%
1280, 19.4%
1440, 21.8%
2400, 36.4%
Total Hemlock Hardwood Acreage by Basin
Figure 2-1 (above). Hemlock Hardwood forests broken down by respective presence inNYC watershed basins. (Acres represented next to percentage)
Cannonsville
Pepacton
Boyds/West
Neverond
Ashokan
Schoharie
Category
160, 2.6%700, 11.4%
800, 13.0%
960, 15.6%
1600, 26.1%
1920, 31.3%
Total Northern Hardwood Acreage by Basin
Figure 2-2 (above). Northern Hardwood forests broken down by respective presence in
NYC watershed basins (Acres represented next to percentage).
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
15/31
Cannonsville
Boyds/West
Pepacton
Ashokan
Neverond
Category
160, 4.8%
300, 9.0%
640, 19.2%
1120, 33.5%
1120, 33.5%
Total Appalachian Hardwood Acreage by Basin
Figure 2-3(above). Appalachian Hardwood forests broken down by respective presencein NYC watershed basins. (Acres represented next to percentage, basins devoid of this
forest type were excluded for the purpose of clarity.)
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
16/31
Cannonsville
Pepacton
Neverond
Category
160, 12.5%
160, 12.5%
960, 75.0%
Total Allegheny Hardwood Acreage by Basin
Figure 2-4 (above.). Allegheny Hardwood forests broken down by respective presence inNYC watershed basins. (Acres represented next to percentage, basins devoid of this
forest type were excluded for the purpose of clarity.)
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
17/31
Schoharie
Ashokan
Cannonsville
Category
160, 11.3%
300, 21.1%
960, 67.6%
Total Pine-Hardwood Acreage by Basin
Figure 2-5 (above). Pine-Hardwood forests broken down by respective presence in NYCwatershed basins. (Acres represented next to percentage, basins devoid of this forest type
were excluded for the purpose of clarity.)
Boyds/West
Pepacton
Cannonsville
Ashokan
Category
200, 13.5%
320, 21.6%
320, 21.6%
640, 43.2%
Oak-Northern Hardwood by Basin
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
18/31
Figure 2-6 (above). Oak-Northern-Hardwood forests broken down by respective presence
in NYC watershed basins. (Acres represented next to percentage, basins devoid of this
forest type were excluded for the purpose of clarity.)
Cannonsville
Boyds/West
Pepacton
Neverond
Category
160, 12.5%
160, 12.5%
320, 25.0%
640, 50.0%
Total Bottomland Hardwood Acreage by Basin
Figure 2-7 (above). Bottomland Hardwood forests broken down by respective presence in
NYC watershed basins. (Acres represented next to percentage, basins devoid of thisforest type were excluded for the purpose of clarity.)
Section III: Basin Statistics
i) Ashokan
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
19/31
Pine
spruce-northern HW
Pure QUPR2
Northern Hardwoods
PISTAppalachian Hardwood
pine-HW
Hemlock Hardwood
Oak Northern Hardwood
Oak-hickory
Pure PIRE
Oak
Category
100, 3.2%
100, 3.2%
100, 3.2%
100, 3.2%
200, 6.5%
200, 6.5%
200, 6.5%
200, 6.5%
300, 9.7%300, 9.7%
600, 19.4%
700, 22.6%
Breakdown of Ashokan Basin by Forest Type
Figure 3-1 (Above): Ashokan watershed basin analyzed by Acreage of Forest Type(Acres of Forest Type are represented next to percentages, see table 1 for details).
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
20/31
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Biomass (Tons)
by Timber size class
Aboveground Biomass for Ashokan Reservoir Basin
lg saw
med saw
sm saw
poles
lg saw 605.836 566.526 563.722 0 260.348 0 0 0 0 0
med saw 744.652 1232.43 504.257 393.11 277.516 131.04 94.2196 141.354 0 97.7571
sm saw 1096.65 1293.42 465.868 726.557 293.924 505.683 537.8 432.486 513.421 159.621
poles 855.519 292.386 417.385 603.716 205.671 372.48 225.616 123.949 87.7681 272.47
ACRU QURU PIST ACSA3 FRAM2 QUPR2 TSCA PIRE QUAL BELE
Figure 3-2 (Above): Biomass of Ashokan watershed analyzed by tons and by Timber size
class. (Top 10 most massive species included, attached data table is in Tons).
ii) Pepacton
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
21/31
Pine
Aspen-Birch
Northern Hardwoods
Hemlock Hardwood
Appalachian Hardwood
Oak Northern Hardwood
Oak
Bottomland Hardwood
Allegheny Hardwood
Hemlock
Other Hardwood
Category160, 3.1%
160, 3.1%160, 3.1%
160, 3.1%
160, 3.1%
160, 3.1%
320, 6.3%
320, 6.3%
640, 12.5%
1280, 25.0%
1600, 31.3%
Breakdown of Pepacton Basin Acreage by Forest Type
Figure 3-3 (Above): Pepacton watershed basin analyzed by Acreage of Forest Type(Acres of Forest Type are represented next to percentages, see table 1 for details).
