A Cross-Basin Comparison of the New York City Watershed by Ian B.

Brent Forest Science Intern Under the Guidance of Deborah Layton Forest Scientist New York City Department of Environmental Protection Watershed Protection and Planning Natural Resources Management Ecological Research and Assessments Forest Science Program 465 Columbus Avenue, Suite 350 Valhalla, NY 10595

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 prime directive, it is important to constantly measure and study the environment in which the water dwells. A strong and diverse forest ecosystem will better filter and protect New York Citys water supply and ensure that it stays pure without the aid of man-made filtration systems. Baseline Continuous Forest Inventory (CFI) has been implemented on six basins to 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 for saw-timber removal. Using CFI, each watershed will be inventoried approximately every ten years to eventually develop sound models of New York City watershed forest dynamics which can predict forest growth, regeneration and 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 of height growth potential as a function of stand age). These overstory observations also include: product grade, sawtimber height, pulpwood height, size class, and percent canopy closure. Comments are recorded on presence of riparian zones, wetlands and interfering species (species that inhibit the regeneration of tree seedlings). Understory data is also collected. This data includes a count of all saplings over a height of four and one half feet but less than four inches in DBH, percent groundcover, foliage, rock, and leaf depth. Comments are also included, and made 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, and periodic defoliation impact this important ecosystem. Competition, pathogens and over-grazing by White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) further stress the trees. Over-grazing of saplings for many years depletes the younger age classes; when mature trees die, there is insufficient replacement, which leads to a population crash (Vatovec 2000).

Methods
Plot locations are specified by a grid system placed over a map of City-owned forest lands. Plots are generally mile apart and each plot represents 160

acres, with exception to the Ashokan Reservoir basin. Ashokan being the pilot project of the CFI program, its plots are which are only representative of 100 acres due to it being a pilot project before regular CFI plots were taken. Staying on the grid and not arbitrarily establishing plots on the edge of City property is important to eliminate bias and provide accuracy in describing site conditions. Plot centers are located by Global Positioning System; the center stake is hammered into the ground with plot number recorded on the stake with a permanent marker. The plot size is 1/5 of an acre, with a radius of 52.7 feet. A sonar-measuring device is positioned in the plot center; radii are measured out in all directions where pin flags are then positioned. At least seven pin flags are positioned around the edge of the circular plot to facilitate determining whether trees 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 at DBHare tallied. These trees are measured to the nearest 1/10 of an inch and are marked with a line at DBH using a paint marker and facing the plot center. The trees are numbered on the side facing the center plot with a bright blue aluminum disk, 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 or outside the 52.7 radius, as necessary. For each plot, measurements and observations are recorded in a hand held computer. This field computer is equipped with a Windows operating system, and GPS. 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 and size class, including all trees and shrubs 4.5 feet or taller and with a diameter less than 4 inches. On denser and younger plots, the understory plot size is reduced in area to 1/10th of an acre (37.2 radius) to improve count accuracy. All saplings are tallied by one-inch diameter class. Ground observations are also recorded. These include: percent ground vegetation coverage, leaf depth, slope shape, percent coverage of rock, ferns, interfering or invasive species, comments and presence of wildlife. Adjacency to riparian or wetland zones, and accessibility to stand and haul distance is also recorded. 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 and creation of charts and graphics. MiniTab statistical software was used to perform comparisons between basins.

The baseline data for the Ashokan, Cannonsville, Neversink, Rondout, Westbranch, Boyds Corners, Pepacton and Schoharie Reservoir Basins is subject to change. Additional information will be provided following any impacts, extreme climate conditions, or urgent concerns.

Tables

Forest Type Hemlock Hardwood Northern Hardwoods Appalachian Hardwood Oak Northern Hardwood pine-HW Bottomland Hardwood Allegheny Hardwood maple PIST Oak Hemlock Oakhickory Other Hardwood Pine sprucenorthern HW Pure PIRE AspenBirch beech-birch birch Pinehemlock aspen northern HW Mesic mixed pinehardwoods Pure ACRU Pure QUPR2 Total

Ashokan 200 700 300 200 300 0 0 0 600 100 0 200 0 100 100 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 3,100

Boyds/West 160 960 1120 640 0 320 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,200

Cannonsville 2400 1920 1120 320 160 640 960 1120 160 320 320 0 0 0 160 0 0 160 160 160 0 0 0 0 10,080

Neverond 1440 800 160 0 0 160 160 0 0 0 0 0 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 160 160 160

Pepacton 1280 1600 640 320 0 160 160 0 0 320 160 0 160 160 0 0 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5120

Schoharie 1120 160 0 0 960 0 0 0 160 0 0 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,560

Totals 6600 6140 3340 1480 1420 1280 1280 1120 920 740 480 360 320 260 260 200 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 100

3360

27, 420

Table 1 (above.) Forest types of the NYC watershed system, with their respective total acreages.

