HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1968CFJ
M r::
0... -· ("tt
(JJ
b -· (JJ n c
(JJ
(JJ -· §
0
~
·voL.
1
E~VIRONMENTAL :._fjJNOMlC ASPECTS
CONTEMPORANEOUS /
.. II II ~r .ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION LINE -. I! II · 1/
RIGHT-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
fVolumef /.
GENERAL ME'"l'HODS, SPECIAI4 STUDIES,
II I I /// ' //
. DISCUSSION OF ~fRENDS#'
' '
•
JUNE 197·7
Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation (EsEERCO)
Environmental And Economic Aspects Of Contemporaneous
Electric Transmission Line Right-Of -Way
l\la:nagement Techniques
VOLUME 1
GENERAL METHODS, SPECIAL STUDIES, DISCUSSION OF TRENDS,
AND CONCLUSIONS
PREPARED FOR THE EMPIRE STATE ELECTRIC ENERGY
RES.EARCH CORPORATION (ESEERCO)
JUNE 1977
Prepared by:
ASPLUNDH ~~l~fc?GJdENTAL
BLAIR MIU RQU) WlLWW Gf((WE, :w.. 19090
Under the Supervision of:
D. E. Holewinski, Division Manager
A. J, .Zeigler, Project Coordinator
'f.D .. Mayer, Project Manager
Approved by :
H. R. Johns, Senior Vice President
jASPLUNDHj
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
BLAIR MILL ROAD, WILLOW GROVE, PA. 19090 • AREA CODE 215 • TELEPHONE: 784-4247
Mr. William S. E. Gr.eenwald
ESEERCO Administrator, Land Use Programs.
c/o New York Pmqer Pool
3890 Carman Road
Schenectady, New York 12303
Dear Mr. Greenwald:
Asplundh Environmental Services takes pleasure in submitting to the
Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation (ESEERCO), ''Study of
Environmental and Economic Aspects of Contemporaneous Electric Transmission
Line Right-of-Way Management Techniques".
This report represents over two years of intensive field analysis
and study of twenty-two sites in all major forests and physiographic re-
gions in the state of New York.
In order to clearly define the magnitude of effort which led to both
the synthesis of trends and to conclusions regarding the impact of right-
of-way (ROW) management techniques, it is important to note that this case
history study reflects not only the professional involvement of a multi-
disciplinary team of researchers, but also reflects state, local and
county agency experience within each of the areas studied. It" also reflects
the effort of New York State utilities to provide environmentally and
economically acceptable ROW management programs and safe, reliable electric
service to its consumers.
This report began with the development of methods and selection of
sites which would .fulfill the objectives outlined in this study. Collection
of all applicable case history data covering each of twenty-two specific
locations, required extensive searching for photographic or other
documentable material as far back as 1906. A search for information
was conducted to provide a complete c~se history before the ROW was constructed
and to include ROW management events following construction. In many cases,
this search provided only partial or incomplete information.
We believe the great volume of written, tabular, mapped or photographed
information collected will provide the basic information necessary for
future studies and research to be conducted in the ESEERCO Right-of-Way
Management Research Program. Maps and information have been prepared for
maximum-flexibility and use for further analysis or field research.
This study is presented so that it may be reviewed by: methodology
of site selection and field data collection; i~dividual case studies of
sites; special vegetational and soils studies; and discussion of trends.
REGIONAL OFFICE.: P.O. BOX 1571, ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48106 • AREA CODE 313 • TELEPHONE 434-0700
Mr. William s. E. Greenwald
ESEERCO
Page 2
We believe this organization will provide a clearer understanding
of information and maximum flexibilit:y for useful application.
This ~nique project represents tremendous foresight by ESEERCO to
provide this comprehensive and indepth case history study of electric
transmission line ROW management techniques. It has indeed been a
pleasure to be associated with this project, and we thank you for the
opportunity to be of service.
DEH: tm
Very truly yours,
ASPLUNDH ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
~~d!f:.,/1/J~L...
Dennis E. Holewinski
Manager
•
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was prepared by Asplundh Environmental Services for the
Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation, with cooperation and
assistance in methodology development, site selection, analysis, and recom-
mendations from the following individuals:
Dr. William C. Bramble -Purdue University, Professor
Emeritus, Department of Forestry and Conservation.
Dr. William R. Byrnes -Purdue University, Department of
Forestry and Natural Resources.
Dr. Xenneth L. Carvell -West Virginia University, Division
of Forestry.
Dr. Edwa-r.d C.~ Raney -'Ichthyological Associates Inc., Aquatic
Biology.
Acknowledgment is also given to John Homa Jr., of Ichthyological Asso-
ciates for his review and preparation of water studies; to Virginia Hayer
for her assistance in both field studies and preparation of the final
report; and especially to the other members of the AES staff, including:
Susan Borresen, Glenn Shearer, Robert Borie, Mark Pmvell, Joe Bickel,
Joan Harris, Erma Hill, ~.nd April Huffman, Trish Madden and Tom Polulak.
"LEGAL NOTICE"
"This report was prepared as an account
of work sponsored by Asplundh Environmental
Services ("ASPLUNDH") and the Empire State
Electric Energy Research Corporation ("ESEERCO").
Neither ESEERCO, members of ESEERCO, nor ASPLUNDH
nor any person acting on behalf of either:
"a. Makes any warranty or representation,
express or implied, with respect to the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of the information
contained in this report, or that the use of any
information, apparatus, method, or process dis~
closed in this report may not infringe privately
owned rights; or
"b. Assumes any ·liability with respect to
the use of, or for damages resulting from the use
of, any information, apparatus, method or process
disclosed in this report".
I-v
FOREWORD
•
The Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation (ESEERCO) is a non-
profit corporation whose members are Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation,
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Long Island Lighting Company,
New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation,
Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., the Power Authority of the State of New
York, and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation. ESEERCO supports and di-
rects, on behalf of its members, research and development programs oriented
toward improving the safety, reliability, economy and environmental compati-
bility of the provision, use, and conservation of electric energy in New York
State.
Many problems facing the electric systems ~n New York are common to
electric utilities nationally. These are most often adequately addressed by
national research organizations such as the Electric Power Research Institute
(to which the member systems of ESEERCO also belong), or the federal Energy
Research and Development Administration. To complement national efforts, the
research and development programs supported and directed by ESEERCO tend to
concentrate on those problems common to its member systems which are also
somewhat peculiar to,or particularly important in New York and the Northeast,
or for other reasons are not adequately treated by national research organi-
zations.
One challenge faced by nearly all electric utilities is how to continue
improving the management of transmission rights-of-way (ROW's), especially in
terms of economy, reliability, and environmental compatibility. The challenge
is as complex and multi-faceted as ROW management itself which begins with
certain aspects of selecting the final route location and goes on to encompass:
-Vegetation clearing, including slash disposal
the layout and design of access roads, stream crossing
sites and devices, lay-down sites and cable pulling
sites,
-erosion control during and after construction,
-certain aspects of the selection of the location for
support structures and of the methods for erecting them,
and
-management of vegetation on the ROW over the life of the
line.
In 1973, ESEERCO initiated a research program into rights-of-way
management. At that time, there was very little formal research in this
area sponsored at the nation or company level. Even had there been a more
extensive ROW research program at the national level, there was still a
role for ESEERCO. For while the problems facing ROW managers nationally
may have much in common, their solutions vary significantly from one region
I-vi
of the nation~to another, and also differ to some extent from state to state
due to differences in climate, topography, soils, native flora and fauna,
land uses, laws, and social values.
The goal of the ESEERCO ROW management research program is to increase
the safety, economy, and environmental compatibility of the ROW management
programs which are carried out to ensure reliable transmission of electric
energy in New York State. The ROW Management Research Program addresses this
goal through an open-ended series of research projects. These projects are
intended to develop and·make available new or improved information, methods,
and tools useful to ROW managers in selecting and executing elements of safe,
economical, and environmen~ally compatible ROW management programs.
Due to the complexity of ROW management, and its relative lack of docu-
mentation as a specialized field of endeavor, ESEERCO chose to establish the
state of knowledge concerning ROW management techniques and their environ-
mental impacts and economics, as the first project in the ROW management
research program. The objectives of this first project were to provide
ESEERCO with one basis for selecting further experimental research, and to
produce a summary reportl on the current state-of-the-art for use by ROW
managers of the ESEERCO member electric systems. The Applied Forestry
Research Institute of the State University of New York jointly funded the
project with ESEERCO, and carried it out by means of a literature search
and interviews with nationally recognized experts in the field.
As a second project in the ROW management research program, ESEERCO
engaged Asplundh Environmental Services to study the results of the state-
of-the-art as applied in New York by examining the "record in the field".
This was done by carefully observing and recording a wide variety of con-
ditions in the field on 22 ROW sites selected to be representative of the
various conditions encountered by ROW managers and of the various ROW
management techniques employed. The recorded observations were then used
with the histories of management events on each site to impute cause-effect
relationships between the management techniques used, and observed conditions
on the sites. These imputations will serve as another basis for designing
further projects in the ROW management research program. They will also
serve as interim research results for consideration by ROW managers in se-
lecting and executing elements of safe, economical and environmentally
compatible management programs for ROW's in New York State. The results
of the second project are presented in this report.
1 The Applied Forestry Research Institute of the State University of
New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry has printed this
report in two volumes for distribution to the interested public: Vegetation
Management on Power Line Rights-of-Way, A State-of-the-Knowledge Report
(research report #28), and Vegetation Management on Utility Rights-of-Way,
An Annotated Bibliography (research report #27). Both reports are available
from the Institute, Syracuse, New York 13210.
I-vii
GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS
•
FORE\-JARD
1 Summary and General Conclusions
2 Introduction.
3 General Methods •
3.1 Site Selection •
3.2 Field Data Collection.
3.2.1 General Reconnaissance.
3.2.2 Vegetation Analysis •
VOLUME 1
3.2.3 Special Vegetation Studies.
3.2.4 Soils Analysis.
3.2.5 Water Studies •
3.2.6 Wildlife Studies.
3.2.7 Photo Stations.
3.2.8 Land Use and Value.
3.3 Definition of Terms.
..
'4 Individual Case Studies of Sites (See Volumes 2 and 3).
5 Special Studies •
5.1 Response of Forest-grown Eastern Hemlock to Topping on
Selectively-cleared Electric Transmission Line Corridors •
5.1.1 Location of Study Area.
5.1.2 Field Procedure •
5.1.3 Analysis of Data.
5.1.4 Discussion.
5.1. 5 Summary •
5.2 Condition and Vigor of Edge Trees E~posed by Clearing: Circular
Openings for Tower Construction.
5.2.1 Purpose •
5.2.2 Description and History of Study Area •
5.2.3 Field Measurement Procedures.
5.2.4 Analysis of Results •
5.2.5 Discussion.
5.3 Direct Seeding Study •
5.3.1 Seeding Methods •
5.3.2 Observations and Discussion •
5.3.3 Conclusions •
5.3.4 Method of Estimating Abundance, Cover, and Grouping •
5.4 Estimation of Soil Erosion Potential on the ROW's and Adjacent
Woodlands by the Universal Soil Loss Equation.
5.4.1 Introduction.
5.4.2 Procedures.
I-viii
Page
I-vi
1-1
2-1
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-2
3-3
3-5
3-S
3-7
3-8
3-10
3-10
3-11
4-1
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-2
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-4
5-4
5-5
5-5
5-6
5-7
5-8
5-9
5-10
5-13
5-14
5.4.3 Results and Discussion.
5.4.4 Summary and Conclusions
6 Synthesis and Discussion of Trends.
6.1 Introduction ••••••.•..
6.2 Trends in the New England Highlands and Mohawk-Hudson
regions ...••..........
6.2.1 Trends 1n Impact on Vegetation.
6.2.2 Trends 1n Impact on Soil ...
6.2.3 Trends in Impact o~ Wildlife.
6.2.4 Trends 1n Impact on Water ..
6.2.5 Trends in Impact on Land Use.
6.3 Trends in Appalachian Highlands and Catskill Regions
6.3.1 Trends 1n ·Impact on Vegetation.
6.3.2 Trends 1n Impact on Soil ...
6.3.3 Trends in Impact on Wildlife.
6.3.4 Trends in Impact on Water ..
6.3.5 Trends in Impact on Land Use.
6.4 Trends in the Lake Plain Region
6.4.1 Trends 1n Impact on Vegetation.
6.4.2 Trends 1n Impact on Soil ...
6.4.3 Trends 1n Impact on Wildlife.
6.4.4 Trends 1n Impact on Water ..
6.4.5 Trends in Impact on Land Use.
6.5 Trends in the Adirondack, Tug Hill, and St. Lawrence-Champlain
Regions. • . . • . . . . . . . . .
6.5.1 Trends 1n Impact on Vegetation.
6.5.2 Trends 1n Impact on Soil •..
6.5.3 Trends 1n Impact on Wildlife.
6.5.4 Trends 1n Impact on Water ..
6.5.5 Trends 1n Impact on Land Use.
7 Statewide Trends and General Conclusions.
7.1 Introduction ........ .
7.2 Trends in Impact on Vegetation ..
7.2.1 General Impact of the ROW's ..
7.2.2 Re-establisment of Forest Cover
7.2.3 Mapped Plots on the ROW's .•.
7.2.4 Common Plant Communities Developed on the ROW's
7.2.5 Diversity of Plant Species on the ROW's
7.2.6 Impacts of Shrubs and Low-Growing Trees
7.2.7 Impacts on Herbaceous Plant Cover
7.3 Trends in Impact on Soil ..
7.3.1 Impact on Organic Layers.
7.3.2 Impact on Soil Erosion ..
7.4 Trends in Impact on Wildlife
7.5 Trends in Impact on Water ..
7.5.1 Impact on the ROW's on Water Temperature.
7.5.2 Impact of the ROW's on Sedimentation.
7.6 Trends in Impact on Land Use ....... .
I-ix
Page
5-37
5-41
6-1
6-1
6-1
6-1
6-6
6-6
6-7
6-8
6-21
6-21
6-23
6-23
6-24
6-24
6-38
6-38
6-41
6-42
6-42
6-43
6-55
6-55
6-57
6-58
6-58
6-59
7-1
7-1
7-1
7-1
7-1
7-2
7-2
7-3
7-3
7-3
7-3
7-3
7-4
7-4
7-4
7-4
7-4
7-5
7.6.1 Impact on Adjacent Land Use ........... .
7.6.2 Multipoie Uses of the ROW ............ .
7.7 Economic Costs of Clearing, Construction, Restoration,
and Management Procedures. . ....
8 Literature Cited
9 Appendix .
VOLUME 2
4 Individual Case Studies of Sites
Site 1 Sprainbrook to Eastview
Site 2 Ramapo to Hudson River (PJM-West)
Site 3 Southern Tier Line 77
Site 4 Hillburn to Shoemaker
Site 5 Poughkeepsie to Ohioville
Site 6 Porter to Rotterdam
Site 7 Gilboa to New Scotland.
Site 8 Hancock to Stilesville.
Site 9 Hillside to Oakdale
Site 10 Falconer to Homer Hill.
Site ll Station 82 to Station 162
Volume 3
4 Indiv:idual Case Studies of Sites
Site 12 Lockport to Solvey.
Site 13 Station 121 to Station 13A
Site 14 Oswego to Volney. .
Site 15 Oswego to Clay #4
Site 16 National Lead Line.
Site 17 Lyon Mountain to Saranac.
Site 18 Moses to Plattsburg
Site 19 Moses to Adirondack
Site 20 Adirondack to Porter.
Site 21 Fitzpatrick to Edic
Site 22 Gardenville to Dunkirk.
I-x
Page
7-45
7-45
7-45
8-1
9-i
1-i
2-i
3-i
4-i
5-i
6-i
7-i
8-i
9-i
10-i
ll-i
12-i
13-i
14-i
15-i
16-i
17-i
18-i
19-i
20-i
21-i
22-i
LIST OF TABLES
3.1 Site selection data summary ...
3.2 Three major game species in the vicinity of the 22 project
site locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1 Vigor of hemlocks 4 years after varying degrees of topping
based on original relative crown position and percent of crown
removed in topping operation . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Total number of edge trees examined in this study by species
and location on circular opening
_5.3 Number of trees with one or more exposed roots by species and
location of tr~e on tower site opening . . . . . . .
5.4 Number of roots exposed per tree, by species and location of
trees on tower site opening ....
5.5 Mechanical damage to edge trees by species and location in
tower site open~ng .
5.6 Average vigor rating of all trees by spec~es and location in
tower site opening . . . . . . . . . . .
5.7 Percent of edge trees with sunscald by species and location'in
tower site opening . . .
5.8 Percent of beech with sunscald.by diameter class and location
of edge tree in tow~r site opening . . . . . . . .
5.9 Percent of hemlock with sunscald by diameter class and location
on tower site opening.
5.10 Ramapo to Hudson River Line, Tower Site 4. Composition of
plant communities in tower area 4 growing seasons after seeding
with perennial rye-grass, Chewings fescue, common rye grass,
Page
3-15a
3-16
5-16
5-17
5-18
5-19
5-20
5-21
5-22
5-23
5-24
and various trees and shrubs . . . . . . . . . . 5-25
5.11 Ramapo to Hudson River Line, Tower Site 5. Composition of
plant communities in tower area 4 growing seasons after seeding
with perennial rye-grass, Chewings fescue, common rye grass,
and various trees an~ shrubs . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-25
5.12 Ramapo to Hudson River Line, Tower Site 2. Composition of
plant communities in tower area 3 years after seeding with
Chewings fescue, perennial rye--grass, Kentucky 31, white clover,
and various shrubs and trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-26
I-xi
5.13 Ramapo to Hudson River Line, Tower Site 3. Composition of
plant commu~ities in tower area 3 years after seeding with
Chewings fescue, perennial rye-grass, Kentucky 31, white
clover, and various shrubs and tre_e_s . . . . . . . . . . .
5.14 Oswego to Volney Line, Tower Site 56. Composition
communities tn tower area after 2 growing seasons.
seeding was not used on this tower site .....
of plant
Direct
5.15 Oswego to Volney Line, Tower Site 57. Composition of plant
communities in tower site area 2 growing seasons after seeding
with perennial rye-grass ..
5.16 Oswego to Volney L'ine, Tower Site 60. Composition of plant
communities in tower area 2 growing seasons after seeding with
perennial rye-grass .....
5-17 Fitzpatrick to Edic Line, Tower Site 3. Composition of plant
commun~t~es in tower area 3 growing seasons after seeding with
creeping red fescue, perennial rye-grass, and white clover ..
5-18 Fitzpatrick to Edic Line, Tower Site 4. Composition of plant
communities in tower area 3 growing seasons after seeding
with creeping red fescue, perennial rye-grass, and white
c~over • . . . . . • . . . . . . .
5.19 Fitzpatrick to Edic Line, Tower Site 5. Composition of plant
commun~t~es in tower area 3 growing seasons after seeding with
creeping red fescue, perennial rye-grass, and white clover
5.20 Gilboa to New Scotland Line, Tower Site 6. Composition of
plant communities in tower area 5 growing seasons after seeding
with perennial rye-g!:ass . . . . . .
5.21 Gilboa to New Scotlant Line, Tower Site 7. Composition of
plant communities in tower area 5 growing seasons after seeding
with perennial rye-grass . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.22 Gilboa to New Scotland Line, Tower Site 8. Composition of
plant communities in tower area 5 growing seasons after seeding
with perennial rye-grass .............. .
5.23 LS values for uniform slopes of given lengths and steepness.
5.24 "C" values for permanent pasture, rengeland, and idle land .
5.25 "C" factors for woodla"nd
5.26 Estimation of potential sheet and rill eros~on by Universial
Soil Loss Equ~tion for selected soil types and slopes under
forest and ROW conditions ..... .
I-xii
Page
5-26
5-27
5-28
5-29
5-30
5-30
5-31
5-32
5-33
5-34
5-43
5-44
5-45
5-46
5.27 Estimation of potential sheet and rill erosion by Universal
Soil Loss Equation for selected soil types and slope steepness
of the ROW assuming different cover conditions and constant
slope length of 100 feet on the Poughkeepsie to Ohioville
Site 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.28 Estimation of potential sheet and rill erosion by Universal
Soil Loss Equation for selected soil types and slopes under
forest and ROW conditions on the Hillside to Oakdale Site 9
5.29 Estimation of potential sheet and rill erosion by Universal_
Soil Loss Equation for selected soil types and slope steep-
ness of the ROW assuming different cover conditions and
slope length of 100 feet on the Hillside to Oakdale Site 9.
5-30 Estimation of potential sheet and rill erosion by Universal
Soil Loss Equation for selected soil types and slopes under
forest and ROW conditions on the Oswego to Clay # 5 Site 15
5.31 Estimation of potential sheet and rill erosion by Universal
Soil Loss Equation for selected soil types and slope steepness
of the ROW assuming different cover conditions and constant
slope length of 100 feet on the Oswego to Clay #4 Site 15
5.32 Estimated sheet and rill erosion by Universal Soil Loss
Equation for selected soil types and slopes under forest and
ROW conditions on the Moses to Adirondack Site 19 . . .
5.33 Estimated sheet and rill erosion by Universal Soil Loss
Equation for selected soil types and slope steepness of the
ROW assuming different cover conditions and constant slope
length of 100 feet on the Moses to Adirondack Site 19 ...
6.1 Trends in i~pact on vegetation in the New England Highlands and
Mohawk-Hudson regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2 Trends in plant community development in relation to forest
type and habitat of the New England Highlands and Mohawk-Hudson
regions. The figures in parenthesis are percent constancy ...
6.3 Comparison of species diversity, based upon number of species,
on ROW's with that in adjoining forests in the New England
Highlands and Mohawk-Hudson regions .
6.4 Abundance and cover value of trees on ,the ROW for the New
England Highlands and Mohawk-Hudson regions
6.5 Abundance and cover value of trees on the ROW for the New
England Highlands and Mohawk-Hudson regions
6.6 Abundance and cover value of trees on the ROW for the New
England Highlands and Mohawk-Hudson regions
I-xiii
Page
5-47
5-48
5-49
5-50
5-51
5-52
5-53
6-9
6-10
6-11
6-12
6-13
6-14
6.7 Trends in impact on soil organic layers and humus types Ln the • New England Highland and Mohawk-Hudson regLons ..
6.8 Trends in impact on erosion in the New England Highlands and
Mohawk-Hudson regions . . • . . . • • . . . . .
6.9 Trends in impact of wildlife use of the ROW's in the New
England Highlands and Mohawk-Hudson regions . . . . . . .
6.10 Trends in impact on water Ln the New England Highlands and
Mohawk-Hudson regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.11 Percent change of land use prior to (or near the time of con-
struction) and after construction of the ROW for sites within
the New England Highlands and Mohawk-Hudson r.egions . . . . .
6.12 Multiple land use of ROW sites within the New England Highlands
Page
6-15
6-16
6-17
6-18
6-19
and Mohawk-Hudson regions . . . . 6-20
6.13 Trends in impact on vegetation in the Appalachian Highlands and
Catskill regions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-26
6-14 Trends in plant community development in relation to forest type
and habitat of the Appalachian Highlands and Catskill regions
The figures in parenthesis are percent constancy. . . . . . . . 6-27
6-15 Comparison of species diversity, based on the number of species,
on the ROW with that in the adjoining forests in the Appalachian
Highlands and Catskill regions. . . . . . . . . 6-28
6-16 Abundance and cover value of trees on the ROW for the Appalachian
Highlands and Catskill regions. . . . . .
6-17 Abundance and cover value of trees on the ROW for the Appalachian
Highlands and Catskill regions. . . . . .
6-18 Abundance and cover value of trees on the ROW for the Appalachian
Highlands and Catskill regions. . . . . .
6.19 Trends in impact on soil organic layers and humus types in the
Appalachian Highlands and Catskill regions.
6.20 Trends in impact on erosion Ln the Appalachian Highlands and
Catskill regions. . . . • . . . . . . ...... .
6.21 Trends Ln impact on wildlife use of the ROW's Ln the Appalachian
Highlands and Catskill regions. . .
6.22 Trends in impact on water Ln the Appalachian Highlands and
Catskill regions. . . .. . . . . . . .
I-xiv
6-29
6-30
6-31
6-32
6-33
6-34
6-35
1
.1
6.23 Percent change of land use prior to (or near the time of con-
struction) and after construction of the ROW for sites within
the Appalachian Highlands and Catskill regions ....... .
6.24 Multiple land use of ROW sites within the Appalachian Highlands
Page
6-36
and Catskill regions. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-37
6.25 Trends 1n impact on vegetation in the Lake Plain region 6-44
6.26 Trends in plant community development in relation to forest
type and habitat of the Lake Plain region. The figures in
parenthesis are percent constancy . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.27 Comparison of species diversity, based on number of spec1es,
on ROW's with that 1n the adjoining forests in the Lake Plain
region.
6.28 Abundance and cover value of trees on the ROW for the Lake
Plain region.
6.29 Abundance and cover value of trees on the ROW for the Lake
Plain region.
6.30 Abundance and cover value of trees on the ROW for the Lake
Plain region.
6.31 Trends 1n i~pact on soil organ1c layers and humus type 1n the
6-45
6-46
6-47
6-48
6-49
Lake Plain region . . . . . 6-50
6.32 Trend in impact on eros1on in the Lake Plain region 6-51
6.33 Trends 1n impact on wildlife use of the ROW's in the Lake Plain ~
reg1on.
6.34 Percent change of land use prior to (or near the time of con-
struction) and after construction of the ROW for sites within
6-52
the Lake Plain region . • 6-53
6.35 Multiple land use of ROW sites within the Lake Plain region 6-54
6.36 Trends in impact on vegetation in the Adirondack, Tug Hill, and
St. Lawrence-Champlain regidns. . 6-60
6.37 Trends in plant community development in relation to forest type
and habitat of the Adirondack, Tug Hill, and St. Lawrence-
Champlain regions. The figures in parenthesie are percent
constancy . .
6.38 Comparison of spec1es diversity, based on number of species,
on ROW's with that in the adjoining forests in the Adirondack,
6-61
Tug Hill, and St. Lawrence-Champlain regions. . . . . . 6-62
6.39 Abundance and cover value of trees on the ROW for the Adirondack,
Tug Hill, and St. Lawrence-Champlain regions. . . . . . 6-63
l"'"XV
• Page
6.40 Abundance and cover value for trees on the ROW for the Adirondack,
Tug Hill, and St. Lawrence-Champlain regions. . . . . . . 6-64
6.41 Abundance and cover value of trees on the ROW for the Adirondack,
Tug Hill, and St. Lawrence-Champalin regions. . . . . . 6-65
6.42 Trends in impact on soil organic layers and humus types in the
Adirondack, Tug Hill, and St. Lawrence-Champlain regions. . . . . 6-66
6.43 Trends in impact on erosion in the Adirondack, Tug Hill, and St.
Lawrence-Champlain regions. . . . . . .......... 6-67
6.44 Trends in impact on wildlife use of the ROW's in the Adirondack,
Tug Hill, and St. Lawrence-Champlain regions. . . . . . . . . . . 6-68
6.45 Trends in impact on water {n-the Adirondack, Tug Hill, and St.
Lawrence-Champlain regions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-69
6.46 Percent change of land use prior to (or near the time of con-
struction) and after construction of the ROW for sites within
the Adironadack, Tug Hill, and St. Lawrence-Champlain regions ... 6-71
6.47 Multiple land use of ROW sites within the Adirondack, Tug
Hill, and St. Lawrence-Champlain regions. . . . . . . . .... 6-72
LIST OF FIGURES
3.1 Forest regions of New York State.
3.2 Physiographic areas of New York State
3.3 Major soil orders and suborders of New York State
3.4 Important bedrock areas of New York State
5.1 Visual characteristics ................ .
5.1.1 Mechanical damage to hemlock at site 7, in the summer of 1976
5.1.2 Sunscald on red maple at site 7, in the summer of 1976 ..
5.1.3 Sunscald on beech at site 7, in the summer of 1976.
5.1.4 Tree with exposed roots on site 7, in the summer of 1976.
5.1.5 Seeded area at site 14, in the summer of 1976 .
5.1.6 Current active erosion at tower 4 at site 2, in the summer of
1976. . . . . . . . . . . ...
I-xvi
3-17
3-18
3-18
3-19
3-35
3-35
3-35
3-35
3-35
3-35
3-35
1 Summary and General Conclusions
Case history studies of 22 rights-of-way were carried out in New York
State from 1975 through 1976. These rights-of-way, (ROW's) had been managed
employing a wide range of commonly accepted methods of clearance and mainten-
ance and were located in all major forest regions of the state.
Vegetation management over the past 25 to 30 years on these ROW's has
brought about the development of a complex shrub-herb grass community as a
general form of ROW plant cover. There was a general trend towards tree species
in the adjacent forest also being present in the herb or shrub layers on the
ROW's. Although a protective cover of shrubs, herbs, ferns, and grasses
covered the ROW's, trees still invaded in large numbers and would re-
establish forest cover if not controlled. Characteristic plant communities
developed in relation to habitat and were identified as: Blackberry-Goldenrod
or Sumac-Goldenrod on mesic habitat areas; Blueberry-Sweet-fern or Bluebe.rry-
Bracken on xeric areas; and Willow-Sensitive Fern, Red Osier Dogwood-Sensitive
Fern, or Spirea-Sensitive Fern on hydric areas. Species diversity on all
habitat areas was found to be consistently higher on the ROW's than in adjacent
forests. Most shrub species of the forests persisted on the ROW!s and
formed a prominent part of plant cover. Herbaceous species on the ROW's
consisted of a complex misture of forest species, conbined with plants more
typical of open areas.
Impact of ROW management on soil was negligible over the general ROW.
Construction disturbances and other uses, however, have resulted in acceler-
ated erosion where such areas were not fully restored to a complete plant cover.
ROW habitats and associated dominant plant communities were closely related to
soil types and physiography of the sites studied.
Impact of the ROW's on stream temperatures was also negligible for the cases
studied. Sedimentation of streams from the ROW was only evident where access
roads crossed streams and where flow from disturbed construction areas carried
material overland into a stream or pond.
ROW management has produced improved wildlife food and cover conditions
and plant species diversity. All the ROW's studied were freely used by
common wildlife species of the areas•and prominent among these were numerous
song birds and raptors.
Generally, there is little change in land use adjacent to the ROW's from
before the ROW was constructed (or near the time of construction) to a
variable period of many years after the ROW was constructed. There is a de-
crease in agricultural use which appears to follow the statewide decrease.
There is a general absence of long-term negative visual characteristics re-
sulting from clearing, construction, and maintenance of the ROW's that appear
in objectionable visual contrast with the surrounding area. A variety of
multiple uses, particularly recreation, were found to exist with hunting pre-
dominant in all the regions studied.
Based on the meager and non-comparable historic cost data available for
this study, it is not possible to postulate cost effectiveness or other
economic conclusions concerning the various clearing, construction, restoration,
and management procedures used on the study sites.
The flow of the report is from sites - - -:> trends for regions - ---1>
state-wide trends - --:> general conclusions. As the report proceeds in this
fashion, less and less detail is presented so that the general conclusions at
the end are simple statements of fact. For supporting data, one must proceed
backwards towards the individual sites which can be done in 3 steps: first,
to state-wide trends; second, to regional summaries of trends; and third, to
the individual sites.
1-1
2 Introduction
"The primary purpose of the study is to document, for approximately
twenty representative electric transmission right-of-way sites, each of about
one to two miles in length;
•• the existing condition of the right-of-way site in terms of
such characteristics as vegetation, fish and wildlife, erosion
and sedimentation, visual aspects, and multiple uses b.eing
made of the right-of-way •
•• the conditions and events which could be reasonably imputed to
have caused or influenced the existing condition of the right-
of-way site such as construction and management techniques used
on the site (including the economic costs of techniques used):
soils; moisture; slope; exposure; multiple uses; and conditions,
especially vegetation, prior to specific construction or manage-
ment events".
"The secondary purpose of the study is to reasonably impute, based on
the information documented above, the short and long term impact of various
construction and management techniques actually used on each site, upon the
condition of that site. It is recognized that these imputations will not
constitute proof, according to commonly accepted scientific standards, that
certain construction and management techniques produce certain results under
certain conditions. Rather, these imputations will be recognized as the
opinions of trained and informed persons in the field of ·rights-of-way manage-
ment based on documented empirical information. (Empirical information, as it
is used here, refers to available, reliable, previously documented material,
plus documented observed information). The documented information, and the
imputations made by Asplundh, will be used as a guide to rights-of-way managers
when making management decisions, and to suggest further work and experimenta-
tion to be conducted in the on-going ESEERCO Rights-of-Way Management Study".l
The first of 3 volumes of this report is organized to first present the
· "General Methods" from which the study is based. This section establishes
methods for.site selection and for field data collection. These met:hods apply
to each of the 22 sites. In addition to special studies, discussion of trends
for these sites are also included in Volume I.
The "Individual Case Studies of Sites" follows in Volume II (Sites 1-11)
and III (Sites 12-22) with specific detail pertinent to each site, depicting
both information obtained from field observations and other sources, and
further detail on the field studies conducted at the site according to the
"General Methods" section. Tables and figures are presented not only to record
data but to mor.e clearly depict relationships as a useful method of analysis
for arriving at conclusions. The maps in this report are also available at full
scale (1"-200') for future field research studies. Each individual site case
study is concluded with an evaluation and summary of results.
1 ESEERC0 -Asplundh contract governing this work.
2-l
3 General Methods
3.1 Site Selection
Proper site selection for an ecological study, was vital 1n order
to satisfy study objectives.
Vegetation is the environmental factor most affected by a transmission
ROW. The New York environment exhibits 9 distinct forest regions (Fig. 3.1)
and 12 unique physiographio areas (Fig. 3.2). Therefore, to insure proper
site distribution, site selection was based on physiographic regions as they
correspond to forest regions. These major regions of the state correlate
closely with the major soil orders and suborders (Fig. 3.3), and important
bedrock areas (Fig. 3.4). Thus, a 4-way check of physiographic, forest type,
soil, and bedrock characteristics was made.
To accomplish the prime objective of management technique evaluation,
major physiographic areas and forest regions were cross-referenced with ROW
management techniques of clearing, construction, restoration, and maintenance
(Table 3.1).
It was impossible for each site chosen to exhibit all of the major
characteristics described, but as many as possible were included in order
that a representative comparison of management techniques with major physio-
graphic/forest regions could be made.
Sites selected also exhibited a good composite of the following essential
characteristics:
Major moisture regimes: wet (hydric), moist (mesic), and dry (xeric);
Variation in steepness and aspect of slopes;
Representative water resources, e.g., surface water and/or wetlands;
Length of growing season and climate;
Location: suburban, rural, and remote areas; arid
Special sites, where unusual management techniques were employed.
Following the above recommendations and prior to field visitation, mem-
bers of the New York Power Pool (NYPP) were asked to submit sites representa-
tive of their systems and management techniques. Asplundh Environmental
Services (AES) suggested a maximum 2-mile study site. By confining site size,
time and distance traveled was minimized in plot establishment and overall
project work flow without limiting study objectives.
Initially, 35 potential sites were considered. These were reduced to
22 sites, which were visited during early spring, 1975, to inventory general
site characteristics. The information obtained was set forth in AES's
"Proposed Sites and Studies to Evaluate Environmental and Economic Aspects
of Contemporaneous Electric Transmission Line Right-of-Way Management Tech-
niques", June 2, 19751 . This provided necessary information to establish
1 Revised July 10, 197i.
3-1
tentative mapped plots, and proposed detailed methodologies for study of each
site to achieve objectives.
Sites on L~ng Island were inventoried and discussed with the NYPP Land
Use Subcommittee. Management techniques utilized there were more in the
nature of horticultural practices, and, therefore, of limited value to ROW
managers in other areas of the state. Thus, due to the lack of "management
techniques" as found within the scope of this study, no sites on Long Island
were deemed potential study areas.
Distribution of the 22 sites and their geographic locations with refer-
ence to the Principal Forest Regions of New York State (Stout, 1958) is
illustrated in Fig. 3.1. A composite Site Selection Data Summary (Table 3.1)
provides an overall comparison of each site's characteristics.
3.2 Field Data Collection
3.2.1 General Reconnaissance
A general reconnaissance was made of the study area by traversing the
ROW and adjacent areas on each side. The following information observed and
collected in this reconnaissance was plotted on a base map showing general
habitat conditions. Information obtained and plotted included plant community
distribution, soil types, water resources, access road locations, slope, aspect,
tower sites, and major soil disturbances. Hydric, mesic, and xeric areas were
identified by cor~elating plant community distribution with soil types. The
location of vegetation plots in the 3 moisture regimes was verified by the
nver]Rpning of sni]s And vegetative types.
Characteristic plant communities were identified on hydric, mesic, and
xeric habitats. Where these broad communities were found to indicate one
such habitat, generally to the exclusion of the other 2, they were used as
indicator species and noted on the site habitat conditions (base) map.
In general, a shrub-herb designation was utilized, and because of these
plants' use as indicators of the various moisture regimes, they did not
necessarily form the most abundant components of the ROW community. They
were, however, most indicative of the habitat. Trees were not included 1n
this designation as they are generally not considered desirable species on
the ROW, and may be considered of temporary importance.
A determination of forest types adjoining the ROW was made largely
through the use of Stout's Atlas of Forestrz in New York (1958), although
reference was also made to the Forest Cover ~ of North America (Society
of American Foresters, 1973),
Common names were used for purposes of the general reconnaissance in
particular, and for the project in general (Appendix 1). Where common names
were assigned in Gray's Manual of Botany (1970), those names were generally
used. \~ere common names were not so assigned, often the common names desig-
nated by Britton and Brown (1970) were used. The Flora of West Virginia was
generally used where common names were not found in the first 2 sources. In
all instances the Latin names were obtained from Gray's Manual of Botanz (1970).
Mosses were generally referred to as in Grout's Mosses with Hand-Lens and
Microscope (1972), the better known among which are often designated by common
names, and the others designated by Latin names.
3-2
3.2.2 Vegetation Analysis
Vegetation Analysis on the ROW ROW vegetation plots were rectangular,
1/5 acre in size, generally at right angles to the ROW centerline, and where
possible extended the full width of the cleared ROW. One-tenth acre plots
were used only where the small area of a particular site condition dictated a
smaller plot size. Vegetation was mapped using a 100-foot tape with chaining
pins dropped at 10-foot intervals on each side of the plot. Herbaceous plant
communities and woody plants were mapped on graph paper. All plot corners
were marked with stakes and tagged for future indentification. These corners
were tied in to the nearest tower structure.
Major plant communities were identified and mapped. The names of plant
communities were obtained by using plant species names which singly or combined
comprised 50% or more of the composition of the community. Where only 1 species
appears on the community name, then that species alone predominates.
The location of woody vegetation was designated by letter symbols. Woody
plants were usually of seed origin. When these were of stump-sprout or root-
sucker origin, this was indicaued:
* stump sprout
** root sucker
Height of woody vegetation was also recorded.
' Vegetation Analysis of Interior Woods Adjacent to ROW A forest study
plot was generally established when a ROW plot was established, with the same
habitat conditions as far as was possible. In those few instances where the
forests on both sides of the ROW were sufficiently dissimilar in composition,
forest plots were established in both forests. All forest study plots were
circular in shape and 1/5 acre in size. A central point for each plot was
chosen approximately 77-1/2 feet from the ROW edge in the interior woods.
This was located as follows:
1. The mid-point at the woods' edge of the ROW vegetation plot was
determined;
2. A distance of 25 feet perpendicular to the ROW edge was measured
off in the interior woods to eliminate edge vegetation;
3. An additional 52-1/2 feet was then measured to obtain a central
point for the off-ROW circular plot;
4. A radius of 52-1/2 feet from the central point was used in
estimating a 1/S'acre circular plot. This was obtained by use
of a range finder, or 100-foot tape, as site conditions per-
mitted.
Vegetation was recorded as follows, indicating abundance and socibility:
1. Tree layer (greater than 3 inches in diameter breast (d.b.h.) high);
3-3
2. · Shyub layer
a. shrubs
b. trees in shrub layer (less than 3 inches d.b.h.)
3. Herb layer.
The shrub layer includes woody v~nes listed under shrubs.
The herb layer includes all herb species as well as other components
such as ferns and grasses. This was done to simplify recording' data.
Comparison of On-ROW With Off-ROW Vegetation An analysis of plant cov:er
on the ROW plots and in the adjacent forest was maae by means of a combined
estimate of abundance and cover (Braun-Blanquet, 1932 and 1964). Each plant
community was described and its layers estimated separately, i.e., by tree
layer, shrub layer, and herb layer. In this section, "plant community" refers
to a major unit occupying a uniform habitat. The shrub layer includes woody
vines; the herb layer includes all herb species as well as other components,
such as ferns and grasses, to simplify data recording (Appendixes 2 and 3).
This technique described the floristic and structural characteristics of
each plant community in the various habitats studied. In addition to the
cover ·value of each species, its typical grouping was described, i.e.,
whether it grows singly, in groups or tufts, patches, and so forth. From this
data, a comparison of ROW communities of various habitats was made with adjacent
forests having the same habitat conditions. A correlation of ROW vegetation
with a specific forest type may be attempted.
The scales used to make the estimates are:
For abundance and cover:
++ -occasional
+ -sparsely present, covering less than 1/20 of the plot area
1 -plentiful but of small cover value, covering less than
1/20 of the plot
2 -very numerous, covering at least 1/20 of the plot area
3 -covering 1/4 to 1/2 of the plot area
4 -covering 1/2 to 3/4 of the plot area
5 -covering more than 3/4 of the plot area;
For grouping:
1 -growing one in a place, singly
2 -grouped or tufted
3 -in troops, small patches, or cushions
4 -in small colonies, extensive patches, or forming carpets,
more than 1 milacre
5 -in pure populations
3-4
The comparison of on-ROW vegetation with off~ROW vegetation ts based
mostly on the A.S. observations for the on and off-ROW vegetation plots.
Where a plant species occurs on the ROW or in the woodland, but not on the
study plot; that is indicated by enclosing the combined estimate of abundance
and cover in parentheses. The combined estimate is underlined by broken lines
where the grouping is.invaded by other species.
Included in Appendix 4 are those plant species occurring in New York
which are proposed by the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service for classification
as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act of
1973.
3.2.3 Special Vegetation Studies
Procedures for special vegetation studies concerning topping, structural
openings, and seeding are included in Section 5 of this report.
3.2.4 Soils Analysis
Soil Evaluation In the field inventory for site selection, soils were
identified as to soil order and suborder (Buckman and Brady, 1969; Soil
Survey Staff, 197§) and soil association (Cline, 1970). Also, bedrock ge-
ology was listed for the respective sites according to the general map of
important bedrock areas of New York (Cline, 1970).
On ROW segments selec.ted.for study, the surficial and bedrock geology
was determined through reference to geologic maps of New York State (Broughton
et al., 1973). A knowledge of geologic formations in which soils have de-
veloped are important to proper understanding and interpretation of existing
soil properties. Soils in turn may affect kind, abundance, and quality of
natural vegetation (tree, shrub, and ground layer plants), wildlife habitat,
engineering activities, and water resources on and adjacent to the ROW.
Soils on and adjacent to the ROW study sites were sampled with a soil
aHger to determine soil series (verified through reference to County Soil
Survey Reports where available), effective depth, internal drainage character-
istics, and occurrence of restrictions such as fragipans. This survey was
accomplished by traversing the ROW and adjacent areas on each side of the ROW
in a systematic manner to provide coverage of the entire study area. Texture
and reaction (pH) were determined by standard field procedures for the minerai
soil surface layer of each soil series identif~ed. Data was recorded in the
format shown in the Field Data Form for Soils Evaluation (Appendix 5).
Soil orders and suborders for New York soil series present on ROW study
areas were identified by information obtained through perso~al communication
in 1976 with William Hanna, Soil Conservation Service, (SCS), Syracuse, New
York. Additional information was obtained from County Soil Survey Reports
where available.
Soil boundaries and mapping symbols (identifying soil series and slope
classes) were plotted on aerial photographs in the field survey and transcribed
onto base maps at a scale of 1 inch = 200 feet. Soil boundaries also were
plotted on the ROW centerline profile to show relationship to relief and ex-
tended to a distance of 300 feet into adjacent undisturbed areas on both sides
·of the ROW. Soil boundaries were related to forest type boundaries and ROW
plant communities.
3-5
Soil mapping units were correlated with recognized Woodland Suitability • Groups established on a state wide basis by the SCS. Woodland Suitability
Groups provide relative information on productive capacity of tree species·,
erosion hazards, and specific use limitation of existing soils. Each
Woodland Suitability Group is identified by a 3-part symbol such as 2ol,
3d2, or 4s2. The first part of the symbol, a-number, indicates the productivity
class from 1 (highest) to 5 (lowest); the second part, a letter, identifies
the soil property causing a management problem, namely, stoniness (x), ex-
cessive wetness (w), restricted rooting depth (d), sandy soils (s), relief
or slope (r), or no limitations (0); and, the third part is a consecutive
numbering of groups of soils having similar management problems, similar
productivity, and similar suitability for the same kind of trees. This latter
part of the symbol was deleted when information for respective soils was
unavailable.
In counties where information was available, estimated Site.Index was
present for indicator species such as sugar-maple, red maple, and white pine.
Site Index as a measure of productivity refers to the height, in feet, that
dominant trees in relatively pure, even aged, well-stocked stands will
achieve in 50 years. A Site Index Guide (Appendix 6) was obtained through
personal communication in 1976 with William Hanna, SCS, Syracuse, New York.
A brief description of geology, soil profile characteristics, and soil
properties was prepared from published County Soil Survey Reports for the soil
series identified on each study area. Where no adequate information was
available from a County Soil Survey Report, Soil Survey Interpretations of Soils
in New York State (Anon., 1972) was used.
Soil Erosion Observations on erosion were made at the time of the soil
su~vey on the respective study areas. Soil erosion was related to existing
soil types and slopes and documented as to location or land use, plant cover,
class of erosion, and kind of erosion. Areas exhibiting gully erosion were
plotted on the ROW base map and depth of gullies were measured. Data was
recorded in the format shown in the Field Data Form for Soil Erosion Classi-
fication (Appendix 7). Observations of stream bank and floodplain erosionc·and
sedimentation were included under water studies on streams and wetlands.-
In addition to active soil erosion, the respective sites were examined
for possible areas of mass land movement, such as landslides, which, if
present, were to be measured, plotted on base maps, and probable cause de-
termined. ~reas of major soil _disturbance were photographed to show visual
aspects and to supplement field data.
Humus Study The organic layers (0 soil horizons) occur on the surface
of mineral soil under forest cover conditions. Depending on forest types,
soils, and climatic conditions, 3 distinct organic layers collectively called
the forest floor may be present. These organic layers are referred to as
litter (undecomposed organic matter), fermentation (partiqlly decomposed
organic matter), and humus (well-decomposed organic matter). The presenc~
or absence of the various organic layers, plus organic matter incorporatio~
3-6
~n the mineral soil (Al horizon), serve as a basis for forest humus type
classification.
The organic layers of a soil profile are sensitive to changes in the
aerial environment and likely will exhibit effects of forest canopy removal
and surface disturbance before the underlying mineral soil. rberefore,
these layers were identified, measured to determine thickness, and classi-
fied by humus type pCCording to the Rey (Appendix 8) developed by
Hoover and Lunt (1952).
Evaluation of organic layers and associated humus types were made at 5
sampling points distributed across the ROW, to include ROW center and edges,
along the boundaries of mes~c and xeric vegetation plots. Five additional
samples were taken in the adjacent woodland with even distribution through
the center of the circular woodland analysis plots. Consistent with evalu-
ation on the ROW, humus measurements in the woods were made on the mesic and
xeric moisture regimes existing on the study area. Data was recorded accord-
ing to the format shown in the Field Data Form for Humus Classification
(Appendix 9). The humus classification key is ncit adaptable to aieas exhibit-
ing prolonged water saturation in the surface soil; therefore, similar
measurements were not made on the hydric sites.
3.2.5 Water Studies
Streams
Office Studies Stream order and directional flow were determined for
the study streams from United States Geological Survey (USGS) Quadrangle Maps.
Stream aspect was also obtained from USGS Quadrangle Haps, and meteorological
data were obtained from the U.S. Weather Bureau sources nearest the area of
the ROW.
Field Measurements All water data collected in the field were recorded
on standardized field sheets (Appendix 10). Temperature, pH, and dissolved
oxygen (DO) measurements were taken at points upstream, downstream, and on
the ROW. The specific number of field measurement stations depended upon the
particular stream. Stream depth, volume, velocity, and width were noted in
the field.
Alterations and bank erosion due to construction/maintenance practices
on the ROW were measured and a comparative analysis made upstream from the
ROW. Changes in stream bottom characteristics were recorded. As an example,
stone and/or gravel to silt areas were noted and compared with upstream con-
ditions. Changes in stream bank vegetation and its impact on overhead shading
was assessed and water temperature measured. Obvious elimination of poten-
tial fish habitats was also noted. Artificial tributaries created due to
either construction/maintenance practices and/or alterations in stream chan-
nelization or direction were noted and mapped on the site habitat conditions
map where applicable. Floodplain erosion due to vegetation removal was noted,
then compared with upstream conditions. Run-off erosion due to hydrological
events was noted as to. type (sheet, rill, or gully). An attempt to estimate
the annual sediment stream yield was made by· stake pedestals, graded at incre-
ments of 1/4 inch, using "O" as a data basis at time of installation. Obvious
key construction/maintenance practices which precipitated current conditions
3-7
were noted. Stream uses by man and/or wildlife were noted. The use and
attendant classification (Appendix 11), for Designated Waters of New York
State were noted. The existence of obvious sediment traps was noted on the
ROW at the sampling locations •.
Wetlands
Office Studies
USGS Quadrangle Maps.
Weather Bureau sources
Directional flow and aspect were determined from
Meteorological data were obtained from the U.S.
nearest the area of the ROW.
Field Measurements All water data collected ~n the field were re-
corded on standarized field sheets (Appendix 10). Wetlands were classified
in accordance with the following classification guide: wet meadows, marshes,
and swamps (Appendix 12). Vegetation succession was observed and noted
throughout the wetland. ROW wetlands were compared with wetlands in adjacent
woods and natural versus man-made areas were identified.
Identification of positive, negative, or neutral effects of ROW con-
struction and/or maintenance practices was made. Measurements of pH, temperature,
and DO on the ROW and for those wetlands having portions in adjacent woods
were made. Obvious evidence of eutropthication was noted (e.g., algae blooms).
Quarterly varitations in ROW wetland areas and depth were noted and compared
with adjacent wetlands. ROW construction/maintenance practices were observed,
noted, and physical measurements made where possible with regard to sediment
contribution.
3.2.6 Wildlife Studies
Actual Wildlife Use Studies for wildlife were determined by the major
species present. The 3 major game species for each site were determined by
AES in conjunction with the New York State Department_of Environmental Con-
servation (DEC) and are listed on Table 3.2. Wildlife observed directly or
indirectly on the 22 sites in New York are listed in Appendix 13.
White-tailed Deer
Pellet Counts This sp(!cial study was made at site 8, Hancock to Stilesville,
which is located in Delaware County. This county in past years has had the
highest deer harvest on the State (DEC, 1975) and is endowed with a heavy
population as noted in field observations by Mayer in 1975 and 1976. The pro-
cedures for this study are included with th~ actual use section for site 8.
Woody Browse Transect Woody browse transects were established at all
permanent vegetation plot locations to determine the amount and location of
the woody browse present. Transects were 100 feet long and 2 feet wide. All
woody material 6 feet or less in height was tallied. The 50-foot mark on
the tape was placed on the edge of the ROW so that equal areas were studied on
the ROW, the ROW edge, and in the adjacent woods. This.was done on each side
of the ROW. The ratio of the number of stems per species, browsed and unbrowsed,
was used to obtain a percentage of the actual use for each species present
on each transect. This method allowed comparison of available browse and use
among the ROW, the ROW edge, and the adjacent woods. These transects were
established in the spring of 1976.for each ROW study plot, where white-tailed
deer was a major game species.