df
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
Biomass(Tons)
Species
Pepacton Biomass (Tons)
Lg. Saw
Med. Saw
Sm. Saw
Pole
Lg. Saw 54912.8 0 17967.1 3229.72 0 0 2608.83 0 1902.41 0 0 0 0 0
Med. Saw 28297 24141.7 12218 18366.4 0 1786.44 0 2800.7 1800.68 2855.31 1070.86 913.763 1743.57 852.351
Sm. Saw 26546.1 30834.1 21231.4 15186.6 4717.96 9241.52 5852.81 5169.59 4694.82 8249.12 2481.05 5142.04 2417.31 400.613
Pole 9118.92 21655.1 20890.4 10392.2 1932.79 10657.3 10408.2 6770.05 6005.88 1216.39 5047.48 1192.9 190.097 2754.96
QURU ACRU TSCA ACSA3 QUAL BELE FAGR FRAM2 PIST BEAL2 ACSA2 PRSE2 TIAM POTR5
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
22/31
Figure 3-2 (Above): Biomass of Pepacton watershed analyzed by tons and by Timber size
class. (Top 14 most massive species included, attached data table is in Tons).
iii) Schoharie
Hemlock Hardwood
pine-HW
Northern Hardwoods
PIST
Oak-hickory
Category160, 6.3%
160, 6.3%
160, 6.3%
960, 37.5%
1120, 43.8%
Breakdown of Schoharie Basin by Forest Type
Figure 3-2 (Above): Schoharie watershed basin analyzed by Acreage of Forest
Type (Acres of Forest Type are represented next to percentages, see table 1 for
details).
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
23/31
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
Biomass (Tons)
Species
Biomass (Tons) in Schoharie Basin
lg saw
med saw
sm saw
poles
lg saw 4095 1911 3170 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
med saw 18445 11614 4855 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
sm saw 35980 32702 15123 13981 578.8 1048 2674 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
poles 1769714435 9687 13197 1658 2383 752.1 1490 1190 1071 852.6 136.1 594.8 432.5
PIST TSCAACS
A3
ACR
U
THO
C2BEPA
PRS
E2JUVI
CAG
L8
BEAL
2
BEO
C2
CAC
A18
CAO
V2
ULR
U
Figure 3-2 (Above): Biomass of Schoharie watershed analyzed by tons and by Timber
size class. (Top 14 most massive species included, attached data table is in Tons).
iv) Cannonsville
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
24/31
pine-HW
PIST
spruce-northern HW
beech-birch
birch
Pine-hemlock
Hemlock Hardwood
Northern Hardwoods
Appalachian Hardwood
maple
Allegheny Hardwood
Bottomland Hardwood
Oak Northern Hardwood
Oak
Hemlock
Category
160, 1.6%
160, 1.6%160, 1.6%
160, 1.6%
160, 1.6%160, 1.6%
320, 3.2%320, 3.2%
320, 3.2%
640, 6.3%
960, 9.5%
1120, 11.1%
1120, 11.1%
1920, 19.0%
2400, 23.8%
Breakdown of Cannonsville Basin by Forest Type
Figure 3-5 (Above): Cannonsville watershed basin analyzed by acreage of Forest Type(Acres of Forest Type are represented next to percentages, see table 1 for details).
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
25/31
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
Biomass (Tons)
Species
Aboveground Biomass in Canonsville Basin by Forest Type
lg saw
med saw
sm saw
poles
lg saw 19905 45682 37591 8936 0 3602 0 0 0 0 3602 0 0 0
med saw 46318 64593 43659 12310 1674 26064 13369 4491 2468 1674 26064 13369 4491 2468
sm saw 83736 81822 91712 37403 18639 17560 12716 19400 9499 18639 17560 12716 19400 9499
poles 1E+05 51127 48377 24767 33827 5243 12318 11252 12711 33827 5243 12318 11252 12711
ACRU TSCA ACSA3
FRAM2
FAGR QURU
BELE PRSE2
BEAL2
FAGR QURU
BELE PRSE2
BEAL2
Figure 3-2 (Above): Biomass of Cannonsville watershed analyzed by tons and by Timber
size class. (Top 14 most massive species included, attached data table is in Tons).
v) Neversink/Rondout
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
26/31
Hemlock Hardwood
Northern Hardwoods
Appalachian Hardwood
Bottomland Hardwood
Allegheny Hardwood
Other Hardwood
aspen northern HW
Mesic mixed pine-hardwoods
Pure ACRU
Category
160, 4.8%160, 4.8%
160, 4.8%
160, 4.8%
160, 4.8%
160, 4.8%
160, 4.8%
800, 23.8%
1440, 42.9%
Breakdown of Neversink/ Rondout basins by Forest Type
Figure 3-4 (Above): Neversink/Rondout watershed basins analyzed by acreage of ForestType (Acres of Forest Type are represented next to percentages, see table 1 for details).