Basin Ashokan Boyds/West Cannonsville Neverond Pepacton Schoharie

DBH (in.) 5.39 4.78 6.25 6.66 6.89 6.44

Basal Area 271.4 192.9 207.3 188.3 131.9 184.4

Stems/Acre 1152.6 797.4 1290.4 546.4 409.69 523.8

Slope (%) 10.23 16.45 29.98 10.50 24.48 20.93

Wetland (%) 2.26 10.00 8.17 6.05 10.69 18.00

Leaf Litter (%) 4.60 0.00 74.00 0.00 64.69 0.00

Table 2 (above.) Snapshot of averages across the NYC watershed system.

Figures and Charts Section I: Totals and Snapshots

Percentage of NYC Watershed by Basin
9.3% Basin Cannonsville Pepacton Neverond Boyds/West Ashokan Schoharie 36.8%

11.3%

11.7%

12.3% 18.7%

Figure 1-1: (Above) Percent Acreage of the NYC watershed broken down by Basin.

NYC Watershed Diversity by Forest Type

1.2% 1.8% 2.7% 3.4% 4.1% 4.4% 4.7% 1.3% 0.9% 0.9% 0.7%

24.1%

4.7%

Category Hemlock Hardwood Northern Hardwoods Appalachian Hardwood Oak Northern Hardwood pine-HW Bottomland Hardwood Allegheny Hardwood OTHER maple PI ST Oak Hemlock Oak-hickory Other Hardwood Pine spruce-northern HW Pure PI RE

5.2% 22.4% 5.4% 12.2%

Figure 1-2. Watershed-wide diversity analysis broken down into percent forest type. (For the purpose of clarity, forest types constituting less than 200 acres of the watershed were condensed into category: OTHER. See table 1 for details.)
Average Overstory DBH (in) by Basin
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

DBH

Pepacton

Neverond

Schoharie Cannonsville Basin

Ashokan

Boyds/West

Figure 1-3 (above). Comparison of average DBH in inches across NYC watershed basins.

Average Merchantable DBH (in)

in the NYC Watershed by Basin 18 16 14 Merch DBH 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Pepacton Boyds/West Ashokan Neverond Basin Cannonsville Schoharie

Figure 1-4, Comparison of Merchantable DBH in inches, across all six studied Basins.

Basal Area by Basin

300 271.4

250 207.3 Basal Area (Sqft/Acre) 200 192.9 188.3 184.4

150

131.9

100
Basal Area

50

0
an si nk /R on do ut C an no ns vi lle es tb ra nc h ar ie As ho k Sc ho h Pe pa c to n

or ne rs /W

Bo yd s

Figure 1-5 (above). Comparison of average basal area (square feet/acre) across selected NYC watershed basins.

N ev er

Basin

Biomass Totals (tons) for Lesser Basins

18000 16000 14000 3451.9268 12000 10000 Biomass (Tons) 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 lg saw med saw sm saw poles 3005.010025 3150.060485 4169.631115 4716.2066
4671.841985

1996.432155

3774.5097

1270.763325 2823.04267 2650.66354 6701.5871 lg saw med saw sm saw poles

Neversink/Rondout 1270.763325 2823.04267 4716.2066 3005.010025

Boyds Corners/Westbranch 3451.9268 2650.66354 4671.841985 3150.060485 Basin

Ashokan 1996.432155 3774.5097 6701.5871 4169.631115

Figure 1-6- Snapshot of biomass in tons across the 3 lesser basins. (Lesser = Basins less massive than 20,000 tons)

Biomass Totals (tons) for Major Basins

1200000 121917.0585 1000000 231840.3598 800000 Biomass (tons) 394480.599 600000 120777.3544 400000 98249.55548 147513.7576 11654.92735 44142.58299 200000 122559.0911 78916.04254 0 lg saw med saw sm saw poles 355861.1882 Cannonsville 121917.0585 231840.3598 394480.599 355861.1882 111069.7302 Pepacton 120777.3544 98249.55548 147513.7576 111069.7302 Basin Schoharie 11654.92735 44142.58299 122559.0911 78916.04254 lg saw med saw sm saw poles

Figure 1-7 Snapshot of biomass in tons across the 3 major basins. (major = Basins <20,000 tons)

Average Age across Basins

90 80 70 60 50 Age Average Age 40 30 20 10 0
es tb ra nc h ac to n ka n t no ns vi lle As ho on do u oh ar ie Sc h

78

77 70 68 66 56

Pe p

/R

or ne rs /W

Bo y

ds

ev er si nk

Basin

Figure 1-8 (above) - Snapshot of average ages (years) across studied basins.