3-8
Woodcock Actual use data for woodcock were obtained during the spring
of 1976. Singing ground surveys were performed during the breeding season
to determine if the birds were using the ROW for singing grounds (Sheldon,
1971). A section of ROW was walked at approximately 1/2 hour before dusk.
Stops were made every 1/4 mile and the observer listened for the call of
the male woodcock. Results were then recorded, and approximate locations
of the singing grounds on the ROW and adjacent areas were plotted on the
site habitat conditions map for each site where the surveys were performed.
Ruffed Grouse A ruffed grouse census of drumming males was made by
noting their approximate drumming log locations during the spring of 1976
(Trippensee, 1948). Drumming counts were performed by walking a section of
the ROW, stopping at intervals, and listening for a cock bird to drum. The
approximate locations of grouse drumming logs were plotted on the site habi-
tat condit;ions map for those sites where counts were made.
Flushing counts were made at the same time. The observer walking a
section of the ROW recorded the number of birds flushed. The cover type
from which the birds were flushed was also recorded; this illustrated cover
preference.
Cottontail Rabbit or Varying Hare Cottontail rabbit and varying hare
data were collected by the complete census (Trippensee, 1948). This method
was modified to consist of traversing the study area and recording the
number of rabbits and hares flushed, aiong with location on the·ROW and
cover type from which species were flushed. This method was employed
over the period of this study, spring 1976 through summer 1977.
Birds Bird data were recorded for each study area. Birds seen and
heard~he ROW and ROW edge were identified and noted on a separate field
check list for each site (Appendix 13). Those birds observed on the 22 sites
Ln New York during the study period are listed in Appendix 15.
Miscellaneous Wildlife Observations All other pertinent wildlife data
were recorded. This included direct observations of wildlife with species,
activities, and locations on the ROW, ROW edge, or in the adjacent woods.
Also included were indirect observations, IDainly signs such as pellets and
tracks.
Potential Wildlife Use Plants located on the ROW and woods plots were
rated for wildlife value for the 3 major species for each site using the
existing ratings from Martinet al. (1951). In this rating, stars (aster-
isks) were used instead of percentage figures to indicate the extent of use
of food items. There are 2 reasons for this usage: one is that there is a
danger of attributing unwarranted finality or accuracy to the food-habits
data as expressed in percentages, when an approximate, tentative picture of the
food habits of an animal or the extent of food use of a plant is all that
should be attempted or implied; the other point in favor of rating by stars
is the fact that this method is easy to grasp. Important items stand out
and automatically receive attention (Martinet al., 1951).
The star rankings are, for the most part, based directly on percentages
from food-habit ·tabulations. The system, as used here, has the following
3-9
approximate percentage equivalents:·
• + = 1/2 to 2% of diet
* 2 to 5% of diet
** = 5 to 10% of diet
*** 10 to 25% of diet
**** 25 to 50% of diet
***** 50% or more of diet
All items preceded by 1 or more stars are likely to have some importance
for the wildlife species concerned. There are few 5-star items. These are
so exceptional that they imply a very unique relationship between a wildlife
species and a particular plant group. In these few cases the actual percentage
base is also given, as a matter of interest (Martinet al., 1951).
In addition to asterisk ratings from New York, asterisk ratings from
other states were included for those plant species present on each study area
not rated in the New York evaluation for some wildlife species. Additional
information pertaining to potential wildlife use for white-tailed deer in New
York is found in Appendix 16. Those plants not included in the potential wild-
life use evaluation do provide a certain amount of cover for wildlife species
and may also provide seasonal food of value.
3.2.7 Photo Stations
Photo stations were established to illustrate the entire study area from
on-and off-ROW points (Appendix 17). These locations were selected to include:
1 Gener.al views;
2. Unique and abundant plant communities;
3. Open and eroded areas;
4. Special·site conditions;
5. Views from major points of observation.
Photo station locations were appropriately marked, tagged for identification,
and tied in by structure number and location.
3.2.8 Land Use and Value
Land uses adjacent to the ROW segments were analyzed to determine those
uses which benefit or thrive near the ROW as opposed to those which decline
from its presence.
To adequately evaluate these effects, 3 factors were considered, these
being:
1. The date of construction of the l~ne;
2. Adjacent land uses pr1or to the construction of the ROW;
3. Adjacent land uses after the construction of the ROW.
The adjacent land uses were determined through reference to the following
data sources: New York State Land Use and Natural Resource (LUNR) Inventory
System, designed to supply updated land use across the state; USGS Quadrangle
Maps of New York State; aerial photographs prior to construction (when avail-
able) and also the most recent aerial photograph; and other pertinent docu-
mentable material that was available to aid in the evaluation of land use.
3-10
To reasonably evaluate land change, the bound8;ries of the selected study
sites were extended to approximately 2,000 feet from the ROW. This total area,
including both the adjacent land and the ROW, was 1,658.40 acres.
From these data, the following procedures were used to determine land use
changes:
1. Classification of land uses was in accordance with the Land
Use and Natural Resource Classification Manual of New York State
(LUNR, 1974), as indicated in Appendix 18.
2. Identification of those land uses that existed prior to
construction of"the ROW. These data were developed by inter-
preting aerial photographs flown prior to the construction
(when available) or other available sources, and were plotted
on 7.5 minute USGS Quadrangle Maps;
3. Identification of those land us~s that presently exist after the
construction of the ROW. These data were obtained from 2 dif-
ferent sources, namely interpretation of the most recent aerial
photograph after the construction, and use of the LUNR area land-
use overlays, and were plotted;
4. Verification and updating of existing land use changes s~nce
1974, were done by field check;
5. Determination of the acreage of
after construction of the ROW.
to the following equations:
separate areas prior to and
Percentages were computed according
a/k x 100 = P
where:
a area of the land use type
k total area of the study site (1,658.40 acres)
P = percentage of that area in comparison to the
total area.
These percentages were presented in the table compar~ng land use before and
after ROW construction for each study area.
3.3 Definition of Terms
Definitions of the following terms used throughout the report are ~n
cluded here for the reader's reference:
abundance
annual
aspect
The plentifulness of a species.
A plant that completes its life cycle within 1
year's time and then dies.
A position facing a particular direction.
3-11
biennial
•
browse
codominant
constancy
cover
diversity
dominant
duff mull
ecotone
edge
eros~on
A plant which completes its life cycle within 2
years and then dies .
Woody plant parts such as twigs, leaves, buds, etc.
eaten by wildlife, in particular by white-tailed
deer.
Trees with crowns forming the general level of the
crown canopy and receiving full light from above,
but comparatively little from the sides; usually
with medium-sized crdwns more or less crowded on
the sides.
A term used to denote the regularity of occurrence
of species in stands of a plant community; also
called "presence". Usually indicated by a percent
of the total number of stands in which the species
occurs.
The area of ground covered by a species, or .by a
combination of species.
The number of species in a community, unweighted.
Trees with crowns extending above the general level
of the crown canopy and receiving full sunlight from
above and partly from the side; larger than the
average trees in the stand, and with· well-developed
crowns.
Humus and fermentation layers are present with an
underlying A1 horizon essentially similar to that
of a true mull. Gradual transition from the humus
layer to the A1 horizon and mineral soil beneath.
The transition zone between 2 different plant com-
munities, such as between forest and prairie.
A transition zone where 2 or more different vege-
tational communities meet and integrate (e.g., a
zone between a field and a forest).
The wearing away of the land surface by running
water, wind, ice, or other geological agents.
(1) sheet erosion -the removal of a fairly uniform
layer of soil from the land surface by
run-off water.
(2) rill erosion -an erosion process in which
numerous small channels of only several
inches in depth are formed; occurs mainly
on recently cultivated soils.
(3) gully erosion -the erosion process whereby
water accumulates in narrow channels and,
over short periods, removes the soil from
this narrow area to considerable depth.
fermentation
forb
fragipan
habitat
humus
hydric
intermediate
litter
mesic
moistu::.:e reg1me
mar
mull
Transformation of an organic substance by the action
of ferments.
Any herbaceous plant that is neither a grass nor at
all like one (e.g., such weeds as geranium and
buttercup).
Dense and brittle pan or layer in the soil that owe
their hardness mainly to extreme density of com-
pactness, rather than high clay content or cementa-
tion. Removed fragments are friable, but the
material in place is so dense that roots cannot
penetrate and water moves through it very slowly.
The dwelling place of a species or plant community
including all of the operative factors such as
climate, soil, topographic, and biotic. Moisture
regime areas hydric, mesic, and xeric represent
different habitat conditions.
A brown or black complex variable material result-
ing from partial decomposition of plant or animal
matter and forming the organic portion of soil.
Pertaining or adapted to a wet or moist environment,
drainage impeded.
Trees shorter than those in the dominant and codominant
crown classes, but with crowns extending into the
crown canopy formed by the tree crowns; receiving a
little direct light from above, but none from the
sides; usually with small crowns considerably crowded
on the sides.
The uppermost, slightly decayed layer of organic
matter on the forest floor.
Pertaining or adapted to an environment having a
moderate supply of moisture, i.e. well drained,
but moist.
Environments designated as either xeric, mesic, or
hydric and pertaining to the supply of water and
drainage characteristics (i.e., impeded or excessive).
Humus layer is present. There is pratically no
mixing of organic matter with mineral soil. Abrupt
transition from surface organic matter to under-
lying horizon exists.
A soil that exhibits no humus layer. The A1 horizon consists of an intimate mixture of organic
matter and mineral soil, with gradual transition
between the A1 and the horizon beneath. Fermen-
tation layer may or may not be present.
3-13
6vertopped
pellet group
perennial
plant community
plot
pole-stage
sapling
sawtimber
seedling
site
slope
slope aspect
sociability
Trees with crowns enti~ely below the general level
of the crown cover, receiving no direct light from
above or from the sides.
A group of small pellets defecated by deer about
13 times each day.
A plant which continues to grow year after year.
A combination of species which may be differenti-
ated from other combinations and recognized as a
unit of vegetation through use of characteristic
species.
A designated section of study area for special
intensive study.
Stands made up of trees at least 4 inches d.b.h.
and no larger than 12 inches d.b.h.
A young tree over 3 feet in height, but less than
4 inches d.b.h.
A tree greater than 12 inches d.b.h.
A woody plant less than 3 feet tall.
A segment of a ROW used for a study area.
Ground that forms a natural or artificial incline.
The compass direction faced when looking down a
slope in the steepest direction.
The type of grouping of individuals of a species,
i.e. for example, in patches.
soil association - A group of defined and named taxonomic soil units
occurring together in an individual and character-
istic pattern over a geographic region, comparable
to plant associations in many ways.
soil horizon
soil order
species
A layer of soil or soil material approximately
parallel to the land surface and differing from
adjacent genetically related layers in properties
such as color, structure, texture, consistency,
biological and chemical characteristics.
The first breakdown in the nomenclature of soil
classification.
A group of individuals of the same ancestry of
nearly identical structure and behavior, and of
relative stability in nature.
SITE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Table 3.1. Site Selection Data Summary. (Stout, 1958; Cline 1970; Buckman and Brady, 1969; Mayer 1975)
·-
• MOIS-ROw
:>.. LOCATION SOILS WATER TURE AGE REGIONS
C). CLEARING s::
Q)
l-1 ..
Q) ::l (/)(/) I l-1 0' 0 s:: ~~~ 0.. ::l Q) ,...... s 0 s:: C) ..... 0 Ul l-1 :;t l-1 0.. (/) 0 •.-I ::l E-< 01':. 0 <11 s:: @ :;t <11 Ll"'Vl ·.-I ..c (.) (/)
0.. ...:l 4-l s 0 Q) bO 0.. Q) Q) ><:.--< :;t s:: l-1 "'0 l-1 ·.-I :;t 0 4-ICIJ s::s:: Q) <11 s:: ..... Ql•.-1 :>
r.l <11 Ql l-1 0 <11 c Q) ..... CJ:l"'t) 0 ~~ p::: 1-1 0 ::l :>C) <11•.-l
•.-! •.-! 0 z !':. <11"'0 <11 <11 bO bO ·.-I (.) ·.-IQ)Q)+J~ .--<+J:> I 1-1 ..... s ~w ..cs:: C) ..... 0 bO ..... 0.. 1-1 C) s:: ·.-I ..c::o:: ..........
<11 s:: ..c s:: .--< .--< 1-1 0 C) Q) C) <11 +.J•.-1 ·.-I C) C) (/) ·.-! Q) 1-1 ~ CJ:l <X: ~ ·~ ~~~:3 <11 <11 <11 Q) I 0 0.. Q) Q) en bO:;t 1-1 •.-I •.-I U)Q) Q) (/) p::: <11
..0 1-1 1-1 "'0..0 (/) 0 0.. 1-1 ,._. ..... s::o ~~ (/) 1-1 Ul!-1 1-1 :>.. Q) .--< :>.. :>.. Q)
•.-! 0 ::r: 1-1 ::l ::l 1-1 ::l (/) ,....{ (/) ..... ~~ Q) 1-1 ~ Q) ~t:2 0 ..c .--< Ql..O..OCIJ :>o.. '-" :::> p::: p::: OCIJ ~ {/) ~ {/) ...:lO ::r: ::< !':. 0.. (.) CJ:ll I I
0-N-165-
H X 13 16 13% S-E 180 X ~ H H-5 X X
16 0 NE
L X 13 17 .40% sw X 180 X X X X H H-5 X X
0-NS
H X 13 18 .33% NW X X 180 X X X X P. H-5 X X
0-NS
H X 13 18 33% NW X X 180 X X X ~-R H-5 X
0-NW
L X 13 23 70% SE X X 165 X X X X G L-3 X
0-NW
H X 13 4 15% SE X 150 X X X IX. G L-4 X
0 Flat
L X 13 14 35% to W 150 X X F H-3 X X X
0
L X .13S 12 25% N,S X 150 X X X :X .F · H-4.·. X
24 0-
L X 13 15 40% E,W X 150 X X X E H-3 X
0 flat
H X 13 13 40% E X 135 X x:X X E H-3 X
7 0-NS
L X A3 11 30% N-S X X 165 X X X D L-5 X
0
H X A3 6 5% E-W X 165 X X X D L-5 X
0-NS
L X A3 20 5% Flat X 165 X X X D L-5 X
0-Var1 NS
H X A3 21 8% able X X 165 X X X X D L-5 X
0-Vari NS
H X A3 21 10% able X X 165 X X :X X D L-5 X
9 0-
L X S2 10 35% E-W X X 135 X X X X A H-1 X
19 0 NS
L X S2 22 15% N X 120 X X X c H-1 X
1 0
L X S2 3 10% E-W 135 X :X :X X c L-2 X:
0-
L X S2S 2 15% N-S X X 135 x.·x X A H-1 X
0-NS
L _X S2S 1 5% N-S X 135 x IX X A H;..l X
0-
L X A3 is 5% Flat X 135 XX IX B H.;...2· X ·x.
0-NS
L X 13 .8 5% Flat X 165 X lx X D L 5 X
1 Only major ROW management techniques that were used are summarized here.
others used are discussed within the individual case studies of sites.
2 NS = No Sampling Performed
3-15a
ROW MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES 1
BRUSH CONSTRUe-
DISPOSAl. TION !RESTORATION MAINTENANCE
,...... .--< "'t) "0 (/) <11 .....
Ql I .--< I ..... (/) ::l S::"'O 0 (/) Ul l-1 <11 (.)
l-1 S:: "'t)CIJ "0 ·(/) Q) 1'!:1 ::l ·.-I .~ <11 0 :> Q)Q)+JQ) .--< ..... Q)
1'!:1 :;: «:l 0 lo-1.--< ~ .~ : ~ ~ <11 ::l :> ........ "'t) :g p::: (.) ::l bO .--< C) (.) •.-!
«:l "'t) Q) "0 C) bO bO s:: <11 ..... ·.-! CJ•.-1 ·a '"' t; ~ Q) :;t ...:l Q) (/) S'-" s:: s:: •.-I C) O..CJ.--<"0.--< "'t) ~ 0 ·~ :> (/) <11 ·.-I ·.-I ..... ·.-I s Q) 0 <11 0 <11 <11 Ql·.-1
Q) CJP::: ~ Q) Q) (/) "'t) "'t) s:: s ::l.--<JJ:.OIJ:. ..c Q) .--< :;t .--< <11 0 C) 1-1 bO <11 Q) <11 Q) ..... Q) 1-1 C).--lQJO •.-I ..... 1-1 Q) C) ..... s:: 1-1 Q) .--< ..CCJ:lCIJ 1'!:1 QJUCJ:l::E:
0.. CJ:l 0 p::: <X: CIJ ·.-! 0 CJ:l 0.. (.) I I I ::<:: I I I
X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X
.. -
X X X X X X X
X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X x
X X X X x.·
• X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X
X X X X X X
X X X X
Detailed informaticn regarding these techniques and
Key to Site Selection Data Summary, Table 3.1
i
I
Forest Reiions of New York State
A -Adiron)dack
B -Tug Hiill
C -St. Lahr~mce-Champlain
D -Lake Pla1n
E -Appa_lachian Highlands
F -Catski~l
G -Mohawk~Hudson
H -New England Highlands
I -Long Island
I
i
Physiographic Regions of New York State
l
L Lowland Areas
Ll -Champlain Valley
L2 -St. Lawrence Valley
L3 -Hudson Valley
L4 -Mohawk Valley
L5 -Erie Ontario Plain
L6 -Black: River Valley
L7 -Long Island Coastal Plain
Soil Associiation
Soils
H -Highland Areas
Hl -Adirondack Highlands
H2 -Tug Hill Plateau
H3 -Allegheny Plateau
H4 -Catskill Mountains
H5 -New England Uplands
Order & Sub-order
1.
2.
3.
4 .
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Adams-Colton
Adam~-Croghan-Saugatuck-Scarboro
Adams-Walpole
A3
13
13S
S2
S2S
Alfisols -Udalfs
Inceptisols -Ochrept
Inceptisols -Ochrept
Spodosols -Orthods
Spodosols -Orthods
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Camrpden-Marcy
Canaan-Rock Outcrop
Colonie-Elnora-Minoa
Farmington
Fulton-Toledo
Gloucester-Essex-Rockland
Hermbn-Becket-Rockla~d
Honeoye-Lima
Lackawanna-Oquaga-Wellsboro
Lords town
Lords town-Mardin
Lordstown-Volusia-Mardin
Rocliliway-Chatfield
Rockland
Rockland-Chatfield
Rough Mountain Land
Soduk-Ira
Sodus-Ira-Scriba
Ston~ Land
Troy~Cossayuna
Volupia-Lordstown
Wortp-Empeyville
I
stream aspect
stand
xer~c
The compass direction of stream flow.
The concrete representative of a plant community
in nature.
Pertaining or adapted to a dry environment, drain-
age excessive.
3-15
Table 3.2. Three major game species 1n the vicinity of the 22 project sites
locations.
Major Game Species
,... +J
Q) •r-1
Q) ,..0
Cl ,..0
C'il Q)
"0 ..::: Q) (/)
Q) ,... ::I
r-1 r-1 C'il 0
•r-1 •r-1 :::t:: ,...
Number and Name of ROW Location C'il +J C'il r-1 c.!l .!G
+J ~ +J bO Q) u +J ~
I C'il ~ ~ ,... "0 0 C'il ,... :>.. 0
Q) (/) 0 •r-1 ,... Q) u ,... Q) Q) 0 -+J C'il +J :>.. •r-1 ~ "0 .!G :> .!G u
•r-1 Q) +J ,... ::I ~ 0 (/) C'il ,... u
li ..r:: 0 C'il 0" ::I 0 ::I Q) ::I C'il
P-t C,) :> Cl) ..::: ::s: ::;::: j:Q E-1 ..:::
Site 1 Sprainbrook to Eastview X X X
Site 2· Ramapo to Hudson River (PJM-\Vest) X X X
Site 3 Southern Tier Line 77 X X X
Site 4 Hillburn to Shoemaker X X X
Site 5 Poughkeepsie to Ohioville X X X
Site 6 Porter to Rotterdam X X X
,
Site 7 Gilboa to New Scotland X X X
Site 8 Hancock to Stilesville X X X
Site 9 Hillside to Oakdale X X X
Site 10 Falconer to Homer Hill XI X X
Site 11 Station 82 to Station 162 X X X
Site 12 Lockport to Solvay X X X
Site 13 Station 121-13A X X X
Site 14 Oswego to Volney X X X
Site 15 Oswego to Clay /14 X X X
Site 16 National Lead Line X X X
Site 17 Lyon Mountain to Saranac X X X
Site 18 Moses to Plattsburg X X
Site 19 Moses to Adirondack X X X
Site 20 Adirondack to Porter X X X
Site 21 Fitzpatrick to Edic X X X
Site 22 Gardenville to Dunkirk X X
3-16
Q)
bO
"0
·r-1 ,...
+J ,...
C'il
P-t
~
C'il
•r-1 ,...
C'il
bO
~
::I
:::t::
X
11
SITE LEGEND -----
SPRAINBROOK TO EASTVIEW
2 RAMAPO TO HUDSON RIVER (PJM..WEST)
3 SOUTHERN TIER LINEn
4 HILLBURN TO SHOEMAKER
5 POUGHKEEPSIE TO OHIOVILLE
6 PORTER TO ROTTERDAM
7 GILBOA TO NEW SCOTLAND
8 HANCOCK TO STILESVILLE
9 HILLSIDE TO OAKDALE
10 FALCONER TO HOMER HILL
11 STATION 82 TO STATION 162
12 LOCKPORTTOSOLVAY
13 STATION 121 TO STATION 13A
14 OSWEGO TO VOLNEY
15 OSWEGO TO CLAY #4
16 NATIONAL LEAD LINE
17 LYON MOUNTAIN TO SARANAC
"18 MOSES TO PLATTSBURG
19 MOSES TO ADIRONDACK
20 ADIRONDACK TO PORTER
21 FITZPATRICK TO EDIC
22 GARDENVILLE TO DUNKIRK
FOREST REGIONS
[;;)A. ADIRONDACK
RED SPRUCE AND BALSAM FIR ARE PLENTIFUL. ALSO
PRESENT ARE SUGAR MAPLE, YELLOW BIRCH, BEECH,
WHITE PINE, HEMLOCK, ASPEN, POPLAR AND PAPER
BIRCH. LOWLAND SWAMPS SUPPORT BLACK SPRUCE
AND TAMARACK.
Iii B. TUG HILL
THE PRINCIPAL TREES IN CUTOVER WOODLOTS ARE
SUGAR MAPLE, YELLOW BIRCH, AND BEECH. COMMON,
TOO, ARE ASPEN, RED MAPLE, AND BLACK CHERRY.
RED SPRUCE AND BALSAM FIR ARE RESTRICTED TO
POORLY DRAINED LAND WHERE HARDWOODS OFFER
LITTLE COMPETITION.
~ C. ST. LAWRENCE ·CHAMPLAIN
SUGAR MAPLE AND BEECH ARE FOUND IN ALL SECTIONS.
WHITE PINE IS COMMON ON THE CHAMPLAIN VALLEY;
ELM, RED MAPLE AND HEMLOCK GROW IN BOTTOMLANDS
THROUGHOUT THE AREA. CEDAR IS PLENTIFUL IN
NOTHERN FI:'ANKLIN COUNTY AMi ON LIMESTONE
OUTCROI'I'INGS IN ALL SECTIONS. GRAY BIRCH AND
ASPEN ARE ALSO PRESENT, BUT ARE USUALLY SMALL.
mJ D. LAKE PLAIN
ELM AND RED MAPLE ARE ABUNDANT. ON BETTER
DRAINED LANDS, BEECH. BASSWOOD, WHITE ASH,
·SUGAR MAPLE, HICKORY, HEMLOCK. TUUI' POPLAR
AND BLACK WALNUT ARE FOUND.
~ E. APPALACHIAN HIGHLANDS
THE WOODLOTS CONSIST IIAINL Y OF BEECH, SUGAR
MAPLE, 1~. WHITE ASH, AND ILACK CHERRY.
WITH 10TH RED AND WHITE OAK ON THE DRIER
SLOPES.
l\\\1 F. CATSKILL
BEECH. IU8AIIIMI'LE, .. TE ASH. AND ILACK
atERRY I'REI a I IlliTE WITH ~IICIAL · •ze
YELLOW .liCit AT THE HMIHER ELEV~}loM.. .. TE
.... 1 ... 8CK. AND OAK ARE l'ltUI!IItT IN ICATTEREO
I'OCitElS; RED JI'IIUCE ..._ AT·THE HMIHER
ELEVA-no. tii"UU..sn:R AND fHIEEN CIOU'IllES.
Fig.3.1 Forest regions of New York State
3~17
18
fZl G. MOHAWK · HUDSON
THE WOODLOTS ARE GENERALLY IN POOR CONDITION
BECAUSE OF OVERCUTTING. TREES MOST LIKELY TO
BE ENCOUNTERED ARE BEECH. YELLOW BIRCH, SUGAR
MAPLE, RED MAPLE , WHITE ASH, WHITE PINE, BASSWOOD,
PAPER BIRCH, BLACK BIRCH, BLACK CHERRY, HEMLOCK,
RED AND WHITE OAK, AND ELM.
• H. NEW ENGLAND HIGHLAN~S
OAKS ARE PREVALENT; OTHERWISE, THE KINDS OF
TREES ARE LARGELY THE SAME AS IN "G". SPRUCE
AND BALSAM FIR ARE PRESENT IN THE NORTH.
§:) I. LONG ISLAND
OAK IS THE PREDOMINANT TYPE OF FOREST. I'ITCH
PINE, THE PRINCIPAL CONIFER, GROWS CHIEFLY IN
•xTURE wtTH RED AND WHITE OAKS. ALTHOUGH
IT IS FOUtiiD IN A FEW PLACES IN PURE STANDS. MUCH
OF THE FOREST IS SCRUBBY BECAUSE OF POOR SOILS.
LIGHT ~R PRECII'ITATION, CONSTANT DESICCATING
WINOS, AND FREQUENT FIRES.
mui!CE:
SYOUf,IIBt. L ATLMOF-,_
II ASPLUNDH
ENVIRONMENTAl SERVICF~~ •
~~~\~_n.., J'I(J'~,
L . Lowland· Areas
•
L1-Champlain Valley
L2-St. Lawrence Valley
L3-Hudson Valley
L4-Mohawk Valley
L5-Erie -Ontario Plain
L6-Black River Valley
L7-Long Island Coastal Plain
H Highland Areas
H1-Adirondack Highlands
H2-Tug Hill Plateau
H3-Allegheny Plateau
H4-Catskill Mountains
H5-New England Uplands
SOURCE
CLINE, 1970
Fig. 3.2 Physiographic areas of New York State
ALFISOLS .... Soils with gray to brown surface horizons, medium to high base supply,
and subsurface horizons of clay accumulation; usually moist but may be dry during
warm season
A3-UDALFS (temperate or warm, and moist) gently or moderately
sloping·,!mostly farmed, corn, soybeans, small grain, and
pasture (Gray-Brown Podzolic soils)
I NCEPTISOLS .... Soils that are usually moist, with pedogenic horizons of
alteration of parent' materials but not of accumulation
13 -OCHREPTS (with thin or light-colored surface surface horizons
and little organic matter) gently to moderately sloping;· mostly
Alluvial soils)
13S· · PCHREPTS gently sloping to
steep; woodland, pasture,
small grains
SPODOSOLS ... Soils with accumulations of amorphous materials in subsurface horizons
S2-ORTHODS (\(Vith subsurface accumulations-of iron, aluminum,
and organic matter) gently to moderately sloping~ woodland,
pasture, small grains, special crops (Podzols, Brown Podzolic soils)
S2S-ORTHODS steep; mostly woodland
SOURCE
52
BUCKMAN AND BRADy, 1969
Fig.3.3'Major soil orders and suborders of New York _State
3-18 j
Ls-Dominantly limestone
Ls & Sh -Alternating limestone and shale formation,
.mainly calcareous
Sh -Dominantly shale
Ss -Dominantly sandstone
Ss & Sh -Interbedded sandstone and shale
Sl Dominantly slate and schist
G Dominantly granitic rocks
U Deep unconsolidated deposits
Fig.3.41mportant bedrock areas of New York State
3-19
SOURCE
CLINE, 1970
4 Individual Case Studies of Sites
.The individual case studies qf the 22 sites in New York are contained
~n Volumes 2 and 3 of this report. Listed below according to the volume
~n which they are located are the site numbers and names of these sites.
VOLUME 2
Site 1 Sprainbrook to Eastview
Site 2 Ramapo to Hudson River (PJM-West)
Site 3 Southe~n Tier Line 77
Site 4 Hillburn to Shoemaker
Site 5 Poughkeepsie to Ohioville
Site 6 Porter to Rotterdam
Site 7 Gilboa to New Scotland
Site 8 Hancock to Stilesville
Site 9 Hillside to Oakdale
Site 10 Falconer to Homer Hill
Site 11 Station 82 to Station. 162
VOLUME 3
Site 12 Lockport to Solvay
Site 13 Station 121 to Station 13A
Site 14 Oswego to Volney·
Site 15 Oswego to Clay #4
Site 16 National Lead Line
Site 17 Lyon Mountain to Saranac
Site 18 Moses to Plattsburg
Site 19 Moses to Adirondack
Site 20 Adirondack to Porter
Site 21 Fitzpatrick to Edic
Site 22 Gardenville to Dunkirk
4-1
5 Special Studies
5.1 Response of Forest-grown Hemlock to Topping on Selectively-
cleared Electric Transmission Line Corridors
During the past decade selective clearing of electric power line
corridors has become an increasingly common practice. Partial clear-
ing softens the visual impact of corridor establishment and manage-
ment. This concept basically entails removal of only those trees, or
portions of trees, which interfere now, or will interfere in the
future, with safe and uninterrupted electric current transmission, and
with erection and inspection of towers and conductors.
In selective clearing many trees are topped rather than completely
removed, If the amount of tree crown removed during topping is determined
only by the distance from the electric transmission wires rather than by
biological considerations of a specific tree's condition or probable
reaction to such treatment, then some trees may be topped too severely,
even to the point of removing the major photosynthetic area of their crowns.
It should be pointed out that tree topping for transmission line
construction is not normally comparable to the trimming so commonly
done in urban areas ?long electric distribution lines. Street shade trees
have developed under open conditions, and have large, deep crowns.
During each successive trimming of shade trees a relatively small por-
tion of the total crown area is removed. Where transmission line cor-
ridors penetrate established forests, however, individual trees are
closely spaced, and the entire crown area of each tree is restricted
to a small percent of the total tree height. Forest-grown trees usu-
ally have less than 40% of their total height in crown; many have a
smaller crown ratiol. Thus, topping may result in removing a signi-
ficant percent of the most active photosynthetic surface of a tree.
Topped forest-grown trees respond in a number of ways after such treat-
ment. They may die back from the top and expire quickly, remain in a
static condition with little immediate change in crown area, or sprout
from dormant buds and rapidly restore much of their former crown area.
This study was designed ·to determine:
L The response of hemlocks to topping;
2. What percentage of the live crown of hemlock can be re-
moved before vigor is seriously reduced and decline sets
in; and
3. Guidelines for topping hemlocks to identify which indivi-
duals can be topped with little serious effect on vigor,
and when topping results in decline and mortality justi-
fying immediate removal of such trees at the time of cor-
ridor establishment.
5.1.1 Location of Study Area
The selectively-cleared and topped Rmv area used for this
resear~h is along the Ramapo to Hudson River transmission line (site 2)
established by Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., in 1971. This is a
1 Crown ratio is the "length of the tree crown/total tree height"
expressed as a percent.
5-1
. I
345 kV line. At the time of clearing all vegetation within 18 feet
of the electric wires were felled or topped.
Th~study area occupies a southeast-facing slope. The stand
formerly occupying the ROW area consisted of white oak, red oak, and
hickory with tulip-poplar, white ash, and sweet birch as associates.
Hemlock becomes an increasingly abundant component on the lower-
third slope and on the alluvial soils along a stream drainage, approx-
imately 1,000 feet from the Ramapo substation.
During construction of this section of the ROW many trees were
completely removed, but 24 hemlocks along an 800-foot length of this
corridor were left. Twenty of these had been topped.
After ROW ciearing, the increased sunlight had allowed such
understory shrubs as sweet-fern, willows, maple-leaved viburnum, and
mountain-laurel to gain vigor, and to occupy increasing areas of this
corridor. Grasses, sedges, and various herbs have become established
bet,..:reen these shrubs. Open and eroding soil is rare on this section
of the corridor except on excessively steep grades near tower sites
and along the steeper sections of the access road where sheet and gul-
ly erosion is active.
The study area on this transmission corridor follows a northwest-
southeast course.
5.1.2 Field Procedure
During July, 1975, topped hemlocks on the ROW area were selected
for study. Trees that had been subjected to excessive soil disturbance
due to corridor construction, or those where fill had been deposited
over their root area during road construction, were not included among
the sample trees, since it was determined that these activities had
had a greater impact on tree vigor than that of topping.
The following measurements were made on topped hemlocks: diameter
breast high (4.5 feet), height to lowest live branch, and height to
point of topping. In addition, a vigor rating was assigned to each
tree: 0, dead; 1, ~oor; 2, average; and 3, high.
In the immediately adjacent woods at points where the site index
was determined to be the same as that on the power line corridor, 20
hemlocks, representing the same range of diameter classes as the line
study trees, were selected for controls. These trees were located
30 feet or more from the corridor edge. For these controls the follow-
ing measurement.s were made: diameter breast h~gh, total height, height
to lowest live branch, relative crown position· , and vigor rating.
5.1.3 Analysis of Data
Using the control tree data, regression analysis was used to es-
tablish the relationship between diameter and total height. Preliminary
2 Dominant: Trees with crowns extending above the general level of
the crown canopy and receiving full light from above and partly from the
sides. Codominant: Trees with crowns forming the general level of the
crown cover and receiving full light from above but comparatively little
side light. Intermediate: Trees shorter than those in the 2 preceding
classes; crowns extend into the cover formed by the codominant and dominant
trees, but receive little direct light from above and none from the sides ..
5-2
plotting of these data indicated this to be a straight-line relation-
ship within the diameter range included in this study. This regression
equation, significant at the 5% level, is as follows:
Y = 44.580 + 0.532 D
where:
Y tree height in feet, and
D diameter breast high in inches.
From this equation an estimate of the original (1971) heights of
each of the topped tr"ees was calculated. Using the 1971 height of these
trees, and the height to the lmvest live branch, the original length
of live crown for each of the line study trees was established.
After preliminary plotting of those parameters (independent var-·
iables) with present vigor (dependent variable) to determine which var-
iable or variables would best predict the vigor which could be antici-
pated 4 years after trees of various crown positions had been subjected
to crown removals of various intensities, the following regression equa-
tions were calculated:
where:
(1) y
(2) y
0.934 +
0.929 +
p
o-.o7o R
p2
o.o32 "R
Y present vigor rating,
P crown position prior to topping, and
R portion of crown removed in topping, expressed
as a decimal.
Equation 2, significant at the 5% level, gives the closest cor-
relation between crown position, percent crown removal, and present vi-
gor. From this equation Table 5.1 was calculated to indicate expected
vigor 4 growing seasons after hemlocks have been topped.
5.1.4 Discussion
In this analysis it became apparent that the relative crown po-
sition of a hemlock prior to topping was the most important factor in
determining the tree's response to topping. Dominant trees, those with
large vigorous crowns, still retained good or average vigor after crown
removal of up to 30%. Codominant and intermediate trees withstood
lighter topping, 20% of crown removed,' without serious loss of vigor.
All topping operations, however, where 50% or more of the live crown
was removed, resulted in drastic reductions in vigor.
Recent field inspection of successful long-term topping operations
on electric corridors managed by Philadelphia Electric Company sub-
stantiate the results of this analysis. This Company's policy is to
leave 2/3' s of the crown when topping vigorou,s trees. Trees that require
more severe topping, to provide safe and uninterrupted electric current
transmission, were completely removed, as vigor decline and mortality
were certain.
5-3
,i
The comparatively high vigor ratings for trees which had 10%. of
their crown length removed by topping (Table 5.1) may reflect the res-
ponse of•these hemlocks to greater sunlight after the release provided
by selective clearing of this corridor. The narrow width of this cor-
ridor and the compass direction followed by this line did not provide
full sunlight for these hemlocks following selective clearing. How-
ever, hemlocks generally respond better to partial release than to
sudden exposure to full sunlight.
Field observations on power line corridors in New York State (see
Sec. 5.2) indicate that the degree of disturbance around_trees left during
selective clearing operations is a decisive factor influencing subsequent
vigor. Where mechanical skidding operations have disturbed much of
the surface soil around "leave trees," these trees generally decline
rapidly even when not subjected to topping. Where the original ground
level around a tree is raised by deposition of soil, decline and mor-
tality arealso common. Much vigor decline and mortality on selectively-
cleared corridors can be attributed to destruction of surface roots,
soil compaction, and smothering, even where topping practices have been
conservative.
In topping trees, the cut should be made immediately above a strong
branch. During this study it was observed that when this rule was not
followed the tree bole often died back to the closest live branch. Such
dead stubs provide a point of entry to heartwood-rotting fungi.
5.1.5 Summary
Hemlocks with dominant crown positions, those with deep full crowns
which receive both top light and side light, can withstand heavier top-
ping than trees of lower crown positions (codominants and intermediates).
Dominant hemlocks can withstand removal of up to 30% of their crown
length without seriously impairing vigor. Codominants and intermediates
can with$tand lighter topping, with no more than 20% crown removal.
In selective clearing of electric corridors, even where trees are
not subjected to tcpping, great care must be taken not to disturb the
soil surface and alter the ground level beneath "leave trees" since
this results in breakage and smothering of surface roots, major factors
in vigor decline and eventual mortality.
Topping to a strong live branch avoids top die back, and thus re-
duces the danger of attack by heartwood-rotting fungi.
5.2 Condition and Vigor of Edge Trees Exposed by Clearing: Circular
Openings for Tower Construction
5.2.1 Purpose
Forest-grown trees· are subjected to radical environmental changes
when suddenly exposed to complete sunlight and other site alterations
by the construction of ROW corridors. Similar exposure also results on
selectively-cleared ROW's when clear-cut openings are created for tower
structures. Where electric transmission facilities penetrate forest
land, edge trees which have developed in closed stands with the protec-
tion of neighboring trees are suddenly exposed to greater sunlight on
1 side of their bole and crown area. They are also subjected to changes
5-4
in wind velocity and direction, and lose the_protection of neighbor-
ing tree crowns which provide support when subject to the weight of
heavy snow and glaze.
Clearings for electric corridors result in immediate environmental
change, allowing not time ·for adapt ion, which might occur when neighbor-
ing trees are removed gradually over many years. Dead and dying trees,
occasionally encountered along transmission line corridor edges, have
often declined from exposure, not from ROW maintenance practices,
even though maintenance methods, including herbicide drift, are often
blamed for this mortality.
The purposes of"this study were to determine:
(1) Those tree species which are most susceptible to decline
and mortality following exposure;
(2) The direction of exposure which has the most deleterious
effect;
(3) The causes of edge tree decline;
(4) The extent of mechanical damage caused by clearing opera-
. tions.
5.2.2 Description and History of Study Area
The 3 circular tower-site openings used for this study are located
on the Gilboa to New Scotland 345 kV transmission line, which was con-
structed by the Power Authority of the State of New York. These study
areas surround towers 1/6, 1/7, and 1/8 on land adjacent to the Blenheim-
Gilboa Pumped Storage Power Project in Schoharie and Greene counties
in the Allegheny Plateau (Cline, 1970). These tower openings vary from
0.72 to 1.0 acre in area.
The Hemlock-Northern Hardwoods forest type, comprised of beech, hem-
lock, sugar-maple, with white ash, yellow birch, red maple,and American
hop-hornbeam as associates, is the most widespread forest cover in this
locality. The stand in which the tower openings were place is real-
tively evenaged, with the upper canopy trees approximately 70 years old.
Lower-crown-class and understory trees were usually the same age as
the overstory, except for scattered younger shade-tolerant trees, such
as sugar-maple, beech, and hemlock, that had seeded-in more recentJy.
The tower openings used for this study were cleared during the fall
of 1970 and the spring of 1971. All trees and brush over 3 feet tall,
cut from these openings, were removed from the site or hurned. There
was no evidence of bark scorch from slash fires on any of the edge
trees. Brush, trees, and stumps were cut as close to .the ground as
practicable, and never exceeded 6 inches above ground level. Stumps
were treated with a basal spray of low volatile picolinic acid and
2,4,5-T ester in an oil carrier. The open soil was then seeded.
5.2.3 Field Measurement Procedures
For each tower site opening a map was constructed on polar coor-
dinate paper showing the location of each edge tree from the plot cen-
ter. In plotting the location of each tree from this center a compass
bearing was determined and the distance was measured to the nearest foot
For each tree the species, diameter breast high (d.b.h., nearest 0.1 inch).
5-5
total height (nearest 1 foot), and relative crown position were recorded.
In addition, the extent of mechanical damage, sunscald, and root exposure
were obt;ined. General tree vigor was gauged on the basis of crown
structure, compactness and density of crown, and presence or absence of
dead and dying branches.
Mechanical damage was (Fig. 5.1.1) recorded for that portion of
the tree bole facing the opening. This damage included scraping of
bark and wood by heavy equipment, and other man-caused damage that would
result in an entrance court for fungi or insects. The number of such
damages per tree was determined whether or not the wounds were in the
process of healing.
Sunscald (Figs. 5.1.2 and 5.1.3) was recorded based on the number
of such wounds on the tree trunks. Sunscald was differentiated from
mechanical damage by the location on the bole, and the absence of
sharp indentations or tears in the bark or wood.
The number of exposed roots (Fig. 5.1.4) was counted for each edge
tree. Exposed roots were tallied only if there was evidence of damage
and decline to the root as a result of exposure. Where partially exposed
roots were live and healthy, and retained their bark, they were not in-
cluded in the "exposed root" category.
Vigor of edge trees was rated on a scale of 0 through 5. A 0 rat-
ing was given to trees that had died since the~tower opening had been
made; 1 represented poor vigor; 2, below average vigor; 3, average vigor;
4; above average vigor; and 5, high vigor.
5.2.4 Analysis of Results
A total of 255 edge trees were studied along the margins of these
3 openings. In tabulating these data, edge trees from all 3 openings
were grouped tog-ether.
Sixteen tree species were represented in this tally ETable 5.2.)
Hemlock, beech,' red maple, sugar-maple, and American hop-hornbeam made
up the majority of these trees. Some species occurred only once, includ-
ing yellow birch, aspen~ serviceberry, chestnut, and bitternut hickory.
These were included in the tabulations to give a more complete picture
of stand composition. The variation in number of edge trees for dif-
ferent locations is due to access roads. These reduced the number of
edge trees on the east-southeast, southeast-south, and west-northwest
positions.
Table 5.3 gives the number of trees by species which have one or
more exposed roots for various locations surrounding the tower site
openings. This table also includes the total number of trees in each
location by species, for comparison. Table 5.4 presents the average
number of exposed roots per edge tree by species and tree location.
Table 5.5 shows the number of edge'trees with mechanical damage.
This damage was primarily from heavy equipment used at the time the
opening was established. Table 5.6 gives average vigor ratings for all
tree species based on a scale of 0 to 5.
Percent of trees with sunscald, the most prevalent damage next to
mechanical injury, is given in Table 5.7. The 2 most sensitive species,
beech and hemlock, have been further separated into diameter distribu-
tions in Tables 5.8 and 5.9, respectively.
5-6
5.2.5 Discussion
Root Exposure Root exposure of edge trees from loss of the litter
layer due to increased solar radiation reaching the ground surface was
most severe on the north, through east to south margins of these openings
(Tables 5.3 and 5.4). Since this edge of the opening receives the
hot afternoon sun, the increased temperature and lower moisture content
from rapid evaporation causes the ;null humus. litter layer 1 typical
of northern forests, to gradually disintegrate, resulting in the ex-
posure of superficial roots.
It was observed that the litter layer on this portion of the clear-
ing had disappeared, .or remained only as a dark brown, powder-like cover.
This condition on the north through east edge of the tower opening ex-
tended several feet back into the forest stand.
Such shallow-rooted species as beech, hemlock, sugar-maple, and red
maple (Tables 5.3 and ,5.4) were affected by this loss of litter, grad-
ually exposing the upper root surface, resulting in the death of many
important surface roots. Invasion of these marginal areas by herbaceous
plants, as the litter disappears, takes place slowly, teaberry being
conspicuous in this initial invasion. The decaying humus layer evidently
is a poor medium for seedling establishment, since plant invasion is
delayed for 4 years or longer. This is probably due to the low moisture-
holding capacity of this decaying organic layer which makes it difficult
for new seedlings to survive unless their roots can penetrate to mineral
soil.
This forest stand, prior to the time the clearings were established,
contained only a sparse understory of shrubs and herbs due to the heavy
shade from the hemlock, beech, and other dense-crowned species. Thus,
after the openings were cleared there was only a sparse nucleus of shrubs
present along the clearing margin to protect the litter from direct
sunlight.
Mechanical Damage Mechanical damage showed no definite trends re-
lated to position on ROW clearing, as might be expected (Table 5.5). In
general, those species with thin bark are most subject to mechanical dam-
age· from contact with heavy equipment. These include beech, red maple,
American hop-hornbeam, aspen, and white birch. A high incidence of mech-
anical damage was noted where access roads entered these tower site open-
ings.
Vigor Ratings Vigor ratings indicate that many trees which sustained
root damage and Bunscald had not, as yet, started to decline as a result
of root and bole damage (Table 5.6). Vigor ratings on the northern and
eastern edges were higher than those for other opening positions, even
though northern and eastern edges had higher indices of sunscald and
root exposure.
Observations on decline from sunscald and root exposure in other
parts of the Northeast indicate that these damages result in entrance
points for fungi and that decline often follows 10 to 20 years after ex-
posure of edge trees. The higher vigor ratings of_ the north-and east-
edge trees at present can be explained by the increased amount of
5-7
I I
I
i'
direct solar radiation received by these trees, allowing greater photo-
synthetic activity and retention of lower branches on the face of the
trunk towards the opening.
Beech and sugar-maple had particularly high vigor ratings. These
species are noted for their shade tolerance and rapid recovery of vigor
when exposed to increasing amounts of light. The low vigor ratings
for white and sweet birch is due to the lower crown position occupied
by these trees prior to the time these openings were made, and their
inability to respond to release.
Sunscald Sunscald was most prevalent ori the west through north
to east margins of these openings, with the highest incidence on the
north-northeast section (Table 5.7). Species most heavily affected by
sunscald were beech, red maple, red oak, and hemlock. Although the
samples of aspen and basswood were small, these species are susceptible
to sunscald in other sections of the United States. American hop-horn-
beam, white ash, and sugar-maple did not appear subject to sunscald
damage.
Sunscald was common on all beech below 12 inches d.b.h., and was
particularly prevalent on beech 8 to 12 inches in diameter (Table 5.8).
Beech of these diameter classes were lower-crown-class trees in this
evenaged stand prior to the time the circular tower openings were made,
and thus were not subject to any direct sunlight on their boles and
branches until exposed by the tower clearing.
s·unscald seemed equally abundant on hemlocks of all diameter
classes, with those in the 6 to 8 inch d.b.h. class most heavily af-
fected (Table 5.9).
5.3 Direct Seeding Study
With the widespread use of direct seeding along highways and for
re-vegetating coal strip mines, many plant species have been identified
which give quick cover on exposed soil, often under adverse growing con-
ditions. With this increased knowledge of species and seeding mixtures,
new techniques and equipment, including hydro-seeders, mulching agents,
and fertilizer additives, have been developed. These have all contri-
buted to establishing quick cover, even of compact soil or excessively
steep slopes ..•
Large scale seeding of disturbed soils following electric trans-
mission corridor construction is a relatively new field. ROW managers,
of necessity, have had to rely heavily on information, techniques, and
experience of state highway department personnel and the Soil Conser-
vation Service for proper seed and slurry mixes and application methods.
Although many of the problems encountered by highway departments are
similar to those of electric corridors, power line ROH's do present
some unique aspects. Among these are extreme soil compaction around
tower sites, limited-use access roads which often traverse steep grades,
and the relative inaccessibility of remote sections of these corridors,
restricting the feasibility of periodic future maintenance (Fig. 5.1.5).
Observations were made on the success of direct seeding for 4
transmission line corridors to determine the 9uccess of several direct
seeding methods under a variety of environmerttal conditions; to deter-
5-8
~;
mine which plant species give satisfactory survival; and to determine where
natural plant invasion might have effectively·covered bare soil, thus
eliminating the need for costly seeding.
5.3.1 Seeding Methods
A description of the 4 study areas and direct seeding methods
employed is as follows:
Site 2 Ramapo to Hudson River (PJM-West) This corridor was cleared
during the winter of 1970-71, using selective clearing with topping or
complete tree removal, as needed. During the clearing operation sawlogs
were stacked at the RQW margin and brush was burned on site. In the fall
of 1972, open soil, primarily along construction roads and at tower sites,
was seeded using a hydro-seeder.
At 2 of the tower sites included in this study (towers 4 and 5) the
following shrub-seed mixture was used:
Perennial rye•grass
Chewings fescue
Common rye grass
White clover
Smooth sumac
Stag horn-sumac
Scotch broom
White pine
Sweet-fern
Silky dogwood
Mountain-laurel
40 pounds
40
25
7
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
'125 pounds per acre
Seeding specifications called for the following additives to the
slurry:
Lime - 2 tons ground agricultural limestone or 500 to 700
pounds of high magnesium hot lime;
Fertilizer -1,000 pounds of 10-10-10
500 pounds of dehydrated manure (2~1-1) or
500 pounds of organic humus builder;
Mulch-1,500 pounds of wood fiber.
At tower sites 2 and 3 a slightly different seed mixture was em-
ployed. This included the following species:
Chewings fescue 40 pounds
Perennial rye~grass 30
Kentucky 31 25
White clover 7
Fragrant sumac 1
Smooth sumac 1
Scotch broom 1
White pine 1
Scotch pine 1
107 pounds per acre
5-9
II!
I I
I
I
I
I
I'
li:
:1l
•I I
Seeding specifications called for the following additives to the
slurry:
• Lime -ground agricultural limestone, 4,000 pounds;
Fertilizer -10-10-10 at 1,000 pounds, dehydrated manure
(2-1-1) at 500 pounds or organic humus builder;
Mulch -Wood cellulose fiber or a suitable substitute, 1,500 ·pounds
The above were mixed in water in proportionate amounts and the re-
sultant slurry was then sprayed with a hydro-mulcher at a pressure of
300-350 PSI to provide an equally-distributed coverage of all disturbed
areaso The total rate of application was 107 pounds of shrub-seed,
400 pounds of lime, 1,000 pounds of fertilizer, 500 pounds of dehydrated
manure or humus builder, and 1,500 pounds of mulch per acre.
All direct seeding was done under the supervision of the company
forester.
Site 14 Oswego to Volney The section of this line area under
study was selectively cleared in 1974. Open areas were seeded in early
1975. Perennial rye-grass, at the rate of 5 pounds per 1,000 square
feet, was used on most of the e~posed soils around tower sites. Along
water bars white clover and perennial rye-grass (40%-60%) was applied.
at the same rate.
Site 21 Fitzpatrick to Edic This line corridor was cleared
in June-July, 1971. All trees were removed and slash was burned on
site or chipped. Around tower and work sites restoration and seeding
was done in July and August, 1973, using a hand cyclone seeder. The
following mixture was used:
Creeping red fescue
Perennial rye-grass
vJhite clover
35 pounds
10
5
50 pounds
Site 7 Gilboa to New Scotland Line Three tower sites in the
vicinity of the Blenheim-Gilboa Pumped Storage Power Project were used
for observing success of direct seeding operations. These tower open-
ings vary from 0.7 to 1.0 acre in area, and were cleared during the
winter, 1970, and spring, 1971. Brush, tree~ and stumps were cut close
to the ground and stumps were treated with a basal spray of Tordon 155
in an oil carrier. During the late spring, 1971, these openings were
seeded with 5 pounds of perennial rye-grass seed per 1,000 square feet,
covering all open soil.