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Biomass(Tons)
Species
Biomass (tons) in the Neversink/Rondout Basins
lg saw
med saw
sm saw
poles
lg saw 424.7 377.3 327.6 65.92 75.27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
med saw 828.5 658.6 445.1 282.3 121.2 159.7 140.8 40.01 76.69 31.63 38.57 0 0 0
sm saw 1068 942.9 806.9 456.1 242.4 337.8 244.2 211.4 132.2 113.7 95.94 44.89 0 19.79
poles 703.7 660.5 476.1 93.97 247.1 260.9 87.43 153.7 169.2 75.57 37.62 0 8.211 0
TSCAACR
U
ACS
A3
PRS
E2
FAG
RBELE
QUR
U
BEAL
2
FRA
M2
MAL
US
POG
R4JUNI
AME
LATIAM
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
27/31
Figure 3-2 (Above): Biomass of the Neversink/Rondout watershed analyzed by tons and
by Timber size class. (Top 14 most massive species included, attached data table is in
Tons).
vi) Boyds Corners/Westbranch
Appalachian Hardwood
Northern Hardwoods
Oak Northern Hardwood
Bottomland Hardwood
Hemlock Hardwood
Category
160, 5.0%
320, 10.0%
640, 20.0%
960, 30.0%
1120, 35.0%
Breakdown of Boyds Corners/ Westbranch basins by Forest Type
Figure 3-6 (Above): Boyds Corners/Westbranch watershed basins analyzed by acreage of
Forest Type (Acres of Forest Type are represented next to percentages, see table 1 for
details).
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
28/31
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Biomass(tons)
Species
Biomass (Tons) in Boyds Corners/Westbranch
lg saw
med saw
sm saw
poles
lg saw 185.6 1765 621.2 130.4 335.4 0 0 118.2 296.1 0 0 0 0 0
med saw 308 584.6 283.7 156.2 335.3 270.3 210.3 182.5 106.6 0 91.15 0 121.9 0
sm saw 1282 311.9 580 669.8 383.8 481.4 101.1 228.5 0 138.6 152.7 96.56 50.27 144.7
poles 1063 128 404.5 489 33.92 305.8 160.5 0 0 123.7 27.87 134.4 47.22 52.28
ACR
U
QUR
U
ACS
A3BELE
FRA
M2
QUP
R2
FAG
RTSCA LITU
CAG
L8
QUA
L
BEAL
2
CAO
V2
QUV
E
Figure 3-6-2 (Above): Biomass of the Boyds Corners/Westbranch watershed analyzed by
tons and by Timber size class. (Top 14 most massive species included, attached data table
is in Tons).
Discussion
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
29/31
Overall, the watershed looks relatively stable, but is headed in a direction towardparticular species dominance. Biomass indicates that to this effect, selectiveharvest may be beneficial in 5 to ten years for most basins, but overall watershedhealth looks consistent and promising. Assuming no invasive intrusions arepermitted, the watershed may continually edge closer towards being more
Hemlock-dominant. In 20 years time, it can be predicted that withoutintervention, the watershed will be very diversity-deficient.
The most dominant forest type in the watershed is Hemlock Hardwood. Thesemixed and complicated stands are good for drainage and filtration, however maypose risks to less tolerant forest types, such as red pines and pin/white oaks (onebeing specifically flood tolerant, and the other drought tolerant). This is becauseof several factors- one, hemlocks tend to create their own acidic environmentwhich may suit them (but are often intolerable to other species) and two, suddenmortality is rare among hardwoods, and unless thinning or branch diebackoccurs, sudden overgrowth can rapidly smother the forest floor underneath its
canopy.
Trailing right behind the dominant Hemlocks are Northern Hardwood stands,comprising almost a quarter (about 23%) of the entire NYC watersheds forests(Fig. 1-2). These forests tend to prefer moderately to well-drained soils, andconstant moisture. The near ubiquitousness of this forest type thoughout thewatershed indicates that current filtration methods are working well, and drainingis occurring properly, though many of these basins, as previously stated couldbenefit from a thinning or selective harvest. This ensures healthy regeneration ina forest type where mortality is uncommon, and overgrowth can happen rapidly.