C an

A v e r a g e P e r c e n t W e t la n d A c r o s s S e le c t e d B a s in s
18 A v e r a g e W e t la n d (% C o v e r ) 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
% W e t la n d S c h o h a ri B o y d s /w C a n n o n s v P e p a c to n N e ve ro n d A s h o k a n e est ille 18 11 10 9 6 2

% W e t la n d

B a s in

Figure 1-9 (above) Snapshot of Average Wetland coverage by Basin.

Section II: Breakdown of Top Six Forest Types by Basin

Total Hemlock Hardwood Acreage by Basin

160, 2.4% 200, 3.0% Category Cannonsville Neverond Pepacton Schoharie Ashokan Boyds/West

1120, 17.0% 2400, 36.4%

1280, 19.4%

1440, 21.8%

Figure 2-1 (above). Hemlock Hardwood forests broken down by respective presence in NYC watershed basins. (Acres represented next to percentage)
Total Northern Hardwood Acreage by Basin
160, 2.6% 700, 11.4% Category Cannonsville Pepacton Boyds/West Neverond Ashokan Schoharie

1920, 31.3%

800, 13.0%

960, 15.6%

1600, 26.1%

Figure 2-2 (above). Northern Hardwood forests broken down by respective presence in NYC watershed basins (Acres represented next to percentage).

Total Appalachian Hardwood Acreage by Basin

160, 4.8% 300, 9.0% Category Cannonsville Boyds/West Pepacton Ashokan Neverond 1120, 33.5%

640, 19.2%

1120, 33.5%

Figure 2-3(above). Appalachian 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.)

Total Allegheny Hardwood Acreage by Basin

160, 12.5% Category Cannonsville Pepacton Neverond

160, 12.5%

960, 75.0%

Figure 2-4 (above.). Allegheny 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.)

Total Pine-Hardwood Acreage by Basin

Category Schoharie Ashokan Cannonsville

160, 11.3%

300, 21.1%

960, 67.6%

Figure 2-5 (above). Pine-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.)

Oak-Northern Hardwood by Basin

Category Boyds/West Pepacton Cannonsville Ashokan

200, 13.5%

640, 43.2% 320, 21.6%

320, 21.6%

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.)

Total Bottomland Hardwood Acreage by Basin

Category Cannonsville Boyds/West Pepacton Neverond

160, 12.5%

160, 12.5%

640, 50.0%

320, 25.0%

Figure 2-7 (above). Bottomland 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.)

Section III: Basin Statistics i) Ashokan

Breakdown of Ashokan Basin by Forest Type

100, 3.2% 100, 3.2% 100, 3.2% 100, 3.2% 200, 6.5% 700, 22.6% Category Northern Hardwoods PI ST Appalachian Hardwood pine-HW Hemlock Hardwood Oak Northern Hardwood Oak-hickory Pure PI RE Oak Pine spruce-northern HW Pure QUPR2

200, 6.5%

200, 6.5% 600, 19.4% 200, 6.5%

300, 9.7%

300, 9.7%

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).

Aboveground Biomass for Ashokan Reservoir Basin

3500

3000

2500

2000 Biomass (Tons) 1500 lg saw med saw sm saw poles

1000

500

0 lg saw sm saw poles

ACRU

QURU

PIST

ACSA3 FRAM2 QUPR2 0 260.348 0

TSCA 0 537.8

PIRE 0

QUAL 0 0

BELE 0 97.7571

605.836 566.526 563.722

med saw 744.652 1232.43 504.257 393.11 277.516 131.04 94.2196 141.354 1096.65 1293.42 465.868 726.557 293.924 505.683 by Timber size class

432.486 513.421 159.621

855.519 292.386 417.385 603.716 205.671 372.48 225.616 123.949 87.7681 272.47

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

Breakdown of Pepacton Basin Acreage by Forest Type

160, 3.1% 160, 3.1% 160, 3.1% 160, 3.1% 160, 3.1% 160, 3.1% 1600, 31.3%

320, 6.3%

320, 6.3%

Category Northern Hardwoods Hemlock Hardwood Appalachian Hardwood Oak Northern Hardwood Oak Bottomland Hardwood Allegheny Hardwood Hemlock Other Hardwood Pine Aspen-Birch

640, 12.5% 1280, 25.0%

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
Pepacton Biomass (Tons)
120000