5.3.2 Observations and Discussion
Site 2 Ramapo to Hudson River Line, Towers 4 and 5 (Tables 5.10 and
5 .• 11) These tower areas are located on a southwest-facing slope, and classify
as mesic sites. The ground surface around these towers was drastically
altered during corridor construction to provide level areas for the
tower footings. On 2 sides of these towers steep slopes are present
where cutting was necessary. The large amount of cut and fill required
5-10
to construct these tower sites resulted in loss o.f the original topsoil,
and excessive compaction of much of the present surface soil.
Chewings fescue is the major vegetation surviving from the seeding
operation. After 4 growing seasons this grass still dominates the
vegetation. On level portions of this clearing this fescue forms dense
stands. As the slope increases, the density of these grass communities
decreases, and on the steepest portions little or no Chewings fescue
survives. Common rye grass is no longer present in the tmfer areas, but
probably formed an important cover during the first year, giving vmy to·
the more aggressive Chewings fescue during the second growing seasono The
quick germination of this rye grass was probably beneficial.during the
first growing season in preventing erosion and in stabilizing the soil,
facilitating the invasion and establishment of other species" It is not
clear why perennial rye grass has not persisted here, but many strains
of this grass, now available, die out after the third or fourth year.
This grass is considered an undesirable grass in many states.
Crown-vetch, although not included in the seeding specifications,
occurs at scattered points around these towers, and the 1975 and 1976
field observations indicate that this legume is spreading. The seed
source for this cover was probably from the seeding mixture, as vetch
seed likely occurred in the seeding equipment from previous seeding op-
erations.
Sweet-fern is abundant on both tower sites, and appears to be spread-
ing rapidly. This shrub will become a dominant species within the next
decade. Some of these plants may have come from the seeding operation,
but this native shrub is locally abundant, and much of the sweet-fern
on the study area no doubt came from broken roots in the soil during
bulldozing, or from seed from nearby native shrubs.
There is no trace of the sumacs, Scotch broom, Scotch pine, white
pine, or mountain-laurel. Some silky dogwood, no doubt of direct seed-
ing origin, occurs around tower 5.
The open bank circling part of tower 4 (where the slope in places
exceeds 60%) is still eroding (Fig. 5.1.6), although healing is taking place
from the edges and from stabilized centers in the middle of the slone. In-
vasion along the margins is primarily by root spread. Sweet-fern, ·
whorled loosestrife, and various grasses are extending their root sys-
tems into this bare soil. Many of the stabilized centers in the inter-
ior of this eroding area have developed where undermined clods of soil
and vegetation from the level ground above have broken off, moved down
the slope, and then lodged and rooted. Sweet-fern and whorled loose-
strife are notable plants in this method of healing.
Site 2 Ramapo to Hudson River Line, Towers 2 and 3 (Tables 5.12 and
5.13 These tower areas are located on a more gentle slope than the 2 areas
discussed previously; thus less site modification was needed to prepare
the tower areas. Leveling operations exposed several large ledges with-
in the tower area. Small rocks and boulders also protrude through the
soil. These outcropings account for the 85 and 90% vegetation density
ratings, respectively, assigned to these plots. Actually complete vege-
tative cover occurs on these tower areas except for rock outcrops.
There is also some open soil where tires of maintenance vehicles have
compacted the ground on the service road.
5-11
·.·.1'1! ! I
'
'II
I
! I
I
ill
1' .. '
,11''1
'il ~1 1
I
I
Kentucky 31 and Chewings fescue are the dominant plant cover, al-
though several native grasses and herbs are slowly invading. Most con-
spicuouil of these invaders are panic-grass and broom-sedge.
There is no trace of the perennial rye-grass, sumac, Scotch broom,
Scotch pine, and white pine from the original seeding mixture. Silky
dogwood and white clover are present, scattered through the grass cover,
and are no doubt of direct-seeding origin.
The variable density of the Kentucky 31 and Chewings fescue com-
munities throughout the study areas reflects differences in soil com-
paction and ston~ content at or immediately beneath the soil surface.
Site 14 Oswego to Volney Line, Tower 56 (Table 5.14) Tower 56 is
located ·on a hydric site. No seeding was done in this area since the
level terrain did not require grading, and thus little soil was dis-
turbed during tower construction. After removal of the overhead tree
canopy, the area was invaded quickly by a variety of wet-site herbs
(Fig. 5.1.6), with sedges and rushes most abundant. These were inter-
spersed with sensitive fern, virgin' s-hower, boneset, and Canadian St.
John's-wort. No service road passes through this tower area, leaving
the herbaceous cover undisturbed. Percent vegetative cover is 100%.
The common elderberry and speckled alder sprouts have persisted
from the understory of the previous stand. This area was not seeded
after tov1er construction. The small amount of soil disturbance and the
existing shrub and herb cover indicated that natural vegetation would
invade quickly.
Site 14 Oswego to Volney Line, Towers 57 and 60 (Tables 5.15 and
5.16) GracFing. of these areas lvas necessary during tower construction.
This was followed by seeding with perennial rye-g:tass. Due to the
aggressive herbaceous vegetation, no perennial rye perists at present
on tower 60. Tower 57, however, is still dominated by this grass.
The percent vegetative cover at tower 57 is 80%, and at tower 60
vegetative cover iE lOQ%.
Perennial rye-grass on site 57 dominates all areas except where
water flowing in a wide intermittent stream channel had washed the seed
away prior to germination. Near the tower base, where the soil was.
disturbed and compacted, and along a frequently-used access road, rye-
grass is also absent.
Site 21 Fitzpatrick to Edic Line, Towers 3, 4 and 5 (Tables 5.17,
5.18, and 5.19) Towers 3 and 4 ,are located on wet sites and the present
plant cover in the vicinity of these structures is 100%. Due to the
relatively level terrain where these towers were placed, a minimum of
site alteration was necessary to prepare these areas for tower con-
struction.
Creeping red fescue is the dominant plant in the tower area, cover-
ing between ~ and ~ of the area. None of the perrennial rye-grass
remains. Other conspicuous plants in this community include sedges,
cat-tail, and horsetail.
Although fescue is the most prominent plant on this site, it
appears that quick and complete cover would have been obtained even
without direct seeding, since the native vegetation on this site prior
to line clearing is very aggressive. This and the fact that much of ·the
5-12
surface soil was not disturbed would result in quick and complete vege-
tative cover.
At tower 5, a mesic site, the percent cover is also 100%. Creeping
red fescue is the dominant plant, although woolly panic-grass, sedges,
and such perennials as boneset, are conspicuous associates. Some
white clover persists where native vegetation is not dense. No perennial
rye-grass was observed.
Site 7 Gilboa to New Scotland Line, Towers 6,. 7, and 8 _(Tables
5.20, 5.2l,o_and 5.22). These 3 tower areas are located on a southwest-
facing slope with a grade of approximately 25%. Although it was not
necessary to alter the entire ground surface throughout these tower
clearings, bulldozing was used to prov{de access roads and· leveling in
the vicinity of tower st-ruct"ures. The most extensive ground disturbance
is in the vicinity of tower 6.
Spot-seeding with perennial rye-grass was done 5 years prior to
this study. It was apparent that seed was sown only where open or com-
pact soil occurred.
Perennial rye-grass is still a conspicuous plant locally on these
areas, comprising as little as 5% of .the cover at tower 8 where little
seeding was needed,. to a high of 50-75% of the cover at tower 6. Per-
ennial rye-grass has persisted well where seeded except on one steep road
bank at tower-7. Here the excessive slope has resulted in erosion, and
the shallow soil to bedrock has created adverse conditions for germina-
tion and survival. Hair-cap moss and lichens are presently invading
this open soil, but at present the rate of healing is slow, and bare
soil will be present for several years moreo
Where direct seeding was not done, a complex mixture of grasses,
ferns and other herbaceous plants now completely occupies the site.
Most of these have become established since the tower clearing was
made, and few herbaceous plants from the understory of the former
forest stand persist. At towers 6, 7 and 8 the percentage of vegeta-
tion cover are 95, 90 and 95%, respectively.
5.3.3 Conclusions
Direct seeding to stabilize disturbed soil around tower sites and
along maintenance roads on 4 electric transmission line areas was gen-
erally successful -in providing quick and attractive cover and prevent-
ing erosion. Results of mapping and community analysis on these line
areas indicate the following:
1. Kentucky 31 is extremely effective in providing attractive
cover and rapid soil stabilization even on compacted soils. On slopes
of moderate grade this grass persists in dense stands. On steep slopes,
however, the cover is less dense, and where the grade exceeds 30%,
establishment is poor.
2. Creeping red fescue and Chewings fescue also provide good
cover after direct seeding operations. These grasses persist for many
years and facilitate the gradual invasion of native vegetation.
3. Although short-lived, common rye grass germinates quickly, and
no doubt plays an important role in stabilizing the soil and facilita-
ting the establish~ent of other seeded and native plants. Perennial rye-
5-13
' grass apparently does not persist for more than 3 or 4 years, and where
this grass has died out, herbaceous cover may be sparse.
4. ·.After direct seeding, silky dogwood became established in some
situations. Seeding of sumacs, Scotch broom, Scotch pine, white pine,
and mountain-laurel did not result in establishmento Where sumacs,
mountain-laurel,and other woody plants are desired for aesthetic pur-
poses or wildlife food, planting of seedlings would be the best policy.
5. Although some direct seeding of sweet-fern was successful,
field observations indicated that many centers of this shrub originated
from broken roots of sweet-fern that were left throughout the tower
site in the bulldozing operation. Research may show that this shrub
can be quickly established by planting short segments of roots at regu-
lar intervals, particularly on slopes with excessive grade.
6. When practicle~ top~oil from tower sites should be saved and
redistributed over the tower area after leveling operations are com-
pleted. Much of the surface soil on these study sites had been removed,
and the heavy texture of the compacted fill provided extremely adverse
growing conditions for both direct seeded species and for quick inva-
sion by native plants. In addition, surface soil contains many native
seeds that would facilitate quick ground cover.
7. Crown-vetch shows great promise for successfull direct seeding
on critical sites of electric ROW's; This aggressive legume was thriving
under adverse growing conditions. on the Ramapo-to Hudson River Line.
8. White clover, of value for certain wildlife species and as a
soil builder, does not compete successfully with taller vegetation, and
thus offers little promise on hydric sites where the dense herbaceous
mantel often reaches a height of 3 to 5 feet by mid-summer. White
clover did persist on seeded road berms and along water bars on the
Oswego to Volney Line since the associated species were low and not
aggressive.
9. Seeding was less effective on slopes exceeding 30%. On steep
slopes much of the seed was washed from the site by surface water be-
fore germinationo
10. Direct seeding is particularly important where soils have been
radically disturbed and compacted during site preparation for tower
construction or maintenance roads. Native seed is not present in the
fill soil, and the compaction reduces the survival of the native seed
that does reach the site.
5.3.4 Method of Estimating Abundance, Cover, and Grouping
In evaluating the composition of the direct seeding areas a com-
bined estimate of abundance and cover was made for each study area. In
this study no tree layer was present; thus the following tables des-
cribe the composition of the herbaceous plants. The presence of tree
seedlings and shrubs, however, is also included.
In addition to the cover value of each species, its typical group-
ing is described, i. eo' whether it grows singly' in groups, tufts,
patches, etc.
5-14
The scales used in these tables is as follows:
For abundance and cover:
++ -occasional
+ sparsely present, covering less than 1/20 of the plot area
1 -plentiful but of small cover value, covering less than 1/20
of the plot area
2 -very numerous, covering at least 1/20 of the plot area
3 -covering 1/4 to 1/2 of the plot area
4 -covering 1/2 to 3/4 of the plot area
5 -covering nore than 3/4 of t~e plot a~ea;
For grouping:
1 -growing one in a place, singly
2 ~ grouped or tufted
3 -in tr6ops, small patches, or cushions, less than 1 milacre3
4 -in small colonies, extensive patches, or forming carpets,
more than 1 milacre3
5-in pure populations (after Braun and Blanquet, 1932).
3 1 mi1acre 1s 1/1000 of an acre or 43.56 sq. feet
I
5-15
I
i
Table 5.1, Vigor of hemlocks 4 years after varying degrees of topping
based on original relative crown position and percent of crown
~emoved in topping operation.
Percent of
Crown Removed
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Relative Crown Position
Dominant Codominant Intermediate
3.6
2.4
1.9
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
V . R . 1 1gor at1ng
2.2
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1 Based on rating of 1 for poor vigor, 2, average vigor, and 3, high
vigor.
5-16
Table 5.2. Total number of edge trees examined in this study by species and location on circular opening.
Location on OEenin~
Species N--NE NE--E E--SE SE--S s--sw sw--w W--NW NW--N Total
Hemlock 15 7 8 9 7 11 6 15 78
Beech 12 23 7 2 8 8 5 4 69
.American Hop-3 1 2 1 5 2 0 1 15
Hornbeam
Sugar-Maple 2 4 1 2 9 0 1 2 21
Red Maple 4 6 4 2 9 4 1 1 31
Red Oak 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 5
White Pine 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 4
White Birch 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 1 8
Yellow Birch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Sweet Birch 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 5
Aspen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Serviceberry 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Chestnut 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
V1 White Ash 0 0 1 7 1 0 0 2 11
I Bitternut Hickory 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 t--'
-....j Basswood 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 3
Total 39 42 25 23 47 29 20 30 255
Table 5. 3. Number of trees with one or more exposed roots by species and location of tree on tower site
opening a
Location on Opening
Species N-NE NE-E E-SE SE-S s-sw SW-W W-NW NW-N Total Percent
9-151 • Hemlock 5-7 3-8 7-9 4-7 2-11 0-6 5-15 35-78 44.9
Beech 9-12 17-23 7-7 1-2 4-8 5-8 4-5 2-4 49-69 71.0
American Hop-1-3 1-1 0-2 0-1 1-5 0-2 ---0-1 3-15 20.0
Hornbeam
Sugar-Maple 1-2 0-4 1-1 1-2 5-9 ---1-1 0-2 9-21 42,8
Red Maple 1-4 2-4 2-4 1-2 2-9 1-4 0-1 1-1 10-31 32.3
Red Oak 0-1 ---------0-2 ---0-2 ---0-5 o.o
White Pine ---------------0-1 0-1 0-2 0-4 o.o
White Birch --- ---
------0-1 0-2 1-4 0-1 1-8 12.5
Yellow Birch ---------------------0-1 0··1 o.o
Sweet Birch 0-1 0-1 1-1 ---0-1 0-1 ------1-5 20o0
Aspen --- ---
------------------0-1 o.o I.J1
I Serviceberry 0-1 --- --- ---------------0-1 o.o t-' co White Ash ------0-1 3-7 0-1 ------1-2 4-11 31.4
Basswood ------0-1 ---1-2 ---------1-3 33.3
Chestnut --------- ---0-1 ---------0-1 o.o
Bitternut --- --- --- ---1-1 ---------1-1 100.0
Hickory
Total 21-39 25-40 14-25 13-23 18-47 8-29 6-20 9-29. 114-55
Percent 53o8 59.5 56o0 56.5 38.3 27.6 30.0 30.0 50.7 44.7
1 Indicates that 9 of the 15 trees had one or more roots exposed.
Table 5.4. Number of roots exposed per tree, by species and location of
trees on towE;r site opening.
Species Location in Opening
N-NE NE-E E-SE SE-S S-SW sw-w W-NW NW-N Total
Hemlock 1.2 0.9 1.2 1.9 1.3 0.4 o.o 0.7 1.0
Beech 1.3 1.5 1.7 0.5 1.9 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.3
American Hop-0.3 3.0 o.o 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.4
Hornbe~ 1.5 o.o 3.0 0.5 0.8 2.0 o.o 0.8 Sugar-Maple
Red Maple 0.9 2.0 0.8 o.s 0.4 0.5 0.0 2.0 0.9
Red Oak 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
White Pine 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0
White Birch 0.0 0.0 0.5 o.o 0.2
Yellow Birch o.o o.o
Sweet Birch 0.0 o.o 4.0 0.0 o.o 0.8
Aspen o.o o.o
Serviceberry o.o o.o
White Ash o.o 0.6 0.0 0.5 0.5
Basswood o.o 1.0 0.7
Chestnut o.o o.o
Bitternut 2.0 2.0
Hickory
Average 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.4 1.7
. 5-19
Table 5.5. Mechanical damage to edge trees by species and location on tower site opening.
Species Location on OJ2ening
N-NE NE-E E-SE SE-S s-sw sw-w W-NW NW-N Total Percent --• Hemlock 3-15 1-7 2-8 1-9 3-7 5-11 5-6 7-15 27-78 34.6
Beech 7-12 10-23 2-7 1-2 3-8 4-8 3-5 2-4 32-69 46.4
American Hop-1-3 1-1 0-2 0-1 2-5 1-2 ---1-1 6-15 40.0
Hornbeam
Sugar-Maple 2-2 1-4 0-1 0-2 2-9 ---1-1 1-2 7-21 33.3
Red Maple 1-4 3-6 0-4 1-2 5-9 4-4 1...;1 0-1 15-31 48.4
Red Oak 1-1 --- ------1-2 ---1-2 ---3-5 60.0
White Pine --- --- ---
------0-1 0-1 0-2 0-4 0.0
White Birch ------------0-1 2-2 2-4 1-'l 5-8 62.5
Yellow Birch --- --- ---
------ ------0-1 0-1 o.o
Sweet Birch 0-1 0-1 0-1 ---1-1 0-1 ------1-5 20.0
Aspen ------------------ ---1-1 1-1 100.0
V1 Serviceberry 0-1 --- --------- ---
o.:..1 o.o I ------
N Chestnut ---0-1 ---------0-1 0.0 0 ---------
White Ash ------0-1 1-7 1-1 ------0-2 2-11 18-2
Bitternut Hickory ------------1-1 ---------1-1 100.0
Basswood ------0-1 ---1-2 --- ------'1-3 33.3
Total 15-39 16-42 4-25 4-23 20-47 16-29 13-20 13.,...30 101~255
Percent 38.5 38.1 16.0 17.4 42.6 55.2 65.0 43.3 31.4
,,,..__,..,__,.~, ..... ~; .. , .:i-b'>ec...·wi·zi· ··d
Table 5.6. Average vigor rating of all trees by ~pecies and location in
tower site opening.
Species Location on OEenin~
' N-NE NE-E E-SE SE-S s-sw sw-w W-NW NW-N Ave.
Hemlock 1.7 2.4 2.9 1.9 1.4 3.0 2.5 2.3 2.2
Beech 2.4 3.4 2.7 4.0 2.1 2.4 1.4 2.0 2.7
American Hop-1.7 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.5 4.0 2.3
Hornbeam
Sugar-Maple 2.5 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.1 1.0 1.5 2.7
Red Maple 1.0 2.8 2.0 3.0 2.9 1.5 5.0 3.0 2.3
Red Oak 1.0 1.0 4.5 2.4
White Pine 2.0 2.0 3.5 2.8
White Birch 1.0 1.5 1.3 o.o 1.0
Yellow Birch 4.0 4.0
Sweet Birch o.o 4.0 1.0 1.0 OaO 1.2
Aspen o .. o o.o
Serviceberry 3.0 3.0
White Ash 1.0 2.1 3.0 1.0 1.9
Basswood 3.0 4.5 4.0
Bitternut 3.0 3.0
Hickory
Chestnut 1.0 1.0
Average 1.9 3.0 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.2 3.3
5-21
Table 5. 7. Percent of edge trees with sunscald by species and location on
tower site opening. •
Species Location on Openirig
N-NE NE-E E-SE SE-S S-SW sw-w W-NW NW-N Ave.
I
'I
:II
Hemlock 20.0 14.3 16.7 11.1 28.7 18.2 16.7 13.3 15.4
Beech 25.0 47.8 o.o 50.0 16.7 o.o 60.0 0.0 27.5
IIi
American Hop-o.o 0.0 o.o 0.0 o.o 0.0 o.o 0.0
Hornbeam
ill Sugar-Maple 0.0 25.0 o.o o.o o.o o.o o.o 4.8
I! I
Red Maple 25.0 33.3 25.0 o.o o.o 25.0 o.o 0.0 16.1
Red Oak o.o o.o 50.0 20.0 lr~ White Pine o.o o.o o.o o.o I·:
111
White Birch o.o o.o o.o 100.0 16.7
il Yellow Birch o.o o.o
Sweet Birch o.o 0.0 o.o 0.0 o.o o.o
Aspen 100.0 100.0
Serviceberry o.o o.o
Chestnut o.o o.o
White Ash o.o o.o 0.0 0.0 o.o
Bitternut Hickory o.o o.o
Basswood o.o 50.0 33.3
Average 18.0 35.7 8.0 8.7 6.4 10.3 25.0 13.3
i i
5-22
Table 5.8. Percent of beech with sunscald by diameter class and location of
edge tree on tower site opening •.
D.B.H. Location on Oeening
Class N-NE NE-E E-SE SE-S s-sw S~v-W W-NW NW-N Ave.
2.0-3.9 40.0 25.0 o.o o.o o.o o.o 19.0
4.0-5.9 o.o 50.0 o.o o.o 0.0 50.0 26.3
6.0-7.9 o.o 50.0 o.o 33.3 o.o o.o 12.5
8.0-9.9 100.0 5o:o o.o 100.0 o.o 50.0
10.0-11.9 o.o 100.0 o.o o.o 100.0 o.o 44.4
12.0-13.9 ---o.o 0.0
14 .. o-15. 9 o.o o.o
16.0-17.9 o.o o.o
Average 25.0 43.5 o.o o.o 12.5 o.o 80.0 o.o
5-23
Table 5.9. Percent of hemlock with sunscald by diameter class and location
on ~ower site opening.
D;. B. H. Location on 0Eening
Class N-NE NE-E E-SE SE-S s-sw sw-w W-NW NW-N Ave.
2.0-3.9 50.0 33.3 100.0 o.o 20.0 o.o o.o o.o 19.0
4.0-5.9 o.o o.o o.o 50.0 o.o o.o 25.0 7.1
6.0-7.9 o.o o.o o.o o.o 66.7 100.0 o.o 25.0
8.0-9.9 o.o o.o o.o o.o 50.0 7.7
10.0-11.9 25.0 o.o o.o o.o o.o 8.3
12.0-13.9 o.o o.o o.o o.o
14.0-15.9 100.0 o.o 50.0
16.0-17.9 o.o o.o
Average 20.0 14.3 12.5 11.1 14.3 18.2 16.7 13.3
I
I
5-24
Table5.10. Ramapo to Hudson River Line, Tower S~te 4. Composition of
plant communities in tower area 4 growing seasons after
seeding with perennial rye-grass, Chewings fescue, common
rye grass, and various trees and shrubs.
Species Rating Species Rating
Shrubs
Blackberry 1.1 Poison Ivy -t+.l
Sweet-fern 1.4
Herbaceous Plants
Kentucky 31 5.5 Lace-Grass +.2
Old-field Cinquefoil 2.3 Crown-Vetch 1.3
Nimble Will Grass +.2 Whorled Loosestrife 1.4 Cud weed -t+.l
Table 5.11. Ramapo to Hudson River Line, Tower Site 5. Composition of
plant communities in tower area 4 growing seasons after
seeding with perennial rye-grass, Che,vings fescue, common
rye gras~ and various trees and shrubs.
Species
Trees
Sweet Birch
Black Locust
Red Maple
Red Oak
Tulip-Poplar
Kentucky 31
Whorled Loosestrife
Old-field-Cinquefoil
Goldenrods
Hair-cap Moss
Panic-Grass
Rating
+.1
+.1
++.1
-t+.l
+.1
Species
Shrubs
Blackberry
Blueberry
Dewberry
Silky Dogwood
Poison Ivy
Swee-t-fern
Willows
Witch-Hazel
He~b~ceous Plants
4.2
2.1
2.4
+.2
+.3
+.3
5-25
Hawkweed (yellow)
White Clover
Milkweed
Bush-Clover
Sedges
Violets
Rating
+.1
+. 2
+.1
+.1
++.2
2.5
++.1
++.3
++.1
+.2
++.1
+.2
+.2
+.2
il
1
Table 5.12. Ramapo to Hudson River Line, Tower Site 2. Composition of
• plant communities in tower area 3 years after seeding with
Chewings fescue, perennial rye-grass, Kentucky 31, white
clover, and various shrubs and trees.
Species Rating Species Rating
Trees Shrubs
Quaking Aspen ++.1 Blueberry 1.3
Sweet Birch +. 2 Blackberry +.1
Black Cherry ++.1 Silky Dogwood 1.1
Red Haple +.1 Spiraea +.2
Chestnut-Oak +.1 Sweet-fern +.3
Herbaceous Plants
Chewings Fescue 3.2 Thistle 1.1
Kentucky 31 3.2 Old-field-Cinquefoil +.2
Goldenrods +.2 Common Ragweed +.2
Deer-tongue Grass +.3 Orchard-Grass +.2
Whorled Loosestrife +.1 Indian Hemp +.1
Sedges +.2 Velvet-Grass +.2
Violets +.2 Common Plantain +.2
Bush-Clover +.1 Broom-sedge 1.2
Common Cinquefoil +.3 Bird's-foot Trefoil +. 2
Common Mullein ++.1
Table 5.13.Ramapo to Hudson River Line, Tower Site 3. Composition of
plant communities in tower area 3 years after seeding with
Chewings fescue, perennial rye-grass, Kentucky 31, white
clover, and various shrubs and trees.
Species
Trees
Quaking Aspen
Sweet Birch
Black Cherry
Red Maple
Black Oak
Chestnut-Oak
Chewings Fescue
Kentucky 31
Panic-Grass
Deer-tongue Grass
Whorled Loosestrife
Goldenrods
Rating
+.1
+.1
1.1
+.1
+.1
+.1
Species
Shrubs
Blackberry
Low Blueberry
Silky Dogwood
Poison Ivy
Spiraea
Sweet-fern
Willows
Herbaceous Plants
3.2
4.2
2.2
+.2
1.1
+.1
5-26
Bird' s ... :foot Trefoil
Velvet-Grass
Timothy
Sedges
White Clover
Rating
+.3
+. 2
1.1
+.2
+.1
+.3
++.1
+.2
+.2
+.2
+.2
++.2
Table 5.14. Oswego to Volney Line, Tower Site 56. Composition of plant
communities in tower area after 2 growing seasons. Direct
seeding was not used on this tower site.
Species Rating Species Rating
Trees Shrubs and Vines
Gray Dogwood +.2
Slippery Elm 2.1 White Elderberry 2.2
Red Maple 1.1 Choke-Cherry +.1
Virgin' s-bovrer 2.2
Poison Ivy +.1
Speckled Alden 1.3
Herbaceous Plants
Sedges 3.2 Ox-eye-Daisy +.3
Rushes 3.2 Lady-Fern +.3
Rough-leaved Golden-rod 1.3 Lace-Grass 3.3
Avens 1.2 May-apple 1.3
Bellwort sp. 1.1 Common Stitch~wrt 1.1
Sensitive Fern 1.1 Canadian St. John' s-wart 2.3
Buttercup 1.2 .Blue-eyed Grass +.1
Early Meadow-Rue 1.1 Tear thumb +.2
Yellow Dock +.1 Speedwell +.1
Old-field-Cinquefoil +.1 White Clover +.2
Jewelweed +.2 Redtop Clover +.2
Sheep-Sorrel +.2 Orchard-Grass +.3
Bugle-weed +.3 Boneset 2.2
5-27
Table 5.15. Oswego to Volney Line, Tm·rer Site 57. Composition of plant
communities in tower site area 2 growing seasons after seed-
• ing with perennial rye-grass.
Species Rating Species Rating
Trees Shrubs & Vines
Large-toothed Aspen +.1 Staghorn-Sumac +.1
Red Haple ++.1 Willows. ++.1
Black Cherry ++.1 Virgin's bower ++.2
Shrubby-Cinquefoil +.1
Herbaceous Plants
Perennial Rye-grass 4.4 Lace-Grass 1.3
Nightshade ++.2 Rushes +.2
Daisy-Fleabane +.1 Ox-eye-Daisy 1.2
Dwarf Dandelion +.2 Common Plantain 1.2
Dandelion +.2 English Plantain 1.2
Strawberry +.2 Pokeweed +.1
Upright Yellow Common Mullein +.1
Wood-sorrel 1.2 Common Ragweed .+.2
Grass-leaved Goldenrod 1.1 Sensitive Fern +.2
Thistle +.1 Horsetail 1.3 Sepges L2
Chickweed 1.3 May-apple ++.1
Heal-all +.2 Narrow-leaved Cat Tail +.2
Yellow Dock 1.2
Boneset 1.2
5-28
Table 5.16. Oswego to Volney Line, Tower Site ~0. Composition of plant
communities in tower area 2 growing seasons after seeding
with perennial rye-grass.
Species
Trees
Black Ash
Large-toothed Aspen
Black Oak
Sheep-Sorrel
Ox-eye-Daisy
Yellow Clover
Red Clover
Timothy
Panic-Grass
Redtop Grass
Heal-all
Sedges
Blue-eyed Grass
Dwarf Dandelion
Butter-and-eggs
English Plantain
Horsetail
Rating
+.1
+.1
+.2
Herbaceous
3.2
1.2
1.3
1.2
2.2
2.3
+.z
+.2
3.2
2.2
+.2
+.2
+.2
1.3
5-29
Species
Arrow-wood
Poison Ivy
Willows
Plants
Black-eyed
Boneset
Shrubs
Susan
Daisy-Fleabane
Common Ragweed
White Clover
Hawkweed (yellow)
Rushes
Orchard-Grass
Chickweed
Buttercup
Strawberry
Common Evening-
Primrose
Queen Anne's~lace
Rating
+.1
1.3
1.1
++.1
+.1
+.1
2.1
2.2
+.2
+.2
++.2
2.2
+.2
+. 2
+.1
++.1
Table 5.17. Fitzpatrick to Edic Line, Tower Site 3. Composition of
plant communities in tower area 3 growing seasons after
• seeding with creeping red fescue, perennial rye-grass,
and white clover.
Species Rating Species Rating
Shrubs & v~nes
Gray Birch +.1 Blackberry +.1
Virginia Creeper +. 2
Willows 1.1
Herbaceous Plants
Creeping Red Fescue 3.3 Cat-tail 1.3
Kill-cow 1.2 Horsetail 2.4
Rushes 1.2 Blue-eyed Grass +.1
Boneset 1.1 Bedstraw 1.2
Yellow Dock ++.2 Ox-eye-Daisy ++.3
Spreading Dogbane ++.3 Goldenrods +.2
Jewelweed ++.2 Asters +.2
Woolly Panic-grass +.2 Canadian St. John's-1.2
wort
Table 5.18. Fitzpatrick to Edic Line, Tower Site 4. Composition of
plant communities in tower area ~ growing seasons after
seeding with creeping red fescue, perennial rye-grass,
and white clover.
Species
Blackberry
White Elderberry
Creeping Red Fescue
Sedges
Rushes
Hawkweed (yellow)
Goldenrods
Strawberry
Jewelweed
Meadow-Rue
Cinnamon-Fern
Blue-eyed Grass
Rating
+.1
1. 2'
Shrubs
Species
Willows
Herbaceous Plants
3.3
3.2
1.2
+. 2
+.3
++.2
+.2
+.1
+.2
+.2
5-30
Cat-tail
Boneset
Bedstraw
Sensitive Fern
Northern Lady Fern
Tear thumb
Wild Lettuce
Ox-eye-Daisy
Horsetail
Canadian St. John's-
wart
Rating
+.1
1.2
1.2
+.2
+.2
+.2
++.2
+.1
+.2
2.3
++.2
i
I
:
Table 5.19. Fitzpatrick to Edic Line, Tower Site 5. Composition of
plant communities in tower area 3 growing seasons after
seeding with creeping red fescue, perennial rye-grass,
and white clover,
Species Rating Species Rating
Trees Shrubs
Gray Birch +ol Blackberry 2.4
Sweet Birch lol Red Elderberry +.3
Red Maple +.1
Herbaceous Plants
Creeping Red Fescue 3.4 Sheep-Sorrel 1.2
Woolly Panic-grass 2.2 Bone set 2.1
Goldenrods +.2 Sedges 1.2
Rushes +.2 Indian Cucumber-root +.1
Hay-scented Fern +.3 Hair-cap Moss +.3
Ox-eye-Daisy ++.3 Timothy ++.1
Lady-Fern ++.2 Violets ++.2
Black Medick ++.2 White Clover ++.2
5-31
Table 5.20. Gilboa to New Scotland-Line, Tower Site 6. Composition of
•
plant communities in tm1er area 5 grmving seasons after
seeding with perennial rye-grass.
Species Rating Species Rating
Trees Shrubs and Vines
White Ash +.1 Blackberry +.2
Quaking Aspen +.1 Grape ++.1
S>leet Birch +.1 Willm1s 1.1
Gray Birch 1.1
Black Locust ++.1
Herbaceous Plants
Blue-eyed Grass 3.2 White Clover 2.3
Ox-eye-Daisy 1.2 Heal-all +.3
Perennial Rye-grass 4.2 Thistle 2.1
Velvet-Grass ++.2 Wild-pink ++.1
Violets 1.2 Rushes +.2
Sensitive Fern 1.2 Narrow-leaved Cat-tail +.3
Sedges 1.2 Panic-Grass 1.2
Everlasting +.2 Basil 1.2
Chickweed +.2 Strawberry 2.3
Common Vetch 1.2 Old-field-Cinquefoil 2.4
Horsetail 3.4 Upright Yellmv Hood-
Grass-leaved Goldenrod 1.2 sorrel +.2
Water-Pennywort 1.3 Boneset 1.1
Buttercup 1.1 Timothy +.1
Rough-leaved Gold~n-rod +.2 Asters 1.2
Spreading Dogbane ++.1 Rough Bedstraw . +. 2
Spotted St. John's-wort +. 2 Coi:1Illon St. John's-wort +.2
5-32
Table 5.21. Gilboa to Scotland Line, To-v1er Site 7. Composition of
plant conununities in tower area 5 'growing seasons after
seeding with perennial rye-grass.
Species Rating Species Rating
Trees Shrubs
Quaking Aspen +.1 Blackberry 1.3
Gray Birch 2.1 Bush-Honeysuckle ++.2
White Birch 2.1 Willm-1s +.1
Hemlock 1.1
Red Haple 1.1
Herbaceous Plants
Perennial Rye-grass 3.2 Pearly Everlasting 1.3
Ox-eye-Daisy 3.2 Spotted St. John's-++.1
White Clover 1.3 wort
Hawkweed (yellow) 1.2 Violets +.2
Hawkweed (orange) ++.2 Thistle +.1
Bird's-foot T~efoil 1.3 Old-field-Cinquefoil 1.4
Panic-Grass +.2 Fox Sedge +.2
Sedges +.2 Strawberry +.5
Timothy +.2 Sensitive Fern +.2
Rushes +.2 Hay-scented Fern +.2
Ceratodon Euq~ureus +.3 Hilkweek ++.1
(moss) Wood-Sorrel +.2
Speedwell +.2 Grass-leaved Goldenrod 2.2
Hair-cap .Moss 1.3 Black Mustard ++.2
Sheep-Sorrel +.2 Mouse-ear Hawkweed ++.2
Japanese Clover +.4 Connon Plantain +.2
5-33
.~
Table 5. 22. Gilboa to New Scotland Line, Tm-1er Site 8. Composition of
•
plant communities in tower area 5 growing seasons after
seeding with perennial rye-grass.
Species Rating Species Rating
Trees Shrubs
Quaking Aspen 2.1 Blackberry 3.4
Beech 2.2 Spiraea 1.2
White Birch 3.1 Willows 1.2
Hemlock ++.1 Striped Maple +.1
Red Maple 1.1
Herbaceous Plants
Perennial Rye-grass 1.2 Ox-eye-Daisy 1.3
Rushes 1.2 Hawkweed (yellow) +.2
Pearly Everlasting 1.2 Hawkweed (orange) ++.2
Speedwell 1.2 Timothy 1.3
Poor -Man's Pepper +.2 Butter-and-eggs +.3
Joe-Pye-weed +.1 Sedges 1.2
Narrow-leaved Cat-tail +.3 Grass-leaved Goldenrod 1.2
Horsetail 3.4 Common 11ullein +.1
Common Vetch 1.2 Thistle 1.1
Hair-cap Moss 1.4 Strawberry 1.2
Hay-scented Fern +.2 Old-field-Cinquefoil 1.2
Redtop Grass 1.2 Annual Bluegrass +.3
Basil +.3 Dock ++~ 2
Upright Yellow Wood-1.2 Common Stitchwort +.2
sorrel
Sheep-Sorrel +.3
5-34
FIG. 5.1.5 Seeded area at site 14, in the summer of 1976.
FIG. 5.1. Visual characteristics 5-35
FIG. 5.1.2 Sunscald on red maple at site 7, in the summe r of 1976.
FIG. 5 .1.4 Tree with exposed roots on site 7, in the summer of 1976 .
. '"', ·-;
FIG . 5.1.6 Current active erosion at tower 4 at site 2, in the
summer of 1976.
J
l'l,i
1.'
5.4 Estimation of Soil Erosion Potential on the ROW's and Adjacent Woodlands
by the U~iversal Soil Loss Equation
5.4.1 Introduction
The Universal Soil Loss Equation (Wischmeier, 1965) was initially developed
for use on cropland, but recently was modified to permit evaluation of soil loss
on woodland, range, and idle lands (Wischmeier, 1971 and 1975) and on construc-
tion sites (Wischmeier and Meyer, 1973). In 1974, the Universal Soil Loss_
Equation was used to obtain quantitative values in an erosion and sediment in-
ventory of New York (Soil Conservation Service, 1974). In this inventory, soil
loss was estimated on construction sites, woodland, and open land as well as on
crop and pasture land.
In this preliminary investigation, the Soil Loss Equation was applied to
existing soil, slope, and plant cover conditions on several study areas to
evaluate its potential as a predictor of soil erosion and sediment production
on transmission ROW's and adjacent woodlands. The Soil Loss Equation is limited
to maximum slope gradients of 20% and slope lengths of 400 feet. Data can be
extrapolated beyond these points, but reliability of estimated soil loss is
reduced.
The Universal Soil Loss Equation ~s A = RKLSCP
Where: A =
R =
K =
L =
s =
c
soil loss per unit area (tons/acre/year);
the rainfall factor, the number of erosion-index units
in a normal year's rain. The erosion index is a measure
of the erosive force of specific rainfall;
the soil erodibility factor, the erosion rate per unit
of erosion index for specific New York soils;
the slope-length factor, the ratio of soil loss from the
study area slope length to that from a 72.6 foot length
on the same soil type and gradient;
the slope-gradient factor, the ratio of soil loss from
·the study area gradient to that from a 9% slope;
the cropping-management factor, the ratio of soil loss
from a field with specified cropping and management to
that from the fallow condition on which the factor K is
evaluated. (This factor is modified to account for
canopy cover, surface mulch such as humu~, and close-
growing vegetation associated with woodland and open
lands such as a ROW.);
P = the e~osion control practice factor.
5.4.2 Procedures
The Universal Soil Loss Equation was utilized on 4 study areas: Pough-
keepsie to Ohioville (site 5), Hillside to Oakdale (site 9), Oswego to Clay#4
(site 15), and Moses to Adirondack (site 19). These sites were selected to
provide erosion predictions on the ROW's for counties and regions of New York
with different Rainfall Factors (R) and to include examples with variable soil
types.
The Soil Erodibility Factor (K) for each soil series was obtained from
the list of K-values for New York soils provided by the Soil Conservation
Service. Where necessary, K-values were adjusted according to instructions
to account for changes in soil erodibility due to channery, gravelly, or
5-36
shaly surface soil conditions. Slope-length and Slop-e-gradient Factors (LS),
for.assumed uniform slopes, were calculated from values presented in Table
5.23 (from Wischmeier, 1975) for slopes used in this evaluation. Appropriate
C-values were selected from Tables 5.24 and 5.25 (from Wischmeier, 1975) to
represent actual or possible plant and mulch cover under ROW and woodland
conditions. This involves a modification of the Equation, recommended by
Wischmeier (1971 and 1975), for application to these land-use conditions in
contrast to conventional use on cropland. The Erosion Control Factor (P)
was deleted since it it not applicable in these situations.
Estimated sheet and rill erosion, expressed in tons/acre/year, was calcu-
lated for 4 slope-length aud 4 slope-steepness categories, assuming uniform
slope configurations, with comparisons between the general ROW and undisturbed
bordering forest on each study area. These categories were selected to show
the effect of increasing slope length up to 400 feet and slope gradient up to
18% on erosion potential when all other factors are held constant. Erosion
estimates also were made to compare different vegetal canopies, organic mulch,
and surface mineral soil conditions on the ROW's with a constant slope length
of 100 feet and 3 slope gradients. These comparisons were made to simulate
possible ROW conditions following construction and maintenance activities.
The soil loss predictions presented in this evaluation do not apply to
specific segments of each study area, but are based on actual soil, slope,
and plant cover conditions present.
5.4.3 Results and Discussion
Site 5 -Poughkeepsie to'Ohioville This study area is located in Ulster
County (Rainfall Factor = 150) and is included in the New England Highlands
and Mohawk-Hudson regions. The Soil Loss Equation was applied to 4 soil types
present: Bath gravelly loam, Canandaigua silt loam, Chenango gravelly silt
loam, and Erie very stony loam. These included two textural classes, loam and
silt loam, with adjustments in the Soil Erodibility Factor (K) for Bath and
Chenango series which exhibited high grave.l content.
Under existing rainfall, soil, plant cover, and humus type conditions on
this study area, it is evident that normal sheet and rill erosion is very low,
even on 'the longest and steepest slopes utilized in this evaluation Table 5~26).
Predicted erosion on the 3 and 6 percent slopes was minimal, generally less
than 0.3 and 0.6 tons/acre/year for the forest and ROW, respectively, on any
soil and slope length category. In this example, erosion is somewhat lower
in the undisturbed forest than on the general ROW, areas where woody brush
was controlled but with minimal disturbance to the ril.ineral soil, organic
mulch,, and low plant cover: The highest estimated erosion occurred on the
silt loam soil, next highest on the very stony loam, and least on the loam
and silt loam where inherent soil erodibility is moderated by the gravelly
surface conditions. As expected, potential erosion increases in accordance
with increases in slope length and steepness for all soil and cover condi-
tions. This emphasizes the importance of careful management on long, steep
gradients, especially on soils such as silt loams that exhibit high erodibil-
ity.
Predicted soil erosion rates in tons/acre/year for various land uses in
Ulster County by the Soil Conservation Service (1974) for average slope
conditions are: woodland, 1.23; open land formerly cropped, 0.27; and pas-
tureland, 0.80. Similar predictions in the Lower Wallkill Watershed near
5-37
site 5 are: woodland, 0.66; open land formerly cropped, 0.18; and pasture-
land, 0.62. I~ is evident that estimated erosion on the study area (Table
5.26) is equivalent to, or less than, these rates on ~ower slope gradients,
and slightly higher on steeper slopes up to 18%. In addition, it is inter-
esting to note that erosion estimates by the SCS were slightly higher on
woodland than on idle land (open land formerly cropped) that may be some-
what analogous to general ROW conditions.
The comparison in predicted erosion among the ROW cover conditions for
the same soil types on 100-foot slopes shows the dramatic impact of partial
and/or complete removal of vegetation and organic mulch, and disturbance of
the surface mineral soil (Table 5.27). The greatest effect occurs on the
erodible Canandaigua silt loam, 18% slope, where estimated erosion was 1.5
tons/acre/year under normal ROW cover conditions, and 256 tons/acre/year
estimated soil loss when plant cover and mulch were removed and surface
mineral soil exposed and disrupted. These conditions and related soil ero-
sion rates could occur on the ROW tower sites, stringing areas, and access
roads that are bare or only partially stabilized by plant cover. Inter-
mediate conditions such as "B" and "C" in Table 5.27 could occur on a ROW
following chemical brush control and possible breakdm;m of litter and
humus layers; however, such an effect likely would be of short duration due
to invasion and regrowth of plants. Estimated soil losses for disturbed
conditions on this site are comparable to average predicted losses by the
SCS (1974) on construction sites in Ulster County and the Lower Wallkill
Watershed, which are 202.72 and 85.89 tons/acre/year, respectively.
Site 9 -Hillside to Oakdale This study area is located in Chemung
County (Rainfall Factor = 100) and is included in the Appalachian Highlands
and Catskill regions. The Soil Loss Equation was applied to 3 soil types
present: Chenango channery silt loam, Mardin channery silt loam, and Volusia
channery silt loam. These silt loam soils occurred on slopes with gradients
in the range 0-8% up to 35-50%. Due to inherent soil properties, these soil
series had different Soil Erodibility Factors (K), but each was reduced ac~
cordingly to account for the less erodible channery phase.
Predicted erosion on the 3 soils was less in the undisturbed forest than
on the general ROW, but both were very low, less than 0. 5 and 1. 0 tons/ acre/
year on the forest and the ROW, respectively, for all soil types and slopes
(Table 5.28). Estimated erosion did not exceed 0.2 tons/acre/year on either
the ROW or the forest on slope gradients of 3 and 6%; however, the soil loss
was 3 to 5 times greater on slopes of 12 to 18%. This shows the effect of
increasing length, up to 400 feet, and steepness, up to 18%, for these assumed
uniform slopes. The greatest estimated erosion for all slope categories under
both cover types occurred on the Volusia soils, which are somewhat poorly
drained and possess a strong fragipan; next highest on the moderately well'
drained Mardin; and least on the well to excessively drained Chenango series.
Although erosion.potential should be considered under all ROW conditions,
these data reveal that it is especially important on long, steep slopes.
Furthermore, it emphasizes the need to be. familiar with existing soil types
and associated properties such as texture, structure, and permeability that
ar~ related to soil erodibility.
Erosion estimates in relation to,4.assumed ROW cover conditions for
each of the 3 soil types provides some insight into potential effects of
5-38
vegetation manipulation, breakdown, or removal of organic mulch, and di-
turbance of surface mineral soil (Table 5.29). For the most erodible soil,
Volusia channery silt loam, predicted erosion on slopes 100 feet long and
with a 6% gradient was 160 t~mes greater when vegetation and organic mulch
were removed and mineral soil disturbed (Condition "D") than under normal
ROW cover (Condition "A"). The potential impact is even greater on steeper
slopes. In this example, predicted erosion on the 18% slope, for the same
soil type and slope length, was 84 tons/acre/year on cover condition "D",
as compared with less than 1~0 tons/acre/year on cover condition "A".
Maximum predicted soil loss on soils with lower inherent erodibilities,
Mardin and Chenango, was less than Volusia, but both soils had comparable
dramatic increases related to changes in the ROW cover conditions from
normal to drastically disturbed.
Reference to the Erosion and Sediment Inventory for New York (Soil
Conservation Service, 1974) reveals the following average erosion rates
in tons/acre/year for various land uses in Chemung County: woodland, 0.79;
open land formerly cropped, 0.92; pastureland, 0.69; and construction sites,
131.78. Erosion rates in watersheds near site 9, Goldsmith Creek and Wyn-
coop Creek, were similar to county averages except on construction sites.
These were: woodland, 0.80; open land formerly cropped, 0.93; pastureland,
0.63; and construction sites, 230.00 tons/acre/year. For the ROW and
adjacent forest cover and soil conditions used in soil loss calculations
for site 9, it appears that potential erosion is generally less than that
predicted on the county or local watershed basis. ·
Site 15 -Oswego to Clay #4. This study area is located in Oswego County.
(Rainfall Factor = 85) and is included in the Lake Plain region. The Soil
Loss Equation was applied to 4 soil types present: Alton gravelly fine
sandy loam, Minoa very fine sandy loam, Oakville loamy fine sand, and William-
son very fine sandy loam. These are coarse-textured soils tha~ range from
· excessive to somewhat poorly drained and have different Soil Erodibility
Factors (K), except Alton, which was modified to account for high gravel con-
tent. These soils occurred mostly on 0-8% slopes on this study area, but may
occupy steeper slopes up to 35%, except Minoa, at other locations.
Average erosion estimates for all soils and slopes used in this evalu-
ation were 0.14 and 0.28 tons/acre/year in undisturbed forest and general
ROW, respectively. Erosion under these conditions is quite low and reason-
ably close to overall average erosion predicted by the SCS (Soil Conservation
Service, 1974) for somewhat related land uses. SCS predictions for Oswego
County and the Lower Oswego River Watershed, which includes site 15, re-
spectively, are·: woodland, 0.18 and 0.24; open land formerly cropped, 0.15
and 0.16; and pastureland, 0.68 and 0.70 tons/acre/year.
Erosion varied with slope, as anticipated, with increases related to
increases in slope length and steepness (Table 5.30). The greatest change 1n
erosion rate occurred on long, steep slopes, up to 400 feet length and 18%
steepness in this example; thus, emphasizing the need for careful management
on such sites. Erosion also varied among soils, being highest on Williamson
that is· moderately well drained with a fragipan; next highest on Minoa that
is somewhat poorly drained; and least on Alton and Oakville series which are
well to excessively drained. It is likely that erosion would be similar for
other soils on site 15, since all have erodibility factors within the range
5-39
(K = 0.17 to 0.49) used in this evaluation. However, rates of soil. loss
and potential.sediment production may be higher on steeper slope segments
and on all conditions where vegetation and surface soil are disturbed.
Comparison of estimated erosion rates on the ROW for the same soils
on 3 slope-gradients and 100-foot slope length, but with different land
treatments, shows the effect of vegetation manipulation, removal or deteri-
oration of organic matter, and disturbance of mineral soil (Table 5.31) •
When comp~red with general or normal ROW cover conditions (Condition "A"),
erosion rates on the most drastic treatment (Condition "D"), which involved
complete removal of all vegetation and organic layers plus disruption of
the mineral soil, were about 164 times greater on all soil types and slope
steepnesses. The highest erosion rates for all the ROW cover conditions
and slope gradients evaluated occurred on the Williamson soil, which ex-
hibits the greatest inherent erodibility. Simulated cover conditions used
in this model are realistic and do occur on the ROW's followirtg construction
activities, particularly access roads, tower sites, and stringing areas, and
vegetation maintenance. Some effects, however, are short-term, depending on
reestablishment of plant cover and perhaps installation of erosion control
structures. Soil erosion on cover condition "D" may be analogous to that on
construction sites which was estimated by the SCS (1974) to average 124.10
and 40.89 tons/acre/year for Oswego County and the Lower Oswego River Water-
shed, respectively.
Site 19 -Moses to Adirondack This study area is located in Lewis County
(Rainfall Factor = 125) and is included in the Adirondack, Tug Hill and St.
Lawrence-Champlain regions. The Soil Loss Equation was applied to 3 soil
types present: Adams loamy fine sand, Croghan loamy fine sand, and Gloucester
sandy loam. · The somewhat poorly drained Croghan soils normally occupy slopes
of less than 15% gradient, while the moderately we1l to excessively drained
Adams and Gloucester soils may occur on slopes up to 35%.
Under existing and assumed conditions on this study area, estimated sheet
and rill erosion is less in the bordering forest than on the general ROW
(Table 5.32). However, erosion rate is very low under both cover types .. aver-
aging 0.14 and 0.27 tons/acre/year in the forest and on the ROW, respectively,
for all soil and slope categories combined. Erosion of these coarse-textured
soils increased with increasing slope length and steepness, the rate being
about 3 times greater on 400-foot than ori 50-foot slope lengths and 11 to 12
times greater on 18% than on 3% gradients. This indicates -that slope steep-
ness is more critical than slope length in respect to erosion potential on
these soil and plant cover conditions. To minimize the erosion hazard,
especially when vegetation and surface soils may be disturbed, both slope
length and gradient must be considered. Predicted erosion was greatest on
the somewhat poorly drained Croghan loamy fine .sand than on well-drained
Adams loamy fine sand and Gloucester sandy loa~which differ in texture but
have similar erodibility factors.
Soil Conservation Service (1974) predictions of average soil loss in
tons/acre/year for various land uses in Lewis County are: woodland, 0.14;
open land formerly cropped, 0.10; and pastureland, 0.64. Similar soil loss
estimates were obtained for 3 nearby watersheds: Tributary at New Breman,
Middle Black River, and Beaver River in Lewis County. Predicted soil loss
on the Moses to Adirondack ROW and adjacent woodland, therefore, is comparable
5-40
to the average losses determined by the SCS for woodland and open land sit-
uations in this county.