Schoharie, the youngest basin, is an interesting example of the resilience anddiversity of the NYC watershed. It is the least biomassive, but has the mostwetlands per acre, by far, of any other basin in the watershed. This is probablydue to the recent development in the area, recent thinning and logging, and tothe use of off-site areas as agricultural fields. The Eastern White Pine (Pinusstrobus) stands that were planted in the areas around the Schoharie reservoirwere probably planted in much drier soils (preferred soils to white Pines), buthave adapted admirably to these new conditions- possibly because of the deeproute systems that allow for soil that has not yet been compacted to percolatewater more efficiently.
- PIST requires coarse and dry soils (sands, gravels and rocky outcrops)- Require frequent burns- Deep Root system
- Schoharie most relative wetland area
- Least biomassive
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
30/31
- Second smallest basal area
-
Unfortunately the assumption that no invasive species will affect our projectionscan no longer faithfully be made for the watershed. A multitude of inboundthreats have been observed at the outskirts of the NYC watershed, and arepoised to make a notable splash on species demographics of the area. Speciessuch as Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, Emerald Ash Borer and Asian Longhorn beetlemust be watched very closely to ensure that massive die-offs do not occur-specifically because 58.7% of the watershed is composed of only three dominantforest types (Figure 1-2). This limits species variety and not only is detrimental toforest health and longevity, but will ensure maximum impact of invasive species
intrusion. A healthy forest with marked and continuous growth will be able tomore effectively combat inbound threats to the basin and should invasive threatsestablish themselves, there stands to be less risk of total species decimation ifthe relative dominance of species is spread out among species.
Calculating the biomass for Boyds Corners/Westbranch (figure 3.6.2) reveals anoverabundance of large saw Red Oak (Quercus rubrum). This indicates thebasin would benefit from a harvest in that area, as it is one of the most massivespecies in that basin, second only to Red Maple (Acer rubrum). This is furthersupported by Boyds Corners/Westbranch being second largest out of the sixbasins in terms of Merchantable DBH, but lagging behind all of them in average
DBH (Figures 1-3 and 1-4). Reduction of overstory density within the Red Oakswill aid in seed dispersal, and encourage growth for the lower size classes. Thiswill in turn, aid in diversity and the overall health of the Boyds Corners andWestbranch watershed forests, and the NYC watershed as a whole. Prevailingforestry theory also holds that a healthy and diverse ecosystem is superior inwater quality control and filtration, to that of a similarly dense but diverselydestitute one.
Hemlock Hardwood is far and away being the most dominant forest type, andaccounts for almost a quarter of the entire watershed. (Figure 1-2) The HemlockWoolly Adelgid must be watched carefully to see that it does not wreak havoc onsuch a large area of watershed land, and to a critical and dominant tree species.Hemlock Woolly Adelgid is an aphid-like creature that feeds on and destroyshemlocks of all types found on the Eastern seaboard.
Emerald Ash Borer, or EAB, is another menace to be watched. Notorious for itsdecimation of over 70 million Ash trees in the United States alone (Wren 2009),its recently noted presence in the Catskills area should be of particular concernwhen discussing NYC watershed health. Ash can be found in many hardwood
7/28/2019 Cross Basin Comparison of the NYC Watershed
31/31
forest types, particularly Northern Hardwoods, which is the second mostpopulous forest type in the entire watershed (figure 1-2).
Asian Long-horned Beetle, estimated to have been in New York since the 1980s,is considered a larger threat than the Emerald Ash Borer OR Hemlock Wooly
Adelgid due to its wide variety of tree preferences. Instead of specializing itsappetite to one or two main species, it has been known to eat maple,horsechestnut, elm, willow, birch, poplar, and ash trees. In the NYC watershed,the major tree types affected would include all types of Maple, Ash and Oak. Themost biomassive trees in the watershed are as follows- Red Maple ispredominant- if not the most predominant- in all basins across the board. Thesame can be said for Sugar Maple. Red Oak comes in third with EasternHemlock trailing fourth. Considering the wide prevalence of both Oak and Mapletrees, and the already potent danger of the ash-dwelling Emerald Ash Borer theeffects of this insects arrival into the ecosystem would felt across the entirewatershed.
References
http://mff.dsisd.net/Balance/TreeDiversity.htm
Wren, Maureen. Emerald Ash Borer Found in NY State Press Release.Wednesday, June 17, 2009 13/Oct/10
http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_your_park/trees_greenstreets/beetle_alert/beetle_alert.h
tml
http://mff.dsisd.net/Balance/TreeDiversity.htmhttp://www.dec.ny.gov/press/55725.htmlhttp://www.dec.ny.gov/press/55725.htmlhttp://mff.dsisd.net/Balance/TreeDiversity.htm