100000

80000 Biomass (Tons) Lg. Saw 60000 Med. Saw Sm. Saw Pole 40000

20000

0
Lg. Saw Med. Saw Sm. Saw Pole

QURU 54912.8

ACRU 0

TSCA

ACSA3

QUAL 0 0

BELE 0 1786.44

FAGR 2608.83 0

FRAM2 0

PIST 1902.41

BEAL2 0

ACSA2 PRSE2 0 0

TIAM 0

POTR5 0

17967.1 3229.72

28297 24141.7 12218 18366.4

2800.7 1800.68 2855.31 1070.86 913.763 1743.57 852.351

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 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

Species

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
Breakdown of Schoharie Basin by Forest Type
160, 6.3% 160, 6.3% 160, 6.3% Category Hemlock Hardwood pine-HW Northern Hardwoods PI ST Oak-hickory

1120, 43.8%

960, 37.5%

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).

Biomass (Tons) in Schoharie Basin

80000 70000 60000 50000 Biomass (Tons) 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 PIST TSCA lg saw lg saw med saw sm saw poles

ACS ACR THO PRS CAG BEAL BEO CAC CAO ULR BEPA JUVI A3 U C2 E2 L8 2 C2 A18 V2 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4095 1911 3170

0 0 0 0 med saw 18445 11614 4855 sm saw 35980 32702 15123 13981 578.8 1048 2674 poles

17697 14435 9687 13197 1658 2383 752.1 1490 1190 1071 852.6 136.1 594.8 432.5 Species

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

Breakdown of Cannonsville Basin by Forest Type

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% Category Hemlock Hardwood Northern Hardwoods Appalachian Hardwood maple Allegheny Hardwood Bottomland Hardwood Oak Northern Hardwood Oak Hemlock pine-HW PI ST spruce-northern HW beech-birch birch Pine-hemlock

2400, 23.8%

640, 6.3%

960, 9.5% 1920, 19.0%

1120, 11.1% 1120, 11.1%

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).

Aboveground Biomass in Canonsville Basin by Forest Type

300000

250000

200000

Biomass (Tons) 150000

100000
lg saw med saw sm saw poles

50000

0 ACRU TSCA lg saw

ACSA FRAM QUR PRSE BEAL QUR PRSE BEAL FAGR BELE FAGR BELE 3 2 U 2 2 U 2 2 0 3602 0 0 0 0 3602 0 0 0

19905 45682 37591 8936

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 Species

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

Breakdown of Neversink/ Rondout basins by Forest Type

160, 4.8% 160, 4.8% 160, 4.8% 160, 4.8%

160, 4.8%

1440, 42.9%

160, 4.8%

160, 4.8%

Category Hemlock Hardwood Northern Hardwoods Appalachian Hardwood Bottomland Hardwood Allegheny Hardwood Other Hardwood aspen northern HW Mesic mixed pine-hardwoods Pure ACRU

800, 23.8%

Figure 3-4 (Above): Neversink/Rondout watershed basins analyzed by acreage of Forest Type (Acres of Forest Type are represented next to percentages, see table 1 for details).
Biomass (tons) in the Neversink/Rondout Basins
3500

3000

2500 Biomass (Tons)

2000

1500 lg saw med saw sm saw poles

1000

500

0 TSCA lg saw

ACR ACS PRS FAG QUR BEAL FRA MAL POG AME BELE JUNI TIAM U A3 E2 R U 2 M2 US R4 LA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.211 0 0 19.79 0

424.7 377.3 327.6 65.92 75.27

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 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 poles 703.7 660.5 476.1 93.97 247.1 260.9 87.43 153.7 169.2 75.57 37.62 Species 0

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

Breakdown of Boyds Corners/ Westbranch basins by Forest Type

Category Appalachian Hardwood Northern Hardwoods Oak Northern Hardwood Bottomland Hardwood Hemlock Hardwood 1120, 35.0%

160, 5.0% 320, 10.0%

640, 20.0%

960, 30.0%

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).