Although the 3 soils utilized in this evaluation have low erodibility
factors (K = 0.17 to 0.20), all are subject to accelerated erosion when
protective vegetation, organic layers, and surface soil are disturbed. Com-
parisons among simulated ROW cover conditions show major increases in esti-
mated soil loss and sediment production when the vegetal canopy and organic
mulch are removed and surface mineral soil exposed and graded (Table 5.33).
These comparisons, limited to 100-foot slopes, reveal that the most drastic
effect of cover manipulation on soil erosion is expressed on the steeper
slopes. For the most erodible soil, Croghan loamy fine sand, estimated soil
loss on 18% slopes increasetl from 0.52 tons/acre/year under general ROW
conditions (Condition "A") to 87.25 tons/acre/year when the soil is denuded
and graded (Condition "D"). A similar ratio of increased soil erosion among
cover conditions also occurred on the lower slope gradients, but the magni-
tude of soil loss was considerably less.
Estimated erosion on all soils for the ROW cover condition "D", which
involves disturbance of surface mineral soils, is less than average soil
losses of 97 to 133 tons/acre/year predicted by the SCS (1974)·on construc-
tion sites in Lewis County and nearby watersheds, respectively. However,
erosion estimates under disturbed conditions on the ROW are comparable to
predicted SCS soil losses on roadbanks of 43.33 to 53.20 tons/acre/year in
Lewis County and on local watersheds, respectively.
5.4.4 Summary and Conclusions
The Universal Soil Loss Equation was applied to actual data representing
environmental conditions of the ROW's and bordering forests of 4 study areas
located in different counties, physiographic regions, and forest types of New
York. The objective was to evaluate the applicability of this equation for
estimation of soil erosion and sediment production under these nonagricultural
land uses. The evaluation was based on overall or average soil and plant cover
conditions present on each area and does not apply to conditions on specific
segments of the ROW or adjacent forest. The equation is limited to estimates
of sheet and rill erosion; therefore, it is not applicable to assessment of
soil loss in gully erosion which may occur on the ROW areas such as access
roads where runoff-water is channelized and concentrated.
In this preliminary evaluation, soil erosion estimates varied markedly
among existing soil types, slope lengths and gradients, plant covers, and
organic mulch conditions. Predicted erosion rates were somewhat lower in
woodlands than on the general ROW's, but both cover types exhibited low ero-
sion potential. This is apparently due to the protective tree and shrub
layers in the forest, dense low plant cover on the general ROW, and nearly
complete organic layers on the soil surface of both cover types that are
relatively undisturbed. Accelerated soil erosion on long, steep slopes em-
phasizes the importance of careful management on such critical areas of the
ROW. Variation in erosion among soils, within and between study areas,
shows the need for an adequate knowledge of soil types and associated prop-
erties that may be related to inherent erodibility.
Dramatic increases in estimated soil erosion occurred in a simulation
of the ROW cover conditions where the vegetal canopy and organic mulch were
partially or completely removed and surface mineral soil disturbed by
5-41
grading or bulldozing. The most drastic treatment resulted in soil loss rates
167 times greater than that predicted on normal cover conditions of the gen~
eral ROW. Afthough this analysis was based on a simulated model, such con-
ditions do occur on the ROW areas such as access roads, staging-stringing sites,
and tower sites where the soil and plant cover is drastically modified. In a
like manner, the simulated model can be reversed to show a reduction in soil
erosion potential due to partial or complete stabilization of such disturbed
areas by natural plant invasion, restoration seeding, or installation of
erosion control structures.
Based on this preliminary evaluation, it is evident that the Universal
Soil Loss Equation has potential as a management tool on transmission ROW's.
In application, it can be used on specific segments of the ROW to evaluate
actual existing vegetation, soil, and slope conditions; predict soil losses
resulting from construction disturbances; and show potential reduction in
erosion due to re-vegetation and installation of control structures on dis-
turbed areas. In essence, it may be useful to show potential consequences
of alternative management activities in respect to erosion and sedimentation.
In addition, more precise predictions can be made for specified areas with
modifications in the equation to account for variable slope configurations,
exposed subsoil properties associated with deep excavations, and other local
factors. However, additional research is needed to test, modify, and adapt
the Soil Loss Equation to conditions encountered on transmission ROW's.
5-42
1 Table 5.23.LS values for uniform slopes of given le~gths and steepnesses.
(Adapted from Wischmeier, 1975)
Length Steepness (%)
(ft. ) 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 20
50 0.22 0.38 0.58 0.83 1.12 1.45 1. 83 2.95
100 .30 .53 .82 1.17 1. 59 2.06 2.59 4.19
150 .37 .65 1.01 1.44 1. 94 2.52 3.17 5.14
200 .43 .75 1.16 1.66 2.24 2.91 3.67 5.93
250 .48 .84 1. 30 1. 86 2.51 3.25 4.10 6.63
300 .53 .92 1.43 2.03 2.75 3.56 4.49 7.26
350 .57 1.00 1.54 2.20 2.97 3.85 4.85 7.85
400 .61 1.07 1.65 2.35 3.17 4.12 5.18 8.39
450 .65 1.13 1. 75 2.49 3.36 4.37 5.50 8.90
500 .68 1.19 1. 84 2.62 3.54 4.60 5.80 9.38
550 .71 1. 25 1. 93 2.75 3. 72 4.83 6.08 9.84
600 .75 1. 31 2.02 2.87 3.88 5.04 6.35 10.27
1 Derived from standard slope-effect chart (Wischmeier and Smith, 1965))
which assumes a length exponent of 0.5. Values for other slopes, not
exceeding 20% or 800 feet can be computed by the equation, LS=O.Ol{'[""
(0.76+0.53s+0.076s2) where L =slope length in feet and s = percent
slope. However, interpolation between values in the table is usually
adequate. Where appropriate value of the slope-length exponent :LS
other than 0.5, follow procedure given in Agricultural Handbook 282
(Wischmeier and Smith, 1965) .
5-43
'' :j'
1 All values shown assume: 1) random distribution of mulch or vegetation,
and 2) mulch of substantial depth where credited.
2 Average fall height of waterdrops from canopy to soil surface. m = meters.
3 Percentage of total-area surface that would be hidden from view by canopy
~n a vertical projection.
4 G: cover at surface ~s grass or decaying, compacted duff of substantial
depth.
W: cover at surface is weeds (plants with little lateral-root network
near the surface), or undecayed residue.
5-44
Table 5.25. "C" factors for woodland. (Adapted froni Wischmeier, 1975)
Forest
Stand Tree Cano~? Litter 2 3 "C"
Condition % of Area % of Area Undergrowth Factor
Well stocked 100-75 100-90 4 .001 Managed 4 Unmanaged . 003-.011
Medium stocked 75-40 90-75 Managed .002-.004
Unmanaged .01 -.04
Poorly stocked 40-20 70-40 Managed .003-.009 5
Unmanaged .02 -.09
1 When tree canopy is less than 20% the area will be considered as grassland
or cropland for estimating soil loss. See Table 5.24.
2 Forest litter is assumed to be of substantial depth over the percent of
the area on which it is credited.
3
4
5
Undergrowth is defined as shrubs, weeds, grasses, vines, etc., on the sur-
face area not protected by forest litter. Usually found under canopy
open~ngs.
Managed -grazing and fires are controlled.
Unmanaged -stands that are overgrazed or subjected to repeated burning.
For unmanaged woodland with litter cover of less than 75%, C values should
be derived by taking 0.7 of the appropriate values in Table 5.24. The fac-
tor of 0.7 adjusts for the much higher soil organic matter on permanent
woodland.
5-45
Table 5.26.Estimation of potential sheet and rill erosion by Universal Soil
Lqps Equation for selected soil types and slopes under forest and
ROW conditions on Poughkeepsie to Ohioville Site 5.1
Location and Slope Steepness Percent
Forest ROW
Soil Type
Slope
Length
(ft.) 3 6 12 18 3 6 12 18
Bath gravelly loam
(K = 0.17)
Canandaigua silt
loam
(K = 0.49)
Chenango gravelly
silt loam
(K = 0.17)
Erie very stony
loam
(K = 0.32)
50
100
200
400
50
100
200
400
50
100
200
400
50
100
200
400
0.02
.02
.03
.05
.OS
.07
.09
.13
.02
.02
.03
.05
.03
.04
.06
.09
0.04
.05
.07
.10
.10
.15
.21
.30
.04
.05
.07
.10
.07
.10
.14
.19
1 Existing conditions and assumptions:
0.10
.14
.20
.28
.28
.40
.56
.80
.10
.14
.20
.28
·.18
.26
.37
.52
0.19
.27
.38
.53
.54
.80
1.08
1.54
.19
.27
.38
.53
. 35
.50
.71
1. 01
0.03
.05
.07
.09
.10
.13
.19
.27
0.03
.05
.07
.09
.06
.09
.12
.18
0.07
.10
.14
.21
.21
. 30
.41
.59
.07
.10
.14
.21
.14
.19
.27
.39
a. Rainfall factor (R) = 150 for Ulster County, New York.
0.20
.28
.39
.55
.56
.80
1.12
1. 59
.20
.28
.39
.55
.37
.52
.73
1.04
0.37
.53
.75
1.07
1. 08
1. 54
2.17
3.08
.37
.53
.75
1.07
.71
1. 01
1.42
2.01
b. Slope length-steepness factor (LS) from Table 5.23 for uniform slopes.
c. Cover conditions -
Forest: medium stocking; canopy cover 75%; litter cover 85%;
undergrowth managed, ungrazed-no recent fires (e = 0.003)
ROW: canopy of tall weeds and short brush; canopy' cover 75%;
surface cover grass-weeds-duff; surface cover 90%.
(C = 0.006)
d. Humus type -
Forest:
ROW:
thin duff mull
thin duff mull
5-46
Table 5.27.Estimation of potential sheet and rill e~osion by Universal Soil
Loss Equation for selected soil types and slope steepness of th~
ROW assuming different cover conditions and constant slope lt;~6Ln
of 100 feet on the Poughkeepsie to Ohioville Site 5.1
Soil Type
Bath gravelly loam
(K = 0.17)
Canandaigua silt
loam
(K = 0.49)
Chenango gravelly
silt loam
(K = 0.17)
ROW Cover
Condition2
A
B
c
D
A
B
c
D
A
B
c
D
Erie very stony loam A
(K = 0.32) B
c
D
6
0.10
0.38
7.69
17.08
0.30
1.08
22.16
49.24
0.10
0.38
7.69
17.08
0.19
0. 71
14.47
32.16
Slope Steepness (%)
12 18
tons/acre/year
0.28 0.53
1.02 1. 96
20.77 40.05
46.15 89.00
0.80 1.54
2.93 5.64
59.87 115.43
133.03 256.52
0.28 0.53
1.02 1. 96
20.77 40.05
46.15 89.00
0.52 1. 01
1. 91 3.69
39.10 75.38
86.88 167.52
1 See Table 5.26, footnote 1, for existing conditions and assumptions.
2 ROW cover conditions:
A -Normal grass-herb-shrub cover and organLc mulch as Ln Table 5.26.
(C = 0.006)
B -No vegetal canopy except sparse grass and herbs; 90% organic mulch
cover; no disturbance of mineral soil. (C = 0.022)
C -No vegetal canopy; no organic mulch; mineral soil exposed, but not
disturbed. (C = 0.45)
D -Condition "C" above, plus disturbance of mineral soil by light
bulldozing or grading with no erosion control structures.
(C = 1.00)
5-47
Table 5.28.Estimation of potential sheet and rill erosion by Universal Soil
Los~ Equation for selected soil types and slopes ¥nder
ROW conditions bn the Hillside to Oakdale Site 9.~
forest and
Slope Location and Slope Steepness Percent
Length Forest ROW
Soil Type (ft.) 3 6 12 18 3 6 12 18
tons/acre/year
Chenango channery 50 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.12 0.02 0.05 0.13 0.25
silt loam 100 .02 .03 .09 .18 .03 .07 .18 .36
(K = 0.17) 200 .02 .05 .13 .25 .04 .10 .26 .50
400 .03 .07 .18 .36 .06 .14 .37 .71
Mardin channery 50 .01 .03 .08 .15 .03 .06 .15 .29
silt loam 100 .02 .04 .11 .21 .04 .08 .22 .42
(K = 0.20) 200 .03 .06 .15 .30 .05 .11 .31 .59
400 .04 .08 .22 .42 .07 .16 .43 .84
Volusia channery 50 .02 .03 .09 .18 .03 .07 .18 .35
1
silt loam 100 .02 .05 .13 .25 .04 .10 .26 .50
(K = 0.24) 200 .03 .07 .18 . 35 .06 .14 .37 .71
400 .04 .10 .26 .50 .09 .19 .52 1. 01
Existing conditions and assumptions:
a. Rainfall factor (R) = 100 for Chemung County, New York.
b. Slope length-steepness factor (LS) from Table 5.23 for uniform slope.
c. Cover conditions -
Forest: medium stocking; canopy cover 75%; litter cover 80%;
undergrowth managed, ungrazed-no recent fires. (C = 0.003)
ROW: canopy of tall weeds and short brush; canopy cover 75%;
surface cover grass-weeds-duff; surface cover 90%.
(C = 0.006)
d. Humus type -
Forest: thin duff mull
ROW: thin duff mull
5-48
Table 5.29. Estimation of potential sheet and rill erosion by Universal Soil
Loss Equation for selected soil types and. slope steepnesses of the
ROW assuming different cover conditions and coystant slope length
of 100 feet ·on the Hillside to Oakdale Site 9.
ROW Gover
Soil Type Coridition2
Slope Steepness (%)
6 12 18
torts/acre/year
Chenango channery A 0.07 0.18 0.36
silt loam B 0.25 0.68 1.31
(K = 0.17) c 5.13 13.85 26.70
D 11.39 30.77 59.33
Mardin channery A 0.08 0.22 0.42
silt loam B 0.29 0.80 1. 54
(K = 0.20) c 6.03 16.29 31.41
D 13.40 36.20 69.80
Volusia channery A 0.10 0.26 0.50
silt loam B 0.35 0.96 1.84
(K = 0.24) c 7.24 19,55 37.69
D 16.08 43.44 83.76
1 See Table 5.28, footnote 1, for existing conditions and assumptions.
2 ROW cover conditions:
A -Normal grass-herb-shrub cover and organic mulch as in Table 5.28.
(C = 0.006)
B -No vegetal canopy except sparse grass and herbs; 90% organic mulch
cover; no disturbance of mineral soil. (C = 0.022)
C -No vegetal canopy; no organic mulch; mineral soil exposed, but not
disturbed. (C = 0.45)
D -Condition "C" above, plus disturbance of mineral soil by light
bulldozing or grading with no erosion control structures. (C = 1.00)
5-49
Table 5.30. Estimation of potential sheet and rill erosion by Universal Soil
Loss Equation for selected soil types and slopes under forest and
ROW conditions on the Oswego to Clay #4 Site 15.1
Slope Location and slope Steepness percent
Length Forest ROW
Soil Type (ft.) 3 6 12 18 3 6 12 18
tons/acre/year
Alton gravelly 50 0.01 0.02 0.06 O.ll 0.02 0.04 O.ll 0.21
fine sandy loam 100 .01 .03 .08 .15 .03 .06 .16 .30
(K = 0.17) 200 .02 .04 .ll .21 .04 .08 . 22 .43
400 .03 .06 .16 .30 .05 .12 .31 .61
Minoa very fine 50 .02 .03 .09 .17 .03 .07 .18 . 35
sandy loam 100 .02 .05 .13 .25 .04 .10 .26 .50
(K = 0.28) 200 .03 .07 .18 .35 .06 .13 .36 .70
,400 .04 .10 .26 .so .09 .19 .52 1. 00
Oakville loamy 50 .01 .02 .06 .ll .02 .04 .ll .21
fine sand 100 .01 .03 .08 .15 .03 .06 .16 .30
(K = 0.17) 200 .02 .04 .ll .21 .04 .08 .22 .43
400 .03 .06 .16 .30 .05 .12 .31 .61
Williamson very 50 .03 .06 .16 .31 .05 .12 .32 .61
1
fine sandy loam 100 .04 .08 .23 .44 .07 .17 .45 .87
(K = 0.49) 200 .05 .12 .32 .61 .ll .23 .64 1. 23
400 .08 .17 .45 .87 .15 .33 .90 1. 74
Existing conditions and assumptions:
a. Rainfall factor (R) = 85 for Oswego County, New York.
b. Slope length-steepness factor (LS) from Table 5.23 for uniform slopes.
c. Cover conditions -
d.
Forest: medium stocking; canopy cover 75%; litter cover 75%;
undergrowth managed, ungrazed-no recent fires. (C 0.003)
ROW: canopy of tall weeds and short brush; canopy cover 75%;
surface cover grass-weeds-duff; surface cover 90%.
(C = 0.006)
Humus types -
Forest: mes1c sites-thin duff mull; xer1c sites-very shallow sand
mull.
ROW: mes1c sites-thin duff mull; xer1c sites-very shallow sand
mull.
5-50
Table 5.31. Estimation of potential sheet and rill erosion by Universal Soil
Loss Equation for selected soil types and"slope steepnesses of the
ROW assuming different cover conditions and constant slope length
of 100 feet on the Oswego to Clay #4 Site 15.1
Slope Steepness (%)
Soil Type
ROW Cover
Condition2 6 12 18
tons/acre/year
Alton gravelly fine A· 0.06 0.16 0.30
sandy loam B 0.21 0.58 l.ll
(K = 0.17) c 4.36 11.77 22.69
D 9.68 26.15 50.43
Minoa very fine A 0.10 0.26 0.50
sandy loam B 0.35 0.95 1. 83
(K = 0.28) c 7.18 19.38 37.38
D 15.95 43.08 83.06
Oakville loamy fine A 0.06 0.16 0.30
sand B 0.21 0.58 l.ll
(K = 0.17) c 4.36 ll.77 22.69
D 9.68 26.15 50.43
Williamson very fine A 0.17 0.45 0.87
sandy loam B 0.61 1.66 3.20
(K = 0.49) c 12.56 33.92 65.41
D 27.91 75.39 145.36
1 See Table 5.30 footnote 1, for existing conditions and assumptions.
2 ROW cover conditions:
A -Normal grass-weed-shrub cover and organ1c mulch as in Table 5.30.
(C = 0.006)
B -No vegetal canopy except sparse grass and herbs; 90% organic mulch
cover; no disturbance of mineral soil. (C = 0.022)
C -No vegetal canopy; no organic mulch; mineral soil exposed, but not
disturbed. (C = 0.45)
D -Condition "C" above, plus disturbance of mineral soil by light
bulldozing or grading with no erosion control structures.
(C = 1.00)
5-51
.... ·~·
Table 5.32. Estimated sheet and rill erosion by Universal Soil Loss Equation
for seler:ted soil types and slopes. under forest and ROW conditions
on•the Moses to Adirondack Site 19.1
Location and Slope Steepness fercent
Forest ROW
Soil Type
Slope
Length
(ft.) 3 6 12 18 3 6 12 18
tons/acre/year
Adams loamy fine 50 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.16 0.03 0.06 0.16 0.31
sand 100 .02 .04 .12 .22 .04 .09 .23 .44
(K = 0.17) 200 .03 .06 .16 .31 .05 .12 .33 .63
400 .04 .09 .23 .44 .08 .17 .46 .89
Croghan loamy 50 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.18 0.03 0.07 0.19 0.37
fine sand 100 .02 .05 .14 .26 .05 .10 .27 .52
(K = 0.20) 200 .03 .07 .19 .37 .06 .14 .38 .74
400 .05 .10 .27 .52 .09 .20 .54 1.05
Gloucester sandy 50 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.16 0.03 0.06 0.16 0.31
1
loam 100 .02 .04 .12 .22 .04 .09 .23 .44
(K = 0.17) 200 .03 .06 .16 .31 .05 .12 .33 .63
400 .04 .09 .23 .44 .08 .17 .46 .89
Existing conditions and assumptions:
a. Rainfall factor (R) = 125 for Lewis County, New York.
b. Slope length-steepness factor (LS) from Table 5.23 for uniform slope.
c. Cover conditions -
Forest: medium stocking; canopy cover 75%; litter cover 90%; under-
growth managed, ungrazed-no recent fires. (C = 0.003)
ROW: canopy of tall weeds and short brush; canopy cover 50%;
surface cover grass-weeds-duff; surface cover 90%.
(C = 0.006)
d. Humus type -
Forest: thin duff mull
ROW: thin duff mull
5-52
rable 5.33. Estimated sheet and rill erosion by Universal Soil Loss Equation
for selected soil types and slope steepnesses of the ROW assuming.
different cover conditions and constant slope length of 100 feet
oh the Moses to Adirondack Site 19.1
Slope Steepness (%)
Soil Type
ROW Cover
Condition2 6 12 18
t?ns/acre/year
Adams loamy fine A 0.09 0.23 0.44
sand B 0.31 0.85 1. 63
(K = 0.17) c 6.41 17.31 33.37
D 14.24 38.46 74.16
Croghan loamy fine A 0.10 0.27 0.52
sand B 0.37 1.00 1. 92
(K = 0.20) c 7.50 20.36 39.26
D 16.75 45.25 87.25
Gloucester sandy A 0.09 0.23 0.44
loam B 0.31 0.85 1.63
(K = 0.17) c 6.41 17.31 33.37
D 14.24 38.46 74.16
1 See Table 5.32, footnote 1, for existing conditions and assumptions.
2 ROW cover conditions:
A -Normal grass-herb-shrub cover and organ1c mulch as in Table 5.32.
(C = 0.006)
B -No vegetal canopy except sparse grass and herbs; 90% organic mulch
cover; no disturbance of mineral soil. (C = 0.022)
C -No vegetal canopy; no organic mulch; mineral soil exposed, but not
disturbed. (C = 0.45)
D -Condition "C" above, plus disturbance of mineral soil by light bull-
dozing or grading with no erosion control structures. (C = 1.00)
5-53
6 Synthesis and Discussion of Trends
6.1 Introduction
The trends discussed in this section are based upon documented
observations obtained through field data collection and careful analysis of
those data. Only obvious trends which are clearly indicated by data collected
were considered. For most trends, there was sufficient replication to
permit a reasonably sound trend analysis to be made. In a few cases,
however, more data is needed to further support trends indicated by a com-
paratively few sites. For example, while trends have been given for impact
of ROW's on stream temperature, and while these are v;alid for a few cases
and conditions, more data is needed on more streams to further clarify the
nature of the impact. Aiso, there are areas from which no trends have
been presented in this report as more research is needed to clarify them.
For example, trends in effect of selective vs. broadcast herbicide sprays
were not presented as there were not sufficient sites with clearly des-
cribed treatments to do this.
Trends are first described in this report for each of four natural
vegetation regions of the state. This was done for two primary reasons:
1) to simplify handling of complex data, and 2) because trends are most
apt to be consistent within such regions. Following this, certain trends
which appear consistent for all 4 regions are described as statewide
trends. Naturally, these were fewer in number than regional trends, but
do not reduce the significance of regional trends.
A plant community, as used in this synthesis and discussion of trends,
is a combination of species which may be differentiated from other combi-
nations and recognized as a unit of vegetation in the field. A community
so defined should have characteristic species (Characterarten) which
differentiate it from other communities. For example: Blackberry-
Goldenrod may be recognized as different from Blueberry-Sweet-fern.
The possible combinations of plant species are endless and to attrib-
ute to every actual combination in nature the value of a community would
result in a chaotic splitting up of units of vegetation. Every square
meter, or less, of a ROW would form a separate unit, therefore, pieces
of vegetation with similar combinations should be united into one abstract
type. These types are called communities, the separate pieces being
called stands.
6.2 Trends in the New England Highlands and Mohawk-Hudson Regions
6.2.1 Trends in Impact on Vegetation
Relation of plant communities to habitat and forest type Four sites
(sites 2,3,4, and 5) located in southeastern New York, where Oak forest
types are the characteristic natural vegetation, and 1 site (site 6) in
the Mohawk Valley area have shown some very definite trends which cor-
relate the ROW community with habitat and forest type. Site 1 was not
used as it is a very special case, difficult to relate to the other sites,
owing to the presance of unusual species not found on other sites such as
black locust and tartarian honeysuckle. Also, there was a large variation
in the mesic habitat which was the only one present. Recent maintenance
was also irregular over the entire ROW.
These trends will enable a ROW manager to predict with considerable
certainty the general type of ROW shrub-herb-grass community that will be
developed over a period of years following ROW clearance and maintenance
with commonly used spray maintenance techniques.
6-1
.Predi~tion can also be made of the shrubs which may be expected to
remaLn as Lmportant species on the ROW's. It is important to note that
t~ese are sh•ubs which usually do well in full sunlight and in competition
WLth ot~er plants of open areas. Shrubs such as blackberry, which, while
susceptLble to 2,4,5-T damage, reproduce by suckers from underground stems,
also have persisted on ROW's and are important to wildlife. Other species
such as striped maple and partridge-berry rarely persist in the open away
from the shade of woodlands, and are rarely found on the ROW's.
The general trends in vegetation on the ROW's in relation to mesic
(moist), xeric (dry), and hydric (wet) habitats and forest type are shown
Ln Table 6.1 and Table 6.2, and may be summarized as follows:
(1) Where the ROW's are adjoined by Oak-Hickory forest types on
moist habitat areas, a Blackberry-Goldenrod plant community
was dominant. This was true both where only selective sprays
were used (sites 2 and 3) and where broadcast sprays followed
by selective sprays have been applied (site 4).
Only one site was studied where only broadcast sprays had been
used. In this case, a different ROW community had developed
on a mesic habitat area which was dominated by grasses and
herbs with raspberry and gray dogwood as dominant shrubs
(Raspberry-Goldenrod). However, no trends can be safely drawn
from this single site (site 6).
(2) Where the ROW's are adjoined by a Chestnut-Oak or Oak-Hickory
forest type on dry habitat areas, a Blueberry-Sweet-fern or
Huckleberry-sweet fern community had developed (sites 2,4,5, and 6).
This condition held true for all types of spray programs used
on these sites: selective, broadcast plus selective, and
broadcast maintenance.
(3) On wet habitat areas, it was more difficult to detect a general
trend related to forest type. However, a Willow-Sensitive Fern
plant community developed on 4 sites with all spray techniques
used. On site 3, the Alder community was not disturbed by the
ROW management program. A wide variety of moisture-loving
shrubs were present on wet habitat areas, plus a number of spe-
cies of herbs, sedges, and ferns.
Description of ROW Communities
Blackberry-Goldenrod Community (Rubus-Solidago)
This community is typically located on mesic
middle slopes which are moderately well drained.
from pH 4.7 to pH 5.0, with an average pH of 4.9.
sites on lower and
The soil pH ranged
Characteristic Species Blackberry and goldenrods are constantly
present in all stands and are usually among the dominant species.
Hay-scented fern is often a major plant species growing in large
patches, although it is also prominent on xeric sites.
Also characteristic are asters, violets, and cinquefoils which
are constantly present.
E-2
Companion Species Species of high constancy 1 which are also
found on other sites are witch-hazel, spiraea, and blueberry. Also
included in this group are hair-cap mosses, whorled loosestrife,
poverty-grass, and bracken.
Blueberry-Sweet-fern Community (Vaccinium-Comptonia)
This community is typically located on xeric sites on upper slopes
and ridge tops which are excessively drained. The soil pH ranged from
pH 4.5 to pH 5.0, with an average pH of 4.8.
Characteristic Species Blueberries are a constantly present
species with high abundance and cover values and usually occur in
large patches. Sweet-fern is highly characteristic and seldom occurs
on other sites.
Hay-scented fern often occurs in large patches, although it ~s
also found on mesic sites as well.
Also characteristic are pearly everlasting and broom-sedge.
Companion Species Species Which are constantly present but which
are also common on other sites are witch-hazel, spiraea, whorled loose-
strife, hair-cap mosses, asters, cinquefoil, and bracken.
Blackberry and goldenrod are constantly present but with lower
abundance and cover values than on mesic sites.
Willow-Sensitive Fern Community (Salix-Onoclea)
This community is typically lo-cated on hydric sites ~n stream
bottoms and depressions with impeded drainage. The soil pH ranged
from pH 5.2 to pH 6.4, with an average pH of 6.0.
Characteristic Species Willows and sensitive fern are con-
stantly present (100%) and usually with high cover values. Spiraea
is also of high constancy (80%) and usually has a medium cover value
which is higher than on other habitat areas.
Sedges are typically present in all stands (100%) and have high
abundance and cover values.
Cat-tail is also typical (80%) where standing water accumulates
for long periods and is usually accompanied by sphagnum moss.
Typical herbs of high constancy (60%) are touch-me-not, jack-
in-the-pulpit, tearthumb, horsetails, and interrupted fern.
Also typical on wet sites in~ few stands (20-40%) are reeds,
rush, cinnamon-fern, smartweeds, water-purslane, royal fern, iris,
bullhead-lily, eelgrass, duckweed, marsh St. John's-wort, skunk-
cabbage, spiked loosestrife, swamp-buttercup, and cowslip.
Typical shrubs of low constancy (20-40%) include elderberry, red
osier dogwood, alder, winterberry, wild-raisin, highbush-blueberry,
and gray dogwood.
1 ~ Constancy ~s a percentage which equals No. of stands in ·which found
X 100 Total no. of stands
6-3
1
Species Diversity In general, species diversity was greater on the ROW's ·:
than in adjacent forests in the New England Highlands and Mohawk-Hudson re-
gions in sodtheastern New York, (Table 6.3). This means, in brief, that the
creation and maintenance of the ROW's in this region brings about an increase
in the number of plant species present which measurably enhances wildlife
habitat in an area affected by a ROW.
The average number of shrubs and herbs was greater on the ROW than in
adjacent forests on all habitat areas. While the average number of low-
growing trees was equal on the ROW and in the forest on mesic habitats, 3 of
5 sites showed more low-growing trees on the ROW.
Impacts on Shrubs and Low-growing Trees Shrubs are important plants of
special interest on the ROW's, as they can be readily managed either to pro-
duce a positive, or beneficial, impact or not managed. In general, it
appears that the positive impacts of the ROW's on common shrubs outweighed
ne~ative impacts so that shrubs formed an important component of sprayed ROW's.
On the ROW's studied in the New England Highlands and Mohawk-Hudson
regions of southeastern New York, 26 species of shrubs were present on mesic
ROW habitats, 29 species on xeric habitats, and 27 species on hydric habitats.
Regardless of the type of management program, they were important contributors
to the ROW vegetation.
Some trends which could be gleaned from the data cotlected on 5 sites
are as follows:
1. Shrubs and low-growing trees which were more prominent, or of equal
prominence, on the ROW's as compared with the adjacent forest are:
alder
arrow-wood
blackberry
blueberry
buttonbush
choke-cherry
flowering dogwood
gooseberry
grape
gray dogwood
highbush-blueberry
mountain-laurel
mountain-maple
pinxter-flower
purple-flowering·
raspberry
raspberry
red osier dogwood
Virginia creeper
wild rose
2. Shrubs and low-growing trees which occurred only on the ROW's are:
alternate-leaved
dogwood
dewberry
fly-honeysuckle
hazelnut
po~son sumac
scrub-oak
smooth sumac
spiraea
staghorn-sumac
sweet-fern
virgin's-bower
wild-raisin
winter berry
3. Shrubs and low-growing trees which occurred only in the forest are:
bladdernut poison ~vy spicebush
4. Shrubs and low-growing trees which were more prominent ~n the forest
than on the ROW's are:
barberry
buckthorn
nanny berry
partridge-berry
6-4
teaberry
witch-hazel
.\
Impacts on Herbaceous Plants When the ROW's studied were cleared and ma1n-
tained, long narrow openings were created which di·ffer markedly in habitat con-
ditions from the adjacent forests. A new flora invaded the ROW's and was
dominated by plants of open areas. However, many forest-dwelling plants of the
region thrived under the new conditions, also, and are now common both on the
ROW's as well as in the forests. A few did not thrive under the open ROW
conditions and now appear only sparingly, or not at all, on the ROW's.
The most important change in herbaceous cover was caused by the invasion
and spreading of plants typical of open areas or old fields. Some 15 plants
of this kind were prominent on the ROW's, including species such as wild straw-
berry and sheep-sorrel, especially valuable for wildlife. Other plants showing
floral displays such as goldenrods, asters, daisies, pearly everlasting, Queen
Anne's-lace, and hawkweeds have developed on the ROW's. The combinations of
old field with forest species make up the present characteristic vegetative
cover of the ROW's. Such cover provides excellent protection of the ROW's from
active erosion and offers excellent food and cover for wildlife.
Very few forest dwelling plants such as wild sarsaparilla, Solomon's-seal,
bluebead-lily, purple trillium, May-apple, bedstraws, and spotted wintergreen
were found in the forest adjacent to the ROW's and only sparsely on the ROW's.
Many common plants of the forest, including wild lily-of-the-valley, whorled
loosestrife, bellworts, twisted-stalk, false Solomon's-seal, and panic-grasses,
were common both on the ROW's and in the forest.
Woods inhabiting ferns are of special interest and there was no general
adverse impact observed on them. All of the 10 species of ferns encountered
in the forest were also found on the ROW's. However, there were some dual
impacts observed; of the two flowering ferns present, interrupted fern was
found more often on the ROW's and cinnamon-fern was found more often in the
forest. Other ferns which were more abundant in the forest include maiden-
hair-fern, marginal shield-fern, and Christmas-fern. On the other hand, the
common bracken, sensitive, and hay-scented ferns were all prominent on the
ROW's as well as in the adjacent forest.
Trees on the ROW (Sites 2,3,4,5, and 6)
Xeric Habitat (Table 6.4) The most common tree species on the ROW's
were red maple and red oak which ranged from sparse (+) to covering 1/4 to
1/2 of the ROW area (3). Other common species were white ash, chestnut
oak, black cherry, white oak, gray birch, and quaking aspen.
The number of species on a ROW ranged from 8 to 14. A total of 26
tree species were recorded as invading the ROW on the plots. While brush
control was excellent on all ROW's, with height mostly under 8-10 feet, there
was a large reservoir of resurging tree species present on all ROW's. These
trees can be expected to gradually emerge from the shrub layer.
Mesic Habitat (Table 6.5) The most common species on the ROW were
red maple, flowering dogwood, red oak, and white oak which ranged from
sparse (+) to covering 1/4 to 1/2 of the ROW area (3). Other common spe-
cies were sassafras, black cherry, willow, white ash, chestnut oak, sweet
birch, and pignut hickory.
The number of species on a ROW ranged from 7 to 13. A total of 23
species was recorded as invading the ROW. While brush control was ex-
cellent, there was a reservoir of resurging tree species present under 10
ft. height ~hich can be expected to slowly emerge.
6-5
Hydric Habitat (Table 6.6) The most common species on the ROW were
willow and red maple which ranged from sparse (+) to covering 1/2 to 3/4
of the ROW area (4). Other common species were American elm and white ash.
The number of species on a ROW ranged from 3 to 13. A total of 20
species was recorded as invading the ROW. While brush control was excellent,
there was a reservoir of resurging tree species under 10 ft. height which
can be expected to slowly emergy.
6.2.2 Trends in Impact on Soil
Bedrock geology of study areas in the New England Highlands and Mohawk-
Hudson regions is composed predominantly of gneiss, marble, quartzite and
granite in the New England Highlands (sites 1,2,3, and 4) and shale and sand-
stone in the Mohawk-Hudson Valley (sites 5 and 6). Soils formed mostly in
unstratified glacial till; major orders are Inceptisols and Spodosols, with
some inclusions of Alfisols, Entisols and Histosols. Surface mineral soils
generally are strongly acid and textures primarily sand loam, silt loam,
and loam in the New England Highlands and silt loam and loam in the Mohawk-
Hudson Valley.
There was no significant negative impact on soils of the general ROW
areas where tree cover had been removed and resurging brush controlled with
selective, broadcast, or broadcast followed by selective sprays with minimal
disturbance --to surface soil. Some differences were observed in thickness
of organic layers between ROW and forest and between mesic and xeric habitats;
the overall average for all sites and moisture regimes combined being 1.5
inches in the forest and 1.2 inches on the ROW (Table 6.7). Likewise, organic
matter accumulation for all sites combined was somewhat greater on xeric than
on mesic habitats. Humus types on both the ROW and forest were characteristi-
cally duff mulls, except on site 6 where a medium mull occurred on the mesic
habitat. Source of organic matter on the ROW was consistently leaves and
stems of grasses, herbs, and shrubs in contrast to tree leaves, twigs, and
fruit in the forest.
Very little active erosion occurred on the general ROW of all sites
which were maintained by chemical sprays with minimal disturbance to the
organic mulch and surface mineral soil. However, slight to severe and pro-
gressive erosion was evident on access roads, tower sites, and other dis-
turbed areas of all sites where plant cover had been removed and mineral
soil exposed. Stabilization of these areas by natural plant invasion and/or
restoration seeding was sporadic. Periodic use of access roads on several
sites, presumably for ROW inspection and maintenance as well as local
recreation, interferes with plant establishment and accelerates eros1on.
Most erosion sediment collected on lower slopes of the ROW, but some entered
swamps on the ROW (site 5) and small amounts moved into flowing streams
(sites 2,3, and 6) (Table 6.8).
6.2.3 Trends in Impact on Wildlife
The impact of the ROW's on wildlife use was positive, or beneficial, and
a total of 11 common species, plus numerous song birds and raptors, were found
to use the ROW's and their edges on the 6 sites studied (sites 1 to 6) (Table
6. 9).
Large populations of nongame birds, which included song birds and raptors,
were observed using the ROW's and their edges on all sites. The number of
species ranged from 20 on site 6 to 28 on site 4. Of particular interest were
the Cooper's hawk nests which were observed in the forest near the ROW's on 2
sites, and the osprey observed on site 5.
6-6
Of the common game mammals of the reg1on, white-tailed deer made use of
the ROW's on 5 sites; no deer were observed on site 1 which was in an urban-
ized area near a small industrial plant. The important woodchuck burrows
were found on 2 sites and woodchuck were observed using 3 sites. Cottontail
rabbits, which use the burrows, were using the ROW's on 5 sites. Raccoon
used the ROW's on 3 sites. Gray squirrels were observed on 6 sites, 4 on the
ROW's.
Of the common game birds of the region, ruffed grouse were observed on
the ROW's on 3 sites and in the forest near the ROW on 1 site. Woodcock used
the ROW's on 2 sites, one for a singing ground.
An important trend in'wildlife use was reflected by deer browse studies
carried out in March on 3 sites. While percent browse of woody stems averaged
slightly less (57%) on the ROW's than in the forest (59%), the total stems
available were greater on the ROW's in all 3 cases.
The following common shrubs of the ROW were heavily browsed by deer:
blueberry, huckleberry, maple-leaved viburnum, sweet-fern, willow, witch-
hazel, elderberry, and blackberry. This indicates that the ROW's offer
essential winter food for deer.
The ROW's under various management programs, both selective spraying and
broadcast, did not show any major difference in respect to wildlife use. The
commonly used techniques produced excellent game food and cover.
The general trend, therefore, has been for the ROW's to have a favorable
effect, or impact, on wildlife use in general. Also, the trend has been for
the ROW's to provide for increased deer browsing and to furnish desirable
shrubs for important winter food for deer.
6.2.4 Trends in Impact on Water
Of the sites studied in the New England Highlands and Mohawk-Hudson re-
gions, 1 ROW (site 2) crossed a permanent ·class B s~ream. This was a small
stream (Torne Brook) which passed through a Hemlock-Yellow Birch forest type
on both sides of the ROW.
The Brook was partially shaded on the ROW by ~ellow birch and hemlock
which had been topped. Water temperature sampled once each quarter indicated
the ROW had no unfavorable impact on water quality at the times sampled
(Table 6.1~. There was no sedimentation at the ROW crossing proper which
was well protected by border vegetation.
The ROW did cause sedimentation which entered a small feeder stream
which joined Torne Brook about 125 yards below the ROW. The feeder carried
sediment from an access road on the edge of the ROW.
On the second site (site 5) the ROW crossed a swamp which was well shaded
by small trees, shrubs, and herbs on the ROW. The effect of the <ROW on water
quality was negligible (Table 6.10).
The trend for the ROW's where vegetation has been maintained at stream
crossings by good management is not to have a negative impact on water tem-
perature and sedimentation. The same trend is true for the ROW's crossing
swamps or wetlands, i.e. where small trees, shrubs, and herbs have been
maintained on the ROW, there was no negative impact on water quality. Where
access roads have remained open to erosion near streams, however, negative
impacts have been observed.
6-7
6.2.5 Trends in Impact on Land Use
Change~ in Adjacent Land Use The percent change in land use pr1or to
(or near the time of construction) and after construction of the ROW has
been compared for 6 sites (sites 1,2,3,4,5, and 6) found within the New
England Highlands and Mohawk-Hudson regions (Table 6 .11). Percent change
by land use type is measured for each site and for all 6 sites as an aver-
age percent change. The highest percent change in land use for any single
site was a decrease in forest land for site 5 by 8.1%. Zero% change in
land use was by far most frequently recorded, both by land use type and by
site. As a result, the average percent change by land use are consistently
low, with the highest average percent change being a -1.9% decrease for
forest land for sites in this region. Other average percent changes in-
cluded a slight decrease in agriculture (-1.2%), a slight increase in
transportation (1.2%), and an increase in water resources (1.0%).
Factors· which may influence the impact on adjacent land use include
visual characteristics of the ROW's. General reconnaissance of visual
characteristics associated with vegetation and other ROW features specific
to each site indicates that of the 6 sites, 3 are generally pleasing to
view (sites 2,3, and 4), with the remaining 3 (sites 1,5, and 6) neither
pleasing nor objectionable withi~ the context of their locations. Visual
assets of the sites which are pleasing include opening of vistas, and well
vegetated ROW's that are attractive all seasons, with many flowering species.
The 3 remaining sites are described as neither pleasing nor objectionable,
generally because they lack visual assets or include undesirable character-
istics such as erosion. Considering all sites in this region, negative
visual characteristics which exist include only erosion, or exposed stumps
and brush left after clearing.
A general trend for land use adjacent to the ROW sites within the New
England Highlands and Mohawk-Hudson regions is that they have changed very
little for the period measured. Slight increases or decreases measured are
generally distributed among all 11 land use types. In addition, there 1s a
general absence of long-term negative visual characteristics resulting from
clearing, construction or maintenance of the ROW, that would influence adja-
cent land use changes. It would be difficult to derive other distinct trends
because of the few number of sites sampled and the high variability of ln-
fluences other than the ROW which could affect land use change.
Multiple Uses Multiple uses of the ROW's within these r~gions
include hiking, hunting, horseback riding, agriculture, and other various
recreational activities (Table 6.12). Of these, all 6 sites have been used
for hunting. It is clear that the ROW's have generally opened the land for
a variety of recreational uses.
An important trend in multiple use is shown by the variety of recrea-
tional activities which take advantage of the linear character of the ROW's.
Hunting is by far the predominant multiple use, indicating that the ROW's
are ideally suited for this activity.
6-8
Table 6.1. Trends in impact on vegetation in the New England Highlands and Mohawk-Hudson reg~ons.
Site Region Habitat For~st Type Type of Management ROvv Community
2 New England Highlands Mesic Oak-Hickory Selective Only Blackberry-Goldenrod
3 New England Highlands Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Selective Only Blueberry-Goldenrod
4 New England Highlands Mesic Oak-Hickory Broadcast & Blackberry-Goldenrod
Selective
5 Mohawk-Hudson Mesic Oak-Hickory Selective Only Blackberry-Goldenrod
6 Mohawk-Hudson Mesic Oak-Hickory Broadcast Only Raspberry-Goldenrod
---------------------------------.------;; .... :---------------------------------------------------------------------~
0\ 2 New England Highlands Xeric Chestnut-Oak Selective Only Blueberry-Sweet-fern
I
\0 New England Highlands Selective Only 3 Xeric Chestnut-Oak Blueberry-Bracken
4 New England Highlands Xeric Chestnut-Oak Broadcast & Huckleberry-Sweet-fern
Selective
5 Mohawk-Hudson Xeric Chestnut-Oak Selective Only Blueberry-Sweet-fern
6 Mohawk~ Hudson Keric Oak-Hickory Broadcast Only Blueberry-Sweet-fern
------------------------------------------------------__________ ......;_ -------------------------------------------
2 New England Highlands Hydric Hemlock-Yellow Selective Only Willow-Sensitive Fern
Birch
3 New England Highlands Hydric Alder Selective Only Alder
4 New England Highlands Hydric Hemlock-Yellow Broadcast & Willow-Sensitive Fern
Birch Selective
5 Mohawk-Hudson Hydric Elm-Red Maple Selective Only Willow-Sensitive Fern
6 Mohawk-Hudson Hydric Elm-Red Maple Broadcast Only Willow-Sensitive Fern
! ,,,
'
:1 '
ill
I
,II
Table 6.2. Tr~nds in plant community development in relation to forest type
and habitat of the New England Highlands and Hohawk-Hudson regions.
f . . h . 1 The ~gures ~n parent es~s are percent constancy.
Adjacent Forest ROW Community
MESIC
Oak-Hickory --------------------> Blackberry (100) -
with
Maple-leaved
XERIC
Viburnum (80)
Witch-Hazel (60)
Spiraea (60)
Grape (60)
Wild Rose (60)
Chestnut-Oak -------------------> Blueberry (100)
HYDRIC
with
Witch-Hazel (100)
Blackberry (100)
Spiraea (80)
Dewberry (60)
Elm-Red Maple ------------------> Willow (100)
and with
Hemlock-Yellow Birch Spiraea (80)
Elderberry (60)
Red Osier (20)
Alder (20)
Goldenrod (100)
Whorled Loosestrife (80)
Cinquefoils (100)
Asters (100)
Violets (80)
Hay-scented Fern (60)
Mixed Grass (100)
Sweet-fern (80)
Bracken (60)
Hay-scented Fern (60)
Pearly Everlasting (60)
Broom-sedge (60)
Mixed Grass (100)
Sensitive Fern (80)
Ca t-tai.l ( 80)
Sedges (100)
Sphagnum (60)
Jack-in-the-pulpit (60)
Touch-me-not (60)
Tearthumb (60)
Water-purslane (60)
Horsetails (60)
Mixed Grass (100)
1 Constancy ~s a percentage which equals No. of stands ~n which found
----------------------------X 100 Total no. of stands
6-10
~ .
Table 6.3
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
Average -
Comparison of species diversity, based upon number of
species, on ROW's with that in adjoining forests in
the New England Highlands and Mohawk-Hudson regions.
No. of Speciesl
Mesic Xeric Hydric
Forest ROW Forest ROW Forest ROW
Shrubs
4 10
1 9 3 8 3 8
3 8 4 4 6 6
4 6 6 9 3 9
7 15 6 16 5 10
4 8 3 12 5 6
3.8 9.3 4.4 9.8 4.4 7.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herbs
1 8 18
2 4 17 2 12 15 27
3 18 11 8 10 12 12
4 6 17 8 11 15 28
5 9 28 12 21 14 19
6 8 20 9 24 9 17
Average -. :8·.8. 1s::5. ~ . ' ., ',;6.~2 1 , ':'q.~ 6, 13 20.6
1 If a habitat occurs twice on a site, the total number of respective·
shrub or herb species for both areas is totaled, then divided by
two for an average. This average is then rounded off to the nearest
whole number.
6-11
I
~~ I I llii
:Ill :.I
Table 6.4 Abundance and cover value of trees on the ROW for the New England
Highlands and Mohawk-Hudson regions.
(see Vol. 1, p. 3-3 for value of symbols) .
•
Xeric Habitat on Sites
Species on ROW 2 3 4 5 6
Red Maple 2 1 2 2 1
Red Oak + l l 3 1
White Ash + 2 2
Chestnut Oak + 1 +
Black Cherry + +t 1
White Oak +t + +
Gray Birch + + 1
Quaking Aspen +t + +
Sweet Birch 3 1
Hornbeam + +t
Bitternut Hickory +t +
Tulip Poplar + +t
American Elm 1 +t
Flowering Dogwood + +
Shagbark Hickory +
White Pine 3
Sassafras 2
Pin Cherry 2
Serviceberry 1
Red Cedar +
Yellow Birch +
Apple ++
Pitch Pine +
Hemlock +t
Pignut Hickory +
Large-tooth Aspen +
No. Species (Total = 26) 8 9 9 14 12
Average No. of Species = 10.4
6-12
· e 6.5 Abundance and cover value of trees on the ROW for the New England
High lands and Mohavlk-Hudson regions.
(see Vol. 1, p. 3-3 for value of sympols) ..
Mesic Habitat on Sites
on ROW 2 3 4 5 6
2 1 + 1
Dogwood + 3 + ++
Oak + 1 + 1
Oak 1 1 + +
Sweet Birch 2 1 +
White Ash 1 + 1
Sassafras + + 3
Chestnut Oak + + +
Willow 1 + + +
Pignut Hickory + + + ~
Black Cherry + + ++ "
Yellow Birch 3 2 "
Gray Birch 1 1
Quaking Aspen + +
Basswood ++ +
White Pine 3
Bitternut Hickory 1
Large-tooth Aspen 1
Pin Cherry 1
Hornbeam +
Shagbark Hickory +
American Elm ++
Sugar Maple ++
No. Species (Total = 23) 10 12 7 13 12
Average No. of Species =·10.8
1 Listed under shrub layer in individual site summaries.
6-13
l;' i!ll
II' I
ll'ii
I ,'
I I Table 6.6 Abundance and cover value of trees on the ROW for the New
England Highlands and Mohawk-Hudson regions. ,, • (see Vol. 1, 3-3 for value of symbols) . ,, p.
1',
ll1
Hydric Habitat on Sites
r; II
Species 2 3 4 5 6
,1 .I
II
Willow1 2 + + 4 2
!
1
, II Red Maple 1 1 + 2
,[ I American elm + 2 +
'::II) I White Ash ++ + 2 1
·' [t Flowering Dogwood + 2
I
I I ~~~ Red Oak + ++
! ',I Apple + + •I I'
Shagbark Hickory ++ ++
Yellow B"irch 2
Hemlock 1
Sassafras 1
Quaking Aspen 1
White Pine 1
Tulip Poplar +
Red Cedar ++
Black Cherry +
Beech +
Sugar Maple ++
Gray Birch ++
Large-tooth Aspen ++
No. Species (Total = 20) 10 5 3 13 5
Average No. of Species = 7.2
1 . L~sted under shrub layer ~n individual site sununaries.
6-14
Trends in impact on soil organic layers and humus types 1n the New England
Highlands and Mohawk-Hudson regions.
1 Organic Layer Thickness (inches)
Moisture Predominant Humus Type ROW Forest --------~~~~~~~~~~~--------~~-=~--~----~~~~--~-Regime ROW Forest Mesic Xeric Mesic Xeric
Mesic
Mesic &
Xeric
Mesic
Xeric
Mesic &
Xeric
Mesic &
Xeric
Mesic
Xeric
Thin duff mull w/
very shallow Al
Thin duff mull w/
very shallow Al
Thin duff mull w/
very shallow Al
Thick duff mull w/
very shallow Al
Thin duff mull w/
very shallow Al
Thin duff mull w/
very shallow Al
Very shallow
medium mull
Thin duff mull w/
very shallowtAl
Thin duff mull
w/ shallow Al
Thin duff mull w/
very shallow Al
Thin duff mull w/
very shallow Al
Thick duff mull w/
very shallow Al
Thin duff mull w/
very shallow Al
Thin duff mull w/
very shallow Al
Very shallow
medium mull
Thin duff mull w/
shallow Al
1.0 1.1
1.1 1.2 1.8 1.4
0.6 1.9 1.4 2.1
1.0 2.0 1.5 1.9
1.5 1.2 1.8 1.0
0.5 0.5 0.8 1.6
·-----------------·-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average thickness -all sites 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.6
Average thickness -mesic and xeric combined 1.2 1.5
1 Includes all layers (litter, fermentation, and humus) where present.
6-15
Table 6,8. Trends in impact on erosion ~n the New England Highlands and Mohawk-
Hudson regions.