Biomass (Tons) in Boyds Corners/Westbranch

3000

2500

2000 Biomass (tons)

1500 lg saw med saw sm saw poles

1000

500

ACR QUR ACS FRA QUP FAG CAG QUA BEAL CAO QUV BELE TSCA LITU U U A3 M2 R2 R L8 L 2 V2 E 185.6 1765 621.2 130.4 335.4 0 0 118.2 296.1 0 0 0 0 0 91.15 0 0 0 121.9 0 0 308 584.6 283.7 156.2 335.3 270.3 210.3 182.5 106.6 1282 311.9 580 669.8 383.8 481.4 101.1 228.5 1063 128 404.5 489 33.92 305.8 160.5 0 Species

lg saw med saw sm saw poles

138.6 152.7 96.56 50.27 144.7 123.7 27.87 134.4 47.22 52.28

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

Overall, the watershed looks relatively stable, but is headed in a direction toward particular species dominance. Biomass indicates that to this effect, selective harvest may be beneficial in 5 to ten years for most basins, but overall watershed health looks consistent and promising. Assuming no invasive intrusions are permitted, the watershed may continually edge closer towards being more Hemlock-dominant. In 20 years time, it can be predicted that without intervention, the watershed will be very diversity-deficient. The most dominant forest type in the watershed is Hemlock Hardwood. These mixed and complicated stands are good for drainage and filtration, however may pose risks to less tolerant forest types, such as red pines and pin/white oaks (one being specifically flood tolerant, and the other drought tolerant). This is because of several factors- one, hemlocks tend to create their own acidic environment which may suit them (but are often intolerable to other species) and two, sudden mortality is rare among hardwoods, and unless thinning or branch dieback occurs, 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, and constant moisture. The near ubiquitousness of this forest type thoughout the watershed indicates that current filtration methods are working well, and draining is occurring properly, though many of these basins, as previously stated could benefit from a thinning or selective harvest. This ensures healthy regeneration in a forest type where mortality is uncommon, and overgrowth can happen rapidly. Schoharie, the youngest basin, is an interesting example of the resilience and diversity of the NYC watershed. It is the least biomassive, but has the most wetlands per acre, by far, of any other basin in the watershed. This is probably due to the recent development in the area, recent thinning and logging, and to the use of off-site areas as agricultural fields. The Eastern White Pine ( Pinus strobus) stands that were planted in the areas around the Schoharie reservoir were probably planted in much drier soils (preferred soils to white Pines), but have adapted admirably to these new conditions- possibly because of the deep route systems that allow for soil that has not yet been compacted to percolate water 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

Second smallest basal area

Unfortunately the assumption that no invasive species will affect our projections can no longer faithfully be made for the watershed. A multitude of inbound threats have been observed at the outskirts of the NYC watershed, and are poised to make a notable splash on species demographics of the area. Species such as Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, Emerald Ash Borer and Asian Longhorn beetle must be watched very closely to ensure that massive die-offs do not occurspecifically because 58.7% of the watershed is composed of only three dominant forest types (Figure 1-2). This limits species variety and not only is detrimental to forest health and longevity, but will ensure maximum impact of invasive species intrusion. A healthy forest with marked and continuous growth will be able to more effectively combat inbound threats to the basin and should invasive threats establish themselves, there stands to be less risk of total species decimation if the relative dominance of species is spread out among species. Calculating the biomass for Boyds Corners/Westbranch (figure 3.6.2) reveals an overabundance of large saw Red Oak (Quercus rubrum). This indicates the basin would benefit from a harvest in that area, as it is one of the most massive species in that basin, second only to Red Maple ( Acer rubrum). This is further supported by Boyds Corners/Westbranch being second largest out of the six basins 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 Oaks will aid in seed dispersal, and encourage growth for the lower size classes. This will in turn, aid in diversity and the overall health of the Boyds Corners and Westbranch watershed forests, and the NYC watershed as a whole. Prevailing forestry theory also holds that a healthy and diverse ecosystem is superior in water quality control and filtration, to that of a similarly dense but diversely destitute one. Hemlock Hardwood is far and away being the most dominant forest type, and accounts for almost a quarter of the entire watershed. (Figure 1-2) The Hemlock Woolly Adelgid must be watched carefully to see that it does not wreak havoc on such 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 destroys hemlocks of all types found on the Eastern seaboard. Emerald Ash Borer, or EAB, is another menace to be watched. Notorious for its decimation 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 concern when discussing NYC watershed health. Ash can be found in many hardwood

forest types, particularly Northern Hardwoods, which is the second most populous 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 its appetite 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. The most biomassive trees in the watershed are as follows- Red Maple is predominant- if not the most predominant- in all basins across the board. The same can be said for Sugar Maple. Red Oak comes in third with Eastern Hemlock trailing fourth. Considering the wide prevalence of both Oak and Maple trees, and the already potent danger of the ash-dwelling Emerald Ash Borer the effects of this insects arrival into the ecosystem would felt across the entire watershed.

References http://mff.dsisd.net/Balance/TreeDiversity.htm Wren, Maureen. Emerald Ash Borer Found in NY State Press Release. Wednesday, June 17, 2009 <http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/55725.html> 13/Oct/10 http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_your_park/trees_greenstreets/beetle_alert/beetle_alert.h tml