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
Active Erosion
ROW
None on general ROW;
prominent on access roads
and tower sites
Slight on general ROW;
slight to severe on access
roads and tower sites
Negligible on general ROW;
slight to severe on access
roads and tower sites
Negligible on general ROW;
slight to severe on access
roads and tower sites
Slight on general ROW with
moss cover; slight on ac-
cess roads and tower sites
Severe on bare areas of
general ROW; severe on
access roads, tower sites
and excavations
Forest
Slight to moderate on
steep slopes
Moderate on one bare
steep slope
None except one steep
slope
Slight on steep slopes
Slight on bare and dis-
turbed areas
Moderate on one steep
slope
6-16
Sediment
Disposition
Lower slopes on ROW
Lower slopes on ROW;
some in brook
Most on lower slopes of
ROW; some in streams
Lower slopes on ROW
Lower slopes on ROW;
some in swamp
Most in streams; some
on lower slopes of ROW
le 6.9. Trends in impact on wildlife use of the ROW's· in the New England Highlands
and Mohawk-Hudson regions.
dlife Species
I
mannnals
· te-tailed deer
1
C0ttontail rabbit ROW &
Forest
squirrel
{Raccoon
Game birds
Ruffed grouse
Woodcock
Black duck
Ringnecked
pheasant
Nongame birds
ROW &
Forest
ROW-
Burrow
ROW
ROW Edge
Near ROW
Edge
ROW &
Areas Used by Wildlife
2
'ROW &
Forest
ROW
ROW &
Forest
Forest
near ROW
ROW &
Sites
3
ROW &
Forest
ROW &
Forest
ROW &
Forest
ROW
ROW &
4
ROW &
Forest
ROW
Forest
near ROW
Forest
near ROW
ROW &
Edge
ROW
ROW &
5
ROW
ROW &
Forest
ROW &
Forest
Forest
ROW &
Forest
ROW &
Edge
ROW &
6
ROW
ROW
Forest
near ROW
ROW-
Burrow
ROW &
Forest
ROW
Singing
ROW & Song birds &
rap tors Edges Edges Edges Edges Edges Edges
26 species 21 species 23 species 28 species 27 species 20 species
Cooper's hawk ROW &
Forest
(nest)
Small nongame mannnals
ROW
ROW &
Forest
(nest)
ROW &
Edges
ROW &
Forest
6-11
ROW &
Edges
ROW &
Forest
ROW &
Edges
ROW &
Forest
Table 6.10. ·Trends in impact on water in the New England Highlands and Mohawk-
Huds'bn regions
Location 1n respect to ROW Border Vegetation Stream Temp. in Centigrade;
Sedimentation
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Site 5 -Swamp
Oct.
100 yards south of Elm-Red Maple 11.2
the ROW (upstream) Shaded
mid ROW Shrubs & Herbs 10.5
Well shaded
100 yards north of Elm-Red Maple 11.0
the ROW (downstream) Shaded
Site 2 -Torne Brook (Class B)2
100 yards upstream
from the ROW
mid ROW
50 ya:r:ds downstream
200 yards downstream
100 yards upstream
from the ROW
mid ROW
50 yards downstream
200 yards downstream
Sept.
Hemlock-Yellow Birch 12.8
Shaded
Hemlock-Yellow Birch 12.7
Partial Shade
Hemlock-Yellow Birch 12.7
Shaded
Hemlock-Yellow Birch 12.8
Shaded
On August 5, 1976, sampling location 1 was relocated.
\
2 Feb. 5 May 12 Aug. 5
Tem2erature
0.5 13.0 No water
16.0
2.0 13.0 15.0
0.0 13.0 16.0
23 Feb. 3 Jf.lay 11 Aug. .5
Tem2erature
Near 10.2 18.5
freezing
Near 10.5 17.0
freezing
Near 11.0 18.0
freezing
Near 11.0 17.0
freezing
Sedimentation
No sediment
No sediment
No sediment
1" sand and gravel
2 Stream was 12-14" deep x 13.5'-19.5' in September; 5-11" deep x 9.5'-16' wide in
August. Class B stream -bathing and recreation.
6-18
le 6.11. Percent change of land use prior to (or near.the time of construction)
and after construction of the ROW for sites within the New England
Highlands and Mohawk-Hudson regions.
Percent change expressed as ~ncrease (+), decrease (-),
no change (O); or no recorded land use with no change (NC). l
Land Use Sites Ave. %
1 2 3 4 5 6 Change
(A) Agriculture 0 NC NC NC -4.4 -2.6 -1.2
(C,I) Commercial & 0 NC NC NC 1.0 0 0.2
Industrial
(E) Extractive NC 0 NC NC 1.4 -1.3 0
Industry
(F) Forest Land 0 -1.2 0 0 -8.1 -1.8 -1.9
(N) Non-productive NC -0.2 NC NC NC NC 0
(OR) Outdoor Recrea-0 -.1 NC NC 0.3 NC 0
tion
(P) Public & Semi-0.7 NC NC NC 2.2 0.1 0.5
public
(R) Residential 0 NC NC NC 1.3 0.3 0.3
(T) Transportation 0 1.4 NC NC 0.4 5.2 1.2
(u) Urban Inactive -0.7 NC NC NC NC NC -0.1
(W) Water Resources 0 0 0 0 5.9 0.1 1.0
1 Percentages are derived from each individual case history of the sites and expressed
to a lOth of a percent. Percentages were not adjusted to ~nsure cancellation of
land use increase or decrease by site.
6-19
Table 6.12.Multiple land use of ROW sites within the New England Highlands and
Mohawk-Hudson regions.
Multiple Use
1
Use of access roads for
adjacent logging opera-
tions
Agriculture
Extension of residential
property
Fishing
Hiking
Horseback riding
Hunting X
Industrial 1 uses
Other recreational 2 X uses
Snowmobiling
Sites
2 3 4 5
X
X X X
X
X X X X
X
6
X
X
% of Sites
with Multiple
Use
0
17
0
0
50
17
100
0
50
0
1 Use by adjacent industry as extension of property, or piling of discarded ma-
terial associated with that industry.
2 Other recreational uses include such functions as: Use by children for play;
motorcycle trails; use by all-terrain vehicles; and camping activities.
6-20
6.3 Trends in the Appalachian Highlands and CatskilJ Regions
6.3.1 Trends in Impact on Vegetation
Relation of plant communities to habitat and forest type Four sites
(sites 7,8,9,and 10) were located in the Appalachian Highlands and Catskill
regions of New York where Hemlock-Northern Hardwoods and Oak-Northern Hard-
woods are characteristic natural vegetation. Three of these sites (sites 8,
9,and 10) showed definite trends which correlated the ROW community with
habitat and forest type. Site 7 was not used for trends as data on plant
species were not taken; the site was selected for special studies. A fifth
site (site 22) was added from the border of the adjacent region as it fit
more nearly in this region.
General trends in vegetation on the ROW's in relation to habitat and
forest type are shown in Table 6.13 and Table 6.14 and may be summarized as
follows:
(1) On mesic areas where Hemlock-Northern Hardwoods adjoin the ROW's,
a Blackberry-Goldenrod plant community developed on the ROW. This
held true for all types of management used which included: selective
followed by broadcast sprays and broadcast sprays only.
(2) On xeric habitats where Oak-Northern Hardwoods adjoined the ROW's,
a Blueberry-Sweet-fern plant community developed on the ROW's.
This held true for all types of management used.
(3) On hydric habitats, where the ROW's were adjoined by Hemlock-
Northern Hardwoods or Hemlock-Yellow Birch, a Sensitive Fern
plant community developed. Where an Elm-Red Maple type bordered
a small stream, a Willow-Sensitive Fern plant community developed
on the ROW.
Species Diversity The number of species present was greater on the
ROW's than in the adjacent forest on all sites and all habitat areas,
(Table 6.15). This means that the presence of a ROW greatly enhanced the
diversity of species and thus the wildlife habitat of the area.
Impacts on Shrubs and Low-growing Trees As shrubs and low-growing trees
are important species on the ROW's, special attention has been paid to them.
Some common species may be grouped for comparative purposes as follows:
1. Shrubs and low-growing trees which were more prominent, or of equal
prominence, on the ROW's as compared to the adjacent forests are:
American hophornbeam
American hornbeam
blackberry
blueberry
hawthorn
hazelnut
maple-leaved viburnum
mountain laurel
raspberry
2. Shrubs and low-growing trees which occurred only on the ROW's are:
dewberry
gooseberry
spiraea
sweet-fern
6-21
willow
3. Shrubs and low-growing trees which occurred only ~n the forests are:
flowering dogwood gray dogwood teaberry
4. Shrubs and low-growing trees present ~n the forest, and also on the
ROW's, but ~n lesser abundance, are:
serviceberry striped maple witch-hazel
Impacts on Herbaceous Plants A different herbaceous flora developed on
the ROW's in contrast to that in the adjoining forests. This was primarily
owing to invasion by plants of open areas on the ROW's which then formed
complex mixtures with plants formerly in the forest.
Nine common species were found on the ROW's which were absent or sparse
in adjoining forests. These were typical plants of open areas such as golden-
rods, sheep-sorrel, pearly everlasting, hay-scented fern, daisy, hawkweeds,
Queen Anne's-lace, daisy-fleabane, and pokeweed.
A number of plants typical of the forest were not found on the ROW's, or
were very rare. These include: beech-fern, Christmas-fern, marginal shield-
fern, star-flower, twisted-stalk, wild sarsaparilla, partridge-berry, trilliums,
bluebeard-lily, Solomon's-seal, false Solomon's-seal, and club-mosses.
Many plants, however, were found both on the ROW's and in the forest and
include: wild lily-of-the-valley, strawberry, May-apple, trout-lily, New York
fern, sedges, Spring-beauty, hair-cap mosses, wood-sorrel, cinquefoil, asters,
interrupted fern, foamflower, whorled loosestrife, and bracken. ;
Trees on the ROW (Sites 8, .9, 10, 22).
Xeric Habitat (Table 6.16) The most common species were red maple and
red oak which each covered 1/2 to 1/4 of the ROW (2). Other common species
were sweet birch, quaking aspen, yellow birch, and white oak.
The number of species on a ROW ranged from 10 to 11. A total of 15
species where recorded as invading the 2 ROW's. While brush control was
excellent on both ROW's, with height mostly under 8-10 feet, there was a
large reservoir of resurging tree species present on all ROW's. These trees
can be expected to gradually emerge from the shrub layer.
Mesic Habitat (Table 6.17) The most common species were red maple
and red oak which were occasional (++) to sparse (+) to covering up to 1/4
of the ROW area (2). Other common species were quaking aspen, sweet birch,
and hawthorn.
The number of species on a ROW ranged from 7 to 18. A total of 25
species was recorded as invading the ROW. While brush control was excellent
on all ROW's, with height mostly under 8-10 feet, there was a large reservoir
of resurging tree species present on all ROW's. These trees can be ex-
pected to gradually emerge from the shrub layer.
Hydric Habitat (Table 6.18) The most common species were willow, red
oak, and red maple which ranged from numerous to covering up to 1/2 of the ROW
area (3). Other common species were white ash, hornbeam, black cherry,
American elm, and sweet birch.
The number of species on a ROW ranged from 1 to 9. A total of
15 species were recorded invading the ROW. While brush control was ex-
cellent on all ROW's, with height mostly under 8-10 feet, there was a large
reservoir of resurging tree species present on all ROW's. These trees
can be expected to gradually emerge from the shrub layer.
6-22
6.3.2 Trends in Impact on Soil
Bedrock geology of the 4 study sites in the ~ppalachian Highlands and
Catskill regions is predominantly shale, sandstone and siltstone. Soils on
3 areas (sites 7,8, and 9) formed mostly in unsorted glacial till, some
stratified glacial outwash (site 7) and bottomland alluvium from glacial
drift (site 9). One area (site 10) was unglaciated and soils developed in
weathered bedrock and alluvium from this material. Soil orders are pre-
dominantly Inceptisols with one inclusion of Entisols on recent alluvium.
Surface mineral soils are strongly acid, pH 4.0 to pH 5.8, with silt loam
textures except for silty clay loam on 1 poorly drained bottomland.
There was some impact of ROW management on surface organic layers, pri-
marily a change in source.of litter from tree parts (leaves, twigs, and fruit)
in the forest to leaves and stems of shrubs, herbs, and grasses on the ROW's
and reduction in total thickness. For all plots combined, average depth of
organic matter on the ROW's was 0.9 inches versus 1.3 inches in the forest.
This relationship remains about the same when variation for disturbance on
mesic of site 7 and different humus type on mesic of site 10 are deleted in
comparisons (Table 6.19). There were only slight differences in thickness
of organic matter between mesic and xeric habitats. Overall on the general
ROW's, however, the major humus type, "thin duff mull with very shallow Al",
was the same as that in the forest. The only exception is the "very deep
medium mull" on the forest mesic of site 10 which likely resulted from local
variation in soil type and properties.
Active erosion on the general ROW's, as with the undisturbed forest,
was limited mostly to slight to moderate sheet and rill erosion and some
gully erosion on bare steep slopes in silt loam soil. More severe erosion
of all kinds occurred primarily on access roads, tower sites and other dis-
turbed areas. Also, slight to moderate erosion occurred along stream banks
both in the forest and on the ROW's. The trend, therefore, was for the ROW's
in this region to show a negative impact only on disturbed areas and not on
the general ROW's which were adequately covered with vegetation and duff
mull humus layers (Table 6.20).
6.3.3 Trends in Impact on Wildlife
The trend in impact on wildlife use of the ROW's was positive as shown
by the 14 common species found using the ROW's, in addition to numerous song
birds and raptors (Table 6.21).
White-tailed deer commonly used both the ROW's and forest on all sites.
Cottontail rabbits used the ROW's on 4 of the sites and the forest on 2 sites.
Woodchuck were observed on the ROW's on 4 sites; along with their burrows on
2 sites. Fox scats were observed on 3 sites on the ROW's and gray squirrels
used the ROW's on 3 sites. Skunk were detected on 1 site.
Of the common game birds, ruffed grouse and wild turkey were observed on
the ROW's on 2 sites and woodcock on 1 site on the ROW.
From 10 to 23 species of song birds and raptors were observed using the
ROW's on all sites. Two bald eagles were seen on the study area of site 7.
Studies of deer browsing on 3 sites indicated an important trend in wild-
life use, namely, that 8 common shrubs on the ROW's and edges were heavily
browsed and thus furnished valuable wildlife food for winter use. While per-
cent of stems browsed was higher in the forest (58%) than on the ROW's (44%)
on all sites, there were considerably more stems available per unit area on
the ROW's (258) than in the forests (119) on all sites.
A pellet group count on 1 site indicated that deer were active during
the winter on the ROW, the edges, and in the adjacent forest. There were no
significant differences between use in any of these locations.
,6-23
6.3.4 Trends in Impact on Water
Three streams were sampled on sites 1n this region: Travis Brook (site 8)
and Baldwin C~eek (site 9) were Class D streams, agricultural and/or industrial
water supply (Table 6.22). The third stream, which was unnamed and unclassified
and occurred as a man-made pond and wet meadow on the ROW, was not used for
these trends.
was negligible as it varied
yards downstream and 16.5 C was
the ROW's consisted of herbs
The 2 ROW's were 150 and 250
Impact of the ROW's on stream temperature
from only 0.5 to 2.0 C from upstream to 50-100
the highest temperature measured. The cover on
and grasses which furnished only partial shade.
feet wide, respectively.
Active sedimentation from the ROW's was not observed, although Travis
Brook did have a measurable deposition in May with no additional by August at
mid-ROW and 100 yards downstream. However, little turbidity was observed in
Travis Brook in September after heavy rain. Baldwin Creek showed no sediment
deposit in May or August.
6.3.5 Trends in Impact on Land Use
Changes in Adjacent Land Use The percent change in land use prior to (or
near the time of construction) and after construction of the ROW has been com-
pared for 5 sites (sites 7,8,9,10 and 22). Sites 7 to 10 are found within the
Appalachian Highlands and Catskill regions, with site 22 being added from the
border of an adjacent region (Lake Plain) because it fits more nearly with this
regions vegetative cover. For consistency of analysis with other trend analyses,
this grouping is included for the land use section as well. The percent change
by land use type is recorded for each site and for all 5 sites as an average
percent change (Table 6.23). High percent changes in land use for any single
site included a decrease in agriculture for site 22 by 21.5%, and an increase
in forest l~nd by 16.4% also for site 22. Zero % change in land use was most
frequently measured as a percent change by land use type. The average percent
change by land use is generally low, with the highest average percent change
being a 5.4% decrease in agriculture for sites in this grouping. Other average
percent changes included a slight increase in extractive industry (0.3%); an
increase in forest land (3.9%); a slight increase in residential (0.6%); an
increase in transportation (1.2%); and a slight decrease in water resources
(-0.6%).
Factors which should be considered and may influence the impact (or change)
on adjacent land uses include visual characteristics of the ROW's. General
reconnaissance of the sites indicates that of the 5 sites, 2 are generally
pleasing to view (sites 7 and 8) with the remaining 3 neither pleasing nor ob-
jectionable (sites 9,10, and 22). Sites which are pleasing to view either
include visual assets of vistas, are well vegetated, or open attractive rugged
terrain to view. The remaining 3 sites are described as neither pleasing nor
objectionable, generally beeause they lack visual assets or expose undesirable
visual characteristics due to erosion. In this region negative visual char-
acteristics which have been identified are a result of either soil erosion or
poor drainage conditions. No effect on adjacent land use change as a result
of visual characteristics is apparent.
6-24
A general trend for land use adjacent to the ROW's within the Appalachian
Highlands and Catskill regions is the lack of change or absence in recorded
land uses for 5 land use types: Commercial & Industrial, Non-productive,
Outdoor Recreation, Public & Semi-public, and Urban Inactive. This may be a
reflection of the rural-farm, or rural non-farm composition of the regions'
areas involved. There is a trend towards a consistent decrease in agricul-
tural land. Another trend is the general absence of long-term negative visual
characteristics that would be an objectionable contrast with the surrounding
land use. Due to the few number of sampled sites, and variability of influ-
ences other than the ROW's construction and maintenance which could affect land
use change, other distinct trends are not apparent.
Multiple Uses Multiple uses of the ROW's for these sites include agri-
culture, hunting, horseback riding, and other recreational uses (Table 6.24).
All of the 5 sites recorded multiple land uses. Of these 5 sites, the only
multiple uses in common are hunting and agriculture.
An important trend 1s shown by the existance of hunting and agriculture.
6-25
0\
I
N
0'\
Table 6.13. Trends in impact on vegetation in the Appalachian Highlands and Cat~ki!l regions.
Site Region Habitat
--•. ·-·-
8 Appalachian Highlands Mesic
9 Appalachian Highlands Mesic
10 Appalachian Highlands Mesic
22 Appalachian Highlands Mesic
8 Appalachian Highlands Xeric
22 Appalachian Highlands
Forest Type
Hemlock-Northern
Hardwoods
Hemlock-Northern
Hardwoods
Hemlock-Northern
Hardwoods
Northern Hard-
woods
Oak-Northern
Hardwoods
Hardwoods
Type of Management ROW Community
Selective & Broadcast Blackberry-Goldenrod
•
Selective & Aerial Blackberry-Goldenrod
Broadcast Blackberry-Goldenrod
Broadcast & Selective Blackberry-Goldenrod
Selective & Broadcast Blueberry-Sweet-fern
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 Appalachian Highlands Hydric
9 Appalachian Highlands Hydric
10 Appalachian Highlands Hydric
22 Appalachian Highlands Hydric
Hemlock-Yellow
Birch
Alder-Sensitive
Fern
Selective & Broadcast
Selective & Aerial
Hemlock-Northern Broadcast
Hardwoods
Elm-Red Maple Broadcast & Selective
Spiraea-Sensitive Fern
Alder-Sensitive Fern
Dewberry-Sensitive
Fern.
Willow-Sensitive Fern
6.14. Trends in plant community development in relation to forest type and
habitat of the Appalachian Highlands and Catskill regions. The
figures in parenthesis are percent constancy.1
Adjacent Forest ROW Community
MESIC
Hemlock-Northern Hardwoods----------~ Blackberry (100) -Goldenrod (100)
XERIC
with
Witch-Hazel (100)
Hawthorn (100)
Raspberry (66)
Sheep-Sorrel (100)
Strawberry (100)
Hair-cap Moss (100)
Asters (66)
Hay-scented Fern (66)
Mixed Grass (100)
Oak-Northern Hardwoods--------------~ Blueberry (100) -Sweet-fern (100)
HYDRIC
with
Witch-Hazel (100)
Hemlock-Yellow Birch----------------~ Spiraea (66)
with
Witch-Hazel (66)
Raspberry (66)
Bracken (100)
Pearly Everlasting (100)
Whorled Loosestrife (100)
Strawberry (100)
Mixed Grass (100)
Sedge (100)
Goldenrod (100)
Sensitive Fern (100)
Interrupted Fern (66)
Sedge (66)
Violet (66)
Horsetail (66)
Blue-eyed Grass (66)
Cinquefoil (66)
Spring-beauty (66)
Mixed Grass (66)
1 Constancy 1s a percentage which equals No. of stands 1n which found X lQQ Total no. of stands
6-27
ilfi
'11:::1
'I ill 'i
,li
I'
I:
,! I,
I I
'I
'I: I, II
II
I,
''ll''l ! i'i
Table 6.15
Site
7
8
9
10
22
Average~-
7
8
9
10
22
Average -
Comparison of species diversity, based on the number of
species, on ROW's with that in the adjoining forests
in the Appalachian Highlands and Catskill regions.
No. of Species
Mesic Xeric Hydric
Forest ROW Forest ROW Forest ROW
Shrubs
4 7 4 5 2 3
2 6
2 4 6 7 1 4
2 6 4 8
2.5 5.8 5 6 2.3 5
Herbs
11 15 6 14 10 20
11 19
17 25 10 16 14 18
8 13 9 18
11.75 18 8 15 11 18.7
6-28
Table 6.16. Abundance and cover value of trees on the ROW for the
Applachian Highlands and Catskill regions.
(see Vol. 1, p. 3-3 for value of symbols).
Xeric Habitat on Sites
Species on ROW 8 9 10 22
Red Maple 2 2
Red Oak 2 2
Sweet Birch 3 +
Quaking Aspen + 2
Yellow Birch 1 +
White Oak 1 +
Beech 1
Gray Birch 1
White Birch 1
Chestnut Oak 1
Large-tooth Aspen +
White Ash +
Serviceberry +
Black Cherry +
Shagbark Hickory +
No. Species (Total = 15) 11 10
Average No. of Species = 10.5
6-29
,:!;
, I I 'I
i'
il
''
l'j, . I,
fl
'i'
I
I
I I ,II
:I
·i
]!
Table 6.17. Abundance and cover value of trees on the ROW for the
Applachian Highlands and Catskill regions.
• (see Vol. 1, p. 3-3 for value of symbols).
Mesi~ Habitat on Site
Species ROW 8 \: 9 10 on
Red Maple 1 2 1
Red Oak 2 + +
Quaking Aspen 1 3
Sweet Birch 3 1 1
1 Hawthorn + + 2
Hornbeam 3 2
White Ash 2
Black Cherry 2 1
Yellow Birch 1 2
Pin Cherry +
Beech 1 +
Serviceberry 1
Bitternut Hickory +
Apple 2
Red Pine 1
Willow 1
Chestnut +
Gray Birch +
White Birch +
White Pine ++
Large-tooth Aspen +
Scotch Pine +
American Elm ++
White Oak
American Hop-Hornbeam +
No. Species (Total = 25) ll 18 7
Average No. of Speices = ll.2
1 Listed under shrub layer individual site summaries. ~n
6-30
22
2
++
2
3
1
++
+
1
++
9
Table 6.18. Abundance and cover value of trees on. the ROW for the
Appalachian Highlands and Catskill regions.
(see Vol. 1, p. 3-3 for value of symbols).
Hydric Habitat on
Species on the ROW 8 9 10
Willow 1 1
Red Maple 1
Red Oak ++
White Ash
Hornbeam 2
Black Cherry 1
American Elm
Sweet Birch 1
Quaking Aspen +
Serviceberry +
Shagbark Hickory
Pin Cherry
Apple
Basswood
Pignut Hickory
No. Species (Total = 15) 1 3 4
Average No. of Species = 4-.3
1 Listed under shrub layer ~n individual site summaries.
6-31
Sites
22
3
2
++
3
1
+
++
++
++
9
il. ill
\il:l
I
:l'.l;l
il;.
I
. :tr.
)
I'
l·! I
Table 6.19. Tren~s in impact on soil organic layers and humus types Ln the Appalachian;
Highlands and Catskill regions.
Moisture
Site Regime
7 Mesic
8 Mesic &
Xeric
9 Mesic
10 Mesic
Xeric
22 Mesic
Predominant Humus Type
ROW Forest
Disturbed tower
openings
-no humus type
Thin duff mull w/
very shallow Al
Thin duff mull w/
very shallow Al
Thin duff mull w/
very shallow Al
Thin duff mull w/
very shallow Al
Thin duff mull w/
shallow Al
Thin duff mull w/
very shallow Al
Thin duff mull w/
very shallow Al
Thin duff mull w/
very shallow Al
Very deep medium
mull
Thin duff mull w/
very shallow Al
Thin duff mull w/
shallow Al
Average thickness -all sites
Average thickness -mesic and xerLc combined
0 . 1 . (. rganLc Layer ThLckness Lnche~
ROW Forest
Mesic Xeric Hesic Xeric
0.3 1.9
1.0 0.8 2.1 1.5
1.0 1.0
1.0 0.6 0.3 1.2
1.7 0.9
1.0 0. 7 1.2 1.4
0.9 1.3
1 · Includes all layers (litter, fermentation, and humus) where present.
6-32
Trends in impact on erosion in the Appala~hian Highlands and Catskill
regions.
Active Erosion
ROW
Slight sheet erosion on
general ROW; slight to
moderate sheet and rill
erosion on tower sites
Hoderate sheet erosion on
steep slope of general
ROW; moderate sheet, rill
and gully erosion on ac-
cess roads, tower sites
and equipment cuts
Slight to severe sheet
and gully erosion on
steep bare areas of gen-
eral ROW; slight to
moderate sheet, rill and
gully erosion on access
roads, intermittent
stream bed, stream banks,
ditch and equipment cuts
Moderate sheet erosion in
equipment tracks on gen-
eral ROW; severe gully on
tower site; moderate
sheet, rill and gully
erosion on access road
and stream banks
Slight sheet erosion on
general ROW
Forest
Hoderate sheet and rill
erosion in general for-
est; slight to severe
gully erosion in runoff
area
Slight to moderate sheet
and rill erosion on
steep slopes of general
forest
Slight sheet, rill and
gully erosion on bare,
steep slopes of general
forest; severe sheet,
rill and gully erosion
on stream bed and stream
banks
Slight sheet erosion on
heavy soil in general
forest; slight to mod-
erate sheet and gully
erosion on stream banks
Slight sheet erosion in
general forest; moderate
sheet, rill and gully
erosion on sanitary land
fill adjacent to ROW
6-33
Sediment
Disposition
Most on lower slopes
of ROW; some leaves
ROW through gully
Host on lower slopes
of ROW; some moves
into intermittent
streams
Lower slopes on ROW;
some deposited in
stream crossing ROW
and in pond on ROW
edge
Host on lower slopes
of ROW; some in stream
and ponded area on ROW
All sediment collected
on lower slope in de-
pression
:I
Table 6.21. Trends in impact on wildlife use of the ROW's Ln the Appalachian High-
lands and Catskill regions.
• Areas Used by Wildlife
Wildlife Species Sites
7 8 9 10 22
Game mammals
White-tailed deer ROW & Forest ROW & Forest ROW & Forest ROW & Forest ROW &
Cottontail rabbit ROW ROW & Forest ROW & Forest ROW
Gray squirrel ROW & Forest ROW ROW
Woodchuck ROW ROW ROW-Burrows ROW & Forest-
Burrows
Fox ROW ROW ROW
Muskrat ROW-Burrows
Game birds
Woodcock ROW
Wild turkey Forest ROW & Forest
Ruffed grouse ROW ROW & Forest
Nongame birds
Song birds & ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW
Fores
raptors 10 species 23 species 20 species 21 species 15 species
Bald eagle ROW
Small nongame mammals
Chipmunk Forest
Skunk ROW & Forest
Raccoon ROW
Miscellaneous
Rattlesnake ROW ROW
Spring peeper ROW
6-34
Trends in impact on water ~n the Appalachi~n Highlands and Catskill
regions.
~n Respect to ROW Border Vegetation Stream Temp. ~n Centigrade
Site 8 -Travis Brook (Class D)
Sept. 25 Jan. 28 May 19 Aug. 5
-100 yards upstream 'Hemlock-Northern 9.5 -1.0 6.0 13.0
Hardwoods
< shaded
2 -Upstream edge of ROW Forest edge 10.0 0.0 6.6 13.5
partial shade
'3 -Mid ROW Herbs, grasses 10.0 -2.0 7.3 14.0
partial shade
'4 -Downstream edge of ROW Forest edge 10.0 0.0 7.5 14.0
shaded
5 -100 yards downstream Hemlock-Northern 10.0 0.0 8.0 14.0
Hardwoods
shaded -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site 9 -Baldwin Creek (Class D)
Sept. 27 Feb. 12 May 19 Aug. 3
1 -100 yards upstream Forest canopy 12.0 0.0 7.0 15.5
partial shade
2 -Mid ROW Herbs, grasses 12.0 0.0 7.0 16.0
partial shade
3 -50 yards downstream Forest canopy 11.3 0.0 7.5 16.5
partial shade
6-35
·'I
II
II,
I
. i
II 'I
I[
I
I
i
'I
II
i i·\
i
I
II
'I
'jl
II
!II
II
I
'II' ,.,
il ·.·
Table 6.23. Percent change of land use prior to (or near the time of construction)
and ~fter construction of the ROW for sites within the Appalachian
Highlands and Catskill regions.
Percent change expressed as increase (+), decrease (-),
no change (0), or no recorded land use with no chan~e (NC). l
Land Use Sites2 Ave. %
7 8 9 10 22 Change
(A) Agriculture -0.7 -4.3 -0.5 NC -21.5 -5.4
(C,I) Commercial & NC NC NC NC NC 0
Industrial
(E) Extractive 0.4 NC NC NC 1.2 0.3
Industry
(F) ~Forest Land -1.5 4.3 0.4 0 16.4 3.9
(N) Non-productive NC NC NC NC NC 0
(OR) Outdoor Recrea-NC NC NC 0 0 0
tion
(P) Public & Semi-NC 0 NC NC NC 0
public
(R) Residential NC NC 0.1 NC 2.8 0.6
(T) Transportation NC NC NC 4.7 1.4 1.2
<u) Urban Inactive NC NC NC NC NC 0
(w) 1-Jater Resources 1.8 NC 0 -4.7 -o. 3 -0.9
1 Percentages are derived from each individual case history of the sites and express-
ed to a lOth of a percent. Percentages were not adjusted to insure cancellation of
land use 1ncrease or decrease by site.
2 Site 22 was added from the border of the adjacent region (Lake Plain) as it fit
more nearly with this region.
6-36
Table 6.24. Multiple land use of ROW sites within the Appalachian Highlands and
Catskill regions.l
Multiple Use
7
Use of access roads for ad-
jacent logging operations
Agriculture
Extension of residential
property
Fishing
Hiking
Horseback riding
Hunting X
Industrial 2 uses
Other recreational 3 X uses
Snowmobiling
Sites
8 9 10
X X X
X
X X X
X
22
X
X
% of Sites
with Multiple
Use
0
80
0
0
0
20
100
0
40
0
1 Site 22 was added from the border of the adjacent region (Lake Plain) as it fits
more nearly with this region.
2 Use by adjacent industry as extension of property, or piling of discarded ma-
terial associated with that industry.
3 Other recreational uses include such functions as: Use by children for play;
motorcycle trails; use by all-terrain vehicles; and camping activities.
6-37
6.4. Trends in the Lake Plain Region
6.4.1 Tren~ in Impact on Vegetation
Relation of plant commun~t~es to habitat and forest type Five sites
(sites 11,12,13,14,and 15) were studied in the Lake Plain region where Elm-
Red Maple and Northern Hardwoods are characteristic natural vegetation
(Table 6.25). One site (site 22), which was on the southern border of this
region, was put in the Appalachian Highlands and Catskill region owing to
its obvious relationship to that region.
General trends in vegetation on the ROW's in relation to habitat and
forest type are shown in Table 6.25 and Table 6.26, and may be summarized
as follows:
(1) On mes~c habitat areas where Northern Hardwoods adjoined the
ROW's, a Sumac~Goldenrod plant community developed on the
ROW.
It is important to note that on 3 sites with widely different ROW
treatments (sites 12,14,and 15), all the ROW's had developed the
same plant community, Sumac-Goldenrod. This included site 14 where
no herbicides had been used and sites 12 and 15 where broadcast
sprays had been used.
(2) Only 2 xeric sites were studied in this region. However, on these
a different community, Blueberry-Bracken, had developed which lacked
sweet-fern so typical of xeri~ habitats in the New England Highlands
and Mohawk-Hudson reg~ons.
(3) On hydric habitat areas, a Red Osier Dogwood-Sensitive Fern plant
community had developed on all sites regardless of the ROW manage-
ment used. An Elm-Red Maple forest type, or close variant adjoined
the ROW's on these habitats.
Description of ROW Communities
Sumac-Goldenrod Community (Rhus-Solidago)
This community is typically located on mesic habitat areas on lower
and middle slopes with free drainage. Surface soil pH ranged from.pH 5.0
to pH 7.0, with an average pH of 6.2.
Characteristic Species Staghorn-sumac ~s constantly present (100%),
and with high abundance and cover values.
Goldenrods are constantly present (100%), and with high abundance
and cover values.
Blackberry is also a constant species (60%) of variable cover value.
Small to large patches of grasses mixed with old field herbs were
typical of this community.
Other species of high constancy (80%) are grape, asters, strawberry,
yarrow, and sheep-sorrel.
Species with medium constancy (40-60%) and not common to other
habitats are prickly ash and climbing bittersweet.
6-38
Blueberry-Bracken Community (Vaccinium-Pteridium)
This community is typically located on xeric habitat areas mostly
on upland flats and slopes with excessive drainage. The soil pH was 4.8.
Characteristic Species Blueberry occurred on the 2 sites (sites
14 and 15), while sweet-fern was absent.
Bracken fern also occurred on both sites with high abundance and
cover values.
Dewberry, flowering dogwood, and arrow-wood all were found on both
sites with high cover yalues.
A number of herbs typical of old fields were found on both sites:
goldenrods, asters, hawkweeds, sheep-sorrel, Queen Anne's-lace, straw-
berry and yarrow.
Small patches and clumps of grasses were typical of this community.
Red Osier Dogwood-Sensitive Fern Community (Cornus stolonifera-Onoclea)
This community is typically located on hydric habitat areas in
stream bottoms and depressed areas with impeded drainage. The soil pH
ranged from pH 6.5 to pH 7.1, with an average pH of 6.8.
Characteristic Species Red osier dogwood is constantly present
(100%) and usually has a high abundance and cover.value.
Willow is also a constant species (100%) with low to high cover
values.
Sensitive fern is a highly constant species (100%) with very high
abundance and cover values.
Elderberry is also a highly constant (80%) species although vari-
able in its abundance.
Sedges and horsetails are highly constant (100%) with very high
cover values.
Touch-me-not and boneset are species of high constancy (80%)
usually with high abundance and cover values.
Other characteristic species of wet areas with medium constancy
values (40 to 60%) are: cowslip, cat-tail, rush, marsh-fern, flag
iris, lady-fern, and nightshade.
Mixed grasses occur in clumps and small patches and are constantly
present (100%).
Goldenrods and asters are highly constant species (100 and 80%),
usually of high cover value.
Species Div~rsity The average number of species present on the ROW's
was considerably greater than in the adjoining forests on all habitat areas
for the 5 sites studied (Table 6.27). The only exception was on the hydric
habitat of site 11 where there were many more herbs present in the ~orest
than on the ROW. The forest in this case was an open cedar swamp mixed with
Elm-Red Maple.
This indicates a general trend towards development of a more diverse
vegetation on the ROW's which, in turn, means a g~eater richness of flora
and improved wildlife habitat.
6-39
.... ' I
!
'I':
l'
I
I' /,,
~ : I
Impacts on Shrubs and Low-Growing Trees Shrubs are important components
of the ROW cowmunities which enhance wildlife habitat and add to the attrac-
tiveness of scenery. Therefore, special attention has been paid to them and
they are grouped below to indicate their development on the ROW's studied.
1. Common shrubs and low-growing trees which were more prominent, or of
equal prominence, on the ROW's as compared with adjoining forests are:
alder
arrow-wood
blackberry
blueberry
buckthorn
elderberry
grape
gray dogwood
hawthorn
northern prickly ash
red osier dogwood
rose
2. Common shrubs and low-growing trees which occurred only on the ROW's -
are:
climbing bittersweet
dewberry
flowering dogwood
honeysuckle
nanny berry
spicebush
staghorn-sumac
virgin's-bower
winter berry
3. Common shrubs and low-growing trees which occurred only in the forests
a~e:
gooseberry
maple-leaved viburnum
striped maple teaberry
4. Common shrubs and low-growing trees which occurred both in the for-
ests and on the ROW's, but in lesser abundance on the ROW's are:
choke-cherry
poison ivy
raspberry
Virginia creeper
witch-hazel
Impact on Herbaceous Plants A different flora developed on the ROW's which
contrasted sharply with that of the adjoining forests. This was caused by in-
vasion of the ROW's by plants typical of open areas which then mixed with plants
of the forests to produce a complex mixture of shrubs, herbs, ferns, and grasses.
Patches of grass were typical of all habitats and were usually mixed with
herbs such as goldenrods, asters, wild strawberry, butterfly-weed, yarrow, and
sheep-sorrel. Along with these were such plants of the forest as wild geranium,
yellow wood-sorrel, cinquefoils, bracken, sensitive fern, sedges, touch-me-not,
boneset, bedstraw, lady-fern, false Solomon's-seal, and May-apple.
Some plants of the forest were either not found on the ROW's, or were
extremely rare. These included: twisted-stalk, wild sarsaparilla, partridge-
berry, large-leaved aster, Indian cucumber-root, false spikenard, white
baneberry, and sweet Cicely. A number of ferns typical of shaded habitats
were not found on the ROW's. These included: marginal shield-fern, beech-
fern, spinulose wood-fern, and cinnamon-fern. These are mostly plants adapted
to growing under the canopy of a forest and do not thrive in open areas of any
kind.
6-40
Trees on the ROW (Sites 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
Xeric Habitat (Table 6.28) The most common species on the 2 xeric sites
were sassafras, red oak, and white oak which ranged from numerous (1) to
covering 1/4-1/2 of the ROW area (3). Other common species were flowering
dogwood and large-tooth aspen.
The number of species on a ROW ranged from 9 on one ROW to 11 on the
other. While brush control was excellent on both ROW's, with height mostly
under 8-10 feet, there was a large reservoir of resurging tree species present
on both ROW's. These trees can be expected to gradually emerge from the
shrub layer.
Mesic Habitat (Table "6.29) The most common species were black cherry,
red maple, red oak, white ash, and American elm with a range from very sparse
(+) to covering 1/4 ~ l/2 of the ROW area (3). Other common species were
bitternut hickory, pin cherry, and hawthorn.
The number of species on a ROW ranged from 7 to 17. A total of 25
species was recorded as invading the ROW. While brush control was excellent
on all ROW's, with height mostly under 8-10 feet, there was a large reservoir
of resurging tree species present on all ROW's. These trees can be expected
to gradually emergy from the shrub layer.
Hydric Habitat (Table 6.30) The most common species were willow, white
ash, and American elm which ranged from sparse (+) to covering 1/4 -1/2 of
the ROW area (3). Other common species were black cherry, red maple, and
quaking aspen.
The number of species on a ROW ranged from 5 to 9. A total of 15
species were recorded as invading the ROW. While brush control was excellent
on all ROW's, with height mostly under 8-10 feet, there was a large reservoir
of resurging tree species present on all ROW's. These trees can be expected
to gradually emerge from the shrub layer.
6.4.2 Trends in Impact on Soil
Bedrock geology of study areas in the Lake Plain region is predominantly
shale, sandstone, and limestone with minor inclusions of siltstone, dolostone,
and granite. Upland soils formed mostly in glacial till and o:utwash, and
bottomland soils in lake deposits and alluvium from glacial drift. Parent soil
materials and associated ground water are generally calcareous. Drumlin for-
mations and wind-blown silt and fine sand deposits are prominent on several
sites (sites 12,14,and 15). Major soil orders are Inceptisols, Alfisols, and
Entisols. Surface mineral soils vary in texture and reaction apparently due
to different parent materials, mostly medium to strongly acid sandy loams and
loamy sands on sites 12, 14, and 15, and slightly acid to neutral silt loams
and loams on other sites.
Impacts on surface soil organic layers of the general ROW's were very
minor in this region (Table 6.31). There was a change in source of annual
litter deposits from tree parts under forests to leaves and stems of mixed
grass-herb-shrub cover on the ROW's, but overall, organic layers on the ROW's
were equivalent to,or slightly thicker than,those in the forests. Humus types
were generally similar under ROW and forest conditions, but varied among
sites .. Medium mulls and sand mulls were prominent on mesic habitats of sites
11, 12,and 13, and sand mulls on the xeric habitat of site 15, while thin duff
mulls occurred on mesic areas of all other sites. Another minor effect was the
consistent occurrence of thinner Al horizons on the ROW's than in the forests
where mull humus types we.re present, while no difference occurred on duff mulls.
Although not related to ROW management, the mull humus type on site 13 was some-
what modified by past plowing in this area.
6-41
•
Impacts on soil erosion were negligible on the general ROW's, those areas
where woody brush was maintained by chemical sprays or mowing but with minimal
soil disturbance. Some slight to moderate sheet and rill erosion did occur
under these ROW conditions on several sites, but did not exceed normal erosion
observed under bordering forest conditions (Table 6.3V. More serious sheet,
rill and some gully erosion, associated with ROW management activities, occur-
red on disturbed areas such as access roads, tower sites, staging-stringing
areas, and excavations. In addition, other uses not related to ROW management
caused further site deterioration leading to erosion on access roads and stream-
banks of some sites. Small amounts of erosion sediment on 3 sites (sites 12,
14, and 15) entered streams on the ROW, but otherwise accumulated on lower
slopes with no apparent adverse effects. The major trend, therefore, was for
the ROW's in this region to show negative impacts, primarily soil erosion and
some stream sedimentation only on disturbed areas, with none or minimal effects
on the general ROW's which were stabilized by low plant. cover and organic
mulch.
6.4.3 Trends in Impact on Wildlife
Wildlife use on the 5 sites studied was relatively high and 12 common
species were observed using the ROW's, or their edges, in addition to numer-
ous song birds and raptors (Table 6.33).
From 11 to 31 species of song birds and raptors were observed using the
ROW's on all sites. A Cooper's hawk was observed on one site on the ROW.
White-tailed deer used the ROW's on 4 sites, with one highly urbanized
area (site 12) lacking deer. Cottontail rabbits used the ROW's on all 5 sites,
along with woodchuck on 2 sites whose burrows are valuable as escape cover.
Raccoon used the ROW on 1 site, while gray squirrel on 2 sites used the
adjacent forest and crossed the ROW's on 2 sites.
Of the common game birds of the region, woodcock used the ROW's on 4
sites, with singing grounds either.on the ROW's or adjacent to it on all
sites.
Ringnecked pheasant used the ROW's on 3 sites, Canada goose on 3 sites,
and c·anvasback on 1 site.
Deer browse surveys which were carried out on 2
most browse was available on the ROW's or its edges.
winter food was furnished by the ROW's, as 10 common
deer.
6.4.4 Trends in Impact on Water
sites indicated that
An important source of
shrubs were browsed by
Water impact was studied on site 11 where the ROW crossed a large swamp
located in the Genessee River basin. The swamp was 1.7 miles long by 0.3
miles wide. Flow was negligible and measurements were taken in depressions
containing water.
Temperature difference on the ROW compared to 2 adjacent locations
varied, but no distinct trend could be detected between the locations to
indicate a warming trend on the ROW or other changes in water quality.
6-42
6.4.5 Trends in Impact on Land Use
Changes in Adjacent Land Use The percent chang~ in land use pr1or to
(or near the time of construction) and after construction of the ROW has been
compared for 5 sites (sites 11,12,13,14, and 15). One site (site 22) which
was on the southern border of this region, was put in the Appalachian High-
lands and Catskill regions due to its vegetative relationship to that region.
For consistency of analysis with other trends sections, this grouping was
kept. Percent change by land use type is measured for each site and for all
5 sites as an average percent change (Table 6.j4). The highest percent change
in land use for any single site was a decrease in agriculture by 58.8% for
site 12. Another very high percent change for site 12 was an increase in
residential by 43.3%. Sites .14 and 15 also had high percent changes in agri-
culture (-7.1%), forest land (17.8%), and water resources (-11.0%). As a
result, the average percent changes by land use are consistently high for
agriculture (-14.8%), forest land (7.0%), residential (8.8%), and water
resources (-4.8%).
Because of the high variability in land use changes, special considera-
tion should be given to other factors which may influence the impact on
adjacent land uses, including visual characteristics. General reconnaissance
of the ROW's indicates that of the 5 sites, 2 are generally pleasing to view
(sites 14 and 15), and 3 are neither pleasing nor objectionable (sites 11,12,
and 13). Sites which are pleasing to view generally lack undesirable char-
acteristics and include vistas and flowering vegetation pleasing to view.
The remaining 3 sites are described as neither pleasing nor objectionable
generally because they lack visual assets, although they may visibly blend
with adjacent land use and land cover types. Variability associated with
the ROW~s in the context of their location makes this series of general re-
connaissance no less subjective, but does not strongly reflect criteria which
would impact adjacent land uses in a negative fashion.
Within this Lake Plain region, one trend is a decrease 1n
agriculture. For sites considered here there is also a general absence of
long-term negative visual characteristics that appear in objectionable con-
trast with the surrounding landscape. The combined effect of high percent
changes specifically associated with site 12, and the double counting of
changes for parallel sites 14 and 15, make it difficult to derive other dis-
tinct trends. The high variability of influences other than the ROW which
could affect land use change are apparent within this region, most noticeably
with site 12.
Multiple Uses Multiple uses of the ROW's within these regions include
agriculture, extension of residential property, hiking, hunting, snowmobiling
and other recreational uses (Table 6.35). Of these, 4 sites are used for
snowmobiling. It is clear that the ROW's have opened the land for a variety
of recreational uses. Extension of reSidential property for 2 sites (sites 12
and 13), as well as other multiple uses, are positive impacts associated with
the. ROW's.
An important trend for multiple use for this region is also shown by the
variety of recreational activities which take advantage of the linear char-
acter of the ROW's. Snowmobiling is a predominant multiple use found on
4 sites and would indicate that the ROW's in this region are ideally suited
for this activity.
6-43
f II,,
l'i' ,,
Table 6.25. Trends 1n impact on vegetation 1n the Lake Plain region .
Site
1l
12
13
14
15
14
15
11
12
13
14
15
•
Habitat
Ivlesi.c
Mesic
Mesic
Mesic
Mesic
Xeric
Forest Type
Oak-Nort.hern
Hardwoods
Northern Hardwoods
Northern Hardwoods
Northern Hardwoods
Northern Hardwoods
Oak-Northern
Hardwoods
Moist-Xeric Oak-Northern
Hardwoods
Type of Management
Selective Stump
Broadcast & Mowed
Selective Stump
Mechanical
None
Broadcast &
Selective
None
Broadcast &
Selective
&
Hydric Northern White Cedar Mechanical
with
Elm-Red Maple
Hydric Northern Hardwoods Broadcast &
Selective
Hydric Red Maple-Ash Not given
Hydric Elm-Red Maple None
Hydric Elm-Red Maple Broadcast &
Selective
6-44
ROW Corrnnunity
Suma.c-Goldenrod
Sumac-Goldenrod
Sumac-Goldenrod
Sumac-Goldenrod
Sumac-Goldenrod
Blueberry-Bracken
Blueberry-Bracken
Red Osier Dogwood-
Sensitive Fern
Red Osier Dogwood-
Sensitive Fern
Red Osier Dogwood-
Sensitive Fern
Red Osier Dogwood-
Sensitive Fern
Red Osier Dogwood-
Sensitive Fern
Trends in plant community development in relation to forest type and
habitat of the Lake Plain reg1on. The fig~res in parenthesis are
percent constancy.l
Adjacent Forest ROW Community
MESIC
Hardwoods----------~-~----~ Sumac (100)
XERIC
Grape (80)
Blackberry (60)
Hawthorn (60)
Blackberry (60)
Arrow-wood (60)
Oak-Northern Hardwoods-------------~ Blueberry (100)
HYDRIC
Dewberry (100)
Flowering
Dogwood (100)
Arrow-wood (100)
with
with
Goldenrod (100)
Asters (80)
Strawberry (80)
Yarrow (80)
Sheep-Sorrel (80)
Mixed Grass (100)
Bracken (100)
Asters (100)
Yarrow (100)
Sheep-Sorrel (100)
Strawberry (100)
Hawkweeds (100)
Queen Anne's-Lace (100)
Mixed Grass (100)
Maple---------------------~ Red Osier Dogwood (100)-Sensitive Fern (100)
with
Willow (100)
Elderberry (80)
Gray Dogwood (60)
Grape (60)
Arrow-wood (60)
Asters (100)
Sedge (100)
Horsetails (100)
Goldenrod (100)
Boneset (80)
Touch-me-not (80)
Mixed Grass (80)
Constancy 1s a percentage which equals No. of stands 1n which found
Total no. of stands x 100
6-45
I
II
II
1il
1',
1,1 ,!
H
'[' d ,,
II':
'I r
''"
I
1,1
'!I
I
:I
I'
(
Iii I
1! II'
:'
I
Table 6.27
•
Site
11
12
13
14
15
Average -
11
12
13
14
15
Average -
)
Comparison of species diversity, based on number of
species, on ROW's with that in the adjoining forests
in the Lake Plain region .
f S . 1 No. o pec1.es
Mesic Xeric Hydric
Forest ROW Forest ROW Forest ROW
Shrubs
5 9 7 9
1 5 2 6
4 8 6 8
3 6 5 6 4 9
4 5 5 7 2 7
3.4 6.6 5.0 6.5 4.2 7.8
Herbs -
11 17 32 14
9 24 13 31
9 12 7 18
14 20 17 20 5 18
9 11 15 30 21 25
10.4 16.8 16.0 25.0 15.6 21.2
1 If a habitat occurrs twice on a site, the total number of respective
shrub or herb species for both areas is.totaled, then divided by two
for an average. This average is then rounded off to the nearest
whole number.
6-46
.·.·
Table 6.28. Abundance and cover value of trees on the ROW for the Lake
Plain region.
(see Vol. 1, p. 3-3 for value of symbols).
Xeric Habitat on Sites
Species on ROW 11 12 13 14 15
Sassafras 3 3
Red Oak 1 2
White Oak 1 1
Flowering Dogwood 1 +
Large-tooth Aspen 3
Black Cherry 1
White Ash 1
Sugar Maple 1
Black Oak 1
Scotch Pine 1
Hawthorn1 +
Quaking Aspen +
Shagbark Hickory ++
Red Maple ++
Bitternut Hickory ++
White Pine ++
No. Species (Total = 16) 9 11
Average No. of Species = 10
1 Listed under shrub layer in individual site sunnnaries.
6-47
Table 6.29. Abundance and cover value of trees on the ROW for the Lake
Plain regions.
(~ee Vol. 1, p. 3-3 for value of symbols).
Species on ROW
Black Cherry
White Ash
American Elm
Red Maple
Red Oak
Bitternut Hickory
Pin Cherry
1 Hawthorn
Quaking Aspen
Hornbeam
Sassafras
Flowering Dogwood
Basswood
Willow1
Apple
White Birch
Shagbark Hickory
Black Ash
Black Locust
Large-tooth Aspen
Cottonwood
White Oak
Alternate-leaved Dogwood
Chestnut Oak
White Cedar
No. Species (Total = 25)
11
2
3
1
3
+
++
3
3
++
+
++
++
2
3
++
++
+
17
Average No. of Species = 10.4
12
+
++
+
1
++
2
+
2
8
1 Listed under shrub layer 1n individual site
6-48
Mesic Habitat on Sites
13
+
++
+
+
++
1
+
7
sunnnar1es.
14
1
1
+
3
2
+
3
1
3
++
3
1
+
13
15
4
+
++
2
1
1
1
7
Table 6.30. Abundance and cover value of trees on the ROW for the Lake
Plain region.
(see Vol. 1, p. 3-3 for value of symbols).
Hydric Habitat on Sites
Species on ROW 11 12 13 14 15
Willow 1 1 2 3 1 +
White Ash + 3 1 4
American Elm 2 3 + 1
Black Cherry + + ++ 1
Red Maple + 3 3
Quaking Aspen + + 3
Apple + 1
Black Locust 1 +
Black Ash 1
White Cedar 1
White Oak +
Hawthorn 1 +
Basswood ++
Red Oak ++
Bitternut Hickory ++
No. Species (Total = 15) 8 9 6 5 6
Average No. of Species = 6.8
1 Listed under shrub layer in individual site summaries.
6-49
:]i
II:
II i'l'
,, ,,
Table 6.31· Trends in impact on soil organic layers and humus types 1.n
regiofl..
Moisture Predominant Humus
Site Regime ROW Forest Mes1.c
ll Mesic Deep medium mull Deep medium mull 0.3
Al=4.0" thick Al=4. 6" thick
12 Mesic Deep sand mull Very deep sand mull 1.1
Al=4.0" thick Al=5.0" thick
13 Mesic Deep medium mull-P Very deep medium 0.6
Al=4.0" thick mull
Al=5 .5" thick
14 Mesic Thin duff mull w/ Thin duff mull w/ 0.6
very shallow Al very shallow Al
15 Mesic Thin duff mull w/ Thin duff mull w/ 0.8
very shallow Al very shallow Al
Xeric , Very shallow sand Very shallow sand 0.5
mull mull
Al-0.3" thick Al=0.4" thick
Average thickness -all sites 0.7 0.5
Average thickness -mesic and xer1.c combined 0.6
1 Includes all layers (litter, fermentation, and humus) where present.
6-50
Mes1.c
0.3
1.1
0.4
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.7 0.6
0.7
Trends ~n impact on eros~on ~n the Lake Plain regior
Active Erosion
ROW
Moderate sheet and rill
erosion on one area of
general ROW; moderate
sheet and rill erosion
on logging road, exca-
vation, and path at
spring seep
Slight sheet erosion on
several bare areas on
general ROW; moderate
sheet, rill and gully
erosion on tower site,
stream bank and sand
pile
Slight sheet erosion on
several bare areas of
silt loam soil on gen-
eral ROW and tower site;
slight to moderate sheet
and gully erosion along
drainage ditches
No erosion on general
ROW; slight to moderate
sheet and rill erosion
at 6 tower sites and
2 staging-stringing
areas; slight erosion
of access road water
bars; severe erosion
at culvert crossing
No erosion on general
ROW; slight to moderate
sheet erosion on access
road, road water bars
and culvert crossing
Forest
Moderate sheet erosion on
one area of general forest
Slight sheet erosion on
several areas of bare
soil in general forest;
moderate to severe sheet
and gully erosion on dis-
turbed stream bank and
building excavation
Slight sheet erosion on
several bare areas of
silt loam soil in general
forest
No eros~on under forest
conditions
No erosion under forest
conditions
6-51
Sediment
Disposition
All sediment depos-
ited on lower slopes
of ROW or forests
Sediment from stream
bank erosion enters
stream; all other
collects on lower
slopes
Sediment from ditch
banks leave ROW via
ditches; other col-
lects on lower slopes
Some from bank ero-
sion at culvert
entered streams; most
accumulated on lower
slopes of ROW
Some from bank ero-
sion at culvert
entered stream; most
accumulated on lower
slopes on ROW
Table 6.33. Trends 1n impact on wildlife use of the ROW's 1n the Lake Plain region.
•
Areas Used b~ Wildlife
Wildlife Species Sites
11 12 13 14 15
Game mammals
White-tailed deer ROW & ROW ROW ROW
Forest
Cottontail rabbit ROW ROW & ROW ROW ROW
Edges
Raccoon ROW
Woodchuck ROW ROW
2 burrows 1 burrow
Gray squirrel Adjacent ROW
to ROW
Game birds
Ruffed grouse ROW
Woodcock ROW ROW ROW ROW
Canvasback ROW
Ringnecked pheasant ROW ROW ROW
Canada goose ROW ROW ROW
Nongame birds
Song birds & ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW
rap tors 31 species 11 species 16 species 30 species 24 species
Small nongame mammals
Oppossum ROW
Mole ROW ROW
6-52
.6.34. Percent change of land use prior to (or near the time
and after construction of the ROW for sites within t'
~ construction) 1 Lake Plain region.
Percent change expressed as increase ( +)' decrease (-),
no change (0), or no recorded land use with no change (NC). 2
Land Use Sites Ave. %
11 12 13 14 15 Change
(A) Agriculture -1.0 -58.8 0 -7.1 -7.1 -14.8
(C,I) Commercial & NC -0.3 NC 0 0 -0.1
Industrial
(E) Extractive NC NC 0.3 NC NC 0.1
Industry
(F) Forest Land 1.0 -1.4 -.3 17.8 17.8 7.0
(N) Non-productive NC NC NC NC NC 0
(OR) Outdoor Recrea-NC / NC NC 0 0 0
tion
(P) Public & Semi-NC 5.4 NC NC NC 1.1
public
(R) Residential 0 43.3 0 0.3 0.3 8.8
(T) Transportation NC 0 NC 0 0 0
(U) Urban Inactive NC 11.8 NC NC NC 2.4
(W) Water Resources 0 0 0 -11.0 -11.0 -4.4
1 Site 22,which is on the southern border of this region, was put in the Appalachian
2
Highlands and Catskill regions owing to its closer vegetative relationship to that
region. For consistency of analysis with trends of vegetation, soils; 'wildlife
and water sections a similar change was made here.
Percentages are derived from each individual case history of the sites and express-
ed to a lOth of a percent. Percentages were not adjusted to insure cancellation of
land use increase or decrease by site.
6-53
.,
Table 6.35. Multiple land use of ROW sites within the Lake Plain region.1
•
Multiple Use
Use of access roads for ad-
jacent logging operations
Agriculture
Extension of residential
property
Fishing
Hiking
Horseback riding
Hunting
2 Industrial Uses
Other recreational uses
Snowmobiling
11 12
X
X
X
X
Sites
13 14 15
X
X X
X X X
% of Sites
with Multiple
Use
0
20
40
0
20
0
40
0
20
80
1 Site 22, which is on the southerP border of this region, was put in the Appal-
achian Highlands and Catskill regions owing to its closer vegetative relation-
ship to that region. For consistency of analysis with trends of vegetation,.
soils, wildlife and water sections, a similar change was made here.
2 Use by adjacent industry as extension of property, or piling of discarded
material associated with that industry.
6-54
6.5 Trends in the Adirondack, Tug Hill, and St. Lawrence-Champlain Regions
6.5.1 Trends in Impact on Vegetation
Relation of plant communities to habitat and forest type Six sites were
studied in the Adirondack, Tug Hill, and St. Lawrence-Champlain regions where
a diversity of northern forest types are characteristic natural vegetation
(Table 6.36).
General trends in development of vegetation on the ROW's in relation to
habitat and forest type may be summarized from the data collected as follows
(Table 6.37):
(1) On mesic habitat-areas where northern hardwoods and mixtures of
those species with white pine, hemlock, and spruce fir adjoined
the ROW's, or where aspen and birch were present as an early suc-
cessional stage, a Blackberry-Goldenrod ROW community developed.
(Table 6.37).
These mesic habitats were characterized by their location on lower
to middle slopes with free drainage. The soil pH ranged from pH
4.0 to pH 5.8, with an average pH of 4.7.
(2) On xeric habitat areas where white pine was the dominant tree
species, or where aspen and birch were present as an early
successional stage, a Blueberry-Bracken ROW community developed
(Table 6.37).
These xeric habitats were characterized by their location on
upper to middle slopes, or upland areas, with excessive drainage.
The soil pH ranged from pH 4.6 to pH 5.4, with an average pH of
4.9.
(3) On hydric habitat areas where elm, red maple, red spruce, and
balsam fir were dominant, a Willow-Sensitive Fern, or a Willow-
Sphagnum ROW community developed (Table 6.37).
These hydric habitats were characterized by their location in
stream bottoms and in depressed areas with impeded dr~inage.
The soil pH ranged from pH 4.7 to pH 6.8, with an average pH
of 5.5.
Species Diversity A consistent trend was shown in species diversity
on all habitat areas for all sites. The number of species was markedly
greater on the ROW's than in the adjoining forests (Table 6.38).
This more diverse flora on the ROW's indicates better wildlife food
conditions, as well as an attractive appearance.
Impacts on Shrubs and Low-Growing Trees Shrubs are important components
of the ROW communities which enhance wildlife habitat and add to the attrac-
tiveness of scenery. Therefore, they received special attention and are
grouped below into various categories to indicate their status on the ROW's
studied.
6-55
1. Common shrubs and low-growing trees which were more prominent, or
of equal prominence, on the ROW's as compared with adjoining for-
ests are:
•
blackberry
blueberry, low
blueberry, sour-top
bristly sarsaparilla
spiraea
Virginia creeper
2. Common shrubs and low-growing trees which occured only on the ROW's
are:
hawthorn mountain-holly
smooth sumac
staghorn-sumac
3. Common shrubs and low-growing trees which occurred only 1n the for-
ests are:
fly-honeysuckle
gooseberry
hobble bush
maple-leaved
viburnum
trailing arbutus
4. Common shrubs and low-growing trees which occurred both in the for-
ests and on the ROW's, but in lesser abundance on the ROW's, are:
alder
black chokeberry
dewberry
mountain-maple
striped maple
teaberry
Impact on Herbaceous Plants Herbaceous vegetation on the ROW's had de-
veloped to form a complex mixture which consists of species from the forest
mixed with invading species typical of open areas such as old fields. As a
result, there were considerably more herbaceous species on the ROW's than 1n
the forests on all sites studied in these regions.
Species of open areas which were found commonly on the ROW's and were
either absent, or very sparse, in the forests included: goldenrods, asters,
St. John's-wort,·yarrow, sheep-sorrel, sedges, wild strawberry, spreading
dogbane, and boneset.
Certain important species, however, were common both in the forests and
on the ROW's and these included such common plants as bracken, trout-lily,
poverty-grass, hair-cap moss, bluebead-lily, sensitive fern, false hellebore,
wild lily-of-the-valey, horsetails, touch-me-not, and sphagnum. Also found
both on the ROW's and in the forests were: interrupted fern, cinnamon-fern,
and royal fern.
Some characteristic forest plants were either absent, or very sparse, on
the ROW's. Prominent among these were: partridge-berry, shining club-moss,
tree-club-moss, wild sarsaparilla, goldthread, painted trillium, purple
trillium, twisted-stalk, and wood-anemone. Forest ferns not found on the
ROW's included: .mq.rgin~l shield-fern, lady-fern, and oak-fern.
Trees on :the ROW (Sites 16 -21) _
Xeric Habitat (Table 6.39) The most common species on the 2 xer1c
plots in this region were pin cherry, red maple, white pine, gray birch, and
hawthorn which ranged from very sparse (++) to covering 1/4 -1/2 of the
ROW area (3). Other common species were quaking aspen and red oak.
The number of species was 7 on both sites. A total of 9 species
was reported as invading the ROW. While brush control was excellent on both
ROW's, with height mostly under 8-10 feet, there was a large reservoir of
resurging tree species present on both ROW's. These trees can be expected
to gradually emerge from the shrub layer.
6-56
Mesic Habitat (Table 6. 40~ The most connnon species were quaking
aspen, pin cherry, red maple, black cherry, gray birch, and yellow birch
which ranged from very sparse (++) to covering 1/2-3/4 of the ROW (4).
Willow was also fairly common on the ROW's.
The number of species on a ROW ranged from 3 to 15, A total of 26
species was reported as invading the ROW. While brush control was excellent
on all ROW's, with height mostly under 8-10 feet, there was a large reservoir
of resurging tree species present on all ROW's. These trees can be expected
to gradually emerge from the shrub layer.
Hydric Habitat (Tqble 6.41) The most common species were red maple
and willow which ranged from very sparse (++) to covering 1/4 -1/2 of the
ROW area (3). Other common species were gray birch, quaking aspen, pin cherry,
black cherry, and red spruce.
The number of species on a ROW ranged from 5 to 11. A total of 19
species were reported as invading the ROW. While brush control was excell~nt
on all ROW's, with height mostly under 8-10 feet, there was a large reservoir of
resurging tree species present on all ROW's. These trees can be expected
to emerge from the shrub layer.
6.5.2 Trends in Impact on Soil .
Bedrock geology in this region is predominantly gran1te and gra~1t1c
gneiss on sites 16, 17, 19, and 20, and sandstone, shale, ~nd s?me l1mestone
on sites 18 and 21. Soils developed in both unsorted glac1al t1ll and strat-
ified glacial outwash deposits on all. sites. The 28 soil series mapped on
these study areas were classified mostly as Spodosols and Inceptisols. Sur-
face mineral soils are strongly to very strongly acid sandy loams, loamy sands
and loams, except for minor inclusions of neutral soil variants on site 18.
There were no major negative effects of ROW management on organic layers
of the general ROW's in this region. Minor differences observed, in contrast
to forest conditions, included a change in origin of litter from tree-part
remains to leaves and stems of grasses, herbs, and shrubs and a slight reduction
in average thickness of organic mulch on the ROW's (Table 6.42). Humus types
were thin duff mulls on both the ROW's and forests of sites 16, 17A, 19, 20,
and 21, and thin mars on site 17B and xeric habitat of site 18. The difference
in humus types on the mesic habitat of site 18, thick mar in the forest and
thin duff mull-G on the ROW, was likely a result of modification on the ROW
due to past grazing activities.
Impacts of ROW management on soil erosion in this region were most severe
on disturbed areas such as access roads, tower sites, and excavations where
various degrees of sheet, rill, or gully erosion occurred on all sites (Table
6.43). In addition, wind erosion occurred in exposed fine sandy soils on some
disturbed areas of sites 18 and 20. Soil erosion on relatively undisturbed
general ROW's was minimal; limited to sporadic sheet and rill erosion on 3 of
the 6 study areas. Erosion in· the bordering forest was practically non-
existent, restricted to 1 small area of sheet erosion on site 16. Some sedi-
mentation occurred in streams and water impoundments on the ROW's of sites 16,
17, 20, and 21, and some sediment was carried by wind (sites 18 and 20), but
otherwise, they accumulated on lower slopes and did not leave the ROW's. The
most obvious trend, therefore, was for the ROW's in this region to show negative
impacts only on disturbed segments of the ROW, with minor insignificant effects
on the general ROW's where good organic mulch and vegetation cover was main-
tained.
6-57
' I"
''I
6.5.3 Trends in Impact on Wildlife
Fifteen conunon wildlife species, plus numerous song birds and raptors,
made active u~e of the ROW's on the 6 sites studied in the regions (Table 6.44).
From 10 to 27 species of song birds and raptors were using the ROW's.
Special notice was paid to the use of the ROW's on 5 of the 6 sites by pileated
woodpeckers and on 1 site by a Cooper's hawk.
White-tailed deer used the ROW's on all 6 sites. Woodchuck burrows were
observed on 2 ROW's and varying hare on 3 ROW's. Other small mammals using
the ROW's included gray squirrel, red squirrel, chipmunk, and raccoon. Vari-
ous snakes and frogs also made use of habitats on the ROW's which suited their
needs.
Deer browse studies on 4 sites yielded data indicating that the ROW's and
edges were producing more browse than the adjacent forests. Deer utilized
the woody shrubs and low trees in all the ROW areas. These included: black-
berry, raspberry, red osier dogwood, mountain-holly, black chokeberry, alder,
nannyberry, wild-raisin, elderberry, alternate-leaved dogwood, spiraea, and
shrubby willows. This is a valid indication that 'the ROW's are supplying
valuable winter food for deer.
6.5.4 Trends in Impact on Water
Four streams were sampled on sites in these regions (Table 6. 45), and 3
of these were officially classified as trout streams.
On site 16, a Class C trout stream and an unnamed tributary were par-
tially shaded on the ROW by shrubs and tall herbs. Water temperature in
Putnam Creek on August 4 was 1.0 C higher on and below the ROW than 100 yards
above. Sediment was negligible.
On site 19, a small ytream in a wet meadow was shaded on the ROW, mostly
by shrubs and tall herbs. Water temperature in August was equal downstream
of the ROW as compared with above, although the temperature was 1.0 C higher
on the ROW. Sediment was composed of debris trapped between rocks and fallen
branches.
On site 21, a Class AA trout stream was partially shaded on the ROW by
trees, shrubs, and tall herbs. Water temperature in August was 2.0 C higher
on and below the ROW than above.
Also on site 21, a Class C trout stream was ponded on the ROW. Water
temperature in August was 1.0 C lower below the ROW than above. Sedimentation
was high on the ROW where the pond acted as a sediment basin and the access
road forded the pond. In September, the pond temperature was 4.0 C higher
than above the ROW.
In general, the ROW's had a slight effect on temperature of free-flowing
water at the times sampled. The maximum temperature recorded (18 C) was below
the toleration limits of trout (24 C to 28 C) and within the good fishing
temperatures of 18 C to 20 C often given by New York fly fishermen (Heacox, 74)
6-58
6.5.5 Trends in Impact on Land Use
Changes in Adjacent Land Use The percent change ~n land use prior to (or
near the time of construction) and after construction of the ROW has been com-
pared for 7 sites (sites 16,17a,l7b,l8,19,20, and 21) found within the Adiron-
dack, Tug Hill, and St. Lawrence-Champlain regions (Table 6.47). Percent change
by land use type is determined for each site and all 7 sites as an average
percent change. The highest percent change in land use for any single site was
a decrease in agriculture for site 18 by 21.1%. Zero % change in land use was
by far most frequently recorded, both by land use type, and by site. As a
result, the average percent changes by land use are consistently low, with the
highest average percent change being a 3.3% decrease in agriculture for sites
in this region. Other average percent changes recorded are a slight increase
in extractive industry (0.2%), and an increase in forest land (3.1%).
Other factors which may influence the impact on adjacent land use include
visual characteristics of the ROW's. General reconnaissance of pleasing or
objectionable visual characteristics associated with vegetation and other
features specific to each site, indicates that of the 7 sites, 3 are generally
pleasing to view (sites 16,2~ and 21) and 4 are neither pleasing nor ob-
jectionable (sites 17a,l7b,l8, and 19). Visual assets of the sites which are
pleasing include: opening of vistas, complement of adjacent woods by on ROW
vegetation species, and general harmony with the surrounding landscape. The
4 remaining sites are described as neither pleasing nor objectionable, gen-
erally because they lack visual assets or expose undesirable characteristics
such as erosion and other less desirable features. Although subjective,
reconnaissance of these sites reflects a general absence of long-term nega-
tive visual characteristics in objectionable contrast with the surrounding
landscape. No effect on adjacent land use change or a specific visual char-
acteristic is apparent.
A general trend for land use adjacent to the ROW sites within the Adi-
rondack, Tug Hill, and St. Lawrence-Champlain regions is that there is very
little change in land use for the period measured. Of the changes recorded,
agriculture was decreasing, and being replaced by forest land. Another trend
is the general absence of long-term negative visual characteristics resulting
from clearing, construction, or maintenance of the ROW, that appear in ob-
jectionable contrast with the surrounding land use. It would be difficult to
derive other distinct trends because of the few number of sites sampled and
the high variability of influences other than the ROW which could affect land
use change.
Multiple Uses Multiple uses of the ROW's within these regions include:
use of access roads for adjacent wood cutting and logging operations; agri-
culture; extension of residential property; fising; hiking; horseback riding;
snowmobiling; hunting; and other recreational uses (Table 6.48). Most notice-
able is the large number of different multiple land uses found within this group
of sites.
No distinguishable trend can be observed on the ROW's, as a variety of
multiple_uses are occurring.
6-59
-----;~~,.~~~c"o"---"-------~~
Table 6.36. Trends in impact on vegetation in the Adirondack, Tug Hill, and St. Lawrence-Champlain regions.
"' l
"' 0
Site
16
17
18
19
20
21
16
18
16
17
18
19
20
21
Region 1l~b:i.t:,flt
Adirondack East Mesic
Adirondack East Mesic
St. Lawrence-Champlain Mesic
Adirondack West Mesic
Adirondack West Mesic
Tug Hill Border Mesic
Adirondack East Xeric
St. Lawrence-Champlain Xeric
Adirondack East Hydric
Adirondack East Hydric
St. Lawrence-Champlain Hydric
Adirondack West Hydric
Adirondack West Hydric
Tug Hill Border Hydric
Forest Type Type of Management ROW Community
White Pine-Northern Selective & Broadcast Blackberry-Goldenrod
Hardwoods
•
Spruce Fir-Northern Selective & Broadcast Blackberry-Goldenrod
Hardwoods
Northern Hardwoods Broadcast, Foliar Blackberry-Goldenrod
Northern Hardwoods Selective & Broadcast Blackberry-Goldenrod
\
Aspen-Birch Broadcast Blackberry-Goldenrod
Hemlock-Northern Selective Blackberry-Goldenrod
Hardwoods
White Pine Selective & Broadcast Blueberry-Bracken
Aspen-Birch Broadcast, Foliar Blueberry-Bracken
Elm-Red Maple Selective & Broadcast Willow-Sensitive Fern
Northern Hardwoods-Selective & Broadcast Willow-Sensitive Fern
Red Maple
Elm-Red Maple Broadcast, Foliar Willow-Sensitive Fern
Spruce-Fir Selective & Broadcast Willow-Sensitive Fern
Spruce-Fir Broadcast Willow-Sphagnum
Elm-Red Maple Selective Willow-Sensitive Fern
le 6.3]. Trends in plant community development in relation to forest type and
habitat of the Adirondack, Tug Hill, and St·. Lawrence-Champlain regions.
The figures in parenthesis are percent constancy.1
Adjacent Forest ROW Community
MESIC
White Pine-Northern Hardwoods---------~ Blackberry (100) -
Spruce Fir-Northern Hardwoods · with
Northern Hardwoods
Aspen-Birch
Hemlock-Northern Hardwoods
XERIC
Spiraea (100)
Raspberry (50)
Choke-cherry (50)
White Pine----------------------------~ Blueberry (100)
Aspen-Birch with
HYDRIC
Spiraea (100)
Hawthorn (100)
Blackberry (100)
Goldenrod (100)
Asters (100)
Bracken (100)
Sedge (83)
Strawberry (83)
Hair-cap Moss (83)
Mixed Grass (83)
Dog's-tooth Violet
Wild Lily-of-the-
valley (66)
Bracken (100)
(66)
Mixed Grass (100)
Spreading Dogbane (100)
Goldenrod (100)
Poverty Grass (100)
Hair-cap Moss (100)
Reindeer Lichen (100)
Elm-Red Maple-------------------------~ Willow (100) Sensitive Fern (83)
Spruce-Fir with
1 Constancy 1s a percentage which equals
Spiraea (100)
Blackberry (83)
Wild-raisin (50)
Black Choke-
berry (100)
Common Alder (50)
Mixed Grass (83)
Strawberry (66)
Boneset (50)
False Hellebore (50)
Dog's-tooth Violet (SO)
Royal Fern (50)
No. of stands in which found
X 100 Total no. of stands
6-61
Table 6.38.
•
Site
Comparison of species diversity, based on number of
species, on ROW's with that in the adjoining forests
in the Adirondack, Tug Hill, and St. Lawrence-
Champlain regions.
S . 1 No. of pec1es~
Mesic Xeric Hydric
Forest ROW Forest ROW Forest ROW
1 If a habitat occurs twice on a site, the total number of species
for both areas is totaled, then divided by 2 for an average. This
average is then rounded off to the nearest whole number.
6-9~
Table 6.39. Abundance and cover value of trees on 'the ROW for the
Adirondack, Tug Hill, and St. Lawrence-Champlain regions.
(see Vol. 1, p. 3-3 for value of symbols).
Xeric Habitat on Sites
Species on ROW 16 17 18 19
Pin Cherry 3 1
Red Maple ++ 2
White Pine + 1
Gray Birch ++ 1
1 1 Hawthorn ++
Quaking Aspen 2
Red Oak +
White Ash ++
Hemlock ++
No. Species (Total = 9) 7 7
Average No~of Species = 7
1 Listed under shrub layer in individual site sunnnaries.
6-63
20 21
,. i
! I
'·'
1:,
I.'L
f:
I r :, 1!
\I
]ii
I' 'I~
il!i
~~~I
:il
·~
''I
'I
I
Table 6.40. Abundance and cover value for trees on the ROW for the
Adirondack, Tug Hill, and St. Lawrence-Champlain reg~ons.
(~ee Vol. 1, p. 3-3 for value of symbols).
Mesic Habitat on Sites
Species on ROW 16 17 18 19 20
Quaking Aspen 2 3 2 ++
Pin Cherry 1 1 + 3
Red Maple 3 3 +
Black Cherry + 3 2
Gray Birch ++ 3 2
Yellow Birch ++ + +
Willow 1 2 +
Flowering Dogwood ++ +
Serviceberry 1
White Ash 1 +
Large-tooth Aspen 1
White Pine + +
Hemlock +
Scotch Pine +
Red Oak ++ +
Hornbeam ++
Basswood +
Red Cedar +
White Birch 1
Hawthorn 1 1
Sugar Maple
Beech
White Cedar ++
Red Spruce ++
Apple ++
American Elm ++
No. Species (Total = 26) 13 9 12 3 6
Average No. of Species = 9.7
1 Listed under shrub layer in individual site summaries.
6-64
21
1
4
2
3
2
3
+
++
+
++
++
+
+
+
+
15
Table 6.41.
Species on ROW
Red Maple
Willow1
Gray Birch
Quaking Aspen
Pin Cherry
Black Cherry
Red Spruce
Serviceberry
White Ash
White Pine
American Elm
Balsam Fir
White Birch
Abundance and cover value of trees on the ROW for the
Adirondack, Tug Hill, and St. Lawrenc·e-Champlain regions.
(see Vol. 1, p. 3-3 for value of symbols).
Hydric Habitat on Sites
16 17 18 19 20
.++ 3 3 + 2
3 2 1 1
2 3 3
+ 1 1
++ + +
+ +
1 1
1 1
++ 1
++ ++
++
2
1
Flowering Dogwood
Black Walnut +
Beech +
Basswood ++
Apple ++
Yellow Birch +
No. Species (Total = 19) 5 11 6 5 9
Average No. of Species = 7.3
1 Listed under shrub layer in individual site summaries.
6-65
21
1
3
1
1
1
2
++
1
8
Table 6.42. Trends in impact on soil organic layers and humus types 1n the Adirondack,
Tug Hill,•and St. Lawrence-Champlain regions.
Organic Layerl Thickness (inches)
Moisture Predominant Humus Type ROW Forest
Site Regime ROW Forest Mes1c Xer1c Mes1c Xer1c
16 Mesic Thin duff mull w/ Thin duff mull w/ 1.8 1.1
shallow Al shallow Al
Xeric Thin duff mull w/ Thin duff mull w/ 1.2 1.1
very shallow Al very shallow Al
17A Mesic Thin duff mull w/ Thick duff mull w/ 1.0 1.6
very shallow Al very shallow Al
17B Mesic Thin mor Thin mor 1.3 0.5
18 Mesic Thin duff mull-G w/ Thick mor 0.6 1.2
very shallow Al
Xeric Thin mor Thin mor 0.4 0.8
19 Mesic Thin duff mull w/ Thin duff mull w/ 1.2 1.5
very shallow Al shallow Al
20 Mesic Thin duff mull w/ Thin duff mull w/ 0.5 1.1
very shallow Al very shallow Al
21 Mesic Thin duff mull w/ Thick duff mull w/ 0.7 1.6
very shallow Al very shallow Al
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average thickness -all sites 1.0 0.8 1.2 1.0
Average thickness -mesic and xer1c combined 1.0 1.2
1 Includes all layers (litter, fermentation, and humus) where present.
6-66
le 6. 41 Trends in impact on erosion Ln the Adirondack, Tug Hill, and St. Lawrence-
Champlain regions.
Active Erosion
ROW
Slight to moderate sheet
erosion on soil-slumps
around boulders on gen-
eral ROW; moderate to
severe sheet and rill
erosion on excavation, ·
equipment cut and area
disturbed by animal dig-
ging
No erosion on the gen-
eral ROW; slight sheet
and rill erosion on
access road and bank
cut; slight to moderate
sheet, rill and gully
erosLon on an abandoned
mining area
Slight sheet erosion on
general ROW; slight to
severe sheet and rill
erosion on access road,
tower sites and equip-
ment custs. Some wind
eroS LOn
No erosion on the gen-
eral ROW; moderate to
severe gully erosion on
access road; moderate
sheet erosion on exca-
vations
Slight to moderate sheet
and rill erosion on
general ROW; slight to
moderate sheet erosion
on access road and exca-
vation. Some wind
eros Lon
No erosion on general
ROW; slight to moderate
sheet; rill and some
gully erosion on access
roads and tower sites
Forest
Moderate sheet erosion on
soil-slump around boulders
in general forest; moder-
ate sheet and rill erosLon
in excavated area
No erosion under general
forest conditions
No erosion under general
forest conditions
No erosion under general
forest conditions
No erosion under general
forest conditions
No erosion under general
forest conditions
6-67
Sediment
Disposition
Some in pond and
stream on ROW;
remainder on lower
slopes
Most on lower slopes
of ROW; small amounts
enter stream at road
crossing
Most collected on
lower slopes; some
carried by wind
Accumulated on lower
slopes of ROW
Some in streams on
ROW; some carried by
wind
Some entered streams
and water impoundment
on ROW; remainder col-
lected on lower slopes
..
Table 6.44. Trends in impact on wildlife use of the ROW's ~n the Adirondack,
Tug Hill, and St. Lawrence-Champlain regions .
•
Wildlife Species
Game Mammals
White-tailed deer
Woodchuck
Varying hare
Gray squirrel
Game birds
Ruffed grouse
Canada goose
Shoveler duck
Black duck
Nongame birds
Song birds &
rap tors
Pileated wood-
pecker
Small nongame mammals
Fox
Red squirrel
Muskrat
Chipmunk
Beaver
Coyote
Raccoon
16
ROW
Adjacent
to ROW
17
ROW
Adjacent ROW
to and on
ROW
ROW
ROW
ROW
Areas Used by Wildlife
18
ROW
ROW
ROW
ROW
ROW
Sites
19
ROW
ROW
ROW
20
ROW
ROW
Adjacent ROW &
to ROW Adjacent
ROW
21
ROW
ROW
ROH &
Edge
ROW
22 species 10 specles 20 species 27 species 15 species 27 species
on Rm~ on ROW on ROW on ROW on ROW on ROW
ROW
Adjacent
to ROW
Adjacent
to ROW
Adjacent
to ROW
ROYJ ROW
6-68
ROW
ROW
ROW
ROW
ROW
ROW
Adjacent
to ROW
Trends in impact on water Ln the Adirondack, ';('ug Hill, and St. Lawrence-
Champlain regLons.
Ln Respect to ROW Border Vegetation Stream Temp. in Centigrade;
Sedimentation.
Site 16 -Putnam Creek (Class C Trout)
Oct. 1 Feb. 19 May 13 Aug. 4
Temperature
100 yards upstream Trees -shaded 13.0 0.0 10.0 17.0
-North of ROW Trees -partial 13.0 0.0 10.0 17.0
shade
3 -Mid ROW Shrubs and herbs 13.5 0.0 10.0 18.0
' partial shade
Tributary 25 yards up-Shrubs and herbs 11.6 Lee 12.0 16.0
stream shaded
100 yards downstream Trees -shaded 13.5 0.0 10.8 18.0
Sedimentation
Stakes set none none
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site 19 -Small Stream Ln a Wet Meadow (Nonclassified)
Sep~ 30 Feb. 18 May 20 Aug. 1
Temperature
100 yards upstream Trees -shaded 10.5 -1.0 6.0 15.0
Upstream edge Trees, shrubs and 10.5 0.0 6.0 15.0
herbs -shaded
3 -Downstream edge Trees, shrubs and 10.0 -0.5 6.0 16.0
herbs -shaded
4 -50 yards downstream Trees -shaded 10.2 0.0 6.0 15.0
Sedimentation
Stakes set Debris at l"debris
all stakes at all
stakes
~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-69
Table 6.45. Continued
•
Location 1n Respect to ROW Border Vegetation Stream Temp. in Centigrade;
Sedimentation
Site 21 -Florence Creek (Class AA Trout)
1 -100 yards upstream
2 -Upstream edge
3 -Downstream edge
4 -100 yards downstream
5 -100 yards upstream
6 -Mid ROW
7 -100 yards downstream
Trees -shaded
Trees, shrubs and
herbs -
partial shade
Trees, shrubs and
·herbs
partial shade
Trees -shaded
Sept. 29 Feb. 17 May 20 Aug. 1
8.5
8.5
10.0
10.5
Stakes set
Temperature
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.3
7.0
7.2
7.1
Sedimentation
15.0
15.2
17.0
17.0
none 2~"gravel
at 3
Site 21 -Small Stream (Class C Trout)
Sept. 29 Feb. 17 May 20 Aug. 1
Temperature
Trees -shaded 11.5 0.0 7.1 16.5
Man-made pond 15.5 0.0 7.0 16.0
partial shade
Trees, herbs 1n 14.0 0.0 7.0 15.5
swamp-shaded Sedimentation
Stakes set ~" at 5 l~"at 5
1" at 6 5" at 6
~" at 7
6-70
Table 6.46. Percent change of land use prior to (or near the time of construction)
and after construction of the ROW for sites within the Adirondack,
Tug Hill, and St. Lawrence-Champlain regions.
Land Use
(A) Agriculture
(C,I) Commercial &
Industrial
(E) Extractive
Industry
(F) Forest Land
(N) Non-productive
(OR) Outdoor Recrea-
tion
(P) Public & Semi-
public
(R) Residential
(T) Transportation
(U) Urban Inactive
(W) Water Resources
Percent change
no change (0),
16 17a
NC NC
NC 0
· NC NC
0 0
NC NC
NC 0
NC NC
NC 0
NC NC
NC NC
0 0
expressed as increase (+), decrease (-), 1 or no recorded land use with no change (NC).
Sites Ave. %
17b 18 19 20 21 Change
NC -21.1 0 -0.6 -1.6 -3.3
0 NC NC NC NC 0
NC 0.2 NC 1.1 NC 0.2
0 20.7 0 -0.5 1.6 3.1
NC 0 NC 0 NC 0
NC NC NC NC NC 0
0 0.2 NC NC NC 0
0 NC NC 0 NC 0
0 NC NC NC NC 0
NC NC NC NC NC 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 Percentages are derived from each individual case history of the sites and express-
ed to a lOth of a percent. Percentages were not adjusted to insure cancellation of
land use increase or decrease by site.
6-Tl
. \ '
I
Table 6.4h. Multiple land use of ROW sites within the Adirondack, Tug Hill, and
St. •awrence-Champlain regions.
Multiple Use
Use of access roads for ad-
jacent logging operations
Agriculture
Extension of residential
property
Fishing
Hiking
Horseback riding
Hunting
Industrial 1 uses
Other recreational 2 uses
Snowmobiling
Sites
16 17a 17b 18 19
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
20 21
X
% of Sites
with Multiple
Use
14
14
14
14
14
14
29
0
14
29
1 Use by adjacent industry as extension of property, or piling of discarded mater-
ial associated with that industry.
2 Other recreational uses include such functions as: Use by children for play;
motorcycle trails; use by all-terrain vehicles; and camping activities .
6-72
7 Statewide Trends and General Conclusions
7.1 Introduction
When the important regional trends for each of the 4 major regions of
the state were examined critically, certain trends appeared to be statewide
in their scope. In other words, some general impacts of ROW management have
appeared which are common to all regions of New York. This, in turn, has
led to a series of general conclusions which are important to improvement of
the ROW management systems.
These statewide trends will be taken up under the various components of
natural systems which were studied in the following sections discussing vege-
tation, soil, wildlife, and water. Discussion of land use and economic costs
of clearing, construction, and management procedures follow.
7.2 Trends in Tmp:1ct nn V<'gPt::~tion
7.2.l.~eneral Impact of th<O ROW's
In all cases studied (22), the general RflW plant community which has
developed under past management was composed of a mixture of growth forms
that included low-growing trees, tall shrubs, low shrubs, herbs, grasses,
ferns, and mosses. This complex mixture on the ROW's has replaced what is
now in the adjacent ~orest and has produced a diversity of vegetation of high
value to wildlife.
7.2.2 Re-establishment of Forest Cover
On all sites there was a general trend towards tree species in the
adjacent forests being also present in the herb or shrub layers on ROW's.
This means that, although a protective cover of shrubs, herbs, ferns, and
grasses covered the ROW:s, trees still invaded in large numbers and formed
a reservoir of reproduction which would re-establish forest cover if not
controlled. Owing to such factors as plant competition with ROW vegetation,
animal browsing, microclimate changes, etc. which retard tree growth, many
tree seedlings do not emerge from the ground layer, or are slow in doing so.
This means further that ROW vegetation may be held as a shrub stage indefi-
nately, as long as the emerging trees are periodically removed as they be-
come a threat to electric power transmission.
Common species While most of the common tree species of the adjoining
forests were represented on the ROW's sampled in the 4 major forest regions
of New York, there was a definite trend for certain species to occur on nearly
all sites and in all regions. For example, red maple \-laS outstanding in that
it was prominent on ROW's on all habitat areas in 3 of the 4 regions, while
red oak was prominent on both xeric and mesic habitat areas also in 3 regions.
White ash was a common species on all habitats in 2 regions, and willow was a
common species on hydric habitats in all regions.
Regional differences Some distinct regional differences appeared in
common key species v1hich made a regional approach advisable. For example,
chestnut oak occurred as a typical species on ROW's only on xeric habitats
in the New England Highlands and lfuhawk-Hudson region. In the same region,
sweet birch was typical of both xeric and mesic habitats while flowering
dogvmod was typical of mesic and hydric habitats. The common species of the
Appalachian Highlands and Catskill regions were similar to those of the pre-
ceeding region.
7-1
On the other hand, sassafras was the most common species typical of
the Lake Plain Qn xeric habitats, with black cherry most common on mesic
habitats and American elm typical of mesic and hydric habitats.
In the northern region (Adironack, et. al.) pin cherry, quaking aspen
along with gray birch were typical species on all habitats. White pine was
common and typical on xeric habits.
Number of species on ROH' s The total number of tree species on all
ROW's in a region was about the same in all 4 regions ranging only from 18 in
3 regions to 22 in one region. Number of species on any one ROW, however,
varied considerably from a low of one on the site 8 hydric habitat in the
Appalachian Highlands to a high of 18 on the site 9 mesic habitat. There was
a trend towards more species on mesic habitats than on xeric and hydric
habitats.
7. 2 • 3 Napped Plots on the ROW's
Vegetation has been mapped on permanent plots in each habitat on all
the ROW's, except site 7 which was used for special studies.
These plots have produced exact maps of the nature and distribution of
plant components of the ROW vegetation as it existed in 1975-76.· Their use
in future years will permit the process of vegetation development to be fol-
lowed and serve as an accurate check on impact of current ROW management.
7.2.4 Cownon Plant Communities Developed on the ROW's
~1esic habitats A definite trend appeared in the common type of plant
community developed on mesic (moist) habitat areas. This community was
designated as Blackberry or Rasberry-Goldenrod, (Rubus-Solidago) in 3
regions where those species occurred in 100% of the stands, and Staghorn·
Sumac-Goldenrod in 1 region, where blackberry occurred in only 60% of the
stands.
The two characteristic species used to identify the community, black-
berry (or rasberry) and goldenrod, were not only high constancy (100%),
but also exhibited higher cover and abundance on mesic than on other habi-
tats on which th~y also occurred.
Other chara-cteristic species were asters, wild strawberry, and hay-
scented fern. A typical component of the community was mixed grasses
which typically grew in small to large patches and was an important soil
cover.
Further research may indicate that this widespread community is a
generic type which can be subdivisioned on a regional basis through differ-
ential species.
Xeric habitats On xerlc (dry) habitat areas in all regions, blueberry
was a characteristic species of high constancy (100%) and with high abundance
and cover values, On some habitat areas huckleberry replaced blueberry.
Sweet-fern was a highly characteristic species wherever it occurred.
Where it was absent, bracken was used. The typical community has been
designated, therefore, as either Blueberry-Sweet-fern or Blueberry-Bracken.
Mixed grass in patches was also a typical component of these cornmunities
and an important soil cover.
7-2
Hydric habitats On hydric (wet) habitat areas in all regions, sensitive
fern was a characteristic species of high constancy (80-100%). Willows were
also characteristic with a 100% constancy in 3 regions, but were ~eplaced in
1 region by spiraea; and in a second region, red osier dogwood was considered
more characteristic than willow. The typical plant commun~cies were desig-
nated, therefore, as either Willow-Sensitive Fern, Spiraea-Sensitive Fern, or
Red Osier Dogwood-Sensitive Fern. Mixed grass in patches was a typical
component of these communities and an important soil cover.
7.2.5 Diversity of Plant Species on the ROW's
The presence of a greater number of plant species on the ROW's than in-
adjacent forests was a consistent statewide trend in all regions. This
produced a greater diversity of wildlife food and cover on the ROW's under
all types of ROW management~
7.2.6 Impacts on Shrubs and Low-Growing Trees
Great variation occurred impacts on shr-ubs among regions and among habitats
within regions; but, in general, shrubs were always present on the ROW's and
usually played a dominant role in plant cover. When all sites were examined
for statewide trends, all shrubs of the forest and low-growing tree species
were found somewhere on a ROW. However, 1 low-growing tree, stripped maple,
was typically absent from the ROW's, or very sparse, and the same was true
of a few forest-dwelling shrubs including hobblebush, spicebush, and partridge-
berry (a viny herb), i.e., they were absent, or very sparse, on the ROW's.
Of more importance to ROW management is that a number of important
shrubs and low trees were found only on the ROW's, or were much more vigorous
and abundant on them than in the adjacent forest. These include blackberry,
raspberry, spiraea, blueberry, huckleberry, hazelnut, sumac, scrub-oak,
sweet-fern, shrubby willows, hawthorn, and red osier dogwood. Favoring
these species in management will be most effective in producing good wildlife
food and cover.
7.2.7 Impacts on Herbaceous Plant Cover
A complex herbaceous vegetation developed on the ROW's in all regions
which was composed of species from former forest types, along with invaders
from open field areas and roadsides.
Many of the common and abundant species of the ROW's were absent, or very
sparse, in adjacent forests. These were typical plants of open places such as
goldenrods, asters, hawkweeds, daisies, pearly everlasting, Queen Anne's-lace,
yarrow, wild strawberry, dogbane, boneset, and sheep-sorrel. Patches of mixed
grasses were typical of all the ROW communities.
·certain common species of the forest were also common and abundant on the
ROW's. These include bracken, hay-scented fern, whorled loosestrife, large-
flowered wake-robin, sensitive fern, touch-me-not, wild lily-of-the-valley,
cinquefoils, Spring-beauty, and blueb~ad-lily.
Some characteristic plants of the forests were either absent, or very
sparse, on the ROW's. These include wild sarsaparilla, Solomon's-seal,
spotted wintergreen, trilliums, twisted-stalk, Indian cucumber-root, shin-
ing club-moss, and some woods-inhabiting ferns.
7.3 Trends in Impact on Soil
7.3.1 Impact on Organic Layers
Sources of organic matter on the ROW's differed from adjacent forests
in that they were mostly leaves and twigs of shrubs, herbs, and grasses as
7-3
I., I
I I
•I ~
contrasted with tree.parts in the forest. However, little difference was
.found in occwrrence or depth of organic layers on the ROW's and in the
forests in any region. The small differences that were found in organic
layer thickness were not of practical significance.
In general, the same humus type was found on the ROW's as in adjacent
forests, with some minor exceptions.
7.3.2 Impact on Soil Erosion
Very little active erosion occurred on the general ROW areas as they
were covered with adequate protective plant cover and organic mulch. Prob-
lem areas on the ROW's, where erosion was significant, were almost entirely
places which had been disturbed by construction activities, or other uses
not connected with transmission of electric power. These included tower
sites, access roads, and excavations that had not been adequately restored
to a tight cover by natural plant succession or artificial seeding. It
appears important, therefore, that special attention be paid to restoration
of disturbed areas on the ROW's even if it must be done some time after the
line has been in use.
7.4 Trends in Impact on Wildlife
All the ROW's studied (22) were used by numerous song birds and raptors.
The actual number of species observed using a ROW ranged from 11 to 35, with
an average of 23 species.
Local game species commonly found using the ROW's included white-tailed
deer, ruffed grQuse, woodcock, wild turkey, cottontail rabbit, varying hare,
woodchuck, gray squirrel, and raccoon.
Deer used the ROW's on all but 2 of the 22 sites, and those not used
were in highly urbanized areas. The common shrubs on the ROW's were heavily
utilized by deer as woody browse which is important as winter food. More
browse was available on the ROW's and their edges than in adjacent forests.
7.5 Trends in Impact on Watei
7.5.1 Impact of the ROW's on Water Temperature
The general effect of the ROW's on water temperature of free-flowing
streams was negligible. Although some streams were partially shaded by
shrubs and herbs as contrasted with forest cover above and below the ROW's,
the partial shade, rate of flow, and width of the ROW were sufficient to
prevent significant downstream increase in water temperature at the time
of sampling at the sites monitored.
Types of water studied included the following diverse situations:
2 swamps, 1 Class B stream, 2 Class D streams, 2 Class C trout streams, 1
Class AA trout stream, and 1 unclassified stream in a wet me~dow. Water
temperature downstream of the ROW's ranged from 1.8 C less than to 2.5 C
greater than that upstream of the ROW's. The maximum temperature recorded
below the ROW's was 18.5 C (64.4 F) which was well below the tolerance
limit of trout (24.0 Cor 75.2 F).
7.5.2 Impact of the ROW's on Sedimentation
Most stream borders on the ROW's were well protected by vegetation
and did not contribute materially to sedimentation and cause deterioration
of stream quality. Where sedimentation was observed, it was caused by flow
7-4·
into streams from used access roads, often where they forded the stream, or
where erosion from disturbed areas was carried into a stream, or where soil
types in the watershed led to erosion along the length of the stream.
7.6 Trends in Impact on Land Use
7.6.1 Impact on Adjacent Land Use
There is a general trend for all the regional groups considered of
very little change in land use for the period measured. Of all the land
uses considered, there is a trend towards a decrease in agricultural uses
adjacent to the ROW's. This trend appears to reflect a statewide decline
in agriculture. Another general trend is the absence of long-term nega-
tive visual characteristics that appear in objectionable visual contrast
with the surrounding land use. It was noted that for all regions, a high
variability of influences other than the ROW could affect land use changes,
based on the limited number of sites (22) for which data was compared.
7.6.2 Multiple Uses of the ROW ;
A variety of multiple uses, particularly recreational uses which are
able to take advantage of linear ROW's, were found to exist. Hunting is
the most predominant for all sites considered, indicating the ROW's are
well suited for this activity.
7.7 Economic Costs of Clearing, Construction, Restoration, and Management
Procedures
Based on the sparseness of historic cost data available as documented
under background information for each of the 22 sites, it would be useless
and misleading to postulate cost effectiveness or other economic conclusions
concerning the various construction and management procedures used on the
study sites. This is due to the wide variation in current costs of the
various ROW procedures used, which are, in turn, caused by variations in re-
gional labor rates, site conditions, company practices, wide variation of
time in years work was performed, and other factors which vary from site
to site.
For these reasons, an attempt to assemble even typical costs and as-
cribing them to the procedures used historically on study sites for purposes
of cost-effectiveness analyses was not considered further~
7-5
8 Literature Cited
Anon~ous. 1940. New York: a guide to the Empire State. New York State
Historical Association. Oxford Universtiy Press, New York. 782 pp.
Anonymous. 1972. Soil survey intrepretations for soil in New York State.
U.S. Dept. of Agric., Soil Conserv. Serv. and Cornell Univ., Dept.
Agron. Agron. Mimeo 72-4 453 pp.
Braun-Blanquet. J. 1932. Plant sociology: the study of plant communities.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.
Braun-Bl~quet. J. 1964. Pflanzensoziologie; Grudiuge der Vegetationskunde.
3rd ed. Springer,Wein. 856 pp.
Braun-Blanquet. J. 1972. Plant sociology: the study of plant communities.
Hafner Publishing Company, New York. 439 pp.
Britton, N. L. and A. Brown. 1970. An illustrated flora of the northern
United States and Canada. 2nd ed. Revised ed. Dover Publicat:lons, Inc.,
New York. 3 vols.
Broughton, J, G., D. W. Fisher, Y. W. Isachsen, and L. V. Rickard. 1973.
Geology of New York: a short account. Univ. St. N.Y., St. Ed. Dept., N.Y.
St. Museum and Sci. Serv., Albany, N.Y. Ed. Leaflet No. 20. 45 pp.
Brown, H. H. 1976. Handbook of the effects of temperature on some North
American fishes. American Elect. Power Serv. Corp., Canton, Ohio, 544 pp.
Buckman, H. 0. and N. C. Brady. 1969.
The Macmillan Company, New York.
The nature and properties of soils, 7th ed.
653 pp.
Carlisle, F. J. 1958. Soil survey of Franklin County, New York. U. S.
Dept. Agric. Soil Conserv. Serv. and Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta. Series
1952, No. 1. 75 pp.
Cline, M. G. 1961. Soil association map of New York State. Dept. Agron.,
Cornell Univ. 65 pp.
Cline, M. G. 1970. Soils and soil associations of New York. N. Y. St. Call.
Agric. at Cornell Univ. Ext. Bull. 930. 64 pp.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Biological field and laboratory
methods for measuring the quality of surface waters and effluents.
EPA-670/4-73-001
Flach, K., M. G. Cline, and R. Feuer. 1959. Clinton Count soils. U.S. Dept.
Agric. and N. Y. St. Call. Agric. at Cornell Univ. Soil Association
Leaflet 8. 6 pp.
Flora, D.F., J.A. Ferwerda, K.T. Ackerson, J.B. Barnett, E. Cracker, F.R.
Troeh, J.C. Dijkerman, A.R. Southard, and C.F. Cassady. 1969. Soil
survey for Schoharie County, New York. U.S. Dept. Agric. Soil Conserv.
Serv. and Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta. 153 pp.
8-1
!
I
Giles, R.H., Jr., ed. 1969. Wildlife management techniques. The Wildlife
Society, W~shington, D.C. 623 pp.
Goodman, S.D. 1970. Interim soils report: Rockland County, New York.
U.S. Dept. Agric. Soil Conserv. Serv, Roc~land Co. Planning Bd.,
and Rockland Co. Soil and Water Conserv. Dist. 66 pp.
Gray's Manual of Botnay. 8th ed. 1970. Edited by M. L. Fernald. D. Van
Nostrand Company, New York 1632 pp.
Grout, A. J. 1972. Mosses with hand-lens and microscope. Eric Lundberg,
Augusta, West Virginia. 416 pp.
Heacox, C. E. 1974. The compleat bro~m trout. The Winchester Press, New
York. 182 pp.
Heffner, R. L. and s. D. Goodman. 1973. Soil survey of Monroe County, New
York. U. s. Dept. Agric. Soil Conserv. Serv. and Cornell Univ. Agric.
Exp. Sta. 172 pp.
Higgins, B. A. and R. Case. 1974. Interim soil report: Wayne County, New
York. U. S. Dept. Agric. Soil Conserv. Serv. 105 pp.
Hoover, M. D. and H. A. Lunt. 1952. A key for the classification of forest
humus types. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 16: 368-370.
Hynes, H. B. 1970. The ecology of running waters. University of Toronto
Press, Toronto 555 pp.
Knox, E. G., W. L. Garman, and M. G. Cline. 1954. Orange County soils.
U. S. Dept. Agric. and N. Y. St. Coll. Agric •. at Cornell Univ. Soil
Association Leaflet 2. 6 pp.
Leopold, A. 1936. Game management. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. 481 pp.
Lounsbury, C., P. D. Beers, F. B. Howe, E. E. Waite, C. s. Pearson, and C. H.
Diebold. 1930. Soil survey of Delaware County, New York. U. S. Dept.
Agric. Bur. Chern. and Soils and Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta. Series
1930, No. 7. 31 pp.
LUNR Classification Manual, Land Use and Natural Resource Inventory of
New York State. June, 1974. Office of Planning Services,
Albany, New York.
Maine, G. H. 1973. Clinton County general soils report. U. S. Dept. Agric.
Soil Conserv. Serv. 49 pp.
Martin, A. C., H. S. Zim, and A. L. Nelson. 1951. American wildlife and plants:
a guide to wildlife food habits. Dover Publications, Inc., New York.
500 pp.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1976. 1975 New York
State deer take by town and county. N.Y. St. Dept. Environ. Conserv.
34 pp.
8-2
Pearson, C. S., Ga. A. Johnsgard, W. Secor, H. A. Kerr, P. J. Westgate, R. H.
Kirby, R. B. Goodman, H. G. Cline, C. S. Siminons, and J .• M. Granville.
1956. Soil survey of Livingston County, New York. U. S. Dept. Agric.
Soil Conserv. Serv. and Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta. Series 1941, No.
15. 120 pp.
Pearson, C. s., J. C. Bryant, W.
and C. B. Beadles. 1940.
U. S. Dept. Agric. Bur. of
Sta. Series 1935, No. 12.
Secor, S. R. Bacon, C. Lounsbury~ W.J. Camp,
Soil survey of Cattaragus County, New York.
Plant Industry and Cornell Univ. Agri. Exp.
65 pp.
Pearson, C. S., M. G. Clin~, and E. L. Stone. 1960. Soil survey of Lewis
County, New York. U. s. Dept. Agric. Soil Conserv. and Cornell Univ.
Agric. Exp. Sta. Series 1954, No. 10. 107 pp.
Pearson, C. S., R. A. Parsons, N. B. Hulbert, Jr., and W. c. Williams. 1973.
Soil survey of Chemung County, New York. U. S. Dept. Agric. Soil
Conserv. Serv. and Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta. 100 pp.
Pearson, C. s., R. Feur, and H. G. Cline. 1960. Oneida County soils. U.S.
Dept. Agric. and N.Y. St. Call. Agric. at Cornell Univ. Soil Association
Leaflet 10. 6 pp.
Pettingill, 0. s., Jr.
History, Boston.
1936. The American woodcock. Society of Natural
391 pp.
Power Authority of the S~ate of Nev1 York. 1969. Transmission line planning
and design for preservation and enhancement of environment: Blenheim-
Gilboa pumped-storage power project. Federal Power Commission Project
No. 2685. Appendix A.
Rapparlie, D. F. 1974. Interim soil survey report of Oswego County, New
York. Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta., U. s. Dept. Agric. Soil Conserv.
Serv._and Oswego Co. Soil and Water Conserv. Dist. 79 pp.
Sheldon, W. G. 1971. The book of the American woodcock. The University of
Massachusetts Press. 227 pp.
Smart, C. W., E. B. Rowland, and L. E. Beeman. 1976. Computer interpretation
of soil-data for rights-of-way management •. Proc. Fed. Nat Sym. on
Environmt. Concerns in Rts.-of-Way Managemt., Mississippi State
University. pp. 70-75
Smith, R. L. 1974. Ecology and field biology. 2nd ed. Harper and Row,
New York. 850 pp.
Society of American Foresters. 1973. Forest cover types of North America.
Soc. Amer. Foresters, \-lashington, D. C. 67 pp.
Soil Conservation Service. 1974. Erosion and Sediment Inventory 1n
New York. U.S. Dept. Agric. Soil Conserv. Serv. 106 pp.
Soil Survey Staff. 1975. Soil taxonomy: a basic system of soil classification
for making and interpreting soil surveys. U. S. Dept. Agric. Soil
Conserv. Serv-. Agr ic. Handbook 436. 7 54 pp.
8-3
Stoddard, H. L. 1936. The bobwhite quail. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York.
559 pp. •
Stout, N. J. 1958. Atlas of forestry in New York. St. Univ. Call. of Forestry
at Syracuse Univ. Bull. 41. 95 pp.
Strausbaugh, P. D. and E. L. Core. 1952. Flora of West Virginia. Part 1.
West Virginia University Bulletin, Series 52, No. 12-2. 273 pp.
Strausbaugh, P. D. and E. i. Core. 1953. Flora of West Virginia. Part II.
West Virginia University Bulletin, Series 53, No. 12-1. 295 pp.
Strausbaugh, P. D. and E. L. Core. 1958. Flora of West Virginia. Part III.
West Virginia University Bulletin, Series 58, No. 12-3. 289 pp.
Strausbaugh, P. D. and E. L. Core. 1964. Flora of West Virginia. Part IV.
West Virginia University Bulletin, Series 65, No. 3-2. 214 pp.
Taylor, A. E., F. B. Howe, C. S. Pearson, and W. J. Moran. 1929. Soil survey
of Erie County, New York. U. S. Dept. Agric. Bur. Chern. and Soils
and Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta. Series 1929, No. 14. 52 pp.
Thompson, J. &., ed. 1966. Geography of New York State. Syracuse University
Press, Syracuse, New York. 543 pp.
Tornes, L.A., L. Crandall, and J. H. Brown. 1973. Ulster County soil inter-
pretation report. U. S. Dept. Agric. Soil Conserv. Ser., Ulster Planning
Board, Ulster County Coop. Ext. Serv. and Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp.
Sta. 51 pp.
Trippensee, R.E. 1948. Wildlife management: upland game and general
principles. McGraw~Hill Book Company, Inc., New York. Vol. 1, 459 pp.
U. S. Bureau of the Census.
abstract supplement.
D.C. X vols.
1972. County and city data book: a statistical
U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 1974.
County soil interpretation report and meso scale soil map.
Agric. Soil Conserv. Serv. Loose-leaf pub. n.p.
Delaware
U. S. Dept.
Wischmeier, W. H. 1971. Approximating the erosion equation's factor C for
undisturbed land areas. U. s. Dept. Agric., Agric. Research Serv.,
Proc. Soil Cons. Serv. Workshop, Chicago, Illinois. 14 pp.
Wischmeier, W. H~ 1975. Estimating the soil-loss equation's cover and
management factor for undisturbed areas. U. S. Dept. -Agric., Agric.
Research Serv., Proc. Sediment-Yield Workshop, Oxford, Miss. pp. 118-124
8-4
Wischmeier, W. H. and D. D. Smith.
east of the Rocky Mountains.
47 pp.
1965. Rainfall-erosion losses from cropland
U. s. Dept. Agric., Agric. Handbook No. 282.
Wischmeier, W. H. and L. D. Meyer. 1973. Soil erodibility on construction areas.
Highway Res. Bd., Nat. Acad. Sci. Spec. Rpt. 135. Washington, D. c.
pp. 20-29.
Wtight, L. E., and K. S. Olsson. 1972. Soil interpretations inventory analysis
and erosion control. U. s. Dept. Agric. Soil Conserv. Serv. 63 pp.
8-5
9 Appendix
• LIST OF APPENDIXES
1. Tree, Shru~ and Herb Species on the 22 Sites 1n New York, on
the ROW and in the Adjacent Forest . . . . .
2. Field Data Form for Plant Species 1n Adjacent Forest
3. Field Data Form for Plant Species on ROW ....
4. Plant Species Occurring in New York and Proposed for Designation
as Endangered or Threatened Under the Federal Endangered
Species Act of 1973. . . . . . . . . . ...
5. Field Data Form for Soils Evaluation
6. Site Index Guide as Received November 15, 1976, from William
Hanna, Soil Scientist, Soil Conservation Service, Syracuse,
New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....
7. Field Data Form for Soil Erosion Classification.
8. Key for the Classification of Forest Humus Types
9. Field Data Form for Humus Classification
10. Water Survey Sheet . . . . . . . . . . .
11. Recommended Classifications and Assignment of Quality arid
Purity for Designated Waters of New York State
12. Wetlands Definitions . . .
13. Wildlife Observed Directly or Indirectly on the 22 Sites 1n
New York
14. Field Check List for Birds Seen and/or Heard on the ROW and
ROW Edge . . . . . . .
15. Birds seen and/or heard on the ROW and the ROW edge during
the study period . . . . .
16. Partial List of Preferred Foods of White-tailed Deer in New
York Compiled by the Department of Environmental Conservation.
17. Photo Stations for the 22 Sites in New York.
18. Land Use Classification for New York State .
9-i
Page
9-1
9-11
9-12
9-13
9-14
9-15
9-16
9-lil
9-20
9-21
9-22
9-23
9-24
9-26
9-27
9-28
.9-30
9-50
Appendix 1. Tree, Shrub, and Herb Species on the 22 s·ites in New York, on
the ROW and in the Adjacent Forest.
Common Name
Alternate-leaved Dogwood
American Elm
American Hop-Hornbeam
American Hornbeam
Apple
Aspen
Balsam-Fir
Basswood
Beech
Bitternut Hickory
Black Ash
Black Cherry
Black Gum
Black Locust
Black Oak
Black Walnut
Butternut
Chestnut
Chestnut-Oak
Common Juniper
Cottonwood
Flowering Dogwood
Gray Birch
Hemlock
Hickory
Juniper
Large-toothed Aspen
Mockernut Hickory
Norway Spruce
Oak
Pignut Hickory
Pin-Cherry
Pine
Pitch-Pine
Quaking Aspen
Red Cedar
Red Maple
Red Oak
Red Pine
'Red Spruce
Sassafras.
Scotch Pine
Scrub-Oak
Serviceberry
Trees
9-1
Scientific Name
Cornus alternifolia
Ulmus americana
Ostrya virginiana.
Carpinus·eatolirtiana
Pyrus malus
Populus spp.
Abies balsamea
Tilia americana
Fagus grartdifolia
Carya cordiformis
Fraxinus nigra
Prunus serotina
Nyssa sylvatica
Robinia Pseudo-Acacia
Quercus velutina
Juglans nigra
Juglans cinerea
Castanea dentata
Quercus Prinus
Juniperis· communis
Populus deltoides
Cornus florida
Betula populifolia
Tsuga canadensis
Carya spp.
Junipertis spp.
Populus grandidentata
Carya tomentosa
Picea Abies
Quercus spp ~-
Carya glabra
Prunus pensylvanica
Pinus spp.
Pinus rigida
Populus trerouloides
Juniperus virginiana
Acer rubrum
Quercus rubra
Pinus resinosa
Picea rubens
Sassafras spp.
Pinus sylvestris
Quercus ilicifolia
Amelanchier spp.
,
Appendix 1. Continued
•
Common Name
;Shagbark-Hic~ory
Slippery Elm
Sugar-Maple
S\'1eet Birch
Sycamore
Tree-of-heaven
Tulip-Poplar
White Ash
\fuite Birch
\fuite Cedar
White Oak
White Pine
White Sassafras
Yellow Birch
Alder
American Bladder-nut
American Hazelnut
American Yew
Arrow-wood
Azalea
Barberry
Bayberry
Blackberry
Black Chokeberry
Black-haw
Blueberry
Bristly Sarsaparilla
Buckthorn
Bush-Honeysuckle
Buttonbush
Chokeberry
Choke-Cherry
Climbing Bittersweet
Common Alder
Crab-Apple
Dewberry
Dogwood
Elderberry
Fly-Honeysuckle
Fragrant Sumac
Gooseberry
Grape
Shrubs
9-2
Scientific Name
Carya ovata
Ulmus rubra ---Acer saccharum
Betula lenta
Platanus occidentalis
Ailanthus altissima
Liriodendron Tulipifera
Fraxinus americana
Betula papyrifera
Chamaecyparis thyoides
quercus alba
Pinus Strobus
Sassafras albidum
Betula ltitea
Alnus spp.
Staphylea trifolia
Corylus americana
Taxus canadensis
Viburnum recognitum
Rhododendron spp.
Berberis spp.
Myrica pensylvanica
Rubus alleghenienses
Pyrus melanocarpa
Viburnum prunifolium
Vaccinium spp.
Aralia hispida
Rhamnus spp.
Diervilla LciJ.icera
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Pyrus spp.
Prunus virginiana
Celastrus scandens
Alnus serrulata
Pyrus spp.
Rubus spp.
Cornus spp.
Sambucus spp.
Lonicera canadensis
Rhus aromatica
Ribes spp.
Vitis spp.
Appendix 1. Continued
Common Name
Gray Dogwood
Ground~Juniper
Hardhack
Hawthorn
Hazelnut
Highbush-Blueberry
Hobblebush
Honeysuckle
Huckleberry
Japanese Honeysuckle
Labrador-tea
Low Blueberry
Low Sweet Blueberry
Maple-leaved Viburnum
Meadow-sweet
Mountain-Ash
Mountain-Holly
Mountain-Laura!
Mountain-Maple
Nannyberry
New Jersey Tea
Ninebark ·
Northern Prickly Ash
Pinxter-flower
Poison Ivy
Poison Sumac
Purple-flowering Raspberry
Pussy-Willow
Rambler Rose
Raspberry
Red Elderberry
Red Osier Dogwood
Rhododendron
Rose
Rubus
Shrubby Cinquefoil
Silky Dogwood
Smooth Sumac
Sour-top-Blueberry
Speckled Alder
Spicebush
Spiraea
Staghorn-Sumac
Striped Maple
9-3
Scientific Name
Cornus racemosa
Juniperis communis
var. depressa
Spiraea tomentosa
·Crataegus spp.
Corylus spp.
Vaccinium corymbosum
Viburnum alnifolium
Lonicera spp.
Gaylussacia spp.
Lonicera japonica
Ledum groenlandicum
Vaccinium vacillans
Vaccinium angustifolium
Viburnum acerifolium
Spiraea latifolia
Pyrus spp.
Ilex montana
K:aTmia latifolia
Acer spicatum
VibUrnum LentagQ
Ceanothus americanus
Physocarpus opulifolius
Xanthoxylum americanum
Rhododendron nudiflorum
Rhus radicans
Rhus Vernix
Rtiblls odoratus
Salix discolor
Rosa multiflora
Rtiblls idaeus
£ambucus pubens
Cornus stolonifera
Rhododendron spp.
Rosa spp.
Riiblls spp.
Potentilla fructicosa
Cornus obliqua
Rhus glabra
vaccinium myrtilloides
Alnus rugosa
Lindera Benzoin
Spiraea spp.
Rhus typhina
~ pensylvanicum
Appendix 1. Continued
•
Connnon Name
Sumac
Sunnner-sweet
Sweet-fern
Tartarian Honeysuckle
Teaberry
Trailing Arbutus
Viburnum
Virginia Creeper
Virgin's-bower
White Elderberry
Wild-raisin
Willow
Winterberry
Witch-Hazel
Algae
American Dog-Violet
American Marsh-Pennywort
Angelica
Annual Bluegrass
Arrowhead
Asparagus--
Aster
Avens
Barren Strawberry
Basil
Bastard Toad-flax
Bedstraw
Beech-Fern
Bell wort
Bindweed
Bird's-foot Trefoil
Black Cohosh
Black-eyed Susan
Black Hedick
Black Hustard
Black Snake-root
Bloodroot
Blue Cohosh
Bluets
Bluebead-Lily
Blue-eyed Grass
Blue-join~ Grass
Bog Club-moss
Herbs
9-4
Scientific Name
Rhus spp.
Clethra alnifolia
Comptonia peregrina
Lonicera tatarica
Gaultheria procumbens
Epigaea spp.
Viburnum spp.
Parthenocissus qu.inquefolia
Clematis virginiana
Sambucus canadensis
Viburnum cassinoides
Salix spp.
Ilex verticillata
Hamamelis virginiana
Algae spp.
Viola conspersa
Hydrocotyle americana
Angelica spp.
Poa annua
Sagittaria spp.
Asparagus officinalis
Aster spp.
Geum sp.
Waldsteinia fragariodes
Satureja vulgaris
Comandra umbellata
Galium spp.
Dryopteris spp.
Uvularia spp.
Convolvulus spp.
Lotus corn.iculatus
Cimicifuga racemosa
Rudbeckia serotina
Medicago lupulina
Brassica nigra
Sanicula marilandica
Sanguinaria spp.
Caulophyllum thalictroides
Houstonia caerulea
Clintonia borealis
Sisyrinchium spp.
Calamagrostis canadensis
Lycopodium inundatum
Appendix 1. Continued
Common Name
Boneset
Bouncing-Bet
Bracken.
Bristly Club-moss
Broad Beech-Fern
Broom-sedge
Bugle-weed
Bullhead-lily
Burdock
Bush-C1over
Butter-and-eggs
Buttercup
Butterfly-weed
Campion
Canada Lily
Canadian St. John's-wort
Cardinal-flower
Carolina Crane's-bill
Carolina Spring Beauty
Cat-tail
Ceratodon purpureus
. Chewings Fesque
Chickweed
Chinese Mustard
Christmas Fern
Cinnamon-Fern
Cinquefoil
Climacium dendroides
Closed Gentian
Coltsfoot
Columbine
Common Buttercup
Common Cinquefoil
Common Evening-Primrose
Common Fern Moss
Common Motise-ear Chickweed
Common Mullein
Common Periwinkle
Common Plantain
·common Ragweed
Common Rye Grass
Common St. John's-wort
Common Speedwell
Common Stitchwort
Common Vetch
9-5
Scientific Name
Eupatorium spp.
Saponaria officinalis
Pteridium aquilinum
Lycopodium annotinum
Dryopteris hexagonoptera
Andropogon virginicus
Lycopus virginicus
Nuphar variegatum
Arctium spp.
Lespedeza spp.
Linaria vulgaris
Ranunculus spp.
Asclepias tuberosa
Lychnis spp.
Lilium canadense
Hypericum canadense
Lobelia Cardinalis
Geranium carolinianum
Claytonia caroliniana
Typha spp.
Ceratodon purpureus
Festuca rubra var. commutata
Stellaria sp.
Brassica juncea
Polystichum acrostichoides
Osmunda cinnamomea
Potentilla spp.
Climacium dendroides
Gentiana clausa
Tussilago Farfara
Aquilegia spp.
Ranunculus acris
Potentilla canadensis
Oenothera biennis
Thuidium delicatulum
Cerastium vugatum
Verbascum Thapsus
Vinca minor
Plantago major
Ambrosia artemisiifolia
Elymus sp.
Hypericum perforatum
Veronica. officinalis
Stellaria graminea-
Vicia angustifolia
Appendix 1. Continued
•
Common Name
Common Wood-Sorrel
Cowslip
Creeping Red Fesque
Crown-Vetch
Cudweed
Cutgrass
Cut-leaved Grape-fern
Daisy
Daisy-Fleabane
Dame's-Violet
Dandelion
Deer~tongue Grass
Deptford Pink
Devil's Paint-brush
Dicranum scoparium
Dock
Duckweed
Dwarf Cornell
, Dwarf Dandelion
Dwarf Ginseng
Early Meadow-Rue
Elecampane
English Plantain
Everlasting
Everlasting Pea
False Hellebore
False Spikenard
Field Cat's~foot
Fireweed
Foamflower
Fox Sedge
Fringed Loosestrife
Fringed Polygala
Gill-over-the-ground
Golden Ragwort
Goldenrod
Goldie's Fern
Gold thread
Grass-leaved Goldenrod
Great Lobelia
Great-spurred Violet
Ground-Pine
Hair-cap Moss
Hairy Solomon's Seal
9-6
Scientific Name
Oxalis montana
Caltha palustris
Festuca rubra
Coronilla varia
Gnaphalium sp.
Leersia spp.
Botrychium dissectum
·chrysanthemum spp.;
Matricaria spp.
Erigeron annuus
Hesperis matronalis
Taraxacum spp.
Panicum clandestinum
Dianthus Armeria
Hieracium aurantiacum
Dicranum scoparium
Rumex spp.
Lemna spp.
Cornus canadensis
Krigia spp.
Panax trifolium
Thalictrum dioicum
Inula Helenium
Plantago lanceolata
Antennaria spp.
Lathyrus latifolius
VeratrUiil· spp.
Smilacin~ racemosa
Antennaria neglecta
Epilobium angustifolium
Tiareila cordifolia
Carex vulpinoidea
Lysimachia ciliata
Polygala paucifolia
Glechoma hederacea
Senecio aureus ·
Solidago spp.
Dryopteris Goldiana
Coptis groenlandica
Solida&o graminifolia
Lobelia siphilitica
Viola Selkirkii
Lycopodium comElanatum
Polytrichum spp.
Polygonatum biflorum
Appendix 1. Continued
Common Name
Hawkweed
Hay-scented Fern
Heal-all
Helleborine
Hepatica
Horsetail
Hyprttim · spp.
Hypnum imponens
Indian Cucumber-root
Indian Hemp
Indian-tobacco
Interrupted Fern
Iris
Jack-in-the-puplit
Japanese Clover
Jewelweed
Joe-Pye-weed
Kentucky 31
Kidneyleaf-Buttercup
Kill-cow
King Devil
Knotweed
Lace-Grass
Lady-Fern
Large-flowered Bellwort
Large-flowered Wake-robin
Large-leaved Aster
Large-leaved Mnium
Large Yellow Lady's-slipper
Lion's-foot
Long-spurred Violet
Maidenhair-Fern
Harginal Shield-Fern
Marsh-Fern
Marsh St. John's-wort
Maryland Golden Aster
May-apple
Meadow-Rue
Milkweed
Mint
Hixed Grass
Moss
t1oth~Mullein
Mouse-ear Hawkweed
9-7
Scientific Name
Hieracium spp.
Dennstaedtia punctilobula
Prunella vulgaris
Epipactis Helleborine
Hepatica spp.
Equisetum spp.
Hypnum spp.
Hypnum imponens
Medeola virginiana
Apocynum cannabinum
Lobelia inflata
Osmunda Claytoniana
Iris spp.
Arisaema atrorubens
Lespedeza striata
Impatiens spp.
Eupatorium spp.
Festuca sp.
Ranunculus abortivus
Eleocharis tenuis
Hieracium floribundum
Polygonum spp.
Eragrostis capillaria
Athyrium Filix-femina
Uvularia grandiflora
Trillium grandiflorum
Aster macrophyllus
Mnium punctatum var. elatum
Cypripedium Calceolus
var. pubescens
Prenanthes Serpentaria
Viola rostrata
Adiantum pedatum
Dryopteris marginalia
Dryopteris Thelypteris
Hypericum virginicum
Chrysopsis mariana
Podophyllum peltatum
Thalictrum.spp.
Asclepias spp.
Mentha spp.
Gramineae
Musci
Verbascum Blattaria
Hieracium Pilosella
Appendix 1. Continued
Common Name
Narrow-leaved Cat-tail
New York Aster
New York Fern
Nightshade
Nimble Will Grass
Nodding Ladies'-tresses
Northern Lady Fern
Northern Water Plantain
Oak-Fern
Old-field-Cinquefoil
Onion
Orchard-Grass
Qstrich-Fern
Ox-eye-Daisy
Painted Trillium
Pale Corydalis
Panic-Grass
Papoose-root
Partridge-berry
Partridge-Pea
Pearly Everlasting
Pennsylvania Bitter-cress
Perennial Rye-grass
Perfoliate Bellwort
Plantain
Pokeweed
Pondweed
Poor-Man's Pepper
Poverty-Grass
Prostate Tick-trefoil
Purple Trillium
Queen Anne's-lace
Rattlesnake-Fern
Red Clover
Redtop Grass
Reed
Reindeer Lichen
Rock-Polypody
Rose Pogonia
Rough Bedstraw
Rough-fruited Cinquefoil
Rough-leaved Golden-rod
Round-leaved Sundew
Roundlobe Hepatica
Royal Fern
9-8
Scientific Name
Typha angustifolia
Aster novi-belgii
~teris noveboracensis
Solanum Dulcamara
Muhlenbergia Schreberi
Spiranthes cernua
Athyrium Filix-femina
var. Michanxii
Alisma triviale
Dryopteris disjuncta
Potentilla simplex
Allium spp.
Dactylis glomerata
Pteretis penslyyanica
Chrysanthemum Leucanthemum
Trillium undulatum
Corydalis sempervirens
Panicum spp.
Caulophyllum thalictorides
Mitchella repens
Cassia fasciculata
Anaphalis margaritacea
Cardamine pensylvanica
Lolium perenne
Uvularia perfoliata
Plantago spp.
Phytolacca spp.
Potamogeton spp.
Lepidium virginicum
Danthonia spicata
Desmodium rotundifolium
Trillium erectum
Daucus Carota
Botrychium virginianum
Trifolium pratense
Agrostis alba
Phragmites spp.
Cladonia rangiferina
Polypodium virginianum
Pogonia ophioglossodies
Galium asprellum
Potentilla recta
Solidago pa~
Drosera rotundifolia
Hepatica americana
Osmunda regalis
Appendix 1. Continued
Conmi.on Name
Rue-Anemone
Rush
St. John's-wort
Schreber' s Moss
Scotch Broom
Sedge
Sensitive Fern
Sharp-lobed Hepatica
Sheep-Sorrel
Shining Club-moss
Shinleaf
Skullcap
Skunk-cabbage
Smartweed
Smooth Yellow Violet
Solomon's-seal
Speedwell
Sphagnum
Spiked Loosestrife
Spinulose Wood-Fern
Spotted Knapweed
~potted St. John's-wort
Spotted Touch-me-not
Spotted Wintergreen
Spreading Dogbane
Spring-beauty
Spring-Cress
Square-stemmed Monkey-flower
Squirrel-corn
Star-flower
Star-flowered Solomon's Seal
Stemless Lady's-slipper
Stonecrop
Strawberry
Swamp-Buttercup
Sweet Cicely
Sweet-scented Bedstraw
Tall Headow-Rue
Tear thumb
Teasel
Thistle
Thoroughwort
Tick-trefoil
Timothy
Toothwort
9-9
SciE:CLtific Name
Anemonella thalictroides
Juncus spp.
Hypericum spp.
Calliergon Schreberi
Cytisus scoparius
Carex spp.
Onoclea sensibilis
Hepatica acutiloba
Rumex Acetosella
Lycopodium Lucidulum
Pyrola elliptica
Scutellaria spp.
Symplocarpus foetidus
Polygonum spp.
Viola pensylvanica
Polygonatum spp.
Veronica spp.
Sphagnum spp.
Lythrum Salicaria
Dryopteris spinulosa
Centaurea maculosa
Hypericum punctatum
Impatiens capensis
Chimaphila maculata
Apocynum androsaemifolium
Claytonia spp.
Cardamine bulbosa
Mimulus ringens
Dicentra canadensis
Trientalis borealis
Smilacina stellata
Cypripedium acaule
Sedum spp.
Fragaria spp.
Ranunculus septentrionalis
Osmorhiza spp.
Galium triflor~m
Thalictrum polygamum
Polygonum spp.
Dipsacus spp.
Cirsium spp.
Eupatorium spp.
Desmodium spp.
Phleum spp.
Dentaria spp.
Appendix 1. Continued
•
Common Name
Tree Club-moss
Trillium
Trout-Lily
Twisted-stalk
Upright Yellow Woo"d....;sorrel
Various-leaved Water-Milfoil
Velvet-Grass
Violet
Virginia Knotweed
Water-celery
Water Moss
Water Parsnip
Water-Pennywort
Water-purslane
White Baneberry
White Clover
White Moss
White Snakeroot
Whorled Loosestrife
Wild Cranesbill
Wild Leek
Wild Lettuce
Wild Lily-of-the-valley
Wild Lupine
Wild-oats
Wild-pink
Wild Sarsaparilla
Wild Yam-root
Winter-Cress
Wood-Anemone
Wood-Fern
Wood-Lily
Wood-Sorrel
Woolly Blue Violet
Woolly Panic-grass
Yarrow
Yellow Clover
Yellow Dock
Yellow Loosestrife
9-10
Scientific Name
Lycopodium obscurum
Trillium spp.
Erythronium americanum
Streptopus spp.
Oxalis stricta
Myriophyllum heterophyllum
Holcus lanatus
Viola spp.
Tovara virginiana
Vallisneria americana
Fontinalis spp.
Sium suave ---Hydrocotyle spp.
Ludwigia palustris
Actaea pachypoda
Trifolium repens
Leucobryum glaucum
Eupatorium rugosum
Lysimachia quadrifolia
Geranium maculatum
Allium Ampeloprasum
Lactuca canadensis
Maianthemun canadense
Lupinus perennis
Uvularia sessilifolia
Silene caroliniana var.
pensylvanica
Aralia nudicaulis
Dioscorea villosa
Barbarea spp.
Anemone quinquefolia
Dryopteris spp.
Lilium philadelphicum
Oxalis spp.
Viola sororia
Panicum lanuginosum
Achillea spp.
Trifolium agrarium
Rumex crispus
Lysimachia terrestris
Appendix 2 Field data form for plant species ·in adjacent forest.
Area Adjacent to the ROW:
Vegetation Type:
Forest Type:
Non-forest Type:
Tree Layer:
% Cover
Height
Type Stand
Dominant and Characteristic Species:
Shrub Layer:
% Cover
Herb Layer:
% Cover ----------------
Remarks:
Primary Land Use:
General Aesthetics:
Height
Height
------------------------------------------~-----------
Other Use:
9-11
Appendix 3. Field data form for plant spec~es on the ROW •
•
Data on the ROW
Management History:
Clearance: Data: Type:
Maintenance: Data:
Treatment:
Present Vegetation Type:
Shrub Layer:
%Cover Height
Tree Species:
Shrub Species:
Groul).d Layer:
% Cover Heigth
Herbs and Grasses:
9-12
Appendix 4. Plant 1 Species Occurring in New York and Proposed
for Designation as Endangered or Threatened Under the
Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Scientific Name Common Name Proposed Status
. . h 2 Sc1rpus anc1stroc aetus
Isotria medeoloides
Plantago cordata
Calamagrostis perplexa
Phyllitis Scolopendrium
var. amer1cana
Aconitum noveboracense
Trollius laxus
Prenanthes Boottii
Helianthemum dumosum
Cypripediurn arietinu~
~yp!:_ipedi~:~m c~ndidum
Listera auriculata
3Plantanthera leucophaea
3 Plantanthera peramoena
Calamagrostis Porteri
.Panicum aculeatum
Poa paludigena
Potamogeton Hillii
Schizaea pusilla
5Agalinis acuta
Micranthemum
micranthemoides
Bulrush (unnamed)
Pagonia, smalled whorled
Plantain, heart-leaf
Reed Bentgrass (unnamed)
Hart's tongue fern,
American
Monkshood, northern
wild
Globeflower, spreading
A rattlesnake root
(unnamed)
A rockrose (unnamed)
Ram's head Ladv's slipper
Small white lady's slipper
Auricled twayblade
Prarie white fringed
orchid
Purple fringless orchid4
A reed bentgrass
(unnamed)
A panic grass (unnamed)
A meadow grass (unnamed)
A pond weed (unnamed)
Curly grass
A figwort (unnamed)
A figwort (unnamed)
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Treatened
Threatened
1 The first seven species listed were proposed for designation as endangered
in the Federal Register of Wednesday, June 16, 1976. None of these seven
species were identified in conjunction with the individual site studies for
the ESEERCO study. The last fourteen species listed.were proposed for designation
as threatened in the Federal Register of Tuesday, July 1, 1975. Unless
otherwise noted, scientific names are as in Gray's Manual of Botany.
2 This species is not listed in either Gray's Manual of Botany or the New
Britain and Brown Illustrated Flora.
3 This genus (Platanthera) 1s listed as Habenaria in both Gray's Manual of
Botany and the New Britton and Brown Illustrated Flora.
4 Also known as pride of the peak.
5 This genus (Micranthemum) is listed as Hemianthus 1n the New Britton
and Brown Illustrated Flora.
9-13
\.0
I
1-' .p..
Appendix 5 •. Field data form for soils evaluation.
Site Location and Description
Site Name Data --------------------Recorder
County ------------------~-------------------------Geology ----------------------------------------------------
Forest Region Surficial ----------------------------------------------------
Physiographic Region ------------------------------Bedrock -------------------------------------------------------
Soils •
Soil Order and Suborder
Soil Association
Soil
Series
Map
Symboll
Effective
Depth (in.)
Drainage
Class2
Surface Mineral Soil
pH Texture
Woodland
Suitability
Group
·,'
1 Map Symbol: Soil series and slope class (A=0-8%, B=8-15%, C=2S=35%, E=35=50%, F=S-=70%
2 Drainage Class: VPD=very poorly drained, PD=poorly drained, SPD=somewhat poorly drained, ID=Imperfectively drained,
3 MG=moderately good, G=good, E=excellent (excessive)
h'i·o>·. ·. 'Provides information on potential productivity for tree species and hazards and limitations in woodland
&iillr ,. , . . ma:nagement. • .....
. , •. ;.•,•q
Appendix 6. Site Index Guide as Received November 15, · 1976, from William
Hanna, Soil Scientist, Soil Conservation Service, Syracuse,
New York.
Productivit~1 Classes for ImEortant Timber SEecies
Very Very
Tree Species Excellent Good Good Fair Poor Poor
12 2 3 4 5 6
Red and White Pine 90+ 90-80 80-70 70-60 60-50 50-40
Red Maple 80+ .. 80:-70 70-60 60-50 50-
Oaks and Black Cherry 85+ 85-75 75-65 65-55 55-45 45-35
w. Spruce, Balsam-Fir 80+ 80-70 70-60 60-50 50-40 40-30
Red Spruce 70+ 70-60 60-50 50-40 40-30 30-
Sugar-Maple 73+ 73-66 66-59 59-52 52-45 45-38
1 Productivity is based on average site index of an indicator tree
species or forest type for each soil. This is the woodland suitability
class for the soil. Site index figures refer to the height at 50
years of age for the particular species or forest type.
2 Woodland Suitability Group is referred to by number.
9-15
\0
I ......
(j'\
Appendix 7. Field data form for soil erosion classification.
Site Name ------------------------------------------------Date -------------------Recorder
Erosion Classification
-------Er-osion cfa-8s2-ancf KindJ -·-
Soil
Type
Average
Slope
%
Plant
Cover . 1 Locat1.on Class
Woodland
Kind
Depth
Gullies
(in.) Class
ROW
Depth
Gullies
Kind ' (in.)
1 Location: A=
(indicate such
general ROW, B= access road, C = tower site, D = stringing site, E • forest, F = other
as horse trail, animal path, bike trail, etc.).
2 Erosion Class: 0 = none, 1 = slight, 2 -moderate, 3= severe
3 . . d Eros1.on K1.n : S = sheet, R • rill, G = gully.
.irt>ffii~'"-··-·· .....
'"~
Appendix 8. Key for the Classification, Forest Humus Types (1)1
Prepared by the Committee on Humus ClassificationJForest Soils Sec-
tion, Soil Science Society of America.2
A. No H-layer; the Al;horizon consists of an intimate mixture of organic
matter and mineral soil, with gradual transition between the Al and the
horizon beneath. F-layer may or may not be present.
-------------------------------------------------------------Mull (2,3,4)
1. The Al is essentially single grain or massive without aggregates.
Organic matter appears to be more or less uniformly distributed
throughout.
(a) Massive and firm with generally less than 5% organic matter by
weight.
----------------------------------------------------Firm Mull
(b) Loose, with low to medium organic matter content (usually less
than 10%) and consisting of a mixture of mineral soil and or-
ganic matter as single grains. Typically on sandy soils.
----------------------------------------------------Sand Mull
2. The Al-horizon has a granular· or crumb structure·. The concentra-
tion of organic matter and the granular structure are most pronounced
in the upper Al and decrease gradually with depth.
(a) Coarse granular or crumb structure; many granules 1/8"
(2-3mm.) or larger. Usually 5-20% organic matter.
----------------------------------------------------Coarse Mull
(b) Medium granular or crumb structure; the larger granules about
1/16" (2mm.) or slightly smaller. Wide range of organic matter
content usually 5-30%.
----------------------------------------------------Medium Mull
(c) Fine granular structure; frequently has the appearance of fine
black sawdust; organic matter content high, usually over 30%.
----------------------------------------------------Fine Mull
3. Complex mull types. Distinct structural differences between layers
within the zone of organic matter incorporation.
(a) A fine mull underlain by coarse or medium mull.
----------------------------------------------------Twin Mull
B. H and F-layers present with an underlying Al-horizon essentially similar
to that of a true mull. Gradual transition from the H to Al and mineral
soil beneath. (This type possesses some of the characteristics of both
mulls and mors.)
--------~----------------------------------------------------Duff Mull (4,5)
1. Combined F and H-layers more than one inch thick.
2.
1
2
---------------------------------------------------------Thick Duff Mull
Combined F and H-layers less than one inch thick.
---------------------------------------------------------Thin Duff Mull
Numbers in parentheses refer to explanatory material on the following pages.
Hoover, M.D. and H.A. Lunt. 1952. A key for the classification of forest
humus types. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 16: 368-370.
9-17
Appendix 8. -Gontinued
C. H-layer present (except in 3 below). Practically no m1x1ng of organic
matter with mineral soil. Abrupt transition from surface organic mat-
ter to underlying horizon.
-------------------------------------------------------------Mor (6)
1. The H-layer more than 1/2 inch thick.
---------------------------------------------------------Thick Mor
(a) The H-layer has a fine granular structure.
------------------------------~---------------------Granular Mor
(b) The H-layer structureless, feels greasy when wet, but hard and
brittle when dry.
----------------------------------------------------Greasy Mor
(c) The H-layer feels and looks felty, due to presence of fungal
hyphae and/or plant residues but not living roots.
----------------------------------------------------Felty Mor.
2. The H-layer less than 1/2 inch in thickness.
---------------------------------------------------------Thin Mor
3. The H-layer lacking or present only as a thin film in depressions.
---------------------------------------------------------Imperfect Mor
Explanatory Material
(1) This key does not apply on areas where the upper A-horizon shows evidence
of prolonged water saturation. Such as mottling, peat layers, or bog
conditions.
(2) Following disturbance of the forest cover a mull may develop on an old
podsol. As a result, a remnant of a leached layer may be present in the
profile even though the layer above it resembles the Al of a mull. In
such a case, the humus type is typed as a mull on the basis of the char-
acteristics of the Al-horizon.
(3) A complete description of a mull or duff-mull type should furnish the depth
of organic matter incorporation in inches. For grouping data and recon-
naissance use the following depth classes are suggested: very shallow, less
than 1", shallow, 1-2", deep, 2-4", and very deep, more than 4". For
example, a sand mull with organic matter incorporated to a depth of 1-1/2"
would be a "Shallow Sand Mull." ,
(4) When it is apparent that plowing or grazing have modified or eliminated
the natural humus type, this should be indicated by adding the letter "P"
or "G" to the name of the humus type. For example, Firm Mull-P or Firm
Mull-G or Firm Mull-PG if both plowing and grazing have caused present con-
titions. On previously cultivated land, there is frequently an old plow
layer which is comparatively homogenous throughout but may usually be re-
9-18
i
i
J
Appendix 8. Continued
cognized by the sharp line of demarcation at ·the base of the plow layer.
The humus type should be based on the characteristics of the H and/or
Al-horizon, and not on the properties of the entire plowed horizon. Graz-
ing causes compaction of the organic horizons and may reduce a mull with
granular structure to firm mull. Or may mix the H-layer of a mor with
mineral soil creating a mull like condition. Again humus type should be
based on the H and/or Al-horizon adding the letter "G" to indicate that
grazing was responsible.
(5) As stated in explanatory note 113 the d~pth of organic matter incorporation
should be given in description. The adjectives for the depth classes
should be used as prefixes in describing the Al portion of the duff-mull.
For example, "Thick Duff Mull with shallow Al" would be used to describe a
duff-mull with F and H-layers more than 1" thick and the Al-horizon 1-2"
deep.
(6) Because of the high organic matter content in the Al-horizon of fine-mull
it may occasionally be difficult to determine in the field whether the layer
is the H-layer or granular mor. This is particularly true when the hori-
zon or layer is shallow or thin. In this case, if transition to the min-
eral soil horizon below is rather abrupt and the organic content so high
it cannot be determined in the field whether it is actually fine mull or
a granular mor the layer should be classed as an H-layer and typed as mor.
\
9-19
\0
I
N
0
lie. ~':
Appendix 9. Field data form for humus classification.
Site Name
Classification of Humus Layers
ROW
Number Location1
y-----------------------------
T.ayer 'Thickness (in) . Humus
L F H Al Type
Date Recorder
Woodland
Layer 2 Thickness (in)
L F H Al
--
1 Location: edge, mid (between edge and center), and center of ROW or circular woods plot.
Humus
Type
2 Layers: L = litter, F = fermentation, H = humus, Al = mixed organic and mineral soil horizon.
•
---~· ·· .· .. ccC•.'•,-btoC~
Appendix 10. Water sMrvey sh~et.
Survey:
Date:
City:
Weather
Water:
Time:
County:
Field Engineer:
--------------Quadrangle:
Velocity: Depth Width:
DO: Temp.
Sediment Traps:
Sediment Depth (Stake Marking)
Stream Vegetation:
Potential Fish Habitats:
Bank Vegetation
Stream Uses
Physical Perturbations
Floodplain:
Erosion: Sheet:
Wetland:
Wet Meadow
Vegetation:
Noticeable Succession:
Soils: Silt
Marsh
Yes -----
Loam
%0 2 Sat:
Pool-riffle Ratio
Rill:
Swamp
No
Humus
pH
Gully:
Clay ____ _ -----:..._,_ ___ _ -----Sand. ___ _
Gravel Other :.._.. ___ _ ---------------------------------------------------
Comments: _________________________________________________________________________ _
9-21
Appendix 11. Recommended Classifications and Assignment of Ouality and
Purity for Designated Waters of New York Stater,2
•
Usages Class
Domestic water supply (unfiltered) AA
Domestic water supply (filtered) A
Bathing and/or recreation B
Fishing c
Agriculture and/or industrial water supply D
Sewage and/or waste disposal and/or transportation E
Sewage and/or waste disposal F
In addition, where trout water (T) are involved there is a special dissolved
oxygen standard established for the protection of such waters.
1 ·Information presented here is derived from Chemung River Drainage Basin
Survey Series Report, No .. 2, Water Pollution Control Board, New York
State Department of Health.
2 In line with the objectives of the Public Health Law relating to water
pollution control, one of the most important items considered is the
various present and contemplated future usages of waters within a
drainage basin. The usages and attendant classifications for the
majority of situations have been established_ as noted here.
9-22
Appendix 12. Wetlands Definitions.
The term "freshwater wetland" shall mean wet meade ,, marshes, swamps,
or areas where ground water, flowing or standing surf water, or ice
provide a significant part of the supporting substra for emergent or
submergent plant communities for at least 5 months of the year.
"Wet meadows" is described where ground water is at the surface for
a significant part of the growing season and near the surface throughout
the year, and where a significant part of the vegetational community is
composed of various grasses, sedges, and rushes. Made up of but not limited
to nor necessarily including the following plants or groups of plants:
iris (Iris), vervain (·Verbena), thoroughwort (Eupatorium), dock (Rumex),
false loosestrife (Ludwigia), hydrophillic grasses (Graminae), loosestrife
(Lythrum), marsh-fern (Dryopteris thelypteris), rushes (Juncaeae), sedges
(Cyperaceae), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), smartweed (Polygonum).
"Marshes" shall mean areas where a vegetational community exists in
standing or flowing water during the growing season and where a significant
part of the vegetational community is composed of, but not limited to nor
necessarily including all of, the following plants or groups of plants:
arums (Araceae), bladderworts (Utricularia), bur-reeds -(Sparganiaceae)
buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), cat-tails (Txpha), duckweeds
(Lemnaceae), eelgrass (Vallisneria), frogs-bits (Hydrocharitaceae), horsetails
(Equisetaceae), hydrophilic grasses (Gramineae), lether-leaf (Chamaedaphne
calxculatea), pickerelweeds (Pontederiaceae), pipeworts (Eriocaulon) pond
weeds (Potamogeton), rushes (Juncaceae), sedges (Cyperaceae), smartweeds
(Polxzonum), sweet gale (Mxrica gale), water-milfoil (Haloragaceae), water-
lilies (Nymphaeceae), water-starworts (Callitrichaceae), water-wiJlow
(Decodon verticillatus).
"Swamps" shall mean areas where ground water is at or near the surface
of the ground for a significant part of the g-rowing season or where runoff
water from surface drainage frequently collects above the soils surface,
and where a significant part of the vegetational community is made up of,
but not limited to nor necessarily include all of, the following plants
or groups of plants: alders (Alnus), ashes (Fraxinus), azaleas ,
(Rhododendron canadense and R. viscosum), black alder (Ilex verticillata),
black spruce (picea mariana), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis),
American or white elm (Ulmus americana), white Hellebore (Veratrum viride),
hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), highbush-blueberry (Vat~inium corymbosum), larch
(Larix laricina), cowslip (Caltha palustris), poison sumac (Rhus vernix)
red maple,(Acer rubrum), Skunk-cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidu~sphagnum
mosses (Sphagnum), spicebush (Lindera Benzoin), black gum (Nxssa sxlvatica),
sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), white cedar (Chamaecxparis thyoides),
willow (Salicaceae).
9-23
Appendix 13. Wildlife Observed Directly or Indirectly on the 22-Sites.in
'New York • •
Common Name
American woodcock
Beaver
Black rat snake
Blanding's turtle
Bullfrog
Carrion beetle
Chipmunk
Cottontail rabbit
Coyote
Crayfish
Earthworm
Eastern box turtle
Fox
Frog
Garter snake
Gray squirrel
Green snake
Ground bee
Hornet
Leopard frog, northern
Lice
Meadow vole
Mole
Mosquito
Mouse
Muskrat
Northern water snake
Oppossum
Praying mantis
Raccoon
Red eft (red-spotted newt)
Red squirrel
Ribbon snake
Ring-necked pheasant
Ruffed grouse
Shrew
Skunk
Spotted salamander
Spotted turtle
Spring peeper
Timber rattlesnake
Toad
9-24
Scientific Name
Philohela minor
Castor canadensis
Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta
Emydoidea blandingi
Rana catesbeiana
Silpha spp.
Tamias striatus
Sylvilagus floridanus
Canis latrans
Cambarus spp.
Lumbricus
Terrapene carolina carolina
Vulpes spp.
Rana spp.
'T'ha"mnophis spp.
Sciurus carolinensis
Opheodrys · f3PP·
Vespa spp.
Vespula maculata
Rana pipiens pipiens
Mallophaga spp.
Microtus pennsylvanicus
Scalopus aquaticus
Culicidae
Peromyscus spp.
Ondatra zibethica
Natrix sipedon sipedon
Didelphis marsupialis
Mantidae
Procyon lotor
Diemictylus viridescens
viridescens
ramiasciurus hudsonicus
Thamnophis sauritus sauritus
Phasianus colchicus
Bonasa umbellus
Sorex spp.
Mephitis spp.
Ambystoma maculatum
Clemmys guttata
Hyla crucifer
Crotalus horridus horridus
Bufo spp.
Appendix 13. Continued
Common Name
Varying hare
White-tailed deer
Wild turkey
Woodchuck
9-25
Scientific Name
Lepus americanus
Odocoileus virginianus
Meleagris gallopavo
Marmota monax
\0
I
N
0\
~ · .. W,.i\l.;i,,.~, ••
Appendix 14.
GAVIIFORMES
Gft•ld• · Loons
( I Common Loon
• ( 1 Rec:Hhroated Loon
POOICIPEOIFORMES
PodiCIC)tChdae • Gret.t
{ I Horned Grebe
( I Pied·b•lled Greoe
PELECANIFORMES
Ph-*='OCOtac•O.
( I Ooub•e--cf11'Sted Cormorant
CICIONIIFORMES
ArdetdH • Herons&: 81tteftn
( I Blick-erowned N•ght Heron
( I Greet Slue r..,ran
( I Green Heron
{ I Amencan B•ntrn
(I Le.t:St Bcttern
( J C.)rnmon E ;ret
ANSER•FORMES
An•t~ ·Swans, Geete & Ducks
sf. Cv~nuwe
I I Wh~~~~ S""ao
sf. Anser.nae · G~
i 1 a1ue Gov.
[ 1 Ca,,f!(.!, {jlo)()W
[ 1 s.,ow ~00!1!'
sf. Arwnnae · Surfac:e·feed•nq Ducks
( 1 Amenan Widqeon
( ) 81ac:lf. Duck
[ J Blue-wu'l9ed Teal
{I Gadwall
(I Green-wu'lqed Teal
(I Mallard
{ 1 Pinta•!
( 1 ShO"W'el«
( ( Wood Duck
sf. Avthv•nolt • OIYing Ducks
( 1 BuHie-heao
( I Canvasblck
II Common Goldeneve
1 1 Gre.ner Scauo
{I L.-:;c.up
I I Olcb<!u-
1 1 Redhe•d
I 1 Rinq-necked Duck
( ) 'lllh•t•..,.,•nqed $cater
d. Oxyurmae
( I R..,d~v Duck
rl. ~,.l!"'ginae • Merq.ansen
: I .:ammon Mef'~r
( j Hooo.o ~e~M~:"r
i I ~eC·:'f.~nt.a Mt'l'ljoSI11P.r
Field check list for birds seen anrl/or heard on the ROW and RQTJ edge.
F~LCONIFORMES
C-.Jt~r-•do~e Vclturn
• 1 31acll. V•JI ture
( I Turl..ev VulturP
Acc•pitr•dae ·Hawks iEaqlesl
I I Broad-w•nqed Hawll'.
( I Coooer·s HawK
( I Marsn Hawk
( I Red 'ihOuldered Hawk
( I Rl!'d·taned Hawk.
{ I Rouqn-le9Qed Hd'ftk
( J Sharp-stunned Hawi(
[ I B.tld E .tqle
( i Glllden Eagle
Pand•on•d.)e
(I Oso .. v
Fetcon1dae. Falcons I Hawks)
( J Pereqnne !-= dlcon
I I P1q,:!On Hawk.
{ 1 Sparrow Hawk (Amencan l(estre'
GALLIFORMES
Tetraomdae
{ ! Rutted Grouse
Phestan•dae
! I Boo...,hlte
t 1 Rmg-n"!'Cked Pheasant
Meleagr1d1dae
(I Turkev
GRUIFORMES
R•llldae • Ra1h, Gallinules. & Coou
(I K.•ng Aa.t
( 1 Sora IRa• II
t I V•rg•n•a R3•1
[ l Common Gallinule
( I Amer•can Coot
CHARAORIIFORMES
Charadrudae · Ploven
i j 61.tclvbelhed Piov~r
l !·Ktlldeer •oloverl
! ! Senlloalmated Plover
Scolooac•dae ·Woodcock. Sntpe. &
So~ndptQ.tr\
I 1 AmencJn '.\'oodcoc~t
l 1 Common Sn~oe
; i Gredter Yetlowl~qs l~nd:>•oerl
: ! Le\Ser Vello.,..leqs l~nt10to~rl
' UOtdnd lllov~ ts.andP•oert
:·! Oom'"' l'i.l,.,du•o~r 1
I Lea~ 'idndc•oer
'ectoral s .. noo•per
, I SemiOCJimated Solnoo.per
: I Sol!urv Sdndo•P~r
I I Sootted SCJndp,per
Ptwl..-06-ouU•llae
t I Northern Ptla~rope
Lartdae ·Gulls & Tel'n'l
{I Bona~ne·s Gull
(I Hemnq c ... n
I I H:inq Otlled Gull
{ I Black T~rn
[ I C-HPioln Tern
I I Common Tern
COLUMS!FOAMES
ColumDadae · Doves & p,qttoo\
( J '.1ourn•nq Oovt
I I Rock Cove (Ptgeonl
CUCULIFORMES
Cucuhdae \:uc:kom
( 1 Slack b1iled Cuckoo
I l Yellow·b•lled Cuckoo
STRIGIFORMES
Tvton•d<~~~
( l B,un Owl
Stt1q•d~. TvP•C<~l v....t11
{ I B.trreo Owl
{ 1 Great Horneo Owl
I 1 Long-(!ared Owl
( I Saw·whet Owl
I J Sct"eeCn Owl
[ I Short e•rea Owl
CARPRIMULGIFORMES
Capnmull)tct. · Oo.atwcken
( I Common N•ghthawk.
[I WlliO·jl()Ot'·WIII
APODIFORMES
Apod•dae
{ I C!'Hmnev $'htft
Troch1hdae
( I RuDy-~hroated Humm•ngDtrd
CORACIIFORMES
Alced•n•dde
( I 6eltl!d K.nghsher
PICIFORMES
Pic1dae · Woodpeckers
( I Oownv Woodoecur
1 1 Hil•rv Wooooec,.,er
t 1 P·l~ated Woodpecker
( 1 Red bellied Woodoecker
[ I Red heo~ae(l Woooo~ker
l I VeHOV~o·belhed So~csucker
ll Yellow.¢ahed Fl•cker
PASSERO FORMES
Tyrann•G.M. Flycatchers
l 1 Ac.td1<Jn Ftvc..tcher
I i EJ\tern (H•gbard
: I Eastern P~oeoc
I I £J11otern Wood Pewee
I 1 Gre.at Creost~d F !vc.ttcner
I I L~~st Ftvc3t.:ner
[ l Olt~e \tded F lvc.Jtcher
[ J frJdl"osFiv~tcher
{ I Yl!'tlow u~tlted Flvc.ucnttt
Alaud•dae
i l Horn~ l.lfl(
H~rundm1d.w s.,..allow-s
( Sank. $.,..<i110w
{ Barn S>Nallo""'
I Cliff 5-.NtiiiOW
! Purple Milrt•n
I Rouqn w.nqe<l Swdllnw
I Tr~e ':)wat\ow
Contdae
: I 61ue Jav
I I Common Crow
i I Common ~dven
Paodae
l I Black ClOoed Ch•ckMiee
I I C..rohna Ch•ck•t.:H:
I I Tufted T1tmouse
Stn1d.M
11 Red-brea\ted Nut~atch
I I Whtte bte•nted Nutl'l6tch
Cerlhud ..
' ! Brown Creeoer
T f'OC}iodvtta• . .Vrem
{ 1 8ewtc\c."'i Wren
{ 1 Carolin.t wren
( 1 House Wreo
( I Long-billod Mil~ Wren
( 1 Short·btlled MarY! Wren
I 1 W•nter Wren
Mimtdae . Mockinqbtrch & Thr.t:ahen
( I Brown-tnrasner
(I Catbord
[ 1 Moclunqturd
Turd1dae • Thruthel
( 1 E.stern Bluttb•rd
ll Grav-c~ked Th~uSh
[ I Hermtt ThruSh ·
{ 1 Robtn
I I Swamson·'l Thru\h
{I Veert
( I Wood Thrusn
Sylv11d.tu · Gnatcatchen & Ktnq1ets
l 1 81.J~rav Gnatcatcr,~r
! I Golden crowned l(lnQiet
I J Rubv crowl"ed Ktnglet
MotactlildM
I I Wa~~r Ptplt
Bombvcall•d.Je
I I Ced.u W.tli.Winq
Unud .. -
1 I Lcqqefnud Shnke
Stumtdaa
{ 1 Starl1nq
V.reontd.wa · Vireot
[ I Ph•lade\phla V •reo
[ I Red-eyeo v.reo
I I Solttarv Vireo
{ I War'Oling V1reo
{ I Wh1te·~ved V•reo
{ 1 Yeltow-tnroated Vtreo
Paruhdae. Wood Warblen
I I Am~nc.an Redstart
I i Sav-brect!.tea Warblttr
I I Blac:k·iln'd-Whtte Warbler
I 1 BlackDurntan Warbler
{ I BlcKKpoll Warbler
( I Black thrOdted Blue Warbl~r
I I Black tnroated Green
( J Blue-w.ng~ Warbler
{ I C•nad• WaroiP.r
( I ~ Mc~y WdrDier
[ I Wrulean Warbler
( 1 Chestnut-s•Oed Waroter
ll Connecucut WarOIP.r
( 1 Golden-wmqed W3f'Diet
( 1 Hooded Warbler
( ) Kentuettv Warbl~r
I I Lcxus•ana w.nerthrusn
lJ Maqnol•l Waroler
{ I Mournu'"IQ WJrbler
( I Mvrtle WJtDier
I 1 Na-'ihv•ne warbler
( I Non.n.,-n Watertflrush
( I Oranqe-crowned Warbler
{I Ovenbud
( I Palm Warbler
ll Parula WJtbler
II P1ne Warbler
I I Pra•rte WarOj.er
( I Svw.J•nwn ~ WarOier
() Tenn~e Warbler
() W•I\On"os W~rbler
( I Worm edtU"'CJ Wdrb~r
I I Yellow Ored~ted Crut
I I Yellow •\larOI•r
( I Yenowtnro•t
( I Yellow lnrodted Warbler
P1ool.d.e . w..,_ F met..
(I Houoo Soo"""'
1~.0. • Blackb•rds
( I Baitunon Onole
( 1 Orct'\.a:r"d Or~ole
{I 8-hnl<
I I s_...,.odod Cowbird
( I Common Gncklo •
( 1 Eat8tn Me.OOWiarl(
l I A.O.Wu"'9'd Blackb•rd
( I RI.KtY 81Kkblr0
~
II ~ncthn
IIS..mmo<Ta,_.-
Frift9111tG. • G~. Finctw.
Sparrows & 6unt1ngs
sf, Ric:t\t'¥1ondenu'\MI · C.rdTI"'oots & Allift
( ) Bh ... e Grosoe..k.
( 1 C..rdtn!ll
{I Oick.ctDel
( J lnc:hqo Bunttnq
I I RoN-0.-e,med Grasoo.ak
sf. C.rduehnH. Purole Fincre.
Goldfinchft & An~
( I Amettcan Goldfinch
( I Common Redooll
( ) E..-enu-.q GrO'Sbe•k
II Pone~
(I Pine Sf.tk1n
{ I Pu.,oo Fincn
{ 1 Rod c,..-u
( I Whlte--w•nqed Crossbtll
sf. Emoeru:M\M • S'*'ro~ & Bunt•ngs
I I s-....,·, Souo'ow
l I Choooinq s,_ow
{ I F;.ld Soom>w
{ I F oc Spo"""
1.1 G'-s""'"""' ( 1 Htcw.ow's S~rrow
( I LM1< Spo"ow
( 1 Lincoln·s :iparrow
( I S.Votnn.h Soarrow
( I Sonq Soo"ow
( J Swo~mp Sparrow
I I r,.. Soo"ow
[ I Whttt<:rowned Sparrow
( I Wh•te-thro.~ted S.urrow
( I v.~., Soo"ow
( ) L•ltt•nd LOf1950Ut
{ 1 Rufous-stdlKJ Towhee
( I Sllt.-cofored Junco
{ ) Snow Bun11n9
--------------------_,~==~
Appendix 15. Birds observed and or/heard on the ·ROW and on the ROW
edge during the study period.
Common Name
Great blue heron
Green heron
Canada goose
Black duck
Shoveler
Canvasback
Turkey vulture
Cooper's hawk
Red-shouldered hawk
Red-tailed hawk
Sharp-shinned hawk
Bald eagle
Osprey
Sparrow hawk
Ruffed grouse
Ring-necked pheasant
Turkey
Killdeer
American woodcock
Solitary sandpiper
Spotted sandpiper
Herring gull
Ring-billed gull
Mourning dove
Rock dove. (domestic pigeon)
Great horned owl
Whip-poor-will
Ruby-throated hummingbird
Belted kingfisher
Downy woodpecker
Hairy woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker
Yellow-shafted flicker
Eastern kingbird
Eastern phoebe
Eastern wood pewee
Great crested flycatcher
Olive-sided flycatcher
Bank swallow
Barn swallow
Purple martin
Rough-winged swallow
Tree swallow
Blue jay
9-27
Scientific Name
Ardea.herodias ---·Butorides·virescens
Brartta:c-artadertsis
· Artas · rubripes
·sparura·ciYPeata
Aythya valisin-eria
Cathartes aura
Accipiter·eooperii
·Buteo ·lirieatus ·
Buteo ·;a.maicensis
· ·Accipiter st:datus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Pandion.haliaetus
Falco · sparve:dus
· Bonasa umbellus
Phasianus colchicus
Meleagris ·gal16pavo .
Charadrius vociferus
Philohela minor ---Trirtga solitaria
Actitis macularia
Larus ·argeritatus
· Latus dela\-1arertsis
·zeriaidura macroura
Columba livia
· Bubo viqdniarius
Caprimulgus vociferus
. Archilochus . cohibris
Megaceryle alcyon
·nendrocopos ·pubescens
· Dendrocopos.vi11osus
· Dryocopus pileatus
. ·co1aptes auratus
· Tyraririus tyraririus
· Say6inis ·phoebe
· ·caritopus virens
· ·nyiarchus cririitus
Nuttallorriis borealis
Riparia · riparia
Hirurida·rustica
. Progne subis
Stelgidopteryx ruficollis
·rridoprocne·bicolor
· Cyariocitta·cr1stata
Appendix 15. _Continued
•
Common Name
Common crow
Black-capped chickadee
Carolina chickadee
Tufted titmouse
White-breasted nuthatch
Brown thrasher
Catbird
Mockingbird
Robin
Veery
Hood thrush
Ruby-crowned kinglet
Cedar waxwing
Starling
Red-eyed vireo
American redstart
Black-and-white warbler
Black-throated blue warbler
Cape May warbler
Chestnut-sided warbler
Hagnolia warbler
Myrtle warbler
Horn-eating warbler
Yellow-breasted chat
Yellow w·arbler
Yellowthroat
Baltimore oriole
Brown-headed cowbird
Common grackle
Red-winged blackbird
Scarlet tanager
Cardinal
Indigo bunting
Rose-breasted grosbeak
American goldfinch
Evening grosbeak
Chipping sparrow
Field sparrow
Fox sparrow
Song sparrow
White-throated sparrow
Vesper sparrow
Rufous-sided towhee
Slate-colored junco
Scientific Name
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Parus atricapillus
Parus·carolinerisis ---· · Parmi bicolor
· ·sitta carolinerisis
~toma·rufum
Dumetella ·carolirierisis
Hinius ·Eolyglottos
Turdus migratorius
Hylocichla fuscescens
·Htlocichla niustelina
Regulus·caleridlila
Bombycilla cedrorum
Sturrius vulgaris
Vireo olivaceus
Setophaga ruticilla
Mniotilta var~a
Dendroica caerulescens
Deridrciica tigrina
Dengroica pensyl vapica
Dendroica magnolia
Dendroica cororiata
Helniitheros verniivoius
Icte:ria virens
· Dendrciica petechia
Gecithlypis trichas
Icterus galbula
Molothrusater
guisca:Ius guisctila
Age'laius phoeniceus
Pirariga: olivacea
Richmoridena: cardina:lis
Passeriria cyanea
Pheucticus ludovicianus
Spirius tristis
HesEeriphona vespertina
Spizella passerina
Spizella pusilla
Passerella iliaQa
Melo-spiza· nielodia
Zonotrichia albieol'lis
Pooecet.es ·gr.amin.eus
Pipilo erytbropbthalnlJls
Junco hyemalis
1 sequence from American Ornithologists' Union in the main, although alphabetical
rearrangements have been made.
9-28
Appendix 16. Partial Listl of Preferred Foods of White-tailed Deer in New York Compiled
_by the Department of Environmental Conservation.
Preferred or Best Liked
Cedar, white or arbor-vitae
Yew
Apple
Sassafras
Maple, mountain
Wintergreen
Maple, striped
Dogwood, alternate leaved
Dogwood, flowering
Sumac, staghorn
Maple, red
Witch hobble
Basswood
Second Choice
Elderberry
Elder, red berried
Ash, mountain
Cucumber tree
Cranberry, highbush
Nannyberry
Arbutus
Honeysuckle, fly
Honeysuckle
Hemlock
Wild raisin
Blueberry, highbush
Dogwood, silky
Dogwood, red osier
Dogwood, round-leaved
Willow*2
Readily Eaten
Greenbrier
Ash, white
Maple, sugar
Arrow wood, maple leaved
Oaks*
Grape, wild
Birch, yellow
Birch, black
Chestnut
Hickory
Cherry, choke
Cherry, wild black
Witch hazel
Spice bush
Elm
Choke berry, black
Arrow wood
Honeysuckle, bush
Walnut, black
Butternut
Hazelnut
Juneberry or shadbush
Holly, mountain
Holly or winterberry*
Ash, black
Blueberry, low sweet
Blueberry, sour top
Blueberry, low bush
Leatherwood
Starvation or Poor Food
Pine, scots**J
Pine, pitch**
Beech
Sweet fern
Aspen or poplar
Gooseberry and currant*
Buckthorn
Raspberry and blackberry
Steeplebush
Laurel, mountain**
Rhododendron**
Pine, white **
Pine, red or Norway**
Balsam**
Birch, paper
Birch, gray
Ironwood, or hop hornbeam
Blue beech, or muscle wood
Meadowsweet
Cedar, red**
Juniper, pasture**
Cherry, fire or pin
Hawthorn
Laurel, sheep
Dogwood, grey-stemmed
Locust, black
Huckleberry, black
Tamarack
Alder
Spruces
1 This ~s a partial list of tree and shrub species eaten by deer arranged with the
best foods at the beginning, fair foods in middle and starvation foods toward
the end. The arrangement is based on thousands of observations in hundreds
2
3
of wintering areas over many years in all parts of New York.
A * indicates there is considerable difference in palatability or preference
of the different species of this genus. They vary from this point to very low.
A ** indicates this species is often browsed heavily enough to appear to be
second choice food in areas where food is inadequate.
9-29
Appendix 17. Photo Stations for the 22 Sites in New-York
Photo
Station
•
Description and Location
Site 1
1 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking north. (Taken
from 2nd tier of tower 1, north-northwest leg).
2 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking north-northwest.
(Taken from 2nd tier at middle of north-northwest side of tower 2).
3 Slight, moderate, and severe gully erosion on access road, looking
south-southwest. (Taken 3 feet north-northeast of edge of access
road, 103 feet northwest of west leg of tower 3A.)
4 Example of spot-cutting maintenance procedure on the ROW, looking
southeast. (Taken 3~ feet from north-northeast edge of ROW, 112 feet
northwest of west leg of tower 3A·.)
s· Ground water on access road, looking southeast. (Taken on north-
northeast edge of access road, 252 feet southeast of east leg of
tower 4A.)
6 Open area on mesic plot 2, showing spotty maintenence on the ROH, and
tartarian honeysuckle community, looking southeast. (Taken 7 feet
southwest of south leg of tower 4, 73 feet southeast.)
7 Access road climbing extreme slope looking northwest toward towers 5
and SA, with some erosion. (Taken from northeast side of access
road, 305 feet northwest of north leg of tower 4A.)
8 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking southeast.
(Taken from 2nd tier of tower 5, southwest leg.)
9 Severe gully erosion along edge of access road on the ROW, looking
north-northwest. (Taken 40 feet southwest of south leg of tower 6.)
10 Severe gully erosion along edge of access road on the ROW, looking
southeast. (Taken 105 feet northwest of north leg of tower 6.)
11 General view qf the ROW and adjacent forest, looking southeast.
(Taken from 2nd tier of tower 7, south leg.)
12 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking northwest toward
railroad track and end of study area, with staghorn-sumac, a root-
suckering species, on the ROW. (Taken from 2nd tier of tower 7, west
leg.)
13 Interrupted fern, royal fern, and wild cranesbill on the ROW, with
cinnamon-fern near the railroad ~racks, looking southwest, between
towers 7 and 8. (Taken in_area of wood chips 75 feet southwest
of the ROW's northeast edge, 60 feet southeast of the railroad tracks.)
9-30
Appendix 17. Continued
Photo
Station Description and Location
14 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking southeast.
(Taken from east leg of tower 8.)
15 Panoramic view of study area, looking southwest, as seen from Rt. 9A.
(Taken at. light pole at corner of Rt. 9A and Fairview Park Road.)
16 Panoramic view of study area, looking northwest, as seen from Rt. 9A.
(Taken at light pole at corner of Rt. 9A and Fairview Park Road.)
17 Panoramic view of study area, well screened by trees where ROW
crosses Saw Mill Parkway, looking north. (Taken from median strip
of Saw Mill Parkway-South, at exit to Rts. 287/87.)
18 Panoramic view of the site, looking south-southwest from Rt. lOOC.
(Taken at south edge of Rt. llOC from base of de-energized electri-
cal pole #Wll44S.)
19 Panoramic view of site, looking south from Saw t1ill Parkway -South.
{Taken immediately past entrance ramp from Rt. 100 _
of road, 84 feet east of "50 mph" sign.)
Site 2
1 General view of the ROW and adjacent fores4 looking south-southwest
toward substation. (Taken from west corner of the base of tower 2.)
2 General view of the ROW and adjacent fores~ looking south-southeast.
(Taken from south corner of the base of tower 2.)
3 Logs piled at the northeast edge of the ROW. (Taken 3 feet north-
northeast of north corner of the base of tower 3.)
4 Topped hemlock on the ROW along a stream bank, looking east. (Taken
9 feet south-southeast of middle edge of access road above stream,
11~ feet north-northeast of 2-inch dl, b. h. sweet birch).
5 Horsetail community on the ROW, looking northwest. (Taken at corner
of access road and ROW, near southeast corner of hydric plot 1.)
6
7
8
Severe sheet and rill erosion on bank cut at
was apparently unsuccessful, looking north.
0 of tower 4 at a 45 angle.)
General view of the ROW and adjacent forest,
12 feet west of tower 5~)
Swee.t-fern invading the ROW, looking north.
tower 5.)
tower 4, where seeding
(Taken 84 feet southeast
looking northwest. (Taken
(Taken 16 feet west of
9 General view of the ROW and. adjacent forest, looking southeast.
(Taken 11 feet south-southwest of tower 5.)
9-31
Appendix 17. Continued
•
Photo
Station Description and Location
10 Seeded area on the ROW at tower 6. (Taken 87 feet southwest of
0
11
tower 6, at a 45 angle to the tower.)
General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking southeast
toward tower 8, where ROW changes direction. (Taken from east cor-
ner of base of tower 7.)
12 Pure sweet-fern community crosses the ROW north of·tower 7. (Taken
0 30 feet south-southwest of tower 7, at a 45 angl\ from the base of
the tower.)
13 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking east. (Taken
from middle of base of tower 8.)
14 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking northwest.
(Taken from west corner of base of tower 8.)
15 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking east. (Taken
from middle of base of tower 10.)
16 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking west. (Taken
from southwest corner of base"of tower 12.)
17 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking west. (Taken
3 feet west of rock, 65 feet southeast of tower 13 at a 45° angle
to the tower.)
18 View of the study area from Rt. 17, looking east. (Taken from Rt.
17 -North, 50 feet from "No Parking" sign with sign beneath it
designating 17/8511/1033.)
19 View of the study area from Rt. 202. (Taken from Rt. 202 and
Babbling Brook Lane.)
Site 3
1 General view of the ROW artd adjacent forest, looking south. (Taken
approximately 381 feet south of the base of tower 61, beside a
large rock.)
2 Private gardens on the east side of the ROW. (Taken approximately
381 feet south of the base of tower 61, beside a large rock.)
3 American hornbeam on the ROW, left from selective clearing, looking
southwest. (Taken 150 feet beyond photo station 2.)
4 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest showing drop and lop
method of slash disposal, looking north. (Taken from the base of
tower 60.)
I .,.
Appendix 17. Continued
Photo
Station Description and Location
5 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking south. · (Taken
from base of tower 60.)
6 Slight sheet and rill erosion along access road on the ROW near
tower 59, with a community of pokeweed which has invaded since line
clearing, looking west. (Taken about 90 feet north of tower 59.)
7 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking north. (Taken
63 feet south of tower 59.)
8 Remnants of chestnut on the ROW, on the east side of the ROW. (Taken
63 feet south of tower 59.)
9 General view of the ROW and the adjacent forest, looking south.
(Taken from base of tower 58.)
10 Wet area on ROW where culvert is needed at access road. (Taken
approximately 300 feet south of tower 58, shooting northeast.)
11 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking north. (Taken
52 feet north of tower 57.)
12 Severe gully erosion on the ROW near tower 57. (Taken 52 feet north-
west of tower 57, looking east.)
13 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking south. (Taken
approximately 500 feet north of _tower 56.)
14 Hullein growing on the ROW, having invaded since line clearing.
(Taken 264 feet northwest of tower 54, looking southeast.)
15 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking south. (Taken
from base of tower 54.)
16 Noxious weeds, including thistle, invading disturbed areas of the ROW.
(Taken approximately 396 feet north of tower 53, looking north.)
17 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking north. (Taken
from base of tower 53.)
18 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking south. (Taken
from base of tower 53.)
19 Slash in gully on the ROW, looking south-southeast. (Taken from base
of tower 53.)
20 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking north from
Sterling Lake Road. (Taken from edge of road.)
Site 4
1 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking south. (Taken
from base of tower 107.)
9'-33
Appendix 17. Continued
Photo
Station
. .
Description and Location
2 Hay-scented fern community on the ROW, looking southwest. (Taken
about 119 feet south of southwest leg of tower 107.) ·
~ Gray birch on the ROW, looking south. (Taken approximately 441 feet
south of southeast leg of tower 107.)
4 Flowering dogwood on the ROH looking southwest. (Taken approximately
522 feet south of tower 107.)
5 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking north. (Taken
approximately 216 feet north of the northeast leg of tower 108, from
a large rock.)
6 Open soil under tower 108 exhibiting moderate sheet and rill erosion.
(Taken 10 feet east from tower 108.)
7· General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking south. (Taken
from base of tower 108.)
8 Hay-scented fern community on the ROW, .looking northwest. (Taken
south of tower 58, at corner of large rock near access road,
approximately 651 feet south of tower 109.)
·9 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking north. (Taken
62!2 feet north of the east leg of tower 110.)
10 Open area under tower, invading with huckleberry, mixed grass, hay-
scented fern, and scattered hemlock. Wood-lily is also shown.
(Taken 9 feet east of photo station 9.)
11 (Taken General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking south.
from base of tower 111.)
General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking north. 12 (Taken
from base of tower 114.)
13 General view of the ROW with alder swamp and Sterling Lake Road in the
background, looking south. (Taken 100 feet south of base of tower 114.)
14 General view of the ROW with alder swamp, looking north from Sterling
Lake Road. (Taken from edge of road.)
Site 5·
1 General view of the ROW and adjacent area from South Street, looking
southeast. (Taken 18 feet southwest of telephone pole 152/15 south-
east of South Street.) ·
2 General view of apple orchard on the ROW, looking southeast.· (Taken
10 feet southwest of stake at edge of north woods, adjacent to tower
58.)
9-34
Appendix 17. Continued
Photo
Station Description and Location
3 Open soil under tower 57 exhibiting slight sheet and rill erosion,
looking northeast. (Taken 6 feet southwest of tower 57.)
4 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking southeast
toward wet area. "(Taken from base of tower 57.)
5 General view of the ROW and adjacent area, looking northwest. (Taken
from northwest base of tower 57.)
6 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking southeast.
(Taken from base of tower 56.)
7 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking northwest.
(Taken 30 feet southwest of structure 54.)
8 Staghorn-and smooth sumacs, typical species on the ROW not found in
the adjacent forest, looking south. (Taken from southeast side of
0 access road, 90 feet east of structure 55 at a 45 angle.)
9 Remnants of logs piled on the ROW, probably left from ROW clearing,
west of tower 53. (Taken approximately 390 feet east of structure
54, 5 feet north of the logs.)
10 View of the ROW, looking northwest down steep slope at sumac community
with sassafras in the background of tower 52. (Taken on steep slope
approximately 150 feet southeast of tower 52.)
11 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking northwest. (Taken
from 2nd tier of tower 51.)
Site 6
1 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking northwest. (Taken
3 feet southwest of structure 720.)
2 Partially dead red maple and oak with chemical retention. (Taken 30
feet northwest of structure 718, looking east.)
3 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking southeast.
(Taken 25 feet northeast of structure 692, 90 feet northwest.)
4 Open area from grading of access road going through successional stages,
invading with mixed grass, herbs, white pine, and gray birch. (Taken
12 feet southwest of structure 692, 66 feet southeast, looking south.)
5 General view of the ROW and adjacent area, looking north. (Taken 30
feet southeast of structure 691.)
6 Ruts on the ROW caused by heavy equipment damage in wet weather, looking
west. (Taken 262 feet southwest of pole 691.)
9-35
,
Appendix 17. Continued
•
Photo
Station Description and Location
7 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking northwest
toward Thruway (Rt. 90) where study area ends. (Taken 45 feet
northwest of pole 690A.)
8 Dead or partially dead red maples left on the ROW after spraying,
looking east. (Taken 4 feet north of pole 691A.)
9 Ground-juniper and white pine invading the ROW, with a sweet-fern
community in the background, looking northeast. (Taken 25 feet
southwest of tower 12, 52 feet northwest.)
10 Spiraea on the ROW, looking north. (Taken 24 feet southwest of
tower 12, 197 feet northwest.)
11 Dead gray dogwood from chemical spray on the ROW, looking southwest.
(Taken 13 feet southwest of tower 13, 36 feet southeast.)
12 Open soil under tower 14, exhibiting slight sheet erosion, looking
northeast. (Taken 10 feet southwest of tower 14.)
13 Intermittent stream on the ROW, with a cat-tail community in the
background, looking west.. (Taken 144 feet northeast of milepost
161/7 on the Thruway, 108 feet southeast, on southeast side of stream.)
14 Severe gully erosion on access road, looking north. (Taken 120
feet east of tower 10 at a 45° angle, on south side of access road.)
15 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking southeast from
Thruway (Rt. 90). (Taken from"southeast side of Thruway, going
west, immediately prior to exit 26, at milepost 161/7.)
Site 7
1 General view of the study area from Rt. 30, looking southeast. (Taken
on Rt. 30 North at green sign 30/9502/1056.)
2 General view of PASNY's Blenheim-Gilboa Pumped-Storage building from
Rt. 30. (Taken from Rt. 30 North at electric distribution pole M+l84,
near pole NM 45.)
3 View of substation from Rt. 30. (Taken from Rt. 30 North, electric
. pole NM 44.)
4 General view of study area, looking southeast from substation. (Taken
from northwest corner of fence surrounding substation.)
5 North side of tower GNS-1/1/8 structure opening, looking north-north-
west. (Taken 9 feet north of southeast leg of tower GNS-1/1/8, 94
feet east of same.) .
9-36
Appendix 17. Continued
Photo
Station Description and Location
6 East side of tower 8 struct~re opening. (Taken 40~ feet north of
northeast leg of tower GNS-1/1/8, 31~ feet east of same.)
7 South side of tower 8 structure opening. (Taken 40~ feet north
of northeast leg of tower GL 1/8, 143 feet east of same.)
8 West side of tower 8 structure opening. (Taken 2nd tier of tower
GL 1/8, southeast leg.) ·
9 General view of structure opening at tower 8, looking northeast.
(Taken 41 feet south of southeast leg of tower G 1/8, 31 feet
east.)
10 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking ~lest. (Taken
from west side of tower GNS-1121.)
11 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest with feathering obvious,
looking west. (Taken from 3rd tier of tower GNS-1/2/2, southwest leg.)
12 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking east. (Taken
from northeast leg of tower GNS-1/2/2.)
Site 8
1 General view of the ROW and adjacent area from Rush Road, looking
south. (Taken from south edge of Rush Road.)
2 General view of the ROW and adjacent area, looking basically west
toward Rush Road. '(Taken 24 feet north of center of structure 34.)
3 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking south. (Taken
80 feet south of structure.34, between 2 easternmost poles.)
4 Whorled loosestrife and hay-scented fern communities on the ROW, with
sweet birch and red oak seedlings, and sweet-fern and witch-hazel in
the background. (Taken about 10 feet north-northeast of photo station
3, looking north-northeast.)
5 Equipment cut exhibiting moderate sheet erosion on the ROW, looking
northeast. (Taken 12 feet southwest of photo station 3.)
6 Deer browse on sweet-f:ern and sweet birch on the ROW between structures
34 and 33, looking east. (Taken approximately 261 feet north of
structure 33, on west edge of access road.)
7 Water running down access road on the ROW, looking south. (Taken 6
feet northeast of photo station 6, on east edge of access road.}
8 Sweet birch invading the RO\-J, with deer stand in backgnound, looking
northeast. (Taken 30 feet northeast of structure 33, on west side
of access road.)
.9-37
,
Appendix 17. Contin~ed
•
Photo
Station Description and Location
9 Sweet birch browsed by deer on the ROW. (Taken 75 feet south of
mesic plot 3, south of structure 33.)
10 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking west. (Taken
70 feet north of structure 32, easternmost pole.)
11 Access road healed with whorled loosestrife and mixed grass, looking
north-northeast. (Taken 20 feet west of structure 31.)
12 Equipment cut exhibiting moderate sheet erosion on the ROW, looking
south-southeast. (Taken from east side of access road, 87 feet
southeast of structure 32.)
13 Remnants of past line clearing practices, charred logs on the ROW,
looking southwest. (Taken from northeast edge of access road, north-
west of structure 30.)
14 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking northwest. (Taken
from edge of access ro~d, southwest of structure 30.)
15 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking southeast. (Taken
from northeast edge of access road, southwest of structure 29.)
16 Xeric plot 5, with deer-browsed yellow birch at end of plot, looking
northeast. (Taken 50 feet southwest of photo station 15.)
Site 9
1 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking east from
Breezeport Road. (Taken from Breezeport Road.)
2 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking west from
Breezeport Road. (Taken from Breezeport Road.)
3 Stream crossing the ROW, looking north. (Taken from corner of access
road on east side of stream.)
4 · Depression, result of old equipment damage, and poles left on the
ROW, looking northwest. (Taken from northern edge of ac~ess road, on
west bank of stream.)
5 Grass community on the ROW, with partially dead cherries in background.
not completely killed by chemicals, looking southeast. (Taken from
base of pole 38B.)
6 Severe gully erosion along wash, apparently an intermittent stream,
looking southwest. (Taken from northwest side of wash, 33 feet
north of pole 38A.)
7 Severe gully erosion along wash, apparently
looking southwest into the adjacent forest.
10 feet south of pole 37C.)
9-38
an intermittent stream,
(Taken approximately
Appendix 17. Continued
Photo
Station Description and Location
8 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking east. (Taken
approximately 10 feet south of pole 37C.)
9 Dead aspen off the ROW, which may have been caused by drift, looking
southeast. (Take~ approximately 8 feet south of pole 37D.)
10 Partially killed Fed maple, killed by chemicals on ROW. Approximately
28 feet south of pole 37D.
11 Dead and partially dead trees, mainly cherry, looking east. (Taken
approximately 125 feet east of pole 37D at south corner of access
road.)
12 Past land use practices evidenced, with apple trees seeding in on the
Rmv from an old orchard south of the ROW, looking north. (Taken
approximately 20 feet south of pole 41B.)
13 Dead and partially dead quaking aspen, looking east. (Taken 12 feet
south of pole 41B.)
14 Diversion ditch on the ROW, looking northeast. (Taken 227 feet south-
east from corner of pole 41B.)
15 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking west, with
Breezeport Road in background. (Taken from structure 42.)
16 Slight sheet and rill erosion on the access road on the ROW, looking
northwest. (Taken 56 feet east, 140 feet south of structure 32,
on the south side of the access road.)
17 Equipment cut on the ROW exhibiting slight sheet and rill erosion,
looking south. (Taken 56 feet east of structure 32.)
Site 10
1 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking west from Rt.
17. (Taken at sign 17/5102/1150 on Rt. 17 West.)
2 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking south from Rt.
17. (Taken at sign 17/5102/1151 on Rt. 17 East.)
3 Witch-hazel, a desirable shrub on the ROW,-looking south. (Taken 112
feet south of base of tower 198.)
4 Stream crossing the ROW, looking south. (Taken 35 feet west of pole
59.)
5 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, showing cultivated area
on the ROW, looking west. (Taken from tower 199.)
6 Ponded area on the ROW, looking south-southwest. (Taken 10 feet from
base of tower 62.)
9-39
Appendix 17. Continued
•
Photo
Station Description and Location
7 American hornbeam, a desirable species, on the ROW, looking south-
southwest. (Taken from base of pole 63.)
8 Cat-tail community on the ROW, looking northwest. (Taken 12 feet
west of tower 202.)
9 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking east. (Taken
from base of tower 203.)
10 Moderate sheet and rill erosion on the ROW at a bank cut at tower
203, looking southwest. (Taken approximately 50 feet northwest of
northwest leg of tower 203.)
11 Willow and quaking aspen at the bottom of a bank cut at tower 203.
Taken approximately 50 feet northwest of northwest leg of tower 203.)
12 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking east. (Taken
from base of tower 205.)
13 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking west, with xeric
plot 3 shown. (Taken from base of tower 203.)
14 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking east. (Taken
from base of tower 207.)
Site 11
1 General view of the stu ' area from Feeley Road, looking west. (Taken
from edge of Feeley Roa at pole NM 17/RTClO.)
2 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking east. (Taken
from base of structure 145.)
3 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking west. (Taken
from base of structure 145.)
4 Northern White-Cedar forest adjacent to the ROW, looking northwest.
Taken from base of structure 145.)
5 Scotch pine seedlings on,the ROW, with pasture in background, looking
southeast. (Taken 60 f~et east of pole 145A.)
6 Multiple sterns from stump sprout of American hornbeam on the ROW, looking
northeast. (Taken 27 feet north of southwest corner of mesic plot 3,
at edge of cleared corridor for logging.)
7 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking east. (Taken
47 feet east of base of pole 149A.)
8 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking west. (Taken
40 feet east of ·base of pole 149A.)
9-40
-Appendix 17. Continued
Photo
Station Description and Location
9 Multiple stems of gray dogwood on the ROW, looking northwest. (Taken
27 feet north of southwest corner of mesic plot 3, at edge of cleared
corridor for logging.
Site 12
1 General view of the ROW and adjacent area, looking west from Rt. 250.
{Taken from east side of Rt. 250, 15 feet north of "International
Rotary" sign.)
2 Open area on th~ ROW under tower 122 exhibiting moderate sheet erosion,
looking southeast. (Taken approximately 4 feet south of southeast
leg of tower 122.)
3 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking east toward Rt.
250. (Taken from base of tower 122.)
4 Grape growing up tower 123, looking northwest. (Taken 64 feet east
of tower 123, 13 feet north.)
5 Sand pile on the ROW, looking west. (Taken 60 feet west of northwest
leg of tower 123.)
6 Tower 122 with grape, poison ivy, sassafras, white ash, quaking aspen,
and rose, looking west. (Taken 72 feet east of northeast leg of
tower 123.)
7 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking east, showing
vegetation at stream crossing the ROW. (Taken 212 feet east of
north leg of tower 119.)
8 Sassafras on the ROW, looking west. (Taken 212 feet east of north leg
of tower 119.)
Site 13
1 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking west from
County Line Road. (Taken approximately 50 feet north of telephone pole
276, 13 feet east of County Line Road.)
2 General view of the ROW and adjacent area, looking east from County
Line Road. (Taken approximately SO feet north of telephone pole 276,
13 feet east of County Line Road.)
3 Solid community of gray dogwood at the north edge of the ROW. (Taken
from base of north pole of structure 135.)
4 Community of staghorn-sumac at the north edge of the ROW, looking
northeast. (Taken from base of north pole of structure 135.)
9-41
,
Appendix li7. Continued
Photo
Station
•
Description and Location
5 Gray dogwood community on the ROW, looking west. (Taken 66 feet
southeast of south pole of structure 136.)
6 Solid community of gray dogwood on the ROW, looking northwest.
(Taken 183 feet east of structure 141, on south side of access road.)
7 On the ROW, gray dogwood gives way to aspen, looking north. (Taken
26 feet west of tower 141 on south side of access road.)
8 Enclosure of access road by gray dogwood, looking northwest. (Taken
82 feet west of structure 141.)
9 Irrigation ditch crossing the ROW with sprouts of red maple on the
northwest bank, looking northwest. (Taken 22 feet north of struc-
ture 142, 80 feet east along south side of access road.)
10 Large-toothed aspen, an undesirable species on the ROW, looking west.
(Taken 9 feet north of structure 136.)
Site 14
1 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking west. (Taken
from base of tower 63.)
2 Topped sugar-maple on the ROW at Rt. 48, looking northwest. (Taken
145 feet east of Rt. 48, on north side of access road, at base of tree-
of-heaven.)
3 General view of the RO\ and adjacent forest, looking east. (Taken at
corner of access road and west edge of Rt. 48.)
4 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking west. (Taken
300 feet west of base of tower 62, on south side of access road.)
5 Stream with culvert under the road on the road, looking north. (Taken
217 feet east of base of tower 61, 26 feet south of access road.)
6 Brush pile on the ROW, looking south. (Taken 128 feet west of tower
'60, northern structure.)
7 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking east. (Taken 18
feet south, 121 feet west of tower 58, northern structure.)
8 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking west. (Taken
18 feet south, 121 feet west of tower 58, northern structure.)
9 Open area showing natural succession, looking southeast. (Taken from
northeast leg of tower 56, northern structure.)
10 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking west toward
County Rt. 8. (Taken from base of tower 55, northern structure.)
9-42
Appendix 17. Continued
Photo
Station
11
12
13
Description and Location
Dead trees in swamp on the ROW, looking northeast. (Taken from
northeast leg of tower 54, northern structure.)
General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking east from
Doolittle Road. (Taken from corner of Doolittle Road and access
road, at telephone pole 109.)
General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking west from
Doolittle Road. (Taken from corner of Doolittle Road and access
road, at telephone pole 109.)
Site 15
1 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking west. (Taken
7 feet south of pole 84B, 38 feet east.)
2 ·slight sheet erosion on the ROW on healed-over access road, looking
east. (Taken 125 feet west of pole 84.)
3 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking west from Rt.
48. (Taken 15 feet east of Rt. 48.)
4 View of the ROW, looking west toward a wet area with structure 81 in
the background.· (Taken 83 feet east of structure 8.)
5 Alder community on the ROW, looking west. (Taken 203 feet west of
pole 81.)
6 Cat-tail community on the ROW, looking east. (Taken from middle
of culvert at east edge of access road, east of pole 80.)
7 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking east. (Taken
81 feet east of pole 78A.)
8 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking west. (Taken
81 feet east of pole 78A).
9 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking west. (Taken
at base of structure 77.)
10 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking west. (Taken
36.feet southeast of pole 75.)
11 Small stream crossing the ROW, well shaded by sedge, spiked loosestrife,
elderberry, and alder, looking northwest. (Taken west of culvert,
57 feet east of structure 74, north of access road.)
12 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking west (Taken from
base of structure 71.)
General vie~ of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking west. (Taken
from south side of pole 69.)
9-43
Appendix 17. Continued
Photo
Station
•
Description and Location
Site 16
1 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking east. (Taken
from Crown Point Road.)
2 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking west from
Crown Point Road. (Taken from Crown Point Road.)
3 Severe sheet erosion on the ROW caused by equipment cut, looking
northeast. (Taken 6 feet south of pole 86, SO feet west.)
4 Pit on the ROW, made by equipment, looking southeast. (Taken 60
feet east of structure 86.)
5 Wet area on the ROW, looking southeast. (Taken 25 feet northeast
of photo station 4.)
6 Ground-juniper, a desirable species, killed on the ROW by aerial
application, looking southeast. (Taken 87 feet west of structure 86.)
7 Stream crossing the ROW, looking north. (Taken 7 feet west, 7~ feet
north of black cherry with 9~ inch d. b. h. at south ROW:_ edge).
8 Boulder where earth has fallen off naturally, lboking southeast.
(Taken 258 feet west of pole 85.)
9 Looking southeast off the ROW at apple trees in an old field going
through natural succession. (Taken 120 feet east of structure 85.)
10 Excavation on and off the ROW, made by equipment, looking northeast.
(Taken 85 feet west of pole 84-1, 5 feet north.)
11 Stream crossing the ROW, looking east. (Taken from base of pole
84-1.)
12 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking east.
13 Ground-juniper on the ROW, looking southwest. (Taken 30 feet west
of· structure 30.~
14 Mullein on the ROW, looking north. (Taken 20 feet south of pole 87,
125 feet west.)
Site 17
1 View of the study area, looking west from Chazy Lake Road. (Taken
from the lake side of Chazy Lake Road, 3/10 mile south of "Copper
Hopper" sign.)
2 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking northwest. (Taken
30 feet west of structure 30.)
"9-44
Appendix 17. Continued
Photo
Station Description and Location
3 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking southeast,
showing pin-cherry and aspen with mixed grass-herb on the ROW,
and largely northern hardwood species in the forest. (Taken from
base of pole 30A.).
4 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking northwest.
(Taken from base of pole 30A.)
5 White ash, typical of height of woody species on east side of
Lyon Hountain, looking north. (Taken 24 feet southwest of pole
29B, 54 feet southeast.)
6 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking south. (Taken
from base of pole lD.)
7 General view of study area, looking north toward Rt. 374 and the
Lyon Mountain substation. (Taken from base of pole 2B.)
8 Tall white ash on the ROW, looking southeast· (Taken from base of
pole 2C.)
9 Moderate sheet and rill erosion occurring on disturbed soil resulting
from past mining use on the ROW. (Taken 135 feet southeast of pole
2B, looking south-southeast.)
10 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking northwest.
(Taken 4 feet southwest of pole 3A.)
11 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking northwest.
(Taken 15 feet southwest of pole 4A, 74 feet northwest.)
Site 18
1 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking southeast.
(Taken 9 feet southwest of northeast pole of structure 1, 147 feet
northwest.)
2 Cut and left Scotch pine left from initial ROW clearing, and new
Scotch pine seedlings, looking south. (Taken from base of northeast
pole of structure i.)
3 Slight sheet erosion on open sandy soil on the ROW, looking northeast.
(Taken 12 feet southwest of southwest pole of structure 1, 162 feet
southeast.)
4 General view of the ROW and adjacent area, with pasture and small wet
depression in the background, looking northwest. (Taken 8~ feet
southeast of northeast pole of structure 2, 43 feet northeast.)
5 Woody species on the ROW,
birch, looking southeast.
structure 3.)
including red maple, quaking aspen, and gray
(Taken from base of southwest leg of
9-45
l
Appendix 17. ·Continued
Photo
Station
•
Description and Location
6 Mountain-holly, a desirable shrub, on the ROW, looking south. (Taken
from base of northeast pole of structure 4.)
7 Dry site with moss-lichen community invading with blackberry, birch,
and white pine, looking northeast. (Taken 2 feet northeast of
southwest pole of structure 4, 200 feet southeast.
8 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking southeast.
(Taken from base of northeast pole of structure 5.)
9 General view of the ROW and adjacent area, looking southeast. (Taken
from base of northeast pole of structure 6.)
10 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking northwest. (Taken
from base of southwest pole of structure 7.)
11 General view of the ROW and adjacent area, looking east. (Taken
from base of center pole of structure 8.)
12 General view of the ROW and adjacent area, looking west. (Taken
from south pole of structure 29-2.)
Site 19
1 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking north. (Taken
3 feet west of east pole of structure 2W/75/9, 64 feet north.)
2 Sheet and rill erosion on borrow pit on the ROW. (Taken 17 feet
north of east pole of structure 2W/75/9, 40 feet east, looking south.)
3 Blackberry and bracken community on the ROW, with occassional black
cherry, looking east. (Taken 49 feet west of west pole of structure
2W/75/8, 34 feet south.)
4 Dead and dying black cherry and hemlock, apparently due to changes
in drainage patterns, looking southeast. (Taken 25 feet west of west
pole of structure 2W/75/7, 267 feet south.)
5 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking south. (Taken
57 feet south of west pole of structure lE/75/5, 54 feet west.)
6 General view of the ROW 'and adjacent forest, looking north. (Taken
57 feet south of west pole of structure lE/75/5, 54 feet west.
7 Borrow pit excavation on the ROW, looking east. (Taken 33~ feet east
of east pole 2B of structure 2W/75/5, 17 feet south.)
8 Stream crossing the access road via a culvert on the ROW. (Taken
14 feet south of east pole of stru~ture 2W/75/4, looking east.)
9 Balsam-fir and black cherry on the ROW, with a cat-tail community
in the background. (Taken from base of west pole of structure
lE/75/2, looking northwest.)
9-46
Appendix .17. Continued
Photo
Station Description and Location
10 Severe gully erosion on the access road on the ROW, looking north-
west. (Taken 159 feet south of east pole of structure lE/75/1, 11
feet east.)
11 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking south. (Taken
89 feet north of east pole of structure, 10 feet east; structure is
on west side of ROW, beyond structure 2W/75/l.)
Site 20
1 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking north from
Kirch Road. (Taken from south edge of Kirch Road.)
2 Round-leaved sundew on the ROW in area dominated by Sphagnum. (Taken
from south edge of Kirch Road.)
3 Quaking aspen on the ROW, looking east. (Taken 57~ feet south of
structure CKTll/37, 6~ east, and 6 inches northwest of photo station 2.)
4 Partially dead black cherry off the west side of the ROW, looking
northwest. (Taken from base of west pole of structure CKTll/37.)
5 Equipment damage on the ROW, looking northwest. (Taken 45 feet north-
west of west pole of structure CKTll/37.)
6 Slight sheet erosion on the ROW, looking west. (Taken 123 feet north
of west pole of structure CKTll/37, 14 feet west.)
7 Moderate sheet erosion occurring on the ROW from an excavated area.
(Taken 25 feet west of west pole of structure CKTll/36, 215 feet
north, looking north.)
8 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking south. (Taken
147 feet west of west pole of structure CKT12/35, 45 feet south from
fence.)
9 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking south. (Taken
40~ feet west of west pole of structure CKTll/35.)
10 Red spruce, apparently killed by spray or exposure, off the ROW,
looking southeast. (Taken from east pole of structure CKT 12/37.)
11 Juniper, a desirable species, on the ROW, looking west. (Taken 25
feet east of east pole of structure CKT12/38, 60 feet north,)
12 Stump sprouts of black cherry and red maple on the ROW, looking
northwest. (Taken 25 feet east of east pole of structure CKT12/38.)
13 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking south. (Taken
33 feet east of east pole of structure CKT12/38, 78 feet south.)
9-47
Appendix ~7. Continued
•
Photo
Station Description and Location
14 Several species of'Lycopodium on the east side of the ROW, looking
east. (Taken 4 feet east of east pole of structure CKT12/37,
9~ feet south.)
15 Dead hemlock on east side of the ROW. (Taken 4 feet east of west
pole of structure CKTll/39, 68 feet noth.)
Site 21
1 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking northwest
from Blake Road. (Taken 25 feet northwest of Blake Road, 30 feet
northeast of ROW edge.)
2 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking west. (Taken
from base of tower 5.)
3 Florence Creek crossing the ROW, looking south. (Taken 70 feet north
of tower 5, 340 feet west, on east bank of creek 60 feet north of
access road.)
4 Stump sprouts of red maple on the ROW, looking south. (Taken 60 feet
north of tower 5, 340 feet west, on east bank of creek 50 feet north
of access road~)
5 Quaking aspen and pin-cherry invading the ROW, looking southeast.
(Taken 250 feet east of tower 4, on north side of access road.)
6 Wet area on the ROW, seeded around tower 4, rapidly invading with
native vegetation. (Taken 93 feet west of tower 4, looking east.)
7 Equipment cut exhibiting severe sheet and rill erosion on the ROW,
looking west. (Taken 75 feet west of tower 4.)
8 Dead Scotch pine along north edge of the ROW. (Taken 118 feet west
of tuwer 4.)
9 General view of the ROW and forest showing live Scotch pine along
south edge of the ROW. (Taken 118 feet east of tower 4.)
10 Healthy hemlock along south edge of the ROW, looking southeast.
(Taken 93 feet west of tower 4.)
11 Dead hemlock along north edge of the ROW, looking northeast. (Taken
93 feet west of tower 4.)
12 Drainage ditch on the ROW, looking north toward wet area of access
road. (Taken 269 feet west of tower 4.)
13 Stone wall on the ROW indicating past agricultural use, looking
northwest. (Taken 44 feet south of tower 3, 148 feet west.)
9-48
. ·Appendix 17. Continued
Photo
Station Description and Location
14 Cinnamon-fern, interrupted fern, sensitive fern, and hay-scented
fern on the ROW, looking northwest. (Taken 44 feet south of tower
3, 14 feet north.)
15 Wet area on the RE>W between towers 1 and 2, with wood chips on the
access road, looking west. (Taken from tower 2.)
16 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking east. (Taken
approximately midway between towers 1 and 2, on south side of
access road.)
17 Ostrich-fern on the ROW. (Taken from west bank of Florence Creek,
30 feet south of access road, looking south-southwest.)
Site 22
1 General view of the ROW and adjacent area, looking west from Derby
Road. (Taken from west side of Derby Road, north base of pole
151~.)
2 Tartarian honeysuckle on the ROW, looking north. (Taken 13 feet
north of pole 143A, Line 73, 165 feet east.)
3 Open area on the ROW mechanically or hand cut with dead material
from Ammate in the background. (Taken 24 feet northwest of pole
143A, Line 74.)
4 Chemically treated white ash on the ROW with some resurgent growth,
looking north-northwest. (Taken 75 feet west of pole 143A, Line 74.)
5 General view of the ROW and adjacent forest, looking west. (Taken
from pole 143A, Line 74.)
6
7
8
Arrow-wood community on the ROW, with chemically treated white ash
near the middle, looking north. (Taken 65 feet northwest of pole
143A, Line 74.)
Staghorn-sumac community on the ROW, looking northwest. (Taken
from base of pole 144, Line 74.)
General view of the ROW and adjacent area, looking east. (Taken 115~
feet west of pole 147B, Line 74.)
"
9-49
l
Appendix 18. Land use classification for New York State -
•
Agriculture (A)
Active Areas
Ao Orchards
Av -Vineyards
Ah -Horticulture or floriculture
At -High intensity cropland
Ac -Cropland and cropland pasture
Ap Pasture
Ay -Specialty farms
Inactive Areas
Ai -Inactive agricultural land
Ui -Urban inactive
Uc Under construction
Commercial and Industrial Land Uses (C and I)
Commercial Areas
Cu Central business sections
Cc -Shopping centers
Cr -Resorts
Cs -Commercial strip development
Industrial Areas
Il Light manufacturing and industrial parks
Ih -Heavy manufacturing
Extractive Industry land Use (E)
Forest Land (F)
Open Mining
Es -Stone quarries
Eg -Sand and gravel pits
Em -Other mining
Underground Mining
Eu -Underground mining
Fe -Forest brushland
Fn Forest lands
Fp -Plantations
9-50
Appendix 18. Continued
Non-productive Land (N)
Ns -Sand
Nr -Exposed rock cliff, rock slopes and slide areas
Outdoor Recreation Land Use (OR)
Or -Outdoor recreation
Public and Semi-public Land Uses (P)
P -Public and semi-public land use
Residential Land Use (R)
Residential Areas
Rh -High density
Rm -Medium density
Rl -Low density
Rs -Strip development
Rr -Rural hamlet
Rc -Farm labor camp
Re -Rural estate
Cottages and Vacation Homes
Rk -Shoreline development
Transportation Land Uses (T)
Th -Highways
Tr -Railway
Ta -Airport
Tb -Barge Canal
Marine Shipping
Tp -Areas of port or dock facilities
Ts -Areas of shipyards and dry docks
Tl -Areas of locks and water control structures
Tt -Communications and utilities
Water Resources (W)
Lakes and Ponds
Wn -Natural ponds and lakes
We -Artificial ponds
9-51
Appendix 18. Con.tinued
Streams and Rivers
Ws -Streams and rivers
Wetlands
Wb -Marshes, shrub wetlands and bogs
Ww -Wooded wetlands
Wk -Marine (salt) wetlands
Marine Lakes, Rivers and Seas
Wm -Areas in embayments and sounds
Hudson River
Wh -Uncontrolled section of the Hudson River from
New York City to the mouth of the Mohawk River
and the federal dam at Troy
9-52
..
..